I saw this film on the recommendation of a friend. In fact her recommendation was so good, I got the film from Amazon before I'd even seen it and as usual she was so right! The first part is moving, brilliantly acted and very, very sad. You will need tissues for this one. It may also anger you, as it did me! The treatment the old lady receives from the nephew is just appalling.

The second part is less sad. I was still moved by it and sad at times but overall it's very good. The sex scenes throughout this movie are very tasteful in my opinion. Very watchable.

The third and final part is my favourite. Ellen is such a funny and amazing actress and Sharon Stone is excellent, also. The topic discussed here is very moving, but very well dealt with. The sex scenes are sexy and yet tasteful. They are in no way pornographic as I have heard people say. The story is one that many lesbians can relate to, or maybe will relate to in the future (my self included, hopefully) and the ending makes me cry every time! My only negative point is that it wasn't longer! A full movie about this topic with these characters would be a must-see in my opinion! Perhaps someone should write one?

I think the film would be enjoyable to anyone, not just lesbians and it is well worth a look. Enjoy Charlene


I have to admit that I approached the viewing of this movie with some apprehension. But as it turned out, I enjoyed it very much.

The film consists of three separate stories dealing with lesbianism set at different times and featuring characters from three distinct age groups.

The first, set in 1961, and the best of the three, features an outstanding performance by the marvellous Vanessa Redgrave as a retired school teacher who suddenly loses her lifelong companion. She suddenly finds that all of the things she has taken for granted are suddenly gone, including the roof over her head. The vignette shows how lesbianism was never talked about in public in the 60s as evidenced in the hospital scenes where Redgrave attempts to find out what has happened to her "friend". Paul Giamatti plays the deceased's nephew who has to tell Redgrave that she no longer can remain in her home of 30 years. Elizabeth Perkins effectively plays his scavenging wife.

The second story, set in 1972, deals with the relationship between a college co-ed (Michelle Williams) and a girl who likes dress in macho male attire (Chloe Sevigny). I found myself actually hoping that they would live happily ever after.

The last story concerns the often humorous efforts of two mature companions (Ellen DeGeneres, Sharon Stone)to "have a baby".

Although not for everyone, I found that this movie was tastefully done and very well acted.


What can I say? Truly awful. Get has-been stars and some hip new ones to make a lesbian-themed film for HBO. The result - a dry stale muffin that's been overcooked. Everything about this film is embarrassing, from the sanctimonious and passé treatment of lesbians as victims to the terrifyingly awful third installment where Sharon Stone and Ellen DeGeneres offer an achingly sentimental tale of sperm banks in a style that only be described as thirtysomething on prozac or ecstasy. It feels so chaotic that you often wonder if they actually had to act. As for the rest, the first installment with Vanessa Redgrave contains more holes than a golf course; while the second with Chloe Sevingy and Michelle Williams feels too hip for its own good and sits uncomfortably with the other two parts.


Three slightly self-indulgent stories with a lesbian theme. The problem here is that lesbianism is not just a theme of these stories, it is the theme, and a single (and predictable) prevailing attitude provides each drama with both premise and conclusions. It is not that this attitude is wrong, rather that it robs the dramas of the qualities of breath and moral ambiguity that mark all truly powerful stories. Vanessa Redgrave is excellent in the first part, which thereby moves you although you never feel there is never any scope for anything other than the eventual ending; the other two tales pass without interest. Truly good film makes the viewer feel a little more uneasy and a little less certain about themselves; but the overall tone here is one of celebration, and its a weaker work for that.


This was something I wasn't really interested in and watched just because of the fine cast. An I was very surprised, how moving, funny and involving the three stories were made. But my respect goes to the actors who all did great work here, especially Vanessa Redgrave, and Sharon Stone (what's up with her, are there no roles anymore in Hollywood for her??), who both gave performances that to me were absolutely natural and unforced. A true surprise to me was Ellen DeGeneres, who is nearly a nobody in Germany, but who I saw last year in another surprising role in "Goodbye Lover". All in all a thoughtful and yet entertaining piece of work.


I was really surprised how this movie gives a real view on lesbian lives over 3 decades in all its three parts. The moving story of this elderly lesbian losing her lover and walking through a breakdown of her life, the love story between a "butch" and a kind of a "hippie" lesbian and the very funny story how to get pregnant if a lesbian couple wants to become mothers. All the parts were played excellent by the actresses and showed an intensiveness which - I'm sure of that - could be felt not only by lesbians or gay people. This movie is a highlight in US-TV and it would be my wish that some day we will see this one also in German TV.


Wow!!!Congratulations to entire project. This is a beautifully constructed film on a sensitive subject. This film viewer impressed with delicate treatment of subject, the fantastic directors, and superb actresses and the writing. Thanks to producers, directors, actresses for having the courage to make such a film. More need to be made. Thanks to HBO - your courage is evident and thanks again. To Anne Heche your future is bright keep going, encore, encore!!!!!!!


The idea for this movie is just great and I must say it was very well carried out. The way the world and lesbians/gays have changed during the past decades is so well represented in the movie. I was sad in the beginning (1961) and just thrilled when coming nearer today, somehow I was much involved to this movie all the time. I found Chloe Sevigny cute and the 70´s were exactly how I´ve read they were. If these walls could talk 2 is very realistic and touching in every possible way.


This is one of the most touchingly accurate portrayal of lesbian life and loves I've seen yet. While it only scratches the surface of the many life experiences we face in our lives as lesbians, it is a real eye-opener for people who imagine us to be as outlandish and stereotypical as the media would sometimes portray us. Touching on three different age groups helps to broaden the range of people to whom this film speaks. Almost any woman who watches this film can see herself, either as she was, as she is, or as she might be in the future. An incredible picture! "I laughed, I cried."


This is one of the worst films I have ever seen. What a waste of an outstanding actress in the first segment The first segment had so much potential but then they moved on to the next segment... Miss Tree put the bird back in and the home was empty. What happened to Miss Tree ? Where the girls in the 1961 segment related to Miss Tree ? No connection between the segments... This film is a waste of time and does not promote any cause.. A film that never should have been made


I have not read anyone else's comments on this, so this is my response to having seen a video, purchased cheap. I have for a long time felt a great sympathy (in the sense of fellow feeling) for lesbians, and if these three short dramas did not make all but the most rabid homophobes feel that they were perfectly normal human beings, with the normal human emotions, I don't know what would. The first segment was almost unbearably sad; the second had you willing the central figure to defy the attitudes of her equally lesbian friends and keep dating the woman who was expressing her individuality a different way, which was anathema to the others because it had "male" characteristics; the third portrayed a loving partnership's efforts to get one of them pregnant, and their joy when they finally managed it, extremely well. For me, the acting was uniformly excellent, and I commend everyone involved (some famous names).


This movie is made up of three segments from different decades. The first of them is actually the only one worth watching. It's a magnificent tribute to homosexual love, without any gay peppy commercial bullshit. In a natural and realistic way it deals with the complicated and intriguing aspects of homosexuality between two elderly women in the early 60's. While watching it, I cried my eyes out during the full length of the movie. Its direction and symbolics are striking! Vanessa Redgrave shows proof of being an excellent actress, just as Marian Seldes does. The film is a valuable source of reflection, it really makes you think! The other two segments just cannot compete with the first one. The middle segment aims to illustrate the gay liberation un the 70's. Otherwise it doesn't have a clear points. It also contains an almost pornographic sex sequence. The last one is sporadically funny, however it also lacks a clear point and only shows scene from today's gay life. In addition to that, Sharon Stone (who otherwise is one of my favorite actresses)is embarrassing in her character. She's great in playing sexy, strong or serious women, but her attempt to put on a girlish performance while being in her forties, is just pathetic.


The first segment with Vanessa Redgrave moved me to a point where I could not look at the screen. I know a lesbian couple who are in their seventies and they have not 'come out' to anyone in all these years. The film reminded me of this strange twilight world that they live in...very very sad. The second film was a good example of the transitionary period when lesbians were removing themselves from the femme/butch sterotypes. Women, gay or straight should be given the freedom to dress and behave as they wish. My favourite was the last segment for the simple reason that it was closer to home. Both females were funny and intelligent and a great chemistry was apparent between the two actresses. I loved it!


Intriguing movie, especially the second part and most of all the performance from Chloe Sevigny, must be the depth of the story and what it brings out from the unknown, it makes it easy to understand that this lifestyle isn't easy at all.


I love this movie so much. It was very well directed and written and it's just an awesome movie! :) It's parted in 3 time frames-1961, 1972 and 2000. The 1961 part was about two elderly ladies that were frustrated because they couldn't express then selves in any way, the second part I really liked a butch girl named Any and a feminist named Linda meet an fall in love and finally the last one was so funny, Ellen Degeneres stared as Kal so it was awesome, Anyway, Kal and Fran want to have a baby so the go to the sperm bank and well you'll see if you watch it! This movie is so good! I absolutely love it!


It was a nice film but I would really have liked the different parts to be longer. You didn't really have the time to get to know the different characters in a half an hour. A problem that most films of the genre face, I guess. There just isn't enough time to explore the different personalities. The different actors did a good job and the film was mostly well made.

Part "1961"and "1972" was the best ones. The "2000" part was good also but the script wasn't as good as the first two. Ellen De Generes was great as usual and Sharon Stone did a good job as well but the love scene was just thrown into the plot, almost as if they had to put it some where but didn't find a place for it. The script writer could really have written that one better!

I liked the film in general and give it a 7 out of 10.


Imagine you're a lesbian (if you are one, just be yourself), you hear about this new lesbian movie coming out and you're curious. In this case: just go watch this movie! It's a collection of emotions. You come out of the theater feeling happy, passionate, hurt, proud,....All these things fall upon you watching this film. It's got wonderful actresses, emotional stories and most of all: love. You should see it, gay or not, because what matters in this world is also: love!


I have just watched the movie again for the umpteenth time. As much as I enjoy the first two pieces, I love the last one with Ellen DeGeneres and Sharon Stone. It just oozes joy and love. I can't watch that piece enough. It makes me feel happy.


Well the first time I saw this film was more than enough for me fall in love with it... I simply adore it, it is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen in my life... seriously. It made me see things in a different way... and by the way I am seeing all the time!


Found myself riveted to this HBO movie. Very often I do not watch movies and/or shows which are hyped and HBO hyped this movie big. But recently I caught it on HBO Signature channel and was just taken with the succinct and poignant nature of the three segments.

Segment 1-(1961)- terrific and really enjoyed a great performance from Vanessa Redgrave. Elizabeth Perkins, as the insensitive wife of Abbey's nephew, is really a fine actress and does very well herself.

Segment 2-(1972)- both Michelle Williams and Chloe Sevigny are excellent here. I guess because I started college in '72 I was somehow drawn to the periodic dress and reminiscent of the in-your-face, anti-establishment, make your point through vocal protest period.

Segment 3-(2000)- Sharon Stone and Ellen DeGeneres play a lesbian couple wanting to have a baby. It struck me that, with the decline of the family entity today, the most important element for a child is a loving and nurturing family and who cares whether it's traditional(man/woman) or not.

Once I sat back and watched I was taken in by the dialogue, the transition from scene to scene, and the way the movie got me to think about the bigger picture.


I wanted to see this movie since I read that they were shooting it... well, living in Germany didn't help much! Finally I could see it in the course of the Gay & Lesbian Film Festival in Frankfurt! I must say it was worth the wait...

The first segment with Vanessa Redgrave shows the problems gays have, because there is no way to have a legalized partnership... they are talking about it, but we still don't have the rights every married couple has... it probably was the best segment of the whole movie! It showed in a very sensible way how a couple gets separated by death... and the heir takes the house and parts of the things they bought together, not thinking about that it might be hurting the widow. He just ignores the possibility that the two women had a deeper relationship than pure friendship. Isn't that the most common problem? Ignorance. It is great that a movie makes us aware of this.

The second segment wasn't that good, but it was okay... the synopsis was you don't need to be a feminist to be a lesbian... we are all different, don't try to put us into categories... it won't work anyway! A member of a feministic group gets involved with a butch is avoided by her friend for it.

The third & last segment was great, with a very sexy Sharon Stone and a wonderful funny Ellen DeGeneres. That love scene was marvellous! But it also showed what problems lesbians have, if they want to have children in a sensible way!

The whole movie deals with the reality a lesbian faces every day... it is cleverly written, takes a bit of humor and a lot of actuality to give insights most people don't even think about!

All in all it is a great movie, not only for lesbians... but also for people who want to understand the mysterious creature... the lesbian!


There are so many many stories to tell... If These Walls Could Talk 2 did an incredible job of telling the stories that they chose. The characters were true to life, and empathetic. It takes you through a full range of emotions in less than two hours. People need to know that lesbians are people too. We have joys, and sorrows just like you. And some of the heartache that we have had to endure is imposed by society and altogether unnecessary.


HBO were credited as producing this TVM the same company that produced critically acclaimed hard hitting dramas like OZ and THE SOPRANOS so right away I was expecting some in your face intense drama along with explicit scenes of lesbian love making . Unfortunately I was very disappointed on both counts in this anthology drama

Story one ) This centres around a lesbian couple who have lived together for decades . The home owner dies so her distant family decide to sell the house meaning her partner will become homeless . I can't help thinking there's an agenda here , one that screams in support of civil partnerships . Whatever the rights and wrongs of this it should be pointed out that there's a lack of logic to the premise . All the dead woman had to do was change her will while she was alive

Story two ) A bunch of feminist " lesbian " students find the going tough when their college commitee turn against them though for one of them it leads to a happy ending . This is what I don't understand - Are they lesbians or are they just trendy students jumping on a bandwagon ? I think they are but the script is neither scathing or cynical enough to make this point clearer

Story three ) HBO doesn't do comedy very well and this third story is trying to be a comedy . We also have to put up with a lesbian whining to her girlfriend " Why can't I give you a baby ? " That's because you're a woman dear . I was also puzzled how anyone who looks like Sharon Stone has a problem finding sperm

Not as bad as it could of been but as someone who thinks HBO is the most outstanding TV company in America I think they should concentrate on dramas featuring gangsters and maximum security prisons


I saw this film years ago and am very disappointed to find that it is not available on VHS or DVD. Strange that any film my Malcolm should be unavailable as so much other dross is.

This film is very violent with some humour attached. Not the most cerebral piece of work but neither is 'The Hills Have Eyes' or 'Nightmere on Elm Street' but they are cult movies.

If this was released again, I am sure it would get an appreciable following for those with 'Bad Taste' and 'Brain Damage' - even Peter Jackson started with over the top violence & humour!

Try and get a copy and see for yourself - don't be put off by these other 'critics'.

Mark


This is one of those films that haunts you years after seeing it. I remember when I first saw it I was horrified. I watched it again and the violence, although horrific, was easier to get past. McDowell is creepy (as always). Quinn is great (as always). Lenz, well what can I say, acting not great, but nice to look at. The violence is extreme in a few scenes, so be warned. All in all, a pretty good movie. I give it a 7.


This movie ran in Europe for quite a while in the 1980s. I saw it several times there and, quite unexpectedly, on HBO or Cinemax late at night a few years ago.

The movie was about war and wars are nasty things. I do not think the violence was overblown in the movie - not after visiting a few Holocaust museums in Europe. McDowell's portrayal of a fanatical psychopath (not that know any) seemed very fitting.

In terms of the amount of blood and gore on screen, it seems tame compared to movies made later. Schindler's List is much more terrifying. Starship Troopers has much more severed limb type stuff than The Passage. But what makes this so chilling and repulsive is its realism; that things like these truly happened and happened not that long ago...


Yes many dislike it but this film in the performance of McDowell manages to capture everything that was terrifying about the Nazi regime, there is an authentic atmosphere of dread and oppression, more so than any other film about WW2 made, how it was in occupied territories.

The stand out scene is the one where he interrogates the Michel Lonsdale resistance man, and chops off his fingers while cooking dinner, we don't see it the camera pans away, but it still is terrifying! More so than any Texas chainsaw film! Yes they really did things like this the SS! Watch it now!


this was a handsomely filmed but thoroughly nasty wartime adventure thriller i first saw when it was released way back in '79 about a german scientist (james mason) being smuggled across the swiss alps by a basque guide (anthony quinn) whilst being hotly pursued by a sadistic ss nazi commandant (malcolm mcdowell in a truly hilarious performance). certain scenes are indeed quite disturbing; malcolm's slicing off of a victim's fingers during an interrogation, malcolm's massacre of a gypsy family led by christopher lee and malcolm's subsequent rape of the scientist's beautiful daughter (kay lenz) after removing his nazi branded briefs (charming). some of the swedish scenery is quite breathtaking (especially the opening aerial credit sequence across the alps) and the movie is competently directed by the late, great brit veteran j. lee thompson ('cape fear', 'the guns of navarone', 'death wish 4').


This dreadful movie is clearly a candidate for one of the 10 worst movies ever made. It's so bad that it's screamingly funny. McDowell, playing the evil Nazi chasing Mason's multi-accented family, catches up with Kay Lenz in a hotel room and, preparing to anal rape, drops his pants to reveal . . . a jock strap with a swastika on his crotch. This was not intended as a joke! The avalanche scene used offcuts from the avalanche in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Anthony Quinn as the shepherd who conducts the Mason clan over the Pyrenees is just a pathetic Zorba the Basque. The dialogue is at once stilted and ridiculous and the great cast sleepwalks through their roles. A definite must-not-see. Why did I see it? I did some of the legal work on this uber-turkey back in 1979 and went to the premiere. The impression it left was, regrettably, indelible.


Ask anyone familiar with Malcolm McDowell's movies to name his most outrageous performance and most would tell you to watch Caligula. A few might suggest that his work in A Clockwork Orange fits the bill. Not many would come up with The Passage, primarily because it's a largely forgotten film which didn't succeed critically nor commercially even when it was originally released. However, McDowell's performance in this movie is outrageously hammy and must deserve some kind of place in cinema history as one of the most bonkers pieces of acting ever seen.

The story sounds like a winner. A Basque shepherd (Anthony Quinn) is approached by resistance fighters during WWII and asked to escort a scientist (James Mason) and his family over the Pyrennes Mountains into Spain. A deranged SS captain (McDowell) is the officer sent to chase them and capture them.

Alas, this film is an absolute failure. For some reason, a story which had lots of potential for tension and excitement becomes utterly uninvolving. Part of the fault is J. Lee Thompson's leaden direction. Part of the fault is Bruce Nicolaysen's bubble-gum script (based, amazingly, on his own novel) which lacks any depth of character and motivation to arouse audience empathy. Part of the fault is the actors' apparent lack of interest in the material. One of the finest British actors that ever lived - James Mason - is left to contend with the very worst role of his career. He barely has a sentence to utter during the entire film, and by the end the audience knows precious little more about him than they did at the start. But the biggest cause of failure in this film is the decision by its makers to emphasise the gruesome, gory detail. The film is repellent and over-the-top beyond all reason. It actually seems to enjoy wallowing in scenes of rape, torture and killing but has none of the gravity or seriousness to justify such themes (at least the horrific Saving Private Ryan was horrific for a perfectly good reason). Who wants to watch Michel Lonsdale having his fingers hacked off? Who wants to see gypsy leader Christopher Lee being cremated alive? Who wants to see teenager Kay Lenz being brutally raped?

I wanted to see The Passage for years and years. With such a great cast, such a well-known director, and such a serviceable plot I felt certain it couldn't possibly be a bad film. How much further from the truth could I have been?


...I managed to pack into a dozen scenes with the whole period of Nazi tyranny in a convincingly evil way." - Malcolm McDowell about his work in The Passage.

When I saw The Passage back in 1981, in Moscow, I had no idea that it had been a big flop in the USA where it only lasted a week upon theatrical release, that it was considered a bad movie a failure. It would be much later that I recognized very famous and talented actors who were in the film, James Matson, Anthony Quinn, Christopher Lee, and Patricia Neal. The film was directed by J. Lee Thompson, the Oscar nominated director of highly successful The Guns of Navarone (1961). By the time I was watching The Passage at the theater, I had not seen Stanley Kubrick's A Clock Work Orange or notorious Caligula, and I did not know what Malcolm McDowell was capable of as a screen villain. I did know McDowell from the Lindsay Anderson's O Lucky Man that also had been released theatrically in Moscow several years prior The Passage. O lucky Man had left a deep impression on me and huge part of it was McDowell's performance as Mick Travis, the young naive man with the most charming smile who wanted to succeed in this world. Watching McDowell in The Passage playing the psychotic obsessed Nazi chasing the family of the anti-fascist scientist across the Pyrenees I was horrified and genuinely scared. Every time he would enter the screen, I felt physically sick anticipating some horror act to follow and McDowell never disappointed. I won't argue that the movie may not be a great or even a good one but I do remember McDowell's performance all too well, and I could not forget him in the movie for 28 years. Now, after I've seen so many movies and memorable performances, I realize that McDowell was over the top and judging by his own words, he knew it very well and did it on purpose:

"I played this real nasty Nazi who was chasing these people across the Pyrenees. We all knew real early on that the movie was not going to be any great work of art and so I was determined to have some fun with it. My attitude was that if I was going to play a Nazi, I was going to take it totally over the top and do it right. I ended up playing the character like a pantomime queen. What I was doing was so far out that James Mason turned to me one day and said, 'That's wonderful dear boy, but are you in our film? You seem to be doing something different from the rest of us'..."

If after so many years, one performance in a supposedly bad movie stands out and you can't get it out of your mind, and you remember the exact day when you saw that movie, who you saw it with and how you felt, for me it means that the movie was not bad at all.


I had watched this on PAL VHS during the late 1980s; it's an ill-advised (and misguided) attempt to update the big-budget, star-studded WWII adventure spectacle spearheaded by THE GUNS OF NAVARONE (1961)  by the same director and featuring one of its leads (Anthony Quinn), no less  for the more permissive 1970s (with new-fangled dollops of violence, sex and foul language). Being aware of its bad reputation (mostly due to Malcolm McDowell's outrageous contribution as the villain), I decided to give it another look when it turned up recently on Cable TV.

The film involves a shepherd-cum-experienced mountain-climber (a rather glum Quinn) who's asked by the French resistance (in the figures of Marcel Bozzuffi and Michel Lonsdale) to take a prominent nuclear scientist (James Mason) and his family (including wife Patricia Neal and daughter Kay Lenz) across the Pyrenees to safety in neutral Spain; along the way, they're helped by a group of traveling gypsies (led by Christopher Lee), while McDowell is the maniacal SS officer in pursuit.

The journey is fraught with problems  mainly caused by Neal's poor health (a really thankless role for the Oscar-winning actress), with which Quinn has little patience. Eventually, she decides to rid them of the burden and goes away to die in the snow (Quinn and Bozzuffi feel her emerging from the cabin where they're all sheltered, but do nothing to stop her!)after which Mason tries to attack Quinn for pushing her to this, but falls flat on his face in the snow after only a couple of paces (this bit somehow reminded me of a scene from one of the NAKED GUN films in which George Kennedy lashes at a couple of bullies for mistreating his partner and ends up getting beaten to a pulp himself!). Lee, then, expires in a fiery death at the hands of the sadistic McDowell  except that whatever tension there was here is destroyed by its being continually cross-cut with the flight of the central group!

However, the film's main source of entertainment is McDowell  especially via his campy attire as a chef while torturing the captured Lonsdale, his Swastika-imprinted underpants (during the scene in which he rapes Lenz), and even while mimicking the Fuehrer in front of a mirror (parting his hair a' la Hitler, putting the black comb above his lips as a makeshift moustache, and giving himself the Nazi salute). Surely it was no great stretch for him to go from this to Tinto Brass' CALIGULA (1979)! Worst of all, though, is the climax as a deranged and wounded McDowell turns up at the cabin (after having miraculously survived an avalanche he caused himself!) and bloodily exterminates the remaining members of the groupwhich transpires to be merely a delirious fantasy  one final folly enacted in his own head, and given away really by being intercut with snippets from scenes that have gone on before!  and that he's the one to perish. In the face of all this, Michael J. Lewis' sweeping score seems out of place  especially when considering that the action sequences are too few and far between, and certainly nothing to write home about when compared to the typical war movies of its ilk.


This film was viewed by myself on TV about 20 years back, I caught it again one night, & it was more dull than bad quality. The main failure behind it is a stodgy script, which, in hands other than the original author, had much potential, it was as if the filmmakers had started out with the priority of getting the right cast & movie makers, and expecting the rest would fall into place. Many years ago, my daily paper ran a story, this was that the producers behind it created the film as a tax loss, and it never had been intended to be a financial success, but to save the producers, who are experienced and many fold, on their tax bill at year's end. That would certainly explain the dreadful script.

An original New York Times Online film review hints clearly at the suspicion of the tax break allegation: quote: "The Passage" is so awful you must suspect it was designed to be someone's tax write-off. As such it should be a smashing success. and later on: "In addition no less than six companies are involved in the film's production, "presentation" and release.'

The film has minor compensations, the acting is not as bad as some reviewers allege, & it moves along fast enough to avoid the journey slowing one down too much. Not a good film in any respect however.


Quite Frankly, this film was terrible! The acting, the story, the sound, the lighting, the everything. Coming up with ten lines here is going to be hard. I mean, I can only say it sucked so many times. OK, let's look more closely at why it sucked? Malcolm McDowell, the legendary actor from "A Clockwork Orange," is in this film, kind of. His performance is so over the top, that we can only imagine what was going on in his personal life at the time. Did you know that SS officers wear jock straps that have swastikas on them? Well they do! At least McDowell's character (that can't seem to be killed) did. You know what, the film was awful and I have spoken too much about it.


Not a particularly good WWII yarn, but worthwhile for Anthony Quinn's commanding performance as a bitter sheepherder who is asked by the French Resistance to smuggle scientist James Mason and family across the Pyrenees. Nazi Maclolm McDowell is on their trail. It's violent but hardly exciting with one scene of brutality after another (Mason's daughter is raped by McDowell, an uncooperative Gypsy is set afire). As good as Quinn is, Mason is given little to do. Patricia Neal has almost no dialog as his infirm wife and Kay Lenz is oddly cast as his resourceful daughter. McDowell is outrageous, acting as if he just stepped out of CABARET's Kit Kat club (as one of the dancers!) He's perks up the film, but only to propel it to campy heights. Michael Lonsdale and Christopher Lee appear in small roles. Directed, very blandly, by J. Lee Thompson, who seems to have lost any ability to mount suspense. This from the director of THE GUNS OF NAVARONE and the original CAPE FEAR?


At least if you're a Disney fanatic (well, of the variety who loves their live-action films as well as the animated stuff), if you're a kid, if you're a kid at heart almost to the extent that you hardly realize you're an adult, if you love absolutely any film that features animals, especially when they're doing tricks, or if you're just not too demanding, Air Bud: World Pup is somewhat enjoyable to watch. I'm a Disney fanatic. I enjoyed this film enough, and I'll gladly watch it again.

But boy does it have a lot of problems. The main flaw arises from a combination of too many characters, too many plot threads and not enough time to take care of them all. In the space of 82 minutes, we've got adults getting married, teens falling in love and trying not to be awkward at it, teen competition for love and jealousy, preteens playing spy games, dogs falling in love, dogs playing soccer, dogs having puppies, manipulative parents who'll do anything to make their kids win being taught a lesson by their kids, housekeeper dilemmas, and crooks cooking up and executing elaborate plots. I'm probably forgetting something, but that's 10 big plot issues to be dealt with, with less than 10 minutes per thread to deal with them, and presumably weave them into a coherent whole that's both not too complicated--this is a kids' film, after all--and that's also humorous and heartwarming. Not surprisingly, director Bill Bannerman, on his first turn being completely in charge (he has a lot of previous second unit experience), wasn't quite up to the task. I'm sure it didn't help that there were at least three screenwriters involved, and probably dictating producers, as well.

The end result is that Air Bud: World Pup is extremely choppy. Events occur with little justification, and worse, often little explanation. People figure out and do things primarily because they need to--and fast--so that everything can arrive where it needs to arrive in less than 90 minutes. From one cut to the next, time might jump ahead six months or so. We have both adults who seem like maybe they're mentally disabled and kids who just intuitively figure out what a dog is thinking and rush into some unexpected action. Some of the threads should have simply been removed, because it's difficult to become too engaged in the film when as soon as you're introduced to an idea, it's already passed you by.

Also not helping is the fact that one of the threads is basically a rip-off of One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961), minus a Cruella De Vil character. And another problem is that given the way the film is edited, I have to assume that the dog, Air Bud, probably couldn't do much with the soccer ball. Unlike the first two films, a dog playing a sport is almost an afterthought here, and when we see him, it's in very quick glimpses; every once in a while, these snippets appear to be even aided by computer animation.

Yet, for someone like me, there's a cheesy charm to Air Bud: World Pup. The script and performances often teeter between ridiculous, hokey and kinda clichéd. I tend to like that combination. It makes the film both a bit predictable and subtly bizarre. And at times, like the ending, when the film completely abandons consistency and basically becomes a commercial for the U.S. Women's Soccer Team, Air Bud: World Pup is so blatantly tacky that you can't help but love it.


I really enjoyed this movie. I have seen most of the other air buds and am wondering what sports they will come up with next. Tennis, Gymnastics? well i am a soccer player and really did like it, especially as a kid. In the movie it also makes a point that no matter what you are you can do anything. Out of all of the Air Buds, this is by far my favorite. I suggest it for family's. Also another good Air Bud movie I liked was Air Buddies. Some people may not like that one because the dogs talk but that was my other favorite. It is more for kids than adults but some may still enjoy it. i don't know what to write so i am just typing stuff sorry. I hope you enjoy this movie and find this helpful.


I suppose that to say this is an all-out terrible movie would be unfair, but it's pretty bad. The sub-Disney storyline involves dogs playing soccer and falling in love (aw, how cute!) The acting isn't bad, but definitely could be better, especially that of young Canadian actor Kevin Zegers, who, during the whole movie, looks embarrassed, like he doesn't even want to be there. Anyway, kids will love it, but parents beware!


This movie is good, but disappointingly is nowhere near as good as the first airbud. The storyline is predictable and cheesey and you don't even see much of Josh Framm's legs! The hot teenage Kevin Zegers is the best thing in this movie.

Michael (aged 17)


If you've seem either AIR BUD or AIR BUD 2: GOLDEN RECEIVER then you've seen AIR BUD 3: WORLD PUP. It has the same storyline as the first two. Josh discovers that his dog, Buddy is extremely talented at soccer so Josh and Buddy join the soccer team. The team goes on a winning streak. I liked AIR BUD and AIR BUD 2, but now the series is just getting tired. There have been way to many animal movies over the past few years. If studios stop making animal movies for a while maybe a fourth Air Bud movie will be refreshing. If there is an Air Bud 4 then it better be better than this!


I love this movie. It is an excellent kid movie. And i hope that everyone will at least watch it. I was bored and so i looked through the movies and found Air Bud barely used on our Shelf. So i was like what the heck.Expecting it to be a bad movie.But it was excellent. I also agree that "Tammy" is and looks like a dork. and they need to find a different model. Well i hope you will at least try the movie.And remember even if you are not a kid. You can still watch it. Cause i am 11 and i still watched it. And liked it. Well i don't know what else to write. Cause i do not want to tell you what happens. But in order to have this posted it has to be at least ten lines. And i don't know what else to write. Hang on i am going to see if it is done know.It is.


It's possibly the worst I've movie I've ever seen.

Joan Severance (Bridget Gregory) is completely devoid of sex appeal - a quality fairly crucial to the role - and does little more than smoke throughout every scene. Con O'Neill (Troy Fenton) made me want to vomit for the duration; yes, he's supposed to be a repulsive character but it was a little too literal. Beth Goddard (Murphy) was weak, although she was the only character with any sort of sexual allure, and I'm not even going to bother commenting on the rest of the characters.

The story lines are predictable, the portrayal of the British as being nothing more than common thugs is offensive, and the whole thing should come with a health-warning. Literally.


The Last Seduction was one of those marvellous indie thrillers that pops up all too rarely, it had wonderful direction, a script as snappy as suspenders and a cast that chewed the scenery in all the right places.

This lame sequel has none of that.

Everything about this film reminded me of a cheap porno without the sex; the acting, the sets, the script, it's all just too wooden. You can see how hard they're trying, it's written all over the actors' faces, but there's just nothing I would recommend about this film. If you liked the original the temptation might be there to watch this as a curiosity, but trust me, it's just not worth it, there's nothing here. This isn't 'cult' bad it's just bad bad.


This is a tawdry, cheap and offensive little movie that should have been strangled at birth. Not only an offense to the brilliant film it allegedly is a sequel to, but to anyone who might rent or watch it on that strength. Dismally acted, scripted and shot, it is one of the genuinely worst movies I have had the displeasure to see.


I really wish I could give this movie lower than one star. It is an insulting follow-up to one of the best modern films noir ever made. I was initially intrigued when I saw the title, and I expected an ample follow-up to Bridget Gregory's antics. I was sorely disappointed to see none of the original cast in the credits, but persevered nonetheless; maybe it still had merit, I hoped. My disappointment spiraled downward to mild anger that anyone would waste time making such an offensively inferior "sequel" as this one. It really was soft-core porn; I fully expected the two women with larger roles to contrive some way to get it on. Ugh.

I wonder if the actors in this one can salvage their careers?


How rare to find a sequel so embarrassing. Gone is the plot, mystery, the dark aspects of the first... a sham. Glad I only rented... You will use your fast forward a lot during this film.


This is a hugely disappointing sequel and doesn't do justice to the original. One would think that whomever decided to make a sequel, they would at least start with half decent script. I've rarely heard such appallingly bad dialogue. It is also, as others have pointed out, insulting to the British. The only good thing about the film is Joan Severance, despite her constant smoking. She may not be a great actress but anyone who thinks that Joan Severance is totally devoid of sex appeal is devoid of a pulse in my opinion. Though not in Linda Fiorentino's class - certainly as far as this role is concerned - she is still a stunning and sexy woman.


"The Last Seduction 2" is by no means high-quality entertainment. It's one of those movies you catch on cable at around 2 A.M., watch it since there's nothing better on, and end up getting sucked in by it. I mean, the original film was good, but it wasn't like it was a masterpiece. So I don't feel the filmmakers were being blasphemous by making this cheap, direct-to-TV sequel (the original also started out direct-to-TV, but later was released in theaters). Joan Severance is certainly no Linda Fiorentino. She pretty much plays a one-dimensional stereotype of a film noir vixen. But her performance is passable and like Fiorentino, she's not too difficult on the eyes. There are those little flaws that you'd expect in a film of this nature. For example, there's one scene where the female bounty hunter goes to a travel agency, which is in New York, and the man at the desk is obviously a Brit trying badly to hide his accent. But those are the kinds of things you can simply laugh at, and it adds to the fun of the film. I could've done without the scene where the film's villain punches one of his pregnant employees in the face. If this were a film of substance, I would say that the scene was shown to add to the film's realism. But instead, it was just shown for the sake of shock value, as a cheap device to make the audience hate the villain. The plot itself is actually quite good, and it has some nice twists and turns. I found myself hooked in throughout most of the film. As long as you take it with a grain of salt, "The Last Seduction 2" is decent late night entertainment.


I rented The Last Seduction II from Blockbuster when it was first released back in 1998 or 1999. I saw Linda Fiorentino on the video box cover so I thought it would be awesome. When I got home and started the movie I was surprised to learn that it was not Fiorentino's face I had seen--it was that of Joan Severance (the likeness is incredible) cast as Bridget Gregory! Initially, I was disappointed but my disappointment quickly evaporated after I heard Severance speak her first line. She had a certain screen presence that had me glued to the TV.

In The Last Seduction II, Bridget Gregory (Severance) flees New York City for Barcelona, with Mike's father (Mike was a character in the first film) hiring a bounty hunter (Beth Goddard) to find her. Bridget meets Troy Fenton (Con O'Neill) at a bar in Barcelona and they become lovers. Bridget also schemes to route some of Troy's phone-sex line business profits into her bank account, with the help of a friend in London named Simon.

The Last Seduction II has everything: good actors, stylish cinematography and beautiful locations, glamorous wardrobe, eroticism, violence, humor, and more. Severance is very beautiful in this. The Last Seduction II is more upbeat and brighter than the former. Severance even makes smoking look good (not that I am advocating smoking or anything). Severance, O'Neill, and Goddard really make this movie great. None of the actors are present from the first one, but the storyline appears to continue from the end of the first movie. I recommend The Last Seduction II. 10/10


Watching "The Last Seduction' you will see that Bridget Gregory is one tough woman. Not one to cross! In "The Last Seduction 2" Joan Severance picks up where Linda Fiorantino left off. "The Last Seduction 2" is set in Europe and is not up to the tech standards of the original. You can tell which movie had the most money spent on production. But with the faults "The Last Seduction 2" pulls it off. Joan Severance is a delight in the evil persona of Bridget Gregory.

Beth Goddard who plays Murphy is almost as tough as Bridget and out to get her. Beth does a great job and I hope to see more of her in the future. Overall "The Last Seduction 2" is not the same as the original but it is worth the watch. If there is a "The Last Seduction 3" keep Joan Severance as Bridget Gregory, Beth Goddard as Murphy and spend more money on the production. It will be a winner.


If this was named something else, there wouldn't be all the outpouring of negativity. This is never going to be as good as the brilliant original.

However, it is still a nasty bit of femme fatale noir and thus enjoyable on it's own. The plot is a bit weak in that supposedly Mike from the first movie has a birth father who is some hugely rich tycoon and he is willing to pay any amount of money to get Bridgit to recant that Mike killed her husband and raped her. He is willing to pay the mysterious "Murphy" to illegally find her, drug her and get her back to New York.

Bridgit, as usual blows town when the going gets too hot and flees to Spain. She arrives, looks around for someone to have sex with, meets a nasty guy (well he thinks he is - he is actually quite a pawn because he totally underestimates a beautiful woman and how far she is willing to go to get some money, her way, revenge, or just to screw with him because she is bored).

Murphy turns out to be a nasty ruthless woman herself and Bridgit finally gets an almost worthy opponent, however, once again she proves she is willing to go to any length to get her way. Even Murphy reveals that she was shocked at what level of amorality and violence she will use to her purposes.

Stop whining that this isn't the original and enjoy it for what it is. People can like the Hannibal Lecter character because he is amoral, but if a female does it they are shocked and appalled? Please!


Then this would be the last before last seduction, right? It will happen, I am positively sure. But what about this movie? Apparently it is bad if you have seen The Last Seduction PERIOD. I did not see that original and must say that I was pleasantly surprised by number II. I am convinced that it is in a entirely different vein, it is probably more a parody than a follow-up. I felt well entertained and often quite amused.

Is this a good bad movie? Definitely! The action is supposed to take place mainly in Barcelona, Spain. But the movie makers had to make do mainly with Cardiff, Wales, Great Britain. So do not expect a presentation of the more glamorous parts of the capital of Catalonia in this movie, the place seems to be populated mainly by Brits here. The storyline is a little sketchy, but where it is unconvincing it adds to the hilarious overall atmosphere. And there really is quite some (intentionally) funny dialog, several good and quick verbal exchanges and a pretty elaborately laid out credit card scam angle which already is of a certain historical value.

This certainly is a movie whose cast is above the material. The majority of the actors and actresses are British, and they know their trade. The male lead is very convincing as sleazy wannabe gangster boss with a low I.Q. Joan Severance is pretty much the only American in the cast, she puts the right amount of irony into her performance  and she really has extremely long legs. There is also some great support by Spanish bit players (the Spanish sounds at times a bit shaky, though  but what else can you expect in Cardiff?).

The Last Seduction II may also be pleasant to watch for feminists. The two leading female parts order the macho guys around pretty much and are mostly on top. The most funny scene for me was a simple extreme long shot of Severance and the male leading part walking down a street side by side. The man is more than a full head shorter than his companion and although in full macho regalia he looks rumpled and thoroughly miserable.

Believe it or not  except for some unnecessary violence I can recommend this movie.


I watched this movie the other night as there was nothing else on I thought I would give it a chance. Having never seen the first movie the storyline became apparent within the first 10 mins. There was no shortage of action and the plot kept me entertained and on the edge of my seat for the full 94 mins. The mixture of British language and humour I found quite amusing.

The only thing that dissapointed me was the ending as I was expecting the story to continue further...will there be a third movie?


"Tombstone Canyon" (1932) combines an above average story with Ken Maynard (the all- time best movie cowboy) and Cecilia Parker (Andy Hardy's blonde sister). Plus it was filmed in California's spectacular Red Rock Canyon State Park (Canti, CA.) which was to become the scene of countless western movies and many of the 1950's western television series. All these factors make for an excellent combination as this early sound film is a very entertaining feature of slightly less than 60 minutes.

The film begins with a wrangler with only the first name Ken (Maynard) fighting off ambushers in Tombstone Canyon. Ken gets unexpected assistance from a cowgirl named Jenny Lee (Parker). Jenny rode out to meet him at the request of the man who requested that Ken come to the area for some information about his identity. Ken does not know who his parents were and has never adopted a last name.

Tombstone Canyon is a spooky place that most of the locals avoid because they fear a spectral figure called The Black Phantom. The Phantom was been systematically killing cowboys from the Lazy S. ranch, and frightening everyone else with his banshee like scream.

Ken and Jenny must contend with the owner of the Lazy S who wants him dead for some reason; and tries several times to frame him for murder. The town's sympathetic marshal refuses to arrest Ken, believing in his innocence and reasoning that the best way to solve the mystery is by giving Ken a free hand to investigate.

One thing to avoid is the 1990 VHS version being distributed by MNTEX Entertainment and titled "Classic Westerns". This is the one with a pair of Tombstones on the cover. They used a truly horrible print of the film and most scenes are so dark it is difficult to follow them, let alone pick out many of the details. Probably the worst commercially released print I have ever run across. Hopefully the other versions and the DVD are better.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


Within the context of a B western, Tombstone Canyon is close to perfect. Yes, it looks a lot like every other cheap western of its time, but the early 1930's were a great time for westerns. Ken Maynard never falters for the entire run time of this movie.

As the movie starts we are introduced to the place known as Tombstone Canyon. Ken rides in to find himself unwelcome and the desired target of many ill-intended shots. Between the gang of bad guys and the mysterious phantom Ken has his hands full, but fortunately Jenny Lee happens to be riding through and fires a few helpful shots of her own. It is then that Ken learns more about Tombstone Canyon and the mysterious screaming phantom who kills as many of the Lazy S cowboys as possible. The phantom is not Ken's worry, however. He has traveled to meet a friend who has a secret to reveal, but by the time Ken arrives he finds out that his friend is murdered. Alf Sykes, owner of the Lazy S does not want Ken to learn anything, so he does everything he can to destroy Ken. The phantom also confronts Ken and threatens him. It is only at the end that Ken learns the secret someone wanted him to know, and the phantom's identity is revealed.

Even if the plot was done hundreds of times over the years, it was done right in this 1932 movie. Most of the credit must go to Ken Maynard for making Tombstone Canyon so much fun to watch. His on screen personality was at its most captivating. Few western heroes looked as good and had the ability to act as well as Ken Maynard.


Ken Maynard was a champion horse rider and in his early days worked in rodeos. Not for him the effete air-conditioned acting studio but he learned his acting trade the hard practical way by living the life of a real cowboy. He enjoyed the rough and tumble and hard knocks of cowboy life. He would feel the the pain of dare devil horse riding, eating his meals by camp fire and sleeping under the stars in the cold and hot seasons. Therefore we accept the often improbable story plot elements because we believe the people playing the roles are similar to the those who lived in the real Old West. This is a second tier Ken Maynard movie but we treasure the limited hours of being with Ken as he portrays a real cowboy and a real man . Thank you Ken.


Although many Ken Maynard features are noted for their lack of believability in the story telling, there was something about his on screen presence that makes us watch him -- he just comes off as the 'real thing.' You could see it in the way he would instinctively pat or interact with his horse(!!) and delivering such dialog to the heroine as, "Miss Jenny, you spill a kinda mean loop yourself. You've got me just as good as throwed and hog tied already." To which Jenny replies, "That makes me awfully happy, Ken." Woo! they don't make movies like this any more!

This one is thoroughly enjoyable and has a touch of mysterious creepiness. "The Phantom," dressed all in black with a bat-like cape, inhabits Tombstone Canyon, where he picks off with a shotgun various hands of the Lazy S ranch. Ken shows up there on his way to find out the identity of his father, but gets involved with Jenny Lee (Cecelia Parker) at her father's ranch branding and 'dehorning' cattle.

For more of Cecelia before her Andy Hardy movies, check out the serial "The Lost Jungle" (1934) and the John Wayne "Riders of Destiny" (1933).

The Western elements all build quickly; in fact, it begins with Ken being ambushed in the Canyon by an unknown gang. Then we swiftly get fist fights, the romance ("Let's go get the ring!"), Ken being framed and jailed for murder, and shoot outs in Tombstone Canyon. There's one too many visits to Tombstone Canyon, and the final hunt down for Ken there goes too slowly.

But then we have a great action finale with 'The Phantom,' Alf Sykes, his son and Ken all fighting or hanging off the highest cliff while Jenny and her father's men speed to the rescue with Ken's horse 'Tarzan.'

A good 1930s western, mainly because of Ken Maynard.


In Tombstone Canyon, orphaned cowboy Ken Maynard comes to town to find out about past and tangles with a nasty group of thug cowboys and the disfigured Phantom, a black robed fiend who scares the hell out of all who enter the canyon, a sort of western version of the Phantom Of The Opera mixed with a bit of Batman, who at that time was still a few years off.

This has excellent cinematography, good earthy performances by Maynard and the rest of the cast, and lines like "Turn around hombre! I'm a gonna' drill you right between the eyes!", that are pulp western gold.

There's a thrilling climax atop some giant rocks and an ending that appears to have anticipated Return Of The Jedi by fifty years!

Great stuff.


After one of the greatest studio logos I've ever seen (check out those whirling hooters!) and getting all hyped about that, the next hour is a pretty boring escapade. Ken Maynard, who's shirt seems to be saying "look at my buttons and my armpits!" stars as Ken, a cowboy new to town, but has a lot of clothes stashed away somewhere, who is looking to find out who is his father. There are a lot of mysterious deaths going on, by one "Phantom Killer", who wanders around canyons in, yes, a cape and big hat (he looks like the V for Vendetta guy), and everyone in town thinks that Ken is the Phantom. It's up to Ken to prove them wrong and find out who his father is! Gee. One guess. This is SLOW. The plot just creeps along, not giving us a lot of suspense. The acting is OK, but the guy playing the sheriff seems to be sleepwalking through this role. As proved before in other movies, Ken Maynard is not much of an action star, as his fight scenes sure are flat. There are MUCH MUCH better westerns out there.


This may very well be the kinkiest mainstream Hollywood movie ever made. Picture Rock Hudson as Coach Tiger McDrew, a playboy teacher sleeping with the female student body, killing the ones who threaten to expose him or cause him problems, hence the title "Pretty Maids All In A Row." The Tiger is at least twenty years older than those he beds. Spotlight substitute teacher Betty Smith (Angie Dickinson) rubbing her boobs against those students who ignite her libido, ultimately deflowering one of Coach Tiger's star players, Ponce de Leon Harper (John David Carson), not unlike the name "Fonzie" from TV's "Happy Days," causing him to be metamorphosed from a shy, timid teen, into the playboy of the western world.

Guess who's in charge of the investigation into all the murders on and around campus? None other than Kojak (Telly Savalas), portraying Captain Sam Surcher, with a thing for his cigarette (in training for his later lollipop placebo). He is assisted in his search for the killer by Keenan Wynn as Chief John Poldaski, more a hindrance than a help. The straitlaced, prudish Mr. Proffer (Roddy McDowall) is in charge of the high school where mass slaughter is littering the campus with dead bodies. He naturally would like for it to stop. To emphasize the theme, Joy Bang has a bit part as Rita.

Those behind the camera are just as surprising. Self-proclaimed libertine director Roger Vadim, fresh from "Barberella," starring his brother-in-law's sister, Jane Fonda, makes sure the camera shots include as much cleavage and exposed skin as permitted in those halcyon days of 1971. Though based on a novel, Trekky Gene Roddenberry wrote the salacious script, even beaming up Scotty (James Doohan) for the role of Follo. Roddenberry served as producer as well. Trivia question: Name the one movie scored by the darlings of the establishment, The Osmonds? Right, "Pretty Maids All In A Row." Actually, their version of "Chilly Winds" is not bad.

My wife and I saw this flick when it was first released in 1971 and found nothing outrageous about it. We watched it a second time recently and were surprised at how shocking it has become. Either the times have changed drastically or we have changed drastically (pobably both) since the days of the Flower Children. What is politically incorrect today was accepted by the viewers in that bygone era. The viewer will note that though the theme and philosophy seem deviant by today's standards, there is almost no vulgar language used in the film. That cultural barrier had not yet been breached by Hollywood.

Obviously intended as black comedy at the time, "Pretty Maids All In A Row," is certainly no "Dr. Strangelove," nor was it meant to be. However the viewer labels this film, it is guaranteed to entertain and arouse the basic instincts. Enjoy it, even if you must call it a guilty pleasure.


A juicy bit of 70s kitsch right here for your viewing pleasure. Rock Hudson as a horny high school coach/guidance counselor who is nailing every girl in sight. This man is so hip, he has arranged the thumb tacks on his cork board into a peace sign. No wonder all the kids love him. Right on, man.

The luscious Angie Dickinson plays a substitute teacher who wears very short skirts and form-fitting sweaters. Not only does she get felt up by Hudson, she also enthusiastically deflowers the gawky teenage male virgin after extolling the virtues of John Milton's "Paradise Lost." Telly Savalas is the state police detective called upon to solve a series of murders of young girls at the high school, the first of which is charmingly named "Jill Fairbutt." No lollipop here. He is sucking on a cigarette, a cancer stick, a coffin nail! Who loves ya, baby? Nice job by Keenan Wynn is the wheezy geezer local sheriff assigned by Savalas to direct traffic after incompetently touching every bit of evidence at the first murder scene. Also by James Doohan ("Scotty" of Star Trek fame) as Savalas' underling. Too bad they couldn't have gotten Shatner to give Hudson a run for his money...

Also heard from is Roddy McDowell, twittery here as the high school principal, whose concern over the murders is limited to characterizing one of them as a "great little cheerleader." He comes complete with prim, nerdy, bespectacled secretary, de rigeur for the 70s.

In what other decade could something be listed as a comedy/crime/ thriller? Only the 70s, my friend. You can also groove to the opening song by the Osmonds, "Chilly Wind," which happens to be sung over Rock Hudson getting it on with a topless honey. Osmonds and boobies - my head just exploded.

If I'm not mistaken, I think I saw a very young Alfre Woodard as one of the students questioned by Savalas. Rock that afro, girl!

What can you expect by combining the directing talents of Roger Vadim and the writing of Gene Roddenberry? If you can ignore the misogyny of every female in this movie being a ditz/victim/sex object/cuckold, then you will enjoy this very of-its-time pre-sex-comedy-era sex comedy. With some murder thrown in. And a bit of mystery. And don't forget the Osmonds.


One of the most politically incorrect films of all time, Pretty Maids All In a Row is easily Roger Vadim's most audacious film. Scripted by Gene Roddenberry it focuses on the strange happenings taking place at a California high school. To better understand this film, you need to know more about Roger Vadim. He was by all accounts a unrepentant womanizer. He wrote not just one, but two books concerning his love affairs with Brigitte Bardot, Catherine Deneuve, Annette Atroyberg, and Jane Fonda. The filmmaker practically invented the modern day sex film in 1956 with And God Ceated Woman. In 2005, Jane Fonda went public with allegations claiming that Vadim forced her to have threesomes with other women.

Director Roger Vadim obviously loved women. The way the camera takes in the female form in this film shows that this guy truly enjoyed this cast of beautiful high school girls who are dropping out of school in the most unfortunate manner: they are being murdered. The first body is found by student Ponce. He discovers the nude body in the boy's washroom. After discovering the body we are introduced to the detective assigned to the case as well as an amoral guidance counselor named Tiger (played by Rock Hudson) who also happens to be sleeping with his students in his office.  The investigation goes and we discover that the murdered girls happened to be sleeping with Tiger. Despite of all the heat pressure placed on him, Tiger doesn't seem worried that he'll get caught. He continues coaching the football team, eventually setting Ponce up with a sexy new teacher (Angie Dickinson), and of course carrying on affairs with the students.

In his autobiography, Vadim recalled the casting of the students in Pretty Maids All in a Row: "...I had auditioned over two hundred boys and about the same number of girls. Most of the girls who applied in the roles of high school alumni were aspiring actresses, though some were local students who merely found the whole thing amusing." For a man recovering from love sickness (Jane Fonda had just divorced Vadim), this succession of young teenage and college age beauties was intoxicating. Vadim specifically ordered the wardrobe department to dress the girls in micro skirts and tight fitting shirts. Notably, a good portion of them aren't wearing bras. Vadim films these young ladies, many of which appear to be underage, in a method that is so unapologetically sexual that you'll soon understand why this film will likely never appear on DVD. With pedophilia being such a hot topic in today's society, no film company wants to risk being accused of exploiting minors by releasing this on DVD.

With its nonstop leering shots of teenage body parts and seemingly giddy portrayal of sexual relationships between adults and children, does Pretty Maids All in A Row seem like a celebration of pedophilia? Uh, the correct term is 'ebephophilia' which means 'love of adolescents'. I guess it's a matter of opinion. When I first viewed this film as a teen, the director's constant zooming in on the breasts and buttocks of female high school students was a bit shocking, but had a point to it. I mean, high school is a particularly sexualized place being that many students are entering in relationships for the first times in their lives. Then I read a movie review about how Pretty Maids All in A Row may have been the most widespread female-kiddie-porn film ever seen. The slow, misty shots of the braless pubescent girls in their micro skirts were far too prevalent to be incidental. When I saw this movie again, this time in my late 20s, I had no problem understanding the reviewer's point of view. For example, the opening scene of this movie consists of a closeup of a pair of butts belonging to two female classmates of Ponce. These two, who look barely 18, show up randomly during this movie, and every scene they are in, the camera is fixated so closely on their mini skirts that it's laughable. I can find no reason for so pointlessly including these two girls in the movie other than for the director to showcase their gorgeous bodies with series of gratuitous shots of their crotches and rears. It seems all quite juvenille. Still, I don't think anyone should not see this film just because director Vadim can't go two minutes without fetishizing a sea of young female bodies.

To better understand all the blatant voyeurism directed towards these girls, remember that this is an American movie made with a European mentality. The European school of film-making seems to approach the entire feminine image in a different sense than the Americans do; the female body is perceived to be a work of art in itself, that it is graceful, elegant, beautiful and sensual, an aesthetic object with erotic power. Presenting it in the proper manner makes one marvel instead of blushing and turning away--that seems to be the attitude this director takes, and it causes the frequent nudity in the film to be not so much dirty, obscene, and debaucherous, as being instead a presentation of a thing of beauty.

The acting in Pretty Maids is first-rate. The cast is by far the film's strongest asset. These are all truly courageous performers, and the acting is so good, it's scary. The standouts are probably Rock Hudson and John David Carson. Not surprisingly, Telly Savalas as a Kojak-style detective steals every scene he is in. Angie Dickinson is great, but I was distracted by her aesthetic qualities.

Pretty Maids is a good movie that has quite a few shocking moments. It's quite implausible and uneven, but I recommend seeing it. It's one of those movies where you just HAVE to see it, you know? Not because it's some great masterpiece of cinema, but because there's a lot there to talk about. Check it out.


This movie is lots of fun - a time capsule of the swinging Seventies - tight pants, mini-mini skirts, people sayingt "Right on" and Rock Hudson as a girl hound - seducing any girl who comes into his classroom - yes, Rock plays "Tiger" a football coach and guidance counselor. Angie Dickinson plays a lusty teacher who helps seduce a young virgin boy. Telly Savalas is a hoot as the hard-nosed cop trying to solve the series of murders that start happening at the high school - Salvalas does some truly strange things as an actor - he holds his smoking cigarette in various odd ways and is constantly putting his big sunglasses on his head, on his nose, on a lamp -- the whole movie is this strange little sex-murder mystery (light on the mystery). Written by Star Trek creator, Gene Rodenberry!!!! If you like cheesy fun flicks from the early 1970s, this one is for you. A hoot!


Because I'm re-enrolling for post-graduate summer school!

This picture proves that on occasion a less-than-deep storyline doesn't prevent a film from being terrifically-entertaining. You'll be dragged along willingly and unprotestingly in the offbeat proceedings onscreen.

And Angie Dickinson (who seems to be thoroughly enjoying her part) is stunning, gentlemen ... stunning!

Recall that gorgeous teacher we all remember oh-so-well from high school? Well, here ... she ... is. And John David Carson plays, uh ... every guy who was ever in her class, okay?

Things move along smoothly in parallel plots, a strange mix of sex comedy and murder-most-foul. But it all works, and you won't forget "Pretty Maids" any easier than you ever forgot ... that long-ago teacher.

Highly recommended, for adults.


Wow! What an intelligent film! Roger Vadim (director) and Gene Roddenberry (screen writer) take what could have been a teen titillation flick and mold it smoothly into a tense psychological drama.

The film moves from innocent voyeurism to chilling unconscionable murder.

Michael "Tiger" McDrew (Rock Hudson) is the school psychologist who encourages boys via sports and girls via sex. He is an ex-football hero who status as a national icon gives him a sense of invulnerability.

His downfall starts when his female students want more from him than just sexual favors. One by one, the girls profess their love for him and their desire to be his wife. There's only problem, his off campus life includes a lovely wife (Barbara Leigh) and young daughter (Stephanie Mizrahi).

So, one by one, his "pretty maids" start showing up on campus dead. Telly Savalas (Captain Sam Surcher) is superb as the investigator. Check out his lieutenant, Follo (James Doohan).

The second story line, in which awkward student, and `Tiger' McDrew protégé, Ponce De Leon Harper (John David Carson) comes of age with the help of his teacher Miss Betty Smith (a GORGEOUS Angie Dickinson), is handled in a sweet and sensitive manner.

The film is clever from start to finish and the ending suggests a sequel, which to my knowledge, never came to be.


This combination black comedy/sexploitation/thriller from director Roger Vadim is undoubtedly the most provocative American movie to come out of the 70's. It starts off with Ponce, our male protagonist, watching as girls pass by. We are given a shot that clues us into the tone of the entire film. Vadim films two teenage girls walking from behind and then brazenly zooms in on their behinds. I was a bit shocked to see Vadim open his movie with such a blatant butt shot. That was until I recalled that this same director opened up his 1956 film, And God Created Woman, with a closeup shot of Brigitte Bardot's bare behind. It's undeniably sexy, but some will see it as sexualizing children as these two girls in their mini-skirts look awfully young. But I credit the director for nailing what it feels be like to be a male high school student surrounded by beautiful female peers through the use of brilliant POV.

We then shift to an outside shot of a high school. We're given a few scenes of the students going about their daily activities. All the female students are impossibly beautiful here, dressed in mini-skirts, high heels, and low cut shirts. We are then introduced to Tiger, played by Rock Hudson, in one of his most offbeat roles. He plays a coach/counselor at a Southern Californian High School. Even though he is a married man, he has no qualms having sex with various female students. Meanwhile, a killer is leaving corpses of female students along various parts of the school. An investigation begins and Tiger is the prime suspect. In the meantime, one of his students, Ponce is having a tough time finding a girlfriend. Tiger is willing to give the young man some help. He enlists the help of Miss Smith, played by Angie Dickinson, to help Ponce along, and we are talking about a VERY adult education.

Pretty Maids was a mega flop on first release, and it permanently damaged Vadim's career. But today it has the earmarks of a classic, mostly due to three brilliant performances. First off, Rock Hudson in perhaps his last great picture. Just like he was in every other picture before Pretty Maids, he's the man girls want and the man boys want to be, but here it's darker and more cynical version of himself than he ever let people see on the screen. John David Carson is fascinating as Ponce. He goes from awkward school boy to confident man in a series of believable, sequences. It's a difficult role to play, but he makes it look easy. Angie Dickinson has never been better. Angie is sexy throughout the movie playing a naive young teacher, seemingly unaware of how sexy she is.

The premise of this Pretty Maids is "free love" for all, which includes teachers having sex with their students! It's shocking to look back and see how strange America was during this time of "free love," as the concept of this movie would be completely taboo now. American is far more puritanical today, especially when it comes to the issue of teens and sex. I think the reason it still hasn't found a home on DVD is because the film takes a libertine view of adolescent sexuality, far more than any other American film has. America has a hard time with this and this film could turn a lot more heads now than perhaps it did in the more permissive 70's. The basic plot premise is shocking, but what REALLY grabs your attention are the literally hundreds of leering shots of female butts, breasts, crotches, legs, or a combo of the 4, all belonging to the various female high school appearing in this film. Just about every female actress playing the part of a student is sexualized in this movie. Outside of a Tinto Brass movie, I can't recall any other film that lovingly showcased the female posterior by filming it in closeup again and again. As outrageous as the numerous shots of rear ends are, they can't hold a candle to all the up skirt peeks director Vadim shows us. We are given scene after scene of girls in impossibly sort mini-skirts bending over, crossing their legs, standing on elevated surfaces, or just walking up the steps. Vadim finds it mandatory to show us a flash of their panties every time. Pretty Maids must have set some sort of record for pantie shots than any movie in history. Did girls in the early 70's really dress like THIS? I can't help but wonder where were there parents during the making of the film? As a man who would like to have a child someday, and hopefully a little girl, it's odd seeing Vadim's camera practically rams itself up the mini-skirt of a young girl going through puberty. If you're a father of a teenage girl and you're reading this review, you might feel guilty for enjoying the content of this movie. But you really shouldn't be. However, I can't emphasize this enough: The girls who appear in this film are NOT the type portrayed in movies that deal with H.S. You know, 20 something actresses cast as H.S. students. The actresses playing the young girls in this movie are actually that, young girls. Some will find the nonstop leering shots of girls who appear to be in the 15-19 age range to cross the line of good taste. I found them VERY necessary considering they were meant to show how Ponce (not to mention director Vadim) views high school aged girls.

I suppose a film that deals this frankly with adolescent sexuality this could be made today, but only as an unreleased independent film, ala Ken Park. In the 70s, however, this script was able to attract a whole plethora of respected actors and actresses. You'll ask yourself the whole time how a movie like this could be made in the first place! See it now.


Given the A-list pedigree of the cast, this is one baffling relic of a brief and long-gone period of our cultural history. Soft-core fanatic Roger "Barbarella" Vadim teams up with Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry (of all people!) to produce this shameless exploitation flick. Granted, it was based on a novel, so I suppose writer/producer Roddenberry can't receive all the blame for this mess. But the fact that he chose this particular material for his one and only non-Star Trek feature film sheds new light on the ultra mini skirt, coconut shell bra, and Captain-Kirk-seducing-every-buxom-alien-in-the-galaxy fixation of his series. All the girls in this high school are centerfold wannabes, disrobing and literally throwing themselves into the arms of married football stud Rock Hudson. Teachers having sex with students on campus grounds is treated with an off-hand "lock the door." (And believe me, I am by no means a prude when it comes to the complex issue of teenage sexuality.) Hudson essentially pimps out substitute teacher Angie Dickenson to his young virginal protégé, while she makes her own fierce attempts at getting into Hudson's drawers. Whew! I realize this was the 70s when free love reigned, but maybe the original novel gave better psychological background for all this casual bed-hopping. I won't even get into the whole murder mystery angle of the story, but the appearance of a serial killer in school is treated with the same shrug of indifference by the characters as their fixation on sex. This film is not outrageous enough to be camp, and not dark enough to be creepy, but just another sorry addition to Roger Vadim's irrelevant cannon of work.


I just got the VHS on E-bay, and this is one of the strangest flicks I have ever seen. I first found out about this classic on You Tube by seeing the 4 and a half minute clip on there, and I was intrigued enough to get the movie. I enjoyed it very much. It was a very interesting story. But I felt that Tiger, the lead character, was a scumbag. He used his position and his influence to take advantage of those young girls. He felt that he could get away with it because everyone looked up to him at that school. He was the real leader, not Mr. Proffer. But he does do a nice thing for Ponce, albeit in a sick way, in helping him out with his female troubles after Ponce said that he wouldn't touch a dead girl because he hasn't had a live one yet while being questioned by Telly Savalas's character, Sam Surcher. In conclusion, I would recommend this movie but I don't approve of some of the behavior in it.


This is a funny movie folks.

Don't be put off by some of the other reviews written here as they completely missed the point.

This is a black comedy/farce folks. Though seemingly played 'straight' as it were, it in fact, has its tongue firmly in cheek.

The plot revolves around a string of murders, mostly young comely lasses at a California high school.

It appears all too hip Rock Hudson, playing a groovy guidance counselor and football coach has been having romantic dalliances with a lot of the student body(s)...

Meanwhile he's helping his protégé, John David Carson, an awkward, high school senior lose his virginity with sexy substitute teacher Angie Dickinson.

When the bodies start piling up, perennial police detective Telly Savalas comes into the picture.

Roddy McDowall gets thrown in for comic relief as a nervous high school principal along with Susan Tolksy as his even more nervous assistant. You'll remember Miss Tolksy as the comic relief in the late 60s TV Series, Here Come The Brides as Biddie Cloom.

Finally Keenan Wynn gets thrown into the mix as a bumbling local Chief of Police who gets more than he bargained for when he tries to solve the identity of the murderer himself.

Legendary ladies man, five time married, Roger Vadim directs this sexually charged flick. You'll recall that Vadim was married to both Brigitte Bardot & Jane Fonda and had a love child with none other than Catherine Deneuve.

You'll never see a high school again filled with as many thin, beautiful coeds as Mr. Vadim presents in this movie all sporting the shortest of mini skirts that is, while they're still IN their clothes. Lots of 'Playboy-esque' nudity runs throughout the film without it becoming graphic or embarrassing. Angie Dickinson looking in top form even shows a little skin!

This flick has cult classic written all over it and would be a great movie to remake.

Just remember NOT to take it seriously folks. Of course, the idea of students and teachers so casually engaging in sexual escapades is something you would not want in real life. That goes without saying.

But again, this is an adult farce with lots of black comedy. When the first victim is found dead, principal Roddy McDowall can only comment on what a great cheerleader she was so it's obvious pretty much from the get-go that we're in an altered state of reality here.

Though not a comedy classic, it's a fun, sexy movie that doesn't take itself seriously and moves right along at a brisk 91 minutes.

Even more fun to watch with a group of friends.


Black comedy (I think) of a high school where girls are being murdered. While this is happening football coach Michael 'Tiger' McDrew (Rock Hudson) is giving lessons to student Ponce (John David Carson) on how to pick up girls(!!!). Throw in Roddy McDowall as the dean, Angie Dickinson as a teacher, Telly Savalas as a police detective, James Doohan as his helper and Keenan Wynn as a bumbling police officer and you got one strange movie.

I can't quite figure out what they were aiming for her. Some of it is funny and I thought it was a comedy, but it was often pretty sick (the dead girls) and ended up showing as much female nudity as an R rating would allow. Director Roger Vadim seems more interested in female bodies and nudity than a coherent story and characters. At first the weirdness kept me watching--the characters act strange and things are shown at different angles. But that wore quick pretty fast and I started to get bored. By the end I was actually getting annoyed with the constant female nudity and all women being portrayed as young and beautiful with great bodies and not a brain in their heads. Guys don't come off much better--Hudson is sleeping around with all the teenage girls (kind of amusing now that we know he was gay) and Carson is constantly horny.

Acting varies. Carson is just terrible and that's a problem cause he's the lead! His one-note performance drags the movie down. Dickinson is as good as she can be (not very) and Hudson tries but seems uncomfortable. McDowell, Savalas and Wynn however were good. And it was fun to hear James Doohan speaking in his regular voice and not the Scottish one he uses in "Star Trek".

All in all a virtually forgotten movie--for good reason. This is more a skin flick than anything else. Also mixing dead teenage girls and sex as if it's funny is in very questionable taste. I give it a 4.


This was one of the most influential movies of my high school years.

And it's all thanks to that French horndog, director Roger Vadim, who was also the guy who convinced his then-wife Jane Fonda engage in three-somes with him and another woman. Yee ha, Roger! Magnifique!

What a life Vadim must have led during the '60s & '70s. Yes, this is envy speaking.

Okay, some of the credit for this most enjoyably sly & funny little gem goes to Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, who, for this film went where he'd never gone before, bringing along James Doohan, aka, Scotty with him on this marvelous adolescent comedy sex fantasy/murder mystery.

The cast has a lot of fun, including Rock Hudson and the most heterosexual high school counselor in the universe (believe it); and Angie Dickenson as the sexiest teacher this side of my sophomore English teacher, Miss Lynn Segal at San Gabriel High (Angie has a stiffie-inducing seduction scene that'll ring most guy's bells like Quasimodo sure as hell never could).

In a wonderfully clueless comic role is Keenan Wynn. He's great. And a pre-Kojak Telly Savalas is the coolest police homicide detective in the history of cinema. High school chicks dig him.

John David Carson is ideal as Ponce, the shy, quiet, timid, virgin student who doesn't necessarily end up that way. Every girl he sees drives him crazy - and it's easy to see why. These babes are total! Joanna Cameron, Aimee Eccles, June Fairchild, Barbara Leigh as Rock's jaw-dropping wife, and the other "Pretty Maids" will bring eyesight to the blind. Wow!

I could go on, but why? If you like it, you like it. If not, try Von Stroheim or Bergman. I prefer Vadim. Pretty Maids All In A Row entrertained me then, and it entertained me one night in August 2006.


Oh, I remember it well. The hemlines had shot up from the ankles to the thighs in a few short years. The girls were sexy but aloof, but in love with their male teachers. The boys hormones were raging more than ever and we were wondering if we would get laid before we died in VietNam, and we were hoping that that oh so sexy teacher would be willing to give us some "extracurricular instruction". Charles Manson had been convicted of the Tate-Bianca murders. The atmosphere was so sexually charged you could cut it with a knife.

This movie almost perfectly captured this mood--As good a documentary as you can get in a fiction film and some of the most gorgeous soon to be "B" movie queens were showing us their bodies (including Angie Dickinson--at age 40!)


Pretty Maids All in a Row is based on a novel by Francis Pollini and has all the makings of a cult film. We've got a cast peppered with cult stars, a story involving a sex killer and some great black humour, but somehow it missed the cult film boat. The film is set in a California high school, and clearly the writers decided to throw caution to the wind where any political correctness was concerned as Pretty Maids All in a Row delights in showing Rock Hudson's teacher character getting up to allsorts with his young female students. The film basically has two main plot lines. The first of which focuses on a young man named Ponce de Leon Harper. This guy is cut up because he's seventeen and hasn't lost his virginity yet, and so turns to his teacher friend, Michael McDrew, for help. Mr McDrew decides to help Leon by hooking him up with someone; only thing is, he decides to hook him up with his English teacher, Miss Smith! Meanwhile, teenage girls are turning up dead with a note attached to their bottoms...

The black humour features throughout the film and at times is subtle, and at others; less subtle (for example, "we never have practise on the day of a murder!"), but it works really well. The cast is superb, with Rock Hudson getting the main plaudits for his central performance. He's every bit the middle aged pervert and he plays the role with relish. John David Carson is less impressive as the young kid, but still turns in a good performance. There are also roles for the likes of Telly Savalas, Roddy McDowall and Angie Dickinson. The film remains interesting for the duration due to its range of characters and various plot lines. The film actually does handle some interesting themes too; the boy losing his virginity being the main one. The sequence in which that happens is really great, too! The film doesn't work at all as a mystery - it's completely clear who the murderer is right from the start - but still, getting to the conclusion is a lot of fun. Overall, I would have to say that this film falls somewhere short of 'great', but it's certainly very good.


I first saw this film just after I left the Navy in '73. Back then, it seemed like an interesting film. I'd been a long-time fan of Rock Hudson, especially his film roles in "Man's Favorite Sport" and "Ice Station Zebra." And, I was a faithful watcher of his popular television series, "McMillan and Wife." But, I guess I'm just an old fuddy-duddy now.

After re-watching it, I honestly can't see the appeal of a film that even impliedly champions teacher pedophilia, murder to cover up the pedophilia, and a supportive spouse who flies off with her sick husband to South America at the end of the film ... allowing him to get away with all his crimes scot-free.

I will not be watching it again ... ever.


Viewed this film early in the AM and never knew that Rock Hudson,(Michael 'Tiger' McDrew),"Embroyo",'76 starred in a picture as a coach and practically seduced every young girl in the high school. There is plenty of nudity, frontal and back along with wild scenes and Angie Dickinson,(Miss Betty Smith),"Dressed to Kill",'80, seducing a teenage boy. Telly Savalas,(Capt. Sam Surcher),"Backfire",'95 plays a police office who investigates a mysterious murder in a men's room at the high school. Roddy McDowall,(Mr. Proffer),"Lassie Come Home",'43, plays the school principal and looks too young to play this role. Even Keenan Wynn,"The Lucifer Complex",78 plays the role of a dumb police officer who manages to foul up the crime scene. This film has everything, Drama, Comedy, and plenty of Romance. Poor Rock Hudson must have been worn out trying to play this role, his performance sure surprised me and so did this film.


While it's hard to take Rock Hudson as a stud since he came out of the closet, you won't care...you'll be too distracted by the numerous up-the-skirt shots of the "Pretty Maids" in the movie (where were the parents during the filming of this??), not to mention Angie Dickenson's take on Mrs. Robinson with the virginal creepy kid. Also, it's weird to hear Scotty from Star Trek speaking without his brogue; Telly Savalas playing Kojak (essentially) without a lollipop and "Who Loves Ya, Baby?"; Angie Dickenson (Police Woman) acting all slutty: and some unknown kid actor (I don't think he ever did anything else noteworthy)trying to take this mess seriously. I won't give the ending away, but you'll find it pretty implausible.


As a rule, I don't like making comments about films that I don't really like. But occasionally, I'll make an exception. Actually, I can't say I dislike this film so much as that I was disappointed by it because with the cast, I expected a better movie. I'd read the book and enjoyed it and looked forward to the movie. The sad truth is, apart from one or two performances, there really isn't much to this harmless bit of fluff. By the bye, it is a titillation flick, like it or not.


Another blast from my past! I was a horny college student when this film was released in 1971, and I recall a big photo spread in "Playboy" promoting the film with revealing images of various "Pretty Maids." (Joy Bang? Nothing suggestive there!) I went to see the film based on that promise of titillation, but rather than being turned on, my tender sensibilities were turned off by the amoral characters and plot line.

I recently watched the film again on TCM (give them credit for not censoring the mild nudity!), and I can't say that my view has changed much in 35 years. Those who try to excuse this fecal matter as "black comedy" or as an unsung "cult classic" are putting a lot of lipstick on a warthog.

Many privileged Baby Boomers (of which I was one) developed in the 1960s a peculiarly self-centered notion that youth is morally superior to maturity, that idealism always trumps experience. The media -- especially a movie industry with a new ratings system that released filmmakers from the restrictions of the old Production Code -- pandered to the Baby Boomers' self-congratulatory moral smugness. This film is rife with such pandering. Rock Hudson's lecherous/murderous teacher is represented as the only cool adult in the film, as much for his "youthful" sense of style as for his unorthodox ideas about educating horny teenagers. The only other remotely hip adult is Telly Savalas' detective, who himself develops a grudging admiration for the murderer. The Angie Dickinson character is an overly earnest teacher who has to be "enlightened" by Hudson into seducing Hudson's sexually frustrated protégé (John David Carson). The other adult characters are essentially movie idiots (Keenan Wynn and Roddy McDowall are particularly offensive -- I hope they were paid well), while the hip, turned-on teens in the film protest the Vietnam war and lecture their elders on sexual freedom and openness.

I have nothing against good old-fashioned lust, but even in 1971 I saw the impropriety of Hudson's character having sex with his female students (which he excuses as a way to enhance their psychological well-being). That sort of sexual power-mongering is bad enough, but then the controlling bastard must kill certain sexual partners (and others) who might expose his escapades. Rather hypocritical, isn't it? Advocating sexual license but afraid of having his own licentiousness exposed? (His wife, played by the lovely Barbara Leigh, is strangely passive in all this mess. It's never clear if she's totally clueless or remarkably tolerant of her husband's extramarital liaisons, though the film's ending points toward the latter.) After the Hudson character's demise(?), the newly unfrustrated protégé (who earlier is dismayed by revelations of his mentor's murderous behavior) adopts the same style of sexual duplicity for himself. (He attains symbolic hipness by abandoning his wimpy Vespa for a studlier motorcycle.) Perhaps the filmmakers were trying to argue that the new sexual mores of the '60s were a sham -- just the old, inescapable sexual hypocrisy coated with hip psychobabble  but that point itself is objectionable, and the film's own hypocrisy emphasizes just how disgusting the old sexual double standard really was (and is).

One would think that this film was a rather blatant fantasy by that unapologetic libertine, Roger Vadim. But the film was written and produced by that celebrated intergalactic moralist, Gene Roddenberry, for God'sake! This guy gives dirty old men a bad name, and the film makes me yearn for the mindless but honest lasciviousness of hardcore porn. Comedy, even black comedy, still needs a moral center, something we can laugh with rather than just laugh at. This film glories in its amorality and mocks what the many progressive Boomers of the 60s, for all our ignorance and pretense, were trying to accomplish (and to some extent, have achieved) in making society's attitudes about sex more humane.


I remember watching this at the drive in movie, it was second on the bill and it was the first really "adult" movie I had ever seen, thus it stayed with me. Rock Hudson, who we all know now was gay, is the lusty, straight high school coach and guidance counselor at a high school where teenage girls turn up nude, murdered. Angie Dickinson looked beautiful as the lusty teacher who deflowers a young student. The movie has it's good moments,and the ending was somewhat surprising, but overall it left me feeling "dirty" for lack of a better way of describing it. The female students were frankly all sluts, wanting to screw Rock Hudson in his office at the high school and the scene with Angie Dickinson and the young man in the bathtub was frankly embarrassing. I have never considered myself a prude and at 14 or 15 I certainly wasn't, but this movie was just creepy for the way the students all wanted to do nothing but have sex with their older, married teachers. Yuck!!!!!!


"Combat Shock" stars Ricky Giovinazzo as Frankie Dunlan,a depressed Vietnam veteran living a meaningless life in Staten Island.With no money,no job and little hope,Frankie takes to the streets,shocked by the depravity of the neighborhood-of childhood friends turned junkies and prostitutes.The viewer watches Frankie meander through his bleak existence before a bloody and nihilistic finale that is not for the squeamish."Combat Shock" is a deeply disturbing film that left me stunned.The cast of unknowns is fine and the direction is well-handled.The film is filled with incredibly dirty and depressing atmosphere of urban decay and the gore effects are disgustingly real."Combat Shock" deals with the mental anguish one veteran goes through once back home.It's not as disturbing as "Cannibal Holocaust" or "Man Behind the Sun",but it's close.Check it out.10 out of 10.