If GO director Doug Liman collaborated with Pedro Almodovar on a remake of that film, you might just about get something equal to NOT LOVE JUST FRENZY. Set in the mid-'90's omnisexual club scene in Madrid, there's plenty of sex, drugs, betrayal, death and dance beats to go around. Those not used to movies with subtitles probably won't have the wherewithal to stick with this one, but veteran viewers of such fare as WHAT HAVE I DONE TO DESERVE THIS?, WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN and AMOR DE HOMBRE know that the eventual rewards are worth it.

Blond, hedonistic nymphomaniac bartender/actress Monica (Caetana Guillen Cuervo), sweet- natured Yeye (Ingrid Rubio) and vivacious activist Maria (Beatriz Santiago) are three flatmates looking for a fourth to let a spare room at their place, to stretch the rent with some extra dinero. Unfortunately, friendships and romantic entanglements will be the main things stretched past the breaking point, when Monica decides to rent the room to Max (Nancho Novo), Yeye's sexy, shady ex-boyfriend who has a secret he won't let get out, and a certain appendage he can't seem to keep...in his pants.

Keeping the pot at a roiling boil are subplots including Alberto (Gustavo Salmeron), Yeye's gay "play husband" who is having an affair with a married bisexual, Alex (Javier Albala) and a mad infatuation with straight physique model, David (Liberto Rabal); Luis (Javier Manrique), a psychotic cop masquerading as a secret admirer of Maria's who has his own agenda involving Max, and Maria's own secret crush, Carlos (Juan Diego Botto), her cute student pal who lives right next door, and confides in her about his latest romantic involvements, clueless to how she really feels about him.

Just for spice, add a lesbian madam named Cristina (Bibi Andersen) who also has Max's number; a coterie of drag queens so over-the-top they make the girls from PRISCILLA, QUEEN OF THE DESERT seem downright genteel; sex that just avoids becoming triple X-rated porn, prodigious drug use, more sex and a murder investigation that will turn everyone's lives even more topsy-turvy...if that's possible.

This arch spoof of all the sex-drug-and-drama gay genre films seems at times like a mess, but the writing is tight enough that you can follow all the plot twists, without getting as lost as some of the characters seem to be in their own little worlds. And though the DVD box trumpets the presence of Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz, you better not blink if you don't want to miss them. Not that it matters - the cast is engaging throughout, and in the midst of all the "Frenzy" of the title are some gorgeous and striking scenes, such as Monica flouncing down a busy city street in French Renaissance attire and sunglasses, and David in a nude rooftop scene (don't ask - just watch for it.)

Overall, one of the better non-Almodovar entries to the canon of gay-themed foreign films from the last decade.


This movie is terribly bad. I don't know how this ¿script? passed any kind of selection. I must say that it is under the level of the actors in the movie, and, believe me, that's not easy. It's really sad to see that not one, but ¡three! directors, with all their talent together, are unable to overcome the level of shame.

In the beginning, Nancho Novo's faces, remembering some sexual-criminal scene, already promises the absurd and bad-done development of the rest of the movie. The mixture of Madrid's "movida" and the deep feelings and the thriller atmosphere is really pathetic. The personal stories of the characters have been seen thousand times before, although the directors show them as very interesting and full of deep passion. The violent ending adds more absurd stupidity to the plot.

Anyway, it's not a surprise to see how bad this film is. It is part of a sort of genre of Spanish bad movies, trying to imitate Almodovar's model, believing that filming sex, gay ambient, drugs and frenetic passions makes a movie a good movie. Unfortunately for these three directors, if you have a stupid story nothing works. And I guess that's what they will always have in their (I hope short) careers.


There is a lot of sadness in this film artfully rendered, and a measure of grace too, which feels hard-earned. The writer-director Thom Fitzgerald, at the NY screening, said that the reality he encountered while researching it was probably even worse than he could bear to show. (Amazingly, the renowned Dr. David Ho was also present at the screening, which added another hopeful touch: HIV/AIDS progress is being made but, as the film shows, funding and education are still lacking in poor countries, and attitudes are often still messed up in rich ones.) There is a didactic purpose in 3 Needles, but fortunately Fitzgerald has the storytelling skills and the director's talent to bear the load. You may not buy everything in it, and you may be angry at him for some of the tough images and choices, but the human emotion and pain, the weakness and strength are gripping and undeniable. And many of the secondary observations, about characters and place, feel sharp and well-observed.

The prologue is a perfect example of a warm, vibrant image giving way to a shocking one: Teenage boys of an African tribe cover their bodies with a pale paste, un-self-consciously helping each other, though they are naked. It is an ancient ritual and they appear eager, joking around but purposeful. Later they are to be circumcised, the passageway into becoming men. The image of the knife, for reasons which will be instantly clear, is uniquely jolting. Surprisingly the movie manages to sustain the intensity, asking questions while shining a light on different corners of the world.

The acting and cinematography are uniformly good, the latter especially considering the low budget. Most of the South Africans were non-actors, including tribespeople who had never even seen a film. Fitzgerald called this version "the director's cut" since his Canadian distributor previously showed a much different version which cut several scenes, and jumbled the stories together. This might have made sense in another movie, but with the stories on 3 different continents, this version, with each played discretely, seemed much better. Also, Fitzgerald said he shot a 4th scenario which he cut, probably for length. See this on the big screen and it will very likely stay with you.


3 NEEDLES as written and directed by Thom Fitzgerald (The Hanging Garden, The Wild Dogs, Blood Moon, Beefcake) is a powerful statement about the insidious spread of AIDS throughout the world, taking us to places we the viewers would rarely visit from the news media emphasis on the disease. The film is three stories in three countries told in tandem not unlike the technique so successfully used in BABEL, CRASH, and TRAFFIC. Employing cinematography of enormous talent and a cast of terrific actors, Fitzgerald manages to share his stories with such sensitivity that every viewer will feel involved in the tragedy that is rotting away our globe.

The film opens with a ceremony in Africa (supposedly South Africa) where young boys undergo ritualistic circumcision, learn the fighting tricks of manhood, and move into society as Men. This single portion of the film is intensely beautiful in its non-voyeuristic observation of an ages old ritual, so beautiful to watch that it calls for Pause/Replay! From Africa we go to rural China where Jin Ping (Lucy Liu, speaking Mandarin only) is the very pregnant force who runs an underground blood bank which while serving the donors with some cash also contaminates the population with HIV virus (we discover that Jin Ling is HIV positive, carrying a baby at risk, and supporting her HIV husband). The trials she encounters in her shady business are nothing to the moment of personal anguish when she delivers her baby without assistance in a cornfield.

Moving to Canada we meet Denys (Shawn Ashmore), a porn star who is HIV positive but steals blood from his ill father for his frequent 'tests' required by the porn director to hide his positive status in order to continue making porn movies to support his family. His mother Olive (Stockard Channing) discovers his status, hears about AIDS patients' ability to cash in on life insurance early, and infects herself so that she can take advantage of the early insurance cash to provide a life of comfort in the small time they both now have for herself and her now fatherless son.

And we return to South Africa where three nuns - Sister Clara (Chloë Sevigny), Sister Hilde Francis (Olympia Dukakis) and Sister Mary John (Sandra Oh) - set up a clinic to treat the villagers, finding only that acts of tremendous self-sacrifice can stave off the spread of the gore of AIDS. The Men we have watched in the beginning of the film walk into the life that faces a world crippled by HIV and the contrast is powerful.

3 NEEDLES' cinematographer Tom Harting deserves awards for the sheer magnificence of his images he captures on film, not only the majestic vistas of Africa and China but also the intimate moments such as Jin Ping's birthing. The musical score by Christophe Beck and Trevor Morris manages to find the atmosphere of each of the three stations of the cross Fitzgerald examines. The acting cast, both the gifted well-known actors as well as the smaller roles by unknowns in each location, is magnificent. If the film has a flaw it is in the unfortunate arena of avoiding preaching: watching and hearing the events is so very powerful that words of summation feel superficial and even insulting. But that is a small flaw in a film of wonder. Highly recommended. Grady Harp


This is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time - but also one of the most harrowing and thought provoking. There are images from the film that will stay with me for a very long time. Uncomfortable viewing at times, but rewarding and some excellent and Oscar worthy performances - although I doubt it will puncture the consciousness of the Oscar voting brigade. the cast is wonderful, and the performances all the more powerful for being understated. The cinematography is amazing at times - and there are certain images that will stick with you long after you leave the movie. But be warned - this is not a light movie, it moves you to despair, challenges you, and in my own experience gives you nightmares. having said all that I am glad I saw it and would recommend it to you all


I was fortunate to see the director's cut of this film at the DC Filmfest. The audience was privileged to have the director, Thom Fitzgerald, make an unannounced visit and stay for questions after wards.

3 Needles is three separate stories how AIDS spread in China, Africa, and the United States.

I found it a bit confusing to begin with some African scenes and then jump to the China story. I think this was to allow the narrator to introduce and end the movie. The narrator was Olympia Dukakis and she had a part in the African story.

Lucy Liu led an outstanding cast in the story of its spread to China. Until this film, I did not realize that China had an AIDS epidemic. The movie shows how AIDS was spread through blood collection stations throughout rural China. China's vast rural population was perfect for exploitation. They were isolated; they needed the money; it took a long time to associate entire villages dying with the helpful blood collector.

The US story is somewhat familiar to us. A male porn star spreads it knowingly due to his greed. What makes this story unique is how Stockard Channing handles the discovery that her son is not only a porn star, but is dying. She educates herself on the disease and discovers a breed of vultures buying up the insurance policies of AIDS victims (viaticum companies) hedging their bets that purchasing a $2M policy for $1M will double their investment. She sets out to give herself AIDS and sell her insurance policy. What she does with the proceeds is the controversial part.

The African story reveals the director's Roman Catholic roots. One wishes that Sandra Oh had a larger part in this story. Chloe Sevigny is wonderful as a dedicated nun who chooses to submit to the local plantation owner (sorry, don't remember the African name for plantation) in order to get revenge / punishment on an adult male who has raped a young young virginal child in order to rid himself of the AIDS virus. As with the others, this story shows the many facets of this disease and the difficulty in assigning blame for its spread or for how people handle it.

Each of the stories has an odd element of humor to it. At times, I found it inappropriate for the subject, but perhaps that is also the message: we can laugh despite the hardships. I saw the director's cut, I wonder if this will be removed / downplayed in the cut that's released.

The cinematography is beautiful and sweeping in both Asia and Africa. The US scenes manage to show a true grit feeling.

Kudos to the director for assembling a really outstanding set of actors. Outstanding performances from Lucy Liu, the father-daughter team from the China story and Ian Roberts (the plantation owner).


In China, the unscrupulous pregnant smuggler of blood Jin Ping (Lucy Liu) infects an entire rural village in a province exploring the poor and ignorant people. The poverty associated to the ignorance and greed doom the whole population to the tragic disease for US$ 5.00 per liter of blood.

In Canada, the second rate porn actor Denys (Shawn Ashmore) hides from his director and colleagues that he is HIV positive using the blood of his sick father for the tests required by the production. When his father dies, his mother Olive (Stockard Channing) discovers his former profession and that her son has AIDS. She hires a US$ 2,000,000.00 life insurance; then she infects herself and sells and cashes part of her insurance in advance to have a comfortable life with her son.

In Africa, the nuns Sister Clara (Chloë Sevigny), Sister Hilde Francis (Olympia Dukakis) and Sister Mary John (Sandra Oh) come to a small mission to convert the villagers in the Catholicism. Sister Clara believes their mission is also to help the locals and she self-sacrifices her dignity to get financial support for the community.

"3 Needles" is a well-intentioned movie that discloses three different views of dissemination of AIDS in three panels. In the first one, poverty associated to the ignorance and greed sentences the dwellers of a village; in the second, selfishness and need of money infects at least eight actors and actresses of the porn industry; in the last one, ignorance and lack of resources doom the poor people to the disease. The screenplay is a little confused and flawed, and some of the questions in the Message Board prove it. The first story is tragic and with an ironic conclusion when the dweller questions that he sold his blood for US$ 5.00 and he paid US$ 10.00 for the test. The second one is of a tremendous dark humor, and I do not know whether the intention of the director / writer Thom Fitzgerald is to criticize the earlier cash of life insurance. The last one has an unnecessary tragedy in the end. Nevertheless "3 Needles" is a good, honest and powerful movie about an unpleasant theme with top-notch acting of the cast. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Unidos Pelo Sangue" ("Tied by the Blood")


I just saw this film at the Calgary Film Festival and I loved it. I love the work of Thom Fitzgerald (Hanging Garden). AIDS is well known as a global epidemic, but it is not getting the media attention that it once did in the 80s and 90s. It is left to filmmakers to put a human face to the daily toll caused by this epidemic.

3 Needles puts a very human face on the fears and insecurities that cause people to risk their humanity, morality and their lives, to get past the lies that they have to deal with. This film shows very different cases and reactions by people from the first world and third world, facing an unjust world and trying to do their best to get by.

I'm somewhat in awe of how gentle the film is, given the death, despair and horrible acts that are occurring all around the central characters. I love the balance of life affirmation--there are 2 births paralleling 2 deaths. There are charitable acts and kindness from unexpected places. There is clear love for family and friends.

Stockard Channing is brilliant in this role, Cloe Sevigny and Shawn Ashmore are very good, Lucy Liu's character is so real that you feel like you're really in remote parts of China with her and that most people in her place would do the same things.

Please go see this film. You'll be glad you did, and perhaps you'll come away with an understanding of the complexities of the AIDS epidemic and why existing support methods are failing to stem the tide of this situation.


Did you know they had AIDS in China? It must be a closely guarded secret. However, in the first of three stories on the disease, we see Lucy Liu as a blood smuggler who buys blood for $5.00 a pint. In the process, a whole village becomes infected. It is a sad tale punctuated by her delivery of her baby alone in a field.

It then moves to Canada where a porn actor (Shawn Ashmore) steals blood from his father to hide his infection. After one of the required tests, the technician comes on the set to tell him his blood test shows that he has been dead for some time. He rushes home to find that his father was dead when he drew the blood. His mother (Stockard Channing) comes up with a solution to their problems that is quite original, and probably only possible in Canada.

The final segment involves some nuns in Africa. Olympia Dukakis, Sandra Oh, and Chloë Sevigny are sent to save souls before AIDS takes them to purgatory. The opening segment of the movie really didn't make any sense until now. It fits into this segment. I wonder why they didn't put it here. Maybe they didn't want to distract from Sevigny's naughty nun bit.

Sevigny is a novice that sees her mission as more than saving souls; she also tries to save lives. She involves the other nuns and they swipe money from the collection plate, but she goes way further. The plantation owner (Ian Roberts) wants tit for tat to help her. We did get to see her tit, and he got the tat more than once. Is that what God wanted her to do? Is saving lives just as important as saving souls, and is some sin allowed for the greater good? The cinematography in the film was incredible, and the music was also excellent.


Here's something new, a film about HIV/AIDS that doesn't use the words "HIV" or "AIDS", doesn't have any significant gay content, and doesn't focus on sexual transmission - or indeed on sexual relationships; the sex in the movie is mainly about exploitation of one kind or another. Blood and blood products feature prominently in each of the three segments, and non-sexual relationships between the sexes (mother and son, nuns and doctors).

Since they are completely unrelated, except for that, the decision to untangle them was a wise one, and the version I saw, with a prologue flashing forward to the middle of the third segment, makes the three complicated plot lines about as clear as they could be. In each, greed and poverty feature strongly. The life of the shanty-dwellers in the third segment is particularly grim. I agree that the message (as old as Oedipus - those who try to avert disaster can bring it on) is spelled out, but when it's Olympia Dukakis' gentle voice doing it, I don't mind.

Much of the scenery is beautiful but the initiation ritual at the opening is not, no matter how "age old" - it's leg-crossingly painful. With circumcision being increasingly touted as a way to prevent HIV transmission, it's useful to be reminded that it can also facilitate it.

The film has some smiles, no laughs and plenty of irony, like The Green Shop, where hypodermic needles are recycled.

"3 Needles" will have you thinking about the issues it raises - and does not resolve - long after it is over.


Here is another film of which I knew nothing that - thanks to the recommendation of my video service - has brought two intensely entertaining and thought-provoking hours to my life. It comprises three tales of the worldwide AIDS epidemic each unique and impressive.

The first takes place in rural China where Lucy Liu plays Jin Ping - a woman who is a black-marketeer of blood products. She and her partners prey upon residents of small villages who are basically ignorant of the complexities and dangers involved in donating blood. The villagers are poor, and the promise of much-needed funds is the bait used by Jin Ping. A farmer who is unable to give blood uses his daughter as the donor in order to make a better life for his family. The farmer and his daughter are played by two extraordinary Chinese actors who bring humor and - in the end - great pathos to their parts. In this first of the three parts the film shows ruin and death brought to an entire village through greed and apathy.

The second tale narrower in scope but is the most fascinating of the three. It takes place in French-Canada and revolves around a porn star and his family. Stockard Channing plays the mother in what is one of the strangest and most fascinating roles I have ever seen. To tell more would spoil the film for anyone who might view it, but I can assure you that Channing has accomplished something special in her portrayal of a mother's reaction to the illness of her son.

The third story in the film stars Olympia Dukakis, Chloë Sevigny, and Sandra Oh as nuns who travel to Africa to assist at a clinic. They become involved in various ways with the workers and the large agricultural company for which most of the local villagers work. In this third tale the scenery is so beautiful and impressive that it is almost beyond comprehension. The viewer is struck that within all of this natural beauty, lurks a deadly disease destroying the population.

In most films in which the driving theme is the destructiveness of AIDS, you would expect to see at least some characters who are gay men. There is not one gay person in this film. That very fact enhances the film's powerful message that this epidemic is not one confined to a small segment of society but to the world's civilization as a whole. If you wish to observe disease, religion, avarice, politics, love, hate and still be thoroughly entertained, I recommend 3 Needles.


Hi there, my first set of comments here...

i just saw this movie at the Pusan Int'l Film Fest in Korea. got the tickets knowing nothing about the movie but its settings. sounded interesting at least, and since i'm Canadian, thought i would catch a movie from home...

as the credits started rolling i was pleasantly surprised at how many names i knew attached to this film! and the drama starts early and really never lets down...

this is a powerful film, both dramatically and aesthetically. a bit too "parental" in its narration -- i would like to have had the scenes speak for themselves a bit more -- but what happens in the film is memorable to say the least. a touch of lyricism mixed with very heavy, in-your-face visuals. you will squirm in scenes (ie. Lucy Liu giving birth alone on the side of a hill in a field... or the Chinese soldiers ripping apart bags of blood with their boots and rifles ... the body of an important character left in the mud...), but the squirming is part of the movie's overall experience. gotta love a movie that provides you with an "experience"! it packs a whallop, didactically speaking, and the story keeps you interested to the very end. i can't think of another movie that handles the theme of AIDS so well, so artistically. the actors should all get kudos for their work. keep an eye on this director my friends... he's someone to watch...


The film is a international collection of how we as humans keep f'ing ourselves over literally and figuratively when it comes to the AIDS epidemic. Yeah, we keep screwing up ... but somehow there is hope in the end, if only we listen to Olympia Dukasis' character at the end.

The first story is in China, where a blood-for-money scheme turns a village slowly into a death camp, and gives us one of the best ironic dark humor lines in the film. The second is in Canada, where a porn star infection comes to a peaceful conclusion ... almost. And the third shows us that there is hope even though those who provide it -- especially one nun -- has to turn her back on God to save his children.

Some say the film is too long, and its and international film shot in, as I said, China, Canada, and with the nun segment, Africa. Maybe it does get too long. Maybe too preachy. But maybe you need to hear these stories so you don't become a victim ... of AIDS or of being a judge without knowing the facts. (To the best of my recollection, all the sex involved is hetero; and the needle sharing is in a poor village between non-drug users.) If nothing else, listen to the sister's closing statement. Love it or hate it, think about it.


I thought this film would be good but after seeing it i was disappointed. I don't think it was educational in any way (people know about aids) and was full full of the usual superior western comments (teaching the rest of the world a lesson kind of stuff) and there really didn't seem to be any point to the film!, if it had just been a good story with the nice scenery and cinematography it would have been much better!.

The acting was pretty good but i'm basing my rating on the film as whole and not on the individual elements.

But don't take my word for it, watch it and judge for yourself.


The beginning of the film looked promising and the cinematography was very well done but it all got a bit complicated and meaningless. Sorry, lost interest and couldn't watch the end..

I didn't quite get the message as it was so mixed in with nothingness. Unfortunately the plot was lost on me. I only watched the movie after reading someone else's comments which were really good so I guess were all different and the film may appeal to some viewers but certainly did nothing for me.

Perhaps if I had suffered this to the end there may have been a connection with all three areas but I didn't feel compelled to continue with my viewing.


An EXCELLENT film that touched on every emotion I have within, An American Opera effected me deeply. It opened my eyes to the magnitude the crisis Hurricane Katrina had on animals. This film showed how some can be so compassionate, while others respond in a different way, by being so heartless and thinking that by shooting these innocent animals, the problem will go away. This film was so very informative and REAL, not masked by actors, it showed real people from all over, coming together to make a difference in the lives of animals during a crisis. It showed me that I, myself can made a difference. Thank you, Tom McPhee, for opening my eyes and making me realize that something CAN be done. Because of your film, I will be volunteering my time for disaster relief.


I loved this film! It presents a side of the Katrina disaster that wasn't covered as well as it could've been, and serves as a warning that this sort of thing could happen again if we're not proactive and vigilant.

Tom McPhee presents this sensitive subject matter in a very non-sensational way, covering all the bases as he does so. His interviews with those who lost pets, those who helped return lost pets and those who stood in their way were both professional and unbiased.

I thoroughly enjoyed the music used in the film. Not only is it engaging, it helps tell the story. Now when I hear a song from the movie, I'm immediately reminded of the scene in which it was heard.

More than anything else, this wonderful film is a call to action for all pet owners to make sure that they're prepared to include the four-legged, slithery or feathered members of their families in their emergency preparedness plans, and to make sure their communities are planning for pets, too.

"An American Opera" is a film I can wholeheartedly recommend to anyone who cares about animals and their welfare. It has it's intense moments, so parents will want to screen it before showing it to younger children. It's a great movie, and an important historical document.


That was the most emotional roller coaster I have been on.

It was beautifully illustrated, the musical selections fitting, the stories were gut-wrenching. It is truth. I was disgusted by the lack of coordination, yet proud of the many rescue volunteers and the lengths they went to continue to rescue these helpless & sometimes trapped animals.

Tom McPhee unearthed facts I had not known, and exposed them for us... and I became infuriated. I can only hope karma will catch up to them sometime soon.

McPhee covered all sides fairly, giving all a chance to state & justify their strategies .... I absolutely LOVED it. Yet, I remain sickened by the truth it exposes as well. As I believe we have not learned, politics and power will still rule the day for those in higher places than the average rescuer.

I believe as Martin Luther King believed and once said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter". Mr. McPhee has not, and will not remain silent. He teaches us without bias. We need only listen. He simply presents truth, and allows us make our own determinations. Remain silent, or learn.

McPhee created a beautiful documentation of history that many are not aware, but need to be. Every animal lover needs to know this story. And be prepared. Be ready to speak up, to act, to learn, and not repeat mistakes.

I am so happy he created this picture, but I am sure it had it's emotional toll. And I am sure those who lived it, feel it today... as if it were yesterday...

To Mr. Tom McPhee I simply say THANK you for creating this and sharing it with the world. I only hope EVERYONE will see this, and know the truth. Because they need to know the truth. And react. Then act. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes. We cannot call ourselves a humane nation and continue down the same path.

In conclusion I simply state: 2 thumbs & 4 paws up!! ~ Kristy S.


Salman Rushdie once said, "If you want to give voice to the voiceless, you've got to find a language." Tom McPhee gives that voice to the animals, who suffered during Hurricane Katrina, in his film, "An American Opera." The film opens with an homage to "Apocalypse Now"; an aid worker looks up at a revolving fan and the camera overlooks the flooded areas of Louisiana. The next eighty-seven minutes takes you on an unforgettable journey through the salvaged areas of New Orleans and the stores of heroism and shock concerning man's best friend.

"An American Opera" is not just a documentary; it is a juxtaposition of different documentaries blended into one. The editing of interviews between the animal rescue workers and members of the American Humane Association mirrors the split screen style used in "Woodstock" and Saul Swimmer's "Concert for Bangladesh." The unflinching eye through the halls of the abandoned St. Bernard's School, in which 33 dogs and cats were killed by the St. Bernard Sheriff's Officers, compares favorably to the shots of Abu Ghraib from Errol Morris's "Standard Operating Procedure."

"An American Opera" is a stunning piece of citizen journalism. Tom McPhee carries on the torch once lit by John Huston during his days as a documentary filmmaker during World War II as he examines a world not so often told by today's 24-hour media circus. Get ready to be shocked and inspired by "An American Opera."


Oh my goodness, I loved this movie. It was real. It was truth. And yes, it was operatic. This is not a typical documentary. It never preached to you, it simply showed you what happened after Katrina and leaves you to decide how to feel. Some people have a problem with movies like that because when people see a documentary, they expect to be schooled in something or preached to. This film doesn't do that.

But it does show the whole spectrum of humanity. You have people doing really awful and really amazing things. As someone in animal rescue, this film hits the nail on the head. You see so many horrible and wonderful things and it is both that keep you going.

Most documentaries that I see look like a 60 Minutes news special or A&E Biography: you see lots of shots of people walking up and away from things while a voice over tells you "the facts." An American Opera is more than facts; it's emotion playing out on screen. Most documentaries hit you in the heart; this film hits you in the gut. An American Opera is not for wimps.

You will cry, laugh, get angry, cheer for the heroes, and most of all, you will leave the theater wanting to do something. This film activates you. You leave the film with a sense of personal pride, a self-call to action: one person cannot change the world by helping one animal, but they can change the world of that animal.

A quick note on the soundtrack: the music in this film is in the vein of Garden State  very earthy, organic, and down-to-earth. My iTunes has grown a lot because of the undiscovered, amazing talent this film brings to the big screen.


Katrina was devastation, pure and simple. The break down in the fabric of New Orleans society was not something that was portrayed through the media. As usual, we see what we are supposed to see...no more, no less. Tom's portrayal of the plight of animals after Katrina was bare-boned and showed us the painful reality of how things really were. We saw only a small piece of the aftermath, I can only imagine what it would be like to see the whole picture. Unless a person has experienced this kind of trauma, they cannot know what toll it takes on the mind and how it changes our perception of things and in that, changes the decisions we make. Tom did a wonderful job producing this film. It was moving and elicited many emotional responses in a very short period of time. People need to see this.


What is the point of this documentary? From a film perspective this was not worthwhile. The film & editing was bad. It seems that much of the film was a forum for someone's favorite iTunes list. Many images are frankly irrelevant to the film. Little continuity. I think the filmmaker is stuck with footage that cannot be redone and somehow threw it all together. I'm amazed that anyone is rallying behind this as a film.

I understand that in a crisis situation such as this, some footage will be choppy, shaky, etc which adds to the experience of the crisis. However, even in the controlled environments - interviews after the fact - the camera shakes, moves in & out unnecessarily, and gives ridiculous close-ups. There was precious little information about any pet rescue. A few statistics thrown in.

Jane Garrison's story is compelling and this should be more about her alone. Sub-lines would be the inter-agency conflicts, the animal murders by law enforcement, and REUNIONS with pets. A fuller investigation of these on film would make it worthwhile.

I think there are many promising story lines that are just dropped. What is in the film does not gel at all to make a documentary. The film ends with some random images from the Barkus pet parade. What connection did this have to anything about the animal rescue, just because it was New Orleans? I'm getting even more angry as I type, thinking how much of a waste this was.


I felt the need to defend this programme after reading the first review written by someone who has never been a fan. Everybody is entitled to an opinion and i understand that Vic & Bob's humour is not for the masses. In fact it tends to be very much a love or hate thing (My mum loved it, my dad hated it!).

I remember the first time this was shown on television. I would have been around 15 years old and it had a huge impact on me. I had always been more into comedy than music like most of my mates and this was not only a new show but a brand new style of comedy, much in the same way that Python paved the way for so many comedians, i reckon BNO or rather Mr Reeves and Mr Mortimer did the same in the nineties. Not that comedy had gone stale during that time, we had some great programmes; Absolutely (the Scottish sketch show, not to be confused with Absolutely Fabulous), The Mary Whitehouse Experience, Fry & Laurie, Harry Enfield and Chums, etc etc. So for BNO to be such a breath of fresh air took some doing! These days you'd be hard pushed to find anything that stood out from the crowd, with the exception of The Office, The Mighty Boosh and Peep Show (with maybe a handful of others). But i can safely say that nothing has made my jaw drop in sheer wonderment in the way Vic & Bob did back then. Yes it was rough around the edges, the props were bad (that was the point) sometimes the timing was off, but you could forgive them anything for that next belly laugh.

They just simply did what they thought was funny. THAT'S it. No statements, no irony, satire or the need for any kind of structure. You saw, you laughed. End of. Visual humour that went way beyond slapstick and into another realm.

From the very first viewing they had me, i was hooked and woe-betide the video recorder if it malfunctioned during the show. Vic Reeves' Big Night Out is one of my fondest memories from my teenage years and throughout their careers Jim & Bob have remained two of my most favourite people in the world!

(Although i have to admit, i think the Smell Of series was ever so slightly better :P )


I consider Vic Reeves Big Night to be one of the finest comedy shows ever to have adorned British television. It was brilliantly funny, incredibly inventive and superbly performed. It is comedy in the true sense, in that the objects or names that Vic mentions (eg when he's looking at what the man with the stick has written on his helmet) are funny in themselves. Reeves and Mortimer had an unerring ability to know exactly what was funny. So one type of vegetable is funny, another is not. The mere mention of one celebrity's name is funny, another is not. This is observational comedy in its purest form, and a sign of witty, perceptive minds. Get the DVD of this and keep it close. They don't make many like this.


OK, before watching this show, it is important that you are aware that the next 30 minutes is going to be full or randomness, silliness, and general surrealism. For example, Vic's assistant Les, is scared of chives, but smiles in delight at spirit levels. A pair of talking carpets, who's catchphrases are "You lying get", that could get tiresome, but they manage to keep it fresh by adding surreal quotes in between. If I were compare this to anything, I would say it would be like the 'Trout Mask Replica' by Captain Beefheart of the Television. At first you'll be thinking "What the hell is this?", after a while, you'll love it. If you enjoy this, be sure to get 'The Smell of Reeves and Mortimer', it is funnier, and is more of a sketch show, but equally surreal.


To me, this is/was the best television programme ever - simple as.

There's something about BNO that has stuck with me since I first saw it in the early nineties. It was cheaply made, a minimal cast, yet for that it was honest and ridiculously hilarious. It has a natural funniness that I've just not seen on anything since - it just didn't try too hard, it was just that funny.

But as a couple of reviewers have said here, either you get it or you don't - there is absolutely no middle ground. You won't 'half' like it. It is truly silly - but intelligent at the same time. Part of its humour is the way lots of different comedy concepts are seamlessly included - verbosity, falling over, sarcasm - it works on many levels. But there you go - I'm over-analysing.

Just watch it; if you don't find it funny, you've lost nothing. But if you do, you might have just discovered what you'll see as the funniest thing ever.


Full of memorable quotes like "you wouldn't let it lie!!" and complete and utter randomness, I love this. I don't remember it first time round, but recently bought it on DVD and I think it's hilarious. It's not as refined as some of their later stuff, but I like the rawness about it. Worth a watch, if only to decide if you love it or hate it. Marmitey methinks. It's good to see where Reeves and Mortimer started out, plus there are others who appear who went onto fame, such as Charlie Higson. One of my favourites is the character Graham Lister, played by Bob, who was Vic's nemesis, appearing on Novelty Island (a kind of talent contest) each week with another hilarious failure of an act, and addressing Vic with complete scorn as "Reeves". Another regular, the Man with the Stick ("What's on the end of the stick, Vic?") is amusing, as we learn what he's learnt that week by what's drawn on his paper helmet. Definitely worth a viewing.


- But certainly to mine, at least.

This first TV pairing of Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer was a Friday night must-see for me. I found it quite addictive. The sketches were preposterous - with items like 'novelty island', 'Justice Nutmeg' and 'the man with the stick' - the props looked like the result of 30 minutes improvisation with the contents of a local skip, whilst the dialogue was quick, slapstick, and largely surreal. Lines like: 'Now this is the time of day when I like to put a plum under a viper', could only have been uttered by Vic.

Played-out in the old fashioned music hall style, Vic Reeves held the commanding role as MC whilst Bob Mortimer did a turn as side-kick. Then there was 'Les' a mute, aberrant assistant turned comic prop, with shaved head and laboratory coat, who seemed to have co-ordination issues. Other characters came and went as required.

I've had guests who stared at the programme with a blank stupefaction and then turn to me as if in belated discovery that I were deranged. Nothing would persuade them that it was hilarious.

Well; for me it was a Friday night staple that they never really bettered even with their later and more extravagantly funded follow-ups. 'Shooting Stars' continues their penchant for tacky props and prizes, and its recent reappearance as a new series is testament to the duo's popularity.

Individually they have very little to offer, but as a team they're a scream.


OK, here's the spoiler : All of the writing and acting.

I am a great fan of English comedies (ie. Python, Fall & Rise of Reginald Perrin, Alexei Sayle's Stuff, Alan Partridge, Knowing Me, Knowing You, Saxondale, Fawlty Towers, The Games)(okay, last one's Aussie) - sitcoms, sketch comedy, satire, whatever - and was extremely disappointed as this was supposedly an influential series, but is in fact a load of nonsensical dreck. Badly delivered, childish, corny and extremely dated jokes - although I hesitate to call them jokes. Yeah, I get that it's supposed to be a parody of earlier television variety shows, but parodies are also supposed to be funny. This isn't.

Don't waste your time, it's about as funny as cancer.

By the way, Simon Day appears briefly a few times and is billed as Tommy Cockles, but he is not doing the (very funny) Tommy Cockles character from the Fast Show.


"Vic Reeves Big Night Out" is stupid humour for the very juvenile mind. There is more intelligent humour to be found in a children's day care center than in this show.

I like surreal humour as much as the next person, but I swear I could feel my brain cells dying off while viewing this waste of time.

Fortunately, Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer redeemed themselves later with the enjoyable and stimulating Randall and Hopkirk(Deceased).

If you have not yet purchased this show on DVD, keep "Vic Reeves Big Night Out" out of your DVD collection. If this is what a Big Night Out is like, I'd rather stay in.


Retribution may look a little bit dated compared to up-to-date films, with it's cheesy 80's feel, but that was just the sign of the times.Dawn of the Dead by Romero, is just the same in the out-dated department-but anyone who's seen it will agree it's still one of the best Zombie films to date! Retribution still has an un-beatable original story-line. It is a little known, rare classic. If you enjoy the horror genre, and have not yet seen this classic- try and get a copy. It is an absolute must see for ALL horror enthusiasts.Well recommended. Everyone i have shown it to was well impressed.It's a treat-especially with todays appalling excuses for Horror films. I really do highly rate and recommend this film, and so does everyone i know.


Surprisingly good!

A plain, somewhat overweight, nerdy-looking man stands on the edge of the roof of the Don Hotel (no "tiny bubbles" jokes in the movie, though). From the masks on the people below, we can tell it's Halloween. He jumps, and the monsters below look sad. We see the tunnel of light, but a burnt or mutated face appears as emergency responders try to revive him.

In the hospital, he's rehabilitated, though he now walks with a cane and limp. The people in the Don Hotel, a somewhat strange bunch, are sympathetic, as is a neighborhood hooker he's friendly with. However, he has horrible vivid nightmares involving murder. Additionally, while he paints blood appears out of nowhere, and does at other times too and isn't just a hallucination it seems.

In the nightmares, he visits people and brutally kills them with some sort of telepathic abilities while his eyes glow. In the morning, the deaths are in the paper. Though there aren't a lot of murders, the scenes are pretty strong. One begins with some particularly graphic (possibly real) shots of a slaughterhouse. The way a man dies there is quite memorable.

While a Catholic priest works at the hospital, and the main character visits a church, the one attempt at exorcism is done by a "Dr. Rasta"! Perhaps more surprisingly, he's a friend of the hooker.


BY FATE TWO MEN ARE BORN ON THE SAME DAY. BY DESTINY THEY DIE AT EXACTLY THE SAME MOMENT BY A SUPERNATURAL ACT, THEY BOTH COME BACK TO LIFE. ONE GOOD ONE EVIL ONE BODY. George Miller is a timid, gentle man whose failure as an artist drives him to attempt suicide by leaping off the roof of his seedy hotel. Vito Minelli is a small time crook whose treachery results in his brutal execution at the hands of his underworld associates.

Being a true horror fan i have come to know whats the difference between a good horror film and a bad one, and this is a great horror film. A real rare gem of a film. Probably one of the best horror films i have seen and delivers frights and gore at the barrel full. A pretty rare film now and just as hard to get hold of but i recommend anyone who enjoys this genre as much as me to do what you can to get hold of a copy.


"Retribution" is odd and unusual 80's horror, but it's often very scary and you got to admire how director Guy Magar breaks with all the dreadful clichés and stereotypes that marked the decade. The filming locations are hideous, the violence is raw & explicit and the characters are extremely anti-Hollywood. Especially our lead actor Dennis Lipscomb is someone who you'd normally NEVER see as the protagonist in a 80's horror slasher. His character George Miller is an introvert, unattractive and rather pathetic looking loner who lives in a sleazy hotel room and paints macabre stuff for a living. That's something else than the high school prom queen who's stalked by a ridiculously masked killer for being too popular, isn't it? The movie opens with George ready to take a dive from the hotel roof top to end his sad life with suicide. He survives the attempt because, at the exact same moment, his body becomes possessed by the furious spirit of a murdered gambler. When George returns home from the clinic, everyone is very caring and concerned (he even scores with a warm-hearted prostitute that's way out of his league!), yet the homicidal spirit homing inside him makes him commit repulsive murders when he sleeps. "Retribution" is a brave little horror movie, albeit slightly overlong and sometimes focusing too much on the human interest aspects. The special effects, however, are great and the murders are incredibly gory and sadistic! The ghost inside creepy George Miller is obviously VERY upset, as he crushes people's heads with elevators, processes bodies with frozen animal carcasses and slices stomachs. Quite a few sequences in this film definitely aren't for the squeamish! The flashback scene near the end, enlightening us about the gambler's death, is quite shocking and you immediately understand why he's so angry! If I were George, I would even have volunteered to complete the murder cycle! The music and camera-work are also very effective and there are excellent supportive roles for Hoyt Axton ("Gremlins"), Suzanne Snyder ("Killer Klowns from Outer Space") and Leslie Wing ("the Dungeonmaster"). Recommended to fans of solid B-horror.


i watched this film years ago, and was pleasantly surprised how effectively scary it was because i'd never heard of it. i can remember the lead character with scary eyes at the end, and a sexy suzanne snyder as prostitute i think. i would love to watch this movie again, just to see if it has the same effect now as it did then. i doubt it though as most of these eighty's films usually age badly, it would be good to know if i can own this film on DVD. this film if i remember rightly does not deserve to to b washed up and never seen again like a lot of the mindless tosh being produced at the time. there was a few little gems that slipped through the net that are half decent additions to the genre. I'm sure this is one of them.


I'm old enough to remember Battle of the Planets -liked the show, hated the robot. Only recently have I begun watching all the Gatchaman episodes from ADV films (only volume 18 left to see) and I am loving them. I watch them with my 10 year old nephew, and he thinks they're great too, which goes to show that the limitations of 35 year old animation don't matter if the characters and stories are good. There's humour, over-the-top zaniness (WHO created the uniforms of the Galactor commanders?), LOTS of action, and lots of angst. Joe is my favourite character (swoon), but my nephew likes Jinpei, the kid. Now, if only Gatchaman II, the second series, were available subbed or dubbed...


Extremely effective idea gets an admirable treatment, 70s style, in this seemingly lost film that concerns a group of strangers "selected" by computer to enter a hi-tech bomb shelter. There's no explanation given as to when this is supposed to be taking place, but that doesn't matter, we can clearly tell that this is the 1970s, due to the groovy "space-age" decor and the fact that several of the cast members have a sleazy 70s porno look to them, particularly Alex Cord (which sounds like a porno name anyway!).

We never see the characters in their real lives, we meet them as they are flown via helicopter to a remote desert location. They are shuttled into an elevator which carries them nearly two miles into the ground to a futuristic underground shelter. Well, at least it's what was considered futuristic in 1974. Some of the stuff in there is so kitschy it's funny, like the big rolling readout clock that changes numbers like the speedometer on a car.

An annoying female guide makes pre-programmed announcements on their giant video screen, her voice electronically altered for maximum futurism and irritation. She explains that the entire planet has been wiped out by nuclear weapons and that they are part of an effort to keep mankind alive. They, along with other shelters of people in other locations, will survive the holocaust and restart society once the nuclear threat is over. What they don't predict is that thousands of vampire bats from a nearby cave will find their way into the shelter and kill the survivors in a series of vicious attacks.

The film has a reputation for being gory, which it really is not; the special effects are surprisingly good, although dated, with the bats mostly being realized by blue-screen composites. Still, there are several shots of the bats swarming out of small openings that really get under your skin.

The other dated aspects of the film (like the aforementioned decor, hairstyles, and clothing) threaten to drag it into the realm of the absurd, too. However, the movie remains extremely grim and effective in spite of all that. Bradford Dillman is great as a duplicitous scientist involved with the survival project, harboring a secret that turns the other shelter members against him. Once the threat of the bats is realized, the humans realize they must stick together in order to deal with the problem, and the expected dissent and infighting threatens to turn them all into bat food.

The one thing that keeps the movie from being better is the overall silliness of the situation, particularly the death scenes. We can't help but wonder how anybody could be killed by vampire bats, especially when we view the corpses of the victims, which look like a series of bad shaving accidents. What exactly is causing these people to die? A dozen or so bites on the skin? How deep could those wounds be? Although bats evoke a sense of revulsion, and they're damn ugly, they're not life-threatening. If the violence were more shocking, it could have made the dread a little more palpable.

However, since "Chosen Survivors" isn't only about bat attacks, there's more to hold our interest. The claustrophobic environment of the shelter is extremely disturbing in some places, and one of the best sequences involves an escape attempt where one of the characters climbs precariously up the mile-plus-long elevator shaft. It's a nightmarish set piece, the idea of which alone is enough to give me the shudders.

As a matter of fact, I am wondering if the print I saw wasn't edited in some way. It seems like some of the character development was missing; for instance, some of the characters paired up into couples, and I never saw one scene that established any of them hooking up. This didn't bother me though, it made the movie even more bizarre and dreamlike, somewhat European.

If you can find a copy of "Chosen Survivors" I would say it's definitely worth the effort. The film seems to have slipped away into oblivion, but unofficial copies are floating around out there, apparently struck from 16mm prints of the film that still exist. Watching it may bring back the delicious dread of the scary 70s movies for you.


One of the most successful (and equally irritating) TV-formats of recent years is Big Brother, in which a bunch of people, complete strangers to each other, are put together in an isolated location and become forced to get along and accomplish ordeals together. Apparently this concept isn't so new or innovating at all, as the obscure (although less obscure now, with its recent release on DVD) and still criminally underrated 70's gem "Chosen Survivors" thrives on a similar premise. Only this movie is at least a gazillion times better than and Big Brother edition you ever saw, because it has genuine suspense, a formidable cast of characters, plot twists you actually don't see coming and  not to forget  thousands of bloodthirsty bats! Now, THAT is what they should do in the TV-series of Big Brother: unleash an army of aggressive and rabid bats on the attention-horny participants, ha! Ayway, "Chosen Survivors" opens with atmospheric images of the New Mexican desert and army helicopters approaching a secret underground lair. Eleven eminent persons, who achieved great things is different fields (sports, science, literature, business) awake to hear they are the chosen survivors. On the earth's surface, a nuclear war has wiped out all humanity and they are to remain underground until it is safe again to re-populate the planet. But of course, the survivors don't get along as they should, some them behave overly hostile and suspicious and the hi-tech government designed lair isn't exactly bat-proof. The film offers a splendid combination of terrific character drawing, for psychological tension, and actual nail-bitingly tense situation with the bat attacks and the quest for freedom. H.B. Cross' script is excellent and Sutton Roley, usually a director of TV series episodes, does an amazing job providing the film with a genuine apocalyptic feeling. The acting performances are top-notch, with notably exceptional roles for Jackie Cooper as the arrogant Mr. Couzins and Bradford Dillman as the calm behavior analyst. Highly recommended Sci-Fi gem.


How's this for a really inspired and effective handy-dandy sci-fi/horror combo premise: Let's take your basic randomly selected motley assortment of everyday folks gathered together in a deep, isolated, self-contained underground nuclear fall-out shelter so they can survive an impending end-of-the-world holocaust tale and embellish on this standard situation with a borrowing from the then hip killer-animals-run-amuck trend by having a horde of vicious, relentless, chattering vampire bats with a taste for human blood attack the understandably terrified bunch at regular bloodcurdling intervals. Sounds like a pretty desperately reaching "high concept" effort, right? Well, that brusque blow-off assumption is wrong. Dead wrong.

Under episodic TV show vet Sutton Roley's taut, capable direction the admittedly threadbare story works surprisingly well, resulting in a genuinely scary, creepy and suspenseful nail-biter. The neatly varied cast helps a lot; they fill out their stock roles with commendable conviction. Former child actor Jackie Cooper portrays a cross, feet-of-clay rich jerk grumbler with stand-out sliminess. Constantly reliable B-pic perennials Richard Jaeckel (who later had a fatal run-in with a killer bear in "Grizzly" and got offed by a pack of wild dogs in "Day of the Animals") and Alex Cord (the latter bears a passing resemblance to tough guy thesp extraordinaire William Smith here) make for properly stalwart heroes. The always composed and elegant Diana Muldaur brings a welcome touch of class to the tense, grisly proceedings. Future "Hill Street Blues" regular Barbara Babcock is a lovely damsel in distress. A bespectacled Bradford Dillman (who went on to get stung to death by killer bees in "The Swarm" and had his face nibbled on by carnivorous fish in "Piranha") nerds it up nicely as a duplicitous dweeby scientist. Chronically unsung character actors Pedro Armendariz, Jr. and Lincoln Kilpatrick contribute solid performances as an eminently expendable decent dude and a gallant, rugged Olympic athlete, respectively. The sequence where Kilpatrick tries to climb out of the subterranean shelter on a rope is both gripping and nerve-wracking. The bat attacks are almost unbearably frightening and ferocious. The claustrophobic set design, Gabriel Torres' cramped, closed-in cinematography, Fred Karlin's jazzy, spooky score, the unremittingly eerie tone, and the bleakly ironic ending all add considerably to the gut-wrenching tension. And those nasty screeching bats are truly horrifying little suckers!


Selected intellectual minds, and important folks deemed special for forwarding the human race once a thermonuclear war is to rage across the globe, find themselves fighting for their very lives underground in their fancy governmentally (supposedly)secure bomb shelter well equipped with all the resources they could possibly need as vampire bats, which rest within a cavernous area secret to them, enter and attack when the group is most vulnerable. With a female assigned, via taped recording, guiding their day to day activities, offering a planned regimen for them to survive on, the group find themselves at odds with Raymond Couzins, a loudmouth who often stirs up bad vibes with his constant talk of conspiracy theories, and drunken insults. Yet, perhaps there is some truth to what he's saying as Dr. Peter Macomber(Bradford Dillman)holds a secret which will only add to the worsening mental state of the group as a whole. Realizing that they were merely part of an experiment on how a group could function together in an isolated situation, had such a catastrophic event taken place, the group hope that a signal had reached Washington, for Couzins, in a bumbling mishap that damages important electrical equipment resulting in the death of a member, leaves them with few alternatives left. Major Gordon Ellis(Richard Jaeckel)comes up with a method that could be quite dangerous..someone could climb an elevator shaft 17oo feet which could open a door to the outside providing a chance for contacting help. Macomber, despite the group's hostile feelings towards he and his government which put them in their difficult crisis, comes up with an idea on how to kill the bats, through electrocution by suckering them with blood as bait.

I must say that this was a pleasant form of entertainment. Sure, the special effects are rather inferior to today's modern technical improvements, but they didn't seem to bother me all that much because I found the cast so much fun to watch, and the premise was quite enjoyable. It's essentially mixes the always-reliable "animals attack" premise with the theme of nuclear war and how mankind could deal with such a thing. Perfectly capping these elements with a government conspiracy plot yielding terrified characters in search of an exit. Perfectly 70's carrying the sensibilities of the time, with a cast of familiar faces. I thought Dillman has a startlingly good scene where he admits to who he really is and the hoax that has put them all in grave danger..I think Dillman realistically displays the emotional weight his character is bearing in both coming clean with his confession while showing that he believed that the experiment was for the betterment of mankind. I thoroughly enjoyed Cooper as the antagonist, and Jaeckel is a delight as the sincere army man, burdened with keeping the underground shelter under operation despite a series of set-backs that make that nearly impossible. I also loved this confrontation between the accusing Couzins claiming Ellis was perhaps behind a conspiracy to keep them in the shelter..Jaeckel and Cooper produce some fireworks. Some performances are overwrought, as often was the case for Made-for-television movies with character actors, but I think the situation stressing and depressing those caught between a rock and a hard place, warranted such heightened emotions. I think Woody's elevator shaft climb was quite suspenseful..it sure had me biting my nails. I do think the story provides some food for thought, and is a perfect time capsule of what was on the minds of the country at that time.


The world as we know it, is about to end. Total Thermonuclear Destruction: 4 billion casualties, 168 survivors, 12 hi-tech underground facilities spread across the USA at a depth of 1.758ft, one located in the New Mexico desert inhabited by 11 unsuspecting citizens on government command with their sole purpose the survival of the human race. But our group of chosen survivors will soon have something else to worry about than the lethal radiation levels above their heads: Desmodus Rotundus, commonly known as the vampire bat.

CHOSEN SURVIVORS is one nifty 70's post-nuke paranoia-thriller. The opening-scene already looks promising: 11 sedated citizens are flown in by helicopter over the ominous desert landscape, accompanied on the tunes of a tense brass score. In slow-motion they are shoved into an elevator and when it starts to go all the way down, the opening-credits come on and slow-motion shots of the elevator rattling and shaking continue. Great stuff! Once inside the facility, the survivors learn about their faith.

The characters are all well drawn-out, each of them having an expertise in a certain field (science, sports, writing,). They'll all have to get along and work together in order to survive, but needless to say tensions arise and conflicts occur. All that is pretty entertaining already, but the real fun starts when they discover a vampire bat inside the facility. They realize that a whole horde of hungry killer-bats is lurking inside the caves surrounding the facility. And paranoia turns into survival. Psychologically, the characters are also well thought-out. Naturally, there's one guy you love to hate that eventually does something very stupid, but even his character changes throughout the movie. So, all-in-all CHOSEN SURVIVORS is pretty unpredictable when it comes to who'll survive and who won't, if any.

The set-design, of course, looks dated but nevertheless was a well-constructed concept for those days. The bat attacks are staged in a decent fashion. Good thing is that they actually used a lot of real bats in certain scenes, instead of going for the obvious fake ones. The blue-screen effects are obvious in certain scenes, but always effective. Aside from the survival-horror-element with the bats, CHOSEN SURVIVORS is a bit more in the sci-fi/thriller vein of other 70's paranoia/conspiracy movies like, for instance, CAPRICORN ONE. Only this time with nobody being hunted down, but the whole group being trapped deep below ground. As to be expected, the facility isn't all that big (limited budget, limited sets), but the location is put to good use.

With the look and feel being obsolete, CHOSEN SURVIVORS actually could inspire a decent remake, in my opinion. Just replace the global nuclear devastation angle with that of the ever-so-popular killer-virus one, put the whole concept in capable hands with a decent budget for a skilled crew and up-to-date special effects supported by a good cast, et voilà, we should have a remake that's far more decent than the uninspired crap they keep cranking out nowadays. No need to change the script even, because it already contains a decent twist around the middle part, which in today's suspense cinema has become a must. Actually, they might want to make the bats virus-infected this time, because how in this film they manage to kill off adults in a couple of minutes with a dozen bites or so, is beyond me. Other than this shortcoming, the script successfully blends genres. A typical 70's accomplishment on the one hand, and ahead of its time on the other. Check this one out. It's a gem.


I saw this movie in the theaters when it came out, which would have made me only seven years old! Wow. Some have described it as a horror film. I don't think it was that gory, but some people might think it so. It certainly was S-C-A-R-Y with the swarming bats. Not scary enough to give a seven year old nightmares, but certainly thrilling and enough to keep most viewers on the edge of their seat! Maybe a Sci-Fi thriller is more accurate.

A bunch of unrelated people (men and women) are drugged, kidnapped, and thrown into a high-tech underground bunker, where they are told via a remote video screen, that they will be held in this stainless steel complex for years, riding out the Apocalypse in a bid to repopulate the Earth.

!!! SPOILER !!!

Actually, this is all a lie. They are the subjects of a manipulative psychological "experiment" where people are the lab rats. But, a monkey wrench is thrown in the works, in the form of RAVENOUS VAMPIRE BATS that eat their way through the walls, attacking the people in the lab complex. Of course, no contact with the outside world is possible, as the complex is sealed and is on a timer lock, which won't open for a month, says the one government spook on site, who knew the whole set-up was a scam. Now, the mission is to escape before the bats kill everyone! Can they do it, or will everyone die in a hail of blood???

SPOILER OVER...

At the time I had not seen every single Twlight Zone episode, so the "twist" actually did blow my little mind. (Twlight Zone used to actually frighten me around that same time as well, whenever I did occasionally catch a rerun of that).

This movie vanished off the face of the Earth for years. But quite recently, I did manage to pick up a (not exactly official) copy of it on DVD! Looking at it again, I was shocked that I remembered so much of it. One thing that surprised me was the woman who appeared on the giant video screen "explaining" the situation was former Los Angeles newscaster Kelly Lange! I had been watching her (and being annoyed by her) on TV since I moved to L.A. in 1989. Diana Muldaur, a favorite from Star Trek (both original series and TNG) is good in this movie as well.

Over the years I would think about this film from time to time, and its unique, claustrophobic atmosphere of doom, and this certainly holds up. Upon further viewing, it really is a cool little flick. The only part I misremembered was the fact that they reveal the "surprise" to the kidnapees about halfway through the film, and I had thought that the deception wasn't revealed until almost the end. A creepy sci-fi horror hybrid that I recommend highly to anyone who can find it!

UPDATE 9/2007: 20th Century Fox is releasing a legitimate DVD of this film just in time for Halloween 2007! Hurrah! I highly recommend this movie, go out and get it! UPDATE: I got the DVD! Nice remastering job, great picture and sound, reasonably low price. No extras, though. Highly recommend the DVD. Great obscure sci-fi movie, lots of nostalgia for me.


Like several previous commentators I'd love this little gem to get an airing on TV. I saw it as a "supporting feature". In 1974 we were in the dying days of "double features" in the UK. I think the "main" feature that day was "Electra Glide in Blue". Anyway, I fondly recall this as a very effective thriller. It certainly conveyed claustrophobia and menace. It would be great to have an opportunity to re-appraise this film.


A wonderful episode that doesn't seem to get the credit it deserves. Brian Aherne does a special job with his role here, and carries the day, but that isn't all there is to this one. The writing was first rate, and I believe this writer (E. Jack Neuman) was a rookie to the Twilight Zone. The twist was not predictable, and was carried out very well by the supporting cast. Also fun was seeing Sydney Pollack when his hair was still dark. Its tempting to say this is not a run-of-the-mill Twilight Zone episode, but actually, none of them were, so I guess my point is that this one stands out for reasons one might not expect, and since I don't want to write any spoilers here, I'll leave it for you to watch and see for yourselves. For me, I'll happily watch this one again, even knowing what the ending is.


An underrated time dislocation episode about an aging stage actor (Brian Aherne) in an unhappy second marriage to a much younger floozey who finds himself extremely nostalgic about his past. His travel back to the past takes unexpected turns, and makes a sharp lesson for him and the viewer. The twenties are stylishly and movingly evoked, with Pippa Scott making one fantastic flapper. An extremely young Sydney Pollack shows up in the present, playing an obnoxious director (there's a stretch!). But the show is Aherne's and he does a wonderful job with it, reminding us of the quality actors this series attracted. Nothing horrifying or scary, but it's one that sticks with you.


This is actually a very human story of an actor who has had acclaim throughout his career, but who has now reached that age where his appearance no longer benefits him. He also has the disadvantage of two things. One is that he quite kind in a bloodthirsty, winner take all society. He is also living in the past. He is still carrying a torch for his wife, who died very young. This is about a man who must confront his past in order to move on. The acting is quite good and the transitions between contemporary time and the past work quite well. We get to see how he can become superior to the dream world he always saw as the model for his life. It's about the reclamation of a life lost.


In what is one of the best episodes of the Twilight Zone that I've seen so far, Brian Aherne stars as Booth Templeton, an aging Broadway play actor unhappy with what his life has become. One day, after witnessing his trophy wife flagrantly galavanting with an attractive lodger half Templeton's age, he beings lamenting about his lost past, and soon finds himself transported back to it.

Anytime I see time travel stories in movies or TV shows, one of the most interesting things to me is how the actual time travel is presented. In this case, it's not presented at all, Templeton literally walks out to the door to go to work, we go to commercial, and when we come back he's dropped off more than 30 years in the past, but this episode still has more layers of meaning than any other episode of the show I've seen so far.

Templeton is understandably shocked to find himself transported into his past, and succumbs to the obvious desire to get alone with his wife who, at the time we had met Templeton at the beginning of the episode, had been dead for many years but remained very much alive in his memories. In one of the show's most interesting scenes, he and his lost wife get into an argument, leading him to tell her he doesn't like what she has become.

What we in the audience know, and Templeton eventually figures out, is that it's not her that has become anything, it is him who has been changed by the decades that have passed since the last time they saw each other. It's an interesting analysis of how people change over the years, both from who they were when they were younger and, unfortunately often, from the person they have chosen as their life partner. We wonder how happy Templeton and this woman would be had she lived.

Watch for Sydney Pollack in an early role as an obnoxious director, of all things, and for Adhere's revelation early in the show of the fact that he has no idea how to tie a necktie. Past and present become confused at the end of the episode, but it's still one that makes you think even more than most other...


Revisiting one's youth and halcyon days was a familiar theme for Rod Serling. The pressures of Hollywood, TV ratings, deadlines etc. were all part of Serling's anathema for Show Business, in general. Although Serling himself didn't write this particular episode (E. Jack Neuman did), this is one after his own heart, as they say. Brian Aherne plays Booth Templeton, an old-time Broadway actor who's reluctant to continue his career now that most of his peers have passed on. After a heated argument with his young director (Sydney Pollack of all people) Templeton enters the Twilight Zone for some first-hand nostalgia. There he meets the long-ago love of his life (Pippa Scott) and many former friends and associates. Of course, everyone is a ghost and after a brief stay in this netherworld, Templeton finds that he is unwanted. He just doesn't belong there....yet. Templeton discovers that his trouble has been that he's living in the past and it's killing him slowly. When he arrives back in the present, he soon has a new appreciation for the "here and now" and is able to begin his career again in earnest.

Veteran actor Aherne is outstanding as Templeton and his performance here is a late career high-water mark for him. Within a few years after the Twilight Zone series ended, Pollack became one of Hollywood's great directors and it's quite ironic that in this episode he actually portrays one. Lately, Pollack has gone back to acting with some good results. As for Pippa Scott, she's the life of the party in this entry and still a working actress today.


Brian Aherne stars as an aging stage actor. He is rich and famous, but very unhappy and tired. Most of this is because he's feeling that life has somehow passed him by--he's a relic of the past. His trophy wife isn't particularly interested in him and he longs for his long dead first wife and his idyllic youth.

When he arrives late for the first rehearsal of his next play, the director (real-life director Sydney Pollack plays this part) is brash and obnoxious--further pushing him to long for the good old days.

Then, suddenly, upon leaving the theater it's now 1927. He looks the same but everyone else is younger. And, to his great surprise, his old friend and wife are alive and full of life. You'd think that this would be everything he'd ever wished for, but Aherne soon learns that you can never go back.

The theme of this episode is living in the moment and while this installment of the series isn't as weird or unpredictable as most, it manages to work well because of the nice leisurely pace that was created by Aherne. He glides slowly and deliberately through his role--instilling it with both class as well as sentimentality that I really liked. Not a great episode but also one well worth seeing.


Or maybe it is the best. Characters are 100% convincing, shooting on location is terrific and the story itself is absolutely thrilling. It is another exploration of human obsession undertaken by Herzog with brilliant (as usual) results. Of course, one may question the technical side of the two solo climbs but here we can completely rely on the expertise of Reinhold Meissner. Unfortunately, it is not likely that this film will be ever appreciated by the mainstream American audience.


I saw this at the Seattle International Film Festival in 1991 and was very impressed. I was so surprised that it wasn't in American cinemas soon after. I now have read about the huge price Werner & his people were asking for it. Sometimes distribution issues can kill a film from being seen, and it is us, the audience who gets cheated.

Perhaps Werner could have toured the film in the same way that Warren Miller does his ski films. Warren never fails to get that $12 to $15 per ticket, and he doesn't have to worry about popcorn sales.

I'd love to see a fresh print of this film released theatrically in 2007 and tour the country. Are you reading this Landmark Theaters?


This movie left me with mixed feelings. The filmography is beautiful but the acting not quite.

The good thing is that it is really a climbing movie, not an action movie wrapped up into a mountain scenery (like Cliffhanger or Vertical Limit). Some of the actors are real (and good) climbers and one gets a glimpse of the climbing ethics (or lack thereof when sponsors come into the field).

The scenario is very loosely based on the story of the first ascent of Cerro Torre, a hard Patagonian peak. Definitely worth seeing if you are into climbing.


Im a mountain climber and love to watch movies about climbing, that stated most movies in this genre usually have really fake seaming climbing scene for example Cliff hanger with S Stalone climbing a huge wall in the Rockies(really Dolomites in Italy) with all the gear but using none of it or the bolt gun?(no such thing). Scream of Stone has plenty of fake stuff to stay in my contrived genre but is way more real, shot in Patigonia with a story by very famous climber (R Messner). There are some very real seaming climbing in this film. For a climbing film this is a ten as a real movie its really a five I gave it a eight as a compromise. All climbers will love this film enjoy


Brad Dourif (Billy in Cukoo's Nest, Hazel in Wise Blood and the voice of Chucky) is hilarious as Fingerless, the other characters are the usual pathetic humanoids struggling with their dreams and weaknesses. The mountain is the obstacle to life's fulfillment, people are dammed to pursue their dreams to their own destruction and only the old woman in the house at the base of the mountain knows what life is all about. Call it documentary fiction with a cameo by Donald Sutherland as the climber's agent. My favorite scene has "Alpinists" on a fake German TV show debating the climbers using some of Herzog's usual crew of character actors to give that Alpine authenticity.

Boy am I glad Herzog finally found a vehicle to display his positive side.


There have been times that Werner Herzog stood for quality films. Is this time long past? To my taste Scream of Stone is a terrible bore: soap-like acting with a cliché deep-voice performance of Sutherland, a cliché thin story based on the cliché opposition of intuitive versus experienced climbers, a failure to attain the cliché excitement of cliffhangers even even when the cliffs are at their steepest. Once more: a terrible bore!


I saw this at the Telluride Film Festival and was impressed by Herzog, but not in a positive way. He's a pompous ass. That doesn't necessarily detract from a movie, but I thought I'd mention it. This film has some absolutely stunning shots (especially of the incredible peak, Cerro Torre), but the human elements are a complete waste of time and film stock. There's actually not much climbing in it.

I liked "Fitzcaraldo" and "Aguire" quite well; check those out instead.


THIS COMMENT MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS : During my junior year in high school, I was excited about a new Incredible Hulk reunion movie to air on NBC in 1989 on a Sunday night. For the most part, I enjoyed the Trial of the Incredible Hulk like I have the other movies and the series, but as a purist fan of the series, I wound up disappointed with this movie because I feel it was the farthest away from the series. The Trial of the Incredible Hulk should have been called, Daredevil, guest starring the Incredible Hulk, since the movie focused way too heavily on its guest star, Matt Murdock alias Dardevil (The Bionic Showdown reunion movie from that same year did the very same thing). Although I was not impressed with Daredevil or the Kingpin, I did enjoy the performances of Rex Smith and John Rhys Davies in those roles.

Another goof was the fact that David Banner had a beard in the first half of the movie, but the beard vanished when he became the Hulk, only to magically reappear when he reverted back to Banner. Even Lou Ferrigno in his Book "My Incredible Life as the Hulk" points this out.

I felt the best Hulkout in the movie was what was ultimately revealed to be David Banner's nightmarish dream of being on trial, aggravated and provoked by the D.A. and Hulking out and going on a rampage. The worst Hulkout was when he wakes up and you don't even see the Hulk, but merely the aftermath of his rampage as he breaks out of jail.

What really bums me out about this movie is the fact that Banner doesn't even Hulkout for the final showdown while Daredevil takes on Wilson Fisk. Even though I'm sure it was great that David Banner accomplished something himself without Hulking out, but hey! That's why we watch this character.

The David Banner /Matt Murdock relationship reminds me of the The Harder They Fall episode of the Hulk. In both shows, Banner is down and depressed at the beginning and meets a positive minded person. But as the story progresses, things get reversed when Banner becomes the positive one and has to get his friend back up from his depression. I see Bill Bixby portraying two David Banners in this movie. The first half, he is a bearded and depressed man who could care less about life and looks like a homeless bum. The other Banner is when he shaves off the beard and remembers his skills as a doctor and helps Matt Murdock back into shape morally and physically.

This movie is enjoyable, but I find it weak in comparison to the other two films.


David is charged with murder and Matt Murdock (aka The Daredevil) is the lawyer who's handling his case. Then the big green dude and the blind justice seeker join forces to fight The Kingpin.

Ahhhhh, if you thought The Incredible Hulk Returns was a bit on the silly side, you won't think that so much after watching this. The Daredevil scenes are just painful to watch. Rex Smith isn't bad as Murdock/Daredevil but he's just too damn silly when he's fighting the good fight. John Rhys Davies is horrible as The Kingpin who here comes off even worse than Daredevil.

What's worst here is that The Hulk plays second fiddle to the blind lawyer, not even appearing in the (overly silly) climax. This was originally an attempt to launch a series for Daredevil and it's obvious why it didn't take off.

Bill Bixby for the first and only time looks disinterested in the proceedings. This movie has "half hearted" written all over it. The Hulk action is unspectacular (apart from one dream sequence) but Ferrigno nevertheless looks great.

I just hope this was something Bixby had to do before venturing into the last installment which ended the Hulk saga on a high note.


I watched The Trial of the Incredible Hulk on TV a while ago and I actually liked it, I've seen it three times now. The film focuses a little more on Matt Murdock and his alter ego Daredevil then David Banner and the Hulk manly because this film was going to start the Daredevil TV show. The film sees David Banner moving from another place again and heads to New York for a place to stay while trying to find a way to stop the transformations, meanwhile a diamond heist is done and two of the thieves go on a train with Banner on, one of them decides to rape the young women on the train and after attacking Daivd he changes and attacks them both then runs off and changes to Banner but the police find him and arrest him thinking he did it. In prison he meets blind lawyer Matt Murdock who tells him that the women Ellie claimed he tried to rape her, David explains that he wants to stay in prison. Matt then goes to Ellie and talks to her and she lies to him then he leaves. One of nurses working for Wilson Fisk also know as the Kingpin is told to kill her and that night when she goes to Daredevil shows up and stops her.

Wilson Fisk then comes up with a plan to kidnap Ellie to lure Daredevil then ambush him and defeat him. He also wants David Banner killed so in prison a sharp object is passed to his cell where the prisoner has to kill him but suddenly he's told that he needs to see someone. David Banner meets the Captain who tells him what's going on then he goes into his cell again. Ellie is soon kidnapped by one of the Kingpin's men, Matt then tells David that he needs to go to trial but after a nightmare of what could happen David changes into the Hulk and escapes. Daredevil then finds David's apartment and asks him to come with him at first he doesn't want to but Daredevil shows him who he really is and they go to his house where he explains to him how he became blind and how he can see sound like a radar. He then asks David to help him find Elley and stop Wilsom Fisk, he's given a possible location by the Captain and goes their where he finds Ellie but also gets ambushed by Kingpin's men and gets beaten up buy suddenly David changes into the Hulk and beats them, then Daredevil sees what happens to David. AFter recovering from his injuries Daredevil and David go to Wilson Fisks tower to rescue Ellie and stop the Kingpin.

The Trial of the Incredible Hulk is a pretty good TV movie that fans of the Hulk, Daredevil and the TV show should enjoy. 10/10


This is essentially a daredevil movie, but I really liked it. It's low budget , but gets the spirit of the comics. I always liked the guy who played Banner (sorry can't remember his name)in the TV series, he was easy to sympathize with. Haven't been able to bring myself to watch the recent daredevil or hulk films. Stan Lee criticized the movie because of daredevils costume and a few other things, but frankly for the budget (and all the early marvel movies were low budget with an oddly 1970's feel),the director and cast have managed very well. As for Fisk/Kingpin being bald, frankly no one could actually look like the giant bald guy portrayed in the comics, also don't remember anyone commenting about gene hackman playing Lex Luther in the superman movies (he is revealed to be wearing a toupee at the end of one movie)


"The Trial of The Incredible Hulk" was not bad at all. Although, like the TV show, there were a few flaws in it. For instance, David Banner(Bill Bixby) has a beard at the beginning. When he "hulks" out, The Hulk(Louis Ferrigno) is clean shaven. At one point on "TIH" cartoon I saw the Hulk with a beard and mustache. Sounds strange from what I saw, but that's how things go in the made for TV movie. At least they got one superhero right. Daredevil(Rex Smith), the blind lawyer/vigilante crime-fighter who stops evil in its tracks. Then there's Wilson Fisk(John Rhys-Davies)AKA "The Kingpin". Of course they can't use that name because this man has hair, The real Kingpin of crime is BALD! He's battled Daredevil in the past, as well as Spiderman, The Hulk will smash him up, easily. Not a worth fiend for the Green Goliath. I liked the part where Daredevil went into the trap that Fisk has sent for him, and The Hulk smashed the little window and took out all the assailants. That was great. This movie is exciting all the way, it could have added more action to it, especially with the jail break scene. And the courtroom scene was great as well, if the sandals Ferrigno wore didn't give him away. Other than that, I enjoyed it very well. Rating 3 out of 5 stars.


Ok...Ok....this movie don't be compared with the great series of 60's and 70's (one the best series based in super-heroes), but it was could better...the plot is confused, in 20 minutes the movie wins a new protagonist...the Daredevil, a Black Daredevil??? where's the red uniform??? Really...nothing in this don't make justice to the original series...nor the presence of Stan Lee in cast.


Some have justly criticized this film for moralizing too much. However I still enjoyed it for the acting (Bogart of course and John Derek as well) and for the intelligent exploration of how much responsibility rests on the individual and how much on society. A note of interest is that Dewey Martin (Nicky's friend Butch) would later play Bogart's brother in The Desperate Hours. I also appreciated character actor Vince Barnett's (The Killers) portrayal as the less than reliable bartender. All in all, a flawed but nevertheless worthwhile film, 7/10.


Bogey is superb as defense attorney with too soft a heart under his tough guy exterior, and Derek is chillingly believable as the cool, young delinquent who thinks nothing of playing his friends for marks. Macready, as the relentless D.A, pulls no punches, and allows for no softness in an indelible performance.

A pioneering movie blazes a trail later imitated but never bested.


Humphrey Bogart stars in this rather uneven courtroom, flashback-dominated drama as a good-hearted defense attorney standing up for a young man (John Derek) accused of shooting a police officer dead while making an escape attempt. As Bogart fights against a persistent prosecuting attorney placed by George Macready, he tells the jury the story of his client's past. How this man accused of murder and facing the death penalty became the man he is, the sort of things he'd gone through, and all the while, trying to prove his innocence. Basically, Bogart spends most of the time trying to create sympathy for his client. Sympathy that the jury and the audience frankly cannot come to terms with.

"Knock on Any Door" is basically a standard courtroom drama picture with an iconic leading man narrating the whole story. It's fairly short, but sort of drawn out at the same time because this whole story of a demented young individual poisoned by the ravages of civilization has been told many times before and in better situations. Filmmakers like Otto Preminger and Sidney Lumet would later go on to prove that when it comes to courtroom dramas, it's better to relate to the killings through word of mouth rather than showing it either as a prologue or a flashback, for it just seems to get in the way and there is far more drama that can be generated by the actors relating to this event none of them have seen.

"Knock on Any Door" is a spotty and very uneven courtroom drama with very little to surprise and even less to move the audience. Even the famous and well-acted final sentencing speech done by Bogart does not strike with the impact that one should expect it to. But do not be confused. I am not bashing "Knock on Any Door". I am just simply saying that it's an underplayed, but nevertheless worthy way of spending exactly one hundred minutes of your time. Humphrey Bogart is great as usual, but the problem is that his character is a frankly uninteresting and two-dimensional defense lawyer. Bogart gives the character some charisma, but the writing just generates a recyclable hero. But do not be misled. I am not panning "Knock on Any Door." It works fine for what it is. But if you want to see Humphrey Bogart in a truly charismatic, well-written role, then rent "Casablanca." And if you want a truly well-realized courtroom drama, then set your sights on "Anatomy of a Murder" (1959) and/or "12 Angry Men" (1957).


***SPOILERS*** Nicholas Ray's first film that's very much like his 1955 classic "Rebel Without a Cause" which deals with a troubled youth where in "Rebel" it's star James Dean, as James Stark, was a troubled and misunderstood teenager. In the movie "Knock on any Door" the young man Nick"Pretty Boy" Romono", John Derek, is a hardened and career criminal. Arrested after a cop was shot and killed outside the 3.80 Club Nick is grabbed by the police together with a score of other persons and charged with the policemen's murder.

Attorney Andrew Morton ,Humphrey Bogart, who handles only property and probate cases goes against his law partners wishes to take up Nick's defense pro bono. Andrew feels that he owes him at least that since he holds himself responsible for the violent life that Nick had chosen years earlier. Six years ago Andrew turned the case of Nick's dad over to his law partner Ed Elkins, Curt Conway. He felt at the time that it was an open and shut case for old man Romono being found innocent. Elkins however blotched it up and caused the old man to be sentenced to a year in prison and died after four months behind bars. With Nick suddenly becoming the family bread-winner he drifted into a life of crime and worked himself up, over those six years, from petty theft to what he's now being accused of, the murder of a law enforcement officer.

Ahead of it's time, even though very dated now, "Knock on any Door" gets into the background of it's accused killer like a scalpel used by a neurosurgeon goes into the brain of his patient. The entire movie goes from Nick's trial to his past, through a series of flashbacks and shows how he got to where is is now; on trial for his life.

Handsome John Derek's first film and he does the best with the part that he has giving a three dimensional, unlike the usual cartoon-like, performance of the ruthless criminal Nick "Pretty Boy" Romono who has a heart of gold under all that barb wire that he covers himself up with. Humphrey Bogart gives his usual high quality performance as the lawyer Abdrew Morton who goes out of his way to try to save the "abused and troubled" young man from a one-way trip to the electric chair.

Very emotional and powerful ending sequence where Andrew gives his closing argument not just about his client's Nick Romono tormented and troubled past,as he pleads for the jury to spare his life, but also for the future. Andrews final summery is in preventing more Nick Romono's from evolving out of the depressed and hopeless crime infested neighborhoods that they come from and grow up in.


"Knock on Any Door" (Columbia 1949), a combination courtroom drama and delinquent youth social statement, was Nicholas Ray's directorial debut. Humphrey Bogart plays lawyer Andrew Morton, one time street tough turned idealistic lawyer. Bogart's independent production company made the film shortly after he broke away from Warner Brothers. Bogart's part was originally intended for Marlon Brando, but Brando withdrew after the death of producer Mark Hellinger.

On the verge of becoming a partner in his big-time law firm, Morton is yanked out of his ivory tower and into the past by the need to defend accused murderer Pretty Boy Romano (John Derek), who he attempted to help when Romano was a petty teenage criminal. This is told in flashbacks with Romano repeating his credo: "live fast, die young, and have a good looking corpse". Probably the first film use of what has become a very tired expression. Morton carries a lot of guilty baggage into the trial. He blames himself for the imprisonment of Romano's father, an event that plunged the family into poverty and led to Romano's life of crime. Through the years he had tried to help Romano who had married a nice girl and attempted to go straight. But setbacks at work returned Romano to crime. Then his pregnant wife's suicide unhinged him and he killed a cop.

The "Knock on Any Door" expression refers to Morton's plea for leniency during the trial, as he blames the conditions in the slums and the affects of poverty for Romano's actions. Stating that behind any door are young men whose lives will be wasted unless they receive guidance and are assisted in becoming productive citizens.

"Knock on Any Door" provides a nice example of the unpredictability inherit in the film making business. A look at screenplay and cast would lead you to expect the film's strengths to be the Bogart-Derek scenes and the courtroom drama, with the romantic background story (told in flashbacks) a glaring weakness.

But the trial scenes which take up a substantial part of the film suffer from the usual procedural inaccuracies and are not particularly effective dramatically. Bogart pretty much plays his Captain Queeg character ("The Caine Mutiny") and spends more time whining than defending. The Bogart-Derek scenes are nothing special and there is no chemistry between the two actors. The narrative actually contradicts the theme of outrage over social inequities. The simplistic conclusions about social justice ring hollow and any sympathetic feelings toward Romano seem misplaced.

The production design is great. When combined with the haunting the black & white photography it makes for one of the best looking examples of the film noir genre.

What ultimately saves the film and actually makes it rather special is the romance between Romano and Emma (Allene Roberts). This unlikely character pairing (imagine James Dean's "Rebel" having a serious relationship with Melanie from "Gone With the Wind") somehow works as Roberts and Derek have a real chemistry together. And she introduces intangibles that are missing from the rest of the production. In addition, the relationship itself introduces a nice irony as it is the pressure to make Emma proud of him and to tangibly demonstrate his love that ultimately leads Romano back to crime.

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


Nick Ray's 3rd film (I believe); his first with Bogey. Bogart is a lawyer and although his part is written a bit hokey, he convinces in the part. Mostly told in a conventional flashback like "A Woman's Secret". Good acting, decent photography. George Macready is excellent as well as the scarred, evil, but ultimately vindicated prosecutor. Though it has some melodrama of the forced variety, it manages to convey a sense of the rough edges around the conventional truth. No real heroes here.