Not since Ed Wood have we seen someone able to pull this feat off. Writing, directing, and producing and being amazingly bad at all of them.

Okay, so this is better than an Ed Wood film but not by a whole lot.

"The Man Next Door" follows the carnage of a Ted Bundy like killer, mainly focused around his game with a young high school senior. She has had mental issues since the death of her parents ten years ago. Since then she has been raised by her Grandfather and step-Grandmother. With his cunning wit and charm mixed with her perceived lack of mental stability and a very hard, stern step-Grandmother he seems to have her in the palm of his hands.

If that sounds like a TV movie it is probably because it should be only I think even the Lifetime movies of the week are above this.

The acting isn't stale, it is decomposing, very slowly before our very eyes. The supposed twist are predictable and expected.

One of the main flaws is the lack of any reason we have to believe our lady heroine has any serious mental issues. There is nothing to even remotely suggest this. I guess we are to just go by faith that she had some real breakdowns back in the day even though it is never seen or mentioned.

There are only two good things about this movie. The director does give us some different camera angles but it doesn't make up for everything else in this movie. Also, it is nice that the cops aren't made out to be complete fools like in most movies.

There are some other things in this movie that have glaring holes but I dare not point them out here in case you are actually wanting to watch this movie.

So, if you're at Hollywood Video and see this one in front of you in the horror section, just repeat this to yourself "Put it down, take a step back, turn to the left and then calmly but promptly walk away." 1 out of 10.


The movie is delicate and the choreography's are amazing. It might not be perfect but many people vote it without any dance knowledge.

I loved to see that she used Brazilian music, which is great. Also the courage of Lisa Niemi to produce this movie with a very low budget deserves a lot of credit. Fortunately I could find it here in Brazil and appreciate it. I hope it gets everywhere so people that loves dance can see a very nice movie that goes a little bit different from the many clichés of struggle beginners.

The scene where they are warm up and the fog starts, really gives us the impression that the entire room is boiling.

It is a pity that we cannot see the complete choreography of Without a Word. That was the only promise that the movie did not accomplished.


I'm sure a lot of dancers saw this and hated it, but this movie is not going to relate to young dancers today. It's a movie for the dancers of the "old school". 20 years ago, when we were coming up through the ranks, it was a lot different than it is now. It's about what it was to be a dancer with a dedication and discipline beyond what people think it means today. And how is can obsess and destroy and how sometimes one can overcome the "demons" for the pure love of dancing.

The story is about the reunion of 3 dancers who are asked to perform a particular work that, for varying reasons, ended their careers.

Lisa Neimi wrote and directed this movie...she is the only director yet who actually knows how to direct a dance film. You are FINALLY able to see the dancing, not just weird fast cuts to keep heads reeling and people's short attention spans. The writing is very good and captures what dancers go through. George de la Pena is still a wonderful dancer and Patrick Swayze is really incredible.

Sorry to all the nay sayers who can't appreciate this movie. I loved it. I thought it was brilliantly filmed and acted...and although some of the dialog may come across as trite, you would have had to live the life of years ago to get it. I'm talking about a time when a person was so dedicated, so disciplined that they would do anything, overcome anything to make their dreams happen and sometimes almost destroying themselves in the process.


Patrick Swayze can be compared to the likes of Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly--he can dance AND act! Many of us who are Patrick,Lisa, and George's "chronological" peers love them for their unbelievable dance ability; but we may hate them for being in such great shape!

How refreshing to see a movie about dance that showed splendid dancing-and lots of it. I'm so tired of movies that just "touch" on dance and delve into the sob-story, high hormonal problems of teen dancers. One of the things I appreciated about this movie was that it was sensual but not sexual. Really, everything is NOT about sex.

My ONLY gripe is some of the language-I'd like to show this movie to some young people who are just starting to dance, because of the focus on FEELING the dance.

I'll wager that many young dancers that show up on unnamed TV shows couldn't keep up with Patrick, Lisa, and George AND do it with the grace and style that the three of them exhibited. Give us more please!


ONE LAST DANCE appears to be a film for dancers, either active or retired, wannabees or romanticists. There is some terrific Brazilian influenced music from Stacy Widelitz that enhances much of the corps dancing and some beautiful moments of cinematography making the most of a bare ballet studio rehearsal hall - both of which add what dreaminess this low budget film has to offer.

Written and directed and produced and acted by Lisa Niemi the story involves the return to the boards by three retired dancers (Lisa Niemi, Patrick Swayze, George de la Pena - all three are dancers in real life) to pay homage to the gifts of a highly regarded yet now dead choreographer. The three left dancing seven years prior to the story for personal reasons, mostly involving lack of confidence and personal issues that affected each tangentially. They return to a company to perform a dance by the dead choreographer and the rest of the slim story is how these out of shape hoofers regain the healing magic of dancing.

The corps of ballet dancers assembled for this film is exceptionally fine for a pickup group: Rasta Thomas, Desmond Richardson, Kathryn Bradney, Tai Jiminez, Bambi Swayze, Jamie Bishton, Stephanie Slater, Heather Thompson, Dwight Rhoden and Yosuke Mino deserve special mention. The scenes of dancing vary depending on the choreography of each of four artists - Alonzo King, Dwight Rhoden, Patsy Swayze, and Doug Varone. But in the end to be less than a documentary about the rigors and rewards of dancing there must be a well-acted story based on a sensitive script and that is where the film is shaky and a bit self indulgent. Swayze, Niemi, de la Pena take the roles as far as they go, but in the end the story is much ado about very little.

Yet there is some gorgeous dance work well filmed that will satisfy even the most particular critic. The DVD added features include some insights into the difficulty and final rewards of bringing ONE LAST DANCE to the screen, and in these comments there is more story than that found in the script. Grady Harp


Patrick, Lisa, and George are simply amazing. If you love anything to do with dancing, you MUST see this movie. The cast is brilliant, the dancing is magical. Words cannot express the beauty, chemistry of this movie. There are movies and then there are brilliant movies and to me in my opinion, this is a brilliant movie. It captivated my attention, I felt emotion through the dancing and acting. Wonderful. The storyline is well put together and the actors have such wonderful chemistry together. This is not a movie where people just dance, it is what they love. You can feel and see the passion in what they are doing. Its one thing to act but its another to have passion in your acting and dancing. I highly recommend this movie.


"One Last Dance" is another one of those movies whose bad word of mouth will puzzle a lot of viewers. While the major subplot has been done a hundred times before (frequently better), the music and dance are superb. Further, while Lisa Niemi (Mrs. Patrick Swayze) is a pretty inept actress, her camera setups superbly capture the dance. Besides, "One Last Dance" boasts one superb performance, that of George De La Pena ("Max"). With this movie, Lisa Niemi, for better or worse, clearly establishes herself as both the brains and drive behind Patrick Swayze.

Hopefully, "One Last Dance" will usher in a whole series of dance films, both comedies and dramas; and one could certainly do much worse than the dance team of Swayze and Niemi.

I give "One Last Dance" a "7".


It's a pity!

That this movie has come and gone without any fan fare.

It is a beautiful dance movie with wonderful haunting music and moves.

The acting is sometimes kind of hammy and out of place. You can tell that the leading lady is a very gentle lady and that yelling screaming are not her style. The scenes where she is overly emotional are false.

It is such a treat for the over the hill gang to see the Masters dance with such wild abandon.

Overall, it is a dance movie and it honors the mature dancers.

It is both flawed and wonderful.

I will recommend it to family and friends. Rent it and watch it!


Any negative comments about this movie and only come from a teenage Friday night action movie buff or someone who knows nothing about dance. I won't rave about how good it is because you'll discover that yourself one you see the DVD. It could be the supreme dance movie. The choreography and dancing is the best I've seen in fifty years of 'dance' movies. Patrick Swayze, his wife Lisa Niem, George De La Pena are supposed to be over-the-hill dancers, but in real life...they are far from it. All three, plus a brilliant ensemble dance to perfection. If you're a dancer or love movies about dancers, this is a definite must-see! Ten stars for sure!


I watch One Last Dance quite often since I purchased it. I get emotional when I watch the dance because it is so beautiful. I watch Patrick Swayze quite often and I am overwhelmed as to what all he can do. I think he is a very talented individual His wife is very talented, too. I am so glad they decided to put One Last Dance on the market because I have been trying to purchase it for quite a long time.The dancers in the film are very good, too. The story line is very emotional for me, too. I recommend this DVD to everyone I talk with about purchasing DVD's. I enjoy hearing Patrick sing--of course, I enjoy Patrick no matter what he does. The more I watch One Last Dance, the more I want to watch it. "Max" does an A-One Performance. I recommend everyone to get this One Last Dance.


I am a novice dancer but this film left me speechless. It was awesome to watch the dancing and for me to think that both Lisa and Patrick were in their early 50's when this was shot, is amazing to me. They were beautiful in the dancing as were the other dancers. What inspired me to return to dancing was the scene with the seniors doing ballet. It showed to a non dancer that it is never to late to follow your heart and maybe take up a dream you had as a youngster. Choreography was great, I enjoyed watching to process and dedication required to get the show done. This film touches the soul, if not then no film can. The story is good but the dancing is awesome. Its a shame that the film did not get picked up my a major studio I think they really lost out. Great job , well worth buying this movie.


This is one of the WORST movies I have seen in years! The acting was AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL and the story was BAD. There was no chemistry between the characters at all. I didn't see any real dancing until the very end. There was only "marking" or interpretive crap which looked like aerobics throughout the whole movie. I kept wondering if Patrick Swayze and his wife were too old for the stamina real dancing entails so they just "marked" the dances throughout until the very end. I suppose the "one last dance" was to be the big finale at the end but it didn't work. POORLY POORLY written - are you kidding me with this crap?? Left me feeling nothing and showed me that Lisa Neimi has no talent for writing or acting. I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with such a film. Give it up !!


Though the storyline was slow at some points the dancing at the end with Patrick Swayze and his wife was just amazing. You could see the love and trust between the two as they danced. It brought tears to my eyes. The final dance between the three main characters just had me spellbound and had my mouth just gaping throughout the scene. I never realized the hard work that dancers go through and they deserve credit for sticking with such a difficult occupation and the training they go through. For anyone that loves music and dancing this would be an excellent movie to see. I always knew that Patrick Swayze could dance but,this was so revealing as to how well he does,even after all the injuries that he has been through. Perseverance pays off.


This is a movie about 3 persons. One is a woman who behaves as if she was neurotic and had some kind of bipolar mental disease. The very sad truth is that she is just childish and extremely boring. There is a man who basically has nothing to say, at all; and another one who has quite an irritating smile and a magical knee.

They tend to get mad at each other, but it s OK, they are reconciled each 5 minutes.

They dance too. We have to take into account that it is the way dancers express their very inner feelings and frustrations. So, they do everything by dancing, and everything is very deep.

The dog what quite a good actor.


I have to agree that this is a dancer's movie ... one can feel the aches, the sweat, the soul and the spirit. But it is not only for dancers; it is for anyone who truly loves dance. It provides insights so deep that no person could ever watch another 'dance movie' in the same way again; this one film - 'One Last Dance' - so far surpasses, outclasses, every other dance film made that it makes them all look pathetic. (Other than 'A Chorus Line', which until I saw 'One Last Dance' was my choice as standing apart from all other dance films.)

The dancers ...

What can one say about Patrick Swayze other than that he s sublime!!! He will, without doubt, live forever; he is the spirit of dance.

George De La Pena - magnificent! Lisa Niemi ably completes the trio - and does so beautifully.

I really loved this movie, and will watch it again, and again, and again.


This could have been a great movie about dancers growing old, or older. Both Swayze and De La Pena were wonderful dancers in their prime but to be only 7 years away from professional dancing as stated in this film is frankly, a bit ridiculous when it is obviously many more years than that - more like 20. There is certainly a lot of pain in a dancer's life from growing older and no longer being capable of dancing the way you once could. There are some very accurate statements made in the film relating to this. The choreography is somewhat boring. Just a lot of lyrical steps, well executed by the young dancers, but lacking any meaning. Just meaningless steps on one level, saying nothing.


As someone who has been dancing all her life and is now a dance teacher and a writer for a dance magazine, I must say that this movie SUCKED!!!! What a joke!! Doug Varone and Desmond Richardson, two incredibly respected artists, what are you DOING involved in this crap?? Patrick Swayze and the woman are so unbelievably over the top, their acting is just ridiculous. And the dancing isn't even good, the choreography is hysterically bad, and the cinematography leaves you unable to even see the movement.

If you are a dancer, get your dancer friends together, get wasted and have a great laugh with this unbelievable joke of a movie. Especially if you are anti- a lot of contemporary modern crap that's out there right now, you'll die laughing.


I enjoyed One Last Dance based on the play Without A Word, which is a perfect description for this independent drama - a celebration of contemporary dance in America. Independent film is huge today. Lucky for us! Here, so much is communicated without a word; dance is central, the plot, not sacrificed but secondary. This film lingers without languishing, it draws you in. Emotionally charged, it captivates - truly a thing of artistic beauty! See this film if you love to watch dance. See it if you dance. See it if you want to feel the movement, the heartbeat, the spirit of a dancer. It is a love story. The most delightful unexpectedly tender moments for me were between parent and child. Kudos to the Director, and don't pass up the insightful commentary on the DVD!


This is an intense work which focuses on the immense amount of strain and stress that professional dancers must undergo on a daily basis. In this case, the three main characters were unable to cope with the pressure and left the company. Seven years later, the company's tyrranical founder has died and the remaining staff recruit the former trio to premier the work which broke their dancing careers. In the process of reviving the dance, each of the three are forced to confront the psychological, interpersonal and intrapersonal issues which have plagued them for the last seven years.Unlike many other "dance" movies in which the casts are actors who have been given a few ballet lessons, the cast of this film are real dancers. The choreography is beautiful ( in fact, I watch the opening sequence multiple times in a row) and the music is absolutely amazing, ranging from classical to neoclassical to rap.


This new Miss Marple series had me excited. But soon after watching the first episode, excitement turned quickly to disappointment and boredom.

I tried so hard to like this series because Miss Marple had always interested me. Whether they played her for laughs or dead serious, the Brits usually did a good job. Not now.

The problem is that this series tries to be both cute and serious. Too many known older (and probably out of work) actors try to elbow each other out of scenes by overacting. Hey....that's not a problem because the plot does not exist. It just seems to me that this is a showcase for the parade of actors doing their skits.

Jane Seymour, looking garish, is bumped off quicker than you can say "DUD." Everyone parades through with characters that aren't developed enough for you to know where they truly fit in this so-called mystery. They throw in comical sub-plots of family interactions and at one time I didn't know who was part of the family and who was the hired help. The ending is laughable. But I wasn't laughing....I was asleep.

One person who gave this high marks and criticized those of us who don't, said get out a "G AND T" (gin and tonic) and watch this show. Obviously he needed to get soused to find this series appealing.

I agree. Only booze can help.


Not only was this NOT originally a Miss Marple novel, it's populated with the most unsympathetic bunch of characters in the history of miscasting. There are scarcely any characters here that we can bring ourselves to care one whit about, and the only ones that elicit any sympathy are soon eliminated or defiled, in the new tradition of the current Christie "adaptors." There were some inspired bits of casting: Jane Seymour as the ill-fated, hard-as-nails matriarch; Alison Steadman as Kirsten, the faithful maid (Yes, Shirley Valentine's gal-pal is now playing a middle-aged Swedish maid!), and pop star Lisa Stansfield as Mary, the ONLY sympathetic offspring. She alone gives her role any gravitas at all; the other characters (particularly the female offspring) have clearly trained for their roles by watching crappy American reality TV shows. I particularly disliked Hester, a whiny daddy's girl who's revealed to have had a fling with sister Mary's husband--and still manages to treat HIM like the bad guy, as if it didn't take TWO to dance that tango. Father Leo is a fumbly, mumbly, mamby-pamby idiot with no spine who can't even bring himself to stand by his fiancé and show faith when doubt is cast on her. (Whoops, that was a spoiler. Oh well, there ain't much to spoil.) All in all, only Steadman and Stansfield (and, initially, Seymour) are worth watching. The rest fail miserably, and unfortunately, cause the story to collapse. Don't bother with this--read the book instead.


I don't mind the McKewan Marple stories - they don't try to emulate the almost perfect Joan Hickson ones (which are very true to the books). I don't even mind messing with the plot as long as it is done well, this story was not written as a Marple mystery but they managed to insert her quite well, *spoiler warning* the one thing that I can't understand is why was Gwenda killed? This plot twist just doesn't make sense, Kirsten had managed to get the whole household suspicious of her, so much so that her fiancé had asked her to leave the house, so why kill her? That makes the suspicion fall back on someone else in the house whereas if she had left they could have all blamed her. I think it was this that ruined it most for me. I don't mind making changes if they make sense but this one didn't. The original book gives much more build up to the character of Rachel and the resentment felt toward her by her adopted children but it is not unusual for film versions to fail in this. All in all this is probably the worst of the new Marples that I have seen which is a shame as I like a lot of the actors in it. I would recommend The moving finger or The body in the library over this one.


I've seen this entire series and while some are quite good, some are not. "Ordeal by Innocence" falls into the badly done category. With so many talented actors, beginning with McEwan, this should have been a very watchable and enjoyable entry. But the script was dreadful. There was hardly any character development and a rush to close the unbelievable storyline. The powers behind this one strictly were focused on giving the actors more camera time, and there were a slew of them. But the ending just left me cold. All this silly family entwining. It was good to see Jane Seymour again, even if it was a short amount of time.

Note: I LOVED the comment from one person here who said if we didn't like it, we could NOT watch. But he or she watched with a big "G & T" (GIN and tonic)....LOL!! I'd have to be smashed too.


Whether readers today are "sharper" or not, with these new Marples it's not a matter of reading "between the lines," because in all too many cases the lines have been totally rewritten! Dame Agatha would not have approved of having her work trashed by modern-day scriptwriters. Rewriting her stories (and solutions!), changing the characters, etc.: it's abomination. This new Miss Marple was in her own way as absurd a creation as Margaret Rutherford's version (which at least was not meant to be taken seriously). No one who respects Christie's work would approve of these films. I won't comment on her grandson, except to say that unfortunately not all descendants live up to their forebears.


While the lead actress is fine, the rewrites are terrible. Terrible. The story line changes. Political preferences or social concepts are introduced because, I GUESS, they can. Agatha Christie's writing apparently isn't good enough! Most of these stories can be dramatized very close to the original and still be very, very good for today. It simply has gone downhill fast in this iteration of the Miss Marple series.

I have written PBS and explained my disapproval and they simply tell me that new ideas are refreshing. Makes me think PBS needs new people.

Since so many people on this site and others have voiced how bad it is you would think it would be heard by PBS and others. Of course, in a world where you live or die by the number of viewers, such as in commercial TV, it would be heard. Not necessarily taken off the air because i don't know its ratings. But, to say it again, the rewrites of the stories a done with a chain saw and without regard for the original. They are instead written, it appears, to satisfy some political/social concepts of the owners of the stories.


This movie is mostly engaging, and I think they do a good job of including Miss Marple into a non-Marple story. Unlike some other movies in the series, the plot remains mostly logical without any unnecessary weird twists.

There are good performances by both the actress who played Gwenda and the actor who played Dr. Calgary. I found their sleuthing together under Miss Marple's guidance enjoyable to watch. They also did a good job of inventing the linking of Gwenda with Miss Marple. I was disappointed the writers felt the need to have that second murder, with excessive gore to a sympathetic character. I still don't see why the murderer felt the need to kill her. It turned the movie into a real downer for me. It would have worked better if Gwenda was thrown in jail and Miss Marple and Dr. Calgary became determined to prove her innocence.

But overall, I did enjoy the movie for Geraldine McEwan as Miss Marple, and the more fun and light-hearted first half.


I watched "Ordeal by Innocence" for the first time last night on PBS. Again, a group of scriptwriters, who think they can do better than Agatha Christie, have slaughtered another one of her books. Again, the "mystery" does not engage the watcher because the characters are not developed enough to show any remotely interesting drama. Again, the title is misleading from the start because this is not Agatha Christie's mystery as she wrote it and it's unrecognizable to the book. While I wouldn't have a problem with some changes and even looked forward to this series in the beginning, it's just a dreadful mess.

As I've watched this Miss Marple series unfold, I've notice that they've made Miss Marple more frail, more feeble, more twittering and twinkling as time goes by. This is both a physical and intellectual transformation. In Bertram's Hotel (shown just before this one), she looked very poor indeed. In "Ordeal" (appropriately named), she's dressed like a homeless waif and acts like she's suffering from early onset Alzheimer's. This crew does not allow Geralding McEwan to show the intelligence and cunning that Miss Marple had, even as an elderly spinster. The degradation of her character as time goes by is shocking. Her makeup is dreadful and makes her look even more like a simpleton. One of my favorite mystery characters and few Females in the mystery genre, is disappearing. If you watched "Bertram's Hotel," you'll know this is a truism, because they actually pushed Miss Marple aside to let the young maid do the detection and summation of the crime.

A new group bought controlling interest in Agatha Christie Ltd, so that explains the difference between previous and current productions. Obviously the group owning rights to Christie's books are mindless, unimaginable twits.


I am sorry that some people cannot find the new artistic interpretations of the Miss Marple series refreshing. I have always enjoyed the novels of Agatha Christie as well as most of the movies/television productions based on her work. But I especially enjoy the new Miss Marple portrayed by Geraldine McEwan. I find them new and fresh and proof that these stories, though based in a bygone era, can be reinterpreted in a newer age and with a bit more color. I find Ms. McEwan's portrayal of the aging sleuth to be above reproach and I give her top marks. How boring life would be if we didn't have the freedom to re-interpret or re-invent. But I suppose those that oppose this new series also didn't appreciate "Kiss Me Kate" as it wasn't the original Shakespeare, or the miniseries "Pride and Prejudice" because new aspects to old stories had been added.


Having been scandalised by the McEwen 'Bertrams' I was pleasantly surprised by this adaptation of a non Marple book. We are now into Season 3 of this series and any Christie purists still watching at this stage should know exactly what to expect - Christie 'spinning in her grave' is a very over used phrase! There will be changes, not all of them good - there have been some real stinkers in the series but this is not one of them. I am not outraged by the insertion of Miss Marple so long as the overall result is still satisfactory and this time it is. Darker than some of its predecessors, this is a very good version with some fine performances. Its true that not many of the characters are very likable but actually the Argyle family were a rather tortured bunch in the novel too becoming more so after the revelation that it was not Jacko after all who killed the mother figure.

Juliet Stevenson is very fine as a hugely sympathetic Gwenda as is Alison Steadman as the perfect Kirsten (shame she didn't get her creepy lullaby to sing). The Argyle children are more of a mixed bag; the boys are ciphers, Tina and Hester are a bit dull but Lisa Stansfield is surprisingly good as Mary and Jane Seymour has fun with the stiff, unyielding Rachel at the beginning. I also thought Julian Rhind-Tutt captured the awkward academic Calgary very well.

There are some awkward changes to the plot and I agree with the earlier reviewer who points out the impossible time differences that ensue - not well thought out. The second murder is truly unexpected and shocking however and despite the changes I was happily engrossed throughout. If you can't take changes to the source material, do not watch - otherwise this is pretty good.


This is ( as many people have pointed out ) not an actual Miss Marple book, instead they have taken another book and included Miss Marple in the story. I personally think, who cares? This is the third series of Miss Marple and if you have watched the previous seasons of Miss Marple, you have probably realized they're not that faithful, I don't mind that at all, because they ( and this one is no exception ) are great entertainment.

Leo Argyle was hanged for the murder of his unpleasant mother. Two years later his ex- husband decides to marry another woman, this woman happens to know Miss Marple and invites her over for the wedding. However, this takes a terrible turn when a man comes to their house and gives them evidence that Leo Argyle couldn't commit his mother's murder. This upsets the family and causes rifts between the surviving members, and before Miss Marple can solve the mystery, another murder occurs.

This is a great episode, fine the conclusion is nothing too amazing, even though I didn't guess it. The only other episode of Miss Marple that I have seen so far is Towards Zero, and I personally preferred this one, because every moment was so enjoyable.


It's the sound of Agatha Christie turning in her grave!

Yet another garish and poorly done segment in this series that changes Christie's wonderful plotting and characters into a laugh-worthy mess. Jane Seymour looks horrible (Lordy, the makeup!!) as the matriarch of a disjointed family. Every darn one of them needs Prozac and Shrinks. As in other episodes of this "New" Miss Marple series, all the characters are unbelievable. Does anyone really believe the housekeeper in a British well-to-do estate would be allowed to talk to anyone with disrespect? It of course happens here. There's more parading of silly characters that never existed in Christie's book. Isn't it FRAUD to name it "Agatha Christie's Miss Marple," when it has nothing to do with her books? Of course they're selling it so this is for profit....meaning FRAUD by deceit.

Anyway, it matters little to people who don't know anything about Christie to learn that Miss Marple never was in "Ordeal by Innocence." They also won't see the radical differences between this badly done version and her book.

I wish they would allow Geraldine McEwan and the other "stars" a reasonable amount of good lines. But no. Sadly, this time she looks even more silly. The makeup on this old gal!! Geez, we are to believe that this is a conservative spinster and daughter of a village pastor? She's made up to look (and act) like a vaudeville clown. Tons of pink blusher on her cheeks, curls, and perfectly tweezed eyebrows.

Someone who directs these pieces must believe that eye-popping is part of acting, because Miss Marple and the main characters do a lot of it in in this "Ordeal." Many people stutter, but there's a character in this who does it and is basically so annoying that I just kept hoping that he was the one to get bumped off (I'm not saying he does or doesn't, I just wanted him out).

Also in keeping with the new series of deleted, added, and changed characters, the murder is radically changed as well as the plot. It's so darn unbelievable when it unfolds.

Okay, I've saved the best (or worst) for last. At the end PLEASE keep the nausea medication handy!!!! There's a KISS that will make anyone gag if not Hurl, Upchuck, Barf.....well, you get my drift.

Please folks, if you really want this series, ask a friend to record it for you before you even think of spending money on it.


"Aaja Nachle" is the come back movie of heartthrob of 90s , Madhuri Dixit, the dancing diva the Dhak Dhak queen ..but sadly Aaja Nachle turns out to be a mediocre movie which is definitely below the mark. I am sure Madhuri Dixit deserves better than this.. The movie starts in NY where Dia(Madhuri) a successful aerobic instructor or dance teacher is informed about her dying Guru. She immediately flies to India to meet her teacher, who i mite add is clearly the most irritating character in the movie. On her way she recollects all the memories of her life in India, where she learned how to dance and LIVE. The flashback part is the hardest to bear..Madhuri is clearly not a bubbly teenager anymore..n its a torture to c a 40-something jumping around the city merrily..her Guru addresses her as "Chudail"..n thats wen u realize that not all dialogs in the movie r meaningless.. Coming back to the story, Dia elopes to NY with her Firang boyfriend Steve (how he falls in Love with this old woman is a mystery!!)when her parents forcefully try to marry her to Mohan (Ranvir). She leaves behind a hostile town, few broken hearts and a close friend. Once in NY she realizes that it was a bad decision. Now after all these yrs..She is coming back to Shamli. She reaches India but by the time she is here her Guruji is already dead (thankfully!!) but master ji manages to torture by means of a video he leaves behind where he tells her that Ajanta the theater faces demolition because MP (Akshay Khanna) wants to build a SHAPPIN MAAL there. Dia decides to revive Ajanta by doing a show with the people of Shamli within 2 months and hence save it.

I love underdogs movies, its a genre which forms its foundation on hope, aspirations, motivation and courage. Sadly Aaja Nachle fails to embark these emotions. As told by Guruji " Jo Dil Se Nikalta Hai who Kala (art) Hota Hai Jodil Mein Reh Jata Hai Who Kaala(Black) Hota Hai". Aaja Nachle also fails to inspire, it fails to indulge you into the lives of the characters. The journey for Dia that seems so difficult in the beginning turns out to be a cake walk. She hardly struggles to achieve the success.

" Naach Gana Nahin Nritya Sangeet Choudhari Sahib" is enough to convince the rowdy politician Choudhary Sahab(Akhilender Mishra). "Aapke Jaise modern Jamaane Ke foreign educated MP Se" convinces Akshay Khanna. The whole town which hates Dia is pouring in for auditions. Madhuri Dixit gets tons of extras, huge sets, costumes Funds to do all that and there is not even one single scene which shows her intense struggle or tries to explain how. Definitely these things can be left as cinematic liberty but a few explanations would have made the story more believable.

One thing which will impress anybody is the star cast of the movie. Ranvir Shourie as the tea stall owner Mohan who is madly in love with dia clearly stands out in terms of performance. This guy speaks from his eyes and when he says "Chai bhi aapki main bhi aapka he moves the screen; Vinay pathak looks cute and definitely acts well. Kunal Kapur, Irfan khan divya dutta Konkana Sen, : looks like the Director spent all his time on casting.. But the problem lies with the script which hardly leaves any scope for brilliance by any of these actors. Irfan Khan is wasted, Divya dutta has just one good scene and she does a great job. Dia tries to convince Shamli's junta to support her in her struggle to save ajanta by saying "Jab Tak Suraj Chaand Rahega Shamli Mein Ajanta Ka Naam rahega". Clearly Shamli is not convinced and definitely not you...After the dialogs i have quoted so far it wouldn't require lot of brains to gauge another sad fact..the dialogs of the movie are uninspiring to say the least.. Another shortcoming is the music, you expect mind blowing music the kind of music which will make you jump off your seat and shake a bit. But Aaja Nachle's music is anything but great. It's an average soundtrack with few moments of thrust. Another shortcoming is Vaibhavi merchant. This movie was offered on a platter to her..she couldn't have asked for more than Madhuri.. I was wondering if this was the same woman who gave us Kajra re. After a horrible performance in Saawariya Miss Merchant again fails to impress. I know its not that bad a job but for a movie like this you expect choreography which is out of this world. The last 20 minutes of the movie in which the play is shown, clearly stand out but with stupid moments like "Na Maaro Chot Lagti Hai Na Maaro, Chunmun Si Hatheliyan Hai POOCHKAARO" It leaves you with mixed emotions.

Anil Mehta never tries to go into details. He didn't explore any single character he fails to put forward the emotions of any character and how the transformation is taking place. IF only he would have tried to put the characters of lives on the celluloid the end result would have been different. Yash raj has given us great movies but something is missing now. Chak DE is the only movie coming out of this production house which comes out as a winner. "Tara Ra Rum Pum, Jhoom Barabar, Laga Chunari Mein Daag and Aaja Nachle also fails to live up to the expectation.


Aaja Nachle A Musical Review:

Madhuri Dixit!!! Man She Can Dance!!!!!

This might be her Best since (Chane Ke Khet mein and Ek Do Teen) The main theme of this Movie is Dancing! The Songs were Smashing! The Story line is Pretty Original!!! Im Proud of saying Im not Disappointed.

The Music by Salim - Sulaimaan Merchant Really Paid off!!!! Aaja Nachle Sung by Sunidhi Chauhan (what a Beautiful Voice She Has) I would give this Song 9 on 10 Somewhere i don't feel the Josh nut Somehow Madhuri Manages to Give this Song the Josh it Needs!

Now Coming to Show me your Jalwa! Sung by Richa Sharma and Kailash Kher The Song Turned out to be Good Enough to Enjoy in Homes, Parties, Cars, Even the Junkies who like RAPS and stuff! They EVEN LIKED IT! so i would say 7/10

Soniye Mil Ja! Sung by Madhuri herself, Sukhwinder Singh, Sunidhi Chauhan and Shreya Ghoshal! A Celebration Song Want to Dance to a Perfect Song or you just want to Celebrate Choose this Songs It Suits both 10/10

O Re Piya! Sung by Rafaqat Ali Khan Smooth! Slow! Sweet! Sensual! Great! Soothing! A Great song for All Dynamic Song Lovers!!10/10

Dance With me! Sung By Sonia Sahgal! The Song Is Somehow a Mixture of M. Jackson Music but still feels like Bolly! Enjoying 9/10

Ishq Hua! Sung By Sonu Nigam and Shreya Ghoshal! The Song is Really Romantic! Nice One Good Score for All Heartbroken Guys and Girls! 10/10 Not Including me

Koi Pathar Se Na Maare! sung by Sunidhi Chauhan and Shreya Ghoshal! A Sad Song with Poetic Lyrics by Piyush Mehra Very Well Done but its Simply makes you really Sad! so Not going to Work NAAAH Don't Think so I liked it SO ill give it 9/10

Is Pal Sung again the Dua Sonu Nigam and Shreya Ghoshal! They Both Deliver Honest Voices on Intense Lyrics no doubt! this is a another Romantic Song its pretty good song to listen to! 10/10

Well That Was my Musical Review of the Movie, AAJA NACHLE!

im not going to start on the Movie because i don't want to Spoil you guys but this movie will do good unlike Other Yash Raj Films! like LCMD, Dhoom 2, JBJ!

The Movie Scores Big Time And its Incredibly Great Performances by Kunal, Konkona (Paired Again after LCMD) Good thing for them having BACK TO BACK Releases from a banner like Yash Raj!

I won't say a Thing About Madhuri! She Looks so Incredibly Young, Mother of 2 Children, Dancing like she Did Before at this Age! Great Great! No Doubt!

Akshaye Made a Special Appearance but watch it on you're Own

Raghuvir Yadav! was Totally Flawless!

The Famous Comic Duo Ranvir-Vinay! Both Were Absolutely Fantastic!

The Great Cinematography done By MOHANAN is Flawless Not a Single Mistake There!

The Direction is Eye Catching! Do Notice That! New Comer Anil Mehta a Photographer Turned Cinematographer Turned Director Did a Nice Job

Well The stats a High Big Time!!!!! FLAWLESS

Music 10/10 Acting 10/10 Choreography 10/10 Direction 10/10 Editing 10/10 Cinematography 10/10 Direction 10/10

Do watch this movie!!! a Total Masala Flick and Enjoyable Family Film!

OYE AAJA NACHLE!!!!!!!!


originally, i had high hopes for this movie. obviously, it IS madhuri dixit, who wudn't want to see her? and welll... it was a fantastic movie, as i expected. the songs were very well done and the dancing was .. spectacular. I'm not such a great fan of Hindi movies mainly because their story lines are so repetitive and speak of love, which is great, but this movie IS a hit for sure. dixit has come back with great style... one wud expect otherwise because of the years spent abroad and the difference in culture, also influencing a person over time. she apparently is still Indian, and I'm glad :) i'd give this movie a ten out of ten, because the acting is great and also the dance.. I'm intrigued by their dancing and can't wait till i get to see more of her future up-comings. this movie is so so good, that i just HAD to comment and make a login account on IMDb. it's THAT great. if ur a fan of dancing and madhuri, you should watch it. :)


My categorized comment about the whole movie is like this

Acting : 3.0/4 Direction : 0.5/1 Screenplay : 0.7/1 Cinematography : 0.9/1 Sound : 0.8/1 Music, Dance n Song : 2.0/2

in all 7.9/10

All in all it is a very good musical movie, actually its songs are very good and also the choreography is exceptionally good. Salim, Sulaiman should be given the credit for the wonderful music. Also, one particular thing about the movie is its song is shown in parts that gives a kinda different touch to the movie.

At last the play portrayed at the end of the movie is wisely knitted. Must watch for a music lover, for choreography and ya for Madhuri fans.


A 'comeback' film always holds significance. Amitabh Bachchan's Mrityudatta Vinod Khanna's Insaaf Dimple Kapadia's Saagar Mumtaz'as Aandhiyaan and Kajol'Fanna are names you cannot erase from your memory since the celebrated actors returned to the big screen after a hiatus.

With Aaja Nachle, Madhuri Dixit, who reigned supreme, is back to the studios with the Numero Uno production house of the country. Does the actress still possess the charisma to ignite fire in water? Also, does the vehicle she chooses to make a comeback with, have the fuel to reach the winning post?

Sadly, Aaja Nachle is below the mediocre mark and doesn't meet the humongous expectations that you associate with the Yashraj - Madhuri combo. What's the problem? Without a doubt, the script! What starts off as a story that seems real and identifiable becomes a fairy tale in the latter hour. Also, with a title like Aaja Nachle and the story harping on music, the songs had to be chart busters. That's just not the case here! In short, Aaja Nachle fails in the two vital departments -- writing and music.

Bearing a striking similarity to the Brazilian film XUXA REQUEBRA, Jaideep Sahni's screenplay is the biggest culprit here. The protagonist Madhuri knows that there would be hurdles galore on her way, as she embarks on a journey to realize her guru's dreams. But she hardly struggles to achieve the impossible. Even the corrupt politician Akhilendra Mishra or the shrewd businessman Irrfan, who could've proved to be tough nuts to crack, give in so easily.

Besides, the goings-on get too unbelievable. The first question that crosses your mind is, how does Madhuri raise the funds to put up this spectacular event the set design in the penultimate song is marvelous? Okay, that's a cinematic liberty, but, seriously, there should have been at least some reference to where the money would flow in to fund this mammoth, lavish and extravagant event. What starts off as a 'real' film, drifts into a 'surreal' world as it moves ahead.

Debutante director Anil Mehta knows the importance of frames/visuals since he's an accomplished cinematographer. But Mehta ought to know by now that it's the content that does the talking eventually. The writing is too commonplace to make any impact whatsoever. In an effort to strike a balance between believable and make-believe, Aaja Nachle falls like a pack of cards.

Salim-Sulaiman's music is another minus point. You expect the songs to linger in your memory even after the show has ended that's what makes a musical tick, right? It's not the case here. Dialogues are wonderful at places, especially the ones delivered by Akshaye Khanna and Madhuri. Cinematography Mohanan is splendid.

Madhuri has always delivered qualitative performances and the fire continues to burn to this date. She's top notch, but how one wishes the script would've done justice to her talent. It doesn't offer her a pedestal to take that big leap. The loyal Madhuri fans would surely feel disillusioned and saddened.

Akshaye Khanna is tremendous. In fact, it's a treat to watch Madhuri and Akshaye together, after a hiatus. Kunal Kapoor is likable; he enacts his part with natural ease. Konkona is nice, but when compared to her previous work, it's definitely not in that league.

Irrfan, in a brief role, is okay. Divya Dutta too is relegated to the backseat. Ranvir Shorey is first-rate. Ditto for Raghuvir Yadav. Darshan Zariwala does a fine job. Yashpal Sharma is alright. Vinay Pathak and Sushmita Mukherjee are adequate. Akhilendra Mishra is as usual. Jugal Hansraj gets no scope. Vinod Nagpal and Uttara Baokar, as Madhuri's parents, have nothing much to do. Felix D'Alviella as Steve -- Madhuri's lover is passable.

On the whole, Aaja Nachle disappoints big time. At the box-office, the film has embarked on a poor start and coupled with weak merits will only emerge as one of the major disappointments of the year.


Bad Sreenplay, yes, which is a reality of this movie. Average Music, shoddy narration, and direction that just about suffices the need for the film to progress. But Madhuri Dixit, the lead actress, is outstanding. She in every sense has given the best performance of the year as Dia. She is not even for a moment out of character and manages to catch and deliver all the crafty nuances of the character with truckloads of grace and beauty. This is true method acting. All the other actors were good too, especially Konkana SenSharma and Ranvir Shorey. But Madhuri carries this film completely. Very few actresses in Indian cinema have this much of screen presence that not even once you miss a lead actor in the movie, that is the old story behind a time-tested formula. Watch this movie entirely for Madhuri Dixit. The choreography was average and comes as a rude shock. Overall the movie does fail Madhuri, and the Chopras can be hanged for it. But the magic is still on. Madhuri Dixit is spectacular in the movie. Believe me for I have seen some top-class acting in the world, Madhuri as Dia deserves the Silver Lotus Award.


Why does it happen in Bollywood? If a person is successful, what is the surety that his kid will be the same? Exceptions, like Hrithik Roshan, do exist but in most cases, the kids are awful. Here, I am talking of Aditya Chopra. He's burying his father's hard-earned name with a series of senseless movies which is bringing Yash Raj Films to an all-time low. They have already started cutting down on movie promotions. Except for Chak de, all YRF movies this year- Tara Rum Pum, Jhoom and Lagaa chuneri have bombed. We say- once bitten, twice shy. But even thrice shy is not working. Now, Junior Chopra comes with another Dumbo- Aaja Nachle.

As far as Madhuri is concerned, the dhak-dhak lady has not lost it. She still looks charming and can dance unbelievably well. And as a mother of 10 year old, she looks great in the role.

The problem is script, direction, music and the wrong selection of cast.

The script is predictable, boring and spontaneous. By spontaneous, i mean that whenever some event happens in the movie, it is solved in the next 5 minutes. Also, the play in the end was below average. I could hear some emotions and applause in theater during the play but that was only from the audience in the movie itself. Moreover, the overall story is not strong. And if you add an average direction to a predictable storyline, the end result is definitely gonna be boring.

Another problem is music which is just OK. For a movie revolving around dance, you need to have a breathtaking music but there is hardly anything there in that department. The songs are equally boring.

When we talk about good actors not being given enough opportunities, we mean give them movies which lazy star-kids are ruining. If you want Konkana Sen Sharma and Kunal Kapoor to form a Dancing Couple, you have gone nuts. They are best suited for demanding roles which involve strong character. As for other actors, they don't get much of screen presence. But, i did like the little girl who portrayed Madhuri's Daughter. Looked an original NRI kid.

Anyways, watch this movie on a boring weekend if you have nothing much to do or wait for it to come on the idiot box. Just to cheer you up, it is better than the torturous Jhoom Barabar Jhoom.


Yes........Remembering when there was a time that television at least was making an attempt at being adventurous and exciting. Even if it was on a hokey family level. Now we have been reduced to seeing prime time become infested with the dreadful likes of the reality show revolution. Watching fat people work out and whine about how much being a porker has ruined their lives. Or, licking our chops at seeing the back stabbing behind the back two timing that is the very life breath of shows like "Survivor". Not even the situation comedy seems likely to survive the venomous infection that is realty TV. What chance does an old fashioned family drama have. If its all the same to you, I will catch a rerun of Kodiak. If there ever is one....


"The Virginian" is one of the first well-known western "talkies." Released in 1929 and starring Gary Cooper who later became one of the great heroes of the western genre, this movie contains all of the archetypal elements of classic western films. There is a lone hero who answers to his own moral code defined by his environment(the frontier). A "schoolmarm" from out East comes to civilize the West through education, and her values come into conflict with the hero she falls in love with. And there is a villain who abides by no moral code, who must be defeated by the hero to uphold his honor and his values.

The classic representations of good and evil through black and white are used extensively and effectively in this film. Cooper always wears white, the villain(Huston) always wears black. However, the most morally ambiguous character, Cooper's friend Steve, always wears a mixture of the colors, and as he continues down a dark path, his colors become darker and less ambivalent.

This is a pretty good movie, particularly the hanging scene, the shootout at the end, and basically any interaction between Cooper and Huston. What makes the movie even more entertaining and fascinating to watch is its context. This movie is considered to be one of the very first westerns to represent the classic elements of the western genre, and its influence on later westerns is quite clear. For film students and fans of the western genre alike, this is a fun film to watch and thoroughly enjoyable. (Note: very interesting comparisons can be made to later westerns, particularly "Shane" and another Cooper film, "High Noon")


Gary Cooper delivers, with a formidable supporting cast, an excellent performance which struck a cord with audiences who had seen it way back when. Victor Fleming adds life and mobility to the camera that many directors were struggling to find through the cramped constraints of the early talking picture. Fleming knew that disc recording wasn't going to make it in the movies for much longer and decided to use the improved Western Electric sound-on-film system. $425,000 later, it proved a decision he was glad he had made. Mary Brian is gorgeous as the loved but lonely heroine from Vermont, stranded and alone in a world so wide open and unpredictable that Coop's presence (after much deliberation) proves warm and protective. Richard Arlen, who was billed way above Coop in "Wings" (1927) makes a fine supporting character in the role of Steve, a cocky cattle rustler thirsting for adventure in all the wrong places, much different from David Armstrong, the character he portrays in "Wings". This proves his ability to adapt to different roles, which is to me, a film-maker myself, one of the most important qualities an actor can possess. Such is the case of Walter Huston, who doesn't even LOOK or SOUND like Walter Huston here. Of all the actors in the picture, I think his performance is probably the best; his make-up, his voice, his devilish smile make him a formidable adversary for our man Coop. This picture deserves a DVD release for more reasons than I care to list, if only to lend itself to a new generation of an audience. If you happen to find it in any format, I hope you shall agree with me on at least giving it a DVD release.


Although I particularly like the 1946 version of this classic western story with Joel McCrea, this 1929 version of The Virginian has a lot to recommend it, not the least of which is Gary Cooper in the title role.

From the first silent version of the story that Cecil B. DeMille directed until a 2000 made for television film that starred Bill Pullman as the cowboy who's only known by the state he originally hails from, this is the story that set the standard for the western novel that has come down to this day. Owen Wister (1860-1938) was a classmate and close friend of Theodore Roosevelt and when the book came out in 1902 it was dedicated to the new president who was in his second term of office.

Both Wister and Roosevelt were easterners who had gone west at critical portions of their lives and made careful note of the mores and customs of the people living there. Roosevelt went to the Dakota territory and Wister was in the new state of Wyoming just in time to view the famous Johnson County range war. It certainly was a period where certain folks did make up their own version of the law out in Wyoming and in this Wyoming setting of The Virginian as law and order was usually days if not weeks away, lynching lawbreakers was an accepted if not honored practice.

And that's what happens in The Virginian as Gary Cooper catches old friend Steve played by Richard Arlen rustling cattle of the Box H ranch where he is foreman. It's unfortunate that he did not catch gang leader Trampas played by Walter Huston, but the incident sets the scene for the inevitable western showdown.

There was western literature before The Virginian, popularized by writers like Ned Buntline. They were called 'penny dreadfuls' as a commentary of their cost and worth. Usually they took real western characters and made up these fantastic unreal stories about them. Real western historians in fact are still trying to separate truth from myth about all these people because of these stories.

Wister was a careful chronicler of what he saw and what he saw set the standard for later writers like Zane Grey, Louis L'Amour, Luke Short, etc. All the western clichés we've grown to expect in films got their start right here.

The Virginian set the standard in literature and film for a whole genre of entertainment. Any version of the story should not be missed.


Trampas:"I'd tell you something if I'd wanted you to know you long-legged son of a-" The Virginian:(pulls his gun) "When you say that to me,smile!" Trampas:(smiles) "When there's a gun next to my belly, I...I always smile! Ha, ha, ha, ha!" This is one of the most legendary lines in Western movie history as exchanged between Gary Cooper and Walter Huston (Cecil B. DeMille's 1914 version also has a variation of this dialogue in the intertitles). The story of a ranch foreman who has to hang his best friend Steve for stealing cattle under Trampas and the schoolmarm Molly who loves him is still a compelling story to tell for the early talkie era though it might seem old-fashioned today. There is, however, an interesting exchange between the schoolmarm (Mary Brian) and an old pioneer woman (Helen Ware) about violence vs. pacifism that still seems relevant today no matter if you're conservative or liberal. Cooper is a natural in his talkie debut as is director Victor Fleming with live outdoor filming. Walter Huston is great as the villainous Trampas. There are some interesting musical interludes at the beginning and interesting dialogue between Cooper and Brian about Romeo and Juliet. There's also the amusingly gravelly voiced Eugene Palette as Honey, one of Cooper's friends. If you're a fan of early talkie westerns, by all means seek this one out!


The coming of the talkies is often looked on as a sad time, when silent stars were washed up, stalwart filmmakers tried and failed to fight the change, and movies in general became a little awkward. But for every tragic failure there was a success story, and there were just as many actors and directors who were able to adapt and even thrive in the new medium.

One such star was Gary Cooper. Coop had been around a while, working his way up from bit parts in the silent era, eventually garnering a few lead roles but not making a huge splash. The Virginian was his third sound picture but it was the one to make him a star. The title role allows him to show off the two main facets of his appeal  an assertive (but not uncouth) manliness, and a charming shyness around the opposite sex. However it is the quality of his voice that completes the persona, one of the warmest and most trustworthy voices ever recorded. You would happily follow that voice into battle, or let it talk to your kids. Such is Cooper's effortless demeanour and naturalism, you could believe he is an old pro, and he shows none of the stiltedness associated with early talkie performances.

On the other side of the camera we have director Victor Fleming, a man who has been largely ignored by film historians despite his importance, although thankfully that trend is starting to be reversed. Fleming did not compose the most elegant shots or weave in clever bits of symbolism, but his pictures are almost invariably excellent. His overriding principle seems to have been to never let the audience get bored. It's documented that Fleming coached his actors a fair bit, and it appears the main thrust of his coaching was to make them act at a snappy pace. There are few pauses in a Fleming picture, and sound is particularly useful to him, because we can hear the actors to spit their dialogue at each other or punctuate the drama with gunshots and slammed-down whiskeys. Whenever a scene threatens to drag, Fleming literally keeps it moving. For example, when Cooper and co. first meet Mary Brian, the train she is on keeps chugging along, keeping some constant movement in the shot. Whenever the actors stand still, he has a horse or an extra trot past in the background.

But Fleming is wise enough to know when to calm things down, and indeed the more sedate scenes have a greater impact after the usual flurry of action. When Cooper and Brian sit together among the trees, the only movement is the wind gently rustling their clothing, giving a quiet tenderness to the moment without quite allowing things to be completely still. The real highlight is the overwhelmingly poignant hanging scene, composed almost entirely of facial close-ups, highlighting the different emotions. The sequence seems eerily drawn out, but again without the drama slowing to a standstill.

The view of the Old West we get in this version of The Virginian is not quite the romantic evocation of freedom tinged with danger that we normally see in the genre. While the picture does display a kind of moral simplicity (notice for example how all the good guys wear white, and the bad guys black, with the occasional moustache just to clarify) it is an incredibly mature and almost bitter portrayal. Fleming, Cooper and the rest of the cast have really brought out the tragic aspects of Owen Wister's novel, the sense of loss and betrayed friendship. But this is far from a melancholy meditation. There have also given punch and excitement to the presentation, something which works equally well for action sequences like the tense final standoff, as it does for dramatic scenes, such as the verbal showdown between Mary Brian and Helen Ware. You will not be bored for one minute. And who says the talkies were static?


The Spikes Gang was made back in the days when Ron Howard was your prototypical golly gee whiz teenager, just a number of months after American Graffiti, and in the same year which Howard's TV sitcom Happy Days premiered. So there he was, still right smack dab right there in the midst of being the golly gee whiz teen-aged lad. He was what he was, and that's exactly what he was. Howard stayed with his acting career for awhile after this, through the 70s, but he never really broke out of that mold. If he had stuck with acting a little longer perhaps he might have been able to broaden his range. Or, on the other hand, maybe it's for the best that he didn't, since he actually did go on to have a remarkable career behind the camera.

The point being is that there is a bit of a surprise here, a difference between this and other Ron Howard acting vehicles, because here Ron Howard actually plays slightly against type, not entirely the innocent lad we usually see. This story has an edge, a serious steely edge, sometimes subtle, sometimes not, but definitely always there, and Les (Ron Howard's character) and his two buddies learn some things about life the hard way, harder in fact than one might have expected in a Ron Howard movie in those days. Another edge this film dances on is a precarious edge, at times the film dangles towards being a comedy of sorts, an amusing coming-of-age story, but at other times towards a deadly-serious drama. Robert Fleischer was an experienced and accomplished director. He knew what he was doing, and he did it well.

Lee Marvin is very good in this movie, as he usually was in most all of his performances. That alone is enough to commend it. And that's not all there is.

I would compare this movie to The Shootist. While certainly the stories and the themes they paint are very different, and the the dynamics of the characters are very different, the two films nevertheless operate on about the same plane, and some similarities do exist. Ron Howard learning hard truths about life from Lee Marvin. Ron Howard learning hard truths about life from John Wayne. The Shootist is noted for being John Wayne's last movie. The Spikes Gang has no such hook, and so it fell into obscurity. But my guess is that someone who likes one film one would like the other, and I like them both. I recommend The Spikes Gang.


After escape home,three young man friends(Gary Grimes,Charles Martin Smith,Ron Howard) form an alliance, a dynamic trio trio combining raw untamed youth.They find an old man(Lee Marvin) with the experience only a master gun-fighter can offer.They formed his own gang and carried out a number of bank robberies and murders.They are converted an outlaws with a price on their heads.But they are trapped in Mexico,while awaiting trial in Mexico are released on bail by the bandit Spikes.The three young man accompanied by the veteran crook on the raid bank in which two of them were severely wounded.The lawmen formed a posse were engaged to hunt down the gang.

The film packs action western, riders pursuits,emotion,shoot outs and is quite entertained .Besides contains good feeling as the friendship,faithfulness and companionship although was betrayed for one of them on the final.The trio young players is phenomenal,they will get much success in the future,especially Ron Howard(American Graffiti) with a successful career as director(Beautiful mind,Cinderella man,Da Vinci Code);Charles Martin Smith as famed secondary(Starman,Untouchables);Gary Grimes(Summer of 42,Class of 44) as starring of Westerns with similar role of naive cowboy(Cahill US Marshal,CulpepperCattle) though nowadays he is retreated.And, of course, the great Lee Marvin ,he makes a terrific acting. Also appear two noted secondaries actors from numerous western :Noah Beery Jr and Arthur Hunnicut. The film was shot in Almeria(Spain),location where were filmed hundred spaghetti western during the 60s and 70s . The motion picture is well directed by Richard Fleischer. The movie will like to Lee Marvin fans and twilight western enthusiastic.


I happened to catch this film on a late night showing on a classic movie channel. I was REALLY surprised by this film!! I have seen other comments on it that refer to the movie as "under-rated", and I couldn't agree more!

Lee Marvin does a fantastic job portraying bank robber Harry Spikes who meets and befriends three teen aged boys who gradually come to admire Spikes and his lifestyle. After Spikes leaves the boys, circumstances lead them to run away together and begin what they thought would be the adventure of thier lives. They soon find that adventure, life, and Harry Spikes are not all they seemed to be! Ron Howard, Gary Grimes and Charlie Martin Smith play thier parts perfectly. The film also benefits from the reality lent by the dilapidated and run down buildings in the various towns shown in the movie, rather than the cheesy 'gunsmoke" type sets that are normally seen in films of this genre and time.

I can't recommend this movie highly enough!! 8/10


I saw this movie about two years ago while I was up studying at around 4:00 A.M. Lee Marvin plays an outlaw that takes three runaway teens under his wing. He teaches them the tricks of the trade in bank robbing. The movie takes on a surprising twist towards the end. A very nice movie that almost NEVER comes on TV. If anyone knows how I could get the VHS version, please email me. Thanks. I give it a 10.


Three miscreant youths, Gary Grimes, Ron Howard, and Charles Martin Smith find a wounded Lee Marvin on the road and take him to the barn of Gary Grimes father's farm. They patch him up, feed him, Grimes gives him his horse and he makes a getaway.

That doesn't sit well with Grimes' father who has lied to a posse about Marvin not being around. He takes off his belt and tans the hide off Grimes back. Grimes runs away then and there and the other two join him.

Like a lot of youth back then, when I was young, when this picture was made and today; these kids are bored. But back then there just weren't any diversions. Life was hard on those homestead farms, Grimes' father is a hard man, he had to be. The story of these kids is the story I'm sure of a lot of youth in the west.

They take up bank robbing like their new hero Lee Marvin and make a botch of it. They kill a State Senator accidentally and don't even get away with the money. Fleeing to Mexico, they meet up again with Marvin who takes them under his wing now, to show them how to do it right.

The rest of the movie is the unfolding of their disillusionment. They've killed a State Senator and they're hot. Lee Marvin does not turn out to be the hero they had in mind. But by his lights, he's operating quite logically.

The three young actors convey nicely what it must have been like to grow up on a bleak prairie homestead and to get a chance at what they perceive will be adventure. Lee Marvin strikes the right note in a difficult part. In some ways at first he appears to the kids to be just like his character in Monte Walsh, a rugged individualist who lives by his own code. He has to be that to appeal to the kids in the first place. He tries to make them shuck their boyish illusions about outlawry, but when push comes to shove the kids can't do it. Marvin is not like Liberty Valance in this film, a sadistic bully. But he does what he has to in order to survive as an outlaw.

The film is the last appearance of Arthur Hunnicutt, that venerable old character who enlivened any film he was in. His small bit as an aging outlaw is brief, but memorable.

The kids fail their apprenticeships, but they and Marvin give the audience some great entertainment.


Imagine, a movie that gives a lesson right from the bible, 'Those that live by the sword shall die by the sword'. It was amazing that none of the 3 boys ever said to one another, 'we were better off with our parents'. After doing some of the dumbest things imaginable for young boys and doing it badly you would think

they were smart enough to realize they weren't cut out for being out on their own. Anyhow, the movie was well done, gave you a real feel for what it must

have been like living in the 'Old West'. Plus how hard it must have been to be accepted by a community that knew every detail of every citizen that lived in the area. Maybe the reason for such a poor showing at the box office was the title. Lee Marvin plays himself and does it superbly.


I saw this movie when I was up late. I was bored one night. It was one of the only interesting-looking thing on. I absolutely love this movie! I wish this was the "must watch" for the wanna be gangsta rappers, the way Scarface is.

Even though basically they end the same, there is an underlined sense of repentance in this movie's end that is completely absent from movie themes today. It was real.

Getting half way in something (especially crime) and then wishing you hadn't started it is a real factor. This is something rare to see in these movies. Instead of leaving the movie thinking "I could do that, I just won't make those mistakes," the way other gangsta flicks make people feel, you leave thinking "maybe this isn't at all what I thought or want."


I ran this film in my cinema as a double feature with a western called BILLY TWO HATS. I apologize. I shouldn't really because only 4 people came on the two nights it showed. BILLY TWO HATS featured Desi Arnaz Jnr as an Indian. It was filmed in Israel. Maybe Desi Jnr was making this in between takes of this glorious musical nobody saw either, called MARCO about.....Marco Polo. I am just aghast at all this. Anyway, THE SPIKES GANG is a rustic teenage crime drama from the B grade school of drive in movie-making that saw Bonnie and Clyde...Bloody Mama... Bullet For Pretty Boy...Boxcar Bertha or whatever. It has a good cast and solid production values. But nobody really wanted to see it and it was probably always doomed to be half of a double feature in a bumpkin drive in. Ron Howard in this and Desi Arnaz Jnr in the other. The local kids just thought this was nothing. In the 80s we had Matt Dillon films to take their place...like KANSAS.


When evaluating a show like this, you really have to put things into perspective.

Robocop: The series was filmed in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and is one of the best shows to come out of this country and into network sindication. (Other great shows include: Kung Fu: The Legend Continues, T and T, starring Mr. T, and My Secret Identiy, with a 13 year old Jerry O'Connel)

All the actors in the show are local Toronto/Canadian actors, (now they do national tv shows and national lottery/car dealership commericals) so this was probably the only chance they got to be seen on television sets around the world. No, the show didn't live up to the standards set forth by the movies: lots of gore, the ED209 Combat Unit, sarcastic remarks (BANG!!..."Thank you for your cooperation...!") and a corrupt multi-million dollar corporation (OCP in this series is actually made to look a little more "friendly")

But it really did try to stick close to the storyline, using scenes and references from the movies (ie all Robocop's functions and directives, the COBRA assault rifle) as well as keeping the wardrobe clsoe to that of the films. It had its own touch of originality (bringing in new ideas in terms of Alex Murphy's past...ie elaborating on the life of Nancy Murphy, his wife, Jimmy Murphy, his son, as well as Robocop's Parents). It contained "Mediabreak" featurettes, as well as the satirical humour of the commercials you would see in the movies (funny futuristic-product commercials, talk shows, etc). Yes some episodes were goofy, but most provided 52 minutes of great entertainment.

Out of all the other Robocop TV duplicates that appeared over the years, this is by far the greater of them all. Definately a show not to miss.


At the time this series was released in '94, I was 14. Most of my friends didn't like the show, but I did. This was a show that seemed as if it was well thought out, the writing scored huge points in my book. I really enjoyed seeing Robocop on his downtime or with a virtual friend (Diana). The show was interesting to watch and what kept me coming back each week was not the violence, but wondering what new wisdom the cyborg would hand out. With as much terror in the world, it's nice to see an alternative measure. I believe this show could do really well if produced today. I think a reunion episode is long overdue.

If you enjoy quality television with great writing, then this show is for you.


These two stars are the only iconic heroes/villains i know that got a good TV series, so let's compare.

Freddy - 7 movies

Robocop - 3 movies

Freddy - 1 TV series, 2 seasons, about 40 episodes

Robocop - 1 TV series, 1 season, about 22-23 episodes

Freddy - 2 extra films (Freddy Vs Jason, Freddy Vs Ghostbusters)

Robocop - 4 extra films (Robocop: Prime Directives: Dark Justice, Meltdown, Crach & Burn, Resurrection)

Freddy - 1 upcoming re-imagining/remake

Robocop - 1 upcoming re-imagining/remake

Who's had more screen time? Well they've both had 7 movies, 1 TV series, and 1 upcoming film. But Freddy wins it thanks to his 2 extra films (one being a fan film) & 17-18 TV episodes.

Since this is a comment for the series, between Freddy's Nightmares - ANOES: The Series & Robocop: The Series I would personally choose Robocop...


Watch just the pilot was a shocking experience because: this was the first time in my life couldn't watch more than the first 5 minutes of movie or Tv show. The reason the horrible acting of every cast member (a bad acting can be resistible but a horrible acting...), the brainless script so childish as every power ranger episode. I love every robocop movie, but this bad copy of of the saga it could only serve as a lesson of what can be do to destroy an action hero. The most funny thing is: the lesson finally was learned and the other TV movies were so good as the first movies.


Eternally entrancing firebrand actress Yvette Mimieux scores her best, strongest, most commanding and effective role to date as a smart, classy, fiercely self-sufficient no bulls**t Los Angeles businesswoman who runs afoul of psycho hicks and rapist redneck cops when she goes down South during her cross country trek from California to New York. Poor Yvette has one of those days which justifies the age-old cliché "sometimes it's better to stay home in bed": her car is stolen by a creepy backwoods hick nutjob (an intense, jittery Robert Carradine, who's genuinely frightening in a rare full-blooded sicko fruitcake part), she's wrongly put in the hoosegow by the local yokel cops after loutish bartender Britt Leach tries to sexually assault her, kills one particularly unpleasant hillbilly fuzzball after he brutally rapes her (the rape scene itself is quite graphic and upsetting), breaks out of jail and subsequently goes on the lam with tough, but tender-hearted career criminal Tommy Lee Jones.

"Jackson County Jail" qualifies as one of those great legendary rarities: it's a 70's redneck drive-in exploitation movie that not only delivers the goods and then some, but also the kind of gritty, top-notch, fairly plausible flick that both wholly earns and completely lives up to its killer cult status. Mark Miller's remarkably artful and assured direction plays a key role in making the film the grind-house classic that it is: the quick, unrelenting pace never let's up for a minute, the action scenes are rousing and marvelously choreographed, and the solid, pretty complicated and arresting narrative hooks the viewer from the get-go. Moreover, the film's astute depiction of the relative differences and similarities between cops and criminals is wickedly subversive: The crooks for the most part are loyal, honorable and compassionate folks while a majority of the police are total a**holes. This deliciously amoral masterstroke, a typically twisted piece of 70's B-movie nihilism which boldly bucks convention, lifts "Jackson County Jail" well above the rut of your standard-issue by-the-numbers formula drive-in fare.

However, that's not to say that "Jackson County Jail" fails to hit the bull's eye in other departments; it's an across-the-board winner in every conceivable way. The uniformly excellent cast alone testifies to this: Severn Darden as a prissy, kindly, quirky sheriff, Howard Hesseman as Yvette's faithless smarmy husband, Mary Woronov as a butch lesbian outlaw gal, "Revenge of the Cheerleaders" 's adorable lead bimbo Patrice Rohmer as Jones' jealous ex-girlfriend, Cliff Emmich as a loathsome male chauvinist CEO Yvette tells off at the start of the movie, and future "Hill Street Blues" TV series regular Betty Thomas as a saucy, outspoken greasy spoon waitress who tries to fleece Yvette out of ten bucks. Loren Newkirk's melancholy, harmonica-heavy, nicely down-home country score, the often razor-sharp dialogue (when Yvette tells Jones to be careful when he faces off with the pigs at the film's thrilling conclusion, Jones responds with this choice fatalistic retort: "I was born dead anyway"), the unsparingly bleak and harsh downbeat nightmarish tone, and especially Bruce Logan's agile, polished cinematography (the use of hand-held camera for Jones' climactic face-off with the law really does the stirring trick) are all also highly impressive. Gripping, suspenseful and exciting in comparable measure, "Jackson County Jail" stands tall as a sterling example of 70's hayseed exploitation cinema at its tense, tantalizing zenith.


Poor Dinah Hunter (Yvette Mimieux): through no fault of her own, she ends up incarcerated while driving from Los Angeles to New York. Her first night, the guard on duty forces himself on her and she accidentally kills him in self-defense. With the assistance of modern outlaw Coley Blake (Tommy Lee Jones), she breaks out of jail and spends the rest of the picture on the lam.

To be honest, for a B movie described as a "chase picture", I was expecting more actual chases throughout, but it's a fine little film just the same. With its gritty and raw feel, but ultimately feminist point of view, it has a fair bit going for it. The unexpectedly poignant interchanges between Dinah and Coley provide the film with a solid anchor; both Mimieux and Jones deliver superb performances. Jones in particular, in his very first substantial film role, ignites the screen as a weary, cynical, born criminal (I have to like his line "I was born dead").

The two stars are ably supported by Robert Carradine as a seemingly benign hitchhiker who reveals his true colors later, Howard Hesseman as Dinahs' unfaithful husband, Severn Darden as the local sheriff, and Mary Woronov as a loyal friend of Coleys'.

Nicely directed by Michael Miller (who remade this for TV just two years later as 'Outside Chance') and written by Donald Stewart, the film itself does have a downbeat, cynical, fatalistic vibe, and really comes to life for a stirring, breathless conclusion.

Flavorful music by Loren Newkirk also really hits the spot; the film does slow down ever so slightly at some points, but successfully maintains a sense of urgency, as the cops are never really far behind.

It's a fine example of down South drive-in 1970's fare, thoughtful, interesting, and just plain fun.

7/10


I thought the film was good with fine acting coming from the stars : Yvette Mimieux and Tommy Lee Jones. Jones is in his first major movie of his career and performed well. The jail house rape of Yvette is very graphic and I doubt if any other movie will show such a powerful scene unless you see "Two Women" again where the Italian Star is similarly abused.Perhaps the scenes showing Jones in a gun battle with the local police was not too realistic as it might have been but overall I believe the story rang fairly true to life and regret that it had to be placed in the area that presented the law as having such men who would take advantage of a good looking blond woman in distress. The truth is that such things do happen and if nothing else the movie reminds us all that while it is good to try to help strangers in need,it is not wise to pick up hitchhikers.


The best thing this movie has to offer is checking out Yvette Mimieux bare-chested. I cannot believe anyone could otherwise like this film. Shallow, predictable plot, VERY poorly acted bad-ole-good-ole-boys film that never misses a cliché. I would never have viewed it but for some stills from the jail scene of Mimieux. She really lowers herself from the pedestal I'd put her on in "The Time Machine." Weena, where have you gone? ;- (

And how did they get so many otherwise worthy actors? I hardly recognized Tommy Lee Jones and Carradine. As for Howard Hesseman and Betty White, where have their standards gone? I could understand it if it was a first film for these guys - it's as if a director put a gun to the actors' heads, threw up the script and gave them one reading and on to the next scene.

And is it possible to get a worse soundtrack? This movie has cheap written all over it. I'm going to do vidcaps of Yvette in the jail scene and toss this thing before it festers and affects others.


Yvette Mimieux is a tough, terrific actress, and she cuts an assertive, sexy presence on the screen(especially in these, her later post-"Time Machine" years)but "Jackson County Jail" is just a slapdash effort that managed to catch on with cable audiences in the 1980's. Woman is unjustly jailed while driving cross-country, escapes prison with the help of convict Tommy Lee Jones. Tailor made for drive-ins, ending on a silly, pretentious note. Lock it up! * from ****


This movie is about a woman getting into trouble - nothing more and nothing less. she gets robbed by two hitch-hikers, she's put into prison because she ain't got a passport anymore, a policeman rapes her and she kills him after that and escapes with a prisoner...

The movie continues this way, event-event-event... Director Michael Miller is so concerned about being boring, he leaves feelings and emotion.

Jones and Mimieux do their parts well, especially Mimieux. Too, I miss at least a few experiments with camera and music, but if you don't want to think about a movie this might be right for you.


This is a quality movie with quality dubbing based off of historical fact. While there may be multiple versions of this short movie (as a lot of people were uncredited in my VHS US dubbed version), the story is the same. Aside from one flashback sequence, to get the story going, the movie flows along wonderfully and logically. Historical dates, statements, and results are even given. AND, there is room for a sequel (Holloywoodinized of course). Yet being nearly 2 decades old, this movie is not well known. It is quality in a drama/thriller/mystery role and is recommended (if you can find it). viewed/owner on VHS


I watched this on videotape, but it is out on DVD both by itself and in one or two cheap DVD sets from Platinum and/or Brentwood.

I didn't find it very involving. It would have helped a little bit if it were in Hungarian with English subtitles, but unfortunately it was dubbed. It was also full-screen, and I suspect it looked a lot better in widescreen given that it deals with wide things like trains, and bridges and so on; the color was nice.

I think a documentary about the real-life subject of this film would have been more interesting. Oh well.

As the English title The Train Killer suggests, the subject is a man who compulsively derails trains by various methods. Why he does so is not clear. There are a couple brief sex scenes which do feature some nudity.


This movie came in a box of four CDs with four movies on each. A bargain at under $20 for all sixteen. The surprise is that many of them are quite good. If Hollywood's version of the Trojan War (vapid CGI, stars that can't act, gratuitous sex, ten years of war compressed into two weeks) leaves you disappointed, you might try fare like this --- well recommended by its lack of mass appeal.

In this case.

True story, strong conflicts, real motivations, real complexities, real trains. The first derailment is positively the real thing. If you ever wondered what a derailment might look like, then this is it. The final derailment off a bridge looks real too, although can't be sure. If it is a model it is way better than the crummy model-based train wreak in For Whom the Bell Tolls.

If you ever wondered what life was like in eastern Europe in the thirties, here is a little window, better than the Sound of Music, in this regard.

And you get a glimpse at train killer's motivations and techniques as well as the police's.


I've just wasted a few hours of my life watching this film. I expected more since it was based on actual events. Some of the acting is horrific and I'm almost positive I saw a guy reading a Q-card. The two twin sisters that own the hardware store are scary. They're more frightening than the "train killer". He didn't seem like such a bad guy! Every now and then he would get a little angry.

Most of the characters didn't even speak with an accent. They sounded like Americans. I hated to see that steam engine go to waste on this movie. I can't encourage any one to take the time to view this film. Overall, it stank!!!!


"Thos. Cat," the night watchman, is too sick to go to work so he gives his cap and flashlight to his little son.

Soon, the mice (they look more like rats) see the little guy, find out he's subbing for his dad, and then go to work devouring all the food in the building's kitchen. How they eat the food, from bananas to olives to pretzels to watermelons, etc., is very funny.

The mice even start cooking some steaks and the little tabby tells them, "Hey, fellas, please don't eat all the food. I'm supposed to protect this place." They tell him to scram, put on a quick floor show and then punch him out.

The little mouse's guardian angel gives him a pep talk and things begin to change.

Not bad: a cute little cartoon.


This is a very cute cartoon, but not an especially interesting short on its own merits. The chief point of interest here is as the very first cartoon which Chuck Jones directed. As I will mention some details, there will be mild spoilers:

The basic premise of this short is that the regular night watchman, a full-grown cat, is sick and can't make his rounds and so the task falls to his young son. To say that the mice are less than concerned about the new night watchman would be an understatement. They're bigger, meaner and tougher than the little cat and bully him mercilessly.

This turn of events means that they have pretty much got free run of the kitchen for most of the short. There are a few cute food-related sight gags, but the short is a bit flatter and less energetic than you would expect, though, to be fair, if you look at it without comparing it to later work by Jones, it comes off looking a good deal better.

The ending is all rather predictable, though fun to watch for the most part. This isn't a bad short, it just pales in comparison to the work which would come later, though it does make clear that Jones was interested in the cute and sentimental from the beginning. This was probably the genesis of the Sniffles shorts done a bit later.

This short is available on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Volume 4 and is worth a look. The Collection, as with the previous three volumes, is most highly recommended.


It's hard to believe that Chuck Jones, known for irreverent masterpieces like "Duck Amuck" and "What's Opera, Doc?", started out with something as simple as "The Night Watchman". It portrays a kitten having to take over his ill father's job as a security guard (it's not identified where this cartoon takes place), only to have a bevy of tough mice bully him and chow down on all the food. Until the kitten's guardian angel enters the fray.

We should be able to forgive Chuck if this one seems weak compared to his most famous work; after all, everyone had to start somewhere. So if nothing else, this one's worth watching as a historical reference.


'The Night Watchman' was the debut directional effort by that great master of animation, Chuck Jones. Typical of Jones's serviceable but rather dull Disney pastiches that characterised his early work, 'The Night Watchman' is an unbearably gooey little offering with a constant lack of energy that is sorely required to bolster the wafer thin plot. A young cat (a clear prototype for Jones's cloying early character Sniffles) takes over the post of night watchman when his father is too ill to carry out the job. Immediately, he falls foul of some tough guy rats who push him around and take advantage of the absence of any real threat to gorge themselves with food and have a big night out in the kitchen. Of course, the cat finally turns the tables when his conscience buoys him up for a big final showdown. Betraying none of the talent he would become famous for (and, let's be fair, this was his first film), Jones lays out the story in a straightforward, no-frills manner. The characters are all severely lacking in charisma, particularly the so-wet-you-almost-don't-feel-sorry-for-him cat, the animation is lumbering and predictable, the musical number is flat and the story doesn't build naturally, instead resorting to a tacked on and completely unsatisfying finale in which the cat does a too-sudden about face and metes out a workmanlike beating to each individual rat, a production line revenge that is less than thrilling to watch. Of course, Warner Bros. was still finding its feet as an animation studio and 'The Night Watchman' is not significantly worse than many of the lesser cartoons of the time but, other than its historical importance as Jones's debut, there's really nothing here that I'd recommend to the casual cartoon fan.


i thought that this was an excellent portrait of a deeply complex and individualistic woman. Julia Davis shines as she always does, and seems to inhabit the unknowable Mrs Cradock effortlessly.

Whether you admire Madame Fanny or not, and preposterous and obnoxious as she seems, I rather do, she was a pioneering female, very much of her time, and the world is a more interesting place because she was in it. To paraphrase a line from the programme, better to die miserable than be boring, darling!

My only complaint is that I would have liked to have seen more about her earlier life, how she managed to throw fabulous dinner parties despite World War 2 rationing by catching and cooking whatever unfortunate wildlife strayed into her garden, why she abandoned her children and just what made her tick. Maybe we'll never really know. Maybe we shouldn't.


This was a great show about a deeply insecure woman with intense emotional problems. The show catalogued a lifetime of pretence and despair and the pain she inflicted on others most notably her daughter in law.

I wasn't old enough to see her shows the first time but I remember the infamous blue boiled eggs and the green mashed potatoes as well as other equally hideous food.

Her treatment of the dying Johnny when she couldn't even bring herself to visit him in hospital seemed especially harsh but Fanny suffered from her own demons which seemed to torment her constantly.


I learned things I didn't know about Fanny and I thought Julia Davis's portrayal of her was absolutely spot on. It was fun to watch and quite touching in places. Fanny became a much more human personality after watching this play/comedy/drama and I felt very sympathetic to her even though she was obviously an extremely difficult person to live with.

I felt very sorry for her family as well. She obviously had quite a collection of personality disorders which were not being recognised or helped. For eccentricity read 'in need of psychiatric or psychoanalytical help'.

Blue eggs with mayonnaise made us all laugh. I thought the lady member of the publics menu sounded yummy.


All wrong, Darling. Completely wrong! Hypercritical (of others) Fanny Craddock must, one might suppose, be writhing in frustration at not being able to correct this aspect of her portrayal. The voice was rather hoarse, a bit affectedly posh, honking, loud and rather braying it was not unique for its time, it was the voice of the older actress or gregarious hostess and with her almost clown-like make-up (I recall her face looking white with make-up)combined to be her instantly recognisable trade-mark. The sound spoke eloquently of its process of formation - of cigarettes, of alcohol and being used frequently, loudly and confidently. Out of sight of the camera but within easy reach viewers might have supposed there was a lit cigarette and glass of something ready for instant use between takes.

Johnnie was from that "stand up straight, head up, chest out, stomach in" era and class that - all blazers, brilliantine and cravats, a familiar sight of those times. The little Benny Hill Show section with late comic actor Bob Todd caught the style perfectly. The style at least implied that the man was a gentleman and former army officer, probably ex-cavalry hence the stiff back - the posture even had a name: "a military bearing". As part of this was a gallant and rather courtly attitude to "ladies". Being "properly dressed" ie blazer and all, was not reserved just for "going out" but could be felt to be an obligation once breakfast had been cleared away indeed perhaps before breakfast (part of "keeping up standards"). (Newsreels of the 1930's show football fans going to the match in three piece suits and hats - it was an era where, relative today, people were over-dressed). It would have been more comic (and more moving) if Johnnie had been that more formally attired and courtly only to receive the verbal lashings from Fanny in return.

I'm not sure that Fanny was a "victim of her demons" rather than product of her time - a twilight period for class, family money, Empire, privileged travel and cheap subservient staff.

A film version with a more substantial script (including some reference to her earlier life) and two standout lead performances would be a dish to be relished, unfortunately currently only in anticipation. Difficult to imagine anyone better than the ubiquitous Jim Broadbent to play Johnnie. More difficult to cast Fanny - its the voice that's the problem.

Postscript: an superb biography of Fanny Craddock is to be found on Wikipedia. It notes her extraordinary pre-TV life including early destitution, particularly hard for someone from a once "good" family. However well worth reading too the surprising biography of her famous father - apart from being fascinating in its own right it sheds a great deal of light on Fanny. "Fear of Fanny" apparently was originally a stage play.


Julia Davis is a brilliant writer and actress but I found this utterly boring. It was billed as a black comedy but it prompted not one laugh. It was not particularly black either. The recreation of the period seemed meticulous and rang true to me, who vaguely remembers the programmes. But such ingenuity deserves a better script. One is tempted to suggest that the subject matter was just not that interesting. However, there were hints that Craddock's character was extraordinarily complex. But left as hints they did not lead anywhere. I suspect that Julia Davis was too constrained by the need for this biopic to be true to the known facts to be able to produce anything funny or even interesting.


As a piece of drama this offered absolutely nothing in terms of interest or entertainment. Actors all did a fairly solid job but the script and the narrative where derivative, unexciting and dull. Let's face it, the public perception of Craddock was what made her interesting, the reality was that she was just a ghastly old drag queen who really isn't worth the time this film invests in her.

To add to this because I have to write at least ten lines of waffle, her cooking was pretty gruesome too. It was the stench of the upper middle classes offering advice to the great unwashed that was the Craddock-style (and the BBC at the time) and an hour and a half remembrance of a thoroughly dislikable and untalented Daily Telegraph writer is a total waste of British taxpayers money. ( Paid for by the licence fee which of course is a flat tax on all British households). The BBC should find better things to waste our money on.