Description

Originally rated X, this film combines historical, comedic, and surrealistic elements to tell a tale of politics and witchcraft. In order to take over pre-rennaisance France, Cardinal Richelieu and his power-hungry followers will have to eliminate Father Grandier. Grandier controls the one town that keeps Richelieu from having total control of the region. The plan is to convince the townspeople that Grandier is a warlock and that all of his nuns are possessed by devils. The accusations are heard at a public trial - whose results may surprise you. ... Read more

Reviews (37)

Hell will hold no surprises for you, indeed...
Ken Russell's film, "The Devils"--based on John Whiting's play of the same name and Aldous Huxley's excellent historical treatise, "The Devils of Loudun"--is a drama set in seventeenth-century France dealing with the tribulations of one Urbain Grandier, a Jesuit canon of a self-governing, fortified, provincial town called Loudun. Because of his opposition to the demolition of the city walls and the subjugation of the resistant Protestant Huguenot population, the priest is accused of bewitching a convent of Ursuline nuns and subsequently tried and condemned by ruthless, conspiratorial Catholic authorities of Cardinal Richelieu's incipiently theocratic nationalist regime. As a film, "The editing is clumsy and disjointed and the murky photography makes everything--particularly the Brueghel-inspired shots of maggot-infested corpses borne up on wheels--look like regurgitated sour milk. Although the aspects of historical drama are potentially fascinating, Russell is just too crude and literal-minded a director--and with apparently too jaundiced an eye--to give the story any real deep sense of tragedy or social injustice. The movie merely sets out to shock and horrify with a monomoniacal emphasis on extremely gruesome forms of physical torture, and needless to say, the cautionary elements of Huxley's complex, thoughtful book get lost amidst all of Russell's garishly overwrought baroque-burlesque horror theatrics. What holds the film together if anything does is Oliver Reed's formidable if slightly (inexplicably?) creepy portrayal of Grandier's spiritual regeneration in the face of the unimaginable pain and death awaiting him. However, it is Vanessa Redgrave who truly inspires dread as Sister Jeanne of the Angels, the perverse, crook-backed, self-loathing yet narcissistically deluded mother superior who becomes violently infatuated with the priest. The most flamboyant of the villains is the grimly fanatical "professional witch-hunter," Father Barre (Michael Gothard), a young, athletic, wild-haired, hippie-Dionysus-type whose raving, crucifix-brandishing hysterics and seemingly insatiable fits of sadism grow repetitive and tiresome--not to mention silly--real fast. "The Devils"' climactic scene of Grandier's burning at the stake--in deliberate imitation of Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan of Arc"--might be the most horrible and graphically overwhelming cinematic immolation ever, but the brazenly sloppy staging and the underlying adolescent vulgarity of the whole conception renders it little more than shallowly sensationalistic on Russell's part. And the final elegiac image of Grandier's bereaved mistress climbing through the destroyed city walls and into the barren wastes beyond is certainly artfully bleak, yet it's also a somewhat pretentious, dispiriting "historical" nightmare with surprising little real insight.

RUSSELL AND REED AT THEIR BEST
Why 4 stars? Because this VHS contains a cut version of the original british film release. What we now deserve is a DVD with the full uncensored version of this masterpiece by Ken Russell.
Oliver Reed at his best, a powerful performance by Vanessa Readgrave, a beautiful and daunting photography surely confer classic status to this work of art, with surrealistic undertones.
Based on a historical facts, as told by Aldous Huxley's The Devils of Loudun, this is a riveting story about father Urbain Grandier's martyrdom, during the reign of Louis XIII.
After Richelieu convinces the King that self-government of small provincial towns must end, the feudal nobility lose their independence by an edict calling for the destruction of their castles and walls, whilst the Hughenots are being crushed by force. One of these towns is Loudun, where the priest (a Jesuit) is Urbain Grandier (Oliver Reed), an intellectual young priest, that knows the meaning and consequences of the edict calling for the destruction of the fortified walls of Loudun. Consequently, when Laubardemont, an agent of the Cardinal Richelieu arrives in the town, he is confronted and stopped by Grandier.
But Father Grandier is strikingly handsome and a sensualist. His vows of celibacy have not prevented him from fathering a bastard child with the daughter of Trincant, the town magistrate, and performing an illegal marriage with Madeleine, a young lady with whom he has fallen in love.
Meanwhile the Convent of the Ursulines in Loudun is ruled by Sister Jeanne of the Angels (Vanessa Readgrave), a young humped back noun, with a beautiful face. She develops an obsession with Grandier and has sensual visions which involve the young priest. When she hears about the illicit marriage, she loses control and falsely accuses the priest of sorcery and lewdness.
Grandier's enemies (Laubardemont, Trincant, Father Mignon and others) grasp the false accusation as an instrument for the destruction of the priest. They accuse Grandier of sorcery and call for an exorcist, Father Barre, who starts performing a series of exorcisms never seen before in France. The methods used by him and his assistants to extract the devils reputedly within the bodies of the nuns are base and sadistic. From Sister Jeanne's altered mind come the screams and the behavior that affect the other nuns. From there, collective hysteria spreads and as the nouns bask in their notoriety, their fantasies become more and more unreal. Those who oppose this infernal circus, on the grounds that the exorcists are the ones depraved, deliberately provoking the nouns, are arrested by Laubardemont, who wants to see the matter through. Both Richelieu and his agent are well aware of Grandier's innocence but the raison d' Etat calls for the destruction of the young priest.
Not surprisingly, based on the hysterical accusations of the nouns, Grandier and Madeleine are arrested. Grandier is brought to trial and found guilty of sorcery. He is viciously tortured, vainly, in order to extract a confession of his guilt. When Grandier is burnt alive at the stake, in the public square of Loudun, we see, in the background, that finally the walls of the city are starting to be destroyed...........
A DVD full version of this underrated classic is a must, for the sake of the history of cinema, and to keep alive a strong spirit against political manipulation and religious fanaticism.

A macabre tale of religious mania, power, lust, possession
This movie, partly based on The Devils Of Loudon, by Aldous Huxley [author of Brave New World, Brave New World Revisited, among others] features Oliver Reed, as an indiscreet priest, doing very unpriestly things with a young daughter of a nobleman, and Vanessa Redgrave as a demented nun. It centres [centers] around the "possession", supposedly, of a town, and the convent in Loudon, after the religious wars of the 1630s.
Moderately acted, a few familiar faces appear in the movie (i.e., to viewers of British films and television); including Dudley Sutton [Tinker in the Lovejoy mysteries and John Woodvine, who appeared in the "Armageddon Factor" in the Dr. Who series]. After the Protestant/Catholic religious wars are over, a new priest, Reed, comes in and has his way with a young lady [which later comes back to serve as the basis for his trial]. Vanessa Redgrave, as the aforementioned demented nun, has a lustful fantasy about the priest, very unnunlike. Along the way, a power hungry cardinal seeks to gain the favo[u]r of the king, and to destroy the town of Loudon, and the walls of the city. There are several representations (or misrepresentations some might say) of figures of the church, the royalty of the time(s), and others. Russell's twisted vision paints a dark, horrific, and unfavo[u]rable time in religious history that's hard, though fascinating, to watch. With a few "naughty bits", i.e., unclothed nuns, unnatural couplings, and general hypocrisy, it paints a disturbing vision of religious mania that serves as a chilling portrait of what power, corruption, lust, greed, and a multitude of other "sins" can evoke as it turns "religious", so-called, people into "Devils". Not for the squeamish, or easily offended, i.e., religiously speaking. Particularly for Catholics, like me, this movie shows that the "Church" had its own dark moments, not only in its persecution of "separated bretheren", i.e., the Protestants, but in the use of "religion", to justify a multitude of wrongs, committed in God's name. Heaven help us all.

DVD edition of 'The Devils' MUST be released!!!!!
'The Devils', "one of the most controversial films ever made in the UK," is not only Ken Russell's BEST film, but probably the most IMPORTANT religious commentary ever put onto film (thanks to the glorious union of Aldous Huxley & Ken Russell). Although you can purchase the widescreen, least censored, Maverick Directors series, UK version (PAL VHS) from www.amazon.co.uk (ASIN: B00004CUX5, Catalogue Number: S015401) -- where the heck is the director approved DVD edition of this film, already???!!! This is an outrage to the film appreciation community, and especially to Ken Russell fans (who have the availability of almost every other Ken Russell film EXCEPT 'The Devils', arguably his VERY BEST, on DVD)!! Every rational reviewer of this film cries the same thing (hello, Warner Brothers!) -- consumers WANT a director approved DVD edition of 'The Devils' (NOT the butchered, US version), including Flim Four's 'Hell on Earth', "an hour-long documentary presented by Mark Kermode on Ken Russell's 1971 film" PLEASE, ALREADY!!!

Blame the transfer, not the movie!
I wish people would stop criticising the photography in The Devils. The photography is superb. Unfortunately, when The Devils first appeared on VHS, it suffered the double insult of being released in the censored American version, rather than the full UK print, in a completely hideous transfer which looked as if someone had filmed it off the TV with a camcorder. In the UK, the full version of the film was finally released in a decent print in 1997 in the Maverick Directors series. However, Warners will not release this version of the the film in the States. The Devils was being prepared for DVD release in Europe, with audio commentaries by Ken Russell and Vanessa Redgrave. However, it seems that Warner has postponed the DVD indefinitely. Why are they so determined to sabotage this film? ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Bravura Filmmaking, Great Performances
This is probably Ken Russell's best film after "Women In Love." It is truly unfortunate that only a pan-and-scan video is available; the brilliant opening "Winter Carnival" sequence, which introduces all the main characters - AND establishes their relationships, without a word of dialogue! - is particularly damaged by the cropped aspect ratio. Chamberlain was never better, and still in his physical prime, and Jackson is briliant as always. This is worth the price just for the drunken honeymoon train-ride scene. Why in God's name this isn't on DVD is beyond me- Chamberlain's fans alone would put this one in the black! Hellooo MGM, WB or whoever owns this title now, we're waiting for a widescreen transfer!

Not a masterpiece, but certainly an excellent film
No film critics seem to like THE MUSIC LOVERS, and Cinebook even scored this film 'zero', claiming that this film should be avoided by all 'music lovers'. The film's focus on Tchaikovsky's homosexuality has always been considered inappropriate. While Cinebook scored 5 stars to AMADEUS which places emphasis on Mozart's impudent and vulgar character, I think it should be fairer to this film. THE MUSIC LOVERS is not up to Ken Russell's other masterpieces like WOMEN IN LOVE, but in terms of film-making, this is a marvellous film. In the film's opening, Tchaikovsky (Richard Chamberlain), playing wildly with his sleigh, has a brief encounter with Antonina Milyukova (Glenda Jackson), later his wife. This opening is simply as witty as David Lean's DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, where Omar Sharif has a brief encounter with Julie Christie on a tram in the beginning, not realizing at that time that this is the woman who will become part of his life. Indeed, this is how THE MUSIC LOVERS brings these two important characters together, Nina attending Tchaikovsky's concert, imagining herself having a good time with the soldier she loves, who later turns out to be an abuser. In Nina's imagination and with the 2nd symphony as the background music, Tchaikovsky shoot the soldier dead in a duel for Nina, and the two embrace. Audience will learn that this is Tchaikovsky's fantasy too, resulting in their marriage, which soon becomes disastrous. Throughout the film, Tchaikovsky's music is combined with perfect editing. His 6th symphony is used in the scene on a train, where Nina gets drunk and takes off all her clothes while Tchaikovsky feels sick as he sees Nina's breasts and vagina. The montage here alternating between Tchaikovsky's face of agony and Nina's body is simply perfect. Symbolism is also the key to success for this film. In the house of Madame von Meck, Tchaikovsky's secret subsidizer, fireworks form Tchaikovsky's face, and this is when Madame von Meck finds out about his homosexuality. The fireworks become dimmer and dimmer, signifying the end of their relationship. Now he has to compose without subsidy, and this comes the climax of the film, the use of 1812 Overture, in which we watch Tchaikovsky's fantasy of getting rid of all the people in his life, the canons being used to blow off their heads one by one, again done through the best montage ever. THE MUSIC LOVERS is not at all faithful to Tchaikovsky's life, but which biographic film is? Even LUST FOR LIFE has received the same criticism. When you watch THE MUSIC LOVERS, I think you should be looking for more than just the story itself. Anyway, I have read about Tchaikovsky in encyclopaedia, and I don't find THE MUSIC LOVERS that untrue. The film is not one of Ken Russell's masterpieces, but certainly one of his most stylish. Also, I am convinced that a first-class actress like Glenda Jackson, who won an Oscar just a year before, in WOMEN IN LOVE, would not have agreed to act in a film which she believed to have a bad script. She really sacrificed a lot for this film. Besides showing her breasts and vagina, she even cut almost all her hair for the asylum scene by the end of the film, and this is unquestionably Glenda Jackson in her ugliest. I think such sacrifice should have at least earned her an Oscar nomination, but of course, she was already nominated for another film, SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY, that very same year.

Watch and enjoy !
When is this little gem* going to come out on DVD ?

*for the squared minant.

Tchaikovsky's Genuis Laid Bare
Ken Russell is one of the most underrated directors in cinema, and although his later output does not reflect the great potential he possesses, it is his earlier films that showcased his true talents in their unique and controversial style.
Russell was instrumental, along with directors like Lindsay Anderson and Nic Roeg,in giving British cinema its own more subtle version of 'nouvelle vague' in the early 70s.
His great passion for literature and classical music was a constant source of inspiration,from his adaptation of D.H Lawrence's 'Women in Love' his most acclaimed film to date, to his biographies of Elgar,Liszt, Mahler and Tchaikovsky.
The British film establishment along with almost all critics liked nothing better than to dismiss Russell and his films as pompous and over indulgent.Micheal Winner has always had his share of these snide reviews and remarks, but although he is a remarkable socialite and bon vivant, his direction talents can not be compared to Russell's at all ,thus making the cold shoulder the latter received totally unjustified.
Music Lovers, was one of the first films I ever saw, and it was largely responsible for two main developments in my life,
my love and appreciation of classical music on one hand, and a passion for cinema that remains as strong and vibrant to this day on the other.
It is a biography of this greatest of composers,Tchaikovsky, like nothing you are likely to see..Amadeus was majestic and grand..Beethoven's Immortal Beloved was too polished...Russell in Music Lovers gives us a biography that is troubled, anxious, raw and unashamedly personal.
The crazy camera movements, the use of music both as part of the plot and as a background, the emphasis on an aspect of the great composer's life rarely written about or known:
Russell in Music Lovers was able to show the viewers the human with his failings, successes and indulgences that were behind the creative genius, and the agony, despair as well as joy behind the music.
Critics have slammed the film as an bombastic emphasis on Tchaikovsky's homosexuality, but they did miss the point totally..for I believe Russell was not trying to talk about the composer's sexual orientation, rather more about the demons that haunted him and the confusions and anxiousness that followed him throughout his life, his loves, disappointments, and friendships and from which many masterpieces came to life.
I loved the fact how cleverly Russell uses the music to enhance the drama and the mood of the his film: in a way the music of Tchaikovsky speaks in itself the story of its composer..this Russell I believe understood very well and used it to his benefit.And of course it is safe to say that Richard Chamberlain as the Russian composer gave his best performance to date, while actress turned politician Glenda Jackson who worked with Russell on Women In love,is one of the best actresses in the world, in the Rampling-Dench-Redgrave league, and had she not chosen a different career, I am certain she would have delighted cinema lovers with many more great performances.
The sad fact that Music Lovers is not yet released on DVD just confirms how underrated that great director is. At a time when really awful films get a two disc releases with tons of extras, classic films such as Music Lovers, remain out of stock and out of sight to cinema lovers everywhere to be seen again or rediscovered. It is time to give this film a proper release, and its director the recognition that he truly deserves.

Fantastic!
I must say this is about the best movie I saw that I never knew that it existed. The whole thing is a masterpeice from beginning to end. Never a dull 5 minutes and always stays interesting. Perhaps the best "under-the-influence" movie ever made! Can't wait for the DVD release! *crosses fingers* ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Dr.Terror's House of Horrors
Amicus made several horror films,this being one of the better. Several men on a commuter train meet the mysterious Dr.Shrek (Peter Cushing).He tells them,one by one,how they will die using his Tarot cards.Some stories are better than others(The disbelieving Christopher Lee's called "Disembodied Hand" is the best tale in the film,IMO)Also a very young Donald Sutherland is one of the doomed in Dr.Terror's House of Horrors!!

Strong horror anthology
Amicus films pulled Hammer standards Cushing and Lee into doing this overall entertaining horror anthology. The story begins on a train where fortune teller Cushing uses his tarot cards to predict the unenviable futures of five men. The first two stories are probably the weakest, but hold tight because they get better. The third tale is a about voodoo and it is considerably better than the first two. The real gems are the last two entries of the five. The fourth story has Christopher Lee as a snooty art critic who gets pursued by a relentless severed hand and the fifth is an interesting vampire story starring a young Donald Sutherland. This film is definitely reccommended, just remember it gets better as it goes along.

Not bad, if I do have to say so myself.
Upon first reading the title, one might assume that this 1965 horror anthology was simply another cheap haunted house cookie cutter flick. However, when I actually viewed "Dr. Terror's House of Horrors," I realized that this movie (although not the BEST one conceived, in my opinion) was something that really DID hold my interest. Basically, the concept is this: the entire film takes place inside a train, where 5 gentleman (who have never seen each other before) sit together and wait to reach an unnamed destination. During the trip, these 5 passengers each have their futures foretold by a 6th individual; he turns out to be the mysterious, eccentric Doctor Sandor Shreck (Peter Cushing) who relies on a deck of Tarot cards to investigate the supernatural effects of fear and terror. The Doctor instructs each reluctant participant to tap the deck 3 times; afterwards the first 4 images confirm the listener's destiny, while an extra 5th card explains exactly how to avoid it. Then the fun really begins as each passenger's story is unveiled: Jim Dawson (Neil McCallum), a hard-working architect, is asked to renovate a widow's mansion, where later on he discovers an ancient Werewolf's coffin hidden in the basement. Bob Carroll (Donald Sutherland), a happily married man, is terrorized by a clinging vine creeping on the side of the house; an intelligent plant that becomes increasing maniacal against humankind. Biff Bailey (Roy Castle) is an ambitious jazz performer who steals the rhythms of an ancient voodoo ritual in an effort to compose a hit song; unwilling to take the West Indies culture seriously, Bailey learns the hard way why one must never pilfer music from an ancient, jealous god. Perhaps my favorite spooky tale is that of Franklyn Marsh (Christoper Lee), a snobbish art critic who coldly dismembers a painter's hand in a hit-and-run drive. When the desvastated victim commits suicide, his amputated hand returns to life for one purpose: vengeance! The film's final passenger, Doctor Blake (Max Adrian), is newly wedded to a gorgeous, seductive French woman who is later revealed to be a ravenous vampire.
I decided to rate this movie 4 stars because there are a few cinematic flaws. In some scenes (especially in the early half of the film), the acting did not seem convincing to me; such performances still leave something to be desired. In addition, a couple of the gentlemens' death scenes were fairly cheesy. But despite such mistakes, "Dr Terror" is worth watching all the way through, as it is glued together by a decent concept not always used in the horror genre. Also keep in mind that the twisting plotline flows from one scene to the next, without ANY excessive dialogue.

Found Again, movie from my youth
I remember being a child that did not like horror movies. My friend tried to make me watch Freddy and Jason when I was little and I had to hide in the bathroom and had nightmares for weeks. Well, I remember flipping channels and seeing a movie that was divided up into stories. It was a little too scary for me then, but I remembered it. Then a few more times over the years I came across this movie again and watched it. I now relate it to another Peter Cushing movie, The original Tales From the Crypt. They take a group of people and tell stories about all of them separately and shows how it affects the group pretty much. It is very campy, but if you enjoy older horror movies and want some fun on a Saturday this is a good movie for it. Definitely worth a chance. Keep the faith, dExtrosien

Pick a Card! Any Card!
I first saw this film when I was five years old. It scared the begeezes out of me then and stuck with me my entire life. Seeing it again 35 years later was quite a treat. While it no longer frightened me - lovers of schlock and modern special effects should steer clear of this one - I did find it morbidly entertaining. The film has a strong cast, headed by the dynamic horror duo - Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. A young Donald Sutherland also has a role. While I think all of the stories are good, some stand well above the others. The Werewolf story was exquisitely done, as was the Creeping Hand story. And the Vampire story has a great twist at the end, while the Voodoo story seemed to me the weakest. I would definitely recomend this film to anyone who enjoys slightly campy, 60s era horror films a la Hammer and Arkoff. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Not exactly Sandy Wilson's The Boy Friend, but...
...it's a wonderful (and hilarious) movie!!
Most of the play is in this movie (on stage), but everything funny in this movie is on stage but has to do with things off stage or off stage.
I love the show, The Boy Friend and I am not at all offended at what Ken Russell did with it: one of the mains things is the Busby Berkeley style numbers (hilarious).
Other things I like about this movie is much of the casting: Twiggy is absolutely wonderful as Polly; Glenda Jackson makes an unforgettable appearence as Rita; Moyra Fraser has a great stage presence, playing Mme Dubonnet; Antonia Ellis is hilarious and steals the movie as the jerky Maisie; Georgina Hale is both cold and sweet as Fay; Tommy Tune could not have been better as Tommy (originally Bobby); Barbara Windsor is priceless as Hortense; Sally Bryant is great as the thick-headed Nancy; Murray Melvin is sweet as Alphonse; Max Adrien is fun as The Show's Director and Catherine Willmer is delightful as the Director's uptight wife.
I didn't really care much for Vladek Sheybal (De Thrill). I thouht he could have done much better. Christopher Gable (Tony) is much better off as a dancer. And Bryan Pringle was pretty lifeless.
The dream sequences are beautifully put together and wonderful with Christopher Gable's choreogrophy. The sets were beautiful (and way too complicated for an actual performance of The Boy Friend) and the props were hilarious. The backstage charactor personalities (along with reat actors) contributed so much to making this film funny. And I couldn't get enough of Busby Berkeley styled numbers.
As for singing: Twiggy suprised me with her nice and gentle voice; Antonia Ellis sung with many diferent levels and she was great at it; Tommy Tune can sing, of course; Barbara Windsor's voice may not have been beautiful, but her voice is warm and charming and that absolutely fit the part she played; Georgina Hale's voice is thin and a little flat, but her seductive tone fit her (offstage charector) part; Moyra Fraser may be the only one who SANG all the way through "Fancy Forgetting," but I wasn't convinced that she could actually sing. When she spoke through songs, I felt that it was to cover up the fact that she has an exremely limited range, however "Fancy Foretting" was good; Max Adrian sung just right for his character (while carrying a tune), but outside of that, he probably wouldn't be on Broadway; Christopher Gable was good; Bryan Prinle was also good.
The movie also has many memorable moments:
Maisie (snobbish) [Offstage Charactor]: Don't cry Polly, you weren't that bad.
Tommy's Life Story
Rita's entire part
Everything Polly had to do to memorize lines
Maisie's ad-libs/Attempt to seduce De Thrill
Fay's attempt to seduce De Thrill
Nancy trying to learn French
Bad Props (on stage)
...and many, many more.
The reason that I give this movie 5 stars instead of 4 or 3 (which my review may sound like thats right) is that I can re-watch it and still find it Fabulous! This movie is definetly going on my 10 Funniest Movies list!

That certain thing called...MAGIC.
This year 2003 marked the 50th anniversary of Sandy's Wilson's THE BOY FRIEND. Not only the stage musical is a hit but Ken's Russell's film The Boy Friend should have given more credits.The film was cleverly put togther and the production is A class.At the right time this film should get a lot of oscar nominations for best director, best choreography and most of all best musical. If ever they produce the 50th anniversary cd of this UK muiscal you should buy it. Just to hear Lilian Montevecchi singing as Madame Dubonnet is worth getting the cd.

Twiggy's show
No this is not based on the original "Boy Friend", so all of you original fans will have to go elsewhere. I thought the original was outdated so was delighted with Ken Russell adding a backstage story and straight out going druggy.. I think 30 minutes should have been edited, (explains why it's only 4.)
The main surprise in this movie is Twiggy. People who dismissed her as a phase in modeling should watch this. She sang wonderfully back in the 70's. She had a sweet gentle voice. I think the soundtrack of this movie should be released. I just bought the record and am happy with it. Also this movie is flat out magical. I had many daydreams about it when I was 15.

I LOVED THIS BUT........
Say what you will - it's not the sweet stage version but it's pretty wild - and how great is TWIGGY?

Now, if I loved this movie then why only 3 stars instead of 4 or 5? Simple... the darn video was modified to "fit my screen". If a movie ever deserved widescreen letterbox, it's THIS one! In fact, some of the musical numbers are so large, the video pops into widescreen for them and then retuns to formatted when finished (wouldn't that be even harder to do?!).

Anyway, if you're listening MGM, it's time to release this one on DVD, letterbox - and don't forget to add lots of tasty tid-bits... how bout comentary by Tommy Tune, Twiggy, Glenda Jackson and Ken Russell???

By the way, the stage version is really wonderful and deserving of a Broadway revival - the movie is indeed VERY different and in some ways Ken Russell erases the innocence of the stage version - but for a film, this movie is GREAT... just eliminate your expectations of what the stage version is like because there's no comparison.

What tha......??????
I have had the good fortune to work on a production of the original Broadway musical script and score of "The Boy Friend" written by Sandy Wilson. This video of the same show (supposedly) is incredibly derivative and quite frankly, frightening. I wish I could give it 0 stars, but.... "The Boy Friend" VHS is a mix of "42nd Street," "Noises Off," and some horrible acid trip. Twiggy - as good as she is in other vehicles - is simpering and annoying in this one. The fun of the original has been removed - gone are the carefree spoofs of love, gone is the energetic silliness of the girls, gone is the utter fun of the typical "boy meets girl/boy loses girl over misunderstanding/boy and girl get it together for the end" theme of the late 20's and early 30's movie musicals. In my opinion, this was a misguided attempt at.... something. I haven't figured out exactly what yet. Please see and enjoy and have FUN at the original stage show being performed in your area and ignore this bit of druggy tripe... you'll feel better in the morning. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

So bad its good
If you dont mind the super cheap effects in this one you ll
probably enjoy this movie that deals with people brought to
a type of space station with a dalek type robot and a very silly
looking monster. But shucks...after buying it i still
enjoyed it like the first time....keep yours eyes out for the
communication devices they wear on their head in the concluson. ... Read more