Reviews (2)

I knew the Lady
I knew the lady, and she was anything dry and humorless,the movie was well written but did not cover the whole story of her, she was responsiable for saving many lives including mine. back then she was all we had for medical help in case of sickness or accident, the closest Doctor was 180 miles away, Just for the record she was a Retired Army Nurse who got her experiance during the Korea in a MASH Unit. Working in a mine makes a mananything but over sensitive, Like I said earlier, the story is good, but so much was left out, so before you judge the person you ought to know her,

just because it's a true story ...
I have admired director Glenn Jordan, particularly his work with actors in Mass Appeal, Only When I Laugh, Echoes in the Darkness, and the Jessica Lange A Streetcar Named Desire, but this title is Jordan at his lowest. There is an air of Disney-fication about this story of Jessica Maloney, a "practical" nurse in Meredith, California who is sued for practicing medicine without a licence. Since Meredith is a desert community in Death Valley, the inhabitants have a folksy twang and use expressions like "I don't know what horse you're ridin', but you better put a break on, real quick". The lack of depth to this scenario can be partly attributed to the writer James Lee Barrett, he continually repeats the charge in moral outrage, though the trial scene does pick up things a bit. But what can you say when Jesse's questioning is interrupted by someone screaming from the audience "Leave her alone!"? Since the whole town packs up to join Jesse for the trial and children need to have the situation explained to them, we can guess the outcome. Another guilty contributor is composer David Shire whose enobling score is ghastly. But Jordan is mostly to blame. He lingers over the traffic on route to the trial so it reads as fake spirit of the people, and represents the State officials who are prosecuting Jesse as cartoon "bad guys". There is an awful house on fire scene where a baby dies whilst a crowd stands and does nothing, which seems to exist so Jesse can dispense homely wisdom, and the trial soon degenerates into Jesse on the stand being pious and her lawyer (Kevin Conway) yelling at the jury. We aren't told what differentiates Jesse as a practical nurse from a registered nurse, though it is clear that she is less qualified, and the idea that her arrest comes as a result of entrapment is dubious. The year of this event is said to be 1965, which may explain Jesse's son calling his father "sir", but what about Jesse's husband's Norman Maine-ish lack of identity complaint? I guess working in a mine makes a man overly sensitive. As Jesse, Lee Remick is dry and humourless. Perhaps this is how she does practical nurse heroic. Remick's small emotional range may suit this no nonsense woman, but I'm not sure I'd want her by my side if I was sick. Jordan has previously enabled some of his actresses to fly. Think of how wonderful Marsha Mason is in Only When I Laugh, but he fails Remick here. Or is it that Remick fails him? Either way, this is an experience not to be repeated. ... Read more

Reviews (21)

One of my top 5 all time favorite Westerns
The plotline is simple. Jarrod Maddox (Burt Lancaster), is an aging lawman, still extremely capable, who arrives in town and gives notice that the men involved in a killing will return with him for trial "or I'll kill them where they stand".

What unfolds is truly interesting, given depth by the rich characterizations of Lee J. Cobb, Robert Ryan (two exceptional supporting actors), Albert Salmi, Joseph Wiseman, Sheree North and others (look for Robert Duvall in a pre-Godfather role, as well as Ralph Waite, pre-Waltons) and a story that does not move in a conventional direction.

More than once I have read reviews of this film that criticize its ending. I strongly disagree with this assessement. I think that the ending completes the drama fittingly. The ending is violent and disturbing, even dark, but this should lend itself toward reflection, not scorn.

One man who doesn't bow to people who break the law
One of the most underappreciated westerns ever made, LAWMAN stars Burt Lancaster as a hard-bitten, taciturn lawman from the town of Bannock who rides seemingly for a hundred miles to the town of Sabbath to take in a group of cowboys who, in a drunken shooting spree, had shot up his town and killed an old man.

But his appearance in Sabbath causes considerable hostility among the townsfolk, because they owe their livelihoods to that same bunch, led by Lee J. Cobb, and are unwilling to give it up. Lancaster, unsurprisingly, is unmoved. Therein hangs this solid, almost psychological, sagebrush saga.

Lancaster, as usual, is brilliant in his role of an efficient, cold-blooded lawman, and Cobb is equally special as the leader of the group of cowboys being sought. This is not your typical good guys/bad guys saga: what happened in Bannock was a tragic accident, and Lancaster may be pushing his authority a bit too far. Robert Ryan, always one of the better and more overlooked actors in Hollywood, gives one of his greatest performances as Sabbath's aging, pragmatic marshal.

Probably Michael Winner's best film as a director, LAWMAN was shot on location in central Mexico and has some stark photography by British cameraman Robert Paynter, giving it a look not out of place in a Sam Peckinpah or Sergio Leone film. It is violent in places, but it makes for very good viewing, especially for those who appreciate westerns of this type.

The Difficulties of Law Enforcement in the Old West
I am compelled to write a review of Lawman in an attempt to dispell some oft repeated misunderstandings about the film. The most common error applied to the film is that it is morally ambiguous. Lawman the film is not morally ambiguous as such. The Lawman, Jered Maddox (Lancaster), is clearly the most outstanding and praiseworthy figure or character in the film. The confusion comes in only if we attempt to univeralize morality in a Kantian fashion, thereby making the actions of the Lawman "immoral" because of his willingness to use force. The fact that the majority of the other characters are immoral or simply utilitarian (looking only to their self intersest) in their moral views does not in any way mystify the issue to those willing to clearly look at the circumstances of the story. A bunch of drunken cowboys accidentally killed an old man and refuse to return to the scene of the crime to stand trial, insisting it was an accident and that it should not matter anyway. Maddox, knowing full well the kind of arrogance and blatant disregard for juridical authority he is up against, states "I'm going to take these men back with me or kill them where they stand." Maddox is under no illusion about the outcome of the trial if and when it does take place. He knows the leader of the cowboys, Bronson (Lee J. Cobb,) is a wealthy cattle baron and will be able to "buy the circuit judge cheap." But he is committed to his duty. Maddox is his duty: the guardian of the law. We find this very hard to accept and understand today in our era of feel good humanism which seeks to muddy everything in the waters of "moral ambiguity." Why can't he compromise? That is exactly what the cowboys who killed the old man want, a compromise, i.e. they want to get off without any trouble and without accepting any responsibility for their criminal actions. They want Maddox to "be reasonable." Maddox refuses, however, to be disuaded, bought-off or bullied into giving in; he is unmoved and unwavering his devotion to his duty, knowing full well that his duty is both dangerous and unpopular with the demos. Maddox does briefly consider giving in after a little female persuasion, but realizes he can do no such such thing. "You can't change what you are. If you try, something always calls you back."

Most of us are simply not like Maddox and thus find ourselves disliking the Lawman and feeling sympathy for the criminals. After all, Maddox is a killer too, as he readily admits. The difference is that Maddox's job is to protect the law under the very difficult circumstances of trans-Pecos Texas in 1887. Since humans are not by nature just or lawful (for why would we need "the law" otherwise?) the guardian of the law cannot himself be just (by the ambiguous and selfish standards of the demos) or there would be no legal order. When facing men willing to use force and other illegal means to evade the law, the Lawman must have extraordinary means at his disposal. The function of the Lawman is not be to moral as such but rather to make it possible for others to be moral. We find this distasteful because of our belief in "equality" and other nonsensical Enlightenment anthropological concepts. It is indeed an awesome responsibility to be the guardian of the law under such circumstances. At least in this case, however, the Lawman is up to it. He will not be bought-off or bullied. Lawman the film is Shane, High Noon and Rio Bravo rolled into one, and better than all of them precisely because of its realistic view and assessment of human depravity.

Those familiar with Eastwood's Unforgiven will notice some striking similarities. The writer of Unforgiven (David Webb Peoples) had doubtlessly seen Lawman and paraphrases some of the dialogue. For example, "being fast don't count for much." The difference between Lawman and Unforgiven is that Maddox is clearly the protagonist of the film, whereas in Unforgiven the Lawman, Little Bill, attempts to adapt his behavior to the moral standards of the community and thus becomes "morally ambiguous." Maddox, however, is not interested in conformity to anything but his duty. What makes Lawman a better film than Unforgiven is that it does not attempt to play on present day sympathaties. Lawman scorns identity politics and the over-all moralizing atmosphere of Unforgiven. In Lawman there is the hint of the feeling of loss for the time when a man could so unreservedly stand and devote himself to his duty as Maddox does.

Superb Film--BUT DON'T BUY THIS VERSION! FAKE WIDESCREEN!
Superb acting, superb directing, superb dialogue. . . feel free to read my rave of the version with the same cover, ASIN 079283853X. The movie is so good, I had to give it 5 stars even with what I'm about to write.

This "widescreen" version is an incredibly blatant ripoff. All they did was chop off the top and bottom of the already reduced TV image. Let me stress: YOU GET NOTHING EXTRA ON THIS VIDEO, AND YOU LOSE LOTS! It's such a shame because this movie deserves widescreen release. So in the meantime, buy 079283853X :-)!

Astoundingly Underrated--Brilliant, Complex--One Caution
First, the caution: the "widescreen" VHS version is a sham! It doesn't show you the actual original widescreen film, it simply chops off the top and bottom of the already reduced TV image! So just buy the regular VHS or the DVD,and make some noise on chat boards and elsewhere till they release a true widescreen version of this beautiful, beautiful film.

Okay, this is the longest review I've ever written, but here's why. I watch a LOT of movies (I'm a film and lit prof). IMHO, this is the most underrated film I've ever seen.

First off, DON'T THINK OF THIS FILM AS A WESTERN! If you do, you'll miss out on a great artistic experience, and that would be a shame. It is a film that, among several other things, bravely challenges the macho ethic while presenting characters of enormous moral ambiguity, all the while featuring a) some of my favorite direction ever, and b) simply unmatchable acting. Oh yeah, it takes place in the West :-).

Winner's directing is incredibly thought-provoking, literally second-by-second. Never, ever have I seen a more thoughtfully directed film--every once in a while he over-thinks, but it's more than forgivable. Just two of many elements: The cuts from scene to scene are ALL great, and there are no wasted moments, everything provokes thought.

Two examples: 1. Two macho guys are talking about all the land they own, and this weird flute theme slowly rises, creating an odd dissonance--suddenly we cut to a mouth playing the flute, then we realize it's Lancaster: Mr. Macho himself, out to get the other two, but differentiated from them through his flute playing--yet he then has to grab a gun because of a simple knock on the door, and we're reminded of his reality, and then we're presented with the sad irony of his throwing open the door and pointing the gun at his long-lost love...just moment after moment after moment, nothing wasted. 2. A shot of the marshal in bed with a prostitute jumpcuts to a close-up of a beautiful desert flower on a cactus, a subtle echo of both the dissipated marshal and the prostitute--but it's not a gratuitous shot, because behind the flower we then see 4 guys riding in to the climax of the film. Every symbol or image in this film is neatly tied in with the action: nothing feels cheap or forced. Virtually every scene is as thoughtfully constructed as the two moments I just described.

The moral complexity of the film. Everybody has a different reaction to this film, and that reaction tells the viewer something about him/herself--what more do you want from art? (Aside from that it entertain, which this film does.) Most of my students find themselves defending a group of men who begin the film by randomly shooting and burning a small town and are so arrogant that they then refuse to attend even a sham trial. Winner achieves these myriad reactions through his brilliant work with Lancaster, Cobb, and Ryan, all of whom are as multilayered as one could hope for in 100 minutes. For me, Lancaster's character is a near-hero, yet I understand why many of my students despise him. Rarely, very rarely, is a U.S.-studio film this morally complex and ambiguous.

The acting. The first scene between Lancaster and Ryan consists of two marshals standing around talking about a case for about four minutes, essentially giving necessary background plot--not the stuff of riveting cinema, right? Yet it's without question one of my favorite scenes in film history. That's how good the acting is in this film. Lancaster puts across sarcasm and disgust with a subtlety few others can equal, concluding, "Just good cowboy fun. (pause) They killed an old man." Ryan's weathered, cynical face takes on the slightest bit of interest as he says, "Kin?" These are two guys who have transcended the cliches of their acting generation and simply become uniquely superb actors. Don't expect Method (and I've nothing against Method!); just expect Lancaster and Ryan at their absolute peak. Same with Cobb, and the supporting cast is just about perfect, led by Richard Jordan and Sheree North. (An aside: a strong case can be made that North's character--essentially the only woman with a speaking role in the film--is the most admirable, strong, and intelligent person in the film: another thing that sets this apart from typical "Westerns," or typical anything!)

I've found in my studies that it's pretty random what gets labelled a "classic" and what gets forgotten--it has so much to do with studio politics of the time, what other films came out that week, how a film is promoted (the promo for Lawman is horrid), the personal taste of the hip critics, etc. If you like thoughtful, beautifully acted and directed films, PLEASE GIVE THIS FILM A CHANCE: I think you'll like it! Thanks for reading this whole thing :-)! ... Read more

Reviews (67)

One of the best fantasy films I have seen
And face it, there just aren't all that many great fantasy films around; "Dragonslayer" stands out, especially in the 80s era, where fantasy films were often a silly sword-and-sorcery affair. It is a dark tale of a sorcerer and a dragon that he must destroy, a fantasy story in the most classical sense of the word. The special effects might look just a little out-dated, but they still hold well for audience today. The acting is just a little contrived (with the exception of the sorcerer, performed by the great British actor Richardson), but the focus is not as much on the characters as on the atmosphere and the tale itself. What I like best about this films is that it is not quirky or childish, but has an atmosphere that holds true to the darker world of old fairy tales. I would love to see this movie come to DVD.

Dragonslayer!!!
Wow, it's about time! Dragonslayer, man! Remember Dragonslayer? If you had HBO back in the good ol' days, you most likely saw this many, many times along with The Beastmaster. This is THE dragon flick. It's everything you could hope for in a fantasy film. This is no wimpy dragon flick. Hollywood loves to throw all these friendly dragons into their films anymore, which is extremely irritating. You won't see some human loving dragon with Sean Connery's voice in this one! It may be PG rated, but it is quite dark, serious, and very violent. Your kids won't be wishing with all their hearts to fly with this dragon in the Land of Art, I can tell ya that right now! She ain't white and fluffy and willing to take you beyond the boundaries of Fantasia either. This dragon is pissed. This dragon is burning the village virgins to a cinder, and letting her kids chomp away at the princess. This is the kind of dragon from fairy tales, this sucker is scary! This dragon is probably the scariest and best looking put on film. The effects were pretty good for 82 , and the dragon is still creepy and convincing. The dragon doesn't have much screen time, but that's fine considering a very good story is fed to us. There are some decent performances too, especially Ralph Richardson as the wizard. I have not seen an actor since that fits the role of a wizard the way Ralph does here. Sorry, Mr. McKellen. Now that it's here, get it. It's the perfect addition to your fantasy flick collection, and will easily find a spot between Krull and Conan The Destroyer.

Slayer
Yes, of course it is showing its age. It was made in 1981. This does not change the fact that this movie totally owns. This rocked back in the day and it continues to rock if for nothing but the pure nostalgia factor (showing this movie to my older brother will be sure to conjure memories). 1981 seemed to be a big year for movies about Knights, swords and sorcery. This was one of the best and remained the best for a long time to come. Only today, with slick computer graphics do we see the failures of the special effects here and there. However, they tried their best, really they did. It remains an impressive tale about magic, progress, advancement, and heroism. One of the more memorable lines from this movie was something like :

"Well, I'm glad that magic is fading from this world, the dragons are fading along with it."

Hmmm.

Good when it came out--and still good now!
This has been a favorite of mine over the years, and its stood the test of time--I still like it! I especially like the characters, the way it lets you understand their motives without asking you to accept them. It shows you peoples foibles as well as their strengths. It includes several horrific scenes, but doesn't bog down in explicit detailing of gore (for example, when the princess sacrifices herself to the dragon, you don't see her killed, but only see a glimpse of her body where the baby dragons are feeding). Or, the old servant is murdered, and before he dies he says, "Someone's shot me!" in a voice of surprise, like he can't understand why someone would do that. And the dragon was believable to me. I accepted its sadness at being at the end of an era and without having a place in the new one. Dragonslayer is a good story supported by special effects and not the other way around--a movie with loads of special effects and no story--that would be boring!

More of a Merchant-Ivory costume drama than swords & sorcery
Dragonslayer is very much like a Merchant-Ivory costume drama -only with a fire-breathing dragon! Like Merchant-Ivory films, Dragonslayer is well-written, beautifully photographed, designed with an amazing eye for authentic costumes, sets and props to the last detail and masterfully acted by all the supporting characters. Unfortunately, like other M-I films, there is little action and a very unsypathetic "hero".

The plot: For years, the kingdom of Urland has managed to avoid being incinerated by a dragon by offering up maidens as a twice-annual meal. Like the draft during Vietnam, the lottery by which the virgins are chosen is more or less rigged to guarantee that the children of the rich and/ or well-connected aren't conscripted as dragon bait. One thing the movie should have addressed is the question of why the virgins of Urland don't "dodge the draft" in a rather easy and obvious (and fun!) way.

Since there are no slots in the "champagne unit" of the Texas Air Guard available to a young commoner named Valerian, she has spent her youth dressed like a boy. However, she refuses to just sit by as other girls are devoured, so she and other peasants seek out a wizard to kill the dragon.

The only one they find is Ulric (played perfectly as an almost senile hermit by Ralph Richardson), an octogenarian who lives 300 miles away and appears to already have one foot in the grave. He doesn't even look like he can travel all the way to Urland, let alone fight a dragon. He is also handicapped by a a clumsy and dull-witted apprentice, Galen (Peter MacNicol).

Enter Tyrian (Jack Hallam) a wonderfull villain played by a wonderfull actor. He thinks the old magician is a fraud and a troublemaker and calls him out. When he goes into his harangue about how wizards are con-artists and says "But comes a doubter..." you realize it's a great performance. Like others in Urland, Tyrian actually benefits from the sacrifice of young girls to the dragon. Like any society beset by a scary enough menace, people will allow their "protector" to get away with anything -even murder- if it means keeping the beast at bay. Tyrian serves King Cassiodorus Rex (Peter Eyre), who came up with the lottery (the "tiles" look suspiciously like old-style Army dog tags -a clever touch) after his brother, King Gaiseric tried to kill the dragon but was himself killed.

The over-eager and under-intelligent Galen tries to kill the dragon himself. Between his bungling, the King's conniving and pressure from the villagers whose homes and crops get turned to ashes, Galen finds himself in a deeper and deeper pit.

At this point, the movie falters. The fight scene between Tyrian and Galen is almost humorously bad. The fight with the dragon is great, but suddenly stopped for no apparent reason -it just switches to dawn the next day. And the way the dragon is beaten lacks any kind of thrill or suspense whatsoever. Peter MacNicol is badly miscast and other reviewers are right in pointing out how conspicuous American accents in a movie with an almost entirely British cast kills the suspension of disbelief.

Another problem is the score by Alex North. It's just plain bad.

On the other hand, Caitlin Clarke (American accent notwithstanding) is pretty good. Other reviewers think of her as a bit of a Plain Jane, but they forget that she is pretty (though not by absurd movie standards) and she can't have Kate Beckinsale's cute little button nose and pass herself off as a boy. The rest of the cast is perfect.

Of all the sword & sorcery films ever made, Dragonslayer is the best scripted and by far the best acted. The costumes are 100% accurate for the 6th-7th centuries in northern Europe, contrary to some assertions made here. If it had more action and a more appealing hero with real chemistry with the female lead, this movie would be a classic.

Finally, the dragon (Vermithrax pejorative) is the best dragon ever on screen, with the ones from Reign of Fire a close second. Vermithrax actually has personality! The special effects guys must have had Lee Strasburg coach her! The fact that she is used sparingly helps, too.

This is a good, but not great movie and I recommend it. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Smile & prepare to snicker constantly throughout! :-)
Dean Martin as super cool, super lover, super boozer, super slick, super spy Matt Helm, aka Eric, aka James A. Peters, aka Lash Petrone, Beverly Adams as his secretary Lovey Kravezit, Karl Malden as arch villain and arch enemy of Matt, Julian Wall, Camilla Sparv as his assistant Coco Duquette, Tom Reese as his, snicker, hard-headed muscleman 'Ironhead', Corinne Cole as 'Miss January', James Gregory (I) as Matt's boss MacDonald and director of I.C.E. (Intelligence Counter Espionage), Ann-Margret as Suzie Solaris and Richard Eastham as her poppa and inventor of the super gizmo, Dr. Norman Solaris, in a fun little film that to watch you must first park your brain, your cynicism and put a smile on your face and prepare to snicker endlessly throughout! A delicious little spoof of the James Bond genre has Martin doing what he and the rest of the 'Rat Pack' did so well, drinking and wooing the ladies despite those pesky villains trying to take his mind off his favorite hobbies. This rates a solid 2.5 stars out of 4.

Dino still Cool
Ok,I realize that by any normal standard this would qualify as a bad film. The production values are as poor as you can imagine and the plot (something about retrieving a flying saucer from the clutches of the enemy) pretty damn ridiculous. Yet, the first time I saw this film several years ago I absolutely loved it. The jokes center on booze and sex,and needless to say,Dean Martin handles them as only he can. As far as Matt Helm films go,"The Silencers" and "The Wrecking Crew" qualify as better "spy" films,yet for pure trashy fun nothing beats the "The Ambushers". The babe factor is over the top, and the ribald humour of this film makes James Bond seem stilted and serious. From its cheesy theme song right down to the Slaygirls,this is politically incorrect sixties camp to the max. Watching it now you'll lament the fact that nobody can make a film this light hearted anymore. Dean and the rest of the cast treat the whole thing as a put on. A real drive in treat from the go go era; if this film actually had great action sequences I'd have died.

Double Disaster
If you ever heard that the Matt Helm series was entertaining, believe me, it wasn't these two entries. They, especially "The Ambushers", are just plain bad. Funny thing is, the other two Helm movies, especially "The Wrecking Crew", offer fine entertainment. It had to do with the directors, as Henry Levin directed the two bombs, and the guy, who would go on to direct the classic "Walking Tall", the others. There is nothing whatsoever redeemable about the Ambushers, and Murderers' Row is noteworthy simply for the appearance of Ann Margeret and an over-the-top performance as Karl Malden as the villian. Neither makes much sense at all.

A Great Bad Movie
A great many of us will be familiar with the image of Hugh Hefner (Founder and Publisher of Playboy magazine) at one of his famous parties. We can picture in our mind's eye Hef walking around Playboy Mansion in his robe and pajamas, cocktail in one hand, cigarette in the other. (Actually, Hef usually smoked a pipe. But for the sake of argument, we'll say it was a cigarette.) He's smiling. He's mingling. He's making small talk, with amusing bon mots and double entendres.

Now imagine that, instead of a robe and pajamas, Hef is decked out in attire that would have been fashionably casual for an affluent male in the 1960s. And while keeping everything else the same (the cigarette, the cocktail, the utterly casual attitude), imagine Hef in the underground lair of an evil Arch-Villain who is ready to visit death and destruction across the globe. Oh, and make Hef a James Bond-esque spy.

You now have the basic feel for the four Matt Helm movies, of which "The Ambushers" (1967) was the third. (The others were "The Silencers," "Murderer's Row," and "The Wrecking Crew.")

The Matt Helm movies were made as star vehicles for Dean Martin. By the mid-60s, Dino had cemented his reputation as a boozing playboy, and the Matt Helm role was written with this in mind. In the movies, Matt Helm is a boozing, affable, world-famous photographer of beautiful women who works for "Slaymate" magazine (which fits in nicely with the Hugh Hefner analogy...). BUT THAT'S JUST A COVER! Helm is REALLY a boozing, affable super-competent secret agent for the Intelligence Counter Espionage (ICE) organization. And in all four movies, he casually wanders his way through whatever the bad guys have to throw at him as though he were looking for the nearest bar.

I should point out that the Matt Helm movies are all pretty bad. But they're wonderfully bad, and they're great, cheezy, campy fun. I tend to speak glowingly of the Matt Helm movies because I enjoy them for their over-the-top campiness, but more serious-minded viewers will probably be turned off.

And let me tell you: THE AMBUSHERS spares *no* expense in the "campiness" department. Try this plot on for size:

The ICE organization is testing out a new, super-secret flying saucer. That's right, a flying saucer. As MacDonald (James Gregory), head of ICE points out, if it works it will put the other planets "right next door," and the rest of the universe will be "just around the corner." It's never sufficiently explained why a counter-espionage organization would need to go to other planets (much less the rest of the universe), but no matter. They've made it and they're testing it.

The test works fine, until the saucer is forced to land by Mysterious Bad Guys. The leader of the Mysterious Bad Guys enters the saucer, and the pilot (a female) screams. Fade to black. This all takes place within the first 10 minutes of the movie.

Cut to Matt Helm, in Matt Helm heaven. He's helping to train a cadre of new ICE agents who, coincidentally enough, all happen to be gorgeous, scantily-clad babes. Go figure. But he runs into a white-haired, crazed woman who thinks all men are out to kill her. It's his old partner! It's also the woman who piloted the flying saucer! Will wonders never cease? (Answer: Of course not! This is Matt Helm!)

Naturally, Helm is assigned to find the saucer, and he has to take his former partner (who's now recovered) because only females can fly the saucer. The reason is because the saucer uses "electromagnetic fields" to propel itself around the neighborhood. And, according to the movie, electromagnetic fields are lethal to males. No, I never learned that in my basic physics classes either, but there you are.

You can guess the rest. Typical spy-movie stuff with the usual Matt Helm twist. Helm still wanders from place to place as though he's looking for the nearest bar. During one fight scene he gets knocked into a huge vat of beer, much to his obvious delight. And in a send-up of his singing career, the very final scene shows him trying to teach an attractive new recruit how to make love while on the job. The recruit is cold and unresponsive, even after Helm puts on a Dean Martin tune. But when he puts on Frank Sinatra, she responds amorously, much to his chagrin.

High points of the movie:

* The whole "electromagnetic fields are lethal to men" bit, which had me rolling on the floor.

* A couple of male bad guys dying from, as near as I can tell, turning completely red all over. Even their clothes. This is, apparently, the inevitable consequence of exposing men to electromagnetic fields. (Now you know why your Mom always told you not to sit so close to the TV...)

* The obvious set pieces when Helm is supposed to be outdoors.

* A set of railroad tracks which leads right up to the very edge of a cliff, apparently for no other reason than to allow a railroad flatcar to careen dramatically off said cliff.

* The *incredibly* cheesy effects, which include ray guns that emit sparks, and radar towers that emit obvious "radar" noises.

* Helm turning his belt into a sword by the simple expedient of getting it wet.

It's true that none of the other Matt Helm movies are pinnacles of the film-maker's craft. But the plot and cheesy special effects make THE AMBUSHERS a cut below the others. In ranking the four Matt Helm movies in terms of overall quality, this would be #4 on my list. But in ranking them in terms of laughs (both intentional and otherwise), this is easily #1.

Matt Helm makes Austin Powers look like Smiley
Hopelessly cheeseball, sexist comedy, but entertaining in a creepy, pathological, what-were-they-thinking-back-then kind of way. The smarm content is high, but this is one for the 60's time capsule. Prepare your jaw for much dropping. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

An Unsung Gem of a TV Movie
Featuring the young Alec Baldwin at his most compelling, Dress Grey (screenplay by Gore Vidal), is a political murder mystery with a Southern Gothic touch. Fans of "Advise and Consent," "The Best Man," etc. will enjoy the slightly over-the-top military-school machinations of a bunch of fine character actors like Hal Holbrook, Alexis Smith, Lloyd Bridges, Eddie Albert et al, and mystery fans won't be disappointed by the plot, which has plenty of twists and turns and even a couple of truly tense and suspenseful moments. Frank discussion of homosexuality in military school setting my be a turn-off for some (and a turn-on for others, for whom Baldwin and fellow students provide plenty of eye-candy.) Long enough for more than one bowl of popcorn, consistenly interesting, a must-see. Not sure what the diffence is between the slightly different prices and number of tapes listed here, I have viewed the double tape version, buy others at your own risk.

A suspensful miltary thriller set in the 1960's!
This video deals with a miltary school in the 1960's. A cadethas died.The miltary are looking into the matter. Everyone issuspect. Alec Baldwin plays a cadet who gets set up during the trial of his fellow cadet. The movie is fast as the miltary is trying to avoid a media frenzy on the base. This movie also deals with gays and the miltary. There is a slight hint that maybe the cadet was killed by a gay lover. Of course the miltary back then would not like this stuff out to the media. The movie is a very suspenseful thriller in the 1960's! This video features an an all star cast Alec Baldwin(The Hunt For Red Ocober,Mecury Rising),Lane Smith(Superman TV series)Lloyd Bridges(the hot shot movies) and others! look for some up and coming stars in this video as well! ... Read more