Reviews (55)

Definitely worth the wait!
I placed the order for this DVD at the beginning of April. I received it at the end of August. But boy, was it worth the wait!!

I remember seeing this film a while back on television and loving it. Jeremy Irons is one of the world's finest actors, and he sure shows it in this film.

As usual, Criterion- the creme de la creme of DVDs presents an amazing DVD. And with a combination of Irons and Cronenberg, how can you go wrong?

I must warn, that people may find this film disturbing, to say the least- especially women. If you can get past that factor, this is a must-see film

Jeremy Irons plays both Elliot- the playboy- and Beverly- the more work obsessed of the two- identical twin gynecologists, and things start to fall apart when a soap star(played brilliantly by Geneviève Bujold) enters the boys' lives- in particular, Beverly(For Elliot, It's just another fling)

As usual, Criterion spare nothing when it comes to extras. DEAD RINGERS has to have one of the best commentary tracks I have ever heard. I don't think there is ever a moment where no one is not talking!

There's Director-David Cronenberg; Actor-Jeremy Irons; Editor-Ron Sanders; Production Designer-Carol Spier; and Director of Photography-Peter Suschitzky

Other cool features include "Mathematics in Metal" and "Instruments for Operating on Mutant Women"- a gallery of photos and designs that were made for the film; The designs for the opening sequence(I just adore that music!!!!)

A good featurette that is quite lengthy compared to others, and a trailer. And one of my favorite features- how the twinning effects were done.

A brilliant, but at the same time, disturbing film!

OH, DOCTOR! AM I IN TROUBLE?
'House Calls' were never quite like this.

David Cronenberg takes us deep into the ever-festering and drug-distorted world of Identical Twin Insanity - this time based on fact! JEREMY IRONS provides the disturbing double-trouble with appropriate brilliance as Doctors Beverly and Elliot Mantle - the dead-ringer gynecologists. [You know the story - # 1 would start the exam, leave - # 2 would enter, continue the exam - and the patient? Totally oblivious of the switch! Nasty, very nasty ...]

GENEVIEVE BUJOLD as the Caustic Star, provides the catalist. A superb performance as the woman who eventually unhinges the twins.

It's a cool, disturbing movie, especially considering the trust one has to place in physicians, as They say "We practise medicine". "Practise???"

Nasty moment? Those 'specially designed' instruments - for 'the mutated'. It's close to Kafka - leaving metamorphosis to the imagination.

A superlative performance by Mr. Irons - who went on to "Reversal Of Fortune" [Award Winnner], another chill!

More 'punishment'? Try "Requiem for a Dream"

welcome to cronenbergs brutal beautiful world
the criterion collection is a superb presentation of david cronenbergs masterwork; dead ringers.
this film stands with crash, rabid, the brood, and spider as essential cronenberg.
his whole body of work has been impressive and one is hard pressed to come up with a more individualistic auteur in cinema today.
dead ringers contains two of the most incredibly acted performances in recent memory. irons, of course , and bujold.
much has rightly been made of irons' dual performance and he deservedly (and surprisingly)won an oscar nomination for that performance.
but as much as irons performance was celebrated, bujolds was somewhat ignored. her character is smoldering in tormented sexuality and she balances coolness, vulnerability and agressive sexuality in a truly jarring performance. bujold, with barbara hershey,remains one of the most underrated actresses of her generation and she (unlike actresses such as nicole kidman) is an actress we need have no fear of ever going 'merchant ivory'
the visuals in this film are numbing and one walks away with various shades of horrific red seared into your brain (and of course we know red equals both sex and death, an understandably favorite obsession with cronenberg).
the images of gynological instruments transformed into sculpural torture devices is one of the most horrific ever shown on celluloid and this takes that whole sex and death theme to the nth degree.predictably enough, it is one of the most squirm inducing moments of the entire film.
by the time this film is finished you are mentally drained and i remember walking out of the theatre mumbling (probably incoherently) to myslef.
there are not many films that can make me feel like ive just been run over by a freight train.

Jeremy Irons' Best Work
Maybe it's the combined effect of having two Jeremy Irons for the price of one, but I believe -and Irons has been quoted to the same effect- that this is the finest work this fine actor has commited to the screen. Much more deserving of the oscar than his recessive Claus Von Bulow in 'Reversal of Fortune.'
The way he plays the weak twin off the stronger one, whose influence fades when a woman comes between them, is extraordinary. If you don't mind the pervasive grimness of the story in general, than do yourself a favor (God, starting to sound like that pretentious guy from the Actors Studio on Bravo), and get 'Dead Ringers.'

Cronenberg-Irons tour de force.
'Dead Ringers' may indeed be David Cronenberg's best film. Jeremy Irons performance is truly extraordinary. As for not being able to tell the difference between the two brothers, I could sense immediately which brother was which by simple body language and how each brother carried himself. Which is a testiment to the subtlties of Iron's acting, that he could make you believe he was two different people at the same time on screen. This belief was also helped by the amazing motion control camera sequences which allowed Irons to "act with himself" in the same frame. The clean perpendicular lines of the twins' appartment was especially chosen to make it easier to cut the film together.

Viewers should be warned beforehand that 'Dead Ringers' is not a horror movie, it's more of a psychological character study. The twin brothers have an unusual gendered relationship. Elliot as the suave unfeeling male who's "no good with the serious ones" and Beverly, with the girl's name, as the the sensitive, caring female. Soon they come to realize that they are one physical entity, forever separated as two physical beings.

In talking about the film Cronenberg has said that men have proven to be much more squeamish about this film than women as lying on the gynecological chair is an experience that many women have gone through. Yet many men have no idea what it's like. Cronenberg was fascinated by these doctors who knew more abaout their patients than their husbands did.

The only drawback about this whole project is that the marvellous soundtrack is not available anywhere! ... Read more

Reviews (897)

"No hay banda! There is no band. It is all an illusion."
David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" is a whole lot of nothing. People have attached various meanings to the images, dialogue, and events in it, but this has been a waste of a tremendous amount of time. "Mulholland Drive" is nothing more than a failed-television pilot that was edited together with some newly-shot material so that all the previously-shot footage would not go to waste. To think that some people believe that the end product is a momentous creative accomplishment is mind-boggling because "Mulholland Drive" is all smoke and absolutely no fire.

Wide-eyed Betty Elms (Naomi Watts) arrives in Los Angeles hoping to become a major star in the entertainment industry. Rita (Laura Elena Harring) has been targeted for death but has her life spared when an accident enables her to escape her fate. The lives of the two women become strangely intertwined when Betty finds the amnesiac Rita taking a shower in her aunt's apartment. In the course of trying to find out who Rita really is, the two women come across a movie director named Adam Kesher (Justin Theroux) who might hold some of the answers the women are seeking. Before all is said and done, a decomposing body is discovered which proves to be the key to unraveling the mystery behind Rita's identity and the strange relationship she has with Betty.

So what did Lynch intend to accomplish with "Mulholland Drive"? Did he want to create a surrealist work that would redefine the film narrative? Did he want to create a post-modern film noir that was so stylish and complex that it would belong to a category all its own? Did he want to prove that a film could effectively tell a story using only symbols and metaphors? Did he want to create the cinematic version of the cosmic joke? The more you think about it, it seems the "cosmic joke" choice might be the correct answer - and boy, did Lynch pull a fast one by tricking Universal into releasing this film and tricking us into watching it. Truth be told, "Mulholland Drive" is not the crowning achievement of his career - it is instead incontrovertible proof that Lynch has crossed over from being a director who makes "unique" films to being a director who makes "incomprehensible" films. The fine performances by Watts, Harring, and Theroux are wasted here as is the beautiful production design and cinematography. It is too bad that all of these separate elements did not find a home in a better production. "Mulholland Drive" is simply the equivalent of an abstract painting in which people see whatever they believe they see when looking at it. If you believe that pointless ambiguity is a desired goal of the creative process then this film is for you. Look elsewhere if you're not entertained by staring at nothingness.

a beautiful masterwork
This film has a haunting beauty that is akin to experiencing Klee upon the first time. The mystery and sensuality wrecks havoc of all your senses. I relished the experience.

Midgets!
This film is David Lynch doing what he does best: screwing with people's heads until they want to smash their VCRs. There's everything you expect from Lynch; bizarre, dreamlike situations, whacked-out characters with no clearly defined purpose, an inexplicably foreboding atmosphere. Oh, and of course, the entire cast shifting identities in the last half hour. While I loved it, there was one particular moment which was a bit too unsettling, even for Lynch. You see, there's this elderly couple who appear at the beginning. They're kind of strange, and have smiles plastered on their faces. They disappear for the next two hours, which is nothing new. Near the end, they show up again - as...hyperactive two-inch tall midgets. Even Eraserhead's singing worm creature didn't disturb me as much. I mean, midgets are kind of disturbing, and old people who can't keep smiling are also kind of disturbing, and when you combine the two...

25354. IRS97, stick to reviewing Charlton Heston movies
... Because apparently that's all you know.
Your recent attacks on 'Age' for her response to your original aggresively offensive review attacking anyone who has a taste for Lynch's art are as 'ignorant' as your original review was.
Age, as most people who admire Lynch's art, has a passion for the art of film and music.
Dirge9 (whom I do not know!) recently wrote a superb review of Mulholland and what it truly is.
A lot of reviewers (besides myself and my group of 7 artists)
have responded to your 'movies are just movies mentality'.
And, your conservatism shows IT'S age.
Comparing the art of Lynch to the 'art' of someone like Charlton Heston is excrutiatingly laughable.
I can see why, as an American conservative, you 'get' Heston, the most arrogant Hollywood actor of all time. There's even an 'in joke' in Mulholland with the casting of Chad Everett (who brilliantly parodies his own Hollywood image) that is comparable to the like and mentality of Heston, the once president of the Hollywood Actors Union who blatantly attacked Ed Asner for his political stances and had enough Hollywood clout to see to it that 'Lou Grant' was taken off the air.
Mulholland is so anti-Hollywood in every frame. It mocks Hollwood's 'The story must be clear, cohesive and literal' mentality.
This film pulls the rug out from under the Hollywood type viewer's feet in every sense imaginable.
Hollywood is a facade and Mulholland mocks that facade. Nothing is as it seems, hence the two halves of the film. First, we have the facade, then the ugly truth comes out and does so in such a way that it brilliantly leaves the viewer scratching his head.
'What the hell just happened?' is the typical response.
Admittedly, this film is not at all friendly to the Hollywood type viewer (aka yourself).
it's amusing too that in looking now at all of your reviews that you liked 'The Shining' (another anti-Hollywood film), anD detested both 'Twister' and 'Zardoz'.
'Age', in the college we attended, wrote reviews very similar to your views on those three films.
And yet,even though you, like her, pointed out the downright ignorance of 'Twister', and the Hollywood hyper pretentiousness of Zardoz, and praised the brillance of that horror epic, 'The Shining' you did not 'get' the similar sentiments of Lynch's 'Mulholland and 'Lost Highway'.
There are movies and there are films and Mulholland fits squarely into the latter.
Film is as much a visual 'art form' as painting is, while 'movies' are valid forms of entertainment, usually created by Hollywood business men.
Europe is far more advanced in it's thinking regarding film as an art form and Lynch has a very European artist's frame of thinking.
Another reviewer recently wrote of 'elitistic taste' and wrote that this is something to strive for.
Mulholland is a perfect example of a film being for 'eltistic taste' and like Dirge9 I agree that the fact that this film gets the passionate reviews that it does, is refreshing because it proves that Lynch's art is indeed challenging and every negative review you give it further proves this point.

and another thing, part two
I notice my previous review is getting only "unhelpful" votes. So let me try to explain myself yet again. David Lynch is interested in making preposterous movies. David Lynch is perniciously interested in making movies that are basically terrible, yet terrible in a dissociative way. The essence of a David Lynch movie is that it is a load of horse puckey, to quote the apartment manager in Mulholland drive. What's that? You want examples? Well, lets take another of Lynch's movies, Lost Highway. Bill Pullman's character is established as morosely mellow and more or less inert. Cut to: a scene of him playing his saxophone in a club, "wailing on it" as they say. This is in total contradiction to what we have just seen - contradiction being the main form of literary humor - but more importantly, Pullman is a very, very bad saxophone player. His playing is preposterous. One cannot take him seriously as a musician. Another example, from the same movie, is Richard Pryor as the garage manager on the phone to a potential customer. He says, "We got eight guys here. I'll let you talk to five of them; and if you can get that price from ONE of them, I'll let you ask the other three." Any questions? Is this not self-evidently complete and utter nonsense? And what about the fact that halfway through the movie Bill Pullman turns into a totally different guy and so is let out of jail. After all, since he is not the same guy they put in there, they gotta let him out. That follows, don't it? Am I making myself clear?
No? Okay, what about David Bowie in Fire Walk With Me? He plays a Texan. I am sure he was cast as a Texan precisely because David Lynch figured on Bowie being unable to do a convincing accent. He says to his casting director, "Let's have Bowie play the Texan. He'll do a terrible job and it'll sound like sh*t." Am I getting through to you people now? David Lynch intentionally makes very bad movies. What?!?!? Another example?!?!? Well, how's about Laura Palmer saying to her boyfriend, "I'm long gone, like a turkey in the corn." "Don't say that. A turkey's one of the dumbest birds there is." (tears falling down her cheek)"Gobble...gobble...gobble..." Can't you see what I'm saying to you?!?!?
DO YOU BEGIN TO SEE THERE IS NO BOY THERE IN THE DARK ROOM?!??! ... Read more

Reviews (102)

COOL CARPENTER MOVIE
This review contains some slight spoilers. Many people say thatJohn Carpenter does either GREAT or VERY BAD films. I think his only two duds were Escape from LA and Village of the Damned. But he is one of my two fave directors (David Lynch is the other) and this is one of his best movies.

It may seem confusing at first but trust me...it does make sense. The premise of this film fascinates me. What happens when the line between fantasy and reality disappears and creatures from fiction can exist in the real world? Wow! This makes the basis of a totally cool movie.

John Carpenter always used 2.35:1 photography and in this film we get a screen filled with creepy imagery and cool locations. The film was shot entirely in Canada in 1993 and was released in 1995. It is set basically in the city and in the fictional town of Hobbs End. Some dark magick/logic at work methinks.

This is definitely a horror film for the thinking audience. If you like your horror deep, intriguing and downbeat without being depressing...you'll LOVE this one.

The DVD is in Dolby 5.1 and is anamorphically enhanced at 2.35:1. END

Scary
John Carpenters In the Mouth of Madness is one of those few horror movies that really gets under your skin, it is not your average horror movie.
The plot is about a free-lance insurance investigator John Trent(Neill) that gets hired by a publisher(look for Charlton Heston as the mannager), to find their best selling horror author Sutter Cane(Prochnow) that mysteriously disapeared. To aid him the publisher sends his yuppie-editor along with Trent.
They end up in Canes fictional town of Hobbs End, and from there the plot really starts to pick up speed.
Alot of the plot is loosely based on H.P. Lovecrafts Ctulhu mythos and borrows alot from Lovecrafts books and mythology without being a true mythos-story. When you are done watching the movie you really sit back with a feeling of "What really happened?", because nothing seems to be certain in this movie.
That said, I will say that this is one of the strongest horror movies of all times and one of the few that really mannages to scare without being (unintentionaly) funny.

More like "I wish I hadn't watched it" Madness
This movie must have been made too late in the digestion process, because by the time you are done watching, you are convinced that it was "In the Excrement of Madness".

For being made in 1995, the special effects were a joke. I've seen better masks at the drugstore during halloween.

The female lead in this movie really "killed" my interest, but to the title's credit, her acting did make me MAD.

This had so much potential, but I wish Sutter Cane had written in better actors, special effects and directing.

In the Mouth of Madness (1995)
Another John Carpenter masterpiece! Terror-filled story is about a popular horror novelist who disappears and a special investigator is sent to find out where Sutter Cane is. Along with a sexy companion, the investigator John Trent finds himself in a town filled with evil that is only existent in Cane's books. This is one of my favourite John Carpenter movies alongside THE FOG and HALLOWEEN. His use of atmosphere and imagery are brilliant and work well. The script is twisting and thrilling and packed with suspense. Special effects are also amazing. And last but not least, the performances here are something else, especially by Sam Niel as John Trent. Brilliant, one of Carpenter's best.

scariest movie i have ever seen.... period!
Let me start off by saying that I have seen this movie 7 times and it scares the crap out of me every time I see it. The movie centers around an insurance (...)named John Trent. He is hired by the world's best selling author, Sutter Cane's publishing company to investigate Cane's sudden dissapearance. Trent, who is always looking for a rational explanation, thinks this is a publicity stunt. He picks up some of Cane's books and uses pieces of the covers as puzzle pieces which form New Hampshire. He then notices in all the books they talk about a town called Hobb's End. He and Canes editor go searching for this "fake" town but soon find it much more than fake. I won't give away anything else so go buy the movie, you won't be dissapointed! By the way, is it just me or are the scenes with the kid/old man on the bike quite possibly the scariest scenes ever in a horror movie? ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Get a real buzz on.
Quickie-flick exploitation master Roger Corman produced and directed this epic example of schlock cinema. A forty-something cosmetics magnate takes experimental injections derived from royal wasp jelly to look twenty years younger. Impatient to achieve the desired results, she overdoses on the stuff. The massive jolt of wasp juice causes sporadic "insect girl" transformations that lead to murder. We doubt that Corman intended this little sci-fi thriller to be camp entertainment, but that perspective works best in viewing this film. The fright "makeup" consists of a bug-eyed head mask complete with antennae and goofy looking mittens with claws (or is it stingers?) that leave the human wrists conspicuously visible. Regardless of logic, the apparently wingless creature makes an insect wing buzzing sound, raised by several decibels. The acting, dialogue, and production values are typically low budget. The comic relief provided by Maureen "The Princess of Flatbush" is worth the purchase price alone. Die-hard fans of cheesy movies will recognize the slow-witted janitor as Yvette Vickers' slow-witted husband in "Attack of the Giant Leeches." This guy has very bad luck with women in both films. Collectors need this one, regardless. To others out there: get a buzz on. ;-)

A beautiful woman by day - a lusting queen wasp by night.
From Roger Corman, one of the most prolific director/producers in Hollywood, comes The Wasp Woman (1960), a film that was most probably influenced by 1958's The Fly, with Vincent Price. Hey, if Hollywood can turn a man into a fly, why not turn a woman into a wasp? Well, no one ever accused Corman of originality.

The movie opens up with a scientist getting fired from a company the produces honey as he is doing some strange experimentation. Seems the Scientist, Eric Zinthrop, played by Michael Mark, has been exploring the notion of using royal jelly to create a rejuvenation formula. After getting fired, Zinthrop contacts Janice Starlin, played by Susan Cabot, the head of Starlin Cosmetics. Starlin Cosmetics is losing sales due to the fact that Ms. Starlin was the only spokesperson for the cosmetics, and now that she is aging, sales are falling off.

After talking to Zinthrop and seeing his success on turning back time with various animals, she hires him on, sets him up in a lab, and they begin treatments on her. The process appears to be working, but Ms. Starlin becomes impatient, wanting more results quicker, so she secretly starts injecting herself with the formula. What happens? Take a guess...I mean, the movie is titled The Wasp Woman.

The acting wasn't bad, but we didn't even see the wasp woman until almost an hour into this rather talky feature. There are some bloody deaths, and the make up to create the wasp woman isn't all that bad, but the movie would have benefited from not making us wait so long in seeing the creature, filling up the 73 minute run time with nonsensical plot threads that don't develop.

Alpha Video provides an exceptionally poor print here, as the film has all kinds of blemishes and even drops out briefly at a couple of points. The picture appears washed out, and the audio is pretty poor. No special features here in this barebones release, not even a trailer, but for under ten bucks I wasn't expecting much. Now that I've experienced the quality of Alpha Video, I doubt I will buy any more of their releases. I would recommend someone interested in owning this movie on DVD to do a little research, as I have since found out a number of companies have released a version, some even on double bills with other movies. I will say the cover art on the Alpha Video release looks enticing, but, as with most things in life, you get what you pay for here.

Cookieman108

CAMPY HORROR AT IT'S BEST!!!
THE WASP WOMAN, ORIGINALLY RELEASED IN 1959, IS A CLASSIC CAMP HORROR FILM.
IT'S PLOT AND ACTING WERE VERY GOOD.
THE SPECIAL EFFECTS WERE JUST LIKE MANY OTHER FILMS OF IT'S TIME, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FLY, WITH VINCENT PRICE.
VERY TAME BY TODAY'S STANDARDS, BUT FOR SOME GOOD CLASSIC HORROR ENTERTAINMENT, CHECK THIS ONE OUT!!
IT'S VERY GOOD!!

The Leech Woman
"The Leech Woman" with Colleen Gray (also Grant Williams and Gloria Talbot) was the film you saw. In it she plays a woman with a wish to grow younger and finds the answer in the necks of young men! She uses a ring with a sharp point to puncture (I think) the spinal cord and drink the fluid. In "The Wasp Woman" Susan Cabot finds the answer to youth by injecting wasp enzymes into her blood stream thus making her beautiful by day and not so beautiful by night! "The Wasp Woman" was released in 1959.

I was too young to see "The Leech Woman" in 1959/'60 at the theater but I saw it on tv in the late 60s or early 70s, and I loved it! I saw "The Wasp Woman," in the late '60s, on TV as well.

prepubescent horror
Ok, slipstream back almost a half century ago. A coupla boys (me an Donnie) each plunk down our quarters at the Aggieville Campus Theater and enter into the forbidden world of cinema. First stop: the concession stand where I choose the usual Mike & Ike jellys (it was a game to see what flavor you put in your mouth by the shape but really they mostly tasted the same). Donnie (died in 1969 from leukimia) always chose malted milk balls because he knew I hated them. Next stop: the drinking fountains, one for adults and one for kids. I wonder how many chipped teeth was the result of us kids trying to jump up and to hang on just to look grown up to our peers, not to mention getting a good face washing. Third stop: right next to the drinking fountains was an Art Deco statue of a naked lady. Full sized as I recall, black granite carved. I knew I wanted it but not sure why, perhaps it was her smile when she looked at me. Last stop: Wasp Woman, the movie. I was young and the memory fades into the unsure since. But if this "Wasp Woman" movie is about a woman killing people with a special ring and then drinking their blood to achieve youth let me tell you it scared the beejeesus out of me. This movie and "Invaders From Mars" was the reason I was a bedwetter. ... Read more

Reviews (24)

Wes Craven's least successful is his best
This movie was known as one of Wes Craven's least successful pictures. It is his best. A nice change. Why is it that he gets recognision for the garbage "Last House On The Left" and not this? You know, it seems actully this is a Steven Spielberg movie in a way. Unlike most trashy Craven movies (Nightmare On Elm Street, Last House On The Left, Shocker) he did good with this one, making a touching story about an experiment with less than positive results. I instantly fell in love with Kristy Swanson the moment she appeared. She is so beautiful in this movie. The way she looks would drive any boy crazy for her. I was 10 years old when this movie came out in 1986. I am now 23 and still cant take my eyes of her. Of course, she has grown up now, and does not look the same as she did in '86. Even when Swanson turns robot with a violent streak, I loved her-- so sweet, so cute, so beautiful. The movie itself is entertaining because it does not show Swanson in a typical horror movie role as a trashy teen, and instead potrays as the nicest, sweetest and beautiful girl next door. I like that. With a Spielberg shadow, this is Cravens' best. The supporting actors are not bad, but not up to Swanson's performance. Very nice, and a break from the "Scream" flicks made today. Note: Don't get me wrong, I liked the "Scream" movies!

Deadly Friend
One of my all time favorite horror movies this film deals with a new familiy in the neighborhood that includes a super intelligent robot that will defend his friends. When the abusive father of the girl next door accidently kills his daughter the robot's microchip seems the answer. Now it hard to tell where the girl ends and the robot begins as she seeks revenge on those who hurt both halves of her. A movie I truely wish would move to DVD in the future for its twist ending alone.

Boring
This is the only movie I have ever seen where the dialog is completely worthless. You can actually watch the entire movie, like I did, on fast-forward, and still understand what's going on. It's that dull. For starters, it takes 29 minutes for things to actually start happening. Very slow development. Too bad for a Wes Craven movie. I guess he should stick to "Freddy".

Deadly Friend
A wonderful movie I was proud to buy when the video store went out of business. Something that I think would sell well if put out on DVD. It deals with a genius boy whose family move to a new town with a robot that the boy built himself. When the neighbor's father accidently kills his daughter the boy plays modern day Frankenstein to bring her back with the use of the robots microchips. Now it hard to tell where the girl ends and the robot begins as both get revenge on those who harmed them in live.

The spirit of Samantha lives forever in our hearts.
Kristy Swanson deserved an Academy Award for her portrayal of the character 'Samantha'. So innocent, yet in so much pain. Pain endured alone in the home of an abusive father. Our hero lives next door to her, a child prodigy. A genius in the field of biology, chemistry, and mathematics. He is in classes far beyond his age group, yet he excels.

Samantha is physically abused by her father, all the classic symptoms are present; mysterious bruises, black eyes, and a shy, quiet demeanor. She will not tell anyone. One day her father goes to far and kills her, throwing her down a flight of stairs.

Oh rue the day of innocence and youth lost. How many of us knew a silent victim? How many of us were helpless to act? How many lost loves were never experienced because of circumstances that were above the realm of the average American teenager? I knew Samantha, a girl just like her. I could have acted, but didn't. That is why 'Deadly Fiend' will always have a special place in my heart.

Our hero, plays a junior Frankenstein upon his friend's death. He rebuilds her, brings her back to life. Will she avenge herself by killing her father? Will she be forever grateful and fall in love with our hero? Will she run off and become a sausage vendor in Wisconsin? I cannot give away the ending of this beautiful, modern Romeo & Juliet. To give away the ending in this review would be a disservice to you, kind reader.

For all the Samantha's of the world. I hope you grow up and salvage just a bit of your childhood for yourself. In a place deep in your heart that is yours alone. ... Read more

Book Description

Vincent Price lends his distinctively chilling voice to this spine-tingling collection of tales, spells, and things that go bump in the night. This hair-raising audiotape features classic horror stories by Edgar Allan Poe and John Cllier, as well as more practical tales such as ‘How to See Ghosts and Surely Bring Them to You.’ So turn down the lights and turn up the volume . . . if you dare!

... Read more

Reviews (19)

One of the Creepy Corman Classics
Directed by the venerable king of quality low-budget filmmaking, Roger Corman, and scripted by the prolific and popular SF and horror writer Richard Matheson, TALES OF TERROR is comprised of three vignettes based on stories by Edgar Allan Poe. The incomparable Vincent Price stars in all three, with Peter Lorre and Basil Rathbone each co-starring (separately, alas) in one of the others. Any knowledgeable horror fans should be nearly euphoric after reading the credentials behind this flick--and they won't be disappointed!

The first story is based on Poe's "Morella," but Corman and Matheson take great liberties to make the tale darker and scarier than the original. Unfortunately, the altered plot and its resolution (?) are a bit hard to follow, and it is therefore the weaker of the three plays.

The second--and best!--vignette, "The Black Cat" is actually a composite of Poe's story of the same name and his "The Cask of Amontillado." Peter Lorre hilariously hams it up as the cuckolded Montresor Herringbone, and Vincent Price is also a riot as Herringbone's nemesis, Fortunato. In spite of the humor, however, there are still plenty of chills when Lorre builds a wall around his "problems."

The final vignette, based on Poe's "The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar," features the wonderful Basil Rathbone as the hypnotist who uses his powers to put the titular character, Valdemar (portrayed by Price), in a sort of limbo between life and death. Again, Corman and Matheson have taken liberties with the original story (e.g., making the hypnotist malevolent and self-serving), but this time it's to great effect, as Rathbone makes a delightfully devilish villain. The make-up job on Price in the final scene is pretty creepy, too, in spite of the film's low-budget effects. Good old-fashioned frights in this one.

The DVD edition of TALES OF TERROR is short on extras (trailer only)--it would've been great to have a Corman commentary on this one, which many of the other MGM releases of Corman's films DO have--but seeing this film in widescreen makes it well worth the reasonable cost. A worthy addition to any fan of classic horror.

Five Stars...
Being a fan of Vincent Price and Peter Lorre for that matter, this was just priceless (no pun intended). Aside from Peter Lorre not aging well at all, this just makes his "tale" all the more realistic.
The first tale is called Morella where Vincent Price blames his visiting daughter for the death of his wife. Yet there is a twist to the story regarding the daughter. Really well done.

The second tale is The Black Cat with Peter Lorre as the main character here in one of the best parts I've seen him play.
He puts pathetic, mean and humorous into one role and is hysterical doing the classic wine testing scene with Vincent Price. I was truly laughing out loud. The facial expressions that Price has in this one when acting with Lorre are worth this DVD alone.

The third and last tale is the scariest in my view. It is called the Case of M. Valdemar where Basil Rathbone plays a man who tries to gain control over a dying Vincent Price. This is a pretty scary one, and Rathbone completes his role nicely.

The ladies in these tales (Maggie Pierce, Joyce Jameson and Debra Paget) are all absolutely stunning. You just can't compare the beauty of that day with today.

Get this DVD, especially if you like Price and Lorre....not to mention Poe. I promise you it is something you will watch over and over again.

A wonderful horror anthology
Vincent Price leads an all-star cast in this horror film. Price appears in all three segments. In the first, he plays a man named "Locke" who blames the death of his wife on his daughter who's just came back after 26 years. This is great, verbal horror sort of like a throwback to "Night Gallery" or other dramatic anthology shows, where the horror is in the character's personality and not in the graphics. only the final minutes does the story turn into what AIP movie goers expect. The second story, as has been voted by mostly all on here, is the stand-out. Peter Lorre and Joyce Jameson team up with Vincent in a re-telling of "Cask of Amontillado" but re-titled "The Black Cat". If you've heard or read the story, you pretty much know what's going to happen...the wine tasting scene is hilarious. The final segment offers Basil Rathbone and Vincent although Rathbone has the most action as Price's character, Valdemar, is bed-ridden. Rathbone plays an evil mesmerist who mentally tortures Valdemar's wife and keeps Valdemar in suspended animation you could say in an effort to kill him and run off with the wife! The segment ends with a memorable scene that isn't really sick...but it's not for the squeamish, either! It's one of Rathbone's finest roles, aside from Sherlock Holmes and the hilarious nut-case character in "Comedy of Terrors". This film came along in 1962. At 85 minutes in length, it's short for a feature-length film...but the material and the first-rate acting by everyone make it seem even SHORTER!!

GARBAGE
Don't waste your time or money with this DVD. The best part of the DVD is probably the Trailers and most of those are Garbage also. My DVD came loose in the package and scratched, too bad it didn't do any damage to ruin the Movie. I couldn't wait until the Movie was over, I would have stopped it earlier, but wanted to see if any damage was done. You'll be counting the minutes and seconds after watching the first half or even earlier. The last story was stupid and horrible and should have been left off. Don't waste your money, spend it on the cheap $5-6 horror DVD's, because at least those can be somewhat entertaining.

Tales of tepid terror
What happens when you take great actors (Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Basil Rathbone), a great writer (Richard Matheson), great source material (E.A. Poe) and a passable director (Roger Corman) and have them make a movie? Nothing very good, as it turns out.

This movie is actually three short movies linked by Price's narration. The first story deals with a young woman who returns to the home of her father, a recluse tormented by the death of his wife; how she died is not really clear, but she is nonetheless intent on revenge. The second story - the best of the three - is a take-off on the Cask of Amontillado with Lorre as a murderous drunk. The final story has Rathbone as a mesmerist who traps Price in a state between life and death.

All three stories have potential, the first and last for horror, and the middle one for humor. Unfortunately, none of the stories are executed well, a fault that seems to lie primarily with Corman. For fans of the Poe movies of the sixties (directed primarily by Corman), this might be worth watching, but for horror fans, it is best to look elsewhere. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Alfred Hitchcock considered this 1943 thriller to be his personal favorite among his own films, and although it's not as popular as some of Hitchcock's later work, it's certainly worthy of the master's admiration. Scripted by playwright Thornton Wilder and inspired by the actual case of a 1920's serial killer known as "The Merry Widow Murderer," the movie sets a tone of menace and fear by introducing a psychotic killer into the small-town comforts of Santa Rosa, California. That's where young Charlie (Teresa Wright) lives with her parents and two younger siblings, and where murder is little more than a topic of morbid conversation for their mystery-buff neighbor (Hume Cronyn). Charlie was named after her favorite uncle, who has just arrived for an extended visit, and at first Uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotten) gets along famously with his admiring niece. But the film's chilling prologue has already revealed Uncle Charlie's true identity as the notorious Merry Widow Murderer, and the suspense grows almost unbearable when young Charlie's trust gives way to gradual dread and suspicion. Through narrow escapes and a climactic scene aboard a speeding train, this witty thriller strips away the façade of small-town tranquility to reveal evil where it's least expected. And, of course, it's all done in pure Hitchcockian style.--Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (57)

The Merry Widow Murderer strikes again
Hitchcock loved to subvert what others took for granted. Set in the Northern California town of Santa Rosa, Shadow of a Doubt is most subversive about the very normal, tranquil qualities of small town life. Like all of Hitchcock's most convincing and powerful thrillers, the mystery is revealed right away. Uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotton)is on the run from the police. He's endearing, charming and a serial killer nicknamed The Merry Widow Murderer. With the police hot on his trail he turns to the only place he can--home.

Uncle Charlie visits with his sister and her family in a sleepy small town. Uncle Charlie gets the chance to visit with his namesake and favorite niece nicknamed Young Charlie (Teresa Wright). They have a grand old name visiting until the past comes haunting. Young Charlie begins to suspect that Uncle Charlie is the Merry Window Murderer. What's worse, he realizes that she knows. Suddenly, he must find a way to murder his favorite niece and escape without suspicion.

Shadow is one of Hitchcock's earliest films where his favorite themes finally come together in a great collabortive effort with Thornton Wilder (Our Town). Wilder's early drafts (Hitchcock's wife and frequent collaborator Alma Reville did extensive rewrites along with Sally Benson and, of course, Hitchcock himself, as always, uncredited). Like many of the releases from Universal in the Alfred Hitchcock Collection, Shadow comes back with some interesting extras.

The documentary which includes interviews with Teresa Wright, Hume Cronyn, Robert Boyle, Pat Hitchcock O'Connell and director Peter Bogdanovich, isn't the usual slapdash affair. There's some interesting insights and observations about the film (if you'd like real insight into the film, I'd suggest the recent Hitchcock biography).

Joseph Cotton, Teresa Wright and the rest of this stunning cast capture the atmosphere (or least Hollywood's version of it with a bit more realism courtesy of Wilder and Hitchcock)of life in a small town during the 40's. It's one of Hitchcock's early American masterpieces (along with the wonderful Notorious).

The transfer looks pretty good overall. There are some minor issues with edge enhancement but the overall look of the film is very clean considering the age of the negative. It's a pity that so many Hitchcock films are spread over so many studios. Shadow would work well in a boxed set with Strangers on a Train and even Rear Window.

Charlie, think. How much do you know about your uncle?
Having just watched Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt (1943) last night for the first time, I was surprised at how good it was, and why I've never seen it before. I mean, I am a fan of Hitchcock, and I've seen many of his movies, but to have heard so little of this particular film seems puzzling to me, as it's an excellent film, and worthy of a lot more recognition than it seems to have gotten. Either that or I just need to get out of my cookie jar more often...

Anyway, the film, directed by Alfred Hitchcock and written by Thornton Wilder, stars a wonderful cast including Teresa Wright, who appeared with Gary Cooper the previous year in The Pride of the Yankees (1942), Joseph Cotten (Citizen Kane, The Third Man), and Henry Travers (High Sierra, Mrs. Miniver, It's a Wonderful Life). Also making an appearance is Hume Cronyn making his film debut in a supporting role as a mousy neighbor.

The story involves a family in a small California town, and the impending arrival of a relative, Charlie (Cotten), from back east. Most anticipatory is younger Charlie (Wright), named after her uncle, as she feels a deep, almost telepathic connection to this man she hasn't seen in quite awhile. Now, before Charlie's departure for California, we get a general sense of unease, as it seems Charlie is involved in something of a sinister nature. Upon arriving in California, the visit seems to be going well, as the family welcomes him with open arms, but soon we learn that trouble has followed Charlie in the form of two rather shady individuals who present themselves with a certain amount of deception, which is elaborated on later. The older Charlie's behavior begins to change subtly, perceptible only to the younger Charlie and us, the audience. As various bits of information are disseminated, the younger Charlie's begins to realize that her uncle may harbor a terrible secret that could tear apart the very fabric of her family. As her uncle's slick veneer is slowly peeled away, she eventually learns the truth, with the older Charlie realizing that the relative safety he sought in coming to stay with his sister and her family is in jeopardy. What lengths will he go to to protect himself from his past?

The film starts out very slowly, but it's obviously deliberate, as the sense of dread within the viewer is cultivated in meticulous fashion. This seems a common tactic with Hitchcock, but I did get the feeling it was more drawn out here than in most of his other films. The pacing felt very similar to Rebecca, another Hitchcock film, which was released in 1940, but while that film had a much more grandiose feel to it, this film keeps things fairly simple, which really works well. There is a good amount of leaving the viewer in the dark within the first hour or so of the film, but when the secrets of the character is revealed, the plot points prior to this fall into place nicely, making sense of these once less meaningful elements. Teresa Wright's character is wonderful as the perceptive and intelligent niece forced to make a very difficult decision between her family and her uncle, trying to deal with the consequences of whatever path she chooses. Cotten is the real standout performance in the film, presenting a very likeable character, with a highly polished exterior, but an exterior you learn is barely hiding a very ugly and, ultimately, dangerous core. He figuratively becomes the fox in the hen house, as his sinister nature encroaches upon this quiet, unassuming community. As I said before, the pacing is pretty slow, picking up moderately within the last 30 minutes (it has a running time of 108 minutes) to a very suitable and satisfying ending, one that provides a nice jolt during an already tense scene.

The print provided by Universal for this release looks very good, despite a few hardly noticeable signs of age and wear. Special features include a featurette on the making of the film, detailing why Hitchcock considered this to be one of his favorite movies he made, production notes, drawings and photographs, recommendations (to other Hitchcock films), and a theatrical trailer for the film. All in all, and excellent, if underrated, Hitchcock classic.

Cookieman108

What a Film!!!
It is sad that Santa Rosa, Ca. doesn't look like this today,but this film almost foretells the waiting, looming changes that we were about to face in our land, both to our lifestyle and our environment. Never more relevant than now.Hitchcock captured the essence of a wonderful and, now, nostalgic time in America as no one else, before or after.

5 star movie ...
While the film itself is absolutely brilliant, 'Shadow of a Doubt' loses a star for being a disappointing DVD. Considering this film was always hailed as being Hitchcock's favorite, I'm really surprised that Universal didn't roll out the red carpet when it came to the disc's bonus features.

I completely expected to see the same TLC that made the 'Rear Window', 'Vertigo', and 'Psycho' DVDs such an education to watch. Instead Universal didn't even seem to think 'Shadow of a Doubt' warranted a simple wide-screen format.

I loved the film and will always think of it as one of my favorites among Hitch's works. I can't help but to be disappointed that it seemed to fall to the way-side when it came to the attention I felt it should have commanded in its reproduction and formatting though.

I'll Go With the Masses on This One
No question about it: this one of Hitchcock's best, and it ought to be a lot better known.

There's some truth in the contention that much of Hitchcock's work is based on flimsy plotting, gimmickry, and attractive stick figures racing from one scene to the next just a step ahead of sense or logic. This is easily seen even in much-admired films like "North by Northwest".

But "Shadow of a Doubt" (along with "Vertigo" and the first half of "Psycho") gives the lie to the claim that this was all there was to Hitchcock. This is a film in which every turn of the narrative is governed by the development of character, as a girl matures from giddy teenager to strong (and even deadly) young woman while grappling with the knowledge that her beloved uncle is a serial killer.

The acting is uniformly outstanding. Cotten is in full lounge-lizard mode here--nobody ever enunciated a perfectly-balanced sentence with more venom. Hume Cronyn plays a neighborhood geek almost--but not quite--to the point of parody. But it's Teresa Wright who takes the prize here. Wright was a pleasant but unremarkable presence in a number of films, but in "Doubt" she really shows what she was capable of. Consider the expression on her face as she descends the stairs in the climactic scene, and how easy it would have been to overplay it.

Perhaps it was the influence of Wilder (though his biographers state that he actually didn't really do much work on the picture), but "Shadow of a Doubt" is one film in which the master outdid himself, stepping beyond the limits of entertainment into something approaching art. ... Read more

Reviews (26)

Director William Castle finally makes an actual thriller!
Once upon a time two teenage girls, Kit (Sarah Lane) and Libby (Andi Garrett), spent the evening making prank phone calls to random numbers. Then they called up Steve Marak (John Ireland) and told him "I saw what you did and I know who you are," but the two girls did not know that the man had just murdered his wife. Of course, the man wanted to find the two "witnesses" and kill them, but just to make things interesting, his neighbor Amy Nelson (played in predictable over-the-top fashion by Joan Crawford), really does know about the murder. However, she has other plans for her neighbor besides sending him to prison.

Actually, "I Saw What You Did" might be the best film ever directed by William Castle, king of the exploitation film ("House on Haunted Hill," "The Tingler"), even though it is atypical of his work. Of course Castle did set up "Shock Sections" for panicky audience members for this film, but the actual movie is a tense and entertaining thriller. Unfortunately the extras on this DVD are pretty sparse, although it does include Castle's promotional clip along with the theatrical trailer and a miniature reproduction of the poster.

The QUEEN of Camp!
Another clinker from the 1960's vault of Joan Crawford films. & of course, Joan being a true star really gives it her all in this truly bad low-budget film about 2 silly teenagers who make a prank call to the wrong guy (John Ireland).

Her brief appearance steals the show & as usual is a riot. The subplot involes Joan playing the desperate, manipulating, man-hungry middle aged next door neighbor who is obsessed w/ snagging John Ireland even after she finds out he's a killer! The scenes w/ her & John Ireland together where she can barely surpress her jealous rage over his dead ex-girlfriend had me chuckling to myself. Dressed in what looks like a cocktail dress & a mini-chandellier around her neck, she looks & sounds as if perhaps there really was alcohol in those drinks she was making.

The climax comes when she confronts one of the teen-aged girls grabbing her by the hair, calling her a "tramp" & ripping her to shreds screaming "GET OUTTA HERE!..." over & over again. I laughed my head off. The rest of the film has some suspenseful moments thanks to the menacing John Ireland, but the corny soundtrack music takes what little scariness this film had going for it away. At times it sounded like background music on an episode of "The Flintstones". I'm sure this may have been scary stuff for pre-teens in the 60's but today its just another hilariously campy Joan Crawford movie.

& i'm giving this film ***** simply because it completely fulfilled my need for camp--Joan Crawford style.

A Deliciously Over-The-Top Joan Crawford! A Good DVD, Too!
William Castle (the movie "gimmick-meister") brought to the screen in July of 1965 a film entitled "I Saw What You Did", starring an aging Joan Crawford (who was 61). This was one of Joan's last pictures, and she proves here she still had what it takes (albeit, in this film, in a somewhat humorous and over-the-top fashion).

The premise of this movie is a clever one -- two teenaged girls begin playing a telephone "game", where they call people at random out of the phone book and inform them "I saw what you did ... and I know who you are!"

This "game" takes a realistic twist when (as fate would have it) one of the "victims" of the girls' prank turns out to have committed a murder just minutes before the call. A dangerous game indeed.

The two young girls are played by Andi Garrett and Sarah Lane. They aren't exactly in Miss Crawford's class, acting-wise, but I liked both of them in this movie very much. They just seemed to have a "real" quality to them that came through on screen. Interestingly, this was Andi Garrett's *only* film appearance ever. And Sarah Lane appeared in just one other film besides this one (which was a made-for-TV movie).

Anchor Bay and Universal give us this black-and-white film on DVD in a good-looking Widescreen presentation (1.78:1), with a robust-enough Mono soundtrack. The transfer here is not "Anamorphic", but it looks like one nonetheless, displaying a very clear picture with little in the way of any video distractions.

Not many, but a few, Bonus Features occupy space on this one-disc DVD edition. There's the Original Trailer for the film, plus a "Teaser Trailer", which features Director William Castle's "World Premiere Announcement" for this little chiller/thriller.

Also on the disc are some text-only "Talent Bios" (for Crawford and Castle). The Bio section for Miss Crawford is very nice, too -- featuring a multitude of text screens covering her vast career. Many vintage photos of the actress are also included on the bio text screens.

A one-page (two-sided) insert comes in this Keepcased package. This is one of the nicer single-page DVD enclosures, being made from a thicker cardboard than most flimsier paper inserts. A listing of the movie's 20 "Chapters" is on one side; while a reproduction of an original lobby card (or poster) for the film is shown on the other side of the insert.

"I Saw What You Did" certainly isn't the best or scariest flick you'll ever see. But it has a certain atmospheric "charm" to it that definitely places it within the "worth a look" category.

Had some potential, but doesn't fufill it
I think this movie had potential to be a good little thriller, but the mood gets spoiled too often by the teeny-booper music. Yes, we get it, the movie's about misbehaving teenagers. You don't need to bust out the American Bandstand music every time they appear on screen.

That may seem like a minor quibble, but I found the inappropriate music did have an effect on the suspense, which got dialed up pretty high in certain scenes. Just when I thought things were coming to a close, there was another little twist, and danger reared its ugly head once again. The happy ending was kind of predictable, but the path to get there was often full of surprises.

I watched the movie first and foremost as a Joan Crawford fan, although I understood going into it that she had a small part and overacted it, at that. (I never saw anyone fall to the floor in such an elaborate fashion.) It's a shame that they'll release films like this on DVD, but not more of Crawford's earlier, better work. However, I ended up finding the film as a whole a somewhat enjoyable, B-grade suspense flick.

Castle (kinda) Does It Again!
Having seen most of William Castle's films, the only few problems i had with "I Saw What You Did" mainly go to a few technicals. By 1965, you would think that Castle would have filmed this in color. That was one problem. Another, the soundtrack. I can understand that the beginning of some horror films can be rather up-beat with the premise of setting the audience up for a twist that ultimately takes us for a ride. The soundtrack for this film doesn't let up, and actually sounds like music for a "Beach Party" film. With that aside, everyone knows that Castle did his best with what he knew. The acting is at times corny, but it was intended that way for the sake of getting the best reaction from the audience when some scenes were 'off the cuff'. The shower scene at the beginning is where i have the most praise. Castle's ability to give us a small bloodbath (remember "Homicidal"?) MADE me buy the dvd for that one scene. Other than that, Joan Crawford's role was good, and Castle's re-use of some of the actor's from his previous films was ok. The extra's were a nice bonus, tho a doccumentary with some of the actor's would have been interesting to watch. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

wait a minute...
actually the image above is of the 1962 Roger Corman version with Vincent Price in the lead role

No Cariacatures Here
Laurence Olivier's Richard III is fun to watch, but his Duke of Glouchester is warped inside and out: ugly and humpbacked, strutting about. Basil Rathbone's Richard is very different from that.

True, he has a humpback too--in fact, his armor has a bump in it to allow for the hump--but he carries himself gracefully, as Rathbone always does. He's just as evil, though. Whereas Olivier has a number of asides to the audience through which we learn of his machination's purposes, Rathbone's got a little closet with the succession to the throne literally spelled out in dolls. Doll #1 is brother Edward played by Ian Hunter, who enjoys every trick Richard plays on everyone else, and condones all the murdering going on. It's clear he hasn't the imagination to realize that ultimately Richard will target dolls #4 and 5, Edward's own two sons, the famous Little Princes who vanished in the Tower of London. Doll #2 is the semi-senile usurped king Henry VI, played by Miles Mander, veteran of many a Shirley Temple and Sherlock Holmes movie. He gets dispatched at prayer by Richard's loyal executioner friend Mort, lovingly brought to us by clubfooted Boris Karloff. He pledges himself to Richard saying, "You're more than a prince, more than a king...You're a god to me!" Wow, how's that for hero worship? Doll #3 is the son of that usurped king, who's biggest transgression is having married the woman Richard loved. So much for him, eventually. My personal favorite is Doll #6, Richard's other brother Clarence, Vincent Price in a very early role. These two have never gotten along, so we shouldn't be surprised when a drinking bout between the brothers takes a particularly nasty turn for poor Clarence. Every time there's a victim, off the corresponding doll goes into the fireplace while the remaining dolls move up, the Richard Doll lagging behind, but making steady progress. It's a neat contrivance of the screenwriters, although Rathbone doesn't really demonstrate a need for such psychodrama.

The movie does have a major drawback, and that's the white-hat hero whom Mort puts to every torture device imaginable, for a reason I've forgotten. This guy's not so good looking (actually looks somewhat pinched faced, like a Zachary Scott type), and his character is annoying. I suppose the filmmakers felt there had to be a good character to counterbalance all the other stuff that was going on, but frankly, the other stuff is true and a lot more interesting than this fake good guy.

"Tower of London" is a great treat because it provides us another opportunity to see the always-dashing Basil Rathbone. What I found remarkable during this outing was the way that all these nefarious doings seemed perfectly justified the way that Basil was comporting himself. Ian Hunter has a lot more to do than I've ever seen in any other movie role he had, and I'm sorry for his usual underutilization; actually, he's pretty good. And Vincent? He brings much fun to his role as the pampered sissyboy brother who plays right into Basil's hands.

Chase up some courage and watch "Tower of London" to see a wonderful old movie.

Shakespeare's "Richard III" stripped down to a Horror show
"The Tower of a London" is an interesting horror film because it involves the same characters as Shakespeare's play "Richard III." Boris Karloff plays Mord, the executioner at the Tower and the ally of Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Basil Rathbone) in his quest for the crown. It is Mord who kills the aging King Henry VI and the young princes. Like "Richard III," the film ends with the Battle of Bosworth, but the chief difference between the two works are the Grand Guignol murders by Mord, such as when Richard and his executioner drown the Duke of Clarence (Vincent Price) in a vast butt of malmsey. Karloff might get to do more killing in this 1939 film directed by Rowland V. Lee, but this is very much Basil Rathbone's film and his Richard does not suffer much in comparison to Olivier's celebrated performance on film. Actually, they make a fascinating double-bill, but be sure to save "The Tower of London" for the second feature.

Basil Rathbone is the man!
you cannot compare this with any of the other universal horror movies that came around the same time. This is not a horror movie but a historical drama depicting the unscrupulous rise to power of Richard the III, played in the most evil and backstabbing way by Basil Rathbone( most excellent actor of Sherlock Holmes fame and Son of Frankenstein). The plot and script are so much more intricate and intelligent than the other universal horrors, but no wonder it's not a horror movie. Some say this is a bland role for Karloff, but he plays an executioner that is the subserviant friend of Richard the III, of course he is going to come across as a brute, but what else would you expect of an executioner from the middle ages. Vincent Price(in an early role in his career) is excellent as a snivelling coward, that is in the way of Richards rise to power. Overall an excellent movie, one of Universal's best from the time period of the classic monsters.

Mistaken version
BEWARE ! This is NOT the version with Basil Rathbone, Boris Karloff & Vincent Price. This is a newer remake with Vincent Price only. Note the film dates. The description does NOT match this movie. The earlier one is a masterpiece, & although you may like this one, it is not the what the description says. ... Read more

Description

Together with The 39 Steps, this inspired mix of mystery, comedy, and romance catapulted Hitchcock to international fame.Cowritten by Sidney Gilliat and Frank Launder, the always clever script pits a bossy debutante and a young music scholar against a ring of ruthless spies. ... Read more

Reviews (45)

Criterion is Cool
I don't have the other DVD version to compare this with, but this Criterion edition of THE LADY VANISHES is very good. There is an animated index page with the sound of a train. The print of this film looks very good -- of special interest is the "restoration" section of the index. Through the use of "wipes" the Criterion people show you a before and after version of the cleaned-up print. Very neat.

There is also a commentary from a film historian which is interesting, if a bit dry. I didn't get a chance to listen to the whole thing yet.

This is a good Hitchcock movie. It's a lot of fun -- as innocent as a Nancy Drew mystery at times, but with interesting strokes from the master! I had a good time.

DELIGHTFUL, SURPRISING GEM
"The Lady Vanishes" is a sparkling Hitchcock cocktail that looks forward to "North By Northwest" with its light adventure/mystery plotline and romantic/witty humor. Lockwood and Redgrave are spirited and always believable and understated in their roles, and if the mystery ultimately is revealed to be a trifle thin, Hitchcock makes the journey there so much fun that we don't mind in the least. (After all, this doesn't have the depth and poetic quality of "Vertigo"--but it isn't meant to.) Wry support from the secondary cast adds humor and social commentary, and a few trademark Hitchcock images give what could have been (in lesser hands) a claustraphobic production, a real cinematic charge. The Criterion DVD is remarkable: crisp, clean images, and a great and always interesting commentary from Bruce Eder. This is the kind of film whose reputation will continue to grow with time; its understated performances and Nancy Drew type premise give it a surprisingly timeless feel. For Hitchcock fans, the film and the Criterion disc are a must.

No "North by Northwest," but good early Hitchcock
This is early Hitchcock and you can see the talent that was already there. He made this story into a great suspense film, even though there were quite a few implausibilities. It's an odd film, though, in that it mixes a rather dark story (woman disappearing on a train) with an almost slapstick feel at times. This caught me off guard, and sometimes subverted the tension Hitchcock was trying to create. But it's a very witty film, quite fast-paced once it gets going, and very suspenseful. Definitely a fine example of early Hitchcock and an interesting look at turn-of-the-century Scotland.
Also, since this is a Criterion edition, the special features are excellent. Even more impressive, considering that the movie was made in 1935. They include an original press book that you can zoom in on and read, as well as commentary.

a great release for Criterion and one of Hitchcock's best !
The Lady vanishes is one of my most favorite Hitchcock films.

In it a young British woman meets an older Biritsh woman on a train in continental Europe. Later, her friend is nowhere to be seen and when no one else remembers her being there, she suspects a conspiracy.

It is another great one of the Pre WWII films that talks about Europe having 'problems' that will eventually lead to the second war.

Brilliant entertainment, nicely packaged
Along with The 39 Steps and The Man Who Knew Too Much, the Lady Vanishes represents the very best of Hitchcock's pre-Hollywood output.

It's a gripping tale told well. All the usual Hitchcock tricks and idiosyncracies are present and correct; the blonde, the train, and of course the murder and the fiendish twists.

Hitchcock was often at his best when designing films in restricted locations, so much of this takes place on a train, a train on which, of course, a lady - one Ms Foy - vanishes and everyone denies she ever even existed. Margaret Lockwood is excellent as the young woman determined to prove her own sanity by finding out what happened to Ms Foy.

And Michael Redgrave is great as the caddish wiseacre who is the only passenger who'll believe her.

Hitchcock was always great at getting the right chemistry between his leads, and this is another relationship with crackling, intelligent, slightly subversive dialogue.

It rips along at a great speed for a film of its vintage and deserves its place in the Hitchcock canon as his last truly great English film. But even forgetting who made it, forgetting its historical interest, its still an evolving, light-hearted yarn with all the elements you would want; action, romance, comedy and, naturally, suspense.

Brilliant entertainment, nicely packaged with a commentary and added material - although it's the film you'll come back to again and again. ... Read more

Reviews (76)

It's maybe flawed but it has an Excellent Direction.
When a sexually unsatisfied attractive older woman (Angie Dickinson) decides to cheat on her husband for a One Night Stand. Then she's got killed by a unseen murderer. A High-Priced Callgirl (Nancy Allen) is the only witness to the killing. When no one believes her. The dead woman's Son (Keith Gordon) decides to help the woman to trap the killer.

Written and Directed by Brain De Palma (Sisters, The Phantom of the Paradise, The Untouchables) made a clever, razor-sharp thriller but the film suffers some predicability moments that puts it down a bit. There's strong performances by Micheal Caine, Dickinson, Allen and Gordon highlight this film. It's almost perfect in it's own way. Palma does homage to the another Hitchcock's film-Pyscho and Palma's his own film-Carrie at the End. This has excellent cinematography by Ralf D. Bode and a chilling score by Pino Donaggio. DVD has the R-Rated and the Unrated Version in this Special Edition. This has an good anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an fine Digitally Remastered-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound, also with the Original Mono Soundtrack. DVD's Extras are great, including an 45 Minute Documentary, Three Featurettes, Trailers and More. This Thriller is Certainly Unique, Do Not Miss It. Panavision. Grade:A-.

An entertaining, occasionally very suspenseful thriller.
Director Brian De Palma has never helmed an original film his entire career, but let's face it, he's just as good as anybody else when it comes to creating palpable suspense, which is what makes his more blatant rip-offs immensely watchable. Dressed to Kill is one such example. Taking a few cues from Alfred Hitchcock, the film is an erotic thriller that certainly features its sexy moments, and also has the power to disturb as well.

Angie Dickinson stars as Kate Miller, a sexually dissatisfied wife (though quite loving mother) who needs some things to spice up her personal life. She relates her problems to her psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Elliot (Michael Caine), to the point of almost prodding him to sleep with her, but he refuses. On a random day in an art museum, she encounters a mysterious man with whom she plays a little game of cat-and-mouse. Following him to a cab, they enage in a tryst inside the taxi, all the way to his apartment, where they proceed to go at it for several more hours. Then as she awakens to leave, she finds out (through a little note by the health department) he's got STD's! In a panicked state, she runs to the elevator, but is then brutally murdered by a tall, blonde woman brandishing a razor blade. The rest of the film focuses on Miller's son, Peter (Keith Gordon), who teams up with a gold-hearted prostitute (Nancy Allen) to find his mother's killer.

Dressed to Kill doesn't get off to the best start. For the first half-hour, the sexual frustrations of this middle-aged woman are far less than captivating, and until the elevator scene, this is a snoozer. But let me tell you, the remaining 2/3's or so of the picture is often first-rate entertainment, delivering a lot of suspenseful moments and shocking violence.

The film grew more interesting when it focused on the relationship between Gordon and Allen. Both deliver good performances, and there's a sort-of non-sexual chemistry between them that works superbly. Too bad De Palma doesn't really focus on this interesting couple until the last half-hour.

The last five or so minutes are among the film's most suspenseful (and you get to see Allen naked!), though I think we're all in a little agreement when we say that the final shock is a bit gratuitous. Also excessive is the film's resemblance to a certain Hitchcock film. Even without that resemblance, though, Dressed to Kill would still have been predictable. I mean, come on, I knew the identity of the killer in a heartbeart. You'll figure it out just as fast, too.

As an erotic thriller, Dressed to Kill isn't as fluffy as films like Wild Things, Color of Night, or Basic Instinct, though it also happens to be less steamy and sexy than the latter two. Actually, as I said before, the focus here is to disturb, and the movie doesn't do such a bad job of that.

Pino Dinaggio's score is chilling and among his better works. De Palma goes with his usual camera work, meaning there are a lot of uninterrupted shots and split-screens, the latter of which fails to build suspense as it's meant to. A lot of people see Dressed to Kill as a "have safe sex" message, which I could kind of agree with, even though Dickinson's character would still have been offed in a horrible manner even without that tryst.

The first of De Palma's two erotic thrillers, Dressed to Kill happens to be the weaker of the two. Yeah, it's often suspenseful and entertaining, but Body Double stands out more, as that film's suspense sometimes reaches heights of exhilaration. My advice, take a look at both and decide for yourself.

Glossy, meaningless, and occasionally scary
Brian de Palma knew his 1970s audience. When choosing what film to see at the cinema (if you had a choice in those days), it was difficult for many men to persuade their girlfriends to choose an out-and-out erotic movie. (The cinema scene in 'Carry On Camping' gives you some idea of the prevailing attitudes.) So, much like the Hammer movies, de Palma wrapped up the sex in a glossy horror thriller coating. Bizarrely, girls found it much easier to tell their mums that they'd be going to see 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' than 'Swedish Nurses Get Hot', or whatever.

But watching this movie with 25 years of hindsight, when people tend to be more open about sex, you have to wonder what was the point of this film, and what was an actor as good as Michael Caine doing in it. Angie Dickinson, another highly paid actress of the era, is also in it, but frankly her death is so badly acted that you could fairly say she deserved this film.

De Palma is a great user of that "Actually it was all a dream" device that we're warned to avoid in creative writing classes. So we get two dream sequences -- each with a central shower scene -- which are both flimsy excuses to get the clothes off his leading ladies (Dickinson and Nancy Allen). Despite the partial use of a body-double for Dickinson, these are attractive, gripping scenes, and probably the highlights of the movie.

The less said about the geekish son and the police detective, the better. Allen's redemption from NY hooker to sleep-alone companion (in chintz night attire!) to the son is also less than convincing.

GOING UP?
DRESSED TO KILL is very much like "Psycho" in its opening segments. Here we meet the lovely Angie Dickinson who feeling sexually unsatisfied engages in a cat and mouse game with a stranger in a museum. She ends up having wild sex with him in a cab and then off to his apartment for an afternoon of fun. That fun turns sour however when she finds a doctor's report that is disturbing in itself, and then she forgets her wedding band and so after intending to leave, she goes back up and meets..well...it's just like Janet Leigh in Psycho. Your heroine is offed in the first thirty minutes. The killing scene in the elevator is extremely disturbing and brutal, and made even more so in the unrated version.
DePalma has often been accused or ripping off Hitchcock, but I don't think that's the case. Always using an imaginative twist as his fulcrum, DePalma gave us some really intense, chilling thrillers, heavy at times on sex and violence, but nonetheless, hypnotic and mesmerizing.
The cast performs adequately, although Caine seems a little disinterested and Dennis Franz plays his crude cop for the hundredth time. Nancy Allen and Keith Gordon are fine, but Angie really steals the film, even if only briefly. Without any dialogue, she shows how lonely and "hungry" she is while chasing this stud around the museum. And as with Leigh, one can't help but feel sorry for their untimely demise.
Not one of DePalma's best, but still a deserving thriller.

one of my all time favorites!
One of my top ten favorite movies along with Carrie also by Depalma. i won't say too much about the story without giving too much away. basically it is about a mother, her son,a hooker, a psychiatrist, and a woman in sunglasses. These people all get caught up in a murder mystery where all is not as it seems. several scenes will have you leaping from your seat. it is interesting that in this movie and carrie depalma closes with a dream sequence. and both movies have beautiful music as well. Angie Dickenson, Nancy allen, Michael CAine all do a great job here. highly recommended. and i am not kidding that sometimes when i get on elevators i get a chill thinking about this movie. im sure i am not the only one. ... Read more

Reviews (33)

WILLIAM CASTLE DID IT AGAIN!
You may recall his 1958 horror thriller "house on haunted hill". Here is another treat for those who loves his style for ghost stories. William Castle I guess just has a knack for directing ghost movies. Most all of his movies were superb, not one boring. The film deals with a family living in an old ramshackle mansion haunted by 13 ghosts. But here's the mystery, One of the ghosts isn't real. And whoever that person is ,that's trying to get the family out of the house, is the murderur of the mansion's owner. A great movie with a cast worth watching. Enjoy this movie, And remember to buy more of Castle's films, They're all worth watching!

Not as much fun without William Castle's "Ghost Viewer"
Once upon a time there was a poor paleontologist named Cyrus Zorba (Charles Herbert) who learns he is heir to a mansion from his uncle Plato. So Cyrus moves his family, wife Hilda (Jo Morrow), son Buck (Donald Woods) and daughter Medea (Rosemary DeCamp), into the new digs. The problem is that Uncle Plato was a student of the occult who invented a nifty little device that captures ghosts. All of this is explained by Elaine, the old housekeeper, who is played by Margaret Hamilton (remember her, my pretties?). But the important thing here is that "13 Ghosts" was produced and directed by the inventive William Castle, which means there has to be a gimmick to get you to watch the movie.

For "13 Ghosts" the gimmick was the "Ghost Viewer" which worked with "Illusion-o." This was actually one of Castle's best bits. The movie was shot in black-and-white, but the thirteen ghosts (duh) were tinted in red. The Ghost Viewer had strips of red and blue plastic: watch through the blue, you could see the ghosts really well. If you freaked, you could look through the red "ghost remover" and they would disppear. Of course, on the video tape you can forget about