Amazon.com

This 1943 version of thehorror story is more Technicolor musical than scare piece. Claude Rains plays the unfortunate, masked anti-hero, but he doesn't get the room to showcase a promising and sympathetic performance. Susanna Foster and Nelson Eddy, on the other hand, get plenty of screen time to warble. Well worth a visit just for the look of the film, which won an Oscar for cinematography.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (44)

A cute but not particularly deep little flick
I wanted to see this because it had Claude Rains mostly, but also because I wanted to see Nelson Eddy as a person after hearing him in the Disney short "The Whale Who Wanted to Sing at the Met". Besides, I've been a fan of the book by Gaston LeRoux and the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber for some time, have seen the silent movie version of this story, and wanted to chalk up another credit to my Phantom experience.

Overall, this wasn't a bad little movie - I felt that the fact that it was in colour rather detracted from the sombre, ominous mood this kind of tale needs - it should really be sort of Victorian film-noir, shot in black and white. But then, I felt that they really changed the story so much in this film version that it can only be looked on as a story independent of the book which was its inspiration, and so for that reason the colour is okay. I also felt that Claude Rains' character seemed as though it was going to be a main character at the beginning of the film, but then he seemed to disappear from the film for much of the rest of it. Also, the progression of his adoration complex for Christine was sadly overlooked throughout the film, and we are to understand his descent into bitterness toward mankind from the few scattered minutes of screen time that he has?

Although the rival banter between Raoul and Anatole was very amusing, it seems a little out of place in a story of such tragic dimensions, and draws one's focus completely away from the relationship between Christine and the Phantom of the film's title, which really is the core of the entire book and should be the same or similar in the movie. As another example of distraction - I like hearing Nelson Eddy sing, but at least two of the operatic numbers could have been shortened to make room for some more character development and depth in Erik and Christine's relationship.

I felt that the silent version of the film not only followed the plot of the book more accurately, but that the emotions and experiences of the characters were ones easier to "jump into", even despite the common (for a silent) over-acting of its players - but at the same time, this 1943 version was easier to watch. It's not as long or nervewracking. Still, I would recommend you to do it all - read the book, watch both films, and listen to the original London cast recording of the musical if you can't go and see it. Each one of these things will enhance your appreciation and enjoyment of the story in some way or another.

A Beautiful Film
I saw the 1943 version of "The Phantom of the Opera" before I read the book and (last) saw the 1925 version. I have to admit that it was not like the book at all, but the Lon Chaney version was a little. Claude Rains was very convincing as the tormented and lovesick Phantom, and was always more interesting than Lon Chaney. But Claude Rains was not given very much screen time, except near the beginning and end of the film. The sets were fabulous. Nelson Eddy and Edgar Barrier were almost constantly trying to win over Christine, and even though these scenes were funny, I've noticed that they can very easily become distractions that seem designed only to de-emphasize Claude Rains, which only hurts the film. Susanna Foster and Nelson Eddy sang a lot, and while these numbers were very nice and a joy to listen to, they were the only time Nelson Eddy really got a chance to shine, which is unfortunate. However, Susanna Foster fared well throughout the entire film. I would not recommend this film to anyone who doesn't like opera, or to anyone who wants to see a lot of the Phantom.

Horror fans will be disappointed
This film is more about the opera and the courting of an opera singer by two suitors than a deranged murderer running amok in the hidden chambers of the Paris Opera House. A great deal of screen time is devoted to the pursuit of the lovely Mademoiselle Dubois by a baritone and a Paris detective as both men are comically inept in trying to win the woman's favors. Claude Rains' phantom is a poignant figure, his madness notwithstanding, and he also has designs on the opera star and spirits her away to the catacombs under the building to possess her forever and have her sing the concerto he composed especially for her. The lush color and sets give the production a professional and polished look but the movie lacks suspense and thrills and is strictly for aficionados of the opera.

Pretty Good
Not my favorite interpretation of Phantom, but still good. Susanna Foster kind of bugs me, but that's okay. And they really changed the story. It's not at all like the origional novel, but it's about Phantom, and that's a good enough excuse for me! Anyways, it was pretty nice. The Raoul character was most realistic. I just don't like Susanna. :)

The Phantom Goes Musical
Gaston Leroux's penny-dreadful novel was hardly the stuff of great literature, but it did manage to tap into the public consciousness with its gas-light-gothic tale of a beautiful singer menaced by a horrific yet seductive serial killer lurking in the forgotten basement labyrinths of the Paris Opera. Lon Chaney's silent classic kept the basic elements of the novel intact'-and proved one of the great box office hits of its day, a fact that prompted Universal Studios to contemplate a remake throughout most of the 1930s. Although several proposals were considered (including one intended to feature Deanna Durbin, who despised the idea and derailed the project with a flat refusal), it wasn't until 1943 that a remake reached the screen. And when it did, it was an eye-popping Technicolor extravaganza, all talking, all singing, and dancing. The Phantom had gone musical.

In many respects this version of PHANTOM anticipates the popular Andrew Lloyd Webber stage musical, for whereas the Chaney version presented the Phantom as a truly sinister entity, this adaptation presents the character as one more sinned against than sinning'an idea that would color almost every later adaptation, and Webber's most particularly so. But it also shifts the focus of the story away from the title character, who is here really more of a supporting character than anything else. The focus is on Paris Opera star Christine Dae, here played by Susanna Foster. In this version Christine is not only adored by the Phantom; she is also romantically pursued by two suitors who put aside their differences to protect her.

Directed by Universal workhorse Arthur Lubin, this version is truly eye-popping in the way that only a 1940s Technicolor spectacular could be: the color is intensely brilliant, and Lubin makes the most of it by focusing most of his camera-time on the stage of the Paris Opera itself and splashing one operatic performance after another throughout the film. But in terms of actual story interest, the film is only so-so. Susanna Foster had a great singing voice, but she did not have a memorable screen presence, and while the supporting cast (which includes Nelson Eddy, Edgar Barrier, Leo Carrillo, and Jane Farrar) is solid enough they lack excitement. And the pace of the film often seems a bit slow, sometimes to the point of clunkiness.

The saving grace of the film'-in addition to the aforementioned photography, which won an Oscar-'is Claude Rains. A great artist, Rains did not make the mistake of copying Chaney, and although the script robs the Phantom of his most fearsome aspects, Rains fills the role with subtle menace that is wonderful to behold, completely transcending the film's slow pace, the lackluster script, and "sanitized for your protection" tone so typical of Universal Studios in the 1940s.

Like most "Universal Horror" DVD packages, this one is superior. The centerpiece of the bonus material is a very nice documentary, "The Opera Ghost: A Phantom Unmasked," which details the origins of the novel and the numerous film adaptations of it'and which is actually quite a bit more interesting than the 1943 film itself. There is also a nice, if somewhat perfunctory, audio commentary track by historian Scott McQueen, trailers, stills, and the like. But when everything is said and done, it's the film that counts'and unless you're a diehard Phantom fan you're likely to be unimpressed. ... Read more

Description

Oscar Wilde's most debated work about a man who stays eternally young while his famous portrait ages through the years, until the gripping and eerie climax. ... Read more

Reviews (27)

Masterful and modern retelling of the Faustian legend
Wonderfully suspenseful and eerily beautiful film based on Oscar Wilde's novel of the same name (well almost, instead of "picture" it's "portrait"). A (then) modern retelling of the Faust legend about an individual who barters his soul in his wish to never grow old. Hurd hatfield is obviously based on the Faust character and is appropriately cool and detached in his performance, ideally cast in the title role as the beautiful young man who makes a supernatural deal with the dark gods to always retain his physical beauty and youth while only the magnificent portrait of himself registers his aging and depravities. Solid performances also by George Sanders as the Mephistopheles character, playing (as his usual best) a jaded, amoral man of the world who leads Dorian astray with his immoral yet compelling, and seemingly reasonable philosophies on life; and Angela Lansbury is particularly touching in her subtle portrayal in the Gretchen counterpart of Sibyl Vane, the dreamy and virtuous vaudeville performer destroyed by Dorian. Peter Lawford and Donna Reed are pretty window dressing here, with their usual passive, bland acting (Reed's Alma in "From Here To Eternity" later on was a pleasant exception). Flowing direction, lovely B&W cinematography, and the beautifully dark and turbulent "Prelude" tune by Chopin make this a must-see horror/fantasy classic that's a solid film version of Wilde's literary masterpiece. This film is also a deeply disturbing and haunting cautionary parable about man's pursuit of earthly pleasures and decadence and how in the end it is no substitute for spiritual nourishment when it comes at the expense of an individual's morality and humanity--for at the end even Dorian tires of his decadence and dies reciting a prayer on his lips

LITTLE YELLOW BIRD...
That's the name of the little ditty that 20 year-old Angela Lansbury chirps in this classic exursion into the macabre. Dorian Gray, a young man living in Victorian London, has his portrait painted by an artist named Basil Hallward, himself fascinated by Gray's youthful innocence. Egged on by the amoral Lord Henry, Gray manages to keep himself youthful by giving up his soul, and proceeds to indulge in a life of selfish hedonism and cruelty while through the years his face stays unnaturally young...While not a totally successful transition of Wilde's wickedly elegant novel - it's too glum and slow paced - there's much to admire in this 1945 version of the bizarre theme. Hatfield was an inspired choice for the title role, combining his handsome, ethereal face with his cool, aloof manner which perfectly suited Wilde's corrupted aristocrat. George Sanders is perfection personified playing the acidly witty and cynical Lord Henry Wotton and Angela Lansbury is memorable as the demure caberet singer Sybil Vane who meets a dark fate...

Moral Leprosy
When you think of expressionism in the movies you tend to think of the wierd angles, lighting and cutting of the German directors of the 20's and 30's. But Albert Lewin's marvelous movie adaptation of Oscar Wilde's novel makes the same kind of other-wordly impact with an amazing and unsettling exaggeration of Victorian manners, morals, and architecture. The icy detachment of Gray and his friends from any emotional involvement with their surroundings heightens tremendously the impact on us of the genuinely human gestures and feelings of the other characters. This Faustian parable about a man and his graven image probably reflects Wilde's torment over whether he had sold his own soul to become an international funnyman. The whole cast is a standout but it's Lewin's picture and a total success.

What the...?
We had to watch this movie in my English class and it totally sucked! The music was corny and i couldn't tell what the hell was going on. It would skip from one scene to another and you couldn't follow the plot. Am I supposed to know who "this" person is just from one scene?! I didn't get it at all. The only good part was the changing of the painting. That part I did get.

Near Perfection
Handsome, young and morally corrupt Dorian Gray has his portrait painted. Soon after, under the influence of the incorrigible Lord Henry Wotton, he betrays his fiancee, leading to her suicide. As the years pass Dorian does not age but evidence of his narcissim are apparent in his portrait which grows uglier with each transgression. His mysterious behavior and ageless appearance begin to attract suspicion. This is one of my favorite stories by Oscar Wilde. This movie has everything that a good movie should have. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Teenage Werewolf: Dated but Still Scary
I WAS A TEENAGE WEREWOLF is one of the finest terrible movies ever made. At the time of its release (1957), it was exactly right for the drive in circuit, where teenagers could see on the big screen the angst of teenage turmoil that was afflicting them. Even today, for the newest generation of hardened gangsta teens, this film still elicits creepy undertows of fear and self-loathing normally found today in rap videos.

IWTW was a first for director Gene Fowler and Michael Landon. Landon, who later shot to fame in BONANZA and LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE, here shows the star power that even then made him stand out in a crowd of overacting teens. This film is no satire, nor is tongue in cheek. And surprisingly neither is it drenched in gore or special effects that today passes for directorial talent. It is instead, a hearkening back to a previous generation of filmmakers who believed that real terror must come slowly and the payoff of the terror scene should include a masterful blending of chilling music, decent acting, and creative camera work, all of which harmoniously lead up to the screen violence. In IWTW, the screen violence is limited to only two scenes, but the screen spookiness stands out from the first reel to the last.

In most werewolf films, the victim must be first bitten by one, as Lon Chaney was. Here, Landon is rebellious teenager, Tony, who is constantly fighting his peers, his authority figures, and anyone else in his path. His screen agida brings to mind Brando in THE WILD ONE when Brando is asked, "Why are you so angry?' Brando's reply: "What do you got?" Tony is an uncycled Brando who is forced to attend counseling with a psychiatrist Dr. Brandon (Whit Bissell). Tony becomes a werewolf, not by being bitten by one, but by a strange mixing of drugs and regressive hypnotherapy. It is this very novel manner of Tony's de-evolution that adds to the film's eerieness. His ability to shed his civilized self so easily brings in a subtext that all of the panting teens in the drive-in could relate to: that the brutishness of the werewolf is a lot closer to the skin than we would like to think.

The scene in which Tony stalks his first victim is a classic in how to stretch a tight budget to produce fear without spending a dime on special effects. Tony's victim is walking through a park that was thoroughly familar by day, but hauntingly shadowed by night. He first hears soft footfalls and calls out. He continues walking, then running, then seeing his killer. We in the audience do not, but the face of fear on the victim tells us all we need to know of the menace standing right in front of him. Later in the school gym, is one of the most effectively underplayed mixtures of sexuality and anger I have ever seen in any film. Tony is still Tony and has just left the principal's office and passes by the gym where he sees an attractive female practicing on the parallel bars. He stares at her with his obvious horniness morphing into lupine rage. He approaches her and we first see him as she does, an upside down figure of horrific intent.

It is scenes like this, plus a literate script and competent acting that sets IWTW apart from others of its genre. The bestiality that set Tony off as a murdering creature of the night must have resonated with its contemporary audience of teens that heard their parents continuously warn them of the dangers of smoking, hot rods, and rock and roll music. Substitute rap for rock and roll, and it is clear enough why IWTW still scares today's teens who laugh at the never-ending slaughter in the Jason and Freddy movies.

Early Landon Terror!!!
Who would have ever figured Michael Landon for a werewolf? Who would have ever figured Landon as a troubled youth? Well, there you go. Before the ranch, the prairie, and the angel, there was the werewolf.

I saw this for the very first time at the drive-in, and it had to be in the early 50's. And I was scared to death. Of course seeing it again so many years later is kind of comical, but on its own merits, it's a terrific film. As a matter of fact, Stephen King once commented that he'd seen this same film about the same time, and it inspired him to begin writing short stories. So, there you go again. What a movie can inspire.

This is not an "in your face" kind of horror movie. It's dated, naturally, and there's only some youthful rebellion, and a little bit of suggestive violence. The family could possibly sit through it together with a little discussion of what's happening in the movie. But not a bad one at that. And I'd recommend it.

Funny Fifties fur flick
This campy B-grade teen-exploitation horror flick stars Michael Landon as a tortured teen whose overly-aggressive behavior can either be explained by lycanthropy (yeah!!) or hypnotism performed under the guise of psychotherapy (bo-o-r-ring!!) The manipulation of a troubled youth by an unscrupulous adult authority figure is fairly subversive, although the "scientific" explanation doesn't quite explain all that hair popping out of Landon's scalp. A classic midnight movie.

Classic werewolf tale hampered by a terrible title
One of the standout horror offerings of the 1950's "I Was A Teenage Werewolf" will unfortunately be forever lumped into the pop corn, drive-in circuit, mentality mainly because of its dated and exploitative title. In reality it is a most interesting film, a very worthy entry in the werewolf cycle of films and contains good writing, polished acting, acceptable makeup and some interesting camerawork.

Chiefly remembered today as Michael Landon's first big role which led into his long television career on "Bonanza", "Little House On The Prairie", and "Highway To Heaven" it contains an intense performance as Landon plays Tony Rivers a hot headed young school boy who is drifting into a life of potential juvenile delinquency. He is involved in school fights, loses his temper at the slightest provocation, and is prone to odd behaviour like eating raw meat from the refrigerator. Directed by the police to see if these problems cannot be addressed before he ends up in Juvenile Hall Tony consults Dr Brandon (Whit Bissell) an expert in hypnotherapy who carries his research too far and begins to use Tony for his illegal experiments in human development. Unknowingly he unleashes a force in Tony which turns him into a werewolf with tragic consequences.

Despite its 50's origins and limited budget this film stands up very well indeed. Philip Scheer's makeup for the werewolf transformation scenes is excellent for its kind and creates a scary realistic effect. Directed with energy by first time director Gene Fowler who by vocation was a film editor, it keeps a fast pace going and delays just the right amount of time in revealing Landon's werewolf in all its ferocious anger. Fowler because of his past work, was responsible for creating in "I Was A Teenage Werewolf" some very interesting camerawork that maximises the effect of the unfolding story. Particular mention has to be made of the first scene where we see the full werewolf makeup in the gym where the gymnist is swinging upside down and sees the werewolf approaching in this distorted way as does the audience. Classic stuff which really creates an uneasy feeling and sense of terror. Michael Landon is excellent as the tormented boy and even at this early stage in his career he displays a talent which served him so well in later years. Indeed all the performances are well done with a respect for the material they have to work with. Whit Bissell in particular is excellent as the doctor who gets carried away with his own experiments and it is interesting to see a young Guy Williams pre "Zorro" and "Lost In Space" in the role of a police officer who is hunting Tony down after a series of vicious attacks.

"I Was A Teenage Werewolf" began a trend of "Teenage" themed movies in the 1950's but none of them came anywhere near the success of this film which struck a cord with a lot of youngsters and made an absolute fortune at the Box Office. I have a personal liking for werewolf movies and this is in my top five. I recommend "I Was A Teenage Werewolf" both as a wolfman film but also as a unique view into another time in film making when often great entertainment was produced on a tiny budget.

MICHAEL LANDON'S IMMORTAL CULT CLASSIC
Unfairly dismissed by many as "camp" or "50s nostalgia," I WAS A TEENAGE WEREWOLF has a lot more going for it than its critics might want to admit. Though admittedly produced as a low-budget teenage exploitation film of its day, the movie actually displays remarkable pschological insight and artistic sensitivity. The fact that that is almost certainly an accident doesn't matter. The producers may not have wanted to make a fairly realistic portrayal of a young man struggling to become a man, or paint an eternally relevant morality tale in fairy-tale colors, or even preserve in capsule the morals of an age both more innocent and more mature than our own--but they did. Landon's performance is the definitive lycanthropic victim, and overall this is a better werewolf opus than either THE WOLF MAN or CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF, the two giants usually rated as the best howler movies ever. Surprisingly insightful, well written, and restrained, I WAS A TEENAGE WEREWOLF is a sci-fi/horror gem that will, like the curse of the wolf itself, live forever. The scene where Landon struggles to keep from wolfing out on a shapely female gymnast is worth the price of the tape alone. ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Before there was "Passions," there was "Dark Shadows"!
To those of you spending your days bewitched by the misadventures of Tabitha and Timmy on "Passions," there are those of us who are here to remind you of "Dark Shadows," the cult soap opera hit that ran from 1966-71. The Gothic soap was floundering in the ratings when the character of vampire Barnabas Collins (Jonathan Frid) was introduced. Producer/Director Dan Curtis provided this 1970 introduction to the wonderful world of "Dark Shadows," so late comers could get up to speed. Barnabas is freed from his crypt after nearly 200 years by a thief stealing treasure and returns to the family home Collinwood pretending to be a distant English cousin who just happens to be named for the infamous "ancestor." Barnabas discovers that the family governess, Maggie Evans (Kathryn Leigh Scott) is the spitting image of his former love Josette, who killed herself when she learned he had become a vampire. Meanwhile, the family physician Dr. Julia Hoffman (Grayson Hall) learns of Barnabas' true identity and develops a treatment that will reverse the curse. Able to walk in daylight again, Barnabas plans on marrying Maggie. Unfortunately, Dr. Hoffman has fallen in love with Barnabas and sabotges the treatments, which results in quite a bloodbath.

"House of Dark Shadows" certainly stands on its own if you have never seen the soap opera, although the effort to give everyone in the cast some screen time does get in the way from time to time. For those who remember the show, it is nice to see Louis Edmonds, Nancy Barrett, Joan Benett and the others again. The script by Sam Hall and Gordon Russell is actually quite innovative, coming up with some new twists for the love triangle while working in notions of reincarnation and scientific approaches to curing vampirism. At the heart of the film is Frid's portrayal of Barnabas Collins, which offers considerably more depth to the character than we were getting at the time from Christopher Lee's Dracula in all those Hammer films.

the shadows are dark
if your a fan of the series dark shadows you will be in for a great big surprise when you first view "house of dark shadows" one thing is the movie is well made and so is the script well written. all the cast is wonderful especially kathryn leigh scott,joan bennett,jonathan frid,and the late louis edmonds. it has a lot of gothic look and even plays like a true hammer filmshould be when i was a child this film scared the he double hockey sticks outta me. even grayson hall is great i this movie dispite she dies before the film ends. nancy barret once again plays carolyn stoddard but has a rather misfortune to her,her cousin turning her into one of the undead,but miss barret is a great actress as well as the others i mantioned above,too many good actors in this film. the mansion that is in tarrytown new york is a great spooky place to film dark shadows
even the cematary there is a great place too. "house of dark shadows" plays well and whenevr the missing scenes are found and restored hey it will be a better movie but once again the movie is great no matter what. dan curtis is a perfect director for this kind of movie he has since done a lot of other spooky films like "night of dark shadows" "burnt offerings","trilogy of terror" "dracula"(with jack palance),and "tirlogy of terror 2" if you dont have house go rent or buy it ...john karlen is great too.

Stylish feature film of a popular TV classic!
This vivid, well-crafted feature version of the '60's supernatural soap opera "Dark Shadows" recounts the resurrection of 200-year-old vampire Barnabas Collins(superbly portrayed by Jonathan Frid) who is released from his chained coffin by an imbecile handyman(John Karlen), then proceeds to wreak havoc on his modern descendants. The film features a number of the series regulars, including Joan Bennett as the aristocratic and very beautiful matriarch Elizabeth Collins Stoddard, and is very well directed by the original series creator Dan Curtis, who produced the picture as well. Fans of the ever popuar show will indeed find a great deal to like here as the film is shot on a much bigger budget featuring more sex and violence than those blasted censors would allow on the small screen. If you like this film, you may also want to check out its sequel, "NIGHT OF DARK SHADOWS".

A Good Horror Film
One of the first times a television program was brought to the big screen. The movie takes one of the most popular story lines from the tv program and goes way beyond it. Characters, who never die in the series, do so in this film with a heck of a lot more ketchupy bloody scenes.

The movie is complete by itself and it is not necessary to have every watched the tv series to understand and enjoy this film.

Some very eerie and tense scenes. Excellent directing and great mood music. The acting also far exceeds what we saw on the tv series!

Excellent!
This movie is definitely bloodier than the daytime Dark Shadows you might be used to, but it an excellent horror movie -- and proof of how talented and versatile the DS cast was. Jonathan Frid is really the reason to see this, his Barnabas ranks among the pantheon of classic vampires. He is much more evil in this film as opposed to the dapper, mysterious gentleman on TV, but just try to look away. He is wonderful, as are the very talented Nancy Barrett as the doomed Carolyn, and beautiful Kathryn Leigh Scott as Maggie. John Karlen, Thayer David and Grayson Hall all add their magic to the mix, and Joan Bennett never looked more grand and glamorous. Really a fun scary movie and a treat for fans! ... Read more

Amazon.com

After a government-spawned "superflu" wipes out more than 90 percent of the earth's population, the devastated survivors must decide whether to support or resist the advances of a mysterious stranger from way down South (heh-heh) who wishes to claim this new world order for himself. Although the six-hour length makes it nigh-impossible to digest in one sitting, this well-paced adaptation of Stephen King's apocalyptic magnum opus ranks among the best adaptations of the author's work, with strong performances from Gary Sinise, Miguel Ferrer, and especially Jamey Sheridan as a good-old-boy version of Old Scratch. The opening scene, set to the strains of Blue Oyster Cult's "Don't Fear the Reaper," is one of the most chilling things ever shot for television. Director Mick Garris is no stranger to King's world, having also helmed Sleepwalkers, the recent television remake of The Shining, and the upcoming Desperation. --Andrew Wright ... Read more

Reviews (217)

Amazing....but missing something
I eagerly bought this movie after finishing the novel. I know that a lot of movies based on books are different from the original story, but this really isn't one of them, at least not exactly. Almost all of the main and important aspects of the novel are included in the movie. The time constraints obviously play a part of the limited detail, at least compared to the novel, but what seems most annoying is the fact that different characters play the parts of characters in the book. For example, Susan Stern, who travelled in Stu Redman's group originally suddenly is part of Mother Abigail's group. It's small differences like this that get to me in this movie.

Other than that, the movie is awesome. The makeup effects used are amazing. The actors chosen to portray the characters seem perfect, especially Gary Sinise, Adam Storke, Ray Walston, Bill Fagerbakke, Jamey Sheridan and particularly Rob Lowe, who plays a wonderful Nick Andros. I've already watched this movie a number of times, and there are scenes I can't get enough of. I really like it, but I'm going to have to say, read the book first, because it will not only help you keep better track of what's going on in the movie, but it will you keep you informed on the characters as well. Plus, the book is definitely worth it's 1141 pages and you'll be really missing something without it!

Greatness Has a Name
First off, I'd like to say I have never read the book. But I will soon. Even though, I absolutely LOVED this movie. The acting was amazing, especially the performances by Gary Sinise (can that guy play a bad role? Knock on wood) and Rob Lowe, supposedly in a comeback role. It was probably very hard for poor Rob to play a deaf mute! Anyway, the story goes that a virus created by the Army gets loose at it's base and spreads through the United States. Only a few people survive, and the ones that do are separated into two groups. One group is called in dreams by Mother Abigail (played by Ruby Dee) and the other is called by Randall Flagg, the devil (played by Jamey Sheridan, who did an awesome job). Mother Abigail's group is led by Gary Sinise, Molly Ringwald, Adam Storke, and Rob Lowe (although he didn't lead the group, he played an incredibly important part as a retarded man named Tom Cullen. I'm talking about Bill Fagerbakke). The bad guys, led by Flagg, flock to Las Vegas (yes, Sin City itself) and the good guys go to Boulder, Colorado. I won't give away the ending, but it is truly a wonderful movie with many twists and surprises. It made me jump, scream, say aww, and at times cry ew! It is incredible!

It's not the book, but what movie is?
I was disappointed in the amount of changes in the mini-series; I found the book much more filled out. However, this movie brings about all my greatest fears about the end of our way of life. I have worked in the medical field for a number of years and I have often imagined this kind of scenario. Many people focus on the religious aura of this film, but I enjoyed the all encompassing nature. Stephen King did not write about religion, or how one faith survived while all other belivers died. He wrote a story about good versus evil. Don't look for a hinted meaning and enjoy the movie; it's well worth it.

Religious propaganda - cheap and blatant
I feel that I genuinely wasted my time watching this excessively long DVD (TV series).
It is a cheap production, proving how celebrity does not equate to talent.
Worse of all is the blatant religious "stand" which the story takes... It reminds me of the awful movie productions used by missionaries uninvitedly imposing their beliefs upon others.
Oh! And it is worth pointing out that Mr. King should stick to writing and NOT acting....
Although, it would probably appease many, and reinforce their monochrome ideas and perceptions of good and evil.....

Worth it
I am a relatively new fan of Mr. Kings work. My first exposure to his material was when The Stand miniseries aired. I recently read the book and find the movie adaptation to be just about as complete as you could hope for.

The performances are good, with some nice peaks into the early works of some now well known actors.

The only disappointment for me... in both the book and the miniseries.... is that ending. Won't spoil it here. For me it was a sort of "thats it?" moment. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

The First One Was Better
When i heard they were making a sequal to Witchboard i was thrilled.Only to find out Tawny would not be in it.This film isnt as bad as some have said.Its actually funnier than scary.Bad acting,but good atmosphere.The atmosphere is spooky!!Witchboard 2 is like one of the corny 50s/60s horror flick its so bad its good.Skip the 3rd Witchboard,it has to be the worst movie i have seen.Some people know how to kill a good series.

Almost As Good As The First
The first one was a classic but this one is pretty good too. It's along the same lines as the first one about a woman being terrorized by a vengeful spirit who was contacted through a Ouija Board. It haunts the apartment and makes things go bump in the night. It becomes more and more vicious as it kills people by causing bizarre accidents. Then it begins to take over the woman's body by possessing it. Pretty scary stuff!

good movie
This was a cool movie! I liked it , liked the first one also !

Worth it for Ami alone
I picked up this movie mainly because I am a fan of Ami Dolenz.As a lover of occult movies, I think it stands up on its own. I found the movie to be tense and suspensful.Ami's performance as the skeptical girl turned turned believer in danger is great.I've watched the movie a few times since I got it and I think it would be a great movie to watch late at night or on a dark stormy afternoon.Another reviewer complained that it was unrealistic, but I have heard far stranger real life scary experiences than this, so even though its fiction, I don't find it out there at all.
If you like occult or suspensful movies, pick this one up.

This Movie is So cool
THis is one of my all time favs of the genre horror ... Read more

Reviews (217)

Amazing....but missing something
I eagerly bought this movie after finishing the novel. I know that a lot of movies based on books are different from the original story, but this really isn't one of them, at least not exactly. Almost all of the main and important aspects of the novel are included in the movie. The time constraints obviously play a part of the limited detail, at least compared to the novel, but what seems most annoying is the fact that different characters play the parts of characters in the book. For example, Susan Stern, who travelled in Stu Redman's group originally suddenly is part of Mother Abigail's group. It's small differences like this that get to me in this movie.

Other than that, the movie is awesome. The makeup effects used are amazing. The actors chosen to portray the characters seem perfect, especially Gary Sinise, Adam Storke, Ray Walston, Bill Fagerbakke, Jamey Sheridan and particularly Rob Lowe, who plays a wonderful Nick Andros. I've already watched this movie a number of times, and there are scenes I can't get enough of. I really like it, but I'm going to have to say, read the book first, because it will not only help you keep better track of what's going on in the movie, but it will you keep you informed on the characters as well. Plus, the book is definitely worth it's 1141 pages and you'll be really missing something without it!

Greatness Has a Name
First off, I'd like to say I have never read the book. But I will soon. Even though, I absolutely LOVED this movie. The acting was amazing, especially the performances by Gary Sinise (can that guy play a bad role? Knock on wood) and Rob Lowe, supposedly in a comeback role. It was probably very hard for poor Rob to play a deaf mute! Anyway, the story goes that a virus created by the Army gets loose at it's base and spreads through the United States. Only a few people survive, and the ones that do are separated into two groups. One group is called in dreams by Mother Abigail (played by Ruby Dee) and the other is called by Randall Flagg, the devil (played by Jamey Sheridan, who did an awesome job). Mother Abigail's group is led by Gary Sinise, Molly Ringwald, Adam Storke, and Rob Lowe (although he didn't lead the group, he played an incredibly important part as a retarded man named Tom Cullen. I'm talking about Bill Fagerbakke). The bad guys, led by Flagg, flock to Las Vegas (yes, Sin City itself) and the good guys go to Boulder, Colorado. I won't give away the ending, but it is truly a wonderful movie with many twists and surprises. It made me jump, scream, say aww, and at times cry ew! It is incredible!

It's not the book, but what movie is?
I was disappointed in the amount of changes in the mini-series; I found the book much more filled out. However, this movie brings about all my greatest fears about the end of our way of life. I have worked in the medical field for a number of years and I have often imagined this kind of scenario. Many people focus on the religious aura of this film, but I enjoyed the all encompassing nature. Stephen King did not write about religion, or how one faith survived while all other belivers died. He wrote a story about good versus evil. Don't look for a hinted meaning and enjoy the movie; it's well worth it.

Religious propaganda - cheap and blatant
I feel that I genuinely wasted my time watching this excessively long DVD (TV series).
It is a cheap production, proving how celebrity does not equate to talent.
Worse of all is the blatant religious "stand" which the story takes... It reminds me of the awful movie productions used by missionaries uninvitedly imposing their beliefs upon others.
Oh! And it is worth pointing out that Mr. King should stick to writing and NOT acting....
Although, it would probably appease many, and reinforce their monochrome ideas and perceptions of good and evil.....

Worth it
I am a relatively new fan of Mr. Kings work. My first exposure to his material was when The Stand miniseries aired. I recently read the book and find the movie adaptation to be just about as complete as you could hope for.

The performances are good, with some nice peaks into the early works of some now well known actors.

The only disappointment for me... in both the book and the miniseries.... is that ending. Won't spoil it here. For me it was a sort of "thats it?" moment. ... Read more

Reviews (27)

Masterful and modern retelling of the Faustian legend
Wonderfully suspenseful and eerily beautiful film based on Oscar Wilde's novel of the same name (well almost, instead of "picture" it's "portrait"). A (then) modern retelling of the Faust legend about an individual who barters his soul in his wish to never grow old. Hurd hatfield is obviously based on the Faust character and is appropriately cool and detached in his performance, ideally cast in the title role as the beautiful young man who makes a supernatural deal with the dark gods to always retain his physical beauty and youth while only the magnificent portrait of himself registers his aging and depravities. Solid performances also by George Sanders as the Mephistopheles character, playing (as his usual best) a jaded, amoral man of the world who leads Dorian astray with his immoral yet compelling, and seemingly reasonable philosophies on life; and Angela Lansbury is particularly touching in her subtle portrayal in the Gretchen counterpart of Sibyl Vane, the dreamy and virtuous vaudeville performer destroyed by Dorian. Peter Lawford and Donna Reed are pretty window dressing here, with their usual passive, bland acting (Reed's Alma in "From Here To Eternity" later on was a pleasant exception). Flowing direction, lovely B&W cinematography, and the beautifully dark and turbulent "Prelude" tune by Chopin make this a must-see horror/fantasy classic that's a solid film version of Wilde's literary masterpiece. This film is also a deeply disturbing and haunting cautionary parable about man's pursuit of earthly pleasures and decadence and how in the end it is no substitute for spiritual nourishment when it comes at the expense of an individual's morality and humanity--for at the end even Dorian tires of his decadence and dies reciting a prayer on his lips

LITTLE YELLOW BIRD...
That's the name of the little ditty that 20 year-old Angela Lansbury chirps in this classic exursion into the macabre. Dorian Gray, a young man living in Victorian London, has his portrait painted by an artist named Basil Hallward, himself fascinated by Gray's youthful innocence. Egged on by the amoral Lord Henry, Gray manages to keep himself youthful by giving up his soul, and proceeds to indulge in a life of selfish hedonism and cruelty while through the years his face stays unnaturally young...While not a totally successful transition of Wilde's wickedly elegant novel - it's too glum and slow paced - there's much to admire in this 1945 version of the bizarre theme. Hatfield was an inspired choice for the title role, combining his handsome, ethereal face with his cool, aloof manner which perfectly suited Wilde's corrupted aristocrat. George Sanders is perfection personified playing the acidly witty and cynical Lord Henry Wotton and Angela Lansbury is memorable as the demure caberet singer Sybil Vane who meets a dark fate...

Moral Leprosy
When you think of expressionism in the movies you tend to think of the wierd angles, lighting and cutting of the German directors of the 20's and 30's. But Albert Lewin's marvelous movie adaptation of Oscar Wilde's novel makes the same kind of other-wordly impact with an amazing and unsettling exaggeration of Victorian manners, morals, and architecture. The icy detachment of Gray and his friends from any emotional involvement with their surroundings heightens tremendously the impact on us of the genuinely human gestures and feelings of the other characters. This Faustian parable about a man and his graven image probably reflects Wilde's torment over whether he had sold his own soul to become an international funnyman. The whole cast is a standout but it's Lewin's picture and a total success.

What the...?
We had to watch this movie in my English class and it totally sucked! The music was corny and i couldn't tell what the hell was going on. It would skip from one scene to another and you couldn't follow the plot. Am I supposed to know who "this" person is just from one scene?! I didn't get it at all. The only good part was the changing of the painting. That part I did get.

Near Perfection
Handsome, young and morally corrupt Dorian Gray has his portrait painted. Soon after, under the influence of the incorrigible Lord Henry Wotton, he betrays his fiancee, leading to her suicide. As the years pass Dorian does not age but evidence of his narcissim are apparent in his portrait which grows uglier with each transgression. His mysterious behavior and ageless appearance begin to attract suspicion. This is one of my favorite stories by Oscar Wilde. This movie has everything that a good movie should have. ... Read more

Description

An unemployed window display artist discovers a young man with a face that looks like a rat, and she decides to exploit him for financial gain. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

One damn fine movie
This movie has it all - car chases, guns, fat security guard guys, Macguyver rolls, incredibly cool makeup for Ratboy himself, and a dramatic ending that closes the film off superbly. What more can I say? Go and watch it today!

Sensory Overload!!!!!!
I will not say this is a good movie but, few good movies are as entertaining.Robert Townsend actually gives a good performance but, the real highlight here is the Ratboy himself.Designed and built by oscar winner Rick Baker.No tail on Ratboy.Rats!A game that might serve to enhance your Ratboy experience if thats possible.Try to imagine Clint Eastwood's reaction when chum Sandra Locke shows it to him for the first time. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Terence Fisher's take on the oft-filmed Robert Louis Stevenson tale offers a clever switch in a handsome, suave, charming Hyde, like Christopher Lee's Dracula as a seductive figure of evil. Paul Massie plays Dr. Jekyll as a distracted intellectual under a (rather phony) beard whose personality-changing drug unleashes his repressed desires and reveals a different side not just of himself, but of his hypocritical best friend. Paul (Christopher Lee) is a smiling viper who leeches off of Jekyll while carrying on an affair with his wife, and soon becomes the smooth-faced Hyde's partner in debauchery through the nightclub underworld of Victorian England. Hyde's violent streak emerges when he targets those who have wronged his weak alter ego (including a truly brutal attack upon his wife) and in his passionate affair with the exotic snake charmer he soon makes his sexual slave. Massie is neither the intense, menacing Hyde nor the tortured Jekyll the part demands; the sides of his personality are better expressed through costars Lee as Hyde's gleefully hedonistic buddy and David Kossoff as Jekyll's conservative and caring friend. Fisher revels in the debauchery of his characters (the Jekyll story often feels like an afterthought), creating an atmosphere of decadence by suggestion and flourish, but his Hyde is a cruel, cold-blooded character, a true Hammer Studios monster behind a friendly face. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (4)

One of the more intelligent adaptations of Stevenson.
I must say that I enjoyed this film more than the other customers. The conception of evil as a suave, debauched charmer rather than a gnarled, perverted monster is an ingenious variation on the doppelganger theme, and its implications and the character relationships/dichotomies are carried through with great intelligence. This film is more of a lurid drama rather than a full-blown horror film, maybe that is why many fans are left disappointed. There are two problems with the film: Massie in the lead is not particularly impressive; and the film taken as a whole lacks a dynamic force that distinguishes most if not all of Fisher's best films--although there are two or three powerful sequences...

Weak Horror Movie
Weak entry in the Hammer Horror film series finds Christopher Lee playing the evil alter-ego of Dr. Jekel in this somewhat over-acted, weakly plotted film. The ending is predictable with the Good Doctor meeting a terrible ending. And terrible is something this movie was.

Good try, fair results
I had waited for a long time to finally see this films and I would say some of my expectaions were met and some were not. The film begins with Dr. Jekyll speaking of his theory that each person has an inner self that could be set free. He then proceeds to inject himself with a concoction that transforms him into the suave, but evil Hyde. Hyde then goes off trying everything Jekyll would not and he tries to come between the affair his wife is having with his best friend. Eventually Hyde gets more daring and Jekyll and Hyde have the unavoidable battle for the same body. I give credit to Hammer foa different approach, but it never really covers any different ground that is explored in any other Jekyll-Hyde movie. There are no new revelations or solutions just a different kind of Hyde with the same results. He may be more dangerous than the typical beastly Hyde because he is much more cunning, but we never really get any sense of that by the film's end. Usually Jekyll is a brilliant scientist who goes step too far with his curiosity, but this Jekyll seems like a dull and lonely man who is just unhappy with his life and he would never have the stregnth of character to win out over a dark half. The film does hit more than it misses, but I think it could have been a bit stronger in the story department. Paul Masse is hot and cold, he handles the Hyde part fairly well, but Jekyll seems fairly unbelievable and the transforamtions are just fair. Christopher Lee contributes one of the best roles he ever had for Hammer, it is a shame he didn't get more of the sharp dialogue he recieved here, he handles it beautifully. Dawn Addams is fairly good as Jekyll's wife, I always thought Hammer's leading ladies in the late 50's and very early 60's were worlds above most of the actresses they used later on. The source print used here looks washed out, it is faded in the bright parts and too dark in other places. This is a shame because I am sure this film once had the same vibrant color of other Hammer made at the same time. Still this film is worth seeing.

A disappointing Hammer Film
I had read some good things about this early Hammer Film, but I was ultimately disappointed by it. There isn't much in the way of menace, and the story of an ugly, but good Dr. Jekyll turning into a handsome, but violent Mr. Hyde never really takes off. Most of the plot is taken up with a rather unbelievable affair between Dr. Jekyll's wife and his best friend (played by Christopher Lee). There are far better Hammer Films available. Even from the same year as this film 1960, both "The Brides of Dracula" and "The Curse of the Werewolf" are sure to strike your fancy. ... Read more

Amazon.com

It's been branded with the "blaxploitation" label, but there islittle that's exploitive in J.D.'s Revenge, a film of well-drawn,articulate characters dragged into a supernatural showdown. Glynn Turman(Cooley High) is especially fine as the sensitive and quiet Ike, adetermined student moonlighting as a cab driver, so wound up he's on theverge of cracking. Enter (literally) the ghost of J.D., a violent, vengeful gangster murdered in the opening moments. He could be Ike's own Mr. Hyde, a dapper, flamboyant ladykiller with a fiery temper and a straight razor whoslowly smothers Ike's easygoing personality. Driven by flashes of memory,he sets his vengeful sights on fire-and-brimstone preacher Reverend Bliss(Louis Gossett Jr.), whose dark past is intricately tied up with J.D.'smurder. Director Arthur Marks (Detroit 9000) sidesteps the usualspooky clichés to stir up a modern New Orleans gumbo of ghost story,gangster tale, and character drama. J.D. is both devilish sadist andavenging angel, while the tortured Ike awakens from J.D.'s violent rampages with a hole in his memory but a sick feeling from his imagined complicityin the crimes. The story gets wrapped up a little too neatly in the end, but the dark character shadings and the evocative mystery at the center ofIke's possession makes J.D.'s Revenge an unexpectedly compellingsupernatural thriller. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Interesting...
This movie came out when I was about nine years old. Just out of the blue, the title popped into my head and I decided to purchase it....

The movie literaly had me on the edge of my seat once JD's spirit took over Ike's body. I disliked how this possession affected those close to Ike. He couldn't remember hurting his girlfriend or one of his customers. JD was CRAZY!!! It really did not take me long to figure out who killed JD and his sister, but I don't want to give it away. If your into "blaxplotation" movies, check this one out...

J.D. Walker the boss talker
Because my nickname is JD i had to get this title. The movie is ok and is worth buying. I don't know if it was meant as a comedy but that is what it was for me. Don't expect too much with this one, rather take what you get.

Endless Repetition...
I first saw this in the late 70's while on a USN ship in the Med. It was a good distraction - and absolutely hilarious! In those days, the crews would exchange movies while underway via a large canvas bag. We'd send our "viewed" movies to another ship in exchange for the movies they'd seen.
EVERY EXCHANGE we'd end up with a copy of J.D.'s Revenge and Revenge of the B Girls. J.D.'s Revenge was so funny that the crew and wardroom watched it nearly every night for nearly 6 months. In a few months, nearly everyone had memorized the entire movie. It was like J.D. was taking over the crew...
Yup. Life was much harsher in the "Old Navy". How could anyone NOT want such an enjoyable (and quotable) movie?

J.D.'s Revenge (1976)
I had to get this title. The movie is ok and is worth buying. I enjoyed this movie. It's a movie that I grow-up with as a kid. I refers DVD's to the VHS Tape edition.

JD's Revenge
I perserved with this DVD, but it was certainly a 'B' rated. Considering the actors where known the story line was poor. Not a film I would keep in my collection, very disappointing. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Ed Wood is alive and kicking...
Okay, nobody should rent (or buy) "Cthulhu Mansion" based on the H.P. Lovecraft blurb on the box; I've read two reviews that call it "the world's worst [Lovecraft] adaptation," and this movie definitely isn't for any of his fans. BUT... for fans of Juan Piquer Simon, the modern-day Spanish equivalent of Ed Wood, this is a must-see. "Cthulhu Mansion" is hysterical, a mess of poor story, direction, acting, etc. that makes it the director's best film to date. For fans of bad horror, this is a slice of heaven--for Lovecraft fans, it's bound to be the equivalent of pulling teeth.

Horror + ible = Cthulhu Mansion
It is hard to even fathom that this worthless attempt at a horror movie is actually from the imagination of H.P. Lovecraft. The movie is cliche; there is nothing about it that is original or creative. The leader of a group of wannabe looking street punks kills a dope dealer at a carnival and takes his stash. They try to escape but run into security and thus force the carnival's magician to help them escape by allowing them to hide in the back of his station wagon. Instead of ditching him, they decide to go back to his mansion...even though he warns them continuously that this is a very bad idea. There, they inadvertently open a door that releases the forces of evil and the typical haunted house events ensue. The dialogue is bland and is as annoying as the majority of the cliche characters. Even the magician, the best character, can't help the flick with his generic words and limited role. The atmosphere is creepy but then most old mansions at night are. Special effects are okay but the death scenes are bland and don't really call for any innovative techniques. Cinematography is average and it doesn't take an experienced eye to realize this. Aside from having a rehashed, boring plot it also contains multiple holes and, as if I would have expected anything less, it has an awful ending. Even the not so scary Haunting remake is better than this flick. So do yourself a favor and stay far, far away.

Another Juan Piquer Simon gem
Juan Piquer Simon has not gotten the recognition he deserves in B-movie circles, despite a strong body of work. Cthulhu Mansion is not as great as Simon's "Pieces," "Supersonic Man" or "Pod People," but it features many of his usual players. For example, this movie includes the inimitable Frank Brana once again, and I always love seeing that guy.

If you are watching this movie, you pretty much know already what to expect, and you won't be disappointed. The worst thing about this movie is the plinky music repeated endlessly throughout the film. It will make you want to turn off the sound and make up lines for the characters. That's not necessarily a bad way to approach this film.

For Simon fans, note that the "mansion" of the title is the same interior used for "Pieces" and "Pod People."

The best horror film ever!!
My name is Mike Agnello. I watched Cthulhu mansion several times over the past few months. Normally I get scared to watch horror movies in my basement, but I decided to give this one a shot. Boy was I surprised. Excellent! My friends didnt like the movie at all, but I dont think they are smart enough to handle the cinemaphotogaraphy and splendid dialogue this movie presents. Get it if you can find it!!

Err....it's....ok....
This has to be one of the most poorly done movies ever made, but surprisingly it's worth wasting an evening to sit down and make fun of it. It has no resemblance to any Lovecraft story, however, so in that respect it truly bites. The acting is horrible, so horrible that you hope that they weren't trying too hard. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Marvel Comics always seems to come up short in the comics-to-movies transition, often because their adaptations veer away from both their comic book feel and their original story. This lesser-known conversion--which didn't even air in some parts of the country back in 1978--is the most faithful of the '70s Marvel adaptations, from a lead actor who looks the part to specific sets and some moderately decent effects. Peter Hooten stars as psychiatrist Stephen Strange, an unwitting heir to mystical powers which aging sorcerer Lindmer seeks to bestow on him (it's his destiny). When the evil Morgan LeFay is sent by an evil demon from another dimension to snuff out the aging sorcerer and begin the takeover of Earth, Linder fends her off as his pupil, Wong, seeks out Strange for his initiation into the mystic arts. When the reluctant Strange learns that one of his patients, student Clea Lake, has become an unwitting pawn in this cross-dimensional war, he tries to save her and then attempts to fend off LeFay before she bridges the gap between dimensions.

Admitted, this movie is more suited to fans of the comic than to outsiders, but that said, it is the Marvel adaptation most likely to entice people into investigating its source material. Hooten delivers an appealing performance as the compassionate Strange; his acting is what drives this piece. John Mills is decent as Lindmer, and Anne-Marie Martin emphatically plays the victimized Lake, but Jessica Walter is a bit too cold and distant as sinister sorceress LeFay, despite her cool, icy stare. Luckily, Paul Chihara's moody electronic score (reminiscent of Goblin's music in Dario Argento films) adds tension to the movie. You can tell the filmmakers were setting up a series that never came, and it's too bad because there was a lot of potential here. --Bryan Reesman ... Read more

Reviews (6)

In the Name of Riel, Scourge of Demons!
There is a barrier that separates the known from the unknown. Beyond this threshold lies a battleground, where forces of Good and Evil are in eternal conflict. The fate of mankind hangs in the balance and awaits the outcome.

In every age and time, some of us are called to join the battle.

This is the story of Dr. Stephan Strange, a man in middle years who suddenly discovers the great mystery of his own life, and of all life. He comes face-to-face with the Ancient One, Master of the Hermetic Arts- Sorcerer Supreme. He is told that he has been chosen to be the next bearer of this mantle, the next champion of Light. Yet he cannot accept it. To change his mind it takes exposure to the nemesis of Light, Morgan- who is Kali, who is Lillith, who is Ishtar.... Only then does Stephen accept his destiny- and the sacrifice of the mortal pleasures of ignorance, progeny, and an easy death. The only thing he doesn't sacrifice is Love, for that is the very fabric of the Universe itself- the Universe that he now serves.

Based on the Marvel Comics series, this film will probably disappoint some purists. There is no mention of Tibet, or the accident that cost Dr. Strange the use of his hands (in the comics he was a surgeon, here he is a psychologist), and the Ancient One is a westerner (John Mills) and lives in New York. However, the spirit of the original is definitely here. I saw this on television in the late 70's and never forgot it. A measure of how good it is, is the fact that it was released on video even though it was a made-for-TV pilot for a series that never materialized.

Oh my, not DrStrange at all
Ok, I bought it but it is only for my DrStrange Museum I am collecting anything that has his name on but BOY if you're not a DrStrangeaholic run from this tape; it is not what you'd expect.

a little scary, but a very good movie
Another marvel Hero is adapted in a T.V.movie. Doctor Strange is less popular than Spider-Man, Hulk and Captain America but if you are a comic books fan, you have to see this movie specialy if you are a live-action super-heroes collector. Like all others T.V. super-Heroes (Hulk, Spider-Man, Captain America), the origin is very different from the comic books. In this movie, Dr Strange is a psychiatrist(in the comic-books, he's a surgeon). In years, i did not see this movie at tv and there is no chance to see this movie at t.v. The only chance to see this movie is to buy it, and do it fast before this movie becomes unavailable. I do not recommend it for children under 10, because there are some scary scenes. Why they did not do a second movie or a regular series ? It would have been interesting. I heard a few years ago there was suppose to have a big budget movie.

POSSIBLY THE BEST COMIC-BOOK MOVIE OF ALL TIME
If you are a Dr. Strange fan you will immediately notice the changes from the comics. The Ancient One becomes Merlin from King Arthur. Doctor Strange changes from a surgeon to a phychiatrist. But, this well made TV Pilot is well worth seeing. If I remember correctly, it got better ratings than the Incredible Hulk, Spider-man and the other Marvel Comics pilots. CBS got complaints about "witchcraft" and in the 70s shyed away from it. Peter Hooten does Doc well with his portrayal. And Jessica Walter went on to star on Days Of Our Lives and is easy on the eyes.

Better than average fantasy movie
I first saw this movie in 1978 and was quite impressed by it. "Dr. Strange" has good acting and an interesting story; definitely above average for a film based on a comic book. I believe this film was supposed to be the pilot for a proposed TV series, but unfortunately it wasn't picked up by the network. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

very 84'
Great movie, definitely has the Wes Craven vibe. Plenty of stuff to laugh at but still totally watchable. Star studded in a great 80's tv/ b-movie way. Soleil Moon Frye (Punky Brewster),Barret Oliver (D.A.R.Y.L.), Jason Presson (Explorers). Susan Lucci rules as the satanic country club chick. If cheesy 80's flicks are up your alley I totally recommend it.

Great if just to see Nicholas Worth
Not the best of Wes Cravens horrors but not the worst.

Simple but enjoyable horror yarn that is crude in budget but still interesting and compelling to watch.

Although one of the secondary characters, the film is most noticable for character actor/muscleman Nicholas Worth who plays the musclebound demonic sherrif guardian to the hell gate.

COOL MOVIE
Everything is idyllic in Suburbia when the little family moves in, as the father have got a new job in a computer company there. But no paradise would be complete without its snake. Strange things happens as the family joins the local country club without the husband, as it certainly holds secrets. Suspenseful and well-made chiller with a bitchy Susan Lucci as club chairperson. The movie captures the sense of paranoia and the special effects final is worth waiting for. ... Read more

Reviews (62)

cheesy but worth watching!
You take away the absence of production values, amature acting, bad dialouge and you got a pretty decent horror pic. That withstanding, Children Shouldnt Play with Dead Things is an underated zombie flick considering it was made with almost no budget. Why? Alan Ormsby gives one of the most annoying performances in B-movie history! Its only fitting that the viewer is treated to his death by the zombie he digs up and mocks! The zombie effects are surprisingly effective, creating some scary looking zombies that work to give a genuine creepiness about the film. A film worth watching for the horror fan.

CHILDREN SHOULDNT PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS
ALTHOUGH CONSIDERED A B-MOVIE, ITS A VERY GOOD ONE.THE MOOD OF THIS FILM IS INTENSE. THE ACTING IS OK AND THE SETTING IS PERFECT.THE ZOMBIES ARE GREAT IN THIS ONE! VERY CREEPY MOVIE YOU WONT FORGET.

So bad it is funny
and not intentionally. A fun flick to watch at least 1 just for sheer idiocy reasons.

Good Low Budget Zombie Flick
Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things is an oft-overlooked zombie classic from the early 1970's. Although it is a low budget effort and this sometimes shows with the effects and dialogue, it has plenty of creepy atmosphere to give anyone the chills. The plot involves a group of actors heading to an island (an island that contains a graveyard, of course) to raise the dead. At first, it seems as if nothing has happened until the dead really DO begin to rise to slaughter those who have intruded on their island. With some humor and quite a bit of atmospheric tension, this film is best enjoyed late at night in a darkened room preferably as a fog settles outside.

the most underrated zombie flick of all time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A TRUE ZOMBIE BLUEPRINT!!!!!!this movie stands side by side with the GREAT ONES like romero's "NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD" & fulci's "ZOMBIE" its such a shame its not as recognized as the other 2 are!!!!????!!!!!THIS IS TRULY ONE OF MY VERY FAVORITE HORROR MOVIES!!!! YOU GET SOME DECENT ACTING/TRULY CREEPY WEIRD ATMOSPHERE & STORYLINE(very original)/SUPERB DIRECTING(bob clark is the mannnnn!!!)/WAY MORE SCARY THAN BLOODY(like romero's MASTERPIECE N.O.T.L.D.)/& THE ZOMBIES LOOK TRULY SCARY & REALISTIC FOR SUCH A LOW BUDGET!!!!!!/ the dvd comes out looking and sounding just fine for the budget & date!!! bottom line if your a true horror or zombie fan & you haven't caught this GEM of a TRUE horror flick then THIS ONES FOR YOU!!!!! SO TURN OUT THE LIGHTS,LOCK ALL THE DOORS,GET SOME POPCORN READY(somthing to keep reminding you that its just a movie),PLOP THE DVD IN,HOLD ON TIGHT & E!!!!N!!!!J!!!!O!!!!Y!!!! ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Surreal...
If you watch this as a very disjointed narrative (a la Edward Gorey) it is very enjoyable, especially for the uninitiated such as myself. There are scenes that were evidently included in an attempt to pad the running time that are riveting nonetheless. Fade in: A little boy sits alone at a large table with a cake before him. Three adults stand around him in the candelabra-lit room, singing "Happy Birthday." The boy thanks them, and they quietly take their seats. Fade out. There's even a great surf music dance sequence (set in a wharf dive) that's so out of place it's even the only clip in black and white! The only drawback is its brief running time (about 28 minutes), but it's still an entertaining and even provocative view. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

spoiled the story for some
the other reviews while accurate and complimentary, give the story away. i think it could've been done without giving away so much of the plot. it's a good movie. try to forget what you read and you'll enjoy it more.

GOOD MOVIE
This movie is about a step-father who is so jealous of his step-daughter that he kills her. After her death her spirit comes to her mother and tells her that she had been murdered by him. The movie is about her mother trying to prove that her husband killed her daughter. It is a great movie. The ending will really having you cheering but will be a total surprise.

Christopher Reeve's is a great actor and really plays a great bad guy.

paranormal movie
if you like supernatural and paranormal movies ? See this one its a great movie a muddered girl is coming back from her grave to haunt for revenge and for the truth ... Read more

Reviews (3)

spoiled the story for some
the other reviews while accurate and complimentary, give the story away. i think it could've been done without giving away so much of the plot. it's a good movie. try to forget what you read and you'll enjoy it more.

GOOD MOVIE
This movie is about a step-father who is so jealous of his step-daughter that he kills her. After her death her spirit comes to her mother and tells her that she had been murdered by him. The movie is about her mother trying to prove that her husband killed her daughter. It is a great movie. The ending will really having you cheering but will be a total surprise.

Christopher Reeve's is a great actor and really plays a great bad guy.

paranormal movie
if you like supernatural and paranormal movies ? See this one its a great movie a muddered girl is coming back from her grave to haunt for revenge and for the truth ... Read more