I can't say that this film deserves anywhere near the amount of vitriol being heaped on it by some reviewers. Yes, it's bogged down by an overly-padded running time, hamfisted editing, and an overreliance on cheeseball special effects. And it lacks much of the energy a comedy needs to get your average audience member to sit through it without checking his or her watch.

On the other hand, it's also got some laugh-out-loud funny lines, a talented and earnest cast, and the classic underdog premise. Macy, Stiller, and Azaria are brilliant as the "core" team, and Garofalo and Studi do superb work adding conflict and variety to the team. I can't say Reubens or Mitchell added much to the film overall, though each had a few chances to shine.

The plot, as I said above, is your classic "underdog-makes-good" stuff. No surprises there, since you know they're going to triumph. What makes it worthwhile is not the absurd, gaudy heroes and villains, but the dialogue and interplay between the characters. Underneath it all, these people are children at heart, who just want to do right. The best scenes in the film give this film its emotional grounding. Look at Azaria's relationship with his long-suffering mother; Macy's endearing innocence in his unwillingness to accept Cap. Amazing's secret identity; Stiller's rage (not unlike that one weird, spazzy kid you once knew who'd always go into quivering, impotent rages on the playground); Garofalo's desire to avenge her father. This childlike belief that a sense of justice and goodness will always make the world a better place, is the true appeal of super-hero comics; and underneath its parodic exterior, "Mystery Men" shows us why these hackneyed comic-book tropes matter to so many.

It never really gels into a satisfying whole, due to the huge number of half-baked subplots (romance, family life, conflicts within the team, etc.), but the main plot is such loopy fun that it makes up for that. The fact that it's supposed to be good, nonsensical fun seems to be lost on some of the reviewers here, so I'll issue a caveat: if you're the type of viewer who finds his enjoyment of an Itchy and Scratchy cartoon ruined by the unexplained and illogical ("Am I to believe this is some sort of.. *snort*... _magic_ xylophone?"), then you are far too literal-minded and humorless for this film. Go rent a Sandler film instead.

(7/10)


This is an very good movie. This is one that I would rent over and over again. It is not like your normal superhero movie. This movie blends comedy, action and great special effects. It even has a person in it that does a lot of voices on The Simpsons. William H. Macy is the bomb.


I just don't understand why this movie is getting beat-up in here. Jeez. It is mindless, it isn't polished and it is (as I am reading) wasted on some. The cast of this movie plays their characters to the 'T' (If you watched Permanent Midnight and became a Ben Stiller fan then yes you will be disappointed). These are misunderstood, well-intentioned misfits trying to save the city/world with nothing but grit and determination. The problem is they don't realize their limits until the big showdown and that's the point! This is 3 times the movie that The Spy Who Shagged Me was yet gets panned by the same demographic group, likely the same people who feel the first AP movie pales in comparison to the sequel. I just don't get it. The jokes work on more then one level; if you didn't get it I know what level you're at.


This movie is about a Dysfunctinal Family but Not just any Dysfunctional Family. It is about the Family of the Father of our Nation (India) although, the film focuses mainly on the estranged relationship between Mahatma Gandhi and his eldest son Harilal Gandhi. It shows how The Mahatma had to kill M.K. Gandhi, how he had to sacrifice his family life in order to achieve our freedom. Every time Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his son would try to get close the Mahatma would come between them. This is a beautifully done film. Akshaye Khanna has proved himself to be a Top Actor. He expressed emotions very naturally. Darshan Jariwala who mainly stars in Plays-Gurukant Desai's lawyer in Guru has portrayed Gandhi wonderfully.(as a real Human Being, unlike Ben Kingsley who made him look like a God) Shefali Shah the girl from Monsoon Wedding has also done a really good job of showing how Kasturba Gandhi was torn between father and son. This Movie is touching and so is its soundtrack "Raghupati Raghava" sung in a very unique manner. I saw this movie just 3 hours ago(it released in Dubai a day earlier-on the 2nd) and when the movie was over there was "Pin Drop Silence" and while exiting out of the Theatre not ONE person pushed another( Can you imagine us Indians not pushing ?) NOT ONE ! There was a Sacred Silence...


Gandhi My Father is a well made movie. It nicely portrays the life of Gandhiji's Eldest Son Harilal. His character, his differences with his father, his love for his family, his desire to stand on his own, his failure, his ego.. Akshaye Khanna completely justifies the role of Harilal. Just not him, everyone did well in the roles they played. Darshan Jariwala is the best on-screen Gandhiji I've ever seen. But I will cut three points as there were few shortcomings.

First, movie was fifteen-twenty minutes longer than it should have. Second, the movie needed more research into Harilal's character. Somewhere, the character looked incomplete. Also, his relation with his brothers was not shown. There was no mention of any other child of Gandhiji in the whole movie. I believe the character like Harilal should be having at least some differences his brothers as well, considering the egoist nature of Harilal.

Anyways, despite some shortcomings, I liked the movie. Recommended...


From very long, we are seeing movies on Gandhi. And mostly, the light is always on portrayal of Gandhi as freedom fighter or man with principles. But when I heard that a movie is being made which will highlight Gandhi as Father and stress on his relationship with his Son, it instantly hit my attention as this is one territory which is least being explored as it has his own dark side and less people shown courage to dwell into it. Fortunetly, Anil Kapoor (Producer) and Feroz Abbad Khan (Director) did.

The story start with Gandhi working in South Africa and his relationship with white people and his wife. Latter Akshay (Harilal) joined his father for becoming a barrister but his dream took overturn when his father (Gandhi) pushed (Or motivate) him to become freedom fighter. It showcase that Gandhi believes more on practical study rather then formal education. Harilal too try to walk on his father footstep but soon failed as its infatuation towards his wife, children and his own dream of becoming big success altered his path and then start the repulsion between son and father. He finally defeated his father in terms of pursuing his dream and to left him on his own terms. He written back to India but then start his unsuccessful stories which become bigger and bigger with time. I am leaving reader to see movie to catch further story...

Performance. First Akshay. He has given best performance of his tenure so far and is absolutely convincing in his portrayal as Harilal Gandhi. The scene in which he reach the room where his wife dead body is placed is one where you can see a fine actor which is hidden/developing in Akshay. Darshan jariwala is also good as MK Gandhi and able to live up such a larger then life character. He performed well and with quite an ease. Shefali Chaya (Now Shah) as Kasturba is brilliant actress and already proved her metal in TV serials. Bhumika chawla too performed well but actress of her candidature is waste in these kinds of role. Other actor have also justifies their performances.

Technique and Make up is also good and cinematography especially that Duo tone color picturisation was too good. Costume looks and match with context.

Overall, a worth seeing movie which is defiantly slow in progress and impatient people may find it boring but give you an insight of area which is not brought to silver screen till date. Also, the way story progress and connection of scene may look worn to some people and to critics especially but for an average movie watcher like me, it still enough to make me occupied on my seat till end.


"Gandhi as a husband and father?" has always been discussed by people in India. 'Gandhi...my father' is a story that only a few would have known to such details. Surely an insight into Gandhi's personal life.

Overall, I liked the movie for story and cinematography. Jariwala, Akshay Khanna, and Shefali Shah have all done a good job. Most scenes of the movie would be nice desktop wallpapers...commendable job. Traditional Indian folk music as background score during certain parts of the movie gives a good feel of the happenings.

However, what I didn't quite like was the narration style. At several points, I found the tone over-dramatized.

Overall, good work by Anil Kapoor Productions. I would recommend it as "must-watch-once". 8/10


It takes guts to make a movie on Gandhi in India ,in which he is not shown as a man who could do no wrong.This movie shows how a Mahatma failed to be a decent father(at least in the eyes of his son).

The performances are terrific ,the cinematography fantastic, the direction fabulous,but the film drags.If the intention was to make this movie without any box-office expectations,which i assume is the case here,then its a brilliant attempt,but if the makers were expecting this to be a commercial success,then the film's fate was doomed the day they chose this subject..

20 yrs from now,this movie will be remembered for the brilliant portrayal of Harilal by Akshaye Khanna.He deserves an Oscar nomination for this one..And honestly,his is not the only performance worth applauding, Shefali Chhaya is terrific too..

Watch the scene where Harilal hears about his father's death.No dialogues,No screaming,but a speechless shot by Khanna.Its one of the finest scenes ever shot in the history of Cinema

Gandhi,My Father is not at all exciting cinema but yes,its excellent cinema and a must watch.Brilliant Attempt..


Mahatma has been depicted as a man who neglected his own son in this movie. Don't get me wrong I am not condemning the movie; it is such a wonderful movie and walked out of the cinema with a lump in my throat. We need to understand Mahatma's spiritual standing, he is a true spiritual leader. Only a fully enlightened man could possibly detach himself from his loved ones. A man with such caliber leads his family and followers by example. According to the movie, he spoke to his son and try to make him understand where he is coming from, but poor Harilall with so little intellect could not understand his father. When things went wrong with Harilall, Mahatma could remain calm and accepted that his son is a big tragedy.

Had it been any other parents, they would have compromised their values to assist the son to get on his feet. Mahatma didn't do that, he is true leader who leads by example.


Feroz Abbas Khan's Gandhi My Father, a film that sheds light on the fractured relationship between the Mahatma and his son Harilal Gandhi. For a story that's as dramatic as the one this film attempts to tell, it's a pity the director fails to tell it dramatically. Gandhi My Father is narrated to you like that boring history lesson that put you to sleep at school. Now the film aims to convey one very interesting point - the fact that Gandhi in his attempt to be a fair person, ended up being an unfair father. This point is made in the film many times over, and one of the examples given to make this point is that scholarship to England, which Gandhi twice denies his son. Instead of showing us how exactly Harilal dealt with this betrayal and what went on in his head, the director just moves along with the story, thus never letting us be witness to the growing resentment Harilal feels towards his father. Which is why when we finally see an outburst from Harilal, it comes off looking like he's over-reacting.

The point I'm trying to make here is that we never really get to understand exactly why Harilal became the rebel that he did. We never really understand why he turned to Islam, and then back again to Hinduism. The thing is, we never really understand Harilal at all. And that's because the director of this film is too busy focusing on Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his role in the freedom struggle, a story most of us are already familiar with. To put it simply, Gandhi My Father promises to examine the strained father-son relationship, but it doesn't so much as show us where the cracks in this relationship first set in. We understand Harilal had to live with the burden of being Gandhi's son, but show us why that was a burden to begin with. Show us incidents of their early conflict. For example, it's not enough that Gandhi merely says he's opposed to Harilal's early marriage, tell us why this opposition? It's not enough that Kasturba blames her husband for the way her son turned out - for constantly shuttling him between schools in Gujarat and South Africa, for making him relocate every time Gandhi needed to relocate. Words are not enough, show us how these incidents shaped the character of Harilal Gandhi.What's more, instead of sticking with the prickly theme of this tenuous Gandhi versus Gandhi relationship, the film goes off on too many tangents, thus diluting the impact of the central theme. This was never meant to be a film about the struggle for Independence, and yet on many occasions that's exactly what it seems like, because the director feels almost obligated to take us through all the main events leading upto that historic moment, even though much of it has no relevance to the film's basic premise - the stormy father-son relationship. So you see the problem with this film is not that it's a bad film, but it's certainly a very confused film. What happens to Harilal's children after his wife's death? Does he ever have relationship with them? Where do they suddenly vanish after that one scene in which we see them with the Mahatma and Kasturba? None of these questions are answered in a film that's basically meant to be about relationships in the Gandhi family. The film version of an immensely popular play directed by Feroz Abbas Khan himself, Gandhi My Father is a disappointment, no questions asked.Cinematically, it struggles to translate the filmmaker's ambitious intention to the screen. Practically every single scene in the film opens and closes with fade-ins and fade-outs, never quite seamlessly leading into each other. On the positive side, there is inherent nobility in the film, which you recognise. The filmmaker makes every effort to deliver a balanced narrative, trying hard not to take sides, never once judging either father or son, painting neither as the villain. What the film does do, however, is make clear the fact that Gandhi was a difficult patriarch whose ideals may have shaped the nation, but evidently alienated his family. Of all the actors in the film it's only Akshaye Khanna who really shines in the role of the luck-deprived Harilal Gandhi. It's a wonderful performance, and it's not easy since the role covers virtually the entire lifespan of the character. But Akshaye brings a rare concoction of innocence and despondency to that part and succeeds in making Harilal a pitiable figure. Just watch him in that scene in which he discovers his wife's dead, and you'll realise how much he conveys through body language alone. Darshan Jariwala, meanwhile, who plays Gandhi Senior, adopts a caricaturish approach to playing the Mahatma in his later years, but it's the way he humanises the man in his early years as a barrister in South Africa that is the actor's best contribution to that role. The abundantly gifted Shefali Shah plays Kasturba, the woman who's meant to be torn in this father-son conflict, but if she's unable to bring across that feeling of helplessness then it's really not so much her fault as it is the fault of a rickety script. Much effort's gone into the making of this film and that's evident throughout, but the film suffers from that inevitable flaw that is eventually what you'll remember about it when you leave the cinema - it's just so boring.Director Feroz Abbas Khan's Gandhi My Father is a sincere effort yes, but also a film that could have done with a much tighter screenplay. What we learn from the film is that Gandhi and Harilal made each other very unhappy. And with this film, the director makes us too.


This movie is simply awesome.It was a very sensitive issue and movie was superb.This movie did not create any controversy in India (as far as i know) and its publicity was also kept low.Initially i thought that this movie would simply be a waste of time since most of the Indian directors and producers used to change the theme even though its very sensitive and adds a love story in original story and spoils the whole thing...most of the Indian viewers would agree on this topic if they remember Ashoka, Mangal Pandey,LOC etc..

There have been so many movies in India which would have become milestone or mega hits if the love story part would not be unnecessarily added.

But its treatment is pretty similar to Pinjar movie (also a must watch).

If it counts then i would like to thank Anil Kapoor ( producer ) and Firoz Abbas Khan ( the director) for making such a great movie..


While "The Kiss of the Spider Woman" cast Raul Julia as a political prisoner in an unidentified Latin American country, this time he works for a dictator in a fictional Latin American country. Specifically, the dictator suddenly drops dead, so Julia replaces el presidente with a Broadway actor (Richard Dreyfuss) shooting a movie in the country. From there, Dreyfuss has to figure out how to be a dictator, all the while balancing it with his own life.

Is it appropriate to turn the tense situation in Latin America into comedy? Well, "Moon Over Parador" does a good job with it. No matter what they do in this movie, they pull it off. It just goes to show why Richard Dreyfuss is one of the greatest actors of our era, and what we lost when Raul Julia died. Definitely worth seeing. Also starring Sonia Braga (who co-starred with Raul Julia in "TKOTSW"), Jonathan Winters and Sammy Davis Jr.

I agree: the first lady is hot.


Paul was totally ripped off by someone at paramount who made Dave. It's the same story, not as funny though.

Paul related to me this morning about the scene were sammy davis sings the new national anthem of parador. he arrived in brazil after a long flight from vegas, three planes, car ride to the set, etc. he was beat. he could hardly stand, had to use a cane. he was staying in a trailer about the size of my bathroom.

he didn't know he could do it. then he saw the crowd of 6000 extras,paid 7 bucks. he came to life and they shot that scene for two hours. he was magnificent, then nearly collapsed.

paul is a great guy, though very liberal. a real talent.


... and if you're very, very good it will resemble Moon Over Parador.

This film had a slightly silly story, but it was a fantasy after all, and the casting and the acting was spot-on! Dreyfuss was perfect as the actor/impostor, full of all the little neuroses and vanities you imagine actors to have. You get a glimpse of what actors are like behind the scenes.

This was one of Dreyfuss's best roles, just like his character has his best role impersonating the dead dictator! And the parting scene: like something out of Casablanca, indeed!

Raul Julia was superb as the Paradorian Chief of Secret Police. He gets some really funny lines, some of which are homages to other films, like "Round up the usual suspects!"

And Sonia Braga was excellent as the girl friend -- in addition to being a really hot number: "You should get an Oscar for tonight!"

Let us not forget Johnny Winters as the CIA agent and the several guest stars playing themselves: Sammy Davis Jr., Ike Pappas, Dick Cavett -- all perfectly done.

All in all, a memorable romp under the Paradorian moon.

-R.


Richard Dreyfuss stars in "Moon Over Parador," a 1988 Paul Mazursky film also starring Raul Julia, Sonia Braga, Jonathan Winters and Charo. Dreyfuss plays a New York actor, Jonathan Nolan, in the Caribbean country of Parador to make a film. When the dictator dies suddenly, the Secret Police Chief (Julia) who is the one actually controlling the dictator and the country, drafts Jonathan to play the dictator, having noticed the resemblance between them. Soon Jonathan is ensconced in the palace as Alphonse Simms, and Simms' prostitute girlfriend Madonna (Braga) who realizes the switch promises to help him in any way she can.

Mazursky, who appears in drag as Simms' mother, gives us a look at how the CIA operates in third world countries. The Winters character, supposedly a salesman, is actually a CIA operative. The film, however, flirts with but doesn't really tread on very serious ground and is more of a send-up, and a funny one at that.

Richard Dreyfuss does a fabulous job as Jonathan the actor and Alphonse the dictator, creating two separate characters and nailing both. The gorgeous Sonia Braga is great as Madonna, and Raul Julia hands in a wickedly funny performance as Strausmann, the man behind the dictator. It's one of those performances where you never quite know what the character is thinking - he can be pleasant or turn psycho at any moment. Charo is on hand as a maid and manages to be funny and unobtrusive at the same time.

A very good film, not a big blockbuster, but very entertaining.


This movie is fun to watch. If you liked "Dave" with Kevin Klein, you will get a kick out of this. Think "Dave" gone South American as Dreyfus plays Jack Noah, an actor between jobs, who is hand selected by the head of the island nation of Parador's secret police, to replace the drunken sot of a dictator, Alfonse Simms, after he has had a heart attack and died. Noah bumbles along, aided in his role by the ex-dictator's mistress, as they attempt to thwart the plans of Raul Julia. Jonathan Winters also makes an appearance as a hearty American émigré who turns out to be CIA. ALso starring Polly Holiday and Fernando Rey.

There are a few absurd moments such as the body of the old dictator be kept frozen for a year, and the final scene, where Sonia Braga, who has bee cradling the bloody, bullet riddled body of Dreyfus is seen moments later all in pristine white, with nary a smudge on her. But all in all it is a great romp.


I enjoyed this film. It was funny, cute, silly, and entertaining. Had a fine cast and really got hammered by some critics for reasons that I truly don't understand. No, it wasn't "The Grapes of Wrath" or "Casablanca" or even "Moonstruck", but it was an enjoyable film.

Julia was excellent playing the psychotic 'man behind the man'. The story is a little silly to be sure, but it this isn't high drama, folks. I happened to see a review of the film, probably the only good one it got and then ran into it one night when looking for a movie. I never heard it was supposed to stink until after I saw it, and I'm glad I saw it. Eventually bought the VHS tape on the bargain pile, and I watch it a couple times a year.


I thought that Mr. Dreyfuss was perfect for his role as the actor and the dictator. His co-star, Mr. Julia, played his role equally as perfect. It was interesting to see how reluctant Richard Dreyfuss was in replacing the dictator against his will. But he became more confident and comfortable with the role as time passed. Since everything happens for a reason in life, I believe he was forced to replace the dictator because he was meant to stay there for over the year that he did. I'm guessing that he stayed because he was supposed to see how good his life was compared to the poverty he witnessed in Parador. I think he took too many things for granted in life and he needed to get a serious reality check by remaining in that country for as long as he did.

But........... anyways........... this is why I gave this film a 7 out of 10.


This is one the few movies I can watch over and over. If you've never seen it, give it a shot. Richard Dreyfus and Raoul Julia are wonderful together and although the movie amuses me greatly, it reminds me of Julia's untimely demise. It is a good opportunity to sit back and laugh at the international intrigue that is too much with us in these time of terror and fear.


This little-appreciated movie is one of my favorites. I can watch it over and over. Dreyfus and Braga are masterful, but Raul Julia steals the show! A tongue-in-cheek, menacingly humorous Gomez Addams, with just the right tone for this irreverent spoof of this oft-told story.

Generally untrumpeted and unappreciated, Moon Over Parador allows you to check out of reality and join the fun going on up on the screen. Two thumbs up!


This is a modest, character driven comedy, filmed in Brazil on a low budget. The premise is familiar, the same as in the 1950's Danny Kaye movie **On the Double**: someone who, as a joke, does an impression of a Famous Person then is dragooned to impersonate the Person for real.

The contrast between the two leads is highly effective. Raul Julia as the German-Paradorian secret policeman, is tall, cool, menacing and Latin. He sports a deliberately obvious blond dye job. Richard Dreyfus, animated, short, New York Jewish, is funny and sympathetic. There are many references and inside jokes about show business.

The setting is clearly modeled on Paraguay. Paraguay was indeed ruled from the early fifties to the late eighties by Gen. Alfredo Stroessner, an unelected military dictator whose father had emigrated from Germany. But writer/director Mazurszky reveals his ignorance of local conditions when he paints Parador/Paraguay as a typical Latin American tyranny, with huge disparities in wealth and an active guerrilla insurgency. Further in this vein, Mazursky casts comic Jonathan Winters as an American retiree who in truth is C.I.A. station chief in Parador and a figure so powerful that he can give the president of the country a profanity-laced chewing out.

In fact the U.S. has little influence in Paraguay, which is largely without the social and racial tensions seen elsewhere in the region. This is due to the country's having fought long and costly wars against much larger neighbors in the 19th and 20th centuries. The male population was nearly wiped out both times but the society that emerged was patriotic, racially homogeneous and strongly united.

On yet another level, there is a bow to feminism in the form of the character Madonna. Played by Brazilian actress Sonia Braga, Madonna is a former nightclub dancer who is the body-stockinged presidential pleasure girl at the film's start but is seen on television as president herself at the end--now politically and cosmetically correct, no makeup, hair demurely pulled back, swept to office by a velvet revolution.

The one time that such an event actually happened in Latin America, the administration of Argentina's Isabel Peron (not the beloved Evita, who never held office) lasted two years after the death of her husband, legendary **supremo** Juan Peron.


This is one fine movie, I can watch it any time. Rauol Julia gave an outstanding performance, we lost him too soon. Richard Dryfus is a great talent. Only thing it needed more of was Dana Delany, what a babe!


"Fanfan la tulipe" is still Gerard Philippe's most popular part and it began the swashbuckler craze which throve in the French cinema in the 1955-1965 years.It made Gina Lollobrigida a star (Lollobrigida and Philippe would team up again in René Clair"s "Belles de nuit" the same year.

"Fanfan la tulipe" is completely mad,sometimes verging on absurd .Henri Jeanson's witty lines -full of dark irony- were probably influenced by Voltaire and "Candide" .Antimilitarism often comes to the fore:"these draftees radiate joie de vivre -and joie de mourir when necessary (joy of life and joy of death)""It becomes necessary to recruit men when the casualties outnumber the survivors" "You won the battle without the thousands of deaths you had promised me, king Louis XV complains,but no matter ,let's wait for the next time."

A voice over comments the story at the beginning and at the end and history is given a rough ride:height of irony,it's a genuine historian who speaks!

Christian-Jaque directs the movie with gusto and he knows only one tempo :accelerated.

Remake in 2003 with Vincent Perez and Penelope Cruz.I have not seen it but I do not think it had to be made in the first place.


The superb star quality of Gerard Philipe, who died way too young, leaps from the screen in this witty, funny, sly swashbuckling comedy with plenty of sword fencing and knockabout antics. Charmingly loopy in its' storytelling, impossible to resist. A sweet romantic comedy with a very young Gina Lollobrigida as the love interest. A movie one will remember with great affection.


This is a tongue in cheek movie from the very outset with a voice-over that pokes fun at everything French and then produces a rather naif but very brave hero in Fanfan La Tulipe. Portrayed by the splendid Gerard Philippe, the dashing young man believes utterly in the fate curvaceous Lollobrigida foretells - notably that he will marry King Louis XV's daughter! Problem is, La Lollo soon find outs she too is in love with Fanfan...

Propelled by good sword fights, cavalcades, and other spirited action sequences the film moves at a brisk pace and with many comic moments. The direction is perhaps the weakest aspect but the film is so light and takes itself so un-seriously that I could not give those shortcomings a second thought. Look out for Noel Roquevert, a traditional heavy in French films, trying to steal La Lollo, making himself a nuisance, and feeding the script to the fortune teller that reads La Lollo's hand! And what a gem Marcel Herrand is as the megalomanous and lust-driven King Louis XV! That is not all: So many beautiful women in one film makes me wish I were in France and on the set back in 1952! The film may have come out that year but its verve, cheek, superb narration, immaculate photography and the memorable Gerard Philippe ensure that it remains modern and a pleasure to watch. I would not hesitate to recommend it to my grandchildren let alone to anyone who loves movies in general and swashbucklers in particular! Do see it!


It was released in France on dvd several years ago--I wish it would be re-released with English subtitles. Do not confuse this with a remake with Penelope Cruz which gets poor reviews. Gerard Phillippe is a peasant who is told by a fortune teller that he will marry the daughter of the king. He sets off to join the army and goes to war. His love, however, is Gina Lollabrigida in an early movie for her. I won't spoil the end. Gerard Phillippe died a few years later at a young age, a great loss to moviedom.


This is the last of four swashbucklers from France I've scheduled for viewing during this Christmas season: the others (in order of viewing) were the uninspired THE BLACK TULIP (1964; from the same director as this one but not nearly as good), the surprisingly effective LADY Oscar (1979; which had originated as a Japanese manga!) and the splendid CARTOUCHE (1962). Actually, I had watched this one not too long ago on late-night Italian TV and recall not being especially bowled over by it, so that I was genuinely surprised by how much I enjoyed it this time around (also bearing in mind the baffling lack of enthusiasm shown towards the film here and elsewhere when it was first announced as an upcoming DVD release from Criterion).

Incidentally, FANFAN LA TULIPE has quite a bit in common with the afore-mentioned CARTOUCHE: not just cast and crew members (producers Georges Dancigers and Alexandre Mnouchkine, cinematographer Christian Matras, actor Noel Roquevert) but plot-wise as well  in fact, the hero is a womanizing soldier (Jean-Paul Belmondo's Cartouche had also had a brief military spell) who's loved by a fiery girl (in this case, gypsy Gina Lollobrigida) while he's himself obsessed by an impossible love (here, it's none other than the king's daughter)! As in the later film, too, Fanfan (an ideally cast Gerard Philipe who, ironically, is so full of life here that one finds it hard to believe that he would be stricken down by cancer within 7 years' time) is flanked by two fun-loving yet cowardly men (one of them is actually his superior officer and the heroine's own father) and opposed by an unscrupulous figure within his own ranks (the ageing Roquevert, with whom the hero eventually engages in a rooftop duel since he too has amorous designs on the gypsy girl)!; for the record, Lollobrigida will rejoin Philippe in her next film, Rene Clair's delightful romantic fantasy LES BELLES DE NUIT (1952).

FANFAN proved to be a big box-office hit on its home-ground and even copped a surprising (but well-deserved) Best Direction award at Cannes over more renowned films like AN American IN Paris (1951), DETECTIVE STORY (1951), OTHELLO, UMBERTO D. and VIVA ZAPATA! In fact, its popularity ensured its re-release in a computer-colored version (presumably for the benefit of viewers who wouldn't touch a black-and-white product with a ten-foot pole) and the Criterion DVD itself contains a sample from this variant; being obviously a foreign-language title, there's also the dubious choice of an English-dubbed soundtrack but, even if these proved not especially painful to sit through considering, when all is said and done, there's simply no substitute for the original!

FANFAN LA TULIPE (a nickname given the hero by a young Genevieve Page as the celebrated Madame De Pompadour) contains about as much comedy as (the expected) action and romance; while some may find this overwhelming, I don't agree myself as I enjoyed the sharply satirical narration and, on the whole, this combination is comparable with Jerzy Skolimowski's equally droll THE ADVENTURES OF GERARD (1970). That said, the swordfights here are remarkably forceful for an essentially lighthearted enterprise (particularly a scuffle in the woods and the ambush at a convent) and the film itself rather adult at times (with numerous allusions to sexuality as well as coarse language adopted throughout) when viewed back-to-back with vintage Hollywood fare as I did now; the climax, then is quite ingenious: the enemy forces (who, amusingly, are made to speak in speeded-up gibberish!) are depleted by our heroic trio alone, much to the king's amazement who, as portrayed by Marcel Herrand  best-known for his role of leader of the Parisian underworld in Marcel Carne''s CHILDREN OF PARADISE (1945)  is himself something of a lecher.

P.S. An Italian TV channel has been threatening to screen Christian-Jaque's promising CHAMPAGNE FOR SAVAGES (1964) for months now but, despite programming it three times already (with a tentative fourth one slated for next week), they have yet to show it; even so, I do have three more films of his in my unwatched VHS pile (equally culled from late-night Italian TV screenings): the three-hour epic LA CHARTREUSE DE PARME (1948; also starring Gerard Philippe), THE SECOND TWIN (1967) and THE LEGEND OF FRENCHIE KING (1971; with Brigitte Bardot and Claudia Cardinale).


I remember this movie from the 50s when I was in college. It is one of the funniest satires of American Westerns that I have ever seen. I'm only sorry that I have not been able to see it recently and that it is is not out on tape or DVD. It is a real treat.


The men can slaver over Lollo, if they like (or her lollos--she gave her name to a slang terms for breasts in French), but the ladies have an even tastier morsel in the divine Gerard Philipe, who is not only beautiful but can act. Don't be deterred if your version has no subtitles because in this simple, dashing story of love and war, in which all is fair, they are not needed. All you need know is that, at the beginning of the film, Lollobrigida reads Philipe's palm and tells him he will marry the daughter of the king. Thereafter the story is quite plain from the Gallic gestures and the running, jumping, and swordplay.

On the minus side, the obviousness of the story and the heavy-handed facetiousness of the tone become somewhat wearying, and it is annoying that the French apparently consider themselves too superior to Hollywood to bother even attempting the plausibility of its exciting stunts. And of course the non-French-speaker misses the occasional bit of ooh-la-la, such as: Virtuous girl: I must tell you that my heart belongs to Fanfan. Seducer: My dear, what made you think I was interested in that bagatelle?


Gerard Phillipe is absolutely perfect in this movie, funny, tender, brave and lover.He gives a superior dimension to a movie which is even a masterpiece, as much by the other actors (Gina Lollobrigida:miaoooou!!) as by the story or the rhythm. Never boring, always creating new emotions: for me, the best french movie of all time.


The nearest I ever came to seeing this was a clip shown at a Gerard Philippe exposition in Paris about two years ago. I had no interest in the remake and having just caught up with the original just over half a century after it was made I can only conclude that the inept fencing was intentional, aimed at a long obsolete target. Hollywood had been doing realistic sword fights since the 30s when the greatest of them all, Basil Rathbone, crossed foils with Errol Flynn and others so the technique was available and so that leaves only satire. After a while you don't notice and revel in the Henri Jeanson dialogue reminiscent of the Prisoner Of Zenda, both versions. Gerard Philippe certainly had the presence to bring off a role like this and Gina Lollabrigida was probably a tad better than Martine Carol, the other obvious candidate at the time. The print I saw was particularly bad and at one point broke down completely so maybe a DVD version would enhance it.


"Once upon a time there was a charming land called France.... People lived happily then. The women were easy and the men indulged in their favorite pastime: war, the only recreation of kings which the people could enjoy." The war in question was the Seven Year's War, and when it was noticed that there were more corpses of soldiers than soldiers, recruiters were sent out to replenish the ranks.

And so it was that Fanfan (Gerard Philipe), caught tumbling a farmer's daughter in a pile of hay, escapes marriage by enlisting in the Regiment d'Aquitane...but only by first believing his future as foretold by a gypsy, that he will win fame and fortune in His Majesty's uniform and will marry the King's daughter. Alas, Adeline (Gina Lollobrigida) is not a gypsy but the daughter of the regiment's recruiting sergeant.

When Fanfan charges away from the recruits, saber in hand to rescue a carriage under attack, who should be inside but the Marquise du Pompadour and...the King's daughter. He now is convinced he will marry high, despite the extremely low-cut blouses Adeline wears. She, in turn, will soon discover her own love for Fanfan. We're in the middle of an irreverent movie of Fanfan's destiny, the ribald adventures of a sword-fighting scamp and rogue. There are escapes from hangings, swordfights on tile roofs, blundering battles, romantic escapes and more joyous derring do than you can imagine. What Fanfan lacks in polish he makes up for in irreverence and enthusiasm. He's a quick stepping swordsman and a fast-talking lover, but with such naïve belief in his destiny and such an optimistic nature, how can we not like him?

Gerard Philipe was an iconic stage and screen actor (who Francois Truffaut disparaged constantly in the pages of Cahiers du Cinema). He did most of his own stunts. He was handsome, athletic, graceful and charismatic. Men admired him and women dreamed about him. He was dead at 36, seven years after Fanfan, of liver cancer. All of France mourned. Gina Lollobrigida as Adeline holds her own. It's not those low-cut blouses that do her acting. She's sharp, passionate, not quite innocent and no one's fool.

Fanfan la Tulipe just sings along with endless satiric action, pointed situations and good nature. Not to mention amusing, acerbic dialogue. After Adeline has taken steps to save Fanfan from hanging, she meets the king in his private quarters. "Give me your pretty little hand," he says. "But my heart belongs to Fanfan," says Adeline. "Who asks for your heart?" says the king, "All I ask for is a little pleasure." "I'm a proper girl," says Adeline. Says the king, "You owe my esteem to your merits. You love Fanfan? Then thank me. My whims enable you to show the greatest proof of your love, by betraying for his sake the loyalty you have sworn him." Now this is clever, funny stuff.

Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut and the rest of the New Wave gang tended to detest popular movies as mere entertainment (and they personalized their attacks). Fanfan la Tulipe and its director, Christian-Jacques, were among their prime targets. They probably missed the point of Fanfan, which is a very funny satire on the pointlessness of armies and war. How much better it must have seemed to make movies of angst which only fellow cineastes could appreciate. Thank goodness some of them, Truffaut and Chabrol, for example, outgrew this childish condescension and came to recognize that a good movie is a good movie, whether the masses like it or just the cognoscenti. A smart person who enjoys movies can appreciate any, if the movies are well made. Those who condescend to a movie based on its degree of popularity are as self-demeaning as those who brag they've never read Harry Potter.

Jean-Luc Godard, eat your heart out. Viva Fanfan!


This was one of the highlights of ST:TNG's semi-forgettable second season, before they 'grew up' or grew into their own in the third season and beyond. This was not only a showcase for up-and-comers like Bill Campbell and Teri Hatcher, but was also the continuation of Data's search for his 'humanity', this time through the concept of comedy. Still one of my favorite episodes.

On a side-note, I'm still disappointed that there is no credit for the actress with whose character Okona was about to have a tryst(after Teri Hatcher's character) before being rudely interrupted by Lt Worf. I remember watching this episode 'first-run' at my friends comic shop back in the day and we all thought she would've been a perfect Jean Grey/Marvel Girl.

It would be nice to know who this pretty lady actually is...


Anyone who doesn't like this film is one who is afraid to explore his or her own demons. This film does make the viewer a little uncomfortable at times, but that is its intention. It asks you to look at your own life and confront the obstacles head on like Lou eventually does. It asks you to overcome the fear of perception and become who you are meant to be. Bret Carr holds up a mirror unlike any filmmaker has. The intention and the message is clear and profound. People's apprehension about this film stems only from their own insecurities. An open-minded viewer takes this inspirational message and runs with it. Sometimes a life- changing realization DOES come in a flash -- a light bulb going on. This story is real and changes the lives if its viewers in a real way.


I watch movies for a living, picking out which ones are good enough to distribute... Tossing aside those that don't make the cut. I'm not saying that I know more than anyone else based on this, I'm just leading you to how I came to watch "The Gospel of Lou"... Anyways... So many bad movies land on my desk and I actually sit through all of them. I don't actually "watch" everything, usually I just look over at the TV occasionally while I'm working the scan for production value, performance, and how well the story is being presented. If something catches my eye I'll take the time to watch it. "Lou" drew me in during the first few minutes where I closed my laptop and wheeled my chair over to the TV so I could completely tune in. Needless to say I was enthralled throughout the whole movie. The story is told well, the characters are either endearing or repulsive (depending of course on the actor and directors intention for the character) and all very well played. At times I caught occasional amateur mistakes in the camera work and editing, but the emotional nature of the story make these faults easy to dismiss. I've heard other people's comments say that at times the film brought tears to their eyes, other time extreme elation... I was laughing one minute and crying the next and was incredibly touched by this movie. Sadly I was unable to acquire it because I was - as the saying goes - a week late and a dollar short. That's the way it goes sometimes... but at least I had the pleasure of seeing this one and I can't wait to see what kind of response it gets. Good luck and great fortune to you Bret Carr (if you read this), you are without a doubt a talent to watch for.


This is a unique and bold film. It's energetic, with highly developed characters. Very good performances.

I love directors who are not afraid to ask the audience to think...

Bret Carr dares to look inward, ask questions, and dig underneath the surface. By the nature of the film, it practically demands that the viewer look inward as well. It can take some courage to do this. I can see how some close-minded people might find this quite disturbing. However, I found it thought-provoking, much more than just entertainment.

Bret Carr is truly an original filmmaker, with vision. I am curious to see what he will do next.

Watch him.


This is unlike any other movie, the closest thing I can compare it to is a Woody Allen film... But where as Woody Allen is constantly fathoming human foibles Bret Carr appears to be trying to figure out a way to get to grips with that one crippling insecurity that tends to define us for better or worse. In the Case of Lou, it is the root cause of his stuttering, which can be traced back to a singular child hood trauma that is revealed through flash backs.

There are so many strangely neurotic people in the world and I believe they all deserve a chance for redemption, although diversity of human character is after all what makes the world such an intriguing place, so maybe we shouldn't fix our neurosis anymore than we should fix our noses or Breasts.

This is an indie film shot on a long shoestring, but the production values are tremendous as is the scope of the film. I feel like its a quirky Gem for the self-help market. I really look forward to seeing what this filmmaker does next, i could imagine a career along the lines of Woody Allen or Albert Brooks, although usually when a guy like this breaks through, he goes off and makes " X MEN" and his humble quirky origins are soon forgotten or are they.... X Men is aout a bunch of freaks if i remember correctly :)


It came by surprise. . .the impact & resoloution this film had on my automatic way of being reactive to people & situations. Most vividly was the stirring of the emotion anger. Much like the way a spoiled child would be when reacting to not getting their way. . .a temper tantrum if you will. Thinking I was hiding this anger from others was the most ridiculous farce of all. What was this costing me? Soooo much love. . .sooo many blessings. Now I'm present to how incredible humbling myself feels, and having an ongoing attitude of gratitude for life. . .for what is happening in the moment, without my wild expectations for life to be a particular way, the way I think life or people "should" be. This film has contributed to the freedom I now feel to connect with others, without limits & expectations. . .and to connect with genuine love. . .without fear of loss. . .just to love first, and accept what love is given.


This miracle of a movie is one of those films that has a lasting, long term effect on you. I've read a review or two from angry people who I guess are either republicans or child beaters, and their extremist remarks speak of the films power to confront people with their own darkest secrets. No such piece of art has ever combined laughter and tears in me before and that is the miracle of the movie. The realism of the movie and it's performance by Bret Carr is not to be missed. The very nature of it's almost interactive effect, will cause people to leave the theater either liberated or questioning their very identity. Bravo on the next level of cinema.


On rare occasions a film comes along that has the power to expand the mind, warm the heart and touch the very soul. "LOU" is such a film. I got "LOU" from my wife who got it from a neighbor who is in the film business. She watched it for a second time with me. We were both enthralled. Her as if for the first time again.

"LOU" is a magical piece designed to send you back to the moment at which all of your dramas started taking place. It does this while being relentlessly entertaining. Bret Carr's acting and pacing as a director do not let you look away from the screen. He crafts a character which disarms with a bugs bunny like, stuttering innocence, but warmly carried with such underplayed sincerity that you forget you're watching a movie. When the epiphany hits during the brilliant climax, I saw my wife in tears for the second time.

As a life coach, I facilitate individual growth and transformation, and this film is a "must see" for life coaches and anyone seeking their own personal growth and transformation. It is a brilliant, creative masterpiece with the power to change lives!


I haven't watched the movie yet, but can't wait to see it! It seems very interesting and inspirational. It was one of the most interesting trailers I've ever seen: the questions it posed really stopped me and made me think, the unique approach to the sport of boxing as a metaphor for the "battle within"... thank god somebody is hitting another angle with the boxing thing. This film looks so fresh and smart. And the actor is really hot. I especially enjoyed the short clip with the actor from the Rocky movies, really clever. I thought that the topic selected-overcoming adversities and childhood traumas-is timeless, and god knows a lot of people need it. Bring it on.


How can a movie that features the singing of Curtis Mayfield be bad? It can't! The Groove Tube is a series of scatological black-out sketches that makes fun of anything from 2001 to the olympics. The highs, (Koko the clown, the easy lube recipe) outnumber the lows (an all too long "The Dealers"), but even the lows are funny. Best of all is Ken Shapiro's manic dance down a busy Manhattan sidewalk.(That is Shapiro, not Nat King Cole singing Just You, Just Me). Definitely dated now, but at the time The Groove Tube was irreverent, bold, shameless and hysterically funny. Ken Shapiro made this minor cult hit, then 7 years later made the Christmas day opening bomb, Modern Problems (though I enjoyed it} and since then, unfortunately, nothing.(He could possibly be playing drums in a jazz group) The Groove Tube remains to me an unending burst of positive energy, a movie that 26 years after my initial viewing, still brings me real joy!


You know what they say about the 70's..if you can remember them you weren't there. One of the few things I do remember about the 70's was the very first hippie and hip social satire as seen from a totally 'underground'or counter-culture perspective..The Groove Tube. If the humor seems faded or witless now to some viewers it can only be because a lot has happened in the last 30 years and the comedy isn't 'fresh' anymore..but hey! When this movie came out it was a first..and some of these skits were being done for the very first time...at a time when Nixon was in office, the Vietnam war was raging, the sexual revolution was in full swing..and J.Edgar Hoover was still in charge of the FBI. This is a film made before Watergate broke and as such it was one of the first to take a big swipe at the establishment..to make fun of it and the hippies at the same time. And frankly, some skits are still dead funny. If you liked Cheech and Chong's "Up In Smoke"..you will LOVE this film.

If you want to know what the 70's were really like..check out the Groove Tube.. if you liked the Oscar winning "Network" from about the same year and thought it was right on the mark in its savage look at TV, you will dig the Groove Tube..which picks up on the theme but plays from the angle of the viewers...the young viewers who were turning off the TV in favor of other entertainments.... We had been raised on Ozzie & Harriet "Leave It to Beaver", Father Knows Best, My Three Sons..Happy Days...so imagine our glee when those of us who were experimenting with the new life-styles got to see a send up of the box as seen from our perspective! The commercials by the Uranus corporation alone are priceless.."Good things come from Uranus"....and the sudden break from straight film into Fritz the Cat-style animation when the hippies eat the weed is still one of the best segues in and out of sanity i have ever seen on film.

If you liked the Kentucky Fried Movie, you will LOVE this film. And if you ever wondered why your weird uncle Harold still gets a wicked gleam in his eye when thinking back to his college days..this would be the perfect film to watch.

Take it for what it is..a memento of the times...and a sassy little film that will help all of us who did forget the 70's to remember them anew.


"The Groove Tube" was one of only two Ken Shapiro movies, the other one being the equally zany "Modern Problems". This one is just a full-scale parody of TV. Aside from Shapiro - who apparently didn't do anything after "Modern Problems" - the movie also stars Chevy Chase and Henry Winkler's cousin Richard Belzer. The three cast members (plus some other people in smaller roles) appear in various skits. One of the funniest ones features Chase in a Geritol-spoofing commercial, in which he's describing the medicine as his wife strips, and it ends with her humping him. There's also a pornographic news program, an irritating cooking show, and the epic tale of some drug dealers.

Anyway, the whole thing's just a real hoot. In my opinion, the three best TV-spoofing movies are this one, plus "Tunnelvision" and "Kentucky Fried Movie" (although I might also include "The Truman Show"). Really funny.

I wonder what ever did become of Ken Shapiro.


Tho 35 years old, Groove Tube looks a lot like actual TV today! Specialty niche networks (nude sports), a TV show about stoner drug dealers called the Dealers (ala Weeds, and even predating 1978's Cheech & Chong Up In Smoke), weird beer commercials (Butz Beer, no less bizarre than Bud Bowls), dirty-minded kid's clown Koko (shades of Pee Wee Herman), even Chevy Chase doing slapstick humor (a violent barbershop vocal duo) a year before his 1975 debut on Saturday Night Live. And thanks to the infamous opening sequence that earned Groove Tube an initial X-rating, I still can't hear Curtis Mayfield's "Move On Up" without thinking of naked dancing hitchhiking hippies ---- For similar sketch-style movies, see TunnelVision, Kentucky Fried Movie, Amazon Women on the Mood, Monty Python's Beyond the Fringe, Dynamite Chicken, and the Firesign Theatre's Everything You Know is Wrong.


Just finished watching The Groove Tube which I first saw about 23 years ago when I was a teenager staying up way past my bedtime watching HBO with my brother and his best friend. We had also watched Animal House just before that so we saw two movies that starred an SNL alumna and had some naked breasts. Good thing our parents were asleep the whole time! Anyway, there were lots of weird and funny things in this movie that were eye-openers like the Brown 25 sequence of the Uranus Industries commercial ("with the taste of beef stew" says the announcer as what is apparently human excrement comes out of a white tube. Ewww!) or the face of the puppet talking about VD (a scrotum with a small penis with eyes glued on). Chevy Chase and Richard Belzer made their feature film debuts here. Chase is hilarious whether doing a Geritan spot with a woman stripping, having his hands have sex in a "Let Fingers Do It" commercial, or singing "Four Leaf Clover" with co-writer/director Ken Shapiro drumming his hands on his head. Belzer teams with Shapiro in "The Dealers" movie, and on "Channel One Evening News" with one wild bit having Belzer as a black prostitute trying tricks on reporter Ken who plays Lionel here. "Lionel, that sounds like a train that I'm going to ride like a Choo-Choo!" Other outrageous bits include "The Koko Show" with Shipiro as a kid clown show host who, after ordering the "people over ten" to leave the room, reads requests of his viewers like passages of "Fanny Hill"! Or how about the Olympics segment with a German couple making love being announced by two men (one of them Spanish) as they get explicit while "Please Stand By" keeps interrupting on the screen! Or the animated segment on "The Dealers" which depicts dancing toilets after Shapiro ingested some marijuana! Not everything's so dirty. Besides the "Four Leaf Clover" skit, at the end there's a highly amusing music segment with Ken lip-syncing his own recording of "Just You, Just Me" while dancing with suit and briefcase around the city with occasionally a cop (co-writer Lane Sarasohn) joining in. So, in summation this is one weirdly, funny movie that seemed to influence other like films (Tunnelvision, Kentucky Fried Movie) and possibly Saturday Night Live (which made Chevy that show's first star) and, despite some dated elements, can still amuse today. P.S. While I liked hearing Curtis Mayfield's "Move On Up" during the gorillas dancing/hitchhiking beginning sequence, I did wonder what the point was with the sequence of the hitchhiker and the woman who picked him up, having them running from the car, stripping on the run, and then having the naked man get caught by the cop who stopped on the road. Guess it's one of those '70s streaking things...


"The Groove Tube" was initially shown on video, in the first "video theaters" here in Boston. In one room, there were TV monitors on high stands, with old movie theater seats, in small groups facing the monitors. There were old refrigerators stocked with Pepsi, and baskets of York Peppermint Patties. In a second, smaller room, there were no seats, just large pillows. That was the 'smoking' room, i.e., people got high in there. That act only added to the hilarity of the video.

I was a 'frequent viewer'; the scenes I liked most and remember to this day are: Koko The Clown, The Kramp Family Kitchen (Kramp Easy-Lube Shortening), Safety Sam/ VD PSA, the Chevy Chase hitchhiker w/ nude runs through the woods, the Finger Ballet on what was eventually revealed to be the nude body of a woman. The last item was very reminiscent of the late, incredible Ernie Kovacs. Now, I've lost a lot of readers that are under 48 ("who is Ernie Kovacs??") but trust me, it's funny stuff.

One reason I was a 'frequent viewer' was that I, and my friends, would bring other "Groove Tube" virgins to see it. We would sit and slyly watch the faces of the 'virgins' as the "Safety Sam" PSA would play. As the camera slowly zooms in on "Sam", we would wait for that "OH!" of recognition on the 'virgin's' face. Each time was more hilarious than the last. And then that 'virgin' would then bring a friend to see the show, repeating what we had done. To get this joke, you must watch the video.

Yes, some of it is dated, but most plays, film, television, and now videos are. Just look at any video made in the 1980's.

I did see "The Groove Tube" in a theater as a film, a grainy transfer from the original video. It had been cut, and was missing some of the original high-point scenes.

The first "Saturday Night Live" show, featuring Chevy Chase, elicited instant remarks of, "that's the guy from "The Groove Tube" ", so it was a precursor for Chevy.

I can't look at a can of shortening without hearing the voice-over, "coat your hands with a generous amount of Kramp Easy-Lube shortening..." and thinking of the "Kramp Holiday Loaf" recipe. Always gets me laughing in the Baking Needs aisle in the grocery store.

The early 70's were parlous times; "The Groove Tube" was fresh, new, and really 'got' the humor of the times. It offered a 'hip generation', humor that wasn't available in any other format/medium. MJH


When I was chairman of our college's coffeehouse, one of our jobs was to review groups and films for student activities. One of the best things to come along in 1972 was Groove Tube. The original premise was that it was being shown off-off Broadway in theaters where television monitors were being placed throughout the audience, so everyone had a great seat. The premise was that the skits would change on a regular basis-ala Saturday Night Live, keeping the thing fresh. They decided on making it into a film for general distribution.

I believe the developers said it was the first time Chevy Chase was on film. Watching him run naked though the woods was a howl. Like many of the reviews before mine, it WAS Saturday Night Live before such a thing existed. I highly recommend this vid. I've told my 13 year old son about Koko the clown- He can't wait to get a copy!


A series of vignettes, most of them spoofing television of the 1970's, but also with some digs at the government and corporate America. One of the longest segments, "The Dealers" is not that funny to me and I don't know what it is parodying. Some of the others, though, are absolutely side-splitting. I particularly enjoy the cooking show segment. Most of the foul words I know are used in the movie, and, if you object to full frontal nudity, stay away.


best movie ever!!!!! this movie broke my ribs just by the force of laughter, but it was well worth it. i don't intend to do a summary of this excellent movie, just go see it if you have the chance. i think you will either love it, or hate it. that's the qualities of a real cult movie.


A series of shorts spoofing dumb TV shows, Groove Tube hits and misses a lot. Overall, I do really like this movie. Unfortunately, a couple of the segments are totally boring. A few really great clips make up for this. A predecessor to such classics like Kentucky Fried Movie.


We showed this movie at the local Film Society, and the art-house crowd had the time of their cinematic lives. It's tasteless, groovy and very funny in a sixties kind of way. The Kraft Kitchen recipe sketch had them laughing like maniacs. The rest is a mixed bag, but the highs definitely beat the lows. By the way, whatever happened to Ken Shapiro??


From start to finish, I laughed real hard throughout the whole movie. It's amazing that "The Groove Tube" is possibly the granddaddy, yet raunchiest, of all comedic skit movies.This is the way I enjoy watching TV without being bored at flipping channels only to suffer from insomnia! For 73 minutes, the weird, strange humor never stops! Just think of how all this nonsense laughing can help you enjoy life easier! It's way, WAY better than Comedy Central or any prime time show! Do yourself a favor and trash all those soft, lame romantic comedy movies into the wastebasket! Better yet, tell your box office manager you want "The Groove Tube" back on the big screen!


This film may seem dated today, but remember that it was made in 1974 -- before Saturday Night Live, before Howard Stern, back when George Carlin was just getting beyond the Hippie Dippie Weatherman and into heavy satiric humor. This film is the granddaddy of them all. Enjoy it for its historical significance, as well as for its strong entertainment value.


I saw this in Detroit in what must have been its original run. I literally rolled into the aisle of the theater. It was that funny. I haven't seen it since, but would love to. Where do you get a copy? Anybody saying anything about it being dated or overdone are, for my money, just a bunch of poseurs. Each skit is either wickedly, erotically or perversely hilarious. Each one! There is not a weak one included. The opening sequence, for instance, which parodies 2001, features gorilla go-go-dancers with pendulous breasts. Felinni would have filmed it had he the wicked wit... If you come to this film with an open mind and a blithely sneering heart, you'll pencil it right into your very best list.


I was born in 1982. Most of my childhood memories are in the extreme late 80's and 90's. I watched the Groove Tube for the first time in 2001, when I was 19.

And I found it hilarious.

So for anybody who thinks that something "dated" can't be quite funny 30 years later....think again! It's funny even if you have no idea what the 70's were like, and the thought of bell-bottom pants make you cringe. Who can argue with a Bozo the Clown type who reads adult literature? There is plenty to laugh at. The scrotal puppet show at the end is the best.


**************Possible spoilers********** There is only one reason why I saw this movie and that was because I have a massive crush on Richard Belzer.(I don't know that much about humor) There were some part that were funny Like the Barbie and Ken Spoof and the dealers and the president skit. Mind you this is sometimes raunchy(Dare, I say crude?) It was at times funny, but it could have been better. Probably if they spent more time in the humor and less time getting women undress, the movie would had been funnier. Some skits just make you want to gag, and cringe, others skits make you laugh and oddly enough think. Sadly this movie is dated. If you have a mad crush on Richard Belzer(So worth it) it's worth checking it out and seeing chevy chase.


With the current trend of gross out humor, this film is the granddaddy of them all. While some of the humor is dated, every skit will either shock, repulse, or make you laugh out loud. Most memorable is the sex games commentary and, of course, the VD commercial. It doesn't always work, but pays off when it does. I give this a 7.


Saw this movie the first time while drunk at a motel in Canada. While flipping through channels came across the Easy Lube part. My friend kept flipping but I told him to go back. Something about the name easy lube just didn't sound right. Watched the rest of the movie it was pretty damn funny. Jotted down a couple of names from the credits and got home to look it up. Turned out to be Chevy Chase's first movie. I didn't remember him in it. Didn't remember much about it, so I rented it and gave it a second veiw. It's pretty funny and quite graphic. It's just like Kentucky Fried Movie except not as funny. Love the fingers, easy lube, and I'm da f**kin' president parts. Dealers skit is pretty cool too. I give it a 6.5 or 7 out of ten


A great suspense movie with terrific slow camera-work adding to the dramatics makes this a treat to watch and enjoy. Director-writer Brian de Palma does a super Hitchcock-imitation (many called it a "ripoff") with this film and the 2.35:1 widescreen DVD is a must to fully appreciate the camera-work (and several scenes with people hiding on each side which are lost on formatted-for-TV tapes).

The downside of the movie, at least to anyone that has some kind of moral standard, is the general sleaziness of all the characters, including the policeman played by a pre-NYPD Dennis Franz (who has hair here!).

The opening scene is still shocking with a fairly long shower scene of Angie Dickinson that is quite explicit, even 25 years after its release. The film has several erotic scenes in it as Dickinson (if that is really her on the closeups) and Nancy Allen are not shy about showing their bodies.

There is not much dialog in the first 20 minutes and no bad language until Franz enters the picture after the murder. The first 36 minutes are riveting and even though it's apparent who the killer is, it's still very good suspense and fun to watch all the way through, particularly for males ogling the naked women.


When people ask me why do I like movies so much, I usually respond, "have you seen the art-gallery sequence in De Palma's Dressed to Kill?" That scene alone, pretty much represents everything I want to see in a film. If I was a film director, that would be the kind of thing I'd like to do. "Pure cinema" is one way of describing that sequence, and it is truly amazing to see how director De Palma's entire movie works at the same high artistic frequency of that scene. It is a dream-like movie, clever as hell, and with more zest and intelligence than a dozen films put together. I think the movie raises an important point that will always be a topic of heated discussion: could a movie rely solely on technique and still be considered an artistic success? The film has no message to speak of, acting is great but it is at the service of the style, and the script is short on logic. De Palma's movie makes a really good case that style, when handled properly, can sustain a feature length film. Sure, Michael Caine, Angie Dickinson, Nancy Allen and Keith Gordon give superlative performances, but this is a director's movie all the way to the fadeout. It is a sensational demonstration of the possibilities of the film medium. I won't tell you what Hitchcock movie the film pays homage to (I don't want to spoil any surprises), but I think De Palma transcends the story's arc, and he manages to create a film that pretty much summarizes his entire career. Not for the faint of heart!


When you compare what Brian De Palma was doing in the 80's to what passes for entertainment today, his films keep looking better and better. "Dressed To Kill, "Blow Out", "Body Double", "Scarface" and "Carlito's Way" are all superb works of a cinematic craftsman at the peak of his powers. The guy had a long run of better than average films. This is pure Hitchcock with an 80's dash of lurid perversion, an affectionately told tale of lust and murder with plenty of twists, huge helpings of style, a stunning Pino Donaggio score, and a trashy, giallo-inspired plot. De Palma's love of complex camera-work and luscious, blood-smudged visuals helps overcome the logical holes while the terrific performances of Dennis Franz, Keith Gordon (a good director in his own right), Nancy Allen (De Palma's wife at the time) and Michael Caine make every scene special. Let the virtuoso take you on a surreal, scary, erotically charged odyssey and you'll enjoy every frame of "Dressed To Kill".


Psychotic transsexual Bobbi murders the patient (Angie Dickinson) of a prominent doctor (Michael Caine) and then pursues the high-priced prostitute (Nancy Allen) who caught a glimpse of Bobbi in the elevator. Liz (Allen) comes under suspicion of the crime and teams up with the patient's son (Keith Gordon) to catch the killer.

It can be summed up in a couple of words: it's very sexy (Dickinson and Allen look great), it's very bloody - with the kind of gore usually reserved for splatter movies, and boy is it well crafted. Writer / director De Palma's script is OK but it really takes a backseat to the man's film-making abilities. It is highly successful on a visceral level and I actually get involved / interested with these characters. I can notice the standard De Palma homages to / ripoffs of Hitchcock - at least from one of the Master's pictures.

And to top it all off, it has a professional and believable cast.

This was De Palma's third movie with ex-wife Nancy Allen (after "Carrie" and "Home Movies".)

By the way, dancer-turned-actress Rachel Ticotin was one of the production assistants. There's a bit of trivia for you.

I wouldn't think a thriller could be classy and bloody at the same time but this picture pulls it off.

One of the best things about it is a typically striking Pino Donaggio music score.

8/10


Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson) is having problems in her marriage and otherwise--enough to see a psychologist. When her promiscuity gets her into trouble, it also involves a bystander, Liz Blake (Nancy Allen), who becomes wrapped up in an investigation to discover the identity of a psycho killer.

Dressed to Kill is somewhat important historically. It is one of the earlier examples of a contemporary style of thriller that as of this writing has extensions all the way through Hide and Seek (2005). It's odd then that director Brian De Palma was basically trying to crib Hitchcock. For example, De Palma literally lifts parts of Vertigo (1958) for Dressed to Kill's infamous museum scene. Dressed to Kill's shower scenes, as well as its villain and method of death have similarities to Psycho (1960). De Palma also employs a prominent score with recurrent motifs in the style of Hitchcock's favorite composer Bernard Herrmann. The similarities do not end there.

But De Palma, whether by accident or skill, manages to make an oblique turn from, or perhaps transcend, his influence, with Dressed to Kill having an attitude, structure and flow that has been influential. Maybe partially because of this influence, Dressed to Kill is also deeply flawed when viewed at this point in time. Countless subsequent directors have taken their Hitchcock-like De Palma and honed it, improving nearly every element, so that watched now, after 25 years' worth of influenced thrillers, much of Dressed to Kill seems agonizingly paced, structurally clunky and plot-wise inept.

One aspect of the film that unfortunately hasn't been improved is Dressed to Kill's sex and nudity scenes. Both Dickinson and Allen treat us to full frontal nudity (Allen's being from a very skewed angle), and De Palma has lingering shots of Dickinson's breasts, strongly implicit masturbation, and more visceral sex scenes than are usually found in contemporary films. Quite a few scenes approach soft-core porn. I'm no fan of prudishness--quite the opposite. Our culture's puritanical, monogamistic, sheltered attitude towards sex and nudity is disturbing to me. So from my perspective, it's lamentable that Dressed to Kill's emphasis on flesh and its pleasures is one of the few aspects in which others have not strongly followed suit or trumped the film. Perhaps it has been desired, but they have not been allowed to follow suit because of cultural controls from conservative stuffed shirts.

De Palma's direction of cinematography and the staging of some scenes are also good enough that it is difficult to do something in the same style better than De Palma does it. He has an odd, characteristic approach to close-ups, and he's fond of shots from interesting angles, such as overhead views and James Whale-like tracking across distant cutaways in the sets. Of course later directors have been flashier, but it's difficult to say that they've been better. Viewed for film-making prowess, at least, the museum scene is remarkable in its ability to build very subtle tension over a dropped glove and a glance or two while following Kate through the intricately nested cubes of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

On the other hand, from a point of view caring about the story, and especially if one is expecting to watch a thriller, everything through the museum scene and slightly beyond might seem too slow and silly. Because of its removal from the main genre of the film and its primary concern with directorial panache (as well as cultural facts external to the film), the opening seems like a not very well integrated attempt to titillate and be risqué. Once the first murder occurs, things improve, but because of the film's eventual influence, much of the improvement now seems a bit clichéd and occasionally hokey.

The performances are mostly good, although Michael Caine is underused, and Dickinson has to exit sooner than we'd like (but the exit is necessary and very effective). Dressed to Kill is at least likely to hold your interest until the end, but because of facts not contained in the picture itself, hasn't exactly aged well. At this point it is perhaps best to watch the film primarily as a historical relic and as an example--but not the best, even for that era--of some of De Palma's directorial flair.


In France, it's considered polite from French critics to genuflect to the apparently cohesive chain of films Brian De Palma left behind him. However, a good proportion of his films are marred by bombastic effects "Carrie" (1976), "the Fury" (1978) "Scarface" (1983) without mentioning his borrowings from Hitchcock. Here, in "Dressed to Kill", it's impossible not to think of "Vertigo" (1958) for the long sequence in the museum while the key moment in the lift makes inevitably think of the shower anthology sequence in "Psycho" (1960). About our involved film, I don't want to revive the old debate: does De Palma rip off Hitchcock? Instead, i would tend to be generous and to classify "Dressed to Kill" in the category of De Palma's winners alongside "Sisters" (1973) and "Obssession" (1976). With however some reservations and they're the ones I previously enumerated which fuel the bickering between De Palma's rabid fans and his detractors.

If there's one sure thing in "Dressed to Kill" which can generate general agreement among film-lovers, it's De Palma's virtuosity in directing. He wields his camera just like a filmmaker expert is supposed to do. His sophisticated camera work brilliantly fuels the suspense which entails a rise of the tension and a discomforting aura. The audience is easily glued in front of the screen. This is helped by the use of several long silent sequences during which everything depends on looks and gestures. By the way, in "Psycho", there were also long silent, suspenseful parts...

But the main drawback in De Palma's 1980 vintage is that the quality of the plot can't be found wanting and appears to be a rehash of many formulaic, corny ingredients pertaining to an incalculable number of murder stories. The prostitute is the sole witness of the crime. Then, she's suspected by the police and has to act on her own (with a little help from the victim's son from the scene in the subway onwards)) to track down the murderer and to prove her innocence. Apart from the fact that De Palma uses a type of character who for once isn't demeaned at all, it's a menu which smells the reheated. And the filmmaker ends his film on a sequence that echoes to the opening one. Yes, it's superbly filmed but when one discovers its real function, one figures: "it's almost gratuitous filler". Perhaps De Palma wanted to stretch his film beyond one hour and a half when at this time the viewer knows (and even before) who the killer is.

The two central mainsprings in De Palma's set of themes articulate hinges on manipulation and voyeurism. The latter theme is well present in "Dressed to Kill" from the first scene onwards which makes the film almost look like a soft porn movie. And the filmmaker isn't afraid to film his main actress and wife Nancy Allen in her underwear. I find his approach about this theme rather doubtful. But maybe the first sequence was conceived to be a mirror of the viewer and De Palma wanted to stir his peeping tom side.

I don't want to demean at all De Palma's work. His prestigious work in directing which entails a communicative treat to film redeems the global weakness of the story and its doubtful aspects. Twenty six years after, the controversy he aroused amid movie-goers isn't ready to subside.


"Dressed To Kill", is one of the best thrillers ever made. Its dealings with sex and violence make this a film for adults. Brian De Palma, once again, proves why no other director can match his use of the camera to tell a story. He directs many scenes without dialog, and he tells much of his story, strictly through the use of his visuals, and Pino Donnagio's brilliant score. Filmed in Panavision, the film MUST be seen in widescreen, as De Palma uses the entire width of the film to tell his story. Cropped, on video, "Dressed To Kill", is barely the same movie. Solid performances from its cast, superb direction, and, perhaps, the finest film score ever written, make "Dressed To Kill" a must see.


This is a taut suspenseful masterpiece from Brian De Palmawith amazing performances all around!. It's extremely suspenseful, and often scary, and the score is fantastic, plus all the characters were awesome. Yes it rips off Psycho a lot, however it's still a brilliantly made horror/thriller, with a fantastic opening and a shocking and unpredictable finale!. This is unquestionably one of the best horror/thrillers i have ever seen, and the elevator scene is one of the most memorable scenes ever, plus Michael Caine is simply amazing in this!. The ending is excellent, and the hospital scene near the end is absolutely terrifying, plus the end twist shocked the hell out of me!. It never failed to creep me out, and the stalk sequences are absolutely brilliant, plus Nancy Allen and Keith Gordon had fantastic chemistry together!. This is a taut suspenseful masterpiece from Brian De Palma, with amazing performances all around!. The Direction is Incredible!. Brian De Palma does an incredible job here, with Amazing camera work, incredible angles, fantastic use of colors, awesome zoom in's and zoom out's great POV shots and keeping the film at a very very fast pace!. There is a bit of blood. We get bloody stabbings, knifing's, bloody gunshot wounds,and 2 bloody slit throats.The Acting is amazing!. Michael Caine is AMAZING here, he is amazing in the acting department, creepy, is very likable, was mysterious, and really just did an amazing job overall i Loved him! (Caine Rules!). Angie Dickinson gives a memorable performance here, and was quite beautiful, and had good chemistry with Caine. Nancy Allen is STUNNINGLY GORGEOUS!, and is fantastic here, she is extremely likable as the hooker, had excellent chemistry with Keith Gordon, and put on a tremendous show!. Keith Gordon is very good as the kid, he had excellent chemistry with Nancy Allen, and was very likable!. Dennis Franz is good as the detective. Overall this is unquestionably one of the best horror films ever made, and i say drop what your doing immediately and go see it!. ***** out of 5


"Dressed to Kill" has been more or less forgotten in critical circles in the past 20 years, but it is a true American classic, a film which is much more than just a glossy thriller.

I sincerely hope the DVD release will give more people the chance to hear about it and see it.


Intelligent, stylish, and compelling thriller from the great Brian De Palma is a modern classic that firmly ranks among his best films!

When troubled housewife is brutally murdered by a bizarre stranger, the victim's son joins with a prostitute to uncover the killer.

Dressed to Kill left a strong impression upon the audiences of its day and for good reason. De Palma creates a wonderfully dramatic story that begins with an intriguing setup and builds into a harrowing mystery full of strong suspense. The finale and conclusion are especially 'nightmarish'.It's a truly edge of your seat shocker. Even more impressive though is De Palma's elegant direction that gives this film not only tight suspense but a unique and dark atmosphere of its own. Dressed to Kill is also a very erotic film, but mainly in a strangely beautiful way. Pino Donaggio also lends a lovely musical score to the film.

The cast is another strong feature of this film. Michael Cain does a terrific turn as a psychiatrist. Angie Dickenson is wonderful as the ill-fated housewife. Nancy Allen's performance as an involved street-walker is solid. A young Keith Gordon also proves to be a worthy supporter as the investigating son.

Many criticize De Palma's films for having Hitchcockian elements and this film was no exception. But any similarities between Hitchcocks works and De Palmas can only be seen as a good quality, as calling this film a 'rip-off' would be degrading to a fine thriller. Dressed to Kill is a must see for all cinema fans.

**** out of ****


Dressed to Kill (1980) is a mystery horror film from Brian De Palma and it really works.The atmosphere is right there.The atmosphere that makes you scared.And isn't that what a horror film is supposed to do.All the actors are in the right places.Michael Caine is perfect as Dr. Robert Elliott, the shrink with a little secret.Angie Dickinson as Kate Miller, the sexually frustrated mature woman is terrific.Keith Gordon as her son Peter is brilliant.Nancy Allen as Liz Blake the call girl is fantastic.Dennis Franz does his typical detective role.His Detective Marino is one of the most colorful in this movie.There are plenty of creepy scenes in this movie.The elevator scene is one of them.There have been made comparisons between this and Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960).There are some similarities between these two movies.Both of these movies may cause some sleepless nights.


Dressed to Kill understandably made a bit of a ruckus when first released in 1980: you had "Police Girl" in a role that was mega-erotic, as Angie Dicknson played a sexually frustrated housewife looking for good times in all the wrong museums (and there into apartment elevators), plus Nancy Allen as a call-girl, Michael Caine as Norman Bates's sophisticated New York cousin, and enough lurid imagery to last two movies of the period. Today it's slightly less incriminating by standards and such, though the unrated version has some of the most "hot" content of any of De Palma's films, at least in his quasi-auteur period of the 70s and early 80s, where he seemed to repeat themes over and over, ideas taken right off the film-reels of Hitchcock classics and given a tawdry uplift. It's a simple tale that one partly already saw in Sisters, and then again to an extent in Body Double, and also in Blow Out. Cutie Allen plays call-girl Liz Blake, who has to clear her name of suspicion of killing Kate (Dickinson, in full blown 'MILF' mode), after being found with a razor, the murder weapon from Dr. Elliott's office (Michael Caine, stone-cold performance most of the way).

From the start, which De Palma seems to do as a way of setting up a dangerous sexual fantasy scene as a way of topping the opening scene of Carrie (which, perhaps, he does just in editing terms), we get a series of technical knock-out turns through the point of view of style itself: the tracking shots in the museum, meant to stir up more of a fascination with the process itself, of following and wanting to be followed, than any kind of tension; the chase through the subway (a precursor to Carlito's Way) is done with a precise level of suspense, meanwhile, with a slightly exploitation bit thrown in with the black gang; the character of Peter, Kate's son (Keith Gordon), who plays what is essentially a younger version of the real life De Palma as a kid (science geek, obsessed with Hitchcock and voyeurism). And it's all entertaining and entrancing as hell as something that comes close to a real synthesis of what makes De Palma's thrillers so unique while being so self-consciously untainted by a fearless attitude of film-making.

On the other hand, that same self-consciousness ended up coming back to bite the director in the butt a few times in recent years, and somehow in Dressed to Kill it starts to become very erratic and disappointing as the story has to wrap itself up. As the Psycho themes come together even more apparently (man who wants a sex-change, doesn't even think he's killing as it is *she* who is doing it), there is an expository scene in the police station that makes the aforementioned Hitch film look like an astonishing psychological revelation. And the final scenes at Peter's house, also calling painfully into recollection a much more accomplished sequence in Carrie, are meant for a manipulation that even for De Palma is asking for it; the final shot especially, albeit a master's class in how to copy yourself. Yet there is a very deranged and, within itself, perfect scene at the mental hospital amid this confused denouement, where the doctor does some work on a nurse, to which all the other inmates act like animals in a zoo, and an over-head shot going up and up over the scene is one of the best shots of sexual/general perversion ever captured on film.

A shame then that the film ends on such a strange and unsettling manner, where up until then it is a remarkable piece of pulp cinema, where class is all around in the technical aspects (soft lighting, intricate camera movements seemingly so simple) amid subject matter that should be found in the mix of paperbacks for 25 cents. It's no masterpiece, but I'd certainly take it over most of the director's recent thrillers any day.


De Palma's technique had hit its high maturity by the time of this film, which is a wonderful showcase of his classic techniques, though unfortunately, as with many of the films written by De Palma himself, the story serves the meta more than the interests of putting forth an emotionally compelling tale.

The story opens with a CRAZY scene in which Angie Dickinson masturbates in a shower while she looks at her husband. She is then grabbed and raped while he husband stands obliviously near-and the whole thing is revealed to be Angie's fantasy as he husband is pumping mindlessly away at her in bed. She has a short scene with her son, a dead ringer for Harry Potter, which concludes with a joke that "she'll tell grandma that he is playing with his peter." She then goes to her therapy session, where she complains about her dead marriage, before attempting to seduce her therapist, Michael Caine. He refuses, and she is hurt and feeling unattractive and unfulfilled.

Then begins a bravura 22-minute nearly wordless sequence that is perhaps the highlight of the film. Among the many things De Palma gleaned from Hitchcock is the understanding of film as a purely visual medium of telling stories and in typical De Palma fashion, he turns this into a way to show off his formidable skill. The problem, for me, is that in this instance one begins to feel that scenes are being needlessly protracted simply to further show off the director's skill.

The sequence begins with Angie at an art museum. She watches strangers, all involved in sexual or family activities, then begins to get turned on to a man sitting next to her. De Palma very skillfully tells an extremely complicated narrative without a single word about Angie's attraction, embarrassment, retreating, and finally finding and submitting to the stranger in the back of a taxi cab, all set to a wonderfully lush score by Pino Donaggio, who also scored Carrie.

In the second part of the sequence Angie has slept with the guy, and gets up to return to her husband. Again De Palma crams a ton of narrative in without a word of dialogue uttered, as Angie realizes that she doesn't have her panties, that her husband is already home and no doubt wondering where she is, that she has probably contracted a venereal disease, and that she has lost her engagement ring somewhere in the shuffle. It's all very admirable, but one begins to feel a little strung along as we are forced to do things like take a long elevator ride down from the seventh floor, then up again, almost in real time.

...Spoilers from here on out! When Angie reaches the seventh floor again, she is killed by a big woman with blond hair. The woman hacks away at her until she reaches the ground floor, when the door opens and Nancy Allen sees her there. There is a wonderful slow-motion sequence as Nancy reaches into the elevator, Angie reaches up toward her, and the killer's blade is held poised to slash Nancy's hands. Then follow some electrifying shots as Nancy looks up and sees the killer in the elevators convex mirror. It's all good, and by the time we have some dialogue again, you think; "Woah, that was just 22 straight minutes of purely visual narrative!" Or maybe you don't, but I do.

A younger Dennis Franz has a great part as a sleazy and tough New York detective who would rather that everyone else do his work for him. He Interviews Michael Caine, making the outrageous implication (though it passes as commonplace) that Angie WANTED to be killed. Angie's son is there as well, and he hooks up with Nancy, and they set about to spy on Caine's therapist and find out who the killer is.

Once again there is a strong tie to a Hitchcock film, in this case Psycho (just as Obsession is a re-working of Vertigo). You have a woman who we are supposed to understand is secretly a slut, who gets killed in the first 30 minutes in an enclosed space, in this case an elevator rather than a shower. Then the relatives of the deceased conduct an investigation, which reveals that the killer is a man who dresses as a woman to kill. De Palma even throws in a doctor at the end who explains the psychology of the whole thing.

It is very interesting, but at the same time a viewer can begin to feel a bit jerked around, and that is my primary reservation about this film. It is definitely essential viewing and showcases some of De Palma's greatest setpieces, but that feeling that the story is running a solid third behind the need for De Palma to show off and his somewhat unseemly sexual fantasies makes it hard to look back on this one with whole-hearted affection.

--- Check out other reviews on my website of bad and cheesy movies, Cinema de Merde, cinemademerde.com


Dressed to Kill starts off with Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson) having a sexually explicit nightmare, later on that day she visits her psychiatrist Dr. Robert Elliott (Michael Caine) for a session in which she admits to be sexually frustrated & unfulfilled in her current marriage. Kate then visits a museum & picks up a stranger, they go back to his apartment for casual sex, when done Kate is set to leave but is attacked & killed in the buildings elevator by a razor blade wielding blonde woman. Prostitute Liz Blake (Nancy Allen) discovers the gruesome scene & sees the killer but manages to escape. Detective Marino (Dennis Franz) says he suspects Liz as being the killer as there are no other witnesses so Liz teams up with Kate's son Peter (Keith Gordon) to track down the real killer, clear Liz's name & see that justice is done...

Written & directed by Brian De Palma I thought Dressed to Kill was a good solid psychological murder mystery. The script is measured & slow at times but it likes to focus on the character's so you really know them, the entire first twenty minutes is just developing Kate as a character before she is suddenly killed off, then the film switches it's attentions to Liz & no one else gets a look in. This way Dressed to Kill is quite absorbing & engaging, unfortunately the character's themselves aren't exactly likable. I found some of the dialogue quite funny at times, especially the dirty talk that Liz spouts occasionally. The killers motives are somewhat plausible but I guess you'd have to be pretty messed up to do anything suggested in Dressed to Kill. It's a good film but it didn't excite me that much & I didn't really find any character to root for or like. The film tacks on a needless & unnecessary twist ending that I didn't really see the point of.

Director De Palma directs with style & visual flair, from the art museum sequence to a car chase & as a whole it's impeccably filmed throughout. I'd imagine that every shot in Dressed to Kill had a great deal of thought put into it. I felt the film was a bit flat & uninspired at times though, nothing about it really excited me that much. There is a fair bit of nudity, some sex & rape along with a few bits of gore & violence, Kate's murder by razor blade in the elevator being the highlight, if that's the right word. However, it's by no means as shocking or controversial when viewed today as many would have you believe.

With a supposed budget of about $6,500,000 Dressed to Kill has that glossy high production value feel of a Hollywood film. The New York locations are nice, the cinematography is good & as a whole it's extremely well made. I thought the music was inappropriate & was far to loud & intrusive. The acting is OK but despite his top billing I didn't think Caine had that much screen time. Allen was married to director De Palma at the time Dressed to Kill was made, interestingly out of the four films she appeared in made by De Palma in two of them, this & Blow Out (1981), he cast her as a prostitute... A body double was used for Dickinson as she pleasures herself in a shower at the start.

Dressed to Kill is a good thriller that is well worth watching but I didn't think it quite lived up to it's lofty reputation. Good but not brilliant.


May contain minor spoilers.

Dressed to Kill, having just seen it for the first time the other day, is a movie with some terrific sequences, some decent performances, and a nice, though obvious Hitchcock ripoff, plot twist at the end. It's just too bad certain things, quite obvious, prevent it from being a classic.

Dressed to Kill deals with a mystery of a killer who has slain at least two women (could have been more but the movie never tells us), and the search for the killer by three people: a brainy kid whose mom was a victim, a lively hooker whose the only one who can identify the killer, and a psychiatrist whose patient was the slained brainy kid's mother. There are a host of well done performances including Nancy Allen as the hooker Liz, Angie Dickenson as the sexually frustrated victim Kate Miller, and Micheal Caine as Doctor Rober Elliot whose has more hidden than meets the eye; though by no standard is anyone really outstanding. On the other hand Denis Franz, later to be a great character along the same lines on the hit show NYPD Blue, is embarrassing as an over-exaggerated, ruthless, hateful detective, though he takes little screen time so it doesn't hurt the movie that much. Keith Gordon, the brain child, is decent, but is almost too smart to really be believable.

What sticks with me the most in the film are the tense sequences. The scene with the sexually frustrated mother at the museum is gripping and well done, as is the later sequence leading to her untimely death. I also love the sequence at the doctor's office, that reveals the identity of the killer, which really makes the whole film come together at once. And there's a split screen scene that I thought was almost classic. Still there's another situation when Liz is on a train, running from what may be the killer, that gets taken in directions it should never had with almost embarrassing racial stereotypes. As a thriller it's tense and quite often believable. As a crime drama it often falters, especially with the incomplete, ridiculous explanation of everything that happened in the end. There's also a needless, and way too long, dream sequence at the end, in which they had the audacity to shoot someone's foot for what seemed minutes at a time. This was an up and down experience; one scene would catch me by the heart and mind with enticement, and the next would make me squirm and ask why. At more than 100 minutes this could have been under 90 and been a better film.

Scary movie fans should like this. It still stands as a better film than most of today's slasher flicks. Maybe it was a better film in it's time, but having just seen it recently I can say I enjoy it, and it is worth watching for my three favorite scenes alone.