This amusing Bugs Bunny cartoon sees the return of the still unnamed Marvin the Martian and his sidekick K-9 the green dog.

This time instead of trying to destroy the Earth Marvin is on a mission to land, capture an Earth creature and take it back to Mars. Of course the creature he picks is Bugs Bunny. At first Bugs thinks Marvin and K-9 are trick or treating but realises this can't be right when Marvin drastically enlarges Bug's rabbit hole with a ray-gun. Bugs tries to trick his way out of the situation in a couple of ways, including persuading Marvin that K-9 is planning a mutiny. Eventually he is captured using an Acme strait-jacket ejecting bazooka. Amazingly, for an Acme product, it works as advertised and Bug's is forced to use his wits to get K-9 to release him, the tables are soon turned and the two disgruntled Martians are trussed up and Bugs is trying to fly their saucer back to Earth.

I really enjoyed this although the ending is a little weak compared to the rest of the story. Marvin's voice has changed slightly here and he gets visible emotional when he is angry but this didn't make me like him or the cartoon any less.


This is one of quite a few cartoons with Bugs Bunny and Marvin the Martian - and a space dog called K-9 is included as well. This Looney Tunes episode is very funny, has reasonably good cartoon animation (Marvin's animation is very well done) and the plot is well done. The end is rather weird, so be prepared for it, it is slightly boring.

In this episode, Marvin the Martian has been sent to earth to capture an earth creature and bring it back to Mars. With his trusty dog K-9, Marvin sets out and soon finds the tracks of no other rabbit but Bugs Bunny! He greets them with treats, thinking they are trick or treaters in their costumes. Little does he realise they are preparing themselves to take this rabbit to Mars...

I recommend this episode to anyone who likes Bugs Bunny, Marvin the Martian and Looney Tunes in general. As far as the beginning and the middle of the episode are concerned, you are likely to like this. Enjoy "Hasty Hare"! :-)


Part of what was so great about the classic Looney Tunes cartoons was their irreverence and how they weren't afraid to do anything that they wanted. In this case, Marvin the Martian has an assignment to bring back an earthling. Sure enough, he comes across Bugs Bunny, who warns of a mutiny on the part of Marvin's dog. After Marvin finally traps Bugs - by means of an Acme strait jacket-ejecting bazooka! - Bugs has more stuff planned for the voyage back to Mars. What I mean is, if you thought that it was a major change in the Solar System when they stripped Pluto of its planet status, then you ain't seen nothing yet! Yes, "The Hasty Hare" goes all out. How they buy Acme products in outer space is probably beyond most people, but the point here - I mean "hare" - is to have fun. And believe me, you definitely will. After all, a little space-out never hurt anyone.


You'd think you're in for some serious sightseeing when the premise of the movie takes place primarily between two characters as they travel 3000 miles or so from France to Saudi Arabia, going through most of Europe - Italy, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Turkey, before arriving in the Middle East. But this is not a tour, and there are no stopovers for soaking in the sights.

Reda's father is in his twilight years, and wishes to do the Haj. However, since walking and taking the mule is out of the question, he chooses to travel to Mecca by car. He can't drive, and therefore enlists the help of Reda, to his son's protest, to get him there in their broken down vehicle.

But Reda doesn't see the point of having him go along, when his dad could opt for the plane. He resents the idea of having put his personal life on hold for this pilgrimage he couldn't understand. And hence, we set off in this arduous journey with father and son, being not the best of pals.

The beauty of this movie is to witness the development of the father and son pair, the challenges they face, the weird people they meet, having to duke it out in varied weather conditions, and alternating rest stops between motels and sleeping in the car. We see an obvious generation gap in them trying to communicate to each other, the father trying to impose on his son, and the son trying to assert himself as an adult, but circumstances we see, reveal that Reda is quite a fish out of water. Through the many encounters, they actually team up quite well despite their differences.

It's perhaps quite apt to have this film released here last week to coincide with Hari Raya Haji, and having the opportunity to watch our protagonists join the other pilgrims in their Haj. The final scene in Mecca is truly a sight to behold, and you too would feel the claustrophobia and fear as Reda tries to hunt down his dad amongst the thousands of people congregating. The sights of Europe were perhaps deliberately not dwelled upon, so as to build up the anticipation of and focus on the final destination.

It certainly rang home the thought of telling and showing loved ones how much you appreciate them for who they are. Don't miss this, and yes, book early - I was pleasantly surprised that this evening's session was still a full house.


Father and son communicate very little. IN fact they speak different languages. BUt when the son drives his father 3000 miles for his pilgrimage's to Mecca, the conversations finally take place. they are difficult and growth is necessary on both parts.

This movie takes us into the hearts of these two travelers, and it is indeed a grand voyage for the audience as well as the two principals. The imagery throughout is impressive, especially the final scenes in Mecca. It underlines for me once again how much different the world can be, but also at the same time, how similar. The same was true for the father and son in this film.

See this movie. Tell your friends to see it. You'll be glad you did.


The premise for this movie is simple and so is the script: an elderly Muslim gets his teenage son to drive him in his similarly elderly station wagon from France to the haj in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, so that he can fulfill his holy Muslim obligation before he dies. The father is clearly devoutly religious, but the son is unimpressed; he accepts out of obligation to his father rather than to religion, he'd rather be with his (non-Muslim) girlfriend. The father is stubborn in a lot of things which the son doesn't understand and the petulance between them is the device that maintains the drama, although it is often rather irksome. However, like any good road movie there are oddball characters encountered along the way; for example a woman on a backroad in Croatia who upon being asked for directions to Belgrade simply gets in the backseat and points with her hand uttering one word which they assume to be a place but can't find it on the map. In Bulgaria another man they ask directions of confirms he can speak French but then provides an extensive commentary in Bulgarian. There is also occasional humor - in one country the son tires of eating egg sandwiches and wants meat - they are given a goat, but unfortunately (perhaps fortunately for the viewer) it runs away before the father can perform the Muslim slaughterman ritual. They eventually make it to Mecca - the Muslim equivalent of the Vatican but on a much grander scale. For westerners it is all bizarre but fascinating. The movie isn't sophisticated but is charming in its own way, a kind of National Geographic with soul.


I don't know...Maybe it's just because it's an impressive tribute to some Muslim religious action(hajj)but I just felt the movie is so underrated. I just can't believe that the movie has just been voted by only 223 people so far given that the movie was produced in 2004 and it has won many awards since then.About the movie...it's one of those well-acted sweet movies.Reda,a French teenager due to sit for Baccalauréat, is asked by his devout elderly father to take him to Mecca.Strange as it may seem(if one doesn't know much about Islam)the father wants his son to drive them from their home in France to Saudia Arabia on a once-in-a-lifetime religious pilgrimage.The generation gap between the father and the son is based on simple enough terms('you may know how to read and write, but you know nothing about life,' the unnamed father to his son)but some sort of bromidic generation gap literature is avoided.Bot of them are affectionate in their frustrations.The father never speaks in French though Reda understands Arabic but can only seem to answer in French. Though they encounter many people on the road: "There's the scary old woman they pick up in the Bosnian border on the way to Belgrade, and the talkative Mustafa(Jacky Nercessian), who helps them out at the border of Turkey,the reticent and shy women wearing burqas on the way to Damascus" the focus is always on the mismatched father and son.There is not much of a conversation in the movie which makes it enjoyable to your eyes. You see magnificent views in every city they go.The director shows you even the Blue Mosque and the Hagia Sophia even though the movie is not relatively long.

Generally I don't like movies which don't have enough dialogs and which take their power from camera subtleties but this one was really great.Despite some unanswered details(like Reda's unseen French girlfriend)the movie appeals to senses.Great work of art and remember this movie is Ismaël Ferroukhi's debut.


this isn't 'Bonnie and Clyde' or 'Thelma and Louise' but it is a fine road movie. it sets up its two main characters gently and easily. viewers learn the underlying tensions quickly, which is a tribute to the director. there is the young french (and English) speaking son who wants to do well in France, has a french girlfriend and who drinks alcohol, parties as young men do. And there is his moroccan arabic (and french) speaking father who devoutly follows his Muslim faith, with generosity and the wisdom of elders and who rejects the new culture surrounding him (like mobile phones). the film could explore very powerful politics - the odd couple drive thru the former Yugoslavia, thru Turkey and then thru the Middle East to get to Mecca. these are areas where the Muslim populations have been involved in wars, repression, ethnic cleansing; where dictators have pursued torture and summary executions to hold power and where religious communities are in constant deadly battle with each other. yet the film moves thru those places and possibilities with only hints of such agendas. the relationship between the two is key to this film, and faith, politics are the backdrop. it seems to be saying that we are all human, and need to understand and care for each other in order to manage well in this world. it certainly isn't 'Natural Born Killers' and is all the better for it.


Reda is a young Frenchman of Moroccan descent. Despite his Muslim heritage, he is very French in attitudes and values. Out of the blue, his father announces that Reda will be driving him to the Hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca--something that Reda has no interest in doing but agrees only out of obligation. As a result, from the start, Reda is angry but being a traditional Muslim man, his father is difficult to talk to or discuss his misgivings. Both father and son seem very rigid and inflexible--and it's very ironic when the Dad tells his son that he should not be so stubborn.

When I read the summary, it talks about how much the characters grew and began to know each other. However, I really don't think they did and that is the fascinating and sad aspect of the film. Sure, there were times of understanding, but so often there was an undercurrent of hostility and repression. I actually liked this and appreciated that there wasn't complete resolution of this--as it would have seemed phony.

Overall, the film is well acted and fascinating--giving Westerners an unusual insight into Islam and the Hajj. It also provides a fascinating juxtaposition of traditional Islam and the secular younger generation. While the slow pace and lack of clarity about the relationship throughout the film may annoy some, I think it gave the film intense realism and made it look like a film about people--not some formula. A nice and unusual film.


I won't repeat all that has been said already by other viewers of this film.

In my opinion this is an excellent film, not only as a very human tale of the developing relationship between a father and his grown-up son, but also as a little window onto the world of practising Islam, for those like me who are not very familiar with that religion.

An important aspect of this story is that of the young man's relation to his father's beliefs and practices, and how his attitude towards the religion seems to alter in subtle ways as we progress on their journey with them.

This is a very thought-provoking, enjoyable and well-made film that I would recommend to anyone with brain and heart.


What starts out as generational conflict in this movie, ends in understanding, solemnity and grace. The movie meanders through Europe with the father and the young son cramped in a car over 3000 miles. The cramping forces lifestyles, beliefs and life skills to collide. There's really no clear winner. It all adds up in the end as experience, experience of multiple layers of life. For those interested in understanding Islam, this movie offers a generous and gentle outlook, without being pushy about the agenda. It's a coming of age story for the young son, his dismissive and rebellious nature turning to openness for receiving more ways of life.


LE GRAND VOYAGE is a gentle miracle of a film, a work made more profound because of its understated script by writer/director Ismaël Ferroukhi who allows the natural scenery of this 'road trip' story and the sophisticated acting of the stars Nicolas Cazalé and Mohamed Majd to carry the emotional impact of the film. Ferroukhi's vision is very capably enhanced by the cinematography of Katell Djian (a sensitive mixture of travelogue vistas of horizons and tightly photographed duets between characters) and the musical score by Fowzi Guerdjou who manages to maintain some beautiful themes throughout the film while paying homage to the many local musical variations from the numerous countries the film surveys.

Reda (Nicolas Cazalé) lives with his Muslim family in Southern France, a young student with a Western girlfriend who does not seem to be following the religious direction of his heritage. His elderly father (Mohamed Majd) has decided his time has come to make his Hadj to Mecca, and being unable to drive, requests the reluctant Reda to forsake his personal needs to drive him to his ultimate religious obligation. The two set out in a fragile automobile to travel through France, into Italy, and on through Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, and Turkey to Saudi Arabia. Along the trip Reda pleads with his father to visit some of the interesting sights, but his father remains focused on the purpose of the journey and Reda is irritably left to struggle with his father's demands. On their pilgrimage they encounter an old woman (Ghina Ognianova) who attaches herself to the two men and must eventually be deserted by Reda, a Turkish man Mustapha (Jacky Nercessian) who promises to guide the father/son duo but instead brings about a schism by getting Reda drunk in a bar and disappearing, and countless border patrol guards and custom agents who delay their progress for various reasons. Tensions between father and son mount: Reda cannot understand the importance of this pilgrimage so fraught with trials and mishaps, and the father cannot comprehend Reda's insensitivity to the father's religious beliefs and needs. At last they reach Mecca where they are surrounded by hoards of pilgrims from all around the world and the sensation of trip's significance is overwhelming to Reda. The manner in which the story comes to a close is touching and rich with meaning. It has taken a religious pilgrimage to restore the gap between youth and old age, between son and father, and between defiance and acceptance of religious values.

The visual impact of this film is extraordinary - all the more so because it feels as though the camera just 'happens' to catch the beauty of the many stopping points along the way without the need to enhance them with special effects. Nicolas Cazalé is a superb actor (be sure to see his most recent and currently showing film 'The Grocer's Son') and it is his carefully nuanced role that brings the magic to this film. Another fine film from The Film Movement, this is a tender story brilliantly told. Highly recommended.

Grady Harp


I've joined IMDb so people know what a great film this is! It's not often you come across a film that's moving and visually cinematic yet humble. You've read the plot so all I want to say is don't watch it because you want to see a clash of cultural religious identity babble ,because that's the typical misconception people read in to,instead just appreciate and realise it's about a father and son on a voyage growing to know each other through their struggles. Buy it and pass it on before film4 get round to it. This was one of the very few films to be nominated for a BAFTA being independent and foreign. The beauty of it is that it manages to appeal to anyone even if you never watch anything subtitled or just used to the Hollywood formula, just a great story that will keep you engaged. The only thing I wish is for it to be longer and see what happens


This movie is great! This movie is beautiful! Finally, a movie that portrays Moslems as PEOPLE, no stereotypes here. This movie is driven by the story, by the acting and above all by its theme, that of cultural affirmation and discovery. They may seem like clichés but they are not, at least not in this movie. The vista of the Grand Mosque of Mecca is absolutely stupendous and the audience is given a glimpse of a side of the Moslem world that is rarely of ever shown in the West. Here the people are caring, supportive, devout, tolerant and devoted to each other. What a welcomed and way overdue departure from the usual negative portrayals of Arabs. Outstanding movie.


Yes, I loved this movie when I was a kid. When I was growing up I saw this movie so many times that my dad had to buy another VHS copy because the old copy had worn out.

My family received a VHS copy of this movie when we purchased a new VHS system. At first, my mom wasn't sure that this was an appropriate movie for a 10 year old but because we had just bought a new VHS system she let me watch it.

Like I said, this movie is every little boys dream The movie contains a terrific setting, big muscled barbarians, beautiful topless women, big bad monsters and jokes you'll only get when you get older. So, a couple of days ago I inserted the video and watched the movie again after a long time. At first, I was bored, then started thinking about how much I loved this movie when I was kid, and continued watching. Yeah, the experience wasn't as great as I remembered The acting is pretty bad, the storyline is pretty bad, the jokes weren't funny anymore, but the women were still pretty. Yes, I've grown up. Even though the movie experience has changed for me, I still think it's worth 7 stars. For the good old times you know


This was directed by Ruggero Deodato, a true icon to many horror film fans after he directed the seminal and notorious Cannibal Holocaust. However, don't expect to find any such notoriety in the film reviewed here as it proves to be incredibly tame in comparison and plays more like a Conan inspired outing for a young audience.

Such a description may instantly put off most fans of the whole Conan inspired Sword & Sorcery genre but before you turn your nose up at this, it has to be said, this movie is just so much fun!

It's mostly played for laughs and features two HUGE and highly likable heroes in the form of David and Peter Paul aka. the Barbarian Brothers who both seem to be having a ball with their characters.

B-Movie favourite Richard Lynch turns up as the main villain in the piece and it's also great to see roles for Big George Eastman and Michael Berryman.

Added to this, the ladies are stunning to behold and suitably scantily attired throughout the films duration (a staple and much welcomed ingredient in the genre!)

What can I say, - this simply is a really fun and lighthearted take on the genre and I recommend it wholeheartedly!


Deodato brings us some mildly shocking moments and a movie that doesn't take itself too seriously. Absolutely a classic in it's own particular kind of way. This movie provides a refreshingly different look at barbarians. If you get a chance to see this movie do so. You'll definitely have a smile on your face most of the time. Not because it's funny or anything mundane like that but because it's so bad it goes out the other way and becomes good, though maybe not clean, fun.


As shallow as it may sound, I actually delayed my viewing of "The Barbarians" several times just because the VHS cover (as well as the picture image displayed here on the website) looks so incredibly gay! By now I wish I had watched it earlier because the movie isn't so much gay. just trashy, cheesy, campy and enormously fun! It's almost unbelievable that Ruggero Deodato, director of "Cannibal Holocaust" of all people, was the man responsible for this comical cash-in on the contemporary popular Sword & Sandal fantasy flicks, particularly Schwarzenegger's Conan movies. The film opens with a terrific 'once-upon-a-time' type of off-screen narrator, introducing us to the Ragneks. Their founder once traded an entire mountain of pure gold for just one magically powerful ruby that would allow them to travel in freedom and access every country as entertainers. In other words, the Ragneks are a bunch of traveling circus freaks! Their happiness abruptly comes to end when the greedy Kadar kidnaps the Ragneks' beautiful queen Canary and continuously attempts to discover the whereabouts of the ruby. Meanwhile, and as some sort of amusing waste of time, the two orphan twin-brothers Gore and Kutchek are trained to become muscled warriors and they're unwarily prepared to fight each other to the death. Instead of that, however, they escape and develop a plan to free their queen. Actually, the plot isn't half as bad as I initially feared, but still the most fun is provided by the beefcake brothers' on screen chemistry, the crazily inept dialogs and of course the utterly cheesy fantasy-monsters, like a dragon with adorably cute eyes, some kind of werewolf creature and zombies that randomly appear to pop out of the swamp. The soundtrack and make-up effects are great and our almighty director Deodato maintains a terrifically fast pace. The Barbarian Brother's acting capacities are much better than I anticipated, apart from the fact that one of them constantly produces gross belching sounds. The supportive cast is splendid as well. Eva La Rue never looked more beautiful as the witty savage girl Cara, Virginia Bryant is indeed bewitching like Richard Lynch states on several occasions and the lovely Sheeba Alahani makes her first and only appearance on film as a vicious sorceress with a donut-shaped hair style (I kid you not!). Last but not least, "The Barbarians" stars everybody's favorite Eyes in the Hills creep Michael Berryman as the appropriately named Dirtmaster. I know the displayed picture looks gayer than a promotional campaign for the musical version about the rise and fall of the Village People, but "The Barbarians" really is a must-see Italian exploitation highlight.


This movie maybe really bad, but it is alot of fun. The bad acting and poor direction enhance the film's hystericalness. The twins are very funny in their Conanesque roles. If you go into this film expecting the first Conan or Excalibur, than you will hate it. If you watch it while in a good mood and accept it as good, dumb fun you will have a good time. Watch for the scene where they try to hang the brothers, its funniest scene in the film. I wish Mystery Science Theatre 3000 would have done this!!


I love bad movies. Not only, because they often are as entertaining as 'really' 'good' films (like Pirates of the Caribbean series and other Hollywood pathos), but they often are far better than those films. And that's the reason why I love Italian rip off cinema of 1970s and 1980s. And that's the reason why I especially love this movie, The Barbarians & the Company.

Director Ruggero Deodato has made some actually very good movies, like House on the Edge of the Park, and also his Atlantis Interceptors and Live Like a Cop, Die Like a Man are enjoyable action movies. But this is really bad. The Barbarians is so idiotic movie. Peter and David Paul as the Barbarian Brothers Kutchek and Gore are very funny, because of their lack of charisma and acting skills. But if they can't act, they yell and scream every time they do something important. In one scene people try to hang the Barbarian Brothers, and they escape very extraordinary way.

Bad acting, bad special effects, very stupid story, bad direction, actually everything is bad in this movie. I can't describe how much I laughed when I watched this first time. The Barbarians & the Company is camp classic everybody should see once. If you thought Plan 9 From Outer Space is fun camp, this will be a real killer.


The barbarians maybe´s not the best film that anybody of us have seen, but really????........It´s so funny......I can´t discribe how mutch I laughed when I first saw it..The director really wanted to do a serious adventure movie, but it´sso misirable bad....so bad that it´s one of the funniest movies I´ve ever seen......so my advise is that you should see it.....and if you alredy did, se it again!!!!!!!


Apparently Ruggero Deodato figured out, early on, that his story wouldn't work if he approached it too seriously, so he decided to camp it up. The result is a film that can be viewed as either a ludicrous sword-and-sorcery epic or as a very entertaining comedy! And I think I'll go the second way. The brief gore moments are well-done, the Paul Brothers openly mock the material (they even bark at each other in one scene!), and there is also a charming, spirited, good-natured performance by Eva La Rue, as the girl who tags along with the "boys". Plus, where else can you see the insides of a dragon lighted like a discotheque?? (***)


Well, some people would say that this particular movie stinks...but hey! Thats not right, not right at al...The movie may not have the best special effects, and may not have the best actors (Except the exelence of the Barbarian Bros.) Dispite theese minor fact, I can honostly say that this is one of the funniest movies I´ve ever seen, and I´ve seen em al!


I can remember watching this for the first time, when I was 9 years old. I wanted to be one of the "barbarian brothers". This movie is still great. One original aspect was that the fight scenes where very short. Implying that the "barbarian brothers" where so good that they finished there enemies off quickly! Plus, you have chases, a cage fight, a dragon, and yes even a bar brawl!

Yes, the acting is bad so that's why it's not a ten, also the story line has received a lot of criticism. I think it is quite original. Not to many movies in it's genre have the same original story lines, or colorful dialogue.

I definitely recommend this film.


A delight mini movie, a musical short based on three of Cole Porter's Broadway smash songs. Bob Hope's first credited film is a delight! He plays an American playboy millionaire on vacation in Paris. The film opens with him sitting at a table of an out door café telling his friends about this beauty that takes his breath away. Suddenly he spots her a few yards away. he is so over come his friends tease him and suggest "just show her your bank book." But Hope claims he can win her in less than 30 days with "no" money! They bet polo ponies over the issue and take all his cash and ID's. Hope follows her and when they are alone gushes out a proposal she does not believe he is sincere until he sings to her, "You Do Something to Me" by Cole Porter. But she must leave and he tries to earn money as a tour guide so he can pursue her. But when she sees him showing another girl around town, disillusioned she wants to drop him. He continues to chase her and catches up to her and her family at a race track where he bets his meager earnings on the last race hoping to win enough to impress her. Through a series of events and large synchronized dance numbers he loses the winning ticket and she decides to marry him rich or poor. So he wins the girl, the race and the bet and sings two more songs!


Netflix should mention this short feature on the info for Silk Stockings. Superior in every way to that over-produced fluff. This had much better Cole Porter songs and lots more energy. Silk Stockings turned out to be a big disappointment. Fred was getting too old for this sort of thing, though the dances and Cyd are lovely. I will be on the watch for the Garbo--Melvyn Douglas version of Ninotchka. Was Peter Lorre ill during the making of Silk Stockings--he seems to be very passive in the more active numbers and with less lines? Very glad that I ran across Paree--Paree by pure accident. Made the whole experience a lot more enjoyable. Bob Hope, as a simple "song and dance man' is pure joy.


Sometimes they get lucky and have a hit on their hands (Wayne's World, the first one, not the second). But most often they have duds (It's Pat comes to mind rather quickly). This time out it's Tim Meadows as The Ladies Man. This movie falls somewhere in between a hit and a dud. It was very funny for the first 20 minutes, but then, as usually happens with SNL skits, it starts to slow down, before finally ending, long after it should have.

Tim Meadows is Leon Phelps, a radio DJ with a nightly show called The Ladies Man. He answers any and all questions dealing with sex and relationships, usually in the crudest way possible. Everything seems to ultimately come down to the butt. After pushing the buttons of the station manager, Leon, along with his producer Julie (Karyn Parsons) gets fired, and needs to find another job. Out of the random blue, comes a letter from one of his ex-ladies. The letter offers him wealth and luxury for the rest of his life, the only problem being that the letter isn't signed. So Leon needs to track down all the women he's been with to find the woman of his dreams. But sometimes, as Billy Dee Williams says in the film, the woman of your dreams is standing right in front of you. There is also a sub-plot about a bunch of guys who's wives/girlfriends have all slept with Leon, and they want to first figure out who he is (by a tattoo he has on a part of his anatomy), then kill him. Leading this bunch of guys is, surprise! Will Ferrell from SNL. First off, I thought the sub-plot was rather lame. The singing and dancing stuff was just completely worthless. I usually like Will Ferrell but here he just never clicked for me. And the rest of the guys were just schlubs who tagged along, and in the end all decided that having their wives/girlfriends cheat on them was in fact their fault. So back to the main story. The story basically centers around Leon and sex. So what it comes down to is, if you don't like the character of Leon, you won't like the movie. His voice, his mannerisms, his dialogue is what carries the movie. I am not a big fan of Tim Meadows. I never thought he was a particularly good actor on SNL. The only thing I ever really liked of his, was his Ladies Man skits. But the best thing about those, is that they usually involved the guest host (remember the one with Cameron Diaz?), and they were short. For about 5 minutes, they were pretty funny. And here, for about 20 minutes, it's really funny. What I thought was good about the character in the movie, is that he stayed in character throughout. He never wavered from his wanted to just get laid persona. Until right at the end where there was this transformation, and the ever present speech to tie things up. Other than that, it was pretty good at keeping Leon as Leon, and not changing him into something less crude than he was. There isn't a lot of substance to this movie, if you couldn't guess. But like I said earlier, the beginning of the movie I found to be very funny. Some real laugh out loud moments, all revolving around sex and his crudeness. The problem of course with this movie, and most other SNL spin offs, is that these are characters that are only supposed to be shown for a few minutes at a time. Stretching the concept into 80 minutes is very difficult. That difficulty is obviously why they needed the sub-plot, because without it, this movie would have been a little under an hour. When it was good, it was good, but when it wasn't good, it got to be boring.

So overall, The Ladies Man wasn't as bad as other SNL films, but it wasn't as good as others. It had some funny moments, the first 20 minutes was pretty good, but the rest of it dragged on. There was an unnecessary sub-plot whose only purpose was to lengthen the film. The bottom line is, if you like Tim Meadows and his Leon Phelps character, you'll be able to watch the film. If he annoys you, don't even bother going. Unless you just want to see Tiffani Theissen in some nice revealing clothing.


Do you like really inventive comedy or do you love "the wedding crashers", if the answer is the latter stop reading now. I can't believe this movie is not higher rated. Basically Meadows plays a character not unlike Austin Powers.There are so many inventive moments in this gagorama. From crudity - Leon playing with himself on the porch, the ex boyfriend tricked into eating . . Oh well. To inspired lunacy- clown sex , the Broadway routine, the voice over. Meadows is great as the childish, but very sweet natured Leon. Some great lines "don't blame the wang" "freaky deaky sex world" too many. . . Why this movie wasn't huge is a mystery. Great comedy.


Yes it may be goofy and may not seem as funny as many high budget comedies out there, but this movie is truly hilarious if you really watch it. Tim Meadows has always struck me as being funny off of the Saturday Night Live show. Whenever he would do this character on the show I would crack up laughing. So after I saw this was going to be playing on Comedy Central one night I decided to check it out. All in all I was farily impressed with this movie, because it wasn't meant to win any Oscars or become comedy of the year, but it did entertain the Saturday Night Live fans that love the Ladies Man character. This movie is also packed with some highly quotable lines that can be recited for years to come.


"What is love? What is this longing in our hearts for togetherness? Is it not the sweetest flower? Does not this flower of love have the fragrant aroma of fine, fine diamonds? Does not the wind love the dirt? Is not love not unlike the unlikely not it is unlikened to? Are you with someone tonight? Do not question your love. Take your lover by the hand. Release the power within yourself. Your heard me, release the power. Tame the wild cosmos with a whisper. Conquer heaven with one intimate caress. That's right don't be shy. Whip out everything you got and do it in the butt. By Leon Phelps" When Tim Meadows created his quintessential SNL playboy, Leon Phelps, I cringed. Hearing his smarmy lisp and salacious comments made my remote tremble with outrage. I employed the click feature more than once, dear readers.

So When the film version of "The Ladies Man" came on cable, I mumbled a few comments of my own and clicked yet again. But there comes the day, gray and forlorn, when "nothing is on" any of the 100+ channels...sigh. Yes  I was faced with every cable subscribers torment  watch it or turn my TV off! There he was, Leon Phelps, smirking and ...making me laugh! What had happened? Had I succumbed to Hollywood's 'dumb-down' sit-com humor? Was I that desperate to avoid abdicating my sacred throne? The truth of the matter is I like "The Ladies Man" more than I should. A story about a vulgar playboy sipping cognac while leering at every female form goes against my feminist sensibilities.

What began as a crude SNL skit blossomed before my eyes into a tale about Leon and his playboy philosophy, going through life "helping people" solve their sexual conflicts. "I am the Mother Teresa of Boning", he solemnly informs Julie (Karyn Parsons), his friend and long-suffering producer of his radio show, "The Ladies Man". And he's not kidding. Leaving a string of broken hearts and angry spirits, Leon manages to bed and breakfast just about all of Chicago. That he does so with such genuine good-will is his calling-card through life.

Our self-proclaimed, "Expert in the Ways of Love", manages to get himself into a lot of trouble with husbands and boyfriends. One such maligned spouse, Lance (Will Ferrell), forms a "Victims of the Smiling Ass, USA" club, vowing to catch our lovable Don Juan. "Oh yes, we will have our revenge", he croons to his cohorts, in a show-stopping dance number.

Plus it's such a total delight to see Billy Dee Williams as Lester, the tavern owner and smooth narrator of Leon's odyssey to find his "sweet thing" and a pile of cash. (Where has he been hiding?) But would I choose this movie as my Valentine's Day choice? Leon's search for the easy life changes him in so many profound ways - that I had to give the nod to our "Ladies Man". That he can, at the movie's close, find true happiness with one woman, while still offering his outlandish advice, is the stuff of dreams!


The Ladies Man is laugh out loud funny, with a great diverse cast as well as having some very stupid but excellent scenes (including the funniest love song ever written).

Ferrell is his usual quality self in a brilliant side role.

Tim Meadows plays an idiot surprisingly well and has written himself some of the funniest lines you'll find in any comedy out there.

It is definitely worth a purchase as watching it every 6 months or so will lead to you still laughing as hard as you did first time round.

I am distraught to think at the time of writing this that it has a meagre 4.7 /10 and i urge you to vote!

And remember kids- "Theres more motion in the ocean"


I must say, this movie has given me a dual personality. I've been told again and again to SHUT UP and start speaking like a normal person. But, it's very hard... no not the wang. Did you find that disgusting and disrespectful? Well, get in the mood for a lot more. This movie is just filthy! It's not a film to show your grand-parents, but you should show it to a teenager or some immature guy at your workplace. Anyway, back to the voice mannerisms. Fortunately this site has some Ladies Man (did anyone at the studio notice that there's supposed to be a apostrophe(?) between the e and s?) so you can always have a fine little something to say to your boss or the cops. I have a sheet in my wallet.


This movie was so good. Leon Phelps is hilarious. I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!! I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!


Tim Meadows has to be the most underrated of SNL's recent cast members. What initially was a low-brow look at a sleazy gigilo develops into a thoroughly entertaining 90 minute run, albeit, still low-brow. Don't pop this one in expecting beautiful cinematography or Oscar-worthy performances. Walk into it expecting brilliant silliness with Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell doing what they do best - making the audience laugh.

Leon "The Ladies' Man" Phelps is a naive, likable radio sex show host who knows very little about anything except the ways of the wang. As a gifted Ladies Man, he lays waste to the wives of countless saps who've banded together in order to hunt him down. The director does an inspired job of guiding the actors on a comedic tryst which makes up completely for the lack of plot development. How much plot would one expect from an SNL skit? While some scenes are a little off the mark, for the most part, Meadows' one liners and absurd sexual comments hit the funny bone squarely. For instance, in one scene, Meadows compares himself to Mother Theresa, but for bonin'. Sure it's crass, but don't we all in the privacy of our homes get a chuckle out of his advice to an entire city for "doin' it in the butt"? In another scene, immediately after a heartfelt kiss with the female lead, he suddenly remembers the name of his would be benefactor, a woman he slept with years ago. He stands up in front of the woman who's obviously fallen for him and proclaims that "The Ladies' Man is back," to her obvious chagrin.

Billy Dee Williams hits the ball out of the park as the bartender/narrator. Will Ferrell, the repressed homosexual, rounds out solid performances.

See this movie if you're into adult humor. If not, stay away with extreme prejudice.


Enjoyable and watchable. Tim Meadows at his best. A big boost from Billy Dee Williams. He and a very funny John Witherspoon provide a solid foundation for Mr. Meadows' riffing. Have fun with this one.


I really don't understand why people get so upset and pan this movie! Remember folks, this is an SNL movie, not anything that is supposed to be unpredictable and original in plot or direction! The Ladies Man is a hilarious movie, albeit stupid at times, with a wacked-out cast and, as usual, WONDERFUL performances by Will Ferrel and Tim Meadows. Yes some of the jokes are stupid, and yes, the characters are unbelievable but its comedy! I really don't understand how anyone couldn't laugh a lot during this hilarious film. Anyway, all I ask is that people take this as it is--an SNL, silly and irreverent comedy. Nothing that will win awards, but nonetheless, some modern comedy gold. "10-4 Apricot!"


When i heard about this movie it was supposed to be the funniest thing i've ever seen, Yes it was funny. I mean i liked it all until the end where...........Oh no i can't tell u should it for yourself. It is funny except. The vulgar language. That's why i say if u like movies that r funny in sexual ways watch it , but if not don't waist ur money on renting it or buying it.


well "Wayne's World" is long gone and the years since then have been hard for snl off-shoot movies. from such cinematic offal as "It's Pat" to the recent 80 minute yawn, "A Night at the Roxbury," many have, no doubt, lost faith that any other snl skit will ever make a successful transition to the silver screen. well fear not because Tim Meadows comes through in spades. the well-written plot maintains audience interest until the very end and while it remains true to the Leon Phelps character introduced in the five minute skit, the storyline allows the character to develop. the humor (consisting largely of sex jokes) is fresh and interesting and made me laugh harder than i have in any movie in recent memory. its a just great time if you don't feel like taking yourself too seriously. Tiffany-Amber Thiessen of "Saved by the Bell" fame, makes an appearance in the film and looks incredible. finally Billy Dee Williams, reliving his Colt 45 days, gives the movie a touch of class. and for those out there who are mindless movie quoters like myself, you will find this movie to be eminently quotable, "ooh, it's a lady!"


The world is made up two different types of moviegoers... There are the "English Patient" types, who can't be bothered to enjoy anything that isn't high-brow enough to be shown on PBS, and there are the "Happy Gilmore" types, for whom an hour and a half of genitalia puns are definitely worth the $7.

Certainly, there's a ton of gray area, but you know to which side you're leaning. If you're an English Patient person, save your time, save your money, and save us all your "Oh, this movie is so childish and stupid" comments. I know, you thoroughly enjoy belittling every movie you don't like, and every person that likes them, but maybe you could hold off just this once.

But if you're a Happy Gilmore type... go see this one... You'll find it hilarious. Tim Meadows has created a hilarious character, and Will Farrell continues to be hilarious in just about everything he does. Go check it out. You'll be glad you did. And that's OK.


The choice to make this SNL skit into a movie was far better thought out than other recent ones. The humor involved in the character is not annoyance humor, and is also character driven enough to be stretched out for an hour or two.

Oddly enough the sexual content seemed like it could be avoided, but that may have been because the constraints of live television schooled me to not expect it. I suppose I was thinking more "Leisure Suit Larry" risqué than the producers were...

Definitely not a PG-13 movie, which will probably hurt it from ever reaching the heights of its more successful predecessors, but still better premise and writing than its more dismal ones.

I liked it, but I doubt it will be a smash hit... (which is sad, as Tim Meadows tends not to do characters that annoy me with quite the frequency other SNL alumni tend to)


Okay, like many other such films, spawned out of a SNL skit. But Tim Meadows does a fairly fantastic job of making a 3 minute one-dimensional character into a moderately viable comedic movie character. He drops amusingly consistently-threated one-liners with fair frequency, Billy Dee Williams is in it though his Lando days are long gone, and the entire thing is shot pretty well. True, it's not great art, but if you went into Wayne's World looking for the Gone With The Wind, you did something wrong. Enjoyable for what it is.......


The material in this documentary is so powerful that it brought me to tears. Yes, tears I tell you. This popular struggle of a traditionally exploited population should inspire all of us to stand up for our rights, put forth the greater good of the community and stop making up cowardly excuses for not challenging the establishment. Chavez represents the weak and misfortunate in the same way Bush is the face of dirty corporations and capitalism ran amok. Indeed, Latin America is being reshaped and the marginalized majority is finally having a voice in over five centuries. Though, in the case of Mexico, the election was clearly stolen by Calderon. Chavez is not perfect, far from it. He's trying to change the constitution to allow him to rule indefinitely. That cannot be tolerated. Enough with the politics and back to the movie; The pace is breath taking at moments, and deeply philosophical at others. It portrays Chavez as a popular hero unafraid to challenge the US hegemony and domination of the world's resources. If you think the author is biased in favour of Chavez, nothing's stopping you from doing your homework. One crucial message of the film is questioning info sources, as was clearly demonstrated by the snippers casualties being shamefully blamed on Chavez's supporters. Venezuela puts American alleged democracy to shame. Hasta la revolucion siempre!


Whether this movie is propaganda or not (I firmly believe it is not), it really shows the power of Media. The importance of this documentary is not to show how good of a man Chavez is. It is really to demonstrate the way the Bolivarians saw how it happened, the Chavez way of seeing it. Although it may seem wrong and bias to support a film , I think the point of view shown in the movie is utterly legitimate. The Venezuelian people via the private media corporation of Venezuela only saw a one side perspective of the coup, the Neo-Liberal side. This movie shows us the way the Bolivarians saw it . Call it propaganda , I say it's a judgment call on your part.


Ten out of ten stars is no exaggeration. This documentary provides the viewers with unique footage about the 2003 coup in Venezuela. This great film is now the minimum knowledge requirement if you want to express a competent opinion about Venezuela or Hugo Chavez.

The dramatic, electrified atmosphere, the unique footage will allow you to experience a true historic moment. You'll feel like you're in the middle of the situation.

The film will help you gain unique insight in the happenings of 2003 and will help you hear a side you will rarely hear on TV. It's something you shouldn't miss.


This Documentary (Now available free on Video.Google.Com) is a fantastic demonstration of the power of ordinary people to overcome injustice. Everyone must see this.

Chavez was elected in a landslide vote in 1998. His platform was to divert the fantastic oil wealth from the 20% middle class to the 80% poor. He banned foreign drift net fishing in Venezuelan waters. He sent 10,000 Cuban doctors to the slums to treat the sick for free. He wiped out illiteracy and set up new free Universities.

But it was his 30% tax on oil company profits that got him in trouble with the Bush administration. In 2002, while Irish film makers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain were interviewing Chavez inside the Presidential Palace about his social programs, a CIA backed coup was launched. With the cameras rolling, Chavez was captured and flown out of the country. It was announced on national TV that he had 'resigned'.

But the poor of Venezuela didn't believe the media. They went to the Palace in their millions and demanded that Chavez be returned. In the face of such overwhelming numbers, the military turned on the coup leaders and the plotters fled to the US. Chavez was rescued by military helicopter and returned to jubilation.


I had no idea of the facts this film presents. As I remember this situation I accepted the information presented then in the media: a confused happening around a dubious personality: Mr. Chavez. The film is a revelation of many realities, I wonder if something of this caliber has ever been made. I supposed the protagonist was Mr.Chavez but everyone coming up on picture

was important and at the end the reality of that entelechy: the people, was overwhelming. Thank you Kim Bartley and Donnacha O´Briain.


This documentary has been aired on both RTE and BBC in the last number of months. Having seen it twice now I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in media and documentary film making.

Initially this documentary was meant to detail the political life of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The Irish crew set off with those intentions. What happens when they get to Venezuela is startling as they witness first hand the attempted overthrow by rebel factions (particularly the oil concerns in Venezuela) of Chavez and his government. What we the audience witness is just how the media manipulates the situation and in effect backs the overthrow of Chavez by distorting events that transpire as the coup heightens.

It really is an excellent documentary and a remarkable piece of work by a couple of novice filmmakers.


A remarkable piece of documentary, giving a vivid depiction of a country deeply divided within itself (for further evidence, check out some of the comments on IMDb...!). Compares extremely favourably with Oliver Stone's "Comandante" (which is mainly an in-depth examination of Fidel Castro's nostril hairs). I don't know whether Chavez is everything he presents himself as being, or yet another in the long line of populist Latin-American "caudillos". Nor do I know whether he will be able to make good on the huge expectations he has clearly built up among the poor majority of Venezuelans. It's hardly reasonable to expect a film like this to be able to answer such questions - but I've certainly now got a pretty vivid idea of what's at stake, and what it feels like to be caught up in the middle of a coup. Someone says in the film "we're making history", and that's exactly what the film feels like it's capturing. Outstanding stuff.


Someone has already mentioned "being at the right time at the right place" It was so true for this documentary that i had doubts about the genuineness of the scenes and thought it included perhaps some acting but it is not. It is all real. The story is nothing new for the people of the developing and/or poor countries. It sheds light on the manipulation of the people by corporate media, the misinformation, the artificial polarization of the people by deliberately creating tension on the streets, sometimes to the point that the army, intelligence agency or even the government(many believe,led by the US) uses agents who attack "any" side to provoke the masses into violence and therefore justifying their coups. A marine officer in the film mentions this also. That they wanted to see the peoples confront on the streets. All of these scenarios have been played in Turkey(USA's pet dog in the middle east) throughout its history who has experienced 3 coups and lately, secret plans made by the Turkish army have been exposed, ironically through a pro-government religious/conservative media opposing the a-religious doctrines of the army, in which a very important mosque is bombed by an army agent to provoke the people etc.

What makes this film unique is that they were filming from inside, perhaps by chance, when the events have happened. It is clear that the directors are pro Chavez. Whether or not this caused the directors to filter and manipulate the events and the information, I would not know.

And whether Chavez will be defending the people of Venezuela against the dictatorship of US and the global economy without repressing any opposing thought with force and in the end becoming a self-indulgent tyrant, history will tell.

But at least Chavez is hope and I believe it is worth taking the chance.


One of the best documentaries released in recent years. Some points...

1. Hugo Chavez was elected Venezuela's president in 1998, his support largely coming from the poorer regions of Venezuela.

2. In 2002, a coup briefly deposed Chavez. At the time, Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain were in Caracas, shooting a documentary about Chavez for British television. Their film deconstructs the coup and its aftermath, and electrifyingly records history unfolding on-the-spot, outside and inside the presidential palace.

3. Chavez aimed to free Venezuela from the free-market policies imposed on it by the US. Though Venezuela's oil was already state-owned, it was run for private benefit by executives who Chavez wished to replace.

4. Despite being the world's fourth largest oil supplier, Venezuela remains swamped by poverty, its resources literally sucked away by foreign multinational corporations.

5. The documentary begins by portraying Chavez's first years as president before the coup. It focuses on his popularity with the poor, and his various policies which proved popular with working class locals (educational plans, distribution of the oil revenue, grass-root democracy etc).

6. Chavez was a huge proponent of education, and printed thousands of copies of the Venezuelan constitution, encouraging children and adults to study and understand it.

7. When Chavez came to power, he immediately pledged to redistribute oil profits. This, understandably, made the oil companies nervous.

8. A media-war broke out. The six private TV stations promptly began opposing the state-run TV station. They questioned Chavez's motives, sanity and sexual orientation.

9. Without media support, the coup would not have been successful. The film makes it clear that coups rely heavily on the media to disseminate information and that news can be easily fabricated.

10. Under the guise of "re-establishing democracy", the opposition silenced the state-run TV station, dissolved the National Electoral Board, Supreme Court, National Assembly and took control of the military.

11. Moneyed interests, backed by the military elite (encouraged by the US and CIA), organised a citizens' march on the presidential palace to effect the coup. Snipers shot at Chávez supporters, but the private media stations edited footage so it appeared that return fire was aimed at the opposition march that in fact had been safely diverted.

12. Police went on a shooting rampage against Chavez supporters, further bloodying the streets.

13. Chavez, held captive, refused to resign. Of course the media/government then lied, saying he had resigned, but Chavez's cabinet members communicated the truth to the international community, which eventually got the message back to Venezuela by cable TV.

14. The people rose up, pressuring the return of the president they had elected, whom only a referendum could constitutionally replace.

8.9/10 - At a little over an hour long, this doc is far too short. Nevertheless, its an engrossing piece of journalism and deals with a form of "media warfare" which rarely gets touched upon. Makes a great companion piece to "The Battle of Algiers".

Worth one viewing.


With part reconstruction and part direct shooting, the directors made a formidably limpid documentary on a coup d'état against President Chavez in Venezuela, organized by a foreign secret service and fully supported by the wealthy Venezuelan minority, the political opposition, the Church (a cynical laughing cardinal) and the US government. It was another chapter in the history of US foreign policy, which Steven Kinzer calls 'Overthrow' or 'sowing democracy American style'. In fact, this foreign backed intervention was not only a coup d'état against President Chavez, but also against the democratic majority which elected him.

That this is a brilliant documentary is mightily confirmed by the violent reactions for and against it on Internet. As Saint Augustine said: 'Men love truth when it bathes them in its light; they hate it when it proves them wrong.'

This movie is a must see for all those who want to understand the world we live in.


It's really rare that you get an inside view at a media deception that has been so widely reported as official "truth" and caught so many "news" agencies with their pants down. This movie, in my view, deserves every price there is in journalism - it's objective (yes!), courageous and a real "scoop". It can do without comment, fake scenes or leading questions - everyone, including Chavez equally gets to make fools of themselves in their own words. The filmmakers "only" had to keep track of events and keep their cameras rolling.

The Venezuelan elite teaches us "How to depose of a President and sell it as a victory of democracy". It's amazing that they lost in the end - so far. From what I know, the biggest TV station involved only got its terrestrial license revoked, they're still broadcasting via cable and satellite. I highly doubt whether George W. or Barack Obama would be that tolerant after an attempted coup. But then, they don't have to worry.

The fact that the "Chavez supporters shoot innocent civilians" scam was so willingly repeated around the world reveals just how biased the so-called "free" (established) media really has become, or has always been, only more so. An important lesson to anyone interested in what "really" goes on in the world.

The famous "objectivity" challenge always comes into play when journalists dare to oppose the mainstream view, or reveal unwelcome facts that accuse "us" - it has been true with the effects of the Atomic bomb, the US secret history of spreading "democracy" around the world or the Iraq war that, according to Johns Hopkins, has killed 1,3 million Iraquis by now, not to mention the 60,000 Afghans (in 2003) that are never mentioned. To be objective, Saddam Hussein was less damaging to his people than the US. And the US is ready & willing to be more damaging to the Iranians that he was.

I'm quite curious about the upcoming trial of some Khmer Rouge leaders before the International Tribunal in The Hague, whether there will be any mention of "our" involvement in supporting and training Pol Pot's guerrillas in the 80's, when they had been largely defeated by the Vietnamese. Probably not.

All the more reason to turn to the Independent media for balance, if not exposure of fraud.


I've been impressed with Chavez's stance against globalisation for sometime now, but it wasn't until I saw the film at the Amsterdam documentary international film festival that I realize what he has really achieved. This film tells the story of coup/conspiracy by Venezuela's elite, the oil companies and oil loving corrupt western governments, to remove democratically elected president Chavez, and return Venezuela back to a brutal dictatorship. This film is must for anyone who believes in freedom and justice, and is also a lesson to the rest of world ! I commend the people of Venezuela for taking matter into their own hands, and saving their country from the likes of Halliburton and the Bush regime.


Even though we know how the story ends, this is a gripping fly-on-the-wall film that plays almost like a political thriller. During the calm before the storm, we meet Hugo Chavez as a charismatic, larger than life man who has an unbreakable connection with the mestizos who make up 80% of the population but have previously been shut out of Venezuela's political process and its oil wealth. He seems as devoted to them as they are to him. He travels the country at a hectic pace, reaching out to the campesinos, addressing huge crowds, hugging and kissing ordinary people, accepting letters on scraps of paper, and hearing pleas for help. The people are excited that one of their number has made it to the highest office in the land. There is an electric sense of hope and optimism that change for the better is coming to the festering barrios.

But not everyone is happy with the situation. The pure-blood Castillian Spaniard elite who are a small minority but previously controlled all the wealth are full of bitterness and resentment. One of the most unintentionally hilarious moments in the film is when an Ann Coulter lookalike, at a residents' meeting in an exclusive gated community, complains of the mestizos, "they have no concept of struggle or sacrifice." Minutes later, a speaker tells the meeting to "beware of your domestic servants - they could be Chavez supporters." Duh! Of course they are.

In a late night interview alone with the film crew, Chavez reveals something of his soul as he tells the story of his grandfather. He can be a sensitive, poetic person, though with an impish, even clownish, sense of humor (like we saw when he addressed the UN and called Bush the devil.)

Then the storm starts to gather force as the coup organizers call for a mass protest and cynically manipulate their supporters into changing the route at the last minute and marching on the presidential palace, knowing it is surrounded by Chavez supporters and violence is inevitable.

Another element of the plot falls into place as snipers on rooftops begin to fire on the Chavez supporters, some of whom fire back. The local equivalent of Fox News shows this return fire and claims that Chavez supporters are massacring protesters. Then the camera pulls back and reveals that there are no protesters - the street is empty! The protesters took a different route. Needless to say the footage of the empty street was edited out by the rabidly anti-Chavez private TV stations (who had been airing a constant barrage of propaganda calling Chavez mentally ill and sexually fixated on Fidel Castro.) Immediately after the coup, we see the ringleaders and their media propaganda masters openly bragging on TV about how they had manipulated the situation with reckless disregard for the lives of supporters and opponents alike.

The filmmakers continue to be at the heart of this chaotic, fast-changing situation as the military coup surrounds the palace and threatens to bomb it. Chavez eventually surrenders to avoid bloodshed but refuses to resign and is whisked away to an offshore island where a plane awaits to take him - where? The US? How can the remaining cabinet members avoid arrest and defeat this heavily armed conspiracy of right-wing generals and ultra-wealthy businessmen who are closely linked to the Bush administration? Watch the movie and find out!

If your only knowledge of Hugo Chavez and Venezuela is from the US media, then you know nothing. He is not an "unelected tyrant" and does not "rule by decree" - he is enormously popular, having been elected and re-elected several times with over 60% of the vote (something George Bush Junior has never achieved) and the devotion he inspires in ordinary Venezuelan people is ultimately the reason why the coup fails.

This is an extraordinary film about an extraordinary man in an extraordinary situation. The skill of the filmmakers is in being unobtrusive and letting the story unfold through the voices of Venezuelans at every level from the barrio to the presidential palace, the tumultuous scenes, the chaos and confusion out of which a coherent whole emerges that is tense, riveting and moving. Not to be missed!


This really is an incredible film. Not only does it document the eternal struggle of indigenous and disenfranchised people to gain their rightful voice but it also shows the United States up for its dishonesty, subterfuge, and blatant disregard for human rights and self-determination. Chavez is shown as a very brave and charismatic leader struggling against what can only be characterized as a despicable elite devoid of any sense of proportion or justice. These filmmakers have recorded a coup unlike anything witnessed before.

And in the cross hairs we see the USA, once again pulling the strings and blurring all sense of reality. It's heart-breaking to watch the initial stages of the revolt knowing full well that the subversion of democracy that we're witnessing is a tool long used by successive American governments and their seemingly blinkered citizens. The footage makes it clear that this is not a manipulation of TV or generic footage but an active documentation of a people and its government fighting for its future. Truly a moving experience for anyone with a conscience. These Irish film makers deserve our gratitude. Long live Chavez.

We need to enshrine the notion that each country must be allowed to choose its government and to develop in ways that the majority sees fit. First phase in this process is the need to know what the realities of the situation are, and this documentary does a great job of doing just that.


Very good point there : "only an elite few (the upper classes) would both have access to the internet AND be able to communicate on an exclusively English speaking site such as the IMDb" Some might think Internet Is not reality but this point of view really put media society and democracy at stake: You are probably right.. Even If there Is Internet cafe's in Venezuela most Chavez supporters will not afford to even rent a computer for half an hour to comment on IMDb.

Screw you faschist upper class rich right wing capitalist liberal intellectual surpressors .. Probably this is your first time using Internet ;)..


A case of being in the right place at the right time. What a fascinating film. It is easy to see why Chavez is so popular with his people. He gets things done. He is accessible. And it is also easy to see why the west hates him so much. He has control of the resources of his country and gives the profits back to the people. Mostly the poor. And it easy to see how the TV stations can portray misleading images to put there case. Just like the Iraq war, or the war on Terror. Or those missing WMD's. Or how about the axis of evil. People need to wake up. And get different points of view. Stop the neo cons ruling the world. Go watch this movie with an open mind. And make your own mind up. Then I suggest you see Aaron Russo's: America: Freedom to Fascism. It is not the people of America that are the problem. It is the government.


You've never seen anything like it. Once the coup begins, it's the most dazzling, edge-of-your-seat thriller you'll ever see -- even though you know the outcome. And it's all real, because it's a documentary -- amazing.

By the time it was over, it was on my Top 10 list of All Time Great Movies.

Disregard the slobbering right-wing fanatics. Everyone I know who has seen this film gives it the 4-star rating. Even if you don't care about politics or about Venezuelan politics, you will find yourself nerve-racked and -- believe it -- on the edge of your seat.

It's a roller-coaster ride.


Yes, the cameras were in the right place at the right time. It's so interesting to see how a world leader (like Chavez) who supports the poor people in his country, can be held in such low esteem in the US. His worst "sin", in my opinion, is caring about those who are at the bottom of the barrel. What can be so bad about that? I have always been fascinated by the US government+media reaction to Fidel Castro. At first, Castro was a good guy (around 1959) when he supplanted Batista. Soon, however, Castro started turning the corporations in Cuba toward the needs of the poor instead of the fat cats. We're a decent country, but why does our media and government have such a problem with sharing with the poor? If these guys are "dictators," then we could use more "dictatorships" especially where the poorest of the poor live in the world.


One of the most timely and engrossing documentaries, you'll ever watch. While the story takes place in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas, it provides an intimate look into political dynamics, that prevail throughout the western Hemisphere. While essentially another chapter in the story of the "U.S. backed, Latin American coup", this film chronicles in real-time, what can happen when the poorest people, are armed with unity, political savvy, and courage!

The political insights offered by this film are invaluable. One gets clear examples of the private media, as a formidable force for mass deception and propaganda. We see the poor people of Caracas grappling with the brutal realities of "American politics". One gets a clear sense of impending doom, if the people fail to address the blatant tyranny, which has been abruptly, and illegally, thrust upon them by the conspirators. We also see the arrogance and fascism, of the CIA backed, private media, plutocrats, and generals, who've conspired to bring Venezuela back under Washington's domination. Though ably led by President Hugo Chavez, the people of Caracas are forced to act without him, after Chavez was forcibly kidnapped by renegade generals. Their response is the highpoint of the film. If one seeks an excellent portrait of what the U.S. government, Hugo Chavez, and revolutionary Venezuela, are all about, this movie is it!


This movie is basically a documentary of the chronologically ordered series of events that took place from April 10, 2002 through April 14, 2002 in the Venezuelan Presidential Palace, Caracas Venezuela.

The pathos of the movie is real and one feels the pain, sorrow and joy of the people who lived through this failed coup d'etat of President Hugo Chavez.

One comes away from viewing this film that Hugo Chavez is truly a great historical figure. Hugo Chavez's persona single-handedly brought the Venezuelan people to overthrow the 3-day old military-installed junta and re-establish the democratically installed government of Venezuela.

It is obvious from the film footage that George W Bush aided and abetted the Venezuelan coup d'etat. That the mainstream media aided and abetted George W Bush is not surprising.

What is surprising is how few people has seen this movie and how few people realize the total corruption of America's mass media.

It has taken only 20 years for Ronald Reagan elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1986 to turn America into blind and rudderless state.

May Hugo Chavez open patriotic Americans' eyes to the truth and beauty of the true American vision.


I very much enjoyed "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". It gave me, once again, a positive feeling about the power of people to decide for themselves how they wish to be governed.

It is unfortunate that in Venezuela the twenty percent of wealthy citizens have made all of the decisions for the eighty percent of the poor for decades, if not centuries. However, when their coup failed; after the interim government dissolved the Supreme Court, and The Constitution, and the Ombudsman, and the Electoral Boards, and all Civil Rights, no one took the plotters out behind a barn somewhere and shot them. They haven't even gone to jail. The major plotters are living in Florida, carrying on. And the protection that they had was the "Bolivarian Constitution" passed by a large majority of the Venezuelan People. It is not only History that Bites. Democracy can give you one hell of a nip if you let it loose. And in Venezuela it is loose.


This is an astounding film. As well as showing actual footage of key events in the failed coup to oust Chavez, we are given the background picture which describes a class-divided society. Many of the rich, it appears, have a choice with the people's democratic choice, and are willing to use the military for regime change. 'Be careful what you say in front of your servants' is a revealing comment. The head of the country's biggest oil company appoints himself as the new president, with US backing, and these young Irish film makers have it all on camera. A great film to educate young people about democracy. We see transparent documentation of how media can be manipulated, and force used, in the interests of big business, against the interests of the democratic wishes of the people. Riveting stuff.


To me this was more a wake up call, and realization that most all we see, hear, read and think about most anything, is dependent on what the media feeds us. This is a classic example of high level spin doctors attempting to control the masses through controlled information. It is also an excellent example of how people that have a constitution that they freely bought in to, will not be swayed by this media control or any attempted mis-information. Once again this shows that at the end of the day the needs of the many will in fact outweigh the needs of the few. It is also enlightening to see that in in a country where there is no religious civil war going on, that democracy is not a real hard thing to implement.


This is a great movie, it shows what our government will to to other countries if we don't like their government. This isn't as bad as what Reagan and Bush number one did to South America, but the US still has no business messing around with other countries like this. This movies also proves that American media spouts government propaganda. This is exactly what they did to Aristide in Haiti. The reason this coup against Chavez didn't succeed is Chavez was elected with over 90% of the vote.

This movie isn't just a political documentary, it would still be a great movie if it were a drama, it's amazing that this is real.

The other reviewer is lying when he says "Chavez seizes the airwaves", the private media is running anti Chavez propaganda all the time.


Arriving by boxcar in New York City, the shrewd young woman with the BABY FACE begins to methodically canoodle her way to the top floors of power in a great bank.

Barbara Stanwyck is fascinating as the amoral heroine of this influential pre-Code drama. Without a shred of decency or regret, she coolly manipulates the removal or destruction of the men unlucky enough to find themselves in her way. A wonderful actress, Stanwyck has full opportunity here to display her ample talents.

Appearing quite late in the story, George Brent is a welcome addition as the one fellow possibly able to handle Stanwyck; his sophisticated style of acting makes a nice counterpoint to her icy demeanor. Douglas Dumbrille, Donald Cook & Henry Kolker portray a succession of her unfortunate victims.

John Wayne appears for just a few scant seconds as an unsuccessful suitor for Stanwyck's affections. This would be the only time these two performers appeared together on screen.

Movie mavens should recognize Nat Pendleton as a speakeasy customer, and Charles Sellon & Edward Van Sloan as bank executives - all unbilled.

The music heard on the soundtrack throughout the film, perfectly punctuating the plot, is Baby Face' (1926) by Benny Davis & Harry Akst and St. Louis Blues' (1914) by W.C. Handy.

BABY FACE is a prime example of pre-Code naughtiness. In its frank & unapologetic dealing with sex, it is precisely the kind of film which the implementation of the Production Code in 1934 was meant to eliminate.


No sense going over the story since enough reviewers have done that. Here's a few different slants on it from one of those "religious nuts," as one bigoted reviewer puts it so tolerantly.

1) "Baby Face" (1933) offers perhaps THE classic example ever put on film of how women can manipulate men with sex. There is a lot of truth to what Barbara Stanwyck demonstrates in this film: look cute, bat your eyelashes, offer your body for free.....and men will fall over themselves to help you out with whatever you want.

In this case, it was job advancement with the ultimate goal of money.....lots of it. At least four men in this film do provide just that, even if it ruins their lives in the process.

2) The ending - which many of the reviewers here seemed to hate - gives another great message: all the money and material goods in the world won't make a person feel fulfilled. A sad comment that so many "critics" here would rather have immoral messages, preferring sleaze over substance. No surprise, I guess.

Any way you look at it, the movie is entertaining start-to-finish and Stanwyck has some great lines, particularly in the beginning when she tells off her crude father and his unruly bar customers. At a little over 70 minutes, this film moves at a fast pace and is over before you know it.


An original uncensored print of this amazing film was discovered in 2004 in the Library of Congress, and has been shown in a few specialized theaters around the world in 2005. According to current reviews that I've found online, the original has all of the nastiest dialog and innuendos intact; they were later either removed or completely re-shot by the studio prior to initial release, in order to pass the New York state censors. I have also read that a DVD is "expected in 2006" and one can only hope! If we're really luckily, it will include comparisons between the 2 versions. Note that the released censored version was originally available on Laserdisc, which I have seen. Stanwyck rules!


"Baby Face" is a precode melodrama starring a very young Barbara Stanwyck, an almost unrecognizable George Brent, and Theresa Harris. It's about a girl who goes to the city to make good...or should I say make time. Stanwyck's father has been pimping her for one reason or another her whole life in dingy, depressed, filthy Erie, Pennsylvania. After her father dies, one older father type who knows what she's been through and truly cares about her future advises her to go to the big city and take advantage of opportunities there - and not the easy ones - and to take the high road in life. (Note that I saw the censored version and not the uncut - this part of the film was redone for the censors.) She and Chico (Harris) go to New York where Lily (nickname: Baby Face) decides the low road's a lot smoother and will get her where she wants to go a lot faster. In the movie's most famous scene, the camera moves us up the corporate ladder by taking us from floor to floor as Lily sleeps her way to the top. She finally corrals the big man himself and is able to quit her day job. Trouble follows, and she's soon involved in a huge scandal.

Stanwyck wears lots of makeup and for most of the film is cool as a cucumber as she seduces one man after another with no regrets, and she's great at playing the innocent victim. In one scene, she sits staring at a king's ransom in jewels while wearing a black dress that looks like it's decorated with diamonds at the top. Then she asks Chico for another case, and that's filled with more jewelry, plus securities. All in a day's work.

Theresa Harris was an interesting talent - she could be played down or glamorous, and was a talented singer and dancer as well. Here, she sings or hums the movie's theme, "St. Louis Woman" throughout. She worked in literally dozens of movies and is very good here as a friend of Stanwyck's, her best work being in the precode era. As a bizarre byproduct of the code, blacks were often given less to do in films after it was put in place.

Precode films could be more sexually blatant and therefore, though they're 70+ years old, seem more modern. Even though these films didn't have to have moral endings, Baby Face learns her lessons - how like life it is after all. There were several endings of this film, all with the same message. The one I saw had an added scene, but apparently, there were two other endings that didn't pass the censors. (There wasn't a code but there were always censors.) At any rate, it's a neat surprise. "Baby Face" is an important film in movie history - a must see.


Finally, the uncut version of "Baby Face" surfaces and from what source? The Library of Congress. The restored four minutes, snippets here and there, make for a much better film. We now know that Baby Face was pimped by her old man from the time she was at least fourteen years of age. Another reason d'tat for her behavior and cold, calculating exterior.

Barbara Stanwyck is indeed amazing in the role of Lily Powers (notice the moniker), a part that called for just the right amount of sexuality coated with power, cunning, and revenge, yet tinged with virginal pretense when called for, a very difficult portrayal to make convincing. Barbara Stanwyck conveys the necessary nuances to show that though she sleeps her way to the top (literally), she still has good in her heart--note the way she treats those few who have been kind to her such as Chico (the marvelous actress Theresa Harris) and the old philosopher. And though she exploits her sexuality to make mush of men who are rich and powerful, those same men are attempting to exploit her for their carnal desires with no intention of permanent ties until they fall in love with her.

Lily Powers fails to understand, at first, that emotions are difficult to ride, that it's easy to lose control. One possible result is death. Hitching a wagon to a star of course materialism can take one to a destination where nothing else exists but the ephemeral, and it's a cold lonely location.

A word should be said about the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche whose will to power is stressed in "Baby Face" by the elderly philosopher who befriends Lilly when she is still turning tricks for her old man. "Baby Face" was released the same year Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany. Though it's highly unlikely that the semi-literate Hitler understood much about Nietzsche, he considered himself a Nietzschean to the nth degree and touted it along side his other rantings. "Baby Face" serves as an indictment of the popular interpretation of Nietzsche's will to power concept, especially in the final scenes.

Although "You've got the cutest little baby face." is apropos as a theme for "Baby Face," an even more telling and applicable melody is W. C. Handy's "St. Louis Blues" played throughout the film, especially at times when the camera has to drift away from what would otherwise be sexually explicit scenes. "St. Louis Blues" is also used wisely toward the end as Lily begins to see beyond materialism to eternal values. Chico is singing a raw, salacious version of "St. Louis Blues" when Lily, now disagreeing with the lyrics, orders her to stop.

The restored version of "Baby Face" makes the film more modern in its approach and attitude toward sex as power than many a new Hollywood release. By all means watch this gem from the distant past and enjoy.


The National Gallery of Art showed the long-thought lost original uncut version of this film on July 10, 2005. It restores vital scenes cut by censors upon its release. The character of the cobbler, a moral goody-goody individual in the original censored release of 1933 is here presented as a follower of the philosopher Nietsze and urges her to use men to claw her way to the top. Also, the corny ending of the original which I assume is in current VHS versions is eliminated and the ending is restored to its original form. A wonderful film of seduction and power. Hopefully, there will a reissue of this film on DVD for all to appreciate its great qualities. Look for it.


This one is considered a key Pre-Code film  from the director who later made the musical biopic THE JOLSON STORY (1946), but also the paranoid sci-fi INVASION U.S.A. (1952)!  and features one of Barbara Stanwyck's best early roles.

She's supported by a fine cast which includes popular actors and valued character performers of the day  George Brent, Douglass Dumbrille, Edward van Sloan, Nat Pendleton and John Wayne (at one point addressing Stanwyck with the titular nickname, derived from a popular song which is heard constantly throughout) in the former category and, in the latter, Robert Barrat (as Stanwyck's father), Donald Cook (as her most tragic conquest), Alphonse Ethier (as her elderly mentor  more on this later), Arthur Hohl (as a lecherous politician) and Henry Kolker (as Cook's boss and father-in-law, whom Stanwyck also seduces). Curiously, scenes in which Walter Brennan appeared were subsequently deleted at his own request when the film ran into trouble with the censors!

Abetted by crackling i.e. typically hard-boiled dialogue and realistic Anton Grot sets, the narrative contains unexpected overtones of Nietzschean philosophy fed to our small-town heroine by the intellectual Ethier (Stanwyck complains to him early on that she's no "ball of fire" which, of course, contradicts her later comedy  directed by Howard Hawks and co-starring Gary Cooper  of that name!). Under Ethier's auspices, she quickly blooms into an essentially heartless character determined that nothing shall stand in her path to success; the symbolic depiction of her rise in stature at the New York firm she's eventually employed with is reminiscent of a similarly sardonic one  relating to an ambitious statesman's lust for power  in Sergei Eisenstein's October (1927)! Sociologically, it's also interesting that Stanwyck is constantly seen sticking her neck out for her black maid/companion.

The first two-thirds of the film are simply terrific; at first, I found the latter stages somewhat disappointing  because I was expecting to see Stanwyck get her comeuppance by falling for the belatedly-introduced George Brent character while he ignores herbut, just like the others, he's soon under her spell! On second viewing, however, this aspect felt less jarring  as it's evident that Stanwyck has been affected by the two deaths her selfish behavior has caused, and that her tenure in Paris has softened her (even if she tries to cling to her hard-earned wealth for as long as it's possible).

Released on DVD by Warners as part of their FORBIDDEN Hollywood VOLUME 1 COLLECTION, the film is presented in two strikingly different edits  a recently unearthed Pre-Release version and the tamer Theatrical Release print. Among the considerable footage cut from the latter is dialogue pertaining to Stanwyck's life as a tramp from the age of 14 (though it's heard in the accompanying trailer!), while many other scenes have been shortened (i.e. censored for content): the violent fisticuff which develops between Stanwyck and Hohl after she resists his advances; the seduction at the railroad car; the scene in which Dumbrille is surprised with Stanwyck by Cook; the shooting, followed by a suicide (only shots are heard in the shorter version); Stanwyck thinking about her conquests while the phonograph is playing (again, only Brent appears in the version released to theaters), etc. Tha latter, then, utilizes alternate takes for some scenes  and includes an establishing shot of the city which is missing from the longer version; however, we also get an obviously tacked-on happy ending (the Pre-Release version concludes abruptly on a very effective open-ended note) and an equally unconvincing cautionary letter sent by Ethier to Stanwyck in New York which, basically, has the function of substituting all references to Nietzsche!


Barbara Stanwyck as a real tough cookie, a waitress to the working classes (and prostitute at the hands of her father) who escapes to New York City and uses her feminine wiles to get a filing job, moving on to Mortgage and Escrow, and later as assistant secretary to the second in command at the bank. Dramatic study of a female character unafraid to be unseemly has lost none of its power over the years, with Barbara acting up a storm (portraying a woman who learns to be a first-rate actress herself). Parlaying a little Nietzschean philosophy into her messed up life, this lady crushes out sentiment all right, but she never loses our fascination, our awe. She's a plain-spoken, hard-boiled broad, but she's not a bitch, nor is she a man-eater or woman-hater. This gal is all out for herself, and as we wait for her to eventually learn about real values in life, her journey up and down the ladder of success provides heated, sexy entertainment. John Wayne (with thick black hair and too much eye make-up) does well in an early role as the assistant in the file office, though all the supporting players are quite good. *** from ****


During 1933 this film had many cuts taken from it because it was very over the top for the story content and the fact that Lily Powers,(Barbara Stanwyck) would do anything to obtain great wealth and power. Lily's father had forced his daughter into prostitution at the age of 14 and she grew up in a steel mill of a town with very poor people and her father ran a speakeasy which brought into his home all kinds of male characters who had their eye on Lily. As the story progresses, Lily meets up with man after man and eventually finds a guy who has everything and is a playboy bank president It is great to see a very young John Wayne, (Jimmy McCoy Jr.) who was only 25 when this picture was produced and Jimmy did not even get to first base with Lily, not even for lunch. A very young George Brent, (Coutland Trenholm) stars along with Barbara Stanwyck and both gave outstanding performances. This is a great film from 1933 which was produced by Darryl F. Zanuck and was locked up in a fault for many years and just recently is being shown on the silver screen. This film is rather mild compared to what we view on the Hollywood screens today, but in 1933 it was very naughty to watch this type of film. Enjoy


BABY FACE is one of the better of the "forgotten" films before the code. It was shown last night after the 1931 version of WATERLOO BRIDGE on the TURNER CLASSIC NETWORK, so I was able to watch the film as it is now with four plus minutes of it restored.

Stanwyck is living in East St. Louis (where she may have known the drunken parents of "Myra" - Mae Clarke - in WATERLOO BRIDGE). Her father is Robert Barrett. She has lived with him since the death of her mother, and (in the restored dialog) he has been pimping her since she was 14 years old. Now she is resident waitress and part-time whore in his speakeasy, her closest friend being Chico (Theresa Harris), the African-American servant who Barrett keeps bullying. It is one of the two good points of Stanwyck's personality that she keeps standing up to her father about Harris, threatening to leave if Harris is fired (and since it is the grubby workers like Nat Pendleton, who enjoy seeing Stanwyck serve them, rather than the flavor of the hooch he serves that brings them in, Barrett has to obey her).

The one guy who comes to the speakeasy regularly whom Stanwyck likes is the shoemaker and intellectual Adolf Cragg (Alphonse Ethier), who sees great potential in the spirited girl if she will just leave her forsaken home. He is also pushing the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzche, and the idea of the will to power. More about this later.

After she knocks out the local political bigwig (Arthur Hohl), and has an argument with Barrett about this, a still explosion kills Barrett, and enables Stanwyck to leave her home town. She and Harris head to New York City, managing to get free transport by a railroad freight car by sleeping with a brakeman (James Murray). They reach New York, and after walking about they see the Gotham Trust Company (established 1873), and the friendly guard tells her where the personnel office is.

We slowly watch Stanwyck ascend the corporate ladder to the top, similar (but sleazier) than Robert Morse dared in HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING. But Morse was a man in a man dominated company. Stanwyck knows her sexual allure is her weapon. She goes through John Wayne, Douglas Dumbrille (a section of the film that I always felt was the most shocking - curiously enough - when I watched it), Douglas Wood, Henry Kolker, and finally George Brent. Each ends up falling for her, and either being pushed aside when no longer useful, or destroyed by her. Brent, the new President of the Bank his grandfather founded, eventually marries her - and the crisis of the film is when the bank's economic situation is shaken (especially after Brent buys her a fortune in jewels and gives her valuable bonds). Brent is indicted. Will she stick up for him?

SPOILER COMING UP:

The one thing about these films that is not admitted is that the theatrical and moral conventions of the time still dictated endings. The original ending had Stanwyck boarding a ship for Europe abandoning Brent to his fate, but realizing she can't do it to him, returning to their apartment house, and finding he's shot himself. She is riding with him to the hospital as it ends. Now before the rediscovered footage was found, the film ended with them apparently giving up all their money to the bank to save it, and retiring back to East St. Louis, to live happily if poor.

Neither of these are good endings. Stanwyck should continue on her destructive course, with Brent the last of her victims. But even without the Breen office the script writers (one is Darryl Zanuck, by the way) saw fit to have her find a moral center. She has none - at least none for powerful men (whom she hates). I don't think that a depression audience would have tolerated that type of conclusion.

There are other problems, due to the changing styles of public opinion and changes in society. It was a man's world in the corporate world in 1933, so Stanwyck has her work cut out for her. Wood (when she is going to be fired for an indiscretion with him) admits that he did not want her to work.

But in 2006, Stanwyck would have been finding woman all over the place. In the film there are nasty, catty remarks (obviously some based on jealousy) towards Stanwyck from other secretaries and female employees at her rapid rise. In 2006, she'd be frequently confronting women superiors, and she would find them cutting her off at the legs very quickly. Of course, if she finds one or two are lesbians she might try that road but it is doubtful. And she also never seems to meet any men who are gay. They do have gay male executives in business, who wouldn't give a damn about her legs or breasts.

Then there is her mentor, Mr Cragg. Cragg is remade in the "bowdlerized" version into trying to make her seek a moral center. In reality he pushes Nieztsche, but the way (in a broader sense) the Nazis pushed Nieztsche - find your way to power and push it. While Nieztsche did stress power sometimes, it wasn't the be-all and end-all of his theories. Otherwise nobody would read him today in college courses. Cragg is obviously self-educated, but only half-educated. In short if somebody who thoroughly studied Nieztsche confronted Cragg he'd make him look like a half-educated fool. And this is Stanwyck's mentor! A good film, and for it's day worth a 10...but seriously flawed.


The pre-release version of 1933's "Baby Face" would make an ideal introduction to a corporate seminar on sexual harassment. Mentored by a Nietszchean professor, Lily Powers rises from a life of easy virtue at her father's speakeasy to a rapid climb up the corporate ladder at a large bank. Because each rung of the ladder is an executive with his brain below his belt and his ethics locked in the vault, the film has no victims, except Lily's childhood, which was destroyed by an abusive exploitative father. The destructive relationship with her father suggests Lily's hidden motive for using men to advance without regard for their fate. While Lily is cynical and obvious in her approach, the men she targets willingly betray wives and fiancés to trade jobs for sexual favors. Perhaps the bank failures in the 1930's owed less to economics than to morally corrupt executives distracted by ambitious women.

The plot moves fast, and the camera amusingly moves from window to window up the façade of the office building as Lily climbs ever higher. Barbara Stanwyck reveled in tough hard-bitten roles, and she is in top form here. Sentiment does not intrude when she is ready to climb the next rung. Only her African-American confidante, Chico, receives Lily's affection, trust, and loyalty. In more enlightened times, the fresh natural beauty of Theresa Harris, who plays Chico, would have had the men throwing the furs and penthouses at her. Stanwyck often appears overly made-up and stiffly coiffed in comparison to Harris. However, despite Stanwyck's tough demeanor, obvious tactics, and artificial visage, she manages to leave a trail of duped and seduced men, including Douglass Dumbrille, Donald Cook, and a young John Wayne.

The preferred version of "Baby Face" is the 76-minute restored cut. The edited release version of the film shyly turns from the hard facts, which the longer cut restores and makes explicit. Perhaps Darryl Zanuck, who wrote the story under an assumed name, intended a lesson by quoting from Nietszche, whose views on women were controversial. However, despite Alphonse Ethier's lectures and advice not to be defeated by life, Lily's grab for power and money likely owed more to her upbringing and her father than to her professorial mentor. However, the philosophy is but a distraction. Short, fast paced, and entertaining, "Baby Face" is as contemporary in its morality as "Wall Street." Substitute Gordon Gecko for Nietszche, and Lily could have declared her guiding philosophy to be "greed is good."