Reviews (75)

One of Carpenters best ¿ a cult horror classic.
I remember seeing this in the theatre when it first came out and there is no mistaking that this is one terrifying horror movie, not because Carpenter can knock up a load of blood on the screen but because it has brains and all the hallmarks of classic Carpenter suspense. If you are a Carpenter fan then you probably know that his earlier shoestring budget works are better than his recent big budget crap fests - The Thing, Assault on Precinct 13, Halloween and The Fog are what makes Carpenter great. Prince of Darkness is no exception to that rule.

The film concerns a secret Christian sect, called the Brotherhood of Sleep, who have kept something evil locked up in one of their churches downstairs in a large glass vessel. When the final brother dies he passes on the secret to Father Loomis (Donald Pleasence) who in turn decided to call in some physics students from the local college to find out what is in the vessel. Soon the students find themselves up against an evil that is waiting to be reborn, and also up against themselves as the evil takes hold of them (sort of turning people in zombies that spray evil water out from their mouths).

The single most amazing thing about the Prince of Darkness is the whole atmosphere. There is very little blood at the start and yet the feelings that are evoked by the wonderful set designs, music and lighting will have the hair on the back on your head sticking up. When the blood does come it is not as shocking, however there is one scene of a dead man outside standing in beetles that gave me sleepless nights for weeks. Imagine that thing standing at the end of your bed at night!

This is not just a horror film either. There is lots of quasi-science going on, including theories on things like tachyon particles that can transmit messages through time (in fact the Brotherhood of Sleep all the have the same dream). So in reality this movie's genre is a horror/sci-fi rather than just horror.

Although the film has certainly dated, it is still leaps and bounds ahead of the horror we put out these days. We like horror films that think a little and Carpenter used to do that for us. Oh how times have changed for this once great author, but let's not be too judgemental because of what he has already given us. Certainly Prince of Darkness ranks up there as one of the tenses and weirdest horror films of all time. Alice Cooper also has a cameo as a possessed wino! Now how can you say no to seeing that!

Bottom line is to let this film take you. Sure it is nearly twenty years old, but it is just so damn original that you have to give the man top marks. A cult classic in every sense of the word and certainly DVD ownership is a must for early Carpenter fans.

As a note Screenwriter "Martin Quatermass" is actually John Carpenter.

Almost Brilliant
This movie nearly proved to be John Carpenter's transcendant masterpiece, but fell terribly short. The premise, concept and storyline could have been triumphant in the history of sci-horror, but it looks like Carpenter rushed through this one. Maybe it was fidgety actors (what the heck was Alice Cooper supposed to be doing, anyway?), low budget, or a series of terrible hangovers that led him from brilliant concept to underdeveloped cinema? I don't know. I'm a huge fan of John Carpenter, from Halloween to The Thing to Big Trouble in Little China. I rushed to the theater to see this one, and sat slack-jawed at the terrible acting, stupid dialogue and poor script. On the other hand, I also realized that if Carpenter or any other decent director decided to go back, rewrite this one and do it right, it could prove to be the best sci-horror film ever. Rent it before you buy it; even the hard-core Carpenter fans may be disappointed.

Excuse me..do you have Satan in a can?
Since the other reviewers have spoiled the plotline (roughly), I will limit my review of this movie to a brief synopsis and try to keep the criticisms on a creative level.

Plot Synopsis: There is an unknown entity contained within a unusual container that has been secretly kept by a Catholic Brotherhood of Monks for several centuries. Understanding that the entity is about to break out of the container, the church is forced to call in a team of physicists to study the container and said entity.

The first hour of the movie blows your mind! Using scientific method to study the container is a a stroke of genius. The viewer is kept on edge as several facts are uncovered through analytic methods such as carbon dating. The plot thickens as the container proves to be of "alien" origin and it's contents produce quantifiable amounts of energy. Furthermore, the researchers even determine that tachyon-based radio transmissions from the future are infuencing thier dreams (don't ask).

All that leads to viewer to the point where you're thinking "damn, this is way cool!". Religious artifacts meet modern science, Very deep and very original. Something like the carbon dating of the shroud of turin maybe. However...

then...then...the movie becomes just another splatterhouse bloodfest. Cliches taken straight out of the Exorcist (ie: pentagrams, demonic possession, 666's, etc.) displace the original "scientific approach" to the problem. People are maimed, massive blood is spilled and all the scientific equipment becomes haywire. Everybody dies and the science vs. the Devil is thoughrougly discarded along with the effect of the first hour of the movie. (Stephen King did the same thing in Rose Red and it disgusts me!)

I have to give the movie only one star for my conviction that John Carpenter took the easy way out and anyone can do that. It was very uncreative of him to do this and it spoiled the movie utterly. It's insulting to anyone with an IQ over 60! Damnit, if I want to see people get thier heads lopped off, I'll go and get Friday the 13th or Nighmare on Elm Street. Why..oh Why this elaborate scientific setup if you're going to turn it into just another slasher movie?

Creative criticism: I understand that this movie was not Ghostbusters. But, oh, would I have loved to seen all that scientific analyisis of that container save the day. Let's see a movie for a change where science meets the Devil and wins! Or at least puts up a good fight.

Overrated baloney
There wasn't an original idea in this film. To hear it referred to as scary, or worse yet, a masterpiece, curdles the yogurt I just ate.

From the nonsense espoused in the physics class, to the priest begging the physics teacher to help him, to students who are "masters" but don't really know their subject matter well (and what that means is that the creators of this film didn't do their research), to the first few pages of a several thousand page book divining all of the secrets we needed to know about what was happening, to (once again) poor homeless beggars being mind controlled...I was literally cringing and laughing through the entire movie.

Not to mention the truly horrific writing. "You will not be saved by the Holy Ghost. You will not be saved by the god Plutonium. In fact, YOU WILL NOT BE SAVED!" *raucous laughter*

Apparently good films about Satan are difficult to make. The Exorcist, The Omen, and Rosemary's Baby are a few on a short list of notable exceptions. Those movies are fresh, they move quickly, they have a purpose, and are actually scary.

What was frightening about this movie? Unless people are frightened merely by the mention of "Old Scratch", I am hard pressed to find anything scary about it. Common sense is tossed out the window within the first twenty minutes, and once common sense disappears, so does fear.

If I were heading up that "expedition", the very first thing I would do would be to look into the creation of a vessel in which to place the container that held the prebiotic fluids, but that would still allow me to study it. That would have been prudent, as Satan was inside, and the only lock on the device was from the inside. I would have preferred to have a bit more control over it.

If this is a masterpiece, then so is You Got Served.

Underrated Masterpiece!
An ancient evil has awakened, and it is in liquid form! Father Loomis (Donald Pleasance) receives a key from another, now deceased, priest, and with this key opens himself up to a whole new realm of knowledge that the Roman Catholic church has kept secret for quite some time now. Father Loomis enlists the aid of a brilliant physicist, Prof. Howard Birack (Victor Wong), and some of his graduate students to help him unravel this archaic mystery. Without knowing exactly what they are getting themselves into, several experts in the fields of chemistry, biology, and ancient texts set out to investigate the undisclosed enigma.

Deep within the sanctuary of a run down church lies a dirty little secret few know about. The Prince of Darkness, son of the devil himself, is being held captive in liquid form, and is guarded by only a few lucky priests and nuns. However, the time has come for the Prince to awaken and bring forth his father to wreak havoc. As the Prince, and thus his father, gains his strength, many of the more weak-minded are turned to do the biding of the dark lord. The zombie and bug counts rise as the plot thickens, and this group of science professors and students are in a race against time to stop the forces of evil from inflicting their ill will on the unsuspecting public.

Unfortunately, this film tends to be hidden in the shadows behind Carpenter's more famous "Halloween" and "The Thing." However, that does make this film all that much more of a gem. This is truly one of his great cinematic accomplishments, complete with his own score, a great cast, and stellar effects for the time. The characters are fairly well developed, yet Carpenter manages to accomplish this without dwelling on this aspect of the film. Instead, he submerges the viewer into the intrigue and story line, which there is plenty of.

The plot is completely original, which is something hard to come by in this particular genre. Though Carpenter enlists certain elements that may be stereotypical, such as the Romero-esque zombies and the notion of all-encompassing evil attempting to over-take good, Carpenter adds his own unique twists. One thing that's absolutely superb with regards to this film is that it never devolves into a gore or suspense filled vacuum, completely devoid of meaning. Hidden within the blatant horror facets are religious undertones as well as a love story. Though it may seem that this would not work well for a film of this genre, Carpenter pulls it off as only a horror master could. Interspersed throughout the film one can also find excellently cheesy comic relief, mostly in the form of poor jokes presented by Walter (Dennis Dun).

All in all this movie happens to be one of my favorite films, by one of my favorite directors. Thought the DVD is completely bereft of extras, I highly recommend this film to any fan of the genre! ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Very Good for Kids!
This movie is very entertaining, my dear son loves it. The 1st movie is a classic, but this one does its job entertaining nad a good story.

An Okey sequel
This the squel to the Original secret of Nim. Timmy goes of to forn valley to fullfil hte prosey fortold by Nicodemus before his unfortunate death. Timmy must journey to the lab where the doctor that experiment on the rats is perform mad experiments.

Part of this reminds of redwall. There is a battle near the end against Timmoy and his brother Martin who has gone mad due to experience due to be alter after he was captured by the scientist.

He plans to conquer thorn Valley but timmoy stops him returns him to good. Some cheesy parts it is a musical. That there is a cheesy scence where Jermy pretends to be the great owl. Cons the wodland creatures of there of golden coins.

Some new characters are sela a capterilar and a real pretty female.

Recomend for children 5 and older. Not as intense as the original but still has some scary part. Like at the end when Nimth catch on fire and two cats chase timmoy.

Unfortunatley Jon Debluso who played the voice of the crow Jermy in this a and the original died shorrtly after the Second secret of Nimh was complete.

Timmy is the main character and you barley see his mother in this one. Pluse some of the characters have changed. Brutus the rat in the first one who almost squabobds Miss Frissby is a softy in this one. Justin and Mr.Ages return. I find the song good. I rented this a couple of years ago from blockbuster.

I plan on Buy this and the original after I move out of my house. For my sister are very picky about what I watch. Okey would have been better if It had been more intense like the first one. This was the last movie made in the series. All the people who reviewed it but gave it only star. I think some of these people are to picky. Coome on Eight Leged Freaks was on of the best monster movies I have ever seen the stink critic only gave it 2.

My advice people ligten up there has never been a movie bad enough to be only one star. Except for made Red zone Cuba and the Original Little shop of Horrors.

This degrades the name Secret of nimh
words cannot describe how much i loathe this film. its a major dissapointment compared to the first one.
i really think the writers of this thought the origianl was 'too dark and scary' for the kids today. excuse me! how old were
biggest part of you Nimh 1 lovers when you first watched the first film, i was atleast 5!
the characters break out into song every 5 minutes into the film *hiss*
this is not a sequal, its more of a 'what if' story.
the rats are stealing! the reason they went to thorn valley was so they could stop that. evil martins song was majorly dissapointing, when i first watched it and realised martin was the baddy not to mention there was song's in it, i was thinking 'ho maybe it wont be all that bad, the villains songs are mostly really great' i certainly got that wrong, it is so pathetic compared to Rasputins song from Anastasia, now i know theres some out there that may dislike that (i dunno how Don Bluth was part of that creation too). but that is one of my favourite songs.
okay sorry but people who think the first one was boring because timothy was sick well 'oh dear what a crying shame, its the end of the world' sure but he was suffering from a real illness but as it was said in the film you can die from it. Jim henson died from it for crying out loud. BUT sickness can be treated and can be recovered from. experimentation is worse. if they were abit more realistic martin could have ended up with an ear on his back, i had that idea and would have loved to see that. XD. and that really happened to a real mouse, so nobody moan at me for saying thats not real.

anyway i was so very dissapointed in this film as you can obviously tell. so.. im going to work on my own sequal.

hey any of you nimh 2 haters contact me, i'd like to converse with fellow dislikers.

Pure-D Crap
The first movie was my favorite as a child. When I saw this sequel, I wanted to throw a shoe at through the television. Whoever decided to make this movie must have never saw the original. Simply terrible.

Horrible!
I'll get strait to the point. This is one of the worst movies I have EVER seen. The plot is stupid, the charactors are annoying, the animation is WAY too cartoon-ish unlike the classic original's great animation, and the songs can cause you're ears to bleed. Don't buy this movie, or rent it. Buy the classic original Secret of NIMH instead. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The B picture lives on in the films of John Carpenter. Prince ofDarkness weds supernatural horror with quantum weirdness, when a group of theoretical-physics students, led by their professor, Birack (Victor Wong),joins forces with a priest (Donald Pleasence) to forestall the coming of the Dark Lord. His Darkness has been imprisoned in a cylindrical container as a swirling green plasma since time immemorial, and is now beginning to find his way out.All of this is bolstered by a lot of fancy science talk (all of which is real, I can assure you--someone did his homework), which allows us to settle down, say okey dokey, and enjoy the thrills that this presages. As the title character spreads his contagion through the group of students, holed up in a church to study the sequestered Satan, the film shapes up as an homage to George Romero's Night of the Living Dead, much like Carpenter's earlier film, Assault on Precinct 13.But this adds the twist of quantum physics dovetailing with religious orthodoxy, and in the bargain spawning numerous zombie minions. There are plenty of squishy splatter opportunities, the kind that make some affected people say, "This is a bad movie!" while they grin from ear to ear.Look for Alice Cooper as a street schizo.I think you'll recognize him. --Jim Gay ... Read more

Reviews (75)

One of Carpenters best ¿ a cult horror classic.
I remember seeing this in the theatre when it first came out and there is no mistaking that this is one terrifying horror movie, not because Carpenter can knock up a load of blood on the screen but because it has brains and all the hallmarks of classic Carpenter suspense. If you are a Carpenter fan then you probably know that his earlier shoestring budget works are better than his recent big budget crap fests - The Thing, Assault on Precinct 13, Halloween and The Fog are what makes Carpenter great. Prince of Darkness is no exception to that rule.

The film concerns a secret Christian sect, called the Brotherhood of Sleep, who have kept something evil locked up in one of their churches downstairs in a large glass vessel. When the final brother dies he passes on the secret to Father Loomis (Donald Pleasence) who in turn decided to call in some physics students from the local college to find out what is in the vessel. Soon the students find themselves up against an evil that is waiting to be reborn, and also up against themselves as the evil takes hold of them (sort of turning people in zombies that spray evil water out from their mouths).

The single most amazing thing about the Prince of Darkness is the whole atmosphere. There is very little blood at the start and yet the feelings that are evoked by the wonderful set designs, music and lighting will have the hair on the back on your head sticking up. When the blood does come it is not as shocking, however there is one scene of a dead man outside standing in beetles that gave me sleepless nights for weeks. Imagine that thing standing at the end of your bed at night!

This is not just a horror film either. There is lots of quasi-science going on, including theories on things like tachyon particles that can transmit messages through time (in fact the Brotherhood of Sleep all the have the same dream). So in reality this movie's genre is a horror/sci-fi rather than just horror.

Although the film has certainly dated, it is still leaps and bounds ahead of the horror we put out these days. We like horror films that think a little and Carpenter used to do that for us. Oh how times have changed for this once great author, but let's not be too judgemental because of what he has already given us. Certainly Prince of Darkness ranks up there as one of the tenses and weirdest horror films of all time. Alice Cooper also has a cameo as a possessed wino! Now how can you say no to seeing that!

Bottom line is to let this film take you. Sure it is nearly twenty years old, but it is just so damn original that you have to give the man top marks. A cult classic in every sense of the word and certainly DVD ownership is a must for early Carpenter fans.

As a note Screenwriter "Martin Quatermass" is actually John Carpenter.

Almost Brilliant
This movie nearly proved to be John Carpenter's transcendant masterpiece, but fell terribly short. The premise, concept and storyline could have been triumphant in the history of sci-horror, but it looks like Carpenter rushed through this one. Maybe it was fidgety actors (what the heck was Alice Cooper supposed to be doing, anyway?), low budget, or a series of terrible hangovers that led him from brilliant concept to underdeveloped cinema? I don't know. I'm a huge fan of John Carpenter, from Halloween to The Thing to Big Trouble in Little China. I rushed to the theater to see this one, and sat slack-jawed at the terrible acting, stupid dialogue and poor script. On the other hand, I also realized that if Carpenter or any other decent director decided to go back, rewrite this one and do it right, it could prove to be the best sci-horror film ever. Rent it before you buy it; even the hard-core Carpenter fans may be disappointed.

Excuse me..do you have Satan in a can?
Since the other reviewers have spoiled the plotline (roughly), I will limit my review of this movie to a brief synopsis and try to keep the criticisms on a creative level.

Plot Synopsis: There is an unknown entity contained within a unusual container that has been secretly kept by a Catholic Brotherhood of Monks for several centuries. Understanding that the entity is about to break out of the container, the church is forced to call in a team of physicists to study the container and said entity.

The first hour of the movie blows your mind! Using scientific method to study the container is a a stroke of genius. The viewer is kept on edge as several facts are uncovered through analytic methods such as carbon dating. The plot thickens as the container proves to be of "alien" origin and it's contents produce quantifiable amounts of energy. Furthermore, the researchers even determine that tachyon-based radio transmissions from the future are infuencing thier dreams (don't ask).

All that leads to viewer to the point where you're thinking "damn, this is way cool!". Religious artifacts meet modern science, Very deep and very original. Something like the carbon dating of the shroud of turin maybe. However...

then...then...the movie becomes just another splatterhouse bloodfest. Cliches taken straight out of the Exorcist (ie: pentagrams, demonic possession, 666's, etc.) displace the original "scientific approach" to the problem. People are maimed, massive blood is spilled and all the scientific equipment becomes haywire. Everybody dies and the science vs. the Devil is thoughrougly discarded along with the effect of the first hour of the movie. (Stephen King did the same thing in Rose Red and it disgusts me!)

I have to give the movie only one star for my conviction that John Carpenter took the easy way out and anyone can do that. It was very uncreative of him to do this and it spoiled the movie utterly. It's insulting to anyone with an IQ over 60! Damnit, if I want to see people get thier heads lopped off, I'll go and get Friday the 13th or Nighmare on Elm Street. Why..oh Why this elaborate scientific setup if you're going to turn it into just another slasher movie?

Creative criticism: I understand that this movie was not Ghostbusters. But, oh, would I have loved to seen all that scientific analyisis of that container save the day. Let's see a movie for a change where science meets the Devil and wins! Or at least puts up a good fight.

Overrated baloney
There wasn't an original idea in this film. To hear it referred to as scary, or worse yet, a masterpiece, curdles the yogurt I just ate.

From the nonsense espoused in the physics class, to the priest begging the physics teacher to help him, to students who are "masters" but don't really know their subject matter well (and what that means is that the creators of this film didn't do their research), to the first few pages of a several thousand page book divining all of the secrets we needed to know about what was happening, to (once again) poor homeless beggars being mind controlled...I was literally cringing and laughing through the entire movie.

Not to mention the truly horrific writing. "You will not be saved by the Holy Ghost. You will not be saved by the god Plutonium. In fact, YOU WILL NOT BE SAVED!" *raucous laughter*

Apparently good films about Satan are difficult to make. The Exorcist, The Omen, and Rosemary's Baby are a few on a short list of notable exceptions. Those movies are fresh, they move quickly, they have a purpose, and are actually scary.

What was frightening about this movie? Unless people are frightened merely by the mention of "Old Scratch", I am hard pressed to find anything scary about it. Common sense is tossed out the window within the first twenty minutes, and once common sense disappears, so does fear.

If I were heading up that "expedition", the very first thing I would do would be to look into the creation of a vessel in which to place the container that held the prebiotic fluids, but that would still allow me to study it. That would have been prudent, as Satan was inside, and the only lock on the device was from the inside. I would have preferred to have a bit more control over it.

If this is a masterpiece, then so is You Got Served.

Underrated Masterpiece!
An ancient evil has awakened, and it is in liquid form! Father Loomis (Donald Pleasance) receives a key from another, now deceased, priest, and with this key opens himself up to a whole new realm of knowledge that the Roman Catholic church has kept secret for quite some time now. Father Loomis enlists the aid of a brilliant physicist, Prof. Howard Birack (Victor Wong), and some of his graduate students to help him unravel this archaic mystery. Without knowing exactly what they are getting themselves into, several experts in the fields of chemistry, biology, and ancient texts set out to investigate the undisclosed enigma.

Deep within the sanctuary of a run down church lies a dirty little secret few know about. The Prince of Darkness, son of the devil himself, is being held captive in liquid form, and is guarded by only a few lucky priests and nuns. However, the time has come for the Prince to awaken and bring forth his father to wreak havoc. As the Prince, and thus his father, gains his strength, many of the more weak-minded are turned to do the biding of the dark lord. The zombie and bug counts rise as the plot thickens, and this group of science professors and students are in a race against time to stop the forces of evil from inflicting their ill will on the unsuspecting public.

Unfortunately, this film tends to be hidden in the shadows behind Carpenter's more famous "Halloween" and "The Thing." However, that does make this film all that much more of a gem. This is truly one of his great cinematic accomplishments, complete with his own score, a great cast, and stellar effects for the time. The characters are fairly well developed, yet Carpenter manages to accomplish this without dwelling on this aspect of the film. Instead, he submerges the viewer into the intrigue and story line, which there is plenty of.

The plot is completely original, which is something hard to come by in this particular genre. Though Carpenter enlists certain elements that may be stereotypical, such as the Romero-esque zombies and the notion of all-encompassing evil attempting to over-take good, Carpenter adds his own unique twists. One thing that's absolutely superb with regards to this film is that it never devolves into a gore or suspense filled vacuum, completely devoid of meaning. Hidden within the blatant horror facets are religious undertones as well as a love story. Though it may seem that this would not work well for a film of this genre, Carpenter pulls it off as only a horror master could. Interspersed throughout the film one can also find excellently cheesy comic relief, mostly in the form of poor jokes presented by Walter (Dennis Dun).

All in all this movie happens to be one of my favorite films, by one of my favorite directors. Thought the DVD is completely bereft of extras, I highly recommend this film to any fan of the genre! ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Movie is Good But DVD is Bad
One of the better made for TV movies, but the DVD copy I got is of a poor quality (although watchable)!If your a Val Fan its worth the low end price! Otherwise if you want a better than VHS quality recording then pass on this one and wait for the 2nd generation print!

SHE GAVE UP A DREAM AND NOW ALL SHE HAS IS HER MEMORIES
A woman who gave up college to marry her boyfriend, becomes a widow soon after her husband is sent to vietnam ... Read more

Reviews (5)

see your past and your future
one of the best there is to see ann arbor in 1970

TOUCHY TABOO TOPICS........
This one's fairly well-hidden, after all when I originally saw it a few conservative [ahem!] audience members walked out in disgust just as Brad Davis, Karen Allan and Jameson Parker decided to become 'close' friends - nothing shocking, but slightly too much back then and probably today. [Yes, it does somewhat touch on the world of the bi-sexual, or is it just experimentation? It is also a rather good movie about EMOTIONAL CONTACT between three young people.]

It covers THAT radical period in our history [Viet-Nam and all of that!] - students exploring and discovering various 'things'. Don't ever mix love and politics I guess!

BUT it's more of a memory play - along the lines of a modern 'Our Town'. These are also great minor performances in the movie - the conservative guy who turns radical with deadly results.

MISS Brad Davis spontaneous talent - gone too soon - something of the Dean quality there and Dean would probably have approved of this movie.

Also equally stellar? Mr. Parker and Ms. Allen for just daring to be so bold!

Bravo!

[Then there's also the somewhat period but 'based on fact' - "Jules and Jim" - not forgetting "Sunday, Bloody Sunday"]

They shared everything. why not each other?
The most resonant element of director Rob Cohen's film is the music score by Jim Steinman, which includes the melody that was later recorded as Total Eclipse of the Heart. Otherwise this tale of a supposed menage-a-tois between Harvard university students Brad Davis, Karen Allen and Jameson Parker is as dramatic as the cartoon opening and closing sketches. The screenplay by Ezra Sacks attempts coverage of the Vietnam era from 1967 to 1971 from a student activist point of view, but the tri-romance hardly seems from the same era since it isn't until towards the end that there is any suggestion of bigamy. There is also even less suggestion of homosexuality interest between Davis and Parker. When the 3 finally go into the same bedroom, the camera is left outside and the door closed. Their lack of involvement in activism is paralled with the radicalisation of a Texan boy scout who comes to Harvard at the same time and ends up a terrorist, and highlighted by a campus riot that comes out of nowhere. Even the Vietnam connection as a comment on the relationship and vice versa doesn't work. Sacks opens with Parker reuniting with Allen in "the present" before we start flashbacking to 1967, with Davis' absence pre-empting the outcome, and Cohen supplies matching love scene montages. Davis' has steam so apparently is more erotic and ends abruptly, whilst Parker's is set to Chances Are and ends more positively. Sacks has 2 lines I liked - a technique of breaking into a glass window "I saw it on I Spy or was it The Untouchables", though Cohen repeats it, and "Only men would come up with a draft lottery using balls". Utilising period TV and photographic images - the assassinations of the Kennedy's and Martin Luther King - and a series of bad wigs, the only sense of reality and truth comes in a moment when someone sings the Star Spangled Banner to TV closure. Davis has the impossible charming/wild man role, not helped by his looking older than the others, and the best he can do is stare child-like for vulnerability. Allen doesn't have a strong screen persona so it's easy to think one is watching Amy Irving or Janet Margolin or Brooke Adams. Of the 3, Parker probably comes off best even when saddled with a Colonel Sanders look. His character's basic dullness is probably the reason he needs to be reunited with Allen. Even when the competition is Davis, anyone that prefers to experiment with rats rather than go to an Ingmar Bergman film is definitely worth reconsidering as a partner. Watch for Shelley Long as a photographer, and Daniel Stern, billed as Dan.

I was an extra in this movie
I got paid $35.00 for 12 hours work. Brad Davis pushed me in the critical student protest scene. I'm the one in the blue sweater.

A warm, evocative look at the campus 60's
A story set in the 1960's of the imagination, A Small Circle of Friends by the use of a young and almost self conscious cast manages to convey the wonder,possibilities and awkwardness of the time.

While giving an idealized view of Ivy League life of the period a viewer familiar with the time will still find so much that is achingly real.

In a word the show is evocative. There is a scene were Jameson Parker stands in the rain reading aloud the names of men killed in Vietnam as apparantly uncaring crowds pass by. Been there-done that and seeing it again brought back the feelings.

That is the strength of this movie. It may not be great art but it is good cinema. It lets you look back and see and it punches the right buttons. It is well worth the watching. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Better on VHS!!!
This is the WORST transfer to DVD I've ever seen!!! I think the VHS copy looks and sounds better, do NOT waste your money!!! ... Read more