Reviews (15)

Classic Early Hitchcock!
Made just one year before Hitchcock scored big with 'The 39 Steps', this is the work of an amateur genius. Of course not in the same league as later Hitchcock classics, or even close to his British masterpieces; 'The 39 Steps' or 'The Lady Vanishes'. But still, 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is a great film and arguably better than the 1956 remake with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. A British curio from the young master of suspense. The film is very British in essence and the accents can get a bit heavy at times and make some of the dialogue tough to follow. Peter Lorre shines as the memorable villain, this was his first english speaking role. Just 3 years after he was immortalized playing mild-mannered and plump Hans Beckert, the child murderer from Fritz Lang's 'M'. And also Hitchcock added his typical surreal touch, this time it is a patch of white hair on Peter Lorre's head. The memorable suspenseful ending is great. An OK thriller from the master that has less to offer than his later films but still holds it's own. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 6!

Unmitigated Pleasure
Happy young English couple Bob and Jill Lawrence go on holiday to St Moritz with adorable daughter Betty. Nice Frenchman Louis makes friends with them. He dances with Jill of an evening. Suddenly a bullet comes through a window and Louis is dead. Dying, he directs Jill to the shaving brush in his bedroom. There is a message concealed there that must be delivered to the British Consul. Bob finds the message but before he can deliver it he gets another: We have your little girl. Keep your mouth shut or else. Back in Britain, the Foreign Office cotton on that the couple are sitting on some information and urge them to part with it. There is an assassination attempt afoot on some visiting foreign bigwig and Louis' note is essential to averting it. Bob and Jill keep mum but Bob heads down to the back streets of Wapping to follow a lead on where his daughter might be...

It's classic early Hitchcock. It's also classic rather later Hitchcock as it's the one movie of his own that Hitchcock remade, directing a much glossier version in 1956 with James Stewart and Doris Day. Hitchcock was a lot better at remaking Hitchcok than Gus van Sant will ever be but the original is a real joy. It's set in the glorious world of 1930s British Hitchcock movies, a world of plucky stuff-upper-lipped British people, sinister foreigners (here in particular the great Peter Lorre at his most magnificently malign), men from the foreign office with bowler hats, burly coppers, mysterious goings on, secret agents, dastardly shootings, dark, shadowy staircases, hidden messages and, of course, this being Hitchcock, grand set-pieces: here a brilliant scene at the Albert Hall where the assassination is planned for a climactic moment in a concert when the percussion will mask the sound of the gun. It's not a masterpiece like "the Thirty-Nine Steps" or "The Lady Vanishes" but it is palpably from the same stable and, from start to finish, an enormous pleasure to watch.

Why don't they make 'em like this anymore?
I disagree with Hitchcock's own assessment of The Man Who Knew Too Much. This is the only one of his own movies he felt the need to remake in Hollywood, claiming the original was amateurish.

I much prefer the first version to the padded out re-telling with James Stewart. Certainly the fifties version has better production values, but it loses some of the atmosphere and humour of this version, and - crucially - some of the pace. Also, this earlier version benefits immensely from the mighty presence of Fritz Lang's favourite actor Peter Lorre as one of the bad guys.

Leslie Banks and Edna Best are brilliant as the married couple who witness a murder, have their daughter kidnapped and - naturally, being a Hitchcock thriller - are plunged into an underworld of twisted deception and danger they barely knew existed.

Best is far fiestier than Doris Day in the remake. There's actually a case for comparing the two films from a feminist perspective and wondering how things went so backwards in the twenty years between the two.

But just as interesting is a comparison of the pace: this version of The Man Who Knew Too Much is a honed, quickfire, witty, charming and engaging affair. The later one - while still good - is a little weightier.

Anyway, excellent performances, good storytelling by a master director on the up. Not perhaps as reknowned or as well-loved as The 39 Steps or The Lady Vanishes but certainly worth adding to your collection.

The transfer is OK. It isn't going to win any prizes, but it's fine for a film of this vintage and you certainly won't spend the duration of the movie thinking about it - you'll get too involved in the twists and turns of this first-rate thriller. At the end you'll probably ask: "Why don't they make 'em like that anymore?"

An Oldie but Goodie!
I just rented a movie of Alfred Hitchcock's "The Man Who Knew Too Much", the 1934 version with actor Peter Lorre. Although it is really old, it is still a very good and entertaining movie!
Although I enjoyed the movie's suspense and sometimes humor (like the father of the kidnapped girl and his friend were singing along with the others but they were really telling what they saw to solve the girl's disappearance), I have noticed two things interesting about this movie:

1. When the father and his friend went to the dentist's office (they obviously knew that a henchman works there), I got a good look at an actual 1930s dentist office! It looks dark and crude compared to today's dental offices. The instruments looked scary, and what I have noticed is that the dentist never used novocaine! But he did use "gas" trying to knock out the father (but failed, since the dad knew the dentist was a henchman -- the father instead knocked out the dentist!)....but what got me was that the gas tank looks old-fashioned.

2. Remember how the 1939 movie "Gone With the Wind" shocked movie watchers with the word "damn", that was said by Rhett Butler? Ok, THIS MOVIE I am talking about was in 1934...and there are the word "damn" that was said TWICE!! Why weren't the movie goers shocked then?? This must not have been a popular movie at the time.
If you haven't seen this movie, go watch it! It is NOT a boring movie, but a good one, even though it was made in 1934!

A CULT FILM AMONG THE FANS OF THE GREAT ALFRED HITCHCOCK.
Alfred Hitchcock is one of the key figures in the universal cinematography, and movies like "Psycho", "The Birds", "Vertigo" and "North By Northwest" (among many others) are the proof of why Hitchcock reached the status of genius. However, this movie, one of his earlier efforts is far from being genial.

Hitchcock made two versions of "The Man Who Knew Too Much", the first version was filmed in black & white, and sometimes seems like it was directed by a rookie. Hitchcock himself wasn't completely satisfied with his work, so he remade the film, this time with a better cast, and with more experience under his belt. However, this first version is one of the most beloved movies for the fans of Hitchcock.

Despite of not having too much suspense, despite of some poor technical aspects, and despite some of the little details seem wrong, "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is an entertaining movie with a very charismatic villain (Peter Lorre, as Abbott), but the main reason to see this movie is to watch one of the earlier works of the great Alfred Hitchcock. ... Read more

Amazon.com

George A. Romero monkeys with nature in this gripping and fearful tale based on the novel by Michael Stewart. Allan Mann (John Beghe) is a law student who's hit by a truck while jogging, leaving him a quadriplegic. Luckily, his scientist friend Geoffrey (John Pankow) is experimenting with capuchin monkeys, making them smarter with injections of human genetic material. Geoffrey arranges with Melanie (Kate McNeil)--who's working on an experimental program that matches monkeys with paraplegics to perform guide-dog functions--to train his prize subject, Ella (Boo), to act as Allan's helper. Allan is paralyzed from the neck down, confined to a wheelchair he moves by working a lever with his mouth. He's really vulnerable. Ella can fetch things and do errands, and a real emotional bond develops between Mann and monkey. Too strong a bond, it turns out, as Allan begins to experience dreams from the monkey's-eye view (capuchin-cam), Ella's boosted intelligence giving her the residual benefit of a telepathic ability in which the monkey begins to act out Allan's subconscious rage. Allan's nurse, former girlfriend, doctor, even his mother are terrorized by the creepy capuchin, leading to a showdown between Ella and Allan himself. With Allan trapped in a house, alone with a super-intelligent and malevolent monkey, there is plenty of suspense to make you rip holes in your upholstery. But perhaps even more tension could have been wrung out of this story if Ella had been more sympathetic (being as she was the victim of a scientific experiment gone bad), her wicked antics the acts of a kind of exterminating angel. Performances are brilliant by both Ella and Jason Beghe, who turns in one of cinema's most accurate and intelligent depictions of a high-level quadriplegic character. --Jim Gay ... Read more

Reviews (17)

Romero's best
I never cared too much for Romero's zombie movies, but I've always thought "Monkey Shines" is an extremely good movie. -His best, actually. It's a brilliant script, and the acting is superb. A very suspensful movie from start to finish. I have the first of its two DVD releases from MGM, but unfortunately the piture quality is not all that sharp (-only slightly better than VHS, I'd say), and therefore no more than acceptable. This is not the first somewhat sloppy disc from MGM, so they better shape up if they want happy costumers. -In their defense I must add that I haven't seen the newest edition, but this Hitchcock-like thriller deserves to look a lot better than this.

One of the forgotten gems of the 80's
"Night of the Living Dead" fanatics will disagree, but in my opinion "Monkey Shines" represents George Romero at the top of his game. (Okay, I love "Creepshow", too.) It is one of the most well-crafted suspense movies I have ever seen. It takes a potentially ludicrous scenario and knocks your socks off with it. A quadriplegic law student named Alan (excellently played by the underrated actor Jason Beghe), develops a psychic bond with his nurse-maid monkey, Ella. Alan understandably has a short temper and no sense of humor about his condition; he's not aware, however, that the confused but well-meaning Ella has been acting upon his violent revenge fantasies. It all comes to a head one dark and stormy night when Ella finally goes over the edge and menaces her master endlessly, despite vain rescue attempts by his pals.
How many ways can a little monkey torment a grown man? Plenty, it turns out, if you can't move like Alan. His claustraphobia and terror are wonderfully and effectively splashed across the screen by both Beghe and Romero's camera. The supporting cast, especially the two actors playing his overbearing mother and his best friend Geoffrey (forgive me, I can't remember their names at the moment), is superb. And if the suspense-packed final 30 minutes of this movie don't give you goosebumps a-plenty, you'd better check your pulse.
A couple flaws:
1. An overly cheesy ending preceded by a lame "final scare" (which I hear was forced upon Romero by the studio).
2. A bizarre sex scene which induces either head-scratching confusion or incredulous laughter.
3. The whole "mad scientist" aspect of the plot: WHY exactly does Geoffrey's intelligence-boosting potion wind up linking Ella to Alan psycically? Not explained.
But these flaws are far from fatal. They can be easily ignored, in favor of the immense enjoyment factor of the movie as a whole. Spooky, suspenseful, and frequently touching, it's a great "popcorn" movie. Bravo, George!

Killer Psycho Monkey
This is actually one of the funniest movies ive ever seen in my life. From the killer psycho monkey to the man in the wheelchair, this movie will have you roaring in laughter. Although this movie is disguised as a horror, it is actually a comedy(not meant to be a comedy.) When you see this little monkey kill someone it is so funny that if your parents walked in on you theyd think you are on drugs because you are laughing so hard at something so stupid.But this is whats so great about the movie, its so stupid that its funny. I mean they never even explain why this monkey testicals kills people, it just goes on a killing rampage and doesn't stop until it feeds it thirst for blood. This is definately a must see movie.Everyone who talks negatively about this movie is either blind or has no sense of humor.

The greatest movie since Tremors
I was blown away by this movie. This is a very artsey movie and the screen play is fantastic. I laughed through a lot of the movie, but it was filled with suspense. I recommened this movie to everyone, it is a great movie. Yale is better then Harvard Will, yes it is.

Holy Monkey!
This was the funniest movie I have ever seen and should definitely be re-released in the movie theaters so the younger generations can experience the wonderful tale of "Monkey Shines." While select scenes are a tad on the vulger side (a.k.a. the sex scene--what was that!?)the rest of the movie is burned in my mind forever as the best movie ever to play in the theater.
P.S.-Shout out to the swim team-I know all of you truly love "Monkey Shines" ... Read more

Amazon.com

William Castle's tribute to the gothic horrors of the 1930s is a ghoulish spin on Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by way of Eyes Without a Face. The mysterious Baron Sardonicus (Guy Rolfe) lives in a lonely Central European castle, hiding his face behind a mask and his sadism behind aristocratic manners. Neither remains hidden for long as he pressures a London doctor (Ronald Lewis) into working miracles on his hideously disfigured face. Oskar Homolka steals the film as the Baron's loyal, long-suffering servant Krull, who wields surgical knives and slimy leeches in his reign of torture. Castle, less a stylist than a showman, has little feeling for mood but knows how to stage a shock and spring a gimmick, and this film features a doozy: the audience-participation "Punishment Poll," hosted by Castle himself in a clever (if improbable) break before the film's satisfyingly devious finale. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (16)

MR. SARDONICUS HAS MAKE-UP THAT STILL IS UNSURPASSED!!!
WHEN I FIRST SAY MR. SARDONICUS WHEN IT WAS RELEASED IN THEATERS, I WAS AMAZED AT THE MAKE-UP EFFECTS USED TO CREATE MR. SARDONICUS. AFTER MANY YEARS OF WATCHING HORROR AND SCI-FI, I STILL FEEL THAT MR. SARDONICUS RATES AS ONE OF THE BEST OF ALL TIMES. FOR A MOVIE MADE AT THAT TIME, THE ACTING AND STORY LINE WAS UNIQUE AND AS ALWAYS A WILLIAM CASTLE PRODUCTION OF QUALITY. AS ONE WHO HAS BOUGHT OVER 200 DVD's FROM AMAZON.COM, I AM ALLOWED TO RELIVE THE 50's, 60'S, AND 70'S OF HORROR THAT WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE SO AVAILABLE. THANKS!!!

Mr. Sardonicus: eternal victim of THE PUNISHMENT POLL?
I organized a screening of this film for a college audience several years ago... everyone left with permanent smiles on their faces, due to the hilarious melodrama and sadistic nature of this early '60s chestnut.

Mr. Sardonicus is filthy rich, but has paid a price for his wealth with a mysterious facial disfigurement. He resorts to obscuring his (presumably) hideous, ugly mug behind a creepy mask, and residing in a lofty castle in the middle of nowhere. Believing his disfigurement is somehow reversible, he tests the limits of human endurance by torturing everyone in his immediate vicinity in order to contrive a remedy for his tragic condition. His wife, who remains in the loveless marriage out of fear of her crazed husband, enlists the assistance of an old friend: a physician who has made some remarkable breakthroughs with patients suffering from paralysis. One comes to discover, over the course of a new battery of treatments, how Sardonicus acquired his horrible disfigurement - and why exactly he's become such a flamboyant misanthrope.

This film was another staging opportunity for director William Castle's penchant for gimmickry... this time around, Castle concocted THE PUNISHMENT POLL. Moviegoers were issued small glow-in-the-dark cards, featuring a fist with thumb outstretched. In the tradition of the Roman arenas, where the audience decided whether a vanquished gladiator should live or die, Castle supposedly let the attendees of the film decide the fate of Mr. Sardoncius. Should one pick MERCY (thumb up) or NO MERCY (thumb down) after witnessing the trials of this ruthless rogue? Allegedly, the movie theater manager would tabulate the votes (in the dark, no less - hence, the G-I-T-D cards) and screen the ending of the film the majority of the audience voted for. Castle maintained that it was almost always the ending where Sardonicus received NO MERCY, and thus this was the conclusion that most people have seen.

Castle claimed in his autobiography that they did, in fact, film the alternate ending where Sardonicus received MERCY, so that movie theaters could have it on hand in the unlikely event that the audience was in a forgiving mood. Other sources claim this is clearly not true, and that Castle only stated this alternate ending existed so as to give his gimmick the appearance of being authentically credible. Among many points of the latter argument: Castle's appearance towards the conclusion of the film resoundingly encourages the audience to vote for NO MERCY (paraphrasing: 'Did you see the horrible things he did to that girl?', etc.). I'm hoping this DVD release will the record straight, once and for all. Who knows - maybe this alternate ending really has been sitting in a film vault for forty years, after previously being 'rarely screened' ...?

I am also curious to see if Columbia / Tri-Star will be including a reproduction copy of an original PUNISHMENT POLL card, ala the reproduction of the Ghost Viewer that was included in the DVD release of 13 GHOSTS. If so, this would be the icing on the cake of an undoubtedly great release - which, incidentally, has never been commercially available in the United States in any format until now.

If you like this Castle film, check out: HOMICIDAL, STRAIT-JACKET, and the original 13 GHOSTS... all newly released on DVD.

Scary
This is a very scary movie because of his face and his father's face!! so LOOK OUT!!

The infamous William Castle "Punishment Poll" horror flick
With a film from producer-director William Castle the question is never what is the plot of the film but rather what gimmick has the master of horror schlock come up with this time around. For his 1961 release "Mr. Sardonicus" the gimmick was the "Punishment Poll," which supposedly gave the audience the choice of how the film should end. Of course this is not going to be as much fun as the tingling seat, special viewing glasses for ghost-vision, or even the insurance policy to cover you in the event the film scared you to death, but you have to admit that even with DVDs there are limits to what can be done. The irony is that with the DVD format you really could choose between alternative endings-if only Castle had filmed one in the first place.

Sir Robert Cargrave (Ronald Lewis) is a noted neurosurgeon who is summoned from England by her former lover Maude (Audrey Dalton) to a castle in Gorslava where she lives with her husband Baron Sardonicus (Guy Rolfe). The baron always wears a mask when he comes out of his room and eventually he tells Sir Robert the story of a lottery ticket and a ghoulish visit to a graveyard at midnight. Sardonicus wants Sir Robert to use his skills to cure his affliction, even if it means using new and untested methods to gain success, so that Maude, who was married off by her father to the baron, might finally love her husband. When Sir Robert balks at the idea, Sardonicus reveals an alternative plan for making the baroness more sympathetic to his condition.

"Mr. Sardonicus" has every single one of the traditional elements of a gothic horror story. Our hero, a man of science, travels to a remote location in eastern Europe, where he meets the terrified local townsfolk, before heading on to an ancient castle on a hill surrounded by mist, where he is met by the deformed assistant to the mysterious baron, whose beautiful wife is held hostage to her husband's dangerous whims. But the film creates a nice gothic atmosphere (until the end) and the production values do not cheapen the experience but compare quite favorably to the Universal monster movies of the 40s and 50s. Cargrave is a bland hero and the effectiveness of the film rests on the character of the baron, who cuts a compelling figure as he speaks from behind his mask. More than anyone else, it is Rolfe who prevents the films from descending to the level of camp, although Oscar Homolka as the baron's disfigured but loyal servant Krull, turns in a solid performance along those same lines as well.

Rather surprisingly, not only the story of how Sardonicus came to be this way but our look at the man behind the mask comes rather early in the film, at which point this horror film starts to turn into a medical problem-solving effort. Then we get to Castle's gimmick and the whole thing collapses. The "Punishment Poll" consisted of getting a rather large card when you entered the theater that could be raised to signify "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" when Castle appeared on the screen to conduct the poll. Supposedly the majority vote would apply, but Castle knew full well what his blood thirsty audience would want to see at the end of the film, so an alternative ending was never even filmed. Besides, Castle made it clear what sort of person would wimp out and give mercy to the title character. The only problem is that the little boy in the back row could have come up with a more painful punishment for Sardonicus than this rather low-keyed ending. Equally important, Castle's jovial appearance completely derails the film's momentum and dispels the gothic atmosphere.

"Mr. Sardonicus" is an interesting little footnote to the history of horror films and if you have never seen a William Castle film then sooner or later you should check one of them out. There is a short documentary on this DVD about "Taking the Punishment Poll" that provides some insights into the film and the cast from film historians (the key one being that Castle's films are more about fun than fright). "Mr. Sardonicus" is one of several William Castle productions that Columbia is putting out on DVD, including "Homicidal," "13 Ghosts," and "Strait-Jacket," a couple of which have trailers on this DVD.

Major letdown
I am sorry, but this movie struck me as being incredibly boring! There are absolutely no surpises nor horrors in stock. If you want gothic atmosphere, surely there are a dozen better movies at hand here somewhere. The picture/sound quality of this DVD was very good, but this alone didn't save this bundle of misery. ... Read more

Reviews (103)

beautifully restored film with lots of dvd bonus features
It doesn't get much better than this -- a Hitchcock film starring Ingrid Bergman, Cary Grant and Claude Raines! What a treat it is to see all of this talent -- behind, and in front of, the camera. The story of a star-crossed romance set against the backdrop of post-WWII Miami and Rio, the film has a great script and terrific acting. The direction is awesome; Hitchcock did some wonderful camera work here -- innovative tracking and crane shots that are a delight to see.

This Criterion Collection DVD edition is more expensive but I think it's worth it -- a lot of time and effort have been taken to restore the film and the soundtrack, and it really looks and sounds great. Also, the many bonus features are excellent: excerpts from 'The Song of the Dragon', a two-part Saturday Evening Post short story on which the film was based; fascinating production correspondence by David O. Selznick, Ingrid Bergman, J. Edgar Hoover and the head of the Production Code Administration (censors); rear projection and production stills, including wonderful shots of the scaffolding used to get that breathtaking crane shot from a stairtop balcony right down to the key in Bergman's hand; script excerpts from deleted scenes and alternative endings; a music and sound effects only track; trailers; the complete 1948 Lux radio Theatre version of the story, starring Ingrid Bergman and Joseph Cotten; terrific voiceover narration with film scholar Marian Keene discussing artistic choices and film historian Rudy Behlmer discussing technique; and a touching story about the fate of the Unica key -- the one used in the film. Language and subtitles are English only.

This is a wonderful package for one of Hitchcock's best films. Highly recommended.

Beautifully Restored Film Classic
This review refers to the Criterion Collection DVD of Alfred Hitchcock's "Notorious".....

The master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock, gives us another edge of your seat thriller. He combines, mystery,romance, and the evil's of Nazism in this chilling story.It takes place shortly after WWII. Alicia(Ingrid Bergman) is a woman with a past. Her father has just been convicted of spying. American agent Devlin(Cary Grant), enlists Alicia to infiltrate a Nazi spy ring.After her father's conviction, Alicia can prove her own patriotism by cooperating in this manner. She finds herself right in the thick of things and her own life in danger after she goes as far as to marry Alex(Claude Rains), one of the very powerful, rich and dangerous ring leaders of the group. Alex is on to her and tries to methodically get rid of his beautiful wife.Can the handsome "Dev" rescue the woman he has come to love so much before tragedy strikes.?

You'll delight to find Hitch's trademarks all through the film. The camera angles are definitive,the trademark staircase scene, the passion between Grant and Bergman electrifying,Claude Rains is terrifying, and the story a rollercoaster of suspense filled moments. There isn't a more perfect film I can think of.

Looking for Hitch: A little over an hour in you can have a little drink with him.(Not too much though, the Champagne needs to last the night at this party).

I am always happy to report on a great restoration of a classic film. This one made in 1946 is a beautiful, crisp, clean transfer to this DVD. The Black and White images are sharp and you will notice the attention that was made to every detail during the filming. The tears streaming down Ingrid's face look like drops of crystal. It's amazing. The sound is in Dolby Dig Mono and is very good. There are lots of "extras" on this edition. Among them is some great commentary from Marian Keane(she is a film scholar and talks alot about camera angles and other pertinent facts to the film) which you can listen to during the film if you choose, You can isolate that wonderful soundtrack,there is correspondce between Selznick and others connected to the film,TWO booklets, one about Hitch's Notorious and other films and another listing Criterions releases. And there is much more(see tech info for complete list).There are also subtitles which may be helpful to hearing impaired viewers.

You do get your money's worth on this one. However, if you are not as interested in the extras and are just looking to view this fabulous classic, there is another edition by Anchor Bay which costs much less. Although I have not viewed this particular Anchor Bay Release I do have many others by them and have always been more than happy with their treatment of the transfer.

Kick back with Cary, Ingrid and Hitch for a day of suspense and romance..........Laurie

Criterion Disappoints.
This is the first Criterion DVD that I've ever owned. I must say, I was pretty surprised by the price, but promises of extra treatment over standard editions of this movie convinced me to go the extra mile and pay twice as much. Notorious is, perhaps, my favorite movie with Cary Grant. Bergman's performance is excellent, to say the least (I think I'm in love with her now). The way that she passionately kisses Mr. Grant excites like no movies can. The look in her eyes makes her seem as though she is truly in love with him; which is exceptional for "acting". Grant's response seem almost insensitive, rejecting her for her "ways". It's very convincing work. The connection between the two characters amazes me, and the movie seems way ahead of its time. Claude Raines plays an overlooked (but perhaps the most important) performance that amazes me as well. Its definately a movie for all fans of classics to own. There's no doubt, in my mind, that this is deserving of 5 stars. It's probably one of my favorite classic films.

I have no regrets with buying this movie, but I feel very let-down by Criterion. Their attempts do not justify the jacked-up cost. The extras, at best, are pretty disappointing. The RKO radio broadcast (which is the best inclusion) is fairly sub-par in comparison to the film, especially since it was cut short to fit into 60 minutes. The "deleted scenes" and extras are merely text descriptions in most cases. All of this is material that has been in the Internet fan sites for years. As for the quality of the film; I'm neither impressed nor disappointed. The crispness of the film is certainly excpetional, but it almost feels a bit unnatural for such an old film. The "graininess" that many complain of is visable on a high-res TV or monitor (I watched on my standard TV and my PC as well), but it seems to be inherent in the film master itself. Dust particles and artifacts are pretty typical on older movies. Not bad, but not breathtaking. I'm happy with the video and audio quality.

Overall, it's a 5-star movie, but Criterion's effort is a 3 or 4 star attempt for the severe price-inflation. Unless you really must have this version, I can't see why the Anchor Bay release wouldn't be a suitable alternative. The picture quality is different, but each is nice in its own way. I will probably own both (in addition to possible future releases).

Neglected Classic
When I say neglected, I mean in comparison to other Hitchcock films. When people talk about Hitchcock, rarely does this film get mentioned. I think it stands alongside Sir Alfred's best work. Right up there w/ Rear Window, Vertigo and North By Northwest. Spectacular performances by Grant (a CIA g-man doing his job), Bergman ( a woman trapped by her past), Rains (a craven, cowardly, weak mama's boy) and Konstantin (an Austrian actress in her final film role playing the evil and sceming mother). Very realistic, conflicted and not particularly sympthetic characters. Hitchcock displays a perfect knack for creeping dread and a perfect final touch.

Shows How Much Love Hurts
I've always liked Notorious, but, until recently, it hasn't been one of my absolute favorite Hitchcock films. However, recently I've gained an appreciation for Alfred Hitchcock's more personal films. Lighter, more humorous films like The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, North By Northwest, Psycho (Hitch called this a black comedy), The Birds and Frenzy, to name a few, are masterpieces and rank among my favorite films of all time. But the films I have gained much more appreciation for in the past few years are those like Shadow of a Doubt, Vertigo and Notorious. Shadow of a Doubt showed that monsters can live among us, even in the most innocuous of settings and may even be someone we care about. Vertigo showed obsessive love taken to the extreme with deadly consequences. And Notorious shows just how hard it can be for someone to express love for another.

Like in many of Hitchcock's films, the central point of the story is masked by a plotline of suspense and intrigue. In this case, Alicia Huberman (Ingrid Bergman) must marry Alexander Sebastian (Claude Rains), an ex-Nazi in exile in Brazil, in order to infiltrate his organization. With the help of U.S. agent Devlin (Cary Grant), she finds out that Sebastian is stockpiling uranium (the MacGuffin). On the surface, it's a straightforward espionage tale.

However, the film, at its very core, is a tale of frustrated love. Specifically, Devlin can't bring himself to express what he feels for Alicia and must watch helplessly while she marries Sebastian. Devlin knows that he would jeopardize the entire mission if he tells Alicia he loves her and this repression begins to eat him up inside. Even at the beginning of the film when Alicia has fallen deeply in love with Devlin and tell him so, he can't bring himself to return that love, even though he feels just as she does. Cary Grant, usually charming, plays one of his darkest roles brilliantly. He shows his longing for Alicia in every expression on his face. Ingrid Bergman, likewise, shows the frustration of having to marry a man she despises while pining for the affections of the man she truly loves -- a man she thinks doesn't love her. The emotions onscreen are sometimes so raw its almost painful to watch. When Devlin finally tells Alicia how he really feels about her at the climax of the film, the scene ranks as one of the most emotional in screen history.

The movies often make it seem so easy to find true love. In Notorious, however, Alfred Hitchcock shows how painful and just how difficult it is to just say, "I love you" to someone you care about. Everyone has had situations where they were too afraid to tell someone they cared about that they loved him/her and have wondered what would have happened had they done so. It's agonizing to think that you may have missed your chance for happiness with someone who loves you as much as you love them. Alfred Hitchcock brilliantly recognizes those feelings in Notorious -- that's what makes this one of his best. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon.com

Although it lacks the creepy subtleties of Stephen King's celebratednovel, George Romero's underrated adaptation of The Dark Half ranks amongthe best films based on King's fiction, with Romero taking care to honor King'scentral theme while serving up some gruesome gore in the film's much-criticizedfinale. Inspired by King's own admission that he wrote several novels under thepseudonym Richard Bachman, The Dark Half explores the duality of awriter's impulse, ranging from literary respectability to the viscerallycathartic thrills of exploitative pulp fiction.

Author and teacher Thad Beaumont (Timothy Hutton) finds himself torn betweenthose extremes when he "kills" his profitable, pseudonymous alter ego GeorgeStark (the bestselling "dark half" to Thad's light), who then assumes an evil,autonomous form (again played by Hutton) to lethally defend his role in Thad'screative endeavors. Forced to wrestle with this evil manifestation of his ownunformed twin, Thad must fight to protect his wife (Amy Madigan), their twinbabies, and his own survival as an artist. Romero skillfully develops thetwin/duality theme to explore the writer's dilemma, and Hutton is outstanding inhis dual roles, playing Stark (in subtly fiendish makeup) as a redneck rebelwith a knack for slashing throats. Julie Harris adds class in a supporting role,and horror fans will relish Romero's climactic showdown, in which swarms ofsparrows seal Stark's fate. It favors a pulp sensibility with clunky expositionto explain Stark's existence, but The Dark Half is a laudable effort fromeveryone involved. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (23)

Great Movie!
I must say I absolutely loved this movie! Timothy Hutton is one of my favorite actors, and Stephen King is one of my favorite authors, so the movie was perfect! I greatly admire Hutton's ability to play not only the hero, Thad Beaumont, but also the villian, his 'evil twin' George Stark. One scene in particular strikes me. Beaumont, in an effort to discover what Stark's plans are, lets him take over his body, or at least his hand, and askes him questions while Stark writes the answers with Beaumont's hand. Hutton did a wonderful job of acting this scene, making us believe that he was indeed talking to his dark half. Favorite quote in the movie, involves a People Magazine reporter while interviewing Thad Beaumont about his pseudonym George Stark. Reporter: "You'll uh, forgive me for noting, but these behaviors could be interpreted as classic symptoms of schizophrenia." Beaumont: "Yes, I'll forgive you for noting that. I don't think George would, though."

The Better Half?
Following their underated collaboration on the cult horror film Creepshow, author Stephen King and director George A. Romero came together for The Dark Half. While the film boasts a strong performance from Timothy Hutton, and plenty of "chills and thrills", the presentation of the movie on DVD leaves a lot to be desired.

Best selling author and teacher Thad Beaumont (Hutton) hopes to distance himself from his murder novels and from George Stark, the name he has used to anonymously author them. To accomplish this goal, he cooks up a murder of his own: a publicity stunt that should lay Stark to rest forever. But when the people around him are found brutally murdered and his own fingerprints pepper the crime scenes, Beaumont is dumbstruck, until he learns that Stark has taken on a life of his own...and has a gruesome plans to seek revenge against his alter ego. With Beaumont's wife Liz (Amy Madigan) in danger, and Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Michael Rooker) investigating him, he finds himself doubting his very sanity.

Romero has fun translating King's novel for the movies. Hutton is superb as a split personality. The film is genuinely creepy. Given the story, I suppose King worked out a lot of his own frustrations over his career, with this work. Like the aforementioned Creepshow, The Dark Half, is underappreciated. While the film is worth a look...

The DVD, distributed by MGM, loses my total endorsement, thanks to lackluster so called extras, and little care for the film itself. All you get for your money here is the movie's theatrical trailer and a behind-the-scenes booklet. Normally, this kind of thing wouldn't really bother me, but to add insult, the film is only available in the full-screen format??!! C'mon get with it! The film deserves better. If the film was shot in widescreen, you should have the option to see it that way....It is the 21st century after all.

See this underated film--but be advised the DVD is, to put it in a nice way--lacking.

It's Only Half Good.
THE DARK HALF is about a famous writer, Thad Beaumont (Timothy Hutton), who has been writing very successful thrillers under a different name, George Stark. When a little weasle from out of town threatens to blackmail Beaumont and blow his cover, he decides to let the world know that there is no George Stark and that he has been writing the best-selling books all along. But, what if there really is a George Stark? And what if George Stark wasn't totally real, but a part of Thad that was cut away a long time ago? And what if that George Stark came to life and starting killing people like the characters in his books do? That pretty much sums up the plot of THE DARK HALF. The movie ends in a climatic battle of the wills between Thad and George.

The film contains some pretty decent acting, especially by Timothy Hutton who plays both Beumont and Stark. The directing is done by horror master George Romero and is almost faultless. Nevertheless, more so because of a lackluster script than anything else, the movie never reaches it's full potential. The movie has a great premise, an interesting plot, and begins as an enthralling thriller. However, about a third of the way through, things start to loosen up and fall apart. The mood changes and instead of an enthralling thriller, the movie feels more like a semi-suspenseful dark comedy. In the last act, the movie picks up steam again, but not enough to overcome the shortcomings of the second act. It's not a film I would recommend to buy, but it's a great movie to rent.

The divided man.
Thad Beaumont is a writer who goes public about the novels he wrote under an assumed name. Now his fictious counter part, George Stark (his Dark Half) has become a real physical person, and Stark is rather upset that he's been killed off. And now a battle to become the dominate personality has begun. I thought this was a terrific movie. George Romero and Stephen King have been friends a long time, and Romero's care really comes through in the material. Timothy Hutton plays a double role as both the clumsy Thad and the ruthless Stark, and he dose a wonderful job, he was very underrated by the critics. Michael Rooker's Sheriff Pangborn was a nice touch, a good, smart cop who's sympathetic to Thad's problem, at least as much as his rational mind will let him be. All the other characters and actors do a good job. The best is Thad's fellow professor, the least being Thad's wife. The action is rough and mean spirited, I loved it. The gore is actually pretty mnimal, but what's there is impressive. I recoment it whole heartedly.

Hutton's great
Hutton is extremely good in two roles, playing Thad and his evil persona that turned into human form. somewhat of a slow pace, which lags this down a bit, but then the finale when evil Hutton gets ripped apart by all those sparrows that enter into the place is just awesome. there's a lot of evilness to the way Hutton puts it into his character and you can see that when he slices the victims up. ... Read more

Reviews (292)

The Millennium edition is really good.
This review pertains only to the Millennium Edition DVD of Night of the Living Dead.

Okay...as I'd feared, my negative review of the John Russo-massacred "30th Anniversary Edition" of Night of the Living Dead has been lumped unwittingly into this product's review, so I' m writing this one to clarify.

This DVD edition is the best edition I've seen of the film yet. Anchor Bay may have raised the ires of legions of Living Dead fans by releasing the sacrilegious 30th Anniversary Edition, but Elite Entertainment did right by this new edition.

George A. Romero's personal appreciation appears in the back of this DVD -- this immediately restores our faith. And the contents don't disappoint -- the picture and sound are good, and though this doesn't exactly contain the richest batch of bonus materials (sets like the excellent 3-disc edition of Dario Argento's Suspiria and the recent double-disc Re-Animator both feature loads of extras), it is a nice solid collection. You get a Duane Jones interview (sadly with only audio and no image, but still great); an on-camera chat between Judith Ridley (Judy) and Marilyn Eastman (Helen); the hilarious student-film spoof "Night of the Living Bread" by Kevin S. O'Brien (which also appeared in the double-cassette VHS edition); two commentary tracks with Romero, Russo, Russ Streiner, Eastman, Karl Hardman and others. One very illuminating portion of this DVD for non-film-scholars is visually boring but informative -- several histories outlining the beginning of Romero's Latent Image company, on Hardman and Eastman's company, and how the two were married to produce Night of the Living Dead.

THIS is the right edition of Night of the Living Dead, the one to get for both fans and non-fans alike. It includes all the necessary people (notice that Russo, Streiner and Bill Hinzman were included in this release, despite their criminal participation in the 30th Anniversary Edition), and it presents the film the way it wants to be seen.
Now I'm waiting for a deluxe release of Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead...

Mutilation
This 30th Anniversary Edition takes the original Night of the Living Dead movie and throws in a new soundtrack and new scenes. As far as I was concerned, the original movie was perfect as is and this was unnecessary, however I decided to be openminded and give this edition a chance considering that the new material was written by John Russo (who co-wrote the original movie), and has photography (and acting) by Hinzman (who also helped create the original). I was completely let down.

The new scenes include a new introduction, miscellaneous scenes of zombies marching and getting killed by rednecks, and a new epilogue. The miscellaneous scenes sometimes interfere with the flow of the movie, the makeup is less effective, and some of the new extras are terrible. They do a half decent job of editing in the new scenes, but they are still noticeable (for example, the fashions are not quite right). The new introduction and epilogue are ridiculous.

The intro merely establishes that the lead zombie (played by Hinzman) was a criminal when alive. This takes away from one of the films most effective elements: that the zombies could be your next door neighbour or a close friend or relative, but they will still mindlessly try to kill you. Hinzman is obviously older in the frontal shots (the profiles are okay). When he starts attacking two gravediggers, one of the "actors" begins running away then realizes Hinzman was supposed to grab him first, so he actually goes back to the coffin and leans down so Hinzman can grab him!!! The fact they didn't do a second take shows a lack of care.

The epilogue is a "one year later" interview with an insane hellfire and brimstone preacher who survived the carnage. It is stuck in the middle (spoiler warning) of the scene of Duane Jones being killed and the ending credits showing the rednecks disposing of his body!! Talk about interfering with a very effective ending!

You do have the option to watch the original cut (on an excellent print), but you can only watch it with the new soundtrack! The old soundtrack was made up of library music, but it worked excellently. At best, the new soundtrack is mediocre. Sometimes it doesn't even fit the mood of the scene, for example being frantic when the action is more sedate and depressive.

The booklet contains interviews mostly consisting of the actors talking about how "flawlessy" the new scenes were added and how old fans will love the new version (wrong). There is a fun commentary track, but you get the same people (plus others, including Romero) giving the same info on the commentary tracks in the far superior Elite Millennium Edition.

Confusing Reviews
Many of the negative review below are for the Anchor Bay 30th Anniversary Limited Edition which has a new (mediocre) soundtrack and new footage, and have nothing to do with the dvd listed here, so don't get confused by all the negative reviews. This Elite edition is the definitive Night of the Living Dead dvd, approved by George Romero and stacked with extras. I doubt I need to go into what an excellent and important film this is or try to talk you into getting at least one version, so if you are just unsure of which edition to get, this is the one!

Whew, Amazon Really Has Made A Mess of This!
Why would Amazon lump all the reviews of the many editions of this movie together? Holy cow, what a mess! Who the hell knows what you're gonna wind up with, right?

This review is for the "Special Collector's Edition" DVD. The sound and picture quality are excellent, you get some nice extras and there are not one, but two, audio commentaries available for your delight!! Now you can pick up little bits of wisdom that were previously unavailable. Yeah, the movie gets the royal treatment that it deserves. A winner in every sense.

A great film butchered.
This review pertains only to the "30th Anniversary Edition".

I had been collecting George A. Romero's "Living Dead" trilogy on DVD and had purchased this without paying enough attention. Big mistake.

Night of the Living Dead has had some colossally confusing release patterns thanks to a copyright gaffe which had enabled every company under the sun to release the film and profit from it. But of the 'rogue editions' I've seen, nothing is worse than this one.

Notice the list of personnel involved in this project: John Russo, Russ Streiner, Bill Hinzman...anybody missing? That's right: George A. Romero himself. This "30th Anniversary" edition is a collaborated effort by Romero's former colleagues in the Night of the Living Dead crew to rip off Romero's work and make a profit from it.

The result is disastrous indeed. The new footage written and directed by John Russo serve to butcher the original film. Not only do the new scenes not contribute to the story, they look amateurish, mostly due to horrible writing. Russo had always wanted to claim more credit for the success of Night of the Living Dead than was due him; this attempt at appropriating credit for the original film only shows that Romero is the only one who understands the concept of the Living Dead films. Russo's heinous, childish writing and direction -- which are no better than that of the tongue-in-cheek soft-core videographers of, say, Seduction Cinema -- barely rise above the level of beginner film students. And his claim that the new footage matches the old is just ludicrous. Basically Streiner, Russo, Hinzman et al. have raped Romero's film, trying to use their involvement in the original to steal credit from Romero's work, desperately trying to put as much of their handprint onto the original as possible with this 'new footage'. Well, one minute watching Dawn of the Dead will show you that Romero was the filmmaker, and the others were the hacks.

Yet another guilty party in this whole enterprise is Scott Vladimir Licina, who had composed a new score for the film and plays a priest in the new scenes. The new score jars terribly with the old footage, and Licina's acting is atrocious -- reflective of the all-around low quality of the Russo footage.

Skip this one, crucify it, and leave it out for the zombies to chew on. This edition is a disgrace to Romero's legacy. Night of the Living Dead is one of the greatest horror films ever made; don't allow this sacrilegious edition to mislead your perception on the original film. ... Read more

Description

Its code name is 'Trixie,' an experimental government germ weapon that leaves its victims either dead or irreversibly insane. When the virus is accidentally unleashed in Evans City, Pennsylvania, the small community becomes a war zone of panicked military, desperate scientists and gentle neighbors turned homicidal maniacs. Now a small group of citizens has fled to the town's outskirts where they must hide fromtrigger-happy soldiers while battling their own depraved urges. But even if they can escape the madness of this plague, can they survive the unstoppable violence of THE CRAZIES? ... Read more

Reviews (20)

-Wasn't as creepy as you would expect a Romero flick to be.-
Pittsburgh director, George Romero's second film, The Crazies wasn't as creepy as one would expect Night of the Living Dead's younger sister to be. Taking advantage of a larger budget, higher quality film, and featuring more experienced actors, The Crazies never received the same spooky, washed-out look that The Night of the Living Dead had. Lack of creativity wasn't to blame, only directorial inexperience, as the plot is still wonderfully survivalistic.A plane loaded with bacterialogical weaponry crashes, infecting the water supply of a small Pennsylvania town. When the good townspeople begin brutaly murdering each other, the army is sent in to set up a quarantine. Despite it's not being very scary this film is still an important addition to any horror buff's collection.

Little Known but Excellent Romero Film
George Romero's contributions to the horror genre are legendary. Here is the guy who made "Night of the Living Dead" in the late 1960s, single-handedly bringing flesh-eating zombies into the lexicon of millions of horror fans. Two sequels followed with differing levels of success, but Romero's zombie films also inspired several Italian directors, most notably Lucio Fulci and Umberto Lenzi, to churn out a plethora of grue drenched films featuring the shambling dead. Of course, Romero didn't just sit around during the intervals between zombie films; he made other films that, while not as well known as the trilogy of "Dead" films, are eerie in there own right. One of these movies is "The Crazies," sometimes referred to by its alternate title "Codename: Trixie" (a title I like better, for some inexplicable reason). I sing the praises of the DVD revolution in nearly every movie review I write, but seeing an early Romero film with some extra goodies really makes my day. Getting background on a film like this one would never have been possible in the old VHS days.

"The Crazies," shows the deadly implications of a biological weapons accident on a small American town named Evans City, Pennsylvania. An army plane carrying a weapons grade virus known as Trixie crashes in a field outside of town. The military dispatches a team of specialists and cleaners to inspect the damage, and the technicians do their thing and declare the area safe for the residents. In typical paranoid, Vietnam era style, the military hides the potential dangers of the crash, but since no contamination took place the only results are a few wiped brows and some sighs of reassurance. Only a small circle of military high ups will ever realize how close America came to total destruction, for Trixie is a highly communicable virus with no known cure. What a relief!

You didn't think it would end there, did you? C'mon, this is a Romero film! As it turns out, a small quantity of Trixie did leak into the town's water supply. By the time the military realizes this actuality, some of the residents in town start showing signs of infection: a pasty complexion and a propensity to suddenly indulge in bloody violence. The army answers with a bunch of troops decked out in white detox suits armed with automatic weapons. The colonel in charge of the town quickly sets up a quarantine line around the town in an effort to stop the spread of Trixie, but try as he might, he simply lacks the necessary manpower and equipment to know for sure if his efforts are working. No one knows if Trixie moved beyond the borders of the town between the time of the crash to the first signs of infection. Since the army needs to keep the townspeople placated, they put a tight rein on any potentially damaging information. As long as the townspeople play like good little American citizens, everything will turn out for the best. As for Trixie, the army brings in a doctor who helped build the virus in the laboratory, and he starts working on a vaccination right away despite his pessimism about the communicability of the virus and the high probability that it did indeed escape the town's borders. His only hope is to find someone with immunity to the disease and thereby acquire the necessary immunological materials needed to fashion a cure.

Unfortunately for the army, one of the locals is a nurse at the doctor's office. She quickly learns what's going on and takes off to find her husband, a firefighter who is currently battling a blaze that resulted because a Trixie victim went on a rampage. The husband has a few questions himself before he ever meets up with his wife: why are there soldiers dressed in detox suits exchanging gunfire with a local? Why is it so tough to get any answers about what is going on in town? Eventually, husband and wife hook up with a few other locals and the group decides to make a break for the edge of town. The biggest problem with this plan is that several people in the group have Trixie and are slowly wasting away as the hours pass. Simultaneously, the town descends into anarchy, with soldiers and locals blazing away at each other with firearms and explosives. "The Crazies" concludes with the customary Romero ambiguity, as we wonder what will happen to the rest of the country if and when Trixie gets loose.

"The Crazies" is a low budget production that manages to put across a chilling scenario of "what if"? The soldiers do look ominous in those containment suits, and the performances of the cast are quite good considering the no name talent, with special mention going to Lynn Lowry, an amazingly sexy Sissy Spacek look alike who plays Kathy Bolan, a young lady infected with Trixie. Her death scene constitutes one of the more memorable, and upsetting, scenes in the film. A few good gun battles help move the film along, as does the occasional cutaway to officials in Washington, D.C. who consider dropping a nuclear bomb on the town if it looks like Trixie will spread. What really helps the DVD version of the film are the extras: a short interview with Lynn Lowry, a commentary track with Romero, trailers, tons of production stills from the movie, and an informative George Romero biography. "The Crazies" might well be low budget '70s fare, but it's never cheesy thanks to a claustrophobic atmosphere, capable performances, and a great plot.

More bark than bite
Talk, talk, and more talk; with some action scenes randomly inserted. I felt like I was watching C-SPAN with a bad science fiction twist. The movie delves too much in wordy technical political blunders. I wish Romero were more clever in incorporating the social satire with the action as he has done with Dawn and Night. The movie is as bland as a licking a paper plate. The real problem here was the dialogue. I felt like I had to trim fat off a piece of meat to get to the real message underneath this sea of people talking in a room. The movie felt as if it never ventured beyond the same rooms the entire time.

We hear so much about how the virus is so dangerous, yet this point was never illustrated. We do see the corruption of the army just when they break into people's homes and quarantine them and when they go into mild gunfights. That's about it and it only makes a small fraction of the entire movie. It was basically the army and some doctor switching back and forth with arguments about the virus and blah blah blah. There's too much excruciating detail delivered only in words.

Part of the brilliance in filmmaking is using visuals to convey a message in imaginative ways. And there's nothing imaginative about seeing people argue in a little room for hours. I found the arguments between the "rebels" more appealing than the army's. But it still didn't hold up for the entire film. The whole movie revolves around some black army guy arguing with some bearded scientist most of the time. The people who were on the run were secondary, even though I found them more exciting.

"The Crazies" is a movie only for Romero collectors, such as myself. Other than that, I recommend you just get Martin, Creepshow, Dawn, or Night, because this will disappoint you if you were looking for a crazy thriller or political horror film. I do give credit though for Romero's ambition to try and convey a message about Vietnam and the Cold War paranoia, no matter how dull it came out on screen and for that one scene where a guy gets shot through the head, which emphasizes the cruel nature, the characters are in.

Confused? So am I!
This film by George Romero is a fantastically tense movie about when the water supply becomes contaminated and it affects the town that relies on the water supply.

The opening scene is quite possibly one of the most horrific I have ever seen. A brother is trying spook his sister out and his sister doesn't like it. She goes to tell mommy while the boy finds out that dad has gone mad pouring kerosene all over the house. The little girl is still trying to wake mommy up when she pulls the sheet off to find that mommy has an axe in her neck! Soon enough dad has set the house on fire and is outside while the rest of his family are left to burn.

The scenes with governmental agencies are complicated. Nobody understands anything, everybody is at each others throats and the main line which illustrates this all is when one doctor incensed by the lack of control he is allowed on this is " I cannot believe how shoddy this has been organized "

The mayhem in this movie doesn't let up. What with priests setting themselves on fire and a granny stabbing an army soldier with a knitting needle ( genuinely frightening and perhaps one of the most surprising scenes of all )

The end will definitely leave you confused but I won't say too much more. I've given enough

Incidentally I'm surprised this flopped at the box office. It really is a good intelligent horror movie. But then I guess when people think of horror movies they tend to think of those big dumb Hollywood horror movies with absolutely no shock value whatsoever ( " it's all gore they want " ). Yes this film is graphic in places but is done so with more thought and precise control even when it's method is in chaos. And also I can't believe this is the same director who gave us the atrocious Creepshow 1 & 2! What was Georgie thinking?

A forgotten gem
If you're like me, you're finding out about this little flick after seeing Romero's more heard of movies. I had a lot of expectations for this movie: I expected terror and gore, and this really only offers the second. i guess when you think about the possibility of this sort of thing happening is pretty horrid, but as far as movie scares, this comes up short. Luckily, the characters are well written and fleshed out, despite some amatuer acting. Oh, and if you like Richard Liberty, you might be mortified by the sick thing he does in this. Brilliant!!! ... Read more

Reviews (292)

Truly a cult classic!!!!!!!!!
When I first saw this film it scared the Hell outa me. George A Remero is a genuis. this film spawned a new genre of horror movies like "Halloween," and The "Evil Dead" series. This film is definately the best horror movie of all time. Although Black and White films are mostly corney and dull, this is one of those films that set the standards for future movies to come.
Anyway, A satalite from outerspace let out radiation from the planet Venus and is causing the dead to walk. Barbara (Judth O'dea) and her brother Johnny (Russel Streiner) go to visit a deseaced family member to pay respects.
Barbara and Johnny were attacked by the famous cemetary ghoul (Bill Heinzman). Barbara Escapes to the car and makes it to a nearby farmhouse only to meet her hero Ben (Duane Jones) who helps her through this incredible ordeal. later they find out five people are in the basement hiding out. Ben and the others must come together to defeat these terrible flesheating creatures outside. This is my favorite film of all time and I defenitally recommend it. I give it two thumbs up. I also liked the remake in 1990 by Tom Savini. He did an exellent job of bringing back the characters although it was missing the erie atmosphere the original had. Savini's good, but he'll never be a George Remero.

The original is always best!!!!!!!!!
Night of the living Dead is the best horror movie picture of all time in my eyes. I give it 5 stars for its creepy soundtrack and its great one of a kind feel. It starts with Barbara(Judith O'dea) and her brother Johnny going to visit thier mothers grave to pay thier respects, when all of a sudden "Ther're comming to get you Barbara" says Johnny just fooling around. and it actually turns out to be the creepiest Zombie of the film. Anyway Johnny gets what was coming to him and Barbara gets away and runs to a nearby farmhouse where Ben(Duane Jones)helps board down the doors and windows to keep the flesh eaters out. later on they find out there were five people in the basement hiding. The whole plot is seven people in an isolated farmhouse trying to stay out of reach of the flesh eating ghouls outside the house for the night. The film that started the best and coolest Dead series of all-time, thanks to George A. Remero.

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD
BY FAR THE ABSOLUTE BEST ZOMBIE MOVIE EVER!!! BEING IN BLACK AND WHITE ONLY MAKES THIS CLASSIC SCARIER.THE MOOD OF THIS FILM IS INCREDIBLE. JUDITH ODEA DESERVES AN AWARD FOR HER ACTING!!SHE GAVE AN EXTREMELY CONVINCING PERFORMANCE.NOT VERY GORY BUT DEFINITELY SCARY!!!!THE SOUNDTRACK IS AWESOME AND IS A BIG PART OF WHY THIS FILM IS SO FRIGHTENING.A DEFINITE TRUE HORROR MOVIE THAT SHOULD BE SEEN AT LEAST ONCE OR TWICE OR MANY, MANY TIMES LIKE MYSELF.A+++++ ALL AROUND!!!! GET THIS MOVIE.

Piece of Crap.
Another terrible movie from that terrible Director George A. Romero. This time, there are only about twenty zombies waiting outside.

The zombies in this look better than those in Dawn of the Dead (1978)but are still very boring and unrealistic. Like i've said before, zombies wouldn't be able to move without certain orgains opertating properly in their bodies. Another thing I have just discovered is the fact that if the heart and lungs were operating and moving the body, then the rest of the organs in the body would be recieving blood, so they would be operating too. Meaning the body would be alive. ALIVE!!!!

The story is terrible. A group of people seek shelter in some house and, for some reason, are afraid to leave. There are about 15-20 zombies waiting outside. Why don't they just brake in the house? Because the man sets a chair on fire and throws it outside. Wait a minute. Why are they afraid of fire? They're dead. They don't know what fire is and they don't get hurt by the flames. Why does it scare them so? Romero never answered that question. It sounds to me like Romero just needed an answer.

Another question not answered. Why are zombies walking around the earth? They put out the idea of radiation from Venus, but never confirmed it. In Dawn of the Dead (1978) they said that there was a possibility of a viral outbreak. So , they still haven't found the answer. I wonder when Romero will tell the answer. If Romero doesn't need to answer the question, why does James Gunn's and Zack Snyder's obviousley superior version of Dawn need an explanation. They set out the idea of a virus, just like the original Dawn. Who knows? It sounds to me like the people are just trying find away to make an argument between which version of Dawn was better. The answer to that is obvious. The new Dawn.

The acting is terrible. I know it was low-budget, but you could get better women performances from the lady serving you at the resteraunt. The women in the movie were just terrible. The men were good, but the women were terrible. I couldn't stand them.

This is a comedy that was poorly done. It wasn't very funny and...What? It's not a comedy? It looked like a comedy. It wasn't scary, or entertaining as a matter of fact. I thought they were trying to be funny. The way the zombies acted, the acting, the lines, the pathetic attempt to gas up the truck. I thought this was supposed to be a comedy.

This is a terrible movie and a terrible DVD. I think it's about time George Romero died. He's just not a good director.

Thank god they fired him from Resident Evil. I can't stand thinking of the name. George A. Romero's Resident Evil. It's the George A. Romero's part that I don't like. Paul Anderson did a better job than Romero would have ever done.

A Classic That Worms Its Way Into Your Dreams
"Night of the Living Dead" is a classic that worms its way into your dreams. Truly amazing stuff. Back when Romero and Russo wrote and films this, they did not yet realize they were created a whole new subgenre of horror. Much as I like the remake, the undead are creepiest in the shadows of black and white film.

I'm writing to respond to one reviewer's nitpick and another reviewer's well-intentioned mistake. Complaining that most of it is in mono is like complaining that it's in black and white. That's how the original was made, plain and simple. Another reviewer complained about how horrible the version with added footage is. That individual is right about that version, but that's the 30th Anniversary Edition and NOT the Millenium Edition. The 30th Anniversary Edition with added scenes and weird, distracting music is too horrible for words, and not even in a "Plan 9 From Outer Space" so-bad-it's-funny way. The Millenium Edition is simply an official DVD made from a cleaned up print, with extras like the interviews. If you want to see the real "Night of the Living Dead" and get some cool extras for your money, this is the way to go. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Martin (John Amplas) is a modern sort of vampire--he gains his victims' cooperation with the use of a hypodermic needle instead of hypnotism, and uses razors in the place of fangs. "There's no real magic," he says. "There's no real magic, ever." He says this to his elderly Romanian cousin, Tati Cuda (Lincoln Maazel), a true believer in the old religion, and self-appointed keeper of Martin, who threatens to do away with the boy if the vampirism doesn't stop. According to Cuda, the boy is actually 85 years old--young for a vampire. Truly, the supernatural element of the film is always at odds with psychological explanations that make Martin out to be a sexually disturbed teen, not an ancient bloodsucker. Martin's vampiric episodes are intercut with sepia footage of similar exploits from some gothic era, which may either be Martin's memories or his imagination; take your pick. Garlic, sunlight, mirrors--these are devices of Hollywood, and have no effect on a hypo-toting vampire like Martin, as he explains the rules in his role of frequent call-in guest on a radio talk show where he's known as "The Count." These ambiguities are left teasingly unresolved by the film, which is more interested in establishing the relationship between the traditional vampire and the modern-day psycho. Along with the film's narrative economy, these ambiguities make Martin Romero's midnight-movie masterpiece.

At the very end Romero borrows an image from Carl Theodore Dreyer's classic silent film Ordet, ratifying a moment of religious ritual. Knowing this as you watch the film only deepens the chill. --Jim Gay ... Read more

Description

The Superbit titles utilize a special high bit rate digital encoding process which optimizes video quality while offering a choice of both DTS and Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. These titles have been produced by a team of Sony Pictures Digital Studios video, sound and mastering engineers and comes housed in a special package complete with a 4 page booklet that contains technical information on the Superbit process. By reallocating space on the disc normally used for value-added content, Superbit DVDs can be encoded at double their normal bit rate while maintaining full compatibility with the DVD video format. ... Read more

Reviews (115)

Gothic Greatness
From the opening shots and line about dreaming of a visit to Manderly again, to the final shots of Mrs. Danvers and the flames, Alfred Hitchcock creates a dark, eerie atmosphere that will remain with the viewer every time you see the film. Although Rebecca is never seen, her presence is felt throughout the entire movie. Laurence Olivier, as the late Rebecca's tortured husband is good, although I think his moods and personal torture are played too strongly. Joan Fontaine, never an actress I have especially admired, is surprisingly excellent as Olivier's new, unnamed, naive wife, thrust into a world she is unprepared to deal with. But the greatest performance of the film belongs to Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers, Rebecca's housekeeper, and consequently, Fontaine's nemesis. With her daunting profile and posture, and her chilling delivery of lines, she creates one of the most memorable film characters I have ever seen. With its winding plot, terrific performances, and the direction of Alfred Hitchcock creating tension and atmosphere on a Gothic scale, Rebecca is one of the greater suspense films I have ever seen.

Classic Suspense
The Best Picture in 1940 and an adaptation of Daphne du Maurier's famous novel. It is not at all surprising this movie won two Academy Awards and nine other nominations. Through the masterful direction of Alfred Hitchcock, you will be kept in complete suspense. The newly restored version from the original negatives is presented full-frame and has been digitally mastered for optimum picture and sound. The result is a sumptuous black-and-white film that is better than I have ever seen it before. They do say this movie gets better each time you watch it, and I must agree.

The opening scenes convince you that this is going to be quite a forbidding story. A meandering path overgrown with foliage and a ghostly manor (Manderley) appears out of the Cornwall, England mist. The gothic quality is only the stage for a love story haunted by the memory of Rebecca. While this is mostly filled with suspense and mystery, there are a few moments of humor.

While a young woman (Joan Fontaine) is vacationing in the South of France as a ladies companion, she meets a wealthy widower Maxim de Winter (Lawrence Olivier). His wife, Rebecca is said to have died in a boating accident. They fall in love, marry and then he takes her home to Manderley. She is ill prepared for such a position in society and stumbles through her days trying to adapt as best she can.

"Rebecca" is the theme of this movie, yet the heroine is the second rather timid Mrs. de Winter when she rises to the occasion and takes on this ghost who haunts her husband. Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson) manages the manor and seeks to keep the first Mrs. de Winter's memory alive in an almost obsessive way. She is cold and has no regard for Maxim's new wife's feelings. Judith Anderson is just magnificent in her role and her character is in a way is Rebecca's ghost personified.

The conclusion is surprising as we find out how Maxim really feels and the story unfolds one detail at a time to finish with a satisfying conclusion. You will never once think these characters are actors, they are their characters from start to finish.

You must watch this movie in complete darkness with just a few candles burning for it to be just slightly scary. One of my all-time favorite movies. Definitely worth owning!

Yummy Classic Movie
I have seen all of Hitchcock's American work. If you are familiar with his movies, you probably agree that, with the exception of "Family Plot", his films are delicious brain food! Rebecca is a beautiful, mysterious and tragic piece. Olivier and Fontaine are at the peak of their talent and beauty. By the way, if you like Joan Fontaine in this film, her performance is equally good in Hitchcock's Suspicion, with Cary Grant. Why aren't most modern actors this good, hmmm? Hey Mr. Soderbergh, please don't remake this one! There's a reason why we call them 'Classic'.

A classic shines.
A stunning transfer from Criterion. "Rebecca" remains one of the finest films of the 1940's, and features Joan Fontaine as the second mistress of Manderley, forever living in the shadow of her mysterious predecessor. Lawrence Olivier is perhaps detached in his performance, but nevertheless embodies the master of Manderley as few others of his generation could. "Rebecca" also contains the paranoia, suspense, and dreamlike mood that would color much of director Alfred Hitchcock's later work. Criterion continues to put the major DVD distributors to shame with its transfers of old films, and once again proves that although higher in price, their DVD's are worth every penny.

"We can never go back to Manderley again"
Joan Fontaine laments as she opens the film, obviously several years removed from her time at the lush, oversized estate, which recalls "Tara" from Gone With the Wind as a residence which is actually also a character in the movie. People remember the houses from these two films almost more than the characters. No coincidence that both films were produced by the ridiculously meticulous David O. Selznick. GWtW was of course the most popular film of all time, so Selznick figured he had the right idea about how to make a film. Details, right down to the last corner.

Alfred Hitchcock had made a career in London making films with complete autonomy. He basically called all the shots. When he got to America, he signed a four movie deal with Selznick. Rebecca is the first and best of the three. (no, not a mistake, I'll explain later) Rebecca was the only film by Hitchcock to win best picture from the Academy, although Hitch did not win best director. The film was basically a tug of war between producer and director. Selznick wanted the book followed religiously, Hitch wanted to take the basic idea of the book and add his own touches. Selznick wouldn't allow it, so Hitch was forced to make the film exactly by the book.

The film stars Fontaine as an unnamed young woman who while working as a paid companion for the unbearable Mrs. Van Hopper (Florence Bates), she meets and falls in love with the brooding Maxim de Winter (Lawrence Olivier). They marry after a quick courtship and go "home" to Manderley, Olivier's mammoth estate. Fontaine is very young and has no idea what she is getting into, especially when it dawns on her that Olivier's late first wife, Rebecca, still dominates the house. Her stationery, napkins, and rituals are still present, and Fontaine feels she has no chance against this woman.

The other problem in the house is the housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson),who creeps around the house, showing up at any time to frighten Fontaine. She is still obsessed with Rebecca, still keeps Rebecca's old room the same way, hairbrush at the correct angle on the vanity. She makes Fontaine feel she will never measure up, will never be a great lady of Manderley, something that Mrs. Van Hopper tried to tell her as well. Everyone and everything in the house revolves around this dead Rebecca, so much so that Fontaine almost can't live through it.

Rebecca never appears in the film, yet it is amazing how much of a character she is. When Fontaine tries to dress up for a ball, Danvers suggests a portrait on the wall which is supposed to be a long dead relative of Maxims. Of course, when Fontaine wears the dress, she realizes from Maxim's reaction that the woman and the dress were Rebecca and that she just reminded him of her.

Eventually the film goes into Rebecca's death in some detail. We never know for sure that we know all the details of the death, but it doesn't really matter. By the end of the movie, all the major characters in t