Custom Detailing Movie Reviews

If you want to see what a sick movie was like in 1941, then this is for you. Supposedly watered down from the stage play, "Shanghai Gesture" is a mess. A spoiled rich girl, Poppy (get it?) becomes enamored of a hustler (Victor Mature) working in a notorious Den of Sin run by the notorious Madame Gin Sling (Ona Munson from "GWTW"). It's a gambling set up that offers more if you're interested. Poppy becomes addicted to gambling and opium in a bizarre plot by Gin Sling to humiliate the girl's father (Walter Huston) who she had once been involved with and who left her when she became pregnant. Now China's most infamous underworld figure, she's out to even the score. Trashy and ridiculous, it takes a lot to sit through this hokum. Gin Sling's hair styles are a sight to see. Mean, unsympathetic characters populate this Von Sternberg directed morality tale but the overall effect is "yawn". A lot of hinted at depravity includes white slavery where girls are held in baskets that are suspended over throngs of reaching and grabbing men. See this out of curiosity if you must---it sounds more interesting than it really is---but be aware the DVD transfer is poor. Gene Tierney (Poppy) went on to do better films than this like "Laura" and "Leave Her to Heaven" proving that her talent and beauty could shine in better material.

I love love love the movie: the kind of movie that makes you travel in space and time, but it is a trip to Hell rather than Paradise! Amazing cast of characters (and actors), decor, plot, and costumes (oh yes, lots of great dresses and headdresses) and a totally scrumptious dialogue. However, the DVD transfer is visually rather poor, and auditively execrable (shame shame shame , for this Shanghai Gesture dialogue is first class, and the musical soundtrack very interesting too.) Somebody , please, re-do the DVD properly this time, and I 'll buy it and watch over and over again!

"The Shanghai Gesture" is one of the finest films of all time. The incredible and surreal acting, production design, dialogue and photography are a must-see. Unfortunately, the previous laserdisc release was a far superior transfer than the DVD currently available (which is watchable, but not nearly adequate for Josef von Sternberg's best film). Hopefully, the source material used for that laserdisc will be used to create a new DVD transfer.

I don't quite know what to say about this. John Ford is an important director. I suppose this is important historically speaking, but it is very racist. It's propoganda, and not against the enemy, but against out own people. This is the type of work that allowed us to have our deterrment camps. On the plus side, Huston, who plays Uncle Sam, does argue that they are Japanese-Americans are as American and as loyal as any other. But we have Mr. C., which is U.S.'s conscience telling us different. I'd like to think that the rational side won the arguement in the film, but we know from history it didn't. And the film ended with our people as the enemy.

This flick shows up in the wee small hours on local PBS stations struggling with a cash-strapped budget. Doc Holliday (Walter Huston) is a friend of Sheriff Pat Garrett (Thomas Mitchell). When Billy the Kid (Jack Beutel) rides into town, Doc spends time schmoozing with the Kid, and Garrett gets upset. Jane Russell's 44s show up with Jane right behind them. Doc and Billy vie for her love, when they are not arguing over a strawberry roan horse. I kept waiting for a plot to materialize. In fact, I was still waiting when the movie ended. This film tells us of the vision of Howard Hughes. What it tells us is uncertain; other than Hughes wanted to feature the natural assets of a young Jane Russell. He succeeded, points taken. Speaking of the white hills of Arizona, there is a weak attempt to tell a gunfighter vs. gunfighter story. There is even some Western-type action. At one point, Indians on the warpath suddenly appear and then proceed to get lost in a cloud of dust. Only in Hollywood. Howard Hawks assisted with the director task, but he just told the camera guy to focus on Jane's cleavage and left the set. Wearing a low-cut top, she leans over the neck of a galloping horse, and the camera angle is full frontal. This is not Shakespeare. The movie had a notorious reputation in its day. Obviously, standards have changed. This is only slightly adult material. For some viewers, this is fun. Be careful of the "so bad, it's good" label. Sometimes, we overuse it. There is no accounting for taste. ;-)

This is a truly strange, hilarious film. Everyone should see it once. I finally got round to watching this extremely fuzzy, shaky dvd. It was dead cheap. What is the story about? Well, the way I see it, Doc Holliday and Pat Garrett are both in love with Billy the Kid. Finally Pat shoots Doc, then Billy chains Pat to a pillar and rides off with Jane Russell close behind him. The dialogue is weird: it's delivered at one monotonous, unchanging pace throughout --- slow. Nevertheless, I couldn't help laughing out loud several times. The plotting is fantastic: nothing is remotely credible from beginning to end. Jane Russell has two expressions, and I don't really mean the right one and the left one. It is extremely enjoyable to witness the film's absolutely total political incorrectness from start to finish. For instance, Doc and Billy smoke all the time. The women sure know their place, and as for the Indians --- well, they just get lost. For a real intellectual puzzle, try to figure out the submerged psychology which is clearly down there somewhere. Maybe I'll watch it again in 3 or 4 years time.

What can I say about "The Outlaw"? It's really, really silly and I really, really like it. The acting is bad, the music is worse, and the camera angles are downright hilarious. I'm not sure how much of the dialogue was intended to be funny, but I'm sure a lot of the bigger laughs were unintentional. Nevertheless, it's a goofy, friendly little movie that moves along at a brisk pace and is nothing if not entertaining.

The plot? Well, you see, Pat Garrett and Doc Holliday used to be best friends, that is until Billy the Kid rode into town, and now Doc spends all his time hanging out with Billy which makes Pat pretty darn jealous. There's also Rio (played by the scantily clad Jane Russell) who used to be Doc's girl before Billy stole her, although neither Doc nor Billy care much about that. They do argue a lot about who owns Doc's horse, but otherwise they're pretty tight, riding around together, humilating Pat, and just generally having a good time. All good things must come to an end, however, and after a couple of shootouts and almost shootouts our hero(?) rides off into the sunset, proud possesor of both the horse and the girl.

"The Outlaw" isn't a classic by anybody's standards (unless you count the classically silly "Gun Switching" scene), but it is fun in a weird kind of way. Gazillionare Howard Hughes tried for years to have it released while he battled the censors (unlike some other reviewers, I do think the film is pretty racy for its time) and there's still about five minutes missing. You can sometimes tell where footage was cut, such as a scene where Doc goes to hug Billy (really) and after a jump they're suddenly talking about something else. Uh huh.

Anyway, check this out if you're a fan of Jane Russell or over the top cheese. If you do see it, watch for my favorite part: Billy strings up Rio and leaves her for dead, has second thoughts, and comes back to find the sheriff waiting for him. "Why didn't you tip me off?" he irritably asks the still strung-up Rio. Great stuff.
GRADE: B+

Ok, the topic is great... the Soviet repulsion of the Nazi military might. But the war-time propaganda, the lack of depth of the "documentary", the missing facts, and the poor quality of the film make this a horrific failure when one considers the title.

I don't care if this is a known propaganda film used for recruiting in the United States during WWII... it simply has no social context sixty years later. Shouldn't we be concerned with the facts of the Nazi siege and the Soviet repulsion as they relate to a deeper understanding about the two nations of the 20th century that produced the worst dictators (Hitler and Stalin)?

Consider the following facts:

1) There was a major event in the 20th century, commonly referred to as "World War II", when most of the nations of the world were at war.

2) During that event Nazi Germany terrorized all of Europe (and especially the Soviet Union), through their military might and demonic plans (the Holocaust).

3) The Nazi's invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.

4) The Soviet Union repulsed the Nazi invasion.

I would guess that the mentally ill and the recently born make up the vast majority of the population that isn't aware of the above-mentioned facts. This movie is for them.

Before viewing this film one should be historically aware of the circumstnces surrounding the reasons for its production. It is part of the "Why we fight" series that was shown to new recruits that were about to become part of this tremendous worldwide conflict. This is truly a propaganda film that was intended to show our "allies", the communist Russians, in a favorable light. The intent was to instill a purpose into these recruits that we were fighting an evil force, the Nazi Germans, together with the Russians. Anybody who is historically educated in this time period realizes that the United States government no doubt realized the horrors that Joseph Stalin himself was capable of. But to attempt to rally the recruits by villianizing our allies would not serve well, therefore kind portrayal of the communists was essential. Although the awful behavior of the German invaders is documented here, there is no mention of the atrocities committed by the Russians on their German captives. I think anybody interested in history as well as nostalgia will enjoy this film when realizing the historical context in which it was produced.

Yes, this is propaganda. But this is also a rare film. You will see a million WWII movies that gloss over the russian side of the story. They fought bravely with their backs against the wall and prevailed against some serious odds. The director had to work with the russian propaganda footage, and so it is a glimpse into their world at the time. It is a rare film because it does not brand the whole nation "evil". And, actually, it gives you a piece of history you don't know.

Ok, the topic is great... the Soviet repulsion of the Nazi military might. But the war-time propaganda, the lack of depth of the "documentary", the missing facts, and the poor quality of the film make this a horrific failure when one considers the title.

I don't care if this is a known propaganda film used for recruiting in the United States during WWII... it simply has no social context sixty years later. Shouldn't we be concerned with the facts of the Nazi siege and the Soviet repulsion as they relate to a deeper understanding about the two nations of the 20th century that produced the worst dictators (Hitler and Stalin)?

Consider the following facts:

1) There was a major event in the 20th century, commonly referred to as "World War II", when most of the nations of the world were at war.

2) During that event Nazi Germany terrorized all of Europe (and especially the Soviet Union), through their military might and demonic plans (the Holocaust).

3) The Nazi's invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.

4) The Soviet Union repulsed the Nazi invasion.

I would guess that the mentally ill and the recently born make up the vast majority of the population that isn't aware of the above-mentioned facts. This movie is for them.

Before viewing this film one should be historically aware of the circumstnces surrounding the reasons for its production. It is part of the "Why we fight" series that was shown to new recruits that were about to become part of this tremendous worldwide conflict. This is truly a propaganda film that was intended to show our "allies", the communist Russians, in a favorable light. The intent was to instill a purpose into these recruits that we were fighting an evil force, the Nazi Germans, together with the Russians. Anybody who is historically educated in this time period realizes that the United States government no doubt realized the horrors that Joseph Stalin himself was capable of. But to attempt to rally the recruits by villianizing our allies would not serve well, therefore kind portrayal of the communists was essential. Although the awful behavior of the German invaders is documented here, there is no mention of the atrocities committed by the Russians on their German captives. I think anybody interested in history as well as nostalgia will enjoy this film when realizing the historical context in which it was produced.

Yes, this is propaganda. But this is also a rare film. You will see a million WWII movies that gloss over the russian side of the story. They fought bravely with their backs against the wall and prevailed against some serious odds. The director had to work with the russian propaganda footage, and so it is a glimpse into their world at the time. It is a rare film because it does not brand the whole nation "evil". And, actually, it gives you a piece of history you don't know.

Don't be fooled by the AIP pedigree of "De Sade." If you expect something like the inventive charge of Roger Corman's low-budget Poe adaptations, you will be seriously disappointed. For this misguided effort is both expensive and serious enough to manage the dubious achievement of making the Marquis de Sade boring.

It is by no means an ordinary failure. Visible talent went into it, and in fact the most interesting thing about the film is trying to figure out what went wrong. No doubt Richard Matheson's script, which has de Sade dropping in and out of fantasies and memories that may or may not be part of theatrical performances (there's a lot of "may or may not" in this movie) is part of the problem. This complex structure does nothing to add coherence to an opaque character, but in the right hands, say a Roger Vadim or a Mario Bava, it might at least make for a lushly fruity, passably entertaining movie.

I've seen only one other film by "De Sade's" director, Cy Endfield, the outpost-of-Empire adventure film "Zulu." It's a conservative, occasionally handsome bit of film making. Here, he tries all too obviously to make the film "visual," and "stylish," with complex camera movements, shock cutting, disorienting filters, and overripe decor. In the effort to be freewheeling, buxom beauties tumble in and out of de Sade's bed, dwarves deliver his toys on cue, a lot of bric-a-brac gets broken, curtains slashed, paintings burned, repeatedly and endlessly until you can't help wondering if de Sade's problem is simply having too much time and money on his hands. This trash heap of elaborately empty mannerisms proves only that Endfield has no sense at all of what to do with the material.

Keir Dullea turns in as creditable a performance as possible under circumstances that include his total miscasting. That he isn't convincing for a moment is almost a compliment. It's difficult to imagine how he could be any better when you can't think of anyone who *would* be suitable for the part.

When writer, director and cast exhibit the same symptoms of distress, that's a pretty good sign that the film should never have been made. There may be a good movie somewhere in the life of de Sade, but this strained, overcooked mishmash certainly isn't it.

To quote the man himself "I have spanked a few bottoms" Pretty well somes up this film. The review preceeding mine somes up what I have to say about this film. If youn are interested in other films I reconmend marat/sade play set in a bathhouse and Quills a pretty strong work of fiction about the man.

Screen writer Richard Matheson [Stir of Echoes (1999); Omega Man (1971)] tells the tale of an elderly Marquis de Sade [played by Keir Dullea / Black Christmas (1974); 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)] laying in his death bed thinking about his life and his struggles for freedom. Twenty-eight of his seventy four years were spent in prison, as he was often "...hounded by the police on charges of inflammatory writings..." Telling the story of de Sade from childhood to manhood through flashbacks and surreal theatre sets; the movie gives a look at the innocent boy who was too often a victim of the "perverse brutality" of others. As he grows, so do his tastes. "...He exacts his sexual pleasure from the tender flesh of the women of France..." Filmed under heavy German guard at the royal palace of Charlottenburg and Saint Nikola's Cathedral in West Berlin the movie's sets and costumes are incredible. Like the Hammer Studios horror films, the movie is more a period piece than pure exploitation, yet it's subject matter alone is irresistible trash for any collector of bad movies. Uniquely a 1960's film, it was aimed at the Samuel Z. Arkoff produced Roger Corman [The Trip (1967) / Wild Angels (1966)] drive-in crowd. Surprisingly low on violence and / or nudity, and any that still remains has been filtered with an annoying purple jel over the camera lens to avoid censorship from the higher ups. Little xtras on the disc besides a trailer and short interview with Richard Matheson. A commentary track would have been interesting, but still grateful that MGM dusted this one off the shelf in the first place. Collectors should be on the lookout for Peter Brook's Marat / Sade (1966) also released on the under the Avant-Garde Cinema collection.

I love this film so much. I bought one low-priced VHS copy on awhim and was pleasantly surprised to say the least. I thought the filmwas truly phenomenal! I then bought one of the DVD editions. 6 months later, I bought another. This low-priced DVD, as with all the other versions I own, is a travesty in terms of picture and sound quality (visible film print scratches, muddy blacks, gray whites, distant audio, audio pops, blurry images, overall lacking of detail throughout). I keep buying them hoping that someone will finally give this great film its proper due by finding a good negative and transferring it properly. No such luck as of yet (This might be due to the fact that the rights to this film may be shared by more than one distributor). Anyway, somewhere in existence there is a higher-priced VHS that looks much better than the "bargain" DVD's or VHS editions. I've seen it in a friend's personal video collection (...). This (...) film is a must-see. Why else would I keep buying it?

Yes, John Huston is known for "The Maltese Falcon," but that may or may not prepare you for this film. You see, "The Treasure of Sierra Madre" and "Key Largo" as well as "The Maltese Falcon" are a basis for this film. A complete rehash of formula? Absolutely not. Huston took "Across the Pacific" serious. "Beat The Devil" he did not. The capacity to understand this film lies in the many bent paradigms and scewed cliches that cause you to blink while watching it. I have seen it twice now. I have also shown it to my father and my step-father. Both love it, but not on a satire-level. They recognized it as a great film. You may not catch wind of the tongue-in-cheek quirks here, but this is a worthwhile movie. So buy it. Besides, look at the price.

I have to concur with another posted review. Played a rented DVD on my home 2-speaker system. The Dolby 5.1 soundtrack is flat, muffled, and during several outdoor scenes, features a digital "howling" harmonic from background sound FX (street traffic, maybe?). It made the film difficult to listen to, and disappointing. The laserdisc release featured "Dolby Surround" audio (now called Dolby 2.0), which would indicate that someone messed this new release up in the transfer. Shameful.

I saw this movie after reading Steven Pinker's non-fiction book on socio-biology, "The Blank Slate." Pinker recommended this movie based on a tale by Isaac Bashevis Singer, for its study of the human condition, ripe with irony, seasoned with despair, love and forgiveness.

The casting is excellent, and the acting is first-rate from beginning to end. Male viewers will wonder how Herman Broder gets so lucky, having three different but highly appealing women in love with him. Tidily, the three women are from three boroughs of New York City, a typical Singer touch, and the movie includes a scene where Broder stands at the subway entrances deciding which direction to take.

Highly recommended.

I concur with other viewers who found the DVD unacceptable in sound quality. Oddly enough, it gets excellent reviews as a DVD transfer. They must have had a different copy. But the film itself remains as fresh and exciting as when it first was issued. Mazursky captures the spirit (if not all the nuances) of I. B. Singer's marvelous novel about Holocaust survivors in New York in the 1950s. None of the reviewers here seem either to have read the book or really understood the point of the film -- Herman Broder, ghost writer, who was hidden during the war by the Polish servant who saved him and marries her (Jadwiga), finds passion with Masha, who survived the camps with her mother (Eros and Thanatos certainly go together here), and discovers his first wife (Tamara), who was shot with her children by the Einsatzgruppen and left for dead, is actually alive. Each represents a different facet of the catastrophe, conveniently divided among the New York boroughs. Anyone, by the way, who has read anything of Singer, including this book, would recognize his very typical take on male sexuality. I would advise viewers to see this film (or see it again) and think more deeply about what's at stake in this ironic tragicomedy than look for mindless and shallow entertainment.

It stinks, and there isn't much more that you can say about this film, which reminds me of a badly filmed skin-flick with all the sex scenes deleted. We're talking grade Z actors, script, production values, and direction--and the sell-by date on the package expired a couple of decades ago.

The story, such as it: the Martians (who look suspicious like men with a Spandex fetish) have run out of women, so they nip next door in a spaceship that looks like an over-decorated pie pan to borrow a few. Now, it happens that the ones they want lack brains, beauty, and God knows they lack acting talent, so you'd think Earth would be glad to see them go. But no, Earth gets offended; the Martians decide to take 'em anyway; hostilities ensue. Whoop-De-Doo.

Now, there are bad movies that are fun to watch. But MARS WANTS WOMEN is not one of them: it won't take you ten minutes to realize that you would have been better off using your dollar bills for toilet paper than spending them on this flick. If you don't believe me, then at least rent the darn thing before you buy it--but either way, don't say you weren't warned.

Of all the bad Larry Buchanan movies ever made, this is one. And, sadly enough, this may be his best.

Martians Tommy Kirk and Company, in vacuformed bodysuits with "boing" antennae, announce to the Pentagon that Mars needs women. When America refuses to cooperate by providing a few suitable single females, Kirk and Crew baldly state that they will simply do their own informal poll and take some girls on the sly. The Secretary of State informs the public that Martian kidnappers are on the move, and creates a think-tank to deal with the problem. One of the think-tank's members, space geneticist Yvonne Craig, falls into Kirk's sights as a perfect inductee for the Martian breeding program - and, unaware that Kirk is in fact one of the Martians she is working against, she falls for him while he is in undercover guise.

This is one of the weirdest movies ever made. It isn't a comedy, nor does it try to be one. That it isn't good goes without saying - but it's really not that bad, either. Strangely enough, the script would actually have worked, if given a halfway decent production. It's all played serious as a heart attack, and only the incredibly cheap production values, drastically overused stock-footage padding, and a lack of rehearsal that make the performances come off as first dress night at the local community theater kill it. It's got virtually no entertainment value, and yet the seriousness with which the story is undertaken almost hypnotically holds your attention. It's sometimes amusing - and even interesting - in spite of itself.

It really is a cheap ... though, recommended only for unusually thorough sci-fi cinema buffs.

I am a fan of SF B-movies but this is a rather dull one. I tried hard to keep my eyes open . If, then it's only worth because of the X-15 and other airplanes stock footages and of (Batgirl) Yvonne Craig. At least the DVD is a bargain.

pretty horrible excuse for a action movie the plot is flimsy and i couldn't even finish it just look at the horrible title and you will already know what i mean

This is one of the better "B" movies I have seen. There were some bright spots. The musical score was quite good, I thought. So was the quality of the photography and editing. The actors did a pretty good job with the material they were given. The weak link in the movie was the quality of the writing which, unfortunately, was pretty bad. The plot was totally transparent. You'd have to be brain dead not to guess the ending after the first meeting between the female star and her ex-husband. My biggest complaint with the writing though was the ridiculous behaviors the actors were put through. For instance a woman gets three chances to blow away a thug trying to kill her and lets him go each time. The third time she ties his hands with a necktie and he gets loose in 30 seconds and almost kills her again. Come on! Nobody would behave that way. The movie was full of dumb situations like that.

The other thing which might have helped the movie would have been some stunt men. I guess the low budget didn't allow for that. Pity.

Overall a so-so film. Worth a watch if you can pick it up for a buck or two.