The effects of job related stress and the pressures born of a moral dilemma that pits conscience against the obligations of a family business (albeit a unique one) all brought to a head by-- or perhaps the catalyst of-- a midlife crisis, are examined in the dark and absorbing drama, `Panic,' written and directed by Henry Bromell, and starring William H. Macy and Donald Sutherland. It's a telling look at how indecision and denial can bring about the internal strife and misery that ultimately leads to apathy and that moment of truth when the conflict must, of necessity, at last be resolved.

	Alex (Macy) is tired; he has a loving wife, Martha (Tracey Ullman), a precocious six-year-old son, Sammy (David Dorfman), a mail order business he runs out of the house, as well as his main source of income, the `family' business he shares with his father, Michael (Sutherland), and his mother, Deidre (Barbara Bain). But he's empty; years of plying this particular trade have left him numb and detached, putting him in a mental state that has driven him to see a psychologist, Dr. Josh Parks (John Ritter). And to make matters worse (or maybe better, depending upon perspective), in Dr. Parks' waiting room he meets a young woman, Sarah Cassidy (Neve Campbell), whose presence alone makes him feel alive for the first time since he can remember. She quickly becomes another brick in the wall of the moral conflict his job has visited upon him, as in the days after their meeting he simply cannot stop thinking about her. His whole life, it seems, has become a `situation'-- one from which he is seemingly unable to successfully extirpate himself without hurting the ones he loves. He can deny his age and the fact that he has, indeed, slipped into a genuine midlife crisis, but he is about to discover that the problems he is facing are simply not going to go away on their own. He's at a crossroads, and he's going to have to decide which way to go. And he's going to have to do it very soon.

	From a concept that is intrinsically interesting, Bromell has fashioned an engrossing character study that is insightful and incisive, and he presents it is a way that allows for moments of reflection that enable the audience to empathize and understand what Alex is going through. He makes it very clear that there are no simple answers, that in real life there is no easy way out. His characters are well defined and very real people who represent the diversity found in life and, moreover, within any given family unit. The film resoundingly implies that the sins of the father are irrefutably passed on to the progeny, with irrevocable consequences and effects. When you're growing up, you accept your personal environment as being that of the world at large; and often it is years into adulthood that one may begin to realize and understand that there are actually moral parameters established by every individual who walks upon the planet, and that the ones set by the father may not be conducive to the tenets of the son. And it is at that point that Alex finds himself as the story unfolds; ergo, the midlife crisis, or more specifically, the crisis of conscience from which he cannot escape. It's a powerful message, succinctly and subtly conveyed by Bromell, with the help of some outstanding performances from his actors.

	For some time, William H. Macy has been one of the premiere character actors in the business, creating such diverse characters as Quiz Kid Donnie Smith in `Magnolia,' The Shoveler in `Mystery Men' and Jerry Lundegaard in `Fargo.' And that's just a sampling of his many achievements. At one point in this film, Sarah mentions Alex's `sad eyes,' and it's a very telling comment, as therein lies the strength of Macy's performance here, his ability to convey very real emotion in an understated, believable way that expresses all of the inner turmoil he is experiencing. Consider the scene in which he is lying awake in bed, staring off into the darkness; in that one restless moment it is clear that he is grappling, not only with his immediate situation, but with everything in his life that has brought him, finally, to this point. In that scene you find the sum total of a life of guilt, confusion and uncertainty, all of which have been successfully suppressed until now; all the things that have always been at the core of Alex's life, only now gradually breaking through his defense mechanisms and finally surfacing, demanding confrontation and resolution. It's a complex character created and delivered by Macy with an absolute precision that makes Alex truly memorable. It's a character to whom anyone who has ever faced a situation of seemingly insurmountable odds will be able to relate. It's a terrific piece of work by one of the finest actors around.

	Sutherland is extremely effective, as well; his Michael is despicably sinister in a way that is so real it's chilling. It's frightening, in fact, to consider that there are such people actually walking the earth. This is not some pulp fiction or James Bond type villain, but a true personification of evil, hiding behind an outward appearance that is so normal he could be the guy next door, which is what makes it all the more disconcerting. And Sutherland brings it all to life brilliantly, with a great performance.

	Neve Campbell looks the part of Sarah, but her performance (as is the usual case with her) seems somewhat pretentious, although her affected demeanor here just happens to fit the character and is actually a positive aspect of the film. If only she would occasionally turn her energies inward, it would make a tremendous difference in the way she presents her characters. `Panic,' however, is one of her best efforts; a powerful film that, in the end, is a journey well worth taking. 9/10.


I gather from reading the previous comments that this film went straight to cable. Well, I paid to see it in a theatre, and I'm glad I did because visually it was a striking film. Most of the settings seem like they were made in the early 60s (except for the shrink's office, which was dated in a different way), and if you leave the Neve Campbell sequences out, the whole film has a washed- out early 60s ambience. And the use of restaurants in the film was fascinating. For a first-time director whose background, I believe, is in writing, he has a great eye. Within the first ten minutes I felt the plot lacked plausibility, so I just willingly suspended my disbelief and went along for the ride. In terms of acting and the depiction of father-son, mother-son, husband-wife, parent-child relationships, the film was spot-on. William H. Macy, a pleasure to watch, seems to be filling the void left by the late Tony Perkins, if this and Magnolia are any indication. Tracey Ullman as the neglected wife was quite moving, to me. It was a three-dimensional depiction of a character too often viewed by society as two-dimensional. Of course, Donald Sutherland can add this to his collection of unforgettable portrayals. The depiction of the parents (Bain/Sutherland) reminded me, in an indirect way, of Vincent Gallo's BUFFALO '66, although toned-down quite a bit! I would definitely pay money to see a second film from this director. He has the self-discipline of a 50s b-crimefilm director (something P.T.Anderson will never have!), yet he has a visual style and a way with actors that commands attention.


What a surprising treat to come across on late television. Had I only read a brief plot rundown on a television listing before seeing the movie, I would have passed. The idea of a movie about a hit-man-seeing-a shrink-wanting-to leave-the-business-and-falling-in-love....sounds trite. But the film works. From the start of the movie, it's clear the man carries a weight on his shoulders, before he even says a word. The look and feel of the film is perfect. dark, but not obnoxiously so.

Aside from the hit-man family aspect which provides a touch of surrealism, Macy's character grapples with his marriage, and his father's control. Macy shows a repressed sadness, and his bedtime talks with his young son are amazing. The young boy shows acting skills well beyond his years, and the interaction between the father and son is so very natural, personal and loving.

This is one of the best movies I've seen in a while, and I can't believe I came across it by accident on late night television.


Everyone is either loving or hating this film. I am going with loving. It is so well shot and so well acted. Beautiful. This film is for people who appreciate well crafted film making. If you are not a fan of well done films of course you would hate this. But if you like the tops of acting, photography, story and development, look no further then here.


I really liked this film. One of those rare films that Hollywood Really does not make anymore. William H Macy Is Just great as the hit man with a soul, and Neve Campbell is just flat out fantastic as the woman who puts his life on the track of redemption.

If you have a chance, see this film. It earns it's praise


The extended nuclear family, united in business as well as in personal life, is examined in this serious study of a grown son's conflict with his father's desire that he remain in the family business. This triggers a midlife crisis which may or may not be ameliorated by an affair and retreat to a shrink's couch. Very fine acting by all. A sleeper that deserves wide attention.


A first time director (Bromell) has assembled a small but powerful cast to look at the world of a middle aged, middle class, depressed hit-man and his struggle with his relationship with his father. This film in less than 90 minutes presents an incredibly interesting contrast in human nature. David Dorfman as the 6 year old son of William H. Macy is the most refreshing little actor I've seen in awhile. Macy is brilliant in a part that almost seems written for him as a self tortured sole struggling to break the reins of his father and his business. It's always great to see Donald Sutherland and here he's wonderful as the callous father of Macy. The films alternate audio track is well worth it to hear the director explain how he picked the cast, locations, and filmed the movie. The basic dolby 2 channel sound is adequate for this film and well recorded. The cinematography creates the mood along with a very subtle musical background. Any film buff or observer of human nature will enjoy this one especially if he's a fan of contradiction.


I saw this movie a few months ago on cable, and it was fantastic. William H Macy is one of my favorite actors, and his performance was just amazing. He makes you care for his character, even when he is clearly doing the wrong thing, and Neve Campbell gives a performance that is with out a doubt the best performance I have seen by an actress this year. She is fantastic as a wild young woman who is wise beyond her years.

Donald Sutherland is just plain creepy as Macy's father, and John Ritter is fine as a shrink stuck in the middle of everything that is happening.

I wish that this was in the theater because I feel that it's a movie that should be view by a wider audience. That's a shame, because it's a hell of allot better that most of the new movies coming into the theater now.


This movie displays the kind of ensemble work one wishes for in every film. Barbara Bain and Donald Sutherland (who play husband and wife)are positive chilling, discussing the "family business" as if it were a grocery store or a dry cleaners. Macy, Campbell, Ullman, and Ritter are also terrific. They play off each other like members of a top-notch theatrical troupe, who realize that a quality product requires each actor to support the others unselfishly. And finally, there's Sammy (David Dorfman). What an amazing performance from a child...and what an uncanny resemblance he has to Ullman, whose son he plays!

We're treated to a unique story in "Panic," and that's a rarity in these days of tired formulaic crap. The dialogue is sharp and smart, and this relatively short film nevertheless has the power to elicit a full range of emotions from the viewer. There are places to laugh, to be shocked, to be horrified, to be saddened, to be aroused, to be angry, and to love. It's not a movie that leaves you jumping for joy, but when it's over you're more than satisfied knowing you've spent the last ninety minutes experiencing a darn good piece of work.

More of us would go to theatres if we were treated to quality fare like this. When are the powers that be in Hollywood going to wake up? It's a real shame when something this good fails to get exposure beyond festivals and households fortunate enough to have cable.


It is always sad when "fringe" movies such as this are overlooked by the majority of filmgoers. "Panic" is a wonderfully compelling and poignant study of a character who feels trapped in the pointlessness of his own life.

William H. Macy, as Alex, is as convincing as always. This fine actor seems to have a special talent for pulling at your heartstrings, no matter how flawed his characters may be; we may not always condone the lifestyles of the protagonists he plays, but the emotions of fear and confusion that he evokes in us are often all too painfully familiar. The title, "Panic," initially seems paradoxical, given the lack of overt emotion. At one point Alex tells his doctor that he rarely gets angry. Yet, as this story unfolds, it becomes increasingly obvious that rage and desperation, not indifference, are the driving forces behind this man's existence.

More than once I was reminded of his performance in "Fargo," another strongly character-driven movie. In both "Fargo" and "Panic" we witness a middle aged man who somehow seems to have stepped out of synch with the rest of life. He has lost his way, and the only way back deceptively appears to be though the darkness. He knows he is making bad choices, but desperation overpowers self-control and common sense.

Alex connects with Sarah, a 23 year old woman (mesmorizingly played by Neve Campbell), whom he meets in a doctor's office. Thematically, this union is less coincidence, more the work of fate. Alex finds a certain comfort being with Sarah, sensing perhaps that she is a fellow drifter, like him, someone who has lost her way and is floating aimlessly through the rest of her life, waiting powerlessly for its inevitable conclusion.

Opting for movies such as this is a shrewd and convincing way for Neve Campbell to answer those critics who question her acting abilities. Too often it is the characters she has played who are the weakness, offering Campbell no depth in which to flex her acting muscles. This performance, however, may be an eye-opener for many.

In a perfect movie world, not only would there be many more films like "Panic," but also they would reach and be appreciated by a much wider audience. If you watch movies for the richness and depth of characterization, rather than merely the latest state-of-the-art special effects, then, for you, "Panic" is unmissable. A+.


Writer/director Henry Brommel has done a wonderful job with his film, "Panic," from the year 2000, and that includes his choice of cast: William H. Macy, Tracy Ullman, John Ritter, Neve Campbell, Donald Sutherland, Barbara Bain, David Dorfman. Brommel has cast Ullman and Ritter in decidedly un-funny roles, and the offbeat casting is a welcome change from what we normally see.

"Panic" is the story of a hit man, Alex (Macy) who actually works for his father (Sutherland). He covers his true profession by doing mail order work; by all appearances, he and his wife (Ullman) and their son Sammy (Dorfman) are a typical suburban family. Unhappy with his life, Alex seeks the help of a psychiatrist (Ritter), telling only his mother (Bain). In the waiting room, he meets a young woman (Campbell) to whom he is immediately attracted, which complicates his situation further. His mother breaks her promise and tells his father about the psychiatrist. When Alex receives his next assignment, he discovers that he is to kill his psychiatrist.

This is a profound story of a gentle, good man made into a killer by a monster of a father, with his mother's knowledge, who kills to please his father but also can't stand up to him and quit. His rage is so deep-seated that he has lost emotional attachment to just about everything and everyone except his son - and it's finally his son who wakes him up out of a nearly lifelong repression. When it's time for "Panic" to moves, it does - quickly.

"Panic" doesn't seem panicked at all. In fact, it moves very slowly. But it moves slowly not because it's poorly made - the slowness is deliberate, mirroring Alex's own psyche slowly coming out of the fog. By making a decision about Sara, the Campbell character, and by seeing his mark, his own psychiatrist, as a living, breathing human being, Alex starts to make the connections between what he does and who he is -and how they don't jive. And the difference between the two could lead to the loss of another psyche, Sammy's.

William Macy gives another brilliant performance, as a loving father, a distant husband, and a cold killer, the child of two monsters who never cared a damn for his feelings or desires, a man who realizes finally that he has to step up to the plate or have the cycle repeated.

This is not the kind of drama that plays well in a movie theater. It's too adult, too small, too subtle, too character-driven, and too good.


I bought this a year or more ago for $2 (yep, $2), left it on the shelf for ages, now watching DVDs while holed up with a cold.

This is a haunting movie. Brilliant performances by all involved, especially the 6yo boy (about the only smiles you get in this movie).

Plot reminds me of perhaps my favourite movie ever, Grosse Pointe Blank, but obviously that's lighthearted, this is heavy hearted.

As a psychologist, a clinical and forensic psychologist, a shiver went up my spine when the identity of the new contract was revealed. Scary stuff! Brilliant work all round.

Pete


Wow I really liked this movie, William H. Macy is great as the quiet hit-man Alex.

All the performances here are really good, the plot is interesting and entertaining.

Alex, a married hit-man (like his father)with a little son, is going through a middle age crisis and wants to quit the family business so he goes to the psychiatrist for help and in this place he meets the young free will spirit Sarah of whom he falls in love to. One day Alex doesn't know what to do when he gets a job to kill a person he knows.

I recommend you to watch it if you like mature interesting movies.

8 stars = very good


Had placed this on my TIVO for a rainy day due to the cast, some really hard working people in the industry, and when I finally watched I was NOT disappointed.

This movie has some Altman-like flavor (he's mentioned in the end credits as a "thanks" person) utilizing seemingly independent unrelated plot lines that intertwine as the film draws to its climax. Macy is pure, clean, and honest as a man who can't seem to escape his "destiny", Sutherland plays and portrays as few can, Neve adds splash to a deliberately toned down environment, add Tracy Ullman, Barbara Bain (remember Mission Impossible on TV?), not to mention the steady John Ritter and you have all the ingredients for a good FILM. The script is uncluttered, the dialog is free from cliché and thoughtful (especially between Macy and David Dorfman). Suspend belief and enjoy, this is truly time well spent.


In his first go as a Hollywood director, Henry Brommell whips an enthralling yarn that is all of penetrating relatable marital issues with melancholic authenticity, and lacing such with an equally absorbing subplot of a father-son hit-man business. The film is directed astutely and consists of a wonderfully put together cast as well as a swift, family-conscious screenplay (also by Brommell) that brings life to an otherwise fatigued genre. As a bonus, 'Panic' delivers subtle, acerbic humoran unexpected, undeniably charming, and very welcome surprisethrough its bumbling, unsure-of-himself, low-key star, whose ever-cool state is enticing, especially given his line of work.

The forever-great William H. Macy again captures our hearts as Alex, a unhappy, torn, middle-aged husband and father who finds solace in the most dubious of persons: a young, attractive, equally-messed-up 23-year-old named Sarah (Neve Campbell), whom he meets in the waiting-room at a psychologist's office, where he awaits the therapy of Dr. Josh Parks (John Ritter) to discuss his growing eagerness to quit the family business that his father (Donald Sutherland) built. Alex, whose lust to lead a new life is obstructed by the fear of disappointing his dictating father, strikes an unwise fancy for Sarah, which ultimately leads him to understand the essence and irrefutable responsibility of being a husband to his wife and, more importantly to him, a good father to his six-year-old son, Sammy (played enthusiastically by the endearing David Dorfman).

Henry Brommell's brilliant 'Panic' is something of a rarity in Hollywood seldom seen (with the exception of 2002's 'Road to Perdition') since its conception in 2000it weaves two conflicting genres (organized-crime, family drama) into a fascinating, warm hunk of movie-viewing that is evenly strong in either directionand it's one that will maintain its exceptional, infrequent caliber and gleaming sincerity for ages to come.


"Panic" is kind of a crime comedy-drama with William H. Macy, Donald Sutherland and Neve Campbell in the leading roles. Alex (played by Macy) is a guy who kills people for living. But for the moment he's facing a depression and that's why he is seeing a therapist. That's where he meets Sarah (Neve Campbell) and he falls in love with her. He's also facing another problem: he wants to quit the family business (the killings), but he doesn't now how to tell this to his father.

What follows is the story of a guy during he's midlife-crisis, facing the regular problems: falling in love with a pretty young girl and everything that goes with that.

Pretty good acting performances by the cast. Macy is excellent as the depressed Alex. I had high expectations for this one and it was a good movie but he doesn't completely deliver. The story was rather flat and cliché..

7/10


William H. Macy is at his most sympathetic and compelling here as a hit-man and loving father who wants to step out of the family business without angering his overbearing parents. Treads much of the same territory as TV's "The Sopranos" in terms of the mid-life crisis of a criminal theme (here too he visits a shrink) but is still worth watching thanks to some taut direction from Brommel (I look forward to what this guy directs next), an excellent script, and all around great performances. Macy is excellent as always. This is probably his best role since "Fargo." Donald Sutherland is at his creepy best as the domineering father. Tracy Ullman gives a surprisingly riveting dramatic turn as Macy's wife. Young David Dorfman is excellent as Macy's bright and sensitive son (many of his lines sound ad-libbed and are wonderful). Even Neve Campell (who I usually find abhorrent) is compelling as the troubled young woman who captures Macy's eye. All of this is punctuated by a moving score and crisp pace that lead up to a predictable but still powerful climax and meaningful and touching aftermath. This film deserved a much wider release, as I suspect it would have connected with audiences.


Strange yet emotionally disturbing chiller about fed up middle-aged man (William H. Macy) who finally decides to leave the family business (murder for hire) run by his quietly over-demanding father (Donald Sutherland) while seeing a shrink (John Ritter) and flirting with another patient (Neve Campbell).

Talk about a major dilemma, but "Panic" is a top-notch thriller that looks like "American Beauty" meets "The Professional". Macy and Sutherland are the stand-outs here. Remarkable debut for first-time writer/director Henry Bromell. I'm surprised that this movie didn't get a chance to stay in theaters for more than a couple of weeks.


I'd never heard of this movie, but boy was I surprised when I caught it on TV. Great cast, great acting. Excellent movie! How can a movie with William H Macy, Neve Campbell and Donald Sutherland go wrong? I wonder why I never heard of it before.


This is simply the funniest movie I've seen in a long time. The bad acting, bad script, bad scenery, bad costumes, bad camera work and bad special effects are so stupid that you find yourself reeling with laughter.

So it's not gonna win an Oscar but if you've got beer and friends round then you can't go wrong.


When I was over at Hollywood video I looked through their clearance out movies and there was DEMONICUS for five buckaroos plus fifty percent off! I saw it only once before and couldn't pass up this great deal! The second viewing was much better than the first. The box is so cool and the music is very good. If you haven't seen Demonicus yet I recommend that you do or if you rented and hated Demonicus do give it another chance as another viewing of it may change your mind. If you seen a copy at Hollywood Video for the price I got it for don't pass it up as it is a great deal!

Demonicus is well a very different but entertaining movie.Believe it or not is like watching a interactive video game with out playing it!It has very low budget and actors I'M sure that nobody is familiar with. We began the the video game uh I mean film with a guy and a woman some where in Italy and there is a cave that actually looks like a rail road/train track tunnel and she says don't go in there and what does he do?The normal stuff!HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO HER! He goes in there and find lots of gladiator artifacts and armor and a almost perfectly preserved body of a legendary gladiator named Tyrannous!Where did the chair come from that Tyrannous was sitting on and how did his body stay so good and where did the Cauldron Pot come from?So every cave is complete with a Caultron Pot?Tyrannous is wearing his armor,helmet,and has a weapon or two.He does the dumbest thing a person could do,he puts on the helmet and is taken over by the spirit of Tyrannous! From there he walks around just killing all of the campers near by to bring back the real Tyrannous.

Now,I said before its like a video game.Its hard to explain but it just feels like it.The music even sounds like video games.The acting is really terrible.The actors say things like why is he doing this,oh he was nuts already and Fine since he's nuts i'm going home!Also the movie also has some major errors like a guy is running and trying to find his girlfriend in the night and is still running in the day time still searching for her with out taking a break!

This movie has some errors but it isn't a classic like Werewolf but it is entertaining if you like really low budget error prone movies then you better see Demonicus!


demonicus rocked, you guys need to understand how hard it rocked, unfortunately, the words needed to explain the extent of the rocking have not been discovered. for a tiny idea, pop like 50 hits of E, watch Death Factory while on the phone with Jesus, wait, Jesus is on call waiting, you're having phone sex with Will Smith on the primary line. seriously, that movie... so good. you need to watch it at least a 4 times to catch all the subtleties... well, not so much subtleties as much as it takes the length of the movie, times 4 in order to ponder why the people at full moon are allowed to A, live, and B, reproduce. what is our world coming to?


Demonicus is a movie turned into a video game! I just love the story and the things that goes on in the film.It is a B-film ofcourse but that doesn`t bother one bit because its made just right and the music was rad! Horror and sword fight freaks,buy this movie now!


All good movies "inspire" some direct to video copycat flick. I was afraid that "Gladiator" wasn't really that good a film, because I hadn't seen any movie that had anything remotely resembling anything Roman on the new releases shelf for months. Then I spotted Full Moon's latest offering, Demonicus. I'm a fan of Full Moon's Puppetmaster series, and Blood Dolls, but had never seen one of their non-killer puppet films. Anyway...

Demonicus chronicles what happens to a group of campers in the mountains of the Alps. One of the campers, James, finds a cave with old gladiator artifacts, and feels impelled to remove a helmet from a corpse and try it on. He becomes possessed, and, as the demonic gladiator Tyrannus, is impelled to kill his friends to revive the corpse, who is the real Tyrannus.

Granted, like many Full Moon films, this has little or no budget. At times, the editing and direction was so amateurish I'd swear I was watching the Blair Witch Project. The attempts at chopping off of limbs and heads reminds me of a Monty Python skit. The weapons, although apparently real, look really plastic-y. It literally looks like this was filmed by a group of friends with a digital camcorder on a weekend. Granted, there's nothing wrong with such film-making, just don't rent this expecting a technical masterpiece. It looks like there were attempts at research for the script too, because, even though Tyrannus really doesn't act much like a gladiator until the end, at least he speaks Latin.

All trashing aside, I actually enjoyed this film. Not as much as a killer puppet film, perhaps, but Full Moon still delivers! The only thing that disappointed me was there was no Full Moon Videozone at the end!


This is undoubtedly one of the funniest movies ever made. Amitabh as a country bumpkin, Arjun Singh, is hilarious. The best thing is the laughter never stops. The plot is a same-old same-old story where child is separated from mother who sacrifices everything for her duty - with a happy reunion at the end. There are villains (Ranjit) and there are brothers (Sashi Kapoor) and there are vixens (Parveen Babhi) and there are lovers (Smita Patil) and there is a blind brother and a grandfather thrown in for good measure. But this movie is about Amitabh and thats all you remember at then end.

Amitabh comes to the city to make a decent living and his dialogue delivery and mannerisms are hilarious. Later in the movie he turns into the Angry Young Man he is famous for but the humour stays. Memorable parts include his walking, talking and speaking english, the song (pad gungaroo re bhand, meera nachi thi) and everything with his dadoo.

All in all I was rolling with laughter throughout the movie. If you want 3 hours of entertainment with Amitabh at his absolute best - this is it. It will easily give it a 10/10.


For anyone who may not know what a one-actor movie was like, this is the best example. This plot is ridiculous, and really makes no sense. It's full of cliched situations, hackneyed lines, melodrama, comedy... you name it!

But Amitabh Bachchan can make anything convincing, and this movie is by no means an exception. Everyone turns in a decent performance - Shashi Kapoor, Waheeda Rehman, Ranjit, Om Prakash, Smita Patil... But it is the Megastar who overshadows everyone with his towering presence. Without him, this movie would have been a non-starter... The story is about separation / mistaken identities / misunderstandings / love / hate / loyalty / good vs evil - everything, really! Amitabh's is a brilliant performance on all counts, in an otherwise silly film! And did I mention that it is ridiculously funny?


This movie will tell you why Amitabh Bacchan is a one man industry. This movie will also tell you why Indian movie-goers are astute buyers.

Amitabh was at the peak of his domination of Bollywood when his one-time godfather Prakash Mehra decided to use his image yet again. Prakash has the habit of picking themes and building stories out of it, adding liberal doses of Bollywood sensibilities and clichés to it. Zanzeer saw the making of Angry Young Man. Lawaris was about being a bastard and Namak Halal was about the master-servant loyalties.

But then, the theme was limited to move the screenplay through the regulation three hours of song, dance and drama. What comprised of the movie is a caricature of a Haryanavi who goes to Mumbai and turns into a regulation hero. Amitabh's vocal skills and diction saw this movie earn its big bucks, thanks to his flawless stock Haryanvi accent. To me, this alone is the biggest pull in the movie. The rest all is typical Bollywood screen writing.

Amitabh, by now, had to have some typical comedy scenes in each of his movies. Thanks to Manmohan Desai. This movie had a good dose of them. The shoe caper in the party, the monologue over Vijay Merchant and Vijay Hazare's considerations, The mosquito challenge in the boardroom and the usual drunkard scene that by now has become a standard Amitabh fare.

Shashi Kapoor added an extra mile to the movie with his moody, finicky character (Remember him asking Ranjeet to "Shaaadaaaap" after the poisoned cake incident"). His was the all important role of the master while Amitabh was his loyal servant. But Prakash Mehra knew the Indian mind...and so Shashi had to carry along his act with the rest of the movie. It was one character that could have been more developed to make a serious movie. But this is a caper, remember? And as long as it stayed that way, the people came and saw Amitabh wearing a new hat and went back home happy. The end is always predictable, and the good guys get the gal and the bad ones go to the gaol, the age-old theme of loyalty is once again emphasized and all is well that ends well.

So what is it that makes this movie a near classic? Amitabh Bacchan as the Haryanvi. Prakash Mehra created yet another icon in the name of a story. Chuck the story, the characters and the plot. My marks are for Amitabh alone.


The film transported everyone back to October 20, 1944 where we seemed to be part of the great Philippine 'I Shall Return' landing scene It was on that Leyte shore where General MacArthur reaped his fame

Above all, Gregory Peck triumphed in his portrayal of the great general It is the stride, the set of the shoulders, the intensity It's what both men have had in common: intensity, total absorption, devotion With MacArthur it was for the military With Peck it was for the challenge of acting An Academy Award winner for "To Kill a Mockinbird", an Oscar nominee for "Keys to the Kingdom", "The Yearling", "Gentleman's Agreement", and "Twelve O'Clock High"he has played everything from an apparently homicidal amnesiac to a crusading journalist; from a troubled gunfighter to an obsessed attorney; from biblical David to Captain Horatio Hornblower He has brought to them all his own unique insight, his character, his sincerity, warmth and love, and especially, his humor

There is a scene where 'MacArthur' stands on deck with the 'President of the Philippines.' We can hear the dialogue: "General, I hope the water isn't too deep," says the 'President,' "because my people will find out I can't swim." Then come Peck's sonorous voice: "And my people are going to find that I can't walk on water!"

As "MacArthur," Peck once again justified his reputation as a giant in the film industry Through him we felt MacArthur's emotions: we knew his anger, his happiness and we understood the relationship with his whole family


It is noteworthy that mine is only the third review of this film, whereas `Patton- Lust for Glory', producer Frank McCarthy's earlier biography of a controversial American general from the Second World War, has to date attracted nearly a hundred comments. Like a previous reviewer, I am intrigued by why one film should have received so much more attention than the other.

One difference between the two films is that `Patton' is more focused, concentrating on a relatively short period at and immediately after the end of the Second World War, whereas `MacArthur' covers not only this war but also its subject's role in the Korean war, as well as his period as American governor of occupied Japan during the interlude.

The main difference, however, lies in the way the two leaders are played. Gregory Peck dominates this film even more than George C. Scott dominated `Patton'. Whereas Scott had another major star, Karl Malden, playing opposite him as General Bradley, none of the other actors in `MacArthur' are household names, at least for their film work. Scott, of course, portrayed Patton as aggressive and fiery-tempered, a man who at times was at war with the rest of the human race, not just with the enemy. I suspect that in real life General MacArthur was as volcanic an individual as Patton, but that is not how he appears in this film. Peck's MacArthur is of a more reflective, thoughtful bent, comparable to the liberal intellectuals he played in some of his other films. At times, he even seems to be a man of the political left. Much of his speech on the occasion of the Japanese surrender in 1945 could have been written by a paid-up member of CND, and his policies for reforming Japanese society during the American occupation have a semi-socialist air to them. In an attempt to show something of MacArthur's gift for inspiring leadership, Peck makes him a fine speaker, but his speeches always seem to owe more to the studied tricks of the practised rhetorician than to any fire in the heart. It is as if Atticus Finch from `To Kill a Mockingbird' had put on a general's uniform.<br /><br />Whereas Scott attempted a `warts and all' portrait of Patton, the criticism has been made that `MacArthur' attempts to gloss over some of its subject's less attractive qualities. I think that this criticism is a fair one, particularly as far as the Korean War is concerned. The film gives the impression that MacArthur was a brilliant general who dared stand up to interfering, militarily ignorant politicians who did not know how to fight the war and was sacked for his pains when victory was within his grasp. Many historians, of course, feel that Truman was forced to sack MacArthur because the latter's conduct was becoming a risk to world peace, and had no choice but to accept a stalemate because Stalin would not have allowed his Chinese allies to be humiliated. Even during the Korean scenes, Peck's MacArthur comes across as more idealistic than his real-life original probably was; we see little of his rashness and naivety about political matters. (Truman 's remark `he knows as much about politics as a pig knows about Sunday' was said about Eisenhower, but it could equally well have been applied to MacArthur's approach to international diplomacy). Perhaps the film's attempt to paint out some of MacArthur's warts reflects the period in which it was made. The late seventies, after the twin traumas of Vietnam and Watergate, was a difficult time for America, and a public looking for reassurance might have welcomed a reassuringly heroic depiction of a military figure from the previous generation. Another criticism I would make of the film is that it falls between two stools. If it was intended to be a full biography of MacArthur, something should have been shown of his early life, which is not covered at all. (The first we see of the general is when he is leading the American resistance to the Japanese invasion of the Philippines). One theme that runs throughout the film is the influence of General MacArthur's father, himself a military hero. I would have liked to see what sort of man Arthur MacArthur was, and just why his son considered him to be such a hero and role model. Another interesting way of making the film would have been to concentrate on Korea and on MacArthur's clash with Truman, with equal prominence given to the two men and with actors of similar stature playing them. The way in which the film actually was made seemed to me to be less interesting than either of these alternative approaches.

It would be wrong, however, to give the impression that I disliked the film altogether. Although I may not have agreed with Peck's interpretation of the main role, there is no denying that he played it with his normal professionalism and seriousness. The film as a whole is a good example of a solid, workmanlike biopic, thoughtful and informative. It is a good film, but one that could have been a better one. 7/10.

On a pedantic note, the map which MacArthur is shown using during the Korean War shows the DMZ, the boundary between the two Korean states that did not come into existence until after the war. (The pre-war boundary was the 38th parallel). Also, I think that MacArthur was referring to the `tocsin' of war. War may be toxic, but it is difficult to listen with thirsty ear for a toxin.


Gregory Peck's brilliant portrayal of Douglas MacArthur from the Battle of Corregidor in the Philippines at the start of the Pacific War largely through to his removal as UN Commander during the Korean War offers reason to believe all three of the above possibilities. Certainly the most controversial American General of the Second World War (and possibly ever) MacArthur is presented here as a man of massive contradictions. He claims that soldiers above all yearn for peace, yet he obviously glories in war; he consistently denies any political ambitions, yet almost everything he does is deliberately used to boost himself as a presidential candidate; he obviously believes that soldiers under his command have to follow his orders to the letter, yet he himself deliberately defies orders from the President of the United States; he shows great respect for other cultures (particularly in the Philippines and Japan) and yet is completely out of touch with his own country. All these things are held in balance throughout this movie, and in the end the viewer is left to draw his or her own conclusions about the man, although one is left with no doubt that MacArthur sincerely and passionately loved his country, and especially the Army he devoted his life to.

Peck's performance was, as I said, brilliant - to the point, actually, of overshadowing virtually everyone else in the film (which is perhaps appropriate, given who he was portraying!) with the possible exception of Ed Flanders. I though he offered a compelling look at Harry Truman and his attitude to MacArthur: sarcastic (repeatedly referring to MacArthur as "His Majesty,") angry, frustrated and finally completely fed up with this General who simply won't respect his authority as President. Marj Dusay was also intriguing as MacArhur's wife Jean, devoted to her husband (whom she herself referred to as "General," although their relationship seems to have been a happy enough one.) I very much enjoyed this movie, although perhaps would have liked to have learned a little more about MacArthur's early life. I have always chuckled at MacArthur's reaction to Eisenhower being elected President ("He'll make a fine President - he was the best damn clerk I ever had" - which seems to sum up what MacArthur thought the role of the President should be, especially to his military commanders during wartime.) Well worth watching. 8/10


Frank McCarthy who produced the Academy Award winning biographical film Patton follows it up with a strong tribute to another of America's fighting generals, Douglas MacArthur. Gregory Peck gives a strong characterization of the man, his genius as well as his egotism. With MacArthur you never knew quite where one began and the other left off and too many times they blended.

The whole story of Douglas MacArthur would be a six hour film or a TV mini-series. It would cover him from his days on frontier posts with his family to his time at West Point where he still has the highest scholastic average ever achieved by a cadet. It would talk about his service in the Phillipines as a young officer, his legend building bravery on the battlefields of World War I in France. It would also have to tell about him firing on the Bonus Marchers of World War I veterans in 1932, probably putting the final kabosh on any chances President Herbert Hoover had of getting re-elected. During MacArthur's last years he and Hoover had penthouse suites at the Waldorf Astoria in New York City. That must have been a subject they avoided.

This film concentrates on the years 1941 to 1952 and it is told in flashback. The film opens with MacArthur addressing the student body in 1962. As he speaks the words of the famous Duty Honor Country speech, MacArthur's mind goes back to World War II and his desperate struggle against the advancing Japanese on the island of Corregidor and the fields of Bataan on Luzon. The film takes him through his struggle to win back the Phillipines, the occupation of Japan and the first 18 months culminating in his relief of command by President Truman.

MacArthur as a film would not work at all if it wasn't for the portrayals of Dan O'Herlihy and Ed Flanders as Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman respectively. It's the part of the film I enjoyed the best, seeing MacArthur and his relations with both these men.

FDR by O'Herlihy captures the aristocratic squire and exceptionally devious man that was our 32nd President. Roosevelt was a man who got his points across with unusual subtlety and cleverness. Sometimes he liked scheming a little too much for its own sake, but he was the master politician of the last century. Note how he deals with MacArthur both as a battlefield commander and potential rival at the same time.

Truman by Flanders is as people remember him, a blunt spoken man of the people who disliked MacArthur's haughtiness from the gitgo. Of course it's in the history books how Truman relieved MacArthur in 1951 for insubordination. MacArthur was insubordinate, no doubt about it.

Yet I could write a whole thesis on the Truman-MacArthur relations. Along the way it need not have ever come to a crisis. I've always felt that FDR would have dealt with the whole matter in a far better way had he still been president then.

MacArthur was also grandly eloquent and Gregory Peck captures some of that eloquence in some of the orations that made him as much a legend as victories on the battlefield. Listen to Peck at the Japanese surrender, at MacArthur's farewell to the nation before the joint session of Congress, and of course his speech to the cadets in 1962. Watch the newsreels and see if you don't agree.


Since Douglas MacArthur affected more human livesfor the betterthan any other American not elected President, he deserved a better film biography. Not that Universal's "MacArthur" is bad. It's just not all it should have been.

Oddly enough, the potential was there. From the very early "Star Trek" episode "The Corbomite Maneuver" (1966) to the recent HBO films "Something the Lord Made" (2OO4) and "Warm Springs" (2OO5), director Joseph Sargent has emerged as one of the most expressively human directors in film, a man capable of subtly shaping the emotional shadings of his actors' performances, and carrying the audience exactly where he wants them to go. The producer, Frank McCarthy, also gave us "Patton" (197O), the legendary Jerry Goldsmith scored both films, and Universal widely touted the fact that the film was "four years in preparation and production." Yet for all of this, "MacArthur" is perfectly adequateand not much more than that.

The film begins in early 1942, shortly before the beleaguered general was orderedby President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Dan O'Herlihy)to flee the Philippines to avoid capture by the Japanese. Thus, this film omits:

· MacArthur's birth in 188O in a frontier barracks in Arkansas still subject to attack by Native American tribesmenthus establishing that his remarkable life spanned the distance from bows-and-arrows to thermonuclear weapons;

· his graduation from West Pointfirst in a class of 95,

· how he joined his famous father, General Arthur MacArthur (who had earned the Medal of Honor at Missionary Ridge in the Civil War) on assignments in Japan, China and, most importantly, in the Philippines;

· his heroic exploits in the 1914 excursion into Vera Cruz;

· how he leaped about the trenches of World War One like a mountain goat, often wounded, and promoted with blinding speed to Brigadier General;

· his postwar service as West Point's youngestand most progressivecommandant;

· his participation in the court-martial of Billy Mitchell in 1924;

· his routing of the Bonus Marchers in 1932;

· his efforts to sustain a woefully-underfunded Army as Chief of Staff in the early 193O's;

· his retirement from the U.S. Army to become Field Marshal (!) of the Army of the Philippines;

· and the reactivation of his commission by FDR shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War.

All this is omitted in favor of prolonged footage of MacArthur trying to fight off seasickness while being evacuated by PT boatthus, we know that "General Mac" is a legend, but not why; nor can we appreciate why the allegations of cowardice were so wounding to "Dugout Doug"and so patently unfounded.

The remainder of his career is presently straightforwardly: His island-hopping "Hit 'em where they ain't" campaign, the fulfillment of his pledge to the Filipinos "I shall return!"his crowning achievement, the winning of the peace in postwar Japan, then the difference of opinion with President Harry Truman (a properly feisty Ed Flanders) over the conduct of the Korean conflict which resulted in his outright firing, and finally, his proclamation to Congress that "old soldierssimply fade away," after which he did just that. All quite historically accurate, and all presented with a very deliberate lack of commentary.

Sargent and the producers almost painfully distance themselves from adorning the historical record with their own approval or disapproval: If MacArthur's actions appear noble, let them be presented as such; if they appear egotistical or bombastic, let those conceptions register sans comment. Since Joe Sargent is quite expert at subtly manipulating his audience's reactionsagain, see Warm Springsthis refusal to offer comment appears quite intentional. Historically, that may be commendable, but it almost defeats the efforts of the viewer to place this extraordinary man in any kind of rational perspective.

And finally, there is a sort of "made on the cheap" feel to the film, as there is to "Midway," released about the same time. Both films were relegated to "television" directors--Sargent in this case, Jack Smight on "Midway," and both have a made-for-TV-look. Even Jerry Goldsmith's march, while perfectly serviceable, lack the subtle undertones and the grandeur of his "Patton" theme--just another way in which a larger-than-life man is memorialized by a very ordinary film.

There was vanity and pettiness in this man, inarguably; there was also greatnessand love him or loathe him, one must acknowledge the fact that MacArthur did what no military commander before him had done: he won the peace.

In the end, "MacArthur"like so many film biographiesis a good place to begin research into this remarkable man, but a poor place to end it.


The movie "MacArthur" begins and ends at Gen. Douglas MacArthur's, Gregory Peck, Alma Mata the US Military Academy of West Point on the Hudson. We see a frail 82 year old Gen.MacArthur give the commencement speech to the graduating class of 1962 about what an honor it is to serve their country. The film then goes into an almost two hour long flashback on Gen. MacArthur's brilliant as well as controversial career that starts in the darkest hours of WWII on the besieged island of Corregidor in the Philippines in the early spring of 1942.

Told to leave he island for Australia before the Japanese military invade it Gen. MacArthur for the very first time in his military career almost disobeys a direct order from his superior US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dan O'Herlihy. Feeling that he'll be deserting his men at their greatest hour of need MacArthur reluctantly, together with his wife and young son, did what he was told only to have it haunt him for the reminder of the war. It was that reason, his escape under fire from death or captivity by the Japanese, that drove Gen. MacArthur to use all his influence to get FDR two years later to launch a major invasion of the Philippians, instead of the island of Formosa, to back up his promise to both the Philippine people as well as the thousands of US POWS left behind. That he'll return and return with the might of the US Army & Navy to back up his pledge!

In the two years up until the invasion of the Philippine Islands Gen. MacArther battered the Japanese forces in the South Pafific in a number of brilliantly conceived island hop battles that isolated and starved hundreds of thousands of Japanese troops into surrender. The General did that suffering far less US Military losses then any other allied commander in the War in the Pacific!

It was in 1950/51 in the Korean War that Gen. MacArthur achieved his most brilliant victory as well as his worst military defeat. After outflanking the advancing North Korean Army in the brilliant and perfectly executed, with the invading US Marines suffering less then 100 casualties, back door or left hook invasion of Inchon Gen. MacArther feeling invincible sent the US/UN forces under his command to the very border, along the Yalu River, of Communist Red China. Told by his subordinates that he's facing the threat of a massive ground attack by Communist Chinese troops Gen. MacArthur pressed on anyway until that attack did materialized cutting the US & UN forces to ribbons. The unstoppable wave after wave of attacking Red Chinese troops forced the US/UN forces to retreat in the "Big Bug Out" of 1950 with their very lives, leaving all their equipment behind, across the North Korean border even abandoning the South Korean capital city of Seoul! This turned out to be one of the biggest military disaster in US history with the US forces losing a record, in the Korean War, 1,000 lives on the very first day-Nov. 29/30 1950-of the Communist Chinese invasion!

Shocked and humiliated in what he allowed, due mostly to his own arrogance, to happened MacArthur went on the offensive not against the advancing Communist Chinese and Noth Koreans forces but his own Commander and Chief Pres. Harry S. Truman, Ed Flanders, in him not having the spin or guts to do what has to be done: Launch a full scale invasion of Communist China with nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent its troops from overrunning the Korean Peninsula! For Pres. Truman who had taken just about enough garbage from Gen. MacArthur in him running off his mouth in public in how he was mishandling the war in not going all out, like MacArthur wanted him to, against the Red Chinese this was the last straw! On April 11, 1951 Pres. Truman unceremoniously relived Gen. MacArthur from his command as Supreme Commander of the US/UN forces in Korea! Pres. Truman's brave but very unpopular decision also, by not going along with MacArthur's total war strategy, prevented a Third World War from breaking out with the Soviet Union-Communist China's ally- who at the time-like the US-had the Atomic Bomb! Pres. Truman''s controversial decision to dump the very popular Gen. MacArthur also cost him his re-election in 1952 with his polls numbers so low-in the mid 20's- that he withdrew-in March of that year- from the US Presidential Campaign!

In was Gen. MacArthur's misfortune to be around when the political and military climates in the world were changing in how to conduct future wars. With the horrors of a nuclear war now, in 1950/51, a reality it would have been national suicide to go all out, like Gen. MacArthur wanted to, against the Red Chinese with it very possibly touching off a nuclear holocaust that would engulf not only the US USSR & Red China but the entire world! It was that important reality of future war that Gen. MacArthur was never taught, since the A and H Bomb weren't yet invented, in West Point.

Back to 1962 we can now see that Gen. MacArthur, after finishing his commencement speech at West Point, had become both an older and wiser soldier as well as , since his retirement from the US Military, elder statesman in his feeling about war and the utter futility of it. One thing that Gen. MacArthur was taught at an early age, from his Civil War General dad Douglas MacArthur Sr, that stuck to him all his life was that to a soldier like himself war should be the very last-not first-resort in settling issues between nations. In that it's the soldiers who have to fight and die in it. It took a lifetime, with the advent of the nuclear age, for Gen. MacArthur to finally realize just how right and wise his dad a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, like himself, really was!


Name just says it all. I watched this movie with my dad when it came out and having served in Korea he had great admiration for the man. The disappointing thing about this film is that it only concentrate on a short period of the man's life - interestingly enough the man's entire life would have made such an epic bio-pic that it is staggering to imagine the cost for production.

Some posters elude to the flawed characteristics about the man, which are cheap shots. The theme of the movie "Duty, Honor, Country" are not just mere words blathered from the lips of a high-brassed officer - it is the deep declaration of one man's total devotion to his country.

Ironically Peck being the liberal that he was garnered a better understanding of the man. He does a great job showing the fearless general tempered with the humane side of the man.


MacArthur is a great movie with a great story about a great manGeneral Douglas MacArthur. This is of course, the story of one of America's great military figures, and a figure made familiar to me from the earliest moments of my memory. Though there is a continuity issue (there may be others) e.g. MacArthur's speech portrayed in the film as his 1962 address to the U.S. Military Academy on accepting the Thayer award did not contain the phrase "old soldiers never die; they just fade away." (That was in his speech to Congress upon his dismissal by President Truman) in 1951 for his alleged insubordination (these two did not see eye to eye!) Gregory Peck is im-Peck-able as the general who vowed he would return to the Philippines in World War II. The film moves quickly and easily with the General, his family and his staff from the beginning of the Second World War to the end of his service career. This film would be of much greater significance to one familiar with both WW II and the Korean War. Nevertheless, Peck's portrayal of this great man who fought the twin evils of fascism and communism and who hated war as only a soldier can is a memorable one indeed. "In war there is no substitute for victory."


An underrated addition to the Graham Greene cinematic canon - its perceived faults can now be seen as virtues. Director Shumlin, theatrical director, frames his action with an oppressive rigidity appropriate to the material, and the seemingly inept compositions compellingly suggest unease. Both a dark thriller and a story of moral regeneration (for the female character! In a 40s thriller!), the film has an upright hero who turns mad and murderous (and possibly paedophiliac), brilliantly brings the faraway ideologies of the Spanish Civil War into jolting dangerous reality, has one horrific murder, an astonishing insights into class and capitalism, clever theatrical metaphors, a rare approximation of Greene's God, and an ending that is only happy if you know nothing about history.


Good old black and white Graham Greene based people in dangerous times doing heroic and mysterious things. Hardly a shot fired or a punch thrown and a hundred time more interesting than the glop that's being minted by Hollywood today. Bacall lights up the screen of course and Boyer is entirely engaging. They don't make movies like this any more.


While this is a faithful adaptation, it is much less exciting than Greene's novel. Also, it's a bit ridiculous when people say things to Boyer like, "You're Spanish, aren't you?"

Still, the movie's not at all bad, just slow-moving.


It could have been better had it been directed by someone with more experience. Shumlin didn't do a bad job but it is not a great work of cinematic art.

It is, however, a beautiful movie. I have loved it since local channels used to show it. Graham Greene is one of my favorite writers of the last century. Some pretty bad movies were made from his novels and stories. (Many love "The Fallen Idol" but I am not among them. I think I saw "Brighton Rock" once many years ago and liked it but maybe I'm simply thinking fondly of the novel.) This is superbly cast. Charles Boyer does not, it's true, come across as Spanish. But he seems to have the perfect temperament for this character -- tired, wary, caring. Lauren Bacall is appealing as the British girl who falls for him. But the supporting players are the best: Katina Paxinou is excellent. Her performance is a little Grand Guignol, but I attribute that to the director. Peter Lorre, whom we first meet as he gives Boyer a lesson in an Esperanto-like universal language, is excellent -- as always.

And Wanda Hendrix could break the hardest heart. She comes across as a precocious early teenager. The character wants to be helpful. She does her best.

I recommend this movie highly. Not without reservations. The reservation is, primarily, that it is a little stolid. But the story and acting can scarcely be bettered.


This film has scenes that come back to me at the strangest times -- that intense scene with Mr. Muckerji telling Mrs Melandez that someone he spoke with witnesses the girl being pushed out the window by a woman who fits HER description ---is one that rolls around -- the way she keeps referring to him by name --- in a Greek accent "Mr Muckerji" -- and then when Boyer discovers her having just taken poison and gives her one last smack up the side of the head before she dies --- its a delight! "Fools -- Fools -- all my life"...etc etc -- you get the point..I have to buy this one. I love Dan Seymour's acting -- he usually plays some plump foreign sultan or police chief and appeared in Casablanca and many great pictures.


The novel is easily superior and the best parts of the film are direct translations from what Greene wrote; for instance the quiet but grim humour that breaks into the scenes with Boyer and Lorre, or the murdered-child obsession that takes over some of the plot. Where the film deviates from the novel, it tends to the ludicrous.

However I don't want to suggest that the film is bad in any way. It always looks the part and the story stays in the mind like a good 'un. Some of the minor characters were stock actors who could turn their hand to anything.

It's a dreadful shame that the film's not available on DVD.


It could have been a better film. It does drag at points, and the central story shifts from Boyer completing his mission to Boyer avenging Wanda Hendrix's death, but Graham Greene is an author who is really hard to spoil. His stories are all morality tales, due to his own considerations of Catholicism, guilt and innocence (very relative terms in his world view), and the human condition.

Boyer is Luis Denard, a well-known concert pianist, who has sided with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. He has been sent to England to try to carry through an arms purchase deal that is desperately needed. Unfortunately for Denard he is literally on his own - everyone of his contacts turns out to be a willing turncoat for the Falagists of Spain. In particular Katina Paxinou (Mrs. Melendez) a grim boarding house keeper, and Peter Lorre (Mr. Contreras) a teacher of an "esperanto" type international language. Wanda Hendrix is the drudge of a girl (Else) who works for Mrs. Melendez. The local diplomat, Licata (Victor Francken) is already a willing associate of the Falangists.

The Brits (Holmes Herbert, Miles Mander, and best - if not worst - of the lot, George Coulouris) don't give much hope to Boyer's cause (which he soon grasps may be Britain's before long). Herbert and Mander just retreat behind the official policy of neutrality ordered by the Ramsay MacDonald's and Stanley Baldwin's governments during the Civil War. Coulouris here is a typical Col. Blimp type - always impeccable in his native English diction, he is sharp in showing his dislike for foreigners in general.

The one ray of hope is Lauren Bacall (Rose Cullen), here trying to play her role as well as she can - but she can't really. She's an aristocrat - the daughter of a Press lord. It was Bacall's second film, and (sad to say) almost sank her long career. She does act well, but the spark she showed in her first film was due to the dual effect of starring with Humphrey Bogart and being directed by Howard Hawks. Boyer is a fine actor, but he's not Bogie, and Herman Shumlin is not Hawks. Her next film returned her to Bogie and Hawks again, and her star resumed it's ascendancy.

It's a bleak film (as was the novel). Boyer's mission never succeeds, as he has too many hidden foes all over the place. But the villains are likewise also losers - frequently with their lives.

With Dan Seymour as a suspicious foreign tenant of Katina Paxinou (and the man who destroys her). It is well worth watching to catch the Warner's lot of character actors doing their best given the weakness in direction.


I watch a lot of films, good, bad and indifferent; there is usually something of interest to fixate upon, even if it is only set design, or the reliable labor of a good character actor, or the fortuitous laughter that emerges from watching ineptitude captured forever.

However, I was quite pleasantly surprised by this film, one I had never seen before. Graham Greene has been translated into film many times of course, in such masterpieces as "Thin Man" and in lesser vehicles. "Confidential Agent" is one of those lesser vehicles, yet it manages to get me somewhere anyway, despite lackluster direction, the incongruity of Bacall and Boyer's depictions as (respectively) British and Spanish, and the almost complete non-existence of any chemistry between the two leads. In some ways, this last "problem" actually begins to work in the film's favor, for how can love really blossom in the killing atmosphere of fascism and capitalism meeting about one person's tragedy? The most compelling aspect of the film arises directly from Greene's complex and guilt-ridden psychology, which pervades the film. I know some see the deliberate pacing here as dull, and I can understand that. Yet I found that plodding accentuated rather than detracted from what is a claustrophobic world. I was compelled to watch, not by any great acting (although Boyer is marvelous as usual, managing to convey a rich mixture of world-weariness, tragedy, hope, and fervor with his magnificent voice and yearning eyes), but by the down-spiraling rush of one man's slim hopes against a world of oppression and money. What is a thief? What good is love in the face of death? Where does mere profit-taking end and exploitation begin? The film does not rise to the level of art, and thus cannot hope to answer such questions, but it is much more than mere entertainment, and its murders and guilts are very grimly drawn. The lack of glitz, of "bubble," of narrative "bounce" help to make this movie very worthwhile.

And there is no happy ending, for history wrote the ending.


Charles Boyer is supposed to be Spanish, and he's come to London to buy coal in "Confidential Agent," a 1945 film also starring Lauren Bacall, Katina Paxinou, Peter Lorre, Dan Seymour, and Wanda Hendrix. Boyer is Luis Denard, and everyone is out to stop him except Bacall. His papers are stolen, he's accused of murder but he's determined to get coal for his people so that they can fight the Fascists.

This film has its good and not so good points. It rates high for atmosphere and for suspense, and it is highly entertaining. Bacall is incredibly beautiful, Boyer is passionate, Paxinou is mean, Lorre is slimy, Hendrix appropriately pathetic, and Seymour outrageously wonderful.

The not so good points: Bacall is supposed to be English, and Boyer Spanish. Uh, no. Boyer is terrific in his role even with the wrong accent, but Bacall is 100% American, not of the British upper class. The two have no chemistry. Conclusion: Bacall is somewhat miscast. Her acting isn't up to snuff either; she's better in other films. But she's an astonishing looking woman, and much can be forgiven.

Paxinou is nearly over the top and hateful. Dan Seymour almost steals the entire film as a hotel guest who studies human nature. It's a great part and his performance is perfect, while some of the direction of the other actors isn't as good. This was definitely a case of no small parts, only small actors. Seymour wasn't a small actor.

Definitely worth seeing even with its flaws.


Bacall does well here - especially considering this is only her 2nd film. This one is often overshadowed because it falls between 2 great successes: "To Have and To Have Not" (1944) and "The Big Sleep" (1945), both of which paired her with Humphrey Bogart. Granted this one is not up to par to the other movies but I think through no fault of her own. I think there was some miscasting in having her portray a British upper-crust lady. No accent whatsoever. I think all the strange accents were distracting - Boyer was certainly no Spaniard. It was hard to keep straight which country people were from.

I really liked the black and white cinematography. Mood is used to great affect - I especially liked the fog scene. The lighting also does a great job of adding to the intrigue and tension.

Bacall is just gorgeous. Boyer just doesn't fit the romantic leading man role for me - so he and Bacall together was a little strange. Not great chemistry - and certainly no Bogie and Bacall magic. But I still really liked this picture. There is great tension and it moves along well enough. I must say I found the murder of the little girl quite bold for this period film.

Katina Paxinou and Peter Lorre stand out as supporting cast. Paxinou as the hotel keeper is absolutely villainous and evil in her portrayal. Her one scene where she laughs maniacally as Mr. Muckerji is leaving after exposing her as the child's murderer is quite disturbing. Lorre also does quite well in his slimy, snake portrayal of Conteras - a sleazy coward to the end. Wanda Bendrix also does quite well in portraying the child Else - especially considering this was her first picture and she was only 16 at the time (though she appears much younger). Turns out she later married Auie Murphy which proved to be a short lived, tempestuous marriage.


A film that dramatized an understandable reluctance to face the inevitable coming of the the second world war, when a Spanish Republican, sent by his soon to be overthrown government, (Charles Boyer) infiltrates himself into England looking for support for his cause by trying to influence wealthy mine owners not to sell coal to the fascists back in Spain. He upsets the locals, getting convincingly beaten in one scene, and later in the film facing an angry crowd of miners who see him as yet another threat to their shaky livelihood. Notwithstanding socio-economic hierarchy, xenophobia, and world politics, this film expertly delves into a dark and suspenseful intrigue involving unfaithful compatriots played by Katina Paxinou and Peter Lorre, and is expertly filmed in numerous darkly lit scenes set in a dreary hotel by James Wong Howe, and manages more than once to get under your skin.


This enjoyable minor noir boasts a top cast, and many memorable scenes. The big distraction is the complete disregard for authentic accents. The Spanish characters in the film are played by a Frenchman (Boyer), a Belgian (Francen), a Greek (Paxinou) and a Hungarian (Lorre)! And to top it all off Bacall is supposed to be an English aristocrat! Despite these absurdities, the performances are all very good - especially those of Paxinou and Lorre. But the scene in which Boyer, Paxinou and Lorre meet, and talk in wildly different accents, is a real hoot! And I guess, seeing as how they were alone, that they should actually have been speaking in Spanish anyway! It seems pretty weird that the Brothers Warner couldn't find any Spanish speaking actors in Los Angeles! Of course Hollywood has often had an "any old accent will do" policy - my other favorite is Greta Garbo (Swedish) as Mata Hari (Dutch), who falls in love with a Russian soldier played by a Mexican (Ramon Novarro). Maybe they should have got Novarro for "Confidential Agent" - he would have been great in Boyer's role or at least in Francen's (which would have saved greatly on the dark make-up budget).


Never realized that Charles Boyer, (Luis Denard) appeared with Lauren Bacall,(Rose Cullen) in a film together and enjoyed their great acting together. Even Peter Lorre, (Contreras) had a role in this film and had a bad misfortune in his bathroom that caused him to faint. This story deals with a Republican Courier, Luis Denard who visits England during the Spanish Civil War and tries to disrupt a coal mining contract that will cause great harm to other nations. Lauren Bacall, (Rose Cullen) comes to the aid of Luis Denard by picking him up and at the same time falling in love with him and then proceeds to help him escape from an angry crowd of English Mine Workers who threaten his life. The real bad guy in this film is Victor Francen, (Licata) "Beast with Five Fingers" who gives an outstanding performance. Great Classic 1945 film without Humphrey Bogart.


but it's worth watching for Boyer, Lorre and Paxinou. Greene's entertainments that were filmed during the war either required transplanting to American shores, as in This Gun for Hire, or the use of American actors in roles where they did not fit. Bacall fits that part here. I kept waiting for her to whistle and bring Bogie to life; her tone of voice is simply all wrong for an upper class Englishwoman. But listen to the dialogue! No, people don't talk that way except in books, but Greene was sending a message about an England that needed to wake up to the dangers of the world. One other positive note: Greene's range of characters were kept whole. While Mr. Mukerjee resembled more a Brahamin, at least his nationality was kept, and his final conversation with Paxinou is priceless.


I'm feeling a little protective of this film because it was my introduction to the U.N.C.L.E.-verse. The year was 1972, and I.T.V. ran all eight features in one bumper run ( followed by re-runs of 'The Persuaders' starring Tony Curtis and Roger Moore ) on Saturday evenings. 'The Karate Killers' was chosen to open the season. It commenced with a cool action sequence as Solo and Kuryakin's sports car got attacked by a squadron of THRUSH mini-copters. I was a fan for life from that moment on.

After the main credits ( nice to see a special title sequence here instead of the usual practice of slowing down action footage ) we go to the laboratory of Dr.Simon True ( Jim Boles ), inventor of a new formula to extract gold from seawater. True's wife Amanda ( Joan Crawford ) has been having an affair with THRUSH agent Randolph ( Herbert Lom ). A ruthless fellow indeed, he kills both the doctor and his wife, before hunting for the formula. True has prepared for the event - he has divided it into five segments, each written on a photograph of himself, and sent it to his five daughters, all of whom are scattered throughout the world.

Solo and Kuryakin set out to get the formula first, leading to a string of episodes in different locations, and cameos from the likes of Telly Savalas ( as a tight-fisted Italian Count ), Terry-Thomas, and Curt Jurgens. One of Dr.True's daughters - Sandy ( Kim Darby ) - accompanies the U.N.C.L.E. boys on their global quest.

Having assembled the formula, THRUSH turns up and makes them hand it over, before whisking them off to their secret base at the North Pole...

Of all the U.N.C.L.E. feature films, this is the one I feel should have been produced specially for the cinema. It hurts by being a television product, albeit even one more slightly expensive than usual. No location filming was done, and the various segments come across as repetitive, usually culminating in a scrap between U.N.C.L.E. and THRUSH. Of the cast, Joan Crawford is memorably hammy in her small role, and Curt Jurgens badly miscast as a sugar daddy. As a London bobby, Terry-Thomas is as delightful as ever, and Herbert Lom good as the chief villain. Kim Darby grates though as 'Sandy'. She should have been told to stay at home.

What is surprising about this is that it manages to be more amusing and entertaining than many official cinema releases of the time, including 'In Like Flint', 'Casino Royale' and 'The Ambushers'. I'd love to know how Solo and company escaped from THRUSH H.Q. after Randolph's death though.


To begin with, I loved göta kanal 1, it had a lot of classic jokes including that unlucky guy in the canoe who always seems to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, he is still acting the same guy in the göta kanal 2 movie but in my opinion hes performance is not as funny as it was in the first movie, in fact you don't notice him much at all. A thing that made me think bad about this movie is the choice of boats, in this movie there are only race boats, they sure is speedy but those do not make waves like the big floating mansions used in the first movie, I liked the old ones better and these new boats makes one of the last scenes look ridiculous when the man in the canoe suddenly jumps out of it to evade the "big waves" from those small speedy boats. Truly a minus. You have to accept that we're not living in the same Sweden as in 1974 anymore. This movie also contains a bit more violence than the first one. Although the movie was great all in all. I've just concentrated on some cons that i was disappointed in but the rest of the movie were up to my expectations, so go see it! It's worth the money.


This movie is one exception of the rule that a sequel is worser than the original. Its comedy at its best. This movie is a fast action slapstick comedy where something seems to happened every second. At more than one occasion the entire audience laughed loudly at a joke.

Its a big advantage to have seen the first movie but its not a requirement.

Göta kanal 2 also have the advantage of being a parody on the latest decades reality production TV series such as survivor (expediton: Robinson in Swedish) This is a Swedish movie for the Swedish audience. Thus don't see it if you aren't familiar with Sweden and its language. Otherwise: Have fun! Johan


Philo Vance had many affinities with Bulldog Drummond He was a gentleman with the kind of polish and elegance only usually associated with the British upper classes and he was also independently wealthy

But there were vital differences Drummond was an adventurer, charming, gallant, lively Vance could be pompous, slight1y dull and self-righteous There was a hint of fundamental cruelty in his manner

"The Kennel Murder Case" is the most impressive of the 14 Vance films made between 1929 and 1947 The story of a murdered collector of Chinoiserie, it has all the ingredients of the classic private eye mystery  exotic setting in the blue nose Long Island Kennel Club, three killings for Vance to solve including a baffling "locked room murder," the key to the whole affair, and plenty of suspects

Usually, a detective story setting have proved too static and talkative to make convincing movies even though they work well enough on the printed page, but here Michael Curtiz's direction and the fine editing give the film a pace and urgency that make it altogether different from similar films of its type

William Powell's elegance and suavity made him the perfect Vance and although a year later he switched studios, he stayed in the same genre with the enormously successful and popular "The Thin Man" at MGM


For those who like their murder mysteries busy, this is definitely the one to see, as it is chock full of interesting and suspicious characters, most of them wealthy Long Island socialite types. As the star detective, William Powell is alternately starchy and inspired, behaving at times as if he and his suit went to the cleaners and got pressed together. Mary Astor is very lovely here.

Powell had made a career out of playing the lead character, Philo Vance, in a series of movies made at a couple of studios over several years. In-between these films he developed into a somewhat offbeat romantic lead, at times even essaying gentleman gangster roles. Already middle-aged, he was stuck in somewhat of a career rut by the time this one came along. As with so many early talkie stars, it seemed that his time had come and gone, that he was fine for early Depression Prohibition-era films, but that with changing times he was perhaps too mature and dandyish to endure.

The Kennel Murder Case, directed by the criminally neglected Michael Curtiz, is one of the last of the "old Powells", while the next year would herald in the first of the new ones, The Thin Man, the success of which would catapult its leading players into the Hollywood stratosphere. In Kennel we can see the movies still in a somewhat stiff, ritualized pattern, as the camera does not move much, with the acting, like the presentation, tending toward the theatrical. There's no harm in this approach, though, which has its charms. It gives the movie a baroque quality.


Why can't this type of compact, entertaining mystery be filmed in the new century? It keeps the viewer thinking and guessing all the way. The cast is a great ensemble. William Powell exhibits true star quality. Who knows--perhaps he was rehearsing for his future as Nick Charles. He is a joy to watch. One also can see why Eugene Pallette made more than 200 films. He is a great supporting character actor and his excellent chemistry with Powell is fun to watch. Mary Astor does above average work in a not very meaty role. All other hands chip in to make this a thoroughly enjoyable way to spend 73 minutes. I suspect Michael Curtiz had a ball directing his one. Bravo!


This fantastic whodunit is an early prototype of what soon became a very popular film genre. I was happy to see William Powell handling a detective story with charisma and charm, and without the silly attitude of his Nick Charles character (from the "Thin Man" series). While the story is good on its own, I think what really makes this movie fun to watch is Michael Curtiz' fantastically imaginative direction. From a visual point of view, this is a richly textured movie, with Curtiz showing an incredible command of the medium; from split screen images, to weird camera angles and imaginative flashbacks, Curtiz demonstrates that he was one of the best Hollywood directors. Highly recommended if you are fan of this type of movie.


Talented detective Mr. Philo Vance (William Powell) cancels his overseas trip to investigate an apparently cut and dried case of suicide he has good reason to suspect is really something much more, a rather deliciously complex murder!

As far as murder mystery films go, it just doesn't get any better than this one. Populated with suspicious characters, all connected to a dog show and all having very good reason to murder the apparent suicide victim Archer Coe, it's truly tough to figure this one out or wrap one's head around it but boy, does it proves fascinating to watch unfold before us. Even the cops, the coroner and the district attorney prove colorful, fleshed out characters adding a level of unexpected gritty realism to this one's proceedings and amping up its overall "fun" factor. I particularly enjoyed the comic scenes involving the coroner (played by Etienne Girardot), who is always it seems to him being rudely and untimely interrupted by the discovery of corpses or injured men during this one's running time. Also Eugene Palette's Detective Sgt. Heath provides welcome, often later delightfully humorous at his expense, critical commentary during Vance's investigation. I cannot think of any valid criticism to give this movie in fact except perhaps that it hasn't dated particularly well. Doesn't stop the movie from being just plain good fun viewing though. Watch and see if you can wrap your head around this one's mystery. Highly recommended you try!


This is one of those movies that you wish you hadn't seen before - so you could see it again " for the first time " . Van Dine's books still bring pleasure - but are termed excessively flowery by many . This movie is by far the best film adaptation of his works . William Powell is William Powell - say no more . The plot is intricate . The story moves all too quickly , because you want it to last . Enjoy.


One of the better Vance films succeeds more on interesting plot and artful direction by none other than Michael Curtiz. This time around a generally hated financier is found dead - shot in the head - in his locked and bolted bedroom on the upper floor. Philo Vance, hearing of the situation while about to set off for Italy, decides to end his vacation and try to solve what he thinks is a murder and what everyone else is considering a suicide. William Powell is as affable a Philo Vance as you will find. He never seems to press and is always very smooth in what he says and does. Powell is aided by a host of very talented actors - some first-rate character actors and actresses like Mary Astor as a niece that hated her uncle, Ralph Morgan as the dead man's secretary, Paul Cavanaugh as a rival dog fancier, Arthur Hohl as a mysterious butler, Helen Vinson as the next door kept blonde, and two really good performances by James Lee as the Chinese cook and portly Eugene Palette as a wise-cracking police detective. Add into the mix a wonderfully comedic turn by Etienne Girardot as a public coroner always missing his meal. It is this depth of suspects and a story that has many plots twists and turns that make The Kennel Murder Case a fast-moving, fun mystery.


William Powell's final outing as Philo Vance occurs in The Kennel Murder Case where the murder of a championship show dog leads to two more murders and one attempt of the human kind. It's all in the figuring out of how that leads to the who and why.

The Philo Vance murders by S.S. Van Dine were most popular at the time and the clever Mr. Van Dine figured out a way to sell his books one at a time to the highest studio bidder. This is why you see so many Philo Vances and so many studios putting them out. Had Bill Powell not gone on to greater fame with MGM as Nick Charles of the Thin Man series, he would have been known as the greatest of Philo Vances.

It turns out that Powell had entered his little terrier Captain in the same contest where the murdered dog was entered and then another rival owner became the first murder victim. As usual Powell shows up Eugene Palette as Sergeant Heath whose biggest contribution to the proceedings was using his bulk to break down the locked from the inside door where the first murder victim was found.

I did say locked from the inside and it was an upper story so it was in figuring out the how. Powell has a lovely group of suspects, as extensive as what normally is in a Thin Man mystery. People like Paul Cavanaugh, Helen Vinson, Ralph Morgan, Mary Astor, fill their cast roles well.

Warner Brothers liked this version so much that in fact they remade it again in the Thirties with James Stephenson in his one and only outing as Philo Vance. It doesn't hold a candle to this one.

As this is the only Powell Philo Vance that is out on VHS or DVD by all means see this one or acquire it if you can.


A film that is so much a 30's Warners film in an era when each studio had a particular look and style to their output, unlike today where simply getting audiences is the object.

Curitz was one of the quintessential Warners house directors working with tight economy and great efficiency whilst creating quality, working methods that were very much the requirements of a director at Warners, a studio that was one of the "big five" majors in this era producing quality films for their large chains of theatres.

Even though we have a setting of the upper classes on Long Island there is the generic Warners style embedded here with a narrative that could have been "torn from the headlines". Another example is the when the photographers comment on the girls legs early in the film and she comments that "They're not the trophies" gives the film a more working mans, down to earth feel, for these were the audiences that Warners were targeting in the great depression. (ironically Columbia and Universal were the two minors under these five majors until the 50's when their involvement in television changed their fortunes - they would have made something like this very cheaply and without the polish and great talent) Curtiz has created from an excellent script a film that moves along at a rapid pace whilst keeping the viewer with great camera angles and swift editing.

Thank heavens there is no soppy love interest sub-plot so the fun can just keep rolling along.


The unflappable William Powell. He is a joy to watch on the screen as he makes his way through situations without a care in the world. He always seems on top of his game and shows little care for anyone who doubts him. The murders are projects, barely human beings. I have noticed this is a staple of the whodunnit. Other than an occasional weeping widow, the victims fulfill the function of being the reason the movie exists. Nothing more. There are enough twists and turns to keep things interesting along the way and Powell is a master at this. There is a lot of political incorrectness, especially as it relates to the Asian performers. This is a little hard to take. The cast is great, and Curtiz's direction is also a consistent asset.


"Markham," says urbane gentleman crime-solver Philo Vance (William Powell) to the district attorney, "I'm coming more and more to the belief that Archer Coe was killed in this room. That poker, this dagger sheath, now these fragments...it's all here." "But Vance," Markham says, "do you mean to tell me a dead man walked upstairs?" "I'm not trying to tell you anything but the facts," Vance says. "This is the most remarkable case in my experience."

We're sympathetic. Wealthy, arrogant Archer Coe, disliked it seems by all who knew him, had been found slumped in a chair in his bedroom, pistol in his hand and a gunshot wound to his head. But wait. Further examination shows Coe had been hit hard by a blunt instrument that fractured his skull. Then there's the dagger wound in his back. Complicating matters is that Coe's bedroom door and windows all had been locked from the inside. Coe was no suicide; this was murder. But how could the killer have escaped? What was the specific motivation since there are so many suspects? And why was Coe's brother, Brisbane Coe, found dead in the main-floor closet?

The Kennel Murder Case, now 73 years old, still provides a stylish look at the old locked- room classic whodunit. What makes it work as well as it does is, first, the mystery is complicated and clever, but still is logical. Second, is the amusing, assured performance of William Powell. Consider his work as Philo Vance as something as a rehearsal for his great performances as Nick Charles. Few things escape Vance. He uses his wits to piece things together. He's also good company. Powell was a star in the Twenties and moved steadily upward in status and popularity when the talkies took over. His intelligence, style and effortless sophistication have made him one of the most contemporary-seeming of actors from the past.

Also pleasant is seeing a few other great faces. There's Mary Astor as Hilda Lake, the young, resentful and potentially rich ward of Coe; Paul Cavanaugh as a titled Brit hovering around Hilda; Helen Vinson with her notably sultry and selfish manner (watch her really do her stuff in Vogues of 1938); Etienne Giraudot, a small elderly man as the fussy Dr. Doremus, whose job as coroner and medical examiner keeps taking him away from his meals; and Ralph Morgan as Archer Coe's private secretary. This movie has a high percentage of middle-aged men without an ounce of fat who can wear snug, English-cut tailored suits with ease. Most of all is Eugene Palette, with his noble belly and gravel voice, as Detective Sergeant Heath. Sergeant Heath and Vance are long-time acquaintances who actually seem to like each other.


While a 9 might seem like an unusually high score for such a slight film, however, compared to the hundreds and hundreds of series detective films from the 1930s and 40s, this is among the very best and also compares very favorably to Powell's later "Thin Man" films. Now this does NOT mean that the film is that similar to the Thin Man movies, as THE KENNEL MURDER CASE is not a comedy but more a traditional mystery-detective film. Now you'd think that not having Nora Charles or Asta or a traditional comic sidekick (something found in practically all series detective films) along for fun would be a detriment, but I didn't miss them at all because this was such an exceptionally well-written film--having a genuinely interesting case as well as uniformly excellent performances by all.

The film begins at the dog show and is called The KENNEL Murder Case, though this Philo Vance film actually spends little of the time at the dog show and dogs are not a super-important part of the film. Instead, a thoroughly hated man is killed and left in a completely sealed room--an idea repeated in quite a few other detective films (such as CRIME DOCTOR'S STRANGEST CASE). However, how all this is explained seems pretty credible and fit together very well--keeping my interest throughout. I sure wish other detective films of the day had as intelligently written plots and exceptional acting as this one. This one is definitely a keeper.


This is still the benchmark to judge all Golden Age whodunnits by, and taking into account the limited technology and dubious ethical standards of the authorities (on screen) bears up well against all generations of similar attempts since on film and TV. Fast and furious with plenty of Warner Bros wipes, and thankfully no time for a love interest it gallops along, taking the splendid cast with it to the violent end. I never understood why the DA had to trail Vance around everywhere, I always thought they were deskbound. Palette as the detective but especially Girardot as the doctor are delightfully eccentric and un-PC - when glancing over the second murder victim he sniffs that there were too many people in the world anyway. Of course it is William Powell as Philo Vance (and Michael Curtiz as director) that makes the film what it is - when did Powell ever make a dud?

The army of cops at the crime scene didn't really do a very good job in finding the second dead body and unconscious dog did they! The best bit is where Vance narrates to us all the sequence of events surrounding the murders - dodgy model sets combine with fantastic roving camera angles to produce a very modern feel, and startling with what has gone before. The only problem is as usual the conclusion can't match the overall deductive processes displayed throughout and a somewhat contrived ending is invoked; some Chan's, Moto's and many others of course could only be concluded this way too. But because it happens so fast and is ... slightly dubious morally it doesn't lessen my opinion of KMC's status as a classic!

All the prints I've ever seen of KMC are (at worst) like looking into a goldfish bowl, so if you're interested in seeing it bear with it until you're sucked in.


Philo Vance (William Powell) helps solve multiple murders among the wealthy after a dog show.

Usually I hate overly convoluted mysteries (like this) but I LOVE this movie. It moves very quickly (only 72 minutes), is beautifully directed by Michael Curtiz (he uses tons of camera tricks that just speed the narrative along), has a very ingenious story line (including a solution to a locked room murder that was just incredible) and has a very good cast.

Powell is very suave and great as Vance--he doesn't seem to be acting--he IS Vance! Mary Astor isn't given much to do but she adds class and beauty to the production. Everybody else is very good too, but best of all is Eugene Pallette as Detective Heath. He's a very good actor with a VERY distinctive voice and some of his lines were hilarious.

Basically, an excellent 1930s Hollywood murder mystery. Well worth seeing.


Before he became defined as Nick Charles in the Thin Man Series, William Powell played another urbane detective named Philo Vance. The supporting cast is strong in this early talkie, and Powell's star quality is evident. Mary Astor, who eight years later would be defined by her portrayal of Brigid O'Shaughnessy, does a good job here as the featured woman who finds herself in the middle of it all.


"The Kennel Murder Case" starts off at a run and doesn't stop until the very end. Everybody had reason to kill the victim, and several people tried. William Powell is terrific as Philo Vance, gentleman detective. Mary Astor is refreshing as the put-upon niece who only wants to marry her Scottish gentleman and enjoy her inheritance. This movie comes paired with "Nancy Drew, Reporter" on DVD, which is also fun. If you have to rent the disc (or check it out from your local library), do it. It's pure entertainment!


Cracking good yarn with all the actors giving great value. Michael Curtiz at his best. Lots of nice twists and turns and probably the best of the Philo Vance series. William Powell looks wonderfully relaxed and at his debonair best. A forerunner to the Thin Man series. Recommend to everyone. Did you figure it all out?