Man's Castle is set in one of those jerry built settlements on vacant land and parks that during these times were called 'Hoovervilles' named after our unfortunate 31st president who got stuck with The Great Depression occurring in his administration. The proposition of this film is that a man's home is still his castle even when it's just a shack in a Hooverville.

Spencer Tracy has such a shack and truth be told this guy even in good times would not be working all that much. But in a part very typical for Tracy before he was cast as a priest in San Francisco, the start of a slew of classic roles, he's playing a tough good natured mug who takes in Loretta Young.

One of the things about Man's Castle is that it shows the effects of the Depression on women as well as men. Women had some additional strains put on them, if men had trouble finding work, women had it twice as hard. And they were sexually harassed and some resorted to prostitution just for a square meal. Spence takes Loretta Young in who's facing those kind of problems and makes no demands on her in his castle. Pretty soon though they're in love, though Tracy is not the kind to settle down.

The love scenes had some extra zing to them because Tracy and Young were having a torrid affair during the shooting of Man's Castle. And both were Catholic and married and in those days that was an insuperable barrier to marriage. Both Tracy and Young took the Catholic faith quite seriously.

Also in the cast are Walter Connolly as a kind of father figure for the whole camp, Marjorie Rambeau who's been through all the pitfalls Young might encounter and tries to steer her clear and Arthur Hohl, a really loathsome creep who has his eye on Young as well. Hohl brings the plot of Man's Castle to its climax through his scheming.

Man's Castle is grim look at the Great Depression, not the usual movie escapist fare for those trying to avoid that kind of reality in their entertainment.


Though I like E.E. "Doc" Smith's books and David A. Kyles books of Lensman, the anime, which is loosly based on the books, is quite a fun and somewhat innovative fair.

Though the story may seem familiar to Sci-Fi/Fantasy buffs, such as some kid on an isolated planet inherits mystical powers and avenges the death of his family, it is quite an entertaining one nonetheless. Plus, Lensman was THE first Animated motion picture to use hand drawn and CG animation all at once. Sure, it may look a bit outdated now, but it is still an innovation. If it were not for Lensman, none of that would have ever happened (personally, I think Computer Graphics look better in animation that live action.)

Too bad they only released it on DVD/VCD in a few countries in the worls (mostly on formats that are quite foreign and different). I just wish they release the Lensman movie and tv series on DVD/VCD in EVERY part of the world, not just certain parts.

P.S. Worsel rules! I just think he is so amazing and neat looking as well.


Lensman is a rather lesser-known Anime gem from Toho and MK studios.It's loosely based on the novel,but it reminds me more of the game "Metroid".

If you want to see this,see it in Japanese with Subtitles or just plain Japanese.The English dubbed version was almost cropped and edited to death.

There is not much new,despite the fact that it's the 1st animated feature to combine CG-graphics with hand-drawn animation,but it's fun to watch,nevertheless.


People don't seem to be giving Lensman enough credit where its due. A few issues have been overlooked which are key to understanding the Lensman experience.

The Year: For the year it was made in (1984) Lensman features some of the most stunning effects I've ever seen. As a person who watches a lot of early 80's animation Lensman is unique in it's use of what appears to be computer-generated imagery at a time when computers were extremely primitive. Kim's battle against the geometric cutter pods in the laser maze can be taken as an excellent example of this. Every time I watch that I have to keep repeating to myself that it was 1984 when it was made.

The Soundtrack: Lensman has one of the most insane soundtracks that I've heard, and this mad hysterical beat permeates every corner of the film. Lensman borrowed heavily on two western mistakes and managed to somewhat deal with the first one - the need to fill in every second of silence in a film with music and the need for a heroine. While the music is attuned well and galvanizes scenes such as the motorcycle battle in the Thionite Factory on Radelyx, the heroine theme fails due to the sheer annoyance value of Chris. It's interesting to note that the constant music thwarted my attempts at noise removal when I was archiving lensman over from analog tape to digital format - since there wasn't a single second of silence available to use as a reference point.

Western Influences: Helmut - sounds like "helmet" and has roughly the same voice as Darth Vader. Clarissa Fairborn - has the same hairstyle as the princess of SW and her name sounds suspiciously similar to Marissa Fairborn of Transformers. Takes over Han Solos role by flying the ship and having some technical expertise. Buzzkirk - a definite improvement on Chewbaka. The lens - a nice concrete copy of the force that comes across less as a chance to preach Christianity at the audience than in the original SW. While the force relied on belief far more than concentration, the lens is a pure concentration tool. Theoretically, anyone could wield the lens. The lens is far more limited than the Force - being purely a defensive/offensive weapon.

Technology: The boskone alliance have interesting meatball sponge ships. They look like stormtroopers only with red uniforms instead of white. The idea of a DNA weapon was nice if only it had been developed. The Galactic Alliance looked like Starblazers (or whatever it was called - that 60's series where they were battling the Xylons). There weren't enough ship to ship battles for me - this is much improved upon in the second Lensman film.

Finally a note on Worzel. This character is a unique and very interesting character-design who fortunately continues on to the second film.


"Secret of the Lens" is perhaps a pretty campy all-time favorite of mine. The best and funniest from Kajawari Yoshiaki, who is known for splatter anime and sleazy hentai-ecchi anime. I wish he did more campiness like this.

My favorite scenes are the psychedelic CG sequence, the parts where Lord Helumis blows up his failing henchmen, the party riots that Bill causes (one of the funniest scenes) and whenever my favorite character, Worsle appears.

Check this out.

WARNING:This is not for serious sophisticated Anime fans!


A SHIRLEY TEMPLE Short Subject.

It can get mighty rough at Buttermilk Pete's Cafe when the local contingency of diaper-clad WAR BABIES come in for their midday milk break.

This primitive little film - a spoof of military movies - provides a few chuckles, but little else: tiny tots talking tough can begin to pall in a short time. Shirley Temple, playing a duplicitous hip-swinging French miss, hasn't much to do in this pre-celebrity performance. Highlight: the real signs of toddler temper when a few of the infants unexpectedly get well & truly soaked with milk.

Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films.


I love these "Diaper Baby" movies! You couldn't make a movie like this today and it is rich in cinematic history. It is goofy and the film was made to make you laugh, which it does. How they ever got these kids to "act" I'll never know. I think they are precious and the kids make me laugh but so do the others who made this movie as it shows the naiveté that existed in the early 30's. You have to remember that this is when the film industry was very young, the stock market had crashed, the world wide depression was beginning and these films were made to give a person a break from the real world. The fact that you could see movies for five cents is beyond my comprehension, but then dinner for 25 cents is too. It was a different time with a totally different mind set.


I myself feel this film is a rare treasure. Not only is it the beginning of Shirley Temple's career, but a rare look on how our society has changed. You have to understand, certain things we today would view as sexual, back then would be considered innocent. For example, the parents of the children in the film as well as the many parents who took their children to see this movie, saw this as just children mimicking adults. Most people didn't think of anyone viewing children sexually attractive, other than teenage boys lusting over teenage girls. To them it wasn't sexual. Mind you this was before we had internet, TV, etc... Most sex crimes weren't openly brought up. Occasionally there would be a whisper about the kid with the "funny uncle." But that was often all that came of it. Yes very sad. But it is kinda sad today, for even I too can see this film as anything other than what it was intended, innocent and funny. When I saw Shirley dance like that and the boys eye balling her, yes I felt disturbed. I have to remind myself the time this took place! Those children didn't know what sex was. The parents knew that, both those of the children in the movie and those watching it. The thought may not have even entered their minds. In the eyes of the average adult back then, this was no more sexual then if Shirley was playing house. Even today kids will enter beauty contest, many dressed up extremely maturely, for a three yr old. However the child is merely pretending. I don't blame the child for wanting to act like an adult. Or the old movies that display this. In all honesty, our media has made a lot of things seem back then seem sick and wrong. This sometimes can be for the best. But I truly believe this movie isn't one of them. It gives a rare look of an innocent mentality, that we have long lost.


While browsing the internet for previous sale prices, I ran across these comments. Why are they all so serious? It's just a movie and it's not pornographic. I acquired this short film from my parents 30 years ago and have always been totally delighted with it. I've shown it to many of my friends & they all loved it too. I feel privileged to own this original 1932 8mm black and white silent film of Shirley before she became popular or well known. After reading the other comments, I agree that the film is "racy". Big deal! I only wish it was longer. It seems that I must be the only person who owns one of these originals, for sale at least, so I wonder how much it's worth?


This is the second Baby Burlesk short to be released, and probably the most popular one, is a spoof of the 1926 silent film What Price Glory.

I watched this and I do not understand the kiddie-porn that is being claimed. It is just a cute little film. I have seen family shows that I grew up watching in the '80's and '90's that had little girls dressed more provocatively acting in a 'mature manner'. It was more provocative because they WEREN'T dressed in diapers. There's nothing provocative about a diaper unless you have one of those fetishes. (just a joke) I read that description of the movie and where it states only a pedophile would enjoy watching this. That is sick. To me, if you watch this and are bothered by it, then maybe you need to look into your own psyche and try to figure out why it bothers you. It is an innocent film that was made as a parody of another film. All of the B.B. films were parodies, nothing more. The parodies/spoofs of today are graphic in nature and have true almost pornographic scenes and quite vile language. Shouldn't those be more appalling? I can watch those without issue, but they sometimes take children's stories and turn them into filth on those parodies. That is what should get under your skin. Not that they babified (not a word, I know) an adult movie from 1926, because we know how PORNOGRAPHIC those silent films were, huh? Not to mention those 'Forbidden Hollywood Pre-Code era films' so vile and filthy. They would NEVER make such filth today? (note the sarcasm)


A nice Shirely Temple short. Child actors screaming their lines seemed to be the norm for that day and time. Perhaps being "seen and not heard" needed to be made up for. Aside from that this is fun. Given the films era there are certain aspects of the thing, from a social viewpoint, that strike me as both very progressive and liberal. I won't go into those here, I'd rather not spoil it for you but let you watch it for yourself and see if you spot those elements. As early on as it was its easy to see from this short the fascination that was already developing for Temple. That makes it worth watching if you're a Temple fan. For others its a cool way to kill ten minutes while you're waiting for your good night glass of milk to warm up on the stove.


So many educational films are nothing more than mind-numbing drudgery, saved only by the fact that "MST3K" mocks them ("Why Study Industrial Arts?" comes to mind). "Hemo the Magnificent" is actually quite well done. It's all about blood, the heart, and the circulatory system. I admit that I don't remember everything from it, but it does a good job explaining everything, keeping it serious but entertaining. I guess that you can always count on June Foray (most famously the voice of Rocky the Squirrel, she plays a deer here).

Since "Hemo the Magnificent" itself may be hard to find, probably the best place to see it is in "Gremlins": a class is watching it while a gremlin is forming.


A Frank Capra WONDERS OF LIFE film.

Keeping the blood pumping through our veins is the responsibility of hardworking HEMO THE Magnificent.

In the mid-1950's, AT&T and Bell Science teamed with famed Hollywood director Frank Capra to produce a series of CBS television science films to educate the public about the Universe around them. A far cry from the dreary black & white fodder so often foisted off on young scholars, the Capra films would both instruct and entertain with lively scripts and eye-catching visuals shown in Technicolor. The four films - OUR MR. SUN (1956), THE STRANGE CASE OF THE COSMIC RAYS (1957), HEMO THE MAGNIFICENT (1957), THE UNCHAINED GODDESS (1958) - quickly became schoolhouse favorites, where they were endlessly shown in 16mm format.

The star of the series was Dr. Frank C. Baxter (1896-1982), an affable English professor at the University of Southern California. This avuncular pedagogue proved to be the perfect film instructor, genially imparting to his audience the sometimes complex facts in a manner which never made them seem dull or boring. Dr. Baxter, who won a Peabody Award for his achievements, continued making high quality instructional films after the Capra quartet were concluded.

HEMO THE Magnificent, which was produced, written & directed by Capra, relates the story of the human heart and blood circulation system, using animation and gentle humor. Film star Richard Carlson appears as the Fiction Writer, energetically helping Dr. Baxter tell Hemo's tale.

Movie mavens will recognize Sterling Holloway as part of the TV production crew, and the voices of Marvin Miller, Mel Blanc, June Foray & Pinto Colvig as various cartoon characters, all uncredited.

The devotional Scripture which begins the film is completely in tune with the tenor & tone of the production.


By God, it's been a long time since I saw this. Probably about 18 years ago?

The movie tells us (kids) all about human blood and the circulatory system. Very professionally put together--Disney-style animation, plus human actors--it was directed by Frank Capra, for pete's sake!

Kind of an overkill. I wonder if the very high production value is worth what amounts to a film-strip's worth of information on the human body? But boy will those kids watching it learn: even now I can clearly remember Dr. Baxter being challenged by Hemo himself to name what common material most resembles human blood, to which the Doctor immediately answers "sea water."


This was a delightful presentation. Hemo (blood) as a Greek god was so well played by the animation with vanity, arrogance, snobbish superiority and innocent wonder. The quote (or scene) I recall vividly is when Hemo tires of "all this plumbing ... you haven't learned my secrets at all" and threatens to storm out, the Scientist answers him in a single word "Thalassa" -- salt water which horrifies the Fiction Writer but mollifies Hemo and segues so neatly into the chemical aspects of blood.

Such a splendid blend of entertainment and information make this a classic as fresh and engrossing today as the day it was released. Stimulating the interest and imagination is fundamental to teaching kids to love learning.


I remember watching this is its original airing in 1962 as a five or six year old and REALLY enjoying this. I recently had the opportunity to watch it again, for the first time since then, as it was aired on "Walt Disney Presents" on the Disney Channel. I'd forgotten most of it, and some of it was geared towards kids, but it was still enjoyable. I can't wait to show it to my niece and nephews.


LES CONVOYEURS ATTENDENT was the first film I saw in 2000 and I doubt I'll see a better one this year. This beautiful tragicomedy by Belgian filmmaker Benoît Mariage is set in the industrial wastelands of Wallonia. Benoît Poelvoorde plays a father who desperately wants his son to win a car (a Lada!) for him. To do this the son has to break the record opening doors. What the father actually wants his for his son to be someone, because he himself has never made it further as the reporter of local news for a newspaper ironically called L'Espoir (Hope). Of course nothing works out as planned. This film can best be compared to Aki Kaurismäki's DRIFTING CLOUDS, although it is more dramatic and the humour is darker. Just like in that film however the tone is more melancholic than depressing and the ending upbeat, without being unrealistically happy. The humour is absurd, without making the plot unbelievable, and Mariage finds stunning images in the bleak settings that never seem artificial. The best thing about LES CONVOYEURS ATTENDENT is the acting by Poelvoorde. This actor shot to fame with the also brilliant cult-classic C'EST ARRIVÉ PRÈS DE CHEZ VOUS in which he played the charismatic hitman Ben. Since then he only played two small roles in films that were not released in the Netherlands, because, as he said in an interview, he was not convinced of his own acting capabilities and all the roles he was offered were reprises of the Ben character. With his return to a leading role in LCA there should be no doubt anymore about his acting. He's simply brilliant as a man stupid and evil enough to put his family in misery, but smart enough to realize what he's done and be torn by remorse about it. A must see.


This is an absurdist dark comedy from Belgium. Shot perfectly in crisp black and white, Benoît Poelvoorde (Man Bites Dog) is on fine form as Roger, the angry, obsessive father of a family in a small, sullen Belgian mining town. Roger is a photographer who, along with his young daughter Luise, visits road accidents to take photos. He is also obsessed with winning a car by entering a competition where the contestant has to break a record - and he decides that his son, Michel, must attempt to break the record of perpetually walking through a door - he even hires an overweight coach to train him. Michel dresses as Elvis and has a spot on a radio show called 'Cinema Lies', where he describes mistakes in films. Luise is friendly with near neighbour Felix, a pigeon fancier. Roger is a callous figure as he pushes Michel right over the limit during the record attempt, which almost results in his death. Interspersed throughout the film are Magritte-like surreal images. It's undeniably charming and well worth your time.


Some critics found this film bleak, but for me there was enough good humour and optimism to overcome this impression. For example, the quietly positive and stoic character of the daughter is the still centre of the film, often counterbalancing the unhappy aspects of the setting and plotline.

The film is full of original ideas and characters, and the final outcome is not predictable: I felt it could've gone either way.

By the way, many reviews I've read mention the effective use of black and white, but the print I saw, shown on the SBS TV network here in Australia, was in full colour.


It's wonderful to see that Shane Meadows is already exerting international influence - LES CONVOYEURS ATTENDANT shares many themes with A ROOM FOR ROMEO BRASS: the vague class identity above working but well below middle, the unhinged father, the abandoned urban milieu, the sense of adult failure, the barely concealed fascism underpinning modern urban life.

But if Meadows is an expert formalist, Mariage trades in images, and his coolly composed, exquisitely Surreal, monochrome frames, serve to distance the grimy and rather bleak subject matter, which, Meadows-like, veers from high farce to tragedy within seconds.

There are longueurs and cliches, but Poelvoorde is compellingly mad, an ordinary man with ordinary ambitions, whose attempts to realise them are hatstand dangerous; while individual set-pieces - the popcorn/pidgeon explosions; the best marriage sequence since THE DEAD AND THE DEADLY - manage to snatch epiphany from despair.


Diego Armando Maradona was, and still remains as the best football player, the game has offered. Not just an athlete, but an artist. This documetary if the 1986 World Cup will forever live in the memories of every football fan around the world. Because of his tremendous and unbelievable goal, which he scored against my own country(england). There's absolutely no point of diminishing this star. Although I dont undersand spanish, I can appreciate the argentine narrator. He actually cries of happiness, and can barely express his emotion..... Anything I wrote can be senseless and difficult to comprehend, but readers.....you have to watch this to know what I mean.


This movie is a must for all people that enjoy soccer as an art. What strikes first about this movie about a soccer world cup is the way it is filmed. Besides following the play like a TV broadcast, there is generous footage dedicated to follow individual players in the games. This brings forward the emotions and situations these men go through as they attempt to reach glory. Today's TV broadcasting style, so different than that of 1986, is still inferior in quality compared to this movie.

The players are not the only stars. The audience, the referees, the journalists covering the matches and the environment itself all play a central role in the development of what today is history. In this movie you can see how all these factors play together in a very explicit way. In that regard, today's TV broadcasting style has not yet reached this level of quality, although it is now much closer than before.

There are several highlighted players: Maradona (Argentina), Elkjaer and Laudrup (Denmark), Francescoli (Uruguay), Platini (France), Lineker (England), Rummenigge (Germany), Butrague#o (Spain), Socrates (Brazil), and Sanchez (Mexico).

This movie is not a collection of the best soccer moves of Mexico 1986, although most of them are well covered. Across all the movie, there is a stress for presenting several aspects of the game and the competition itself based on the progress of these players and teams, even at the cost of skipping relevant plays of the games themselves. This is what makes this movie so interesting and unique.

Because of what happened because of referees during Mexico 1986, much of the comments about this movie and world cup are extremely Maradona-biased. Much of these comments do not take into account that there is a referee and two linesmen, that they are as human as the players, and that all of the abovementioned make mistakes one way or the other. Soccer rules do not allow referees to use TV based replays to make decisions, so for the most part referees have to decide on what they perceive. As a consequence, referees play an active part in the development of a game. Their influence can be seen in several parts of this movie.

The sequel movie for the 1990 World Cup, compared to this one, is just a source of bitter disappointment. Much of it comes from the fact that it became too involved in the game, whereas this movie tells things from a more distant, unbiased point of view.


Diego Armando Maradona had been sixteen years of age in 1978 when Argentina won the World Cup at home. He was already the biggest star, and the greatest player in a country obsessed with football. Everybody had begged Cesar Luis Menotti to play the boy genius, but the manager thought that he was not yet ready.

History records that Argentina won the 1978 World Cup fairly convincingly - they hadn't really needed Maradona. The same was not true in 1982. Spain was a catalogue of disaster for Argentina. Menotti - still chain smoking - played Diego this time, but the occasion was too much for such a temperamental boy. Maradona had signed for Barcelona on June 4 1982 for around $7 million - nine days later he played his first game at the Camp Nou and Belgium beat Argentina one-nil. It was not an auspicious debut, and even though he scored twice against Hungary in the next match, Maradona will remember the mundial as the site of his nadir - a crude, petulant foul on Brazil's Batista in the Second Round that abruptly ended his tournament and Argentina's reign as world champions.

But now that was all behind him. Maradona had muddled his way through some crazy times at Barca, and left in 1984 to join Napoli. It was as if he was finally home. The Neapolitan tifosi had done everything to entice Maradona to poor, underachieving Napoli. Gifts from old women and pocket money from young boys nestled uncomfortably with the Camorra's millions as part of the transfer fee, and the city was determined to make him feel at home. So, for the time being at least, Maradona was El Rey - he brought his Argentine side to Mexico as one of the favourites, and with a new manager - Carlos Bilardo replacing Menotti.

Maradona is the hero of this story, a one-man World Cup winning machine. In 1982, hundreds of young men had died in a pointless battle for the Falkland Isles; now the British press yearned for a rematch (with the same result) in Mexico City. Maradona was still regarded with distinction in England, remembered more for a superb performance in Britain during a 1980 tour than for Spain. But he was still an Argie: the enemy.

England actually started well, and Lineker could have scored after only twelve minutes. A key event happened on 8 minutes. Fenwick, the big and limited English defender, was booked - he was now terrified of making any challenges around the penalty area.

After a tense first 45 minutes, the second half started with a bang. Maradona danced forward after 50 minutes, but could find no way through. Similarly Valdano's attempt hit only white shirts. Then the moment of infamy that serves as Diego's epitaph. Hodge bizarrely hooked the ball back into his own penalty area, Shilton hurriedly jumped to claim - but there was Maradona, somehow rising above the English goalkeeper to thrust the ball into the net. How had he done it? Simple: handball.

The most famous foul in football history passed in near slow motion. Every spectator waited for Mr Al-Sharif of Syria to blow for the foul (he didn't). Shilton looked and appealed to the linesman - he ran back to the centre circle. Unless he assassinates the Pope, or becomes the first man to step foot on Mars, when the great man dies this moment will be shown first - in long, lingering, slow motion, followed by the look of glee on his face. The next image will be his next gift to the world - the World Cup's finest goal.

Burruchaga stroked the ball to Maradona who was ambling around on the right hand side of his own half. He span, and accelerated away from Beardsley and Reid. This was the real Diego - he burst through Butcher and attacked Fenwick. Fenwick now had the opportunity to stop the attack. Normally, he would have aimed his boot somewhere near Maradona's thigh - sure he would have picked up a red card, but who cares? Then Fenwick had a brainwave - he hesitated, and decided to run at Maradona waving his arms - perhaps he was trying to put him off? Diego shot into the box as Fenwick fell over. Butcher had been running alongside the genius as if he was offering encouragement. Shilton charged out in panic, and Maradona twisted around him and prepared to score. Now Butcher remembered his role and tried to cripple the Argentinean - instead he gave extra impetus to the shot, which smashed into the goal. England were coming home.

During this magical Mexican summer, the world had found a successor for Pele. In fact the greatest ever footballer had been surpassed - Pele had been superb in 1958 and 1970, but had had great players all around him. Maradona did not. 1986 was his World Cup.


Of all the football films I have watched, this is one of the 2 best. The other being fever pitch. But Hero is about the greatest world cup ever and consequently arguably also the greatest player ever to play in a world cup, Diego Maradona. This story is centered around him principally but also revolves around the other giants of the game at the time.

The musical score is evocative and the images are powerful. The narration by Michael Caine is suitably unbiased and also calmly dramatic. This story is not about the individual games of the world cup; rather it is more about the emotions of the players and the beauty of the event itself.

Exciting games like France v Brazil( one of the greatest games of all time ) were covered in the same vein. The final Argentin v W Germany was also in the same vein. highly recommended. A classic of world football. to be watched over and over again, esp if you're a Maradona fan.


I really really love this show! I have always liked the 1990's shows of Space Ghost! This show was hilarious and I can't believe why Cartoon Network's Adult Swim would take such a funny show like this off the air. I hope they put this show on DVD or something. The show is about Brak (from the Space Ghost cartoons, SGCC and Cartoon Planet) who lives his every day life with his Mom and Dad and his best friend who likes to drop in a lot, Zorak! My favorite episodes were the one where Zorak gets this really good singing voice and then his voice doesn't give him any money that Zorak made from singing at all. Another episode I like is the one where Brak and Zorak didn't finish their homework and then they go back from Sunday to Friday and they just goof off and then they go back to the day homework was invented and then when they go back to the present homework didn't exist! Another episode I like is the one where Brak's Dad and their next door neighbor, Thundercleese the Robot keep getting into this agrument and then they get eaten by a giant worm. Another episode I liked was the one where Zorak makes a bully stand and then some new guy took over his stand. I also like a lot of the other episodes! One thing that never fails to make me laugh is when Zorak is getting beaten up, blasted and zapped!


Leave it to Braik to put on a good show. Finally he and Zorak are living their own lives outside of Spac Ghost Coast To Coast. I have to say that I love both of these shows a whole lot. They are completely what started Adult Swim. Brak made it big with an album that came out in the year 2000. It may not have been platinum, but his show was really popular to tons of people out there that love Adult Swims shows. I have to say that out of all the Adult Swim shows with no plot, this has to be the one with the most none plot ever made. That is why I like it so much, it is just such a classic in the Adult Swim history. I believe this is just such a great show, if you don't like it. Hey there were tons who hated it and tons who loved it.


"The Brak Show " is good .Probably not in the same level than "Aqua Teen Hunger " or "Space Ghost Coast to Coast ", but definitely it have many brilliant moments .Basically it follows the life of Zorak and Brak that have normal lives and go to the school ,living in a neighborhood on the style of the 50 'sitcoms . The humor and the animation of this show it's very much as "Aqua Teen Hunger " (and in one episode you could see Meatwad) with bizarre situations and strange characters .But it is good ,it have funny parts . Some of the songs are great ,others not very much but I like this show . The funniest character is the father of Brak . (that is a human ,nobody knows why )


Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega are the mismatched pair who get in the car and go about doing errands according to the need of one or the other. Morgan Freeman is superbly human, relating with one and all, while Paz Vega is the edgy cashier behind the "10 Items or Less" check out line, intimidating customers and bored out of her mind. Together they explore, discover, and learn from each other. To do that of course they must be vulnerable, interested in change, and have a sense of humour, all of which they both have. I wish this film was realistic, I wish this type of story happened more often, I wish we didn't have to go to the movies to realize that we can indeed connect with each other even if we come from vastly different backgrounds. The film's message is based in the open heart, and makes us wonder about the possibility of another world where we meet each other from there - a world where peace could be a possibility.


This movie is a little ray of sunshine in a dark season. It celebrates a quality best described as plain old friendliness. Morgan Freeman plays a character very like Freeman himself--a successful actor pushing 70. He has traveled to a small, rather grimy grocery store intending to research a part he might play, as a manager of such a place. He soon beguiles the staff and the customers, especially the lovely, if cranky, young woman (Paz Vega) who presides over the "10 items or less" checkout lane.

10 Items Or Less doesn't have a big statement to make and doesn't pretend that it does. It follows Freeman and Vega as they become friendly, and as the older man offers his counsel, in exchange for a ride home--the movie-company gofer who is supposed to pick him up never shows and Freeman has forgotten his own phone number so he can't call for help. I had a little case of the blues on a gray Sunday afternoon in New York City and this flick cured what ailed me.


I'm a big fan of Morgan Freeman. 'The Shawshank Redemption' ranks at the top of my all-time favorite movies. But I have to admit that I have often wondered about his choice of roles. So many of his titles were big budget clichés with no heart. '10 Items Or Less' for me marks the return of Freeman to a role that truly showcases his considerable acting talents.

Freeman plays an unnamed, formerly big time Hollywood actor who hasn't worked in several years. He has been offered a part in an unspecified indi picture for which he is doing some research at a grocery store in a poor neighborhood in LA. After being stranded there by his flaky driver, Freeman is offered a ride home by checkout girl Scarlet (Paz Vega), whom he has semi-befriended. Before she can take him home, however, Scarlet has a big job interview she needs to get to, and Freeman agrees to tag along in exchange for the ride.

The movie follows Scarlet and Freeman to several locations, but the movie is really just a character piece about the interactions between the two. Freeman is the quintessential disconnected Hollywood type who hasn't heard of Target, and doesn't know his own telephone number or even what day of the week it is. He spouts wisdom from the Dalai Lama filtered thru his 'the whole world is but a stage' mentality, and repeatedly calls Scarlet's job interview an 'audition'. And yet he has a way with people, a way of affecting them that extends beyond his fame. He is a fan of humanity. He studies them, asks incessant questions about them, and delights in their quirks where others would simply be annoyed. In Scarlet, he sees the stubborn, proud loner that he was; he sees the man he used to be.

Scarlet, for her part, displays a fierce pride and sharp tongue that serve to hide her own insecurities about herself. Vega plays the role with a connection to Freeman that skates the line between an almost daughterly love and physical attraction, although she plays it beautifully and it's not at all as creepy as it sounds. But even as she feels her connection to Freeman grow, Scarlet has a keen eye for the reality of their different worlds and cuts thru Freeman's Hollywood bull*hit with a sharp pragmatism that refuses to accept anything but the truth.

The movie is smart, funny, and well written, with dialogue that is simple but effective. I read one IMDb review that said the lines were 'stilted', which I think is a misinterpretation of realistic human speech. There are no big soliloquies here, no deep soul searching moments. And so the trick is, I think, to show how people in ordinary, everyday life can forge connections with one another. And I think Freeman and Vega pull it off beautifully, painting a picture of a bond between two people that glitters like sun on the ocean, ethereal and elusive. Long after it's gone it lives on in your memories, tantalizing you with what might have been. OK, that was a bit flowery, but I really did like the performances and the movie. I would definitely recommend it.


Full disclosure: I'm a cynic. I like my endings sad and my hankies dry. I didn't cry when Bambi's mother was shot. Will Smith's new film Happiness looks like a desperate plea for an Oscar. Basically I was born without an artistic soul.

So why on earth did I like "10 Items or Less?" Maybe it was the double espresso I downed before the show. Or (more likely) maybe it was that even the most hardboiled of movie fans could use an occasional shot of sweetness.

And sweet it is. From the moment "Him" meets "Scarlet" (an event far from a Nora Ephron "meet cute") the view is taken on an intimate journey with two strangers learning to care about where their lives are headed. (Aided beautifully by Phedon Papamichael's cinema verity style camera work.)

The main argument about the film is that it's too far fetched. Is the film far fetched? I don't know. You tell me. I've yet to meet Adrian Brody at the market. (However, not for lack of trying). Do I enjoy considering the adventures that might occur should this momentous event take place? Darn straight I do . . .that's where most reviews of "10 Items or Less" fall short . . .they fail to take into account that even we cynics have fantasies. And heck, sometimes, it's worth the price of admission to vicariously live them, 82 minutes at a time.


10 ITEMS OR LESS was made in two weeks on a shoestring budget by writer/director Brad Silberling, just a little film shot in Carson, CA that feels like the entire story was improvised...in the best sense of the word. Silberling had the good fortune to pair veteran actor Morgan Freeman, in between his big projects, with Spanish actress Paz Vega, and the result is a dialogue between two people from different vantages who manage to enhance the life of the other.

Morgan Freeman plays himself - yet part of the comedy is that he is depicted as an actor who has been out of work for four years, scouting a location for a little 'filler film' to get back into the flow of things. His 'role' is to be that of a market manager and he is dropped off at seedy market in Carson where he encounters, among others, one Scarlet, the girl at the argumentative 10 Items or Less checkout line. Not only is Scarlet tired of her static job, she is also generally angry about her philandering husband (Bobby Cannavale), currently sleeping with Scarlet's lazy co-worker (Anne Dudek), and her lack of ability to get a decent job elsewhere. The two pair after a few shared problems and off they go on a 'road trip' that results in each of the characters growing from the presence and life story of the other.

It is a simple story, simply told, but because of the tender bonding between Freeman and Paz it works very well. This is one of those little films about human relationships where being vulnerable to change and exchange is the message. It is well worth viewing, and this is a DVD that has featurettes that are touching, informative, and comic - a pleasure to view. Grady Harp


This movie is really genuine and random. It's really hard to find movies like it in bunches of movies now in Hollywood. I really enjoy watching this movie, i bought its DVD Tuesday this week and i've watched it for 4 times. I love the Spanglish accent of Paz, it s just really cute as she is. And her acting and Morgan's are so funny and natural.

My movie taste might be really different from others but i have to say i really love this movie, the simple is the best!

I've learned something more about life from this movie (well, or at least USA's life)... life is really random... Sometimes, u meet someone, they pass by your life and be your friends coincidently, and u don't spend so much time with them, maybe just a while but u enjoy that ''while'' with them, and then u and them will never meet each other again, but the time u are together is really unforgettable. Just keep those moments in your mind as grateful and nice memories...

This movie might be cheap in the making price but its meanings are totally not cheap. I rarely can learn anything from movies, but this is an exception.


I don't know why people always want deeper meaning in movies or else consider them worthless.

What about just being entertained? Something at which Morgan Freeman excels. He gets a chance to show off a bit. Paz Vega, his co-star, gets a career boost and Brad Silberling gets a name to draw people into watching his movie.

I thought it was a good movie. Some humor, some pathos, some bittersweetness but nothing over the top. I got an especial kick out of Jim Parsons as the receptionist at a construction company. When he looks at Freeman adoringly and says, "You make me want to be a woman." He's just hilarious. The fight scene between Ms. Vega her ex-husband and his girlfriend is wonderful too.

In short, it's a cute, charming film that will make you smile. You could do much, much worse.


A great, funny, sweet movie with Morgan Freeman (who plays himself) and who meets a Spanish girl named Scarlet (Paz Vega) at a small store whilst researching a potential independent film. I was a bit dubious about the film for the first ten minutes but as soon as he was in the store I really started to enjoy the film. It shows how a positive attitude can change anything. It does not contain any complex plots and it is easy to follow but will lift the saddest of moods and make you smile all the way through without the need for petty cliché romance. It includes several scenes all the way through which make you clutch your sides with laughter. A very rare masterpiece!


Running only seventy-two minutes, this small, overlooked 2006 dramedy is really just a two-character sketch piece but one that works very well within its limitations. Taking place almost entirely in various, non-descript spots in southern Los Angeles, the story itself is inconsequential, but like Sofia Coppola's "Lost in Translation", the film is far more about two strangers who meet unexpectedly, find a common bond and go back to their lives enlightened for the momentous encounter. It also helps considerably that Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega are playing the characters. Finally freed of the wise sages and authority figures beyond reproach that have become his big-screen specialty, Freeman seems comparatively liberated as a somewhat self-indulgent movie star. His character is driven to a low-rent grocery store in Carson, where he will be able to research a role he is considering in an indie film.

Out of work for a few years, he is embarrassed when he sees DVDs of his films in the bargain bin, but his ego is such that he does not lack the temerity to watch and even mimic the enervated store staff. Of particular fascination to him is Scarlet, an embittered worker from Spain and relegated to the express line where she is the unsung model of efficiency. She has an interview for a secretarial job at a construction company, but her deep-seeded insecurity seems to defeat her chances already. Still looking like Penelope Cruz's Amazonian sister, the beautiful Vega (one of the few redeemable aspects of James L. Brooks' execrable "Spanglish") brings a stinging edge and realistic vulnerability to Scarlet. She and Freeman interplay very well throughout the story, which includes stops not only at the grocery store but also at Target, Arby's and a full-service carwash. Nothing earth-shattering happens except to show how two people realize the resonating transience of chance encounters.

Silberling keeps the proceedings simple, but the production also reflects expert craftsmanship in Phedon Papamichael's vibrant cinematography (he lensed Alexander Payne's "Sideways") and the infectious score by Brazilian composer Antonio Pinto ("City of God"). There are fast cameos by Bobby Cannavale (as Scarlet's soon-to-be-ex-husband) and as themselves, Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman, as well as a funny bits with Jonah Hill ("Knocked Up") as the clueless driver and Jim Parsons (the "knight" in "Garden State") as a worshipful receptionist. The 2007 DVD is overstuffed with extras, including a making-of documentary, "15 Days or Less", aimed at film students and running a marathon 103 minutes; six extended scenes; a light-hearted but insightful three-way conversation between Silberling, Freeman and Vega in the middle of Target; and a couple of snippets that specifically advertise the DVD.


Reviewed at the Sept 12, 2006 2nd screening at the Paramount 1 theatre during the Toronto International Film Festival. The film had World Premiered the day before at the Elgin Theatre VISA Screening Room.

The basic plot involves Morgan Freeman playing a one time popular actor who is on the downward slope of his career and who is taking on roles that may be beneath him, but which he still does with a positive attitude knowing that he needs to pay the rent etc. The downward slope is indicated by his being a long time between roles with previous flicks in bargain DVD bins and his being chauffeured by a not too sure of himself production assistant who drops Freeman off at a local community market where he is going to do research for a role as supermarket manager. He soon discovers the real-life market is run by a iron-willed "10 Items or Less" checkout line clerk played by Paz Vega. When Freeman's ride never returns and Vega needs help in prepping for an interview the circumstances cause them to join forces in a ride across town to get Freeman back home and to get Vega a job that'll get her on a more upwardly mobile career path.

While the film was enjoyable, it felt like it was still a sketch or a work in progress. There were two extended musical sequences (One with Vega & Freeman teaching each other children's songs in the car, one that literally plays like a Paul Simon music video) that felt like padding to bring up the time and even then the film was only about 80 minutes long.

It's a good thing Morgan Freeman is as well liked as he is because without him this would have been too little. Sure it was funny in parts and Paz Vega is a delight as well, but there was just not enough here to say it was a complete film.

They lost me when Morgan Freeman started talking about stopping the car to ask for directions and Paz Vega said she never does that. Who ever heard of a guy wanting to ask for directions and the woman saying no!? In the real world it's the exact opposite.

Make sure you stay for the outtakes in the credits. The bit with a Target Store saleslady teaching Morgan Freeman how to hustle sales is just hilarious! An early bit where Freeman's chauffeur insists it is Freeman's voice on a "Books on Tape" reading was also pretty funny.

The director/writer Brad Silberling and actress Paz Vega were there for a brief Q&A after the screening. Silberling answered one question saying that the script was not written specifically for Morgan Freeman and that once Freeman took the role he actually changed very little of what was there. Quite a compliment for both Silberling's writing and also about how Freeman can just slip into a role and make it feel entirely like he was born to play it.


In all honesty, if someone told me the director of Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events, City of Angels, and Caspers was going to do a neat little low budget indie film and that'd it be real good, I'd say that person must be joking. But that's what director Brad Siberling did. And it was really good.

"10 Items or Less" has a similar conceit to films like "Before Sunrise," "Lost in Translation," or more recently "Once." It involves the chance meeting of two people who if serendipity didn't put them there, they'd probably never cross paths, or if they did, they wouldn't say word one to each other. Like those films, "10 Items or Less" focuses on the relationship that builds and how the characters come to understand each other and build on each other's strengths and weaknesses.

The story involves Morgan Freeman, playing an unnamed actor who goes to research his role as a grocery store employee for an upcoming independent movie and because of things beyond his control, ends up spending the day with the lady in the 10 items or less lane played by Paz Vega. She has a rotten marriage and is hoping to land a new job as a secretary. Initially, Freeman's character just needs a lift home. After spending time with her, however, he wants to get to know her and maybe even offer her some advice.

Brad Siberling builds the characters almost entirely through the exchanges between Freeman and Vega. The plot is merely a setup for these two characters to interact with each other for most of the film's 80 minute duration. Freeman has fun with his character, as he appears an outsider in lower class world that Vega's character, Scarlett, inhabits. Vega, in the meantime, grows beyond the stubborn checkout clerk upset with her life's situation looking to move on.

There a couple things that really stood out in this film. First of all, Siberling has probably taken note from independent cinema to make sure the relationship is sincere and doesn't fall into any Hollywood pitfalls. It's a very mutual friendship that develops convincingly throughout the film. It works, even though the situation itself does seem a little inconceivable.

I am also impressed with the performances. While Freeman's presence gives this film credibility from the get-go, he shows a certain amount of charm and fun not usually seen from him. Paz Vega, meanwhile, is priming herself for a breakthrough in US film sometime in the future. I loved her in Spanglish and she's equally good here as the tough, no-nonsense Scarlet. Towards the end of the film, she successfully conveys the growth of her character. I'm looking forward to seeing her in more films.

Overall, 10 Items of Less functions best as a character piece, well scripted and directed by Brad Siberling. He hasn't done much writing and his feature film work has consisted mostly of big Hollywood films. Yet there's certainly an artist at work here and am anxious to see if he'll take this road again.


Knowing when to end a movie is just as important as casting, directing and acting. And it's nice to see when a director/script get it right. Clocking in at just 82 minutes, 10 ITEMS OR LESS doesn't stretch the story, trying to grasp at inane topics. It stays focused, being funny, sad, and well thought out.

Morgan Freeman (LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN) stars as "Him", an aging actor grasping at any roles presented to him. We're introduced to "Him" as he travels to a supermarket in an out-of-the-way section of town by The Kid (Jonah Hill, CLICK). Realizing he has a star in his car, The Kid pressures Him to talk about his absence in cinema over the past few years. Him isn't very forthcoming because, not only has he been out of it for while, he's also en route to a shooting location of an indie film he might act in ("I haven't decided if I'm going to accept the part."). The Kid is a relative of the director involved in this indie venture and soon drops him in the middle of nowheresville. Stuck, Him decides to check out the local market. He immediately runs into the beautiful Scarlet (Paz Vega) who operates the 10 items or less register. Not just strikingly pretty but intelligent, Him begins using her as his prime research subject for his upcoming independent film role. He learns how she figures out numbers so quickly and why she knows the quirks of every member of this isolated community.

But Him doesn't just use Scarlet, he helps her so he can see deeper into her life. They travel together to get her car back from a cheating husband, and he teaches her how to act to get a new job she's pining for, and how to dress for success even when confronted with Target as the epitome of local clothing. This is probably one of the funniest moments as we get a glimpse of Him, too, showing his complete lack of understanding of the chain-store retail world ("These shirts are only $12 bucks! How is this possible?!") The ending, as stated at the beginning of this review, is abrupt but apropos. There's no way these two could ever remain friends even though they form a unique bond. They know when to say goodbye and what each garnered from the other. It's a quiet but riveting moment as Scarlet's clunker car sits idling outside Him's L.A. mansion.

This is a great independent production and one that wastes little time getting going. And it won't waste your time either.


10 ITEMS OR LESS is one of those 'under the radar' pictures that is drenched in the simplicity that most independent movies have: honest, ad hoc performances by its two leads -- Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega who establish quite a complementary if unlikely duo. The great thing is, this entire movie looks improbable despite its 'road movie' roots. How Morgan Freeman's unnamed character psychically (not physically)arrives to where he meets this jaded check-out girl who has an unhealthy relationship with her current supervisor (who also happens to be getting it on with her philandering husband played by Bobby Cannavale in a small role) is somehow left for us to witness more than deduce and their witty banter -- two people on opposite sides of the coin of society -- is deceptively simple. So, in a nutshell, while there aren't any bang! moments of Earth-shattering revelations, this movie is a quirky little mood piece that probably otherwise got lost in the shuffle of indies which came out in 2006 but deserves to be seen, if only for its honesty.


This is a splendidly done simplistic film that explores a theme, and gives each viewer something different that they take from it. The premise is simple: an unnamed celebrity actor (Morgan Freeman) decides to research for an upcoming role by visiting a store and watching people. He takes particular interest in the cashier at the "10 Items or Less" lane (Paz Vega), who he finds an amiable, strong, and curious presence.

Both actors play off each other brilliantly and bring solid dimension to characters in what is a character study. Not a conventional character study; they each represent entire worlds. The cashier's life is mired in a harsh and frustrating "real world," while the actor is so enmeshed in his fantasy existence that he can't do simple tasks like remember phone numbers. He readily admits he's putting on a face when he talks to people, and the whole point of researching real people shows he's not one of them.

But not only is the actor inspired by real people for his work; we see the reverse process as well. Several characters recognize "Him," and make reference to how he has inspired them with his movie roles.

The cashier's favorite song "Al Pasar la Barca," about how a girl refuses to hide behind beauty and prefers instead to pay (ie: do honest work) for boat passage, couldn't have been chosen better. It parallels with the Vega character, the only store employee with any brains or ambition, who is willing to work hard to succeed. (That's quite an aspiration, for somebody who looks like Paz Vega.) It's an odd little film, probably made on a shoestring. If you don't mind slow pacing and a "talky" approach, this film will entertain. The characters are perfectly contrasted, and the effective acting makes them endearing. A nice watch.


One can only hope that there are many times when someone as powerful as Morgan Freeman can take the time to assist someone who needs help.

It all comes down to loving people. As Will Rogers said, "I never met a man I didn't like." Of course, if you meet Paz Vega, what's not to like? That smile of hers can melt diamonds. She is just so fantastic that I can watch anything she is in. The same goes for Freeman. he is just magic on the screen.

The two of them gave us a film that was funny from start to finish. From the Mexican supermarket to Lorraine & Bobby to Packy. It was tender, charming and just plain funny.

You have to check this out.


Bravo! Morgan Freeman is an actor, who researches a character he is selected to play, before he makes a commitment. Freeman is a 'good fit' for this film (like he was for "Driving Miss Daisy"), and he is not only believable, but he gets a chance to change his image of playing a character with reserved dignity and propriety. Although there are no guarantees in life, for anyone, this gives an actor a great opportunity to play different or unique characters that stand out, in order to avoid getting stereotyping. And it must be said that stereotyping has hampered, or completely ruined, a significant number of acting careers.

This is a low-budget film that, amazingly, was made in a time span of only two weeks. It is a film that is well directed and written by Brad Silberling. The location manager chose Carson, CA for the film's setting, and the location helps set the tone and timing for the film. The editing is fair to good, but a little rough.

Silberling was the 'subcontractor', in getting Freeman to do this film, while the actor was in-between film projects.

There is a good chemistry between Freeman and Paz Vega, a Spanish actress, and this opens an effective dialog between each of the cast members, who are diverse and come from different cultures. The film also encourages an understanding between people, who not only speak two languages (English and Spanish), but come from two different worlds of ethnicity, race, gender, norms, mores, beliefs, folkways, principles, and values. The film strives for some honesty, and arrives at some truth, to maintain the film's integrity.

Part of the comedy is that Freeman plays an unemployed actor that has been out of work for four years. In truth, Freeman is so-in-demand as an actor that he is constantly working.

The film offers an adventure of bonding, caring, sharing, changing, and exchanging. And, the film's outtakes give the viewer a preview of some of things an actor must go through in preparing for a role.

If necessary, tell your boss that you're taking a 'mental health day', and go see this film. If you're able, take your significant other or your family with you. I rank the film a 10 out of 10. It's enjoyable, interesting, informative, poignant, and worthwhile.


It's a difficult movie to classify "10 Items or Less". Generally, I don't care about defining genres, but there's something about this movie that makes you want to put it in a specific category, in order to transmit, even with only one word, your feelings about it. I completely recommend this film to anyone and, if you truly enjoy cinema and if you enjoy life, you'll want to do the same as soon as you've finished watching it.

I recommend this movie and call it beautiful and delightful admitting it's not perfect but it doesn't do anything wrong. I don't want to sound like I contradict myself, but I believe writer/director Brad Silberling knew exactly what he was getting into when he finished writing this inspiring script. I'm sure he wanted to achieve a product that had nothing to do with perfection: a product that would be as simple, appealing and uncompromising as its title. Well, he's done it.

Silberling, director of long, complex, dramatic movies like "City of Angels" and "Moonlight Mile", proves with "10 Items or Less", which closes in at just 70 minutes, the passion he has for his work and also the faith he has in it. To put an actor (Morgan Freeman) in front of a woman (Paz Vega) in a grocery store and take them exactly to the places ordinary life would take them is what Silberling proposes here.

I can't tell you no more because within the apparent simplicity lies a thought provoking background that shouldn't be underestimated. Because here everyone's exposed: the camera focuses directly on the two main characters, who share endless conversation in a car ride with stops that's not endless only because life is life. And let me express how praise how well Silberling handles the situation by saying that he reaches, in less time (not only in movie duration time, but in the single day that the movie develops its events) and in a smaller place, the kind of connection between two characters that Sofia Coppola generated in "Lost In Translation".

That movie, set in Tokyo, also encountered an actor and a woman, and they also had conversations about the moments they were living in their lives. It's in the conversations where we sense the though provoking quality of "10 Items or Less" and, just as in Coppola's movie, the naturalness of every situation is never lost and the images with all music and no words don't seem forced or included in the picture to 'buy time'.

In this aspect, the collaboration of Silberling and his director of photography Phedon Papamichael. The man who shot the beautiful sceneries in "Sideways" and focused on every emotion in "Patch Adams", delights us here with visual passages of true natural beauty.

But the ultimate beauty of "10 Items or Less" can be found in its cast (by Avy Kaufman), in its two protagonists. They are the ones who transmit this feeling I mentioned at the beginning and I can't specify; we feel their connection and we can tell they're having fun and that they may even be improvising stuff. Academy Award Winner Morgan Freeman, also an executive producer of the film, simply stands there and confirms the status he has today in the movie industry, and one that's well deserved: a quiet man, filled with wisdom that can easily make you cry as he can make you laugh. And the beautiful Paz Vega (well, I said she was great in "Spanglish")Here she proves she's the real deal, and Hollywood's not small for her.


Not that much things happen in this movie but A lot of meanings. The woman thought she had all that she can in life, but that was indeed not true, and she found out herself when she met this person who was conducting some research for his next job. There really should be more types of movies like this, im not even that old as considered "mature" ( im 13 by the way) and i still got the idea and point of the film. The main point is in my opinion: DON'T THINK YOU CAN'T HAVE A BETTER LIFE, JUST BECAUSE YOU CURRENTLY HAVE THIS ONE.

Though I got to admit i was thinking of watching another movie but after reading all the reviews and seen the trailer i decided on this one even though i knew not that much action would appear in the film. I recommend anyone to watch this movie as it has very good points in the film, and is a really good ending.


This is film-making at it's simplest and it's best.

I had my doubts, because even though Freeman is great actor, sometimes he gets involved in bad projects; this is not one of those times.

It's a small story that runs just over an hour and fifteen, in a time when we are getting used to having movies become longer and longer, and not necessarily better, the director uses the short time to his advantage, because the characters are so well defined from the start (great portrayals by freeman and Vega by the way), that the little bit of background info on them seems real, Morgan is himself even though his name is not mentioned, he has been out of movies for a couple of years now because he was saturated by the business, and developed a fear to commit to a script, and is doing research for a character in a indie movie where he plays a store/supermarket manager. The story begins by him being drop of in a supermarket in a rough neighborhood, where he meets the cashier of the 10 items or less (Vega) and has to take a ride with her cause "the production" forgot to pick him up.

In many ways it's a road movie, Morgan provides the laughs, and quirks with his unbeatable smile and positive perspective on everything, showing off an accomplished actor who has trained his mind to be able to define everyone he sees into a character he could play, and Paz (by the way, what an extraordinary beautiful woman, even more gorgeous than Penelope Cruz) brings the vulnerability of a 25 years old separated woman who works harder than everyone else without getting any credit in a dead end job at a crappy supermarket.

It's a talkie, there is a lot of dialog, but the balance between light and fun and serious and sad is well sustained, the characters become so lovable right away that you spend the last 20 minutes begging for more screen time of this odd couple, but the shortness is in the nature of the story, so it was a good call from the director not to give in.


I have to admit that for the first half hour or so of this movie I was basically lost. There had been some mildly amusing humour, but at best a barebones plot and a general sense of pointlessness that was on the verge of making me think that I was wasting my time. Then - for no apparent reason - I suddenly realized that I was enjoying this. There was no blinding moment of realization and no suddenly dramatic scene that grabbed me. In fact nothing very exciting happens in the entire movie. It was as if I just all of a sudden realized that the movie was meant to be largely pointless - and that in its very pointlessness was its charm.

Morgan Freeman starred as an unnamed actor who finds a “little project” to jumpstart his career. He's going to play a supermarket manager, and spends the day in a neighbourhood supermarket to research the role. While there he meets and bonds with Scarlet (played by Paz Vega) - a cashier who wants more out of life. He helps her prepare for a job interview as if she's auditioning for a role, while she introduces him to real life. It's truly funny watching “him” (for that's how the character is identified in the credits) be overwhelmed by a visit to the local Target store.

Freeman and Vega were great together, with a strange but completely believable sort of combined romantic but father-daughter chemistry. If you feel lost at the beginning, stick with this. In the end, it turns out to be a delightfully charming movie. 7/10


I believe a lot of people down rated the movie, NOT because of the lack of quality. But it did not follow the standard Hollywood formula. Some of the conflicts are not resolved. The ending is just a little too real for others, but the journey the rich characters and long list of supporters provide is both thought provoking and very entertaining. Even the cinematography is excellent given the urban setting, the directing also is excellent and innovative.

This is a 10 in my book, this movie will take you places the normal and expected Hollywood script will not. They took some risks and did a few things different. I think it worked well, I am purposely trying to avoid any direct references to the movie because seeing it for yourself is the best answer, not accepting someone else's interpretation.


This movie is about human relationships. Charming, funny, and well written, with meaningful text. It seems that Morgan Freeman surely have fun at the set. Also good music. Paz Vega is a beautiful and smart woman. I really enjoy her acting. Woman like her are a good motivation to learn Spanish language. From the moment Morgan Freeman meets the cute Paz Vega the view is taken on an intimate journey with two strangers learning to care about where their lives are headed. 10 Items or Less is about zest of life. If you enjoy this film see also The Pursuit of Happiness with Will Smith and his son. Thats not a action film or a nude comedy. Its all about human relations.


This movie is not great, but it is a good and enjoyable one. It feels like an indie film made out of a play script. Morgan Freeman basically plays himself, although the director swears the script was not written for him. And there is the small irony of the actor that goes in a supermarket to do research for a film that he hasn't committed to yet. I mean, he actually made the film in the end and we are watching it :)

I found the dialogue a bit too positive for my taste, but refreshing nonetheless. This is a film that inspires the viewer to take a look at their own lives and choose the direction in which to go. A bit too much emphasis on appearance, if you ask me.

Bottom line: a nice little film, made in two weeks, with basically two actors and a few extras, dialogue driven, makes Morgan Freeman look good :)


Panic In The Streets opens in high noir style, a view along a dark street followed by a camera tilt upwards to a window, behind which is playing out a sleazy card game - an opening flourish which, along with some of the location shooting, anticipates some of the atmosphere Welles brought a decade later in Touch Of Evil. One of the players throws open the window; it's an appropriate action, serving as an introduction to the events within as well as literally opening up our first view of the underworld.

Shot in high contrast black and white, Panic In The Streets benefits immensely from a strong cast as well as some fine location shooting in New Orleans. Scenes set in such places as the mortuary, the crowded shipping office or amidst the peeling paint of 'Frank's Place' offer a unique, and sometimes claustrophobic atmosphere, impossible to recreate in the studio. With these elements, Kazan's film shows the influence of Dassin's groundbreaking Naked City of two years earlier, which established the gritty, almost documentary style within the noir cycle. In fact, Widmark's previous role had been in Dassin's even finer Night And The City, a film in which a sense of rising panic was even more prevalent. Joe MacDonald, a favourite with the director, photographed Panic In The Streets' detailed environment. MacDonald also worked on Kazan's Pinky and Viva Zapata!, and went on to shoot Widmark again three years later in Fuller's masterpiece Pick Up On South Street.

As others have noticed, in a manner typical of some noir films, Kazan's work offers a contrast between the confusion, sickness and immorality of the streets with the modest, calm home life of the Reeds. But whereas (for instance) in Lang's The Big Heat (1953) the home life of the hero is destroyed by elements of vice surrounding the embattled central character - ultimately sending him back to work with an increased vigilance and sense of vengeance - Panic In The Streets places Reed's rising anxiousness within the confines of what amounts to just another working 'day'. Despite all the danger, ultimately he returns back to the bosom of his family justified and satisfied. The implication being that social balance has been restored, at least for the moment by his professionalism and curative skills.

That imbalance of course, has been created by crime and disease. The two are closely associated in this film. It reminds one of the tagline from the much cruder Cobra (1986) - where "Crime is the disease. Meet the cure," a neat analogy in context, if one which rings too uncomfortably of social reductionism. At its climax, as Blackie attempts to flee aboard ship, the visuals specifically allude to rats as being similar to criminals, both posing a menace to society's health. As (the presumably infected) Blackie prowls round the cheap rooms and the docks with his cronies, in search of something he suspects everyone is after, if without knowing exactly what it is, 'plague' and 'Blackie' resonate together in the audiences mind, adding further to connected associations. Ironically Blackie's hunch about Poldi's unfortunate cousin, that "he brought something in" of note is correct - even if, finally, its nothing he can sell or steal. Blackie's logical assumption that the police would not normally bother with the murder of some anonymous illegal immigrant has a ring of truth about it, and his so confusion is understandable.

Dr Reed, although home-loving, and on the side of society, is a true noir hero. Familiar to the genre is the chief protagonist as a man who walks alone, forced to travel beyond the limits of the law. In his way, Reed is forced to take morality into his own hands for the sake of society at large - a dimension of the film that is particularly apposite, given director Kazan's controversial personal history. The director testified before the infamous HUAC, naming suspected communists and fellow travellers. His film depicts suspects being hauled in for questioning, and the manhandling of the press, on the grounds that the overriding public good justified the means. These actions perhaps echo the director's sentiments at the time, presumably accepting the McCarthyite witch hunt and the suppression of civil rights it entailed in the light of presumed communist infiltration of the entertainment industry. In these times of terrorist threats and state response, such issues as they appear in the film are strikingly modern.

Standout scenes in the film include a notable scene where Blackie interrogates the dying Poldi as to the precise nature of his cousin's presumed contraband. Cat like, Blackie stalks his victim across the room, eventually preying over the doomed man's sick bed, holding Poldi's feverish head in his hands - a striking, evil cradling. It's a gesture emphasising the intimate nature of corruption, whether moral or physical. Apparently, the actors did many or all of their own stunts, which leads to some other, very dramatic scenes at the end, as the police and health authorities close in on the villains under the wharfs. Half crawling, half scrambling over the slippery timbers at the edge of the dock pool must have been an experience very uncomfortable for Palance, but it is sequence that adds immensely to the immediacy of it all.

Occasionally less convincing elements distract the viewer. Apparently Dr Reed is left to fight a potential national emergency little government backup. Perhaps just as astonishingly, he never inoculates himself - inviting a dramatic turn which never materialises. At the end of the film, too, the potential epidemic has been halted, all contactees located, a little too neatly. But these weaknesses are more than outweighed by the other satisfactions of a film that still makes for compulsive and relevant viewing today.


This film is actually pertinent even today given the threat of bio-terrorism, and the threats of superbugs, West Nile Virus, and SARS. As a thriller, the tension is fairly intense. Richard Widmark and Paul Douglas are more than serviceable in their roles. The domestic scenes between Widmark and his wife provide a nice interlude to the main plot. The actor in this film who most left his mark is Jack Palance. His sharply defined features and seemingly easygoing exterior always wither way to reveal the avaricious and cruel man beneath the surface. The chase scene through the packing plant is impressive even today. Recommended, 7/10.


When a stiff turns up with pneumonic plague (a variant of bubonic plague), U.S. Public Health Service official Dr. Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark) immediately quarantines everyone whom he knows was near the body. Unfortunately, the stiff got that way by being murdered, and there's a good chance that the murderer will start spreading the plague, leading to an epidemic. Enter Police Captain Tom Warren (Paul Douglas), who is enlisted to track down the murderer as soon as possible and avert a possible national disaster.

While Panic in the Streets is a quality film, it suffers from being slightly unfocused and a bit too sprawling (my reason for bringing the score down to an eight). It wanders the genres from noirish gangster to medical disaster, police procedural, thriller and even romance.

This is not director Elia Kazan's best work, but saying that is a bit disingenuous. Kazan is the helmer responsible such masterpieces as A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), On The Waterfront (1954) and East of Eden (1955), after all. This film predates those, but Kazan has said that he was already "untethered" by the studio. Taking that freedom too far may partially account for the sprawl. The film is set in New Orleans, a city where Kazan "used to wander around . . . night and day so I knew it well". He wanted to exploit the environment. "It's so terrific and colorful. I wanted boats, steam engines, warehouses, jazz joints--all of New Orleans".

Kazan handles each genre of Panic in the Streets well, but they could be connected better. The film would have benefited by staying with just one or two of its moods. The sprawl in terms of setting would have still worked. Part of the dilemma may have been caused by the fact that Panic in the Streets was an attempt to merge two stories by writers Edna and Edward Anhalt, "Quarantine" and "Some Like 'Em Cold".

The gangster material, which ends up in firmly in thriller territory with an extended chase scene near the end of the film, is probably the highlight. Not surprisingly, Kazan has said that he believes the villains are "more colorful--I never had much affection for the good guys anyway. I don't like puritans". A close second is the only material that approaches the "panic" of the title--the discovery of the plague and the attempts to track down the exposed, inoculate them and contain the disease. While there is plenty of suspense during these two "moods", much of the film is also a fairly straightforward drama, with pacing more typical of that genre.

The dialogue throughout is excellent. The stylistic difference to many modern films could hardly be more pronounced. It is intelligent, delivered quickly and well enunciated by each character. Conflict isn't created by "dumb" decisions but smart moves; events and characters' actions are more like a chess game. When unusual stances are taken, such as Reed withholding the plague from the newspapers, he gives relatively lengthy justifications for his decisions, which other characters argue over.

In light of this, it's interesting that Kazan believed that "propriety, religion, ethics and the middle class are all murdering us". That idea works its way into the film through the alterations to the norm, or allowances away from it, made by the protagonists. For example, head gangster Blackie (Jack Palance in his first film role) is offered a "Get Out of Jail Free" card if he'll cooperate with combating the plague.

The technical aspects of the film are fine, if nothing exceptional, but the real reasons to watch are the performances, the intriguing scenario and the well-written dialogue.


In New Orleans, an illegal immigrant feels sick and leaves a poker game while winning the smalltime criminal Blackie (Walter Jack Palance). He is chased by Blackie and his men Raymond Fitch (Zero Mostel) and Poldi (Guy Thomajan), killed by Blackie and his body is dumped in the sea. During the autopsy, the family man Lieutenant Commander Dr. Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark) of the U.S. Public Health Service finds that the dead man had pneumonic plague caused by rats and he needs to find who had any type of contact with the man within forty-eight hours to avoid an epidemic. The City Mayor assigns the skeptical Captain Tom Warren (Paul Douglas) to help Dr. Clint to find the killers that are infected with the plague and inoculate them.

"Panic in the Streets" discloses a simple story, but it is still effective and with a great villain. The engaging plot has not become dated after fifty-seven years. Jack Palance performs a despicable scum in his debut, and the camera work while he tries to escape with Zero Mostel is still very impressive. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Pânico nas Ruas" ("Panic in the Streets")


"Panic in the Streets" is a fairly unknown little movie from director Elia Kazan and was made before his classic masterpieces such as "A Streetcar Named Desire", "On the Waterfront" and "East of Eden". Kazan already won an Oscar in 1947, before this movie, so he was not a completely unknown at the time. Still "Panic in the Streets" is mostly a movie that passed under the radar.

The great thing about this movie is the Oscar winning script. It has a very good concept and its excellent tense thriller material with a sniff of crime/film-noir elements. The dialog in this movie is also absolutely magnificent and gives the movie a feel of reality and credibility.

The cast is fairly unknown (especially at the time it was released) but it still features Zero Mostel and Jack Palance in one of their first movie roles. Especially Palance impresses as the tough gangster boss, with a very powerful looking face.

Still the movie drags a little at some points. The movie starts of very well but after the start the movie slows down and does not always makes the right decisions in terms of pace and the point of view the story is told from.

Yet, "Panic in the Streets" remains a perfectly watchable movie, mainly due to its solid script and powerful dialog that makes the movie a believable one to watch. For fans of the thriller genre this is a great movie to watch.

8/10


Refreshing `lost' gem! Featuring effective dialog combined with excellent acting to establish the characters and involve you enough to care what happens to them. The Douglas and Widmark characters are realistic heroes. Palance is his usual evil presence. Widmark win the fisticuffs fight scene, a car chase of less than 60 seconds with a `logical' end, and a lengthy chase on foot that shames the overdone chase sequences of contemporary Hollywood. You know how it will likely end, but the suspense and interest are sustained throughout. The end of the chase is one of the most realistic you will ever see. The film seems to slow a little past the middle, but stay with it for the rewarding conclusion.


In Panic In The Streets Richard Widmark plays U.S. Navy doctor who has his week rudely interrupted with a corpse that contains plague. As cop Paul Douglas properly points out the guy died from two bullets in the chest. That's not the issue here, the two of them become unwilling partners in an effort to find the killers and anyone else exposed to the disease.

As was pointed out by any number of people, for some reason director Elia Kazan did not bother to cast the small parts with anyone that sounds like they're from Louisiana. Having been to New Orleans where the story takes place I can personally attest to that. Richard Widmark and his wife Barbara Bel Geddes can be excused because as a Navy doctor he could be assigned there, but for those that are natives it doesn't work.

But with plague out there and the news being kept a secret, the New Orleans PD starts a dragnet of the city's underworld. The dead guy came off a ship from Europe and he had underworld connections. A New Orleans wise guy played by Jack Palance jumps to a whole bunch of erroneous conclusions and starts harassing a cousin of the dead guy who is starting to show plague symptoms. Palance got rave reviews in the first film where he received notice.

Personally my favorite in this film is Zero Mostel. This happened right before Mostel was blacklisted and around that time he made a specialty of playing would be tough guys who are really toadies. He plays the same kind of role in the Humphrey Bogart film, The Enforcer. Sadly I can kind of identify with Mostel in that last chase scene where he and Palance are being chased down by Widmark, Douglas, and half the New Orleans Police. Seeing the weight challenged Zero trying to keep up with Palance was something else because I'm kind of in Zero's league now in the heft department.

Kazan kept the action going at a good clip, there's very little down time in this film. If there was any less it would be an Indiana Jones film. Panic In The Streets won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay that year.

Kazan also made good use of the New Orleans waterfront and the French Quarter. Some of the same kinds of shots are later used in On the Waterfront. In fact Panic In The Streets is about people not squealing when they really should in their own best interest. Very similar again to On the Waterfront.

Panic In The Streets does everyone proud who was associated with it. Now why couldn't Elia Kazan get some decent New Orleans sounding people in the small roles.


When plague breaks out in New Orleans, it's Richard Widmark to the rescue in "Panic in the Streets," one of the lesser-celebrated films of the great Elia Kazan. Kazan keeps the pace brisk, and there are lots of marvelous touches - the scenes between Widmark and Barbara Bel Geddes, who plays his wife and the scene in the police station show family life and work life and the relationships of average citizens, which is in sharp contrast to the lives and relationships of the low-lifes, portrayed by a menacing Jack Palance, his weak yes man, Zero Mostel, Tommy Cook, and Louis Charles. There are also some interesting visuals - Palance has a couple of scenes with actors who seem to come up to his knees in height.

The acting is marvelous and the dialogue sharp if the story isn't quite up to the direction and performances. It has a few questionable aspects which will be spotted by the viewer quite easily. That aside, it's well worth viewing. Kazan was a masterful director.


"Panic in the Streets" was a decent thriller, but I felt a bit disappointed by it. The central theme of a city being attacked by a plague in modern times is fascinating, but the film never really explores or develops it. Its well made and entertaining, but its not as interesting as it should have been. The screenplay for this one is really weak and brings the whole film down. None of the central characters are really compelling or believable.

Fortunately, the film is very well made so it compensates for the weak scripting. The direction by Elia Kazan keeps the film suspenseful and moving at a lightning quick pace. There are some standout sequences, particularly the memorable chase climax. When his direction was combined with better screenplays several years later, the man could mostly do no wrong.

The acting is also very good. Richard Widmark was always a watchable leading man and does what he can with an underwritten character. Paul Douglas spends his time yelling a bit too much but does a decent job as well. The standouts in the cast are the two villains. Zero Mostel, known primarily for his comic roles, is effectively slimy as one of cinema's ultimate toady characters. Jack Palance is, unsurprisingly, a chilling villain. "Panic in the Streets" is disappointing but still worth watching. (7/10)


I can't really condemn the movie because it does work. There is enough film noir elements to consider it a noir movie, but I think it's only just in the category.

There's nothing sinister in this piece, and that's where the noir elements fail. Sure, the disease might be considered sinister, but I have a hard time seeing that. The movie hints at a darker side: Blackie may be trafficking human beings, the New Orleans police are only too willing to arrest a reporter, the specter of the plague hangs over all of the people in the movie... but those are really only hints.

There's no attempt made to question Reed's motivations, as one with do with Marlowe or Spade, nor is there any attempt to bring a humans side to Blackie, which would make him even more contemptuous if the human trafficking was actually played out.

That lack of depth is what fails the movie in the end.

The story is decent, the acting is good, the writing and direction are well done... but there is nothing to make this a movie you should return to over and over. Worth watching once, maybe twice if you don't remember it from years ago, and then putting away.


Given its time of release, the story that unravels in 1950 thriller 'Panic in the Streets' was hardly a surprise. The corpse of a mysterious illegal immigrant is found and passed off as a nobody until further examination from a public health inspector who claims the corpse carries a strain of bubonic plague. Yet with the current drama in the world today, this strangely helps this film in appearing credible for today's viewers. The cast and crew are flawless. Richard Widmark in his first role following his breakthrough performance in 'Night and the City,' Jack Palance in his chilling film debut, also starring in this film are Paul Douglas and a young (and rather cute) Barbara Bel Geddes. A whole slew of uncredited, non-professional actors (typical of director Kazan) fill in the remaining slots. Elia Kazan directs, Joe MacDonald films (he would later work with Richard Widmark again in 1953's much superior 'Pickup on South Street') and the great Alfred Newman scores it. Nearly everyone involved here has done better work, 'Panic in the Streets' is quite the rewarding watch, nonetheless. Especially for the film-noir enthusiast.


Just a comment on New Orleans accents...

An earlier reviewer noted the following: "This film, could have been shot in New York, or another Northern big city because it presents us with characters that speak more like "broklynese" than maybe a Southern accent one might hear in that part of the country." There was also another comment along these lines from an English reviewer.

Many people in New Orleans do, in fact, sound "broklynese". I have never found out why. (It's mentioned in "A Confederacy of Dunces" by John Kennedy Toole.) I always appreciate movies taking place in New Orleans that include this detail, as this one did. Too often it's just the Hollywood version of the standard Southern accent.


Elia Kazan, one of the best theater directors this country ever had, showed he was equally at home with movies. With "Panic in the Streets", Mr. Kazan gives us an early version of what would come later, with perhaps his master piece, "On the Waterfront", although both movies share only the water setting, for they are different visions about different subjects.

Mr. Kazan shot on location in New Orleans. The adaptation by Daniel Fuchs of the Edna and Edward Anhalt stories that are the basis of the film, is remarkable in that it takes us to places that no tourist dared to see when visiting "The Big Easy". One of the big assets of this film is the magnificent black and white cinematography by Joseph MacDonald that shows New Orleans at its best. Also the music by Alfred Newman and the song by Billie Holiday gives the proceedings a nice touch.

This film, could have been shot in New York, or another Northern big city because it presents us with characters that speak more like "broklynese" than maybe a Southern accent one might hear in that part of the country.

One thing comes clear in the movie, Jack Palance, making his screen debut, smolders the screen every time one sees him. He was so intense! At the same time, this tough guy shows a tender side of him when he goes to see his sick partner, who unknown to him, is stricken with a fatal disease. Blackie, comforts this man caressing his sweaty face and running his hands through the dying man's greasy hair with abandon. Notable also, was the fact that Mr. Palance and Mr. Mostel appear to have been doing their own stunts, something so refreshing because both actors make it seem real.

The film also presents a normal side with the introduction of the Reed family at the beginning of the film. We see a family man painting furniture with his young son. Later he and the wife discuss how it appears they can't make ends meet with his salary, something that many families have to deal with on a daily basis. Richard Widmark, playing a normal person is not as effective as when this actor plays more cunning and intense people. Barbara Bel Geddes, as the wife, sounds as though she's a suburban woman from Connecticut.

The film is enjoyable thanks to Mr. Kazan's direction and the excellent cast working in the movie.


A neat 'race against time' premise - A murdered John Doe is found to have pneumonic plague, so while the health authority and NOPD battle everybody and each other trying to find his waterfront contacts, the murderers think the heat is because the victim's infected cousin is holding out on them.

This movie is freely available from the Internet Archive and it's well worth downloading. A lot (all?) of this movie was filmed in genuine New Orleans locations, which makes it interesting to look at for what is now period detail, though to me it does look under-exposed, even for noir - maybe mobile lighting rigs then weren't what they are. There is also a plenty of location background noise, which is slightly distracting - car horns in the love scene, anyone? There are a lot of non-professional supporting artists in crowd scenes, and this may explain why the pacing of the film is slightly saggy to begin with - not much chance for retakes or recasting, though the final chase is worth hanging on for. There's not much wrong with the lead actors either: Jack Palance is genuinely scary as a charismatic, intelligent psychopath - the later scene as he alternately comforts and threatens the sick cousin is terrific, while Widmark, as he often did, pitches the righteous anger of the man on a mission at a believable level - most of the time.

Somebody should remake this - no supernaturals, no mysticism, no special FX, just a good yarn full of character conflict, and a topical theme. Another reviewer mentioned the writer John Kennedy O'Toole, and that's spot on with the number of oddball New Orleans types peppering this dark, sleazy, against-the-clock drama. There's even a midget newspaper seller.

"Community? What community? D'you think you're living in the Middle Ages?"


A doctor and a policeman in New Orleans have only 48 hours to locate a killer infected with pneumonic plague.

An effective, and classy, little thriller directed by Elia Kazan that blends documentary realism with a race against time pulpy heartbeat. Set and filmed in and around New Orleans, Panic In The Streets is taken from the story Quarantine, Some Like 'em Cold by Edna and Edward Anhalt who won an Oscar for original story. It also boasts a fine ensemble cast that deliver top rate performances for their director. In turn, Richard Widmark {bringing the method a year before Marlon did for Kazan in A Streetcar Named Desire}, Paul Douglas, Jack Palance (as Walter Jack Palance) & the wonderfully named Zero Mostel, all get sweatily moody as the pursuers chase the pursued to halt the onset of a potential Black Death epidemic.

Where the film scores its main suspense points is with Kazan's astute ability to cut back and forth between the protagonists without altering the flow and mood of the piece. From Widmark's Public Health doctor, with hypodermic needle in hand, running around trying to locate the bad guys so he can do good; to the bad guys themselves who are bemused as to why there is such a wide scale hunt for them; the tension is stacked up to fever breaking point. To which thankfully the final thirty minutes becomes a cracking piece of cinema. With Palance excelling as a nasty villain that ironically puts one in mind of Widmark's own Tommy Udo from Kiss Of Death three years prior.

It's an imaginative and intelligently written story, one that cunningly links rats and criminals to being carriers of disease. A blight on society as it were. It's noirish elements, such as paranoia, blend nicely with its basic procedural thriller being. While some memorable scenes are suitably cloaked by the stifling atmosphere that Kazan has created. Although some of the early character psychologizing threatens to steer the film down some over talky based alleyway, this definitely is a film worth staying with to the end. Not essential film-noir, and maybe not even essential Kazan, but certainly a highly recommended film that begs to be discovered by a new generation of film lovers and reappraised by the old guard who may have missed it back in the day. 7.5/10