Paul-Anderson Movie Reviews

"LIFEGUARD" is one of the freshest, most poignant studies of REAL choices in REAL life I have ever seen in a Hollywood film. The film's topic transcends it's age. I have seen it many times during it's 23 year history (including it's debut) and remain convinced Sam Elliot's portrayal of Rick Carlson, an aging California ocean-lifeguard, is superb! - Daniel Petrie couldn't have found a better leading male roll. There is a 'mystery' to Rick which Elliot portrays sublimbly and expertly. Securely caught in the net of indecision between 'doing what he wants' and 'wanting what everyone else wants him to do', he sits on the fence 'playing the game' with all the emotional ignobilities a 'hunk' has to contend with while making a serious effort to find his own priorities in life -- only Sam Elliot could have captured the 'subtle' intensity of indecision in Rick's character.

The production gave Anne Archer (his Hi-school beau) and Kathleen Quinlan (his under-age beach lover) a huge step-up in their movie careers - and they were excellent in the film. Even Sharon Weber's roll as Rick's 'Stewie' was a dash of ingenuity - Weber was totally believable and had the talent to make 'big-time money' in her all-too-short career -- another Hollywood 'should-have-been'.

I've always enjoyed immensely watching Sam Elliot on the big screen - he's always had a "Gabel-ian presence" (when he talks, you listen!). I only wish he'd had more 'film exposure' in his early career. He continues to chose wisely his characters, even in B-grade films, and still has an on-screen magnetism unmatched by many of today's shallower, much-ballyhooed male performers (including Hanks, Willis and Gibson) - imagine Elliot in Tom Selleck's starring roll as MAGNUM, PI!! (...no reflection on Tom Selleck's magnetism intended - I love the guy! - in fact Selleck and Elliot have had, arguably, the most magnetic appeal of any duel-male performance roll on the silver screen).

LIFEGUARD is one of those 'quiet' little films that usually slips through the cracks of big-time promotion. But it's 'essence' remains quality study for 21st century high-schoolers and college grads (male and female, alike). In fact, having 'been there' as a lifeguard myself (and only 2 months Elliot's junior), I find 'me' wondering whether I made the right choice as a systems analyst for a world-class missile-producing company -- it pays 'real good', but the most, and deepest, satisfaction I get out of life is still swimming in the ocean and riding my Harley. Maybe I should have stayed a professional 'life-saver' -- or become a licensed motorcycle mechanic. At least I'd be where the 'real money' is - job (and life) satisfaction.

Hooray to films like LIFEGUARD - they often accurately portray steps required by all of us in our mostly 'wimpy' efforts at life-making decisions. At least 'Rick' made his 'right choice' early in life and, ultimatley, had the guts to stick it out - big paycheck or not.

How many of us in today's world, particularly 'baby-boomers' such as myself, have the intestinal fortitude to 'listen to our hearts' as 'Rick' did and chose a profession which keenly describes and fulfills OUR deepest desires???....huh?....how many???

'Sincerely' Bob Shank, Jr. - former lifeguard (LOVED it!) Sr. Information Systems Analyst - (not thrilled) Tucson, Arizona

this movie is one of my favorite movies. but why did they change the original song to just plain music. the original song at the beginning and end of this film went much better with the movie then the song they have now. i wan't to get this on dvd with the original song please thank you.

This movie was a very good film indeed.Watch sam elliot star as a man in his early 30's going thru an early mid-life crisis,trying to decide whether he should finally "so called" grow up and get a real job or stay at a job he truly loves.This film really moved me and i am truly happy of how this movie ended!Buy this video while you still can.

The title of this movie is literally what it is: he said, she said. If you look closely at the credits the movie has two directors and two writers as well as two leads for a reason.

Basically the movie is two mini-films telling the same story of a couple meeting, competing, coupling, and spliting twice. The first half centering on Kevin Bacon was written and directed by men and the second half, centering on Elizabeth Perkins was written and directed by women. Not only do they use the same basic plot, but they use the same scenes, each shown not only from the POV of a different character, but a different gender.

Each mini-film alone would be a passible romantic comedy, but what makes the movie really work is the contrast. After seeing his side: what was important, what was stupid, what was good, what was bad we see hers and realize how something that is absolutely nothing to one is the most important thing in the world to the other. Most importantly the differences reflect generally common wisdom on the topic. Once has to ask if this is intentional or the natural byproduct of the differences between men and women.

Bacon is, as usual, himself (Kevin Bacon, much like John Wayne, plays himself in most movies and certainly the ones where he is at his best). However, the everyman Bacon is the perfect choice for this role. Perkins is very good as the self-assured but still vulnerable woman from the first generation of post-feminist revolution career women who has feet in both the feminist (career) and pre-feminist (marriage and family) world. She is as fully realized as her later sisters such as Ally McBeal and Bridget Jones.

Add in Sharon Stone as the tramp (and a more interesting one than Basic Instinct for my money) who realized she was in love but too late, Nathan Lane as the perfect mix of caring boss, and stir in good writing in pacing and the result is a funny and insightful romantic comedy and an above average movie.

its one of the most romantic movies i ever seen!

What I can say about this lovely movie is that it was a very original idea to show the two points of view (male and female) about the developing of their relationship. Full of tiny delicious details, both stories are perfectly credible in real life, and at the same time show moments of comic fantasy as metaphors of the way people interpret facts in real life (the narrative resource that makes the Ally McBeal's tv serie rocks!). I think the audience could identify themselves in the main characters, and that the main concept of the movie was cristal clear at the end of the movie, that, no matter the whole bunch diferences between the two stories, and between them, they loved each other. Two ways to see it, but one and only true feeling: LOVE.
AND THAT'S THE WAY I SEE IT!!

The main story isn't all that important: the Cold War, the death of a Pope, his replacement with a Russian, and all this covered by an American reporter. What is striking about this film is its high-quality acting, and the various relationships and chemistries that become vivid as a result. Of particular interest is the deep friendship between the newly elected, completely natural, simple, and disarmingly candid Russian Pontif Kiril Lakota (Anthony Quinn) and his philosophically and scientifically minded secretary Father David Telemond (Oskar Werner). Telemond desperately wants to publish his unorthodox views, of great beauty and depth, developed over many years of intense study and under the threat of impending death due to illness; his Pontif is torn between his friendship for Telemond and the decision of the Council to silence Telemond. Meanwhile, we see the great Leo McKern as the main interrogator of Telemond, and Vittorio de Sica as a fellow cardinal who knows enough about the world and the Church to become a complacent, humorous, yet wistful clerical bourgeois waiting to see who will become the next Pope. Laurence Olivier is the Russian premier trying to adjust to the situation that a Russian exile as Pope poses. We see a great deal of the Vatican interior, the election ceremony, the grandeur of rite and religion, the intricate Vatican politics.

So far so good. The only thing that manages to upset the delicate balance of this film is the awkward presence of David Janssen as the American reporter following the papal election. His acting is mediocre at best, and I find myself fast-forwarding whenever his unfortunate person appears on the screen.

Other than this flaw, this is a film worth seeing, mainly because of the excellent portrayals by Werner, Quinn, McKern, and de Sica.

Really interesting movie about the papacy, inner Vatican turmoil, philosophical aspects of Christianity, and maintaining your principles in a morally complex, often violent world. That might sound off-putting, but it's anchored by exceptionally strong, moving performances by the late Anthony Quinn, Leo Mckern, Oskar Werner, and others. Kind of old-school Hollywood, with bittersweet rewards--it's pleasing in the manner of 'Inn of the Sixth Happiness' or 'Ben Hur.' It looks and acts like a movie made in the late 60's, but that's a definite plus in my view. Leonard Maltin's review is unnecessarily harsh--he must have been having a bad day. Or sore at the pope or something. Don't let it deter you from enjoying a very colorful, well-acted, thoughtful and old-fashioned movie.

This epic film has a few bumpy moments, but overall, it's vastly entertaining, with its fascinating cast, interesting premise, excellent cinematography and art direction.
Anthony Quinn is fabulous as the Russian Pope. It's a powerful portrayal, and not the type of role one would normally associate with him. Oskar Werner, in a part based on Teilhard de Chardin, is absolutely superb.

Other notable performances come from Laurence Olivier (as the Soviet Premier), John Gielgud (former Pope), Leo McKern and Vittorio de Sica (Cardinals), and Arnoldo Foa (the Pope's valet).
The part of a journalist (David Janssen), is used as a narrator, to move the plot along, and explain certain Vatican procedures, like how a new Pope is elected. I only wish less time had been spent on his petty romantic problems...the film feels more like an "Airport" movie while these scenes are taking place.

This is a sprawling 60's Hollywood treatment of Morris West's best seller, and I think it succeeds. It's thought-provoking, good for several viewings, and Quinn and Werner are riveting.

There is one scene that demanded that I buy a copy of TSOTF. Shortly after his election, the new pope goes forth incognito to see Rome - the city that led his life for so long before he first saw it. While wandering about, he is nearly run over by a young British doctor on her way to the home of a terminal patient. What ensues is worth the entire price of the movie - and I am sure would never happen was the new pope not Kiril Lakota.

I have enjoyed thie film since it's release in 1968. Afterwards, I read not only this book but others by Morris L. West. I understand the need of Hollywood in the '60s to create a "movie" and adding non-dramatic story subplots. I also remember seeing this with audiences at the time of release, and their absolute fascination with the process of electing a pope as well as the "inquiry" in Father Telemond's beliefs. We all thought that this was the film's true power, not whether David Janssen would go back to his wife (why would she take him back, anyway?). In the novel, Telemond is a much older French priest, about Pope Kiril's age. West uses this character (and the print news reporter George Faber) to explore his own strong feelings about the Catholic Church. If the film would have stuck to that theme, instead of trying to be a blockbuster (which it nearly was), it might have wound up as a "must see" in film history. You can skip forward through certain parts of the film and still enjoy its overall impact.

This film is inspirational. The scene where the new Pope is proclaimed, against his wishes, he only wants a humble servent life is excellant. To watch Anthony Quinn's expression change when he hears that the Cardinals are talking of him is a classic. lso, his roaming the streets of Rome in a black cassock shows is humanity, wanting to get to know his flock. I think is conseling David Jansen's wife is important.

The main story isn't all that important: the Cold War, the death of a Pope, his replacement with a Russian, and all this covered by an American reporter. What is striking about this film is its high-quality acting, and the various relationships and chemistries that become vivid as a result. Of particular interest is the deep friendship between the newly elected, completely natural, simple, and disarmingly candid Russian Pontif Kiril Lakota (Anthony Quinn) and his philosophically and scientifically minded secretary Father David Telemond (Oskar Werner). Telemond desperately wants to publish his unorthodox views, of great beauty and depth, developed over many years of intense study and under the threat of impending death due to illness; his Pontif is torn between his friendship for Telemond and the decision of the Council to silence Telemond. Meanwhile, we see the great Leo McKern as the main interrogator of Telemond, and Vittorio de Sica as a fellow cardinal who knows enough about the world and the Church to become a complacent, humorous, yet wistful clerical bourgeois waiting to see who will become the next Pope. Laurence Olivier is the Russian premier trying to adjust to the situation that a Russian exile as Pope poses. We see a great deal of the Vatican interior, the election ceremony, the grandeur of rite and religion, the intricate Vatican politics.

So far so good. The only thing that manages to upset the delicate balance of this film is the awkward presence of David Janssen as the American reporter following the papal election. His acting is mediocre at best, and I find myself fast-forwarding whenever his unfortunate person appears on the screen.

Other than this flaw, this is a film worth seeing, mainly because of the excellent portrayals by Werner, Quinn, McKern, and de Sica.

Really interesting movie about the papacy, inner Vatican turmoil, philosophical aspects of Christianity, and maintaining your principles in a morally complex, often violent world. That might sound off-putting, but it's anchored by exceptionally strong, moving performances by the late Anthony Quinn, Leo Mckern, Oskar Werner, and others. Kind of old-school Hollywood, with bittersweet rewards--it's pleasing in the manner of 'Inn of the Sixth Happiness' or 'Ben Hur.' It looks and acts like a movie made in the late 60's, but that's a definite plus in my view. Leonard Maltin's review is unnecessarily harsh--he must have been having a bad day. Or sore at the pope or something. Don't let it deter you from enjoying a very colorful, well-acted, thoughtful and old-fashioned movie.

This epic film has a few bumpy moments, but overall, it's vastly entertaining, with its fascinating cast, interesting premise, excellent cinematography and art direction.
Anthony Quinn is fabulous as the Russian Pope. It's a powerful portrayal, and not the type of role one would normally associate with him. Oskar Werner, in a part based on Teilhard de Chardin, is absolutely superb.

Other notable performances come from Laurence Olivier (as the Soviet Premier), John Gielgud (former Pope), Leo McKern and Vittorio de Sica (Cardinals), and Arnoldo Foa (the Pope's valet).
The part of a journalist (David Janssen), is used as a narrator, to move the plot along, and explain certain Vatican procedures, like how a new Pope is elected. I only wish less time had been spent on his petty romantic problems...the film feels more like an "Airport" movie while these scenes are taking place.

This is a sprawling 60's Hollywood treatment of Morris West's best seller, and I think it succeeds. It's thought-provoking, good for several viewings, and Quinn and Werner are riveting.

This is a single disc DVD, taken from two nights. The running time is two hours. There is also a double CD version of this show that contains 3 more tracks. Video and sound quality are excellent. There is an option for stereo or 5.1 sound. The only special feature is printed words (not even a video interview) from Jon Lord explaining how he wrote the concerto.

The first songs of this show do not include any members of Deep Purple. It is the orchestra and guest vocalists doing some of the more recent Deep Purple songs. They are actually very interesting and sound better than the original studio versions.

Members of Deep Purple slowly join in the act. Finally when Ian Paice comes for Wring That Neck, the group is complete. The version of Wring That Neck is excellent. It is done as a quasi-blue grass number, but supported by an orchestra.

After Wring That Neck, the group goes into Concerto For Group and Orchestra. It is 55 minutes long. It is not much different than the original, except for some Steve Morse guitar solos. If you already have the original, this new version is not different enough to warrant buying this DVD.

On the final four tracks, Deep Purple comes out front, with the orchestra now in the background. There are some very nice guitar solos from Morse.

Most of this DVD consists of newer songs. Wring That Neck, Smoke on the Water, and Concerto are the only classic songs included.

Deep Purple started out as a pioneering cross between a progressive/art rock band and a hard rock band. Jon Lord was the leader and led the band in more an art rock direction. After 3 albums, they kicked out the original singer and bass player and replaced them with Glover and Gillian. Lord has his final art rock production, Concerto for Group and Orchestra, released in 1970. It wasn't the first time a rock group was backed by an orchestra, but it was the first for a hard rock band. This album did not do well, and that was the last of Deep Purple's experiments. After that, Ritchie Blackmore became more of an influence and the group moved to harder rock sound.

My favorite Deep Purple studio albums are the first three and In Rock, when they still had the progressive and innovative sound. But, they were their best live, on albums like Made in Japan and Live and Rare.

This DVD is from a 1999 performance by Deep Purple, along with various guests, including the London Symphony Orchestra. They probably should have called it "Deep Purple And Friends", for reasons that will soon become obvious.

The show gets off to a slow start, with two ballads featuring Purple keyboardist Jon Lord on grand piano and the orchestra. The first, Pictured Within, has a singer named Miller Anderson on vocals. The second song, Wait Awhile, features Sam Brown, a female vocalist who has recorded several solo albums, and has also toured with Pink Floyd as a backup singer. Neither of these songs is very good, and are the primary reason why I'm not giving this release a five star review.

After the dull opening, Lord and orchestra are joined by most of his Deep Purple bandmates, bassist Roger Glover, drummer Ian Paice, and guitarist Steve Morse, along with Ronnie James Dio. With this configuration (plus a few backup singers and violinist Graham Preskett) the group performs two Glover penned songs, Sitting In A Dream and Love Is All. These songs are drawn from Butterfly Ball And The Grasshopper's Feast, a conceptual work that Glover released in the mid 70's. It's interesting that the band would choose to spotlight such obscure songs, but I think in the end, these two songs are played rather well.

Following this, Dio and Morse both leave the stage, and the remaining three members of Purple and Preskett, plus the infamous Kick Horns (who ruined many a classic song when they toured with The Who in 89) tear into the classic Purple instrumental Wring That Neck. I suppose if this was someone else paying tribute to Purple, I'd regard this as a great arrangement, but I was expecting to hear Steve Morse play on this track. Like I said, it's a good arrangement, and I suppose the band gets points for trying something different.

After this, show the REALLY picks up steam, as they present Lord's Concerto For Group And Orchestra, a piece that Purple originally recorded in 69, and which hadn't played much since then, until circumstances brought upon the inspiration to resurrect the piece 3 decades later.

So, what does the Concerto sound like? Well, it sounds like exactly what I had imagined it to be, ie a mix of an orchestra playing classical sounding music with the classic Purple sound. Some of the orchestral interludes seem to go on a bit, but I think in general, it's very successful in mixing classical and hard rock music. There's a couple bits during the second movement, where Ian Gillan sings, but it's mostly an instrumental piece.

After the Concerto, the band performs a handful of 90's era songs, before ending the set with Pictures Of Home. The encore is, of course, Smoke On The Water, performed with the full cast of musicians, along with members of The Steve Morse Band and a second guitarist who isn't really identified (he's not mentioned on the back cover, though presumably his name is amongst those listed under the word "Guests" in the closing credits). Dio and Gillan trade off on vocals, and suprisingly, the orchestra, Kick Horns and even the back up singers (I HATE back up singers, what does a rock group like Deep Purple need back up singers for?) sound great.

To those who demur at the idea of Deep Purple without Ritchie Blackmore, I might point out Steve Morse is a genius. He's had a long career playing with The Dregs during the 70's as well as The Steve Mores Band and Kansas during the 80's. He twice got so sick of the business of the music industry that he quit and took a normal job, but found the pull of playing music too strong to stay away from his first love. He does a perfect job at filling Blackmore's shoes.

As I said before, the only reason I'm giving this DVD a four star review instead of five is because of the two boring Jon Lord songs that open the disc. I think it would have been better if they had started out with a few Purple songs, then the Concerto, then more Purple material to wrap up with. Maybe they could have stuck the songs the songs featuring Miller Anderson (WHO IS Miller Anderson, anyway?!), Sam Brown and Ronnie James Dio in the middle someplace, but I think it was a bad idea to start with them.

Anyway, I think this is a nice release, and once they get into the actual portion of the show that features Deep Purple, it's fantastic.

Deep Purple has always been a favourite band but when they re-grouped without Blackmore, I couldn't help wonder whether it would be the same. New kid Steve Morse was a pleasant surprise. While no-one can quite outshine Richie, Steve has an electrifying style of his own that has given the new Deep Purple a different but altogether enjoyable sound.

This DVD showcases the talents of the old rockers and proves that you can never keep a good group down. The piece de resistance has to be the Concerto which is probably one of the best pieces of classical-rock fusion that I have ever seen. Oftentimes such pieces are ruined by either too much orchestral music or endlessly long electric riffs that don't fit in with the orchestral pieces. None of that on this DVD. Both groups of musicians merge their music so seamlessly that you could be forgiven for mistaking one for the other with your eyes shut.

The Purple originals are also showcased perfectly with appropriate orchestral back-up. Ted the Mechanic is amazing. All in all a must buy for Purple fans.

The Blackboard Jungle was produced in 1955-a popular time period for movies dealing with teenage delinquency. Richard Dadier is a teacher who gets his first assignment in a rough inner-city school. Dadier has trouble exerting his authority over the students while other teachers have given up.
Gregory Miller, played by Sidney Poitier, is pinpointed by Dadier as the leader of the students. Dadier wants to reach Miller in hopes at reaching other students. But it is soon discovered that Artie West and his student gang rule the school.
Dadier foiled an attempted sexual assault (against another teacher, Ms. Hammond) by one of the students in the gang. The other members vow revenge on Dadier. In the end of the film, West attacks Dadier with a knife and Miller comes to the aid of Dadier.
For me, I feel that the main message about teenagers/youth culture was that kids were often labeled as delinquents without fully understanding them. Dadier assumed that all of the students were problem students, yet really it was a select few. Also, such students', growing up in poorer families, seemed to be labeled as delinquents and thus not much is expected of them or their future. Dadier tries to change this by showing his students that he does care about all of them.
Even though this film was created almost 55 years ago, I think it does a decent job capturing the realities of some youth cultures. I, myself, can not relate to such deviance in school, but I can imagine for those who grew up in urban areas, that students are much more disrespectful, abusive and delinquent, just like they are depicted in the film.
I liked that the film focused on a teacher who was willing to fight for the students. While watching this movie, I am reminded of the film Dangerous Minds. Both movies contain teachers who don't back down from a challenge. They help the students because they want to, not because they have too.

1955's "The Blackboard Jungle" remains a poignant, relevant portrayal of life in America's public schools. The story of WWII vet turned English teacher (Glenn Ford)as he struggles to reach a class of apathetic teens who do not want to be reached, the movie takes us from Ford's unsuspecting classroom debut through his efforts to lead a normal home life despite the pressures of his new job and finally to a climactic showdown with his most evil of students.

The movie's cast is thoroughly excellent. Ford is at once tough and terribly vulnerable as the embattled new teacher, Margaret Hayes is all patrician slinkiness as For'd wanne-be paramour, Sidney Poitier is convincing as the slowly mellowing student, and Anne Francis is even sexier than she was in "Forbidden Planet" as Ford's supportive but insecure wife.

There's much to appreciate in this film. Partly intended to help comat the growing problem of juvenile delinquency in 50s America, the film tries hard to achieve realism and generally succeeds. The students in Ford's class are disillusioned, lazy, suspicious, arrogant, obnoxious, and sometimes dangerous--which is exactly how teens are in real life. The only typical teenage bad habit that's not portrayed (or at least suggested) is cursing, which of course 50s moral standards would not allow on the big screen. But if they don't swear, Ford's students have no trouble finding other ways to be both annoying and anarchic, just like real kids. Interestingly, Ford discovers (much like this reviewer did) that sometimes the best way to reach apathetic kids is with a cartoon. Sad.

Another great thing about this movie is its approach to the politics of the school world. The movie's teachers argue and struggle not only with their students, but amongst themselves. Moreover, the encroaching dangers of multiculturalism are, perhaps inadverdantly, accurately addressed as Ford must deal with ethnic divisions amongst his students which some are eager to exploit for their own gain, as when Ford is unfairly accused of racism simply because of some careless word choices. In today's schools Political Correctness is indeed the rule, often to the detriment of real learning and growth, so at least one of the film's pertinent warnings has gone ignored.

Though some might find "The Blackboard Jungle" dated, it is in fact as timely in all the important ways as it was in the 50s. The American educational problem continues to undercut many of society's more noble aims, and it will do so as long as the powers that be refuse to take the necessary steps to reach a solution. Teens must be taught there are absolutes in life and be expected to live up to them, not encouraged to simply indulge their every whim. Perhaps if enough of us adults in liberated America come to realize this for ourselves, we can at least begin to convince our children of it.

Filmmakers through their motion pictures often reflect or mirror traits or problems with society. Some filmmakers even affect society by their works. The effects of some movies may be positive or they may have an opposite effect that is detrimental to society. Problem: Filmmakers may glamorize a problem in society by the very motion pictures they make. BLACKBOARD JUNGLE made in 1955 was a realistic look at adolescence contempt for society at an inner city trade school for delinquent boys under the direction of Richard Brooks. It was said to be shocking for its time and was even blamed for provoking violence. Glenn Ford played a new teacher who decides that his only chance of teaching the boys anything is to reach the roughest boy of the bunch played by Sidney Portier. Poitier gave a brilliant performance as the one youth that new true right from wrong and only used his tough facade to survive in a world of his peers where he would otherwise have been the low man on the rung. Vic Morrow gives another impressive performance as Artie West, the one student who is beyond reach. Morrow remains one of our most underrated actors of the last decade. Richard Kiley gives a heart rendering performance as a teacher who brings his record collection to class trying to reach out and share his enjoyment of music, which results in the ultimate destruction of his vinyl. When the delinquents threaten Glenn Ford's wife played by Anne Francis the line is crossed. In the end Glenn Ford never gave up on his kids, as did his contemporaries.

The Blackboard Jungle was produced in 1955-a popular time period for movies dealing with teenage delinquency. Richard Dadier is a teacher who gets his first assignment in a rough inner-city school. Dadier has trouble exerting his authority over the students while other teachers have given up.
Gregory Miller, played by Sidney Poitier, is pinpointed by Dadier as the leader of the students. Dadier wants to reach Miller in hopes at reaching other students. But it is soon discovered that Artie West and his student gang rule the school.
Dadier foiled an attempted sexual assault (against another teacher, Ms. Hammond) by one of the students in the gang. The other members vow revenge on Dadier. In the end of the film, West attacks Dadier with a knife and Miller comes to the aid of Dadier.
For me, I feel that the main message about teenagers/youth culture was that kids were often labeled as delinquents without fully understanding them. Dadier assumed that all of the students were problem students, yet really it was a select few. Also, such students', growing up in poorer families, seemed to be labeled as delinquents and thus not much is expected of them or their future. Dadier tries to change this by showing his students that he does care about all of them.
Even though this film was created almost 55 years ago, I think it does a decent job capturing the realities of some youth cultures. I, myself, can not relate to such deviance in school, but I can imagine for those who grew up in urban areas, that students are much more disrespectful, abusive and delinquent, just like they are depicted in the film.
I liked that the film focused on a teacher who was willing to fight for the students. While watching this movie, I am reminded of the film Dangerous Minds. Both movies contain teachers who don't back down from a challenge. They help the students because they want to, not because they have too.

1955's "The Blackboard Jungle" remains a poignant, relevant portrayal of life in America's public schools. The story of WWII vet turned English teacher (Glenn Ford)as he struggles to reach a class of apathetic teens who do not want to be reached, the movie takes us from Ford's unsuspecting classroom debut through his efforts to lead a normal home life despite the pressures of his new job and finally to a climactic showdown with his most evil of students.

The movie's cast is thoroughly excellent. Ford is at once tough and terribly vulnerable as the embattled new teacher, Margaret Hayes is all patrician slinkiness as For'd wanne-be paramour, Sidney Poitier is convincing as the slowly mellowing student, and Anne Francis is even sexier than she was in "Forbidden Planet" as Ford's supportive but insecure wife.

There's much to appreciate in this film. Partly intended to help comat the growing problem of juvenile delinquency in 50s America, the film tries hard to achieve realism and generally succeeds. The students in Ford's class are disillusioned, lazy, suspicious, arrogant, obnoxious, and sometimes dangerous--which is exactly how teens are in real life. The only typical teenage bad habit that's not portrayed (or at least suggested) is cursing, which of course 50s moral standards would not allow on the big screen. But if they don't swear, Ford's students have no trouble finding other ways to be both annoying and anarchic, just like real kids. Interestingly, Ford discovers (much like this reviewer did) that sometimes the best way to reach apathetic kids is with a cartoon. Sad.

Another great thing about this movie is its approach to the politics of the school world. The movie's teachers argue and struggle not only with their students, but amongst themselves. Moreover, the encroaching dangers of multiculturalism are, perhaps inadverdantly, accurately addressed as Ford must deal with ethnic divisions amongst his students which some are eager to exploit for their own gain, as when Ford is unfairly accused of racism simply because of some careless word choices. In today's schools Political Correctness is indeed the rule, often to the detriment of real learning and growth, so at least one of the film's pertinent warnings has gone ignored.

Though some might find "The Blackboard Jungle" dated, it is in fact as timely in all the important ways as it was in the 50s. The American educational problem continues to undercut many of society's more noble aims, and it will do so as long as the powers that be refuse to take the necessary steps to reach a solution. Teens must be taught there are absolutes in life and be expected to live up to them, not encouraged to simply indulge their every whim. Perhaps if enough of us adults in liberated America come to realize this for ourselves, we can at least begin to convince our children of it.

Filmmakers through their motion pictures often reflect or mirror traits or problems with society. Some filmmakers even affect society by their works. The effects of some movies may be positive or they may have an opposite effect that is detrimental to society. Problem: Filmmakers may glamorize a problem in society by the very motion pictures they make. BLACKBOARD JUNGLE made in 1955 was a realistic look at adolescence contempt for society at an inner city trade school for delinquent boys under the direction of Richard Brooks. It was said to be shocking for its time and was even blamed for provoking violence. Glenn Ford played a new teacher who decides that his only chance of teaching the boys anything is to reach the roughest boy of the bunch played by Sidney Portier. Poitier gave a brilliant performance as the one youth that new true right from wrong and only used his tough facade to survive in a world of his peers where he would otherwise have been the low man on the rung. Vic Morrow gives another impressive performance as Artie West, the one student who is beyond reach. Morrow remains one of our most underrated actors of the last decade. Richard Kiley gives a heart rendering performance as a teacher who brings his record collection to class trying to reach out and share his enjoyment of music, which results in the ultimate destruction of his vinyl. When the delinquents threaten Glenn Ford's wife played by Anne Francis the line is crossed. In the end Glenn Ford never gave up on his kids, as did his contemporaries.

"The Quatermass Conclusion" is the fourth movie-length installment in the long-lived "Professor Quatermass" series of films, the first of which appeared fifty years ago with Brian Donlevy in the title role. That was "The Creeping Unknown," which remains scary even after the sad jading of our collective special-effects appetite. Donlevy reprised the Quatermass character in the 1958 sequel, known in the United States as "The Enemy from Space." Andrew Keir took over for the 1967 "Quatermass and the Pit," called "Five Million Years to Earth" for transatlantic audiences. It wasn't until 1979 that screenwriter Nigel Kneale managed to get a fourth Quatermass story on film, this time as a BBC "mini-series" in four parts featuring John Mills as a by now aged protagonist. This is conceptually the most ambitious of the Quatermass stories: Kneale sets it in a world afflicted everywhere by social and economic collapse and - this is a key element in the unfolding story - the withdrawal of young people, especially adolescents, from all communal ties. The landscape swarms with packs of juvenile "Space People," as they call themselves, dressed in flower-child fashion awaiting their deliverance to a paradise planet. They believe that their redemption will occur at the ancient megalithic sites and it is to these that they gravitate. Redemption it is not. Quatermass, coming to London from the countryside to seek a lost grandchild and drawn into the investigation of events, theorizes about "the harvesting of mankind." He is aided by an astrophysicist played by Simon McCorkindale, whom many viewers will recognize as a screen presence of the time. This is the most apocalyptic of the Quatermass stories, more so even than "Quatermass and the Pit," with its mass revival of ancient Martian "race memories" in the human population of London, and with its subsequent mad "cleansing of the Martian hives." The images of British society - and by implication all societies all over the world - in its material and moral downward-spiral are stark and disturbing. A few scenes of a near-earth space station and of a space shuttle in distant orbit are unnecessary in that they look toy-like and detract from rather than add to the verisimilitude of the production, but this is quibbling. The atmosphere over the four hours of the story becomes increasingly desperate and grim. Essential equipment breaks down and is irreparable; key people die in riots. The climax smacks of the nihilism that I associate with the 1970s, but it could be interpreted as throwing Quatermass into the role of redeemer, complete with martyric self-sacrifice. A brief epilogue seems tacked on, as though the producers could not accept the uncompromising final scene of Kneale's script - but it does allow for some détente, which might be needed in the moment. Recommended for its far-above-average intelligence: "The Quatermass Conclusion" refreshingly does away with the hoary cliché that the young, and only the young, can save the world.

This is a haunting 4 episode BBC television show from 1979. A true classic with Quatermass back for his final & most difficult task. As with all of Nigel Kneal's Quatermass works this has great imagination and depth. As far as production values, I believe that Hammer and the BBC worked harder and were more creative due to lack of big budget funding. They make great use of their budget and allow the characters to develop. Hollywood's mega-budget, computer generated effect-laden, unimaginative refuse will never stand up against movies like this one (or Quatermass and the Pit or Quatermass II). Ideas, imagination and substance are what we need today not bland Lucasfilm special effects and Hollywood movies that pander to today's tasteless moviegoers. Bring back Eastmancolor & Technicolor 35mm 70mm film; it looks 100% better than anything released within the past 20 years!!

This 2 VHS set should be given to the folks at Anchor Bay for DVD release. They are the only people who know how to handle this type of film. The VHS looks very good but a Anamorphic DVD transfer would do it justice. Go buy this VHS set and all of the Hammer Anchor Bay releases today and enter the world of true filmaking and imagination!!

........yep! this is the one, at age 8yrs, turned me on to real science fiction!
The thinking man's Dr.Who... This is real enough to be disturbing, even today. One can see this happening, some 35+ years after it was filmed.
Society hasn't changed that much, the concepts are brilliant, even the link back to the Middle Age nursery rhyme....

Go on!! Buy it!! You'll see what REAL science fiction should be!!

Bette Davis plays a washed up Hollywood movie queen with abandon, and her terrific performance earned her a ninth Academy Award nomination for Best Actress. In the role of Margaret Elliot, Bette infuses it with all the angst and self-doubt that a true has been might undergo.

Margaret Elliot, dead broke, down and out, can't get a role in tinseltown. Drowning her sorrows in alcohol and self pity, Margaret is in serious denial about herself. As she spirals downward, both personally and professionally, a handsome man (Sterling Hayden), whom she had given a break to many years before, comes to her rescue.

When her agent manages to get Margaret a test for the part of an older woman, and it looks like she may have a serious shot at it, Margaret, preferring to play the role of the ingenue, lets her ego take over, and she flubs the test. When she realizes what she has done, her world comes crashing down on her, and self realization sets in. She comes to a crossroad in her life. What decision she comes to remains for the viewer to discover.

This is a nineteen fifties style melodrama, stark and grim. Bette has no qualms about appearing as a woman who is aging, as she appears with bags and circles under her eyes and has a somewhat jowly and bitter look. The wardrobe is mostly drab, and the sets are pedestrian. This all works to effect, as these accouterments are symbolic of Margaret Elliot's new reality. Sterling Hayden gives a credible performance as Mr. Nice Guy, though there is a scene in which a moment of politically incorrect domestic violence is interjected. A teenage Natalie Wood appears in the role of Margaret's daughter and is perfectly adorable in the role.

This is a film that Bette Davis fans are sure to enjoy.

I'm shocked that so many reviewers here were disappointed in Bette Davis' appearance, wardrobe, lighting and make up in this film. People, she was playing a dead broke has been. She looked perfect for this role as Margaret Elliot, the once glamorous Oscar-winning star of the movies. Had she looked like the stylish Margo Channing of "All About Eve", her "Margaret Elliot" wouldn't have been as convincing.

Okay, the script wasn't perfect, but Davis approached this material like a true professional and gave the role everything she had, which was plenty. Davis never really cared about the way she looked and accepted the fact that she was no Garbo or Jean Harlow. She had played unglamorous parts many times before. Miss Davis was a true actress, an artist.

The picture is "dark", yes, but if it had been anything else, it would have ruined this film. The atmosphere created by the director was appropriate for the situation. Margaret was in trouble. She was scared to death and was desperate to get "back where I belong." She felt that "one good part" was all she needed.

After throwing her sister and brother-in-law out of her modest apartment in a screaming rage, Margaret grabs her Oscar, buys a cheap bottle of hooch and takes a drunken ride through the streets of Beverly Hills, stopping briefly by her old mansion where she sorrowfully breaks down in tears.

Davis looked like hell the morning after being bailed from jail by a former co-star (Sterling Hayden), who was miscast all over the place. She arrived home to find out that her key didn't fit anymore. She had been locked out for non-payment of rent. Defeated, now homeless, she tells Sterling Hayden, after he asks "where to?", "isn't this the end of the line?"

The papers are full of the scandal the next morning prompting Margaret to take advantage of the "publicity" as she storms into her agent's office and demands that he get her the role she's wanted to play for years in a script called "The Fatal Winter". "But, what about the papers?" the agent asks. She retorts, "Joe Morrison is MAD about publicity!" She is shocked when Morrison (the producer) wants her to play, not the lead, but the lead's older sister, Sara. Margaret is a STAR! So, she plots to get the lead by altering her screen test and playing Sara like a young siren so as to convince Morrison that he's made a mistake. The test is awful as played, but Davis, the actress was brilliant.

In this role, Bette Davis does everything but hit the ceiling! She pops her eyes, bites her consonents, screams, yells, gets drunk, fights with the police, gets thrown in jail, has the screaming meanies, tells off a couple of old ladies, slaps faces and smokes cartons of cigarettes. Now, that's acting!

When the Oscar nominations came out, Bette Davis was among the five nominees for "best actress" of 1952. Strange because Joan Crawford had been offered "The Star" and she turned it down flat. Davis had been offered "Sudden Fear" which she promptly refused. Bette had also been offered "Come Back, Little Sheba" but didn't feel the part was right for her, leaving Shirley Booth to repeat her stage success on screen. So, Bette accepted "The Star" and Joan grabbed "Sudden Fear". All three got nominated for the Academy Award! Booth won.

In 1952, Bette Davis' career was on the skids. She, like Margaret Elliot, needed a juicy part to put her back on top. This role didn't do it, but it kept her working throughout the '50s with varying degrees of success. My favorite, besides "The Star" was "The Catered Affair" (1956).

Despite the criticism I've read here of the film, I enjoyed it and it is an important part of my film collection. Bravo Bette!

Some of the reviews I've read didn't seem to know that The Star was an Independent film. Of course not like them classy ones we see's now at our cinemas and all. All kidding aside, she took this role because it was a good one and she knew she could relate to it, I think that's why I like her. She was just honest almost to a brutal degree. I just recently watched Now, Voyager for the first time and often forget that she was a very good actress, we often forget that because of the gay camp value that she is assigned with.