beach-11

The second story is the best, but the first one is good. If you watch this movie, do not bother viewing the third one, which is a shortened version of "The House of Seven Gables" with Vincent Price in the villain role [he was the hero in the much superior 1940 version].

Other good things about this movie are the music and the sets [especially in the first tale].

It is amazing how such a poorly made movie is promoted as a great classic. First of all, Douglas Fairbanks, jr. is miscast as Rupert. He does not act like a villain at all. Mary Astor, Ronald Colman and Raymond Massey [as Colman's brother!] are also miscast. The most obvious defect is the editing. I cannot count how many times there are editing mistakes it this movie. The "thrilling" swordfight is also very poorly done. Colman and Fairbanks talk to each other through the whole thing and do not treat each other like enemies at all. If you want to see a good version of The Prisoner of Zenda, watch the 1922 or 1952 version instead.

I thought that this "vampire" movie would be a good sequel to Dracula. It had almost no story and I got tired of Holden complaining about being a vampire and going out and drinking people's blood. Also, there were hardly any vampiric images in this movie such as bats and wooden stakes. Please do not watch this suspenseless movie if you want to see a sequel to Dracula. Only watch it if you want to know what a BAD vampire movie is.

This could have been a lot better, but the movie makers decided to make a very boring movie. Even though it is has a very good cast and scenery, the story never really takes off. Plus, they have written out Senator Crawford from the 1938 version, which means that there is no main villain. There is also a lack of action.

This movie is very under rated. If you compare it with all of the highly rated movies, this is actually better. This movie is perfectly cast, especially with Melville Cooper as Granger's vicious partner in crime and Greenwood as Sanders' wife. If you see this movie in your local TV listings, tape in and keep it. You will want to watch it several times.

I am not a fan of westerns, but I liked this one. It is interesting to see how Calhoun escapes gunman Nicol after killing Andrews and his family in a gunfight. The only problem is that he escapes from him and becomes an enemy to saloon owner Brian. An unusually exciting western.

I have seen this movie several times and discover something new every time. One of the best things about this movie is the flashback sequence with Granger fighting pirates Whitmore and Kasznar for a bag of pearls. The rest of the movie explains how he tries to get his brother [Taylor] to them back from the lagoon where they were lost. You will need to see this movie at least two times before you understand all of the hidden plot twists.

I am still trying to understand why people think this movie is so great. First of all, it is miscast and it also leaves too many loose ends. What happened to Claude Rains' character?

After the jungle scenes, he was gone and it was not explained what happened to him. Plus the boring swordfight between Errol Flynn and Henry Daniell did not help.

The only enjoyment I got out of this movie was seeing two of my favorite actors [Ian Kieth and Victor Varconi], even though they only had small parts.

I always expect this movie to be good, but it ends up being boring. The first half is the only good part, mostly because it has Bruce as Loy's evil husband. This is the only movie that I now of where he plays a villain. About 45 minutes into the movie, it starts raining and Bruce is screaming for his butler while his house is being flooded. His butler finds him and throws him down the stairs right before the dam breaks and buries most of the town under water. After that, the movie turns boring and it is time to push the "eject" button on your remote control.