Onlinewsma Absolutely Brilliant!

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Leofwine_draca THE TERROR OF TINY TOWN enjoys something of a cult reputation as one of the "worst films ever made" and is notorious for being a musical western enacted solely by dwarf actors (or midgets, as they're credited in the opening titles). However, this isn't that bad at all; it comes across as a distinctly average but mildly enjoyable western with the added novelty of having the entire cast populated by dwarf actors.It's fair to say that the acting isn't a strong point here, but the dwarfs certainly are enthusiastic performers and you can't fault their efforts in that respect. The musical scenes fare less well due to the high pitched nature of the voices, but the cattle rustling plot is more interesting and there's even a little romance to be enjoyed here. THE TERROR OF TINY TOWN is a unique film, yes, but in many ways it's all rather predictable and ordinary for the era. There are far, far worse films out there too.

tedg I watched this in preparation for Herzog's dwarf film. He requires some time in the wilderness.In the early 30's there were some precode films that copied already established genres but with toddlers playing the roles. I commented on two: "War Babies" and "Runt Pages." Recently, I saw "Baby Geniuses," which borrowed heavily in spirit — but without the sex jokes.This is also modeled in a way on those, but is schizophrenic.It was the same year that "Wizard of Oz," used little people in a serious way to introduce the distorted magic of Oz. (This was before we could rely on Dr Suess.) Nearly all of these actors were in that scene, with its grueling shoot. The actual story is played almost perfectly straight. A standard script is used: cowboy romance, "Romeo and Juliette" family feud and romance, cattle rustling, corrupt sheriff, barroom moll... the whole works. These actors and the director take the movie seriously.On the other hand, a different director managed the musical numbers. There are a half dozen, and the novelty of little people is played to the hilt, using some actual children I think where cuteness is required. The shift in stance is radical. You can see that distributor realized that they had a problem, so here is what they did:At the beginning, an announcer comes on "stage" to announce that we would see a "novelty picture" with "midgets." A one of a kind, first ever, he effuses. But he is interrupted by the actor playing the hero, who assures him that the movie is not a novelty but a real film. Then he and the film's villain engage in a bit of scripted verbal slapping that someone thought was a successful synthesis of worlds.Here's what interests me: mainstream movies have only a few seconds to work with the viewer to establish where what the world is they are entering and where they stand in it. It is critical to the success of a film that this is right. It is why genres are so strong film; there is no relief from the moving forward of the narrative. Big films today can do that by showing a synopsis of the whole movie in the long trailers we have. And title sequences have become extremely effective: an art in itself.By here in 1938, they took those few precious minutes for this strange dialog.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Michael_Elliott Terror of Tiny Town, The (1938) ** (out of 4) Standard Western has become a cult favorite as all the characters are played by midgets. The film has a rival family beginning to feud after each has some cattle stolen. What neither side knows is that a third party is behind it trying to have to two families kill one another off so he can take their land. If that storyline sounds familiar that's because dozens, if not hundreds, of westerns used it for a story. That's the biggest problem here because most people are going to walk into this expecting some sort of strange film but the only strange thing about it is the cast are midget. Storywise this isn't anything John Wayne and countless others were doing at the time. The gimmick of using midgets is a double sided sword because it certainly makes the film original but at the same time the performances are rather weak and this goes against the story. The only thing that comes off as real campy is a silly cook who is constantly getting in the middle of things. His highlight, as well as the film's, is a scene where he tries to catch a duck for dinner. Sam Newfield wasn't a stranger to these low-budget movies and he actually does a fairly decent job here considering what he had to work with. There's a nice fight scene and the movie moves pretty fast for its hour running time. The main draw here is seeing the midgets ride tiny ponies and acting like normal Western stars. If that doesn't sound like strange entertainment then you'd be better off skipping this thing. At the same time, don't expect anything too far out because we've got your basic Romeo and Juliet type story.

mmka1 Reading the postings here it does appear that one will either hate this offering as insulting and/or laughable or come to appreciate it as something quite unique.Admittedly the dialog and much of its delivery is B movie tedious, yet examining other scripts and performances of the time we find that this is rather standard fare. The acting could certainly have been much more refined (Billy Rhodes, the villain, looked uncomfortable through most of the film), but I have traveled all through the United States, seen plays and musicals put on by more trained actors that were so much worse than this. Some version of this script could have easily found its way into Roy Rogers weekly show.The worst part, for me, was the second musical number in the saloon; sung by Johnnie Fern as Diamond Dolly. I had seen it as a separate clip long before seeing the entire movie - feel free to fast forward here - it is truly embarrassing.Charles Becker as Otto the cook, is a joy to watch.Bill Platt as Jim 'Tex' Preston, was the senior of this group and had been performing for several decades before being well cast as the wealthy loving uncle.Billy Curtis as the hero Buck Lawson, cuts quite a dashing figure, especially during the stagecoach chase; which is dangerous for even a larger stunt man.Two things I found distasteful. First, Yvonne Moray as Nancy Preston running under the desk out of the jail. Second, the swinging doors at the saloon. The top of the doors were placed at the usual height for the period, but length had been reduced (obviously on purpose) to half. These are insults to both the viewer and the players.Not the most horrible thing on screen. I will watch "The Terror of Tiny Town" rather than that audio-visual vomit, "Moulin Rouge!" (2001), any time. What ever your personal opinion of this film please allow that everyone should see it at least once. The greatest question here may not be "who thought that this movie would be a good idea?", but, "why is there a penguin in a barber shop of the old west?"