Reviews (7)

Too slow and, well, boring
Maya Angelou is one of my favorite authors (see my Maya Angelou "buyer's guide"), so I was really excited when I got my hands on a copy of this made-for-TV movie which is based on her autobiography of the same title. After watching it for about an hour, I had to turn it off. It is far too slow and - I hate to use the word but here I go - boring. Most of the actors don't really seem to fill their roles really well, with Esther Rolle being the exception. She really comes through in this movie and was perhaps the only thing that kept me interested (though she couldn't save the movie).

Joseph Campbell was quoted as saying that, ultimately, all stories have been told. Most stories are based on the journey of the hero. This is certainly the case with Maya Angelou's life as depicted in I KNOW WHY THE CAGED BIRD SINGS. Campbell indicated that what makes a story worthwhile is the orinigality of the way it is told. And that is the problem with a TV movie based on Angelou's book: it doesn't have Angelou to tell it. In other words, I believe that Maya Angelou as a story teller and personality is just as interesting as the story she tells. A movie version of her life cannot be told by her but must be told by screenwriters, directors, actors, etc., and therefore suffers.

I cry deeply at her moving life
I am truely a fan of the amazing Maya Angelou. As A white man in his late 20's, you may find this bewildering. She has been a light in my life from her very first novel/autobiography. We were not asked to read the book in High School (mid 80's) like many schools, but I took it upon myself to do so. It wasn't assigned to me until college. (The rest of her story, it took upon myself to explore.) I did not know that there was a film of this work until I got married in 1993, when I quoted a bit of peotry of Ms. Angelou at my reception. Someone told us about the film and eventhough there was some creative omitions, the power and strength of the young lady came through. I am greatful for Ms. Angleou and her works. And it was wonderful to see that someone was able to put to screen what was in my imagination.

Don't Read The Book Before You Watch This Movie
I made the mistake of reading the book before watching this movie. I believe I am one of Maya Angelou's biggest fans; however, this movie failed to touch the main "senses" of her writing.

Imparts something to all who read it.
I read this book when I was in high school ages ago and thank goodness I did. It was one of those tidbits that helps to shape who you are and what you think of yourself. I was and still am an avid reader but this book was the first book I read told from a young black girl's perspective. Imagine it.... It blew me away. But as I read this book it made me realize even more so that people are people. While your environment certainly dictates what sort of priorities you have when you are young you basically think the same things. I don't think the times have changed so much that this book wouldn't still be relevant to the youth of today. For young girls (especially black girls) it deals with self esteem and those raging hormones (commonly referred to as "I'm in Love"), and for youth of any sex or color it deals with just growing up.

If you have anyone in your life that is young, impressionable and going through their teens this book should be required reading. They may not want to do it but I don't think they will be sorry they did do it. You might want to read it or reread it if it's been awhile and then actually take some time to discuss it with a young person. Maya's style is easy to read and to absorb and still stands the test of time.

just like the book, it's an excellent story!
I was forced to read the book for my education class in college. i thought at first that it was going to boring but the more i got into it, the more i truely enjoyed seeing a different side to Maya. i liked the book so much that i had to go out and rent the movie! both are wonder representations of what hard work and determination can do for people! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Peter Sellers's third go-around as the prideful but bumbling Inspector Jacques Clouseau is funny enough, but this 1975 Blake Edwards revival of the Sellers-Clouseau connection is a little weak in comparison to predecessors The Pink Panther and A Shot in the Dark (both made in 1964). Costar Christopher Plummer actually gets some of the most interesting screen time as a retired cat burglar whom Clouseau accuses of getting back into the business. (If it sounds like there might be a To Catch a Thief vibe mixed in here, you're right.) Herbert Lom is hilarious as Clouseau's psychologically eroding boss, and Clouseau's ritualistic collisions with valet Cato (Burt Kwouk) are great examples of Edwards's delicious comic timing. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (43)

Great movie, not-so-great DVD
Peter Sellers was one of the most gifted comic actors of the 1960s and 1970s; Inspector Clouseau was his most beloved role. Blake Edwards, the film's director and creator, was a master of both subtle humor and slapstick. For these reasons, The Return of the Pink Panther is a true classic for many of us. It's a movie that never fails to leave me in a great mood. However, as other reviewers have noted, there are some serious issues with the DVD. I purchased it (and am glad I did) because I didn't have a VHS copy of the film. To be honest, I don't know what advantage this particular DVD can offer versus a VHS, since there are no real extras here, and no choice between widescreen and full screen (and no anamorphic widescreen!). I sincerely hope that this film is reissued in the future, complete with outtakes and remastered sound, and treated with the respect it deserves.

More Important for what it accomplished
The best thing about this film is that it returned Peter Sellers to the role of Inspector Jacques Clouseau under Blake Edwards' direction after Alan Arkin's single portrayal in 1968's INSPECTOR CLOUSEAU directed by Bud Yorkin. More importantly it did not only return Sellers but it also instituted the Pink Panther and Sellers as Inspector Clouseau in a legitimate film series instead of just a few sporadic sequels and it launched a huge cinematic rebirth and phenomenon. Unfortunately this film seems to lack the magic of 1964's THE PINK PANTHER and the sophistication of A SHOT IN THE DARK. Christopher Plummer replaced David Niven as Sir Charles Lytton in this film. Plummer is good but it seems a shame since Niven reprised his role later in 1982's TRAIL OF THE PINK PANTHER and 1983's CURSE OF THE PINK PANTHER, which were made after Sellers' death (in 1980) in an attempt to revive the series without him. Catherine Schell as Claudine Litton lacked the charisma of earlier leading ladies Capucine and Elke Sommer. On the plus side, Sellers is brilliant as Clouseau as are Herbert Lom as Chief Inspector Charles Dreyfus and Burt Kwouk as Kato back and featured prominently in the rest of all the subsequent Pink Panther films. Much needed and returning is a score composed by Henry Mancini a very integral component of this series. THE RETURN OF THE PINK PANTHER has some very good comic sketches and a very good opening jewel heist but the script just doesn't seem to be a very cohesive force. However, better things were yet to come. As for the DVD, the quality is just average. For me, the picture quality is just too soft. The MGM prints of the other Pink Panther films on DVD are much crisper.

DA DUM DA DUM, DA DUM, DA DUM DA DUM DA DUM...
Has there ever been a more catchy theme than Mancini's "Pink Panther?" I can't think of any off hand, and in this third entry in the Clouseau series, the music and the animated panther are back in fine form.
Mainly a vehicle for the superb Peter Sellers, this sequel is tired in plot, and struggles for some of its laughs, but one cannot deny the superlative hijinks of Sellers as the impossibly inept Inspector Clouseau. He has so many brilliant moments, it's hard to think of them all, but Sellers is in top form. Christopher Plummer and Catherine Schell do okay, but Herbert Lom and Burt Kwouk as Dreyfuss and Kato are outstanding in their supporting roles. Lom's slow decline into mental illness is hilarious in its cartoonish way, and Kato's fights with Sellers are priceless.
It's an entertaining if inconsequential movie, but I had lots of fun watching it!!

Fair to middlin' sequel
The movie had a few humorous moments, but I found some of it tedious. Cato and Dreyfus are still a riot. though. Cato and Clouseau have their karate fights, culminating in Cato dressing as a Japanese waitress. Clouseau finally drives Dreyfus into the nuthouse after Dreyfuss repeatedly shoots himself with a cigarette lighter.

I still prefer "A Shot in the Dark" and think it is the best of the series. I did not care for the original "Pink Panther" as I found it unfunny.

Although the picture was not razor-sharp, it is not as bad as the one-star whiners would have you believe. With minimal extras, if you don't have high expectations, then the low-priced DVD may be worth your time.

Inspector Clouseau strikes again...

Peter Sellers is great as Inspector Clouseau, with his mispronunciations and bumbling, especially when teamed up with Chief Inspector Charles Dreyfus (Herbert Lom), who hates him.

The wonderful David Niven, of course, is gone from the series, but is replaced by Christopher Plummer as Sir Charles Lytton (The Phantom).

Both Lom and Sellers are a great comedy team and provide a laugh a minute, as they try to catch a jewel thief in Lugash.

I suggest you see the whole pink panther series.

Joseph (Joe) Pierre

... Read more

Amazon.com

This sad and quirky movie by Bill Forsyth (Local Hero), set in the 1950s, is a faithful adaptation of Marilynne Robinson's luminous book. Two orphaned girls (newcomers Sara Walker and Andrea Burchill) fall in love with their happy-go-lucky Aunt Sylvie (Christine Lahti) when she comes to live with them. However, the girls discover their quintessentially eccentric aunt is more crazy than idiosyncratic. She has a lifetime supply of newspapers and tin cans, and she doesn't like to turn the lights on in the house. As all crazy aunts are likely to have, she also adopts a large collection of stray cats. She carries crackers in her pocket for the imaginary children in the woods and disappears into the mountains for days on end.

This shunning of responsibility has a profound effect on the sisters' own relationship. Ruthie (the eldest and narrator of the story) is a tall and gangly teenager, never fitting in at school, and badly wanting to emulate Sylvie's free-spiritedness. But the younger Lucille longs for stability and the need to belong. She tries to help her older sister, but is met with strong opposition from Ruthie. Lucille decides to go it alone and Ruthie, at last, finds her Aunt Sylvie both literally and emotionally.

Unfortunately the townspeople of Fingerbone (a fictitious town beautifully filmed in British Columbia) decide it's time Aunt Sylvie got her act together. But Ruthie and Sylvie cannot conform, and so they escape the grasp of Fingerbone in a surprising and delightful manner. It's in this climax that Forsyth's unique eye for capturing strangely beautiful details opens wide. What Robinson does with language in her book Forsyth mirrors with poetic images. Lahti is simply wonderful as Aunt Sylvie, as are Walker and Burchill as Ruthie and Lucille. A graceful film and offbeat story. --Samantha Allen Storey ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Haunting.
I first saw this movie, or rather the last third of it, on a movie station at three in the morning while I was snowed in at my apartment with nothing but beer and popcorn and the roommates thankfully gone. The problem was that after it was over I had no idea what I had just watched. (I missed the part in the credits where they tell you) It wasn't until later, when I described what I had seen of the movie to a friend, that he said he had read a book just like it in college: Housekeeping. And sure enough, that was it. It has now become one of my favorite films. It is a quite and beautiful experience that captures the novel exquisitely: Thoughtful and haunting.

A quirky, sensitive, and charming film
I saw this film on television very recently and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. Two young girls meet their mother's sister after the death of their Grandmother. Played ably by Christine Lahti, the girl's Aunt Sylvie is no run of the mill relative who has come to care for her nieces. She is free spirited, eccentric and totally crazy in the most delightful and offbeat way. Her nieces Ruthie and Lucille deal with her differently. Lucille is horrified by Sylvie's unconventionality, whilst Ruthie is drawn to her fey Aunt who sees the spirits of children in the wood, and likes to ride freight trains, and go sailing on the nearby lake in a rickety old boat and listen to the trains go over the town's old railway bridge. Eventually Sylvie's odd ways gets too much for Lucille to cope with and she goes to live with one of her teachers from school. Ruthie however grows to love her Aunt more and more each day, because in Sylvie the gawky and plain teenager sees something of her own nature that she can now express freely without fear of condemnation. However it is the 1950's, a time of family values coupled with conformity to the accepted norm and therefore the town of Fingerbone does not approve of Sylvie's way of raising her dead sister's child. Soon the interference begins with the arrival of the local Sheriff and then do-gooders from the local church. Sylvie tries to change for the sake of her niece but no matter how hard she tries she cannot fit in and soon the threat of loosing Ruthie becomes a terrifying reality. The scene were Aunt and niece hide in the closet together in order to avoid the do-gooders is poignant and touching. Sylvie will never fit into the Fingerbone community and both Aunt and niece know that if they stay they will eventually be separated so they decide to run away together, heading across the old railway bridge, something that no one has ever done before. The ending is surprising because of its abruptness but you are left with a sense of satisfaction. This is a great movie if want something slow, intelligent and thoughtful. Well worth buying or renting if you get the chance.

Poetic ode to nonconformity
Housekeeping is a low key film with a fascinating theme --how people on the fringes of society must sometimes choose whether to conform or hold on to their differences. The central character in this film, Sylvie (Christine Lahti), is really beyond the bounds of conventionality. She is a very interesting and original character --highly eccentric in a believable rather than romanticized way. In a conservative small town in what appears to be the 1950s, Sylvie is a drifter who falls into the role of guardian for her two nieces Ruthie and Lucille. It is the two girls' responses to their aunt that determines the course of the tale. At first, they are both happy to have Sylvie around, but gradually their basic difference in tempermant becomes apparent. Lucille (Andrea Burchill) soon tires of the isolated existence with her sister and aunt in a disorderly house where newspapers are piled to the ceiling and countless cats have the run of the place. She prefers the company of her schoolmates and longs for acceptance in society. Ruthie (Sara Walker), on the other hand, is introverted and more of a dreamer. She and Sylvie grow closer while Lucille drifts away, eventually getting adopted by a teacher. The town begins to pressure Sylvie to conform and raise Ruthie in a conventional manner. At first, she tries to comply, but her attempts are futile; she obviously is not suited for domestic life. When she takes Ruthie on an overnight trip that includes riding a freight train with tramps, the whole town finds out and things come to a head. What is brilliant about Housekeeping is the way it honestly explores the price people must pay to retain their individuality. A more superficial approach would have made Sylvie a charming eccentric whom the whole town eventually loves. Instead, we get a harsher and more realistic truth --that the life Sylvie chooses cannot be reconciled with the demands of everyday life. Sylvie and Ruthie are not portrayed as inherently superior to the conventional townsfolk, although they are, it must be admitted, more sympathetic. We can, however, also see things from the locals' point of view. They believe, with some justification, that Sylvie is an irresponsible guardian. Housekeeping has many lyrical scenes that showcase the natural beauty of the Pacific Northwest. There is a melancholy, nostalgic feeling to the film, which is consistent with the novel (by Marilynne Robinson) on which it is based. This is a very thoughtful, poetic and original film, one of my favorites.

Housekeeping the DEEP Movie.
This movie is a deep movie, not a "A Tidy Comedy" as stated on the cover. Part tragedy, this film focuses on people who can't mind their own business. The ending is fantastic, with visual and time elements that allow the watcher to THINK. Wonderfully acted, wonderfully made. But this wasn't a hilarious movie as I thought it would be from the cover.

Best movie ever!
This movie is my absolute favorite movie of all time. It is haunting and yet nostalgic--the commonplace events of childhood are contrasted with the growing distance between the two sisters, Ruthie and Lucille, and between Sylvie and Ruth, both introverted and socially awkward, and the rest of the town. The movie focuses on the sisters' Aunt Sylvie, who comes to live with them after their most recent caregivers leave. Their high expectations of her as a mother replacement give way to--in Lucille's case--disgust with her oddities and inability to act as others do. The scenery in the movie is breathtaking and the natural world plays a large role in this movie. The Aunt's belief in forest children who whisper "it is better to have nothing", and her total disdain for material possessions, offer a view of the world that is unique and compelling. The interaction between the two sisters is also a main attraction here. If you see the movie, read the book! One is not better then the other, they each offer something that the other medium cannot. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

This perennial, Christmas-season favorite from 1942 teamed Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire as entertainers (and rival suitors of Marjorie Reynolds) running an inn that is only open on holidays. It's a great excuse for lots of singing and dancing, seamlessly wrapped in a catchy story, and Astaire's frequent director Mark Sandrich (Top Hat, Shall We Dance?) doesn't let us down. The Irving Berlin numbers (each one connected to a different holiday) are winners. Crosby's warm performance of "White Christmas" is a movie touchstone. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (33)

Year round holiday classic!
For us, this movie is far superior to WHITE CHRISTMAS. It stars Fred Astaire and Bing Cosby as competive entertainers. Fred is the dancer (great scenes in this) , BING is the singer. (Bum, bum, bum, bum - - Bing adopted his "style" because he sometimes forgot the words. but, he maintained the music of the melody with his bum, bum, bum, bum s'-- a little trivia) Anyway, Bing grows tired of the cut-throat entertainment biz after his fiance' decides to marry someone else. He moves out of the city and up to a wintry zone, taking over an old motel. Since he is set to become a lazy owner, he vows only to open the motel for HOLIDAYS, hence HOLIDAY INN.

Every holiday is represented, including CHRISTMAS with age-old hit, WHITE CHRISTMAS. Performances with Marjorie Reynolds ( who plays Linda Mason, an upstart want-to-be ) and Virginia Dale ( Lila Dixon, Bing's here today, gone for stardom ex-fiance') are excellent. If you are looking for this movie for Christmas, get it now. Last year, it sold out early, pretty much like every year.

Kick your troubles down the stairs and come to Holiday Inn!
This is one of the finest holiday films ever made.

Inspired by a story by Irving Berlin, the film features many wonderful Berlin holiday tunes, from "White Christmas" to "Easter Parade". This is the film that introduced "White Christmas", Bing Crosby's signature song (which was almost cut from the final version!).

Holiday hijinks ensue when Jim Hardy (Bing Crosby), decides that he's had enough of show business and chooses to retire to a farm in Connecticut. His pal and partner Ted Hanover (Fred Astaire) steals his gal Lyla at the last minute, so Jim takes up the life of a farmer on his own. Unfortunately for Jim, the farm life drives him nuts. He decides to turn the farm into an inn, where he can do entertainment shows for every holiday. The result is Holiday Inn, "open holidays only".

Jim meets and falls in love with Linda Mason (Marjorie Reynolds), a fellow entertainer, and she helps out with the shows.

Things are looking up for Jim, but about this time, Ted's girl Lyla leaves him. Heartbroken (and crocked), Ted shows up at Holiday Inn on New Year's Eve and does a new dance number with Linda. It looks like he's found himself a new dance partner. Trouble is, he was so drunk, he can't remember who she is! Jim knows if Ted hooks up with Linda, he'll take her away from the Inn (and him!), so Jim begins some comedic conniving to keep Ted and Linda from meeting up. But poor Jim isn't out of the stewpot yet!

Walter Abel turns in a wonderful supporting perfomance as a scheming talent agent, and Irving Bacon is the quintissential New Englander as Gus the handyman. Fred does an inspired July Fourth dance routine, and Bing is in fine voice.

Holiday Inn has it all. Romance, laughter, crooning, catchy Irving Berlin tunes, and Bing and Fred at their best! We also get a sneak peek at the soundstage and set for Holiday Inn, as a Hollywood crew make a movie within the movie! A Christmas classic you're sure to love, not only at Christmastime, but at any time of the year.

If you need a lift, then come to Holiday Inn!

Wonderful movie!!!!
Holiday Inn is a wonderful old movie about a man who owns an inn that is only open on holidays. (If only there was such a place!) Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire are great as "friends" going after the same woman. Some of my favorite scenes include Fred's July 4th's firecracker tap dance and when he tries to dance on New Year's Eve when he's already drunk.

A film NOT just for Christmas
This is one of the better musicals from the 1940s. This is not MGM (luckily) so you don't get that 'songs coming from places for no reason' problem. In this, like a lot of the musicals from, lets say, the 1930s, the songs have reason to be there.

I think both Bing and Fred are great, but I have kind of a hate for Fred in this one. Really I guess, because his character is, well, kinda horrible. He is always stealing the women away from Bing, and he does it so easily. The film is mixed with a lot of the usual 'double-crossing' scenes, with some amazing songs by Irving Berlin, mostly sung by Bing, including 'White Christmas', 'Easter Parade' and a number of others, and not forgetting the wonderful dancing by Fred Astaire. Its Bing opening up his own inn, the 'Holiday Inn', which is open only during holidays. This is where the 'music being there for a reason' comes in, and there's lots of it too. Watch out for George Washington's birthday, I mean look out for the dance, which is, lets say amusingly funny.

The following part of this review, refers to a UK Region 2 release on DVD from Laureate/Universal.

The thing I love most about this DVD though is the print of the film, which looks great, and the extra features that go with it. The best being the 'A Couple of Song and Dance Men' featurette, with Ava Astaire MacKenzie and Ken Barnes, lasting around 40 odd minutes I think, which contains some interesting stories. Particularly the one about a certain dance which Fred does in the movie, while 'playing' drunk. Along with this, you get an audio commentary, filmographies, and a few other little things too.

Great movie, with a great DVD presentation. Highly recommended.

a great feel good movie!
This movie has become one of my holiday traditions. great dancing, and one of those which you get both Bing and Fred! They just don't make 'em like this anymore! Get the Dvd, and you get "Going My Way" too. It's worth it..and this IS the original "White Christmas" redition (for you purists). Lots of fun any time of the year! ... Read more

Reviews (1)

A major Mitchum masterpiece.
There should be a sub-genre in the Western called 'the Robert Mitchum Western'. Mitchum's brilliant, idiosyncratic, usually undervalued Westerns import his film noir persona to etch some compellingly dark character studies, and bring an elegiac world-weariness prefiguring the films of Sam Peckinpah. 'Man with the gun' is one of his best. Directed by Orson Welles protege Richard Wison, it is a stark, monochrome beauty, full of chilling silhouettes and terrifying outbursts of savage violence, as Mitchum comes to tame a town terrorised by a monopolist with a private army. Mitchum's regression from soft-spoken stranger to deranged murderer, with a host of dark emotions in between, is a marvel of expressive, physical acting. ... Read more

Reviews (1484)

Great Action Film
"Gladiator" is a film that should suit all tastes. It is an expertly mounted and eye-filling event; the blood and gore, delivered in split-second imagery (allowing your head to fill in the rest) should satisfy the most blood-thirsty movie goer; and the story is a superb tale of good vs. evil, power vs. honor, and "Might for Right". I was reminded of "Camelot" many times during this film, especially by the almost unrecognizable appearance of Richard Harris as the wise and noble Marcus Aurelis. Joaquin Phoenix gives a bone-chilling performance as the evil and cowardly Commodus, who inherits the title of emperor upon his father's death. But the sole weight of this overwhelming piece rests on the shoulders of the magnificent Russell Crowe. If one doesn't believe in him, then one doesn't believe in this epic costume drama. Kudos to the rest of the cast as well, and hand over heart for the late Oliver Reed. But back to Crowe--he is an actor to contend with. His work in "Gladiator" is a tour de force performance; he very nearly sprays testosterone from the screen. It's what was exactly demanded from him in this role, and he exceeds expectations in that regard.

Gladiator ROCKS!!!
I completely dug this film from beginning to end,and every aspect of it,from the breathtaking cinamatography,the expertly staged battle sequences,and exqusite set-design,to the stellar performances of a top-notch cast,rang true.The film starts with a stunning battle and doesen't let up from the time Maximus says"on my mark,unleash Hell". Do they ever.Russell Crowe is perfect in the lead role,as an expert warrior with a grieving soul and a deep sense of honor and loyalty.It's a true star-making turn,and he oozes rugged charisma from every pore.Equally impressive,but in the exact opposite way,is Juaquin Phoenix as the conniving,decadent,deeply evil Emperor.Also great support from Richard Harris and the late,great Oliver Reed.Director Ridley Scott uses his gift for composition and visual flair to great effect,giving each scene a painterly burnish and unforgettable depth,whether it's the after-life of Maximus' dreams,the bustling,grand sprawl of Rome,the rip-roaring battles of the Coluseum,or the sinister twinkle in the Emporer's eyes.At one point Maximus admonishes the bloodthirsty crowd:"Is this not what you wanted? Are you not entertained?" Indeed we are Russell,very much so.What a great film.

okay
this is a three star movie with a five star dvd. one of the biggest problems with the movie was the first battle. i was expecting braveheart quality but ended with a battle less entertaining than the one in dragonheart. the blurry camera and closeups made it impossible to tell what was happening. if you want to see a movie like this but better, see the last samurai or braveheart.

A Modern Classic of an Old Age
I seldom write reviews for anything, but for a movie like 'Gladiator' I'm willing to make an exception, and gosh if it's worth doing it!!
The movie, by far the best of the year 2000, is not only an award-winning production, but it is also one of the few that I personally enjoy watching again and again and again. Not because it is flawless (at times the storyline is quite predictable) but because it portrays life and death in the Roman Empire in such a way that it really bring those old buildings we all know since childhood (the Coliseum, the Forum, Via Appia, etc) back to life.
And yet it does so not at the expense of the story but through it, from the characters, to the script (they're so many quotables lines from Maximus and Commudus alone to make a CD)...in fact everything in the movie, from the battle in Germanica to the last fight at the Coliseum, is portrayed with realism plus an amazing score lacking in so many movies these days.
The movie of course is not to be seen as "history" in the academic sense but rather as an historical exercise, Holywood style, of one of the most facinating and complex periods of Western History. The attention to the detail is amazing, especially in the opening scene (the battle in Germanica) and the gladiatorial fights. Even most deleted scenes are great in the sense that they allow us to understand the characters a little bit more (Commudus' sword smashing of his father's marble bust is a most see), although they neither add nor take of the story. The casting is superb, with Russell Crow in the main role, Joaquin Phoenix as the Emperor Commudus, along with such legends as Oliver Reed as the freedman slaveholder and Richard Harris as the great Marcus Aurelius.
I'll recomend strongly that anyone who sees this movie shoudl do his/her homework and do a little of reading about Rome, both as a Republic and after, and the huge importance of the entertaining business in her late everyday life (an importance unreached until recent times).
Overall, a classic epic of an scope and ambition not seen since 'Ben Hur'; full of action, drama... and yes, more action.
As the Romans themselves said, Faber est quisque fortunae suae... each one is the architect of his own fortune. Feliciter!

Decent story, captivating effect
Ridley Scott's movie, "Gladiator" is one based on fiction of a General in the times of Marcus Aurelius. It tracks the life of a general who is effective in battle and is to rewarded by the emperor with the crown of Rome until it can be handed back to the senate. The movie won 5 oscars and is compared to Ben-Hur, which is ludicrous. For starters, Ben-Hur had William Wyler as the director who went to Gore Vidal to fix the screenplay. This movie will imaginative has so many historical inaccuracies, it is funny that it can be even thought to be in the same league.

Some of the actors did a decent job, these include Richard Harris as Marcus Aurelius and his daughter, Lucilla. I had problems with Russell Crowe's acting. He is unmistakably patrician, however, and physically very like Richard Burton, with Burton's battered face and gravel-voiced machismo. But Crowe's Maximus is no Mark Antony; there is no destructive love interest in the picture. Maximus is sweetly devoted to his late wife; though it turns out he once had a bit of an unbuckling thing going in his backstory for Commodus's lovely sister Lucilla (Connie Nielsen). I did not think that he deserved the best actor oscar. He has a very limited repertoire of actions and emotions. Crowe is no Tom Hanks or Geoffrey Rush in acting, he does not have depth and breadth of acting.

This movie cannot stand the test of time, it does not have great screenplay and historical integrity. It will gradually ebb away from the minds of the people. To stand out from the other movies, it has to have a new paradigm, either in acting or story or screenplay, none of which are depicted. Another one of those movies that do not deserve the best picture oscars. It is OK to watch this once. If you compare this director with Ang Lee, who did "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", "Eat, Drink, Man, Woman", and "Sense and Sensibility" you can see the difference in directing talent. See them and judge for yourself. ... Read more

Reviews (27)

One of my favorite movies ever!
Danny Kaye at his best. For anyone who has traveled the road with a band, or had to live the life of a musician, this movie will bring back all the good times. Kaye does a beautiful job portraying both a band leader and husband/father. Right up there with A Song Is Born!

Thoroughly delightful - Danny Kaye's best!
A funny, warm, and perfectly wonderful musical -- the best kind of family entertainment. Danny Kaye is simply perfect as Red Nichols, the great jazzman of the 20's, and the bonus is the terrific music (many of which, I was surprised to discover later, were all Nichols' own songs). Wonderful work by Barbara Bel Geddes and the other featured players, especially the adorable little girl who plays Kaye's daughter. I've watched it again and again -- I think you will too.

Among the top 5 movies ever made
This movie is as close to perfection at one can come! Why is not yet out on DVD? Pleeeeeeease (and yes, I'm begging here) release this masterpiece on DVD.

Will be bought by more if.....
Isn't there a way for this great movie to be put on DVD and CD. In this day when there is so much inappropriate material in the movies and on TV, watching the Five Pennies is a wonderful breath of fresh air. My daughter and I have a special relationship partly because of this movie. On her wedding day I gave her five new pennies (1960) her birth date and we have watched this movie many times together. It would be so much better to watch and hear it on DVD/CD. My orginal long playing record is about wore out. Please contact those in the power and forward my request, I know it would be a great seller. Bill Williams

The Five Pennies DVD and audio CD release?
This is a wonderful film, a real moving tear jerking classic. An excellent performance by Mr. Kaye, as always, and unique footage of Louis Armstrong. Wonderful jazz harmonies. When will this movie receive the credit it deserves and be released on remastered DVD and audio CD? Movie studios you have been told!! ... Read more

Description

Before Velvet Goldmine, there was Buddha of Suburbia.The coming of age story of Karim, an assimilated Indian in London during the swinging seventies.Winner of seven international film awards. Soundtrack by David Bowie. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Five stars - four hours went by too fast!
This movie (miniseries, actually) remains on my top ten list of favorite films. The writing, the acting , the storyline, everything, just leaves me wanting to watch more (after four hours, that is saying a lot!). This film is inventive and captivating without a lot of special effects or high budget - it is just good. The basis of the story is the coming of age in 1960's London, of Kareem, (played by Naveen Andrews, from the English Patient) who is the son of and Englishwoman and Indian man. His place in English culture, in Indian culture, among his respective extended families on each side, as well as his place in life - exploring his career options, his [body], etc. - make this a thoroughly enjoyable experience. This movie is very entertaining and quite funny, especially when Kareem's ... father decides to jump on the East-West Hindu yoga and spirituality bandwagon of the sixties to make money. I just cannot describe all of the amusing and touching scenes from this film that make it such a gem. Very well made, and it has a very good soundtrack as well, featuring some good David Bowie songs. This film is a must-see.

Buddha of Erotica
Wonderful BBC film adaptation of the Hanif Kureishi novel of the same name. The translation to the small screen worked well primarily because Kureishi himself co-wrote the screenplay.

A satirical witty look at bi-racial issues in the teeming London (and its suburbs) of the 1970's. The film is unexperimental on a cinematographic level but carried brilliantly by a well writen screenplay and superior acting.

Narrated from the perspective of a selfish young man, this is on the surface a tale of a suburban London youth trying to get laid and make it in the world.

Issues of family and commitment are looked at with a subtlety that is refreshing in a world of films that often try to beat you over the head with their moralizations.

Karim is confussed about the world around him (as young people all are) and trying to balance loyalty to his quirky family with the duality of his racially mixed background. All of this is set upon a backdrop of a young man trying to find sex and excitement and his place in the world.

Kureshi is spectacular!
Hanif Kureshi is one of the best contemporary authors on the shelf. the BBC's interpretation of his book does him justice! Buy it! ... Read more

Reviews (259)

Who Ever THought of This Film was an Insane Genius
Whomever came up with the concept for this film needs very serious mental evaluation; A love story about a guy with scissors for hands? But perhaps we will put that aside for now becasue the movie is simply stupendous. Edward ScissorHands is one of my all time favorite movies, I assume this goes for many others as well, becasue i have never found someone who didnt like this movie. It appeals to the strange geek inside us all who just wants to be accepted for what he is. For an overview of the movie read the summary amazon has provided, i will talk only about the dvd. THe extras are quite neat with commentary tracks, production art, and best of all some old Burton shorts. Vincent is a great clayamtion thing about a kid trying to be vincent price, it reminded me of beetlejuice, visually. Frankenweenie is kinda dumb and boring, but its about a kid who brings his dog back to life. THe image clarity is fantastic, as is the sound on this disc. It has some really cool animated menus too. So go buy it. You might wanna see it first though becasue it is pretty strange. Bottom line is if you like Burton films, you will love this one. (I still have a little trouble seeing that kid from the breakfast club as a bad guy, but whatta gonna do?)

fantastic DVD, even better movie
Edward Scissorhands is quite simply the best fairy tale never told. This is Tim Burton in his eccentric prime, and his presence is palpable in every arena of this beautiful and personal film. The inventive art direction is perhaps the most memorable aspect of that presence, most notably in the pastel palette that covers everything from the ingenius solid-color costumes to the quaint neighborhood/town our characters inhabit.

The genius of this movie is more far-reaching than that. Everything fits seamlessly together--from Danny Elfman's quirky score to Stefan Czapsky's meticulous camera work to an entire cast full of nuanced performances... the list goes on and on. While this film's acting gem is Diane Weist in the role of the sweet and overly altruistic mother, Johnny Depp plays the titular role in a beautifully understated performance. Similarly, Winona Ryder wonderfully (and blondly) embodies young beauty and Alan Arkin turns in a comedic yet touching performance as the sometimes-overbearing father. The ensemble cast is flawless, complementing the quirky but ultimately realistic tone.

Perhaps the best aspect of this movie is that it achieves its goals with amazing subtlety--the overt themes of "being different", family, and (let's not forget) love are constantly driven into cliché these days, but Edward Scissorhands accomplishes it all with a snip, not a stab.

This 10th Anniversary Edition DVD is everything this movie deserves--insightful commentaries from Tim Burton AND Danny Elfman and an interesting featurette, along with the concept art, trailers, TV Spots, and scene selection we've all come to expect. (The Interactive 3-D Menus are priceless!)

This is just one of those positively timeless, life-affirming movies that belongs in everyone's collection.

A true work of art!
This has certainly got to be one of Burton's most imaginative creations. I can't remember a movie be that puzzlling, and yet so interesting and fun. Only Jonny Depp could prouduce such a voice, and performance. And that hair! Well, that was just the final icing on the cake. Let's face it. It's not easy to act the part of a lonly anodroid,and especially one that looked on with curiosity one moment and hated the next. Horror king, Vincint Price does a good job too as Edward's maker. Who is despreat for companionship. I laughed, I cried, then I laughed some more. All in all, this is not that bad of a movie.

A Beautiful Movie
I first saw this movie not so long ago and I fell in love with it. It is a beautiful story with very sad moments as well as exciting ones. Burton and Depp make a great team. This is one of the most moving movies I have ever seen. It tells the story of Edward (Depp), a person created by an inventor (Vincent Price)who passed on just before he had a chance to amputate Edward's scissorhands. Edward lived alone in a castle until sweet-hearted Avon lady Peg Boggs(Dianne Wiest)comes and takes him to her home to live with her family. A must see for Tim Burton fans and anyone who enjoys a magical time watching a movie. I have recently bought this DVD and I love it. I give Edward Scissorhands two big thumbs way up and 100 stars. I hope my review has helped you.

masterpiece
i just realised that "Edward Scissorhands" is one of my favourite films. it has so much power. Tim Burton's storytelling, it is magnificent. his imagination is so great. the way he portrays his characters is so unique. every character is very distinct. like characters in his other works: Jack Skellingon, Ichbod Crane, Edward Bloom, Betelgeuse. now let's talk about the acting. johnny depp was magnificent. you could sense his emotion, even though he barely talks, as he portrays a lost, innocent, confused child. his make-up is excellent too. yes, he does look like a freak. but he looks good. and Winona Ryder. she's such a good actress. and can you say "pretty?" and oh! the set design and cinematography. the use of colour to expose the contrast between the two worlds. the pastel versus the dark castle. and the town! oh my. it is a dreamland. did you know that it is an actual neighborhood in Florida? one more thing. Danny Elfman's score is superb! ... Read more

Reviews (1047)

Spider-man spins a complex web of humanity in characters
An excursion to Columbia University science lab transforms the bespectacled Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) with miraculous vision, sculpted body after a genetically-altered spider bits him. He possesses agility in leaping from skyscrapers and can spin webs from his wrist. Henceforth he assumes the identity Spider-man to combat evil manifested in the form of the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe), a Species-look-alike perpetrator that terrrorizes the city with a glider that drops bombs.

Spider-Man embodies the heroics created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko who had graced the popular Marvel Comics to become an comic icon as a crime-buster - and now the film further increases the fanaticism. It is a US 140 million blockbuster and gaudy with sleek costumes and galvanizing stunts. It is digitally-enhanced F/X to capture panoramic swings in its most realistic and The Times Square action-sequence is one of the most dazzling in cinematic history.

Yet the superhero adventure fails to surprise because of its conventional storyline of good-vs-evil. The self-discovery and mutation renders so much punch that the second-half falls relatively lack-lustre. Fortunately Spider-Man spins a complex web of humanity and empathy for the characters - and Tobey Maguire as the lead is the emotional core who captivates with his vulnerability in handling his growth traumas, doubts and fears. No less sterling is Willem Dafoe who is all hysterics and maniacal in his split personality inherited from the aftermath of a blundered experiment. Kirsten Dunst as his love-interest Mary Jane, James Franco as his buddy and even his uncle Ben played by Cliff Robertson show surprising dimensions.

Spider-Man is thus an evocative tale of a hero struggling with his adolescence, betrayal and murder. And Sam Raimi displays the same sensitivity here with his eariler works like Darkman with his flawed avenger. He directs it with eye-popping visuals like Army of Darkness and the comic hero resonates in its true-self. Its brooding hero is what makes Spider-Man a nifty web - and Maguire has definitely triumphed the cynics with his soulful spin.

Spinning A Worthy Web
Spider-Man is an entertaining film that is a great summertime, popcorn movie. The film explores the origins of the transformation of Peter Parker from nerdy high school student to the web slinging superhero Spider-Man. Tobey Maguire is quite good in the title role. He plays the character with the right amount of torment as an outcast who has been put down all his life, but injects pride, joy and happiness into the Peter from his newly bestowed powers. Kirtsen Dunst is Peter's next door neighbor, Mary Jane Watson. Ms. Dunst is not given much to work worth in the character, she is the requisite love interest, damsel in distress but she is appealing in the role. Willem Dafoe is plays the Green Goblin who is the villain in the film. The Goblin's alter ego is Norman Osborne who is the rich father of Harry (James Franco), Peter's best friend and roommate. Mr. Dafoe is perfectly cast as the Goblin and he handles the character's schizophrenic outbursts with creepy aplomb. Mr. Franco plays Harry sullenly and he appears as if he is moping through the picture. J.K. Simmons plays Daily Bugle editor J. Jonah Jameson as a pushy, demanding blowhard who listens only to himself with hilarious results. People have criticized the fighting and action scenes, but they are really no better or worse than most current action films. There are some Matrix like sequences with the slow motion, but these scenes actually help show Spider-Man's spider senses that allow him to anticipate and react quickly to danger. The film was a box office smash and we should expect to see numerous sequels that will hopefully be as appealing as the first installment.

ETMR - Spiderman
1. Humanity: What events in the film drove Peter Parker to adopting his vigilante attitude toward crime?

2. Implications: How is Spiderman's understanding of "with great power comes great responsibility" an example of contemporary American thought? Think specifically about the nature of evil and the propensity toward intense individual classification when one's existence becomes threatened.

3. Evolution: Spiderman was a hero born out of the 60s, springing from both the dangers of genetic manipulation and the problems of substance abuse (in the form of Oscorp Chemicals). Raimi makes little mention of the chemical abuse in the story, and paints it in a much simpler picture of the probable evil in man's soul and the strange world of pseudoscience. Therefore, it is obvious that in many ways, the film departs from its traditional conditioning while remaining loyal to the original personalities of the characters. In which ways is Spiderman the hero shown to be a creation of the contemporary age, versus a creation of the 60s, in the film?

4. Realism: America has a long history, not only in comics but in legendary history, of people who take the law into their own hands. If a being like Spiderman existed, could he survive in our real world, or is he only a dream?

5. Stageplay: Spiderman is classicly a cynic, an individual thinker, an avid contemporarian (someone "in" the times), a man of passions (versus someone who could care less), an irreligious jokester and a man who is not sure of his destiny, but lives to succeed. Do you feel Maguire fulfills this role? Some critics say he is too much of a "boy" to fill Spiderman's shoes, while others claim it is his boyishness that charms us into belief. What do you think?

Spiderman
This was a good movie with lots of great special effects and action sequences. If you like superhero-type movies you'll really enjoy this family oriented movie. I would recommend this movie.

Spiderman, Spiderman, watch this movie when you can
This movie has exceeded my expectataions of it far beyond my belief. Probably because I went in thinking that it would suck. I'm just not into this kind of stuff. Of course, I'm a closet "Batman" fan so I guess it does say something. Anyway, I really enjoyed this movie. The cinematography was awesome! From all the camera dynamics following Spidey's twists and flips, you really felt that you were flying through the air with him. The cinematography also had a warm, upbeat feeling to it. It was one of the main reasons the movie kept my eyes glued to the screen.

The second reason is, of course, the actors. From Tobey Maguire's clumsy but lovable Peter Parker to Kirstin Dunst's beautiful Mary Jane Watson to Willem Dafoe's deliciously evil Green Goblin, the actors most definitely made the movie. The producers certainly picked the right people to handle the characters.

The only downside to this movie was that the opening credits were too long and too boring. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Carol Reed (The Third Man) directed this 1965 portrait of the relationship between Michelangelo (Charlton Heston) and Pope Julius II (Rex Harrison), who commissioned the artist to paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Based on a novel by Irving Stone, the script plods along, juggling the dynamics between the two men along with a somewhat perfunctory love story and distracting battle sequences. Reed seems more attuned to the nuances and great pains of the artistic process, as seen in sequences of Michelangelo working. But the overall focus of the film is unfortunately fuzzy. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (22)

Almost a spiritual journey
Though I am useless at sculpting and almost so at painting, I have sort of adopted Michaelangelo as my creative mentor. This movie cemented that thought.

Michaelangelo is a master sculptor from Florence, carving the tomb for the warrior-pope Julius (no, he isn't dead yet even though they're carving his tomb). But Julias drags him from his commission for another one-paint the ceiling of the Sistine chapel with "appropriate designs." Michaelangelo, who has only dabbled in fresco painting, is both enraged and inspired. He destroys the paintings and runs away from Rome, but returns when a vision shows him how the ceiling should be. Both men, creator and destroyer, artist and pope, are changed forever by the "work of love" that is the Sistine Chapel.

Charlton Heston was in fine form in this movie-he makes you feel everything that Michaelangelo feels. I sometimes think that the real men rather than the monuments (like Moses) that he plays are more his style. He does it realistically, wearing ratty clothing and often covered with paint dribbles. Michaelangelo does not stay the same-at the end of the movie, he is a humbler and wiser man than before.

And don't diss Rex Harrison-once I got over the "Doctor Doolittle as pope" thing, I found him very enjoyable. He manages to overcome some lines that would make me giggle in his place, including, "Is it proper for your pontiff to conduct Mass in a barn?" He makes you hate Julius initially, but as the movie progresses you grow to love him as much as Michaelangelo.

There are some truly excellent secondary characters, like Tessina the noblewoman who sort-of-secretly loves Michaelangelo, but understands that his paintings come first. Her brother, a Medici cardinal, seems a bit stilted, though. Tomas Milian plays another famous Renaissance artist, Raphael, who shows up with only a few lines of dialogue, but changes the course of the movie. Oh, and watch out for ice-cold architect Bramante.

Combine it with the glorious shots of the Sistine chapel's ceiling and Heston painting mockups, and you have a movie that deserves to be a classic.

The Grandeur that is Charlton Heston
The Ten Commandments, The Buccaneer, Ben-Hur, El Cid, Planet of the Apes, all great Charlton Heston movies to be sure. But this movie, Mr. Heston's performance as the passionate and complex Michelangelo Buonarroti, is without parallel in any of the previous or since roles he has played. His portrayal as the great artist is imtimate and shows a tender side. Futhermore, Rex Harrison as Pope Julius II is also extaordinary. The two men create a fine chemistry of the rebellious artist and the stern yet feeling pontiff who commissions Buonarroti to the great task of the Sistine. This performance peaks when the two men are standing beneath the great and not-yet-finished fresco late one night and reflect over the images of God and Adam-classic acting for certain. Please, buy it, rent it, just as long as you watch it. If you love art, I'm sure you will love this.

"I planned a ceiling, he planned a miracle"
There is no other film on the subject of art that is better than this one in my opinion. Irving Stone's best-seller was a great read, but in this case the film is better than the book. It centers on the creation of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, and the contentious but invigorating relationship between Michelangelo and Pope Julius II; one drove the other "to complete his work", and even their verbal battles were productive. It is about the courage of putting one's vision into reality, the hard work, and the faith in one's self and in God.

The script by Irving Stone and Philip Dunne is fabulous; the words flow like sweet wine and there is not a single unnecessary scene, or rarely one that is not meaningful. The direction by Carol Reed is meticulous, the cinematography by Leon Shamroy a marvel, and the score by Alex North adds much to the film. The costuming and sets are lavish for the papal quarters and the Medici household, and give one a sense of 16th century Rome, and the depictions of the fresco painting technique is interesting and educational.

Charlton Heston, gaunt and bearded, is brilliant as Michelangelo, as is Rex Harrison as the warrior pope. The interactions of these two actors is riveting, and the dialogue between them worth hearing repeatedly. Others of note in the cast include Diane Cilento as the Contessina de Medici, Harry Andrews as Bramante, and Tomas Milian as Raphael (the most famous papal portrait I know of is by Raphael, of Pope Julian II).

Though Stone's book and script take much artistic license, there is also a good deal of accuracy. This period of 16th century Italy was one of the most fascinating in all world history, and Pope Julius II was not only one of its greatest art patrons, but also an extraordinary man.
This is a film that moves me to tears with its beauty, and brightens my mind with its words. If you are interested in the artistic process, don't miss this magnificent film.

The film includes a Prologue, a mini-documentary of modern-day Rome and Florence, which traces Michelangelo's life, from his birth in Tuscany in 1475, showing his many wondrous works, including an early sculpture he did at the age of 15, through his death in 1564. Total running time is 139 minutes.

watch it for the art
the painstaking recreation of the sistine chaple was a feat within itself and is wonderfully executed.
the plot of the film pretty much boils down to will he paint it or not and we already know the answer. too bad thta the film didnt exlpore more michelangelos spiritual and moral struggles.
that said heston and harrison do what they can with it.

Art vs Commerce
What I found fascinating was the PROLOGUE: "The Man Who Didn't Want to Paint." This would normally be an "extra" on any DVD (unfortunately, so far, no DVD of the feature has been released). It is here on the VHS tape, as part of the feature. It runs about 20 minutes, but one should not fast-forward through it. It is fascinating, and adds tremendoubly to the enjoyment of the main feature. In fact, movie channels sometimes run this as a featurette without running the full film. And that's just fine with me.
Also, one should see this film in the "Letterbox" format to get the true scope of what director Reed was trying to present. "Full Frame" or "pan and scan" versions add electronic edits where none existed in the original and can chop up a film unnecessarily.
True, this feature reads like a "Reader's Digest" version of the life of Michaelangelo; a sort of "highlights" of the man's life. It does heavily concentrate on the on-again, off-again relationship with Pope Julius II, and sllows Harrison do drop in his deliciously dead-pan one-liners.
Should a new version of Michaelangelo's life be filmed (perhaps as a miniseries)? Most definately. Should an actor who more resembled the artist be cast? Yes. But, remember that AGONY was filmed in the 1960s and star power was the order of the day. Heston was hot; so was Harrison (My Fair Lady). Mr. Heston, however, has left, in print, his impressions (not all of them flattering) of both Harrison and Mr. Reed in his DIARIES. Sometimes, they make more interesting entertainment than the movie, itself. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The hit Broadway musical from the 1940s gets a lavish if not always exciting workout in this 1955 film version directed by old lion Fred Zinnemann (High Noon). Gordon MacRae brings his sterling voice to the role of cowboy Curly, and Shirley Jones plays Laurie, the object of his affection. The Rodgers and Hammerstein score includes "The Surrey with the Fringe on Top," "Oh, What a Beautiful Mornin'," and "People Will Say We're in Love," and Agnes DeMille provides the buoyant choreography. Among the supporting cast, Gloria Grahame is memorable as Ado Annie, the "girl who cain't say no," and Rod Steiger overdoes it as the villainous Jud. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (66)

Vibrant, memorable film version of musical classic
"Oklahoma!" was a classic AMerican musical, groundbreaking in its seamless integration of story, score, and dance, and a highly entertaining show in its own right with a thin but delightful story and classic score, the first of many classic scores to come from Rodgers and Hammerstein. THankfully, most of that vitality, freshness, and joy, not to mention the story and score, translate accurately and brilliantly, and very entertainingly, into the splashy 1955 film version, which is perfectly cast, sung and orchestrated, and competently directed by Fred Zinneman, (of "High Noon" and "From Here To Eternity" fame) whose only movie musical this was.

The gorgeous shots of the Midwestern landscape can probably best be appreciated in the widescreen Todd-AO version. (The film was famously filmed twice, in the new process and in standard Cinemescope to accomadate theatres who did not have the new technology installed) Gordon McRae is a marvelous Curley, full of energy, sarcasm, and romantacism, and he sings those songs to perfection. He and the original Curley, Alfred Drake, are the best I've heard. The radiant Shirley Jones is perfect in her film debut as Laurey. The supporting cast is all first-rate; other reviewers have mentioned Gloria Grahame's Ado Annie, which is indeed a hilarious and unforgettable performance, but there is also Gene Nelson's wonderful Will Parker, Charlotte Greenwood's loveable and delightful Aunt Eller, and Rod Steiger's adaquately menacing Jud Fry. (That last character loses some dimension through the deletion of his solo "Lonely Room," but Steiger probably wouldn't have sung it all that well, and the rest of the film is so perfect, that this is really a minor quibble) It should be noted that, even though this cast contains quite a few actors not noted for their singing pipes, no one is dubbed, and everybody sings very well. (Though again, Steiger might not have been up to the demands of "Lonely Room," though he does a fine job on "Poer Jud Is Daid") It could be argued that these classic songs have never been better-sung then they are here, and the augmented original Robert Russell Bennett orchestrations are great. Agnes de Mille recreates her original choreogrpahy to great effect; "Kansas City" still is amazing in how casually it comes out of the situation, "The Farmer and the Cowman" and "Many a New Day" are delightful, and the famous "Laurey Makes Up Her Mind" dream ballet is still stunning. Not the best R&H musical, ("Carousel" and "The King and I" outclass it in story and score, and "The King and I" is probably a better film) but certainly one of the best film versions of one of their musicals with the makings of a highly entertaining evening for the whole family. A fine tribute to a classic of musical theatre.

This movie Rocks!!
"Oklahoma!" is one GREAT movie. I don't think I ever smile so much during a movie as I do when I watch this one, it just makes me so darn happy! Ok, so the plot isn't amazing... but it doesn't matter, because the plot isn't really what drives this film. This movie is all about the characters, and the positive mood it creates, and the wonderful music that you will be humming for days after you watch the film. I actually bought the soundtrack a few weeks ago, (that's how much I liked it) and I haven't been able to stop playing it. I've seen a lot of musicals, both movie and stage, and I believe that "Oklahoma!" ties with "West Side Story" for having the best music of any musical, ever. The famous Rogers and Hammerstein score is just awesome. All of the songs are great, there isn't a bad one in the movie, but "People Will Say We're In Love" is my personal favorite. The scene were Curly and Laurie are singing this to each other in the peach orchard is so amazingly cute. I guess I'm just a silly hopeless romantic, but I can't help it. Shirley Jones as Laurie is wonderful, she has a BEAUTIFUL voice, and does a fine acting job too, especially considering she was only 20 years old and this was her film debut. The sparks just fly between her and Gordon MacRae (Curly), and this chemistry between the two leads is really what makes the movie work as well as it does. I was also stunned by the visual beauty of the film. It's beautiful color and exceptional picture clarity is uncommon for an older movie, so when I first watched "Oklahoma!" I had to double check to make sure it was really made in 1955. The special Todd-AO filming process other reviewers have gone into detail about really made a difference here. Anyways, I seem to have rambled on a bit, but I'll try to make my point here. This is a fun, romantic movie, that's a bit hokey at times ( but endearingly so, I believe) and has a few weak moments. But these few weak elements are far outweighed by the great ones. I judge a movie mainly on these two factors: 1) by the way I feel immediately after I've finished watching it, and 2) if it has a lasting impression on me. After this one, I just feel happy, and giddy, and like I want to dance around my living room and break out into song. And as far as lasting impressions go, I liked it so much I felt compelled to write this review and reccomend it to the world. So if this sounds like the kind of movie you'd enjoy, go for it, and have fun watching this classic.

Oklahoma
Well I'm surprised to find that I seem to be in the minority but I think Oklahoma is the Greatest Screen Musical of All Time.
I'll go in to why I think that but first I want you to know that I'm a great fan of musicals and have seen most of the great ones many, many times on the tube and on the big screen. Films like Top Hat, Gay Divorcee, Gold Diggers of 33 and 35, 42nd Street, Footlight Parade, Swingtime, Follow the Fleet, Holiday Inn, How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, Pennies from Heaven('81) and of course My Fair Lady are as good as it gets and hold a cherished place in my heart.
They all have teriffic stars, good humor and above all wonderful music and wonderful songs. Oklahoma has more of that than any other movie. Every song
is a winner, a gem, a pearl. They eliminated the few "clinker" songs from the stage production (it ran for 26 years) leaving only the absolute winners for the movie. Shirley Jones was eighteen and wonderfully radiant. Her singing was even better than the original stage recording. Her singing was marvelous.
Howard Keel was originally slated to play Curly but opted out because he refused to shoot two movies, as they duplicated every scene for two different film processes. (The A-O Todd version is the one seen on the DVD and has much higher resolution than the
Cinemascope one seen for years on TV) What a stroke of luck, Howard Keel (much too old and stiff to play opposite Miss Jones) is out and Gordon MacRae (the perfect fit) is in. His voice, while not as dynamic as Alfred Drake's, is perfect for the screen
but best of all he brings a sensiblity and earthy quality to the role missing from all the others I've seen. Some bizarre casting
in the minor roles like Gloria Grahame as Ado Annie and Eddie Albert as Ali Hakim and Rod Stieger as the "bully colored" Judd Frey add a strange flavor to the mix. But it's not the only strange thing going on. The story itself is not particularly a pleasant one and one might find the treatment of Judd or Judd himself unpleasant. It themes aren't necessarily family fare. There's even a dream sequence featuring some dark moments in a bordello. These elements add to the complexity and depth of this best-of-all musicals. And now the real muscle, Oh What a Beautiful Morning, Surrey with the Fringe on Top, I'm Just a Girl Who Can't Say No, Everything's Up to Date in Kansas City,
Never Will Come a Day, People Will Say We're in Love, Poor Judd is Dead, The Farmer and the Cowhand Should Be Friends, With Me It's All or Nothin' and Of course Oklahoma. No musical, not The King and I, not Singin' in the Rain, not Carousel, not any other save My Fair Lady can boost so many landmark songs. Throw in three or four marvelous dance sequences and big dash of Americana and you have the best screen musical ever. Thanks for your tolerance and thank you Amazon for letting me get that off my chest. There is one other musical I gotta mention, because it puts so many others to shame but I'm afraid I'll lose any crediblity, if any, I've got. Well, here it goes, South Park, Bigger, Longer, Uncut is better than all of Andrew Llyod Webber's musicals wound-up into one. In fact I don't think he's got a single song that can outdo ANY song in S P, B, L, U.
There I've said it and now I'm done. Thank you.

Still one of the best
I just watched "Oklahoma" again for the first time in a few years. I can understand why some viewers disliked this musical. The plot concerns farmers and ranchers fighting for dominance over land in the midwest in the 1800's. It's difficult for some of us modern urban dwellers to relate to this dilemma. Also, the characters in "Oklahoma" all speak in a cutesy, rubish dialect which is sometimes hard to understand and can even be annoying.

And it must seem quaint to us that escorting a girl on a picnic could create the kind of conflict that it does in this story. Another disconcerting element in "Oklahoma" is the sight of supposedly rough, rugged cowboys performing in pristine, balletic sequences staged by Agnes De Mille. After our generation has grown up on the gritty realism and sensuality of choreography by the likes of Bob Fosse or even Baz Luhrmann, this type of choreography seems dated and out of place.

But despite these criticisms, "Oklahoma" is still a great musical because of the music itself, and the way the music is so seamlessly integrated into the plot and characterizations. Simply stated, the melodies composed by the prodigious Richard Rodgers and the lyrics written by the poetic Oscar Hammerstein II for "Oklahoma" are magnificent.

For instance, is there a grander or more exuberant description of a wondrous new day than in "Oh What a Beautiful Morning"? Or a more lilting expression of reluctant love than in "People Will Say We're in Love"? Or how about the lyrical beauty and grace of the waltz "Out of My Dreams"? Or the syncopated melody and lyrics of "Surrey with the Fringe on Top" which is a perfect accompaniment to the clippity-clop of a horse pulling a carriage? And what about the joyous, unbridled energy of the celebratory theme song "Oklahoma"?

They all add up to a superb, exceptional score. Other assets of the movie version of "Oklahoma": the vibrant color photography; the solid performances by a talented and versatile cast; and the rich, beautiful singing voices of Gordon MacRae and Shirley Jones.

"Oklahoma" is not a perfect musical, but it's still one of the best and well worth your time if you possess an open mind and a discerning ear.

I really hate this movie...(* 1/2)...
I have never seen anything more boring and tedious than this film. I was forced to watch this one summer Sunday night when nothing else was on T.V., and had finished the book I was reading. I wasn't particulary looking forward to seeing it, because I didn't like "The Sound of Music", "South Pacific", or "Carosuel", but I like old movies, and thought I'd give it a chance. Also it had gotten such great reviews and all and I believe it won Best Picture at the Academy Awards back in '56. After what felt like 48 hours of bordem, I came to the conclusion that this was offically the most over-rated film I have EVER seen! The promblem wasn't even that it was a musical. I like musicals, but this was just awful! The (lyrical) music and dancing was just STUPID. The story was over-used, and the charectors ANNOYING! The only reason I give this a star and 1/2 is because it was tecnically well made, even tho the music and dancing was atrocious! I can't really reccomend this movie or not, becuase I think it really depends on a persons taste. If you like "The Sound of Music", and "Carosuel", you'll probably like this... ... Read more

Amazon.com

The legend of Mississippi blues master Robert Johnson has served as a fountainhead for generations of blues and rock musicians, as well as a powerful fable for the dark, often violent mysteries of delta blues. Johnson's mythic deal with the Devil, in exchange for his extraordinary musical gifts, has become a fixture in blues lore and an example of the enduring pull of superstitions that can be traced back to Mother Africa and Yoruba deities. Producer-director Walter Hill (The Long Riders, Streets of Fire) sought to put this uniquely American mystery on film, but when he was unable to secure a script devoted directly to Johnson himself, Hill bravely decided to proceed with a more oblique, allegorical story that retold the Satanic bargain through a fictionalized drama set in the present day. In this 1986 feature, the hero is Eugene, a classically trained guitar virtuoso pulled toward the earthier powers of blues. When he stumbles across a lost blues legend, Willie Brown (a real blues figure and Johnson peer known for his partnerships with Charley Patton and Son House, among others), Eugene begins an odyssey back to the delta country and the crossroads of the title, where both Willie and Johnson had traded their souls for blues power, to help the surviving bluesman renegotiate terms.

An opening sequence, shot in sepia-toned black and white, dramatizes Johnson's own supernatural encounter, as well as one of the bluesman's historic Texas recording sessions, and Hill's visuals combine with frequent collaborator Ry Cooder's reliably authentic slide guitar to offer a promising glimpse of cinematic conjury. Even the satanic villain--a grinning huckster named Scratch--honors the trickster figure familiar to African American superstitions, rather than a generic devil. Willie Brown (Joe Seneca) is likewise a convincing link to the blues past, but Hill's central casting choice--Ralph (The Karate Kid) Macchio--sacrifices all for marquee value, a Hobson's choice that casts a shadow of unintended parody across the film. Macchio's earlier character, not Scratch, haunts this film, and even a nifty duel between Eugene, his slashing fretwork supplied off-camera by Cooder, and Scratch's ax-wielding henchman, heavy metal virtuoso, and one-time Frank Zappa protégé Steve Vai, can't safely rescue the film. --Sam Sutherland ... Read more

Reviews (79)

Thin plot as an excuse for the best soundtrack I've heard
As a cinematic work, Crossroads is nothing special. Except for Joe Seneca who was great as the aging blues-legend on the run from the devil, the acting is awful. Ralph Macchio is decent, except that he's doing the EXACT same character he did in Karate Kid. The love interest between Eugene and Frances is silly, shallow and simply doesn't work. The screenplay, above all, is terrible. The directing and photography are good, which makes the film at least bearable.

But the film is just an excuse for one of the most amazing soundtracks I've ever heard. Classical guitar, Robert Johnson classic blues, Muddy Waters electric blues and hard blues rock run throughout this film wonderfuly; for bluesmen and guitar lovers, Crossroads is a must. The ending with Steve Vai, above all, is one of the greatest scenes I've seen and makes the whole movie worthwile - and both Vai and 'Eugene' play a KILLER guitar (I think Stevie Ray Vaughan plays Eugene's part). Overall, a very mediocre movie and for many probably boring, but a cult classic and a musical masterpiece.

What a Great Idea For a Film!
...even though it's far from a perfect movie. So why the 5 stars? Because it's so unique, so bold, so unconventional, and so ultimately pleasing. Crossroads is a fun fairy tale that uses an accurate history lesson as its back drop. (i.e., the kind of fim the just don't make anymore.) Not to mention it has some of the best music you'll hear in a movie. And if you're a musician, and especially a guitar player, it's simply a MUST! The plot and performances have already been reviewed but I'd like to add that Macchios "less than confident" portrayal fits perfectly with the character. The biggest flaw is the horrible miscasting of Steve Vai as the resident hot shot blues man. Vai is in no way or form a blues guitarist and would never be accepted as such, and his poser/over the top performance at the end ruins an otherwise classic film moment. I always felt that Johnny Winter would have been the perfect choice for that role and they should have left Steve to do the soundtrack for the electric classical guitar pieces. The bit with the "selling the soul to the devil" was a little forced as well. All in all, Crossroads is is an uneven masterpiece. Try to overlook the bad, appreciate the good and thank all concerned for at least attempting to bring the beauty of some wonderful music to the publics conciousness. Not to mention you'll thoroughly enjoy watching it. This is one of very few films I actually hated to see end.

Just a few corrections.....
Just a couple corrections. Eugene's guitar parts were played by Ry Cooder and Steve Vai. Ry handled all of the delta blues