Amazon.com

Again? Yes. Even though no other movie has been released as many times on video as Star Wars (except for its sequels, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi), George Lucas and the folks at 20th Century Fox have actually released a slightly different film this time. This video followed the mega-successful 20th-anniversary theatrical rerelease, in which Lucas personally remastered the image and sound quality of his baby. Other revisions are more obvious, if hardly radical. Lucas enhanced several special effects with updated computer technology--most noticeable are the explosions and removal of matte lines during the Death Star battle finale. And the creatures that populate Mos Eisley's spaceport--though meticulous--are aesthetically superior improvements. The inclusion of extra scenes (originally outtakes), however, is not an improvement. Both the meeting between Jabba the Hutt and Han Solo, and Luke talking with his childhood pal Biggs, do nothing to enhance character development or theme, and serve only as distractions that preoccupy the waiting viewer.And, really couldn't Lucas find something better to do with his time than mess around with a national treasure? As for the video, this boasts both visual and sound enhancements. But since Star Wars has been available with these tweaks numerous times before, the decision whether to purchase this latest new version depends on how badly you want to see Lucas's cosmetic surgery. --Dave McCoy ... Read more

Reviews (283)

A long time ago, in a cinema far, far away...
A long time ago, in a cinema far, far away, a certain film called STAR WARS was released. Now, George Lucas' first installment in the hugely popular STAR WARS franchise is generally regarded as the greatest movie ever made. Why? Well, what's not to like? From the opening shot of the Blockade Runner accompanied by that great theme tune by John Williams, you know you're in the unique world of the STAR WARS universe. Before George's action-packed THE PHANTOM MENACE and ATTACK OF THE CLONES, A NEW HOPE was known only as STAR WARS. Audiences had never seen anything so original and amazing. Now, the series has entered into the fanboy culture all over the world. In comparison, Episode 4 seems somewhat tame compared to ATOC, but it's still an astounding adventure filled with great characters, great action set-pieces and strident theatrical music.

From Hero Luke Skywalker's symbolic journey from his home Tatooine to the moment of victory at the finale, we are greeted with a myriad of fantastic characters, especially Han Solo, played by a pre-Indy Harrison Ford and his buddy Chewbacca, flying around in their Millenium Falcon. And the ultimate incarnation of evil, Darth Vader. British veteran actors Alec Guiness and Peter Cushing are excellent as a wise yet ageing "Old Ben" Kenobi and Vader respictively. And that, more than anything, is what made TPM so hollow. While the action was good, the lack of good characters was disappointing. But AOTC has regained much of the sense of adventure that this film started off.

Lucas' grand vision illuminates the entire film, with inventive creatures and events. Several scenes that are my favorites are Obi Wan's conversation to Luke about the Clone Wars and Vader, Solo's disposal of Greedo, Obi Wan and Vader's last battle and the destruction of the death star. The prominant influences that left their creative mark on the film range from westerns to Akira Kurosawa's Samurai pictures. The influence the film itself had on cinema (it invented the Summer Blockbuster) is astounding, with everything from figurines to frisbees from the hysteria over the film's captivating originality and subsequent zeitgeist. One of my all-time favorite films, STAR WARS is THE great adventure.

Do I really have to Say anything?
It's what? Going on 30 years since "A New Hope' was released to massive success (and even again in 1997)? You bet, and it still looks fresh and feels right. The film has an attitude to it. A little arrogant and a little sarcastic, but still thrilling and and made the foundation for almost every action and fantasy movie to follow. Only the recent release of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy has had near that much impact (which I consider this generation's Star Wars).

George Lucas was at his creative peak in the "Hope," and it shows. The special effects are used to help paint the world in which the characters live. They don't distract and they don't take away from the actors' performances. The trench run with the Death Star can still live today with modern special effects laden scenes. And the actors are so convincing in their roles, unlike some in the prequels. Alec Gunniess leads the cast with his Shakesperian wisdom, and the cool Harrison Ford is just , well, cool. Also Mark Hamill is great, as is Carrie Fischer as princess Leia. And who can forget Chewie? Star Wars still delivers, watch and enjoy.

It's Star Wars!
If you have seen this movie, then no words need to be said. But if you haven't, come out from under that rock and watch it!
This movie just has to be seen!
By the way, just skip the prequels. Those ones suck.

Yes, Han Shoots First!
Ah, c'est la vie, the best movie of the trilogy, followed closely by "The Empire Strikes Back". "Star Wars" is a classic tale of friendship, loyalty, and bravery. Full of action. Ah, and this version has no CGI Jabba. Han shoots first. Jawa scene where they unload R2 and 3PO. A lot better than Lucas' pile of dog sh*t the so-called Special Editions. Go, original theatricals. Nothing stops these movies in their 1977, 1980 and 1983 debut.

Hard on the eyes - I must disagree with the fans
I much rather want to think about the great theme music by Meco (for which I am giving the 2 stars) than the almost painful visual roller-coaster ride of a movie it came with. The special effects may have been ground breaking, but they were a bit much to watch. I was 15 and could handle such things much better than I could today -- I'd just walk out! Princess Leah was beautiful, but I liked her much better on SNL doing the Beach Scene with Frankie & Annette (Gilda & Bill).** ... Read more

Reviews (223)

The Citizen Kane of musicals
So many films in my collection are "important", "serious", "disturbing", or "great", and as much as I treasure them (films like Citizen Kane, Vertigo, and Ran), there is only so much self-importance a person can take before the pores fairly scream out for something just plain fun; something slight, buoyant, silly, and full of energy. Singin' in the Rain is just that kind of movie. The funny part is, I generally HATE musicals!

In 1951, Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen took a collection of songs by Arthur Freed and Nacio Herb Brown and - assisted by a pitch-perfect screenplay from the writing team of Adolph Green and Betty Comden - sculpted one of the great classic fusions of popular cinematic art and precision dance craft. It is the Citizen Kane of musicals: a virtual catalog of musical film technique, executed flawlessly.

But that alone would not be enough to separate Singin' in the Rain from the kind of musical I can't stand (which is to say, just about every other musical ever made). No, what makes this one special is that it knows what it is and celebrates it. It never for a moment asks you to forget you're watching a movie and then grinds to a screeching halt for the musical number. Instead, it deconstructs itself before your very eyes (and ears) as a razor-sharp, self-aware satire of the movie industry - as well as a joyous expression of the pure ecstasy of great song and dance. In that sense, it is one of the few so-called musicals that actually achieves a genuine symbiosis of drama, music, and kinetic performance art.

If all this sounds rather gushing and pretentious, so be it. This is great film-making. It is Rolex Oyster Perpetual film-making. This DVD edition sparkles with ultra-saturated colors, digitally remixed Dolby 5.1 sound, and some terrific extras (even if you're not particularly into musicals).

My favorite sequence is the eerily fluid dance work between Gene Kelly and Cyd Charisse against a Dali-esque background near the end of the film. Charisse is spellbinding as she trails a gravity-defying veil that must be 30 feet long. It hangs in the air, suspended by wind machines as she uses her extraordinary dance skill (and fantastic legs) to affect a wordless seduction of Kelly's naive, love-struck hero. Great stuff.

Even if you don't think of yourself as the "musical type", give Singin' in the Rain a try. After all that heavy, bitter, existential cinema, it makes one helluva fine dessert.

THE GREAT AMERICAN MUSICAL
Once upon a time there was a place called HOLLYWOOD. It wasn't just a town or even an industry, it was a state of mind. They didn't call the studios Dream Factories for nothing. This film is the epitome of the musical art and craft. This is a real "Movie Movie," made entirely on the MGM lot. The real creme de la creme of MGM contributed to it's creation; produced by Arthur Freed, starring Gene Kelly (with a brilliant turn by the dazzling ,long-legged Cyd Charisse), contract players like Debbie Reynolds and Kathleen Freeman (still going strong, currently appearing on Broadway in "The Full Monty") with costumes by my favorite designer Walter Plunkett (Gone With The Wind, 7 Brides For 7 Brothers, etc). Check out the sumptuous designs for the "Beautiful Girls" number and the outrageous spider dress at the opening night party. The real lowdown is that Jean Hagen and Donald O'Connor practically steal the show from the leads in possibly the best performances of their careers. This film is pure joy. The script by Comden and Green is not only clever but actually goofs on a real period of transition of the American film from silent to talkie.It is also a brilliant job of recycling a trunkload of old songs. This happy film has the courage to do what American musicals and comedies do best: be silly and make you forget you troubles for an hour and a half. Next time you are in bed with the flu or trying to get over a miserable love affair, take a look at Singing In The Rain. It can't help but curl up the corners of your mouth and drive the clouds away.

Wonderful Musical with Terrific Dancing -- a Trifle Dated
"Singin' in the Rain" is the definitive Hollywood musical, and charms and delights our 21st century audiences despite the (very few) characteristics of the genre that don't hold up quite so well.

There are so many high points to this movie -- the amazing cast, the songs, the choreography, and, most surprisingly, the satirical send-up of Hollywood and the "star system."

The plot is well-known. Silent film star couple, Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly, who also co-directed with Stanley Donen) and Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen) are America's sweethearts. At a Hollywood premiere of their latest romance, breathless fans ignore sidekick Cosmo Brown (Donald O'Connor, in perhaps the best sidekick performance in film history) and scream in delight as Lockwood and Lamont pander to their adoration. Nobody, however, seems to notice that the gorgeous Lamont never speaks . . .

Her imposed silence Lamont has a voice that recalls a cat with its tail caught in a wringer, although Lamont is such a "dumb blonde" (bless Hagen -- nobody ever played this stereotype better!) that she is blissfully unaware of her screech. No matter, 'cause it's the silent film era, right? Wrong! Progress brings in "The Jazz Singer" and the era of "talkies." No longer will clever staging of press events suffice.

Soon, Don Lockwood is staring career meltdown in the face as the first Lockwood-Lamont "talkie" sends the audience into hysterics. Not only is Lamont's screech audibly offensive, they can't keep the sound synchronized to the film, and the sound editing even when in synch is as amateurish as a high-school film production.

What to do? Fortunately, Lockwood had fallen for young, beautiful Kathy Selden (a teenage Debbie Reynolds), a starlet in the making. Cosmo comes up with the idea of dubbing Selden's voice for Lamont's, and all is fixed . . . or not. Lamont, an imbecile but smart enough to know her value, insists on ruining Selden's career to preserve her own . . . and so on and so forth.

The plot, ingenious as it is, is really secondary. The main delight in this movie is the amazing dancin' and singin' that the performers offer up. While most of it is pretty silly, campy stuff (particularly the Kelly-O'Connor set pieces), they simply dazzle. Kelly is the most robust, athletic dancer of his generation, and O'Connor, well, the man doesn't have a bone in his body. While the movie's most famous scene comes from Kelly splashing in puddles during the title track, the most amazing dance number has to be O'Connor's comic flailings in "Make 'Em Laugh," where he runs up walls, flirts with a mannequin, and generally pulls out all stops.

Debbie Reynolds does a magnificent job keeping up with these two giants, and is generally a pleasure to watch, even though she's clearly outclassed as a hoofer.

While some great old films seem to get better with age (think "Casablanca," "Gone With the Wind," and "Citizen Kane"), "Singin' in the Rain" is an American classic that does not hold up quite so well in some minor respects. For example, when breaking into choreographed step, Kelly, O'Connor, and Reynolds sometimes appear too rigid, with smiles frozen on their faces, which is incongruous to those raised on more modern musicals like "Moulin Rouge," where the dancers take a more naturalistic, emotional approach to their dancing. The dancing in "Singin'" holds up, but the performers were constrained by the expectations of their audiences, which somehow demanded that the performers "look pleasant" while dancing.

Still, "Singin' in the Rain" remains one of the best tonics to a foul mood ever . . . I defy you to watch this movie and not feel a smile creeping over your face.

The Best Musical Comedy Ever Produced!
I fell in love with this film when I was seven years old; I watched it on a B&W television on "The Early Show" in NY (circa 1957 or 1958). I didn't know who any of the stars were - it didn't matter. It was magic to me. From the Hollywood opening (dignity, always dignity), the romp of the elocution lessons (Moses supposes his toes are roses!), and the trial and mostly error of trying to record the sound ("I can't make love to a BUSH!") when the gorgeous leading lady has a voice that rivals nails on a blackboard, all the way to the grown man dancing in the rain and the final rising curtain - pure magic. In glorious black and white - at the time, I didn't even know it HAD colour! I decided then and there, this was my absolute all-time favourite movie. (One of the highlights of my adult life was seeing this wonder on a full, big screen at a revival in the 1970s.) I have seen many films since then; I have reviewed them for friends & family, written reviews for a monthly entertainment publication. I have an extensive collection of my own (VHS & DVD). I know a lot more about films and production values now.

"Singin'in the Rain" remains my all-time favourite film. (No surprise, this.) It's not just another one of "those MGM musicals." It was released in 1952. Dated stuff? Not a bit. Unlike the marvelous "An American in Paris," which was done as a contemporary film to its time, "Singin' in the Rain" is a period film, and it's based in fact.

This film (which started out to be a western for Howard Keel) takes a fond and loving look at the birthpains of the sound film (the "talkies). Set in 1927, with authentic equipment from MGM's own history (Debbie Reynolds drives Andy Hardy's old jalopy, the microphones are real), it details the frantic efforts to get on the sound bandwagon - no one was completely sure of the new technology. What makes the plot classic is the basis in fact. Many silent stars had totally unacceptable voices or speech (too nasal, unintelligible foreign accents, too high, too low, etc.) for sound production. The songs used were true to the period.

Then we have the performers. Jean Hagen was nominated for an Academy Award for her role of Lina Lamont. The character (whose voice you don't hear for the first 10+ minutes of the film, although she's on-screen) is a one-of-a-kind. [Side note: the voice dubbing Lina's line is actually Hagen's normal voice, not that of Debbie Reynold's Kathy Selden.] Reynolds does an admirable job - it couldn't have been easy keeping up with her two male co-stars. It's still a joy to see Donald O'Connor's "Make 'em Laugh," and wonderful to see Gene Kelly teamed with a good male partner for "Fit as a Fiddle" and "Moses". Gene Kelly is, and always shall be, the best and this was done at his peak.

Of course, for anyone who has been living in the back of a cave under a rock (or too young to appreciate it), the title number is a delight. It looks like one continuous take, it is so smooth. This was not the first appearance of the song, but it's the one we all remember. The sheer exuberance of Kelly's performance carries us right along with him.

The extras with this set are valued items for anyone like me who is interested in the backstory of the era and this film in particular. And don't fuss for a widescreen version. This is the way it was. And now it always will be.

Thoroughly entertaining musical
I have to say first of all that I am *not* at all a fan of musicals (or comedies for that matter) - I am a drama fan. I have seen a few musicals here and there over the years and tried to like them - such as 1964's "My Fair Lady" and 1961's "West Side Story." I liked both of them *somewhat,* but not too much - because I have always strongly preferred films that are realistic --> in real life, people don't burst into song when they are in one particular circumstance or another. Yet, I couldn't help enjoying myself with a smile on my face as I watched this film that landed so high (#10) on AFI's list of the top 100 American films of all time. Donald O'Connor, in particular, as Cosmo, was so perfectly cast in his role. The film was at times hilarious and at times wonderfully romantic. I definitely would recommend everyone to try this film out. B+. ... Read more

Reviews (1112)

Not very original
I seriously think that if this movie did not star the voices of Eddie Murphy, John Lithgow, Mike Myers, and Cameron Diaz, it would have only about a quarter of the popularity and hype it does have. This is because, while Shrek is very funny and enjoyable, the storyline is weak. In fact, it's extremely predictable. Before half the movie was over I had it figured out that Princess Fiona turns into an ogre after sunset, and I'm sure that everyone, before even seeing the film, knew she and Shrek would end up together. OK, here's the story: Shrek, shunned for his ugliness, lives on his lonely swamp, and is befriended by a very funny but also very annoying talking donkey. Lord Farquaad banishes all fairy tale characters from his kingdom and onto Shrek's swamp. Shrek goes to him to straighten it out, and is sent on a quest to rescue Princess Fiona, whom Farquaad needs to marry to be titled King. Of course, on the way back to the castle, Fiona and Shrek fall in love, and the rest is like, "Well, duh!" We learn that when Fiona was young, a witch cast a spell on her to turn into an ogre every night. We never find out why, which I consider one of the major flaws with this plot. I mean, come on, witches don't just go turning people into nocturnal ogres for no apparent reason! Also, she says to Donkey that she can't stay with Shrek because princesses are supposed to be beautiful. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Shrek is ALWAYS ugly. He can't be picky. He would still probably love her even if he knew her secret. I guess what the princess said is plausible, when you consider that she wants to marry Farquaad because he's her true love and that would break the spell, but I really don't know. She's never even seen this guy, shouldn't she be able to tell he's not gonna be her true love? Anyway, as far as humor, voice talent, and music go, Shrek is a great movie. But those wanting a really original plot that makes sense from almost any viewpoint may be disappointed. It's not especially creative. The DVD extras, I should add, are good, particularly the technical goofs. In the great Shrek VS Monsters, Inc war, I would definitely say that while I enjoyed both movies, Monsters is better.

An Excellent Animated Treat
Adults will enjoy this movie with it's vast array of stars. With humorous performances by Mike Myers as the voice of Shrek, Eddie Murphy as The Donkey, Cameron Diaz as Princess Fiona, John Lithgow as Lord Farquad and the supporting cast of "Fairy Tale Things" this movie was truly a funny movie. It begins with the introduction of Shrek, an enormous green ogre who lives alone in a swamp. Then through a twist of fate, Eddie Murphy as the hilarious talking donkey enters Shrek's life as his un-invited companion. Shrek then finds his swamp bombarded with "Fairy Tale Things", including a decapitated Gingerbread Man as well as the Three Blind Mice and Three Little Pigs and hundreds of other creatures who were forced onto Shrek's property by the evil Lord Farquad. Shrek then begins a journey to see Lord Farquad to remove the creatures from his property, who sends him on a journey to rescue the beautiful Princess Fiona from the fiery dragon to be his bride so that he may become King. The action is non-stop as are the laughs in this movie. The ending has the usual twist with hilarious outakes and a kareoke scene by all the characters at the end. Overall, this film is a must-see for children and adults alike.

im makin' waffels
why the hell does everyone say that??
good movie dont see shrek 2 looks dumb

shrek is cool
shrek is a funny movie. the funniest thing in this movie is shrek's friend {or not} that he meets in his swamp{were shrek lives}. once i saw this movie i was hoping there would be a shrek 2 and now there is. in shrek farquad the very evil and short king sends shrek on a quest to find princess fiona a princess trapped in a castle with a fire breathing dragon gaurding her. shrek saves her and has to go bak i would tell more of this movie but i would give away the fun of it

Really apart of what you've seen
This is a must-see. And it's not a easy way to define this film. This is for everyone, no matter of your sex, your age, your attitude to fairy tales, to cartoons or to music. "Shrek" has it to surprise and to enjoy each and everyone of your family or even none of your relatives.

It is easy to see with every kind of company. It's sweet, it's bitter. It's plenty of laugh and plenty of love. Music is really a big part of the film and every tune is perfect. I don't know of anybody who dislike this film. Extremely enjoyable. ... Read more

Description

The final battle for Middle-earth begins. Frodo and Sam, led by Gollum, continue their dangerous mission toward the fires of Mount Doom in order to destroy the One Ring. Aragorn struggles to fulfill his legacy as he leads his outnumbered followers against the growing power of the Dark Lord Sauron, so that the Ring-bearer may complete his quest. ... Read more

Reviews (941)

The new "King" of film
The heavily-anticipated film adaptions of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" began in 2001 with THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, a truly extraodinary film. In 2002, it was continued with THE TWO TOWERS, which topped THE FELLOWSHIP. And now, in 2003, we have THE RETURN OF THE KING - a film which rules all others. Here, ladies and gentlemen, is a serious candidate for best movie ever made.

The first part of the film is actually taken from the novel of "The Two Towers". We find Pippin (Billy Boyd) being taken to Gondor by Gandalf (Ian McKellen), who hopes to prevent war there by counselling stubborn, angry Denethor (John Noble). At the same time, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom), and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) lead King Theoden's (Bernard Hill) men into battle.

Meanwhile, as they approach the outskirts of Mordor, Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam's (Sean Astin) friendship is tested as the scheming Gollum (voice of Andy Serkis) leads the two into a trap. All looks dark for the forces of good.

RETURN OF THE KING goes beyond words. Adventurous story, terrific acting, perfect direction, flawless visuals - it is a perfect film. Peter Jackson has done an outstanding job of bringing Tolkien's beloved fantasy tales to the screen. I can think of no one who could do it better.

Howard Shore once again contributes the film's score. He creates here music that is more beautiful than the previous two films', much less forceful, with the exact feeling of hopeless surrounding it as is with the movie's characters. This is almost certainly Shore's best score.

The acting is terrific, better than the first films, if such a thing is possible. We see more of the characters which were paid lesser attention to in the previous installments. Gollum's character is almost completely re-done.

There is no doubt that about 90% of the people who see this movie will shed a tear or too. There are some dramatic, emotional moments to the film, but most of the crying going on will just be because we've come to the end of a magnificent, beautiful journey - which has become one of the most important in cinematic history.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING is a triumph of modern moviemaking. It goes past the previous two, seemingly unbeatable films to become a serious candidate for the greatest film of all-time. It is sheer brilliance. The Lord of the Rings has been a beautiful experience. It is sad it has finally come to an end. At least it has an ending fit for a king.

The first masterpiece of the trilogy - astonishing!
It goes without saying that I have not been a huge fan of the LOTR series at all. The first film is corny and overdrawn, and most of The Two Towers suffers from what many middle sections of 2-hour movies do - the 2nd act drag. Only at the end of The Two Towers do Frodo and Sam and the gang really feel like they're becoming fleshed-out characters and not just action figures charging a castle wall. If you look closely at the end of Towers, it's Sam's speech to Frodo about the possibility of them becoming legends that the movie begins to whisper of what's to come, and what has come to pass in The Return of the King is...well...astounding. I tell you, reader, if you're not terribly fond of The Lord of the Rings, it is the compelling, deeply-moving final film that shows of what director Peter Jackson is truly capable.

Actor Andy Serkis's Gollum has been a joy to watch ever since he appeared on screen in Towers, even despite constant ribbing by Saturday Night Live and the fact that, yeah, he does sound a little silly when he menacingly screeches "My preciousssssssss!" every few minutes. The Return of the King takes a moment to bring additional depth and meaning to Gollum's character by showing his first discovery of the ring even before "The Return of the King" logo graces the screen. Luckily, Gollum is not the only character in the film that is made into a living, breathing, three-dimensional being and not a comic book caricature. The whole film seems to take on a lush, heavy air of true dramatic consequence that seemed to be holding back before.

Frodo and Sam are ever-so-closer to reaching Mordor; Aragorn is coming ever-so-closer to his destiny as, well, look at the title; and (in the most inspiringly great plot move of the film) Merry, Pippin, and Eowyn show their capacity for uncanny acts of heroism they've had in them all along. In addition, Gandalf kicks more Middle Earth butt like he was born to do while protecting Pippin (who is thought to have the ring), and the time for the final battle for the Middle Earth comes nearer by the minute. It seems like a lot is going on, but this third film is remarkably the easiest to follow and also the most accessible. The third film also has a few huge advantages that work in its favor: (1) it actually has an end (and what an ending!), (2) the characters have had more than 6 screen hours to develop, so they're at their peaks here, and (3) the tension leading to that do-it-or-die moment is worth two years of waiting. It's more obvious than ever by King that all three movies are just one big movie chopped into three parts, but that means that this is the equivalent of a no-holds-barred, all-the-stops-out, slam-bang finale of a 2-hour movie -- and that's exactly what it feels like.

The Battle of Helm's deep looks like nothing compared to the steadily-climaxing action of The Return of the King. Unlike some of the scenes in the first two films, the action seems to have a purpose here, and this reviewer will admit - I alternated between tears and the giddy excitement of a schoolboy throughout most of the movie. I'm sure that will be a common reaction. At the same time, Frodo's greed for the ring, and how it affects his relationship with Sam reminded me of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Elijah Wood is no Bogie, but he certainly can conjure up that all-encompassing greed when he wants to. I may get annoyed when he says "Mr. Frodo," but Sean Astin's Sam is really a standout character here - he's kind of been the 2nd string sidekick in the past two, but he actually gets the honor of carrying the film to its remarkably quiet and moving finale even after displaying his prodigious talent as a young actor in the tense Mordor sequence. This may sound like a blanket comment, but everyone is simply fantastic in the film - even when they've been not-so-much earlier.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is a compelling tale of redemption and heroism, and in a way, it has redeemed itself through this smashingly fantastic film.Yes, it does slip in a few moments (most notably at the very end, when it could end about 6 different times, but give Jackson some slack - it had to be hard to let go of it), but I really don't feel it was detrimental to the end result of the movie at all. The last 20 minutes or so, even when it's doing the ending fakeouts, it's a tearjerker - not only for what it means for the third film, but for what it means for the trilogy as a whole. I found myself smiling through being choked up at the end in one of the great scenes of the whole 10 hours of the epic: a group of people (I won't say who, for it might spoil things for those die-hard fans out there) sit around a table in a tavern clutching their ale and simply sit in silence. They've been through so much that words won't work. At times, I wonder if words will even work to describe what a great feat of American filmmaking The Return of the King is. I can give only this: Congratulations, Peter Jackson, you've made a masterpiece. Grade: A

The crowning touch to an amazing trilogy!!
The only bad thing I can say about this movie is that it's the last one. Oh yeah, and it isn't the extended version DVD. I had to buy this movie even though I knew a better version was coming out before Christmas; it's just too good to wait that long. Although I loved the movie, I did have one complaint: the whole Saruman plotline is wrapped up in a really odd way. (Peter Jackson promises that this will be rectified in the extended version.) The extras on this DVD aren't anything special, but I don't buy DVDs for the extras. If you loved the first two Lord of the Rings movies, you'll definitely love this one too!!

A Masterpiece Beyond Description
It is impossible to fairly credit the genius and masterpiece that this movie is in a few short words. Each movie in my opinion, has been better than the last, making for an epic third movie.

To begin with, the acting. People have said that the acting in each of the three movies has never been exceptionall, hence only one Oscar nomination to an actor/actress out of all three movies, (That was Ian McKellan FOTR.) However in this third installment there are several actors who must be recognized for their achievments, namely Sean Astin as Sam, and again Ian McKellan as Gandalf. Sam's incredible acting with his relationship with Frodo draws sympathy and emotion from me every time I see the movie. And Gandalf, with his several stirring speeches, both mostly to Pipin, are a a great acting performance worthy of recognition. Honorable mention must also go to Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn and Bernard Hill, who plays Theoden extremely well.

Next a look at the visual aspect of the movie. In a sense of the natural beauty of the film, it is incredible. All three films incorporate a level of beauty and grandeur hard to find in many films. New Zealands fresh and exotic landscapes are always present throught the film, and can often take ones breath away. One scene in particular is that of the lighting of the beacons, as Peter Jackson takes the viewer on a spectacular ride over snowy mountains and sweeping valleys. The shot itself is not only a testiment to the amazing cinemetography and editing of the movie, but also the amazing beauty of New Zealand that is presented through the entire film.
However as with the first two movies, The Return of the King's visual aspect relies not only on New Zelands beauty and Peter Jackson's camera moves, but also upon the amazing digital and visual effects that are integrated seamlessly throughout the movie. The Weta Digital visual effects team that brought to life such creatures as Gollem and Treebeard, have created the benchmark by which all visual effects will likely be judged from here on. Their ability to make a digital thing like Gollem who exists in a computer resonate emotion and feeling is a work of true genius. The visual effects shine not only in the obvious areas such as Gollum, but in the subtle effects that can barely be noticed; shadows formed by digital creatures that aren't there, lighting effects that create a mood in the scene that is otherwise non-existent. All of these things have been worked together so will with the real-time footage and acting, that you end up never knowing what is real and what is digital.

Everytime I watch the movie, I never am bored. Peter Jackson has made a perfect blend of drama, emotion, action, even some humor and romance, that the movie never grows old. Scenes such as Faramir's ride towards Osgiliath and death, the charge of the Rohiram upon Pelennor fields, the last battle in front of the Black gate, while Frodo and Sam struggle up Mount Doom, just to name a few, are beautifully done and are implanted in my mind forever.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy, which ended with this rousing finale, has created a pop culture phenomenon that will no doubt last for many years to come. If you haven't seen by all means must buy or rent this DVD. If you have, then I suggest the same thing, buy it. You won't be sorry you did.

I WATCH THIS WHEN I CANT FALL ASLEEP
NOPE, I JUST DONT SEE HOW PEOPLE LOVE THIS MOVIE. BUT I TELL YOU THIS THE THE HOLLYWOOD MEDIA FAVORS THIS MOVIE ALOT, AND SO DO THE PEOPLE FOLLOW.WELL PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT I GUESS.BUT I WALKED OUT OF THE THEATERS ON THIS ONE. WENT TO WATCH A BETTER MOVIE.GOOD SPECIAL EFFECTS THOUGH. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

This silky smooth film noir pits gruff police detective Dana Andrews, stiff and blunt in his street-bred manners, against a cultured columnist and acidic wit (Clifton Webb at his prissiest) in a battle of wits during a murder investigation. The cop is a romantic hiding under a hard-boiled exterior who falls in love with the beautiful victim through the portrait that hangs in her apartment, when one lonely night he turns from the picture to see Laura walk through the door. It's not a ghost: both the cops and the killer mistook the mutilated corpse for the lady of the house. Gene Tierney, whose heart-shaped face mixes the exotic with the girl next door, brings the poise and calm of a model to her role as Laura, the object of every man's gaze and the target of a killer that missed once but is bound to try again. Laura, handsomely shot in dreamy black and white, is the first and best of Otto Preminger's cool, controlled murder mysteries. In the gritty world of film noir it remains the most refined and elegant example of the genre, but under the tasteful decor and high-society fashions lies a world seething in jealousy, passion, blackmail, and murder. Vincent Price costars as a blithe gigolo and David Raksin's lush theme has become a wistful romantic standard. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (59)

COOL, ELEGANT FILM NOIR....
Although toned down from Vera Caspary's novel, "Laura" is a classic example of sexual obssession in 40's film noir. Otto Preminger (with help from Rouben Mamoulian) created a masterpiece of a mystery film loaded with decadence and sexual tension. Tough streetwise police detective Mark McPherson (Dana Andrews) investigates the violent society murder of beautiful, enigmatic ad exec Laura Hunt (Gene Tierney) and enters the cold, calculating world of high society where everyone has dark secrets. He encounters a list of suspects including ascerbic Waldo Lydecker (superb Clifton Webb) as Laura's "benefactor" and companion who introduced her to the high end of advertising and her gigolo fiance' Shelby (Vincent Price) who is more or less kept by Laura's aunt (Judith Anderson). It is Lydecker who matches wits with Mark every step of the way. Mark has become obssessed with Laura's portrait, her perfume and letters and has obviously fallen in love with the "dead" Laura. The sexual obssession theme lies underneath the complicated relationships including Mark's fascination with Laura's relationships and her personal things and in the flashback sequences, it is clear that Lydecker fancied himself more than just Laura's "companion". He sought to possess her. But it gets stickier as it goes along when Laura turns up very much alive. There is so much to savor in this film along with the performances (especially Webb's) like the beautiful b&w photography that gives the film a dream like quality and the lovely "Laura" them by David Raskin that haunts the film and emphasizes the romantic longing Mark has for Laura and Laura's mysterious, paradoxical personality. Any way you slice it, "Laura" is a classic film heads up above the rest and needs to be available on DVD. It is not to be missed.

A MUST SEE
I saw this movie at least ten times. First time was in my early teens, when it was shown on local TV. I never heard of Gene Tierney before, but after seeing this film, I knew I would never forget her. She was the most beautiful actress I ever saw and her mannerisms reveal a classy keen intelligence. Everything about this movie will haunt you--Tierney's beauty, the musical score by David Raksin, the portrait, and the ending.

The film is about a woman who seemed to have everything--a successful career, beauty, brains, wealth--who is discovered murdered in her apartment. A detective, Mark McPherson, played by Dana Andrews investigates the case and starts questioning possible suspects. One is the Svengali-like Waldo Lydecker (Clifton Webb), a syndicated columnist and radio personality. Another is Shelby Carpenter, a smooth Southern gigolo played by Vincent Price (yes Vincent Price!). And there's Laura's middle-aged socialite aunt, Ann Treadwell, who was using Carpenter as her boy-toy until Carpenter meets Laura. Other possible suspect is Laura's maid, a feisty loyal Irishwoman.

The film shows narrated flashbacks by Lydecker. He idolizes her and intercepts Laura's suitors, all of whom he considers beneath her. He couldn't intercept Carpenter who attracts Laura, and who Laura was supposed to marry the week she was found murdered. The first twist of the film is when McPherson falls in love with Laura, who's presumed dead. From reading her diary and letters and continuously seeing her portrait, he discovers she's the woman of his dreams, an unattainable goddess whose physical presence he can only imagine. So when twist number two happens, the murder investigation understandably becomes secondary to this gumshoe detective.

This is the best film directed by Otto Preminger. I believe it's the first American film he directed, and his following films pale by comparison. Ironically, this is a film full of second choices. The lead was written with Jennifer Jones in mind, but she turned it down. It was then offered to Heddy Lamarr who also turned it down. Tierney claimed in her autobiography that she didn't want the role either and thought the film was going to bomb, due to the fact that many aspects of it were not prepared (the final script, the music) and that Dana Andrews (also a second choice) prior to this film never had a role as a leading man. The portrait that was originally intended for the film was painted by the wife of director Rouben Mamoulian, who was initially hired for the film but was fired by Preminger who was producing it. Paintings don't transcribe well to film so a touched-up photograph of Tierney was used as the portrait. Preminger took the directing himself. He wanted to use the song "Sophisticated Lady" by Duke Ellington as the musical score, but David Raksin made a deal with him, in which he would write a score Preminger would approve of in one weekend. Raksin claimed he kept looking at a photo of Tierney during the composition of the score and that she was his inspiration. Thus second choices made this movie a classic.

The dialogue is witty and biting, particularly that of Lydecker. The film was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor (Webb), Best Black and White Cinematography and Best Musical Score. It only won for Best Cinematography, and I'd like to learn what films aced it in the other categories. Although awards are not considered important by many film connoisserus, the winners are the ones recognized by the next generation. Thus "Laura" remains one of the most underrated films of all time.

Revised Release Date
Fox now says Laura will be out November 04. We can just hope this is not just another tease after first announcing Sept 03. Are lawyers involved in this delay?

Release date
The review from Utica is correct: Laura was supposed to be out 9/03. It's been on my wish list for almost a year. Maybe Fox should get Eisner to oversee releases (he must be looking for something to do).

Wasn't this supposed to be out on DVD last November?
I ordered this DVD early LAST YEAR, and it is yet to be released. There are so many mediocre if not downright awful films that are always being released onto video and DVD, yet this film, which is truly one of the best classics of all time, is still not available. What is Fox doing? ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Please release NTSC DVD!!!!
I have a VHS of this movie and it is absolutely on my Top 10 list. It is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. It is the best reason I know for still owning a VHS player. I've spent a few hours googling and all the DVD's I can find are PAL, PAL, PAL. I am beyond disappointed that this film is not available in NTSC format, and I sincerely and deeply hope that a time will come when sufficient appreciation for this film is expressed that some savant will relent and fund its release in a USA-friendly dvd format. For me, this film is completely equivalent in importance to the Gauguin painting, "Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going?" I don't have enough fingers to count the moral, ethical, mythical, historical and hysterical questions this film explores. Its supremely heartfelt probing of the mythos of Northern Europe is amplified by the equally perceptive (and if I may so offer, divinely inspired) understanding of the total hilarity and confusion of Human Nature and Understanding at this point in our collective evolution. If Plato bores you; if you've ever found yourself in a company meeting where all the people with glasses are on one side of the table and all those without are on the other side; if you have ever spent time contemplating a Mystery--YOU NEED A COPY of Erik The Viking. Please, for the sake of all mankind, let this film be released in NTSC DVD!

I would have hardly dared to hope--I mean, and I didn't--
but there it was....creepy. What can I say? It quite blew me away. I thought I would die laughing or at least blow my internal organs inside out. There are things in this movie than any poor little freak who's spent too much time in his formative years attached to the D'Aulaire's book of Norse myths or rummaging through stores that sell used fine/rare books and there happen to stumble upon "The Thrall of Leif the Lucky" or some sagas of the Icelanders or what have you, would understand and cherish. I went to school the day after I saw this thing and asked my chemistry teacher to watch it and also a person in my physical education class and most of my friends. I made my best friend watch it with me. Anyway, I laughed my head off and you will too. So do your very best to find this film and watch it.

More:

If I could give this movie 10 stars I would. It is on my list of the best five films ever made. Tim Robbins is wonderful. His facial features careen between wacky, maniacal, and just plain confused. Like another reviewer has said: what happened to the supporting actors' careers?! They were great, too, whether they were puking off the side of a ship or saying profound things about the nature of fear. Oh, and the ending was deeply touching.

Conclusion:

So get this movie for yourself and all your friends.

DVD! DVD!
"Monty Python meets romantic comedy" might not be a trust-inspiring phrase, but this is one of the funniest movies ever. The scene with the Japanese (?) coxswain has me peeing my pants every single time. Tim Robbins is serious eye candy in this film; I'd be stalking him if I weren't afraid that Susan Sarandon would kick my ass. I'd like to join my voice to all those devoted fans begging for a DVD release.

Best movie ever.....
This is my favorite movie of all time. I want it on DVD.. Please, please,please,please release it on DVD. I taped it off of cable years ago & have been waiting for it on DVD. Tim Robbins was great & Imogene Stubbs is one of the most beutiful woman ever. I could watch this movie over & over. Have I mentioned that I would love to have it on DVD....

Don't miss it- a beautiful film
I agree with most of what the others have said. In addition, this is a well-made film with a beautiful look to it. There's a real sense of wonder and lust for life conveyed by this movie. I can't believe this isn't on DVD. I read a review by Leonard Maltin which really shot 'Erik the Viking' down. What a clueless @#$&%!
I really think that anyone who likes Monty Python skits and Holy Grail would enjoy it. Also, if you like the lush fantasy aesthetic of films like Baron Munchausen, you gotta see it. For my money, it beats out 'Brazil'.
I can't say enough about this movie, especially when you see all the dreck that is available on DVD.
Forgot to mention-it's funny as hell! ... Read more

Reviews (15)

utc
This version of Uncle Tom's Cabin was unique and articulate although it had its misrepresentations and differences from the novel by Harriet Beecher Stowe. It overall was a good movie in my opinion including some famous actors and not straying to far from the novel made this version entertaining. One specific detail which vexes me was the fact that when Eliza was crossing the river there was no ice according to the novel there was ice and I feel it added plenty of suspenseful goodness. Uncle tom was and still is my favorite character how this film depicted his life and death was a sure tear jerker. I am also glad that they kept the last words with Mr. Shelby's son who loved tom. In closing I would like to say that I actually enjoyed this version and rate it higher than others.

disapointment
When you make a movie based on a novel, especially when the novel is good, the movie usually falls tragically short of capturing the book's emotion and suspense. Such is the case with the movie version of Uncle Tom's Cabin . The book itself by Harriet Beecher Stowe was very heartfelt and I, for one, loved it, but the movie could not capture the emotions that the book brings to light.
The movie opens in Kentucky, where The Shelby's live. Mr. Shelby has to sell two of his slaves, Tom and young Harry, to pay off a debt to a slave trader, Mr. Haley. Harry's mother, Eliza, decides to run away to save her child(Harry) and hopefully reunite with her husband who fled to Canada. Tom will not go with her for fear that the rest of his family will be sold. Eliza successfully escapes across the river and is taken in by some Quakers near the Canadian border. Tom on the other hand, is left to take his chances with Mr. Haley and the promises of his master to bring him back as soon as possible.
Through all this the movie does not establish the characters very well, and does not make you feel any sympathy for any of them. This is because many important scenes of the book were changed or left out. For example, one of the most famous scenes in the story is the scene where Eliza escapes across a river of ice, and in the movie, Eliza escapes across the river in a raft because it is warm. This escape does not capture the same drama as it did in the book, and was a big disappointment to me personally. Even tiny things have been changed which make no sense to me. For example, the Shelby's son is named Christopher in the movie, but in the book his name is George and this seems like a completely pointless change . I also did not agree with the casting choices in the movie. Augustine is an older man in the movie and if you look in the book, St. Clare was continually referred to as Tom's YOUNG master. In retrospect, there is not many good things I can say about this movie. The only characters I thought were fairly true to the writing of the book were Simon Legree, Marie, and maybe Tom. Other than that I think the movie was a complete failure in bringing this classic book to life, and I recommend that you read the book instead.

The silent movie was much better
The book by H.B.S. was not intended to be about heroism or love but about the inhumanity of slavery. The author breathed life into the characters primarily to evoke sympathy for them from the reader or hatred for them in the case of Simon Legree. I saw this black and white silent movie for the first time at the age of 13. Up until that time I had only occasional contact with black people and did not understand why they were so radical about the topic of slavery. My only understanding of slavery was the Shirley Temple version and I thought black people were being overly sensitive about it. Seeing Uncle Tom's Cabin was like an awakening that changed my understand of the whole relationship between black people and slavery. The silent movie was much better at bringing across the true purpose of the novel without the hollywood slant of modern versions.

WOW!
The movie entitled Uncle Tom's Cabin was an excellent film. I am really glad that I got a chance to view it. I could watch this over and over again. I praise Tom for his courage and for him standing up for what was right although he was beaten for it plenty of times. From this particular movie I saw that not all white people were bad, and I also saw how slaves were treated back in the times of slavery. They were just sold like they were a piece of dirt and just like they weren't even human beings. I think that this is a good film to watch for anyone is learning about slavery to see what it was all about.
The movie ,Uncle Tom's Cabin, was about a man named Tom who was a devote Christian. He was free but he wasn't free. I say this because although he wasn't free physically he was free mentally. He knew he that nobody could buy his soul. Through the whole movie he stood up for what was right and spoke his mind. Although aware of the consequences he still pressed on. People like him is what makes our history. People who stood up, and didn't accept less. People who knew that nobody was better then them and that they deserved to be treated equally. He helped those who were in the time of need. The great thing about everything that happened in the movie and everything that Tom accomplished is that it wasn't fiction it was fact. It really happened.
This movie was good! I liked how Tom stood up for himself and everyone else although he got beat for it. He always did the right thing no matter what.
In conclusion I would like to say that Uncle Tom's Cabin was a great film to watch. I would rate this a 10 on a scale from 1 to 10. I would definitely love to see this movie again.

Uncle Tom'S Cabin
Uncle Tom's Cabin contracts the many different attitudes that southerners as well as northerners shared towards slavery. It shows the evils of slavery and the cruelty and inhumanity of the peculiar institution, in particular how masters treat their slaves and how families are torn apart because of slavery. This movie is great it really shows what happen to African Americans back in the old days how a man like Uncle Tom had so much courage that he got killed because he didn't want the two slaves to get caught by their master when they ran away. This movie really made me think why, how this could have happen in America people where getting sold like they where cars from owner to owner it made me change because it makes me think that I have it good. That I can go out and eat and they cannot tell me white's only. This movie really change my life around. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Poor Charlotte Hollis. She's been shunned by the community for decades, ever since the fateful night in 1927 when her lover was hacked apart with an axe. Her antebellum southern mansion is slated for the bulldozer, as it stands in the way of highway construction. Charlotte's only hope lies in her cousin Miriam (Olivia de Havilland), coming down from up north to help settle things. Miriam, however, has other designs. Together with her boyfriend Drew (Joseph Cotten), she embarks on a scheme to systematically drive Charlotte out of her mind (not a great leap) and get her mitts on the family fortune. From there, things only get more complicated. Charlotte puts the "gothic" in southern gothic, as a great showcase for completely bizarre, overwrought, and out-of-control performances from all involved. Agnes Moorehead plays Charlotte's loyal, disheveled housekeeper to the hilt, with an odd inflection that calls to mind Amos and Andy more than southern gentility. As the drunken, conniving Dr. Drew, Cotten's accent is indeterminate at times, and seems to come and go. As great as the supporting players are, though, the crown goes to Bette Davis as the shrieking Charlotte, a portrait of isolation and decay stuck in a world oftragic delusions inside her crumbling mansion. De Havilland is a close second as the scheming Miriam; the scene where she slaps the holy snot out of a hysterical Charlotte is itself worth the price of admission. Mary Astor (in her last role) and Cecil Kellaway (as a kindly Lloyd's of London adjuster) put in the only performances with any restraint, acting as counterweights for the rest of the cast. Besides, you'll never get another chance to see Joseph Cotten playing the harpsichord andsinging, or caked in mud and lily pads! With Robert Aldrich's claustrophobicdirection, Charlotte is as Southern as a field of kudzu, and as subduedas a train wreck. --Jerry Renshaw ... Read more

Reviews (46)

Olivia De Havilland is the best part if this movie.
This is a good, creepy horror movie, although the plot is a big old mess. Bette Davis is quite annoying-- she was so good in "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" that she almost seems over-confident here. She just hams it up, and it gets annoying. Olivia De Havilland, on the other hand, is brilliant. There's something incredibly engrossing-- almost amusing-- at how harsh and bitchy she is. What adds to the amusing quality of her character is the datedness of her hair and clothing (she's supposed to seem very chic and fashionable, but by 1965 standards). Anyway, I think Olivia proves to be just as good a villain as any woman in any movie-- she's convincingly vile. And as much as I like Joan Crawford, I don't think she would have done as good a job in the role. I remember seeing the film as a child and being freaked out when Miriam beats up Charlotte in the car. This was a VERY violent and harsh scene back in those days-- especially for a female role.

Davis dominates this southern fried chiller
Bette Davis attacks the role of tarnished southern belle Charlotte Hollis, a woman who's been haunted by demons in her past.Hush... Hush allows Miss Davis to display her formidable talents as both vixen and victim. Charlotte believes she is responsible for the violent death of her lover. When her cousin Miriam comes a-calling Charlotte thinks Miriam's there to help her hang on to her decaying gothic mansion.Charlotte soon begins hearing and seeing ominous things, which doesn't improve her fragile state of mind.The cinematography, score, and performances give this unsettling thriller a real jolt.The scenes with Bette and Olivia de Havilland (Miriam) near the finale are fabulous. Better still is the scene with Bette getting a terrible fright at the top of Charlotte's staircase. Awesome film starring the most compelling and versatile actress ever on film!

Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte
This is a great movie to watch on a windswept stormy night.

I wish the DVD companies would get their act together so I don't have to keep making my own DVD's of these great film classics and creature feature movies.

Would love to see this on DVD in Widescreen!!!

Campy Fun
This movie is too over-the-top not to give it a full four stars (but not five--hey, it's not THAT good!). The movie was to be a "sort-of" sequel to Baby Jane, reuniting arch rivals Joan and Bette. But Joan (though I love her!) went a little too far for Aldrich, who canned her after she had spent weeks in the hospital feigning illness. However, Olivia diHavilland does a good job. Ultimately the movie is fun...yet oddly effective. And you'll be singing the theme song in your head for days!

Some great insanity by Bette, some cheesy gore, and a few genuine thrills make for a piece of schlock that rocks!

Three Stars of Yesteryear In Terrific Gothic Thriller
The 1960's decade saw alot of veteran performers who had their acting heyday in the 1930's and 40's moving into psychological thrillers and horror efforts as a way of continuing in lead roles. Some of these efforts were of very poor quality but once in a while a gem appeared that has stood the test of time. "Hush...Hush Sweet Charlotte", was such an effort and boasted the talents of three seasoned acting legends in the unstoppable Bette Davis, Olivia de Havilland and Joseph Cotton. Bette Davis indeed had one of her better later day roles in this film which followed on from her huge success in 1962's "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane". Contrary to popular belief however this film was not a sequel to that earlier success as it had an entirely different locale, story and set of characters. The film did not get off to a promising start production wise in that it was originally planned as a reteaming of Bette with rival Joan Crawford. The two had scored a total triumph with "Baby Jane", however due to a number of circumstances Crawford withdrew and after offering the role of Cousin Miriam to Vivien Leigh among others, director Robert Aldrich passed the role to a most reluctant de Havilland who didn't relish the chance to play the villianess of the piece.

"Hush ...Hush Sweet Charlotte", takes place in the decaying Old South of the 1960's. Bette Davis plays reclusive Charlotte Hollis who lives on her own in her run down Southern mansion that many years before saw a ghastly murder take place that robbed her of her one chance at personal happiness with young married John Mayhew (Bruce Dern). His brutal murder by a meatcleaver is shown in a flash back sequence after which the story moves to the present where the unsettled Charlotte finds her formally grand Louisiana home under threat by the bulldozers. Failing to scare off the workmen with a shotgun Charlotte writes to her cousin, the worldly Miriam Deering to ask for help in saving her property. Childhood rivals for the attentions of Charlotte's father Big Sam Hollis (Victor Buono) at first Miriam seems sweet and kind and totally concerned for Charlotte's welfare however all is not what it seems especially when Miriam teams up with old beau Dr. Drew Bayliss (Joseph Cotton) to see what is in the estate for them. Before long Charlotte is literally being driven out of her mind as she experiences what she thinks are nightmarish visions of her dead lover reappearing minus his hand and head , heads rolling down the staircase, eeerie voices calling out to her in the night and finally a belief that she has actually shot Drew by mistake. As her mental state starts to crumble and she is the victim of some mind numbing drugs courtesy of Drew, the old housekeeper Velma (Agnes Moorehead in an Oscar nominated performance), begins to work out what the pair are up to. That knowledge however eventually costs her her life . While at the mercy of the scheming Drew and Miriam, Charlotte however is not defenceless and when she finally discovers the truth of what has been going on she enacts her own revenge that frees her of the pair forever. Only after the intervention of visiting writer Harry Willis (Cecil Kellaway)who had an enduring interest in Charlotte's case, does she finally learn (only as she leaves her home for the last time), the real truth behind who murdered her childhood beau all those years ago.

The story of "Hush...Hush Sweet Charlotte", while fairly obvious does make riverting viewing and the large cast of veteran performers really show their expertise and years of experience in their parts. Bette Davis for once gets to play the potential victim of the piece and it is Olivia de Havilland, so often associated with kindly, sympathetic characters that really has a field day as the evil Miriam intent upon getting Charlotte's money for herself. These two women had worked together many times during their heyday at Warner Brothers but rarely has their screen work had the electricity that it does here. The scene where they supposedly dump Drew's body is sensational as Miriam for the first time really shows her evil menace and it is some of the best work that Olivia de Havilland did on screen. The supporting cast is top rate as well and full of wonderful character actors such as the already mentioned Agnes Morrehead who steals every scene she is in as the uncouth but devoted housekeeper. Cecil Kellaway, Victor Buono who had also been in Aldrich's previous "Baby Jane" effort and Ellen Corby all bring their special expertise to the large and small supporting roles and veteran Mary Astor makes a rare 1960's appearance in the important role of elderly Jewel Mayhew, John's jealous wife. Blessed with a much bigger budget than on his earlier "Baby Jane", project Aldrich was able to make good use of beautiful locations at a great old Southern Mansion in Baton Rouge. This really aids the spooky elements of this horror story and the stark black and white photography is a great asset in particular during Charlotte's ghostly nightmare sequences.

For a trip down memory lane when veterans like Bette Davis and Olivia de Havilland still appeared in major productions with roles tailored to them, "Hush ...Hush Sweet Charlotte", is unsurpassed entertainment. Certainly the special effects may seem tame by today's standards but the joy here is to see two actress's giving these roles their all. Davis and de Havilland make a great screen team and compared to the other "monsters" she often played in the 1960's it's a joy to see Bette Davis playing a victim role for a change. Gothic melodrama of the first order perhaps but hugely entertaining and sure to create a few chills along the way. Highly recommended for all old style mystery lovers. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The third and final episode of the Sarah, Plain and Tall series is a 1999 production reuniting stars Glenn Close and Christopher Walken withoriginal director Glenn Jordan. Taking the story eight years beyond theoriginal tale, Winter's End is set in a harsh Kansas winter of 1918, with the specter of death everywhere: soldiers are dying overseas duringWorld War I, influenza is at epidemic proportions in the U.S., and an old manhas returned to the Witting farm with an uncertain reception. He's JohnWitting (Jack Palance), father of Jacob (Walken), and the two men have notseen each other since John abandoned his son years ago. Reconciliation comeshard, punctuated by cliffhanger disasters (Jacob breaks his leg and burnswith a fever, Sarah almost dies in a heavy snowstorm), but this most brutal of trial periods for the Wittings still invites a viewer to yearn for a moreinnocent--perhaps mythical--time in America. A worthy and rewarding finish toa trilogy fit for families yet sophisticated enough for all ages,Winter's End may be one of the last network television classics in an era of audience relocation to multichannel cable. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Not up to par.
The movie opens in March of 1918. The long, bitter winter has yet to come to an end. There is an epidemic of influenza in town and the war has taken Anna's boyfriend overseas. Much as Jacob and Sarah did, Anna waits for every letter from him while tending the sick in town. Back home on the farm, an unexpected visitor will soon rock Sarah's family to its core.

Although 'Winter's End' sounds exciting, its frightfully dull and unprofessional. The acting is just not up to par with the first two. Glen Close, Christopher Walken and the entire cast shine in 'Sarah Plain & Tall' and 'Skylark.' After seeing those, I suppose I was spoiled. I expected that high quality when I bought 'Winter's End' and thus, I was shocked and dismayed by this poorly acted out movie. I've seen these actors/actresses at their best and they are very talented. Now, I am left baffled as to what happened here. Did they just not care this time around? Was it the director? A low budget? What? So many questions, so little answers. What really got me was when, 'Sarah' (Glen Close) was caught out in a blizzard and almost froze to death. The depth of emotion put into that scene wouldn't fill a tea spoon. 'Jacob' (Christopher Walken) put the most into it, but his acting was stilted, unreal and unnatural. Yet, the all time award for stiffness and unnatural acting would be a tie between, Jack Palance (Jacob's wayward father) and Christopher Bell (Caleb) They did a terrible job. To make matters worse, it looks as if the 'honeymoon' is over for Sarah and Jacob in 'winter's End.' There is no more of that 'spark' we enjoyed in, 'Sarah Plain & Tall' and 'Skylark.' There might be one or two scenes where they shine as they once did, but for the most part, the chemistry is dead.
The biggest highlight of the film was Sarah and Jacob's little girl 'Cassie,' played by Emily Osment. She seemed to be the only one who took her role seriously. She was a natural, and very 'real' in her part. She did a great job. But sadly the rest of the cast lost the magic that was, 'Sarah Plain & Tall.'

A 5-star trilogy, well worth a look
Christopher Walken and Glenn Close headline the cast in this excellent series of three Hallmark Hall of Fame movies.

In the first movie of the series, "Sarah, Plain and Tall," Walken plays a widowed Kansas farmer who desperately needs someone to help him rear his children while he tends to providing for the family via his farm in the early 1900s. Glenn Close plays Sarah, a woman from Maine, who responds to Walken's newspaper ad search for a wife. The rest of the story focuses on the developing relationships between Walken, Close, and the children. An excellent story and great movie -- 5 stars all the way.

In the second movie, "Skylark" (sequel to Sarah, Plain and Tall), the story of Walken and Close's life continues as they face a severe drought, possible failure of the farm, and stresses those things place upon the family. Top-notch, equal in emotional impact and believability with "Sarah, Plain and Tall" -- definitely another 5-star movie.

The third movie, "Winter's End" finds an unexpected guest in Walken and Close's home -- Walken's father, long absent from any family interactions. In this movie, the children have grown considerably (I believe that all the members of the original cast are still together). While an enjoyable movie, this one is not in the same class as the first two, and hovers someplace around 3.5 to 4 stars.

I awarded the set 5 stars on the collective strength of the first two movies.

Just in case you hadn't noticed, Walken is often cast in somewhat quirky roles, but this is probably my favorite work of his. He plays a devoted father dealing with a range of believable real-life issues. These movies also underscore the incredible talent of Close, who can pull off roles as diverse as Sarah's and that of Disney's Cruella DeVil!

Do yourself a favor...if you haven't watched these movies, watch them. They are wonderful.

Have a great day!

Alan Holyoak

Excellent Family Viewing
This is excellent family viewing. It gives one a sense of how tough it was to grow up in the 1800's and early 1900's. People had to work hard for everything, certainly much different than our world where people are pampered by modern-day conveniences.
Glenn Close is one of the great actresses of all time, no question here. If you like Close, check out her excellent performance in "World According to Garp." She is also capable of playing evil as well...in "Fatal Attraction."

Watching the Sarah Plain and Tall series is a great way to help your family grow closer together.

Jeffrey McAndrew
author of "Our Brown-Eyed Boy"

Sarah has become family!
By the time you watch all of these (there are three) Sarah and her bunch are family. You watch the kids grow up and there are these marvelous stories and it's just good entertainment. Sarah comes to Kansas to marry a widower farmer to "make a difference" to him and his two children. The first movie concerns their meeting and eventually marrying, the second movie shows their life through a drought and forced separation and the third brings them into WW1 and some personal family problems. Everything is done perfectly and you'll enjoy these time and again. I've watched them all several times.

I love it.
I loved all three of these movies. It is nice to find a movie that you can watch with the whole family. I think the 3rd movie stayed close to the book. I wish there were more of these type of movies. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Could this be the funniest movie ever made? By any rational measure of comedy, this medieval romp from the Monty Python troupe certainly belongs on the short list of candidates. According to Leonard Maltin's Movie & Video Guide, it's "recommended for fans only," but we say hogwash to that--you could be a complete newcomer to the Python phenomenon and still find this send-up of the Arthurian legend to be wet-your-pants hilarious. It's basically a series of sketches woven together as King Arthur's quest for the Holy Grail, with Graham Chapman as the King, Terry Gilliam as his simpleton sidekick Patsy, and the rest of the Python gang filling out a variety of outrageous roles. The comedy highlights are too numerous to mention, but once you've seen Arthur's outrageously bloody encounter with the ominous Black Knight (John Cleese), you'll know that nothing's sacred in the Python school of comedy. From holy hand grenades to killer bunnies to the absurdity of the three-headed knights who say "Ni--!," this is the kind of movie that will strike you as fantastically funny or just plain silly, but why stop there? It's all over the map, and the pace lags a bit here and there, but for every throwaway gag the Pythons have invented, there's a bit of subtle business or grand-scale insanity that's utterly inspired. The sum of this madness is a movie that's beloved by anyone with a pulse and an irreverent sense of humor. If this movie doesn't make you laugh, you're almost certainly dead.--Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (630)

one of the best comedies ever and dvd extras to rave about!
This is what dvds were invented for -- there are so many great features here! So in addition to seeing one of the funniest movies ever made, you can be entertained for hours with the extras, and the extras are terrific: subtitles in English, French or Spanish; audio track choices -- English (the original mono or a brand new full stereo version), French, a directors' (Gilliam and Jones) track or a commentary track with Cleese, Idle and Palin; a copy of the script overlaid on the film; a painstaking, hilarious Henry the IV-ish subtitle for those who don't like the film; a hard-of-hearing feature; killer rabbit easter eggs; animated menus using Gilliam's original animation; karaoke renditions of 'Knights of the Round Table', 'Sir Robin' and the 'Monks Chant'; a delightful 45 minute visit to the locations with Jones and Palin; an educational film about the 'other' uses of coconuts; Japanese versions of the French Castle and Knights Who Say Ni scenes, including references to the 'holy sake cup'; a 1974 BBC Film Night visit to a location site during filming; photos of tickets, press releases, reviews, posters, production stills and original artwork; trailers; cast credits (Palin played over a dozen parts!) with pictures of each character; a Lego knights version of the Camelot scene; pictures of sketches that were never used (a killer snail?!); a web link.

A lot of effort went into this special edition dvd, and it shows. I particularly enjoyed seeing Jones and Palin visit locations. They were in a jolly mood, their comments are interspersed with film footage, and they meet affectionate and funny fans along the way.

If you like this film you will love this dvd version; if you love the film, you wil adore this two-dvd set. An essential item for your collection.

Highest recommendation.

I Never Thought Looking For A Shrubbery Would Be This Fun!!
In the early 1970's the Monty Python troop (Michael Palin, Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, and Terry Jones) stars from the immensely popular television series Monty Python's Flying Circus began producing, with the help of a fundraising concert headlined by Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd (You lie!! No, I didn't!), initial photography on what would later become (from all my extensive years of movie watching) the single most unforgivably sidesplitting, enormously irreverent, shrewdly perceptive, unremittingly uproariously aggressive, gruesomely hysterical, and endlessly quotable comedies EVER. Not even Mel Brooks's Best Efforts (The Producers, Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein) comes very close to the revolutionary medieval merriment sustained in this royal purebred of cult classics. BAR NONE. No contest here.

Endlessly stockpiled with hauntingly hysterical sketches that will probably never leave your mind (no matter how hard you try) including, The Knights Who Say Nei, The Self-Abusing Monks (Eah aay ess eay dom eay nay), The Black Knight, The Trojan Rabbit, the Ever-Appearing Verbally Abusing French (I don't want to talk to you no more!!!), The Enchanter Named Tim, The Killer Bunny, The Bridge of Death (What is the capital of Hysteria?), The Old Woman Named Dennis, and so many countless more great sketches to include here that I'd die trying. Monty and Python and the Holy Grail remains an ever-enriching mirthful cult-classic that just seems to improve with age. Since Columbia has a bountifully hefty new special edition of the Holy Grail out now there should be no excuse, if you've never seen it (I think I'll go for a walk!!), just drop everything your doing (including Bringing Out Your Dead) and go experience this life changing movie today. You won't be disappointed, just tell them the Knight Not Appearing In This Film sent you, and they'll know what to do.

As for the options on the special edition here's a run-down:

Disc One: -"21st Anniversary" cut of the film running an extra 24 seconds; -Anamorphic Widescreen; -Dolby 5.1 track; -Original Mono Track; -Audio commentary with Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, John Cleese, Eric Idle and Michael Palin; -subtitles "for people who don't like the film" (you get the text from Shakespeare's Henry IV instead); -an "on-screen screenplay" feature which lets you read the screenplay as you watch the film; -"Follow the Killer Rabbit" feature;

Disc Two: "Three Mindless Sing-Alongs"; -"The Quest for the Holy Grail Locations" featurette; -"How to Use Your Coconuts" educational film; -"Monty Python and the Holy Grail in Japanese" (with English subtitles); -the BBC Film Night special "On Location with the Pythons; -an interactive cast directory; -still galleries with Terry Gilliam's original sketches and behind-the-scenes photos; -"A Load Of Rubbish" with mystery items; -unused ideas and other material; -two trailers
and web-links.

Both discs represent the absolute final word resource for EVERYTHING and I do mean everything you'd need to know about the Python's greatest film. An Absolute Necessity for any Python Fan!!

P.S. You can't base a system of government just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

What are you going to do, bleed on me?
excellent. Possibly the funniest movie ever made. Who could forget such a line as "I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of eldeberries." This is a great movie and a great dvd edition that gives it justice. This is completely worth the money. A comedy Classic.

This movie didn't make me Run Away! (or) Run away FASTER!!!
Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail is, by far, my favorite movie -and I'm sure it always will be! Being a truly hilariously-random film, this DVD does an awesome job of showcasing this fact to the highest extent. The killer white "rrrrabit" will live on in my heart forever, and I will always be knowledgeable that African swallows are non-migratory. What other movie has a group of knights requesting shrubberies -from King Arthur, no less- to create a 'two-level effect with a path through the middle'? Only Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
The movie might sound strange as I mention these things out of context, but I assure you it is much stranger when Monty Python says it!
So, to conclude this review, I definitely give "Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail" DVD a 5 star rating, as I know it will entertain millions for years to come. Enjoy!

The Lego Camelot Number Alone is Worth the Price
Who would have thought that, after nearly 30 years, the world's goofiest movie could be made even moreso? Not only is this DVD a comedy triumph (it would be simply if it were the DVD version of the classic film, in which a crew too broke to afford horses for King Arthur and his Knights changed history and college kids' banter forever by introducing coconuts as migrating props). Oh, no, this DVD is one that may become a standard for other DVDs. Just look at this list of extras above! To be sure, some of them are fluff. The "load of rubbish" selection is simply some receipts and a few odd notes. But most of it is stupendous.

The first disc contains the movie itself, along with some choices of how to watch it.... subtitles, commentary by directors Terry Jones & Terry Gilliam or by John Cleese & Eric Idle & Michael Palin. Then "for people who don't like the film", there's subtitles from Shakespeare's "Henry IV, Part II". Now, these do not faithfully follow Henry IV verse by verse, but they do come from the play, and it's hilarious how the phrases Shakespeare wrote do actually match up with the action on the screen.

Disc Two contains several mementoes: a film of John Cleese, Terry Jones, and "Grail" production manager John Young (who also played the hapless "Historian" towards the end of the film, and the "I'm not dead!" guy) paying a return visit to Castle Doune , in 2000. At first it's fun to hear them reminisce at the filming site, but since it's a very small spot with nothing but a wall and a bit of ground, they appear uncomfortable and that quickly gets old. More interesting is the home movie made by the two Terries when they looked for prospective film locations in the seventies. Their excitement is palpable.

A somewhat painful scene (except for the chance it gives us to watch Terry Jones in action as a director) is the BBC documentary made during filming. The interviewer seems more interested in trying to be funny himself than in the Pythons. But there are several great comic extras, including words to some songs, a coconut skit, two scenes dubbed in Japanese, and best of all, an animated feature of the "Camelot" scene and song done entirely in Lego...must be seen to be believed.

Finally, someone has made good use of the storage space on a DVD. ... Read more