Reviews (191)

Star Wars: Episode V
I've watched all the Star Wars movies scores of times, and they are all spectacular with a great story, great action, and great characters (all with the beautiful music of John Williams).

The Empire Strikes Back, the middle story of the original trilogy, is probably one of my favorites (it's so hard to pick one!). The characters really come out in this episode, and you can't help but enjoy watching this film. Watch the exciting battle on the ice planet Hoth, the budding romance between the Princess Leia and the "scoundrel" Han Solo. See the breathtaking Cloud City, the murky swamps of Dagobah. Listen to the tutelage of wise Yoda, the fantastic musical score. And it all leads up to the critical battle between Luke and Darth, in which Skywalker makes his greatest mistake and Vader's dark secret is revealed.

Definitely the darkest of the trilogy, ESB leaves the viewer wanting more. We want to see the fate of Han Solo, how Luke reacts to startling news, and the further efforts of the Rebel Alliance ~ even if we've already seen the trilogy dozens of times. Watch this movie for a great story in a wonder-filled world.

The Empire returns in the greatest sequel of all time.
The Empire returns with a vengeance in the sequel to legendary film: Star Wars, A New Hope. This is one of the few movies that has lived up to it's predecessor in the history of motion pictures. The Empire Strikes back has proven once again that George Lucas' Star Wars universe is once of the finest conceived tomes in all of film lore. In this installment we find our heroes facing an Empire freshly stung from the defeat of their dreaded Death Star, and determined to annihilate the rebellion once and for all. Darth Vader has become obsessed with finding Luke Skywalker. He has searched the end of the galaxy and finally finds him and the rebellion on the ice planet of Hoth. There are many great scenes in this movie that are downright breathtaking. My favorite scene in this movie happens to be my favorite moment in almost any movie. The Asteroid chase where the Millenium Falcon, captained by Han Solo fly's into an asteroid belt to avoid the pursuing imperial Tie Fighters. I consider this not only to be the best action scenes of film history, it is also perfectly scored by John Williams. The perfect flow of this movie evolves from George Lucas' excellent writing and Lawrence Kasdan's direction. Another pivotal point in the Star Wars saga plays out as Obi Wan Kenobi's spirit directs our hero, Luke Skywalker, to seek out the one remaining Jedi Master on a swamp world called Dagobah. When Luke finally encounters Yoda he begins a journey whose conclusion is uncertain. Luke is pulled away from Dagobah and led to a cloud city where he finally confronts the dreaded Dark Lord of Sith: Darth Vader. I remember the entire theater trembling as Vader attempts to turn Luke to the dark side of the force. This movie is packed with action, adventure, romance and a shocking revelation that left everyone wondering who Luke Skywalker's father really was for the three years between The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. If you are looking to purchase a legendary movie, The Empire Strikes back does NOT disappoint.

one of the greatest sequels ever
in this one,the deathstar is being rebuilt and the rebels go nuke it again.after a smorgasboard of malfunctions with the millenium falcon,they are trapped with the empire.also,luke goes into jedi training with yoda.eventualy,he and darth are throwing down at the end.i think the only person with a non-star wars related job after this was harrison ford-han solo.but he never did jack that even came close to the same awesomeness youll see in this set.the kids will love it too.george lucas is the directer.i dont know what hes done besides the star wars set but they are all over the top awesome.all 5 are in the top 20 best selling movies ever.this is a film that most anyone will enjoy.a lot of people say they dont like all that science fiction/star wars/star trek junk.id like to make a definate distinction.star trek is a boring bunch of non sense and star wars rules.there are a couple gross parts but nothing too bad.just ugly monsters like the sluggish jabba the hut and luke and yoda hanging around the swamp a lot.there is really only one chick.this uptight princess named leia.shes pretty in the face when shes not moving it but has a really bad haircut.also,it was during a time before fashion was of the upmost importance,so she runs around in a spacesuit a lot.never accept any review that says this movie is anything less then spectacular.the special effects set the abselute standard at the time.they are still pretty cool now.this is part 2 of the series and after it is the return of the jedi.then 2 prequels[before the first one entitled star wars].i guess theres another one coming out next summer.so,it goes 1-star wars:the new hope,2-empire strikes back,3-return of the jedi then the 3 before those but released later 4-phantom menance,5-attack of the clones,then there is an animated short film that ties up those and sets up the final episode called6-clone wars.the last,yet to be released film is episode 3 leading into star wars.did you get all that?

Best of the Series
Carrie Fisher once stated the SW series is like ice cream (nice simile). All being good, however ESB being the best flavor. I agree with her statement.

My dissertation,lol,on the film is near the final when Vader tells Luke that he is the father. On a Freudian level, this could be called the Oedipus complex theory with Luke deciding to not join his father. I presume Luke was apprehensive to join in because he believed it was a confidence game that would result in his own termination/castration. Just a speculative theory.
No matter what, enjoy this wonderful work.

When ESB was released in 1997 I had a standing date to go see it on the big screen. Way back in 1980, I remember being on summer vacation and going to see it for the first time. When the movie ended, I could not believe that we (the audience) were left hanging on a cliff for the next 3 years. Talk about tease, lol.......:)

the best film of the greatest sci-fi series ever.
the empire stikes back is one of those rare films that are actually better than the first. although some fans of the original may find this flim not as fun as the first and find some of the middle of the film (luke and yoda on degaboh...han,leia,etc. hiding from vader in the asteroid)a sleeper, the total content of the film overcomes this. the story is awsome with plot twists and turns, and the introduction of new characters to the star wars universe as well as the in-depth development and growth of the originals adds to this great story.ivan kershner's ominous dark tone adds a psychological beauty to this film and is probobly the most intelligent of the star wars films. i guarentee this will be one of the best films you'll see so if you haven't i highly recommend picking it up. ... Read more

Reviews (105)

A Wonderful, magical movie about the power of love.
I recently saw "The Notebook" and am so glad I did. This is my new favorite movie. I've never seen another like it. It's a wonderful adaptation of the book by Nicholas Sparks. It's cinematography is beautiful as well as the script and the acting is unforgettable. Ryan Gossling and Rachel McAddams are wonderful in this and give tour de force performances as the young lovers. They have a great chemistry together that electrifies the screen. Let us not forget James Garner and Gena Rowlands they are wonderfully cast as the older lovers. Sam Sherpard and Joan Allen also turn in wonderful performances in their roles. I cannot recommend this movie enough. It is moving and poignant, there wasn't a dry eye in the theatre when the movie ended. I think it is rare to see a movie that can be that affecting. GO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!!!! You will not regret it in fact you'll probably want to see it again.

Sweet, Sappy, Romantic, Beautiful
I got to see the sneak preview of this movie this past Saturday (6/12/04) and I absolutely loved it. I've seen Ryan Gosling on television before (Breaker High), but I hadn't seen Rachel McAdams until now. Their characters were so real and so believable. Even though the end may be predictable, this film lacks the typical structure of most romantic movies I've seen. It was interesting to see how the characters evolved and came together.

The film begins with James Garner reading pages out of a notebook to alzheimer(?) patient Gena Rowlands. As the story unfolds, we meet Allie and Noah. Allie comes from a wealthy Southern family. Noah works in the lumber yard. We see their joys as well as their struggles. Though they seem like complete opposites, they fall in love only to be torn apart when Noah leaves for World War 2 and Allie becomes engaged to another man.

I won't spoil the ending, but the two lovers reunite and Allie is faced with the decision of whether to keep her promise to her fiance or to go back to the man she left behind.

my fav. movie of all time
I loved the movie The Notebook. After I saw it for the first time I immediately felt the need to see it again, I ended up going to see it 5 more times that week even though the prices were so high. I havent seen a movie this good in a long time. I laughed, I cryed, and so much more. I felt as if I was experiancing the same things I wanted to be Ali, I wanted to be there. I even fell in love with the cast every 1 that played the roles were perfect. It was just a great movie.

Excellent!!!!
I thought this movie was exellent! I rate it five stars because I don't cry much in films and this was a tissue grabbing type of movie! It had three generations of girls in my family crying all at one time!

Rachel McAdams and Ryan Gosling were fabulous together I thought. They had great chemistry on screen. I love the true fairytale type romance and this was def. a movie that made people wish they were the lead role! I also enjoyed the hints of humor in the movie, even if it was a serious part they made it enjoyable! I think this is a def. buyer! To anyone out there who hasn't seen it, go, you won't be dissapointed! Also, check out Nicholas Spark's books. Nicholas Sparks also wrote the book A Walk to Remember which is now a film as well with Mandy Moore as the lead actress.

The actors were incredible
The plot was mediocre, I won't lie about that, but the one ingredient that saved this movie from being just a disastrous chick-flic was the acting. Rachael McAdams, Gena Rowlands, and James Garner were moving and the movie was remarkably poignant. Ryan Gosling was convincing, to say the least, but I prefer to see him in more intense roles, like The Believer.

If romances are your type of movies, go for it. Chances are you will enjoy it. Bring tissues if you're a crier. Actually, bring them even if you aren't. I've been described as "unsensitive" and I cried for the last 30 minutes. ... Read more

Reviews (17)

More Than A Few Holes
Lana Turner stars as a woman who marries above herself into a powerful family, earning the dislike of her mother-in-law. When she becomes involved with a notorious playboy who dies accidentally, her mother-in-law uses it as an excuse to get rid of her, forcing her to leave the family and her child, assuming a different identity. Her life spirals downward out of control, until she ends up in jail, charged with murder and being defended by her now grown-up son. There are a lot of holes in this story which relies far too much on coincidence and the stupidity of its characters to advance the plot. Turner is the standout of the film, shedding her typical glamour as the character falls apart. She makes the most out of the role as its written. The supporting cast are given two-dimensional characters to impersonate. John Forsythe barely registers a performance, while the great Constance Bennett barks out her nasty character. The music telegraphs all the emotions at the start of every scene. I'm not a fan of soap opera, but I can watch it if it's handled with a subtle touch. Subtle wouldn't be the word for this movie. Think "heavy-handed and plastic".

Triumph to Tragedy
There has never been, and will never be, a film that better depicts life's happiest and saddest events. The movie opens with ex-salesgirl, newlywed Holly Anderson (Lana Turner) being welcome to the Anderson mansion and meeting her live-in mother-in-law. Her husband, Clay Anderson (John Forsythe), is a rich, politician-on-the-rise. They live the life of the socially prominent, always mindful of their public images. Soon, an heir is born and Holly is a perfect mother. But to be successful, Clay must, and does, travel extensively. Lonely and bored, Holly succumbs to friends' urgings and fullfills her social obligations on the arm of a single, male friend. This causes a series of tragedies, culminating in a surprise twist, and an ending that only a rock could get through without crying. In her role as Holly Anderson, Lana Turner exposes the depths of a woman's soul and the expesses the breadth of a woman's love. If I could, I would give this movie ten stars.

soapy but riveting
Lana Turner is terrific as the pawn of destiny in this elaborate soap opera; it's a plot that could fill five seasons of daytime drama, all wrapped up in one improbable but incredibly entertaining film. It isn't Shakespeare, but for suds, it's tops.
Turner plays Holly Parker, the "little shop girl from San Francisco" who marries a man of immense wealth and ambition, and as a package deal, along with the mansion in Connecticut comes his implacable mother, who has plans for sonny boy, and tells Holly she should have "stayed on the other side of the counter".

John Forsythe plays Holly's husband Clay Anderson with charm and elegance, and Keir Dullea is their grown son. Ricardo Montalban (who starred with Turner 13 years earlier in the charming comedy "Latin Lovers") is the man who tries to seduce her, and Estelle, the scheming mother, is played to the hilt by Constance Bennett, in what was to be her last film.
Burgess Meredith does a marvelous turn as a slimy character Holly meets in a Mexican motel, and the way the rooms are decorated in these scenes is priceless; kudos also go to the make-up department in this section of the film, and Ms. Turner's ability to transform herself. This film proves that she was exceedingly underrated as an actress.

Well paced direction by David Lowell Rich, a lovely score by Frank Skinner, and lavish gowns by Jean Louis make this a memorable melodrama, and save your biggest hanky for the end, which though contrived, is still good for many heartfelt sobs. Total running time is 100 minutes.

This is one of the best movies of all times
How this video has not made it to DVD is a mystery to me. Lana Turner shines like she never has before in this depiction of Holly Anderson.

I really hope that the movie distributers will look at this and put it on DVD ; as I know it will sell like hotcakes. I mean look at the VHS price 29.90 and up.!!

Real Classy entertainment
Excellent drama which should have resulted in Turner winning an Oscar,shame though she didn't. There have been many so called attempts in the last 30 years to make romantic dramas popular again,granted there has been a a few but this version of Madame X is a bone fide tearjerker and first class movie. The VHS copy is very good,and hopefully it will soon get a much deserved DVD release ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

John Hughes's popular 1985 teen drama finds a diverse group of high school students--a jock (Emilio Estevez), a metalhead (Judd Nelson), a weirdo (Ally Sheedy), a princess (Molly Ringwald), and a nerd (Anthony Michael Hall)--sharing a Saturday in detention at their high school for one minor infraction or another. Over the course of a day, they talk through the social barriers that ordinarily keep them apart, and new alliances are born, though not without a lot of pain first. Hughes (Sixteen Candles), who wrote and directed, is heavy on dialogue but he also thoughtfully refreshes the look of the film every few minutes with different settings and original viewpoints on action. The movie deals with such fundamentals as the human tendency toward bias and hurting the weak, and because the characters are caught somewhere between childhood and adulthood, it's easy to get emotionally involved in hope for their redemption. Preteen and teenage kids love this film, incidentally. The DVD release includes production notes, cast and crew bios, widescreen presentation, Dolby sound, closed captioning, optional French and Spanish soundtracks, and optional Spanish subtitles. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (213)

2 thumbs down
I found John Hughes' 1985 movie The Breakfast Club to be an extremely generalized, heavy handed, piece of trite filmmaking that may or may not have been relevant to teenagers fifteen years ago, but is certainly nowhere near on target now.
Obviously it was by design that his five main characters were one-dimensional character sketches of so-called 'traditional' high school stereotypes. You have Andy the jock (Emilio Estevez), Claire the princess (Molly Ringwald, a John Hughes staple), Bender the criminal (Judd Nelson), Brian the nerd (Anthony Michael Hall), and Allison the basket case (Ally Sheedy). In my opinion, for Hughes to insinuate that these five people come from completely different backgrounds and had absolutely no contact with each other or anyone else from their particular 'type' during school is just plain silly. For example, it is quite likely that Claire and Andy, being popular people, would know each other, or at least that princesses and jocks would interact on a regular basis. Same thing goes for Bender and Allison as social outcasts. Only Brian, being the brain, would logically be shunned by all other classes.
For another thing, these categories have little relevance today because in today's modern society, and indeed this has always been true, teens simply cannot be categorized and labeled, even by their peers, in this manner. I myself saw elements of my personality in every one of the characters, and neither I nor anyone I know would fit neatly into these stereotypes.
The last thing I'm going to gripe about in this review is, logically enough, the ending. For a film that tried so hard to be edgy, the denouement was awfully hackneyed and predictable. Four out of the five characters hook up at the end? Gosh, I never saw that coming! Also, the treatment of Allison was laughable. This girl has serious psychological issues that have been with her all her life, but all she needs is a little makeup, a nice dress, and a clean-cut boyfriend to set her to rights? I don't think so, pal. Willful suspension of disbelief is all fine and good, but to trivialize Allison's pain and emotional trauma in this manner is irresponsible and does a disservice to those young people who do identify with her character. I think that's enough bashing for this film; while it had its moments, it certainly is by no means the 'classic' that it is reputed to be.

One for the ages
This movie is a classic and it will stand the test of time. This is the second "teen coming of age" installment from John Hues, and round 2 for Molly Ringwald and Anthony Michael Hall. The first installment, Sixteen Candles, was more of a sexual coming of age movie whereas The Breakfast Club is more of a coming of age for one's character and social awareness. Where they are "teetering" with; do they stay with the social allegiances of their perspective pack, or do they listen to that inner voice...the voice of reason, maturity and human compassion that's not bound to any "click". I also like the choice of actors here; I think they all fit like pieces in a puzzle and make their characters totally believable. I am in the same age range as almost the entire cast and I was a senior in High school when this film came out. Allot of reviews seem to put this film within the Junior High crowd but I feel it's much more mature than that. The very message that it's trying to get across isn't understood in real life until we get close to 18 or so. The story is simple; 5 kids have to come into school on a Saturday for detention. At first they try to segregate themselves according to their school social standings. Inevitably they find out that they are more alike than they ever thought. The movie, in my eyes, is broken into 3 parts; the first part is pure character development. This is where you (the viewer) get to know each person they way they are supposed to be seen with their everyday face. At first, they act the way they think they should act, and stand up for what they always had, with out question or defiance. They stay true to their cause never steering away for a second. The second part of the film is where the movie itself develops. These 5 separate entities realize that they are variations of the same person. They have the same desires and anguishes. Their pressures and stresses are the same even though it's generated from very different sources.
The jock (Emilio Estevez) has the pressure to be on top of his sport (wrestling). In return for this he gets attention from his dad, coaches and keeps his standing within his social group. This is his priority in life and he doesn't stray.
The Princess (Molly Ringwald) has to conform and obey the rules of her social group in order to be accepted and keep her standing within the group. She keeps her eyes closed; mouth shut and goes along for the ride.
The Metal Head/criminal (Judd Nelson) is an angry guy! He wears the physical and mental scars of growing up in an abusive house. He hates most people, like the ones Emilio and Molly play, because in his eyes, they have had a free ticket and earned nothing...things are handed to them because of their social and/or economical standings. On the other hand, he feels that he's on a whole other plain because his eyes have been beaten open and he was forced to grow up a little faster than he wanted too or was ready too. I feel that Judd Nelson's character is the most crucial to the movie. He is the key to this whole new self-awareness for everyone, including himself.
The nerd (Anthony Michael Hall) is the quintessential geek. His every woken moment is spent learning. He hides behind his grades and in fact, he wants to be more accepted by the "cooler" groups. He also is a little "cocky" about his better grades and academically superiority to the other people in the room.
The weirdo (Ally Sheedy) is a loner and an outcast. She doesn't have friends that we (the viewers) know of. Because her parents ignore her, She feels ugly and without a place in the world. She is starving for positive attention. I think her character was needed in this movie to balance off the cast. It would have left out a very critical part of teen angst!
Richard Vernon (Paul Gleason) is the "Villain" of the movie. To the kids, he represents the out of touch older generation and the mean spirited, high testosterone adult. For Richard Vernon, these kids are the source of his anger and agony. He has lost touch with the younger generation for 1 reason, he got older...and the older you get, the harder it is to relate to youth. Youth recycles right before your eyes, but you keep getting older. His character is the key that releases these kids. He helps them to strip away the blindfolds and to take a fresh look at every thing and everyone (including themselves).

This leads to the 3rd and final part of the movie. Where they cleanse themselves of all the pentad up anger and prejudices. When the kids realize that they all have the same goal, they were just taking different roads to reach it. I highly recommend The Breakfast Club and it should go down as one of the all time great teenage movie!

A little time - a little perspective
I first saw this movie at a cinema in Austin in March, 1985. Just a year out of high school, I thought this was a deep, moving motion picture with a quality cast that really showed the feelings of different groups of students in schools. I could relate to the characters.

Move forward more than 19 years. This movie has not aged well. I read on the IMDB that John Hughes wrote this script in two days. After watching this movie again, I find that very easy to believe. It is horrible! - and this coming from a man who loves all things 80's! Was Judd Nelson about 35 when he made that movie? He looks about 20 years older than Anthony Michael Hall. Unbelievable characters and dialogue. Then they tie it up nice and neat at the end - with 2 unlikely couples pairing off leading us to believe there's no social caste in high schools.

With the small cast and lack of location shots, I'm amazed that I've never read about some high school drama club doing a stage production of this disaster. In any case, I've got a Breakfast Club DVD I'll never watch again - I'll post it used "New & Used" above.

Still relevant after all these years
Some question the durability of "The Breakfast Club," saying that the themes and plotlines do not hold up in today's teen society. As a 15-year-old, I would like to say that that is thoroughly untrue. 19 years after its release, "The Breakfast Club" is still a truthful, relateable account of teenagers and their personalities, and the ways in which they interact with each other. Sure, the stereotypes of the characters may be a bit exaggerated -- but that's necessary in order to get the point across. Watching this movie, I feel as if I know these people, or at least I've run across them at one point in my high school career.

The plot, as most people know, involves five different kids being assigned Saturday detention together. Each kid represents a typical high school stereotype -- a princess (Molly Ringwald), a jock (Emilio Estevez), a brain (Anthony Michael Hall), a basket case (the excellent Ally Sheedy), and a criminal (Judd Nelson). At the beginning of the day, none of them know each other, except for the princess and the jock. Throughout the day, they learn more about each other and work at tearing down the stereotypes that pit them against each other. As for the reviewer who said this isn't realistic that they would open up so much to each other -- it absolutely is. Put five kids into a room without an adult for nine hours, and they will talk about anything.

The beauty of this movie is the depth of the characters beyond the stereotypes -- particularly the nerd, Brian, who as we find out in the movie has problems well beyond what people think of him. He is the one that I most relate to in the movie. Watch "The Breakfast Club," and see who you most relate to. It's a great experience. Beyond the social commentary aspect, it's also just a funny movie. The jokes come at breakneck speed, especially for the first half of the movie (before it gets somewhat serious). The actors are also very enjoyable in their roles, particularly Ally Sheedy and Anthony Michael Hall. Highly recommended.

Must have to any collection.
The quintessential John Hughes film. I remember in my English class my junior year (1987) we had to analyze this movie. Only 2 years after it's release it was had all the qualities needed for a class analysis. I will spare you the report that I did back then.

Since then I have watched this movie at least once a year (and contrary to popular believe it is not for the panty shot). The characters are very well done. There is something that anyone who went through high school can relate to, even if we fit more than just one character. The interactions between the teens towards each other and then towards the principal as a group is classic. It's got love, teen angst, popular kids, geeks, dweebs, outcasts and the ever popular kid that doesn't fit in but always tries to get the attention. Nothing like dumping out your bag for people to go through to get attention.

Of course you can't forget the star cast of strong 80's actors, Emilio Estevez (Andrew 'Andy') Anthony Michael Hall (Brian) Judd Nelson (John Bender) Molly Ringwald (Claire) Ally Sheedy (Allison) and Paul Gleason (Principal). Great acting, John's look at teenagers and a great script all make for a very enjoyable look at the interactions and 'attitude' typical of the high school years.

I truly could go on about this movie but I won't. I'll just say that this is a much have for any movie buff and if you haven't seen it you must. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This 1943 version of thehorror story is more Technicolor musical than scare piece. Claude Rains plays the unfortunate, masked anti-hero, but he doesn't get the room to showcase a promising and sympathetic performance. Susanna Foster and Nelson Eddy, on the other hand, get plenty of screen time to warble. Well worth a visit just for the look of the film, which won an Oscar for cinematography.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (44)

A cute but not particularly deep little flick
I wanted to see this because it had Claude Rains mostly, but also because I wanted to see Nelson Eddy as a person after hearing him in the Disney short "The Whale Who Wanted to Sing at the Met". Besides, I've been a fan of the book by Gaston LeRoux and the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber for some time, have seen the silent movie version of this story, and wanted to chalk up another credit to my Phantom experience.

Overall, this wasn't a bad little movie - I felt that the fact that it was in colour rather detracted from the sombre, ominous mood this kind of tale needs - it should really be sort of Victorian film-noir, shot in black and white. But then, I felt that they really changed the story so much in this film version that it can only be looked on as a story independent of the book which was its inspiration, and so for that reason the colour is okay. I also felt that Claude Rains' character seemed as though it was going to be a main character at the beginning of the film, but then he seemed to disappear from the film for much of the rest of it. Also, the progression of his adoration complex for Christine was sadly overlooked throughout the film, and we are to understand his descent into bitterness toward mankind from the few scattered minutes of screen time that he has?

Although the rival banter between Raoul and Anatole was very amusing, it seems a little out of place in a story of such tragic dimensions, and draws one's focus completely away from the relationship between Christine and the Phantom of the film's title, which really is the core of the entire book and should be the same or similar in the movie. As another example of distraction - I like hearing Nelson Eddy sing, but at least two of the operatic numbers could have been shortened to make room for some more character development and depth in Erik and Christine's relationship.

I felt that the silent version of the film not only followed the plot of the book more accurately, but that the emotions and experiences of the characters were ones easier to "jump into", even despite the common (for a silent) over-acting of its players - but at the same time, this 1943 version was easier to watch. It's not as long or nervewracking. Still, I would recommend you to do it all - read the book, watch both films, and listen to the original London cast recording of the musical if you can't go and see it. Each one of these things will enhance your appreciation and enjoyment of the story in some way or another.

A Beautiful Film
I saw the 1943 version of "The Phantom of the Opera" before I read the book and (last) saw the 1925 version. I have to admit that it was not like the book at all, but the Lon Chaney version was a little. Claude Rains was very convincing as the tormented and lovesick Phantom, and was always more interesting than Lon Chaney. But Claude Rains was not given very much screen time, except near the beginning and end of the film. The sets were fabulous. Nelson Eddy and Edgar Barrier were almost constantly trying to win over Christine, and even though these scenes were funny, I've noticed that they can very easily become distractions that seem designed only to de-emphasize Claude Rains, which only hurts the film. Susanna Foster and Nelson Eddy sang a lot, and while these numbers were very nice and a joy to listen to, they were the only time Nelson Eddy really got a chance to shine, which is unfortunate. However, Susanna Foster fared well throughout the entire film. I would not recommend this film to anyone who doesn't like opera, or to anyone who wants to see a lot of the Phantom.

Horror fans will be disappointed
This film is more about the opera and the courting of an opera singer by two suitors than a deranged murderer running amok in the hidden chambers of the Paris Opera House. A great deal of screen time is devoted to the pursuit of the lovely Mademoiselle Dubois by a baritone and a Paris detective as both men are comically inept in trying to win the woman's favors. Claude Rains' phantom is a poignant figure, his madness notwithstanding, and he also has designs on the opera star and spirits her away to the catacombs under the building to possess her forever and have her sing the concerto he composed especially for her. The lush color and sets give the production a professional and polished look but the movie lacks suspense and thrills and is strictly for aficionados of the opera.

Pretty Good
Not my favorite interpretation of Phantom, but still good. Susanna Foster kind of bugs me, but that's okay. And they really changed the story. It's not at all like the origional novel, but it's about Phantom, and that's a good enough excuse for me! Anyways, it was pretty nice. The Raoul character was most realistic. I just don't like Susanna. :)

The Phantom Goes Musical
Gaston Leroux's penny-dreadful novel was hardly the stuff of great literature, but it did manage to tap into the public consciousness with its gas-light-gothic tale of a beautiful singer menaced by a horrific yet seductive serial killer lurking in the forgotten basement labyrinths of the Paris Opera. Lon Chaney's silent classic kept the basic elements of the novel intact'-and proved one of the great box office hits of its day, a fact that prompted Universal Studios to contemplate a remake throughout most of the 1930s. Although several proposals were considered (including one intended to feature Deanna Durbin, who despised the idea and derailed the project with a flat refusal), it wasn't until 1943 that a remake reached the screen. And when it did, it was an eye-popping Technicolor extravaganza, all talking, all singing, and dancing. The Phantom had gone musical.

In many respects this version of PHANTOM anticipates the popular Andrew Lloyd Webber stage musical, for whereas the Chaney version presented the Phantom as a truly sinister entity, this adaptation presents the character as one more sinned against than sinning'an idea that would color almost every later adaptation, and Webber's most particularly so. But it also shifts the focus of the story away from the title character, who is here really more of a supporting character than anything else. The focus is on Paris Opera star Christine Dae, here played by Susanna Foster. In this version Christine is not only adored by the Phantom; she is also romantically pursued by two suitors who put aside their differences to protect her.

Directed by Universal workhorse Arthur Lubin, this version is truly eye-popping in the way that only a 1940s Technicolor spectacular could be: the color is intensely brilliant, and Lubin makes the most of it by focusing most of his camera-time on the stage of the Paris Opera itself and splashing one operatic performance after another throughout the film. But in terms of actual story interest, the film is only so-so. Susanna Foster had a great singing voice, but she did not have a memorable screen presence, and while the supporting cast (which includes Nelson Eddy, Edgar Barrier, Leo Carrillo, and Jane Farrar) is solid enough they lack excitement. And the pace of the film often seems a bit slow, sometimes to the point of clunkiness.

The saving grace of the film'-in addition to the aforementioned photography, which won an Oscar-'is Claude Rains. A great artist, Rains did not make the mistake of copying Chaney, and although the script robs the Phantom of his most fearsome aspects, Rains fills the role with subtle menace that is wonderful to behold, completely transcending the film's slow pace, the lackluster script, and "sanitized for your protection" tone so typical of Universal Studios in the 1940s.

Like most "Universal Horror" DVD packages, this one is superior. The centerpiece of the bonus material is a very nice documentary, "The Opera Ghost: A Phantom Unmasked," which details the origins of the novel and the numerous film adaptations of it'and which is actually quite a bit more interesting than the 1943 film itself. There is also a nice, if somewhat perfunctory, audio commentary track by historian Scott McQueen, trailers, stills, and the like. But when everything is said and done, it's the film that counts'and unless you're a diehard Phantom fan you're likely to be unimpressed. ... Read more

Reviews (106)

An American Classic In A Memorable DVD Package
Many critics consider MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS the single finest Hollywood musical of the 20th Century. Produced by Arthur Freed, directed by Vincent Minnelli, and sporting a flawless ensemble cast led by Judy Garland, the film was immediately hailed when it debuted in 1944--and time has only added luster to its name. Now, after several home market incarnations, it at last receives the edition it deserves on DVD.

Given its stature, it is ironic that both MGM and Judy Garland originally fought the project. Based on a collection of autobiographical stories by Sally Benson, the script is little more than a series of domestic adventures in the lives of the Smith family of 1903 St. Louis. But it became a thing of wonder: a careful balance of sly but gentle humor, a collection of memorable performances, an understated score shorn of the usual movie-musical affectations, and at the center of it all Judy Garland, one of Hollywood's most memorable talents.

The transfer is excellent, capturing every nuance of the film's meticulously and beautifully designed sets in full Technicolor; the sound elements, remastered in Dolby 5.1, are equally fine and Garland's unique vocal skills are undimmed by time. All in all, it seems safe to say that not even the original 1944 theatrical release could surpass the quality of picture and sound offered here.

Although the bonus package would have better without the awful pilot for a failed television series based on the film, by and large it offers a superior collection. Previously available on VHS, the Roddy McDowell-narrated "making of" documentary is worth revisiting, as is the TCM-produced "Becoming Attractions." While a number of later documentaries surpass it, "Hollywood: The Dream Factory" has never before been widely available and offers an inside glimpse of the famous 1972 MGM auction. The Martins' performance of "Skip to My Lou" a reconstruction of "Boys and Girls Like You and Me," and a collection of Vincent Minnelli movie trailers round out the offerings, all of them entertaining.

The notable audio commentary is led by film historian and Garland scholar John Fricke. I regret to say that I have several issues with Fricke, who seems to rely excessively on Vincent Minnelli's autobiography I REMEMBER IT WELL and who has a tendency to perpetuate certain myths about the film--chief among them the idea that Garland did "The Trolley Song" in a single take. (Garland prerecorded the song, the overall sequence involves at least seven unique camera set-ups, and although Garland performs most of the solo in a single take there is a change in camera set-up toward the end of her vocal.) Even so, Fricke offers considerable insight into the cast, crew, and production of MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS, and the commentary is laced with remarks (some of them archival) by the likes of Margaret O'Brien, Hugh Martin, and Irving Brecher; in spite of my occasional misgivings, it really is everything one could wish an audio commentary to be.

These aside, the bonus package contains one significant and unique prize: the short film "Bubbles" and a notable audio commentary led by Hollywood and Garland historian John Fricke. Long thought lost, "Bubbles" is one of several shorts made in the early 1930s that include The Gumm Sisters, the youngest of whom would become better known as Judy Garland--a true rarity indeed.

Given the beauty of the transfer and the generally exceptional bonus package, it is difficult to imagine a better edition of this uniquely American classic. I strongly recommend it.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

All-New 60th Anniversary Digital DVD transfer is AWESOME!!
Director Vincente Minnelli's 1944 "Meet Me in St. Louis" in TECHNICOLOR starring his future wife, Judy Garland proved to be MGM's biggest box office hit ever and proved to the world the musical with Garland ruled.

Now co-operatively Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc., Turner Entertainment Co. and distrubuted by Warner Home Video Inc continues their fantastic Two-Disc Special Edition Series with the 60th Anniversary Digital transfer from restored picture and audio elements of "Meet Me in St. Louis". This is a must have DVD set!!!!

This all-star cast; Judy Garland, Margaret O'Brien, Mary Aster, Majorie Main, Tom Drake and Lucille Bremer lead this special intergrated story with a perfect mix of music. The "Trolley Song" (Oscar nominated song - lost), and the infamous xmas song, "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas". And of course the movie title song, "Meet Me in St. Louis".

This 2 - Disc set is loaded with everything about the movie, Judy Garland and the Dream makers of HOLLYWOOD. Disc 1 - Has an Introduction by daughter Liza Minnelli The Feature film in gorgeous TECHNICOLOR in Standard Format and Dolby Digital Sound. Audio Commentary by Judy Garland Biographer John Fricke with Margaret O'Brien, Composer Hugh Martin and Screen Writers Irving Brecher & Barbara Freed-Saltzman. And finally a Vincente Minnelli Trailer Gallery including 8 of his movies.
Disc 2 - 45 minute Making of Documentary hosted by Roddy McDowall. 60 minute MGM Studio Profile film "Hollywood: The Dream Factory" hosted by Dick Cavett. A 45 minute 1966 "Meet Me in St. Louis" TV series Pilot starring Shelly Fabares, Celeste Holm & Rita Shaw. 35 minute Becoming Attraction: Judy Garland hosted by Robert Osborne (a brief history through her movie trailers). 1930 Vintage Vitaphone Musical short featuring a very young Judy with her sisters (The 3 Gumm Sisters). Vintage Soundie "Skip to My Lou". Deleted Song (an Oscar / Hammerstein) "Boys & Girls Like You & Me". 60 minute Lux Soap Radio Theatre 12/2/1946 Broadcast of "Meet Me in St. Louis" starring Garland, O'Brien and Drake. and Finally a 80 photo Stills Gallery.

This is a must have for the family DVD library. See Judy Garland at her best and see why Hollywood gambled and won with her outstanding talent to act and sing flawlessly. You'll love Judy Garland, this movie, the Smith Family and Margaret O'Brien (received a special minature Oscar award for her performance). Enjoy!!!

One of America's Greatest Musicals
Meet Me in St Louis is one of the greatest musicals ever made! Combining the talent of Judy Garland and scene stealer Margaret O'Brian and wonderful songs Meet Me In St Louis is a treat for all!

excellent
This is a great dvd of "Meet Me in Saint Louis," the wonderful classic musical. It's beautifully packaged and contains so much behind the scenes and extra bonus material it's well worth the price. A great addition to any musical dvd collection. I highly recommend it and was very pleased with it. Also Judy's daughter LIza is interviewed also. Great dvd a classic to keep!

One of the great American musicals ever filmed!
This exquisitely laid out 2 DVD issue of Meet Me in Saint Louis is an absolute must have for any Garland fan, Vincent Minnelli fan as well as fans of the major American musicals of all time. The movie itself is introduced with a short talk by Liza Minnelli to whet the viewer's appetite for the film; then the film is beautifully reproduced on the DVD for the viewer. One small disappointment: the film is shown in full screen; there is no letterbox version of the film on this 2 DVD set. The set is chock full of great extras which offer the viewer a rather comprehensive introduction (or review for seasoned fans) of Judy's work in such shorts as Bubbles as well as trailers for both Judy's films and Vincent Minnelli's films. The sound quality is excellent and the video quality is equally superlative.

The movie itself is the story of the life of an American family in 1903 in Saint Louis and their ups and downs throughout one year's time. Does the father take that new job and move the family from Saint Louis to New York? Do Esther (played by Judy) and Rose find the loves of their lives? Watch and find out! A special treat is the strikingly convincing acting of Margaret O'Brien as the youngest sibling in this large family from the last turn of the century. Margaret won an award at the Oscars and she very much deserved it-she acts her little heart out!

In short, this movie is a BUY! Go get it! Order it here, or shop for it anywhere-but just get it and enjoy a great American musical and the numerous bonus extras that are very hard to find elsewhere! ... Read more

Reviews (35)

A Coon Dogs Friendship!
This story is quite simple and is for both children and adults. The story is about a boys wish to get a coon dog. He lives in a part of the country where coons abound and its just natural to have coon dogs. The coons can be sold to England for money, so it is a trade for some. For others it is a contest to show how many coons there dogs can catch. Competition and sport becomes important to many who own coon dogs. The young boy is the main character in the story and his relationship to two dogs that he saves money to buy and than train is mostly half of the movie. The next half is a competition between other coon dogs to see who can win prize money and the trophy by how many coons the dogs can catch. The last part of the movie is sad and sort of hokey. I don't particularly like hunting as a sport so maybe that is why I couldn't get into this movie. The story revolves around animals being chased into trees and up roofs, etc. The cinematography is just beautiful and I would have loved to have seen this on the big screen. It sort of reminds me of the landscape in Songcatcher. That movie was based in the Applacians. The acting in the movie is pretty dry and not alot of affect in put into their characterizations. Overall, I rated it three stars. I love animals and this movie is all about the relationship about the boy and his pets but it just doesn't show that bond that I wanted to see. There were some scenes where the dogs looked so cute, especially when they were first learning to hunt coons. But that was not enough for me to up this to four stars...

The Worst Movie Ever
Wow! They can turn one of the best books ever into the worst movie I think I've ever seen. I read the book in my Language class. I thought that the book was alright for something that we had to read. But then when we watched the movie, it changed my whole perspective on Where The Red Fern Grows. The actors were horrible, the same with the special effects. And if you get this movie to watch what you read, you need to find something else. It leaves out some of the best parts of the book. I was disgusted with this movie. It may be the worst movie I've ever seen.

One of the best movies about friendship
I first saw this movie when I was in third grade and it is still one of the most heartwarming movies I have ever seen. About a boy who, during the great depression, skrimped and saved to buy a pair of coon hounds. After he finally got them he raised them to become the best pair of coon hunters in the county. What the dogs do for him proves an unconditional friendship to the end. I never fail to cry at the end. If I could give it more than 5 stars, I would.

So good I wish I could give it 10 stars ! - by Damaris
Now after all the movies I saw I have to say that Where the Red Fern Grows was the BEST one.I have never seen anything like it before.I thought the movie was very strong.The movie had a lot of emotional parts in it.I thought the boy who played Billy was the kind of boy who always agreed with his dogs and who never gave up on them. Now I've been reading other people's review of the movie, and most of them wrote that the movie was bad because it was not the same as the book.Well, I thought they were wrong. There might be someone who didn't like the book, so they'd want to see the movie and if it was exactly the same as the book, they want to see the movie! I am Happy the way the movie is.The people who made the movie did a great job.

Where the Red Fern Grows
Our seventh grade just read Where The Red Fern Grows. It was the best book ever and the rest of my friends think so too. It just became our new favorite book and then our teacher, Mr. Cutlip, asked us if we wanted to watch the movie. We said yes -- we were so excited and when we first starting watching it we were so excited but the more we watched it, the more we did not like it. We got so mad at it because it was leaving some real good parts out because the book was just so good we all figured the move was going to be real good. We all were wanting to know if you could go back and remake the movie all over BUT this time make it as close to the book as you can -- then you will have the best book and movie ever. And trust me everybody would buy it -- I would be the first one to buy it because your book is so good my mom is going to buy the book for me and there is not one book that I liked to read until now and it is Where The Red Fern Grows. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Best known for light, entertaining musicals such as Singin' in the Rain, director Stanley Donen grew more adventurous (and less successful) in the latter stages of his career, but this edgy romantic comedy from 1967 has proven to be one of Donen's best, most enduring films. Jumping back in forth in time, the film chronicles the marital ups and downs of a stylish British couple (Albert Finney and Audrey Hepburn) as they travel on various vacations over the course of their 12-year marriage. The separate vignettes combine to form a collage of joys and pains as the young couple struggles to maintain their fading marital bliss. In this regard, the film is refreshingly sophisticated in its treatment of the difficulties of long-term commitment, and with Hepburn and Finney in the leads, great performances are drawn from the acerbic wit of Frederick Raphael's screenplay. Fashion mavens will also marvel at Hepburn's astonishing wardrobe of late-'60s fashion--she's a showcase for summer couture, looking fantastic in everything from candy-striped bellbottoms to hip sunglasses and outrageously stylish hats. Some of the melodrama clashes with forced comedy (such as tiresome running gags or a cartoonish portrayal of crass American tourists), but that doesn't stop Two for the Road from being timelessly appealing and truthful to the challenge of lasting love. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (56)

A true classic.
TWO FOR THE ROAD had been nearly forgotten except by a few film buffs until Audrey Hepburn's untimely death. People are discovering it and finding it ageless for a number of reasons. The theme of a marriage changing through the years is a well-understood premise. It could be predictable were it not for the wonderful acting by the entire cast, primarily Albert Finney and Ms. Hepburn. Eleanor Bron and William Daniels are a terrific pair of American snobs who join them through a period of their adventure in marriage. The ingenious filmic vehicle(s) that moves the characters through various periods in time is unexpected and beautifully manuevered by the film's tender and loving director, Stanley Donen. Anyone who accuses Donen of being a one trick pony (Singin' in the Rain) should SEE THIS FILM!

Memory Lane Is A Bumpy Road
Some films from the Sixties have dated more than others. I loved this film when it first came out and for years had many pleasant memories of it. Some years ago, my English wife and I travelled across France by road from Calais to the Med and throughout the journey I had images of this film constantly re-playing in my head. So I looked forward to seeing it again after a long time. I don't know whether the times have changed that much, or I have. What once seemed witty, relevant, truthful, charming and modern now strikes me as a somewhat pretentious mess. I seem to remember more comedy than there actually is in the film. The scenes of the crumbling marriage are much too stark a contrast to the lighter tone of other scenes. Moving the storyline back and forth in time is not a problem, but the frequently uncertain tone is. Is it a comedy? A drama? A comedy/drama? A drama/comedy? Who knows? Certainly not Stanley Donen who was so much more assured directing Audrey Hepburn in Charade. Audrey is Audrey, even in the dramatic scenes. Albert Finney bounces between being a latter day Tom Jones and an upmarket Jimmy Porter. The chemistry between the two is marginal. The sequence with Eleanor Bron and William Daniels - two wonderful performers in other circumstances - now seems strained and tedious. The only saving graces are the French countryside and Henry Mancini's music (one of his best scores). Maybe someone seeing the film for the first time will enjoy it more. I remember once hearing that Meg Ryan wanted to do a re-make of Two For The Road. Lets pray to the gods of cinema that it never happens.

Fantastic!!
OK, this movie is just great!! It puts you in such a good mood and brings you to another land. I see there are a few people who made negative comments about the movie.... They are insane!! Two For The Road is a wonderful movie!! I recommend everyone watch it!! My boyfriend who has completely different taste than me even loved it!! Must see!!

If not the best romantic film ever made one of the five top!
Stanley Donen made an unforgettable film and futhermore a model film .
This is a film you'll enjoy always , for many reasons.
The script is supported by a creative edition , a road movie told at different narrative lines , where past present and future are mixed to create a excellent gaze about a simple couple in a road between England and French with thw forrest , the sea as powerful background.
The couple Hepburn - Finney was a hit. Both of them in the peak of his creative powers .

Delightful , a true song for the life and the love , and despite the crucial emotional croosroad at the end , it gives us amazing dialogues and funny situations.
In my opinion , behind Singin'in the rain , consider this one as the major work of this legendary film maker!

A rocky marriage, and a look back at a happier yesterday
When Mark and Joanna Wallace see a pair of newlyweds in a car, amid a throng of rice-flinging well-wishers, the following exchange is heard.

Joanna: They don't look very happy.
Mark: Why should they? They just got married.

It's clear that the Wallaces' marriage has seen better days from that cynical observation. Joanna is sick of seeing her successful architect husband at the beck and call of a certain Maurice, her husband's jaded indifference and extramarital affairs. That leads to an introspective look at their past, given by a series of questions is posed. Where did it all go wrong? You haven't been happy since the day we met, have you? Why do we keep on with this farce? Is it worth it? And of course, how long is this going to go on? These also seem to reflect Hepburn's own marriage to Mel Ferrer, which would last for one more year.

The series of flashbacks, told non-linearly, takes the viewer seeing how Mark and Joanna first met, their travels with another married couple, and the time when they had their first child, when Mark's preoccupation in his career rather than his family reveals the first cracks appearing in their marriage. And the film's running gag involves Mark unable to find his passport, because Joanna has taken it from him. This comes into play as the one consistent thing in their relationship, and a reminder of the past.

By far, the days when Max and Joanna hitchhike across France are the happiest. Sure, they are on a strict budget, being rained on, and a temperamental MG auto, which has a destructive sendoff when it finally poops out. But they were like a couple of kids without a care in the world, having fun. "What kind of people eat without saying a word to each other?" The answer is married people, they say during their romantic period. Years later, when their marriage is on the rocks, they make the same observation, only this time it's about themselves.

David, Joanna's extramarital lover, puts perspective on things when he tells her "there comes a time when one must grow, when the old things aren't amusing anymore." So what does one do when the old things include marriage or being together? Does one stick it out and become more miserable and self-denying, or does one call it a day? What's clear is that promises of never disappointing one another, that the marriage will be one of heaven, and the magic disappears once things don't become personal anymore, but driven by something else.

The transitions between the different times can be differentiated in the car driven, Joanna's hairstyle, dress, and how happy Mark and Joanna are. Donen's sudden jump cuts from present to the various pasts are effective and creative.

Audrey Hepburn is wonderful as usual, and there's growth in the kind of character she plays. Joanna is a variation of Anna (Roman Holiday) or Sabrina, full of fun and laughter, but she also represents a departure from those genteel characters. Scenes where it's apparent she's nude under the covers--unheard of for Audrey Hepburn, right? And her playing an adulterous woman who humiliates her husband? Albert Finney does well as Mark, and his manners of speech range from the comical Bogart-like voice during their premarital trek to a tired weariness.

Two For The Road is also the last movie Hepburn did with director Stanley Donen (Funny Face, Charade). And upon a personal request from Hepburn, Henry Mancini does another winning theme song, fittingly sweet yet nostalgic. It sets a precedent for Audrey Hepburn, away from the innocent virgin roles of before. Despite this being an analysis of a marriage going sour, with moments of frustration and pain, there are moments of fun, and showing how despite changes, maybe being able to accept things as happened and moving with the future will save a rocky marriage such as the Wallaces. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

an unfairly treated ELVIS " movie.
from the very first time i saw this film, i've been convinced that Elvis can act as well as sing. Unfortunately, he was not given too many chances to do so. His performance is credible, noteworthy, and unforgettable. The up-state NEW YORK scenery is beautiful,the veteran actors also in the movie- GIG YOUNG, CHARLES BRONSON, ED ASNER, all give outstanding performances.
The songs may have been few, KING OF THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD, I GOT LUCKY, etc, but still Elvis at his best.This movie is my favorite Elvis flick hands down. PLEASE MGM produce this movie on DVD FULLSCREEN AND WIDESCREEN 5:1 DOLBY DIGITAL . DO IT SOON, FOR I WANT TO ADD IT TO MY COLLECTION. THANKS,oldugly1911

Not enough meat on the bones
This was Elvis' first "bad" movie, in my opinion. The reasons for this lie in the awkward, and unnecessary, interpolation of musical numbers which bear little relevance to the on-screen action. While the film has a nice look, the locale is especially pleasant, and the supporting cast is good (particularly Gig Young) "Kid Galahad" strays from its original dramatic source to focus more on current youth fads such as tight sweaters and the Twist.
The film is burdened with lightweight, disposable songs (with the exception of "King of the Whole Wide World"), and concentrates more on standard boy-girl frolics than on the central dramatic story of a seriously gifted prize-fighter. Even with Charles Bronson and an uncredited Ed Asner in the supporting cast (indicating that the original intention was to make a solid action-drama film)"Kid Galahad" is the first serious mis-step in Elvis's film catalogue. With few exceptions, his subsequent films virtually jettisoned drama in favour of pop-gloss.

Elvis' best from United Artists.
"Kid Galahad" stars Elvis as an ex-G.I. who comes back to his hometown in upper state New York. Beautiful scenery, I might add. He wants to be an auto mechanic after returning from the Army, but instead he's reluctantly roped into being trained to be a boxer. Elvis has an anvil-fist and an iron jaw. Soon, he becomes boxing champ nicknamed "Kid Galahad". Joan Blackman returns and plays Elvis' love interest and the sister of the boxing camp owner Gig Young. Great picture formula, great songs and beautiful and breathtaking mountain scenery. Recommend this must-see to everyone.

Excellent Boxing Movie
KID GALAHAD (1962) is an excellent boxing movie. If you liked the ROCKY series, you will enjoy this movie of an ex-GI who has a winning knock-out punch. Elvis is credible as a boxer. The rags to riches story also rings true.

The opening scene is unforgettable with Elvis riding on the back of a Mayflower truck singing KING OF THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD. There are six songs including I GOT LUCKY.

This is a remake of a 1937 movie that starred Humphrey Bogart and Edward G. Robinson. The 1937 version was directed by Michael Cutiz who directed Casablanca and the Elvis movie King Creole. The movie examines the corruption of boxing and the gambling and crime associated with it.

Oscar-winner Gig Young is excellent as the promoter and DEATH WISH's Charles Bronson gives a spectacular performance as the trainer.

Elvis' acting is very good here. The song sequences are excellent especially one where Elvis and Young and Bronson are riding in a jalopy that Elvis restored and then painted red.

A man who can sing when he ain't got a thing, he's the king of the whole wide world. Indeed. Nobody proved it better than Elvis, the King of Rock and Roll and the Artist of the Century.

Kid Galahad- A Pleasant Surprise
I have not seen the original "Kid Galahad", but this one was very good, compared to anything, not just Elvis' other movies. I wouldn't agree with the "Oh well, at least it's not as bad as his others" angle that many seem to take. I think anyone would enjoy it. It has a good cast surrounding Elvis, most notably Gig Young and Charles Bronson. This movie also further proves that Elvis was a good actor, given the chance. The whole movie just seems to click, somehow. And about the songs, give them a break! It's an Elvis movie. The man can sing! Let him! Be thankful it wasn't a musical. It had a few songs, yes, but that fact is not nearly as annoying as others try to paint it. It had a great depiction of the corruption of the boxing industry, and some good fighting scenes. Elvis looked like he enjoyed his part and was interested, contrary to many other opinions, and by no means was he "chubby". He was very well-built, and worked with a real-life boxing trainer, who said that Elvis could've been a professional fighter. So anyone who says he wasn't convincing as a boxer should take a second look. Watch this movie, not compared to anything, but just as the movie itself, and there's a big chance you'll enjoy it. ... Read more

Reviews (73)

one of the few good baseball movies
what is it, james earl jones had to be in a baseball movie for it to be any good?

this is a wonderful tale of a young boy (the beautiful tom guiry) who manages to make friends with a group of neighborhhod kids and in the process lose his father's babe ruth signed baseball, challenge a killer dog, and -- oh yes, grow up.

episodic in the best sense of the word, and funny and surprisingly well acted. i would recommend this to anyone who likes movies about baseball and/or boys.

One of the best family movies of the 1990's
"The Sandlot" is one of my favorite family movies. It is well acted (esp by the kids) and well directed, funny, poignant and Terrific. "The Sandlot" consists of many subplots all revolving around relationships and overcoming differences, prejudices and misconceptions of people who may be a little different. The main character Scotty Smalls is a misfit who is reluctantly accepted by a group of baseball playig Kids who are mostly misfits themselves.Scotty is also stuggling to accept his new step father, who is tryng to teach him to play ball, as well as accept him as his new son. The Kids meanwhile learn the the meanest man in town who happens to live just beyond the center field fence of the sandlot (and owns a huge ST Bernard dog) may not be so mean after all. The sandlot is a great movie for everyone. Highly recomended.

GARBAGE!
This movie is junk! I watched this at school when it was raining one day when our team wasn't able to go on a field trip because it was raining. At first I liked it but then, the next day I started thinking about that Old Man Merkel story from the 1940s and when the gang chewed tobacco at the carnival and threw up while they were on that spinning ride. That part was scary and got stuck in my head certain nights and I was sometimes afraid to fall asleep. And now, sometimes when I enter the computer room, I remember the movie or when I hear the song Brother Louie-Stories which is a good song but that song reminds me of this movie. The 1997 movie "Leave it to Beaver" is 10x better than this movie. The only part I like in this movie is the ending.

Oh boy!!!! This movie was TOOOOOOOOOOO Good!;)
Hey!
I saw this movie and oh my, I had to keep watching it over and over, and over and guess what? OVER! Its soooooooooooo fuuny and its just to cute to keep to myself so that why I had to write this! Its a family movei ALL the way!!! Can't beat it! Thanks for reading so now go get it!=)

A true childhood classic....
Anyone who grew up in the 90s still remembers where they were and how old they were when they first saw this classic... I was about 8 or 9, in 3rd grade... how I remember laughing so hard at all the classic scenes, the tobacco-barfing, the attempt-to-kiss-the-lifeguard,, and the whole concept of "The Beast"... yes sir,, it was classic....(although it took me a couple of years to get the "they had 9 kids" joke....) and now here I am, 20, and I still could never get sick of this film- It's really funny and it brings out the great messege that no matter how big you get, part of you will always remain a kid... ahh yes,, we all remember those days where we could just play ball all day without a care in the world...

Whether you love or hate baseball, this is a funny and heartwarming movie that will always remain a classic gem of the early 90s ... Read more

Reviews (11)

A great film of a great Hollywood period!
The Story of Ruth was released in 1960 and I remember seeing it on a wide wide screen, curved, and in stereophonic sound; it was glorious, as were all Cinemascope films.

This film is not the Bible, but a meditation on it, factual, no, but it gets the point of The Book of Ruth across.

The best bits are a very moving perfromance by Peggy Wood as Naomi, and some stylish acting by Elena Eden and Stuart Whitman.The Wood scenes are excellent, and Naomi's prayer is quite striking, all filmed in a small house in earth tones...very good. Peggy Wood's many scenes of emotional upheaval are instances of excellent screen acting.

The Moabite scenes are crazy, as is all of that Chemosh stuff, but this film has great appeal...for die hards only, and especially for cinemascope afficionados of yore who can re-imagine it all even on the tiny screens we must put up with now, TV and movie alike. Buy and enjoy. Still not letterboxed.

Good TV watching
I saw this movie just last night on AMC. There are two ways to look at this movie: Scripturally and story-wise.

Scripturally the movie is not that good. There is a lot of license with Scripture (not surprising considering how small the book of Ruth is). But the license isn't really congruent with revelation. For example, this movie makes Ruth out to be a high priestess of chemosh and married for about 1/2 second to a Jewish man just before he dies. Boaz is a bitter man who makes a Moabite man drink poisoned water. The roles of kinsmen-redeemer is not even close to accurately portrayed. These things were done to try to make the movie have additional action, but detracts from the very real story. Also, here Naomi does not change her name, Moab tries to track Ruth down and kill her, and so on and so forth.

From a story perspective, the story is your classic structure. Boy meets girl, girl is coy, boy gets into trouble, girl rescues, boy says sappy stuff, girl falls in love, boy dies, girl moves on, girl meets new man, girl marries new man. And the actors do a good job with this standard plot line. For a movie made 41 years ago, it's still enjoyable watching. The production is pretty good and the acting is good. The sets remind you of Ben-Hur. The pacing of the story is standard for a movie made at that time, kinda slow (for today's tastes).

Overall the movie is fun to watch as long as you can overlook the Scriptural errors.

beautiful ruth
Elani Eden is drop-dead BEAUTIFUL! Buy this movie just to look at her.I hope this comes out on DVD soon.

Inspiring Story of a Woman's Devotion!!
Stuart Whitman, Jeff Morrow, Peggy Wood, and Elana Eden star in this screen version of the story of Ruth.

Ruth is a young Moabite woman who was raised from childhood to become a priestess and revere a pagan idol, but when she meets Mahlon the Judean (Tom Tryon), she's deeply affected by his belief in a merciful God who demans no human sacrifices, so she marries Mahlon, and when he dies, she renounces her own culture to remain with her mother-in-law, Naomi (Wood).

Now she comes into Judea, where she meets Boaz (Whitman), and the story begins anew. There is a wonderful depiction of loyalty, romance, faith, and devotion, and although the film is 132 minutes, it seems so short once you get into it.

Highly recommended, and the whole family with enjoy it.

A Classic!
This movie is captivating and a treasure! This film needs to be released on DVD!
PLEASE! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

When Samuel (Lukas Haas), a young Amish boy traveling with his mother Rachel (Kelly McGillis), witnesses the murder of a police officer in a public restroom, he and his mother become the temporary wards of John Book (Harrison Ford), a detective who's been assigned to solve the crime. After suspect lineups and mug-shot books yield nothing, Samuel, in the most memorable scene of the film, recognizes the murderer as a narcotics agent whose picture he sees in the precinct. Once Book realizes that the police chief is in on it, too, he whisks Samuel and Rachel back home to Amish country, where he himself goes into hiding as a plain Amish man. The juxtaposition between the life of the Amish and the violence of inner-city police corruption work surprisingly well for the story, and Kelly McGillis as the falling in love widow gives an almost perfect performance. Directed by Peter Weir, the film is extremely successful in drawing the viewer into its world and, accordingly, is immensely entertaining. The only thing that mars its polish is the one-dimensional, almost cartoonish handling of the upper-echelon police corruption--a subtler, more realistic treatment of this aspect of the story would have rendered the film near perfect. --James McGrath ... Read more

Reviews (62)

An extraordinarily good film ...
At the end of a disappointing summer movie season, I've started watching some of my favorites on tape. This movie is near the top of my all-time list; here's why:

ACTORS -- Most of the actors gave career-high performances in this movie. "Witness" helped establish Harrison Ford as a serious (i.e., non-Star Wars) action hero, and he demonstrates emotional range in this movie that doesn't show up very often in more recent films. Kelly McGillis is compelling, gradually and believably transforming from a shy widow out of her element to a strong, spirited member of her Amish community. Lukas Haas, who plays her son, offers a level of child acting that has only recently been matched by Haley Joel Osment. As other reviewers have noted, his wordless scene with Ford in the police station is a brilliant piece of acting -- an enormous amount of information and emotion is conveyed in complete silence. And Alexander Godunov brings a gentle grace to his role as the Amish farmer competing with Ford for McGillis' affections. It's sad that he didn't get more opportunities to demonstrate his acting ability before his death a few years later.

CINEMATOGRAPHY/SCORE -- As with most of Peter Weir's films (cf. "Dead Poet's Society"), "Witness" is visually stunning. The shift from the gritty heart of Philadelphia to the rolling hills of Amish country is jarring, and leaves one with a palpable sense of longing. I think the barn-raising scene in the middle of the movie is one of the most beautiful scenes I've ever seen filmed, both visually and thematically. Underscored (so to speak) with music reminiscent of Copland's "Appalachian Spring," it drives home the value of community and shared endeavor. It's a marvelously uplifting segment.

ROMANCE/EROTICISM -- The relationship between Ford and McGillis is very well done. The attraction that arises between them (driven in no small part, apparently, by Ford's kindness to the young boy) is constantly and realistically tempered by the awareness that they come from fundamentally different cultures. That slows the development of a relationship between them, which provides the movie with a delightful undercurrent of romantic tension. That tension reaches a peak in a powerful scene in which Ford sees McGillis giving herself a sponge bath. There is nudity in this scene (McGillis turns and shows herself, topless, to Ford), but it seems to be precisely the kind of nudity that, as actresses like to say, "is essential to the story." Given the way in which the Amish are portrayed in this film, McGillis' character is making a very bold (and risky) offer, and the difficulty of Ford's refusal is evident in his face. There certainly is a lot of gratuitous nudity in film, but "Witness" is not in that category.

This movie is aging extremely well, in large part because of the sweep of its vision, the powerful simplicity of its story, and the skill of its execution. It is a terrific movie.

Impressive film!
"Witness" is defineately one of the greatest thriller/romance movies ever made. Directed by Peter Weir, the plot concerns a yuong Amish boy (Lukas Haas) who witnesses a murder in a Philadelphia train station bathroom while traveling to the city with his mother Rachel (Kelly McGillis in her best performance). Detective John Book (Harrison Ford) is assigned to the case, and quickly discovers that a corrupt narcotics cop (Danny Glover) is the killer. After a close shave, Book, Rachel, and her son escape to Amish country, where Book hides out as an Amish farmer--while also protecting the witness and his mother.
Of course, at the end there is one whopper of a scene when the corrupt cop & friends discover Book's safehouse.
"Witness" received several Academy Award nominations including Best Picture, and won for Screenplay, Cinematography, Sound, and Film Editing.

Ford at the top of his game
Some of the most powerful romances can spring up when both sides have to be restrained; here, the widowed Amish woman and the cop-in-hiding know that they come from different worlds, know that a relationship between them will not practically work, and so fill the screen with unresolved sexual and romantic tension.

Woven into the more grisly details of murder and police corruption are scenes of humor and beauty. Dancing in the barn to "Don't Know Much About History". Having to wake up at 4 a.m. to milk the cows. It's funny to see how the cop, John Book, tries to fit himself into Amish life the best he can. And it's very moving to see his growing love for the Amish woman who nursed him through a bad gunshot wound and has enchanted him with her character and beauty. The movie's climax is also riveting; it's not often that one sees gunfighting at an Amish farm.

Great film, poor quality transfer
"Witness" captures director Peter Weir's first exploration of the cultural clash between America's Amish community and modern society. We witness two worlds that collide and two people that can't bridge the gap between their two worlds despite their blossoming love for each other.

The story revolves around Samuel a little boy who has witnessed the murder of an undercover police officer, his mother Rachel (McGillis)and John Book (Ford) who investigates the murder discovering corruption, deceit and a conspiracy at it the heart of his department. After he discovers that his witness isn't safe, Book whisks them back to their Amish farm where he's forced to hideout as well.

One of Weir's finest films to focus on America, this so-so transfer looks grainy and has lots of compression issues. The transfer isn't a widescreen anamorphic transfer but is presented in that format (i.e., it's presented with the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen but the transfer isn't high definition). The picture occasionally comes across as soft and the rich use of color and light that vividly brought the film to life in theaters isn't well represented here. Hopefully Paramount will update this and remaster it the way it deserves to be done.

The extras include an interview with Weir obviously done around the time the film was made or first appeared on video and the original theatrical trailer. I would have expected a commentary track but since Weir isn't all that big on them to begin with, that would be hoping for too much.

A great film just a poor translation to DVD.

Comparing Witness: 1985 and 2004
As I write my title, it is weird to think this film is nearly 20 years old! How time flies! Anyway...I first saw this film when it first came out and I remember I really really liked it. I was 23 years old and not a Christian at that time. Now, I am soon to be 42 and have been a Christian for over 18 years. For 10 years of my life, I lived as a Mennonite (like Amish in many ways, but we drove cars, had electricity, etc.) I am no longer a Mennonite, and now I watch films again. I appreciate classic cinema very much, but recently have wanted to watch Witness again, to see if I would like it as much as the first time, and to see if I thought they portrayed the Amish correctly.

So, I watched it last night. It was interesting in that I remembered so much, even some small details about it. So it really did impress me that first time when I was young. This time, I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't say it is a film I would watch over and over again, as I watch some classic films. To see it once more was enough to just satisfy my curiosity about my memories of it.

I did feel they portrayed the Amish quite well, with the clothes and such. What they did wrong about the portrayal was that in no way would it be allowed for an Amish woman to tend to a wounded man who wasn't her husband, by herself in a room alone with him. It just isn't proper, isn't done. In reality, a man would have done that, or an older woman would have done it, with another woman there. I think the movie allowed the Rachel character to have way more "access" to a man alone than would be allowed in a real Amish or Mennonite community. I doubt he would have really been allowed to stay in the house. In reality he would have been placed in a home with a family who had a bunch of boys and he would work with them and the father, and not have all that time alone with Rachel.

I don't like violence...I knew that the bad part happened in the train station in the beginning, so we were able to fast forward that part. Also, we were able to fast forward the ending "shoot out" stuff. I didn't care for the bad language. The scene with Rachel taking her sponge bath, well when I was young and not a Christian, I found that very romantic. Now, I found it rather silly. A devout Amish girl/woman would not have just calmly turned around and let a man stare at her while unclothed. And later on, when she and he finally "meet" for the romantic moment, I found that sort of offensive. Why kiss out in the yard where anyone could see you? Eli could have easily looked out the window (a real Amish father would have kept better tabs on his daughter with a strange man around the place). I felt that scene was very much just an animal passion thing...sort of vulgar. Not at all romantic, truly loving or gentle. It seems people sure knew how to kiss and show romantic love a lot better in the old movies! And right before she went out there, she took her prayer veiling off. Which again, no Amish woman would do. But then she obviously was rebelling. There was that other time too, when she and John Book were in the barn listening to his radio, and she had it off then, and I am not sure why, for no Amish or Mennonite woman will go without it in front of people or outside the house.

The ending left me wondering...would Rachel just go ahead and marry Daniel? Would she really be happy with him? She really would have to repent of her sins with John Book to be truly happy. I also noticed that the film never showed a church service. Also, none of the Amish folks never seemed to care to tell John Book how to be a Christian. But then there are many Amish who are not born- again Christians, but just are "culturally Amish"...they live the way they do because they have always done so. These must have been that type of Amish. It did seem that Grandfather knew the Bible...he quoted some good verses when talking to the boy about the gun. That was good to see, yet sad that such violence had to even be witnessed by this child.

Oh, of course any film with Amish must have a barn raising scene, and this one did. Also, so many movies with cows mus have the scene where the city person doesn't know how to milk a cow. Of course John Book must learn. He makes a joke about "teats" in this scene, and grandfather Eli laughs at it, which again, I doubt a devout Amish man would do.

Well, these are my thoughts. It was interesting to revisit this film again. In closing, I would say it is an okay film for adults but I would not recommend it for children. ... Read more

Reviews (103)

Ultra-Sentimental 2nd Treatment of "Aunt Jemima Story"
"Imitation of Life" is the bitter sweet story of a black maid struggling with her light skin daughter who wanted to pass as white. The story begins in post WWII NYC when Lana Turner (in the role of a struggling actress) hires the maid to work for and live with Turner and her then 7 year old daughter (same age as the maid's little girl). Times are tough at first, but the 4-some gets on fine. Only little Sarah Jane (the maid's daughter) has constant trouble accepting her color.

The story spans about 15 years and shows various instances where the loving black maid is humiliated by her daughter who in the end disowns her mother. The ending is the ultimate heartbreaker; the film deserves 5 stars for that alone!

This is the 2nd Hollywood treatment of "The Aunt Jemima Story". The first version (1934) with Claudette Colbert has better acting, but is not quite as sentimental as the Technicolor Lana Turner film. The latter also has a memorable title song by Earl Grant (who usually plays the organ in his recordings, but here he sings).

I could watch this movie anytime, for no reason at all...it's the best in its class! This film is the ultimate in Hollywood tear-jerkers, and one of my favorite movies ever. Lana Turner was not exactly "Oscar-material", but neither was Marilyn Monroe--still they both captured an audience with their presence like few other actresses ever did. Nothing but pure "Hollywood Candy" here! ...

a true classic
One of the great Hollywood melodramas, IMITATION OF LIFE is based on the book by Fannie Hurst and is directed with style and emotion by Douglas Sirk.

A chance meeting throws together Lora Meredith (Lana Turner) and Annie Johnson (Juanita Moore), two struggling widows who both have troubled relationships with their daughters. Lora is a Broadway starlet intent on hitting the big time, which will come at the cost of her daughter Susie (Sandra Dee), while Annie's daughter Sarah Jane (Susan Kohner) is a black girl with a pale complexion, who chooses to pass as white in order to avoid the hatred of a prejudiced world.

As years of denial and unawareness pass, the two girls slowly revolt from their mothers, and the story moves to its emotional and tearful conclusion.

Still compelling over 50 years later, IMITATION OF LIFE still has a message for modern audiences, and preserves the tour-de-force performances of Juanita Moore and Susan Kohner. Both were Oscar-nominated for their work here. The performances of Sandra Dee and Lana Turner (and Troy Donahue as Sarah Jane's violent boyfriend) are just as impressive.

The supporting cast includes John Gavin, Dan O'Herlihy, Robert Alda and Mahalia Jackson. The DVD includes the trailer. (Single-sided, dual-layer disc).

MOORE AND KOHNER - THE HEART OF THIS MOVIE
In 1959, Susan Kohner and Juanita Moore lost the Best Supporting Actress oscar to Shelley Winters for "Diary of Anne Frank." While Winters certainly was a seasoned and excellent actress, I don't see how one can overlook Susan and Juanita's gutwrenching performances. In spite of the star presence of Lana Turner and John Gavin, this movie's heart lies in the story of Annie and her mulatto daughter, Sarah Jane.
Director Douglas Sirk and his glamorized movies was the inspiration for the much acclaimed film, "Far from Heaven." One can see why Todd Hayes wanted to venture into this director's turf. Ross Hunter's glitzy production begged for its audience to become embroiled in Lana's problems becoming a big actress. But with the performances of Ms. Moore and Kohner, IMITATION OF LIFE achieves the status of one of our finest tearjerkers. Sadly enough, neither actress had much of a career after this, and what a shame. Their scenes together are so electric and heartwrenching, they deserved more. The final portion of the film wherein we lose Ms. Moore and her subsequent funeral are the stuff of Kleenex heaven.
Definitely one of the finest remakes of our time. Because of Juanita Moore and Susan Kohner!!!

Lana Turner and Juanita Moore
The struggles of two mothers with very different problems are detailed in this glossy but overly sentimental film. Lora Meredith and Annie Johnson establish a friendship purely by accident but they forge a bond that brings them together for life. Lora eventually finds stardom on the stage after many setbacks and disappointments but Annie has the impossible task of trying to make her mulatto daughter accept her racial heritage. Sarah Jane's shame at having a black mother is the main theme of the film while Lora's ups and downs on Broadway and eventual career success provide a counterpoint to the troubling themes of self-loathing and racial intolerance. Sarah Jane's relationship with Lora's daughter Susie is by turns sisterly and contentious because of Sarah Jane's jealousy and resentment towards Susie because she is white. Another sub-plot is Lora's relationship with Steve Archer, which also spans many years. Their romance always takes a back seat to Lora's stage career ambitions, which frustrates her handsome suitor immensely. Steve eventually becomes the object of Susie's affections as she grows into womanhood and her obsession with Steve causes problems later on. The film's famous last reel is touching and has the added effect of having Mahalia Jackson sing spirituals for the beloved Annie. Lana Turner is very beautiful and glamorous in this film and was never lovelier, but Juanita Moore's tortured Annie and Susan Kohner's ungrateful, mean-spirited Sarah Jane are the reasons for which this film is remembered.

Imitation of Life ( Germ241F @ SUNY Binghamton
Douglas Sirk's 1959 remake of John Stahl's 1934 film, Imitation of Life, is a parody of the original. In a comical rendition, Imitation of Life, addresses intersections of race, social and economic class, and gender in the film, as well as existing stereotypes, through the use of Neo-Brechtian gestik acting which means over-the-top, melodramatic and campy acting that is quoting a character and his/her emotions and exaggerates the role of a character in a situation. Sirk deliberately wanted to use gestik acting and avoided method acting (acting out what your emotions would really be, if you were in a certain situation) because he didn't want audiences to think that this film was real and to be taken seriously.
Two single-parenting mothers, Annie and Lora meet on the beach of Coney Island, in search of Lora's daughter Suzie. When Lora and Suzie find out that Annie and her daughter Sara Jane are homeless, Lora decides to let them live in her apartment as long as Annie agrees to contribute some help around the house, and do the dirty work for Lora. Annie is depicted as a parody for blackness, just because she has typical attributes of any nanny. A loving, nurturing, understanding, and caring mother is the stereotypical mother that society adores which is played out by Annie. On the other hand Lora is a neglecting figure in the eyes of Suzie. Annie is more like the mother for Suzie, but not Sara Jane. Sara Jane refuses to admit that she a daughter to a black woman and passes as a white girl while in school. Sara Jane fires up the racial tension in this film because of her denial and mistreatment towards her mother.
Lora meets a man named Steve, who almost right away, proposes to her. She denies the proposal in an effort to pursue her dream of becoming a Hollywood actress. Steve tries to make her stay, by telling her that she doesn't have to work, and that he will bring home to money. This shows us how Steve along with the majority of society view women and their roles of life. A women's life should be to stay home, clean, take care of the kids, and put dinner on the table, which is the old fashion way that much of male Americans viewed women to perform in. Opposite roles of gender for the male figure in this film was shown through Steve, who has found a detective out of now where, who has found Sara Jane and her place of refuge from her mother. This situation renders Steve as if he were Superman, the one being able to fix any problem.
This campy imitation of life is viewed throughout most of the film, except for the scene of Annie's funeral, where Mahalia Jackson sings a gospel song. Eulogy of Annie is brought to her through the singing voice of Mahalia. This scene is supposed to be a serious one among the other witty scenes, because the character of Mahalia is the only realistic one in this film and is not to be criticized. Mahalia does not exemplify the overly dramatic acting. ... Read more

Reviews (453)

An OK movie for my favorite book
POA was my favorite book of the sieries. but in the movie, i have MANY complaints.

Things that were left out

-cho chang
-how sirius got out of azkaban
-how sirius betrayed lily and james (no mention of fidelius)
-no mention of word secret keeper
-who moony wormtail padfoot and prongs are
-why sirius hates lupin, james, sirius
-why crookshanks was attacking scabbers
-why all of a sudden sirius isn't the bad guy
-why sirius tried to attack ron (oh wait, that never happened)
-that ron and peter pettigrew were in the paper is why sirius broke out of azkaban
-what hogsmeade is
-why there is a tunnel from the whomping willow to the shrieking shack
-connection between the stag patronus and "prongs"
-draco malfoy is the slytherin seeker

things that were changed
-hermione shows up late to everyclass. come on it's HERMIONE.
-the firebolt comes later
-much more interaction between past selves and future selves in time turner sequence. (made harry being his father predictable instead of shocking)
-the patronus was just lame (looked like an atomic bomb or those superballs on dragonballZ)

basically i think the movie was really good as long as i don't think about it being the same as the book.

parts of it were really good. i'm just kind of annoyed that i knew the book too well to really enjoy it. i sppent most of my time going "that never happened" (harry serching for peter pettigrew)

Marvelous Mischief!
I have not read the books yet because I like to be surprised. So I only view the movie on it's own merits.

The third installment was indeed a pleasant one. A new director,Alfonso Cuarón, handled the performances perfectly. Daniel Radcliffe ...Harry Potter is becoming a fine actor and he is great in this movie. He loses his temper with his Aunt and he plays the scene brilliantly.
Gary Oldman ...Sirius Black is always so great that you don't know it is him until the credits.
Rupert Grint ...Ron Weasley is very funny.
Emma Watson ...Hermione Granger has become a fantastic young actress and her character is strong and confident and also caring which makes her a great role model.
Alan Rickman ...Professor Severus Snape, Robbie Coltrane ...Rubeus Hagrid, and the new Dumbledore were superb as well. (I was sad to learn that the original Dumbledore, who was wonderful, has died.)

The visuals of Hogwarts and it's grounds were beautiful and for me the high point was flight of the Hippogriff with Harry. The Hippogriff was an amazing creation.

I reccomend the movie even if you are a total muggle.

Well Done!
I am an avid Harry Potter fan and I have read all the books at least four times each. I think that the "Prisoner" movie was done much better than the first two. To start, it shows how the magic world is changing for Harry and how it will continue to change as the story unfolds throughout the future novels. It's important to point out that the new director has been known in the past to put a dark spin on his interpretations in movies. But I thought that this dark point of view is what is needed at this point in order to show that Harry and co. are no longer children and are entering into more dangerous territory. Although the director did edit some parts of the book that I would have like to see, I think the movie overall does a great job in showcasing the future of the series. I think the actors are really starting to come into their own and showing more depth in their interpretations of the characters. I love to see how comfortable they are with each other in this film and to see how they are growing with these characters. Overall, I think this movie is great and I can't wait to see "Goblet". Although I do agree that "Goblet" should be longer or made into a two part movie because to edit book four too much will ruin the movie and movie goers that don't read the books will be completely lost then.

Some people just don't get it...
One of the joys about the Harry Potter series is that the style of the books matures with the characters. This is finally true with the movies as well. Yes, this is a much darker film than the first 2...so is the book. Yes, Harry, Ron and Hermione act more like real teenagers and less like 1950's television children. There were choices made in this film that were risky, but in my opinion the risk paid off! This is the perfect progression in the films of Harry Potter!

new look to a changing story
I thought the newest Harry Potter movie was VERY WELL DONE. A new look for an ever changing story line. Why would anyone want to watch a movie thats done exactly like the first two? Change it up a bit and keep the audiance wondering how their favorite books are going to be brought to screen. It doesnt hurt to have many peoples different views bring a great book to screen in another way then the first two. As long as the story gets told, isnt that all that matters? ... Read more

Reviews (17)

"IF YOU SAW THEM, THEY WEREN'T APACHE,"
is arguably one of The Duke's best lines (Michael Herr referenced it in his Vietnam War best seller DISPATCHES, making it a prophecy). John Ford's cavalry trilogy is a great body of American film, all three works have their individual moments that distingush their own lasting perfection. FORT APACHE has the classic Ford/Wayne elements: action, dialogue, a great supporting cast both Ford and Wayne knew how to play (Ward Bond, Victor McLaglen). Henry Fonda is brilliant as the pompous, ego maniacal Colonel Thursday and Victor McLaglen's drunken buffonery is classic. FORT APACHE is a ride into film greatness.

A great American film
Director John Ford's first entry in his "cavalry trilogy" is this excellent film about life on a military outpost far from the glamorous theaters of the Indian Wars in the American west. The film is about character development of the officers and enlisted men on the post, family relationships and the class distinctions among the military social order. Henry Fonda dominates this film with a wonderful interpretation of a bitter, unhappy colonel who feels he has been shunted aside by an ungrateful military hierarchy to an isolated desert outpost to fight Apaches, an assignment he considers beneath him. John Wayne's Capt. Kirby York gives the film just the right balance between the two men who have very different viewpoints about fighting Apaches and respect for their fierce adversaries. The concerns of the wives of officers and enlisted men are also explored in the daily routine at Fort Apache and their fears are touchingly portrayed as their men march at dawn one morning to do battle with Cochise's warriors in an attempt to force the venerable chief to return to a reservation that is run by a corrupt, morally bankrupt Indian agent. The original black and white print is superb and is much better than the colorized version available on video. Richard Hageman's music is reflective and melancholy.

This Ford still works.
I'm out of my element with this film. I normally don't review black-and-white classics, because I'm too cynical to view the big studio releases of yesteryear with an open mind. All of them are contrived and somewhat sappy; I watch them and envision a cherubic Mickey Rooney looking on while eating chocolate chip cookies and drinking milk. "That's a swell show, Dad!"

But I like John Ford films. And I really like FORT APACHE, despite the movie being a stereotypical product of its time. Why, you ask (or mutter indifferently)? Because this film actually depicts some range for Henry Fonda and the Duke himself. Fonda plays a very unsympathetic role, while John Wayne steps out of character (for him) to play a compassionate second fiddle. And Ford's experiment works: the two actors pull off exceptional performances; their on-screen chemistry is riveting.

Tension--that's the motor that drives FORT APACHE. A new disciplined, disgruntled, by-the-book colonel (Fonda) arrives at a remote Arizona outpost; immediately, he is at odds with the fort's seasoned and weathered captain (Wayne). The captain, who possesses a deep respect for a band of Apache that has left the reservation, has the loyalty and affection of his men; the colonel is looked upon as an unwelcome intruder and resented as a martinet. The two officers wage a battle of wills that ultimately has Fonda using an unsuspecting Wayne as a ploy to draw the Apache back for a surprise attack--a strategy that produces deadly consequences.

This is good stuff, further enhanced by some outstanding supporting roles, including Ward Bond, Pedro Armendariz, and Victor McLaglen. We're even treated to a grown-up--yet still annoying--Shirley Temple. Kudos to John Ford for creating a good-looking film that successfully had Fonda and Wayne step outside their respective boxes. FORT APACHE, despite its "Aw, shucks" big studio smarm, is solid entertainment.
--D. Mikels

Four and a half stars, actually...
A truly excellent western, one of the all-time greats; the only reason it's not a full 5 stars is there are a few which are marginally better, such as "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" and "Shane".
Both Henry Fonda and John Wayne are cast against type here, and both prove what great actors they are. Fonda plays a stubborn, excessively proud army commander (loosely based on General George Armstrong Custer) furious at being sent to an outpost in Arizona to fight the Apache, complaining they're not even the "tough" Indians. Wayne is a looser, kinder man more adjusted to living in the middle of nowhere, beloved by his men, and holding much more respect for the Apache since he's dealt with them many times. Fonda insists on using the Apache's trust of Wayne against them, luring them into a trap to force them back onto the reservation. Wayne does his best to stop it, but the forces are already at work and there's little he can do. The ensuing massacre (remember, this tale is based on the exploits of Custer) leaves Wayne with the dilemma: tell the truth about Fonda, or go along with the typical "national-hero" myth that has developed around his death?
This is not your typical western. The cavalry aren't the bad guys (as they would be portrayed 40 years later in "Dances With Wolves"), but the Indians aren't exactly the bad guys, either. Their treatment on the reservation at the hands of a corrupt American government, providing them with scant food to survive but plenty of rotgut whiskey to demoralize and destroy them, is clearly presented. The Indians (portrayed here mostly by Mexican actors) are justifiably angry as their trust in "the great white father" is betrayed over and over. They are presented as intelligent strategists; they offer Fonda a legitimate chance to sit down and talk, but when they're betrayed yet again they go on the offense and, incredibly, they don't lose the fight. This was a western far ahead of its time, and since it was directed by the great John Ford it isn't just a moral tract: it's a beautifully-photographed and expertly-acted drama that pulls you in and teaches you something at the same time. Great stuff.

A wonderful movie
This was the greatest movie! Anyone would like it~! I would tell anyone/everyone to see it! You should add this great one to your westerns! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Based on the mid-'70s novel by Judith Rossner (whichitself was based on a true story), this film was supposed to be the one that established Diane Keaton's credibility as a "serious" actress--and yet she won the Oscar for the other film she did the same year, Annie Hall. Still, Looking for Mr. Goodbar is a solid and intriguingfilm, which offered the first substantial film roles to Richard Gere and Tom Berenger. Keaton is a repressed Catholic school teacher who works with deaf children. In the midst of the sexual revolution, she discovers her own appetite for carnal pleasure--but tries to keep it physical, avoiding emotional entanglement, until she meets Mr. Really Wrong. Keaton is solid but director Richard Brooks can't keep this from dragging. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (30)

Annie Hall Meets Mr. Goodbar
Released in 1977 and based on Judith Rossner's best-seller, "Looking for Mr. Goodbar" was touted as the star turn for Diane Keaton, but it was "Annie Hall" that swept her to the Academy podium that year. A Catholic teacher of deaf children, Keaton's portrayal of a sexually repressed woman looking for scores in all the wrong places is unsettling in an generally inaudacious - and brutal - film. But, the talent that she is, Keaton keeps our attention and is nearly upstaged by Tuesday Weld in an Oscar-nominated supporting role. "Goodbar" takes us to the darker side of casual sexal encounters and issues a warning that we ought not delve too deeply into the darkness without a light on in our brains. The film also marked the first substantial work of Richard Gere and Tom Berenger. But it remains Keaton who carries the film, and she does it splendidly and achieves the intended goal of making us squeamish about the dangerous underpinnings of sexual experimentation. The film's closing scene is harrowing and also achieves its own goal to send the viewer off with an unsoothed boding of doom, and it gives us no hope. Panned critically at the time, the film nonetheless is a showcase of Keaton's dramatic talents, something she'd had little chance to do until then. She alone makes the film worth watching.

Very dark seedy film
A very dark film and shocking for the time period 1977 actually it would qualify today as well. Diane Keaton stars as a sexually adventurous teacher from a strict catholic family who escapes the normality in her life by retreating into the sordid vacuous world of New York City's singles bars. She has an affair with her older college professor but that doesn't turn out good so she spends her nights doing cocaine and picking up random guys until one night she picks up the wrong cowboy. Tom Berenger plays a bar hopping drifter and is the final man she brings home. The ending is quite shocking & disturbing, the cinematography and use of light/sound. It would hold up to todays shock value easily. Keep in mind this movie came out in 1977. A story about an insecure woman constantly rebelling, misguided search for love & acceptance who could not come to grips with her estranged relationship with father. In a sense looking for a father figure. One of my favorite dark genre films.

Looking for trouble
"Looking for Mr.Goodbar" is a cautionary tale of the swinger lifestyle. It is set in the 70s, but it's just as prevalent today as it was then (more so with AIDS and other STDs). Diane Keaton plays Theresa, a school teacher for deaf kids by day, and by night she's a very promiscuous party girl. As time goes by, the night life interferes more and more with her teaching job. Eventually she decides to get out, but by then, it's too late. I liked the idea, but I thought the cast was all wrong (of course I have over twenty years of sterotypeing to try to get over). Diane Keaton may not have been the best actress to do this kind of role, after playing Kay Adams/Corleone or "Annie Hall", playing the "whore" dosn't seem right. Tuesday Weld dosn't have enough time to establish the sister as anything. Richard Kiley plays an adultourous professor, kind of a one note character. William Atherton is the red haring. Richard Gere is obviously at the beginning of his career, he isn't the typical Gere persona, he is acting more like John Travolta from "Saturday Night Feaver", he got on my nerves bad. The movie has an interesting concept, the dangers of casual sex and partying, but it is defeated by the ending. ... So what is this movie? It is a good idea with the wrong cast and the wrong ending.

Takes the viewer back to New York City in the 1970's
This movie was highly recommended to me, and now that I've seen it I can see why many consider it a memorable film. The suspense was brilliantly built up and Keaton's performance was worthy of the Golden Globe nomination it received.

The movie depicts many of the problems of being a liberated single female in the 70s. The main character, Theresa Dunn, moves out of her oppressive Catholic family home to find her place in the world. She becomes a compassionate teacher of deaf children during the day, and ventures out at night into the bar scene. Through Keaton's ability to capture the emotionally vulnerable Theresa, the viewer connects strongly to Theresa's journey to find the life she wants.

Richard Gere's performance is also worthy of note, as are the cinematic effects. Unfortunately the lighting in the film is too dark and this detracts from the overall impression of it, and it also makes it seem dated. The moral messages in the film are interesting and leave more questions than answers.

...and the pursuit of happiness
On its best level, "Mr. Goodbar" showed the audience how you can be an intelligent, cultured and sensitive person and yet become a tragic figure, a victim of circumstance.

The Keaton character realizes the entity of her own sexual frustration and takes to casual sex as a form of emotional therapy. When she decides it's time to get her act straight, she fails, fatally, to put her experience to fruition: not because it's morally too late for redemption and she must be punished, but simply out of bad luck.

I don't think Brooks had a 'this is what you're going to get if you stray from the straight and narrow' agenda. I have a feeling he was more interested in the intrinsic tragic potential of being human. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A story line that truly deserves the A-list treatment, The Last Unicorn is memorable for its attempts to stay faithful to its origins, the Peter Beagle novel of the same name. The animation is vintage Rankin/Bass, and that's too bad; but there's an undeniable strength in this tale and telling. A unicorn (Mia Farrow)--she believes herself the last--searches for any others of her kind, while avoiding the malevolent Red Bull, the agent believed to have destroyed the rest of the herd. Along the way, she is mistaken, ignored, attacked, and obsessed about, finally finding help from a magician named Schmendrick (Alan Arkin) and a knight named Prince Lir (Jeff Bridges). A haunting film that pays homage to mythology and the people who love it. --Keith Simanton ... Read more

Reviews (419)

Still one of my MOST favorite movies!!!
My mother tells me that when I was little, I used to make her rent this movie every week. I still remember what the old cover looked like. I have to say that I bought a copy a few years ago and I still watch it every once and a while. I know all the songs by heart - I can still repeat my favorite lines - This is an incredible movie for all ages that I think everyone should watch to get a glimpse of that magic of the imagination that we tend to forget exists after we've grown up!

The plot of the movie is based on the book by Peter S. Beagle(read it if you like fantasy!), but I have to say that I like the movie better. Of course, the author did the screenplay, so that might explain why the movie is so good. It's about a unicorn searching the world for others of her immortal kind. On her journey, she meets humans who help her on her path, like Schmendrick(sp?) the bumbling magician who transforms her into a human woman to carry out her quest, Molly Grue the cynical outlaw, and Prince Lir who becomes a hero for her sake. But some of those she meets, like Mommy Fortuna the witch and King Haggard with his castle by the sea, will try to stop her from solving the mystery of her lost people. Will she be able to hold onto herself long enough overcome the ominous Red Bull who drove the other unicorns down all the roads long ago?

Again, I say that this is one of the movies that defined my childhood, one of the things that convinced me I wanted to be a writer and believe in the magic of imagination. This is a great movie for kids, but there's plenty there for an adult to appreciate as well. Buy it and watch it!!! It's worth it.

An exquisite film... not quite for everyone, I believe
I recall seeing this movie on TV when I was like 8-years-old and its beauty and meaning really affected me. Not again a film has touched me the way this did. I am not giving away what is about, only thoughts and images. The journey of the last unicorn that runs thru the world to find her lost kin and finds love instead... A clumsy but noble magician named Schemndrick... A sad woman who has lost almost everything... A bitter and lonely king searching for hapiness and his adopted son, who will turn to be a hero... A haunting world with wonderful landscapes... An overwhelming score by Jimmy Webb and America... Let's just say that if you like fantasy and still carry with you that good old inner child and also have a taste for melancholy, this film will stay with you. But, if you are into happy endings, better stay away.
Even at that early age I saw this picture, I had a sense of loss and sadness when it ended. I think that actually, it changed me forever. A part of the innocence was gone, in a good way. It deals with deep and mature matters, kind of heavy and serious for an animated flick, but I think it's good for a child to learn to think and awaken sensibility.
I am not sure to recommend it for little children, 3 to 5... I think it's too much for them. From 7 and on, they can appreciate it more, and better for a 10 year-old. There's some middle cursing also, like "hell" and "damn", so very concerned parents should avoid it until their little ones are a little grown up.
The cast is great. Christopher Lee shines. Mia Farrow, Alan Arkin and Jeff Bridges are also here and deliver powerful performances.
Read the book which this movie was based on, written by Peter S. Beagle -who made the screenplay too, thank God, for it is perfect.
An unforgettable, beautiful, charming, touching, thought-provoking, heart-squeezing movie that you can fall in love with.

AVOID
This is a very good film that has yet had a decent video release here in the US. This DVD release is a disaster.

This particular print has several major defects. First this movie suffers more than most when cutting it from widescreen to full screen. But the pan-and-scan job (the technique used to make a widescreen film fit on a regular television) was also totally botched leaving many scenes showing only half a face or character.

There is also many color problems. The print is biased to red. Dark scenes, of which there are many, show a red tint. Related to this is that the greens are subdued. Many objects that should be green show as blue.

The print is also grainy showing more video noise than normal.

The soundtrack is extremely harsh sounding making it dificult to listen to.

I'd recommend you seek out the widescreen version which has none of these problems.

The Last Unicorn
I have seen this movie over 100 times and I really believe it is one of the greatest films of our time. I loved it as a kid and I don't know that I fully understood it, because now as an adult I appreciate the heart that goes into this film. It is a beautiful love/life story about being true to who you are. I cry almost every time I watch this, it is definetly worth buying.

good movie bad singing
It a good movie, with a good plot. The characters were good and well drawn. the only problem was the singing, now the songs were good. But they got people who thought they could sing who couldn't. But other then that a good buy. ... Read more

Reviews (16)

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

The Authenic Christian Revolution of a Russian Pope
This 1968 film, based on Morris West's novel, has Anthony Quinn as Kiril Lakota, released after twenty years in a Siberian work camp to become a Cardinal and then Pope at a time when the Soviet Union and a starving People's Republic of China are about to go to war. The idea that the first non-Italian pope in centuries would be from a Communist country certainly seems prophetic today. Lakota is released by the Soviet Premier (Laurence Olivier), who is taking a chance that a sympathetic Vatican might tip the balance towards peace. Lakota emerges from imprisonment as something of a saint, admired by the Elder Pope (John Gielgud) for having refused to deny the faith even when seven priests were brought before him and shot.

Although the obvious comparison is to John Paul II, Quinn's pontiff is actually more like John Paul I, who was considered a "pastoral" Pope, capable of relating to the people more on the level of a parish priest. When he is elected and has to change into his papal robes, he introduces himself to his new valet saying simply,"I am Kiril Lakota." The politically charged atmosphere is a bit melodramatic, but the strength of this film is in its portrait of the inner workings of the Vatican where both politics and personalities come into play. My favorite scene is when the college of Cardinals are deadlocked, repeated votes having been "insufficient for election," and one of the elder statesmen of the church stands up to declare his belief that God has sent them the man intended to be the next Pope. With growing horror, Lakota watches as the momentum builds for his stunning election (Now if somebody could just explain to me, when reporter David Janssen announces "They have elected a Russian Pope" is the word "Russia" an adjective or a noun in that sentence? This has been driving me crazy for other 30 years).

Of the two subplots the romantic estrangement of Dan Janssen, the reporter covering the Vatican and his doctor wife, Barbara Jefford, is trivial soap opera nonsense, although it does lead to a nice scene where the Pope sneaks out of the Vatican disguised as an ordinary priest. The doctor sends him to the pharmacy for medicine and is stunned when he returns and is able to do prayers in Hebrew over the dying man. The other, with Oskar Werner as Father David Telemond, is much more provocative and provides an interesting counter-point to the main story line. Telemond has written several books, none of them published, dealing with what he calls the "Cosmic Christ." A Pontifical Commission is investigating his writings as being heretical. Certainly there is a sense in which this film, in the wake of the Vatican II Council, was trying to confront the Catholic Church with certain issues. Ultimately "The Shoes of the Fisherman" is a much more subversive film than "The Last Temptation of Christ."

Quinn's dignified performance holds "The Shoes of the Fisherman" together, aided by Leo McKern and Vittorio De Sica as a pair of Cardinals seated high in the Church hierarchy. This is not a great film by any means, but it is certainly thoughtful even without the provocative final scene in which the new pope proposes to actually implement "the authentic Christian revolution: work for all, bread for all, dignity for all men." Certainly it treats it characters and its subject matter with great seriousness. Michael Anderson's direction is hampered by the film's 157 minute length, but it is still worth the viewing.

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

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

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

A Movie Every Religious Person Should See
This movie was great and I am not a Catholic, I am a Protestant minister. Even though this was just a novel and pure fiction, I learned more about the inner workings of the Catholic Church than I had ever learned from my years of reading about all the "Bad Things" in the history of the Catholic Church. Protestant history, and no other religion's history is "pure white" either. I'm talking about such things and the Inquisition burnings at the stake, and other hedious torture methods that only a feind from hell could think of.

See this movie, meditate on it, and realize the horrendous impack all religions have on Planet Earth for both good and bad. It has been said that if you know only one religion, you really don't know much about any religion--- I agree!

See the struggle in the Church to know God, to understand God's will, to choose its leaders, to be loyal to its leaders, to reach conclusion about all moral, ethical, and social questions. All religions go thru this same process to one degree or another, even your local church. Compare your Minister and the problems in your Church to the the problems of the Pope and the Catholic Church. They are not really all that different. We all have a duty and a tremendous responsibility resting on our shoulders.. We must try to understand each other, love one another, forgive one another, pray for each other, and work together in every way possible......

.....If we will do this then we can help Planet Earth and its people take a "Quantum Leap" up and forward in spiritual consciousness and awareness - where The Word(or Love) becomes Flesh in us - which will usher in a New Day, a New Level of the Kingdom Of God On Earth, that is beyond words to describe. Planet Earth People, are you with me, will you join me in this glorious effort? We all have a Divine Mission and Destiny to fulfill while on Planet Earth. Ken Pamplin, 4504 N.W. 11th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73127

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

Description

Johnny Depp, Faye Dunaway and Jerry Lewis star in the quirky and moving story of a family of dreamers in a small desert town. From the director of "When father was away on business" Year: 1993 Director: Emir Kusturica Starring:Johnny Depp, Jerry Lewis, Faye Dunaway ... Read more

Reviews (23)

Encounter of a talented actor and a talented director
The video of this movie gave me a little disappointment because some scenes of the original version were cut on the video (119 min). That's why I gave 4 stars to this video. But the movie itself is great, and I'd like to give 5 stars to the film although I've never seen the director's cut (142 min). The movie was that impressive to me.

I am a big fan of Johnny Depp, but I don't think I am overestimating the movie just because I am his admirer. "Arizona Dream" is much more remarkable than any other movie in which Johnny appeared. Johnny, in this movie, shows a pure and innocent beauty as in "Edward Scissorhands," but this time Johnny's character (Axel) is a little more complex because he also shows strong passion for love and women like in "Don Juan DeMarco." This movie, although it has several layers of meaning, is about adolescence overall. Johnny did a dazzling performance by expressing skillfully cravings and sadness of youth at the same time. When Grace (Lili Taylor) committed suicide, Johnny, who just came to realize her attractiveness, got overwhelmed with sorrow in the rain. How sad and beautiful this scene was! (The scarlet hue and the background music of this scene added a surreal and quaint feeling to that beauty.) How pure and beautiful Johnny looked in that scene! This scene brings to my mind the scene from Kusturica's another film "Time of the Gypsies," in which the male protagonist cries out in grief the name of his dead lover. Both scenes are sad and beautiful at the same time.

Death, in "Arizona Dream," stands for nothing trivial. It's a kind of passage a youngster goes through to become an adult. It's not difficult to infer that experiencing death of close friends or family members leads to a maturer state of mentality. Suffering the death of his uncle (Leo) and girlfriend (Grace), Johnny gets to step into adulthood. The symbolic daydream at the end of the movie, related to halibut, reveals more clearly by actors' lines that Johnny has undergone a tumult of youth and now is about to enter upon a new stage of life.

Sex has a crucial meaning, too. When Johnny continues wild and liberal relations with a middle-aged woman Elaine (Faye Dunaway), it seems to have the meaning of youthful rash desire. But it is also an indicator which tells that Johnny is stepping toward adulthood; after this hectic and wild period, he comes to find new aspects of people around him and of the relationships with them. Being attracted sexually to an older person is a typical--at least common if not typical--experience in youth. As young people grow up, they begin to see objectively the older person they liked or loved. When Johnny says to Grace that her step-mother Elaine, whom he has loved with strong ardor, is now like a clown he can see through, and hints that he can recognize Grace's charm now, he displays a maturer insight into love and women.

In a sense, this movie has something in common with the Swedish film "All Things Fair," even though these two films are totally different in style and atmosphere. "All Things Fair," too, depicts a boy who gradually gets into the world of adults after going through war, brother's death, and sexual relations with a teacher. This boy, at the end of the movie, realizes the true aspect of the teacher and the pure beauty of a girl who is about his age and has been fond of him, like Axel (Johnny Depp) in "Arizona Dream" gets his mind to slide from Elaine to Grace.

Even so, they are very different. Unlike "All Things Fair," "Arizona Dream" has a far more melancholic feeling and is based on a far more tragic view of the world. Kusturica basically takes a pessimistic view of reality in many of his movies. But Kusturica's real talent lies not in his pessimistic world view but in his astonishing way of facing this tragic world. He never gets crushed with excessive grief; instead, he always sustains a sense of humor and breathes vivacity into his characters in a witty and humorous style. His movies often have some comical scenes like one in which Grace attempts suicide by hanging herself in "Arizona Dream." (This attempt fails, and she moves up and down in a funny manner with a long piece of cloth around her neck.) Kusturica's sense of humor seems to be more conspicuous in recent movies such as "Black Cat, White Cat," and movies in former years, like "Time of the Gypsies" and "Arizona Dream," have a strong feeling of sadness. And yet, "Arizona Dream," like other movies of Kusturica, has vital characters and thereby conveys the message that life is still beautiful and the world is still worth living in.

Although I focused on the development of a young man into adulthood, "Arizona Dream" never leaves a bitter aftertaste by implying that the young man has lost his purity of youth. The course of the development itself is expressed in such a way that viewers feel the irresistible beauty, and Johnny remains genuine until the end of the movie. The affair between Johnny and Faye Dunaway still makes viewers feel the exquisite afterglow regardless of Johnny's new relationship with Grace, and the relationship between Johnny and Grace and her sudden death caused by suicide give more strength to that exquisite afterglow along with a sad feeling. Johnny Depp, Faye Dunaway, and Lili Taylor show vivacious intensity all throughout the runtime, and especially Johnny is brilliant with the pristine beauty and with the natural performance of a complicated young man. Kusturica made one of the most unique and splendid films about adolescence with the gifted actors.

One of a kind!
Incredible story.Terrific cast (Johnny Depp,Faye Dunaway,Lili Taylor,Vincent Gallo and Jerry Lewis).Beautiful cinematography. Ethereal soundtrack by Goran Bregovic. Cinema with a capital C, at its best. Emir Kusturica and his unique style strike again with this amazing story of a young boy (Johnny Depp) "kidnapped" from NY by his cousin (Vincent Gallo) and taken to Arizona to be the best man at his uncle's wedding. Kusturika gives us, in this tragi-comedy, an interpretation of the meaning of life through the eyes of a young man in his early twenties. Kusturika himself said:"...This movie is about a young man who wanders into what is actually a hell that exists between two women, because of the tragedy in their lives...It could be that this movie is my reaction on how I see Western civilization. It comes from a kind of philosophy I've established after 35 years of living on this planet. I believe that human beings belong to nature not to civilisation. And I see man as being like a fish passing through a huge city. the fish doesn't understand anything about the city, he's just floating through it. What I'm trying to do, always, is to get people wondering." Well Mr Kusturika, Congratulations! you have succeeded! A must see, a must ownn! My favorite since it came out in France in the winter 1993. Let me know if you ever run in the States into an European copy of Arizona Dream. The movie has lost 4-5 incredible scenes(about 3-5 minutes each)on its way to the States.Why? WHY?

Poetic dream
I saw this movie few years back and wanted to see it again and finally found it on Region 2 DVD, in its full length version. The movie is dressed in Goran Bregovic's beautiful music, while the acting of Depp, Danaway and Lewis is captivating. It's not a movie for everyone, nor will all viewers understand what lies beneath the skin. I personally enjoyed every bit of the sweetness and sorrow, despair and hope that was artfully combined into this surreal blend of comedy and drama.

Surrial... as a dream... and the end of it -is up to you...
I loved " Forrest Gump " to . But if you watched " Arisona Dream " before it ... you noticed , that the feather trick was taken from it and used in " Forrest Gump ". But at same time they used a soundtrack in exellent way - it started as background , and when baloon blowes up ... it mooved to stereo , he listened to . He ? Jonny Depp , very important man , very important job - counting fish in N.Y. area ?! And I am not kidding , just loughing !
His brother showes up ... they have to go to Arizona- uncle getting merried on Polina Poriskova ( or whatever her name is , but you get the point ?! ). Mr. Depp doesn't fill like Arizona ... they walk to the bar ... shot and a beer... shot and a beer ... They are in Arizona in the morning . I have to warn you - movie is not for everyone ! If you don't like the begining ... you going to hate it . Turn it off , and watch something else , please .
For the rest of us...The flying fish at the end ... was one of the most unpredictable and most funny endings out of most of the films , which I watched in my life !

Emir Kusturica's Arizona Dream
Johnny Depp is a young man who comes to Arizona to be his uncle Jerry Lewis' best man in his wedding, and stays on to sell cars at the local family Cadillac dealership. There, Depp and buddy Vincent Gallo meet up with Lili Taylor and her weird stepmother Faye Dunaway. Taylor and Dunaway hate each other, living in a big house in the country and arguing continuously. Depp eventually falls for Dunaway, and is drawn into her weird little world, where she dreams of flying, and moving to Papua New Guinea.

Taylor has her own set of mental quirks- she worships turtles and wants to kill herself so she can come back as one. Gallo fancies himself a serious actor, one good scene has him recreate the cropduster scene from "North by Northwest," on stage at a local talent contest. Paulina Porizkova is given nothing to do as Lewis' very young fiancee.

We have all these weird characters in a weird little comedy. There are funny scenes. Taylor tries to hang herself with pantyhose from a second floor balcony, and bungees up and down as Depp tries to save her. Depp, Taylor, Dunaway, and Gallo play a hilarious game of footsie at a dinner table. Taylor, depressed over her suicide attempt, begins wandering around the house playing the accordian. Depp and Dunaway begin building flying machines, trying to fulfill Dunaway's girlhood dream. The screen fills with weird special effects and tons of magical realist images. The eskimo prologue; a fish that swims in the sky; really interesting stuff.

About halfway through the film, everything takes an ugly turn. Depp and Taylor play a game of Russian Roulette. Lewis overdoses on pills, he is guilt-ridden because he drove the car in the accident that killed Depp's parents. Eventually, not a whole lot of plot happens. Instead, the film becomes obsessed with suicide, wallowing in the characters' unhappiness to the point that I may remove the COMEDY sticker from the video case and write MANIC DEPRESSIVE on it.

The cast, especially Taylor, is good, too good. I felt like they really understood their respective characters and the director's overall vision. Too bad they did not let the viewer in on it. I felt undermined by the cast and crew, and could not wait for the film to end.

The final scene, on the tundra, has Depp and Lewis talking to each other in Eskimo native language while ice fishing. A confusing ending to a confused film. I do not recommend this one.

This is rated (R) for physical violence, gun violence, mild gore, strong profanity, sexual content, sexual references, and adult situations. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Ranking No. 21 on the American Film Institute's list of the 100 greatest American films, this 1940 classic is a bit dated in its noble sentimentality, but it remains a luminous example of Hollywood classicism from the peerless director of mythic Americana, John Ford. Adapted by Nunnally Johnson from John Steinbeck's classic novel, the film tells a simple story about Oklahoma farmers leaving the depression-era dustbowl for the promised land of California, but it's the story's emotional resonance and theme of human perseverance that makes the movie so richly and timelessly rewarding. It's all about the humble Joad family's cross-country trek to escape the economic devastation of their ruined farmland, beginning when Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) returns from a four-year prison term to discover that his family home is empty. He's reunited with his family just as they're setting out for the westbound journey, and thus begins an odyssey of saddening losses and strengthening hopes. As Ma Joad, Oscar-winner Jane Darwell is the embodiment of one of America's greatest social tragedies and the "Okie" spirit of pressing forward against all odds (as she says, "because we're the people"). A documentary-styled production for which Ford and cinematographer Gregg Toland demanded painstaking authenticity, The Grapes of Wrath is much more than a classy, old-fashioned history lesson. With dialogue and scenes that rank among the most moving and memorable ever filmed, it's a classic among classics--simply put, one of the finest films ever made. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (45)

Ford and Fonda do justice to Steinbeck
Take John Steinbeck's Pulitzer-Prize-Winning Novel. Turn it into a movie and let John Ford direct it, and get Henry Fonda to star. In 1940 you could hardly find a more certain recipe for a cinema classic.

As good as the film is, it really should be a companion-piece to Steinbeck's original masterpiece, and if you haven't read it I recommend setting aside enough time to read one of the greatest pieces of American literature ever written.

That being said, the medium of the cinema allows for a visual impact that can't be matched with the written word.

The Grapes of Wrath follows the Joad family during the great depression. That period of economic hardship hit the farmers in Oklahoma a little harder than the rest of the world, at the time of the dust bowl the "Okies" were at the end of their ropes, financially speaking.

Thousands of Okies packed up the house after being foreclosed and moved out to California - many winding up around Bakersfield, at the California end of old US Route 66. (Merle Haggard's family did so and the "Okie from Muscogee" wrote about it in songs like "California Cottonfields".)

Anyway, this is the historical context of the movie. The theme of the movie, and of Steinbeck's book, is the ability of the human spirit to remain intact in these worst of times. The Joads suffer terrible humiliations, one after another, most of them because of their desperate financial status. But as the story proceeds we see that they are fundamentally decent, hard-working people, and every time life knocks them down they get back up, brush the dirt off themselves, and keep moving forward. As a national characteristic, this was an important trait because this was the generation that produced the hard-working, high-minded individuals who did important things like win World War II, followed by America's greatest financial flourishing and the Baby Boom. Tom Brokaw called them "America's Greatest Generation".

The cast is picture-perfect, with Henry Fonda as the spirited Tom Joad and John Carradine as the former preacher with a new social consciousness. Jane Darwell won a well-deserved Best Supporting Actress Award as Ma Joad, and the remainder of the cast is in every way equal to the story and the film.

An American Classic
This is a great movie based on a great novel, and I am surprised by how honestly the film captures the raw humanity of the book. Steinbeck weaved social commentary into the story, and the movie makes many points about the human condition and spirit without being heavy-handed. The story of the Joads and their fight for survival rings very true, thanks to the realistic performances and the atmosphere created by director John Ford. Henry Fonda gives one of the best performances I have ever seen him give, and his "I'll be there" speech is one of the great movie moments. Jane Darwell is also very impressive, and her direct, down-to-earth style of acting makes the quiet strength and the suffering of Ma Joad seem very real. The Grapes of Wrath is an American classic, both as a novel and as a film.

"I'll be all aroun' in the dark."
"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loos'd the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword, His truth is marching on." - Battle Hymn of the Republic.

In 1936, John Steinbeck wrote a series of articles about the migrant workers driven to California from the Midwestern states after losing their homes in the throes of the depression: inclement weather, failed crops, land mortgaged to the hilt and finally taken over by banks and large corporations when credit lines ran dry. Lured by promises of work aplenty, the Midwesterners packed their belongings and trekked westward to the Golden State, only to find themselves facing hunger, inhumane conditions, contempt and exploitation instead. "Dignity is all gone, and spirit has turned to sullen anger before it dies," Steinbeck described the result in one of his 1936 articles, collectively published as "The Harvest Gypsies;" and in another piece ("Starvation Under the Orange Trees," 1938) he asked: "Must the hunger become anger and the anger fury before anything will be done?"

By the time he wrote the latter article, Steinbeck had already published one novel addressing the agricultural laborers' struggle against corporate power ("In Dubious Battle," 1936). Shortly thereafter he began to work on "The Grapes of Wrath," which was published roughly a year later. Although the book would win the Pulitzer Prize (1940) and become a cornerstone foundation of Steinbeck's Literature Nobel Prize (1962), it was sharply criticized upon its release - nowhere more so than in the Midwest - and still counts among the 35 books most frequently banned from American school curricula: A raw, brutally direct, yet incredibly poetic masterpiece of fiction, it continues to touch nerves deeply rooted in modern society's fabric; including and particularly in California, where yesterday's Okies are today's undocumented Mexicans - Chicano labor leader Cesar Chavez especially pointed out how well he could empathize with the Joad family, because he and his fellow workers were now living the same life they once had.

Having fought hard with his publisher to maintain the novel's uncompromising approach throughout, Steinbeck was weary to give the film rights to 20th Century Fox, headed by powerful mogul and, more importantly, known conservative Daryl F. Zanuck. Yet, Zanuck and director John Ford largely stayed true to the novel: There is that sense of desperation in farmer Muley's (John Qualen's) expression as he tells Tom and ex-preacher Casy (Henry Fonda and John Carradine) how the "cats" came and bulldozed down everybody's homes, on behalf of a corporate entity too intangible to truly hold accountable. There is Grandpa Joad (Charley Grapewin), literally clinging to his earth and dying of a stroke (or, more likely, a broken heart) when he is made to leave against his will. There is everybody's brief joy upon first seeing Bakersfield's rich plantations - everybody's except Ma Joad's (Jane Darwell's), that is, who alone knows that Grandma (Zeffie Tilbury) died in her arms before they even started to cross the Californian desert the previous night. There is the privately-run labor camps' utter desolation, complete with violent guards, exploitative wages, lack of food and unsanitary conditions; contrasted with the relative security and more humane conditions of the camps run by the State. And there is Tom's crucial development from a man acting alone to one seeing the benefit of joining efforts in a group, following Casy's example, and his parting promise to Ma that she'll find him everywhere she looks - wherever there is injustice, struggle, and people's joint success. In an overall outstanding cast, which also includes Dorris Bowdon (Rose of Sharon), Eddie Quillan (Rose's boyfriend Connie), Frank Darien (Uncle John) and a brief appearance by Ward Bond as a friendly policeman, Henry Fonda truly shines as Tom; despite his smashing good looks fully metamorphosized into Steinbeck's quick-tempered, lanky, reluctant hero.

Yet, in all its starkness the movie has a more optimistic slant than the novel; due to a structural change which has the Joads moving from bad to acceptable living conditions (instead of vice versa), the toning down of Steinbeck's political references - most importantly, the elimination of a monologue using a land owner's description of "reds" as anybody "that wants thirty cents and hour when we're payin' twenty-five" to show that under the prevalent conditions that definition applies to virtually *every* migrant laborer - and a greater emphasis on Ma Joad's pragmatic, forward-looking way of dealing with their fate; culminating in her closing "we's the people" speech (whose direction, interestingly, Ford, who would have preferred to end the movie with the image of Tom walking up a hill alone in the distance, left to Zanuck himself). Jane Darwell won a much-deserved Academy-Award for her portrayal as Ma; besides John Ford's Best Director award the movie's only winner on Oscar night - none of its other five nominations scored, unfortunately including those in the Best Picture and Best Leading Actor categories, which went to Hitchcock's "Rebecca" and James Stewart ("The Philadelphia Story") instead. Still, despite its critical success - also expressed in a "Best Picture" National Board of Review award - and its marginally optimistic outlook, the movie engendered almost as much controversy as did Steinbeck's book. After the witch hunt setting in not even a decade later, today it stands as one of the last, greatest examples of a movie pulling no punches in the portrayal of society's ailments; a type of film regrettably rare in recent years.

"Ev'rybody might be just one big soul - well it looks that-a way to me. ... Wherever men are fightin' for their rights, that's where I'm gonna be, ma. That's where I'm gonna be." - Woody Guthrie, "The Ballad of Tom Joad."

"The highway is alive tonight, but nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes. I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light, with the ghost of old Tom Joad." - Bruce Springsteen, "The Ghost of Tom Joad."

The Grapes--and Apples and Oranges--of Wrath
It's striking how many reviewers here base their comments on a simplisitic comparison between the film version of "The Grapes of Wrath" and the Steinbeck novel on which it was based. For many such a comparison seems to function simply as an excuse to proclaim the inherent superiority of the Steinbeck original--and, by extension, the superiority of their own literary taste values-- when all it really does is highlight the patent silliness of trying to pit different artforms into some sort of evaluative competition. Literature and cinema are two vastly different modes of representation each with their own strengths and limitations, so the framing question shouldn't be which version of "The Grapes of Wrath" is "better"--as if there were a universal yardstick with which to measure such things--but rather how do they perform in terms of their respective mediums? On that count, I think we are extraordinarily fortunate with both the Steinbeck and Ford versions of "The Grapes of Wrath" to have two masterworks that operate consummately at the peak of their respective artforms. What each does well, it does brilliantly. As a verbal medium that unfolds slowly, literature is good at offering rich, layered descriptions of person and place and mapping complicated narrative links and Steinbeck makes the most of this in his novel. Cinema, by contrast, is an expressive medium that works best through registers of visual and aural metaphor, allegory and performance...and it's on this ground that I think the film version of "The Grapes of Wrath" more than merits its classic status. It is a magnificently "cinematic" film that uses the expressive capacities of the medium to produce a richly layered experience that is truly moving and that lingers long afterward, sometimes for years or even a whole lifetime. I first saw "The Grapes of Wrath" on TV one rainy afternoon in my childhood and it left indelible impressions that have impelled me to go back to the film time and again: The haunted eyes of Jane Darwell's Ma Joad as she sits in the truck cabin, lit from beneath, driving into an uncertain future, the winds of history howling oustside; the terrifying collision montage as the monstrous "cats" move in to destroy the Okies' homes; the soulless gas station attendants, standing together in uniforms like corporatized automata, muttering that the Joads are too miserable to be human. It's a film dense with iconic richness and an enduring testament both to the artistry of the many workers that created it, and to the democratic spirit of popular cinema at its very best.

As good a restoration as possible
This DVD restoration is probably as good as possible given that the original camera negative was lost. This is the one to get.

By the way, there is NO widescreen version of "The Grapes of Wrath." This DVD release exhibits the full frame aspect ratio of the original (1.33 to 1 ratio). Essentially, films made between 1917 and 1952 were filmed with a full frame aspect ratio. Standard televisions were proportioned 4:3 to copy the standard cinema ratio. Widescreen (Cinemascope, etc) was a gimmick introduced by Hollywood in the 1950s to compete with television. So if a film was made between 1917 and 1952 don't go looking for a widescreen version of it because there isn't any! ... Read more