Reviews (403)

Masterful and Commanding
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is the latest attempt by the Hollywood establishment to revive the nautical adventure genre that enjoyed great popularity during Hollywood's "golden age." Based on Patrick O'Brian's phenomenally successful novels about British heroism during the Napoleonic Wars, the film traces the efforts of Captain Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) and his loyal crew to intercept and destroy an errant French warship in the Pacific waters near the Galapagos Islands. Although this movie will disappoint any audience member who is expecting a great deal of background information about the historical intricacies and personalities of the Napoleonic Age, it will thrill and entertain all filmgoers who love the kinetic energy and old-fashioned showmanship of a well directed swashbuckler.
Veteran director Peter Weir is entitled to an Oscar nomination simply for staging some of the most dazzling and exhilarating naval battle sequences of all-time. The violent encounters between Aubrey's HMS Surprise and its French counterpart the Acheron were so gripping and realistic that several audience members at the showing I attended were literally gasping for breath as they left the theater (the sound of cannon fire and rushing water no doubt reverberating in their ears). However, Weir deserves the most credit for his detailed and provocative portrayal of every aspect of life aboard a British warship, circa 1805. Audiences get to see the chief lieutenants create strategies and chart courses, the midshipman cope with the responsibilities holding authority over much of the crew while still conforming to the expectations of their superiors, and the common sailors, mates and boatswain confront unbearable weather and inedible food as they prepare to risk their lives for the country they love. Several characters leave an indelible mark on the hearts and minds of viewers, particularly Max Pirkis as a prepubescent crew member who faces the amputation of an arm with unwavering courage and Lee Ingleby as an indecisive midshipman who becomes convinced that his presence is cursing the ship. The battle scenes owe much of their punch and power to Weir's realization that it is far more engaging to watch complex, multifaceted figures battle it out for God and country than it is to watch caricatured personalities scramble through combat without purpose or motivation.
At the center of the fray is Russell Crowe, who thoroughly captures Captain Aubrey's intensity and charisma. It isn't easy to play a character that orders the vicious beating of an unruly sailor in one scene and makes charming toasts to wives and sweethearts ("may they never meet!") in another, but Crowe succeeds brilliantly by imagining Aubrey as an impulsive individualist who stands by his instincts and emotions in any context. When the Captain engages in heated philosophical discussions about loyalty and leadership with his friend Dr. Steven Maturin (Paul Bettany), it is riveting to watch the star's fascinating portrait of a man obsessed with his own righteousness. Crowe will almost certainly reap some significant awards from this impressive performance, and at the very least he has found a profitable new franchise to sail through the rest of the decade with.

The War on the Waters
I came to 'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World' with little expectations beyond reasonable entertainment. I was thus surprised that this was a powerful little human drama about a vicious chase in the high seas.

What makes 'Master and Commander' successful is not the plot, which is a straightforward cat and mouse story. Rather, it succeeds because of its gritty sense of realism and the ability to capture the feel of time and place.

While most historical movies feature ordinary, contemporary people in period dress (see 'Gangs of New York'), Master and Commander does feel like it takes place in the early 19th century. It is little things, like Captain Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) motivating his troops by demanding "Do you want your children to sing 'La Marseillaise'?", or the real excitement the characters display in discussing Nelson.

Also powerful is the film's feel for the hardships of warfare on the Sea. Early in the film, a child loses his arm, and throughout the movie real characters suffer casual death. At one point Jack Aubrey must choose between saving one man and saving his crew, and he allows the man to drown. This form of realism is so rare in Hollywood films, in makes 'Master and Commander' truly unique.

The great weakness of the film is its episodic nature. There is scarcely a plot - the hunt for the French frigate "Acheron" is merely a framework for the individual happenings, which include a storm, a suicide, and most infamously, a rather overlong subplot about Crowe's sidekick's (Paul Bettany) Darwin-like expedition to Galapagos Islands.

Indeed, the emergence of this subplot makes the second half of the film slow and much less interesting then the first half. Although the scenery is breathtaking, the story just fails to move, until Bettany's accidental discovery of the Acheron, which sets the stage for the climatic battle.

Director Peter Weir and his crew should be commanded for a great adaptation of Patrick O'Brien's seafaring adventure. If there will be a sequel, I will go with high expectations.

EVERYTHING --& more!!
1. this is THE cute guy movie. from 8 to 80, small, tall, thin or round, this movie will have someone for you. i can only imagine my sister, who once had a list of 254 men she Truly Cared About that included people like the guy 3d from the left in the second scene of Star Trek 2, drooling like a pet of pavlov w/in the first 3 minutes.

2. & speaking of star trek-----

russell crow _IS_ Captain James T. Kirk.

this is the most postmodern movie i have ever seen!!

here is an actor playing a captain playing an actor playing a captain!!

i think captainhood has been forever embedded in the mind of anyone young or old & privileged enough to see the _real_ & _only_ Star Trek as meaning one thing: William Shatner. watch the timing!! watch the _gestures_!! watch the way he looks at the camera. the likeness is uncanny!!

my partner watched this movie a couple of days before i did & when i said to him, "you know who that is--" he said he had thought the same thing.

amazing!!

dont worry, i LOVE Captain James T. Kirk. when i was a very little kid, even younger than any of the little kids in this movie, my parents & i saw him (the actor, not the captain) screaming at his girlfriend at a folk dance festival. that image is embedded in my brain as well!!

anyway.

Captain Kirk, in order to be Captain Kirk, MUST have his Spock. & here, of course, he does. but oddly his Spock is only the entrée into........

3. the Monty Python element. think John Cleese, younger (much much younger), w/ a lot of freckles & a slightly skinnier jawline. think his uppercrust gestures & the way he often looks up at you (thru the camera) w/ those eyes..... right here. Mr. Spock as a naturalist-warrior-sailor-doctor who also, on the side, runs the Ministry of Silly Walks.

but thats not all!!

you also get, in this movie that was modeled on "Star Trek transports itself into Monty Python & the Holy Grail on the High Seas" --the old guy. you remember the Old Guy. he is embedded in yr brain too. i know he is. & it will be very very hard for you to watch a scene wherein he appears w/o thinking of eric idle, hanging on a dungeon wall & singing. every single time.

but nobody is singing "la marseillaise" b/c when you finally do meet those french types, they are too busy yelling things like:

"oh you english pig-dogs!!" --you get that too!! i almost expected a bunch of fruit & a cow to come flying over the side of the boat.

& theres more-- so much more-- it makes ones brain itch trying to remember it all.....

4. &, speaking of an itchy brain, in addition to heroic self-surgery, one also gets: trepanning. woohoo!! personally, i recommend amanda fielding's video (worth looking up) as she is doing real-life, real-time self-trepanning, but this one works as a little preview. & besides, she doesnt stick a quarter into her skull.

5. &, wait, there is so much more!! poop on the poopdeck (rewind or you will miss it. my partner, who worked on lots of boats made us rewind so i wouldnt miss it)-- & LOTS & LOTS of animals. i LOVE this movie!!

but probably not in the way that peter weir intended. which is why i gave it 4 stars. it is the most postmodern movie i have ever seen. the whole thing seems plotted, directed & acted as if it were a bunch of archetypal television programs strung together or laid on top of one another (lets not forget marlon brando (rip) in "mutiny on the bounty," although that might just have been inspiration for the costumes) (& do remember "the poseiden adventure" & undoubtedly "titanic" (i havent seen it)) w/ unbelievably fabulous images of oceans, islands, ground & ships-- just gorgeous stuff from the director of "the last wave."

& yes, it is a roiling barrel of entertainment.

Cat and Mouse on the high seas
Set in the Napoleonic Wars of the early nineteeth century, Master and Commander is based on the Patrick O'Brian's historical novels. The essence of the story is a chase starting off the coast of Brazil and ending up off the Galapogos islands, between a French ship with its clever commander and the HMS Surprise- the ship at the center of the story.

The movie itself is richly laid out in genuine props of the era, which succeeds in giving it an air of realism. Russell Crowe does a fine job as Captain 'Lucky Jack' Aubrey, a man with a history of experience and well respected by his sometimes grumbling men. The supporting cast is excellent with a list of characters that adds to the richness of life on a seafaring ship of that era.

Crowe doesn't grandstand and take over the movie allowing the story, other characters and action to speak for themselves. A lot of credit should of course go to Peter Weir for his direction and his adaption of O'Brian's novel.

Master and Commander is very reminiscent of old Hollywood epics and a quite enjoyable movie. I honestly didn't expect much and came away very satisfied and entertained.

Highly entertaining and recommended.

Well acted action-adventure film
A definite surprise - I enjoyed this movie much more than I thought I would. Very well acted, especially Paul Bettany as Dr. Stephen Maturin and Max Pirkis as the very young midshipman who loses his arm in the opening battle scene. While the special effects of the movie are amazing, they didn't overshadow the depth of the characters protrayed. Unless you are a reader of the O'Brian novels (which I recommend even more highly than the movie), you wouldn't notice one major change. The Acheron was really the USS Norfolk - an AMERICAN ship - not French. I guess the producers figured we wouldn't put down our dollars to see a movie where we were the losers. ... Read more

Reviews (186)

Holy Hilarity!
Life of Brian is not as well known by the movie going public as Monty Python?s classic "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", but it is definitely is as, or maybe even funnier than Holy Grail. This is especially true for people who are familiar with the Biblical stories it pokes fun at. It is perfect satire, for nothing is sacred and everything is a joke.

The story revolves around Brian, a very unlucky resident of Judea who just happened to be born the same day the Christ child was born. Missing his chance at glory, Brian lives his life selling animal parts at the Coliseum, dominated by a violent mother who is very "friendly" to the Roman occupiers. The rest of Brian's environment is inhabited by a very wild bunch. The neo- or archo-Marxist group, the People's Front of Judea, battles the Romans daily by holding meeting after violent meeting, plotting against the legions and their arch rivals, the Judean People's Front. The Romans, on the other hand, are led by the Pontius Pilate, who, contrary to Biblical reports, has quite a lisp and an endearing sense of stupidity. When Brian rebels against his mother and joins up with the wild band of revolutionaries, his life is changed forever. Quite by accident, Brian is then thought to be the messiah, although he is quite reluctant in his leadership.

Satirically, this movie is absolutely ruthless. Everything is skewered, everything. The performances are all fantastic, especially that of John Cleese, who is just the man in this movie, playing about six separate characters. Joke after joke hits the viewer, which results in just non-stop humor. It's just a wonderful movie by the Python pioneers who really revolutionized comedy. The Criterion DVD edition is great, with tons of hilarious extras that are worth the price on their own. To the people that use this to either justify their atheism or believe it to be an attack on their religion, calm down. It's a comedy for God's sake, why do the opinions of some British comedians affect your outlook on life? Just laugh damn it!

Great extras on this Python DVD
THE LIFE OF BRIAN has remained one of my favorite Python flicks after the glow of the Holy Grail began to wear thin from overuse. If you're considering purchasing this movie, you've probably seen the movie already and are a Monty Python fan. If not, get ready for one of Python's most sacrilegious and hilarious movies of their collection! If you are easily offended, you might think twice. However, the satire here is equally distributed and is not aimed so much at religion itself but moreso at the amusing ways in which people can behave "under the influence" of zealotry.

I thoroughly enjoyed rewatching the movie, but it was a great surprise to find that this DVD comes packed with some great bonus materials. Several full-length, revealing interviews with the cast go into more Python history than just that surrounding this flick. And a rather large collection of scenes cut from the final release are also quite interesting.

The video and audio quality seem to be on par with most of the other DVD movies I've seen so far, despite the film's age.

All in all, a great addition to any Python collection.

Is nothing sacred? NO! And that's why this is a riot!
Irreverent, brilliant, ingenius... I'm getting all these words out of the way now before I forget them! Even though I'll probably use them a dozen times!

The funniest thing to come from England since The Stamp Act, Monty Python's Flying Circus could always be depended upon to provide the world with brilliantly twisted humor. The LIFE OF BRIAN is no less a comic masterpiece than anything else these boys have done. Ostensibly a parody of the life of Jesus, LIFE OF BRIAN is a hilarious attack on liberalism, conservatism, colonialism, individualism, communalism, organized religion, disorganized religion, fanaticism, feminism... take your pick of any of a hundred topics. It doesn't matter, it's still brilliant. And the script and direction holds it perfectly all together, even if there's a space ship chase sequence thrown in for the hell of it.

Once again, the members of MPFC each play several roles and every viewer has his or her favorites, so what the hell, I'll mention mine. Michael Palin, while playing a wonderfully foppy Pontius Pilate, is equally hilarious as a twitchy, hyperactive leper that Jesus had cured. Instead of being grateful, he complains that his rehabilitation has ruined his livelihood as a beggar. (Speaking of rehabilitation, Palin plays the part like a junkie in need of a fix.) John Cleese has several great moments, but his role as a Centurion turned sadistic Latin teacher is nothing short of genius. Everyone who has studied Latin will be beside themselves during this scene. And Terry Jones as Brian's mom still stuns me 25 years later. "My Brian is not the messiah! He's a very naughty, naughty boy."

Monty Python's LIFE OF BRIAN is irreverent, brilliant, and ingenius and this edition, complete with outtakes, behind-the-scenes footage, and interviews make this package worth the price. Whether you are an individual or not, "Monty Python's Life of Brian - Criterion Collection" will save your comic soul.

a review of a movie
A brilliant movie with a brilliant finale.

funny but wheres Bodge?
This is a very funny movie. It takes place int he Stone Age. About a guy named Brian and this is his life. Most of the humor is because his name is brian and people confuse him for somebody else. "I'm not so anso I'm Brian." Also there is a very funny moment when a man says his wife is called Continual Buttocks (a butocks is a bottom) or soemthing. Some of the humor is called toilet humor that I'm not a fan of. My friends and I only thought that Bodge would have looked great in this film with his beard and BRITISH accent!!! Where was he? He would have been perfect! ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Mob Hit!
If you loved GOODFELLAS and THE SOPRANOS, this should be on your Christmas list. Vincent Pastore (Big Pussy), Michael Imperioli (Christopher Moltasanti) and Kathrine Narducci (Charmine Bucco) all appear in this film along with Nicholas Turturro, the first cousin of Aida Turturro (Janice Soprano). As with most mob films the story tends to be cliche but well acted. The only disappointment, aside from the incrediably long wait for this movie's release, is that the film isn't available on DVD. Let's hope the DVD version isn't far behind and that Kathrine Narducci won't be lost in the transfer.

Good alright, almost as good as Gotti
This is a good picture alright, Although I would have preferedto have done the casting my self, However I disagree with Michael Cellio regarding Abe Vigoda from the godfather who's playing Big Paul Castellano, I think he's the perfect guy for the role. But Tom Sizemore and Nicholas Turturro could have a number of replacers though. But I am a big fan of mob movies and cant judge this picture to hard, my final words are: "It was good but not as good as Gotti with Armand Assante". And Michael take a look at the real Paul Castellano and maybe you'll see that Abe Vigoda is pretty similar...

Excellent film--Not to be missed by fans of "mob" films
This film is an excellent adaptation of the story told in "Sammy the Bull" Gravano's book, *Underboss*, the reading of which would actually enhance this film for any viewer. Nicholas Turturro does with his acting the same magic Gravano performs with the written word--taking you directly into the mind and the world of a real gangster with few excuses offered.

Gravano was raised to revere and respect "the mob" the same way other kids in the U.S. learn to idolize sports heros and financial wizards today. To get into the mob was to "make it", and Sammy Gravano did just that as few others have, ultimately rising to be second-in-command of one of the country's most powerful mobs.

This is the story of the decline in power of the Gambino crime "family" following the death of its formidable founder, the low-key but lethal Carlo Gambino. His replacement, "Big Paul" Castillano proved not as devoted to "the family" or to his own family his forerunner, both colossal faux pas for a crime boss. His being replaced with the flashy, all-too-public "Teflon Don" John Gotti dealt the Gambino organization a blow from which it has yet to recover (it may be supposed; who knows what underground operations may yet be going on?).

Gravano's hands somehow appear much bloodier in the movie than in the book--perhaps because the book allows more time for the protagonist to tell his side of the story and come up, if not smelling like a rose, at least not smelling quite as much like stinkweed. In Witness for the Mob, his true status is more clearly spelled out as that of a serial killer who was granted immunity in exchange for the testimony that put John Gotti, among others, away for life. Gravano entered the witness protection program and, the film tells us, is now "doing business somewhere in the United States."

This film makes it appear that at least as late as the 1980's, before the fall of Gotti, members of "the mob" enjoyed the same sort of glory and hero-worship as the bankrobbers of the American Old West and Depression-era. Every little boy dreamed of growing up to be a gangster, and every woman of marriageable age wanted to marry into the lavish lifestyle such a life afforded. In fact, one of the most interesting aspects of this story is the way the mob wives lived in luxury while turning a very practiced blind eye to the means by which the money rolled in.

"Sammy the Bull" employs a candor in his book that spills over into this movie. At no time does he claim to be a hero of any sort and freely admits that saving his own skin was his primary motivation in becoming a federal witness against his former partners. That candor becomes a reason to believe, if not admire, him.

Nicholas Turturro is outstanding in this roll, portraying Sammy the Bull in the way that Gravano himself would probably have preferred, judging from his book. Tom Sizemore is totally believable as the "Dapper/Teflon Don" whose love of being in the public eye began to tighten the snare set for him. And it is great to see Abe Vigoda again, this time as "Big Paul" at the end of his reign, too smug and self-satisfied to think that the new "up and coming" members of his own gang might break long-standing Cosa Nostra taboos to get rid of a leader they came to regard as ineffective at best. And it is amusing to see Gotti, as portrayed by Sizemore, make the same mistake of thinking that once you are "the boss", no one can take you down, even though he was very actively involved in the assassination of his predecessor.

There are no heros in this film, which adds to the veracity of its story. What the viewer gets is a far above average look into the world of the mob, a world that is confusing, horrific, and occasionalliy amusing in a dark, sardonic sort of way. For three hours, you see it all through the eyes of "underboss" Salvatore Gravano. And that is about as close an observation as you can get and still live to tell about it.

Mob Madness
This movie is about the rise of mobster Sam Gravano, whose testimony put John Gotti and others in jail. Some may find this movie too long. I thought the nearly three-hour length allowed the story to develop more fully. The story drew me in. The film raises the question of what is ethical. According to this movie, it depends upon one's point of reference. The mob has its own code of ethics. Gravano is depicted as striving to live according to that code. It is a code that jusifies murder. This film has plenty of executions but I did not think the violence was overdone. This movie draws the viewer into the mad world of the mob. We are enticed to see Gravano, who murdered 19 people, as an honorable hero. This view is questioned at the end, however, when we begin to emerge from the darkness of the crime world and see the cost of crime to all of us.

government rat
What do you rate a good mob movie on. Maybe how it compares to Godfather or Goodfellas. No, you rank them based on the material in the movie and in this case I would have to say that they used alot of useless parts of this story and put it in the movie. They(mafia rats) all tell stories to make them selves look like the victim. But the truth about Sam gravano is that he was a stone cold killer and the movie gives you the idea that he was just doing what he was told. Not true, instead of puttng the courting of his wife, who left him because he was a rat and killed her brother, the movie should have focused on why he became a killer. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Matchmaker Matchmaker Make Me A Match
Mr. Hirayama (Chishu Ryu) congratulates his secretary on her wedding and wishes another one the same domestic bliss. But when the subject of his own daughter's marriage is touched - he is in no hurry. She is still a child. One of his friends, Mr. Kawai, sets him right: Michiko is 24. He knows the right suitor, a young doctor, and offers to act as matchmaker. The evening is long (baseball, sake) and one of their buddies, Mr. Horie, brags about his young wife. No "aid" (viagra) needed; His wife buys him just vitamines... The others crack jokes behind his back: old fool, I don't want to be like him...

Michiko greets her father ("you're drunk"). This beautiful young girl is not the subjugated "little woman" but a proficient housekeeper on her way of becoming a shrew. She has no intention to wait on her little brother Kazuo. She shrugs off Mr. Kawai's warning that she may become an old maid...Hirayama's class comrades nearly exhibit Mr. Sakuma, their old math teacher as warning what can become of a man who neglects the duty to marry his daughter. Sakumas daughter, Tomoko, restrains herself and remains polite when her father's former pupils deliver the staggering old man in his miserable noodle-kitchen. Only after they left this faded and careworn woman allows herself to cry...

Koichi, Michikos elder brother,is married to Akiko who is just as self-assured as her sister in law. When her husband bosses her around she bosses him back. Koichi touched his father for 50 000 yen - for a washing machine - and golf-clubs that his wife will not allow him to keep ("golf is a luxury for a little clerk like you"). He is sulking...Hirayama asks his daughter if she does not want to marry. He feels that he has taken advantage of her. She remains obstinate, claims that she is contented with her life, does not want to "speak about it". Hirayama asks his younger son if he "has somebody". Yes, Kazuo replies, and he suspects that Michiko "has somebody" too. Michiko visits Koichi and Akiko. Her father's matchmaking is getting on her nerves, although she is not disinclined to marry. She finds one of Koichis colleagues, Mr. Miura sympathetic...With his father's approval Koichi puts out a feeler: "Would you like to marry?". Too late! Mr. Miura was, in fact, interested, but thought that Michiko was not - and now he has another sweetheart. Michiko keeps her countenance while her father and her brother break the news gently to her. She cries only in secret. But there is still hope: Mr. Kawai's candidate, the young doctor...Too late again! His union to another girl is as good as settled...April Fool! Mr. Kawai couldn't resist his little joke...

...And the marriage does take place: Michiko is a beautiful bride and Hirayama a proud father who wishes his daughter: "Be happy". He does not plan to move in with Koichi and Akiko because "young people belong together. The old should not trouble them". He will stay at home together with his younger son. He gets drunk in a bar. People ask him if he comes from a funeral ("Something like that" he replies). Kazuo awaits him at home. "You're drunk!" "Go to sleep!" he orders his old man. Mr. Hirayama is sitting on a chair and has a look at his empty house. Now he is truly alone.

Masterpiece - what hackneyed word to describe Ozu's last film. Neither did he make use of classic sources (like Kurosawa) nor did he invent the "eastern". The problems his protagonists face are everybody's problems: How to grow up and find happiness without angering your parents, how to grow old and surviving it without angering your children...Ozu is at his best when he describes the generation gap. How did other directors capture the moment when a parent has but one duty: let go. Different perhaps; Better is impossible. Ozu is as good as Wilder when mixing drama & comedy: Hirayama meets an old wartime comrade in a bar. They deplore that the younger generation is influenced by american culture. What if Japan had won the war? ( We'd be sitting in New York. Americans would wear japanes hairdos. And they would play the shamisen while chewing gum"). The talk about aphrodisiacs and contraceptives was probably too "adult" for western audiences of the time, but sometimes dissonant parts amount to a harmonious total.

Ordinary people, extraordinary film-making
Some have called director Yasujiro Ozu the poet of the everyday. Most of his films deal with ordinary people leading ordinary lives. But what is not so ordinary is Ozu's ability to capture the essence of human relations. His characters seem so real to us, because they are reflections of ourselves and the people we know. In Ozu's final film, Samma No Aji (which literally means "the taste of mackerel"), a widower knows his only daughter must eventually leave home and marry. We watch, as he tries to deal with his growing sense of isolation and loneliness. He becomes nostalgic for the good ol' days. He hangs out at a bar run by a woman who reminds him of his late wife. A popular World War Two song, Gunkan Machi (Warship March) pervades the film. In contrast to this, his married son and daughter-in-law represent the new Japan. They are more concerned about material things like golf clubs and new appliances. There are sad moments in this film, but funny ones as well. One of my favorite scenes takes place in the bar. The widower, who was a naval officer during the war, and a former shipmate are talking. The shipmate says if Japan had won the war, American women would now be wearing geisha-like wigs and chewing gum while playing the shamisen (a Japanese musical instrument). There is no melodrama in this movie, just an honest portrayal of family life and human relations. And it's that honesty that makes watching an Ozu film such a memorable experience.

mu
You have a review by 'unhelpful' which is in need of a footnote or two. His gripe about the price relates to an earlier edition. I'm sure he'll be happy to allow that the new 20 dollar version isn't going to upset anyone in terms of price. The Japanese-release version of An Autumn Afternoon (sanma no aji) is in fact no longer than the American release. I don't know how he made that mistake.

Ozu's Late-Late Masterpiece
This film is so painfully beautiful, as Ozu's sad farewell (he died of cancer), that I found it hard to believe that New Yorker, who owns exclusive rights to so many of Ozu's films, found it necessary to cut it by almost twenty minutes. The Japanese-release version of An Autumn Afternoon is listed at 133 minutes. In Japan, the video, from Shochiku Video, sells for about $30. New Yorker retails for about twice the price, in a bowdlerized version. Save your money for future releases.

Sublime Swan Song
Ozu's final masterpiece is a such a wonderful way to end one of the most distinguished careers in filmmaking. Chisu Ryu is once again superb as a lonely widower trying to grapple with giving away his only daughter in marriage. Although the film runs the gamut of familiar Ozu themes, you never ever tire of the Ozu trick of a "good two hours spent with your neighbors". His beauty of filmmaking, which is drenched in simple joys of everyday living makes him one of the greatest humanists of world cinema, along with Ray and Renoir. Put simply, this film is "stunning visual poetry". This is an absolute "must have" for all you Ozu fans out there, and recommended for all lovers of world cinema. ... Read more

Amazon.com

You're better off having been born after, say, 1965, if you really want to enjoy this corny romantic comedy and its abundant references to the MTV culture of the mid-1980s--and even then the odds are only 50-50 that you'll have a shamelessly good time. But a lot of people beat those odds, because The Wedding Singer was a surprise box-office hit when released in early 1998, and it resulted in Saturday Night Live graduate Adam Sandler's salary going ridiculously sky-high. It's a schizophrenic film about a seemingly schizophrenic wedding singer (Sandler) who's charmingly sweet to some people but a tongue-lashing maniac to others, probably out of frustration over his fading ambition as a wannabe rock star (not to mention Sandler's penchant for loud-mouthed lunacy). When he meets an admiring young waitress (delightfully played by Drew Barrymore), it's love at first sight, complicated by their pending marriages to much less appealing fiancés. The plot then contorts itself to accommodate this contrived will-they-or-won't-they? scenario, so you're better off ignoring the love story and focusing on the comedy, which is sporadic but occasionally hilarious. This is also a lighter, friendlier Sandler than moviegoers had seen before, which probably accounts for the movie's success. Toss in a fine supporting cast--including a show-stopping drunk act by indie-movie stalwart Steve Buscemi--and you've got the ingredients for a no-brainer that's ultimately more fun than it is annoying. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (251)

Adam's Best
You are cordially invited to fall in love with one of the funniest romantic comedies of the year! It's 1985 and Robbie Hart (Adam Sandler) is the ultimate master of ceremonies...until he is left at the altar at his own wedding. Devastated, he becomes a newlywed's worst nightmare - an entertainer who can do nothing but destroy other people's weddings. It's not until he meets a warm-hearted waitress named Julia (Drew Barrymore) that he starts to pick up the pieces of his heart. The only problem is, Julia's about to have a wedding of her own and unless Robbie can pull off the performance of a lifetime, the girl of his dreams will be gone forever.

From big hair to Billy Idol (as himself), The Wedding Singer features a hilarious cast and a platinum soundtrack including 80's hits from Culture Club, David Bowie and The Police.

One of Adam Sandler`s Best Films.
Robbie Hart (Adam Sandler) is a talented singer, who is the Ulimate Master at Ceremonies but When he`s about to get married, his girlfriend (Angela Featherstone) left him at the altar at his wedding. Mad at the world and especially himself, only thing, he could do is destory other`s people wedding just into he meets a soft-hearted waitress named Julia (Drew Barrymore) helps him to pick up the broken pieces of his heart. When Robbie meets Julia`s fiancee (Matthew Grove) and finding out that he`s a real jerk (especially when he manipulated Julia`s heart). Robbie falls in love with her, unless he could pull off a genuine moment with Julia before she gets married with a SOB.

Directed by Frank Coraci (The Waterboy) made a wonderful memorable romantic comedy that is absolutely satisfying. Sandler brings One of his Best Roles as a Struggling Song Writer & Barrymore is adorable as the Woman of his Dreams. This was a Surprise Box Office Hit, when it was release in the Winter of 1998. Carrie Fisher did some re-writes for this film, which she`s uncredited. Allen Covert is also fun as Robbie`s best friend and Christine Taylor is also attractively sexy as Julia`s Cousin. DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) transfer (also in Pan & Scan) with an fine Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD Extras are a Theatrical Trailer, Cast & Information & Three Karoke Songs. Billy Idol appears in a amusing cameo and also Jon Lovitz as a ridiculous Party Singer. Steve Bucesmi appears unbilled in a funny bit. Written by Tim Herlihy. Grade:A-.

very funny!!!
Adam sandler and Drew barrymore go nuts in this hilariouse romantic comedy, like 50 first dates.

"PERFECT."

One of the all-time romantic greats
This is one of the best all-time romantic comedies. You should be well-versed in 1980s pop culture to get the true humor, but a good time by all is basically guaranteed. One of my all-time favs!

Drew barrymore, and adam. 22nd may 2004.
The film was ace, i thought by watching it that drew and adam would be brill together for real life. They are great friends and they both act together soooooooo cool! Drew is funny in a couple of parts of the film i certainly think she should be a comedian, she is sooooooooooo funny. I really enjoyed one of there other films they made together 50 first dates, that was soooooooooo romantic. I think this musical film defently deserves a 5 star and not less because the acting is cool, and they are both made to act together. And she's my favorite actress anyway. It got me so tempting in buying this video because i like to see films with them both in together, it is certainly a good film for you if you like drew or adam. GOT TO BE SEEN, EVEN IF YOU ARN'T MUCH FOR A MUSICAL. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Release in DVD version Please.!!!?.....
Work Welldone between Hamlin vs Anthony, Hot love scene and the chemistry between them keep the screen heat. I was wondering why the studio not release in dvd format ???. Its really a good entertain movie to collect specially in DVD version (Hopefully soon).

Pretty Good Flick
Actually, I thought the plot was pretty good. It's the kind of movie to rent when you've seen all the hyped films and are looking for something light and different. I enjoyed it more than many highly praised films.

let's hope this movie comes up on DVD soon!
Lets hope for the dvd of this movie in the future sometime!

WWWWWOOOOOWWWWW!
Any movie showing gorgeous Lysette Anthony wearing only her earrings is a must-see-no-matter-what! If, on the other hand, you were expecting an actual movie, forget it! ... Read more

Reviews (13)

VINTAGE DAVIS
Bette Davis gives a stunning performance as Joyce Heath, an alcoholic stage star with a self-destructive complex. Joyce Heath is a vitally tempestuous creature who has ruined her reputation as an actress and has come to be regarded in her profession as something of a jinx. Theatrically blacklisted, she has become an alcoholic in the depths of her own self-destruction. One night, while drinking herself into a hole in a seedy bar, she is noticed by wealthy architect Don Bellows (Franchot Tone); Heath has been idolized by Bellows ever since he saw her play Juliet years before. Don takes Heath under his wing, bringing her to his house in the country and a inevitable love affair ensues. The character of Joyce Heath gave Davis an oppurtunity to convey all of the most instense emotions of which she was capable, from anxiety to zealousness, including liberal amounts of her famous screen bitchiness. The script is rather weak and mawkish at times and the film is almost totally carried by Davis, who uses all her well-known acting tricks to make her character come alive. Alison Skipworth is amusing as Mrs.Williams, Bellows cook who tells Franchot confidentially that Davis is indeed "dangerous". Ernest Haller's photography is justly praised; in the middle of the film, Davis is beautifully photographed, and her scenes with Tone (playing cards and eating homemade toffee) are incredibly spontaneous and realistic. Margaret Lindsay plays socialite Gail Armitage to whom Bellows is engaged (and eventually marries) and she gives a typical "stock" performance. Davis gives an Oscar worthy performance yet she is the only thing this movie has going for it; the character of Gordon Heath is unbelievably lame and the ending is unsatisfactory and banal to say the least. DANGEROUS was a success at the box office and it was one of Warner's biggest money-makers for 1935.

HIGH VOLTAGE BETTE.
It has been widely implied that the Academy Award given to Bette Davis for her performance in this mediocre film was actually a consolation prize for her electrifying performance as Mildred Rogers in OF HUMAN BONDAGE - which was filmed the year before. Although this 1935 film reeks of soap & has a really corny ending, you can get fixated watching LaDavis - still in her blonde period - act everyone off the screen. For her performance alone, DANGEROUS is worth sitting through: otherwise it would be considered a hackeneyed, mawkish piece of vintage trash. Bette plays Joyce Heath, a once-esteemed theatre actress who's drifted into the seedy life of alcholism and self-pity. One night, while drinking cheap gin in a dive, she's recognised by a young, promising architect named Don Bellows, who takes her under his wing and encourages the once-great actress to make a come-back... Davis is astonishingly electrifying in her playing: one can see why she was a fascination to 1935 moviegoers! Mind you, not everyone was a Davis devotee, but her highly charged, energetic personality was nigh impossible to ignore once seen on the silver screen. The middle of the film contains the best scenes, and there's a genuine - if somewhat unusual - chemistry between Davis and Tone. Margaret Lindsay does well enough as classy Gail Armitage who tells Bellows that "a secret's a secret". Franchot Tone isn't as bad as other reviewers have stated; he certainly had a fine speaking voice. As the almost unbearably mealy Gordon Heath, one wants to slap John Eldredge's face: an unbelievable entry in the cut-my-arm-off-if-it-will-help-you martyr sweepstakes. As a trivial footnote, the final working title of the film (after about seven inadequate ones) was HARD LUCK DAME. It was Davis herself who came up with naming the film DANGEROUS. Forgettably remade in 1941 - again by Warners - as SINGAPORE WOMAN with Brenda Marshall & directed by the later esteemed Jean Negulesco.

A BITTER BETTE STEALS THE SHOW...
Bette Davis won an Oscar for her deft portrayal of Joyce Heath, a former Broadway star who made a meteoric rise to the top and, just as quickly, hit bottom. Believed to be a jinx by a superstitious theatre crowd, Heath is bad news, a sloppy, bitter drunk who drowns her sorrows in gin soaked jags of self pity. The former brightest star on Broadway is now a bottom feeder, living on the skids.

Enter Don Bellows, played with earnest sincerity by Franchot Tone, a fan of Heath when she was at her peak. He claims that a performance of hers, which he saw, forever changed his life, allowing him to become the architect he always dreamed of being, rather than a stockbroker. One day, he sees Ms. Heath in a gin joint, totally in her cups. Sending his friend and his fiancee, Gail, home, he returns to the gin joint and takes Joyce Heath to his country home to rehabilitate her in repayment for the tremendous difference that she had, unknowingly, made in his life. What he does not count on is falling in love with her.

The bitter Joyce initially resists his attempts to get her back on the road to recovery, but ultimately responds to his nurturing and concern for her welfare. Recovered, she finds that she has fallen in love with him and he with her. His passion for her causes him to break off his engagement with Gail, his socially prominent fiancee.

Wanting to help Joyce regain the stardom that she previously had and that her thespian talent demands, Don backs a broadway show that he believes will allow her to regain her rightful place on Broadway. He does this, despite her protestations that she has brought only ruin to those men who had the misfortune to fall in love with her. He also insists that she marry him. His simple, though insistent, marriage proposal sets into motion a sequence of events that he could not possibly have envisioned. Enter Gordon Heath, a blast from Joyce's secret past, who must be dealt with, if Joyce is to find any happiness with Don. How she deals with him, however, sets her down a path out of one's worst nightmare. Subsequent events later make Don realize that Joyce is truly "dangerous".

Bette Davis is dazzling in her role. She runs the gamut of human emotions in playing the role of Ms. Heath and, deservedly, won what was to be the first of two Academy Awards for Best Actress. Franchot Tone is fine in his role, but what on earth the studio saw in him, I cannot fathom. He is certainly no heartthrob and is not even particularly charismatic. The role of Gordon Heath, played with simpering masochism by John Eldridge, makes the viewer marvel at the restraint Joyce had in dealing with him, as Eldridge's portrayal makes the viewer's fingers itch with the urge to slap him numerous times.

Unfortunately, the sizzle in the movie fizzles, when the film gives in towards the end to utter sanctimonious banality. It is too bad, given the performance by Ms. Davis, as it could have been a great movie. Still, this is a must see film for all Davis fans.

Early Davis shines in pre stardom Oscar winning role
Made during her "apprenticeship", at Warner Bros, when she was forced to appear in many highly forgettable film roles, "Dangerous", was definately the standout in so far as it provided the young and driven Bette Davis with a character worthy of her dramatic efforts. As Davis herself stated about this film "I saw potential in the role of Joyce Heath, realised the pot holes in the story and had to work like ten dogs to stop it from getting bogged down in treacle!". Work she did, and very well indeed, being rewarded for her efforts with the 1935 Best Actress Academy Award.

Viewed today "Dangerous", while highly entertaining and featuring a terrific performance by Bette Davis, is very obvious in its weaknesses and contains alot of situations and dialogue that really dont ring true. Nevertheless it is an important film in the career of Davis in that it revealed what she was capable of achieving when time and effort was spent on preparing her films a little better than previously.It tells the story of acclaimed actress Joyce Heath who finds herself a jinx on both the people in her life and in any production she is involved in. Going from being the shining light of Broadway she finds herself in the alchoholic gutter with no friends and no career. A chance encounter with rich architect Don Bellows (Franchot Tone in a good but poorly written role) changes her circumstances as Bellows is immediately attracted to her and becomes her champion in all things. Despite being engaged to be married to lovely socialite Gail Armitage (Margaret Lindsay)he determines to restore Joyce's life as once, she (unknowingly), inspired him to better himself and explore his artistic side in the field of architecture. Taken by Don to sober up at his country estate Joyce, a chronic drinker first resents and verbally attacks Don however as she sees the importance he places on getting her life back in order she responds and finds herself falling in love with him despite warning him of her jinx on men and that she will always be "dangerous", to any person who comes close to her. Don decides to bank roll her return to Broadway and on the eve of the first night it seems that the jinx is again at work when it is discovered that Joyce actually is married and cannot obtain a divorce after Don asks her to marry him after the first night of the play. In an insane rage Joyce tries to kill her sickly devoted husband Gordon (John Eldredge) after he refuses to divorce her and thus jeopardizes the production due to open. It's only after this diseaster and when Don has gone and finally married Gail that Joyce realises that others are important and then attempts to right the terrible wrong she has done to both her now crippled husband and the many peope in the Broadway comunity that had faith in her.

Vintage soap opera? Maybe, but acted with a conviction by Bette Davis that does make us believe the improbable situations occuring. The supporting cast also score great acting points in their various roles. Franchot Tone who never really settled into the Hollywood acting situation has a difficult role to play here as on one side of things he must be a capable business type who is obviously an astute individual while on the reverse having to play a character that really wouldn't probably get involved in the situation he finds himself in. He does well playing Bellows but alot of his situation fails to really ring true. Margaret Lindsay is delightful as Don's spurned fiance but once again her character as written is perhaps a little too excepting of the situation with Joyce to be regarded as totally realistic. Veteran character actress Alison Skipworth as Mrs. Williams, Don's house keeper really scores as a crusty individual who really stands up to Joyce's drunken ravings and helps put her on the course back to respectability. The look of the production has a rich other worldly feel about it as was typical of movie making in the 1930's. It reveals an almost too glamourous world of smart cars, beautiful clothes, palatial country houses and city apartments. Just the tonic for depression weary movie goers in 1935.

I personally love this early performance by Bette Davis a few years before her great period of stardom began. Her great commanding star presence is very obvious even here. I regard "Dangerous", as vital to include in any Bette Davis collection and what you see is raw vital talent that within a few years would be refined in a number of unforgettable performances that are as vivid today as they were 60 years ago. Unrealistic as it may be at times "Dangerous", is highly entertaining viewing and shouldn't be missed when exploring the formidable collection of work by the legendary Bette Davis.

Obvious Melodrama
Bette Davis stars in this melodrama as Joyce Heath, an actress that has been labeled a jinx due to the hard luck that befalls the men in her life and the productions she is associated with. Once considered that brightest, rarest talent of her generation, she is reduced to an embarrassed alcoholic, unable to get work. She is rescued by Franchot Tone, an architect and fan who wants to rehabilitate. He's engaged to society girl Margaret Lindsay, who knows nothing of his "humanitarian" deeds. Needless to say, Tone falls for Davis, and he begins to discover why his housekeeper Alison Skipworth has warned him against her ... she is dangerous. You can't say Davis doesn't go for it with this performance. She chews the scenery in her drunk and bitter scenes. She is more subdued and effective in the quieter scenes, when she reveals her character's vulnerability. Tone is alright, not really making much of an impression, while Lindsay is boring in a badly written role that she does nothing with. The screenplay is weak and obvious, and the melodrama came on too strong for my tastes. I never really felt that these were real people, but rather just plot devices to keep the story moving along. But Davis does help to keep it watchable. You sort of get the impression she knew how bad this was, so she did whatever she could to salvage the film. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Perhaps only the collective brilliant minds of the Monty Python film and television troupe are up to the task of tackling a subject as weighty as the Meaning of Life. Sure, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, and their ilk have tried their hands at this puzzler, but only Python has attempted to do so within the commercial motion picture medium. Happily for us all, Monty Python's the Meaning of Life truly explains everything one conceivably needs to know about the perplexities of human existence, from the mysteries of Catholic doctrine to the miracle of reproduction to why one should avoid the salmon mousse to the critical importance of the machine that goes ping! Using fish as a linking device (and what marvelous links those aquatic creatures make), The Meaning of Life is presented as a series of sketches: a musical production number about why seed is sacred; a look at dining in the afterlife; the quest for a missing fish (there they are again); a visit from Mr. Death; the cautionary tale of Mr. Creosote and his rather gluttonous appetite; an unflinching examination of the harsh realities of organ donation, and so on. Sadly, this was the last original Python film, but it's a beaut. You'll laugh. You'll cry (probably because you're laughing so hard). You may even learn something about the Meaning of Life. Or at least about how fish fit into the grand scheme of things. --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (193)

Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life
From birth to death, this is a hilarious view at the time we spend inbetween. The established cast of actors, in and out of drag, poke fun at everything from religion to vital organ transplants.

My favorite scene is where "the fattest man in the world" pigs out at a fancy restaurant and eventually explodes to the disgust of the other guests. Another good one is where 3 couples at a house party get a visit from the grim reaper and give him several clever arguments before finally following him to heaven.

This is The Monty Python Gang at their very best. The little ditty at the end of the movie is priceless! You will also enjoy the "introduction" by a groups of gold fish and the "opener" saluting the great profession of accountancy. This film is an absolute must for fans (but then again, if you're a fan, you've already seen it anyway). Five stars for this one!

The Pythons in top form!
Here we have THE best Monty Python movie ever! I know I said that about Life Of Brian...but I mean it this time (no, really). Meaning of Life is a stroll through the world according to Monty Python. Many aspects of the human condition are twisted by our favorite Brit-comedians into a series of hilarous sketches. Although there are a few standouts-Birth the Third World, intercourse instruction, live organ transplants and *my favorite* the entire Death section-everything is funny. Additionally, all of Eric Idle's songs are so good you'll never forget them-and find yourself singing them in the shower. Show this to your uninitiated friends and see what happens! Beware: there are those who may find some of this offensive. I personally find MEANING an exhilarating ride! One thing does trouble me. Monty Python says it'll be Christmas in Heaven every single day! Don't you think this'll get annoying after the first 4 or 5 months?

This is on my favorite all-time movies list; which explains why I own both the DVD and the VHS version. Don't expect a Life Of Brian DVD type Criterion treatment-you get the movie, scene selection and that's it. But that's all you need. The VHS isn't bad either if you don't want the widescreen or higher price of the DVD. I was worried about wearing out the VHS...not a problem now!

More hilarious twenty years later...
...a Python fan since about twelve, I vividly remember this film coming out when I was thirteen or so. I loved it. It's great that it has not only held up but, like fine wine, it has gotten better with age. Maybe Terry Gilliam's right when he says, in one of the commentaries, that, today, comedy's standard is so low that "our crap seems good no." But it reveals their genius in so many ways. It reveals a confidence they clearly didn't feel--as tho' they'd gotten their sea legs--in the first two efforts. Though "Brian" is their supreme achievement, I have to say that this film must be placed ahead of "Holy Grail"--which given its budget looks distincly like badly shot TV. Hysterically funny, but the budget limits are are even more glaring in a high res medium like DVD.

In "Meaning of Life" the entire cast are masters of the medium (something Cleese proved independently in "A Fish Called Wanda") and they use their skills, rising even to lyrical heights (Eric Idle's paen to the universe in "Live Organ Transplants"). And the effects are more hysterical twenty years later.

This movie is also remarkable for the rather bitter satire of American pop culture. Heretofore, the Python's had stayed within the classic tradition of British comedy--filled with whimsy and just plain silliness and the class structure. American humor is generally either observational or political--and these days it almost entirely the latter. Even the masters of observation, Goldberg and Carlin, have abandoned it for bitter political diatribes attacking former fans like myself in the basest terms because out political beliefs differ.

And it follows, as it should, that the movie's best skits are the ones true to their tradition. George Harrison once called Python the continuation of the Beatles (to the point of chipping in $8M for distribution and advertising for "Brian"!). And, especially in the all too brief Gilliam animations, this is completely accurate. Without being at all derivative, they capture the whimisical sensibility the Beatles had updated and transformed and ran with it.

One draw back is the rather low-rent 5.1 remix. I've other films--e.g. the Godfather films--which are older than have far better jobs. So don't expect much. In fact, you might even consider using the 2CH option as the remixing engineer makes little use of the rear speakers.

That gentle bitch aside, the deleted scenes are mixed (why on Earth Jones thought anyone would want to see more of Mr. Creosote is beyond me?) and clearly wisely hit the cutting room floor (especially the horrendously unfunny Martin Luther skit), but some the commentary by Jones and Gilliam--clearly done at different times and mixed--is interesting most especially for the bitterness of Gilliam's attitude. It has been so on the two preceding films, but it's much more intense on this one.

The brief interview segments shows the group rivalry is still a hot issue in the guys' psyches, nearly twenty years after Graham Chapman's tragic death ended the group; they are still bickering. Gilliam's comments about Cleese are particularly acid; Cleese does he usual job of insulting nearly everyone. He is returned the favor by the rest of the group, tho' Jones slyly does it with the most class and thus does it the best. Cleese, after all, easily slips into insufferable. Hence his brilliance as Basil Fawlty.

A reluctant four star due only to the ****-poor 5.1 remix. The studio, surprise, surprise, didn't want to spend any extra money getting a good one.

The movie itself: 5 stars.

This disc should have been recalled
If you purchased this disc, and it does not have "V2" on disc one, contact Universal for a replacmeent, even if it plays fine on your current DVD player.

Here is why - the problem is with progressive scan DVD players and progressive scan monitors. Very few people have both, so the problem will not rear its ugly head until you upgrade.

The movie is completely unwatchable in this configuration.

Do yourself a favor, and get disc one replaced now, before it is too late.

Not up to par
I have seen both The Holy Grail, and The Life of Brian and this one did not meet my expectations after seeing those. I laughed thrice, maybe. I almost skipped the entire second section, as younger persons were present and we were utterly disgusted with it. If you have a taste for sexual humor, you'll most definitely enjoy this film more than I. The second disk is not even worth slipping into your player, and if, like me, you have a compatibilty issue with Disk 1 and you live in another country, it's going to be a hassle to get a replacement.
The fish were comical, and the entire segment on fighting was brilliant, but that was all of the humor I seemed to find up until a few minutes near the end. If you've never watched Monty Python, I suggest you start with one of the other movies, as this one could turn you off of a truly great source of hilarity. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

"Him No Choke"
"Him no choke" was the famous line from this movie when Jane asked Tarzan to hold the bottle up as so young Boy would not choke. This movie was another of the GREAT Weissmuller collection! The Best part is when the natives get Boy's greedy ,slimey second cousin and get him ready to shrink him down to about 2 feet high, first using him as some sacrifice (what ever they did to him and several of the tribal boys looked pretty bad even though you couldn't see what was going down as they began to chant over their victims)Boy those natives they were pretty rough! I own all of the MGM series and this is my favorite next to "Tarzan and His Mate"next to"Tarzan Escapes"and I could go on ! This is truly a Classic and I still don't see how "Gone with the Wind" was able to win the Acadamy Award in 1939 over this picture - talk about a scam - this movie should have won hands down ! Do yourself a favor and buy yourself a piece of real Hollywood History as this movie is the TOTALPACKAGE ! note:another great line in the movie is "That used to be a full grown man" "ENJOY"

Cheetah find Boy. Give Boy to Tarzan. Jane say keep Boy.
It was not until I actually started working my way chronologically through the Tarzan novels of Edgar Rice Burroughs that I discovered Tarzan and Jane did not find their son in a wrecked airplane. The novel "The Son of Tarzan" was actually made into a fairly faithful silent film in 1920, but Johnny Weissmuller's Tarzan is not going to father Korak the Killer in this 1939 effort. This begs the question "Why?" Is it because women would faint at the idea of Maureen Sullivan's Jane giving birth in the jungle, no doubt with Cheetah as the mid-wife? Or would it be because pregnancy results from sex and the Hays Office would have a conniption over the implied jungle love? Then again, it might just be that the theme of the purity of the jungle versus the sins of civilization play up better with this film's storyline.

The plot is pretty simplistic. A plane crashes in the jungle and a baby is the only survivor. Cheetah brings the infant to Tarzan and Jane. Of course, Jane insists they will raise it as their own and acquiesces to the idea of calling the baby boy "Boy" (we can only wonder what would happen if the couple were to come across a second male child in terms of names). Boy (Johnny Shefield) is happy in his jungle home when suddenly a saffair made up of his parents' relatives arrives up the scene to begin a custody dispute, jungle style, which means involving a LOT of elephants.

The bottom line is that "Tarzan Finds a Son!" is the second best of the Weismuller Tarzan films, behind 1934's "Tarzan and His Mate," bringing out a paternal streak in the Lord of the Jungle that becomes him. The chemistry between the trio (okay, the quartet when you include Cheetah), makes this film work despite the limited vocabulary Weismuller's Tarzan has to work with in this series. Not to mention Boy has a pretty good variation of the Tarzan yell going for him. Of course, if you see this one be sure to check out "Tarzan's New York Adventure," where Boy is kidnapped by an evil circus promoter and taken to New York City where Tarzan and Jane follow to rescue him.

Rousing Jungle adventure yarn
I only saw this installment in the terrific MGM Tarzan series for the first time recently and must admit I was impressed. I feel this story further developed the storyline of Tarzan and Jane living the good life in the jungle.

This installment certainly added extra dimension to both of their characters with Tarzan displaying paternal emotions for the character of Boy and Jane being revealed as not always making the right choice and having a disagreement with Tarzan that causes a rupture, however temporary, in their relationship.

By the time this installment was released in 1939 (it was the fourth in the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films) technology had developed considerly from the first film (Tarzan the Ape Man) in the early 30's which today seems abit primitive. In this film , apart from a few very fake vine swings , the special effects are wonderfully handled and show a real refinement.The underwater sequences are superbly handled and where actually filmed by the actors themselves. The film really has everthing from wild animals to rampaging tribes of natives, plane crashes etc. Everthing to make this film an exciting adventure story and one of the very best in the MGM Tarzan series

The stories main feature is of course the introduction of Johnny Sheffield as Boy, a character that remained in the rest of the Tarzan features. I wont relate the plot line of Boy's introduction into the story as other reviewers have already covered that but to say that Johhny Weissmuller personally picked young Sheffield for the role and their on screen chemistry is wonderful. I feel Boy's introduction adds a logical development to the Tarzan character and from now on the king of the jungle had a family in the true sense of the word.

No Tarzan film would be complete without its quota of villians and "Tarzan finds a Son" has a very exceptional list of fine character actors as supporting performers. The great Henry Stephenson appears fresh from his great performance in the previous years MGM classic "Marie Antoniette" as Boy's long lost great Uncle looking for the possible survivors of the earlier plane crash. Another great performer is Cecil B. DeMille regular Henry Wilcoxon who plays one of the white explorers. Both add a real prestige element to this film.

I think "Tarzan finds a Son" is a terrific piece of entertainment and one of the best in the MGM series. At this point the series was still alive and fresh and the expert direction by Richard Thorpe really keeps the action moving along. Enjoy!

Tarz rocks as a Dad but the movie flounders in mediocrity.
let me say at the open that I'm a Tarzan fan and like all the Weismuller movies in particular. Johnny Sheffield was great in this movie, his acting was impressively natural. His relationship with his "parents" Tarzan and Jane seemed real and unforced. He acted just the way you would imagine a kid would act growing up in the jungle with Tarzan That part of the movie I liked.
The problem I had was with the tacked on confrontation between Tarzan and Boy's relatives. It was awkward and the villains weren't really worthy of testing Tarzan's mettle. They were unimaginitive cardboard characters and the plot revolving around them was grade A hack material. The greedy grasping relatives seemed so bland and uninspired compared to the relationship between Tarzan, Jane and Boy. I would have liked to have seen something that re-inforced the relationship between Boy and his parents. In closing, the parts with Boy, Tarzan and Jane are great. A boy couldn't hope for a better life than growing up in the jungle with Tarz. The rest of the movie though is a flop. it's worth watching, just stay near the fast forward button on the remote.

Johnny Sheffield the Baby Boost becomes Boy
"Tarzan Finds A Son" introduced the character of Boy to the series. After an impressively staged plane crash in the thick jungle a solitary baby is recovered from the wreckage of the craft. Enter the character of Boy! Johnny Weissmuller personally picked Johnny Sheffield for the new and much needed integral part for the series. You might say that Sheffield provided a "baby boost" to the series! Weissmuller assisted the strapping Sheffield as he trained for the rigors of the role. The film was shot entirely at Silver Springs, Florida. Several lakes there were brilliantly clear and were perfect for the underwater photography. Maureen O'Sullivan who wanted to quit her role as Jane dies in the arms of Tarzan in the original script. The scene was actually shot, but under protests from Edgar Rice Burroughs and many fans MGM re-shot the scene keeping O'Sullivan in the series. I like this film because it focuses more on the characters and their relationship as a family unit rather than on their relationship with the various jungle friends and threats which were growing wearisome by the time of this entry in the series. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Woody Allen roared back at his detractors with Deconstructing Harry, a bitterly funny treatise about the creative process. Known to mine his often tumultuous personal life for his movies, the embattled writer-director-star didn't bother to make his alter ego likable in this movie: Harry Block (Allen) pops pills, frequents prostitutes, and cheats on the women in his life, then writes about their foibles in thinly disguised fiction. No wonder they're all furious with him. As Harry journeys to his alma mater with a hooker, ill pal, and kidnapped son, a series of flashbacks unravel, juxtaposing Harry's relationships with their "slightly exaggerated" fictional counterparts. There are amusing cameos throughout, including a humorous turn by Demi Moore as a fictitious ex-wife who "became Jewish with a vengeance," and Billy Crystal as the devil who found Hollywood too nasty for his liking. The humor is dark and caustic, but well worth it; Deconstructing Harry is a near-brilliant mediation on the sometimes queasy relationship between art, creator, and critic. On DVD, the film is presented in both widescreen and pan and scan; the disc includes cast bios. --Diane Garrett ... Read more

Reviews (81)

REPROBATE ALLEN WINS ME BACK, THIS TIME
When it was first released, I avoided seeing DECONSTRUCTING HARRY (a.k.a., Woody) because I couldn't bring myself to face yet another self-deprecating, neurotic, self-indulgent, self-centered Woody Allen on screen (who the newspapers had just confirmed is that way off screen too!). Having first laughed at and then endured Allen since the 1960s, I'd had enough. Nevertheless, to this day Allen's THE FRONT remains one of my all time favorite movies ... mainly because of its truthfulness, honesty and courage. Unintentionally, one night I saw part of DECONSTRUCTING HARRY on cable TV (and then HAD to buy it here in DVD) ... because I couldn't stop howling. I'd only seen perhaps the middle half hour of it, but that was enough. Mercifully, THIS movie was not ALL about Allen. Rather Harry Block-Woody Allen was "exploited" as a vehicle for a higher form of humor. Then there were a parade of actors who I never imagined had it in them: Richard Benjamin, Kirstie Alley, Amy Irving ... of all people ..., Mariel Hemingway ... yet! ALL were great in this comedy ... they were terrific. Equally terrific were Hazelle Goodman as Harry's motherly hooker Cookie (wonderful), Billy Crystal and Robin Williams ... who you'd expect to be funny, were indeed that.

I must admit, Allen pulled one out as writer, director and star. But not merely because of the brilliant writing and directing (oh, O.K., and the acting) but because for ONCE Harry-Woody was not the center of the neurotic universe. He was in the middle of the action .... but he tied it all together in DECONSTRUCTING HARRY. Many modern interpersonal issues, stereotypes and clichés are brought into scrutiny under this microscope. It is the very absurdity of it all, making the movie hysterically funny.

Clearly, this is a movie for mature audiences. It is definitely not a movie for children and adolescents. Probably they would find it boring and confusing. The language and situations are graphic, raw and irreligious. But in this movie these are necessary "paints" for painting this picture. Grownups will enjoy this movies thoroughly.

Allen's self-exploration vignettes
Weaving between fiction and reality, Woody Allen's Deconstructing Harry tells the tale of a writer's sexual exploits, romantic failings, and dealings with depression. Allen's character Harry transfers his life's problems into his books, which causes much strife between the real-life counterparts in his world.

Once again Allen has leveraged his considerable fame to draw in Hollywood's elite. Throughout the film, every face is a familiar one. Billy Crystal is portrayed as the devil who steals Woody's romantic lead, Robin Williams as a blurry actor who can't get his focus, Kirstie Alley as a ex-wife who discovers Harry has cheated with a patient, and countless more celebrity cameos.

The joy in partaking in this film is evident in the celebrity actors who appear. There's a certain prestige in such an endeavor, and we, the film audience, can identify just about everyone in the film. At the same time, each character that appears has so much baggage in our minds. For instance, Demi Moore appears as an ex-wife. How many of us can honestly think of her in any way other that her celebrity profile. While this isn't a major problem, identifying with some of the celebrities proves difficult at times.

Deconstructing Harry catalogs Woody's struggle with sexual desire and his inability to love. Early on we discover that he has finally found true love in a pupil, Elizabeth Shue, but she has fallen in love with his friend.

The plot is shaped around Harry's self-identity questions, and the character's goal is to go to an honorary ceremony at his alum. He has nobody to take. His ex-wife won't let him take his son, his girlfriend has left him, and a hooker is the only one around that will take him up on his need for companionship.

The play between Allen's semi-autobiographical stories, which flash to and from reality, illuminate the film and shows how Allen's writing channels his depression and gives him a release from an otherwise ugly life.

After viewing Deconstructing Harry, I wonder how autobiographical it really is.

Witty, perhaps, but heartless
There is no doubting the genius of Woody Allen. The clever ideas and witty dialogue flow thick and fast here, but there is just one problem: The film is totally and utterly heartless.

Woody Allen's humour here is just downright cynical. Cruel, even. The film has a narcissistic feel to it, where everyone is mocked and ripped apart mercilessly apart from Woody's alter-ego, Harry. Though I saw this a few years ago and loved it, on rewatching it recently, I just couldn't enjoy it. His cynicism here is left untempered by optimism and faith, something that marked out his earlier work. Sorry, but this just left a bitter taste in my mouth.

One of Woody's best!
This belongs on the shelf along with the other Woody greats such as Hannah, Manhattan, Stardust Memories & Crimes and Misdemeanors. I can't imagine any objection to this movie unless you're the type that gets excited whenever you see a Tom Cruise type up on the screen. About as close to art as a movie can get and in the same league as Bergman, Wenders, Godard or any of the other greats.
Enough said.

incredible
This is by far my favorite woody allen film . most people who discredit the movie do so because of course language and/or typical woody allen roles and situations. well, if you can't take a little vulgarity, f__k off this movie's not for you. It's not potty humor, it's unfiltered dialogue fitted to the characters and the situations they find themselves in. As for the typical allen scenerios of love triangles and even squares, that's what has made him. Would you expect a woody allen film where he is not nuerotic, or tense, or in constant insecurity? Then don't expect one in which all the angles of relationships are dissected and exploited. ... Read more

Reviews (26)

Superb Epic of Ancient Rome and its decline
"The Fall Of The Roman Empire" is one of the very best of the 1960's lavish epics detailing various historical periods. Filled with eye popping historically accurate costumes, spellbinding sets (The Roman Forum was the largest set built up till that time) heavy doses of corruption and intrigue and believable performances combined with intelligent writing, this film has it all and indeed is a winner all the way.

The film makes a real attempt not to stray too far from historical fact and focuses on the beginnings of the fall of Rome after 150 years of dominating the known world. The story opens with the last troubled period of the reign of Marcus Aurelius the benevolent philosopher Emperor who spent most of his reign reluctantly fighting on the frontiers of the empire against invading barbarians, through to the succession of his son the corrupt and insane Emperor Commodus. Woven into the fictional dialogue and personal situations is a great deal of historical detail which is authentic and illustrates the research and care that went into the preparation of this production.

Movie making during the early 1960's was a time rich in many historical epics and what distinguishes "The Fall Of The Roman Empire" is its wonderful performances set against this sprawling historical canvas of the decay of the mighty power of Rome. First and foremost the late Alec Guinness shines in a superb performance as Marcus Aurelius. Being a student of Roman History I was amazed at how closely he actually is made to look like the emperor and his performance is one of the towering achievements of the film. He is at times a strong leader, a trifle world weary and concerned about his place in history. It is one of Guinness's finest performances. The main focus of the story is the love affair between Lucilla (Sophia Loren, never more beautiful than here) and the upright Livius (Stephen Boyd) and their continued conflict with the new Emperor Commodus (Christopher Plummer). While Lucilla is the heroine of the piece here in actual history she was a seasoned intriger who was executed by her brother Commodus two years into his reign for plotting his death. This historical inaccuracy aside all three are excellent in their roles, in particular Plummer who really steals the scenes he is in as the corrupt, power mad Emperor and is far and way the best performer so far to play Commodus (the more recent "Gladiator" included). He is everything one has come to expect from a Roman ruler, mad, vicious, lavish in appearances and manner. It really is an attention grabbing performance and paved the way for his very different but equally famous role of the following year in "The Sound Of Music". Seasoned performers like James Mason, Anthony Quayle and Omar Sharif (pre "Dr. Zhivago") round out the excellent cast.

"Roman Empire" benefits from some of the very best visuals lavished on a film at this time. First and foremost the recreation of the Roman Forum would have to go down as one of the truly great sets in motion picture history. Long before computers did all the work this set was actually built to life size and is amazingly accurate in its layout and design. The battle scenes that take place on the empire's frontier near modern day Vienna are exciting and well staged and are some of the best of their kind ever undertaken. The film benefits from all the extensive location shooting that took place including the battle scenes supposedly taking place in Persia that were actually shot in Spain. Ably directed by Anthony Mann who had a similiar epic in the classic "El Cid" he keeps the action moving along at a good pace and allows the romantic subplot to weave into the story at appropiate times. Combined with Dimitri Tiomkin's sublime musical score it is a beautiful production to sit through and even its long running time (Almost 3hours) doesn't detract from it.

For lovers of Hollywood epic productions and students of Roman history "The Fall Of The Roman Empire" is an excellent piece of entertainment from back in the grand old days of film making when no expense was considered too much to achieve a truly great effect on screen. Certainly this film is one of the best of its kind and I highly recommend it as an exciting and colourful insight into the grandeur that was Rome.

Fall of the Roman Empire (1964)
Fans of the blockbuster hit GLADIATOR will find this film somewhat familiar as it deals with the same factual characters and events. Sophia Loren and Stephen Boyd provide attractive window-dressing as the starcrossed lovers, but the real stars are Alec Guiness, James Mason and especially Christopher Plummer whose portrayal of the evil emperor Commodous rivals the Oscar caliber work of Joaquin Phoenix in the more recent epic. Lush 70mm photography on massive sets should make this an exceptional title to add to your classics library on DVD.

The Biggest Film Set in Film History-Ever (until recently).
Re Aleaton3's comments on this film not being historically accurate and the size of the sets used. The Roman Forum set built for this film at Las Matas in Spain (just outside Madrid) was THE BIGGEST OUTDOORS or EXTERIOR FILM SET (as opposed to an INDOORS or INTERIOR FILM SET) in FILM HISTORY up until 2003 when TROY apparently claimed the title (TROY having been filmed in 2003). Refer to every edition of the Guinness Book of Records from 1965 up to 2003 to verify this. It was unique in that it was 3 dimensional (i.e. the buildings WERE 4 SIDED and HAD ROOFS-THERE WERE NO FRONTAL FACADES WITH JUST SOME SCAFFOLDING AT THE BACK AS IN NORMAL SETS. I DON'T THINK THE BUILDINGS HAD ANY INTERIORS. THE SET WAS ALSO VERY ACCURATE ARCHITECTURALLY) and THIS SET WAS DEMOLISHED SOON AFTER FILMING. I know this for sure because I visited this exact location in 1977 and was advised of this (apparently producer SAMUEL BRONSTON didn't want the magnificence of his set being used for any lesser, cheaper productions although the few remaing parts of the set that had not already been demolished were used soon after in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum"-see the absolute last title card at the end of that particular film). Incidentally this exact same site ONE YEAR EARLIER had been the location for THE CITY OF PEKING in the same producer's "55 DAYS AT PEKING". That particular set was also demolished soon after filming. As for the historical inaccuracies it is true that emporor MARCUS AURELIUS never OFFICIALLY nominated anyone other than his son COMMODUS as his heir and that COMMODUS DID NOT DIE IN A DUEL TO THE DEATH BUT WAS STRANGLED BY A WRESTLER AFTER BEING DRUGGED. Also THE AUCTIONING-OFF of THE ROMAN EMPIRE at the end of this film DID NOT TAKE PLACE IMMEDIATELY AFTER COMMODUS DIED BUT SEVERAL MONTHS LATER! However the scriptwriters used the "'INVENT AND DESTROY" method of storytelling so beloved to Hollywood. In this theory history cannot absolutely say that there was no character such as LIVIUS (STEPHEN BOYD) or MAXIMUS (RUSSELL CROWE), that emperor MARCUS AURELIUS (ALEC GUINNESS or RICHARD HARRIS) did not secretly annoint him as his heir or that he was not intimately involved with LUCILLA (SOPHIA LOREN or CONNIE NIELSEN)) the daughter of MARCUS AURELIUS (unbeknownst to the scholars and historians of that time). Having INVENTED A PLAUSIBLE THEORY IT MUST BE DESTROYED BY THE FILM''S END SO THAT HISTORY REMAINS REALTIVELY UNDISTURBED. So LIVIUS (this film) or MAXIMUS (GLADIATOR) never actually disturbs history by becoming caesar. Unfortunately either LIVIUS or MAXIMUS killing COMMODUS (CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER or JOAQUIN PHOENIX) in a duel to the death in the Roman Forum or the Colisseum DOES CONTRADICT HISTORY DIRECTLY and EXCEEDS THE LIMITS of the "INVENT AND DESTROY" THEORY. But THIS SEQUENCE IN EACH FILM DOES MAKE GREAT CINEMA and LOOKS VERY SPECTACULAR which is what these types of films are all about.. So for the sake of ENTERTAINING AND OVERWHELMING A MASS AUDIENCE (rather than an audience of historians only ) with VERY SPECTACULAR, ENTERTAINING and HIGHLY DRAMATIC STORIES I think the OCCASIONAL LAPSE in ABSOLUTE HISTORICAL ACCURACY and the OCCASIONAL INTERWEAVING of FICTIONAL CHARACTERS INTO HISTORY is ACCEPTABLE. Most people would not have any idea about ancient roman history had they not seen this film, GLADIATOR or indeed BEN HUR (history contains no refernce whatsoever to anyone called JUDAH BEN HUR either). An exactly historically accurate movie would probably be very boring and interesting only to history professors. The important thing here is that the spriit and atmosphere of the historical period is captured and conveyed to the audience and that the story itself is interesting enough to a mass audience in the first place so as to justify the enormous expenses involved (these productions being so costly). And on these criteria both The FALL of the ROMAN EMPIRE and GLADIATOR (and indeed BEN HUR) more than succeed. If the same extremely high quality of these productions (story-wise) can be maintained then more productions of this sort will be made (given the excellence of MOST computer-generated special effects nowadays the technical excellence of these previous productions should be equalled if not surpassed).

History vs Hollywood
The screenwriter of "Gladiator" claims not to have seen "The Fall of the Roman Empire" before writing the Ridley Scott film. That's odd since both films are bookended exactly the same way. Both open with Emperor Marcus Aurelius deciding that his son Commodus should not be emperor (a decision that leads to his murder). Both end with the fight between Commodus and the army commander within the shields of the Pretorian Guards. As a matter of fact, neither of these events are historically accurate.

Marcus Aurelius (according the Edward Gibbon and other historians) dealt the Empire a long-term blow when he broke with tradition by choosing his only surviving son, Commodus, to be his successor, rather than following the tradition of chosing the best man for the job and officially adopting him. To the consternation of his legions, Aurelius never chose a military commander over his own son. When you decide to abandon actual history at the very beginning of your story, the rest falls apart.

Secondly, Commodus was murdered by his concubine (who drugged his wine) and a wrestler (who strangled him) in his palace. In fact, it took a few days for everyone in Rome to come to finally believe that he was actually dead. HE WAS NOT KILLED in a single-handed combat with the commander of the army (either Stephen Boyd or Russell Crowe).

Third, there is no historical evidence that a group of barbarians were burned alive in the Roman forum, as this 1964 film depects. The screenwriter seems to have simply lost his grip on any sort of reality and went totally "Hollywood."

Samuel Bronson (the producer) spared no expence to actually build an exact replica of the Roman Forum (rather than do it digitally as in "Gladiator"), so the scenes shot on this set are truly spectacular. The set (built in Spain) was said to have stood intact for some years, even after Samuel Bronson Productions went bacnkrupt (over this very film). I have no idea if it's still standing.

Christopher Plummer is too old to play the actual Commodus, who was only a teenager when he ascended the throne. However, the script actually does justice to the spirit of the historical character of Commodus, and Plummer brings the man to vibrant life. Both Stephen Boyd (as the army commander) and Loren (as Commodus' sister) seem wooden and fail to establish any on- screen chemestry to their love-stared characters, although Loren's legendary beauty is well worth the price of admission.

Alec Guiness, James Mason, Anthony Quayle and Mel Ferrer all do an excellent job with their roles, although Omar Sharif has little to do since his scripted character is only one-dimensional.

Because of its over-all production values, and an appropriate and moving musical score, this becomes a satisfying, eye-popping, "they don't make them like this anymore" epic. It must be seen in the Widescreen format to do it justice.

Widescreen fans please note...
...you can obtain a fairly high quality widescreen DVD edition of this film from Amazon France's marketplace sellers. You can choose to watch in English, the only drawback being that the accompanying French subtitles can't be erased. However, when you see the price, even with postage, you won't want to complain! ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Unusual Western Ballad
FROM NOON TILL THREE is an entirely refreshing and unanticipated idiosyncratic Western full of sentimentalism from Charles Bronson and Jill Ireland. Knowing that Bronson and Ireland were man and wife in actual life makes this film more intimate as it unfolds as some affectionate parlor trick and wink of the eye. Bronson and Ireland explore unknown passions and tenderness of the soul as two strangers thrown together by fate for their accidental afternoon tryst. Elmer Bernstein is known for his more rousing scores that he composed for Westerns. Here Bernstein employs a romantic and bittersweet score for this fairytale Western that works beautifully for the charismatic Bronson and Epicurean Ireland. This is a wonderful film.

One of my favorite movies of all-time!
I first saw this movie in the early 1980's when Bronson was still very active in his film career. I had never been a fan of his movies--he just didn't seem to have a lot of personality. Then I saw "From Noon Until Three"; I could hardly believe he was the same actor I'd seen in other movies. He was GREAT in acting out the irony of the plot; he was funny, he was charasmatic, and he was sinister (at the beginning of the movie). It was as if Bronson finally "woke up" and came to life on the screen for the first time for me. He was great! His wife Jill was great!. I enjoyed the movie so much that I wanted to see it again, and the second time, I decided that it would become one of my all-time favorite movies. If I could give it more stars, I would. It is definitely a "Must See".

One of Bronson's best
This is one of Charles Bronson's best movies. No, it is not an action movie, there is very little action in it. It is a romantic western.Charles Bronson's real life wife Jill Ireland is in this and this is her best acting and role. This movie gripped me from beginning till end and never let go.
From Noon Till Three is about a bank robber known as Graham Dorsey and when something goes wrong with his horse on the way to a bank robbery he and his crew stop off at a ranchhouse where a widowed woman (whose only company is her servants most of the time) lives. The rest of the bank robbers leave Bronson and go to the bank and Bronson stays behind with Ireland.Ireland could have gotten rid of Bronson too because she had a horse in the barn but I suppose she would rather have Bronson there than part with her precious horse.
Bronson manages to get her into bed by pretending he is impotent-this is probably a challenge to Ireland.A romance ensues. They only have three hours until it all ends but already they are making plans for a future even though he is a bank robber, he is talking of going straight.
Soon a boy comes to the house and informs Ireland of a bank robbery gone wrong and that most of the crew are dead and there is to be a hanging of the survivor. Ireland tells Bronson but he doesn't want to risk his life to save his fellow bank robber. Somehow she persuades him to try and he leaves the house and gets chased by a posse. He dresses up as a dentist after he escapes the posse but finds himself in jail in a case of mistaken identity. In a way, lucky for him. In the meantime, this case of mistaken identity leads Ireland to believe that Dorsey is dead. Whilst he is in jail, she writes a book about their short affair and it becomes a bestseller. When Bronson gets out of jail he goes back to the house on a tour, gets let inside the house on the pretence he wants a glass of water before heading back to town.Even when he takes the beard off, for some reason she doesn't recognize him and it is not until he shows her his lower region that she does. But then she tells him there is no running off with him now. They have a responsibility to the legend.
Later, Bronson winds up in a mental institution and for some reason that I find it hard to believe, they recognize him as Graham Dorsey. A little hard to believe but a great movie. Don't miss it.

Unexpected Treat from Charles Bronson
This is a totally unexpected Victorian-like and romantic-comic Western from Charles Bronson and Jill Ireland. It's a bit of a conundrum that Bronson ever made this film. However, that's what makes it a real treat. Bronson is outlaw Graham Dorsey who spends three hours with Jill Ireland, the widow Amanda Starbuck, before a heist. Unlocking hidden passions in the frigid Amanda in her isolated mansion on the open plain, Bronson has every intention of returning from the job but events take a strange and unexpected twist. Bronson is very likable and charismatic in this role. Ireland is every bit the frigid Amanda Starbuck as she smolders sensuality from under her lace embroidered gowns. For Graham Dorsey, Amanda Starbuck is like a dream come true. For Amanda Starbuck, Graham Dorsey is the personification of some romanticized mysterious suitor. This offbeat and likeable tale comes to a most bizarre finale. Cinematographer Lucien Ballard's stark and vivid images somehow give this film a strange fairytale quality when combined with Elmer Bernstein's light yet maudlin and elegiac score.

A romantic Western comedy
A very touching story with a twist. Charles Bronson and his wife, Jill Ireland, portray a couple whose chance meeting leads to a playful and tender relationship, but with a dubious outcome. I recommend it for all romantics!! ... Read more

Reviews (19)

In Spite of Flaws, This Political Noir Is Still Powerful
There are certain subjects that films in general and Hollywood in particular never handled very well--and chief among them are politics. But even some fifty years after it first hit theatre screens, ALL THE KING'S MEN still has plenty of power. Filmed in a "noir" style and based on the famous novel which was in turn based loosely on the rise and fall of Louisiana's Huey P. Long, the film offers the story of Willie Stark, a small-town lawyer who is nominated for govenor by a political party seeking to defeat their opponet by dividing the rural vote. When Willie gets wise to the plot he turns on his false benefactors and rockets to political power--but once in power the honest small-town-joe becomes even more corrupt than those who sought to manipulate him for their own gain.

Broderick Crawford justly earned an Oscar for his performance as Willie Stark, whose ego and thirst for power grows to horrific proportions--and whose corruption gradually taints even the most honorable people around him. The supporting cast of John Ireland, Joanne Dru, Anne Seymour, and Walter Burke (to name but a few) is also quite good. But the real knockout here is actress Mercedes McCambridge as Willie Stark's hard-edged assistant and sometimes lover; it is an astonishing performance which, in spite of its supporting status, remains locked in mind long after the film ends, a role for which McCambridge won an Oscar as Best Supporting Actress.

The script doesn't really do full justice to Warren's novel, the film is a bit slow to start, and the story itself feels a bit dry in the telling--but the performances and numerous memorable scenes carry it through to tremendous effect. ALL THE KING'S MEN is so explicit in its portrait of how corrupt politicians manipulate the public that it should be required viewing for every one of voting age. Recommended.

The political rise and fall of Willie Stark
"All the King's Men" turns Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer Prize winning novel into the role of a lifetime for Oscar winning Best Actor Broderick Crawford. The story is inspired, for lack of a better word, by the real life and times of Huey P. Long, the infamous Louisiana politician who seemed intent on adapting fascism to American politics. Director Robert Rossen also wrote the adaptation of the celebrated novel, and ultimately it is Rossen who deserves the credit for the film's power. There is an intensity to the film, beginning with the torchlight processions, campaign barbecues and banners for Stark that we see behind the opening credits. When Stark is finally revealed to us in a rapid-fire sequence showing him at a football stadium, speaking to a crowd at the fair, steamrolling legislators, posing for photographs with his family, there is a vitality that presents the political figure of Stark as an utterly American political figure. The only problem with this film, at least for me, is that the transformation of Willie Stark from the hick lawyer with a sincere concern for the plight of the downtrodden into a drunken, egomaniacal dictator once he has tasted power. The change is too sudden, just like the assassin's bullet that cuts Stark down at the end, so that instead of becoming a tragic figure (a good man gone wrong), we are left wondering who is the real Stark and forced to conclude it is the original naive do-gooder that was the sham. However, once we jettison the character's roots, there is no arguing that this is not a compelling political narrative and the fact that the true story of Huey P. Long again proves that fact is stranger than fiction should not really enter into the equation.

Ordinary
The book is infinitely better. Robert Penn Warren wrote a deep and subtle story about the American dream, morals and desires of early 20th century America. The movie keeps the plot and thats about it. It's well acted but there isn't much here. Won the Oscar for best picture in a weak year.

Never again as good. Brodrick Crawford is another of that
select group of actors who peak early in their career. In his case it is 1949, he won an Oscar, & never again got close. Eventually Crawford moved to the small screen where we,of a certain age, remember him on "Highway Patrol". But his best was better than most. His character, in All the King's Men, is Willie Stark, an idealistic, honest, populist politician bucking the system. He is also ambitious & seeing his opportunity, seizes it. His greed, lust for power & ego run amok & turn him into the very thing he had fought against only worse. He corrodes everything & everybody he touches & comes to a fitting end a 'la Huey Long, the man on which the film & presumably the book were loosely based. Highly recommended for all who like this style of political noir or junkies.

What a disappointment.
What can I say -- I found this film to be so incredibly trite, so simple were its morals and weak its characterization. John Ireland is a lump at the center of the film, Mercedes McCambridge's character arc is severely underdeveloped. As for Willy, we never see his true motivations for an instant, and this is most maddening. I have read a small portion of Warren's book, and it so so vastly superior to the piece of Hollywood pap it's ridiculous. It's hard to imagine a book that is considered the greatest political novel in American history is represented by this connect-the-dots fare. ... Read more

Reviews (408)

The Perfect Storm The Perfect Movie on dvd
Directed by Wolfgang Peterson who has a career
for making great films like the "The NeverEnding Story", "The Perfect Storm" was another great film into Mr. Peterson's resume.

The perfect storm, is based on the book written by Sebastian Unger. It's the true account of a group of fisherman who , in October 1991, died in the worst storm in the century, sacrificing their lives because they were doing their duties
and trying to put food on the table for their families.

There are many reasons I liked this movie:
1) The characters are real and genuine
2) The movie has a lot of heart, action, drama and suspense
3) The movie does have a certain mystique and aura around it, due to the fact that these are very special people whom if you met them you've probably wouldn't forget.

The cast and crew is made up of Billy Tyne
(George Clooney), captain of the Andrea Gail, Bobby Shatford (Mark Wahlberg) ,a beloved
fisherman in Gloucester, Mike "Bugsy" Moran
(John Hawkes), Dale Murphy (John C. Reilly) , David "Sully" Sullivan (William Fichtner). All these characters were loved in their community.

To feed their loved ones, the fisherman go to the Great banks to catch as many fish as possible but they don't see that a huge Hurricane named " Grace" is headed their way, a deadly storm in fact. The fisherman's boss though, Mr. McNally I believe is his name, pays them very little and makes even fishing a hassle for them. The men though still go out to see despite this because of their great love for the see.

One of the characters that are shown
at the beginning is Christine Cotter (Diane
Lane), Bobby's girlfriend, who has an undying love for him, even though she knows that fishing in rough waters can be dangerous.

Making the characters more realistic and with a real storyline the movie shows the mixed hate/love relationship, the crew has with Captain Billy (Clooney). It's debatable whether Tyne might
have been at fault over the dealth of his shipmates. During one scene Tyne, gets a message about the upcoming storm, however, he doesn't immediately make the crew think about how dangerous it is. He instead just leaves the decision in their hands, but another Captain might have taken control and said the hell with the trip.

Each characters has a story to them, it's not just that these guys were average joes and they worked a crummy job, no, they were very much by everyone and the extras on the dvd prove that with all the interviews by people in the community.

The visual effects for the movie are outstanding, it is a very big budget production loaded with great sets and great models..

The movie was a box office hit, and received
praise for all the actors in it like Clooney and Walhberg.

The effects were done by award winning special effects ma Stan Winston and ILM , the same group who gave us the effects for "Terminator 2",
and "Jurassic Park" to give two examples.

The Dvd for the movie comes with many extras:

*Three Documentaries one by HBO called
"Creating the Storm" which has interviews with Bobby Shatford's family,i former Captains of the Andrea Gail, and interviews with local fisherman who know all about the characters involved. Then other documentary on the dvd is called "Witnessing the Storm" which has photos from the storm in 1991 and many interviews on it

Next is the commentary. The commentary
is actually split differently during one
commentary I believe you have Wolfgang
Petersen talking about the film. The other
commentary has Sebastian Unger who talks
about how afraid he was if his book on
the storm would fail,and then how great he felt when the families of the fisherman told
him how good a job he did with it.

With all visual effects, story, good acting
and great directing by Wolfgang "Perfect
Storm" is a very good movie, by a guy
who hasn't really done bad movies.
In fact Wolfgang's next movie is "Troy"
with Brad Pitt. So check that out and check
out this one.

Fantastic Special Effects!!!
The Perfect Storm has some really great special-effects. The movie starts out a little slow describing all the characters and their relationships but then moves along at a breathless pace. You get so caught up with the crew in the middle of this greatest storm in recorded history that you can't take your eyes away from the screen. This storm occurred in the Atlantic Ocean in October 1991, a true story. You feel like your on the ocean with the crew it is so realistic. It even made me feel seasick at times. George Clooney & Mark Wahlberg did a wonderful job as the two main characters. There are a lot of surprises in this film. You get a good feel for the life & people involved in this tough fishing port of Gloucester, Massachusetts.

I only had one problem with this movie, and it was the soundtrack. I felt the music was really appropriate and well-done, but it should have been toned down a little. It overpowered the actors words to the point where you couldn't tell what they were saying. At least during the storm it would have been better to have no music at all and just the natural sounds. Other than that it's a great movie that I will definitely watch again. The special features & documentaries are great on this DVD version, that explain how the film was made. Really quite interesting

lukewarm
I really wanted to like this movie but it came off as a bland viewing experience. A lot of it had to do with poor casting...Clooney (IMO) is not a good actor so without a strong lead, the rest of the ensemble faltered. I don't remember much of a soundtrack-a good musical score would of greatly improved this film.
As a New Englander, I find it quite tiresome to listen to ridiculous interpretations of the local dialects. Obviously most of the actors could not speak it, so the few who tried, looked even more stupid. I would of been happy if they had spoken in their natural accents (even if by fluke, someone was from the South, per se)-at least a viewer can justify it by interpreting the character as a transplant; a horrible rendition of a dialect is just that...horrible, and it is very distracting. The hollywood adaptation of New England locals always strikes me as an insult. It seems fair to state that these filmmakers from the west coast don't know enough about the people and culture of New England either.

No suspense whatsoever
It's hard to get psyched for a movie when you basically know the ending. How can you sustain any kind of tension or suspense? That's a key problem with most movies which are deemed "historical". What most great historical films have done is examine the aspects of the history and demonstrate how the forces came together to create that ending. Think of GLORY or THE LONGEST DAY. They don't even have to be war stories. Think of A NIGHT TO REMEMBER or SEABISCUIT, for that matter.

The problem with THE PERFECT STORM is that there is no suspense, essentially. We know the crew ignored or were deprived the information that things were going to get a little rough in the North Atlantic, and its boat got walloped. I don't know how Wolfgang Petersen or the script writers could have created the suspense, and it's not a reviewer's job to make recommendations. But as it is, I found myself increasing impatient during the first half of the film. Let's just get to the F/X and get it over with, I thought.

The performances, I have to say in all fairness, are good, considering what the actors had to work with. The F/X were great, of course. But I still left this film with an empty feeling. Pass on this one.

Very depressing, but still a good movie.
This film truely has some great special effects, good acting, heart, but the one thing that it lacks is that positive ending that even the saddest films have. The film was very depressing in every sense. George Clooney, Mark Whallberg, and the rest of the cast all did a great job. The cinematography was brilliant. All in all the film is something you need to follow up with a happier movie. If you are in the mood to be crushed stay away. I reccomend this film to people who love special effects films. Two sad thumbs up. ... Read more

Reviews (41)

THE cattle-drive movie
Having weighed-in on _The Culpepper Cattle Company_, I have to genuflect at the altar of THE cattle-drive movie-- _Red River_.

This film pre-dates _The Searchers_ by about eight years. The lead character, Tom Dunson, is a sort of prototype for Ethan Edwards. This is John Wayne without sentiment or schmaltz, until the final scene which differs from the story on which the film is based, and which jars a bit.

That being said, _Red River_ still stands as the definitive cattle-drive movie. Wayne/Dunson builds an empire but then must head the herd north on a drive that simply _has_ to get through-- despite conflicts with nature, rustlers, Indians, and between Dunson and his men, including his adopted son, Matthew Garth.

Wayne is cast against his own stereotype as Dunson and comes across as a hard and unlikeable character. Walter Brennan as his sidekick, Groot, nearly steals the show just as he did (again) in Hawk's _Rio Bravo_. Montgomery Clift does a passable job as Matthew Garth, but is outclassed by John Ireland as Cherry Valance, the gunfighter turned cowhand.

The rest of the cast is outstanding. You need only look at the cast list to appreciate the fine ensemble company that Howard Hawks put together for this movie. This is also on of Dimitri Tiomkin's finest musical scores.

Finally, I agree with Maltin on this point: beware edited and abridged copies of this film. Anything less than a 133 minute running time should not be bothered with.

"Take `em to Missouri, Matt!"

A Flawed Western
For an hour and 20 minutes or so, Red River is a great western (even with such embarrassing moments such as Wayne killing the Indian and discovering the bracelet he had given his girl, the stuttering cowboy who is killed in the stampede, etc.). It boasts a stunning Dimitri Tiomkin score, terrific B&W photography by Russell Harlan, a wonderful performance from Montgomery Clift, a powerful (if typically one-note) performance from John Wayne ... and then Joanne Dru enters the story and it basically falls apart from this point on. She is so completely incompetent that she manages to almost sink the film! Her dialogue is, admittedly, terrible (Hawks bragged that he wrote most of it!), but her line readings are so terrible that it just makes the awkward dialogue even more awkward. The ending is absurd, a complete build-up to a deadly collision and it ends up a rather weak fist-fight. Perhaps, had Wayne's performance included emotional shadings, the ending might have worked, but since he is so one-note hard and uncompromising throughout, not for one moment do I believe the final sequence. In the original Borden Chase novel, the character dies at the end. It should have happened here, also (same major flaw in Wayne's The Searchers, too). On top of which, the John Ireland character is built up as a major challenge to Montgomery Clift, but this is simply dropped halfway through. Indeed, the Ireland character is allowed to fizzle out. The auteur theory is what keeps critics from analysing this film from a more objective viewpoint. But it is very watchable and its strengths certainly outnumber its weaknesses.

Black and white sensation!
John Wayne's Red River is one of the most exciting and classical westerns of our century. So, if somebody hates black and white, screw them, it's their problem. Don't even review the product, genius! Alongside The Searchers, this is one of the Duke's landmark films. Also, John Wayne was our ultimate hero, prevailing in every gunfight and every story. His acting AND his strength certainly prevail here. Also filled with action packed gunfights and suspenseful scenes. The ending is fine.
The DVD transfer is nothing special, and somewhat grainy at times. MGM DVDS are not known to be the best DVD makers on the market. To shape up this classic western, expect a Criterion Collection re release and enjoy!

An American Treasure
In the rich history of American film, this piece of work by Howard Hawks makes the short list. It has been used as a template for any filmmaker wishing to make a Western, and further, it is one of those rare pieces of culture by which a society defines itself. If you needed to demonstrate to a foreigner what the American character is all about, you could show them this movie.

As a Western, it certainly has it all: cowboys killing Indians, men leaving women for the call of the trail, gunfights, stampedes, love, betrayal, and finally redemption. It is also gorgeously filmed, beautifully written, and well acted throughout. And finally, it stars John Wayne, an actor that towers over today's crop of male actors like an oak over weeping willows.

This film also stars Montgomery Clift as the surrogate son that eventually challenges Wayne for control of the drive. In terms of acting styles, Clift and Wayne were about as different as two actors could be: Wayne seemed always to act on instinct and charisma, while Clift was one of the young Turks through the 40's and 50's, a proponent of a new style of acting - the method developed by Lee Strasburg (one can easily imagine Wayne giving his crooked sarcastic grin over the very idea of a "school" where young people learn acting). Yet, casting these two together works. By all reports, the two hated each other at the beginning of the production, but had developed an actor's respect for one another by the end of filming. Wayne, after watching Clift in one of his scenes, was quoted as saying something like "damn, that little queer sure can act."

John Wayne, for his part, goes toe-to-toe with the new school of internal acting and more than holds his own. His portrayal of a powerful, unbending man who slowly descends into bitterness and hate is a real treat to watch. His performance was, to use a phrase Wayne would have hated, multi-layered and very, very skillful.

Other performances to watch: the ever-faithful Walter Brennan, one of the greatest character actors of all time, is perfect as Wayne's partner/friend. It is in watching Brennan's reaction to Wayne's increasing dementia that we see how far off track he's gone. John Ireland also is a standout as Cherry Valance, the pistoleer, who is full of casual grace and menace. As if all the above wasn't enough, the great Harry Carey is onboard briefly as Mr. Melville, radiating authority.

Every film lover should own this film and watch it at least once annually.

Every American should treasure it as a source of national pride.

One note: this is one film that simply demands a better DVD treatment. The picture and sound isn't bad, but it isn't widescreen, and there are absolutely no special features. C'mon, Criterion Collections, where are you? --Mykal

Mutiny on the plains
Howard Hawks' 1948 RED RIVER is an ambitious, sprawling, epic western. It's on a number of top-100 lists, and it belongs there.
The movie tells the story of cattle rancher Tom Dunson and the first drive along the fabled Chisholm Trail. It's based on Borden Chase's "The Chisholm Trail"
The movie hits the ground running. Within the first five minutes there's a romantic leave taking, an indian attack and a burning wagon train. The romantic parting of Dunson (John Wayne) and his intended is a key incident in the development of this bitter and hard-driven character. Dunson and Groot Nadine (Walter Brennan), who left the wagon train with Dunson, are joined by a survivor of the massacre, Matt Garth - who, fourteen years later, will become the quick-drawing Montgomery Clift. The shocked boy is leading a cow, Dunson and Groot have a surviving bull, and with this bovine first couple they make for the open land south of the Red River.
Fast forward 14 years and Dunson has 10,000 head of cattle and a depressed, post-Civil War southern economy that can't afford to buy them. They must drive them to Missouri and sell them to the more prosperous northerners or face ruin. During that drive Dunson descends to near insanity and Matt ascends as a moderating influence and, apparently, becomes the only one who can successfully lead the men and cattle to market. Without giving too much away, something happens on the drive that will drastically change Dunson's and Matt's relationship and jeopardize both of their lives.
It's pretty heavy stuff, and John Wayne is rock solid great as the troubled Dunson. This is one of the greatest roles in the career of a sometimes under-rated actor. Montgomery Clift is fine in his screen debut.
Walter Brennan's Groot is a marvel. That guy was such a good actor. Like all good sidekicks, and Brennan was the best, Groot is part court jester and part moral barometer. It helps that he plays most of the movie without his upper teeth in, too. Brennan was always better when his mouth was half empty.
There are some images that will stick with you for a while. Thousands of cattle crossing the Red River, a midnight stampede with a couple of hair-raising rescues. And there's a neat little bit with an angry John Wayne striding down a long street crowded with cattle - Wayne doesn't break stride, of course, and the cattle move out of his way like a longhorn Red Sea parting for an angry Moses.
For the most part the script is well written, and there's enough amusing scenes (usually including Brennan) to keep the whole thing from collapsing under it's own weight.
For instance, when Dunson and Matt are deciding who's to go along on the drive, Dunson excludes Groot (bum leg.) Groot mutters to himself like a live-action Popeye while Dunson and Matt continue their conversation. A distracted and exasperated Dunson finally says:
Dunson: What are you saying? I can't understand you. Where's your store teeth Matt bought you?
Groot: They're in my pocket.
Dunson: Well, why don't you use them?
Groot: 'Cause they whistle. I use them for eating.

Then there's the Joanne Dru character, Tess Millay. It doesn't help that her first appearance occurs in the third scene. One hour and forty-one minutes into the 2:20 movie, by my clock. My guess is the scriptwriters didn't want to clutter up the action with a romantic subplot until absolutely necessary. Fair enough, but it means that Millay's and Matt's romance has to be telescoped severely. Basically they meet, fall in love, and part in a day. It stretches an audience some. Worse, Dru as an actress simply wasn't right for the part.
One of her character traits, as written, is to talk and keep on talking when something worries or frightens her. She does this to negligible effect. It's a role that seemed to have been custom written for Jean Arthur, who always could blabber on to good effect, who could always drop her voice down to a husky purr or have it emit an abrupt squeak for maximum dramatic effect. Unfortunately Arthur was nearly fifty when this movie was made, so I guess casting her as a romantic lead opposite the young Clift would have, uh, added an strange and unwelcome dimension to the movie. Dru, in one of her earliest roles, just doesn't have the chops to carry off the role convincingly. All things considered, I think this piece of miscasting is more Hawks' fault that anyone elses. Anyway, I shaved a point off because of it.
I don't normally notice bad transfers, but there are a few dark night scenes in RED RIVER that look like someone lit a Fourth of July sparkler. And, less forgivable, my new factory-sealed-from-a-reputable-national-outlet retailer did NOT contain the advertised four page booklet. Finally, I've played the movie twice so far, and each time the start up menu screen doesn't appear until AFTER the movie is over. ... Read more

Description

Bio-pic on Shawnee tribe leader Tecumesh, and his attempts to unite all Native American tribes. ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Tecumseh: The Last Warrior
As an educator, I strongly recommed the film Tecumseh: The Last Warrior because it is one of its kind in bringing into action the cultural beliefs and way of life of Native American groups such as the Shawnee, who were affected by the clash of cultures and seizure of their ancestoral lands by whites. I use the film as a reward for the students who have studied federal policies toward the Native Americans including those of our past presidents and view points of Native Americans such as Tecumseh, who fought hard to drive the whites out of their lands in the Ohio, Illinois, and other present day states that were organized under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Organized under Tecumseh, native groups resisted to further white expansion and fought hard to preserve their way of life. This film is accurate in depicting Native American stuggles and sufferings and I truly recommend it.

Won't want to miss this one!
You won't forget this one, this movie is great! A great warrior leader who was born under a shooting star lives his life to what his dad had always said he would. Tecumseh vowes to never give up his land. WIth the help of other worriors he fights the americans for the land that was theirs to begin with. He fights for the land of his people, he lives for and to serve his people. This is a moving story about a shawnee warrior who never gave into the americans and fought til death for what he beieved was right. I give it 5 stars, no doubt about it! Go check it out! you won't be disappointed.

Tecumseh, the first attempt
While i thought it was good that the life of Tecumseh was
finally the subject of a movie, i was disappointed at the narrowness of its scope.Very little of the Native traditions about Tecumseh were included,which means that dreams and visions
that guided him were not a part of the plot.Also,the characterization of Tecumseh was stereotypically stoic so as to make him seem one-dimensional and historical rather than real
and contemporary.Tecumseh deserves a better effort.

Indian Wars of the Old Northwest
I was excited when I saw this TV adaptation of James Alexander Thom's historical novel "Panther in the Sky". I have had an avid interest in American frontier history and the indian wars of the Old Northwest. The story of Tecumseh and his indian confederacy is one of great triumph and tragedy for the last of the tribes east of the Missisiippi river in the early 19th century. It is amazing to me how much we are NOT taught about the very bloody conflicts between the native tribes and white settlers that took place in the areas that make up modern-day Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana. Tecumseh was considered by many, indian and white alike, to be the greatest native resistance leader of all time. While I was pleased with many aspects of this movie, I was disappointed in several historical errors. I understand that when adapting history to film it is neccessary to fudge some things for dramatic intensity, but it can be annoying nonetheless. Overall, I enjoyed this movie and would recommend it to anyone looking for a good movie about a great leader.

A must see movie!
I recommend this movie to everyone. It really focuses on every little detail of Tecumseh's life. It takes you back into time and allows you to see how the Shawnee people lived and what they went through with the whites, first hand. It tells the story of the legend we know as Tecumseh perfectly. It is a must see for everyone! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Snicker if you will, but Kung Fu was one of the most influential TV series of the 1970s, one that managed to inject a note of both spirituality and Eastern religion into the standard Western formula and make it seem new. This was the pilot, an intriguing and scene-setting TV movie in which David Carradine starred as the mysterious Caine--half-white, half-Chinese, reared in a Shaolin monastery in China by blind master Po (Keye Luke), then exiled to America, on the run for killing the men who killed his master. The pilot mixes flashbacks to Caine's youth with a story set in the Old West of Caine battling intolerance as he begins the search for his father. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Hope they put the whole series on DVD
I have loved this series for years. I just love the little thought provoking things that Caine, the main character says. I've watched it since I was a little kid, and when I was in my twenties, it came on at 4 am on a channel once a week so I'd stay awake just to see it. I really hope they put the whole series on DVD. I'd buy it in a minute.

I love the quiet demeanor of Caine. I enjoy his humility and his respectfulness. The Caine character proves that you don't have to be "bad" to be cool. The pilot movie is definitely worth watching.

Unique Western flick.
This is certainly by no means an all-time favorite movie of mine, but it's an excellent little flick nevertheless -- especially considering that it was made-for-TV, the pilot for the "Kung Fu" TV series. My wife and I just saw it tonight and quite enjoyed it. At a mere 74 minutes, it's short and sweet, kinda the way I wish more movies would be! It's definitely a Western, as it takes place out West in the late 19th century, but it's unique for this genre in that it incorporates Eastern philosophy/wisdom and martial arts -- sorry, no quick-draw shootouts here.

A great scene appears near the beginning wherein Caine walks into a saloon after walking (!!) across a desert to get some water. Naturally some redneck dork wants to start a fight with him 'cause he's one of them "slant-eyes." Three times the guy attempts to attack Caine and three times Caine swiftly and decisively repels the attacks. The guy wisely decides not to attack again as Caine finishes his water and humbly walks out of the saloon leaving the saloon patrons in astonishment.

There's more martial arts action toward the end, but, it should be noted, this is by no means a standard martial arts flick. The movie teaches humility and respect for elders & all fellow human beings.

Despite the fact that they have very little dialogue, Caine develops a close father/son relationship with blind Master Po.

Some scenes have such a reverent and touching quality to them that they actually brought tears to my eyes .

In Brian Garfield's "Western Films" guide he criticized this film as "Juvenile tripe." With all due respect for the brilliant Mr. Garfield, this film is neither juvenile or tripe! As far as Westerns go, it's quite mature and original. Good Eastern-style music too.

Kung Fu: The Movie of Respect
KUNG FU is one of the few movies I have ever seen that has respect for a foundation. It is unfortunate that the martial arts are what viewers most often think of when they remember either the movie or the long running television show. Yet, a respect for tradition and a veneration for one's elders form the philosophical underpinning for both. The young Kwai Chang Caine, played modestly by Rademas Pera, portrays Caine as the height of worshipful respect. Having grown up as an orphan, we see in flashbacks, that he and the other village orphans, were invited to visit the local Shaolin monastery. He waits patiently in the rain for days until he is admitted. Once he is, he and a group of ragamuffins sit down at a table laden with food. The other orphans gorge themselves. Young Caine does not. Because he had the manners to wait, he is invited to stay by Master Po. During his years in the monastery, there are many scenes of interaction between him and his Shaolin instructors. It is these vignettes of the Wise Sages instructing the Eager Youth that lend the movie its charm. Caine, played now by David Carradine, grows to adulthood and leaves the temple to wander China. He is forced to kill the Emperor's nephew and must flee to America. These scnes of exposition are required for the movie to make sense. Caine's rise to maturity forms the basis for his encounter with villainous engineers and a renegade monk.
One subtle scene of respect occurs midway in the film when the adult Caine is working on a desert railroad somewhere in the western region of the United States. A heavily loaded wagon threatens to tip over, and Caine rushes over to prop it up with his surprisingly strong skinny arms. As he raises his arms, the Chinese crowd sees the tatoo of a dragon on his arms, and they bow in reverent silence. Later at the end, Caine must fight an outlaw monk whom he kills, but takes no joy in his victory. Even in defeat, a beaten enemy commands respect.
KUNG FU is the movie that attempts to make some sort of sense out of a violent unpredictable life. Caine seems to say that respect for all may make that possible. Perhaps he is right.

Good Script Makes Up For Bad History...Grasshopper!
Much has been written about the philosophical & moral lessons that can be learned from watching the old "King-Fu" tv series. However, one lesson that can be learned from this show has not been mentioned...a good script & solid acting performances can make up for very bad history done in an American western!

Alright, David Carradine does do a solid acting job as the peaceful, philosophical Buddhist monk roaming the American west. (Yup, like that other early 1970's martial-arts hero "Billy Jack", Carradine's "Caine" preaches "peace" & "brotherhood", until he's harrassed by "rednecks", then he tosses out all of that philosophy & kicks...! This show isn't really a martial-arts showcase. It's a hippie's wish-dream!) The surrogate father/son relationship between Carradine & Keye Luke as the blind master "Po" is solid, & let's face it, the bad guys racial slurs of "Chinaman" & "slanty-man" are delightfully repulsive! (I'm an Asian-american, & I enjoy watching Carradine, who's really a white actor in "yellow-face", kick the stuffings out of the bad-guys after they insult him!) And this tv pilot does have solid social commentary, with the background of the Chinese-american railroad workers as symbolic of American racial-exploitation.

Okay, so what's off about this show? Actually, you can't harp on the lack of martial-arts flash in the fight-scenes, since Hong-Kong movies made about this time (the Shaw Brother's "Duel of The Iron Fist", "Street-Gangs of Hong-Kong", "Seven Blows of The Dragon", etc.) also have sloppy fight scenes! You might harp on the practice of casting a white actor in a Chinese role, but then prior to the 1980's, most well meaning films with an Asian as a central character usually were cast with white actors. (Remember "Dragon Seed?" It was a pro-China World War Two propaganda film, with the Chinese, who were our allies against Japan, as the heroes. Katherine Hepburn was the heroine! Yet, you certainly can't call that movie "anti-Chinese.") I don't even think you can harp on passing up Bruce Lee for the lead role, because the central character has to have an inner-peace to him, & Bruce, well....watch "Fist of Fury/Chinese Connection" to understand why I don't think his personality would fit the role (though physically, because of his expertise in martial-arts, he would have been great...in the fight scenes.) You certainly can't fault the writing & acting, which we already said was solid.

Nope. It's the "Chinese" history & culture presented here that strains the believability for a learned viewer. For one thing, Chinese martial-artists (& Chinese Buddhist monks for that matter) DON'T go around barefoot! (They wear shoes! It's the Japanese & Okinawans who don't wear shoes during practice!) The look of the Shaolin robes are off & the bald monks are lacking in incense burnings on the tops of their heads. (They look like dots when you see them.) Not only that, but going by strict Chinese history of the 19th Century, I don't think "the emperor" would have been able to send anyone after "Caine." He (or actually the Empress Dowager) would have been too busy fending off the Taiping Rebels, the British, the French, & the various secret societies that were tearing up China at that time! (Of course, if you go by strict Chinese historical events, "Caine" wouldn't have had to leave China! He, like various other real-life monks, could have joined up with the various rebel secret societies that were plaguing the Manchu government at that time & besides, China is huge! If David Jansenn's "Doctor Kimble" from "The Fugitive" tv show didn't have to leave America after being accused of killing his wife, why should "Caine" have to leave a huge, easily to disappear in country like China?)

However, when I watch "Kung-Fu", I'm not convinced that those are real Shaolin monks or that that was China! It's like watching a medieval knight with a six-shooter!

Rent this video if you can, but only buy it if you can't rent it!

Kung Fu - A Martial Arts Classic
This will go down in martial artis history as a classic.

The fact that Bruce Lee was denied the lead role because of his being "too Chinese-looking" caused it to lose some of its luster, but it is still a must-see. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

A MUST SEE
This is a very good movie! I am a Shirley Temple fan, but I think that even if you are not, you will still love this movie! Shirley plays Star, a child that was in a ship wreck and was found by Captain January, a lighthouse keeper. There is an evil truant officer who is trying to take Star away from "Cap". This movie has something for everyone. It has a lot of really funny parts, but it also has a very good plot. There are some good songs in the movie, such as,"At the Codfish Ball","Early Bird",and "The Right Somebody To Love". This is a very good movie, A must see for anyone!

Shirley
This Temple film is very good. Little Shirley stars as the "daughter" of a lighthouse keeper who rescued her when she was a baby. A truant officer learns that "Star" doesn't go to school, makes her take an examination, and when she passes, angrily decides to sent Star to an institution. Unhappy Star gets a surprise from her sympathizing aunt and uncle. Includes lots of dancing. Not too cute like some of the Temple films. Lots of songs.

Great film
This movie has a good dance sequence with Shirley and Buddy Ebsen. Shirley sings some good songs with friends. An uplifting and entertaining film.

Gets Me Everytime
This is probably one of the only films besides for some tear-jerking romance movies that gets me to break down in tears each time I watch it. Shirley Temple gives an excellent performance as Star, a pint-sized orphan living with her savior, Captain January, in a lighthouse on the shore. When Star is ripped out of Captain January's arms as the cold truant officer tries to put her in an institution (I know- these are a likely basis for Temple flicks but who cant love them!), I bawl everytime as she yells to the grief-stricken Cap- "What did I do? Why are they taking me away from you?" It is the sadest thing ever to see a little girl, especially Shirley, break down like that- it gets me everytime.
This movie is indeed a Temple memorable- most def. one of her classics. She shines in this movie- dances surely the best she can with Buddy Ebsen- and bestows this beautiful relationship with the old sea Cap. The cap and Star both take care of each other and it is adorable to watch on screen. The songs in this movie are very cute and any child or Shirley fan will love this movie. I highly recommed it being a major Shirley fan myself. I grew up with her big smile, her bright eyes, her tiny dimples, and her curly top- Shes a big part of my childhood memories. I wish their were movies more like these that exist now...

AT THE CODFISH BALL WITH JED CLAMPETT!
A remake of a 1923 silent with the now-forgotten Baby Peggy, this is an amusing little Temple flick - one in which the little ones should enjoy. This was Shirley's initial 1936 release and it actually turned out to be one of her most fondly remembered movies. Based upon an 1890 novel entitled THE LIGHTHOUSE AT CAPE TEMPEST by Laura E. Richards, its the story of a poor foundling (how unusual for a Temple character!) named Star who is taken in by a kindly lighthouse keeper - the title character played by the talented Guy Kibbee. Shirley sings THE RIGHT SOMEBODY TO LOVE and her dance number with Buddy Ebsen is among her best while doing AT THE CODFISH BALL. During the filming of the latter's sequence, Temple had to climb a 45 foot stairway while a camera crane moved up beside her, catching her lines each time she turned on the stairs - timing the line exactly to the turn - Shirley never missed the synchronization once. Temple was easily the greatest asset the newly formed TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX had and this movie is quite a showcase for the little moppet. It's designed solely as its star's vehicle; Shirley appears in nearly every sequence: grinning, sobbing, dancing, singing, wriggling, pattering downstairs or spitting on her pinafore as the scenerio requires! The colourization process has improved substantially, so the kids won't complain about watching "old black and white movies"! ... Read more

Reviews (58)

NOT GREAT, BUT A MUST FOR BURNS FANS
I agree with many of the criticisms of this movie; it did need another run through the typewriter and/or story editor. But I think it's worth having in your collection and is a must for anyone who is even remotely a fan of Edward Burns. While Ms. Jolie is miscast and tries hard to create a character out of a cartoon, Ed Burns creates a real person just by the use of his natural charisma and unforced manliness. The guy could probably have chemistry with a telephone pole; he is without doubt one of the most beautiful men in the history of the movies. Its worth the price of admission just to look at his gorgeous hair and soulful eyes. That he is also a wonderful actor only adds to the appeal.
What this movie really needed was a point of view; I still don't know where we are supposed to land regarding the Jolie character Lainie. She is supposed to be so horrible that she needs a major life adjustment and attitude reversal, yet compared to the other female characters in the movie (like her promiscuous friend played by Melissa Errico or the Barbara Walters clone played by Stockard Channing), she is comparatively normal. It's therefore hard to stay on her side, except when she meets the affable and down-to-earth Burns character. I haven't been a fan of director Stephen Herek until now, though I think he is talented. He will need to be more selective on his projects if he wants to rise to A-list directing projects, however. Until then, this is strictly a Burns show, and that's fine by me.

This movie is well worth your time
As you probably know, this movie has not always been well-received. But, speaking as a die-hard fan of romantic comedies, I think those of you who love this genre should definitely watch this movie.

Most people who enjoy romantic comedies will probably admit that, though we love them, many of these movies have plot holes here and there, or at least admit that the likelihood of such things happening to real people is questionable. So, with that already in mind, a viewer often falls in love with one of these movies because: a.) they love the actors, actresses, or director involved, and/or b.) the certainty that everything will probably turn out okay in the end (even if sometimes the movie's resolution is not what you'd expect). If you fall into one/both of those categories, you should see LIFE OR SOMETHING LIKE IT.

One of the reasons I think this movie is great is because Angelina Jolie and Edward Burns (as well as Tony Shalhoub, as the street prophet) are such great actors, and their banter and chemistry are highly watchable. The supporting actors & actresses also add to each scene they're in, especially the guy playing the sound technician who works with Jolie's and Burns's characters when they are out on assignment.

I'm not someone who can tell when a movie is badly directed or superbly directed; I just know when I leave a movie happy for having seen it, or when I've felt the loopholes left in the finished product are way, way too big to ignore. So, having warned you of my novice critical skill, I think the director did a great job. (In his commentary on the DVD, he explains that this is one of the movies whose production was a bit rushed because of the expected actor's strike that the industry feared at the time. So, I think he may wish he could have tweaked things here and there, if he'd had more time.)

Nonetheless, you should see this movie because it will still grab your heart and make you think about what is important in your own life, while still giving you that romantic comedy "buzz" that will put a smile on your face and joy in your heart.

An interesting idea for a story but very uneven results
"Life or Something Like It" is one of those films where the idea is intriguing, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired. The central character is Lanie Kerigan (Angelina Jolie), a hot young feature reporter for a Seattle television station who has a chance of her dream job for the network's morning show, "AM USA." Lanie is paired up with the station's best cameraman, Pete (Edward Burns), although these two clearly have a past that makes this a rocky relationship and assures us that they will end up together before too long. One day Lanie is out on the street filming an interview with Prophet Jack (Tony Shalhoub), a homeless man who is supposedly psychic. During the interview Jack makes three predictions. First, the Seattle Seahawks will win their game 19-13. Second, it will hail the next day. Third, Lanie will die next Thursday. This last one gets her attention.

Of course Lanie is skeptical. But when the first two predictions come true, she starts to become concerned and when Jack offers another prediction that comes about, she really starts to freak. Somewhere in her background Lanie must have studied classical mythology, because she does not really try to thwart her fate, although it takes her a while to accept it. This is for the good, because if she decided that she would stay home in bed all day on Thursday she would end up in a car accident on Wednesday night and linger until the next day. Trying thwart a prophecy only makes things worse; just ask Jocasta and pay attention to how the prophecy in Sophocles' tragedy changes).

The first problem with this 2002 film is that it is a romantic comedy that takes itself too seriously one moment and not seriously enough the next. Feel good movies tend to have scenes where people burst into song, and we have that here. I like the song, but for that character to lead that group in that song at that particular moment is really not a good move (except that the people who wrote the script liked it, so it does work out for the best). People who are actually in the business of television news must be laughing themselves silly at all the stupid bits about their profession in this business; my favorite, but not in a good way, was this idea of showing an interview at 7 in the morning on the east coast live on the west coast.

Ultimately this film gets reduced to a simple platitude and it is at that point that "Life or Something Like It" really betrays its promise. What would have made this film really work is not that it works on a universal level to which we can all relate, but if it drives the point home in terms of Lanie's character in some memorable way. There are a few conventional and unimaginative efforts, but nothing that crystallizes into a transcendent scene that elevates this film to a truly meaningful level. Even if you do not see the ending coming, I doubt that you are going to be surprised that this film wants to have its cake and eat it too.

Jolie's character has trouble shedding her on-camera persona enough to provide true depth to an examination of her life that gets beyond her brave smile, which is different from her on-camera smile. Her romance with Burns is by the numbers and I found myself wishing the film had tried to do more with her relationship with boyfriend Cal Cooper (Christian Kane, an actor who is going to break through in films the way he did on television's "Angel" some day soon), who plays for the Seattle Mariners, because I actually liked his idea of how to try and help her and I thought there was the possibility there for something different. There will be those that really like this film, but even that minority should have no problem in articulating ways in which it could have been so much better.

QUIRKY AND UNIQUE
I REALLY ENJOYED THIS MOVIE AND WISHED IT HAD GOTTEN BETTER REVIEWS INSTEAD OF BEING RAKED THROUGH THE COLES BY UNMERCIFUL CRITICS.ANGALINA JOLIE CAN SO EASILY PLAY ANY CHARACTER AND EARN THE VEIWERS LOVE ,ITS UNCANNY.THE STORY IS UNIQUE BY TODATS STANDARD OF COMEDY AND THE CHARACTER ,LANNIE KERRIGAN IS UNIQUE AS "MARILYN MEETS LOIS LANE".I LOVED IT, IT WAS ABREAK FROM REALITY AND FOR ANGALINA FANS WHO WATCH GIRL INTERRUPTED 5 TOMES A MONTH THATS A BREATH OF FRESH AIR.

Life or Something Like it - A wonderful romantic comedy!
After watching this wonderful romantic comedy one must simply come to the conclusion, if they haven't already, that Angelina Jolie has to be one of the best female actresses in the industry and has been for sometime. Every new film that I've watched her in just shows me more and more of what a versatile actress this beautiful woman is. I don't always purchase romantic comedies but with a lead actress the likes of Angelina Jolie, purchasing "Life or Something Like it" is a simple choice.

Between the script and the performances given by Angelina Jolie and Edward Burns and the other supporting actors in this film, this film is a sure thing when it comes to entertainment value. Of additional note is the exceptional performance by Tony Shalhoub whose character provides much of the catalyst for this wonderful film.

One only needs to click on the link for director Stephen Herek to see that given his past films, this film should be a very good one. He definitely deserves much praise for bringing this film together the way he did.

The Premise:

Lanie Kerrigan (Angelina Jolie) is an extremely ambitious and self absorbed local news reporter in Seattle whose star is rising and will soon have an opportunity to be elevated to the national level. The only thing in her way is her boss's insistence that she must do some camera work with Pete (Edward Burns) who is a former lover and their relationship isn't exactly a great one. As part of her work in Seattle, Pete takes her to meet Prophet Jack (Tony Shalhoub) who is a street bum with the talents of a prophet, hence his name. After she asks him whether she'll get the big job he tells that she won't because she's going to be dead on the following Thursday...

What follows from there is one of the best romantic comedies that I've watched in quite some time that is made that much better by Angelina Jolie's wonderful performance in the lead role!

I highly recommend this film to any and all that enjoys romantic comedies or just good movies in general! {ssintrepid}

Special Features:

-Full-Length Audio Commentary by Director Stephen Herek ... Read more