Description

Get ready for outrageous fun in Disney's 102 DALMATIANS. It's a brand-new hilarious adventure, starring the audacious Oddball, the spotless Dalmatian puppy on a search for her rightful spots, and Waddlesworth, the wisecracking, delusional macaw who thinks he's a Rottweiler. Barking mad, this unlikely duo leads a posse of puppies on a mission to outfox the wildly wicked, ever-scheming Cruella De Vil (Glenn Close). Filled with chases, close calls, hilarious antics, and thrilling escapes all the way from London through the streets of Paris -- and a Parisian bakery -- this adventure-packed tale is wacky good fun your entire family will want to howl over again and again. ... Read more

Reviews (49)

Worthy Enough To Be The Sequel To Such A Great Film!
This movie was wonderful. Kid's will love it! Cruella Devil is finally being released from prison. They have experimented on her and assume that she is cured from her dog hatting days. In fact, they have turned her into a dog lover. She even goes out and buys an abandoned dog shelter. Her peroll officer, whos dog's have just had a litter of dalmation puppies including oddball who has no spots, Meets the owner of the shelter and falls in love with him. But when Cruella hears the bells of Big Ben, something goes wrong inside her head and she goes out to get revenge. This time she wants a hooded spotted dalmation puppy coat, hence it will take 102 dalmations to complete it. The only dalmation that isn't captured is Oddball because she has no spots. It's up to her and her parrot friend who thinks he's a dog to follow the kidnappers to France and save the day! Your whole family will love it! Buy it today!

First 101 dalmations now 102 dalmations,,,wonderful!
I recived this one as a Xmas present *Dec01*, I watched it before I got it, cos we rented it... and I loved it, and i will always love this movie. It's such a cute movie! My favorite dog is "Oddball" my worst character is Cruella De Vil. As u can tell why! Cruella De Vil, Cruella De Vil.. if she doesnt scare u no evil thing will! I've seen the cartoon version of 101 Dalmations... and I love the cartoon more than the real version on 101 Dalmations. But 102 Dalmations is much better. I also have 101 Dalmations *Not the cartoon version*, and that one is not as good as 102 Dalmations.. (Believe Me))))) Well anyways please do yourself a favor and buy "102 Dalmations" today.

Cute puppies. 16th april 2004.
I have never really seen the first propally, but i could imagine the second been that bit better. Great for anyone, really cute doggies, and ther are 102 of them on a adventure near to the end.

This is a horible movie
I thought it would be a delightful flick with cute pupies running away from a nasty lady but it's not that way. old tired jokes get used agan agan and agan. BOTTOM LINE: it stinks

A puppy's day
An evil Cruela Devil does the same plan like in the original movie. This movie sounds the same like the original. They repeated everything including the plot, the story and made different characters take care of the dogs. It should be the same people like in the first 101 Dalmatians. Disney made a really bad look out type of movie. This movie should be called 102 Dalmatians Cruela Devil Returns. An extra this movie should be Rated R for evil violence, overacted, and disaster images that are usually garbaged. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Based on a true story, Prince of the City stars Treat Williams as Danny Ciello, a conflicted New York cop who reluctantly decides to go undercover for the feds to ferret out police corruption. At first, he recklessly gets off on the danger, but as the feds tighten the screws, the guilt-wracked Ciello is forced to compromise his partners and friends, and his own checkered past inexorably catches up with him.

Sidney Lumet, who also directed Networkand Dog Day Afternoon, is esteemed as an actor's director. This film is prime evidence. The peerless ensemble, including Jerry Orbach, Bob Balaban, and a duty roster of great New York character actors, is flawless. If there was any justice in Hollywood, Prince of the City would have been Treat Williams's star-making breakthrough, his Serpico (which Lumet also directed). But this film couldn't get arrested at the box office and was criminally snubbed by the Academy. Due to its length and gritty, profane dialogue, it is severely compromised when broadcast on network TV. For fans of NYPD Blue, Law & Order and Homicide, here is a movie ripe for discovery on home video.--Donald Liebenson ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Intelligent drama about loyality and morality
"Prince of the City" is, I believe, Lumet's best movie and one of the best films of the 1980s, an intelligent drama about the conflict between loyality and morality.

It's part of Lumet's investigation of corruption amongst the "men in blue" which includes "Serpico", "Night Falls on Manhattan" and "Q & A".

"Prince of the City" is about morality but it does not moralise. Lumet's characters face difficult decisions and he shows their agonising in all its complexity. Treat Williams' character (Danny) moves back and forth between self interest and loyality to friends and the law - never really clear what is right and always on his own.

Whenever there is a police corruption "scandal" in Sydney (and there often is !) I turn to this film to give me perspective - to remind me of how the protagonists are human and how life is never black and white.

Best police movie of all time
This is where "Hill Street", "Homicide" and "NYPD Blue" got their start. Anyone who liked any of those will love this film.

Sidney Lumet crucified the NYPD in his earlier critically acclaimed "Serpico". Allegedly, he took on this work to somehow atone for giving the police such a bad time. Here, we see how corrpution begins almost imperceptably (as one sympathetic prosecutor notes). Getting back from the bad guys, however, must be done in one great leap, as the protagonist so tragically shows us.

This film is based on the true story of a former NYPD detective, turned into a book by Robert Daley. It is terrifically cast, with Treat Williams creating a role of real-life Detective Robert Leuci. Backing him are Jerry Orbach as his partner, the quintessential New York cop. James Tolkan is the weasel of a prosecutor (who gets his come-uppance from Orbach), and Ron Karabatsos as the worst of the no-goodniks, Sal DiBennedetto.

Get past the profanity and don't let the inevitable conclusion of the attempted atonement be a downer. It is spell-binding.

A great movie!
A facinating account of a NYC cop who has a crisis of conscience.
He wanted to be a good cop but is caught up by the circumstances around him. A terrific performance by Treat Williams.
Superbly directed by Sidney Lumet. New York City gritty. Long (2 hrs 45 min) but well paced. Profane language but is used well to show the intensity of the film. Go buy it or rent it at a video store!

A cop movie for adults
I saw Prince Of The City years ago and it has stayed with me ever since. Its a long, heartbreaking story but wonderful from start to finish. Like the other reviewers I thought Treat Williams was headed straight to the top. I can only conclude he was sleeping with some Hollywood bigshot's wife. What a performance.

Forget any recent police drama...
Sidney Lumet-what a filmmaker. This man has made so many excellent films and is such a craftsman, it was hard for me to pick one to write something about. I guess this one gets a little less credit than some of the others and so I'm drawn to it. It's unbelievable how quickly I was totally entranced by this film. Treat Williams is never better than right here. It's as interesting a film to me as Oliver Stone's JFK and I think I like it a little more than that film. I just have to demand that you watch-as soon as you can. It's long, but well worth the trip and much more involving than any police drama I've seen in many years. Please, please watch it-or buy it!!! ... Read more

Reviews (85)

very 'Enchanted' by 'Ella'
I notice that many people did not enjoy this movie, mostly because they found the book superior; but I have never read the book, (but am looking forward too doing so) so I'm strictly speaking as someone who hasn't.
the movie is a variation of Cinderella with an interesting twist, about a young woman named Ella (Anne Hathaway) who was given the "gift" of obedience at birth by a dizty fairy (Vivica Fox), which forces Ella to do anything anyone tells her to. But the gift seems like more of a curse to Ella, especially when her father marries an evil woman named Dame Olga (Joanna Lumley), and she must put up with Olga's two petulant daughters (Lucy Punch and Jennifer Higham) who take advantage of her when one of them learns of her unusual gift. Then one day when Ella must do something terrible because of the gift, she decides to set off and find the fairy who gave her the curse so she can take it away. Ella is given a talking book that was once human (he was Ella's house fairy Mandy's boyfriend, but was turned into a book by her botched spell) that can show you anything but can't tell you where it is. She is also joined on her quest by an elf who wants to become a lawyer, but he can't because elves aren't allowed to be anything but singers and dancers. Ella is also added by prince Charmont (Hugh Dancy), who she doesn't really like because his uncle, the king, (Cary Elwes) keeps ogres and elves and giants segregated from humans, and she is a sort of activist against this. But of course, they soon fall in love, and Ella is plunged into royal intrigue, and must do the worst thing the curse has ever made her do if she doesn't find the fairy lucinda in time.
'Ella Enchanted's cast is great. Anne Hathaway is a very talented young actress and her talents were wasted in the unfunny and cliched 'The Princess Diaries', but 'Ella' is very good material and she is very charming and funny in it. I also think Vivica Fox made a very nice turn as the harebrained fairy Lucinda, the two stepsisters were completely hilarious, and Hugh Dancy was very convincing and charasmatic in his prince charming role. I also liked the visual style, which mixes storybook kingdom and kind of like what 'Shrek' would look like in real life. I also found the modern influences on the film very funny, like the prince having a fun club, the mall opening in the mideveal town, and a hilarious situation involving the wicked stepmother and "batox". There is also genuine suspense in a crucial scene sometime before the end, and I'll be darned if it didn't have me on the edge of my seat.
The one thing that really annoyed me though, was how some of the characters just show up when theyr'e needed to move the story along. Ella's father for example is a very thankless role, and during the few times he came onscreen I would think "hey I forgot he was in this"; and the awesome Joanna Lumley (from the TV show Absolutely Fabulous) as the wicked stepmother is tragically underused, and should have had more scenes. Also, Parminder Nagra (Bend it Like Beckham) plays Ella's best friend, and has a key role in an important scene, but we don't see much of her after that.
But these problems are pretty minor, especially for a lighthearted and breezy movie like this. 'Ella Enchanted' is also one of those rare species of family films that is actually enjoyable for the whole family, and I feel parents will like it just as much as the kids will.

Ella Enchanted: friend or foe?
I've loved the book ever since i read it 4 years ago. SO naturally, when i heard about the movie, i was excited. After seeing the trailer, though, i became a little apprehensive about the changes being made to a perfect story. Despite my intuition, i forced myself to see the movie; i must tell you, i was pleasantly surprised. Although the story line is completely different from the original, the story was extremely funny, and added whimsy to the fairy tale world. Characters were cut and pasted-changing them to fit the new plot, as well as some added characters (that the story could have done without, but were added to the humor). For fans over 10- Cary Ewells from the princess bride was an extra bonus, as well as the guy from Monte Python. Although some of the scenes seemed a little Shrek-wanna-be, it made me laugh all the same. It is a completely different story being told than in the book, which allows book fans to forget the connection, and instead to just sit back, relax, and enjoy the show.

VERY BAD
THE FILM STUNK IF I WANT TO SEE THE MOVIE ILL GO BUY THE BOOK I READ THE BOOK IN SCHOOL AND IT WAS AWSOME! I SAID THAT I WAS GOING TO BUY IT BUT I SAW IT IN THE MOVIE THEATERS AND IT WAS BAD!!!!!! WARNING DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS GO BUY CONFESSIONS OF A TEEN AGE DRAMA QUEEN! THIS FILM STINKS IT SHOULD NOT EVEN GET A STAR AND THATS THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WARNING: WASTE OF MONEY!!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The book was so good and then they had to go out and make a movie that was a completely different story!!!!! if you have not seen this horrible rip off, then Go read the book and don't waist your money!!!!!!!!!! I am never going to watch another miramax film ever agen! Oh, and this film does not even deserve 1 star!!!!

The best movie ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I loved ella enchanted it is about a girl who has to do everything she is command to do. It is very funny and anne hathaway is HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Great Story, Great Actors
I was wonderfully surprised with this movie. It ran the gambit of emotions for me: laughing, crying... Frankie Muniz and Mathew Modine were EXCELLENT in their roles. The rest of the cast was great as well. The story was interesting all along and you felt warmth and compassion for the 'deaf man' as he grew in stature.

I've recommended this to anyone who'd listen. Good job!!!!!

VHS Much Better
I was waiting for the DVD format to become available as I loved this movie and was wearing out my tape from rewinding and fast forwarding to my favorite scenes.

The VHS version contains interviews with the actors and behind the scenes making of the movie footage. I guess I expected that if footage was on the video, then it would be in the DVD. Boy was I wrong.

The DVD version was good quality, but contained no extras whatsoever. So if you are like me and hoping to replace your VHS with the DVD, you'll be disappointed. Now I have two copies of this movie depending on if I just want to see a particular scene or the behind the scenes footage. I guess the VCR is sticking around a little while longer.

Not a good representative of the Deaf population
Even though the movie is touching, it doesn't represent the Deaf population. Many of them have told me that it is a good movie and wants me to watch it but they do not understand that it is not anything to do with the culture of the Deaf. If you want to understand the Deaf culture, watch the appropriate videotape such as "Children of a Lesser God" or "Love is Never Silent." I would heartily recommended this movie.

Charming, funny, and touching
What the Deaf Man Heard is a poignantly funny story about a boy abandoned on a bus by his mother (telling you why spoils part of the plot), who tells him not to talk to anyone. When he reaches the end of the bus line, he doesn't talk, so the everyone in the town assumes that he is deaf and dumb. The bus station manager (Tom Skerrit) allows him to live at the bus station and becomes his surrogate father. There are too many funny parts to mention here, but as the events leading up to the boy, now a man (Matthew Modine), revealing that he really can hear and talk are funny and touching. James Earl Jones is fantastic (as always) as the only person in town to figure out the truth, though he keeps the secret for his own purposes. You'll laugh, you'll cry. It's better than Cats. You'll want to see it again and again.

Outstanding!
This is a show to be viewed by all, both young and old, big and small. It accentuates on kindness, hidden secrets, love, loyalty and don't forget, determination. I was impressed with it's quality and with it's humor and sentiment. I have only seen it once, when it was shown on television, but it has stayed with me for years, and will continue to be a desired DVD to add to our library. ... Read more

Reviews (84)

Miscast Elizabeth
Greer Garson stars as Elizabeth Bennet in this 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice. She plays the clever and witty eldest of five daughters, who are all looking for rich husbands. Lawrence Olivier plays Mr. Darcy, a suitably wealthy prospect, however he is too arrogant for Elizabeth's liking. The story follows the two as they tease and rebuff, only to end happily with their engagement, as we always knew it would.

Being such an old film, the quality of the picture and sound were poor. Even so, they were better than the outrageous casting of Greer Garson as the lead. She was much too old to play Elizabeth, and was utterly unconvincing. Two of her sisters were played by Anne Rutherford and Maureen Sullivan. They were both excellent and would have done better in the lead. Olivier was wonderfully snooty as the aristocratic Mr. Darcy.

The other major weakness with the film was the costume design. The ladies' gowns and men's suits looked like they were borrowed from the set of Gone With the Wind. The dresses were full and puffy, not at all like the delicate and low-cut gowns of the early 1800s in England.

There were no exterior shots of the grand houses; rather we saw only small rooms with very ordinary furnishings. The photography was drab, even considering the age of the film.

The screenplay was co-written by the famous Aldous Huxley, who, it seems, had no knack for reproducing Austen's glorious dialogue. All in all, I found this film an acceptable introduction to Jane Austen's classic book, but not deeply satisfying or beautiful.

Wonderful movie of a timeless novel
This version of Pride and Prejudice first got me interested in Jane Austen. Though it may not be the most acurate version of the famous novel, it is very funny and all of the characters are played well. Lawrence Olivier IS Mr. Darcy, and Greer Garson shines as Lizzy, despite her age difference to the character.

An inferior adaptation of a great book
There are three film versions of Jane Austen's immortal "Pride and Prejudice" extant, and this one, the first, is by far the weakest. It would be hard to tamper with the great story, which is so well known as to need no rehashing here; but although the film tries to follow the story, Aldous Huxley proved incapable of incorporating Austen's incomparable dialogue into the film script, as the two later versions were able to do with remarkable success. There are other, more egregious shortcomings, in this film, which are:

1) Casting Greer Garson as Elizabeth Bennet. Whoever had this idea should have been put in the stocks and pelted with water balloons. Elizabeth Bennet is 20 years old in the book, and Greer Garson, on the wrong side of 35, looks absolutely ridiculous trying to play a young ingenue. Who was she kidding? She doesn't even look like Austen's description of Elizabeth. Vivien Leigh might have made a great Elizabeth, if she wasn't already fixed in the public mind as Scarlett O'Hara. Which brings us to:

2) The 1860-ish costumes. Were they trying to move the timeline up? Somebody should have told the costume department that Longbourn and Tara were six thousand miles and sixty years apart. "Pride and Prejudice" was set sometime between 1790 and 1810 (Austen's biographers are in disagreement as to the exact date), but the costumes in this first version of "Pride and Prejudice looked like leftovers from the set of "Gone With the Wind". A big no-no.

3) The casting of Lawrence Olivier as Darcy was a mistake. Austen describes Darcy as being tall and handsome. Olivier was handsome but he didn't look much taller than Garson. Or maybe Garson was too tall. Whatever... it was a total mismatch.

4) The whole scene at Pemberley, which is central to the book, was eliminated. So how did Elizabeth's one-eighty from loathing to love take place? The movie doesn't say and we're left totally unconvinced.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that "Pride and Prejudice" is one of the best-loved books in English literature. It certainly deserved a better film adaptation than this one. Fortunately it has not one, but two: the BBC version of 1985 starring Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul (my personal favorite), and the A&E film of 1995 starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. Watch either or both of these after seeing the Garson/Olivier movie, to see what a good film adaptation of a great book really is.

Worst Adaptation!
This film was the worst adaptation of Jane Austen's famous novel that I have ever seen in my life. It is not really true to the novel, the costumes are ridiculous looking, not to mention that they do not match the kind of clothing that was worn in Austen's time. They hardly ever use the famous words and/or phrases from the book, only once or twice but they are somewhat changed. Granted I think Laurence Olivier made a great Darcy if he was more like Darcy is suppose to be, instead his version of him was more perky and uppity than nonchalant and melancholy and a little arrogant, which to me is what Darcy is actually like. If you want to see the greatest adaptation of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" ever made then check out the BBC and A&E production starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, I guarantee you'll watch it all the way through with a satisfied and happy smile on your face.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that this movie is
Misleading, to say the least.

I saw this movie last week on Turner Classic Movie channel, expecting to see a nice little 40's style rendition of that book we oh-so dearly enjoy.

What a silly movie.

Granted, I'm sure making a two hour movie out of the novel is difficult, but if you were to take a high school test on Pride and Prejudice after seeing this movie instead of reading the book, you would fail miserably.

The dresses were too elaborate. Mary is way too pretty. Greer is too blonde to play Elizabeth, where are those dark "fine eyes"? Darcy grossed me out. I don't even remember Bingley or Jane, and Elizabeth's transition from hating to loving Darcy goes a little something like this (paraphrased, of course):

Elizabeth: "Oh, how I miss Mr. Darcy"
Jane: "What? I thought you hated him?"
Elizabeth : "Well now, quite suddenly I love him!"

This is without the reunion at Pemberly. Its rushed, to say the least.

I did like Lydia, and there is a lovely, albeit irrelevant scene where Mrs. Bennet and the girls Mrs. Lucas and Charlotte (who is much too pretty in this adaptation) are racing neck and neck via carriage to get to Netherfield to meet the eligible men.

And the slightly amusing part where Mr. Bingley is talking about what's wrong with Jane when she's sick. That was just weird. Trés 40's, no?

Mr and Mrs Bennet are enjoyable characters, but I imagine that it would be difficult to screw up those well-written characters in any cinematic endeavor.

And the part with Lady Catherine acting as a "secret agent" for Darcy. What the hell.

Ugh. This movie is slightly amusing, if it was 5 hours of nonsense I would give it one star, but since its only 2 hours you might as well watch it if you feel so inclined.

But read the book and check out the 1995 BBC production one, too. ... Read more

Description

Depicts the gallant exploits of the American Rangers and their leader, Colonel William Darby, as he leads his men through the landing assault on North Africa and the invasion of Italy. Suggested by the book by Major James Altieri. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Birthday Gift
I purchased this video for my dad's 72nd birthday and it would not play correctly. Lines throughout the picture on the screen. We tried it on 3 different TV's to no avail. Unfortunately I bought it on Aug.13th and his birthday was on Sept. 12th and by the time I returned home on the 14th of Sept. it was too late to return it. He had been so looking forward to receiving this video that I am saddened not to be able to provide it to him. He served in the Korean War and enjoys watching war movies. He had looked all over for this movie and I was so happy to find it on Amazon.com. I thought it would be a terrific surprise for him but it was I who was surprised by the video being defective.

Wild Bill Defies Formula
Near the end of his eccentric and notorious career William "Wild Bill" Wellman directed "Darby's Rangers" for Warner Brothers. Despite the studio's budget, which limited the production to formula action-war-adventure status, Wellman used the dialogue to create interesting characterizations from his young contract players. Focusing on James Garner as Darby and the personal lives of his men, on and off the field, Wellman delivered a to the point and appealing film still memorable to anyone who has ever seen it.

Great World War II Film from Wild Bill
"Darby's Rangers" was director William "Wild Bill" Wellman's second from last film. An ace pilot in WW1 "Wild Bill" Wellman went to Hollywood and directed "WINGS," the first film to win an Academy Award. "Darby's Rangers" released in 1958 deals with Major William Darby's formation of a crack ranger outfit. The studio wanted an aging Wellman to turn out another formula war film late in his career but thanks to the charisma that James Garner brings to the role of Major Darby this movie works much better than expected. The movie deals with the Ranger's exploits on and off the field of battle. Cinematographer William Clothier's images are well filmed and stalwart Composer Max Steiner once again gives us that old 'guts and glory' scoring. The good cast includes Jack Warden, Edd Byrnes, Stuart Whitman, Peter Brown, Torin Thatcher, Murray Hamilton and David Janssen.

Great action and adventure based on the WWII truth.
For those of you interested in World War II history, especially as it relates to the training and operations of commando units, this video is a must see. James Garner offers a wonderful portrayal of Major Darby, the founder of the modern-day Rangers. Hollywood fluff is at a minimum in this stirring account of Ranger missions. Sit back and enjoy. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Jeremy Irons gives another superb and underrated performance in M Butterfly, an elegant adaptation of the Broadway hit by playwrightDavid Henry Hwang. Irons plays a French diplomat in China in 1964 whofalls in love with a star of the Beijing Opera, not realizing that theentrancing performer holds secrets that will ruin his life--that thesinger is a spy for the Communist government is only the beginning of thediplomat's troubles. Though M Butterfly may seem like a departurefor director David Cronenberg (best known for horror and science fictionflicks like The Fly and Scanners), the themes of desireand self-deception fit comfortably into his oeuvre, alongside hisadaptations of difficult novels like Naked Lunch and Crash.M Butterfly, like the more popular movie The Crying Game, isa cunning examination of love and denial. Also featuring John Lone (TheLast Emperor). --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Tragic and sympathetic characters caught up in history
This 1993 film is based on the true story of French diplomat, Rene Gallimard, who carried on an affair for 18 years with Chinese opera singer Song Liling. Later, he was arrested when it was discovered he was passing diplomatic secrets to the Chinese government through his lover. However, there is a twist. Song Liling was actually a man, not a woman, and supposedly kept this fact from Gallimard through all this time.

Jeremy Irons is cast as Rene Gallimard. John Lone, who was actually trained in the Beijing opera and who played the title role in The Last Emperor, is cast as Song Liling. He is not a convincing female but I feel this was the director's intent. The story is, after all, about Gallimard's blind obsession in his desire for the perfect woman. Both Irons' and Lone's performances are magnificent. Both are tragic and sympathetic characters caught up in history.

The theme is also about the role of men and women as well as Communist China and the cultural revolution. Great cinematography and setting brings us to the heart of China which is going through its growing pains. Deception and betrayal are everywhere, not just between the two leading characters involved in the romance.

I was unprepared to like the video as much as I did. It did not do well at the box office, I knew the theme in advance and felt it would strain my belief system. However, I was swept away in the story and the excellent performances and had no trouble overlooking its flaws. Of course the author took dramatic license and created a ending that played like an opera, but who is to blame him; the story itself just cried out for theatrics.

Recommended as an interesting departure from the ordinary.

Cronenberg and Irons: Masterful
A bit of a departure for horror/sci-fi director David Cronenberg, but nonetheless one of his best films. Jeremy Irons plays Rene Gallimard, an accountant for the French Embassy in Beijing, who becomes infatuated with a Chinese diva (Song Liling), played by John Lone. After a passionate and scandalous affair, Song leaves Beijing, supposedly pregnant with Gallimard's child. Years later when he is arrested for espionage, Gallimard is forced to confront the fact that not only was his lover a spy for the Chinese ministry, but a man. Some people find John Lone's inability to completely pass as a woman problematic, but as Cronenberg explains: "I didn't want an unknown who was incredibly female and almost undetectable. I wanted a man. When Gallimard and Song are kissing I wanted it to be two men. I wanted the audience to feel that... M. Butterfly for me is about transformation.." For me, it's a brilliant exploration of the nature of curiousity and desire that necessarily ends tragically. The devastating notion that you can give up your entire life for something that is not true, that it's possible to fall in love with an idea, an image, a masquerade. Cronenberg abounds in his insights to imperialism, gender performance and the human capcity for transformation. Still, above all is the emotional intensity of this film, his best (in that regard) to date. Beautiful cinematography and exquisite acting, earns five stars for the closing scene alone. Highly recommended.

Breathtaking
I don't think anyone could have done justice to writing the screenplay to M Butterfly (based on David Henry Hwang's stage play) than Hwang himself. While it is a bit of a departure from the 1988 play based on the true story of a French diplomat who falls in love with a Chinese opera singer and the disastrous outcome of their affair, as a film it could not have been done otherwise.

Jeremy Irons, a wonderful actor no matter what role he plays, makes for an astounding Rene Gallimard. Less sarcastic than John Lithgow, who created the role on Broadway, Irons gives new depth and intensity to the frustrated, naive accountant. The dramatic depth to John Lone's Song Liling is equal to Irons and equal in departure from BD Wong's somewhat giggly Broadway portrayal of the Chinese diva.

A great deal of "s" words can be used to describe David Cronenberg's film, the top of that list including subtle and sexy. The tone is set, mostly, by the score--which includes traditional-sounding Chinese music and variations of Puccini's Madame Butterfly (especially the recurring theme of "Un Bel Di")--and the scenery (shot in the Far East and Budapest). The ubiquitous soft red and gold tones add to the seductive, nearly erotic edge of the film, all of which culminate at the end.

I don't want to give any of it away, mainly because when I saw the movie I had already read and seen the play, and there is so much more meaning to realize the end with Rene, but I will say that it is moving to the point of tears. Not necessarily because of the outcome, but more in how the actors play it and how the director has realized it. If you have ANY interest in purchasing this film (especially if you have any experience with Hwang's stage play), by all means buy it. It won't disappoint.

Who's French??
Yet another spectacular tale of love and maddness with a Freudian twist by the great David Cronenberg. There are some slight flaws with the film such as a cast portraying French people, none of which sporting French accents. But I suppose thats better than trying to do a French accent and it being inconsistant. All-in-all though, a really great, really strange (though not as strange as some of his other work) surprisingly poetic movie. Definately a must see for fans of Cronenberg and Jeremy Irons alike.

Moving
Considering that it was a Cronenberg movie, I found it surprisingly normal and accessible. I also found it thoroughly engrossing and much more emotionally satisfying than I's expected, given some of the reviews. Jeremy Irons gave his usual pitch-perfect performance; perhaps this film was something of a warm-up for his playing Humbert Humbert in the similarly themed Lolita. However, I was blown away even more by John Lone. He wasn't as convincing as a woman as he might have been, but that really wasn't the point, and when you see his transformation to his true persona at the end of the film, the sheer contrast, and the conviction to both the performances, should prove just how talented he is.
Overall, I found an unexpected treasure here; what from the box could have been a overwraught weepy sex-drama was actually intelligent, emotionally truthful, and well made. ... Read more

Reviews (38)

Oh Nelly!
Nell is an earnest and slightly soporific drama about a doctor's inadvertant discovery of a wild child in the remote hills of North Carolina. Jerry Lovell (Liam Neeson), a rural MD is dispatched to confirm the death of a hermit-like mountain lady and is quick to discover a cantankerous, violent, and unintelligible young woman, obviously the old woman's unacknowledged daughter,hiding in the cabin rafters. Lovell is immediately captivated by Nell (Jodie Foster) and is soon joined by career-climbing psychologist Paula Olsen (Natasha Richardson) in attempting to decode the mysterious woman's gibberish-filled rages. Before you can say "Wapner at 5:30," this hillbilly rain woman's past becomes brutally clear: her mother, a victim of rape in her youth, had given birth to the child but kept her a secret from the the world for thirty years; Nell has been taught that men and daylight are harmful, and her language is the product of imitation after her mother's stroke.

The sentiment here is laid on thick. Nell is harrassed by those stereotypical movie rejects, scientists and red necks. The scientists want her brought in for study; the red necks want to play a little doctor (Can you say Deliverance?) There are a number of nice scenes portraying the bonding between the three leads, and the direction by the talented Michael Apted is sensitive and well-intentioned, but Nell suffers by asking us to shed too many unearned tears. In this regard, most damaging is the lack of key exposition. We never really get to know Nell. Her mystery, while at first quite interesting, loses its novelty by the time they take the wide-eyed country girl to the big bad city.

The biggest roadblock has to be Jodie Foster. Her pagan-like emoting as she dances naked through the woods is two stations short of hamville. It's like she wants us to believe so desperately in Nell's tragic story that she has to use a few neon signs to show us the way. Thanks, but I think we can handle it ourselves. Neeson is more effective, and he and real-life wife Richardson do a nice job of counterbalancing Foster's excess in the role of Nell's surrogate ma and pa.

Painfully cliche; unintentionally hilarious
Nell is a clunky drama about two psychologists (Liam Neeson and Natasha Richardson) who study and befriend a young woman Nell (Jodie Foster) at her lakeside log cabin. A product of potentially disturbing family circumstance that this film promptly glosses over, Nell speaks her own language and was raised basically without civilization. Of course, Nell proves to everyone in a bombastic climactic courtroom scene that she is in fact more civilized than so-called modern society. She frankly states in 'nellish' that modern men and women don't look each other in the eye, avoid genuine communication, and possibly every other unoriginal complaint about contemporary society. Yet, it all seems a bit absurd since Nell is clearly an ideal product of such a society- she's compliant, fun-loving, clean with Aryan good-looks, and can even play matchmaker! When she hooks up her doctors, the movie officially becomes about Neeson and Richardson gettin-it-awwwn and loses any facade of insight into the human condition. Whatever it had was facile to say the least though as it ignores the scary, violent, sexual, and basically id-centric depths of human nature. Time and time again, Nell comes across like a domesticated pet- one that desperately needs to be put down.

This is a great movie for women, men and parents!
This is a wonderful, wonderful movie. And it is a great test of a relationship. Women, if your boyfriend or fiance is unwilling to watch this movie, or is not moved by it, dump him immediately and save yourself years and years of pain. If you are already married, get marriage counseling.

Guys, this is a great movie. Even if you prefer action movies to chick flicks, the woman you are with will be totally moved by the movie and that you watched it with her.

Parents, this is also a great movie for teenagers. Nell, played by Jodie Foster, has had no contact with anyone other than her now dead mother, so she has no sense of shame about her body. She is as free as a three year old in taking off her clothes to go swimming at night. Therefore, while there is nudity, there is no sexuality. And the nudity is not exploitive. (This is like the nudity you used to find on the pages of old National Geographics on articles about Africa.) On the balance, the sensitivity outweighs concerns about nudity, this may even be a way to spark conversation with your kids about puberty, etc.

intellectual viewers please
If you are one who only likes movies that are geared to viewers with a 13 minute attention span or if you don't like to think at all, please don't watch this movie.
But if not....this movie is a great! I love movies that show people who haven't experienced normal life because it allows us to take a deeper look at things and appreciate things that we overlook. Like standing in the breeze, or the colors of fruits.
Jodie Foster played this part perfectly.

Different And Great
Jodie Foster, Liam Neeson, and Natasha Richardson star in the drama "Nell". The screenplay was wonderfully written. They take the audience into another world, which may seem unusual to many. Exploring a language and a lifestyle lived by only one person, everything stays heartfelt. That touch is never lost for a single second. Such feelings intensify as the courts try to take this life away from Nell. Everything said and done keeps the audience watching closely. Jodie Foster, who also produced, was rightfully nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress for her role as Nell. Every drop of energy poured onto the character. This gives the movie the added emotion. Liam Neeson and Natasha Richardson wonderfully play their roles as doctors protecting Nell from the hospital and the press. Their roles intensify greatly as Nell begins changing their lives forever. The great creativity of "Nell" makes this experience unforgettable. This is great viewing for all audiences. ... Read more

Description

A country and western singer jeopardizes his marriage and his career when he has an affair with the young daughter of his longtime musical sidekick. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

What's Not to Like?
One of the feel-good movies of the 80s, "Honeysuckle Rose" wears well. Willie Nelson plays Buck Bonham, a country superstar (surprise!) who's about to go out on tour when he loses a key member of the band. No problem. Buck's loyal, loving wife (Dyan Cannon), herself a former superstar and now Buck's business manager, books the young, attractive, and professionally untried daughter of a longtime family friend (Slim Pickens) to temporarily join the tour until a seasoned replacement can be found. It turns out the girl (Amy Irving, young, sexy, and beautiful) can really belt out a tune. And that's not all.

Before you can say "broken heart," Buck and the girl are in bed together, and their mutual passion is there for all to see as they sing together on stage (by the way, Irving has one heck of a voice, and her duets with Nelson are sweet and lovely). How long will it take for the Missus to find out?

Despite the open disapproval of his band members and country friends such as Amy Harris (who has a couple of solos as well), Buck continues the dangerous affair--until somebody tips off his wife and she appears unexpectedly at one of the concert venues. There ensues a great deal of melodrama, most of it played out in song, like the classic "You Were Always On My Mind." Unfortunately, Cannon, who is supposed to be a country great in this movie, sings as well, and her flat, untrained and grating voice is just awful.

The plot sidesteps into a silly trip to Mexico with Slim Pickens, the outraged father and friend, during which Bonham comes to his senses. All works out just fine in the end, and the viewer ends up smiling, humming country songs, and rewinding the tape to start it up all over again.

"Honeysuckle Rose" a totally entertaining film.
Honeysuckle Rose once again proves that a great singer, Willie Nelson, can be, and usually is, a more than competent actor. Buoyed up with outstanding performances by Dyan Cannon, Amy Irving and Slim Pickens, Willie more than holds his own in this totally entertaining and music- filled portrayal of life on the road as a country musician. Most of Willie's million-seller hits are included along the way. It is a realistic and satisfying account of journeymen musician's lives, including the creative energy they must generate to be a success and the foibles they often display enroute. Don't miss it.

A true-to-life image of music on the road
While it certainly does not hurt to be a Willie Nelson fan to enjoy this movie, anybody (whether into rock, country, folk, etc...) wanting to see a humerous and serious true-to-life movie about playing music on the road should see this. The acting is great and the plot and content is superb.

Classic, true outlaw-country road movie
Willie nelson plays Buck Bonham, a country singer based on his own person. The movie makes you relive the time Willie Nelson was at one of his peaks. Great music, and although the storieline is a little weak, the settings and music make up for it a 100 percent. It's the only movie I know of that can be watched hundreds of times without getting boring. ... Read more

Reviews (107)

A Cry for Freedom
Even though the story of SPARTACUS takes place in ancient Rome, the film itself is a profoundly contemporary work of the time that it was made; the eve of the Civil Rights movement in the US, and at the end of the HUAC witch hunt in Hollywood.

The chief engineer of this project is producer Kirk Douglas who portrayed the salve hero, but the wisdom behind all that is screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, black-listed in Hollywood, worked under various pseudonyms during the fifties for films such as ROMAN HOLIDAY, here properly restored to his rightful position of one of the best screenwriter in the business, with his own name credited on screen. The original novel is also written by another black-listed writer, Howard Fast, who claims that the idea of writing a film about the slave revolt came into his mind during the time that he spent in prison.

So the message that its story carries is unviersal, and even contemporary: man's struggle for freedom, striving for human equality, the solidarity of all that are oppressed disregarding their creed, birth and color of skin--the gladiator whose death triggers Spartacus' revolt is portrayed by Woody Strode, afro-american actor and a regular of John Ford's movies. The film embraces humanity, freedom to chose the way he wants to live, the freedom to trust one's friend, even the freedom of sexuality --Spartucus and his lover Varinia are never legally married, but she gives birth to his son--, and the freedom and passion to sacrifice oneself for the sake of his pears and the great cause of human freedom.

One the other hand, the film strongly accusse the corruption of power, the decadence of those who have power, and the rise of fascism. Democratic politician Charles Laughton, with all the virtues and vices that a regular politician has, taken over and eventually eliminated by seemingly much "cleaner" military leader Laurence Olivier. Needless to say, the clashes performed by those two great actors is a great excitment to watch.

Kirk Douglas gives one of his most convincing performances as the revolutionary leader of slaves, Jean Simmons plays his innocent, healthy and strong partner with a healthy sensuality, and Tony Curtis gives credibility to Spartacus' surrogate son who represents culture and education; they are not barbaric slaves, they can be as cultured as their masters are, and even better because they are true, honest humans as opposed to the corrupted masters whose wealth and culture are based on oppression of other humans.

To simply put, SPARTACUS is a fine example of how a good entertaining movie can carry a powerful message; when it truly suceeds, it'a great joy to watch.

This fully packed DVD is a re-issue of Criterion's celebrated LaserDisc edition. Added to a interesting commentary track by the filmmakers including Douglas and Peter Ustinov who won an oscar for his performance, there is another track on which Dulton Trumbo's notes to the rough cut of the film is read--a great lesson to all those who wants to learn how to write a film. Othe supplements includes a hillarious interview with Peter Ustinov, a lot of scketches and stills, and more. It's a great DVD. Please enjoy it as many times as you want.

note: the superb package design is a reproduction of the original poser art created by Saul Bass. The poster is also among the suplements of this DVD.

Strong story, weak depth, but epic & entertaining
Based on the novel by Howard Fast, Spartacus recounts the life of a slave turned gladiator turned freedom fighter. The story of Spartacus begins with him as a free spirited Thracian slave in 70BC. Spartacus is trained in a gladiator school, where he meets and falls in love with the slave girl Varinia. He then leads the other gladiators in revolt, and assembles a huge army of thousands of slaves to challenge the might of Rome. The ending is tragic, but not without hope. Spartacus was in fact a historical figure and the movie's story of his squashed rebellion against Rome - including the crucifixion of 6000 survivors - is largely rooted in truth.

The movie can best be described as epic. On a grand scale, the Roman empire is brought to life, with its corrupt aristocracy and its simple lower class. The epic battle scene which forms the climax of the movie features 1000s of extras, and although it is sometimes hard to tell who is on which side, the effect is magnificent and grandiose. Despite the action scenes, the movie is surprisingly introspective at times. Unlike modern efforts such as Gladiator, Spartacus is not an action movie as such, and fans of contemporary action movies not surprisingly find it disappointing. Spartacus' struggles are just as much emotional as they are physical. But to me this is a strength and not a weakness: the shortcoming of most modern action movies is not present here because the characterization is superb.

Even though the movie is not gory (although it is bloody at times), the adult themes make it unsuitable for children. For instance, successful gladiators are given women to have their way with them. And on numerous occasions, although nudity is not shown it is strongly implied and barely concealed. The implication of bisexuality (in a scene not present in the original) and promiscuity is also strongly evident as part of the corruption in Rome. But it also touches Spartacus. In a rather daring move for the 1960s, Spartacus and his woman Varinia conceive a child out of wedlock, which is presented as natural and good. Spartacus' fight for freedom apparently includes sexual freedom. Its hardly surprising that these two fall in love in a rather sappy love-at-first-sight Hollywood romance, where they don't even know each other as yet. Ultimately it is not only Rome that chases gold, girls and glory without morals, but Spartacus himself is not really much different.

But it is not only the moral ambivalence of this movie that disturbs me, but also its underlying political themes. How is Rome presented? As totally corrupt, with no redeeming qualities. "If a criminal has what you want, you do business with him." How are the slaves presented? As noble and good. "We're brothers." The army of slaves proceeds in a carnival like atmosphere, and the producers present lots of images of joyful children and exuberant elderly as part of their number, to arouse sympathy for their cause. But isn't this rather a cliché? It is, but that's the whole point. Aristocratic Rome is presented as evil, and the oppressed lower class need to be liberated from her corrupt rule. The rich are all evil, the poor are all good. Sounds familiar? It's a defence of the brotherhood of communism. Ultimately the movie endorses peasant revolt as a legitimate option, and advocates rebelling against authority. Rather than rendering to Caesar what is Caesars, it encourages open rebellion, in order to usher in a new political system of brotherhood and freedom from repression. Sound too far-fetched? Here's the clincher: Howard Fast, author of the novel on which this movie was based, was a devout and committed member of the Communist Party of the USA, and for many years his works were black-listed. The story of Spartacus may be rooted in history, but Howard Fast has reinterpreted it as a defence of his own political communist ideals. Rome represents Western Capitalism, and the slaves represent the oppressed peasant proletariat. Spartacus' defence of liberty, equality and fraternity is in fact anachronistic.

So sure this is an epic movie. At the time of its production in 1960, Spartacus was the most expensive movie ever made. With a cast of star actors, especially the compelling performances of Kirk Douglas as Spartacus, Laurence Olivier as Crassus (the influential Roman senator), Peter Ustinov as Batiatius (the bumbling and greedy owner of a gladiator school), and Charles Laughton as Gracchus (the corrupt and scheming Roman senator), it's no wonder it won four academy awards. But the fact that Spartacus is an epic movie does not disguise the fact that it is not deep. Any deeper themes that the movie does have to offer are communist and hedonistic, and this ideology mars the story. This may be a movie that rivals the grandeur and scale of Ben Hur, but thematically, it doesn't come close.

Even so, it's still worth a look. Even if one cannot share the cause of Sparticus and political ambitions it embodies, one has to admire the spirit in which Spartacus fights for his cause: it is a losing battle, and yet with dignity and fervour he fights for what he believes is right - a quality to be coveted. And it's ironic that if you can overlook the weaknesses of its depth, the strength of this movie lies in its superficial story. It has comedy, tragedy, triumph, romance, action, intrigue, and an epic scale. As entertainment, it's an enduring epic that still can be enjoyed today.

3 Stars For 3 Outstanding Performances...
Kubrick replaced Tony Mann on directing duties for this brave, but lumbering costume epic which is ultimately propped up by three beautiful performances. Peter Ustinov(won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his work here), Charles Laughton(should have been similarly nominated)& Laurence Olivier all do incredible work under the guidance of a very young Kubrick & all deliver what comes very close to their best work. Their presence is notable chiefly for the fact that without them, SPARTACUS would never have been the extraordinary spectacle it surely is. Kirk Douglas gives a brooding(& lifeless)performance in the title role, ultimately undermining any sequence not containing the three aforementioned thespians. Jean Simmons, as the love interest, is similarly uninteresting & while undeniably beautiful, fails to evoke for the viewer the love & devotion she receives from Douglas & ultimately Olivier. Pre CGI, it comes armed with some beautifully choreographed & violent battle sequences, but for those looking for an earlier version of Ridley Scott's GLADIATOR, this one may come off a little old-fashioned. It is worth noting(& you'll learn this from the wonderfully insightful 1992 Ustinov interview[his impersonation of Laughton is a riot]contained in the bonus material)that Ustinov rewrote all the scenes he plays with Laughton. It should come as no surprise to the discerning viewer, they are easily the best moments in the film.....

Divine Right of Kings
Sparticus represented more than a gladiator-slave uprising. Sparticus represented the Italian's people dissatisfaction with the Roman Senate and the general corruption and impotence within the Senate.

Citizens once had a voice with the Senate and the Senate listened keeping the republic free. Now, the Senate caved to the demands of the dictators and military commanders and installed for the first time an Emperor giving him six legends too suppress the slave uprising.

In the end the slave and citizen uprising could not resist the Roman legions. Many of the people joining Sparticus were discontent citizens of Rome and individuals from countries that did not like Rome. Originally, the republic which was composed of strong free men. The military started the slow strangulation of the republic by replacing it with an empire. Julius Caesar was introduced as the shadow of the wings of power. Crassus was depicted as the total dictator who put oppressive demands on Rome and the Senate as the body that had lost its power. The Senate historically would have debated the issues and objected to outrageous demands. Instead, the Senate allowed the Emperor to rule Rome and the Emperor established the laws and source of the law and executed the law. The Emperor had power too repeal old laws and establish new laws, in place of the old ones. The punishments for violation of the law could be death and probably a Roman death on the cross demonstrating the Emperors absolute power. The Citizen did what they were told and they did not act without permission. Secret police reported any activity that could bring punishment on the citizen. The laws were supposedly designed to bring security. As the Emperor distrusted and feared the people this only accelerated the downfall of Rome.

The notion of divine right of kings was established. Taxes imposed on the people support the huge military appetite generated as Rome conquered many European countries. The government would become an autocracy and the Emperor the supreme commander.

Sparticus hoped to flee Rome, negotiated with pirates too build ships using gold taken during conquests that would take them from the tip of Italy away to a promise land. Instead, the pirates betrayed Sparticus and did not build the ships allowing the Roman legends to trap Sparticus from the South pushing him towards Rome and forcing a confrontation in the fields close to Rome.

Sparticus was defeated, his men cruxified along the way to Rome, when captured his men coined the phrase "I am Sparticus" when asked who was Sparticus. Sparticus wife would become a member of Crassus Heirloom yet the Senator would arrange for her escape and continue with his own suicide and Sparticus son would remain free.

Good movie, bad transfer
It should be noted that the reviews on this page refer to two different versions of the Spartacus DVD. This review refers to the Universal single disc edition, not the Criterion two-disc release.

While both versions of the film are the same, this version is devastated by a bad transer: both sound and picture quality are seriously lacking - even as far as a blue edge to blacks, including the widescreen matting, and blue fades in parts of the film. The sound is poorly balanced - voices are too quiet, music too loud. I was contantly turning the volume up and down throughout. So much for "fully restored."

If you are interested in quality and really like this movie I would skip this version and go for the Criterion release, which many other people own and have approved. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Good movie, but not quite as good as the book. . .
As with the first Black Stallion movie, I probably would have liked this one better if I hadn't read the book first. There are lots of things that are changed -- for example, the setting for the Black's home is changed to North Africa instead of Saudi Arabia, and Alec ends up going off on the journey by himself, instead of with Henry and Mr. Volence, the owner of one of the horses who ran against Alec in the match race. But these are changes I can handle. The one thing that really irks me is the way Abu Ishak was portrayed. In the book, Abu Ishak was a pretty nice guy. He offered Alec a reward when he came to claim the Black -- legally and tactfully -- and understood how much Alec loved the Black. When Alec and his travelling companions find Abu Ishak's home, Abu Ishak warmly welcomes them. In the film, however the same character is a total jerk. He ruthlessly snatches the Black away after setting the Ramsay's barn on fire to create a diversion, and even ties Alec up at the pier to stop him from following them. And when Alec treks all the way across the desert to find him, Abu Ishak only allows Alec to stay after Alec coerces him into it by appealing to his conscience. Only at the end at the film does he show something resembling kindness. The ending in the film was OK, but I like the book's ending better, when Ishak promises Alec the Black's first colt. I suppose the directors wanted to make sure there wouldn't be another sequel. Cass-Ole's presence was about the only thing that made this film very appealing. I give it two stars.

The Black returns to his homeland.
I watched this movie in the theater when it first came out. It was a great movie. I cried when Abu ben Ishak claimed the stallion from Alec, while Alec was trying to encourage the stallion to gallop away, who refused to move. The book is much different from the movie but both book and movie are great to read and to watch. I would have liked to see Abu go to Alec's home and explain about Shetan(the Black's true Arabian name) being his and that the stallion was stolen from him. (somewhat similar to what the book did.) Instead they had them kidnap the stallion, wrong thing to do, if Alec was smart he would have turned back to the cops that must have been at the house while the barn was burning down and told them that someone was stealing his horse. But he didn't. What he did was run after the thieves and get into the trailer with the Black. But they must have stopped once or twice on the way to the waterfront werehouse. Alex could have easily have escaped with the Black before they reached the werehouse. The whole movie was great, a few things were not by the book but I guess that's how Hollywood wanted the movie to be. I still love both movie and book.

Not up to the original, but not bad for younger viewers
Certainly this is a far cry from the magnificent, magical dream-poem that is the original Black Stallion movie. More of a standard animal/adventure film for younger viewers and if you think about it that way, it's not too bad. Most of the original cast (except Mr. Rooney) return and it was made in a timely enough way that Kelly Reno is still relatively young and charming -- a really non-actorish child actor and part of the whole appeal. I read both books as a little tyke, but didn't remember the second book too well. It seems to me that many of the details were changed but the general idea of the Black being kidnapped back to his original home in an Arabic country is retained.

Alec's adventures chasing his horse are appealing and interesting, and so is the climactic race at the end. But the story just peters out, and we never see Alec return home or what he does without his beloved horse now. (You do have to wonder in a kid's film why there is no resolution with his poor mom (Terri Garr), who had to be frantic when her young son mysteriously disappears for about three months.)

I applied the "11 year old girl who is horse crazy" test to this film, and decided it would definitely pass. That is who it is really made for, despite the male protagonist (and there is a girl rider in the plot, although she gets the heave-ho in favor of the hero). And that girl (me, about a million years ago) would have enjoyed this, although not as much as the original. It would have held my attention and I would have wanted to view it several times.

If your children loved the first film, this much more prosaic sequel would probably be of interest. Just don't expect great art.

The Stallion Returns!!!
Four years after the first film, l983 would usher in this sequel to the The Black Stallion, and Kelly Reno would once again be the one who rescues the Arabian stallion from other thrilling captivities. There are more horses, exotic locations, and thrilling plots here than meets the eye, and the story gets so much better. But of course, it is "Cass-ole" who steals the show - the beautiful black Arabian stallion.

A might fine sequel to a great original film. Highly recommended!!!

one of my favorite all time movies!!!
the black stallion is one of the most magnificent creatures i have ever seen and the desert scenery is quite spectacular in this film... does anyone know how i can get a hold of the music, even just sheet music to this film? it's so beautiful... ... Read more

Description

Marlow is an ambitious and adventurous sailor who is employed by an English trading company and sent to an African colony. There he travels up the river, visiting the trading stations who barters for ivory with the natives. On his journey he is told about a man named Kurtz whose station is the one furthest up the river, deep in the African jungle. Some talk of him in awe, others in admiration, but they all seem to fear him. As Marlow gets closer and closer to Kurtz he understands that the man has gone insane and is now doing the most horrible and blasphemous deeds. Based on Joseph Conrad's classic novel about greed and insanity. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

A Close Interpretation of a Classic
Conrad's look at imperialism and the destruction of Africa was an allegory shown by the inner destruction of Kurtz. This film plays out the slow trip of the short novel -- as slow and monotonous as the trip up the river was for Conrad -- an ocean sailor. But the Kurtz character gets lost in the mystery -- and his dark machine-like ablilty to kill is shown only in the contrived yet riveting scene with a pet monkey. Even the skulls are downplayed. Here too Kurtz is allowed to die and be buried in his village by those who "love" him rather than having him die on the way back -- for affect? It is an uneven and, at times, a slow piece. We don't find out much about Marlowe as well. But we get a true sense of Marlowe wishing to spare Kurtz's lover with a lie -- just as those selling ivory chose to lie about the circumstances.

Even good acting can't save this dud. Don't bother.
Starring John Malkovich and Tim Roth, this video was made for an HBO television special. I was interested in it because I have always wanted to read the original Joseph Conrad novella, which was used as the basis of the very successful "Apocalypse Now". I thought this might be a substitute for reading the book. Well, it wasn't. And it might turn just me off to the book forever.

The story takes place in the late 19th century and Marlowe, played by Tim Roth, is an English merchant who is sent to Africa to look for Kurtz, played by John Malkovich, a merchant who has disappeared deep into the jungle and has also stopped the very profitable ivory trade. The tone of the video is morose and sad as Marlow travels further and further into the depths of the jungle and finds evil again and again, especially when he finally meets Kurtz.

I don't know why I continued to watch because I was totally bored throughout. It also was difficult to understand some of the dialog. I guess I was waiting for the inevitable meeting between Kurtz and Marlow. When it finally happened I just didn't care. The acting was good but the performances were wasted. My recommendation: Don't bother.

A rebound for Roeg
I was curious about this film when I heard about it years ago. I love Nicolas Roegs early work but saw that his later movies were weaker and it seemed Roeg had lost his magic. "Heart of Darkness" is a Nicolas Roeg film and it's quite nice to see the old boy has still got it in him. The subject matter suits his odd style of film making. A good film. DVD please!!!

Heart of Darkness
Lights! Camera! Action! These are the three words which cause the distinction between books and movies. When making a movie based on a book, there are additional factors to be taken into account, thus altering the movie from the book. However, usually these changes just serve as tools to enhance the story, making it more interesting to the audience it is targeting. The movie, "Heart of Darkness" is an excellent adaptation of the novel because everything matches up well with the descriptions used by the author, and it captures the true essence of the story on film.
Set in the wild depths of Africa, the tale slowly unravels as a determined seaman, Marlowe, sets out on a journey to Africa, and soon finds himself on a dangerous expedition in search of a missing ivory manufacturer, who has deceived many people waiting for their ivory. The fact that Africa is such an incredible place filled with fascinating cultures is clearly shown by the settings and casts chosen for the movie. The story is told from Marlowe's point of view, as he is telling the story to group of sailors on a boat. Although the time of day during which Marlowe told his tale was switched from evening to daytime, the same effect is produced because each scene in the movie is so vivid and engrossing, therefore each providing its own effects. The setting for each scene perfectly suits the events which take place. The setting has a very big impact on the plot of the story because one purpose of the story is to depict the true meaning of life in Africa, particularly the uncivilized nature of some of the people that live there, or that have been there too long.
The catchy music chosen to accompany each scene, and the simple, but realistic costumes chosen for each character, set the ideal mood that is necessary in conveying the tale. The music consists of rhythmic drumming mixed together with strange noises similar to those of a person gasping for air, or breathing loudly. The drumming fits in with the African theme and like a drum roll, it adds a hint of suspense and foreshadowing to each scene, which is also expressed by the book. An essential part of making of movie is choosing the ideal cast. Each character fits his/her description in the book, allowing for the vague images in one's mind while reading the book to actualize and come to life.
My favorite part of the movie was when Marlowe finally finds the place that Kurtz resides. When he arrives, a crazy guy, who has gone mad from being in the jungle, welcomes Marlowe to the area. I think that this scene is crucial to the plot of the story, because it is the point at which Marlowe finally finds Kurtz. Once he reaches Africa and found out about the unjust doings of the mysterious Kurtz, he makes it his mission to find him. Although the insane man standing at the entrance seems like a trivial character, I think that he actually represents one of the major themes conveyed in the book. This idea is that people can often go mad from living in the jungle too long, which is what happened to Kurtz. Kurtz finally reveals himself, much to Marlowe's relief. However, due to Kurtz's sickliness and insanity, it was difficult for Marlowe to communicate with him. During this scene, another important idea that is stressed is the uncivilized nature that is constantly shown throughout the book. An example of this is when Kurtz nonchalantly breaks the neck of an innocent pet monkey, while it was affectionately draped around Kurtz's shoulders. This part of the movie encompasses many ideas shown throughout the story, making it an important scene.
My favorite character from Heart of Darkness is Marlowe. I admire the determination he possessed when achieving his goals. He deals with many tribulations as he finds himself in the thick of the jungle. He becomes friends with an African man, Mutumbo, who soon suffers a painful death by a strange African tribe. Nevertheless, Marlowe maintains perseverance as he gains strength from every obstacle he is faced with. His bravery and fearlessness lead him to his ultimate goal of finding the mad ivory producer, Kurtz, and rectifying the ivory situation. However, it is interesting to see that Marlowe did change during his time spent in Africa. He completely went against his usual nature by lying to Kurtz's former fiancée about something that Kurtz never really said. I enjoyed seeing the story from Marlowe's point of view, and noting the good traits of Marlowe, that were somewhat tainted by his experience in Africa.
I highly recommend the movie Heart of Darkness to anybody who likes adventure, particularly someone who read the novel as well. The movie was adapted very well from the book, despite a few changes. Each change helped to make the story more realistic and suspenseful. The cast, the music, the costumes, and the setting, created an exceptional combination, perfectly fitting each description from the book. Many details in the story are difficult to visualize, therefore the movie is helpful and informative to watch. The themes are also more apparent and effective in the movie. Although they each tell the same story, the book and the movie work together to complement one another in conveying the underlying messages of the tale.

missing the plot...
There is an inherent difficulty in translating any novel into the film. Every reader's experience is unique and so, before the first film draft ever sees the light of the day, there already are thousands of movies in existence. To compete with them is often impossible. But, there are strategies some directors successfully use (see Milos Forman's version of One Flew Over The Cockoo's Nest). Unfortunately, Nicolas Roeq did not. While explaining/simplifying Conrad's masterpiece and repackaging it into a contemporary genre, he lost the plot. He neither remained close to the original text, nor moved away from it far enough to allow his own voice to be heard. As a result, we have ended up with a neither/nor situation that benefits no one. Rather than adding to our understanding of issues and concerns raised by Conrad over a hundred years ago ('the other', the parallels between the outer and inner worlds, the reciprocal impact of colonisation, actual or metaphorical...) Roeq's film, as other reviewer's efforts indicate, adds nothing, and thus falls short of its potential. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This 1995 family film tries to put a fun spin on the story of a paranormalist and widower (Bill Pullman) who moves into a new house with his daughter (Christina Ricci) and meets up with the ghost of a dead little boy. Based on the comic book about Casper the friendly ghost, the film is a dreary series of awkward interactions between live actors and computer effects, and you can almost see Pullman and Ricci reconsidering the project while on camera. A few cameo appearances from uncredited stars help things a bit. But there's no way, based on this film, that one could have guessed that its director, Brad Silberling, would go on to make the exceptional drama City of Angels. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (48)

A Sweet and Sentimental Comedy, Perfect for the Family
Casper is a fun children's film, that can be watched as a family and keep everyone entertained. Unlike many movies concerning ghosts, there is no reason to worry that this movie will upset or scare even the most sensitive children. Casper is sweet and endearing, and even the vicious ghosts in this film are far from threatening as they quickly bring a smile to your face and alleviate any tension with humor.
However, Casper does not rely souly on laughter, and has a strong plot to back it up. It raises spiritual questions that make you think, and has very heartfelt moments of intense emotion. You grow to care about the characters as we watch Casper and Kat in their simultaneous search for friendship, and Dr. Harvey in his quest to resolve his own unfinished business and finally get some closure.
Malachi Pearson does an outstanding job as the voice of Casper, and portrays all of his emotions very convincingly. You can also look forward to a great performance from Bill Pullman, and will love hating the bumbling villains portrayed by Cathy Moriarty and Eric Idle. Unfortunately, there are times where Christina Ricci seems to have some difficulty filling her role as Kat, and occasionally makes scenes awkward and unconvincing.
The score for this film is beautiful, and adds a great deal to the spirit and mood of the movie.
There is some light use of profanity that I don't find necessary or appropriate for a family film aimed largely at children, but it can be easily overlooked.

Awesome, fun movie!
I just love CASPER. It's a really great movie. CASPER is about a man (Bill Pullman) who studies the supernatural in search for his dead wife. He keeps moving his teenager daughter Kat (Christina Ricci) around all over the place because his job requires a lot of traveling. Kat hates all the moving because she never gets a chance to live in a particular place long enough to make any friends. When her father is asked to find the spirits who live in a haunted house in Maine, he promises Kat that this will be the last place they will move to.

A woman who wants Kat's father to talk to the ghosts wants him to do that because she is looking for a "secret treasure" that has been hidden in the house for years. Little does anyone know that this is the home of Casper the ghost and his "uncles": Stinky, Fatso, and Streatch. And they are not happy that somebody is moving into their house except for Casper. Casper is excited because Kat - a girl - is moving into the house, too. So while the father and Kat are living at the mansion, the three ghosts try to make them miserable...so miserable that they'll want to move out. But Casper is trying to impress Kat so he ca