Amazon.com

The first film directed by Vincente Minnelli (who directed the original Broadway version), this musical offers its pleasures, but also may make you squirm at the racial stereotypes that were considered both acceptable and entertaining in 1943. A story of the struggle between good and evil for the soul of a man named Little Joe (Eddie "Rochester" Anderson), the film plays with the same kind of racial notions that made Stepin Fetchit a star. Still, there's much to recommend it, particularly performances by some of the greatest musical stars of the day: Lena Horne, Ethel Waters, Louis Armstrong, and Duke Ellington, among others. The film also includes a terrific score, a combination effort by Ellington, Harold Arlen, Vernon Duke, and E.Y. Harburg that includes the song"Taking a Chance on Love." --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Great music, great cast, Ethel Waters at her best
This is a delightful film. The Broadway score, already one of the finer scores for its time, with the classics "Taking a chance on love" and "Cabin in the sky", was further improved with the addition of "Happiness is just a thing called Joe". There are several other wonderful numbers, including the Duke Ellington number with some great dancing, and "Bubbles" singing "Shine". The cast was the finest black talent of the day, and the movie demonstrates why Ethel Waters was considered the greatest singer and entertainer of her day. In this movie, she also demonstrates that she is a fine actress and a fine dancer. It's a pity that the racial climate of the time didn't allow her more films - she's as magical on screen as she was, by all reports, in person. The remainder of the cast includes a stunning young Lena Horne, surely one of the most beautiful women ever to appear on screen, and who is here allowed to be smolderingly sexy, Eddie "Rochester" Anderson, who's an endearing Little Joe, Rex Ingram as Lucifer Jr, and smaller but memorable appearances by Louis Armstrong, Butterfly McQueen, and "Bubbles" of Buck and Bubbles. Seeing Waters sing "Taking a chance on love", "cabin in the sky", "Happiness is just a thing called Joe" and her wicked reprise of "Honey in the honeycomb", complete with some dance steps that will floor you, is more than enough to recommend the movie, but all performances are delightful, and the songs and background music are great. If we take it as a "fable", as we are counseled to do at the beginning, then I don't see it as a racist or dated film. The characters are almost all well delineated and believable within the "fable" context, and are no more stereotypical in this context than numerous films of white people at the time that were also fantasies.

It's a pleasure to watch from beginning to end - clearly a timeless classic, especially valuable for archiving for all time the classic Waters performance and the superb acting, singing, dancing and comedic skills of some of the greatest black talent pre-World War II.

A TOUR-DE-FORCE OF TALENT FROM AN AMAZING CAST
In these enlightened times, a movie such as Cabin in the Sky - which is heavily laden with racial stereotypes - seems awkwardly out of place. However, before we all jump on the political correctness bandwagon, it's worth remembering that the movie was made during WW2, and that Civil Rights Movements were some 20 or so years in the future.

Much has been written about the plot, so I won't focus on that. I will say, however, that this movie is a tour-de-force of talent. It marked Vincent Minelli's directorial debut, and it's clear that he did a fine job. Eddie "Rochester" Anderson, Lena Horne and Ethel Waters all play their parts brilliantly. If there was any animosity between Lena and Ethel, it was easy to understand. Ethel fought tough and nail to climb the showbiz ladder, whereas Lena was the first African-American actress to be groomed specially for Hollywood. Ms Horne had specially designed gowns and mingled with the upper echelons of MGM. The moviemakers even created a special make up range for her in an effort to pass her off as an exotic Latin American belle. Lena refused to disrespect her race by denying her heritage.

Anyway, back to the film. It's Ethel Water's character, Petunia, that I warm to the most. She may have been downtrodden, and reduced to scrubbing floors. However, there's a down-to-earth warmth that radiates from her. Her rendition of "Happiness is a Thing Called Joe" is superb. The late Waters was a remarkable, versatile performer, and it's a shame that she's not as well known among the masses like Lena.

As for Lena's Georgia Brown, she's nothing short of breathtakingly beautiful. Ms Horne was something of a WW2 pin-up, and it's easy to see why. She tempts the viewers (and the censors, no doubt!) with her sexy lingerie, and isn't shy to show off a good bit of thigh! The only other African American woman who showed this much flesh was Josephine Baker, but she was doing her thing in Paris!

The songs by Duke Ellington are great. Also look out for a young Louis Armstrong - he plays one of Lucifer's hilarious angels!

Cabin in the Sky is fine musical - a classic, and it's high time is was released in the UK! However, us Brits will have to do with imports for the time being. As with all US video tapes, you'll need a VCR with NTSC playback to watch this movie.

Good Movie Fo Sho
Vincente Minnelli, who directed the film, Cabin in the Sky (1943), composed this 'race movie' with an all African American cast. What makes this film extraordinary is that Vincente Minnelli is a white director who filmed this picture with an all black cast. Around the early 1940's, mainstream production studios (Hollywood) noticed that these 'race movies' which consisted of African American directors/producers/casts, were producing huge sums of money. In an attempt to tap this newly discovered source of money, the mainstream film industry began to produce these race films which consisted of white directors/producers, but included an all African American cast. In Cabin in the Sky, Minnelli includes many social issues that black America faced during this time. A major issue that black America faced back in the 1940's and still today which Minnelli included in this film is obtaining identity/home.
An example of obtaining home can be explained by the scene where the character Little Joe (Eddie "Rochester" Anderson) dies and rises out of his body only to awake to the presence of Lucifer Jr. (Rex Ingram). As Lucifer Jr. describes to Little Joe all of the evil things that will come to him in Hell, Little Joe screams out, "I don't want to die, I just wanna' go back home to Petunia." In this scene, Little Joe identifies home as Earth, all the physical objects in which he can interact with (the absence of the spiritual world). Another example of home can be identified with the character Petunia (Ethel Waters) in the scene where she sits beside Little Joe next to him in his bed. Petunia preys to God to not take Little Joe home yet. In this scene, home is identified as the spiritual world, in which all the sins of the corrupt physical world would not exist. So in Petunias case, home is a pure spiritual world. In Little Joe's case, Earth is a testing ground to determine if a person should ascend to heaven or descend to hell. If a person lives a righteous life on Earth, then God will open the gates of heaven to that person. On the other hand, if a person lives a sinful life on Earth, the devil will open the gates of hell to that person. The moral of the film is that one must choose their path wisely while they live on the battleground between heaven and hell.
The film's title also has great significance. The title, Cabin in the Sky makes a huge statement saying that home is identified as heaven. A lack of home which is Earth, creates a void in which that void must be filled. If one can't obtain home physically, then one will obtain it spiritually. As in many of the scenes where Petunia preys to God prove that one will obtain home spiritually.
Overall, this film was excellent. It is a rare occasion to see pictures of a black heaven, in which many of the angels consisted of neatly dressed African American men in trimly white uniforms. Also, the gate keepers of heaven were young black angels, sitting valiantly on pedestals. The music by Ethel Waters and Duke Ellington with his band was phenomenal. I would recommend this movie to viewers who want to see how music and dance evolved from the old genre of 'race movies' to the new genre of 'race movies'.

Cabin in the Sky !!!!Fo Sho Baby!!!!!
Vincente Minnelli, who directed the film, Cabin in the Sky (1943), composed this 'race movie' with an all African American cast. What makes this film extraordinary is that Vincente Minnelli is a white director who filmed this picture with an all black cast. Around the early 1940's, mainstream production studios (Hollywood) noticed that these 'race movies' which consisted of African American directors/producers/casts, were producing huge sums of money. In an attempt to tap this newly discovered source of money, the mainstream film industry began to produce these race films which consisted of white directors/producers, but included an all African American cast. In Cabin in the Sky, Minnelli includes many social issues that black America faced during this time. A major issue that black America faced back in the 1940's and still today which Minnelli included in this film is obtaining identity/home.
An example of obtaining home can be explained by the scene where the character Little Joe (Eddie "Rochester" Anderson) dies and rises out of his body only to awake to the presence of Lucifer Jr. (Rex Ingram). As Lucifer Jr. describes to Little Joe all of the evil things that will come to him in Hell, Little Joe screams out, "I don't want to die, I just wanna' go back home to Petunia." In this scene, Little Joe identifies home as Earth, all the physical objects in which he can interact with (the absence of the spiritual world). Another example of home can be identified with the character Petunia (Ethel Waters) in the scene where she sits beside Little Joe next to him in his bed. Petunia preys to God to not take Little Joe home yet. In this scene, home is identified as the spiritual world, in which all the sins of the corrupt physical world would not exist. So in Petunias case, home is a pure spiritual world. In Little Joe's case, Earth is a testing ground to determine if a person should ascend to heaven or descend to hell. If a person lives a righteous life on Earth, then God will open the gates of heaven to that person. On the other hand, if a person lives a sinful life on Earth, the devil will open the gates of hell to that person. The moral of the film is that one must choose their path wisely while they live on the battleground between heaven and hell.
The film's title also has great significance. The title, Cabin in the Sky makes a huge statement saying that home is identified as heaven. A lack of home which is Earth, creates a void in which that void must be filled. If one can't obtain home physically, then one will obtain it spiritually. As in many of the scenes where Petunia preys to God prove that one will obtain home spiritually.
Overall, this film was excellent. It is a rare occasion to see pictures of a black heaven, in which many of the angels consisted of neatly dressed African American men in trimly white uniforms. Also, the gate keepers of heaven were young black angels, sitting valiantly on pedestals. The music by Ethel Waters and Duke Ellington with his band was phenomenal. I would recommend this movie to viewers who want to see how music and dance evolved from the old genre of 'race movies' to the new genre of 'race movies'.

Great music...
Great performances.Duke Ellington,Ethel Waters,Lena Horne.Doesn't get any better than that. ... Read more

Reviews (37)

PLEASE!!!!!
Please make the ewok movies available on DVD. My 3 sisters and I continuosly watched this movie as children and I would love to be able to share it with my child. I can't believe that they are thinking of not releasing it. I recently found our old movies when my Grandparents moved. I tried to watch them, but they were so worn out that you couldn't watch the movie, but I can't bear to throw them out.PLASE bing this movie back, you'll make a fortune with all the new generations of Star Wars fans!!

Ewoke Adventure and Battle of Endor
I have both of these movies on VHS but would love to get them on DVD. I remember when I was a little girl just loving the Ewoks, it was the only Star Wars I like since they were in it. I wanted to be Cindal and I had a stuffed Wicket. This movie is great for children, I just watched it 2 nights ago with my 4 year old niece, she is as hooked as I was at her age. Timeless Classic!

good for the kids ony
this movie is a rather obvious attempt to cash in on the popularity the ewoks gained during the return of the jedi movie.nobody youve ever heard of isin it.but kids dont care,so theyll like it anyway.if you can listen really closely,a ewok cusses,but besides that,there is nothing to warp thier minds.it is not nearly as good as the star wars movies so dont be fooled!at one point a ewok gets killed.this could freak them out.the real deal on this one is that its cute for small children butthats about it.

Fun, FUn, FUN!
This movie really does take you back to when you were a child...well atleast if you were a child a couple years after it was released! 20 years later and this is still a classic! I can't wait for the DVD to come out! George Lucas is the man!

please come out on DVD
This movie was an amazing part of my childhood and the childhoods of many of my friends. I wish they would release it on DVD so that this generation could experience this amazing movie as well ... 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

Amazon.com

The pre-Titanic Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Jim Carroll, the poet and musician who spent much of his adolescence addicted to heroin and shooting hoops with fellow Catholic high school kids. As a biography, the film doesn't amount to more than the sum of its gritty scenes of smack use, violence, perversions (poor Bruno Kirby plays a lecherous coach who comes on to young Jim), and the usual scream-and-puke dramas that go along with a cold-turkey session. Director Scott Kalvert doesn't seem to realize that most people don't know who Carroll is and therefore can't possibly understand why they should care about his gutterball youth. DiCaprio, having nowhere to go with his performance but maintain Carroll's tailspin, is boring and redundant. Some kind of allusion to the literary and rock & roll life that follows the mess we're watching might have been helpful.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (86)

A gritty, realistic film with wonderful acting performances.
"The Basketball Diaries" is a gritty, uncompromising look at a basically good guy's decent into heroin hell. The cast, headed by Leonardo DiCaprio, is superb; the screenplay doesn't pull any punches. Realistic, shocking, eye-opening, the film gives DiCaprio and Mark Wahlberg the chance to display their true talents and really ACT -- these fellows do a terrific job because it all looks so REAL. What a great film with an ending I guarantee you won't expect -- connoisseurs of fine films and DiCaprio fans should check it out -- this is a real movie with a real script and real acting, and the characters and storyline aren't larger than life. They're real as life, and that's not something you see on TV every day. END

Gritty, Powerful And Well-Acted
The name Jim Carroll may not be familiar to mainstream, radio-friendly listeners, but to those who know about rock poetry and Punk Carroll is one of the genre's greatest word-players along with Patti Smith and has recorded two especially noteworthy works, "Catholic Boy" and "The People Who Died," which sound like wonderfully gritty hybrids of beat poetry and Punk rock. "The Basketball Diaries" is based on Carroll's novel of the same name which is a testament of his days living in the streets of New York during which he became addicted to heroin, saw friends either die or spiral down into self-destruction and eventually found his talent for words as an exit out of the hell he was trapped in. As a movie, the story comes alive with a powerful impact. Director Scott Kalvert does not make the movie into an obvious anti-drug message, instead the story of Carroll's teen years is simply just...told. There is almost a documentary-like realism in how scenes are put together, nothing feels false but instead chillingly real. Anyone who has lived in an environment like this or attended high school in the more gritty, violent sections of a city can instantly relate to the people and events. The actors bring these characters to live with great believability, Leonardo DiCaprio broke through with this role, but even his recent work in films like "Titanic" and "Gangs Of New York" seems more tame compared to his brilliant, effective performance here. The scenes where Carroll is addicted to heroin and lives in the junkie underworld are performed by DiCaprio with a vivid realism that is disturbing. One reviewer here complained about the movie missing a plot, plot is not something central here, the story is central and it is the story of a very talented young man gripped by addiction in a world where vices and the darker side of life can easily suck you in. And of course, there is some great music here by Soundgarden, The Doors, The Cult and a great highlight which is Carroll performing "Catholic Boy" with Pearl Jam. In the history of rock music there are many popular stories of addiction from Iggy Pop to Scott Weiland, Carroll's is brought to life in a movie that breathes and doesn't need to throw the message in your face, the message is right there in the story itself.

Those are the people who died.......
Jim Carroll's autobiographical life story is the basis for this cult classic of the early 90's. Leonardio DiCaprio plays Jim Carroll a poet writing basketball star at a Catholic prep school in Manhatten who's future comes tumbling down when he gets addicted from glue sniffing to heroin. Mark Wahlberg co stars as Mickey his partner in crime as they skip school and do drugs, Jim realizes his future of becoming a pro basketball player are gone when he sees a local kid that he used to run with that decided to stay clean makes it to college ball. Eventually his mother kicks him out and he is saved by a black preacher an ex drug user from the streets takes him in. A powerful story about addiction and the negative affects it has on one's dreams. Leonardo DiCaprio's performance was amazing & makes you wonder how accurate it was of Carroll. The soundtrack also is amazing, essential to collection & a must see film.

well done
This is the most accurate depiction of dope addiction I've seen (drugstore cowboy too). From sticking a cutoff straw in a bag for a toot in the highschool bathroom or lockerroom, to the sick daydreams, to the fiending, the pure exileration of copping bags, to the allure of the needle. I started doing dope at 15 (1994)and stopped at 19, 6 years ago in 3 days. I saw this movie in 97 and I havent seen it since. Definitly not a movie you will want to watch over and over.

Like a drug, film has very high highs and very low lows
Don't take my middle of the road three star rating as a sign of apathy. This movie is one you will either love or hate, and in my case I very much enjoyed certain things and very strongly disliked others.

Obivously the big draw in this movie is Leonardo DiCaprio. I have to say, he does an outstanding job with this role. In the true story of drugged-out high schooler Jim Carroll, he thrives on the type of script Academy Awards are made out of: tons of opportunities for him to be high, low, enraged, in sorrow. There are a lot of opportunities to use his physicality in the role, and he seizes every one. In particular I think of his drug withdrawal sequence and he and his friends' mourning the death of a close friend by getting drunk and playing basketball in the rain.

The plot has a sixteen year old Jim Carroll playing high school basketball. Three of his teammates are his best friends, and when not on the basketball court, they tend to find all kinds of "innocent" trouble around New York (knocking over food vendor carts, for instance). Another outlet of energy for Jim alone is his diary where he records sensations he feels in his young life.

His search for sensation and his friends' desire to find trouble coalesces in experiments with drugs like cocaine and herione. As Jim notes in the monologue of the movie, there is no such thing as a part-time addict. They fall further and further into the downward spiral in an effort to evade pressures from school teachers, coaches, and parents.

Some of the scenes in this movie are very gripping and visceral. However, the links between these scenes tend to be bogged down in poor directing. I realize this movie was a lower budgeted one, but there really is no excuse for having a movie made in 1995 that looks like it was made in 1985. While the performance by DiCaprio is extraordinary, the directing is lackluster. Poor camera angles, helpless lighting, bit part actors who look and sound amateur; those should all be blamed on the director.

However, this movie is worthwhile if you are one who has a particular interest in either Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Wahlberg (he stars as a main character and one of Jim Carroll's best friends), or the subject matter. I have to say I thought "Trainspotting" handled the subject of drug use extremely well, but this movie is right up there in the ability to depict the sensations felt by those addicted. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Three Western stars (Martin Short, Steve Martin, Chevy Chase) from Hollywood silent films go to Mexico for what they assume will be a publicity appearance, and find they've actually been summoned to fight a local bandit. John Landis directed this 1986 comedy with self-conscious artifice, and it's hard to get into his self-congratulatory joke. Even the three main stars, brilliant comics all, can't sustain anything funny in it. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (68)

A Blazing Saddles style parody
Steve Martin is one of the funniest actors on the planet and also one of the best comedic writers. This movie is styled somewhat after Blazing Saddles in that the characters alternate between crazy and outrageous. The plot centers around three silent film stars who are summarily canned from their studio for the audacious request of actually being paid for their work. Broke, they are sent a telegram from a small town in Mexico with what they think is a request for a personal appearance. Unfortunately, the request was not clear because the town was so poor they could not afford all the words needed in the telegram to explain they want the Amigos to rid the town of a killer bandito by the name of El Guapo. The movie is very funny, filled with bizarre characters, such as the singing bush, surreal moments, like the Amigos singing around a campfire or singing to a room full of desperados, and extremely funny conversations. Steve Martin, Chevy Chase and Martin Short all do good comedic turns. The only thing I do not understand is how this movie got rated R; besides the sometimes rough language, this should be a PG-13.

FUNNIEST COMIC TRIO SINCE "THE THREE STOOGES"
I have this very funny movie in my collection. SUPERBERBLY directed by John Landis, here is an UPROARIOUS comedy about three loveable bumblers, who are way in over their heads. But come what may, they'll always remain the "THREE AMIGOS". Steve Matin, Chevy Chase, and Martin Short travel a dusty road to adventure and laughter lin this ZANY mix of sharp one liners and clever sight gags. The "THREE AMIGOS" are a silent screen comedy act who have seen better days. So has a remote Mexican hamlet which is being TERRORIZED by a FIERCE bandit gang. FINALLY, in desperation, a naive villager sends the actors a telegram asking for help. [THREE AMIGOS HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA. YOU ARE VERY GREAT. 100,000 PESOS TO COME TO SANTO POCO. PUT ON SHOW. STOP. THE INFAMOUS EL GUAPO.]. THINKING they're being offered a fortune for a personal appearance, the hapless trio arrives in Mexico. ONLY TO DISCOVER that this time they're dodging REAL bullet!!!. This is a VERY FUNNY movie and I recommend to my fellow viewers to buy it and add it to their video library collection. I PERSONALLY CAN NOT WAIT FOR A SEQUEL TO BE MADE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

The (Un) Magnificent Trio
The movie was produced at a time when Martin and Chase were trying to revitalize their movie careers. Martin Short was just starting to make films. THE THREE AMIGOS was supposedly a live action variation of Disney's THE THREE CABALLEROS but couldn't secure the rights and its a good thing. This is pretty much an unwatchable one joke premise film. Three soon-to-be unemployed silent screen actors whose movie screen personas are "The Three Amigos" are unknowingly hired to go to a south of the border town to get rid of a bandito (El Guapo) who is wreaking havoc to all the village townsfolk. The three arrive thinking they are to perform for the people and end up fighting the villian. Not much here as all three 'Amigos' have the same lame-brain personalities. Director Landis (ANIMAL HOUSE, THE BLUES BROTHERS) can't get much from the one-joke, not-very-original script (SNL's Lorne Michaels) and not one funny performance from either leads. There is a musical sequence reminiscent of the old singing cowboy movies that is mildly amusing (and again not very original). Otherwise, this is a very forgettable movie.

Funniest movie of all time
The Three Amigos is the absolute funniest movie of all time. Each time you watch it you will find new things that will crack you up. Steve Martin, Chevy Chase, and Martin Short are gods.

three aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamigos!
Are you ready to laugh your socks off? If yes, get this movie and start watching it! This mix of three amazingly hilarious comedians make an outstanding team that will certainly make your stomach hurt from laughing. Chevy Chase, Martin Short, and Steve Martin play the "Three Amigos," who are out-of-work actors asked to go fight the infamous El Guapo in Mexico. Thinking that El Guapo is "more than famous" instead of horrible, they take the job. As you can probably see, this mix-up causes quite a few problems that aren't at all too serious. After seeing this movie once, you'll be wanting to see it again and again. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Action-packed film is entertaining and satisfying
55 Days at peking surprised me. Though not having the best of titles, I thought this was going to be a romance centered around the Boxer Rebellion. Instead, the film is more along the lines of Zulu, featuring constant large scale sieges and fast-paced action.

55 Days is not perfect by any means. The political talks drag a bit and at 2 and a half hours the film goes on a bit longer than it really needs to. The use of American actors as Chinese characters is also quite distracting and occasionally produces some unintentional laughter.

Still, the film is entertaining and absorbing. Charlton Heston, Ava Gardner, and David Niven all deliver good performance. The battle scenes are the film's most memorable aspects and they are very well made, especially for its time. The film was obviously made at a large budget so the film, in technical terms, is superior to a lot of similar action films of its time. Those looking for a companion piece to Zulu might find 55 Days worth watching.

A Well-Made But Biased & Politically-Dated Film
When I first saw this film as a child, I was offended by it, being an Asian-American of Filipino/Chinese descent. However, seeing it now, with the understanding that this film was made during the height of the Cold War & the beginnings of the War in Vietnam, I can understand why it was made (though I still don't agree with it's political point of view!)

First, for general viewers who just want to see a well made, big-budget war picture with hints of romance, then this movie does deliver on that level. Charleton Heston is excellent as a flawed, temperamental loner & professional soldier who falls for Eva Gardner, a "fallen woman" of Russian nobility, while the foreign "legations" in Peking (what we would today call "embassies") are under attack by the Boxer Rebels (I Ho Chuan Society) during the rebellion of 1900 in China. David Niven is likeable as the British ambassador, even though he does come off as a bit pompous. The sets & costumes are well-done (especially when you consider that this film, set during the last days of the Ching Dynasty in China, was actually shot in Spain!), & the battle sequences are realistically staged. (For martial-arts buffs, there's even a martial-arts demonstration during the birthday of the English Queen!) So, if all you're looking for is a fast-paced war picture with great costumes & macho action performances, then, on that level only, this film delivers.

If you're a history buff, however, then this film definately is not for you! For one thing, all of the major European characters, (whose point of view this movie favors) are fictional characters. The only real-life historical figures are the ruling Manchus (played by caucasian actors in "Asian-face!") & the Japanese Colonel Goro Shiba. (He & the other Japanese are played by real Asian actors. I guess during the Cold War, the Japanese were our allies against "the Red Menace", thus worthy of respect, while the Chinese, who were Communists, were not worthy of respect when portrayed on film. But then, this movie also features the Russians in a positive light, so go figure!) There is also a scene where the German minister is killed on the street by a mob of crazed Boxers, but in real life, the real German minister was shot by a Chinese officer (one man!) who was sympathetic to the Boxer cause. This film also carefully omits the subsequent rape & sacking of Peking after the defeat of the Boxers, though focusing heavily on the Boxer's depredations against Christians & foreigners. (True history is balanced, not one-sided.) Lastly, according to this film, the British & Americans were in charge of the relief efforts during the siege. Actually, the Germans, under von Waldersee, were the real leaders of the International Relief Force sent out to defeat the Boxers & rescue the besieged legations.

Finally, for Asian-americans & viewers interested in serious political debate, this film is also a no no! The most obviously offensive aspect of this movie is the white actors playing Chinese (though again, this was made in 1963), but the other offensive aspect is that this film favors the colonialists' point of view! (The basic point of 55 Days is, colonialism is good & whenever natives fight back, they deserve to be supressed! It's the same kind of thinking that got us involved in Vietnam.) This movie was made during the beginnings of our involvement in Southeast Asian politics & it's obvious that this "historical" drama is really a pro-Vietnam propaganda film disguised as an epic action-movie!

Okay, the "Boxers" (or I Ho Society) were not saints. They did murder a lot of innocent people in their anger over the semi-colonialism imposed by the West & Japan on China during the 19th Century. But this film shows only one point of view. (A bad story-telling style for a supposedly "realistic" war picture.) However, for viewers who want to get a balanced point of view in one film about the Boxer Rebellion, well, good luck! Chinese movies on the subject tend to do the exact extreme political opposite of 55 Days (which is just as bad!) And remember, though there are historical inaccuracies in 55 Days, Chinese movies (or more accurately, Hong Kong movies) can be just as inaccurate about their own culture! Check out any of the '70's Shaw Brothers kung-fu films if you don't believe me!

So in closing, personally, I would recommend watching this film, but only if you understand it's (many) flaws. For a truly balanced perspective on the subject, after watching 55 Days At Peking, check out The Boxer Rebellion/Bloody Avengers, a Shaw Brothers kung-fu flick about the Boxer Rebellion which exaggerates the Chinese p.o.v. at least as much (if not more) as 55 Days exaggerates the European/Japanese p.o.v. The real-truth lies right in-between these two films. Be sure you get the letter-boxed version of 55 Days, because the pan & scan really cuts out some important details (more so than other films.)

OK action film marred by some faults
"55 Days at Peking" is a decent action film for a war genre fan or maybe some one who wants to see a different time period in a film. The film is pretty decent as far as its genre goes, but there were some problems in the storyline that made me give it no higher than three stars.

The first problem I had with this film was the inclusion of the mandatory American hero. It seems quite often whenever some thing is set in a foreign land and involves foreign - and is made in America - there HAS to be an American lead. Most of the other nationalities play a mostly minor role save for David Niven's character, who feels like a historic individual. I'm not saying the Americans weren't at Peking, but Charleton Heston's character feels a tad too cliche.

The second problem I had was the love story. It takes up a good part of the film and slows it down...in fact it very nearly made me lose all interest in this movie. Doesn't really do much to the story and leaves some holes open. Even when Ava Gardner's character meets an unfortunate circumstance, I couldn't feel sorry for her. I didn't care too much since the whole thing felt like a typical forced movie romance.

Finally, there are some historical inaccuracies. The battle didn't quite happen as the movie portrays it. These mistakes are all fairly minor, I suppose, and some might just flat out ignore it since the battle (and war, really) isn't well known.

On the whole, it wasn't that bad. There are some great battle scenes including a charge up a ramp behind a wheeled defense, firing shots through sliding windows, and the climactic assault with a huge artillery tower - this last part is my personal favorite, and for what it's worth I thought it was a pretty cool scene.

If you're a fan of to-the-last-man movies like the (superior) "Zulu" then you'll probably like this movie. Yes, some might not have compassion for the defenders since them being rescued meant an end to China's real independance, but I guess you really can't like the Boxers for trying to annihilate a group that includes women and children. Even if the Imperialists were morally bad guys, I can't hold compassion to the Boxers for their terrorist tactics. But enough of this...if you like this type of film, rent this and check it out.

Exciting epic produced on the grand old scale
"55 days at Peking", has certainly in the years since it's release in 1963 come in for it's share of flack over its romantisizing of history, fictional characters and depiction of Chinese nationals. In reality however I feel you must look at this film first and foremost as the first class piece of entertainment based on historical events it was intended to be. I certainly appreciate the great effort and attention to detail that was lavished on this stunning recreation of the events surrounding the Boxer Rebellion of 1900 in Imperial China.

As an ardent student of chinese history in general I can see that the focus is upon the foreigners that were present in China at that time and that the Chinese point of view is rarely explored in detail. However what must be appreciated in this Samual Bronston production is the vivid recreation of Imperial China, the earnest performances by the leads, exquisite costumes, the excellent action scenes, and sublime musical score by the famed Dimitri Tiomkins which all add up to an engrossing two and a half hours of viewing. Charlton Heston as Major Matt Lewis the tempremental soldier for hire, David Niven as the upright British Ambassador Sir. Arthur Robertson and especially the ever beautiful Ava Gardner as the "scandalous" Russian Baroness Natalie Ivanoff all lend a commanding presence in their roles. Ava Gardner as the "woman of ill repute" who falls for Heston's no nonsense Major during the seige of the foreign legations during the rebellion and ends up paying for her devotion with her life has I feel never been better. Ava proves her often underestimated talent here as she develops from shallow society lady out for a good time, into a human being who learns the value of self sacrifice for something you believe in. The wonderful Victorian costumes which suit her so well also emphasize what a great beauty she was in her movie heyday. The main criticism of this film has always been directed at the depiction of Chinese characters by caucasian actors. I feel that there is little to get offended by here as in particular the depiction of the Dowager Empress Tzu-Hsi is actually done in a much more favourable light than how the woman actually was in real life. I feel Flora Robson lends a commanding presence as the Dowager Empress and her Chinese makeup, far from being offensive is fascinating and superbly done. Robert Helpmann also shines in his sinister role of Prince Tuan, the empress's chief advisor and evil genius. They are actors playing roles just like any other performer that portray a character not of his or her own nationality and they should be rightly seen as just that.

"55 Days at Peking", while certainly not historically accurate contains an exciting fictional story woven into historical fact. This does not necessarily make it a bad drama or production and indeed here we are treated to a great story full of action, romance and a vivid retelling of a dramatic story from a "human level" as was probably witnessed by those that lived through it. The depiction of the rise of the boxers into a violent nationalist movement, the actual rebellion and siege of the foreign legations in Peking resulting in much bloodshed and destruction , the vivid and beautiful recreation of life in the decadent Ching court under the Grand Dowager Empress, are all beautifully played out in a eye popping and engrossing drama. Samuel Bronston who was responsible for some great early 1960's epics such as "El Cid", and especially the classic "The Fall of the Roman Empire" here excels himself in recreating the times in 19th Century China. The sets are sumptous with Peking being magically brought to life on sets created in Spain.Rarely nowadays do yuo see such an allout effort in mounting a top class production. The Ching court as depicted here, while not up to later "The Last Emperor", standards is still wonderful and really portrays the beauty of court life that hid so much that was wrong with the ruling system in China at the time. Rarely have more vivid depictions of the lives of ordinary Chinese been portrayed and the rebellion sequences are second to none in their raw energy, savage depiction of the loss of life and the destruction caused.

"55 Days at Peking", is not perfect by any means but I feel it has been unfairly condemmed by the supposed political correctness movement. I really enjoy historical dramas, even of the romanticised kind and Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner really maintain your interest through the long running time with their excellent work in this film. Long before computer generated special effects this film sees one of the great sets built for a film during the 1960's and for that alone it is worth seeing apart from all its other good qualities. Enjoy a journey back to grand old film making of the old school when Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner do battle against the boxers in "55 Days at Peking".

Excellent only for critical analysis
This film has only one redeeming quality- it provides an excellent opportunity to discuss bias, historical perspective, director's artistic liscence, and distortion of historical events. I viewed this film knowing that the Chinese, poorly portrayed by Americans or British, were being presented from a completely demeaning perspective that simultaneously plays the Americans as the savior heros. I plan to use this in my 7th grade social studies class to demonstrate exactly how a series of events as complex and consequential as the Boxer Rebellion can be recreated so completely and utterly wrong. Watch this as you would a Disney film like Mulan, knowing that it will only get the gist of something, and not provide any reliable characters or history. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Excellent..Classic mature WHO with featured guests
This video is a must for any WHO fan. Pete's vocals are as crisp and piercing as ever! Great Video! Special appearances by Elton John, Phil Collins, Steve Winwood, Billy Idol, and a standing ovation rendition of Acid Queen by Patti Labell. Also classic who songs done after the Tommy performance make this a sure winner.

I love The Who
First of all, I love The Who. They are an awesome band and certainly the greatest Live band ever. For me it has never been The Beatles - Rolling Stones, but The Beatles - The Who.

This video is very enjoyable. I'm a WHOFAN, so I love everything they put out.

This show is clearly divided in two parts: Tommy and Who Classics.

Great moments during the performance of Tommy. Specially SPARKS, which takes your breath away. CHRISTMAS, GO TO THE MIRROR, I'M FREE, WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT are another great moments.
The Guests artists:
- Steve Winwood: The hawker. Very nice performance. He's a great talented musician and singer.
- Phil Collins: Funny moments. He plays the Uncle Ernie perfectly well.
- Elton John: Good to have him since he sang Pinball Wizard in the movie, but he sings here in a lower key and the voice lose power.
- Billy Idol: Cousin Kevin, oh well, where is the gun? Far the worst moment in Tommy, the whole video, and in music history. He is more concerned in shouting and swearing (m*ther f*cker included), which makes no sence at all, than singing the song. A total mistake.
- Patti Labelle: The Acid Queen. Well, she has a great voice, but she seems to be trying to show in 4 minutes her vocal talent more than singing the song, so the melody of Acid Queen is lost. It reminds me of people like Yngwie Malmsteen playing the guitar, 200 notes a second, but no melody. She shines for moments though.

The second part is nice too. Some Who classics live that won't be found anywhere else like I CAN SEE FOR MILES and JOIN TOGETHER and a fantastic live version of YOU BETTER YOU BET.
Again something to say about this part and it's that I don't get why there are some Pete Townshend solo songs. Probably because the back-up band is his band as a solo. I don't want to be misunderstood anyways, because I have Pete Townshend solo videos as well as his solo albums and I treassure them.

At last, I wonder through the video why Pete Townshend during Tommy is playing just the acoustic guitar, being a rhythmic guitarist. He's almost missed except when singing now and then.

Anyways. If you are Not a WhoFan and enjoy good music, you will enjoy this video a lot. As a WhoFan myself, I was just mentioning some points that a WhoFan misses here.

Four stars for me. I took off one star only 'cos of Billy Idol's performance which really makes you want to fast forward the video. Thankgoodness the song lasts 4 minutes more or less.

This really is pretty bad...
I am sad to say that this video is horrible. Watching everyone act the way they do here is appauling. This is not the item for you to buy, if you are looking for live who items get the CD Join together from this tour, it's actually worth your money.

Stellar besides Labelle and Idol
I felt this concert was outstanding, some people feel that the orchestra wasnt necessary but i feel that to perform Tommy you really need the horns and the percussion section. However, the guest appearances by Patti Labelle and Billy Idol really didnt do it for me. Idol spoke the lyrics to "Cousin Kevin" and Labelle thought she was some diva doing "Acid Queen" (and by the way she said "watch his body rise" instead of "watch his body writhe". Besides these two, the appearances by Elton John, Steve Winwood and especially Phill Collins were spectacular. A great show except for Idol and Labelle

Who: Live - Featuring the Rock Opera Tommy - DVD PLEASE!!!!
My favourite "Who" Video. This is an excellent performance by The Who. Accompanied by a band large enough to play the rock opera TOMMY. Of course we all miss Moon... Phillips is a powerhouse of a drummer, he is very precise. It carries all the energy of the live Who. A FANTASTIC, QUALITY RECORDING... PLEASE BRING THIS OUT ON DVD. I'LL BUY IT... I'VE BEEN WAITING SINCE THE RELEASE OF THE DVD FORMAT. MY TAPE IS SUFFERING DROPOUTS NOW DUE TO THE FREQUENCY OF USE. ... Read more

Reviews (39)

Wonderfully flavored baseball movie
What a fun movie! This film is a depiction of the 1919 Chicago WhiteSox who are alleged to have "fixed" the World Series that year against the Reds.

Here's what I loved about the film. The portrayal of Charlie Comisky, the White Sox owner is outstanding. I found myself quickly siding with the players from the outset and bristling at his obviously unethical and cheap approach. The time period depicted has a great "feel" to it. The baseball scenes are excellent and have a realistic feel as well. John Cusak and DB Sweeney are excellent as Buck Weaver and "Shoeless" Joe Jackson.

The portrayal of the newly appointed commisioner Kennisaw Mountain Landis is also excellent. After watching this film you will better understand the current situation with Pete Rose, and where his expulsion from baseball originates. If you are at all a baseball fan you will enjoy the film.

My only criticism is that too much film time is spent of the gangsters and the announcers. That was a little tedious, and limited the further character development of the players, the depiction of the game, the owners, and the era.

I recommend this film though easily to any baseball fan.

Great look into the White Sox world series of 1919
This movie examines the role of the Chicago White Sox in the famous White Sox world series scandal of 1919. I thought it was one of the most appreiciated baseball movies of all time. It deals with the corruption of gambling in sports and the temptations that this particular group of athletes had in throwing the world series. Watching this movie helped me understand why sports betting, for the most part, is the major corporation it is today.

John Cusak is wonderful as Shoeless Joe, one of the White Sox who does not want to go along with the scheme. This movie is very detailed: we get an inside point-of-view from the audience, mob, player and player's wife's perspective. It is a look at the conscience of the White Sox players who must either "sell out" and throw the World Series to make the extra buck and keep the sports sharks off their backs, or keep the integrity of the game intact by giving their all on the field and denying the prospects of more money.

I recommend this movie not only for baseball fans, but all movie junkies. It examines many of the sports issues that we deal with today, such as corruption, integrity of the sport, and gambling.

Sayles' masterpiece
It's difficult not to get your personal feelings called into play when watching an obviously slanted film like EIGHT MEN OUT. John Sayles, like Oliver Stone, is an obvious agit-prop master for the left or at least for labor in its battle against owners. But so are several others movie-makers. However, those others do not get the responses that Sayles has evoked because they don't have half the talent that Sayles possesses. There is no fence-sitting when watching his films, and that's because his visions and messages are clear, uncompromising and passionate. EIGHT MEN OUT is one of his highest achievements in those regards.

In his analysis of the rigging of the World Series of 1919, Sayles targets White Sox owner Comiskey as the true villain. And I believe this is accurate, if not justifiable, at the very least. The Black Sox scandal, as it came to be known, was undoubtedly the lowest point in baseball history, but it could have been avoided. Had Comiskey treated his players as they merited, it is doubtful any of it would have come about. This is not to say that these athletes were angelic: Sayles goes to great lengths to show that several of them would be easily corruptible, such as Chick Gandil (played by the underrated Michael Rooker). Other players seem to want to do the right thing, but are pushed too far by Comiskey--specifically, Eddie Cicotte, as portrayed by Sayles' favorite, David Strathairn. The enigmatic Shoeless Joe Jackson (subtly played by D.B. Sweeney) is just plain too dumb to understand the implications of his involvement. As others have noted, Jackson wound up the series' batting leader.

The real moral compass of EIGHT MEN OUT is Buck Weaver, played by John Cusack in what may have been the performance of his career. Sayles' Weaver is portrayed as the victim of the ultimate betrayal for not participating in the scheme. His teammates don't back him up. The courts do not defend him. The press lumps him together with the guilty. His only crime was not being a snitch. And for that, Weaver has basically been relegated to baseball history's limbo, in spite of an above-par career. Sayles does an admirable job in evoking a justified sympathy for Buck Weaver, and Cusack captures it beautifully.

EIGHT MEN OUT is not a mere baseball movie. Like much of Sayles' work, it's a film about greed, and the desire of American owners to extract as much from labor as possible, without giving anything in return.

P.S. -- Sayles does a great job of portraying writer Ring Lardner. I just wish he didn't sing!

How about a movie called...
How about if the film industry makes a movie called 'The Hammer'? Gee, they made 'Cobb, 'The Babe', 'Eight Men Out', 'Field of Dreams', 'The Pride of the Yankees', 'The Natural', and '61*'. Well, how about making a movie about Henry Aaron, Josh Gibson, Roberto Clemente, Willie Mays, or even Jackie Robinson? Oh, I forgot, baseball will never allow it...

I WANTED to love it!
I love baseball and I love baseball movies. So I was ready to love this movie, yet it somehow failed to please. Great actors, great period setting, yet we are not let inside the minds of the characters. Aside from John Cusak's Buck Weaver, none of the characters are even that appealing, so we don't really care what happens to them. We know nothing about their background, why they play baseball, or what drives them. In summary, the movie just wasn't that engaging. Since most of us know the rough outline of the story already, there are no surprises. The characters were so 2-dimensional, that I almost expected them to disappear when they turned sideways! Also, the DVD has no special features at all except for a movie trailer which is just a summary of the movie.

If you want a baseball movie with heart, get Field of Dreams. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The House of the Spirits is a generational tale of life among the ruling class in a South American country, as adapted from the Isabel Allende novel, but thepolitical realities coexist very uneasily with the magical realism in this Bille August film. The star power alone (Jeremy Irons, Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Winona Ryder, Antonio Banderas, Vanessa Redgrave, and Armin Mueller-Stahl) should have cranked it up a few notches, but that's not the case. Irons is appropriately cruel as the ambitious man who achieves wealth and makes everyone around him miserable and Streep is luminous, but it's slow and ponderous all the way. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (26)

Disappointing
I confess - I watched this video without having read the book first, so I did not know what it was going to be about. However, I had just finished another Allende book "Daughter of Fortune" and really loved her writing style and the way in which she brings her characters to life and enlightens you about various time periods and cultures. So I had great hopes that "House of the Spirits" with its outstanding cast would do the book justice and be a worthy interpretation . I was wrong. At no time during the entire movie did I ever feel any of the emotions that the characters were trying to evoke - it just didn't come across at all. I liked Glenn Close in her portrayal of Esteban's spinster sister, and some of the minor characters such as the illegitimate son gave good performances, but I thought Jeremy Irons to be totally miscast in his role and did not care for his performance - it was stiff and rehearsed - I guess that's what I felt about the movie as a whole - it wasn't alive - the actors just learned their lines and spoke them without immersing themselves into their characters. Yes, that goes for Meryl Streep as well, I'm sorry to say - I am a big fan of hers! So, I'm off to the bookstore!

AN OUSTANDING MULTI-GENERATIONAL FAMILY SAGA...
I love this movie! It has a stellar cast, who give top notch performances. How can you go wrong with Jeremy Irons, Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Antonio Banderas, Winona Ryder, Vanessa Redgrave, and Armin Muehler-Stahl? The answer is that you can't. It is a riveting piece of film making, based loosely upon Isabelle Allende's wonderful book of the same name.

The film delicately captures the mysticism of the book, rendering those scenes in which such is the focal point highly believable. This is no mean feat given the subject matter. The story takes place in South America. The saga begins in the nineteen thirties.

Vanessa Redgrave and Armin Muehler-Stahl play the wealthy and liberal parents of two daughters, Rosa and Clara Del Valle. Rosa is the beautiful, older daughter. Clara, played by Meryl Streep's real life daughter, is a lovely child with exceptional, psychic gifts. Jeremy Irons plays the part of Esteban Trueba, an impoverished young man in love with Rosa. Vowing to make his fortune in order to marry her and provide her with the comforts to which she is accustomed, he succeeds in making his fortune. He loses Rosa, however, before being able to marry her, when she drinks poisoned wine intended for her liberal party father.

Esteban, broken hearted, leaves with his fortune and buys an estancia, where he sternly rules with an iron fist over the peasants who work the land for him. They obsequiously refer to him as "Patron". He takes what he wants, even the women, with the expected result. He has a bastard son whom he does not acknowledge.

Esteban has a spinster sister, Ferla, well acted by Glenn Close, who, for the past twenty years, has lived a grim existence in the city with their ailing mother, whom she has taken care of. When their mother dies, Esteban, now a bitter and lonely man, returns to the city from his estancia to attend his mother's funeral. In doing so, he spots Clara, who is now all grown up and ethereally portrayed by the very talented Meryl Streep. Not wasting a moment, he goes to her home. She, luminous, and mystical, already knows that he is there to ask for her hand in marriage and happily accepts. After all, she has loved him ever since she first saw him all those years ago.

Clara lovingly embraces his sister, Ferla, into the bosom of her househould, when they move to her Esteban's estancia. Ferla blossoms from a bitter old maid into a companionable and pleasant woman, under Clara's warmth. Esteban and Clara eventually have a child, Blanca, who grows up playing with Pedro, the son of the estancia's indigenous indian foreperson. When Esteban discovers this, he sends Blanca away to boarding school. He does not want his daughter fraternizing with the peasants.

Clara, loving and pure of heart, is his exact opposite. When their daughter finally grows up and returns home from school, she knows that the independent Blanca, well played by Winona Ryder, has fallen in love with her childhood playmate, Pedro, passionately portrayed by Antonio Banderas. Esteban hates Pedro, as Pedro is a liberal inciting the peasants to unionize and demand their rights, whipping them into a frenzy against the "Patron", or so Esteban sees it. He drives Pedro off his land. He also drives Ferla off, as he believes her to have unatural feelings for his wife, Clara. Possessive to a fault, he is consumed by jealousy. Clara and Esteban have a fight over his cruelties, and she finally leaves him, taking Blanca with her to the Del Valle family home in the city.

Meanwhile, life goes on. Blanca, pregnant by Pedro, has his child, believing that Pedro has been killed by her father. Esteban, representing the wealthy, becomes senator. He reigns for years, until the liberals win power. When they do, however, their tenure is short lived, as a militairy coup sets up a reign of terror and his old sins come home to roost. Meanwhile, Blanca discovers that Pedro is alive, and they joyously hook up again. When Blanca is picked up as a political dissident and tortured for her political views, Esteban, old and broken, is now just a bit player in a larger arena. Too late, he tries to right some wrongs. Some of the wrongs, however, can never be righted.

This is a magnificent, multi-generational family epic, that holds the viewer in its thrall. While it only loosely follows Isabelle Allende's wonderful book of the same name, it is a winner in its own right. It has something for everyone, as it deals with human nature, as well as the complex emotions, forces, and events that shape one. The film is about a family struggling to find its place in our ever changing world, and the relationships that each member of that family forges. It is a rich and vibrant tapestry, which succeeds in capturing the viewer.

Dishwater
Ponderous, pandering and dull, THE HOUSE OF THE SPIRITS wastes an amazing cast of great actors on what can only be called a bad couple of hours.

The very thought of Jeremy Irons, Vanessa Redgrave and Meryl Streep wasting six months of their lives only to produce this meandering flop is beyond me. The performances are fine, but the script their given to work with is lifeless.

It is, I think, a film which takes itself way too seriously; at no point is there substance to back up the self-reverence.

Book is great, Movie [is bad].
Having some truly talented actors, and a wonderful story could not save the horrid movie that is The House of the Spirts. This adaptation does not even closely do justice to the book. The book, first of all, focuses on the lives of three Trueba women. It shows the hardships and turmoil they faced in an enthralling way. The movie, I'm afraid, is too over the top, and chooses not to follow the overall plot of the novel. PLEASE if anyone suggests this film to you, DO NOT LISTEN. But do yourself a favor and read the book, it is an excellent piece of litterature.

One of the worst adaptaitions I have ever seen!
I have not seen a film quite as appaling as this one in a long time, I am Chilean and a huge fan of the book "La casa de los espiritos" (The house of the spirits), which is beautifly written, with some of the most truthfull and thoughtfull characters I have come across.
The film however is very different. To start with the characters are meant to be Chliean not British, and fair enough If they were unable to use an accent (or perhaps latin american actors) they could have at least made a respectable attempt at the names, hearing them all pronounce "Alba", "Olba" was infurriating. To keep with the cast problem the charaters of "Nivea" and "Severo Del Valle" were the two most stereotypical middle class white american parents, with a hint of the brady bunch, Nivea was more like the Mmother in "American Beauty" than a revolutionary socialist and women's rights activist, and such a passionate lover that she has given birth 15 times!
The characters were also changed and blended together changing them entirly and destrying their originality and thought making them into something dull and annoying.
The horrifying coup of 73 was perfectly covered in the book no romantic notions, just the horrendos reality, the film attempts to show a supposed torture scene with Winona Ryder, though there is nothing wrong with her acting the pitiful display of screams and a few blows soon followed by her release was just the slightest bit unrealistic, as the chance of release was about 5 to 1, and the torture sessions consited on slightly more than a few blows.
In short the film was an overly romantic, corny and pathetic attempt to sum up the book, to be honest the entire thing was greatly amusing.
Very disapointing ... Read more

Description

The magic, the excitement, the wonder of the true Peter Pan comes to life for the first time in this spellbinding fantasy that critics proclaim "a fun and fantastic tale!" (Daily Herald).Brimming with spectacular special effects and non-stop action, this all-new adventure is sure to be a family favorite for years to come!"One of the finest films of the year!" (Daily Gazette) ... Read more

Reviews (247)

flawless adaptation of this children's classic
I have a child. I have seen EVERY version of Peter Pan made -- many many times. Imagine my *delight* at seeing yet another version (sarcasm here) when the film came out in theaters. I have to admit, however, that I was immediately and continuously impressed by this superb adaptation of J.M. Barrie's classic children's tale, and bought the dvd as soon as it came out.

The cast is absolutely perfect. Jeremy Sumpter in the title role is wonderful, bringing a mischievous energy and boyishness to the part that has been amazingly and consistently missing (having been played by Mary Martin and Robin Williams). I'll also single out Rachel Hurd-Wood as Wendy and Jason Isaacs as Captain Hook/Mr. Darling for their great performances, but the entire cast is terrific.

The script is spectacular, exploring the subtext of the Pan story in a simple but profound way that puts film critics' shameless psycho-jargon to shame. It is the kernel of truth wrapped round a rousing adventure story -- replete with cruel pirates, brave Indians, sinister mermaids and loyal parents. Captain Hook's cruelty is evident, but takes place mostly off-screen and is never gory. This is a thinking (little) person's Peter Pan, certainly, drawing as it does on previously unexplored themes of the complexity of growing up, the consequences of our choices, and the acceptance of our children as they grow up, but it's also a gorgeous realization of Barrie's (and Wendy's) fantastical imagination.

DVD extras are quite entertaining and include: an alternate ending, deleted scenes, Jason Isaacs' video diary, "The Legacy of Pan" with Sarah Ferguson, and a number of micro-minifeaturettes on flying, sets, etc. Too bad it lacks a commentary track but otherwise lots of fun.

For Pan fans, highest possible recommendation;
for all others, see above.

An endearing tale of everlasting childhood
I just got done watching the movie adaptation for Disney's "Peter Pan" and enjoyed it immensely. I've never been a fan of the animated version but I absolutely loved this recreation of the classic story about the adventures of Peter Pan, a boy who refuses to grow up, the intriguing storyteller and mother to the lost boys, Wendy, his pirate nemesis, Captain Hook, who seeks revenge from losing his right hand, which was fed to a crocodile that has since then continued to follow him with a ticking clock inside, wanting to taste more, and of course the magic that is Neverland. However, this new edition doesn't just focus on the greatness of staying young forever (or until you die) but it also shows the sadness of it too, giving this film more substance and meaning. It's definitely geared toward adult audiences who take pleasure in enchanting fantasies, like me, but it's certainly suitable and fun for the whole family.

Although this is based on the popular animation they are similar in plot yet details are slightly altered, giving this several interesting twists so that your uncertain as to what is going to happen next. The beginning even takes place before Nana (the dog nurse) captured Peter Pan's shadow, which I found to be very clever as I always wondered how that happened... Tinkerbell was dazzling as the jealous faery, the sets, or rather special effects were all magnificent, and the entire cast was superbly chosen. This is, in my opinion, one of the better films to come out of 2003 so come be a kid again and enter a world that shall bring that to the surface... That is until you wish to return home.

The Best Movie I've Ever Seen
I loved this movie! I watched it 9 times in five days. I cannot get enough of Jeremy Sumpter. The effects are amazing. I think you would have to be crazy to dislike this movie. It is by far better than Hook. I hated that movie. I was watching it and fell asleep. But P.J. Hogan's version of this classic story kept me wide awake.

An Excellent Adaptation!
I loved this movie! It really stayed with the storyline in J.M. Barrie's novel, but with a few wonderful extras. It was like the play comes to the bigscreen. I loved how the mermaids were portrayed, very creative. Jeremy Sumpter does excellent in his portrayal of Peter Pan, and his costume was very realistic. The soundtrack added to the magic and playfulness of the film. To see Peter and the Darling children fly the way they did was awesome and breathtaking. I can't stop watching this movie. I always felt that the story of Peter Pan was a love story between Peter and Wendy, and this movie reveals that with gentleness and wimsy. A wonderful movie all the way around.

Best movie I've seen in a REALLY long time!
Peter Pan is a really awesome movie! I'm right at that age where I think about guys a lot, so one big factor is that Jeremy Sumpter is really cute! But, I also really love the movie overall. It looks so real that sometimes I go off into huge dreams about visiting Neverland! The movie shows everything just as vivid and bright as I imagined!!! Great work, guys! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Russian filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov is also the star of this tragic 1994 drama about the last happy season in the life of a Bolshevik hero's family. The year is 1936, and Stalin's purges are in full swing. Despite his reputation and revolutionary record, Sergei Kotov (Mikhalkov) seems to be on the dictator's hit list, as indicated by the insulting arrival of his wife's former lover, an agent of government police. Mikhalkov treats all this as a matter of personal and political intrigue dropping like rotting fruit in the middle of a sunny and loving period for the Kotov clan. The director ingeniously understates the mounting threat until one begins to realize that the Kotovs are only geographically distant from the long, bloody reach of Stalin. By the time we do realize it, the shock of change is almost unbearable. A very fine movie all around, though Mikhalkov's touches of magic realism (particularly the presence of a golden orb that keeps popping into the action) are distracting and a subject of controversy among viewers. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (46)

wow!
this is a great movie for anyone with the patience to watch it develop. at the same time cheerful and ominous, it is deeply moving. the acting is superb - menshikov and the two mikhalkovs form a brilliant trio. though it moves slowly and it takes some time to figure out how all the characters are related, it is more than worth the wait. i don't speak russian, but i forgot i was reading subtitles by the first half hour. "burnt by the sun" is extremely accurate when it comes to the many arrests ordered by stalin. some background of the bolshevik revolution is needed, but even without it, the movie captures viewers. the emotions come through clearly, and the sets are beautiful. oleg menshikov isn't so bad looking either . .

A Pretty Movie
"Burnt by the Sun" is a nice movie, quite similar in thematic content to the recent "Life is Beautiful", and shot on snazzy, high-quality, expensive film (those of you who have seen earlier Russian films will heave a collective sigh of relief). Ah, the advantages of capitalism. It's just too bad that the fall of communism in Russia had to bring along some less auspicious consequences. Unlike their predecessors, films made in Russia after 1991 had to actually make money. This resulted in an overall "Westernification"--a slicker package at the expense of complex themes and poetic photography. "Burnt by the Sun" is a perfect example of this. You won't be struggling to comprehend all of the different levels of meaning in "Burnt by the Sun" the way you might in "Andrei Rublev". Things are spelled out quite clearly here, and the plot is easy to follow and takes precedence (somewhat of a rarity in "highbrow" Soviet films--compare this one to "The Color of Pomegranates"). There's also very little of the wonderful symbolism you find in the earlier films--in "Burnt by the Sun", water is just water. It is by no means a bad movie--in fact, quite good by Hollywood standards--but I can't help but wonder what might have become of it had it not been made under the commercial pressures of capitalism. If you're in the mood to be entertained (and, perhaps, made to cry) by a good foreign film that doesn't require an inordinate amount of mental input, "Burnt by the Sun" is for you; if you want to see Russian film at its height, better go look up Tarkovsky or Eisenstein.

Under the Shadow of Stalin
Mikhalkov always had a flair for Chekhovian drama, and he doesn't disappoint the viewer in this movie, which essentially updates "The Cherry Orchard" to Stalinist Russia. What we get is a tumultuous day in the life of a theatre group in a tranquil rural community, lorded over by the proud Commander Kotov, as the small town prepares for the celebration of Stalin's first ride in an air balloon. Mikhalkov deftly mixes humor with pathos, the hallmark of all his movies, as the bucolic life is broken by the return of Mitya (impeccably played by Oleg Menshikov). We slowly get to learn of Mitya's mission with a profound sense of foreboding. The acting is purposely staged to give the scenes their rich theatrical air, yet there is a naturalism too, as Mikhalkov has such a fine eye for detail. To reveal too much of the movie is to give away its stunning climax. It was one of the first films to emerge from the post-Soviet era and gave Mikhalkov a broader international audience, earning him an Oscar in 1994.

Heartbreaking
This is one of the most powerful movies I can remember seeing. In many movies about the Holocaust or the gulags, the focus is on the suffering in the camps. This movie shows the idyllic life ripped apart by the paranoia of Stalin and his overwhelming cult of personality. The whole movie rings true with everything that i have read about the Soviet Union during the purges.

The pace is slow, but the acting is brilliant, the cinematography gorgeous, and the ending packs a punch.

Uh... I thought this was the band, burnt by the sun!
Okay, i bought this thinking it was about burnt by the sun the grind/metal band...Well, i was wrong ! Anyways, i got a change to actullie read the book & i was quite impress better then any other book i've read before. Interesting plot and it has the best ending! Buy it now ! ... Read more

Reviews (9)

The first cinematic slacker, maybe?
A surreal comedy set during England’s swinging sixties. Tom Courtney is unbelievably funny as a working class boy unable to leave the safety of his family home and venture out on his own. He creates a fantastic world he retreats to when his daily encounters and unconventional actions get out of hand. Not even Julie Christie can drag him out into reality.
One of the most entertaining films in cinema history, Billy Liar is a universal character that has surely set the bases for many slacker characters in film since then.
The Criterion version of the DVD offers extras as opposed to the English version.

Visually delightful comedy with a twist¿
A young dreamer, Billy Fisher, lives a boring life in a small town of England. When he does not have to do anything he dreams of being someone in his fantasy world, Ambrosia. In the real world he has committed some petty misdemeanors and these are now about to catch up with him. In order to stay afloat, Billy has been forced to lie, but the lies have begun to accumulate and could slap him in the face at any moment. Thus, he is patching up his lies with other lies until he is so deep that there is no return. Billy also dreams of being a script writer for a famous comedian in London, but no one really believes him because he has been caught in his lies too many times. One day when an opportunity surfaces where his dream of script writing can become reality, he is put on a crossroads. Will he have the courage to see through it, or will he remain a dreamer? Billy Liar is an exceptionally fascinating story that is depicted with clever thoughtfulness, which leaves the audience with an extraordinary cinematic happening.

The Kitchen Sink Comedy That Still Makes You Laugh
"Billy Liar" was made in 1963 three years after my birth and I can just remember Britian being like this; but it is not just a nostalgia trip. This is a beautifully executed piece of film making works from the opening, when we see a nation's homemakers brought together by the BBC's "Housewife's Choice", to the end when the battered and degected Billy walks up the hill to his parents semi-detached house at the head of his make believe army.

In between we get to witness Billy's fantastic imagination at work vividly brought to life in mock news-reel form and the chaos of his real life as his past mistakes catch up and eventually overwelm him.

The central problem Billy faces is one that most if not all young people experience at some time; the desire to do something great and become important and the feeling that they are being constrained and inhibited by the older generation's lack of vision.

It is not easy to distinguish who is responsible for what. The writers Wallis Hall and Keith Waterhouse obviously deserve a great deal of credit as they also wrote the novel and stage play but John Schlesenger's direction and the superb cast bring the film to life.

Schlesenger came from a BBC television background and the opening sequence as well as the Danny Boon character seem very authentic. Danny Boon, played by Leslie Randall, is the type of British comedian that used to and in some cases still does, present game shows on television in the UK complete with irritating catch phrases and over fimiliarity with middle aged women. Intrestingly Wilfred Pickels, who plays Billy's father, was previously best known for his radio quiz show "Have a Go" but he is now best remembered for his roll here.

The great dicovery of the film has to be Julie Christie who breezes in and sweeps all before her checking her make-up in a C&A mirror (their last store closed in the UK this year) and swinging her handbag as she walks down the street. But it is her scenes with Tom Courtney's Billy where she comes alive. Although the makers regard her as fantacy figure in fact she is the only one who accepts him for what he is and offeres him a means of escape. The fact that he can't quite go through with it tells us so much about the diffidence that is at the centre of Billy's personality.

Criterion have given us an eccellant quality DVD with a superb director and leading actors commentry as well as a BBC documentary that puts the film in it's context of the British Kitchen Sink dramas that started in the late 1950's and echoes of which are still present in films like "The Full Monty" and Billy Elliot. Watch and enjoy.

Engaging, Entertaining, Thoughtful, Cinematic
I am full of admiration for Schlesinger's film. It stands in a tradition of many great British movies that managed to make something truly cinematic out of stage material (another outstanding example would be David Lean's 1945 'Brief Encounter').

The film follows a young man of 19 by the name of Billy Fisher. In the small Yorkshire town of Stradhoughton (fictional I am sure), Billy copes with the mundanity of everyday life by creating for himself an inner world of fantasy to which he retreats continually. Courtenay is superb as the perpetual liar and daydreamer, and the supporting cast is equally excellent. Denys Coop's photography. Is reminiscent of the French New Wave, particularly the opening scenes which echo the opening of Truffaut's 'Les 400 Coups,' the beautiful scenes of Julie Christie as she skips her way through the streets, and the final shots of Billy's street which have a 'cinema verite' look. The editing, especially in the fantasy sequences, brings a uniquely cinematic dimension to what could have easily been done in a more cliched style.

Schlesinger presents a very moving, and very human, fable. Towards the end, as Billy marches through the empty streets, humming the last post, following the death of his grandmother, there is a real air of pathos. Similarly, we get interesting insights into the character of Billy as, waiting to board the train to London, he clutches two cartons of milk to his chest, a touching maternal symbol. Again, there are clear echoes of the scene in Truffaut's 'Les 400 Coups' in which the young Antoine Doinel steals, having run away from home, steals a bottle of milk from a doorway.

This is not to say that the film is an incredibly sophisticated look into characters and personalities, but it touches upon some very human and profound moments. This is also a tremendously witty film, not losing on iota of the humour and irony of the original book by Keith Waterhouse (and subsequent stage play co-authored by Willis Hall). There are scenes of laugh-out-loud hilarity, and many of Billy's fantasies will strike a chord with many of the more imaginative of us, perhaps making us uncomfortable as we see a reflection of ourselves, albeit on a bigger scale.

CINDERELLA
John Schlesinger's BILLY LIAR has just entered the DVD market thanks to Criterion. A superb widescreen copy, english subtitles, a commentary by John Schlesinger and Julie Christie (not very interesting), a theatrical trailer and a 15 minutes excerpt from a BBC serie about british cinema (very interesting) are offered as bonus features.

Tom Courtenay is William Fisher, a young man with problems. He doesn't like his job as a funeral furnishings employee, he still lives at his parents's home and spends a lot of time lying to his two girlfriends. In order to quit for a while his everyday life, he has created an imaginary world - Ambrosia - that has got some resemblance with the South or Central America bananas republics of the sixties. He is the leader of this country and people adore him. In short, he is an escapist.

BILLY LIAR has been shot partly on location, partly in studio and I often had the feeling to watch two different movies on the screen. Like Billy. The destructions of buildings shown throughout the movie add to the strange impression that a world is collapsing. When Billy meets Liz, played by a terrific Julie Christie, he has the opportunity of his life to give some reality to his dreams because Liz is so real. Let's admire how John Schlesinger, in a french New Wave style, films her strolling in the streets. A great moment of cinema.

Comedy, social study or metaphor on the Cinema, BILLY LIAR can easily be seen at different levels and is, in my opinion, a valuable addition to your library.

A DVD zone Hillary. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

The second sequel to the mold-making action film Die Hard brings Detective John McClane (Bruce Willis) to New York City to face a better villain than in Die Hard 2. Played by Jeremy Irons, he's the brother of the Germanic terrorist-thief Alan Rickman played in the original film. But this bad guy has his sights set higher: on the Federal Reserve's cache of gold. As a distraction, he sets McClane running fool's errands all over New York--and eventually, McClane attracts an unintentional partner, a Harlem dry cleaner (Samuel L. Jackson) with a chip on his shoulder. Some great action sequences, though they can't obscure the rather large plot holes in the film's final 45 minutes. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (84)

Bruce does the sweaty-vested hero thing again...
Director John McTiernan returned to helm the 3rd part to the Die Hard trilogy, which regains much of the fun action that was missing in Renny Harlin's Die Hard 2. Bruce Willis does the sweaty-vested action hero thing again as John McClane, and to good effect. The main villain, played by Jeremy Irons, is much better than the weak bad guys in DH2, and the inclusion of Samuel L. Jackson makes it even better. Great stunts, action, one-liners, explosions and music. Fine extras too, with a featurette and trailers.

Die Hard With a Vengeance
The heat is on again as Bruce Willis plays Detective John McClane battling a very intelligent mastermind through out the streets of New York city. In NY, there has been a bomb explosion and the man responsible wants John McClane in this case for some reason. It seems that the main villain in this movie is known as "Simon" (Jeremy Irons)but is really the brother of Hans Gruber, the villain in the first Die Hard, who seeks revenge on McClane. Although that is what it seems, Simon's main goal is to steal truck loads of gold bars from the NY Federal Reserve Building. Simon admits hiding a very large bomb in NY. John and a Harlem dry cleaner, Zues (Samuel)L. Jackson go through wierd obstacles in order to find this bomb. All die hard fans will love all the bomb explosions, fast car drivings, and gunshootings throughout this movie. This is the best Die Hard throughout and I think anyone else would to if they get this.

Decent action scenes can't save middling DIE HARD III
John McTiernan returned to direct this second follow-up to McTiernan's original DIE HARD from 1988, but unfortunately all his considerable skill and energy can't rise above screenwriter Jonathan Hensleigh's generic script. DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE could easily have been LETHAL WEAPON 4 (maybe it almost was), and the script does little to make it stand out from other buddy action-movies (although Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson undoubtedly do work well together). As for the action scenes, they're certainly well-executed, but there's just no real momentum connecting the action scenes the way there was in the second half of DIE HARD 2. In VENGEANCE, there's just one action scene piled upon another, and the whole thing simply feels like an incoherent mess, which certainly was not the case in the first two films of the series.

DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE will certainly entertain action fans, since the action scenes are undeniably creative and well-mounted. Compare VENGEANCE to the first two DIE HARDs, though, and there's no contest. DIE HARD will forever be an action classic, and DIE HARD 2 was a generally worthy sequel. In that company, DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE is merely average.

Hard Not to Like
DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE does not have the emotion and consistency of the first two movies. It doesn't happen on Christmas Eve like the other two. John Mclane's wife, Holly (Bonnie Bedelia) isn't in it. Finally as in the first two films, the terrorism happens in the confines of one specific area (i.e. Die Hard: in a high rise building, Die Hard II: at an airport). This adventure is all over the map in New York City. However, it is one of those movies that grows better with repeated viewings, somehow works better on the small screen, and also helped by the chemistry of Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson. Jeremy Irons is decent as the villian and overall an above average action thriller.

A Sign of the Times
The most flattering appraisal one could give of "Die Hard With a Vengeance" is "moronic". What else is one to remark of a movie in which people are manifestly killed for the pleasure of the audience watching it? It is a sign of our profoundly debased and witless times that the same rating of 3.5 stars should have been given by a pundit to this brutal, vainglorious, and puerile film as he had elsewhere deigned to give to a very different film, "Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet" (1940; director William Dieterle; starring Edward G. Robinson, in a magnificent performance), which concerns the historical career of a famous medical scientist and his brilliant and heroic accomplishments, which quite literally saved countless millions of human lives. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

The Greatest Family Movie ever Made
I thought this movie was made really well. This has been the greatest family movie I have ever seen. It had me laughing and crying at the same time. This is a film that the whole family can enjoy from 0 to 99 years old. And I believe that your whole family will love this movie and watch it everyday like I do.

One of the best family flicks ever.
This movie was made for everybody likes comedy. There are no boring parts at all. It is a bit sad at the end but not very sad. It is half sad half happy at the end. Every minute of this is entertaining. Buy this and enjoy.

Great movie
It is the best movie for kids. My kids watch it over and over again. So if you have kids aged 5 to 10 you should buy this vidio.

Sad,boring I hate it
It is very sad not as bad at the begining but very very sad at the end. It also went by to slow

Excellent for adults and children
Very entertaining for all ages, the gorilla was very well done, good for teaching children about commitment and responsibility. Makes you laugh and cry. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The sophomore effort by Steven Soderbergh (sex, lies, and videotape) is an audacious and stylistically impressive experiment in a completely different direction from his debut. Working from a script by Lem Dobbs, Soderbergh follows the miserable day-to-day existence of Franz Kafka (Jeremy Irons), an insurance clerk in a large, impersonal company.Hiding out in his garret at night, he writes material he assumes no one will ever read. But then he happens upon clues that make him believe there is some plot afoot to suppress thought and he follows the trail into a hidden sanctuary, at which point the film abruptly shifts from shadowy black and white to jarring color. It doesn't all work, but it is never less than intriguing, with a cast that includes Alec Guinness, Ian Holm, and Joel Grey. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Great Art House Film
I was fortunate enough to have seen this movie when it was first released in a theater here in Los Angeles. How wonderful it was on the big screen! It is visually stunning, with superb direction by Steven Soderberg and of course excellent acting by Jeremy Irons. KAFKA blends themes from the actual life and work of writer Franz Kafka. In addition to a brief portrait of Kafka's complex relationshiop with his father, the film includes the theme of the police-state from THE TRIAL and the unreachable castle from THE CASTLE. Therefore, I recommend reading at least these two novels before seeing the movie. Even without reading these novels, though, the movie is still very enjoyable. By the way, you can pick up an excellent new translation of THE CASTLE here on Amazon. Enjoy the movie (and the books)!

An ominous, philosophical thriller.
I am not a Jeremy Irons fan. In this film, however, his ability to convey a Kafkaesque bewilderment, curiosity and allegiance to individualism before anonymous forces that crush the human spirit is admirable and convincing. The film is set and filmed in Prague. It begins with a grotesque murder then jumps to an oppressive business office that is just as grotesque and murderous in its own way...the way of banality and offciousness (incarnated marvelously by PC "commissar" Joel McCrey). The machinations of a secret society of revolutionaries (led seductively and insolently by Rosaline Russell) are pitted against the omnipresent forces of fascism led by Ian Holmes and enforced by a menacing Armin Mueller-Stahl as Police Inspector Gruber. If you are familiar with the nightmare literature of Kafka (particularly, THE TRIAL)you will appreciate how astute Steven Soderburgh has been in evoking the terror latent in a police state. Jeremy Iron's role is that of the bureaucrat who refuses to be petty. He does care about his friends and he refuses to totally bow before the State's stale bread and "Something Wicked This Way Comes" carnival-circus. Or at least he tries. Perhaps he is not a hero, but his silence is that of defiance...not acquiescence. The film portrays this kind of definace as the kind of "candle" in the darkness that is worth more than 1000 curses in the battle for the human spirit's survival. It is a philosophical film that does not "view" like one. You can watch it and enjoy getting the hell scared out of you. Watch it!!!

"A" for ATMOSPHERE
If understanding a writer's mind means that you want to go be in his world, this is your movie. While I am defeated by the impossibility of 'making sense' of what happens here in any real way that involves logical explanation, I believe the film well-represents the scary furnishings inside Franz Kafka's mind. It doesn't move back and forth between dream and reality. Instead, it combines the two seamlessly. Only in one scene, a 'pure' dream, does the film move into color. The rest of the time it is a beautiful, grainy-foggy-textured black and white. Prague is gorgeously captured in the b/w universe. The zither score reminds one of The Third Man, another film about the ruin and corruption of Europe. I especially like that the nightmare localities, particularly the Castle interior, are imagined and furnished as 1919 phenomena. As a tour de force of reliving the interior imaginations that might have haunted a writer like Kafka, it's pretty impressive. But as a connected plot or statement, it's not much account. I'd call it intensely and sensitively atmosphere-of-Kafka, but to murky and nebulous to rise too far above that.

where is the DVD??
'Kafka' is one of the best Sonderbergh films, and i don't really understand why it has been so underrated. This movies manages brilliantly to convey the menacing atmosphere that we sense in Franz Kafka's books, introduncing elements from 'The Trial' and 'The Castle', mostly, in an original fiction work; the actors are fabulous, the cinematographie is faultless, Jeremy Irons is perfect. A wonderful film, and i'm waiting for years for the DVD. Is there any information about the release date?

Overthrow the Castle
"Kafka" is uber-director Steven Soderbergh's finest hour, a mesmerizing, frequently terrifying, always splinteringly beautiful distillation of the paranoid works of Franz Kafka into a two-hour descent into duplicity, delusion, madness, and conspiracy.

Franz Kafka (played precisely and with aplomb by Jeremy Irons, in one of his best roles) is an anonymous, numberless bureaucrat laboring in the stifling confines of his office in a shadow-haunted city somewhere in Eastern Europe (the city Soderbergh uses is Prague, which, with its winding cobbled streets and menacing feudal castle, which Soderbergh develops into a major character in its own right).

Kafka is intellectually curious, though, and through his writing seeks escape from his wearying job as a clerk and the looming, austere tyranny of his lordly superior, the Chief Clerk (played with leonine reserve and typical brilliance by Sir Alec Guiness).

Kafka's work is the stuff of dark conspiratorial nightmare, plots within plots, revolutions brewing and quelled by ranks of faceless secret police, but after he befriends a group of anarchists and revolutionaries led by the mysterious Gabriela (played subtly by Theresa Russell), his life takes a turn for the bizarre, eerily paralleling his literary work, replete with disappearances, mysterious horrible deaths, shadowy night-time pursuits through the streets, and terrible rumors of malign plots hatched in the inaccessible Castle that hulks above the city.

"Kafka" is subversive, insidious, breathtakingly beautiful and deliciously creepy work. It is also Soderbergh's best film, slipping as effortlessly between the real and surreal as it does between its black-and-white and color palettes. Soderbergh assembled a team that worked brilliantly together, including cinematographer Walt Lloyd, Set designer Joanne Woollard, and costume designer Michael Jeffery, to work a feat of cinematic magic.

The acting here is also uniformly seamless, with Irons alternately purringly subservient and winsomely brave; Irons delivers the goods as a man pushed up against the limitations of his courage. Russell shines in her brief but crucial role, Sir Alec Guinness brings a nice touch of Dickensian gloom to the picture, Armin Mueller-Stahl is note perfect as the sinister but befuddled Police Inspector Grubach, Ian Holm calmly psychotic as the evil Doctor Murnau (Holm uses the same line---"you don't belong here, do you?"---in three films: "From Hell", "Brazil", and this movie) and the great Brian Glover psychotically calm as his beetling, murderous hench-thug.

But the standout in "Kafka" is the atmosphere itself, thick with paranoid, horror, and intrigue. This is a movie fraught with secret passages, nitreous oubliettes, forgotten cemeteries, cobbled streets, fog-shrouded squares. All of this is nicely underscored by a haunting soundtrack by Cliff Martinez.

"Kafka" is above all a movie where terror stalks the alleys and haunts of the City, terror as Beautiful as it is horrific, because in life the Nightmarish can also be Beautiful. And be warned: this is a truly frightening, grisly film that does its level best to give you nightmares. Kafka's wild flight from a hideous Laughing Man is the scariest sequence I have ever sweated through.

Not a biography but a stark and luminous journey into the mind of Franz Kafka, the movie is rich and layered with echoes of "Metamorphosis", "In the Penal Colony", "The Castle" and "The Trial". Take a steadying drink, and slip into its dark streets and deep paranoia. ... Read more

Description

Based on the true story of Vera Hillyard, one of the last women in Britain to hang for murder.It is a dark and brooding tale of a seemingly close-knit suburban family whose facade of normalcy hides the murderous sibling rivalry. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

A classic mystery
This is a fantastic story, which has been adapted well for video. The characters are well developed and completely believable and the plot twists grippingly through the years during and just after World War II. Excellent performances from Helena Bonham Carter and the ever talented Celia Imrie kept me gripped. This is a brilliant story from Barbara Vine but is not based on real events.

Wonderful Mystery & Sister-Sister Deadly Duo
Faith Severn (Bonham-Carter) tells us the story of her Aunts Vera and Eden. Faith stayed with them as a child during WWII when London was being bombed so she has the chance to witness their relationship turn from morbid closeness to conflict and hostility culminating in murder. It is a riveting piece of work and I was glued to the tv set the entire time. Of special interest is a plotline that is guided by two sisters whose conflict is born and festers when a baby is born to one of them. Two women in the same family, conflicted over a child born into that family, is a very common, every day occurrence and utterly believable as something that gets out of control fast. I must confess that Bonham-Carter, as I continue to see her shine in role after role, is a much better actress than I ever thought she'd turn into when I first saw her in "Room With A View," where she played a rather standard English historical ingenue. I've only seen this on video and so I can't comment about scenes which were edited out from when it showed on television, as one Amazon reviewer has done. I did not feel the lack of any scenes or character development, however. I have also not read the book so cannot compare that either although it is generally a fruitless task to compare films with the books they were based upon anyway.

A good movie marred only by the transition to video.
The original movie is a wonderful adaptation of the same novel. However, in moving to video, crucial scenes have been edited diminishing the overall neuroses of Aunt Vera as well as other members in the family. Recommendation: record it when it airs again on the television.

This film is one of the best book adaptions ever.
The life of Faith Severn is permanently altered when her uber-normal aunt, Vera, kills her sister Eden. Faith, in trying to understand what has transpired, discovers that her aunt and family hardly lead the kind of respectable, middle-class life they congratulated themselves on having. This is a beautifully done drama with great performances. A great way to spend an afternoon for mystery fans and lovers of great drama. END ... Read more

Reviews (22)

Mini-series king Richard reigns supreme here. . .
I first saw this production in 1975, when I was a senior in high school, about the same time I was writing a paper about the book it's based on. From the time I was a little girl, Richard Chamberlain had made my heart flutter as Dr. Kildare on TV. "Count" was after the filming of Richard Lester's "Three Musketeers", but before such classic mini-series as "Shogun" and "Thorn Birds", which are what this generation associates the Chamberlain name with most readily. This production did a wonderful job depicting Edmond's despair and loss of hope as the years pass and he realizes that his enemies mean for him to rot away in the solitary confinement of prison. Fortunately, while trying to dig out of there, he digs himself into the cell of Abbe Faria, who becomes his teacher, mentor, savior. . .and ultimately, benefactor. (Trevor Howard was marvelous here, by the way).

It takes 20 years, but Edmond finally escapes jail, finds the treasure, engages the best barber and tailor in Paris, and proceeds to make monkeys of his betrayers. Chamberlain was physically right for this part--very thin, as if he'd subsisted on soup and bread for two decades--and capable of moving as smoothly as a panther. Kate Nelligan was excellent as Mercedes--a woman whose heart was equal mixtures of bitterness, regret, and love for her son alone after losing the great love of her life at age 20. I liked Tony Curtis--he'd played so many good guys in movies like Spartacus, and also comedy such as in Some Like It Hot--that it was fun to see him be the villian here.

All in all, this production was an excellent SHORT adaptation of the book. Had it been made five years later, when mini-series became more popular in America, much more could have done more with the secondary characters and little subplots. It would be the French who beat Hollywood to the remake, however, with the 1998 mini-series starring Gerard Depardieu in the title role. I rented the Chamberlain version and watched it again last year after having seen the Depardieu version for the first time. It's as good as it was 25 years ago, and the prison scenes are far superior to the ones in the Depardieu production. Other than that, you can't really compare the two of them. The French had a longer version, bigger budget, etc. The Chamberlain version, however, holds its own among newer English or American versions of Dumas' works. If you love the book, then all the video and DVD versions are worth collecting. I'll be adding this one to my own collection soon:)

A Story With A Strong Moral Lesson
THE COUNT OF MONTE CHRISTO is a film adaptation of the classic story by Alexandre Dumas of three men who conspire to have their common enemy Edmund Dantes sent to prison and the vengeance wreaked by Dantes after his escape many years later. The movie is reasonably faithful to the book. The early part of the film depicts prison life graphically and the mood changes abruptly for the better with the start of the revenge sequence.

Richard Chaberlain gives a good performance and is believable as both the younger and older Edmund Dantes. A strong supporting cast includes Kate Nelligan, Louis Jourdan, Donald Pleasance and Tony Curtis. David Greene is known for his direction of GRAY LADY DOWN and THE STRANGE AFFAIR.

An excellent film, full of rich characterization
This is a top-notch production. Richard Chamberlain, the fine English actor seen in "Shogun" and "Thornbirds", is in top form as the wronged and vengeful Edmund Dantes. The story begins with Edmund content and happy, then betrayed by a rival suitor. He spends 14 years in prison, then escapes and uncovers buried treasure through the directions of a fellow inmate. He resurfaces in Paris as the mysterious count of Monte Cristo and exacts revenge on the people who imprisoned him. The story moves swiftly and is quite engaging. Richard Chamberlain is believable and compelling, both as the young Edmund, before prison, then as the older and cunning Count of Monte Cristo. The acting from the supporting cast is also almost uniformly excellent. The script is well-written, although it is a bit stunted at times. This movie is part of a set of 8 in a series called LITERARY MASTERPIECES. I have also seen 2 others in this series, LES MISERABLES and THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK. These were top-notch productions as well. END

Richard Chamberlain .....IS.....THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO!
Richard Chamberlain gives a commanding performance as THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO. The newer version, with Jim Caviezel is bland and less believable, largely because Caviezel cannot compete with Chamberlain's passion and style. Richard Chamberlain was created to play this role with his long, lean, graceful body and beautifully carved facial features. No one has the ability to wear the gorgeous costumes and capes with such grandeur! Richard Chamberlain can always be counted on to provide stately charm and class when needed. This film will leave no doubt in your mind......Richard Chamberlain ....IS......THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO!

Chamberlain, Count of Monte Cristo
I have always like Richard Chamberlain, but I think this is one of his best works. The story does not bog down and action keeps going. I love movies in this time period and would like to see more of them. The scenery and acting in this movie, not only by Richard Chamberlain, but of all the actors is phenominal. I highly recommend that if you have not seen this movie, take the time to see it. It will be well worth your time. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

one of a kind
I found the movie both enlighting and puzzling. First of all we will never truely know what kind of love Sally and thomas really shared. Things that are written could have been fiction yet some may be true but we will never know the truth. I like the way the movie portrays thomas jefferson as a true mans, man and also showed the love that he had for his children.

A Great Movie
This movie dares to suggest that Thomas Jefferson might have loved his slave Sally Hemings. No one will ever know for sure if he loved her but if they had a relationship it would have lasted close to forty years. Can a man have a relationship with a woman for forty years and feel nothing for her, even if she was his slave and a black woman? Some people would suggest that but not this movie. Jefferson himself was a contradiction. He said slavery was wrong, yet he owned slaves. This movie focuses on the kind of relationship they may have had and the people they were. Sally is portrayed as a strong and educated woman. We know she went to France and she could have been educated while she was there. She is also the half sister of Jefferson's dead wife and she could have quite possibly looked like her. If Sally did look like Jefferson's dead wife, whom he loved dearly, could he have been attracted to her. Sally is shown as a woman that Jefferson could have loved. Jefferson is shown as a man wrestling inside with his public life and his private life. The relationship they have is tested many times but remains strong even after his death. It may be hard for some to believe that these two people loved each other but this movie suggests that they just didn't love each other but that they were devoted to each other. I like how it focuses on Sally's life because she is the one people know little about. It goes into detail about the kind of life she might have lived with her children and the joy and sadness she might have felt, living during this time. This movie offers a refreshing description of Sally Hemings and her life. If you are interested in history, Sally Hemings or Thomas Jefferson I recommend that you watch this movie. It might change everything you know about these two people. This is a great movie and I highly recommend it to everyone.

Historical and Fictional
This was a very good movie as long as you forget who the main characters are supposed to be. Jefferson was not really as weak as he was portrayed nor could Ms. Hemings be as forthright. The love affair portrayed could not have happened. Jefferson was still a racist and could only allow himself so much sentiment where a woman of color was involved...and love was too much. I thought, however, that it did a very good job in outlining the hypocrisy of the south and miscengenation laws--laws that Jefferson himself wrote and apparently broke. I also thought it did a great job of outlining what the Hemings family was known for and came to be known for: artistry, intelligence, courage, and their aid in the underground railroad. (no Sally was never captured and beaten as far as we know). Being a mini-series, it unfortunately could not go into detail about the lives of Eston and Madison Hemings, the children we actually know the most about, nor about the matriarch of the family, Betty Hemings. For more historical fiction on this family, try Barbara Chase-Riboud's "Sally Hemings" and "The President's Daughter" or Fawn Brodie's biography of Thomas Jefferson. The screenplay was written with much of Ms. Riboud's psychology in mind...and her Sally Hemings was more believable for the times.

Tale that tells everything but the truth. So What ?
Sure I like historical movies. But I really dislike haveing to re-learn all my history each time a new one comes out.

Ahh but what can you expect ? All the information in the world abot Sally Hemmings as a person could probably fit on a 3x5 index card. Sally Hemmings the DNA profile is a good bit longer than anything else we know about her.

That said -- I liked the Sally they invented for this movie. I wanted her to be smart and well educated and full of poise and grace. Why not assume the best ? And so the movie-makers have done just what we all have wanted. They have turned what was scandelous history into starcrossed lovers.

Sally is reputed to have been quite light skinned. This was a growing problem in the south after the importation of salvery ceased in the early 1800's. While in our day and age we think it foolish to judge a man by the color of his skin - it is shown to be even more foolish in this film. Many of Jefferson's children by Hemmings are portrayed by actors that we would call "White". How nicely this points up the fallacy of judging a many by his skin color.

Go ahead watch it. Just because you want to. Just don't use it for a history report at school.

Melodramatic Soap Opera
This movie is 10% history and 90% Hollywood. There are numerous historical inaccuracies and implausible speculations. The movie is basically a soap opera. It is significantly inferior to Jefferson in Paris, itself a mediocre movie, because there is little effort to make the movie accurate or plausible.

Very little is known about Sally Hemings or her relationship with Jefferson. The movie takes the position that they truly loved each other. This is at least plausible, given that Jefferson may have had six children by her, she was his dead wife's half-sister, and they apparently had a monogamous relationship that lasted around 40 years.

The movie portrays Sally as a woman with modern sensibilities--smart, independent, strong, outspoken. It is very likely that the real Sally was none of these--what are the chances that a black slave woman in the 18th century would be? And if she were anything like this, Jefferson would not have had a relationship with her--he liked his women to be docile and submissive. The real Sally was no doubt his ideal woman.

One of the many melodramatic events that stems entirely from the writer's imagination is that Sally helped slaves flee to the North and that she was captured by Southern slaveholders, who took her captive and whipped her. There is no evidence that anything like this happened, and it is unlikely in the extreme.

The movie was made obviously to capitalize on the recent DNA evidence that Hemings and Jefferson had a sexual relationship. As a Hollywood melodrama, it is mildly entertaining. But it is insulting to anyone with any interest in truth. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Annette Bening's outstanding performance is the best reason to see Being Julia, a highly melodramatic adaptation of the 1937 novel Theatre by W. Somerset Maugham. With a prestigious pedigree (director Istvan Szabo and screenwriter Ronald Harwood share impressive theatrical backgrounds) and a stellar cast including Jeremy Irons, Bruce Greenwood, and Juliet Stevenson, the film's backstage and onstage theatrics take place in pre-World War II London, when the venerable actress Julia (Bening) fends off middle-age by romancing a stage-struck young American (Shaun Evans) in a calculated attempt to retain some youthful vitality while airing her own dirty laundry onstage in a glorious act of divine diva behavior. Treating life and theater as one big play in which she's the perpetual star, Julia's nothing if not a master thespian, and Bening's got all the chops to keep her in the spotlight. If the film isn't quite worthy of Bening's excellence, at least it gives her performance the showcase it deserves. -- Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (40)

Theatre on screen
Genre: Drama, Dark Comedy

Genre Grade: B

Final Grade: A-

This was a great movie that was all about the performance of Annette Bening. Seriously, it must have been a tough choice to choose between her and Hilary Swank for the Oscar. I still think Swank deserved it, but it was a close one. Bening is absolutely hilarious in this movie. By far the best performance I've seen her give. The ending of this movie (or at least what Julia does) is one that will stick in your mind. You probably noticed I gave it a lower "Genre Grade." That's because most audiences won't appreciate this movie, I don't think. Mostly because it's British humor, but also because it is an artistic film that focuses on the acting and is not all about happy endings or traditional Hollywood storylines. The "A-" was because of poor supporting performances from most of the rest of the cast. Anyway, it was a good movie that I recommend, especially if you like theatre.

Being Manic
I wasn't to thrilled about this one.Benning's character is so unlikeable and not in a Bette Davis All About Eve kind of way.Although the film does have some of the same diva theatrics.

Benning's perfomance is best described as manic (and she does do a good job at it) but again, she really is not a likeable or sympathetic character.The others turn in decent perfomances, particularly Juliet Stevenson, but it still isn't enough to keep this one really entertaining.

La Diva
Sometimes, someone comes to his mind and realize that an actress does not need to be young and blonde and less than thirty. Fortunately Mr Szabo is one of those directors. Like the character she plays Ms Benning is a competent, experienced actress and she carry on her shoulders this great and charming film. One of those films where you realize what is performing about, just like her Julia, Ms Benning shows that not only a pretty face can make an actress but how she deals with all the diferent shades she is able to show us in this film.
The story seems simple, a spoiled actress who falls for a younger man and after his betrayal swears for revenge. But between the thrilling of her affair with T-O-M and her revenge the director shows us a wonderful tapestry of a world walking slowly to an abrupt end. The glamour and fake of a theatrical London before the war. And also all the little miseries of everyday's life. Ms Benning is superb, as usual, and she gives us the right dosis of histrionism and countenance just like a good actress should do. In her way she is surrounded by a wonderful cast. Not only Jeremy Irons plays a dazzling gentlemanlike husband. With just the right stuff of irony. But also Ms Margolyes, one of the best supporting actress right now. Michael Gambon like Julia's ghostly mentor, and funny and cocky Juliet Stevens. All of them create a wonderful tapestry where we see how this woman in a very dificult time in her life decides that after all she is still the star in her own life.

Annette Benning Dazzles As The Drama Queen!
Annette Benning plays THE Julia Lambert, the glorious, dazzling 45 year-old diva of the pre-war London stage. She is the toast of the theater world and at the peak of her career in 1938. Ms. Lambert plays to a full-house nightly and fans enthusiastically acclaim her performances. Admirers applaud when she enters restaurants. She, however, is bored. Life lacks verve. Julia complains to longtime husband, ex-actor Michael Gosselyn, (Jeremy Irons), who is also her business manager and director, "Everything's so tedious. I want something to happen." Underneath it all, Julia realizes she will soon be over-the-hill and the prime roles will dwindle.

Then she meets Tom Fennel, (Shaun Evans), a young American accountant only a few years older than her son, who is wild about her. He manages to wangle an introduction and then seduces her over tea at his tiny flat. The verve is back. Bigtime! Julia blooms with all the attention, flattery and, yes, passionate sex. She and hubby Michael have had a platonic, but loving relationship for years, and an "open marriage." The two are a devoted couple, however, as Michael says, they are not "possessive." He understands his wife very well, and realizes she is in the midst of an affair. He also knows that her burgeoning love-life is enhancing her acting performance, which is good for business. And business comes first!

Julia's life has been about acting, performing, seemingly forever. And she is always on - always acting, onstage and off. Her mentor, Jimmie Langton, (Michael Gambon), taught her that "real life does not exist." Langton, long dead, is terrific with his ghostly appearances, giving Julia hell for overacting, and signaling a thumbs-up when she succeeds. Roger, (Tom Sturridge), her teenage son tells her, "You've got a performance for everyone. I don't think you really exist. Once you said something to me, and then you said the same thing on stage that night. Even the things you say are second hand." I found myself trying to discover who the real Julia was, and wondering if a real Julia existed.

Meanwhile, Tom, cannot afford to keep wining and dining Julia, so she picks up the bills. Increasingly more enamored of him, she begins to buy him expensive presents. Ahhh, the callow youth is a cad....he also turns out to be...no, no spoilers here. There's also an ambitious young actress, quite lovely, talented and ruthless, (Lucy Punch), who would just love to step into Julia's shoes. The payback, at the conclusion, is really amazing - a terrific finale worthy of a standing ovation!

Ms. Benning is luminous and truly charismatic as Julia. The film is her vehicle and all other characters take a back seat. Which is not a bad thing. Annette Benning more than carries her own weight and seems to adore every minute, every line and every close-up. The supporting cast is excellent, even with their much smaller roles. Juliet Stevenson is fantastic as Julia's dresser, and the extraordinary Rita Tushingham has a bit part as the aunt who lives on the Isle of Jersey. I loved the period soundtrack.

Ronald Harwood, wrote the screenplay, based on the novella "Theatre" by W. Somerset Maugham. Kudos to director Istvan Szabo - this is terrific entertainment.
JANA

Ways To Get Even
A middle-aged diva (Bening)is tired of her life and work.She settles on a young American interested in her and the theater and takes him under her wing.Her life suddenly blossoms and then, all of a sudden, her young man falls for someone his own age. And then, she gets even...

This story, taking place in London in 1938, is entertaining and easy to follow.Bening plays the character to perfection, showing how Julia can be painfully honest in one moment, a raging diva the next, and smug about her actions the next.This is a movie to watch again and again, especially to learn the subtle way of getting even! ... Read more

Reviews (275)

JIM CARREY was Born to Play THE GRINCH!
I just want to say THE GRINCH with JIM CARREY is one awesome Holiday movie! I am 24 years old and I really dig this movie. I saw this movie at the show last Christmas, and I had a blast watching it. It is very close to the DR. SEUSS book and animated movie but being a motion picture the movie has a lot more detail on the story which gives the story of The Grinch a whole new life. The DVD will be released this NOVEMBER and you can pre-order it here on AMAZON.com. The DVD has so many special features like - Sing-Along songs, Read-Along songs, DVD ROM content such as - Add a Grinch to your own photograph, screen savers, games, recipes, the Music Video of Faith Hill's "WHERE ARE YOU CHRISTMAS", a Whoville section which includes Who School, Jim Carrey make up application, set decorations, visual effects, and a few more surprises such as a Spotlight on location, Deleted scenes, and Outtakes. Buy this DVD it is a great flick to add to your Holiday Movie Collection! You can also check out the WIDESCREEN version DVD, this one is for the FULL SCREEN version of The Grinch.

HOW THE GRINCH STOLE THE BOX OFFICE
BASED on the classic Dr. Seuss tale of "HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS", THE GRINCH not only proved the durability of the multi-talented JIM CARREY (comedies, dramas, now family films), but also proved that classic stories can be modernized and still be just as enjoyable.

Not only is the unique element of the story still there, but the silver screened edition adds more plot on many subjects. Most importantly - the Grinch's origin that explains his hatred and disgust for the Whos and their beloved holiday. Some will argue that this either perverts a classic or dulls it's shine. Not at all, and after seeing the movie you'll realize that it is in no way possible.

The movie can't tarnish that eternal shine, and really can only make the old classic even more popular than it already is. Here are some facts and comparisons:

Some say: "If you can't stick to the classic's criteria, there shouldn't be an updated version."

I say: "The classic is a 2 minute read and a 30 minute cartoon. There's no such thing as adjusting a 30 minute cartoon's subject matter into that of a required (atleast) 90 minute film. The updated version actually contains all that is in the cartoon and book, adding the rest was simply needed. Could you imagine stretching out 30 minutes of material into 90 minutes?! Anyways, THE GRINCH is BASED on the classic childrens book. B A S E D."

Some say: "I went to THE GRINCH in hopes of seeing something alot more. That movie is basically the Grinch stealing Christmas, where's the rest? Surely the story needed something different!"

I say: "Saying you knew the Grinch would steal Christmas and that you expected more is like saying you went to TITANIC in hopes of the true story having a manipulative-movie-happy-ending where the boat doesn't sink. Too bad because besides the added origin/reasoning, great make-up (Oscar winning), excellent design and portrayal of the Whos and their town (Oscar nominated Art Direction)...you also get JIM CARREY who gives another Oscar-snubbed performance as the Grinch. Not only does CARREY go through with hours and hours of make-up each day to get the job done, he also makes the Grinch his own. He keeps the tone and attitude of the classic character solid while adding humor, plenty of facial expressions he could do without make-up, and most of all... ironically likeable."

Some say: "Where's the rhyming and Seuss-like feel? The movie had dialouge and singing...but that dialouge should be in rhyme!"

I say: "Pleeeeaaassseee!! That's the one thing this movie definetely did not need and wisely kept out! Constant Seuss rhymes would only bore the adults of the FAMILY MOVIE AUDIENCE much like Disney movie songs and Barney sing-a-longs. A little rhyming is allright, a whole 90 minutes..."

Some say: "Many parts of THE GRINCH are not for children audiences! Kissing a dog's rearend! Belching in someone's face? That is so immature and vulgar for a PG rated movie!"

I say: "Firstly, it's a PG (Parental Guidence suggested, let's all say it together...again...one more time). Lastly, it doesn't show a close-up (or at all) of the dog's butt meeting the lips of it's victim. It's not as graphic as you make it sound. Belching...yeah, gross. Nobody does that until they see a movie to influence them to do so. Yeah, whatever...next?"

Some say: "There's quite the run of dry spots that can drag on."

I say: "I must not have noticed, nor left the house with such a Grinch-like attitude. I went to the movie to have fun. The parts I thought were dry was the little girl singing "Where Are You Christmas", but atleast, thank god, they didn't go overkill with it. JIM CARREY also gets in on the singing with his version of YOU'RE A MEAN ONE, MR. GRINCH."

I haven't seen THE GRINCH since opening day (11/17/00) and would gladly deem it in the Top 5 Movies of 2000. AND, it certainly isn't as bad as THEY make it seem. Either they are JIM CARREY bashers or not a fan of modernizing classics, but I can't think of one real reason not to see it. Though I won't and can't ever forget this NOW-CLASSIC, I do highly recommend this one for everybody. At the moment I am wishing I had seen it more than once, 'cause now I'm suffering from withdrawls to know when it will be released to own on DVD! Remember, not all classics set the standards. Sometimes it can be the upstaged by it's successor.

Loved it!
I really liked it a lot! I watch the original cartoon every Chrsitmas and I've read the book to my little brother. This is a really cute movie I would definitly reccomend. I think the Grinch's cold hearted spirit is captured really well (until he turns good that is). Some people don't like this and feel it ruined the Grinch because it's not strictly to the book, but what do you expect? The book wasn't very long. It can be read in about five minutes more or less...

Anyway I do suggest you watch this provided you aren't one of those affor mentioned people that freak out over every little thing. I do NOT reccomend the Cat in the Hat movie. I thought that movie seemed too much like Austin Powers in a cat suit to tell the truth,

Did these people even read the BOOK????
What a terrible movie! How could you possibly ruin such a classic Dr. Seuss book?
Dr. Seuss is one of my favorite authors (no kidding, the books are for much younger readers than me...but I own every Dr. Seuss book, anyway.) It drives me crazy that Dr. Seuss' wife let them PRODUCE this rot! If I were her I reject them and I might even (as Dr. Seuss said on DR. SEUSS GOES TO WAR) smack them in the snoot!
I even didn't watch the whole thing, I left as soon as I could. Unless the ending was about sixty times better than everything prior to that, it was one of the worst movies I've ever watched!
Jim Carrey DID do a good job, but he can't save a movie like THAT! And did we really have to go into his long, boring and disturbing childhood? It tells us WHY he hates Christmas, whereas in the book no one quite no the reason why he hated it. (And don't even get me started on how much I hate THE CAT IN THE HAT with Mike Myers (who, by the way, can't act)!
Not to say I don't like the animated TV Special THE GRINCH WHO STOLE CHRISTMAS. That was maybe better than the book was. Although, what could you expect from a master like Chuck Jones who actually KNEW what he was doing! That movie at least 1000 times better than this!
And one of the best parts of the book was "Maybe Christmas DOESN'T come from a store, maybe Christmas perhaps, means a little bit more." But how can you believe THAT on THE GRINCH, the vulgar movie that was merchandised to the BONE!!!!!
After watching this film, you realize: The Grinch didn't steal Christmas...but the directors RUINED Christmas!

So THAT'S how he stole it...
That was Jim Carrey in that costume? I don't think anyone could have pulled it off better, but for me, Taylor Momsen, who played Cindy Loo Who, was the most enjoyable to watch. What a gifted little actress. Christine Baranski and Molly Shannon, both musically-inclined favorites of mine, also danced across the screen.

So this isn't exactly the same storyline as the one penned by the good doctor himself. But it is very close, with some details added in to give adults a few more chuckles.

And if you like it for nothing else, you will love the fantasy world created by some outstanding set and costume design; terrific old and new music; and vivid special effects.

Worth a viewing or two for all of you Who's. ... Read more