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