Amazon.com

An examination of the relationship between political power and personal conscience, Joseph Mankiewicz's traditional Julius Caesar (1953) is a veritable master class for aspiring thespians. As the opportunistic Marc Antony, Marlon Brando delivers the famous funeral speech with pure conviction, elsewhere casting an intense physicality that recalls his work in A Streetcar Named Desire. James Mason suggests a latent Hamlet in his turn as the honorable Brutus, while John Gielgud is positively serpentine as the lean, hungry Cassius. Louis Calhern invests Caesar with intelligence and edgy noir echoes, and director Mankiewicz astutely balances the Renaissance view of Caesar as a power-obsessed, corrupt tyrant destined for punishment with modern suggestions that his murder may have been ill advised. The director's scrupulous pacing is supported in no small measure by Miklós Rósza's stunning score. At film's end, power itself is without a master, and the spirit of Caesar has been left unrevived: and to Mankiewicz's credit, the latter is revealed to be the true tragedy of Julius Caesar. --Kevin Mulhall ... Read more

Reviews (20)

NOT ONE SINGLE COMPLAINT!
I am really tempted to say that I enjoyed this better than the book. It is almost unbelievable what a great job the director did in capturing the essence of this play concerning moral ambiguity in a political setting. It was a true blessing that the director managed to gather James Mason, John Gielgud, and Marlon Brando together. Mason is very convincing as the good and honest Brutus who sees a world where everyone is as honest and honorable as he. Gielgud portrays the ambitious (but not without redeeming features) Cassius well. Brando is over the top as the back stage player Antony who eventually emerges as the most powerful character in the play. The effects are simple but good. The scenery is well done (especially considering the limited resources at the time). One fine addition (not in the book) is when Antony's archers defeat Cassius. Modern special effects may have their place, but these actors showed that it takes real acting to tell the story. I can not overestimate how much Mason, Brando, and Gielgud had their fully 3 dimensional characters down to the very core of the essences created by the master of literature William Shakespeare.

A PRODUCTION WORTHY OF AN EMPEROR
Restrained, stately, dramatic, intelligent and powerful--all these adjectives and more apply to "William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar," a genuine triumph not only on the part of director Joseph Mankiewicz (whose command of tone and atmosphere is nearly flawless here) but for the entire cast and crew. Marlon Brando is justifiably most often singled out for his herculean performance as Mark Antony, and his impassioned speech to the people of Rome, in which he alternately succumbs to grief for Caesar and thirst for power, is Oscar material all on its own. But the other actors shine too: Louis Calhern is an arrogant but affable Caesar blind to his encroaching doom as great leaders so often are; James Mason captures the ultimate pathos that Brutus should embody; Deborah Kerr wins my heart if not Brutus's as Portia; and John Gielgud is the oily, corrupt serpent in the midst of the false Eden that was Rome, and almost implodes before our very eyes with envy and frustration. All in evocative sets that are grand enough to please the eye without distracting from the real drama of brilliant actors portraying a brilliant script. A must for Shakespeare fans.

"There are Some that are Whole that Must be Made Sick"
meaning, of course, that there's going to be a hit today on Mr. Big, Julius Caesar.
This is a very successful translation of Shakespeare's play into film. The title character is played rather well I think by Louis Calhern, and his aide de camp Mark Antony is the brooding Marlon Brando. Greer Garson is the barren Calphurnia, trying vainly to convince her husband Caesar to heed her dream of doom. The conspirators are really a first-rate collection: James Mason's Brutus leads the pack--what a beautiful speaking voice. John Gielgud as Cassius is a little less good, but nonetheless effective. Others include Edmund O'Brien and Alan Napier, better known as Alfred the Butler on TV's Batman show. Deborah Kerr as Portia makes an impassioned speech to her husband Brutus to take her into his confidence--how differently things might have worked out if he had done so.
Things move along very well here; it is a well-rehearsed cast and a highly professional one to boot. I disagree strongly with those who suggest that Calhern is miscast; on the contrary, his speaking with an American accent puts him quite apart from the mostly British conspirators, and helps underline why they find him so antithetical to their beliefs. He really seems a threat, someone who has no respect for the old world order but would easily turn it upside down to suit his humor. The two funeral orations are great in print; on film, both Mason and Brando are so persuasive you'll have difficulty yourself not being swayed.
Fine ensemble piece, superlative Shakespeare showcase.

Brando's Masterful Performance
I must say that Brando was indeed a versatile actor. Admitedly, I only watched this movie because Brando is in it, ordinarily I wouldn't have, but I am glad I did. This movie has made me want to study Shakespeare in greater depth (beyond the required reading in high school and college). I believe that it was the funeral scene, the turning point of the play, that really did it for me. In this film, Brando delivers a powerful performance worthy of his Oscar nomination. His beauty and passion shine through in this production. It is truly first rate...now if only I could get the DVD version!

Wonderful!
For a good analysis of this masterpiece, seek out Harold Bloom's in his fine book on Shakespeare. When I was much younger I thought Julius Caesar was a fairly straightforward play--actually a bit dry and classical--but with repeated encounters its richness reveals itself and the, at first, tantalizing ambiguities eventually dominate. Bloom comments well on these qualities.

Julius Caesar is very much a play for our times. One could imagine a similar play about Jack Kennedy's death if the heresy ever came into anyone's head that perhaps that particular political assassination, like Caesar's, was the result of complex motivations and machinations that couldn't be reduced easily to cozy confrontations between good and evil (as we've done).

This film version is excellent--one of the great adaptations of Shakespeare. It's a beautiful production and the cast is superb and often surprisingly so. The scruffy Americans stand up well against the Brits (We always seem to assume they alone are genetically designed for Shakespeare). The play should really be titled "The Tragedy of Brutus" (Brutus is the central character) and by a double irony, Brando who plays Mark Antony gets top billing over James Mason (who does an amazing job with Brutus). Brutus loses again but this time to some Hollywood dictators (rather than Roman or Elizabethan) along with (perhaps) the dictatorial position of American Culture in the post-war era. The play can be seen as a commentary on its own future handling. Mr. Brando did a fine job but-be warned-this is not a Brando flick. The box art and presentation are misleading.

Dang! Why isn't this on DVD yet? ... Read more

Description

This comedic and touching family film follows the adventures of a shy young boy (Haley Joel Osment) who is sent to spend the summer with his eccentric uncles (Michael Caine, Robert Duvall).At first shocked by his uncles' unconventional behavior that includes ordering African lions through the mail, the boy soon becomes enthralled with unraveling the mystery that has followed the uncles for years. Hearing tales of their exotic adventures involving kidnapped princesses, Arabian sheiks and lost treasure, not only brings him closer to his uncles but also teaches him what it means to believe in something... whether it's true or not. ... Read more

Reviews (168)

Something for Everyone.
The best way to describe SECONDHAND LIONS is that it's like an independent art film for families. The movie is a hodge-podge of genres and varies between the sublime to the parodical. The plot revolves around a young boy named Walter and how he ended up being raised by two crazy bachelor uncles in the mid 1960s. The uncles (played by Duvall and Caine) have been missing for forty years and have recently returned to Texas to live out the rest of their days. Rumor has it that the old coots have millions of stolen loot stashed away somewhere and every salesperson and relative within a thounsand miles is trying to get their hands on some of the cash.

Children will like this movie especially for the cheesy flashback scenes that appear to be a cross between Indiana Jones and Saturday morning cartoons. However, cheesy as those scenes appear, they fit for the purposes of the film.

The movie also has something to say about faith and honesty. In fact, this is probably the best film I've seen about faith since SIGNS. It takes faith to believe the unbelievable, but when you find out what you were believing really was true, it becomes even that much more amazing.

Highly recommended for families, old codgers, and eccentrics like myself.

Wonderful family film! Rare these days.
This was a great movie. I just saw it last night -- for the second time. With Robert Duvall, Michael Caine, and Haley Joel Osment, how could they go wrong? But there's many a film out there that boasts a multi-talented all-star cast and yet still fails to deliver the goods.

SECONDHAND LIONS is not one of them.

The story is about young Walter who is just barely in his teens and is sent to live with his two great uncles. He constantly hears rumors of their hidden treasure that they stole from Al Capone, or took from a wealthy Arab, or obtained through a lawsuit, or...whatever you want to believe. Throughout the movie, Walter learns from his uncles, Hub and Garth, how to grow into a man and what the truly important things are in life; and Garth and Hub learn from Walter how to enjoy life to the fullest.

The drama here is fantastic, and only once does the emotionalism get a little over-the-top (which is why I gave it four stars instead of five). The acting is fantastic. In this adventurous film you'll be reminded of images of INDIANA JONES, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, among many others.

...

I wish every goofball (i.e. summer blockbuster) filmmaker in Hollywood -- you know, the ones that think creative filmmaking means having alot of CGI characters jumping around on skyscrapers and fighting villains in Power Ranger suits -- would simply sit down and watch SECONDHAND LIONS. Then they would know how to make a good movie.

WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN?
It was sad for me to see adults pushing their kids in the long-winded queues for Spiderman2 and Pokemon at the local theatre, while this touching entertainer was tossed aside (relatively) to the sidelines.

There is no doubt that Secondhand Lions is a semi-manipulative film, it has its fair share of smarmy feel-good contrivances that betray its zeal to tug at our heart strings. But the quirky mirth of all its characters, the idiosynchratic plotline, and a healthy dose of moving, meaningful moments makes this a very wholesome experience.

Duvall and Caine, as two reclusive millionaire uncles drunk on guns and eccentricity, pitch in very well. Caine warms up to his part in the film first, but the screen is really owned by a very fit Duvall, who soon becomes the pivotal character in the film as the uncle that the kid (Hailey Osment) turns to for advice. Osment does remarkably well to hold his own against these two big tykes. A barnful of cute animals and a truckful of drooling relatives round up the doozy cast.

Some fantastic (literally) flashbacks form an interesting trope for the movie's core message: that in our lives having conviction in things we may doubt to be untrue is ultimately a critical virtue. This leads to a somewhat corny twist at the end but it's an interesting one to make the point. There's plenty of action and some amusing gags that even evoked loud guffaws in the theatre.

All in all, whether you have kids or not, but especially if you do, this deserves a recommendation of the highest order.

Best Family Movie in a long time
I loved this movie. Laughed and cried. I do not usually buy movies, I only own three - we rent alot, but this was a must have. It is the best family movie we have seen in a very long time. I can't wait to see it again.

Wow (for sure)
I cannot understand why Amazon uses paid reviewers who are afraid to like the films they review and don't even bother to see many of them, as indicated by the errors of fact in the second quoted review. Make no mistake, folks, this is the real thing: a truly mesmerizing family film that is able to be humorous, scary, thrilling and inspiring - frequently all at the same time. How many years has it been since three generations of your family were able to repeatedly laugh and cheer loudly for a film? This is in the rare class of films that will go on and on, like Wizard of Oz, Shane, Dragonslayer, High Noon, Miracle on 34th Street, and a very few others, except that it is better than several of them. It is a film for all time and all ages. It is definitely not just a "kid's picture". Perhaps I am partial to "modern legends." I think we all are. ... Read more

Amazon.com

After viewing Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote to Walt Disney about adapting his novel of an ape-man into a feature animated cartoon. Sixtysome years later, the tale is finally told with brilliant design work that looks unlike any previous animated film. The story is a natural for Disney since the themes of misunderstood central figures have been at the heart of its recent hits. Disney's Tarzan doesn't wander far from the familiar story of a shipwrecked baby who is brought up by apes in Africa. What gives the film its zing is its clever use of music (the songs are sung by Phil Collins himself rather than onscreen characters) and the remarkable animation. Deep Canvas, a 3-D technology, was developed for the film, creating a jungle that comes alive as Tarzan swings through the trees, often looking like a modern skateboarder racing down giant tree limbs. The usual foray of sidekicks, including a rambunctious ape voiced by Rosie O'Donnell, should keep the little ones aptly entertained. The two lead voices, Tony Goldwyn as Tarzan and Minnie Driver as Jane, are inspired choices. Their chemistry helps the story through the weakest points (the last third) and makes Tarzan's initial connection with all things human (including Jane) delicious entertainment. Disney still is not taking risks in its animated films, but as cookie-cutter entertainment, Tarzan makes a pretty good treat. (Ages 5 and up) --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (300)

Better than average Disney
Looks like Disney is trying improve on the standard Disney animation with Tarzan. The animation quality is excellent! DVD on a large screen TV is the best way to experience the results of the technology Disney developed to make this movie. Parents will appreciate the animation quality which in turn enhances the story and kids will simply like the animation because it's cool!

The story follows the traditional Disney story line, but places a greater focus on positive messages(family, loyalty, respect and acceptance). As a result, this sets Tarzan a part from the standard Disney story line(exception Mulan).

With the exception of Jane, Disney did a good job in matching actors to the characters. Unfortunately, Mimie Driver's voice and lines seemed to be out of place with her Jane Porter character. Maybe its all those Johnny Weismuller Tarzan movies I watched as kid.

As with all Disney animation, music plays a major role. The scores written and sung by Phil Collins are excellent! However, there is one musical score(Trashin the Camp) which seems to be out of place in both the story line and music.

Overall, this is a better than average Disney feature that hopefully is an indication of things to come for future Disney animation features.

Excellent animation, music, songs and story
Despite the inevitable "Disney formular", it is a great animation achievement. Let's face it, you can't expect Disney to really break away from their formula without the parents with young kids screaming murder. Within the confine of the formula, I think Disney did a marvelous job in entertaining the adults as well as the young tots. So stop being a purist and just enjoy a great animation feast.

Tarzan is definitely one of the most "live-like" animation characters in history. The story is rushed at times, and the comic side-kicks can be distracting, and even annoying. But overall it is a powerful story, with powerful emotions and conflicts, great action, and very very touching. The scene with Tarzan and his ape mother brought me to tears, and I am a 30-something guy. The relationship between Tarzan and Jane is sexy and yet innocent, romantic and yet realistic.

As for the violence... Oh come on! I think Disney did a great job portraying violence in real life (but not excessive) without being encouraging or offensive. Death? Disney animation has always dealt with death and violence, starting from Snow White -- remember the Queen and her immenent death? How about Bambi's mother? How about the hundreds of Huns and Chinese soldiers who died in Mulan? Oh, at the end, Tarzan did not throw Clayton off a tall tree... watch carefully. Clayton was trying to get to Tarzan but Tarzan noticed the danger, and he was actually trying to save Clayton! Clayton did himself in because he was too obsessed. There's a lesson to be learn here. So I think the violence in Tarzan is very well done and serves as education... it is not at all gratuitous. I suggest parents discuss it with their young children.

One gripe about the DVD though. I totally agree with other reviewers about the annoying previews and ads. It's a totally unnecessary marketing ploy and will only alienate their customers.

*****Wow!******
This is a great movie but its the kind that you can get a little tired of after a while. I didn't really care for Minnie Driver's voice for Jane Porter; it didn't fit somehow. And while the music in Trashin' the camp was differant from the rest of the soundtrack,it was refreshing and I thought it fit perfectly with the destruction of the camp.
Phil Collins did a superb job with the music. I got goosebumps on several parts,he's that good. His singing voice just seems to fit with the wild jungle setting. All in all,a good movie.

AWESOME MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!
i am a disney movie collector and tarzan is one of my favorites among the disney collection.great animation great story.this movie is a must to get!!!!

Anyone else notice....
....the shadow of the dead body hanging in the noose?! Probably not....most folks set their kiddos in front of a Disney movie hoping for some quiet time. Do the world a favor: toss the movies, better yet, toss the TV and read a book with your children! ... Read more

Reviews (51)

The Sap Head
This l949 black and white movie still looks good. It has a screenplay written by ultra-individualistic Ayn Rand, based on her classic novel. But other than everyone being complete miscast and the film looking nothing like the book, this is a major dissapoint to this faithful Randist. Director King Vidor initially wanted Greta Garbo as Dominique but of course she refused. John Garfield was mentioned as Howard Roark. He would have been fantastic. Instead, they got laconic, low-keyed, much too old Gary Cooper who always made you think of a straw-sticking-out-of mouth cowboy. Patricia Neal simply ain't no Dominique Francon. Edward Carrere was the production designer, capturing nothing of hte grandeur of over-the-top architecture described in the book. William Cameron Menzies (who had designed Gone with the Wind, King's Row) should have designed this flick. Art direction should have been genius Anton Grot, instead of insipid william Kuehl. (Grot was the genius who designed the now legendary, nearly surreal sets of the Bette Davis/Paul Henreid camp classic, "Deception" with its football sized penthouse of the supposedly poor, struggling Bette--"I had to take in piano students!") Miles Anderson costume designs for "Fountainhead" were uninspired. Why didn't they get--again from "Deception"--the fabulous Bernrd Newman? Max STeiner actually did the film score but you'd never know it? He also created a masterpiece with his musical of Bette Davis' greatest film, the l949 "Beyond the Forest." They should remake this film today, have mature actors in the roles, not the MTV brat pack. Rand supposedly had a bloody time trying to keep her screenplay from being watered down--which it was.

Pressure can have unintended consequences . . .
Is what Howard Roark (Gary Cooper) tells Dominique Francon (Patricia Neal) about her fireplace. They're talking about er...marble.

This is in a scene which occurs shortly after their first encounter, when Dominique spots Roark and his muscular forearm working at a quarry operating a drilling machine into the stone.

After a long and prolongued silence which ranks among the best moments in cinema, she asks, from her height above the pit: "Why are you looking at me?" Roark replies: "For the same reason you're looking at me."

And if you think that's a good moment, wait till Roark's climactic speech to the jury. Over five minutes long. (What! A movie audience sitting still through a speech? Impossible!) and absolutely spellbinding.

The film version of Ayn Rand's bestselling novel was directed by the expressionist master, King Vidor, and the screenplay written by, of all people, Ayn Rand.

Who, during a pre-production party accosted Jack L. Warner and warned him that if he cheapened or otherwise dumbed down her work, she would dynamite his studio. She nmeant it. Jack smiled and gave her a cigar.

The Fountainhead is the story of a hero who wins.

By hero, we mean an uncompromising man of genius and absolute integrity. This seems as far fetched to us as Cyrano fighting a hundred armed swordsmen---and winning! (Rostand was a major influence for Rand ) It's clearly impossible. He's not in Russia, so he won't be shot, it's not that explicit--it's America, he's bound to quietly fade into obscurity and failure. It would be naive to suppose otherwise, so how can this be a triumph instead of a tragedy?

Thematically that's the question that Roark's alter egos Gail Wynand (Raymond Massey) and Dominique Francon ask themselves. Gail is the billionare owner of an "Enquirer" type of news rag who rose from poverty by giving the suckers what they wanted. He lives by the credo "Oppress or be oppressed."

Dominique wants to want nothing, the logical credo of a beautifull woman who is convinced that beauty and greatness have no chance at all in this world. We first meet her as she's destroying of a statue of a Greek god. She's fallen in love with it and can't bear the pain of neeeding it, or anything else.

As usual with Rand, these are tortured giants, not the "folks next door"

Critics of Rand are right in stating that they are improbable beings. (Name a great man or woman of history who isn't).

Roark does make Conan the Barbarian look like a wimp by comparison. But you see, that's the fun of it. As are her villains, who are NOT romanticized ( forget "Bonnie and Clyde" , "The Godfather" and the rest of zillions of ever so cool bad guys we've been fed by Hollywood for decades) they are chilling parasites, exemplified in the character of Ellsworh Toohey.

I'ts Ayn Rand, people. Teenage girl sexual fantasies out of Danielle Steele combined with the mind of an Aristotle! A strange but wonderfull combination.

And as to Cooper, Neal and Massey, their acting is phenomenal. Perfect casting and flawless directing by Vidor.

A true classic.

You don't need to know about the book to enjoy this film
While it was based on Ayn Rand's book, Ayn Rand personally altered the story to adapt it to film. It is a great movie that really makes the viewer think about many things including individualism, selfishness, and even what is right and wrong. For many people who take these notions as given from a very young, questioning them with an adult mind is a good idea. If you enjoy this movie, be sure to pick up and read some of Ayn Rand's non-fiction.

Absolute Hookum and a pure joy!
As an Architect, my opinion is biased by actual experience in this field, but, this movie made me laugh so hard the first time I saw it, it became one of my all time favorites. No architect I have ever met acted anywhere near as self rightious as Roarke, they'de be working at MickieD's the rest of there lifes, as NO ONE would ever hire them, not even to clean pools. Architecture is about knowing your client needs and providing a solution that meets all the requirements of the client, city, and context. That being said, this movies a HOOT!!!

First off, too all the Rand-ites out there, THIS IS A MOVIE! get over the fact that the book is better, every book is better than the movie, thats the nature of the beast.

For the Non-Rand-ites out there, SEE IT SEE IT SEE IT. This movie is a melodramotic potboiler of bad movie bliss. Dont get me wrong, the production values are excellent, its beautifully shot and the cinematography is terrific. The archtectural projects are really spectacular and completely impossible to build, so they are way over the top. But the script is pure Hooey! and the music is sooooo overly-dramatic. Thats what makes this such a great film too watch. Only Ann Rand could take a good novel and cram it into such a laughably compacted screenplay. I felt I has watching cliffnotes from the novel. In the first 5 minutes a year of the story goes by, and the whole film is like that.

There are some very good moments in the film though, topped by Coopers speech to the jury. But the best sceen is after the "drills in the quarry" scene when Patrica Oneill is thinking of Cooper and in the background are images of drills with this completely campy Xylophone music acompanying it. Its one of the most overtly sexual suggestive scenes ever put of film and it hilarious, and dont forget to wait till the end, when you can see the Worlds Greatest 200 story Phallic Symbol ever created on film in the Wymann Building, with Cooper standing on top of course!

Great!!
If you liked the book... get this movie. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Oddball scientist Fred Z. Randall (Harland Williams) is nobody's idea of an astronaut. But he turns out to be NASA's only hope when the first manned mission to Mars comes up one man short. So it's up to Fred, who instantly rubs the ship's commander (William Sadler) and specialist (Jessica Lundy) the wrong way--but makes eerily good friends with the ship's chimp. A movie whose rude, gas-laced sense of humor will appeal to kids; adults may also get a few chuckles out of Canadian funnyman Williams, who does countless impressions and makes endless faces and funny noises. Think of him as the poor man's Jim Carrey. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (58)

Rocketman soars with laughs
When I first started watching "Rocketman," I thought it was gonna be corny and that it wouldn't be a good movie. I was wrong, it was hilarious. An unlikely candidate for the first ever mission to mars goes on the mission with an experienced mission commander and an attractive woman. Also on board to stir things up is a monkey.

"Rocketman" has some parts that are hilarious and will keep you laughing for awhile. Some of the funniest parts are when the monkey steals Fred's (Harland Williams) contraption in which he's supposed to sleep for months in and when Fred and Captain Overbeck (William Sadler) go for a walk on mars and Fred finds out that he's got just a little bit of gas overload.

"Rocketman" is hilarious and if you like comedy movies, I recommend getting it. It's a comedy movie that you can watch with the whole family and never get tired of it.

One of the Funniest Movies I've Ever Seen
Strange as it may seem, this really IS one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. Unexpected twists. Bizzare stange things that make no sense. And weird goofy euphemisms. That's what makes me laugh. As another reviewer said, the fist time you see the "anti-theft device" you can't help but laugh. And I really get a kick out of the things Fred says instead of curse words "Sweet swirling onion rings!". And the way he keeps launching into old classic songs (the one from the wizard of OZ was pretty great), it's just not the kind of humor you see in movies very often. But I think this movie's funniest moments come from the over-the-top crazy things that keep happening (the monkey biting his hand and him flailing across the room while other people talk in the next room over oblivous to what's happening, and the testing he goes through in the isolation chamber and the G-Force Tunnel).

This movie is good, clean fun and truly appropriate for all ages. If you like any of the movies I mentioned at the outset, or are just looking for something to show the kids, give this one a try.

AWESOME!!
About 6 years ago I had an incident in school which left me bedridden for a few weeks. A couple boys decided they wanted to fight and I happened to be in their way. Anyways, my Dad was constantly renting me movies since I had nothing else better to do. He rented this movie and I absolutely fell in love with it. I had him rent it 6 more times because I loved it so much! It just brightened my day with laughter. Recently I rented it again and had my sister and brother-in-law watch it and they felt the same way. Their favorite part was the gas on Mars. Such comment as "It wasn't me... It was the hairy one!" My brother-in-law just laughed so hard he almost cried. Needless to say this is my all time favortie movie!!

Tim Man
Origninally I rented this movie for my kids but I think I may have laughed harder than they did, then again maybe not.... Favorite part in the movie was of course the gas on Mars scene, "that had to be Julie"..and, "its in my mouth!!"........such classic moments, my kids and I will remember that movie forever......now if we could only get it on DVD......Spectacular fun for the whole gang...Perfect dinner and a movie night movie, just don't drink and watch at the same time.

bring it to DVD!!!!
Rocketman has got to be hands down the funniest movie my family has ever watched. We laughed till we cried and I had to watch it a second time to see it all because my eyes were shut laughing so hard during a few scenes. It is a great family movie for any age. My only wish is that Disney would bring it out on DVD. Come on Disney!! We've been waiting years!! ... Read more

Description

From the Academy Award(R)-winning creators of TOY STORY comes the world's #1 computer-animated film that captured the hearts of fans and critics everywhere. MONSTERS, INC., is "visually dazzling, action-packed, and hilarious" (Boston Herald), featuring groundbreaking animation, imaginative storytelling, and unforgettable voice talent. John Goodman stars as the lovable James P. Sullivan (Sulley) and Billy Crystal as his wisecracking best friend, Mike Wazowski. Top scarer Sulley and his enthusiastic Scare Assistant Mike work at Monsters, Inc., the largest scream-processing factory in Monstropolis. The main power source of the monster world is the collected screams of human children. Monsters believe children are dangerous and toxic, however, and they are scared silly when a little girl wanders into their world. Sulley and Mike do their best to return the girl home, but they face monstrous intrigue and some hilarious misadventures along the way. MONSTERS, INC., is "supremely clever -- fun for kids and adults alike" (CBS-TV). Treat yourself to the most entertaining movie of the year with all-new exclusive bonus features and animation for monster laughs and monster fun. ... Read more

Reviews (749)

Destined to be a classic.
My title may sound a tad cliche, but I believe it. The guys at Pixar understand the mind of children - because they still haven't grown up! That's why Monsters, Inc. is the perfect balance of children's entertainment and adult sophistication. I love it when a studio produces movies that kids love, but at the same time are able to add a level of maturity and sophistication that adults appreciate - without sexual innuendo or appealing to the lowest-common denominator. (i.e. several instances in the movie, Shrek)

The animation is simply incredible; the characters are compelling and hilarious; Boo is worth the price of TWO admissions; the plot and backstory are completely ingenious.

Buy this movie. Enjoy it. Enjoy Disc 2. (Tons of extras - including "Mike's New Car" and another Pixar short entitled "For the Birds" -- PLUS, clips from the Monsters, Inc. office musical production "Put that thing back where it came from or so help me..." !!) With the possible exception of Toy Story 2, one COULD argue that this is the (or at least ONE of the) greatest animated movies ever made.

Sorry if I'm gushing too much. I love this movie. My kids love this movie. It's just plain, good, old-fashinoned FUN.

"MONSTERS, INC." will scare up a treat for audiences
Delightful, uproarious, fun, hilarious, cute and cuddly, jovial... Just a few of the numerous "happy" adjectives you could pin on Pixar's latest pixilated masterpiece "Monsters, Inc." Pixar once again proves itself Disney's most valuable asset with their knack for original stories and often witty and clever humor.

John Goodman and Billy Crystal provide their trademark voices for Sully, the big blue furry monster, and Mike, the cycloptic short green monster as they scare up kids' screams which are converted to energy to power the televisions and alarm clocks of the monster metropolis. (Seems very allegorical of the California power outages this past summer, no?) Conflict brews when Randall, the gecko-like monster, gets greedy and wants to become the top "scarer" by exploiting the screams of the innocent human child, yet show-stealing cute, Boo. While kids might get lost in the action of the movie, the CGI effects and clever Laurel and Hardy-esque slapstick of Sully and Mike (or Lenny and George, which ever way you want to look at it) will have the kiddies captivated from beginning to end.

While Dreamwork's box office baby "Shrek" may have just as good edgy, clever humor and depth, Pixar is far from being out of the running. Keep in mind, Pixar is already a veteran with "Toy Story 1 & 2" (with a third on the way), and "A Bug's Life". There's no doubt in my mind that Pixar and Dreamwork's will be at the helm of the fully computer animated feature for years to come. May the best company win!

For the time being, strap yourself in for the first in some great holiday flicks coming to the silver screen near you! "Monsters, Inc." is already off and running to box office gold, and is a wholly satisfying and entertaining movie for kids, parents, and "Average Joe" movie critics alike.

A big Kid at Heart
I was in the library with my niece and she grabbed this DVD. How can you say no to someone with the most adorable eyes. So I checked out the DVD, we went home and had a wonderful, wonderful time. This is the kind of movie you can appreciate no matter how young or old you are. James P Sullivan (voiced by John Goodman), and Mike Wazowski (voiced by Billy Crystal) are monsters who work for Monsters Inc. Sulley is the best at getting his fair share of scares, but he has some competition in Randall who wants to be the top scare monster. The more screams collected, the more energy for Montropolis. The monsters are led to believe that if a child enters their "world" they will be contaminated and everything could be destroyed. The real fun part starts when this adorable human child named Marry (Boo buy Sulley) sneaks into Montropolis by accident. The kids are scared of the monsters, and the monsters are terrifiedof the kids. Sully and Mike try to get Boo back to her world, but she won't leave. Turns out Randall is her scary monster. Also turns out that Randal has a plan up his sleeve to extract screams that could put the other monsters out of work. It's up to Sully and Mike to save Montroplis and Monsters Inc. This is a fun, entertaining film that will leave with a happy, happy feeling when it's all over. Steve Bucemis I the voice for Randal Boggs, and other notable actors are James Coburn, and Jennifer Tilly (who has the perfect voice for animation, she should do more of it!!!) and Bonnie Hunt.

This is an adorable movie. One I will watch again, with or without my niece.

More Family Magic from Pixar! Great DVD Extras!
"Monster's, Inc." combines a fantastic cast, cutting edge imagination, and a tender storyline into a wonderful, delightful family film . . . it may even cure the nighttime frights of your wee ones!

Most of us were scared stiff at some point in our childhood by the spooky, imaginary "monsters in the closet," usually after we've read "Where the Wild Things Are" for the first time. "Monsters, Inc." plays on that near-universal fear by creating a rational explanation -- monsters live in a parallel universe, connected to ours by closet doors, and they power their land by the energy contained in human screams. Makes perfect sense!

Sulley (the hilarious John Goodman) is a celebrity in Monstropolis as the leading scare-getter for Monster's, Inc. Sulley is generally a lovable big blue yeti-bear-creature, but he can be quite terrifying. Blissfully unaware of the terror he unleashes, he enjoys his job. Basking in Sulley's reflected glory is his sidekick and assistant, Mike Waznowski (Billy Crystal, perfect as ever). Mike is a lime-green-yellow glob with one giant eye and an even larger mouth. He helps Sulley get the screams and stay one step ahead of the competition.

And the competition is fierce. The dragon-chameleon Boggs (Steve Buscemi, suitably creepy without being too scary for the kids) is right on Sulley's heels to be the scream champion, and he's willing to go to any lengths to beat his nemesis.

All is well in Monstropolis until Boo, a human child, accidentally finds her way through the closet and into Monstropolis. It seems that as scared as kids are of monsters, the monsters are equally scared of the kids -- their touch (allegedly) brings death and ruin. (This misunderstanding leads to great comic scenes as X-Files-type HAZMAT crews invade every time there's a kid sighting, usually to the woe of the monster who has seemingly been infected by the kid!)

Like all Pixar films, the glories are in the details. Check out the gentle satire of Hollywood celebrity culture, of mindless bureaucracy, and the perils of romance in the office. The animation is also wonderful -- Pixar continues to evolve with every picture. For example, Sulley's fuzzy hair is fully articulated as he zooms through various escapades.

The story is fast-paced, with enough jokes to keep the adults laughing . . . which is good, 'cause your kids will likely keep throwing this into the DVD player.

Speaking of the DVD -- there are lots of fun extras on this two-disc set. Personal favorites include the fake "outtakes," similar to those at the end of "A Bug's Life," a short film featuring Mike showing Sulley his new hi-tech car (with hilarious consequences), and an Oscar-winning short film, "For the Birds," which shows how funny animation can be, even in short doses. There are additional extras that will keep the kiddies occupied for hours.

All in all, a must for the family's DVD library.

100% Kid Friendly
There aren't many movies that can be seen over and over and over again and still be enjoyed so much. My little sister is addicted to Monsters, Inc. Instead of having to look under the bed to make sure there are no monsters there, she wishes and hopes that when the closet door is opened, Scully will be in there waiting to "scare" her. She was Boo for Halloween last year and requested a Little Mikey stuffed animal for her birthday. Basically, she can not get enough of anything to do with Monsters, Inc.

OK, I admit it. I'm hooked on Monsters, Inc. too. After seeing it thirty plus times with the little one, I still find myself actually watching it and laughing out loud. What a great movie with lovable characters.

Monsters, Inc. is a 100% kid friendly movie that adults will enjoy as well. ... Read more

Reviews (212)

Best Space Fantasy Adventure of all Time¿AFI's Top 100
'Stars Wars: Return of the Jedi, Episode VI' is one of the best of all the episodes of the trilogy ('Star Wars: A New Hope, Episode IV' and 'The Empire Strikes Back, Episode V'). Besides all the excitement and energy, special effect galore-you find out the secrets behind the mysterious legacy of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) and Princess Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher). The romance between Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Princess Leia is subtle without all the sex appeal. The confrontation between Luke and his father, Darth Vader (Anakin Skywalker) and the final battle of the Rebellion vs. The Evil Empire is just some of great climatic moments, plus those cute teddy bear-like Ewoks (Do I sense Lucas merchandising here?). When I attended the first prequel I was disappointed over the story plot. The only thing that made it hold together was the special effects. So I'll stick with the original trilogy. At least it has Han Solo and Chewbacca. A perfect additional to the video is the great Soundtrack by John Williams. I miss the jivey song-and-dance number to the Jabba the Hut lair scenes. An original 1983 version of the Soundtrack album I recall that had the track from the film. It was titled "Lapti Nek." But I did find it on a reissue of 'Stars Wars Trilogy: The Original Soundtrack (Box Set)' with all the original tracks including the Cantina Band and the Ewok celebration songs. I'd also like to mention that there is more humor in the original films than the prequels. It has the best overall story plot.

The prequels are just overpriced productions with a very weak story and dialogue. I'm not sure in the case of Lucas further venture into creating the origins of Obi-Wan Kenobi (One seems to appreciate the much older, wiser and the good side of "the force" Jedi Knight as played by late actor, Alec Guinness), how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader and the parents of the future Luke and Leia. Lately, Lucas seems to be trying to appeal to a broader audience other than focusing on a great story. Nothing can beat the original trilogy story by a stretch. I had alot of great memories about Stars Wars when it first started in 1977. It's become a American culture phenomenon commerically. It's something that everyone will remember and hand down their character, music and book collections to their kids. Yes, I'll say it I saw each one more than 10 times. Shame on me :)! The first book to come out after the first 'Star Wars: A New Hope' movie was Alan Dean Foster's Star Wars Novel "Splinter of the Mind's Eye." It's about the further adventures of Luke & Leia. There has even been spoofs in hiliarious tribute to this like 'Hardware Wars' and 'George Lucas in Love.' This is one of my top 5 desert island films. It's just one movie that will never grow old. It's just as entertaining as it was before. "The Force" is definitely with this for it to be one of the top 100 movies of all time named by the American Film Institute (AFI). That says alot. May the Force Be with You Always!

A Sweeping Epic, Grandiose In Scale
Return Of The Jedi is the final installment in the amazing masterpiece trilogy: Star Wars, and is one of the best in the trilogy. It perfectly interweaves emotion, action, and romance in this epic masterpiece which finishes one of the greatest movie trilogies of all times.

The Galactic Empire has begun construction on a new Death Star which is even more powerful than the first Death Star, and meanwhile, Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Lando Calrissian, Chewbacca, R2D2, and C3PO are attempting to rescue Han Solo from the evil clutches of Jabba The Hutt. After they rescue Han, they plan for the destruction of the new Death Star and find out that the Emperor is personally overseeing the final stages of the construction of the new Death Star. Han, Luke, Leia, 3PO, R2, and a group of rebel commandos must disable the Shield Generator on the orbiting moon of Endor to allow rebel fighter pilots to fly into the Death Star and destroy the main reactor. While the battle rages on, Luke must face his own destiny and confront Darth Vader in a battle to the death which may spell certain doom for the Rebel Alliance and their cause to restore freedom to the galaxy.

The entire movie shines with an epic look whether its a space battle, a sail barge assault above the jaws of a hungry Sarlacc, a Speeder Bike chase through the redwood forests of Endor, or a lightsaber duel between Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker. The emotions involved between Luke Skywalker and the truth about his past grip the audience in the same way that Luke feels, and suspend them above the fate of the Rebel Alliance. Han and Leia's feelings for each other are more developed in this movie, and really tie up loose ends that were left from The Empire Strikes Back. The entire movie actually ties up loose ends and is kind of the resolution point for the Star Wars trilogy. This movie is definitely the best in the trilogy, and worth buying. It is not a disappointment, but one of the greatest movies of all times.

Give Me a Break
Greatest Movie Ever. The "Special Editions" ruined it. Too many great moments to even begin. Love or hate it, if you haven't seen this turning point in film history, you are either uninformed or living in the past. It is more amazing than Wizard of Oz anr Return of the King put together.

The Empire Falls. . .
"So be it. . . Jedi."
- The Emperor

With Return of the Jedi, the space opera saga/cultural phenomenon that began with Star Wars in 1977 and continued with The Empire Strikes Back in 1980, comes to a close.

This perhaps the most difficult film to categorize as far as quality and living tup to expectations. Executive Producer Gary Kurtz parted ways with Lucas after Empire, and Jedi would have been a different film in many respects had he and his ideas stayed put. However, Lucas wanted certain things and would not buge, and what the viewer gets is a climactic and spectacular, if somewhat unfocused, conclusion to one of the most beloved film trilogies of all time.

Luke Skywalker, an older and wiser man for his defeat at Cloud City, attempts a daring rescue mission in the seedy lair of the gangster Jabba the Hutt, a mission to free Han Solo who is being kept as a showroom piece by the ruffian slug. This premise gives birth to the first in a string of incredible action set pieces ranging from monster pits to desert oceans to the blackness of space to the luch forrests of the forrest moon of Endor.

Moving the action along, the plot is more daring even than that of the first movie. The Rebel Alliance, having learned of a new, more powerful Death Star, prepare to mount a final resistance against the station in the hopes of ending the war with one swift stroke. To help accomplish this, Luke, Han, and Leia must deactivate the generator that keeps the Death Star shielded.

However, this won't even be as easy as it sounds. Luke no knows that Darth Vader is his father, and he must confront him if he is to become a fully-fledged Jedi Knight. Han and Leia are caught by a legion of Imperials and must fight a fierce geurilla battle with the help of some unexpected (and sickeningly cute) allies. The Repel fleet is caught between a rock and a hard place - literally - and must contend with both the might of the Imperial Navy and the destructive power of the Death Star while our heroes race to accomplish their mission and restore freedom to the galaxy.

There are parts of Jedi where it really shows that George was going this one alone, particularly the inclusion of the Ewoks (cute, furry, evil Teddy Bears of DOOM), but even with a few marketing concessions and a bold narrative, Jedi still manages to do a LOT of things right. Luke is a more confident character, taking charge of the movie and making you care about him more than ever before as he battles Vader, the Emporer, and the Dark Side. Han and Leia, though not as prominent in Jedi as they were in Empire, are still a joy to watch, particularly in the case of their sometimes-bumbling relationship. Even Lando is given a good deal more screen time, and more importance. Though the characters seem driven by the plot rather than the other way around, this is really the only way the concluding chaper ot the Star Wars Saga could have played out.

As for the Special Edition of Jedi, it is perhaps the most despised of the three. In addition to the requisite digital additions, Lucas added in an entirely new ending sequence of galtactic (literally) proportions to play along with the Ewok celebration after the battle, going so far as to include all new music. Sure, it's still nice, but why mess with something when it's so good?

Either way, this is still a darn good version of a darn good movie, and one that had a hefty bill to fill coming out of the gates. No movie collection is complete without the Star Wars Trilogy, and the trilogy isn't complete without Return of the Jedi. And hoestly, it's really such a FUN movie that it shouldn't be any other way.

If you don't have this, buy, it, or, even better, wait for the DVD release later this year. Either way, the Force will be with you, always.

Return of the Jedi or
King wins! Jedi is not as big a movie as return of the King.11 oscars.WON EVERY ONE FOR KINGUM!!!! Nobody wants to award Lukey.
Luke is back again trying to save his buddies from the fat,massive blob called Jabba. da pizza hut.Thats how he got so obese.eating pizza. The young Jedi fights well and fufills his destiny.but Apoohy is still waiting to get him.WHAT? Yoda is mean and says he has to kill his old man daddy o so justice can be served in the galaxy!!! Then he dies. good riddance. Lukey is the only jedi.Boba falls in the slimy "Pit of Despair"(Ya know,Like the Westley guy that gets tortured)except the princess Leia likes the smuggler. does that Boba kid make it out alive?
After Han solo is unfrozen and back to his happy,smuggy smiley self it;s time to blow up another Death Star.(Palpatine doesn't have many ideas for scary space horror ships.When he was a kid he probably was scared of stars.)So Chewi starts the trouble getting hungry.Oh by they are on Endor trying to destroy the shield of the death star(badly gaurded it looks...hmmm.)But walk into trap they do by Empire...hmmm after almost being killed by Teddy Bears almost.Luke does his Jedi stuff and then everybodies happy.Except when the Rebels get stubidly tricked into being prisoners of mean officers who call them scum.But the teddy bears who led them into it are still at large and the only hope for the rebels(is there any hope Gandalf? For the rebels?)(there never was much hope in teddies.)Luke meanwhile has gotten brainwashed by Yody and Ken-Obi.So he thinks he shouldn't kill Vader or Palpatine for the wrong reasons.But he still has to kill em.They mix him up.Then Poohy has a lightsaber right in front of him.Don't give in to hate Lukey must not.Lando is face to face with a huge fleet of desroyers.Will he blast the death star?Will darth Vader become what he was born to be? A GOOD JEDI? Will lukey take up the saber of the jedi or throw it away? The succsess might depend on one little Ewok somewhare in the wilderness......I hope you also watch Return of the King,because I think Star Wars took the end plot from Tolkien.I still love em! Everybody goes home happy!! But not a thinker end like Lordies.Just more weird how Leia doesn't care her dad is dead.Bye.AAPOOOOOHY!!! ... Read more

Reviews (195)

Here Come THE JETS!
WEST SIDE STORY remains unique...to the point of astounding...in status among most accomplished classics in cinema history. Legendary director Robert Wise[whose eclectic mastery of film ranges from "lost" mythology epic, HELEN OF TROY to sci-fi milestones-THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL and STAR TREK:The Movie]perfectly renders a film of passion;tragedy;humor and ultimate celebration of youthful humanity. Leonard Bernstein's score is peerless Americana: classic ART and popular entertainment.Jerome Robbins'choreography is electrifying;Steven Sondheim's "libretto lyrics" are ensconded in popular music immortality.

West Side Story's ensemble cast is likewise peerless.
Natalie Wood is superb as American JULIET, Maria. Richard Beymer's Tony/Romeo charcterization wonderfuly combines heroic "tough guy" with star-crossed lover. George Chakris(Bernardo)and Russ Tamblyn (Riff)jive; fight and dance their rival gangs into legend. My favorite is Rita Moreno.Her performance as earth mother/eternal woman figure, ANITA is remarkable. Her ferocious sexual brio;lioness-Queen humor("if you can fight in/for AMERICA!");home girl insouciance, and passionate GRACE are archetypal.WEST SIDE STORY thematically equals--if not surpasses--its SHAKESPEAREAN progenitor.It is America's SOUND OF MUSIC.The ten Academy Awards could be justly re-awarded.

[When I learned "my" homies back in Massachusetts'Pelham Regional High School...citadel/incubator of so-called 5-college professoriate and University of Mass'PC satrapy centered in Amherst...BANNED WEST SIDE STORY as Racist(this year the school is featuring VAGINA MONOLOGUES)I wondered: "WHERE ARE THE JETS when you need them?"]...

Certainly WSS was never conceived--as Mel Gibsons's THE PASSION OF CHRIST--to stir Culture War and rally believers. WEST SIDE STORY is,"unsimply",American film making at its finest and cinema art of world class caliber. It is movie ICON,which,as The JETS challenge, remains at-the-ready: "to beat every last f.....'gang on the whole f.....'street!"(10 Stars)

powerful,realistic , the finest musical drama I have seen
This ia a very intense, fast moving story in which many of the scenes easily could have happened in real life in New York at that time.

The quality of the music and lyrics blends beautifully with the action, and the choreographed dances are breathtaking.The actors fit their parts to such perfection that I could not imagine anyone else than Natalie Wood playing Maria, or George Chakiris as Bernardo, and on and on for the rest of the Jets and Sharks. My favorite musicals are those from 1950-1970 and of all the great ones like Oklahoma, South Pacific, and the Sound of Music, West Side Story impresses me as the most exciting dramatic musical of all time. It is hard to find a boring moment in this movie. When I think about this movie, the ballet numbers, choreography, and excitement stand out the most in my mind. For a fast moving drama this is a classic against which to compare other musical drama. Who would have thought that a mere conflict between two gangs could have been portrayed into such a dynamic movie. The producers certainly succeeded in bringing up to date the Romeo and Juliet saga. The romance and tragedy of Tony and Maria will always be indelibly impressed in my mind.

Magnificent adaptation of Romeo & Juliet!
Robert Wise made his masterpiece with this film mixing the essential spirit of the shakesperian mood , recreating it in the modern times as a racial conflict.
Wise mixed the drama with a credible plot . The coreography is towering and the music ( Oh what kind of inspiration was in the mind of Leonard Bernstein , acquire buy also the soundtrack; Maria became a classic ), Rita Moreno won a deserved Academy Award and this became a personal triumph for Natalie Wood one of the most beautiful faces ever seen in the cinema story .
The sequence fights between the bunchs is perfect articulated , there is a fine balance between drama and music.
Enjoyable film and of course for all a generation of teenagers in that age , who actaully are grandparents , still remember with nosthalgie that unforgettable jewel picture .

The Best Musical
West Side Story is one of my favorite musicals. The music and the choreography is incredible. Natalie Wood and Richard Beymer make a perfect Maria and Tony. Now that it is on the 2 Disc Special Limited Edition, it is even better. You can have the original intermission music if you wish and there is a great documentary called West Side Memories which shows how this amazing musical was made. Along with the special edition you get a book that contains the original screenplay, a timeline of the show from when the idea was first thought of and to when it came to the screen, a pamphlet you could of bought in the theaters when it first opened in 1961, and newspaper clippings of what critics thought of the show. Even if you didn't get the special edition this show is still worth owning. The songs are incredible. My favorites are "Maria", "America", and "I Feel So Pretty" which a ninety minute instrumental version is used for the intermission.

Best movie Ever
This movie is a must anyone who loves musicals, it's a total classic. If you thought you knew a lot about the movie, think again, because with all the extra fetures will provide you with more knowledge that you than think about.

The movie has definatley got some of the best dance seguences ever made for a musical. ... Read more

Reviews (223)

The Citizen Kane of musicals
So many films in my collection are "important", "serious", "disturbing", or "great", and as much as I treasure them (films like Citizen Kane, Vertigo, and Ran), there is only so much self-importance a person can take before the pores fairly scream out for something just plain fun; something slight, buoyant, silly, and full of energy. Singin' in the Rain is just that kind of movie. The funny part is, I generally HATE musicals!

In 1951, Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen took a collection of songs by Arthur Freed and Nacio Herb Brown and - assisted by a pitch-perfect screenplay from the writing team of Adolph Green and Betty Comden - sculpted one of the great classic fusions of popular cinematic art and precision dance craft. It is the Citizen Kane of musicals: a virtual catalog of musical film technique, executed flawlessly.

But that alone would not be enough to separate Singin' in the Rain from the kind of musical I can't stand (which is to say, just about every other musical ever made). No, what makes this one special is that it knows what it is and celebrates it. It never for a moment asks you to forget you're watching a movie and then grinds to a screeching halt for the musical number. Instead, it deconstructs itself before your very eyes (and ears) as a razor-sharp, self-aware satire of the movie industry - as well as a joyous expression of the pure ecstasy of great song and dance. In that sense, it is one of the few so-called musicals that actually achieves a genuine symbiosis of drama, music, and kinetic performance art.

If all this sounds rather gushing and pretentious, so be it. This is great film-making. It is Rolex Oyster Perpetual film-making. This DVD edition sparkles with ultra-saturated colors, digitally remixed Dolby 5.1 sound, and some terrific extras (even if you're not particularly into musicals).

My favorite sequence is the eerily fluid dance work between Gene Kelly and Cyd Charisse against a Dali-esque background near the end of the film. Charisse is spellbinding as she trails a gravity-defying veil that must be 30 feet long. It hangs in the air, suspended by wind machines as she uses her extraordinary dance skill (and fantastic legs) to affect a wordless seduction of Kelly's naive, love-struck hero. Great stuff.

Even if you don't think of yourself as the "musical type", give Singin' in the Rain a try. After all that heavy, bitter, existential cinema, it makes one helluva fine dessert.

THE GREAT AMERICAN MUSICAL
Once upon a time there was a place called HOLLYWOOD. It wasn't just a town or even an industry, it was a state of mind. They didn't call the studios Dream Factories for nothing. This film is the epitome of the musical art and craft. This is a real "Movie Movie," made entirely on the MGM lot. The real creme de la creme of MGM contributed to it's creation; produced by Arthur Freed, starring Gene Kelly (with a brilliant turn by the dazzling ,long-legged Cyd Charisse), contract players like Debbie Reynolds and Kathleen Freeman (still going strong, currently appearing on Broadway in "The Full Monty") with costumes by my favorite designer Walter Plunkett (Gone With The Wind, 7 Brides For 7 Brothers, etc). Check out the sumptuous designs for the "Beautiful Girls" number and the outrageous spider dress at the opening night party. The real lowdown is that Jean Hagen and Donald O'Connor practically steal the show from the leads in possibly the best performances of their careers. This film is pure joy. The script by Comden and Green is not only clever but actually goofs on a real period of transition of the American film from silent to talkie.It is also a brilliant job of recycling a trunkload of old songs. This happy film has the courage to do what American musicals and comedies do best: be silly and make you forget you troubles for an hour and a half. Next time you are in bed with the flu or trying to get over a miserable love affair, take a look at Singing In The Rain. It can't help but curl up the corners of your mouth and drive the clouds away.

Wonderful Musical with Terrific Dancing -- a Trifle Dated
"Singin' in the Rain" is the definitive Hollywood musical, and charms and delights our 21st century audiences despite the (very few) characteristics of the genre that don't hold up quite so well.

There are so many high points to this movie -- the amazing cast, the songs, the choreography, and, most surprisingly, the satirical send-up of Hollywood and the "star system."

The plot is well-known. Silent film star couple, Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly, who also co-directed with Stanley Donen) and Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen) are America's sweethearts. At a Hollywood premiere of their latest romance, breathless fans ignore sidekick Cosmo Brown (Donald O'Connor, in perhaps the best sidekick performance in film history) and scream in delight as Lockwood and Lamont pander to their adoration. Nobody, however, seems to notice that the gorgeous Lamont never speaks . . .

Her imposed silence Lamont has a voice that recalls a cat with its tail caught in a wringer, although Lamont is such a "dumb blonde" (bless Hagen -- nobody ever played this stereotype better!) that she is blissfully unaware of her screech. No matter, 'cause it's the silent film era, right? Wrong! Progress brings in "The Jazz Singer" and the era of "talkies." No longer will clever staging of press events suffice.

Soon, Don Lockwood is staring career meltdown in the face as the first Lockwood-Lamont "talkie" sends the audience into hysterics. Not only is Lamont's screech audibly offensive, they can't keep the sound synchronized to the film, and the sound editing even when in synch is as amateurish as a high-school film production.

What to do? Fortunately, Lockwood had fallen for young, beautiful Kathy Selden (a teenage Debbie Reynolds), a starlet in the making. Cosmo comes up with the idea of dubbing Selden's voice for Lamont's, and all is fixed . . . or not. Lamont, an imbecile but smart enough to know her value, insists on ruining Selden's career to preserve her own . . . and so on and so forth.

The plot, ingenious as it is, is really secondary. The main delight in this movie is the amazing dancin' and singin' that the performers offer up. While most of it is pretty silly, campy stuff (particularly the Kelly-O'Connor set pieces), they simply dazzle. Kelly is the most robust, athletic dancer of his generation, and O'Connor, well, the man doesn't have a bone in his body. While the movie's most famous scene comes from Kelly splashing in puddles during the title track, the most amazing dance number has to be O'Connor's comic flailings in "Make 'Em Laugh," where he runs up walls, flirts with a mannequin, and generally pulls out all stops.

Debbie Reynolds does a magnificent job keeping up with these two giants, and is generally a pleasure to watch, even though she's clearly outclassed as a hoofer.

While some great old films seem to get better with age (think "Casablanca," "Gone With the Wind," and "Citizen Kane"), "Singin' in the Rain" is an American classic that does not hold up quite so well in some minor respects. For example, when breaking into choreographed step, Kelly, O'Connor, and Reynolds sometimes appear too rigid, with smiles frozen on their faces, which is incongruous to those raised on more modern musicals like "Moulin Rouge," where the dancers take a more naturalistic, emotional approach to their dancing. The dancing in "Singin'" holds up, but the performers were constrained by the expectations of their audiences, which somehow demanded that the performers "look pleasant" while dancing.

Still, "Singin' in the Rain" remains one of the best tonics to a foul mood ever . . . I defy you to watch this movie and not feel a smile creeping over your face.

The Best Musical Comedy Ever Produced!
I fell in love with this film when I was seven years old; I watched it on a B&W television on "The Early Show" in NY (circa 1957 or 1958). I didn't know who any of the stars were - it didn't matter. It was magic to me. From the Hollywood opening (dignity, always dignity), the romp of the elocution lessons (Moses supposes his toes are roses!), and the trial and mostly error of trying to record the sound ("I can't make love to a BUSH!") when the gorgeous leading lady has a voice that rivals nails on a blackboard, all the way to the grown man dancing in the rain and the final rising curtain - pure magic. In glorious black and white - at the time, I didn't even know it HAD colour! I decided then and there, this was my absolute all-time favourite movie. (One of the highlights of my adult life was seeing this wonder on a full, big screen at a revival in the 1970s.) I have seen many films since then; I have reviewed them for friends & family, written reviews for a monthly entertainment publication. I have an extensive collection of my own (VHS & DVD). I know a lot more about films and production values now.

"Singin'in the Rain" remains my all-time favourite film. (No surprise, this.) It's not just another one of "those MGM musicals." It was released in 1952. Dated stuff? Not a bit. Unlike the marvelous "An American in Paris," which was done as a contemporary film to its time, "Singin' in the Rain" is a period film, and it's based in fact.

This film (which started out to be a western for Howard Keel) takes a fond and loving look at the birthpains of the sound film (the "talkies). Set in 1927, with authentic equipment from MGM's own history (Debbie Reynolds drives Andy Hardy's old jalopy, the microphones are real), it details the frantic efforts to get on the sound bandwagon - no one was completely sure of the new technology. What makes the plot classic is the basis in fact. Many silent stars had totally unacceptable voices or speech (too nasal, unintelligible foreign accents, too high, too low, etc.) for sound production. The songs used were true to the period.

Then we have the performers. Jean Hagen was nominated for an Academy Award for her role of Lina Lamont. The character (whose voice you don't hear for the first 10+ minutes of the film, although she's on-screen) is a one-of-a-kind. [Side note: the voice dubbing Lina's line is actually Hagen's normal voice, not that of Debbie Reynold's Kathy Selden.] Reynolds does an admirable job - it couldn't have been easy keeping up with her two male co-stars. It's still a joy to see Donald O'Connor's "Make 'em Laugh," and wonderful to see Gene Kelly teamed with a good male partner for "Fit as a Fiddle" and "Moses". Gene Kelly is, and always shall be, the best and this was done at his peak.

Of course, for anyone who has been living in the back of a cave under a rock (or too young to appreciate it), the title number is a delight. It looks like one continuous take, it is so smooth. This was not the first appearance of the song, but it's the one we all remember. The sheer exuberance of Kelly's performance carries us right along with him.

The extras with this set are valued items for anyone like me who is interested in the backstory of the era and this film in particular. And don't fuss for a widescreen version. This is the way it was. And now it always will be.

Thoroughly entertaining musical
I have to say first of all that I am *not* at all a fan of musicals (or comedies for that matter) - I am a drama fan. I have seen a few musicals here and there over the years and tried to like them - such as 1964's "My Fair Lady" and 1961's "West Side Story." I liked both of them *somewhat,* but not too much - because I have always strongly preferred films that are realistic --> in real life, people don't burst into song when they are in one particular circumstance or another. Yet, I couldn't help enjoying myself with a smile on my face as I watched this film that landed so high (#10) on AFI's list of the top 100 American films of all time. Donald O'Connor, in particular, as Cosmo, was so perfectly cast in his role. The film was at times hilarious and at times wonderfully romantic. I definitely would recommend everyone to try this film out. B+. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Book vs. Movie
If anyone has read the book series than you will know that they are better than the movies. I personally like the book series better because they for one go into a lot more detail and they have better storie lines.Even though i am very excited about the new movie comming out, I wish they would have made the first and second movies related to the books.

I really do like the movies, but if you have read the book series than the movies are not as good. I am so excited to find out who Mia marrys in the second princess diaries movie! I wish too that the movie would have come out in movie theaters so then we could have seen the movie sooner!

Just different
Although I am an avid follower of the books, I realize that movies when adapted from books are often quite different. So then the question is the movie still enjoyable? While I was saddened by some of the changes in the first movie, it was still very entertaining. I think that this second movie, though now almost entirely different from the books, looks like it too will be entertaining. And I have to say that the Prince Nicholas guy looks more like what I imagined Michael to look. I was not impressed with the Michael from the first movie. He was really not like the character in the book, so I feel no loss at his removal from the second movie. My advice, enjoy the movie for what it is rather than moment by moment comparison to the books.

not as bad as you might think
When I had heard that there was going to ba a sequel, I was excited. I saw a six minute preview, and yes, she is 21. The story line is this: her grandmother is going to abdicate from the throne. Mia will become the queen, but she must marry within 30 days. There is a big hassle to find the right man, and it is down to two guys.I like the fact that they use the same people for the same characters, like Lilly and Joseph. And though other people might think otherwise, I think that this movie will be entertaining, though I agree that the plot does make the first movie pointless.

Look things up folks!
This movie is not strictly set with the books. It is basically a continuation of the 1st movie with a catch.

Other sources I have seen mention that Mia is 21 not 15. A college graduate to boot! Michael would have been a great catch for her except that he was older and graduated high school before she did.

I refuse to give movie spoilers.

No Michael, No movie
I think anyone who has read all 5 of the book series would agree with me that this movie is a waiste of time unless michael and mia are together. If this movie is about her finding another guy to MARRY, then why did they have michael and mia together in the first place? I am not interested in this movie at all, and it is a big dissapointment if you read the books, although the books are 10 times greater than the movies anyways. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Made two years afterCitizen Kane, this 1943 version of Charlotte Brontë'sJane Eyre sure looks like star Orson Welles muscled his way behind the camera much of the time. (In fact, costar Joan Fontaine--who plays the title character--has maintained that Welles methodically did just that every day on the set.) Not that the film's official director was a hack: Robert Stevenson, who later had a busy career at Disney making numerous live-action hits for the studio, such asMary Poppins, gets the credit. But there's no mistaking Welles's masterful hand in the film's bold and creative look, and there's no getting away from his enigmatic charisma as Rochester, the widower who takes in Jane as a governess to his daughter. An engrossing, gorgeous film, there's even a small role for Elizabeth Taylor at the beginning as Jane's unlucky, doomed friend at a cruel boarding school.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (40)

Dark Romance
Joan Fontaine stars as Charlotte Bronte's title character, a governess who began her life as an unloved orphan, raised at a brutal school, now living on an estate run by the mysterious Orson Welles. Lots of things go bump in the night at Thornfield, one of the many strange things about her new home. Welles dominates the film, with a forceful, blunt performance as Rochester, the man with the terrible past. Fontaine is subdued and quietly strong as Jane. The rest of the cast don't get much of a chance to shine with Welles in the film, although Peggy Ann Garner as the young Jane is quite memorable. The look of the film is often amazing. Dark shadows and fog are used to great effect, and there is an unreal quality to it all that matches the story well. When I read the novel in university, I enjoyed it for all of its gothic touches and mysterious tone. Although the film does not follow the novel's storyline exactly, it does maintain that Gothic feel. This film is yet another example why black and white filmmaking can be so effective.

Love is a mystery
Charlotte Bronte's story of an unwanted orphan child growing up in a cold strict school for orphans in 17th century England is beautifully told in the 1943 motion picture Jane Eyre, directed by Robert Stevenson and released by twentieth century fox this grossly under rated movie starting Orson Wells as the dark mysterious Edward Rochester, Joan Fontaine as the plain adult Jane Eyre who becomes a governess for Mr. Rochester's charge Adele. This movie is for anyone who fells like true love is a lost cause, which has had a bad childhood and thinks no one could ever love him or her.
Peggy Ann Garner plays the young Jane Eyre, who was not wanted by her late uncle's wife and children after the lost of her parents. She had never had a friend or family. While she was at the school she met Helen who was played by no other then twelve year old Elizabeth Taylor.
This movie makes you feel for Jane on a personal level. Mr. Rochester and Jane falls in love, but they both had troubled past. Jane had issues with her Aunt. Mr. Rochester has is own in demons in the attic. Jane being heart broken left the old Mysterious English Manor to face her past. When she received word that a tragedy has stricken the Rochester manor.

Good 1940's movie but laughable adaptation of the book
Of all the cinematic Rochesters I've seen, Orson Welles most closely resembles him. But that's where the similarity between the book and this movie end: Welles' performance is a string of screaming fits, nothing like the multi-faceted character of the book.

Joan Fontaine is completely wrong for the part; she's absolutely gorgeous. She makes up for this fact by keeping her head down and shoulder's hunched forward, so we all know that she's plain and humble. Sorry Joan! It doesn't work! You still look gorgeous and completely wrong for the part. Furthermore, Jane wasn't beaten down psychologically, as she is portrayed in this film; considering all of her negative circumstances, she should have been, but she was always able to maintain her steely self-respect. Joan Fontain looks absolutely crushed throughout the entire movie.

The relationship between the two main characters consists, then, of Orson screaming at Joan and Joan hunching down -- not exactly romantic chemistry and nothing like the book which depicts one of the most romantic stories of literature.

I can understand the problem screenwriters have shortening a story for a screen adaptation, but this one really takes the cake: Jane is about to go back to Lowood School, of all places, when she hears Rochester calling her back to Thornfield; instead of almost making a choice to marry St. John Rivers, she almost decides to work for Mr. Brocklehurst again. Huh?

All that being said, a 40's movie is a 40's movie. If you like movies from that time period (and if you can forget about the book for a few hours), there are some very interesting and enjoyable aspects to this; it's a quality film. But if you love the book, I would recommend re-reading it instead of watching this.

Hauntingly Beautiful!
This video was the first black and white movie I had ever seen (with the exception of Lon Chaney's "The Phantom of the Opera," and Mexican Cinema star Cantinflas from the 40's). After watching this movie I became a weird teenager who was all into black and white movies.

This movie is missing some important stuff from Bronte's novel, but it is still a spectacular film with a plain but pretty Joan Fontaine and an intimidating tall dark and handsome Orson Welles. The whole plot makes the story perfect for the effects of black and white film. I've seen newer color versions and I must say that none of them come even close to this one.

I have no idea why in the world this movie isn't out on DVD over here. I've even written to the people that make the Criterion Collection and have suggested to put this movie in with all their other good stuff. Still, I keep watching the video every two weeks. I can't get bored of this one.

WOW!
I loved this movie! The beginnig DEPREESED ME THOUGH! This is movie is 10/10! It was great,suspensful and romantic! ... Read more