Reviews (359)

Even After So Much Time Has Gone By
Only Citizen Kane was ranked higher when the American Film Institute announced its list of "America's Greatest Movies." (The Godfather, Gone with the Wind, and Lawrence of Arabia complete the top five.) My own opinion is that AFI ranked Casablanca higher than it deserves. Nonetheless, the film remains immensely popular among critics and film historians as well as so-called movie buffs. It received an Academy Award as best film in 1943, as did Michael Curtiz for directing it. Bogart and Bergman are joined by an especially strong supporting cast (notably Greenstreet, Henreid, Lorre, Rains, and Veidt). There really isn't much to the plot but the dialogue is first-rate. (Philip Epstein, Julius Epstein, and Howard W. Koch shared an Oscar for best screenplay.) It is tempting to over-analyze this film by, for example, devoting excessive attention to American versus European sensibilities during World War II, the conflict between what Rick and Ilsa want to do with what they think they ought to do, etc.

Obviously, the war in progress outside of Rick's cafe cannot be denied although he makes every effort to insulate himself and his clientele from it. There is no shortage of social and political issues and yet, in my opinion, the significance of the film -- and its enduring appeal -- is explained by the development of the relationship between Rick and Ilsa. The final resolution is necessarily somewhat ambiguous, I think, precisely because the relationship between two people in war time faces quite different challenges, obligations, and implications than it would otherwise. Ultimately, having recently seen this film again in a special edition, accompanied by an abundance of supplementary features (e.g. Roger Ebert's commentary, Lauren Bacall's Introduction, and about ten minutes of additional scenes and out takes), I think the film now has a special symbolic significance which could not have been evident when it was released in 1942. More specifically, it somehow dramatizes what so many of us also struggle with when seeking a balance of obligations to ourselves and to others as well as to certain values which sustain the human race, especially during crises which threaten its survival. Perhaps I make too much of this film but these are among the reasons why it continues to hold special meaning for me.

Rounding Up the Usual Suspects
(To the reader: This review is about the original MGM DVD release and NOT about the 2-disc edition just released.)

Casablanca!

The very name conjures up an exotic mix of adventure, intrigue, heroism, selfless sacrifice, and romance. Hear the title of this 1942 Best Picture winner and your memory will provide you with images of Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid, Dooley Wilson, Peter Lorre, and Claude Rains. Or maybe you'll hear snatches of Max Steiner's unforgettable score, with its interpolation of Herman Hupfeld's "As Time Goes By" and the stirring strains of "The Marsellaise."

Based on the stage play "Everybody Comes to Rick's" by Murray Burnett and Joan Allison, the movie tells a dramatic story of refugees fleeing from wartorn Europe and making a perilous trip to Casablanca in French Morocco. It is December 1941 and that French colony is under the control of "unoccupied France." Ostensibly neutral in World War II, Vichy France is nevertheless a German vassal state, as the arrival of Major Strasser (Conrad Veldt) clearly demonstrates.

Strasser's mission in Casablanca: to stop Czech underground leader Victor Laszlo (Henreid) from obtaining one of two exit visas stolen from two murdered German couriers and escaping from the Gestapo. Having tracked the defiant Laszlo after his escape from a Nazi concentration camp, Strasser is determined to capture the symbol of anti-Nazi resistance once and for all.

Accompanying Laszlo is the beautiful Ilsa Lund (Bergman), a young Norweigan student whom he married in secret before he was captured by the Gestapo in 1940. Devoted to her husband and his great cause, Ilsa has been at his side since Laszlo's miraculous escape and sudden reappearance in Paris.

Unbeknownst to Laszlo, however, his fate will now rest in the hands of American saloonkeeper Rick Blaine (Bogart). In the months following Victor's escape from the concentration camp he was reported as "presumed dead." In loneliness and despair, the grieving Ilsa met and fell in love with Rick in Paris shortly before the German occupation began. For a brief time the lovers were together, only to tragically part ways when news of Laszlo's return reached Ilsa.

Now, in the eve of America's entry into World War II, Victor Laszlo's fate hangs on the conflicting emotions felt by both Rick and Ilsa, as well as the shifting loyalties of French police Capt. Louis Renault (Rains).

The screenplay by Julius J. and Philip G. Epstein and Howard Koch is a wonderful mixture of romance, intrigue, drama and comedy (the latter provided both by colorful characters and witty exchanges). Director Michael Curtiz and producer Hal B. Wallis made Casablanca as one of many movies produced in 1942, never knowing that it would become a classic of Hollywood's Golden Era.

"As Time Goes By" This Is The Best Film You'll Ever See
From the first frame of "Casablanca" you know you are about to watch something special. There is not a moment in the film where you will find yourself bored or overwhelmed. It is perfect in every way. I have seen many films in my time and I am only 17. I have an extensive collection of over 180 DVDs and this is by far my most prized. I saw this film for the first time exactly one year ago and purchased this Two-Disc Special Edition the day it came out. Not a day goes by when this film does not pop into my mind.

There are many movies but very few great films. The few include Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Lawrence of Arabia, Schindler's List, The Godfather, and, of course, the rarely seen Imitation of Life. This is at the head of those. It is at the head of all films.

"Casablanca" is about Rick (Humphrey Bogart), the owner of an American bar in Morroco, who is visited by Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman), the object of a love affair in Paris a few years earlier. She is accompanied by her husband (Paul Heinreid) who knows nothing of this but is only interested in acheiving two exit visas because they are both wanted. What follows is the most romantic and thrilling film of all time.

The DVD transfer is nothing short of miraculous. The film looks like it had been filmed today in B & W. Even the mono soundtrack sounds breathtaking. The DVD does not shy away from some amazing special features. I don't want to spoil them but anyone will find them interesting. I promise you this is one of the finest DVD packages on the market.

So go out now and buy the film that recieved three Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay; the film that was called the Second Greatest Film of All Time on the AFI's 100 Best List (it's second to Citizen Kane); and also called the Most Romantic Film of All Time by the AFI's 100 Most Romantic Films.

"Play it again, Sam."

Best Gin Joint in the world!
Simply the best movie ever made.
Bogie at his best, Bergman as always splendid! Add in a wonderful supporting cast headed by Peter Lorre, and the result is the perfect bittersweet love story. A must have for any Bogart fan, and a must see for everyone!

Black & White For A Reason
Ah, kids today. "Man, it's crap if there's no color to assist my info-ladened cranium!" Get a life. It's "Casablanca", for God's sake. It NEEDS to stay in B&W format. And, might I say, this film is a cult classic for more reasons than just minimalist acting. Dialogue: Heard of it, kids? It's what actors used to do instead of blowing (...)up or flying through the air in front of a blue screen. I love my DVD of "Casablanca", and cherish the fact that I don't have to rewind a tape to get to some of my favorite quotes. ... Read more

Description

The adventure epic about a distinguished military leader whose reign was touched by scandal, betrayal and victory ... Read more

Reviews (15)

Excellent movie
I just loved this movie ever since I first saw in 1997. I thought Nathaniel Parker did an excellent job of portraying David - he made David seem very believable. I also liked the fact the film ended with great hope - the promise of the temple whereas in the 1985 movie "King David" that David seemed bitter and disillusioned at the end. I know "David" is not a perfect movie but it definitely struck an emotional chord in me. I highly recommend it.

Saul or David?
I suppose we would have to compare this video to the 1985 production of 'King David' starring Richard Gere. There is far more action in this earlier film, which brings me to the point in this review. It must have been stymied by that wretched breed: ACCOUNTANTS! a pox on them! There was far too much in the production that smacked of cost-saving, particularly the 'Goliath' scene which rendered it incomprehensible c.f. the Bible account. Now that I have that off my chest, they have redeemed themselves by employing great actors. I particulaly liked the portrayal of Saul by Jonaththan Price. They could have added another 30 mins. or so to the 1st. part and issued it separately as 'SAUL', then a 2 part series on 'DAVID'. Jonathan's effective portrayal of a man going from greatness to madness is worth the price of the video alone. Leonard Nimoy also portrays the prophet Samuel very well as a compassionate man of God who must stick to principle, no matter how much it grieves his soul. As other reviewers have stated, too much is missed out. Overall, good acting makes up for the short-fall in detail, worth buying, get the 1985 version as well!

Request for DVD
Hello iam looking for this movie on dvd but i dont find it anywere is there anywere ese that i can find it or it never came out dvd?

Please let know. Thank You!!!!

Splendid Biblical tale!!
This "David" from the Bible Collection, is a really good view, and it boasts a great deal of authentic settings and story telling. Here we see the beginnings of this story, and watch King Saul get anointed by the Prophet Samuel (Leonard Nimoy), until such time as Saul disobeys the Lord. Then we see the Prophet next anoint young David, in a moving portrayal, and ultimately he becomes the ward of the King and Jonathan, Saul's son, befriends David, and they establish a life long covenant with each other.

The video has two parts to it, and the second part deals with David's indiscretion with Bathsheba, and its consequences for the Kingdom of Israel. The scene is handled with great taste and it is not exploitative in the way it might be filmed today. It was essentially non-offensive, but the idea was communicated that David committed adultery.

We then follow the consequences of David's actions and witness the rebellion of Absalom, and the household of David become divided from within. Then there is the other earlier situation where Tamara, his daughter, is raped, but again it is handled with a great deal of wisdom in its filming.

A highly recommended movie, and if you have other movies in this collection, this would be a wonderful addition.

the great psalmist and king
This is a marvelous production, filmed in Morocco, with wonderful costumes, textiles, and rustic sets, making this telling of King David's life visually believable. It has some standout performances, and Nathaniel Parker, always a favorite of mine, fares well as Israel's second king. As Saul, the casting of Jonathan Pryce is an odd choice (Saul was "a head taller than his people" and there was "not a man more handsome than he") but it works, and he is exceptional as the tormented and demented king.

Gideon Turner is very good as the young David, Dominic Rowan is a great bit of casting as Absalom, and as Joab, Maurice Roeves is terrific. Other notables play the two prophets, Leonard Nimoy, in an appealing and powerful portrayal of Samuel, and Franco Nero as a handsome Nathan.
Due to this being made for TV, some of the editing does not move smoothly (one assumes these are cuts for ads) but that aside, the photography is lovely (by Raffaele Mertes) and the melodic score by Carlo Siliotto enhances the mood (the final title music is by Ennio Morricone).

The story line picks up at 1 Samuel, Chapter 9, with Saul looking for his father's mules, and proceeds through much of both books of Samuel, often being quite faithful to them. It is interspersed with the occasional Psalm, and writer Larry Gross has blended scripture and dialogue quite effectively. It is interesting to watch this with Bible in hand, to see just how cleverly this has been done.

There are some moving scenes, like David's annointing, and his proposal to Abigail (played by the beautiful Lina Sastri). The only part that does not work for me is the story of Amnon; it is pieced together in an awkward and sluggish way, but fortunately does not last long, and the rest of the intricate story moves along at a quick pace, making this is a way above-average film for television.
There are a few gory battle scenes that would be too violent for the very young, but otherwise this is an excellent family film for older children, with the complexity of King David making it a fascinating story for discussion and repeated viewings. ... Read more

Amazon.com

After her success with Basic Instinct, Sharon Stone opted for familiar territory with this campfest that purports to be a sexualized thriller about voyeurism but in reality is more of an excuse to get Stone and costar William Baldwin out of their clothes. Rear Window it ain't. Stone plays it drab and quiet as a successful career woman on the rebound from a bad marriage who moves into a mysterious Manhattan high-rise. Once there, she discovers that she has a few admirers: a hunky and enigmatic neighbor (Baldwin), a popular writer of crime novels (Tom Berenger), and someone who seems to enjoy watching her every move on the building-wide surveillance system. And is one of them the serial killer who's stalking the comely female tenants? Scripted by the erstwhile Joe Eszterhas (Basic Instinct and Jagged Edge), Sliver follows the standard Eszterhas plot line of a protagonist suspecting that his or her lover may or may not be a vicious killer, the tension mounting as clue upon clue is discovered. Unlike both Instinct or Edge, though, Sliver delivers little suspense, thanks in part to a reshot ending that changed the original identity of the killer in the Ira Levin novel and confounded students of rational thought. However, if you're looking for an unintentionally funny thriller with loads of extraneous nudity, Sliver is an enjoyably huge hunk of cheese. --Mark Englehart ... Read more

Reviews (36)

Stone in yet another over-charged sex-thriller.
This super-sleazy sex-mystery features Sharon Stone as a lonely book editor who moves into a handsome, slender Manhattan apartment building(the "Sliver" of the title), and later learns that it is the scene of a series of brutal and unsolved murders. Unfortunately, this filmization of Ira Levin's reasonably suspenseful novel focuses more on Stone's steamy relationship with practicing voyeur William Baldwin rather than the mystery/suspense angle. This muddled mess was obviously an ill-fated attempt to cash in on the success of "Basic Instinct" and attract that same audience, but it was all for naught because "Sliver" still crashed and burned at the box-office. Admittedly, there are several hot and heavy sex scenes, but they would be more at home in a hardcore skin flick rather than a film like this that tries to pass itself off as a suspenseful murder mystery. The unrated version features several minutes worth of even more sexually explicit material. If you're going to buy it, get the unrated version since the few sex scenes are the film's only real virtue anyway.

SLIVER, WANNA WATCH?
Sliver is a fantastic film. The best out of all the erotic thrillers filmed between the years of 1987-1995, preferably the time in which the Erotic Thriller genre was big. Ending with Eszterhas's JADE. Eszterhas (Basic Instinct, Jade, Jagged Egde) wrote Sliver. A film starring Sharon Stone as Carly Norris, stuck in this age of loneliness after coming out of a 7 year bad marriage. Moving into a slick and sleek sliver apartment building, she is warmly welcomed by all of it's tennants. Including, Vida Warren a woman with a dark double life. Gus Hale, a man that is willing to tell all dirty little secrets. Zeke Hawkins a handsome young man that takes a sexual interest in Carly, FAST. And Tom Berenger a classy writer, with a macho jerk attitude. When Carly gets involved, very involved, with Zeke she begins to learn that inside the walls of this building hides a secret that could reveal everything. With an ending so fast paced it will blow right by you, but a very satisfying ending if I do say so in the least. Again, buy SLIVER in the unrated version, sit down and relax in the darkness and remember that there is no place more frightening than home...

Very sexy but empty
There was a time when movies were slicker than they are now, when they pushed the buttons of sexuality/abhorrent sex. This is a lot about voyeurism and the thrill of being stalked. Sharon Stone was of course capitalizing on the Basic Instinct success. Billy Baldwin is very attarctive and they make a sexy couple but it didn't make a good movie. The soundtrack is amazing though!

LONELINESS - exemplified !!!
Few films have a matching soundtrack.This is one of those few.
The script is strong.The pace is quick.Actors/Actresses have done a commendable job.It's all about people , who have made good money - stable lifestyle - those who are already out of the daily rat race - who now have time for some mischief & pleasure.And , a rare combination of Money & Loneliness formulates a unique approach to life.This is it.The best that the people of this status can do in life.The beginning is simply superb - mystery commences right from shot 1 - excellent dialogue quality - absolutely no useless chatter - just to the point action & dialogues.A great addition to the collection - for sure.

So much for the "erotic thriller" genre
Sharon Stone is Carly Norris, one of those sucessful types who, in Hollywood's mind, must be tortured by insecurity and self-loathing. She's just moved into a new building which, for its stark loveliness, leaves her feeling even more unsettled than usual. (Because Joe Ezsterhaus perpetrated the script, the regular denizens of the building are into rough and otherwise generally unconventional intercourse. Closer to Carly are two suspicious admirers ' Lanford (Tom Berenger), a hardboiled crime novelist, and the building's owner, Zeke (Billy Baldwin). Lanford telegraphs his problems in the way he introduces himself ' running into people while jogging in Central Park. Zeke has a bigger problem ' he's wired the building for sight & sound, using a hidden control center stacked with monitors and recorders on which to view whatever's going on in his building (lover's pressuring their mates into rougher sex; parents molesting their children, women shaving, etc..) When suspicion exuded by the characters isn't enough to get the story going, a string of murderers is tossed in. ... Read more

Reviews (227)

Brad Pitt as Achilles
Brad Pitt stars as the legendary Greek warrior Achilles in "Troy," an epic drama full of action and adventure based on Homer's Iliad. Lovesick Prince Paris has run off with Helen to his land of Troy. Helen's husband wants her back, and convinces Greek King Agamemnon to "launch a thousand ships" and bring Helen back. The King enlists the aid of Achilles, and the battle begins.

On the plus side, the movie looks just great, with spectacular sets and thousands of soldiers who fight gallantly. The supporting cast is wonderful; in particular Eric Bana as Paris' brother, Hector, and Peter O'Toole as his father, King Prium. Their scenes are the best in the film.

On the down side, Brad Pitt, while ruggedly handsome and sincere, never really loses himself in the character of an ancient Greek hero; you can't forget he's Brad Pitt. The actress who plays Helen is not the classic beauty one would expect and looks like so many modern starlets. The battle scenes are for the most part filmed in close-ups and edited in very quick shots, which makes them look blurry and chaotic, and you may need a scorecard to keep up with all the characters.

Troy has the look and feel of a good epic, but isn't a great one. If you enjoy sword and sandal war movies with handsome leading men, you'll like Troy. Brad Pitt is delicious eye-candy and that just may be good enough after all.

A Beautiful War
If you happen to be a fan of Homer's epic, be warned that it is time, place, and character that are the same but not truly the story. Filled with beautiful people, scenes and clothes, this movie misses the mark. Helen could no more inspire me to go to dinner than to war and I need to eat to live. Orlando Bloom as Paris, is so beautiful of a boy that it is unbelievable that he would have the requirements needed to steal another man's wife, no matter how usavory the other man proved to be. Yet he would be just the fool to wage a ten year war over a woman. Only in the movie the war accounts for slightly over 12 days worth of action.
How the Greeks managed to be so hard up that after 12 days or so of war they need to build a wooden horse to enter the city is beyond me.

However Hector is amazingly played as are most of the other roles, with the exception of Achilles who falters here and there. You manage to be blinded by the beauty of the spectcale presented to you, and when you begin to object to the brusing of Homer's great works you see Brad Pitt semi-naked and forget all about it. For that alone I give this move 3stars and well worth seeing. You should know, that if you plan to see this move instead of reading the book you will fail. Neither is this movie a match to the TV movie of the Odyssey which manages to capature the book and you along with it. But Brad Pitt naked should not be missed.

Not Homer, but great, lively entertainment!
OK, so the film's not faithful to Homer's epic. That doesn't really matter. It's good, old-fashioned entertainment with lots of spectacle, fine battle scenes, gorgeous performers (mostly male), and some fine acting. Critics tend to penalize Brad Pitt for his remarkable good looks, but he does a very nice job here. His Achilles, of course, looks godlike whether in armor or in the buff, but he also conveys an undercurrent of humanity, even sensitivity, beneath the sullen, violence-prone facade. Eric Bana is also excellent as the stoic, honorable Hector. Brian Cox has a hammy old time as Agammemon, and Peter O'Toole is memorable as Priam. Two pretty faces, Orlando Bloom's and Ms. Kruger's, don't do much for the movie acting-wise, but provide some eye candy for the younger viewers. Quibbles: it would have been nice to have a little greenery in the scenery instead of all that sand, but the walls and city of Troy looked spectacular. All in all, "Troy" is worth seeing more than once (perhaps not for those under the age of 12).

What was the name of this movie???
I don't think it was Troy! Why? Because it had nothing to do with the written story by Homer. Menelaus dies only because he has to be the bad guy in this movie... and there wasn't enough time to show the real death of Agamemnon, (he was killed in his bath by his own wife after returning to Greece) , so they killed him in a way they liked best. Also, Achilles (Brad Pitt) and Hector are the only ones who fight quite well. The rest just get slaughtered. But as we know from the Iliad there were also other great fighters which in this film were left at home! The only strong thing in this movie is Brad Pitts performance but he alone can't save this fiasko! The t.v. movie HELEN OF TROY is closer to the true story although its low budget and this unbelievable and unexeptable bald Achilles... Just read the book! You will love it!

"This will be the greatest war the world has ever seen"
Hollywood's recent obsession with historical epics has produced some truly amazing films... and some truly not. "Troy", mercifully, falls into the former category. The whole production was a risky endeavor; would mainstream audiences be interested in ages old myths? Would scholars and classics devotees condemn the film for it's reworking of Homer's "The Iliad"? And of course there was the expensive price tag; $200+ million, which brought to mind the similarly-themed and legendarily pricey box office bomb, "Cleopatra". Though never quite reaching such wondrous heights as historical epics such as "Braveheart" and "Gladiator" and not earning enough domestically to make a profit, "Troy" succeeds as a fine film reminiscent of old Hollywood epics such as "El Cid" and "Ben Hur".

The production values are simply astounding. Wolfgang Peterson's flawless reproduction of Ancient Greece engulfs audiences in the wonder and glory of the age. The breathtaking cinematography by Roger Pratt makes this a film best seen on the silver screen. From the pulse-pounding battle sequences to the sweeping shots of the Greek fleet that shall be emblazoned in my mind forever, this is a truly handsome film. James Horner creates yet another pitch perfect score that works perfectly with the film's visual style.

The acting chops of Brad Pitt are (quite literally at times, ladies) put to good use here. It is my belief, and one that is most certainly not shared by all, that Pitt is a wonderful and versatile actor. Consider some of his most prominent roles; as Death in "Meet Joe Black", a vampire in "Interview with the Vampire", a criminal in "Ocean's 11", a mental patient in "12 Monkeys", a cowboy in "Thelma and Louise", an Irish boxer in "Snatch", a detective in "Seven" and on and on. This boy has talent! He proves himself even further with the role of Achilles. Pitt 100% becomes the legendary fighter, from the body to the mannerisms to the swordplay. He IS Achilles. I pity all actors who have played Achilles or will play him in a future film; their performances are/will be tremendously dwarfed in comparison. The rest of the cast; Brian Cox, Brendan Gleeson, Diane Kruger, and Eric Bana are all fantastic with the exception of Orlando Bloom, who proves without a doubt that a handsome face does not equal talent. Bloom should take notes from fellow heartthrob Pitt, who does indeed know how to act!

Like the old Hollywood epics, "Troy" does regrettably lack that certain level of emotional pull and human drama that modern audiences demand (i.e. don't expect to be sobbing uncontrollably by its finale as you might very well have done in "Braveheart"). "Troy" and old Hollywood epics also share a certain level of melodrama and almost joyful corniness. Audiences nowadays dislike this style of filmmaking, yet I found myself embracing it simply because it helped to make "Tory" even more old Hollywood. ... Read more

Reviews (641)

Schizophrenia is *not* this pretty
It's extremely difficult to get into the mind (and therefore the world) of the patient with schizophrenia or a similar thought disorder. Necessarily simplified from the biography of mathematician John Nash, this film achieves dramatic pace and structure that has no analogue in the life of even some of the most extraordinary individuals suffering from such a condition.

Setting aside the fact that Ron Howard's work is not true to the nominal subject of the movie, however, this film comes laudably close to a good clinical depiction of the desperate vividness of the auditory and visual hallucinations suffered by patients with schizophrenia, including the sort of elaborate structures of delusion which the more intelligent individual has been known to develop.

I would wish that Howard and his associates had managed to portray something more of the adverse effects of the drugs available to treat schizophrenia in the '50s and '60s. Indeed, I would've liked to have seen Russell Crowe add to his superb performance some intimation of these harrowing elements so that the audience could better understand the pharmacotherapeutic factors that drove Nash to discontinue his neuroleptic medications and undertake what is essentially self-directed cognitive therapy in order to address his thought disorder. Even the more recently-developed "atypical" antipsychotic medicines have pretty nasty side effects, and we are far from perfection in the medical management of schizophrenia today.

This is in no way a perfect movie, certainly. It is, however, good art, and we owe the makers of this film our thanks for helping increase the general public awareness of thought disorders. Schizophrenia is a great deal easier to treat (both with and without neuroleptic agents) when it is brought to appropriate medical attention at the earlier phases of development, and Russell Crowe has succeeding in putting a human face on the disorder -- much as Tom Hanks did for HIV/AIDS in *Philadelphia* -- with great power and (I hope) telling effect.

An Excellent Film
While many complain that Ron Howard whitewashed much of John Nash's life in A BEAUTIFUL MIND, those same fail to acknowledge that the film as it stands is in and of itself quite a strong picture. And while those same people scream of sentimentality throughout, there is nothing here that suggests anything sentimental or even likable about the person of John Nash. Granted, there are a few moments where scenes with his wife teeter on sappy, but overall I think the film depicts rather well the horror that must have been, and still is, Nash's life as a schizophrenic. The acting is uniformly excellent--Russell Crowe shows far more of his capability(and should have got the Oscar) here as an actor than in GLADIATOR The supporting cast is also first-rate--Jennifer Connelly gives a quiet, beautifully restrained performance as Alicia Nash(and I think it's safe to say the Oscar wasn't completely unjustified), and there's also equally fine work from Ed Harris, Paul Bettany, and Christopher

Plummer. Best Picture of the year? Nope, that would have been LORD OF THE RINGS. But I think this is a solid second choice.

"They are my past. Everyone is haunted by their past."
Ron Howard's "A Beautiful Mind" is a tragic and inspiring masterwork that showcases one of the most impressive acting performances in recent memory. If there were still any lingering doubts as to the extent of Russell Crowe's acting prowess, this film dashed them all.

John Nash (Crowe) is a brilliant mathematician who makes an amazing breakthrough in his field while a student at Princeton. After graduating, he teaches at M.I.T. while working for the federal government as a code-breaker. He begins a relationship with a graduate student (Jennifer Connelly) and soon they are married and settle into a quiet domestic life. However, Nash soon starts to see patterns and associations of information everywhere and it is soon discovered that he is suffering from schizophrenia. Serious questions as to his perceptions of the real world, both in the past and in the present, must now be confronted.

Virtually all aspects of "A Beautiful Mind" work beautifully. Howard's confident direction and the strong lead performances by Crowe and Connelly is the glue that holds the entire production together. However, the important contributions made by supporting actors Paul Bettany, Ed Harris, and Christopher Plummer, composer James Horner, and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman should not be underestimated and should also be acknowledged. Furthermore, "A Beautiful Mind" deserves credit for not sentimentalizing Nash's struggle against mental illness. The darker aspects of his tortuous road to recovery are not avoided and are unflinchingly presented warts and all. It is a credit to Crowe's talent that we come to know John Nash so well and come to care so much for him. Nash's life is an amazing story and "A Beautiful Mind" is an amazing recounting of it.

Not a true tale
Let's be clear from the start: This is a movie about A Nobel Prize winning mathematician that suffers from schizophrenia named John Nash. However, this is not the true-life story of THE John Nash, a Nobel Prize winning mathematician that suffers from schizophrenia. Nor is this the screen adaptation of the book "A Beautiful Mind," by Sylvia Nasar. The two share a title, a mental illness, and character names but little else.

That said, the movie does an excellent job of portraying the life of a promenant individual who suffered from many classic symptoms of schizophrenia in the 60's & 70's. But it does not present the illness from both sides equally. We see how the main character (not named in this section to avoid confusion) is afflicted, but we do not see enough of what those around him see. Nor does it quite arrive at showing how glorious the "light at the end of tunnel" is after decades of fighting the darkness.

The movie does not discuss John & Alicia's real-life divorce, the repeated coast-to-coast trips, or the years John spent living in Europe. And definately does not offer any hints at John's experiments with homosexuality (discussed at length in the text, but reportedly excluded at Nash's request).

In short, this movie is a starting place for future movies about mental illness, but is not an end-all experience.

Darn This Movie
I can't stop watching it. The music always gives me goose bumps and I cry every time Crowe says goodbye to the little girl. And I never even noticed the pigeons the first time!....duh. ... Read more

Reviews (119)

It doesn't get any better than this!
How can you top something like this? This movie musical is as close to perfection as it gets. Perfectly cast, marvellously directed and filmed, beautiful music magnificiently arranged, The Music Man sets the standard for all movie musicals, even though it was the last big musical filmed in that era. Meredith Willson's brilliant musical wit and talent reached their pinnacle in this musical. Considered by many to be the best musical ever written, this filmed version is worthy of the musical itself and leaves nothing to be desired.

This DVD release is equally marvellous. A fitting tribute to one of Hollywood's finest efforts of all times. The Music Man is one of the movie industry's brightest stars, and this DVD edition will be a prized possession in any movie collection. Even if you "don't know one note from another," you'll love this spirited romp through 1912 small-town Iowa, and through some of the best music ever written for the stage or screen. The transfer to DVD is excellent. Vivid colors, sharp images, beautifully remastered soundtrack, the whole package is excellent.

The extras on the disc are also great, including a 30-minute special on the making of the musical and the movie, narrated by Shirley Jones and with comments by Buddy Hackett, Onna White (the choreographer), and Susan Luckey (Zaneeta Shinn).

This DVD is one of my most prized possessions. My only complaint is I wish Warner Brothers would package it in a better-grade all-plastic case rather than the cardboard snap case. It won't hold up over time as well, and this baby will be in my collection for a very long time!

Libertine Men and Scarlet Women
Before watching "The Music Man" on DVD I knew next to nothing about the show's writer/director Meredith Willson. Thanks to the Shirley Jones-hosted documentary included on disc, I now know he hailed from small-town Iowa. I appreciate all the more those exquisite little details in the film that turn River City from stock caricature set into living, breathing character.

Any movie musical is bound to split into two separate films: the exquisite musical numbers, with their witty rhymes, elaborately choreographed dance sequences, and impact on the plot; and then the perfunctory, stilted dialogue bits that bridge those numbers (if you want to see this theory in action, rent "West Side Story").

Thanks to Willson, "The Music Man", however, is perfect in that its linking "book" portions are just as successful as the musical numbers. And we're talking some pretty heavy musical numbers too. Nearly every song in the film is worth memorizing -- if you can manage to catch all the words! I thought I had them commited to memory years ago, but then I watched the DVD release with the English subtitles on, and realized I'd been missing entire lines -- good lines, too.

The DVD presentation is sound. The audio quality suffers, most notably during the dialogue-only portions. As I said, the presenttion is "sound". The extras are minimal, as to be expected from the perfunctory Warner Brothers back catalogue, but the 30-minute documentary bears viewing and sheds new light on the film. I'm not sure that a separate commentary track would work here, but I don't have to worry because, as usual, WB doesn't provide one.

It can be viewed all at once, or you can skip straight to select chapters and watch the film as a series of music videos, as I did on the first night. But whatever you do -- don't damage the flimsy cardboard packaging! :)

Among top musicals of all times
I don't remember how many times I have watched this movie, including the remake with Matthew Broderick. Robert Preston is the one and only Music Man, hands down. No one will remember any other movies he did, except may be for Victor Victoria, for which he actually won an Oscar. Joyous music, and wonderfully innocent story. Enough said.

A Standout but definately not a "masterpiece"
Before I complain I liked the Music Man. It is one of the most light hearted and charming movies I have ever seen and it does have good music. In the days of West Side Story, My Fair Lady, Mary Poppins, and The Sound of Music, somewhere in their is The Music Man. It failed to be better than all the films I have mentioned above. It was more slapstick and mediocre, and somewhat reminded me of some of the musicals MGM did in the 30s and 40s. All the performances were average but not something to hand out an Oscar for. Robert Preston, Ronnie Howard, and Shirley Jones did well. All in all it is enjoyable and very likeable, but it just did live up to the other film musicals of the 1960s. I do reccomend this film.

Renee from Florida
The Music Man was not at all what I expected. I bought it for a family movie night, we love musicals usually. This was so boring you could barely make it through it. Actually, I made myself finish it because i spent money on it. I will be tossing it or passing it on. If anyone's interested, it's going cheap! ... 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 (224)

Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker. ;)
1971's "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" is a colorful cult classic that includes both a witty score and a morality tale. Based on the children's novel by Roald Dahl, the story concerns Charlie Bucket (Peter Ostrum), a poor yet virtuous paperboy who dreams of a better life. With no father, no money, and four bedridden grandparents to support, Charlie's future seems bleak. However, that changes when a contest is started by the town's mysterious candymaker, Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder): 5 Golden Tickets are hidden among the billions of Wonka bars sold all over the world. The lucky buyers who find the tickets will get a lifetime supply of chocolate AND an exclusive tour through the factory. The first half of the movie shows the worldwide hysteria that results from the frantic search for the Tickets. Eventually, four winners are revealed one by one: Veruca Salt (Julie Dawn Cole) is Great Britain's ultimate spoiled brat. Augustus Gloop (Michael Bollner) is a chubby German who considers eating his most favorite hobby. Violet Beauregarde (Denise Nickerson) bears the rude, disgusting habit of constantly chewing gum. Mike Teevee (Paris Themmen) is a cowboy couch potato who bears a distorted view on reality. When Charlie himself discovers the final ticket, he and his Grandpa Joe (Jack Albertson) both enter the factory to savor the marvelous surprises awaiting them. However, temptation comes into play: Wonka's sinister rival Arthur Slugworth (Gunter Meisner) has offered each of the children $10,000 in exchange for an Everlasting Gobstopper, a brand new product Mr. Wonka was working on.
In the latter half of the film, viewers will meet Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka, whose elusive persona and literary quotes make him strangely appealing. Is this man lying or is he telling the truth? In addition, audiences (old and young alike) will catch the delightful sights of orange-faced Oompa-Loompas, a nightmarish Boat Ride, Fizzy Lifting drinks that cause drinkers to float away, and quadruple-size Geese that lay octruple-size eggs! Throughout the journey, the group's four nasty children (and their equally despicable parents), are eliminated one by one in gruesome yet amusing ways: The gluttonous Augustus falls into a chocolate river and is sucked into a boiler. Violet samples a 3-course-dinner gum (despite Wonka's warnings) and inflates into a gigantic blueberry. When Veruca Salt attempts to steal a Golden Goose, she falls into a garbage chute, one that happens to lead down to the furnace! After trying to get photographed onto Wonka's giant T.V. camera, Mike Teevee is shrunk down to the size of a pen; the only way to restore his size is by stretching him out on a taffy-pulling machine! With imaginative sets, clever confections, and pleasant tunes like "Candyman," "Pure Imagination," and "Cheer Up, Charlie," this movie was made to entertain adults first and children afterwards. It's a guilty pleasure to college graduates, much like H.R. Puffenstuff.
I chose to give this film four stars because I felt that a couple of mistakes were made. For one thing, the nature of Wonka's factory is a little too candy-coated; Roald Dahl himself wanted to have the story as a Grimm fairytale, not a wholesome musical. Also, I personally think that the scene involving the Wonkamobile should have been cut out. The device, which is fueled by gingerale, gingerpop, gingerbeer, and double-bubble burp-a-cola (among other carbonated fluids), really doesn't have anything to do with the story. As a result, it's a little too distracting.
Now that Tim Burton plans to reimagine the tale, I am gleefully anticipating what alterations he plans to make.

Timeless classic!
(Spoiler included) I watched this movie on TV for rhe first time when I was 6 years old and I haven't outgrown it since! It is a wonderful story about the power of imagination and how good things eventually come to those who do the right things.
The movie is based on the Roald Dahl book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." Willy Wonka is an eccentric candy maker who starts a contest offering a factory tour to five lucky winners who find a golden ticket in their Wonka bars. One of them is Charlie Bucket, an impoverished, but good natured, child who hopes for a better future for himself, his mother and his four grandparents. The other four winners are nasty obnoxious and bratty children. Augustus Gloop is an overeating glutton, Violet Beauregard is a gum chewing fanatic with no manners (digging up her nose while talking about how disgusting spitting is), Veruca Salt is a spoiled brat who wants everything she sees and whines until she gets it and Mike Teavee is a television addict with a smart mouth. One by one, they are eventually done in by their bad habits. Augustus falls into the chocolate river against Wonka's protests and is sucked into a pipe, Violet chews a piece of Wonka's "meal gum," once again against his objections, and turns purple and blows up into a giant blueberry, Veruca goes on a tantrum when Wonka tells her she can't have one of his giant geese and she falls down a garbage chute and Mike wants to be on television so badly, he willingly gets zapped into the size of an insect by Wonka's TV camera. Charlie, by being the respectable child that he is and by not compromising his integrity, not only completes the tour, he wins a prize beyond his wildest dreams.

The parents make it obvious why their children are so impish. When the children get into trouble at the factory, the parents blame Wonka instead of the kids' own bratty behavior. From the moment they step into the factory, they're complaining and finding fault with everything Wonka does and they take things way too seriously (much like the critics of this film)! I bet if the Oompa Loompas, with their wisdom, raised these little demons, they'd be much better.

Don't miss this film. It is not only a fun to watch diversion from reality, the messages are very timely and it makes you think about the good that still exists in this world. The critics and nitpickers may not get it but anyone who watches with an open mind and doesn't take it too seriouly will.

Still a great one!
OK, I know you are saying to yourself, that movie is ancient ~ my kid wouldn't enjoy it. Well, trust me your kid will enjoy it. It is a great movie! For all who may have missed it over the years (is there anyone out there?), the story is about a giant chocolate factory run by a never seen owner (Wilder). Over the years of the factory's operation he has become quite the legend. He decides to open the factory to a few lucky winners of a contest ~ all but one of the winning kids are truly rotten. And as all good stories go, the bad kids get their just "desserts" (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) leaving the good kid to win. A lot of good lessons taught about sharing, greed, gluttony and theft. Pop some popcorn and enjoy it with your kid; you'll be glad you did.

A Great Metaphor for Life
"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" was my favorite book as a child, this movie remains a favorite of mine even to this day.

This film was made back in 1971 and is very simple in its style. The special effects are see-through and campy but the story line is a facinating metaphor for life that is forever timeless in its message. Willy Wonka is the creative genius who becomes a recluse in his chocolate factory because of society and its greed and malice. But he never loses his belief that someone in the world exists who can still believe in imagination and dreams. He finds this person in Charlie, a poor child who lives with his mother and four grandparents in a dirty basement home. Charlie has every reason to become dispirited and negative yet he remains a shining light of great positivity regardless of his circumstances. I suspect his attitude comes from the fact that his Grandfather Joe always supports his dreams, the boy never has to hear the word "can't"!

The chocolate factory holds a contest and several children, including Charlie, get invited behind the doors with Willy Wonka. While on tour they are tested with fame, fortune, greed and honesty until one by one they succumb to the failure of a human heart. All except Charlie, who keeps a smile on his face and wonder in his eyes while being faced with the simple adversities that cause the other children to fail. Sadly I feel the parents are to blame creating children who thrive on material wealth, constant TV watching, gorging on food, and looking for constant attention. The parents of the children who fail refuse to believe in the dream of Willy Wonka surrounding the atomsphere with doubt and negative beliefs. How could anyone survive under such circumstances?

The Chocolate Factory is filled with wonder, color and silly songs. Regardless of your age it will satisfy your sweet tooth and fill even a hardened heart. It certainly brings to life how parent's affect their children with their own actions and attitudes. Telling a child they "can't" accomplish all that they imagine only assists in stopping the world from greatness. Don't be afraid to dream!

Candy is dandy...
The film is based on a much-loved children's book, 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory', by Roald Dahl. Dahl wasn't always happy with the changes made between his book and the film, and wasn't always consulted on them. Today probably more people are familiar with the film sequence of events than the book. Charlie is a down-on-his-luck boy who is nonetheless optimistic and happy. He and his mother work to tend for their bed-ridden family members, all living together in a one-room home.

One day there is an annoucement that Wonka is going to open his factory to visitors, to be chosen more or less at random through finding the Golden Tickets, contained in Wonka bars (a brilliant marketing device back then). Scenes of shoppers' frenzy are shown all around with world, including a Wonka delivery van shown arriving at the White House.

The five golden tickets are found all around the world - the first one in Dusselheim, Germany, by the fat boy, Augustus Gloop (played by Michael Boliner, who is now a tax accountant in Munich, and is still rather large). The second ticket was found in the UK, by spoiled brat, Veruca Salt (Julie Dawn Cole, the only Wonka child still acting), whose father, Roy Kinnear, is a well-known actor in British cinema. The third ticket was found in the USA, by gum-chewing Violet Beauregarde (Denise Nickerson, now an accountant at a nuclear plant in Colorado), whose used-car-salesman father was played by Leonard Stone (who was selected over Jim Bakus). The fourth ticket was also won in the USA, by Mike Teevee (Paris Themmen, considered a real brat by most of the cast and crew); his frantic mother was played by Dodo Denny (later Nora Denny), who was one of the few minor characters in the film to consistently act after this film. The final ticket at first is reported to be won by some shady businessman from Paraguay, but in the end, that is proven to be a forgery. Of course, Charlie buys a Wonka Bar expecting nothing, and gets the ticket.

An ominous figure, Slugworth (the arch-enemy of Wonka - who knew chocolate makers also made arch-enemies?), appears to each of the winners, whispering in their ears. Charlie is also confronted, and promised a reward should he bring Slugworth an example of Wonka's latest creation, the Everlasting Gobstopper. One wonders why (a) any candy maker would make a candy that never wears out (thus defeating re-sales), and (b) why Slugworth can't just buy one himself when they are released, analyse it and ruin his own factory the same way? But I digress... Gunter Meisner, a very prolific German actor, played the villain, who wasn't in the book (nor was the 'gobstopper plot').

The grand day of the event, the winners enter the factory with great fanfare, meeting Wonka (Gene Wilder) for the first time, and get the first taste of his bizarre sense of theatre. (It is reported not only Wilder's idea for the limping/somersault introduction to the crowd, but also a condition of his accepting the role.) From that point on, what was truth? It is ironic that Wonka's entrance doesn't occur until the film is half over. What we remember of the film comes after this, but over half the film is actually set-up. This is rather like the Wizard of Oz, where most of the film is done before we see 'the major character', although admittedly Wonka is far more prominent than Oz's balloonist.

Wonka, the man of mystery, only ever became even more of a mystery as the tour progressed. He is constantly switching his words ('we have so much time and so little to do'), and there are surprises at every turn. Wonka borrows a lot of his key phrases (Ogden Nash, Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde) and there are a lot of fantasy-inspired elements (Alice in Wonderland, Lord of the Rings).

At each major scene, something ghastly seems to happen, but in epic-fantasy form, it doesn't seem to matter to the majority, who proceed onward with their quest. In the chocolate room, Augustus Gloop meets his untimely exit from the factory by falling in the chocolate river. Violet turns into a blueberry by chewing experimental gum, and has to be squeezed (squoozed?). Veruca, in the room with the geese who lay the golden eggs, turns out to be a bad egg herself, but has a sporting chance of going down a chute with an inactive furnace. Mike Teevee shrinks in the Wonka version of the Star Trek transporter beam, leaving in the end only Charlie, who is denied his prize of a lifetime of chocolate for a minor infraction.

It would seem that Wonka had a sinister side in many ways - the boat that carries the prize winners only seated eight, implying that Wonka knew someone would be missing. The Wonkamobile only had seats for four guests. Of course, the children apparently all had sinister sides, too, including Charlie, until the end. None of them let Wonka know of their Slugworth contact.

In the end, we never know what becomes of the fallen questers - we are led to believe that in this candy factory they got their just desserts. The Oompa-Loompas put the moral to each downfall in song, with a 1970s karaoke-type presentation of the lyrics as they sing. In the end, of course, goodness and justice win out, as the factory is given to Charlie after his act of unwarranted kindness toward Wonka.

Director Stuart always saw this film as a 'realistic' fantasy film. Those things that are not over the top are very ordinary. The people are not superheroes, and the situations, while fantastic, are not beyond the credible. Stuart also did his best for 'real' reaction - the kids had never seen Gene Wilder before his appearance at the door, the chocolate room in the factory, or the Oompa-Loompas prior to the first scene, either, so their reactions are more natural.

A great film for children and adults! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Again? Yes. Even though no other movie has been released as many times on video as Star Wars (except for its sequels, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi), George Lucas and the folks at 20th Century Fox have actually released a slightly different film this time. This video followed the mega-successful 20th-anniversary theatrical rerelease, in which Lucas personally remastered the image and sound quality of his baby. Other revisions are more obvious, if hardly radical. Lucas enhanced several special effects with updated computer technology--most noticeable are the explosions and removal of matte lines during the Death Star battle finale. And the creatures that populate Mos Eisley's spaceport--though meticulous--are aesthetically superior improvements. The inclusion of extra scenes (originally outtakes), however, is not an improvement. Both the meeting between Jabba the Hutt and Han Solo, and Luke talking with his childhood pal Biggs, do nothing to enhance character development or theme, and serve only as distractions that preoccupy the waiting viewer.And, really couldn't Lucas find something better to do with his time than mess around with a national treasure? As for the video, this boasts both visual and sound enhancements. But since Star Wars has been available with these tweaks numerous times before, the decision whether to purchase this latest new version depends on how badly you want to see Lucas's cosmetic surgery. --Dave McCoy ... Read more

Reviews (283)

A long time ago, in a cinema far, far away...
A long time ago, in a cinema far, far away, a certain film called STAR WARS was released. Now, George Lucas' first installment in the hugely popular STAR WARS franchise is generally regarded as the greatest movie ever made. Why? Well, what's not to like? From the opening shot of the Blockade Runner accompanied by that great theme tune by John Williams, you know you're in the unique world of the STAR WARS universe. Before George's action-packed THE PHANTOM MENACE and ATTACK OF THE CLONES, A NEW HOPE was known only as STAR WARS. Audiences had never seen anything so original and amazing. Now, the series has entered into the fanboy culture all over the world. In comparison, Episode 4 seems somewhat tame compared to ATOC, but it's still an astounding adventure filled with great characters, great action set-pieces and strident theatrical music.

From Hero Luke Skywalker's symbolic journey from his home Tatooine to the moment of victory at the finale, we are greeted with a myriad of fantastic characters, especially Han Solo, played by a pre-Indy Harrison Ford and his buddy Chewbacca, flying around in their Millenium Falcon. And the ultimate incarnation of evil, Darth Vader. British veteran actors Alec Guiness and Peter Cushing are excellent as a wise yet ageing "Old Ben" Kenobi and Vader respictively. And that, more than anything, is what made TPM so hollow. While the action was good, the lack of good characters was disappointing. But AOTC has regained much of the sense of adventure that this film started off.

Lucas' grand vision illuminates the entire film, with inventive creatures and events. Several scenes that are my favorites are Obi Wan's conversation to Luke about the Clone Wars and Vader, Solo's disposal of Greedo, Obi Wan and Vader's last battle and the destruction of the death star. The prominant influences that left their creative mark on the film range from westerns to Akira Kurosawa's Samurai pictures. The influence the film itself had on cinema (it invented the Summer Blockbuster) is astounding, with everything from figurines to frisbees from the hysteria over the film's captivating originality and subsequent zeitgeist. One of my all-time favorite films, STAR WARS is THE great adventure.

Do I really have to Say anything?
It's what? Going on 30 years since "A New Hope' was released to massive success (and even again in 1997)? You bet, and it still looks fresh and feels right. The film has an attitude to it. A little arrogant and a little sarcastic, but still thrilling and and made the foundation for almost every action and fantasy movie to follow. Only the recent release of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy has had near that much impact (which I consider this generation's Star Wars).

George Lucas was at his creative peak in the "Hope," and it shows. The special effects are used to help paint the world in which the characters live. They don't distract and they don't take away from the actors' performances. The trench run with the Death Star can still live today with modern special effects laden scenes. And the actors are so convincing in their roles, unlike some in the prequels. Alec Gunniess leads the cast with his Shakesperian wisdom, and the cool Harrison Ford is just , well, cool. Also Mark Hamill is great, as is Carrie Fischer as princess Leia. And who can forget Chewie? Star Wars still delivers, watch and enjoy.

It's Star Wars!
If you have seen this movie, then no words need to be said. But if you haven't, come out from under that rock and watch it!
This movie just has to be seen!
By the way, just skip the prequels. Those ones suck.

Yes, Han Shoots First!
Ah, c'est la vie, the best movie of the trilogy, followed closely by "The Empire Strikes Back". "Star Wars" is a classic tale of friendship, loyalty, and bravery. Full of action. Ah, and this version has no CGI Jabba. Han shoots first. Jawa scene where they unload R2 and 3PO. A lot better than Lucas' pile of dog sh*t the so-called Special Editions. Go, original theatricals. Nothing stops these movies in their 1977, 1980 and 1983 debut.

Hard on the eyes - I must disagree with the fans
I much rather want to think about the great theme music by Meco (for which I am giving the 2 stars) than the almost painful visual roller-coaster ride of a movie it came with. The special effects may have been ground breaking, but they were a bit much to watch. I was 15 and could handle such things much better than I could today -- I'd just walk out! Princess Leah was beautiful, but I liked her much better on SNL doing the Beach Scene with Frankie & Annette (Gilda & Bill).** ... 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 essential video

This silky smooth film noir pits gruff police detective Dana Andrews, stiff and blunt in his street-bred manners, against a cultured columnist and acidic wit (Clifton Webb at his prissiest) in a battle of wits during a murder investigation. The cop is a romantic hiding under a hard-boiled exterior who falls in love with the beautiful victim through the portrait that hangs in her apartment, when one lonely night he turns from the picture to see Laura walk through the door. It's not a ghost: both the cops and the killer mistook the mutilated corpse for the lady of the house. Gene Tierney, whose heart-shaped face mixes the exotic with the girl next door, brings the poise and calm of a model to her role as Laura, the object of every man's gaze and the target of a killer that missed once but is bound to try again. Laura, handsomely shot in dreamy black and white, is the first and best of Otto Preminger's cool, controlled murder mysteries. In the gritty world of film noir it remains the most refined and elegant example of the genre, but under the tasteful decor and high-society fashions lies a world seething in jealousy, passion, blackmail, and murder. Vincent Price costars as a blithe gigolo and David Raksin's lush theme has become a wistful romantic standard. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (59)

COOL, ELEGANT FILM NOIR....
Although toned down from Vera Caspary's novel, "Laura" is a classic example of sexual obssession in 40's film noir. Otto Preminger (with help from Rouben Mamoulian) created a masterpiece of a mystery film loaded with decadence and sexual tension. Tough streetwise police detective Mark McPherson (Dana Andrews) investigates the violent society murder of beautiful, enigmatic ad exec Laura Hunt (Gene Tierney) and enters the cold, calculating world of high society where everyone has dark secrets. He encounters a list of suspects including ascerbic Waldo Lydecker (superb Clifton Webb) as Laura's "benefactor" and companion who introduced her to the high end of advertising and her gigolo fiance' Shelby (Vincent Price) who is more or less kept by Laura's aunt (Judith Anderson). It is Lydecker who matches wits with Mark every step of the way. Mark has become obssessed with Laura's portrait, her perfume and letters and has obviously fallen in love with the "dead" Laura. The sexual obssession theme lies underneath the complicated relationships including Mark's fascination with Laura's relationships and her personal things and in the flashback sequences, it is clear that Lydecker fancied himself more than just Laura's "companion". He sought to possess her. But it gets stickier as it goes along when Laura turns up very much alive. There is so much to savor in this film along with the performances (especially Webb's) like the beautiful b&w photography that gives the film a dream like quality and the lovely "Laura" them by David Raskin that haunts the film and emphasizes the romantic longing Mark has for Laura and Laura's mysterious, paradoxical personality. Any way you slice it, "Laura" is a classic film heads up above the rest and needs to be available on DVD. It is not to be missed.

A MUST SEE
I saw this movie at least ten times. First time was in my early teens, when it was shown on local TV. I never heard of Gene Tierney before, but after seeing this film, I knew I would never forget her. She was the most beautiful actress I ever saw and her mannerisms reveal a classy keen intelligence. Everything about this movie will haunt you--Tierney's beauty, the musical score by David Raksin, the portrait, and the ending.

The film is about a woman who seemed to have everything--a successful career, beauty, brains, wealth--who is discovered murdered in her apartment. A detective, Mark McPherson, played by Dana Andrews investigates the case and starts questioning possible suspects. One is the Svengali-like Waldo Lydecker (Clifton Webb), a syndicated columnist and radio personality. Another is Shelby Carpenter, a smooth Southern gigolo played by Vincent Price (yes Vincent Price!). And there's Laura's middle-aged socialite aunt, Ann Treadwell, who was using Carpenter as her boy-toy until Carpenter meets Laura. Other possible suspect is Laura's maid, a feisty loyal Irishwoman.

The film shows narrated flashbacks by Lydecker. He idolizes her and intercepts Laura's suitors, all of whom he considers beneath her. He couldn't intercept Carpenter who attracts Laura, and who Laura was supposed to marry the week she was found murdered. The first twist of the film is when McPherson falls in love with Laura, who's presumed dead. From reading her diary and letters and continuously seeing her portrait, he discovers she's the woman of his dreams, an unattainable goddess whose physical presence he can only imagine. So when twist number two happens, the murder investigation understandably becomes secondary to this gumshoe detective.

This is the best film directed by Otto Preminger. I believe it's the first American film he directed, and his following films pale by comparison. Ironically, this is a film full of second choices. The lead was written with Jennifer Jones in mind, but she turned it down. It was then offered to Heddy Lamarr who also turned it down. Tierney claimed in her autobiography that she didn't want the role either and thought the film was going to bomb, due to the fact that many aspects of it were not prepared (the final script, the music) and that Dana Andrews (also a second choice) prior to this film never had a role as a leading man. The portrait that was originally intended for the film was painted by the wife of director Rouben Mamoulian, who was initially hired for the film but was fired by Preminger who was producing it. Paintings don't transcribe well to film so a touched-up photograph of Tierney was used as the portrait. Preminger took the directing himself. He wanted to use the song "Sophisticated Lady" by Duke Ellington as the musical score, but David Raksin made a deal with him, in which he would write a score Preminger would approve of in one weekend. Raksin claimed he kept looking at a photo of Tierney during the composition of the score and that she was his inspiration. Thus second choices made this movie a classic.

The dialogue is witty and biting, particularly that of Lydecker. The film was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor (Webb), Best Black and White Cinematography and Best Musical Score. It only won for Best Cinematography, and I'd like to learn what films aced it in the other categories. Although awards are not considered important by many film connoisserus, the winners are the ones recognized by the next generation. Thus "Laura" remains