Reviews (19)

Eighties sci-fi/Thriller doesn't hold up...at all!
I saw this during the eighties when it originally came out and thought it was terrific and scary. However, this movie does not hold up at all. It's not just the technological advancements in special effects that makes this movie so dated, afterall movies like "The Thing" and "The Exorcist" came out before this. A scary movie is scary no matter when it came out. This movie is just silly. The president's fear of nuclear war is treated so brazenly that it doesn't hold up now that the Day After decade is over. The story is so brisk in the extreme nothing is giving time to develop. Only the ideas are presented and not explored. Quaid and Sydow are good but even they can't save this movie. The dialog is very stilted at parts. Christopher Plummer is just silly, not menacing. Tommy Ray isn't scary any more. The snake man looks so rubbery and stupid that I can't believe I was ever scared of it in the first place. They did a terrible job with it. The transformation effects are now laughable. They didn't have to be. Kate Capshaw is awful (she always was; maybe that's one of the reasons you don't see her in much anymore now that she is married to Spielberg). This is just not that strong a movie and time has not been kind to it. I thought it was great when I was 10 but it just isn't scary or fun. Awful music by Maurice Jarre. Not because it is an electronic eighties keyboard soundtrack like Jerry Goldsmith's Runaway. No this is just bad and it sounds bad on this DVD. No themes develop and even the chase music is boring. Very weak. Similar genre movies from the eighties that hold up and you might want to check out instead: Twilight Zone the Movie, Gremlins, Poltergeist, Brainstorm, Fright Night.

DVD-This dvd is also not very good either. The picture quality is very crisp most of the time. There is some wavering in some scenes. The special effects unfortuneately don't benefit from all that detail in picture quality. The worst part is the sound. It comes in DTS and Dolby Digital. It is hardly 5.1 like the box advertises. Occasionally you get some weak directional effects. But for I would say 80% of the movie everything is in the center speaker.

The best thing about this DVD is the menus. They were a pleasant surprise. The movie and this DVD were not.

What a fun movie!
This movie is kind of obscure to most but it's still an exceptional film. Dennis Quaid was pre-Inner Space, pre-Dragonheart and was sort of on the threshold of being one of the more fun and interesting actors of our time. This was also an overshadowed film by the mega horror spectacle "A Nightmare on Elm Street" but it's still great fun to enjoy. Very imaginative and different. The dream sequences were phenominal for the time when this film came out. Sort of an Indiana Jones meets Jacobs Ladder. With the exception of a weak ending and geeky special effects it's a great story and one that should be a addition to any collection. Enjoy!

I have a dream...for an unedited version...
Do you ever remember your dreams? I rarely do...unless they are of the really intense kind and I wake up during the dream, and even then the images tend to slip from my conscious like grains of sand through your hand. Why am I bothering telling you this? Well, I needed some kind of opener for my review of Dreamscape (1984), a film that deals with dreams and such, and this was the best I could come up with at the time, lame as it may be...directed by Joseph Ruben, who later did Sleeping with the Enemy (1991) and Money Train (1995), Dreamscape presents quite a cast with Dennis Quaid, Max Von Sydow, Christopher Plummer, Kate Capshaw, Eddie Albert, and even George Wendt (Norm!).

Dennis Quaid plays Alex Gardner, a young man of fantastic psychic abilities who has since dropped off the radar, preferring to use his 'gifts' to manipulate women and pick winners at the horse track, rather than continuing to subject himself to an endless series of tests meant to study and learn of his abilities, tests conducted by Doctor Paul Novotny (Von Sydow). Seemingly content to squander his skills, Alex's path once again leads him back to Dr. Novotny and his assistant, Jane DeVries (Capshaw) as they've developed a machine that would allow someone with Alex's talents to enter the dreams of others, and possibly help those plagued with reoccurring nightmares, specifically in the President (Albert) who is suffering from apocalyptic dreams that are beginning to affect his ability to do his job. Seemingly concerned with the President's well being, Bob Blair (Plummer), government head of Dr. Novotny's project and shadowy leader of an intelligence group even the CIA fears requests Dr. Novotny assist in relieving the President of these nightmares, but we soon learn he has other plans, plans of a sinister nature involving another, less stable psychic within the project by the name of Tommy Ray Glatman (David Patrick Kelly). Can Alex uncover the plot, help the President, and stay alive? Possibly, but the odds are certainly against him...

Given some of the films that came out in 1984 like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Ghostbusters, Amadeus, Footloose, Romancing the Stone, Starman, A Passage to India, and The Killing Fields, it's no surprise this 'sleeper' got lost in the shuffle. I've always enjoyed it, and thought it deserved a bit more credit than it's gotten. Dennis Quaid is really good and charming as hell as the smart alecky Alex Gardner, a character who seems to be able to handle himself, yet exhibits a smidgen of naiveté which possibly stems from a core belief of decency, despite his ventures into gray areas, specifically using his skills to determine winners of horse races, earning him money to live. Max Von Sydow is also very good, although I feel as if I've seen him in similar roles so many times before, as a doctor involved in ground-breaking research, not being able to see the forces which conspire to use his research for their own, sinister means until it's too late. As far as Kate Capshaw, I have to admit I've never cared for her all that much as I found her character in Temple of Doom to be highly annoying and distracting. She's not bad here, even though she does suffer from a common malady of the 80's here in big-hairitis syndrome. Plummer is good as the conniving powerful government agent with a secret agenda, although I've seen this whole 'evil government stealing research meant for the good of mankind for it's own corrupted means' theme about a thousand times before. Even so, he's perfectly suited for the part, oozing a smarmy, almost quiet charm that hides disturbing ulterior motives...I did like the aspect that his goals were driven mostly by his desire to protect what he thought needed protecting, even if he was misguided by his own sense of twisted patriotism.

The special effects, while seeming quite dated now, were actually very good for the time this film came out, especially the dream sequences of the President detailing post-apocalyptic visions of decimated cities and ruinous wastes. The stop motion work, while not really appreciated by many, is really pretty good and reminds me of those old Ray Harryhausen films I love so much. One thing that annoyed me the most about this release is what's missing due to a hack editing job on a few scenes, all within dream sequences, I suppose, to more aptly fit the movie's PG-13 rating. One scene involved Quaid and Capshaw and a romantic interlude on a train with some pretty steamy stuff, but here it's cut short, removing the nudity. A second edited scene had Quaid inside a mousy man's dream about his wife, which contained some nudity that was excised out of here, and finally another scene has to do with Quaid's character helping a little boy overcome a terrifying reoccurring nightmare about a monstrous snake man. The part removed had a bit of gore in it, but it certainly wasn't anything, in my opinion, that deserved to be removed.

It says the movie is available in full and widescreen anamorphic formats, but I only saw the widescreen available. The picture quality is pretty good, but the transfer print does suffer very minor age deterioration at some points, but it's hardly noticeable. The audio is much better, with Dolby Digital 2.0, new Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1 Audio available. Special features include an audio commentary track by producer Bruce Cohn Curtis, writer David Loughery, and special effects artist Craig Reardon that's pretty good, although dry at more than a few points. Also included are a behind the scenes special effects makeup test reel and a slide show. I really wanted to give this four stars, but given that's it missing parts from a few scenes, I have to go with three...

Cookieman108

Dream A Little Dream
Dreamscape is a solid little sci-fi film, that thanks to good casting, rises above its problems.

Alex Gardner (Dennis Quaid) is a gifted young man, endowed with strong psychic powers, so far, he has only used his abilities to win money at the track. All that changes, when his former mentor, Dr. Novotny (Max von Sydow) and his lovely assistant (Kate Capshaw), recruit him to aid patients disturbed by their dreams. When a corrupt goverment official (Christopher Plummer)discovers what Alex can do, he has more sinister plans in mind--that involve the President Of The United States (Eddie Albert)

Director Joseph Ruben gets the most from a strong cast. Quaid is pitch perfect as Alex, and gives what I think is, one of his best perfomances of his lopsided career. Plummer is at his best when playing a heavy, von Sydow is also tops here as well. Capshaw, on the other hand, is only serviceable, but thankfully, not as annoying as she is in Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom. The script from David (Star Trek V) Loughery has a few hiccups in it, and even though some of the story seems like its right out Stephen King's The Dead Zone--the problems are minor and not that big of a deal. The special effects are a bit chessey at times, but I can overlook that as well. As I said, the performances make the film work, above all else.

The DVD has a fine audio commentary track with producer Bruce Cohn Curtis, Loughery, and special effects artist Craig Reardon, giving their perspectives on how the movie came together--I wish Quaid could have joined in as well though for an actor's take. A behind-the-scenes special effects makeup test reel and a still gallery top off the bonus material.

Dreamscape is worth a look and is better than the DVD cover art would have you believe. It's a step above, and then some, from a B grade flick.

original movie!
I saw the film now for the first time and were very surprised with the argument. A lot of parts are very similar to the "Elm Street" movies, which began one year later, even the knife-fingernails of the murderer, but especially that all victims were killed in their dreams.
I agree with the other reviews, the film has great performanes.
On the other hand there're a lot of mistakes and contradictions in the argument. For example, the last victim (the bad guy from the government) is killed although the protagonist is far away and can't influence his dream. But all in all I think you'll not loose your time seeing this movie, especially if you're a great science fiction/horror fan. ... Read more

Reviews (60)

"I don't like ribbons and I got me a hangover."
"Lawn Dogs" from Australian director John Duigan is a really remarkable film. It's the story of 10-year-old Devon (Mischa Barton) who lives with her parents Morton and Clare Stockard (Christopher McDonald & Kathleen Quinlan). The Stockards live in the ostentatious gated community, Camelot Estates--and as the name implies, every house looks like a faux mansion. There's a gruff security guard dedicated to keeping the snobs in and the riff raff out. But someone has to keep those immaculate lawns impeccably green, and that's where Trent (Sam Rockwell) comes in.

Trent lives near the Camelot Estates in a tatty old trailer, and Devon, who embarks on a cookie sale, finds her way to Trent's trailer. Trent is the living embodiment of everything her parents abhor and turn away from in horror. Devon intuitively senses that Trent's existence challenges her parents' shallow values, and one of the things she tells him is "people say you're trash." This is the beginning of an odd friendship between Devon and Trent.

There is such much going on in this film. On one level, there's a precocious child who seeks out the forbidden company of the hired help. But on another level, there's a perverse fairy story--Devon, a frail child--mutters fragments of fairy stories to herself for entertainment. She discovers a remarkably free world beyond the boundaries of her artificial kingdom.

Mischa Barton plays Devon with amazing skill. It would be easy for her character to develop into brattiness, but instead Devon seems almost a changeling child--how could such an elf-like spirit belong to the pedestrian, hypocritical Stoddards? It's no wonder Devon strains to break free from the false conventions the Stoddards attempt to control her with.

The film also deals with class divisions. The well-to-do (and they are mostly snottily unpleasant) live in the pristine Camelot Estates, but from necessity, they employ Trent to complete the manual work. While wealthy yobos harass and ridicule Trent, it's clear that on some level, these lay-abouts are also a little fearful of Sam's raw energy and potent virility. Hostility seems rooted in the theory that Trent is out to ruin the lifestyle of Camelot Estates, and that he may even appeal to the women within this perfect, gated community. Devon is drawn to Sam, and while their relationship seems inexplicable at first, it seems that they do have something in common. Devon remains a unique individual in spite of all her parents' attempts to make her conform by offering little pep talks ("a popular girl is never bored or boring"). Devon responds by playing Amputee Checkers with her dolls. I am not one normally to be intrigued with the characters of children in films, but with Devon, I make an exception. At what age does individualism become apparent? Is Devon's rebellion just the beginning or the end of a new phase in her life? We imagine that a gated community is built to keep out undesirable elements, but what happens if an individual (Devon in this case) longs to get out? I have read many negative professional reviews about this film, but it's a great favourite with me. If you enjoy this film, then I also recommend "You Can Count On Me."--displacedhuman.

Film Is Great but Photo on Box Misleads
The photo on the box indicates that this is a movie about a man and a woman, probably sexual or romantic in orientation. The woman (Kathleen Quinlan in a minor role) is actually the mother of the movie's female lead, a ten year old girl, played by Mischa Barton as Devon. Her family is rich but obnoxious as is her whole gated subdivision. She desperately needs a friend and makes one with Trent (Sam Rockwell), who is one of the guys who cuts the grass in her subdivision. He lives in a trailer on the wrong side of the tracks. Trent and Devon's developing friendship is the arc of the film. That friendship takes unexpected turns, some magical realistic in nature. Devon's ability to make personal sacrifices in order to protect her one and only friend increasingly come into play as the film advances too. Excellent film.

Mischa the Magician
This is an obscure independent film, yet it has over sixty (!) reviews here at Amazon. I think that alone says something about it. I've read all the reviews below (since I'd already seen the film), and almost all of them are overwhelmingly positive. And for good reason, too. I like a mindless effects-driven movie as much as the next person, but, like a professional film reviewer, I've seen so many movies that I'm hard to surprise. Lawn Dogs mesmerized me, and less than 1% of films can do that. The production design reminds me of a David Lynch film. Rockwell is an actor's actor, and Barton's performance is remarkable for someone her age. She was cast as the child she physically was at the time, but most of the dialog is as if she's a 35 year-old in a child's body...which is completely unrealistic of course, but the dialog is good nonetheless, and Barton pulls it off magnificently. Lawn Dogs is far from perfect, but it's a must-see for all intelligent film lovers because it does what so few films can do to a jaded viewer: it transports you into a different world. If you don't own a large screen, sit close. Turn on the DVD player, turn out the lights and get sucked in.

Sam Rockwell steals the show..
I absolutly loved this movie. An unlikely friendship is at the center of this wonderful movie that quite frankly had a surprisingly magical ending. In an upper class neighborhood in the state of Kentucky, a young man (Rockwell) who landscapes for the snobby residents befriends a 10 year old girl (Mischa Barton). She is the daughter of one of the most well known couples (Christopher McDonald & Kathleen Quinlan) in the neighborhood. The unlikely friendship becomes quite the upset once it's discovered. Everyone thinks that Sam Rockwell's character is trash. He lives in a rundown trailer down a gravel road thats near their upper class estates. No one understands the friendship that Trent and Devon have. Devon likes Trent because he's different and they have a little something in common. LAWN DOGS is funny, touching, and just a very satisfying movie. If you've just watched this movie I would like to request that you read Roger Ebert's review on LAWN DOGS, the highly respected critic totally missed the point of the movie, he gave it one and a half stars. Note that he asks 'why this?' & 'why that?', thats the whole point ..WHY?. The film allows you to draw your own conclusions. LAWN DOGS is a very underrated film.

TRULY MEMORABLE!
I rented this movie a few years ago just out of curiosity, without any big expectations, and I was blown away by how touching and bold it was. Lawn Dogs is one of those rare movies that you think about days, weeks, months after viewing it. Of course I immediately bought the DVD and still watch it frequently. It's that good! Sam Rockwell gives an amazing performance. 5 stars! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

One of the first studio films to deal with interracial romance (or even the possibility of it), A Patch of Blue was a huge hitupon its release, appealing to those looking for both social protest and a smart date movie. Sidney Poitier plays Gordon, a compassionate stranger who befriends a blind white girl named Selina (Elizabeth Hartman). Selina, the next thing to a shut-in, can only judge people by their voices, and Gordon's is unusually patient, kind. Troubles ensue when Selina's abusive mother (Shelley Winters in her secondOscar-winning performance) happens upon the pair during one of their park rendezvous. Ivan Dixon plays Poitier's militant brother, and veteran Wallace Ford appears as Selina's kindly lush of a grandfather. Jerry Goldsmith earned an Oscar nomination for his lilting piano theme, surely one of the simplest, most effective pieces of music to grace a Hollywood film. --Glenn Lovell ... Read more

Reviews (33)

A Ray of Sunshine in a Life of Darkness
Warner Brothers produced A Patch of Blue in 1965, which was a black and white dramatic film set in California, starring such greats as Sidney Poitier, Shelley Winters, Elizabeth Hartman, and Wallace Ford. This film was quite racy for its time, as the movie's plot was centered on a budding relationship between a black man and a white teenage woman, which in those days was unheard of.
Selina D'Arcy (Hartman), an 18-year old blind white girl, lives an isolated, Cinderella-like existence with her foul-mouthed mother Roseanne (Winters) and drunken grandfather, "Ol' Pa" (Ford). Selina wants nothing more than to listen to the radio and occasionally string beads in the park. It is there that she meets handsome black businessman Gordon Ralfe (Poitier) who sizes up her plight. As Gordon conveniently continues to run into Selina at the park and their relationship grows. He is delighted that he can teach Selina such everyday things as relying on her sense of smell, calling the pay phone operator, and pushing "Walk" just to listen to the traffic stop.
It is easy to see why Shelly Winters won an Oscar for her portrayal of Selina's drunken and abusive prostitute mother. As a viewer, I cringed with Selina every time her mother went on one of her tirades. I still wonder why Elizabeth Hartman only received an Oscar nomination for her performance, because she truly portrayed the essence of her character.
I give this film a four-star rating because I felt that the film accurately portrayed a 1965 interracial romance and addressed the subject of significant age differences between two people clearly drawn romantically to one another. The film could be disturbing at times because it showed just how bleak life can be for a blind girl living in poverty with a truly dysfunctional family.

A BITTERSWEET, HEARTBREAKING FILM...
This is a wonderful low-budget, black and white film starring a great cast of actors: Sidney Poitier, Shelley Winters, Wallace Ford, and then newcomer, Elizabeth Hartman. It was filmed in 1965, at the height of the civil rights movement, and was then notable for its budding inter-racial romance. While this aspect may seem rather tame today, at the time the movie was filmed, this was still a somewhat controversial theme in many parts of America.

Elizabeth Hartman, in an exquisitely poignant performance for which she was nominated for an Academy Award, plays the part of Selina D'Arcy, an eighteen year old blind girl who lives an isolated and impoverished, almost Dickensian, existence. She lives with her abusive mother, Rose-Ann (Shelley Winters), who moonlights as a prostitute, and her drunken, though somewhat well-meaning, grandfather, whom she calls Ole Pa (Wallace Ford). Uneducated, having never gone to school, Selina spends her time stringing beads to earn some money for the family, cleaning up after her mother and grandfather, and being at the receiving end of constant physical abuse and verbal invectives heaped upon her by her mother. Hers is, indeed, a draconian existence.

One day, she prevails upon her grandfather to drop her off in the park, where she proceeds to sit under a tree, stringing her beads. There, she meets a kindly, well-educated business man, Gordon Ralphe (Sidney Poitier), who takes an interest in her and her quick appreciation for any kindness done to her. She responds to Gordon's kindness as if she were a flower turning its face to the sun for continued warmth. He, in turn, is touched by her eager interest in even the most mundane of matters. They continue to meet under that tree as often as possible, and a relationship develops.

Under Gordon's tutelage, Selina begins to blossom. Some of her disclosures to him about her life fill him with horror and a determination to do something constructive about it. While he goes about trying to improve her quality of life, their relationship deepens, despite the warnings of Gordon's brother. After all, Selina is white, uneducated, and comes from a trashy, dysfunctional family, while Gordon is black, well-educated, and from a good family.

Selina, sure that what she feels is love, is less restrained than Gordon about her feelings, though their budding romance culminates in nothing more than a chaste kiss. When Rose-Ann finds out whom Selina has been meeting, however, matters come to a head, and Gordon comes to the rescue. A modern day knight in shining armor, however, Gordon does the selfless thing in the end.

This is a wonderful movie in which the two main protagonists, Gordon and Selina, judge each other by the content of their respective character and not by the color of their skin. Though controversial at the time, this film may seem a little dated by today's standards. Yet, some of its themes are as fresh today as when it was filmed. The notion of selflessness and putting the needs of another before one's own remains timeless. This is a concept, however, rarely seen in today's films.

Although this was Ms. Hartman's debut film, she deservedly received an Academy Award nomination for her sensitive portrayal of Selina. Unfortunately, her career never really took off after this film the way one would have expected after a performance of this caliber. She appeared only in a few notable films, such as, "The Group", "You're a Big Boy Now", and "Beguiled", before descending into virtual obscurity. I was saddened to hear that she committed suicide in the late nineteen eighties at the age of forty-five, a tragic figure in the end, leaving behind this beautiful performance for posterity.

Ending different in original book
I agree with most reviewers that this was an excellent film, which I have watched over and over again. All the acting is wonderful and deserving of many awards. As is true with many movies I really like, I searched out the original book on which the movie was based. It ran very true to form, they did an excellent job of adapting the book to the movie, but the happy racial ending in the movie was a change from the more realistic one in the book. Gordon arranges for Selena to go to school, but she breaks off her friendship with him when she finds out she is black. Blackness is horrible to her because she is blind and that's all she sees, plus it's the way she was raised. But all in all, one of my favorite movies.

completely destroys the book
I've read the novel version of this story several times, and love it. The movie, when Ii first watched it, was touching, but there was something missing. On the second viewing, I realized what this film lacks is a convincing ending, the thing that makes the book so believable and heartbreaking. The shattering, tearful cliff-hanger of the novel was replaced by a simply, almost predictable, feel-good ending that makes the film flop miserably for someone who knows the original intent of the author. Also, the many scenes which were thought up by the film-makers, while convincing and poignant in their own way, don't compare with the warm, yet darkly sinister, tone of the book. I love the music though. And one question: is that Elizabeth Heartman's real voice?

aways my favourite movie
I read with sadness other comments that this movie is outdated............oh really...surprise surprise....it was made in the 60's I think.

This movie above any I have seen since, speaks so clearly of sensitivity, gentle compassion and passionate love. The self-sacrificing love that we know so little about these days...

DARE I SAY IT? is this what TRUE LOVE IS.....TO LOVE AND THEN LET GO for the LIFE of the other......

Gordon loved so tenderly and Serina became aware so gently that she was lovable..AND loved........

How is it possible that one could miss this view of the film is beyond me.........

I have been "in-love" with Sidney ever since .... he has such skill as an actor and has broadened my horizons so immensely with his portrayal of Gordon

Thank GOD for this medium which gives me an opportunity to say to SIDNEY FANS what I have wanted to say to him for 35 years....

"THANK YOU AND I LOVE YOU FOR WHAT YOU HAVE GIVEN ME .....esp. in this film"

one very devouted fan from MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA ... Read more

Reviews (7)

I love the movie
I would like to see a preview of the movie demon wind please.

A good scary movie
when I first saw this movie I thought it was really scary it still is scary think about it being trapped there with zobmies and you could become possessed by a demon too.

Could Have Been Better
This film to me was one of those "Almost" films. Almost, but no cigar. Not much thought in the storyline, and the acting was somewhat weak. To myself, it was like an Evil Dead, Night of the Living Dead, and a touch of Friday the 13th, ripoff. Friday the 13th, meaning at the begining of this film, with the old man, Harcourt, telling them not to go there, to stay away if they know what's good for them, etc. But then again, there are quite a few movies that do that. The movie starts with this couple in a farmhouse in the year 1931. She's praying and whatnot, while candles burn in the house, as well as in the center of a pentagram, while demons are screaming,"you can't keep us out". It seems that this farmhouse is some gateway to hell, and grandma has some spell that keeps them at bay. Until this night. They seemed to have possessed her husband, and all hell breaks loose. Then we skip to present day.So, here we have a young man, his girlfriend, and a couple of car-loads of their friends, in the middle of nowhere, in search of a rural farmhouse, where the lead man, Cory's grandparents had suffered a horrible fate, almost 60 yrs. ago.It seems Cory is determined to find out what or whom killed them.(pretty stupid reason wanting to find out after all these years, but hey, it's a movie) When they find the farmhouse, a couple of the girls, mainly Molly, feels some bad vibes there.Cory, determined to find out what happened to the grandparents, does not really care about the bad vibes, and decides to investigate inside the house.There, what was left of it, is everything in place the same night his grandparents were murdered. (even the beautifully cooked turkey, that still looks like it just came out of the oven, I'd like to know where you can buy a turkey like that, that stays that good sitting around for 60 yrs.) Practically all the stuff in there looked brand new. It must have been some great weather conditions to keep all that stuff looking like that. Could'nt the makers of this movie at least thrown some dirt on stuff to look like it's been sitting around for years? Anyway, strange things start happening. These 3 little girl ghosts, demons, or whatever they are, appear and takes one of the girls.So, they deceide it's time to leave, but the cars will not start. They decide to walk, but then a mysterious fog keeps coming while they are walking, and takes them right back to the farmhouse.Seems there is no escape, and they systematically start getting bumped off. After being killed, they come back as "DEMONS", and go after the living that remain, at the farmhouse. (Kind of sounds like Evil Dead to me). This movie, I think, could have been alot better, if there was more gore, and made a little more sense.The acting was typical b-rated I guess. About as corny as you're gonna get. There's some decent one-liners, some slimy, gorey effects, but just not enough. The make-up was pretty impressive though. That I did like.All in all though, the movie was not that great. Nothing new presented here. Like I said earlier, you can definetly see that they relied heavily on copying Evil Dead. Personally, I would skip this one, and go buy Evil Dead if you haven't seen it yet.The only reason I gave this 3 stars was for the great make-up, and special effects. Otherwise, i can't say I enjoyed it. I bought it after reading the reviews on here about it.It sounded pretty good, but I was pretty dissatisfied overall.

Pleasant suprise!
I didn't expect much of this movie, particularly after seeing the hologram packaging, but it turned out to be _really_ good. It has some nice touches, some bizarre twists, and some really likable characters. It did have me scratching my head from time to time (why does the power of good imbue you with a troll head? ), but it was altogether a good romp of a film. The magician duo and their last stand against pressing hoards of zombies is just a classic moment. If you're a horror fan, you'll get a kick out of this film.

Night of the Living Dead and The Evil Dead put together!
This turned out to be a neat horror film with descent gruesome effects. Eric Larson and Francine Lapensee did a fairly good job in their roles. We also have good supporting roles by Sherry Bendorf (Who starred in a sick, gory, pointless, and disgusting teenage slasher flick "Slaughterhouse", and did a better job on this one)and Richard Gabai (Famous for his lame cheesy comedy flicks "Assault of the Party Nerds " and "Virgin High"), who both did a fairly good job in this movie, which is "Evil Dead" and "Night of the Living Dead" in one, but alot better, with a better storyline! ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Actually based on a true story...
---
...being the Battle of Athens, Tennessee (August 1-2, 1946), in which GIs returning from World War II to McMinn County, midway between Knoxville and Chatanooga in eastern Tennessee, found their communities under the vicious control of the Cantrell political machine. The "law enforcement officers" of the county sheriff were, in fact, nothing more than badge-wearing armed goons at Cantrell's command.

This mild movie is the best available dramatization of what happened in that Summer of 1946, when American private citizens, faced with a government that would not obey the law, took up weapons - including semiautomatic military small arms, machine guns, and dynamite - and got themselves an honest election by exercising their civil rights in a manner that would cause today's "Liberals" to soil their silken panties.

Until someone undertakes a proper and accurate dramatic account of what actually happened in McMinn County when the GIs returned to their homes and did to the Cantrell machine what they'd done to the foreign enemies of freedom, this milk-and-water substitute will have to do.
---

Seems to be missing something.
An American Story is about a group of WWII veterns who return home to cope with their changed lives. The current mayor has shaken up their town while they were overseas, so the veterns decide to run for office to try and change things. This movie follows several different characters who are undeveloped and in the end of the movie, some of the conflicts remained unresolved.
A better hallmark movie that has the WWII theme involved in it, is Miss Rose White, check this one out if you are interested. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

A Strange Cooper vehicle
What a strange movie this is. Not quite a genre movie, not quite a soap opera, not quite high drama. It starts out as a loose reworking of TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE, then veers into WAGES OF FEAR territory, before becoming a dark romantic drama, and finally ending as high adventure. Whether it works depends on one's feelings about just how much latitude a movie has in refashioning itself as the story unfolds. For me, I can watch this and almost laugh outloud at the absurd going's-on, and then watch it another time and find it absolutely fascinating. Its very weirdness becomes hallucinatory. Cooper, Stanwyck and Quinn are all very good, though you wonder how they kept their roles straight as it bounced from one type movie to another. There's a side of me that believes this movie has improved with age. Because it breaks so many story-telling "rules", it plays better in today's market. Indeed, there is almost something independent-looking about the entire production. But since Cooper was the number one box office star in the world in 1953, had just snagged his second Academy Award (HIGH NOON), it is hard to believe this was an indy. But, HIGH NOON was an indy, why not this? Take a chance on it.

excellent 50's adventure film noir
i must respectfully disagree with mr. maltin on this one. what he considers"plodding" i would describe as dark drama. barbara stanwyck was at her most evil, gary cooper at his most distressed since"high noon", anthony quinn did well in a career enhancing role for him at that time, ward bond solid as usual and ruth roman an attractive and fine actress. the scenic locations enhance the excellent photography and the local actors as bandits were believably threatening. however the one flaw for me was the score and frankie laine's insistent and repetitive singing of the picture's theme song,"blowing wild" sorry, that was NOT in "high noon" class. in an era when john wayne remade the same picture a dozen times "blowing wild" stands out. ... Read more

Amazon.com

In the opening scene of Hamlet (1948), Laurence Olivier's voice-over describes the play as "the tragedy of a man who couldn't make up his mind." But Olivier's screen adaptation is considerably more thoughtful and complex than this thesis would suggest. Drawing on his experience playing the prince on stage at Elsinore in 1937, the legendary thespian provides the film with the patina of greatness and shows how the constitution of the formerly cheerful prince weakens increasingly under the burden of his own thoughts and inability to accept his mother's hasty marriage to uncle Claudius (Basil Sydney). As Ophelia, Jean Simmons captures the character's early spirit better than her gradual disintegration. Purists may bemoan the loss of Fortinbras, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, but these choices allow Olivier to focus more squarely on Hamlet's plight. The winner of four Oscars^® (Best Picture, Actor, Art Direction, and Costumes), this is a Hamlet for the ages. The rest is silence. --Kevin Mulhall ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Great Dane
Sir Laurence Olivier's 1948 version of Hamlet sets the standard for film version of the play about the Danish prince. Much as he did with Henry V, Sir Laurence exercises some significant plot points and characters from Shakespeare's play, but it is done to concentrate the focus of the film on the brooding prince. Make no mistake about it, this is Sir Laurence's film all the way. He brings an amazing breadth to character who disintegrates from a happy and sensitive man into a tormented and lost soul. There are some other great performances including Eileen Herlie who plays the Queen and is Sir Laurence's mother in the film despite being thirteen years his junior, a young Jean Simmons is luminous as Ophelia and Basil Sydney is effective as the villainous Claudius. Horror film notables Peter Cushing and the now ubiquitous Christopher Lee also appear as does Stanley Holloway. The film was a major success and it helped earn Sir Laurence his only competitive Oscars in 1948 as Best Actor and as producer on the Best Picture award in addition to two others for Best Art Direction (B&W) and Best Costume Design (B&W). He is also the only Best Actor Oscar winner to direct himself to the award.

OLIVIER MASTERFUL IN HAUTING ADAPTATION
There are several film versions of Shakespeare's great play about the troubled Prince of Denmark; Mel Gibson's imbues the drama with a barely restrained mania while Kenneth Branagh's is notable as the most nearly complete version yet made. Still, it is Olivier's production which remains the standard, and justifiably so. His is the performance which I believe most nearly matches the Bard's own vision of how the tormented Hamlet should be played--sensitive, caustic and impassioned yet tortured and lost. Olivier's direction leads the viewer inexorably into the heart of the play, whose characters move through the nearly inescapable walls of Castle Elsinore like sleepwalkers through a lucid dream. But Olivier couldn't do it all himself, and doesn't need to. Felix Aylmer is a likeable wise old fool as Polonius; Eileen Herlie is an appropriately confused queen and mother; Basil Sydney is well-cast as the villain who would rather not be; and Jean Simmons shines as Hamlet's innocent love, whose disintegration is so realistic it breaks the watcher's heart. More, the individual scenes are beautifully orchestrated. Oliver's rendition of the "To be or not to be" soliloquoy is pure magic, and the story's climactic duel is worth the wait, as Hamlet and Laertes (Ophelia's brother, well assayed by Terence Morgan)duel to the death--one unwittingly, and both to the death of more than each other. True, the production is incomplete, and the lack of Rosencranz and Guildenstern is a regrettable omission. But overall, Olivier's film captures the essence of Shakespeare's play like no other. As long as Hamlet is studied in schools, this will be the version most often used to show how the play should be done. A worthwhile addition to even the most discerning video library.

Another good Lawrence Olivier adaptation of Shakespeare
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.

In this release Olivier's second adaptation of a Shakespeare play, Olivier again plays the title role. Unlike the previous film, this one is in black and white,

It follows the story of a Danish prince bent on avenging the murder of his father by his uncle.
I would assume that most people know the plot so that is all I will say about it,

The DVD has no special features which is not normal for a Criterion release.

Olivier is fantastic!
A film by Laurence Olivier

The word "masterpiece" is thrown around far too often these days, but for years I have heard that this version of "Hamlet" is Olivier's masterpiece. Recently I had the opportunity to see this masterpiece and for the first time I saw Olivier at work. I was impressed with what I saw. To the modern ear, Shakespearean language can sound awkward and archaic, but with Olivier, much of the dialogue sounded like easy conversation.

I once heard "Hamlet" described as the most structurally perfect play, that every action stems directly from something else in the play and that every action happened in that particular way because it had to, that there was no other way for the actions to work out. I am not enough of a Shakespeare scholar to be able to really speak to this, but I do know that when done well, "Hamlet" is a fascinating play, and a fascinating film. Olivier succeeded at doing this play well.

The story is one that is well known. Hamlet (Laurence Olivier) is a prince of Denmark. His father had died a month prior, and Queen Gertrude (Eileen Herlie) married the dead king's brother, Claudius (Basil Sydney). Hamlet has been brooding, unable to accept either his father's death or his mother's rather quick remarriage. This continues until Hamlet sees the ghost of his father, who tells him that he was murdered, and that the murderer is now sitting on the throne of Denmark. As a character said early in the film, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Hamlet must avenge his father, but in such a way that he can get away with it. As he begins to plot, he pretends to be mad (crazy), so that his excesses can be excused away. So begins the story.

This is an impressive movie, from the acting to the set design. The castle has a dark, gloomy atmosphere and it feels (and looks) real rather than looking hokey (the movie is more than 50 years old, after all). I was most impressed with Olivier, and rather less so with Jean Simmons, as Ophelia. The character (and her motivations) just didn't feel real to me this time. Excellent movie and highly recommended for classic film buffs.

"Dead for a ducket! Dead!!!"
With those words spoken with a maniacal glare, Lawrence Olivier had my complete attention. He is both director and the lead in this classic version of the celebrated play. The direction is smart, reminiscent at times of visual techniques used in "Citizen Kane." Praise, indeed! However, his acting performance is frustrating. He speaks softly, letting the poetry of the language speak for itself, then has a brilliant moment or exceptional scene, only to blaze sensationalistic at the wrong times. One such instance was just after Hamlet slays Polonius. Olivier cries out at the top of his voice, "Is it the King?!" Hamlet states early in the play that he is only playing at madness. Why is he then drawing so much attention to his bloody actions when we all know he just left the King praying on a lower level? He knows it couldn't be the King. Once again, his direction is amazing, but there are some excellent examples of why actors should not direct themselves. Seriously, who's going to tell them their performance needs work? Another scene that had me scratching my head was after the "players" first arrive. Why does Olivier pull the lead player aside, telling him that he has lines for him to memorize, only to have the "play-within-a-play" enacted without any words at all? He should have cut that earlier scene, or let the players have their lines.

The meeting with Hamlet's ghost is incredibly creepy here, with trick camera work, an eerie score, great special effects, and a thudding heart-beat announcing the ghost's arrival. This is my favorite version of this particular scene.

Jean Simmons looks very pretty here, and she does have her moments, but there are better portrayals of Ophelia in other renditions of the play. Both Helena Bonham Carter, in the Mel Gibson version, and Kate Winslet, in the Kenneth Branagh version, are superior. Jean Simmons is good, but not great.

Horatio is wooden for the most part. When will actors learn that one doesn't stop acting simply because it is not their turn to speak. Gestures and expressions, people! Lawrence Olivier uses subtlety in ever scene at ever moment, that is why so many consider him a great actor.

Once again, the character of Laertes is portrayed with only a little passion. Catch the Kenneth Branagh version to see a vengeful Laertes on the verge of exploding with blood-lust!

Overall, I was disappointed with the supporting cast. They have their moments, but none of them can match Olivier's performance. To quote a critical review I read, "Olivier is triumphant!" As both director and actor, his work here, for the most part, shines. Thank you. ... Read more

Description

Hailed as an instant classic, this Academy Award®-winning film adaptation of Stephen Vincent Benet's folk story is an American version of the Faust legend.In 1840's New Hampshire, a young farmer signs a seven-year contract with the Devil in exchange for gold.Walter Huston's brilliant performance as the mischievous Mr.Scratch (the Devil) is equaled by Edward Arnold's fine portrayal of Daniel Webster, the famous 19th-century advocate who, in a memorable climax, fights to save the young farmer's soul before a jury of the damned.This acclaimed restoration has been pieced together from various existing print sources to provide the most complete version available.The result is a finer film, richer in detail, drama, and magic.Digitally remastered at The Tape House, New York City, supervised by Bruce Eder and Karen Rosen. ... Read more

Reviews (22)

THE DEVIL and DANIEL WEBSTER is a "heavenly" movie treat!!
When it was first released in 1941, THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER (originally released as ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY) found itself buried under the controversial shadow of Orson Welles' classic film, CITIZEN KANE, which came out at the same time. Adding insult to injury was the fact that this classic adaptation of the Stephen Vincent Benet tale would suffer cuts and trims that would dissipate the film's impact. Now, thanks to a first-class restoration effort by Criterion, this stylish quick-witted film can be seen in all its original glory.

The film tells the story of Jabez Stone (James Craig), a struggling New Hampshire farmer, who curses his ill-luck to the point of offering his soul to the devil. No sooner does he voice his wish, when a sinister little man named "Mr. Scratch" (Walter Huston) appears. Needless to say, the seven year deal for good luck and money is struck and the kindly farmer is soon corrupted, despite the best efforts of his wife and his mother. Eventually, Jabez comes to bitterly regret his deal and it is up to famed orator Daniel Webster (Edward Arnold) to defend him in a hellish court before a jury of the damned.

Director William Dieterle (who previously helmed the classic 1939 version of THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME) does a wonderful job in presenting his tale through the powerful use of shadow and contrast. Bernard Herrmann compliments the film with a stellar score which won him the Academy Award that year. The acting, for the most part, is also top-notch. While not the best actor in the world, James Craig is solid enough as the hapless Jabez. Ann Shirley is equal parts warmth and steel as his loving wife. Jane Darwell, who earned praise as Ma Joad in the classic THE GRAPES OF WRATH, is solid in another "salt of the earth" role as Ma Stone. Simone Simon is absolutely sexy and appropriately sinister as Belle, the demon lady that Scratch recruits to keep Jabez in line. Edward Arnold, who replaced Thomas Mitchell after an on-set accident, is top-notch as the larger-than-life Daniel Webster. Used to playing ruthless businessmen and pompous fathers, Arnold makes the most of this plum role, and his final speech to the unholy jury is a definite highlight. When all is said and done, however, it is Walter Huston's marvelous portrayal of the Devil that will remain in the memory long after film's end. With a folksy, puckish demeanor, Huston creates a fun-loving, even likable character. However, when Jabez tries to wheedle out of the deal, Huston drops the smiling facade, showing us the true nastiness of his character. It is a definitive performance.

As with many of Criterion's DVD releases, THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER has extras that will please both fans of the film and the original story. Along with an informative film commentary by noted film historians, there is a wonderful audio recording of the original tale read by Alec Baldwin, along with 2 old radio dramas covering both the original and another, "Daniel Webster and the Sea Serpent." There is also an excellent essay feature focusing on Bernard Herrmann's wonderful score which uses clips from the film to highlight certain points in the essay.

Overall, THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER is a classic that definitely is a must-have for your film collection and one that I highly recommend. It's a "hell" of a movie!

Classic DEVIL film gets classic DVD treatment
When it was first released in 1941, THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER (originally released as ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY) found itself buried under the controversial shadow of Orson Welles' classic film, CITIZEN KANE, which came out at the same time. Adding insult to injury was the fact that this classic adaptation of the Stephen Vincent Benet tale would suffer cuts and trims that would dissipate the film's impact. Now, thanks to a first-class restoration effort by Criterion, this stylish quick-witted film can be seen in all its original glory.

The film tells the story of Jabez Stone (James Craig), a struggling New Hampshire farmer, who curses his ill-luck to the point of offering his soul to the devil. No sooner does he voice his wish, when a sinister little man named "Mr. Scratch" (Walter Huston) appears. Needless to say, the seven year deal for good luck and money is struck and the kindly farmer is soon corrupted, despite the best efforts of his wife and his mother. Eventually, Jabez comes to bitterly regret his deal and it is up to famed orator Daniel Webster (Edward Arnold) to defend him in a hellish court before a jury of the damned.

Director William Dieterle (who previously helmed the classic 1939 version of THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME) does a wonderful job in presenting his tale through the powerful use of shadow and contrast. Bernard Herrmann compliments the film with a stellar score which won him the Academy Award that year. The acting, for the most part, is also top-notch. While not the best actor in the world, James Craig is solid enough as the hapless Jabez. Ann Shirley is equal parts warmth and steel as his loving wife. Jane Darwell, who earned praise as Ma Joad in the classic THE GRAPES OF WRATH, is solid in another "salt of the earth" role as Ma Stone. Simone Simon is absolutely sexy and appropriately sinister as Belle, the demon lady that Scratch recruits to keep Jabez in line. Edward Arnold, who replaced Thomas Mitchell after an on-set accident, is top-notch as the larger-than-life Daniel Webster. Used to playing ruthless businessmen and pompous fathers, Arnold makes the most of this plum role, and his final speech to the unholy jury is a definite highlight. When all is said and done, however, it is Walter Huston's marvelous portrayal of the Devil that will remain in the memory long after film's end. With a folksy, puckish demeanor, Huston creates a fun-loving, even likable character. However, when Jabez tries to wheedle out of the deal, Huston drops the smiling facade, showing us the true nastiness of his character. It is a definitive performance.

As with many of Criterion's DVD releases, THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER has extras that will please both fans of the film and the original story. Along with an informative film commentary by noted film historians, there is a wonderful audio recording of the original tale read by Alec Baldwin, along with 2 old radio dramas covering both the original and another, "Daniel Webster and the Seas Serpent." There is also an excellent feature focusing on Bernard Herrmann's wonderful score which uses clips from the film for emphahsis.

Overall, THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER is a classic that definitely is a must-have for your film collection and one that I highly recommend. It's a "hell" of a movie!

The clever devil challenges you
Walter Huston as the devil gives a knock out performance in this classic film. Filmed in the middle of the WW2 , the film is a well made adaptation of the famous Fausto , but set in a little town, where the greed and the ambition transforms the soul and the character of a very good farmer.
The script turns around the hunger for power who lives in all human being. He makes a contract with the devil and the promise will allow him seven years of richness . Suddenly he changes his old habits and becomes cruel and insane mood , he becomes in a no mercy pawnbroker and he reachs the peak like the most hated man of the town.
The story will lead us to a twist of fate about a famous politician (who else?) who will have his verbal duel with the devil in an unforgettable and surrealistic place with a weird jury. Wonderful defense with a powerful reasoning.
This picture became in a cult movie due his expressiveness and his flamboyant rhytm .
This one may be the best achievement of Willam Dieterle as film maker.
The ending sequence is anthological!

What Doth It Profit a Man...?
If you could summon old Beelzebub up from the pits of Hell and trade your soul for seven or so years of wealth and good luck, would you do it? And if you DID do it but later had second thoughts, would you have any course of redress? These are the questions that--on the surface, at least--are explored in the 1941 cinematic masterpiece THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER (originally released as ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY and shown to preview audiences as HERE IS A MAN).

Based on the popular 1937 short story by Stephen Vincent Benét, THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER extends far beyond the scope of its source material to become more than just a facet of the legend of larger-than-life U.S. 19th-century American statesman and orator Daniel Webster. The film is actually a satire of Depression-era perceptions of unfettered capitalism and moneylender institutions like banks, mortgage companies, and pawnbrokers, and it even manages to take a few jabs at blind patriotism and the idealistic American conception of personal freedom. The character of Webster, though important to the plot, is ancillary to the film's overall Populist message.

The movie covers a slice from the life of one Jabez Stone (James Craig), a mid-19th-century New Hampshire farmer who seemingly has no respite from his perpetual run of bad luck. Under the shadow of the impending foreclosure on his farm, Jabez enters into a Faustian agreement with a certain "Mr. Scratch" (Walter Huston), who promises the farmer seven years of good luck and prosperity in exchange for his soul.

Jabez takes to his newfound wealth like a fish to water, and it isn't long before his lifestyle and behavior mirrors that of the greedy moneylenders he once so despised. But as the end of his 7-year contract draws nigh, he starts to worry about his ultimate fate. When his wife, Mary (Anne Shirley), senses that something evil is tormenting her husband, she appeals to the famous statesman and lawyer Daniel Webster (Edward Arnold) for help. Always willing to assist a fellow New Englander, Webster rises to the occasion and engages Mr. Scratch vis-à-vis in the most hellish court of law ever assembled. But can Daniel Webster save Jabez from eternal damnation, or has the great agrarian champion and statesman finally met his match?

Excellent performances from the cast, especially the great Walter Huston's portrayal of Mr. Scratch and Edward Arnold's depiction of Daniel Webster; beautiful cinematography, which includes a combination of new, groundbreaking camera techniques with lighting styles that hearken back to German Expressionist cinema; clever, stylish special FX that still stand up well, even against today's CGI stuff; a fantastic musical score that includes elements of Americana folk music and experimental electronic techniques; and a well written script all serve to elevate THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER to the level of a minor masterpiece. Yet despite this fact, the film was an unfortunate box-office flop during its initial release.

Part of this failure was due to bad timing. CITIZEN KANE (1941) was released only a few months before, and the hype and controversy generated by Orson Welles' magnum opus pushed many other great films to the background. In addition, the film was simply ahead of its time. The subtle left-wing subtext, the sometimes enigmatic depiction of the supernatural, the strange lighting, and the obvious allusions to blasphemy and infidelity were not as common in that era as today, and critical reviews of the era indicate that THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER's literate script was over the heads of the average moviegoer in 1941. Nonetheless, Walter Huston was nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of the bedeviling Mr. Scratch, and though he didn't win, the film DID beat out CITIZEN KANE in the category of best musical score.

(Film buffs might be interested in the following bits of trivia: Both CITIZEN KANE and THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER were scored by Bernard Herrmann, so he was competing against himself for the 1941 Oscar. Herrmann also later scored Hitchcock's VERTIGO (1958) and PSYCHO (1960), as well as numerous other films and TV shows. The film editor on THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER was Robert Wise, who would later go on to direct genre greats like THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (1951), THE HAUNTING (1963), and THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN (1971), among others. And more recently, this film was also parodied in an episode of TV's THE SIMPSONS entitled "The Devil and Homer Simpson.")

In later years, the film was heavily cut for re-release, and this butchery pared the original 106-minute running time down to approximately 84 minutes. Of course, that much loss of screen time made the film's plot confusing and vague, and THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER never received the appreciation it deserved.

But now, thanks to the wonderful Criterion Collection release, contemporary audiences can see the film as the filmmakers intended. Cut elements, many of which were once thought to be lost, have been replaced and the film cleaned up as much as possible, and this restored version is what is now available via DVD. Some minor wear is still noticeable, but overall the DVD transfer is beautiful. Extras include a fascinating commentary from film historian Bruce Eder and composer Bernard Herrmann's biographer Steven C. Smith, actor Alec Baldwi's cool reading of Benét's original short story, old-tyme radio dramatizations of the story, and much more! This is a disc that all lovers of great classic films or fans of older, milder horror films should add to their collections.

The Best Big Screen Satan
Who is YOUR favorite on-screen devil? Surely not John Ritter or George Burns? Not when there's Max Von Sydow in "Needful Things" and Al Pacino in "The Devil's Advocate." Yet these two recent superb performances pale beside Walter Huston's "Mr. Scratch" in "The Devil and Daniel Webster." Huston is a jolly Scratch, one who never misses an opportunity for petty sin, be it swiping a pie or a bunch of carrots, guzzling hard cider, or encouraging a bit of lethargy. Through it all he never forgets his big mission of corruption and soul-gathering. He also takes his losses in stride.
As he battles for the soul of one Jabez Stone, a hapless New Hampshire farmer, he must battle a stern but likeable Daniel Webster, ably played by great character actor Edward Arnold. The culminating trial by 'the quick and the dead' is eerie and touching.
The film has an awesome Bernard Herrmann score and effects and cinematography that still look good over half a century later.
This film is profound yet intensly witty, much like the original Stephen Vincent Benet short story.
This is one film you should have no hestitation in buying. You will want to watch it again and again. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Great California Story of Morality!!
This is a atory of a priest and seven missions of early California during a gold rush as it's participators have to chose between the sword and God.Starring,Anthony Quinn,it's a great California Story of Morality!! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Like Easy Rider, Bonnie and Clyde, The Wild Bunch, andThe Graduate, The Last Picture Show is one of the signature films of the "New Hollywood" that emerged in the late 1960s and early '70s. Based on the novel by Larry McMurtry and lovingly directed by Peter Bogdanovich (who cowrote the script with McMurtry), this 1971 drama has been interpreted as an affectionate tribute to classic Hollywood filmmaking and the great directors (such as John Ford) that Bogdanovich so deeply admired.It's also a eulogy for lost innocence and small-town life, so accurately rendered that critic Roger Ebert called it "the best film of 1951," referring to the movie's one-year time frame, its black-and-white cinematography (by Robert Surtees), and its sparse but evocative visual style. The story is set in the tiny, dying town of Anarene, Texas, where the main-street movie house is about to close for good, and where a pair of high-school football players are coming of age and struggling to define their uncertain futures. There's little to do in Anarene, and while Sonny (Timothy Bottoms) engages in a passionless fling with his football coach's wife (Cloris Leachman), his best friend Duane (Jeff Bridges) enlists for service in the Korean War. Both boys fall for a manipulative high-school beauty (Cybill Shepherd) who's well aware of her sexual allure. But it's not so much what happens in The Last Picture show as how it happens--and how Bogdanovich and his excellent cast so effectively capture the melancholy mood of a ghost town in the making. As Hank Williams sings on the film's evocative soundtrack, The Last Picture Show looks, feels, and sounds like a sad but unforgettably precious moment out of time.--Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (39)

A plotless mood piece, but very well done
To call a movie plotless sounds negative, but in the case of The Last Picture Show, there's so very little plot that it's barely worth speaking about. The film revolves around a number of characters, most notably two high school seniors. Duane is dating the "only beautiful girl in town" and Sonny is carrying on an affair with a married woman. Several other characters move in and out of view, notably the beauty's mother and the owner of the pool hall. The film carefully develops its dozen or so main characters and simply watches them as they move about the bleak-looking desert town. Further adding to the immersion is the fact that the soundtrack consists solely of early-50's country music heard through tinny radios in the background.

This film was quite controversial at the time of its release for its frank (and unglamorised) depictions of sex. Jacy sums up the attitude of sex for the teens when she tells her mother "I would never do that, it's a sin before marriage," but later tells a college boy "I'm a virgin, but I don't want to be." In a small town with little to do, sex is just a form of entertainment, while 1951 morals required that it be hidden from view.

This is a film that cares about its characters and allows them to inhabit the setting. The dialogue and events occur naturally, and at the end of the film, the only things that have really happened are Jacy losing her virginity, a funeral, and the high school football team gets some better linebackers. But because you care about the characters (and the performances are universally fantastic), you care about these events that are objectively small, but which are important to the characters.

This DVD is not of high quality. This may be deliberate - the film is supposed to have a hard-edged, bleak feel that might not be as effective if the film had been cleaned up for the DVD. There is an hour-long reminiscence on the making of the film, which is interesting to watch once. Director Bogdanovich gets the lion's share of time, but many cast members have their say as well. Overall, it's a decent DVD, but the VHS will contain the important part, which is the film itself, and likely of the same quality.

Stark Picture
Peter Bogdanovich's The Last Picture Show is an adaptation of a Larry McMurtry novel. Much like most of Mr. McMurty's work, the film is set in Texas. The time is the mid 50's and like many towns at the time, TV was sweeping the land and fewer people were going to the movies, so the only movie theater in town is shutting down. The picture isn't built around that, but more around that the idea of a loss of a more innocent time. The film centers around Sonny (Timothy Bottoms) whose best friend is Duane (Jeff Bridges). They were the captains of the high school football team, but they have since graduated. Sonny still wears the varsity jacket as a sign that he was once something big. He ends up having an affair with the football coaches plain wife. Cloris Leachman plays the wife and she brings a sadness to the role. Sonny helps her feel young and alive, but she can never be with him. Sonny ends up falling for Duane's girlfriend Jaycee (Cybil Shepard) and Duane leaves town. Sonny & Jaycee marry, but in the end everything breaks apart. Mr. Bogdanovich filmed the movie in black and white and town is stark and dusty and we feel a sense of loss. Ben Johnson appears a the all-knowing Lion and he and Ms. Leachman won the 1971 Academy Awards for Best Supporting Actor & actress respectively. The Last Picture Show is difficult and depressing, but brilliantly made.

plaudits for cinematography
This flick is overrated. But you've got to give the filmmakers credit for going with black- and- white, for shooting it in Texas (where the story takes place) and for not trying to squeeze in too many characters into the "plot."
The Chase, starring Marlon Brando, that also takes place in Texas, might have received all the praise heaped on the Last Picture Show flick had they gone the black -and- white route and stayed away from the Universal back lot.

Hud, also shot in Texas, was a better film than this. It seems to me, a good rule of thumb to doing pictures in Texas is to go with black-and-white photography. Don't know why, could be the automatic, built-in authenticity factor one gets with B & W. Color very often means Hollywood glitz, and doesn't seem to work well with this type of tale.

Anyway, it's not the worst flick ever made. Ben Johnson does a nice job, so does Ellen Burstyn. The latter two deserve four stars for their work here. Sybil Shephard was drop-dead gorgeous at the time.

1950's North Texas in Full Color
This film captures life in small town Texas vividly. It was shot in black and white but color film would not have changed the appearance one bit.

Some of the scenes were shot where I delivered newspapers as a kid. I thought I had been transported back in time when I first saw the film. The characters and dialog are magnificent and the situations reminiscent of life as it was then.

It is a beautiful and touching film, one to watch over and over.

Last Picture Show
An amazing movie. Frankly, I agree with the glowing reviews of the film and I have nothing to add to them. However, concerning the quality of the restoration to DVD I must say that it appears that the widescreen formatting was done incorrectly. If you compare the image of the film's opening with that in the documentary(disregarding the full frame), you will notice that the area below the steps of the moviehouse, in the documentary, reveals the begining of the street. In the film itself, this has been cut off. You can also compare the image of Cybill Shepherd on the back of the DVD cover that shows her feet as she steps out of her car. In the film, this is also cut off. ... Read more

Amazon.com

In Parents, director Bob Balaban deconstructs our Father Knows Best perception of '50s suburbia, skewing it via moody cinematography and Angelo Badalamenti's sinister score. Ten-year-old Michael Lamele (Bryan Madorsky) thinks his parents (Randy Quaid and Mary Beth Hurt) are cannibals.His constant fear of his folks and their supposedly evil doings begin to warp his view of the world, and he starts seeing a social worker to confront his problems. Are they merely childhood fears intensified by an overactive imagination, or do Michael's parents really crave human flesh? Much in the way that David Lynch approached the sinister underside of small-town America in Wild at Heart, so too does Balaban challenge our notion of the 'burbs as an escape from the harsh reality of the city. If anything, Michael's parents show their true colors once they become wrapped up in the materialistic, socially predatory world of suburban life. Vastly underappreciated, Balaban's Parents is one of those rare modern horror films that uses psychology to freak you out rather than tossing buckets of blood at you (although there are a few in the film, given its theme). This is one horror film that stands up, and deserves repeated viewings. --Bryan Reesman ... Read more

Reviews (25)

Brilliantly disturbing!
Parents is a film I had known about for quite a while before I finally decided to check it out. I was quite surprised by what I saw. Bob Baladan's cold, minimalistic style was just the touch this film needed. What could have been slapstick horror comedy (a la Dead-Alive or Evil Dead 2, both of which are great; that style just wouldn't work as well for this film) instead becomes a superbly filmed satire of 1950s family culture.

I never thought I could actually be afraid of Randy Quaid, but his performance is truly blood-curdling. (Strangely enough, due to the facial expressions he makes throughout the movie, this is the first time I've ever noticed a resemblance between him and his brother Dennis.) He plays the character with a understatement I didn't realize he was capable of.

I understand why some critics came down on the climax and resolution of the film, feeling it much too conventional in light of what had preceded it, but I feel that there weren't too many more possibilities they could have utilized. The film works fine the way it is, and I recommend it to fans of horror films and sharp-witted satire alike.

Parents: a future cult classic
Randy Quaid is what makes this film in my opinion. MaryBeth Hurt is good, but it's the bizarreness of Quaid which drew me in. It is the 1950's and it is a tale about a picture perfect family that turns out to have some very unusual customs. I will not tell you what seperates this family from others but I will tell you to give this movie a chance. This is Bob Balaban's directorial debut and it is a not a bad one. Buyer Beware: This is not typical Hollywood Cinema!

Parents (1988)
Bizarre film takes place in the 50's and is the story of a boy who wonders where his parents get all their leftover meat from and what it was before it was leftovers...and soon he discovers the terrible (but obvious) truth. "Parents" could have been a nice little horror/comedy like "House," but turned out to be more of a weirdo, bizarro, psycho film that is just too weird to be excepted as proper entertainment. The 50's was portrayed in the most horrific and lurid manner, and the way of life was just heartbreaking (ie. the little girl that Michael befriends). I was looking forward to a fun little horror/comedy, but was disappointed when I found it was a weirdo, bizarro, psycho film (hehe). It's alright, but I don't think it's really that special. Too weird for my tastes.

Duuuuuude...
This movie was really, really weird. I turned on the TV at 2 AM, and the first thing I saw was a kid drowning in a pool of blood. Needless to say, I had no choice but to watch the rest of the movie. The movie seemed to serve no real purpose, which is why I liked it. It was incredibly surreal. (Then again, part of that might have been because I was half-asleep.) In the morning, I actually convicned myself it had been a dream.

Anyway, through this whole thing I was expecting it to be deep, but it had a Goosebumps-type ending, which sort of ruined it for me. Well, anyway, I'm done now. I should never write reviews.

zero stars. terrible horrible no good very bad movie
People have compared this movie to David Lynch. David Lynch this is NOT. People have called it artistic because it has an ethereal dream-like quality to it. I think it's fine to have dream sequences, but to have absolutely nothing happen for 1.5 hours into the movie is unacceptable. The child's acting (if you can call it acting) was awful. It was as if his face had been injected with massive amounts of botox. no expressions. no emotion.

The storyline was predictible with little to offer in the way of ingenuity or thrill factor. The scariest part of the movie might have been when the child turned around and ran into a foot hanging on a meat hook in the cellar. Even then, his face (weighed down by the botox) registered nothing. The father's death scene in the end lasted about 10 minutes of him flopping about trying to lay his hands on the child.

And having his grandparents lay a meat sandwich on his nighttable in the end was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Do not rent this movie. Do not buy it. Exit this screen and never think about this movie ever again. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

not what I remember
The videotape version was edited down from the version I remembered so fondly from late-night cable TV. ... Read more

Description

Film version of Evelyn Waugh's novel by the same name. Follows the events leading up to the end of a marriage of an elite English couple in the 1930's. What else could you expect when the wife has no qualms about her selfish habits (including an affair) and the husband is a stick in the mud confined by his sense of tradition? ... Read more

Reviews (5)

"So much for infidelity."
Brenda (Kristin Scott Thomas) and Tony Last (James Wilby) live at Hetton--the magnificent ancestral home of the Last family. Tony dotes on their only child--a son--James Andrew. Life at Hetton is fairly predictable, and Brenda is clearly bored by it all, and yet she doesn't display her boredom except to bemoan the demands of another hideous local event and the tedious rounds of weekend guests who descend upon them regularly. One weekend, Tony invites a young man named John Beaver (Rupert Graves). Beaver's arrival is so innocuous that Tony even forgets that he's been invited, and so the task of entertaining Beaver falls to Brenda.

Brenda, up to this point, has acted like the perfect wife and mother, moving automatically from one role to another, but the arrival of Beaver sparks some dormant desire. With a cold deliberation, Brenda manipulates Tony into allowing her to take a flat in London. Under the pretense that she's studying e