Reviews (17)

More Than A Few Holes
Lana Turner stars as a woman who marries above herself into a powerful family, earning the dislike of her mother-in-law. When she becomes involved with a notorious playboy who dies accidentally, her mother-in-law uses it as an excuse to get rid of her, forcing her to leave the family and her child, assuming a different identity. Her life spirals downward out of control, until she ends up in jail, charged with murder and being defended by her now grown-up son. There are a lot of holes in this story which relies far too much on coincidence and the stupidity of its characters to advance the plot. Turner is the standout of the film, shedding her typical glamour as the character falls apart. She makes the most out of the role as its written. The supporting cast are given two-dimensional characters to impersonate. John Forsythe barely registers a performance, while the great Constance Bennett barks out her nasty character. The music telegraphs all the emotions at the start of every scene. I'm not a fan of soap opera, but I can watch it if it's handled with a subtle touch. Subtle wouldn't be the word for this movie. Think "heavy-handed and plastic".

Triumph to Tragedy
There has never been, and will never be, a film that better depicts life's happiest and saddest events. The movie opens with ex-salesgirl, newlywed Holly Anderson (Lana Turner) being welcome to the Anderson mansion and meeting her live-in mother-in-law. Her husband, Clay Anderson (John Forsythe), is a rich, politician-on-the-rise. They live the life of the socially prominent, always mindful of their public images. Soon, an heir is born and Holly is a perfect mother. But to be successful, Clay must, and does, travel extensively. Lonely and bored, Holly succumbs to friends' urgings and fullfills her social obligations on the arm of a single, male friend. This causes a series of tragedies, culminating in a surprise twist, and an ending that only a rock could get through without crying. In her role as Holly Anderson, Lana Turner exposes the depths of a woman's soul and the expesses the breadth of a woman's love. If I could, I would give this movie ten stars.

soapy but riveting
Lana Turner is terrific as the pawn of destiny in this elaborate soap opera; it's a plot that could fill five seasons of daytime drama, all wrapped up in one improbable but incredibly entertaining film. It isn't Shakespeare, but for suds, it's tops.
Turner plays Holly Parker, the "little shop girl from San Francisco" who marries a man of immense wealth and ambition, and as a package deal, along with the mansion in Connecticut comes his implacable mother, who has plans for sonny boy, and tells Holly she should have "stayed on the other side of the counter".

John Forsythe plays Holly's husband Clay Anderson with charm and elegance, and Keir Dullea is their grown son. Ricardo Montalban (who starred with Turner 13 years earlier in the charming comedy "Latin Lovers") is the man who tries to seduce her, and Estelle, the scheming mother, is played to the hilt by Constance Bennett, in what was to be her last film.
Burgess Meredith does a marvelous turn as a slimy character Holly meets in a Mexican motel, and the way the rooms are decorated in these scenes is priceless; kudos also go to the make-up department in this section of the film, and Ms. Turner's ability to transform herself. This film proves that she was exceedingly underrated as an actress.

Well paced direction by David Lowell Rich, a lovely score by Frank Skinner, and lavish gowns by Jean Louis make this a memorable melodrama, and save your biggest hanky for the end, which though contrived, is still good for many heartfelt sobs. Total running time is 100 minutes.

This is one of the best movies of all times
How this video has not made it to DVD is a mystery to me. Lana Turner shines like she never has before in this depiction of Holly Anderson.

I really hope that the movie distributers will look at this and put it on DVD ; as I know it will sell like hotcakes. I mean look at the VHS price 29.90 and up.!!

Real Classy entertainment
Excellent drama which should have resulted in Turner winning an Oscar,shame though she didn't. There have been many so called attempts in the last 30 years to make romantic dramas popular again,granted there has been a a few but this version of Madame X is a bone fide tearjerker and first class movie. The VHS copy is very good,and hopefully it will soon get a much deserved DVD release ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Winner of the Academy Award for best picture of 1989, this gracefully moving drama, adapted from the hit play by Alfred Uhry, chronicles the 25-year friendship between a stubborn, aging Southern widow (Jessica Tandy) and her loyal chauffeur (Morgan Freeman). At first, the self-sufficient Miss Daisy is reluctant to accept the services of a chauffeur, but Hoke is quiet, wise, and tolerant, and as the years pass the unlikely friends develop a deep mutual respect and admiration. Tandy deservedly won the Oscar for her sassy and sensitive performance, and Freeman earned an Oscar nomination for bringing quiet depth and integrity to his memorable role. Ironically, director Bruce Beresford (Tender Mercies) was not nominated, but the film won Oscars for makeup and for Uhry's screenplay, in addition to a supporting actor nomination for Dan Aykroyd as Daisy's supportive son. Delicate, funny, and bittersweet, Driving Miss Daisy was a surprise hit when released, and marked the crowning achievement of Tandy's great career. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (48)

An Unlikely Pair
This Academy Award winning drama is a touching story about the coexistence of an aging southern woman and her chauffer. Miss Daisy played by Jessica Tandy (Academy Award for Best Actress) is a feisty Jewish woman forced to endure the tragedy of growing older. Her son played by Dan Aykroyd is faced with the dilemma of playing parent to his parent. Morgan Freeman plays Hoke, the black chauffer hired by her son. Set in Atlanta, GA beginning in the late 1940's this film spans 25 years of an unlikely friendship before and during the fight for Civil Rights. A must see classic, this story keeps the audience wondering what will she think of next, and how will he handle it. Skillfully done with everyday events and situations it is certainly deserving of the Best Picture Academy Award.

A Great Tale of an Unlikely Friendship
"Driving Miss Daisy" is one of the best films released in 1989, rightfully winning four Oscars: Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Makeup. This adaptation of the play version is brilliant. It tells the story, set between 1940's-1960's, of a fiesty elderly woman who's unhappy of growing old. As she meets a man who becomes her driver, the story develops into something special. The combination of stories become increasingly interesting as the two develop a close friendship. Their relationship beats the racist society and the painful past that the man has endured. Through everything, their lives change forever. Her son's frequent visits to her house offer the added entertainment value as it adds to the emotional value. Despite the twenty-five year plot span, the storyline flows smoothly. The warm, loving story offers an unforgettable viewing experience.

Jessica Tandy performs her role as the unhappy elderly woman splendidly. Her every expressed emotion is felt upon audiences. She became the oldest person to win an Oscar, at age 80. Morgan Freeman and Dan Ackroyd's Oscar nominated roles (Best Actor/ Best Supporting Actor) offer the added unique theme to this great film. All other actors also performed wonderfully.

The quality of "Driving Miss Daisy" proves that it's destined to become a classic in the following years. It's sure to continue pleasing audiences for many years to come. Most viewers will have to watch it multiple times to fully understand the movie because of its deep storyline. Afterwards, those who do will be glad they did.

Old Friends.
Lovely is such an old fashioned word, I know. But that's the word that describes this film, for me. The story of the developing friendship over many years between the black chaueffeur and the older Jewish woman is very heartwarming in its simplicity. Jessica Tandy is marvelous as "Miss Daisy" the fiercely independant, irascible widow, whose advancing age requires her son to employ, against her wishes, a driver/companion for her. Miss Tandy, who originated the role of Blanche DuBois on Broadway in "A Streetcar Named Desire", was a wonderful actress. This was one of her last films, and all the skill, sublety, and experience of her life-long craft come together to create a living, breathing "Miss Daisy." Morgan Freeman meets her skill in his portrayal of "Hoag", the accomodating chaueffeur. He has the manner of a certain resignation that an older black man may have felt in the turbulent, prejudiced south in which he lived, yet exudes dignity. He has the manner of "Hoag" down pat, right down to the closed mouth laugh that I have seen in the old black men who hang out on the corner. This is not a caricature, he IS "Hoag." His relationship with Miss Daisy starts out very rocky, to say the least, but, as time passes, their places in each others lives develope into almost a "marriage", with a quiet understanding of, and dependence on, each other. And though Miss Daisy insists she was not prejudiced, and inherently wasn't, it is touching to see her slowly let go of her last universally accepted beliefs of peoples place in society, where the "colored" help were always servants of some sort, and the line was just never crossed. Scenes such as the one where she and "Hoag" are both eating their dinner in the house, she in the dining room, he , alone in the kitchen, express this. The very thought of them dining together, it just wasn't done. As time goes on, and she becomes quietly aware of the similarities of the prejudices against her religion and the prejudices and injustice against Hoags race, the differences that seperate them become insignicant. Dan Akroyd and Patti Lupone are fine as Miss Daisy's son and his typically '50s wife, who admonishes her black maid for the unforgivable sin of forgetting to tell her she was out of coconut for the ambrosia she was serving to her guests... a '50s hostess' nightmare. There are a few moments when their performances threaten to lapse into parody, but one is only aware of this because this is basically a two person play, and the skill and realism of Tandys and Freemans performances just eclipse the others, they are basically props compared to the skill and, yes, sublety of the leads . The exception is Esther Rolle as "Idella" , Miss Daisys black maid. Though her part is small, and her lines few, she manages to convey a resigned dignity also, and her dead-pan delivery of several one liners is very humorous. Miss Daisys affection and respect for Idella is clearly etched upon her face, however, at Idella's funeral. This is just a wonderfully simple, beautiful film. It never treads into being overly sentimental, thanks to the casting of two very special stars. This film took many by surprise by winning the Oscar for best film of the year, proving that a movie with no special effects, and, that actually tells a story, can still move audiences. The final scene, where their years-long friendship comes full circle, will have tears in your eyes, as Miss Daisy conveys the sweet sad wisdom of the old, who know that "all shall soon pass...."

Fascinating, Memorable, Perfect
Not much can be added to the praise of others here, or to the film's enthusiastic reception by the public. I feel that this is one of those rare films that is simply perfect from beginning to end. Even if you don't develop an affection for the characters, and even if you don't care for the story line, it's a stretch to fault this movie in any way. The Special Edition DVD is preferred (not many extras, but those included are worth the effort). After watching my copy 7 times and trying to get really picky with it, I juist can't find anything amiss with Beresford's beautiful production. SO why didn't he win a Director Oscar? Must've been the competition that year, but he certainly deserved to win. Only other disappointment: Freeman nominated, but didn't win. And to think this film was made for less than $6 million, and racked in a fortune and a handful of Oscars!

Freeman and Tandy What a Combo!!
Freeman and Tandy are quite a combo!!

This is a sensitive film that says a lot about humanity.
Compassionate humanism oozes from this movie.
It certainly deserved the Picture of the Year in 1989. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

John Hughes's popular 1985 teen drama finds a diverse group of high school students--a jock (Emilio Estevez), a metalhead (Judd Nelson), a weirdo (Ally Sheedy), a princess (Molly Ringwald), and a nerd (Anthony Michael Hall)--sharing a Saturday in detention at their high school for one minor infraction or another. Over the course of a day, they talk through the social barriers that ordinarily keep them apart, and new alliances are born, though not without a lot of pain first. Hughes (Sixteen Candles), who wrote and directed, is heavy on dialogue but he also thoughtfully refreshes the look of the film every few minutes with different settings and original viewpoints on action. The movie deals with such fundamentals as the human tendency toward bias and hurting the weak, and because the characters are caught somewhere between childhood and adulthood, it's easy to get emotionally involved in hope for their redemption. Preteen and teenage kids love this film, incidentally. The DVD release includes production notes, cast and crew bios, widescreen presentation, Dolby sound, closed captioning, optional French and Spanish soundtracks, and optional Spanish subtitles. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (213)

2 thumbs down
I found John Hughes' 1985 movie The Breakfast Club to be an extremely generalized, heavy handed, piece of trite filmmaking that may or may not have been relevant to teenagers fifteen years ago, but is certainly nowhere near on target now.
Obviously it was by design that his five main characters were one-dimensional character sketches of so-called 'traditional' high school stereotypes. You have Andy the jock (Emilio Estevez), Claire the princess (Molly Ringwald, a John Hughes staple), Bender the criminal (Judd Nelson), Brian the nerd (Anthony Michael Hall), and Allison the basket case (Ally Sheedy). In my opinion, for Hughes to insinuate that these five people come from completely different backgrounds and had absolutely no contact with each other or anyone else from their particular 'type' during school is just plain silly. For example, it is quite likely that Claire and Andy, being popular people, would know each other, or at least that princesses and jocks would interact on a regular basis. Same thing goes for Bender and Allison as social outcasts. Only Brian, being the brain, would logically be shunned by all other classes.
For another thing, these categories have little relevance today because in today's modern society, and indeed this has always been true, teens simply cannot be categorized and labeled, even by their peers, in this manner. I myself saw elements of my personality in every one of the characters, and neither I nor anyone I know would fit neatly into these stereotypes.
The last thing I'm going to gripe about in this review is, logically enough, the ending. For a film that tried so hard to be edgy, the denouement was awfully hackneyed and predictable. Four out of the five characters hook up at the end? Gosh, I never saw that coming! Also, the treatment of Allison was laughable. This girl has serious psychological issues that have been with her all her life, but all she needs is a little makeup, a nice dress, and a clean-cut boyfriend to set her to rights? I don't think so, pal. Willful suspension of disbelief is all fine and good, but to trivialize Allison's pain and emotional trauma in this manner is irresponsible and does a disservice to those young people who do identify with her character. I think that's enough bashing for this film; while it had its moments, it certainly is by no means the 'classic' that it is reputed to be.

One for the ages
This movie is a classic and it will stand the test of time. This is the second "teen coming of age" installment from John Hues, and round 2 for Molly Ringwald and Anthony Michael Hall. The first installment, Sixteen Candles, was more of a sexual coming of age movie whereas The Breakfast Club is more of a coming of age for one's character and social awareness. Where they are "teetering" with; do they stay with the social allegiances of their perspective pack, or do they listen to that inner voice...the voice of reason, maturity and human compassion that's not bound to any "click". I also like the choice of actors here; I think they all fit like pieces in a puzzle and make their characters totally believable. I am in the same age range as almost the entire cast and I was a senior in High school when this film came out. Allot of reviews seem to put this film within the Junior High crowd but I feel it's much more mature than that. The very message that it's trying to get across isn't understood in real life until we get close to 18 or so. The story is simple; 5 kids have to come into school on a Saturday for detention. At first they try to segregate themselves according to their school social standings. Inevitably they find out that they are more alike than they ever thought. The movie, in my eyes, is broken into 3 parts; the first part is pure character development. This is where you (the viewer) get to know each person they way they are supposed to be seen with their everyday face. At first, they act the way they think they should act, and stand up for what they always had, with out question or defiance. They stay true to their cause never steering away for a second. The second part of the film is where the movie itself develops. These 5 separate entities realize that they are variations of the same person. They have the same desires and anguishes. Their pressures and stresses are the same even though it's generated from very different sources.
The jock (Emilio Estevez) has the pressure to be on top of his sport (wrestling). In return for this he gets attention from his dad, coaches and keeps his standing within his social group. This is his priority in life and he doesn't stray.
The Princess (Molly Ringwald) has to conform and obey the rules of her social group in order to be accepted and keep her standing within the group. She keeps her eyes closed; mouth shut and goes along for the ride.
The Metal Head/criminal (Judd Nelson) is an angry guy! He wears the physical and mental scars of growing up in an abusive house. He hates most people, like the ones Emilio and Molly play, because in his eyes, they have had a free ticket and earned nothing...things are handed to them because of their social and/or economical standings. On the other hand, he feels that he's on a whole other plain because his eyes have been beaten open and he was forced to grow up a little faster than he wanted too or was ready too. I feel that Judd Nelson's character is the most crucial to the movie. He is the key to this whole new self-awareness for everyone, including himself.
The nerd (Anthony Michael Hall) is the quintessential geek. His every woken moment is spent learning. He hides behind his grades and in fact, he wants to be more accepted by the "cooler" groups. He also is a little "cocky" about his better grades and academically superiority to the other people in the room.
The weirdo (Ally Sheedy) is a loner and an outcast. She doesn't have friends that we (the viewers) know of. Because her parents ignore her, She feels ugly and without a place in the world. She is starving for positive attention. I think her character was needed in this movie to balance off the cast. It would have left out a very critical part of teen angst!
Richard Vernon (Paul Gleason) is the "Villain" of the movie. To the kids, he represents the out of touch older generation and the mean spirited, high testosterone adult. For Richard Vernon, these kids are the source of his anger and agony. He has lost touch with the younger generation for 1 reason, he got older...and the older you get, the harder it is to relate to youth. Youth recycles right before your eyes, but you keep getting older. His character is the key that releases these kids. He helps them to strip away the blindfolds and to take a fresh look at every thing and everyone (including themselves).

This leads to the 3rd and final part of the movie. Where they cleanse themselves of all the pentad up anger and prejudices. When the kids realize that they all have the same goal, they were just taking different roads to reach it. I highly recommend The Breakfast Club and it should go down as one of the all time great teenage movie!

A little time - a little perspective
I first saw this movie at a cinema in Austin in March, 1985. Just a year out of high school, I thought this was a deep, moving motion picture with a quality cast that really showed the feelings of different groups of students in schools. I could relate to the characters.

Move forward more than 19 years. This movie has not aged well. I read on the IMDB that John Hughes wrote this script in two days. After watching this movie again, I find that very easy to believe. It is horrible! - and this coming from a man who loves all things 80's! Was Judd Nelson about 35 when he made that movie? He looks about 20 years older than Anthony Michael Hall. Unbelievable characters and dialogue. Then they tie it up nice and neat at the end - with 2 unlikely couples pairing off leading us to believe there's no social caste in high schools.

With the small cast and lack of location shots, I'm amazed that I've never read about some high school drama club doing a stage production of this disaster. In any case, I've got a Breakfast Club DVD I'll never watch again - I'll post it used "New & Used" above.

Still relevant after all these years
Some question the durability of "The Breakfast Club," saying that the themes and plotlines do not hold up in today's teen society. As a 15-year-old, I would like to say that that is thoroughly untrue. 19 years after its release, "The Breakfast Club" is still a truthful, relateable account of teenagers and their personalities, and the ways in which they interact with each other. Sure, the stereotypes of the characters may be a bit exaggerated -- but that's necessary in order to get the point across. Watching this movie, I feel as if I know these people, or at least I've run across them at one point in my high school career.

The plot, as most people know, involves five different kids being assigned Saturday detention together. Each kid represents a typical high school stereotype -- a princess (Molly Ringwald), a jock (Emilio Estevez), a brain (Anthony Michael Hall), a basket case (the excellent Ally Sheedy), and a criminal (Judd Nelson). At the beginning of the day, none of them know each other, except for the princess and the jock. Throughout the day, they learn more about each other and work at tearing down the stereotypes that pit them against each other. As for the reviewer who said this isn't realistic that they would open up so much to each other -- it absolutely is. Put five kids into a room without an adult for nine hours, and they will talk about anything.

The beauty of this movie is the depth of the characters beyond the stereotypes -- particularly the nerd, Brian, who as we find out in the movie has problems well beyond what people think of him. He is the one that I most relate to in the movie. Watch "The Breakfast Club," and see who you most relate to. It's a great experience. Beyond the social commentary aspect, it's also just a funny movie. The jokes come at breakneck speed, especially for the first half of the movie (before it gets somewhat serious). The actors are also very enjoyable in their roles, particularly Ally Sheedy and Anthony Michael Hall. Highly recommended.

Must have to any collection.
The quintessential John Hughes film. I remember in my English class my junior year (1987) we had to analyze this movie. Only 2 years after it's release it was had all the qualities needed for a class analysis. I will spare you the report that I did back then.

Since then I have watched this movie at least once a year (and contrary to popular believe it is not for the panty shot). The characters are very well done. There is something that anyone who went through high school can relate to, even if we fit more than just one character. The interactions between the teens towards each other and then towards the principal as a group is classic. It's got love, teen angst, popular kids, geeks, dweebs, outcasts and the ever popular kid that doesn't fit in but always tries to get the attention. Nothing like dumping out your bag for people to go through to get attention.

Of course you can't forget the star cast of strong 80's actors, Emilio Estevez (Andrew 'Andy') Anthony Michael Hall (Brian) Judd Nelson (John Bender) Molly Ringwald (Claire) Ally Sheedy (Allison) and Paul Gleason (Principal). Great acting, John's look at teenagers and a great script all make for a very enjoyable look at the interactions and 'attitude' typical of the high school years.

I truly could go on about this movie but I won't. I'll just say that this is a much have for any movie buff and if you haven't seen it you must. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This 1943 version of thehorror story is more Technicolor musical than scare piece. Claude Rains plays the unfortunate, masked anti-hero, but he doesn't get the room to showcase a promising and sympathetic performance. Susanna Foster and Nelson Eddy, on the other hand, get plenty of screen time to warble. Well worth a visit just for the look of the film, which won an Oscar for cinematography.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (44)

A cute but not particularly deep little flick
I wanted to see this because it had Claude Rains mostly, but also because I wanted to see Nelson Eddy as a person after hearing him in the Disney short "The Whale Who Wanted to Sing at the Met". Besides, I've been a fan of the book by Gaston LeRoux and the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber for some time, have seen the silent movie version of this story, and wanted to chalk up another credit to my Phantom experience.

Overall, this wasn't a bad little movie - I felt that the fact that it was in colour rather detracted from the sombre, ominous mood this kind of tale needs - it should really be sort of Victorian film-noir, shot in black and white. But then, I felt that they really changed the story so much in this film version that it can only be looked on as a story independent of the book which was its inspiration, and so for that reason the colour is okay. I also felt that Claude Rains' character seemed as though it was going to be a main character at the beginning of the film, but then he seemed to disappear from the film for much of the rest of it. Also, the progression of his adoration complex for Christine was sadly overlooked throughout the film, and we are to understand his descent into bitterness toward mankind from the few scattered minutes of screen time that he has?

Although the rival banter between Raoul and Anatole was very amusing, it seems a little out of place in a story of such tragic dimensions, and draws one's focus completely away from the relationship between Christine and the Phantom of the film's title, which really is the core of the entire book and should be the same or similar in the movie. As another example of distraction - I like hearing Nelson Eddy sing, but at least two of the operatic numbers could have been shortened to make room for some more character development and depth in Erik and Christine's relationship.

I felt that the silent version of the film not only followed the plot of the book more accurately, but that the emotions and experiences of the characters were ones easier to "jump into", even despite the common (for a silent) over-acting of its players - but at the same time, this 1943 version was easier to watch. It's not as long or nervewracking. Still, I would recommend you to do it all - read the book, watch both films, and listen to the original London cast recording of the musical if you can't go and see it. Each one of these things will enhance your appreciation and enjoyment of the story in some way or another.

A Beautiful Film
I saw the 1943 version of "The Phantom of the Opera" before I read the book and (last) saw the 1925 version. I have to admit that it was not like the book at all, but the Lon Chaney version was a little. Claude Rains was very convincing as the tormented and lovesick Phantom, and was always more interesting than Lon Chaney. But Claude Rains was not given very much screen time, except near the beginning and end of the film. The sets were fabulous. Nelson Eddy and Edgar Barrier were almost constantly trying to win over Christine, and even though these scenes were funny, I've noticed that they can very easily become distractions that seem designed only to de-emphasize Claude Rains, which only hurts the film. Susanna Foster and Nelson Eddy sang a lot, and while these numbers were very nice and a joy to listen to, they were the only time Nelson Eddy really got a chance to shine, which is unfortunate. However, Susanna Foster fared well throughout the entire film. I would not recommend this film to anyone who doesn't like opera, or to anyone who wants to see a lot of the Phantom.

Horror fans will be disappointed
This film is more about the opera and the courting of an opera singer by two suitors than a deranged murderer running amok in the hidden chambers of the Paris Opera House. A great deal of screen time is devoted to the pursuit of the lovely Mademoiselle Dubois by a baritone and a Paris detective as both men are comically inept in trying to win the woman's favors. Claude Rains' phantom is a poignant figure, his madness notwithstanding, and he also has designs on the opera star and spirits her away to the catacombs under the building to possess her forever and have her sing the concerto he composed especially for her. The lush color and sets give the production a professional and polished look but the movie lacks suspense and thrills and is strictly for aficionados of the opera.

Pretty Good
Not my favorite interpretation of Phantom, but still good. Susanna Foster kind of bugs me, but that's okay. And they really changed the story. It's not at all like the origional novel, but it's about Phantom, and that's a good enough excuse for me! Anyways, it was pretty nice. The Raoul character was most realistic. I just don't like Susanna. :)

The Phantom Goes Musical
Gaston Leroux's penny-dreadful novel was hardly the stuff of great literature, but it did manage to tap into the public consciousness with its gas-light-gothic tale of a beautiful singer menaced by a horrific yet seductive serial killer lurking in the forgotten basement labyrinths of the Paris Opera. Lon Chaney's silent classic kept the basic elements of the novel intact'-and proved one of the great box office hits of its day, a fact that prompted Universal Studios to contemplate a remake throughout most of the 1930s. Although several proposals were considered (including one intended to feature Deanna Durbin, who despised the idea and derailed the project with a flat refusal), it wasn't until 1943 that a remake reached the screen. And when it did, it was an eye-popping Technicolor extravaganza, all talking, all singing, and dancing. The Phantom had gone musical.

In many respects this version of PHANTOM anticipates the popular Andrew Lloyd Webber stage musical, for whereas the Chaney version presented the Phantom as a truly sinister entity, this adaptation presents the character as one more sinned against than sinning'an idea that would color almost every later adaptation, and Webber's most particularly so. But it also shifts the focus of the story away from the title character, who is here really more of a supporting character than anything else. The focus is on Paris Opera star Christine Dae, here played by Susanna Foster. In this version Christine is not only adored by the Phantom; she is also romantically pursued by two suitors who put aside their differences to protect her.

Directed by Universal workhorse Arthur Lubin, this version is truly eye-popping in the way that only a 1940s Technicolor spectacular could be: the color is intensely brilliant, and Lubin makes the most of it by focusing most of his camera-time on the stage of the Paris Opera itself and splashing one operatic performance after another throughout the film. But in terms of actual story interest, the film is only so-so. Susanna Foster had a great singing voice, but she did not have a memorable screen presence, and while the supporting cast (which includes Nelson Eddy, Edgar Barrier, Leo Carrillo, and Jane Farrar) is solid enough they lack excitement. And the pace of the film often seems a bit slow, sometimes to the point of clunkiness.

The saving grace of the film'-in addition to the aforementioned photography, which won an Oscar-'is Claude Rains. A great artist, Rains did not make the mistake of copying Chaney, and although the script robs the Phantom of his most fearsome aspects, Rains fills the role with subtle menace that is wonderful to behold, completely transcending the film's slow pace, the lackluster script, and "sanitized for your protection" tone so typical of Universal Studios in the 1940s.

Like most "Universal Horror" DVD packages, this one is superior. The centerpiece of the bonus material is a very nice documentary, "The Opera Ghost: A Phantom Unmasked," which details the origins of the novel and the numerous film adaptations of it'and which is actually quite a bit more interesting than the 1943 film itself. There is also a nice, if somewhat perfunctory, audio commentary track by historian Scott McQueen, trailers, stills, and the like. But when everything is said and done, it's the film that counts'and unless you're a diehard Phantom fan you're likely to be unimpressed. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This strange and charming documentary by Al Pacino, in which he also stars, is an exploration of several topics: Shakespeare and his hump-backed villain, the impulse to act, the way actors work--and Pacino's single-minded effort to make the Bard accessible to all audiences and not just the effete few. Over the course of the film, Pacino alternately discusses the role and the text; roams Manhattan, talking about Shakespeare with everyone from scholars to people on the street; and re-creates scenes from the play in a production staged at the Cloisters, an evocative castle-like museum on the north end of Manhattan. He assembles a cast that includes Kevin Spacey, Winona Ryder, Estelle Parsons, and Alec Baldwin to perform the scenes, and he slips back and forth between text and discussion of the play in a way that makes Shakespeare comprehensible and fascinating to viewers who know or care nothing about his writing. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (37)

Lost and Found
I have to admit I was skeptical of watching Al Pacino try his hand at ANY Shakespeare, much less Richard III, which isn't the easiest play to put on in the first place. But by the end I actually quite enjoyed the whole production, even if I wouldn't call it a masterpiece.

I'd recommend this film to anybody who enjoys the Bard, live at Stratford or even if it's some over-the-top movie version--and particularly for high school students who are still a little too dense to totally 'get' Shakespeare. It's informative for the uninitiated, and as a documentary, it works reasonably well, and moves at a brisk enough pace so you're not bored stiff.

Add to that some particularly insightful words from Derek Jacobi, and Sir John Gielgud (amongst others), it's well worth a rental, and doesn't embarrass any of the actors who were smart enough to take part in this.

And as a reminder to the bloke who trashed this in favour of Ian McKellen's excellent turn as Richard III, this wasn't meant to compete, but instead to enlighten the masses. Who to be quite honest, COULD understand Shakespeare if they put their minds to it, but most don't.

They're usually forced to in grade nine at best.

Amazing for an indepth look
I saw this movie in 1996 while in college on a "movie night" with other actors in my field of study. We were simply electrified by Pacino's depth and power that he put into the understanding of this amazing Shakespeare character. I have performed in Richard III, and believe me, i wished that i had this film to look at during that time to help me with some difficult scenes! I found Pacino to be extremely human, bendable, and thought-provoking; it's a definate must for the Shakespeare lover, and will expand your mind if you love Pacino! At least rent it!

Engaging!
I came across this movie on one of the movie channels on dish and, being a teacher of literature, got completely sucked in. I loved how the actors explore the characters of the play and the various plot sequences, then the audience is treated to the final outcome. Though the scenes are acted out at different locations throughout London, rather than on-stage, and one might say that it detracts from the film's credibility, the locations are well thought out and appropriate to the scene.

I can't wait to use this film as a teaching tool.

Mildly entertaining but also pretty deliberately dumbed down
I like Al Pacino in many movies, especially, of course, Godfather 2. I've seen him on the stage & enjoyed his performances in O'Neill & Mamet.

But to me Shakespeare is not his forte. In this film which I find to be mostly an exercise in actorly self-indulgence, he comes off sounding like Mel Brooks both as narrator & especially in character.

I also find the intent rather condescending & for the most part irrelevant. The gap between English & American actors doing Shakespeare has to do with Language & History. I didn't hear much commentary on these issues. Mostly the film sounds like a treatise for making Shakespeare palatable to grade schoolers.

Pacino's best film ... where's the DVD?
Although Richard III is one of Shakespeare's most violent and Gothic plays, Pacino's loving and intelligent exploration of the classic tragedy - and the legendary bard who penned it - emerges as one of Pacino's most compelling and inspiring films. A movie that makes me proud to be an Italian-American studying for his Ph.D. in British literature. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

an unfairly treated ELVIS " movie.
from the very first time i saw this film, i've been convinced that Elvis can act as well as sing. Unfortunately, he was not given too many chances to do so. His performance is credible, noteworthy, and unforgettable. The up-state NEW YORK scenery is beautiful,the veteran actors also in the movie- GIG YOUNG, CHARLES BRONSON, ED ASNER, all give outstanding performances.
The songs may have been few, KING OF THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD, I GOT LUCKY, etc, but still Elvis at his best.This movie is my favorite Elvis flick hands down. PLEASE MGM produce this movie on DVD FULLSCREEN AND WIDESCREEN 5:1 DOLBY DIGITAL . DO IT SOON, FOR I WANT TO ADD IT TO MY COLLECTION. THANKS,oldugly1911

Not enough meat on the bones
This was Elvis' first "bad" movie, in my opinion. The reasons for this lie in the awkward, and unnecessary, interpolation of musical numbers which bear little relevance to the on-screen action. While the film has a nice look, the locale is especially pleasant, and the supporting cast is good (particularly Gig Young) "Kid Galahad" strays from its original dramatic source to focus more on current youth fads such as tight sweaters and the Twist.
The film is burdened with lightweight, disposable songs (with the exception of "King of the Whole Wide World"), and concentrates more on standard boy-girl frolics than on the central dramatic story of a seriously gifted prize-fighter. Even with Charles Bronson and an uncredited Ed Asner in the supporting cast (indicating that the original intention was to make a solid action-drama film)"Kid Galahad" is the first serious mis-step in Elvis's film catalogue. With few exceptions, his subsequent films virtually jettisoned drama in favour of pop-gloss.

Elvis' best from United Artists.
"Kid Galahad" stars Elvis as an ex-G.I. who comes back to his hometown in upper state New York. Beautiful scenery, I might add. He wants to be an auto mechanic after returning from the Army, but instead he's reluctantly roped into being trained to be a boxer. Elvis has an anvil-fist and an iron jaw. Soon, he becomes boxing champ nicknamed "Kid Galahad". Joan Blackman returns and plays Elvis' love interest and the sister of the boxing camp owner Gig Young. Great picture formula, great songs and beautiful and breathtaking mountain scenery. Recommend this must-see to everyone.

Excellent Boxing Movie
KID GALAHAD (1962) is an excellent boxing movie. If you liked the ROCKY series, you will enjoy this movie of an ex-GI who has a winning knock-out punch. Elvis is credible as a boxer. The rags to riches story also rings true.

The opening scene is unforgettable with Elvis riding on the back of a Mayflower truck singing KING OF THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD. There are six songs including I GOT LUCKY.

This is a remake of a 1937 movie that starred Humphrey Bogart and Edward G. Robinson. The 1937 version was directed by Michael Cutiz who directed Casablanca and the Elvis movie King Creole. The movie examines the corruption of boxing and the gambling and crime associated with it.

Oscar-winner Gig Young is excellent as the promoter and DEATH WISH's Charles Bronson gives a spectacular performance as the trainer.

Elvis' acting is very good here. The song sequences are excellent especially one where Elvis and Young and Bronson are riding in a jalopy that Elvis restored and then painted red.

A man who can sing when he ain't got a thing, he's the king of the whole wide world. Indeed. Nobody proved it better than Elvis, the King of Rock and Roll and the Artist of the Century.

Kid Galahad- A Pleasant Surprise
I have not seen the original "Kid Galahad", but this one was very good, compared to anything, not just Elvis' other movies. I wouldn't agree with the "Oh well, at least it's not as bad as his others" angle that many seem to take. I think anyone would enjoy it. It has a good cast surrounding Elvis, most notably Gig Young and Charles Bronson. This movie also further proves that Elvis was a good actor, given the chance. The whole movie just seems to click, somehow. And about the songs, give them a break! It's an Elvis movie. The man can sing! Let him! Be thankful it wasn't a musical. It had a few songs, yes, but that fact is not nearly as annoying as others try to paint it. It had a great depiction of the corruption of the boxing industry, and some good fighting scenes. Elvis looked like he enjoyed his part and was interested, contrary to many other opinions, and by no means was he "chubby". He was very well-built, and worked with a real-life boxing trainer, who said that Elvis could've been a professional fighter. So anyone who says he wasn't convincing as a boxer should take a second look. Watch this movie, not compared to anything, but just as the movie itself, and there's a big chance you'll enjoy it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

One of the spookiest ghost stories ever put to film, The Uninvited is also one of the few classic haunted-house movies to treat the subject with respect and seriousness. Ray Milland and Ruth Hussey play a brother and sister who leave the city to live in a beautiful old house dramatically perched on a cliff overlooking the Cornish coast. As they discover some of the house's peculiarities--the unexplained chill that settles in certain rooms, the aroma of mimosas that wafts through the house, flowers that wilt when brought inside--they are told by local girl Gail Russell that the house is haunted, by the spirit of Russell's mother no less. The rationalist city folk first scoff at the idea but as Milland slowly falls in love with the frightened girl he investigates the legends and discovers some startling hidden truths. Donald Crisp costars asRussell's humorless, hard-bitten grandfather who forbids her visits to the house. Handsomely shot against the beautiful Cornish countryside, director Lewis Allen wisely suggests more than he shows and the uneasy tone and quietly restrained direction looks forward to such films as The Haunting and The Legend of Hell House. Though Allen ultimately reveals a suitably spine-tingling apparition, some of the film's best moments are chilling in their simplicity: nocturnal moans, slamming doors, and the dog's whimpering fear of the upstairs. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (65)

One Of The Best
THE UNINVITED is a truly top-notch haunted house film. The story has lots of spooky moments and the ghostly manifestations are presented with subtlety, leaving much to the imagination of the viewer. Lighting is used effectively to heighten the mood, and, having been filmed in 1943, there is no special effect overkill to make it seem hokey.

Besides the haunting aspects of this film, it is an excellent movie in most other respects, as well. The acting is first-rate, the music is lovely, and the scenery is as beautiful as it is appropriate to the mood. The tension builds steadily as the romance between Londoner Roderick Fitzgerald (Ray Milland) and local girl Stella Meredith (Gail Russel) progresses. Ruth Hussey does a fine job in the role of Fitzgerald's increasingly edgy sister, and Donald Crisp is excellent as Stella's over-protective grandfather.

THE UNINVITED is an excellent movie and one of the best ghost stories on film to date. In terms of pure hair-raising, spine-tingling chills, the original 1963 version of THE HAUNTING is tops, in my opinion. THE UNINVITED isn't far behind, though, and in terms of overall production values, it doesn't get any better than this. A great addition to any video collection.

Something Menacing
Ray Milland and Ruth Hussey star as a brother and sister, who while on vacation in the Cornish countryside, fall in love with a house for sale and decide to buy it. The home is surprisingly cheap, and they quickly discover why. Doors open and close, the upstairs studio is cold and damp and somehow menacing, the animals won't go upstairs, and worst of all, just before dawn the moans of a crying woman echo through the house. Somehow connected to all this and in terrible danger is Gail Russell, the daughter of the man who sold the house. Her parents lived in the home, and her mother died there. It becomes very clear that she is in danger every time she visits the house unless Milland and Hussey can find an answer as to why they have "uninvited" guests. If this excellent ghost story had been made today, the emphasis would be on computer generated special effects to deliver the chills. But that's not what makes this such an effective film. The dark, candle lit cinematography, the restrained performances and direction, and the measured approach to presenting the chills is what makes it work. The story and mystery are involving, presented in a way that makes the viewer believe it could actually happen. Milland and Hussey are very good, and Gail Russell delivers a sympathetic performance as Stella. The only criticism of the story is the character and performance of Cornelia Otis Skinner as a woman who knows the truth of what happened with Russell's mother. She is over the top in a film where everyone else is restrained, and the parts of the story that shift the focus from the house to the insane asylum that Skinner runs interrupt the flow of the film. But other than that, this is a perfectly crafted film that delivers a terrific, suprisingly effective ghost story that make it tops in that genre. The film establishes a mood and credibility that make it a real winner.

It will send chills down your spine
I don't normally like ghost stories as movies because all too often they turn out to be silly, obviously fake, or overly gory. The Uninvited, however, was a pleasant surprise. It has a lot of elegance and class, and instead of trying to scare you outright as other films do, it succeeds in establishing a chilling, uncanny atmosphere with great economy of means. Special effects are kept to a minimum, and this, along with strong performances from the cast, keeps things subtle enough to be believable.

Great! Where is the DVD
This fine movie, scarry, spooky, wonderful...where is the DVD???!!!!

Stellar by starlight
Top-notch movie. A spectacular blend of spooky atmosphere, spirited characters, and hauntingly beautiful music.

This is one of my all-time favorite movies. The plot plays absolutely fair with the clues, too. Those who pay attention can solve the mystery of the haunting.

Ray Milland gives a great performance as Rick Fitzgerald, a lighthearted composer whose sister talks him into buying a house by a seacliff that turns out to be haunted. (Personally, I'd kill for a home like that, ghost or not.) Ruth Hussey as his sister Pamela Fitzgerald has never looked better. She has beauty, class and humor. Gail Russell as Stella Meredith, who play's Milland's love interest and inspiration for his song, "Stella by Starlight," has a haunted beauty of her own.

This movie should be on every top 10 list. ... Read more

Reviews (73)

one of the few good baseball movies
what is it, james earl jones had to be in a baseball movie for it to be any good?

this is a wonderful tale of a young boy (the beautiful tom guiry) who manages to make friends with a group of neighborhhod kids and in the process lose his father's babe ruth signed baseball, challenge a killer dog, and -- oh yes, grow up.

episodic in the best sense of the word, and funny and surprisingly well acted. i would recommend this to anyone who likes movies about baseball and/or boys.

One of the best family movies of the 1990's
"The Sandlot" is one of my favorite family movies. It is well acted (esp by the kids) and well directed, funny, poignant and Terrific. "The Sandlot" consists of many subplots all revolving around relationships and overcoming differences, prejudices and misconceptions of people who may be a little different. The main character Scotty Smalls is a misfit who is reluctantly accepted by a group of baseball playig Kids who are mostly misfits themselves.Scotty is also stuggling to accept his new step father, who is tryng to teach him to play ball, as well as accept him as his new son. The Kids meanwhile learn the the meanest man in town who happens to live just beyond the center field fence of the sandlot (and owns a huge ST Bernard dog) may not be so mean after all. The sandlot is a great movie for everyone. Highly recomended.

GARBAGE!
This movie is junk! I watched this at school when it was raining one day when our team wasn't able to go on a field trip because it was raining. At first I liked it but then, the next day I started thinking about that Old Man Merkel story from the 1940s and when the gang chewed tobacco at the carnival and threw up while they were on that spinning ride. That part was scary and got stuck in my head certain nights and I was sometimes afraid to fall asleep. And now, sometimes when I enter the computer room, I remember the movie or when I hear the song Brother Louie-Stories which is a good song but that song reminds me of this movie. The 1997 movie "Leave it to Beaver" is 10x better than this movie. The only part I like in this movie is the ending.

Oh boy!!!! This movie was TOOOOOOOOOOO Good!;)
Hey!
I saw this movie and oh my, I had to keep watching it over and over, and over and guess what? OVER! Its soooooooooooo fuuny and its just to cute to keep to myself so that why I had to write this! Its a family movei ALL the way!!! Can't beat it! Thanks for reading so now go get it!=)

A true childhood classic....
Anyone who grew up in the 90s still remembers where they were and how old they were when they first saw this classic... I was about 8 or 9, in 3rd grade... how I remember laughing so hard at all the classic scenes, the tobacco-barfing, the attempt-to-kiss-the-lifeguard,, and the whole concept of "The Beast"... yes sir,, it was classic....(although it took me a couple of years to get the "they had 9 kids" joke....) and now here I am, 20, and I still could never get sick of this film- It's really funny and it brings out the great messege that no matter how big you get, part of you will always remain a kid... ahh yes,, we all remember those days where we could just play ball all day without a care in the world...

Whether you love or hate baseball, this is a funny and heartwarming movie that will always remain a classic gem of the early 90s ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

When Samuel (Lukas Haas), a young Amish boy traveling with his mother Rachel (Kelly McGillis), witnesses the murder of a police officer in a public restroom, he and his mother become the temporary wards of John Book (Harrison Ford), a detective who's been assigned to solve the crime. After suspect lineups and mug-shot books yield nothing, Samuel, in the most memorable scene of the film, recognizes the murderer as a narcotics agent whose picture he sees in the precinct. Once Book realizes that the police chief is in on it, too, he whisks Samuel and Rachel back home to Amish country, where he himself goes into hiding as a plain Amish man. The juxtaposition between the life of the Amish and the violence of inner-city police corruption work surprisingly well for the story, and Kelly McGillis as the falling in love widow gives an almost perfect performance. Directed by Peter Weir, the film is extremely successful in drawing the viewer into its world and, accordingly, is immensely entertaining. The only thing that mars its polish is the one-dimensional, almost cartoonish handling of the upper-echelon police corruption--a subtler, more realistic treatment of this aspect of the story would have rendered the film near perfect. --James McGrath ... Read more

Reviews (62)

An extraordinarily good film ...
At the end of a disappointing summer movie season, I've started watching some of my favorites on tape. This movie is near the top of my all-time list; here's why:

ACTORS -- Most of the actors gave career-high performances in this movie. "Witness" helped establish Harrison Ford as a serious (i.e., non-Star Wars) action hero, and he demonstrates emotional range in this movie that doesn't show up very often in more recent films. Kelly McGillis is compelling, gradually and believably transforming from a shy widow out of her element to a strong, spirited member of her Amish community. Lukas Haas, who plays her son, offers a level of child acting that has only recently been matched by Haley Joel Osment. As other reviewers have noted, his wordless scene with Ford in the police station is a brilliant piece of acting -- an enormous amount of information and emotion is conveyed in complete silence. And Alexander Godunov brings a gentle grace to his role as the Amish farmer competing with Ford for McGillis' affections. It's sad that he didn't get more opportunities to demonstrate his acting ability before his death a few years later.

CINEMATOGRAPHY/SCORE -- As with most of Peter Weir's films (cf. "Dead Poet's Society"), "Witness" is visually stunning. The shift from the gritty heart of Philadelphia to the rolling hills of Amish country is jarring, and leaves one with a palpable sense of longing. I think the barn-raising scene in the middle of the movie is one of the most beautiful scenes I've ever seen filmed, both visually and thematically. Underscored (so to speak) with music reminiscent of Copland's "Appalachian Spring," it drives home the value of community and shared endeavor. It's a marvelously uplifting segment.

ROMANCE/EROTICISM -- The relationship between Ford and McGillis is very well done. The attraction that arises between them (driven in no small part, apparently, by Ford's kindness to the young boy) is constantly and realistically tempered by the awareness that they come from fundamentally different cultures. That slows the development of a relationship between them, which provides the movie with a delightful undercurrent of romantic tension. That tension reaches a peak in a powerful scene in which Ford sees McGillis giving herself a sponge bath. There is nudity in this scene (McGillis turns and shows herself, topless, to Ford), but it seems to be precisely the kind of nudity that, as actresses like to say, "is essential to the story." Given the way in which the Amish are portrayed in this film, McGillis' character is making a very bold (and risky) offer, and the difficulty of Ford's refusal is evident in his face. There certainly is a lot of gratuitous nudity in film, but "Witness" is not in that category.

This movie is aging extremely well, in large part because of the sweep of its vision, the powerful simplicity of its story, and the skill of its execution. It is a terrific movie.

Impressive film!
"Witness" is defineately one of the greatest thriller/romance movies ever made. Directed by Peter Weir, the plot concerns a yuong Amish boy (Lukas Haas) who witnesses a murder in a Philadelphia train station bathroom while traveling to the city with his mother Rachel (Kelly McGillis in her best performance). Detective John Book (Harrison Ford) is assigned to the case, and quickly discovers that a corrupt narcotics cop (Danny Glover) is the killer. After a close shave, Book, Rachel, and her son escape to Amish country, where Book hides out as an Amish farmer--while also protecting the witness and his mother.
Of course, at the end there is one whopper of a scene when the corrupt cop & friends discover Book's safehouse.
"Witness" received several Academy Award nominations including Best Picture, and won for Screenplay, Cinematography, Sound, and Film Editing.

Ford at the top of his game
Some of the most powerful romances can spring up when both sides have to be restrained; here, the widowed Amish woman and the cop-in-hiding know that they come from different worlds, know that a relationship between them will not practically work, and so fill the screen with unresolved sexual and romantic tension.

Woven into the more grisly details of murder and police corruption are scenes of humor and beauty. Dancing in the barn to "Don't Know Much About History". Having to wake up at 4 a.m. to milk the cows. It's funny to see how the cop, John Book, tries to fit himself into Amish life the best he can. And it's very moving to see his growing love for the Amish woman who nursed him through a bad gunshot wound and has enchanted him with her character and beauty. The movie's climax is also riveting; it's not often that one sees gunfighting at an Amish farm.

Great film, poor quality transfer
"Witness" captures director Peter Weir's first exploration of the cultural clash between America's Amish community and modern society. We witness two worlds that collide and two people that can't bridge the gap between their two worlds despite their blossoming love for each other.

The story revolves around Samuel a little boy who has witnessed the murder of an undercover police officer, his mother Rachel (McGillis)and John Book (Ford) who investigates the murder discovering corruption, deceit and a conspiracy at it the heart of his department. After he discovers that his witness isn't safe, Book whisks them back to their Amish farm where he's forced to hideout as well.

One of Weir's finest films to focus on America, this so-so transfer looks grainy and has lots of compression issues. The transfer isn't a widescreen anamorphic transfer but is presented in that format (i.e., it's presented with the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen but the transfer isn't high definition). The picture occasionally comes across as soft and the rich use of color and light that vividly brought the film to life in theaters isn't well represented here. Hopefully Paramount will update this and remaster it the way it deserves to be done.

The extras include an interview with Weir obviously done around the time the film was made or first appeared on video and the original theatrical trailer. I would have expected a commentary track but since Weir isn't all that big on them to begin with, that would be hoping for too much.

A great film just a poor translation to DVD.

Comparing Witness: 1985 and 2004
As I write my title, it is weird to think this film is nearly 20 years old! How time flies! Anyway...I first saw this film when it first came out and I remember I really really liked it. I was 23 years old and not a Christian at that time. Now, I am soon to be 42 and have been a Christian for over 18 years. For 10 years of my life, I lived as a Mennonite (like Amish in many ways, but we drove cars, had electricity, etc.) I am no longer a Mennonite, and now I watch films again. I appreciate classic cinema very much, but recently have wanted to watch Witness again, to see if I would like it as much as the first time, and to see if I thought they portrayed the Amish correctly.

So, I watched it last night. It was interesting in that I remembered so much, even some small details about it. So it really did impress me that first time when I was young. This time, I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't say it is a film I would watch over and over again, as I watch some classic films. To see it once more was enough to just satisfy my curiosity about my memories of it.

I did feel they portrayed the Amish quite well, with the clothes and such. What they did wrong about the portrayal was that in no way would it be allowed for an Amish woman to tend to a wounded man who wasn't her husband, by herself in a room alone with him. It just isn't proper, isn't done. In reality, a man would have done that, or an older woman would have done it, with another woman there. I think the movie allowed the Rachel character to have way more "access" to a man alone than would be allowed in a real Amish or Mennonite community. I doubt he would have really been allowed to stay in the house. In reality he would have been placed in a home with a family who had a bunch of boys and he would work with them and the father, and not have all that time alone with Rachel.

I don't like violence...I knew that the bad part happened in the train station in the beginning, so we were able to fast forward that part. Also, we were able to fast forward the ending "shoot out" stuff. I didn't care for the bad language. The scene with Rachel taking her sponge bath, well when I was young and not a Christian, I found that very romantic. Now, I found it rather silly. A devout Amish girl/woman would not have just calmly turned around and let a man stare at her while unclothed. And later on, when she and he finally "meet" for the romantic moment, I found that sort of offensive. Why kiss out in the yard where anyone could see you? Eli could have easily looked out the window (a real Amish father would have kept better tabs on his daughter with a strange man around the place). I felt that scene was very much just an animal passion thing...sort of vulgar. Not at all romantic, truly loving or gentle. It seems people sure knew how to kiss and show romantic love a lot better in the old movies! And right before she went out there, she took her prayer veiling off. Which again, no Amish woman would do. But then she obviously was rebelling. There was that other time too, when she and John Book were in the barn listening to his radio, and she had it off then, and I am not sure why, for no Amish or Mennonite woman will go without it in front of people or outside the house.

The ending left me wondering...would Rachel just go ahead and marry Daniel? Would she really be happy with him? She really would have to repent of her sins with John Book to be truly happy. I also noticed that the film never showed a church service. Also, none of the Amish folks never seemed to care to tell John Book how to be a Christian. But then there are many Amish who are not born- again Christians, but just are "culturally Amish"...they live the way they do because they have always done so. These must have been that type of Amish. It did seem that Grandfather knew the Bible...he quoted some good verses when talking to the boy about the gun. That was good to see, yet sad that such violence had to even be witnessed by this child.

Oh, of course any film with Amish must have a barn raising scene, and this one did. Also, so many movies with cows mus have the scene where the city person doesn't know how to milk a cow. Of course John Book must learn. He makes a joke about "teats" in this scene, and grandfather Eli laughs at it, which again, I doubt a devout Amish man would do.

Well, these are my thoughts. It was interesting to revisit this film again. In closing, I would say it is an okay film for adults but I would not recommend it for children. ... Read more

Reviews (103)

Ultra-Sentimental 2nd Treatment of "Aunt Jemima Story"
"Imitation of Life" is the bitter sweet story of a black maid struggling with her light skin daughter who wanted to pass as white. The story begins in post WWII NYC when Lana Turner (in the role of a struggling actress) hires the maid to work for and live with Turner and her then 7 year old daughter (same age as the maid's little girl). Times are tough at first, but the 4-some gets on fine. Only little Sarah Jane (the maid's daughter) has constant trouble accepting her color.

The story spans about 15 years and shows various instances where the loving black maid is humiliated by her daughter who in the end disowns her mother. The ending is the ultimate heartbreaker; the film deserves 5 stars for that alone!

This is the 2nd Hollywood treatment of "The Aunt Jemima Story". The first version (1934) with Claudette Colbert has better acting, but is not quite as sentimental as the Technicolor Lana Turner film. The latter also has a memorable title song by Earl Grant (who usually plays the organ in his recordings, but here he sings).

I could watch this movie anytime, for no reason at all...it's the best in its class! This film is the ultimate in Hollywood tear-jerkers, and one of my favorite movies ever. Lana Turner was not exactly "Oscar-material", but neither was Marilyn Monroe--still they both captured an audience with their presence like few other actresses ever did. Nothing but pure "Hollywood Candy" here! ...

a true classic
One of the great Hollywood melodramas, IMITATION OF LIFE is based on the book by Fannie Hurst and is directed with style and emotion by Douglas Sirk.

A chance meeting throws together Lora Meredith (Lana Turner) and Annie Johnson (Juanita Moore), two struggling widows who both have troubled relationships with their daughters. Lora is a Broadway starlet intent on hitting the big time, which will come at the cost of her daughter Susie (Sandra Dee), while Annie's daughter Sarah Jane (Susan Kohner) is a black girl with a pale complexion, who chooses to pass as white in order to avoid the hatred of a prejudiced world.

As years of denial and unawareness pass, the two girls slowly revolt from their mothers, and the story moves to its emotional and tearful conclusion.

Still compelling over 50 years later, IMITATION OF LIFE still has a message for modern audiences, and preserves the tour-de-force performances of Juanita Moore and Susan Kohner. Both were Oscar-nominated for their work here. The performances of Sandra Dee and Lana Turner (and Troy Donahue as Sarah Jane's violent boyfriend) are just as impressive.

The supporting cast includes John Gavin, Dan O'Herlihy, Robert Alda and Mahalia Jackson. The DVD includes the trailer. (Single-sided, dual-layer disc).

MOORE AND KOHNER - THE HEART OF THIS MOVIE
In 1959, Susan Kohner and Juanita Moore lost the Best Supporting Actress oscar to Shelley Winters for "Diary of Anne Frank." While Winters certainly was a seasoned and excellent actress, I don't see how one can overlook Susan and Juanita's gutwrenching performances. In spite of the star presence of Lana Turner and John Gavin, this movie's heart lies in the story of Annie and her mulatto daughter, Sarah Jane.
Director Douglas Sirk and his glamorized movies was the inspiration for the much acclaimed film, "Far from Heaven." One can see why Todd Hayes wanted to venture into this director's turf. Ross Hunter's glitzy production begged for its audience to become embroiled in Lana's problems becoming a big actress. But with the performances of Ms. Moore and Kohner, IMITATION OF LIFE achieves the status of one of our finest tearjerkers. Sadly enough, neither actress had much of a career after this, and what a shame. Their scenes together are so electric and heartwrenching, they deserved more. The final portion of the film wherein we lose Ms. Moore and her subsequent funeral are the stuff of Kleenex heaven.
Definitely one of the finest remakes of our time. Because of Juanita Moore and Susan Kohner!!!

Lana Turner and Juanita Moore
The struggles of two mothers with very different problems are detailed in this glossy but overly sentimental film. Lora Meredith and Annie Johnson establish a friendship purely by accident but they forge a bond that brings them together for life. Lora eventually finds stardom on the stage after many setbacks and disappointments but Annie has the impossible task of trying to make her mulatto daughter accept her racial heritage. Sarah Jane's shame at having a black mother is the main theme of the film while Lora's ups and downs on Broadway and eventual career success provide a counterpoint to the troubling themes of self-loathing and racial intolerance. Sarah Jane's relationship with Lora's daughter Susie is by turns sisterly and contentious because of Sarah Jane's jealousy and resentment towards Susie because she is white. Another sub-plot is Lora's relationship with Steve Archer, which also spans many years. Their romance always takes a back seat to Lora's stage career ambitions, which frustrates her handsome suitor immensely. Steve eventually becomes the object of Susie's affections as she grows into womanhood and her obsession with Steve causes problems later on. The film's famous last reel is touching and has the added effect of having Mahalia Jackson sing spirituals for the beloved Annie. Lana Turner is very beautiful and glamorous in this film and was never lovelier, but Juanita Moore's tortured Annie and Susan Kohner's ungrateful, mean-spirited Sarah Jane are the reasons for which this film is remembered.

Imitation of Life ( Germ241F @ SUNY Binghamton
Douglas Sirk's 1959 remake of John Stahl's 1934 film, Imitation of Life, is a parody of the original. In a comical rendition, Imitation of Life, addresses intersections of race, social and economic class, and gender in the film, as well as existing stereotypes, through the use of Neo-Brechtian gestik acting which means over-the-top, melodramatic and campy acting that is quoting a character and his/her emotions and exaggerates the role of a character in a situation. Sirk deliberately wanted to use gestik acting and avoided method acting (acting out what your emotions would really be, if you were in a certain situation) because he didn't want audiences to think that this film was real and to be taken seriously.
Two single-parenting mothers, Annie and Lora meet on the beach of Coney Island, in search of Lora's daughter Suzie. When Lora and Suzie find out that Annie and her daughter Sara Jane are homeless, Lora decides to let them live in her apartment as long as Annie agrees to contribute some help around the house, and do the dirty work for Lora. Annie is depicted as a parody for blackness, just because she has typical attributes of any nanny. A loving, nurturing, understanding, and caring mother is the stereotypical mother that society adores which is played out by Annie. On the other hand Lora is a neglecting figure in the eyes of Suzie. Annie is more like the mother for Suzie, but not Sara Jane. Sara Jane refuses to admit that she a daughter to a black woman and passes as a white girl while in school. Sara Jane fires up the racial tension in this film because of her denial and mistreatment towards her mother.
Lora meets a man named Steve, who almost right away, proposes to her. She denies the proposal in an effort to pursue her dream of becoming a Hollywood actress. Steve tries to make her stay, by telling her that she doesn't have to work, and that he will bring home to money. This shows us how Steve along with the majority of society view women and their roles of life. A women's life should be to stay home, clean, take care of the kids, and put dinner on the table, which is the old fashion way that much of male Americans viewed women to perform in. Opposite roles of gender for the male figure in this film was shown through Steve, who has found a detective out of now where, who has found Sara Jane and her place of refuge from her mother. This situation renders Steve as if he were Superman, the one being able to fix any problem.
This campy imitation of life is viewed throughout most of the film, except for the scene of Annie's funeral, where Mahalia Jackson sings a gospel song. Eulogy of Annie is brought to her through the singing voice of Mahalia. This scene is supposed to be a serious one among the other witty scenes, because the character of Mahalia is the only realistic one in this film and is not to be criticized. Mahalia does not exemplify the overly dramatic acting. ... Read more

Reviews (453)

An OK movie for my favorite book
POA was my favorite book of the sieries. but in the movie, i have MANY complaints.

Things that were left out

-cho chang
-how sirius got out of azkaban
-how sirius betrayed lily and james (no mention of fidelius)
-no mention of word secret keeper
-who moony wormtail padfoot and prongs are
-why sirius hates lupin, james, sirius
-why crookshanks was attacking scabbers
-why all of a sudden sirius isn't the bad guy
-why sirius tried to attack ron (oh wait, that never happened)
-that ron and peter pettigrew were in the paper is why sirius broke out of azkaban
-what hogsmeade is
-why there is a tunnel from the whomping willow to the shrieking shack
-connection between the stag patronus and "prongs"
-draco malfoy is the slytherin seeker

things that were changed
-hermione shows up late to everyclass. come on it's HERMIONE.
-the firebolt comes later
-much more interaction between past selves and future selves in time turner sequence. (made harry being his father predictable instead of shocking)
-the patronus was just lame (looked like an atomic bomb or those superballs on dragonballZ)

basically i think the movie was really good as long as i don't think about it being the same as the book.

parts of it were really good. i'm just kind of annoyed that i knew the book too well to really enjoy it. i sppent most of my time going "that never happened" (harry serching for peter pettigrew)

Marvelous Mischief!
I have not read the books yet because I like to be surprised. So I only view the movie on it's own merits.

The third installment was indeed a pleasant one. A new director,Alfonso Cuarón, handled the performances perfectly. Daniel Radcliffe ...Harry Potter is becoming a fine actor and he is great in this movie. He loses his temper with his Aunt and he plays the scene brilliantly.
Gary Oldman ...Sirius Black is always so great that you don't know it is him until the credits.
Rupert Grint ...Ron Weasley is very funny.
Emma Watson ...Hermione Granger has become a fantastic young actress and her character is strong and confident and also caring which makes her a great role model.
Alan Rickman ...Professor Severus Snape, Robbie Coltrane ...Rubeus Hagrid, and the new Dumbledore were superb as well. (I was sad to learn that the original Dumbledore, who was wonderful, has died.)

The visuals of Hogwarts and it's grounds were beautiful and for me the high point was flight of the Hippogriff with Harry. The Hippogriff was an amazing creation.

I reccomend the movie even if you are a total muggle.

Well Done!
I am an avid Harry Potter fan and I have read all the books at least four times each. I think that the "Prisoner" movie was done much better than the first two. To start, it shows how the magic world is changing for Harry and how it will continue to change as the story unfolds throughout the future novels. It's important to point out that the new director has been known in the past to put a dark spin on his interpretations in movies. But I thought that this dark point of view is what is needed at this point in order to show that Harry and co. are no longer children and are entering into more dangerous territory. Although the director did edit some parts of the book that I would have like to see, I think the movie overall does a great job in showcasing the future of the series. I think the actors are really starting to come into their own and showing more depth in their interpretations of the characters. I love to see how comfortable they are with each other in this film and to see how they are growing with these characters. Overall, I think this movie is great and I can't wait to see "Goblet". Although I do agree that "Goblet" should be longer or made into a two part movie because to edit book four too much will ruin the movie and movie goers that don't read the books will be completely lost then.

Some people just don't get it...
One of the joys about the Harry Potter series is that the style of the books matures with the characters. This is finally true with the movies as well. Yes, this is a much darker film than the first 2...so is the book. Yes, Harry, Ron and Hermione act more like real teenagers and less like 1950's television children. There were choices made in this film that were risky, but in my opinion the risk paid off! This is the perfect progression in the films of Harry Potter!

new look to a changing story
I thought the newest Harry Potter movie was VERY WELL DONE. A new look for an ever changing story line. Why would anyone want to watch a movie thats done exactly like the first two? Change it up a bit and keep the audiance wondering how their favorite books are going to be brought to screen. It doesnt hurt to have many peoples different views bring a great book to screen in another way then the first two. As long as the story gets told, isnt that all that matters? ... Read more