Reviews (16)

Stunning evocation of love and war
Sweden never had a civil war, but Ingmar Bergman imagined it in this brilliant film. Like Stephen Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan", "Shame" brings home the horror of wholesale butchery without a drop of sentimentality. Unlike that movie, though, "Shame" comes nowhere near hero-worship. In fact, I think it's actually the more masterful of the two films, for it evokes war's brutality on a much smaller scale and yet with greater subtlety and closer attention to the impact of destruction on individuals.

Filmed in 1968, at the height of the Cold War, "Shame" portrays the ordeal of a young couple named Jan and Eva Rosenberg (Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann), who own a small farm on a remote island in Sweden and who struggle to survive as the conflict that ravages the mainland spills over and starts to engulfs them. Jan and Eva are thoroughly apolitical and want nothing to do with the war. While obviously evoking the competing totalitarian ideologies of the Cold War (communism & capitalism), Bergman's genius is that he never actually identifies what these two competing ideologies are. By doing so, he creates a film that has no explicit political message unless it be that war is hell. The film forces us to step outside our own narrow political prejudices and look directly at the effects of war on humanity, irrespective of politics. For Bergman, belief systems are totally irrelevant. By not even telling us what they are here in the first place, he focuses exclusively on the human tragedy involved.

Moreover, by setting this conflict in Sweden, an affluent Western country that has never been involved in a major modern war, Bergman makes us consider what war must feel like when it shows up in one of "our" societies. This is no a faraway place, and it has not been ravaged by ancient feuds and incessant hatreds down through history. It is as close to "us" here in the West as could be. Furthermore, by setting "Shame" in a country as pristine and "virgin" as Sweden, Bergman brings home to us with crushing force what most Europeans and Americans are now unable to fathom in hindsight due to so many decades of adjustment to it -- the savage, soul-splitting nightmare that devoured Europe in the 20th century and tore civilization apart at its very seams.

The visual impact of this film is also stunning. For while Scandinavian filmmakers had already filmed such incredible movies in color as "Elvira Madigan" (1967), Bergman chose to film this one in black and white. The effect of the black-and-white still-shots of Sydow and Ullmann's faces is remarkable (and what a face Sydow has!). The script and plot is phenomenal, alternating masterfully between understated and yet overpowering scenes of love and war.

Brilliant movie. Five stars.

Bergman's War Movie; And One Of His Very Best
One doesn't think of Ingmar Bergman as a director of action or thriller (genre) movies. But he directs the war sequences in "Shame" with stunning confidence. It seems he could have made many more big (even epic) movies if he had been so inclined. This film features Bergman veterans Von Sydow and Ullmann as ordinary people who are turned into refugees by a ferocious war in which they get caught. They lose everything, are harassed, beaten and exploited. Eventually the neurotic Von Sydow proves he will do anything to survive. Simone Weil once wrote "the great mystery of life is not suffering, but affliction." That is: suffering brings out the best in some people, others it turns into beasts. This movie asks that most painful question: what would you do in the same situation? The film presents a harrowing landscape of hell on earth that ends in a climax that will inevitably remind you of "Titanic", although Bergman did it first. It's more immediately accessible than many of Bergman's other movies because the anguish here takes external form, not just emotionally interior terror. A neglected masterpiece that should be seen at least as often as his other great works.

Great film; bad commentary by Gervais
Among the Bergman films I have seen, this is an unusually realistic and absorbing film. In fact, I recommend this film to people who probably would not appreciate or enjoy his other films.

But for the same reasons I recommend the film to mainstream filmgoers, I fear that the film might not reward repeat viewing in the same way as Bergman's more difficult films (like Persona, The Silence, perhaps Cries & Whispers). Of course, not everyone buys DVDs for the same reasons I do.

Anyway, I'm writing this review mainly to warn viewers of this DVD not to expect much from the audio commentary by Marc Gervais. He speaks mostly of other films, of the actors, of the varying degrees of greyness, and of his own mundane middle-class lifestyle. On the latter point, consider the fact that Gervais completely ignores the great "shame" monologue when he naively talks about how waiting in a crowded doctor's office is probably the closest thing any film viewer has experienced to the concentration camp-like environment which the protagonists must endure.

Worst of all, Gervais gets the war all wrong. He doesn't realize that the final bombardment defeats the invaders ...at least for a while, at least on that part of the island. He doesn't realize that the government doesn't change hands -- it just gets incredibly repressive, just like governments do in wartime. He actually believes that Jacobi acts as a traitor following the invasion of the island.

In making these mistakes, Gervais obviously misses so many clues that contradict Gervais' interpretation. For example, there is the silence following the big bombardment -- indicating that the invaders have been put down. Then there is the reaction of the camp officials to Ullman's participation in the filmed interview. Plus, the camp officials speak of the invaders liquidating nearly all the citizens (note that the events & scenes onscreen indicate that the citizens might have been killed in the crossfire more than anything else). Finally, there are many smaller clues that Gervais should have recognized later. Like when Jacobi speaks of having just visited his son in the military while his son was on leave -- something that would be impossible if Jacobi were acting as traitor or even living in rebel-controlled territory.

Generally, Gervais seems oblivious to the different ideological discourse on each side. Yet somehow Gervais lived through the 1960s and the Cold War without learning how to recognize the discourse and behavior of reactionary regimes or even the most stereotypical discourse of the orthodox, dogmatic left.

As a result of his misinterpretation, Gervais misses the fact that a once-friendly & benign government becomes arbitrarily cruel and repressive to it's own people. He also misses the fact that the govt bombs its own territory -- nearly destroying our couple's house -- to finally "pacify" part of the island. Finally, he misses the way in which the danger comes from one side, then from the other side, then from the other again, then of course from within.

I discuss this at length only because this is a matter of completely misreading the film, of the plot itself, of essentially conflating two different characters at various points.

True, both sides are shown to be equally guilty in this film. And Bergman dresses them in identical uniforms. But still, I expect better from a scholar's commentary ...and from any DVD release from such a significant -- and notoriously challenging -- director as Ingmar Bergman.

PS: If you like 'Shame', don't miss 'Come and See'. The recent 'Bloody Sunday' also serves a similar purpose -- to document and demonstrate the power of war to reshape individuals in the most horrifying ways.

MGM corrected the OAR problem
MGM recalled the original issues of "Hour of the Wolf" and "Shame" because they were presented in a fake widescreen that cropped the top and bottom of the film. These are masterpieces that should not be missed, and they are now beautifully presented in their proper aspect ration of 1.33:1 with the entire image now intact.

One of the five gems of Bergman
This film is simply extraordinary. The performances given por Von Sydow and (one of my female icons) Liv Ullman, are superb.
It's just the genius of Bergman what it makes the great difference. The story increases gradually in organic intensity. The passions and the hopeless get together and produce an efervescence state very close to the paranoid.
¡A real landmark in the story of the cinema!. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

A Creepy Flesheating Extravangaza!!
In this film starring Donna Dixon and her family of flesheaters.Definitely not for vegetarians,it's a creepy flesheating extravaganza if you like horror Movies!! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Hey, chicky baby--it's a cuckoo thing, ya dig? You, too, will find yourself speaking Rat Pack lingo after watching this made-for-HBO biopic about that brief and shining moment when Camelot met Hoboken-on-the-Pacific. The film does a good job of capturing the heady, anything-goes feel of the late-1950s, early-1960s era when Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and their running buddies ruled Hollywood, Las Vegas, and, it seemed, the world. The story centers on Sinatra's relationship with John F. Kennedy (William F. Petersen) before and after he was elected president. It's not particularly flattering to either man, as Sinatra pimps Kennedy into a relationship with Judith Campbell, at the same time she was the favorite consort of mob boss Sam Giancana. Ray Liotta is a forceful Sinatra (though it's not much of an impression); Joe Mantegna has the look and the sound of the surprisingly sober Dean Martin; and Don Cheadle does a great job as the racially conflicted Sammy Davis Jr. Not great cinema but it's never less than engrossing. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (34)

A Litttle Off-Center, But Brilliant Nonetheless
No matter how you slice it, "The Rat Pack" is a good movie. Great performances, a very well-written script that captured the subjects beautifully, a swinging soundtrack and stylish visuals all combine to make this a fantastic film..

A better Sinatra could have been found out there, surely. Ray Liotta is a great actor in his own right, but just wasn't the right choice for this part. However, Joe Mantegna as Dean Martin and Don Cheadle as Sammy Davis, Jr. (both were nominated for Emmys) were spot-on. Mantegna was wonderfully elusive as the deadpan, enigmatic, very sober Dino, and Cheadle stole the show as the immensely conflicted Sammy. I very much enjoyed Angus MacFadyen as long-suffering Peter Lawford and, even though he appeared only one or two times, Bobby Slayton as Joey Bishop. Good performances also came from William Petersen as JFK, Megan Dodds as May Britt, and Dan O'Herlihy as the scheming Joe Kennedy. And it doesn't hurt that the makeup (Emmy-nominated also) was great--take a look at the briefly-shown old Sinatra at the beginning!

The movie tries way too hard to cover several years in a couple of hours. It completely skips any backstory (including the Pack's formation), leaves out lots of things and people, and ends far too early, cutting out the many interesting developments in the years to come; also, many key players included are downscaled, like Bishop, Monroe, and mobster Sam Giancana. Also, incredible dramatic license is taken in places, ranging from the not-so-important (like the fact that the Pack always had their hotel rooms on the same floor, and "One For My Baby" was recorded years before the end) to the major (Peter informed Frank that Kennedy wasn't coming over the phone from D.C., and Dino and Sammy weren't there, either). But, somehow, it all still works.

Plot defects aside, there are some moments of sheer brilliance; the gang's music was used in striking ways to enhance what was onscreen. Sammy's first scene, with him singing, dnacing, and playing the drums AND the trumpet, really showed the immense body of talent he possessed (arguably more than any other Pack member) and the one-man showstopper he was. The group's carousing was caught nicely with the Summit re-enactment, and the after-parties in the great segment with "Ain't That A Kick in the Head" playing while the camera enters each member's hotel room. (Dean really would settle in with a comic book and a Western on TV!) The scene with Frank sailing with JFK at Hyannis Port, when Frankie was on top of the world, had "I've Got the World on a String" playing under it (it also played over the credits). Sammy singing "I've Got You Under My Skin" to the Ku Klux Klan; the juxtaposition of the lyrics and the situation--suddenly the words aren't about love anymore, but strong hate! This is a number that will leave you reeling. The final segment, with Frank singing "One For My Baby" as we see what becomes of the Pack and all their cohorts and remember their glory days, before Frank disappears in a cloud of smoke a la his "retirement" concert in '71, is as beautiful as it is stunning. I got chills when I saw the scene with Sammy, dressed in black satin pajamas, watching racist television reports about himself in an entirely white room. And Frank's introduction, singing "Live Till I Die," is beyond words. The lyrics sum up his life so well it's scary: "Those blues I lay low/I'll make them stay low/They'll never trail over my head/I'll be a devil till I'm an angel...Gonna dance gonna fly/I'll take my chance riding high/Before my numbers up I'm gonna fill my cup..."

It may miss here and there, but all in all, "The Rat Pack" is an motion picture experience that should not be missed.

terrific entertainment
Chris Dudley must be a famous movie maker, that's why he knows so much more about making films than the people who made this piece of terrific entertainment. Why, this film doesn't "focus" on how each one of them became famous. It spends too much time on Sinatra, when really we all wanted to see more of Peter Lawford. At least Dudley knows how to spell "non-sequitur" but either he doesn't understand it or doesn't get why the lyrics to the song "I'm Gonna Live" perfectly presage the extracts from the life of its singer, Frank Sinatra, we're about to see.

Dudley doesn't want a movie, he wanted a 10-hour mini-series.

What we got was fun and exciting, with several scenes you will remember forever (at least I will), not just because it's like you're watching the real history we never knew at the time, but because they are well played and paced. For example, the scene in a nightclub with Frank, Dean, Sammy, Peter, Marilyn Monroe, Joe Dimaggio, and Jack and Bobby Kennedy sitting at a big table, with Judy Campbell (later to become Exner) sitting at a small table off to the side, with mobsters Johnny Roselli and Mickey Cohen over there, is extraordinary. The "High Hopes" number was great, and yes it did happen. The meeting between Joe Kennedy and Sinatra where the Kennedy clan patriarch directs Sinatra to ditch the blacklisted writer he had hired and to get his mob pals to help "win" the West Virginia primary is all the more powerful for being so brief. Frank's passionate argument with Ava showed how much two people who really love each other can hurt the other. How much more can you reasonably ask from a 2 hour TV movie, or indeed from any movie?

I didn't see this until just the other day and I damn near stayed up all night just to watch it, and it takes something arresting to grab my attention and keep it that late at night when I really had no intention of seeing the sun come up.

Rat Review
I thought the Rat Pack was an excellent movie. Charactor portrayals were very close to what I remember them being having grown up in the early 50's. Tensions abound inside the Pack as they deal with the evolution of entertainment industry close friendships and outside as Sinatra draws the Pack through a politics-meets-the-mob maze. Perhaps the most telling and eloquint of all lines spoken, Sinatra's reflection on days past, "I miss my guys."

If you haven't seen this movie, you're cheating yourself out of a delightful romp through the old days of wine, women, and song.

OK movie but Not all that Realistic!
I had this DVD, it was one of the first DVD's I bought when I got my DVD player and it was an ok movie but perhaps containing more fiction then fact. The acting was good even though most of the cast didn't resemble the people they were portraying except maybe Angus MacFadyen who looks a little like Peter Lawford but I think Bobby Slayton who played Joey Bishop looked a lot like the real Joey Bishop. While this movie wasn't a totally true accurate account of these guys it was worth watching once and I do think that Ray Liotta (Frank Sinatra), Joe Montegna (Dean Martin) Angus MacFadyen (Peter Lawford), Don Cheadle (Sammy Davis Jr) and Bobby Slayton (Joey Bishop) gave good performances even if most of them didn't look much like who they were portraying. An ok movie but after I watched it I went to a store that lets you sell or trade your DVD's and I traded it in for another used DVD.

Entertainment 4 stars, accuracy 2 stars maybe
This movie is indeed good entertainment and nothing more than that. It somewhat captures the swinging late 50s and early 60s before the onslaught of the Beatles changed the music industry forever.

There are a bunch of half truths and rumors in here but the movie is fun to watch anyway if you take it with a grain of salt. For example, by early 1962, Sinatra was no longer at CAPITOL and the song ONE FOR MY BABY was recorded at CAPITOL in 1958.

None of the rat pack except maybe Joey Bishop and Peter Lawford's character closely resemble the real legends in looks and speaking voice.

As stated earlier, this is a good half truth, half fiction movie. ... Read more

Reviews (328)

Talented cast in an alright movie
Deep Impact, which is basically about an almost unstoppable metor about to collide with the earth, which will result in many deaths if something isn't done about it. Morgan Freeman stars as the president of the United States, who is straight forward and honest, which is a type of president this country has never had. Also, stars Tea Leoni, the most talented youngster, Elijah Wood, Robert Duvall, and Vanessa Redgrave as Tea Leoni's alcoholic mother.

After the discovery of the meteor by Leo Biederman (Wood), a scientist checks what path it is headed and comes to the realization that it is headed straight for earth, not to mention the shores of the east cost. To try and stop it, they send a group of astronauts to try and destroy the meteor, lead by Tanner (Duvall). The major strength of this movie is the human reaction. Each character reacts differently to the disaster to become them. Some worry about themselves and flee without a second thought and some worry about other people, which is what is believeable. Deep Impact takes the middle ground, in other words instead of letting the meteor hit, they are able to spilt into two pieces, with the larger piece being destroyed in a scene that may just bring tears to your eyes.

Compared to Armegeddon, this movie is a masterpiece. This one has more realism and it is not made like a 120 minute trailer as Roger Ebert once pointed out about Armegeddon. It has characters you just might remember and dialogue that is not so repetitive you may just walk out. Despite the fact, this movie is not great although it stars some great talents such as Elijah Wood and the brilliant Morgan Freeman, it is just decent. GRADE: B-

i prefer armageddon because...
...if you are gonna have a film about an ELE, with the slightly
more serious approach that covers the sort of lottery in this
one (which all seems perfectly believable), you ought to have
some emotional impact to the story

maybe it's been been too long since i saw it, but it just seemed
like no one in the film really cared about what was going to
happen. seemed a little odd to me...

it's ok
Deep Impact is a good disaster movie, it has a scene where
they pick those who would be save, Similar to the old
1951 movie (when Worlds Collide)they called the ark but there are remakes of some these old george pal movies like the
time machine,ok now I like to see them do a remake of the 1951
(when Worlds Collide).

Made an Impact on me
Many people tend to compare this movie to armageddon, as they are both about the idea of a celestial body (in this case a comet, in the case of armageddon an asteroid) on a collision course with the earth, and seeing as how they were released in very close proximatey to one another. I think this has a lot to do with some people's lack of love for Deep impact, but the reality is these were two very different movies.

While "Armageddon" was a great movie in it's own rate, it was more of an action-romance movie that was meant to apeal to a braoder audience and satisfy movie-goers' typical demands of a major release. But with Deep Impact a much different aproach was taken, following in the way of the traditional Disaster Movie Genre.

From the beginning we are introduced to one of the main Characters, an upstart reporter investigating your run of the mill political love affair scandal, but stumbles instead upon the biggest story of history, that there is a monstrous comet on a collision course with earth. And so unfold's the American government's plan to send an team of asteronauts to intercept the comet and plant enough nukes on it to deflect it off course. The movie handles the plot from a much more epic, and at the same time much more personal level than armageddon.

The romance angle of the story is provided by the young boy who unwittingly discovered the comet and his girl neighbor. As counter measures fail, and plan B, C and D are called into action the terrible reality that only so many can be saved, and that it has to be decided who lives and dies sets in. A national lottery determines who will get passage to a special fallout shelter-like cave complex that was built in secret to house 1 million people. The rest are left to fend for themselves.

I really found deep impact to be more emotional, though not as romantic as armageddon. Characters will die, babies will be deperated from parents, young people will be asked to carry burdens that they shouldnt have to deal with and cities are destroyed as part of the asteroid hits the atlantic and causes a massive tsunami. Watching all this really had a more realistic and more message-orientated feel to it than Armageddon. I liked that the movie seemed to follow closer to the science and horrow of what a comet impact could cause, and how that affected the characters and our society. This made the movie much more interesting to me in many ways, and much realer as well.

The special effects are well done enough for the time period, and actually the tidal-wave scene where you watch a city massive wall of water inundate the city, hills and forests was quite ae inspiring. This is well done and will make your jaw drop when you see it.

The only problems are some inconsistant acting, and the fact that this movie is a bit slow and might not appeal to some viewers as much as armageddon because it's not an action movie.

All in all this was a great disaster movie and I thought it did a better job than armageddon in many ways of dealing with the actual plot scenario, though I like that movie as well just for different reasons. But if you're looking for a good sci-fi based disaster movie that will touches on many deeper levels than similar movies than this is your best bet. You're better off renting Deep Impact than you are going to the theater to see "The Day After Tomorrow".

Deep Enough.
As far as disaster films go, this is one of the best. The characters have a little more depth than your usual catastrophe cardboard cutouts and are played with conviction by a fine cast. What good's a disaster if you don't really feel for the folks the disaster is happening to. Unlike most other big budget disaster blockbusters, DEEP IMPACT has a decent script that takes itself seriously. Add the cast, assured direction by MIMI LEDER, and some great fx visuals, and the end result is an extreemly enjoyable thrill ride that keeps head and heart intact. It's amazing how this movie gets so much slack when most others in the genere are far inferior (i.e. ARMAGEDDON, DAY AFTER TOMORROW, etc.). ... Read more

Reviews (1)

An Heartbreaking Story of Explotation!! !!
In this film Kathleen Quinlan is a sociology graduate working with teen prostitutes in Hollywood and how to get them off the streets.It's heartbreaking to see these children being exploited,a very interesting and imformative movie!! ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Based on the book? Well...
The only connection here to the esteemed book is that our main (and desperate) character Alan (Cameron Dye) keeps a well thumbed copy with him in class. He pines for Leslie (Michelle Meyrink) who's considered off-limits because her father (Christopher Lloyd) is the overprotective lethal wrestling coach. Leslie is looking to "score" also - she misunderstands her doctor and thinks she only has a few months to live. Subplots revolving around Alan and Leslie's attempts to "lose it" include a confused exchange student from Mecca and an undercover policewoman (Colleen Camp) who's looking to bust a student named "Mushroom" Malone. Formula teen comedy offers some laughs and originality - not to mention a "fart lighting" contest.

Joy of Sex
I have seen this movie and if you want a good side splitting laugh get this movie. It will take you back to the hi jinks of your high school days. It is well worth the money to get it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

By May 1945, the war in Europe was over and the German military was in ruins. The war in the Pacific, however, was far from done and the determination of the Japanese promised that the ultimate cost of victory would be very high.With the death of Franklin Roosevelt, the responsibilities of the presidency fell on Harry Truman.Truman had been kept out of the decision-making loop through much of his term as vice president, and had to rely on his gut instinct and on-the-job training to handle his new position.The U.S. Army had been working feverishly on the Manhattan Project (the "gadget"), and the Army's top brass urged Truman to use the awesome power of the bomb to end the war with the Japanese. Hiroshima uses a unique structure to convey the story of that fateful decision, mixing newsreels with new sepia-toned footage, color dramatizations, and interviews with Hiroshima survivors and U.S. military personnel. At times, the transitions between the segments can be a bit jarring, but Hiroshima is an extraordinary look at the human element of the decision to use nuclear weapons.Its painstaking attention to period detail makes it a historical drama that plays nearly like a documentary. Kenneth Welsh, in particular, is an uncanny Harry Truman, having obviously studied the president's clipped Midwestern twang and ramrod-straight bearing at great length.Unlike many other films on the subject, Hiroshima also shows the Japanese side of the equation, with a diplomatic corps ready to sue for peace while the fanatics in the military would never hear of it.Its unswervingly objective, balanced tone, and sober direction make Hiroshima a thoughtful and informative look at the decision that changed the course of history forever.--Jerry Renshaw ... Read more

Reviews (17)

Excellent portrayal of the decisive final days of WWII
Few decisions have been debated as long, fiercely or futilely as the decision to drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan at the end of the Second World War. Few situations involved as many diverse factors and none had the far-reaching ramifications of this one.

Hiroshima is a straight-forward, documentary-styled portrayal of the many problems facing the political and military leaders of the major powers in 1945. The choice made by President Truman was based on the advice of an extremely diverse group of advisors, both military and civilian, most of whom knew the war was nearing its end and many of whom had personal agendas which influenced their input. Additionally, the involvement of allied heads of state, particularly Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet Premier Josef Stalin, played a significant role and are carefully addressed in the film.

What I found most impressive was the objective and somewhat sympathetic treatment of the Japanese political leadership, who faced nearly insurmountable odds in dealing with an intractible military hierarchy which was unwilling to acknowledge defeat, complicated by the delicate need to negotiate a rapid settlement so as to avoid further civilian casualties, avoid further loss of national honor, and maintain the deified status of the emperor.

The failure to understand culturally dictated diplomatic subtleties is quietly yet forcefully examined, alongwith sometimes intentional disregard of more obvious overtures.

Hiroshima interweaves historical fact with a number of political assumptions that have come to be accepted as fact. While many of the film's apparent conclusions are conceivable and even probable, the viewer is cautioned to remember that this is a drama, not a documentary. Many of the character depictions are superbly accurate, while others are composites of several historical figures and yet others only loosely based on reality.

Another impressive feature of this film is its sensitive portrayal of the actual employment of the "Special Bombs." There are the expected views of boiling mushroom clouds. As the story continues to unfold, still photos of the devastation are displayed. However, the producers successfully resisted the temptation to use footage of the human damage, and the often utilized scenes of grotesquely burned victims receiving medical treatment are tactfully absent.

While Hiroshima may not be entirely reliable in a historical context, the personal and emotional processes that went into the decision making process are intelligently and accurately dealt with. If the viewer takes only one lesson from watching the film, it should be that all of those involved, from the scientists to the citizens of the ill-fated target cities, were not simply historical figures or statistics, but living human beings. Perhaps the most laudible accomplishment of this superb film is bringing a human perspective to the most inhumane (however necessary) event in the history of mankind.

For anyone who would like to better understand the who's, what's, where's and especially the why's of the destruction of Hiroshima, this movie is a must see.

For the Sake of Japan Spirit
Atomic bombing on Hiroshima involves a catalogue of good and evil in the human nature. From political/militaristic ambition for the hegemony over the new world, strategy and scientific achievement to conscience and religious beliefs of all kind of peoples, etccc.

Due to the demonic power of the supreme weapon, every human who involved in the project, from scientists to Generals and the president of the United States, were tested of their human conscience. And who sold the soul to the demon?

As this semi-documentary film has beautifully and correctly depicted, when the final decision of the atomic bombings was made, Japan had already known that she was going to be defeated at a severe cost of Japanese lives, and that was a matter of time.
One question that must be asked was: How can Japan end the war with the national polity and the sovereignty of Japan, e.g. the Emperor, intact?
In other words; gIf only the status of the Emperor is intact and unsullied, Japan can be reconstructed from any kind of adversity.h That was the whole nationfs hope.

So, it could have been possible for Japan to capitulate to the Allied much earlier under a single condition of assurance of the Emperorfs status, and, therefore, the atomic bombings could have been avoided; if only President Truman had not stuck that much to the word, gunconditional surrenderh; if only the Soviet Union and Stalin had not had been so ambitious to take control over the Far East and had accepted Japanfs request for the mediation; if only the State Secretary James Byrnes had not been so jingoistic and of anti-Japanese sentiment; if only Truman had listened to the poor professor Hoffmanfs explanation about the probable attitude of the Japanese when they used the word gmoku-satsuh(basically means gto ignoreh, but in this particular case, meant gI want to agree with you, but I cannot do so explicitly because of current situation.h) to respond to the Potsdam Declaration, etc. cc.

But, the bombs were dropped, and Japanfs defeat was confirmed.
The Japanese were, however, still in high morale. As an American journalist reported, the Japanese were still believing; gJapan lost the war in material way but Japan Spirit never be conquered!h

I do not know if it is authentically the words of the Emperor himself, but it seems genuine for the Emperor to say that; gOne can build a palace in a few months. A great tree requires hundreds of years. But even a great tree doesnft last forever.h
And so do those words: gIt is appropriate that we [the Emperor and the subject] share the [sufferings], [so that the Japanese nationals] will realize we are one family after all.h gHis subjects believed that within Him (sic) lived the soul of all that was Japanese cc the soul of Japan itself.h
I was born 20 years after the war ended and educated by the history textbooks which the left-wing scholars wrote in the way the American occupation forces satisfied so that the Japanese think the Japanese Imperial Army was evil, therefore, they have to accept the atomic bombings and other indiscriminate incendiary bombings as the punishment for the militaristsf war crimes.
Still, I strongly believe that our Emperor is the symbol for the ideal of Japanfs decency, the soul of Japan itself.

I do admire this film, gHiroshimah, that showed us broad view on political activities over the decision-making of the atomic bombings and Japanfs surrender. But it is not entirely satisfactory because it mentioned very little about the voices of the victims.

One survivor told his American friend about people who gdied in silence, with no grudge, setting their teeth to bear [the tremendous sufferings and agony]. All for the country!h
gYes, people of Hiroshima died manly in the atomic bombing, believing that it was for the Emperorfs sake.h(from John Hersey's book, "Hiroshima")

There is one hiccup: the superimposed narration said g[The Japanese Imperial Army in China] left behind 8 million dead civilians.h I do not think they have good hard documented evidences which support this awful allegation other than Chinese Communist propaganda sources. Even the notoriously unfair Tokyo Trial did not go that wild and far-fetched.
Apart from that, this is a good film in a decent documentary style with superb performances of the actors that I highly recommend to everyone.

A perversion of History
Here are the facts, none of which appear in this movie:

1. The US dropped the atomic bombs on Japan so that Japan would surrender to the US before the USSR declared war on Japan (The USSR was then an ally of the Allied Powers) This gave the US a superior diplomatic position over the USSR.

2. The US dropped the bomb in order to test the effectivness of a nuclear weapon on a populated area.

Both of these points are verifiable with White House / Pentagon memos, and can also be found at the Atomic Bomb Museum in Hiroshima, or the Atomic Bomb Museum's website....it is also worth noting why the US chose Hiroshima as a primary target:

1. Hiroshima was chosen because the city had not been bombed by conventional allied bombers. For this reason, it would be easier to tell how effective the atomic bomb was against a populated area.

2. Hiroshima was a manufacturing city, with a military base. Therfore, destroying Hiroshima would slow Japanese production and industry.

It should also be noted that the US dropped thousands of (conventional) bombs on Japan AFTER Japan surrendered (a war crime, under Nuremberg laws).

Here is testimony taken from a suvivor of the Hiroshima bombing:

"She came toward me, carrying a baby on her back and pulling a three-year-old and five-year-old by the hand. Her face was black and swollen large. It was afternoon, and she and the children were hungry. I gave them my lunch. She said they were thirsty. I went to get some water and when I got back, the three and five-year-olds had died while eating my lunch. The mother had died while breast-feeding the baby, who was still alive and suckling. The sight of them reduced me to tears. I made a little shelter out of .......Then I thought about my mother. I was confident she was safe at home, and thought about asking her to make......
Then when I got home, she was not there. A woman with a black face was lying in the air-raid shelter. Who are you? I asked. "

If you want a more accurate picture of the atomic bombings in Japan, I suggest you look elsewhere....please excuse my lack of proofreading, I don't have much time to write this. The above testimony is a direct quote from the Atomic Bomb Regristry in Hiroshima

A common humanity
This movie gives a sense of the common humanity of both sides, in at least two ways.

First, the movie draws parallels between the make-up of both governments near the end of the war, beginning with U.S. President Truman and Japanese Prime Minister Suzuki. The two men took office within 5 days of each other, and had their first cabinet meetings at nearly the same time. Both meetings are in the film. You can see each man adjusting to the reins of power as he meets with the military leaders of his country. At his meeting, Suzuki chooses in a calculated way to present himself as a fierce warrior ready to die in battle, while Truman makes no such speech, yet you get the sense that the President, too, perhaps because of his lack of experience, is aware that he needs to communicate himself as a strong leader in order to earn the respect of the officers and civilians in his cabinet. Truman had the military men under his unquestioned command, though, which cannot be said for Suzuki; and Truman was the highest authority in the U.S., while in Japan that title lay, technically at least, with Emperor Hirohito. Yet very quietly, the movie draws Suzuki and Truman together as two men in a common situation, determined in their own ways to see an end to the war. The parallel is not trumpeted in an obvious manner; I did not see it myself until revisiting the movie after several years; but this is a subtle and complex film with many such finely drawn portraits.

Beyond Truman and Suzuki, we get a good sense of the general disagreements within both governments, usually but not always between the military and civilian men. In Japan, of course, the tension between the two groups became an outright struggle, unlike the more nuanced situation in the U.S., where a civilian, Secretary of State Byrnes, comes off as a hard-liner, and where scientists contribute to the civilian roles (prominently, but not completely, in opposition to the hard-liners). At one point Colonel Groves, the head of the Manhattan Project, confronts Secretary of War Stimson with the same kind of martial anger that the military leaders of Japan display so memorably throughout the film. The latter speeches feel authentic, to this particular American, who knows nothing personally of Japan; the dialogue and general portrayal of Colonel Groves can feel ham-fisted and over the top. I can't say whether the portrayals of Byrnes and Groves are historically accurate, but whatever the case, the abundance of tension makes for very interesting drama to say the least; and the drama draws out one of the most tragic facts of the Hiroshima story: the presence in both these countries, near the end of World War II, of war-weariness.

Secretary Stimson's general disposition "not to outdo Herr Hitler in committing atrocities against noncombatants", his willingness to protect the heart of Japanese culture from atomic destruction, and his old age and frailty all mirror Suzuki's old age and the softer line of all the Japanese civilian leaders toward the war.

None of these similarities are allowed to obscure the contrasts between the two countries, in both politics and culture, which are laid out in wonderful complexity -- and, as far as this amateur historian can tell, with authenticity. The movie is not against the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but, perhaps because its Canadian origins help provide some neutrality, it does not wrap Americans in protective clothing, either: they come off as human beings with both warts and strengths.

The second way in which the movie draws a common humanity is by including snippets of interviews with real-life soldiers and civilians from both sides. Dramatically these interruptions feel awkward, and they introduce the feeling of a documentary into what is essentially a docudrama. I think the movie pulls it off well enough, but there is no good way to include these interviews. If you're patient, they add to your appreciation of the story; but keep in mind that the movie is essentially not about ordinary people but rather their leaders.

Bravo to the producers for using actors and film-makers from both sides. I have always loved the Japanese sections of the film, and perhaps it means something that years after first watching it, the chief thing I remembered about it was the power of the Japanese language and the sympathetic humanity of the Japanese roles -- perhaps especially the warriors. The portrayal of Army Minister Anami is especially unforgettable.

A Tragic Event - Ban 'The Bomb'
The acting and production of this feature are all fine, but overall it presents a very kind image of Truman that I don't find supported in my knowledge of him and his presidency. It is often (wrongly) said that the atomic bombs felled on Japanese *civilians* saved tens of thousands of American *soldiers'* lives. But that's a false way to frame the true nature of why hydrogen and plutonium bombs were used.

Truman and Byrnes (his hard-liner sec. of state) lamented Germany's surrender before the bomb was ready, because then they could not justify its use on a defeated enemy. THAT is why Japan would be their victims; and there, too, they avoided negotiating peace and an end to war. THAT prolongation is what *cost* US and Japanese lives.

The atomic bombings served PRIMARILY as displays of military power by the US government to its counterparts of the USSR. The bombing date was moved-up on schedule because Truman feared and wanted to pre-empt the Red Army's move from victory in Manchurian (China, where the Japanese had occupied for a decade) to the islands.

Harry Truman is romanticized as a courageous, conflicted leader who ultimately made a tough decision in the best interest of his people and the world. That idea brings to mind one entry in his journal: 'May have Jap Emperor at Potsdam'... 'Will certainly have them when Manhattan appears over their homeland' (paraphrased). "Manhattan" being of course, the Manhattan Project - the development of nuclear explosives. Truman kept saying that "unconditional surrender" was the only acceptable terms, though the enemy's contention was on having Hirohito stay in power as the icon of Japan's government, culture, and history. But, *after* the bombing had demonstrated the muscle the US government could flex and Japan relented on that point, "unconditional!" went to 'whatever, our point was made', and things beyond that were of far less concern.

We all know where the world went from there: The USSR & The USA competitively racing to build thousands of bombs, just a handful of which could destroy all life on Earth; China, England, France, Israel, have all since joined the insanity. Bitter rivals, India and Pakistan now have the same terrible potential for annihilation of one another, and pollution of our backyards. And Iran and North Korea want to develop their share, because they can plausibly claim a threat from Israel and/or the USA. (And Iraq, apparently, was not on such course of production.)

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes against humanity, bigger than 'war crimes'. WE, common people of the world, must realize that nuclear weapons cannot merely "fall" into the wrong hands of people who would MIS-use them; rather, ANYONE who has them is the wrong people who would USE them, for they threaten OUR WORLD entire.

And it will be up to us common people of the world to stop these mad, reckless, ambitious vultures who run our world and plan our demise. ... Read more

Amazon.com

If you can stifle the urge to laugh at its pastel unisex costumes and futuristic shopping-mall décor, this extravagant science fiction film from 1976 is still visually fascinating and provocatively entertaining. Set in the year 2274, when ecological disaster has driven civilization to the protection of domed cities, the story revolves around a society that holds a ceremonial death ritual for all citizens who reach the age of 30. In a diseaseless city where free sex is encouraged and old age is virtually unknown, Logan (Michael York) is a "sandman," one who enforces this radical method of population control (but he's about to turn 30 and he doesn't want to die). Escaping from the domed city via a network of underground passages, Logan is joined by another "runner" named Jessica (Jenny Agutter), while his former sandman partner (Richard Jordan) is determined to terminate Logan's rebellion. Using a variety of splendid matte paintings and miniatures, Logan's Run earned a special Oscar for visual effects (images of a long-abandoned Washington, D.C., are particularly impressive), and in addition to fine performances by Jordan and Peter Ustinov, the film features '70s poster babe Farrah Fawcett in a cheesy supporting role. Jerry Goldsmith's semi-electronic score is still one of the prolific composer's best, and Logan's Run remains an interesting example of '70s sci-fi that preceded Star Wars by less than a year. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (108)

A visually stunning sci-fi spectacle
I have fond memories of seeing "Logan's Run" in the theaters many years ago, and am delighted to see this film getting a fine presentation on DVD. Directed by Michael Anderson, the film takes place in a post-apocalyptic future where humans live a hedonistic life in the shelter of a domed city. There's just one catch to this pleasure-oriented utopia: nobody is permitted to live past the age of 30. The title character, played by Michael York, is a Sandman: an elite policeman assigned to kill those who flee the birthday death sentence. But a surprising assignment takes Logan on a voyage that will change him profoundly.

"Logan's Run" is an adventure tale, a love story, a crime drama, a social satire, and a sumptuous visual spectacle all in one. The whole package is superbly enhanced by Jerry Goldsmith's inventive and varied score. This is one of the most visually stylish science fiction films ever made; it's full of scenes that are truly unforgettable.

The film is really grounded by the performances by the superb cast. Michael York and Jenny Agutter make an absolutely enchanting screen couple; the evolution of their characters' relationship is one of the key pleasures of the film. Richard Jordan brings complexity and intensity to his role as a fellow Sandman. And Peter Ustinov is delightfully warm, funny, and loveable in a critical supporting role.

The DVD includes a vintage "making of" featurette, as well as a full-length audio commentary by actor York, director Anderson, and costume designer Bill Thomas. The three discuss casting, stunts, special effects, Peter Ustinov's ad-libbing, and other aspects of making the film. They reveal some fascinating and delightful bits of trivia along the way. This is one of those great commentary tracks that makes you appreciate the film even more.

Solid sf adventure less than the sum of its parts
Logan's Run started off with a pretty amazing concept--(courtesy of science fiction writers William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson)what if our youth obsessed society put everyone over the age of 30 (21 in the novel)to death as a means of population control? This film version of a classic cautionary tale is intermittantly successful. David Zelag Goodman's screenplay condenses and changes around several key characters. Goodman's script essentially refocuses the novel into The Fugitive in the future. In the original novel Francis (played brilliantly by the late Richard Jordan)and the Old Man character (played as befuddled by Peter Ustinov) were one and the same. You'll need to read the novel to see why this was an important altered plot point.

Additionally, Sanctuary did exist in the novel while here it's clear that it's something of an urban myth. While these plot points might not seem essential, altering them radically reshaped the film. Still, it's clear that the film's director, producer and screenwriter (respectively, Michael Anderson the late Saul David and Goodman)wanted to streamline what could have been a confusing plot if not layed out correctly.

The basic plot--In the future our society is enclosed in domes. As a means to control the population, everyone has a life clock crystal on their hand. When you reach 30 you have the option to become "renewed" in a ceremony attended by the citizens. Logan (Michael York) and Francis (Richard Jordan) are Sandmen who hunt, capture/or kill runners (people who choose to not go through renewal and try to escape).

After one incident, Logan is debriefed by the computer that runs the city. The runner wore a symbol representing life. During this debriefing he is send undercover to become a "runner" and find out 1)Who is behind the network that tries to get people out of the city and 2) If sanctuary exists. Logan's life clock is prematurely aged to 30. He contacts a girl who he had met before on the circuit (a system where people can "dial up" others for casual sex)who he had seen wearing the same symbol. Despite her better judgement, she elects to help him escape.

Francis, alarmed that his friend is running, elects to chase him and either bring him back for renewal or kill him.

The film is quite good despite some gaping plot holes. Michael York gives a impassioned performance as Logan 5. Jenny Agutter is enchanting as Jessica. Richard Jordan shines as Logan's former partner Francis who feels betrayed and hunts Logan down. Roscoe Lee Brown is exceptional in his cameo as the demented cyborg Box. Michael Anderson, Jnr. gives a nice cameo performance as the surgeon hired to alter Logan's appearence. Made for $6 million, Logan's Run looked quite good when it was released in 1976. The symbolism of having Francis and Logan fight in the House of Representatives with an American flag was quite evident given the year of release (1976).
In many respects the themes in the film are more timely than ever. The obsession with youth, looking good and plastic surgery have come to define our culture in the 21st Century. The only thing missing from the film are botox injections.

Jerry Goldsmith's brilliant score is a highlight of the film. Like his score for Planet of the Apes, Goldsmith chose to go with a mix of sythesizers and orchestra to portray the city of the future. He eschews cliches in his music and the various themes and cues are at turns suspenseful and witty. The optical effects are pretty good given the time. The matte paintings by Albert Whitlock are outstanding and fairly convincing. The miniatures are a mixed bag. They didn't look completely convincing in 1976 nor do they today. Part of the problem has to do with the fact that waters don't fare well when placed in miniatures. You can't miniaturize the bubbles and water drops. Also, the use of the miniatures in combination with live action is quite grainy due to the film stock and amount of composites. Still, if you can suspend your disbelief, you'll enjoy the film despite its limitations.

Logan's Run attempted to tell an adult cautionary tale in a world of light weight escapist movies. It's a commendable film and the film makers frequently bite off more than they can chew. I'd rather have a film that's too ambitious than not at all.

Still, I appreciate the ambitions if not the execution. It's nice to finally have this fine if flawed movie on DVD. The transfer is quite good although the print has a number of flaws. There's also quite a bit of dirt evident on the print. These probably could have been cleared up with a direct digital transfer. Additionally, the 5.1 soundtrack occasionally sounds "tinny" and when played in the stereo format can be quite difficult to hear.

The extras are limited but nice. The commentary by director Michael Anderson and Michael York is quite good and informative. A pity the terrific actor Richard Jordan isn't around any longer to give us his perspective. I would have liked to see a fresh retrospective documentary on the making of the film. It's not likely to happen, though as no one is going to champion this film at the expensive of other newer projects (particulary since producer Saul David is gone). The featurette included is the original one made to promote the film. It's actually pretty decent given the age and purpose of it. The trailer is included as well. The disc is a dual sided single layer DVD with the widescreen and pan & scan versions on the same disc.

classic!
logan's run is a real gem. love the cast and the look of the film and it's a good dvd to have when you want to see something that's out of this world!

fantastic futuristic fun
Logan's Run was one of my faves as a kid. It was different from othe Sci Fi at the time. It created a weird world that was great to watch. I also watched the TV show version and loved it too (sure it was just a TV show and not quite as grand as the the more expensive flick but it was still weird enough to keep me watching). You've just got to love a show that creates it's own strange world and takes you away from reality. Logan has it's own style that provides just the right escape from the played out worlds of other Sci Fi flicks and shows. Give this a chance if you want something that's different and you've never seen it.

A bit excentric, but absolutely worth watching.
This is an awsome movie, even by today's standards. Granted the special effects can sometimes look corny or cheesy, but for the time when this movie was produced, the effects were top notch.

The story line goes like this. It is the year 2275. Disasters have forced what remains of civilization into a self contained, domed city. No one goes outside the city becuase they all beleive it to be a barren wasteland, incapable of supporting life. This is because it WAS that way when the city was founded, but that was over a hundred years ago. Since the city was founded, there was realised a great need to maintain the population to acceptable levels. So, it is determined that at age 30 you will "terminate". If you do not want to end your life at 30, you can participate on the "Carosel" on your "Last Day" (30 years to the day of your birth). The recorded message basically says that if you have a strong enough desire to renew, you will. Renewing gives you an unstated amount of extra time. If you are ready to end, you don't have to participate on Carosel. However, there exist a few people who don't want to follow the rules. They "run" from their fate. To prevent people from running (as well as for general law enforcement) there are a group of cop like folks. Each is refered to as a SandMan. It is their responsibility to enforce law in the domed city, and to track down anyone who decides to run, and terminate them.

Now meet Logan 5. He's a sand man, and he loves his job. But one day when he is doing his job and terminates a runner, he finds an Ankh on the runner. He doesn't think much of it. So he picks it up with the rest of the runner's belongings, and heads back to HQ to be "debriefed". But the central computer DOES recognise the Ankh. It is determined to be a symbol associated with a legenday place called Sanctuary, where runners can go and hide and live out their life normally (as you and I would consider normal). The computer determines that Sanctuary must be either right on the inside of the dome, or outside the city. Logan 5 is assigned to find sanctuary, and destroy it.

And so begins his Grand adventure, during the process of which he leaves the city, Falls in love with his "partner in crime, Jessica" (which is strictly forbidden in the city), Finds a man who has more cats than I could count, and returns to the city to try and stop the madness.

A very good movie on all counts. It should have been more popular. ... Read more

Description

An African boy gets involved in the political unrest in Kenya in 1950 while working as a kitchen boy in the home of the chief of police. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

An excellent movie
As someone who grew up in Kenya in the 50s and 60s, I can attest to the fact that this film captures the feel and the spirit of colonial Kenya better than any other film ever made. The characterizations are excellent, and the story is both entirely believable and captures the nature of colonialism without being judgemental. The little boy in the lead role does an excellent job - you can fully empathize with him - and the late Bob Peck is, as ever, superb in the role of the local head of the police. More explanation was needed of the attitude of his wife, it was difficult to really grasp the thinking of the Mau Mau guerillas, and the ending was perhaps a little predictable. Overall though, this was a terrific film, and instantly gets slotted into my Top Ten of all time.

Excellent yet troubling story.
. "The Kitchen Toto" is an excellent movie that portrays the beginning of the insurgence in 1950's Colonial British ruled Kenya. It is a heartbreaking story of a young boy who suffers unbearable hardships and tragedies, and must choose between his loyalties. It shows the brutality of the drive for Kenya's independence. The ending is tragic and makes you appreciate growing up in our country. As the previous reviewer indicates, it is authentic and very interesting. Get your Kleenex ready

Excellent portrayal of racial tensions in Colonial Kenya
"The Kitchen Toto" does a fine job of examining all aspects of a troubled time in Colonial Kenya. The director himself grew up in Kenya, and the film was shot on location. Very authentic, very interesting, and not a little troubling! ... Read more

Reviews (63)

Very well-done and faithful rendition of Carroll's story
I saw this version (and taped it) when it aired on TV in February. I thought it was very good. I just read Lewis Carroll's book and saw it again. (I have now read a couple of chapters of Through the Looking-Glass) It was very faithful, at least to the first book. (I don't know about the second one yet.) I thought most of the actors did a pretty good job. Tina Majorino was okay, and even though the scenes with Martin Short as the Mad Hatter and Miranda Richardson as the Queen of Hearts go on too long, they're good for a few laughs. Many of the other "stars", such as Whoopi Goldberg as the Chesire Cat and Gene Wilder as the Mock Turtle, did well, also. It was a nice touch to have almost all the characters in WOnderland really be people at the party in the beginning, since in the book I kind of wondered why she picked those characters to dream about. The special effects and design were very well-done, too. All-around enjoyable fare. Hopefully the video won't edit out stuff that was on TV, like they did with the video version of Merlin. Lucky for me, I taped it (Alice in Wonderland, not Merlin) when it was on TV.

It quickly became a week-end tradition!
Since the first time I saw this version of Alice in Wonderland on TV, I have loved it. It seems to be the only decent adaptation of this wonderful book that has been made, especially comparing it to that dreadful Disney version made back in the 1950's. This movie is a true inspiration to reading both of Lewis Carroll's books, "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass". I have boutht a beautiful hardcover edition of the book, and I'm really looking forward to reading it. Anyways, back to the film, the characters are the most lovable ever, really fitting the characters with distinguished personalities, the music is excellent, giving the film's different a scenes a pleasent and fresh atmosphere. I have seen this movie been sold for $4.99 and given away in cereal boxes which is really somewhat of a humiliation, being this such an outstanding film, and destined to become a classic. I'll be sharing this one with my friends and continuing the tradition of watching it every other week-end.

Big budget does not a good Wonderland make
When I first read of this adaptation in 1999, I was so excited to hear of a huge Hollywood version of my favourite book of all time. Another Wonderland to get lost in, another Alice to follow on her nonsensical, whimsical journey. What I ended up with was another reason not to trust American telemovies.

The last telemovie attempt at 'Alice In Wonderland' was in 1985 when Irwin Allen made a very admirable attempt at recreating both 'Wonderland' and its sequel 'Through The Looking-Glass'. In comparison to modern film technology, the sets are a bit plastic looking and there are one too many distractingly sickening songs, not to mention some embarrassing moments of 'special effects' (see the model train used to cringeworthy effect in 'Lookin-Glass'). However when stacked up against this travesty, Allen's creation is an absolute opus.

The biggest problem with this latest Wonderland is it gets lost in its own surface. As a result, it is a horribly stilted, detached and depthless rendering of one of the most exciting fictional worlds in modern literature. Nearly every setting is CGI'd beyond recognition, with unnecessary inclusions and digital touch-ups in almost as many scenes. As for the cast, for a group of actors who are arguably the cream of the Hollywood crop they turn in rather unimpressive performances. Tina is a solid Alice, but talented actors like the divine Whoopi Goldberg are wasted on parts like the Cheshire Cat. It comes off as another reviewer stated like a furry grey Whoopi Goldberg, not Goldberg playing a role. Unfortunately, this can be said for most of the other famous names in the film as well. As for the White Rabbit, I don't think I've ever seen a more unconvincing and irritating creature in my life. It looks like the perverted brother of the Energiser Bunny.

My other peeves with this version lie in the seemingly obligatory 'American-isation' of the original text, with the pointless and insulting inclusion of a journey of self-discovery to somewhat validate Alice's encounter with Wonderland. This not only subverts but trivialises the genius of Carroll's novels set against the backdrop of the morally-conscious Victorian world.

I will give props where necessary, however. Miranda Richardson's reading of the Queen is at first jarring with her high pitched screeching, but by the end of the film it becomes rather appealing. Her make-up and costume is not what is usually rendered as the Queen of Hearts, but quite a stellar variation. The card-house / court scene at the end is wonderful, as is the gloriously sensitive portrayal of the Mock Turtle by Gene Wilder (accompanied by one of the more convincing Henson creature creations as the Gryphon). If there is one reason to see this version of 'Wonderland', it is Martin Short as the deranged Hatter. His Hatter - and his friend, a mildly psychotic, slightly disturbing reading of the March Hare - is for me the perfect portrayal of Carroll's character and John Tenniel's original illustrations. The entire tea party sequence is delicious, pivotal, and embodies everything that Wonderland is - nonsensical, entertaining and slightly darker than you'd first realise.

Shame the rest of the film is miles away from this superb scene.

This is how you cannot adapt Alice in Wonderland....
I got this in a cereal box for free, which I'm grateful for, but I wish I hadn't watched it. It's everything you'd expect of a modern re-telling of this story with Hollywood comedians and actors. They make the first mistake of having an American Alice attempt a British accent. Secondly, she's had to perform a song, and the story is revealed to be only a result of a dream she's had, like Dorothy. They've penned a couple of wretched, unmemorable songs. A constantly blinking rabbit runs around and seems to have made no contribution. It's cold and lifeless, except for its set design, but it's still not much to look at. It's the Tim Burton excuse of creative style over substance, but Tim Burton movies have something to add.

The actors don't even seem to want to act against the other actors and the camera and costumes ensure you never see them express body language. The camera uses many closeups and quickly cut away from what you want to see, assuming you're already bored, the backgrounds are either blandly digital or miniatures. It's claustrophobic, suffocating and irritating to watch.

Whoopi Goldberg and Martin Short are two examples of inspired casting. Goldberg plays herself as a grinning Chesire cat, Short plays the Mad Hatter as a kind of gay socialite Austin Powers, which I can accept in this rendition but it doesn't totally work. There's no wonder to any of it and all the added-for-tv wacky dialogue just seems to get further and further away from what worked about the book - which was more and it deserves a much better film version. This never came together and when Miranda Richardson was onscreen to play croquet the whole thing just dies and the only thing keeping it going is its set pieces. There was nothing going for this in the first place, so just avoid it.

Oh, Alice, what have they done to you?
This is the worst adaptation of Alice in Wonderland I have ever seen. From the ridiculous and invented-for-the-movie stage fright premise on, this is a classic example of a movie not doing justice to a book.

I'm giving this DVD 1 star, and that star is for Martin Short, the only saving grace of this movie. He plays the Mad Hatter to deranged perfection. And I guess the costumes are pretty. ... Read more

Description

Those diehard Cleveland Indians that went from worst to first in the hit original now cope with fame and its perks as the hangdog team tries to hit, hustle and joke its way back to the top.Charlie Sheen, Tom Berenger and Corbin Bernsen star. ... Read more

Reviews (18)

The Cleveland Gang is back
The first Major League movie was a good one but this is better. The Cuban Crusher Pedro Cerano, Rick "The Wild Thing" Vaughn, Willie Mayes Hayes, and newcomer Rude Baker are one fire. Rick comes to this season as a ... pretty boy pitcher who cares too much about injuring his arm that he can't even throw 90. Cerano comes back as a spiritual Budha and is so stupid now that he hits a bird with a baseball and runs in the outfield to save it's life while he gets tagged out... Willie comes back without the speed but has a lot more power and as a movie star with a leg injury. New-comer Rude Baker can't throw to the pitcher even though he's a catcher. See if they'll come back. Also a funny Japenese outfielder is added on who has spritual fights with Cerano.

They're back!
The Indians are back for another season. With several new players to the team, like a crazy japanese fielder, and a Playboy fanatic catcher, plus star pitcher, Rick Vaughn, has went clean cut and lost his powerful arm. Add to this with a host of other problems, the Indians are in for another struggling season of baseball. I liked this movie a lot, and it is my 2nd favorite of the trilogy of the Major League movies, with the original being my favorite.

The DVD menus look great, and easy to navigate. I was expecting loads of extras, but I didn't get much. All that is here is just a thing called "The Starting Line Up" which is pictures of all the movie's main actors on baseball cards. And a trailer for this movie, plus for 2 other movies also.

The hard luck Indians are back for another season
While this isn't the instant classic that the first MAJOR LEAGUE movie was, I actually like the sequel as well as the original.

The only thing really missing from the first film is Wesley Snipes as center fielder Willie Mays Hayes, but Omar Epps does a nice job in his place.

So what if you know that they're going to pull if off from the outset...it's all about the journey right?

Bob Uecker makes the film!

Really Funny Baseball Comedy
Some people would say it doesn't live up to the first one, but I think it does, and it may even be better.

The Clevelend Indians are back, and better than ever. Rick "Wild Thing" Vaughn is trying to throw curveballs, Willie Mayes Hayes tries to become a power hitter, Pedro Sorano converts to Buddhism, and more. It has some really high points, and it kept me laughing.

My favorite are the Chinese guys who clean up the field after the games. They're really funny.

Overall, it's a great DVD for a great price. Buy it!

basically Major League
this movie is almost exactly the same as the first with some subtle differences it is funny though ... Read more

Reviews (168)

Basically copy of 1st flick, but still fun
If you caught the first flick, you'll find little different in its sequel, but "Legall Blonde 2" is still a bag of preposterous fun.

Planning for her wedding to law professor Emmet Richmond (Luke Wilson), Elle Woods becomes determined to (Witherspoon) track down the biological parent of her Chihuahua, Bruiser. Elated to find the dog belongs to Versace, Elle is shocked to find that the animal (and countless others) is subjected to testing by cosmetics makers. Losing her job at a tony law firm when she tries to make an issue of animal testing, Elle heads for Washington where she hopes to change the law. Linking up with an apparently successful and sympathetic congresswoman played by Sally Field, and learning the ways of Washington D.C.-style politics, LB2 essentially follows the pattern of the first movie - replacing law with cut-throat politics (initially hostile characters prove to be friends while friendly characters turn out to have their own agenda; Elle wins out over all using her mix of wackiness and wisdom). The flick makes good use of some side characters, like Bruce McGill as a right-wing conservative who, luckily for Elle, is a proud dog owner (McGill may best be remembered as the mysterious "D-Day" from "Animal House"; it's fun watching this flick thinking that his character may very well be the same as D-Day, only 40 years later); also Bob Newhart as a D.C. doorman who knows a thing or two about DC power politics (where was his character during Watergate?); but really belongs to a horde of extras mobilized by Elle to lead the fight on Capitol Hill. The moral of the story - never look down on the apparent savviness of your opponent who, though unsophisticated, is motivated by a cause they find noble. At least not in Hollywood.

It's okay....
Being the complete opposite of the beauty-obsessed, cheery 'ditzy' blonde that Elle Woods is myself, I somehow manages to find the original "Legally Blonde" to be a really good, cute, funny movie. After all, at least Elle Woods is an animal-loving vegetarian animal rights activist. So am I. So naturally, I bought this movie.

The idea behind it is great: Elle Woods wants to save her dog's mother from an animal testing facility and end cruel animal research in the cosmetic industry for good using her new status in the legal profession. So it carries a great message. Sadly, the movie isn't much of a comedy at all. It isn't even all that entertaining. I probably wouldn't want to see it more than once, especially because Elle's constant "preppy blonde" antics are really starting to get annoying. Sure, the movies are cute, but let's face it: they're entirely unrealistic. No such person as Elle Woods could ever make it as a lawyer, let alone make it very far in the real world.

Sally Field and Bob Newhart aren't in this as much as you may be led to believe, either. It focuses on Bruiser, the dog. Somehow, a serious subject like animal rights gets Elle's comments on shoes, clothes, make-up, etc., thrown in every few minutes to really grate on your nerves and wonder how someone so superficial could also be so good, caring, and deep. There you go, deep: Not the best word to use for this film. More like "fluffy." It's definite fluff. Like her quote: "In this case, the price of beauty is too high....I can't believe I said that!" Ugh.

Still, if this is the only way to get across to people the problems with animal testing, it'll do. One woman Elle runs into says, "I don't think about it, that does the trick!" when asked to consider the horrible ways some animals get treated and abused. This shows the ignorance that so many people have that needs to change. A serious lesson in a movie that involves a Chihuahua falling in love with a Rottweiler. For corns' sake.

So while Elle's political views are right-on, the movie itself isn't exactly the greatest. Still, it's worth a see.

Holy...
I saw this movie in the theater and I thought it was horrible. I didn't laugh once and this movie just bored me to death. It wasnt entertaining, funny, nor did it hold my attention. Then I had the misfortune of having to watch it again on a roadtrip (my car has a DVD player in it) and I just could not take it. THIS MOVIE SUCKS SO BAD! Stay away at all costs!

egally Blonde 2 - Red, White & Blonde (Special Edition)
egally Blonde 2 - Red, White & Blonde (Special Edition)
DVD ~ Reese Witherspoon is just as good and ditzy as the original. Many people said that it paints a bad picture for women. I could disagree more. This is how men want women to act.

Legally Blonde 2
This film is great it has a certain age. This film has an occasional use of bad language.
This is about a girl who has a dog poodle and she wants to be a lawyer but will she ever become one you wont find out yet.......
This video/dvd is excellent.I think the person who plays the judge is a great actor/actress and so is everybody else but the judge is best.
I like this film because it is funny and even more enjoyable.I thought everything was marvellous and nothing was bad. ... Read more

Amazon.com

In 1996, Sharon Stone put a little grit into her glamorous image byplaying a suspicious, snarling death row inmate caught up in the politics of thedeath penalty. Director Bruce Beresford tackled a similar drama in hisuncompromising Breaker Morant, but here he's stuck with a script thatfavors the tepid story of her ne'er-do-well clemency lawyer (Rob Morrow), whosedormant conscience awakens as he champions her case. It's a well-meaning effortundercut by sentimentality (Beresford gives in to the impulse to find the sweetpuppy dog behind Stone's feral street-mutt exterior) and the bad luck to comeafter the similarly themed but superior Dead Man Walking. Give Stonecredit for the passion and conviction to make you care anyway. --SeanAxmaker ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Sharon Stone, more than makeup and short skirts
I stumbled across this movie on television recently and was mesmerized by Sharon Stone's performance. Her looks were down-played for her role of death row inmate and what showed through was luminous acting and touching vulnerability. Her character, bred from white trash and convicted of a brutal double murder, brought a new insight into the circumstances surrounding violent crime and the reform found in prison. This movie made me doubt my firm stance in support of capital punishment (and that's not easy to do). Rob Morrow is both sensitive and powerful as the rich kid attorney that finds something to fight for in his defence of this woman. Overall, a moving and tragic movie not to be missed, and definitely notable among other death row dramas for its gender reversal and the new perspective that brings.

see it if you haven't seen dead man walking
OK, I haven't seen dead man walking, so I'm not as mad as most people who think this is a rip-off of that movie. The movie isn't lame, it isn't very powerfull either, but it still makes a sad compelling movie. Rick chooses his first case, that of Cindy, who was convicted of a double murder. After she, not having close relatives but a brother whose also locked up, isn't intersted of being saved, he thru showing her compassion and caring, she finally realizes that there's so many things for her to do, she didn't want to die, but she didn't want to be locked up in there forever, but after that, she just doesn't want to die. So, I liked the movie, I was surprised by the ending, because it seemed that rick had done so much, but really, it just seemed that way since you get so involved in seeing how he tries so hard to save her. It shows you how some people can really change, and the dilema of having less than 30 days to save someone you've gotten so involved with.

Dead Woman Walking
Yes, released on the heels of Dead Man Walking, it suffered in comparison. But it does have strong performances by Sharon Stone and Rob Morrow. Other good actors grace the cast list too. It's nice to see Chicago Hope alum Jayne Brook in something else--wish she'd had more to do. Randy Quaid and Peter Gallagher could have been used to better effect. The gender switch makes the prison movie cliches a bit more tolerable.

A very good movie but not as powerful as dead mn walking
This was a very good movie and it was a nice drama but it ain't something where u get that powerful feeling like dead man walking but i do recomend it

definitely inferior to Sean Penn's movie Dead Man Walking
Having seen Dead Man Walking, I became interested in seeing more movies about the death penalty so I got a hold of this movie.... I hated it. The acting was corny and cheesy. Sean Penn's performance as a condemned prisoner facing imminent execution was vastly superior and definitely more convincing than Sharon Stone's. It beats me why this movie was released shortly after Dead Man Walking. In fact, it beats me why it was released at all. Stick to Dead Man....don't bother with this extremely lame ripoff. ... Read more

Reviews (92)

Great Movie- Truly Terrific
This wonderful movie by Director Penny Marshall asks the question: Are parents to blame for the wrong choices of their children?

"Riding in Cars with Boys" involves wrong and right choices. Because the class "Mr. Popular" insults the class "live wire" consolation is given by the class "drop-out" and the "live-wire", aptly played by Drew Barrymore is "knocked up." What do you do about that in the late 1960's. You marry the class "drop out" and deal with the results usually unhappily.

The results entail about 20 years of troubles, joys, disappointments, triumphs, and growing up experiences. This true story does not fail to satisfy. Barrymore is good, but so is James Woods as her caring but sometimes insensitive father (who may have saved himself a pile of troubles if he had just bought that bra she wanted for Christmas when she was 13.)

It spans the live of Beverly Donofrio from age 15 to age 35. Drew Barrymore does a very good performance at all ages. I've never seen any of her other work compare to this performance.

What we have here is a comedy-drama about relationships between parents and child and parent as child and child and best friends too. Touching and tender the movie is just right to bring back hilarious and not so funny memories of what it is like to and what happens to girls who go around, "Riding in Cars with Boys." and, too, what it is like and what happens to boys who go aound "Riding in Cars with... (you get the picture).

Drew Barrymore as a single mother
Drew Barrymore is Bev, a precocious young woman from a conservative working-class family in Connecticut. Bev is sassy but also has her sights set on escaping her sleepy Connecticut home and pursuing college and a career as a writer. That is until her unplanned pregnancy at 16. Forced to marry her baby's father, a jolly, if barely employed loser named Ray Hasek (Steve Zahn), it becomes clear that Bev's future is effectively squelched. The story is told in flashback by Bev's now grown son (who is visibly not much younger than his mother) during a car trip back to CT. (In our present, Bev has just completed her memoirs. But can't publish them until Ray agrees not to sue the publisher for the undoubtedly negative things the book will tell of him.). Though her friend Fay (wonderful though underused Brittany Murphy) becomes a teenage mother as well, the story glances over all but Bev's travails. Although the screenplay makes sure we're aware of the passage of time - the music, hairstyles and cars change, and Bev becomes a sulky frump - Bev's life remains painfully stuck in time as the world passes her by. (She's too pregnant to got to the prom; friends she discarded in high school are either on their way to college or have already graduated).

"Riding" is meant to be bittersweet, sort of like "A League of Their Own", but it's uneven. At moments the ordeal of single motherhood is sad, scary and funny at the same time, but the plot never works up to anything. No matter how much better Bev's life could get, nothing will give her (or her son) back years enslaved to an unwanted motherhood. Bev is meant to be intelligent, but she's too clueless about how to endure motherhood to become a mother. Her son bears a fair amount of resentment, having replaced Ray as the source of Bev's misery. Like Bev, the story uses and discards characters who don't serve its immediate needs. The flick wastes some interesting potential of having James Wood play Bev's conservative minded but loving father, the local police chief. At times he is both the greatest source and recipient of Bev's pain, but he disappears as a pivotal character soon after Bev's miserable wedding, only to make a last ditch appearance in the final few frames. Lorraine Bracco is similarly underused as Bev's mother. There are many funny bits, but on second thought, some seem a bit misplaced - like pregnant Bev trying to get herself to fall down the steps in order to induce an abortion. The movie also lacks an effective conclusion - the flashback concludes when Bev's son is about 8. At that point, Bev makes a desperate move to escape her dreary fate. With Ray gone, the boy turns on his mother and not only ruins her plans but drives away Bev's best friend. The end of the flashback occurs in the deep heart of a CT winter, yet nothing explains how these characters managed to pull their hearts and minds out of that bleak winter. Ironically, though Ray is useless as a person, his character is the only one to offer insight - near the film's end, and when he's been reduced to withered shell of his former self. If you're Drew Barrymore fan, you may want to go just to see your star done up as a prematurely middle-aged frump. Otherwise, you'll find the 2 hours dispiriting.

Why should we care?
The acting, cinematography, and overall filmmaking for this movie were fine. What I fail to comprehend, however, is why this movie was even made in the first place.

I found nothing special about Beverly Donofrio's life that would make me interested in hearing about it. In fact, the fact that she wrote a book about her situation (having a kid while still being a kid)--a situation that is in no way unique in this country--is illustrative to me of the fact that she never did grow up.

I'm not saying that this woman's life is not important, or that her struggles were not very real and tragic ones. However, how are they different from what hundreds of thousands of women go through in life? What supposedly makes her special? I can think of nothing except the fact that she was a terrible, self-absorbed mother, whereas most mothers are willing to make sacrifices for their children.

My life is nothing like Beverly Donofrio's was. I did go to college, and received my Master's degree before getting married. Then I had my family. And you know what? I still have to make sacrifices. That's what being a mother is about. Even though I got to do the things Beverly didn't get to do, there are still things I would like to do. Like voice lessons, violin lessons, dance lessons, even own my owm business. But I can't do these things, because if I did, I couldn't be a good mother. But then, I guess it was different for her because she didn't love her son; she just resented him and the burden he was to her. The only problem with her attitude is that, HE didn't make the choice to ruin her life--SHE did! And then at the end of the movie, she has the nerve to declare "I was a good mother!" Then I must be a saint.

I usually judge a movie by whether it makes me a better person having watched it. Not only do I consider that this movie was a complete waste of my time to watch, but it actually took something away from my life and made me feel dirty and low. I could never recommend this movie to anyone.

A moving story of mistakes, consequences, and perseverance.
I honestly wasn't expecting to be totally blown away by this movie. It didn't create much hype in theaters, and I only rented it now for two reasons - a friend recommended it, and I'm a fan of Drew Barrymore, so I thought I'd give it a try. I'm glad I did, as I absolutely loved it. Based on the life of Beverly Donofrio, as written in her memoir (which I haven't read, and cannot compare the movie to), this film tells the story of a girl who gets pregnant at the age of fifteen. Through a series of flashbacks and narration by Donofrio's adult son, we see her struggle to raise her child while still growing up herself. She is determined to make a life for herself against all odds. And oh what odds they are!

Guilted by her father into marrying the boyfriend who knocked her up, Beverly finds herself with a loving yet dim-bulb husband. He drinks excessively, routinely forgets things he should have remembered, shows up for work only when he feels like it, and ultimately succumbs to a drug addiction. Meanwhile, Beverly is estranged from her own parents, particularly her father, and is all alone save for her one loyal best friend. And when her friend is forced to move away, Beverly has only her son. And she was certainly not the best of mothers. When the tag line says "She did everything wrong," it's no joke. But somehow the two of them are able to keep going, and Donofrio's story turns into one of the most inspirational and heartwarming I have ever seen.

The entire cast was excellent, but Drew Barrymore was simply amazing. She must portray Beverly from the age of fifteen all the way up through thirty-six (a decade younger and a decade older than Barrymore herself at the time), and she does it beautifully. At each stage of the film, she nails down all the little nuances that define that partcular age. I think this is one of Barrymore's very best performances. Brittany Murphy also shines as Faye, Beverly's best friend. The two of them are a perfect match. Steve Zahn does an exceptional job as Ray, the husband. He manages to add a great sensitivity to his otherwise deadbeat character. Adam Garcia turns in a moving performance as the grown son, and James Woods does an excellent job as the father who truly does love the daughter who so disappointed him.

The whole film has a great realism to it that is touching. These are real people. They have flaws, and make mistakes. Boy do they make mistakes! But we can relate to them, because we've all made mistakes. Donofrio's ability to keep going, to pick herself up and keep striding forward until she makes something of her life is truly inspirational. And not only that, but there is a real humor to the film. Through all her mistakes, Donofrio is able to laugh at the absurdity of it all, and I think this is a large part of what got her through.

The DVD also has some nice extra features. In addition to audio commentary by Drew Barrymore, there is an HBO "Making Of" featurette in which we meet the real Donofrio and learn how her story was transfered onto film, and are given further insight into Donofrio's own life. There are also featurettes on the cars in the movie, the set for the house where Beverly and her son lived, and Donofrio's relationship with her son, as well as the theatrical trailers. This is a great story, and is executed to perfection. Even the soundtrack adds depth and feeling to the film. I'd highly recommend the movie to anyone, and intend to add it to my own collection.

Over 2hrs! 15th april 2004.
Over 2hrs and i never wanted it to finish. I am a mad drewbie fan, so i could sit and watch her films allday. Anyone who likes her, will enjoy this film i can garantee it. A MUST SEE ITS BRILL ... Read more

Reviews (107)

A Cry for Freedom
Even though the story of SPARTACUS takes place in ancient Rome, the film itself is a profoundly contemporary work of the time that it was made; the eve of the Civil Rights movement in the US, and at the end of the HUAC witch hunt in Hollywood.

The chief engineer of this project is producer Kirk Douglas who portrayed the salve hero, but the wisdom behind all that is screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, black-listed in Hollywood, worked under various pseudonyms during the fifties for films such as ROMAN HOLIDAY, here properly restored to his rightful position of one of the best screenwriter in the business, with his own name credited on screen. The original novel is also written by another black-listed writer, Howard Fast, who claims that the idea of writing a film about the slave revolt came into his mind during the time that he spent in prison.

So the message that its story carries is unviersal, and even contemporary: man's struggle for freedom, striving for human equality, the solidarity of all that are oppressed disregarding their creed, birth and color of skin--the gladiator whose death triggers Spartacus' revolt is portrayed by Woody Strode, afro-american actor and a regular of John Ford's movies. The film embraces humanity, freedom to chose the way he wants to live, the freedom to trust one's friend, even the freedom of sexuality --Spartucus and his lover Varinia are never legally married, but she gives birth to his son--, and the freedom and passion to sacrifice oneself for the sake of his pears and the great cause of human freedom.

One the other hand, the film strongly accusse the corruption of power, the decadence of those who have power, and the rise of fascism. Democratic politician Charles Laughton, with all the virtues and vices that a regular politician has, taken over and eventually eliminated by seemingly much "cleaner" military leader Laurence Olivier. Needless to say, the clashes performed by those two great actors is a great excitment to watch.

Kirk Douglas gives one of his most convincing performances as the revolutionary leader of slaves, Jean Simmons plays his innocent, healthy and strong partner with a healthy sensuality, and Tony Curtis gives credibility to Spartacus' surrogate son who represents culture and education; they are not barbaric slaves, they can be as cultured as their masters are, and even better because they are true, honest humans as opposed to the corrupted masters whose wealth and culture are based on oppression of other humans.

To simply put, SPARTACUS is a fine example of how a good entertaining movie can carry a powerful message; when it truly suceeds, it'a great joy to watch.

This fully packed DVD is a re-issue of Criterion's celebrated LaserDisc edition. Added to a interesting commentary track by the filmmakers including Douglas and Peter Ustinov who won an oscar for his performance, there is another track on which Dulton Trumbo's notes to the rough cut of the film is read--a great lesson to all those who wants to learn how to write a film. Othe supplements includes a hillarious interview with Peter Ustinov, a lot of scketches and stills, and more. It's a great DVD. Please enjoy it as many times as you want.

note: the superb package design is a reproduction of the original poser art created by Saul Bass. The poster is also among the suplements of this DVD.

Strong story, weak depth, but epic & entertaining
Based on the novel by Howard Fast, Spartacus recounts the life of a slave turned gladiator turned freedom fighter. The story of Spartacus begins with him as a free spirited Thracian slave in 70BC. Spartacus is trained in a gladiator school, where he meets and falls in love with the slave girl Varinia. He then leads the other gladiators in revolt, and assembles a huge army of thousands of slaves to challenge the might of Rome. The ending is tragic, but not without hope. Spartacus was in fact a historical figure and the movie's story of his squashed rebellion against Rome - including the crucifixion of 6000 survivors - is largely rooted in truth.

The movie can best be described as epic. On a grand scale, the Roman empire is brought to life, with its corrupt aristocracy and its simple lower class. The epic battle scene which forms the climax of the movie features 1000s of extras, and although it is sometimes hard to tell who is on which side, the effect is magnificent and grandiose. Despite the action scenes, the movie is surprisingly introspective at times. Unlike modern efforts such as Gladiator, Spartacus is not an action movie as such, and fans of contemporary action movies not surprisingly find it disappointing. Spartacus' struggles are just as much emotional as they are physical. But to me this is a strength and not a weakness: the shortcoming of most modern action movies is not present here because the characterization is superb.

Even though the movie is not gory (although it is bloody at times), the adult themes make it unsuitable for children. For instance, successful gladiators are given women to have their way with them. And on numerous occasions, although nudity is not shown it is strongly implied and barely concealed. The implication of bisexuality (in a scene not present in the original) and promiscuity is also strongly evident as part of the corruption in Rome. But it also touches Spartacus. In a rather daring move for the 1960s, Spartacus and his woman Varinia conceive a child out of wedlock, which is presented as natural and good. Spartacus' fight for freedom apparently includes sexual freedom. Its hardly surprising that these two fall in love in a rather sappy love-at-first-sight Hollywood romance, where they don't even know each other as yet. Ultimately it is not only Rome that chases gold, girls and glory without morals, but Spartacus himself is not really much different.

But it is not only the moral ambivalence of this movie that disturbs me, but also its underlying political themes. How is Rome presented? As totally corrupt, with no redeeming qualities. "If a criminal has what you want, you do business with him." How are the slaves presented? As noble and good. "We're brothers." The army of slaves proceeds in a carnival like atmosphere, and the producers present lots of images of joyful children and exuberant elderly as part of their number, to arouse sympathy for their cause. But isn't this rather a cliché? It is, but that's the whole point. Aristocratic Rome is presented as evil, and the oppressed lower class need to be liberated from her corrupt rule. The rich are all evil, the poor are all good. Sounds familiar? It's a defence of the brotherhood of communism. Ultimately the movie endorses peasant revolt as a legitimate option, and advocates rebelling against authority. Rather than rendering to Caesar what is Caesars, it encourages open rebellion, in order to usher in a new political system of brotherhood and freedom from repression. Sound too far-fetched? Here's the clincher: Howard Fast, author of the novel on which this movie was based, was a devout and committed member of the Communist Party of the USA, and for many years his works were black-listed. The story of Spartacus may be rooted in history, but Howard Fast has reinterpreted it as a defence of his own political communist ideals. Rome represents Western Capitalism, and the slaves represent the oppressed peasant proletariat. Spartacus' defence of liberty, equality and fraternity is in fact anachronistic.

So sure this is an epic movie. At the time of its production in 1960, Spartacus was the most expensive movie ever made. With a cast of star actors, especially the compelling performances of Kirk Douglas as Spartacus, Laurence Olivier as Crassus (the influential Roman senator), Peter Ustinov as Batiatius (the bumbling and greedy owner of a gladiator school), and Charles Laughton as Gracchus (the corrupt and scheming Roman senator), it's no wonder it won four academy awards. But the fact that Spartacus is an epic movie does not disguise the fact that it is not deep. Any deeper themes that the movie does have to offer are communist and hedonistic, and this ideology mars the story. This may be a movie that rivals the grandeur and scale of Ben Hur, but thematically, it doesn't come close.

Even so, it's still worth a look. Even if one cannot share the cause of Sparticus and political ambitions it embodies, one has to admire the spirit in which Spartacus fights for his cause: it is a losing battle, and yet with dignity and fervour he fights for what he believes is right - a quality to be coveted. And it's ironic that if you can overlook the weaknesses of its depth, the strength of this movie lies in its superficial story. It has comedy, tragedy, triumph, romance, action, intrigue, and an epic scale. As entertainment, it's an enduring epic that still can be enjoyed today.

3 Stars For 3 Outstanding Performances...
Kubrick replaced Tony Mann on directing duties for this brave, but lumbering costume epic which is ultimately propped up by three beautiful performances. Peter Ustinov(won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his work here), Charles Laughton(should have been similarly nominated)& Laurence Olivier all do incredible work under the guidance of a very young Kubrick & all deliver what comes very close to their best work. Their presence is notable chiefly for the fact that without them, SPARTACUS would never have been the extraordinary spectacle it surely is. Kirk Douglas gives a brooding(& lifeless)performance in the title role, ultimately undermining any sequence not containing the three aforementioned thespians. Jean Simmons, as the love interest, is similarly uninteresting & while undeniably beautiful, fails to evoke for the viewer the love & devotion she receives from Douglas & ultimately Olivier. Pre CGI, it comes armed with some beautifully choreographed & violent battle sequences, but for those looking for an earlier version of Ridley Scott's GLADIATOR, this one may come off a little old-fashioned. It is worth noting(& you'll learn this from the wonderfully insightful 1992 Ustinov interview[his impersonation of Laughton is a riot]contained in the bonus material)that Ustinov rewrote all the scenes he plays with Laughton. It should come as no surprise to the discerning viewer, they are easily the best moments in the film.....

Divine Right of Kings
Sparticus represented more than a gladiator-slave uprising. Sparticus represented the Italian's people dissatisfaction with the Roman Senate and the general corruption and impotence within the Senate.

Citizens once had a voice with the Senate and the Senate listened keeping the republic free. Now, the Senate caved to the demands of the dictators and military commanders and installed for the first time an Emperor giving him six legends too suppress the slave uprising.

In the end the slave and citizen uprising could not resist the Roman legions. Many of the people joining Sparticus were discontent citizens of Rome and individuals from countries that did not like Rome. Originally, the republic which was composed of strong free men. The military started the slow strangulation of the republic by replacing it with an empire. Julius Caesar was introduced as the shadow of the wings of power. Crassus was depicted as the total dictator who put oppressive demands on Rome and the Senate as the body that had lost its power. The Senate historically would have debated the issues and objected to outrageous demands. Instead, the Senate allowed the Emperor to rule Rome and the Emperor established the laws and source of the law and executed the law. The Emperor had power too repeal old laws and establish new laws, in place of the old ones. The punishments for violation of the law could be death and probably a Roman death on the cross demonstrating the Emperors absolute power. The Citizen did what they were told and they did not act without permission. Secret police reported any activity that could bring punishment on the citizen. The laws were supposedly designed to bring security. As the Emperor distrusted and feared the people this only accelerated the downfall of Rome.

The notion of divine right of kings was established. Taxes imposed on the people support the huge military appetite generated as Rome conquered many European countries. The government would become an autocracy and the Emperor the supreme commander.

Sparticus hoped to flee Rome, negotiated with pirates too build ships using gold taken during conquests that would take them from the tip of Italy away to a promise land. Instead, the pirates betrayed Sparticus and did not build the ships allowing the Roman legends to trap Sparticus from the South pushing him towards Rome and forcing a confrontation in the fields close to Rome.

Sparticus was defeated, his men cruxified along the way to Rome, when captured his men coined the phrase "I am Sparticus" when asked who was Sparticus. Sparticus wife would become a member of Crassus Heirloom yet the Senator would arrange for her escape and continue with his own suicide and Sparticus son would remain free.

Good movie, bad transfer
It should be noted that the reviews on this page refer to two different versions of the Spartacus DVD. This review refers to the Universal single disc edition, not the Criterion two-disc release.

While both versions of the film are the same, this version is devastated by a bad transer: both sound and picture quality are seriously lacking - even as far as a blue edge to blacks, including the widescreen matting, and blue fades in parts of the film. The sound is poorly balanced - voices are too quiet, music too loud. I was contantly turning the volume up and down throughout. So much for "fully restored."

If you are interested in quality and really like this movie I would skip this version and go for the Criterion release, which many other people own and have approved. ... Read more