Description

Marlow is an ambitious and adventurous sailor who is employed by an English trading company and sent to an African colony. There he travels up the river, visiting the trading stations who barters for ivory with the natives. On his journey he is told about a man named Kurtz whose station is the one furthest up the river, deep in the African jungle. Some talk of him in awe, others in admiration, but they all seem to fear him. As Marlow gets closer and closer to Kurtz he understands that the man has gone insane and is now doing the most horrible and blasphemous deeds. Based on Joseph Conrad's classic novel about greed and insanity. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

A Close Interpretation of a Classic
Conrad's look at imperialism and the destruction of Africa was an allegory shown by the inner destruction of Kurtz. This film plays out the slow trip of the short novel -- as slow and monotonous as the trip up the river was for Conrad -- an ocean sailor. But the Kurtz character gets lost in the mystery -- and his dark machine-like ablilty to kill is shown only in the contrived yet riveting scene with a pet monkey. Even the skulls are downplayed. Here too Kurtz is allowed to die and be buried in his village by those who "love" him rather than having him die on the way back -- for affect? It is an uneven and, at times, a slow piece. We don't find out much about Marlowe as well. But we get a true sense of Marlowe wishing to spare Kurtz's lover with a lie -- just as those selling ivory chose to lie about the circumstances.

Even good acting can't save this dud. Don't bother.
Starring John Malkovich and Tim Roth, this video was made for an HBO television special. I was interested in it because I have always wanted to read the original Joseph Conrad novella, which was used as the basis of the very successful "Apocalypse Now". I thought this might be a substitute for reading the book. Well, it wasn't. And it might turn just me off to the book forever.

The story takes place in the late 19th century and Marlowe, played by Tim Roth, is an English merchant who is sent to Africa to look for Kurtz, played by John Malkovich, a merchant who has disappeared deep into the jungle and has also stopped the very profitable ivory trade. The tone of the video is morose and sad as Marlow travels further and further into the depths of the jungle and finds evil again and again, especially when he finally meets Kurtz.

I don't know why I continued to watch because I was totally bored throughout. It also was difficult to understand some of the dialog. I guess I was waiting for the inevitable meeting between Kurtz and Marlow. When it finally happened I just didn't care. The acting was good but the performances were wasted. My recommendation: Don't bother.

A rebound for Roeg
I was curious about this film when I heard about it years ago. I love Nicolas Roegs early work but saw that his later movies were weaker and it seemed Roeg had lost his magic. "Heart of Darkness" is a Nicolas Roeg film and it's quite nice to see the old boy has still got it in him. The subject matter suits his odd style of film making. A good film. DVD please!!!

Heart of Darkness
Lights! Camera! Action! These are the three words which cause the distinction between books and movies. When making a movie based on a book, there are additional factors to be taken into account, thus altering the movie from the book. However, usually these changes just serve as tools to enhance the story, making it more interesting to the audience it is targeting. The movie, "Heart of Darkness" is an excellent adaptation of the novel because everything matches up well with the descriptions used by the author, and it captures the true essence of the story on film.
Set in the wild depths of Africa, the tale slowly unravels as a determined seaman, Marlowe, sets out on a journey to Africa, and soon finds himself on a dangerous expedition in search of a missing ivory manufacturer, who has deceived many people waiting for their ivory. The fact that Africa is such an incredible place filled with fascinating cultures is clearly shown by the settings and casts chosen for the movie. The story is told from Marlowe's point of view, as he is telling the story to group of sailors on a boat. Although the time of day during which Marlowe told his tale was switched from evening to daytime, the same effect is produced because each scene in the movie is so vivid and engrossing, therefore each providing its own effects. The setting for each scene perfectly suits the events which take place. The setting has a very big impact on the plot of the story because one purpose of the story is to depict the true meaning of life in Africa, particularly the uncivilized nature of some of the people that live there, or that have been there too long.
The catchy music chosen to accompany each scene, and the simple, but realistic costumes chosen for each character, set the ideal mood that is necessary in conveying the tale. The music consists of rhythmic drumming mixed together with strange noises similar to those of a person gasping for air, or breathing loudly. The drumming fits in with the African theme and like a drum roll, it adds a hint of suspense and foreshadowing to each scene, which is also expressed by the book. An essential part of making of movie is choosing the ideal cast. Each character fits his/her description in the book, allowing for the vague images in one's mind while reading the book to actualize and come to life.
My favorite part of the movie was when Marlowe finally finds the place that Kurtz resides. When he arrives, a crazy guy, who has gone mad from being in the jungle, welcomes Marlowe to the area. I think that this scene is crucial to the plot of the story, because it is the point at which Marlowe finally finds Kurtz. Once he reaches Africa and found out about the unjust doings of the mysterious Kurtz, he makes it his mission to find him. Although the insane man standing at the entrance seems like a trivial character, I think that he actually represents one of the major themes conveyed in the book. This idea is that people can often go mad from living in the jungle too long, which is what happened to Kurtz. Kurtz finally reveals himself, much to Marlowe's relief. However, due to Kurtz's sickliness and insanity, it was difficult for Marlowe to communicate with him. During this scene, another important idea that is stressed is the uncivilized nature that is constantly shown throughout the book. An example of this is when Kurtz nonchalantly breaks the neck of an innocent pet monkey, while it was affectionately draped around Kurtz's shoulders. This part of the movie encompasses many ideas shown throughout the story, making it an important scene.
My favorite character from Heart of Darkness is Marlowe. I admire the determination he possessed when achieving his goals. He deals with many tribulations as he finds himself in the thick of the jungle. He becomes friends with an African man, Mutumbo, who soon suffers a painful death by a strange African tribe. Nevertheless, Marlowe maintains perseverance as he gains strength from every obstacle he is faced with. His bravery and fearlessness lead him to his ultimate goal of finding the mad ivory producer, Kurtz, and rectifying the ivory situation. However, it is interesting to see that Marlowe did change during his time spent in Africa. He completely went against his usual nature by lying to Kurtz's former fiancée about something that Kurtz never really said. I enjoyed seeing the story from Marlowe's point of view, and noting the good traits of Marlowe, that were somewhat tainted by his experience in Africa.
I highly recommend the movie Heart of Darkness to anybody who likes adventure, particularly someone who read the novel as well. The movie was adapted very well from the book, despite a few changes. Each change helped to make the story more realistic and suspenseful. The cast, the music, the costumes, and the setting, created an exceptional combination, perfectly fitting each description from the book. Many details in the story are difficult to visualize, therefore the movie is helpful and informative to watch. The themes are also more apparent and effective in the movie. Although they each tell the same story, the book and the movie work together to complement one another in conveying the underlying messages of the tale.

missing the plot...
There is an inherent difficulty in translating any novel into the film. Every reader's experience is unique and so, before the first film draft ever sees the light of the day, there already are thousands of movies in existence. To compete with them is often impossible. But, there are strategies some directors successfully use (see Milos Forman's version of One Flew Over The Cockoo's Nest). Unfortunately, Nicolas Roeq did not. While explaining/simplifying Conrad's masterpiece and repackaging it into a contemporary genre, he lost the plot. He neither remained close to the original text, nor moved away from it far enough to allow his own voice to be heard. As a result, we have ended up with a neither/nor situation that benefits no one. Rather than adding to our understanding of issues and concerns raised by Conrad over a hundred years ago ('the other', the parallels between the outer and inner worlds, the reciprocal impact of colonisation, actual or metaphorical...) Roeq's film, as other reviewer's efforts indicate, adds nothing, and thus falls short of its potential. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This 1995 family film tries to put a fun spin on the story of a paranormalist and widower (Bill Pullman) who moves into a new house with his daughter (Christina Ricci) and meets up with the ghost of a dead little boy. Based on the comic book about Casper the friendly ghost, the film is a dreary series of awkward interactions between live actors and computer effects, and you can almost see Pullman and Ricci reconsidering the project while on camera. A few cameo appearances from uncredited stars help things a bit. But there's no way, based on this film, that one could have guessed that its director, Brad Silberling, would go on to make the exceptional drama City of Angels. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (48)

A Sweet and Sentimental Comedy, Perfect for the Family
Casper is a fun children's film, that can be watched as a family and keep everyone entertained. Unlike many movies concerning ghosts, there is no reason to worry that this movie will upset or scare even the most sensitive children. Casper is sweet and endearing, and even the vicious ghosts in this film are far from threatening as they quickly bring a smile to your face and alleviate any tension with humor.
However, Casper does not rely souly on laughter, and has a strong plot to back it up. It raises spiritual questions that make you think, and has very heartfelt moments of intense emotion. You grow to care about the characters as we watch Casper and Kat in their simultaneous search for friendship, and Dr. Harvey in his quest to resolve his own unfinished business and finally get some closure.
Malachi Pearson does an outstanding job as the voice of Casper, and portrays all of his emotions very convincingly. You can also look forward to a great performance from Bill Pullman, and will love hating the bumbling villains portrayed by Cathy Moriarty and Eric Idle. Unfortunately, there are times where Christina Ricci seems to have some difficulty filling her role as Kat, and occasionally makes scenes awkward and unconvincing.
The score for this film is beautiful, and adds a great deal to the spirit and mood of the movie.
There is some light use of profanity that I don't find necessary or appropriate for a family film aimed largely at children, but it can be easily overlooked.

Awesome, fun movie!
I just love CASPER. It's a really great movie. CASPER is about a man (Bill Pullman) who studies the supernatural in search for his dead wife. He keeps moving his teenager daughter Kat (Christina Ricci) around all over the place because his job requires a lot of traveling. Kat hates all the moving because she never gets a chance to live in a particular place long enough to make any friends. When her father is asked to find the spirits who live in a haunted house in Maine, he promises Kat that this will be the last place they will move to.

A woman who wants Kat's father to talk to the ghosts wants him to do that because she is looking for a "secret treasure" that has been hidden in the house for years. Little does anyone know that this is the home of Casper the ghost and his "uncles": Stinky, Fatso, and Streatch. And they are not happy that somebody is moving into their house except for Casper. Casper is excited because Kat - a girl - is moving into the house, too. So while the father and Kat are living at the mansion, the three ghosts try to make them miserable...so miserable that they'll want to move out. But Casper is trying to impress Kat so he can win her over! An excellent movie with a special appearence by teen crooner, Devon Sawa, as Casper, the real boy.

If you are a fan of the Supernatural and of comedy movies, than this movie is for you!!

An endearing film about Casper and his friend Kat!
"The living impaired are known for haunting us," Dr Harvey explains, "My question is what's haunting them." Dr. Harvey and his daughter Kat (Christina Ricci) are persuaded to leave Santa Fe and come to Friendship, Maine to live at Whipstaff Manor, to help new owner Carrigan Crittendon and her friend Dibs get rid of the ghosts haunting her manor. Casper the Friendly Ghost is very excited when he learns that Dr. Harvey and his pretty young daughter Kat are going to be living in his house (maybe he can finally make a friend!); but his ghostly uncles have other plans...

The premise of Casper is that ghosts exist, are "spirits with unfinished business" (hence they have not yet "crossed over"), and interact freely with "live" people at times; (they haunt houses and wreak havoc on people who trespass there). For those who are worried about content: there is a scene where a man gets drunk in a bar and has an accident, there is a Halloween costume party, there are a few ghosts who are "mean" and play tricks and scare people, and a few arguments between characters in the film. There is a very sweet and innocent kiss between a girl and boy, but otherwise there is no objectionable content in that respect. Language: there are a few swear words, so be aware!

If you can view this film with the belief that it is just a cute and funny film about "ghosts," which as we know do not exist, it is a most enjoyable film. If you cannot rest easy while watching a film about ghosts, then by all means don't watch it. For those of you who can separate the real from the unreal and the difference between spirits and ghosts, the supernatural world and the real world, this is a cute and endearing film about a friendly ghost named Casper and his new friend Kat.

Family 'Friendly'.....
Any film that can gather the family together for a fun,wholesome, and entertaining view, and hold the interest of all for it's entire length, gets 5 stars in my book. "Casper" is one of those films. It may not go down as some great piece of cinematic art, but it is one that all generations can enjoy, will leave you with a smile, and something to talk about with kids afterwards.

Based on the old comic book stories, "Casper" is a very friendly but very lonely ghost. He lives in an old mansion, that has seen better days. He is not alone in this huge house though, he lives with his three very nasty(but funny) uncles,"Stretch", "Stinky" and "Fatso". Casper only wants someone to move in,so he could have a friend, the uncles on the other hand, do their very best to scare away any visitors.
So when a greedy woman inherits the property, and believes there is a buried treasure inside, she hires an array of 'ghostbusters' to rid the house of all spirits. None seem to be able to handle this terrible trio, until one day a ghost psychiatrist and his lonely daughter(also looking for a friend),move in and try to tame the threesome. From there it's a fun and wild ride, and a touching story of friendship.

The film has a terrific cast that works well with the wonderful animation and special effects. Bill Pullman and Christina Ricci are the father and daughter team that befriend these spirits. Cathy Moriarty("Forget Paris"), and Eric Idle as her bumbling assistant add their talents as they go for the treasure.Lots of big names are cameoed throughout. Don Novello, and Dan Aykroyd reprise their roles of Father Guido Sarducci, and ghostbuster Dr. Raymond Stantz for brief appearances, just to name a couple.
The voices including Brad Garrett as "Fatso" are marvelous, and you can never go wrong when James Horner scores a film with just the right touches.

It's rated PG for some occassional mild language and thematic elements, and at an hour and a half, it just the right length, and is a delightful way to spend some laugh out loud family time together.

Ghostly fun......enjoy.....Laurie

A "Spirited" Movie (yuk yuk); a "Poor" ending
Casper (not to be confused with "Casper: A Spirited Beginning" or any of the Casper The Friendly Ghost cartoons) is an interesting mix of elements both good and bad - but mostly good.

Without a doubt, the movie's strongest asset is its humor. By and large, this is thanks to Casper's uncles Stretch, Stinkie, and Fatso (The Ghostly Trio), all of whom are hilariously animated and perfectly voiced by three actors whose names I unfortunately can't remember. Bill Pullman is also very funny as Dr. Harvey, and great supporting comic performances are lent by Cathy Moriarty as the evil Carrigan Crittenden and Eric Idle as Carrigan's long-suffering sidekick, Dibs.

All of this, of course, amounts to a sub-plot in the end - a prominent one, but a sub-plot nonetheless. The main story is that of Casper (voiced by Malachi Pearson) and Dr. Harvey's young daughter, Kat (Christina Ricci). Ricci says some of her lines awkwardly (in my opinion), but for the most part does a nice job. Jessica Wesson's portrayal of Amber, the snotty girl at Kat's school, is perfect.

I think the movie's flaws lie in its plot more than anything else. For instance: throughout the story, Kat has a crush on Vic, the supposedly cute (and slimy) kid at her school, but in the end when Vic shows his true colors and stands her up at the Halloween party, she doesn't really seem to care at all. There is a brief shot of her sitting by the wall with a pouty (well, really, more broody) expression on her face, but this is dispensed with in an instant.

Another of my biggest beefs is with the ending. I don't want to give away specifics, but it is the weakest part of the story - bittersweet and touching one moment, and then it turns raucous and weird before you can blink. Makes you want to throttle the nearest neck.

Ah, well. As I said earlier, the movie is far more good than bad, and of course everything here is just one person's opinion. Who knows. You might love the ending. But if not, I have a feeling you'll like most everything else. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Despite the combined star power in front of and behind the camera, Fat Man and Little Boy is a largely tepid retelling of the history of the Manhattan Project, the atomic testing project that led to the U.S. bombing of Japan during World War II (said bombs were dubbed "Fat Man" and "Little Boy"). The Nevada-based project is headed by General Leslie R. Groves (a testy PaulNewman) and scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer (Dwight Schultz of the TV series The A-Team), who later regretted his cooperation in the project. The problem with the film lies not with the acting, which includes solid performances by Bonnie Bedelia, Laura Dern, John Cusack, and future U.S.Senator Fred Dalton Thompson, but with the script by director Roland Joffé and Bruce Robinson (Withnail and I and Joffé's The Killing Fields). A subject as morally complex as the creation of a supreme weapon requires a strong and thoughtful script, but Fat Man and Little Boy never gets further than establishing that indeed, atomic power is something to reckon with. Joseph Sargent's 1989 made-for-TV film Day One, with Brian Dennehy as Groves and David Straithairn as Oppenheimer, covers the same story with twice the depth and avoids the pitfall of a romantic subplot (Oppenheimer's dalliance with a communist played by Natasha Richardson), which this film stumbles into. Cusack's doomed scientist is actually a combination of two real-life physicists, Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotkin, who died from radiation poisoning, albeit long after V-J Day. --Paul Gaita ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Hollywood History
If you're looking for a documentary full of facts, this movie is not your choice.

Fat Man and Little Boy uses history as the foundation of its story, which is really to illustrate the great moral dilemma the scientists and military personnel involved in the Manhattan Project were faced with as they realized the potential (both positive and negative) of "The Gadget" they were building. The story is not so much on "how" the bomb was built, but on the repercussions of the bomb. In this, it does quite well, trying its best to be balanced. In the end, however, the producers miss the balancing act and come across fairly strongly "anti-nuke". They do present both sides throughout, despite the stand they take at the end.

A well-acted movie, Newman and Schultz do a good job and the film is entertaining. History as a backdrop for a moral argument, rather than history for history's sake.

Entertaining enough
As most viewers will already know, the film basically depicts (inaccurately, from what I've heard) the developement of the first atom bombs.
What can I say? This drama is highly uneven; Paul Newman is in fine form as the general in charge of the project, his conflicts with Dwight Shultz, who plays the leading scientist, Dr. Oppenheimer is very enjoyable to watch, you got some very (good) dramatic acting there. However, the romantic subplots (especially the one between John Cusack and Laura Dern) are boring and wooden.
The most memorable scene in the film is the finale, where we have the final count-down to the testing of the world's first atom bomb (or, in humanity's case, the final count-down towards doom); with the scientists and military officers waited with both hopes and fears, any yet not really knowing the immense power of their creation; the clock ticks away; with the memorable Nutcracker's Suite playing away in the background.
Overall an entertaining movie; Newman's excellent performance makes this worth seeing.

"I am become Vishnu - the destroyer of worlds."
J. Robert Oppenheimer said on viewing the first atomic bomb explosion, "I am become Vishnu - the destroyer of worlds."

An intriguing rendition of the trials and tribulations of creating the first atomic bomb.

This is not the first or maybe the best and it surely will not be the last interpretation. However there is some fine acting and well designed story. This has held my attention more than once. Every part, in fact every line contributed to making you forget that you are watching a movie ant that this is real.

This is the story of how the need for the bomb came about and the building of a camp and the collection of men needed to accomplish the job. We see technical difficulties as well as emotional.

Mostly Fiction
Yes, there was a Manhattan Project and people named Groves, Oppenheimer and Szilard and yes Leo Szilard did like to spend as much time in the bath tub as possible (thinking) but other than that, this film was largely fictional. I was bothered by the historical inaccuracies including: 1. Groves met Szilard at the University of Chicago along with the rest of the scientists that worked there, not in a bathroom in Szilards hotel with Szilard in a tub and Groves on a toilet. 2. The Manhattan Project was much bigger than Los Alamos and Groves dealt with two other major groups that are mostly not even depicted. 3. Groves and Oppenheimer had a very different and more cooperative relationship than is depicted in the movie. 4. Groves was not subject to temper tantrums like Newman's depiction. He was actually very quiet, but extremely sarcastic, socially awkward, pear shaped and somewhat arrogant. He was also smart as a tack, having attended both MIT and West Point, where he was fourth in his class. He created three cities that are now major cities in their states and an industry bigger than the U.S. Automobile industry in just over three years. This was no dummy.

A more accurate movie is "Day One", at least as far as the plot goes, but even that fails to grasp the Manhattan Project's scope. The best film on it, which unfortunately no longer exists, was "The Beginning or the End" which was made in 1946 (Brian Donlevy played Groves). The main people on the project served as technical advisors for that one. Unfortunately, that was never put on video and probably rotted away in some warehouse.

A very good drama
This movie is the best film that depicts the story behind the atom bomb. It shows that although the original reason for building the bomb changed with the defeat of Germany, once the began, it was almost impossible to stop. ... Read more

Reviews (25)

Stark yet poetic rendering of Williams' last masterpiece
This is arguably the last of Williams' great plays. On Broadway Bette Davis essayed the role given to a gusty, gutsy Ava Gardner in the film- a role Bette Midler would be ripe for today. The day scenes are shot quite starkly, grainily, realistically. The night scenes are shot in a luminous/poetic style. John Huston's direction contrasts these characters' realities with their dreams - the essence of Williams' writing. Burton is excellent as is Gardner, but the finest work is that of Deborah Kerr in her last great performance as Hannah Jelkes, a woman who has put her own life aside to aid her dying grandfather, "the world's oldest living poet," in completing his last opus. Her scenes with Burton and Gardner are exquisite.

Totally Excellent !!
Great play ... Great acting ... Great direction ... although nobody won Oscars. Who cares? John Huston wisely filmed this in stark black and white reflecting its somber tone. Burton gives the performance of lifetime as Shannon at the end of his rope, and Kerr is fantastic, as always, imbuing a tender role with even more humanity. T. Williams' play, one of the best from America's best playwright, has everything. Conflict, strong characterization, wisdom, and of course humor. Some of the coarseness of the play has been excised (Shannon's), thus making him a more sympathetic character, but this does not hurt the movie. Huston sticks pretty much to the actual play, except for the ending, which was not in the play. However, this does not really hurt the film. Anyway, buy this film and enjoy it again and again. Your life will be richer for it.

WAY Behind Schedule
THIS MOVIE IS SO BEAUTIFULLY FILMED IN BLACK AND WHITE, IT LITERALLY CRIES OUT FOR A CRISP, CLEAN, SHARP DVD TRANSFER. LESSER MOVIES ARE ALREADY OUT ON DVD, WHILE THIS ONE SEEMS CONDEMNED TO LANGUISH IN THE ETERNAL MURKINESS OF VHS....A VIEWING EXPERIENCE TANTAMOUNT TO DRINKING DON PERIGNON OUT OF A DIRTY TIN CAN. TSK TSK.
PUT IT OUT ON DVD; IT DESERVES TO BE SHOWCASED IN GORGEOUS QUALITY. WE ARE ALL WAITING!

Where is this LONG OVERDUE DVD???
This is truly one of the most amazing films you will ever see!!!It touches on "The Truth" and something much bigger/more acknowledging than perhaps we as human beings can understand in this lifetime-and does so with a magnificence and grace much more effective than almost anything I have ever seen. Although released in 1964, the messages of tolerance to other people, restoring faith, rising above our own potential self-destructivness, and MOVING ON WITH LIFE couldn't be more poignant for todays audience (perhaps even more striking and PRESCIENT!!). I agree with one previous reviewer- that it is comparable to the emotional depth/intellectual magnitude of a Bergman but perhaps much more easily digestable for a "pop-cultured" American audience-and that is truly unusual if nonexsistnat for an American Hollywood-type film. And Yet all the magic ingredients of A Hollywood Moneymaker are here...BIG STARS: Richard Burton, Ava Gardner, and Deborah Kerr (all of whom in my opinon deserved Oscars for their performances here), DIRECTED BY ONE OF HOLLYWOODS BEST/MOST SOUGHT AFTER DIRECTORS: John Huston BRILLIANT AND SMARTLY WRITTEN BY ONE OF THE BEST AUTHORs/ and POPULAR PLAYWRITES EVER!: Tennessee Williams. Their looks like there will be a 2005 re-release of this film but they NEVER LIVE UP TO THE ORIGINAL and I also agree that with one reviewer who states this is a film that was meant to be seen (and is much stronger) in its original black-and-white. I WILL NOT, (and I repeaat NOT)BUY the 2005 rerelase but I would however, dish out BIG MONEY for the original 1964 release of this film on DVD. This is truly one of the most powerful and worthwhile films you will ever see with performances by all players that are equally as strong!!! SO I REPEAT, WHERE IS THE DVD OF THIS BRILLIANT 1964 GEM??? MGM-PLEASE GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER!!!

A wonderful story. Great acting

Format: Black & White
Studio: Warner Studios
Video Release Date: November 18, 1992

Cast:

Richard Burton ... Rev. Dr. T. Lawrence Shannon
Ava Gardner ... Maxine Faulk
Deborah Kerr ... Hannah Jelkes
Sue Lyon ... Charlotte Goodall
Skip Ward ... Hank Prosner
Grayson Hall ... Judith Fellowes
Cyril Delevanti ... Nonno
Mary Boylan ... Miss Peebles
Fidelmar Durán ... Pepe
Emilio Fernández ... Barkeeper
C.G. Kim ... Chang
Roberto Leyva ... Pedro
Eloise Hardt ... Teacher
Gladys Hill ... Miss Dexter
Barbara Joyce ... Teacher
Billie Matticks ... Miss Throxton
Betty Proctor ... Teacher
Liz Rubey ... Teacher
Bernice Starr ... Teacher
Dorthy Vance ... Teacher
Thelda Victor ... Teacher

If you have failed to see this film, you have missed a good one. Burton plays a defrocked Episcopal priest, Rev. Shannon, who was locked out of his church because of "sins of the flesh."

Taking a job with a tour-bus conductor, billed as "reverend," he runs afoul of a young girl, Charlotte Goodall) (Sue Lyon) who has designs in his skivvies. Her protector, Miss Fellowes (Grayson Hall) has her own designs on young Miss Goodall, and is intent on getting Shannon fired from his "bottom of the barrel" job. Enter beautiful Ava, a widow friend who owns a lush tropical resort hotel.

You will love this film--especially the poetry (Cyril Delevanti).

Joseph (Joe) Pierre

... Read more

Amazon.com

The fate of Spanish poet Federico Garcia Lorca under the brutal Franco regime is the subject of this political thriller. Esai Morales plays an expatriate writer named Ricardo who returns to his hometown Granada in 1954 to find out what happened to Lorca (Andy Garcia), his boyhood hero. With Franco's forces still in power, Ricardo meets a lot of official resistance, takes a few beatings, and defies the wishes of his own host (Jeroen Krabbé), an army colonel who was thickly involved in the torture and assassinations of the 1936 revolution. The closer the intrepid journalist gets to the truth of Lorca's disappearance, however, the more gray that truth becomes, and the more obscure the line between heroism and villainy. This film by Marcos Zurinaga suffers from a bit of miscalculation--Morales's character is simply not interesting enough to hold the center of the story and be our window into the great Lorca--but it is nonetheless startling and tragic in its revelation of complicated truths. As Lorca, Garcia is the picture of nobility, and supporting roles by Krabbé, Edward James Olmos, and Miguel Ferrer add a great deal of dramatic texture. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (33)

A nice introduction to the legendary Al Andalus
Not everyone knew Garcia Lorca or Andalusia (Al-Andalus, Arabic version) that well-or at all-but this movie will give you a romantic introduction to a remote province in today Spain. The setting took place during the Spanish Civil War, not too long before World War II for those short on their history, but the roots go back to the days when Al Andalus was governed by Muslims.

Garcia represent those poets who died at a young age but left masterpieces on their traces. If you like long-historic-romantic poems and controversial plays, then try his works for a size. As a warning, the movie doesn't dwell too deep into the life of Garcia Lorca, rather on his shadowy murder and the endless effort to reveal it. The final outcome still to be discussed and debated properly, but the message into finding the truth-no matter what the cost-is clearly and excellently displayed

I personally don't watch movies, but this had to be a significant exception.

Brings Lorca Larger than Life
I picked this movie up on several different excursions to the video store. Finally, I risked bringing it home, having never before heard of Federico Garcia Lorca. The opening sequence, where Garcia recites an English translation of Lorca's "Llanto por Ignacio Sanchez Mejias" over footage from the Spanish civil war, ignited something for me that the rest of the movie couldn't put to rest. Who was Lorca? What happened during the Spanish civil war? The hints dropped in the movie weren't enough. I now own the movie, books on the Spanish civil war, and Lorca's poetry, both in Spanish (which I read poorly) and English (some translations are more poetic than others, but he's providing plenty of impetus to polish my Spanish).

(Lorca was a homosexual Spanish poet & playwright, whose work is well worth reading, even in translation. Death, nature, and the indomitability of the human spirit were central themes to his lyrical, almost Zen at times, poetry. The Spanish civil war is much to complex to explain here. Orwell's "Animal Farm" gives an allegorical point of view, his "Homage to Catalonia" gives a more autobiographical perspective.)

The movie invents the story of Fernando, the child of a bourgeois Spanish businessman, who idolized Lorca as a child. In his early 30's, living with his family as expatriates in Puerto Rico, he cannot seem to bring a book he's writing about Lorca together. He sets out for Granada, his home town, to discover "The Truth" about Lorca's end.

During the movie, he discovers many "truths" about Lorca's final moments; not all of them support each other. He encounters a girl pal of his from childhood and develops that relationship. He also must deal with the harsh realities of fascism and censorship. Perhaps at its deepest level, this is a movie about the problem of History—sorting out which history to tell, since The True History is not available.

Andy Garcia plays a noble Lorca, a character easy to idolize. He's larger than life--mythic, really, and that fits well with Fernando's quest for a childhood hero. In this age where most celebrities can propel a ball in some special manner, make popular sounds on the radio, or enact trivialities on a screen, having a poet for a hero is a pleasant change. Throughout the movie, Garcia narrates Lorca's poems.

Nobody feels safe telling what they witnessed, not even Colonel Aguirre, a friend of Fernando's family. Beneath the seemingly normal veneer of this portrait of Franco's Spain, violence...looms. When the State fails to preserve individual rights, terror inevitably becomes woven into the very fabric of society.

Lines from Lorca's "Llanto" show up at different places in the movie. The "Llanto" was a poem written after the death of Lorca's friend Ignacio Sanchez Mejias in the bull arena. Mejias had retired, had joined the world of the arts for a time, then returned to the ring, only to die after being gored by a bull. This helps tie the opening of the movie together with some of the climactic scenes towards the end.

The movie could have been more artistic, more poetic. Although Lorca wrote some great love poetry, the love interest in the movie does not live up to Lorca's romantic words. More could have been done with Lorca's theme of death throughout the movie, explicitly contrasting the life affirming ending. Although a powerful movie, it had room for improvement—perhaps explaining less and dancing more poetically with the viewers.

Five star subject matter with four star execution. I found the story far more powerful after having read Lorca and learned more about the Spanish civil war. Get a copy of the movie, get Lorca's "Selected Verse: a bilingual edition," edited by Maurer, read Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" and Bookchin's "The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years." You'll never experience the world quite the same way again.

(If you'd like to dialogue about this movie, click on the "about me" link above & drop me an email. Thanks!)

Very Moving, if not completely historically correct
This movie was very good. Given that, yes, some of the lines were cheesy and there were some questionable characters(the cab driver and Gabino). Nevertheless, this movie did bring to life the lives that Lorca touched and the beauty of his work. Andy Garcia gave a wonderful performance and his acting was so touching. The only thing that irritated me was that there was a sex scene. I know the old saying,"Sex sells" but come on! This was not a pornographic movie. This was about a poet and his death. I didn't particularly want to see Esai Morales "get it on" with a childhood friend. That was unnecessary. Otherwise, I was moved and inspired by this movie. I bawled my bloody eyes out at the end. Good movie. Please watch it.

Useless Song
This is one of those movies where everybody shouts, weeps, cries and overacts in all sorts of ways in order to mask a lousy script. If you look beyond the politically correct platitudes, there's lots of worn clichés to be acknowledged:

* There's the Fairy Godmother disguised as a friendly local serviceman -a consierge, a doorman (Bob Newhart in "Legally Blonde 2") or, in this case, a cab driver- who happens to know everything and everybody, and who's always there to assist the young hero in times of trouble.
* There's the mysterious villain who's not what appears to be, and there's the helpful character who will show his evil colors in due time.
* There's the gorgeous unknown actress who'll perform the pre-requisite nude scene to pay for her shot at stardom.
* There's the habitual scene where the girl discovers her beloved dad is actually an unspeakable monster.
* There's the mandatory bullfight -present in all political movies set in Spain or Mexico- with the ensuing parallel scenes between the bull being killed and the victim being murdered.
* And there's the awful final scene, complete with its ridiculous plot-twist, where everything comes out in the open. Quite predictable, really.

If you're interested in who Lorca was and how was he murdered, allow me to save you some time (perhaps even money):

At the time of his death, Federico García Lorca was an international superstar; Spain's most renowned avant-garde poet. Contrary to what is shown in the film, he was not a political writer. In fact, he had lots of friends and fans in both sides of the conflict precisely because he wasn't, including one José Antonio Primo de Rivera, head of the Falange -the Spanish fascists. Politicians everywhere paid Lorca lip service and hoped to have him on their side. The Left even considered him a national living treasure.

The Spanish Civil War was the long bloody aftermath of a failed coup d'état attempted by the Right in 1936. Although it did not overthrow the legitimate government overnight, it caught everyone off guard: people were astounded as to the magnitude of the conspiracy and no one was above suspicion.

On the eve of the uprising, Lorca made a surprise visit to his hometown Granada, deep in the south of Spain -a zone that would turn for Franco from the very begining. That journey raised a lot of eyebrows among the intellectual circles of Madrid: What was Lorca doing there? And why? And why just now? Was he against the Republic? Had he joined the traitors?

Rafael Alberti, a communist writer and personal friend of Lorca, hotly denied such gossip, going as far as to say on the air that Lorca not only had always been a commited revolutionary, but that he was actually doing some work there for the loyalists. That broadcast sealed Lorca's fate, for he was arrested that very night (at the house of a fascist friend) and promptly assasinated in secrecy (a common practice to both sides of that war).

No side rejoiced over that murder. Certainly not Franco's, for it was a heavy PR setback to his cause. Later on he would even exploit the Lorca cult to suit his needs, leaking that the falangists (no longer in high favour) were to blame for the crime. They in turn blamed the Catholics, and the Church blamed "the war". To this day no one knows for sure who did it or why.

There were no witnesses to come forward, no anonymous account of what happened. The movie's (preposterous) execution scene is somewhat based upon the poem Antonio Machado composed on Lorca's wake:

"Se le vio, caminando entre fusiles,
por una calle larga,
salir al campo frío,
aún con estrellas, de la madrugada.
Mataron a Federico
cuando la luz asomaba.
El pelotón de verdugos
no osó mirarle la cara..."

These few lines do Lorca more justice than two wasted hours of fake eulogy. Read the guy, skip this bomb.

Lorca fan
This film is a complete failure. The film never seems to commit itself to taking an actual stand on Lorca's death. The charectors are a banal typecast and hypothesis of what Spain suffered under the Franco regime. The actors are miscast as Spaniards. First Lorca was just over feet tall and pretty ugly by his own accounts. Andy Garcia is tall and handsome, kind of misleading no? They could have at least used some camera tricks to disguise this. The film's holds little historical accuracy and is unengaging. If one wants a better perspective on Spain durring the civil war, I woulds say "Silencio Roto," or even the Orwell inspired "Land and Freedom." ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Joan Crawford portrays the most demure, well-spoken refugee from a busted-down carnival you've ever seen--but that doesn't mean she can't get tough when events warrant, and eventually, events do indeed warrant in this crisply shot 1949 black-and-white, post-Casablanca melodrama from director Michael Curtiz.

Crawford plays Lane Bellamy, who falls hard for Fielding Carlisle (Zachary Scott), who reciprocates but is being groomed for big things by wheezing political boss Titus (Sydney Greenstreet), who has no use for carny trash. Both Bellamy and Carlisle venture into loveless marriages, and Carlisle turns to drink, while Lane's subsequent husband (David Brian) is even higher on a greasy if not well-oiled political ladder ("I've got a soul that needs a lot of purging," he tells Lane). Interestingly, the film simply accepts politics as soulless and corrupt, as if there's any other kind.

Besides its still-fresh political cynicism, what keeps the film interesting is the showdowns between Crawford and Greenstreet, who both give performances representative of their distinguished careers. Crawford fairly hisses at the corpulent Greenstreet, "You just wouldn't believe how much trouble it is to get rid of a dead elephant." Greenstreet, clearly, forgets that this is Joan Crawford he's dealing with. --David Kronke ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Very good movie
"Flamingo Road" is a film that delves deep into the world of politics, on the other side of the politics is Lane Bellamy, played by Joan Crawford. She was working in a dancing act in a carnival that blows through town. When the carnival takes off, Lane stays in town hoping to lead a normal life.... Not if Sheriff Titus Semple, played brilliantly by Sydney Greenstreet, can help it. The sheriff doesn't take to kindly to Lane, and tries to run her out of town. To bad, Field, played by Zachary Scott, is in love with Lane and wants her around. Semple has other plans for Field, like marrying his daughter. Of course, he gets his way, but he also gets something else much later in the film.... This is a great film from the 1940's. I used to watch old movies all the time, and this movie has brought me back into the classic movie watching mode. The acting, the screenplay, the directing....they are all so wonderful. Greenstreet and Crawford are fun to watch on screen together. They had great chemistry together. This movie has a great ending.....WATCH IT!!!!

Sydney Steals It!
Most reviews of "Flamingo Road" center on the leading lady, Joan Crawford. Joan is cast as the good girl we should all root for. She does indeed play that role, but there is more to "Flamingo Road" than that: FR opens as a fly by night circus leaves town-one step ahead of the law. Joan is left behind and decides to stay in town. She quickly makes some wrong choices in men. They (Zachary Scott and David Brian) are both decent enough guys but her love interests place her on the wrong side of the local sheriff- an evil, smarmy. corpulent overbearing, elephantine Sydney Greenstreet. The pair are like oil and water as Greenstreet tries to run Joan out of town and she fights to stay. The opinion here is that Greenstreet steals the movie. It is true that his character is overdrawn and his acting overbearing. He virtually tears up certain scenes, but at times he makes the movie sizzle. Director Michael Curtiz had worked with SG before in films as "Casablanca" and "Passage to Marseille". Did Curtiz give SG free rein here or was he unable to control him? FR is highly recommended. Viewers will enjoy watching the central conflict play out. (This reviewer tries not to divulge endings). FR is yet another example of why old classics should not be colorized. The b&w filming is perfect background as the plot unfolds.

"The moody kind always cause trouble."
Carnival dancer, Lane Bellamy (Joan Crawford) finds herself stranded in a small town when she meets local deputy sheriff, Fielding Carlisle (Zachary Scott). He helps her find a job and a place to live, and they strike up a relationship. Carlisle, however, is the protege of the infinitely unpleasant Sheriff Titus Semple (Sydney Greenstreet). Semple has plans--big plans--for Carlisle's future, and Lane isn't in the picture. Semple wants Carlisle to run for state senator, and in order to do that, he thinks Carlisle needs the proper society wife. He even has local spoilt girl, Annabelle (Virginia Huston) in mind for the job. Semple senses that Lane could spoil all his plans, so he has Lane framed on a trumped-up charge.

Of course, Joan Crawford fans know that she isn't going to take a jail sentence meekly. She's made of stronger stuff than that. Joan comes back and shows the whole town a thing or two, and Crawford fans should love every minute. "Flamingo Road" is the road in town where all the rich people live in their mansions, but the road's name also takes on a figurative meaning symbolizing acceptance, security and success. Lane wants to live on Flamingo Road, but in reality, she wants the things that address symbolizes to her. She's tired of being a nobody--an unemployed carnival dancer who gets kicked around and thrown in jail.

The first half of the film concentrates on developing the characters and the plot, but all of the main characters have hidden depths, which are revealed as the drama unfolds. It's difficult to imagine a more sinister bulk of flesh than Sydney Greenstreet in his role as Sheriff Semple. He doesn't actually have to lift a hand to strike his enemies (in fact, he spends most of his time sitting in front of a local hotel ordering around the employees). He sits like some sort of evil toad regarding everyone else coming and going while he pulls the strings of city corruption. It's not that easy to find a copy of this tape, but if you are a Crawford fan, I think you'll find it worth the trouble--displacedhuman

Joan's Best
Joan Crawford is famous for over-the-top, scenery-chewing performances in acclaimed melodramas like 'Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?', and 'Queen Bee'. However bad her supporting cast (in particular, Queen Bee) one can always count on Ms. Crawford to turn in a convincing, if formulaic, performance. She was a character actor of the first magnitude, and while her on-screen personae rarely varied in tone, the performances in and of themselves are always good, if not excellent.

Far less well-known are Joan's performances in movies that required serious acting capability - the most famous of these is her portrayal of Mildred Pierce, in the movie of the same name. In 'Flamingo Road', Joan turns out another one of her understated and more subdued performances as Lane Bellamy, the down-on-her-luck sideshow girl who attracts the wrong sort of attention from the town's scheming sheriff Titus Semple.

The plot is straightforward - Lane is involved with the unambitious deputy Fielding Carlisle, whom Sherriff Semple has in mind as some sort of Puppet-Governor. She's clearly the wrong sort of girl for an aspiring political figure, and Semple frames her for prostitution, fuelling Lane's desire for revenge. She marries Dan Reynolds, another of Semple's big-business partners, thereby unleashing the fury of Sherrif Semple, with devastating results.

The simplistic plot allows Joan and her magnificent supporting cast to showcase their versatility as actors. Giving particularly strong performances are Zachary Scott as the weak-willed and tormented Fielding Carlisle, and Gladys George as the indomitable Luta-Mae Sanders, a friendly local brothel-keeper who gives Lane a job and a second chance. In his role as the thoroughly despicable Sheriff Semple, Sidney Greenstreet shines, giving a performance to match Joan's own, and creating a villain truly worthy of his comeuppance.

Filmed three years after Mildred Pierce, 'Flamingo Road' re-teams Crawford, Scott and director Michael Curtiz, who, as in Mildred Pierce, relies on understated drama and beautiful camera work to illustrate the innocence and pain that Joan's character endures. Curtiz does an excellent job in this regard, and there are some highly memorable set-pieces in this movie - namely, Lane and Fielding's first encounter, Sheriff Greenstreet's politely violent exchanges with Lane, and the finale - which, thanks to Curtiz's superior talents, hang together beautifully.

This is possibly the most underrated of all Joan's movies, and one with thoroughly deserves a conversion to DVD. In it, Crawford proves she is more than capable of being a flexible actress, and her performance is just one of several excellent performances waiting to be enjoyed in 'Flamingo Road'. Very highly recommended.

great film which has all the elements that make it a classic
The film is great for so many reasons: the political message it gives is still as relavent today as it was in the 1930s and has the suspence rises in all the right places to make it a gripping film. Joan Crawford performs magnificantly in her role pulling off hardness of character with elements of tenderness and concern. Supporting actors are good but Crawford gets the crown for not only her acting, but her wonderfully sexy smoking technique.
A great film, really enjoyable to watch ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Billy Wilder cowrote and directed this brilliant 1957 mystery based on Agatha Christie's celebrated play about an aging London barrister (Charles Laughton) who's preparing to retire when he takes the defense in the most vexing murder case of his distinguished career. In his final completed film (he died of a heart attack less than a year later), Tyrone Power plays the prime suspect in the murder of a wealthy widow, and Marlene Dietrich plays the wife of the accused, whose testimony--and true identity--holds the key to solving the case. A classic of courtroom suspense, Witness for the Prosecution is one of those movies with enough double-crossing twists to keep the viewer guessing right up to the very end, when yet another surprise is deftly revealed. This being a Billy Wilder film, the dialogue is first-rate and the acting superb, with both Laughton and his offscreen wife Elsa Lanchester (playing the barrister's pesty nurse) winning Academy Awards for their performances. Although later films would concoct even more complicated courtroom scenarios, this remains one of the best films of its kind and a model for all those films that followed its lead. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (46)

The perfect courtroom drama...
Quite simply, this film is brilliant. In addition to being one of Billy Wilder's best films, this is one of the best courtroom dramas ever made! It is cleverly directed, has a compelling plot, features great performances (especially by Marlene Dietrich), and is all in all very exciting and entertaining. This is a film you won't forget.

This plot of this film, which was based on a play by Agatha Christie, is your basic courtroom drama: a series of witnesses testify about the murder of a wealthy widow. Tyrone Power plays the young man accused of the murder, Marlene Dietrich gives an amazing performance as the key witness in the case, and Charles Laughton plays the lawyer determined to unravel the mystery. This film has some terrific, very surprising, twists and turns, so to say any more about the plot would give too much away!

Anyhow, this film is really suspenseful, captivating, and memorable. It's a true classic by the brilliant director Billy Wilder, and has been imitated countless times since its release. But no imitation has come close to the original, which is why this film is a must-see. Highly recommended!

Billy Wilder's ultimate best!!!!!
Director Billy Wilder has crafted the most energetic adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel entitled "Witness for the Prosecution" An aging bannister named Wilfrid Robards (played brilliantly by Charles Laughton) can't resist taking an intriguing murder case involving Leonard Vole (played by Tyrone Power in his final film). A seemingly open and shut case becomes more and complicated as the case gains momentum. Splendid acting by all including Marlene Dietrich as Leonard's wife Christine and Elsa Lanchester as Miss Plimsoll (Robard's pesky nurse) Full of surprises from beginning to end. A classic for all time!!

Witness for the Prosecution
I first saw this movie as I was walking out the door, and continued to stand mezmirized by the twists and turns. To see these two great actors, not playing their normal roles but so opposite of what I normally see them as.
I was 2 hours late for an appointment, because I was literally glued to the TV

"It's not the jury's judgment that worries me. It's mine."
"No more murder cases," is the doctor's strict prohibition upon reluctantly releasing renowned barrister and recent heart attack survivor Sir Wilfrid Robarts (Charles Laughton) from hospital. (Although even the word "release" seems to be a matter of some dispute here, because according to Sir Wilfrid's nurse Miss Plimsoll [Elsa Lanchester], he was "expelled for conduct unbecoming a cardiac patient." But let's leave that aside for now.) And following the doctor's orders, Sir Wilfrid's staff have lined up an array of civil cases: a divorce, a tax appeal, and a marine insurance claim - surely those will satisfy their hard-to-please employer's demands?

Err ... not likely.

So, try as he might to be a good patient, Sir Wilfrid needs only little encouragement to accept the case of handsome drifter and small-time inventor Leonard Vole (Tyrone Power), accused of murdering his rich benefactress Emily French (Norma Varden). Of course, the very circumstances that most disturb the famous barrister's colleagues Mayhew and Brogan-Moore (Henry Daniell and John Williams) - Mrs. French's infatuation with Vole, his visit to her on the night of the murder, the lack of an alternative suspect and his inheritance under her new will - just make the matter more interesting in Sir Wilfrid's eyes. Most problematic, however, is Vole's alibi, which depends entirely on the testimony of his German wife Christine (Marlene Dietrich), an actress he had met when stationed with the RAF in WWII-ravaged Hamburg. Troubling, insofar, isn't only that Christine is her husband's sole alibi witness and that - Sir Wilfrid explains - a devoted wife's testimony doesn't carry much weight anyway. The real problem is that Christine isn't the loving, desperate wife one might expect: far from that, she is cool, calculating and surprisingly self-controlled; so much so that, worried because he cannot figure out her game, Sir Wilfrid decides not let her testify at all, rather than risk damaging his case. That, however, seems to have been one of his illustrious career's few major miscalculations - because now he and his client suddenly have to face Christine as a witness for the prosecution. And her testimony on the stand is only one of several surprises she has in store.

"Witness for the Prosecution" is based on a concept Agatha Christie first realized as a four-person short story (published in the 1933 collection "The Hound of Death") and subsequently adapted into what she herself would later call her best play, which opened in London in 1953 and in 1954 on Broadway, where it won the N.Y. Drama Critics' Circle citation as Best Foreign Play. Throughout the adaptations the storyline was fleshed out more and more, the focus shifted from the work of solicitor Mayherne (whose name changed to Mayhew) to that of QC Sir Wilfrid Robarts, and the screenplay ingeniously added Miss Plimsoll's character, utilizing the proven on-screen chemistry of real-life spouses Laughton and Lanchester, for whom this was an astonishing eleventh collaboration, and whose banter bristles with director/co-screenwriter Billy Wilder's dry wit and the fireworks of the couple's pricelessly deadpan delivery, timing and genuine joy in performing together.

Perhaps most importantly, the story's ending changed: not entirely, but enough to give it a different and, albeit very dramatic, less cynical slant than the short story's original conclusion. - To those of us who have grown up with Christie's works, those of her idol Conan Doyle and on a steady diet of Perry Mason, Rumpole of the Bailey and the many subsequent other fictional attorneys, the plot twists of "Witness for the Prosecution" (including its ending) may not come as a major surprise. At the moment of the movie's release, however, the ending was a much-guarded secret; viewers were encouraged not to reveal it both in the movie's trailer and at the beginning of the film itself; and even the Royal Family was sworn to silence before a private showing. Similarly, features such as the skillful, methodical unveiling of a seemingly upstanding, disinterested witness's hidden bias in cross-examination have long become standard fare in both real and fictional courtrooms, and any mystery fan worth their salt has heard more than one celluloid attorney yell at a cornered witness: "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" (Not recommended in real-life trial practice, incidentally.) Yet, in these and other respects it was "Witness for the Prosecution" which laid the groundwork for many a courtroom drama to come; and herein lies much of its ongoing importance.

Moreover, this is simply an outstandingly-acted film; not only by Laughton, Lanchester and a perfectly-cast Marlene Dietrich but by every single actor, also including Torin Thatcher (prosecutor Mr. Myers), Francis Compton (the presiding Judge) and, most noteably, Una O'Connor (Mrs. French's disgruntled housekeeper). This is true even if Tyrone Power's emotional outbursts in court may be bewildering to today's viewers - and even if one wonders why an American-born star was acceptable for an Englishman's role without even having to bother trying to put on an English accent in the first place, whereas Dietrich and other non-native English speakers of the period, like Greta Garbo and Ingrid Bergman, were routinely cast as foreigners. (Yes, yes, I know. Redford and "Out of Africa" come to mind more recently, too, but that's a can of worms I won't open here.)

"Witness for the Prosecution" won a Golden Globe for Elsa Lanchester, but unfortunately none of its six Oscar nominations (which undeservedly didn't even include Marlene Dietrich), taking second seat to the year's big winner "Bridge on the River Kwai" in the Best Picture, Best Director (David Lean), Best Actor (Alec Guinness) and Best Editing categories, and to "Sayonara" for Best Supporting Acress (Miyoshi Umeki) and Best Sound. No matter: with the noirish note resulting from its use of multiple levels of ambiguity - in noticeable contrast to Christie's Poirot and Miss Marple mysteries - it fits seamlessly next to such Billy Wilder masterpieces as "Sunset Boulevard" and "Double Indemnity;" and it has long since become a true courtroom classic.

The first time I saw this...
...six unblinking, spellbound eyes took every moment in--that is to say, my parents and I (eye!) were thoroughly riveted. The plot was deliciously unpredictable, and Marlene was so unflinching in her role. Perhaps it's not the most feel-good movie in the world, but it's well worth watching anyhow. You're a witness... ... Read more

Amazon.com

To call Pearl Harbor a throwback to old-time war movies is something of an understatement. Director Michael Bay's epic take on the bombing that brought the United States into World War II hijacks every war movie situation and cliché (some affectionate, some stale) you've ever seen and gives them a shiny, glossy spin until the whole movie practically gleams. Planes glisten, water sparkles, trees beckon--and Bay's re-creation of the bombing itself, a 30-minute sequence that's tightly choreographed and amazingly photographed, sets the action movie bar up quite a few notches. And in updating the classic war film, Bay and screenwriter Randall Wallace (Braveheart) use that old plot standby, the love triangle--this time, it's between two pilots (Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett) and a nurse (Kate Beckinsale) who find themselves stationed at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, during what they thought would be a nice, sunny tour of duty. Then, of course, history intervened.

For the first 90 minutes of the movie, Affleck and Beckinsale find a nice, appealing chemistry that plays on his strengths as a movie star and hers as a serious actress--he gives her glamour, she gives him smarts. Their truncated romance--the beginning of which is told in flashback so we can get right to the point where he has to leave her to go to England--works, thanks to their charm. They're no Kate and Leo from Titanic (a strategy the film strives hard toward), but they're pretty darn adorable in their own right. Hartnett, as the not entirely unwelcome third wheel, squints bravely but makes only a slight dent in the film. Everyone else in Pearl Harbor--from Cuba Gooding Jr.'s brave navy seaman to Jon Voight's able impersonation of FDR--is pretty much a glorified walk-on, taking a backseat to the pyrotechnics and action sequences that keep the three-hour film in fairly constant motion. But when that action does take hold, Pearl Harbor is quite a thrilling ride. --Mark Englehart ... Read more

Reviews (1812)

'Pearl Harbor' a big misfire
From up to its pretty exciting 15-minute sequence as the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor, 'Pearl Harbor' is a lumbering, barely involving film, which gives us a love triangle between two hunkish World War II fighter pilots, Josh Harnett and Ben Affleck and pretty nurse Kate Beckinsale.

'Pearl Harbor' tries to capture the atmosphere and engaging set up of 1997's better "Titanic" by setting up three star-crossed lovers, instead of the usual two. It fails terribly, but it's mostly scripter Randall Wallace's fault, which tries to balance three to four subplots by compromising the film's integrity and intelligence.

This 3+ hour film is obviously meant as a tribute to the people who died December 7, 1942 and has pretty nice cinematography, but the film itself is a shoddy-made puzzle in which all the pieces don't quite fit together.

The characters wallow in sentimentality and the film unsuccessfully tries to create atmosphere, romance and humor, but the film's bottom drops out in the final third, not only to reveal a plot full of holes, but a incomprehensible story told in bad faith.

Sorry, Bruckheimer. Nice try but no cigar.

September 11, 2001: Another "date that will live in infamy!"
"Pearl Harbor" is a movie of far greater importance after the terrorists attacks of September 11. We are now at war against ideologues committed to destroying our nation. Americans only a few months ago considered "Pearl Harbor" as merely a depiction of a bygone tragic era, but not particularly relevant to our present
concerns. Needless to add, this mindset is no longer embraced by the majority. Jon Voight brilliantly portrays President Franklin D. Roosevelt. You will have a difficult time remaining stoic and tearless when Voight gives tongue to Roosevelt's famous radio speech to the American people after the Japanese treacherous
December 7, 1941 assault on Pearl Harbor. "We are at war," declared the President and "we have been described as weaklings and playboys" unwilling to overcome formidable obstacles, and too cowardly to fight. Does this rhetoric sound familiar? History has been repeated, and once again we are challenged to bravely confront our enemies.

The cast that includes Ben Affleck, Kate Beckinsale, Cuba Gooding Jr, Josh Harnett, Alec Baldwin, and Jon Voight are fantastic. Michael Bay should be congratulated for directing this work of art. The lengthy battle scene ranks among the best of all time. Every moral person should also be taken aback by the scene
where a wounded seaman curses a Japanese-American physician who comes to his aid. Racial and ethnic bigotry was wrong in 1941, and must be wholeheartedly rejected today when some less than admirable individuals are tempted to blame their fellow Americans of Arab descent for the horror of just a few weeks ago. The
United States courageously and ethically faced its enemies over fifty years ago. We must do so once again.

The very fact that this film's creators relied so extensively on focus groups to guide the making of this film was a serious mistake. Both Liberal and Conservative commentators used this as an excuse to blast "Pearl Harbor" immediately upon its initial release. Many wrongly concluded that these marketing studies might be dismissed as a mere cynical attempt by the producers to increase their profits. I strongly disagree with this assessment, and instead strongly recommend that every citizen view this film at least once. It may very well be your duty to so.

Awesome deleted scenes
This is the DVD to get, it has the deleted scenes of the love affair between Doolittle (played by Baldwin) and Beckinsale - the child Beckinsale carries was actually Doolittle's, not Josh Harnett's - in this restored, original version

good but not THAT good
This is a good movie but not great. It's way too long and the actors are not really that good. The special effects are amazing to look at but it gets boring after a while. Jennifer Garner had a very small role in the movie. Why didn't she got a bigger part is beyond me. This unrated version is not that special only has a lot more gore/violence. Why did I waste time and money on this one I really don't know. If you love violence movies buy this now if now avoid it at all costs.

Pearl Harbore, and inaccurate
I must say that, when I saw this film. I was expecting a high intensity build towards the ultimate climax of the attack itself. Instead, we get the usual Hollywood love fest, Hollywood liberties on the truth (though I am not bothered by the liberties themselves, but sometimes the liberties are too ridiculous!) For example, some of the ships used in the movie to be hit by torpedoes are woefully modern, IE not of WWII time period. The Doolittle Raid, look at the aircraft carrier, it shows an angle that only modern nuclear ACC's have, back then the ACC's were long rectangler shaped vessels.

Lastly, I just found it boring and it was like the director was attempting to do a Titanic style story with fictional characters caught in a love triangle all the while the story builds towards the attack as a secondary mentioning. Just way too much Hollywood liberties taken against one of the darkest times for America, and I can't help but feel that the veterans, especially those who were there, should have been given something that respected them more.

I will say though, the attack itself is stunning, why I give it two stars... other than that this movie falls flat for me. ... Read more

Amazon.com

What is junior high school but a strange, disorienting pastiche of black comedy, tragedy, soap opera, and (most of all) horror movie? Well, that pretty much describes Todd Solondz's astonishingly honest and clear-sighted film, Welcome to the Dollhouse. Like Solondz's even more controversial follow-up--the acclaimed and despised Happiness (1998)--Dollhouse unflinchingly looks deep into its characters' souls (and their embarrassing desires, and their floundering sexuality) in ways that can be simultaneously disturbing and liberating, appalling and hilarious. Dawn Wiener (Heather Matarazzo) is a hapless seventh-grade geek whose cruel and contemptuous schoolmates have nicknamed her (what else?) "Wiener Dog." Everything about Dawn is so awkward--the way she looks, talks, moves--that it's no wonder other kids dump on her. They're most likely so insecure about themselves that they're terrified of the Wiener Dog they know lurks somewhere down inside themselves, too. So, the best social and psychological survival tactic is to distance themselves from Dawn by relentlessly reminding her of her "place" at the bottom of the junior-high pecking order.Solondz's vision is hardly sentimental, and you wouldn't even call it "compassionate," but it is a moral vision: authentic, undiluted, and, in the end, understanding.--Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (127)

One of the Best Movies of the 1990s.
Let me get this out of the way: in grade school, I was teased. A lot. In fact, it was so bad that even walking to school was an emotionally and physically painful experience. I can relate to every second of misery Dawn endures in the dynamite "Welcome to the Dollhouse." Most films like "Sixteen Candles" view high school as some insulated paradise. Not this film. Here, Dawn (played by Heather Matarazzo) is as socially inept as a pre-teen girl can be. She is subject to taunts, verbal assault, and vicious mind games at the hands of her classmates. Home life isn't much better; her parents blissfully ignore her while they shower attention on her cutsey younger sister, Missy. They give her attention only when they catch her doing something wrong, which seems to be most of the time. On top of this, she develops a crush for the teenage lead singer of her brother's band. Anyone who has experienced unrequieted love will find this subplot heartbreaking to watch. Despite the above, "Welcome to the Dollhouse" is a murderously funny movie to watch, even if you were a victim of grade school teasing. The performances are dead-on and it's one of my favorite movies of the 1990's.

A painfully honest film you will never forget
Bold, unabashedly honest, psychologically riveting, and painfully mesmerizing are just a few of the words and expressions that come to mind when I think about this uniquely extraordinary film. First shown at the 1996 Sundance Film Festival, Welcome to the Dollhouse walked away with the grand jury prize, and it is easy to see why. Writer/director/producer Todd Solondz brought a unique vision of the sharpest kind to this film, cutting right through the fluff of the typical "geek makes good" nonsense and forcing his artistic scalpel forcefully down into the nethermost regions of the adolescent heart. The story is so unsettling and painfully uncomfortable that some parents hesitated or refused to let their children participate in the filming. It's just an amazing, unforgettable movie.

Eleven-year-old Heather Matarrazzo gives one of the most remarkable performances I've ever seen from an actress of such tender age. Her eyes and bodily expressions encapsulate and transmit the hurt and misery writhing inside her every moment, leaving the viewer helpless to do anything but watch with increasingly unrestrained unease. Born with the unfortunate name of Dawn Weiner, the poor girl is ridiculed, ignored, teased, insulted, and basically mentally terrorized every day at school. Chants of "Weiner Dog" follow her throughout the hallways, her locker is marked with awful graffiti, and even her teachers and administrators are less than kind to her. Then, after school, she has to come home to parents who dote on her smart older brother and "little miss perfect" younger sister. Dawn has only one friend, a younger neighbor boy who seems to be following in her ignominiously alienated footsteps. Dawn does not escape all of this mentally unscathed, taking her own anger out on her sister in particular and doing several things that good girls should not do. In the most surreal of story elements, Dawn longs to be rescued from her situation by a boy, but hers is not a Cinderella type of fantasy. Her infatuation with a rebellious high school boy is somewhat understandable, but her relationship with a certain school bully is nothing short of surreal. I only wish I could discuss the psychology of this aspect of the movie in this context.

The one thing that really struck me about this movie is the fact that we never see Dawn cry; she internalizes all of her torments, and this does not have a pretty effect on her. I may be inventing a phrase here, but the director's vision seems to me to have been one of unsympathetic compassion. Far from holding Dawn up as the paragon of innocent, unrecognized virtue whose Prince Charming will come some day, he gives us a girl who becomes cruel in her own right to those few people around her, turning her hatred of others into a deep hatred of herself, several times teetering on the peak of mental unbalance. Solondz does not stray anywhere near the realm of fairy tale, as this ugly duckling does have an ugly side to her. The brutal honesty and lack of a visibly sympathetic portrayal of the character makes her worst moments even more unbearable to the viewer, and this is where the compassion kicks in. Solondz seemingly makes no effort to redeem this character in our eyes, yet the fact that he shows us, in such a harsh and brutal way, the miseries of this poor child's life makes her a character you desperately want to see find a degree of happiness.

The only thing I don't really understand about Welcome to the Dollhouse is the dark comedy label it seems to have acquired. I found nothing funny whatsoever about anything I saw here. Maybe that's the sensitivity of the former nerd in me, but honestly this movie is just utterly dark and depressing. Those looking for laughs will probably not embrace Welcome to the Dollhouse, but those who want to see the harsh light of truth shone into the bottom of an individual's soul and learn something from the painful experience will walk away from this film a different person than they were an hour and a half earlier. This movie has the power to touch you in ways you may never have imagined.

Everybody Runs Away....
Todd Solondz' WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE was one of those films that was "on my list" for many years. I had seen his second film HAPPINESS and was intrigued by Solondz dark dark humor. Why it took me so long to take in another of his films is hard to explain. Every review I had read of DOLLHOUSE praised it (and even some reviewers who literally hated HAPPINESS were oddly touched by this debut film). Perhaps it took me a year or so to summon up enough strength to take another Solondz flick. Now that I think about it, such hesitancy only seems natural. As it turns out, however, biting as it is, DOLLHOUSE is still a heck of a lot easier to watch than its follow-up.

Perhaps it's because as some reviewers here suggest, we all have our own "inner Dawn Wiener." It's easy to identify with this ungainly, hopelessly unpopular teenager--with the awful barrettes and clothes, a brainy older brother, and pertly adorable younger sister. We can all cop to that one pretty much. (If you identify at all with the characters in HAPPINESS, you probably wouldn't want to admit it.) But I honestly don't think that Solondz' intent was to get viewers in touch with their "inner adolescent." He's going after something bigger than that--and more sinister too.

I guess it shouldn't be so surprising that many reviewers here identify with Dawn, but when they start calling the film "realistic," you have to wonder. If there was ever a film that was an exercise in pop SURrealism, this is it.
As a teen alienation flick, I'd rate it right up there with GHOST WORLD, and like that film, it has a distorted, fun-house-mirror quality--that is, I'll grant you, simultaneously more and less real that mere realism. (I guess that's the essence of SURREALISM). Dawn's parents, for example, are little more than cartoon figures--at least until her father has a near nervous breakdown.

And doesn't that reflect a teenage sense of reality even better than sheer realism, after all? Your average teen doesn't see his or her parents as full-fledged human beings. They're way too busy with their own boiling over emotions. Until their parents humanity hits them in the face, kids see them through the looking glass, darkly--if at all.

Which is not to say that either of Dawn's parents becomes remotely sympathetic. Interesting too how in the end, Dawn's two almost-boyfriends have run away to the city. Dawn kinda sorta runs away herself trying to track downr her kidnapped little sister. Seems like anyone with a lick of sense gets out of that town.

realistic account
welcome to the dollhouse is a touching and realistic account of what its like to be on the outskirts of growing up. dawn is a young gyrl trying to fight her way in. she deals with bullies, her parents rejection, and her own self hate. the film has its funny moments such as dawn standing over her sleeping sister's bed with a hammer in her hands. the character of dawn is well played but barely develops. brendon sexton jr plays brandon, a bully in his own right but has feelings for dawn. his role is small but quite significant. dawn's family is very unlikeable strictly because of their arrogance and complete disregard of dawn.
overall the film is good. you will find yourself not only sympathizing with dawn but may find her angst and vulnerbility alittle like your own in the often harsh world of growing up. the ending could be better; it leaves you wondering about alot of things. but despite the ending the film is heartfelt and very satisfying.

Painfully realistic
I felt like switching this movie off a lot of the time. Having been where Dawn was throughout high school, I didn't think it was possible for me to watch right to the end. I was told that this movie was the story of my life. Not quite. But I did identify with some parts - Dawn being called a loner, her looks, being called ugly. But what really upset me, was the director heavily focusing on looks in the movie. I don't know why I still get upset over that kind of thing in movies. And the fact that Dawn does exactly what everyone does to her - she turns round, and says hurts them. But that's cos she's been bullied herself, so effectively, she turns into the bully.

But of course, we've all been there, haven't we? Don't say you haven't, go and dig out your old photo album. Look at the dorky hair, clothes, teeth in bad need of a brace - I could go on. And we've all had that embarrassing, awkward first kiss - I've NEVER put a spell on a guy just to make him like me! (It wouldn't work, believe me)

Heather Matarazzo, although quite pretty now, is probably always going to be cast in "character" roles, than anything else. What I really hated was where were all the kids with bad skin?! Even Dawn had porcelain skin. It's not fair, nor is it true.

Dawn was made to look all the worse, by constantly having her hair scraped back, made to wear god-awful clothes, and those terrible clothes (although I found an old pair of glasses when cleaning out my drawers - did I wear those?!)

This is a good film to watch, although I can't see myself touching a guy with a bargepole who bullied me, or called me names. That bit just didn't ring true. It's not a film I would watch again, it upset me that bit too much. But it's worth having a look at if you can get your hands on a copy. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Apropos
What better movie for a priest to review than 'Mass Appeal'? Directed by Glenn Jackson, and co-starring veteran actors Jack Lemmon and Charles Durning with relative newcomer Zeljko Ivanek, this story has influenced me in interes