Description

Jess Wade is innocently accused of having stolen a cannon from the Mexican revolutionary forces. He tries to find the real culprits, a gang of criminals. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

E for Effort
"Charro!" is a better movie than they give it credit for. OK, so it might be similar to a Clint Eastwood "spaghetti" western, but so what? Of all the things to be similar to, that is not among the worst things to be. At least they tried to have a good composer for the score, and put Elvis in a different setting than at the beach, or on the race track, or being a guy who works at a gas station or is a truck driver or flips burgers(or whatever) and gets discovered and becomes a singing success, like he usually did. And not is it just simply in a different setting, it wasn't a Western musical either, which they could have easily done. It was a seriously done movie and was well-acted. I think that's why Elvis wasn't in more serious, non-musicals all through his movie career, because of what critics would say about Elvis' image being "changed, to no particular effect" and then less Elvis fans would come to see the movie. That's why they didn't make more movies like "Flaming Star" and "Wild In The Country", which are now considered among Elvis' best, because they didn't make as much money as "GI Blues" before them(a musical). And the Colonel was all about making money, not necessarily quality movies or songs that Elvis believed in or enjoyed singing. So please think twice before you criticize "Charro!". At least they gave it an honest effort.

Best Elvis Movie
This was one of the best Elvis movies ever made! It is alot of fun for the whole family. It will have you on the edge of your seat from start to finish. If you like this movie also try Flaming Star! It is a very heart touching story showing the hard ships of Native Americans and Settlers.

Not your normal Elvis picture, that's for sure.
"Charro!" is an okay film. Elvis plays a reformed outlaw who decides to go straight. But his former gang won't let him. They put an ugly scar on his neck that marks him as a killer. He then takes on his former gang members to try to make them return a stolen Mexican war cannon. All they do with it is frightenthe townspeople. Now, the bad-gone-good Elvis can save the people and stop the gang in its tracks. If you see, and don't enjoy it because there's a lot of violence, I don't know what to say. Very far from "Loving You", that's for sure.

It's not "Flaming Star," but it isn't "Clambake," either.
Elvis' last few movies seem to be among the better of the lot, and "Charro" is one of them. An obvious attempt to cash in on the "spaghetti western" phenomenon of the late 60's, "Charro" isn't half bad. I get the feeling the original storyline was more mature and more violent, but was watered down to play to Elvis' "family-friendly" audience. Also, it feels as though some scenes were edited out that might have helped the story progress, but were sacrificed either by an inept editor or an attempt to keep the film G-rated. I wager that had the film kept that harder edge, it would have rivaled "Flaming Star" as Elvis' best western film. As it is, though, it's still a valiant effort by a man who so dearly wanted to be taken seriously as an actor but was never given a chance because of a manager who was more concerned with dollar signs than the ambitions of his client. *A NOTE TO THOSE CONCERNED WITH FILM QUALITY* My copy of "Charro" was put out by Warner Bros. and is arguably the best version available, although the "pan & scan" is painfully obvious sometimes. I have seen versions of "Charro" put out by other video companies and they are horrible! If possible, get the Warner Bros. release and no other.

Charro - Elvis Presley
You need to remember it was filmed in 1969 and don't think about all the other movies Elvis starred in. He only sings during the opening credits. His manager should have given him a chance to become a serious actor that he would have been good at. I wish I had purchased this movie years ago. We've already watched it five times since receiving it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Forget about Kevin Costner's sun-kissed, water-colored,Oscar-winning Dances with Wolves. Black Robe, which was directed byBruce Beresford, a director who gave the world the finest film of the early '80sAustralian new wave, Breaker Morant, and who continually collides cultures and ethnicity in his films (Mister Johnson, Driving Miss Daisy), matchesand surpasses the Costner epic as an expertly crafted, brutal saga of redemption and salvation. In 1634 a youngFrench Jesuit missionary is assigned to trek 1,500 miles through the New France wilderness to a mission settled in Huron Indian country.Black Robe chronicles the journey of Father Laforgue (Lothaire Blutheau) as heleaves his Jesuit brothers and, with the aid of a young translator and guide,Daniel (Aden Young), and eight canoes of Algonquin Indians, moves into the uncompromising Canadian northern territory on a die-hard mission toconvert the natives. Mixing elements of Michael Mann's The Last of the Mohicans and Roland Joffé's The Mission, Beresford offers a restlesstale of Laforgue's conflicted faith juxtaposed against the sublime spiritual harmony withthe land that the Huron and Algonquin already hold. Black Robedances to its own drummer and is tuned into the precarious balance between nature'smystery and spirit and the strident, unyielding religious ethic. The cinematographyby Peter James is relentlessly cruel and bleak, but it absolutely conveysthe obstacles that face the idealistic and blind young priest, who by theend, has faced his own awakening. The film also features one of the late, great composer Georges Delerue's most noble scores. --Paula Nechak ... Read more

Reviews (36)

Horrifying realism, but profound in picturing culture clash.
Quebec 1634. Jesuit missionaries from France venture bravely into New France (Canada) to convert the Indian savages from their paganism. That's the historical background of "Black Robe", a movie based on the book by Brian Moore. It portrays the story of a fictional black robe Father Laforgue, who undertakes an arduous 1500 mile journey at the onset of a harsh winter. Guided by Algonquin Indians, threatened by Iroquois Indians, his destination is the Huron Indians. He is threatened by the elements, but most of all by the Indian paganism which construes him as a demon. The plot, however, is neither memorable nor outstanding - it is merely the background for a careful contemplation of characterization and complex questions about culture clash.

Laforgue's companion is the young Frenchman Daniel, and it is largely through his eyes that we see the clash between cultures and religions. The contrast between the faiths and cultures of the Western Christians and the native Indians is presented from the outset, with alternating shots portraying the "chiefs" of both sides preparing for a meeting. Both cultures fail to understand each other, and believe the other to be stupid and demon-possessed. At first, with Daniel, we are led to believe that the Jesuit's missionary endeavours are little else than misplaced colonialism and cultural arrogance. Laforgue is presented as rather arrogant and ignorant, his vocabulary of "poor barbarians" and "savage people", and his patronizing showing off of Western skills in reading and music and technology (an alarm clock) appears to confirm this impression. When Daniel suggests that the Indians are essentially Christian in their love for each other, and that with regard to their view of the afterlife the Indian beliefs are no harder to believe "than a Paradise where we all sit on clouds and look at God", Daniel seems to be a symbol of modern enlightened man who has realized it was wrong for Western man to force his beliefs on the natives. Daniel's romance with the Indian chief's daughter seems to be an unnecessary artificial intrusion of an unbelievable story of love at first sight, and appeared to be a concession to Hollywood's need to include sappy romance and sex. At this point I seriously wondered whether the movie was an apology for white supremacy and colonialism, a defence of multiculturalism, and another example of historical revisionism which romanticizes the Indians as saints and condemns the white imperialists as unforgivable criminals.

But as the movie progresses, it becomes clear that although Jesuit priests such as Laforgue were sometimes guilty of peddling colonialism rather than the gospel, their simple assessment is not simplistic but accurate: the Indians truly are savages who live in darkness. Daniel's multiculturalism is naïve, and Laforgue's view that it is a clash between two religions turns out to be correct, for he perceives the Indian religions to be work of the devil, while they in turn perceive him to be a demon. In the end, Laforgue is proven to be right, for the Indians show themselves to be true savages, engaged in brutal animalistic behaviour. Their hostility is not just due to the priest's rejection of their beliefs, but is rooted in their very nature. These scenes are not pleasant to see: the movie portrays their primitive behaviour with all its brutality and passion - unrestrained sex, torture, murder. The gruesome blood and gore is not for the faint-hearted and will at times make you want to close your eyes. But these fruits confirm that the apparently simplistic assessment of the black robe is right: "The savages are living in darkness. We must convert them." They need the light of the gospel and renewal of the Holy Spirit, to become like Laforgue, who despite his misplaced colonialism, is sincere in his love to reach out to the lost. The ending, however, is ambiguous on this point, with Laforgue apparently being converted to some of the Indian superstitions as he makes his final trek to the village of the Hurons. The tragic conclusion about the annihilation of the Hurons after they were converted is ambiguous in attributing blame for this horror: is it with the Christians who converted them, or is it with the darkness of their own kind who remained unconverted? Would the indigenous Indians have been better off if they had been untouched by European imperialism? If the movie has weaknesses aside from his dark portrait of brutality, it would be the ambiguity of the ending, for surely although the Jesuit mission work was at times misguided by colonialism, its identification of the kingdom of darkness was never truer.

Although it features wonderful cinematography of breathtaking Canadian scenery, this is not a pleasant movie to watch. Unlike most modern movies, the portrayal of violence and explicit sex is never entertaining, but always brutal, dark and representative of primitive barbarianism. On that point I personally found it rather too graphic and disturbing, and even the depth of the themes doesn't justify being exposed to this kind of darkness. But in the process it raises very complex and thought-provoking questions. The action is not fast and furious, but arranged at just the right places to stimulate contemplation. This is not typical Hollywood, because it gives the subject matter the realism, contemplation and seriousness it deserves. The blood and gore is all the more horrifying, because it is accurate. While this distinguishes it from the usual Hollywood cotton-candy, "Black Robe" is not surprisingly less popular because it requires an audience that can think. The movie is highly introspective, as Laforgue deals with his own struggles against lust and faith. But above all, it raises important questions about culture clash. While it portrays the truth about Jesuit missionaries being somewhat misplaced in their colonialism, it also portrays the truth about the barbarians that they sought to convert. Despite the weaknesses of the missionaries, in the end it becomes clear that as ambassadors of the kingdom of light, the black robes were truly symbols of light in battling against the powers of darkness. This is not an enjoyable movie to see, but it its treatment of colonialism and religion it raises profound questions - even if it doesn't answer them all.

If You Liked Last of the Mohicans, Do Not Miss This Film!
Few movies of recent memory arrived with such little fanfare but had such enormous impact on the viewer as did Black Robe. As powerful a tribute to good film making as Dances With Wolves or Last of the Mohicans [1992], this film transports you back to the North American wilderness of the seventeenth century, and gives the viewer a dose of realism that will live in your consciousness for days on end. Epic in it's scope and historically accurate in it's story, this movie captures on film what few others have accomplished for this period of history. If your idea of good cinema is an opportunity to be educated as well as to be entertained, and to relive a time in history long since past, then DO NOT miss this fine film! It is a must see movie for all history buffs... Excellent!

An antidote for the neo-romanticism of the AmerIndian
"Black Robe" is based on a novel of the same title written by the late Brian Moore, who also wrote the film's screenplay. Moore's idea for the plot of his novel and most of the details he used within it came from the Jesuit Relations- a 17th century chronicle of the day to day events of the North American mission of the Society of Jesus. While the Relations' main purpose was to describe successful conversions, miracles, and battles fought against Satan, they are also one of the most important historical records of the lives and customs of many American Indian tribes.

The Jesuits presented a wonderful depiction of the people they were trying to convert. Some of the stories are very funny- one Algonquin hired by the Jesuits to be a translator was asked by his employers for the Algonquin words relating to spiritual and religious topics. The translator instructed them and the Jesuits rushed off to preach to the Algonquins. It was only upon being greeted by the peeling laughter of their would-be converts did the Jesuits realize that their translator had instead instructed them on Algonquin foul language.

However, the Relations also depict a very grim picture of life in the mid 17th century wilderness. Contrary to what another reviewer has written here- adoption was not guaranteed for anyone! Yes, mass adoption later become something the Iroquois practiced, but only after their numbers had been so badly dwindled in their wars of conquest in the 1650-1670's. Women, children, and the elderly could be hideously tortured to death as well as men. The movie, in fact, was edited to avoid showing the Indians practicing ritual cannibalism on that slain boy- a custom that was common among the tribes of Eastern woodlands. To devour an enemy's flesh was to devour his power. The heart of a particularly brave enemy (such as the Jesuit martyr St. Jean Brebeuf) would be eaten by chiefs.

Also in the 17th century, the gauntlet was not the only ordeal for a male prisoner captured alive. If captured a male prisoner would usually have his hands mutiliated in some way- finger joints cut off by either cutting (sometimes with sea shells as shown in the movie) or by biting. Why? A warrior without the use of his fingers was useless- could not pull a bowstring or grasp a knife.

One could say that the Jesuits were biased in their desire to portray the Indians as savages and thus justify their conversion. However, the Relations are reknowned for their candor and there are too many other sources that describe women and children captives being summarily executed for little or no reason. (The famed voyageur and explorer Pierre Esprit Radisson in his autobiography "Voyages" saw with his own eyes- children and women being tortured to death by the Mohawks.)

The Algonquin bands of hunter/gatherers, with whom the French Jesuits made first contact, lived a mean existence by any standard. Theirs was a society that was utterly "christian" in that they shared everything, but also one that could not tolerate those who fell sick or lame. These unfortunates would just be abandoned. Life was hard enough for those healthy and fit. Also, living in a birchbark tent with almost no ventilation for smoke, zero privacy, a bunch of dogs, and lots of unwashed bodies was probably a much, much nastier place than what was shown in the film. (The meanness of these living conditions must have have been very tough on many members of the Society of Jesus because a lot of them came from families of great wealth and privilege.)

"Black Robe," the novel and the film, were meant to be an antidote to the current romancization of the AmerIndians. In recent decades we've taken one myth about the AmerIndians, that of the blood thirsty savage, and replaced it with another, the new age Eagle scout with a bent for ecology. "Black Robe" attempts to hit a middle ground- showing these people as humans who lived in a culture that was governed by different values than our own. They are shown as intelligent and brave, but also as greedy and very cruel. That Europe was awash with blood at the same time is beside the point. Brian Moore was trying to show that North America was never a Garden of Eden- people here still treated people different from themselves very cruelly.

As mentioned above, Moore actually held back in the screenplay certain elements of Algonquin life that could be found in his novel. Their everyday language was peppered by words that we would call vulgar- but to them it them it was just talking. They allowed promiscuity among unmarried young men and women- a fact that was found very enticing by French laymen, but scandalized the priests.

I don't think this movie is some sort of "propaganda" to perpetuate negative stereotypes on AmerIndians. I do think it is an honest attempt to show that these people were human beings whose lives were governed by the harshness of their surroundings. For an Algonquin band of hunter/gatherers living along the St. Lawrence, life truly was a survival of the fittest. Brian Moore simply held up a picture of the cruelty and difficulty of this existence, if some neo-romanticists don't like what they see then so be it.

Clash of Culture
Black Robe

The Black Robe reminds me of those classics during the 1960's of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. Another recent image for me is that of the movie the Last of the Mohicans (1992), based on the book of the same title by James Fenimore Cooper. Not to mention Dances with Wolves with Kevin Costner (1990) and directed by Kevin Costner. I happen to love most movies where that Native Americas are depicted in story that is uplifting about their lives. Black Robe was directed by Bruce Beresford, and is based on the novel written by Brian Moore. I found similarities in both Dances with Wolves and Black Robe.

The use of the natural settings of woods and rivers were fantastic and beautiful. The use of rivers as means of transportation is very realistic in Native American culture, especially since water is seen as the source of all life. This film at times seems to be more about the inner spiritual life of Chief Chomina (August Schellenberg) and his quest to follow his vision than about the journey of Father Laforgue (Lothaire Bluteau) to minister to the Indians in Quebec. While the Father did not show much spirituality, he did however have his memories which seemed very stark compared to the chief's visions. The differences of their cultures really did stand out in this movie. The Hurons were used to sharing their resources amongst themselves while Father Laforgue tried to keep things back for later use. Another culture shock for the Father was that of the Natives procreating at night. This bothered him greatly, so much so that he was tormented by it and had to leave his bed. This scene also took place in Dances with Wolves, here again was a white guy (Lt. John Dunbar) sleeping by a Native fire. Yet his reaction to what was happening brought him into a relationship where he married a member of the tribe and became one of them. Whereas Father Laforgue cut himself off from relationship and went off alone to do penance.

One phrase at the end of both films caught my attention: 15 years later. In the case of Dances with Wolves the phrase dealt with the fact that the expansion of white men into Native American territory meant the demise of their way of life. In Black Robe the Native Indians in Quebec who converted to Christianity became too docile and therefore were killed by other warring tribes after Father Laforgue's arrival. Interestingly spiritually they knew that this was going to happen. This film was great, but sadly since it came out not too long after Dances with Wolves, I believe that it was overshadowed by the former film.

For those who want to add to the Native American story collection, it is a great film that could be watched and compared to two other Native American epics: Last of the Mohicans, and Dances with Wolves.

Neo-Colonial Propaganda at its best
To begin with, I think this film is a true cineastic masterpiece. From its hauntingly beautiful score through the breathtaking landscape shots to the meticulous detail observed with any buildings, item of clothing and other equipment down to the last little piece of Native jewellery used, this film let's you immerse into a powerful image of 17th century eastern Canada "as it really was". The film is at its best when it illustrates mutual misunderstandings in the encounter of two completely different cultures.

The film endeavours to illustrate how the French "penetrated" Indian societies as opposed to the Spanish model of total exploitation or the English model of sheer destruction. It centers on the religious activities of French missionaries and decides to filter French military and economic engagements in the raging "Beaver Wars" out of the picture.

The clash of cultures is often illustrated by sharp cuts between Native and European worlds. These are always interesting, sometimes quite amusing. Often they amount to sheer propaganda of "savagery" vs. "civilisation". Indians huddle together, fart and copulate in dark, dirty and stinking wigwams while Europeans walk across beautiful Old World city squares conspiciously devoid of beggars, cripples and the omipresent garbage and sewage of the time. Indians practice primitive shamanism in forests while Europeans stride through light-flooded cathedrals and vow to relinquish the amenities of western Civilisation to salvage the infidels (even if "they" already cut of one of your ears in the process). Europeans do well-mannered house music in aristocratic mansions. Indians do it doggy-style in the dirt. Always, anywhere and with anyone, as the film will teach us through relentless repetition.

The clash of belief systems is personalised in an encounter of the dignified Jesuit priest with an Indian shaman - impersonalised by a ridiculously behaving and profounfly vicious yellow painted dwarf. What could have been an interesting example of Indian attitudes towards disabled and retarded people - worshipping people who are different as a manifestation of the divine instead of confining them to the margins of society - is turned into just another example of the film's leitmotif - the savagery of the barbaric Indian.

When the film was released a New York Times critic lauded the fact that this historical film got by with portraying American colonial history"without villains". Without white villains that is, of course. Set in a time when the Thirty Years War was raging through central Europe where entire populations of large cities were laughtered to the last woman and infant while seeking refuge in churches and when one third of Germany's population was slaughtered by armies of fellow Christians, the film centers entirely on what it presents as a realistic portray of "Indian savagery". When the Algonquin party with its European guests is captured by Iroquoians (the Algonquians speak neither Algonquian nor do the Iroquois speak Iroquoian but all happen to speak Cree here in fact but who would notice anyway) the male captives are forced to run the gauntlet in their captor's village. Once, badly battered, of course, they had survived this indeed pretty brutal initiation procedure, I , having at least a superficial knowledge of Iroquois culture, prepared myself for wittnessing the usual next step, the adoption of all captives into the tribe. I soon learned that the makers of the film seemed to have an agenda which would not permit such a less than traumatic ending.

It is towards the end that an ambitious yet heavily slanted portrayal of culture clash tilts into point-blank atrocity propaganda. Portraying matriarchic Iroqois societiy with its democratic decision making processes as a male-commandeered dictatorship is in itself a surprising failure given Beresford's claim to show everything "the way it really was". One wonders if this distortive rendering of Iroquois social life occurred unintentionally. How could they get such basic things so wrong? However, this appears like a lesser evil compared to the what we are supposed to learn of the treatment of captives by Iroqois. Captured women and children were regularly adopted into the tribe. In fact the Iroqois waged numerous wars on neighbours and absorbed their vanquished foes through something that amounted to genocide by hostile takeover, if you like. There was a time when 25,000 out of 35,000 Iroquois were adopted former enemies. The biggest indian killers of the time were disease, not war. Tribes replenished their thinned-out ranks with captured enemies and could hardly afford to kill them "unnecessarily". Male captives were in for a tougher ride and were only adopted after having endured the gauntlet.

The film shows none of this. Instead, the captured boy has his throat cut before his father's eyes for no apparent reason - exept "Indian savagery" which is, by definition, beyond any rationality. The captured woman is announced to be tortured to death the next day. The same fate awaits the male captives - although they just passed the initiation rite. One previous commentator hoped that the research done for the scenes in the Iroquois village was profound. Well, it was not. In fact, the makers of the film got everything beyond mere outfits wrong here. This is certainly not "a sensitive and earnest portrayal of Indians" as one previous reviewer reasoned.

At the end the film raises "the profound question" if it was right to bring the light of Christianity to the Hurons since they were later on "annihilated" by their heathen Iroquois enemies (in reality parts of the survivors were adopted into the tribe, others formed the influental Wiandot nation). What the film fails to mention is that it was hardly a Christian "turn the other cheek" attitude that brought about the demise of the Hurons but the fact that only partial conversion of the Hurons occurred which split the disease-stricken nation at a time of war when unity was most needed and that the French had chosen the Hurons as their allies and prime proxy fighters in the Beaver Wars against their Iroquois enemies - and finally let them down militarily when the Hurons needed their support (For some reading check out http://www.tolatsga.org/hur.html).

How to rate such a film? Five stars for its technical merits. One star for its often distortive, elaborate defamation of Native culture. I think that the latter weighs more heavily than the former. Two stars. See it. Carefully. I rented it. I wouldn't buy it. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

Kelly is the greatest D'Artagnon since Fairbanks
And in my opinion, no one has done it better since. When I first saw this movie as a child, I fell so in love with Gene Kelly that I never recovered! (Oh, sure, I flirted with Paul McCartney for a while, but I came back to Gene!!) As far as I'm concerned, no one but Douglas Fairbanks (that's Sr., not Jr.) could even touch Kelly's performance in this, for pure graceful athleticism. Michael York and Chris O'Donnell look like a couple of cows compared to Kelly's speed and grace. Oh, yeah, and did I mention that Lana Turner is stunning in this, and Vincent Price is a delightfully nasty Cardinal Richelieu, or that Angela Lansbury is unbelievably beautiful as the Queen of France? This would go on my list of the 100 best movies ever made!!

a good film.
This version of, "the Three Musketeers," with June Allyson, Gene Kelly, Van Heflin, and Lana Turner, is colorful, romantic and filled with adventure. It's really well down and well worth seeing. Also it's great for kids, as my little cousin, love it. I think it deserves many stars, and it really lets all the actors and actresses shine in the roles, and all have an equal part in the film.

Brave,drunken and foolish Muskeys.
The three Musketeers is a good movie.They serve the King,Fight Cardinal guards,and always suave to the ladies.They still have emotions,and sadness.The plot of the movie starts out,happy and carfree,and at times,a comady.And then in the end,a tradegy.Very sad and frighting.All throughout you will learn to love those muskeys!
D'artangan(Jean Kelley) is a young man that lived in a small town of Gascony, All his life he wanted to leave his home to become a great Musketeer,for the King.Finally His wish was granted.His father wrote a letter of reconition,for him to the Captain of the Musketeers,mougnsier Treville.His father tells him to never take a insult,fight for his honor....
By acident he bumps into one,gets tangled in a cloak,insults the honor,of three Musketeers.They all chalenge him to a duel. Three Duels in one afternoon!I bet you can guess who the three Musketeers are.Athos,Porthos and Aramis! They meet up at the grounds to fight D'artangan without knowing they all wanted to fight the same person.Athos goes first,when their most hated enemys show up,the Cardinals guards.The Cardinal had a rivalery for power with the King.Their men had one too! D'artagan becomes fast friends with Athos,Aramis and Porthos when he decides to fight at their side. ...and wins!
D'artagan even finds his love Costance.At first she thinks him mad,but after saving her,she sucumbs to him,so their kissing comes blissfully.He has never been more happy until Constance imforms him he must save the Queens honor(I won't give spoilers)in a dangerous situation! He's consents and soon persuades his friends to come along! As Athos says:Why wait till the lasts drop gone from the bottle? So begins the real story.
Those Musketeers are brave and smart but they have their faults amd hopes that in the end has efects on their lives.. Athos loves wine,and often gets giddley,happly drunk.D'artangan finds out that it may be more to his drinking than just for fun.A terrible,sad secret that has haunted Athos for years!
D'artagan gets carried away by puppy love too often...with Milady De Winter! Who Does the Gascon choose?
Porthos and Aramis don't do as many mistakes,But each have their hopes.Porthos hopes to marry a rich widow,and Aramis wants to become a priest.
I'm closing this review with the hope I did not reveal too much. The ending is not entirly happy,I warn but it's a great movie about,actions have their end,Friendship,Romance,vengence,humor,and evil. The best version I've watched so far. ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL!

Gene Kelly and swordplay. Doesn't get better than that!
I have loved this movie for years. Clean dialogue, exciting action, great acting and Gene Kelly with a sword! Keenan Wynn, Gene Kelly, Lana Turner, a tortured Van Heflin--all of the great actors of that day--a very young Gig Young--ah, for the good, old days of fun, laughter, excitement and chivalry! Hollywood doesn't know how to make them this good anymore and this movie is a must see!

Six Stars
I found this movie on TV one night after falling in love with the story of the Musketeers, and nearly threw a fit when my dad made me go to bed in the middle of it. It has certain aspects that the 3musketeers/4musketeers movies leave out suchs as hints to Arimis' background and the fact that all four Musketeers had servents. A six-star movie! ... Read more

Reviews (68)

Inspirational
I have wanted to be a teacher for years now and watching movies like The Emperor's Club make me dream about teacher even more. The Emperor's Club is about a group of affluent teenagers at an elite private school with a teacher better than one can imagine. Kevin Kline is this teacher, and once again delivers with an amazing performance. Unfortunately after giving these students a year of his life, and making decisions based on favorites, he is struck with the harsh reality that some people, one student in particular, are ruthless and greedy. This reality strikes him on one more occasion as a slap in the face to him that some people never change. The Emperor's Club is not a movie just about how people cannot be trusted, but how people make mistakes, and how other people can forgive them for their mistakes. It is about learning, even teachers learning, lessons of life that everybody learns at some point. The Emperor's Club was fascinating film from pretty much every aspect. Although it reminded me of Dead Poets Society, the best film of this genre ever, I still thoroughly enjoyed it.

An engrossing tale, well acted by Kevin Kline
The Emperor's Club was one of the best films about a teacher that I've seen. It was a refreshing and rewarding movie because the story kept my interest without ever slipping into Hollywood's normal excessive sentimentality or easy plot turns. Kevin Kline was perfectly cast as a history teacher at an exclusive boy's school (Mr. Hundert, not "Herdunt"), and his struggles with a difficult student (Bell) didn't always unfold the way I thought they would.

Hundert faced various moral dilemmas during the story. The situations that led to those dilemmas and the teacher's decisions were both presented in realistic ways. Who knows how any of us would have have handled similar decisions? In fact, I saw the film with a teacher friend who remarked about the movie's accuracy, that indeed sometimes teachers must decide whether to grade a student higher than merited (to inspire) or give the appropriate grade and risk de-motivation.

The best thing about The Emperor's Club was the gracefulness and subtlety in how the story was told, epitomized by its untidy yet still satisfying conclusion. It's a movie that will lead to active discussions between moviegoers after leaving the theater.

Reaches for greatness--and misses
Finally, someone makes a movie like Dead Poet's Society! Well, no, not exactly. I'm a sucker for Kevin Kline, and it's hard to argue with his performance--or Emile Hirsch's--in this film. But the script screws the actors. This isn't a terrible movie--it's a pleasant enough way to pass a few hours--but the promise of the obvious comparisons to the Robin Williams hit makes it a disappointment. And just wait for the whammy that hits ten minutes from the end--a total repeat of the plot from the first half of the movie. The lesson, apparently, is that some folks never learn from their mistakes. Including Hollywood folk who tag good actors with a bad script...

Kevin Kline is a teacher
An excellent plot "with a twist", plus illuminated acting of Kevin Kline and a well chosen cast makes this movie a rewarding entertainement.

A DIFFERENT SHADE ON THE TEACHER-STUDENT THEME
For the first 15 minutes, I felt that the movie would walk that oft-tread road of teacher-student movies such as Holland's Opus, Finding Forrester, Dead Poets Society etc.

But in the end, it takes on a different contour than what I would have imagined through its course, so that was a welcome denouement.

The finishing twist is delivered with a flourish, and although I felt that the writer didn't quite have the guts to follow his story to its natural, cynical conclusion, the end was surely a bit unpredictable.

The story line, admittedly, is on a diet. But the script is taut. What really shimmers though is the acting. Kevin Kline is, as always, in top form, he neither underplays nor overplays his professor role getting everything just right, from his quiet, guilt-ridden introspection to the light comedy that results from a frivolous baseball game. And as the counterpart protagonist Emile Hirsch displays the arrogant bravado one expects from a bad seed student rather well.

All in all, I probably wouldn't see this movie more than once, but it's a worthwhile rental. Especially to watch with kids for some decent messages about morals, discipline, friendship, respect. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Rolling Thunder's ex-Vietnam War POW Major Charles Rane (William Devane) returns to a hero's welcome in San Antonio in the early '70s. He's bestowed with a red Cadillac convertible, $2,500 in silver dollars, and accolades from all sides. Soon, however, he discovers that all is not as it seems; his wife strayed with a close friend during his years of confinement. He also finds that he has his own personal POW groupie, Linda; her fascination with him is met with the same shoulder-shrugging blandness that he shows toward everything else in what's left of his life. One day Rane comes home to find a houseful of assorted Texas white trash demanding his small fortune in silver dollars. Their efforts to beat him into revealing the location of the money are for naught, so they jam his right hand down a garbage disposal instead. When his wife and kid come home, the two gladly give up the money but the robbers cold-bloodedly gun them down anyway. Flash-forward: Rane has himself fitted with a hook prosthesis (which he sharpens on a grinder), cuts down a couple of shotguns, and points the scarlet Caddy land yacht south towards Nuevo Laredo, bent on revenge. With Linda in tow, he tracks the bad guys as far as Acuña and Juárez, where he hooks up with war buddy Johnny (Tommy Lee Jones) for a final showdown. What would otherwise play as a routine revenge story is given a measure of dimension and depth by Devane's performance and Paul Schrader's script. The comparison to Schrader scripts such as the previous year's Taxi Driver are inevitable and obvious. Like Taxi Driver's Travis Bickle, Rane wears opaque state-trooper sunglasses that allow no window into his dead soul. However, Bickle's internal monologues are missing; all the audience can see of Rane's character is what's on the surface, only what Rane wants others to see. He's simply a vengeful automaton, riddled with a cold, poisonous, implacable rage. Strong stuff indeed. --Jerry Renshaw ... Read more

Reviews (5)

DEVANE'S SCREEN PRESENCE
This is a flawed but very interesting movie. What strikes me is that it starred Bill DeVane with Tommie Lee Jones in a supporting role. At the time, DeVane was headed, seemingly, for stardom. He had been brilliant as JFK in "The Missiles of October" and even better as a turncoat spy in "Marathon Man". Yet it was Jones, not DeVane, who went on to screen greatness.

DeVane is a Vietnam flyboy, shot down, captured by the Communists, held and tortured for seven years. He returns to his family, but is estranged from them. They are killed in a robbery. This is where the film veers somewhat, because it is in the realism of his character that DeVane leaves us wanting. The realism is that DeVane has learned, been programmed, to be dehumanized. It was the only way to survive his Vietnam ordeal. As he reacts to "the world," or rather does not react to it, to his family, his wife who plans to leave him, he has no emotion left. It has all been drained from him. He speaks about "when we were alive," which was the prisoner's code for before capture. He is like a zombie. It is good method acting, but the viewer thirsts for more.

The script tries to take us there by showing DeVane with a blonde "groupie" who tags along while he sojourns into Mexico and El Paso looking for his family's killers. Eventually he teams with Jones and they exact their revenge, which is as much their personal release of violent expression against their captor as it is the killing of the robbers who murdered DeVane's family.

STEVEN TRAVERS
AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
...

"GOT YOUR TIME BOY."
WILLIAM DEVANE HAS MADE A CAREER OUT OF STARRING IN T.V. MOVIES, MOST OF WHICH ARE OF THE HUM DRUM VARIETY. THIS BIG SCREEN FILM STANDS OUT ALONGSIDE MOVIES LIKE 'PAYBACK' AS SHOWING WHAT A FINE ACTOR DEVANE REALLY IS.
THIS WAS LONG BEFORE TOMMY LEE JONES WAS A HOUSEHOLD NAME ALSO AND YET IT DISPALYS THE TALENT THAT HAS MADE HIM A MULTI MILLIONARE.
THE TWO VIETNAM VETS RETURN HOME AFTER BEING HELD IN A P.O.W. CAMP AND ROUTINELY TORTURED. NEITHER MAN SHOWS UP WITH THE HUMANITY THEY PROBABLY LEFT WITH.
DEVANES WIFE WANTS A DIVORCE WHICH SUITS HIM FINE EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT HE GENUINELY WANTS A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS SON.
DEVANES FAMILY IS SET UPON BY PETTY CROOKS WHO INVADE THE HOME IN AN EFFORT TO STEAL SILVER DOLLARS AWARDED TO DEVANE UPON HIS RETURN. THEY KILL ALL, OR SO THEY THINK. DEVANES CHARACTER SURVIVES WITH A PROSTETIC HOOK FOR ONE HAND. HE THEN SETS OUT TO AVENGE HIS SONS MURDER. HE IS ACCOMPANIED BY AN AIRHEADED GROUPIE WHO THINKS HE IS COOL.
WE THEN RIDE ALONG FROM SOUTH TEXAS TO VARIOUS MEXICAN BORDER TOWNS IN SEARCH OF THE LOW RENT KILLERS HEADED BY ACTOR JAMES BEST WHO PORTRAYS A GOON FAR REMOVED FROM THE ROSCOE P. COLTRAIN CHARACTER HE MADE FAMOUS IN 'THE DUKES OF HAZZARD.'

DEVANE ALONG WITH ASSISTANCE FROM WAR WRECKED TOMMY LEE JONES CORNERS THE BAD GUYS IN A WHOREHOUSE JUST ACROSS THE BORDER FROM EL PASO.
THE FINALLY IS CLIMACTIC, AND JUSTIFIABLY SO. THE COOLEST SCENE IN THE PICTURE IS WHEN DEVANE CONFRONTS BEST WHO LAYS IN BED WITH A PROSTITUTE. DEVANE WAKES THE MAN, SAYING "GOT YOUR TIME BOY." YOU CAN GUESS WHAT HAPPENS NEXT GIVEN THE FACT THAT DEVANE IS BEARING DOWN ON THE MAN WITH A DOUBLE BARRLED SAWD OFF SHOTGUN.

THIS IS KIND OF A 'DEATH WISH' TEXAS STYLE FILM BUT IT WORKS. THE BAD GUYS ARE SO BRUTALLY DISGUSTING THAT YOU CANT WAIT FOR THEM TO "GET THEIR TIME."

ITS A GOOD EFFORT AND WORTH A LOOK.

Rolling Thunder: Diamond in the Sand
I first saw this video in 1985. The movie caught my attention and held it throughout. Sure, there are other movies that attempt to deal with the plight of the vet, robberies and vengeance, love of family and vendetta. But there is not a movie out there that combines all of these with the same rhythm and intensity as "Rolling Thunder." At a time when movies are relying more on computer generated graphics than on a plot with substance, Rolling Thunder should be being aired on TNT, TBS, Lifetime, TNN and any other cable channel that wants to break away from the monotonous hum-drum of the fare being shown in the name of "entertainment." Devane does more than one good hand and a hook than most of today's action heroes do with both hands and both feet. Rah also for my main man, Tommy Lee Jones, who takes a back seat to Devane, but stands by his buddy to the end as they seek out the baddies that done Devane's family wrong. A must see!

Doesn't get much more powerful. . .
I am a huge movie buff and if you are looking for a raw, powerful, gritty movie experience, definitely check out this movie, which remains one of my all-time top three. I personally like this film better than "Taxi Driver", but if you liked "Taxi Driver" then you will definitely like this film, because it was written by the same guy and the themes are similar. I was blown away not only by the performances (particularly Tommy Lee Jones in a startlingly forceful role), but by the amazing amount of action. There is definitely more violence and action than there is in "Driver" and that's why I like it. Some people criticize the violence, but with the powerful storyline, disturbing violence is almost necessary. Definitely see this film. Along with "Driver" this film will awaken you to the horrors of the Vietnam War.

If you are a fan of "Taxi Driver", you will love this one
Basic storyline is this. Major Charles Rane returns home, Texas, from seven years of torture in POW during Vietnam War. As a big welcome gift, he receives a Cadillac and a couple of thousands dollars from city. Charles soon finds out his wife fell in love with other man and his emotion starts to build up. Then people came after Charles' reward money kill his son and wife and Charles loses his hand. Charlie and his friend from the war, Johnny played by Tommy Lee Jones, get together for a revenge. I found out about this movie from the "King Pulp: The Wild World of Quentin Tarantino". The movie "Rolling Thunder" is written by Paul Schrader, writer from "Taxi Driver". Like "Taxi Driver", this movie is charged with gripping scripts and emotionally rich and powerful characters. Without showing any real battle scenes, the movie builds up very strong Vietnam war drama. Also, the sequence where Major Charles Rane (William Devane) drives to find killers of his son and wife with a girl reminds the stoyline of "Natural Born Killers". Performance by Tommy Lee Jones as a supporting actor is also interesting to look at. This movie is as powerful and brutal as "Taxi Driver". ... Read more

Reviews (9)

A very worthy part 2 of the trilogy.
This movie is good on several counts. First, it may be the third installment in the Brave Little Toaster trilogy, but it's obviously intended to be inserted between the original and "Mars," to tie together the Master's departure for college and his marriage to Chris/fatherhood to Rob, Jr. in "Mars." That development seemed to come much too soon, leaving us to wonder just what occurred in between. This movie carries a wonderful message about animals and their rights, focusing rather heavily on a snake named Mergatroid, a devoted white mother cat named Maisie, a disaffected rat named Ratzo, an elderly ape named Sebastian, and a sweet Chihuahua named Alberto. Despite the fact that the film often borders on corny, with "animals in danger" for some reason flashing on the computer screen when they're taken away by the evil Mack, to be shipped to a lab, the music in this movie isn't too bad, considering it's a sequel. We're introduced to some new appliances as well; a modem, female computer, some printers, a security camera in the police Dobermans' pen. On the whole, the main characters retain their personalities true enough to form, but don't have quite enough funny or poignant lines to allow this to come close to matching its original. Not that anything ever could. This is a worthy sequel. The Master is studying to be a veterinarian, a suitable profession. The interaction of appliances and animals is interesting.

Oh, and let's not forget Wittgenschtein, the old super-computer! This movie was obviously planned before "Mars," because it explains how he came to live in the museum. Brian Doyle-Murray does a great job as the voice of this funny, nice guy. And it's a touching moment when Radio sacrifices his own WFC-11-12-55 tube to save him. The Toaster hasn't been the only brave one throughout these movies. The others have done some pretty brave things themselves.

Overall, not a bad sequel. Cheesier than the first, it might not satisfy older viewers, but the younger ones should find most of it cute if nothing else.

Disney's animal rights message?
I was enjoying this movie until I noticed that part of the plot involves villains stealing animals to be sold to an animal research lab (that Toaster and his friends rescue). This not only perpetuates the myth that scientists walk the streets trying to steal your pet for experimentation, but conveys the message that animal experimentation is wrong. If you are are an animal rights supporter, then this movie is for you and your kid. Instead, if you support the responsible and humane use of animals in medical research avoid this movie at all cost.

I can't believe Disney's writers didn't notice the underlying message in this movie. I can only conclude this represents their opinion on the subject. Very sad.

Entertaining but not up to the original
Looking for something to entertain the kids on a wet night? This installment of the Toaster series will fit the bill quite nicely. Although it's not as well written, directed or produced as the first film (or even the second), To The Rescue does deal with a number of moral issues and difficult decisions that the Toaster and his pals have to make to save the life of some lab animals.

More of a slapdash affair than the first film (or, in my opinion, the convoluted sequel), Rescue is a poor relation to the original film. THe characterizations and conflicts are still strong and suspenseful but the plotting is sloppy. Most younger children won't notice but a few older ones might. Luckily, kids can suspend their disbelief a lot easier than adults.

Kids won't pay attention to the quality of animation as much as adults and the gaps in the plot probably won't be an issue. The songs are entertaining and almost to the quality of the first film. The best vocal performance comes from Brian Doyle-Murray (Bill Murray's brother and another Saturday Night Live/Second City alum) as the computer. His distinctive gravelly voice and performance add quality to this average sequel.

Just a note for parents this is the second film in the Toaster series. It was planned and written after the third film Goes To Mars and is the only one in the series not inspired by Thomas Disch's children's stories.

The only Toaster sequel worth watching
Like many other grown-ups who are kids at heart, I am a big fan of the Brave Little Toaster. For the completely uninitiated, it's a series about anthropomorphic appliances, and other mechanical things (are computers and streetlamps and giant evil magnets etc. really "appliances"?), who come to life a la the "Toy Story" toys when people aren't around. For good measure, traditional Disney-style anthropomorphic animals are included in a bit part in the original movie, and in "Rescue" the animals can talk and are in effect the "human" equals of the appliances.

For some bizarre reason known only to Disney and whoever else produced the Toaster movies, "To the Rescue" was released AFTER the other direct-to-video sequel, "The Brave Little Toaster Goes To Mars." So "Rescue" is often referred to as the third chapter in the series, or Toaster III, etc. But as should be pretty obvious to anyone who has watched all three movies and paid minimal attention to the plot, "Rescue" is clearly the SECOND chapter in the series, with events taking place directly after the theatrical release. In the original movie, Rob McGroaty, the "master" of the appliances, is going away to college. In "Rescue," he's a college senior wrapping up his thesis (titled "The Secret Life of Animals," humorously enough... oh, how little Rob knows!) in veterinary medicine. In the god-awful bad "Mars" movie, Rob has married longtime girlfriend Chris and is an established veterinarian with a baby on the way.

I don't think that "Rescue" is on the level of the original movie, but it's definitely worth a look. (When it comes out on DVD, I think I'll actually buy it!) Its failings could best be described, I think, as "sloppiness." Whereas the first movie was pretty groundbreaking with the totally non-organic cast, who were NOT familiar, human-shaped playthings like the Toy Story toys, in the 10+ years between the original and its sequels the producers must have realized that Hey, kids love the Toaster, so why not make their parents buy some slapped-together sequels!?

Despite some jokes and references clearly meant for adults - nothing DIRTY, people, so chill out - and some songs that are actually pretty good, "Rescue" has a slap-dash feel to it, with TV cartoon-quality (as opposed to movie-quality) animation, and plot holes you could drive a truck through. Or maybe, I should say plot *discrepancies.* (Grown-ups use big words, you know!) Once you get over silliness like Rob losing a 600 page thesis due a power outage - he typed the entire thing in one sitting, without saving to disk ONCE?! - or the notion that Eville animal vivisection people will pay lots of dough to acquire any old collection of miscellaneous animals, there's an enjoyable and even exciting story to be found, very much in the spirit of the original movie. Unlike "Mars," which totally runs off the rails with its cockamamie stupidity and creepy extension of human sentience to seemingly everything (like balloons, yikes!!), "Rescue"'s shortcomings never threaten to tank the whole movie.

Aside from the appliances saving some cute talking animals, "Rescue" brings Radio, Lampy, Kirby and the gang into the Information Age. In the first movie, "high-tech" is pretty much synonymous with evil, with the "evil appliances" at Rob's parents' apartment (who have replaced the old gang left at the summer cabin) singing their hilarious "cutting edge of technology" song, infomercial-style. "Rescue" carries over the stern disapproval of rampant consumerism, and also acknowledges that even "cutting edge" machines are quickly abandoned by the always-looking-for-something-better masses.

By way of a crash course in modern technology, singing and dancing computers, servers, and modems perform a musical number ("Information Superhighway") for the benefit of Rob's elderly appliances. It's a catchy, goofy tune, and yet it has a genuinely moving message about the power of the internet to bring isolated people into a larger community. Even more affectingly, this song is reprised by an abandoned pre-transistor (1st gen) computer that Rob's appliances discover in the university basement.

The abandoned computer - named Wittgenstein, as in the polymath philosopher for some unexplained reason - is actually one of the highlights of the movie. Wittgenstein has, hands down, the best songs, and the sub-plot to bring him a new part helps prevent the movie from being all about the cuddly wittle animals and what a dweeb Rob is. "Rescue" eschews much of the emotionally tough material of the first movie, and as such I expected that every character who needed to be rescued or repaired in some way would get help, but I was still very happy to see Wittgenstein (Brian Doyle Murray, in one of his better voice roles IMO) get his due. Not to mention, it's refreshing to see a NON-EVIL sentient computer for once! :)

Alack, the comically brilliant Jon Lovitz does not return to reprise his role as Radio, my favorite character, but his replacement is pretty good. And the voice of Tony the Tiger (I'm not going to try to spell his name) happily returns as Kirby the vacuum cleaner. If you haven't seen the original Toaster, go rent or buy it ASAP! If you like the Toaster, chances are you'll like this sequel as well.

We love the toaster!!!
Ok. Well, I'll admit it! The toaster rocks! My son and I dance to the songs and he asks to watch it on a daily basis. What a cute movie, with fun songs and a good story. The animation is well done and the voices are perfect! Enjoy! ... Read more

Reviews (67)

Fianlly, on DVD!! I want my own Chip!!
Like many here, I found the transfer of this movie to VHS to be awful (grainy,bad color). Thus, the DVD is a relief--crisp picture, letterbox format, just like in a theater! The music on the soundtrack is the same that I've always remembered (Stagger Lee, Alley Oop, It Will Stand, etc.), so those who say it had different music, please e-mail me and tell me what it was. The music now is so perfect for the film, I can't imagine anything else! Thew film itself is a delight, a great "summer film." If you have girlfriends, definitely gather them up to watch it on a summer night. The performances are great (esp. by Phoebe Cates and Annabeth Gish), and my first great crush was Scott Coffey as the sweet Chip. (BTW--My God, is Robert Rustler (Buzz) tan in this film, freakishly so. When Buzz goes off to Yale, he'll either have to pale out or buy some sun lamps to stay that red!) This film is a must see for anyone who enjoyed "Mystic Pizza," "Dirty Dancing" or "Footloose." Watch it soon! ("It's the most fun!")

You will marry Bullwinkle and have 3 kids!
Okay...you all think you are fans? My friends and I loved this movie so much (it released to VHS when we were in high school) and watched it so many times that we had our own last fling before going off to college and spent a week in Myrtle Beach. (Unfortunately, life isn't always as fun as a movie but we still had a good time!) Yes, the movie is cheesy, but everyone in it is so completely likeable. The music, the dancing, the outfits, the southern drawls...what's not to like? Even my mom loves this movie! It definitely fits under the category of "Chick Flick" but we all need movies to watch with our girlfriends... what ever happened to some of these fun actors? If you have not seen this movie, I highly recommend you try it out!

GRITS
This movie has got to be the best movie (along with Gone With the Wind) ever! I have actually worn out my VHS tape because my girlfriends and I (all from South Carolina) get together to watch it at least once a week! I went to Senior Week (as Sun Fun weekend is known to graduating seniors from SC) four years ago, as did every graduating senior in SC, as did our parents before us. My mom loves to watch it because it reminds her of her Senior Week (in 1963)! Those who don't like it, are usually guys or those who don't know what shagging is or how to do it (people not from SC or the South, basically). So give it a chance, don't just rent it, you have to buy it!

NO SELF-RESPECTING SOUTHERNER SHOULD BE WITHOUT IT
Ah, Shag! This is one of my favorite movies for so many reasons. The movie is definitely lightweight, but also very memorable. The perfect casting had one thing to do with that. Everyone in this movie, down to the late Carrie Hamilton, is made-to-order. The "Southern" details of this movie are also dead-on. As a North Carolinian who's spent a heck of a lot of time in Myrtle Beach (though in the '90s, not in the '60s) the accents, expressions, music, and clothes are all correct for the time and place. The story is simple, but most great movies have simple plots when you get right down to it. What makes Shag shine is great acting, fantastic period details, and quotable dialogue. Watch this movie with another Southerner or anybody else who could appreciate the humor and the fun of this great movie. Whether it's your first time or your 100th time watching it, Shag is absolutely the "most fun"!
By the way, though this is not the original motion picture soundtrack, it's still pretty darn good. For those of you who didn't see the early VHS version of the movie, let me explain: some of the songs were in the original version of the movie and are still in this version; others were added later. The original movie soundtrack, which I still have, contains new versions of old songs, plus a couple of original ones. I don't know why it was changed, but I'd sure like to have a copy of the DVD with the original soundtrack, which includes songs by K.D Lang and Randy Newman, to name a few.

Loved Scott Coffey
ok the movie was just like every spring break movie you had ever seen even the characters were the same the prim one, the slut, the one that used to be a duckling and became a swan, they all go to the beach to have one last fling before they go their own ways.the movie wasn't bad it just wasn't all that memorable. but all throughout the movie i kep screaming how much i loved chip (scott coffey) his character was so lovable. i wish i could find more movies he was in. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

This sprawling epic of bloodshed and excess, Brian De Palma's update of the classic 1932 crime drama by Howard Hawks, sparked controversy over its outrageous violence when released in 1983. Scarface is a wretched, fascinating car wreck of a movie, starring Al Pacino as a Cuban refugee who rises to the top of Miami's cocaine-driven underworld, only to fall hard into his own deadly trap of addiction and inevitable assassination. Scripted by Oliver Stone and running nearly three hours, it's the kind of film that can simultaneously disgust and amaze you (critic Pauline Kael wrote "this may be the only action picture that turns into an allegory of impotence"), with vivid supporting roles for Steven Bauer, Michelle Pfeiffer, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and Robert Loggia. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (539)

His Name Is Tony...
Actor Al Pacino gives a powerhouse performance in 1983's SCARFACE. Paciino plays Tony Montana, a Cuban refugee hoodlum, who quickly rises to the top of Miami's cocaine industry. On his way to the top, Tony uses any means at his disposal to get there, no matter who he hurts or betrays in the process. Pacino takes hold of the character and never lets you forget that he is "Scarface". The supporting cast is wonderful too. It features Steven Bauer, as Tony's right hand man, "Manny" Ray. Michelle Pfeiffer is Tony's girl, Elvira, and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, in a role early in her acting career, plays Gina, Tony's sister.

The hard-edged script for the film is written by Oliver Stone, who holds nothing back, as usual Directed by Brian De Palma, the movie doesn't flinch at all to tell its story. The film remains a favorite of mine and will leave you with quite a lasting impression. A "remake" of 1932's SCARFACE, in name only, the film is nearly flawless.

The "Collector's Edition" contains a feature length retrospective documentary, that is so well done, you almost forget that there is no commentary track. It is very comprehensive and covers all aspects of the film and its place in cinema history. There's also a number of deleted scenes and outtakes that were nice to see. These fine extras add up to one heck of a DVD for one of the best gangster movies ever made. SCARFACE should not be missed and comes highly recommended.

Nothing Succeeds Like Excess
Given the high-power talent behind the camera (Brian DePalma), in front of it (Al Pacino), and at the typewriter (Oliver Stone), SCARFACE should have quite a lot going for it. It does indeed, although I can't quite call this a GODFATHER-type masterpiece for certain reasons.

Ostensibly, this is a reworking of Howard Hawks' classic 1932 gangster pic about Al Capone. This time, the setting is Miami circa 1980, the contraband in question is cocaine, and the lead character, Pacino's Tony Montana, is a Cuban-born criminal who just came off the Mariel boat lift with 125,000 others that Castro let go, twenty percent of whom were known criminals. Pacino gets in on the ground floor with a local drug boss (Robert Loggia) and soon works his way to the top, doing just about everything to tick someone off--associates, enemies, cops, his wife (Michelle Pfeiffer), his sister (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio), and the Colombian drug kingpins he has to do business with.

But in his cocaine-fueled journey to achieve the so-called American Dream, he neglects to follow two rules taught to him by Loggia: (1) Don't underestimate the other guy's greed; and (2) Don't get high on your own supply. He finally crosses the line in the end by alienating a Colombian drug boss (Paul Shenar) so much that Shenar sends assassins to Pacino's Miami villa. The result is a horrific and bloody shootout in which most of the assassins are rubbed out, and so is Pacino.

Without a doubt, SCARFACE continues to generate wildly divergent opinions, both pro and con. I for one had some trouble trying to stomach Pacino's Cuban accent at first, but then his ultra-charistmatic performance kicked into high gear, four-letter words and all. The film is very true to its essentials of showing how a certain segment of the Cuban boat people, a very SMALL segment, tried to latch onto the American Dream by trafficking in illegal narcotics and thus earning millions. Probably the most interesting thing about SCARFACE is the political view that Stone espouses in his screenplay: he seems to espouse a very Reaganesque view of the world of the 1980s (virulent anti-Communism; anti-Castro), but in truth he is severely critical of those very same policies that motivated Castro to send the worst of his worst onto American soil and thus accelerate this nation's drug problem.

SCARFACE does have its faults. It requires a lot of patience to sit through with a running time approaching 170 minutes, and I am not all that sure there is enough in there to sustain it for that kind of length. The film continues to be controversial in some quarters for its extreme (as opposed to merely excessive) violence; the chainsaw scene in an apartment, the hanging from a helicopter, and the ultra-gory shootout at the end rank as some of the most violent scenes ever shown on film. Only four other films in history challenge it in this respect: THE WILD BUNCH, SOLDIER BLUE, TAXI DRIVER, and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Finally, this film set a record for the greatest number of times the "F" word, or variations of it, are used; I lost count at two hundred. This IS a bit much, although it probably fits the reality of the situation it depicts.

On the other hand, DePalma, whose 1976 film CARRIE remains one of the touchstone suspense/horror films of all times, does make quite a lot out of Stone's wild and crazy screenplay--though surprisingly, for the violent scenes, he doesn't use slow-motion or montage that much, which would have earned him favorable comparisons with the legendary Sam Peckinpah. Just as solid is the camera work of John Alonzo, who worked on CHINATOWN and BLACK SUNDAY, among others. Giorgio Moroder's score is pretty good, though I do admit it gets a little cheesy after a while. And Pacino's performance is also high-caliber; just get used to his Cuban accent, and it works very well.

This film comes highly recommended, but with this warning: It is definitely NOT for younger audiences, it is rated 'R' for a lot of good reasons.

Best Movie Ever!!!!!!!!!
This is the greatest movie that was ever created! I could not beleive how great this movie was when I saw it. Not only the movie was great but great actors like Al Pacino. If you have any money don't spend it on anything else than this movie!

WOULD YOU KISS ME IF I WEAR THE HAT!?
This is one of the greatest movies of all time and the AFI top 100 movies of all time refuses to acknowledge it. Al Pacino deserved an oscar for his portrayal of Tony Montana, the movie deserved an oscar for something yet this movie is constantly overlooked by all critics, but the cult following that it has amassed is by far more telling of it's popularity than sheer box office numbers. ask anyone on the street and they'll tell you Scarface is one of the best movies ever made, and if they don't think so they haven't seen it. So sit back, crack some hennessy and alize, light up a cigar, and enjoy one of the best movies ever made!

Classic Gangster Flick
No matter what anybody says, this has to be one of the ten best gangster movies ever made, if not in the top three. If you are a fan of this genre, Scarface is a gourmet banquet of acting, action, dialogue and intensity. And if you don't enjoy this, all I can say is I'm sorry that you're missing out. The only reason I don't give this movie 5 stars is that I don't know what to make of Giorgio Moroder's cheesy sythn soundtrack and disco tunes. If you think in the context of the movie, that 80's Cuban drug dealers might like listening to really bad disco music ("...Rush, rush to the yeyo") then this music works in the confines of the Babylon nightclub along with the bad hair, clothes, Belzer's lousy comedy and the mime. But these songs, if they had to stand on their own outside the movie, would be totally ignored. I wonder if Deborah Harry ( then at the height of fame with her band Blondie) knew when she laid down the vocals for Moroder's muzak that this song was designed as junk to suit the movie or if she thought this might boost her singing career. If you account for the disco muzak as necessary "set dressing" for the Babylon it still doesn't excuse Moroder's cheesy synth soundtrack. How much better this movie could have been if it was scored by an accomplished orchestral composer such as Morricone or Williams. If you want more proof of Moroder's shortcomings check out the soundtrack of Metropolis. ... Read more

Reviews (89)

Life is a cabaret, old chum...
It's often been said about old musical movies that they went too far in the conceit of people "bursting out in song" during a scene. Well, in his film version of Kander & Ebb's masterful Cabaret, Bob Fosse completely got around that problem by presenting the songs on stage. It was handled brilliantly, the choreography was incredible, and the movie just plain works.

Cabaret the movie doesn't share many songs in common with the original stage version - it still has "Willkommen," "Two Ladies," "Tomorrow Belongs To Me," a German version of "Married," "If You Could See Her," and "Cabaret" - but that's it. A few new songs were added - "Mein Herr," "Maybe This Time," "Money, Money," - but for the most part it's a lot less sung than the staged version. A lot of musical numbers dealing with the world outside the Kit Kat Klub were used as underscoring, preserving John Kander's great tunes. But this doesn't detract from it being one of the best filmed musicals out there.

Fosse's direction is a big help; it has a great eye for early 1930s Berlin, and presents the decadence and foreshadows the Nazis brilliantly. Fosse created great, sensual choreography for the film, and it is completely entrancing to watch the musical numbers. And the rest is worth it, too.

Flipflops aside, the couples are presented well; Liza Minelli's portrayal of Sally Bowles is definitely the acting part of a lifetime. She was just completely *convincing* as Sally, from end to end. Michael York as Brian is very reserved, very British, and very studied. Helmut Griem is entirely convincing as Max, who creates tension between the couple after befriending them. The secondary couple is played to perfection by Fritz Wepper and Marisa Berenson, as opportunistic Fritz Wendel who falls in love with the rich young Jewess Natalia Landauer, respectively. And, of course, Joel Grey is spectacular as the haunting, Puckish Emcee.

In general, this movie presents itself as a stunning revelation to viewers of a story that will stick around for a very long time. It's a virtuoso interpretation of one of the greatest American musicals, and deserves to be seen.

wonderful new collector's edition
CABARET has never looked better, remastered for it's 25th anniversary, with additional features.

Liza Minnelli gives the performance of her career as the singer Sally Bowles, on a self-imposed exile in Berlin, entertaining at the seedy Kit Kat Klub.

Into her life comes Brian Roberts (Michael York), a mild-mannered English bisexual who falls in love with her. Both are seduced by the wealthy Maximillian (Helmut Griem) before Sally falls pregnant, aborts the child and Brian leaves Berlin just as the Nazi's gain power.

The musical, set against the stormy backdrop of Berlin in the 1930's, is a marvellous piece of film making. Directed and choreographed by maestro Bob Fosse, CABARET also boasts original Broadway performer Joel Grey as the Master of Ceremonies, and Fritz Wepper and Marisa Berenson.

Also includes reminiscences by Liza Minnelli, Joel Grey, Michael York, Cy Feuer, John Kander and others from the creative team, an old featurette on the making of the film, and the original theatrical trailer.

THE BEST
As for musical-drama concerned... THIS IS IT! The producers of Chicago should have seen this(indeed they did - every major moment in that film is "stolen" from Cabaret) and put REAL musical stars in the film.

When u have Joel and Liza u are not let down... I give flowergreetings to the entire cast and crew... The filmversion of Cabaret has a lot of "new songs"(Maybe This Time, Mein Herr, The Money Song) and the plot follows the 1955-movie "I AM A CAMERA" more than the stage musical. Since then; the Liza-songs have found themselves in numerous revivals of this stageplay since this 1972-masterpiece. The film is still frightening and raw......Trivia: The scene in which Liza meets Marisa they talk about diseases... On video, here in Europe at least, that was cut....

Don't pass on this
I almost passed over this DVD because a couple of Amazon reviewers forcefully complained about the presentation. I'm glad I bought it. The widescreen was just as I expected, and picture and sound quality were fine. Anyone who's seen the movie knows how good it is. If you haven't seen it, you're in for a treat; and this DVD serves it well. (A five-star review is for the absolutely superlative.)

PLEASE PLEASE Don't buy this!
CABARET is one of the greatest movie musicals ever. I adore it. It is flawless, IMHO.
Why, then am I giving it one star? Because, as others have said, Warners should be ashamed of themselves. This is not the first, but the SECOND release of this movie in a non-anamorphic transfer. I bought the original and was mighty p****ed because it was non-anamorphic. I thought they would have honored this magnificent film in the "anniversary" release. But no. It is, as stated by another reviewer, the same disc as before, in terms of picture quality.
On a small TV you won't notice. But if you care about these things, then believe me, this release sucks big time. As did the first one.
I'm angry, not at being ripped off (I sent this one back for a refund) but because a wonderful work of art has been abused by a greedy, careless film company. And I have been robbed of the chance to see the film in its glory.
Having said that, nothing could improve the truly dreadful sound quality - which was terrible from day one.
I don't suppose there ever will be another release of this movie. What a terrible shame. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A well-oiled Jean-Claude Van Damme makes his starring debut in what may be one of the few kickboxing films to be based on a true story. The Muscles from Brussels plays Frank Dux, the first Westerner ever to win the extreme "whupfest" known as the Kumatai (a long-running, no-holds-barred fighting tournament in Hong Kong). While a bit deficient in the script department (to say the least), this undeniably exciting flick succeeds by letting Van Damme play to his strengths: namely, minimal acting and a lot of impossibly acrobatic splits while kicking people in the head. A guilty-pleasure testosterone blast of the highest order, with a memorable villain (the massive Bolo Yeung from Enter the Dragon), and a multitude of well-choreographed fight scenes. An embarrassed-looking Forest Whitaker cameos as a hapless (andnon-kickboxing) cop. --Andrew Wright ... Read more

Reviews (91)

Way past due on DVD
A great martial arts flick As noted, this movie was JeanClaude Van Damme's first starring role, and for my money one of his two best films. He portrays Frank Dux, an American champion of the Kunite, which was/is a full contact, anything goes martial arts competition.

The movie introduces us to Van Damme's incredible martial arts ability. The story line is simple and unremarkable but effective. Van Damme participates in the Kumite against the wishes of the government which trained him. The cast is certainly unremarkable, led by Bolo Yueng, first(?) seen in "Enter the Dragon", playing Chong Li, the film's key villain and kumite champ.

What makes the film, though for martial artists (and fans) is the incredible range of fighting techniques seen through the film. Some of them are great, some comical. But there is a ton of action (much of it predictably brutal). But for fans of the genre, it is highly recommended.

Van Damme's first and best
Bloodsport is a movie that every Martial Arts fan has seen or at least heard of. This movie was Van Damme's first starring role in which he portrays real life martial artist Frank Dux, an American who was the undefeated heavyweight champion of the kumite from 1975 to 1980 (don't quote me though). The reason this movie was so great was that it showcased Jean-Claude's martial arts and gymnastic prowess rather than his sub-par acting ability. The story was simple but effective: a shady and brutal Martial Arts tournament is being held in Hong Kong and Dux (Van Damme) is going to participate to honor his shidoshi and surrogate father Senzou Tanaka. Leah Ayres and Donald Gibb did an average job of playing Van Damme's cohorts. But who really shines in this film is Bolo Yueng who did a great job in playing Chong Li, the film's key villain and kumite champ. Paul Hertzog did a great job with the soundtrack, which fuels the movie's many fight scenes. This is probably Van Damme's best film. ... Overall, Bloodsport delivers plenty of action with a decent story and is an enjoyable film. I would reccommend it to any Martial Arts fan.

"Now, I break you! Like I break your friend!"
During the martial-arts craze of the mid-90's, there were few bigger stars than Jean-Claude Van Damme. Though it wasn't a box-office hit during its enitial theatrical run, "Bloodsport", Van Damme's first starring vehicle certainly found its audience on cable and video. "Bloodsport" follows American fighter Frank Dux (Van Damme) as he enters a brutal full-contact tournament known as the Kumatai. Looking back at the movie that I once watched religously with all my friends almost a decade ago, it's probably to safe to say that if you didn't pick up on this one during its time then you probably won't understand it now. It had all the great things you'd expect from a Van Damme movie: Minimal story, cheesy overacting, and tons of random splits. The musical score from Stan Bush and a rather silly perfomance from Donald Gibb are the icing on the cake. Anytime I'm looking to take a trip down memory lane, I toss in this and "Kickboxer" and have my own little JCVD double-feature. Now, if only they could put together a special edition DVD.

The Frank Dux story is a hoax
That was proven amongst the martial arts community years ago. Being a martial artist myself, I always get a laugh when I read the description of this movie on websites. However, I am giving this movie 4 stars only because of Van Damme and the great fight scenes in this movie. This is Van Damme at a young age and doing all the kicks and moves that he seems to have lost with age. Bloodsport is basically an imitation of "Enter The Dragon" (the greatest martial arts movie ever made) where a lone guy enters a tournament. The theme has been repeated countless times but Bloodsport is one of the better clones. Also be sure to check out Kickboxer, which is even better than Bloodsport!

jean-claude van damme this movie was good
pretty good movie old though, but its alright the acting was kind of cheap ,but what do you expect from an old movie right? its a van damme classic . ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Old Yeller
In the late 1860s, young Travis Coats(Tommy Kirk) is left in charge of his family while his father takes cattle to market. Travis becomes a young man that summer as he protects the Texas farm with his mother(Dorothy McGuire) and spunky little brother,Arliss. A stray yellow dog arrives to startle Jumper, the contrary family mule but quickly proves to be worth his weight in gold as he eventually becomes the boy's best friend and even saves his life. Then Travis and Old Yeller have to face the unthinkable.
Old Yeller is "the best doggone dog in the west" and I recommend viewers watch it time and time again throughout their lives. This movie is a treasured classic produced by Walt Disney suitable for all ages from all walks of life. I rate it 5 stars (out of 5) for it's tremendous emotional pull.

best doggone dog in the west!
This movie will make you laugh and cry. It's a little hokey :), but in this case, hokey is good. Old Yeller is the best dog gone dog in the west.

You MUST buy this movie!!!
This movie was my absolute favorite growing up. The story is timeless. The end sequence makes me cry every time, even though I watch it probably once a week. ... Read more