Amazon.com

After their brilliant collaborations on Howards End and The Remains of the Day, director James Ivory and Anthony Hopkins reunited (along with producer Ismail Merchant and screenwriter Ruth Prawer Jhabvala) for this controversial film about the life and loves of the great artist Pablo Picasso. Hopkins is outstanding in the title role, portraying Picasso as a brilliant, manipulative egotist who used his power over women to fuel his artistic impulse and voracious sexual appetite.

But Surviving Picasso is not intended to be a screen biography and, as many critics noted in mixed reviews, this 1996 film fails to provide any substantial insight into Picasso's complex personality. It's more about Françoise Gilot (Natascha McElhone), the aspiring artist who was one of the few women to "survive" Picasso's love and emerge as a stronger, more confident person with a life of her own outside of Picasso's often destructive sphere of influence. McElhone is impressive in this breakthrough role, conveying the seductive effect Picasso had on women, but also holding her own against the artist's unpredictable temperament.

Surviving Picasso was based on the unflattering book Picasso: Creator and Destroyer by Arianna Huffington, so the Merchant-Ivory team did not have the cooperation of Picasso's estate. The result is a film that shifts its focus away from the artist and onto his positive and negative effect on those who entered his inner circle. It's a fascinating portrait of a fascinating man and his equally passionate lovers, fueled by excellent performances. Even though you know you're not getting the whole story of Picasso's best and worst behavior, the movie grabs and holds your attention. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Enduring Picasso
I find Anthony Hopkins to be a master at becoming whatever he intends to create. He was just as believable as President Nixon in "Nixon", as he was a madman in "Silence Of The Lambs". Here again, he does not dissapoint me. The movie is dark, and I would tend not to agree with the accuracy of the historical aspects of the film, but I did find Hopkins to be a compelling Picasso. And, yes once again, I found myself watching Pablo Picasso. I enjoy biographies of painters and creative souls, and I would be hard pressed to find a biography that is uplifting and has a happy ending. I found the same in "Surviving Picasso". It is a little long in the tooth, but I found the cinematography to be beautiful and again, Sir Anthony Hopkins' performance is beautiful. I would reccomend this for any Hopkins lover.

No me gusta all that mucho
While Anthony Hopkins is a good actor, you know, he's really not like Lon Chaney, Man of a Thousand Faces. By which I mean, there's a limit to his versatility, and "Surviving Picasso" is a case in point. I really didn't believe him as the Spaniard painter. He sort of reminded me of Otto Preminger's Mr. Freeze from Batman rather than the most famous painter of the 20th century. Try it for yourself to see if you survive to the end; I almost didn't.

Is there anybody better than Anthony?
If you love Anthony Hopkins and you love stories based on real (and very interesting) people, you will love this movie. Its a movie with a story of a man that has it all and wants more, he loves hard and paints beautifully, and Anthony Hopkins pulls it off beautifully playing Picasso. I was amazed at his ability to be romantic and seductive one moment, playful the next, and suddenly turn to a madman. It was beautiful.

MOSTLY A GREAT ARTIST
It's a common fact that great artists often make poor human beings, unable to connect with real life in a decent way.It was certainly the case with PABLO PICASSO and we knew that before this movie was made.The film seems to say that he only loved women for the sake of his art.Being SPANISH, he was a latin man with a deep inclinaison towards his own ego.His control over the people he knew really destroy them in many ways.While it is a work of fiction, the performances keeps it interesting ,even if we don't have to take it all too seriously.

Intriguing
I've watched this movie many times because I'm fascinated by the man, especially hoping to get a better understanding of what his life was like. The more I learn about him though, the more this movie is so one dimensional and inaccurate. It was based on the harshest biography of Picasso which is unfortunate because it gives a false impression of what he was really like. I would still buy it because the scenes are filled with his studios and artwork, however it would have been one of my all-time faves if it focused more on his work and his passion. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Writer William Nicholson's (Shadowlands) directorial debut is a surprisingly refreshing art house drama. Even though Firelight has grandstanding elements of forbidden love, a bodice-ripping tryst, and the moody English countryside, the film is never trite or dreary. It's 1838 and Charles, an earnest sheep breeder (Stephen Dillane), wants an heir, but his wife is an invalid. He hires the penniless Elisabeth (Sophie Marceau, ravishing again) as surrogate mother and hopes a weekend of passionless sex will bring him a baby. The D.H. Lawrence-like love nest brings a surprise or two, as does the bulk of film that takes place seven years later. Whereas many a period drama would focus on potential scandal, Nicholson is squarely looking at love between mother and child, and the unmentioned love between Charles and Elisabeth. Miscast in nearly every film since her breakout performance in Braveheart, Marceau is wonderful here. She keeps her smoldering air, but her character is more hopeful than downbeat. Nicholson's casting of Dillane (think of a British Ed Harris) instead of some gorgeous hunk was box-office poison, but makes for a far more satisfying picture--and they are a very appealing couple. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (66)

Don't overlook this one!
I went to see "Firelight" because it was a costumer and the review I read mentioned something about "Jane Eyre with sex". Was I in for a surprise-- and a very pleasant one at that.

This film is not your typical "young-governess-goes-to-the-mysterious-mansion" story. There're enough plot twists to keep the viewer on his/her toes (yes, men will enjoy it too). The acting, cinematography, settings and music combine to make this a lovely viewing experience. I became an even bigger fan of Stephen Dillane (check him out in "Welcome to Sarajevo") and Sophie Marceau (why waste her in something as silly as "Lost & found"?) after seeing this. The smaller roles are also well done; I was particularily impressed with Kevin Anderson as an American sheep farmer.

Hats off to William Nicholson et al. for this jewel. I hope the video price drops quickly; I'd love to own a copy of this beautiful film.

Rich, romantic, and beautiful to look at
I saw Firelight last year during its all too brief big-screen run and was stunned.

But even though it is a visually perfect film, the two lovers are more than simply exquisite - they have breadth and depth. They actually take on dimension and draw us into their world and time: we share their fears, denials, passions, and the joy they ultimately find in their love.

In addition, the scenery (bleak outdoors, lush in) and weather (winter) were mesmerising because they were deeply a part of the context. Even the ancillary characters (Connie and Lord Godwin especially), were well-played and endearing. Real.

This is absolutely one of my favorite movies. It is a definite MUST HAVE for every lover of romantic period films. Particularly if you like them sensual and erotic without coarseness.

Firelight is a kiss from William Nicholson that touches and warms the skin beneath the lace.

Not for period purists
This film is strictly a modern romance with people dressed in period clothes. As such it works. But it's not for viewers who want any kind of historic accuracy.

The entire plot hinges on a Victorian man with a wife in a years-long coma who wants an heir. He hires a woman he doesn't know as a surrogate mother. In reality there was always _someone_, some nephew or cousin, legally in line to be the heir. Many Victorians were satisfied with maintaining an avuncular relationship without formal adoption. However, when a Victorian couple did want to formally adopt an heir--which was sometimes the case--there was usually some relative with several children who was willing to give one child the considerable financial and social advantages provided by such adoption. Unless disreputable, the parents were allowed to maintain contact with the child.

However, adoption was the resort of a married couple who had entirely given up hope of normal procreation. A man who was unmarried, or whose wife seemed likely to die, would generally prefer to marry or remarry and would anticipate children from that marriage. Victorian medical technology was, as far as I know, incapapable of sustaining someone in a coma for years. In reality, the wife in _Firelight_ would soon die and her husband would be able to remarry.

And, the heir in the film was female. An heir had to be male to inherit a title or an entailed estate, and was always male by preference anyway. Wealthy couples who produced only one daughter--or several in a row--would keep on trying for a son.

Other problems included a man with a mistress bringing her openly to a house/Christmas party attended by "respectable" women and couples. Women known to be courtesans, kept mistresses, or adulteresses were not invited to "nice" private homes or permitted to associate with respectable women and children. A lack of morals was viewed as somehow contagious. Everybody--even respectable women--knew that some men had mistresses, saw noted courtesans at the opera, and saw prostitutes working the streets. But what Victorians did, and what they admitted to, were two different things.

Maybe I'm being particular. But for anyone whose enjoyment of a film would be spoiled by the unbelieveableness of its basic premise and some less important details--well, I'm warning you.

A Modern Version of the Classic
The story might be remininscent of Jane Austen, particularly so when the setting was England in 1840. Yet other than the setting and costume, everything else is modern, the theme and the plot and the rhythm, everything. The main theme here is about desire and obligation or duty or the conflict between the soul and lust. As such, one just fails to see any connotation with DH Lawerence. It would rather remind us of Dr Zhivago instead.

We have everything we possibly could expect from any movie: sound, sight, drama, everything. We have an excellent cast plus exquisite acting, including spendrift Lord, the good natured sister-in-law and even the stubborn and wayward 8 years old Louisa, not just the hero and the heroine. And the dialogues and the language including the dramatic ironies are just intriguing. As the story unfolds itself, it was clear that it was not simply a deal for money. The penniless girl, whose mother died at her birth and was raised up by her father, and she was trying to save her beloved father who was sent to jail because of a debt. It was because of her duty to her father.

The softest spot of all would rather be Charles' wife: back in 1840 there was no way that a human vegetable could be so decently maintained, the least of would be the look of her eyes which were so crytal clear. This perhaps is due the artistic requirements of the movie as a whole.But this is a very small point indeed. Yet, who can possibly blame the husband who had been mourning the virtual death of his wife for 10 whole years, when his love and attention had turned to his own lively daughter? His own worldly father says his is "abnomral" being so dutiful. If anybody ever says the turn is not convincing, he obviously has not known life yet.

Sophie had given life to her part in a most remarkable way here (and so did the young girl and her father). I have seen Sophie in another movie, shot quite a number of years back, which was not eqaully impressing as this.

All in all, we can't ask for more from this movie. It is almost as good as the Polish movies like Blue, Red and White. What puzzles me is, why isn't this released on DVD in US yet? Fortunately enough, we do have it in Asia.

good but is it...
this is a good movie and good acting... [warning: movie spoiler ahead...] but it feels like Jane Eyre modified... the acting is great. hm, the part when the daughter knew that she is her mom is kind of cliche... not very deep. but good movie overall. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

the man who prevailed
This film is an earnest telling of chapters 25 through 33 of Genesis, and starts when Esau sells his birthright to his twin brother Jacob for a bowl of pottage (red lentil stew), and then gets maneuvered out of his father's blessing by his mother Rebekah. She knows Esau doesn't listen to God's voice, and his two Canaanite wives are a wearisome thing in her life, so Jacob is sent off to her brother (who has daughters), some 400 miles away, where Jacob falls in love with the attractive Rachel...and once there, "everything he touches, flourishes". It is a narrative of great faith and perserverance, and the relationship between Jacob and Rachel is touching and sweet.

Most of the story follows biblical lines, with a few additions; one of them is inexplicable to me, because it is the only part of the film that could be upsetting to children; it shows Jacob on his journey, fleeing a man he thinks is Esau seeking retribution (it is actually Esau's brother-in-law), when his donkey has a fatal fall from a hillside. It is odd that they would embelish the story with such an unpleasant event, because otherwise the sheep, goats and camels are wonderful, and would be enjoyable viewing for children.
The story ends as Jacob, his wives and children (the sons who would become the twelve tribes of Israel), servants and flocks arrive at Shehem. The story is continued in another film of this series, "Joseph", which is superior to this film, and highly recommended.

The cast:

Matthew Modine is fine as Jacob, Lara Flynn Boyle an excellent, lovely Rachel, and the ever beautiful Irene Papas is a marvelous Rebekah. Sean Bean (Boromir in The Lord of the Rings trilogy) is very good as Esau, and Giancarlo Giannini is Rebekah's devious brother Laban.
The score by Marco Frisina adds to the atmosphere, and the cinematography by Ennio Guarneri, though often darkened with a lot of shadows, is nice when using the sub-saharan landscape around Quarzazate, Morocco, where this was filmed; it well depicts how one would imagine the primitive life of ancient nomadic shepherds could be.
Total running time is 94 minutes.

Inspiring Entertainment for the Whole Family
"Jacob" is not one of the better productions from the excellent Turner Bible Collection. Nonetheless, it is inspiring entertainment, solidly based on the Biblical account of Jacob. There are portions of the narrative that are brilliantly captured, while other aspects of the story are poorly handled. I would still highly recommend the movie as quality entertainment for the entire family.

pretty ordinary!
This is a fairly ordinary film about the life of Jacob. Set in Morocco, It has very stark desert scenery as a backdrop, pehaps a reflection on the barren period of Jacob's life as a luckless, penniless 'slave' to the greedy and cunning Laban. I did NOT like the actress who played Rachael. I would have expected a shepherdess of that period to be portrayed as a strong resourceful woman, with perhaps an air of Oriental mystique i.e. just her eyes showing at that first meeting at the well. She looks 'wimpy', like, just stepped out of her air-conditioned tent? Considering the casting of the later Lube Productions in this series, they mis-cast in this one! Laban, however, as the villain of the story, is acted well. As the cunning and conniving Uncle he holds the plot together. His ultimatum to the two daughters to 'swap' places is a convicing scenario of how it might have actually happened. Ok, it's not the best film in the world, but if you like Biblical dramas, it would be worth getting.

Great Video
Great casting, acting, directing, scenery, etc. I was recommended this by a girl from Reno, NV. I'm so glad she did. In the past, when I used to read the Bible passage about Jacob, aka Israel, and Esau, aka Edom, arguing about their birthright over a bowl of lentil stew, I always had difficulty picturing it in my mind. The movie easily cleared this up for me by doing an excellent job of taking me back in time and re-enacting this scene. Regarding the actors and actresses, their personalities and appearances seemed perfect for the parts, especially Jacob played by Matthew Modine and beautiful Rachel played by Lara Flynn Boyle. Whether or not the cast and crew were made up of Bible believers, I think the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had His hand in helping with this movie.

Fantastic
I saw this movie right after I had read the story. It stayed so true to the Word. Outstanding cast! Anyone could enjoy this story.And it is truly a family movie. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

My most unforgettable film
This tale of British decadence continues to resonate after many years and many other films. There seems to be no more impactful and arresting vehicle for viewing the nature of the end of the 'Age of Kings' and the planting of the sordid into the fresh earth of the twentieth century. Yet it is sufficient to view the film for the vision of Scacchi, as she bares herself and lures us into the African theater of the grotesque. There we meet the European supremacy practicing their many-pronged acts of desecration of the land and the social contract. There where civilization was 'cradled,' drugs, the most unredeemable cruelty in sex and human attachments is viscerally illuminated. Those bluebloods and bloody-handed occupiers; still regarded as archetypal standards for class and wealth make the Beats, the variety of 60's renegades look like the stereotypical pilgrims in a school play. Oh boy, there is every reason to sink into this film, because it doesn't leave you- and it continues to provoke. We haven't changed folks, though Gretta's beauty in this steamy, sordid African mystery is daringly one of a kind.

by the way, its a true story
this movie is based on a history of the same title. the events were, more or less, as presented in the film. of course, the real people weren't quite as beautiful, and the sordidness wasn't quite as photogenic.

africa, like australia and new zealand, was where the 'remittance' men were sent by their families, to remove the scandals from the homefront. these sometimes extremely black sheep were sent, by the families who could afford it, 'remittances' (money) to keep them in the colonies. in those days of difficult communication, they could get up to whatever mischief they wanted without embarrassing the home folks. the group in happy valley made the most of this.

the acting is superb. the sets are marvelous. the scenery is magnificent. charles dance is gorgeous. the story is gripping. what more could you ask for?

A decadent slice of colonial Africa
This is the decadent counterpoint to Out of Africa (both are good films). It's the story of British ex-pats drifting through their days in colonial Kenya. With all their money and boredom, the only thing that entertains them are parties, sex and drugs, sometimes all done together. This is the mischief these white folk get up to, while their black servants look on dispassionately but with certain disdain.
Charles Dance is wonderfully smarmy as the playboy who wins Greta Scacchi's affections. She is the young beauty who married an older man for title and money, but has no love for him. It's shameful to see how brazen Dance and Scacchi are in their affair. The old husband does what any man with pride left would do. You can almost feel the British Empire crumbling around you as you are absorbed by this movie, in much the same way as A Passage to India (another great film).
Great supporting performances by Sarah Miles and Geraldine Chaplin as part of the high society swingers.
I was fortunate to find this video on sale second hand at my local video store.

White Mischief
I loved this film~ Very excellent. I'm wondering why Charles Dance always manages to be killed off (our hero) just midway (see China Moon) into his films. He is truly a "Star" as is Greta Scachi.

I have 5 copies of this film, (not for sale). It took 5 purchases to find one in good condition. And the Sound Track is "Excellent"~

I loved the story and you will too~ A very true account. Beautifully done and well worth the $ for the film~

one of the best films I have seen in 30 years
This film has style,intelligence,panache,a passable story line and incredable filming,costuming and terrific acting -why Amazon does not offer it is beyond my 67 year old comprehension --unless of course your computers tell you the entire world is between 18 and 45.For your information we older guys have all the dough and love to spend it.Please make it available on -yes-DVD-Thank you very much. ... Read more

Reviews (157)

Fantastic adaption of Clancy's novel
A first-rate thriller that provides the goods again and again. Excellent cast, good direction (the almost always reliable McTiernan--see "Last Action Hero" for the only real blemish on his record), plenty of suspense and thrills. There are a few differences between the novel and the film, but only purists will quibble about that. And yes, Scotsman Connery plays a Lithuanian, but he does it well, and as always, brings a touch of class to the role. I despise Alec Baldwin, but he's perfect as Ryan--the right age and look combined with the proper mix of guile, humility, and cockiness. The film also boasts an excellent supporting cast, with kudos to Sam Neill, Richard Jordan, and Courtney Vance for their performances. Scott Glenn and James Earl Jones are also solid in their roles. The occasional "technobabble" and military talk may confuse those unfamiliar with such terms, but it doesn't detract from the plot or action--in other words, you can still understand and follow the film even if you don't understand the terminology. The DVD features no extras of note, unfortunately, but the transfer quality--while a bit off-color at times--is still far better than VHS, and those of you with home theaters BEWARE--the sound quality (5.1 Surround) is frighteningly good at times (is that torpedo in your living room, or on the screen?!?). A so-so disc, but an incredible, intelligent thriller that's worth buying in any format.

Decent film; terrible DVD
"The Hunt for Red October" is a smart, tightly directed adaptation of Tom Clancy's novel of the same name. It's probably one of the more entertaining submarine movies (if you'll buy into the genre). There are some wonderful performances (especially by Joss Ackland, Courtney B. Vance, and the late Richard Jordan) as well as some inspired casting (most notably Tim "Dr. Frank-N-Furter" Curry as Dr. Petrov). While this film is certainly no "Das Boot," it is highly entertaining for all of its 134 minutes.
However, as an avid collector of DVDs and laser discs, this is perhaps the worst video transfer I have ever seen. In fact, I've seen Chinese bootleg copies of other films that have been superior in terms of video quality. For example: In the opening sequence there is a great deal of dust and dirt on the screen - like you're in a third-rate theater watching the film after it has been showing for about a month and a half. Another example: There is an important interior scene on the USS Dallas that features a wonderfully acted and written interplay between Seaman Jones (Vance) and Seaman Beaumont (Ned Vaughn). However, each shot of Jones is inexplicably awash with so much video noise that it completely distracts from the performances.
Why Paramount would neglect such a film is beyond me. The other huge disapointment on this disc is the complete lack of any extras. This disc is a complete bust. Frankly, I hope that another edition is released out of respect to this worthy film.

The best of the Jack Ryan film series.
Based on Tom Clancy's 1984 novel of the same title, "The Hunt for Red October" is the first Jack Ryan adventure on film. Although I like Harrison Ford better in the role of Jack Ryan than either Alec Baldwin or Ben Affleck, "Red October" is the best of the Ryan films partly because of the script, but largely because of the ensemble cast including Scott Glenn, Sam Neill, Tim Curry, James Earl Jones and, of course, Sean Connery as Captain Marko Ramius, the Lithuanian-born commanding officer on the Soviet nuclear submarine Red October who seeks to defect to the United States. Tension builds as Ramius and the Red October move closer to U.S. waters with the Soviet Navy in pursuit and U.S. forces unsure of Ramius' true intentions. "The Hunt for Red October" is a taut thriller, an excellent movie based on a modern masterpiece of a novel, and I fully recommend it.

One of the best movies you will ever see
Tom Clancy is a master writer. His books are amazing thrillers and the moives haven't been that bad either. This is the best of all the Tom Clancy books that have been made into moives and is one of the best book adaptations ever.

Captian Ramius(Connery) is the best the Soviet fleet has to offer. He's trained most of it and he's now in charge of a new Soviet sub. This sub has a new drive system that runs silent meaning it can't be detected by other subs sonars. After Ramius writes a letter to the Soviet Naval command the search is on. They alert the Americans saying Ramius and his crew has gone mad.

The Hunt for The Red October is on. The U.S. can't play around on this idea because the October could park in any U.S. bay and launch hundreds of Nuclear missiles. Jack Ryan(Baldwin) is a CIA Operative that gets selected to help with this mission. He's met Ramius before and doesn't believe that the man wants to harm the U.S. He believes that Ramius wants to defect along with his officers to the U.S., but he's not sure how Ramius is planning to do it. He now has only a couple of hours to prove the intentions of Ramius and save the ship before the U.S. or Soviet fleets find it and sink her.

All the actors are fantastic in the movie. Alec Baldwin is Jack Ryan is flawless. He played the role to perfection and it's the best movie he's ever made. Sean Connery is the man. Instead of killing Soviets he plays one to perfection in this moive. I love his accent and I though he did a great job of faking it. I loved Sam Neil in the moive. His character Vasily has always been one of my favorites because of his loyalty to Ramius. One of Neils best performances. Tim Curry is good as the weasal Soviet doctor. He plays a weasal better than anybody else. James Earl Jones is himself in this movie and like Connery is just the man. I also like Courtney Vance as 2nd Petty Officer Jones. He gives one of the most memorable performances of the movie. This is an all star cast and everybody is fantastic.

John Mctiernan is one of the best directors in Hollywood. He was one of the biggest when this moive was done with hit titles under his belt like Die Hard and Predator. He can make a good action thriller and this is one of the best ones ever made.

The cinematography is great in the film. You feel like your on real naval ships. The uniforms are authenic on both fleets. The sound is fantastic. This is such a well made movie and the is the movie that all submarine movies should stive to look like.

This is such a good movie. It's made to perfection with a great cast, well made, awesome score, and is just flawless. If you want to sit down and watch a good action thriller than this is it. You will struggle to find a better made movie than this.

Best of the Series
Though I have to admit that I prefered Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan, I'll have to give THFRO the nod for the best in the series. The show's brilliant. Brilliant script that is well executed by wonderful acting. Sean Connery's the man. Can't imagine anyone else playing Ramius. Baldwin did a wonderful job playing Ryan. His best role till date. Would have been greeat to have seen him develop the character in the sequels. And furthermore, James Earl Jones aka the voice of Darth Vader makes his presence in all 3 movies felt though his air time's brief. His presence was greatly missed in The Sum of All Fears.

If the studios are planning another Jack Ryan movie..... please get rid of Affleckand bring back Baldwin. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Disney had an unexpected hit with this predictable comedy about a smug lawyer (Emilio Estevez) busted for drunk driving and ordered to coach a sad-sack team of hockey-playing kids as community service. The kids triumph over their sundry problems, and Estevez's character grows up a little. End of story.A perfectly harmless movie for kids and adults who are giving their brains a night off. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (22)

The first movie of the "Mighty Ducks" trilogy! 5 STARS!
When he was young, Gordon Bombay (Emilio Estevez) used to play hockey but when he blows a really big game, he quits. Now thirty, he's a lawyer who doesn't know anything about fair play or teamwork. When he gets arrested for drunken driving, he has to perform community service. And not just any community service, he has to coach hockey to kids! His team consists of Charlie Conway (Joshua Jackson), Greg Goldberg (Shaun Weiss), Dave Averman (Matt Doherty), Peter (J.D. Daniels), Gee Germaine (Garette Ratliff Henson), Jesse Hall (Brandon Quintin Adams), Connie Moreau (Marguerite Moreau), Dave Karp (Aaron Schwartz), and Terry Hall (Jussie Smollett). And they are an AWFUL team! Bombay hates the kids and doesn't try hard to coach them, and so of course the kids don't respect or like him at all. Will they ever be able to work as a team with Coach Bombay acting like the good coach he should be? And will they have enough time to make it to the finals against unbeatable team, Hawks? Also starring is Hans (Joss Ackland), Mr. Ducksworth (Josef Sommer), Fulton Reed (Elden Henson), Tammy (Jane Plank), and Tommy (Danny Tamberelli), Coach Reilly (Lane Smith), and Adam Banks (Vincent Larusso).

Great movie entertainment! I just love the whole Mighty Ducks trilogy! They teach great values about trust, teamwork, fair play, and as Coach Bombay used to say, 'all that other junk'. It's also very, VERY hilarious! Some parts you can just die laughing, for example when the kids get in trouble from the principal and are put under detention. The hockey games are pretty suspenseful and fun, too!

But there is a reason for the PG rating for this movie. Mostly it's because of language which at times is pretty bad. Also the kids in the movie are pretty naughty at times. I think the movie is best aimed for kids maybe 10 and up, great for adults, too.

Then of course there are the other two "Mighty Ducks" films. "D2: The Mighty Ducks" have Bombay again coaching the Ducks, this time there are going up against the world as Team USA! Some of the hockey players aren't in this movie, but they get some new teammates. In my opinion (though it's a very hard choice), this movie is the best of all three. "D3: The Mighty Ducks" has the Ducks getting a scholarship for Eden Hall academy. Their main adversary are the Warriors, the varsity team of Eden Hall. If you liked the first "Mighty Ducks", I highly recommend the next two sequels! I sincerely hope that Disney will have the whole trilogy on DVD soon!

Great fun on the ice!
Emilio Estevez scores the winning goal as Gordon Bombay, a smug, smarmy lawyer who is arrested for drunken driving and is ordered to do community service as the coach of PeeWee hockey team "District 5," a ragtag group of kids with doubtful playing abilities. He expects it to be hell, but instead he faces his own demons and learns about the importance of teamwork and what REALLY makes a winner. Typical cliched Disney fare, with Bombay redeeming himself in the end and we know even before watching it for the first time which team wins the grand finale, but nonetheless a harmless and inoffensive movie which children and parents will undoubtedly enjoy.

GREAT MOVIE!
I love this movie! I would reccomend it to anyone who likes hockey. So buy it if you like hockey and you won't be dissapointed!

one of the best hockey movies ever
I love hockey and I loved hockey before I saw this movie. this movie did help bring a lot of people my age into hockey to abd a lot of them didn't stay on the Mighty Ducks are a bunch of great kids who will keep kids and adults laughing and even though a lot of the on ice action is corny it is still cool to watch

mighty ducks...
I think mighty ducks is a great movie and its really funny. ... ... Read more

Description

Emilio Estevez and the original Ducks are back in this fast-moving comedy starring the most popular hockey team in movie history! After the Ducks win scholarships to a snooty private school, Coach Bombay (Estevez) announces that he's moving on to greener pastures with the Goodwill Games. Shortly after the team arrives at Eden Hall Academy, they inherit a new coach who turns out to be their worst nightmare when he strips Charlie Conway (Joshua Jackson) of his position as captain! Then, with their scholarships on the line, they face their toughest rival -- the 10-time championship varsity team! The Ducks and their opponents engage in a series of hilarious pranks to warm up for their battle on the ice. And in a thrilling and climactic third-period battle, the Ducks must prove why they are called the Mighty Ducks! "The quack attack is back!" (USA Today) -- and D3 will have you and your family cheering! ... Read more

Reviews (25)

Even none-hockey lovers will love "D3: The Mighty Ducks"!
First off, I must say this, I've never seen the first two Mighty Ducks movies and I'm not especially a hockey lover. But I must confess I thought this movie was terrific and fun! Mostly aimed for teenagers, this is a great movie to watch!

The whole team "Mighty Ducks" have won scholarships to prestigious Eden Hall: Charlie (Joshua Jackson), Goldberg (Shaun Weiss), Fulton (Elden Henson), Averman (Matt Doherty), Julie 'the Cat' (Colombe Jacobsen-Derstine), Russ (Kenan Thompson), Dwayne (Ty O'Neal), Luis (Mike Vitar), Ken (Justin Wong), Guy Germaine (Garette Ratliff Henson), Connie (Marguerite Moreau), and Adam (Vincent Larusso). But there are some changes for the team. First of all, one of the 'Basher Brothers' Dean Portman (Aaron Lohr) is not going to join them. But most important, their coach Gordon Bombay (Emilio Estevez) won't be coaching them anymore. Charlie can't accept that and even more can't accept their seemingly harsh new coach, Ted Orion (Jeffrey Nordling). The 'Mighty Ducks' have a big game ahead of them against the Varsity team 'Warriors' who are going to be hard to beat. Will they be able to beat them and show them who's the best?

With plenty of suspense and humor, "D3: The Mighty Ducks" is certainly worth the watch. Terrific acting done by the whole cast, including the notable actor Joss Ackland who plays Hans, the good friend and mentor to the 'Ducks'. The suspense during the hockey games were sometimes pretty intense, especially the last game between the 'Ducks' and the 'Warriors'. As for the humor, the movie was hilarious, I was laughing most of the time!

A few of my favorites parts are when the 'Ducks' play pranks on the Varsity team and when Bombay gives his little 'speech' to the board members of Eden Hall. And a few of my favorite lines is:

Cheerleader: Cheerleaders only. Are you a cheerleader?
Linda: Do I look like an idiot?

Connie: This ninja stuff makes you look, I don't know, how would you say...
Guy Germaine: Ruggedly handsome?
Connie: Amazingly stupid.

Dwayne (while swinging a lariat at one of the Varsity members): It would be more fun for me if you ran.

For parents, the movie is rated PG for the reason that there are some bad words sprinkled here and there. Other than that and the game of hockey being pretty rough, it's pretty good! I can't wait to watch the first two movies! I hope they're as good as the third one! If you haven't seen this movie, I highly recommend it!

The Mighty Ducks are back
The Mighty Ducks return for a 3rd movie and now are in high school. But there are a couple of changes for the Mighty Ducks, even for Charlie (Joshua Jackson), who acts like he did in the first movie. The movie begins with short clips from the first two movies, and most of the Mighty Ducks has now entered high school and now are playing hockey for Elden Hall. But the big change is that Gordon Bombay (Emilio Estevez) will not be coaching the Mighty Ducks that are now the school's junior varsity team, because the junior goodwill games has named him director of player personal. And the new coach is Ted Orion (Jeffrey Nordling) who will not let them do anything they done turning childhood. When a girl asks Charlie to sign a pention to changed the Warrior name, Charlie names the following teams, the Indians, the Braves, the Redskins, and the Blackhawks. But more trouble happens, when Orion posts the postions the players will play, moving Banks to varsity team, and making Julie (Colombe Jacobson) the head goalie and making Goldberg back up and Goldebrg complains "What am I, chopped liver?". So he gives her junk food, and she gets sick during pratice, and coach orion says "Julie the cat! What's the Matter, you ate a fur ball?". During the first two peroids of the first game, Charlie and the other Warriors score a lot of goals on the thier foe and makes Julie bored, so she starts complain "Come on guys, give me sommething to do". And even sings "Fulton scored, Fulton scores, I am really bored, Fulton's great, Fulton's great, a year ago he couldn't even skate", after Fulton scores a goal. The Nanny's Benjamin Salisbury plays the announcer of the Warriors, who is also a student at Elden Hall.

Broad implications; more than just a sequel
Gordon Bombay (Emilio Estevez) and his underdog hockey team are back again in this third installment to the Mighty Ducks legacy. In "D3: Ducks Divided," Robert Lieberman takes a crack at reenvisioning the gang on an unforgettable scale never before attempted in a children's sports film. When the Ducks are killed in a bus accident in the Sierra Nevadas, the team finds itself suddenly split into separate factions: those Ducks who have lived a (sometimes surprisingly!) morally redeemable life, and those who have failed the grade due to particular unforgivable behaviors. Gordon and the righteous Ducks suddenly find themselves at the gates of a Paradise ruled by figure-skating angels and referees, but Heidi Kling and the other damned are thrown, after rewitnessing their transgressions, into the ice-melting wastelands of Hockey Hell. Here they meet the sympathetic Lucifer (Dustin Hoffman), who convinces them one by one to realign themselves in his own plan to take back Heaven full-force. Tensions rise as both teams prepare for the thrilling and climactic showdown, facing such difficulties as lacking a substitute goalie or receiving an injury. Excellent repeat performance by Josef Sommer (aka Mr. Gerald Ducksworth)!

Not as good as D3, but still awesome
With Gunnar Stahl, Olaf Sanderson and the rest of the Iceland team defeated soundly, the Ducks move on to Eden Hall with full athletic scholarship. But many students at the upper-class, mostly-white private school are resentful of what they view as an 'affirmative action' team. The Ducks' new rivals are the state champion Varsity Team, led by Captain Riley and enforcer Cole. The Ducks have a couple of notable MIA's, some explained and others not. Dean Portman decides to stay in Chicago, while Coach Bombay moves on as the Director of Player Personnel in the Junior Goodwill Games. Tensions fly high in this movie:
1) Riley's dad rallies to have the Ducks' scholarships revoked
2) The team's star, Adam Banks, is moved to Varsity and is taken under Riley and Cole's wing. (Watch for some personal tension between Charlie and Banks)
3) A series of pranks (most of which are very funny)
4) Final JV/Varsity showdown.
Overall, good movie-- not as good as the incomparable D2 (never count out the Iceland factor) but nonetheless... Recommend it.

EXCELLENT!
I love this movie! It is very funny. For all of us girls there are hot guys in it. Well anyway, this is an awesome movie! Buy it today and you won't be dissapointed! ... Read more

Reviews (4)

A gem of a movie, but don't be sold short
This BBC version starring Joss Ackland and Claire Bloom is many times better, and presents a far richer portrayal of CS Lewis the man, than the Anthony Hopkins version, but buyer beware: despite tech-info posting to the contrary, THIS IS ***NOT*** THE FULL-LENGTH 90+ MINUTE ORIGINAL, but the *ABRIDGED* 73 minute version! I purchased this item specifically looking to get those extra 18-20 minutes, and was greatly disappointed. Nevertheless, the full length is extremely hard to find, and if it's a choice between this and Anthony Hopkins- choose this one.

True to Life
My husband is a college professor and teaches a class on Lewis which is very popular. He shows this movie. The students are very moved by the account of this man's life, love, and faith.

Without a doubt, this BBC version captures the essence of Lewis the person far better than the Anthony Hopkins one, which unfortunately Hollywood reduced to a simple love story. As any follower of Lewis knows, he was a deeply intellectual man, and in fact he embraced the Christian faith while en route to disprove it. The movie accurately depicts this very analytical side while intriguingly showing how he came to deeply love Joy Gresham amidst great trial.

The movie is a story of faith and love, not theology, but it will certainly inspire you to consider all of these issues.

The last segment of the movie -- the resolution -- is a real bonus that the Hopkins version doesn't even attempt. Also, astute observers will notice veiled references to a number of Lewis books (e.g. the Narnia Chronicles) throughout the movie.

Joss Ackland and Claire Bloom are excellent. The scripting is well done and provocative, and it is a joy to see Oxford so accurately portrayed. You will want to watch this movie again.

Great balance of Lewis' faith and life
The original Shadowlands, formerly titled C.S. Lewis: Through The Shadowlands, presents both his work as an apologist and his ministry as a husband and step-father. Joss Ackland and Claire Bloom illustrate the intellectual side of the faith quite well. Two highlights from this version: Both of Joy Gresham's sons, Douglas AND David, are in this one. There are also scenes from his BBC radio broadcast situations. For those new to Lewis, and to many who have been blessed by his works, this video is excellent.

My Favorite Movie of All Time
I watched this movie when I had been ill a long time. It was very difficult to watch at places but was also extremely helpful to me during a painful time. I would recommend it to anyone, but most especially to anyone who is ill or cares about someone who is ill. I do think that it needs to be watched at least twice because, I find that each time I watch it, I pick up even more nuances. It beats the Anthony Hopkins, Debra Winger version, hands down. I once bought the BBC 70 minutes version that was aired in the U. S., thinking that it was the same but, it was not. With 20 minutes edited out, it does not compare either. Too much of the man's faith is missing from both movies which leaves it with a watered down message and less significant punch. I don't know what possessed them to take away the essence of this man in the other versions but, after anxiously anticipating them, I found myself greatly disappointed in both. If you want more of the real man's story and less hollywood story telling, then I recommend the 90-95 minute version by the BBC, with Joss Ackland & Claire Bloom. ... Read more

Reviews (72)

Helena Bonham Carter is amazing in her film debut
As is noted elsewhere, there is some artistic license taken with the actual story of Lady Jane Grey. Most notably, Lady Jane and Guildford Dudley were not in love by any documents of the era, which renders the whole "love story" of this film invalid.

But as a simple period piece I really love this movie, and here's why:
1. Helena Bonham Carter gives a truly astonishing performance in her first movie. This film began a string of "period costume drama" performances for the actress that have since been surplanted with modern roles such as "Fight Club" and "Planet of the Apes". Her language - both spoken and simple gestures - are so expressive and she portrays a young woman who is well educated and full of passion.
2. The central conflict at the end of the film comes in her unwillingness to give up her religious beliefs. She is a protestant and her cousin, Queen Mary, is a staunch Catholic. Mary wants to make up for a lifetime of slights and abuses given to her Mother, Catherine of Aragon, whom Henry VIII divorced when Mary was unable to bear a male heir to Henry. The real Lady Jane was not only a protestant, but carried on correspondence with the great protestant minds of her day including John Calvin. It is not often that any popular form of entertainment is made depicting a person willing to die for their religious beliefs. I am not advocating protestantism, per se, only admiring this film's willingness to demonstrate a strong faith which doesn't involve religious fanaticism.
3. The real Guildford Dudley wasn't the love of Lady Jane, but Cary Elwes' performance here stands up well next to Bonham Carter's superlative one. I suspect this role may have led to his being cast in "The Princess Bride".

Pretty much no extras on this DVD, but this is a truly fine film (albeit historically misleading), and it's not one of those $30 DVD's either.

Fine movie about a very tragic young life
Helena Bonham Carter does a superb job portraying one of the most tragic characters in history, Lady Jane Grey, otherwise known as "the Nine Days Queen". Her soft innocence and vulnerability are convincing and heart rendering. You also get to see a very very young Cary Elwes providing a fine supporting role as her doomed husband and Patrick Stewart (way before his Star Trek days) giving an equally fine performance as her scheming father.

The story itself would make for a great Shakesparean tragedy if history hadn't written it first. I was quite moved at the cruel twists of fate that were handed out to this young girl. It is also a testament to the cruelty of parents to their children in sixteenth century England. This was commonplace at these times, even if one was of royal blood as Jane was.

The moving and historically accurate execution scene, in which the blindfolded Jane cannot find the block to rest her neck is quite heart wrenching. You want her to survive the circumstances that her family placed her in, and the wretchedness of her miserable upbringing. However, life is not a fairy tale, even for princesses; this is a profound example of the misery that many Tudor woman, including Elizabeth I, went through. I subtract one star for some of the historical inaccuracies, but overall it is a wonderful and moving film. It also makes you grateful that you did not live in those precarious times.

A historical tragedy turned into more of a fictional romance
One of the most interesting instances of genetic and gender in the history of Western Civilization is found with the death of King Edward VI of England at the age of 15 in 1553. Too young to leave heirs, his older half-sisters Mary and Elizabeth Tudor were both considered illegitimate because of the martial history of their father Henry VIII. Going through the Tudor family the only other potential claimants, Mary of Scotland and Lady Jane Grey, were also female. It seemed that God that determined that a woman would sit on the throne of England and the political question was who that woman would be. The one with the best claim was Mary Tudor, but she was a devout Catholic and the creation of the Anglican Church had created a religious schism in England that would turn ugly with her on the throne.

Lady Jane first became connected with the English crown as a potential mate for young Edward, who was more interested in Mary of Scotland or another foreign princess. Jane was supposedly betrothed to the duke of Somerset's son, Lord Hertford, but was then informed by her parents that she was to wed Guildford Dudley, the youngest son of the duke of Northumberland. Handsome and only one year her senior, Jane did not like him and refused the marriage until her mother literally beat her into submission. The couple were married in May of 1553 and lived apart, although the marriage was consummated the following month at the expressed command of Northumberland. Jane was then informed that she had been named Edward's heir three days before the king's death. Northumberland kept Edward's death a secret in order to stop Mary Tudor from claiming the crown and made a speech announcing Jane was the new queen. Forced to accept the title, Jane dismissed the idea that her husband would be made king. When Northumberland went forth with his army to meet that of Mary, who was marching on London, the royal council declared Mary queen and Jane's own father signed the declaration. On November 13 Jane and Guildford we tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. Jane believed the Queen would pardon her, but the revolt against Mary by Sir Thomas Wyatt in February 1554 hardened her heart against her enemies. Within days Guildford was executed, with Jane being beheaded on February 11th.

None of this historical information consistutes a spoiler because anyone familiar with the kings and queens of England knows that there was never a Queen Jane and even those unfamiliar with the specifics of English history will be aware early on that this is going to be a tragic tale. Even so, the 1986 film "Lady Jane" from director Trevor Nunn would more properly be considered a historical romance, with the emphasis more on the romance than the history as the marriage between Jane (Helena Bonham Carter) and Guilford (Cary Elwes) is turned into a tragic love story. Jane is presented as an intellectual (you would like to see her and Elizabeth Tudor have a conversation), and given a sense of nobility in that she and her husband apparently intend to rule in their own names, not only because it will thwart the plans of John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland (John Wood), but also because it is the right thing to do. In bed they tend to talk about their idealistic plans, such as not branding men or sending them into slavery because they are starving.

This new version of Lady Jane's marriage and her new found political ambitions work to add to the tragedy of her execution at the hands of Bloody Mary, even though her being an unwilling pawn in the machinations of some one else's power games makes her enough of a tragic figure. You have to appreciate the irony that these two privileged children of the British class system were idealistic friends of the common folk. The cast features the standard collection of British character actors, with Michael Hordern as Doctor Feckenham, Mary's teacher, Jane Lapotaire as Princess Mary, Joss Ackland as Sir John Bridges, and Sara Kestleman as Frances Grey, Duchess of Suffolk and Jane's mother. For me the low moment in the film is when Jane is betrayed by her father, especially since Patrick Stewart plays Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk. Of course, both Bonham Carter and Elwes have gone on to much better films, although I was surprised that she made this after "A Room With a View," one of those much better films. "Lady Jane" runs a bit long, especially given that Jane's "reign" only lasted nine days, and while the fictional romance has its moments I would hope that one day the bleak reality of what happened to this young girl becomes the subject of another film.

Undelivered
While Helena Carter is terrific in her role as Lady Jane (Queen Jane for 9 days), the movie as a whole falls short because it doesn't present the sequence of events convincingly. The build-up to Lady Jane's crowning moment is rather lame and a little confusing, and the nine days of her "reign" are not documented well. There's also too much of a love story, with her persistence in her faith more like a sideshow or afterthought. Overall it's still an enjoyable experience, if it does frustrate the viewer a little.

"Blue Lagoon" goes Renaissance
It's a shame that the interesting and relatively untapped story of Lady Jane got this sugary sweet treatment. It alternates between nubile pulp romance and engrossing costume drama. So when it's good, it's very good...and when it's corny, it's ridiculous (even the score is over the top). Excellent supporting cast. DVD offers no compelling special features...it would have been nice to have some extra Tudor treat in there! ... Read more

Reviews (17)

OK Movie; but Cool Cat!
My kids loved it, so I recomend it with children who are under 10, I DID like the Goblins' devil blue cat however. The animation with him was pretty neat, I also liked the part when the princess stroked him in her sleep mistaking him for her cat, while he purred with delight, (I am a devoted cat lover) otherwise it's a cute show for the kids on a rainy day.

I'm looking for a new one
I loved this movie, it was one of my favorites as a kid and i still love it. It's my favorite pick for when I go babysitting, too. Let me know if you have a new one.

AWESOMELY ENTERTAINING!!!
The Princess and the Goblin has been my favorite movie for about 10 years now--and even though I'm a lot older, I still absolutely love it and find it very entertaining! The animation is excellent, the actors are wonderful, and the music is beautiful. People say it's "just a kid's movie," but I don't think that's true at all. I watch it almost every day and NEVER get tired of it. The book is also wonderful. I recommend this movie to people of all ages. It's a true masterpiece!

Disappointingly atrocious
An absolute destruction of a wonderful book. They merely told the story without depicting the soul. A really sweet story about honesty, perseverance, and trust was turned into one where the only competent people were under the age of 10. Poor acting, bad score, lackluster animation.

The book is so much better
One word about the move boogers. Too many bloomin boogers. I don't think that helps the movie much and it could have been adapted with greater care though. Cute attempt. ... Read more

Description

European chefs are being killed in the manner that their signature dishes are prepared. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Food, Mystery and Intrigue
As Dr. Michael Lim, The Travelling Gourmet, I have dined and tasted fine wines all over the world. I love this movie because of its humour, attention to detail and great food. Jacqueline Bisset is the most voluptuous Chef ever, although I did know a blonde Chef of wondefully statuesque proportions, and I am not referring to her Bombe Alaska. Great story, bizarre but believable. This is not a high brow movie for arrogant and pompous people but one for those who love life and have that joie de vivre that only the truly secure can ever appreciate. If Jacqueline Bisset can cook as good as she looks in this movie, she can fry my Bratwurst, grill my Schweinshaxe and flambe my Bananas Foster any time! George Segal, the Canadian actor is wonderful as the straight man, and it is obvious that all the actors are having a hell of a time on the set of this movie. Robert Morley, the gargantuan actor is very funny too as the stiff, upper lipped Englishman. One my favourite restaurants is a star in this movie. It is the regal la Tour d'Argent overlooking the Seine in Paris, the City of Light. I love to go there for the Duck a la Tour d'Argent and to see my old friend, Claude Terrail, the Directeur. A movie for gourmets, gourmands and food lovers with a good sense of humour. See it and then eat a large banana split with lashings of strawberry sauce & chocolate sauce and be happy you are alive. Guten Appetit!!! By Dr. Michael Lim The Travelling Gourmet

Delicious Romantic Comedy To Feast On
"Who is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe?", is total fun from start to finish with an irresistable cast, beautiful locations, superb food on display and wonderfully comic writing all wrapped up in one of the most appealing comedies to come out of the late 1970's. It really is a gourmet's delight as we get to see some of the most superb eateries in some of the most beautiful parts of Europe serving as a backdrop for a very funny murder mystery that is guaranteed to put a smile on your face.

"Chefs" stars the perfect team of George Segal (in one of his most endearing comedy roles of the late 70's and early 80's), the gorgeous Jacqueline Bisset in without a doubt her most appealing performance and the incomparable Robert Morley in a character role tailor made for his unique talents. It tells the very comical story of crass fast food Giant Segal and refined pastry cook expert Bisset, bickering former husband and wife, who find themselves drawn into a real life murder mystery set against some of Europe's most exotic backdrops. It seems for some unexplained reason that the greatest chefs in Europe are being killed off according to what their speciality is. Their ends are very grizzly as one is cooked like Roast Beef, another is drowned with his famed lobsters, while another dies in a duck press. These "creative" deaths seem to indicate that Natasha (Bisset) is the next target as her speciality is desserts and the race is on to solve the mystery before she becomes the next statistic on the menu!! All ends well in a fiery climax when Natasha is almost killed while preparing her famed Icecream Dessert on a TV talk show where she is saved in the nick of time by Robby (Segal). The finale in a surprise twist, reveals the murderer from a totally unexpected source which I wont reveal for the benefit of those who haven't had the pleasure yet of seeing this delightful film.

The three leads of this film make "Chefs" a memorable viewing experience. George Segal delivers a delightful performance as the loud mouth American fast food retailer who is the exact opposite of the world inhabited by seasoned gourmets Bisset and Morley. He is at times, crass, outrageous and really sends the comedy into high gear. Jacqueline Bisset, a much underrated actress has never been more delightful than here, finally in a role that totally suits her considerable talents. She has rarely been more gorgeous as the talented pastry cook who hates her loud ex-husband but finds herself falling in love with him again. Robert Morley as the self proclaimed food expert who lives solely for the sole pleasure of eating literally steals the film with his witty and outrageous line delivery and his putting down of everyone and everything around him is absolutely priceless . His is a memorable performance that really raises "Chefs" to the level of a great comedy. The film benefits from some of the most beautiful locations possible in London, Paris and Venice and the masses of gorgeous looking food used throughout the film will be guaranteed to have your mouth watering from start to finish! The use of a mainly European cast in the supporting roles of the chefs and Police adds greatly to the warmly continental feel of the film and actress Madge Ryan who plays the ever suffering and ever loyal Beecham, personal assistant to Max (Morley), really scores and plays a major part in the films climax.

If a film could be called "deliciously edible" then "Who is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe?", would be it. Everything about this film is a treat for the eye but what must not be forgotten is that it also is a very witty, and well performed murder mystery with the emphasis on laughs and intriguing twists as we follow the trail of a highly creative murderer. Such fun is rarely experienced in films of today and "Chefs" deserves to be better remembered for providing just that! Dine out on "Who is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe?", soon!

This is a very funny film.
Great acting. Great Plot. This is a real scream.

Under-cooked!
Someone is killing the great chefs of Europe...and we're supposed to care??!!

WHO IS KILLING THE GREAT CHEFS
ONE OF THE ALL TIME FUNNEY FILMS I HAVE EVER SEEN ... Read more

Amazon.com

The series formula started to kick in with this immediate sequel to Lethal Weapon, but that doesn't necessarily make it a weak movie. Joe Pesci joins the fold, Richard Donner directs again, and Mel Gibson and Danny Glover return as LAPD partners, their relationship smoother now that Gibson's character has recovered from his maddening grief over his wife's death. But the reckless Mel and cautious Danny equation, good for a million laughs, settles into place in this story involving a South African smuggler and a new girlfriend (Patsy Kensit) for Gibson. The movie is hardly comfy, though. The last act gets nasty, and a climactic fight between Gibson (who gets the worst of it) and some high-kicking villain is ugly. The DVD release includes production notes, Dolby sound, theatrical trailer, optional full-screen and widescreen presentations, optional French soundtrack, and optional English, French, and Spanish subtitles. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Illogical and brutal, but worst of all-- not funny
Pure manipulation without a shred of logic or genuine fun. It starts out as a good-natured buddy film and it would have been easier to take had it continued in that vein. However, about two-thirds through the film, director Richard Donner apparently felt that it was time for the audience to stop having fun and start feeling a sense of menace. He tries to accomplish this by brutalizing and murdering nearly the entire supporting cast of laughing, fun-loving cops who we are supposed to have bonded with because we've seen them playing poker together and sharing jokes about condoms.

The introduction of Joe Pesci's character makes no sense at all. Why would city cops be used to protect a government witness? Especially two such notorious loose cannons as Riggs and Murtaugh? And why would he be allowed to remain in their custody given the extremely careless job they do of "protecting" him? Because the script says so, that's why.

I don't necessarily mind it when comedies play fast and loose with logical motivation, or when action films display a bit of a cruel streak. "Lethal Weapon 2," however, is an extremely clumsy mixture of the two.

One of the best sequels.
A lot of sequels are shameless retreads of earlier material with nothing new to explore or for the audience to experience. Then there are some sequels which are worthy of the original, and there are even few sequels which outshine the original. Lethal Weapon 2 is one of those. This first sequel in the "Lethal" series is from beginning to end a roller coaster ride of action, comedy, suspense and drama. It is more "Lethal Weapon" than the first film was.

The story picks up a few years after the first film as Mel Gibson and Danny Glover return as cops Riggs and Murtaugh. They are on the brink of busting a huge drug smuggling ring and are reassigned to protect a government informant named Leo Getz played by Joe Pesci who should have been considered for an Oscar in this performance.

The introduction of the Getz character is the film's stroke of genius. In the first film Riggs and Murtaugh complained and bickered with each other. Now 2 years later the audience knows they are close friends, so bickering would seem unrealistic and a retread of the first film. They now have Getz to complain about and insult which gives the film many comic scenes. This action/adventure is as funny as a straight out comedy.

While the action is more abundant this time it does not replace story or character development like in most sequels. This film pays great respect to the events in the first film by continuing the Riggs/Murtaugh friendship storyline and having them bond even more than before.

Lethal Weapon 2 is everything what a great sequel should be.

LETHAL WEAPON 2
The boys are back in town for the second film in the legendary "Lethal Weapon" series. This time around, Riggs (Mel Gibson) and Murtaugh (Danny Glover) stumble upon a South African drug ring while babysitting key witness Leo Getz (Joe Pesci). All the laughs and action of the original; Pesci is outrageous. Richard Donner knows when to let up, and he hasn't done it yet.
* This director's cut includes four minutes of additonal footage.

Lethal Carnage
The engaging chemistry of Mel Gibson (Martin Riggs) and Danny Glover (Roger Murtaugh) continues into LETHAL WEAPON 2 as they take on a South African drug kingpin, Arjen Rudd(Joss Ackland). He also happens to be a South African diplomat with immunity to any type of persecution. So, Riggs and Murtaugh harrass him and his henchmen, playing a lethal cat and mouse game of picking off each other from both sides. A key witness Leo Getz (Joe Pesci) stands in the middle of all the carnage and the carnage mounts. Practically everyone from Riggs' and Murtaugh's precinct (detectives, officers and what have you) are eliminated... even the female lead/love interest to Riggs-(Patty Kensit) is oft in the proceedings. It seems the only ones left alive are Riggs and Murtaugh (it was reported that Shane Black's original screenplay was to have Riggs killed at the end) to take on the South African drug cartell. Even with the body count, the film is very entertaining due to Gibson and Glover's characters, a witty script, and the direction of Richard Donner (SUPERMAN-THE MOVIE, THE OMEN) who seems to have a fond affection for the two characters since he's directed all four films. The film franchise probably "perfected" (not invented)the buddy cop genre (forerunners: SUPERCOPS, FREEBIE AND THE BEAN, RUNNING SCARED) and is the "yardstick" for others that haven't come close (i.e. TANGO AND CASH...?). Lastly as the final credits roll in LW2, George Harrison's great song CHEER DOWN plays. Perhaps because guitar god/legend Eric Clapton did part of the muscial score for the film, he got pal Harrison to contribute the song. The song sounds very much like a James Bond-type tune and perhaps was inspired by the nature of the film. When the film is shown on network televison, its too bad the song is always drowned out by programming or commercial announcements (notoriously and especially on TNT and TBS). On cable, DVD, and video, the song can be heard in its entirety.

Terrific
My all time favorite action movie. Nothing else even comes close in terms of action and comedy. Gibson and Glover are outrageous as goofball cops Riggs and Murtaugh and Joe Pesci adds another element of wackiness. Tremendous action also.....a must see!!!. Go get it!!! ... Read more

Reviews (22)

ALL FOR ONE AND ALL FOR FUN
Richard Lester's refreshingly breezy adaptation of the Dumas classic is one of the best interpretations of this venerable classic. He combines the elements of swashbuckling swordplay with the satirical buffooneries of the Pink Panther movies. Michael York, scrawny yet efficient, plays D'artagnan with a youthful exuberance. Raquel Welch is hilarious as the bumbling, accident prone Constance, and Spike Milligan is likewise a hoot as her aging and lustful husband. The Musketeers are played by Oliver Reed, Frank Finlay and Richard Chamberlain, and are dashingly heroic, if a little out of shape? Faye Dunaway is cold and calculating as the Lady DeWinter while Geraldine Chaplin is quite coquettish as the Queen. Rounding out the marvelous cast are Charlton Heston, Christopher Lee, Simon Ward and Jean Pierre Cassel. Lester filmed this and its sequel (The Four Musketeers) at the same time, but the studio opted to go with a sequel as the whole movie would have been too long. They are both fine films, although the follow up is a little darker in tone. Well worth viewing for a good time.

A Spectacular Action/Adventure-Comedy- A Must See
This movie has it all: action, adventure, comedy. The cast is outstanding and it brings out some of the best performances in some individuals careers like Michael York, Rachael Welch, and Richard Chamberland. The direction by Richard Lester is excellent.

Based on the Alexandre Dumas novel, this film is the best adaptation ever. It is so far superior than the "brat pack" version with Sutherland, Curry, and Sheen, that one wonders why another version was even attempted.

The story begins with D'Artagnan setting off to be a musketeer. He ends up being an embarrashment and has three duels, with the The Musketeers, played by Oliver Reed, Chamberland, and Frank Finely (Finely, in my opinion, gives the best performance in the movie). Because of the Cardinal's guards, the four unite and soon, they are friends going off to England to save the Queen's honor and stop the evil plot of Cardinal Richelieu (played by Charleton Heston).

This movie is a true blast and is followed up by "The Four Musketeers" where Milady (played by Fay Dunaway) tries to bring the ruin of D'Artagan.

The Three Musketeers
Set in 1500's France, a young Gaston named D'Artagnan (Michael York) leaves his family with hope of becoming the king's musketeer. After facing humiliation in his daily exploits, he inadvertently offends three musketeers at different times and each force him to duel to the death the next day (the musketeers: Athos is Oliver Reed, Porthos is Frank Finlay, and Aramis is Richard Chamberlain). However, they all form an alliance after being forced to fight off the Cardinal's authority. Soon after, D'Artagnan falls in love with his landlord's beautiful wife Constance (Raquel Welch) and finds that the Duke Of Buckingham (Simon Ward) is in love with subtly somber The Queen Of France (Geraldine Chaplin). When the Duke and the Queen meet, the Queen gives the Duke her diamond necklace so he can remember her. A spy is pertinent, sees their exchange and reports it to Cardinal Richelieu. Cardinal Richelieu (Charlton Heston), a delicately ominous figure, wants nothing but to take control of France from the King, and the queens missing diamonds are a good opportunity for him to cause the king trouble. It's up to D'Artagnan and the musketeers to return the diamonds to the queen by traveling to England. The obstacles to reaching the destination is easily offended and violent men with varying political views, bandits, the skilled and deadly Rochefort whom D'Artagnan encountered several times (Christopher Lee) and the cardinal's covert agent Milady (Faye Dunaway).

This film version of Alexander Dumas's masterpiece story is filled with incredibly enjoyable elements. There is much slapstick humor that is never forced, pretentious or overly distracting; there is a good amount of swashbuckling action; the performances (especially by Roy Kinnear as the abused servant) are well done and amusing; and the sets are extremely memorable. See it!

Sequel: The Four Musketeers: Milady's Revenge (which was originally going to be utilized as footage for this film)

Overall rating: 5 stars

Rated PG for violence, and some restrained sexual innuendo.

Great Fun & The Best Version so far.....
Richard Lester & his screewriter, George Macdonald Fraser (of Flashman fame), made the best & most complete version of the Dumas tale with great flair and wit, seasoning the old story with satiric touches, irony and outright slapstick. Working with a dream cast, Lester shot this and the sequel (The Four Musketeers) all at once (ala Lord of the Rings) allowing him to tell a bigger story without the distractions of aging or changed cast members. It is great fun.

Since everyone knows the story I want to point out some of the wonderful qualities of the flim. First,there are the terrific fight scenes staged by Wm. Hobbs, who has his swordfights as exhausting affairs, full of sweat and effort, with no rules, no balletic dueling, but rather FIGHTING, with both hands and feet and anything that can be of use. These are set amongst blowing sheets, in tub rooms, and one especially clever night fight with lanterns blinking on and off. Oliver Reed as Athos especially convinces you that he is FIGHTING, not waltzing about.

Next, the wonderful cast, including: Michael York as an enthusistic and eager D'Artagnon; Raquel Welsh as D'Artagnon's paramour, Constance Bonancieux, bountiful and endearingly clutzy; Spike Milligan as Msr. Bonancieux, Raquel's addled and horny husband; Charlton Heston as the shrewd and ruthless Cardinal Richelieu; Christopher Lee, an arch & dignified villain as Rochefort, Richelieu's "blade" (and possibly illegitimate son); Faye Dunaway as the beautiful and treacherous Milady De Winter; Geraldine Chaplin as the ninny of a Queen; Jean Pierre Cassel as the dim and indifferent King. And then, of course the 3 Musketeers: Oliver Reed as a moody & temperamental, but powerful Athos; Richard Chamberlain's refined and aloof Aramis; and Frank Finlay's vain & pompous Porthos. Terrific all!

A light and infectiously joyful swashbuckler, Lester also has great fun displaying the extravagance and vanity of the Royals, idling away their time in ridiculous pursuits, completely impervious and indifferent to their servants and the lives of the common people shown in rough and coarse contrast. The King & Queen are clueless, Buckingham (Simon Ward) is a headstrong dolt, Richelieu schemes, and everyone else tries to survive their foolishness.

A rare mixture of genres and tones that really works, this witty romp must be seen with its concluding Four Musketeers where the tone shifts yet again. A treat for movie lovers.

Avoid this DVD Version! Get the newer release
Filmed in 1973, the one that began it all. The book was actually split into two movies to fit all the plot! This is the first half of the book. An amazing, star-studded cast, great attention to detail and it's funny to boot!

Let's see. Oliver Reed as Athos, Richard Chamberlain as Aramis, Frank Finlay as Porthos, Michael York as D'Artagnan. Christopher Lee, Raquel Welch, Geraldine Chaplin, Faye Dunaway. Just about every performance is amazing.

This has the REAL plot - not the entirely made-up one Disney foisted on us. D'Artagnan is cheating on his landlord with his landlord's wife. The Queen of France is cheating on her husband, the King, with the Duke of Buckingham. The cardinal is trying to gain power of France. The Musketeers gladly steal food and cheat when necessary. It's a rough world out there!

The attention to detail in the film is simply amazing. From the stunning costumes, to the silver-and-white ball at the end, to the interiors of the buildings, to the food they eat, wine they drink, games they play - it's all fully authentic. You could watch this in a history class and learn quite a bit.

And the swordfighting!! None of this pretentious sword-waving and back-fl