Amazon.com essential video

At one point in the filming of this flawed epic, actor Charlton Heston (in the title role) got so mad at director Sam Peckinpah that he charged him on horseback with a cavalry sword and Peckinpah had to escape into the air on the camera crane. Yet Heston offered to give up his salary to get the studio to let Peckinpah finish the film. As it turned out, this story--of a headstrong Army professional who goes slightly crazy chasing a band of Apaches while shepherding a group of Confederate prisoners--was taken away from Peckinpah in the editing room and recut, so that much of the character development was eliminated from the crucial central section of the film. Still, it offers solid outings by Heston and Richard Harris (as his prisoner) and gives a hint of things to come in Peckinpah's next film, The Wild Bunch. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (12)

A flawed western.
They say this movie was cut to ribbons by order of overanxious studio execs, and it certainly shows. The movie starts out great with Major Dundee (Heston), a Federal cavalry officer who has seen his career plummet from fighting in the battles of the Civil War to a POW camp warden, being forced to recruit Confederate POW's to help him track down an Apache raider. Unfortunatly, the movie eventually loses focus and just meanders along. It seems disjointed and, at times, just patched together. Part of the fault was the studio execs decision to cut it down and part of it was Peckinpah's who started filming without a complete script much to Heston's dismay. The result is a flawed film with some good performances, especially Richard Harris, and some great action sequences which were a Peckinpah specialty.

Mangled to pieces
Despite being ripped apart in the editing room, Major Dundee still manages to be a very entertaining western. Supposedly the movie was supposed to clock in at just under three hours, but the editing cut it down to just over two hours. It is a shame that it was mangled so badly since it has a lot of potential.

Major Dundee stars Charlton Heston as Amos Dundee, a Union officer banished to the west for a mistake he made in the heat of battle. Richard Harris co-stars, he steals many scenes, as Confederate officer Benjamin Tyreen, an old friend of Dundee who was betrayed by him at a court martial hearing. Dundee organizes a ragtag bunch of Confederate prisoners, black Union infantry, frontiersman, and Jim Hutton as the bumbling artillery officer, Lt. Graham, assigned to the cavalry, to pursue Sierra Cheriba, a renegade Apache. Dundee's troop runs into the Apache as well as French lancers in Mexico amidst many well-executed action sequences. The final battle in the river should not be missed.

The movie does leave a few parts with no conclusion, but overall the film is well worth the watch. Great supporting cast with James Coburn, Ben Johnson, Warren Oates, L.Q. Jones, Slim Pickens and Senta Berger. Great action with good storyline. Too bad the movie got mangled since it is very good even mangled as it is. To all you Peckinpah fans out there, go out and get this movie!

Wrong Turn
Sam Peckinpah's bungling of this film and his discharge from "The Cincinnati Kid" nearly terminated his directorial career, and "Dundee" gives a hint of the self-destructive inclincations that eventually put him out of business for good. The disciplined creator of "The Rifleman" and "The Westerner" TV series and director of the masterpiece "Ride the High Country" went completely haywire on "Dundee," much to the shock of the studio backing it, and although Peckinpah tried to shift the blame, it was his alone for mounting a disastrously disorganized production of a thoroughly idiotic script. His principal reason for pushing the project apparently was his desire to film in Mexico, a country for whose women he was devloping an all-consuming passion. That and his incipient alcoholism were having severe personality repercussions and giving an ugly cast to Peckinpah's works that he never shook completely.

This story of a Union POW camp officer using Confederate prisoners to cross into Mexico to hunt for Apaches has no basis in historical reality whatsoever and there isn't a single believable scene as a consequence.

BRAVO!!!
Definitely a great Western and one of my personal favorites, Major Dundee, brings to the screen such heavyweights as Charlton Heston and Richard Harris, whose performances are outstanding, making this movie one of the best of its kind. The acting, the battles and the costumes are all wonderful!
Major Dundee is a movie about honor, bravery, and heroes from a time long gone.
A great movie indeed!

Greatest western/civil war drama of all time.
This movie is a classic which inspired many that followed. The cast is incredible and they all give the performances of a lifetime. Charlton Heston is in his prime. Full of confidence and conflict. Cast includes Richard Harris, James Coburn, Warren Oates, Slim Pickens and many others. All give great performances. I have watched this movie many times and enjoy different aspects each time(there are many themes still relevant today). This is a must see film. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

ALWAYS TEN LITTLE INDIANS
I don't agree with most of the reviews of this. I think this is a good adaptation, and is seriously over/under/adequately acted by a marvelous group of character actors. Hugh O'Brian---cast because of his darkly handsome looks; Shirley Eaton for her blonde beauty; Daliah Lavi for those eyebrows; Marianne Hoppe and Mario Adorf were splendid in their housekeeping roles; Fabian appropriately as bad an actor as singer; and those wonderful British superstars Dennis Price, Stanley Holloway, Leo Genn and Wilfrid Hyde White hammy as they should be expected to be. The jazzy score is totally out of kilter, but it lends a kind of retrospective jolt to the senses.
Now, let's imagine TEN LITTLE INDIANS 2004--better special effects, the musical score featuring Christina Aguilera, Clay Aiken, Pink and REM. Director would be someone like Quentin Tarantino or Brian DePalma. And think of the cast:
BEN AFFLECK - Lombard
JENNIFER LOPEZ - Vera
SEAN CONNERY - Blore
ROBBIE WILLIAMS - Marston
HALLE BERRY - Ilone
DUSTIN HOFFMAN - Dr. Armstrong
TYNE DALY - The Judge
F. LEE ERMEY - The General
BOB NEWHART & SUZANNE PLESHETTE - The Housekeepers.

Oh, now, there's something to think about!

Just have fun watching these guys having fun.

Enjoyable version of my favorite Christie
First off, I'm a huge Christie fan, and Ten Little Indians is my favorite of her stories. This is a solid, enjoyable retelling of the story, though it lacks the top drawer quality of the 1939 original. The entire 39 cast was terrific. This one has some great performances, some competent ones, and some laughably bad ones. Standout in this cast are Wilfrid Hyde White as the Judge, Stanley Holloway, Daliah Lavi, Shirley Eaton, and Hugh O'Brian. Equally bad are Fabian as the playboy, and the butler, can't remember the actor's name. The butler delivers some lines as though he's sleepwalking, and overacts at other times. I don't think I'm giving too much away by saying that Fabian's performance is so over-the-top grating that's its a relief when he's the first character to drop.

Other interesting developments-though still tame by today's standards, this version has considerably more sex and violence than the original, in which most of the bodies were kept offstage. In this one, most of the murders occur on camera, including one in which a character plummets to their death in a cable car, a spectacular development not in the book. Indeed, Christie's murders were usually very clean, a gun, a knife, poison. Not something as pure Hollywood as this. The fact that this death also bears no resemblance to the nursery rhyme, a key plot point in all versions of the story, doesn't seem to bother the screenwriter at all. Oh well.

One other interesting change-the spinster character of the book and original movie is changed here and in the other remakes to a glamorous actress. Although Christie purists will probably be upset, I don't think it did any harm, particularly since I enjoyed Daliah Lavi's performance.

All in all, this production is flawed, but still entertaining and well worth seeing, especially if your a Christie fan. Not as good as the 39 version, and much better than the God-awful 1975 and 1989 remakes.

it is a good movie
hey, its a good movie. all you freaks who read the book and don't want to deviate, get over it. and for those who believe '45 is better, you're just nostalgic. aside from lombard (better in '45),each of the characters is better than other versions, especially hyde-white as the judge.

Mixed results trying to realize story's potential
The 1965 film is enjoyable and energetic. The characters are well-cast, especially the doctor, judge, Blore, and general. Some are more feisty than elsewhere, like the maid, butler, and spinster Brent, revamped as conceited actress Ilona and given a different, but entertaining, character and past crime. Only in this film are the maid and butler convincingly menacing. Fabian is obnoxious as a re-named Marston, but he is supposed to be; the film nicely places that character in a dissolute career, and he gives the best piano rendition of Ten Little Indians. The film livens up the methods and depictions of the murders. It changes some words of the nursery rhyme, but it closely adheres to its own version, right down to a bear statute toppled onto one character. Interactions between characters are more heated and less dainty than in 1945, as they should be, given the events.

However, the 1965 film is not as tightly and richly told, nor as well-acted, as the 1945 version. Hugh O'Brian and Shirley Eaton are appealing and have strong screen presence. But their Lombard and Vera seem relatively superficial and wooden. He does not give as smart and layered a performance as Louis Hayward, nor is she as strong as June Duprez. Dennis Price and Wilfrid Hyde-White each strike a better balance between seriousness and playfulness in their roles than did Walter Huston and Barry Fitzgerald, but are not as energetic, commanding, and entertaining. Ilona is amusing, but exaggerated, and displaces the distinctive Brent.

Lombard's past crime, and even more harmfully the general's, are changed in 1965 to something trite and unexplained. To no effect, Lombard is changed from explorer to engineer. Showing the killings on screen in a visually interesting way can be dramatic and vividly convey murderous host Owen's malice. But it can also make them seem implausible, as when Owen brandishes a hypodermic needle from across a room at one fully aware victim, who simply sits there, mouth gaping.

As in 1945, attempts to make characters comical or appealing sap the suspense. The final scene has more explanation than in 1945, but remains thin and undramatic. Again, Owen has a weary, rational, amiable armchair chat with the final victim precisely when the character should come alive as someone triumphantly and credibly capable of inflicting such horror. Ironically, it is left to the weak 1989 version to provide an ending that is dramatic, reflects Owen's menace and lunacy, and most fully explains Owen's behavior.

By comparison to its predecessors, the 1974 film took a decidedly different tone, for good and ill. Gone from both 1945 and 1965 is the lighthearted opening sequence and its catchy, upbeat music. The 1974 film has no opening music, just simple credits and silence invaded by the sound of an approaching helicopter. Its storytelling is cold and clinical. This matches its setting -- a palatial, ornate, immaculate hotel, shuttered and alone amid ruins in the Iranian desert.

The 1974 movie captures more of a sense of fear, dread, intensity, and suspense, elements too much neglected before. This includes the selection of Orson Welles to narrate the tape recording charging the guests with past crimes and also the way in which the killings are filmed. The characters are more serious. For example, Richard Attenborough's judge is more stern, less folksy, than in prior versions. Stephane Audran is excellent as Ilona, radiant and charming on the surface but troubled and lonely at the core. In their short screen time, the maid and butler are believable as hard, smooth con artists. In this important sense, the 1974 version is truest to the book and to those who want to see it presented as a serious mystery.

However, overall, the 1974 film is less substantial and entertaining than prior versions. The storytelling is so spare and unartful that it tends to be sterile and uninvolving. The movie lacks wit, ingenuity, eloquence, and energy. Its only moment of real charm comes early and abruptly, when Charles Aznavour, as a re-named Marston, performs a song, "Dance in the old-fashioned way," with Audran looking on, enchanted and lovely. By contrast, Aznavour's rendition of Ten Little Indians is disappointing. At "six little Indians," he starts pounding the piano keys and shouting the words, only to let the music die out in anticlimax before "one little Indian."

The outstanding actors play their parts with authority and more like real people than caricatures. Even so, they are unable to breathe much life into the characters or interactions. Herbert Lom lends an air of authority and intelligence (perhaps too much) to the doctor. But his restrained, stiff performance lacks any truly memorable quality, like Huston's buffoonery and charm or Price's vanity and arrogance, and he is unconvincing as a drunkard. Adolfo Celi can do nothing much with his role, and Gert Froebe little more with his. Elke Sommer makes no impression as Vera and has no chemistry with Oliver Reed. Reed gives an impish, bizarre performance as Lombard.

The 1974 film copies from the 1965 version, but loses something in the translation of even that imperfect script. Some of the more memorable dialogue is cut. By 1974, Lombard is not even given a career. The 1974 film is least faithful to the nursery rhyme. Events are out of Owen's control, as when a snake is used to kill, an uncertain murder weapon; one character simply wanders off into the desert; and another screams when a candle blows out, in prior adaptations a diversion engineered by Owen. The location is so faraway and desolate that it raises questions about why the guests would be willing to go there, without at least investigating the circumstances, and how Owen could have made the arrangements. The film lapses back to the 1945 version's short final exposition scene. Re-writes to reflect the end of hanging as a form of capital punishment and to make Owen choke out incoherent last words rob that crucial scene of even the inadequate dramatic effect of its predecessors.

Wow...
I thought "And Then There Were None" was a bad adaptation...then one just flat out stinks.

Seriously, do not waste any time with this film. Please follow my advice. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

The triumph of the spirit - on ice.
This is an unforgettable mix of history and the study of human nature with supernatural overtones. Peter Finch plays Nobile, the ill-fated Italian explorer who, years after a doomed 1928 expedition to overfly the North Pole in an airship, must confront the restless spirits of those whose lives were destroyed. With his Roman apartment turned into a court of inquiry, Finch faces not only those killed when arctic winds tore his airship in half and split his crew up, but others whose lives were ruined by their loss, suffered from botched rescue attempts or otherwise suffered the horror of survival. (The crew car of the dirigible "Roma" is torn clean from the main body of the airship, and those left in the now powerless gasbag on top can only look helplessly as they float away from their comrades.) Among the accusers stands Nobile's fiercest rival, the legendary Roald Amundsen, (Sean Connery) and Claudia Cardinale as a crewmate's lover. "Tent" excels because it rises above just telling the story of the expedition. Instead, the film delves deeper into human nature, and the drama that men try to create. (One unforgettable moment has Amundsen escaping the wreck of a plane in which he had planned to rescue his rival. In a twist of fate, and to underline his own doom, Amundsen emerges from the ruined plane to discover the wreck of the Roma's main body and the now dead crewmembers who floated away with it. Inside, he finds a bible opened to an ominous verse. A fellow accuser chastises Amundsen - the found bible seems to have been a detail invented for dramatic purposes. But this seems acceptable, since man needs some drama to highlight his own pitiful existnce. Isn't that why men take to exploration in the first place?)

Guilt isn't so much the issue, decides a surprisingly sympathetic Amundsen who lost his life in one of the rescue attempts. Instead, Nobile cannot be punished for being no worse under the circumstances than his accusers who were, in turns, incompetent, greedy or unreasonably pious. The last of these earns one of Nobile's ascetic accusers, Amundsen's harshest rebuke. Piety, Connery says, is nice, but it's human nature to think for one's own pleasure. If a man can't think for his own good he is less likely, not more, to think of the good of others. Foregoing pleasure isn't pious, but sterile, and leaves only bitterness for the survivors. "You should have given her one last night of pleasure" Amundsen concludes. It is only after he discredits his fellow accusers that Amundsen offers what is both the most damning yet redeeming evidence: when boarding a rescue plane that can carry only him but not his crewmen off the ice-floe, the General thought not of his men's welfare, but of the warm bath that awaited him back in civilization.

The "Red Tent" is in turns heart-breaking, incisive and also quite funny. Finch is fun, but Connery runs the show (it's interesting to compare how he looks today and how he looks here, made up prematurely old). The other characters are more one-note, but, like good leaders, Nobile and Amundsen are more than capable of putting their qualities together to form a complex whole. A must-see.

Excellent Leadership Lessons
The movie is framed as a jury trial to determine whether General Nobile's choices constitute failure in leadership and dereliction of duty in this doomed North Pole expedition. The trial is convened by Nobile himself during one of his countless sleepless nights even forty years after the events under question. The jury, those whose lives were ended or changed by the expedition, is called up in Nobile's mind to recount the story and render a verdict. This works very well as a case study in leadership, planning and contingencies, rebellion, failure, and forgiveness. Used in a teaching setting on leadership, this is one of the most compelling dramas I've seen on the topic. Sean Connery's role is not large, but his presence in the movie renders it a little more accessible to today's viewers.

great movie
I loved the movie it was great the music was wonderfull to this is a great movie based on a true story about an arctic expedition to the south pole peter finch and sean connery was great actors in the movie this is a great movie

A Haunting Recreation of Possible History
For devotees of arctic exploration, this is one of the best movies ever made. Aside from the general excellence of acting and photography, and the fidelity to history, one cannot forget the haunting, wordless picture of Cardinale when she sees again the form of a man she might have loved. The whole film has that aura - dreamlike, memory-nudging, self-reproaching, the over riding sense of regret that a brilliant screen writer has fashioned in a wholly unexpected presentation. The story of Nobile is given a treatment that one wishes had been adapted by the film makers to the equally tragic story of Scott, his wife @ his stalwart comrades. This film is better than "The Last Place on Earth", a famous Scott saga, because of its originality, poetry and profound sense of authentic tragedy. Not just another adventure film, its characters as ghosts prove to be the best way to tell it's true story.

A memorable scene which will leave you breathless
There is one scene in The Red Tent in which a rapidly receeding disaster scene is viewed from the perspective of a momentary survivor, who is rising with the doomed remnant of a derelict lighter-than-air craft. You know this soul is doomed, too, because of the nature of the disaster which has just occurred. The scene has lodged in my mind for many years since I first saw it. Astonishing film making. ... Read more

Description

Remake of Agatha Christie's "Ten Little Iindians."Ten people are invited on an African safari and find themselves being picked off one by one by a mysterious killer. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

ALWAYS TEN LITTLE INDIANS
I don't agree with most of the reviews of this. I think this is a good adaptation, and is seriously over/under/adequately acted by a marvelous group of character actors. Hugh O'Brian---cast because of his darkly handsome looks; Shirley Eaton for her blonde beauty; Daliah Lavi for those eyebrows; Marianne Hoppe and Mario Adorf were splendid in their housekeeping roles; Fabian appropriately as bad an actor as singer; and those wonderful British superstars Dennis Price, Stanley Holloway, Leo Genn and Wilfrid Hyde White hammy as they should be expected to be. The jazzy score is totally out of kilter, but it lends a kind of retrospective jolt to the senses.
Now, let's imagine TEN LITTLE INDIANS 2004--better special effects, the musical score featuring Christina Aguilera, Clay Aiken, Pink and REM. Director would be someone like Quentin Tarantino or Brian DePalma. And think of the cast:
BEN AFFLECK - Lombard
JENNIFER LOPEZ - Vera
SEAN CONNERY - Blore
ROBBIE WILLIAMS - Marston
HALLE BERRY - Ilone
DUSTIN HOFFMAN - Dr. Armstrong
TYNE DALY - The Judge
F. LEE ERMEY - The General
BOB NEWHART & SUZANNE PLESHETTE - The Housekeepers.

Oh, now, there's something to think about!

Just have fun watching these guys having fun.

Enjoyable version of my favorite Christie
First off, I'm a huge Christie fan, and Ten Little Indians is my favorite of her stories. This is a solid, enjoyable retelling of the story, though it lacks the top drawer quality of the 1939 original. The entire 39 cast was terrific. This one has some great performances, some competent ones, and some laughably bad ones. Standout in this cast are Wilfrid Hyde White as the Judge, Stanley Holloway, Daliah Lavi, Shirley Eaton, and Hugh O'Brian. Equally bad are Fabian as the playboy, and the butler, can't remember the actor's name. The butler delivers some lines as though he's sleepwalking, and overacts at other times. I don't think I'm giving too much away by saying that Fabian's performance is so over-the-top grating that's its a relief when he's the first character to drop.

Other interesting developments-though still tame by today's standards, this version has considerably more sex and violence than the original, in which most of the bodies were kept offstage. In this one, most of the murders occur on camera, including one in which a character plummets to their death in a cable car, a spectacular development not in the book. Indeed, Christie's murders were usually very clean, a gun, a knife, poison. Not something as pure Hollywood as this. The fact that this death also bears no resemblance to the nursery rhyme, a key plot point in all versions of the story, doesn't seem to bother the screenwriter at all. Oh well.

One other interesting change-the spinster character of the book and original movie is changed here and in the other remakes to a glamorous actress. Although Christie purists will probably be upset, I don't think it did any harm, particularly since I enjoyed Daliah Lavi's performance.

All in all, this production is flawed, but still entertaining and well worth seeing, especially if your a Christie fan. Not as good as the 39 version, and much better than the God-awful 1975 and 1989 remakes.

it is a good movie
hey, its a good movie. all you freaks who read the book and don't want to deviate, get over it. and for those who believe '45 is better, you're just nostalgic. aside from lombard (better in '45),each of the characters is better than other versions, especially hyde-white as the judge.

Mixed results trying to realize story's potential
The 1965 film is enjoyable and energetic. The characters are well-cast, especially the doctor, judge, Blore, and general. Some are more feisty than elsewhere, like the maid, butler, and spinster Brent, revamped as conceited actress Ilona and given a different, but entertaining, character and past crime. Only in this film are the maid and butler convincingly menacing. Fabian is obnoxious as a re-named Marston, but he is supposed to be; the film nicely places that character in a dissolute career, and he gives the best piano rendition of Ten Little Indians. The film livens up the methods and depictions of the murders. It changes some words of the nursery rhyme, but it closely adheres to its own version, right down to a bear statute toppled onto one character. Interactions between characters are more heated and less dainty than in 1945, as they should be, given the events.

However, the 1965 film is not as tightly and richly told, nor as well-acted, as the 1945 version. Hugh O'Brian and Shirley Eaton are appealing and have strong screen presence. But their Lombard and Vera seem relatively superficial and wooden. He does not give as smart and layered a performance as Louis Hayward, nor is she as strong as June Duprez. Dennis Price and Wilfrid Hyde-White each strike a better balance between seriousness and playfulness in their roles than did Walter Huston and Barry Fitzgerald, but are not as energetic, commanding, and entertaining. Ilona is amusing, but exaggerated, and displaces the distinctive Brent.

Lombard's past crime, and even more harmfully the general's, are changed in 1965 to something trite and unexplained. To no effect, Lombard is changed from explorer to engineer. Showing the killings on screen in a visually interesting way can be dramatic and vividly convey murderous host Owen's malice. But it can also make them seem implausible, as when Owen brandishes a hypodermic needle from across a room at one fully aware victim, who simply sits there, mouth gaping.

As in 1945, attempts to make characters comical or appealing sap the suspense. The final scene has more explanation than in 1945, but remains thin and undramatic. Again, Owen has a weary, rational, amiable armchair chat with the final victim precisely when the character should come alive as someone triumphantly and credibly capable of inflicting such horror. Ironically, it is left to the weak 1989 version to provide an ending that is dramatic, reflects Owen's menace and lunacy, and most fully explains Owen's behavior.

By comparison to its predecessors, the 1974 film took a decidedly different tone, for good and ill. Gone from both 1945 and 1965 is the lighthearted opening sequence and its catchy, upbeat music. The 1974 film has no opening music, just simple credits and silence invaded by the sound of an approaching helicopter. Its storytelling is cold and clinical. This matches its setting -- a palatial, ornate, immaculate hotel, shuttered and alone amid ruins in the Iranian desert.

The 1974 movie captures more of a sense of fear, dread, intensity, and suspense, elements too much neglected before. This includes the selection of Orson Welles to narrate the tape recording charging the guests with past crimes and also the way in which the killings are filmed. The characters are more serious. For example, Richard Attenborough's judge is more stern, less folksy, than in prior versions. Stephane Audran is excellent as Ilona, radiant and charming on the surface but troubled and lonely at the core. In their short screen time, the maid and butler are believable as hard, smooth con artists. In this important sense, the 1974 version is truest to the book and to those who want to see it presented as a serious mystery.

However, overall, the 1974 film is less substantial and entertaining than prior versions. The storytelling is so spare and unartful that it tends to be sterile and uninvolving. The movie lacks wit, ingenuity, eloquence, and energy. Its only moment of real charm comes early and abruptly, when Charles Aznavour, as a re-named Marston, performs a song, "Dance in the old-fashioned way," with Audran looking on, enchanted and lovely. By contrast, Aznavour's rendition of Ten Little Indians is disappointing. At "six little Indians," he starts pounding the piano keys and shouting the words, only to let the music die out in anticlimax before "one little Indian."

The outstanding actors play their parts with authority and more like real people than caricatures. Even so, they are unable to breathe much life into the characters or interactions. Herbert Lom lends an air of authority and intelligence (perhaps too much) to the doctor. But his restrained, stiff performance lacks any truly memorable quality, like Huston's buffoonery and charm or Price's vanity and arrogance, and he is unconvincing as a drunkard. Adolfo Celi can do nothing much with his role, and Gert Froebe little more with his. Elke Sommer makes no impression as Vera and has no chemistry with Oliver Reed. Reed gives an impish, bizarre performance as Lombard.

The 1974 film copies from the 1965 version, but loses something in the translation of even that imperfect script. Some of the more memorable dialogue is cut. By 1974, Lombard is not even given a career. The 1974 film is least faithful to the nursery rhyme. Events are out of Owen's control, as when a snake is used to kill, an uncertain murder weapon; one character simply wanders off into the desert; and another screams when a candle blows out, in prior adaptations a diversion engineered by Owen. The location is so faraway and desolate that it raises questions about why the guests would be willing to go there, without at least investigating the circumstances, and how Owen could have made the arrangements. The film lapses back to the 1945 version's short final exposition scene. Re-writes to reflect the end of hanging as a form of capital punishment and to make Owen choke out incoherent last words rob that crucial scene of even the inadequate dramatic effect of its predecessors.

Wow...
I thought "And Then There Were None" was a bad adaptation...then one just flat out stinks.

Seriously, do not waste any time with this film. Please follow my advice. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This Oscar-winning adaptation of Günter Grass's novel is an absurdist fantasy about a little German boy (David Bennent) who wills himself at the age of three not to grow up in protest of the Nazi regime. Made unnecessarily notorious in recent years due to overzealous censors in some parts of the United States, the film is more startling and surreal than obscene. Bennent is very good, and while the 1979 film doesn't meet the high standards of the best work from the then-renaissance of German film, it has a special place in the hearts of many who saw it upon its release. Directed by Volker Schlöndorff (The Handmaid's Tale).--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (32)

Amazing!
I saw this movie back in 1983. I was only 9 years old but the movie to this day left an indelible impression on me. It was sad, yet humorous. Some parts make you go a little bug-eyed but that's all part of the surrealism of this movie. The young actor who played Oskar was amazing. Obviously you could tell he was just a child but I could actually see him as an adult as the movie goes on. I'm not in the habit of seeing foreign language films. In fact, I can honestly say that I've seen only a handful of them. This was my first German language film and I can safely say it was my favorite. Buy this video. You will not regret it. Its that amazing.

When do we get the Tin Drum part 2 ?
I was attracted to this film (DVD version) having read the book. Inevitable the movie cannot accurately portray every aspect of the book and particularly this book with it's masses of minor detail and it's continuous stream of consciousness.
It does have it's moments though and the movie is as true to the book as a movie can be. Thankfully, unlike Hollywood the German moviemakers don't add syrrupy touches or a happy ending. I particularly liked the scene where Oscar's drumming hilariously disrupts the Nazi party rally. The scene begins with a miniature Nuremberg rally and culminates with the assembled storm troopers waltzing the blue Danube !
My only criticism of the overall thrust of the movie is that the rise of the Nazis and their early persecutions against the Jews are portrayed rather mildly. There is hardly any tension or any feeling of menace. Was this the intention given that the narrators and principal characters were all Germans (alongwith the moviemakers themselves) ?
My major disappointment was with the ending. We are left with a short narrative bemoaning the fate of the Kasubians "too German for the Poles, not German enough for the Germans", and then nothing. For a non-German audience details like this need some explanation. The Kasubians spoke a German dialect and were the descendents of early German settlers and Germanised Poles. In 1939 there were app 250,000 Kasubian speakers in the Danzig / East Prussia region. Grass mentions the "changing of names" by neighbours in Dog Years (no 3 in the Danzig trilogy). These people were literally making themselves become more German in the certain expectation of a Nazi victory. After the defeat the Germans of Danzig alongwith the Kasubians were forced westwards to make room for Polish newcomers.
We do not see any of Oscars's post war adventures, for me this was the best part of the book. A Tin Drum sequel is required (and at least another two and a half hours !).

One of the supreme jewels from the german cinema!
Bitter metaphor abou Oskar a three years old who decides by himself not to grow anymore just when the Nazis take the power in Germany . He beats in his drum and cries in a fierce loud crashing the windows every time he's in an anger mood. Gunter Grass literally broke the walls about the dark shadows about Germany's literature . That thought was in the mind of too many people after finnishing the WW2.
Therefore this novel reveals not only a deep conviction about the role of the artist in the world but it became a big slap in the face to many people .
The artistic movement after the WW2 in Germany was born with the guilty's syndrom . Think in music , literature and cinema world .
Karl Heinz Stockhausen, Heinrich Böll , Fassbinder , Alexander Kluge and Wolker Schlöndorff among other important voices and artists had to carry that weight on his shoulders and his mind .
However the art reacted in a brave way and gave important statements about their spiritual wounds.
This film deserved widely the Academy Award as best foreign film , being the first german movie that got it . Besides this work won the Palm'd or prize in Cannes Festival 1979 .
Add to this long list of triumphs, the splendid acting of the twelve years old actor David Bennent and countless reflections all along the film .
Simply mesmerizing!

Fantastic acting
is about all I can say in favor of this film. David Bennent, the child star, in particular gave a magnificent performance. Unfortunately, the film itself left a bad taste in my mouth.

To those reviewers who keep claiming that Oskar deliberately chose to stop growing in protest to Hitler and his Nazis, what film were YOU watching? It seems to me that people are grasping at straws to come up with the idea that Oskar was staging some sort of heroic, idealistic protest, when he did nothing of the sort. He was a sociopath. More than once during the movie, I kept thinking of Children of the Corn, or Chucky. Oskar was a creepy, sinister character, and it amazes me how people will persist in ignoring the facts and convincing themselves that he was a bright, innocent hero, just because he was a small child with big eyes.

The film had its charms and I can truthfully say that I was fascinated by it, but in the end I can't say I've gained anything from it but disturbing images and nausea. Just when you think you can't be phased by anything anymore, considering all the violence and sex in the media these days, you come across a movie like this. It seems like the director's gone out of his way to come up with things so disgusting, your mind would never have been able to imagine it on its own. And to add insult to injury, I still can't begin to fathom a meaning behind it all. If I'm going to be shown such things, I'd at least like them to have a point; in the Tin Drum, a lot of the more disgusting scenes seemed purely gratuitous.

I have a hard time believing this movie won an Academy Award. Either the competition was truly horrible, or it's come to the point where bizarre and grotesque = high art. I realize that some people think art should be subtle and cryptic, but at the same time, slapping an artsy label on something doesn't make it acceptable.

Brilliant Cinematic Experience!
Oscar Matzerath has prenatal memories as he can recollect how his grandmother and grandfather met and how his mother was born. When Oscar is born in 1924 in the free city of Danzig, based on the Treaty of Versailles (1919), the only thing that prevented him from crawling back into the safety of the uterus was hearing the promise of a tin drum on his third birthday. When Oscar's third birthday arrived he discovered adult pretense and lack of responsibility. Oscar refuses to embrace this hypocrisy as he stages an accident that prevents him from growing up. Stuck in the body of a three-year-old Oscar observes the world continue to grow mad to which he raises his objections by glass-cracking screams and frenetic drumming. Tin Drum cleverly depicts notions and ideas through allegorical visualizations such as the the drum, dead horse heads with eel and Oscar's mother overeating on fish. Many of the visual representations in the mise-en-scene are simply brilliant as they enhance the aesthetics as well as augment the intuitive thinking of the audience. However, it is the story itself that is captivating as it offers a philosophical view of mankind and history through Oscar's eyes and his constant drumming for attention when something was about to go wrong. Schlöndorff directs a brilliant film that elevates the audience's worldly awareness and forces the audience to ponder actions in regards to family, society, and the world. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The 1980s weren't too kind to John Frankenheimer, but this filmstands out as a top-notch spy thriller. A Nazi pact to steal a fortune from theThird Reich to aid Holocaust survivors results in a bizarre inheritance 40years later, with architect Michael Caine having to come to terms with his father's past and the terrifying prospects of a Fourth Reich. The whole thing becomes a metaphor for a witches' covenant. It's exciting and well-paced and full of precious little moments (though Caine andVictoria Tennant fall short of being interesting characters). Supporting actors Mario Adorf, Michael Lonsdale, and Bernard Hepton really shine. Thefilm was based on Robert Ludlum's bestseller and coscripted by George Axelrod (The Manchurian Candidate). --Bill Desowitz ... Read more

Reviews (8)

The Director's Edition
Ok, rent the DVD and watch the movie straight through. Then watch it again with John Frankenheimer's audio commentary. It's the only way you can figure this thing out. He explains the plot, which is not Ludlum's complete story. And Ludlum was a very entertaining author, although I think he got paid by the word. In fact, since great chunks of the novel are missing (the ending is completely invented by the screen writers), you need the director giving you notes as you watch. I was surprised that there were 3 writerss credited with the screenplay. That's usually a bad sign to begin with.

The movie is a heck of a lot more interesting to watch with the director's notes, but it doesn't help the plot or pacing, which are deathly dull. Far too much chit-chat, and exposition, exposition, exposition.

Some of the scenes were played in a certain location simply because Frankenheimer found real locations that appealed to him and he just changed the script to accomodate his choice, even if it didn't make a darn bit of sense to the story-line. For example, the scene of the sexual carnival was added simply because Frankenheimer wanted to make a statement about the decadence of Berlin in the '20s and '30s, and for no other reason. The carnival, I learned, was Frankenheimer's total invention; it doesn't actually exist.

The scene of Caine riding a horse is there simply because Frankheimer found a restaurant in Germany with a riding area attached. The scene, however, was set in London, so London buses had to be brought in to convince you that it was London.

The scene where Michael caine says he doesn't drive wasn't in the original script. It was added to cover the fact that Michael Caine doesn't drive and never has. Does knowing this little tid-bit help you enjoy the story? Not for a second. This is sub-rate Frankenheimer.

Only Michael Caine Had Any Class (But Not Much)
It is hard to imagine how any film that stars Michael Caine and is directed by John Frankenheimer could go so wrong in so many ways. There is nothing wrong with any plot that suggests the fall of the Third Reich could lay the seeds for a future resurgent Fourth Reich, but the problem with THE HOLCROFT COVENANT is that things went fuzzy from the start. A Nazi general in Berlin in April of 1945 arranges for billions of US dollars to be used ostensibly to compensate for the atrocities of Hitler's wars of conquest and genocide. He realizes that decades must pass before his son (Caine) would grow to maturity to carry out his grand design. The film suggests, however, that the real purpose of all these billions is not philanthropic at all. There is more than a hint that this general merely used verbal chicanery in his death note to propagate a new Reich. Now if this money were truly intended to spark a new Reich, then the result would have been logical, and hence believable. It is not until the very last two minutes of the film that director Frankenheimer, with no warning, pulls a switch about the true purpose of the legacy.

Caine, of course, tries hard to pull things together, but he gives what is probably the worst performance of an otherwise glittering career. Compare his fumbling Holcroft with the sureness of his recent THE QUIET AMERICAN. It is strange to see and hear Caine look like a bumbling fool who can neither drive a car nor shoot a gun. By the end, however, he somehow matures enough to figure out a convoluted plot and clearly wants his character to be seen as suave, confident, and in control. When he tells the audience how he manages to figure this all out, his explanation makes no more sense than the rest of the plot. On a technical note, the sound track was hard to hear, and the scenes of nudity were thrown in to make sure your attention does not wander, which it did. Rent this only if you are a die-hard Caine fan.

My copy of the DVD was defective,
The DVD lacked some chunks of the movie. There was no viewer menu, no ability to navigate the scenes.

As for the show, it was pretty good. For some reason, however, the bad guys had to prove they were evil by engaging in incest. I guess Hollywood couldn't expect an audience to understand killing for money as a bad thing. The plot is somewhat corny and ripe for satire, but the movie has good production values. Michael Caine plays his role perfectly, of course.

O
I rented John Frankenheimer's "The Holcroft Covenant" back in the late-1980s when I was a big fan of Michael Caine spy movies. This movie is a disappointment.

"The Holcroft Covenant" is one of the very worst films of both actor Michael Caine and director John Frankenheimer. I couldn't make much sense out of the story. The screenplay is absolutely ludicrous. At times, the movie can't seem decide whether it wants to be a bizarre satire or a spy thriller. The superior Caine is absolutely wasted in this picture.

John Frankenheimer simply forgot how to make great movies. As a Frankenheimer film, "The Holcroft Covenant" is even worse than "Dead Bang" and "99 and 44/100% Dead." I am disappointed that the director of the unforgettable "The Manchurian Candidate" made this piece of nonsense. I don't understand why efforts were made to transfer such an inferior Frankenheimer movie from videotape to DVD when the director's vastly superior "The Iceman Cometh" hasn't yet been released to home video in ANY form.

"The Holcroft Covenant" is a failure. For a great Michael Caine spy movie, see "The Ipcress File."

Stank
This film was one confusing blob of a mess. One of the worst films I've ever seen. It made me never want to read a Ludlum novel, since that's what it was based on. When I heard an audiotape of Ludlum's memoirs, and he said how he LIKED this film, it REALLY made me never want to read one of his books. Even Michael Caine in his autobiography says that when he got on the set, he read the script more closely, only then to realize it didn't make any sense. But he was stuck, and had to film the darn thing. ... Read more

Reviews (28)

Broad appeal for Argento's debut feature
Even those who don't care for writer-director Dario Argento's later baroque extravaganzas may warm to his debut feature "The Bird With the Crystal Plumage" (L'Uccello dalle Piume di Cristallo, 1969), a well-received thriller in which an American writer living in Rome (Tony Musante) witnesses an assault on a woman in an art gallery and is subsequently targeted by the would-be assassin, a crazed psychopath who's been terrorizing the city with a series of brutal murders. Typical of an Argento thriller, the hapless hero's investigation unleashes a cycle of violence which culminates in a climactic unmasking that will take some viewers completely by surprise. Loosely inspired by Fredric Brown's novel 'The Screaming Mimi' (filmed under that title in 1958), Argento's first film is a fairly straightforward thriller with horror asides, anchored by a strong narrative, an increasingly bizarre series of supporting characters, and a strong Everyman hero who slots the puzzle together piece by piece before realizing that the most important clue to the killer's identity was there in front of him all the time. Musante is given excellent support by English actress Suzy Kendall as his girlfriend (the scene in which she's besieged alone in her apartment as the killer hacks through the door with a knife is truly the stuff of nightmares) and Enrico Maria Salerno as the cop charged with finding the killer before he/she strikes again.

Despite Argento's prior screenwriting credits, including significant contributions to the script of Sergio Leone's "Once Upon a Time in the West" (C'era una Volta il West, 1969), producers were unconvinced of his directorial abilities and wanted to pull him off the picture during the first few weeks of shooting, but Argento persevered under an iron-clad contract and ultimately proved his critics wrong with the finished product, a genuinely engrossing mystery punctuated by scenes of explicit horror. The film puts a late-1960s Italian spin on the kind of movie that Hitchcock had already popularized in America, and is leavened with the same kind of uproarious humor: Salerno gets the best line of dialogue during a police line-up when he despairs: "How many times do I have to tell you? Ursula Andress belongs with the transvestites, not the perverts!" And later, an outrageously camp antiques dealer offers a jaw-dropping description of one of the killer's former victims: "It was said she preferred women. I couldn't care less - I'm no racist, for heaven's sake!" Briskly edited by Franco Fraticelli, and featuring a brief appearance from distinctive character actor Reggie Nalder ("Mark of the Devil", "Salem's Lot") as an assassin-for-hire, "Bird" is arguably Argento's warmest, most humane thriller until "Tenebrae" (Tenebre) in 1982.

VCI's region-free DVD runs 95m 47s (not including the UMC logo at the beginning, which wasn't part of the original film) and restores all of the violence that was cut from the initial US theatrical release. The restored material is derived from a separate source - possibly VHS - and is of lesser quality than the bulk of the film, which offers a bright, colorful rendition of the Cromoscope image, slightly reframed to 2.20:1 (from the original 2.35:1), anamorphically enhanced. VCI were forced to issue a 'corrected' version of the disc when it was discovered that one of the restored sequences - the bedroom murder - had been edited incorrectly. However, both versions offer an unnecessary two-channel stereo 'enhancement' of the mono original which sounds more than a little forced and unnatural, made worse because the dialogue is badly out of sync for the duration of the movie, and while the film relies primarily on Vittorio Storaro's widescreen visuals, the audio blemish provides a hideous distraction during prolonged conversation sequences. Ennio Morricone's lilting, melancholy music score is cut off at the end, just as the last credits disappear from the screen, whereas it continued for almost another minute in the theatrical version. There's a letterboxed trailer and an audio-only soundtrack option, but no captions or subtitles of any kind.

Fast-paced and clever
There are two types of Dario Argento films: those after "Four Flies on Grey Velvet" (excluding "The Five Days of Milan," which was never released in the U.S.) and those before it. "The Bird With the Crystal Plumage," Argento's first film, belongs to the category of the before and includes the noticeable differences between the two. While the entire body of Argento's work is something to admire, his first three films are surprisingly well-plotted, given Argento's notorious lack of interest in matters of narrative structure. "Bird" begins with Sam Dalmas, an American writer living in Rome, witnessing an attempted murder in an art gallery. Though he is unable to do anything, his fortuitous arrival saves the victim from almost certain death. His passport confiscated and at first held as a suspect, Sam is told by the police that this is the fourth attack in one month. The only difference is, the victim, a beautiful woman named Monica Ranieri, was the first to survive. Troubled by the idea that he saw something that didn't quite fit, he soon begins his own investigation, putting both his life and the life of his girlfriend at great risk. Several attempts are made on their lives, and everytime Sam is able to learn of someone who might be able to help him, that person is murdered. Finally, in a double-twist ending, Argento reveals the identity of the killer in a cleverly constructed manner. A pure delight from start to finish, "Bird With the Crystal Plumage" is one of the most entertaining (if minimal) thrillers since Hitchcock. Another attribute is Argento's knack for always creating a cast of wonderfully offbeat characters. Be sure to catch Inspector Morosini's exclamation regarding the "perverts" in the line-up sequence. Black humor is equally interwoven with generous amounts of suspense to create a fast-paced and clever mystery/thriller.

A brillant debut!!!
I saw this movie after seeing many other films from the master of horror Dario Argento and I was a little scared about this one but surprisingly I found it very interesting for a first picture from a new director. The cold colors, the calculating plot and suspense keep you into a nail bitting tension from the start to the end. The only bad thing from the movie is probably the english traduction but this is very often from foreign motion pictures. It`s a must for the fans of Dario but also a great thriller for the others.

His first and arguably one of his best
I really couldn't tell you why I have yet to watch every film in Dario Argento's filmography. A few years ago it was easy to claim ignorance of many of this Italian director's important works because it was often so difficult to find any of them in an uncut form. Fortunately, DVD arrived on the scene and salivating film fans with dollars to spend prodded numerous companies to start churning out any movie they could get their hands on to satiate the masses. It wasn't too long before practically every Argento film arrived on store shelves, with many of these releases being the uncut, unrated editions. Even Troma, the flagship of flaccid filmmaking, released a so-so version of Argento's "The Stendhal Syndrome." People outside of the world of Italian horror cinema have most likely never heard of Dario Argento, unfortunately. These days, more people are familiar with the director's beautiful daughter Asia than with the horror maestro himself. What a shame. Argento's films, at least the ones I have seen, are masterpieces of style injected with truly cringe inducing gore. And to think it all started in earnest with this engaging Hitchcockian thriller, "The Bird With the Crystal Plumage." Argento and his fans never looked back, but this is an apt starting point for those unfamiliar with this director's work.

An American reporter staying in Rome witnesses a truly shattering event one evening when he sees a gruesome assault takes place inside of an art gallery. Barred from interfering with the proceedings due to huge sliding glass doors, Sam Dalmas can only look on with horror as two figures, one clad entirely in black and the other a woman, struggle with each other over a very shiny knife. The person in black flees the scene of the crime, leaving behind the hapless woman with a knife wound to the abdomen. When Dalmas does his duty by calling in the police, his story leads the officers to cast a doubtful eye on the concerned American. The police insist that Sam stay in Rome until the investigation turns up some clues, much to the consternation of Dalmas and his pretty girlfriend Julia. It seems that Sam was planning to leave Rome, but all bets are off as more murders occur that the police suspect are linked to the crime seen by Dalmas. Moreover, Julia and Sam start receiving grim phone calls from an unknown person who almost certainly is the figure behind these crimes. Our hero is in a real fix, with his only supporters being his woman and a friend who works at a museum. At least the cops start to come over to his side as the bodies pile up, especially once they listen to those eerie phone calls. A unique sound in the background of one of these calls provides the break Dalmas needs to identify the killer he saw on that fateful night. The conclusion has more twists and turns than a cyclone.

"The Bird With the Crystal Plumage" helped inaugurate the era of the Italian giallo (Italian for yellow), so named because in Italy cheap paperback crime novels came with yellow covers. These are the films with the anonymous, black-gloved killers toting gruesome looking knives while stalking their mostly female prey. The crimes are often seen from the point of view of the killer, giving the audience the impression that they are part of the heinous murders. Argento plays the giallo for all its worth here, matching this disturbing technique with a great score by the inestimable Ennio Morricone and camera work rarely seen in the horror genre. The cinematography here is simply divine, with the director including a shot from the point of view of a man falling from a tall building and an ultra cool scene where the camera points at a lighted doorway from inside a darkened room. All these elements combine to make this film a taut thriller of enormously entertaining dimensions. Moreover, of the few Argento films I have seen to date, "The Bird With the Crystal Plumage" contains one of his most coherent plotlines.

Gorehounds might find themselves a bit disappointed with the lack of the trademark Argento gore (no sharp corners to bash a head against here!) in this movie, but the stellar camera work, truly creepy scenes of murder and mayhem, and the strong performances from Tony Musante as Sam Dalmas and Suzy Kendall in the Julia role more than make up for the 'PG' rating. Still, that rating made me wonder a bit about what the people at the MPAA were thinking when they viewed this picture. There is upsetting violence here, along with some truly disturbing scenes that hint at where Argento would go in the future. The way the killer caresses those weird looking blades (one of which, I am almost certain, appeared in a later Argento film called "Deep Red") and the participatory effect the audience feels during the killings makes you wonder how this movie got off with such a mundane rating.

The DVD version of "The Bird With the Crystal Plumage" is strictly bare bones: you get the film and a trailer, which is good considering its relative obscurity but could have been better. As others have said, the audio is quite muzzy at times and the picture quality isn't anything to write home to mother about. After viewing this picture and a couple of other Argento films, I must say I really enjoy how these movies mess with your mind. Just when you think you know what's going on, good old Dario throws another curveball. He does this in many of his films, but he does it here for the first time. What a joy it is to watch it today!

A SUSPENSEFUL THRILLER!!!
THIS FILM HAS THE RIGHT ATMOSPHERE FOR A CREEPY THRILLER AND IT KEEPS YOU INTERESTED THROUGHOUT.
THE MOVIE ALSO FEATURES A "SURPRISE" ENDING THAT YOU PROBABLY WON'T PREDICT.
IT'S FAIRLY SAFE TO SAY THAT THIS THRILLER SUCCEEDS ON ALL LEVELS AND IS A GOOD WAY TO PASS 100 MINS. PLUS!!
I ENJOYED THIS HORROR THRILLER AS YOU WILL WHEN YOU SEE IT!!
IF YOU ENJOY THE MOVIES OF HITCHCOCK, YOU MAY ENJOY THIS FILM ALSO!! ... Read more

Reviews (1)

intriguing psychological drama
This is a great story told in a series of flashbacks. A fantastic foreign film where we meet many intriguing characters who would make Kramer from Seinfeld look tame. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The 1980s weren't too kind to John Frankenheimer, but this filmstands out as a top-notch spy thriller. A Nazi pact to steal a fortune from theThird Reich to aid Holocaust survivors results in a bizarre inheritance 40years later, with architect Michael Caine having to come to terms with his father's past and the terrifying prospects of a Fourth Reich. The whole thing becomes a metaphor for a witches' covenant. It's exciting and well-paced and full of precious little moments (though Caine andVictoria Tennant fall short of being interesting characters). Supporting actors Mario Adorf, Michael Lonsdale, and Bernard Hepton really shine. Thefilm was based on Robert Ludlum's bestseller and coscripted by George Axelrod (The Manchurian Candidate). --Bill Desowitz ... Read more

Reviews (8)

The Director's Edition
Ok, rent the DVD and watch the movie straight through. Then watch it again with John Frankenheimer's audio commentary. It's the only way you can figure this thing out. He explains the plot, which is not Ludlum's complete story. And Ludlum was a very entertaining author, although I think he got paid by the word. In fact, since great chunks of the novel are missing (the ending is completely invented by the screen writers), you need the director giving you notes as you watch. I was surprised that there were 3 writerss credited with the screenplay. That's usually a bad sign to begin with.

The movie is a heck of a lot more interesting to watch with the director's notes, but it doesn't help the plot or pacing, which are deathly dull. Far too much chit-chat, and exposition, exposition, exposition.

Some of the scenes were played in a certain location simply because Frankenheimer found real locations that appealed to him and he just changed the script to accomodate his choice, even if it didn't make a darn bit of sense to the story-line. For example, the scene of the sexual carnival was added simply because Frankenheimer wanted to make a statement about the decadence of Berlin in the '20s and '30s, and for no other reason. The carnival, I learned, was Frankenheimer's total invention; it doesn't actually exist.

The scene of Caine riding a horse is there simply because Frankheimer found a restaurant in Germany with a riding area attached. The scene, however, was set in London, so London buses had to be brought in to convince you that it was London.

The scene where Michael caine says he doesn't drive wasn't in the original script. It was added to cover the fact that Michael Caine doesn't drive and never has. Does knowing this little tid-bit help you enjoy the story? Not for a second. This is sub-rate Frankenheimer.

Only Michael Caine Had Any Class (But Not Much)
It is hard to imagine how any film that stars Michael Caine and is directed by John Frankenheimer could go so wrong in so many ways. There is nothing wrong with any plot that suggests the fall of the Third Reich could lay the seeds for a future resurgent Fourth Reich, but the problem with THE HOLCROFT COVENANT is that things went fuzzy from the start. A Nazi general in Berlin in April of 1945 arranges for billions of US dollars to be used ostensibly to compensate for the atrocities of Hitler's wars of conquest and genocide. He realizes that decades must pass before his son (Caine) would grow to maturity to carry out his grand design. The film suggests, however, that the real purpose of all these billions is not philanthropic at all. There is more than a hint that this general merely used verbal chicanery in his death note to propagate a new Reich. Now if this money were truly intended to spark a new Reich, then the result would have been logical, and hence believable. It is not until the very last two minutes of the film that director Frankenheimer, with no warning, pulls a switch about the true purpose of the legacy.

Caine, of course, tries hard to pull things together, but he gives what is probably the worst performance of an otherwise glittering career. Compare his fumbling Holcroft with the sureness of his recent THE QUIET AMERICAN. It is strange to see and hear Caine look like a bumbling fool who can neither drive a car nor shoot a gun. By the end, however, he somehow matures enough to figure out a convoluted plot and clearly wants his character to be seen as suave, confident, and in control. When he tells the audience how he manages to figure this all out, his explanation makes no more sense than the rest of the plot. On a technical note, the sound track was hard to hear, and the scenes of nudity were thrown in to make sure your attention does not wander, which it did. Rent this only if you are a die-hard Caine fan.

My copy of the DVD was defective,
The DVD lacked some chunks of the movie. There was no viewer menu, no ability to navigate the scenes.

As for the show, it was pretty good. For some reason, however, the bad guys had to prove they were evil by engaging in incest. I guess Hollywood couldn't expect an audience to understand killing for money as a bad thing. The plot is somewhat corny and ripe for satire, but the movie has good production values. Michael Caine plays his role perfectly, of course.

O
I rented John Frankenheimer's "The Holcroft Covenant" back in the late-1980s when I was a big fan of Michael Caine spy movies. This movie is a disappointment.

"The Holcroft Covenant" is one of the very worst films of both actor Michael Caine and director John Frankenheimer. I couldn't make much sense out of the story. The screenplay is absolutely ludicrous. At times, the movie can't seem decide whether it wants to be a bizarre satire or a spy thriller. The superior Caine is absolutely wasted in this picture.

John Frankenheimer simply forgot how to make great movies. As a Frankenheimer film, "The Holcroft Covenant" is even worse than "Dead Bang" and "99 and 44/100% Dead." I am disappointed that the director of the unforgettable "The Manchurian Candidate" made this piece of nonsense. I don't understand why efforts were made to transfer such an inferior Frankenheimer movie from videotape to DVD when the director's vastly superior "The Iceman Cometh" hasn't yet been released to home video in ANY form.

"The Holcroft Covenant" is a failure. For a great Michael Caine spy movie, see "The Ipcress File."

Stank
This film was one confusing blob of a mess. One of the worst films I've ever seen. It made me never want to read a Ludlum novel, since that's what it was based on. When I heard an audiotape of Ludlum's memoirs, and he said how he LIKED this film, it REALLY made me never want to read one of his books. Even Michael Caine in his autobiography says that when he got on the set, he read the script more closely, only then to realize it didn't make any sense. But he was stuck, and had to film the darn thing. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Excellent!
I saw this movie and it twisted my emotions a bit. It surprised me and left me with an aftertaste. If you like the pace and texture of Merchant-Ivory productions, see this. It isn't Merchant-Ivory, but similar in feel. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Before Frodo "Lord of the Rings" (2001)
Die Nibelungen (1924) filmed at UFA (The UFA Story ISBN: 0809094835). Director Fritz Lang, the original story "Siegfried's Tod" I have seen it with German subtitles and other versions with English subtitles. Paul Richter (Siegfried) was in 45 other films, from 1921 to 1972.

Siegfried (Paul Richter) is the son of the King of Xnnetn (Sigmund). He forges his own sward so sharp that it cuts chicken feathers. He is told that near the Rhine at Worms the King of Burgundy (Gunter) and his sister, Kriemhild is at a castle. Siegfried, "On the hour I leave for Worms to win Kriemhild"..."Show me the way if you want to live!" He falls for the "I know a short-cut" routine. Die Nibelungen snickers when he is out of earshot; "Your way leads not to Worms, but to Death" Guess who lives in the heart of the forest? Yep it is Fafnir the Dragon. Poor Fafnir was minding his own business getting a drink when Siegfried gets that "What can I hack" look on his face. The dragon even wags his tail with the approach of Siegfried. I won't give you the blow by blow. I'll just say that smoking can kill you. Fafnir gets stuck for the drinks and dragon blood drinks allows you to understand the birds. A little birdie tells him that bathing in dragon blood will make him invulnerable. You guest it cover your eyes. Oops look real quick. "Dragon tail flicks linden leaf on Siggie's back." Can you say Achilles heel? Meanwhile back at the castle Volker von Alzey is already singing to Kriemhild of Siegfried' triumph over Fafnir. From here it goes on to deal with treasure and invisibility and all the stuff that Teutonic mythology holds. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Carroll Baker Rules!!
The sexy Carroll Baker rules as she seduces workers at an African Oil pumping station deep in the African desert creating jealousy and tension.It's a cult classic!! ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Unusual life of a saint
This film is rather unusual for the life of a saint, particularly St. Francis of Assisi. It does demonstrate the inner turmoil of a man coming from a wealthy family who gives up everything to strictly follow the gospel teachings to the letter. Mickey Rourke gives an interesting and truthful performance, better than might be expected.

My question about the general tone of the production is the frontal male nudity. Was it really necessary? The first time it is used to show the stripped corpses of the losers in a battle. Wouldn't showing the bodies face down have been just as effective? The other major section shows Francis romping in the snow leaving NOTHING to the imagination. This scene could have been just as effective without showing the male private parts. The use of the nudity means that it would be impossible to show this film to younger people when it could be valuable in illustrating the humanity of a saint.

This film is much better than the Leonard Maltin review would have you believe. It avoids the Hollywood glamor and glitz to give a truer picture of the actual time of St. Francis. But the nudity is unfortunate.

Inspiring, thoughtful, beautiful film
I picked up this film while researching the life of St. Francis of Assisi. Of the several films I've seen on his life, this is the best by far. I was not familiar with Mickey Rourke or his career, but it didn't take me long to realize that he is a very gifted actor. His portrayal of St. Francis was sensitive, contolled, subtle, but when the moment called for action, he was prepared and delivered. The film as a whole was magnificent -a true example of ensemble acting at its finest. One really got the nitty-gritty feeling of life in the 12th century, just as Europe was coming out of the Dark Ages and there was an explosion of change. G. K. Chesterton's book on the saint covers this in more detail.

St. Francis and his little band of followers never intended to begin a world-wide movement of a monastic order, and his confusion, disappointment, and frustration at the response to his "rule" was palpable and heartbreaking. Each of the young men in the original group were as diverse as could be, yet they were all brought together under the loving care and friendship of Francis. The humor and antics balanced their rather grim existence and made them all the more human. There were moments of intense sadness, but also joy. Chiara's enigmatic smile at the end I will leave to your own interpretation. It was a superb touch to the ending of a stunning film.

A Much Maligned Masterpiece
I strongly believe that this is one of the top ten films of the 1980s. People tend to malign it for one of the following reasons: 1) they hate Mickey Rourke 2) they don't like the Christian themes 3) they like the Christian themes but are upset by the nudity 4) they don't like the way the film ends.

Regarding the Rourke haters, I feel they simply have no class. Mickey Rourke's career followed much the same path as Errol Flynn's, which is reason to malign him personally but not his work. Rourke in his heyday had a charisma and screen personality that rivaled Valentino, Flynn, or Bogart. Regarding the anti-Christians, you don't have to be a believer to enjoy the story of a remarkable man. As for the prudists, the nudity is brief and natural, nothing tasteless. Finally, as for the ending, in real life people who later were "sainted" (like Francesco d'Asisi) or "deified" (like Jesus) did not get carried away by angels. They experienced failures and then they died, often miserably and alone, just like everyone else. This film presented that cold reality much like it probably happened; that is precisely what makes it so poignant and relevant.

As for Rourke's performance, I thought it was brilliant, especially in the latter scenes. And Helena Bonham Carter is a first rate actress, of that there can be no serious discussion. The fact that Mickey Rourke later went on to drink away his career and take stupid roles is no fair reason to malign this film. Would you also malign Sir Laurence Olivier's Henry V because he later played Zeus in the awful Harry Hamlin feature, Clash of the Titans? Let him who hath never sinned cast the first stone against this film! (and let's get a reprint fired up...)

St. Francis is martyred a second time......
I typically like Mickey Rourke, at least in his earlier (pre-90s) films but let's face it, he is a better Satan than Saint.
It is a shame the story of the life of one of the most intriguing men in history is put across in a disjointed storyline.
To make matter worse, Rourke provides none of the subtly in the character of Francesco to show inner growth, the gradual "conversion of the heart." It takes subtly in acting: not so much in what is said, but what is not said. And even when Rourke talks, the dialogue stiff, he seems uncomfortable, stilted (trying to stifle a Brooklyn accent?) In short, Rourke stinks. Perhaps he was directed badly.
The plot needs better flow. The viewers are bouncing all over the place, we're not sure how Francesco gets to the visit with the Pope and back, among other things.
Good idea. Poorly done.
If you've got to see it, rent it.

If you Love God and Spiritual Truth, Watch this Movie
i looked at the other reviews, and they seemed to come from unenlightened beings. How can any one who hasn't seen the light comment on anything to do with spiritual truth. This movie is extraordinarily well done and highly inspirational. Anyone on anykind of spiritual path should see this. i have a new found love for the