Amazon.com

The Salem witch hunts are given a new and nasty perspective when a vengeful teenage girl uses superstition and repression to her advantage, creating a killing machine that becomes a force unto itself. Pulsating with seductive energy, this provocative drama is as visually arresting as it is intellectually engrossing. Arthur Miller based his classic 1953 play on the actual Salem witch trials of 1692, creating what has since become a durable fixture of school drama courses. It may look like a historical drama, but Miller also meant the work as a parable for the misery created by the McCarthy anti-Communist hearings of the 1950s. This searing version of his drama delves into matters of conscience with concise accuracy and emotional honesty. Three passionate cheers for Miller, director Nicholas Hytner, and costars Daniel Day-Lewis and Winona Ryder. --Rochelle O'Gorman ... Read more

Reviews (77)

It's About Time
You'd be hard pressed to find a story more compelling than the one that inspired Arthur Miller's 1953 drama The Crucible. Except the one about how it became a movie. It's taken all these years to bring a full version to the screen, and the only thing that explains it is Hollywood's perpetual cluelessness. The Salem witch trials of 1692 destroyed nineteen lives and countless reputations. Hoodwinked by a bunch of flighty teenage girls who wished to escape a whipping for their frolics in the woods, the town brought in the colony magistrates to sort out the devils from the angels.

Miller, who also wrote the screenplay, expresses his blatant contempt for hypocrisy in all forms through the character of John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis), a humble but once-adulterous farmer. Proctor's sexual escapades with the town's main accuser Abigail Williams (Winona Ryder) could, through the girl's treachery, end in his wife's hanging. He can either save himself with a lie or free Elizabeth (Joan Allen) with the truth about himself and Abigail.

It's potent stuff any way you slice it, and the actors here aren't afraid to take big bites of their meaty roles. The film's pacing is fast and furious, hysterical like the history of the event it interprets. If it lacks the McCarthyist subtext it once had, so what. This here's a tragedy--a good old American one.

The movie's inevitable ending won't satisfy those who want only fluff and feathers at the cinema, but the hard lesson won by those who refuse to compromise their principles can't be denied. The Crucible is a faithful testament to their sacrifice.

Great Adaptation of an American Masterpiece
Since Miller helped write the screenplay and one of his sons produced or coproduced the movie, it shouldn't be a shock that the movie is so faithful to the original text where it needs to be and broadens the story where it needs to, as well. Miller knows how to write for the stage, and he apparently knows how to write for the screen, also. After seeing so many "classic" books and/or plays butchered by Hollywood, this movie is a real delight, despite its morbid and all-too-realistic story. This movie has become an essential to my Grade 11 American Literature classes, spectacularly complementing their reading of Miller's play and several pieces from the Salem Witch Trial era.

Ignoring the play's historic flaws and inaccuracies (that's another debate for another time), Miller brilliantly captured the essence of the Salem Witch Trials in his play and has conveyed them to the screen. Hatred, fear, jealousy, hypocrisy, religious mania, attention-seeking, conviction, strength, determination, repentance, and a host of other emotions and character traits are vividly brought to life by a superb cast: Daniel Day-Lewis is a great John Proctor (nobody else could have done better), Winona Ryder is very good as the conniving and bitter Abigail Williams, Joan Allen was nominated for an Oscar for her portrayal of Elizabeth Proctor, and Paul Scofield should have won an Oscar for his cold-hearted portrayal of Justice Danforth. The conflict between Proctor and Danforth is what sustains the play's momentum for the second and third acts (about the last hour and fifteen minutes of the movie), and Lewis and Scofield bring that epic conflict to life: the classic good v. evil, with the sides getting somewhat mixed up as to who is who. . . . Lewis plays the flawed hero to Scofield's self-righteous and vindictive villain with palpable energy. How Scofield's performance was overlooked by the Academy is just another example of their oblivion. He gives me the willies with his methodical, calculating delivery of Miller's chilling dialogue: "Who weeps for these weeps for corruption" (among a bunch of great lines from the play/movie).

This isn't simply a play enacted in front of movie cameras (like Death of a Salesman). The director uses his camera very effectively, capturing some great close-up moments, unique perspectives and camera angles, and bringing a sense of "bigness" to the whole story. The play can seem very isolated, with its sparse sets and black-and-white costumes. Miller also expands the movie to begin well before the play does (giving the movie-goer information that he must have assumed the play-reader would already have) and extending it beyond the conviction of Proctor to include his execution, along with that of Rebecca Nurse and Martha Corey. Just as a side note, each of those three was hanged in a separate group in the original trials--great symbolism from Miller, including each larger original group of victims in the final trio. Also great symbolism in Proctor's Christ-like physical placement in the middle of the two "sinners," as he takes their sins upon him--the crucifixion is represented very effectively.

Bottom line: You won't see a better adaptation of a play to movie anytime soon. Nothing essential is left out, and some nice details are brought in to give the movie a distinction from its original source, the play. If you can make it through this play and not be outraged by the injustice and hypocrisy, then you have a heart as cold as Danforth's. What Miller would likely want you to do is apply that outrage to similar situations that go on every day, just as he intended with his original play (the McCarthy hearings, the "Red" Scare). At least watch the movie, though.

"Your justice would freeze beer."
Although the playwright Arthur Miller was also the screenwriter for this production starring Winona Ryder and Daniel Day-Lewis, the film bears little resemblance to the play in tone and impact. Director Nicholas Hytner has abandoned the intimate, almost claustrophobic atmosphere of the dark, interior scenes in the play, in favor of an expansive setting, with many scenes set outside, including panoramic shots of Salem in 1692, full of costumed "citizens." The expanded setting makes the psychology and motivation of the witchcraft hysteria more difficult to determine, since the intensity of the settlers' repressed, interior lives is not obvious. The explanatory notes which Miller incorporates into the play about land disputes, religious controversies, and personal animosities, which led to specific individuals being accused and arrested for witchcraft, are seen only peripherally.

As a result, we see Winona Ryder, as Abigail Williams, and her coterie of bewitched girls, screaming hysterically and accusing innocent women of witchcraft without the background which would make these accusations plausible. Her previous relationship with John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis), in the absence of other motivations, seems to be the primary reason for her behavior, but this thwarted love does not explain the extent of her rage and, especially, the involvement of the other girls. Day-Lewis is reduced to the role of victim, and one of the hallmarks of his acting, his subtlety, is absent here, except in a wonderful final scene with his wife, played by Joan Allen. Details of the scenery also ring false--houses in this period were very small because of the difficulty of heating, one third the size they are here, and the church/meeting houses were modest in accordance with religious restrictions against unnecessary display.

This is a Hollywood version of the witchcraft trials, capitalizing on the sensational at the expense of the complex and subtle forces behind the accusations of witchcraft--the Indian wars which were just ending, the growing independence of individuals, the increasing resentment of hard-line theocratic rule, the abolition of traditional property laws, and most importantly, the lack of any societal role whatsoever for young women, who were not old enough to assume a woman's role and who, bored and left out of decision-making, were on their own in dealing with their adult feelings. The film is beautiful, and the acting, though one-dimensional, is as effective as it can be in the absence of fully-developed motivation for the girls' hysteria. The "witches" are reduced to cartoons here, and Miller's parallels between these trials and the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, which give the play a modern context, are missing. Mary Whipple

A Superbly Directed and Acted Film
It is rare nowadays that I come out of a movie feeling moved and enlightened. Suffice it to say that when I first saw The Crucible in the theatre several years ago, I left the movie understanding a bit more about human nature and a greater appreciation for the power of group hysteria. This film draws on the fine acting talents of Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder (in her best role ever), and Joan Allen. Not only is the dialogue brilliant, but the emotional content is incredibly affecting. I am so glad to see it finally on DVD. In this day and age of disposable art, it is heartening to see that movies of this caliber are still being made (even if it is with less frequency).

A great film
I have seen this movie perhaps a dozen times, and never tire of it. It is one of the most compelling, well-written movies I can think of, and the acting is superb throughout, particularly from Day-Lewis, who gives a heart-stopping performance. Because of its theme about witches, the movie gets played a lot around Halloween, but it is by no means a horror movie. It's not even a thriller, really, yet it does manage to thrill and keep the viewer totally involved. I love this movie and can't wait for the DVD. ... Read more

Reviews (185)

Redefining the Rock Musical.
I've been a fan of musicals ever since I saw Dorothy go Technicolor in "The Wizard of Oz" when I was about five - but I had just about given up hope of a modern day musical. The last popular musicals were done in the seventies (Tommy, Rocky Horror, The Wiz), and they weren't really emotionally moving. Entertaining, yes - but thought provoking and touching, not exactly.

Hedwig has given me hope. Based on a play that became a cult hit in New York and other big cities, now it's been put on DVD with great care by its creator John Cameron Mitchell. He's done an excellent job of bringing Hedwig's energy and intimacy to the screen. I'd love to see him direct and star in more films.

The music is excellent and the lyrics surprisingly insightful. You have to watch this movie more than once to fully appreciate the intricate story, but the music will grab you right away. Stephan Trask is an amazingly talented writer.

Although not everyone may think of an East German transsexual punk rock whore as a heroin - I do. This is the story of her self-discovery, how she finds completeness within herself. She wants love and acceptance ' just as we all do.

Not bad. But ROCKY HORROR is better.
I have a feeling that in later years this movie will be as big a cult classic as ROCKY HORROR or BLOODSUCKING FREAKS. No, its not a great movie, but it has just the right amount of weirdness, pomp and some pretty good rock music to become one of the first major cult sucesses of the 21st century. It centers around a German transexual who after a sex change op gone wrong leaves him with the "angry inch" of the title, is appalled when his secret gay lover steals credit for his music and becomes a number one chart success and sets out to get his music back. The music is pretty good, but the movie itself isn't completely sucessful. That said it works better as a film because the visual elements including animation add to what is a rather bizarre, unique viewing experience. Naturally, I haven't seen the musical on which it is based (typical of me, I know) but I recommend it if you are in the mood to watch something a little different, though personally I think ROCKY HORROR stands head and shoulders over HEDWIG any day.

Rock N Roll & Passion, Truth,Sadness,Loves found & Lost
This movie -- I can watch it each and every day. The characters captured me and they were real people with their faults, genius, heart and soul. Anyone who enjoys Rock and a fabulously written script exploring Transgender relationships, the transgender mind will fall in love with Hedwig. ^5 to all connected with this brilliant movie. It is passion, grit, soul, heart, double cross, greed, and a search for love, acceptance. This movie is so great and moving I do not possess the vocabulary to describe the emotional journey the viewer travels. FANTASTIC

Ladies and Gentlmen the best movie you'll ever see
To say the least i am a fag hag, thus, i love musicals and anything remotely gay. albeit i am neither a boy nor a gay boy but rather a female whose only form of male friends are queer, gay, fagets etc. and i have to say this is one of my favorite movies of all times when i first viewed this movie i couldn't believe it i thought "yes, i'm not a freak someone took two of my favorite things Rock and Roll and Transexuals and rolled it into one great movie" and not only did i completely fall in love with the movie the directer, writer and star of the movie but also the soundtrack which by the way you the soon to be viewer should definetly get because its the best. Hedwig or Hansel as that was his name before his transformation or rather confusion, he and his mother lived in a cramped apartment in Communist Berlin, before the wall came down that is, They were left by his American GI father and it was just his mother and him. THe apartment was so small that the only place for Hedwig slash Hansel could find refuse to listen to his American Rock and Roll music was in the oven. The two lived together sleeping in the same bed until around Hedwig slash Hansel was into his late twenties and was discovered sunbathing on ruins by his semi perverted prince charming, an American military black man the two decides to get married and get the hell out of berlin. the only thing that stands in their way is Hedwig slash Hansel's little bishop between his slash her's legs but Hansels mother whose name by the way is Hedwig convinces him that its just a simple cut and paste job and she'll be on her way to america. but little did they know what they were into unfortunately for Hansel Berlin did not have the best plastic surgens around and instead of a female genitalia or even male genitalia he was left with a inch of skin where something was supposed to be there. thus the title angry inch. But to cut a good story short He took on his mothers name Hedwig and was then known throughout the movie as hedwig and referred to as her or she. and after a few months of wedding bliss she was left by her GI husband for a younger more tight boy. left by her husband and with an inch to work with she took all her anger and fustraion into making a remarkable band with beautiful songs in which she meets tommy gnosis or rather makes tommy gnosis this psuedo rockstar whom was created and shaped into a rockstar by none other Ms Hedwig herself and then like her father and husband left her in the dumps. but this time she wasn't going to let anyone take what she worked so hard at, her music and her heart. you see first Hedwig meet tommy while babysitting for his family tommy was just a christian rock nerd before ever meeting Hedwig and the two hit it off they were more in love than ever the problem tommy was sadly not into the whole inch thing and couldn't work it out so like the dish and the spoon he ran away with her heart and the songs in which she wrote and made him famous rather than herself. the underlining of this movie is all about find yourself and accepting who you are once you've found yourself and its about love and how sometimes you just have to let that one person who feel you can't live without, go. but enough about the film i command you to watch it listen to the soundtrack and be in love.

incredulous
There are people on here that do not think that Hedwig is very good, and that is okay. The next time somebody mentions that they do not think the "story is good!!1!!" or that "all of these transies are weird, omgggg!!!!1", I might vomit.

If you think that the metaphors John Cameron Mitchell employs are silly or trite- news flash, he didn't make them up. If you want to disagree with Plato, however, be my guest (it'll just validate your stupidity). Since Hedwig and the Angry Inch was based upon The Speech of Aristophranes from Plato's Symposium (a foundational text which deals with greek mythology and is really just another version of Genesis which includes room for people of all sexual orientation) you might want to think twice about what you call silly.

People know Plato's name for a reason. Mitchell is a genius.

Bravo. ... Read more

Reviews (175)

Clint Eastwood delivers a masterpiece
This film won the 1992 Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Gene Hackman) and Best Editing. Garnering three of the "major" awards is impressive and they are what make the film a memorable and enjoyable experience. Eastwood the director is in top form. He has always displayed a steady hand in directing his stories and actors and he doesn't disappoint here. Nothing flashy but it is his understated direction that leads this film to it's climax. In less capable hands, a director may be apt to moralize or preach. Eastwood capably lets the story (overlooked as an original screenplay) tell itself. His turn as the lead character -- William Munny -- is also an underplayed, nuanced part. I think it is one of his best acting jobs. He carries a grim outlook and those set, steely eyes convey all of the emotions the character feels. In a movie with so much else that is good, his performance is not to be ignored. Gene Hackman is outstanding in his portrayal of Little Bill Daggett, the sheriff of Big Whiskey, WY. His performance is both blustery and low-keyed. It is a credit to Hackman to know how to pull if off effortlessly. The movie itself is the real star. It plays on so many levels and gives a lot of shades of gray that really blow off the Westerns of old. There is no good guy in the white hat. In fact, there is little good to be found in the movie. Most of the men and women are scoundrels or people of ill-repute. However the general theme of reality that Eastwood conveys is what you will have to look for. Things aren't what they seem and this "anti-Western" shrugs off the myths of the Old West.

The Darkest Film Ever To Win Best Picture
Unforgiven you realize, a few minutes in, is not your typical westen. Nor is it your typical Clint Eastwood movie. And it probably surely isn't your typical Best Picture Oscar winner. Telling the story of Willam Munny (Clint Eastwood), a retired bounty hunter who goes on one last job, to kill the men who slashed a prostitute's face. Now doesn't that sound like a fun movie! Whoppee! Errr... Not really. Actually it sound's downright depressing. And it is. Along the way Willam meets up with his longtime partner played by Morgon Freeman. Together they set out to kill those above mentioned men. About this time we switch over to the late Richard Harris's character. Who also is after the reward money offered up by the town prostitutes for the killing of those men I've mentioned twice already. He isn't after them long as he gets beaten and kicked by the towns people, mainly thier crooked sheriff, Little Bill (played suberbly by Gene Hackman).
He isn't the typical bad guy, either, in fact he's almost good in comparison with other bad guys in other movies. All of this leads up to a spectacular climax with a showdown between Willam Munny and Little Bill. Unforgiven also convienently managed to snag 4 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director (For Clint Eastwood's terrific directing), Best Supporting Actor (For Gene Hackman's marvelous Little Bill). All should see Unforgiven, whether all would enjoy it is another matter. But who can forget Little Bill's words "I'm just trying to build a house!"

The "Western" Everyman.
The most important aspect of this "Western" is its philospical and spiritual message about the universal condition of man. It is almost biblical in nature like the first chapters of the book of Romans in the New Testament. Man is aware of both good and evil but finally is caught up in evil and unless he is redeemed by the forgivness of God he will die in his sins. The title is very appropriate as the characters in the end are unforgiving and unforgiven. It is a powerful film in that there are certain aspects in the various characters the show they have a sense of what is good but they are unable of themselves to overcome the innate evil of the human heart. There are several classic lines in the film such as the moment the young gunslinger says to Eastwood's character "He has it coming" and the reply is "We all have it coming" The conclusion at the end is that both the man representing the law and the man representing the lawless are both damned. It is not a pretty picture of mankind but a true one and is the reason why the Son of God had to die on the cross that we might be forgiven. There is Evil in man, but goodness in God if we will turn to Him. If this film would have only included the forgiveness of God I would have given it twice five stars.

Wow
This western directed by Clint Eastwood is truly one of the greats. The story develops slowly, the viewer learning in small bits about the main character William Munny. The subtlety of the movie is its greatest strength. Gene Hackman is incredible as the town Sheriff and won a well deserved Academy Award. Eastwood also won a much deserved Academy Award for best director.

If you like westerns this one is for you. Its a classic.

Rather good
This film is very good. As you can tell from the rave revies it has on this website and the 4 oscars it won in 1992 for Best Picture, Director, Supporting Actor and something else i cant remember.

The plot is convential - the hitman comes out of retirement after personal tragedy, but the performances superb and the charcetrs fascinating you'll be hooked. It's a great film and shows the acting talents of Clint Eastwood amount to much more than simply facial expressions, although they are spot on again here.

Gene Hackman is probably the true star here and his oscar was well deserved. The performance he gives as Little Bill Daggett is so three dimensional and you wonder to start with just is he good or bad? Nothing is made too obvious and you only find out later you should root against him. Morgan Freeman and Richard Harris have smaller roles but do their best and it all works well.

It's well acted, directed and boasts great scenery. This is the intelligent western and portrays gritty real charcters and makes you think. It's very grim and shows real hardness without being brutal - and that's hard to achieve.

Watch - better yet buy - this, you certainly won't regret it. ... Read more

Reviews (214)

Important stuff!!!
When's the last time anyone dared to tackle such a subject? We already know that some of the details of Brandon Teena's life needed to be changed to make a concise and coherent film. There is no question that Brandon is not a nice person; he's a user, forger, thief, etc. Still, it's an interesting person around which Kimberly Peirce chose to center her first film. Certain elements of Brandon's life have been "abbreviated" but this was for the flow of the film's narrative. There is really no way anyone can fault Hilary Swank's brilliant performance. She was in practically every frame of the film; Chloe Sevigny brought out the sweetness and tenderness from Swank's character. She also personified the boredom of the lower class, mid-Western, stuck-in-a-rut, karaoke singing, girl at dead-end. There are people like this.It's frightening to think that previous reviewers don't believe it. It's a riveting film, and Hilary Swank gives one of the most courageous performances. Even if you don't believe the gender switch, Ms. Peirce's film is an important one.I love this film. There's ugliness, and it's dealt with appropriately. This IS a true story (edited for content), though a good display of red-neck culture. Most instructive. Most upsetting. Most enthrallng. Hilary deserved every award.

Truth Hurts
Boys Don't Cry certainly deserves praise for its many fine performances - although most of the actors did not have much to work with. Only Brandon and Lana are written with depth, and even they could have been written with more depth. But Swank and Sevigny did Oscar-worthy work with what they were given. Swank in particular deserves kudos for getting through some of the film's more brutal moments.

After seeing the movie, however, questions remain. More about Brandon's background would have been particularly interesting and helpful - perhaps a scene of seeking help earlier in life.

That said, the story of the last few days of Brandon's life is one that should be told. And here it is told well. The gritty style of filming matches the bleakness of all its protagonists' lives. The brutality of Brandon's rape, its aftermath, and the subsequent murders are as horrifying as anything I have seen on film. Despite the horror of the murder, Brandon is not quite depicted as a martyr. (S)He does make serious mistakes throughout the movie, and at times it is difficult to feel sympathy for Brandon even if it is clear that this is a person with few choices that could really lead to any permanent sort of happiness. That is the source of my sympathy for Brandon.

Facinating and strange
The production quality both audio and video was good. The script was facinating and truely sad. This was not a feel good movie and in fact will leave you angry. Teena Brandon was a self destructive, confused young lady that wanted to be accepted and loved however she could not accept herself. The story is about how she lived and the situation that leads to her death. It was actually very well acted and I was impressed with the finished product. This is a quality addition to any collection.

Powerful
A stunning movie. Characters are multi-dimensional, flawed, fully human. The filmmakers pull no punches in depicting the life of of Brandon/Teena. I have nothing to add to the other review's commentary on the plot. I just want to add my kudos. The performances--all of them, not just Swank's--are outstanding. The movie hits the bullseye. This film is a disturbing and moving experience, not to be missed.

Teena's Story is Touching, Boys Don't Cry is Overrated
I vaguely remembered the facts of the 1993 incident where Brandon Teena was murdered. I was in high school and high school students don't think of much past their own selfish lives. So it is no amazement to me that it took becoming 26 to finally see Brandon's story and learn from it. I think Brandon's life was remarkable and of course I don't understand everything about him but his story should be a lesson to anyone who has ever hated someone just because they didn't understand why they did the things they did, or said the things they said. Brandon's story opened my eyes and exposed me to different aspects that people like Brandon go through. I will always be disgusted by what happened to Brandon but still cannot go with anyone who masquerades and fools people into thinking they're something they are not. Even if we think we are that person in our minds. Anyway, the film is overrated I believe. Yes, the actors were good but I expected more from the way people go on and on about this film. I think viewers confuse Brandon's real life with the film and believe that it is automatically amazing but the film has faults ( that need questioning ). It's hard to watch documentary films because you never know what was really fact and what was just made to do a film. I didn't take the scenes with Brandon and Lana at face value because I couldn't help wondering if this really happened this way. I think the movie should have started with Brandon's early years so we could have seen what she went through as a child before she succumbed to her feelings of being a man. The film could have introduced the characters better. Why start the film with Brandon getting dressed to pick up women if we don't know how she got to that point? I don't know if it was laziness or if the director felt it would be too long to start from the beginning but I think it harmed the film by starting the film in the middle of Brandon's life. We needed to know more. Why try to wrap it up in only two and a half hours when you got so much that needs to be accomplished? I would be interested in another film of Brandon Teena's life. Boys Don't Cry didn't do Teena's story justice. ... Read more

Reviews (17)

Matt Dillon explores Cambodia's darker corners
An uneasy, yet intriguing, brew of Joseph Conrad, Mario Puzo and Raymond Chandler, "City of Ghosts" is Matt Dillon's entrance into directing, and it fits him well, even if the movie flew far under the radar upon its release. Mossy with atmosphere, the story of three con men in Cambodia is overstuffed at two hours, yet the central theme of American crime vs. third world corruption - the attraction of the two to each other, and their eventual incompatibility - emerges fiercely in Dillon and Barry Gifford's co-written script.

"City of Ghosts" opens with an insurance scam. A hurricane belts the East Coast, and thousands of policyholders are left stranded by a phony company that sucked up their premiums and then laundered the money. At first it seems Jimmy (Dillon) was a fall guy hired by a shadow CEO: He presents a viable cover story to the FBI, which the feds buy.

A day later he's headed to Southeast Asia to locate Marvin (James Caan), the CEO, who's working a new deal to build a casino in Cambodia, recently liberated after the reign of Pol Pot. Marvin's new partner, Casper (Stellan Skarsgard, Hollywood's resident shady fellow) is working his own angle with a few of Marvin's former marks.

Although the table is set for a quick-n-dirty foreign thriller of double crosses and exoticism, Dillon spins the material against its natural bent and toward film noir. Upon Jimmy's arrival in Phnom Penh, the Cambodian capital, Dillon is intent on getting us comfortable with the surroundings; some of it works - the brothel scene is oddly alluring - and some of it reeks of prestige padding. Gerard Depardieu has a large role as a crooked motel owner that's colorful but unrelated to the central story. Natascha McElhone is Jimmy's half-hearted love interest, an art scholar of Cambodia's ancient ruins. There is a local bike porter (Kem Sereyvuth), two petty thieves, an Oddjob hitman, three Russians, a monkey, two more art hippies and a retired general from the Pol Pot regime playing both sides of the casino development scheme.

Caan, second billing behind Dillon, has a rather small role as the goofily detached Marvin, who seems less a criminal mastermind than a creep out the wild, playing head games. A sudden event midway through "City of Ghosts" accounts for the character's relative absence from the picture, but Dillon never finds the approach to paint Marvin as the Kurtz-like figure he'd so much like him to be; introducing Caan to the picture in long shot, dancing with girls, isn't exactly effective for Marvin's mystery.

Yet there is enough to recommend. I like Skarsgard's performance - what suspense there is, he creates by just seeming worried - and Dillon, as usual, fits believably inside his character, in this case the tough-but-not-so-wiseguy. There is an authentic brutality to the picture - kidnappings, innocent victims, offhand violence - that Dillon has visited throughout his career as an actor. The crackerjack plot lacks a little snap, but an ominous languor fills the void. Lush, but mindful of the singe of murder still in the air. Cambodia has earned its rough beauty.

Had the Right Potential, Just Missing that Extra Something
The cinematography was absolutely stunning and the detail Matt Dillon puts into absorbing the culutre around him is fantastic. I have family from neighboring countries in South East Asia, and it's refreshing to know that Cambodia's beliefs and customs are similar to our own. Matt Dillon captured that very well in this film, and listening to the commentary, you can tell he went through great expense to ensure all the cultural and religious details were right and consistent.

However, he seemed to have left his plot hanging loosely in the wind. The approach to the story was good, using sort of a Joseph Conrad view of things: hearing the testimonies of the other characters that point clues towards his boss's whereabouts and boss's intentions. A light tribute to the Heart of Darkness. But then his character gets distracted along the way by events, etc., then boom the truth comes out. What might have helped this become a more poignat film is if James Caan's chracter remained a bit more of a mystery much the way Marlon Brando's character did in Apocalypse Now. In this movie, the audience is privvy to information about James Caan's whereabouts and secret dealings that Matt Dillon has know knowledge of. In other words, the point of view of the story changes in midstream. At first we're seeing things through the eyes of Matt Dillon, then suddenly we are seeing everything going on in the movie. Not very consistent and certainly threw off the rhythm of the film.

Overall, a decent flick with wonderful imagery and a great international cast.

A rare sense of place for a plot driven film. Well done.
Matt Dillon directed this film, and was also one of the writers. He stars in it too.

The film starts in an aftermath of a hurricane on the East Coast, with interviews of people who have lost their homes. We soon become aware, however, that the insurance company on which they depended, and which is based outside the United States, has no money to pay the claims. The investigation finds Matt Dillon running the insurance company's New York office and it seems that he is completely innocent. Suddenly, though, he takes off for Bangkok and then on into Cambodia in search of the man who was behind the scam. His relationship with the top guy, played by James Cain, is complicated though and, as the story moves along, the plot thickens.

Gerard Depardieu is cast as one of those expatriates who runs a sleazy hotel in Cambodia. His performance shines and this is clearly the best and most convincing role in the film. Everyone else, including a local Cambodian who helps our hero and a blonde babe archeologist who Dillon romances, are just there to help the setting of the fast moving, but impossible plot.

In my opinion, though, the star of the film is Cambodia itself. The cinematography was great and I came away with a sense of place that is rare in a plot-driven film. The story did hold my attention, as there were some interesting twists and turns of the story and was generally well done. As it wasn't targeted to an audience looking for an artsy or meaningful film, it definitely fulfilled its limited purposed. Every film does not have to be an Academy Award winner. Some are just for pure entertainment. And for that reason, this film gets a modest recommendation from me..

A road to nowhere
Moody, atmospheric, but ultimately a very empty movie. Dillon stumbles over himself in his directorial debut. There are some fine moments, and the movie develops a good pace, but Dillon didn't seem to have any idea where to take this movie. The viewer is left to stumble along with him in his attempt to navigate the troubled waters of Cambodia.

What I liked most about the movie was the mood it created, a nihilistic view of Cambodia in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Although essentially a contemporary tale, the action could have occurred anytime in the last 25 years. The streets, cities, hotels all have a run-down look. The characters move around in it as the would an Antonioni movie, but Dillon isn't quite up to the challenge despite assembling a fine cast. In the end, you don't feel rewarded for your effort, as the themes break down in a very weak climax.

This is a good fil
I met Matt Dillion in a small French bar at 3 am in Siem Ream back in '98. I guess he was considering doing this film and getting a feel for the country.

The movie give a pretty good idea of what Cambodia is like back in the late 90's.

If you want action this isn't the movie for you but I enjoyed it enough to watch it several times and to also go and buy a copy. ... Read more

Description

When a U.S. submarine accidentally collides with an armed Soviet sub spying off the coast of America, it sets off a suspenseful chain of events that could lead to all-out nuclear war. Based on true events, this ' 'taut thriller' ' (People) raises the action stakes on a crisis that heated the Cold War at sea up to boiling point. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Take it or leave it
This movie wasn't bad, but it was by no means great. I found it quite difficult to follow the storyline, and the special effects were less than convincing (is it just me, or did they use the exact same shot of the Russian submarine, like, 5 times?) Some of the acting, Sheen and Hauer included, seemed forced.
The first 45 minutes of the movie were nearly unbearable, but towards the end, the pace picked up and it became more interesting. I even enjoyed the ending.

(Note: If you are buying this movie for the performance of Dominic Monaghan [as I admit I did], don't waste your money on it. He is hardly shown and has ONE line. Just a heads-up)

Hardly Serviceable
Little more than a serviceable introduction to the historical proceedings. Wooden acting all round. In fact, Sheen looks like he's sleepwalking (or punchdrunk) through the thing. Still, Hauer does manage to conjure some sympathy as the Russian captain who does his best to save all his men, though, regardless of what he does, he can't win back home with the Soviet officials. Otherwise, there are handful of interesting insights into submarine culture--if what we're seeing is an accurate portrayal.

Overall, Hostile Waters the feel of a mediocre (to bad) TV movie (which I'm assuming it isn't), including some particularly unconvincing special effects--to the extent that, though this was made in 1997, I would've guessed '87. It just looks that dated. Only Hauer and Sheen's haggard appearances are any clue that it was made later.

A missed chance
Having read the book first I really looked forward to the movie as a chance to dispel some of the strange ideas we have about Soviet sailors and to shed a little light on a very shadowy place in the worlds militaries.This chance was missed however by skimming over the cause of the events and failing to show the almost superhuman efforts the Rissian captain and crew went through to save the situation. Rutger Hauers performance as a consumate submariner and commanding officer are as close to reality as this movie comes. Surely a missed chance.

A BORING WHITEWASH; READ THE BOOK INSTEAD
Read the book, but DO NOT BUY THIS TRAVESTY! Worse than a made for TV oversimplification, this HBO film completely distorts and actually REVERSES essential facts of the true, exciting and important story detailed in the book upon which it is based (St. Martin's Press, 1997). Anyone with respect for the history of submarines and submariners should avoid this poor "dramatization." It isn't even a "taut thriller," as People Magazine was quoted as saying. It's just a boring whitewash of the actual events. Besides failing to show that an irresponsible cowboy US Submarine Commander (James Von Suskil of the USS AUGUSTA, the man and the ship both cowardly renamed in this low-budget stinker) recklessly caused the accident, they depicted the Russian Captian receiving a hero's welcome when he returned to the USSR, when in truth he was tragically court-martialed and imprisoned after taking necessary steps to save his crew and the eastern seaboard of the US! Why do people make movies like this, and why do actors like Max Von Sydow and Martin Sheen participate in covering up the misdeeds of a reckless US sub commander and the depraved indifference and cruelty of the Soviet Navy toward its own sailors. The simple truth of the book would have been far more exciting and enlightening. Shame on everyone associated with this little piece of anti-history!

Nice little submarine flick
Not "Das Boot," but don't overlook this one. Rutger Hauer gives an excellently controlled performance as the captain. No phony baloney. Very gripping towards the end. Worthwhile. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Take it or leave it
This movie wasn't bad, but it was by no means great. I found it quite difficult to follow the storyline, and the special effects were less than convincing (is it just me, or did they use the exact same shot of the Russian submarine, like, 5 times?) Some of the acting, Sheen and Hauer included, seemed forced.
The first 45 minutes of the movie were nearly unbearable, but towards the end, the pace picked up and it became more interesting. I even enjoyed the ending.

(Note: If you are buying this movie for the performance of Dominic Monaghan [as I admit I did], don't waste your money on it. He is hardly shown and has ONE line. Just a heads-up)

Hardly Serviceable
Little more than a serviceable introduction to the historical proceedings. Wooden acting all round. In fact, Sheen looks like he's sleepwalking (or punchdrunk) through the thing. Still, Hauer does manage to conjure some sympathy as the Russian captain who does his best to save all his men, though, regardless of what he does, he can't win back home with the Soviet officials. Otherwise, there are handful of interesting insights into submarine culture--if what we're seeing is an accurate portrayal.

Overall, Hostile Waters the feel of a mediocre (to bad) TV movie (which I'm assuming it isn't), including some particularly unconvincing special effects--to the extent that, though this was made in 1997, I would've guessed '87. It just looks that dated. Only Hauer and Sheen's haggard appearances are any clue that it was made later.

A missed chance
Having read the book first I really looked forward to the movie as a chance to dispel some of the strange ideas we have about Soviet sailors and to shed a little light on a very shadowy place in the worlds militaries.This chance was missed however by skimming over the cause of the events and failing to show the almost superhuman efforts the Rissian captain and crew went through to save the situation. Rutger Hauers performance as a consumate submariner and commanding officer are as close to reality as this movie comes. Surely a missed chance.

A BORING WHITEWASH; READ THE BOOK INSTEAD
Read the book, but DO NOT BUY THIS TRAVESTY! Worse than a made for TV oversimplification, this HBO film completely distorts and actually REVERSES essential facts of the true, exciting and important story detailed in the book upon which it is based (St. Martin's Press, 1997). Anyone with respect for the history of submarines and submariners should avoid this poor "dramatization." It isn't even a "taut thriller," as People Magazine was quoted as saying. It's just a boring whitewash of the actual events. Besides failing to show that an irresponsible cowboy US Submarine Commander (James Von Suskil of the USS AUGUSTA, the man and the ship both cowardly renamed in this low-budget stinker) recklessly caused the accident, they depicted the Russian Captian receiving a hero's welcome when he returned to the USSR, when in truth he was tragically court-martialed and imprisoned after taking necessary steps to save his crew and the eastern seaboard of the US! Why do people make movies like this, and why do actors like Max Von Sydow and Martin Sheen participate in covering up the misdeeds of a reckless US sub commander and the depraved indifference and cruelty of the Soviet Navy toward its own sailors. The simple truth of the book would have been far more exciting and enlightening. Shame on everyone associated with this little piece of anti-history!

Nice little submarine flick
Not "Das Boot," but don't overlook this one. Rutger Hauer gives an excellently controlled performance as the captain. No phony baloney. Very gripping towards the end. Worthwhile. ... Read more

Reviews (175)

Clint Eastwood delivers a masterpiece
This film won the 1992 Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Gene Hackman) and Best Editing. Garnering three of the "major" awards is impressive and they are what make the film a memorable and enjoyable experience. Eastwood the director is in top form. He has always displayed a steady hand in directing his stories and actors and he doesn't disappoint here. Nothing flashy but it is his understated direction that leads this film to it's climax. In less capable hands, a director may be apt to moralize or preach. Eastwood capably lets the story (overlooked as an original screenplay) tell itself. His turn as the lead character -- William Munny -- is also an underplayed, nuanced part. I think it is one of his best acting jobs. He carries a grim outlook and those set, steely eyes convey all of the emotions the character feels. In a movie with so much else that is good, his performance is not to be ignored. Gene Hackman is outstanding in his portrayal of Little Bill Daggett, the sheriff of Big Whiskey, WY. His performance is both blustery and low-keyed. It is a credit to Hackman to know how to pull if off effortlessly. The movie itself is the real star. It plays on so many levels and gives a lot of shades of gray that really blow off the Westerns of old. There is no good guy in the white hat. In fact, there is little good to be found in the movie. Most of the men and women are scoundrels or people of ill-repute. However the general theme of reality that Eastwood conveys is what you will have to look for. Things aren't what they seem and this "anti-Western" shrugs off the myths of the Old West.

The Darkest Film Ever To Win Best Picture
Unforgiven you realize, a few minutes in, is not your typical westen. Nor is it your typical Clint Eastwood movie. And it probably surely isn't your typical Best Picture Oscar winner. Telling the story of Willam Munny (Clint Eastwood), a retired bounty hunter who goes on one last job, to kill the men who slashed a prostitute's face. Now doesn't that sound like a fun movie! Whoppee! Errr... Not really. Actually it sound's downright depressing. And it is. Along the way Willam meets up with his longtime partner played by Morgon Freeman. Together they set out to kill those above mentioned men. About this time we switch over to the late Richard Harris's character. Who also is after the reward money offered up by the town prostitutes for the killing of those men I've mentioned twice already. He isn't after them long as he gets beaten and kicked by the towns people, mainly thier crooked sheriff, Little Bill (played suberbly by Gene Hackman).
He isn't the typical bad guy, either, in fact he's almost good in comparison with other bad guys in other movies. All of this leads up to a spectacular climax with a showdown between Willam Munny and Little Bill. Unforgiven also convienently managed to snag 4 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director (For Clint Eastwood's terrific directing), Best Supporting Actor (For Gene Hackman's marvelous Little Bill). All should see Unforgiven, whether all would enjoy it is another matter. But who can forget Little Bill's words "I'm just trying to build a house!"

The "Western" Everyman.
The most important aspect of this "Western" is its philospical and spiritual message about the universal condition of man. It is almost biblical in nature like the first chapters of the book of Romans in the New Testament. Man is aware of both good and evil but finally is caught up in evil and unless he is redeemed by the forgivness of God he will die in his sins. The title is very appropriate as the characters in the end are unforgiving and unforgiven. It is a powerful film in that there are certain aspects in the various characters the show they have a sense of what is good but they are unable of themselves to overcome the innate evil of the human heart. There are several classic lines in the film such as the moment the young gunslinger says to Eastwood's character "He has it coming" and the reply is "We all have it coming" The conclusion at the end is that both the man representing the law and the man representing the lawless are both damned. It is not a pretty picture of mankind but a true one and is the reason why the Son of God had to die on the cross that we might be forgiven. There is Evil in man, but goodness in God if we will turn to Him. If this film would have only included the forgiveness of God I would have given it twice five stars.

Wow
This western directed by Clint Eastwood is truly one of the greats. The story develops slowly, the viewer learning in small bits about the main character William Munny. The subtlety of the movie is its greatest strength. Gene Hackman is incredible as the town Sheriff and won a well deserved Academy Award. Eastwood also won a much deserved Academy Award for best director.

If you like westerns this one is for you. Its a classic.

Rather good
This film is very good. As you can tell from the rave revies it has on this website and the 4 oscars it won in 1992 for Best Picture, Director, Supporting Actor and something else i cant remember.

The plot is convential - the hitman comes out of retirement after personal tragedy, but the performances superb and the charcetrs fascinating you'll be hooked. It's a great film and shows the acting talents of Clint Eastwood amount to much more than simply facial expressions, although they are spot on again here.

Gene Hackman is probably the true star here and his oscar was well deserved. The performance he gives as Little Bill Daggett is so three dimensional and you wonder to start with just is he good or bad? Nothing is made too obvious and you only find out later you should root against him. Morgan Freeman and Richard Harris have smaller roles but do their best and it all works well.

It's well acted, directed and boasts great scenery. This is the intelligent western and portrays gritty real charcters and makes you think. It's very grim and shows real hardness without being brutal - and that's hard to achieve.

Watch - better yet buy - this, you certainly won't regret it. ... Read more

Reviews (77)

It's About Time
You'd be hard pressed to find a story more compelling than the one that inspired Arthur Miller's 1953 drama The Crucible. Except the one about how it became a movie. It's taken all these years to bring a full version to the screen, and the only thing that explains it is Hollywood's perpetual cluelessness. The Salem witch trials of 1692 destroyed nineteen lives and countless reputations. Hoodwinked by a bunch of flighty teenage girls who wished to escape a whipping for their frolics in the woods, the town brought in the colony magistrates to sort out the devils from the angels.

Miller, who also wrote the screenplay, expresses his blatant contempt for hypocrisy in all forms through the character of John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis), a humble but once-adulterous farmer. Proctor's sexual escapades with the town's main accuser Abigail Williams (Winona Ryder) could, through the girl's treachery, end in his wife's hanging. He can either save himself with a lie or free Elizabeth (Joan Allen) with the truth about himself and Abigail.

It's potent stuff any way you slice it, and the actors here aren't afraid to take big bites of their meaty roles. The film's pacing is fast and furious, hysterical like the history of the event it interprets. If it lacks the McCarthyist subtext it once had, so what. This here's a tragedy--a good old American one.

The movie's inevitable ending won't satisfy those who want only fluff and feathers at the cinema, but the hard lesson won by those who refuse to compromise their principles can't be denied. The Crucible is a faithful testament to their sacrifice.

Great Adaptation of an American Masterpiece
Since Miller helped write the screenplay and one of his sons produced or coproduced the movie, it shouldn't be a shock that the movie is so faithful to the original text where it needs to be and broadens the story where it needs to, as well. Miller knows how to write for the stage, and he apparently knows how to write for the screen, also. After seeing so many "classic" books and/or plays butchered by Hollywood, this movie is a real delight, despite its morbid and all-too-realistic story. This movie has become an essential to my Grade 11 American Literature classes, spectacularly complementing their reading of Miller's play and several pieces from the Salem Witch Trial era.

Ignoring the play's historic flaws and inaccuracies (that's another debate for another time), Miller brilliantly captured the essence of the Salem Witch Trials in his play and has conveyed them to the screen. Hatred, fear, jealousy, hypocrisy, religious mania, attention-seeking, conviction, strength, determination, repentance, and a host of other emotions and character traits are vividly brought to life by a superb cast: Daniel Day-Lewis is a great John Proctor (nobody else could have done better), Winona Ryder is very good as the conniving and bitter Abigail Williams, Joan Allen was nominated for an Oscar for her portrayal of Elizabeth Proctor, and Paul Scofield should have won an Oscar for his cold-hearted portrayal of Justice Danforth. The conflict between Proctor and Danforth is what sustains the play's momentum for the second and third acts (about the last hour and fifteen minutes of the movie), and Lewis and Scofield bring that epic conflict to life: the classic good v. evil, with the sides getting somewhat mixed up as to who is who. . . . Lewis plays the flawed hero to Scofield's self-righteous and vindictive villain with palpable energy. How Scofield's performance was overlooked by the Academy is just another example of their oblivion. He gives me the willies with his methodical, calculating delivery of Miller's chilling dialogue: "Who weeps for these weeps for corruption" (among a bunch of great lines from the play/movie).

This isn't simply a play enacted in front of movie cameras (like Death of a Salesman). The director uses his camera very effectively, capturing some great close-up moments, unique perspectives and camera angles, and bringing a sense of "bigness" to the whole story. The play can seem very isolated, with its sparse sets and black-and-white costumes. Miller also expands the movie to begin well before the play does (giving the movie-goer information that he must have assumed the play-reader would already have) and extending it beyond the conviction of Proctor to include his execution, along with that of Rebecca Nurse and Martha Corey. Just as a side note, each of those three was hanged in a separate group in the original trials--great symbolism from Miller, including each larger original group of victims in the final trio. Also great symbolism in Proctor's Christ-like physical placement in the middle of the two "sinners," as he takes their sins upon him--the crucifixion is represented very effectively.

Bottom line: You won't see a better adaptation of a play to movie anytime soon. Nothing essential is left out, and some nice details are brought in to give the movie a distinction from its original source, the play. If you can make it through this play and not be outraged by the injustice and hypocrisy, then you have a heart as cold as Danforth's. What Miller would likely want you to do is apply that outrage to similar situations that go on every day, just as he intended with his original play (the McCarthy hearings, the "Red" Scare). At least watch the movie, though.

"Your justice would freeze beer."
Although the playwright Arthur Miller was also the screenwriter for this production starring Winona Ryder and Daniel Day-Lewis, the film bears little resemblance to the play in tone and impact. Director Nicholas Hytner has abandoned the intimate, almost claustrophobic atmosphere of the dark, interior scenes in the play, in favor of an expansive setting, with many scenes set outside, including panoramic shots of Salem in 1692, full of costumed "citizens." The expanded setting makes the psychology and motivation of the witchcraft hysteria more difficult to determine, since the intensity of the settlers' repressed, interior lives is not obvious. The explanatory notes which Miller incorporates into the play about land disputes, religious controversies, and personal animosities, which led to specific individuals being accused and arrested for witchcraft, are seen only peripherally.

As a result, we see Winona Ryder, as Abigail Williams, and her coterie of bewitched girls, screaming hysterically and accusing innocent women of witchcraft without the background which would make these accusations plausible. Her previous relationship with John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis), in the absence of other motivations, seems to be the primary reason for her behavior, but this thwarted love does not explain the extent of her rage and, especially, the involvement of the other girls. Day-Lewis is reduced to the role of victim, and one of the hallmarks of his acting, his subtlety, is absent here, except in a wonderful final scene with his wife, played by Joan Allen. Details of the scenery also ring false--houses in this period were very small because of the difficulty of heating, one third the size they are here, and the church/meeting houses were modest in accordance with religious restrictions against unnecessary display.

This is a Hollywood version of the witchcraft trials, capitalizing on the sensational at the expense of the complex and subtle forces behind the accusations of witchcraft--the Indian wars which were just ending, the growing independence of individuals, the increasing resentment of hard-line theocratic rule, the abolition of traditional property laws, and most importantly, the lack of any societal role whatsoever for young women, who were not old enough to assume a woman's role and who, bored and left out of decision-making, were on their own in dealing with their adult feelings. The film is beautiful, and the acting, though one-dimensional, is as effective as it can be in the absence of fully-developed motivation for the girls' hysteria. The "witches" are reduced to cartoons here, and Miller's parallels between these trials and the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, which give the play a modern context, are missing. Mary Whipple

A Superbly Directed and Acted Film
It is rare nowadays that I come out of a movie feeling moved and enlightened. Suffice it to say that when I first saw The Crucible in the theatre several years ago, I left the movie understanding a bit more about human nature and a greater appreciation for the power of group hysteria. This film draws on the fine acting talents of Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder (in her best role ever), and Joan Allen. Not only is the dialogue brilliant, but the emotional content is incredibly affecting. I am so glad to see it finally on DVD. In this day and age of disposable art, it is heartening to see that movies of this caliber are still being made (even if it is with less frequency).

A great film
I have seen this movie perhaps a dozen times, and never tire of it. It is one of the most compelling, well-written movies I can think of, and the acting is superb throughout, particularly from Day-Lewis, who gives a heart-stopping performance. Because of its theme about witches, the movie gets played a lot around Halloween, but it is by no means a horror movie. It's not even a thriller, really, yet it does manage to thrill and keep the viewer totally involved. I love this movie and can't wait for the DVD. ... Read more

Reviews (77)

It's About Time
You'd be hard pressed to find a story more compelling than the one that inspired Arthur Miller's 1953 drama The Crucible. Except the one about how it became a movie. It's taken all these years to bring a full version to the screen, and the only thing that explains it is Hollywood's perpetual cluelessness. The Salem witch trials of 1692 destroyed nineteen lives and countless reputations. Hoodwinked by a bunch of flighty teenage girls who wished to escape a whipping for their frolics in the woods, the town brought in the colony magistrates to sort out the devils from the angels.

Miller, who also wrote the screenplay, expresses his blatant contempt for hypocrisy in all forms through the character of John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis), a humble but once-adulterous farmer. Proctor's sexual escapades with the town's main accuser Abigail Williams (Winona Ryder) could, through the girl's treachery, end in his wife's hanging. He can either save himself with a lie or free Elizabeth (Joan Allen) with the truth about himself and Abigail.

It's potent stuff any way you slice it, and the actors here aren't afraid to take big bites of their meaty roles. The film's pacing is fast and furious, hysterical like the history of the event it interprets. If it lacks the McCarthyist subtext it once had, so what. This here's a tragedy--a good old American one.

The movie's inevitable ending won't satisfy those who want only fluff and feathers at the cinema, but the hard lesson won by those who refuse to compromise their principles can't be denied. The Crucible is a faithful testament to their sacrifice.

Great Adaptation of an American Masterpiece
Since Miller helped write the screenplay and one of his sons produced or coproduced the movie, it shouldn't be a shock that the movie is so faithful to the original text where it needs to be and broadens the story where it needs to, as well. Miller knows how to write for the stage, and he apparently knows how to write for the screen, also. After seeing so many "classic" books and/or plays butchered by Hollywood, this movie is a real delight, despite its morbid and all-too-realistic story. This movie has become an essential to my Grade 11 American Literature classes, spectacularly complementing their reading of Miller's play and several pieces from the Salem Witch Trial era.

Ignoring the play's historic flaws and inaccuracies (that's another debate for another time), Miller brilliantly captured the essence of the Salem Witch Trials in his play and has conveyed them to the screen. Hatred, fear, jealousy, hypocrisy, religious mania, attention-seeking, conviction, strength, determination, repentance, and a host of other emotions and character traits are vividly brought to life by a superb cast: Daniel Day-Lewis is a great John Proctor (nobody else could have done better), Winona Ryder is very good as the conniving and bitter Abigail Williams, Joan Allen was nominated for an Oscar for her portrayal of Elizabeth Proctor, and Paul Scofield should have won an Oscar for his cold-hearted portrayal of Justice Danforth. The conflict between Proctor and Danforth is what sustains the play's momentum for the second and third acts (about the last hour and fifteen minutes of the movie), and Lewis and Scofield bring that epic conflict to life: the classic good v. evil, with the sides getting somewhat mixed up as to who is who. . . . Lewis plays the flawed hero to Scofield's self-righteous and vindictive villain with palpable energy. How Scofield's performance was overlooked by the Academy is just another example of their oblivion. He gives me the willies with his methodical, calculating delivery of Miller's chilling dialogue: "Who weeps for these weeps for corruption" (among a bunch of great lines from the play/movie).

This isn't simply a play enacted in front of movie cameras (like Death of a Salesman). The director uses his camera very effectively, capturing some great close-up moments, unique perspectives and camera angles, and bringing a sense of "bigness" to the whole story. The play can seem very isolated, with its sparse sets and black-and-white costumes. Miller also expands the movie to begin well before the play does (giving the movie-goer information that he must have assumed the play-reader would already have) and extending it beyond the conviction of Proctor to include his execution, along with that of Rebecca Nurse and Martha Corey. Just as a side note, each of those three was hanged in a separate group in the original trials--great symbolism from Miller, including each larger original group of victims in the final trio. Also great symbolism in Proctor's Christ-like physical placement in the middle of the two "sinners," as he takes their sins upon him--the crucifixion is represented very effectively.

Bottom line: You won't see a better adaptation of a play to movie anytime soon. Nothing essential is left out, and some nice details are brought in to give the movie a distinction from its original source, the play. If you can make it through this play and not be outraged by the injustice and hypocrisy, then you have a heart as cold as Danforth's. What Miller would likely want you to do is apply that outrage to similar situations that go on every day, just as he intended with his original play (the McCarthy hearings, the "Red" Scare). At least watch the movie, though.

"Your justice would freeze beer."
Although the playwright Arthur Miller was also the screenwriter for this production starring Winona Ryder and Daniel Day-Lewis, the film bears little resemblance to the play in tone and impact. Director Nicholas Hytner has abandoned the intimate, almost claustrophobic atmosphere of the dark, interior scenes in the play, in favor of an expansive setting, with many scenes set outside, including panoramic shots of Salem in 1692, full of costumed "citizens." The expanded setting makes the psychology and motivation of the witchcraft hysteria more difficult to determine, since the intensity of the settlers' repressed, interior lives is not obvious. The explanatory notes which Miller incorporates into the play about land disputes, religious controversies, and personal animosities, which led to specific individuals being accused and arrested for witchcraft, are seen only peripherally.

As a result, we see Winona Ryder, as Abigail Williams, and her coterie of bewitched girls, screaming hysterically and accusing innocent women of witchcraft without the background which would make these accusations plausible. Her previous relationship with John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis), in the absence of other motivations, seems to be the primary reason for her behavior, but this thwarted love does not explain the extent of her rage and, especially, the involvement of the other girls. Day-Lewis is reduced to the role of victim, and one of the hallmarks of his acting, his subtlety, is absent here, except in a wonderful final scene with his wife, played by Joan Allen. Details of the scenery also ring false--houses in this period were very small because of the difficulty of heating, one third the size they are here, and the church/meeting houses were modest in accordance with religious restrictions against unnecessary display.

This is a Hollywood version of the witchcraft trials, capitalizing on the sensational at the expense of the complex and subtle forces behind the accusations of witchcraft--the Indian wars which were just ending, the growing independence of individuals, the increasing resentment of hard-line theocratic rule, the abolition of traditional property laws, and most importantly, the lack of any societal role whatsoever for young women, who were not old enough to assume a woman's role and who, bored and left out of decision-making, were on their own in dealing with their adult feelings. The film is beautiful, and the acting, though one-dimensional, is as effective as it can be in the absence of fully-developed motivation for the girls' hysteria. The "witches" are reduced to cartoons here, and Miller's parallels between these trials and the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, which give the play a modern context, are missing. Mary Whipple

A Superbly Directed and Acted Film
It is rare nowadays that I come out of a movie feeling moved and enlightened. Suffice it to say that when I first saw The Crucible in the theatre several years ago, I left the movie understanding a bit more about human nature and a greater appreciation for the power of group hysteria. This film draws on the fine acting talents of Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder (in her best role ever), and Joan Allen. Not only is the dialogue brilliant, but the emotional content is incredibly affecting. I am so glad to see it finally on DVD. In this day and age of disposable art, it is heartening to see that movies of this caliber are still being made (even if it is with less frequency).

A great film
I have seen this movie perhaps a dozen times, and never tire of it. It is one of the most compelling, well-written movies I can think of, and the acting is superb throughout, particularly from Day-Lewis, who gives a heart-stopping performance. Because of its theme about witches, the movie gets played a lot around Halloween, but it is by no means a horror movie. It's not even a thriller, really, yet it does manage to thrill and keep the viewer totally involved. I love this movie and can't wait for the DVD. ... Read more

Reviews (175)

Clint Eastwood delivers a masterpiece
This film won the 1992 Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Gene Hackman) and Best Editing. Garnering three of the "major" awards is impressive and they are what make the film a memorable and enjoyable experience. Eastwood the director is in top form. He has always displayed a steady hand in directing his stories and actors and he doesn't disappoint here. Nothing flashy but it is his understated direction that leads this film to it's climax. In less capable hands, a director may be apt to moralize or preach. Eastwood capably lets the story (overlooked as an original screenplay) tell itself. His turn as the lead character -- William Munny -- is also an underplayed, nuanced part. I think it is one of his best acting jobs. He carries a grim outlook and those set, steely eyes convey all of the emotions the character feels. In a movie with so much else that is good, his performance is not to be ignored. Gene Hackman is outstanding in his portrayal of Little Bill Daggett, the sheriff of Big Whiskey, WY. His performance is both blustery and low-keyed. It is a credit to Hackman to know how to pull if off effortlessly. The movie itself is the real star. It plays on so many levels and gives a lot of shades of gray that really blow off the Westerns of old. There is no good guy in the white hat. In fact, there is little good to be found in the movie. Most of the men and women are scoundrels or people of ill-repute. However the general theme of reality that Eastwood conveys is what you will have to look for. Things aren't what they seem and this "anti-Western" shrugs off the myths of the Old West.

The Darkest Film Ever To Win Best Picture
Unforgiven you realize, a few minutes in, is not your typical westen. Nor is it your typical Clint Eastwood movie. And it probably surely isn't your typical Best Picture Oscar winner. Telling the story of Willam Munny (Clint Eastwood), a retired bounty hunter who goes on one last job, to kill the men who slashed a prostitute's face. Now doesn't that sound like a fun movie! Whoppee! Errr... Not really. Actually it sound's downright depressing. And it is. Along the way Willam meets up with his longtime partner played by Morgon Freeman. Together they set out to kill those above mentioned men. About this time we switch over to the late Richard Harris's character. Who also is after the reward money offered up by the town prostitutes for the killing of those men I've mentioned twice already. He isn't after them long as he gets beaten and kicked by the towns people, mainly thier crooked sheriff, Little Bill (played suberbly by Gene Hackman).
He isn't the typical bad guy, either, in fact he's almost good in comparison with other bad guys in other movies. All of this leads up to a spectacular climax with a showdown between Willam Munny and Little Bill. Unforgiven also convienently managed to snag 4 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director (For Clint Eastwood's terrific directing), Best Supporting Actor (For Gene Hackman's marvelous Little Bill). All should see Unforgiven, whether all would enjoy it is another matter. But who can forget Little Bill's words "I'm just trying to build a house!"

The "Western" Everyman.
The most important aspect of this "Western" is its philospical and spiritual message about the universal condition of man. It is almost biblical in nature like the first chapters of the book of Romans in the New Testament. Man is aware of both good and evil but finally is caught up in evil and unless he is redeemed by the forgivness of God he will die in his sins. The title is very appropriate as the characters in the end are unforgiving and unforgiven. It is a powerful film in that there are certain aspects in the various characters the show they have a sense of what is good but they are unable of themselves to overcome the innate evil of the human heart. There are several classic lines in the film such as the moment the young gunslinger says to Eastwood's character "He has it coming" and the reply is "We all have it coming" The conclusion at the end is that both the man representing the law and the man representing the lawless are both damned. It is not a pretty picture of mankind but a true one and is the reason why the Son of God had to die on the cross that we might be forgiven. There is Evil in man, but goodness in God if we will turn to Him. If this film would have only included the forgiveness of God I would have given it twice five stars.

Wow
This western directed by Clint Eastwood is truly one of the greats. The story develops slowly, the viewer learning in small bits about the main character William Munny. The subtlety of the movie is its greatest strength. Gene Hackman is incredible as the town Sheriff and won a well deserved Academy Award. Eastwood also won a much deserved Academy Award for best director.

If you like westerns this one is for you. Its a classic.

Rather good
This film is very good. As you can tell from the rave revies it has on this website and the 4 oscars it won in 1992 for Best Picture, Director, Supporting Actor and something else i cant remember.

The plot is convential - the hitman comes out of retirement after personal tragedy, but the performances superb and the charcetrs fascinating you'll be hooked. It's a great film and shows the acting talents of Clint Eastwood amount to much more than simply facial expressions, although they are spot on again here.

Gene Hackman is probably the true star here and his oscar was well deserved. The performance he gives as Little Bill Daggett is so three dimensional and you wonder to start with just is he good or bad? Nothing is made too obvious and you only find out later you should root against him. Morgan Freeman and Richard Harris have smaller roles but do their best and it all works well.

It's well acted, directed and boasts great scenery. This is the intelligent western and portrays gritty real charcters and makes you think. It's very grim and shows real hardness without being brutal - and that's hard to achieve.

Watch - better yet buy - this, you certainly won't regret it. ... Read more