Amazon.com

Like its predecessor Ocean's Eleven, Ocean's Twelve is a piffle of a caper, a preposterous plot given juice and vitality by a combination of movie star glamour and the exuberant filmmaking skill of director Steven Soderbergh (Out of Sight, The Limey). The heist hijinks of the first film come to roost for a team of eleven thieves (including the glossy mugs of Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Bernie Mac, and Don Cheadle), who find themselves pursued not only by the guy they robbed (silky Andy Garcia), but also by a top-notch detective (plush Catherine Zeta-Jones) and a jealous master thief (well-oiled Vincent Cassel) who wants to prove that team leader Danny Ocean (dapper George Clooney) isn't the best in the field. As if all that star power weren't enough--and the eternally coltish Julia Roberts also returns as Ocean's wife--one movie star cameo raises the movie's combined wattage to absurd proportions. But all these handsome faces are matched by Soderbergh's visual flash, cunning editing, and excellent use of Amsterdam, Paris, and Rome, among other highly decorative locations. The whole affair should collapse under the weight of its own silliness, but somehow it doesn't--the movie's raffish spirit and offhand wit soar along, providing lightweight but undeniable entertainment. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (198)

How Many Stars Does It Take To Make A Movie?
Despite my misgivings over the acting "skills" of George Clooney, there are a few films that he has done that I have really enjoyed. When I saw 2001's remake of Ocean's 11, I quickly added it to that very short list, which also includes Out Of Sight (also directed by Soderbergh) and Three Kings. Since Ocean's 12 marked yet another Clooney/Soderbergh collaboration, I was eager to have a look, despite some negative buzz.

It's been three years since Danny Ocean (Clooney) and his crew -fronted by detail man Rusty Ryan (Brad Pitt), up-and-coming pickpocket Linus Caldwell (Matt Damon), explosives expert Basher Tarr (Don Cheadle) and safecracker Frank Catton (Bernie Mac) - pulled off a bold and very lucrative heist, robbing ruthless entrepreneur Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) of every dime stored in his impenetrable Las Vegas vault. After splitting the $160 million take, each ofOcean's crew have tried to go straight, lay low and live a normal life... but that's proven to be a challenge, much to the dismay of Danny's wife Tess (Julia Roberts). When someone breaks Rule Number One and rats them out to Benedict, going straight is no longer an option. He wants his $160 million back - with interest - or else. And, as the gang quickly discovers, Benedict isn't the only powerful person in the world looking for Ocean's Eleven...

Ted Griffin, who wrote the 2001 remake, made sure the heist was the plot while the star power was just icing on the cake under Soderbergh. For the sequel, it's the exact opposite. The plot really doesn't matter. Last time, everyone had their part in the heist, now, even though the gang's all here, some just "show their face" and that's it. Soderbergh would have probably faired better without a script. There are some fun moments, like when Linus and Rusty are having a discussion about Tess, but not enough. It's almost as if someone said let's take a vacation and pretend we're making a film. Now I know you are supposed to just have fun but even the first film had SOME structure. Cameos are fun too--but in an already crowded film not all that special and come across as gimicky.

The only extra on the DVD is the theatrical trailer. This was somewhat of a surprise, given that the disc for the first flick was loaded. I suspect the film's box office had something to do with the lack of bonus material. Having said that though, I still smell a Special Edition at some point down the road.

A disappointing sequel all the way around. For this star studded film of their vacation in Europe--just ** stars.

Please spare us Ocean's Thirteen
Genre: Comedy, Mystery

Genre Grade: A-

Final Grade: B-

This was a good follow-up to the first movie, although it did not even get close to matching the thrill of it. The story was MUCH weaker in this one, most of it contrived so confusingly that when you find out the outcome you are mad at how they took such an easy way out. You either like the tricks they do in this movie or you feel cheated. Or you feel a little of both, as I did.

I can't say much about the plot because there are so many spoilers, but I will say there is a big surprise with one of the characters from the first movie that is quite funny. Some people hated it (one of the "cheap" moments) but I thought it was great. There are many plot holes but director Soderbourgh keeps you so interested in the characters and flashy style of the movie that you might not even notice them. No other director could get away with it, that's for sure.

There is mild controversy over who, exactly, is Ocean's twelfth member. I honestly can't say 100% for sure because there are three people who could be considered as such. But there is one person who seems a little more likely to be that person because of a certain...event?

In conclusion, I hope that if Soderbourgh decides to give us another helping of this franchise that he gets a much more clever story for Ocean's Thirteen...

The real theft;steal your money with a bad sequel!
Hollywood returns to "independent" type cuts, erroneously assuming that it is the latest cash crop craze.So they hire youngsters to waste film and money shooting scenes that distract from quality dialogue, acting, and storyline.This is an excellent example of how NOT to make a movie.Don't waste your time unless you are a film student wishing to learn from others' mistakes.Not worth the price of popcorn!

Don't Waste Your Money
This movie should never have been made. It was dull and unispiring. The acting seemed forced and rather then everyone playing a part, a few characters were seen through out and nothing more. If you truly liked Ocean's 11 then leave it at that. My personal recommendation is that you do not watch this movie and rather just stick with the first film. You will be better off by far.

Save your money
Wow - what a bad movie. The all-star cast needs to exercice better judgment before accepting parts like these. The favorite side characters you'll remember from the first movie and played by solid/enjoyable actors (Don Cheadle, Bernie Mac, etc...) are left with meaningless lines and no part to play. Brad Pitt's on camera eating habits in the first movie were something to smile at, in this one, it's simply annoying. Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts - what a stretch for the writers! The camera action is exhausting and attempts to add pace to a movie that does not have any. The plot is so twisted, it's unbelievable and ... without any interest. Soderbegh has done some excellent movies - this is probably his worst. Save your money, don't fall for the marketing hype. If you want Clooney at his clever and charming best, get "Out of Sight". If you want some good Soderbergh (nice camera work, interesting cinematography), get "Traffic". And I can't come up with something decent to suggest for Pitt since "Seven" or "Fight Club". ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Sixteen years after Francis Ford Coppola won his second Oscar for The Godfather II (his first was for the 1972 Godfather), the director and star Al Pacino attempted to revive the concept one more time. Despite an elaborate plot that involves Michael Corleone seeking redemption through the Vatican while simultaneously preparing his nephew (Andy Garcia) to take over the Corleone family, the film fails to take shape as a truly meaningful experience in the way the preceding movies do. Still, Pacino is very moving as an elder Michael, filled with regret and trying hard to make amends with his wife (Diane Keaton) and grown children (one of whom is played, and not all that well, by the director's daughter, Sofia Coppola). --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (104)

A movie that should not have been attempted
"The Godfather", and its sequel, are quite possibly the greatest films made after the golden age of movies. It's all the more disappointing, then, that "Godfather Part 3" is a turgid, impotent movie that is always trying to set up a big finale, but never concludes anything convincingly. The cinematography lives up to the Godfather pedigree, but that's where the similarity ends. Coppola is clearly trying to revive feelings for Michael Corleone, his now-estranged wife Kay, and introduce newer characters like Sonny Corleone's bastard son (acted superbly by Andy Garcia) and the family's lawyer (George Hamilton). But years after Michael's overboard vendettas in "Godfather 2", the story has too much catching up to do to draw the viewer in. Coppola uses a heavy-handed technique to bring the audience along. The film often recalls previous scenes: the opener is a social gathering... there's a bloody "hit" that wipes out assorted gangsters... there's kitchen plotting... there's an Italian festival as a backdrop for murder. The look is there, but the feel isn't. Equally distressing is the casting. Hamilton's tanned, lounge lizard oiliness make him more of a corporate than "criminal" lawyer. Garcia should have acted the part of Michael's son. Sofia Coppola is sadly wooden, and I suspect she's not just acting the part of a bored princess. Michael's son is totally useless, as are the myriad characters flitting in and out of this film. We get a pope, a priest (unconvincing as Tom Hagen's son), a shifty cardinal, two beefcake bodyguards, a cowardly financier, an assassin who's not very good, and Father Guido Sarducci. Michael's old hitman Al Neri looks a bit paunchy as he fingers the chocolates that conceal his pistol... and what the heck is Brigitte Fonda doing in this story? In the first two films, every character mattered to the plot; there wasn't a dead character ('scuse the pun) in either story. Arguably, the first "Godfather" was a complete entity that needed no sequel. Coppola gambled and came up a winner with Part 2, but it's a tall order to repeat that formula in Part 3. When I fire up the "Godfather" films, I have no trouble forgetting that Number Three was ever made.

Great way to end the classic epic
i Don't understand why everyone are hating on ''the Godfather III'' after all it was nominated for a best picture in 1990 (Goodfellas should have won that year)true it's was not as brilliant as the first film mostly because there was too much recylcling going , but overall Godfather III was a good film .

Lay Off Sophia!
Sophia Copola has been bashed too much, and it's undeserved. While she had no experience, she had a certain sweetness about her. She's also much prettier than Wynona Ryder- YEAH, YOU HEARD ME! Coppola had a certain innocence about her. After all, she was never convicted of stealing.

The bigger problem is with Robert Duvall's absence as the lawyer Tom Hagan. Without his charasmatic presence, the film is seriously lacking. But the film does have its moments.

Good Movie, but ruined the Trilogy
Godfather 3 was a movie saved by one person, Al Pacino. His powerful acting in the first two Godfather films was without a doubt visable in the third. But this movie was destroyed by horrible acting. Andy Garcia portrays Micheal's (Al Pacino) nephew from his dead brother, Sonny. Andy plays Vinnie, a youthful hoodlum looking for power and respect. This movie got Andy Garcia famous, even though it was obvious he was just trying to copy Marlon Brando and Al Pacino's prefomance's in the last two Godfathers, and he did a horrible job and tore down the legacy of Godfather with every scene he was in.

But it wasn't just Andy Gracia who tore apart this movie, oh no. He had some help. Sofia Coppola plays Mary Corleone, Micheal's daughter. You could tell she had no idea what was going on. It was like Francis Ford, the director, just told her to say random things without even giving her a script. Marlon Brando, may he now rest in peace, was probably disgusted with this movie before he died.

To make this movie even worse, they decided to have a dramactic ending scene with Mary shot by a some random person sent to kill Micheal. This scene ends with Al Pacino screaming his lungs out, and the whole time I was sitting there saying, "That guy did you a favor by killing off that unholy death angle sent from the deep dark bowels of heck." The final scene, was indeed, a sad one, but with the acting skills in this movie, I don't blame Micheal for dying. I do have to admit, there are no words to describe the death scene of Micheal Corleone, because that marked the end of the Godfater lagacy, hopefully, forever. But don't get me wrong, I still love the Godfather trilogy, and always will. It just needs to end, here and now.

If you ever plan to watch this movie, tape a knife under your couch, just in case you feel like killing yourself after seeing the horrible acting presented by the infamous Andy Garcia and Sofia Coppola, The Destroyers of the Godfather Trilogy.

soso
godfather III was entertaining, in that we got to see what happened to some of the characters we loved (or hated) from the first two movies. this alone is reason enough to rent it (not buy!). however, godfather III should NOT have been made. the moral of the story is fulfilled with the last scene from godfather II, where michael is sitting alone, old and graying, face lined from a stressful life. after watching "II" i felt that the corleone tale indeed had nowhere left to go. anything after that would be harmful to the artistic acheivement of the first two movies. mario puzo said that his godfather books were really stories of family. michael the all-american marine, from the beginning of "I," and michael the morally bankrupt head of a crime family at the end of "II," should be seen with what has happened to his family along the way. THAT is what the godfather story means. godfather III isn't useless. again, it's fun to see what has happened to those interesting characters from the first two movies. but i wouldn't trade all three hours of director's cut "III" for that last scene in "II"! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

When a Man Loves a Woman is a dumb title (not another classic pop song, please) for a very smart movie. A kind of gender-switch take on The Lost Weekend, it's about a woman (Meg Ryan) whose alcoholism almost destroys her family. That may sound like just another TV movie, but When a Man Loves a Woman is so authentic in detail and emotion, that everything about it seems fresh, urgent, and engrossing. That's because the film is grounded in the actual experience of co-writer Al Franken (assisted by Rain Man scripter Ronald Bass). Franken is best known for his affiliation with Saturday Night Live and Politically Incorrect, and as the author of Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot, and Other Observations. You may recall that Franken is the creator of Stuart Smalley, 12-step programmer extraordinaire. Well, if you want to know how Stuart was born, you can start here. This is no comedy, however. In fact, one of the most painful realizations comes when attractive, "good-time girl" Alice Green (Ryan) and her husband (Andy Garcia) begin to realize how much of a role alcohol played in their marriage and in bringing them together in the first place. The issues and experiences confronted in this movie go far beyond the stuff you see on Oprah. --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (42)

Great Movie
Coming from an alcoholic family I was able to relate to the children in the movie. I think Meg Ryan played the part perfectly and Andy Garcia did a wonderful job as well. It was a different look at a serious disease, the fact that the mother was an alcoholic.

Meg Ryan (Alice Green) plays a wife and mother of two, who has an out of control drinking problem, that takes her almost dying in the shower to make her realize that she has a problem. Andy Garcia (Michael Green) plays her husband who knows that she has a problem, but just is not ready to face the fact that she needs help or she is going to hurt herself or one of the children.

When Alice finally does get the help she needs, Michael doesn't cope well with the fact that she now has other people to turn to when things get rough. Michael does try to go to a support meeting for family memebers, but just sees it as a bunch of people sitting around feeling sorry for each other. He thinks that things will just 'go back to normal' now that she has gotten help and just isn't that simple.

Although the effects that her drinking had on the kids was not addressed, I felt that it touched most of the bases that a family goes through after recovery.

You will need a box of tissues by your side for this tear jerker.

Riveting movie about the effects of alcoholism
When I first saw the title of this movie, I was thinking that this was going to be a romantic comedy. But, to my surprise, it was so much more.

Meg Ryan and Andy Garcia are good as Alice and Michael Green. I liked the fact that the movie dealt with Alice's alcoholism. She realizes that she has a major problem with alcohol. Eventually, she goes into rehabilitation.

I'm glad that they didn't stop the movie with her coming out of rehab and life will be all wonderful and fuzzy. What happens is that with Alice sober, Michael doesn't have anyone to rescue anymore. It is good to watch how their relationship changes with Alice's new found sobriety. Meg Ryan and Andy Garcia do a great job in showing how alcoholism can effectively mess up a relationship and family.

It's been a while since I have seen this movie, but there are some wonderful supporting performances to mention. Tina Majorino as the oldest daughter, Jess, is astonishing. She shows a lot of emotion for the daughter of an alcoholic. I think that she could have easily been nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar.

Also, Lauren Tom as Amy, the Green's nanny/housekeeper, is incredible. Her character does not really like Michael Green very much. The scene where Michael begs her to come back and help the family is great. Amy definitely does not make it easy for him.

This movie is definitely not light-hearted fair. In fact, I would really not recommend this for children. But, for adults, I recommend this movie because it tackles alcoholism head on, especially with some not so pleasant views of Alice's alcoholism.

Sad and Real. Finally a good portrayal.
No film has shown the damage that alcoholism does to someone in this way. Nobody thinks that even the houswifes and the soccer moms could be effected. The alcoholic in this movie is played by the awesomely talented Meg Ryan, who should've been nominated for her role as the depressed alcoholic mom, Alice. Andy Garcia is also a good choice to play the troubled husband. The movie is very depressing but has a silver lining. Everyone should see this movie at one time or another, it will change your view on this disease.

Its All About Love xoxo
The movie sucks you in and doesnt let go til the end!! It engrosses you in REAL LIFE, it tells a story that you can feel so close to home it brings tears to your eyes more than once. The first time I saw this movie was at a group meeting for alcoholics and the response was breathtaking it touches your soul and makes you feel the love and the pain and every other emotion possible. The title I must admit doesnt draw you to the movie because you figure *Oh just another romance with no point or purpose* but in reality there are both. This movie is one of my all time favorites and I would recommend it to anyone. Its not just a chick flick for all you guys out there:p Never Judge a book by its cover:)

But she tries so hard...
The scenario of a family dealing with a wife being the abuser rather than the husband is not commonly explored, yet this particular plot was ill-conceived, which almost makes it a crime. If a story as important as this can't be told well, it's better not to tell it at all, or the effect is that the viewers are numbed to a reality people should care more about. And when I finished watching this film, I yawned and put in something more gripping, while I should have at the very least been lulled into a few moments of reflection or contemplation.

For the most part, though the screenplay wasn't great, I feel poor casting is responsible for the film's failure. Try as she might, it just doesn't seem Meg Ryan can be taken seriously doing much else than romantic comedy. No, she isn't a bad actress, but the quirky, cute persona is what carries her, and when she attempts to be serious, she comes off as a little witchy and intolerant, not at all sympathetic or likable. In this particular role as the substance-abusing wife and mother, she doesn't inspire sympathy, never expresses any depth of confliction, and never convincingly emerges with dignity, though I suspect it was meant to be an empowering story.

Andy Garcia is "blah" as her husband. Yes, he's suitable as a nice guy who is confused as he both supports her and tries to hold her accountable, but he often comes across less confused and reticent and more wary and aloof as if he's actually secretly distracted by his dealings as a mob flunky or something.

The best performance is by Tina Majorino, who doesn't for a moment look like the spawn of Ryan and Garcia, but who's authentic reactions of fear and confusion when victimized by her mother are heart-rending. Thus to the film's credit, I guess the reality of a child being the most vulnerable victim in situations of substance abuse is demonstrated, but is not a strong enough impression to make this an even moderately impressive film. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Like its predecessor Ocean's Eleven, Ocean's Twelve is a piffle of a caper, a preposterous plot given juice and vitality by a combination of movie star glamour and the exuberant filmmaking skill of director Steven Soderbergh (Out of Sight, The Limey). The heist hijinks of the first film come to roost for a team of eleven thieves (including the glossy mugs of Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Bernie Mac, and Don Cheadle), who find themselves pursued not only by the guy they robbed (silky Andy Garcia), but also by a top-notch detective (plush Catherine Zeta-Jones) and a jealous master thief (well-oiled Vincent Cassel) who wants to prove that team leader Danny Ocean (dapper George Clooney) isn't the best in the field. As if all that star power weren't enough--and the eternally coltish Julia Roberts also returns as Ocean's wife--one movie star cameo raises the movie's combined wattage to absurd proportions. But all these handsome faces are matched by Soderbergh's visual flash, cunning editing, and excellent use of Amsterdam, Paris, and Rome, among other highly decorative locations. The whole affair should collapse under the weight of its own silliness, but somehow it doesn't--the movie's raffish spirit and offhand wit soar along, providing lightweight but undeniable entertainment. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (198)

How Many Stars Does It Take To Make A Movie?
Despite my misgivings over the acting "skills" of George Clooney, there are a few films that he has done that I have really enjoyed. When I saw 2001's remake of Ocean's 11, I quickly added it to that very short list, which also includes Out Of Sight (also directed by Soderbergh) and Three Kings. Since Ocean's 12 marked yet another Clooney/Soderbergh collaboration, I was eager to have a look, despite some negative buzz.

It's been three years since Danny Ocean (Clooney) and his crew -fronted by detail man Rusty Ryan (Brad Pitt), up-and-coming pickpocket Linus Caldwell (Matt Damon), explosives expert Basher Tarr (Don Cheadle) and safecracker Frank Catton (Bernie Mac) - pulled off a bold and very lucrative heist, robbing ruthless entrepreneur Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) of every dime stored in his impenetrable Las Vegas vault. After splitting the $160 million take, each ofOcean's crew have tried to go straight, lay low and live a normal life... but that's proven to be a challenge, much to the dismay of Danny's wife Tess (Julia Roberts). When someone breaks Rule Number One and rats them out to Benedict, going straight is no longer an option. He wants his $160 million back - with interest - or else. And, as the gang quickly discovers, Benedict isn't the only powerful person in the world looking for Ocean's Eleven...

Ted Griffin, who wrote the 2001 remake, made sure the heist was the plot while the star power was just icing on the cake under Soderbergh. For the sequel, it's the exact opposite. The plot really doesn't matter. Last time, everyone had their part in the heist, now, even though the gang's all here, some just "show their face" and that's it. Soderbergh would have probably faired better without a script. There are some fun moments, like when Linus and Rusty are having a discussion about Tess, but not enough. It's almost as if someone said let's take a vacation and pretend we're making a film. Now I know you are supposed to just have fun but even the first film had SOME structure. Cameos are fun too--but in an already crowded film not all that special and come across as gimicky.

The only extra on the DVD is the theatrical trailer. This was somewhat of a surprise, given that the disc for the first flick was loaded. I suspect the film's box office had something to do with the lack of bonus material. Having said that though, I still smell a Special Edition at some point down the road.

A disappointing sequel all the way around. For this star studded film of their vacation in Europe--just ** stars.

Please spare us Ocean's Thirteen
Genre: Comedy, Mystery

Genre Grade: A-

Final Grade: B-

This was a good follow-up to the first movie, although it did not even get close to matching the thrill of it. The story was MUCH weaker in this one, most of it contrived so confusingly that when you find out the outcome you are mad at how they took such an easy way out. You either like the tricks they do in this movie or you feel cheated. Or you feel a little of both, as I did.

I can't say much about the plot because there are so many spoilers, but I will say there is a big surprise with one of the characters from the first movie that is quite funny. Some people hated it (one of the "cheap" moments) but I thought it was great. There are many plot holes but director Soderbourgh keeps you so interested in the characters and flashy style of the movie that you might not even notice them. No other director could get away with it, that's for sure.

There is mild controversy over who, exactly, is Ocean's twelfth member. I honestly can't say 100% for sure because there are three people who could be considered as such. But there is one person who seems a little more likely to be that person because of a certain...event?

In conclusion, I hope that if Soderbourgh decides to give us another helping of this franchise that he gets a much more clever story for Ocean's Thirteen...

The real theft;steal your money with a bad sequel!
Hollywood returns to "independent" type cuts, erroneously assuming that it is the latest cash crop craze.So they hire youngsters to waste film and money shooting scenes that distract from quality dialogue, acting, and storyline.This is an excellent example of how NOT to make a movie.Don't waste your time unless you are a film student wishing to learn from others' mistakes.Not worth the price of popcorn!

Don't Waste Your Money
This movie should never have been made. It was dull and unispiring. The acting seemed forced and rather then everyone playing a part, a few characters were seen through out and nothing more. If you truly liked Ocean's 11 then leave it at that. My personal recommendation is that you do not watch this movie and rather just stick with the first film. You will be better off by far.

Save your money
Wow - what a bad movie. The all-star cast needs to exercice better judgment before accepting parts like these. The favorite side characters you'll remember from the first movie and played by solid/enjoyable actors (Don Cheadle, Bernie Mac, etc...) are left with meaningless lines and no part to play. Brad Pitt's on camera eating habits in the first movie were something to smile at, in this one, it's simply annoying. Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts - what a stretch for the writers! The camera action is exhausting and attempts to add pace to a movie that does not have any. The plot is so twisted, it's unbelievable and ... without any interest. Soderbegh has done some excellent movies - this is probably his worst. Save your money, don't fall for the marketing hype. If you want Clooney at his clever and charming best, get "Out of Sight". If you want some good Soderbergh (nice camera work, interesting cinematography), get "Traffic". And I can't come up with something decent to suggest for Pitt since "Seven" or "Fight Club". ... Read more

Amazon.com

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

Reviews (33)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon.com

British thespian and sophomore director Kenneth Branagh follows up his adaptation of Shakespeare's Henry V with this abrupt change of pace, a slick, stylish thriller evocative of Hitchcock, classic film noir, and gothic shockers. Sporting an exaggerated American accent, Branagh stars as L.A. private eye Mike Church, a hard-boiled but softhearted detective who takes on the case of a mysterious amnesiac (Branagh's then-real-life wife, Emma Thompson). With the help of an offbeat furniture dealer and part-time hypnotist (Derek Jacobi), Grace (as Mike has named her) dredges up her hidden memories. Little do they realize that her recollections are of a past life in L.A.'s recent history, and as she recounts the details of a famous marriage that ended with a notorious murder (played out as black-and-white flashbacks starring Branagh and Thompson), events of the present begin to mirror the past, as if fate were pulling the two into fatal replay of history. Branagh's flashy, flourished direction echoes with an array of '40s and '50s classics and near classics (most notably Hitchcock's Rebecca and Spellbound) and drives the story with an edgy urgency, all the better to distract from some of the sillier elements of the plot. But while this film may not make literal sense in the harsh light of day, in the twilit, shadowy world of classic Hollywood this slyly inventive thriller is a bravura bit of old-fashioned entertainment, done up with modern flair. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (58)

A trio of fine actors....
I'm an Emma Thompson fan and have seen all her films including those she made with her now ex-husband Kenneth Branagh (their recent breakup occurred over "another woman" reputed to be Helena Bonham Carter). My all time favorite by this pair of actors is "Much Ado About Nothing." "Dead Again" is probably my least favorite film, however, Miss Thompson is a fabulous actress, so a bad day for her is good day for most other actresses.

The storyline of this film is interesting, particularly for those who think past lives are possible. According to one of the main characters, we not only have past lives, but everyone with whom you shared a past life shows up again in some form in the next life. It's as if human existence consists of a repertory company playing endless roles through eternity. Well, why not. I have a lot of unfinished business with various people I've lost in this life and there is some comfort in thinking I might get closure in the next life, or the one after that...or the one after that.

Branagh must have been attracted to this script because of it's Shakespearen elements...dreams, ghosts, unfinished business, a jealous husband killing an innocent wife (or being framed for the deed), and downright wickedness (out damn spot, out).

Derek Jacobi (Cadfael and Claudius) plays an eccentric antique dealer who tries to help the haunted Miss Thompson (nameless at first) through regressive hypnosis. Regressive hypnosis is used by psychiatrists to help trauma victims remember events they have subconsciously blocked that cause conscious distress.

Miss Thompson has been exhibiting some very distressed behaviour. Mike Church (Branagh) was raised at the Catholic convent school where Miss Thompson was found one dark and stormy night. The senior clergy have asked Mike to help Miss Thompson.

But, what if the patient remembers events from a previous life, and what if that person was not the victim at all but rather a witness...or worse yet, the perpetrator of the crime?

This film must be what is considered "high camp" as it is obvious to me a great deal of tongue in cheek stuff is going on. Picture a disturbed artist with a loft full of paintings, sculptures, etc. all depicting one or more pairs of sharp scissors. Jacobi's antiques dealer isn't the only eccentric in LA.

The actors had a great deal of fun making this film and while I was scared the first time I watched it, the next time it struck me as really funny. Too bad Kenneth and Emma aren't "Together Again."

Open Your Eyes, er...Grace?
DEAD AGAIN is a highly underrated suspense/thriller from 1991 that was also the inspiration for Dream Theater's 1999 masterpiece SCENES FROM A MEMORY. After watching the movie and listening to the album afterwards, there are a lot of similarities in the plot. I'm not accusing DT of ripping off the story, since they put their own spin on it and the characters in SFAM have different motives than the ones in DEAD AGAIN. Personally, I perfer SFAM because it's like a movie written in music which is more original, but this movie is still worth checking out.

Kenneth Branagh (who also directed the film) stars as Mike Church, a smooth L.A. investigator who knows how to talk to people and get secrets out of them. His next case, however, is much more difficult. He's assigned by a Catholic rehab center to take away one of their guests, an amnesiac woman (Emma Thompson) who doesn't talk much and keeps screaming in the middle of the night. The reason she screams is because she has nightmares of a man named Roman Strauss killing her with a pair of scissors. Mike decides to let her stay at his house, but even he doesn't know why he's suddenly drawn to her.

Out of nowhere comes a man named Franklin (Derek Jacobi) who turns out to be a hypnotherapist and is drawn to the woman's story. Franklin practices in hypnotic regression, meaning that he hypnotizes people that act like somebody else from a past life during the session. As it turns out, the woman (now called Grace by Mike) was actually Margaret Strauss, Roman's wife, in the 1940's. And in another strange twist, Mike turns out to be Roman reincarnated. Mike starts to fall hard for Grace, but when she starts to think that he might actually be Roman, that's where the tension begins to unravel.

The story is very interesting for the most part and the twists are pretty nifty, if not predictable. I like the fact that the scenes in the '40s were filmed in black and white and the scenes in 1991 were filmed in color. A perfect balance between past and present. Also, the acting is very good. There's even a hilarious supporting performance by Robin Williams as a former psychiatrist who now works at a supermarket ever since he was caught having an affair with a patient.

My only problem is that the ending is kind of disappointing. After the finale, you want more explanations. They gave enough throughout the movie, but at least one more to bring a forthright conclusion. Oh, well. That's more of a wish than a plot point. DEAD AGAIN is a solid, well-made mystery and makes for good viewing on a Friday night. Recommended.

not at Hitchcock's level.
This movie has a good cast but it is not up to the level like the Hitchcock's movies.I like Emma Thompson and the cast in other movies that were good,but I had a hard time getting into the story.If Alfred Hitchcock was to had seen this movie he may be very angry at the writers and director.

Film Noir as only Branagh can do it
This movie captures the world of Hitchcock and Bogart, in dramatic black and white (with color episodes) in a truly great presentation. Yes, the plot is threadbare, but no more so that those of Hitchcock's best, and irrelevant in any case, as the tension winds tighter and tighter, seeking a violent conclusion. Branagh is his usual self, so completely disappearing into his two roles, both with American accents, that he does not seem the same man who thrilled us in Henry V, delighted us in Much Ado, and took our breath away with Hamlet.

See it on a dark, winter night, with the lights low, and your arms around someone you adore. You will NOT be disappointed!

Mary F. Byrkit
20 January 2004

mfbyrkit@comcast.net

Hypnotic Thriller
The casting for this movie is great. Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson are wonderful as the detective and woman who has no memory. Derek Jacobi is excellent as the hypnotist/antique dealer. Even Robin Williams small part of the Grocer/Ex-Analyst is good. I don't want to give to much away. In a nutshell a lovely lady is being lodged at a church until they can determine her identity. Better that than sending her to a mental institution for her screams of panic and fright that has her propping a chair against her door each night.

When they can no longer take her disruptiveness, the church calls on a detective that will work for gratis. The detective puts out an article in the paper and a two mysterious strangers appear. One to help her recall her identity with hypnosis and another to take advantage of her. When her hypnosis reveals a previous life and a murder, things get very interesting and suspenseful. I have seen this twice on TV and am now planning to buy it. The love story that evolves along with the mystery is very romantic. I think this must be underrated as I am surprised it didn't get more exposure. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

One Bad Cop
Why is it that some of our best actors give their best performances when they are playing bad guys? Maybe it's the change of pace; one probably gets tired of being the hero in film after film; but they clearly seem to revel in the opportunity of playing a straight-up jerk once in a while. In "Internal Affairs", we have Richard Gere coming down off his movie idol pedestal and giving a devastating performance as Dennis Peck, a cop who gives corruption a whole new definition. This guy makes Satan look like a boy scout. He carries on a brazen affair with his partner's wife; arranges to have his partner whacked when the police department's internal affairs bureau begins investigating his partner's extracurricular activities a little too closely and his partner is about to implicate him in the mess; agrees to execute a wealthy businessman's elderly parents who are taking too long to die so that he can come into his inheritance (meanwhile seducing the businessman's wife as part of his fee for service); and tries to seduce the wife of Raymond Avila, the internal affairs cop played by Andy Garcia, when Avila starts to suspect that Peck isn't the poster-boy cop his precinct command has made him out to be. The movie tries to show us what Peck thinks is his softer side; he's a devoted father to his offspring, but we can see that to Peck his children are nothing but trophies; he's still in his thirties but he already has 8 by three former wives and his fourth wife is expecting his ninth. Peck's children are extensions of himself; his wives are baby-making machines, and his partners and co-workers are pawns to be used for his own nefarious purposes. When Avila realizes that Peck has tried to destroy him as a cop and as a man by attempting to seduce his wife, the battle lines are drawn; Avila, of course, will be Peck's nemesis, but it's fascinating to watch each of them try to bring the other down. There are excellent performances by the supporting cast, particularly Nancy Travis as Avila's wife; Laurie Metcalf as Amy Wallace, Avila's partner who proves she's a tough a cop as any man, and William Baldwin as Van Stretch, Peck's hapless and ultimately gutless partner, brave enough to beat up on his wife but not strong enough to stand up to Peck and the venality he represents. Peck is one of the more intriguing anti-heroes on film; just when we think he's hit rock bottom, he takes a shovel and starts to dig himself in even deeper; he sees Avila's decency as a weakness he can manipulate just as he has played and destroyed everyone who crosses him. Some people, especially those who don't like to see law enforcement portrayed in a negative light, are going to be offended by this movie, but the film doesn't tar all policemen with the same brush; it's a fascinating and disturbing voyage into the mind of one very bad cop.

One of my faves
What makes thsi movie so good is the mind war going on between Andy Garcia and Richard Gere's characters. Garcia is tryign to unravel the labyrinthe of villainy and insanity that Gere has created as a corrupt cop. Gere is actually at first tickled that he's under investigation (thru his young partner Billy Baldwin) because he controls so much of his life. Multiple women/wives all living together, lots of kids, drug money, police power. But when Garcia of Internal Affairs starts getting too close Gere actually sets up a seduction of his wife that looks like one thing, is another thing and leads up to a very erotic, emotional scene between Garcia and his wife. Laurie metlcalf also plays a lesbian cop who Garcia briefly butts heads with as they team up. The nice thing about this movie is how everyone makes sense as a character and no one is entirely comfortable with the other characters. Loyalty is shown as a natural growth and betrayal a likely outcome. Very mature, strong film from gere, who makes an effort it seems to choose characters that have an internalworld going on that the watcher has to fathom about as he slowly lets possibilities, concepts slip out of what the motivations may be. Garcia is fantastic too. An incredible actor himself who chooses movies that allow his sublte, slightly repressed intensity to boil to the surface. Garcia, I hate comparisons, is very much like Al Pacino of the 70's.

Going Toe To Toe
Fresh off his supporting roles in Black Rain and The Untouchables, actor Andy Garcia teamed with Richard Gere, in a thriller for director Mike Figgis. The end result is a solid film, that is able to rise above its cliches, thanks to its cast.

Raymond Avila (Garcia) works for the internal affairs division of the LAPD and has been assigned to investigate Dennis Peck (Gere), a corrupt officer. The two men circle each other, like hunter and prey, certain that each will take the other down. It's discovered that the stakes get more personal when Peck uses Avila's wife Kathleen (Nancy Travis), and his partner Amy (Laurie Metcalf), as a way to get him off the trail.

Figgis plays the movie like a boxing match as the two leads go head to head. Gere plays it Peck like a total scumbag. He's a smooth operator--who happens to have a God complex. He is so sure of himself that he's bold enough to have 4 wives and eight kids. But as horrible as the character is, he plays it so well that, despite that, he's also quite magnetic. Also, by now, Garcia has come into his own as an actor and is able to hold his own. Some of the script suffers a bit from a stale smell. Thankfully, Gere and Garcia keep your attention throughout the movie, to soften those issues.

The DVD may not have any extras, but it is overflowing with enough of everthing else--all in all--for me to recommend this film.

Gere is so good when he's bad
Gere is so believable in this film. Initially, he is nearly sympathetic. Baldwin does a fine job Gere's partner. Garcia delivers what may be his finest peformance. Travis holds her own and definitely steals some scenes. This is an older movie, but it still smoking today. Well worth watching over and over. A keeper for the collection!

Didn't 'Faire' well with me
Internal Affairs is nothing more than an early 90's B Movie gone bad. Richard Gere may have had his worst performance in his career, and Andy Garcia definitely did.

Why people are so drawn to this movie is beyond me. Maybe I missed something, but I don't think so. Sex played a vital role in the movie, and to me, there was nothing steamy about it. It just sizzled right out.

Gere and Garcia so obviously walked through their parts and they must have needed the money, because they were just jokes. Garcia was incredibly stiff. There was no emotion in his character until the end, and even then it was mild. Gere was awful as the "villain". He's obviously progressed immensely as an actor.

The directing was just plain bad. It seemed the actors didn't know what to do for moments in the movie. There were awkward silences and pauses that were either put into the film on purpose for some insane reason or the actors had nothing better to do.

Internal Affairs is a complete disaster with storybook qualities. Don't waste your time with this mess. 2 Stars ... Read more

Reviews (131)

Good versus Evil in a deadly dance of operatic proportions.
Sometimes dubbed "the Master of the Macabre," director Brian De Palma is best known for his enactments of the supernatural ("Carrie"), mania ("Dressed to Kill") - and his mob stories. The latter part of his reputation is primarily grounded on four of his movies from the ten-year period between 1983 and 1993: "Scarface" (1983, starring Al Pacino), "Wise Guys" (1986, starring Danny De Vito, Joe Piscopo and Harvey Keitel), "Carlito's Way" (1993, again starring Pacino) ... and "The Untouchables" (1987), featuring an all-star cast including Robert De Niro, Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, Andy Garcia and Charles Martin Smith. Among these, "The Untouchables" stands out as the only movie not primarily told from the gangster's but from the lawmen's perspective - but what it does share with all of De Palma's works is an almost voyeuristic appeal to its audience's visual senses; going far beyond the lavish display of film blood it is most often cited for.

Less fact-based than cinematic grand opera par excellence, the movie takes as its premise the end of the career of Chicago's ganglord of ganglords, Al "Scarface" Capone, who (after a few half-hearted attempts to prosecute him for murder had failed due to the unavailability of witnesses) pled guilty, in 1931, to evading federal income tax, and was sentenced to an 11-year prison term and a $50,000 fine. Capone's downfall was brought about by a group of initially 50 but later only nine Treasury Agents, formed in 1929 (not in 1930, as suggested here) with the express purpose of breaking up his operations, and headed by Eliot Ness, whose 1957 book "The Untouchables" posthumously gave new rise to his fame - Ness died of a heart attack without ever having witnessed the full extent of his book's success - and inspired, inter alia, the like-named 1959 television series starring Robert Stack and Brian De Palma's 1987 movie.

Scripted by Pulitzer Prize winner and Chicago native David Mamet ("Glengarry Glen Ross"), "The Untouchables" is not so much a study in character development as based on a western's classic "good versus evil" setup; although that doesn't mean that its protagonists are two-dimensional in any way. On the contrary: Robert De Niro imbues his Capone with a ruthlessness and glib charm very likely matching those of the real "Scarface," who was known for his little hesitation to commit murder and other acts of violence as much as he cultivated a reputation as a savvy businessman and benefactor of the poor, for example by running several soup kitchens. (And yes, all of De Niro's mannerisms are on full display, too; but rarely have they fitted a role as well as here.) Kevin Costner's Eliot Ness may be a little too assertive - Robert Stack once commented, after several conversations with Ness's nearest and dearest, that the real-life Treasury Agent had been described to him as "rather soft-spoken, but very effective and brave" - but mildness is certainly not the principle trait written into the larger-than-life role of the man who "got" Al Capone, and Costner *is* an effective lead; although he is matched (not entirely sidelined, but darn near outplayed) by Sean Connery, who deservedly won an Oscar, a Golden Globe and a National Board of Review Award as the crotchety old-timer Malone who has seen it all, somehow managed to stay both clean and alive, and now lets Ness talk him into becoming his tutor in all things Chicago Gangland. Andy Garcia, in his break-through role, is instantly likable as George Stone, the smart, fast kid from the South Side who doesn't take kindly to put-downs of his origin but can nail a human target with one hand while lying down and holding a baby stroller with the other hand. Charles Martin Smith finally brings humanity and subtle humor to the character probably closest to the real-life "Untouchables," accountant Oscar Wallace, who first has the idea to charge Capone for income tax evasion. Strong performances by Billy Drago as Capone's right-hand man Frank Nitti (who of course was not really thrown off a rooftop by Ness), Richard Bradford as Police Chief Mike Dorsett, Patricia Clarkson as Ness's wife, Jack Kehoe as Capone's bookkeeper Walter Payne and others round out an altogether impressive cast.

Unmistakeably scored by Ennio Morricone (whose style often, and certainly here, doesn't even take a full bar to recognize; and who with an ASCAP Award, a Grammy and a BAFTA Award was the movie's other major winner besides Connery), "The Untouchables" lives off its splendid cinematography, production design - costumes courtesy of Giorgio Armani - and the exquisite timing of its sharp-edged dialogue and editing: Not only is screenwriter Mamet known to have his actors practice their lines according to a metronome; the editing of some of the movie's most memorable scenes has the distinct feeling of a carefully choreographed, veritable ballet. This is particularly true for Malone's death, pointedly set against the aria "Vesti la Giubba" from Ruggero Leoncavallo's opera "I Pagliacci" ("The Clowns"), which is based on a real-life murder and which Capone attends while his lieutenants waylay Malone in his own apartment; and the famous shoot-out in Chicago's Union Station, which turns into a deadly dance of bullets, blood and a baby stroller, shot almost entirely in slow motion.

Paradoxically, the one plot element this movie is most often criticized for - the jury switch at Capone's trial - is one of the few facts that actually did take place (although Capone's attorney would have had to be given the right to conduct a new voir dire). But ultimately, it doesn't even really matter how much of the plot is fact-based and how much fiction: Even if "The Untouchables" doesn't quite reach the mythical status of the "Godfather" trilogy - particularly its Parts 1 and 2 - as the mob movie to end all mob movies, it is one of only a handful other films that at least come close to the proportions of Francis Ford Coppola's epic masterpiece.

"What are you prepared to do?"
Brian DePalma's 1930s gangster film is none-the-less ingenius. Sean Connery deservedly won an Oscar for his moving performace, and the screenplay is fantastic.
Kevin Costner is Eliot Ness, an idealistic crime-fighter who moves to Chicago with his family to fight the infamous gangster Al Capone, brilliantly played by Robert De Niro. Ness enlists the help of Jimmy Malone (Sean Connery), an aging cop who knows how to defeat Capone. also helping Ness are George Stone (Andy Garcia), a young, streetwise cop, and FBI accountant Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith), whose knowledge may help crack open the violent war that has broken out. Chicago gangsters are battling a hapless police force in the Prohabition.
the coolect scene has to be when the "four riders" take on a shipment of alchohol on the U.S.-Canandian border. after their triumphant victory, however, Capone retaliates violently, which leaves our friends - and the audience - in shock and for-lasts the film in tragety.
truly one of the greatest detective/action movies ever made, "The Untouchables" is a modern masterpiece. rent it and then buy the DVD!

Touchable...
This film marks several remarkable firsts: The first true representation of a David Mamet film script (although "The Verdict" in 1980 came first), the leading-man status of Kevin Costner (deservedly so, since despite disasters like "The Postman" and "3000 Miles to Graceland", he's a very good actor with a very impressive resume and an Oscar to boot), Sean Connery's first Oscar win, also very much deserved, and most importantly, the first good film from Brian De Palma. People call films like "Body Double", "Carrie", "Blow Out" and "Dressed to Kill" classics... why they do, I have nary a clue. Those are some of the worst rip-off films in history. His "Hitchcockian" feeling is, to me, straight-up plagarism. He rips off plots and shots that are embarassing mish-moshes of Hitch's best (and worst) stuff. And did you see "Mission to Mars"? I didn't think so. And the only people that I can imagine that liked "Femme Fatale" were fans of the bathroom sequence (If you saw it, you know what I'm talking about). The only other film of his that was worth watching was "Mission: Impossible". But "The Untouchables" is a real work of art. I won't go into plot points, but I'll comment on the film's great points: 1) The dialogue is sparkling. Mamet makes these people real as opposed to just making them standard action caricatures (the young idealist, the grizzled old wise-man, the cocky rookie, and the dorky fifth-wheel). 2) The performances are top-notch. Costner, Connery, Martin Smith, Garcia, De Niro, and an underrated performance from Richard Bradford as Chief Dorsett really help to pull this film off. They give it all they got. They make the tragedy and drama and excitement and horror and triumpth of this film work. 3) The visuals are stunning. Stephen Burum really makes that camera work, especially with those beautiful shots of LaSalle Street. This film is a great revisionist telling of the Eliot Ness vs. Al Capone brawl. The film obviously takess a lot of liberties with history, but they really work, especially with the dispatching of one particularly bad man which in my opinion makes for the MOST satisfying film death EVER. It really makes you happy to watch this guy bite it ("Did he sound anything like THAT?!?"). This is a great film and I could not recommend it more highly. But go ahead and skip the rest of De Palma's 'classics'.

i love the movie and it's series
hello,my name's aaron johnson
the reason i'm writting this review for the untouchables film
is because i've seen it so many times that i enjoy how malone says his famous line to elliot , the one about getting capone
anyway, the whole entire plot is excellent
especially when the federal agents try to stop capone's men in time

the other reason i'm writting in this review , is because i've seen the untouchables tv series
and i'm wondering this very question ;
"when will the untouchables tv series from 1993
be out on dvd"

because i think that people would enjoy the entire [whatever how many seasons it ran for [if it was one or two] of the series

i'm sure a lot of other customers would appreciate the untouchables tv series on dvd

Great gangster cartoon!
The Untouchables tells the story of four policemen who fight Al Capone during the prohibition of the 30's. Don't expect anything like The Godfather though: this movie merely aims at -sometimes cartoonish- entertainment. Don't be surprised with the stereotypical characters and story and the all too colourful 30's setting. It's just how this movie works. Robert de Niro's Al Capone is excellent as the funny bad guy, Kevin Costner and Sean Connery both fit excellently in their roles as two persistent police officers with a mission. Yes, several happenings in the story may be somewhat cliché, but it is nothing less an exciting movie to watch. Executions, shoot-outs, trials and much more: it's all here. It's still better to pinch something well than to invent something badly! ... Read more

Reviews (24)

Writer's Blockhead
Well, let's see. When his first novel (entitled "Hitler's Child") fails to generate sales and his publisher refuses to print his second book, what is a starving writer to do?

Work for a male escort service, of course!

As goofy as this premise is, THE MAN FROM ELYSIAN FIELDS actually delivers a compelling story that is both fun and painful to watch. Unable to get his old job back and desperately strapped for cash, hard luck novelist Byron Tiller (Andy Garcia) is lured by the seductive enticement of "easy money" as an escort for Elysian Fields, a playground for rich, neglected housewives. Problem is, there's nothing "easy" about Byron's new career, and this character learns lesson after lesson--about himself, about the importance of his marriage--via a very unforgiving school of hard knocks.

The tragic irony of this film manifests itself over and over. By trying to provide for and protect his family, Byron's poor decision to join Elysian only serves to destroy it. And naturally--irony of ironies--Byron's best client is the exotic, beautiful Andrea Alcott (Olivia Williams), who just happens to be married to Pulitzer-prize winning novelist Tobias Alcott (played wonderfully by James Coburn). The ailing Tobias seeks Byron's aid to rewrite his last novel; the young writer eagerly agrees; the stage is set for dismal, heartbreaking disappointment (should have insisted on a written contract, dude).

Garcia is so soft-spoken and restrained in this role, even after getting knocked down again and again, that I--unlike some of the reviewers here--actually was relieved when he finally unleashed some anger and frustration by trashing the wardrobe room at Elysian Fields. I'll bet the character felt better; I know I did.

Mick Jagger as the articulate, whiskey-sipping proprietor of Elysian Fields was an unexpected and delightful surprise. The ending was a bit uneven and sappy, but entirely predictable. For all you struggling writers out there, I would recommend you forego becoming an escort and pick something safer. Sword swallowing comes to mind.
--D. Mikels

If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
In the film, "The Man from Elysian Fields," Andy Garcia plays the morose married writer, Byron Tiller. Tiller's one book "Hitler's Child, " isn't exactly a best-seller, and now he's almost finished book number two. Tiller's publisher won't even publish this second book. Tiller's wife, Dena (Julianna Margulies) is so unshakeable in her belief that both the book and her husband will be whoopingly successful, that Byron can't break the news that there will be no second book--no advance--no great writing career.

Desperation leads Byron to Elysian Fields--an elite male escort agency that just happens to be conveniently located next to his drab little office. The owner of the agency, the fascinating Luther Fox (Mick Jagger) offers to provide Byron with work, and so Byron accepts. His first assignment, as luck and Hollywood would have it, is to accompany porcelain beauty, Andrea Alcott, for a night on the town. Now Andrea is married to Byron's idol--popular author Tobias Alcott. Byron finds the situation intriguing and delectable enough to leave moral scruples behind as he fills in for Tobias in the bedroom too, but things are not quite as they seem, and Byron has a nasty illogical lesson waiting for him.

The film possessed many allegorical elements--Elysian Fields is, of course, in mythology, the place where souls go after death. Luther Fox is certainly a believable satiny evil Satan--by offering Byron an evening with the wife of a literary giant, he tempts him into selling his soul. Supernatural elements are weaved into the story and the set designs, but the film doesn't seem to know quite what to do with the layers of meaning created in the plot. So instead, the film disintergrates nonsensically into codswallop--sarcastic, world-weary, elegant Luther Fox turns into a pathetic love-lorn reject, and Byron's hell is laced with the promise of Hollywood happy endings. A sad disappointment indeed--why bother to lace the story with allegory and then suddenly switch gears half way through? Splendid performance from Mick Jagger--he redeemed this film for me--displacedhuman--Amazon Reviewer.

Very Poorly Written
It is ironic that this movie should pertain to the subject of writing, as it is very poorly written.
A MICROCOSM of this can be seen at the end, where the author reads his supposedly "breakthrough" novel: anybody over an amateur level readily recognizes what he is reading as extremely poor, extremely amateurish writing. It is also interesting that John Grisham is referred to once in the movie as a paragon of good writing--as though "fast food" writing ever qualified as very good intellectual reading meat.
The stupidity of the protagonist in not procuring a contract for his services strains credulity.
The likelihood that a well-known author would acquiesce to co-author his last book strains credulity.
The very stilted dialogue of this movie strains credulity.
Mick Jagger did a great job acting, but it's not enough to save this stinker.
The guy who wrote this movie neither understands good writing nor was capable of it.

The Man From Elysian Fields
My husband and I enjoyed this movie very much. Even though the story line was a bit of a downer at times, it was still very entertaining and kept our interest throughout the entire movie. Andy Garcia and Mick Jagger did an excellent job in conveying the desperation they each felt during critical moments in their lives. James Corburn and the actress who played his wife were good in their roles, as well.

a 10 star movie-must see!!!
Husband and I loved everything about this movie. Don't need to elaborate-read the previous reviews. Please rent, won't be disappointed ... Read more

Reviews (58)

A trio of fine actors....
I'm an Emma Thompson fan and have seen all her films including those she made with her now ex-husband Kenneth Branagh (their recent breakup occurred over "another woman" reputed to be Helena Bonham Carter). My all time favorite by this pair of actors is "Much Ado About Nothing." "Dead Again" is probably my least favorite film, however, Miss Thompson is a fabulous actress, so a bad day for her is good day for most other actresses.

The storyline of this film is interesting, particularly for those who think past lives are possible. According to one of the main characters, we not only have past lives, but everyone with whom you shared a past life shows up again in some form in the next life. It's as if human existence consists of a repertory company playing endless roles through eternity. Well, why not. I have a lot of unfinished business with various people I've lost in this life and there is some comfort in thinking I might get closure in the next life, or the one after that...or the one after that.

Branagh must have been attracted to this script because of it's Shakespearen elements...dreams, ghosts, unfinished business, a jealous husband killing an innocent wife (or being framed for the deed), and downright wickedness (out damn spot, out).

Derek Jacobi (Cadfael and Claudius) plays an eccentric antique dealer who tries to help the haunted Miss Thompson (nameless at first) through regressive hypnosis. Regressive hypnosis is used by psychiatrists to help trauma victims remember events they have subconsciously blocked that cause conscious distress.

Miss Thompson has been exhibiting some very distressed behaviour. Mike Church (Branagh) was raised at the Catholic convent school where Miss Thompson was found one dark and stormy night. The senior clergy have asked Mike to help Miss Thompson.

But, what if the patient remembers events from a previous life, and what if that person was not the victim at all but rather a witness...or worse yet, the perpetrator of the crime?

This film must be what is considered "high camp" as it is obvious to me a great deal of tongue in cheek stuff is going on. Picture a disturbed artist with a loft full of paintings, sculptures, etc. all depicting one or more pairs of sharp scissors. Jacobi's antiques dealer isn't the only eccentric in LA.

The actors had a great deal of fun making this film and while I was scared the first time I watched it, the next time it struck me as really funny. Too bad Kenneth and Emma aren't "Together Again."

Open Your Eyes, er...Grace?
DEAD AGAIN is a highly underrated suspense/thriller from 1991 that was also the inspiration for Dream Theater's 1999 masterpiece SCENES FROM A MEMORY. After watching the movie and listening to the album afterwards, there are a lot of similarities in the plot. I'm not accusing DT of ripping off the story, since they put their own spin on it and the characters in SFAM have different motives than the ones in DEAD AGAIN. Personally, I perfer SFAM because it's like a movie written in music which is more original, but this movie is still worth checking out.

Kenneth Branagh (who also directed the film) stars as Mike Church, a smooth L.A. investigator who knows how to talk to people and get secrets out of them. His next case, however, is much more difficult. He's assigned by a Catholic rehab center to take away one of their guests, an amnesiac woman (Emma Thompson) who doesn't talk much and keeps screaming in the middle of the night. The reason she screams is because she has nightmares of a man named Roman Strauss killing her with a pair of scissors. Mike decides to let her stay at his house, but even he doesn't know why he's suddenly drawn to her.

Out of nowhere comes a man named Franklin (Derek Jacobi) who turns out to be a hypnotherapist and is drawn to the woman's story. Franklin practices in hypnotic regression, meaning that he hypnotizes people that act like somebody else from a past life during the session. As it turns out, the woman (now called Grace by Mike) was actually Margaret Strauss, Roman's wife, in the 1940's. And in another strange twist, Mike turns out to be Roman reincarnated. Mike starts to fall hard for Grace, but when she starts to think that he might actually be Roman, that's where the tension begins to unravel.

The story is very interesting for the most part and the twists are pretty nifty, if not predictable. I like the fact that the scenes in the '40s were filmed in black and white and the scenes in 1991 were filmed in color. A perfect balance between past and present. Also, the acting is very good. There's even a hilarious supporting performance by Robin Williams as a former psychiatrist who now works at a supermarket ever since he was caught having an affair with a patient.

My only problem is that the ending is kind of disappointing. After the finale, you want more explanations. They gave enough throughout the movie, but at least one more to bring a forthright conclusion. Oh, well. That's more of a wish than a plot point. DEAD AGAIN is a solid, well-made mystery and makes for good viewing on a Friday night. Recommended.

not at Hitchcock's level.
This movie has a good cast but it is not up to the level like the Hitchcock's movies.I like Emma Thompson and the cast in other movies that were good,but I had a hard time getting into the story.If Alfred Hitchcock was to had seen this movie he may be very angry at the writers and director.

Film Noir as only Branagh can do it
This movie captures the world of Hitchcock and Bogart, in dramatic black and white (with color episodes) in a truly great presentation. Yes, the plot is threadbare, but no more so that those of Hitchcock's best, and irrelevant in any case, as the tension winds tighter and tighter, seeking a violent conclusion. Branagh is his usual self, so completely disappearing into his two roles, both with American accents, that he does not seem the same man who thrilled us in Henry V, delighted us in Much Ado, and took our breath away with Hamlet.

See it on a dark, winter night, with the lights low, and your arms around someone you adore. You will NOT be disappointed!

Mary F. Byrkit
20 January 2004

mfbyrkit@comcast.net

Hypnotic Thriller
The casting for this movie is great. Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson are wonderful as the detective and woman who has no memory. Derek Jacobi is excellent as the hypnotist/antique dealer. Even Robin Williams small part of the Grocer/Ex-Analyst is good. I don't want to give to much away. In a nutshell a lovely lady is being lodged at a church until they can determine her identity. Better that than sending her to a mental institution for her screams of panic and fright that has her propping a chair against her door each night.

When they can no longer take her disruptiveness, the church calls on a detective that will work for gratis. The detective puts out an article in the paper and a two mysterious strangers appear. One to help her recall her identity with hypnosis and another to take advantage of her. When her hypnosis reveals a previous life and a murder, things get very interesting and suspenseful. I have seen this twice on TV and am now planning to buy it. The love story that evolves along with the mystery is very romantic. I think this must be underrated as I am surprised it didn't get more exposure. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A second look reveals some