Reviews (52)

Awesome! Firefox takes off with suspense and excitement!
This movie is one of my favorite movies. Eastwood is absolutely fantastic in his role as Mitchell Gant, and the scenes for Russian locales are very much how I thought the USSR would be like. The first half of the movie, with Gant sneaking into Russia, and the base where the Firefox is, is very suspenseful. The sleek, black, Firefox aircraft itself is an incredibly cool looking design, and one of the most realistic looking movie aircraft I've ever seen, both when it's on the ground, and flying in the air. The aerial sequences are great, and the dogfight at the end of the movie between the two Firefoxes, Gant's and a pursuing, Russian pilot's, is incredible, and as realistic as the ones in Top Gun. With all these great qualities, Firefox is a great movie that deserves far more than 5 stars. I would recomend this movie to any aircraft, espionage, or Clint Eastwood fan, and anyone who likes great movies.

"Go Ahead...Mig My Day."
If you liked "The Hunt for Red October" and you're a BIG Clint Eastwood fan, you're still not likely to cheer "Firefox". With lame-o generic spy genre characters, obvious "clip and paste" special effects and the burden of having to believe that Eastwood's character was born Russian, "Firefox" taxes the audience severely. The young Smithers-esque intellience guy that gets giddy as a school girl everytime Eastwood does anything and Freddie Jones who's character is completely unintelligable throughout the whole movie (even though he's speakin English) are as distracting as dancers with pulled hamstrings. Add a "psychic" Russian general who can predict Eastwood's every move and a "super jet" that appears to be as aerodynamic as a dictionary and you've got yourself one pretty bad flick. So why the two stars? Well, it IS Eastwood and he IS kicking Ruskie butt...

An adequate, unusual techno-thriller from Clint Eastwood
This was Clint Eastwood's second dip into the waters of the espionage thriller (the first was the awful "Eiger Sanction" back in 1975), and one of the few films he directed which relies heavily on visual effects. As a director, Eastwood seems uneasy with both modes, which go against the grain of his realistic, tough, and often stoic & silent directorial style. Nonetheless, "Firefox" works better than it should. Eastwood brings understated realism to what might have been a hopelessly hokey Cold War techno thriller, and the visual effects-laden last third is fairly exciting. However, the mixture of elements ultimately produces only an adequate film, a strange entry in Eastwood's long string of hits.

The plot is a Tom Clancy story before there were Tom Clancy stories (this is based on a novel by Craig Thomas). The Soviets (remember them?) have developed a super fighter jet, the Firefox, with thought-controlled weapons system. The Firefox threatens the balance of power in the Cold War, so NATO needs to get their hands on it, pronto. The only man who can do it is pilot Mitchell Gant (Eastwood). He speaks fluent Russian, can infiltrate the base with the help of Russian Jewish dissenters (played by Ronald Lacey, Nigel Hawthorne, and Warren Clarke), and has the skill to fly the Firefox. Only problem: Gant is highly unstable from his Vietnam experience, is prone is nasty flashbacks (a problem if you're flying a though- controlled plane!), and has done no undercover work before.

"Firefox" is overlong at 136 minutes, and tends to drag with far too many scenes of Russian and NATO boardroom arguments. The film works best in the early parts during the scenes with Lacey, Hawthorne, and Clarke, who all give fine, sentimental performances as double agents who know they are doomed but struggle on for what they know is right. In a few place, Eastwood shows traces of the later themes of the consequences of violence that would mature in "Unforgiven" and "Mystic River." Eastwood himself is fairly good in the role, avoiding any "Dirty Harry" clichés or relying too much on his tough guy image, but he does look rather silly in his undercover disguise scenes.

Nonetheless, it does seem to take forever until the last third, where the Firefox tries to blaze an almost hopeless escape trail out of the Soviet Union, with another Firefox prototype on its tail. The effects (by John Dysktra of "Star Wars" fame) are zippy and fantastic, but any human element left in the film pretty much bails out at this point. Enjoy the planes, enjoy the speed, enjoy Clint just staring out the window and not moving much. It's fairly exciting, but when it's all over, you'll feel a bit let down.

The DVD, like most Warner Bros. discs in the Clint Eastwood Collection, looks very good, and the sound is 5.1. But also like most Warner Bros. discs in the Clint Eastwood Collection, there are no extras.

Good, but not great
FIREFOX is one of those films made back when the U.S.S.R. still existed, and espionage is the key here. Clint Eastwood plays Mitchell Gant, a retired Air Force pilot who is resurrected to steal the FIREFOX fighter jet from Russia. Based on a novel by the same name, FIREFOX certainly looks like an interesting movie, and it is to some extent. It has a little James Bond flavor in it too. It is not great, however, and has many flaws.

Eastwood constantly changes deguise throughout the film as his allies seek to get him to the jet. The process is long and confusing, and the whole time Clint doesn't look like he has any idea what he is doing. Once he grabs the jet itself, and pulls out of the hanger, night suddenly changes to day! The special effects during the flying sequences are exciting. John Dykstra, who won an oscar for the special effects in STAR WARS, did the job on the effects here and the results are impressive, even though they look dated. The movie does drag, however, when the U.S.S.R. intellegence constantly is trying to figure out which direction he is headed. The worst thing about this film is the ending. After winning a dramatic dogfight with the other FIREFOX, the movie ends right there in the sky. It would have been interesting if Eastwood could have entended it a little more to at least see him land the plane in his home country. This was Eastwood's eighth time as a director as well. The movie is interesting, but the minor flaws, and flat ending are what kind of hold it back from being great. FIREFOX wass a good movie, but it could have been better, alot better.

Not a bad espionage thriller
I remember when I first saw this 20 years ago on cable TV. ... Read more

Amazon.com

In this made-for-TV thriller, Bob Boyd (Anthony Edwards) is an amnesia-stricken geologist assigned to do a survey in the small town where he was a victim in the car crash that resulted in his memory loss. Knowing that he may not have the same name as before, and that his disfigured face has been changed by cosmetic surgery, Boyd realizes he may be a stranger to those who may have known him. When he begins poking around to find out about the incident, the geologist becomes entangled in a family feud between the Mattersons, rich landowners who run the town, and their rivals the Trinavants, who lost two of their family members in the crash and who own land that the Mattersons desperately want to develop on. Was Boyd a member of the Trinavant family, was he an assassin hired to kill them, or was he someone else with the misfortune of being in the crash? And whom can he truly trust to provide him with the right answers? As he digs deeper in his search for the truth, Boyd becomes entangled with women in both families, the Matterson mob begin to make physical threats against him, and he finally begins to uncover the truth about the terrible events that left him physically and emotionally scarred. Despite its made-for-TV look, Landslide is a well-made, suspenseful film with some engaging twists and turns. The movie also features Melody Anderson (Flash Gordon) and Joanna Cassidy (Blade Runner). Kudos to screenwriter Peter Palliser (adapting Desmond Bagley's novel) for not wrapping up everything cleanly but for leaving lingering questions at the end. --Bryan Reesman ... Read more

Description

A sexy, comedic tale about revolutionaries trying to alter the political system. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Camilla Soeberg is excellent!
Danish actress Camilla Soeberg is very sexy in this film.The scene in the barn is very erotic. People who have seen the film will know the scene I'm talking about.Worthy of 4 stars!

Charming...
I recently attended a film festival here in Reykjavik to see two of Makavejev's films (Sweet Movie and Mysteries of an Organism, both from the 1970s), with Makavejev attending as the guest, answering questions and making comments as appropriate. I had completely forgotten that he directed this film and when I decided to do more research about his films, seeing as how the two I saw at the festival were dark, deeply symbolic, filled with perversity and obscenity (more to make a point than to be perverse and obscene for the sake of either quality). A Night of Love is a much more straightforward departure from these very hazy pictures from the 1970s. A recurring theme for Makavejev, though, seems to be the urgent need for openness in sexuality. This film charmingly illustrates that need through vivid imagery and great performances from the actors involved. Gabrielle Anwar was positively adorable in this role.

A wonderfully anarchic sexy little fable.
In true Makavejev fashion, this movie looks like a lovely fluffly cake, but inside it is filled with bugs and bizarre things! There is a great deal of sex in this movie, and it all feels feverish and vital and right. See early film performances from Alfred Molina, Gabrielle Anwar, and Eric Stoltz. The plot is as wild as the costumes and scenery- apparently this was shot in what was Yugoslavia, and it is beautiful. Definitely worth a look, but not with the kids! ... Read more

Reviews (167)

Best. Movie. Ever.
The following is quoted from the Official Buckaroo Banzai website, and should be taken as canon. These guys work with the facts, and I hope this helps people who are on the fence about buying the DVD edition...

"Wow - we've just gotten our hands on the revised and final list of specs on MGM's upcoming The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai: Special Edition (street date 1/1/02), and you guys are gonna flip for it! These come straight from the amazing Mojo, who was an associate producer on the project. The disc was produced by Michael Arick, whose other recent work includes Forrest Gump and The Magnificent Seven. So here goes... special features on the DVD will include a brand new anamorphic widescreen transfer (presented for the first time on home video in the original 2.35:1 aspect ratio), remixed Dolby Digital 5.1 audio, 2 versions of the movie (the theatrical cut plus a special extended version with restored opening sequence starring Jamie Lee Curtis), feature audio commentary from director W.D. Richter and Reno from the Banzai Institute, a behind-the-scenes documentary and retrospective, 14 deleted scenes, the original teaser trailer, an all-new "Jet Car" special effects trailer, extensive interactive menus with new material from Buckaroo Banzai screenwriter Earl Mac Rauch, special 'watermelon' Easter eggs, Pinky Carruther's Unknown Facts subtitle track, the Banzai Institute Archives, a Banzai Radio segment, original production designs, Jet Car secrets revealed and a still gallery with never-before-seen photos. SWEEEEET! I actually ran into Mojo at the recent Studio Day event here in L.A., and from what he told me, this may be one of the coolest discs in a long time! Everything on this thing is done up as if the disc was produced by the Banzai Institute itself, and there's a ton of new and original film-themed material produced by the folks who worked on the movie. If you love Buckaroo Banzai as much as we do here at The Bits, this is a must have title if there ever was one. ... It's a adventure/sci-fi/comedy in the same vein as Big Trouble in Little China, and it's just plain fun. Don't miss it..."...

Where The Future Begins Tomorrow...
This movie was unfortunately released before its time. It got good reviews in the newspapers and magazines, but I saw it on opening night in a nearly-empty theater and it was gone shortly afterwards. A few years later, films such as Back to the Future, Ghostbusters, Big Trouble In Little China (same writer as BB), Men In Black, and Galaxy Quest would make audiences more receptive of sci-fi and/or fantasy movies that played as comedies. Its production values aren't the greatest, and it definitely looks dated (8o's hairstyles, clothing, and music), but it has a quirky, hip quality to it. The movie also features a lot of stars (John Ligthow, Christopher Lloyd, Ellen Barken, Peter Weller, Jeff Goldblum) who went on to bigger and better things. A campy film that could have been the start of something great...too bad it never caught on!

Elvira would be proud to narrate this...!
Okay, here's the bottom line line: If you didn't like this movie you should go to the morgue and check to see if you are late... as in 'the late Mr. Smith', 'cuz you don't have a pulse or a funny bone. Peter Weller did this better than he did 'RoboCOP'. Jeff Goldblum is suave and funny in this feature, even more so than in 'Transylvania 6-5000' with Ed Begley, Jr. and Geena Davis. To V. Mejia: Calling this a boring film is the most absurd thing that I have ever heard since George Bush said 'Read my lips.'. You must have been watching a different film or the humor is just beyond you. It is hard to be funny when your audience doesn't understand little things like science and levity. If you don't laugh every couple of minutes at this film you should hit yourself in the funny bone with a rubber mallet. If that doesn't work, well, get yourself a toe tag and follow the instructions in the first sentence above. Where else could you find some calling themselves 'John Big Bootay'? Hmmm??? Buy this, show it to your kid, your grandkids and everyone else that you know. This movie is on a par with 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show', 'Clue', 'Back to the Future' (I,II & III), and many other classic cult films. As Elvira would say: 'Unpleasant Dreams...'.

Live Japanimation
This movie came out before Japanimation became big. If this movie was animated it would make more sense to those who don't get it. It's a parody of Japanese movies, particularly the animated ones. The bizzare costumes, the aliens, and the implied history are all aspects of these films.

pure torture
Like many other reviewers here, I have tried and tried to watch this film in its entirety. But it's just not possible. This movie is tedious. The entire opening home-movie sequence is incredibly laborious. There are a few funny moments in the film, but overall, this movie is painful. The folks at the School of The Americas could probably use this movie as part of their torture training program. John Lithgow's performance is excrutiating to watch. It's uncomfortably over the top. I first saw this movie when it came out in theaters and fell asleep. This movie is BAD. People say it's a cult classic, but it's nothing like the Rocky Horror Picture Show, which is a true cult classic. ... Read more

Description

Reclusive artist Victor Clare's bronze female sculptures look so lifelike that they seem eerily... human! In the tradition of Vincent Price's "House of Wax," "Crucible of Terror" is the tale of an occult-dabbling sculptor possessed by a dead woman's ghost. Under her spell, he lures young, beautiful models to his remote studio where he carries out his horrific secret method for obtaining such realism--pouring hot wax over the living girls, molding them to his liking with plaster and, finally, imprisoning them forever in hot molten bronze! A chilling, atmospheric thriller with a twist ending. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

This New Release Does The Film Justice!
A psychotronic gem and a rather original tale in the "mad artist" subgenre of horror film, this is the first version of "Crucible of Terror" not to suffer from ghastly editing and bad prints that have so far been the norm. Having seen the entire film while vacationing in London, I can say that this is 99% intact but I am not complaining about the missing 1%. The print is clear and some of the more erotic and disturbing scenes have not been hacked out. Character actor Ronald Lacey is a hoot as the embittered toad of a son to an equally piggish and megalomaniacal reclusive artist played by former BBC DJ Mike Raven. Raven definitely looks the part and a whole slew of other British character actors round out this macabre tale of art, obsession, and murder most foul. Recommended for lovers of bizarre low-budget cinema!

An acceptable time-killer for hard-core horror fans only.
This British horror film is slow-moving and takes a long time to get to its "possession" theme. Worse, this video is taken from a poor print. It has that washed-out, old color film look, like some old 16mm TV print.

Actress Mary Maude is wasted here, basically just sitting around with the other characters waiting for something to happen. She was much better (and had a meatier role as a sadistic lesbian disciplinarian) in the 1969 Spanish horror film, THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED. Actually, her cameo as a witch-hunter's wife in TERROR (1979) was meatier then in this tepid film.

I'm giving this film 1 star, plus another for Mary Maude, plus another because, well, because it's a horror film and I like even slow-moving, washed out horror films. Non-genre fans might be less generous.

Bad treatment of a classic psychotronic film.
A good bad film is a thing to treasure, as with this dark gem that shows character actor Ronald Lacey years before he stalked the screen as the Nazi interrogator in Raiders of the Lost Ark. However, this has ten minutes of the original footage edited out and it spoils the whole thing. To discuss it further is pointless. I have heard similar treatment has struck some classic Hammer films as they made their way here. I am very disappointed. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Flesh and Blood - a movie for a New Years' Eve
This movie is such a pleasant surprise! Rutger Hauer is soooo handsome and sexy. As "Martin" he and his band of mercenaries roam the 'northern european' countryside (where is this supposed to actually be?) with a statue of St. Martin (Martin's patron saint) guiding them to their destiny--a castle with the plague awaiting them.

Agnes looks very much the part of the child princess bride. Some of this movie reminds me of the (in)famous "War Lord" with good 'ole Charleton H.--princess bride ravaged by the warrior--only in this one the bride isn't long suffering but actually has some fun with Martin too.

The war machines add to the plot but man did the director take liberties. How did the wood on the 'telescoping' ladder keep from burning? Did they have dynamite for the 'bomb' invention back then? And how would the Arab medical texts suggesting the plague swellings be cut open rather than bleeding the victim make it all the way up there?

The dialogue is so camp! At the most inappropriate times you find yourself laughing outloud--like at the end of the rape scene where Martin says: "I'm done, I hope you are". And the scene when Martin's first woman is having a baby and she says: "That hurts!"--an understatement if I ever heard one. The sexy bath scenes are very seductive--a mideaval hot tub, candles and all sorts of frolic.

The film is shot in SPAIN--Avila and other beautiful locations but the weather is not always all that sunny--the rain and mud--whew!

Loved this movie--you will too!

Paul Verhoeven's "transition" film
Flesh and Blood can be considered Paul Verhoeven's transition between Holland and Hollywood. This film was his first English-language one and was funded by an American studio (Orion), but was filmed with a largely European crew in Spain. It is interesting to note that the shoot was absolutely miserable, with terrible weather and infighting on the set that caused a years-long rift between Verhoeven and leading man Rutger Hauer. The bad feelings really seem to come through in both the directing and the acting. It was after this movie, having severed ties with his former producer and star, that Verhoeven blew town for Hollywood and filmed Robocop.

I've been waiting for this on DVD for a long time, and now MGM has finally announced a February 2004 release for Flesh and Blood. Now if we could only get the Dutch miniseries "Floris" translated to English and released, our Verhoeven collections could be complete!

FLESH + BLOOD
Well, this is a good movie, although it has some bad parts it still is worth watching. It has everything in it to make it a good movie and it has a heart. This is a good movie. GREAT!

what a mess!
This was one of the worst flicks I've ever seen....the acting was atrociously bad--especially Jennifer Jason Leigh (was this her 1st movie)? The plot is ridiculous, the fighting is amateurish and completely unrealistic and the actors look like they were just handed a script and asked to improvise. Rutger Hauer looks like he can't wait to get this mess over with.
You'll need to see "Braveheart" to cleanse your palette after viewing this mess.

One of my favorite films EVER!
Flesh and Blood is one of the most wonderful films of all times!
I saw it for the first time when I was 8 years old, and it immediately become my favorite! I was longing for this films launch on DvD for a long time!
It is dark, and raw but it has many elements apart from what is apparent. It is actually a love story, surrounded by sin, war, plague and lust; and all these in an incredibly mystical setting and time...Definately reccomend it! ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Unforgettable triumph of storytelling.
Without doubt, this is by far the finest screen version of Conan Doyle's famous story I have (so far) seen. Ian Richardson (who will no doubt be familiar to fans of House of Cards and To Play the King) is perfect as Holmes. The film boasts just the right cast (whether central characters or bit parts, they all give strong performances), the moor's thin line between beauty and deadly is just right, the soundtrack is unforgettable, there is myriad memorable dialogue and the whole thing flows very well. There is not a dull moment. Recommended to fans of Sherlock Holmes, Doyle or just horror in general.

Solid, but not totally spectacular version
This version of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic story featuring Sherlock Holmes offers a fun and solid take on the tale of the Great Detective and his investigation of a deadly family curse. Wonderfully photographed, the film makes great use of the dark settings of the moor. Ian Richardson leads the pack with a sly, puckish take on Sherlock Holmes. It is a wonderful performance that makes one wish that he had filmed more Holmes stories then he did. Denholm Elliott has his amusing moments as the local doctor with a case of absent-mindedness. Unfortunately, the actor playing the faithful Dr. Watson, seems to be too much the Cockney with his gravelly voice. It's frustrating since his character spends much of the time onscreen, while Holmes is offscreen thoughout the middle part of the film. Brian Blessed and Connie Booth (formerly married to John Cleese, and a sometime performer with Monty Python), do well in smaller roles. A decent film, but not the definitive version.

warning
I made the mistake of watching this with my kids and family after church one Sunday. I had no idea there would be a rape scene! For kids stick with the Halmark version with Matt Frewer.

Probably the best
With the exception of the cheesy merry-go-round dog attack at the beginning of this TV movie, this version of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" is superb. Ian Richardson plays Holmes with a flair that matches the great Jeremy Brett. It's a shame that Richardson's Holmes is only captured in one other occasion on film. ("The Sign of Four")

In contrast, it's also a shame that "Hound" is probably the most screen adapted literary work ever (there are at least 10 films) but there is no perfect definitive version. This is probably as close as we're going to get. This film, made in 1983, far outshines the 2000 BBC version with its horrid CGI dog and a Watson who is likely computer generated as well. Fans of the Jeremy Brett film may be surprised at the stellar cast of this one, featuring Denholm Elliott ("Raiders of the Lost Ark"), Eleanor Bron ("The House of Mirth"), Connie Booth ("Monty Python"), and noted actor Brian Blessed (you'll know him when you see him if you don't already). The film also features Ronald Lacey as probably the best Inspector Lestrade ever. (Lacey was also in "Raiders" and the Jeremy Brett version of "The Sign of Four".) Martin Shaw's spin as the Texan Sir Henry Baskerville surprisingly turns out to be more pleasant than not.

At times the film is on the gritty side. The scene with Sir Hugo chasing his servant's daughter for that evening's recreational rape is darker than one would expect, but precisely where it needs to be cinematically. When you consider realism, this "Hound" is unequalled.

Fans of Ian Richardson should also check him out in "Murder Rooms", a BBC series where he plays Dr. Joseph Bell - a real Victorian doctor universally recognized as Arthur Conan Doyle's inspiration for the Sherlock Holmes character.

Excellent and Memorable
This 1983 version of the Hound, with Ian Richardson as Sherlock Holmes, has rarely received the accolades it so richly deserves. While not the most faithful adaptation of the Conan Doyle classic, it is nevertheless sumptuously atmospheric. It features a truly menacing hound that more closely approximates the horror elicited by the novel's original than the veritable slew of disappointing hounds from several other film versions, the obvious exception being the equally terrifying Basil Rathbone hound. This TV movie's strengths stem from a variety of sources. First of all, Michael Lewis's engaging, memorable film score is exquisitely dynamic and resonates with excitement. Secondly, the production's choice of authentic Devonshire locales for outdoor filming, and effective use of sound stages to evoke the melancholy and dreary mystique of the moors at nighttime,imbues this stylish version with an appropriately gothic flavor. It stunningly depicts the eerie essence of the Grimpen Mire, replete with its miasma of swirling, amorphous ground mist, and compellingly involves the viewer in the visual ambience of its surroundings. The film's denouement, as Holmes pursues his villainous quarry through the mire's impenetrable sea of fog, is masterfully photographed and provides a highly dramatic and satisfying catharsis to an enjoyable film.
This is not to discount the film's few shortcomings. Certainly Richardson's Holmes, invariably prone to overtly amiable behavior, deviates from the disconcerting arrogance and brooding demeanor so brilliantly and faithfully rendered by Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett. This is not to negate Richardson's charismatic and magnetic presence, however, and he is a pleasure to watch. (Recently, he compellingly played Dr. Joseph Bell, the real-life inspiration for Sherlock Holmes, in an equally atmospheric mystery series broadcast on Public Television). However, his Holmes portrayal remains somewhat revisionist. Furthermore, Donald Churchill's slightly bumbling rendition of Dr. Watson is too much of a frustrating throwback to Nigel Bruce's comedic and dim-witted depiction of the much maligned-doctor in the classic Basil Rathbone films of the 1940s. As Watson's character, for once, takes center stage in the Hound, casting for this role is more imperatively crucial than for Holmes. Among the most convincing and enjoyable Watsons from productions past included the more cerebral Andre Morell from the 1959 Hammer film and the equally astute and somber Edward Hardwicke from the 1987 Jeremy Brett version. However, that said, this stylish production deserves unstinting praise for the masterful way in which it skillfully reproduces the macabre spirit of the classic novel. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

This New Release Does The Film Justice!
A psychotronic gem and a rather original tale in the "mad artist" subgenre of horror film, this is the first version of "Crucible of Terror" not to suffer from ghastly editing and bad prints that have so far been the norm. Having seen the entire film while vacationing in London, I can say that this is 99% intact but I am not complaining about the missing 1%. The print is clear and some of the more erotic and disturbing scenes have not been hacked out. Character actor Ronald Lacey is a hoot as the embittered toad of a son to an equally piggish and megalomaniacal reclusive artist played by former BBC DJ Mike Raven. Raven definitely looks the part and a whole slew of other British character actors round out this macabre tale of art, obsession, and murder most foul. Recommended for lovers of bizarre low-budget cinema!

An acceptable time-killer for hard-core horror fans only.
This British horror film is slow-moving and takes a long time to get to its "possession" theme. Worse, this video is taken from a poor print. It has that washed-out, old color film look, like some old 16mm TV print.

Actress Mary Maude is wasted here, basically just sitting around with the other characters waiting for something to happen. She was much better (and had a meatier role as a sadistic lesbian disciplinarian) in the 1969 Spanish horror film, THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED. Actually, her cameo as a witch-hunter's wife in TERROR (1979) was meatier then in this tepid film.

I'm giving this film 1 star, plus another for Mary Maude, plus another because, well, because it's a horror film and I like even slow-moving, washed out horror films. Non-genre fans might be less generous.

Bad treatment of a classic psychotronic film.
A good bad film is a thing to treasure, as with this dark gem that shows character actor Ronald Lacey years before he stalked the screen as the Nazi interrogator in Raiders of the Lost Ark. However, this has ten minutes of the original footage edited out and it spoils the whole thing. To discuss it further is pointless. I have heard similar treatment has struck some classic Hammer films as they made their way here. I am very disappointed. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

GREAT MOVIE STUNTS & THE MAKING OF "RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK"
This video was amazing! The stunts were top draw, and the behind the scenes footage was class! I would recomend this vid to everyone as its entertaining, funny and more to the point educational! May I please make a point to George Lucas & Steven Spielberg. If you both have similar footage of the other two indy films could you please produce the same kind of videos? Or perhaps make a stunts and behind the scenes video of Indy 4!

Indy's great . . . this video's so-so
I love Indiana Jones, and even though I like "Last Crusade" a little better than "Raiders of the Lost Ark," I decided to buy this video. It has two parts, each detailing special effects and stuntwork used in "Raiders". It's really funny to see all the cast behind-the-scenes, a young Steven Spielberg, and so on. And learning how they did a lot of the stunts was very cool too. I especially liked finding out how they created the pit of snakes in the desert. Most of those snakes were REAL! This video was a little long, though; some of the stunts they showed in the first segment on this video were repeated in the second part. I would recommend this video only to die hard fans of "Raiders" or really huge movie fans who want to know more about special effects and stunts.

Great Fun
A behind the scenes double feature. Two looks at the blockbuster film Raiders of the Lost Ark. The first concentrates on the history of movie stunts as well as the stunts of Raiders. The parallels are interesting and give a perspective on the movie's place in action filmmaking history. I doubt, for instance, that most moviegoers recognized Indy's escape under the moving truck as an homage to John Ford's Stagecoach. This first feature is narrated by Harrison Ford. The second feature is a well made and in-depth look at the making of Raiders. Good interviews with cast and crew including Ford, Lucas, and Spielberg. Plenty of coverage of Spielberg's manner behind the camera. We watch an energetic and childlike Spielberg create a massive blockbuster. We're allowed peaks at the making of almost all scenes in the film. As Raiders required great technical skill the behind the scenes moments are always fascinating. Great fun for Indy fans.

Great Indiana Jones Making of
I like a lot Indiana Jones since when I was a child and I always wanted to know how Raiders was done. I really liked this video because is very interesting to see all the secrets of the production of this movie. If you have some doubts to buy it, don't wait more one minute, don't delay, buy it!!!

Very Educational
This will give the average audience goer,who may not appreciate what filmmakers go through to get a project off the ground, a new appreciation. Great Movie Stunts conveys that message with regard to staging spectacular action sequences that last just a few seconds or minutes on screen, but may take weeks and even months to accomplish. I liked the "Making Of" better. This goes into other aspects of the production such as the logistics associated with shooting at various locations around the world(watch what the crew had to do to make Cairo appear as it did in 1936!)Karen Allen is interviewed as is Lucas, Speilberg, and of course Ford.Other members of the crew such as Frank Marshall and David Tomblin(who will explain how the location shooting was effective as they had been here before for Star Wars!)are interviewed.Some of the scenes in Great Movie Stunts appear again in The Making Of, but redundancy never hurt anyone!Highly recommended. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Part One
"The Final Programme" is an adaptation of Michael Moorcock's first book in the Jerry Cornelius series. Like Elric, the Jerry Cornelius stories, an epic in themselves, comprise a subset of his Eternal Champion epic, inspired in part by Jungian psychology and the theories of Joseph Campbell. Of all of Moorcock's books, the Jerry Cornelius stories are the most experimental and are by far those which lend themselves the least to movie adaptation.

Robert Fuest, who was a set designer and director of the Avengers TV series and the Dr. Phibes movies, makes an admirable, and visually entertaining, attempt at adapting the first novel, however what he creates is ultimately flawed. This is most noticeable in the ending (which I won't spoil) which comes off as purely pretentious camp in the film, although it works well in the novel.

One of the things which makes the Jerry Cornelius series most interesting is that each novel takes place in a slightly different world with slightly different characters with similar names, reliving the same dramas over and over again. For example, there is the love triangle between Jerry and his brother and their sister, which is barely developed in the movie, perhaps for censorship reasons. As you progress through each book, the themes become reinforced and the series' exploration of archetypes becomes stronger. The love triangle, for example, becomes more profound and takes on mythic tones, like the legends of Osiris, Isis and Anubis. By adapting only the first novel, the movie loses most of its impact and its focus on the themes in the novel becomes quite surface. So instead of an amazing intellectual journey, you instead get what appears to be an especially campy, bizarre and racey episode of the Avengers, with secret agents and spies in fancy dress racing to retrieve a mysterious microchip in a psychedelic and decadent age.

Another weakness of the movie is that it gives only a bare glimpse at the End of the World, something that is wonderfully portrayed (in different manners) in each of the Cornelius books. The largest indication of the movie taking place at the end of the world is a speech about the approaching end of the current Yuga (or "age"). However, it is preferable that the movie is a bit too subtle in this regard instead of hitting you over the head with it.

Someone who has read the Cornelius books will likely have greater appreciation for this film than others, recognizing what it accomplishes in attempting to adapt an impossible to film book. But all should find at least the first half an enjoyable trip with great, creative visuals and avant garde late 1960s fashion and architecture.

Better than I expected
I had read Michael Moorcock's somewhat scathing comments on this movie and its history. Jon Finch was a friend of Moorcock's and he also knew some of the other actors -- it has a superb cast including Hugh Griffiths, George Chakaris, Jenny Runacre, Sterling Hayden. According to Moorcock the only thing wrong with the film (produced by Putnam and Leiberson who had just done Performance -- Jagger turned the Cornelius part down as being 'too freaky') was the director, who came in after the success with EMI of his Doctor Phibes movies. Fuest certainly didn't rise to glory after this and seems to have disappeared almost entirely. Moorcock claimed the director had 'reversed' much of his attack and added sexism whereas Moorcock was celebrating gender bending. For all that, there are some fine performances and some great comic scenes, with Finch and Co. coming in to their own as, according to Moorcock's account, they gradually took charge of the picture. Jerry starts out as a sort of freaky James Bond, but by the middle of the picture is playing it far more for laughs (and a lot better than The Spy Who Shagged Me!). Still well worth watching, if only for its incredible list of British and American repertory movie actors giving their baffled best. Moorcock's piece also notes Chakaris coming up to him 'Young man, young man -- what is this film all about ?' By this time Moorcock had no idea himself. "I don't know," he said. "Ah, there you are," said Chakaris triumphantly, "the author doesn't know what it's about, either.' Really, if you want the full strength of what this could have delivered, you need to read the new Cornelius Quartet, just out from Four Walls, Eight Windows -- this first was always the weakest -- but would have been so much better with a director who understood its targets. The relative failure of this movie meant that the other Cornelius movies, optioned to Goodtimes, never got made. Imagine The English Assassin as a movie -- or better still The Condition of Muzak. Someone should start thinking about a good remake...

"A very tastey world!"
What can you say about a film that, opening scene onwards, you either love or loathe? It's fantastically dated, and that's what makes it fantastic. From the London Red-Bus Movie music, the bizarro pseudo-science, the biting dialogue, and the (almost) Cast of Thousands, "Final Programme" is one of my favorite films ever. I've almost worn out my copy.

The plot's incidental, but what the hey? Jerry Cornelius (Jon Finch) is a Nobel Laureate living on Bell's scotch, pills, and chocolate digestives in a chaotic world where Trafalgar Square is a vast dump, arms dealers operate in basements across from the National Gallery, and Amsterdam's now "25 square miles of white ash--for once the Americans got it right." Jerry's dad, mad-scientist and founder of the Cornelius line, was working on something weird in Lapland when he died, but that's not Jerry's problem now. He's more worried about his crazy brother Frank (the wonderful Derek O'Connor), who is holding their sister Catherine hostage in the Family Manse and is, if possible, more strung out than Jerry.

But Lapland returns to haunt him in the form of Miss Brunner (Jenny Runacre) and three Magritte-like scientists. They need Jerry to help them get his dad's microfilm, the last piece of The Final Programme---a project staggaring in conception and quite, quite funny. The microfilm is locked in the house with Frank, and as the old family retainer tells Jerry,"There's another problem--it's that house. You know what that old house is like." "I haven't forgotten" says Jerry.

That "old house" is a super-modern fortress, of course, complete with lights of simulate "pseudo-epilepsy", booby traps, poison gas, and a pantheon of James Bondish dangers. Along the way to the microfilm, it becomes apparent there's something very odd about Miss Brunner, and that Frank's not the fool he seems.

I know it's dated and I don't care. I don't care if the continuity is bad. I don't care if the budget could've been bigger. I don't care if the "science" is Junk with a capital "Juh". I'm oblivious to it all, because this is such an entertaining movie. For one thing, Jon Finch is incredible. He's the perfect Jerry, and Prince could only PRAY to wear a Goth/New Romantic suit as well as Finch does. For another, Jenny Runacre's Miss Brunner was feminist before there was a common understanding of what that word meant. And the versatile Derek O'Connor's greasy, desperate Frank is brilliant.

You'll need to have your finger on the "rewind" button--the dialogue comes fast and urbane. You'll keep recognizing British character actors, and let's face it, if you're female, you'll want to gaze on Finch's beautiful, intelligent face again.

And the visual jokes--watch for "LOVE" embroidered on the vampirical Brunner nightie in the "climactic" final scene!

A warning, though: this really does deserve its R rating. Hustle the kiddie-winks to bed first--then enjoy!

Planet Weird
This film is based on the original Michael Moorcock story of the same name. I have read the Moorcock version and I genuinely have to say that the film seems to be better. It is an existential romp through conscienceness. It takes you to a weird alternate reality of planet earth. In the end it leaves you with more questions than it answers (what can be better than that). You get to sit back and decide. A film that really makes you think.

I saw it as 1974's Last Days of Man on Earth
You can definitely see the Austin Powers roots here. But unfortunately, much of the gadgetry is only alluded to in events presumably happening off-screen (i.e. several references to the main character flying around in an F-4 jet). Was this for budgetary reasons?
I laughed at the end when I spotted the credit listing the person responsible for "continuity" since this movie had very little. And at only an hour and 15 minutes it is no wonder--all the transition scenes were cut. But perhaps wisely, otherwise it would have been criticized for being "plodding" among its other faults.
Really more of an action/spy flick than sci-fi. I guess this is why sci-fi movies had such a bad image before Star Wars. When I think of sci-fi, I think of what is more accurately called "hard" sci-fi, rather than this mildly apocalyptic-themed movie.
Campy and wacky in a dated, 1970's British way. My favorite scene is the sloppy fight with "the Greek guy" (gotta love the plaintive, "help, I think I'm losing..."). Oh, and the black fingernail polish. If you like that sort of thing, this is good for you. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

This New Release Does The Film Justice!
A psychotronic gem and a rather original tale in the "mad artist" subgenre of horror film, this is the first version of "Crucible of Terror" not to suffer from ghastly editing and bad prints that have so far been the norm. Having seen the entire film while vacationing in London, I can say that this is 99% intact but I am not complaining about the missing 1%. The print is clear and some of the more erotic and disturbing scenes have not been hacked out. Character actor Ronald Lacey is a hoot as the embittered toad of a son to an equally piggish and megalomaniacal reclusive artist played by former BBC DJ Mike Raven. Raven definitely looks the part and a whole slew of other British character actors round out this macabre tale of art, obsession, and murder most foul. Recommended for lovers of bizarre low-budget cinema!

An acceptable time-killer for hard-core horror fans only.
This British horror film is slow-moving and takes a long time to get to its "possession" theme. Worse, this video is taken from a poor print. It has that washed-out, old color film look, like some old 16mm TV print.

Actress Mary Maude is wasted here, basically just sitting around with the other characters waiting for something to happen. She was much better (and had a meatier role as a sadistic lesbian disciplinarian) in the 1969 Spanish horror film, THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED. Actually, her cameo as a witch-hunter's wife in TERROR (1979) was meatier then in this tepid film.

I'm giving this film 1 star, plus another for Mary Maude, plus another because, well, because it's a horror film and I like even slow-moving, washed out horror films. Non-genre fans might be less generous.

Bad treatment of a classic psychotronic film.
A good bad film is a thing to treasure, as with this dark gem that shows character actor Ronald Lacey years before he stalked the screen as the Nazi interrogator in Raiders of the Lost Ark. However, this has ten minutes of the original footage edited out and it spoils the whole thing. To discuss it further is pointless. I have heard similar treatment has struck some classic Hammer films as they made their way here. I am very disappointed. ... Read more

Reviews (52)

Awesome! Firefox takes off with suspense and excitement!
This movie is one of my favorite movies. Eastwood is absolutely fantastic in his role as Mitchell Gant, and the scenes for Russian locales are very much how I thought the USSR would be like. The first half of the movie, with Gant sneaking into Russia, and the base where the Firefox is, is very suspenseful. The sleek, black, Firefox aircraft itself is an incredibly cool looking design, and one of the most realistic looking movie aircraft I've ever seen, both when it's on the ground, and flying in the air. The aerial sequences are great, and the dogfight at the end of the movie between the two Firefoxes, Gant's and a pursuing, Russian pilot's, is incredible, and as realistic as the ones in Top Gun. With all these great qualities, Firefox is a great movie that deserves far more than 5 stars. I would recomend this movie to any aircraft, espionage, or Clint Eastwood fan, and anyone who likes great movies.

"Go Ahead...Mig My Day."
If you liked "The Hunt for Red October" and you're a BIG Clint Eastwood fan, you're still not likely to cheer "Firefox". With lame-o generic spy genre characters, obvious "clip and paste" special effects and the burden of having to believe that Eastwood's character was born Russian, "Firefox" taxes the audience severely. The young Smithers-esque intellience guy that gets giddy as a school girl everytime Eastwood does anything and Freddie Jones who's character is completely unintelligable throughout the whole movie (even though he's speakin English) are as distracting as dancers with pulled hamstrings. Add a "psychic" Russian general who can predict Eastwood's every move and a "super jet" that appears to be as aerodynamic as a dictionary and you've got yourself one pretty bad flick. So why the two stars? Well, it IS Eastwood and he IS kicking Ruskie butt...

An adequate, unusual techno-thriller from Clint Eastwood
This was Clint Eastwood's second dip into the waters of the espionage thriller (the first was the awful "Eiger Sanction" back in 1975), and one of the few films he directed which relies heavily on visual effects. As a director, Eastwood seems uneasy with both modes, which go against the grain of his realistic, tough, and often stoic & silent directorial style. Nonetheless, "Firefox" works better than it should. Eastwood brings understated realism to what might have been a hopelessly hokey Cold War techno thriller, and the visual effects-laden last third is fairly exciting. However, the mixture of elements ultimately produces only an adequate film, a strange entry in Eastwood's long string of hits.

The plot is a Tom Clancy story before there were Tom Clancy stories (this is based on a novel by Craig Thomas). The Soviets (remember them?) have developed a super fighter jet, the Firefox, with thought-controlled weapons system. The Firefox threatens the balance of power in the Cold War, so NATO needs to get their hands on it, pronto. The only man who can do it is pilot Mitchell Gant (Eastwood). He speaks fluent Russian, can infiltrate the base with the help of Russian Jewish dissenters (played by Ronald Lacey, Nigel Hawthorne, and Warren Clarke), and has the skill to fly the Firefox. Only problem: Gant is highly unstable from his Vietnam experience, is prone is nasty flashbacks (a problem if you're flying a though- controlled plane!), and has done no undercover work before.

"Firefox" is overlong at 136 minutes, and tends to drag with far too many scenes of Russian and NATO boardroom arguments. The film works best in the early parts during the scenes with Lacey, Hawthorne, and Clarke, who all give fine, sentimental performances as double agents who know they are doomed but struggle on for what they know is right. In a few place, Eastwood shows traces of the later themes of the consequences of violence that would mature in "Unforgiven" and "Mystic River." Eastwood himself is fairly good in the role, avoiding any "Dirty Harry" clichés or relying too much on his tough guy image, but he does look rather silly in his undercover disguise scenes.

Nonetheless, it does seem to take forever until the last third, where the Firefox tries to blaze an almost hopeless escape trail out of the Soviet Union, with another Firefox prototype on its tail. The effects (by John Dysktra of "Star Wars" fame) are zippy and fantastic, but any human element left in the film pretty much bails out at this point. Enjoy the planes, enjoy the speed, enjoy Clint just staring out the window and not moving much. It's fairly exciting, but when it's all over, you'll feel a bit let down.

The DVD, like most Warner Bros. discs in the Clint Eastwood Collection, looks very good, and the sound is 5.1. But also like most Warner Bros. discs in the Clint Eastwood Collection, there are no extras.

Good, but not great
FIREFOX is one of those films made back when the U.S.S.R. still existed, and espionage is the key here. Clint Eastwood plays Mitchell Gant, a retired Air Force pilot who is resurrected to steal the FIREFOX fighter jet from Russia. Based on a novel by the same name, FIREFOX certainly looks like an interesting movie, and it is to some extent. It has a little James Bond flavor in it too. It is not great, however, and has many flaws.

Eastwood constantly changes deguise throughout the film as his allies seek to get him to the jet. The process is long and confusing, and the whole time Clint doesn't look like he has any idea what he is doing. Once he grabs the jet itself, and pulls out of the hanger, night suddenly changes to day! The special effects during the flying sequences are exciting. John Dykstra, who won an oscar for the special effects in STAR WARS, did the job on the effects here and the results are impressive, even though they look dated. The movie does drag, however, when the U.S.S.R. intellegence constantly is trying to figure out which direction he is headed. The worst thing about this film is the ending. After winning a dramatic dogfight with the other FIREFOX, the movie ends right there in the sky. It would have been interesting if Eastwood could have entended it a little more to at least see him land the plane in his home country. This was Eastwood's eighth time as a director as well. The movie is interesting, but the minor flaws, and flat ending are what kind of hold it back from being great. FIREFOX wass a good movie, but it could have been better, alot better.

Not a bad espionage thriller
I remember when I first saw this 20 years ago on cable TV. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Part One
"The Final Programme" is an adaptation of Michael Moorcock's first book in the Jerry Cornelius series. Like Elric, the Jerry Cornelius stories, an epic in themselves, comprise a subset of his Eternal Champion epic, inspired in part by Jungian psychology and the theories of Joseph Campbell. Of all of Moorcock's books, the Jerry Cornelius stories are the most experimental and are by far those which lend themselves the least to movie adaptation.

Robert Fuest, who was a set designer and director of the Avengers TV series and the Dr. Phibes movies, makes an admirable, and visually entertaining, attempt at adapting the first novel, however what he creates is ultimately flawed. This is most noticeable in the ending (which I won't spoil) which comes off as purely pretentious camp in the film, although it works well in the novel.

One of the things which makes the Jerry Cornelius series most interesting is that each novel takes place in a slightly different world with slightly different characters with similar names, reliving the same dramas over and over again. For example, there is the love triangle between Jerry and his brother and their sister, which is barely developed in the movie, perhaps for censorship reasons. As you progress through each book, the themes become reinforced and the series' exploration of archetypes becomes stronger. The love triangle, for example, becomes more profound and takes on mythic tones, like the legends of Osiris, Isis and Anubis. By adapting only the first novel, the movie loses most of its impact and its focus on the themes in the novel becomes quite surface. So instead of an amazing intellectual journey, you instead get what appears to be an especially campy, bizarre and racey episode of the Avengers, with secret agents and spies in fancy dress racing to retrieve a mysterious microchip in a psychedelic and decadent age.

Another weakness of the movie is that it gives only a bare glimpse at the End of the World, something that is wonderfully portrayed (in different manners) in each of the Cornelius books. The largest indication of the movie taking place at the end of the world is a speech about the approaching end of the current Yuga (or "age"). However, it is preferable that the movie is a bit too subtle in this regard instead of hitting you over the head with it.

Someone who has read the Cornelius books will likely have greater appreciation for this film than others, recognizing what it accomplishes in attempting to adapt an impossible to film book. But all should find at least the first half an enjoyable trip with great, creative visuals and avant garde late 1960s fashion and architecture.

Better than I expected
I had read Michael Moorcock's somewhat scathing comments on this movie and its history. Jon Finch was a friend of Moorcock's and he also knew some of the other actors -- it has a superb cast including Hugh Griffiths, George Chakaris, Jenny Runacre, Sterling Hayden. According to Moorcock the only thing wrong with the film (produced by Putnam and Leiberson who had just done Performance -- Jagger turned the Cornelius part down as being 'too freaky') was the director, who came in after the success with EMI of his Doctor Phibes movies. Fuest certainly didn't rise to glory after this and seems to have disappeared almost entirely. Moorcock claimed the director had 'reversed' much of his attack and added sexism whereas Moorcock was celebrating gender bending. For all that, there are some fine performances and some great comic scenes, with Finch and Co. coming in to their own as, according to Moorcock's account, they gradually took charge of the picture. Jerry starts out as a sort of freaky James Bond, but by the middle of the picture is playing it far more for laughs (and a lot better than The Spy Who Shagged Me!). Still well worth watching, if only for its incredible list of British and American repertory movie actors giving their baffled best. Moorcock's piece also notes Chakaris coming up to him 'Young man, young man -- what is this film all about ?' By this time Moorcock had no idea himself. "I don't know," he said. "Ah, there you are," said Chakaris triumphantly, "the author doesn't know what it's about, either.' Really, if you want the full strength of what this could have delivered, you need to read the new Cornelius Quartet, just out from Four Walls, Eight Windows -- this first was always the weakest -- but would have been so much better with a director who understood its targets. The relative failure of this movie meant that the other Cornelius movies, optioned to Goodtimes, never got made. Imagine The English Assassin as a movie -- or better still The Condition of Muzak. Someone should start thinking about a good remake...

"A very tastey world!"
What can you say about a film that, opening scene onwards, you either love or loathe? It's fantastically dated, and that's what makes it fantastic. From the London Red-Bus Movie music, the bizarro pseudo-science, the biting dialogue, and the (almost) Cast of Thousands, "Final Programme" is one of my favorite films ever. I've almost worn out my copy.

The plot's incidental, but what the hey? Jerry Cornelius (Jon Finch) is a Nobel Laureate living on Bell's scotch, pills, and chocolate digestives in a chaotic world where Trafalgar Square is a vast dump, arms dealers operate in basements across from the National Gallery, and Amsterdam's now "25 square miles of white ash--for once the Americans got it right." Jerry's dad, mad-scientist and founder of the Cornelius line, was working on something weird in Lapland when he died, but that's not Jerry's problem now. He's more worried about his crazy brother Frank (the wonderful Derek O'Connor), who is holding their sister Catherine hostage in the Family Manse and is, if possible, more strung out than Jerry.

But Lapland returns to haunt him in the form of Miss Brunner (Jenny Runacre) and three Magritte-like scientists. They need Jerry to help them get his dad's microfilm, the last piece of The Final Programme---a project staggaring in conception and quite, quite funny. The microfilm is locked in the house with Frank, and as the old family retainer tells Jerry,"There's another problem--it's that house. You know what that old house is like." "I haven't forgotten" says Jerry.

That "old house" is a super-modern fortress, of course, complete with lights of simulate "pseudo-epilepsy", booby traps, poison gas, and a pantheon of James Bondish dangers. Along the way to the microfilm, it becomes apparent there's something very odd about Miss Brunner, and that Frank's not the fool he seems.

I know it's dated and I don't care. I don't care if the continuity is bad. I don't care if the budget could've been bigger. I don't care if the "science" is Junk with a capital "Juh". I'm oblivious to it all, because this is such an entertaining movie. For one thing, Jon Finch is incredible. He's the perfect Jerry, and Prince could only PRAY to wear a Goth/New Romantic suit as well as Finch does. For another, Jenny Runacre's Miss Brunner was feminist before there was a common understanding of what that word meant. And the versatile Derek O'Connor's greasy, desperate Frank is brilliant.

You'll need to have your finger on the "rewind" button--the dialogue comes fast and urbane. You'll keep recognizing British character actors, and let's face it, if you're female, you'll want to gaze on Finch's beautiful, intelligent face again.

And the visual jokes--watch for "LOVE" embroidered on the vampirical Brunner nightie in the "climactic" final scene!

A warning, though: this really does deserve its R rating. Hustle the kiddie-winks to bed first--then enjoy!

Planet Weird
This film is based on the original Michael Moorcock story of the same name. I have read the Moorcock version and I genuinely have to say that the film seems to be better. It is an existential romp through conscienceness. It takes you to a weird alternate reality of planet earth. In the end it leaves you with more questions than it answers (what can be better than that). You get to sit back and decide. A film that really makes you think.

I saw it as 1974's Last Days of Man on Earth
You can definitely see the Austin Powers roots here. But unfortunately, much of the gadgetry is only alluded to in events presumably happening off-screen (i.e. several references to the main character flying around in an F-4 jet). Was this for budgetary reasons?
I laughed at the end when I spotted the credit listing the person responsible for "continuity" since this movie had very little. And at only an hour and 15 minutes it is no wonder--all the transition scenes were cut. But perhaps wisely, otherwise it would have been criticized for being "plodding" among its other faults.
Really more of an action/spy flick than sci-fi. I guess this is why sci-fi movies had such a bad image before Star Wars. When I think of sci-fi, I think of what is more accurately called "hard" sci-fi, rather than this mildly apocalyptic-themed movie.
Campy and wacky in a dated, 1970's British way. My favorite scene is the sloppy fight with "the Greek guy" (gotta love the plaintive, "help, I think I'm losing..."). Oh, and the black fingernail polish. If you like that sort of thing, this is good for you. ... Read more

Reviews (134)

One Of Those Movie Classics, "Raiders of the Lost Ark"!
What can I say except that "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is a classic movie gem? With George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Harrison Ford contributing to this film, it's one of those movie greats which will always remain as one of my favorites to watch forever.

Harrison Ford is Dr. Henry 'Indiana' Jones, Jr., a college professor but also a renowned archaeologist. The story is set in 1936, with WWII going on. After coming back from a 'trip', Indiana and his friend Dr. Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott) are visited by some government people who have some very serious news. The Nazi are very close to finding the lost Ark of the Covenant, hoping to use its holy powers to win the war for them. Indiana certainly jumps for the chance of recovering the Ark and agrees to try to find it before the Nazi. But he knows to find out it's whereabouts, he must find the medallion crystal piece which can pinpoint the Ark's exact location. With this knowledge, Indiana travels to look for Marion Ravenwood (Karene Allen), whom he knows has what he is looking for. But the Nazi, along with their French archaeologist Rene Belloq (Paul Freeman), are hot on his trail. It's up to Indiana, Marion, and good friend Sallah (John Rhys-Davies), to recover the Ark of the Covenant.

With plenty of action and adventure, this movie is sure to please anyone. It's a wonder how Indiana Jones can stumble on from one danger into another without getting killed! There's also plenty of wry and witty humor to keep you laughing and smiling. I must also mention the acting which is done superbly. There's Sallah who is faithful and trustworthy and Marion who's hardheaded, strong-willed, and ready to face anything. But the one who really carries the film is of course Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. He is just PERFECT for the part and I can never, ever imagine anyone else playing the part. He's the perfect hero and adventurer (even if he hates snakes, hee hee!)

A must-see, I can recommend this movie for anyone, though I must agree that it would be pretty scary for younger kids, especially the end. Two other Indiana Jones films are "The Temple of Doom" and "The Last Crusade". In my opinion "The Last Crusade" can measure up to "Raiders of the Lost Ark", with talented actor Sean Connery playing Indiana Jones father. "The Temple of Doom" was so-so. Now when are the DVD's coming out for these three films?

The Action/Adventure Genre At Its Best
Harrison Ford plays Indiana Jones, an archaeologist who travels the world searching for antiquities for museums and universities. In 1936, he goes looking for the Ark of the Covenant, which the Nazis are also seeking, as they believe it has supernatural powers that will help them in their growing war movement. The Nazis have enlisted Indiana Jones' biggest rival, a mercenary antiquity thief who finds relics for money, not for knowledge and public access. Chases ensue as both parties close in on their sacred target.

For Han Solo fans, Indiana Jones will look quite familiar. Harrison Ford is perfect as the lovable, adventurous, intelligent, basically moral, semi-scoundrel. The action is non-stop, as is the tension. There is an abundance of escape-from-imminent death scenes, along with plenty of humor and good scenery (watch for the scene when Indy is confronted, shoot-out style, in the streets of Egypt). The musical score fits the film perfectly as well. The special effects aren't quite up to today's standards, although they're still none too shabby.

Overall, action-adventure movies don't get any better than this.

Instant Hollywood Legend
This was the most popular film in the summer of 1981, and played to packed audiences. It must have resonated with people's emotions as an action film unlike many others. It starts with an adventure - an explorer travels to a savage society in order to steal their wealth (for scientific knowledge of course). He fails when another adventurer expropriates his winnings, but survives to return to his teaching job at a university. The film shows him traveling in a flying Clipper from the 1930s, but not on a railroad.

It is a good action film, as long as you don't question some of the scenes. Could Nazi Germany have military forces in 1936 Egypt? Could German Schmeisser sub-machine guns be found in 1936 Nepal? I don't believe so. I suspect these scenes were copied from the 1940 serials that entertained moviegoers. "Indian Jones" will entertain you as an action adventure story with a multitude of cliches from long-forgotten films. Sliding under the truck recalls Yakima Canute's famous stunt. Some scenes seem far-fetched to me (when you think about it). Could Indiana Jones on a horse overtake a convoy of trucks? The theme music came from the 1948 film "Don Juan" starring Errol Flynn (rarely seen on TV). The chase through the maze of streets reminds me of 1940 cartoons. Other scenes may be derived from other old movies (the truck knocking down scaffolding from "Abbot & Costello Meet the Keystone Kops"). A few sequels were made, but it failed to be translated into a television series. Just like "Jaws".

A wonderful and action-packed film!!!!!!!
If you're a fan of 30's and 40's serials,adventure films,Spielberg's work,or Harrison Ford, this is the movie for you!!!!!! This film has so many amazing scenes your jaw literally drops.the film also has some great acting,especially John-Rhys Davies(Gimli of The Lord of the Rings) as Sallah and Harrison Ford as our hero,Indiana Jones.Overall,you will love this film.It's worth checking out!!!!!!!!!

The Return Of The Great Adventure...
"Either of you guys ever go to Sunday School?" - Indiana Jones brings Eaton & Musgrove's church attendence records into question in "Raiders of the Lost Ark".

From the director of "Jaws" and the creator of "Star Wars" comes the adventure film that all others in its genre are held up to, "Raiders of the Lost Ark". After twenty-three years and counting, I can honestly say that the film has yet to be outmatched (sure there have been good action/adventure films since "Raiders", including its own sequels, but I haven't seen a film that has had an indeliable, definitive impact that "Raiders" has left in a long time, possibly since the original "Star Wars")

Hired by the U.S. Government, archeologist/adventurer, Indiana Jones is on a race against evil to retrieve the lost Ark of The Covenent, the chest that contains the original stone tablets of the Ten Commandments. The ones that Moses brought down from Mount Harab and smashed. When was the last time YOU went to Sunday School!? Along the way Indiana meets up with an ex-girlfriend of his, Marion Ravenwood, outraces and dukes it out with legions of Nazis, and has plenty of close calls including a truck chase, The Well of Souls and its snakes (& Indiana's deathly phobia of them), a slugfest with a mechanic and his flying wing, and the opening of the Ark itself (lets just say GOD isn't to happy when mortals decide to open the Ark & sift through its contents).

An absolute modern-day classic. Why? "Raiders"' opening, from the Paramount logo to the natives chasing Dr. Jones, the bar fight, the basket chase, The Well of Souls, the truck chase (that alone gets 5 stars), the opening of The Ark in all its glory, John Williams' Oscar nominated score, I could go on all day long, but, you get the drift. W