Reviews (103)

Ultra-Sentimental 2nd Treatment of "Aunt Jemima Story"
"Imitation of Life" is the bitter sweet story of a black maid struggling with her light skin daughter who wanted to pass as white. The story begins in post WWII NYC when Lana Turner (in the role of a struggling actress) hires the maid to work for and live with Turner and her then 7 year old daughter (same age as the maid's little girl). Times are tough at first, but the 4-some gets on fine. Only little Sarah Jane (the maid's daughter) has constant trouble accepting her color.

The story spans about 15 years and shows various instances where the loving black maid is humiliated by her daughter who in the end disowns her mother. The ending is the ultimate heartbreaker; the film deserves 5 stars for that alone!

This is the 2nd Hollywood treatment of "The Aunt Jemima Story". The first version (1934) with Claudette Colbert has better acting, but is not quite as sentimental as the Technicolor Lana Turner film. The latter also has a memorable title song by Earl Grant (who usually plays the organ in his recordings, but here he sings).

I could watch this movie anytime, for no reason at all...it's the best in its class! This film is the ultimate in Hollywood tear-jerkers, and one of my favorite movies ever. Lana Turner was not exactly "Oscar-material", but neither was Marilyn Monroe--still they both captured an audience with their presence like few other actresses ever did. Nothing but pure "Hollywood Candy" here! ...

a true classic
One of the great Hollywood melodramas, IMITATION OF LIFE is based on the book by Fannie Hurst and is directed with style and emotion by Douglas Sirk.

A chance meeting throws together Lora Meredith (Lana Turner) and Annie Johnson (Juanita Moore), two struggling widows who both have troubled relationships with their daughters. Lora is a Broadway starlet intent on hitting the big time, which will come at the cost of her daughter Susie (Sandra Dee), while Annie's daughter Sarah Jane (Susan Kohner) is a black girl with a pale complexion, who chooses to pass as white in order to avoid the hatred of a prejudiced world.

As years of denial and unawareness pass, the two girls slowly revolt from their mothers, and the story moves to its emotional and tearful conclusion.

Still compelling over 50 years later, IMITATION OF LIFE still has a message for modern audiences, and preserves the tour-de-force performances of Juanita Moore and Susan Kohner. Both were Oscar-nominated for their work here. The performances of Sandra Dee and Lana Turner (and Troy Donahue as Sarah Jane's violent boyfriend) are just as impressive.

The supporting cast includes John Gavin, Dan O'Herlihy, Robert Alda and Mahalia Jackson. The DVD includes the trailer. (Single-sided, dual-layer disc).

MOORE AND KOHNER - THE HEART OF THIS MOVIE
In 1959, Susan Kohner and Juanita Moore lost the Best Supporting Actress oscar to Shelley Winters for "Diary of Anne Frank." While Winters certainly was a seasoned and excellent actress, I don't see how one can overlook Susan and Juanita's gutwrenching performances. In spite of the star presence of Lana Turner and John Gavin, this movie's heart lies in the story of Annie and her mulatto daughter, Sarah Jane.
Director Douglas Sirk and his glamorized movies was the inspiration for the much acclaimed film, "Far from Heaven." One can see why Todd Hayes wanted to venture into this director's turf. Ross Hunter's glitzy production begged for its audience to become embroiled in Lana's problems becoming a big actress. But with the performances of Ms. Moore and Kohner, IMITATION OF LIFE achieves the status of one of our finest tearjerkers. Sadly enough, neither actress had much of a career after this, and what a shame. Their scenes together are so electric and heartwrenching, they deserved more. The final portion of the film wherein we lose Ms. Moore and her subsequent funeral are the stuff of Kleenex heaven.
Definitely one of the finest remakes of our time. Because of Juanita Moore and Susan Kohner!!!

Lana Turner and Juanita Moore
The struggles of two mothers with very different problems are detailed in this glossy but overly sentimental film. Lora Meredith and Annie Johnson establish a friendship purely by accident but they forge a bond that brings them together for life. Lora eventually finds stardom on the stage after many setbacks and disappointments but Annie has the impossible task of trying to make her mulatto daughter accept her racial heritage. Sarah Jane's shame at having a black mother is the main theme of the film while Lora's ups and downs on Broadway and eventual career success provide a counterpoint to the troubling themes of self-loathing and racial intolerance. Sarah Jane's relationship with Lora's daughter Susie is by turns sisterly and contentious because of Sarah Jane's jealousy and resentment towards Susie because she is white. Another sub-plot is Lora's relationship with Steve Archer, which also spans many years. Their romance always takes a back seat to Lora's stage career ambitions, which frustrates her handsome suitor immensely. Steve eventually becomes the object of Susie's affections as she grows into womanhood and her obsession with Steve causes problems later on. The film's famous last reel is touching and has the added effect of having Mahalia Jackson sing spirituals for the beloved Annie. Lana Turner is very beautiful and glamorous in this film and was never lovelier, but Juanita Moore's tortured Annie and Susan Kohner's ungrateful, mean-spirited Sarah Jane are the reasons for which this film is remembered.

Imitation of Life ( Germ241F @ SUNY Binghamton
Douglas Sirk's 1959 remake of John Stahl's 1934 film, Imitation of Life, is a parody of the original. In a comical rendition, Imitation of Life, addresses intersections of race, social and economic class, and gender in the film, as well as existing stereotypes, through the use of Neo-Brechtian gestik acting which means over-the-top, melodramatic and campy acting that is quoting a character and his/her emotions and exaggerates the role of a character in a situation. Sirk deliberately wanted to use gestik acting and avoided method acting (acting out what your emotions would really be, if you were in a certain situation) because he didn't want audiences to think that this film was real and to be taken seriously.
Two single-parenting mothers, Annie and Lora meet on the beach of Coney Island, in search of Lora's daughter Suzie. When Lora and Suzie find out that Annie and her daughter Sara Jane are homeless, Lora decides to let them live in her apartment as long as Annie agrees to contribute some help around the house, and do the dirty work for Lora. Annie is depicted as a parody for blackness, just because she has typical attributes of any nanny. A loving, nurturing, understanding, and caring mother is the stereotypical mother that society adores which is played out by Annie. On the other hand Lora is a neglecting figure in the eyes of Suzie. Annie is more like the mother for Suzie, but not Sara Jane. Sara Jane refuses to admit that she a daughter to a black woman and passes as a white girl while in school. Sara Jane fires up the racial tension in this film because of her denial and mistreatment towards her mother.
Lora meets a man named Steve, who almost right away, proposes to her. She denies the proposal in an effort to pursue her dream of becoming a Hollywood actress. Steve tries to make her stay, by telling her that she doesn't have to work, and that he will bring home to money. This shows us how Steve along with the majority of society view women and their roles of life. A women's life should be to stay home, clean, take care of the kids, and put dinner on the table, which is the old fashion way that much of male Americans viewed women to perform in. Opposite roles of gender for the male figure in this film was shown through Steve, who has found a detective out of now where, who has found Sara Jane and her place of refuge from her mother. This situation renders Steve as if he were Superman, the one being able to fix any problem.
This campy imitation of life is viewed throughout most of the film, except for the scene of Annie's funeral, where Mahalia Jackson sings a gospel song. Eulogy of Annie is brought to her through the singing voice of Mahalia. This scene is supposed to be a serious one among the other witty scenes, because the character of Mahalia is the only realistic one in this film and is not to be criticized. Mahalia does not exemplify the overly dramatic acting. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

The Persistence of Melancholy
This is a beautiful film that I would recommend to those who have read Joyce's short story and those who have not. This is one of the few instances where the visual medium enhances and even improves appreciation of the original written work. Set in 1904 in an elegant Dublin home on Christmas Day, it is an extremely moving character study of a portion of middle class Dublin society. The characters are shown with their charms as well as flaws intact, as the plot wends its way to the epiphany of Gabriel, the main character, who comes to realize the many things he has never known about his wife to whom he has been married many years. Even the final overwhelming soliloquy of melancholy of Gabriel's character is enveloped in a deep and haunting Irish charm, and the result is magnificent. A powerful film that is a literate must see.

Haunting film version of the James Joyce story.
This is a hushed and moody film version of the famous Joyce story. Those looking for action and non-stop plot will be disappointed. For intelligent viewers, the acting and directing are first rate. The ending is very sad and unforgettable.

Wonderful adaption!
Why is it such a gem of a movie is so difficult to obtain?

I saw the scene of Anjelica Huston on the stairs when I was in college (the professor showed it to us when teaching "Dubliners"). I later decided to rent it and was happy with it.

This year, before my first day of work (I work in a school district), I treated myself to an Irish coffee and read "The Dead" before bed. Forgetting how much I truly enjoyed this story, I decided that I must own the movie.

I searched unsuccessfully throughout the area although did manage to secure a copy through Amazon. What a treat to watch this visual masterpiece. Although we do not have the benefit of Gabriel's musings until the end, we can see the pretentiousness and elitism, where his own image superscedes what is importance. The dancing, music, conversation, and dinner are so mirthful, yet so very artificial. Yet, it isin the hotel room after the party that reality thrust upon us. The illusion of immortality is crushed as Gretta (Angelica Huston) shares the tragedy of a lost love. One does not feel protected in the hotel room, one feels cold, much as it is outside in the snow. The contrast, the emotions stirred, are so very tremendous that few movies are able to match. Unfortunately, many will find the movie to be a sharp yawn and a prelude to falling asleep. The thoughtful viewer (and pronounced James Joyce admirer) will see this as a treat to behold. I am so very lucky to have this for my bookshelf and believe I shall treat myself to it quite regularly!

The Dead Are All Among Us
I am reminded somehow of "An Irish Airman Meets His Death" when I see this wonderful movie-tale. There is an inherent hesitation in its flow -- until the very ending, when Joyce reveals his simple thrust: there are more things in heaven and earth....
The acting is superb. A period-piece, each member of the cast fits into his/her place with perfection. The themes before the End commemorate Humanity. The End commemorates all of them together: lost (or unrequited) love.
I love Irish music and its often heart-rending simplicity (some I know call it 'boozy sentimentality; I disagree). This film has much music, sentimental, subjective and, yes, very, very subtle. The admixture moves one's heart -- and, maybe, one's soul.
This one should be in a thoughtful person's video archive. On wintry nights, when the hearth has lessened to embers awaiting their deaths -- we ought to think of what this film has to say: to all of us.

HUSTON'S FINAL TRIUMPH
Do not buy this video if you do not enjoy movies made with delicacy and wistful melancholy -- it is short, has no real plot and features no special effects. Yet this movie stands as one of the best ever -- it weaves a spell over you, and captivates your every sense. We are treated to the visual trimmings of a holiday feast, along with the Irish folk music that will, just when you least expect it, turn your expectations upside down. The lively characterizations of every player in this movie bring it to vivid life; it's as if you have entered a Christmas card, and can taste, smell and feel everything around you. That James Joyce's story revolves essentially around a simple, but devastating revelation, is what makes it brilliant. So many times in this movie the obvious gives way to more specific visions: as one of the many, many colorful ladies speaks at her party, we are brought inside a bedroom, where we linger with the camera on objects -- picture frames, combs, etc., that spark the imagination and underscore the proceedings with a singluar clarity. Angelica Huston is magically compelling, and the final monologue, delivered with subtle power, will haunt your memory. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Orson Welles's 1948 Macbeth is an expressionist masterpiece about a doomed man of ordinary ambition who believes an evil prophecy that he will become king. As depicted by Welles, the title character is not a warrior king or a conscience-stricken, poetic soul on a par with Hamlet; rather, he is a facile, superstitious man consigned to fate even as the character does not trust fate. For her part, Lady Macbeth (Jeanette Nolan) is merely obsessed with the unimpeded exercise of her will to power, viewing her husband's life as a tale told by an idiot. Welles has also created some new scenes here, conflating several characters into a "Holy Father" (Alan Napier) while eliciting strong supporting turns from Dan O'Herlihy (Macduff) and Roddy McDowall (Malcolm). Though the technically poor soundtrack and the occasional indecipherable Scottish brogue make the film seem a trifle compromised at times, each moment feels preternaturally alive. --Kevin Mulhall ... Read more

Reviews (22)

A Fair and Foul Shakespearean Rendition
Any film directed by Orson Welles is engrossing and worth the time. MACBETH is no exception. For those of you familiar with the 1971 Roman Polanski version, Welles brought to the screen a darker, more nightmarish world than Polanski could envision. The lighting is stark and the shadows ominous. Macbeth's madness increasingly pervades the atmosphere of the entire film, making the viewer unwilling to view this film with the lights out. The restored version presents Welles's original conception; the actors speak their lines with authentic Scottish burrs (Welles was forced to redo the soundtrack by the studio brass). A fascinating journey and imaginative interpretation of Shakespeare, Welles's MACBETH remains a major additon to American cinema and reveals the classical literary talents of one of the US's greatest visual artists. END

Orson Welles And Shakespeare At Their Best
Without a doubt Orson Welles is the perfect American compliment for William Shakespeare. Superbly directed and acted on a melancholy stage in haunting black and white, the poetic license with Shakespeare's Macbeth can be forgiven because of the intensity and brilliance with which this play is performed. There is a great supporting cast which includes Roddy McDowall that as in all ensemble productions draw the viewer into the play not as a witness - bystander but as a performer in concert with the actors. Welles of course was a genius, being one of those rare performers - entertainers who made the audience beg for more! I wish he had produced versions of Hamlet, Othello, King Lear and other Shakespeare plays. Even if you already own a good version of Macbeth, you must have this version! Welles set the standard by which all others are measured.

"Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
The good news? For his last Hollywood film of the 1940s, Orson Welles delivered a low-budget, inventive, expressionist Shakespeare adaptation that served as a template for his experimental European films. The bad news? Welles perhaps captures the eerie mood of "The Scottish Play" all too well; the film is an unrelentingly dark and often uncomfortable experience. The lugubrious pacing and indifferent acting offer little respite from the play's fatalism.

A little background helps one better appreciate this film. After a string of box office failures (including "The Magnificent Ambersons" and "The Lady from Shanghai"), Welles signed on with Republic Pictures to do a low-budget "Macbeth," hoping that he could popularize Shakespeare on film as he had done on radio and in the theatre. His actors rehearsed the play on tour, and painstakingly pre-recorded their dialogue in Scottish brogues. Welles then shot the film in 23 days, some kind of record for him. Well, you can guess what happened: The studio hated it. They forced Welles to cut 20 minutes from the film, and made the actors re-dub their dialogue with "normal" accents - wasting all that time they spent in pre-production. The film bombed on release and Welles spent the next 10 years working in Europe.

Years later, the original prints were found and released as another "Lost Welles Classic." Unfortunately, time has devalued that label; "Macbeth" doesn't quite meet the standard set by "Othello" or "Touch of Evil," two other films that were restored after Welles' death. While the Scottish accents are a nice touch, the extra running time actually robs the film of some momentum. Welles did wonders with the cheap Republic sets; the film is a masterpiece of expressionist set design. The same can't be said of the costumes, which make Welles look like the Statue of Liberty at one point. Constrained by having to sync their movements to pre-recorded dialogue, the actors deliver wooden performances (only the soliloquies, delivered in voice-over, resonate). Fortunately, the last twenty minutes are visually captivating and offer enough Wellesian moments to make the viewing worthwhile.

If Welles fails to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear - as he would later do with "Othello" and "Chimes of Midnight" - he succeeds in developing an expressionist style that he would later perfect with his bizarro masterpiece "The Trial." "Macbeth" isn't exactly an enjoyable movie experience; indeed, "returning were as tedious as go o'er." But for the Welles aficionado, "Macbeth" provides an essential link between Welles' Hollywood years and the independent style of his European work.

Another Great From the Master
I own this film on VHS and on Laserdisc and I am hoping that it will soon come out on DVD. Certainly there are some technical problems with the production, but it is a 1948 film so some of that can be excused.

Welles vision of MacBeth has the texture and feel of a nightmare. The backdrops are unfinished, muddy charicatures of the objects and places they represent. Scotland is an eerie, nightmarish landscape that is constantly misty and partially unformed. The use of the b&w medium superbly creates a feeling of dread and foreboding in the audience who is drawn ever deeper into the madness of the story. This is vintage Welles, who loved to make the tone, timbre, hue and texture of every part of the movie relate to and support the story he was filming. Certainly the work of a genius.

Most people know the basic story. MacBeth (Which literally means "Son of Life"), is given a prophesy that he will become king of Scotland and tells his wife of the prophesy. Lady MacBeth then uses MacBeth's insecurities to manipulate him into murdering the true king and assuming his throne. Guilt-ridden and paranoid, MacBeth begins a reign of tyranny and sinks into madness. Finally, the English invade and end his reign of terror. MacBeth, who is shown as no more than a pawn in this story, finally gains a measure of grace and dignity when he faces MacDuff in combat. We finally see in death the couragous man MacBeth could have been - indeed was before he allowed his and his wife's greed to corrupt him - MacBeth rises above his fate and becomes master of his own destiny by crying-out the infamous phrase "Lead on MacDuff, and damn the man who first cries hold - enough".

All in all, I have been impressed with this film from the first time I viewed it and I do hope it comes soon to DVD.

A note on the soundtrack - In 1949 the studio refused to release this movie until Welles overdubbed the original Scottish Brogue with more traditional Shakespearian English-accented speech, arguing that the Scottish was unintelligible. I think the most important part of the reconstruction of this film is the return of the original Scottish soundtrack - It adds so much to the grittiness and the darkness of the movie. After two or three viewings, most of the dialog comes clear, so in the first viewing the accent is just a bit of an inconvenience.

Orson Welles was an egomaniac
Yes Orson Welles was one of the most influential filmmakers in the United States, but he was also an egomaniac. Orson takes on William in his adaptation of 'Macbeth'. Orson, do you feel the need to be in EVERY SCENE? I know you think you are a great actor and director, but do you need to put yourself in EVERY SCENE?? ... Read more

Reviews (20)

The only question remaining is are deleted scenes available?
The film was fabulous on the cinemas (I still can recall the sound of the cannonade, and there was no Dolby-Sensorround back there in the early 70's...). And the acting and cast absolutly fantastic from Steiger's Napoleon to the last historicall character... what a pity the French TV series based on Max Gallo excellent tetralogy (recently released in France) is'nt up to it! (the uniforms of the highlanders in it look as some sort of relic from a Gilbert&Sullivan musical comedy chorus boys ... probably they run out of money/interest at the end as it starts promisingly and slowly fades out...)
The VHS permited to have at home one of the best historic films ever (and even go for the battle itself when in a hurry...).
Now the DVD is perfect BUT... I do think (with the tecnology actually vailable) it's a missed oportunity IF THERE WHERE SCENES LET OUT IN THE CUTTING ROOM...
A diehard fan of napoleonic history I can't understand why the Prussians intervention has so few seconds... not even minutes... in the picture... I can understand THAT as a problem of editing the film to be released in cinemas, BUT (and it's a BIG BUT!) my question is...: ARE THERE IN SOME DUSTY ARCHIVE OF DINO DE LAURENTIS PRODUCTIONS HERITAGE SOME DELETED SCENES, FOOTAGE DISCARDED OR SIMILAR ???, IF THERE WHY NOT A DIRECTOR'S CUT!.
One of my favourites of all time.
If interested try to get a hold of the novel "The Limits of Glory", it reads like the film script sometimes... but it's not affected by budget... and have the best descriptions of the fight at Hougomont and La Haye Sainte I have ever read.
ENJOY.
PS: Yes, there are small innacuracies as the presence of the standart/guidon of the Grey's etc. But IMPRESSIVE still is!. And we do not stop wargaming it either...

Waterloo
Widescreen DVD please! This is definitely one of the best epic war movies ever filmed with sweping battle scenes and cast of thousands. It goes into great realistic details about the strategy for such an important battle. The cinematography, the acting, the costume and the score is absolutely fantastic. Why it is still not available in widescreen DVD is beyond me. I am sure this DVD will be snapped up like hotcakes. Many people missed it during its theatrical release. Waterloo would go down in the annals of film making as one of the best epic battle movies of all times.

This needs to be available on a region 1 DVD
Isn't there a way to vote on Amazon for this to be released on DVD (region 1)? This film is incredible, and the battle scenes are truly epic. It's an injustice not to have the film on the best media available.

Un-cut region 1 North American DVD - PLEASE!!?!?!?!?!?
I first saw "Waterloo" on television back when I was a kid growing up in the mid 70's. Ever since that first viewing, I was forever fascinated by what I remembered seeing.

Finally - after a long search to locate this OOP movie - I found a copy several years ago on VHS from a "movie archive house" on the west coast. Recently, I purchased a duped DVD on eBay, as the only region it is available on at this time is region 2 and PAL.

This is one fo the best historical war epics of all time. Plummer and Stieger are superb in their roles as Wellington and Napolean, respectively... and, the aerial shots of the British squares under attack by French cavalry, alone, earn this movie 5 stars from me.

What I detect, unfortunately, from the edited version (which is the only version I know of available on any format right now) is, well... that it has been edited!!!

There are far too many choppy transitions between scenes, and their are characters and sub-plots that seem tossed into the mix without any apparent reason. I have to believe that there was more time devoted to such major scenarios as the fighting in and around Hougoumont...... I have to believe that there IS a scene - somewhere - showing the circumstances of why Wellington sent his best troops to the complex, and the importance surrounding this sector of the battle. How can the story of the battle for Hougoumont be complete without the closing of the North Gate by the heroic band of Coldstream Guards? In the edited version, we are only shown teasing glimpses - in a fast-forwarded timeline - of fighting in and around the farm complex that was such a vital part of the battlefield. La Haiye Sainte is also breezed over in the edited version.

What we get with the edited version is a movie consisting of some of the grandest and breath-taking battle scenes. But the FILM - as presented at this time - is disjointed and incomplete as a whole. "Gettysburg" is a long movie (could hjave been longer, still!).... "Waterloo" needs the same running time to be a complete film.

What is called for - and it is high time we see it happen - is the un-edited, original "Director's cut" version on DVD. But not only on DVD - region 1 DVD!

Waterloo is both war-as-concept and high art
I'd like to supplement the other reviews. Waterloo did indeed screen in a 3-plus hour version which I attended in college circa 1972. In that edition, I would rate it 5 stars, for it did have the historical accuracy and timeline of 'The Longest Day' and the sweep and drama of such great period films as 'Ben-Hur' or 'Gone With The Wind'. But without all the personal subplots, the action was more intense and that helped this viewer stay focused. I was pretty-much blown away, so I did some homework.

This film is extraordinary for both it's scope and the high level of authentic detail. The uniforms, weapons and accoutrements are very accurate, and the battlefield tactics reflect great study on the part of the set decorators and stunt coordinators. From the individual line soldier with his flint musket to the massed artillery barrages and calvary charges, the period 'manuals of arms' were followed [rules for troop deployment; use and operation of weapons] in more detail for this era that has been committed to film before.

In contrast, each combat scene was reconstructed not from the combatant's surviving journals, but from art works made AFTER the battle and when the action periodically 'freezes' on-screen for a few seconds, each freeze is in fact a tableaux of a famous painting, many of which are on view at the Lourve or the Hermitage.

Someone said read your history for a fuller understanding? Okay, but try looking up the paintings and then re-view the film with those images in mind. Many master's art works are capured in hue and composition when the action freezes as perfectly as the arms and tactics. The effect is to make it seem as if the art was purloined from filmed news coverage somehow. I was blown away all over again!

Every film is a Hollywood magic show [or the eastern equivalent in this case]. But the inclusion of so much historical fine art is one of the best smoke and mirrors tricks ever put to film; shrewd, subtle, and a reminder that art imitates art itself as much is it imitates life.

The VHS version wouldn't fit on one tape if it contained the whole film. It was butchered by editors unfamiliar with the historical timeline, the weapons and tactics, or the art! I can hardly give it two stars in this edition.

So give us a region-1 DVD and please! Make it the director's movie, not some truncated and confused mass of sound and fury. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

It's Dr. Strangelove, but without the laughs. Fail Safe, made within a year of Strangelove and at the height of cold war atomic anxiety, posits a similar nightmare scenario. A U.S. bomber is accidentally ordered toward Moscow, ready to drop its load. The U.S. president (Henry Fonda) and various military and congressional leaders must then scramble to deal with the disaster. The built-in suspense is well maintained by director Sidney Lumet, working from a script by former blacklisted writer Walter Bernstein. The solemn, serious approach doesn't begin to touch the brilliance of Strangelove's inspired take on the nuclear nightmare, but Fail Safe is absorbing and well acted (a memorable role for Walter Matthau, for instance). The movie enters unexpected territory in its final minutes; conditioned for feel-good endings, viewers are still genuinely shocked by the plot turns in the final reels. The climax comes as a sobering slap in the face, intriguingly staged by Lumet. Now that the cold war has passed on into history, Fail Safe stands as--thank goodness--an interesting period piece. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (59)

The "almost" Atomic War anti-fable...
The bleak black and white ...sometimes grainy, occasionally jump/jolt cut film...combined with understated dialogue, few special effects and no dramatized combat sequences produce a movie with a ONCE-UPON-A-NIGHTMARE quality. Henry Fonda is excellent as THE PRESIDENT who must convince the never-shown Soviet Premier not to unleash a retaliatory strike against The United States when a squadron of American Vindicator Bombers (decommisioned B-58 Hustlers) threatens Russia because of a computer/Black Box glitch. Walter Matthau is fascinatingly repellant as THE PROFESSOR...a Herman Kahn/Dr.Strangelove clone... who glories in his role as high-priest/adept of Nuclear Deterrence strategies. A young Larry Hagman is memorable as Buck, the President's Russian language translator. Dan O'Herlihy is convincingly tragic as an Air Force commander who must make "the sacrifice of Abraham" to save the world from WW III. There is not a single "mushroom cloud" shown. Combat actions are reduced to electronic displays on the War Room/SAC Big Board. Many opportunities for "thrills" are foresaken by Director Lumet. Instead, he relentlessly paces his "almost" Atomic War anti-fable until a telephone monitored by the US Ambassador to Moscow howls:..this tocsin signals the death of millions and the beginning of Armageddon. There is no such thing as FAIL-SAFE. The film is 40 years old. But like fable, the "sermon" speaks to today, tomorrow and...probably?...para siempre.

Brilliant, chilling "what-if" Cold War film.
When machines break down and accidentally unleash the nuclear genie out of the bottle, it's up to the President(brilliantly played by Henry Fonda) and his top military and government officials to prevent all-out war. Tensions heighten when military men like Colonel Cascio(Fritz Weaver) crack under the strain; a civilian "hawk" (Walter Matthau) argues for total committment while a military pacifist General(Dan O'Herlihy) adamantly insists that unleashing the H-Bomb would spell the end of the world. When it becomes clear the B-58 Vindicator Bombers mistakenly sent against Moscow will reach their target, the President must make the gravest sacrifice to prevent Armageddon. Lumet's directing and the all-star cast bring to life a nightmare situation that almost happened a number of times in real life. Well worth your viewing!

Fantastic!!
I've seen this movie at least 10 times, always on late night TV, and it still gets me every time. Right up until the last minute your'e hoping that all will turn out well, but of course it doesn't. It's curtains for 1964 New York, with it's World's Fair, Ed Sullivan, the Peppermint Lounge and My Fair Lady. Previously Moscow of course meets a simular horrible fate. But what a fantastic movie, full of drama and suspense. I'll never forget the reaction when the first plane is shot down, and the man who reminds them "That wer'e not at a football match" There are so many powerful scenes throughout the movie, too many to list here. It deserved a lot better recognition that what it got at the time. See it!

LIBERALISM IN HOLLYWOOD AND A TERRIBLE ENDING
In 1965, a serious nuclear movie called "Fail Safe" was released. Henry Fonda is the President. A computer glitch launches The Bomb for the U.S.S.R. Fonda cannot recall it, and apologizes to the Soviet premier. His wife is visiting New York City, and in one of the worst political decisions in Hollywood history, Fonda tells the Soviets that in order to prove to them it was an accident, he will drop a 30-megaton nuclear bomb on the Big Apple! He carries through with his decision, despite his wife's presence there. The Soviets are portrayed as suffering their fate with dignified resolve.

STEVEN TRAVERS
AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
STWRITES@AOL.COM

Incredibly serious and thought-provoking
The main theme of this film is that, with all of the tensions and pressures of the Cold War, and the rapid advancements in weapon development, things could go very wrong, very fast, and become unstoppable. When a drill becomes a false alarm that gets misread by some as a true Soviet nuclear attack against the U.S., American bombs destroy Moscow in "retaliation" and "counter-strike". The President and the Soviet leader try to find a way to prevent full-scale nuclear war, despite decades of mutual distrust. A radical solution is eventually found.

I was born in 1960 and, while that was after the McCarthy era, I grew up with the idea that Soviet Russia might attack at any time. This drama accurately depicts the fear, tension, and suspcion that permeated that time. It is harsh but well-done. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Great Great Movie
When is this movie going to DVD? This one is the best of all the Racquel Welch Westerns--It has plenty of action and great storyline--The best part with Racquel is when she is taking a shower from a railroad water tank to confuse the Mexican soldiers that are on a passing train--who cannot help but look? She is dressed but the clothes are tight!!! What a scene!!! Plenty of action in this movie-especially the love scene with Jim Brown--this along with Bandeloro are the best--get them both---DVD PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WONDERFUL
I wasnt even born yet when this film came out but it was great. Great in the sense of good actors(Jim Brown, Burt Reynolds and Fernando Lamas), good performance, good sountrack once more and action-western, what could be better?......Not until last year 2003 did I know that Victor Newman(Young and the Restless) was the Fernando Lamas's right hand man in the film!!!! What a shock!!!

Great Action Western South of the Border
This is a somewhat underrated action film set during the Mexican Revolution with James Brown as a deputy who crosses the border to bring back Burt Reynolds for the stolen 100 rifles. Eventually Brown and Reynolds get involved in the Revolution through Raquel Welch . Brown and Reynolds play well off each other as they go up against Fernando Lamas and his Federal army. Director Tom Gries put together some great action sequences. That combined with Jerry Goldsmith's score makes for a film that really delivers. Hans Gudegast (Eric Braeden) brilliantly underplays his part as a German military advisor to Lamas. This film helped launch Burt Reynolds into stardom. ... Read more

Amazon.com

At the time of its original release in 1984, this modestly budgeted sci-fi excursion had the distinction of offering some of the first examples of purely computer-generated animation, an apt (and frugal) special-effects solution for a movie with a plot line rooted in computer games. Both the computer-generated visuals and the arcade game now look quaint, but writer-director Nick Castle's affable, good- hearted adventure holds up nicely, thanks to a clever premise--the title game is actually a test for prospective starship pilots, planted by embattled aliens under siege from an evil invader. When a restless teenager (Lance Guest) racks up an impressive score, he finds himself spirited away to the besieged planet and thrust into the midst of an intergalactic war. Apart from Castle's skill at contrasting his extraterrestrial settings with the mundane details of his hero's earthbound life, the movie gets lift-off from two thorough pros, Robert Preston, who makes the alien recruiter, Centauri, a planet-hopping cousin to The Music Man's Harold Hill, and Dan O'Herlihy, the alien copilot, who suggests a scaly Walter Brennan. Older fans will snicker, but kids and young teens will find this rite of passage absorbing, while their folks will savor Preston's brash charm. --Sam Sutherland ... Read more

Reviews (62)

CULT MOVIES 29
29. THE LAST STARFIGHTER (SCI-fiction, 1984) For young Alex Rogan (Lance Guest) living in a trailer park is boring. He wants to escape from his rural existence and go to the city where he hopes to go to College. Bot for his girlfriend Annie (Catherine Mary Stewart) the prospect of leaving her grandmother behind is hard. Alex's only real excitement is playing a video game called 'Last Starfighter', having played it so many times that he finally breaks the game's points record. Soon after he's visited by a friendly alien power. They want to recruit him as one of their elite 'Starfighters' in an inter-galactic war where his skills will prove the turning point. Here he finds an unexpected chance to finally break free and follow his dreams. But will Annie join him?

Critique: The Star Wars phenomenon inspired a slew of science fiction films in its heyday that, surprisingly enough, has continued to this day. Although the 80s produced its share of memorable films, this is one of the most appealing of the bunch. Capturing the youthful exuberance and innocence that made the Star Wars fantasy a worldwide smash. The 'once upon story' line works from the disillusioned, dreamy nature of those kids whose earthly existence leave much to be desired. Wishing they could be whisked away to another galaxy, and take part in some far-off adventure. An added bonus to the film is the pairing of the 2 young leads. Exacting the warmth and amazement of encountering such a journey, and taking their love to the infinite reaches of space.

Sweet, Exciting Sci-Fi Adventure!
A combination of 'Coming-of-Age', 'Small-town U.S.A.', and Science Fiction films, 'The Last Starfighter' is one of that rare breed of films that actually become more enjoyable after repeated viewings, which makes it an EXCELLENT choice for your film collection!

Famous in film history as the first film to utilize computer-generated FX for its space scenes (producing a 'big-budget' look to more modestly budgeted film), the effects today seem as creaky and out-of-date as the 'Last Starfighter' arcade game that teenager Alex Rogan (Lance Guest) is so expert at! Don't let this put you off, though, as this story is really about the youngster, and being willing to take advantage of an opportunity to 'shine', as Otis (Vernon Washington), his best friend at his trailer park home, reminds him.

The concept of the game being a secret test for fighter pilots is clever, and when game creator Robert Preston (who is magnificent, in his last screen appearance) whisks young Rogan off to fight in an interstellar war, all of the youngster's long-stated ambitions to leave home and make something of his life are tested. In a series of amusing scenes, our hero stumbles through his first encounter with alien races, meeting the affable Grig (an unrecognizable Dan O'Herlihy, who nearly steals the movie), the pilot of his fightercraft. After almost making the worst decision of his life, Rogin comes to his senses....

... director Nick Castle (who directed the sweet and equally wonderful 'The Boy Who Could Fly') understands people and small-town life, and gives the space adventure so much charm and savvy that you'll love it, nonetheless!

Guest is terrific as Alex, conveying both the humor and frustration of growing up in the trailer park; Catherine Mary Stewart, as his girlfriend, is equally good! As Alex' space-fixated younger brother, Louis, Chris Hebert has some of the film's funniest lines, and the image of him, taking his shot at the arcade game and a chance to become a Starfighter, at the conclusion of the film, is a fitting finale!

Special praise should be given to Craig Safan's rousing score, some of the most beautiful, sweeping music since 'Star Wars'!

The DVD edition IS the version to buy, with a terrific documentary on the making of the film, hosted by Lance Guest, and commentary by director Nick Castle and production designer Ron Cobb!

'The Last Starfighter' has achieved near-cult film status over the years, and is a rich experience you'll enjoy, again and again! I STRONGLY recommend it!

One of my fondest memories...
One of the fondest memories of my childhood was watching this movie while eating a Chef-Boy-Ardee sausage pizza. (remember those?) Many hot summer days were spent enjoying the adventure of Alex Rogan travelling to Rylos and realizing his dreams and his destiny as a Starfighter with his navigator, Grigg. This is one of those inexplicably optimistic films that popped up in the 80's. Despite the fact that the special effects may look dated now, the story is timeless and well written for this genre. The video presentation on this DVD is rather crisp and clear but the audio could be a "little" better. Still, this is a wonderful film for kids and nostalgic adults alike. Oh, the extras are nice as well. I hadn't seen the "Making of" documentary since it appeared on HBO when I was a kid. This is a wonderful film.

Thoroughly enjoyable
An interesting little film of how a dead-end kid is forced to become a galactic hero, because of his facility at a computer game, which is a secret recruiting station for starfighter pilots. The computer-generated graphics, advanced for their time, now look ridiculously crude, but it somehow adds to the quaintness of the whole thing, with marvellous performances from Lance Guest as the reluctant hero, Robert Preston as the likeably roguish Centauri who is prepared not so much to bend the rules as to smash them into very tiny fragments and Dan O'Herily as Grigg, the lizard co-pilot whose dream is to go down fighting against impossible odds!

Formulaic Fun.
If you're looking for a masterpiece film that rewrites the sci-fi genre with intense drama and gritty characters, this isn't the movie for you. If you're looking for a really fun film that's a great mix of Star Wars, Saturday morning cartoons, and video games then stick this in your DVD player.

The movie's special effects hold up suprisingly well, considering that they're 20 years old. When Alex Rogan is flying the gunstar, it's like you're there with him, especially if you grew up loving this film. The characters are developed enough that you care, but not so much that it's like a daytime soap opera. Two thumbs up! ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Five, because you CAN'T Get it! 3 1/2 as a movie, But. . . .
Where IS this movie on DVD? Come to think of it, where is it on VHS in popular release? WHY isn't IT AVAILABLE?

Well, as to the movie, it's an awkward adaptaion of Howard Pyle's, "MEN IN IRON." Want to have some fun? Try and find the book It's really not very good. The interiors are so studio set-pieces, they are laughable. The acting is, at best, acceptable. Curtis is very young, very handsome, and as Miles Falworth (in the immortal words of Anna Russell), "very stupid." He takes on the Earl, the Master of Arms, the Master of Squires, and according to the book, he's not even 18 yet! What a Dunce! But the technicolor, the pairing of Curtis, and his new wife, Janet Leigh (this was the FIRST movie they ever made together {And YES, it's the same Janet Leigh who gets the big-bad butcher knife in Hitchcok's "PSYCHO"}), a story line of the middle-ages trying oh-so-painfully to edge into the Renaissance (well, not exactly, that wouldn't REALLY happen for another 300 years, but the point is there. Listen for the line, "Our Lord the Earl has thirteen books." The printing press had not been invented yet. Get it? Get it?)

And Miles (Curtis) discovers that the page of one of those books has been torn out. The name of Falworth no longer exists in the Book of English Nobility. Uh-oh.

Oh there's swash and buckle aplenty. Moreover, there's more about Chilvary and Knighthood than you ever wanted to know. Fights, Sword-fights, Jousts, Intrigues, Plots, Plots within Plots (except the audience is very-very carefully guided along so the good-guys are clearly distinguishable from the bad-guys; i.e., the guy in black armour--bad guy)!

But Curtis and Leigh are both at their prettiest! Oops, I mean their best. Very much in love, and very photogenic on the screen, what should be silliness is Chilvary. What should be cliche is Romantic.

Oh hell, pop some good popcorn, pour too much butter over it, over-salt it, and put on this damn good movie. Go ahead. Cheer the good guys! And definitely Boo the bad guys.

Most of all enjoy. This movie goes back to the late 40's-50's; when adventure meant spectacle, and in it's own small way, THE BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH delivers spectacle. Not De Mille spectacle, but in your face, here and now, and the GOOD GUYS WIN spectacle.

It is a bit silly, I admit. But it's more than engrossingly watchable.

Where is this movie on DVD?
Why hasn't this movie been released on DVD? Curtis' other great movie the Vikings was available years ago, why not this movie? There are too many bogus movies being made available, now is the time to start seriously considering offering classics such as these on disc. Another fine movie that was released fairly recently was the original Robin Hood, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

A Worthy Recreation
This film is an outstanding cinematic retelling of Howard Pyle's "Men of Iron".The story follows a brother and sister whose noble father has been disgraced in the factional rivalries of late 14th century England.Young Miles and his sister are taken in by a Lord who was a friend of their father.From there ,Miles begins his training as a Squire and then to become a Knight. Tony Curtis ,who plays Miles,meets and falls in love with his future wife in this film.An Example of the on-and-off stage romances of Hollywood. As an action-adventure,romance,and period piece"Black Shield of Falworth"has it all.

Best Tony Curtis saving "The Vikings"
A classic fantasy tale with enough basis in reality to be believable. Tony Curtis does an outstanding job of playing an ambitious and bull-headed peasant boy with dreams of knighthood. Given an opportunity to train by a friend of his dead father, Curtis doesn't find out his true noble heritage until required to prove his father's innocense on the field of honor. Just enough of a love story to please the ladies in the audience, the swordfighting is classic with excellently choreographed fight scenes. A snobbish post-adolescent antagonist adds a frustrating and tantalizing side-plot to the story.

GOOD TYPICAL HOLLYWOOD HEROIC MATINEE MEDIEVALISM
This is the kind of colorful adventure that kids must have eaten up during Saturday matinees with a cartoon, newsreel, and second feature. A good-looking hero fights for justice, having to go through a period of training and learning before he is ready to take on his adversary. There is a friendship, a rivalry, a vow upheld, a promise kept, justice served, growth, a romance without sloppy kissing, and some spiffy combat, both man-to-man and large battles.

The story is based on Howard Pyle's "Men of Iron," a late 19th century boy's book that cleans up and romanticizes the Middle Ages. This movie keeps much of the flavor of that interpretation of medieval life. The story touches on such topics as the role of women, the rarity of books, the feudal system, and table manners. As such it is a fun and interesting place to start looking at medieval culture, but being based on a 19th century boy's novel, should not be taken as the last word.

For medieval purists, this movie can be maddening. While some of the costumes are based on well-known paintings and illustrations, they are from various periods and modified to fit modern esthetics. Other costumes are Hollywood generic. The armor has some good things about it, but the breastplates are too wide, restricting motion, and what looks like a shirt collar of chain mail ought to be a coif or aventail.

The actor's performances range from fun to boring, mostly in inverse proportion to the youth of the actor. The direction is pretty stiff, only the occasional fun actor and fight scenes livening it up. The music is typically glorious, bringing a richness and thrill to the experience that the visuals sometimes don't have. And the script is flat out corny.

That having been said, it's very fun if you get into this sort of thing, as I do. If you don't, subtract one star from my rating. It also is a very complete movie, having those elements one would want in a medieval matinee movie, as mentioned above.

Oh, yeah, and nowhere in this movie does Tony Curtis say "Yonda lies da castle of moy fadduh." ... Read more

Reviews (260)

Halloween III is....different
"Halloween III: Season of the Witch" is a different side of the "Halloween" series. Sure, it doesn't have Jamie Lee Curtis, Donald Pleasence or killer Michael Myers in it, but it stands alone as a creepy film. The plot introduces us to druid warlock Conal Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy), who plans to kill millions of children with his rigged Halloween masks. Dr. Dan Challis (Tom Atkins) and Ellie Grimbridge (Stacy Nelkin) stumble on the plan and travel to the small town of Santa Mira to try to stop the killer scheme. This one has robots wearing suits, bugs and snakes spewing out a kid's head, a nice scene where a man's head is literally ripped off his body and Stonehenge! Although it seemed like a good idea to John Carpenter and Debra Hill, "Halloween III" bombed big time at the box office in 1982 cause people were expecting Michael Myers to be seen. The only time he is seem is briefly during a commercial for the original Halloween. The acting is decent, the music is creepy, but some sequences are gross. (Ala the kid's head spewing bugs and snakes) "Halloween III" is actually a good film, if it isn't compared so much to the other ones.

It's not THAT bad.
My first exposure to the Halloween movies was when I was a pre-teen. I loved the first one and really liked the rest of the sequels, which I watched non-sequentially. Halloween 3 was the last entry on the roster (mainly because it was so hard to find back then). My cousin finally got a hold of it, we both watched it and never spoke of it again. A Halloween movie without Michael Myers? Humbug! Blasphemy! How dare they! What a garbage movie!

Well, I'm 22 now and decided to buy Universal's re-issue on DVD. Not because I had any fond memories of the film; I'm simply a completist and it drove me BONKERS whenever I saw that one inch gap between my Halloween 2 and 4 DVD's. So, I reluctantly opened up the packaging, put the disc in the DVD player and just laid back with remote in hand. When it was all over, I realized the film is still no masterpiece.

However, it's been years since I've gotten over the fact that Michael isn't in it, so at least I was (ironically) able to watch it for the second time with a fresher perspective. And I have to say, it really isn't that bad. I actually like it better than Resurrection, but I guess that's not really saying much. The story drags sometimes, but the overall concept is interesting. Cochran, the villain, makes for a cool thorn in Tom Atkins' side. I also give the filmmakers kudos for allowing that annoying kid to just shut up and die a really horrible death.

Much has been said about the theme song. You know... "X more days till Halloween, Halloween, Halloween..." And it really does kind of grate on your nerves after you hear it for what seems like fifty times in ten minutes. But, I guess horror buffs can credit Halloween 3 for contributing at least ONE classic attribute to the genre, annoying or not.

If you're not a completist like me, I'd definitely suggest renting before buying. Just watch it with an open mind.

WILDLY UNDERRATED!
This film is so underrated because there is no Michael Myers! Well, that doesn't mean this is a BAD film! It had a very good plotline! The acting wasn't to great but other than that, this is a good non-sequel! I give it a 6 out of 10!

Am I the olny one who likes this movie?
Halloween 3 is one the best of the halloween saga, but everyone bashes it because it doesn't have Myers, well I found it fun and somewhat creepy, if you're an open minded person see this movie otherwise I think you'll just think it's a bad film like everone else because there is no Myers, of corse it's not as good as the first 2 but hey it's better than the rest.

Can we say "random"?
Yes, as we've all figured out, there's no Michael Myers. That's not what bothers most normal people so much.

What should bother normal people is not only is there no Mike Myers, there is absolutely NOTHING in this movie that remotely has ANYTHING to do with the rest of the series.

The plot is ridiculously eccentric, and yet the director treats the audience like a collection of complete idiots. Personally, after the first time that horribly annoying commercial was played ("X more days til Halloween, Halloween, Halloween" to the tune of "London Bridge"), I got the idea that this commercial was somehow the source of all evil in the movie. This is because the toy store owner who dies in the beginning reacts dramatically to the commercial, and we know he's got it all figured out already.

But we are still put through torture when this incredibly annoying commercial is played about 10 more times in the first 15 minutes of the movie. We get it. We're not dumb.

If you want a comedy, this is the movie for you. I was hysterical laughing at all of the horrible special effects.

Or if you're like me and make almost a sport out of watching every horror film (the good, the bad, and the ugly) known to man, then go for it.

But if you actually want to watch an entertaining or scary movie, save your money. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

The Tamarind Seed
It is a crying shame that today they do not make movies as good as this one!!!!!!!!! I am an Omar Shariff fan and he is excellent in this film. I have always admired the vocal technique of Julie Andrews and did not think too much of her acting ability. I am wrong about her. This movie is great and an excellent vhs to add to your collection. The love story is tender and sincere. The spy story intrigues the present mind, particularly those of us who survived the "cold war" and everything that followed. Buy it and enjoy!!

WOW Better than i though!!!!
I saw this movie on AMC and i was shocked I thought it would be not as good as her others but i was totally shocked, this movie was EXCCELLENT!!!!!!!!!! I loved it and really suggest that all you Julie fans see it

Tamarind Seed
A wonderful, romantic version of a spy film.

An all time great with great acting and suspense
I saw this movie when it was released in 1986 and it was by far one of the best movies I enjoyed watching in it's class. Omar Sharif and Julie Andrews did an excellent job of making this movie a nail biter and one you should put in your video library.

The movie is exellent
This movie is suspencfull , romantic and nearly everything! This star studded movie is fun ,paste runnig adventure and more! Julie Andrews is great! ... Read more

Reviews (260)

Halloween III is....different
"Halloween III: Season of the Witch" is a different side of the "Halloween" series. Sure, it doesn't have Jamie Lee Curtis, Donald Pleasence or killer Michael Myers in it, but it stands alone as a creepy film. The plot introduces us to druid warlock Conal Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy), who plans to kill millions of children with his rigged Halloween masks. Dr. Dan Challis (Tom Atkins) and Ellie Grimbridge (Stacy Nelkin) stumble on the plan and travel to the small town of Santa Mira to try to stop the killer scheme. This one has robots wearing suits, bugs and snakes spewing out a kid's head, a nice scene where a man's head is literally ripped off his body and Stonehenge! Although it seemed like a good idea to John Carpenter and Debra Hill, "Halloween III" bombed big time at the box office in 1982 cause people were expecting Michael Myers to be seen. The only time he is seem is briefly during a commercial for the original Halloween. The acting is decent, the music is creepy, but some sequences are gross. (Ala the kid's head spewing bugs and snakes) "Halloween III" is actually a good film, if it isn't compared so much to the other ones.

It's not THAT bad.
My first exposure to the Halloween movies was when I was a pre-teen. I loved the first one and really liked the rest of the sequels, which I watched non-sequentially. Halloween 3 was the last entry on the roster (mainly because it was so hard to find back then). My cousin finally got a hold of it, we both watched it and never spoke of it again. A Halloween movie without Michael Myers? Humbug! Blasphemy! How dare they! What a garbage movie!

Well, I'm 22 now and decided to buy Universal's re-issue on DVD. Not because I had any fond memories of the film; I'm simply a completist and it drove me BONKERS whenever I saw that one inch gap between my Halloween 2 and 4 DVD's. So, I reluctantly opened up the packaging, put the disc in the DVD player and just laid back with remote in hand. When it was all over, I realized the film is still no masterpiece.

However, it's been years since I've gotten over the fact that Michael isn't in it, so at least I was (ironically) able to watch it for the second time with a fresher perspective. And I have to say, it really isn't that bad. I actually like it better than Resurrection, but I guess that's not really saying much. The story drags sometimes, but the overall concept is interesting. Cochran, the villain, makes for a cool thorn in Tom Atkins' side. I also give the filmmakers kudos for allowing that annoying kid to just shut up and die a really horrible death.

Much has been said about the theme song. You know... "X more days till Halloween, Halloween, Halloween..." And it really does kind of grate on your nerves after you hear it for what seems like fifty times in ten minutes. But, I guess horror buffs can credit Halloween 3 for contributing at least ONE classic attribute to the genre, annoying or not.

If you're not a completist like me, I'd definitely suggest renting before buying. Just watch it with an open mind.

WILDLY UNDERRATED!
This film is so underrated because there is no Michael Myers! Well, that doesn't mean this is a BAD film! It had a very good plotline! The acting wasn't to great but other than that, this is a good non-sequel! I give it a 6 out of 10!

Am I the olny one who likes this movie?
Halloween 3 is one the best of the halloween saga, but everyone bashes it because it doesn't have Myers, well I found it fun and somewhat creepy, if you're an open minded person see this movie otherwise I think you'll just think it's a bad film like everone else because there is no Myers, of corse it's not as good as the first 2 but hey it's better than the rest.

Can we say "random"?
Yes, as we've all figured out, there's no Michael Myers. That's not what bothers most normal people so much.

What should bother normal people is not only is there no Mike Myers, there is absolutely NOTHING in this movie that remotely has ANYTHING to do with the rest of the series.

The plot is ridiculously eccentric, and yet the director treats the audience like a collection of complete idiots. Personally, after the first time that horribly annoying commercial was played ("X more days til Halloween, Halloween, Halloween" to the tune of "London Bridge"), I got the idea that this commercial was somehow the source of all evil in the movie. This is because the toy store owner who dies in the beginning reacts dramatically to the commercial, and we know he's got it all figured out already.

But we are still put through torture when this incredibly annoying commercial is played about 10 more times in the first 15 minutes of the movie. We get it. We're not dumb.

If you want a comedy, this is the movie for you. I was hysterical laughing at all of the horrible special effects.

Or if you're like me and make almost a sport out of watching every horror film (the good, the bad, and the ugly) known to man, then go for it.

But if you actually want to watch an entertaining or scary movie, save your money. ... Read more

Reviews (35)

One of my all time favorite comedies!!!!
I wholeheartedly agree with every other reviewer on this page. This movie is fantastic. Who do we have to beat up to to get this thing on dvd. One of the funniest movies ever...the portion of the movie spent at charm school is 20 minutes of nonstop laughter. When barney shoots the orange peel into humping's mouth...you have to rewind that and watch it in slow motion about 10 times...the faces he makes will kill you!

I thought I was the only one, but apparently I have found the other 28 people in the world who love this movie. Why this did not become a cult classic I'll never know.

"Hey spartacus, what are you in for?"

classic 80's comedy movie
One movie not to miss. There are too many memorable scenes in her to mention. Only introduced to the BOYS about 3 months ago. Cant get another copy here if I wanted to (Im i Australia) Classic laugh a minute stupid humor that I love. 100/100 Beats even Jim Carrey and he's my fav comedian/actor

Where's the DVD?
I know about ten people that love this movie! I am one of them. I wish they would put it on dvd! That would be way better, but I guess for now I will have to settle for the video! This movie is so goofy and silly, and that's what I love about it. One of the funniest movies from the eighties that I have seen. A real cult classic with all of my friends!

I'm Fan #29 Of This Movie
I would like to party with all the people who like/love this film. Especially those who have taken the time to write a review about it! The film is hilarious. Eddie Deezen's finest work to date, except as the voice of Mandark in Dexter's Lab. This needs to be on DVD.

ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC
This movie has become one of my favourite comedies and is often watched by my brother and sisters and nephews. It really takes the mickey of how pretentious rich people are!. We often quote the hilarious one liners like "Why are there two toilets in the bathroom?"..., "....Is this the Phelps Institute? .. Perhaps, do we owe you any money?...".

We have watched this video so often that the tape has warped. It is such a great shame that this video is not on DVD.

For anyone who has a great sense of humour and won't be offended by some of the antics and comments by the actors this video is GOOFY and BRILLIANT!!!. It will really make your day. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

If you are a history buff, you will LOVE this movie....
Peck is excellent. The quotes from this movie coupled with the Ed Flanders's portray of Harry Truman, coupled with the accuracy of the film historically make this probably my all time favorite film. and the darn thing is on back order! Fudge.

Good Movie
This was a good movie, it could have been a great movie but it fell short in a couple places. The performance by Gregory Peck was great (almost in George C. Scott league but not quite). The performance by the supporting actors was not bad, especially the guys that played Truman and Roosevelt.

I think where the movie fell short was that it seemed too jumpy. The scenes of his battles (both military and political) seemed short. There didn't seem to be closure on the battles other than jumping to the next battle to be fought. I've never seen the uncut version, so I don't know if that's addressed there. It seems like this movie would have been better served with another hour at least.

I would have to say my favorite aspect of the movie was his warning as he was fired. Namely that you should never tell the military to fight a war of half measures. Also, that Congress shouldn't shirk its responsibility by not declaring war.

Gregory Peck tries to make sense of Douglas MacArthur
The 1977 film "MacArthur" is well aware that there were two sides to the controversial military leader Douglas MacArthur, and you can almost see the makers of this film flipping a coin to decide which side Gregory Peck gets to show in the next scene. On the one hand there was the brilliant military strategist and leader who directed Allied forces in the Pacific against the Japanese in World War II and for the first half of the Koran War. On the other hand that was the vain and egotistical man who selected official photographs with as much care as he plained invasions and attacks. Most of the credit in this film goes to Peck's performance in making these two diverse sides fit together for the most part.

The contrast between the two is probably best captured in two scenes involving Major General Jonathan M. Wainwright (Sandy Kenyon), who was left behind in command of the Philippines when FDR ordered MacArthur to get to safety in Australia. Even though he promises MacArthur he "will be here or I'll be dead," Wainwright is ultimately forced to surrender and MacArthur goes off the deep end, insisting that Wainwright has gone insane and heaping invective on the man's name. Later in the film, on the day the Japanese signed the articles of surrender on the U.S.S. "Missouri," Wainwright arrives, a gaunt figure after years of captivity in a Japanese prison. MacArthur embraces Wainwright warmly, brushing away all apologies and assuring the man he can have his Corps back as soon as he says the word. MacArthur remains the same man, unconcerned by the obvious contradictions of his nature.

Director Joseph Sargent frames this biopic with MacArthur's famous speech to the cadets of West Point, where he extols the virtues of "Duty," "Honor," "Country." Beyond a brief look back at his early life and military career, the story of the film begins with the general and his besieged forces in the Philippines. But throughout the film we are supposed to hear those words "Duty," "Honor," "Country" resonating. MacArthur is forced to leave the Philippines, but he vows to return, and he does. The UN forces are almost forced off the Korean peninsula, but MacArthur retakes it all before the Chinese get involved. MacArthur is able to force FDR to go with his plans, but finds Harry Truman unwilling to go along, thereby ending a distinguished military career of over half-a-century.

Which sides comes out ahead? The ways Sargent tries to balance the two sides gets pretty interesting. Both Roosevelt (Dan O'Herlihy) and Truman (Ed Flanders) have their pokes at MacArthur, while it is a pair of his Japanese adversaries who speak to his military ability (scenes that are reminiscent of the Germans doing the same thing in "Patton"). The Presidents give the general credit for his military endeavors, but those accolades are buried beneath the verbal ripostes; on the political side the rebuttal comes from actual film footage of Republican Senators (e.g., Nixon of California) supporting MacArthur and blasting Truman. Even stranger, MacArthur's aides are forced to play it both ways. On the one hand they are doing everything they can for the general's public relations, but then there are also times when they basically roll their eyes at what is coming out of MacArthur's mouth.

In the end, MacArthur is not only redeemed by Peck's performance, but by having the final two scenes of the film be the famous pair of speeches MacArthur delivered when he returned to the United States. The first was the "The Old Soldiers" speech given to the Joint Session of Congress and the other the speech to the cadets. When you have a character who has been saying some pretty stupid things from time to time throughout the film and then allow him to reach such flights of oratorical elegance, it is hard not to end on his side of the ledger. "MacArthur" is not enough to allow anyone to make a reasoned judgment on the man and his career, but it should be enough to inspire those who are interested to go read some books that can provide you better evidence for really making up your mind.

"duty, honor, country"
Those that are interested in General Douglas MacArthur, and admire his qualities of courage and fortitude, will find this film fascinating; it is beautifully filmed, with marvelous re-creations of the mid 20th century, and the battle scenes are very well done.
The speeches alone are a glory to listen to, full of passion for "duty, honor, and country", and the words are so exquisitely crafted they are like the finest prose.
The film starts and ends in MacArthur's beloved West Point, on a blustery day, as he speaks to the cadets, and is among the many memorable scenes; others are the landing on Layte, and the signing of Japan's surrender, on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay, which is a fabulous re-staging of the historic event.

Gregory Peck gives a monumental portrayal of MacArthur; it is nuanced and brilliant, and from the old film clips I have seen of General MacArthur, subtly captures his posture and movement, with his many different pipes. This film is one of Peck's best, and it's sad it did not have more critical acclaim, as I feel it certainly deserved it.
Other terrific performances come from Marj Dusay as his wife Jean, Sandy Kenyon as General Jonathan Wainwright, and Ed Flanders as President Truman is quite exceptional; tough, gritty, and angered by MacArthur.

An excellent score by Jerry Goldsmith and cinematography by Mario Tosi complements the well-paced direction by Joseph Sargent. If it has a flaw, I feel the film makes too much of the publicity loving aspect of MacArthur's personality. Yes, he liked to use the media to his advantage, and most people who make history feel the same way no doubt...otherwise it is a fairly balanced depiction of one of the great men of the 20th century.

It is interesting to speculate what would have happened had General MacArthur been able to do what he thought was right, and not the "capitulation" and "immoral compromise with evil" he felt he was forced to accept. Perhaps over time millions of lives would have been saved, but I'm sure many would argue otherwise.
Total running time 130 minutes.
"A soldier above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war".

Enjoyable, but a flawed portrait of MacArthur
Gregory Peck does his customary stellar job in this very enjoyable movie about General Douglas MacArthur. The film spans the time frame from the onset of World War II and the fall of the Phillipines (of which MacArthur was military commander) through the relief of General MacArthur in the midst of the Korean War. The movie is notably true to history in all respects that I could determine, and deserves kudos for that.

In my opinion the film is flawed because it goes out of its way to portray MacArthur in an unfavorable light. It ridicules his skillful use of public relations, and presents MacArthur as a demagogue and as a somewhat shallow, manipulative, and downright political General. The troops' dislike of MacArthur is overplayed--other great generals were not always popular with their men, but the fact is that MacArthur and his strategy of bypassing Japanese strong points ("island hopping") worked, and saved countless American and Allied lives. While there is perhaps some truth to the notion that MacArthur was obsessed with his image to the American people, the fact is that the country needed heros in the dark days following Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt knew it and served up Patton and MacArthur, and MacArthur knew it too. In the early days of American involvement in the war, guts and morale were about all the country had going for it.

The movie deserves praise for its portrayal of MacArthur's handling of the Korean War. I don't recall ever seeing a more insightful or accurate dramatic portrayal of what happened in this underexamined war, and the movie gives MacArthur credit for his boldness and genius, and at the same time, in a fair and evenhanded way, the film explains why President Truman saw fit to relieve MacArthur. This action was appropriate although unfortunate, and the film handles this episode fairly, in my opinion.

The movie "Patton" is probably the model for how a movie should portray the life story of a great American general. compared against "Patton" this film does not measure up. Nevertheless, this film is well worth seeing and owning despite its flaws. ... Read more