Reviews (22)

A Romantic Love Classic
This film is really rather a classical love story will stay in my heart forever. In my opinion, no one can see this film remaining indifferent or apathetic without feeling the incomparable charm of Ingrid Bergman¡¯s and Yul Brynner¡¯s throughout the story. As I remember, the first time I saw the film, it had already been on for about 1 hour on TV. Even if I didn¡¯t see it completely, I was still fascinated by both the complicated plot of the story and the wonderful performances of the actors/actresses. Some scenes in the film were very humorous. And the music which showed the characteristic of Russia in it also leave a deep impression on me. Now I have seen this film for several times, but every time I saw it, it always moved me a lot. Having seen many other films acted by Bergman or Brynner, I still think ¡®Anastasia¡¯ is the one I like the most. Without kisses, embraces or sweet conversations, it would still be a romantic love classic forever. As a woman who roamed the streets, Anna might be the Grand Duchess of Russia or even only a poor, bewildered person. And what she only wanted was love. Since no one accepted her, no one cared about her, she even had a feeling suicidal. Then a Russian general found her and saved her. He wanted to train her to be Anastasia---the youngest daughter of Russia¡¯s last czar. What only attracted him was the ten million pounds. Bergman was weak, tender and gentle, on the opposite, Brynner was stern, hard and sharp. Is there any possibility that she would be able to change him? In the film, there were many very excellent details that showed the subtle relation between Anna and Bounine. On the one hand, Anna hated him for his only wish for money, hated his using her for his own purpose, hated his not understanding what she really longed for was. On the other hand, she had fallen in love with him. Therefore, she tried flirting with Prince Paul (her former fiance), trying to make Bounine feel jealous. Bergman¡¯s performance was so subtle, ingenious that make the story much more lively. Even if general Bounine was in love with her, too, he didn¡¯t show any concern on the surface. He wanted the money of the legacy, but he loved her more. He seemed rather fierce, but is kind at heart. How many ¡®contradictions¡¯! At the end of the story, Anna succeeded in changing him. The scene which left the deepest impression on me was their last conversation just before the ball. They tried to convey their real feelings to each other. But there were so many problems existing between them. Money or Love? The ending of he story was to be expected but unexpected as well. When Anastasia left from her grandmother again, who was so kind, was so approachable, was the person she had wanted to see for so many years. How sad she was at that moment! I was greatly touched by this scene. In the end, Anna and Bounine ran away to seek for their own happiness renouncing their claim to the money, in spite of the public. I supposed that Yul Brynner might be a most suitable actor to act the white Russian general. His looks, his expression, his posture, his performance, even his bald head were very great. The performances of the other actors/actresses (especially Helen Hayes and Martita Hunt) were also wonderful ones. Everyone must be deeply moved by Anastasia¡¯s close relation with her grandma particularly. The film was also memorable for the acting of the two main characters. The story told us that money or position doesn¡¯t mean love, happiness and freedom. In the film or in the real life, no matter what Anna was, whether she was real or just a imposter, it doesn¡¯t really matter. The most important thing is that the film showed us a history, a mystery, or even a legend. This film was written, directed, acted very well. When it was made in the 1950s, even my parents had not been born. But time doesn¡¯t mean discrepancy, either. I¡¯ll love the romantic splendid love story forever and I¡¯m quite sure that it would always be a classic in the film history forever.

A Romantic Love Classic Forever
This film is really rather a classical love story that will stay in my heart forever. In my opinion, no one can see this film remaining indifferent or apathetic without feeling the incomparable charm of Ingrid Bergman¡¯s and Yul Brynner¡¯s throughout the story. As I remember, the first time I saw the film, it had already been on for about 1 hour on TV. Even if I didn¡¯t see it completely, I was still fascinated by both the complicated plot of the story and the wonderful performances of the actors/actresses. Some scenes in the film were very humorous. And the music that showed the characteristic of Russia in it also left a deep impression on me. Now I have seen this film for several times, but every time I saw it, it always stirred me a lot. Having seen many other films acted by Bergman or Brynner, I still think ¡®Anastasia¡¯ is the one I like most. Without kisses, embraces or sweet conversations, it would still be a romantic love classic forever. As a woman who roamed the streets, Anna might be the Grand Duchess of Russia or even only a poor, bewildered person. She had suffered terribly for a long time and what she only wanted was being accepted. Since no one cared about her, she even had a feeling suicidal.At the begining,though acting a woman who was in dire straits, Bergman still had a unique noble disposition just like a princess wandering destitute far from home. Then a Russian general saved her and changed her life. He wanted to train her to be Anastasia---the youngest daughter of Russia¡¯s last czar. The only thing attracted him was the ten million pounds. Bergman was weak, tender and gentle, on the opposite, Brynner was stern, hard and sharp. Is there any possibility that she would be able to change him? In the film, there were many excellent details that showed the subtle relation between Anna and Bounine. On the one hand, Anna hated him for his only wish for money, hated his using her for his own purpose, hated his not understanding what she really longed for was. On the other hand, she had fallen in love with him. Therefore, she tried flirting with Prince Paul (her former fiance), trying to make Bounine feel jealous. Bergman¡¯s performance was so subtle, ingenious that make the story much more lively. Even if general Bounine was in love with her in spite of himself, too, he didn¡¯t show any concern on the surface. He wanted the money of the legacy, but he loved her more. He seemed rather fierce, but was kind at heart. How many ¡®contradictions¡¯! The scene that left the deepest impression on me was their last conversation just before the ball. They tried to convey their real feelings to each other. But there were so many problems existing between them. At the end of the story, Anna succeeded in changing him. Money or love? The ending of the story was to be expected but unexpected as well. When Anastasia left from her grandmother again, who was so kind, was so approachable, was the person she had wanted to see for so many years, how sad she was at that moment! I was greatly touched by this scene.... I supposed that Yul Brynner might be a most suitable actor to act the white Russian general. His looks, his expression, his posture, his acting, even his bald head were very great. And he had a quite different glamour that made him always attractive. The performances of the other actors/actresses (especially Helen Hayes and Martita Hunt) were also wonderful ones. Everyone must be deeply moved by Anastasia¡¯s close relation with her grandma particularly. The film was also memorable for the acting of the two main characters. It told us that money and position don¡¯t mean love, happiness and freedom. In the film or in the real life, no matter what Anna was, whether she was real or just an imposter, it doesn¡¯t really matter. The most important thing is that the film showed us a history, a mystery, or even a legend. This film was written, directed and acted very well. When it was made in the 1950s, even my parents had not been born. But time doesn¡¯t mean discrepancy, either. I¡¯ll always love this romantic splendid love story and I¡¯m quite sure that it will be a classic in the film history forever.

Anastasia
Great Movie - Horrible DVD! I'm rating this one star because the DVD quality is so bad. For the first time, I'm in the process of returning an item to Amazon. This makes me sad because I love this film and wanted to add this to my growing collection of classic films in my DVD Library. The sound is not always in synch and the volume goes up and down. The sound is absolutely terrible!

Special features
The DVD versionÕs special features of this classic film is jammed pack with historical information, not only about early 20th century Russian aristocracy, but also about the Ôbehind the scenesÕ making of this wonderful movie. For this humble DVD collector, I prefer as much expert commentary as can possibly fit into the format. Does anyone know more about the industry than Sylvia Stoddard? I donÕt think so.

Anastasia Is Finally On DVD.
I bought this DVD when it came out 2 months ago when it first came out. And I love this movie more than Any other movie that Ingrid Bergman played in. I especially liked it because they had an interview with Hellen Hayes (The Grandmother) son James MacArthur. I have been corresponding with him and i just really liked that.

Here Is A brief Description:

Anastasie (Ingird Bergman) is a woman who has no clue about who she is and where she comes from, she then meets (Yul Brynner) who thinks that if he can train her to act like the Real Annastasia he can pass her off and get the huge reward for her return. Well when they get to St. petersburg they find out that The Arch Duchess (Hellen Hayes) has lost hope of ever finding her Annastasia and refuses to see Ingrid Bergman. Well she finally visits Ingrid Bergman and realizes that she really is her grand daughter. And it ends happily.

Great Movie. 5 Star Rating. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Suave, sardonic George Sanders eases through one of his most perfectly suited roles in this sly Douglas Sirk comedy, based on the (highly questionable) remembrances of real-life French rascal turned respected lawman and author Vidoq. Sanders plays his aristocratic thief with a blasé attitude and bemused smile. Born in a jail (his home for most of his life, as it turns out), he cons his way up from the gutter to high society. He rechristens himself with a name purloined from a fancy graveyard headstone and lands a position as the Paris chief of police after an elaborate display of Sherlock Holmesian deduction uncovers a cache of jewels stolen from his patron's house (jewels he stole himself, of course). It puts him in the perfect place to plot his biggest caper ever: cleaning out the Bank of Paris. Akim Tamiroff plays his croaking sidekick (a frog to Sanders's prince of crime, or perhaps more accurately a dragon to the sneaky St. George), and Gene Lockhart is his nemesis, the disgraced former chief of police who emerges as less a figure of fun than a sad clown. Sirk shot this little gem on a low budget almost belied by the tiny but richly realized sets, beautifully designed settings that create a Paris in miniature. His Continental wit and Sanders's droll delivery and impeccable manners add a knowing wink to the production. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Description

Based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Thornton Wilder, "The Bridge of San Luis Rey" tells the story of a rickety bridge that has spanned a deep gorge for ages. When the bridge suddenly collapses--plunging five people to their deaths--the tragedy causes a wave of superstition to engulf the villagers as they believe they are destined for continued misfortune. Only a priest can find the connections to divine intervention that will quell the townspeople's fears. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

A bland movie that loosely follows the book
In 1774 Peru, five people are crossing the hundred-year-old bridge of San Luis Rey when it suddenly collapses, plunging the five to their deaths. Witness to this startling event is Brother Juniper who decides to find out why God has chosen those particular five people to bring into His realm. He travels to Lima to meet with Uncle Pio, a local character who knows everyone and everything surrounding Lima. From Pio, Brother Juniper learns how the lives of the five were connected to one another.

Sort of. The movie focuses on only four of the characters, and three of them in a very secondary sort of way. The fifth character, an old man who was transporting grain, is mentioned only in passing. To me that was disappointing, after having read the book, because each of the characters has his or her own unique story which connects with the others. The acting is very wooden, with too many varying accents and some with no accents at all, so it's difficult to believe the film takes place in Peru. (The Spanish viceroy looks and talks decidedly British, whereas Micaela has an American accent, and Uncle Pio sounds Russian when he speaks.)

The one good aspect from this film is the score by Dimitri Tiomkin, which was nominated for an Academy Award. However, even that gets marred by the poor sound quality of this DVD transfer. It fades in and out too much, and at times, I could not hear what was being said.

See this movie if you must, but the book is better.

Competent film version of the Pulitzer Prize winning novella
This is the second of three film versions of the Pulitzer Prize winning novella (134 pages do not a novel make!). The third version is in post-production as we write. Neither of the first two were anything beyond potboiler status, and took liberties with the narrative. I am writing here to correct the negative review on this page from a person in Medford, Oregon. He or she is entitled to his or her opinion, but is not entitled to erroneous information. The 1929 film was nominated for only one Oscar (Art Direction) and won. There was no second nomination involved, let alone a second win.

meaningful film
When I was growing up, this was the first movie other than superficial entertainment that I ever saw. I was so impressed with all the moral implications and human emotions, that I never forgot it ! Seeing it again, after all these years, I found itevery bit as gripping, and the D V D made it even more enjoyable. Of special note is the acting of a great actor, Francis Lederer.

Possibly the worst adaptation ever made of a great novel!
This truly awful movie uses Thornton Wilder's name over the title so you will believe the story that unfolds is Wilder's. Not so! The film bears virtually no resemblance to the novel. Characters are changed beyond recognition, and the story line of the movie might as well have come from some potboiler written by a hack writer (and I'm certain some hack screenwriter wrote the film!). All the great ideas Wilder brilliantly dramatized in the novel have been jettisoned for lurid melodrama badly acted by an almost totally forgettable cast. That this travesty of a film should be released in any format when far more deserving films are left begging shows that someone isn't using their noodle. The first film of this great book was done in 1929 and won two of the first technical Oscars. That film (from MGM) is now unfortunately obsolete. This DVD version not only deserves no awards whatsoever, but should be made instantly obsolete. Don't even bother to rent this movie. Read the book instead.

Excellent Allegory
What was a boring book to read in school several (several) years ago is now available on DVD/VHS.

This version is very true to the stories of the book, keeping track of all the participants from their intoduction until they perish at the infamous bridge.

It is not a terror-laden nail biter of today's standard, but an interesting character study of people, places and events that can (and will) change our lives...You even forget that it's in black and white. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Paul Muni's Oscar winning performance as Louis Pasteur
The 1930s were very much the glory day of Hollywood bio-pics, a fact amply evidenced by "The Story of Louis Pasteur" a 1936 production from Warner Brothers. Paul Muni in his Oscar winning role plays the French scientist who had to convince a skeptical scientific community that germs were the cause of disease. The one thing that can be said for modern science is that at least they are not dogmatic enough to threaten their opponents with execution, so this is not exactly a replay of the story of Galileo before the Inquistion. The scene where Pasteur instructs his chief opponent Dr. Charbonnet (Fritz Leiber) on how to wash his hands to prepare for surgery seems so strange when you consider that everybody today knows what doctors are supposed to do, it is so ingrained in both medical practice and popular culture.

The film tells of a time when science was about to achieve its ascendancy, which is ironic because in today's world of the Internet, that which is true is not scientific fact but rather that which is more easily accessible. "The Story of Louis Pastuer" is one of fighting each battle twice, for he not only has to find a cure for anthrax and rabies, he has to convince the scientific community that he is right. The fact that we know Pasteur is right does not take away from the drama of the story, and it does not hurt to be reminded of society's immense capability for stubbornly insisting on being stupid in the fact of evidence of a brave new world.

"The Story of Louis Pasteur" also won a couple of Oscars for the screenplay by Pierre Collings and Sheridan Gibney, but lost out on the Best Picture award. It is the sort of picture that can inspire younger viewers to think about what can be accomplished in the world of science and can certainly claim to be educational in terms of teaching us about how to prevent and cure disease. The film is filled with noted character actors in supporting roles, such as Akim Tamiroff as Dr. Zaranoff and Halliwell Hobbes as Dr. Lister, but I especially like the performance of Henry O'Neill as Dr. Emile Roux, who publicly challenges Pasteur on the question of the anthrax vaccine and does not bat an eye on changing his views when he is proven wrong.

However, ultimately this is Muni's film, when he was considered the premier actor of his generation. The actor would team up again with director William Dieterle two years later on another bio-pic, "The Life of Emile Zola." I think Muni's performance is a bit better in that film, mainly because Zola gets to give a very impassioned speech during his trial, but of course once you win an Oscar for playing a French national hero it is hard to get comparable acclaim for doing it again so soon.

An amazing story about a towering figure in history!
This movie not only powerfully tells the story of one of the greatest minds in human history, but of the ordeals of one of history's greatest human spirits. The Story of Louis Pasteur didn't just teach me about Pasteur's brilliant insights and scientific accomplishments - it portrayed the incredible drama of a man who doggedly fought for truth and the relief of human suffering against incredible opposition, ridicule, and derision. Einstein said that "great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from men with mediocre minds" and no truer words could be spoken about Pasteur and his career. His bravery and self-sacrifice as portrayed in this classic movie could not be more poignant or inspirational. A must see for everyone!

An excellent telling of this amazing scientist's story
An entertaining and reasonably accurate depiction of the triumph of Louis Pasteur over the entrenched naysayers in the French medical establishment of the day. The movie covers his support of the germ theory of disease and early efforts at antisepsis, but mostly focuses on his development of vaccines for anthrax and rabies. I can't think of another person in the history of biology and medicine who had a greater impact upon the human condition than this man. He laid the groundwork for modern microbiology as well as scientific method. This is a really entertaining movie that has you rooting for the focused and determined Pasteur through all of the ridicule and derision of the medical "luminaries" of 19th century France. A great movie for anyone with an interest in microbiology, medicine, or epidemiology, but just a terrific story for everyone.

Paul Muni: The Master of Historical Biography
Just as the world of science and medicine owes a debt to Louis Pasteur for his cures of anthrax and rabies so does the world of entertainment owe a similar debt to Paul Muni for dramatising the work of a much reviled French chemist in THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR. Director William Dieterle brought to the screen the essence of a man who was not afraid to speak out against the political correctness of his day, as collectively symbolized by the French Academy of Medicine who refused to see the very evident proof of Pasteur's claims that he lay right under their arrogant noses. Dieterle and Muni were to collaborate again one year later in filming the life of yet another great Frenchman in THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA. Pasteur, as Muni plays him, is a doctor who insists that cleanliness, if not next to godliness, is at least next to safety during surgery. The louder Pasteur claims that unwashed surgeons' hands and unsterilized scalpels cause patients to die with infection, the more viciously he is attacked by the Academy, symbolized by the haughty Dr. Charbonnet (Fritz Leiber). Pasteur later finds a cure for anthrax, and one would think that Charbonnet and the other Academy members would recognize Pasteur's genius, but even after a conclusive experiment proves his claims, his colleagues still ridicule him. It is only when Pasteur finds a cure for rabies that even the nearsighted Academy must hail his results.
THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR is the kind of movie bio that lets you know from the first scene that the hero will meet and later overcome considerable obstacles on the way to an upbeat ending. Dieterle was old-fashioned enough to end the film on a rousing call by Pasteur to the younger generation of scientists and doctors to work ceaselessly to find cures for mankind's illnesses. Muni won an Oscar for Best Actor and the film won a Best Story oscar. Further, it was nominated for Best Picture. At the closing credits, what I took away from this inspiring film was the assurance that whenever highly placed doubters say that a thing which may help humanity cannot be, there will always be a Pasteur to argue otherwise.

Fighting The Establishment
Paul Muni stars in another one of his famous biographical roles, this time as scientist Louis Pasteur. Pasteur became famous for his involvement, in among other things, demanding that doctors sterilize their instruments and wash their hands, in finding a vaccine for anthrax, and developing a treatment for rabies. In this film, we see how Pasteur struggled not only with the science behind these issues, but also with the medical establishment that did not want to give credit to a mere scientist. Muni is very good in the title role, impatient, demanding, wise, and impassioned at various moments. The screenplay manages to take a topic that could have easily been made boring (a scientist staring into a microscope looking for germs) and makes it great entertainment instead. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Paul Muni's Oscar winning performance as Louis Pasteur
The 1930s were very much the glory day of Hollywood bio-pics, a fact amply evidenced by "The Story of Louis Pasteur" a 1936 production from Warner Brothers. Paul Muni in his Oscar winning role plays the French scientist who had to convince a skeptical scientific community that germs were the cause of disease. The one thing that can be said for modern science is that at least they are not dogmatic enough to threaten their opponents with execution, so this is not exactly a replay of the story of Galileo before the Inquistion. The scene where Pasteur instructs his chief opponent Dr. Charbonnet (Fritz Leiber) on how to wash his hands to prepare for surgery seems so strange when you consider that everybody today knows what doctors are supposed to do, it is so ingrained in both medical practice and popular culture.

The film tells of a time when science was about to achieve its ascendancy, which is ironic because in today's world of the Internet, that which is true is not scientific fact but rather that which is more easily accessible. "The Story of Louis Pastuer" is one of fighting each battle twice, for he not only has to find a cure for anthrax and rabies, he has to convince the scientific community that he is right. The fact that we know Pasteur is right does not take away from the drama of the story, and it does not hurt to be reminded of society's immense capability for stubbornly insisting on being stupid in the fact of evidence of a brave new world.

"The Story of Louis Pasteur" also won a couple of Oscars for the screenplay by Pierre Collings and Sheridan Gibney, but lost out on the Best Picture award. It is the sort of picture that can inspire younger viewers to think about what can be accomplished in the world of science and can certainly claim to be educational in terms of teaching us about how to prevent and cure disease. The film is filled with noted character actors in supporting roles, such as Akim Tamiroff as Dr. Zaranoff and Halliwell Hobbes as Dr. Lister, but I especially like the performance of Henry O'Neill as Dr. Emile Roux, who publicly challenges Pasteur on the question of the anthrax vaccine and does not bat an eye on changing his views when he is proven wrong.

However, ultimately this is Muni's film, when he was considered the premier actor of his generation. The actor would team up again with director William Dieterle two years later on another bio-pic, "The Life of Emile Zola." I think Muni's performance is a bit better in that film, mainly because Zola gets to give a very impassioned speech during his trial, but of course once you win an Oscar for playing a French national hero it is hard to get comparable acclaim for doing it again so soon.

An amazing story about a towering figure in history!
This movie not only powerfully tells the story of one of the greatest minds in human history, but of the ordeals of one of history's greatest human spirits. The Story of Louis Pasteur didn't just teach me about Pasteur's brilliant insights and scientific accomplishments - it portrayed the incredible drama of a man who doggedly fought for truth and the relief of human suffering against incredible opposition, ridicule, and derision. Einstein said that "great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from men with mediocre minds" and no truer words could be spoken about Pasteur and his career. His bravery and self-sacrifice as portrayed in this classic movie could not be more poignant or inspirational. A must see for everyone!

An excellent telling of this amazing scientist's story
An entertaining and reasonably accurate depiction of the triumph of Louis Pasteur over the entrenched naysayers in the French medical establishment of the day. The movie covers his support of the germ theory of disease and early efforts at antisepsis, but mostly focuses on his development of vaccines for anthrax and rabies. I can't think of another person in the history of biology and medicine who had a greater impact upon the human condition than this man. He laid the groundwork for modern microbiology as well as scientific method. This is a really entertaining movie that has you rooting for the focused and determined Pasteur through all of the ridicule and derision of the medical "luminaries" of 19th century France. A great movie for anyone with an interest in microbiology, medicine, or epidemiology, but just a terrific story for everyone.

Paul Muni: The Master of Historical Biography
Just as the world of science and medicine owes a debt to Louis Pasteur for his cures of anthrax and rabies so does the world of entertainment owe a similar debt to Paul Muni for dramatising the work of a much reviled French chemist in THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR. Director William Dieterle brought to the screen the essence of a man who was not afraid to speak out against the political correctness of his day, as collectively symbolized by the French Academy of Medicine who refused to see the very evident proof of Pasteur's claims that he lay right under their arrogant noses. Dieterle and Muni were to collaborate again one year later in filming the life of yet another great Frenchman in THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA. Pasteur, as Muni plays him, is a doctor who insists that cleanliness, if not next to godliness, is at least next to safety during surgery. The louder Pasteur claims that unwashed surgeons' hands and unsterilized scalpels cause patients to die with infection, the more viciously he is attacked by the Academy, symbolized by the haughty Dr. Charbonnet (Fritz Leiber). Pasteur later finds a cure for anthrax, and one would think that Charbonnet and the other Academy members would recognize Pasteur's genius, but even after a conclusive experiment proves his claims, his colleagues still ridicule him. It is only when Pasteur finds a cure for rabies that even the nearsighted Academy must hail his results.
THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR is the kind of movie bio that lets you know from the first scene that the hero will meet and later overcome considerable obstacles on the way to an upbeat ending. Dieterle was old-fashioned enough to end the film on a rousing call by Pasteur to the younger generation of scientists and doctors to work ceaselessly to find cures for mankind's illnesses. Muni won an Oscar for Best Actor and the film won a Best Story oscar. Further, it was nominated for Best Picture. At the closing credits, what I took away from this inspiring film was the assurance that whenever highly placed doubters say that a thing which may help humanity cannot be, there will always be a Pasteur to argue otherwise.

Fighting The Establishment
Paul Muni stars in another one of his famous biographical roles, this time as scientist Louis Pasteur. Pasteur became famous for his involvement, in among other things, demanding that doctors sterilize their instruments and wash their hands, in finding a vaccine for anthrax, and developing a treatment for rabies. In this film, we see how Pasteur struggled not only with the science behind these issues, but also with the medical establishment that did not want to give credit to a mere scientist. Muni is very good in the title role, impatient, demanding, wise, and impassioned at various moments. The screenplay manages to take a topic that could have easily been made boring (a scientist staring into a microscope looking for germs) and makes it great entertainment instead. ... Read more

Description

(1956-USA). With BASIL RATHBONE, AKIM TAMIROFF, LON CHANEY JR., JOHN CARRADINE, BELA LUGOSI, TOR JOHNSON. A parade of Hollywoods top horror stars appears in this fast-paced and exciting tale of a mad doctor who performs brain surgery on unwilling victims. The story begins in a dark cell of Newgate Prison in London of 1872. Sir Joel Cadman is an eminent surgeon who is visiting Dr. Gordon Ramsey, a former student who has been condemned to death by hanging for murder. The execution is set for the following morning. Cadman puts a potion called "the black sleep" into a cup and instructs Ramsey to take the drug early the next morning. The drug suspends Ramseys life functions and he is declared legally dead. With the help of a conniving gypsy named Odo, Ramseys "corpse" is delivered to Cadmans offices where he is revived. In appreciation of this gift of life, Ramsey agrees to assist Cadman in a series of experimental brain surgeries. They travel to a remote gothic castle where Cadman introduces his new associate to a most fearful bunch of characters. There is a deranged cretin (acted with all the right moves by Lon Chaney) and a frail mute servant (played by a weakened and elderly Bela Lugosi just a few months before his death). Another resident (played by John Carradine at his most outrageous) is a raving lunatic who thinks he is fighting the Crusades. One scream follows another as some of these unfortunates find themselves the unwilling subjects of Cadmans inhuman endeavors in this unholy house of terror. 82 minutes. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Wanna smile with a warm feeling?
I never forgot this movie after having seen it 30 years ago. When its title was found while searching amongst Danny's films I remembered the story as if it was yesterday. I immediately purchased a copy to show my family, and my son watched it a second time immediately.
As a Jew in France during the Nazi period, Danny's Jacobowsky is in very great danger, out of necessity he teams with a Polish colonel to leave France. The "HOW" of this is humorous(!) and heart-warming. The Jurgens' Colonel and Kay's Jacobowsky compliment each other wonderfully; one is brave the other not, one is clever the other not, one is handsome the other not, one is sensible the other not, etc.
You'll smile time after time throughout the movie!

Delightful!
I love watching Danny Kaye movies! I was not at all disappointed with this one! A taste of what the Europeans went though in WWII. A little suspense. A little love. Some funny situations. Very enjoyable! ... Read more

Description

Film adaptation of Hervey Allen's bestselling novel of a young man with a tragic past who grows up carrying out adventures across 19th-century Europe, Cuba and Africa. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Adventure and Romance
ANTHONY ADVERSE is a good movie with lots of adventure and romance. It has a strong cast boasting some of the best actors from the pre-World War II era such as Fredric March, Olivia de Haviland, Claude Rains, Louis Hayward and Akim Tamiroff. Much is said about the miscasting of Fredric March but he looks suitable enough to me in the role of Anthony Adverse.

Gale Sondergaard collected an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. The film also won Oscars for Cinematography, Score and Editing as well as Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Art Direction and Assistant Director (William Cannon).

Mervyn Leroy directed some classic movies including LITTLE CAESAR and MISTER ROBERTS. Although not quite in that same lofty category, ANTHONY ADVERSE certainly merited all of the awards and recognition it managed to garner in 1936. The main competition for Oscars in that year came from THE GREAT ZIEGFIELD, THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR and MR. DEEDS GOES TO TOWN.

A waste of talent and money
Everytime I cast a glance at an old copy of Hervey Allen's "Anthony Adverse" in my father's library I ask myself: to read or not to read? Now my question has been answered when this film was brodcast. At the start it looks very promising. Claude Rains enjoys himself in the role of a conceited nobleman. The peacock turns into a cuckold. He kills his rival in a duel and puts the fruit of his wife's sin away. Little Anthony Adverse grows up in a convent. Aged 10, the angel-faced boy serves an apprenticeship in his grandfather's household...Sounds like rollicking good fun a la "Tom Jones"? No chance: The boy grows up to become Fredric March. The actor was so annoyed at the habit of his studio to cast him mostly in historic parts that he wears the constant expression of a man so displeased with the dish they served him that he summoned the waiter to complain...We get to see Italy as imagined by a Hollywood art-director: neglected backyards with goats. His grandfather sends him to Havana. No time to marry his sweetheart Angela (Olivia de Havilland), and her farewell-letter is literally "gone with the wind".

Now comes the part of the film others may call "politically incorrect". I call it repellent: Anthony witnesses the whipping of a slave. He saves the priest who tried to prevent it. A "breach of etiquette" in the eyes of his new business-partners: slave-traders. Anthony himself becomes one. I feel it is my duty to warn parents who think that this is just a harmless old history film: the most repugnant scene shows the sale of human flesh - shot by the cameraman, in a flight of fancy, from between the spread legs of one of the victims. Anthony returns to Europe and finds Angela and their son. Angela has become a famous opera-singer and the mistress of Napoleon Bonaparte. Since a man of such impeccable character as Anthony can not marry a woman with a past she renounces her rights to the child who will follow the footsteps of his father...

Such a waste of talent and money! Such expensive sets for scenes that last no longer than one or two minutes...The film runs like a quick thumb through the novel. Needless to say, neither suspense nor empathy can evolve from this story. There is a sheet-anchor: the supporting cast. Olivia de Havilland, Claude Rains, Gale Sondergaard, Edmond Gwenn. But March's monotonous acting crushes the film. I'm glad to have seen it, though. I wasted just two hours of my life. Reading the novel might have cost me two weeks...

Astonishing Mentality in This "Classic"
I had looked forward to seeing this movie being a fan of nearly all of the cast but I was taken aback by some of the goings on here!! First the two leads are badly cast. Fredric March was almost forty and looked it yet he plays a teenager and very young man for much of the picture with a ridiculous blond wig (to "resemble" his mother) on top of everything. Olivia DeHavilland isn't believable at all as a poor Spanish girl. These are both wonderful actors and they try their best but still are wanting. The mentality of this picture is pretty amazing in 2003. One of March's "adventures" includes slave trading (!!) and despite concerned words from his priest friend this stint in his life is pretty much condoned.

The ending is jaw-dropping too (don't read this paragraph if you want to be surprised by the ending) with the villains unpunished and poor Olivia, forced into being a kept woman by her abandonment (kept by Napoleon no less!) turning down the chance to be permanently reunited with Fredric after a brief happy reunion so that Frederic won't have to have a "fallen woman" for a wife and plan that Freddy agrees with surprisingly fast considered how he has supposed to have been pining for her for years.

The supporting cast is excellent and there are two surprises. Warners starlet Anita Louise completely dominates the first 20 minutes of the movie and she is excellent. Anita was usually cast in throwaway second lead parts. And then there is the magnificent character actress Gale Sondergaard. She won the Best Supporting Actress Academy Award for this picture and I really looked forward to seeing her in it. What a shock to see her part is a small bit of no real consequence and in no way a showcase for her talents. She certainly deserved the award for other films but this is hardly one of her best performances.

That ending to the March/DeHavilland match really floored me and I would have liked this picture a lot better had the movie had as much sympathy to Mrs. Adverse's plight as it did to Mr. Adverse.

Anthony Adverse
I basically agree with other critics that this is a beautifully constructed film. Some "modern" directors would do well to study it carefully. It does something that most films do not do today, it entertains. The story has already been outlined by previous reviewers so I will not repeat it. However, one thing has not been mentioned and that is the wonderful black and white photography. It was made at a time when black and white had just about gone as far as it could go. I should also mention the music. It is simply superb and adds immensely to the telling of the story.
I agree that Fredric March was a little too old but he was such
a great actor that it is very soon overlooked. I have seen this film at least 5 times and shall probably view it many more times.

The substance of a soul
Movie based on the blockbuster epic by Hervey Allen. Tells the story of Anthony Adverse, so named because he is a child of adverse circumstances, the product of an illicit union between Denis Moore, a handsome young cavalry officer, and Maria, the beautiful teenage bride of Don Luis, a cunning, middle-age Spanish nobleman. When Don Luis discovers Maria is pregnant he knows it cannot be his since he has just recovered from painful gout which prevented consummation of their recent marriage. Maria is whisked to the Alps, but enroute at an inn/tavern they are intercepted by Denis, who has been in hot pursuit of his ladylove, whom he has promised to take to America and marry. A confrontation between the two men occurs and Denis dies in the duel that follows. Witnessing the demise of her lover, Maria becomes mentally catatonic; Don Luis delivers her to the Alps, where she dies in childbirth. So lies the unfortunate and scandalous beginnings from which Anthony first comes into this world. Nevertheless, his tragic yet romantic origins are more than matched by the eventful life which awaits him--raised and spiritually nurtured at a convent in Italy where a Father educates and enlightens him; a grand romance with Angela Giuseppe, his great love whom he loves and then loses only to find again to have to sadly give her up; a job with an international shipping firm which takes him from continent to continent and introduces him to several people who greatly impact his life and being. One of the most disturbing yet fascinating aspect is the moral dilemmas Anthony faces while in Africa--everything from slavery to colonialism, animal lust for a seductive native to his "pure" love for Angela, morality and humanity to the meaning of life. The other fascinating aspect deals with the esoteric and universal question of "who am I?" in Anthony's heartrending search for his identity, but is left unresolved since he never discovers his origins and sails off to America with his recently-discovered son by Angela to start a new life, the way Denis, had fate not intervened, planned to do with the pregnant Maria decades before.

I thought the casting was somewhat off: Fredric March seemed a little too old and sedate for the restless, adventurous Adverse (Errol Flynn could have played him well with his persona and background and given he was a Warner Bros. contractee) and Olivia de Havilland in an underdeveloped part is too delicately lovely and wholesome to embody Angela's ways and robust Italian beauty. However, both were skilled enough to be convincing. Claude Rains was terrific as usual as the callous Don Luis, and Louis Hayward as Denis and Anita Louise as Maria were their one-dimensional, usual bland selves in their limited roles. An engrossing film with just one hitch: you'd better read the book after, not before, if you plan to and haven't done so already since the movie captures just a hint of the novel's breadth and depth. Believe it or not, this is just a brief summation--Jack Warner once said about this book, "Read it? Hell, I can't even lift it!" I also thought that instead of the movie ending with Anthony sailing off to the New World, it could've been a far more mesmerizing tale if it had continued on with his experiences once there to his abrupt, tragic death still never knowing his origins, as in the book. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

A restrained treat
Of course this film is not explicit by current standards- it was released in 1968. If blatant expliciteness is what you want, you're looking at entirely the wrong decade. I still find this to be a most erotic movie. Romina Power is really very cute. The scenes of her chained and naked have given me quite a lot of pleasure. Depending on who you believe, she was either 16, 17 or 18 when this film was made. Whatever her age, in this film she had the most delightfully pert and un-enhanced late teen breasts. I've not seen a pair like it in real life or the media for ages. Ah, the memories! Nice close-ups of her bare feet, too.

Pretty Poor
If you are expecting an S&M feast, you will be dissapointed. I fast forwarded through most of this movie. Granted the lead actress is very atractive, but the "good" scenes are shrowded in this annoying green and red light. not worth it to be honest.

Mildly erotic tale, semi-explicit for the times.
This tale, like Eugenie, Her Journey Into Perversion, isn't bad, and fairly explicit, for the late 60's, but is still pretty tame, by today's standards. Has a weird appearance by Jack Palance, as a mad monk, or something. Also, a limited appearance by the late Klaus Kinski. Limited nudity and sex, but hey, what can one expect-it's fairly low budget. There are interviews and other features for the "technically" minded. Worth a look, but not worth the price I paid for it, or the other one-Eugenie. Minimal relation to the works of De Sade; which they, both, are supposed to be based on.

Fast forward review
For sex sleaze fans, any more sleaze on the DVD than on the tape? Nope, sorry, same scenes. The quality is very nice, so you'll never see the hankerchief-sniffing branding scene looking so good.

One thing I noticed in fast-forwarding through this awful thing (nice DVD advantage there), is that aside from the "M" scene there's really not much. The sixteen year-old Romina is stunningly cute, and you can clip the pictures of her hanging from a chain leaking poor quality Franco fake blood and doing a "Pretty Baby" couch turn, but the green and red lighting is actually not very erotic.

Most other sexploitation flicks have a lot more graphic nastiness, but the branding scene is a must, there's no question about that. One star for that, and one star for brief lolita Romina nudity, that's it.

Fun seeing Jack Palance soused --
As director Jesus Franco says in an accompanying interview, Jack Palance would start guzzling red wine at 7 in the morning the days his scenes were to be filmed, and BOY, can you tell it in the finished product! There are lots of pretty scenes, photography, costumes, people, etc., but it's mostly a bore. I recommend EUGENIE DE SADE for anyone dipping their toe into Franco .... ... Read more

Description

"Outpost in Morocco" is a sweeping adventure and love story about a womanizing French officer (George Raft) stationed in the North African Foreign Legion who finds true love in the form of a spunky, independent daughter of a local Sultan (Marie Windsor). Long available in only poor quality home video releases, "Outpost in Morocco" has been transfer from the finest materials for this stunning new remastered version. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

OUTHOUSE IN MOROCCO
A RATHER LONG DRAWN OUT STORY, SOME BATTLE ACTION. LEGION IS HOLLYWOOD TYPE, NO LEGION MUSIC, A FEW LAUGHS FROM AKIM TAMIROFF. RAFT IS TO SERIOUS AND RATHER BORING. SAD ENDING JUST LIKE THE LEGION IN THE THE MOVIE. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

OUTHOUSE IN MOROCCO
A RATHER LONG DRAWN OUT STORY, SOME BATTLE ACTION. LEGION IS HOLLYWOOD TYPE, NO LEGION MUSIC, A FEW LAUGHS FROM AKIM TAMIROFF. RAFT IS TO SERIOUS AND RATHER BORING. SAD ENDING JUST LIKE THE LEGION IN THE THE MOVIE. ... Read more

Reviews (34)

ORSON IN TOTALITARIANLAND
With an international cast involving Jeanne Moreau, Romy Schneider, Anthony Perkins, Fernand Ledoux and Michael Lonsdale, Orson Welles gave in 1961 a very personal version of Franz Kafka's THE TRIAL. The labyrinthic and anonymous world Joseph K. is living in has undoubtedly visually inspired Terry Gilliam for BRAZIL Look at Joseph K's office or think of the first scene of THE TRIAL when Anthony Perkins is awaking.

The outside scenes of THE TRIAL have been shot in Zagreb or in the middle of the suburbs of Paris, amidst anonymous buildings. The production design is one of the main characters of the movie and one has a little shock the first time Anthony Perkins is getting up from his bed : his head is nearly touching the ceiling. On the contrary, observe the huge doors of the courtroom that are destined to oppress the poor accused people.

The filmography of Orson Welles being so short, you must have this DVD in your library if you're interested in movies. The DVD presented by Image offers as bonus feature a teaser and a little presentation of the movie. No subtitles at all. Good images but a very poor sound.

An Orson W. DVD.

Quite a treat!
"Say what you like, but THE TRIAL is the best film I ever made!" So says Orson Welles of his 1962, underrated masterpiece THE TRIAL, taken from Franz Kafka's legendary novel of the same name, the story concerns Josef K, (Anthony Perkins in a world class performance) a bank clerk arrested and put on trial for an unspecified crime. The liquid tracking shots and receding perspectives familiar from TOUCH OF EVIL are refined here and more at home with the narrative of THE TRIAL. Welles' editing is also more distinctive and expressive, as K's world begins to reel faster and faster out of control, the editing itself transforms from the long takes in the beginning to more frenzic cutting giving certain scenes an oddly affecting flow. The exteriors are notably different from scene to scene, some Italian, some Yugoslavian, some Parisian, but all effective and creepily disorienting. The casting is also a plus: Romy Schneider as a seducing nurse who jumps on Josef t! he first chance she gets, Jeanne Moreau as a world-weary nighclub stripper with whom Josef is smitten, Orson himself as The Advocate, Akim Tamiroff as his client/slave, and Perkins, in a bit of casting that many people didn't understand, is truly a marvel and a revelation. With every facial expression and movement of his body he paints a portrait of man who on the surface strikes a cutting, heroic stance, but in private is really like all other people in his impatience with uncomfortable circumstances. He avoids the tempting opportunity to provide sympathy to K, as his plight grows more chaotic, his demeanor becomes more testy, and that's as it should be. Critics apparently wanted a nullingly straight rendition from the novel, but Welles, Perkins and the rest of the crew thankfully didn't oblige them. They find the perfect balance between a daring cinematic adaptation without sacrificing the spirit of the novel. While it's not his best, this is better than alot of Welles'! films, . 1. The Magnificent Ambersons 2. Falstaff 3. The ! Trial

Samir Roy END

Guilty!
What is Joseph K guilty of? There are a number of possibilities, none of which I will suggest here. I don't want to be guilty of ruining the fun of figuring that out for yourself. This movie is Welles at his brilliant best. Many great directors seem to have a trio of films that represent their greatest work. With Welles, those three seem to be Citizen Kane, Touch of Evil and The Trial. The Magnificent Ambersons wsa murdered by the studio and an editor sent in to hack together a new ending. But the Welles directed part is so good I guess it has to rank with the above mentioned three. Then there is Othello, ruined by poor funding; but is it a wreck of a movie? I guess it belongs with the above mentioned four. Forgive me, I guess I'm guilty of digressing, as well as assuming that one can pick three of Welles's movies that stand out from his other work. What I can say about The Trial is that Welles had enough money to make his ideas work as they should on screen. When a Welles movie has enough money to cover technical costs the movie is usually great. The Trial is no exception. The Milestone DVD is a little costly; but you get an excellent looking transfer, which is all you really need to make this movie worth owning.

A great adaptation of Kafka's book
The Trial is Orson Welles' adaptation of the Franz Kafka novel of the same name. It follows the story of Josef K., a man who finds himself in a nightmarish version of reality he neither understands, nor can escape from. It begins with Josef K. (played by Anthony Perkins) being awakened by police officers, who refuse to tell him the crime he's accused of. He's placed under arrest, but not taken into custody - they allow him to continue his "normal" life. Instead, he is taken away at bizarre moments to appear in court, which is a distorted mockery of the concept of justice. There is no judge, no jury, no stated charges, no burden of proof, no lawyers, and no one that assumes impartiality or responsibility. When Josef K. asks for a lawyer, he's told it's not necessary, since it's an "informal" questioning. After the "court" appearance, Josef K. goes to enlist "the Advocate" to defend him. The Advocate (played by Orson Welles) is portrayed as a demi-god of legal access and information not available to the common man - to be worshiped and feared at all costs, since without him, they are nothing. However, in the end, Josef K. is sentenced and eventually executed for these elusive crimes.
The Trial is a merging of the existential philosophies of Kafka with the cinematic genius of Welles. Josef K. is not a particularly empathetic character - he's weak, morally flexible, and passively pushed along this nightmare. In either ending, (the book or the film), Josef K. doesn't fight against his fate, or meekly accepts it. It embodies the existentialist view that Josef K.'s nightmare prison is one of his own making, and therefore only he is responsible for its injustices. Welles adds his own perspective in the sense that it reflected the subversive tactics of those in power around the judicial system during that time - a very Marxist perspective in the face of the McCarthy era, where the HUAC had frightening similarities to the nightmare court.
Overall, it's a film with many possible interpretations and meanings - that are neither right nor wrong, but dependent on the audience's own observations. Like most of Welles' and Kafka's work - you can either take it at face value, or as an intellectual piece - either way, it's a well done cinematic accomplishment.

Not much into the " noir " style of film making.
This film is dark in more ways than one. My copy was way dark. Of course it is emotionally dark also. Didn't much like the novel in college & my opinion hasn't improved. It was a pain to sit through it. This subject has so much promise but not with a depressive like Kafka. One of Welles lesser films to be sure. But one extra star for Welles portayal of the advocate, the best thing in this film. ... Read more

Reviews (16)

How many Mr. Arkadins are there?
Viewing Orson Welles' film "Mr. Arkadin today is an experience similar to that the characters in his complex films would feel if they were real-mystery, confusion, frustration, fascination. Except for "Citizen Kane" and "The Trial" every one of Welles' movies--every one he completed that is--was taken over by its financial backers and reedited beyond comprehension. "Mr. Arkadin" is one of his most cryptic works not only because it was taken from its creator and reshaped, but because it was apparently reshaped several time by several different people. We don't have only one bastardized version, but several, at least 3. And according to Welles himself as quoted in Peter Bogdonavich's book "This is Orson Welles", none of these was even close to the story he wanted to tell. So "who is Mr. Arkardin?" is as pertinent a question when asked in the context of the film's story as it is when discussing the film itself. I myself have seen two distinct versions. One, a VHS tape of the "European" release of the film, re-titled "Confidential Report", the other this DVD Laserlight release of the later US release edit. Of the two, "Confidential Report" had the better edit and was also transfered from a much better print. This DVD version is certainly priced right, however--cant' beat Welles for under $4!

As for the film itself, in all its incarnations, "Arkadin" is a fascinating failure, obviously patched together on the run on a miniscule budget. The overall plot is intriguing (and begs to be remade from Orson's original script). A famous, mysterious billionaire, claiming amnesia, hires a sleazy golddigging bum to investigate his own past. To give away more would be evil, so I won't. Let's just say there are some clever twists and turns. Unfortunately, the film only works in spurts. There are quite a few masterful scenes, but they are only loosely connected, a s though only half the filming was completed and the movie had to be cobbled together at the last minute from what was on hand, whether it made sense or not. The awkward narration and many clumsy montages used to fill the gaps make this obvious.

Again, however, I must say that for movie lovers, film students, Welles freaks, or anyone else looking for something very different, you can't beat a Welles DVD for the price of a rental!

One of Welles' richest and most underrated fables
We will probably never know exactly what Orson Welles envisioned Mr. Arkadin to be, but even in its present state, it remains a commandable achievement and one of his most underrated films. His storytelling mastery is evident throughout, both in the sound and images. As in Citizen Kane, the main character's life is gradually explored, but this time it's the subject of the inquiry who started it himself; this brings the film in the territory of initiations and psychoanalysis. Seemingly to uncover his own past, Arkadin sends low-profile hood Guy Van Stratten in a complex initiatic quest, one in which the initiated is mostly lured by money and luxury. Like Kane, Arkadin takes shape mainly via other people's testimonies, and he undergoes his own type of initiation: for the very first time, he is stripped of the masks and disguises he always relied on, and he is scared at the perspective of his private self (his Jungian 'number 2' personality) being discovered by the only person he cares for. Fables are scattered throughout the film, and the movie itself is such a tale, Arkadin acting as its grand, imposing Ogre, a character possessing strange and far-reaching powers. His overbearing abilities are illustrated in various ways, notably through the film's rapidly changing settings (a device also used in The Trial). The work's depth can also be measured by this consideration: Mr. Arkadin's universe is a huge maze in which Arkadin himself is Minos, Dedalus and the Minotaur all at once. This dense, rich and dreamlike film has never really received its due.

Extremely good story but terrible picture quality
I bought Orson Welles Citizen Kane and liked it so I decided to watch other Welles movies. I bought Mr. Arkadin because the DVD is cheap and rated high on IMDB. I should have buyed Touch of Evil instead. The quality of the picture is laughable, sometimes there are glitches in the sound during scene changes. Judging by the picture and sound quality I would say that they used equipment from the 30's to shoot and edit the movie and that the print used for that transfer was stored in a refrigerator during 45 years. Welles directing work is good but obviously he had to deal with the poor quality of the European movie industry of the 50's. Sometimes the picture shake, during the opening credits the captions are white on a white or gray background so we can't read everything. The editing is very poor, there are too many scene changes. When I bought this DVD I expected to receive the LaserLight version, instead I got a DVD made by Alpha Video. The case cover is different and there is no supplemental material. He was mastered cheaply on a PC with the SpruceUp DVD Maestro software, that seem to create problems, each time I try to play the disc on my computer the FBI warning message appear and then the disc eject. I didn't notice any audio syncing problems however. This movie is the perfect candidate for a remake. I give **** for the story and * for the overall quality of the movie.

Third-rate Kane knockoff - by the man himself!
This film represents sort of an artistic low point for Welles. Presumably exhausted by his four-year ordeal of producing "Othello" and far removed from his Hollywood glory years, he attempted a comeback with this hodgepodge re-working of the "Citizen Kane" theme. The rich and mysterious Mr. Arkadin hires an investigator to research his past, presumably to keep his secrets away from his enemies. However, everyone interviewed by the private eye mysteriously dies! (This idea was realized more effectively in 1987's "Angel Heart"). Although this film showcases' Welles unique style far better than, say, "The Stranger," its utter lack of production values make the experience somewhat grueling. Welles shoots with a manic energy, but fails to reach the giddy heights of "The Lady from Shanghai" or the visual eloquence of "Othello." Fortunately, Welles gets some entertaining performances from his supporting cast, particularly Michael Redgrave as an effeminate shopkeeper and the ubiquitous Akim Tamiroff ("Touch of Evil's" Uncle Joe Grandi) as the kooky Jacob Zouk.

The Laserlight DVD transfer doesn't help matters. As noted, it's taken from a grainy, choppy, poorly synced public domain print. However, you do get an unintentionally funny Tony Curtis intro, as well as the chance to own a rarely seen Welles film for a budget price.

Poor quality ruins the experience
I am referring to the Laser Light dvd edition of this film, which promises the best digital transfer of the film. That is great, but they used the worst print anyone could concieve to transfer! I taped this off of television awhile back and decided to buy a dvd version and this is 100 times worse than the version I taped myself on the slowest speed off of late night tv! In reading other reviews it appears that there is a much better VHS version and I would recommend that over this. Do not be fooled like I was with the fine condition of Welles' "The Trial" by Laser Light or the pipe smoking picture packaging of this. This version of Arkardin is a total waste of money. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

OUTHOUSE IN MOROCCO
A RATHER LONG DRAWN OUT STORY, SOME BATTLE ACTION. LEGION IS HOLLYWOOD TYPE, NO LEGION MUSIC, A FEW LAUGHS FROM AKIM TAMIROFF. RAFT IS TO SERIOUS AND RATHER BORING. SAD ENDING JUST LIKE THE LEGION IN THE THE MOVIE. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

A First-Rate French Farce!
Based on a play, Hotel Paradiso is a classic, light-hearted, and absolutely delightful French farce set in turn-of-the-century Paris. The actual storyline is very basic (ie. a married man seeking an evening of romance with a married woman); indeed, it must be basic to possibly allow for the complexity of the situations in which the characters find themselves and each other, the misinterpretations, and the elaborate (and comical) explanations that result. Never was the phrase, "Oh what a tangled web we weave" more appropriate than when applied here.

There are two things that really make this production shine, however. First of all, there are no loose ends. Not only does every character have a role to play, but every single incident that occurs happens for a reason; no scenes have been included whimsically and without purpose. The story at times appears to be coming apart at the seams through misunderstandings and the entailing confusion, but such is in reality an intricately calculated illusion, for this is actually an extremely tightly-woven, carefully-controlled, and well-orchestrated production. It is thoroughly enjoyable for being so well-written, but it is all the more so for being so consummately acted by an ensemble which includes some of Britain's finest.

By way of introduction and to give some idea of what to expect, M. Boniface (superbly played by Alec Guinness) fancies his next-door neighbour's wife, Mme. Cote (Gina Lollobrigida). With Mme. Boniface (a battle-axe of a wife) away for the evening and M. Cote (an architect) away on business for the night, M. Boniface seizes the opportunity to instigate a romantic liaison with Mme. Cote. But where to meet? Well, Mme. Boniface has just received a flyer advertising the newly-opened (and disreputable) Hotel Paradiso. While telling her husband of this disgraceful hotel, Mme. Boniface gives the flyer to her maid, Victoire (a very young Ann Beach--Fresh Field's "Sonya") to dispose of. (Victoire, by the way, has taken a fancy to M. Cote's nephew Maxim (a very young Derek Fowlds--Yes Minister's "Bernard").) In short, M. Boniface has found a place for his tryst with Mme. Cote (unaware that it is to this hotel that M. Cote's business has taken him). As if that's not enough, M. Martin, a friend of the Bonifaces, has arrived unexpectedly with his four daughters, but he must now find a hotel as the Bonifaces haven't enough room. M. Martin overhears Mme. Cote as she confirms the name and address of the hotel and thinks she is recommending it to him. And so the stage is set for what can only be described as a very fast-paced (indeed frantic) and very, very funny evening. One final character that I ought to mention is the police inspector. The role is not a large one, but it's wonderfully played by the late Leonard Rossiter (Rising Damp, Reggie Perrin).

In conclusion, this is a splendid film, and it is sure to be enjoyed by fans of British comedy, for it is the stuff of which so much British comedy is made. It is well written, splendidly acted, and very funny--indeed, what more can one ask of a comedy? Highly recommended! ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Quite a mix
This particular DVD version of "The Stranger" would have been much better without several of the so-called "extras." First, that annoying Delta logo that pops up in the lower right hand corner every so often. That should be the first to go. Second, the bizarre introduction and endnotes from Tony Curtis. What is that about? Lastly, the puny "Orson Welles On Film" documentary left a lot to be desired. It was mostly still photographs of Welles in various poses and long movie clips with some bland narration. For a much better documentary of Welles' career, I recommend "The Battle Over Citizen Kane."

You may wonder why I mentioned all this before talking about the movie itself...well, all the bells and whistles were distracting. However, I did enjoy the movie itself. Edward G. Robinson does a fine job as the Nazi hunter who has tracked down a fugitive (Welles) to a small Conneticut town. Orson Welles gives a quietly sinister performance as Rankin/Kindler; even his little "Mm-hms" are chilling, and when he scowls and glares, it's pretty intimidating. Loretta Young gets a little shrill as Rankin's dim bulb wife, but gives an adequate performance.

In summary: the film is well worth watching, especially for fans of Orson Welles. If you're going to buy it for keeps, however, you may want to look for another version that is better quality.

Aptly Titled
'The Stranger' is certainly an appropriate title. The film IS a strange one for director/actor Orson Welles ' it was uncharacteristically completed on time and under budget. It is also a fairly straight-ahead thriller that just barely has the 'Welles touch.' In fact, compared to Welles' other work, it seems'well, ordinary.

Welles plays a Nazi war criminal who has found refuge as a professor in a sleepy college town. This is the type of town where nothing much ever happens and the owner of the town's general store knows everyone and everything about them. When Edward G. Robinson comes to town looking for 'antiques,' suspicions are aroused, especially Welles'.

The best parts of 'The Stranger' are the cat-and-mouse game between Welles and Robinson as well as the relationship between Welles and his new wife Loretta Young. The film still holds up as a good thriller, but not a great one. The second half of the film feels too manipulated. You might say, 'But Welles was a MASTER of manipulation,' and you'd be right. But the difference here is in the manipulation of supporting characters who aren't given sufficient room to develop or to think.

The commentary track by Jeffrey Lyons is, unfortunately, unremarkable. Lyons spends much of his commentary giving us a resume of each film the actors made, rather than discussing the merits and qualities of the film. I was hoping that someone with the knowledge and expertise that Lyons possesses would give us more.

Although not as good as other Welles films, every film lover should watch the film to catch glimpses of greatness from Welles, Robinson, and Young.

95 minutes

Well worth the admission price
A neat thriller from Welles. Perhaps his least ambitious film, but a good story well-told and well-acted.

Welles is the nazi war criminal hiding out in a small Connecticut town where he has become a valued member of the community.

Edward G Robinson, playing a good guy for a change, is the detective who tracks him down, and then has to prove who he is.

It isn't up there with Citizen Kane, or the Magnificent Ambersons, it isn't a movie that will have your jaw dropping at its extravagant brilliance and fire-work, box-of-tricks direction. But it is solid, it is entertaining and it is well-scripted.

Certainly any project with the Orson Welles stamp is worth watching and this, on its own terms, is a well-honed and interesting minor classic.

Welles is superb in the lead role. There's a wonderful bit of dialogue when his professorial nazi character is fielding questions on the German character. Somebody asks him about Karl Marx to disprove a point.

"Ah, but Marx wasn't a German, he was a jew," comes the telling response, delivered with such arrogance and conviction it makes you seethe.

Well worth the admission price.

Well-paced thriller, atypical of Welles' style
The quality of this DVD is adequate: more watchable than the other Welles "Laserlight Classics," but nowhere near as sharp as, say, the recent DVD releases of "Citizen Kane" or "The Third Man." The bizarro Tony Curtis introduction is perhaps worth the price of admission alone! The bonus documentary is fairly perfunctory, but does contain some interesting and rarely seen trailers of Welles films.

On to the movie itself: In a scenario reminiscient of (but far less effective than) Hitchcock's "Shadow of a Doubt," Edward G. Robinson pursues the title character (Welles), who may or may not be an escaped Nazi, through a sleepy Connecticut town. Although "The Stranger" illustrates Welles' concerns that World War II did not spell the end of fascism, the film is by his own admission more of an attempt at profitable Hollywood product than an artistic statement. Despite this and the film's failure to live up to the inevitable comparison's with "Shadow of a Doubt," "The Stranger" remains a well-paced thriller, more enjoyable when considered apart from the rest of Welles' oeuvre. The trademark Welles style is evident in the South American prologue and the drugstore scenes, and the film achieves genuine suspense during the "paper chase" scene and the grand finale.

A very good film-noir
This is a very good film and one of the lesser-known film-noirs. Orson Welles is an escaped Nazi war criminal named Franz Kindler who hides out in a bucolic Connecticut town under an assumed name. He believes he can finally put his dark past behind him since nobody knows his true identity. He becomes a teacher at a prep school for boys and marries the headmaster's pretty but very naive daughter Mary, played very well by Loretta Young. Edward G. Robinson is also terrific in his role as a war crimes commissioner on Kindler's trail who shows u