Amazon.com

Don't waste this one on your children: buy it for yourself. A spectacular adaptation of the Anna Sewell novel, this is faithful to the source material but creates a life of its own on the screen. Told from the point of view of the horse, it recalls a time and a place that could be both beautiful and cruel. Black Beauty faced both hardship and kindness as he passed through the hands of many owners throughout his life. Some are generous, but the agonies endured by the title character may be too harsh for small children. Unfortunately, director Caroline Thompson did not resurrect her magical touch a few years later with another animal tale, Buddy. --Rochelle O'Gorman ... Read more

Reviews (39)

A movie to be enjoyed by all.
I've been watching Black Beauty since it came out in 1994 when I was 9. The enchanting cinematography, thoughtful narration and beautiful horses stick in your mind long after the movies is finished. I've worn the tape out and recently bought it on DVD. I watched it immediately with friends who made fun of me. 19 and in love with a horsey movie?? Luckily I forced them to watch it and they were soon engrossed in the fabulous story. I have never read the book, but anyone who dislikes this movie because it isn't "true" to the novel is a sad person indeed. This is a great movie that can be enjoyed by horse lovers or even people who aren't that fond of horses. A good movie is a good movie, and Black Beauty will remain a timeless classic.

Beautiful movie for horse-lovers!
Black Beauty was one of the best movies I've ever seen! Docs Keepin Time was an excellent "actor". There was inhumane treatment of the animals and Ginger was so tragic. The horses had no say in anything and were abused yet they tried to please their masters. With kind masters they flourished and the ending was beautiful. The music was evocative and everything it this movie made me cry. (It was also an excellent book.)

The Best Movie Of All Time
Just like the first reviewer I have been watching this movie since I was 9 years old back in 1994. I am nighteen now and haven't seen the movie for a while but still remember it dearly as it was my most favorite movie on my shelf as a child and teen. I still have it even though it's worn quite a bit but I will show it to my kids. The movie always brings me to tears. I quote the first reviewer, "A good movie is a good movie, and Black Beauty will remain a timeless classic."

A bit boring. 15th april 2004.
Kids would probably enjoy it. It was quite good the first time i watched it then i thought it was a kiddy film, but anyone would normally like these sorts of films. Not me it isn't my type.

I'm sure kids will love it but adults be prepared
I love horses and will watch almost any movie with them in it. But because I work with them I am also sensitive to their correct portrayals in film.

Although lovingly filmed, with very pretty scenery, nice settings and good actors, this movie was disappointing. It was not its faithfulness to the book I call into question - a good movie adaptation will always have changes - but the style in which they were done.
Alan Cummings as the voice of Black Beauty was given an overly saccharine script in my opinion. Instead of giving the animal a realistic viewpoint, it was a whiny and naive portrayal. In a bizarre twist, Ginger was portrayed as Beauty's love interest, which I found completely incomprehensible, since Black Beauty is a) a gelding and b) it detracts from the true meaning of the story, which was that Ginger, a close companion during the best days of their youth together, was squandered and brought low by mens' cruelty.
I also found it jarring that none of the other horses were given voices of their own, especially the likes of Ginger and Merrylegs. They are portrayed interacting together at several points, yet while Black Beauty "speaks" during those times, he never refers to them speaking to him, nor do they ever speak directly in the film. It makes for an odd sense of dislocation, as you watch two horses acting out a scene together while the voice of one is reiterating the present happenings - without giving the other a viewpoint.

Despite the fact that it is Black Beauty's story, this film also succumbs to giving him a human character with whom he forms a "deep" relationship. I find it irritating that most movies whose main characters are supposed to be animals usually resort to enlarging or inventing a human character for them to have a special relationship with - presumably to give the story significance, or substance, to the audience. If the story is being told correctly, the audience should identify with the main character directly, not only through a human relationship.

Lastly, while some scenes were well done - notably Black Beauty's first experience with shoes - most of the horse scenes looked fake. Few and far between are the movies that portray horses in realistic ways. This is not one of them. The scenes with Ginger in pasture, when the two of them were reunited, were so obviously staged. Two horses, facing off camera, were being signalled to rear several times in a row. They were not even facing each other.
The action of the horses in harness was also lacking in realism. Neither horse traveled well in harness and when the bearing rein was supposedly put on, cranking their heads up, you couldn't tell the difference. When Ginger is stretching her neck out, supposedly in sympathy, it is another obvious horse trick - someone is holding a treat for her just off camera and she's stretching out her neck to get it.
Also, Doc's Keeping Time, the main equine actor, was signalled to perform an irritating trick of tossing his head around and up and down to indicate emotions. This is a bad habit for a horse to pick up and most people discourage it; beyond that it was irritating to watch because I knew it was a bad habit and therefore unrealistic, again, to the portrayal. Horses don't toss their heads around in that fashion when exhibiting such emotions.

Picturing Black Beauty lying down while he narrates his tale was also extremely irritating to me. Most horses do not lie down naturally or often; it was an unrealistic attempt to elicit an empathetic reaction from the audience. The only thing I could think was that a horse would never stay for long in that position.

The comic touches also fell flat. In addition, while I admire greatly any horse with the training and ability to perform such a demanding role, Doc's Keeping Time was the wrong physical type. The Black Beauty of that era was a thoroughbred and it is that type of horse which is needed to perform the roles of being a hunter and carriage horse with the correct style for the period. Doc's Keeping Time is an American Quarter Horse, and again, while I admire him greatly, the filmmakers should have spent some extra time or research finding an animal that better fit the role's requirements.
But the ending of the film was surprisingly good. For whatever reason, it touches an emotional chord. I recommend the film highly for children but for adults looking for a good horse movie - it will be amusing but probably disappointing. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Can I give it 10 stars?
This was a wonderful movie! It was beautifully acted, directed and produced. Unashamedly romantic. I cannot praise it enough. Tired of Hollywood's versions of love stories ala Jennifer Lopez, Julia Roberts and Jennifer Aniston? Watch this movie. You will become lost in another world, another time, another place. A totally original movie. Not to be missed!

Not to be missed!
This is one of the best British period romance/drama stories on film (a novel adapted to film) I've seen in a long time. In fact, I wish I could find more of the same caliber. The acting is superb, the scenery is beautiful, and the story is so engrossing that you'll want to see the whole thing in one sitting! I am indebted to all the reviewers whose ratings and comments inspired me to take a chance and order this two-video set because it is absolutely terrific and not to be missed!

The Best Made Movie for Her Collection
I consider this to be the best of Cathrine Cookson's stories. I found the wardrobe and settings to be true to the period We found those added to the plus features of the sotry. The actors were very good and no one can be wanting for a good story line to watch. We have most all the other movies made from her collection of fine writings. This one we have watched twice since receiving it only a few days ago.A sequeal to this movie would be well received.

Enthralling
I enjoyed every minute of this video. It had plenty of action without silly consequences for the characters decisions. I felt as if I was part of the story and the time flew by. I would have liked to see more. Any chance of a sequel to see how Mauel did with the glass factory?

Wonderful adaptation of Cookson's excellent novel!
Just as a another reviewer stated, I happened to chance upon this movie without even having heard of it before. And, I'll admit that at the time I was unfamiliar with Catherine Cookson. This is by far one of her most romantic book-turned-movies (The Glass Virgin novel is great too!) and was glad that I had the rare opportunity to catch it (while on vacation!) on the Romance Classics cable channel. The characters, costumes, scenery, plot, the whole story line is one to cherish over and over again with a loved one or even by yourself on a rainy day. Do not pass this movie (or book) by, I guarantee you will enjoy it! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Uncomfortably close to Ben Hecht and Alfred Hitchcock's film Notorious, this World War II drama (based on a novel by Susan Isaacs) concerns a love affair between a spy (Michael Douglas) and a secretary (Melanie Griffith) that goes south when duty turns him cold and pushes her into dangerous, behind-the-lines intelligence work. Liam Neeson plays the gentleman Nazi unwittingly providing Griffith with cover as domestic help. The best parts of the film are the twists and turns in the romance (Douglas is very good at playing a character who can turn off all feeling at will) at the beginning, while the German scenes are less compelling despite such high stakes for the heroine. The climax--taking us back to Notorious whether it wants to or not--is quite gripping, largely due to Douglas's performance. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Good, but bogged down slightly
This was an enjoyable movie, but unfortunately it had many, many plot holes that made liking it difficult.

A spy-movie-enthralled young woman named Linda Voss ("half Jewish, half Irish") gets a job with a man named Ed Leland whom she suspects is a spy. Before long, they are lovers, but their budding relationship is dashed by World War II. Before you can say "Berlin strudel" she's whisked off to Germany as an undercover operative, to discover secret plans in the house of a handsome and sympathetic Nazi (the always-good Liam Neeson)

One of the problems is Melanie Griffith. She might be good in other roles, but as Voss she fails. Voss comes across as amazingly lucky and none too intelligent, constantly licking her lips in a very distracting way. Michael Douglas is completely convincing as Ed Leland, although he looks slightly embarrassed sometimes. Liam Neeson and Joely Richardson are excellent in their smaller roles.

Second problem is the attitude of the heroes. When Voss does not show up in time for the rendezvous, Leland disregards orders in favor of carrying her to the Swiss Border. Though it may seem heartless, an actual spy would have followed his orders and left Voss to die. In fact, we see the evidently smarter Germans such as Neeson's Dietrich and Richardson's Margrete following their orders despite their personal feelings about Voss.

Watch the movie if you are interested, but do not expect great accuracy.

A good comedy -- a bad war drama
I think I might have enjoyed "Shining Through" more if I'd been drunk. This movie is a fantastic ensemble comedy, but I don't think they were trying to make one! The only redeeming points of the movie were Liam Neeson and Joely Richardson's performances as a pair of Nazis.

Melanie Griffith plays Linda Voss, a young woman of mixed Irish and Jewish ancestry in World War II. Because of her linguistic skills, she's hired as a translator for Ed Leland (Michael Douglas), who works for the government as a spy (he keeps denying it, but she's seen movies so she knows better!). They become lovers, until his work comes between them. But no sooner have they been reunited than a spy is needed to sneak into Germany to find some bomb-related plans.

She's accompanied into Germany by Konrad "Sunflower" Friedrichs (Sir John Gielgud, who looks like he's always thinking "What am I doing in this movie?") and his niece Margrete Von Eberstein (Joely Richardson). Her position as a chef blows up on the first night, and she quickly finds herself hired as a nanny by elite Nazi official Franz-Otto Dietrich (Liam Neeson, Richardson's now-brother-in-law). And now that she's inside his house, she has only a limited amount of time to find the plans.

I don't think the people who made this movie wanted me to like the Nazis more than the Americans, but unfortunately the Nazis are a lot more likeable. Richardson comes across as competant and multifaceted, divided in her loyalties; Neeson comes across as a loving father, a nice sensitive guy (we don't ever hear of him actually doing anything bad!) with big puppy-dog eyes. Frankly it's hard not to like him, especially compared to the insensitive clod Leland. Douglas looks unhappy and embarrassed all throughout the movie, he's as stiff and cold as a pine board, and Griffith's performance is the stuff of nightmares.

It doesn't help that the best description of Linda is "ditzy blonde." She gets all her info about spies from movies, whines when Douglas goes on missions, and thinks she's qualified to be a spy because she can make strudel. (In one scene she runs through a crowded street chanting a secret password out loud!) She also mouths off to everyone in a way that would not be tolerated in a mere secretary (prepare to cringe when she says "My other half's Irish"), and bungles everything spy-related.

I would say this is a movie best shown to young children but there's a fair amount of profanity, violence, and a detailed sex scene. The direction is pretty terrible -- you'd think WWII included only a handful of people. The Nazis have none of the casual amorality that the real people did. There are one or two creepy, freaky moments that work, like the German woman who exults that the house they took from a Jewish family had everything they wanted (even bedsheets with correct monograms), but they're few and far between. If they'd had Dietrich doing something, anything wrong, then it might have worked. There are a few moments of intentional comedy ("That pompous little (butt) ate a raw bird to prove it was edible!") but most of the comedy is totally accidental. ("What's a war for if not to hold on to what we love?" Gaaaaaggg!)

I only can recommend this to fans of Joely and Liam, because they are the only ones who actually have good roles to play. "Schindler's List" this ain't!

Shining Through
If it were possible to give this movie a six star rating, I would. Besides being a GREAT movie, the soundtrack helps push this movie to more enjoyment. Moonlight Serenade, I'll Be seeing You, Goodnight Sweetheart and the main musical score lingers pleasantly in your mind long after the movie ends. I recommend it to all who has ever been in love.

Rips the emotional guts from the book
I have a hard time liking this movie because it made such a travesty of Susan Isaacs' book. The book, as originally written, was a classic ugly duckling-to-swan story set in New York, Washington, and Germany during World War II. Linda Voss, the character played by Melanie Griffith, was a working class girl in love with and eventually married to her gorgeous cad of a boss. She had the brains; he had the social cachet. They move to Washington, she gets a job as secretary to a top intelligence agent (played by Michael Douglas), the marriage founders, and in despair she signs up as an undercover agent. The rest of the movie follows the book's plot fairly closely, although the Douglas character does NOT figure in as a romantic interest until the very end. In the book, he's Linda's unexpected reward--pure gold where her husband was only gold-plated. The movie, by simplifying the story, guts its emotional core and turns a contemporary fairy tale into your basic trite Hollywood production--glitzy but without a heart.

That said, there are some strong performances in the movie. Douglas's stiffness makes much more sense in the context of the book, but doesn't work in the movie as filmed. Griffith is Griffith--you either love her or hate her. Liam Neeson is good, as is Joely Richardson (although the "Mein Gott, you have guts" line is a bit over the top). There are some suspenseful moments in the scenes in Nazi Germany. At times the movie's enjoyable, but overall, it disappoints.

Excellent film, with excellent acting!
I have loved this film since I saw it when it first came out on VHS! In fact, I watched it so many times that I ruined the tape. The story is engrossing, and the acting is top-notch! The obvious chemistry between Melanie Griffith and Michael Douglas made the film so much more realistic. I can't say enough good things about it. I am eagerly anticipating the film's release on DVD so I can add it to my growing collection of excellent films. ... Read more

Reviews (106)

DVD is one of My Favorite Christmas Presents of 2002!
I have seen several different movie adaptations of A Christmas Carol and have liked them all but I think the three best versions are this George C. Scott adaptation, the Alastair Sim adaptation and the adaptation starring Patrick Stewart and I also like the adaptations starring Albert Finney, Reginald Owen and Sir Seymour Hicks. This adaptation is very good and I'm very impressed with George C. Scott's acting, he gave an excellent performance as Ebenezer Scrooge and I also liked David Warner as Bob Cratchit and there are many other fine performances too, Edward Woodward, Suzannah York, etc. I very highly recommend this adaptation which seems pretty faithful to the Charles Dickens classic and I like that they included aspects of the book that are not in the other Christmas Carol movies! I had seen some of this version a few years ago but didn't see the whole movie but I got this DVD today for Christmas and I just finished watching it and I loved it, definitely one of my favorite Christmas presents of 2002.

The best CAROL ever, with the best Scrooge ever
There's a reason that of all the stories woven around the Christmas season, and of all the tales Charles Dickens told, this one is still being retold over a century later. And it's the same reason Clive Donner's version, out of all the many filmed and staged retellings, is still around and now being offered in DVD format: they are, quite simply, both the best of their breed. The script is faithful to Dickens' original text as few other versions have been, the production values are sumptuous and conscientious in their historical accuracy, and the performances from a star-packed cast are pure British sterling, above all the late, lamented George C. Scott's unforgettable limning of an all too human Ebenezer Scrooge. Also not to be missed are Edward (THE EQUALIZER) Woodward as the Ghost of Christmas Present, cruelly rebuking Scrooge with his own words; Mark Strickson (Turlough of DOCTOR WHO fame) as the young Scrooge in the Christmas Past sequence; Roger Rees, Susannah York, Frank Finlay as a suitably fearsome Marley's Ghost, the always reliable David Warner as Bob Cratchit, Angela Pleasance as the gentle Ghost of Christmas Past, Joanne Whalley (the former Mrs. Val Kilmer, of SCANDAL and many other films) and Michael Gough (another DOCTOR WHO veteran [the Celestial Toymaker in Hartnell's First Doctor era] and Alfred the butler in the BATMAN films).

Seeing Scott as Scrooge crying out in anguish over his own gravestone, "Why show me this if I am past all hope?"; then on Christmas morning, jumping up and down on his four-poster with glee; showing up on his nephew's doorstep, properly shame-faced and hoping for a chance to begin again -- these moments bring a tear to my eye and a lump to my throat every time. If you need a reminder of why this season is so important even to those of us who have lost faith in the Christian church, bookend this film with Clive's brother Richard Donner's equally excellent updating of Dickens' classic tale, SCROOGED, starring Bill Murray (his speech at the end is worth the price of the DVD all by itself!) for a night of holiday laughter and tears like no other. Scrooge embodies the hope that all of us have that, whatever our failings and our misdeeds, our lives may yet be counted of value and our souls admitted into heaven; and this version of his odyssey from miserdom to redemption makes it abundantly clear why this one short story holds such a special place in the canon of Western literature.

Why (Officially) I Love This Movie!
Every winter, I enjoy watching A Christmas Carol on TV whenever I can, and the 1984 version is my favorite. The production and performances add up to a moody, realistic and touching adaptation of the Charles Dickens' classic.

Director Clive Donner (editor of the much celebrated 1951 Alastair Sim version of Scrooge) presents a stunningly authentic recreation of Dickens' London. From effectively foggy streets to Ebenezer's own cobwebbed-infested manor, Donner provides a gritty, appropriately dark atmosphere, enhanced by the wonderful score.

The film's pacing is exquisite. In showing Ebenezer the error of his ways, the filmmakers give equal time to his past, present and future, never once lingering to the point of boredom. Thus the story seems to fly by compared to the other adaptations.

George C. Scott is excellent as Scrooge. Like all of those who've portrayed the character, his old miser starts out mean and bitter and ends up joyous and thankful! But throughout his performance, true sadness runs deep. Scott makes his emotional transformation subtle, painting a realistic portrait of a man haunted by the mistakes of his past, taking his pain out on the world.

But what separates the 1984 production of Christmas Carol from all others is the terrific supporting cast. David Warner may give the warmest performance of his career as Bob Cratchet (all the more poignant considering the many villains he's played over the years). Frank Finlay is the most compelling Jacob Marley I've ever seen. You can almost feel this man's torture just by gazing upon his unblinking expression. Edward Woodward brings great depth to the Ghost of Christmas Present, communicating tremendous power, yet just the right touch of humor. Finally, this adaptation of the Dickens' tale features the scariest, most intimidating Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come you'll find anywhere!

Most of us look forward to a healthy dose of A Christmas Carol at the end of each year and we all have our favorite version. Thanks to the handsome production values, expert pacing and perfect cast, led by the magnificent George C. Scott, I believe they truly got it right in 1984!

The Best All Around Version of a Christmas Classic!
Some people are under the impression that this is an American production of A Christmas Carol while others (namely the 1951 Alastair Sim version) are British. Truth is, while the George C. Scott 1984 version was televised on an American network, it was filmed on location in England, and presents an effectively murky, gritty atmosphere where other versions, including the most recent Patrick Stewart version, look a little too "pretty".

Perhaps most telling is that the director of the 1984 Christmas Carol is Clive Donner. Not only is he British, but he was also the editor of the 1951 version...the very same Scrooge featuring Alastair Sim's acclaimed performance! This indicates that Donner had a unique perspective when he decided to revisit A Christmas Carol. He could easily have chosen to tell the tale just as it was done in 1951, but he diverted slightly. Thus, the George C. Scott production is much more atmospheric and concentrates a little more on Scrooge's present and future whereas the Sim version devoted way too much time on Scrooge's past. In giving Scrooge's past, present and future equal time, Donner is able to depict Scrooge's emotional tranformation convincingly and realistically (having George C. Scott doesn't hurt either).

The 1951 production of Scrooge: A Christmas Carol will always have Alastair Sim's celebrated performance, but this 1984 production has become the definitive film version of the Dickens classic!

lower class adaption
I saw this video two weeks after reading the book. It came across as flat and lifeless compared to the book and the 1951 Alastar Sim version I have. Instead of taking you back to the time of Dickens, it takes Dickens up to our time. Another problem is that the characters have lower class characteristics with their confrontative behavior and their arrogance which is always a cover for incompetence. ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Good, but bogged down slightly
This was an enjoyable movie, but unfortunately it had many, many plot holes that made liking it difficult.

A spy-movie-enthralled young woman named Linda Voss ("half Jewish, half Irish") gets a job with a man named Ed Leland whom she suspects is a spy. Before long, they are lovers, but their budding relationship is dashed by World War II. Before you can say "Berlin strudel" she's whisked off to Germany as an undercover operative, to discover secret plans in the house of a handsome and sympathetic Nazi (the always-good Liam Neeson)

One of the problems is Melanie Griffith. She might be good in other roles, but as Voss she fails. Voss comes across as amazingly lucky and none too intelligent, constantly licking her lips in a very distracting way. Michael Douglas is completely convincing as Ed Leland, although he looks slightly embarrassed sometimes. Liam Neeson and Joely Richardson are excellent in their smaller roles.

Second problem is the attitude of the heroes. When Voss does not show up in time for the rendezvous, Leland disregards orders in favor of carrying her to the Swiss Border. Though it may seem heartless, an actual spy would have followed his orders and left Voss to die. In fact, we see the evidently smarter Germans such as Neeson's Dietrich and Richardson's Margrete following their orders despite their personal feelings about Voss.

Watch the movie if you are interested, but do not expect great accuracy.

A good comedy -- a bad war drama
I think I might have enjoyed "Shining Through" more if I'd been drunk. This movie is a fantastic ensemble comedy, but I don't think they were trying to make one! The only redeeming points of the movie were Liam Neeson and Joely Richardson's performances as a pair of Nazis.

Melanie Griffith plays Linda Voss, a young woman of mixed Irish and Jewish ancestry in World War II. Because of her linguistic skills, she's hired as a translator for Ed Leland (Michael Douglas), who works for the government as a spy (he keeps denying it, but she's seen movies so she knows better!). They become lovers, until his work comes between them. But no sooner have they been reunited than a spy is needed to sneak into Germany to find some bomb-related plans.

She's accompanied into Germany by Konrad "Sunflower" Friedrichs (Sir John Gielgud, who looks like he's always thinking "What am I doing in this movie?") and his niece Margrete Von Eberstein (Joely Richardson). Her position as a chef blows up on the first night, and she quickly finds herself hired as a nanny by elite Nazi official Franz-Otto Dietrich (Liam Neeson, Richardson's now-brother-in-law). And now that she's inside his house, she has only a limited amount of time to find the plans.

I don't think the people who made this movie wanted me to like the Nazis more than the Americans, but unfortunately the Nazis are a lot more likeable. Richardson comes across as competant and multifaceted, divided in her loyalties; Neeson comes across as a loving father, a nice sensitive guy (we don't ever hear of him actually doing anything bad!) with big puppy-dog eyes. Frankly it's hard not to like him, especially compared to the insensitive clod Leland. Douglas looks unhappy and embarrassed all throughout the movie, he's as stiff and cold as a pine board, and Griffith's performance is the stuff of nightmares.

It doesn't help that the best description of Linda is "ditzy blonde." She gets all her info about spies from movies, whines when Douglas goes on missions, and thinks she's qualified to be a spy because she can make strudel. (In one scene she runs through a crowded street chanting a secret password out loud!) She also mouths off to everyone in a way that would not be tolerated in a mere secretary (prepare to cringe when she says "My other half's Irish"), and bungles everything spy-related.

I would say this is a movie best shown to young children but there's a fair amount of profanity, violence, and a detailed sex scene. The direction is pretty terrible -- you'd think WWII included only a handful of people. The Nazis have none of the casual amorality that the real people did. There are one or two creepy, freaky moments that work, like the German woman who exults that the house they took from a Jewish family had everything they wanted (even bedsheets with correct monograms), but they're few and far between. If they'd had Dietrich doing something, anything wrong, then it might have worked. There are a few moments of intentional comedy ("That pompous little (butt) ate a raw bird to prove it was edible!") but most of the comedy is totally accidental. ("What's a war for if not to hold on to what we love?" Gaaaaaggg!)

I only can recommend this to fans of Joely and Liam, because they are the only ones who actually have good roles to play. "Schindler's List" this ain't!

Shining Through
If it were possible to give this movie a six star rating, I would. Besides being a GREAT movie, the soundtrack helps push this movie to more enjoyment. Moonlight Serenade, I'll Be seeing You, Goodnight Sweetheart and the main musical score lingers pleasantly in your mind long after the movie ends. I recommend it to all who has ever been in love.

Rips the emotional guts from the book
I have a hard time liking this movie because it made such a travesty of Susan Isaacs' book. The book, as originally written, was a classic ugly duckling-to-swan story set in New York, Washington, and Germany during World War II. Linda Voss, the character played by Melanie Griffith, was a working class girl in love with and eventually married to her gorgeous cad of a boss. She had the brains; he had the social cachet. They move to Washington, she gets a job as secretary to a top intelligence agent (played by Michael Douglas), the marriage founders, and in despair she signs up as an undercover agent. The rest of the movie follows the book's plot fairly closely, although the Douglas character does NOT figure in as a romantic interest until the very end. In the book, he's Linda's unexpected reward--pure gold where her husband was only gold-plated. The movie, by simplifying the story, guts its emotional core and turns a contemporary fairy tale into your basic trite Hollywood production--glitzy but without a heart.

That said, there are some strong performances in the movie. Douglas's stiffness makes much more sense in the context of the book, but doesn't work in the movie as filmed. Griffith is Griffith--you either love her or hate her. Liam Neeson is good, as is Joely Richardson (although the "Mein Gott, you have guts" line is a bit over the top). There are some suspenseful moments in the scenes in Nazi Germany. At times the movie's enjoyable, but overall, it disappoints.

Excellent film, with excellent acting!
I have loved this film since I saw it when it first came out on VHS! In fact, I watched it so many times that I ruined the tape. The story is engrossing, and the acting is top-notch! The obvious chemistry between Melanie Griffith and Michael Douglas made the film so much more realistic. I can't say enough good things about it. I am eagerly anticipating the film's release on DVD so I can add it to my growing collection of excellent films. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

In the same year that he directed a handsome version ofThe Scarlet Pimpernel for television, Clive Donner also made this worthy 1984 small-screen production of theDickens tale. George C. Scott can't quite muster a decent English accent, but he does bring some new colors to this movie's interpretation of Scrooge, making the character less nasty for the sake of nastiness and more a product of a life of lovelessness. The supporting cast is first-rate, and the production is far more handsome than most TV fare. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (106)

DVD is one of My Favorite Christmas Presents of 2002!
I have seen several different movie adaptations of A Christmas Carol and have liked them all but I think the three best versions are this George C. Scott adaptation, the Alastair Sim adaptation and the adaptation starring Patrick Stewart and I also like the adaptations starring Albert Finney, Reginald Owen and Sir Seymour Hicks. This adaptation is very good and I'm very impressed with George C. Scott's acting, he gave an excellent performance as Ebenezer Scrooge and I also liked David Warner as Bob Cratchit and there are many other fine performances too, Edward Woodward, Suzannah York, etc. I very highly recommend this adaptation which seems pretty faithful to the Charles Dickens classic and I like that they included aspects of the book that are not in the other Christmas Carol movies! I had seen some of this version a few years ago but didn't see the whole movie but I got this DVD today for Christmas and I just finished watching it and I loved it, definitely one of my favorite Christmas presents of 2002.

The best CAROL ever, with the best Scrooge ever
There's a reason that of all the stories woven around the Christmas season, and of all the tales Charles Dickens told, this one is still being retold over a century later. And it's the same reason Clive Donner's version, out of all the many filmed and staged retellings, is still around and now being offered in DVD format: they are, quite simply, both the best of their breed. The script is faithful to Dickens' original text as few other versions have been, the production values are sumptuous and conscientious in their historical accuracy, and the performances from a star-packed cast are pure British sterling, above all the late, lamented George C. Scott's unforgettable limning of an all too human Ebenezer Scrooge. Also not to be missed are Edward (THE EQUALIZER) Woodward as the Ghost of Christmas Present, cruelly rebuking Scrooge with his own words; Mark Strickson (Turlough of DOCTOR WHO fame) as the young Scrooge in the Christmas Past sequence; Roger Rees, Susannah York, Frank Finlay as a suitably fearsome Marley's Ghost, the always reliable David Warner as Bob Cratchit, Angela Pleasance as the gentle Ghost of Christmas Past, Joanne Whalley (the former Mrs. Val Kilmer, of SCANDAL and many other films) and Michael Gough (another DOCTOR WHO veteran [the Celestial Toymaker in Hartnell's First Doctor era] and Alfred the butler in the BATMAN films).

Seeing Scott as Scrooge crying out in anguish over his own gravestone, "Why show me this if I am past all hope?"; then on Christmas morning, jumping up and down on his four-poster with glee; showing up on his nephew's doorstep, properly shame-faced and hoping for a chance to begin again -- these moments bring a tear to my eye and a lump to my throat every time. If you need a reminder of why this season is so important even to those of us who have lost faith in the Christian church, bookend this film with Clive's brother Richard Donner's equally excellent updating of Dickens' classic tale, SCROOGED, starring Bill Murray (his speech at the end is worth the price of the DVD all by itself!) for a night of holiday laughter and tears like no other. Scrooge embodies the hope that all of us have that, whatever our failings and our misdeeds, our lives may yet be counted of value and our souls admitted into heaven; and this version of his odyssey from miserdom to redemption makes it abundantly clear why this one short story holds such a special place in the canon of Western literature.

Why (Officially) I Love This Movie!
Every winter, I enjoy watching A Christmas Carol on TV whenever I can, and the 1984 version is my favorite. The production and performances add up to a moody, realistic and touching adaptation of the Charles Dickens' classic.

Director Clive Donner (editor of the much celebrated 1951 Alastair Sim version of Scrooge) presents a stunningly authentic recreation of Dickens' London. From effectively foggy streets to Ebenezer's own cobwebbed-infested manor, Donner provides a gritty, appropriately dark atmosphere, enhanced by the wonderful score.

The film's pacing is exquisite. In showing Ebenezer the error of his ways, the filmmakers give equal time to his past, present and future, never once lingering to the point of boredom. Thus the story seems to fly by compared to the other adaptations.

George C. Scott is excellent as Scrooge. Like all of those who've portrayed the character, his old miser starts out mean and bitter and ends up joyous and thankful! But throughout his performance, true sadness runs deep. Scott makes his emotional transformation subtle, painting a realistic portrait of a man haunted by the mistakes of his past, taking his pain out on the world.

But what separates the 1984 production of Christmas Carol from all others is the terrific supporting cast. David Warner may give the warmest performance of his career as Bob Cratchet (all the more poignant considering the many villains he's played over the years). Frank Finlay is the most compelling Jacob Marley I've ever seen. You can almost feel this man's torture just by gazing upon his unblinking expression. Edward Woodward brings great depth to the Ghost of Christmas Present, communicating tremendous power, yet just the right touch of humor. Finally, this adaptation of the Dickens' tale features the scariest, most intimidating Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come you'll find anywhere!

Most of us look forward to a healthy dose of A Christmas Carol at the end of each year and we all have our favorite version. Thanks to the handsome production values, expert pacing and perfect cast, led by the magnificent George C. Scott, I believe they truly got it right in 1984!

The Best All Around Version of a Christmas Classic!
Some people are under the impression that this is an American production of A Christmas Carol while others (namely the 1951 Alastair Sim version) are British. Truth is, while the George C. Scott 1984 version was televised on an American network, it was filmed on location in England, and presents an effectively murky, gritty atmosphere where other versions, including the most recent Patrick Stewart version, look a little too "pretty".

Perhaps most telling is that the director of the 1984 Christmas Carol is Clive Donner. Not only is he British, but he was also the editor of the 1951 version...the very same Scrooge featuring Alastair Sim's acclaimed performance! This indicates that Donner had a unique perspective when he decided to revisit A Christmas Carol. He could easily have chosen to tell the tale just as it was done in 1951, but he diverted slightly. Thus, the George C. Scott production is much more atmospheric and concentrates a little more on Scrooge's present and future whereas the Sim version devoted way too much time on Scrooge's past. In giving Scrooge's past, present and future equal time, Donner is able to depict Scrooge's emotional tranformation convincingly and realistically (having George C. Scott doesn't hurt either).

The 1951 production of Scrooge: A Christmas Carol will always have Alastair Sim's celebrated performance, but this 1984 production has become the definitive film version of the Dickens classic!

lower class adaption
I saw this video two weeks after reading the book. It came across as flat and lifeless compared to the book and the 1951 Alastar Sim version I have. Instead of taking you back to the time of Dickens, it takes Dickens up to our time. Another problem is that the characters have lower class characteristics with their confrontative behavior and their arrogance which is always a cover for incompetence. ... Read more

Reviews (39)

A movie to be enjoyed by all.
I've been watching Black Beauty since it came out in 1994 when I was 9. The enchanting cinematography, thoughtful narration and beautiful horses stick in your mind long after the movies is finished. I've worn the tape out and recently bought it on DVD. I watched it immediately with friends who made fun of me. 19 and in love with a horsey movie?? Luckily I forced them to watch it and they were soon engrossed in the fabulous story. I have never read the book, but anyone who dislikes this movie because it isn't "true" to the novel is a sad person indeed. This is a great movie that can be enjoyed by horse lovers or even people who aren't that fond of horses. A good movie is a good movie, and Black Beauty will remain a timeless classic.

Beautiful movie for horse-lovers!
Black Beauty was one of the best movies I've ever seen! Docs Keepin Time was an excellent "actor". There was inhumane treatment of the animals and Ginger was so tragic. The horses had no say in anything and were abused yet they tried to please their masters. With kind masters they flourished and the ending was beautiful. The music was evocative and everything it this movie made me cry. (It was also an excellent book.)

The Best Movie Of All Time
Just like the first reviewer I have been watching this movie since I was 9 years old back in 1994. I am nighteen now and haven't seen the movie for a while but still remember it dearly as it was my most favorite movie on my shelf as a child and teen. I still have it even though it's worn quite a bit but I will show it to my kids. The movie always brings me to tears. I quote the first reviewer, "A good movie is a good movie, and Black Beauty will remain a timeless classic."

A bit boring. 15th april 2004.
Kids would probably enjoy it. It was quite good the first time i watched it then i thought it was a kiddy film, but anyone would normally like these sorts of films. Not me it isn't my type.

I'm sure kids will love it but adults be prepared
I love horses and will watch almost any movie with them in it. But because I work with them I am also sensitive to their correct portrayals in film.

Although lovingly filmed, with very pretty scenery, nice settings and good actors, this movie was disappointing. It was not its faithfulness to the book I call into question - a good movie adaptation will always have changes - but the style in which they were done.
Alan Cummings as the voice of Black Beauty was given an overly saccharine script in my opinion. Instead of giving the animal a realistic viewpoint, it was a whiny and naive portrayal. In a bizarre twist, Ginger was portrayed as Beauty's love interest, which I found completely incomprehensible, since Black Beauty is a) a gelding and b) it detracts from the true meaning of the story, which was that Ginger, a close companion during the best days of their youth together, was squandered and brought low by mens' cruelty.
I also found it jarring that none of the other horses were given voices of their own, especially the likes of Ginger and Merrylegs. They are portrayed interacting together at several points, yet while Black Beauty "speaks" during those times, he never refers to them speaking to him, nor do they ever speak directly in the film. It makes for an odd sense of dislocation, as you watch two horses acting out a scene together while the voice of one is reiterating the present happenings - without giving the other a viewpoint.

Despite the fact that it is Black Beauty's story, this film also succumbs to giving him a human character with whom he forms a "deep" relationship. I find it irritating that most movies whose main characters are supposed to be animals usually resort to enlarging or inventing a human character for them to have a special relationship with - presumably to give the story significance, or substance, to the audience. If the story is being told correctly, the audience should identify with the main character directly, not only through a human relationship.

Lastly, while some scenes were well done - notably Black Beauty's first experience with shoes - most of the horse scenes looked fake. Few and far between are the movies that portray horses in realistic ways. This is not one of them. The scenes with Ginger in pasture, when the two of them were reunited, were so obviously staged. Two horses, facing off camera, were being signalled to rear several times in a row. They were not even facing each other.
The action of the horses in harness was also lacking in realism. Neither horse traveled well in harness and when the bearing rein was supposedly put on, cranking their heads up, you couldn't tell the difference. When Ginger is stretching her neck out, supposedly in sympathy, it is another obvious horse trick - someone is holding a treat for her just off camera and she's stretching out her neck to get it.
Also, Doc's Keeping Time, the main equine actor, was signalled to perform an irritating trick of tossing his head around and up and down to indicate emotions. This is a bad habit for a horse to pick up and most people discourage it; beyond that it was irritating to watch because I knew it was a bad habit and therefore unrealistic, again, to the portrayal. Horses don't toss their heads around in that fashion when exhibiting such emotions.

Picturing Black Beauty lying down while he narrates his tale was also extremely irritating to me. Most horses do not lie down naturally or often; it was an unrealistic attempt to elicit an empathetic reaction from the audience. The only thing I could think was that a horse would never stay for long in that position.

The comic touches also fell flat. In addition, while I admire greatly any horse with the training and ability to perform such a demanding role, Doc's Keeping Time was the wrong physical type. The Black Beauty of that era was a thoroughbred and it is that type of horse which is needed to perform the roles of being a hunter and carriage horse with the correct style for the period. Doc's Keeping Time is an American Quarter Horse, and again, while I admire him greatly, the filmmakers should have spent some extra time or research finding an animal that better fit the role's requirements.
But the ending of the film was surprisingly good. For whatever reason, it touches an emotional chord. I recommend the film highly for children but for adults looking for a good horse movie - it will be amusing but probably disappointing. ... Read more