Reviews (8)

If you are not a big Dr. Who and John Pertwee fan don't buy
The Colony is Space is definitely a classic John Pertwee Dr. Who. If you are a big fan
of John Pertwee, this is a must for your collection. I thought the video was okay. If you
are a huge Dr. Who fan I would recommend buying this. If you are not a Dr. Who fan and
are just getting started out, I would not recommend this video. The plot in general was fairly
solid, but too many things going on to concentrate on the plot. The Master arrives, but is a very
weak bad guy character that could have been left out. The video did not drag on like some of the
longer episode ones. The sound quality was fair and archive quality, so I had to adjust the
volume several times while watching. I believe this was a lost episode that was restored from
some old video tapes from PBS. I had never seen this video before until now, and it filled in
the gap for me. The story was classic Dr. Who will all the model ships, fake looking masked
aliens, and fair to poor quality sets. This IS Dr. Who with all the can fix anything,
karate fighting, expert at everything John Pertwee style. If you are getting started I would
recommend other Dr. WHO videos from John Pertwee like: Spearhead from Space,
Planet of the Spiders, Death to the Daleks, and my favorite Frontier in Space.

"Doctor! Come back at once!"
The Doctor gets a reprieve from his exile on Earth, only to do the bidding of the Time Lords. Landing on a planet with Jo Grant, the Doctor gets involved with some colonist close to starvation . Meanwhile, IMC, the ruthless mining corporation from Earth, is trying to remove the colonist from the planet. A very early politically correct/socially aware Who serial. It's also very padded and dull, but still fun. There are some silly-looking natives throwing spears and stones and a mud-fight. Captain Dents's hair-style is way cool...NOT! Not really much to say about this one, but it is far more interesting until the obligatory appearance of the Master arrives. Still, it's got it's moments. You just have to wait a while for things to happen...

Still, it's a Pertwee!
Whether you agree or disagree with the overall story being good or bad, this is still a good way to get your Jon Pertwee/Katy Manning fix. I first saw this on PBS, luckily one episode each Saturday, in 1976.

This is probably the weakest story of this particular season, although it promised a lot by being the first Pertwee adventure away from Earth. I think that too many elements were added for this story (Master, colonists, mining company, natives, Doomsday Weapon...eliminating something from it actually would have created more interest). The ending of Episode 2 is actually a fun cliffhanger.
It was fun to note that Jo Grant's reaction in the TARDIS was no different than most of the other companions before her (bigger inside than out, NOT ON EARTH, OH MY!).

I agree with the other guys
This story is typical of most 6-parters in Dr. Who, strong through the first 3 episodes but then dragged out as if it were really intended to be a four part story but they had to stretch it out.
As I have been collecting Dr. Who videos since the Mid. 90's, and I'm hoping the BBC will release the rest here by 2004, buying or not buying this video was not the question.
The biggest thing that stood out was the photocopied wall in the Doctor's TARDIS, which looked cheap.
Unless you're a collector like myself, I wouldn't recommened this one.

Another story against corporate imperialism
The Master is at it again. This time, he has stolen the file of the Doomsday Weapon from the Time Lords. In order to deal with it, a small group of Time Lords, presumably the Celestial Intervention Agency later mentioned in the Deadly Assassin story, use the Doctor to deal with it. The Doctor and Jo, who happen to be in the TARDIS testing out a new dematerialization circuit, get whisked off to Uxarius, on 3 March 2472.

They meet a group of colonists, headed by Robert Ashe, who are having such horrible luck, that "unless things improve drastically, [their] colony is in grave danger of starving to death." Since their arrival a year ago, they planted subsistence crops in order to reclaim worn out soil, but the crops shoot up, wither, and then die. They also live in an uneasy truce with the local race of Primitives, whom they give food, not helping their dwindling food supply. Not only that, but two colonists are killed by giant lizards. The Doctor and Jo promptly give their help as usual.

As if they didn't have enough troubles, a detachment from Interplanetary Mining Corporation, headed by the cold-hearted Captain Dent, arrive and claim mineral rights, in conflict with Ashe's claim that Uxarius was classified for colonization. An Adjudicator is sent for, however, they normally favour IMC in disputes. The hot-headed Winton, Ashe's deputy, favours an attack on IMC to drive them out, in contrast to the more diplomatically-minded Ashe. On the side of the IMC, there's the mineralogist Caldwell, who begins to question some of IMC's methods of getting their bottom line. The Adjudicator does come, and guess who it is?

Things heat up between the colonists and IMC, whose role in the colonists suffering may be connected. Then there's Norton, a survivor from another colony attacked by giant lizards and Primitives, whose behaviour in Episode Two becomes definitely suspect.

Colony paints a grim picture of Earth back home, "no room to move, polluted air, not a blade of grass, a government that locks you up if you think for yourself", a place where people don't live like human beings but like battery hens in floating 300 story islands. An unflattering picture is painted of corporations. Dent says in true fascist, corporate style, "What's good for IMC is good for Earth." As for the colonists, he doesn't care the least about their hardships. All he cares is about the profits they'll make in gutting Uxarius of duralinium. It's also an interesting look at the leadership styles and decision-making, Ashe, Winton, and Dent in particular, and why they either succeed or fail.

Other things: Mary Ashe says that "there's no animal life, just a few birds and insects." So, uh..., what exactly does that make birds and insects? Apart from that, Helen Worth stands out as Mary, as does Nicholas Pennell (Winton), Bernard Kay (Caldwell), and John Ringham (Robert Ashe), who also appeared as the ruthless Tlotoxl in Who story The Aztecs and the no-longer available The Smugglers as Blake. Another in-joke was a reference to how the Spanish ambassador was mistaken for the Master, as Roger Delgado (the Master) was himself half-Spanish, half-French.

Some padding is apparent throughout this six-parter, but it's a thoughtful story on the reaction against post-industrial urbanization (the colonists) and the ruthlessness of corporations (IMC). ... Read more

Amazon.com

In this classic 1963 adaptation of William Golding's novel, a planeload of schoolboys is stranded on a tropical island. They've got food and water; all that's left is to peacefully govern themselves until they're rescued. "After all," says choir leader Jack, "We're English. We're the best in the world at everything!" Unfortunately, living peacefully is not as easy as it seems. Though Ralph is named chief, Jack and the choristers quickly form a clique of their own, using the ever-effective political promise of fun rather than responsibility to draw converts. Director Peter Brook draws some excellent performances out of his young cast; the moment when Ralph realizes that even if he blows the conch for a meeting people might not come is an excruciating one. Well acted and faithfully executed, Lord of the Flies is as compelling today as when first released. --Ali Davis ... Read more

Reviews (50)

A Bit Rushed, A Few Omissions, But Overall Very Good
"The Lord of the Flies" tells the tale of a group of English schoolboys stranded on a tropical island, with no adults, after a plane crash, while war rages on worldwide. The boys, ages 5 or 6 through 12 or 13, have food, water, and a pleasant climate. Their only challenges are to fight boredom and stay civilized until they are rescued.

I saw this videotape for the first time only a few weeks after reading the book for the first time. To me, the film was a little rushed, and there were a few important omissions, but it was still quite faithful to the brilliantly disturbing novel. The picture quality was a bit grainy, and the dialogue of a few of the child actors was a bit stilted at times, but Jack, Ralph, Piggy, and Simon were portrayed very well. The dialogue is hard to hear at times, against the sounds of surf and jungle, but I wonder if that was intentional and symbolic (i.e., the words of civilization struggling to rise above the roar of primitive Nature).

The important omissions were: Ralph's gradually increasing difficulty with thinking things through and needing more and more help from Piggy; Ralph's encounter with "The Lord of the Flies" in his mad dash for survival; the disappearance of the never-named boy with the birthmark, in the very beginning, which, in the novel, set off the fears and wild imaginings of the boys. The whole movie had a rushed pace to it, as if the producer and/or director had been given a tight budget.

Overall, I found this to be a good rendering of an excellent novel. I have never seen the remake, but have heard it's shallower.

Are we humans really THAT bad???
This movie is a very skillful presentation of William Golding's eponymous, timeless sociological horror story. A group of boys ranging from around 6 to, I would guesstimate, 14 or 15, are stranded on a desert island. Unfortunately for the boys, the general spirit of their story parts ways with the spirit of "Gilligan's Island" immediately, and they end up deteriorating into tribal, superstitious savages, rent with internecine strife, in a matter of (evidently) weeks.

Any viewer out there who plans to see this movie should absolutely make an effort to read the book. You could possibly see the movie first, if you digest storylines more easily through movies than books. But whatever order you carry out the two activities in, you must see the movie AND read the book, if you want a full understanding of what the director was doing here.

Here are a few good things to notice. First of all, you should be aware that this film was shot mostly on the islet of Vieques, off the coast of Puerto Rico. It's hard to believe that this is true, because it's just so perfect -- Vieques is the island where the U.S. Navy practices bombing these days, and protesters against war have been getting into all kinds of clashes with the authorities the past few months (spring and summer of 2001). Maybe "Lord of the Flies" was more prophetic than the director, actors and writers ever even realized.

A second thing to notice is the song that is constantly playing, throughout most of the movie. The song is "Kyrie Eleison." At first Jack's choir sings it, and then it sort of becomes general background music. If you happen not to be particularly into going to church, let me just clue you in that "kyrie eleison" is Greek for "Lord have mercy," which I think you'll agree is a chillingly apt refrain for this relentlessly dark movie.

A third good thing to notice is the little boy, who progressively loses his memory of his own identity, over the course of the film. At first, he automatically recites his full name, address and phone number to any stranger he meets, as he was apparently taught to do by his parents. Midway through the film, he can remember only his name, and part of his address. By the end, not to spoil the ending by giving too much away, he cannot even recollect his name. "How quickly," one envisions William Golding bemoaning, "we forget!"

But I'm just pointing out a few minor things to notice. The basic theme is obviously the clash between savagery and civilization, and the tendency for things to fall apart, for the center not to hold... George Washington himself used to say that the job of government has to do with Fear -- instilling it in possible malefactors, in enemies of the state, even in respected members of the community, just to keep everyone in line. This movie makes you think about what might happen if that force were removed from society as a whole. If the function of art is to raise awareness of painful truths, as this movie does, then the individual must be sure to bring things other than art into their lives, in order to raise awareness of kinder truths which are no less valid, no less serious, and no less important for being kind. That's what I think anyway.

This is an interesting movie, and it will really make you think. Two thumbs up.

a disturbing film.
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.

This film, based on William Godling's novel, is a film that many will find disturbing.

Having not read the book, I am uncertain if the film is close to the book or not, but I have heard people say both. The story is about some schoolboys who become stranded on an island after a plane crash. They later, (with no adult presence) start regressing to a savage state and do not remain civilized.

The film itself also has nudity which I am surprised the censors let pass given the time period in which the film was made. Even by today's standards, some may question the legality of nudity involving children. Since the nudity is clearly non-sexual it is legal, but still will offend some people.

There are numerous special features which are as follows.

Full length audio comentary by the director Peter Brook, producer Lewis Allen, director of photography Tom Hollyman, camera operator and editor Gerald Feil.

Theatrical trailer with and without audio commentary about a major problem that almost happened at the film's premire.

Deleted scene with and without commentary and a reading by author, William Golding.

Excerpts from the novel read by the author William Golding.
Screen tests and outtakes.

Scenes from a documentary about director Peter Brook's theatrical techniques.

Very bad adaptation.
Some books should not be attempted as movies, this clearly is one of them. If you just watch the film instead of reading Golding's story, you'll be missing out on much of the wonderful symbolism, the character development and most bizarre of all, the actual Lord Of The Flies itself. It would seem logical that some of the more disturbing parts of the book would be minimized on screen but the amount of this story that was neglected to turn this tragic tale into a film is criminal, might as well be a different story. Not recommended at all.

Peter Brook's 1963 version of William Golding's novel
The 1963 version of "Lord of the Flies" was made on an island off of Puerto Rico by director Peter Brook with a cast made up on the sons of English parents that could be found on the island and in the United States. Only one of the children playing a major character, James Aubrey, who played Ralph, ever made another movie (although Nicholas Hammond, who played Robert, would have a real career in films and television). This becomes a key factor in the film because we are not dealing with child actors, which usually works for the film, but not always. But the more telling factor is that this film is only 92 minutes long, which meant some key elements from William Golding's celebrated novel are omitted. Ultimately, your feelings for this film are going to depend on your familiarity with the novel.

Brooks creates an effective prologue consisting of a series of stills that set up the key elements of the situation: a boys school, a war, an evacuation, and a plane going down near enough to an island for a group of boys to survive. They find themselves on the island without any adults. Ralph (James Aubrey) argues that there have to be rules, while Jack (Tom Chapin), the leader of the choir (he can hit high C) thinks he should be in charge. If Ralph represents civilization while Jack is hearing the call of the wild, then it is Piggy (Hugh Edwards) who represents human intelligence. But in the inevitable shift in power that goes from Ralph to Jack as the children devolve into savages, it is Piggy who becomes the pivotal victim.

What is sacrificed in the film are the two characters who occupy the next level of significance in the novel, Roger (Roger Elwin) and Simon (Tom Gaman), and while that choice is understandable it is what keeps this from being a great adaptation. Still, you cannot fault Brook for reducing the novel to the pivotal triad and the essence of Golding's novel is here if not the depth and rich symbolism. But even as we marvel at the performances that Brook coaxes from his young actors, and the cinematography by Tom Hollyman (who had been a still photographer before this film), we really do have to remember that it is 1963 and the idea of depicting the horrors of this novel on the screen was a risky endeavor. The fact that the novel is allegorical (i.e., Brooks is probably right in claiming on the basis of his filming experience that in the real world the boys would not have lasted a week) would not be enough to temper the reactions of audiences to little boys killing one another in the wild.

This Criterion Collection edition has the usually goodies, although instead of a scholarly commentary track this time it consists of reminiscences by Brook, producer Lewis Allen, director of photography Tom Hollyman and cameraman/editor Gerald Feil. As such tracks go it is certainly above average, but I have to admit that I enjoy the academic approach usually found on Criterion's DVDs. There are also excerpts from the novel read by Golding that are interesting, although obviously not insightful (the excerpts are keyed to the same scenes in the movie). There is also a clip from Gerald Feil's documentary "The Empty Space" showing Brook's method of creating theater, a production scrapbook, outtakes, home movies, a deleted scene, and the original theatrical trailer ... Read more

Amazon.com

Danny Glover plays the mysterious Harry Mention, a charming trickster who invades the life of a family and who claims to have (and may very well have) a connection to dark powers. In any case, his presence sows dissent among a patriarch (Paul Butler) and his offspring, the latter more interested in the legacy of mystical wisdom Harry may represent. Based on stories of superstition he heard in youth, writer-director Charles Burnett's film is a fine and funny accomplishment that intersects dream time and linear time, and it has the heart of a folk tale. Glover and Butler are very good, their characters locked in knowing rivalry. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Stellar performance
This was overall great performance by some really fantastic veterans of the stage. A good wholesome down home treat with emphasis on family with a little spice from Danny Glover.

A stellar performance
This was a truly terrific film and one of Danny Glover's greatest performances. Danny Glover character is a very convincing example of a small town "Root Doctor" who slithers his way into an otherwise harmonious household. There are also some great stage actors in this film. Paul Butler (Gideon) and Carl Lumbly (Junior) also starred together as a father and son team in August Wilson's play, Jitney. This fabulous performance took place at the 2nd Stage theater in New York City just a few years ago. These guys are absolutely both captivating on stage and in film. This is a must see!

Well-Crafted, But Distinctly Un-Hollywood Movie
"To Sleep with Anger," Charles Burnett's third feature was the first one to get national distribution. It tells how Harry Mention (Danny Glover), an unexpected visitor seems to turn an otherwise stable African American family in South Central Los Angeles upside down upon his arrival.

The film is very well-made, but a few words of caution. This is not a Hollywood film. It does not follow the conventional three act structure so heavily touted by Syd Field and the like. It takes a totally different narrative approach. For those conditioned to Hollywood films, this takes some getting used to.

"To Sleep with Anger" takes its cues from the Southern folktale tradition with obvious ties to the oral traditions of many cultures. Instead of focusing on plot, the film is more interested in character and behavior.

Instead of mechanical (or artificial) act structure, the film brews slowly to a dramatic climax. Along the way, the audience is treated to little seen tidbits of folk culture and superstition. Some of the elements are subtle and may require repeat viewings.

If you like predictable and formulaic films, you're best to stay away. You're bound to be frustrated by this film. However, for those truly interested in seeing something complex and different, you're in for a special treat.

I'll admit that the first time I saw the film, I was a bit thrown off by its unusual rhytmn and pace. However, when I saw the film a second time and gave into it, the richness came through.

Overall, the cast is very strong. Glover is well-cast as Mention. Sheryl Lee Ralph is another stand out.

On the technical side the naturalistic cinematography by Walt Lloyd (who also shot "sex, lies and videotape") is very good. Also of note is Veda Campbell's sound and Stephen James Taylor's score. This is quite an achievement particularly given the film's low budget.

The film was nominated for an impressive seven IFP Independent Spirit Awards. It won for Best Male Lead (Danny Glover), Best Supporting Female (Sheryl Lee Ralph), and two for Charles Burnett (Best Director and Screenplay). Burnett also won a Best Screenplay Award from the National Society of Film Critics.

Take a chance and check it out. Just be prepared for something different -- and special.

This is a GREAT insight into Black American culture
If I had to introduce someone to Black American culture through film, this film would be at the top of the list. Most films are so trite in depicting Black family life, but this is SO REAL. The ups and downs and highs and lows, all while preserving the balance between the men and women characters in the film. This is a great film. Don't be fooled by its seeming sleepiness or down home (LA Style) charm. This is a great movie, that one will never forget! Watch it!

Very fresh approach
Aside from the interesting family dynamics revealed. The movie is also a study of 'downhome' voodoo techniques, demonstrated by Danny Glover's character. This movie takes you out of the ordinary, showing you something about black family life you've never seen onscreen before! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Mel Brooks scored his first commercial hit with this raucous Western spoof starring the late Cleavon Little as the newly hired (and conspicuously black) sheriff of Rock Ridge. Sheriff Bart teams up with deputy Jim (Gene Wilder) to foil the railroad-building scheme of the nefarious Hedley Lamarr (Harvey Korman). The simple plot is just an excuse for a steady stream of gags, many of them unabashedly tasteless, that Brooks and his wacky cast pull off with side-splitting success. The humor is so juvenile and crude that you just have to surrender to it; highlights abound, from the lunkheaded Alex Karras as the ox-riding Mongo to Madeline Kahn's uproarious send-up of Marlene Dietrich as saloon songstress Lili Von Shtupp. Adding to the comedic excess is the infamous campfire scene involving a bunch of hungry cowboys, heaping servings of baked beans and, well, you get the idea. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (207)

The Quintessential Comedy Movie
I love this movie! From the opening scene, where Cleavon Little sings the negro work song, "I Get a Kick Outta You", ala Nat King Cole, and he is corrected by the white men shoing him how to sing "Camptown Ladies", to the absurd surrealist ending (when was the last time you've seen a movie burst out of the movie, this is beautiful comedy.

Sight gags flying by at the speed of light, you will have to watch it hundreds of times to get them all, one liners that would make the Marx Brothers proud ("Bart, I heard you was hung." "You heard right!) This is absurdist comedy at is best (A toll booth on the William J LaPetomaine Freeway). The Mel Brooks choreography is wonderful when Lili Von Schtup sings "I'm Tired." When was the last time you saw German Soldiers tango with their rifles. This movie is filled frame to frame with humor, and no one gets away not insulted (Okay, we'll take the Irish too!)

The cast was perfection, either just over the top, or way over the top Harvey Korman is hilarious as the nefarious Hedley Lamarr. Cleavon Little is fantastic as he makes fun of his own stereotypes, it is absolutely one of the funniest movies ever made by humans on the planet earth.

Until a Special Edition comes along ...
... this will have to do. But that ain't all bad.

Politically incorrect and loving it, "Blazing Saddles" holds up as a comedy nearly 30 years after its release, and maybe even has gotten funnier as Americans get more uptight. Heaven help us if we lose our ability to laugh at the outrageous.

And while the bathroom humor (and the campfire scene) gets all the notice, there are some very subtle jokes in the film, such as the "laurel and hardy handshake" and "Thank you, Van."

As for extras ... there's not much. A trailer, both widescreen and cropped versions, and an monologue by Mel Brooks that plays over the first half of the movie. It's not scene-specific, but it's worth listening to. For instance, Gene Wilder wasn't even supposed to be in the movie. To find out who was, and why Wilder got the part ... listen to the interview.

This film cries out for a special edition. A scene-specific commentary by Brooks and co-writers Andrew Bergman and Richard Pryor. A making-of documentary. The scenes that were edited into the TV version of the movie (like the diving scene and the governor's visit to the fake Rock Ridge)...

Tasteless But Funny
Plays like an ennactment of one of those tasteless joke books set to a Western theme. Not for everyone. Even fans of this sort of thing have to be in a certain mood.

The funniest western ever made
Cleavon Little plays a black railroad worker condemend to death for assaulting his white foreman. At the last minute he is reprieved by the governor who has the devious idea of making him sheriff of Rock Ridge, a town the governor wants destroyed so they can run the railroad through the area, he thinks a black sheriff will finish the town off. When Little arrives in Rock Ridge he is nearly lynched by the outratged inhabitants but manages to outwit them. Safe in the sheriff's office, he finds the town drunk (Gene Wilder) just waking up in the cells, and they strike up a friendship. Together they set about the task of winning over the folk of Rock Ridge ("simple, wholesome, country folk - you know, morons" as Wilder says), and trying to save the town from destruction. This blissfuly funny film is packed with hilarious episodes. There's the wonderful scene where Little, asked to sing a negro song, obliges with 'I get a kick out of you', the scene where he arrives in Rock Ridge, there's Madelein Khan's hilarious Marlene Dietrich impersonation, the wonderful scene where Little and Wilder infiltrate the baddies' gang disguised as Klu Klux Klan members, and my favourite scene of all, the bit where the townsfolk, asked to give some land to the minority groups who are to help them build the fake town, reply "All right, we'll give some land to the niggers and the chinks, but we DON'T want the irish!" The film is utterly delightful, with hilarious performances from all concerned. There's just one thing that I wonder about. Cleavon Little is such a wonderful comic actor, not to mention being drop-dead gorgeous as well, why has so little been seen of him since this film was made? Never mind, if you're only going to be famous for one film, this is a great one to be remembered for.

Even the "Making-of" was recycled!
Five stars for the movie itself as well as the presentation. The movie looks and sounds great.

BUT--- as noted by many, the "30th Anniversary Edition" supplements are basically a hack job. This is easily one of the most influential comedies of all-time, it deserved to really be given the Special Edition treatment.

The "Commentary" is not a traditional commentary at all; not only is it simply the audio from a 55 minute interview with Brooks, it was issued on the previous dvd. This has been mentioned by many reviewers.

What hasn't been as well-reported is that even the half-hour retrospective doc has been recycled. The "Back in the Saddle" program, which is admittedly a decent if unspectacular show, was previously issued on the 2001 VHS edition! Basically, this featurette was issued on the 27th Anniversary video cassette release. Yes, this is the first time it has appeared on dvd, but still a rather lazy choice.

The "Additional Scenes" are, somewhat annoyingly, not accessible scene-by scene. They play as one approx. 10-minute piece. These scenes were added to the TV broadcast version. It's nice to have them, though most of them are shown in the "Back in the Saddle" featurette.

The only other significant supplement is the "Black Bart" pilot episode. This 24-minute show is a real curiousity, a great archival piece even though the show itself is excruciatingly BAD. Still, its interesting viewing, and very easy on the eyes. This show, quite simply, looks amazing! Very well preserved.

There are a couple other bits, like the trailer and an excerpt from a Madeline Kahn documentary (only about 4 minutes or so).

Really, all things considered, Warner really dropped the ball on the supplementals for this edition. The movie itself looks fantastic and the new 5.1 mix isn't anything special but it sounds better than the old disc. The movie is what really counts, and in that area the presentation can hardly be faulted. But in the end, they didn't actually produce any NEW supplemental material for this set. ... Read more

Reviews (24)

the grey fox
I too saw this movie as often as I could when it was released into the movie theatre in the 80's. I had an old beta tape of it,but alas my beta-max player died in the early 90's.This movie like Jeremiah Johnson would transfer to dvd as a work of art in a western. Jeremiah Johnson was a man out of his element,struggling to survive and make his own way in the Rocky Mountains. Bill Miner, the character that Richard Farnsworth played in the Grey Fox was a man sruggling with the progress of the west, and the industial age closing in on him. He was an old cowboy train robber,that couldn't adapt to the new world he was thrust into after spending the prime of his youth in jail.He rallies to one last great train robbery of his life and finds love in a independent artistic woman with an equally wild spirit.This is a wonderfully moving movie with amazing photography of the Western Canadian landscape.
We are anxiously waiting the release of this movie on dvd!

Perhaps my favorite movie of all time
If you want to be transported to the turn of the century and become involved in the lives of wonderfully independent characters in a beautiful setting, this film belongs in your collection. Breathtaking scenery beautifully filmed... a love story that involves two free spirits over 40... a good man responding to the times that he is thrust into... no profanity...Richard Farnsworth as the sexiest cowboy ever (maybe because he really WAS a horseman)...this film cries out to be made available in the DVD format. I have probably seen this film 20 times and will be the among the first to order in DVD.

One of the Best
I am old enough to remember the westerns of the 50's and 60's. This is without question the VERY BEST WESTERN STORY I have ever watched. It has a solid story, great filming and is realistic in its portrayal of the era and human nature. I only hope it comes out in DVD so that I can enjoy the scenery. Farnsworth deserved the Golden Globe award for BEST ACTOR and the Film deserved the Best Picture. I first viewed this movie in a little theater in Dallas, Texas almost twenty years ago. I consistently have searched for it on cable & satellite. Without question one of the top 5 films I have ever had the privilege to watch.

Top of the list of favorites
Like the reviewer from Florida, I also have this in Beta, but I really want it in DVD. This is one of the best films I've ever owned, absolutely spectacular in its visualizations of the Pacific Northwest, and heartbreaking, funny, and thrilling -- all in the same film. Great soundtrack. This film should be packaged in the DVD mode because it can include the historical background of this based-on-fact episode from our North American past. I may give up and get it in VHS because my Beta is working so poorly, but this is one whale of a film and deserves DVD.

Make Sure You Get The Right Version
On VHS this is available on two different labels: #1 MEDIA and #2 Video Treasures. If picture, sound and general quality are at all important to you AVOID the VIDEO TREASURES label. I learned this the hard way! MEDIA is the only one worth buying. I rented the Media version(recorded in higher quality SP mode) and then bought the Video Treasures version(an EP mode cheapie) - night and day difference. I was so disappointed. Finally found one on MEDIA and its just like I remember. IF THE AMAZON.COM ITEM DESCRIPTION LISTING DOESN'T MENTION WHICH VERSION THEY'RE OFFERING, EMAIL THEM BEFORE YOU BUY IT(and always check the seller's feedback too). I've seen more films than I care to mention and this one outshines almost every one of them. Hope this helps. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Loved this movie, It is top on my list to watch again
This movie is full of suspense, light erotica, rommance, great acting, backrounds and photography. I would highly recommend it for anyone who enjoys fantasy horror. It's only drawback is that it is not available in DVD form.

Memories
Sure the movie is outdated compared to what cinema has become today but what early movies aren't. The first time I saw Meridian I was to young to appriciate it but now I do. The photograpy is great. Those with and active imagination will enjoy this movie more than others, and even if Beauty and the Beast type stories aren't your thing there is plenty of other aspects to the film that are sure to interest you.

See more of Sherilynn Fenn after midnight....
A lushly photographed Continental retelling of the Beauty-and-the- Beast/young-girl-comes-of-age-with-demon-who-turns-into-handsome-prince story, my commentary will part from other reviewers (I found the story predictable, and acting melodramatic) by mentioning my primary reason for purchase of this video: the Tuscan villa setting including the famous "Monster Grotto". The sculpture garden attributed to a retired 'condottiere' who commissioned grotesque sculptures for his meditative garden, reflecting his supposed cynical worldview. The views of this Tuscan curiosity are worth the lightweight fairy tale surrounding it.

This Was Great!!!!!!!!
A beautiful young artist must choose her destiny in this hauntingly sensual tale of love, passion and revenge.
Catherine Bomarzini (Sherilyn Fenn of Two Moon Junction) returns to the family castle in Italy after her father's death. There she finds herself drawn into a mysterious love triangle with a handsome, sinister magician and a creature of the night whose gentle eyes and touch reveal his infinite love. Is this creature real or an illusion? Guided by the ghost of a slain young beauty, Catherine discovers the ancient curse that enshrouds Bomarzini Castle-a curse only she can dispel.

I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a really loving and great movie!

IT REMINDS ME OF BEAUTY AND THE BEAST ONLY WITH MORE
SEDUCTION AND LOVE!

A MUST SEE AND A MUST HAVE! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Forget about Kevin Costner's sun-kissed, water-colored,Oscar-winning Dances with Wolves. Black Robe, which was directed byBruce Beresford, a director who gave the world the finest film of the early '80sAustralian new wave, Breaker Morant, and who continually collides cultures and ethnicity in his films (Mister Johnson, Driving Miss Daisy), matchesand surpasses the Costner epic as an expertly crafted, brutal saga of redemption and salvation. In 1634 a youngFrench Jesuit missionary is assigned to trek 1,500 miles through the New France wilderness to a mission settled in Huron Indian country.Black Robe chronicles the journey of Father Laforgue (Lothaire Blutheau) as heleaves his Jesuit brothers and, with the aid of a young translator and guide,Daniel (Aden Young), and eight canoes of Algonquin Indians, moves into the uncompromising Canadian northern territory on a die-hard mission toconvert the natives. Mixing elements of Michael Mann's The Last of the Mohicans and Roland Joffé's The Mission, Beresford offers a restlesstale of Laforgue's conflicted faith juxtaposed against the sublime spiritual harmony withthe land that the Huron and Algonquin already hold. Black Robedances to its own drummer and is tuned into the precarious balance between nature'smystery and spirit and the strident, unyielding religious ethic. The cinematographyby Peter James is relentlessly cruel and bleak, but it absolutely conveysthe obstacles that face the idealistic and blind young priest, who by theend, has faced his own awakening. The film also features one of the late, great composer Georges Delerue's most noble scores. --Paula Nechak ... Read more

Reviews (36)

Horrifying realism, but profound in picturing culture clash.
Quebec 1634. Jesuit missionaries from France venture bravely into New France (Canada) to convert the Indian savages from their paganism. That's the historical background of "Black Robe", a movie based on the book by Brian Moore. It portrays the story of a fictional black robe Father Laforgue, who undertakes an arduous 1500 mile journey at the onset of a harsh winter. Guided by Algonquin Indians, threatened by Iroquois Indians, his destination is the Huron Indians. He is threatened by the elements, but most of all by the Indian paganism which construes him as a demon. The plot, however, is neither memorable nor outstanding - it is merely the background for a careful contemplation of characterization and complex questions about culture clash.

Laforgue's companion is the young Frenchman Daniel, and it is largely through his eyes that we see the clash between cultures and religions. The contrast between the faiths and cultures of the Western Christians and the native Indians is presented from the outset, with alternating shots portraying the "chiefs" of both sides preparing for a meeting. Both cultures fail to understand each other, and believe the other to be stupid and demon-possessed. At first, with Daniel, we are led to believe that the Jesuit's missionary endeavours are little else than misplaced colonialism and cultural arrogance. Laforgue is presented as rather arrogant and ignorant, his vocabulary of "poor barbarians" and "savage people", and his patronizing showing off of Western skills in reading and music and technology (an alarm clock) appears to confirm this impression. When Daniel suggests that the Indians are essentially Christian in their love for each other, and that with regard to their view of the afterlife the Indian beliefs are no harder to believe "than a Paradise where we all sit on clouds and look at God", Daniel seems to be a symbol of modern enlightened man who has realized it was wrong for Western man to force his beliefs on the natives. Daniel's romance with the Indian chief's daughter seems to be an unnecessary artificial intrusion of an unbelievable story of love at first sight, and appeared to be a concession to Hollywood's need to include sappy romance and sex. At this point I seriously wondered whether the movie was an apology for white supremacy and colonialism, a defence of multiculturalism, and another example of historical revisionism which romanticizes the Indians as saints and condemns the white imperialists as unforgivable criminals.

But as the movie progresses, it becomes clear that although Jesuit priests such as Laforgue were sometimes guilty of peddling colonialism rather than the gospel, their simple assessment is not simplistic but accurate: the Indians truly are savages who live in darkness. Daniel's multiculturalism is naïve, and Laforgue's view that it is a clash between two religions turns out to be correct, for he perceives the Indian religions to be work of the devil, while they in turn perceive him to be a demon. In the end, Laforgue is proven to be right, for the Indians show themselves to be true savages, engaged in brutal animalistic behaviour. Their hostility is not just due to the priest's rejection of their beliefs, but is rooted in their very nature. These scenes are not pleasant to see: the movie portrays their primitive behaviour with all its brutality and passion - unrestrained sex, torture, murder. The gruesome blood and gore is not for the faint-hearted and will at times make you want to close your eyes. But these fruits confirm that the apparently simplistic assessment of the black robe is right: "The savages are living in darkness. We must convert them." They need the light of the gospel and renewal of the Holy Spirit, to become like Laforgue, who despite his misplaced colonialism, is sincere in his love to reach out to the lost. The ending, however, is ambiguous on this point, with Laforgue apparently being converted to some of the Indian superstitions as he makes his final trek to the village of the Hurons. The tragic conclusion about the annihilation of the Hurons after they were converted is ambiguous in attributing blame for this horror: is it with the Christians who converted them, or is it with the darkness of their own kind who remained unconverted? Would the indigenous Indians have been better off if they had been untouched by European imperialism? If the movie has weaknesses aside from his dark portrait of brutality, it would be the ambiguity of the ending, for surely although the Jesuit mission work was at times misguided by colonialism, its identification of the kingdom of darkness was never truer.

Although it features wonderful cinematography of breathtaking Canadian scenery, this is not a pleasant movie to watch. Unlike most modern movies, the portrayal of violence and explicit sex is never entertaining, but always brutal, dark and representative of primitive barbarianism. On that point I personally found it rather too graphic and disturbing, and even the depth of the themes doesn't justify being exposed to this kind of darkness. But in the process it raises very complex and thought-provoking questions. The action is not fast and furious, but arranged at just the right places to stimulate contemplation. This is not typical Hollywood, because it gives the subject matter the realism, contemplation and seriousness it deserves. The blood and gore is all the more horrifying, because it is accurate. While this distinguishes it from the usual Hollywood cotton-candy, "Black Robe" is not surprisingly less popular because it requires an audience that can think. The movie is highly introspective, as Laforgue deals with his own struggles against lust and faith. But above all, it raises important questions about culture clash. While it portrays the truth about Jesuit missionaries being somewhat misplaced in their colonialism, it also portrays the truth about the barbarians that they sought to convert. Despite the weaknesses of the missionaries, in the end it becomes clear that as ambassadors of the kingdom of light, the black robes were truly symbols of light in battling against the powers of darkness. This is not an enjoyable movie to see, but it its treatment of colonialism and religion it raises profound questions - even if it doesn't answer them all.

If You Liked Last of the Mohicans, Do Not Miss This Film!
Few movies of recent memory arrived with such little fanfare but had such enormous impact on the viewer as did Black Robe. As powerful a tribute to good film making as Dances With Wolves or Last of the Mohicans [1992], this film transports you back to the North American wilderness of the seventeenth century, and gives the viewer a dose of realism that will live in your consciousness for days on end. Epic in it's scope and historically accurate in it's story, this movie captures on film what few others have accomplished for this period of history. If your idea of good cinema is an opportunity to be educated as well as to be entertained, and to relive a time in history long since past, then DO NOT miss this fine film! It is a must see movie for all history buffs... Excellent!

An antidote for the neo-romanticism of the AmerIndian
"Black Robe" is based on a novel of the same title written by the late Brian Moore, who also wrote the film's screenplay. Moore's idea for the plot of his novel and most of the details he used within it came from the Jesuit Relations- a 17th century chronicle of the day to day events of the North American mission of the Society of Jesus. While the Relations' main purpose was to describe successful conversions, miracles, and battles fought against Satan, they are also one of the most important historical records of the lives and customs of many American Indian tribes.

The Jesuits presented a wonderful depiction of the people they were trying to convert. Some of the stories are very funny- one Algonquin hired by the Jesuits to be a translator was asked by his employers for the Algonquin words relating to spiritual and religious topics. The translator instructed them and the Jesuits rushed off to preach to the Algonquins. It was only upon being greeted by the peeling laughter of their would-be converts did the Jesuits realize that their translator had instead instructed them on Algonquin foul language.

However, the Relations also depict a very grim picture of life in the mid 17th century wilderness. Contrary to what another reviewer has written here- adoption was not guaranteed for anyone! Yes, mass adoption later become something the Iroquois practiced, but only after their numbers had been so badly dwindled in their wars of conquest in the 1650-1670's. Women, children, and the elderly could be hideously tortured to death as well as men. The movie, in fact, was edited to avoid showing the Indians practicing ritual cannibalism on that slain boy- a custom that was common among the tribes of Eastern woodlands. To devour an enemy's flesh was to devour his power. The heart of a particularly brave enemy (such as the Jesuit martyr St. Jean Brebeuf) would be eaten by chiefs.

Also in the 17th century, the gauntlet was not the only ordeal for a male prisoner captured alive. If captured a male prisoner would usually have his hands mutiliated in some way- finger joints cut off by either cutting (sometimes with sea shells as shown in the movie) or by biting. Why? A warrior without the use of his fingers was useless- could not pull a bowstring or grasp a knife.

One could say that the Jesuits were biased in their desire to portray the Indians as savages and thus justify their conversion. However, the Relations are reknowned for their candor and there are too many other sources that describe women and children captives being summarily executed for little or no reason. (The famed voyageur and explorer Pierre Esprit Radisson in his autobiography "Voyages" saw with his own eyes- children and women being tortured to death by the Mohawks.)

The Algonquin bands of hunter/gatherers, with whom the French Jesuits made first contact, lived a mean existence by any standard. Theirs was a society that was utterly "christian" in that they shared everything, but also one that could not tolerate those who fell sick or lame. These unfortunates would just be abandoned. Life was hard enough for those healthy and fit. Also, living in a birchbark tent with almost no ventilation for smoke, zero privacy, a bunch of dogs, and lots of unwashed bodies was probably a much, much nastier place than what was shown in the film. (The meanness of these living conditions must have have been very tough on many members of the Society of Jesus because a lot of them came from families of great wealth and privilege.)

"Black Robe," the novel and the film, were meant to be an antidote to the current romancization of the AmerIndians. In recent decades we've taken one myth about the AmerIndians, that of the blood thirsty savage, and replaced it with another, the new age Eagle scout with a bent for ecology. "Black Robe" attempts to hit a middle ground- showing these people as humans who lived in a culture that was governed by different values than our own. They are shown as intelligent and brave, but also as greedy and very cruel. That Europe was awash with blood at the same time is beside the point. Brian Moore was trying to show that North America was never a Garden of Eden- people here still treated people different from themselves very cruelly.

As mentioned above, Moore actually held back in the screenplay certain elements of Algonquin life that could be found in his novel. Their everyday language was peppered by words that we would call vulgar- but to them it them it was just talking. They allowed promiscuity among unmarried young men and women- a fact that was found very enticing by French laymen, but scandalized the priests.

I don't think this movie is some sort of "propaganda" to perpetuate negative stereotypes on AmerIndians. I do think it is an honest attempt to show that these people were human beings whose lives were governed by the harshness of their surroundings. For an Algonquin band of hunter/gatherers living along the St. Lawrence, life truly was a survival of the fittest. Brian Moore simply held up a picture of the cruelty and difficulty of this existence, if some neo-romanticists don't like what they see then so be it.

Clash of Culture
Black Robe

The Black Robe reminds me of those classics during the 1960's of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. Another recent image for me is that of the movie the Last of the Mohicans (1992), based on the book of the same title by James Fenimore Cooper. Not to mention Dances with Wolves with Kevin Costner (1990) and directed by Kevin Costner. I happen to love most movies where that Native Americas are depicted in story that is uplifting about their lives. Black Robe was directed by Bruce Beresford, and is based on the novel written by Brian Moore. I found similarities in both Dances with Wolves and Black Robe.

The use of the natural settings of woods and rivers were fantastic and beautiful. The use of rivers as means of transportation is very realistic in Native American culture, especially since water is seen as the source of all life. This film at times seems to be more about the inner spiritual life of Chief Chomina (August Schellenberg) and his quest to follow his vision than about the journey of Father Laforgue (Lothaire Bluteau) to minister to the Indians in Quebec. While the Father did not show much spirituality, he did however have his memories which seemed very stark compared to the chief's visions. The differences of their cultures really did stand out in this movie. The Hurons were used to sharing their resources amongst themselves while Father Laforgue tried to keep things back for later use. Another culture shock for the Father was that of the Natives procreating at night. This bothered him greatly, so much so that he was tormented by it and had to leave his bed. This scene also took place in Dances with Wolves, here again was a white guy (Lt. John Dunbar) sleeping by a Native fire. Yet his reaction to what was happening brought him into a relationship where he married a member of the tribe and became one of them. Whereas Father Laforgue cut himself off from relationship and went off alone to do penance.

One phrase at the end of both films caught my attention: 15 years later. In the case of Dances with Wolves the phrase dealt with the fact that the expansion of white men into Native American territory meant the demise of their way of life. In Black Robe the Native Indians in Quebec who converted to Christianity became too docile and therefore were killed by other warring tribes after Father Laforgue's arrival. Interestingly spiritually they knew that this was going to happen. This film was great, but sadly since it came out not too long after Dances with Wolves, I believe that it was overshadowed by the former film.

For those who want to add to the Native American story collection, it is a great film that could be watched and compared to two other Native American epics: Last of the Mohicans, and Dances with Wolves.

Neo-Colonial Propaganda at its best
To begin with, I think this film is a true cineastic masterpiece. From its hauntingly beautiful score through the breathtaking landscape shots to the meticulous detail observed with any buildings, item of clothing and other equipment down to the last little piece of Native jewellery used, this film let's you immerse into a powerful image of 17th century eastern Canada "as it really was". The film is at its best when it illustrates mutual misunderstandings in the encounter of two completely different cultures.

The film endeavours to illustrate how the French "penetrated" Indian societies as opposed to the Spanish model of total exploitation or the English model of sheer destruction. It centers on the religious activities of French missionaries and decides to filter French military and economic engagements in the raging "Beaver Wars" out of the picture.

The clash of cultures is often illustrated by sharp cuts between Native and European worlds. These are always interesting, sometimes quite amusing. Often they amount to sheer propaganda of "savagery" vs. "civilisation". Indians huddle together, fart and copulate in dark, dirty and stinking wigwams while Europeans walk across beautiful Old World city squares conspiciously devoid of beggars, cripples and the omipresent garbage and sewage of the time. Indians practice primitive shamanism in forests while Europeans stride through light-flooded cathedrals and vow to relinquish the amenities of western Civilisation to salvage the infidels (even if "they" already cut of one of your ears in the process). Europeans do well-mannered house music in aristocratic mansions. Indians do it doggy-style in the dirt. Always, anywhere and with anyone, as the film will teach us through relentless repetition.

The clash of belief systems is personalised in an encounter of the dignified Jesuit priest with an Indian shaman - impersonalised by a ridiculously behaving and profounfly vicious yellow painted dwarf. What could have been an interesting example of Indian attitudes towards disabled and retarded people - worshipping people who are different as a manifestation of the divine instead of confining them to the margins of society - is turned into just another example of the film's leitmotif - the savagery of the barbaric Indian.

When the film was released a New York Times critic lauded the fact that this historical film got by with portraying American colonial history"without villains". Without white villains that is, of course. Set in a time when the Thirty Years War was raging through central Europe where entire populations of large cities were laughtered to the last woman and infant while seeking refuge in churches and when one third of Germany's population was slaughtered by armies of fellow Christians, the film centers entirely on what it presents as a realistic portray of "Indian savagery". When the Algonquin party with its European guests is captured by Iroquoians (the Algonquians speak neither Algonquian nor do the Iroquois speak Iroquoian but all happen to speak Cree here in fact but who would notice anyway) the male captives are forced to run the gauntlet in their captor's village. Once, badly battered, of course, they had survived this indeed pretty brutal initiation procedure, I , having at least a superficial knowledge of Iroquois culture, prepared myself for wittnessing the usual next step, the adoption of all captives into the tribe. I soon learned that the makers of the film seemed to have an agenda which would not permit such a less than traumatic ending.

It is towards the end that an ambitious yet heavily slanted portrayal of culture clash tilts into point-blank atrocity propaganda. Portraying matriarchic Iroqois societiy with its democratic decision making processes as a male-commandeered dictatorship is in itself a surprising failure given Beresford's claim to show everything "the way it really was". One wonders if this distortive rendering of Iroquois social life occurred unintentionally. How could they get such basic things so wrong? However, this appears like a lesser evil compared to the what we are supposed to learn of the treatment of captives by Iroqois. Captured women and children were regularly adopted into the tribe. In fact the Iroqois waged numerous wars on neighbours and absorbed their vanquished foes through something that amounted to genocide by hostile takeover, if you like. There was a time when 25,000 out of 35,000 Iroquois were adopted former enemies. The biggest indian killers of the time were disease, not war. Tribes replenished their thinned-out ranks with captured enemies and could hardly afford to kill them "unnecessarily". Male captives were in for a tougher ride and were only adopted after having endured the gauntlet.

The film shows none of this. Instead, the captured boy has his throat cut before his father's eyes for no apparent reason - exept "Indian savagery" which is, by definition, beyond any rationality. The captured woman is announced to be tortured to death the next day. The same fate awaits the male captives - although they just passed the initiation rite. One previous commentator hoped that the research done for the scenes in the Iroquois village was profound. Well, it was not. In fact, the makers of the film got everything beyond mere outfits wrong here. This is certainly not "a sensitive and earnest portrayal of Indians" as one previous reviewer reasoned.

At the end the film raises "the profound question" if it was right to bring the light of Christianity to the Hurons since they were later on "annihilated" by their heathen Iroquois enemies (in reality parts of the survivors were adopted into the tribe, others formed the influental Wiandot nation). What the film fails to mention is that it was hardly a Christian "turn the other cheek" attitude that brought about the demise of the Hurons but the fact that only partial conversion of the Hurons occurred which split the disease-stricken nation at a time of war when unity was most needed and that the French had chosen the Hurons as their allies and prime proxy fighters in the Beaver Wars against their Iroquois enemies - and finally let them down militarily when the Hurons needed their support (For some reading check out http://www.tolatsga.org/hur.html).

How to rate such a film? Five stars for its technical merits. One star for its often distortive, elaborate defamation of Native culture. I think that the latter weighs more heavily than the former. Two stars. See it. Carefully. I rented it. I wouldn't buy it. ... Read more

Reviews (13)

classic film making
well, i must say after seeing this movie several times, i am still in awe. the intertwining stories of both { the great raul julia, such a loss} and the wonderful hurt, truly puts you right into the journey each character endures. i read of the intense work mr hurt did to prepare for the role, and it shows brilliantly. showing through very difficult conditions, two totally opposite life spectrum's learning and understanding can be met. though not conceding completely they both walk away thoroughly different and changed people. the reality and fantasy were incredibly executed here, and even those of us who relish the idea of figuring it out will be tested. well deserving of the oscars and all awards nominated and won. i love a good story and especially when you walk away learning life long understanding, which is not allways acheived in the movie business. A+

A Fine, Thoughtful Movie
I remember liking this movie when it came out in 1985 but I had forgotten just how good this movie really is. William Hurt certainly deserved the Oscar he won for his portrayal of Molina, an effeminate sex offender-- he is always in character-- on the other hand, Raul Julia is wonderful as a political prisoner too. This film makes a thoughtful statement about both friendship and what being a man is really all about as well.

I can't remember when I have seen such a realistic film. You can almost smell and taste the awful prison food that these two men eat, for instance. The sex between the two men is handled with great delicacy. This is a really fine movie that troubled me long after I saw it again.

One of my personal favorites.
'Kiss of the Spider Woman' is one of my personal favorite movies. It is a great character study of two prisoners, an intellectual and homosexual, who pass their time by telling stories of their lives and recalling favorite films. William Hurt and Raul Julia give awesome performances, and by the end of the movie, I was feeling for both of them as though they were real people. An AWESOME AWESOME movie.

A "classic" in every sense of the word!
"Kiss Of The Spider Woman", although an emotionally draining film, is a true classic. Right from the first scene, you feel the frustration of Valentin and Molina, both outcasts of society, yet for very different reasons.The acting is nothing less than extraordinary. William Hurt as the lonely homosexual, Molina, the late Raul Julia, as the stern, but deeply caring political prisoner, Valentin, and Sonia Braga [who takes on three different roles, including the title role, and plays them all brilliantly], are what make this film so great. Although Hurt deservingly won the Oscar for Best Actor, the same consideration should have been given to Julia and Braga for their contribution, as they were both nothing short of incredible. Why this great film is not out on DVD is a mystery in itself. If you've seen it, see it again....if you haven't, I highly recommend you do.

An interesting movie that I surprisingly did not enjoy
I saw this at a Landmark Theatre in L.A., famous for their quality independent films. Kiss of the Spider Woman was originally released in 1985 and gained Academy Award winning recognition. It was re-released after 16 years, over the summer. It's very powerful, and should make you think. The acting is dazzling by the two leads, William Hurt and the sadly deceased, Raul Julia. But to tell you the truth, I didn't like the movie very much. The plot focuses on two prison inmates in Argentina, incarcerated and tortured by their own government. William Hurt is a sensitive drag queen, who is not as innocent or sensitive as he first appears. Raul Julia is an austere man filled with politically charged passion and anger, but also reveals a different side to him. The movie exhibits the contrast of the two eccentric, two very tragic characters, and sucks the audience into their story, but for some reason, I wasn't really absorbed into its story. Despite my lack of enthusiasm, the movie is considered an all-time great by most film-lovers, and so if you, too, love films, I would take their recommendation on this one, over mine ... Read more

Description

The Doctor and Sarah land on the desolate planet Karn amid a spaceship graveyard and are soon welcomed by Professor Solon, who is inordinately preoccupied with the Time Lord's capacious skull. ... Read more

Reviews (17)

Silly episode with huge logic holes
Yes, it's nice to see Doctor Who take a break from all the science fiction and fantasy to land in a horror setting. But it's still just another evil villain looking for a new body episode except that Morbius, the disembodied brain of the title, isn't nearly as entertaining a villain as the Master. Who fans sometimes complain that Tom Baker jokes too much and displays humor at inappropriate times, but if ever there was an episode that could use a little camp it's this one, what with the evil scientist, his large, unwitting assistant, and the brain that desperately needs a good head. The writers/producers seemed to have come up with a great idea and no way to really make it work over 4 parts. But the biggest problem is just the plot inconsistencies. Not that Doctor Who gets big points generally on realism, but at least it doesn't usually contradict itself without an attempt at an explanation. Without giving away too much of what plot there is, let's just say that if the mad scientist goes on and on about how perfect the doctor's head is and how much care needs to be taken with it, he doesn't need to come up with tricks to let a group of old women take it off for him. And why not keep the doctor's body as well? Although that would spoil the one moment in this episode that merits it a second star -- the "creature" finally coming to life (which is, truth be told, a great Who moment). If this episode had a sense of humor or a villain with more than one dimension it might have rated as campy fun. With 20 years worth of episodes from which to choose, and most more worthy than this week effort, give this one a pass.

A "bland" Frankenstein story? No way
In the Gothic Tom Baker era of Doctor Who which saw stories influenced by classic horror and sci-fi, The Brain Of Morbius takes on Frankenstein, Igor, and the monster.

On landing on the forbidding world of Karn, the Doctor's in a right sulk, angry at the Time Lords. "Meddlesome interfering idiots, messing about with my TARDIS, dragging us a 1000 parsecs off course." His sulk doesn't last long after seeing a spaceship graveyard, a castle, and a headless body.

He also meets Professor Mehendri Solon, a foremost Earth neurosurgeon, and his hulking barbarian servant Condo, who has a long thick eyebrow and a hook for his left hand that Solon once calls a "chicken-brained biological disaster." Condo is counting on Solon to reattach his real left hand, which had to be removed to save his life. Solon though, is endeavouring to find a head suitable to house the brain of Morbius, something that'll be his greatest and last operation. This is puzzling, as Morbius was a renegade Time Lord who with his followers fought the Time Lords and was defeated and executed by vaporization on Karn. However, what is the weird headless creature with one giant claw in Solon's laboratory?

The Sisterhood, a society of virtually immortal women who guard the Sacred Flame and the Elixir of Life, become alarmed when they realize the Doctor is a Time Lord. They are protective of the Elixir and the Sacred Flame, which has been gradually dying. No flame means no elixir and pretty soon, no Sisterhood. Fearing that the Doctor has been by the Time Lords to steal the last of their Elixir, they kidnap him and sentence him to death. However, aging leader Maren, and her young subordinate Ohica, are thrown when he returns of his own free will (for help) and realize he's not out for their Elixir.

Throughout her travels, Sarah has been kidnapped, cryogenically frozen, hypnotized, and more. Here, she gets blinded (temporarily). As for the Morbius Monster, it is described as "made from butcher's leftovers," "potpourri," "Mr. Allsorts," and as "Chop Suey, the Galactic Emperor." It has to be seen to believed. Hmm, Dr. Who vs. Chop Suey--sounds like a bad sci-fi/kung-fu story. Never mind.

The scene where a brain drops on the floor offended some medical students, but it made for unintentional laughs. However, scenes of strangulation and someone being gassed by cyanide probably didn't go well with Mary Whitehouse, the UK's Tipper Gore on television.

Philip Madoc (Solon) turns in his best performance in a Who story, a performance that's very crucial to the story. He runs the gamut of emotions, enthusiastically welcoming, cool and rational, angry, desperate, exasperated, and distressed, especially in the brain-dropping scene. Cynthia Grenville (Maren) and Gilly Brown (Ohica) also do well in their roles.

But who is Robin Bland, the writer? Former script-editor Terrance Dicks turned in his story the day he went on holiday (big mistake, because the producer and current script editor Robert Holmes were unable to contact him) and when he got back, he was incensed, as the story had been changed so much that it was more Holmes' work. Dicks asked his name to be removed and have some "bland pseudonym" put in its place. When he saw the aired story, credited to Robin Bland, he'd calmed down since then and was disarmed by the joke.

The initial video release was an edited 60 minute programme, and it wasn't until 1996 that it was released in its entirety. This is one of the more popular stories, as the BBC saw fit to include this among the original video releases in the 1980's. Along with the story and strong characters, the studio sets work well, particularly Solon's castle.

Highly Recommended
I hid behind the sofa when I first watched this episode. It was black imitation leather. Funny what sticks in the mind. I love this episode, even though I haven't seen it in almost 30 years. Corridors, a brain, garish lighting, Sarah-Jane, Mary Shelley. I recommend it for any youngster today.

Evil gets a head
With the possible exception of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" I can't think of a show in all television history that makes fun of itself so gleefully without losing its dramatic integrity. This is why I loved "Who" as a kid catching it in fuzzy 22 minute re-runs on late-nite PBS, and why I love it now, when I can watch it on VHS and DVD without being tortured by sadistic fundraisers hawking Channel 26 tote bags.

During Tom Baker's run (I'm not very familiar with the other Doctors yet, having grown up with #4) the writers of the show tended to have the most fun when they borrowed from classic horror tales and concepts. "The Brain of Morbius" follows in this tradition, being more or less the concept of "Frankenstein" set in space, or rather, on a stormy, abandoned graveyard of a planet named Karn.

The story opens with the Doctor throwing a comic tantrum because the Tardis has been diverted to this out of the way dump of a planet against his will. He suspects the Time Lords are manipulating him into doing some dirty work for them, and of course, he's right. Within 30 seconds Sarah, whose portrayal by Liz Sladen I am coming more and more to appreciate as I get older, has discovered not only a number of wrecked spacecraft all in a tiny area but also the headless body of a freshly murdered space traveller. Why is he headless? Why have all these ships crashed in the same spot? Why has the Tardis been diverted to Karn, which was once the seat of power for a renegade Time Lord named Morbius? And while we're on the subject, who lives in that spooky castle on top of the mountain?

"Morbius" like all Who episodes good and bad, has a lot of competing plot elements in it. On the one hand is the Sisterhood of Karn, a group of immortal, telekenetic biddies given to bad makeup, chanting and a burn-them-at-the-stake-first, ask-questions-later mentality. On the other is Dr. Soren (Philip Madoc) and his hook-handed, ape-like assistant Igor, uh, I mean, Condo, who live in the spooky castle with a lot of surgical equipment and seem to have a strange interest in heads with large craniums. The Sisters want to kill the Doctor because they think he's after their Elixir, which is the secret of their immortality and the reason the supposedly dead Morbius came to Karn in the first place. Soren wants the Doctor's severed head to play host for a certain brain he's keeping in the basement. Sarah, who is blinded by Maryn, the grumpy crone who runs the Sisterhood, wants her sight back. And poor Condo just wants to know where Soren is keeping his arm.

Philip Madoc, who later returned to play a small part in the forgettable "Power of Kroll" is spectacular here. He recites incredibly campy and villainous dialogue with such relish it is impossible not to laugh. The best thing about "Doctor Who" has always been the classic, mustasche-twirling evil of its bad guys, and this episode is no exception. Similarly, Baker and Sladen are in very good form, as is the actress who plays Maryn, and the guy who does the voice for Morbius shows what fans of old radio shows have always known -- to make evil come alive, all you need is a great voice.

Of course "Morbius" is not a perfect episode. The scenes with the Sisters are overlong, dreary, and replete with whispery chanting which is so annoying that even the Doctor, who is about to be burned at the stake, can't help complaining, "This music is terrible!" They are nasty, murderous, self-absorbed hags who seem not much better on the moral scale than the crazy Dr. Soren; I can't say I cared whether the reborn Morbius, who looks like he's been put together from spare parts from your local zoo and/or aquarium and is topped off by a fishbowl holding his brain, strangles them all with that nasty-looking crab claw or not. Also, I can't help but feeling a wee bit sorry for the old fella. Living as a disembodied brain in a jar filled with glowing green goo, with only the crazy Dr. Soren and the incredibly stupid Condo for company, has got to be a huge downer. Who can blame him for being so cranky when he wakes up?

As for the controversy surrounding what the Doctor does to Soren, all I can say is, when push comes to shove, Tom Baker's Who shows in numerous episodes that he can be one mean SOB. Besides, as the original Frankenstein discovered, sometimes it's best to let sleeping body parts lie.

This is a GREAT episode!
Some say this was not as good an episode but I must disagree. This is an intriguing Frankenstein type Dr. Who adventure that really has an interesting and chilling plot. The evil villin in this story is Morbius, who once was a timelord like Dr. Who but was destroyed, or so the timelords thought. All that is left is Morbius's brain and he is desperate for a HEAD to put it in. The problem is that most of the alien life forms that he has brought down from the sky have not been suitable homes for the brain of Morbius, that is, until the unexpected entrance of the good Doctor. Dr Solon gets soooo excited at the sight of the head of Doctor Who, that you almost can see him salivate. Hehe. Unfortunately, the Doctor stumbles upon the sisterhood, who hate all intruders, especially males!!! Sarah, the close companion of the Doctor, is as useless as ever and gets herself into more trouble then she is at helping and eventually gets herself temporarily blinded by the ring of the leader of the sisterhood. You can imagine how helpful Sarah is after that! lol. One of the interesting character of this episode is the igor looking helper of Dr. Solon. Dr. Solon has promised (igor) is arm back if he helps him find a head for Morbius's brain. I am not sure how igor lost his arm??? Hmmmm. At any rate, the tale evolves around the Doctor attempting to stop the resurrection of Morbius into a new head while keeping the sisterhood from killing him at the same time. There is a lot of running back and forth between Dr. Solon's laboratory and the caves of the sisterhood. In the end... well, I wont spoil the ending, but I do suggest you add this episode to your collection of Dr. Who's. You wont be disappointed. This episode is one of my favorite with Sarah as the Doctors companion. Have fun! ... Read more

Reviews (28)

Warning: This movie will make you hungry
Dominick (Dom DeLuise) has been eating everything in sight ever since he was a young kid. As you might guess, because of that, Dominick is overweight and he's still VERY crazy about food. But everybody tries to urge him to go on a diet when his cousin, Sal, dies prematurely of being too overweight. Eating tons of food isn't just tasteful, it's a way of life for Dominick, so it won't be easy to break the habit.

I had been wanting to see "Fatso" for a long time and I finally got to see it. It's a great movie in many ways. Parts of it are hilarious, such as when Dominick keeps seeing tons of appetizing food on television no matter what channel he turns it to, and other parts are even a little bit sad. But the whole movie is entertaining, and it's hard for me to believe that "Fatso" isn't more popular than it is.

If you like great movies, buy "Fatso" as soon as possible! It will make you hungry for food while you're watching it and after the movie is over, it'll probably leave you hungry for a sequel.

One of My Favorite Movies Ever!!!!
I first saw Fatso when I was working in Yonkers, NY in the early 80's. I loved it then and have since seen it about 15 times. I too use lines from the movie in my everyday life, i.e. "how would you like to stuff that in a jelly donut?" or "He (Sal) was my favorite cousin, he always had something on him to eat - always" or one of the best lines was when Anne Bancroft was talking to Dommie about his missed appointment with Dr. Schwartzman (the diet doctor) and she said "Sal had an appointment with Schwartzman and he went and got a pizza instead". Dommie replied "Probably sausage". I think this is pure genius, but I know that this film isn't for everyone (skinny people). I guess it helps that I love to eat and am from NY, but I have recommended this movie to several of my friends out here in SF, CA and most of them have started quoting lines from the film as well. This film is a classic - Go buy it or rent it if you can find it. After the movie order up a nice pizza or plan to go down to Chinatown for a meal or two.......

One of the all-time great food movies...
I cannot understand how the reviewers missed this one for lists of food movies. The food in this movie is wonderful. The acting is good, and the lines are superb. "Get the honey, Junior" is one of cinema's underrated classics.

However, it does have one failing that it shares with "Who is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe" (another wonderful movie about food); they BOTH need to be available on DVD.

fatso
it seems that not many people know about this film- thats a shame because it is a riot. It's one of those handfull of movies that you can quote lines and scences from for years. I guess it helps to enjoy the film if you are Italian and from the area the movie takes place in. I dont know what scene is funnier; The scene where Dom holds his brother at knife point to get into the refridgerator he put a padlock on, or the scene where the fat support group (Like AA for obese people) comes to help Dom and the 3 of them snap and end up eating everthing imaginable. _GET THE HONEY JUNIOR ! ---Anyone Know of a site that has sound bytes of this film?

My Funniest Movie
I bought it long ago and have shared it with different friends maybe a dozen or so times. It is my all-time favorite comedy. Not only can anyone who has ever struggled with a diet relate to this, but there is also a lot of good-natured Italian ethnic humor in this movie. Dom DeLouise and Ann Bankroft are very endearing in their performances. It's also a very, very rare comedy that is family-friendly--can show it to kids and conservatives without a problem!
I'm so surprised this is a very little-known film. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Doctor Who does a horror version of Forbidden Planet
In this extremely well directed story with Hammer-like flourishes, The Doctor (Tom Baker) explores a lush alien jungle on a planet at the edge of the known universe. There, Professor Sorenson (Frederick Jaeger), engaged in experiments to harness the power of anti-matter, has unleashed a terrible anti-matter beast that threatens the men onboard the ship sent to rescue him. The alien planet is extremely well designed, and the scenes involving the anti-matter monster leave the viewer with a genuine sense of dread. There are also some very nicely directed sequences involving The Doctor falling into the anti-matter pit. As the anti-matter monster divides itself and attacks from all sides, the claustrophobia and tension increases, making one frequently look behind oneself. In an midst of a very we