Amazon.com

Red Dust is the second of six movies Clark Gable and Jean Harlow made together. As usual, he plays a rugged man's man whose devilishly sexy good looks and deep-rooted gallantry make him irresistible to women; she, a tough, no-nonsense broad with a smart mouth, champagne hair, a body that won't quit, and a heart of mush. Their presence elevates this otherwise melodramatic soaper to the rank of classic. Directed by Victor Fleming (who, at Gable's insistence, took over the direction of Gone With the Wind from George Cukor), it definitely bears Fleming's macho mark.

Dennis Carson (Gable) runs a Southeast Asian rubber plantation. Vantine, a "woman of easy virtue" (Harlow), drifts into camp looking for a place to evade the law. One look at Dennis and she falls, hard. Her incessant chatter drives him nuts--and out of sheer impudence she insists on calling him "Fred"--but she finally wears him down. "You talk too much, but you're a cute little trick at that," he grins, pulling her onto his lap as the camera cuts away...

Then Dennis falls for Babs Willis (Mary Astor), the genteel wife of visiting surveyor Gary Willis (Gene Raymond). (The couple arrives at the dangerous, ramshackle camp with tennis rackets.) Babs can't help but succumb to Dennis's raw masculine power. Come the monsoons, he carries her in out of the rain. Their ensuing first kiss is one hot movie moment--and her a married woman! Of course this can't last: Gable and Harlow have to end up together. Dennis takes pity on Gary and abandons his plan to run away with Babs. "I've been noble," he tells Vantine, taking her in his arms. "Well, it's about time!" she replies. --Laura Mirsky ... Read more

Reviews (10)

PRE-CODE DELIGHT
RED DUST has become a classic primarily because of the romantic teaming of Gable and Harlow in roles perfectly suited to his virile charm and her unique brand of earthy humour. The sexy team generated a lot of chemistry between them and the public was enthralled! Dennis Carson (Clark) manages a rubber plantation in Indochina. Vantine (Jean) is a shrewd, wisecracking blonde tart with a heart of gold who shows up unexpectedly and her sardonic wit is rampant throughout the film. Gable as the stalwart plantation overseer further solidified his reputation as a romantic leading man - but it's Harlow's portrayal of Vantine which really lingers in the memory. Shrewd, brassy, honest and sensuous, she is the quintessential tart with a golden heart; this is one of her prime roles. Mary Astor does okay in her role as the lady-like Barbara whereas Gene Raymond's interpretation of her husband verges on being trite as he hero worships Gable (until the conclusion). The Chinese houseboy would not be seen in todays films but Donald Crisp and Tully Marshall are fine as the guys who share their quarters with Dennis. Victor Fleming, who had persuaded a reluctant Gable to accept the role of Dennis skillfully directed the film with a primary emphasis on characterisation and atmosphere - the result is a movie which broke box office records in 1932 and remains unforgettable today.

Harlow's Best Film!!!
Red Dust made Clark Gable a household name and gave Jean Harlow the opportunity to display her comedic talents. This is Harlow's best film! The scene in which Harlow explains to Gable how cheese is made is one of the funniest moments in the history of film! This movie is a must for any Jean Harlow or Clark Gable fan.

Harlow steals the show!
As a diehard fan of Clark Gable I rented this movie for him and came out of it completely under the spell of Jean Harlow. Who cares what their personal lives were like, does it really matter? No, when they're on the screen together everything else just disappears. While some actresses seem to shrink in the presence of legends like Gable, Harlow actually steals scenes from him. Her tough talking Vantine is the one you're rooting for from the beginning. And when she's not on the screen the story gets a bit sappy and diluted. But as always she returns to save the day (and the picture) with her wise-cracking unapologetic manner. Hooray for Harlow and Gable! Whatever genius got them together on the screen did film fans everywhere a favor!

Good movie, but did Clark have to be so cruel to Jean?
I thought overall "Red Dust," the first on-screen pairing of Clark Gable and Jean Harlow was a good movie. Clark's character, Denny, is definitely a man's man, and I thought Jean Harlow was adorable and lovable as Vanteen, the tough hooker with the heart of gold. Clark and Jean have great chemistry, but it's all ruined thank's to Mary Astor's prim and prissy character, "Babs." Denny falls hard for her, and is a total jerk to Vanteen, which really annoyed me. But in the end, you can't help loving Clark, and Jean is always great. Her sarcastic comedy is terrific. It is so sad that Jean had to leave us so soon. Who knows how many more great movies we would have had?

Jean Harlow & Clark Gable are Awesome!!!
I thought this was a awesome movie!!!!! The chinese guy was hilarious!!!!! I really thought their on screen chemistry was very real & easy to belive. Its too bad Jean Harlow didn't live longer becuase I think she was a wonderful actress. I felt really bad for Gary & Vantine. :) I thought this was a wonderful movie & that you should buy it ... Read more

Reviews (19)

Has it's moments
I always put off seeing this one because I heard a lot of negative things about it, but it is far better than it is given cradit for. I think this film gets a great deal of slack due to the fact that it followed up the first two Frankenstein films which were just outstanding. This film is certainly not in the same league as those two, but I would say it is the fourth best of the seven Hammer Frankenstein films. one of the major criticisms about this one is the monster's appearance because they switched to using the old Karloff make-up, only cheaper. The make-up does like several layers of old oatmeal, but it is certainly no worse than the make-up used in Horror of Frankenstein and Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell. Peter Cushing puts forth a good performance, some people say his character begins changing in this one, but I don't think that is true. The story does get a little shaky once the hypnotist is brought, but it is still entertaining. Films of Freddie Francis always seemed to have some fine visuals here and there, and this film is no exception. The scene where the body snatcher is carrying the body along the ridge and the scenes of the castle are the stand-outs. This is certainly a step down from the first two, but it still fairly good.

Best Hammer Frankenstein...
For my money, this is the best of the Hammer Frankenstein films. I'm a big Terrence Fisher fan but his Frankenstein don't do much for me personally. They're decent, but his Dracula films are better. Freddie Francis keeps things moving with great sets, wonderful matte paintings and Peter Cushing chewing up the scenery. Hammer films have always been melodramatic and this one is wall to wall with it. One can only hope that Universal will put this on DVD soon.

A GREAT Guilty Pleasure!
As you, or may not know, this was the only Frankenstein film starring Peter Cushing that was not directed by Horror maestro Terence Fisher. Instead the workman-like Freddie Francis steps in for old Terry(who was apprently sick at the time) And delievers a sort of quase-shawshbuckler-mad scientist movie. Not special or in-depth like Fisher's entries, but a fun sleazy gulity pleasure trip. Francis imbues the film with a gritty damp feel, quit unlike the earlier entrys or later ones, contrasted in John Wilcox's flat photogaphy. And Anthony Hinds's poorly scripted screenplay (one of his worst) manages to conjure up some absurd snappy diolouge, that will keep any Bad-cinema buff entertained.

Unfortunetly this guilty treat is not avaiable in it's un-cut format, which consists of scense shot from TV upon it;s original TV airing. Though these cut, or added scenes (which ever you like to term them) can be seen on AMC, whenever they happen to air it.

wha??
i thought freddie francis's Dracula has risen from the grave was the worst hammer film, but it turns out freddy francis's Evil of frankenstein is... the don banks score is the only good thing in it. Oh you think i am being harsh? well everything from the title onwards is ridiculous (its the only frankenstein where cushing ISN'T portrayed as evil). Monster make up terrible, plot inane, and about 20 minutes of flashback reshot by francis instead of just using the footage from the first film (continuity was never a hammer concern at the best of times, but this version is monstrously boring compared to the original).

Why is it that a cinemaphotographer the quality of francis always direct films that look so ugly? i don't understand... only the scene of cushing rexploring his abandoned home has any resonance at all, the rest is just cobbled together from older frankenstein films without anything fresh to add (unlike those later in the series, must be destroyed and monster from hell etc which are far more gruesomely inventive).

the film ends with the monster getting drunk (probably wishing he were out of this horrible film) and in best hammer style the house burns down.

i could go on and on about this dismal film, just avoid it, watch any other hammer frankenstein film (yes, even the horror of frankenstein is better than this drivel) because there are some funny, intelligent and grotesque films out there made by this studio (but not this director).

To be fair to Francis, his darker images found a better outlet in later tyburn films (hammer became tyburn i think?) like the creeping flash and the ghoul, his style was more suited to these 70s horror films rather than the picturesque hammer films of the 50s and 60s. But having said that, he did make a lot of those terrible amicus anthologies too, (particularly silly is the one with a killer piano, can't remember which it is) and who could watch trog? nobody....

Complete mediocrity.
The problem with this Hammer Frankenstein entry is not simply that it uses Universal's aesthetic approach to the myth. The real problem is that Freddie Francis was a professional but erratic director who was generally not terribly inspired. Fisher had a brilliant vision of both Shelley and Stoker's gothic myths. If he had turned his hand to this Universal-Hammer fusion, who knows what the results could have been? Anthony Hinds did not use the pseudonym John Elder because he was ashamed of the screenplay; that was a common practice of his, and he used it in such other superior films as Kiss of the Vampire and the masterly Taste the Blood of Dracula.

Freddie Francis's best film is probably the Robert Bloch-scripted anthology film Torture Garden. His other anthology films should also be checked out. But as far as feature length films are concerned, Francis's work can range from atmospheric but banal (Dracula Has Risen from the Grave) to outright disasters (The Deadly Bees). Pretend that this entry in the series doesn't exist and skip directly to Frankenstein Created Woman.

Oddly enough, the professor who wrote the Cliffs Notes for Shelley's novel gave this film 5 stars in the appendix and referred to it as a masterpiece! This same professor is also strongly critical of Hammer's other Frankenstein films, referring to them as "hysterical" and "exploitative." I've never been able to figure that out. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

A favorite film of some of the world's greatest filmmakers, including Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg, John Ford's The Searchers has earned its place in the legacy of great American films for a variety of reasons. Perhaps most notably, it's the definitive role for John Wayne as an icon of the classic Western--the hero (or antihero) who must stand alone according to the unwritten code of the West. The story takes place in Texas in 1868; Wayne plays Ethan Edwards, a Confederate veteran who visits his brother and sister-in-law at their ranch and is horrified when they are killed by marauding Comanches. Ethan's search for a surviving niece (played by young Natalie Wood) becomes an all-consuming obsession. With the help of a family friend (Jeffrey Hunter) who is himself part Cherokee, Ethan hits the trail on a five-year quest for revenge. At the peak of his masterful talent, director Ford crafts this classic tale as an embittered examination of racism and blind hatred, provoking Wayne to give one of the best performances of his career. As with many of Ford's classic Westerns, The Searchers must contend with revisionism in its stereotypical treatment of "savage" Native Americans, and the film's visual beauty (the final shot is one of the great images in all of Western culture) is compromised by some uneven performances and stilted dialogue. Still, this is undeniably one of the greatest Westerns ever made. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (120)

A classic western
The Searchers is considered by many to be one of the best westerns ever made, and I cannot disagree with them. The story follows the efforts of two men trying to track down a kidnapped girl from Comanches over the course of five years. The men tracking the tribe are a Confederate veteran and the girl's uncle and the other a family friend and also part Cherokee. The film is beautifully shot as all John Ford westerns are, which adds to the overall mood of the movie. There is a vastness to some scenes which show the futility of tracking down this girl after so many years. The Searchers is a classic that provided John Wayne with a role that was different from any other he had previously played.

John Wayne stars as Ethan Edwards, the Confederate veteran trying to track down his niece after his brother's family is slaughtered by a Comanche raiding party. He plays the role of the racist veteran to perfection. At times it is startling to see him in a role that differs so greatly from most other movies he had done. Jeffrey Hunter plays Martin Pawley, the Duke's partner in his search for the kidnapped girl. He plays a good sidekick to Wayne throughout since they have such differing personalities in the movie. Also starring are Natalie Wood, Ward Bond, Harry Carey JR, Patrick Wayne, Hank Worden, Ken Curtis and plenty of other Wayne stock actors. The DVD is good but could have been much better. You can view the movie in fullscreen or widescreen, with trailers included alongside four documentary shorts. A must have for western fans that is up there with Shane and The Wild Bunch as some of the greatest westerns of all time!

John Wayne at his Western Best now on WideScreen DVD!
"The Searchers" (1956) Anamorphic Widescreen DVD version is one of the best classic westerns ever made! Ranked in the American Film Institute's (AFI) top 100 movies of the last 100 years (1998). Having the best Western Director, John Ford partnering up with his favorite cowboy star, John Wayne can only be the beginning of a grand movie. Adding Widescreen Technicolor, the colorful Panoramic Monument Valley - Utah (Ford's favorite western area to film), a fantastic musical score and top supporting cast leads us on one of the best filmed westerns ever!

Summary - Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) is returning home to his only Brother & his family. After he and a posse of Texas Rangers (Lead by Ward Bond) were decoyed away by distant marauding Indians. The actual Indian raid was on remaining defenseless families left behind. Ethan's returned to find his Brothers family massacured all but his youngest niece, Debbie (played by Lana (younger)& Natalie Wood (older). His vengence takes him on a 5 year journey to recover her. Wayne is brilliant and proves he is a great actor.

"The Searchers" is a powerful 2 hour emotional rollercoaster ride. This movie will leave you with more respect of John Wayne's ability to act, Director John Ford's genius to tell a very complex story. Leaving us forever with a Great Western Classic! Enjoy.

Searchers!!
Ethan Edwards, (John Wayne), finds his way home after the civil war to his brothers homestead. Some cattle are rustled and he and a few men track them only to discover it's a Comanche trick to lure them away while they kill out the folks left behind which is Ethan's brother, wife, and kids. They arrive back too late, all are dead except Ethan's niece who was taken captive. Ethan sets out to find his niece accompanied by Martin Pauley, (Jeffrey Hunter), who Ethan found as a baby years earlier after another Indian raid. Ethan loved his brother's wife which is clear in the book by Lemay but very lightly alluded to in the film. This helps to explain his rage because everything he cared for in the world is gone. He will pursue the Comanche that have his niece until hell freezes over. Along the way he finds that he is still a human being. This film is widely considered the greatest western of all time and a favorite film of Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg if that means anything to you, I thought I would toss it in anyway.

STILL SEARCHING FOR AN ADEQUATE TRANSFER
John Ford was a master craftsman of the American cinema. Though he dabbled in melodrama and action during his directorial career, his everlasting contribution to the movies remains in those galvanic distillations of the old west put forth by an unparalleled series of legendary films. "The Searchers" ranks among his most finely wrought and meticulously hand crafted projects. Indeed it seems to be the film in which the culmination of Ford's own commitment to the power, beauty and frailty of the western frontier tragically come together in a revisionist perspective that exposes both its grandeur and its flaws. The film stars the iconic John Wayne as Ethan Edwards - a strangely majestic antihero who vows bloody revenge after his cousin and family are slaughtered by marauding Comanches. But Ethan's search for his surviving niece (Natalie Wood) becomes a sinister and all-consuming obsession when he learns that she - having been abducted while still a child - has now adopted the ways of her captors and, at least in Ethan's mind, has become one of them. The film tackles racism in the form of Ethan's distrust of one time family friend (Jeffrey Hunter) who is part Cherokee and the sweep and spectacle of Death Valley has never been quite so poignantly captured on film.
THE TRANSFER: While Warner Home Video has made "The Searchers" available in anamorphic widescreen in a print that is light years ahead of anything the film has looked like before for the home film enthusiast, compared to more current DVD releases, the visual splendor of the transfer falls short of expectations. Though colors are rich there's something of a muddiness and lack of balance to them in many of the indoor scenes. Also, several scenes appear to be suffering slightly from color shrinkage, creating a slightly out of focus image quality that is distracting. Age related artifacts are present but do not distract so much as the digital anomalies of pixelization and edge enhancement which greatly plague the background information in most of the long shots. A slight shimmering is inherent in all of the scenes. Black and contrast levels can be solid at times, while sometimes appearing slightly pasty. Ditto for the unnatural flesh tones which are either overly pink or a ruddy orange. The audio has been remastered and delivers a nice expansive presentation which is in keeping with the vintage of the original sound elements.
EXTRAS: Not this time around. Sadly, this film deserves a documentary.
BOTTOM LINE: "The Searchers" is a masterful western, on par with "Stagecoach" and "High Noon". Definitely one to add to your film library.

The Best Western Ever Made
This is the best Western ever made. There's simply too much to say about it here to do it justice. The imagery, John Wayne's character's growth, the comraderie between the "searchers", the supporting cast and the theme will make seeing this film worth the while of even those who "hate" Westerns. It's a classic, and purchasing it will be money well spent.

Enjoy. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Whenever a new network gets a start, some weird things make it onto the air. That's the only possible explanation for Get a Life, Chris Elliott's short-lived series in which he starred as a thirtysomething paperboy, Chris Peterson, who still lived at home with his folks. (His dad, strangely enough, was played by Chris's real-life father, Bob Elliott, a respected comedian in his own right.)

The two episodes on Volume 1 exemplify what Get a Life was all about: a straight-faced spoof of sitcom conventions that managed to avoid all of the conventions that spoofs usually observe. That it wasn't laugh-out-loud funny is beside the point; Elliott's fans know that his brand of humor is often diametrically opposed to conventional humor.

Though the plots are fairly conventional--in "The Prettiest Week of My Life," Peterson enrolls in the Handsome Boy Modeling School, where he competes with another student, Sapphire; "Bored Straight" finds Peterson trying to rehabilitate a gang of teens--the shows themselves are anything but. --Randy Silver ... Read more

Reviews (35)

My all-time favorite show!!
I was thrilled to see that "Get A Life" was available on video. It was without a doubt the funniest television series I've ever seen. The 2 episodes on Volume 1 are classics. I feel they are a good representation of what the show had to offer. The scene when Chris poses "shirtless" in "The Prettiest Week of My Life" and the scene when Chris tries to counsel the teens in "Bored Straight" are hilarious! People who watch this series and come away saying it's stupid amuse me. You either get it, or you don't. I look forward to more volumes being released. My favorite episode was "Zoo Animals on Wheels."

Get A Life: The Anti-Sitcom
Quite simply, Get a Life was is anti-sitcom in which all other sitcoms pale in comparison. I sold my blood so I could purchase both volumes of this great series (even though I had many episodes on tape). It was worth every drop. Volume One is good in that it starts with two shows of the first season. However, I tend to like the episodes in which Chris dies at the end (an aspect of the show that was later ripped off by the uninspired and pointless "South Park" -- I will watch Chirs get squashed by a boulder or blow up any time). Nevertheless, Volume One is a must for the Get a Life fan and anyone who is sick and tired of the cookie-cutter network comedies. Volume 2 is even better. My only disappointment is that there is no word on when Rhino is releasing Volume 3, 4, 5, etc. Wallet-Boy forever

One of the greatest shows ever
There were two shows on television during the early-mid 1990s whose comedic genius was too far ahead of the times and they were (consequently) canceled. Get a Life was one of them; the other, a show which aired on Mtv, The State.

I'm glad that at least a few episodes of Get a Life have made it out to DVD. Let's all keep our fingers crossed for DVD editions of more Get a Life, The State, and... Cabin Boy.

Let the idiocy begin (or continue, or something)!

One of the best tv shows every on FOX
Thanks Rhino for the two tapes.

Great action I can't wait for the 3rd volume.

While these two are great,We need such classics as Zoo animals on wheels, and Wallet Boy.

This is what TV should be!

i made sure 2 tape every single episode as it aired, cuz. .
. . .from the minute i first heard about this "sitcom", i just knew it wasn't gonna stick around long, much less acheive "friends"-style immortality via ad-nauseum syndication :/ in my experience, most people, particularly women, just take an Instant visceral dislike to chrissyboy, much to their everlasting loss. he's the anti-tom cruise; every project he touches (tattinger's, daddy's boy, cabin boy, teen beat articles, cinemax specials, snl and getalife) turns to despised, financial turds. damn shame, cuz with the exception of getalife's premiere episode (thankfully not among the few selected for inclusion on these rhino releases; it was likely an intentionally-watered-down pilot to lull fox execs into green-lighting this programming aberration), elliott's utterly unique, downright Poetic (he has Such a way with words) flavor of clueless idiocy is maintained with remarkable potency throughout its too-short run. these two eps are no exception: among their other acheivements they puncture, a la an assassin's scopelock, diana ross And to-sir-with-love styles of oozy sentiment (both particularly strong banes to my sensibilities) without hardly even trying -those are just colLATERAL damages! :)

if Anyone deserves an honest-to-goodness, messianic cuckoo cult to spring up around him it's paperboy chris peterson. he's got all the standard qualifications: a humble station in life; near-universal apathy, scorn and rejection from the world; a tendency and gift for sharing his "insights" via oblique, evocative metaphor; timeless youth and resurrectional abilities (he literally Dies at the end of many of these shows. plus, it's an historical inevitability that he'll never mature one Whit); and undying faith in sacred visions only he can see :) so I SAY UNTO YOU ALL, in this, our year 2000 (holy date significantly embedded into so many getalife episode titles), let our getalife jihad sally forth like a kid at the beach buried up to his neck in sand. only it's not sand, it's candy. and it's ALIVE! vt ... Read more

Amazon.com

Talk about too little, too late. A year after Stephen Frears's marvelous Dangerous Liaisons, Milos Forman released this film, based on the same material: the novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses. Shot at the same time but held so as not to compete, it suffered by comparison. The story--about a pair of aristocrats, former lovers, who wager that the man cannot seduce a particularly chaste woman--is still awash in lust and intrigue. But, while Forman's craft was exceptional, his cast couldn't match the power of its predecessor. In particular, Colin Firth, as the game-playing title character, lacked the snaky charm of John Malkovich, and Meg Tilly couldn't compare to the tragic beauty of Michelle Pfeiffer. Annette Bening, though born to play a vixen, seemed callow and insubstantial next to the sinister depths of Glenn Close. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (74)

Interesting,but from what I've hear Valmont
besides Colin Firth can't hold a candle to Dangerous Liaisons. I now would like to see this adaption of the book Les liaisons dangereuses. The movie is allright ummm Annette Bennings performance was pretty convincing and Colin Firths performance was pretty sexy...lol But nothing amazing. This movie is okay if you have'nt seen Dangerous Liaisons first and since I haven't I liked this movie quite a bit. The girl that played Cecile was done well she did it very convincingly. Probrably the best performance in the film. Alltough I as well found the ending about Annette Benning glaring at Cecile's ex-lover confusing. Lol I'm not good at remembering characters names so excuse that. But I love historical films and the clothing was beautiful. One thing that... me off is when Valmonts witnesses those bum butts from the bar ran away. And there should have been a MUCH MUCH better sword fight I mean come on a 10second fight? I love swords and anyways. I suggest this movie to people who like historical films,and if you catch it on TV watch it,but if you plan on buying a film based on the book Les Dangereuses Liaisons from what I've heard you're better off purchasing Dangerous Liaisons,but if you want to rent Valmonth go ahead it'll be cheap hehe!!!Anyways enjoy either way you go!!!

God Bless ~Amy

Better casting than Dangerous Liaisons
I bought this tape because I liked the movie Dangerous Liaisons with Glenn Close, John Malkovich et al. Dangerous liaisons had more punch to it, especially the ending. However, the casting in Valmont is far superior (with the exception of Meg Tilly). I found John Malkovich repulsive and reptilian--he didn't convince me that he was a rake who could charm a virtuous woman. Colin Firth, however, was very sexy and suprisingly vulnerable as Valmont. Annette Benning was great--playful, conniving, and beautiful. Glenn Close looks dried up and past her prime in comparison. I was actually most suprised by Fairuza Balk. Her role was meatier than Uma Thurman's. While Uma was stiff and (imo she can't act), Fairuza was fresh, young, and talented. I heard she was only 14 when she filmed this! The only casting I didn't like was Meg Tilly. She was weak and very stilted. It almost seemed like she had a hard time just saying her lines. No chemistry with Colin Firth whatsoever. Michelle Pfieffer was infinitely more tragic and tortured. I wish I could combine Dangerous Liasons' script with the cast of Valmont--that would be my ideal version of this movie.

An outstanding yet neglected film
I happened to watch this movie on TV, quite a while ago. Despite the rather "unastable" ending (towards the book) I found it very good. Colin Firth (apart from being an absolute hunk in period frocks is also fantastic-though he smiles too much for such a tragic character) is much more down-to-earth and handsome than -otherwise great actor- John Malcovitch. Colin is brooding, John is SCARY. Not the person I'd trust my heart or body to. Glenn Glose is a lot more scary - Anette Benning is fantastic because she is bad, she is sexy,and can be even good sometimes. Glose is bad, bad, and scary. Not to mention that ravishing - and too old - Uma Thurman can't possibly persuade anyone for being innocent, pure and well, virgin. Fairuza Balk, is yet a child. Milos Forman gives the characters a depth that we don't see in DL1. The only thing I consider a good choice, was Michelle Pfeifer as the tragig widow. She is brilliant, beautiful (Meg Tilly was pretty but not as ravishing), and most of all, CAN ACT. A few years younger and next to Firth, could produce sparks. I definitely go for the Milos Forman edition. Despite the really bad ending, he gives his characters more dimensions. In DL1, the good are too good, the bad are too bad, and the people between, insignificant. Life isn't just that way.
I hope i will be able to find it in a DVD region 2 someday. Unless I buy an All-regions DVD player. (sigh).

MGM Home Video Does a Hachet Job On This Masterpiece
Please, don't get me wrong--Valmont is one of my favorite films of all time. But I just discovered to my HORROR that it's true--MGM Home Entertainment has edited out a crucial and beautiful scene from this cinema masterpiece. I can't believe I missed it for the past two years, but the other reviewers are right. The lovely scene where Valmont buys a bouquet of flowers and brings them to Madame de Tourvel's apartment, and leaves them on her bed when she is not there, has been hacked out of this DVD! This scene is so beautiful and ingrained on my mind, that I must have mentally inserted it into my viewings for the past two years and consciously overlooked its absence. I can't tell you how betrayed and violated I feel, realizing that I have been watching the movie for two years without this important scene included. The scene is one of the most delicate and mysterious of the whole movie, showing a tender side of Valmont's character in such a subtle way. I am going to send my copy of the DVD to either MGM or Milos Forman and complain about this monstrosity. And I am going to buy a copy of the old VHS version that is intact and complete. If you care anything about the integrity of art and artistic accuracy, don't buy this DVD. You will be missing an imprtant part of the film. This DVD is tantamount to taking Monet's "Coquelicots", taking some shelack, and brushing over the woman's parasol. How does an outfit like MGM have the NERVE to commit such an atrocity on a masterpiece of art? They have no shame. I am totally appalled.

Best version of LIAISONS
Milos Forman was scooped. Stephen Frear's DANGEROUS LIAISONS came out first and had a starrier cast. But it was Forman's film that captured the tragic irony of the original book. Frear's film is pure cornball. Glenn Close and Malkovich ham it up as rich, spoiled, and extremely mean people who go through great lenghts to use and hurt as many people as possible for no apparent reason, until the day that Malkovich falls for the nun-like Pfeiffer and then the plot develops with all of the misunderstandings and forced tears of the old, stage melodramas.
Milos Forman's film, however, is a masterpiece. He did not make the characters so black and white as they are in the other film, and he also gave his characters motivations, which justify all actions and turns of the plot. In fact, the film is a vast improvement on the novel, as Forman adds his great observations of human nature and his own unique brand of irony. In VALMONT, you never assume anything. I recommend seeing both films as a great tool to compare real art with crap. ... Read more

Reviews (25)

Pompous, fitfully interesting vamp psychodrama
One of Abel Ferrara's interesting failures -- a philosophical art-house vampire movie, shot in stark b&w, with Lili Taylor as a philosophy student who gets bitten by Annabella Sciorra and tailspins into the madness of hunger. How could it miss? Well, there's a reason that "Bad Lieutenant" is Ferrara's best film: It wasn't written by Nicholas St. John, whose scripts for Ferrara have been pretentious at best, ham-handed at worst. This one is both. When we're not watching the humorless Taylor shooting up blood or blathering about deep stuff, we're wincing at death-camp footage. One can almost justify the images of real-life atrocity as Ferrara's usual outrageousness, but after a while the gallery of Holocaust horror just seems like a cheap, unearned way for St. John to beef up his themes of collective guilt and evil in modern society. Taylor is compelling, Ken Kelsch's photography is riveting, and Christopher Walken is amusing in a small role as some sort of vicious vamp guru.

You'll watch it more than once
The Addiction is an artsy vampire movie that strays from what most movie goers see in vampire films. It is shot entirely in black and white-which adds to the dark setting. Vampirism is portrayed in much the same way as drug addiction here.

Lili Taylor turns in an excellent performance as Kathleen, a philosophy student who is plunged into the dark world of the vampire. As she is transformed gradually in the movie the fact that she is a philosophy student plays a large role. She is forced to reconcile her new life with the existentialism that is the focus of her studies. As she becomes more sure of herself in her new life, an elder vampire Peina (played by the creepy Christopher Walken) throws a wrench in the works. Lili Taylor's voice is marvelous in the dark settings where her character contemplates her new existence with philosophy. Where will her journey into darkness take her...?

This movie is well written, visually appealing, and the main charcters are deep. You will want to watch it more than once to be sure.

Interesting, But Not Too Addictive
Abel Ferrara gave a shot at the vampire genre and the result is "The Addiction", an interesting but flawed movie that fails to convice. Lili Taylor plays a NY philosophy student who gets bitten by a vampire woman. That experience will change her life and the way she views the world, offering new perspectives and goals. While this is a somewhat promising idea, the plot never sems to surprise all that much, so it gets a point where it keeps repeating and moving nowhere new.
The movie touches a few points like existencialism, fate, guilt, sin, faith, nihlism and of course addiction, but the development could be better and it ends up seeming like unfullfilled potential. Still there are some intriguing elements, like the black and white cinematography, the moody atmosphere and some compelling, well written dialogue. But even considering these good ingredients, the movie doesn`t step above average material. "The Addiction" just lacks bite.

Sorry but doesn't miss something somewhere ?!!!!
I will not say that Abel Ferrara is not creative in his own way to make movies. This work proves that there is someone behind the camera full of ideas and a great thinker, No doubt about it. The problem is just the story.It could have been a great one but dunno what happened. It becomes easily boring and it's a pity. Acting is okay. Walken's got a little role in it, 10 minutes maximum.If you are curious about Abel Ferrara, well It's still worth few bux.

Movie About Sin Nature
I really enjoyed this movie. It's set in a very intellectual environment, with a dark side. When the main character becomes bitten by a vampire she gets pulled into the life of a vampire, a very addicted one. She's addicted to the life-style of a vampire but hates it. The movie is about her struggle with her sinfull life-style.
It's not a movie comparing vampirism to aids and drugs so much, but rather to human sin nature. Sin nature as presented in the movie though, is as addictive as drugs and contagious and incurable as aids. The movie did an excellent job of displaying the nature of sin to the audience. Notice first that the sin had to be chosen, victims were never forced. After they chose sin, they became addicted and couldn't, by their own means, be released from their addicted lifestyle. In this movie, it's not until you are saved can you finally find release from sin. Her nature had to be changed, not her environment, not her psyche. I think the theme of the movie is embodied in the quote from R.C. Sproul(A famous calvinist minister and speaker) at the end of the film, "We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners." It was a movie about human nature, and the anatomy of sin the Biblical idea of sin (intended or not). Vampire stories in general are a study of sin. Concider their hate for all things Christian, the love of death and destruction, their opposite lifestyle(sleeping upside down, night dwellers ect) So I found this movie a great one to add to the list of vampire movies that I love!
I highly recomend this movie. You'll have a lot of fun examining it and picking out the details that hold the secrets to the overall meaning of the film. Very philosophical! ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Not good
As a big fan of 60s comedies, I find this one seriously lacking. There's no chemistry between Rock and Gina, nothing likeable about their characters, and nothing compelling about the storyline. I do believe I laughed once during the movie however, but I can't remember why. Actually I only got this movie because it came packaged with Man's Favorite Sport, which actually IS a good and funny movie.

Bad DVD of a Good Movie
Not genuine letterboxed. Portion of original picture missing. Read review under the orginal DVD two-pack release of Strange Bedfellows/Man's Favoite Sport.

Gina and Rock or Rock and Gina?
This couple, Rock Hudson and Gina Lolibridgita is always fighting because she's different from him and has her own idea and stands for women's rights and then before you know they are made for each other but she also is involved with another man with hilarious results so be prepared to laugh. Find out who gets the girl by watching the movie. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Classy MGM was not the studio most likely to make a horror movie in1941, and in fact its production of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde ended uplooking more like a glossy costume drama than a B-movie frightfest. The mood ofRobert Louis Stevenson's tale of a divided doctor is ably captured in Joseph Ruttenberg's Oscar-nominated cinematography--more so, perhaps, than in SpencerTracy's lead performance. Tracy wasn't especially happy about playing the role,although his transformations from good Dr. Jekyll to evil Dr. Hyde areconvincing enough. One of the main reasons to see this version of the story isthe young, impossibly beautiful Ingrid Bergman, then still a year shy of Casablanca. Bergman was cast in thegood-girl part, but proved a shrewd judge of material, even this early in herHollywood career; she finagled her way into playing the floozy instead, thussecuring a more colorful acting platform than Lana Turner, who ended up in themore respectable role. Director Victor Fleming's previous movie was a littlenumber called Gone with theWind, and the Big Picture approach to that project may have influencedhis work here--this Dr. Jekyll is just a bit too stately, too polished to really engage. The picture is so dignified it never cuts loose withthe kind of wild invention that marked the 1932 version of the story, whichwon Fredric March an Oscar. It's the tale as imagined by Jekyll, rather thanHyde. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Is Evil Necessary?
In the horror films of the 30s and 40s, a common thread was often the question of the limits of knowledge. Was there truly an area that man was supposed to not go? The novel DR. JEKYLL AND MR HYDE and the various filmed versions have each attempted to answer, however imperfectly, that question. The 1941 version with Spencer Tracy as Dr. Jekyll sidesteps this issue, instead focusing on the consequences of splitting a human into his good and evil selves. Director Victor Fleming sets up the eventual fall of Mr. Hyde by stages. He uses both the dreariness of fogged London streets and the considerable talents of Spencer Tracy to suggest a noble but flawed Henry Jekyll. The dark corners of the twisting avenues surrounding Jekyll's house suggest a lurking evil. The smiling earnest face of Henry Jekyll suggests a similar unsettling moment as he contemplates that all men have within themselves a duality of morality that can be brought out by man's technology and science. The two female leads, Lana Turner as Jekyll's fiancee and Ingrid Bergman as Hyde's forced paramour, are seen as reduced female images of Jekyll-Hyde. Turner is the pure Jekyll--loving, caring, endlessly forgiving. Bergman is the rougher, more edgy version of Turner. Various critics have been harsh in their condemnation of these two women, both in the characters portrayed and the acting involved. Yet, these actresses' performances are exactly right. Turner's innate goodness is associated with Jekyll; each supports the other even when family and circumstance dictate otherwise. Bergman's acting role requires more subtlety. Her beauty allied with her working class image is what attracts Hyde in the first place, but she has to shed her edginess each time she and Hyde interact. The dramatic center of the movie is Jekyll, rather than Hyde. It is he who gives form and substance to a plot that allows him to branch off to become the monstrous Hyde. All of Hyde's evil is more a reflection of what Jekyll could have done rather than what Hyde did. Spencer Tracy shows a Jekyll that needs his dormant Hyde to make life's difficult decisions. Before his first transformation, Jekyll lived a life that was normal, yet bland. It was only after his exposing to himself of his Hyde personality, that his Jekyll side was able to become more confident. When Hyde is killed by bullets, of course Jekyll too dies, but the death of both is more than the closing of a police blotter of crimes now solved. Hyde's death indicates that Jekyll's goodness was incomplete without a recognition of the dark side that has existed deep within all humans since the apple eating incident of the Garden of Eden. DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE points out that undirected good needs directed evil to avoid plucking that apple from the tree in the first place.

A disappointment
I must say this movie is a waste of time. Even though I enjoy Ingrid Bergman in everything I have seen her in thus far, I can honestly say I didn't really like this role she plays in this film. Though I must say she is the reason I give it 2 stars and really she is the only reason I can give anyone to take the time and watch this movie. She's not bad, she just didn't impress me. Anyway, I definately must say that I DID NOT like Spencer Tracy as Jekyll and Hyde. He is not a leading man in my mind!! He did not fit this role at all. (I guess I will always think of him as a priest in Boy's Town). I don't think he had enough charm and charisma and good looks Jekyll should have possessed. His Hyde character was evil enough, he did seem scary and cruel. I guess I am biased because I first watched the 1930's version with Fredric March and I found that to be a very good film, very satisfying, and this one just did nothing for me. I highly recommend you see the one with Fredric March, and skip this one.

Boring Doctor wakes up to discover he's Richard Nixon
I remember the night well. I had read a story about Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde at the age of seven or eight and knew it was a horror story. So when I saw it was going to be on TV I pleaded with my dad to let me watch it. He did and I did. My first ever horror movie, so it has a kind of special place in my heart.

Spencer Tracy plays the infamous London doctor. My goodness, if I were as dull and uncharismatic as Tracy, I'd want to change into another person too. As it happens, he comes across a chemical potion that allows him to do exactly that-and so he metamorphosizes into an evil brute who looks uncannily like you would expect President Nixon to look first thing in the morning (these days, anyway). At least as Hyde he gets to be a bit nasty with a few people, which more than makes up for the inane dialogue the cast are forced to deliver.

Amongst Hyde's most abominable traits are his tendency to violence and his rather rude habit of spitting grape pips out onto the carpet (by far his worst offence-ask any housewife). Also of concern is the way his face wobbles about and blurs every time he metamorphosizes. He should really see a doctor about that, or at least get a better guy to do his special effects. Corny SFX have always been the downfall of the worst villians history has offered us.

The amateur freudian psychology of the dream/transformation sequences is an amusing diversion, and the sight of a naked Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner down on all fours being whipped by Spencer Tracy is a sight you will never forget (one wonders what was going through the director's mind). Oh, and anyone who has ever been to London will immediately recognize all those shadowy alleyways, narrow streets and thick fog, and will be familiar with the everyday sight of cloaked villians running across London Bridge pursued by bobbies whose thick accents betray their East London/Irish/Australian/South African/Yankee origins.

To be fair, this is kind of a fun film, and in between the banal chat there are some memorable moments where the photography, direction, editing and music suddenly combine with great style. The bedroom scenes with Ingrid Bergman (don't get excited-nothing too racy) are fascinatingly photographed, the camera rarely seeming to notice anything other than her beauty ('the camera was in love with her' I guess some camp film critic might say). The pace picks up considerably in the last half an hour, so it just about qualifies as a 'horror' despite the fact that the only thing horrific about the other three quarters of the film is Spencer Tracy's coiffure.

Perhaps it is just the nostalgic memory of staying up late to watch my first horror flick that renders the film worthy of three stars (for gosh' sake, Dad could have shown me DUMBO and it would have held the same appeal as long as I THOUGHT I was watching a horror movie). Maybe something in there will hook you too.

Disappointing
I found this version disappointing. It's as though Robert Louis Stevenson's short story was turned into a novel by somebody other than him. In other words, I was left wondering whether the director ever read the story.

First, one of the great things about the story is Stevenson's description of London. A dark, Victorian, setting, generates a mood that helps create the drama. In this production, mood is practically nonexistent.

Second, Hyde assaulting a young child on the sidewalk helps define Hyde's brand of evil early in the story. That scene does not appear in this movie, leaving the audience guessing at his character.

Third, as others have noted, the women were miscast and Bergman's British accent made me wince.

But the greatest flaw is the change, or rather, the betrayal of the ending. Stevenson's ending dramatizes Jekyl's despair over what he's unleashed - an increasingly important theme as the story progresses. This production ignores that entirely.

While a director should not feel bound by an author's every word, they should honor the spirit of the original, particularly when the original ranks as one of the best of its genre. Here, there are a few dramnatic moments but, in general, it's a two dimensional movie that does a disservice to a great story.

I give this 3 stars because of the cast, not because of the production.

"A good example of a misguided effort"
This version from Victor Fleming, the director of The Wizard of Oz (1939) and Gone with the Wind (1939), was made only nine years after what is still recognized as Rouben Mamoulian's definitive version, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1931) - a relatively short time period for a remake. This version was made at the height of the 1940s vogue in Freudian psychology. But instead of opening the story up the Freudian interpretation ends up completely embalming it. Instead of a fight between civilized man and his animal nature the story has taken on the view that evil does not exist, merely insanity - a potentially intriguing interpretation. But the Freudian emphasis ends up being rather laughable - like the dream visions during the transformation with Spencer Tracy whipping a carriage with one white and one black horse, or the rude crude sexual symbolism represented by the one virtuous and one loose girl, and images of the girls seen superimposed swimming in the bottle as he is tempted to take the potion again. It is often stated that Tracy played the Hyde part without makeup as a contribution to the more psychological interpretation - such is not the case, he does use makeup - however he may well have. Tracy plays the part more as a slavering Scotsman - rather than representing man's baser nature, his Hyde comes across more as a malicious prankster. All one ends up being struck by is the patent theatricality of the performance, rather than any threat it should hold. Although there is one good scene with Tracy at a piano spitting out grape pips and forcing a terrified Ingrid Bergman to sing for him.

A better director could have made something out of it but Fleming directs this as though it were a big-budget musical. Any potential atmosphere is wrung out of the film it by the production design - the film is lavish but entirely stagebound, the streets of the West End are empty and bare of any lived-in quality. Fleming's handling is quite clumsy - the pace deadly slow. The crucial transformation sequence is entirely without impact - just a closeup on the bottles and liquids being poured and facial lap dissolves, all to canned music, no sound effects. It should have been the film's dramatic climax. The entire film is a good example of misguided effort. Everything appears to have gone wrong. The casting of Ingrid Bergman as the Cockney tramp and Lana Turner as the virtuous fiancee is disastrous. Both were cast in the other's role but decided to swap because they were tired of being typecast. It is probably the only bad performance Bergman ever gave. Halfway through the Cockney cheekiness gets forgotten and Bergman returns to something more introverted and passive, the type of role she should have been cast in in the first place. On the other hand Lana Turner is totally miscast as the fiancee, perpetually looking as though she wants to drag the good Jekyll away for some less reputable fun.

Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5

Grade: B 87% ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Wagons West are Rolling
Wagonmaster is quietly poetic and optimistic. I found it quite unlike other Ford westerns I have seen, possibly because it hasn't got Dook or Hank in the way, so the ensemble cast comes into its own. Beautiful b/w cinematography with some breathtaking shots of the wagon train (shadows and dust) desperately looking for the next watering hole, but that is expected from John Ford. The Chuckawalla Swing dance is wonderfully filmed as well. Good use of the Sons of the Pioneers music in this movie, it is much more fitting than in Rio Grande. Ben Johnson is great in this movie, the role really suits him. Ward Bond and Harry Carey Jnr are very good and the Cleggs are as creepy as you could want. It is difficult to find on video, I had to find a second hand vhs version, but it is more than worth it. With My Darling Clementine, my favourite Ford western. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Mean and lean entry in the Tarzan series
The Tarzan movies in the Weismuller series are like the Burroughs novels upon which they are based--the early works are impressive ,and as the series developed an air of routine set in .This follows on from the second of the Weismuller movies Tarzan and His Mate ,and while still enjoyable and tautly directed it is a lesser work than its predecessor .In fairness it should be noted that the work as we have it is not the movie as originally shot-preview audiences were reputedly upset by the violence ,reportedly quite graphic for its day ,and the movie was extensively re-shot .
As with Tarzan and His Mate ,this features an expedition sent into the jungle to track Jane ;her sister and her sister's fiance are seeking Jane to advise her of a substantial bequest that needs her to return to London to attend to the formalities.
A white hunter takes charge of the expedition seeking to capture Tarzan.
The trek to Tarzan's lair is very similar to the one depicted in the earlier movie , even down to using some of the same footage in the native attack sequence .

Will Jane leave Tarzan for the bright lights ?Will the hunter's nefarious schemes work out or will right triumph ?

You will have a good time finding out in this tautly directed and actionful movie which is quite intense in atmosphere and moves at a brisk clip .
One interesting aspect is that ,with the Hays Code having come into being after the previous entry ,this is markedly less heavy on exposed flesh -Jane's sleeping attire is decorous and the swimming scenes is minus the tasteful nudity of the earlier movie.On a down side there is unfunny comic relief courtesy of the Cecil Kellaway character and Cheetah -always for me the greatest irritant in the series -has more screen time than I would have liked .

Good fun and a strong entry in the series .

Johnny Weissmuller is the preeminent Tarzan
This is a tough and mean Tarzan movie. Johnny Weissmuller was the best of the loincloth-clad heroes and he gets you cheering in this one. It's good vs. evil all the way. Code of the Jungle. A favorite of mine, this excellent film is a real testament to the notion of "kill or be killed." This is a good hard-hitting action and adventure tale. It contains discriminating effects and ravishing photography. Good supporting cast. Great score. The villains once again meet their match in this realistic drama. A good one.

Fastpaced and violent
Tarzan Escapes! is the most actiondriven of all the MGM productions consisting O'Sullivan and Weissmüller as the rulers of the jungle. It also has its moments of intelligence and ethical challenges, as when Tarzan escapes a trap and is led to believe by the slimy Captain Fry that Jane has decided to leave him in the hands of fateand bad will of his antagonist, incarnated in the body of a greedy safari. Then Tarzan, stricken with grieve over is beloved Jane's alleged betrayal, sadly enters the cage himself. Of course, everything turns out well, with the elephants (the cavalry!) coming to rescue, and the bad men being punished. A rare moment of Christian forgiveness, Tarzan pardons the black servant Bomba when he kneels before him in the climax of the end, when the bill has to be payed. But the stubborn and ill-hearted Captain Fry receives what is deserved upon the unrepentant, a gruesome death in the smoking swamps within the cave of death. Justice is being served, and once again, and thanks to it's monosyllabillic patriarc, the peace of the jungle is being restored.

It was good for a black 'n white
I saw this movie a couple thousand times, maybe more. It was good for a movie made in it's time. Of course I'm sort of a die hard Tarzan fan. If anyone feels the same way I encourage you to go see that new disney movie on June 18th.

Edge-of-your-seat-adventure
It all starts when Jane's cousins come to Africa to get her to go to London and sign a will leaving her a couple hundred grand. Jane must decide whether or not to go. When it was first released it included lizards and other scary stuff, it devastated audiences, it even scarred people for life. Then it was re-worked and re-released-a big hit. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Before there was Quincy and The Practice, there was Rumpole. Rumpole of the Bailey is, quite simply, one of the best television series ever and has served as a model for all law dramas that followed it. Edgy and satirical, Rumpole is based on John Mortimer's books of the same name. A determined and committed criminal defense barrister at the Old Bailey, or criminal court (whose clients have included three generations of the Timson family, among others), the antihero Rumpole is portrayed by esteemed actor Leo McKern. As champion of the downtrodden, the self-righteous Rumpole finds himself again and again in trouble variously with his wife Hilda, his peers, the head of chambers, and judges, to name but a few. A connoisseur of Wordsworth, cigars, and cheap liquor, McKern's usually disheveled Rumpole belies the character's dry sense of humor and astute skill as a barrister. The upwardly mobile Hilda is played by Peggy Thorpe-Bates, known for her Miss Toliver in Alcatraz Island (1933), and Justice Sir Guthrie Fetherston is played by Peter Bowles, known for his Richard DeVere in TV's To the Manor Born.

Volume 18 features two episodes. First, in "Rumpole and the Quacks," Rumpole battles the formidable Phillida in court to defend his doctor, accused of sexually molesting a patient. Next, in "Rumpole for the Prosecution," Rumpole takes on a rare role as prosecutor to investigate a policeman who may not have been properly charged for murdering a girl.

Typical of British drama, production values are low while the caliber of script-writing and acting is unsurpassed. A rare example of a television serial that is as appealing and engaging after watching it 10 times as it was the first. --Erik Macki ... Read more

Reviews (125)

Personal Best -robthenob@hotmail.com
In 1995 I was up in Scotland with five of my best friends whom had literally come from the four corners of the earth for the occasion. We travelled around the beautiful country, camping where we could and generally enjoying our freedom and youth. One particular spot that we stayed at was on the North West coast of Scotland, on a small, remote peninsula next to a white sanded beach with a view towards the Isles of Muck and Rum. After being there for a couple of days, we were told by a passing local that the beach was the very one that Local Hero was filmed on, and the peninsula where we had been camped for the past two days is where the church in the film was situated (it was apparently a set, made around an old house that still exists). At this point I had not seen the movie but knew the soundtrack by Mark Knopfler very well. The holiday I had that year was without a doubt one of the best I've ever had. Two years later on returning to NZ, I watched Local Hero with tears in my eyes, I couldn't believe that my favourite place in all the world was captured on an exceptionally beautiful, quirky, strangely romantic, and intelligent film. Overall I think that the general gist of the film is one of awakening our senses to the simple things in life, just like MacIntyre did on arriving at that small coastal village. We all need, at some point in our lives, to escape the hum-drum of every day life and awaken ourselves to the real life outside of our own. It is a wonderful, gentle film that will always be a part of me. P.S. I have omitted the exact name and location so that it is not overrun with tourists, but if you really want to know, send me an E-mail.

One of my all-time favorites!
I am dating myself woefully, but I remember seeing this film when it came out in theatres. I trekked some distance (via bus) down to some theatre in Hollywood (I'm from another part of L.A.) because it wasn't showing anywhere nearby. I wanted to see it *that* bad. And I certainly wasn't disappointed.

When I finally got a DVD player, one of the first DVDs I got was "Local Hero". It's definitely on my "must-have" list.

The story is simple -- materialistic Peter Reigert is sent to a small Scottish village to try to negotiate a land deal for his rich, eccentric boss (Burt Lancaster, who is outstanding). He arrives in Scotland as a guy who is only obsessed with business deals, his car, and his posessions back in Texas, but soon he learns there are more important things in life. The townsfolk are absolutely wonderful, all in their own unique, eclectic way. Denis Lawson particularly shines as "jack of all trades" who holds several positions in the community, including innkeeper.

The oddness and beauty of this film takes time to unfold, and it is best just to sit back and watch it happen. Everyone seems to have a story, everyone is eccentric in some way. I especially loved Burt Lancaster and his interaction with his "therapist", who takes the job *far* too seriously. Lancaster plays one of the most likeable and unique characters onscreen. Reigert too, is endearing. He so wants to be "normal" that he can't even admit that he might use a shampoo for dry or greasy hair. "Normal. EXTRA normal.", he says, when asked what kind of shampoo he needs. What an uptight guy he seems at first, but he soon mends his ways.

The score by Mark Knopfler is among one of my favorites too. I can play it and it brings back the whole atmosphere and mood of this film. The musical piece played at the end of the movie is heart-wrenching and brings back the sweetness of the end of this fine movie every time I hear it.

Director Bill Forsythe created an absolute gem in this movie. A must-have in *every* film collection. Absolutely first-rate.

difference of opinion
This is one of those movies that you watch and finally when the credits roll you kick yourself for wasting the time and effort to do so.
The bomb dropping jets? The guy on the motorcycle? The briefly hit on relationship between Mac and the other guy's wife? The marine biologist turning into a mermaid? Please, some one explain the relivance.
The ending seemed as though the writer needed a quick way out of a poorly written movie. I'll bet Burt Lancaster turns in his grave (is he dead?-if he isn't he should be after making this dud) every time some one waist their time trying to watch this movie.
The main reason I watched the movie was because of the soundtrack that was written by Marc Knopfler-great music, terrible movie.

Where's Bill Forsythe when we need him?
This movie really did inspire me. I got up the nerve to make a solo trip around Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales.

The scenes, characters and sounds of this movie are simply unforgettable. For sure, it's a cold heart that won't come out speakin' with a Scots accent with a touch of Russia.

You can go home again.
A very charming movie that bears up well under repeated viewings. Bill Forsyth has done so many good movies over the years, but I think this remains his best. Certainly, it is the closest to home, as he beautifully plays off the American-Scotland theme and the sense of misplaced identity.

Peter Riegert is great as Mac, a representative of a large Houston oil company who has been chosen to close a deal on a harbor village in the north of Scotland, because of his presumed Scottish ancestry. Turns out Mac is of Hungarian, not Scottish descent, as his parents thought MacIntyre was an American name. Nevertheless, Mac soon finds himself adapting to the rugged North Sea coast, picking seashells from the tidal pools and adopting a rabbit his driver had inadvertantly hit on the road.

Forsyth introduces the viewer to a wonderfully eccentric cast of characters in the small village, led by the amicable Gordon Urquhart, mayor, innkeeper, accountant and jack of all trades. Mac finds himself falling in love with Gordon's wife, but the playful romance is treated more in jest than in an attempt to foil the plot. It is in a grizzled beachcomber that we find the perfect foil to the land deal, which eventually brings the head of the oil commpany, Mr. Knox (played to perfection by Burt Lancaster) to Scotland.

You will fall in love with this movie, as I did, carried along by its charm and beautifully poignant moments. Forsyth doesn't miss a beat in this playful movie. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

One of my favorites
This episode is a sterling example of how the Outer Limits TV series took sci-fi television to heights that have yet to be surpassed four decades later. Typical of this series, "The Man Who Was Never Born" manages to be frightening while at the same time literate, thoughtful and futuristic -- and yet humane in how the story portrays its characters.

Martin Landau is terrific as "Andro," the mutant human from the future who can influence present day people with hypnotic suggestion. Landau is such a class act; truly one of the best actors of these past forty years. His voice transmits his earnest and gentle character's conflict and confusion in dealing with his own emotions (e.g., love, duty to humanity) and the awesome choices that his situation presents.

I'd like to acknowledge the well-written comments from previous reviewers that spurred my interest in this episode. I must echo their praise and highly recommend this episode.

TV at its most distinguished.
This episode manages to be highly original with some highly unoriginal material--mainly, the "Beauty and the Beast" theme and the ancient sci-fi cliche of saving the future by traveling to the past. "The Outer Limits" had a genius for making the old seem new, and "The Man Who Was Never Born" may be the most distinguished example thereof. The new series, by contrast, achieves exactly the opposite by making newer themes seem old and stale through cliched presentations. Same name, very different series.

Martin Landau is superb as Andro, the sensitive and peace-loving human mutant from the future who hates the task he must carry out. Everyone is top-notch, in fact. The themes within themes make each viewing a new experience.

The masterful direction is by Leonard Horn, who went on to contribute in a major way to the original "Mission: Impossible" series, his finest achievement being that series' "Operation: Rogosh," now available on video.

Who said that sci-fi couldn't be romantic?
"The Architects of Fear" and "The Man Who Was Never Born" are the only episodes of the 60's anthology that underneath the otherworldly trappings was a love story.

Martin Landau ("Andro") stars as an Earthman from the future that travels back in time to prevent the birth of a man destined to destroy humanity as we know it. Along the way he falls for "Nicole" (Shirley Knight), the woman that would become the mother of Earth's destroyer. Both actors show why they have been a theatrical and television presence, respectively, for over four decades.

Accompanied by a lush Dominic Frontiere score and superb lighting, the episode is a feast for the ear and the eye.

Haunting
Easily one of OL's top five episodes. The effects are rancid, but the story is so well written, acted, and produced, you won't care. It's a study in the suspension of disbelief that will completely draw you in, and leave you with your jaw dropped - it has probably the most haunting ending of any entry in the entire series.

Martin Landau was the ideal choice to play Andro, who travels eighty-five years back in time to prevent a sterilizing and disfiguring biological warfare plague from devastating humanity. Overshooting his mark, he inconveniently falls in love with the woman he must kill (Shirley Knight) in order to achieve his objective. How he resolves the dilemma constitutes the most lyrically poetic of all OL stories, and one not to be missed.

In a nutshell, this one is pure magic. They don't make them like this, anymore.

My 2nd favorite Outer Limits episode
One thing I liked a lot about Outer Limit was the viewer could never be sure where the story was taking him. Unlike series TV where you might lose a Star Trek private but NEVER a regular, with Outer Limits there were NO REGULARS, so they could tell the tale anyway they wished. They do so here in a great form, as the story keeps twisting in ways one may not expect. This is a very thoughtful episode with many touching moments. And who does not want to root for the beast to win the gal? ... Read more

Reviews (28)

Wow
The Exorcist is the scariest movie ever no matter what version you see it in. I prefer "THE VERSION YOU'VE NEVER SEEN" myself, but any version will do. I love this version. It is expertly well made. It has great acting, great plot, great story, and very scary music. This movie is a part of the unholy trinity of movies. The Exorcist, The Omen, and Rosemary's Baby make up this unholy trinity, so I suggest while you are here, might as well buy the unholy trinity. Like I said, doesn't matter wich version you get, but I would recommend THE VERSION YOU'VE NEVER SEEN over this one, but it doesn't matter which version you see, it's still the scariest movie ever made, and don't let anyone tell you differently.

The Possession
There's a young girl who is possessed by the Devil. Well, the family is scared when the girl makes everything unholy. She has a strange look and her looks is terrible. Well, they need an exorcist to take away the demon from her. What they eventually have to do? Well, check it yourself! This is quite a scary movie but there's of course even scarier movies so don't expect too much. There's very scary scenes, like that one when the girl walks on the stairs...! Hahaahahhaa, watch out, the demon is coming to your living room...!!!

It's Simply the Best!!
This quite simply in my opinion is the best horror if not the best movie I have ever seen.

I say this because I believe that besides "The Godfather" I have watched this film a ton of times and I don't get tired of it.The dialogue is perfect.The actors were tremendous to the point that I don't believe any other actors could have done better.I wish that I was there the very first time it was presented to the public in 1973,but I was only 4.This film will never become outdated in it's material and it's classic theme.There will never be another film which could deliver such shock value no matter the vulgar language.There have been countless imitations such as "Beyond The Door",but this film is quite simply the BEST of it's kind.

DO I NEED TO SAY ANYTHING?
Just go see it. THE SCARIEST FREAKING MOVIE EVER MADE, AND THAT'S THE FINAL WORD!!...

SCARIEST MOVIE EVER !!!
This IS THE SCARIEST MOVIE EVER MADE! Alot scarier than those looser films like Halloween, The Shining, Silence of the Lambs, The Changeling, The Ring, Rosemary's Baby, and The Omen. Those movies are just child's play compared to this. I'd recommedn watching it alone in the dark for the ultimate experience, and be warned this is the real deal. SCARIEST MOVIE EVER MADE! Don't let anyone tell you differently, because they'll be lying through there te