Description

Burt Lancaster delivers one of the finest performances of his career as a hard-boiled major in command of a Vietnam outpost. A classic of wartime confrontation. ... Read more

Reviews (17)

pre vietnam drama
one of the better vietnam war movies out
burt lancaster is in fine form as a gritty veteran
who knows the in's and out's of politics
a young marc singer as his captain gives a great performance
the battle scenes, and american attitudes
make this war movie a slight better tan the rest of
the vietnam movies that followed

great war movie
i seen this movie at the theatre when it was 1st released
and vietnam war movies were trickling in.
burt lancaster and marc singer give stand out performances
as the american advisors.
the battle scenes, and american views of the people
of south vietnam, give this gritty war drama a boost of realism.
not sure where this was filmed, kinda looked liked a california
back lot....beat feet and see this movie..!

Viet Nam, the Early Years
Go Tell the Spartans is one of the best, albeit little known, movies about the Viet Nam war, which was overshadowed by Platoon, Hamburger Hill and Full Metal Jacket.

It takes place in the early years of the war, when a few Americans were in-country as advisors to the South Vietnamese government(s). Burt Lancaster does an outstanding job as a team commander, whose career is on a downward slide following some mischief in Washington. His job is to help hold the line from the early Viet Cong infiltrations and attacks in the South.

His support troops range from an educated draftee and a drugged out medic, to a young hotshot captain wanting to earn his CIB and a senior staff NCO who has been in combat a little too often.

The movie is a fine character study and, although movies are the last place to learn history, this one gives a pretty good view of how we got involved and the politics that was rampant in the South - a Viet Nam veteran's perspective.

The violence is minimal for a war movie. This one is definately character driven. See it. You won't regret it.

Vastly Overrated
I bought the title based on the Amazon reviews - but now I wonder if Amazon reviews are written by industry flacks or consumers who actually watched the film and lived through the period - Five stars is ridiculous for a B-movie that cannot decide whether it means to be a comedy or a tragedy - by straddling the line it manages to be neither. Worse, it is full of plot and character cliches derived from old westerns - the actors (apart from Lancaster and Wasson) flounder about without help of direction. The film is an expression of such cynical fatalism that it is painful to see it performed so uncompellingly. Admittedly the tone fits with the mood of the nation when the film was made - immediately after the 1975 US defeat - shame and disgust at the moral bankruptcy of a supine electorate indulgent of a monumental waste of treasure and blood by its hubristic leadership (Richard Nixon) - but this fact cheapens the film because it was decidely not made when it might have made a difference - before the defeat - to counter the jingo-ism of 'Green Berets' and the daily television propaganda of 'body counts.' It is not true to the period it purports to depict -- one of optimistic idealism at what America could do to defeat the march of communism toward the oil-rich Indonesian archipelago. The minimal production values are evident from the first cliched tap of snare drum and the whine of a deuce and a half truck - the landscape is utterly unconvincing - there isn't a tropical plant to be seen. The film is no way comparable to the great post-Vietman War films that were soon to follow: 'Apocalypse Now,' 'Taxidriver,' 'Platoon,' 'Born in the USA,' and finally the devastating 'Full Metal Jacket.' The production exactly resembles the television program MASH that became a hit AFTER the defeat and appears to have employed the same southern California back lot - nothing feels right for Vietnam - military protocols are wrong (corporals call sergeants 'Sir') suggesting that financing was so tight that the production lacked a military advisor - or else they were so anti-military that they didn't care to have one. The cliched approach to the enemy 'other' is as simplistic and predictable as an old western - Vietnamese soldiers and peasants are never heard to speak their own language properly - mime suffices except when a formal translation is depicted - the culture of the locals is non-existent - villagers are shown as a mute clutch of extras who are later proven without apparent exception to be as treacherous as Hollywood Apaches - the writing and direction are so lax that the film trudges sluggishly toward the climax with actors pretending to be soldiers standing around without any suitable business to do to avoid looking utterly awkward -- the VC enemy behave like cliched Indians suicidally charging the circled wagons - cheapening the drama of the climactic attack -- the impression is of a bad comedy with the American advisors shown as pathetic misfits more suitable for an adult 'Sergeant Bilko' -- a druggie medic named Abraham Lincoln, a burned out alcoholic sergeant who commits suicide just before the climax, a comically wan naif (Wasson), an absurd psych warfare officer (who resembles Phil Silvers), a deluded dysentery-ridden lieutenant who is perpetually running to the honey bucket, a corrupt SVA general with a patently fake French accent and a ridiculous moustache, a passed over US Army major (Lancaster) who limps about on a bum knee (why is never explained), a vicious SVA non-com, etc. Nobody wears a GI haircut - no one carries a backpack or an ammo satchel or lifts a canteen to his lips unless it's filled with bourbon - a tiny Bell chopper carries a pallet of supplies to the fortified post, etc. etc. What little military flavor exists derives entirely from the salty language of the major (Lancaster) and his obscene story -- practically no one else save for the sergeant in heard to speak a four letter word. As one would expect from the title everyone dies in the end save for the Ishmael figure (Wasson) -- the overall tone is fatalistic and defeatist which is in keeping with the moral exhaustion felt at the time of defeat ten years after the period depicted in the film. The sense of cynicism and defeat evident in the film's premise (i.e. - final defeat could have been predicted from the beginning) wouldn't be so bad except that history supports the view that the early US advisors were gung-ho and largely first-rate (see the film 'Best and the Brightest'). Ultimately 'Go Tell the Spartans' is more interesting as a piece of post-Vietnam sociology than as entertainment, tragedy, or history. One star is to help right the imbalance of the vastly overrated five stars given by blind and empty-headed viewers.
and

One of the best Vietnam movies ever!
In 480BCE 300 Spartan Hoplites held a pass for the better part of 3 days against a Persian force that may have numbered over 200,000 men. The Spartans were aided by around 7,000 coalition troops during the first 2 days. However, they were dismissed on the 3rd day. The Spartans, their Helots and the Thespians allies died to a last man. It was one of the most gallant stands in all of military history.

To this day there is an inscription on the funeral mound @ Thermopylae that serves as a memorial to their sacrifice. An English translation is as follows:

GO TELL THE SPARTANS, STRANGER PASSING BY
THAT HERE OBEDIENT TO THEIR LAWS WE LIE.

The title of this movie is an allusion to Thermopylae. However, the film itself is about the earliest days of Vietnam. It recounts a time not long after the fall of Dien Bien Pu; an epoch when the U.S. did not have a commitment of a significant number of troops. During the period covered in this movie all that we had over there were a handful of military advisors.

The film details an obscure event at a Vietnam village known as Muc Wa. Although the battle itself will not likely even find its way into the footnotes of history, it nevertheless serves as an excellent "premonition" of what was to come. It narrates how much the U.S. underestimated the fighting prowess and resolve of the Viet Cong. In fact, Muc Wa can be said to be a microcosm of how the entire Vietnam War went for the United States.

The cast of the film is fairly impressive. The lead is taken by Burt Lancaster who portrays a Major who is asked to do the impossible with almost no resources at all. A very young Marc Singer plays his XO. Craig Wasson (best known for his leading role in Brian Depalma's BODY DOUBLE) plays a shy young corporal.

This is a terrific Vietnam movie that encapsulates just about everything that went wrong for the U.S. in the ill-fated conflict. It's a must see for all who seek to learn and understand the facts of the early stages and how it all went downhill from there. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The word classic can readily be applied to the story of what became known as the Scopes Monkey Trial, which led to the Broadway hit that has now been filmed for the third time. With Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott playing adversarial attorneys, this period piece deals in ideas and ideals in a masterful courtroom drama.

In 1925, a schoolteacher is arrested for teaching Darwinism in the community of Hillsboro, where such scientific refutations of the Bible areillegal. Scott plays prosecutor Matthew Brady (based on politicianWilliams Jennings Bryan), bringing majesty and tragedy to a charactermany would find repugnant, as he prophetically bemoans asociety moving "from love of God to love of self." Jack Lemmon plays attorney Henry Drummond (based on the legendary Clarence Darrow) and brings his trademark portrayal of the "little guy" to a man determined to protect acitizen's basic right to freedom of thought, proclaiming, "An ideais a greater monument to God than a cathedral." The wonderful supporting cast, including Beau Bridges, Piper Laurie, and John Cullum, all demonstrate their love of a multilayered drama filled with conundrums of faith and contradictions of philosophy. Veteran director Daniel Petrie helms with little flash, but his production offers so many concepts and emotions that the highpoints of drama remain with the viewer after the film is over. --Lloyd Chesley ... Read more

Reviews (6)

WHY still not on DVD? Great movie!
Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott steal the movie!. It is a real pity we don't have the wonderful Jack Lemmon still around with us to bring us fine pieces of work like this. We'll miss you, Jack. :(

What I find a real shame is that MGM/UA has still NOT released this movie in DVD format, and that both editions of this movie (the 1960 original and this remake) are "out of stock" even in vhs format.

What are the movie studios up to?. I want to buy the movie and I can't. Maybe they are cornering us into piracy?.

Invaluable
As a high school science teacher I deal with common myths and misconceptions involving evolution on a daily basis. This movie does a nice job of helping kids understand the passion of the issue. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern day biology and it is important kids understand why it needs to be taught. The amazing thing about science is that if evidence comes along to disprove a current school of thought, the discipline may change. When religion is questioned the only response is to lash out with hostility and anger. Why can't we question the way Man believes in God?

Inherit the Wind (1999)
A truly excellent remake of an American classic. Once you get past any inital reservations you may (understandably) have about the film's made-for-cable origins, you will find a work that is, in my opinion, just as engaging as the 1960 version. Two gripes: 1.As mentioned by another reviewer, the direction and camera work is a bit static and elementary. 2. As also mentioned by another reviewer, Beau Bridges at times is too obnixious and over the top. On the other hand, Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott (in his final performace) are absolutely riveting. Piper Laurie is also very compelling as Scott's sympathetic and diplomatic wife. This incarnation of the film is extremely faithful to its predecessor, virtually a frame by frame re-shoot. Yet the dialouge, performaces and subject matter are just as fresh and stirring as they were 40 years ago. Fans of the 1960 release should certainly enjoy, or at least appreciate this latest adaption.

One of the few remakes that stands up to the original
Hold the phone. It's a remake that's almost as good as the original.

Much of the brilliance of the new version of Inherit the Wind comes from finding two old fogeys who have the same love/hate chamistry brought to life in the original by Frederic March and Spencer Tracy; in this case, the friendly adversaries are George C. Scott, in his last performance before his death, and Jack Lemmon. Toss in Beau Bridges as the wisecracking journalist and a surprisingly downbeat performance by Thom Evertt Scott as the teacher who ends up a guinea pig in one of the biggest trials of the century, and you got yourself a fine film. The comic timing is impeccable on all counts, the lines from the film that have become cliche are delivered with the same freshness that ignited them decades ago, and one can almost believe that Scott and Lemmon actually are Bryan and Darrow haggling it out in a Tennessee courtroom.

If you've never seen _Inherit the Wind_, start with the classic Spencer Tracy/Frederic March version from 1960. If you're a fan of the film already, and have been avoiding this remake because nothing can do the original justics, well, you're right... but it comes as close as possible.

A thought provoking film. George C.Scott gives a compelling
This film is a remake of a 1960 movie about the 'Scopes' monkey trial in July of 1925, argued by prominent statesman William Jennings Bryan (for the prosecution and the Bible) and equally the prominent Clarence Darrow (for the defense, scientific thought and Darwin). Rather than compare it with the original, which I understand was brilliant, I will evaluate it on its own.

This is a powerful and thought provoking courtroom drama about a school teacher who was arrested for teaching evolution, then considered a heresy against God and the bible. The topic is unfortunately as timely today as it was 75 years ago. The film is extremely effective at illustrating the pervasive ignorance and fear so prevalent in fundamentalist religions. It depicts with great clarity, the frenzied and irrational efforts undertaken to suppress any knowledge that threatens to debunk the myth and simple minded traditions that bind the faithful together.

Unfortunately, the presentation of the story had certain flaws that kept it from being a truly great film. My biggest objections are all directorial. First, this film was visually mediocre and pedestrian. The camera basically followed the speaker around the room at the same angles from pretty much the same distances. There were very few reaction shots which would have greatly enhanced the drama. I don't think there was a single reaction shot of any member of the jury and only a couple from the gallery.

Director Daniel Petrie takes enormous artistic license in presenting the trial. The way it was portrayed it seemed more like an unmoderated debate between the lawyers than a criminal trial with rules of court. Granted, it was a small town in 1925, but this was ridiculous. In real trials, lawyers have two opportunities to give speeches in a trial, in opening and closing statements. During the trial itself, they are only to ask questions and gather evidence under very strict rules. They can't give speeches or lead the witness or inject their opinion about a witness' testimony. This was flouted in the film as lawyers violated these rules repeatedly with nary an objection from the other side. Ironically, the most important speeches of the trial, closing arguments were completely missing from the film.

I found Jack Lemon's portrayal of defense lawyer Henry Drummond to be disturbingly restrained. Lemon is clearly capable of unfettered rage and indignation, yet he played his character with resignation and defeatism rather than frustration and wrath. He simply didn't fight hard enough for the principles in which he supposedly believed. I blame this on Petrie.

Without question, the performance of the film belonged to George C. Scott in his last performance before his death (a stunning coincidence since William Jennings Bryan, on whom Scott's character is based, died shortly after this trial. So it was his last performance as well). Scott is magnificent as the bible thumping prosecutor rattling the rafters of the little courthouse with his booming gravel voice. This was the type of part Scott was born to play and it may have been his best performance since Patton. For this reason alone this film should be on every film buff's list. If only Lemon brought similar fire to his part, this film would have been riveting.

Beau Bridges was a bit overly obnoxious as the sardonic reporter E.K. Hornbeck. The role called for a good deal of cynicism, but Bridges got carried away.

Lane Smith gives a terrific performance as the Lord possessed Reverend Brown, who damns his own daughter to hell for refusing to renounce her love for her fiance Cates, the accused school teacher. His sermon at the prayer meeting was more than worthy of any cable TV evangelist.

I gave this film a 7/10. I think it would be rated higher by most people who think of a courtroom as more of a dramatic setting than place of justice. Overall it is a credible update of a topic that should remain in the forefront of our minds if we hope to continue living in a free and rational society. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

This is the restored, 209-minute director's cut of Wolfgang Petersen's harrowing and claustrophobic U-boat thriller, which was theatrically rereleased in 1997. Originally made as a five-hour miniseries, this version devotes more time to getting to know the crew before they and their stoic captain (Jürgen Prochnow) get aboard their U-boat and find themselves stranded at the bottom of the sea. Das Boot puts you inside that submerged vessel and explores the physical and emotional tensions of the situation with a vivid, terrifying realism that few movies can match. As Petersen tightens the screws and the submerged ship blows bolts, the pressure builds to such unbearable levels that you may be tempted to escape for a nice walk on solid land in the great outdoors--only you wouldn't dream of looking away from the screen. --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (239)

Subperb Movie
I consider Wolfgang Petersen as one of the most talented visionary directors in the history of the cinema. 'Das Boot' is an instant classic and one of the greatest movies I have ever had the honor of viewing. The atmosphere, characters, situations, and attention to detail make this movie a must watch...especially since the DVD has English dubbing for you non German speakers. The story is simple...but OH So powerfull. A submarine sets off from port on its dangerous voyage of seek-and-destroy. At first, the mariners are eager and youthful...but as time passes and they sink their first ship, they become aware of the horrors of war and age into old men from within. Soon after, they receive a special order to penetrate the narrow Gibraltar Strait and thus set off for what has become one of the most memorable collection of events in movie history.

'Das Boot' captures the dissilusionment that grows like the mold within the submarine, the horror of the submarine moniker 'floating coffins', and the human spirit that prevails.

If this movie does not touch you, if this movie does not move you, if this movie does not inspire you, then you must be cold- dead.

REAL, POWERFUL DESPITE CRAMPED FEEL & CHEESY DUBBING
Be warned, regardless of the paeans you've heard sung to the movie, it is very 80s. It will begin VERY slowly, and won't let up until the end. A quasi-documentary format doesn't really do much to assuage the expectations you may have from a real Movie either.

We watch like bystanders as a German crew steers a U-Boat into the war. The movie is almost entirely indoors (inside a U-Boat, i.e.) which lends it an extremely cramped feel. Filmed in steadycam, the picture moves straight across the claustrophobic hall of the submarine. There is barely enough place for one man to stand and this feeling is expertly conveyed to film thanks to Jost Vacano's excellent cinematography.

As you may imagine with any movie of this general cadre, the theme actually couches a strong anti-war message. Our protagonist Capitain may have been under the reign of Hitler, but he didn't really look up to him. Barbs at almost everything related to the Fuerer abound. The strongest message is delivered in the film's denouement when the crew of our U-Boat faces the biggest dilemma: to save the drowning enemy men because they are human beings, or to let them shrivel and die because they are enemies. Poignant!

Caveats:

(1) A lot of the miniseries look blatantly filmed in a studio, nearly like like the opening sequence of Gilligan's Island. As much as I admire the realism, these cheesy effects do bring down the movie.

(2) If you don't mind subtitles, then watch the movie in its original Deutsche with English subtitles. The English dubbing is horrendous.

(3) Like all documentaries, there isn't much place for character development. Most of the characters are basically one-note and have little to no personality.

None of this undermines the sheer power of the movie's message, and the claustrophobia conveyed on film. I wonder if the flick is as legendary as it is toted to be, but it's a must-have gem in any true war-movies collection.

Best War Movie Ever!!!
This is most definetly the best war movie I have ever seen. I have never seen anyone that has not taken interest in war after watching this movie. I have seen this movie many times and each time I learn something new. It is interesting to see how the other side was during WWII. I recommend this movie for anyone that has time to watch it.

The ultimate submarine movie
Ok. Step one, turn out all lights and isolate any external sound. Step two, crank the subwoofer UP. Step three, set the language to "german." Step four, get a couple of buckets of seawater to pour over one's head at the proper scene (this is optional).

No other submarine movie comes remotely close to depicting the claustrophobia and violence of undersea warfare as Das Boot. Before the movie, I had little sense of the suicidal missions that thousands of German seaman were subjected to even in the early years of WW2 - and for that matter, the equally ruthless way that speeding Allied convoys left the crews of sinking ships behind to freeze and drown in the North Atlantic. It was a particular act of courage and skill for the director to confine most of the action into a literal steel tube barely tall enough to stand in.

Das Boot MUST be watched in the original German, much like Pat Buchannan's "Kulturkampf" speech as the 1996 Republican Convention. For weeks after the seeing the movie the first time, I kept hearing "Alla-a-a-r-m!" and the ka-BWANG of exploding depth charges. Jurgen Prochmow has been wasted in a number of movies (e.g. "Dune"), but he beats out Connery, Gable and the rest as the best Captain around, alternatively ruthless and caring for his men.

This movie is so head and shoulders above subseqeunt films like U-571, any comparison would diminish the accolades this movie deserves.

The best epic german film ever made
Wolfang Petersen may be proud for all the eternity by this achievement. This film (just ten millions dollars in 1981)is a superb film.
You know so well when you're in front a masterpiece. That sensation which remains in your mind and your soul , a must reference and above all, it becomes an unforgettable memory in your brain.
The film is full of tension; claustrophobic, dramatic and powerfully haunting. The sequences of action are very well made; the script is very related to the book.The cast is outstanding. The handle of camera is BREATHTAKING, the camera is a sliding eye, nervous, it retains the anguish, the hopeless and that deathly taste you feel when you share the destiny of these man under that huge water pressure.
That film broke the walls of the standard market and soon became from 1982 in a classic film.
The question about if this film is anti war film is out of discussion. I don't think even if this issue is important. You must feel the evil experience of these men sent to a almost safe death in a sea surrounded by enemies forces.
Watch this movie.
And you'll understand why U-571 even his special effects is just a worthy tribute to Das Boot, the masterpiece of Wolfang Petersen. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Finally got a copy! What a movie!
Sue Kaufman's black-comic novel has been a favorite of mine since long before I was a semi-mad housewife myself, but I never could find the video. Thanks to a fab Amazon dealer, I now have a copy, and it certainly was worth the wait.

I don't know either why Carrie Snodgress never became as widely seen as an actress as she deserved. (She's battling a deadly liver condition right now, poor gal!) Frank Langella is her hypnotically awful lover, the kind of self-absorbed writer who chews women up and spits them out. Richard Benjamin who plays her husband, Jonathan Balser, as a humorless prat who spends a fortune trying unsuccessfully to social-climb in Manhattan. Langella and Benjamin have had long careers--this film was a magnificent showcase for their talent, even as they abused poor Tina Balser. "Did you know that, girls?" says Mr. Balser to his daughters. "Your mother was Phi Beta Kappa at Smith, but she can't make a decent four-minute egg."

Snodgress' green-eyed silences, her little half-smiles, say more than any jabbery actress possibly could. Her Academy Award nomination for Best Actress was well-deserved.

I dug up Rex Reed's adoring review of "Diary," published in his collection, "Big Screen, Little Screen," that gives high praise to the cast, to the picture-perfect Manhattan setting, and to Frank Perry's sensitive direction. His review concludes, "Unless you've been to as many of those parties as I have, you can't imagine what those dreadful omelettes can do to wreck a New York marriage." Amen.

Carrie Snodgrass would have been bigger than Meryl Streep
I saw this movie when it first came out in a theatre in Boston. I thought at the time Carrie Snodgrass was going to be a huge star. Instead she chose Neil Young and motherhood. Well, our loss. I think she does a little TV now and then, minor roles mostly. I wonder if she ever thinks about the opportunity she let slip through her fingers? This was one of the first "woman finds her voice" stories of the 70's. At the time the movie theatres were full of this type of movie. An Unmarried Woman is another similar movie. But, I thought Diary was well done and Carrie Snodgress (I just loved her name) did a very good job portraying the put opon, under appreciated wife, for her first major movie role.

OMG! this was my life - EEEKKKKK!
I was married to the first one, left him for the second one. At least this movie has a better ending! The hubby, and also the lover, are mentally abusive, full of put-downs, especially the hubby - oh, like when he was sick - gads - how true - men are such babies! Just wanted to tell her to Leave! And, how he taught the kids to treat her with no respect - they were little clones of him. Why didn't she stand up for herself? I loved the ending, in group therapy - LOL. Loved the party. loved all of it. Just kept saying all the way through - "OH Crap- that's my ex". For example - Sex - treat her like crap all day then - "oh, baby - how 'bout a little roll in the hay?" gag me!! If my ex is reading this - you know who you are!!!

Perfection
Perfect acting by all 3 principles. Carrie Snodgress--awesome, Richard Benjamin--an excellent whinerbag spouse,and Frank Langella--fabulous portrait of a woman-hater. I don't know why Ms. Snodgress never became a superstar. Having read Sue Kaufman's book, I can state w/confidence that Snodgress got the role of Tina Balser down perfectly. She manages to put up w/truly hideous people--husband, lover, even her kids--w/o coming across as a victim. An interesting point, as pointed out in another review, is "mad" meant as "angry" or "crazy"? Probably both. The fact is, Tina is the only sane one in the movie. I wanted to pull her out of the screen and away from all of the other characters. SEE THIS MOVIE. IT'S WORTH TRACKING DOWN!!!!!

Poignant, Funny, Fabulous
You can't find this gem at Blockbuster. Practically my favorite movie of all time. Richard Benjamin is PERFECT as the whiney, fussy careerist. The omlette scene is priceless. Why don't we make movies like this anymore? ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Roman Polanski's adaptation of the Shakespearean tragedy remains one ofthe most infamous for a number of reasons: the copious amounts of bloody gore, its expert use of location settings (filmed in North Wales), and Lady Macbeth's nude sleepwalking scene. Despite its notoriety, though, this does remain one of the more compelling film adaptations of the Scottish tragedy, if one of the more pessimistic takes on the story of Macbeth and his overreaching ambition. If you think the play is normally a bit of a downer, you haven't seen Polanski's bleak version of it, made in reaction to the murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, by the Manson "family." Jon Finch (Hitchcock's Frenzy) is an forceful Macbeth, bringing out the Scot's warrior instincts, and Francesca Annis is a memorable Lady Macbeth, but the main thrust of the film belongs to Polanski's and noted British playwright and critic Kenneth Tynan's take on the play: extremely violent, nihilistic, and visceral; this is down-in-the-dirt, no-holds-barred Shakespeare, not fussy costume drama. Pay close attention to the end, a silent coda that puts a chilling twist on all the action that has come beforehand and foreshadows more tragedy to come. --Mark Englehart ... Read more

Reviews (63)

Martin Brody likes it dark and violent
Please ignore the poorly thought out review on this page. Anyone with either a passing interest in Shakespeare or an appreciation of film should seek this out now. Polanski, avoiding the trap so many other filmmakers fall into, makes a film based on Macbeth, not merely recording a performance of the play. He has crafted a breathlessly paced film, making very reasonable cuts in the text in order to bring the film in under 2½ hours. I have seen much longer versions that had no grasp of the play at all.

Polanski also wisely chose not to use well-known stars for the major roles; instead utilizing some of the best (and youngest) British stage actors of the time. Jon Finch and Francesca Annis perfectly capture the most emotionally wrenched marriage ever, without the moustache twirling that finds its way into Shakespeare film adaptations too often. This film is dark, muddy, and violent; it is not intended for children. I have to assume that the people who complain about the violence in the film have never actually read the play. And I hope, for the sake of their own sanity, they steer clear of Titus Andronicus, Richard III, Julius Caesar, Othello, and if beheadings put a bee in your bonnet, beware Cymbeline!

... This is a raw, passionate telling of one of the great fictional works in the English language, by one of the great filmmakers of our time. But wait for the wide-screen DVD.

Shakespeare as Cinema!
Purists beware, Roman Polanski and Kenneth Tynan have cut, rearranged, and shaped Shakespeare's material to make a MOVIE! And what a grand film they created. Flowingly cinematic, with stunning location filming and superb cinematography the many cuts allow for a smooth narration without sacrificing the gut and heart of the play.

There was much controversy when this film debuted, probably due to it being financed and produced by Hugh Hefner and Playboy, and probably because it was unblinkingly bloody upfront (although the blood is in the play, much of it is naturally offstage), and because of nudity in several key scenes (including the witches....all those old nude crones, while factually correct, no doubt upset many). Today, these seem like perfectly reasonable choices. The film is relentless and remorseless, as befits the story. I don't know what part of Polanski's personal tragedy had any part in his work here, but the direction is excellent. Finch and Anis are fine as the murderous Laird and his Lady, as is the rest of the cast.

If you want the play, see the play. If you want a stimulating and fully realized CINEMATIC treatment of Shakespeare's great themes of greed, ambition, murder, guilt and destiny, see this finely produced, directed, and acted work. Well worthwhile.

Vaulting Ambition
This is a terrific cinematic adaption of one of Shakespeare's greatest plays. The film is also known as "The Tragedy of Macbeth", or sometimes "Roman Polanski's Macbeth". Set in early medieval Scotland ( although filmed, I understand, in Wales ), this is a well-known tale of the ruthless ambition of a young noble, Macbeth, who is goaded into acts of evil by his scheming, manipulative wife. Macbeth literally murders his way to the throne of Scotland. Of course, we know what happens to those who "live by the sword" !

British actor, Jon Finch, has the title role, and he expertly peels away the various levels of his character's personality--his Macbeth is no cardboard villain. His performance is more than matched by Francesca Annis as Lady Macbeth, whose twisted mind and blood-soaked hands drive her to madness. Performances by other members of this primarily British cast are all fine, with Martin Shaw particularly effective as Banquo.

The other "star" here, of course, is Polanski. The story of Macbeth, and the times in which it occurred, were brutal, primitive, stark--wars were constant--men settled disputes with swords, daggers, axes and maces--death was not heroic or pretty--women and children could be victims as well. Polanski portrays this environment with as much matter-of-fact authenticity as possible. There are certainly some gory scenes, even by current cinema standards, and the final battle between Macbeth and his sworn enemy Macduff is far from some of the choreographed sword fights in Hollywood movies. The spare landscape and ancient castles add to the atmosphere--for interior scenes, light is used very sparingly, to add to the mood and sense of foreboding.
The scenes with the three witches are creepy and effective.

I do have one question. The credits indicate that the script was written by Polanski and noted drama critic, Kenneth Tynan. Doesn't William Shakespeare deserve a little credit here ? Those soliloquies sound awfully familiar !

The DVD exhibits a decent, occasionally hazy, colour wide-screen picture. I was concerned at first when I noticed a vertical line on the right of the picture, but it disappeared, and the rest of the print seemed fine.

There have been numerous versions of this classic play, and I'm sure there will be more. How long before Kenneth Branagh decides that we need a new version on film ? In the mean time, Polanski's "Macbeth" gives us a totally engrossing, if bleak, cinematic experience.

A Great Performance For A Great Play
If reading the play wasn't enough, this movie kept me asking for more. Roman Polanski brilliantly executed what I had envisioned while reading the script for the play. The dark of the night at Macbeth's, to the special effects which were quite good for their time. I especially enjoyed the scene with the dagger, it was exactly as I had imagined it.

Truly Inspiring
I can't recommend this enough. I teach Shakespeare to 6th and 8th graders, and this movie absolutely engrosses kids of this age. Polanski makes every nuance of the play clear, and the acting is superb. We read a little of the play, work with it, then I show just that part of the DVD. (I have to leave out very few scenes because I teach in a public school, so no nudity allowed.) I wish Polanski would tackle other of Shakespeare's plays. ... Read more

Reviews (23)

Good Characterization of Stalin, Bad History
In the past, apologists for Stalin (including many of his victims) said that Stalin was good, but he was surrounded by bad people. This film turns this on its head saying that Stalin was bad, but he was surrounded by good people. Both of these are wrong--the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution and the leaders of the USSR in the period following the revolution were all up to their necks in blood. Robert Duvall gives an excellent portrayal of Stalin, emphasizing that he, unlike his ranting partner in mass murder Hitler, was soft-spoken and basically uncharismatic. Duvall correctly does not use a "Russian" accented English because Stalin spoke Russian with a heavy Georgian accent. Having said this, the historical aspects of the film are very poor. First of all, Maximilian Schell's portrayal of Lenin is way off base. The Old Bolsheviks like Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Ordzhonikidze and Kirov are shown to be basically well-meaning people who got trapped in Stalin's web. This is untrue, they were all involved in mass terror, justifying it in the name of a "higher good". In Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago", he points out what a pathetic man Bukharin really was and how he so freely shed tears for the injustice committed to his person, and yet he had no pity on the millions of others who suffered. At the end of the film, Khruschev says that Stalin's crimes ("the millions" he liquidated) had to be accounted for, whereas,in reality, he himself took an active role in the Great Terror.
The film shows very little of what the effect of "Stalinism" was on the average Soviet citizen, with the exception of a scene where Stalin's wife confronts the effects of the mass famine in the Ukraine. The film does not really show the "cult of the personality". It would have been effective if the film had shown how, when Stalin would enter a hall full of people, the crowd would applaud for a very long time because everyone was afraid to be the first to stop clapping. Similarly, towards the end of the film, we see a physician nervously examining Stalin without any mention of the infamous "Doctors Plot" frame-up in which Jewish doctors were falsely accused of trying to murder top Soviet officials which would explain the physicians hesitancy in examing his famous patient.

In spite of the many faults of this film, I have still given it three stars rating because it is important for people to become aware of what this monster did to so many millions of innocent people and who was supported by millions of otherwise good people, both inside and outside the USSR.

Robert Duvall's Masterpiece as Stalin
To tell the truth I would not have recognized Duvall in the role he played as Stalin. Nevertheless he did a masterful job even had the Russian/Georgian accent down to a certain degree. Ive seen this film several times which enabled me to know who all the major and minor characters were. Now I feel I have a better grasp of Russian history during this turbulent period of the revolution and Stalin's reign.
Of course as most films go its not 100 percent accurate but comes close and the viewer will get a lesson of Russian history during the first half of the 20th century. Like the other reviews it hurriedly moves over "The Great Patriotic War" in just a few scenes.
The film will also help reveal that Stalin was worst mass murderer in the 20th century or even of all time which most people assume that honor goes to Adolf Hitler. This is known as the other "holocaust" which is lot less known then the Jewish one of Nazi Germany.
I would highly reccomend the film to any enthusiast of Russian history and see how the Russian people suffered during Stalins reign.

History or Hollywood? STALIN delivers an excellent balance
I agree with Leaming. Any time Hollywood depicts history, there are going to be issues of inaccuracy, artistic license, etc. In the case of the film STALIN, this is mostly due to the need to compress about thirty years into less than three hours. The portrayals of the primary characters are sometimes simplistic and inaccurate, but Bukharin and Kirov's characters (for example) are portrayed so as to accentuate the perception of Stalin as a monster (which is accurate). In other words, the truth is adapted somewhat to generate a dramatic foil. Films are never a substitute for reading the real history, but I find that they often whet an appetite when one did not previously exist. The mini-series PETER THE GREAT with Maximilian Schell in the title role is another great example of a film that generated popular interest in Tsarist Russia. SHOGUN, ROUGH RIDERS, LAST SAMURAI, GLADIATOR, GODS AND GENERALS, SHARPE'S RIFLES -- all are examples of films that prompted people to actually read history. So, take the films for what they are -- all in all, everyone who loves history should encourage this terrific trend in film-making!

nevermind the "purist" reviews - this is an excellent film
This film is historically excellent. What most reviewers seem hung up on are accents, make-up and costumes. Most comment that it is historically inaccurate but give nothing very specific. The film is a broad overview of the life of Stalin and could never include every element of his life. All the important stuff is there: the Revolution, the power struggle between Trotsky and Stalin, Stalin's rise to power, The great famines, The Great Purges, WWII, etc. The film gives great insight into Stalin and the paranoia that he experienced and how that paranoia influenced the way he ruled over the Soviet Union. Sure, many of the other characters were somewhat glossed over, but the film is essentially about Stalin and what made him tick - not about the intricate backgrounds of other revolutionaries and supporters. If you don't come away from the film thinking what a bastard Stalin was, then you simply missed the point. The way that he treated his family, friends and so called counterrevolutionaries is illustrated correctly in this film.

The end of the film brings up a very important question that I think many previous reviewers had difficulty with. Fact: under Stalin the Soviet Union industrialized to levels never seen before. With industrialization, this could enable the USSR to compete in the world on par with the US. It would also lead to the development of a nuclear and hydrogen bomb, on par with the US. The film brings up the critical question of whether or not Stalin was necessary for the USSR. That is a powerful and thought provoking question that one carries away from this film. Any film that lingers and makes you think has merit.

The history channel put out a video on the parallels of Hitler and Stalin. As I was watching it I kept thinking, "Gee, everything in this documentary is in the film Stalin."

Is it a perfect film? No. Is it historically innaccurate to merit throwing it away? Absolutely not... Robert Duvall does an excellent and convincing job of portraying a monster.

Problems abound
To all the reviewers who think Duvall captured the "real" Joseph Stalin, please run to a bookshelf and consult a non-fictional history of the man. The real Stalin does not appear in this sometimes facile, oftentimes inaccurate biography of the Russian dictator. Originally airing as an HBO TV movie, there are an abundance of errors in the script, as well as a host of other problems.

First, the make-up is amateurish and truly detracts from the viewing experience. Duvall's mustache is a clear paste-on job and in several scenes, the left side of the whiskers almost falls off his face. It's comical at times but ultimately becomes ludicrous in the extreme. His wig is also absurd and fake looking. While this might seem a minor criticism, the make up on the other chief characters is equally ridiculous and cheap. The costumes are also inaccurate in many instances. The color of Stalin's uniform at Yalta in 1944 was not yellow, the color of his uniform at Postsdam in 1945 was not blue!

The historical inaccuracies in the movie are continuous. The characteizations are facile, transparent and weak. Of course Stalin was evil incarnate and a paranoid schizophrenic, but the script doesn't bother to delve into the question of why this was so. There is little material about either of his two wives, or his children. All of that is glossed over. Another silly aspect are the abysmal accents that all of the actors

The only reason I give this a generous rating of 3 is because Duvall is a brilliant actor. Though horribly miscast (and made up to resemble more of a circus clown that Stalin), his acting abilities do shine through. But as far as accurate history goes, this movie is a complete joke. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Breathtaking
The ability to draw out different emotions from the viewer is this movie's strength. How can one not fall in love with the general and then hate him later? Each character is mysterious and sad, but they blend together perfectly. I loved this movie and will keep it in my collection forever.

The Old Gringo - Truth, Innocence and the Mexican Revolution
El Gringo Viejo was a truly remarkable book. When I found that they had made a movie of it I was skeptical. How could a movie portray the characters in the book with any justice. I was plesantly surprised. Gregory Peck's portrayal of truth and it's death in the Mexican Revolution, Jane Fonda's portrayal of innocence and it's ultimate loss and Jimmy Smits portrayal of General Arroyo, a parallel for the idealistic beginnings, eventual corruption, and finally death of the Mexican Revolution of 1910, were a wonderful tribute to the book and it's author. It is a rare masterpiece.
It is a treasure that I would recommend to anyone.

The Hemisphere Turned Upside Down
The Old Gringo--an historically-based novel by Mexican diplomat, intellectual and author Carlos Fuentes--is a sensitive, complex, and ultimately satisfying portrayal of the Mexican people and a core period in their history. Not only is the acting intense and heartfelt, but also the hemisphere is turned upside down and one is allowed in for a moment to a world that trips to modern resort beaches can never access--the passionate, fascinating, suffering, poverty-stricken, and tempted-to-revolution nature of life in Latin America. For Fonda, herself a young revolutionary (disagree if you like) during the Vietnam War, and those like myself who have been to war-stricken lands like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and, yes, today's Mexico with its Zapatista movement in Chiapas, the passion of a people actively engaged in fundamental rhythms of everyday life and survival is inspiring beyond words. Each of the three principle characters--the young revolutionary general (Jimmy Smits), the spinster American school teacher (Jane Fonda) and the self-exiled American writer Ambrose Bierce (Gregory Peck)--are presented with a common dilemma, a dilemma presented to many of us of relative wealth and privilege (i.e., any American by comparison with our third world brothers and sisters) by the choice between our life of comfort and relative ease as compared with a life of sacrifice and commitment to a greater common good. The dilemmas are real, the passions are palpable, and a world turned upside down--like the upside-down map of the hemisphere on revolutionary General Poncho Villa's wall--is a wonder to behold. From the brutal "murder" of a horse to the beautiful and sensitive portrayals of the peasant people in the midst of revolution, this movie is an all-time favorite of mine. I am glad I have found out where to get it because at one time I had been told it was unavailable. It will now hold a spot on my shelf with a number of other signicant "main stream" pictures on Latin America, including Olmos's 1992 "American Me", Nava's 1983 "El Norte" and Oliver Stone's 1986 "Salvador"--pictures that had to be made but could only have been made by the right person in the right time. Puenzo as director with Fonda, Peck, and Smits were the right people coming together in the right place for this one.

Gregory Peck was great
This movie is set in rural Mexico in the early years of the twentieth century. An emotionally lost, sexually-frustrated woman, Harriet (wonderfully portrayed by Fonda), leaves her southern belle existence to tutor children on a hacienda in Mexico. Just before leaving, she watches Ambrose Bierce deliver a lecture to a group of journalists where he issues a manic, mean-spirited farewell to that life. Bierce (Gregory Peck)has also decided to go to Mexico. She's desperately trying to find herself; he has calmly and systematically set out to lose himself. They meet again in a band of rebels led by General Tomas Arroyo (Smits) and the excitement (and love triangle) begins.

The movie is very loosely based upon the novel The Old Gringo, by Carlos Fuentes. Unlike the character known as the Old Man or the Old Gringo in the novel, Ambrose Bierce is immediately identified by name and is immediately recognizable by character traits. In the novel, the Old Man is very enigmatic, vague and hard to place. Here, the Old Gringo is all that one would expect Ambrose Bierce to be -- abusive, arrogant, conflicted, bitter, supremely sarcastic and, strangely enough, admirable. Gregory Peck was so Bierce-ish, at times I was enchanted.

If you've ever wondered how Ambrose Bierce met his end, this is a nice flight of fancy.

Old Gringo
Peck and Fonda at their best and typical Smits; an emotional feast ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Gritty realism; a real eye-opener
When you start with a cast that includes Donald Sutherland, Susan Sarandon, Marlon Brando and Jürgen Prochnow, you're bound to come up with a very powerful movie.

When you add in the highly charged issue of Apartheid in South Africa, you absolutely can't miss.

This movie is based in part upon the events of the Soweto Massacre in 1976, a dramatization of which is shown in all-too-graphic detail, and in part on a (I think) fictionalized account of the types of events which occurred during Apartheid.

An excellent performance by all of the major players and a movie well worth viewing -- more than once.

Great Movie
I was told to watch this film my a college professor many years ago and has since became one of my favorite films. I highly advice this movie for anyone interested in apartide issues.

Brando's great
I didn't watch this when it came out. It was Brando's first film in 10 years, and I thought he'd walk through the part, and be soft. But I just saw it, and he's really great. His part is small. But he deserved the Oscar nomination he got for the performance. ... Read more

Reviews (26)

Seemed consistent with Vonnegut's vision.
I geatly appreciated much of Vonnegut's writing, and had read the short story which this must have been based on. While the story itself was quite short, leaving much to be filled in by the video, I feel that the video handled this in the spirit of Vonnegut's other works (I had recently seen the "Breakfast of Champions" which I thought reflected horribly on what is might be my favorite book of Vonnegut's). I would have given it 5 stars for the content, however I had to subtract one star because the quality of video is lacking; the acting isn't great, it's obviously made for TV, and the mood of the movie is greatly disturbed by the few long segments of jazz music.

Move over Regain. Eugene (nuke-em) Levy is the President.
This movie paints a (1950's like) world where everyone is equal, as opposed to everyone having equal opportunity. Naturally Harrison is not content with his world. He is earmarked and recruited for the elite job of taking care of items that can not be handled by the "equal." He finds unique ways to handle the situation that were not anticipated by his new colleagues.

No fair comparing this great made-for-TV-movie with a few scribbled pages. I like made-for -TV- movies; if you don not, then why are you watching them? Different media calls for different handling of the same basic concept. Speaking of concepts, most people want to compare this movie to "1984 (1985)" ASIN: 6304362498. However the message is quite different. If you are going to do comparisons to similar concepts then you need to read "This Perfect Day: A Novel " by Ira Levin, which is almost the same story. Maybe "Brave new World" ISBN: 0060929871 for the equal but not train of thought. After you look at similar concepts you should look at the opposite argument in "Gattaca" ASIN: 0767805712

It is too bad that this movie is rated "R", as it is ideal for teens, there are no au naturel scenes, and who uses expletives in the 1950's? The end may be a little graphic however it is very mild compared to most of toady's movies. Any way it is best viewed while in the process of forming wold opinions.

the gw bush administration
I loved this flick when i saw it years ago. it carries the basic theme of vonnegut's short story, but the plot uses A LOT of discretion to depart from the (rather simple) premise of the story). i think it still works well though. if you havent seen it and plan to (you should), pay attention to the president character. i always think of that character when i see george w bush's decision making.

"And that's the way it is."
This movie held my attention all the way through.
This movie has many scenes which remind me of real life today, not just in the vague future. The head bands and school scenes remind me of how many teachers sometimes don't let their students grow. The head clubs remind me that if you want a challenge and to grow, you have to go out there and get it, sometimes overcoming obstacles along the way. Then there is the strange philosophy of those in the innermost circle of the people running everyones' lives. Some people really are more equal. Then there is finding that special someone to share your life and interests. The piano and sax scenes were very moving. The ending is a bit hokey, and shows hopelessness, but then just a glimmer returns.

Good, smart sci-fi
Bruce Pittman's intelligent and modest TV adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut's short story is a wonderful and much underappreciated piece of high sci-fi. Films of this kind are rarely made, simply because there's not much potential audience for low-budget science fiction - most people are in sci-fi mainly for special effects and impressive battles. Harrison Bergeron, though, is one of those few adaptations made of real philosophical sci-fi, the kind that creates an image of the future as a reflection of our own reality. And it succeeds quite well in delivering its message, and for what it is it could be enjoyed by almost everyone - though I doubt it could have done well in the theaters.

The film revolves around two wonderful lead actors - one is Sean Astin, who recently gained success and fame as Sam Gamgee in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. The other is the wonderful British actor Christopher Plummer, remembered by sci-fi buffs as the Klingon General Chang from Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country. Brilliant comedian Eugene Levy gives an eerily funny performance as the President. The story is of a future America in which equality is achieved by discouraging exceptional talent or intelligence and creating forced mediocrity. Harrison (Sean Astin) is one of the exceptional few whose intelligence surfaces despite the government's best efforts and is therefore given the chance to work for the government. There he discovers the timeless Orwellian truth of Fascist regimes - all are equal, but some are more equal than others. Astin's interplay with Clummer (the classic 'Big Brother') is wonderful, and the ending is beautiful. The script does an excellent job of expanding Vonnegut's very short story into a 100 minute film.

Harrison Bergeron is well worth watching - if you can get your hands on it. As far as I know there isn't a DVD available, but the VHS can be ordered on Amazon and the movie plays occasionally on television. If you're interested in science fiction literature of authors like Vonnegut, Philip K. Dick, or Isaac Asimov, this wonderful little think-piece is a good purchase. ... Read more

Reviews (43)

Look to your wife
This is a dark version of a dark play. Not just in feel and drama, but in setting. I believe only a scene or two is filmed in the daylight. The bulk of this film takes place in the dank cellars, the dark of night and the closed bedrooms where intrigue and guile rule the day.

This is an unusual Shakespeare adaptation, in that nothing funky is being done with it. There is no twist in the time setting, no song and dance, no Italian wonderment. It is about as straight of an adaptation as I have seen. Being this, it lacks any distinction or special genius, but it is quite an able piece of film.

Laurence Fishburn is a great Othello, delivering the lines and slipping under Iago's silver spell. He lacks a certain aura of strength generally associated with Othello, but is otherwise excellent. Kenneth Branagh is a superior Iago, and this may be one of the best performances he has given. He plays an excellent villain, and his performance is the one bright flare in the the film. The dialog is well done, staying with Branagh's conversational style. The rest of the cast are all capable players, easily recognizable from the Shakespeare on film stable.

All in all, I really enjoy this film. It is not a work of genius. It is not amazing. But it is an excellent, workman like filmed version of a difficult play and a worthy edition to any Shakespeare on film collection.

this laurence is no olivier
the only thing this version has on olivier's version is its natural setting. otherwise, all - and i do mean ALL - of the performances are decidedly inferior to the 1965 film. first of all, laurence fishburne is NO olivier. not even close. he was pathetic. most of the time he sounded like he was reading the script, not speaking heartfelt words of a real flesh and blood man. and branagh, i don't know what happened to him but he was not convincing as a villain. he just looks too much like a goody-goody. compare him to the fellow who played iago in olivier's film and you'll see the problem right way. just no comparison. after these two, what do you have? desdemona, maggie smith much more convincing as the virtuous lady. even emilia, iago's abused wife, is better played in olivier's film.

so 3 stars for a nice try. but the 1965 performance is still the standard to measure this play by. it will be along time before another actor comes along who can play othello as well as olivier. i'm not holding my breath.

ps the orson welles version of this play is the best movie version, and his portrayal of othello is almost as good olivier's. also worth a watch.

Required to watch......
For school I was required to watch this since we read the play Othello. I didn't think the movie was that good because some of the acting when it was supposed to be sad I was laughing my head off. Only unless you understand the Shakespeare language well this movie isn't worth it. The movie lacks good acting in my opinon and could of done better especially with Dedsdemona and some of the love scenes which were absolutely pathetic.

Great Acting
I've always been a fan of Kenneth Branagh and both his acting and directing abilities. However, in the film interpretation of "Othello," I was blown away by how well he fit the role of Iago. In the play, Iago has to be two-faced all the time. He shows one side of him to one person, and another side to another. In the film, Iago works very hard to keep up his appearance with all the different characters. No character sees more than one side of him, and his plots are kept to himself. Iago is an actor, and Branagh had to perform his part and I think he did it incredibly. While talking to Othello, his facial reactions would visibly change when Othello looked the other way; the audience saw glimpses of Iago's true motives, but they were always hidden from Othello. It was incredible how quickly the transition from a sinister expression to a loving and loyal expression was made. In one scene, Iago and Othello are hugging, and Iago's face reflects contempt as soon as his face is beside Othello's face.

Iago's changes aren't simply when Othello is around, but the changes are the same for when Iago deals with Roderigo. In the scenes with Roderigo, Iago has to perform doubly hard because he's being partially truthful with Iago. He's showing part of his true motives, but he still has to hide them to some extent to convince Roderigo to do his bidding. The scenes between Branagh and Michael Maloney probably impressed me the most. Roderigo may have been gullible or easily convinced, but Iago was still convincing and persuasive enough to move Roderigo from absolute hatred and distrust to absolute loyalty and thankfulness. In one scene, Roderigo is threatening to kill Iago and by the end of the scene, they're hugging and Iago can barely convince Roderigo to leave his side.

The biggest change that Iago undergoes is when he is caught. In the end of the play, when Emilia finally recognizes what has happened, Iago's facial expressions finally become flat and unwavering. He puts on a stoic face and remains that way into his death. He no longer has to convince anyone of anything because they all know the truth, so he doesn't give anyone any idea of what he's thinking and doesn't talk or change his appearance. This scene left a lasting impression on me, even when he was telling Emilia to be wise or when he was killing her, there is no change in his facial expression.

Overall, I was impressed with the movie. I enjoyed the acting from all the characters (not just Branagh), and I'm sure I'd enjoy watching it repeatedly.

Laurence Fishburne's talent is wasted
Poor Laurence Fishburne. I felt so sorry for him watching this movie because he gives a passionate and multi-dimensional performance as Othello and yet, no one else in the cast matches or even comes close to his level of talent.

As the cover photo suggests, this is a more sexualized version of Shakespeare's tragedy, which doesn't make it bad, but definitely steals the focus from the other emotions that fuel the story. All of Othello's feelings were intense, not just those he had for Desdemona, and this fact is overlooked by the emphasis on his sexuality. Kenneth Braunagh is such a bad Iago that I actually found myself laughing at him. As for Irene Jacob's performance, it is really not worth mentioning here. She is pretty and exotic but she gives no depth to the wounded character of Desdemona. I truly wish that this movie could be redone by a different director with a different supporting cast, because it is a fascinating idea that just falls flat. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Patty Duke and Anne Bancroft had been playing their respective roles as Helen Keller and her teacher, Annie Sullivan, on Broadway for some time before director Arthur Penn (The Left-Handed Gun) built a mesmerizingly beautiful film around their layers-deep performances. Duke is astonishing as the deaf, blind, mute Keller, who awakens to an awareness of language under Sullivan's determined guidance. Bancroft is fascinating and focused. Penn wisely kept his adaptation unencumbered by cinematic indulgence. The black-and-white film is sparse and charged with the immediacy of the drama. The script is by William Gibson, who also wrote the original play. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (31)

Great Classic Movie!
I enjoyed watching this movie because it is entertaining and I never got bored throughout the movie. I am deaf and I really enjoy the fingerspelling scenes, plus Annie Sullivan did wonders for Hellen by portraying her as a hard worker to help Hellen get a life from a soundless, sightless world. Both Patty Duke and Anne Bancroft did a great job on their parts. This is a good movie, both funny and heart-wrenching, and it is worth it to watch!

The deaf speaks...
I'm usually very critical of movies. A movie that really blows me away is rare, but I have never been more blown away in my entire life than by this film - I am deaf, I say this because it is relevant to the subject. I grew up in the same school as deaf/blind children. I assure you, the performance of Patty Duke is INCREDIBLE - totally credulous. Anne Bancroft is overwhelming as Annie O'Sullivan, the schoolteacher. There is not a bad performance in this entire movie. It is emotional and gut-wrenching without the smallest drop of schmaltz or saccharine - something that is very rare in a movie with the subject matter of a disabled child. In fact, it is almost painful and brutal to watch at times, but I am grateful to the director for cutting no punches. The cinematography and black-and-white film are perfectly in tune with the performances and subject matter. So often the easy way is taken out when transferring a stage play to screen - just look at "And Then There Were None" aka "Ten Little Indians" for an example - but here, the ending is presented after a gruelling drama - I honestly think that the ending of this film is a true cinematic moment - it is unsentimental and yet... the emotions, the sheer power, the strength and climax of it all - the realisation. My entire nervous system vibrated for half a hour after watching this film, and still does so whenever I think of it - It is BRILLIANT. Disturbing, disquieting, ferocious, frightening, funny (yes, funny), tender, loving, HATING, calmness and storms. I could say so much about this film - write so many essays upon its different aspects - but I have neither time, nor you the patience, so I shall end with these words: Watch it!

Fantastic Movie!
I saw The Miracle Worker on TCM and it is a fantastic movie. It is based on the stage play which is based on the true story of Helen Keller who was left deaf, blind and mute since an illness she contacted when she a baby and thought of by doctors as being retarded and that nothing could be done to help her so with really no way of communicating with anyone she was a very frustrated young girl and was kind of let by her parents to run wild and doctors and even some family members thought she should be sent away to an asylum but all that changes when Annie Sullivan comes to help Helen and teach her how to communicate and survive so she is not sent away. Anne Bancroft and Patty Duke were both wonderful as Annie Sullivan and Helen Keller and I highly recommend this movie and I just may someday buy the widescreen DVD. Sometime in the late 1970s Patty Duke starred in a television remake in which she played Annie Sullivan and Melissa Gilbert played Helen Keller and though the original is best the remake was also good. FYI: Fans of the 1980s sitcom Benson might be interested to know that Inga Swenson who played Helen's mother in this original Miracle worker Movie played Mrs. Kraus the housekeeper in Benson.

Beautiful Performances
Beautiful performances by Anne Bancroft and Patty Duke in a film about overcoming devastating childhood disabilities. The musical score is also very moving. Just a comment about the well-known dining room scene which took several days to shoot. It is very powerful, but if you are attentive to detail, there are some inconsistencies in continuity. But this is the fault of the director and editor, not the actress.
There are many wonderful moments in this film. The last 10 minutes of the movie are deeply touching. It gets to me every time.

Home visit
This is such a wonderful story.Helen Keller as a child,Patty Duke Gives such a performance and Anne Bancroft is splended.From child to adulthood Helen Keller Life history is amazing.We all have to have some sympathy for anyone that has a handicap as she did but how many would seek the education,dedication to help others as she did, courage to visit other countries.She met Presidents(had her picture taken with them)Leaders of other countries welcomed her. This past summer I visited her home in Tuscombia Al.There are plays in June and July. I didn't go to one though(It was Hot).The bleachers are in the back yard,I hear the plays are wonderful.It protrays her as the movie does.You can visit the House and explore each room.I must say I was shocked to see the house,because it looked so big in the movie,and the house next door where Anne took her.The well,buggy,maids house in back. If you haven't been there,Type this up on your net. Alabama History on Line Email:dpendlot@Archives. state.Al USA.They will send you pamplets and information about everything. Have fun,Marie ... Read more

Amazon.com

It's been said that this 1948 classic has been responsible for the ballet lessons of more young girls than any other film. It's not hard to understand why: Michael Powell and Emerich Pressburger's dark fairy tale presents the ballet as an exquisite, magical work of art; but under the theatrics and glory is an all-consuming lifestyle with the power to destroy those who love it perhaps too much. Moira Shearer practically glows as Victoria "Vicky" Page, a young woman consumed by a will to dance who is accepted into the highly prestigious ballet company run by perfectionist Boris Lermontov (Anton Walbrook). Meanwhile, a gifted young composer, Julian Craster (Marius Goring), is brought on board as an orchestra coach, and later conductor and composer of the ballet that will make Vicky's name: The Red Shoes, one of the most beautiful and dramatic dances ever captured on film. Professional and personal jealousies soon pull this creative team apart, however, and Vicky is torn between her love of Julian, her responsibility to Boris, and her need to dance. Powell and Pressburger recast Hans Christian Andersen's sad story as a modern romantic melodrama, highlighted by beautiful dances and shot, not as stage ballets, but rather as expressionist cinematic dramas on impossibly grand sets awash with bold color and beautifully captured in glorious Technicolor by cinematographer Jack Cardiff. It's a brilliant melding of dance and drama as Vicky's real life mirror's the tragic story she danced in the Red Shoes ballet. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (36)

Moira Shearer exquisite in debut (VHS Edition)
This film directed by Emeric Pressburger and Michael Powell, and released as one their Archers productions in 1948, is one of the films which I truly cherish. It tells the tragic story of the very talented young ballerina Victoria Page who has to make an agonizing choice between her love for composer Julian Craster and her dedication to art, which is personified by impresario Boris Lermontow. A film about the ballet world, art and love. It features several real dancers such as Moira Shearer, Leonide Massine, Robert Helpmann and Ludmilla Tcherina. This contributes to the feel of authenticity. Volatile/prima donna tempers flare. We certainly get an intimate look into a fascinating world. As with many other Powell and Pressburger films, there's an underlying myth, in this case Hans Christian Andersen's tale of the red shoes [Andersen's downbeat tale deals with a girl who desires a lovely pair of red shoes so much but once she has them in her possession, she can't stop dancing, and only death will liberate her from what has now become a torture]. In this production of 'The Red Shoes' life will irrevocably imitate art. Filmed in lavish technicolour it captures all of the magic of ballet perfectly. It is accompanied by an interesting and haunting music score by Brian Easdale.

The beautiful and luminous center of this film however is Moira Shearer's exquisite performance as the tragic Vicky. She brings Vicky's devotion to ballet and vunerability poignantly to life. 'The Red Shoes' would be Moira Shearer's debut, who was at the time a rising star with 'The Sadler's Wells Ballet' and it definitely earned her a place in cinematic history. Not in the least because of the stunning fifteen minute dance sequence which Lermontow's company performs: 'The Ballet of the Red Shoes'. Herein Moira Shearer's and Leonide Massine's performances as the girl and the shoemaker stand out. A spectacular and surrealistic ballet on its own, this was choreographed by Robert Helpmann and designed by painter Heinz Heckroth. Also shown are interesting and very well executed fragments from such classic ballets as 'Giselle' or 'Le Boutique Fantastique'.

Further stood out for me Anton Walbrook's performance as the fanatical and tyrannical impresario Lermontow, who demands total commitment of his employees to their art. Together with Moira Shearer's Vicky his intelligent, intense and ultimate poignant interpretation carries this picture. In Lermontow we meet a man who has the vision, knowledge, connections and creative instinct to bring a dancer such as Vicky to greatness. Marius Goering is adequate as Vicky's love but Leonide Massine as Grischa/the shoemaker was very eloquent and poignant.

An intense, passionate and unforgettable film which occupies a special place of honour in my film collection.

A Must See For Ballet Fans
The 1948 classic film starring Moira Shearer (herself a professional ballerina) is no only an enjoyable semi-realistic fantasy film, in much the same lines as say The Wizard Of Oz, but a brilliant film technically to look at. It's drawn from the dark fairy tale by Hans Christian Anderson (responsible for such stories as The Little Mermaid), in which a young girl is forced to wear red shoes with a will of their own. The poor girl dances until she dies. The concept is taken to a late 40's England, where the aspiring ballerina Victoria Page seeks to dance in the prestigious company headed by the eccentric, perfectionist and intensely driven impresario Lentmontov. The story provides the audience with a glimpse of dance rehearsals, theatrical life both pre-performance and during, the charm of the glamourosu life ballerinas are said to enjoy. But in reality, it is a study on obscession, the demand for virtuouso performance and the conflict between love of one's career and romantic love. Victoria Page is herself doomed to dance to her death when she is torn between her duty to Lentmontov and her love for his musical composer and choreographer. This movie is excellent for ballet fans, and for stage magic fans- the Ballet of the Red Shoes is the most striking moment in the film, an original ballet set against surreal, nightmarish backgrounds of carnivals, ballrooms and ghostly netherworlds where neon lights change colors in blinding and dizzying speed and danced to jazzy 40's music. The film is sure to impress adults (I disagree that it is for children due to the drama of the whole thing), and it is marvelously shot in Paris, London and Monte Carlo. A film like this does'nt come often.

Don't ignore human nature
Amazon Reviewer "ploompy" notes, "...Look for Lermontov's great advice to Kraster when his intellectual & creative material is purloined by a professor. Lermontov says simply, "It is better to be stolen from than to have to steal..." I agree, this is an excellent piece of advice to remember in life.

Another line in the "Red Shoes" by the Lermontov character is worth noting. Lermontov is warned about "human nature" and how current events within his theatre group is breaking up the act. Lermontov responds to this by saying "I simply ignore it". As events unfold with the "Red Shoes" story Lermontov's ignoring of human nature comes back to haunt him in the end. One can never IGNORE human nature. It trumps eveything else.

Excellent movie on all levels. A true movie classic.

Enjoy

Great movie
My husband and I just saw this movie on Turner Classic movies last nite and we just loved it. My husband had seen this movie when he was 5 years old, around the time the movie was made and had not seen it since. The ballet sequences were great, the technicolor and special effects were super. We highly recommend this movie to anyone who has a taste for the ballet or just folks who enjoy a good movie

Thanks to Turner Classic Movies.....
I saw "The Red Shoes" tonight once more on TCM and my heart pounds each time I see it...The color, the acting, the art direction, the music. This is a film that has aged well like fine wine...... you just want more and more of it.
I am so glad to have finally ordered the DVD. I have had the VHS tape a few years but now I will soon have the DVD thanks to CDNOW for making it so easy to order...
Dave Reep
Kansas City ... Read more