Reviews (220)

A Beautiful and Haunting Debut
Julie Taymor, of Broadway's "Lion King" fame, creates a dazzling surreal anachronistic fantasy world with her feature film directorial debut. "Titus" (lately, "Titus Andronicus,") though thought to be Shakespeare's worst play, is a beautiful symphony of distruction, murder, deception, seduction, rape, and cannibalism...at least it becomes so under Taymor's careful direction. The choreographed opening scene of marching soldiers weary from battle in the middle of the collesium sets the tone for a very unlikely brilliant piece of film. Alongside armored soldiers on horseback, people ride down the street in automobiles of various periods. A jazz band accompanies the new young emperor's wedding night orgy. And two young Gothic barbarians in furs trade in their furs for leather and video games. This movie is beautiful, intelligent, and above all unexpected. You can't help but like Aaron the Moor, who prides himself on his villany. Even the queens young sons you can't help but find fascinating, despite their rape of Titus' young daughter Lavinia.

Anthony Hopkins, as always, is brilliant in the title role of Titus. A man dedicated to his country and his emperor and upholds duty above all else...even willing to risk his daughter's unhappiness by consenting to her marriage to the young corrupt emperor Saturninus. Saturninus however eventually marries Titus' captive Gothic queen, played with true sinister brutality by the unrepentantly sexy Jessica Lange. One of her sons you might even recognize from the movie "Velvet Goldmine." Saturninus is played by the always talented and sexually enigmatic Alan Cumming who seems to take great pleasure in imitating more politicians than you could shake a stick at. But hands down the show is stolen by Henry Lennix, playing the evil Aaron, the queens trusted friend and consort. Aaron never apologized for all the pain he has inflicted or his evil ways...he revels in them.

The ending is not unexpected considering most Shakespearian tragedies...but I won't ruin the finer points. Suffice it to say, my personal favorite scene involves the queens two sons, Lavinia, and some twigs put to some very interesting use...this scene sticks with you long after the movie has ended...as beautiful and haunting as it is horrifying.

Titus (2000) d: Taymor, Julie
Titus Andronicus is arguably the most complicated play ever penned by the great William Shakespeare. It is also one of the darkest and most violent plays, filled with shocking scenes, and obscene human behavior. Using the original old English, this movie mixes things up a little using outrageous situations, and brilliant visual touches of ancient Rome, fascist Italy, and a coke-a-cola post everything media assault. The new emperor played by Alan Eyes Wide Shut (1999) Cumming marries a vengeful queen (played by a sometimes topless Jessica Lange) who has two vicious punk rock sons who torment Roman warrior Titus (played by Anthony Hopkins). In scenes comparable to Silence of the Lambs (1991), Titus seems to lose his mind after his two sons are decapitated and his daughter is raped, she has her tongue cut out and her hands chopped off. Revenge soon follows in a cannibalistic dinner served to the guilty, 'a la Theatre of Blood (1973) with Vincent Price. The DVD contains many extras. A excellent film with something to offer both young and old alike. Not only is it hard to believe the depths the movie delves into, but even more incredible is that this epic picture by Julie (Lion King) Taymor is a directorial debut. Impressive first try..., we can't wait to see another.

I Gave it 4 Viewings
Ms Taymor, let me say at the outset, is a highly creative director. Loved the Broadway show (The Lion King). She's innovative, imaginative, extremely adept at visual imagery, etc. What she isn't is adept at interpreting The Bard. The DVD version had her meeting with a group of NYU students discussing the production and the play, in which she showed exactly how shallow her understanding of Shakespeare actually is. Her focus was entirely on her vision, rather than his text. That shows up, rampantly in the movie. It's all about her and her imagination, never centering on the text or the innner beauty of Shakespeare's most brutal play.

I'm not saying that all the bard's plays have to focus on the grand design of the poetry, the meter, the frangrant, redolent language, but at least lip service should be paid there. In this version, we get stuffed with so many Taymor pipe dream (and I do mean a loaded hookah!) visuals, that the language is submarined into oblivion. Even so consummate an actor as Anthony Hopkins (why isn't he Sir Anthony, by now? ..get off your keister, Queenie!) can't compete with the hyperactive Ms Taymor and her busycam. She's obviously aiming for the Art House crowd (of which I am a sometime member, but not in good standing here, obviously), but she misses even that mark. Most of the "innovative" interpolations, such as the young kid who provides the framing device, are entirely superfluous, thereby losing any actually artistic force they might have achieved. It's nothing but empty window dressing.

The performances are largely execrable, including Sir Tony, I hate to report. His version of the Brando mumble is ill suited to the title role. Jessica Lange gives a nadir plumbing performance in a career that features a few of them. She was a lot more convincing in King Kong, trust me. The rest of the Mad Max rejects were even worse.

The reason I gave this film four viewings before sending the DVD on to a friend, was I thought perhaps it was just me, and I was being too reactionary or cynical about this brave new look at what is actually, in a way, one of my favorite Shakespeare plays. Then, midway through viewing #5, I thought, "nah....this thing really is as bad as originally perceived."

Last I heard, "The Lion King" was still playing on Broadway. My suggestion is, buy tickets to that, next time you are in NYC. As for this Turkey, my advice is to rent it if you must. Otherwise, don't put yourself through the torture I did.

BEK

Brilliantly stylized; unique
Every once in a while, a movie comes along which you feel was made just for you. I can understand why a lot of people might not like this film, but for certain people I think it might be just what they were looking for.

Taymor's production, instead of trying to somehow mitigate the remorseless violence and moral vacuum which characterized the much-maligned play, intentionally plays it up. The garishness of the plot is complimented by the garishness of the anachronistic costumes, the elaborate staging and the delerious, overdramatic acting. It gets right to the heart of what a revenge drama is, and what value can be found in Andronicus just as a pure visceral experience. A lot of great performances, and the images are brilliant. My only complaint is, given the pacing of a modern film, it's difficult to hear and understand all of the dialogue sometimes, since none of it was 'updated' from the original Shakespearean. Given the stylized nature of everything else, maybe some of the dialogue should have been simplified.

Writing this now, comparisons to Kill Bill are inevitable, and, while it can't quite claim to reach that pedestal, and lacks the ultimatley morally redeeming value of the complete KB, I recommend it to fans of the KB pt. 1 as a similiar experience.

Taymor adapts vengeance and its consequences...
Titus is based on Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, which is an extremely bloody and terrifying tale of vengeance and its consequences. The cinematic adaptation that Julie Taymor wrote is set in a Roman Empire-like environment with crossings of ancient and modern as the mise-en-scene displays cars as well as tanks with soldiers in ancient armor. This creates a link between then and now, which could suggest that the displayed horror is timeless and possible even today. Taymor creates exaggerations in this cinematic environment with brilliant cinematography, grand directing, and mise-en-scene that amplify the abstract atmosphere as it elevates the unnatural doings of Titus Andronicus (Anthony Hopkins), Tamora (Jessica Lange), and Saturninus (Alan Cumming) among others. The Shakespearian violence that Taymor presents serves as the means to an end as the story plunges into a dark realm that most do not wish to visit, but must contemplate as it could have devastating effects on all.

The film opens with a scene where a young Lucius is sitting at the kitchen table, with a brown paper bag over his head, eating dinner while sadistically tearing the heads of his warrior dolls while violently smashing the items on the table and pouring ketchup over the "killed" dolls. This is followed by an explosion where Lucius dives bawling to the floor for protection. Lucius is a clear resemblance of his father Titus in the opening shot. The rest of the film is a carnival of hideous acts and morbid behavior that alll falls around Titus with a domino effect trigged by one wrong decision. Despite the distressing elements of Titus, the film offers a brilliant cinematic experience that devours the audience as it supplies several subplots and themes, which the audience should ponder under the light of human compassion and the word "consequences". ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Absolutely beautiful true story of human-animal relationship
This is a documentary, filmed around 1970, the true and undoctored story of another lion that Born Free's George Adamson returned to life in the wild.

The backstory is that Christian was separated from his parents at an early age and put up for sale in a London department store. Christian's parents were zoo lions, the father came from the Rotterdam zoo and the mother from Jerusalem, and they lived at the Ilfracombe zoo. When they had cubs, the zoo sold them, and two cubs went to the department store.

Two men, Anthony Bourke and John Rendall, found him there and immediately fell in love with him and determined to buy him. They scraped together the money and brought the little lion home when he was only a few weeks old.

Tony and John dedicated themselves to giving Christian the best life they could, and the bond that developed between them is a joy to behold. Christian was a remarkable lion, obviously very intelligent and loving, and gentle to everyone, both human and animal.

As he grew, Christian began to need bigger facilities than Tony and John could provide. Thanks to a chance meeting with Bill Travers (who had starred in the movie Born Free), they hit upon the idea of sending Christian to Africa to live as a wild lion.

Bill Travers contacted George Adamson to set up the project, and came up with the idea of making a documentary movie of it all, this movie, to fund the project. The movie starts with a re-creation of when Travers was introduced to Christian. Everything from then on was filmed as it happened.

Christian is an absolute joy to watch in this movie. The love he shows, his intelligence, his joie de vie, are beautiful.

As the movie unfolds, you begin to realize that as much as George Adamson was a bridge between the worlds of humans and animals, so was Christian.

The first step when Christian arrived at George's compound, was to introduce him to Boy, a lion who had been in the movie Born Free and who George had already sent "back" to the wild, without losing his close relationship with him. Christian and Boy eventually became best friends, and within a year Christian was living as a wild lion.

When a year had passed, Tony and John came to Africa to see Christian. After a year of struggle, tragedies, and life with a pride of lions in the wild, the relationship Christian felt with Tony and John was as strong as it had always been. In fact, Christian's wonderful relationship with Tony and John caused the other lions in the pride to accept and be at peace with them as well.

This is a movie that needs a proper DVD release. That seems unlikely, so this VHS tape, taken from a 16mm print of the film, may be your one and only chance to see this beautiful, moving story.

This is a true story and you are there as it unfolds.
If you liked the book and movie Born Free and would like to see the real George Adamson in a movie, as himself, then do not miss this entertaining and touching movie filmed in Kenya. The stars of the movie Born Free became close friends with George Adamson during the making of Born Free and they returned to make this this wonderful film. This is a true story, filmed as it happened. A London born Lion bought in a department store is flown to Africa to be introduced to a life in the wild by conservationist George Adamson.

Whether you love Lions, George Adamson, Africa or just enjoy an amazing true story, this is a movie which will entertain you and touch your heart. ... Read more

Reviews (138)

Salma Hayek's career-defining film
I was quite impressed by Salma Hayek's single-minded determination to get this film produced in the face of heavy competition from others. She felt destined to play Frida Kahlo, and the film was a labor of love that is evident in every frame. Kahlo's bold and colorful paintings are heavily autobiographical, and so it is unavoidable that the film takes us on a journey through her life and work all at once. As we see events in Kahlo's turbulent life unfold, we automatically understand the content of the artist's paintings as they are presented to us.

Hayek also found probably the ideal director in Julie Taymor, who has quickly established herself as one of the most visually gifted filmmakers in the industry. Taymor's handling of the actors is first-rate, as she brings spirited performances from the entire cast. Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography is equally excellent, with lots of dazzling camera tricks and numerous painting-like shots. The film also benefits from terrific lighting effects, makeup, set design, vibrant costumes, and an outstanding, Oscar-winning score.

I was also pleasantly surprised by the film's opening scene, which turns out to be a very clever and unconventional way of introducing Kahlo to the audience ... but you'll just have to see the film to know what that means.

My only criticism with the film, and a minor one, is that the pace is almost breathless, and so the film feels more compact than it really should. It almost always rushes like a river when sometimes it should flow more gently.

This film clearly belongs to Salma Hayek, and she occupies the role so enormously that it's hard to imagine anyone else taking on the character of Frida Kahlo with as much verve. It's nothing short of a career-defining performance, and her Oscar nomination was well earned. My earnest hope is that Hayek will find equal inspiration in the years to come, because the movie industry needs the kind of passion and resolution she brought to this project.

Beautiful sight.
Julie Taymor's portrayal of the life of Mexican painter Frida Kahlo breaks away from conventional biopics and occasionally enters what seems to be the inside of the artist's surreal mind. Still, the film doesn't seem much different from most biopics.

Salma Hayek is fine as the famed painter, but she fails to play such a complex character on more than one level. However, she does capture Kahlo's beauty, and does well when her character is acting passionately. Alfred Molina is also adequate as the repeatedly unfaithful husband - you almost believe him when he says that "[sex] doesn't mean anything!". The film is also peppered with rather small supporting roles, all performed well enough: Ashley Judd as Italian expatriate Tina Modotti, Antonio Banderas as rival Mexican muralist David Alfaro Siqueiros, Geoffrey Rush as the Russian exile Leon Trotsky, Edward Norton as greasy bourgeios American Nelson Rockefeller, and the exceptional Valeria Golino as Lupe Marin, Rivera's ex-wife.

Elliot Goldenthal's intriguing musical score plays over the absolutely gorgeous Art Direction and Set Direction by Bernardo Trujillo and Hannia Robledo, respectively. The film is a visual and audial cinematic triumph.

However, Taymor's direction straddles between avant-garde moviemaking and conventional melodrama. The screenplay, by a collaboration of writers, fails really to delve into the characters' inner-feelings, especially of the title character, despite the frequent, lively trips inside her mind. In short, we see in this film all that happened to Frida Kahlo in her life, and it's beautiful along the way, but most of us are still left knowing little about her true character other than her conventional descriptions as communist, lover, and painter.

A Work of Art
I LOVED this film. Selma Hayek embodies Frida Kahlo and, from what I've read in Frida's journals, gives a very accurate portrayal of this gifted and complicated character. Mixing animation--making paintings come alive--was a brilliant touch. I'll watch it again and again especially for the colors, but also in the brief history lessons provided.

Bravo!

Emotionally riveting! Not a typical biopic.
I'm usually disappointed when it comes to biopics; apparently they are very hard to make. Getting inside the head of a surrealist painter and telling her life in two hours with only celluloid and a soundtrack seems like an impossible task. But you wouldn't know it to experience this hauntingly beautiful symphony of sights and sounds which is in itself a work of art. I disagree with most of the criticisms on this thread. The beginning is not boring; I was convinced I had to own this DVD within the first twenty minutes. The writing is brilliant and moving. Most biopics fall into the trap of being a mere chronology of events. This one succeeds where most fail: it is a story. The characters are all rich, deep, real, and thereby completely loveable. Of course it is probably scientifically impossible to not find Salma Hayek loveable. In this film, though, everyone shines. Trotsky, Diego's ex-wife, even the bar musicians radiate with human beauty. Salma Hayek has shown the world that she is quite capable of taking the lead in a serious role. And with a role as powerful as Frida Kahlo, if it's done right, the resulting portrait achieves its potential as a masterpiece.

Convincing portrait!
I was a little bit skeptical in the beginning because of difficulties associated with approaching this topic and because my doubts in acting abilities of Salma Hayek. I was wrong on both accounts. The movie is both very well done and doesn't step aside from history. It's amazing how Salma Hayek looks like real Frida. The same could be said about other characters judging from photos (besides Diego Rivera). The movie is a combination of art (almost every scene is practically a statement), romance and political farse (although maybe the last quality wasn't intended). It creates a very convincing and tragic portrait of this very strong woman. Thumbs Up!! ... Read more

Reviews (24)

The Christmas Toy
I am so excited to find this on Amazon.com, this was a favorite of mine growing up and i watched it every chrismas, sadly as i got older it was misplaced and for years i have looked for the tape, then a friend told me to check here. This movie makes me feel like a child again. I also reccomennd A Very Muppet Christmas, if you like this movie, as in that movie they have all of the muppets, maybe ABC Family will play this as a christmas Special as part of thier 25 days of Christmas, now that Disney has rights to the muppets.

SEARCH IS FINALLY OVER
I HAVE BEEN SEARCHING EVERYWHERE (DEPARTMENT STORES, VIDEO STORES, INTERNET, ETC.) FOR THIS MOVIE SINCE I FIRST SAW IT YEARS AGO ON NETWORK TELEVISION. MY CHILDREN WERE YOUNG AT THAT TIME, AND NOW I HAVE A GRANDCHILD WHO CAN ENJOY IT EVERY CHRISTMAS WITH ME. THE TOY STORY IS SIMPLY A "REMAKE" OF THIS MOVIE. I WISH IT WERE MORE WIDELY PUBLICIZED. THANK YOU AMAZON.COM YOU'VE MADE A CHRISTAMS WISH COME TRUE.

The greatest!
I fell in love with this film when I was 3 years old and to this day, 15 years later I still love it. If only it was available in England. A story to end all stories that should be taken on board in all walks of life. I'm so sad, I even have my own Rugby the tiger : )

The best Xmas show ever
Ever since we taped this off of the air, it has become a family tradition. My daughter even has a stuffed animal which is the spitting image of Rugby the Tiger (which, when she was three, was here Santa wish).

This is a great show for the whole family.

A Christmas Wish Come True
I can remember curling up in my mom and dad's bedroom every year at christmas and my mom would slip this tape in that she had recorded off of t.v. It became a treasured christmas tradition for me. I'm twenty now and during my mom and dads divorce the tape got lost. I ordered it off of amazon and watched it alone in my apartment the other night and it brought back millions of memories. I can't wait to share it with my children someday. Truely a christmas classic that is a must have for all children and adults looking to remember the magic of a childhood christmas. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

The curiosity of Quentin Tarantino's Jackie Brown is RobertForster's worldly wise bail bondsman Max Cherry, the most alive character in this adaptation of Elmore Leonard's Rum Punch. The AcademyAwards saw it the same way, giving Forster the film's only nomination. The film is more "rum" than "punch" and will certainly disappoint those who are looking for Tarantino's trademark style. This movie is a slow, decaffeinated story of six characters glued to a half million dollars brought illegally into the country. The money belongs to Ordell(Samuel L. Jackson), a gunrunner just bright enough to control his universe and do his own dirty work. His just-paroled friend--a loose term with Ordell--Louis (Robert De Niro) is just taking up space and could be interested in the money. However, his loyalties are in question between his old partner and Ordell's doped-up girl (Bridget Fonda). Certainly Fed Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) wants to arrest Ordell with the illegal money. The key is the title character, a late-40s-ish flight attendant (Pam Grier) who can pull her own weight and soon has both sides believing she's working for them. The end result is rarely in doubt, and what is left is two hours of Tarantino's expert dialogue as he moves his characters around town.

Tarantino changed the race of Jackie and Ordell, a move that means little except that it allows Tarantino to heap on black culture and language, something he has a gift and passion for. He said this film is for an older audience although the language and drug use may put them off. The film is not a salute to Grier's blaxploitation films beyond the musical score. Unexpectedly the most fascinating scenes are between Grier and Forster: two neo-stars glowing in the limelight of their first major Hollywood film after decades of work. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (167)

Dynamite Cast + Good Fun = Excellent Film
First off: "Jackie Brown" is not a disappointment. After the surprise success of Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" in 1994, everyone was looking for him to fail on his next attempt. Sorry, friends, but this just isn't the case. In many ways, "Jackie Brown" is a more enjoyable ride. After repeated viewings of "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs," one can easily pinpoint the weaknesses in Tarantino's style. He uses similar references to '70s action and blaxploitation films, he uses relic music hits from the same era, and he even uses similar character names (Marvin with no ear, meet Marvin with no head). The violence is always there, and the incessant use of profanity is always there. But "Jackie Brown" is different from these previous efforts. There's no appearances by either Harvey Keitel or Tim Roth; instead, the film is headlined by the queen of the '70s blaxploitation flicks, the eternally sexy Pam Grier. The supporting cast includes Robert Forster, a staple of cheesy B-movies, Samuel L. Jackson in a return to the world of Tarantino, and the very interesting threesome of Michael Keaton, Bridget Fonda, and the ever-versatile De Niro to round out the cast. So what, besides the cast, makes the film such a knockout? While the profanity level has been toned down, Tarantino's script loses no edge and maintains a constant freshness and sense of humor. Grier has never been much of an actress, but she's always had a certain charm, and she uses this charm effectively in "Jackie Brown." Forster gives his most memorable performance here, playing the role of Max Cherry with complete control and positive cool. Fonda is great as Melanie, and Keaton has a blast playing ATF agent Ray Nicolet, but De Niro steals the show as Louis Gara. De Niro has one of his better supporting roles here, and he makes the most of it. Louis is something of a dimwit, but only De Niro could inject the character with as much humor as he has here. The film, at 154m, is probably too long and overindulgent, but Tarantino presents us with an interesting plot, and some equally interesting subplots to boot. The most effective of these is the relationship that builds between Grier and Forster; there is an attraction there, but the insecurities of each character prevents this from ever reaching a climax. The film is colorful, has solid (but not brilliant) direction, and, aside from some serious lapses in logic, the script flows seamlessly. And guess what? There's no guest appearance by the man himself, who must have realized after "From Dusk Till Dawn" that, while he may be a writer and a director, and actor he is not. "Jackie Brown" reveals the limitations of Quentin Tarantino, but the film is still a riot, and one of the most entertaining of 1997. That's more than I can say for James Cameron's "Titanic," which fails on all levels for me, despite what the critics say. "Jackie Brown" delivers a knockout punch. It's great to see that some Elmore Leonard novels are finally getting the big-screen treatments that they deserve.

Fond-a Weapons
Jackie Brown: rated R, 2 hours and 40 minutes

Jackie Brown is an incredibly well played movie about guns, drugs, and money. Half a million in cash is up for grabs, and the only way to obtain it is by figuring out who is playing whom.
When Jackie (a stunning Pam Grier) is caught at an airport carrying a veritably large sum of money and a bag of crack, the outline of the story is formed. Jackie is held in custody facing possible time in prison, when the deceptive Ordell, played by black talking Samuel L. Jackson steps into the picture. Ordell hires an honest bailbondsman, Max Cherry, to release Ms. Brown. While Ordell takes care of business, we see behind-the-scenes conversations between the spaced out Robert De Niro, as Lewis, and the dim-witted Bridget Fonda, as Melanie, two of Ordell's main connections. Jackie becomes caught between two sides, both with equal objectives. Ray (Michael Keaton), the cop that apprehended Jackie earlier is after small time arms dealer, Ordell, and Ordell is pulling Jackie into his scheme of acquiring the cash. Meanwhile, Lewis and Melanie have their own plans of taking the money. Jackie can't afford to get into any more legal trouble, and if she doesn't cooperate with the man she owes her freedom to, she will be killed, which sets the stage for the perfect swindle.
Quentin Tarantino, creator of Jackie Brown, is master of 'film noir', and adds an interesting perspective to one scene in particular. Jackie is forced by the feds to frame Ordell, and according to Ordell, she is supposed to double-cross them. Caught in the middle, Jackie must fake an exchange of marked bills, in order to seem loyal to both. The switch is shown through three different viewpoints, adding greatly to the effect. The first time, Jackie is shown leaving the bag of money in a dressing room. Next, Lewis and Melanie are shown actually making the exchange, with the real bag of money left behind in the dressing room, and a suspicious Max Cherry watching. Lastly, Max Cherry watches as Lewis and Melanie swap bags, and the actual bag of cash left for him to pick up. By doing this, the big picture is seen through bits and pieces. Tarantino deserves much credit for its ingenious execution, and Jackie Brown in its entirety is recognized as a success, with phenomenal acting by the whole cast, primarily Pam Grier.

Great! Awesome! Fantastic!
Nobody and I mean nobody makes movies like Quentin Tarantino. JACKIE BROWN is one of the greatest movies of all time. Personally, This is my favorite of Quentin Tarantino's films. So get your copy of JACKIE BROWN today!

Not bad, De Niro is fun
Jackie Brown is certainly not Tarantino's best but it is amusing. As in pretty much every movie Samuel L Jackson plays a pretty important part as a gunrunner. He lives in a LA house with the very hot Bridget Fonda. A friend who just came out of jail lives with him and helps him. This is absolutely the funniest character in the movie, played by De Niro. He is a little dumb, lazy and slow but funnily played.

Key to the movie is Pam Grier as Jackie Brown, the smartest person in the movie because she can play both sides, the feds and the criminals and ends up with a lot of dough.

Not a super movie and with 150 minutes definitely too long, but still fun.

Not quite PULP FICTION, but certainly worthy Tarantino
I love Quentin Tarantino. You watch him speak about his art in interviews, and while I realize what I'm responding to might simply be a cleverly-wrought public persona, his energy and enthusiasm for his craft is just so infectious that one cannot help but be energized too. That energy certainly carries over into his movies, and while he may not be the most thrillingly visual director, his undeniable gift for dialogue more than compensates in his films.

PULP FICTION, as of now, is my favorite movie; the dialogue sparkles with wit, and I could hear those lines over and over again without ever getting tired of them. JACKIE BROWN, his follow-up to PF, is just as good as PF, if not quite its superior. Many complained upon its release that this movie was too sluggish and slow-moving (the above Editorial Review calls it "decaffeinated"). Sure, the plot of this movie certainly could become a taut, exciting thriller under another director's hands. But clearly writer-director Tarantino isn't aiming merely for action-movie thrills. He is also focused on his characters, particularly with the two older characters, Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) and Max Cherry (Robert Forster), two characters who have an unspoken attraction to each other that brings an intriguing undertone to a majority of the crime story. If Tarantino takes his time developing his characters and laying out the plot...well, the characters' dialogue is consistently full of life; the characters are interesting (and the performances terrific across the board, particuarly Forster's); and the convoluted plot, when it kicks into high gear, is a source of fascination as well. Watching it, I hardly ever felt that it was too slow for its own good: I was too fascinated by what I was seeing and hearing to notice any possible deficiencies in pacing. (Another Elmore Leonard adaptation, Steven Soderbergh's OUT OF SIGHT, took a similarly leisurely approach to its crime plot, and it worked just as well in that film, too.)

In short, JACKIE BROWN is an underrated Tarantino masterpiece. It may not be quite the film PULP FICTION is (since it had a more palpably energetic feel to it, despite both films' running 154 minutes), but it is certainly a worthy follow-up. ... Read more

Reviews (63)

The epic sense of the life
Andrei Rubliov is the masterpiece of Andrei Tarkovsky. I 've watched very carefullly all his works, and Andrei contains the quintessential thought of this unique film maker.
What Tarkovsky made with this film may be one the most overwhelming and haunting achievemnts in all the story of the world cinema.
Rubliov is a icon painter who after an important fac, decides not continue in that office.
The powerful of the barbarian invassion into a church, where he acquires the human experience gets far away the world, he isolates and becomes in a wanderer.
The unforgettable images that appear before the viewer are of a trascendental poetic beauty never seen before and even now.
All the journey along the Russia of XVI century is a reflexive gaze of the human condition , the sense of the life and how dealing with it, the unsaid code of one must behavior humanly, even in inhuman conditions, facing the world, with his singleness, its little moments of joy, his infinite sadness and its miseries.
The opening sequence in which the fall is shown before us, is a original metaphor of how facing with the failure; and is depicted with such kind of beautiness that mesmerizes you. No other film n the story, with the exception of the ending of A man escapes from Robert Bresson reveals with so frehness and vitality the epic sense before the life.
When Rubliov knows this teenager, in the final chapter, and faces with him the huge challenge that implies to make the asgned mission, turns back çRubliov and it invites him to keep on going in his mission or the moira term greek, his place in the universe, his meaning in this brief stage in the world.
This superb masterpiece, has countless remarkable sequences, the dialogues are feed of a blissness and poetic raprure without a drop of effectism.
When the mission is completed, and everybody celebrates the fact our young hero remains alone and Rubliov will gather with him and will tell wisdom words that I must not tell.
This is the goal of the artist; he must go to the forrest and seek the mushrooms; the people will be just waiting from the safe place for him; and no matter how dangerous or hazardous be the journey; they only expect for your bag. They will consume these gifts; but the creator must seek them.
Tarkovsky was in the middle of the creative universe (remeber his father Arseni Tarkovsky was a poet)in 1966; the script has an inner mytical force ; and every bit of this film is sublime, perfect.
Tarkovsky showed what many film makers haven't been able to do; express with a camera such landscape of images, in all his whole meaning.
Andrei Rubliov will be always a landmark ; an eternal triumph ; a epic statement that will be with all of us till the end of our lives.
And even more.

Revelation in Contemplation
I had never seen a Tarkovsky film before "Andrei Rublev", but I intend to see more. This film was *very* different, but very good, and I was moved by it on many different levels.

Set in Russia in the early 15th century, this film is based on the life of Andrei Rublev, an icon painter and arguably Russia's first great artist. It's told in a series of vignettes that don't always focus on Rublev; many times he is either a background observer or not involved at all. He is a device that Tarkovsky uses to tell a grander tale, a tale about art, life, humanity, history, faith, good, evil and other philosophical ideas that most filmmakers fear like the plague. This film is much more than a historical epic, it is a work of art, and possibly more than that a path to enlightenment.

Like many of the greatest directors, Tarkovsky is more than just a filmmaker. He is an ARTIST, possibly more so than any director I've ever encountered. For example, most directors use techniques like music and editing to elicit specific emotions from the audience, but Tarkovsky uses few to no manipulative devices. Scenes are typically wide, sweeping, epic shots, which often linger for up to several minutes. The viewer is allowed to absorb the situation and the imagery, to internalize them and let them sink into the subconscious. If one is still and contemplative, one will enter into a dialogue with the film and begin to experience it on a higher level.

The film lacks a tightly knit plot, and there's no pat morality tale. Rather it is LIFE, boiled down to its essence. Scenes feel real, and often play out in real time according to the rhythm of life. Characters will sit and wait, and we wait with them. Incidents unfold in real time, with no cuts and nothing edited. Tarkovsky uses the natural world a great deal. For instance, a character will chance upon the carcass of a snow-white egret mired in the swamp, or a somber procession will scale a snowy embankment where the mud has bled through like a pair of weeping eyes.

It's a work of art, I've established that, but I also love the historical setting. Fifteenth century Russia was grim and unforgiving. Orthodox Christianity was the official religion, but paganism was still commonplace. Boyars, kings and princes frequently skirmished with one another. Tartars from the south took advantage of the regional instability to sack villages and cities. Plague and sickness were rampant, and the vast majority of people lived in abject poverty. But the so-called "Dark Ages" were nearly at an end. Art and ideas from West were steadily infiltrating the East. Rublev himself was inspired by a Greek painter named Theophanes, a relationship depicted in the film. Tarkovsky captures the period perfectly in "Andrei Rublev", and to me it seems like the next thing to being there.

Having said ALL that, I cannot in good conscience recommend this film to most people. Here are all the reasons a modern filmgoer probably would not like "Andrei Rublev": it was filmed in black and white; it's old (originally released in 1966); it's long (the unedited Criterion release is nearly 3 and a 1/2 hours); it's in Russian with subtitles; at least one animal was brutally killed during the filming (for which there is NO excuse - shame on Tarkovsky); scenes linger for several minutes without cuts or editing; it's arty (though not pretentious); it's very difficult to understand; it requires repeated viewings and you may never fully "get it"; it's told in a series of vignettes with only a loose overarching narrative; etc., etc. If none of that scares you off, you should definitely check it out, because it's a real gem.

RUINED BY ANIMAL CRUELITY
I was really looking foward to this film as i have enjoyed SOLARIS, THE MIRROR and many other russian films so much. Everything you,ve read about the magnificents of this film is true,it is one of the most striking,poetic and beautiful looking films ive seen period, however i must say thatiam utterly repulsed by the three barbaric acts of animal torture , Seeing a cow running around its enclosure after being set on fire, a horse fall down some steps , breaking its leg and then have a spear shoved through its throat
and a dog being beaten to death and watching its final twitching
make this film ultimi unwatchable ..is this art??is this excusable??Do you think this is okay? these are the most repulsive and distrurbing scenes i have ever seen in a movie. I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS I DETEST ANIMAL CRUELTY/TORTURE, ESPECIALLY SIMPLY TO MAKE A FILM.....im shocked that so many of your reveiwers did not mention this..Please , someone tell me i wrong and that these scenes did not really happen for real
and its all trickery..

THE Russian epic with striking imagery (1966)
Andrei Rublev is probably the greatest looking film of all time. It was shot on a Konvas (you can pick one up on Ebay for $1000) and film students will be stunned by what has been achieved in terms of cinematography with such an old and dated 35mm motion picture camera. It is inspirational in terms of film-making and this is the core reason why you should watch the film. If you are interested in Kino Art then Andrei Rublev can probably lay claim to the greatest art film ever made. If you are looking to experiment with Tarvoksky, then Andrei Rublev is not a bad place to start.

Like most of Tarkovsky's films, Andrei Rublev is extremely artistic, conjectures much on the human condition, metaphysics and Russian life - that all seem to have some hidden meanings that contains the film's truth that Tarkovsky expounds on - namely the wickedness of men and the temptations that they face. It is also about triumph of the will and the nature of man. This is all done via the "narrative" and the look of the film. Tarkovsky mixes moments of dialogue about the metaphysical (a doctrine that would continue to be a theme in all of this other films giving a sense of what was to come - especially the intricateness of Stalker, Solaris), arrestingly simple and slow cinematography (his trademark water shots), complex action sequences (there are full scale battles like from a Kurosawa movie) and visionary set designs (15th century villages, towns and cities). This is Tarkovsky's biggest film ever (and quite possibly the biggest Russian film ever).

The premise is complex. Andrei Rublev, a monk with the gift of painting, is invited to paint churches around the country and in Moscow. Between travelling from job to job he encounters - monks who have lost their faith, monks with too much faith in themselves, fools who are imprisoned for their beliefs, Wicca festivals (the pagan ceremonies of St. John's night), murder, torture (the Russian crucifixion), death, error, the sacking of towns by the Tartars (the sacking of Vladimir), vows of silence and of course the most striking final piece of the film - the making of the bell (the casting of the bell). Characters appear and disappear (a cinematic technique found in The Thin Red Line), but there is also a lot of hidden imagery (every time you watch it you find something new), in particular scenes of novice monks putting dirt on their cheeks which makes no sense at the time yet later on we seen Andrei put the same dirt as a stain on a church he has painted because of the bureaucratic blinding of artists (an extremely violent scene of which there are many. As a note: Andrei Rublev happens to be an extremely violent film and there are several disturbing scenes. Also a scene where a horse falls down a stairs was cut because of animal cruelty but this has been restored for the DVD). All of these scenes are done via several chapters that each tells a story in which Andrei Rublev is present either as the central character of focus, a participant or an observer. If you pay close attention to the chapters you will realize that the themes of each chapter are contained in all the chapters. Tarvoksky plays with the audience in so many ways that you can only hope to watch the film again and again until you make ALL of the connections. You will likely not see a more striking film for imagery. The ending is obviously what got Kubrick working on his trip scene in 2001. Tarkovsky returned a nod by filming Solaris.

Andrei Rublev is shot in monochrome although the ending does a little Wizard of Oz for us. The story is divided between two discs. You have 86 minutes in the first disc and 99 in the second for a grand running time of 185 minutes. This DVD is PRICEY but this is Kino Art at its finest and worth every penny. The extras are many and there are some very important historical interviews about Tarkovsky. However I will say that DVD is totally unsuitable for Tarkovsky's films and possibly you will do better to watch a widescreen video or even better a 35mm print of the film in the cinema next time it comes to town. Even though the transfer is sublime for a 1966 picture (a Russian one at that) and there has been a lot of digital correction, the DVD produces artefacts on nearly all of Tarkovsky's films because of his complex imagery, but this is just quibbling and is not the fault of the DVD producers. Tarkovsky has simply exceeded the limits of what DVD mpeg compression can handle, even after this film is spanned over 2 discs... and that says a lot about the quality of this man's vision.

Kino Art does not come much better than Andrei Rublev.

Excellent, but slow paced and not for everybody.
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film. This film, like many of Tarkovsky's movies are slow-paced. This may bore some, but Tarkovsky viewed many his films as a form of art as opposed to entertainment.

Most people like movies that entertain, but not all films do that. I am a longtime fan of Russian cinema and find this to be a good example of "art house" cinema.

This movie contains some scenes that some persons may find unsettling. There is a scene where a man kicks a dog to death, a scene of a horse falling down a set of stairs breaking its leg, and another where a cow is on fire. There is also nudity.

The film itself was banned in the Soviet Union, but later released in a heavily cut version. The film has many religious references and quotes from the Bible. (The subtitles on the Criterion Collection DVD use the King James Version for translation of the Bible which is my favorite.)

The film follows the story of real life 14th-15th century icon painter Andrei Rublev. Not knowing too much about him, I cannot give a clear comparison between the film and his life. The movie is well photographed and has an excellend full color sequence at the end of the film showing his acutal paintings.

The Criterion Collection DVD has numerous special features.
Interview with director Andrei Tarkovsky, Improved Subtitles, A timeline showing events of Russian history, and the works and life events of Andrei Rublev and Tarkovsky. There is also a partial length audio essay during certain chapters on the DVD track that conform with the scenes the narrator is talking about.
The booklet lists these tracks so one would not need to view the whole film to search for the commentary. ... Read more

Amazon.com

An Anglo builder (Matthew Perry) from New York and a Mexican-American photographer (Salma Hayek) from Las Vegas have a date, get pregnant, and then get married in a particularly rocky union made worse by the presence of in-laws from both sides. This relationship comedy (with some drama) goes down all the paths you'd expect it to, but it is also deliberately a showcase for Friends star Perry and his gifted way with a one-liner. Nothing special here, just two nice stars in a cozy vehicle. The DVD release has full-screen and widescreen presentations, theatrical trailer, optional Spanish and French subtitles, optional Spanish and French soundtracks, and Dolby sound. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (97)

Desert flavor and so romantic!
If you mix comedy, drama and love with two great actors and a perfect script, what you end up with is a memorable movie. This is a beautiful story, which starts off wrong. Alex Whitman (Matthew Perry) and Isabel Fuentes (Salma Hayek) are destined to meet and when they do, things go in a direction they never imagined.

Isabel brings the drama to this movie. Alex brings the comedy. Their families from different cultures bring in a touch of conflict. The expectations of each family are so typical and set in motion a number of unexpected twists and turns to the plot.

The music in this movie does deserve its own soundtrack. I have looked for it. Even after watching this movie for the third time, I still want a CD. The music sets the mood for the whole movie. The setting at the Hoover Dam is also spectacular as are many of the outdoor scenes in the desert.

Salma Hayek is at her best in this movie, as is Mathew Perry. There is such great chemistry. The signs all definitely point towards them being together. Unfortunately, they both have to deal with relationships they had in the past, annoying relatives and Alex's controlling boss.

This movie shows how love can conquer any situation and cross all barriers. Each time you watch this movie it will affect you differently. When you see Alex holding a baby and Isabel looking across the room at him, you can't help but become Isabel for that brief instant. Alex says so many of the right things, any woman would want to hear. Then, Alex also makes the mistake of not telling Isabel pertinent details which will affect her life, and that is the basis for most of the conflicts.

Matthew Perry and Salma Hayek were the best actors for this movie! It is so romantic, you will want to watch it once every few years. Absolutely a worthwhile investment to purchase the video or DVD. Now, if anyone can find a soundtrack CD, let us all know!!!

!A Man, A Woman And A Chihuahua. Ay caramba!
After seeing "Fools Rush In", I definitely feel the above caption would make for a better title. But, nonetheless, this is one of those romantic love stories with a touch of comedy and a whole lot of drama, like a soap opera, but only better. The plot centers around a consultant of an architectural firm, Alex (Matthew Perry), who, by fate, meets a single Mexican woman named Isabel (Salma Hayek). After spending the night together, Isabel becomes pregnant with Alex's child, but is quite shocked about the news at first, and isn't sure whether or not she wants to continue their relationship. As time progresses, the couple get to know each other better and Isabel introduces Alex to her family, the Fuenteses (including an angry chihuahua named Che, who, at first, displays an intense dislike for Alex, but softens up to him later), and, likewise, Isabel later meets Alex's parents. At first, their parents don't agree with the idea of Alex and Isabel going steady, because of the cultural differences of both families. But what the heck, it all makes for a very interesting, and rather potent, love story. In fact, it is a love story (as mentioned above)! Rather than saying anything further, I suggest you pick up a copy of "Fools Rush In". The chihuahua alone is worth the price of this movie! Approved by the SPCA/American Humane Society and Lover's Anonymous."

Cute, Sweet, thoughful romantic comedy
I thought this was such a cute movie! It shows that sometimes opposites do attract! During one seen, Salma talks to Matthew about their differences and the prejudices that both families have with each other while telling a story. This is something that every body will love, including guys!!

An Excellent Movie
I love this movie. It has become my all-time favorite love story. Very well done!

Charming story but left me with a question.
This is one of the most charming "chick-flicks" because of the sweetness of Salma Hayek's character. Matthew Perry brings the humor. The music is very uplifting. Many of the songs can also be found on a CD called "Ultra-Lounge Volume 5". The two characters start their relationship physically first, then try to fall in love later. Along the way, they question what is meant to be. They encounter each other's families and friends and explore their likes and dislikes and the result is comical and endearing. What I am wondering is for those who are not happily married, does this movie encourage a physical relationship outside of marriage? I have seen the movie but still am not sure. On the surface, it seems like it doesn't. But what would be the end result of watching this - would a person be more or less likely to start a relationship physically? With the ending the way it was, it might make some younger viewers think true love might happen that way and end up leaving them with heartache. I'd like to hear more reviews on this aspect. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This smart, funny episode finds the Enterprise visiting the planet Iotia, where the starship Horizon accidentally left behind Earth materials a century before. During that time, as Captain Kirk (William Shatner) discovers, the Iotians have made much of one of those items, a book called Chicago Mobs of the Twenties. The planet's population has divided into rival gangs who dress, speak, and do violence like the spiritual descendants of Al Capone, plunging Kirk, Spock (Leonard Nimoy), and McCoy (DeForest Kelley) into a facsimile of Earth's colorful and dangerous past.

The episode is played for comedy: Kirk and Spock keep getting kidnapped by the warring hoods, each of whom wants the Federation team to use their technology to defeat the other side. The big payoff, however, is a summit meeting of bosses, where Kirk employs plenty of gangster-movie jargon to get matters settled. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Except on Tuesday
This gangster episode, and Tribbles, were the two Trek comedies that really worked. While I wouldn't exactly call the humor here subtle, it is intertwined in a fairly traditional action plot. We are able to enjoy Kirk and Spock's thuggishness for its own sake while simultaneously staying focused on the plot, for the simple reason that their behavior is called for by the story, rather than being a gimmick. The idea of a highly impressionable alien race who's cultural evolution could depend so thoroughly on a random event (the leaving behind of the book) is an interesting one as well. This episode is also helped by strong guest acting, most notably from Tayback.

The funniest of the original series
This is without question the funniest episode of the original Star Trek series. There is no funnier deadpan scene anywhere in television than the one where Kirk is "explaining" the fizzbin card game and asks Spock what the odds are against getting a royal fizzbin. His deadpan, yet truthful answer is, "I have never computed them." I laughed out loud the first time I saw that and still smile when I see it, even though I have seen it over fifty times.
The main premise is that a Federation vessel visited a planet before the Prime Directive was imposed and members of the crew interacted with the planet's inhabitants and contaminated them. Therefore, the primary task of the Enterprise is to repair the damage. The earlier Federation vessel left a book that described the Chicago gangs of the prohibition era and the inhabitants have modeled their entire culture after the book. Their clothing, buildings, speech and social structure are all modeled from the gangster movie cliches.
After many trials and errors, including Kirk trying to drive a car, there is a climactic scene where Kirk takes charge and unifies the government under one of the gang bosses. His pacing on a pool table while brandishing a machine gun and speaking one gangland cliché after another is one of the best scenes in the entire original series. His solution, where the Federation is described as an interplanetary gang, is funny and original. I have always wondered what the reaction of Star Fleet command was to his report of how he solved the contamination problem.
Funny, and essentially a spoof of a movie genre, this is one of the best Star Trek episodes ever, original series and beyond.

"A Piece of the Action," the 2nd funniest Star Trek episode
"A Piece of the Action" has the Enterprise visiting Sigma Iotia II, where a hundred years early the USS Horizon visited. Apparently this was before the Prime Directive, because one of the Horizon crew left behind a book: "Chicago Mobs of the Twenties." Now, once you get past the fact that (a) someone was toting a book into Deep Space and (b) it happened to be that particular book, you can really enjoy this one. Bela Oxymy wants the Federation to supply his gangsters with weapons so he can take over the planet, taking down Krako and the other bosses. My favorite part is when Kirk makes up a very complicated card game to play with the gangsters holding him hostage and Spock has to admit having never calculated the odds on the rarest of possible hands. Then there is also the bit where they try to drive an automobile. In the end, Kirk decides if you cannot fight them, join them. "A Piece of the Action" may well be the second funniest Star Trek episode, after "The Trouble With Tribbles," of course.

Excellence
In my opinion, A Piece Of The Action is in the top 3 episode category along with Mirror Mirror and the Corbomite Manuever. The whole episode is very deep and never uneventful. The action never stops. It employs humor in the form of "slang talk" which people like Spock and McCoy dont understand. I cant explain it all here, but I will tell you it is a very good episode.

One of the funniest and best Star Trek episodes
"A Piece of The Action" is one of my five favorite episodes of Star Trek. In "A Piece of The Action," Captain Kirk, Spock, and Dr. McCoy beam down to a planet whose landscape is similar to that of earth. The boss of a bunch of gangsters demands that the trio from the Enterprise make a deal with him which would help him ward off some of his enemies. To put it short, the Enterprise crew has been tricked. There must be a way for Captain Kirk, Spock, and Dr. McCoy to escape the planet alive, but they have a little bit of fun first.

"A Piece of The Action" is a great episode of the original series of Star Trek. It is well written and some parts of it are hilarious, especially the part when Captain Kirk drives a car for the first time. It's also amusing the way that Kirk talks in slang and has to repeat himself for the others to understand him.

William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy both give one of their best performances to make this one of the unforgettable episodes of Star Trek. I recommend "A Piece of The Action" to anybody. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

HOME SWEET HOME
Trying to choose a favorite episode in the most sophisticated detective spoof of all time is like trying to choose your favorite child! It's almost impossible for there's always something special about each one that tugs at your heart! So it is with The Thin Man Goes Home...as equally charming on it's own merit as all the others in this series. It's quite a slower pace than we're accustomed to, but then Nick and Nora do manage to get involved in a murder even when going back home to visit Nick's parents. Thankfully the plot involved here is at least understandable, while I was never able to follow Nick's reasoning in solving his other storylines! It's a great tribute to the charismatic personalities of William Powell and Mryna Loy that they continually hypnotized the audience into overlooking the screwy plots written for them. My only criticism is that Nick openly spanks Nora in front of his parents! It seemed a bit chauvinistic of Nick's character to exhibit such behavior and unlike Nora's strong independent nature to allow him to humiliate her in that respect. None the less, this flick is an important piece of classic movie history, and should be appreciated for the magnificient acting talents of it's two stars!

This movie was so good I popped my vest buttons!
This is the fourth sequel to the 1934 smash hit THE THIN MAN. Just when I would have thought the series was dead the producers and writers were able to add life to the franchise.

Nick goes home and of course gets dragged into another murder mystery. Nora, who by now should no longer be curious to see Nick solve a mystery, tries to get Nick to solve a murder mystery so he can impress his father the medical doctor. Nick's father had always hoped his son would have become a doctor and when Nick became a cop and then detective he looked down on him. As far as the mystery goes it follows the typical THIN MAN formula. A bunch of suspects are introduced and in the end Nick rounds them all up and reveals the killer.

The comedy is better than ever. Rather than have Nick always drinking and having jokes centered around his drinking Nick is now sober. The jokes are even funnier because everyone believes he is still a drunk and he just can't convince them otherwise. The scene in his Dad's parlor is hilarious. Nick is stone sober but due to a series of mishaps he is on the floor and appears to all to be drunk as ever. Also, when Nick recounts his childhood to Nora and tells her of his trips to the wood shed that brings back memories of my childhood and trips to the wood shed.

This is my second favorite THIN MAN movie. Right behind AFTER THE THIN MAN and just before the original THIN MAN. It is an almost perfect blend of mystery and comedy. Where the heck are the DVD's for all the THIN MAN movies?

"Has Nora Become 'Ordinaire'?"
A delightful change of pace from previous "Thin Man" movies -- no cutsie "little Nickie" and no annoying references to Nora as "mama."

Nick returns home, is faced with a mystery, and finally receives his father's praise. Most importanly, Nick's background is nicely developed. Obviously his brains and composure come from his father while his drinking problem and sometimes-irresponsibility are the result of an overweaning mother.

The plot unwinds with several twists and features an assortment of local small-town characters played by a wonderful supporting cast. (None of them are portrayed disparagingly, or negatively mocked or compared to "hip" New Yorkers.) The story moves along at a pleasant pace and of course Nick smoothly solves the mystery.

What's MOST interesting, however, is the transformation seen in Mrs. Charles -- Nora has become "ordinaire." The once strikingly beautiful, ultra-sophisticated woman is now a whining little wife. While once capable of exchanging rapier one-liners with a variety New York males, she now is reduced to self-consciously avoiding eye contact with a few appreciative men in a pool hall. She would have verbally decimated those guys in earlier movies. Can this be the same Nora who effortlessly reigned over parties on both coasts?

Nora's role seems to be that of her husband's cheerleader -- and an uninteresting one at that. Maybe she's trying to ingratiate herself with the family. And she looks...well....

While changes in fashion come and go, it's a pity to see Nora with an unflattering hairstyle and in uninteresting clothes. Maybe audiences in the 40's wanted different images from those in the '30s. Or maybe motherhood took a toll on Nora. Meanwhile Nick is more charming than ever -- and -- in a household without liquor! He's more than a drunk afterall. In fact we get new insight into Nick that will gratify his many fans.

This is a very good movie, do watch it.

No Small Town Is Safe When Nick And Nora Show Up
Nick and Nora go to a small town to visit Nick's parents in this installment. Of course, usually it's a quiet place where nothing exciting ever happens, but when the Charles show up, there's bound to be murder. There's an extra dose of humour in this story compared to the others in the series and the film has a strong supporting cast that includes Lucile Watson and Harry Davenport as the parents, Gloria DeHaven as a drama queen, Leon Ames as a mysterious art collector, and best of all, Anne Revere as the town's crazy woman. William Powell and Myrna Loy do their customary good job as the leads. The mystery was interesting, with some good twists, and other than needing a little tightening up in a few places, the film moves along well. Mystery fans will enjoy this entry.

Nick and Nora Visit the Folks.
This entry in the series is a change of pace. Instead of New York or San Francisco we have Sycamore Springs. Sycamore Springs looks as if it is just down the road from George Bailey's Bedford Falls. It's very Norman Rockwell. Lots of trees, picket fences, and big houses. Nick and Nora breeze into town to celebrate Nick's birthday with the folks. There are a variety of suspicious characters hanging around town. They get nervous when a famous detective arrives. There is, in fact, a murder. Right on the Charles' front porch. Nick and Nora's razor sharp repartee lost some of its edginess by this point in the series. This film gets disparaged as a step down in quality. Although some of the banter takes place over a wobbly piece of lawn furniture in the side yard rather than a cocktail shaker in a New York bar, dismissing the film as inferior is a mistake. Ozzie and Harriet interludes notwithstanding, this is fun for those who enjoy classic comedy. A hallmark of the series is that the murder is an excuse for humor. Not to make fun of murder, of course, but it's hilarious when Nora follows a suspect on a walk on the wild side. The WWII flavor of this flick adds to its old-fashioned charm. The mystery is of stolen propellor plans down at the local defense plant. The small town social mores are quaint. This movie is a good fit for fans of classic comedy, Thin Man fans, and collectors. Ownership is recommended. ;-) ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Reason To Believe
This is a basically good movie. I was disappointed that there was not an unrated version. There are scenes which have been edited out. If you buy a censored version (which the "R" version is), you've been cheated. The movie should be seen as the director filmed it!

Sleazy and trashy
Reason To Believe has got to be the worst movie I have ever sat through. Non of the characters are at all believable and most are morally disgusting. I am no prude but if this movie represents the way college students live today then it is no wonder the world is in such decay. There really is no reason to see this movie. Totally disgusting. Why well known actors would be involved in such sleazy trash is beyond comprehension!!!!

"A Reason to Believe" that college is dangerously fun.
This movie gives an accurate portrayal of college life while at the same time giving you the "over the edge" exaggerations. It takes a serious look at date rape which, unfortunately, really does happen in Anycollege, USA. If you like dumb college guys doing funny-as-hell college pranks, this movie is for you. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Tracy and Jay Osborne's mother is shipping the unwilling children off to their grandfather's house for Easter vacation while she attends to business in Hong Kong. The children plot a trip to visit their mother and, with the help of Jay's pet skunk, evade their grandfather and airport security to escape in a taxicab with two safe-cracking vandals. The foursome proceeds to stage a kidnapping--although just who kidnapped whom is up for debate. Grandfather refuses to pay the ransom, the police get involved, and hilarity reigns as the desperate group attempts to collect the ransom money. The talents of Barbara Feldon, David Niven, Darren McGavin, and Don Knotts rejuvenate this fairly unremarkable plot. Slapstick comedy, perilous excursions, and fast-paced chase scenes abound in this wholesome 1976 Disney production. (Ages 3 and older) --Tami Horiuchi ... Read more

Reviews (8)

DVD = "Deposit" Very Defective
Buyers, beware! The recently released DVD of "No Deposit, No Return" is defective, at least here on the East coast. I exchanged three discs from two different stores of a major media retailer (initials BB) and all three copies had the same glitches in the same scenes. Obviously a manufacturing error. Hopefully an official recall from Disney is forthcoming. Also, I noticed that on some Deposit discs the voice-over varies for the so-called "trailer" (actually just a :30 promo for the film's broadcast airing on The Wonderful World of Disney). On my first disc, the voice was that of the original announcer from the 1970s (very nostalgic). On all subsequent discs, however, the voice was that of the contemporary announcer one hears on all current Disney video promos (not so nostalgic). At least the "Hot Lead and Cold Feet" theatrical trailer included on that disc is the real deal (includes even an accompanying Mr. Toad cartoon). But getting back to "No Deposit", be prepared for glitches when you purchase or rent your disc. I plan to hang on to my Ebay-purchased VHS until enough time has passed that another DVD printing has occurred. Seeing as how neither format is letterboxed or of any admirable picture quality, bailing on the DVD really is no sacrifice. Hey, if you can live with glitches, pay this review no mind. Everyone else: Hang on to that receipt!

Cute movie, bad transfer
This is a typical Disney live-action film of the 70's. The comedy is thin at times (you almost expect a laugh-track to kick in at any moment to say "This is supposed to be funny"), but it has its moments. Don Knotts does well in his role, but he a little underused. Still, it's a good way for a family to spend time together one rainy Saturday afternoon.

Now on to the DVD transfer. It's sad. They didn't try to clean it up digitally or anything. It looks like they just used a VHS tape and threw it on a DVD. The quality of this film makes me a little leery about buying the next set they throw out. While I love to see these classics finally come to DVD, I hate to see them wasted on a junky transfer. If you have this one on VHS, don't waste your money to upgrade. And yes, it's in fullscreen with no extras other than the "trailer" (a 30 second television spot).

No Deposit, No Return; No Widescreen=No Sale
I give up. Disney DVD releases several titles on DVD this week, some in widescreen format with crisp, beautiful new transfers, while dumping others on us in bowdlerized full-screen prints. Unfortunately, the one title I most wanted, 1976's "No Deposit, No Return," belongs to the latter category. As a result, Disney DVD lost a sale. No widescreen = no sale, no matter how much I want the film. Period.

For undiscriminating types who don't care if they're ripped-off or not, "No Deposit, No Return" is a typical '70's-era Disney trifle with a great cast of veterans (David Niven, Darren McGavin, Don Knotts, Barbara Feldon, Herschel Bernardi, Charles Martin Smith and Vic Tayback) pulling out all the stops to enliven a mediocre script that, incidentally, contains one of the biggest plot holes I've ever seen in a Disney movie (back to this later). Fortunately, director Norman Tokar (a Disney regular) and the screenwriters throw everything in but the kitchen sink to create a freewheeling comedy that has more than its fair share of laughs. So even though "No Deposit..." pales in comparison to great Disney laugh-fests like "The Love Bug" and "The World's Greatest Athlete," it is still entertaining and will hold the kids' interest for all of its 112 minutes.

How's this for a contrived plot? Jay and Tracy Osborne (Brad Savage and Kim Richards) are poor little rich kids who attend a typically Disneyesque boarding school while their magazine editor mother (Feldon) globe-trots on business. Excited that they will be spending Easter vacation with her, they are crushed when Mom cancels and whisks the pair off (along with their pet skunk (!) Duster) to Los Angeles to spend the week with their despised Grandfather Osborne (Niven), who likes them about as much as they like him (meaning, not at all). At the same time, Duke (McGavin) and Bert (Knotts), a couple of luckless but kindhearted safecrackers, are trying to crack the safe at L.A. International Airport, but botch the job and set off the alarm. Meanwhile, Duster gets loose and causes pandemonium in the airport. In the confusion, Jay, Tracy, Duster, Duke and Bert end up in the same taxi, tailed by Grandfather Osborne in his limo. When Jay and Tracy figure out that Duke and Bert are harmless crooks, they con them into thinking they're homeless and letting them spend the night. The kids then work up a bogus kidnapping scheme and mail a ransom note to Grandfather Osborne (who has his butler keeping an eye on them from across the street) and con Duke and Bert into going along with it, figuring they'll split the money, and Jay and Tracy will go to Hong Kong to join their mother while Duke and Bert pay off the menacing loan shark (Tayback) they're in debt to (which is why they tried cracking the safe in the first place). Whew!

What follows is "Ransom of Red Chief" territory, with Osborne refusing to pay the ransom and the quartet continually dropping the ransom amount. It isn't until someone tips off the local police (represented by Bernardi and his by-the-book rookie partner Smith) that Grandfather Osborne has to start playing the game and making an attempt to get the kids back. What follows is scene-after-scene of typical '70's era Disney slapstick, including the Disney equivalent of the classic "Bullitt" and "French Connection" chase scenes (played for laughs, of course), as the entire cast chases each other around half of L.A. and the entire harbor area in a freewheeling slapstick car chase. Of course, everything ends in predictably warmhearted fashion.

Actually, were it not for the cast, "No Deposit, No Return" would be D.O.A. But Knotts is typically hilarious, McGavin a perfect straight man for Knotts, Bernardi and Smith bicker amusingly and Richards and Savage (straight off their famous roles in "Escape to Witch Mountain" and "The Apple Dumpling Gang") are cute and professional, unlike some of the other cloying non-actor child stars of the era. As for Niven, he is an absolute delight and plays wonderfully off his sophisticated image to get some genuine laughs. Feldon shows up late and scores points as a mother who leaves a little bit to be desired.

As for the production, the opening cartoon-credits sequence and theme music are rather boring compared to the bouncy themes of "The North Avenue Irregulars" and the Kurt Russell college comedies. And, like all other Disney films of the era, it plays like a live-action cartoon in which the reality of the era plays no part whatsoever (Watergate? Vietnam? Jimmy who?) It's basically by-the-numbers stuff, though admittedly entertaining.

As for the plot hole? Okay, here goes: If Grandfather Osborne is a millionaire and doesn't want the kids around, and Jay and Tracy would rather go to Hong Kong than spend time with him, then why not just ask Grandfather Osborne for the money so they can go to Hong Kong and be with their mother? If he doesn't want to be bothered with them, then why would he say no? It's simple: then there would be no movie.

I just don't get it. Lousy titles like "Cat From Outer Space" and "Hot Lead and Cold Feet" get widescreen treatment, while great films like "Darby O'Gill" and "Follow Me Boys" languish in full-screen prints. Even "No Deposit, No Return" deserves better. So, the verdict: "No Deposit, No Return" gets **1/2 while the DVD treatment rates *. As I said before, I give up.

Cute movie!
No Deposit, No Return is not my favorite Kim Richards movie that would be Escape To Witch Mountain but it's a good movie that the whole family can enjoy and I think Disney should transfer it to DVD. All the actors are great, Kim Richards, Barbara Feldon, David Niven, etc. Being a fan of the classic TV show Get Smart I think it's cool that Barbara Feldon who played agent 99 was in this movie and since it's been a while since I have seen this movie I had completely forgotten she was in it. This movie is cute and definitely worth buying or renting.

Classic --Must See Disney!
Really great kids classic--a must see. My kids, ages 8 and 10, absolutely loved it! ... Read more

Amazon.com

This 1946 film celebrates the life, career, and showmanship of the late Florenz Ziegfeld, perhaps the most famous and influential Broadway producer in the early decades of the 20th century. The film, ostensibly directed by Vincente Minnelli, takes an unusual form. We open in Heaven, at the home of the late Ziegfeld (played by William Powell, who also played him in The Great Ziegfeld), who thinks back on his life and wonders what kind of show he would put on with the talent of today (meaning 1946). What follows is an elaborately staged revue, similar to the blend of cheesecake, music, and comedy that made up the Ziegfeld Follies--but with the stars of that moment (plus actual Ziegfeld veteran Fanny Brice). The most welcome presence is Fred Astaire, who appears in three numbers--including the only dance number ever filmed that paired Astaire with Gene Kelly at the height of their powers. The contrast is fascinating. Otherwise, you get a number of musical scenes, the best of which features Lena Horne (singing "Love"), the worst Judy Garland (in "An Interview"). And there's plenty of other stuff: everything from an Esther Williams water ballet to an excerpt of La Traviata to a variety of broadly acted vaudeville skits featuring actors Keenan Wynn, Edward Arnold, Fanny Brice, and Hume Cronyn. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (12)

An All-Star cast including Lucille Ball and William Frawley.
An All-Star cast and some that will be stars. Fred Astaire, Lucille Ball, William Frawley, Lucille Bremer, Fanny Brice, Judy Garland, Kathryn Grayson, Lena Horne, Gene Kelly, James Melton, Victor Moore, Red Skelton. Esther Williams, William Powell,Edward Arnold, Marion Bell, Bunin's Puppets, Cyd Charisse, Hume Cronyn, Robert Lewis, Virginia O'Brien and Keenan Wyann. Trivia Note: Lucille Ball and William Frawley did this film five years before they did the "I Love Lucy" tv series (1951-1956). They do not share a scene together in this film. This is the movie with Lucille Ball in pink sitting on a white horse. She then is given a white tiger whip where she plays a more dominant role with the other girls. There is a wonderful telephone skit titled "Number Please" with Keenan Wynn. Fanny brice with Hume Cronyn and William Frawley (in color) do a skit titled "A Sweepstakes Ticket". A nice in-joke on the title