Amazon.com essential video

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

Reviews (207)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon.com

After building up the duo's popularity through popular recordings and several performances on Saturday Night Live, John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd--as "legendary" Chicago blues brothers Jake and Elwood Blues--took their act to the big screen in this action-packed hit from 1980. As Jake and Elwood struggle to reunite their old band and save the Chicago orphanage where they were raised, they wreak enough good-natured havoc to attract the entire Cook County police force. The result is a big-budget stunt-fest on a scale rarely attempted before or since, including extended car chases that result in the wanton destruction of shopping malls and more police cars than you can count. Along the way there's plenty of music to punctuate the action, including performances by Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, Cab Calloway, and James Brown that are guaranteed to knock you out. As played with deadpan wit by Belushi and Aykroyd, the Blues Brothers are "on a mission from God," and that gives them a kind of reckless glee that keeps the movie from losing its comedic appeal. Otherwise this might have been just a bloated marathon of mayhem that quickly wears out its welcome (which is how some critics described this film and its 1998 sequel). Keep an eye out for Steven Spielberg as the city clerk who stamps some crucial paperwork near the end of the film.--Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (141)

Helloooo Boys!......
This review refers to the Universal Widescreen(Digitally THX Mastered) VHS edition of "The Blues Brothers".....

Saturday Night Live Alum together with a Who's Who list of the greatest Rhythm and Blues artists ever assembled in one film, make for one very entertaining, funny, action packed musical.The hard part of this review is keeping myself from revealing every funny line, and all the classic scenes that came from this film(and also all the great cameo performances you'll spot throughout the story).For those too young to remember this classic comedy, or if you haven't seen it for a while let me just refresh your memory(just a little).....

Jake "Joliet" Blues(the late great John Belushi)has just been released from prison. Brother Elwood Blues(Dan Aykroyd) picks him up and they're off to fullfill a promise to visit "The Penguin". Sister Mary Stigmata(Kathleen Freeman), the head nun at the Catholic Orphanage where they grew up informs them that the Orphanage will have to close down unless she can come up with the Five Thousand Dollars neccessary to pay the property taxes.No problem for "The Blues Brothers", they'll have the money she needs by tommorrow. But NO! NO! NO!, she does not want their filthy bank robbery money, and they are not to return until they can "redeem themselves"!

While on a visit to church, where you'll find James Brown as The Reverend Cleophus James leading the congregation in song, Jake literally "sees the light!".They'll just put "The Blues Band" back together for one big night and raise the money for "The Penguin" and the Orphanage. Getting the band back together is easier said than done though.Along the way, we are treated to some musical performances by these great names..Aretha Franklin, Cab Calloway, Ray Charles and even Chaka Khan. The hysterical action also heats up as they make enemies all along the way. They are being chased by the cops,the Nazis(led by one very funny Henry Gibson), and a very angry ex-girlfriend(Carrie Fisher) who has a thing for Flame Throwers. They leave a path a destruction in their wake that is unsurpassed in chase scenes.

It's a riotous romp, directed by John Landis(Animal House/Trading Places), that will leave you wanting more..and luckily...there's a sequel! "Blues Brothers 2000", which has the terrific addition of John Goodman to the cast.This VHS tape is terrific. Not only does it have a great picture in the original widescreen image(1.85:1), but the sound is digitally mastered, and is excellent in the stereo surround. There are even a couple of bonus features on this edition. There is the "Making Of" the sequel, talking with all the stars about coming back to do it again, and after the credits, you'll find the "making of" for the original, which clues you in on lots of little trivia details.

If you're looking for something really funny, something with a great music, a great script, and one that will be a terrific addition to your classic comedy collection, look no further, you've found it! And don't forget to look for all the great cameos along the way..(I think I restrained myself pretty well from giving them away... don't you?)
Have a great time with this one and maybe you too will "see the light".......Laurie

...it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses
This DVD is the Director's Cut of the film. That means 17 minutes of extra footage is included making the film a good 17 minutes too long. The added material just makes the pacing falter and so, ironically, the VHS release displays a better film. But, with that gripe out of the way, this is one fun film.

Jake and Elwood Blues are the creation of Saturday Night Live veterans Dan Aykroyd and the late John Belushi. They took the first step to the big screen amongst the countless other Saturday Night Live and SCTV characters (The CONEHEADS, WAYNE'S WORLD, ONE NIGHT AT THE ROXBURY, SUPERSTAR, THE LADIES MAN, STUART SAVES HIS FAMILY and STRANGE BREW amongst them.) And THE BLUES BROTHERS is the film to compare all of these too. That is bad news for them because this is an entertaining musical comedy. Filmed with the gritty look of a drama, the musical is indeed a surprise but with Jake and Elwood as 'musicians', what else can you expect.

The storyline follows the brothers as they try to raise money to save an orphanage. This means putting the band back together. As they piece it all back together, they encounter more colorful characters looking to block their success. John Candy, Charles Napier and Carrie Fisher take their hunt seriously. They also encounter assistance by Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Ray Charles, Cab Calloway and Frank Oz amongst them. There are even small appearances by Paul "Pee Wee Herman" Reubens as a waiter and Steven Spielberg as a clerk in the finale. Now, this is Aykroyd and Belushi's film as they nonchalantly ignore life-changing catastrophes. Director John Landis brings these huge occurrences to the screen like a master. You can just feel the fun put into this production.

The greatest charm in the film is the musical numbers. Wherever the boys go, people just seem to break out into infectious song. You'll find yourself tapping along. With the exception of the 'restored' material, this is a nice DVD with a good video transfer and audio transfer that'll put your receiver to the test. Also a recent making-of documentary is included. If you get a chance to join Jake and Elwood, I recommend it.
They're on a mission from God.

I feel good and you will too!
Here is one of the few movies in my lifetime that qualifies as a "feel good" flick, one where I left so fulfilled I actually missed the characters, story and fun when the movie is over, wanting it all back again. Fortunately, through the miracle of tape and DVD, you and I can both do that!

This production was the linchpin event for the Saturday Night Live characters that wore black suits and sunglasses before the equally fashion-challenged "Men In Black" showed up. Along with "Animal House", this flick reminds me what a great comedy career John Belushi would have had in cinema had he lived more safely (as long as he stayed away from bombs like "1941").

Back to the film...this is loaded with great music, music from many 20th Century ages, music that makes you want to hum, tap your toe, dance, delight, smile, kiss your girlfriend and say hello to God. The plot -- something about getting money for an orphanage -- is superfluous but the movie has memorable scenes and characterizations equal to the equally uninhibited "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad World" from 1963.

A hyperactive musical street scene coming out of a music store -- led by the late Ray Charles doing a great blues tune -- is a typical venue in this film. Another time, Aretha Franklin takes a break from her waitress job to sing threateningly to Jake and Elmore. Still another time, Cab Calloway entertains kids so the brothers can get their cash to Chicago. In another scene, the Blues Brothers band does it up good in a honky tonk but drinks too much beer and ends up in a police-car-RV chase with some good old boys known as...the Good Old Boys!

This movie destroyed about 200 cars in and around Chicago and has one of the funniest car crash scenes and accompanying lines in American film history. The line is: "We're in a truck!" Watch the movie to get the joy from it. You'll laugh out loud and enjoy it almost as much as those Nazis driving off the end of the incomplete freeway overpass in Chicago!

If you want to experience mayhem disguised as two hours of uninhibited escapism filled with great fun, a thousand car chases and car crashes, lowlifes, ex-convicts and rednecks, and some of the best choreographed music sequences ever, buy, rent or borrow this DVD today and get set to ENJOY YOURSELF!

Unique and historical achievement
Unique, wonderful, hilarious.

"The Blues Brothers" holds up even better than one might have hoped. And that's a beautiful thing for one of the most unique movies ever made. Conceived, as Belushi once put it, as a show case for African-American music, the movie is exactly that and so much more.

I was moved to watch the "Shake Your Tail Feather" scene due to Ray Charles' recent death. The performance is so wonderful, so full of life; we have lost a true national treasure. But his amazing performance for the movie will live on forever. The soundtrack's 5.1 remix (including the reintegration of old footage cut from a preview at the Picwood Theater in LA. According to Landis, in the DVD's liner notes, the movie distributors complained no white people would see the movie!) is simply amazing. Even on my bargain set, it is crisp, pure and clean and is probably my candidate for best sound DVD ever. Landis again demonstrates his technical mastery, understanding of technology and choice of brilliant helpmates.

As the same Landis once put it, "Where else can a white kid see Cab Calloway, John Lee Hooker and James Brown in the same two hours?" He left out Ray Charles and Aretha Franklin as well as studio legends Steve "The Colonel" Cropper (who almost single-handed reintroduced cocaine to Hollywood, the number of people who began their addictions under his tutelage is frightening but no names here; you'll have to look it up yourself); and bass legend "Duck" Dunn, one of the greatest bassists of all times (sorry, Duck, my man, even you have to bow, with every other bassist, to Geddy Lee). Normally invisible, we get to see and here the Blues Brothers' amazing band. These studio legends get there fifteen minutes, often to hilarious effect. Willie "Too-Bit" Hall, the drummer even shows really comic talent, as does Dunn and "Mr. Fabulous," the horn man.

The movie also preserves the now destroyed Maxwell Street, one of the great centers of African-American music and R&B and one of the seedbeds of rock n roll. This is the only place anyone can see Maxwell Street in its prime. In a sense the movie is also a historical document, preserving those people and places who have left us.

The plot is almost irrelevant, beside the almost hysterical comedy and stunning musical performances (Calloway and Franklin never did BETTER jobs on their two signature classics), but there is a story there. The cameos are hilarious as well, from Carrie Fischer (who has said she quit coke because Belushi, on set, one day pointed at her and said, "You're becoming just like me." On that note, Robin Williams also says his visit to Belushi on his ultimate night helped him give up the Life that took his friend) and the Keystone Nazis the Boys have to avoid in their quest to save their childhood home, a dilapidate orphanage on Chicago's South side. The "Flight of the Pinto" scene is not to be missed. And be sure to listen for the tell-tale mating call of a most un-endangered species, "hut-hut-hut."
A movie for the ages. It also highlights the bitter tragedy of Belushi's self-destruction. One can only imagine what a sobered and cleaned-up Belushi could do when he did this movie whilst doing 4 grams of coke a day, dropping acid, downers, booze, marijuana (all of this is in Boobward's sensationalist "biography" of Belushi called "Wired"). Unlike other famous drug addicts and alcoholic (Monroe, Presley, Dean) Belushi's fortunately has been taken as a warning sign of Hollywood excess and hasn't lead to his apotheosis.

Despite his tragic end, the movie is one of the few that, no matter my troubles I can put this movie in the DVD player and know I will be smiling in mere minutes. As I smile now, writing this.

Every American teenager should see this simply for the musical numbers alone. The word classic is misused as often as the word "hero" these days, but it's not misused here. What could have been the umpteenth bad iteration of "Animal House" instead attained the temporary immortality of the true classic. Belushi's been gone for more than twenty years now, but the brilliant John, the hilarious John, the gifted performer John Belushi will live on forever.

And, wherever you are John that has to make you smile.

One-of-a-Kind Musical
The musical was so out of favor by 1980 that had Universal advertised "Blues Brothers" for what it was it would have done even more poorly at the box-office than it did. But time has righted that wrong and Dan Ackroyd and John Belushi's wacky star turn has taken it's place beside the other great examples of this unique American film art. It's too long, the colossal car chase near the end is a bore, and it's based on the mistaken notion that church property in America is taxed (something Canadian Ackroyd, the main scriptwriter, apparently assumed and nobody else caught). But there are so many other wonderful moments of singing and dancing and left-field comedy that everything else is forgiven and then some. Directed by the erratic John Landis, who's main signature as a director is some of the best photography in the history of the American movies. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Maybe "nobody's perfect," as one character in this masterpiece suggests. But some movies are perfect, and Some Like It Hot is one of them. In Chicago, during the Prohibition era, two skirt-chasing musicians, Joe and Jerry (Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon), inadvertently witness the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. In order to escape the wrath of gangland chief Spats Colombo (George Raft), the boys, in drag, join an all-woman band headed for Florida. They vie for the attention of the lead singer, Sugar Kane (Marilyn Monroe), a much-disappointed songbird who warbles "I'm Through with Love" but remains vulnerable to yet another unreliable saxophone player. (When Curtis courts her without his dress, he adopts the voice of Cary Grant--a spot-on impersonation.) The script by director Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond is beautifully measured; everything works, like a flawless clock. Aspiring screenwriters would be well advised to throw away the how-to books and simply study this film. The bulk of the slapstick is handled by an unhinged Lemmon and the razor-sharp Joe E. Brown, who plays a horny retiree smitten by Jerry's feminine charms. For all the gags, the film is also wonderfully romantic, as Wilder indulges in just the right amounts of moonlight and the lilting melody of "Park Avenue Fantasy." Some Like It Hot is so delightfully fizzy, it's hard to believe the shooting of the film was a headache, with an unhappy Monroe on her worst behavior. The results, however, are sublime. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (176)

COLD RECEPTION FOR A HOT WILDER CLASSIC
MGM continues to insult the intelligence of the DVD consumer with this 'special edition' of one of Billy Wilder's all time great romantic comedies. Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis are witnesses to the Valentine's Day Massacre. To stay alive the boys shave their legs, dress in drag and join an all-girl's band fronted by sulty singing sensation, Sugar Cane (Marilyn Monroe). Featuring Monroe's inimitable renditions of "Running Wild" and "I Wanna Be Loved By You" this is a keeper in every respect.
Unfortunately MGM Home Entertainment has done a terrible job of remastering the print. Though the black and white picture exhibits exceptional contrast and clarity, the obtrusive inclusion of edge enhancement, artifacting, aliasing, fine detail shimmering and digital grit make for a really unattractive visual presentation. The sound has been remixed to 5.1, but the dated fidelity shines through. Still, the audio is presented at an acceptable listening level and without much distortion or echo.
Extras included a trip down memory lane with Tony Curtis that is overly long and really dragged down by Curtis' flamboyant hamming it up for the cameras. Oh well, I can't imagine too many people are asking him to shave his legs these days. Bottom line: If you absolutely must have the film I guess you could waste your money on this version. My hope is that someone at MGM will want to revisit this classic at a later date and with a more reputable transfer. Here's to hoping. Besides - nobody's perfect!

Still A Gem
"Some Like It Hot" is one of those great classics that has as much comedy in it as well as it does romance. It is the story of two musicians, Joe and Terry (Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon), who intenvertidly stumble upon a mob squad hit (The St. Valentine's Day Massacre) and must flee from Chicago to Florida in hopes of getting away from the mobsters. Realizing that two female musicians are needed, Joe and Terry decide to dress in drag, board a bus filled with female musicians, and head to Florida. Of course, one of the leading ladies on board the bus, is the sexy Sugar Kane (Marilyn Monroe), who has guy problems and represents the rebel.

The film has such balance between the comic exploits of Curtis and Lemmon looking out for their backs and trying to pull off this whole female identity without getting caught, and the romantic parts, which involve Curtis' character trying to woo Sugar Kane. While Curtis is trying to make the moves on Sugar Kane, Lemmon's character is trying to escape the advances of a multi-millionare who continally attempts to make the moves on him/her.

There is plenty of double-meaning humor, slapstick humor and fun romance in this movie. It has a little of everything, and it is understandable why most still refer to this movie as a gem.

Transvestites, yipes!
This one shows up on Turner Classics every once in a while, but I hadn't focused till the other night. There's something creepy about dressing like a woman. Some burly men may have no qualms, but I find transvestites, ahh, uncomfortable. I know. It's me and there's nothing wrong with that. In Some Like It Hot, Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon are cross-dressing to escape some killers. They're not very attractive as women, which allowed me to enjoy the sex identity farce. Farce in America means screwball comedy. If Monroe crawled into my Pullman berth to sleep, hmm -- Lemmon pops one no doubt, and I'm not sure it was in the script if you know what I mean. Then he's swarmed by bunches of scantily clad ladies and the fun escalates. Monroe wears two dresses that give an interesting illusion. What a bod.

No pastry, no butter and no sugar

Director: Billy Wilder
Format: Black & White
Studio: Mgm/Ua Studios
Video Release Date: May 1, 2001

Cast:

Marilyn Monroe ... Sugar Kane Kowalczyk
Tony Curtis ... Joe (Josephine)/Junior
Jack Lemmon ... Jerry (Daphne)
George Raft ... Spats Colombo
Pat O'Brien ... Mulligan
Joe E. Brown ... Osgood Fielding III
Nehemiah Persoff ... Little Bonaparte
Joan Shawlee ... Sweet Sue
Billy Gray ... Sig Poliakoff
George E. Stone ... Toothpick Charlie
Dave Barry ... Beinstock
Mike Mazurki ... Spats' Henchman
Harry Wilson ... Spats' Henchman
Beverly Wills ... Dolores
Barbara Drew ... Nellie
Edward G. Robinson Jr. ... Johnny Paradise
Paul Frees ... Funeral Director/Josephine
Joe Gray ... Mobster at banquet
Harold 'Tommy' Hart ... Second Official
Ted Hook
John Indrisano ... Waiter
Tom Kennedy ... Bouncer
Fred Sherman ... Drunk
Tito Vuolo ... Mozzarella
Al Breneman ... Bellhop
Pat Comiskey ... Spats' henchman
Penny McGuiggan ... Band Member
Laurie Mitchell ... Mary Lou, Trumpet Player
Helen Perry ... Rosella
Sandra Warner ... Emily, Band Member
Grace Lee Whitney ... Band Member
Marian Collier ... Olga, Clarinet Player
Joan Fields ... Band Member
Mary Foley ... Band Member

The cops bust a "funeral" with a casket full of booze--and nothing else. Joe/Josephine (Tony Curtis) and Jerry/Daphne (Jack Lemmon), desperate for work as a bass fiddle player and saxophonist, take a spot as members of an all-girl band, in drag, for a Florida tour, and to get away from gangsters who know that they witnessed a gang war murder by Spats Colombo's (George Raft) gang. There they meet Sugar Kane Kowalczyk (Marilyn Monroe) who has a drinking problem.

The pair are attracting the notice not only of the mob, but also of suitors, including millionaire Osgood Fielding III (Joe E. Brown) and others, and Joe/Josephine falls for Sugar. This is a wacky movie which provides a lot of laughs, and brings out hidden a talent for comedy from Curtis. Billy Wilder did a great job.

Joseph (Joe) Pierre

Hot Comedy, Hot Action, Hot Actress, Hot Jazz, Hot Movie
too Hot to be true, Marilyn Monroe,Tony Curtis,Jack Lemmon star in one of the greatest and funniest comedy classics of all time. The 1959 farse about the two musicians Joe and Jerry, who disquise themselves as women under the names Josephine and Daphne to land jobs as the sax and bow fidle in an all girls jazz band.Where they meet gorgeous songbird Sugar Kane. Also where Daphne meets womanizer Osgood Fielding III.When Daphne is stuck with that "dirty old man" Joe(Curtis) borrows a cup of that sugar(Monroe)as the millionare of Sugar's dreams "Shell Oil Junior". If Your looking for a classic comedy this is a good one. It's AFI's number 1 laugh, or if you want more marilyn, you love her in this one and if your looking for more Curtis and Lemmon they're hysterical in this one. See this classic comedy and you'll get "the sweet end of the lolly pop". As Osgood said at the end "nobody's perfect" well thats true ,but Some like it Hot may be a perfect comedy and as Sugar sang "I'm through with love, well she's not through for long ,but We are not through with this movie, because we love this film so much and we all want to "borrow a cup of that sugar" every time we watch it, "ZOWIE" "Yeah real hot" ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Robert Redford made his Oscar-winning directorial debut with this highly acclaimed, poignantly observant drama (based on thenovel by Judith Guest) about a well-to-do family's painful adjustment to tragedy. Mary Tyler Moore and Donald Sutherland play a seemingly happy couple who lose the older of their two sons to a boating accident; Timothy Hutton plays the surviving teenage son, who blames himself for his brother's death and has attempted suicide to end his pain. They live in a meticulously kept home in an affluent Chicago suburb, never allowing themselves to speak openly of the grief that threatens to tear them apart. Only when the son begins to see a psychiatrist (Judd Hirsch) does the veneer of denial begin to crack, and Ordinary People thenceforth directly examines the broken family ties and the complexity of repressed emotions that have festered under the pretense of coping. Superior performances and an Oscar-winning script by Alvin Sargent make this one of the most uncompromising dramas ever made about the psychology of dysfunctional families. There are moments--particularly related to Mary Tyler Moore's anguished performance as a woman incapable of expressing her deepest emotions--when this film is both intensely involving and heartbreakingly real. No matter how happy and healthy your upbringing was, there's something in this excellent film that everyone can relate to.--Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (102)

"AND THE OSCAR GOES TO..."
I have a quest to see all the movies that have won the Oscar for BEST PICTURE that I can find. Ordinary People won in 1980. I just saw this movie for the first time, and it blew me away! Between the perfect and wonderful screenplay, to the awesome acting and beautiful scenery -- This film should have won all the OSCARS for acting. Was Mary Tyler Moore even nominated? She was perfectly callous, cold, and unfeeling as Beth. Her performance was so incredible. Donald Sutherland was also excellent as the father who really wants to see his family kept together, and try to be happy again after losing a loved one. Timothy Hutton was definetly deservant of the Oscar -- but it should have been for Best Actor.... Juddd Hirsch was also brilliant as the psychiatrist that Conrad sees. All the acting, even the minor roles portrayed by DInah Manoff and Elizabeth McGovern is great to watch. I don't think that Oscar is the most important element in the film, but it totally deserves the praise. It was a beatifully filmed movie about a dysfunctional family..sounds like something that came out recently? American Beauty is this year's Ordinary People.. Granted, the characters in Ordinary People have different kinds of problems. If you want to see a powerful drama, with great acting, this is the film to watch. Oh, and don't forget the kleenex...cuz it jerks those tears right out of you.

No ordinary movie
"Ordinary Peole" deservingly won the Oscar for Best Picture of 1980. It desplicts realities of those in such living turmoil. It proves that such awful feelings toward oneself can strike those with the seemingly perfect life. It explores the after-effects of a family once they lose a child, and once the other attempts suicide. Robert Redford makes his Oscar winning directorial debut, leading the cast and crew to create a flawless, unforgettable masterpiece.

Donald Sutherland and Mary Tyler Moore(Calvin and Beth Jerrad) play the lead roles as the supporting father and the selfish non-loving mother. Their marriage is on the verge of divorce due to Beth's lack of support of their living son Conrad, played by Timothy Hutton. Conrad faces guilt after losing his brother, Buck, in a boating accident a year ago. His psychologist forces him to confront every life aspect.

Every actor portrays their character delightfully, forcing every drop of emotion to the audience, even those with limited screentime. Timothy Hutton deserved his Oscar win for Best Supporting Actor. Mary Tyler Moore and Judd Hirsch deserved their Oscar nominations for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actor. Why wasn't Donald Sutherland nominated for his best role of his career? Who knows.

Those looking for a serious drama should watch "Ordinary People". One may have to think about the events after the first watch. Those who've watched it twenty times still discover new interesting details.

One of the best films of all time
Well, this film is easily one of the best I've ever seen. I saw it for the first time around 1981. It was odd, since i was watching with my own dysfunctional family when I was about 14. It's a film that moves you every time you watch it and you can take away something different each time. This is the mark of superb writing, acting and directing. I can't believe that this was Redford's first attempt at directing. It boggles the mind. Just the natural scenes of suburban Chicago alone are well-done.
Although Mary Tyler Moore, Sutherland and Hirch do fantastic jobs as Conrad's parents and psychiatrist, trying to get inside his head, it was Hutton's performance as Conrad that moved me most. He portrays the son left behind by a brother who died in a boating accident. When the movie begins, Conrad has just returned to "normal" after being in the hospital for months due to a suicide attempt. It is ironic that the title is "ordinary" people as this family is far from ordinary. But Hutton's performance, with both emotionality and such a sense of emptiness is one of the most vivid performances I've ever seen. What ever happened to Tim Hutton anyway ?
Mary Tyler Moore's performance of the cold Beth, who seems to still blame Conrad on her favorite son Buck's death, is impeccable. It really makes sense that you could get performances out of her and Tim Hutton of this caliber since both just lost a relative (she her son and Hutton his father) right before filming. Donald Sutherland really portrays the kind of father everyone wants, let's just admit it. He cares very much about his son ! To the point that he would visit his shrink to learn more about what he's going through. Excellent performance and I still don't know why he wasn't nominated.
I could write a short book about this film. Suffice it to say that everyone should see it, despite whether you view your family of origin as dysfunctional or not. We can all relate to certain themes: hiding feelings, being afraid to face pain, facing pain and not knowing what to do with it, loss of friendship, loss of love, "walking on eggshells" in your own home. Ordinary People is an extraordinary film !

healing with counseling
I first saw the movie & then read Judith Guest's book. Both made a deep impression on me. The movie is passionately & beautifully made & all the acting superb.

What most impressed me, however, was that it addresses a vital process -- the psychology of dysfunctional families & of getting counseling through recovery from trauma -- Judd Hirsch intensely plays the psychiatrist.

Almost everyone, in the books I review, could do with a dose of counseling, although it is the rare author who takes this process seriously or considers it worth writing about, & I know from personal experience: counseling does heal, if you use it with that intention.

A Rebeccasreads First Rate Recommendation, certainly a movie which will get you talking afterwards.

Possibly the best film of my generation.
This is a mini review of one of my all time top 10 favorite films

Robert Redford's directorial debut is a wonderful adaptation of Judith Guest's novel about a suburban Chicago family in crisis. Redford's direction elicits breakout performances from Tim Hutton, Judd Hirsch, Mary Tyler Moore, and Donald Sutherland.

This drama unfolds in the aftermafth of Conrad Jarrett's (Hutton) attemmpted suicide. The movie chronicles how the entire Jarrett family deal (or don't deal) with the tragic death of Conrad's brother Buck in a boating accident.

The film evenly deals with such difficult family trauma's but does so in a way that at once realistic and hopeful. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Before making the original Halloween into one of the most profitable independent films of all time, John Carpenter directed this riveting low-budget thriller from 1976, in which a nearly abandoned police station is held under siege by a heavily armed gang called Street Thunder. Inside the station, cut off from contact and isolated, cops and convicts who were headed for death row must now join forces or die. That's the basic plot, but it's what Carpenter does with it that's remarkable. Drawing specific inspiration from the classic Howard Hawks Western Rio Bravo (which included a similar siege on disadvantaged heroes), Carpenter used his simple setting for a tense, tightly constructed series of action sequences, emphasizing low-key character development and escalating tension. Few who've seen the film can forget the "ice cream cone" scene in which a young girl is caught up in the action by patronizing a seemingly harmless ice cream truck. It's here, and in other equally memorable scenes, that Carpenter demonstrates his singular knack for injecting terror into the mundane details of daily life, propelling this potent thriller to cult favorite status and long-standing critical acclaim. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (51)

One of the Top Independent Films Ever
Being a fanatic of John Carpenter, specifically the Halloween series, hearing about this movie made me eager to check it out. I read the raving reviews here on Amazon dot com and decided to take a slight risk and purchase the DVD. Well, I sure was blown away. Movies now a days are never made like this, especially in the way that the characters act. The portrayol of the evil gang members is superb along with the portrayol of the "good guys" in the movie, one in particular being Austin Stoker who plays the main role. This movie is action packed and many parts will leave you shocked. The soundtrack is another great aspect of this film, and way ahead of it's time considering that this movie was made in the 70's. The special features include a very comical interview with Carpenter and Stoker done very recently where some lucky fans got to ask the pair questions regarding this movie along with asking about other John Carpenter classics. Assault on Precinct 13 proves that John Carpenter can make a masterpiece out of a budget no matter how high or low that it is. If you like any work that Carpenter has done then I highly reccomend this film. This is only the second movie he released, but it's deffinatley one of his best.

Lucky 13
Before he scared the heck out of us with the original Halloween, director John Carpenter tried his hand at the action genre, with Assault On Precinct 13. Like Halloween, this movie was made on a shooestring budget, but doesn't let that stop it from being darn good.

A vicious Los Angeles gang called Street Thunder takes over an all but abandoned police station. This, as a group of convicts are being transnsported, awaiting time on death row. Now, a handful of cops must join forces with these criminals, to survive the seige.

The action comes fast and furious. Carpenter makes the most of limited sets and really goes all out. The tension of the film is sustained throughout and played in favor of any real character development. Of course, the infamous, anti-establishment cynacism that Carpenter is known for is ever present. The movie is really like a modern day-in the 70's at least-western. Most of the characters are a tough hombre`s. Strong performances by Austin Stoker as Bishop, Darwin Joston as Wilson, Martin West as Lawson, Tony Burton as Wells, and Laurie Zimmer as Leigh, highlight the film. The climax rivals most gunplay scenes in any of the more recent actioners. Assault is dsated only by its wardrobe and hairstyles but holds up rather well--just the same.

The special edition DVD has a fair amount of bonus material. Most of which, will provide enjoyable insight, into how it all came together. Carpenter provides another straight forward audio commentary for the film. He is low key about it all--but quite candid. The "new" video Q&A with Carpenter and star Austin Stoker at the American Cinematheque is also well done. I wish there could have been a few more participants though. The music score, written by Carpenter is a real treat and it's cool to have it isolated. Both behind the scenes stills and lobby card galleries are here, as is the theatrical trailer, and a couple of radio spots. Not bad if you ask me...

Assault On Precinct 13 may not be my favorite Carpenter film. But it's still worth a look, especially for those keen on the action genre

Before you see the Remake make sure you see the original 1st
Yes it is being remade for release in 2005! But before you go out and see that you MUST see the original. Carpenter's 1st studio film!
Based on Howard Hawks Rio Bravo, it tells the story of a police precinct under siege, where Police and prisoners have to fight side by side in order to survive. Great acting by Austin Stoker and Darwin Joston. Excellent direction and music by John Carpenter. Not to be missed!

A cult action classic from John Carpenter!
A police station in L.A. called Precinct 13 has two police officers, two women and two convicts including a traumatized victim are being trapped by street gangs who are surrounding the place making it a living hell for them. They have to find a way to get out, defend themselves and make those devils go away.

An intense, exciting, gripping action drama classic from John Carpenter which happens to be his second movie after "Dark Star". This movie offers loads of action, brutal violence including a on screen child murder, gunfire, an interesting storyline and cool music by Carpenter.

This movie became a cult classic over the years yet still has a strong following including being one of the greatest action movies in movie history. The DVD here is a nice special edition with great transfer, and cool extras like Poster-and-still gallery, trailer, radio spots and interviews, if you love John Carpenter and action movies then add this to your collection.

There is going to be a big budget remake due out next year with Ethan Hawke, Ja Rule, Lawrence Fishburne, Brian Deheney and John Leguizomo.

Also recommended: Die Hard, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, From Dusk Till Dawn, The Rock, Con Air, Shaft, The Siege, The Peacemaker, Lethal Weapon, Scarface, Commmando, Passenger 57.

Killer movie, but even better, AWESOME music soundtrack
after everything's been said or written about this movie, that's the one part I felt I must highlight; the music for this movie was credited to Carpenter, and in the DVD format, it just rocks, just gives the speakers a serious workout. For a 1970s movie, or for any decade, for that matter, it's awesome. ... Read more

Amazon.com

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

Reviews (36)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clash of Culture
Black Robe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (15)

Semi-educational movies?
While the YIJ series takes some liberties with history, these movies are a great way to learn about the crucial events of the turn of the century. Some even seem to be more of a thinking-person's adventure, which is quite a departure from the swash-buckling Indiana Jones movies.

Too bad this series is so under-rated! I only wish Lucas would produce more! I don't understand why real-quality shows like this don't ever seem to last longer on the networks. Guess it needs to be on Discovery, the History Channel, or TLC.

Shadows in the mist tell intriguing stories
In a significant way, the two hours of this episode could not be more mismatched. Hour one is a film noir exploration of the paranoia associated with a life of espionage. Hour two takes a decidedly more phantasmagoric tack, resulting in scenes of no small terror.

In Hour One, Indy is a spy in Turkey, trying at once to get married and complete a mission for the French Secret Service. It is easily the best-directed hour of the entire series. The lighting, pulled focuses, and intriguing camera movements all evoke the bittersweet emotion the plot would have us feel.

But it's hardly an original plot. It's "From Russia With Love" meets "The Maltese Falcon" meets "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". Fortunately, these are all very good films, so the trip is one we're more than willing to take.

Hour two is perhaps more questionable in this regard. It's a fantastic journey through the dark side of Romanian mythology, and while appropriately creepy for a Haloween party, it marks a significant departure from the traditional themes of Indy plots that some parents may wish to shield their younger children from. I wouldn't call the violence "needless", as other reviewers have, but it is graphic. It is, in short, classic gothic, and it's done very well.

All in all, then, this is an episode well worth your time, but, along with "Trenches of Hell" and "Temple of Doom", it's one of the few Indiana Jones episodes inappropriate for young children.

Definitely not for young children
After reading another review on this site (gypsy18, 5/31/01), I was shocked to see that the reviewer's child had the exact same reaction, almost word-for-word, as did my son. He was equally upset that such violence could have come from the mind of George Lucas.

This video was in the children's section of the store, and it had a "family" label stuck right on it. We asked the store to remove the label, as it is NOT appropriate.

THIS EPISODE ABSOLUTELY NOT FOR CHILDREN!
The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones is an extraordinarily well done series. My son, age 8, just loves it. But it was a mistake buying MASK OF EVIL. My son (usually a tough little guy) was almost physically ill from a particularly bloody scene (although the violence was performed behind a curtain). He had trouble sleeping & actually started crying in the middle of the day from the trauma of remembering this scene! He said, "Mom, I wish we'd never bought this one." My son also said, "Mom, why did George Lucas let this one be unrated? That was bad!" Out of the mouths of babes! Vampires are just too violent a subject for children I think (& some adults, including me)!

The Best!
It has it all with spies and vamprires! We see indy's first supernatural adventure but at the beging it is a spy thriller. ... Read more

Reviews (39)

The Laughs are coming, the Laughs are coming !
I have watched this movie more times than I can count, and each time I find myself laughing until I cry. When a Russian submarine accidentally runs aground of a sleepy little island summer town, the people literally go nuts. Alan Arkin, Carl Reiner, Brian Keith and Jonathan Winters are just a few of the many fine actors who make this movie a laugh a minute. When the bumbling Russians tie up and gag the elderly Post-Mistress "Muriel Everitt" and sit her on top of the refrigerator - you will laugh until your sides ache when her nearly deaf husband eats breakfast 2 feet from her and never realizes she's behind him struggling to get his attention. The sight of Carl Reiner tied up face to face with the hefty town operator and their efforts to hop down a steep flight of steps, (ending, naturally, with the heavy woman falling on top of Carl Reiner and passing out ) is more than I could take with out laughing until I cried. Please rent this movie and have the entire family watch it with you. It's in the genre of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" and you will enjoy every moment !

Everybody to get from street...and buy this video!
I also agree that this has to be one of the best comedies from the 1960's. With Norman Jewison directing, this isn't your average flick, quite polished for a comedy, with excellent editing and cinematography and a strong script adapted from Benchley's novel. Jewison's creation of place captures just the right amount of sleepyness for this small island, and is perfect. Many of the performances are also exceptional, highlighted by Brian Keith as the long-suffering Glouscester Island sheriff; Jonathan Winters, of course, as one of his deputies; Carl Reiner as the vacationing writer; Eva Marie Saint as his long-suffering wife; their son (whose name escapes me, but who almost steals the movie with his antics); and Alan Arkin, as the long-suffering Soviet submarine lieutenant who must somehow get his sub off the reef. But first he must venture on-shore with his men and into the lives of the feared Americans. For its time, this movie must have been quite subversive given how the Russians are portrayed, which is truthful, normal and with affection. These aren't killers, just sailors, and right off the bat we're rooting for them to succeed. Arkin gives one of his best performances ever; it's a pleasure to watch him swing from drama to comedy and back. His rendition of the Reiner character's name as "Whitaker Walt" is a classic and a family favorite. He does it all here, and very movingly. The same can be said for Keith, who also shows great range and appeal. This movie also has one of the best endings of any film. A great comedy with a great message.

Excellent Anti-War Comedy
A Russian submarine runs aground on an island near New England. The Russian skipper (Theodore Bikel) sends a landing party ashore to find a boat to tow the stranded sub. The landing party is headed by Alan Arkin. The winter residents of the island have a police department of sorts which is headed by Brian Keith and his assistant is Jonathan Winters. Paul Ford heads a small band of mostly unarmed volunteers. Carl Reiner and Eva Marie Saint are taken captive by the hapless Russians. In response to the "invasion" Ford rallies his group with slogans which remind us of the battles of Concord and Lexington and also Bunker Hill. Two old ladies ride through the village on a motorcycle doing their own imitation of Paul Revere.

The movie is an anti-war comedy made after the Cuban Missile Crisis and during the period of escalation in Vietnam. It is also a time when private bomb shelters are being built by Americans.

THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING, THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING received Academy Award nominations for Best Picture, Actor (Alan Arkin), Adapted Screenplay and Editing. The main competition for Oscars in 1966 came from A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS.

Norman Jewison also directed FIDDLER ON THE ROOF and JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR.

One of the funniest ever
I'm old enough that I first saw this classic at the theatre, yep, upwards of 40 years ago. I laughed then, and haven't stopped.

I have a habit of collecting films that are a must for my library when they come out in different formats. So, while I already had this in VCR, it's now necessary to get it for DVD. It hasn't lost even a little of its humorous effect.

Where does one start? Alan Arkin was brilliant, deserved an academy award. Carl Reiner was fabulous. Perhaps my favorite of all, even to this day, was Paul Ford. (Oh, and Jonothan Winter's part is incredible.)

But the DVD is even better than the others. You see, there's an interview with producer/director Norman Jewison that's worth its weight in gold. He goes on about how well the actors worked together. And I remember that the film, even in my much younger days, gave me some hope: Maybe we CAN live together despite Cold War rhetoric and the like. It seems the Russians felt the same way!

This is a film that should be part of everyone's collection. It's hysterial, satirical, some of the finest acting I've ever seen--and a collection of one liners to make the Marx Bros. jealous. Get it and relish it.

HILARIOUS!
This movie is really funny! It is a light-hearted comedy. The chocolate cake scene is the funniest and "Mr. Whitaker, Walt" does a great job! Although this was a highly stressful time for the USA with a pending threat from the USSR, it is funny to see how the people ultimately react. ... Read more

Reviews (304)

NOT Eastwood's best...
...that title remains with Unforgiven.

Mystic river is a good movie, not a great one. It has a great story and great characters - with a good screenplay by Brian Helgeland, based on Dennis Lehane's book. The directing is solid, while not really bringing anything special to the film, yet pacing it prefectly in building the tension around the murder.

What is outstanding about this film is the acting. Sean Penn gives yet another inspired performance as a working class father from Boston who just lost his oldest daughter to a horrific murder. Although the scenes that most people seem to remember (and that are shown in the trailer) show his *exaggerated* response to his daughter's death, the rest of the performance is more subdued and restrained.

Tim Robbins' performance is also of note, as Penn's disturbed boyhood friend who shows up covered in blood the same night of the murder, making his frightened wife (Marcia Gay Harden) start to doubt his story and to believe that he is in fact the murderer.

The rest of the cast give solid performances in somewhat limited characters, Kevin Bacon and Laurence Fishburne as the cops asigned to the case, and Laura Linney as Penn's second wife.

However, there are a few things about the film that rubbed me the wrong way; the whole sub-plot about Bacon's wife calling him on his cell phone and not speaking? What was that suppossed to bring to the movie? Or Linney's (apparently) sudden transformation into Lady MacBeth, telling Penn's character that he should do whatever needed to be done? Or the final parade scene?

In short, while not a great film (certainly not Eastwood's best), it's a good one worth catching, and not as bad as some other reviewers will have you believe (certainly not Mistake River!).

Sean Penn and Tim Robbins are outstanding!
In Mystic River, director Clint Eastwood has taken the themes of pain and loss, added superb actors, and a literate script to make a memorable movie.

Jimmy, Sean, and Dave were childhood buddies growing up in a working-class neighborhood in Boston. One day, Dave was lured away and sexually abused by two men. Years later, the boys are now adults; Jimmy (Penn) is an ex-con with a loving family, Sean (Bacon) is a cop with marital woes, and Dave (Robbins), forever damaged by his childhood trauma, is barely clinging to reality. When Jimmy's daughter is murdered, Sean investigates, Jimmy vows vigilante justice, and Dave is a prime suspect.

The lead actors are outstanding here. Penn is utterly convincing as the former thug and heartbroken father. Robbins displays his acting chops in the performance of a lifetime, showing a fragile man dealing with such pain that he can no longer function rationally. The two men certainly deserved their Oscars.

This is a movie that will pull at your heartstrings while keeping you guessing who the killer is. There are, thankfully, no graphic scenes of child abuse or the girl's death, yet you will be on the edge of your seat much of the time. This is an outstanding film.

Stale As Month-Old Potato Chips
I was quite surprised at how bad this movie was. Perhaps it was just me, but I was looking forward to a Unforgiven-type directoral masterpiece from Mr. Eastwood and the stars Robbins and Penn. Given the hype this movie recieved (and the oscar nods to its 2 main stars and director Eastwood) I was really ready to sink my viewing teeth into something substantial.

Unfortunately, this movie was as stale as a bag of month-old potato chips. I never really came to symphathize at all with Sean Penn's character, even though his daughter was murdered. I mean, seriously, how can you symphathize with a criminal (Penn's character) who barely was involved in his kid's life to begin with?

Perhaps if the movie had shown a more deeper relationship between Penn and the kid then I could have cared more about the outcome. As it was all my sympathy went to Tim Robbins character, sexually molested as a child and then basically forgotten by his so-called "buddies". In my opinion Tim Robbins is the only reason to watch this movie. He walks around with an aire of utter hopelessness (reminiscent of the character he played in Jacob's Ladder), and yet he tries so hard to get passed the mental anguish of his past and make it through each day as an adult that by the end you are cheering for him.

Which brings me to the other reason why this movie stinks - the ending.

Like in a good novel, the reader/viewer doesn't want to be cheated in the end. I don't want to give away the ending, but be warned - it stinks.

All in all there really wasn't any substance to most of the characters, and I found myself toward the end wondering why I should even finish watching it. I like to be absorbed by characters played with heart and substance. Watching these jokers (except for Robbins) was like watching carboard cutouts being moved around on a stage.

Mystic River..The Ending Bites
First off..someone please tell Clint Eastwood to back away from the camera slowly and never ever direct another film. As far as everyone who raves about this film..you have lost all cred. I supposed your enthralled by shiny objects too. The ending was ridiculous....my daughter is killed..lets go to a parade?????? The fact that this drivel was considered genius in two mediums is baffling...more proof that everything is watered down beyond hope...whoever says this is a classic- I have some old home movies..you wanna shell out money to see those too???

Pretentious Puddle?
.
In great dramas, people aren't perfect, but their mistakes make sense. In melodramas, their mistakes don't; they occur only because the screenwriter wants them to.

Mystic River is a horrid melodrama, Hollywood's worst in years.

Pick any three-minute segment, jump in the shoes of any major character, and you'll find at least two instances where common sense would completely unravel the plot. There would be:

phone calls to doctors
routine checks on how the investigation is going

alerts to detectives
ridiculous assumptions thrown out the window
obvious suspects brought in for questioning
DNA and blood evidence rapidly analyzed and suspects eliminated
direct confrontations and/or backchannel neighborhood chats to double-check facts
and, oh, maybe a teeny bit of thinking before irreversible acts are committed.

None of this happens, of course, because the screenwriter creates a world without accepting its rules. The major characters are supposed to have lived in the same rough neighborhood and known each other all or most of their lives. But the lifelong aggressors uniformly jump to conclusions, as though they've never served time or seen other hoodlums get burned by assumptions. And the lifelong victims never seem to have their radar up around shady characters.

So we're asked to believe in a tough, jaded world where all statements are taken at face value, where no one seems to have ever seen a crime movie or played a single hand of poker, and where seasoned homicide cops don't seem to have heard of fingerprints, basic procedure, or internal affairs investigations. It's totally implausible.

In a decent drama, Dave never gets in the Savage brothers' car. Not with his history, not knowing the Savage brothers, not given the circumstances. But he gets in, because that's the only way the screenwriter gets Dave to the next scene. Ugh.

As a counterpoint, check out any Farrelly brothers movie. Yeah, they're comedies, but they follow the rules of drama: the characters are put in situations they take seriously, and make decisions that, given who they are, make lots of sense. The funny