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 comes from sensibly navigating absurd situations. Unlike the funny in Mystic River, which inadvertently jumps out from umpty-jillion RIDICULOUS plot twists.

Me Myself and Irene is a better cop drama than this overhyped clunker. Kingpin is a vastly better study of victims and villains. And no, I'm not kidding. Skip MR. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Sydney Pollack's 1985 multiple-Oscar winner is a sumptuous and emotionally satisfying film about the life of Danish writer Karen Blixen (Meryl Streep), better known as Isak Dinesen, who travels to Kenya to be with her German husband (Klaus Maria Brandauer) but falls for an English adventurer (Robert Redford). The film is slow in developing the relationship, but it is rich in beautiful images of Africa and in the romantic tone surrounding Blixen's gradual discovery of her life and voice. One downside: while we may all love Redford, he is as convincingly British as Kevin Costner is in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (74)

Beyond this place there be dragons
"Out of Africa" stands out as one of the most spectacular movies ever made. At the 1985 Academy Awards this movie won seven Oscars including Best Director, Best Cinematography and Best Picture. It deserved all seven!

It is filled with romance, scenery, real-life struggles and the inevitability of fate. It is a journey into Africa and into love. The escape is in the hand of fate. This movie presents Africa as a paradise. The natural environment is harsh, yet unspoiled in this movie.

This is based on the true story of Danish writer Isak Dinesen/Karen Blixen (Meryl Streep) who left Denmark to marry German Klaus Maria Brandauer/Baron Bror Blixen (Klaus Maria Brandauer) and start a dairy in Kenya.

Some women do enjoy the security of a man looking after them, however Karen is different. She seems to desire companionship and offers her fortune in exchange for marriage. Her husband changes his mind about the dairy and instead they use her money on a risky venture to grow coffee. This is not a marriage based on an intense romance, in fact, Karen is marrying her lover's brother.

Soon after they arrive in Africa, it becomes apparent this is not a satisfying marriage for Karen. Not only is her husband unfaithful to her, he gives her syphilis. Disease is not the only threat, she also has to fight floods and fire. There are lions which apparently try to attack Karen and Denys although I thought that was pretty unlikely in the situation.

I didn't like the "hunter" aspects or when the two lions are killed, but if you watch at the end, I think even the lions forgive the hunter. When I've seen lions during the day they were normally napping in the shade. Apparently they had trouble getting the lions to act aggressive and there is information on the DVD explaining these details.

Karen finds acceptance in big game hunter Denys Finch Hatton (Robert Redford) who loves her ability to tell stories. He starts the stories and she completes them. I think he is impressed by her confidence and creativity. He sees who she really is. Her husband is obviously blind to this beautiful goddess he has taken to Africa.

She in turn is delighted by this interest and slowly allows him into her world. While Denys and Karen are a perfect match and as close to soul mates as possible, Denys is unsure of commitment and explains how a piece of paper won't make him love her more. Meryl Streep and Robert Redford have chemistry, chemistry and more chemistry in this movie! They mostly share a few kisses, yet their relationship is on such a deep level, I think it could survive if they just told each other stories.

What Karen seems to truly desire is a man who will sacrifice to be with her. She wants to be of value. Denys tells Karen she has confused "want" and "need." This is an excellent portrayal of the gender differences. Man wants to be free to come and go and woman wants security, love and commitment. She wants to be treated with respect.

Denys "wants" Karen and Karen seems to "need" Denys. The question is not whether he will realize this in time before he loses her, but whether or not fate will turn their lives into a tragedy or allow them to form a true relationship. As Karen says:

"When the gods want to punish you, they answer your prayers."

Karen seems the surrender to her fate and is able to experience a brief moment of ecstasy in her life even though she is wounded from the experience.

When you view this movie, there are various elements which hint at the ending, yet I didn't recognize them until viewing this the second time. This is a movie I watch every few years because I too once lived on a farm in Africa. It was not quite this romantic because I was still a child. This movie makes me terribly homesick because once we left Africa, we never went back. Africa seems a moment in time, maybe everyone should live there once. When I watch this movie I need a big box of tissues!

The best moment in the movie is when Farah asks Karen to build a very big fire so he will know where to find her. It is a moment so beautiful and poetic, I've not seen anything like it in any other movie. I appreciated this movie more now that I'm in my 30s and married than before when I was single and had just returned from Africa myself. This movie is contemplative and deals with complex issues.

Spectacular Scenery and Emotionally Satisfying.

One Of The Best Romantic Movies Ever Made!
This is undoubtedly one of the finest movies made over the last twenty years or so. Both Meryl Streep and Robert Redford are absolutely terrific in playing star-crossed lovers who are also intellectual soul mates in what has to be one of the greatest and yet saddest of all movie love affairs. This is a dramatization culled from the memoirs written by Isak Dinesen about her fateful decision to leave her comfortable but boring life in Scandinavia behind in favor of a much more dangerous and adventurous try at a new life as a married woman in Africa. Blowing her inheritance trying to support her philandering new husband's ill-advised business ventures, she falls in love with the land, the people, and the times. Indeed, out of Africa comes the experience of a young lifetime.

In fact, the topography of Africa provides the perfect background and the most splendid of opportunities for her to live her life on her own terms, out of the long and suffocating shadow of family and social convention. And the journey taken by Karen Blixen is a long, joyous, and eventful one, a trip that literally takes her breath away with its rich, varied, and enriching experiences. Yet all this adventure has its cost in pain and suffering, and her growth into a woman of substance who eventually finds her way into a dreamy intellectual played so well by Redford also fates her to become a woman bereft of that that means most to her; her lover, her farm, and her place in Africa itself.

This is a lovely film, one that capitalizes by using the dramatic and primitive backdrop of wild Africa in painting a period piece that is unparalleled in its graphic portrayal of life on the very edges of civilization in an epochal time of Africa's evolution to modernity. The cinematography alone is worth the price of the DVD, for anyone who loves nature will recognize Redford's steady hand in influencing the way the fragile yet exquisite sub-Saharan environment is depicted. I have seen the movie a number of times, and each time come away with a renewed sense of how fragile and wondrous the ecology of this part of Africa is. This is a wonderful movie I can heartily recommend. Enjoy

Avoid unless you thirst for empty drivel.
This is the worst film ever to win the best picture Oscar.
All the beautiful cinematography is wasted on a trite plot and tepid performances. When you start to probe further into the rationale of the characters and look for any real themes, the search turns up dust. Out of Africa is as empty as a blind man's sockets. It seems to have something there, but it lies.

To see the same type of film, but with real characters, interesting thematic elements and powerful direction, watch The English Patient.

God, I want my 3 hours back! AHHHHHHH! Die Stupid Movie!!!!!

Out of Africa - Film review
If you're a Sydney Pollack fan you'll sure enjoy this film. Out of Africa, besides the excellent performances of Meryl Streep and Robert Redford, will certainly get your attention with the astonishing landscapes of Africa.
The story is about the life of Karen Blixen, who gets married for convenience and moves to Africa where she starts running a plantation. Things start to go wrong when her husband starts being absent often and cheating on her. Karen, eventually, falls for a hunter, Dennis, but she demands more of the relationship than he is ready to offer. For Dennis his freedom is essential and in the end you're faced with the unexpected.
You can also count on an extraordinary soundtrack and photography, so it is a film that is really worth seeing!

Somewhat overrated star vehicle --- I just don't get it
I assumed that any film that rampaged through the Oscars the way this one did would be rewarding on so many levels. I must be missing something. What I saw was a beautifully filmed but rather ponderous vehicle to two mega-stars who circle around each other like glittering birds that do not want to muss their magnificent plumages. Emotionally, I have rarely found a "romantic" film to be so totally bereft of passion or emotion.

I feel this is largely due to Robert Redford playing Robert Redford pretending to be Finch-Hatton. He just seems to so totally out of place in this film, and I really could care less about his accent. He just never seems to be anything other than Robert Redford. In any case, his character, supposedly a free thinker who is more in touch with the Higher Truths that Nature offers, comes off as as a self-absorbed character who never met an emotion he couldn't throw a wall around. The relationship between Finch-Hatton & Blixen comes off as being so frigid & lifeless that I simply could not relate to it on any level.

Meanwhile, the film lumbers along through the Great War (with the producers assuming that viewers are all well acquainted with WWI in East Africa), treating us to great scenic shots. Yes indeed, the cinematography is great in this film. All the Brits saddle up, presumably to do battle with von Lettow-Vorbeck, and off they go. Then they saddle up, and off they go to someplace else. They spend a great deal of time going off to some distant spot or another. Eventually some people die, as they are wont to do, and then some more people die. One of them ends up being Robert Redford, which proves most inconvenient for the story line, and so the movie lumbers towards its end shortly thereafter.

This is not a terrible film by any means. I find the performance of Michael Kitchen (a fine actor who deserves more notice) as Berkeley Cole to be most noteworthy. Also, the cinematography is quite breath-taking and goes a long ways towards redeeming the movie as a whole. I also derived great amusement (not intended by the producers) of watching the not exactly diminutive Michael Gough play the (in real life) itty-bitty Hugh Cholmondeley, Lord Delamere. I laughed every time Delamere was in a scene.

Is it a good film? I suppose so. Is it a great film? I don't see how one can really say that. Is it the most overrated film to win a slew of Oscars? Hardly --- let's not forget "Titanic" and "Around the World in 80 Days," just to name a few. It is an OK film. I guess I was just disappointed because I went into it with higher expectations. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

The Best Part is the Score
Even if the movie were far sillier than it is (and to be fair, it is extremely entertaining) it would be worth it for the exquisite Miklos Rozsa score, which ranks up there with his best (though, with Rozsa, there is no worst!) and includes some absolutely rapturous and sensuous music. A couple of decades before I ever finally saw the film on television, I had fallen in love with the (hard not to laugh when one says it) "Love Theme from Sodom and Gomorrah" encountered on a record of '60s epic music. Finally, much more recently, I found a CD of the score, and the theme remains as romantically seductive as ever. As for the film itself, it has a very watchable cast and remains a guilty pleasure - probably more so than if it had been more explicit in demonstrating its characters' sinfulness (other than their obvious sadism).

Sex and the cities.
An early 60's Italian Bible epic, with decent acting and a fairly literate script, although it varies considerably from the biblical account. Rather than taking on the subject of homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorrah (probably unthinkable even in 1960's Italy), the film instead depicts the twin cities as centers of "evil in general", with everything from gambling to incest to death cults. There is some implied lesbianism on the part of the Queen of Sodom, but no reference at all to the men of the city wanting to "know" Lot's angelic visitors. Effects are good for the time period, and Stewart Grainger pours some genuine humility and human weakness into his Lot characer. Not bad as Bible epics go.

sodom and gomorrah
This movie dispicted excellent costumes, makeup, background and script along with appropriate accents to make this film one that can be watched over and over again. I highly recommend it.

Don't look back!
This film is way too long and outdrawn in its depiction of the fate of the two cities which are only briefly described in the Book of Genesis. It's another big-budget biblical film made in the sixties which has a lot of similarities to those make in the fifties; but as usual, quantity doesn't always mean quality. There are a lot of action scenes here, but also plenty of corny overacting from its top stars. Also, the eventual destruction of the cities takes too long to happen in order to consume everyone. The special effects used to show the destruction aren't the best.

The Bible--Hollywood Style!
Stewart Granger plays a serious, patriarchal Lot in this epic of the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah.Pier Angeli is her usual lovely and winning self as a beautiful slave girl, Anouk Aimee is smoldering, sexy and dangerous as the licentious Queen of the doomed cities, and Stanley Baker is a lecherous Prince, who seduces both of Lot's daughters. This film was made in the heavily censored 1950s style, so the sin named for Sodom is never even implied--instead, the Queen is the sexual predator,lusting after her many attractive slave girls, but a series of smoldering looks between them is all the movie can show. The men, on the other hand, are portrayed as a pack of sex-crazed overgrown teenagers, but their lust is strictly reserved for young and luscious girls. If you can stop laughing long enough, this is a fairly good Bible epic--the acting is much better than the script deserves, and by the end of the film, Pier Angeli's fate as a pillar of salt is touching. For fans of sand-and-sandal epics, but don't look for any historical accuracy here. Don't even look for any Biblical accuracy, either--the subsequent incest between Lot and his daughters that the Bible relates would have been unthinkable in this era of film. END ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Based on a true story, Prince of the City stars Treat Williams as Danny Ciello, a conflicted New York cop who reluctantly decides to go undercover for the feds to ferret out police corruption. At first, he recklessly gets off on the danger, but as the feds tighten the screws, the guilt-wracked Ciello is forced to compromise his partners and friends, and his own checkered past inexorably catches up with him.

Sidney Lumet, who also directed Networkand Dog Day Afternoon, is esteemed as an actor's director. This film is prime evidence. The peerless ensemble, including Jerry Orbach, Bob Balaban, and a duty roster of great New York character actors, is flawless. If there was any justice in Hollywood, Prince of the City would have been Treat Williams's star-making breakthrough, his Serpico (which Lumet also directed). But this film couldn't get arrested at the box office and was criminally snubbed by the Academy. Due to its length and gritty, profane dialogue, it is severely compromised when broadcast on network TV. For fans of NYPD Blue, Law & Order and Homicide, here is a movie ripe for discovery on home video.--Donald Liebenson ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Intelligent drama about loyality and morality
"Prince of the City" is, I believe, Lumet's best movie and one of the best films of the 1980s, an intelligent drama about the conflict between loyality and morality.

It's part of Lumet's investigation of corruption amongst the "men in blue" which includes "Serpico", "Night Falls on Manhattan" and "Q & A".

"Prince of the City" is about morality but it does not moralise. Lumet's characters face difficult decisions and he shows their agonising in all its complexity. Treat Williams' character (Danny) moves back and forth between self interest and loyality to friends and the law - never really clear what is right and always on his own.

Whenever there is a police corruption "scandal" in Sydney (and there often is !) I turn to this film to give me perspective - to remind me of how the protagonists are human and how life is never black and white.

Best police movie of all time
This is where "Hill Street", "Homicide" and "NYPD Blue" got their start. Anyone who liked any of those will love this film.

Sidney Lumet crucified the NYPD in his earlier critically acclaimed "Serpico". Allegedly, he took on this work to somehow atone for giving the police such a bad time. Here, we see how corrpution begins almost imperceptably (as one sympathetic prosecutor notes). Getting back from the bad guys, however, must be done in one great leap, as the protagonist so tragically shows us.

This film is based on the true story of a former NYPD detective, turned into a book by Robert Daley. It is terrifically cast, with Treat Williams creating a role of real-life Detective Robert Leuci. Backing him are Jerry Orbach as his partner, the quintessential New York cop. James Tolkan is the weasel of a prosecutor (who gets his come-uppance from Orbach), and Ron Karabatsos as the worst of the no-goodniks, Sal DiBennedetto.

Get past the profanity and don't let the inevitable conclusion of the attempted atonement be a downer. It is spell-binding.

A great movie!
A facinating account of a NYC cop who has a crisis of conscience.
He wanted to be a good cop but is caught up by the circumstances around him. A terrific performance by Treat Williams.
Superbly directed by Sidney Lumet. New York City gritty. Long (2 hrs 45 min) but well paced. Profane language but is used well to show the intensity of the film. Go buy it or rent it at a video store!

A cop movie for adults
I saw Prince Of The City years ago and it has stayed with me ever since. Its a long, heartbreaking story but wonderful from start to finish. Like the other reviewers I thought Treat Williams was headed straight to the top. I can only conclude he was sleeping with some Hollywood bigshot's wife. What a performance.

Forget any recent police drama...
Sidney Lumet-what a filmmaker. This man has made so many excellent films and is such a craftsman, it was hard for me to pick one to write something about. I guess this one gets a little less credit than some of the others and so I'm drawn to it. It's unbelievable how quickly I was totally entranced by this film. Treat Williams is never better than right here. It's as interesting a film to me as Oliver Stone's JFK and I think I like it a little more than that film. I just have to demand that you watch-as soon as you can. It's long, but well worth the trip and much more involving than any police drama I've seen in many years. Please, please watch it-or buy it!!! ... Read more

Description

Two-time Academy Award(R)-winner Meryl Streep (ONE TRUE THING) stars with Angela Bassett (HOW STELLA GOT HER GROOVE BACK) in a heartwarming, acclaimed true story of how one woman's musical gift affected those who least expected it! A single mother with little more than talent and the determination to make a difference, Roberta Guaspari (Streep) overcame the skepticism of everyone who didn't think she should be teaching violin to students in a tough inner-city neighborhood. But even after a decade of ever-growing popularity and countless success stories, Roberta and her kids must rise to meet an even greater challenge: budget cuts aimed at shutting down her valuable program for good! Also starring Aidan Quinn (PRACTICAL MAGIC) and Grammy-winner Gloria Estefan in a stellar cast, this extraordinary story will inspire anyone who's ever thought their dreams were too far out of reach! ... Read more

Reviews (58)

Fascinating true story gets lackluster film treatment
Meryl Streep got her twelfth Oscar nomination for her portrayal of Roberta Guaspari in Places in the Heart. Her performance is excellent [when has she been anything but?], yet it is not enough to bring the movie completely to life. This true story, which has been filmed before as a documentary called Small Wonders, is about a teacher who created a music program in the schools of the impoverished East Harlem area of New York. A single mother of two boys, Guaspari, who was trained as a classical violinist but who had little teaching experience, was given a job as a teacher in the 1980s by Janet Williams, a principal at one of the schools. There was no real budget for a classical music program, so she was hired as a substitute. Guaspari herself supplied the first violins. Ten years later, she had taught 1,400 youngsters. When the program was in danger of being axed due to a school budget crisis, Guaspari enlisted the aid of some friends, who arranged for her to give a benefit concert with her best students at Carnegie Hall. Famous violinist like Isaac Stern participated, and the Program was saved. In 1999, money was found by the city to assure its continuation.

I don't know who was responsible for Music of the Heart's rather uninspired telling of the story. It certainly wasn't Ms. Streep. It may have been director Wes Craven, who until now has made his mark in the horror genre, with creepy teen fare such as Nightmare on Elm Street and the Scream trilogy. His choice to make a straight drama raised a few eyebrows, and perhaps he was overly cautious with the material. Some of the problem lies within the screenplay. Writer Pamela Gray concentrates on the main character almost exclusively. Ms. Streep is in nearly every scene. Except for some fairly good interaction between Roberta and her boys, most of the characters float in and out, acting almost as stage props. There is little that is memorable about them, and, as a result, we wind up not understanding Roberta Guaspari very well. We see what she does, and we understand that her work is noteworthy and inspirational. Yet the picture does not fill us with inspiration. It's not that it's a bad move, it's that it never soars, as movies about noble, dedicated people can when well done. While it is not a given, what usually provides the drama for such true tales is understanding what personal sacrifices an individual must make to fulfill a difficult goal. I feel certain that this happened to Ms. Guaspari in real life, but we see almost none of it in this movie. It is strongly hinted at a couple of times, but then the film simply glosses everything over and moves on the something else.

Music of the Heart is certainly worth watching for Ms. Streep's performance. The story is a fascinating one, but much of what makes a good story is the way in which it is told. Music of the Heart is not that much of a story teller.

Inspiring story and bravura performance by Meryl Streep
This is a powerful, moving and triumphant true story, which springs from a documentary about a music teacher and her students. This is the story of Roberta Guaspari-Tzavaras (Meryl Streep), a violin teacher who single-handedly created a program to teach violin to inner city kids in East Harlem, New York. The film follows her from the dubious inception of the program, which started as a substitute teaching job, through the ensuing 10 years where so many children wanted to be in the program that it had spread to three schools in the district and a lottery had to be held each year to limit the number of students. The last part of the film is devoted to her fight to continue the program after the board of education killed its funding. It culminates in a triumphant benefit concert supported by some of the greatest violinists in the world to raise private funds to save the program.

This film celebrates the dogged determination and courage of one woman who proved that a single individual can make a difference. Her life was not a pretty picture. Her husband left her for one of her friends, turning her into an emotional basket case. Music was her only solace and teaching was her gift. Unfortunately, her lack of experience in the education system made her unqualified to get a position. So on the recommendation of a friend she convinces an East Harlem principal to give her a chance as a substitute violin teacher. She even supplies the violins.

The story from there is an example of life often being more remarkable than fiction. The results she achieved with these children were astounding. My only criticism of the story was that it contained a little too much treatment of her personal life. Almost her entire relationship with Brian (Aiden Quinn) could have been eliminated without hurting the story. I know that director Wes Craven was trying to give us some character development on how tough her life was and how difficult a person she was, but it was superfluous and the digression only bogged the story down. The real story here was about her and the kids. He should have stuck to that. Otherwise, Craven did a fabulous job of directing, delivering an emotional story with great power and effect. I was quite impressed, especially given the fact that prior to this film, he was almost exclusively a one genre director (Horror. Think 'Scream').

The acting by Meryl Streep was nothing short of brilliant. I have read criticism of Streep's performance as too harsh, it seeming as if she didn't really LIKE the children. In actuality her performance was dead solid perfect. I was lucky enough to rent the Collector's Series DVD of this film which included a separate disk of the original documentary about the real Roberta Guaspari-Tzavaras and her students, including the actual concert at Carnegie Hall. If you watch that documentary you will be in awe of how well Streep utterly nails her character. We get to see the real Roberta teaching her students and she is like a drill sergeant barking orders, throwing kids out of practice for not having their violins, reproaching them angrily about plucking their strings while she is speaking, and generally tolerating no nonsense. She is impatient with them and completely intolerant of anything but their best.

The children who made comments about the real Roberta said things like, 'I wouldn't have the discipline I have if it weren't for Roberta. That discipline not only helps me with the violin, but with everything else.' Another child said, 'I have to pay attention to what I'm doing or Roberta will get mean. But if I do good, she is pleased and that make me feel good.' Yet another, 'I want to work really hard so Roberta will be proud of me.' Clearly, these are not the comments of children who were being negatively affected by Roberta's no nonsense style.

Streep said in the featurette included in the DVD that it is very difficult playing a real person because there is no leeway for artistic interpretation. Translation: If she was to play Roberta Guaspari-Tzavaras, she had to become Roberta. This she accomplished with stunning accuracy. Streep captures not only Roberta's irascible demeanor, but the essence of her drive and passion for drawing the students very best. Roberta is a complex and difficult character to play and Streep throws herself into the role, delivering a tour de force performance that very few actors have the range and depth to accomplish.

This film is a must see for anyone who loves the arts and anyone who can appreciate a great actress giving a career performance. I rated it a 9/10, subtracting a point for Craven's unnecessary digression into Roberta's private life. That is, however, hardly a reason to miss this bravura performance and an inspiring story.

Most unrealistic portrayal of a classroom ever on film...
Whoever wrote this screenplay had NO idea what the inside of a classroom looks like.
My goodness. I've seen more realistic depictions of school life in a few B-movies.
It's like the makers of this particular movie were SO interested in making a movie about MUSIC that they paid very little attention to making a movie about SCHOOL.
I could go on and on and on about how this movie falls flat on its face in the depiction of a contemporary classroom, particularly an inner city classroom, but let me just demonstrate but ONE ridiculous unreality this movie commits: In this movie, the school children all pretty much speak proper English. What?!!??? In the inner city???? School children not using barbaric slang in the inner city but instead speaking proper English and doing so naturally, like that's what they do all the time???
Yikes. You've got to be kidding me.
The 5 star reviewers on here ought to be ashamed of themselves for settling for such cartoony realism; better yet, they and the these out-of-touch moviemakers ought to actually go spend some time studying their subject matter, the actual daily war zone that is the contemporary American inner city classroom.

Wes Craven Shines!
Can you believe this film was directed by Wes Craven? What a moving story! Everyone should see this movie. One thing-why is Gloria Estefan on the cover???!! Don't get me wrong I love her music, but she hardly had any part AT ALL! Maybe she had 7 lines in all, so it kind of doesn't make sense. Anyway, this movie is great-so watch it, NOW! :-)

Outstanding.
Streep and Bassett are wonderful in this heart-felt drama about a music teacher who "belives" and makes a tremendous difference in the lives of young inner-city children. Funny and poignant.

Very highly recommended. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

After they first worked together on the 1966 film This Property Is Condemned, director Sydney Pollack and Robert Redford continued their long-lasting collaboration with this 1972 drama set during the mid-1800s, about one man's rugged effort to shed the burden of civilization and learn to survive in the wilderness of the Rocky Mountains.Will Geer is perfectly cast as the seasoned trapper who teaches Jeremiah Johnson (Redford) how to survive against harsh winters, close encounters with grizzly bears, and hostile Crow Indians. In the course of his adventure, Johnson marries the daughter of a Flathead Indian chief, forms a makeshift family, and ultimately assumes a mythic place in Rocky Mountain folklore.Shot entirely on location in Utah, the film boasts an abundance of breathtaking widescreen scenery, and the story (despite a PG rating) doesn't flinch from the brutality of the wilderness. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (72)

Unforgettable Masterpiece From Director Sydney Pollack!
Robert Redford and Sydney Pollack, the Academy Award-winning director of Out of Africa team up (the 2nd of their 6 films together) for this powerful saga of a man whose determined search for contentment leads to back-breaking, even mind-breaking hardship, and to constant battle with hostile native Americans. This absolutely unforgettable and spectacularly beautiful, yet haunting adventure film captures both the epic scale of an unconquered Nature and the small, frustrating, hard scrabbling struggles of a lone man desperately trying to start a fire during a gale-force blizzard, cross a meadow knee-deep in snow or catch something, anything, to eat.

Filmed entirely on location in winter-time Utah, this movie captures on film Jeremiah Johnson's (Robert Redford) attempt in the mid 1800s to become a mountain man, seeking solitude in a wilderness whose purity he never questioned. This film is sure to find it's way into the private library of every connoisseur of superb movie making, and is one of those very rare films you can enjoy again and again! Masterpiece!

Robert Redford's personal favorite film role
I had the pleasure of seeing "Jeremiah Johnson" in the theatre soon after it first came out at Christmas 1972. On the big screen you could really appreciate the magnificent cinematography and the majestic scenery. It loses something when transferred to the small screen. So I recommend watching the letterboxed version on a larger screen TV(at least 27inches or larger.)It has fine direction by Sydney Pollack whom Robert Redford has worked with in more than a half dozen films. The movie takes place in Redford's own neck of the woods,the mountains of Utah.The late Will Geer,(the grandfather on the television series "The Walton's" back in the '70's),is very enjoyable as a bear trapping mountain man named Bear Claw. And,Delle Bolton is impressive in her movie debut as Jeremiah's young indian maiden bride named Swan. I don't believe I've seen Ms. Bolton in anything since this film.The film also has an atmospheric music score by John Rubinstein.

I haven't read the two books this movie is based on "Crow Killer" by Raymond W. Thorp and Robert Bunker and "Mountain Man" by Vardis Fisher and I hear the books are much more intense and graphic and if the screenplay had followed them more closely the film would have generated a more adult R rating instead of the family friendly PG rating that it has. Redford said in an interview back in the '80's that of all the films he has done that "Jeremiah Johnson" was his personal favorite.

I think that's really saying something considering all the fine films Mr. Redford has done.This is one of his best along with "Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid" from 1969, "The Sting",(the OscarTM winner for Best Picture of 1973),"The Great Waldo Pepper" from 1975,"Three Days of The Condor",(also directed by Sydney Pollack),"All The President's Men" from 1976,"Brubaker" from 1980, "Ordinary People"(which was his directorial debut and was the OscarTM winner for Best Picture of 1980 and he won Best Director honors),"The Natural" from 1984,"A River Runs Through It" from 1992,which Redford directed and was the narrator,"Quiz Show" nominated for Best Picture of 1994,(it didn't win), and "The Horse Whisperer" from 1998(which he both directed and starred in. Among Director Sydney Pollack's best are "The Way We Were" from 1973,"The Yakuza" from 1975,"Tootsie" from 1982 and "Out of Africa",the OscarTM winner for Best Picture of 1985,with Mr.Pollack winning Best Director honors). Robert Redford and Sydney Pollack are two of America's finest filmmakers.

"The day that you tarry is the day that you lose ..."
He was a big man, maybe even growing in physical stature with the growth of his myth; deadly with his Bowie knife and his gun alike. He'd been a fighter in the U.S.-Mexican war, but left the lowland's ways behind in favor of a mountain man's: the lonesome hunt, the wild outdoors, and the confrontation with nature rather than his fellow men. And he came to be known as "Crow Killer" and "Liver Eating Johns(t)on" when he took war to the Crow nation after they killed his wife.

Based on Raymond Thorp/Robert Bunker's "Crow Killer" and Vardis Fisher's "Mountain Man" and scripted by John Milius and Edward Anhalt - with input from frequent Redford/Pollack cooperator David Rayfiel - Sydney Pollack's and Robert Redford's 1972 movie loosely traces the mythical hunter's legend, opening with his arrival at the fort where he buys his first horse and gun. "Ride due west as the sun sets. Turn left at the Rocky Mountains," is a trader's goodnatured answer to Johnson's naive inquiry where to find "bear, beaver and other critters worth cash money when skinned." But soon he finds that his lowland skills no longer do him any good, almost starving in the freezing mountainous winter before being taken in by old "griz" hunter Bear Claw Chris Lapp (Will Geer in a stand-out role - his and Redford's deadpan exchanges alone make this movie worth its price).

Setting out on his own again the following year Johnson fares better, even gaining the respect of a Crow warrior prosaically named Paints His Shirt Red (Joaquin Martinez), the first person he encountered in the mountains. After assisting a settler's wife who had to watch her family massacred by Indians (Allyn Ann McLerie) and reluctantly agreeing to take charge of her son (Josh Albee) - a boy grown mute by the horrors he witnessed, whom he names Caleb - he comes across white hunter Del Gue (Stefan Gierasch), buried up to his head in sand by a band of Blackfeet. Revenging that act unwittingly leaves Johnson with a wife, in exchange for bestowing the Blackfeet's ponies and guns on Flathead chief Two-Tongues-Lebeaux (Richard Angarola): the chief's daughter Swan (Delle Bolton). Although neither embraces the match enthusiastically, over time Jeremiah and Swan learn to appreciate and, eventually, love each other. But then fate strikes: Against better judgment pressured into guiding a cavalry company through Crow burial ground, Johnson finds Swan and Caleb murdered upon his return. He sets out after the Crow who invaded his home ... and plants the seeds of his myth.

"Jeremiah Johnson" was Redford's and Pollack's second of seven collaborations after 1966's "This Property is Condemned." What most obviously characterizes this movie is the breathtaking manner in which its cinematography uses Utah's mountains (doubling for the story's actual Montana setting): despite studio budgetary limits shot entirely on location, the film had Redford acting as a virtual tour guide to the magnificent Wasatch, which he had recently made his home himself.

But the movie also shows enormous restraint, particularly given its violent underlying story. There's no blood-gushing "Braveheart"-style, no dramatic score; fights are mostly one-on-one, occurring as they would in real life - silently, with only the opponents' grunts being heard - and despite his fearsome epithet we never actually see Johnson eat a dead Crow warrior's liver. (Reportedly a script change on which Redford insisted: wisely so.) Similarly, Johnson's and Swan's relationship builds on small symbolic gestures, moving from his coarse attempts to teach her English and refusal to learn her language to conversations in Salish (Flathead); and from her submissive expectation of his exercising his marital rights on their wedding night (which rather repulses him) to later-exchanged tender glances and smiles: Thus, we only learn about their marriage's belated consummation when one morning Swan points to his beard in response to his question about her reddish cheeks. - Further, there's no dramatic conclusion; no final battle: as Johnson's myth begins to grow and he withdraws deeper and deeper into the mountains, he retraces his steps and meets in reverse order the people he encountered after his arrival: Del Gue, the settler now living in Caleb's mother's cabin, Bear Claw Chris Lapp; and finally Paints His Shirt Red who, although a Crow, created a monument in Johnson's honor and sends him off with a last salute, which Johnson reciprocates; ending the movie in an immortalizing freeze-frame shot - again, a feature insisted on by Redford, doubtlessly reminiscent of "Butch and Sundance" (and repeated one way or another in several subsequent movies).

Despite its languid pace and although just under two hours long, "Jeremiah Johnson" formally takes an epic approach, complete with overture, entr'acte and narrator (uncredited, but I think Willie Nelson), whose subtle voiceovers and brief songs provide key narrative bridges. While the latter match the movie's overall style and the overture at least corresponds with Johnson's mythical stature - albeit also setting up ultimately unfulfilled expectations of a dramatic finale - adding an entr'acte may have been a bit much, particularly in the middle of the ride through the Crow burial ground (incidentally a screenplay addition designed to give the Indians a reason to punish Johnson and not make them appear as mindless killers). In my view this breaks the dramatic tension rather than enhancing it; problematic insofar as virtually all that remains thereafter is Johnson's gradual withdrawal into the mountains and fights with the Crow. But no matter. This is a terrific movie, featuring great banter with Johnson's fellow hunters as well as some wonderfully delicate scenes with Swan, showcasing some of North America's most dramatically beautiful scenery, and growing on you more and more the more often you watch it.

And some say he's up there still ...

"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder where the fair wind blows ..."
(Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.)

Jeremiah Johnson: a note on the theater
Just a note about this wonderful movie. I saw it when it first came out. JEREMIAH JOHNSON the title page screamed, "with Robert Redford" next in small fonts. A few years later I was back at the theater to watch it again. ROBERT REDFORD the title page screamed, "in Jeremiah Johnson" next in small fonts. This movie (and a few others) had introduced Robert Redford to the world.
This movie should be appreciated by every movie lover. Among other things, it demonstrates how words, if chosen carefully, can be memorable in their sparseness.

The best of any Mountain Man Movies
My very favorite Mountain Man movie. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Really funny
The first half is a hoot the whole way through, it has to be the funniest Young Indy episode. The ending is great; I remember being surprised when I first watched it on TV, so I won't give it away. I'll just say Giulietta isn't as naive as she seemed.

To the second half. This one wasn't supposed to be amusing, but it was. First off I'll say that I did not like Edith Wharton, and from what I've read about her books, I wouldn't like them either. (Basically they're about people with repressed passions, who have affairs that ruin their lives...blah). Edith is obviously going through a midlife crises, and sees Indy as a potential boy toy to make her feel young again. Indy sees her as a mother figure, though a couple lines at the end try to convince us he wishes he were his father's age so he could have a romantic relationship with her. Frankly, it sounded more like he was just saying that to make her feel better.

There was some slight adventure going on in the second half, but it was just backdrop for the romantic tale. All in all, this one is great to watch if you want to laugh at the characters all the way through.

One of the best in the series to start with
Though the series is plagued with misguided efforts to steer Indy into the company of historical greats, this time Lucasfilm keeps the improbabilities to a minimum. This pleasant surprise allows Indy some interesting character development. This is the only tape in which both hours are devoted to romantic plot lines.

Hour One has Indy scuffling with Ernest Hemingway over the affections of an Italian heiress. It's an unusually light-hearted turn for the series to take. The battle between Hemingway and Jones is a treat, and we're more than glad that the battlefield is Italian. Happily, too, Hemingway's appearance in the episode is plausible and welcome. Nothing very original happens in this oft-repeated tale of romantic rivalry, but it's cleverly done against gorgeous backdrops so we hardly mind the staleness of the plot. It's particularly satisfying to see Indy so romantically vulnerable, if only because he grows up to be more of a cynic in the theatrical films. The groundwork laid in this episode introduces us to the side of Harrison Ford's Indy that recklessly falls for the German archaeologist in THE LAST CRUSADE. Yet it also gives us a peek into why he might've had problems committing to Karen Allen's Marion Ravenwood character in RAIDERS.

Hour Two is one of my favorite hours because it combines an interesting mystery with Moroccan surroundings and the unrequited love of an older woman. The friendship with the very much older Edith Wharton is handled with great tact and affection. It is this relationship, more than any other in the YOUNG INDY series, which demonstrates Indy's true philosophical take on women. We see here that he is not a rogue capable of maliciously ruining Marion's life in RAIDERS-as Marion accuses-but that the end to Indy's longest-lasting relationship must have come for other, more noble reasons.

Also, there's a lot more to Hour Two than tentative romance. A mystery of interesting proportions is afoot, and Indy's tracking of it is a delight. It's a kind of Hercule Poirot or Sherlock Holmes mystery, with Indy doing some pretty impressive sleuthing.

All in all, then, "Tales of Innocence" is a highly recommendable member of the YOUNG INDY series, and should probably be one of the first three tapes newcomers watch.

WOW!
This has to be the best out of the titles released in the UK so far ('Phantom Train of Doom', 'Treasure of the Peacock's Eye', 'Daredevils of the Desert' and this itself). I know that may not be saying all that much, but this is truly a FANTASTIC chapter of Indiana Jones.

The love story in the first half is my favourite part of it. Very comic but also moving. It's also really great to see Pernilla August (Shmi Skywalker, Anakin's mother from 'Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace') in another good role - she's even playing a main character's mother again!

Pretty good
Now I remember, Jay Underwood is his name! Well, I love his Hemmingway performance here and even more in Mystery of the Blues. I'd say this one is great...the first half that is, the second half has it's moments, but I didn't really like that old lady.

A lovely story of romance and growth
I love the arc of this video. Starting with a comic tale of a crush (and romantic competition with 'Ernie' Hemingway), continuing with a short, sexual fling, and ending with a adult, lovely, if doomed relationship with Edith Wharton.

Flanery does a wonderful job of letting us see Indy grow and mature thru these adventures. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

By far the best adaptation of a John Grisham bestseller, this smart, fast-paced 1993 film--directed by Sydney Pollack (Out of Africa)--offers up the dilemma of a young lawyer whose life is turned upside down when he takes a job at a Southern law firm owned by the mob. Mitch McDeere (Tom Cruise), having just graduated from Harvard Law, is besieged with offers but takes a job, too good to be true, with a small Memphis firm. He and his wife, Abby (Jeanne Tripplehorn), are sucked in by the seemingly close-knit, collegial nature of the firm's partners and the expensive perks that come with the job. His mentor, Avery (Gene Hackman), teaches him the ropes, but Mitch and Abby begin to sense there's something wrong with this idyllic life. When a couple of associates turn up dead, Mitch begins to investigate the history of the firm; and when the FBI asks him to spy on the firm for them, Mitch realizes his life will never be the same and that, if discovered, he, his wife, and his long-lost brother will be in mortal danger. Mitch must use all his talents as a lawyer to outsmart the firm, the FBI, and the mob in order to reclaim control over his life. A very entertaining thriller that engages the audience at a breakneck pace while not taking itself too seriously. It also features some fine writing and strong performances from a large cast of exceptional actors. --Robert Lane ... Read more

Reviews (50)

Highly Entertaining--Great Acting
Okay, so Tom Cruise gets a job at a Memphis law firm, right? We've all read the book or seen the movie, so how does one recommend this to one uninitiated?

Cruise puts in a solid performance, again playing his guy-who-doesn't-catch-on-for-a-while character he does so well. Sydney Pollack is a great mainstream director, and he pushes all the buttons, as well as giving us a great cast including Gene Hackman, Holly Hunter, Ed Harris, Jeanne Tripplehorn, David Straithairn, Gary Busey, Hal Holbrook, and Wilford Brimley.

Top-notch acting all around, with especially good turns by Brimley and Hunter, playing against type. Hackman is always good to watch and he does a terrific job of making Avery Tolar a likeable guy in spite of his faults. I suppose the most amazing job was done by David Straithairn, who, with less than ten minutes of screen time, paints an indelible portrait of Ray McDeere, Cruise's convict brother. He is the most likeable character in the film.

The plot is the standard rising-above-conflict stuff. Watch this movie (again) for the performances, or for the fine score from Dave Grusin and try to ignore the changes from the book (which I think were justified in making the ending more cinematic and Hollywood).

Con-Firm Your Plans
The Firm, was the first John Grisham novel, adapted for the big screen. While I must confess, I never have read the book, I think the film is a solid "bubble gum" pot boiler that works very well.

Mitch McDeere, (Tom Cruise) is a young and hungry Harvard Law student, who turns down offers at the top law firms to take a position at a small but wealthy Memphis firm. Mitch grew up on the wrong side of the tracks. He is so taken with his mentor Avery Tolar, (Gene Hackman) his own ambition, and greed, he ignores his wife Abby's (Jeanne Tripplehorn) initial misgivings about the suspicious practices of his new employers. It's only when two of his fellow lawyers die in a mysterious accident that Mitch begins to share her apprehensions. He then launches an investigation into the true nature of the firm and discovers that it is a front for a complex and sinister web of organized crime, that goes to very top of the firm and even includes head Oliver Lambert (Hal Holbrook).

Directed by Sydney Pollack, the film benefits moreso from its all star cast, than it may have otherwise. Cruise proves that he can hold his own with Hackman for sure. Despite the fact that Cruise and Tripplehorn seem sparkless as a married couple, she too, is great in her scenes with Hackman. Pollack knows what works and keeps things at a brisk pace. His skills are evident as he juggles many different subplots that come together in the end nicely. One final comment on the film: Composer Dave Crusin's atypical music score adds just the right touch in setting the scene and giving the movie some flavor.

I don't know what it is about most of the John Grisham legal thrillers, but like most of them, the DVD of The Firm lacks any substantial extras. All you get here are two theatrical trailers--nothing more. A commentary track or a few deleted scenes would have put this product over the top.

The Firm doesn't have as much of a soapbox element as other Grisham stories do..that's ok. It's all for fun. No extras aside--Recommended

NOTHING IS WHAT IT SEEMS
With superb acting fome the always good Tom Cruise,Ed Harris,
Gene Hackman,Holly Hunter,e.t.c.I really liked this movie it was
really entertaining and even funny,well when Gary Busey is on
screen as a sleazy P.I with a magnum under his desk shootin at
2 assasin like guys.The movie is all around good and worth a
watch.Don't want to give to much away so rent it,buy it,what ever
just watch it.

Excellent
I first saw 'The Firm' just because it sounded interesting. What I didn't know, though, was that I was in for quite a treat! I enjoyed every minute of this intense thriller, from the beginning until the surprise ending (though I'm tempted to tell what happens, I'll let you find out for yourself!). I tell a bit of the story here, so it is possible they may be regarded as **SPOILERS**, so if you don't want to know anything about the movie, STOP READING.

Tom Cruise shows off one of his best performances as Mitch McDeere, the formally poor boy who goes off to Harvard Law School and graduates cume laude. He goes to many prestigious firms, all of whom want him real bad. One firm, though, Bendini, Lambert, and Locke, strikes his interest. In return for joining, he gets $100,000 per year, and a shiny new Mercedes. He accepts, and he and his wife, Abby (Jeanne Tripplehorn), fly to Memphis, where they get a nice house, with most of it payed for by the firm. The story unfolds, and through the course of events, Mitch learns the dark truth about his firm. . .

The acting is superb in this film. Tom Cruise's performance reminds me of his in 'A Few Good Men'; strong and realistic. Jeanne Tripplehorn is a pleasure to watch as his wife Abby. Gene Hackman plays a surprisingly sympathetic role as a partner in the firm. Holly Hunter (who received an Oscar-nomination for her role) is almost humorous as a southern-twanged secretary-turned victim-turned accomplice. Ed Harris brings his usual fine acting style as an FBI agent, and veteran actor Hal Holbrook plays a grandfatherly lawyer more evil than his attitude would imply. Sydney Pollack's directing is radiant, and the single piano score by Dave Grusin can be both calm and content, then become fast and furious.

In conclusion, 'The Firm' is a fun, fresh thriller, and it should be enjoyed for years to come.

A Firmly Gripping Thriller !
In this screen adaption of one of John Grisham's most thrilling legal novels, Tom Cruise plays a graduating Harvard law student that is recruited by many of the nation's top law firms. He ends up choosing a firm based in Memphis, where he takes his school-teacher wife and shaggy dog to a seemingly perfect life ahead of them both. The trouble begins when Cruise gets suspicious about a murder that has occurred to one of the firm's lawyers. The action then begins there where Crusie enters a world of glitz, money, and not to mention murder in this thrilling film. With the firm hot on his heels in pursuit to silence him, Cruise exposes the truth about the firm's dirty secrets that are sure to be a shocker. ... Read more

Reviews (216)

Go girl! Hitch's feminist fable.
Although Hitchcock listed this as one of his 2 favorite films, I had once viewed it as "closet drama" because of the limited set, conventional bad guy, passive good guy. The voyeuristic angle was interesting, even provocative to a point, but insufficient to save the movie from its sense of claustrophobic one-dimensionality.

That was before I viewed the film through the eyes of Grace Kelly. In one respect, the critical, pivotal moment in the movie is not when Kelly puts herself at risk in Raymond Burr's apartment, nor is it the film's climax with James Stewart fending off the murderer with his camera's flash bulbs. Rather, it's the moment when Hitchcock's camera (not Stewart's) shows Kelly's eyes suddenly open wide and come alive when she, too, becomes interested in the scenes being played out on the other side of the court yard.

At this point, within the first half of the film, Kelley drops her high society, fashion-model airs and her constant mothering of Stewart. She now spectates with greater curiosity and imagination than Stewart, and even though she questions these "rear window ethics" and characterizes her behavior as "ghoulish," it's clear she has become a major player, fully participating in the game of voyeurism, scopophilia, and fetishism that is normally assigned only to men who fail to emerge from an obsessively narcissistic and hedonistic childhood.

For the past 20 years feminist academics have been applying "male gaze theory" to just about every film in sight, and invariably to the discredit of the male. He is the subject; she's the object; he's the one who sees; she's the one who is seen; he owns the gaze in all of his power, pleasure, and guilt; she can only helplessly follow the gaze, experiencing a kind of masochistic pleasure at best.

In "Rear Window" Hitchcock, frequently depicted by feminist critics as a mother-obsessed misogynist, turns gaze theory on its head. Grace Kelly demonstrates that a woman can get as much pleasure from looking as do men--an irony of collossal proportions when we consider that as a high fashion model her role, if not job, is to be looked at and photographed.

But Hitchcock's film manages to liberate its central heroine's vision while preserving the "institutions" of marriage, motherhood, and femininity. What is the object of Kelly's pursuit while playing the game at its most intense moment? A wedding ring, which she flashes before the probing telescopic lens of Stewart. And at the end of the film, the camera makes clear that, pending his recovery from double castration (both legs are now broken), he will no longer go off on adventures without Kelly at his side. But then, of course, Hitch has his final little joke when, once Stewart goes to sleep, Kelly (now wearing pants) puts away her mountain-climbing magazine and replaces it with a high fashion title. Still, a radical film for Hitchcock and, for that matter, most other filmmakers.

The DVD makes it all the more possible to read the visual dynamics of the film, permitting razor sharp stills of the principals' faces and eyes, disclosing the act of seeing to a degree never before possible.

Checking Out a Murder with Hitchcock
A daredevil confined to a wheelchair is the concept of Alfred Hitchcock's comedy-mystery "Rear Window", a man of action so bored with his confinement that he begins spying on the neighbors he can see across his Greenwich Village courtyard: the frustrated composer,the "interpretative dancer", the newlyweds, the desperately lonely spinster ... and the bickering couple. The wife suddenly disappears. Has she been murdered? L.B. Jeffries thinks so, and he convinces his fiancée Lisa (Grace Kelly) and the insurance company nurse Stella (Thelma Ritter) who visits him every day. (Jeffries, a professional photographer, has been temporarily disabled in an accident.) This set-up is perfect for Hitchcock, who loved tense situations in close quarters ("Life Boat", "Rope"), and who was in top form when he directed this masterpiece of entertainment in 1954. (There was a made-for-TV remake a few years back; according to... reviewers, it's pretty awful.) James Stewart was one of Hollywood's most popular personalities, but he was often mis-cast. He was pushing fifty when he played the 25-year old Lindbergh in"The Spirit of St Louis". Similarly, in "Rear Window" he's too mature for the lead. The part just weeps for William Holden. Stewart even takes his shirt off in a couple of scenes, revealing a pale, thin physique. The idea that Grace Kelly would travel all the way down from the East Sixties to Greenwich Village to spend the evening with him is a little ... well,unbelievable. Miss Kelly is almost as seductive here as she was in her next Hitchcock "To Catch a Thief".The Master was obviously infatuated -- but, then, who wasn't? She also had a droll sense of humor: the way she pronounces "weird" is priceless. Thelma Ritter and Wendell Corey give witty support. Raymond Burr, just a couple of years away from playing the most famous of fictional lawyers, is quite creepy as the killer Thorwald. The sound track is a mixed marvel of car traffic, distant voices, and snatches of music; it sounds great with stereophonic ear phones. About the only real complaint in John Michael Hayes' screenplay that the pragmatic might bring up: Doesn't Jeffries ever LOCK his door?

Trapped in a Sound Stage
I don't think this is Hitch's best film. It is highly ranked by film rating services, sometimes higher than Vertigo, but I can't agree. There's something claustrophobic about what is essentially a movie set. We are stuck in that lofty room with the big glass windows. Jimmy Stewart peers across a courtyard and observes New Yorkers in their habitat. When I was in elementary school we used to have projects called diorama's where we would take a shoebox and decorate it like a stage. Each apartment in Hitch's diorama showcases a mostly silent vignette, the gorgeous dancer and her boyfriends, the lonely-heart middle-age lady, the sex crazed newlyweds, and the guy who kills his wife. Stewart can watch all the fun, but with a broken leg, he can't leave the apartment to do anything about it. Hence, the suspense centers on Stewarts inability to maneuver when his girlfriend, fashion gal, Grace Kelly breaks into the killers apartment to find clues. We see the killer coming down the hall and Jimmy can't warn her from his perch. Stewart and Kelly are interesting as a couple with opposite interests. She's high fashion-society chick and he's a rough-it, world-traveling photographer. These differences never really resolve and Stewart appears maybe 15-20 years older than young marriage-scheming Grace. This is really a stage play with stage play lighting and a who-dun-it plot. Great suspense, yes, but not as good as Vertigo by a mile.

The Perfect Alfred Hitchcock Movie
North By Northwest and Vertigo are spectacular cinematic achievements but, for me, Rear Window is the one Hitchcock movie everyone must see. It is as perfect as a Hitchcock movie can be. One of the greatest American movies ever made. Not one false note. It is the movie I would show to someone who hasn't seen a Hitchcock movie but wonders what they're all about and why he's so revered. The tremendous psychological drama and cat and mouse suspense are perfectly tuned. Stewart turns in a brillantly nuanced performance as a morally dubious peeping tom. The film is about him, of course. Not about an unseen murder or a pieced together amateur murder investigation. Listen to the dialogue and observe the interactions between Stewart and his guests. Subtext and more subtext. Just perfect.

If you prefer souffle over meat or casserolle
5 stars as a piece of cinematic craft. 1 star as substance. another hitchcock exercise of excellent pacing, subtle humor and
droll commentary on the folly of human behavior, heavy on dramatic artifice, as are most of hitchcok's films. ... Read more

Reviews (567)

More like A Clockwork Tangerine!
Some consider this to be Kubrick's masterpiece. In my opinion Dr. Strangelove was his masterpiece, but Orange is a master work, nonetheless. It's a dark tale of prophecy, a vision of a bleak future, violent and vicious in the extreme, which some might also say we're living in today, judging by the headlines.

So this is a great movie, but this DVD is a great disappointment! Despite what the details above say and what it says on the disc snap-case, the film is not in widescreen letterbox format, but is in full screen format! And the image quality is only fair-to-good. The sound is OK on my mono TV speaker but evidently is not Dolby multi-channel. And the theatrical trailer freezes at various points during playback. There's a chapter index and a list of awards the movie won or was nominated for, and that's about it for bonus features! One can only hope that the next release of this movie on DVD will do it justice, and make it a true Kubrick collectible!

Substance and Style!
Perhaps the greatest irony in "A Clockwork Orange" occurs in the scene where Alex is reading the Bible in prison. He informs the viewer that he loves the violence and sex contained in the first part, but really has no use for the preaching in the latter half. I've come across a lot of folks who have seen this flick and it never fails- there are many out there who, like Alex and the Bible, love the brutality of the first hour of the film, and cannot abide the preachy second half. If you are one of those, stop reading this review.

"A Clockwork Orange" is an ingenious comparison of two theories of punishment- retributivism and utilitarianism. Debate has raged over the proper role of a criminal justice system. Is the goal to punish the criminal according to the old eye for an eye standard (retributivism) or to reform the criminal into a useful, law abiding citizen (utilitarianism)? At the outset, many people dismiss utilitarian values as a lot of liberal silliness: soft on crime. A more important question is whether we should reform criminals whether they desire to be reformed or not for the good of society. One of the more interesting aspects of this film is that is shows utilitarianism can be a far more brutal method than retributivism, contrary to popular thought.

Here we have the debate crystallized as if the proponents of both, Kant and Bentham, were debating the merits before our very eyes through the characters on screen. Alex is unquestionably rotten to the core; he maims and rapes helpless victims for laughs. The first hour of the film is dedicated to underscoring this point. When Alex is apprehended by the authorities, he is dealt with in the old fashioned Kantian way- punishment.

Alex then volunteers for a special treatment that will "cure" him, in exchange for freedom. The cure is a form of conditioning that causes Alex to become terribly ill whenever any inclination towards sex or violence surfaces- he now has a reflexive aversion toward evil, and "ceases to be a being capable of moral choice". The final act of the film deals with the consequences of being "cured" in such a way.

By now you probably get the idea- go see this film (but not as a "date"). To further entice you, it's one of the most visually exciting movies ever made, with vibrant images that will burn themselves into your mind. If you've never seen it on DVD, the transfer is great, and you will see things you've missed before. And as a final bonus, look for the guy who plays Darth Vader as a bodyguard.

I'm laughing at clouds
"A Clockwork Orange" is screenplay writer/director/producer Stanley Kubrick's interpretation of the book of the same name by Anthony Burgess. The dialog includes some of Burgess' made-up language from the book.

The plot revolves around Alex de Large and his group of friends who are very violent, and get their kicks by raping and assaulting people. After Alex and friends commit various crimes, Alex is finally arrested and put in prison with a sentence of 14 years. Eventually, his sentence is commuted in exchange for him undergoing experimental aversion therapy which makes him physically ill at the thought of sex or violence. However, it also makes him hate Beethoven's 9th Symphony which was played as background music to some aversion films during treatment. After an attempted suicide, Alex is re-treated with apologies by the government for inhuman treatment, and Alex appears he will resume his old ways.

This movie is highly stylized, including wardrobe, hairdo's (mom has purple hair, another woman had dark blue hair), set dressing, location and props. There is a fair amount of full frontal nudity of both sexes, and some stylized and slow-motion violence. Kubrick has made some good and bad movies, but this is his most stylized and over-the-top effort. Not for everyone.

DVD has chapters, English or French spoken language, several subtitle languages, a trailer and list of awards.

MUST SEE!!!
Amazing portrayal of the effects of a violent youth on society, and the effects of society on the violent youth in turn. Not enough can be said for Malcom McDowell's genious, artistic performance as the lead character "Alex". This character would be despised if played by any other actor, but Mr Mcdowell's rendition somehow finds us leaving the film with an almost endearing "fondness" for the boy.Fabulous must see art film, but definitely not for sissies!

gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh
With this provocative, amusing and beautiful tour-de-force Stanley Kubrick established himself as the most audacious and original directors of his time. Though the are thoses who despise it, no one can deny the power of this film to spark impassioned discussions on the film's sudject matter. And I for one feel this is an achievement all on its own. This stirring classic, I hope, will endure and inspire generations of young film enthusiasts like myself. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Mel Brooks's 1981, three-part comedy--set in the Stone Age, the Roman Empire, and the French Revolution--is pure guilty pleasure. Narrated by Orson Welles and featuring a lot of famous faces in guest appearances (beyond the official cast), the film opens well with Sid Caesar playing a caveman, then moves along to the unlikely but somehow hilarious juxtaposition of Caesar's soldiers (the other Caesar, not Sid) with pot humor, and ends on a dumb-funny note in the French bloodbath. This is a take-it-or-leave-it movie, and it works best if you're in a take-it-or-leave-it mood. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (85)

It's Good to Be Mel Brooks
When this film first appeared more than 20 years ago, it temporarily threatened to replace world history courses in schools, colleges, and universities. Of course, that didn't happen. Probably just as well, given the fact that screenwriter, producer, and director Mel Brooks never wrote, produced, and directed Part II and its eagerly-awaited portrayals of "Jews in Space" and "Hitler on Ice." There are historians' homes in which Brooks is still not welcome. In any event, what we have in Part I is a combination of five extended sketches: The Dawn of Man, The Stone Age, The Spanish Inquisition, The Bible, and The Future. Inevitably there are some gaps.

Brooks appears in several different roles while (in fact) portraying himself: Moses, Comicus, Torquemada, and King Lou. Other members of the Brooks Ensemble Company include Madeline Kahn (Empress Nympho), Cloris Leachman (Madame de Farge), Harvey Korman (Count de Monet), Ron Carey (Swiftus), Andreas Voutsinas (Béarnaise), and Shecky Green (Marcus Vindictus). Brooks has assembled a cast of thousands. The production values are remarkably good. However, as in other Brooks films such as Blazing Saddles and High Anxiety, the quality of the humor varies from Brilliant & Inspired (e.g. King Lou professing love of "the little people" while shooting at airborn peasants who have been launched as targets: "Pull!") to Oh No (e.g. Moses reducing the number of Commandments to Ten by dropping/breaking one of three tablets while descending Mount Sinai, and, Jesus becoming confused by use of his name as an expletive). Brooks is an incurable gagster and punster. More often than not, the humor in this film works. But when it doesn't....

Several clever touches. For example, beginning the film with a parody of 2001: A Space Odyssey, with Orson Welles providing the voice-over. Also, it is fun to play the equivalent of "Where's Waldo" by trying to spot familiar actors in supporting roles such as Bea Arthur (Clerk), Charlie Callas (Soothsayer), Jack Carter (Rat Vendor), Sid Caesar (Chief Caveman), John Gavin (Marche), Ronny Graham (Oedipus), Nigel Hawthorne (Official), John Hillerman (Rich Man), Hugh Hefner (Entrepreneur), Barry Levinson (Column Salesman), Spike Milligan (Monsieur Rimbaud), Howard Morris (Court Spokesman), Jan Murray (Nothing Vendor), and Henny Youngman (Chemist). As I said, a cast of thousands...if not more.

Brooks' best films, those most effectively developed, are The Producers and Young Frankenstein, the latter being a remarkably respectful version of several earlier films. All comics are thieves. The best comics steal from the best sources. I thought about that when I saw this film again recently, wondering if Brooks' History of the World -- Part I was in any way influenced by The Story of Mankind (1957), a film based on Henrik Willem Van Loon's bestseller. For purposes of parody, The Story of Mankind would be an excellent target of opportunity. Those among its diverse cast of thousands (if not more) include Charles Coburn (Hippocrates), Ronald Colman (The Spirit of Man), Cedric Hardwicke (High Judge), Dennis Hopper (Napoleon), Hedy Lamarr (Joan of Arc), Peter Lorre (Nero), Virginia Mayo (Cleopatra), Chico Marx (Monk), Harpo Marx (Isaac Newton), Groucho Marx (Peter Minuit), Agnes Moorehead (Elizabeth I), Vincent Price (The Devil), and Cesar Romero (Spanish Envoy). Whenever a list of the Ten Most Pretentious Movies Ever Made is formulated, The Story of Mankind is frequently and deservedly given serious consideration.

Despite its several flaws, The History of the World -- Part I remains a generally entertaining, at times hilarious film. Whenever I see it again, I feel eager anticipation as I await its strongest scenes, willing to endure its weakest meanwhile. To me at least, the previews for Part II (which conclude Part I) suggest why Brooks resembles the Little Girl with The Curl: "When she's good, she's very very good but when she's bad...."

Mel Brooks at his Bawdy Best
Mel Brooks is at the top of his game with this hilarious spoof on world history beginning with the Stone Age and touching on subjects all the way through the French Revolution. While much of the humor is far from sophisticated, it doesn't diminish the fact that the film is just plain funny!

Lots of comedic actors, great and small, make side-splitting appearances in the film, including Sid Ceasar, Harvey Korman, Dom DeLuise, Bea Arthur, Madeline Kahn, Cloris Leachman, Jackie Mason, and Gregory Hines.

The beauty of Brooks' scathing spoofs of historical events and figures is that the humor is timeless, holding up just as well in 2004 as it did when the film was originally released in 1981. If you have never seen or heard of this film, rent or buy it now, as you have missed an iconic movie. I've even heard of European History professors using Brooks' wacky take on the Spanish Inquisition in their history classes.

When it comes to bawdy satire, Mel Brooks found it "good to be the King" in the 1970s and 80s!

written by David Laing, not Julia Laing
One of Mel Brook's finest movies, in this one, he sets out to parody history, from the Stone Age, to the French Revolution. The first time period is the Stone Age, where we see the first homosapien and homosexual marriage, and discover how music was invented. Next, in a very short bit, we see Moses coming down from a mountain with the 15 commandments, until he drops one slab, and it becomes the 10 commandments. The next era is the Roman Empire, where after Philatipis[or something like that] gets a gig to do comedy for Caescar, he offends, the emporer, so him and his new found friend must fight each other to the death, but instead stop fighting and try to escape from Rome. The 4th era is by far the funniest, and the most offensive, The Spanish Inquisition. So in a musical extravaganza, we see how the Catholics tried to convert the Jews to become Catholics, and in the last part, we behold the French Revolution, and one of the greatest lines in this movie. So, see this hilarious movie, but if you are easily offended, then do not see this. The only thing that aggravates me was that Brooks had a part 2 planned out, but it was never released. At the end of the movie, we get a preview of the unreleased History of The World part 2.

History has never been more hilarious.
I wasn't familiar with History of the World until someone recommended that I see it. I knew a little of who Mel Brooks was and had seen Young Frankenstein so I knew this might be good. Now I think it is one of the funniest movies ever, a genius spoof of world history troughout different period of time. You get to see prehistoric man invent art, and along with the first art came the first art critic. We see the real story behind Moses and the Ten Commandments. The best part to me was the part about the Roman times, when Comicus the stand up philosopher is introduced. I was laughing long and hard when Comicus gets a job as waiter at the Last Supper. Also spoofed are the Spanish Inquisition and the French Revolution.

History of the World is a great movie that features a terrific cast including Mel Brooks, Gregory Hines, Madeline Kahn, Harvey Korman and Sid Caesar. There are others, but together they give an entertaining perspective into some of history's most important events. There are also countless quotes from the movie that will stick with you for a long time after you hear them. This is something I recommend seeing, as even after 23 years it still seems as fresh as ever with the humor it provides.

Nobody Expects the (Musical) Spanish Inquisition
Probably the success of MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN two years earlier was the inspiration for Mel Brooks' HISTORY OF THE WORLD - PART I (A year earlier Python/'Brian' probably also inspired the also lesser ripoff WHOLLY MOSES). One reason are many of the biblical spoofs in this episodic movie. A lot of this is pretty lame especially during the Dom Deluise as Nero sequence that seems to go on forever. The only funny thing to come out of this is the classic line "When you die at the Palace..you really die!". Included is a scene outside of the actual Las Vegas casino Ceasar's Palace with Roman citizens going into it as if it is actually in ancient Rome. The rest of this particular sequence seems to come right out of Richard Lester's/Zero Mostel's A FUNNY THING HAPPENED TO ME ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM only it is not very funny. There are a couple inspired gags (i.e. The Spanish Inquisition- the musical,Moses receiving the 15..er, 10 Commandments, and a tribute to Esther Williams/MGM musical aqua dancing extravaganzas featuring bathing beauty nuns) in the rest of the film, but they are not very memorable. Whereas Monty Python's 'BRIAN' was deemed sacrilegious (at least in 1979) and brilliantly irreverent, 'HISTORY' is just plain dumb. Brooks' seemed to lose his touch starting with this film and would continue with SPACEBALLS,ROBIN HOOD MEN IN TIGHTS and DRACULA DEAD AND LOVING IT etc. Overall, a general waste of celluloid,talent, and time. ... Read more

Reviews (205)

Great film (it's Scorcese: what do you expect?)
"Casino" falls short of Scorcese's classics like "Goodfellas," "Taxi Driver," and "Raging Bull," and it covers too familiar ground (another mob movie? De Niro and Pesci again?). Nonetheless, it's an irrestistible glimpse at the mob scene in Vegas, and it's chock full of stellar performances. If Joe Pesci deserved an Oscar for his role in "Goodfellas," then he should have deserved two for "Casino," where he's in even better form. DeNiro also shines in his role as Rothstein, looking dapper in his flawlessly-tailored suits. But the film's revelation is Sharon Stone, who radiates as De Niro's love. She was rightfully nominated for an Oscar, but, to this day, she has never since had a role worth our while as this. Scorcese snobs will roll their eyes and call this film "Goodfellas"-lite, but, at nearly 3 hours, it's good enough to glue your eyes to the screen.

If you don't have my money for me, I'll crack your...
In many ways, Casino is the epic Goodfellas could not be. Casino is about relationships between characters in and around organized crime and gambling, and it's about the arc that an entire city of pleasure takes over these people.

It's Scorsese and Pileggi and DeNiro and Pesci and Frank Vincent again and it's a top-notch, gorgeous gangster epic.

In the early 70s the Chicago Outfit sends Sam 'Ace' Rothstein out to Las Vegas to manage the casinos they're skimming cash from. Ace is a gambling master, a sure-bettor who never loses; soon the Tangiers is raking in more dough than ever due to his management. In order to better 'manage', the Outfit also sends Nicky Santoro, a crafty but hot-headed soldiers (Pesci) to Vegas, to provide the muscle. Pretty soon Pesci is smacking people around, stabbing them with pens, putting their heads in vices, and even vandalizing their cars (not to mention flat-out threatening to crack their heads open) all as he looks to set up his own empire away from the Dons in the Midwest.

When Ace marries a call girl named Ginger (Sharon Stone) and attempts to start a family, things start going downhill. Ginger is still involved with her old pimp, for one. And let me pause to mention that James Woods has played possibly the sleaziest, most disgusting rat pimp of all time, from the subtleties like his mustache and mesh shirt to his cheap talk and bullying threats. Eventually, Ace, Nicky, Ginger, Nicky's Vegas crew, they all manage to bring the house crashing down on them.

This is all based on the true story of the Chicago Mob in Las Vegas and the hold the families had on the big casinos. Pillegi's source book is an interesting account for sure, with more commentary from some minor characters in the film, giving it different angles than just the Deniro-Stone-Pesci trifecta.

The film looks gorgeous, it has to be one of Scorsese's biggest budgets. The 70s clothes, the cars, the settings--they manage to scrounge up enough un-touched 70s Vegas left, and they film in real casinos quite a bit.

The film is three hours long; there's a lot packed into this. Along the way it can be fun; the voiceover sequences of Ace describing the workings of a casino, or how people cheat (and get caught) playing blackjack, or the montage of Nicky's gangster antics, all make this very engaging. The film is a lot bloodier than Goodfellas, and even had to be cut (during the infamous head-vice scene.)

This can't be recommended highly enough, HOWEVER, once again we have a very lame DVD, not as bad as Goodfellas, but not much better. You don't have to flip this one over, but for a three hour film, there are far too FEW chapters, making it very frustrating if you want to watch certain portions again. There's a trailer, wow! There's also some text you can read on the production and the stars, but quite frankly, that is one of the lamest features they try to put on discs. Can't they simply print production notes in a booklet?

If you haven't seen this or Goodfellas, come out of the cave. If you listen to some people who say 'It's like Goodfellas, but not as good', well, you can let them think for you. It's as good as Goodfellas, and arguably better.

And Joe Pesci has some of the most choice swearing lines...

Crippled American Version
This is a great movie that deserves a better dvd treatment. The layout and features are extremely vanilla. Not since Dracula have I see such a vhs content type dvd. Maybe in the future it will get a proper treatment in a boxset but in its current condition this release shouldn't be purchased to accompany any collection.

Also its important to note that this is not the uncut version. So far the only uncut version of this classic to make it to dvd is the Australian release.

A Scorsese Masterpiece.
'Casino' is a dominant film which is based on the true story of how Las Vegas was transformed from a simple gambling mecca into a place that has as much personality and colour as Disney World. Robert De Niro stars as a casino owner who is on the ground-level of the city's change. He is a high-class crook who's able to turn profits with the help of the mafia and crooked gaming practices (a norm for all casinos). Joe Pesci is on hand as the mob assassin with the short fuse who is De Niro's right-hand man. However, no one stays on top forever and De Niro's demise is partly due to his ex-prostitute wife (Sharon Stone, in her Oscar-nominated role). Bad decision-making, shady dealings, and questionable alliances will also be key factors in his ultimate downfall. Once again Martin Scorsese has created a film that is so multi-layered and smart that the viewer is completely engrossed for the entire 182 minutes.

'Casino' is a crime epic, in close contrast with 'The Godfather' series of films. Scorsese accomplishes what he did with 'Raging Bull' and 'GoodFellas'. Once again De Niro and Pesci shine with his direction and the unrelenting screenplay. Sharon Stone does the best work of her career. She does not necessarily shine brighter than De Niro and Pesci, but she holds her own and never lets either of them steal her thunder and lightning. Another great thing about 'Casino' is the supporting cast: Don Rickles, Kevin Pollak, James Woods, and Joe Bob Briggs all add great elements of both comedy and drama to this outstanding winner which has been overlooked on Scorsese's list of credits.

Pretty Good Movie
This one doesn't measure up in any meaningful sense to "Goodfellas" (one of the greatest films of all-time).
However I just wanted to voice my sentiments regarding one magnificent scene that gives me a bit of a vicarious thrill; when Pesci's character Nick Santoro (based on the true life mob enforcer Tony Spilotro) confronts the banker: "...I don't think you realize what it is that I do for a living. If I go down to your bank tomorrow and you don't have my money I'll bust your fckin' head open. And just about the time you're getting out of your coma I'll be getting out of jail and I'll bust your fckin' head open again. See, that's the business I'm in..."

I think just about every poor, working class and middle class person has had the urge to sound off to a bank official like that on at least one occasion.

Also Sharon Stone's legs are quite easy on the eyes. ... Read more