Amazon.com

Critics largely dismissed this 1978 movie despite the fact that it was directed by a serious filmmaker, Bryan Forbes (The L-Shaped Room, King Rat). A sequel to National Velvet, the film stars Nanette Newman as the grown-up Velvet (played by Elizabeth Taylor in the 1944 film), and Tatum O'Neal as her niece. O'Neal's character decides to become an Olympic-caliber horsewoman herself, and the prestardom Anthony Hopkins plays the no-nonsense trainer who helps her get there. No dull shadow of its famous predecessor, International Velvet is an exciting film in its own right, with a distinct tone and personality (Hopkins has a lot to do with this), and some very nimble work by Forbes behind the camera. This is more than just a movie for the kids. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (19)

Still one of my Top Five Favorite movies!
I've never understood why this movie has been so largely ignored by viewers and critics since its release in 1978.

I saw "National Velvet" when I was young, and truthfully, I hated it. I was able to get my mother to take me to see "International Velvet" because of her love of Elizabeth Taylor (her peer) and the original. I loved this movie for many reasons, but it was wonderful to see Tatum O'Neal (a slightly-older peer of mine) in such a wonderful, heart-warming role.

Ms. O'Neal moved so gracefully in this movie from age 8 to 18 without question. She portrays Sarah Velvet Brown, niece of the "original" Velvet Brown - winner of the Grand National. At the beginning of the film, Sarah arrives in England to live with her Aunt Velvet and "Uncle" John after the car-accident deaths of her parents in their home town of Cave Creek, Arizona.

She soon develops a keen interest in horses, and raises Velvet's horse, "Pi"'s son, "Arizona Pi" to adulthood and eventually rides him to to the Olympics.

This is a true "coming-of-age" story with SUPERB cinematography (a stunningly-beautiful sea-side English locale), haunting score and stellar acting by a first-class cast, including two of my all-time favorite actors, Christopher Plummer and Sir Anthony Hopkins.

A year or so ago, I happened to catch the tail-end of a short featurette on this film, on the Independent Film Channel. It featured clips and details about how Tatum O'Neal learned to ride entirely for, and during the production of this movie. The race-footage clearly shows Tatum doing most, if not all, of the actual riding, even in the most difficult steeplechase sequences.

Even if you're not a horse-lover, you'll adore this movie.

NOW, LET'S GET IT RELEASED ON DVD!!!

Where's the DVD & soundtrack??
This is a superb movie that I still love & remember from childhood. It also has one of the most gorgeous & moving soundtracks of any film I can remember. So, where is the DVD edition and the soundtrack CD?? I am still looking and refuse to give up!!

Great Parts, Could Have Been Better
This movie had a lot going for it--Anthony Hopkins, a beautiful score and scenery, wonderful cross-country eventing scenes--but on other terms it falls quite flat. At some points Tatum O'Neal is acting very well; at other times she's not quite up to the material. Christopher Plummer and Nanette Newman are charming as John and Velvet--I particularly like John--but many of the other characters are just two-dimensional, like the student with the crush on Sarah, her riding partners, etc. Plus the romance late in the film just appears; she marries this guy after knowing him two weeks???? The quality of the film is uneven as well; sometimes it looks as if it were videotaped rather than filmed. Plus there's a big anachronism in the film: NATIONAL VELVET takes place in the 1920s! In the 1970s Velvet would have been an elderly woman and the Pi would have been dead!

Loved it
I saw this movie before National Velvet, and I feel it was just as good as National Velvet! I think the ambition Sarah had was great :)

good story bad quality tape
sweet story for pre-teen and teenage girls, but the sound quality was awful. popping, hissing and static throughout the video. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Flawed, but Great
This film is very unusual and interesting because we are never sure what's happening. Eric Portman plays an old scoundrel
with the cool intelligence of an outstanding actor. The supporting cast is good. The flaw? Edith Evans. She goes
from being ridiculous to tedious to foolishly sad. Her character
is overdone and impossible to feel sorry for. Otherwise a great
movie.

Brit flick contemplating old age and insanity
An old lady deals with loneliness in a world that is quite quickly passing her by. Beauty and health have passed with death the only thing to look forward to. Finding comfort in companionship no longer works, and the voices provide some sort of outlet. As she travels through her now mundane life, she explores her life, past and present, and the voices help provide an option previously unknown. Explore old age and insanity, and the comforts of life (material vs. immaterial), with an old lady and The Whisperers.

FILM 4 ALL THE TIME .
SOME TIME WE LIE COZ WE HAVE 2 , THE OLD WOMEN DID , IN THIS FILM NOTHING IS BLACK OR WHITE , EVRY THING IS GRAY , LIKE US , WE R NOT GOOD WE R NOT BAD , WE R THE BOTHE IN THE SAME TIME . ... Read more

Reviews (19)

An unsung British comedy classic.
In a previous review, I said that only Bedazzled captured the comic brilliance of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore on screen. I take that back. Cook and Moore have a delightful outing in The Wrong Box, which also provides delightful outings for John Mills, Ralph Richardson, Michael Caine, Peter Sellers and many other great British comic actors. Based on a short story by Robert Louis Stevenson, The Wrong Box tells of two warring, elderly brothers who are the last surviving members of a tontine--a lottery whose proceeds go to the last surviving participant--and the machinations of their various family members to try and get their hands on the money. The family members vary between the naive (Richardson, Caine, Nanette Newman), the crooked (Mills, Cook) and those falling somewhere in-between (Moore), and there are schemes, corpses and misunderstandings galore. Add a serial killer, a train wreck, a doddering butler, two hearses chasing each other and Sellers as a drunken, cat-loving doctor, and you have a smashing entertainment which provides constant chuckles and frequent belly-laughs. The Victorian sets are opulent, the music by John Barry supremely hummable. For fans of British humor, it's a treasure.

Victorial hi-jinks
THE WRONG BOX defines humorless Victorian Age in a humorous way with wit worthy of its' blue ribbon cast including Michael Caine and Peter Sellers. It was a Victorian time when cousin Caine is turned on by a turned ankle under the hem of cousin Nanette Newman's skirt during the musical strains of "If you were the only girl in the world." Their destiny was love and resounding relief when each learned that both were orphans in fact: "Father was a missionary, eaten by his Bible class." Peacock, the butler, is a vestigial up-and-up English retainer servant. "Beggin your pardon, Sir. I haven't been paid in seven years." His scenes put you on notice that the next thing you'll hear is yourself chuckling. Sellers is unbelievably funny as the back-alley abortionist,Dr. Pratt, hired by one of the cousins to provide a blank, signed death certificate. He practices from a cat-infested office. His bedside manner hinges on cats which he uses to wipe his hands and blot his signature [on the phony death certificate]. Hearing Sellers cough, Peter Cook asks if the doctor is okay. Sellers answers, "I'm okay. It's only a hair ball." I don't know of an equal to this British laugh convention. THE WRONG BOX proves out that greed is great breeding ground for good comedy.

"The Wrong Box" is Right On!
A magnificent British comedy from 1966, starring (a young) Michael Caine, Nanette Newman, Dudley Moore, and Sir Ralph Richardson, among other luminaries. While consistently funny, this comedy also has a heart and a wonderful story. The acting, comic timing, editing, and directing are all utterly first rate. One of the best of the best. 2 thumbs up!

The Wrong Box
This is classic British comedy at its best. It features a plethora of stars and includes a cameo appearance by Peter Sellers that had me in pain from laughing. This is truly a delightful film.

WHEN is this going to be on DVD???
I thought this was supposed to be released on DVD, but have yet to find a copy. Own a copy on VHS, but I am sure the troop of Finsbury will be much more enjoyable on DVD!! This is one overlooked gem, with a cast that won't quit.

The Finsbury are gentle Victorian Brits down on their luck. Where to start with the Finsbury Clan...well Michael Caine plays struggling student doctor Michael Finsbury. He and his uncle, John Mills (Masterman Finsbury) live next door to Masterman's brother Joseph Finsbury (Ralph Richardson), but they don't speak because of long standing feud and the fact they are the last two survivors of a tontine - a trust where all the families of children put in a certain amount of money with the "winner" being the last kid standing. Sort of an exclusive lottery. With all their classmates dead - and both Masterman and Joseph needing the money desperately, they are eager to see the other with one foot in the grave. Since the feud has gone on, Julia Finsbury and John and Morris Finsbury (wards of Joseph) do not speak with Michael Finsbury. Though Julia pines for Michael from the mail slot in her door.

Michael and his riotous butler, Peacock (Wilfred Lawson) are reduced to selling off every piece of china and furniture they can just to make ends meet. When Masterman has a seizure a.k.a. tizzy fit from trying to kill...um, seeing Joseph, everyone presumes he is dead. John and Morris see this as their opportunity to finally gain the pounds they so richly desire. Only they believe Joseph was killing a train wreck. They have to keep Joseph "alive" to win the tontine, so they visit Dr. Pratt who loves cats (Peter Sellers) to get a forged death certificate. Meanwhile Julia and Michael have falling in love, meaning they can get married and live happily ever after with Julie being Julie Finsbury Finsbury....but wait...what happened to the Bournemouth Strangler???

Well, you will just have to watch The Wrong Box to find out!! Mad cap from beginning to end and Caine putting in a wonderful performance showing his comedic skill. Utterly Brilliant ... Read more

Description

Parable about a woman who refuses to believe the world is no longer beautiful. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

DO YOU MISS A COLD WHEN IT IS GONE?
I love this film! THE MAD WOMAN OF CHAILLOT, is an interesting satire, based on Jean Giraudoux's famous play. Katharine Hepburn, heads up this stellar, all-star cast, as the French Countess Aurelia, immersed in her own little world; and deemed eccentric, perhaps even mad, by Parisian society. When Aurelia "wakes up", to the "real world", and realizes how corrupt it has become, she swings into action! A wonderful mock trial is held, to judge and condemn the evil-doers, sensationally presented by Danny Kaye. The evil ones, consisting of a clergyman, a general, a chairman, a prospector, a commissar, and a broker, are summoned to Aurelia's home, and quickly exterminated. She assures her friends, they will not be missed; "Do you miss a cold when it is gone?" This film is in my library, because it was one of the first films, done by my favorite actor, Richard Chamberlain. Bryan Forbes, who directed this masterpiece, has a wonderful eye for detail. His sharp eye, focused on Richard Chamberlain, casting him as Roderick, Aurelia's young French lover. Chamberlain was powerful, considering it was one of his first films, and he was playing against actors, known for strong stage presence. He not only held his own, but actually stoled the scenes, with his fine acting, and exceptional physical beauty; a "detail", that did not go unnoticed, by the trained eye of director, Bryan Forbes. Forbes found Richard Chamberlain, a delight to direct, and later cast him as Prince Charming, in his wonderful movie, THE SLIPPER AND THE ROSE; remarking on his devastating, good looks, and humility. If you enjoy satire, lovely music, (The Lonely Ones), great acting, and have an appreciation for detail; then this film is for you. In it's day, this film was not well received; but I suspect, it is because satire, often flies over the heads, of the average viewer. I think this film was actually, "ahead of it's time"; and resonates more profoundly today, with corporate greed, failed cultural institutions, political corruption, and the criminal wasting of our natural resources. Maybe, there will be another woman,.....just mad enough,.... to step up to the plate and deliver a blow to the present INSANITY!

Terrific, timely, terrifying!
"The Madwoman of Chaillot," based on a 1940s play by Jean Giraudoux, is one of those underappreciated treasures that rewards careful and repeated viewings. Like another parable/allegorical fairytale from Sixties filmmaking, "King of Hearts" (also set in France), it is an easy movie to dismiss as pretentious or longwinded. But this is to judge on surface appearances or to hold the film to a standard that it does not seek to attain. This work is a morality play, meant to instruct and illuminate; it is not a typical linear, real-world drama -- although the interweaving of the real world of contemporary Paris with the fantasy world inhabited by the Countess (Katharine Hepburn, who is brilliant as usual) and her coterie of elegant female eccentrics gives the movie much of its surface charm. Hepburn's Countess is not so much insane as preferring to live in an imaginary world of rosy nostalgia and wishful thinking. She and her friends fundamentally realize the difference between invention and fact but choose to generally ignore it.

Let me be the first reviewer here to suggest that the curious use of three aged women to represent the forces of justice at work in this dual world is a deliberate hearkening to the Weird Sisters of "Macbeth", or the Furies of Greek tragedy, or even the Fates themselves. Similarly, the huddled poor of the Parisian streets and the menial laborers mostly have no names because they represent archetypes, perhaps -- a Greek chorus full of accusations for their tormentors. They contrast starkly with the smooth amorality of the movie's duplicitous villains -- an oil tycoon, a clergyman, a general, a politician, a business consultant, and others -- played to icy perfection and with just the right amount of absurd black humor by Pleasance, Brynner, Gavin, and their partners. Richard Chamberlain, playing an idealistic activist, adds a dose of romanticism when he leaves the world of the "faceless pimps" (in the damning words of Danny Kaye's relentless Ragpicker) and journeys for the love of Irma, a poor waitress, into the shadow world of the Countess of Chaillot -- although in doing so, he must destroy Hepburn's illusions forever, prompting her to take a terrible vengeance on the "greedy, stupid, lost" men who have caused the world to "not be happy."

The climactic "trial" sequence, where the Ragpicker must play the devil's advocate on behalf of the collective monied classes, placed in the docket for crimes against humanity, is a masterful performance by Kaye, playing a non-clown role for once (who ever suspected he had it in him?). With honeyed words, he first seduces his "judges" into falling for his deceits; then, when his lies are exposed for the pretense they are, he turns into a raging, bellowing monster of hatred, openly proclaiming his naked desire for money and power merely to make war and destroy what's left of the earth. Finally the mask has slipped; the court renders its verdict; and Hepburn's meting out of justice is as dreadful as any judgment of Nemesis.

Which is all very ponderous and heavy, but you can really take this film two ways -- whimsical fantasy entertainment or something much deeper and disturbing. The choice rests with the viewer, much as it lies with the characters in the movie to choose which path they wish to pursue. "The Madwoman of Chaillot" may have been made over 30 years ago but the issues it raises and the attitudes it depicts are still very much with us today, and only someone as asleep and dreaming as the Countess wouldn't realize it.

Worth seeing only for Hepburn and Danny Kaye
My, what a curious and uncertain film. The writer and director try out all sorts of tones without ever deciding on one. Is it a joke? Is it serious? Can it be that Bryan Forbes unashamedly uses 1960's riots/protest footage as window dressing? Do the filmmakers share the cynicism of most of the male characters? Rarely have I witnessed a movie where amateurishness and pure gold collide and co-mingle as they do in this.

It is overlong, and the interminable scenes of Donald Pleasance, Yul Brynner and John Gavin (three of the most witless and inept performances you will ever encounter) drinking at the outdoor bistro with Charles Boyer should've been left on the chopping room floor.

It takes awhile for Miss Hepburn's monologues to begin, but when they do this sorry picture takes off into a completely new stratosphere: the movie becomes not only bearable but actually good for a few sequences. I loved her bit about mailing herself letters that she writes the day prior.

Kate is fantastic as the out-of-her-time Countess. Her acting here is on a par with the best work she's ever done. Gone is the regal stiffness of Lion in Winter made the year before; in its place, you find the qualities she displayed in her greatest roles: The Philadelphia Story, Long Day's Journey Into Night, Summertime. What a shame that Madwoman of Chaillot lets her down. Most of the rest of the movie is garbage.

The most sharply etched moment in the film comes about midway when the "Ragpicker" (none of the characters sport actual names) played by Danny Kaye bursts her bubble. "It's you who've been dreaming, Countess," he tells her. She echoes the words of the small group of disenchanted people they stand among. "The world is not beautiful???" she questions in utter amazement.

Kaye is also quite good in a non-comic role. He looks kind of sexy, too, especially in the mock trial sequence.

The other actors are set-up to appear foolish. Granted, some of them deserve it, but I was appalled that Giulietta Masina gets treated so callously. She's asked to be a brainless virgin here, quite a feat considering her age. If you loved her in Nights of Cabiria or the other Fellini films in which she starred, stand warned that Masina has absolutely _nothing_ to do in an insulting role. Having no feelings of affection for Margaret Leighton or Edith Evans, I didn't especially mind that they were thrown away as well.

Admittedly, the finale when Kate leads the bad guys to their doom left me with a rosy glow. If only she'd thought to take the writer and director of this movie down to the dungeon, too!

Hepburn at Her Finest
O.K., I admit it. I'm the type who would watch Katherine Hepburn in literally ANY role and find something good about it. There are plenty of flawed or mediocre works I have sat through just for her. But the fact is that "Madwoman .." is a truly great film both as a comedy and a social critique. A consortium of evil conspirators representing most of the world's repressive idelogies (Communism, religious fundamentalism, corpoate greed, rigid middle class conformism and military war-mongering)try to destroy the "decadent" city of Paris (symbol of liberty, beauty and humanism). Kate, the city's defender, is a highly eccentric Countess who may or may not have some kind of semi-magical powers and who may or may not be immortal. To make a long story short, the bad guys make her mad and end up buried alive (when asked if they will be missed she replies "Do you miss a cold when it is gone?" Good answer!). Don't mess with Kate!

Not the usual Bryan Forbes
This is not your usual narrative. The vestiges of Jean Giraudoux's trifling and engagingly whimsical play can still be noticed in Edward Anhalt's interesting modernization of his work. Bryan Forbes ("King Rat") directed this unusual movie. The cast includes Katharine Hepburn (an extremely sane madwoman), Margaret Leighton, Edith Evans, Giulietta Masina, Charles Boyer, Yul Brynner, Donald Pleasence, Danny Kaye, John Gavin, Nanette Newman, Oscar Homolka, Claude Dauphin, Richard Chamberlain, Paul Henreid, and Fernand Gravet. There is some nice photography along the way. Not for all tastes. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Extraordinary Film Essential Viewing
King Rat appeared around the same time as "The Train". While both attempt an unsentimentalized view of war and it's heroes, "The Train" (an excellent film) is ultimately an action piece about victory. "King Rat" on the other hand, is about survival.

Over the last twenty-five years I've read the book twice and seen the movie at least five times. I don't care what the differences are anymore - both book and film are exceptional works. Different, but definitely equal. Experiencing either will be a harrowing, heart-breaking, but ultimately rewarding experience.

Set in Changi prison camp (and based on Clavel's real-life experiences there) King Rat is the story of a young British officer (James Fox) who finds himself working for the camp hustler (George Segal). Together they are harassed by camp Provost Martial Tom Courtney determined to catch Segal (Corporal King) breaking regulations.

The adaptation and direction by Bryan Forbes (who had to make allowances for the conservative sensibilities of a sixties audience) is simply amazing: King Rat is about the heat, disease, suffering, and madness. These aren't the stiff-upper-lip-discipline-or-die men of "Bridge On The River Kwai". The soldiers in King Rat are wretched, pathetic, and despairing. There is no sentimentality here, neither in front of, or behind the camera. Forbes' lens is unflinching -- it's the audience who has to look away.

The cast alone makes this film worthwhile: George Segal (for the uninitiated, Segal was once a rising star), Tom Courtenay, James Fox, Patrick O'Neal, Denholm Elliot, James Donald, Tod Armstrong, John Mills, Gerald Sim, and Leonard Rossiter to name a few. They are all at their best. There are no disappointments here. In fact, I think it is the cast that makes me prefer the film to the book. Tom Courtney is much better at realizing his character than Clavel can write him. While Clavel (who lived this harrowing experience) may have known these people, it's the cast who have personalized and personified them. And so, while Forbes may have cut significant material from the book, I think the soul of the work is stronger. This is most apparent in the last line of dialog: in the book it is delivered by Tom Courtney's character, but in the film it is given to James Fox.

But what is most amazing is that, after thirty-five years and the likes of "Patton", "Full Metal Jacket", "Platoon", "The Odd Angry Shot", and "Saving Private Ryan", "King Rat" still holds it's own. IF you are a connoisseur of films (war or otherwise) this is a must see.

He Gave You Hate, Gray!
Survival. This film of POW's in Singapore's Changi prison is about survival. Mostly British POW's, there is one hustler among them, an American Corporal named King. He is the King Rat...the black marketeer, the guy "on the ball", trading with the Malay & Japanese guards, and always working schemes. He is pursued by the POW Provost Marshals , envied and resented by other POW's, even as they employ his services as a go-between for themselves.

A naive young British Officer, Marlowe, meets the King and is drawn into his world, first as a translator (he speaks Malay), and slowly becomes Corporal King's only true friend. He comes to admire King's undaunted will to survive and his ingenuity and courage. In the episode of the watch sale, King gives Marlowe a lesson in how things really work that is an eye-opener to him and us.

Beautifully played by a very young James Fox as Marlowe, and an equally young George Segal as Corporal King, the movie is harrowing and yet often very funny. King's schemes and maneuvers, while illegal as camp rules, keep everyone engaged and some of the episodes are rife with gallows humor (as in the special "stew" feast and the "delicacy" reserved for sale to officers only).

The rest of the cast is fine with John Mills, Patrick O'Neal, James Donalds and Tom Courtney standouts. The direction by Bryan Forbes is excellent, capturing the terrible conditions of the camp and the insipient insanity and despair of the prisoners.

James Clavell was in Changi prison, and he knew a man like Corporal King. The book may have been somewhat different, but the movie captures the essence of Clavell's experience and his admiration for the man's guts and spirit and unwillingness to surrender and be defeated by Changi. A terrific, unsentimental film. 4-1/2 stars.

You are what you eat
Well, Corporal King did not actually eat rats - he sold that particular delicacy to the officers.

Based on the excellent book by James Clavell, this is a great story of life in a Japanese-run prison camp in Singapore.

George Segal plays corporal King, who is the big wheeler-dealer of the camp, buying and selling various items such as watches, ripping off anyone he can, but also handsomely paying off his cronies.

He develops a friendship of sorts with one particular British prisoner, and later helps keep his arm from being amputated.

Upon being liberated (led by none other than "Family Feud" host Richard Dawson), King realizes that he will be going back to being the low rung on the ladder (as a corporal), and shares none of the other prisoner's joy of freedom.

There are quite a few great performances, particularly from George Segal (the man who once french-kissed his dog on the Johnny Carson show).

Of course, as is usually the case, the book is much better, but this is still a darn good movie.

Why is this movie so underrated?
I do not understand why this movie isn't better known and more respected. It is an excellent film, as are several of Bryan Forbes' British films, all of which I recommend. When I first saw this film, I was almost outraged that I'd never heard anything about it, and I see I'm in good company. Why is Stalag 17 considered a classic of American cinema while King Rat (a much better and more complex film, in my opinion) languishes in semi-obscurity? I've never seen any significant criticism on it, which is particularly unusual for a war film (and, in some sense, anti-war film.) At least they've finally put it on DVD, and the transfer here is excellent, even if there aren't really any extras. Interestingly, the company that produced this DVD seems to be pushing George Segal's presence as the selling point of King Rat, and the back of the box doesn't even mention James Fox's character(!) (Perhaps the macho POW film audience would be put off by the relationship between Segal's and Fox's characters? I don't know.) Segal's performance is indeed great, but it isn't the only reason to watch this film, which is excellent in every major respect: technically, dramatically, and thematically. (I'm usually nearly in tears by the end, too-- I don't know whether that's true for everyone, though.) One more thing: I have not read the novel, but you should bear in mind that they ARE separate works of art, even if the film is adapted, and therefore needn't be judged against each other. I think King Rat succeeds marvellously in its own right.

Anyone for an egg???
There have been many great war movies and most people would surely agree that movies such as Patton, Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, All Quiet on the Western Front, and Paths of Glory should be included, but sad to say I have never seen "King Rat" on any greatest list (either war related or just generic great movies). Oh, but it should be! On the face of it, "King Rat" is the story of an American corporal (George Segal) imprisoned in a Japanese POW camp. He may be a corporal in actual rank, but he is the Commander-in-Chief of the entire camp when it comes to surviving. He is the instigator and beneficiary of every scheme immaginable to survive as best he can. He not only has to persevere against the Japanese, but also the other allied prisoners in the camp with him who consider him no better than the Japanese. I will not go into all of the schemes that he concocts for his personal survival and comfort, but there is one in which he is offhandedly (or so it seems) preparing lunch for himself and a fellow prisoner, that has to be seen "and heard" to be believed. I have probably 1,000 movies in my collection and have seen many more than that, which simply means that I have been exposed to hundreds and hundreds of memorable scenes: 2001: bone thrown into the air, Butch Cassidy: jumping off the cliff, Dr. Strangelove: riding the bomb, Doctor Zhivago: collapsing on the tracks with Lara almost in reach, and of course Psycho: the shower, but I defy anyone to watch the egg scene in "King Rat" and not be profoundly moved. It affects me deeply just thinking about it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Ira Levin's scary novel about forced conformity in a small Connecticut town made for this compelling 1975 thriller. Katharine Ross stars as a city woman who moves with her husband to Stepford and is startled by how perpetually happy many of the local women seem to be. Her search for an answer reveals a plot to replace troublesome real wives with more accommodating fake ones (not unlike the alien takeover in Invasion of the Body Snatchers). The closer she gets to the truth, the more danger she faces--not to mention the likelihood that the men in town intend to replace her as well. Screenwriter William Goldman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) and director Bryan Forbes (King Rat) made this a taut, tense semiclassic with a healthy dose of satiric wit. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (73)

You'll Just Die If You Don't See This Movie
Whether or not you've actually seen it, you'll probably have heard of "The Stepford Wives". Based on Ira Levin's novel, it was produced in the 1970s and has endured in the public consciousness ever since. Indeed the terms "Stepford" and "Stepford Wife" are now part of our vernacular. If you're in any doubt what these expressions mean, just imagine a woman who is the perfect male fantasy...a wife who cooks, cleans and keeps her husband's home to perfection whilst remaining an object of beauty, with well-preserved looks, sexy outfits and just the right-sized cleavage. A female who is there to service her man's every need - domestic, emotional, sexual - whilst never questioning her role as devoted housewife.The film tells the tale of New York housewife and photographer Joanna Eberhart, who moves with her lawyer husband Walter (sexy name - not!) and their two kids to the seemingly idyllic rural town of Stepford. Very soon Joanna becomes disenchanted with her surroundings, missing the liveliness of New York. Her feelings of isolation are compounded by the fact that the other women in the town appear content to stay at home for their husbands as loyal house fraus, with no outside interests whatsoever. Also, all new male arrivals in Stepford are invited to join "The Men's Association", an organisation from which the town's women are strictly excluded. Whatever goes on there remains a mystery; the women aren't told.

Fortunately Joanna meets the effervescent and rebellious Bobby Marco, another recent arrival in Stepford who shares her concerns about the strange behaviour of the women in the community. Together they decide to set up a consciousness-raising group and rally to get the local women involved...almost to no avail! At the first meeting of the wives, the other women prefer to agonise over the cleanliness of their kitchens and talk about the wonders of "Easy-On" starch spray and baking. One other recruit is found though; a feisty redhead called Charmaine who feels restricted by her husband Ed's demands. However after a weekend away with him, Charmaine returns strangely altered, allowing her hubby to bulldoze her much-loved tennis court and confessing that she all she wanted to do was "please Ed...and boy am I gonna please him". Weird.

Mystified, Joanna and Bobby seek an answer to the zombie-like behaviour of the local women, wondering if "something in the water" might be responsible. They enlist one of Joanna's ex boyfriends, who is a scientist, to help, but this fails to pay dividends. Joanna soon comes to the frightening realisation that the town's wives undergo a change in personality after they have been resident in Stepford for roughly three months... and her time is almost up...

I won't give any more away but this is a thought-provoking and intriguing movie!! Although low on action, the film builds its sense of momentum through a growing feeling of paranoia: are the women in the town somehow being "substituted" for drone-like replacements? Or are all of Joanna's anxieties inside her own head? If you're looking for a fast-moving film you might be disappointed, but the cleverness of the movie lies in its subtlety and the way in which the events take place in a seemingly normal domestic setting.

Another reason for this movie's success lies in the acting. Katherine Ross (also of "The Graduate") puts in an intelligent, sympathetic performance as a woman who feels increasingly hemmed in by the claustrophobia of Stepford, and you really root for her as she feels she might be next on the list for "conversion". Paula Prentiss is great as Bobby, a funny, bubbly and tomboyish character determined not to become "one of those pan-scrubbers" and the rapport between her and Joanna is believable and touching. Given her determination to escape Stepford, Bobby's last few scenes are all the more poignant; I won't say any more but they make for some of the film's best moments! The supporting cast do a good job: amongst these are Peter Masterson as Walter, becoming gradually less supportive of his wife's feelings and fears and more and more influenced by the demands of the "Men's Association"; and Nanette Newman as Carol Van Sant, one of the wives who starts behaving very oddly at a barbecue, continually proclaiming "I'll just die if I don't get that recipe" (!!) Newman's role as a wife is all the more ironic considering all those "Fairy Liquid" adverts she once did (remember?!)

The movie has also attained a kitsch/camp quality over time, mostly due to the fact that it was made in the 1970s! This doesn't spoil the subtler elements to the film, rather makes it all the more entertaining! A large part of the camp appeal is down to the wives themselves - their appearance, behaviour and dialogue. According to this movie, men would like nothing better than to see their wives dressed in frilly blouses (still showing off their assets), flowery dresses and big floppy hats - hilarious. The wives all say things like "I really shouldn't say it, but I just love my brownies" (that's cakes in case you were wondering) and constantly praise their husbands' performances in the bedroom department: "You're the King....you're the Master"!! No comment!

To summarise this is a very enjoyable movie, which, as I have already mentioned, shows the dangers of male fantasies coming true and the perils that women must face having to exist in a patriarchal society. Go buy it...but don't get any ideas about changing your girlfriend...okay?!

I'll simply die if I don't get this recipe!
THE STEPFORD WIVES was a unique film. It set out to make a horror film where clean spotless sunlit kitchens were just as scary as rainy spooky old mansions at midnight. Made in the mid 1970s during a wave of feminism and controversy over the ERA Ammendment - it never got the acclaim it deserved for it's building creepiness and Sci Fi twists. The remake is what it is, but here's where most people first glimpsed Stepford - a very real suburb where homemaking is a science.

Katharine Ross(in an EXCELLENT turn)plays Joanna Eberhard who moves from NYC to Stepford with her husband and two daughters. She's a photographer and homemaker who's dabbled in the women's movement but never really taken up the cause. She begins to realize the women of Stepford are all obsessed with housework, and worse ... subservient and servile to their husbands. She joins up with another woman who finds this all strange, Bobbie -- played oustandingly by Paula Prentiss. Together they find out a string of clues that maybe not all is well in Stepford, and the seemingly benign suburban bliss may be MANUFACTURED by the creepy Men's Society that every husband is a part of.

Bryan Forbes took over this project after speculations Brian De Palma should film it. He made a very effective treatment of the novel, but added his own touches. His wife Nannette Newman influenced the costumes by demanding rather than proposed Playboy bunny outfits the wives should look Victorian with hats and gloves and long dresses - creepy and sexy. Tina Louise (Ginger on Gilligan's Island) also makes a great cameo as Charmaine - one of Joanna and Bobbie's radical friends who transforms to a Stepford Wife by startingly ripping up her tennis court for a pool her husband wants.

You get the film in widescreen, and the transfer is passable for a movie of this age. Colors are 1970s soft and there is grain, but it looks fine. You get a 12 minute featurette with all the principle players, and they explain how the movie was made and what it was like. Some people say the pacing was slow, but this was the 1970s! I think its suppposed to develop slowly like the novel, and you get to know the characters. The last ten minutes are completely shocking, and no test audiences made them whimp out (cough cough - the remake's ending was reshot). This was a politically relevant well-crafted film with great acting! Superb in every way! Check out the source novel by Ira Levin as well.

A great, but very slow-moving picture.
After seeing the new version of The Stepford Wives (which, incidentally, I loved) I had to seek out the original, which I haven't seen since I was a kid. I was very impressed by most of the performances, most notably Paula Prentiss, who was absolutely magnetic. Although the story was absorbing, and the direction was good, the movie, not unlike Rosemary's Baby, seemed to go nowhere fast. Foot after foot of tape passed through my VCR, but the story unfolded so slowly, it was hard to remain interested........all in all, a must-see because of it's pop-culture influence.

THE STEPFORD WIVES DVD -KATHARINE ROSS
AN EXCELLENT MOVIE ALL AROUND!!! FROM THE STORYLINE TO THE ACTING. DEFINITELY SCARY AT TIMES AND AT TIMES FUNNY. KATHERINE ROSS IS OUTSTANDING IN HER ROLE AS WELL AS PAULA PRENTISS. YOU CAN ALSO CATCH TINA LOUISE(GINGER FROM GILLIGANS ISLAND)AND HER BIG HAIR. A GREAT MOVIE, A MUST SEE!!!

Terrific adaptation of the book
I watched this movie because of the excellent book by Ira Levin. I haven't seen the remake yet, but it will be hard to top this version. This movie is very faithful to the book. There are some changes made, but they remain true to the book and help make it a better movie.

The acting is pretty good. I really found myself caring about what happens to Joanna and Bobbie, her best friend. Having read the book, it was great to see these characters brought to life in a way that rang true. It was almost worse knowing what happens to these characters before you actually see it because you really do want things to turn out OK for them.

It was also very well-written. It starts out kind of slow, but once it digs its hooks in, it keeps you glued to the TV. I also like the way they dealt with the subject of women's desire to be an individual and not some cookie cutter housewife with no life at all. It was done very creatively and it was clever as well.

I highly recommend this movie. It is very creepy and there are some very intense moments. Just because it's rated PG does not mean it wimps out on the suspense. This is one of the most suspenseful movies I've seen in a whil and it's one of the best book to film adaptations I've ever seen. ... Read more

Reviews (73)

You'll Just Die If You Don't See This Movie
Whether or not you've actually seen it, you'll probably have heard of "The Stepford Wives". Based on Ira Levin's novel, it was produced in the 1970s and has endured in the public consciousness ever since. Indeed the terms "Stepford" and "Stepford Wife" are now part of our vernacular. If you're in any doubt what these expressions mean, just imagine a woman who is the perfect male fantasy...a wife who cooks, cleans and keeps her husband's home to perfection whilst remaining an object of beauty, with well-preserved looks, sexy outfits and just the right-sized cleavage. A female who is there to service her man's every need - domestic, emotional, sexual - whilst never questioning her role as devoted housewife.The film tells the tale of New York housewife and photographer Joanna Eberhart, who moves with her lawyer husband Walter (sexy name - not!) and their two kids to the seemingly idyllic rural town of Stepford. Very soon Joanna becomes disenchanted with her surroundings, missing the liveliness of New York. Her feelings of isolation are compounded by the fact that the other women in the town appear content to stay at home for their husbands as loyal house fraus, with no outside interests whatsoever. Also, all new male arrivals in Stepford are invited to join "The Men's Association", an organisation from which the town's women are strictly excluded. Whatever goes on there remains a mystery; the women aren't told.

Fortunately Joanna meets the effervescent and rebellious Bobby Marco, another recent arrival in Stepford who shares her concerns about the strange behaviour of the women in the community. Together they decide to set up a consciousness-raising group and rally to get the local women involved...almost to no avail! At the first meeting of the wives, the other women prefer to agonise over the cleanliness of their kitchens and talk about the wonders of "Easy-On" starch spray and baking. One other recruit is found though; a feisty redhead called Charmaine who feels restricted by her husband Ed's demands. However after a weekend away with him, Charmaine returns strangely altered, allowing her hubby to bulldoze her much-loved tennis court and confessing that she all she wanted to do was "please Ed...and boy am I gonna please him". Weird.

Mystified, Joanna and Bobby seek an answer to the zombie-like behaviour of the local women, wondering if "something in the water" might be responsible. They enlist one of Joanna's ex boyfriends, who is a scientist, to help, but this fails to pay dividends. Joanna soon comes to the frightening realisation that the town's wives undergo a change in personality after they have been resident in Stepford for roughly three months... and her time is almost up...

I won't give any more away but this is a thought-provoking and intriguing movie!! Although low on action, the film builds its sense of momentum through a growing feeling of paranoia: are the women in the town somehow being "substituted" for drone-like replacements? Or are all of Joanna's anxieties inside her own head? If you're looking for a fast-moving film you might be disappointed, but the cleverness of the movie lies in its subtlety and the way in which the events take place in a seemingly normal domestic setting.

Another reason for this movie's success lies in the acting. Katherine Ross (also of "The Graduate") puts in an intelligent, sympathetic performance as a woman who feels increasingly hemmed in by the claustrophobia of Stepford, and you really root for her as she feels she might be next on the list for "conversion". Paula Prentiss is great as Bobby, a funny, bubbly and tomboyish character determined not to become "one of those pan-scrubbers" and the rapport between her and Joanna is believable and touching. Given her determination to escape Stepford, Bobby's last few scenes are all the more poignant; I won't say any more but they make for some of the film's best moments! The supporting cast do a good job: amongst these are Peter Masterson as Walter, becoming gradually less supportive of his wife's feelings and fears and more and more influenced by the demands of the "Men's Association"; and Nanette Newman as Carol Van Sant, one of the wives who starts behaving very oddly at a barbecue, continually proclaiming "I'll just die if I don't get that recipe" (!!) Newman's role as a wife is all the more ironic considering all those "Fairy Liquid" adverts she once did (remember?!)

The movie has also attained a kitsch/camp quality over time, mostly due to the fact that it was made in the 1970s! This doesn't spoil the subtler elements to the film, rather makes it all the more entertaining! A large part of the camp appeal is down to the wives themselves - their appearance, behaviour and dialogue. According to this movie, men would like nothing better than to see their wives dressed in frilly blouses (still showing off their assets), flowery dresses and big floppy hats - hilarious. The wives all say things like "I really shouldn't say it, but I just love my brownies" (that's cakes in case you were wondering) and constantly praise their husbands' performances in the bedroom department: "You're the King....you're the Master"!! No comment!

To summarise this is a very enjoyable movie, which, as I have already mentioned, shows the dangers of male fantasies coming true and the perils that women must face having to exist in a patriarchal society. Go buy it...but don't get any ideas about changing your girlfriend...okay?!

I'll simply die if I don't get this recipe!
THE STEPFORD WIVES was a unique film. It set out to make a horror film where clean spotless sunlit kitchens were just as scary as rainy spooky old mansions at midnight. Made in the mid 1970s during a wave of feminism and controversy over the ERA Ammendment - it never got the acclaim it deserved for it's building creepiness and Sci Fi twists. The remake is what it is, but here's where most people first glimpsed Stepford - a very real suburb where homemaking is a science.

Katharine Ross(in an EXCELLENT turn)plays Joanna Eberhard who moves from NYC to Stepford with her husband and two daughters. She's a photographer and homemaker who's dabbled in the women's movement but never really taken up the cause. She begins to realize the women of Stepford are all obsessed with housework, and worse ... subservient and servile to their husbands. She joins up with another woman who finds this all strange, Bobbie -- played oustandingly by Paula Prentiss. Together they find out a string of clues that maybe not all is well in Stepford, and the seemingly benign suburban bliss may be MANUFACTURED by the creepy Men's Society that every husband is a part of.

Bryan Forbes took over this project after speculations Brian De Palma should film it. He made a very effective treatment of the novel, but added his own touches. His wife Nannette Newman influenced the costumes by demanding rather than proposed Playboy bunny outfits the wives should look Victorian with hats and gloves and long dresses - creepy and sexy. Tina Louise (Ginger on Gilligan's Island) also makes a great cameo as Charmaine - one of Joanna and Bobbie's radical friends who transforms to a Stepford Wife by startingly ripping up her tennis court for a pool her husband wants.

You get the film in widescreen, and the transfer is passable for a movie of this age. Colors are 1970s soft and there is grain, but it looks fine. You get a 12 minute featurette with all the principle players, and they explain how the movie was made and what it was like. Some people say the pacing was slow, but this was the 1970s! I think its suppposed to develop slowly like the novel, and you get to know the characters. The last ten minutes are completely shocking, and no test audiences made them whimp out (cough cough - the remake's ending was reshot). This was a politically relevant well-crafted film with great acting! Superb in every way! Check out the source novel by Ira Levin as well.

A great, but very slow-moving picture.
After seeing the new version of The Stepford Wives (which, incidentally, I loved) I had to seek out the original, which I haven't seen since I was a kid. I was very impressed by most of the performances, most notably Paula Prentiss, who was absolutely magnetic. Although the story was absorbing, and the direction was good, the movie, not unlike Rosemary's Baby, seemed to go nowhere fast. Foot after foot of tape passed through my VCR, but the story unfolded so slowly, it was hard to remain interested........all in all, a must-see because of it's pop-culture influence.

THE STEPFORD WIVES DVD -KATHARINE ROSS
AN EXCELLENT MOVIE ALL AROUND!!! FROM THE STORYLINE TO THE ACTING. DEFINITELY SCARY AT TIMES AND AT TIMES FUNNY. KATHERINE ROSS IS OUTSTANDING IN HER ROLE AS WELL AS PAULA PRENTISS. YOU CAN ALSO CATCH TINA LOUISE(GINGER FROM GILLIGANS ISLAND)AND HER BIG HAIR. A GREAT MOVIE, A MUST SEE!!!

Terrific adaptation of the book
I watched this movie because of the excellent book by Ira Levin. I haven't seen the remake yet, but it will be hard to top this version. This movie is very faithful to the book. There are some changes made, but they remain true to the book and help make it a better movie.

The acting is pretty good. I really found myself caring about what happens to Joanna and Bobbie, her best friend. Having read the book, it was great to see these characters brought to life in a way that rang true. It was almost worse knowing what happens to these characters before you actually see it because you really do want things to turn out OK for them.

It was also very well-written. It starts out kind of slow, but once it digs its hooks in, it keeps you glued to the TV. I also like the way they dealt with the subject of women's desire to be an individual and not some cookie cutter housewife with no life at all. It was done very creatively and it was clever as well.

I highly recommend this movie. It is very creepy and there are some very intense moments. Just because it's rated PG does not mean it wimps out on the suspense. This is one of the most suspenseful movies I've seen in a whil and it's one of the best book to film adaptations I've ever seen. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Marvelous role for Hayley Mills
"Whistle Down the Wind" is the story of three motherless English children left to their own devices while their father runs the farm. The eldest child, Kathy (Hayley Mills) herds her quiet sister, Nan, and mouthy little brother, Charlie. While the adults in their world have little time for the children, Kathy seems to take her caretaking role very seriously. The children gather at home for meals prepared by their resentful aunt, and the rest of the time, they romp through the countryside annoying their father's handyman and upsetting his traps. The children really are quite separate from the practical running of the farm--in fact--they get in the way. So when handyman, Eddie, throws kittens in the river to drown, it is Kathy who leads the children to save and hide the kittens in the barn.

A fugitive (Alan Bates) takes refuge in the barn, and Kathy, in her innocence and with recently awakened religious sensitivity, mistakes the man for Jesus Christ. Kathy's mission then becomes to save and protect the man from the rest of the world.

"Whistle Down the Wind" is really a marvelous gem. I saw it as a child and was recently lucky enough to track down a copy and watch it again. The film raises interesting questions--I found it profoundly sad as a child, but as an adult, I recognize the brilliance of the filmmaker (director Bryan Forbes). Innocence and faith are integral parts of this film. Is the innocence of children to be lauded or just noted sadly as it inevitably vanishes? "Whistle Down the Wind" remains--to me--one of the best performances from Hayley Mills. In this film, she shines--displacedhuman.

Thought-provoking minor classic of British cinema
Stylistically, Whistle Down the Wind treads the centre between the sentimentalism of postwar British cinema and the stark realism of the sixties. The bleak Lancashire countryside is photographed with great ambience by Arthur Ibbetson (The Railway Children, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory).

The story has three children discovering "Jesus" in their barn, and follows their attempts to keep his presence a secret from the adults. Underneath the events of the film is a journey of faith and doubt and puzzlement. There is a quite deliberate ambiguity, I think, that left me wondering whether the film was cynical or positive about the virtues of childlike faith.

The children turn in believable performances, including Hayley Mills, whose presence works surprisingly well, despite my suspicion that her star persona might add a touch of artifice to the production. The rest of the child cast are made up of real Lancastrian schoolchildren, so the thick northern accents and quaint idioms are all quite genuine.

An arty, thought-provoking UK cult classic
Alan Bates plays opposite a teenage Hayley Mills in this odd parable about a band of rural English children who mistake a fugitive criminal for the second coming of Jesus Christ. The indeterminate nature of the ending, which is open to subjective interpretations, makes this a difficult film to pronounce judgement on: non-Christians may not totally get the theological implications, but the dynamic between the aloof, dismissive adult villagers and the flock of children who readily revere the dishelvelled, dangerous Bates is an interesting precursor for the 'Sixties generation gap that was to come. Beautiful B&W cinematography, and excellent performances by all the child actors, who, amazingly, act like real kids do: petulant, competitive, and able to believe the fantastic.

The Best Ever
This film is excellant. It's quite funny but it's sad as well. It's about three children and one day they find a man in their barn. The man is actually an escaped murderer but they don't know that. When he see's them he shouts out Jesus Christ and they think he's Jesus. I went to the theatre to see it with my parents and my brother. It was brillant.

A Movie You Will Never Forget
I had a lot of trouble getting a hold of this film. It was worth it. You can't miss this one. This film taken from the original novel by Mary Hayley Bell. It is the story of 3 children who believe the man that is hiding in their barn is Jesus. This isn't just a children's film. It is a thought provoking film. You have to see it to understand how good it really is. I would recommend that you order the original book from Amazon UK. The book has a slightly different ending. This film has spawned a popular musical and is still popular today. All they have to do now is make the book available in the US. We would also like to see more availability of the video in the NSTC format. The UK also has it available on DVD. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Searing Portrait of Obsession
Yes, this novel was adapted into an earlier Bette Davis version. Yes, that version has a loyal following. But this film deserves a fair shake.
On its own terms, it is a realistic, gritty portrait of obsession. Laurence Harvey is always believable and Kim Novak is absolutely frightening in her role. She IS Mildred to the core. Kim's usual vulnerability does shine through as always, but that only deepens the poignancy of this self-destructive character who doesn't understand how to love or be loved. She is authentic in her manners and accent for the period, making one wish that for once this lovely and talented actress would get the credit she deserves. "Of Human Bondage" deserves a dvd release.

dvd please
I think a dvd version of this film should be made

An OK film, but lacks something
I initially watched this film because one of my favorite old-movie actors, Laurence Harvey, was in it. As it turns out, he is one of the only things that make it worth watching. The story is so-so, meaning that it is neither good nor bad. Though I haven't a clue why Philip Carey (played by the aforementioned Harvey) was apparently so taken with Mildred. She was obnoxious and really had no redeeming qualities. I didn't find her sympathetic or sweet. I also couldn't figure out what period this was supposed to be set in. The Victorian era? The Edwardian era? Maybe. It is a fairly entertaining movie to watch, though it has few points to really commend it.

Excellence
I may be only 22 and this movie may have been made before my mother was even born, but still. This was by far, the greatest old movie I have ever seen (besides "It's a wonderful life" lol)

My personal favorite "present day" movies may be Natural Born Killers and those types of movies, but this one kinda hit home.

If you have ever had a partner who has broke yer heart, you may be able to relate to this movie and enjoy it quite a bit.

She Loves Him As Much As She Can
Kim Novak superbly portrays S. Maugham's Mildred Rogers in OF HUMAN BONDAGE. This is the absolute best screen adaption of the novel. Novak shines in this movie. See how the character of Mildred completely changes from beginning to end. Fans of Kim will delight in seeing this so very beautiful a talented actress in a story of how a cold social climbing waitress toys with the obsessive affections of a young medical student, played by Laurence Harvey. ... Read more

Reviews (19)

Still one of my Top Five Favorite movies!
I've never understood why this movie has been so largely ignored by viewers and critics since its release in 1978.

I saw "National Velvet" when I was young, and truthfully, I hated it. I was able to get my mother to take me to see "International Velvet" because of her love of Elizabeth Taylor (her peer) and the original. I loved this movie for many reasons, but it was wonderful to see Tatum O'Neal (a slightly-older peer of mine) in such a wonderful, heart-warming role.

Ms. O'Neal moved so gracefully in this movie from age 8 to 18 without question. She portrays Sarah Velvet Brown, niece of the "original" Velvet Brown - winner of the Grand National. At the beginning of the film, Sarah arrives in England to live with her Aunt Velvet and "Uncle" John after the car-accident deaths of her parents in their home town of Cave Creek, Arizona.

She soon develops a keen interest in horses, and raises Velvet's horse, "Pi"'s son, "Arizona Pi" to adulthood and eventually rides him to to the Olympics.

This is a true "coming-of-age" story with SUPERB cinematography (a stunningly-beautiful sea-side English locale), haunting score and stellar acting by a first-class cast, including two of my all-time favorite actors, Christopher Plummer and Sir Anthony Hopkins.

A year or so ago, I happened to catch the tail-end of a short featurette on this film, on the Independent Film Channel. It featured clips and details about how Tatum O'Neal learned to ride entirely for, and during the production of this movie. The race-footage clearly shows Tatum doing most, if not all, of the actual riding, even in the most difficult steeplechase sequences.

Even if you're not a horse-lover, you'll adore this movie.

NOW, LET'S GET IT RELEASED ON DVD!!!

Where's the DVD & soundtrack??
This is a superb movie that I still love & remember from childhood. It also has one of the most gorgeous & moving soundtracks of any film I can remember. So, where is the DVD edition and the soundtrack CD?? I am still looking and refuse to give up!!

Great Parts, Could Have Been Better
This movie had a lot going for it--Anthony Hopkins, a beautiful score and scenery, wonderful cross-country eventing scenes--but on other terms it falls quite flat. At some points Tatum O'Neal is acting very well; at other times she's not quite up to the material. Christopher Plummer and Nanette Newman are charming as John and Velvet--I particularly like John--but many of the other characters are just two-dimensional, like the student with the crush on Sarah, her riding partners, etc. Plus the romance late in the film just appears; she marries this guy after knowing him two weeks???? The quality of the film is uneven as well; sometimes it looks as if it were videotaped rather than filmed. Plus there's a big anachronism in the film: NATIONAL VELVET takes place in the 1920s! In the 1970s Velvet would have been an elderly woman and the Pi would have been dead!

Loved it
I saw this movie before National Velvet, and I feel it was just as good as National Velvet! I think the ambition Sarah had was great :)

good story bad quality tape
sweet story for pre-teen and teenage girls, but the sound quality was awful. popping, hissing and static throughout the video. ... Read more

Amazon.com

You know the story: Cinderella rides in a magical pumpkin to the ball, enchants the prince, and flees at midnight. He finds her slipper and tracks her down, and they live happily ever after. But wait! In The Slipper and the Rose, it turns out there's more to the life of a prince than being charming. The king prefers to choose the prince's wife, one of proper social station who would provide a strong political alliance to ward off the kingdom's enemies. That's one of the twists in this 1976 British take on the classic fairy tale, one of a long line of musical versions.

The disgruntled prince, who's as much of a focal point here as the lady with the footwear, is played by Richard Chamberlain, during the years when he was taking on the classics and had not yet been crowned king of the TV miniseries. He displays a pleasant voice opposite Gemma Craven as Cinderella, and veteran character actor Michael Hordern as the king leads the supporting ensemble. Add lavish sets and lush scenery (partially filmed in Austria), humor, fun choreography, and an Oscar-nominated score full of charming songs by Richard M. and Robert B. Sherman (veterans of such Disney movies as Mary Poppins and The Jungle Book, and who alsocowrote the script with director Bryan Forbes), and you have a grand, engaging family musical. The 143-minute running time and dreamy, deliberate pace might test the patience of antsy viewers, but this is the first time The Slipper and the Rose has been available on video in its uncut version, and its legion of fans wouldn't have it any other way. --David Horiuchi ... Read more

Reviews (93)

Better than Roger's and Hammerstein's!
I found this movie one day on the Disney Channel while flipping throug the channels. I only saw the last hour or so, but I was enthralled. I have looked for it for 2 years. Then I discovered it's finally on video. I bought it at once, naturally. This is the most romantic version of the famous tale that I've ever seen. Richard Chamberlain does an outstanding performance as the prince. He's handsome, charming and witty. I'm surprised more of the princesses didn't agree to come to the bride finding ball. Gemma Cravens is the perfect Cinderella: beautiful, sweet, and kind. A princess in her manner and character. Edward and Cinderella are the perfect couple. Their love is touching. And I like all the twists and turns in the story that leave you wondering if maybe the prince won't marry his beloved Cinderella. But of course he does, but the two go through a lot. They have their problems and separations. It's not all roses for them. Though this is a fairy tale, it doesn't seem like it. It's all very believable. And very well done. It didn't lack anything at all. It's just a wonderful, romantic tale, and a joy to watch. Love really does find a way!

HOORAY! A must have for every video library!
I, like most viewers, saw this years ago, and it has been in my heart ever since! I am so thrilled that it is finally being released and others will become acquainted with, what I consider, the greatest Cinderella story ever! The casting is absolutely superb, Richard Chamberlain and Gemma Craven are the epitome of this famous prince and his leading lady! Equally enjoyable is the fairy godmother, whose character is like icing on the cake! The story is very romantic, but also very believable, as each character deals with the demands of protocol. The scenery and musical score speak for themselves! Absolutely superb! I've been singing the songs for years! ("Once I Was Loved", "Rainbows Raced Around The Room," and "The Family Crypt song," which is hilarious, are favorites!) Buy this movie today! It's one you don't want to miss!

A SECRET KINGDOM.....FAR -A-WAY.........SOMEWHERE!
THE SLIPPER AND THE ROSE was one of the last of the great romantic musicals. It is an enchanting production, produced on a grand scale;with lavish, detailed costumes, a talented, all-star cast, and a marvelous academy award-nominated musical score, by the famous Sherman brothers. The musical is pitched as a Cinderella story; but no one pays much attention to Cinderella, as this version focuses mostly on her Prince. Richard Chamberlain steps up to the plate and steals the show; with his stately good looks, beautiful baritone voice, and graceful dance routines. From the very first scene, when he rides up to the castle on his magnificent horse, all eyes remain fixed on this amazingly talented actor; who was born to play royalty. He and the famous Christopher Gable, deliver an unforgetable song and dance routine in the royal family crypt, that is not only a visual delight, but a challenging athletic endeavor as well. Bryan Forbes directed this fanciful, witty, production with his usual "eye for detail". He treats his audience to majestic snow scenes, stately castles and cathedrals, romantic gardens, and a Cinderella ball scene that has "rainbows racing around the room, and shooting stars that begin to zoom"! Gemma Craven is an acceptable Cinderella, but her mediocre talents are overshadowed by the amazing talents of her co-star, Richard Chamberlain. This is a fun, visually pleasing, romantic Cinderella story, told from the Prince's perspective. As always, the regal, romantic Richard Chamberlain, rounds up his audience, and very capably whisks them away to a Secret Kingdom ......far-away....Somewhere!

Very disappointing.
After winning an autographed copy several years ago, I had to wait a long time to unite this DVD with a DVD player. I have always enjoyed the Sherman Brothers' work, from Mary Poppins to 1776, even the Tiki Tiki Tiki Tiki Tiki Room. I was also looking forward to finally watching Michael Hordern onscreen, after falling in love with his voice in the BBC's radio version of The Lord of the Rings (he was a spectacular Gandalf). Now, after all that buildup, what a tremendous letdown. I'm about 40 minutes in and bored out of my skull. The jokes are flat, the lyrics monosyllabic and predictable, the melodies are entirely forgettable, and the acting is entirely two-dimensional.

Not recommended for anyone over the age of 5.

With the best Fairy Godmother ever
I remember seeing this when I was young, but couldn't remember the name of it. I was delighted when I found it again. While some of the songs in this are not the best work ever in a musical, ("Proticoligorically Correct" comes to mind, which in my opinion drags the movie down a bit), the acting of the cast in the rest of the film more than makes up for it. The showstopping song and dance of "Position and Positioning" is particularly fine, and does bring back memories of the rooftop dancing from "Mary Poppins," which was also the work of the creative team on this film.

Even those actors who don't have any lines to speak of add to the fun, including the Queen mother of "the other bride," whose facial expressions while her husband and the King of Euphrania discuss the problem of their disobedient children make me laugh every time I see it.

The leads do a wonderful job in this, particularly Richard Chamberlin, who portrays a very kind and thoughtful prince. As with many veteran actors, you can almost see what he is thinking when he is onscreen. (Veteran, indeed; I still find it hard to believe that he was 40 when he played this role!) The fact that we actually get to know the prince is one of the things that make this retelling of the tale superior to others. He has at least as much screen time as does Gemma Craven, and it adds to the richness of the story.

Gemma Craven, as the main character, does a fine job, managing to stay just this side of sappy. Often with the Cinderella story, I feel the urge to slap the girl silly, most often because the actress in the role is sort of "parroting" goodness. Ms. Craven's performance leaves you believing that Cinderella is simply a noble being, willing even to sacrifice her own happiness for the good of the people in her homeland, and trying to ensure that the man she loves will not be miserable when he finds she has done so. You can't help being delighted for her when things turn out right in the end.

The best performance by far, though, in this movie is that of Annette Crosby as the Fairy Godmother. Rather than the sugary-sweet version that we are served up in the other versions of the Cinderella story, Ms. Crosby's performance is delightfully tart and very funny. This version also finally explains the reason for the "leave before the stroke of midnight" stricture, which has always been an irritating point in the classic fable. *Why* does Cinderella have to leave before midnight? The explanation in this version at least makes sense.

For fans of the Cinderella myth, this is a good version to choose. ... Read more

Description

Bryan Forbes creates an atmosphere of unrelenting suspense in the eerie tale of a professional medium who convinces her weak-willed husband to kidnap a wealthy child for ransom.The fame and publicity she desperately craves will be hers when she helps the police find the child through a seance.The tension and suspense build to a painful level in Seance on a Wet Afternoon, which brought wide acclaim to Kim Stanley and Richard Attenborough for their superlative acting. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

"GOING OFF ONE'S ROCKER"
Unforgettable! Watching Kim Stanley slowly disconnecting her fragile mind from dull gray suburbia circa 1964. As Myra, aptly surnamed Savage and Bill [Richard Attenborough - very unsavage] it's quite like "Keeping Up Appearances" [the Brit. sitcom] curdled.

Dull, meanningless lives behind drab windowshades, part of cloned suburbia houses.....fantastic escapes into the occult, all pretense, or it it? Their lives are dried-up, our Medium to rarely accurate Myra concocts this kidnapping scheme that goes horribly wrong ...... a child is taken, neatly tucked away in their home, but the child turns ill and could die.

Memories of a scratchy victrola incessantly playing "Wings of a Dove", possibly a few table rappings - - - this movie becomes creepier and creepier, and its not the dead - its the living as dead! Not a horror movie, more of a "Portrait of a Lady going Nuts". It's equally quite sad to see how the husband deals with all of this.

Kim Stanley leaves you breathless - a magnificent, but rarely seen talent.

Companions? "The Haunting" [original version], Ingmar Bergman's "Through A Glass Darkly".

A DVD release - intact, with good sound restoration would be lovely, with a suitable sherry, or cup of tea! Either way, save this one for a rainy afternoon, alone!

A FINE, OFF-BEAT FILM.
A very unusual film which plays like a documentary in its approach with hidden cameras in public places. Stanley plays a woman who is on the brink of insanity. She is a psychic who claims contact with the "other side" through her late son, a stillborn child. Because her business is flagging and for the sake of her reputation, Stanley persuades her adoring but essentially weak husband to participate in a twistedly bizarre scheme which concerns the kidnapping of a young girl...This is one of Kim Stanley's rare and wonderful appearances on film, and quite probably her best performance. The subject matter was considered too distasteful by Simone Signoret, who was offered the lead; Margaret Lockwood was then considered, but it was decided that her audience appeal by 1964 had greatly diminished. Although Stanley lost the AA to Julie Andrews for MARY POPPINS, she did covet the New York Film Critic Award for Best Actress.

Greatest Film Performance to Date
I have seen well over a thousand films--including all the most critically acclaimed--but I have yet to see a film performance equalling Kim Stanley's in Seance on a Wet Afternoon. It is truly compelling and to highlight all the other many attributes of the film would detract from what is Stanley's astounding achievement. And just to think that Julie Andrews in Mary Poppins won the Academy Award over Stanley should give everyone pause to assess the real meaning of "Oscar". What more can be said?

"Yes, dear."
"Seance on a Wet Afternoon" is a psychological thriller involving a miserable, middle-aged, middle-class couple. Following the death of their child, Myra (Kim Stanley) becomes a psychic, and her long-suffering husband, Billy, (Richard Attenborough) tolerates and even encourages his wife's exploration of the after-life. Seances held in the darkened living room seem to be a fairly harmless thing, but when Myra concocts a kidnapping scheme to publicize her talents, Billy agrees to help. The plan is to kidnap the daughter of a wealthy London businessman, and Myra intends to 'solve' the mystery of the child's whereabouts using her psychic powers. Naturally, things go wrong.

The relationship between Myra and Billy occupies most of the film, and while a handful of other actors briefly appear, Myra and Billy create most of the drama, and most of the film takes place inside their gloomy home. Myra is domineering, exploitive, and out-of-control, and Billy--the ultimate, hen-pecked husband--is completely under-her-thumb. Their relationship is a study of the power structure within marriage. Myra is an annoying, hideous creature, but Billy loves her. It is through Billy's love and his desire to protect that Myra is empowered, and Billy is exploited and humiliated.

I was flipping through my film guide one day when I noticed the high rating this film I was received, and I was rather intrigued by the film's plot. I'd never heard of the film before, but I was determined to track down a copy. I was not a bit disappointed. The film is black and white, and even although it lacks any of the special effects that modern films include (the kidnap vehicle is a motorbike and side-car), the story held my interest all the way to the unexpected ending. It is the acting that takes this film out of the realm of the average, and the film reminded me of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" for its unmerciful dissection of domestic hell in all of its glory. Kim Stanley really threw herself into the role of Myra. She's at times gloating, but always on the edge of hysteria, and this pushes to the surface when she doesn't get her way. There is one scene when Billy stands behind Myra--only his eyes are visible--Billy's facial expressions are blocked out by Myra's head. Attenborough acts with his eyes, and I thought his performance was magnificent-displacedhuman

Loses a star for the DVD features
This is a 5 star film across the board: terse screenplay, stunning performances, haunting John Barry score, wonderfully understated cinematography, but the transfer was terrible. The audio transfer is the worst. The television had to be turned way up and, as the other reviewer said, then certain parts would be very shrill and make the set vibrate. The little hairs and other things that appear when transferring old film negatives don't bother me as much as poor audio. I really wanted to hear commentary from anyone on this disc, I am also a big fan of subtitles (I don't know why). All that being said, I still have to give it 4 stars. This movie is just that good. I found myself literally on the edge of my seat at times, that's a very rare and wonderful thing.

M ... Read more