Amazon.com essential video

A sensitive yet humorous adaptation of the stage play, this 1970 film directed by William Friedkin (The French Connection, The Exorcist) is one of the first films to openly address gay issues in a matter-of-fact style that largely avoids stereotyping. Shot on one set and featuring a birthday party as the festive setting, a group of friends assemble to celebrate, reminisce, and discuss their lives and the travails of being gay, even as one friend insists he's straight. The night turns from a light celebration to a sometimes-vindictive ordeal of revelation and betrayal, as each man in turn must confess his true feelings. Performed by the original cast of the stage production, the film may feel dated to some, but it still manages to be truthful and entertaining as it explores a subject that to this day is not often addressed. --Robert Lane ... Read more

Reviews (42)

'I don't understand any of it... I never did' ... Michael
Mart Crowley's 'The Boys in the Band' is a minor masterpiece of American cinema that was also instrumental in thrusting gay life and issues into the American mainstream.

Based upon the 1968 Off-Broadway play, this 1970 film adaption by William Friedkin retains all of the stage cast and most of the dialogue. The story is simple enough, Michael Connelly is throwing a party for his friend Harold when an old college roommate, who is presumably straight, arrives and throws the party into turmoil. Michael, who clearly has had a drinking problem, hits the bottle again as a result of the conflict. Kenneth Nelson gives a brilliant performance as Michael who is quickly unravelling with every drink and who begins to tear down his friends one by one. The party climaxes in a 'truth' game which proves oddly cathartic to everyone but Michael.

Many issues have arisen over the years with 'The Boys in the Band'. Were these men mostly stereotypes? Is this work still relevant to gay life? What does it say about where we are in light of where we've been?

Your answers to these questions may well depend on your age. For myself, when first viewing this as a 22 year old in 1987, I found it amusing but ultimately sad and upsetting. A dozen years later of being out in gay life, I have come to learn how masterful this work is and that while times have changed in many ways for the better, many of the issues that the 'boys' were dealing with back then are still being dealt with today. Issues of religious and societal intolerance and the attempt to forge a positive gay identity in an often hostile world are still very much with us today.

I believe the reason 'The Boys in the Band' is so humorous is that the camp humor of that time was largely a coping mechanism of sorts. This is black humor at its best, showing us the brutal honesty of a situation while exposing the many absurdities in it at the same time.

In the end Michael states 'I don't understand any of it, I never did.'... food for thought...

Also: Pick up a copy of '3 Plays by Mart Crowley'. The story of Michael Connelly pre and post "Boys in the Band" is powerfully explored in these two additional plays. (Read the forward 1st!)

A "Must" for all Gay Men
As a friend once put it, the first time you see it (usually in college or freshly minted out-of-the-closet) you're horrified because it is full of self-loathing queens. The second time, in your twenties or after a bit moving in the stream of gay life, you're into it because it's campy and fun. The third time, once you've been around a block more times than you can remember, you love it because it's TRUE! While certainly not to be included in any catalogue of PRIDE-ful moments (and as such was the source of great controversy in the 1970s), this is a film that touches on crucial aspects of gay identity that have remained fairly constant in the post-Stonewall period, a series of questions: sexual and emotional fidelity, pride, self-hatred, fraternal destruction, and gay friendship. Or, another way to put it and to borrow Adrienne Rich's phraseology, "lies, secrets, and silence." The telephone game is the dramatic high point of the film (don't try this at home kids, unless you're three sheets to the wind and have an old rotary phone in the garage!), underscoring the complicated histories gay men bring to their desires. For others, this is the low point of self-loathing, but I find the actors rescue the scene with tenderness and emotive power. For me, the saving grace of the film and its central message is the denouement of Harold's committment to his friendship with the hideous lush Michael, who, after suffering a night of Michael's Gin and Ton witticisms honed to a razor sharp edge while languidly flipping through "The Films of Joan Crawford" (a nice touch), and after reading him within an inch of his life, tells Michael, with real feeling, "Call you tomorrow." And who can't appreciate friendship like that? With this, the film brings to the fore the essence of gay survival, which is friendship, and for that is worthy of viewing and LOVE (and a DVD).

What I am Michael...
Exquisite movie--beautifully directed and smart acting by the cast. It's as if not more timely now than it was then.

Leading 20th Century Work
I think "Boys in the Band" is one of the best plays of the 20th century. It's far, far more than a bunch of self-hating queens camping it up. For one thing, look at how succinctly the playwright develops his characters with just one line: "Cheese it. Here comes the socialite nun!"

A better way to think about the play is as a tragedy concerning the emotional life of Michael, who exemplifies so many of killer competitor types of the 20th century.

When Harold says to Michael, "You're a sad and pathetic man. You're a homosexual and you don't want to be," he's making a larger point that what Michael is really afraid of is his own humanity, not just being seen as a big fairy.

An Important Film on Humanity - Gay or Not
Mart Crowley will always be remembered for this gem of a film (based on the stage play) because of its evocative and dead-on treatment of humanity, particularly that of gay men.

The movie, like the stage play, is set in a New York City apartment. Seven gay men (and one gay prostitute) are going to be attending a bithday party hosted by Michael. As the film opens, we are visually introduced to the main characters. We then see Michael's smart and proper apartment and know that he is preparing for the party. Michael's weekend boyfriend Donald arrives and they talk about everything from anxiety attacks to financial woes to the effects of alcohol.

Suddenly, everything is turned on its head as Michael gets a very odd and uncharacteristic phone call from his college roommate, Alan. Alan is in town and wants to meet up with Michael, but Michael isn't sure that Alan should arrive in the middle of a birthday party for gay men. Alan breaks down and begs to see Michael. They agree on a quick drink and Michael and Donald explore how they are going to handle a straight man at a gay party.

Thinking the doorbell is Alan, Michael opens it to find that Emory, Hank and Larry have arrived. He tells them what is going on and then Bernard, another guest, arrives. Michael demands that everyone play it cool and straight while Alan is there.

As the party gets underway with appetizers and music, Michael gets a phone call from Alan expressing regrets about his breakdown and suggests they get together for lunch the next day. Michael is relieved and the party starts to flow even better.

Michael, Bernard, Emory, and Larry begin a dance routine they learned on Fire Island and don't hear the doorbell. When Hank answers the door, it isn't Harold, but Alan, who has dropped by unannounced. He sees Michael and the other men dancing and there is a grand uncomfortable moment as the party comes to a screeching halt.

Alan and Michael talk and then as Alan gets ready to leave, a fight ensued between Alan and Emory with Emory ending up with a bloody face.

The rest of the movie is a very real, very poignant look at human nature. There is an attempt to expose someone in the closet, a look at fidelity within a gay relationship, the fear of growing old and a wonderfully crafted discussion on the nature of beauty.

Although all of the actors in the film are excellent, Cliff Gorman as the effiminate Emory steals the show. (Gorman, incidentially, would go on to portray Lenny Bruce in the stage play "Lenny" and would receive high acclaim for his work only to be replaced by Dustin Hoffman for the movie version.)

What makes the film work for all mature audiences is that the character portrayals are seemless. We can all see some of our own faults in at least one of the characters.

The only drawback is that this film is not yet out on DVD, although it should be!

If you get a chance to see this film, do so. It is a very fine piece of film that deserves all the acclaim it gets. ... Read more

Description

Sexual thriller with Al Pacino as a young cop who must go undercover as a gay 'cruiser' in New York City. There's a homicidal homophobe on the streets, brutally killing gay men, and it's up to Pacino to stop him. Shot on location in several gay bars of the era. ... Read more

Reviews (39)

Huh? What happened?
It is really bizarre watch one of the Corleones playing a leather daddy - but that's just what Pacino does (has he ever played any other part in all the films he's made?). But what is more bizarre is that this film was ever green lighted. It is based on a book that had to have been better than the tripe here. I've seen this movie several times; each time hoping that I will actually be able to figure out "who done it". Friedkin, who is typically an excellent director, leaves the ending open for question (in my opinion) and as such confuses the viewer. I have read that Friedkin did this on purpose, but I don't know why. When I want to watch a mystery film, I expect to have some resolution at the end. This films doesn't provide me with that satisfaction.

Further, this is a VERY violent and repugnant film, depicting a small segment of the gay community, but the casual viewer isn't aware of that fact. It's a dark, depressing, and angry film that seems to not know what it wants to say or how to say it.

A Great-Thinking Person's Thriller
Cruising showcases one of Al Pacino's greatest performances as a rookie police officer who is sent undercover to investigate a series of gay murders.

I have watched this William Friedkin-directed film several times and always walk away with a different interpretation as to the events that I had just witnessed: Is the Pacino character straight or gay? Does the Pacino character actually engage in any gay sex acts while undercover - or does he fake it (we never actually see him do anything). Does the Pacino character become a killer at the end of the film - or did someone else kill Pacino's next door neighbor, Ted? And was that Pacino going to a gay club at the end of the film, or was that a flashback?

The Pacino character undergoes a complex, emotional catharsis - but it is always unclear to me if it was for the better - or for the worse.

This is Friedkin's third best film. His best were The Exorcist, To Live and Die In L.A. - with The French Connection coming in fourth.

Sadly, Friedkin - once a great artist - has forgotten how to make films anymore (ever see Jade?). But at least we have those four great ones to remind future directors of how to craft a film.

Underated film
I first heard about cruising when I was watching a documentary on Al Pacino and I couldn't belive that I had never heard of it. The film looked very Dark and I couldn't wait to see it. I waited six whole months to see when eventually I spent twelve pounds to watch it on filmfour. I taped it so I could watch it again. I was stunned at how much people didn't like the film. The film was a very interesting study of the gay underworld and Pacino's performance as a gay undercover cop was great. Although it does have some unexplained parts. Like the part where the naked cop is slapping Pacino and a killer suspect. I've watched the film many times and I still can't work out the ending. The only thing I can think of is that Pacino is the killer.
Overall it was a great film with a few confusing moments.

Cruisin
I really liked this movie.My brother has it on vhs. I have all of Al Pacino's DVD's and would like to own this movie as well. Please release this one on DVD-I do not buy VHS. As each movie comes out on DVD of Al's-I buy it. I wait until it comes out on DVD.Please release it!

Thanks. I am a big fan of AL PACINO!

It's not supposed to be a documentary.
It's hard to tell what William Friedkin is driving at in this grim tour of New York City's leathers bars. Al Pacino plays a detective who infiltrates this fringe of the homosexual world to flush out a killer, and whose own sexual identity becomes blurred in the process. It starts out strong but ultimately is too confusing and clichéd to be called "good." ... Read more

Reviews (35)

Doesn't stand up to the original
Despite fine performances by all, especially Jack Lemmon in the Fonda role, this remake does not even come close to the original. It lacks the punch of the original and not all the actors meet the standards set by the original actors. Even the great Hume Cronyn, as good as he is, doesn't compare to his predecessor. Maybe I am disappointed in this movie because I saw the original first and judge it by that standard. On it's own, it's not a bad film but once you've made a classic why remake it? Do you really think you can get it better. Don't waste your money. Buy the original.

What a remake!
I consider myself a very demanding movie watcher, and this one definitely satisfies my expectations. I had the chance to see both 1957 and 1997 versions for "12 angry men", and I must say my vote goes to the recent one. Friedkin manages to create a whole atmosphere which seems much more realistic to me than the rather rigid and sometimes mechanic performances shown on the earlier version. In my opinion, Friedkin's cast looks so natural in their expressions and personality, they don't seem to be 'acting', which is a fault often seen in older movies. Characters and psychological profiles were improved so that you recognize and identify everyone of them, and you have a feeling no man's missing and no man's unnecesary. Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott offer an astonishing display of talent, and Scott's final monologue makes Lee J Cobb's performance look pale and opaque. If I were to choose a lawyer, I'd take Lemmon instead of Fonda, no doubt about it. The variety of the cast brings a refreshing, believable and solid mosaic of personalities I just don't see in Lumet's film (1957). Don't turn your back on this remake. You may be missing a great movie.

Nice effort, but doesn't stand up to the original
I really don't think a masterpiece like 12 ANGRY MEN needs a remake. This remake of the classic 1957 film makes many good efforts, but falls short in many points. First of all, I think Scott is excellent, and could stand serious comparison with Cobb in the original. (Alright, maybe his final monologue isn't quite as cyclonic as Cobb's, but perhaps Scott was wise in not trying to emulate that.) Many of the other actors are also very good. But some of the actors miss the mark on their characterizations. Olmos' watchmaker is a confused mess. (Who is he? Where is he from? What is his social class?) Gandolfini's Juror # 6 is surly and disagreeable, unlike Edward Binns' kindly original. The actor playing Juror # 5 is too confident and bold; in the original, this character was a scared and self-conscious young man who identified with the defendant. I admit that making Juror # 10 a former Nation of Islam member was a creative choice. But why does the judge (female in this version) not set up the atmosphere of physical discomfort and indifference, which are important themes in the movie? And why does # 10 decribe the defendant as a "common ignorant slob"? His appearance and dress do not suggest this! In the original movie, ALL the actors were superb and perfect for their parts; there were no weak links.

Another problem I have with this movie is that in some places it fastidiously modernizes, while in others it stays stubbornly in the 1950's. Why are there two Europeans on the jury? Before I saw the movie I thought sure there would be a Hispanic, an Asian, or a Middle Easterner. Why does Juror # 7 still sell marmalade as in the original? (Danza seems more like someone who would sell sports equipment or big-screen TV's!) Why does Juror #12 still present the dated stereotype of the 50's advertizing man? Why is the Olmos character still a watchmaker? Indeed, the screenplay was adapted by Reginald Rose, the writer for the 1957 version, and it is pretty close to the original script. I think in some instances he should have changed more than he did. The black and white and the camera work of the original do a much better job of creating the atmosphere of heat, claustrophobia, and grittiness in the jury room. And of course the central problem of updating this movie is that juries today would probably not consist entirely of men.

But above all, I find that this remake lacks the depth and richness of the original. I could spend all day analyzing the 1957 version, its many telling details, its layers of meaning, the countless psychological insights which the actors lend to their portrayals. Not so here. A case in point is Lemmon. His performance is good as far as it goes, but it is straightforward and one-dimensional. He has none of the complexity and shades of self-doubt that Fonda brought to the role. He seems more like a self-assured amateur lawyer than an architect pulled from the street. To sum it all up, I think the original 1957 12 ANGRY MEN is a timeless classic that neeeds no updating. This version has some good performances and is interesting to watch, but in the end it is superfluous.

A Great Success
This movie was simply mesmerizing, I saw the first 12 angry men on AMC. But it was very tedious, and boring. My mother got summoned to jury duty a few months later and she would come home pissed off that she had to do this boring civil duty. so one night she stopped by BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO and rented the new version of 12 Angry Men and it blew us away. We still watch this video at least two times a week, Because it's hilarious, and refreshing to see the diversity in the cast (mainly due to a 40 year time time difference in the two movies) . At the same time it makes you think. I love all the performances by these fantastic actors. Especially those of Mykelti Milliamson, and George C. Scott, potraying the angriest jurors of all. I love when people can let their rage take over and show us all their real feelings towards people from other races, countries,etc.

Very good!
Excellent remake, I think this one is better than the original. George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon are at their absolute best. Highly recommended. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

hey, it was funny back then and it's still funny now
I have read the reviews of some others, and yeah, it was a relatively low budget movie. And this was during Chevy Chase' hayday of movies that had genius, but unrealized; much like modern problems. It's something about his quiet wit, like his Ty Cobb character in Caddyshack. Maybe I'm just being nostalgic. But didn't you laugh when he was demonstrating the machine gun with the bottle opener to the guerilla fighters? Wasn't it funny when he held up the mugger when he was being held up? Wasn't it funny when he got shot in the foot AGAIN?! Wasn't it funny when the Luck-up team was more concerned about the air-conditioner over the drone?!

"What's a place like this doing around a girl like you?"

"Do you mind, I just lost my husband"
"Well, we have a few minutes, we could look for him."

"I like your flame job...I'm just gonna give it a little touch up!"

Uninspired satire on the military-industrial complex
This flick satirizes the dreaded military-industrial complex, but it resembles the acquisitions process more than it realizes. Chevy Chase plays a low-level arms contractor, selling cheap (booby-trapped urinals) and used weapons to foreigners who should be spending more time and money on their own impoverished and illiterate citizens. On a selling trip to a south American dictatorship (where chickens strut thruought the presidential palace), he meets a desperate and suicidal corporate rep for a larger and more serious contractor - "Lock-Up", with a more serious product, the Buzzard pilot-less aircraft. Not simply a drone, the Buzzard completely replaces all piloted warplanes - in concept. When the rep meets his end, Chase steps in and sells the Buzzard (along with his own sub-machinegun cameras) to the dictator. Three things complicate Chase on his return. His longtime partner, an ex-jet jock played by Gregory Hines, has found religion, complicating his eagerness to sell weapons of mass destruction door-to-door. Chase also runs afoul of Sigourney Weaver, the Lock-Up rep's grieving widow. She nearly kills him trying to steal back the signed contract for the Buzzard. But the Buzzard itself is the biggest snag. After a disastrous public debut, all of Lock-Up's customers cancel their contracts, and it's up to Chevy Chase to snag the dictator's contract again. No longer selling used flamethrowers, Chase is exposed to the outright corruption of the global arms industry in its heyday (Reagan's first term; extensive conventional conflicts using sophisticated weapons in the Falklands and the Mideast), receiving advice and support from all sides desirous of preserving the concept of stable conventional warfare through the 21st century.

So, why does this flick die? Military weapons are designed to solve a problem like "how do we shoot down an incoming missile?" or, in this case "how do we shoot down the dreaded conspiracy of militant generals, greedy defense contractors, corrupt third world dictators, lobbyists and our own politicians"? In each case, we're told that the answer is simple, yet it soon proves difficult, complex, expensive and, ultimately, doesn't even work. How could you misfire against a target as ripe as the military-industrial complex? Though this is a comedy, nobody looks or sounds remotely funny. At times, the script becomes outright nasty (Weaver's character is forced to "service" the dictator as the screen focuses on a montage of military hardware; the scene ends when the "client" proves he is NOT master of his domain). "Deal" could have played it as a straight parody (like MASH) but the script is too heavy-handed to let the defense industry get off lightly - the flick climaxes at an arms-industry expo played over the top with outrageous dance numbers. Bereft of much plot, the script suddenly realizes it needs a more concrete villain than the MIC and turns to Lock-Up's CEO for help. A stone-faced corporate type, the expo positively unhinges him. "We're state of the art" he says in a wide-eyed frenzy not unlike Jimmy Cagney in "White Heat" ("Top of the World"), just so the film can end on a happy note with his downfall. There's got to be a better way to satirize the defense-acquisitions process, just like there's got to be a better way to take on Saddam Hussein, it's just that nobody has figured out how.

Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad
Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Film.
...Of course, that's just my opinion.

Chase, Weaver, Hines having fun with an Error-Prone Drone!!!
The Reagan defense-spendin' years brought us this flick about a 2nd-rate arms dealer (Eddie Muntz - Chase) down on his luck who happens to be in the wrong place at the right time to capitalize on a $300 million dollar combat drone airplane contract. Problem is, the plane suffers from a few design flaws and the USA doesn't want to buy it. But there's money to be made.

The special effects are only studio-quality, much like we saw in many movies of the 1980's (Aliens of 1979 being an enjoyable exception). Standard Chase humor here and I like Gregory Hines as the troubled arms dealer discovering his spiritual side. During his struggles with his new-found Faith, Hines has to take a flamethrower to a 1974-or-so Monte Carlo to resolve a dispute.

There's the banana-republic military dictator who's interested in the drone (the Peacemaker) and Sigourney Weaver. Great cameo appearance by Richard Libertini who I enjoyed in Fletch, Fletch Lives and The In-Laws. Libertini is an arms dealer, based on the real-life arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi who dated Mary Hart (Miss Million Dollar Legs herself).

I'd give the movie 3.5 stars, because of the nice, odd touches like the Pep Boys automotive commercial (Manny, Moe and Jack!) that shows up on one of the computer monitors. Though not his best movie, this is one of Chase's better efforts, unlike Modern Problems or Nothing But Trouble (ouch). Not the greatest movie in the world, but a little fun, especially when Chase turns the tables on a would-be robber. Listen for the classic subtle Chase insults to his arms clients at the beginning ("you smell like you smell now") and his twists of the cliche's ("what's a place like this doing around a girl like that?"). Kind of a different film, but a little interestng footage of Reagan's defense build-up speeches.

Very Little Known Funny Satire
A gun salesman (Chevy Chase) turns to selling planes with a mysterious woman (Sigourney Weaver) and a Jesus fanatic (Gregory Hines). Very witty, very funny. It's like Dr. Stranglove, Wag the Dog, and Monty Python put together. It's a very little known comedy, I don't think it was received well when it came out, but it's a really good film. You should probably see it. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

See it for the atmosphere - and the turns
Jason Robardes shines as the well-meaning if manipulative comedian and Britt Ekland is slightly miscast as an innocent Amish girl. The story is however subsidiary to the beautifully created setting of a burlesque night club. The music in particular enhances the atmosphere as do the claustrophobic sets and authentic performances.
The film loses focus because of its length and the sheer number of stars. Sometimes it seems Elliot Gould is the star, sometimes, Robardes. But the nominal stars of the film are upstaged by both Norman Wisdom who throws everything into his performance, and the great Bert Lahr, more well-known as the cowardly lion from the Wizard Of Oz, who died during filming. This is not a deep film, but an affectionate (and reportedly accurate) portrait of a time gone by.

This is comedy and nostalgia at its best! Genuine Good Time!
Seeing Britt Ekland step off the subway and observe the sights of the Lower East Side as the picture slips from color to black & white in the opening scene is great to see again after many years is refreshing! I have to admit that this is one of my favorite films and William Friedkin's zestful direction and Bert Lahr's splendid appearance as Professor Spats is truly a great thing to see. Allthough the subject of the early days of striptease isn't the best subject for families, this could work out to be a good family film (!!) and for people willing to find out what burlesque and vaudeville was actually like, this Norman Lear ("The Jeffersons") production is a visual treat. This is funny, vibrant, and highly nostalgic! See it and I can guarantee that you'll enjoy it. Take my word for it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Neither director William Friedkin nor star David Caruso could redeem this vulgar, nasty script by Joe Eszterhas. Caruso is a politically ambitious assistant D.A. investigating the gruesome murder of a San Francisco bigwig. Too many clues point in the direction of his former girlfriend (Linda Fiorentino), a shrink who has a secret sideline as call girl to the rich and kinky. For good measure, she's now married to Caruso's best friend, Chazz Palminteri. Friedkin has done much better work in other places; even he can't perform much magic here, though he tries, with a solid car chase (that suffers in comparison to those he staged in French Connection and To Live and Die in L.A.). --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (26)

Mystery and suspense at its best
Some fantasies go too far. Money, sex and power are the things that most corrupt Los Angeles citizens in the modern world and in the classy thriller "Jade", penned by "Basic Instinct" screenwriter Joe Eszterhas and directed by "The Exorcist" director William Friedkin. This is a film I will definitely run out and buy on DVD now that I just got a DVD player. The film, despite many peoples' horrible opinions, is mystery and suspense at its best, delievring powerful dialogue, a chilling and provocative musical score, and unique directing and editing. Not to mention the terrific car chase scene that took the cast and crew three weeks to shoot in the cooperative Chinatown in California. Car chase scenes have become a trifle trite, however it remains tastefully done and riveting in this also riveting film. "Jade" shows that there is a dark side to people of high and low levels of power, and that they will commit heinous and destructive acts to remain in the chair of power, and as clinical psychologist Katrina Gavin (the wonderful and talented Linda Fiorentino) says, "The people who commit these acts are in many ways no different from you and me. But they are no longer able to control their urges. They disassociate themselves from their own actions, often experiencing an hysterical blindness. They are blind to the darkness within themselves."

The car chase alone is worth the price of admission
Jade is an average film. I enjoyed it, but I can see where some didn't. Its a little seedy, and aside from that angle it might have a been there, done that type of plot. The performances are all good. However, the real gem of the film is the fantastic car chase through San Francisco. Hill jumping, collisions and suspense as one character chases an anonymous killer.

It's in the top 5 chases with the all time greats of Bullitt, To Live and Die in LA, French Connection and Ronin. Very tense and realistic scene. Not to be missed!

Seductive.... Jade....Cheating.... Murder...Excellent Movie
Suspensful,Seductive,Excellent Movie!! Another great role for Chazz Palmenteri. No matter what movie he's in or what role hes given he always takes charge! I Love HIM!! The movie is based on a murder in the begining and David Curoso is the investigator and he has to figure out who killed "him". His best friend is married to his ex girl who you can tell is still in love with. Im sorry that wife of Matt Gavins (Chazz Palmenteri) is a hoe! David has to find out who "Jade" is because that will link to the murderer. The Ending is so unexpected and Suprising! I recommend this movie to everyone! Its Great~ but i must say Chazz Palmenteri shows his characters more as a gangster like in "Bronx Tale" You Should Be more in those movies Chazz, your the big boss man who takes over every movie i've seen him in! You go Boy!~

Seductive "Jade"
A corporate man is found murdered and a D.A. (David Caruso) investigates the gruesome crime. He thinks it's his ex-girlfriend, psychologist (Linda Fiorentino) who did it. Ok, there goes the rest of the movie. Better storylines develop on "As the World Turns." All this movie needed was 'small people' with magical powers. But "Jade" isn't a typical movie that deals with 'the dark side.' I mean this woman was icy cold (who I might add is gorgeous)! She made Darth Vader look like an amateur. A huge car chase in Chinatown highlights the movie and the direction by William Friedkin is fine. Ok movie.

Jade is an seducing film by Linda Fiorentino
Basic Instinct screenwriter Joe Esterhas' wicked knowledge of the trangsgressions of the rich and the powerful are deftly exposed by director William Friedkin and Linda Fiorentino. She is perfectly cast as the psychologist and as the illicit liason Jade. Chazz Palminteri, her husband, and David Caruso, a tad young for the role, makes for an interesting storyline. The graphic sexuality exhibited is for adults only but the movie delivers the seedy underbelly of politics and power and illustrates how a woman scorned can enter into a circle from which she has no escape. Unlike the Last Seduction, Fiorentino is the victim and not the temptress yearning for the love she doesn't have. Unfortunately, her husband isn't it either. With Loreena McKennitt's soulful sounds and Linda's great performance, she eventually gets under your skin as a woman looking for love in all the wrong places. Maybe that was the moral rather than Joe Esterhas's preoccupation with all the women he couldn't have in high school (as one critic wrote). Deftly directed, superbly acted, and well-executed. Jade is worth a watch only because of Linda Fiorentino's emotional resonance and convincing performance. Chazz is as excellent as ever. -Felecia Constance Rowe ... Read more

Reviews (74)

4.2 out of 5
Adapted from Robin Moore's fact-based novel, THE FRENCH CONNECTION was the breakthrough film for both direction William Friedkin, who later went on to direct THE EXORCIST, and Gene Hackman. Hackman stars in his Academy Award-winning role as "Popeye" Doyle, a New York City cop who, along with partner "Cloudy" Russo (Roy Scheider), stumbles upon a drug ring headed by a Frenchman (Fernando Rey) who uses an innocent-seeming actor (Frederic de Pasquale) to cover the operation. Along with Hackman's forementioned award for "Best Actor", the film also took in Best Director for Friedkin; Best Film Editing; Best Writing (Ernest Tidyman) and a deserved Best Picture. The chase scenes are outstanding and some of the best ever filmed; Hackman is excellent in one of his greatest roles. Action fans won't want to pass this one by; followed by FRENCH CONNECTION II and a floppish TV movie.

Still love that car chase
It's getting a tad frayed around the edges, but "The French Connection" has stood up remarkably well over thirty years, thanks largely to a great cast, a great director (William Friedkin) and a crackerjack plot - not to mention the mother of all car chases. Only Gene Hackman could have played Popeye Doyle, a straight-up jerk whose bull-in-the-china-closet operating method rolls over everything in his way, including his own colleagues. Playing his partner admirably well is Roy Scheider as Buddy Russo, whose patience at Doyle's antics sometimes wears as thin as the soles on his shoes. The two of them are narcs, and they are out to intercept the arrival and distribution of a monster shipment of heroin from Marseilles by a drug kingpin named Alan Charnier. The movie zips along as Doyle and Charnier attempt to outwit each other; one of the best sequences in the film is Doyle following Charnier along the streets of midtown Manhattan into the subway (native New Yorkers have fun identifying the path they take) and losing him on the train. Doyle in his own way is as repulsive as the drug dealers he's up against; he's a racist, selfish, insensitive, uncaring about anybody but himself. But his single-minded mania serves him well in this chase; he'll bring down his prey one way or another. The classic scene in this movie is, of course, the car chase under the elevated subway that practically defined the term "car chase"; it's mind-boggling to try to imagine how Friedkin managed to shoot this sequence. The supporting actors in the movie are excellent; I especially liked Tony LoBianco as the middleman Sal Boca, Arlene Farber as his wife Angie, Benny Marino as his brother Lou (does the family that deals together stay together?), Patrick McDermott as the cool-as-ice chemist testing the purity of Charnier's stock and stamping it with his seal of approval; and above all, the sinister performance given by Marcel Bozzuffi as Pierre Nicoli, Charnier's hitman, who will shoot anyone in cold blood without batting an eyelash. The cinematography has a kind of grainy quality that enhances the gritty story being played out. Even though it seems a bit dated, "The French Connection" still stands out as one of the high points of American film.

the 4th time viewing got even better experience
simply fantastic! the 2nd dvd got lot of significant details about this great movie making. the quality of the dvds are so crispily sharp. very very good viewing experience. gene hackman admitted it set off his career and confessed the difficulties to bring himself into playing the popei role. by viewing his performance only proved that he's one of the greatest modern time actors. think back....almost all of his movies roles were great, no matter how lousy the movies themself was. gene hackman is a national treasure.

Groundbreaking
After two decades of watching squeaky clean LAPD Sergeant Joe Friday on "Dragnet", and decades of Chicago's favorite fed, Elliot Ness on "The Untouchables", and then the innocent buffoons of the NYPD on "Car 54 Where Are You?", it was little wonder that people of the t.v. era were shocked by this movie's unflinching look at New York's lawmen. THE FRENCH CONNECTION, if not for anything else, will be remembered as the film that ultimately de-romanticized the noble cop legend. Popeye Doyle (marvelouly portrayed by Gene Hackman) is the anti-cop. He is not a crooked cop by any means. However, he's bigoted, amoral, prone to violence, self-possessed, and oblivious to the rules of police conduct. Norman Mailer once said of bad cops that they are sworn to uphold the law but feel they are above it; that they are supposed to keep the peace, but are inherently violent. That's Popeye Doyle.

The plotline of the film is fairly simple: the police receive information about a major drug operation about to go down, and they try to prevent it and arrest everyone involved. But Director Friedkin infuses the film with the complexities and dreariness inherent in pursuing such a case. I developed an appreciation of the hours of stake-out drudgery that the police go through. And then, of course, there's the danger every policeman confronts.

There's something for everyone in this film, including the greatest car chase in movies (even if the car is chasing an elevated train). Note: the elevated tracks that Gene Hackman drives under are the same tracks that appeared in the opening credits of "Welcome Back, Kotter" and, more importantly, they are the same tracks that John Travolta saunters under in the open scene of "Saturday Night Fever". If you're interested, those are the elevated tracks of the West End line (now the "D" train) on 86th Street in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn.

Good but not great
This movie was good, but it wasn't THAT good.
The ending itself is a HUGE left-off-hanging disappointment.
It doesn't really stand out from a lot of other cop movies that received far less attention. ... Read more

Reviews (28)

Wow
The Exorcist is the scariest movie ever no matter what version you see it in. I prefer "THE VERSION YOU'VE NEVER SEEN" myself, but any version will do. I love this version. It is expertly well made. It has great acting, great plot, great story, and very scary music. This movie is a part of the unholy trinity of movies. The Exorcist, The Omen, and Rosemary's Baby make up this unholy trinity, so I suggest while you are here, might as well buy the unholy trinity. Like I said, doesn't matter wich version you get, but I would recommend THE VERSION YOU'VE NEVER SEEN over this one, but it doesn't matter which version you see, it's still the scariest movie ever made, and don't let anyone tell you differently.

The Possession
There's a young girl who is possessed by the Devil. Well, the family is scared when the girl makes everything unholy. She has a strange look and her looks is terrible. Well, they need an exorcist to take away the demon from her. What they eventually have to do? Well, check it yourself! This is quite a scary movie but there's of course even scarier movies so don't expect too much. There's very scary scenes, like that one when the girl walks on the stairs...! Hahaahahhaa, watch out, the demon is coming to your living room...!!!

It's Simply the Best!!
This quite simply in my opinion is the best horror if not the best movie I have ever seen.

I say this because I believe that besides "The Godfather" I have watched this film a ton of times and I don't get tired of it.The dialogue is perfect.The actors were tremendous to the point that I don't believe any other actors could have done better.I wish that I was there the very first time it was presented to the public in 1973,but I was only 4.This film will never become outdated in it's material and it's classic theme.There will never be another film which could deliver such shock value no matter the vulgar language.There have been countless imitations such as "Beyond The Door",but this film is quite simply the BEST of it's kind.

DO I NEED TO SAY ANYTHING?
Just go see it. THE SCARIEST FREAKING MOVIE EVER MADE, AND THAT'S THE FINAL WORD!!...

SCARIEST MOVIE EVER !!!
This IS THE SCARIEST MOVIE EVER MADE! Alot scarier than those looser films like Halloween, The Shining, Silence of the Lambs, The Changeling, The Ring, Rosemary's Baby, and The Omen. Those movies are just child's play compared to this. I'd recommedn watching it alone in the dark for the ultimate experience, and be warned this is the real deal. SCARIEST MOVIE EVER MADE! Don't let anyone tell you differently, because they'll be lying through there teeth. ... Read more

Reviews (26)

Mystery and suspense at its best
Some fantasies go too far. Money, sex and power are the things that most corrupt Los Angeles citizens in the modern world and in the classy thriller "Jade", penned by "Basic Instinct" screenwriter Joe Eszterhas and directed by "The Exorcist" director William Friedkin. This is a film I will definitely run out and buy on DVD now that I just got a DVD player. The film, despite many peoples' horrible opinions, is mystery and suspense at its best, delievring powerful dialogue, a chilling and provocative musical score, and unique directing and editing. Not to mention the terrific car chase scene that took the cast and crew three weeks to shoot in the cooperative Chinatown in California. Car chase scenes have become a trifle trite, however it remains tastefully done and riveting in this also riveting film. "Jade" shows that there is a dark side to people of high and low levels of power, and that they will commit heinous and destructive acts to remain in the chair of power, and as clinical psychologist Katrina Gavin (the wonderful and talented Linda Fiorentino) says, "The people who commit these acts are in many ways no different from you and me. But they are no longer able to control their urges. They disassociate themselves from their own actions, often experiencing an hysterical blindness. They are blind to the darkness within themselves."

The car chase alone is worth the price of admission
Jade is an average film. I enjoyed it, but I can see where some didn't. Its a little seedy, and aside from that angle it might have a been there, done that type of plot. The performances are all good. However, the real gem of the film is the fantastic car chase through San Francisco. Hill jumping, collisions and suspense as one character chases an anonymous killer.

It's in the top 5 chases with the all time greats of Bullitt, To Live and Die in LA, French Connection and Ronin. Very tense and realistic scene. Not to be missed!

Seductive.... Jade....Cheating.... Murder...Excellent Movie
Suspensful,Seductive,Excellent Movie!! Another great role for Chazz Palmenteri. No matter what movie he's in or what role hes given he always takes charge! I Love HIM!! The movie is based on a murder in the begining and David Curoso is the investigator and he has to figure out who killed "him". His best friend is married to his ex girl who you can tell is still in love with. Im sorry that wife of Matt Gavins (Chazz Palmenteri) is a hoe! David has to find out who "Jade" is because that will link to the murderer. The Ending is so unexpected and Suprising! I recommend this movie to everyone! Its Great~ but i must say Chazz Palmenteri shows his characters more as a gangster like in "Bronx Tale" You Should Be more in those movies Chazz, your the big boss man who takes over every movie i've seen him in! You go Boy!~

Seductive "Jade"
A corporate man is found murdered and a D.A. (David Caruso) investigates the gruesome crime. He thinks it's his ex-girlfriend, psychologist (Linda Fiorentino) who did it. Ok, there goes the rest of the movie. Better storylines develop on "As the World Turns." All this movie needed was 'small people' with magical powers. But "Jade" isn't a typical movie that deals with 'the dark side.' I mean this woman was icy cold (who I might add is gorgeous)! She made Darth Vader look like an amateur. A huge car chase in Chinatown highlights the movie and the direction by William Friedkin is fine. Ok movie.

Jade is an seducing film by Linda Fiorentino
Basic Instinct screenwriter Joe Esterhas' wicked knowledge of the trangsgressions of the rich and the powerful are deftly exposed by director William Friedkin and Linda Fiorentino. She is perfectly cast as the psychologist and as the illicit liason Jade. Chazz Palminteri, her husband, and David Caruso, a tad young for the role, makes for an interesting storyline. The graphic sexuality exhibited is for adults only but the movie delivers the seedy underbelly of politics and power and illustrates how a woman scorned can enter into a circle from which she has no escape. Unlike the Last Seduction, Fiorentino is the victim and not the temptress yearning for the love she doesn't have. Unfortunately, her husband isn't it either. With Loreena McKennitt's soulful sounds and Linda's great performance, she eventually gets under your skin as a woman looking for love in all the wrong places. Maybe that was the moral rather than Joe Esterhas's preoccupation with all the women he couldn't have in high school (as one critic wrote). Deftly directed, superbly acted, and well-executed. Jade is worth a watch only because of Linda Fiorentino's emotional resonance and convincing performance. Chazz is as excellent as ever. -Felecia Constance Rowe ... Read more

Description

In this anthology series, the legendary 1950's comic book rises from the dead as one of the most innovative, terrifying and frightfully funny horror shows on television.Each bone chilling adventure features a star-studded cast and is hosted by its slightly decaying master of ceremonies, the Crypt Keeper. From behind the camera, Tales From The Crypt boasts some of Hollywood's top talent and biggest names from television and films; from producers, to directors to composers.So, turn down the lights, lock your doors and join the Crypt Keeper with his fiendishly famous friends for unforgettable adventures, macabre, murder and mayhem. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

3 classic Tales from the Crypt episodes
I've owned this video for a long time now but it is always fun to watch. Only Sin Deep is such a great story and Lea Thompson does such a great job in it. Lover Come Hack to Me is the second story in the video and it is a pretty creepy tale, but the third episode Collection Completed is more comical. Maybe they should have titled this video Tales from the Crypt Wives from hell, considering all three episides have somthing to do with woman viciously killing their men. If you liked the Tales from the Crypt t.v. show, then you will really enjoy all three of these classic episodes.

One of the earlier "Crypt's" , it is also one of the best!
Considered to be "Volume 2" of our series, I will be reviewing "...Only Sin Deep" , "Lover Come Hack To Me" , and "Collection Complete" , all contained in the approximate 90-minute video. "..Only Sin Deep" , starring Lea Thompson, is the tale of a street girl who just needs a little cash. She gets it, all right, from a pawn store owner, in an unusual way. She rises to the top of her game, but no sooner does she notice something is changing...something truely horrifying.

"Lover Come Hack To Me" , starring Stephen Shellen , is the story of tortured love. When a gold digger marries a wealthy young lady, things really heat up the wedding night...just not the way you might think. Amanda Plummer co-stars in this houmerous shocker, professing the old adage: "What Goes around...comes around". "Collection Completed" is the story of a fresh off reiree, Jonas (M. Emmet Walsh) who looks forward to spending quality time with his loving wife Anita (Audra Lindley) , if only she did'nt have so many pesky animals! How Jonas hates them! So he starts a new hobby. Taxidermy. Perhaps Anita will follow up likewise...just not in the way you expect. These gory tales would make any horror buff proud. And just to make things clear, I am NOT writing any of my reviews from the back of the box! These are mine! Later!

ALL 3!!!!!! GREAT!!!!!!!
I LOVED ALL THREE OF THESE STORIES. THE FIRST, ONLY SIN DEEP HAS GREAT ACTING FROM LEA THOMPSON, AND IS SCRIPTED VERY WELL. THE SECOND STORY DOESNT HAVE ANY GREAT TWISTS, AND IS VERY PREDICTABLE, BUT IS STILL VERY ENTERTAINING. THE THIRD STORY IS EXTRODINARY IT HAS A GREAT TWIST AT THE END, AND A VERY COMEDIC STRUCTURE. THIS TAPE IS WELL WORTH A WATCH. END ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Tales from the Crypt doesn't disappoint in this video
What does a bone-chilling story, a tomb, and a rotting corpse have in common? Tales from the Crypt! What else? This video contains DEAD WAIT with one of the best comedians/actors in history, Whoopi Goldberg. She plays a medicine woman on an island that is being taken over by a group of rebels. At the same time, a young man named Red is planning to take a valuable black pearl. What happens when their paths cross?

Yet another great 'Crypt video, sure to send you shivers!
This film contains the episodes (which I will be reviewing) "Dead Wait", "People Who Live In Brass Hearses" and "Seance". I can't speak for other reviewers on this collection, but I found all installments in this video to be well-written and entertaining. "Dead Wait", which features hit TV and film star Whoppi Goldberg (who does a comedic stint with the Crypt Keeper at the end) is a tale of the strange cult of Voodoo and it's supposed magic. But how high do sacrifices go to steal a priceless treasure? Co-Starring James Remar and John Rhys-Davies, there should be lots of "heads rolling" after you see this tale! "People Who Live In Brass Hearses", starring Bill Paxton, in the tale of a common street robber and his mishappen brother (acclaimed film star Brad Dourif) as they try to take down a helpless Ice Cream vender. At the climax, the boys realize that two heads, legs, arms, etc. are better than one... "Seance" , starring Cathy Moriarty, takes a in-sight on the wicked world of tricks involvid psychics, gypsies and such. "But we all know the "Seance" we are seeing is fake, right?" , might be what our dear Alison Peters (Cathy) might say. Co-starring Ben Cross, Alison will learn how wrong she is. These three horrifying tales will do any ghoul's horror collection well. As The Cryptkeeper himself my say, "Til' next time, kiddees!"

VERY, VERY, VERY GOOD
IN THE FIRST EPISODE, WHOOPIE GOLDBERG IS THE ONLY THING THAT IS ANY GOOD. THE SECOND ONE IS EXCELLENT. BRAD DOURIF GIVES AN EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE IN THIS VERY COMEDIC EPISODE, WITH BILL PAXTON AS WELL. THE THIRD IS VERY GOOD AS WELL, IT HAS NO TWISTED SHOCK ENDING, AND DOESNT EVEN HAVE A VERY GOOD STORY, BUT IS STILL ENTERTAINING, ESPECIALLY WITH CATHY MORIARTY, SHE IS EXCELLENT. END ... Read more

Reviews (15)

One of the best basketball movies ever made
"Blue Chips" is one of my favorite basketball movies. I've seen it a few times and it still doesn't get old. A coach (Nick Nolte) that has always had a successful career as coach of Western University is facing the threat of his first ever losing season. He has to find a way to get his team back on a winning streak, even if it means finding new and better players.

Nick Nolte does a spectacular job as the coach, but that's not the only reason that "Blue Chips" is such a realistic and great basketball movie. If you're familiar with NBA basketball, you'll see a lot of players that you know from today's game such as Penny Hardaway and Shaq. You'll also see other basketball legends such as Larry Bird and Bob Cousy. When it's gametime, it's as realistic as a movie can get. It has powerful coaching, spectacular defensive and offensive movies, the roaring crowd, and even the press conference after the game. "Blue Chips" has more drama in it than just about any basketball movie ever made.

If you'd like to see a realistic basketball movie, I recommend getting "Blue Chips." It won't let you down.

An entertaining look at college basketball recruiting
Nick Nolte plays an explosive, but caring college basketball coach who's career is on the decline due to recruiting problems. Nolte decides to lose his ethics and give recruits money, cars, houses, etc. to get them to come to his school. A serious sports movie without the usual fairytale ending. The basketball action is exciting and realistic because most of it is played by real NBA stars, like Shaq, Penny Hardaway, Allan Houston, George Lynch and many others. Bob Cousy is better than expected as the athletic director who doesn't miss foul shots.

A Good Realistic Look at Basketball
Nick Nolte is Coach Pete Bell in This drama about basketball. He has been a failure the last two seasons. He starts to develop a straight A team. even going to Louisiana and finding the big man Shaquele O'Neal. He knows when he does this that he is going to need an incentive for them. Thats Where the Alumni Supporter crook Happy(J.T. Walsh) comes in to buy the players and give them what they want. Of course they can get passed the sportswriter(played by Ed O'Neill) who is working on the story fo Basketball corruption.
Director: William Friedkin
Screenplay: Ron Shelton

Not a Hoosiers Imitator
We sure do make a lot of sports movies in the US, and this is one of the better ones, not as good as Hoosiers, but then again who could touch Gene Hackman in his prime, right? What I like about this one is the somewhat stiff performances by Shaq and Anfernee Hardaway, which add "something" of reality to the film. Really. The other good thing is Nick Nolte. He played his part to the hilt. He sold his soul to the devil (he cheated), but then he redeemed himself. The scene with him teaching the kids at the playground the fundamentals is a classy and classic ending. Excellent movie. It's not as emotionally exhilerating as Hoosiers, but that's another story, right?

Sensational Sports Movie!!
Nick Nolte, in my opinion, is a very underrated actor. He was outstanding in his role in this film as a Bobby Knight-like basketball coach.

I find myself watching and re-watching the opening scene of this film, where Nolte storms into the locker room, wreaking havoc on the water cooler and whatever else happens to be within arm's reach. A great beginning to a great picture! ... Read more

Reviews (35)

Doesn't stand up to the original
Despite fine performances by all, especially Jack Lemmon in the Fonda role, this remake does not even come close to the original. It lacks the punch of the original and not all the actors meet the standards set by the original actors. Even the great Hume Cronyn, as good as he is, doesn't compare to his predecessor. Maybe I am disappointed in this movie because I saw the original first and judge it by that standard. On it's own, it's not a bad film but once you've made a classic why remake it? Do you really think you can get it better. Don't waste your money. Buy the original.

What a remake!
I consider myself a very demanding movie watcher, and this one definitely satisfies my expectations. I had the chance to see both 1957 and 1997 versions for "12 angry men", and I must say my vote goes to the recent one. Friedkin manages to create a whole atmosphere which seems much more realistic to me than the rather rigid and sometimes mechanic performances shown on the earlier version. In my opinion, Friedkin's cast looks so natural in their expressions and personality, they don't seem to be 'acting', which is a fault often seen in older movies. Characters and psychological profiles were improved so that you recognize and identify everyone of them, and you have a feeling no man's missing and no man's unnecesary. Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott offer an astonishing display of talent, and Scott's final monologue makes Lee J Cobb's performance look pale and opaque. If I were to choose a lawyer, I'd take Lemmon instead of Fonda, no doubt about it. The variety of the cast brings a refreshing, believable and solid mosaic of personalities I just don't see in Lumet's film (1957). Don't turn your back on this remake. You may be missing a great movie.

Nice effort, but doesn't stand up to the original
I really don't think a masterpiece like 12 ANGRY MEN needs a remake. This remake of the classic 1957 film makes many good efforts, but falls short in many points. First of all, I think Scott is excellent, and could stand serious comparison with Cobb in the original. (Alright, maybe his final monologue isn't quite as cyclonic as Cobb's, but perhaps Scott was wise in not trying to emulate that.) Many of the other actors are also very good. But some of the actors miss the mark on their characterizations. Olmos' watchmaker is a confused mess. (Who is he? Where is he from? What is his social class?) Gandolfini's Juror # 6 is surly and disagreeable, unlike Edward Binns' kindly original. The actor playing Juror # 5 is too confident and bold; in the original, this character was a scared and self-conscious young man who identified with the defendant. I admit that making Juror # 10 a former Nation of Islam member was a creative choice. But why does the judge (female in this version) not set up the atmosphere of physical discomfort and indifference, which are important themes in the movie? And why does # 10 decribe the defendant as a "common ignorant slob"? His appearance and dress do not suggest this! In the original movie, ALL the actors were superb and perfect for their parts; there were no weak links.

Another problem I have with this movie is that in some places it fastidiously modernizes, while in others it stays stubbornly in the 1950's. Why are there two Europeans on the jury? Before I saw the movie I thought sure there would be a Hispanic, an Asian, or a Middle Easterner. Why does Juror # 7 still sell marmalade as in the original? (Danza seems more like someone who would sell sports equipment or big-screen TV's!) Why does Juror #12 still present the dated stereotype of the 50's advertizing man? Why is the Olmos character still a watchmaker? Indeed, the screenplay was adapted by Reginald Rose, the writer for the 1957 version, and it is pretty close to the original script. I think in some instances he should have changed more than he did. The black and white and the camera work of the original do a much better job of creating the atmosphere of heat, claustrophobia, and grittiness in the jury room. And of course the central problem of updating this movie is that juries today would probably not consist entirely of men.

But above all, I find that this remake lacks the depth and richness of the original. I could spend all day analyzing the 1957 version, its many telling details, its layers of meaning, the countless psychological insights which the actors lend to their portrayals. Not so here. A case in point is Lemmon. His performance is good as far as it goes, but it is straightforward and one-dimensional. He has none of the complexity and shades of self-doubt that Fonda brought to the role. He seems more like a self-assured amateur lawyer than an architect pulled from the street. To sum it all up, I think the original 1957 12 ANGRY MEN is a timeless classic that neeeds no updating. This version has some good performances and is interesting to watch, but in the end it is superfluous.

A Great Success
This movie was simply mesmerizing, I saw the first 12 angry men on AMC. But it was very tedious, and boring. My mother got summoned to jury duty a few months later and she would come home pissed off that she had to do this boring civil duty. so one night she stopped by BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO and rented the new version of 12 Angry Men and it blew us away. We still watch this video at least two times a week, Because it's hilarious, and refreshing to see the diversity in the cast (mainly due to a 40 year time time difference in the two movies) . At the same time it makes you think. I love all the performances by these fantastic actors. Especially those of Mykelti Milliamson, and George C. Scott, potraying the angriest jurors of all. I love when people can let their rage take over and show us all their real feelings towards people from other races, countries,etc.

Very good!
Excellent remake, I think this one is better than the original. George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon are at their absolute best. Highly recommended. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Extremely disturbing film adaptation--chilling and brutal
I've nothing to add regarding H. Pinter's play as I'm not familiar with it. Therefore, I may only safely comment on the film adaptation. The film is structured so that the viewer is aware that terrible things have happened, are happening, and no doubt will happen quite soon. All the action takes place at a rooming house ran by Meg and Petey Bowels (Dandy Nichols and Moultrie Kelsall). Their only tenant is Stanley Weber, a former piano player that is perceived by most to be a "washout". His past is dubious and it is rather impossible to form a true picture of his character.

Robert Shaw portrays Stanley as a hideous wreck of a man who is gradually transformed into something credible. Throughout he is bitter, defensive, and contrary to everything in the world he has adopted as his own. There is nothing he likes, nothing he takes pleasure in. He's just a nasty sort of person who seems destined to do something ill-conceived to get his head caned in. Then two men, McCann and Goldberg, appear and take a room for a couple of nights. They clearly know Stanley and proceed to rough him up a bit when they get him alone. Stanley acts as if he has been expecting these two for quite some time. His resignation to maltreatment at their hands is quite disturbing, but not entirely unsurprising.

Patrick Magee, who played the Marquis de Sade in the film adaptation of "Marat Sade" is truly threatening as McCann. His sheer presence on screen is demonic. His eyes steel into you and you feel fixed in your place by his animal stare. There aren't many actors who do this bit as well as he. As Goldberg, Sydney Tafler is actually far more dangerous than McCann. His diabolism is shrouded in a hyper-friendly, articulate, obsessively well groomed mensch. He insists that Stanley celebrate his birthday with all his friends. The arrival of the dippy, highly impressionable Lulu (Helen Fraser) does nothing at first to calm Stanley's nerves. Eventually, however, she wakes him up into his Self, after a fashion. It is quite a shock seeing Lulu all tarted up amidst the sexless crowd at the party. More than anything else, she is the one who terrifies Stanley the most. Her lack of self-consciousness about her body further puts the spike in his neck.

This is simply a great film for observing how daily routines can come to get at some people. Also, how being removed from your safety zone can sometimes shock you into behaving like an entirely different person provided the elements are all in place. It really is a horror film of the highest order. It demonstrates the sinister aspects of the every day quite wonderfully.

A brilliant film. 5/5.

One of Pinter's best
This film version of one of Harold Pinter's best plays, made ten years after the play opened in London in 1958, is greatly enhanced by a stellar cast including Robert Shaw as the "birthday boy" and Patrick Magee at his menacing best. It's interesting to note that both the director--William Friedkin-- and the producers--Milton Subotsky and Max Rosenberg--were all associated, at one time in their careers, with horror films.

And a horror film this is, really. Pinter himself wrote the screenplay; it's a faithful adaptation of his stage play, and does not need to be "opened up" for a cinematic treatment. The reason for this is its intensely claustrophobic story, a character study with the focus on dread and disintegration.

Shaw, who begins as a sloppy, angry, down-on-his-luck drifter in an unnamed British seaside resort, undergoes a startling transformation in the course of the work, thanks to the ministrations of Magee and another character of insidious intent played by the well-known British stage actor Sydney Tafler.

The action is confined to the interior of the resort, run by a middle-aged woman--another excellent stage actress, Dandy Nichols, does a great turn in this role. It's Pinter's "weasel under the cocktail cabinet" psychology operating at full blast that gives this work its tremendous power. The fast, dark and frequently blackly funny verbal exchanges provide a momentum that does not flag, straight to the end.

A powerful film indeed. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

William Friedkin's classic policier was propelled to box-office glory, and a fistful of Oscars, in 1972 by its pedal-to-the-metal filmmaking and fashionably cynical attitude toward law enforcement. Gene Hackman's Popeye Doyle, a brutally pushy New York City narcotics detective, is a dauntless crime fighter and Vietnam-era "pig," a reckless vulgarian whose antics get innocent people killed. Loosely based upon an actual investigation that led to what was then the biggest heroin seizure in U.S. history, the picture traces the efforts of Doyle and his partner (Roy Scheider) to close the pipeline pumping Middle Eastern smack into the States through the French port of Marseilles. (The actual French Connection cops, Eddie Egan and Sonny Grosso, make cameo appearances.) It was widely recognized at the time that Friedkin had lifted a lot of his high-strung technique from the Costa-Gavras thrillers The Sleeping Car Murders and Z--he even imported one of Costa-Gavras's favorite thugs, Marcel Bozzuffi, to play the Euro-trash hit man plugged by Doyle in an elevated train station. There was an impressive official sequel in 1975, French Connection II, directed by John Frankenheimer, which took Popeye to the south of France and got him hooked on horse. A couple of semi-official spinoffs followed, The Seven-Ups, which elevated Scheider to the leading role, and Badge 373, with Robert Duvall stepping in as the pugnacious flatfoot. --David Chute ... Read more

Reviews (74)

4.2 out of 5
Adapted from Robin Moore's fact-based novel, THE FRENCH CONNECTION was the breakthrough film for both direction William Friedkin, who later went on to direct THE EXORCIST, and Gene Hackman. Hackman stars in his Academy Award-winning role as "Popeye" Doyle, a New York City cop who, along with partner "Cloudy" Russo (Roy Scheider), stumbles upon a drug ring headed by a Frenchman (Fernando Rey) who uses an innocent-seeming actor (Frederic de Pasquale) to cover the operation. Along with Hackman's forementioned award for "Best Actor", the film also took in Best Director for Friedkin; Best Film Editing; Best Writing (Ernest Tidyman) and a deserved Best Picture. The chase scenes are outstanding and some of the best ever filmed; Hackman is excellent in one of his greatest roles. Action fans won't want to pass this one by; followed by FRENCH CONNECTION II and a floppish TV movie.

Still love that car chase
It's getting a tad frayed around the edges, but "The French Connection" has stood up remarkably well over thirty years, thanks largely to a great cast, a great director (William Friedkin) and a crackerjack plot - not to mention the mother of all car chases. Only Gene Hackman could have played Popeye Doyle, a straight-up jerk whose bull-in-the-china-closet operating method rolls over everything in his way, including his own colleagues. Playing his partner admirably well is Roy Scheider as Buddy Russo, whose patience at Doyle's antics sometimes wears as thin as the soles on his shoes. The two of them are narcs, and they are out to intercept the arrival and distribution of a monster shipment of heroin from Marseilles by a drug kingpin named Alan Charnier. The movie zips along as Doyle and Charnier attempt to outwit each other; one of the best sequences in the film is Doyle following Charnier along the streets of midtown Manhattan into the subway (native New Yorkers have fun identifying the path they take) and losing him on the train. Doyle in his own way is as repulsive as the drug dealers he's up against; he's a racist, selfish, insensitive, uncaring about anybody but himself. But his single-minded mania serves him well in this chase; he'll bring down his prey one way or another. The classic scene in this movie is, of course, the car chase under the elevated subway that practically defined the term "car chase"; it's mind-boggling to try to imagine how Friedkin managed to shoot this sequence. The supporting actors in the movie are excellent; I especially liked Tony LoBianco as the middleman Sal Boca, Arlene Farber as his wife Angie, Benny Marino as his brother Lou (does the family that deals together stay together?), Patrick McDermott as the cool-as-ice chemist testing the purity of Charnier's stock and stamping it with his seal of approval; and above all, the sinister performance given by Marcel Bozzuffi as Pierre Nicoli, Charnier's hitman, who will shoot anyone in cold blood without batting an eyelash. The cinematography has a kind of grainy quality that enhances the gritty story being played out. Even though it seems a bit dated, "The French Connection" still stands out as one of the high points of American film.

the 4th time viewing got even better experience
simply fantastic! the 2nd dvd got lot of significant details about this great movie making. the quality of the dvds are so crispily sharp. very very good viewing experience. gene hackman admitted it set off his career and confessed the difficulties to bring himself into playing the popei role. by viewing his performance only proved that he's one of the greatest modern time actors. think back....almost all of his movies roles were great, no matter how lousy the movies themself was. gene hackman is a national treasure.

Groundbreaking