Amazon.com essential video

Hitchcock's first great romantic thriller is a prime example of the MacGuffin principle in action. Robert Donat is Richard Hannay, an affable Canadian tourist in London who becomes embroiled in a deadly conspiracy when a mysterious spy winds up murdered in Hannay's rented flat--and both the police and a secret organization wind up hot on his trail. With only a seemingly meaningless phrase ("the 39 steps"), a small Scottish town circled on a map, and a criminal mastermind identified by a missing finger as clues, quick-witted Hannay eludes police and spies alike as he works his way across the countryside to reveal the mystery and clear his name. At one point he finds himself making his escape manacled to blonde beauty Pamela (Madeleine Carroll), whose initial antagonism is smoothed by Hannay's charm and the sheer rush of her thrilling chase. It's classic Hitchcock all the way, a seemingly effortless balance of romance and adventure set against a picturesque landscape populated by eccentrics and social-register smoothies, none of whom is what he or she appears to be. Hitchcock would play similar games of innocents plunged into deadly conspiracies, most delightfully in North by Northwest, but in this breezy 1935 classic, Hitch proves that, as in any quest, the object of the search isn't nearly as satisfying as the journey. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (60)

BEWARE! Laserlight Video version is a waste of plastic!
I cannot agree with most of the reviewers, here, about the movie itself. It's not that I dislike old movies; I'm actually a huge fan of movies from this era and of Hitchcock's later films. But, this particular movie has little to recommend it, in terms of entertainment value.

You can, at times, see shades of the greatness to come in Hitchcock's direction, but he hadn't reached anywhere near his peak, at this point. I found the acting to be stilted, wooden, and caricaturish; the pacing alternately inappropriately frantic and unforgivably plodding.

Judging from the reviews that specify the version, the Criterion Collection edition is quite a good transfer. Unfortunately, the Laserlight Video version is a waste of plastic; dreadful audio, grainy, alternately washed out and too dark, splices, skips, etc. It's the version currently selling for [$$], and isn't worth even that paltry sum.

Students of Hitchcock, buy the Criterion Collection edition, if you must own this film. Fans of Hitchcock, rent the Criterion edition, if you wish to satisfy your curiousity. Everyone, avoid the Laserlight Video edition, at all costs!

a great Hitchcock classic
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.

The 39 steps, one of Hitchcock's most well known British films, is surely a great one bansed on the "wrong man" theme.

A woman claiming to be an intelligence agent trying to stop two men from taking a vital secret out England is killed in a young man's flat. She is holding a map and telling the man to go there. He finds himself falsely accused of her murder and now being chased by the killers and the police, while at the same time trying to stop the spies from leaving the country.

This is all I will divulge bevause I don't want to give any spoilers.

The acting is very good and the camera angles are some of Hitchcock's most famous. Look for Hitchcock's cameo appearance 7 minutes into the film. When a you see a bus, Hitchcock is the 'litterbug' in that scene.

The Criterion collection add some great special features to the DVD.

The complete Lux radio Theater broadcast of the story Scene-specific audio commentary by Hitchcock expert Marian Keane
Production design sketches
Parts of the original press book
A Janus films documentary on Hitchcock's British films

and of course a theatrical trailer.

The Criterion release is among the top DVDs ever engineered.
Do not waste your money on the Laserlight release of The 39 Steps. I doubt there are very many people who do not yet recognize the superiority of the Criterion Collection, but if you have any doubts as to the merits of the Criterion release, just compare this edition... and you will appreciate how remarkable Criterion's digital transfer of this film is. The audio commentary is interesting (though nothing extraordinary); what is special about this release is the clarity of the image (while remaining true to the original source material). Though I would contend that either Notorious or Rear Window is Hitchcock's best work, I could understand how one might judge The 39 Steps his best film. If you are only familiar with Vertigo, Psycho, The Birds, North by Northwest, et cetera, I would strongly encourage you to watch The 39 Steps, which expresses the more playful, less sadistic side of Hitch's work. To categorize this film as "early" Hitchcock, while factually correct, unfairly subordinates this film, as well as his other work from the 30s, as well as the early 40s, to the so-called "later" films, as if the latter were somehow more mature and evolved. In fact, one might argue that the opposite is true, that perhaps one finds alreadly in The 39 Steps the most profound testimony to Hitchcock's vision. Robert Donat gives a superb and charming performance in the role of the man wrongly accused. Madeleine Carroll, as in "The Secret Agent," is outstanding, and, next to Ingrid Bergman, is perhaps Hitchcock's best leading lady, no offense intended to Grace Kelly or Joan Fontaine.

Nail Biter
"39 Steps" is the last of Hitchcock's British nail biters. He took his style to Hollywood after this one. All the elements of a Hitchcock thriller are here. We have the mistaken man plot. Our hero has stumbled on a den of spies. He must prove his innocence and thwart the theft of military secrets and escape Scotland Yard from London Music halls to Scottish moors. The Hitchcock blonde is Madeline Carroll and her stocking scene must have been tough for American censors. Hitchcock learned his craft from the German expressionists and you can see the darkness of that genre in this gem. In the top twenty of best movies ever made, I recommend 39 Steps.

Criterion does it again...
I just ordered the Criterion Hitchcock "set" which includes "The 39 Steps", a movie I've watched many times over the last 20 years, but NEVER in a form this crisp and well-transfered; it's been restored beautifully, and as with all the films("My Man Godfrey" and "The Lady Vanishes", to name two)that have been kicking around with duped, grainy, fuzzy prints for the last 60-some years that were FINALLY restored-it's almost like watching a new movie-even if you'd thought you'd memorized all the dialogue and action! There's just so much that's missed in a bad print. Here, we have Hitch at his finest....there just isn't a dull second in this film. It's really as sure-fire as any movie ever made, in terms of entertainment. I believe this too was Hitchcock's first huge breakout international hit, although happily for us, he didn't "go Hollywood" for another 3 years or so(and gave us the later "Lady Vanishes"-another Criterion must-have).

One caveat: if you're like me(hopeless film buff), you often get these Criterions for not only the fantastic quality of the print but for the often illuminating audio tracks, usually provided by experts of one type or another; I've never quibbled with any of them before, but I have to say, don't expect Marion Keane's wall-to-wall droning to be worth it. There's generally two kinds of film "discussion"(not counting the sort where the actual director or actors gab, which we get with new films): the sort that's superb, like Rudy Behlmer's on "Adventures of Robin Hood"-an amalgam of film history, film technique, on-the-fly biographies of the actors you're watching, tidbits about the production locations, etc.etc.-nd then there's the OTHER kind:
film "semiotics". In other words, a commentator turns a smashing, hugely exciting and entertaining movie into a dull excercise in psychoanalysis. Virtually NOTHING is said about any of the particulars of "The 39 Steps" that isn't a parsing of the symbolism, the framing, that sort of thing. That stuff's there, of course, and I'll hand it to her that the speaker *does* mention Robert Donat's acting several times(it's excellent, of course!)-but you know, for all her blather about the poignancy of the scene of the Crofter's wife, you'd think that she might bother to tell us the actress' name(Peggy Ashcroft), the fact that this was one of her few films, that she was a huge stage star eventually, etc. The sort of thing that other audio tracks do so well. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Howard Hawks's original 1951 production of The Thing from Another World can be glimpsed playing on a TV that fateful October evening in John Carpenter's blockbuster hit, Halloween (1978). A few years later, Carpenter reteamed with his Escape from New York star Kurt Russell to do a remake. But while the first movie version of The Thing was in atmospheric black and white, Carpenter's 1982 version is in widescreen, full color, and features some of the most revoltingly explicit, surreally imaginative special effects (courtesy of FX-meister Rob Bottin) that have ever been seen on the screen. Researchers in the remote Antarctic dig up the remains of a spacecraft that has long been frozen in the ice. But the alien life unthaws and infects the living (not only humans but sled dogs too), living and gestating inside them. (This horrific concept was also explored in the two versions of Invasion of the Body Snatchers and the Alien movies.) This Thing is chilling in every sense of the word, with plenty of terrifying, adrenaline-pumping moments that build it to a powerful and shockingly nihilistic conclusion. It's a harsh and uncompromising movie (hewing more closely to the original 1930s story "Who Goes There?")--so much so that it probably never would have been given a green-light by any studio in the more cautious and doggedly upbeat 1990s. --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (326)

Who (or what) Goes There?
When John Carpenter decided to remake the 1951 classic Howard Hawks' The Thing from Another World, he went back to the original John W. Campbell Jr. short story Who Goes There instead of the first movie for inspiration. Hawks' version was a very fine depiction of an alien creature loose among an arctic group of scientists and military men, who must fight for their lives against the unknown horror from outer space. Despite their peril, they have only one "thing" to deal with, easily recognizable, and whose movements are easily tracked with a Geiger counter. Still, the battle is a desperate one, with several casualties.

Campbell's story was essentially asking the question: what is human, and how do you know? What is a test for humanity? His "thing" could assume a perfect human shape and move among others without detection. How could such a powerful being be discovered and destroyed? Carpenter's film asks the same questions, and how they are answered makes for a gripping suspense thriller, with state-of-the-art visual effects, an eerie music score, and a great ensemble cast.

The special effects were so shocking that most mainstream critics were put off by them and their reviews showed it. One in particular, Gary Franklin, said in his TV review that he was "disgusted and outraged" by the movie! Another TV critic, David Sheehan, was more moderate and even-handed, giving it a lukewarm acknowledgment for its suspense. Because of the poor reviews and the fact that it was competing with E.T., The Thing was a box-office failure.

But it's not a failure as a sci-fi/horror movie, despite some flaws in the story and the editing, and the unsatisfactory, unresolved ending. Why, for instance, is a scientific research group in Antarctica so well-armed? The Americans have revolvers, shotguns, switchblade knives, dynamite, and flame-throwers! The Norwegians have AK-47s, thermite bombs, and hand-grenades! All this hardware in a place where the predominant lifeform is penguins! What's the rationale for so much weaponry? (In the first movie the Air Force guys had side-arms, thermite, and a carbine, but they were military men.)

This DVD edition features a commentary by Carpenter and Kurt Russell, which sounds just like two good buddies sitting around with a six-pack of beer and discussing old times. It's very interesting and amusing. The disk is packed with plenty of interesting stuff and worth its price. I recommend it to all fans of the sci-fi/horror genre and all John Carpenter fans in particular. A class act--don't miss it!

An amazing DVD title
I still remember seeing John Carpenter's "The Thing" on the widescreen during it's theatrical run, and the memory of the audience's reaction to this film still makes me grin. People were shrieking and jumping; it was WONDERFUL. This film did not receive the recognition it deserves during its run, and I am one happy camper that Universal decided to give it the Collector's Edition treatment. If not THE best, it is certainly ONE of the best films by John Carpenter. The setting, mood, music and acting are great. Although the horrific elements are there in full force thanks to Bottin's excellent F/X work, it is the sense of psychological horror that makes this one work; that feeling of dread, isolation, being trapped in a situation from which there is no escape. HOO BOY. I still consider this one of my all time favorites. This DVD is beautiful. The picture and sound are top-notch and the DVD extras are a sterling example of what others should strive for. It will take you quite a while to dig through all the treasure contained on this disc, and it is well worth the effort. I cannot recommend this one highly enough, and if I could give it 10 stars, I wouldn't hesitate.

Classic horror from John Carpenter
The Thing is one of the great horror movies of the 1980's. Set in Antarctica in 1982, it circles around a group of researchers who uncover an alien buried under the ice that then proceeds to wreak havoc on the crew. Awsome effects by Rob Bottin (The Howling) and a terrific story make "The Thing" a rare horror treat. If you are still interested in learning more about it, read the book "Who Goes There?", which is the novella which they based the movie.

THE THING
Rated R: Strong violence and gore, and brief language.

Not Anything New
Same DVD As The Last One. Only A New "Welcomed" Transfer. So Hopefully It'll Look Nice And Crisp. But Still A Great Movie. Number One On My List Of Horror Movies.

perfection
My all time,number one favorite film,"The thing" is a hell of a ride. From the classic opening credits to the suprising ending "the thing" burns into the mind with its chilling mood @ atmosphere.It also has the best movie monster ever seen,no weak cgi,old fashioned blood @ tears created this horrific beast.It takes the the viewer from one tense situation to another,giving you the feeling it wont be a happy ending for the 12 men trapped in the middle of nowhere.If you couldnt tell I highly recommened "The thing". ... Read more

Amazon.com

Back when Jack Nicholson was a Hollywood unknown appearing in Roger Corman quickies such as Crybaby Killer and Little Shop of Horrors, it wasn't unusual for Corman to make a movie in just a few days. That was the case with this nifty little thriller, which was filmed in just three days using the same sets that Corman had used in his Boris Karloff thriller The Raven, which Corman had finished ahead of schedule. In fact, the sets were being torn down almost as fast as Corman could film them, but that hasn't stopped this moody little gem from acquiring a modicum of cult status over the years. Karloff plays the alleged baron of an isolated castle on the Baltic coast, where a Napoleonic officer (played by Nicholson!) appears after becoming intrigued by the presence of a mysterious and beautiful woman.Karloff's baron has a dark history, of course, and creepy atmosphere makes up for the minimal plot, which makes The Terror a vintage treat for horror fans. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (15)

Too many cooks?
This movie is a legendary mess - Roger Corman wrapped filming on THE RAVEN early, and not wishing to waste a castle set and the remainder of Boris Karloff's contract, started a gothic movie, then handed this unfinished flick to a series of proteges to complete. Jack Hill, Francis Ford Coppola, and Monte Hellman all took cracks at trying to make sense of an unfinished script. THE TERROR is often referred to as a movie without a plot - there's a plot in there alright, but you've got to be prepared to fight for it. Worth seeing if only for the combination of Karloff and an alarmingly young Jack Nicholson.

Not Really a "Terror", But It's Still Good!
I have watched this movie twice on TV in the past, and I enjoyed it. Even though it's called "The Terror", it doesn't seem like a terror movie, but it is still entertaining. Jack Nicholson starred in this one (he was young then, just like in the original "Little Shop of Horrors" he was in before this one), and he played a Napoleon soldier. His then-wife, Sandra Knight, played Helene who was a "ghost" in the movie, and Boris Karloff, a famous horror movie actor, played the Baron.
This movie is a little phony, like the "witch" in the movie...and how she died. I never dreamed that lightning can burn a witch to a crisp like in this movie, just because she saw the hawk flying in the sky! Same thing at the ending when Nicholson kissed the beautiful Helene, who then melted on the ground, revealing her skeleton. Nice special effects in the 1960s...I give them (and Roger Corman) credit for that.
This is a good movie, although not Oscar-winning, to watch on a rainy day for fun.

Yes, Adult Human Beings Really Got Together and Made This!
The history of the movie is far more interesting than the movie, itself. Corman had three extra days after his prematurely wrapped The Raven shoot, and tossed this thing together off the top of his (and everybody else's) head to end up making two features for the price of one. Considering the circumstances, the thing is a masterpiece.

Of course, the finished product neither knows nor cares about the circumstances, which is why this movie is doubly entertaining. The mix of costuming and acting styles, the endless anachronisms throwing the audience out of suspension of disbelief that they are in Napoleonic era Germany (or is it supposed to be Spain? and if so, why so many German names? and if not, where does one get a seaside cliff in Germany?) - not to mention the genuinely really bad acting from pretty much everyone involved (including Karloff, who almost certainly didn't take it seriously), and the grossly mixed accents of the cast - make this one endlessly entertaining, in that drop-your-jaw, I-can't-believe-adult-human-beings-actually-got-together-and-made-this-thing kind of way.

It actually has a plot, which if you're really attentive and diligent you can pick out in the last five minutes of the movie, and if you do, it's terribly clever and grossly improbable, which just makes it all that much more fun.

But you won't care about that. What you really want to see is Jack Nicholson performing flatter than a block of wood, his then-wife Sandra Knight with an accent and acting style flatter still (though she is quite beautiful), Dorothy Neumann as a cackling revenge-driven old witch, Bronx-accented Dick Miller as a supposedly very German manservant, and Karloff struggling to keep a straight face given all the preceding impediments.

Nicholson happily confesses in interviews that they all had a ball making this wonderfully absurd movie, and it actually shows. Interestingly enough, if you're in the right mood, you can even see the horror movie this almost was, if they'd had more time to make it really work. There are some good gore effects - a man's eyes gouged out by a killer hawk, and an incredibly goopy melting woman, topping the list - and it's pretty handsomely produced, even with a decently eerie musical soundtrack throughout.

Don't watch it because it's good - watch it because it's FUN.

The best B horror movie of its class!
The Terror is simply a fun B horror flick. Forget the acting, it's terrible, but that's its charm (it's worth it just to see the early Nicholson). It's the atmosphere that makes this movie a classic. The musical score gives it the true feel of the late night horror genre. Of course it's not scary, but that's beside the point. The ancient castle with its wonderful architecture, the ocean waves crashing on the rocky beach, the "old women" and her shack in the woods, and Stephan (the butler) whose performance is reminiscent of a Mel Brooks movie, make it a treat. For Karloff fans, this is a must see. I've been a fan of Corman's work for quite some time, and I think this is one of his better films. I would also recommend "Die Monster Die," directed by Daniel Haller, for those incurable Karloff fans.

Low-budget, snail-paced movie...typical Jack Nicholson stuff
This movie moves at a snail's pace as a soldier takes shelter at an old Baron's castle while searching for a mysterious woman he discovered at the beach near the castle. Boris Karlof's performance as the elderly Baron is the only one that makes this movie worth watching for the first half hour, and even then his acting gets lame and overleveled. Just like other typical Jack Nicholson movies, the movie is very slow, and extremely boring. It is not scary, and it is very easy to see that it is fake and stagy...Rent it, don't buy it. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

From its cleverly choreographed opening sequence to its heart-stopping climax on a rampant carousel, this 1951 Hitchcock classic readily earns its reputation as one of the director's finest examples of timeless cinematic suspense. It's not just a ripping-good thriller but a film student's delight and a perversely enjoyable battle of wits between tennis pro Guy (Farley Granger) and his mysterious, sycophantic admirer, Bruno (Robert Walker), who proposes a "criss-cross" scheme of traded murders. Bruno agrees to kill Guy's unfaithful wife, in return for which Guy will (or so it seems) kill Bruno's spiteful father. With an emphasis on narrative and visual strategy, Hitchcock controls the escalating tension with a master's flair for cinematic design, and the plot (coscripted by Raymond Chandler) is so tightly constructed that you'll be white-knuckled even after multiple viewings. Better still, the two-sided DVD edition of this enduring classic includes both the original version of the film and also the longer prerelease British print, which offers a more overt depiction of Bruno's flamboyant and dangerous personality, and his homoerotic attraction to Guy by way of his deviously indecent proposal. In accordance with the cautious censorship guidelines of the period, Hitchcock would later tame these elements of Walker's memorable performance by trimming and altering certain scenes, so the differences between the original and prerelease versions provide an illuminating illustration of censorship's effect on the story's thematic intensity. Beyond all the historical footnotes and film-buff fascination, Strangers on a Train remains one of Hitchcock's crowning achievements and a suspenseful classic that never loses its capacity to thrill and delight. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (82)

EXCELLENT!!
Excellent suspense movie about innocent-looking tennis player Guy Haines (Farley Granger), involved in a murder against his own will, by an eccentric, over-the-top character played masterfully by great american actor (by then, Jennifer Jones' ex-husband) Robert Walker.

Hitchcock builds the film into a great final climax, holding your complete attention from the very start of the story, at the train station.

Good acting by the leading couple, Farley Granger and Ruth Roman (playing his sweetheart and bride-to-be, after the divorce from his obnoxious wife). Excellent performances by the aforementioned Walker as Bruno Antony, Patricia Hitchcok (as Roman's sister, who has a liking for criminal stories), Kasey Rogers (as Granger's wife) and Marion Lorne (as Bruno Antony's mother).

The fact that the DVD contains the original US and UK versions, the latter two minutes longer, is a must. Especially noticing the trimming that underwent the initial scenes between Walker and Granger in the american version, and the final "happy ending" scene added for the same version.

Fans of '60s TV series "Bewitched", will have a field day watching "Aunt Clara" (Marion Lorne) as the over-indulging mother of spoiled and egotistical Bruno Antony and "Louise Tate" (Kasey Rogers, billed as Laura Elliott) who plays over-sexed and amoral Miriam, Guy Haines' wife.

Don't talk to strangers!
Farley Granger appeared in only two Hitchcock films. He was the nerve racked killer in Rope who ended up not being able to handle the reality of his crime and gave up in the end, and he is the ill-fated tennis star who happens upon a total stranger during a train ride in this film, Strangers on a Train. Too bad. Granger is talented in this role, evoking sympathy from the audience even when he was guilty as sin in Rope. In this movie, it's hard to really blame him for the events that transpire.

Two men meet and strike up a conversation based on Bruno's (Robert Walker in a chilling performance) ability to recognize Guy Haines (Granger) from the tennis court. During the conversation, it is discovered that Bruno hates his father and wants him dead, and that Guy has a wife who is causing trouble for him. Guy wants to marry the daughter of a senator, but needs his current wife out of the picture.

Bruno has the answer. We swap murders, and then there is no motive. Guy laughs it off, but he stops laughing quick when Bruno actually kills Guy's wife and expects him to murder his father in return. By the way, the murder of the wife is some of Hitch's best camera work ever, as he shows the choking in the reflection of the woman's eyeglasses.

Guy has no credible alibi, so he is suspect number one. Bruno keeps on him the whole time, threatening to frame him (Bruno has Guy's lighter that he can plant at the scene), so it becomes a race for Guy to prove his innocence. The scene on the merry go round is a classic, even if a bit unrealistic.

The characters are great, the story strong and the direction superb. You simply can't go wrong with this one. The great suspense films of today owe a debt of gratitude to Strangers on a Train.

Misinformed
I recently purchased, yet , another copy of STRANGERS ON A TRAIN because the description of this edition read WIDESCREEN. Lured by that promise, I again spent the money, because the copy I already owned was not widescreen. To my great disappointment, I have learned (by watching my newly purchased DVD) that my new copy is, in fact, the exact same edition I already owned: STANDARD format and NOT WIDESCREEN. Beware the description for this issue: it misinforms. If it is WIDESCREEN you want, this is not it!

Crisscross
After the spectacular successes of "Notorious" and "Spellbound" Alfred Hitchcock went into a five year box-office slump that had him seriously rattled. He broke out again in 1951 with "Strangers," a fable about a tennis player (Farley Granger) whose murderous private thoughts are brought horrifically to life through his chance encounter with a maniac (Robert Walker). Be careful what your wish for, you may get it, is Hitchcock's theme, and he never did a better job of exploring the border between our civilized and barbaric impulses than in this project. This is usually the performance for which Walker is best remembered, completed shortly before he drank himself to death. The murder of Granger's wife is still shocking even today and there are numerous other scenes just as riveting which Hitchcock tossed off with such ease when his visual imagination was stimulated. Novelist Raymond Chandler got a script credit, but according to Hitchcock biographer Donald Spoto none of Chandler's material was used.

I will be strong.....maybe (fingers crossed)
First I will say this is a classic film that doesn't contain one wasted minute. It's always been one of my favorites and have always shown it to friends as an introduction to these films due to their lack of Hitchcock experience. But what I will say here and now is I WILL NOT BUY THIS SPECIAL EDITION!!! I have the original release and it has served me well these past years. I could have lived my whole life without the knowledge of a special edition with all sorts of those goodies and I would have been fine... It will probably have commentary, interviews, ohh that sounds enchanting...I DON"T CARE. I MUST be strong and resist the temptation of re-buying it. I know I've made this pledge on several hundred occasions with... oh you know, Planet of the apes, Casablanca, Blazing Saddles etc,etc. Yes I caved on those countless occasions but NOT THIS TIME!! But for anyone who doesn't own this dvd at all, I would recommend you do. But don't talk to me about it because I'm perfectly happy with my one disc copy OK!! Warner brothers among others have been pulling these scams for years with these re-issues, and you know who the victoms are. Yes... Yes.. that would be me. But not this time because my family have received enough free bare bones dvd's from me and it ends today. Forget it Amazon! No preorders from this sucker... HA HA!! ... Read more

Reviews (82)

EXCELLENT!!
Excellent suspense movie about innocent-looking tennis player Guy Haines (Farley Granger), involved in a murder against his own will, by an eccentric, over-the-top character played masterfully by great american actor (by then, Jennifer Jones' ex-husband) Robert Walker.

Hitchcock builds the film into a great final climax, holding your complete attention from the very start of the story, at the train station.

Good acting by the leading couple, Farley Granger and Ruth Roman (playing his sweetheart and bride-to-be, after the divorce from his obnoxious wife). Excellent performances by the aforementioned Walker as Bruno Antony, Patricia Hitchcok (as Roman's sister, who has a liking for criminal stories), Kasey Rogers (as Granger's wife) and Marion Lorne (as Bruno Antony's mother).

The fact that the DVD contains the original US and UK versions, the latter two minutes longer, is a must. Especially noticing the trimming that underwent the initial scenes between Walker and Granger in the american version, and the final "happy ending" scene added for the same version.

Fans of '60s TV series "Bewitched", will have a field day watching "Aunt Clara" (Marion Lorne) as the over-indulging mother of spoiled and egotistical Bruno Antony and "Louise Tate" (Kasey Rogers, billed as Laura Elliott) who plays over-sexed and amoral Miriam, Guy Haines' wife.

Don't talk to strangers!
Farley Granger appeared in only two Hitchcock films. He was the nerve racked killer in Rope who ended up not being able to handle the reality of his crime and gave up in the end, and he is the ill-fated tennis star who happens upon a total stranger during a train ride in this film, Strangers on a Train. Too bad. Granger is talented in this role, evoking sympathy from the audience even when he was guilty as sin in Rope. In this movie, it's hard to really blame him for the events that transpire.

Two men meet and strike up a conversation based on Bruno's (Robert Walker in a chilling performance) ability to recognize Guy Haines (Granger) from the tennis court. During the conversation, it is discovered that Bruno hates his father and wants him dead, and that Guy has a wife who is causing trouble for him. Guy wants to marry the daughter of a senator, but needs his current wife out of the picture.

Bruno has the answer. We swap murders, and then there is no motive. Guy laughs it off, but he stops laughing quick when Bruno actually kills Guy's wife and expects him to murder his father in return. By the way, the murder of the wife is some of Hitch's best camera work ever, as he shows the choking in the reflection of the woman's eyeglasses.

Guy has no credible alibi, so he is suspect number one. Bruno keeps on him the whole time, threatening to frame him (Bruno has Guy's lighter that he can plant at the scene), so it becomes a race for Guy to prove his innocence. The scene on the merry go round is a classic, even if a bit unrealistic.

The characters are great, the story strong and the direction superb. You simply can't go wrong with this one. The great suspense films of today owe a debt of gratitude to Strangers on a Train.

Misinformed
I recently purchased, yet , another copy of STRANGERS ON A TRAIN because the description of this edition read WIDESCREEN. Lured by that promise, I again spent the money, because the copy I already owned was not widescreen. To my great disappointment, I have learned (by watching my newly purchased DVD) that my new copy is, in fact, the exact same edition I already owned: STANDARD format and NOT WIDESCREEN. Beware the description for this issue: it misinforms. If it is WIDESCREEN you want, this is not it!

Crisscross
After the spectacular successes of "Notorious" and "Spellbound" Alfred Hitchcock went into a five year box-office slump that had him seriously rattled. He broke out again in 1951 with "Strangers," a fable about a tennis player (Farley Granger) whose murderous private thoughts are brought horrifically to life through his chance encounter with a maniac (Robert Walker). Be careful what your wish for, you may get it, is Hitchcock's theme, and he never did a better job of exploring the border between our civilized and barbaric impulses than in this project. This is usually the performance for which Walker is best remembered, completed shortly before he drank himself to death. The murder of Granger's wife is still shocking even today and there are numerous other scenes just as riveting which Hitchcock tossed off with such ease when his visual imagination was stimulated. Novelist Raymond Chandler got a script credit, but according to Hitchcock biographer Donald Spoto none of Chandler's material was used.

I will be strong.....maybe (fingers crossed)
First I will say this is a classic film that doesn't contain one wasted minute. It's always been one of my favorites and have always shown it to friends as an introduction to these films due to their lack of Hitchcock experience. But what I will say here and now is I WILL NOT BUY THIS SPECIAL EDITION!!! I have the original release and it has served me well these past years. I could have lived my whole life without the knowledge of a special edition with all sorts of those goodies and I would have been fine... It will probably have commentary, interviews, ohh that sounds enchanting...I DON"T CARE. I MUST be strong and resist the temptation of re-buying it. I know I've made this pledge on several hundred occasions with... oh you know, Planet of the apes, Casablanca, Blazing Saddles etc,etc. Yes I caved on those countless occasions but NOT THIS TIME!! But for anyone who doesn't own this dvd at all, I would recommend you do. But don't talk to me about it because I'm perfectly happy with my one disc copy OK!! Warner brothers among others have been pulling these scams for years with these re-issues, and you know who the victoms are. Yes... Yes.. that would be me. But not this time because my family have received enough free bare bones dvd's from me and it ends today. Forget it Amazon! No preorders from this sucker... HA HA!! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Halloween is as pure and undiluted as its title.In the small town of Haddonfield, Illinois, a teenage baby sittertries to survive a Halloween night of relentless terror, during whicha knife-wielding maniac goes after the town's hormonally chargedyouths. Director John Carpenter takes this simple situation andorchestrates a superbly mounted symphony of horrors. It's a movie much scarier for its dark spaces and ominous camera movementsthan for its explicit bloodletting (which is actually minimal). Composedby Carpenter himself, the movie's freaky music sets the tone; and hisscript (cowritten with Debra Hill) is laced with references to otherhorror pictures, especially Psycho. The baby sitter is playedby Jamie Lee Curtis, the real-life daughter of Psycho victimJanet Leigh; and the obsessed policeman played by Donald Pleasenceis named Sam Loomis, after John Gavin's character in Psycho.In the end, though, Halloween stands on its own as anuncannily frightening experience--it's one of those movies that hadaudiences literally jumping out of their seats and shouting at thescreen. ("No! Don't drop that knife!") Produced on a low budget,the picture turned a monster profit, and spawned many sequels,none of which approached the 1978 original. Curtis returned for twomore installments: 1981's dismal Halloween II, which pickedup the story the day after the unfortunate events, and 1998's occasionallygripping Halloween H20, which proved the former baby sitterwas still haunted after 20 years. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (633)

The Night He Came Home and Changed the Face Of Horror
In 1978, the world was introduced to a movie that has become a cornerstone in the horror genre. Independent filmmakers John Carpenter and Debra Hill, largely unknown at the time, shot a movie that would become one of the top money-making horror films of all time on a budget of just over $300,000.00. They hired a cast of unknowns, drawing on talent that would become some of the top names in Hollywood. They set out to make a simple film, about a group of teenagers being stalked by a serial killer, and what was born was a movie that has challenged all other films of its genre-Halloween.

Set in the small town of Haddenfield, Illinois, it is the story of Michael Myers, a boy who murders his sister on Halloween night in 1963. Incarserated within the confines of the mental institution Smiths Grove, he is treated by Dr. Loomis (played by Donald Pleasance) until he can stand trial as an adult for the criminal activities of that fateful night.

Fifteen years pass, and Myers is now grown. Loomis is assigned the duty of transporting Myers back to Haddenfield for his criminal hearing. On the eve of halloween, and badgered by a horrendous thunderstorm, Loomis travels the final distance to the gates of the institution with the aid of a nurse who has been assigned to him. Upon their arrival, they discover that the inmates have been set free to wonder about the confines of the sanitarium. Loomis, who has long since grown to believe that Michael Myers in the embodiment of pure evil, rushes to the gaurd post at the front gate. In his absence, Myers overtakes the nurse and steals the car.

Loomis cries out "He's gone..the evil has gone..."

And so begins Halloween.

The balance of the story takes place in Haddonfield, where a group of unsuspecting teens will have a fatal encounter with Michael Myers. Leading the cast is Jamie Lee Curtis, daughter of veteran actress Janet Leigh (of "Psycho" fame), who plays Laurie Strode, a high-school student who begins seeing "The Shape", a non-descript man dressed in a blue coverall, wearing a white mask. She sees him again and again, through the classroom window at school, in her backyard, behind bushes.

For the majority of horror fans who have seen this film, I need go no further. For those of you who haven't, I should go no further, for the film is definitely more than the narrative I began above. It is a story that touches on the psychological truths that our society seems to function on. Whats more, it is a film that touches at our primal fears.

Unlike so many films in this genre, Halloween is genuinely frightening, not because of its use of graphic gore, or visually stunning effects (there really aren't any in this film) but because it plays on the things that scare us most. Whats more, Carpenter uses carefully placed light and shadow to really enhance the experience of his film. His soundtrack also underscores the film as a whole, bringing it to a level and intensity that keep viewers on the edge of their seats.

Carpenter went on to film two additional films in the franchise, the much more commercial Halloween II and Halloween III:Season of the Witch (the third installment having nothing to do with the Myer storyline). The Halloween franchise itself has given birth to a total of seven sequels, including the largely popular Halloween H20, in which Jamie Lee Curtis reprised the role of Laurie Strode. Still, it is this original film, a small budget, independent movie that was shot in the early spring (yes, leaves were brought in and scattered about to simulate the fall season) that has become a staple that is synonymous with the holiday which the movie was named after.

If you have reservations about this film, set them aside and watch it...but watch it with the lights on, because Michael Myers might be there, in the shadows, waiting. Halloween-the Night He Came Home-is worth the time and money. It is the film that really re-defined the horror/slasher genre, and it is the one film that really rises above the rest, setting a standard that no film that followed has ever matched.

Brilliant piece of suspense
"Halloween" is by far the best horror film I have ever seen and is also my personal favorite. The story is so simple: 6 year-old Michael Myers stabs his sister to death on October 31, 1963 in Haddonfield. He is locked up but 15 years later, he escapes and returns to his hometown, where he sets his sights on Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) and her friends, Annie (Nancy Loomis) and Lynda (P.J. Soles). His psychiatrist, Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence), is hot on Myers' trail before he kills again. This movie is so scary and suspensful, easily the best of the bunch. For Jamie Lee Curtis' first movie, she did an excellent job of acting. Veteran actor Donald Pleasence is also terrific, he is performance is convincing, you actually KNOW that Michael Myers is pure evil when he talks about him. What adds to the suspense and horror of the film is that Michael is hardly seen, he is always in the shadows, waiting to kill. The music is also fantastic. The main piano theme is one of the most famous to ever grace the screen. All in all, this is a terrific film, watch this with the lights off and guarantee you'll be scared!

What Else Can I Say About A True Classic
Halloween was the very first horror movie I saw as a kid, at age 4.Ever since then, no Halloween or anytime of the year is complete for me without Dr.Loomis, Laurie Strode, Sheriff Brackett, and of course the man himself, Michael Myers. This movie epitomizes everything that Halloween is..the bogeyman laying in the dark shadow of the room , waiting for the perfect moment to strike..It's got everything..From the typical American small town, horror movies in the city just don't work..The great horror flicks of all time:Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Amityville Horror, Last House on the Left, The Town That Dreaded Sundown, and Scream, they all took place in small towns or in the middles of nowhere..
Plus Halloween films for me have always somehow managed to get the intangible down:Atmosphere.They nail the Halloween , late fall atmsophere perfectly..I loved the whole bunch of them..I'm a sucker for horror though. I also love all the Friday the 13ths, Texas Chainsaws, Screams, and Nightmares.

The one that started it all!
Halloween is definitely the film that inspired the first wave of horror movies. It clearly inspired Friday The 13th and A Nightmare On Elm Street.

When Michael Myers brutally murdered his sister Judith he was sent to a children's hospital for a life sentence. But after serving 15 years he escaped and travelled to the small town of Haddonfield where he stalks 3 young women Laurie, Annie and Lynda. It also happens to be Halloween night when he comes out of the shadows and definitely gives them a scare to remember!

Everything about Halloween is 1st class entertainment! John Carpenter doesn't rely on lots of gore to make this movie a classic. He relies on suspense which works like a charm! The music score is also terrifying and the now famous Halloween tune will haunt me forever after watching this film!

It's really fun to see a young Jamie Lee Curtis running around scared because in this day and age you don't think of her being able to play the virginal heroine! Clearly it was down to her that the stereotype was even created in the first place!!!

With excellent supportive performances from Donald Pleasence, Nancy Loomis and PJ Soles this film will always live on!

Halloween
This is the best horror movie ever in my opinion because it was the first to ever really scare me. ... Read more

Reviews (92)

Realistic, Gritty Crime Tale
In one of his best performances ever, Al Pacino is the engine that keeps "Carlito's Way" moving from beginning to end. Recently-released from prison, Carlos Brigante (played marvelously by Pacino) is a former Puerto Rican drug lord who ruled New York City's drug world during the 1960's and 1970's. Assisted by his lawyer (Sean Penn) Pacino is determined to stay out of the trade that landed him in prison in the first place. However, as usual trouble always lurks in every corner.

Deciding to buy and operate a Latin nightclub from an owner who is seriously in debt (played by the famous Argentine comedian Jorge Porcel, who had a cult following throughout Latin America due to his sexually-charged comedy skit show "A La Cama Con Porcel; he is know as the Latin-version of "Benny Hill"). Yet as old faces reemerge onto the scene, newer faces have also started to take a foothold in Brigante's former empire, especially Benny Blanco (played by the ever-wonderful John Leguizamo).

Directed by Brian de Palma ("Carrie"), this is one of the most realistic, and historic accurate pictures of life in New York City's urban jungle during the late 1970's/early 1980's. Penelope Ann Miller ("Adventures in Babysitting" is great as Brigante's love interest, and Luis Guzman always is a scene-stealer playing Pacino's right-hand man.

The DVD version contains production notes, cast biographies, and the original theatrical trailer and the sound and picture quality are excellent. Pacino (a Bronx native) masters a perfect Puerto Rican accent in the same way he mastered his Cuban-emigre accent in "Scarface". "Carlito's Way" is guaranteed to keep you entertained due to thrilling performances by the entire cast, amazing cinematography, great directing, and most importantly, incredible realism. Destined to become a modern urban classic.

scarface with a twist
When the guys that brought you Scarface team up again what bad
things can happen.Brian De Palma and Al Pacino two of the biggest
stars on their film duties in Hollywood today.This movie really
has the 80's,disco feel scarface as but as the De Palma plot turn
and twists seen in Snake Eyes,Body Double,and Raising Cain so it'
s all very entertaining.Along with another De Palma regular Sean
Penn(Casualties Of War) plays the coke addicted wacko lawyer to
absolute perfection.This film not as violent as Scarface as more
plot twists which makes it almost more entertaining with a great
cast including John Leguizamo and Penelope Ann Miller Carlito's
Way is one of Pacino's,Penn's,and De Palma's best films ever so
if you like a mixture of The Usual Suspects and Scarface give
Carlito's Way a watch it's great.

What is so Wonderful about this movie?
This is not that great of a movie. I dont know why people are making such a big deal out of this movie. I saw it, I tryed to understand it, I just thought it wasnt one of Pacino's best....sorry

Pacino and Penn give great performances
almost a sequal to scarface..Carlito Brigante is Tony Montana after doing 15 yrs and having a change of heart...I cant beleive there wasnt some thinking on those lines from the actor and director of both movies...Sean Penn nearly steals this movie as David Kleinfeld Carlitos lawyer is more crooked than the crooks he defends..and Luis Guzmán as Pachanga shows why hes one of the best character actors working today...

The best film of Brian de Palma
The facts derivated from the story put us before a man who wants to get away his destiny , but (in a mgnificent shakesperian mood), nobody can escape from his past.
There's no doubt that this film has multiple virtues. Sean Penn grew up like actor al least two thousands steps. His role is so well made like the sinister lawyer without a drop of scruples, and this is the fate's arm that literally takes to Tony Montana and throws to hell.
In my personal view, I think Sean Penn deserved an Academy award by this role.
It's a sinister view about the redemption given by Montana since he leaves the jail.
Pacino gives one of his more relevant roles all along his career.
He gives us that crude sensation of walking in the edge of the knife through all the film. Will it be necessary to say that in this film like in others, Pacino is much more than an actor, he is a nature's force and elevates the standard performance of every one of his partners?.
Watch for instance one of my favorite beauties of the cinema: Penelope Ann Miller. Her role is so well made that this film literally gave to David Lynch the final decission for including her in Mulholland's drive.
There are several unforgettable sequences in the film. The first of these belongs to that claustrophobic situation in which we find Carlitos, when he decides to rescue the money of his beloved friend. In his honor code, Carlitos can not give a "no" like answer. And that's the road to his perdition.
The other anthology scene is that made in the hospital when he visits to the lawyer by last time. The slow camera describes all the movements of the false police who revenges to his father and we can see how the bullets are released by Carlitos just before.
The final shots camera in the chase when Carlitos has planned everything and runs with the clock dictating its final minutes. The angles of camera and the tension produced in the train station for me is above his tribute to Potemkin in "The untouchables".
Carlitos way is a cult movie. But also you can consider like the shakespeare spirit made present in what I would design together with Road to Perdition , the most original "film noir" movies in the last fifteen years. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

ZOTZ! William Castle's Unkept Promise of Fun
"The Magic Word for Fun...ZOTZ!" Thus reads Columbia Pictures' withering one-line ad campaign for William Castle's "Zotz!" (starring Tom Poston, Jim Backus, Margaret Dumont and Cecil Kellaway), an alleged comedy that debuted to no particular acclaim in 1962. Obviously the marketing department was slap out of lipstick for this pig.What's regrettable is that "ZOTZ!" could have been a smart and even sexy flick if Castle had stuck to the premise of Admiral Walter Karig's novel of the same name. For those scratching their heads, Karig's 1947 story was a fanciful metaphor for the dilemma of the Age of Nuclear Weapons... What do we do with a weapon capable of annihilating any thing, any enemy, any country, and with as little effort as pointing a finger? What do we do? Well, for starters, we learn not to point fingers and threaten our neighbors, or we might very well destroy ourselves. A simplistic observation for those of us with nearly 60 years of Cold War hindsight; but it was a revelation to Walter Karig when he wrote "Zotz!" (just two years after the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki). The plot of "Zotz!" was just as simple: Prof. Jonathan Jones (a professor of ancient Eastern languages) comes into possession of a cursed amulet; Jones deciphers the amulet's powers to cause pain, to retard motion, and to kill, and he immediately suffers the consequences of his discovery. This is where the book and the movie part company. Karig's story went on to explore some of the dire (and truly comical) consequences of absolute power, including sexual dysfunction-Prof. Jones realizes to his horror that when he points any part of his body at another living creature, it sends the victim into spasms of debilitating pain. This is a lousy realization for him to make during an intimate encounter with a beautiful woman... Now, this shows comedic promise: Here is a man of unlimited power who must vigilantly remain flaccid, lest he inflict intense physical agony on his love interest. That's the stuff of classic cinema! Ah, but does William Castle even attempt what could be one of the most awkwardly comic sexual encounters ever filmed? He does not. Well, in truth, he cannot...remember, it was 1962. Sex in mainstream entertainment was barely out of the box at the time. And William Castle wasn't a terribly clever film maker. Instead, Castle's movie offers up a series of dry, two-dimensional vignettes merely demonstrating the ZOTZ effect: Professor Jones kills a moth; Professor Jones kills a lizard; Professor Jones becomes drunk at a faculty dinner and utters the magic word ZOTZ...zany hyjinx ensue. Unlike Karig's book, the closest this film comes to making a political statement against weapons of mass destruction is when Professor Jones attempts to turn the terrible ZOTZ amulet over to the Department of Defense; but the Pentagon bigwigs are too dimwitted to hear him out. Granted, William Castle's "Zotz!" did employ some unusual special effects for its day, including a rooftop "slow bullet" sequence: Intoning the mystic word "ZOTZ," Prof. Jones freezes a .45 slug in mid-flight and steps easily out of its path; then Jones leaps from the rooftop and falls about twenty floors in slow motion, end-over-end, to the sidewalk, as normal-speed action continues in the background. I doubt that such a surreal sequence had been attempted in film before. It's in the final moments of the film, however, that Castle finally admits to his audience that he doesn't understand or doesn't give a damn about Walter Karig's intended message. Under Castle's ham-handed direction, Ray Russel's screenplay inexplicably finds us on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial with Tom Poston mouthing patriotic platitudes-then fade to the fluttering American flag with churchbells ringing liberty across all the land. And roll credits... What does it mean? Is this fun? It can't be serious; but it can't be humorous, either, because, hey, the flag, right? Almost as an afterthought, Castle attempts to turn Karig's thoughtful anti-nuke metaphor into a pathetic piece of flag-waving Cold War propaganda. And he fails even at that. How and why Walter Karig's much more whimsical ending was omitted from the film is one of the great mysteries of William Castle lore. As Walter Karig penned it, Professor Jones-after all his travails and his flirtation with godhood-chooses to chuck it all and seek a thoroughly anonymous role in society... That of a pest exterminator, whistling as he works, zapping roaches and rats one "ZOTZ" at a time. Alas, William Castle (in his questionable wisdom) chose not to end a comedy on a comedic note; even though Karig's ending would have been perfect for Tom Poston, and may have conceivably salvaged Castle's dismal, downward-spiraling romp.

Before the Peeper Tom Poston was Prof. John Jones
You may remember Tom Poston as the Peeper in "The Bob Newhart Show". Well ten years earlier he was Prof. John Jones.

Prof. Jones discovers an ancient coin in his back yard. There is an inscription on it, which gives the person who recites it the power to zap things and people. From here we have the standard clichés. He tries to tell the government. Naturally they do not believe him. The bad guys are smarter and want it. So he gets into all kinds of situations. Who shall prevail?
With both Tom Poston and Jim Backus (Horatio Kellgore) what could be a passing movie will keep you laughing.
At the film's original run they handed out plastic "Zotz" coins as souvenirs.
Be sure to read the novel by Walter Karig ASIN: B00005Y0HR also as it has more depth.

very good as a cult classic.
a somewhat funny movie,it's a totally diffrent movie, I really liked it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Alfred Hitchcock was fond of telling the story about how his father discouraged his son from even the slightest criminal impulse by having young Alfred locked in a police holding cell for a brief period--a terrifying experience Hitchcock never forgot. Much of the fear from that childhood incident resonates through The Wrong Man, which is unique among Hitchcock's films in that it is based entirely on a factual case that occurred in New York City in January 1953. As Hitchcock states in a shadowy prologue, authenticity was his primary goal--including the use of actual names and locations from the case--and the film gains considerable power from Hitchcock's semi-documentary approach (a film noir style that was still in vogue when Hitchcock shot this film in 1957).

Henry Fonda is perfectly cast as the financially struggling nightclub musician who is mistakenly identified as a robber when he attempts to cash in his wife's life-insurance policy to pay for her much-needed dental work. Vera Miles is equally superb as the suffering wife, who ultimately cracks under the pressure of her husband's wrongful accusation and the drawn-out process of proving his innocence. Through all of this, Hitchcock pays close attention to the mundane details of police procedure, intensifying Fonda's desperation and the narrative tension that was Hitchcock's directorial trademark. As it happens, the strict adherence to factual detail--no matter how absurd or incredible--also renders The Wrong Man somewhat weaker than Hitchcock's classic plots, since in this case truth is decidedly stranger than fiction. Nevertheless, this is still a riveting film that fits quite nicely alongside Hitchcock's better-known films of the 1950s. (Interesting trivia: Miles--who would later appear in Psycho, was Hitchcock's first choice for the Kim Novak role in Vertigo, and Hitchcock was vocally annoyed when Miles's pregnancy prevented her from taking the role that could have made her a star.) --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Ever Wanted to Wake Up from a Bad Dream?
The plot of this film was a recurring nightmare that Alfred Hitchcock apparently tried to get out of his system with a starkly documentary type of movie that didn't go down too well with audiences. It's a tedious reworking of a case of mistaken iedntity in a robbery prosecution in New York City, entirely devoid of any of the glamour or wit that Hitchcock usually used to mask his obsessions. "The Wrong Man" might have been the subtitle of several of Hitchcock's films, and he laid his worst fears on the line with this one. Henry Fonda, the hapless musician victim, is reduced to praying for miracle to get out the trap, and one turns up, an echo of Hitchcock's Catholic upbringing. In the context of Hitchcock's other work it's an interesting couple of hours, but only in that context.

Intense suspense
This is an extraordinary Hitchcock film. It's very powerful and very different. "The difference lies in the fact that this is a true story - every word of it"; a quote of Hitchcock's from the opening of the film. It is sad that a story like this is true and that it has happened, but it's part of what makes the film as powerful as it is. Another power-factor is the black and white cinematography , which lends a whole other mood, than if it had been shot in colour. Great acting, great directing. I'm very much looking forward to this film's being released on DVD, I'm surprised that it isn't available yet, considering how much of Hitchcock's work is.
Enter your e-mail address above, and thus vote for the release of this disc, everybody - it's a lock!

Is the DVD coming out soon?
I hope the DVD comes out really soon. "The Wrong Man" is a wonderful film filled with drama, suspense, and action. Go see it!

WRONG MAN RIGHT FILM!!
Alfred Hitchcock again shows his mastery of the art of film making. "The Wrong Man" is done in a true documentary style..and Henry Fonda is so perfect he is scary.

With Fonda's superb low key style you will find he isnt acting at all.. he IS Manny Balestrero !. Fonda's inner rage is completely under control..and one wonders if it will ever explode..this fact sets up the tense drama to a breaking point.

The emotional breaking point is visited on his wife played by Vera Miles. The films plot has overtones of another film called " Call Northside 777" with the Police on one side and the rest of the characters on the other.

One of a kind film experience !
CP

A great thriller!
"The Wrong Man" is wonderful, it deserves five stars. The movie stars Henry Fonda and Vera Miles. They are both great actors. This film is actually true. It is a thriller but it is also a drama. An excellent Hitchcock film. Go see it! ... Read more

Description

Creepy slasher flick featuring Margot Kidder (Superman) as a psychotic twin with a brand new set of knives.Now with its own cult following, Sisters was the film that put director Brian De Palma (Carrie, The Fury, Dressed to Kill) on the map.A reporter witnesses the murder of a young man inside a neighboring apartment.When the body doesn't turn up, the reporter does some digging of her own and winds up immersed in the secret lives of famous Siamese twins.Replete with gore, excellent use of split-screen photography, and cameos from Olympia Dukakis (Moonstruck, Steel Magnolias) and Charles Durning (The Sting, The Hudsucker Proxy), De Palma's first tribute to Hitchcock also features a spine tingling score from Bernard Herrmann (Psycho, Vertigo). ... Read more

Reviews (46)

De Palma's divine tribute to the art of Alfred Hitchcock
A hard-nosed lady reporter witnesses a brutal murder, then learns that the girl she holds responsible for the crime has a seperated siamese twin sister. One of De Palma's best films, "Sisters" is definitely a tribute to the great Alfred Hitchcock with obvious references to PSYCHO and REAR WINDOW, as well as the bone-chilling score by Bernard Herrmann(Hitchcock's favorite composer), but De Palma proves to be a revolutionary filmmaker in his own right: His use of split screen to show two actions taking place at once is superb and quite unlike anything Hitchcock ever did. Also, I would note that the ending of this film is far more bizarre and unsettling than anything the master could concoct. In addition to putting De Palma on the map, "SISTERS" boosted Margot Kidder's career, and played a firm hand in revolutionizing the splatter movie genre(there are two great gory murders that you won't easily forget). If you love to be scared, SISTERS is one film you won't want to miss!

Brian De Palma's first real success is a knockout.
Brian De Palma has always been one of Hollywood's great imitators. He's the same type of filmmaker as Tarantino: he's seen all the movies and simply cannot resist paying homage to his favorite films whenever he gets the chance (ie. The Odessa Steps sequence from 'The Battleship Potemkin' finds it's way into 'The Untouchables'). Here, De Palma begins a string of Hitchcockian susense films with 'Sisters', a powerfully disturbing look at the extreme bond between a set of siamese twin sisters (played by Margot Kidder in her pre-Superman days). De Palma seems so assured in his direction through-out the film, using flashy jump cuts, eerie montages and flashbacks, and (in simply one of the most amazing sequences ever captured on film) he utilizes the split-screen technique first used to great impact in Michael Wadleigh's "Woodstock" to create two unique viewpoints of a murder. A murder which sparks the film and sets it down it's path. A tabloid reporter named Grace (played by Jennifer Salt) witnesses the murder of a young black man by Dominique (the evil twin) from her window. When she brings the police to the scene of the crime, she meets Danielle (the normal twin) but finds no body... and no Dominique. Soon she sets out to find the truth and expose the murderer. The film is charged with voyeurism, and De Palma carries us along swiftly and adeptly. Bernard Herrmann's score and Gregory Sandor's excellent cinemotography add to what is already a chilling tale of identity and madness, where nothing is what it seems and a simple kiss can be deadly. Much thanks goes to Criterion for resurrecting this long lost classic and restoring it to pristine condition. A great film for fans of the bizarre.

As racist as a Stephen King Short Story from the seventies
This movie is the most balsy opaquely racist movie I've ever seen. But I'll get to that in a moment.

Margot Kidder is a bombshell in this movie. Every sinew, every muscle, every handful of glandular greatness, every strand of beautiful raven black hair on her Canadian brow is perfectly structured to reveal an untapped sex-goddess in her prime (25). Her French Accent is positevly genius and to die for along with the scenes where she is using her allure to distract the cops from growing wise to her homicide. What, pray tell, happened to Margot Kidder in the five years from Sisters to Superman. Her perfect mouth becomes somehow gaunt and the fortifying keratin tissue around her lips fades in an unattractive way. I cannot place exactly what it is, but something happened to Margot in those five years which took away much of her blossoming beauty.

But I digress. The reason this movie is racist is because when broken down it shows how a group of white people conspire together to kill a healthy, young, law-abiding, successful black man and don't get caught. They suffer no repercussions. Thus the subtext of the film acts to assert racist propaganda disguised as a thriller/horror picture.

But read any Stephen King short story in the mid seventies and you'll get the same thing. Apparently brian and stephen didn't think black people would ever attain the education or affluence to see their movies/read their stories.

"You are not a doctor"
nancy drew (jennifer salt) would kill to get off of staten island and become the maverick of NYC journalism. the only problem is that all she has done to this point with her 'little job" is write about rampant police corruption, isolating herself even further from the big city. what she needs is a break, and witnessing a murder, (especially a depalma split-screen murder) appears to be her ticket, if she can get anyone to listen.

nancy drew on acid

In this Hitchcok style this is the best
This film has many aspects to remark. The first of them lies in the style: the film reminds to a slow english picture, in the Hitchcock of the fifties, specially The rear window and the rope, there are many unforgettable shot angles , the sensation you breathe is amazing. You feel the claustrophobic mood and once more, the camera becomes before us once more as a device for making the viewer a real Peeping Tom.
The dual character played in both characters are brilliant played by Margott Kidder in his best rol to date and dazzling direction. The script runs organically , giving visible and suggestive clues. A brilliant psychothriller!.
De Palma made a little masterpiece, soon before one my favorite cult movie any age like Phantom of Paradise. De Palma was in the peak of his powers, undoubtly.
If you are a hard fan of the suspense, this film is for you. ... Read more

Reviews (230)

Hitchcock's Masterful Tale of Neurosis and Obsession
Vertigo brilliantly and hypnotically displays many of Hitchcock's famous themes: the ordinary man caught up in a world of intrigue beyond his control (Scotty), the icy, mysterious blonde (Madeline), the smothering maternal figure (Midge), the obsession with the past, and the blurring of the line between illusion and reality. All of the aforementioned elements are enhanced by Bernard Hermann's passionate, romantic music, and combine to make this film one of Hitchcock's most complex, most richly rewarding films.

In "Vertigo," the characters and the viewing audience rarely know what is real and what is illusion. Many of the scenes in the film have a hazy, dreamlike quality: Madeline disappears behind and re-emerges from the Sequoia trees; Madeline steps out of the hazy, hotel light after her transformation as if she is a ghost reappearing from the past. Hitchcock brilliantly uses light, shadow and music to create a dizzingly uncertain atmosphere, forcing the audience to question what is really happening in the scene.

Scotty's obsession with the past and his desire to transform the charater "Judy" into his former love "Madeline" brings up an intriguing question. To what lengths will people go to change themselves to please the one they love? How much of their identities are they willing to give up for love? Madeline poignantly says to Scotty after he has asked her to change one thing after another about herself, "If I let you change me, then will you love me?"

"Vertigo" is a brilliant director working out his neurosis and obsessions through cinema. Luckily for the audience, the director is Hitchcock, and the film he has created is a fascinating, haunting masterpiece.

Absolutely the best film Hitchcock ever made
Everybody's got a favorite Alfred Hitchcock movie. Mine is VERTIGO. Everything about this movie is more than perfect. The performances from Kim Novak, James Stewart and Barbara Bel Geddes- beyond Oscar quality. The film is a masterpiece. There are multiple themes that are repeated throughout the movie, which make it subject to many repeated viewings. I've seen it many times, and I could see it all the time. Every time I see it, I find out something new. When you see John "Scottie" Fergeson going over the top, you'll have a hard time believing that it's Jimmy Stewart up on screen. Kim Novak is a beautiful, shimmering brilliance in her two- actually THREE roles (Madeline, Carlotta Valdes, Judy). And I found it hard not to sympathize with Barbara Bel Gedde's Midge. Alfred Hitchcock's meticulous direction pays off more than ever. The ending delievered such an emotional, psychological shock that I couldn't stop thinking about it. My advice to you: stop reading, go out and see VERTIGO. You won't regret it.

The very first shot is the best.
I watched Vertigo for the first time when I was about 12 years old - I remember I couldn't sleep well afterwards. I guess I was a little too young at the time to fully appreciate its scope. Watched it now again in its restored form on DVD.

In my opinion the best moment in the movie is the very first shot of the woman's mouth and face and her eyes - the look in her eyes - all in black and white - and then the introduction of colour - the spirals etc., and the ingeneous score. The score is incredible. Very efficient. It really gives the whole thing a dreamlike quality.

Generally, I don't like dark haunting movies too much. And Vertigo is haunting.
Most of the other Hitchcock movies have a kind of upbeat humour - an optimistic atmosphere. Take Psycho, for example. Yes, people get killed - but in a strange, almost perverse way the movie is almost funny. And, of course, there is a satisfying conclusion, a happy end. Not so in Vertigo.

Note that Hitchcock returned in subsequent movies - North by Northwest, Frenzy, Family Plot ...to his characteristic dark humour. That's why I think that Vertigo - while it deals with themes also present in his other movies - is something of an exception : there is no happy end and there is no relief for the audience.

Most of Hitchcock's movies deal with horrible things - like murder, the innocent being wrongfully accused and hunted by society, malice and intrigue,.. - but he always balances this with this typical British dark humour which in a way protects the audience and helps it to digest the on-screen violence. So this dark humour, this distancing of the audience, fulfills a very important function. For instance, after the shower scene in Psycho, we witness Norman Bates clean up the bathroom.
The same kind of dark humour - not quite as dark - can be found in some of the James Bond movies. Its always about helping the audience to accept what has just happened.

In Vertigo, this dark humour is missing and this accounts for its dark haunting quality.

Again, I am not much of a fan of obssesive love and all that - and probably neither
are most other people - and certainly Vertigo is not as much fun to watch as, say North by Northwest, but the score and the use of colours in it alone are worthy of our attention.

Darkest Hitchcock
"Vertigo" is a disturbing tour de force. You would probably have to roll forward to David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" and "Mulholland Drive" is find comparable weirdness. Is it Hitchcock's best? That's a tough question. Personally, I think "Notorious" is a better film, because the story fits easier into expectations of what a story should be, while at the same time being very edgey in matters of men and women, sex and love, and intrigue that blurs the lines. Everything about "Notorious" is balanced. But "Vertigo" takes chances few directors are willing to attempt, and that has to be recognized - especially when it involves a director with the abilities and genius of a Hitchcock. With that in mind, "Vertigo" is the important film, necessary if you want to fully understand Hitchcock.

"Vertigo" is about obsession. Ex-detective John Ferguson (Jimmy Stewart) is following the wife of an old friend, who fears his wife is losing her mind. It's a deadly scam, but you know that. The real story is Ferguson's descent. Stewart is excellent and increasingly strange as the movie progresses. Novak also works, but in a way she strikes the viewer as a deliberately coarser version of the Hitchcock "blondes." I don't pretend to be a Hitchcock specialist, but I've been spending this summer going through the major Hitchcock films, and I've noticed a few things that have me wondering over Hitchcock's creative arc in general. Blondes, yep. But look at the role of mothers. "Strangers on a Train" has psycho killer Walker's mother as a babying influence, and "Vertigo" has former Stewart girlfriend, played by Barbara Bel Geddes, visiting Stewart/Ferguson, and telling him "mother" is there for him. And check out the Nazi mother to mama's boy Claude Rains in "Notorious." The capper is of course the "mother" of Norman Bates in that movie explosion called "Psycho." What was it with Hitchcock and mothers? Also note that the swirl imagery of "Vertigo" reappears in the swirling drain of "Psycho."

"Vertigo" is a much more free-floating effort, and deserves all the praise. Narrative structure is allowed to slacken, and interior pathologies allowed to take priority, all amazing terrain for a director to explore - and to be allowed to explore by the dollar driven studios. The logic of the "story" is in fact is so suspended, that the fact that there is a murder and a murderer become secondary - they are merely triggers. Oh, Stewart/Ferguson eventually remembers he's a cop, but the difference in "Vertigo," which sets it apart from even "Psycho," is that it doesn't matter and darkness falls. And with it a final madness?

NOT his best! Why is everyone raving about this movie??
It's good, not great. The storyline is just too basic. Nothing really grabbed my attention. As far as the directing aspect of it, it may be one of his best. But also this may be his most boring film. It was a flop at the box-office. I'd like to know why it's considered his masterpiece. Am I missing something? This movie has little intrigue in comparison to his other films.

"North By Northwest" was by far his best.
"Rear Window" was great.
"The Birds" was very exciting to watch and was a great feat in film-making for its time with all those birds.
"Lifeboat" was good too.
"Psycho" would have been much better if I saw it for the first time without knowing what was going to happen.
"Dial M For Murder" has a great storyline with intrigue.

But as for "Vertigo", ehh.... not as good in comparison. It will be very good if it is your first Hitchcock movie to watch. ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Du Maurier.....Laughton.....O'Hara.....Hitch!<