Amazon.com essential video

Tony Manero (John Travolta) in Saturday Night Fever and Dirk Diggler (Mark Wahlberg) in Boogie Nights have one major thing in common: They both have posters of Al Pacino as Serpico on their bedroom walls. As the real-life NYPD detective whose integrity cost him virtually everything (and almost cost him his life), Pacino became one of the icons of gritty, realistic 1970s filmmaking. Released in 1973, between the first two Godfather movies, this is the true story of Frank Serpico, a long-haired, idealistic, iconoclastic cop who reluctantly goes undercover to investigate dirty colleagues who are on the take. This is one of the definitive Pacino performances, along with his role as Michael Corleone in the Godfather saga, and Sonny the bungling bank robber in Dog Day Afternoon (which reunited him with his Serpico director, Sidney Lumet)--and Pacino was nominated for a best actor Oscar for all of them (although he wouldn't actually win until 1992's Scent of a Woman). --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (36)

One Good Cop
Al Pacino became a star thanks to his role as Michael Corleone in The Godfather. The film that cemented Mr. Pacino as one of the best actors of his generation was Serpico. Based on the Peter Maas book of the same name, Serpico is the true story of a New York undercover cop who seems to be the only honest cop on the force. Due to his honest nature, the other cops are leery of him and refuse to accept him as a real cop. To that end, he moves from precinct to precinct in search of a friendly work environment, but wherever he goes, he finds the same old situation. Serpico then goes to the higher-ups in the department, but they too have no use for his accusations. Finally, he goes public with his accusations and that triggers an investigation into the dealings of police officers. Serpico becomes a marked man and is nearly intentionally killed by another cop who while Serpico is on an undercover operation. Mr. Pacino brings a realistic approach to the role and you feel sympathy for Serpico. He is not a great man, he has his faults, but he believes in what he does and he takes a stand for his belief that policeman should serve the public and not illegally benefit from their position of power.

Very compelling story.
The story of Frank Serpico, an honest Nyc cop, is one of the most compelling police movies ever made. Al Pacino gives the character a lot of class and cool. Serpico is an easy-going guy with very clear morals about what's right and what's wrong. As he moves from precinct to precinct in dire hope of finding an honest place to work, all he finds are more and more corrupt cops...and it seems to be driving him insane both morally, and insane because the cops aren't comfortable with cops who don't take money. The film does a great job of displaying how the corruption is corrosive and unjust to the people of our country...but esp. interesting is that this wonderfully directed Sidney Lumet film is really very much like a suspense adventure chase...but at a much slower speed in which you can watch as things crumble and go to pot. Pacino plays the role in an understated manner...perhaps due to his knowledge of the real Frank Serpico, or maybe a creative choice. Either way, it's not his usual boisterous way...no crooked looks, no playful grins, etc. You'll forget Pacino is in this character. That Academy is worthless for not handing out an Oscar for this or Scarface or for Godfather I or II...or Dog Day Afternoon or Glengarry Glen Ross.

Nothing to wonderful
I did'nt like this one to much. Al Pacino's character is ok. There where only a few parts in the movie, where he really did an amazing job. The story plot did'nt make sence, it kept jumping around, Pacino looked like a horrible Charlies Manson, look-a-like. Don't waste your time.

Slow but Compelling in its Own Way
It isn't a particularly good movie. The pacing is all wrong and none of the characters beside Serpico ever get a chance to be clearly drawn. His personal life isn't very clearly explicated. That said, Pacino does a great job portraying a complicated and iconoclastic man of immense integrity and courage. Serpico is a great role model for young men in any era. He shows you can be yourself, be cool and have integrity, guts and morals.

Pacino in one of their best!
I've always said in my personal meetings with coleagues and friends that Pacino is much more than an actor ; he's a nature force .
But back to Serpico. This movie not only remains as cult movie and one of the most`powerful works of this tireless film maker as Sidney Lumet was in that age. Serpico meant a breakthrough with the ancient patterns of good citizen and virtuosi cop.
Serpico is a simple inmigrant citizen who lives in a little department ; he brings in his mind the ancestral illusions for being part of the american dream . His inner sense of justice is not influenced for any other kind of ideology . In this sense he's naif ; suddenly he's inmersed in a double face world; the eternal game of make the things appear right ; though they are rotten really .
His search for the sense of justice prevails and becomes nowadays, in a kind of romantic knight ; but he , besides the prize he must pay for his behavior , goes ahead no matter what. Don't forget that in times of hipocrisy ; any sincerity is associated with cynism.
This film is part of the amazing sextet together with Twelve angry men, The pawnbroker , The offence , Network and Equus ; that in my opinion express the most remarkable works of that extraordinary film maker. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

For the fugitive kind of person..
I recently saw this film in a class of mine, and afterwards I was compelled to buy it. This film embodies the idea that silence is more powerful than words. Some people may find this film boring and slow, but those who do have not felt the intense connection you get by watching someone--the way they move, observe, think--and by understanding their human emotion. Though the story in general is simple--two strange and peculiar characters fall in love--the thoughtful lighting, the ambient music, the disorienting camera angles, the sharp acting..they all unite to create a complicated layer of emotions that provoke you. On the silver screen, these characters will go down as silent heroes to those who ever felt they were misunderstood by most. This film is a peculiar classic with peculiar characters, but nonetheless brilliant.

Magnani!
This is one of my favorite films ever. The cinematography is wonderful enough to almost be a character itself! Joanne Woodward and Maureen Stapleton turn in excellent performances - and the beautiful Anna Magnani was never been more sensual. The story is pretty melodramatic, as you'd expect from being based on a Tennesee Williams play (Orpheus Descending). This film is a classic.

What a Drag !
Such a slow and boring movie. Absolutely NO chemistry amongst the artistes. One of those "bad" movies of Marlon Brando. If not for Marlon Brando I would gladly miss this movie !

"The weight of a man..."
Marlon Brando at is best. Many parts of the movie you just repeat them again and again on your VCR, trying to understand what his the secret of this guy.What make this guy so great, so different. What makes each of his gesture so hyptnotic. The movie is wonderfull. But Marlon Brando's attitude lesson in itself is worth the price of the tape.

I really think it's my favorite movie of all time!
Fine adaptation of Tennessee William's multi-layered play (an improvement in fact), and terrific performances from Woodward, Brando and Magnani (perhaps the greatest actress in cinema history). ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Sidney Lumet's directorial debut remains a tense, atmospheric (though slightly manipulative and stagy) courtroom thriller, in which the viewer never sees a trial and the only action is verbal. As he does in his later corruption commentaries such as Serpico or Q & A, Lumet focuses on the lonely one-man battles of a protagonist whose ethics alienate him from the rest of jaded society. As the film opens, the seemingly open-and-shut trial of a young Puerto Rican accused of murdering his father with a knife has just concluded and the 12-man jury retires to their microscopic, sweltering quarters to decide the verdict. When the votes are counted, 11 men rule guilty, while one--played by Henry Fonda, again typecast as another liberal, truth-seeking hero--doubts the obvious. Stressing the idea of "reasonable doubt," Fonda slowly chips away at the jury, who represent a microcosm of white, male society--exposing the prejudices and preconceptions that directly influence the other jurors' snap judgments. The tight script by Reginald Rose (based on his own teleplay) presents each juror vividly using detailed soliloquies, all which are expertly performed by the film's flawless cast. Still, it's Lumet's claustrophobic direction--all sweaty close-ups and cramped compositions within a one-room setting--that really transforms this contrived story into an explosive and compelling nail-biter. --Dave McCoy ... Read more

Reviews (112)

12 Jurors + 12 Great Performances = 1 Superlative Movie!
How many times have you seen the "One juror holdout" theme played out in movies and (especially) on TV shows? Probably quite a few. But none done so well and so very convincingly as the 1957 classic, "12 Angry Men". Henry Fonda's arguments attempting to persuade his fellow jurors of the defendant's "possible", but by no means "certain" innocence plays out exceptionally well in this film. This is due in no small part to Fonda's fine portrayal, as well as each of his 11 cohorts. For me, in addition to Fonda, the standout "jurors" are Lee J. Cobb and Ed "Ya Know What I Mean?" Begley. I've always wondered where this was filmed. All we ever see here is the jury room....drab, old, hot, high ceiling, big (sticky) windows, et al! Perfect setting! Very realistic looking....right down to the rickety electric fan that Jack Warden just can't seem to get started! Buy this video; you'll have to love it!

Quibble about VHS version ......... If you own the VHS version of this film, perhaps you've noticed something odd about it (I certainly did). .....

It's being played at the wrong speed! It's running too FAST !
It's not all that annoying, except in a few places where the dialogue is definitely noticeably sped up. (Particularly when Lee J. Cobb or Ed Begley are speaking. Their deep voices seem higher pitched than they ought to be.)

To bear out the above minor complaint, we can check out the running-time statistics on each package. ..... VHS running time is only 92 minutes. But the film SHOULD run 95 minutes. (And I'm almost certain nothing has been cut out in the video print.)
So, for some reason, the video makers saw fit to compress the 95-minute movie into 92 minutes. Most curious.

I'm getting the DVD version soon, which Amazon claims has a 96-minute run time (1 minute LONGER than the whole film). ??
I'm hoping this is accurate, and the DVD has been slowed down to the proper speed. Having this great film in widescreen will be a major plus as well!!

I Never Tire of It!
I received this video last weekend and have since watched it three times, all the way through. I am not the least bit tired of it yet! I love movies that have all-star casts but no real "starring role"; 12 ANGRY MEN is just such a movie. It is fascinating to watch the interaction between twelve superlative actors confined in a small space (the jury room) for nearly the entire film. All of the actors -- including Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, and Martin Balsam -- are superb. However, my favorite characters are the ones played by Jack Klugman, George Voskovec, E.G. Marshall, and Edward Binns. Klugman's character, a young man from the slums, clearly has some repressed anger but is basically a vulnerable, soft-spoken person. Voskovec's character is an immigrant from (I assume) Eastern Europe, well-mannered and thoughtful, though he becomes angry when he sees others not taking their democratic duties seriously. E.G. Marshall's character is a bit aloof and very reasoned; but unlike a couple of the others (Cobb's and Begley's characters), he is no bigot. When at the end of the movie he realizes that his judgment was wrong, he does not hesitate to admit it. Binns plays a kindly, working-class man who gives Cobb's character a few lessons in respect. And of course, Henry Fonda comes across as sincere, thoughtful, and compassionate. The superlative cast and direction (by Sidney Lumet) make 12 ANGRY MEN a classic that can be watched again and again.

Addendum
Here are two subtleties in 12 ANGRY MEN which I don't know if anyone else has remarked on. At the end of the movie, as Henry Fonda leaves the empty jury room, he looks back at the table and an odd "laughing" or braying motif plays in the music. Is Fonda inwardly "laughing" at the eleven people whom he has "put one over" on? Then he steps out of the room with a rather sinister or secretive air, looking rather like - get this - like someone LEAVING THE SCENE OF A CRIME! I believe the movie is posing the question: "Who is the real criminal, here?" Maybe that's is a little farfetched, but I think there is a reason for everything is a work of art, especially in this very subtle and psychological film.

My second observation: in the opening moments of the film, we see a series of people walking by outside the jury room. First, a young man with a suitcase and the air of a stranger, then a scholarly looking fellow, then a jovial young man congratulating a bunch of people on the happy outcome of a case, and finally a guard trying to quiet the people down. I believe that these figures are meant as types or mirror-images of Henry Fonda, E.G. Marshall, Robert Webber, and Martin Balsam.

A Masterpiece
What can I possibly say about this masterpiece? It is surely one of the greatest movies, a work full of layers of meaning, of symbolism, of psychological and artistic subtleties. You can wach this movie an infinite number of times, because each time you discover something new. I would just like to bring up one often neglected point. For me, this movie shows the shift in acting styles after World War II - a shift towards more naturalistic approach close to "method" acting. Many of the younger members of the cast - such as Martin Balsam and Jack Klugman - seem to belong to this new school. Just watch such things as Klugman's slow reaction when it dawns on him that Cobb is yelling at him, or the foreman (Balsam) as he "gives up" and sulks in the corner. The movie is full of wonderful and telling details such as these. I also think that the style of this film bears some relation to Italian Neo-Realism of the 40's and 50's (eg. stark setting, realistic dialogue, and filming in "real time", including seemingly mundane actions). And has anybody noticed that this movie obeys the "unities" of classical Greek drama (of time, place, etc.)?

And to those cynics who think that this is a movie about a clever man who manages to convince eleven men that a guilty youth is innocent - think again. I have actually lain awake at night worrying that the young man probably is, after all, guilty! But for the purpose of the film it doesn't matter. This is not a whodunnit; it is about human character and human behavior, the law, how our backgrounds color our attitudes, and countless other themes. And of course it is a showcase for twelve SUPERB actors.

(But please, who wrote the text on the back of the video cover? "Eleven jurors are convinced that the defendant is guilty of murder. The twelfth has no doubt of his innocence." WHAT?!! Did this person even watch the movie?!)

A great movie about epistemology
It always pisses me off when people give The Matrix as a philosophical movie, when there are so many much more rich sources of artistic exploration. 12 Angry Men is one such example, a great movie about epistemology.

During an unseen trial, a young man of a negatively-seen ethnicity (which is never specified) is accused of the murder of his father. It is an "open and shut case", and all the jurors agree that he is guilty, except juror #8, played by Henry Fonda.

In 95 minutes, almost shot in real-time, we observe as the jurors' prejudices and emotions churn and crash in mighty waves, as each piece of evidence is examined and examined again, as every actor plays against the others. In the process, we witness an object-lesson in epistemology : what is doubt, what is evidence, how do we prove or disprove a proposition, and how people in groups act in group dynamics that sometimes are not conductive to the truth.

Politically speaking, 12 Angry Men is a testimony against juries and capital punishment, but that is not the point of the movie. It is a movie about how we judge events and how we filter the truth. And that's something that you won't get from any action movie. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Fans of Sidney Lumet and screen adaptations of 20th-century literature may want to check out The Group, a relatively faithful film version of Mary McCarthy's seminalpost-graduate "campus" novel of the same name. The elliptical and rather familiar plot follows a group of young women--all classmates, friends, and recent graduates from a certain single-sex liberal arts college--as they face the inevitable pressures to sand the rough edges off their personalities and to surrender their independence to the men in their lives and the institutions they represent. Lumet(The Verdict,Dog Day Afternoon) lends to this tale his peculiar sense of lighting, pacing, and rich, captivating color, but he directs with a ponderousness and seriousness that the source material perhaps does not deserve, and certainly cannot comfortably withstand.The wedding-funeral framing device employed here is one we've all encountered before, and Lumet does not afford his young actresses much latitude of expression or interpretation.Particularly stiff (in her first film role, and, boy, does it show) is Candace Bergen; as Lakey Eastlake, the "beautiful one" among the friends, she's asked to provide a moral center for the story, yet her scenes are wooden and rarely develop any dramatic momentum. The lovely Elizabeth Hartman fares better as Priss, an innocent whose blunt sexual initiation still feels harrowing. Amid the gravity of the proceedings, an ensemble cast (which includes, among others, Joan Hackett, Shirley Knight, and Joanna Pettet) strains to replicate the searing wit of McCarthy's prose; and, in several winning scenes, the script preserves some fine examples of her dialogue. Nevertheless, the source novel--by no meansWar and Peace--doubtlessly would have benefited from a lighter touch. --Miles Bethany ... Read more

Reviews (2)

COMPELLING ODDITY
Sidney Lumet gives this movie a glossy sheen, and it is certainly dated with a sense of pretension. However, the story, about a group of lberal-educated women in the 30s/40s, is fascinating in its truly bold depiction of issues rarely raised in the movies of the 50s and 60s. The issues these women confront as they weave themselves into ordinary life play like a prequel to Valley Of The Dolls -- with some camp intact. Jessica Walter plays her frigid society girl to the hilt, while Shirley Knight has a gorgeous glow as perhaps the most humane member of the group. The costumes and art direction are much more 50s/60s than 30s chic -- and this detracts from the story, which is infinitely more compelling and even shocking knowing that these women -- who speak freely of communism and lesbianism -- are essentially products of a Depression-era college. Still, what fun to peek into the living quarters of these Manhattanites, and watch the soap suds rise.

Enjoyable, but not great
I doubt that any film can do justice to Mary McCarthy's spicy turns of phrases or her brilliant social insights. Given this parameter The Group is an enjoyable film. It is a little prudish when compared to the novel, but I imagine that it was bold for its period. ... Read more

Description

Jane Fonda stars as the alcoholic actress who wakes us with a dead man in her bed. It's The Morning After and she doesn't remember what happened or how he got there. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Jane Fonda At Her Best!
Jane Fonda was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress for her performance in this movie. I do not recall now who else was nominated in 1986, but I cannot imagine that they did better than she does as a fragile alcoholic who wakes up in bed with a dead man and hasn't the foggiest idea how she got there. "I once was an actress," she tells Jeff Bridges who plays an ex-cop who tries to help her. Both Bridges and Raul Julia, Fonda's exhusband and straight hairdresser-- one of the six in captivity-- both give adequate performances; but this movie belongs to Ms. Fonda. (We can only hope that she gets back into acting soon.)

The film of suspense is directed by Sidney Lumet who gave us the great movies "The Pawnbroker" and "Dog Day Afternoon."

A Story of Wounded Souls
Maybe the reason that some have negatively reviewed this movie is that it was seen as a thriller. And maybe, in fact, it does fail in that regard. [I'm no expert here; I was actually surprised when the killer was revealed.]

But I viewed this movie as a story of two wounded souls coming together in an unwitting fashion, loving and then wounding one another, and then somehow managing to come back together in the end.

Jane Fonda's performance is perhaps the finest in her career as an actress. She is funny, maddening, heartbreaking, tragic and sexy all at once.

And of course Jeff Bridges gives another subtle and truthful performance. He gives us a man who, were we to actually meet in real life, we might want to distance ourselves from. But there is much more there and Jeff makes you want to stick around to find out what that "more" is. He takes a sterotype and breathes life into him and makes us feel for him.

Please do not let the fact that you may be savy enough to guess "who done it" early on in this film. Stick around for the end. Stick around for the journey these two are on. It's worth the trip.

Not first rate but well-lit
This was reportedly the first film Sidney Lumet made in LA after working in New York for years. Cinematographer Andrzej Bartkowiak traded his usual black and brown chiaroscuro lighting for sunlit oranges and pastels. This colouring also applies to Jane Fonda who adopts a bleached blonde look to play an alcoholic has-been actress, who was "being groomed to be the new Vera Miles", suspected of murder. It is a nice touch to have made the victim a photographer of female muscle bodies, considering Fonda's fitness empire. The thriller elements of this film are undermined by an awful overbearing score by Paul Chihara and a clumsily staged climax. It works better as a drama with intimate conversations, in opposition to Lumet's tendency to have his actors yell. (Just think of Network). Both Jeff Bridges and Raul Julia work well off Fonda, Bridges in particular, though his fleshiness here makes him look more like his brother Beau. Fonda is quite brilliant in her 2 drunk scenes and her sober world-weary line readings are funny. She seems almost anorexically thin but gets a remarkeable makeover mid-way. I like the cuts in the love scene showing what makes Fonda's character drink. This is the only time the music works. I also like the line given to a friend of Fonda's when she asks for some conservative clothes - "Honey, I'm a drag queen, not a transvestite".

Stupid
The biggest problem with this so-called mystery is that there is no mystery. From the beginning you realize that there is only one possible murderer. Fonda is quite good, however. Her performance does not come across as methodical as in other movies. Still, I wouldn't buy this video. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

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

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

Reviews (10)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon.com

Though it may be thought of as sacrilegious to remake a classic such as The Wizard of Oz, this 1978 film directed by Sidney Lumet (The Pawnbroker, Serpico) is a vibrant and entertaining retelling of the modern fable, featuring an all black cast in the familiar story of a rural small-town girl whose dreams transport her to a magical world where the battle between good and evil gives the real world a sense of perspective. Rendered in the style of a musical (based on a successful Broadway run), the film benefits from using new contemporary music from stars Diana Ross (Mahogany, Lady Sings the Blues) as Dorothy and Michael Jackson as the shy Scarecrow, with music arranged by Quincy Jones. This visually and musically exciting film is less a remake than a reinvention that stands and dances very well on its own. --Robert Lane ... Read more

Reviews (120)

What Can I Say.....
Oh boy, where to start? This seems to be one of those movies where you either hate it or love it. This update of The Wizard of Oz, while for years vilified, has seemed to have gathered a cult classic-like following in recent years. It bears little resemblance to the 1939 Judy Garland masterpiece, or even for that matter, to the Broadway musical upon which it was based. The original musical was light and entertaining, inspirational and fun. This 1978 motion picture is a pretentious adaptation tht simply tries too hard. the film-makers turned the simplistic story of a young girl lost in a strange land into an overly glitzy, glamorous, and gaudy film. Despite this, there are some awesome moments in this movie, most notably: the stunning New York City visuals, great performances by Mabel King as the Wicked Witch and Ted Ross as the Cowardly Lion, wonderful music, and impressive and incredibly choreographed dances. However even that can't save the movie. It still manages to fall flat, not living up to the promise, vision, or scope of the simple story upon which it is based.

Unbelievably Fun
Boo, hiss to all the naysayers of the one and only 'Wiz'. A few of my friends got together at the DVD store the other night and out of all the available titles settled on this one, primarily for nostaligic reasons. Once we got home and popped it in, well, it was more than just simple sentimentality that carried us off to another world. This musical is awesome. The story is timeless, the songs are unforgettable and the widescreen transfer is excellent. One only wishes for more goodies on the disc.

I often scratch my head at why Sidney Lumet directed this, but knowing that he is one of the top five directors ever who understands New York City, it now makes perfect sense. The location shots are amazing, especially with the massive Albert Whitlock visuals. And as hard as it may be to watch Diana Ross play a 24 year old single woman, she achieves it with simple gestures and that pure, honey voice.

It's a huge treat to watch this movie and I look forward to repeat viewings.

THE WIZ....HAS SOUL!!!
The Wiz music will always be a classic. This is my only reason for buying this movie. It was definetly a 70's show. I was confused about certain scenes in the movie. For example, why did Aunt Em start singing "The Feeling We Once Had" to her daughter instead of Dorothy. And how did the Scarecrow know to signal Dorothy to destroy Evilene. The choreography and the music was great. Good for children to see!

BLACK PEOPLE, BUY THIS FOR YOUR KIDS!!!!
A MUST for every black child to see!! This is OUR classic production. Many great actors/actresses were young budding talents when they performed in the Wiz. It's great to see them then & know them now. My kids enjoyed the music & loved the dancing.

You should see the Whiz all over my tape!
this movie was okay, but all admit it was a disapointment. lookit dorothy with this afro, and this obese aunt em, god! you people have distoryed this tape! well hey the lion-- is lioney, the scarecrow dosen't sound like a girl and the tin mans chipper. except for the fact that they had good songs, and singers and all that other junk. the effects were sort of lacking, but hey-- it is not bad. its okay, but it is not that great, seriously people. this 3 star rating suits it. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

It's difficult to watch this involving family drama and not end up madat River Phoenix. He was such an incredibly talented, believable, available actor that it makes you mad at him for leaving us so soon.He's particularly good here as Danny, a talented musician and the eldest son of a couple of former war protestors (Christine Lahti and Judd Hirsch).Their bombing of a napalm plant during the Vietnam War makes their small, nuclear family act as fugitives, never letting themselves settle down, never leaving traces, one step ahead of the law. This works for the splinter group of rebels until Danny meets a teacher who believes in his talent, and meets the teacher's daughter, Lorna (played by Martha Plimpton).Danny's love for Lorna and his aspirations to attend Juilliard put the family in jeopardy of finally being tracked down.It's saying something that in this impressive ensemble cast, ably directed by Sidney Lumet, Phoenix sticks out.He was an actor whose tank never would have run out. --Keith Simanton ... Read more

Reviews (40)

Sincere, poignant, moving drama
This is doubtlessly one of the most underrated movies out there. The entire cast is just flawless. I watch this DVD and find myself truly saddened that such a talent as River Phoenix was so needlessly lost. Phoenix earned a well-deserved Oscar nomination for his role as Danny Pope, the undisputable emotional center of this movie. His performance was superlative. To me, this is one of the two or three highest points of Phoenix's all-too-short career; probably the top of the list, actually, in my opinion. His interplay with Judd Hirsch, the piano scene with Christine Lahti, the amazing chemistry with Martha Plimpton -- it really is just spellbinding. Christine Lahti is completely incredible as Annie Pope and the restaurant scene with her father is just devastating. I can't think of another word. Every time I watch it, I'm almost overwhelmed. Like many other reviewers, I applaud the absolutely perfect inclusion of James Taylor's "Fire and Rain" into the movie -- it just flat-out worked. Honestly, if you haven't seen this movie, treat yourself. It's a masterpiece.

Deserves a Special Edition
"Running on Empty" is a genuinely affecting film whose merits have been forgotten in the years since its release. In this tale about a family on the run from the law, the three leads register strong, memorable performances. The late River Phoenix is excellent, and he earned a Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for this role, which was to be a highlight of his tragically short career.

On this DVD, the movie is presented in full frame (square, as in not letterboxed), which may be disappointing to some. However, "Running on Empty" was initially shot full frame (or "flat") on 35mm and later matted to a 1:85 aspect ratio for theatrical release -- a common practice for a lot of films, including such big budget movies like "Jurassic Park" and "Back to the Future." When presented as full frame on television, the viewer is actually getting more of the image that was originally photographed than they would be if it were letterboxed.

That being said, film aficionados would've appreciated a widesreen DVD presentation that would've simulated the theatrical version. Plus, a widescreen DVD can be anamorphically enhanced for viewing on HD or HD-enhanced sets.

At the time of its original release, "Running on Empty" received critical praise and numerous awards, but the DVD has the scantest of bonus materials. (Interestingly, its screenwriter, Naomi Foner, is the mother of actors Jake and Maggie Gyllenhaal.) It would be great to hear the filmmakers and cast reflect on the production and working with River Phoenix. "Running on Empty" deserves the Special Edition treatment, but it stands alone and is definitely worth seeing, no matter the presentation.

A good movie
I enjoyed Running on Empty really because of River Phoenix. He is such an incredible actor and he really shows his acting skills in this movie. I also liked Martha Plimpton in this movie, she was very good.

A Genuine Tale.
It was my senior year when this film first hit the screens, and little did I know that I was about to witness one of the finest actors of my generation, River Phoenix, give the best performance of his career. He simply shines here, with so many touching moments that recalling them all has me overwhelmed with admiration and sadness. Seldom does any actor achieve this high a level of acting genious, let alone at River's young age. His performance here is truly remarkable, and I recommend owning this film for his work alone. But there is certainly more here to see. Judd Hirsch, of "Taxi" fame, is solid as River's father and shows both compassion and fortitude. Martha Plimpton, also in "The Mosquito Coast" with River Phoenix, is intelligent and plays off River's character so well that one can see the amazing chemistry they have written on the screen. But the other excellent performance here belongs to Christine Lahti. Her character is supportive of her family, but so many years on the run from the F.B.I. has made her weary. In every scene she has she shows an underlying fatigue that is breaking her down, even as she tries to hold on to her family as it begins to fracture. There is one scene, in particular, when she arranges "through the network" to see her father. She hasn't seen him in 14 years, the last when she was a young idealistic woman wanting to change the world and now a mother on the run trying to do what's best for her family. Her and her father exchange at least ten differnet emotions during the short scene, ultimately making it one of the most genuine moments in the movie. That's what this movie is, "geniune." All the characters are believably realistic and likable. It is truly a great experience when I care about every character in a film, and that happened here. The final scene is extraordinarily sad; and it was more so seeing River Phoenix standing alone with tears in his eyes. He was such a tremendous talent, and this film gives ample examples as to the genious of his craft. This is a great film with a phenomenal performance by the late River Phoenix.

C+
This is a film of a family on the run because the parents ( Christine Lahti and Judd Hirsh ) are radicals who started a fire that killed a man in the sixties. The film takes us on a journey of how their two sons ( River Phoenix, being one )deals with the situation. After a while the film gets very predictable. River's character has an amazing piano playing talent he wants to pursue. Meanwhile he falls in love with ( Martha Plimpton, the most annoying actress known to man ) and spills his guts about who his parents truly are. By the end River's character gets to live out his dreams of pursuing his career as a pianist while his family sadly agrees to leave him behind.

The acting was decent. The plot was dry and at times not believable. The family was supposed to be hiding from everyone around them yet when they wanted to do something outrageous ( like inviting Martha Plimpton to the mother's birthday party ) they did it with no questions asked. Christine Lahti held down her part as the mother. Judd Hirsh was a loud bore. He was way over the top and overacted like his life depended on it. River didn't knock my socks off either ( his mumbling nearly killed me ) but he was believable in his part. Martha Plimpton sucked as usual and I hated having to sit through her boring acting once again. All in all the film was okay. It's nothing to shout about and definitely nothing you HAVE to see. On the other hand it gives River Phoenix fans another chance to be touched by his grace. ... Read more

Reviews (88)

One of my top 10 favorite movies of the 20th century!!!!!!
Network was way ahead of its time! This film shows how a television network can take something that can actually enlighten and empower people and turn it into entertainment. It's also interesting to see the network's ratings skyrocket by feeding reality TV programs into the minds of its viewers. If you look at the saturation of reality shows today you can see that screenwriter Paddy Chayesfky was an oracle of his era.

What I also got from this film is the discarding of old ideas and replacing them with new ones. The William Holden and Peter Finch characters (these guys were already established movie stars) represented the old ideas; and the Robert Duvall and Faye Dunaway characters (by this time they were becoming big movie stars) represented the new ideas-a brilliant move on the part of the casting department.

Lastly, Paddy Chayesfky's screenwriting work is superb!!!!!! The words have so much substance and color to them! These days you hardly come across a movie with rich, propelling dialogue.

This movie is worth 20 stars. But to be fair to the rating system, giving it five is still good.

"This is mass-madness, you maniacs!!!"
This was the winner of 4 Oscars back in 1976, ultimately losing the Best Picture Oscar to "Rocky." But this film garnered every acting nomination across the board, winning three: Best Actress(Faye Dunaway), Best Actor(Peter Finch), Best Supporting Actress(Beatrice Straight). Other acting nominations included William Holden for Best Actor and Ned Beatty for Best Supporting Actor. Obviously, the acting here is amazing! Sidney Lumet's direction is also stellar, with fluid transitions and a professionalism that makes one forget how well-directed this film actually is. But the star of this film is screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky. Back in 1971 he won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for "The Hospital" and wrote nothing else for the screen until "Network" in 1976 for which he won another Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. His writing for "The Hospital" is excellent, but his writing here is unprecedented. The writing is razor-sharp and savagely funny, primarily satirizing the television industry in all its lunacy. My favorite lines from the film are witty plays on poor journalism like the title of my review or "a wanton fiscal affront to be resolutely resisted." The next time you watch the news, particularly sporting news, listen for those annoying phrases where the newscaster uses absurd word-play, usually as a segue. This film actually changed my outlook on all entertainment industries, from television to radio, and showed me how everything is commercialized. We live in a capitalist society, so it is little wonder why networks are "in the boredom-killing business" to make money. Keep the viewers sedated with artificial bliss and you can make them believe anything. That is only one of the intelligent themes that this scathing indictment of the television industry has in store. The script is incredibly tight, with perfect concoctions of frantic word-play and insightful revelations. This is the only screenplay that I own in paperback. I believe the writing is that phenomenal. New viewers should be warned, however, that watching this film may make you never want to watch television again. I've seen this film dozens of times and I am now disgusted with the television industry, magazines, newspapers, etc. For me, this film really was a revelation. For most, in the least, it should be an intelligent and entertaining satire on a powerful part of American culture. The ideas here may not be as strartling as they were to an audience of 1976, but most of them still hold true to this day.

The reason why I'm in the Broadcasting business!
You want to see some great acting! I'm mean do you really want to see some great acting? This all star cast is a testament to the movie's greatness. William Holden, Faye Dunnaway, Robert Duvall, Ned Beatty are all outstanding. But it's Peter Finch who died just before the Academy Awards and recieved a postumous Oscar for the mad prophet himself, Howard Beale. A man who single handedly brings a Broadcasting Network from worst to first. The actions of the executives in this movie are no different then what they do today. On my top 5 list of the greatest movies ever!

We're mad as hell!
'Network' should be seen together with 'EdTv' and 'The Truman Show'. They all show the effect of television on people and also what goes on behind the scenes, the eternal fight for higher ratings, no matter what it is about.

Faye Dunaway wants to try everything to get higher ratings, she is so obsessed that even life has become a scenario to her, she almost has no ties to 'normal' life anymore, everything has become a spectacle.

When a newsbroadcaster tells his audience he is going to kill himself on tv in two weeks hell breaks loose. No one cares about human life, it's all about ratings. They would go as far as they can possibly go...

Possibly the Most Important Film Ever Made
I have put off writing a review for this film for quite a long time, but I finally decided to dive straight into the maelstrom and take a stab at it.

Network is (in my opinion) one of the most important films ever made and is essential as both an angry and cynical satire (one of the greatest) and as an eye-opening experience for our modern age. I would even venture to say that this film is even more pertinent now than when it first entered theaters 28 years ago. A huge (actually staggering) amount of events have happened since then, including the rise of the computer (which is already an average, commonplace thing now) and globalism. Corporations (the object of scorn in this film) are more powerful than ever. It makes the chilling statements in this movie even more confrontational and prophetic.

Network displays terrific ensemble acting by all of the characters involved: from "leading" figure William Holden, the old-fashioned romantic left rudderless in the wake of a new ultra-consumerist culture to his icy and mechanical love interest Faye Dunaway who is the "ugly" spirit of the Network itself to his wife Beatrice Straight, the lonely, bitter, and heartbroken woman (she won an Oscar for being in merely one scene, that's how real it was!) to Robert Duvall's exaggerated performance as a cruel and money-obsessed entrepeneur to Ned Beatty's strange, almost Shakespearean portrayal of the head executive as a sort of Antichrist for Capitalism to the small but gritty and ferocious roles of the quasi-Communist radicals who also end up tangled in the web of the Network and scrambling for their own "share".

Then we come to Peter Finch. Dunaway and Straight also won Oscars, but it was Finch's dazzling, enraged, and clownish acting feat as "mad prophet" Howard Beale that truly steals the show. His vitriolic diatribes which reveal his deepest, darkest inner secrets as well as his outer visions about society and the world end up bringing chills to the spine and are more adrenaline-pumping than any action-adventure extravaganza. He was an anomaly in the film and in the Hollywood spotlight, being the first actor awarded a posthumous Oscar.

Of course, the heart and soul of this film belong to kinetic director Sidney Lumet, who captures the zeitgeist, city, and intricate structure of modern times so well, and riddling writer Paddy Chayefsky who does some intense philosophical probing into many puzzling and disturbing issues that still ring true today.

In the end, Network is more than just another Oscar winner (being another tragic example of Hollywood's bias and/or reluctance to choose revolutionary films as Best Picture, other examples being Citizen Kane, Easy Rider, Apocalypse Now, etc.), it is also a film that makes you examine your own position in our modern society and what that society is doing (more importantly, the persons in power in that society). Network has no heroes, no happy ending, and no resolutions. It offers hard questions but few answers. I highly recommend this startling, over-the-top, and controversial film. It is provocatively honest. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Just Give Me What I Want
An admitted fan of obscure titles, this film is one that sits proudly on my shelf and just about everyone asks "What's this about?" It's about life. The plot revolves around a selfish and wealthy man with a wife, and a secretary and a mistress who alternately wants and then rebuffs just about everyone. Alan King is drop dead great in the most solid performance of his career as Max the high rolling lover of long suffering mistress Bones Burton (Ali McGraw). He wants her, he doesn't want her, he doesn't know what he wants. But he definitely doesn't want anyone else to have her, especially playwright Peter Weller. Let the battle of the sexes begin once again and Max is a man who never loses anything. The very rich are not at all that different than you and I, but their problems unfold a bit differently when set against the backdrop of designer clothes and jewels, are juggled by assistants and buffers, and are played out in fabulous penthouses and mansions. Somehow it seems a bit more hilarious. A good solid screenplay and an even, funny film under the direction of Sidney Lumet. It is worth buying and seeing more than once. Look for Myrna Loy who is wonderful as Max's secretary. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Poignant, impassioned film
This is one of my favorite films. Rod Steiger, the most underrated artist alive, in my opinion, plays a Jewish pawnbroker who struggles with memories of the war, loss of his family and the apathetic shell his life has become. When he finally realizes that the people around him need his concern and without it, they can't survive, it's too late. A young Quincy Jones composed the tremendous Jazz score that gives every scene depth and punch. The film is in black and white which makes the characters seem more shady, sad and poignant. It is filmed on location in Hell's kitchen, at that time, a derelict New York neighborhood. This gives the film an atmosphere of desperation, fear, foreboding and regret. It is a sensitive, complex film that stirs the emotions on so many levels. See it if you can.

Astounding performance
Rod Steiger's performance in this film is the best of his career. Period. He was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor, 1965, and should easily have won--although he did not. In this powerful film, he plays Sol Nazerman, a seedy denizen of New York's Lower East Side who makes his living as a pawnbroker. Into his store come lowlifes of all sorts--hookers, junkies, thieves. Nazerman is a survivor of the Holocaust and carries enormous psychic scars that refuse to stop tearing at his soul.

As a vicious menacing crime figure, Brock Peters is also superb--the present-day reminder to Nazerman of how evil never dies. Other cast members include Geraldine Fitzgerald as a sympathetic caseworker and Jaime Sanchez as Nazerman's young Latino assistant who is of another generation and another culture, and cannot understand his boss' terrible anguish.

Director Sidney Lumet has done an outstanding job here conveying the lifelong suffering that horrific evil brings with it. This is not a graphic film, but one that delivers its message before the days of special effects via pure drama. It is a great thing to have this now available on DVD; this is a film that should be seen by those who treasure phenomenal acting and powerful emotion.

Very highly recommended; the best American film of 1965 and one of the best American films of the 20th century.

Brilliant film but with one inexcusable flaw
"The Pawnbroker" is a bleak, shattering character study concerning the ravages of guilt on a holocaust survivor who has psychologically shut down his emotions in order to survive. Sol Nazerman's (Rod Steiger) guilt is based on his inability to save his family at Auschwitz while he himself has continued to live. His emotional shutdown results in his ability to empathize with the desperate, pathetic customers who pawn their valuables at his store, or to care about his mistress, his Puerto Rican employee, or anyone else. However, through a sort of cinematic stream of consciousness, director Sidney Lumet is able to reveal how current situations act as catalysts on Sol, enabling memories of the past, through flashback, to return and haunt him still. This is arguably the best performance of Rod Steiger's career, with exceptional support from the entire cast.

So what's the flaw? Well, the filmmakers convincingly show where the horrors of hatred and bigotry that led to the Holocaust can lead. And then the filmmakers proceed to promote another form of hatred, as if this were somehow acceptable. The problem for me is that for no positive reason, several of the arch villains in this piece are shown to be gay men, and one can't help but wonder at the homophobia behind the director or author's choice in this. The main villain of the piece is Rodriguez (excellently played by Brock Peters), who uses the pawnship as a money-laundering "front" for his personal crime syndicate, and pays Sol well for his compliance. Rodriguez is continually shown with his blond male lover, a handsome but subservient figure in a non-speaking role. After one threatening interchange between Rodriguez and Sol in Rodriguez's living room, Rodriguez and the lover are seen ascending the stairs, presumably to the bedroom, to turn in for the night, leaving the distraught and vanquished Sol by himself. [...]

And then there are the three evil thugs who decide to rob the pawnshop. Prior to this robbery attempt, we see one of robbers lovingly examining the photos in a men's muscle magazine. Again, why??

The movie even contains an East Harlem nightclub scene, in which a pathetic drag queen of advanced age struts his sad stuff in a performance worthy of "The Gong Show" before removing his wig at the dance's end. For the third time, why???

This facile use of homosexuality to highlight modern-day evil is quite frankly repugnant and both tarnishes and sabotages an otherwise brilliant film. If the filmmakers are attempting to show where hatred toward one minority group can lead, how can the writer and director justify reviling yet another persecuted minority group? Were they not aware that hundreds of thousands of gay men and women also perished in the death camps? Was the suffering of the concentration camp prisoners who were forced to wear a yellow star more valid than the suffering of the prisoners who were forced to wear a pink triangle?

Rod Steiger's best work.
This black & white art film from the Sixties holds up extremely well thanks to Rod Steiger's wonderful performance and Sidney Lumet's gritty direction. The film, not to mention the novel it was based upon, is one of my favorites because it captures graphically the way the main character's memories of the Holocaust hold him prisoner years later as a Harlem pawnbroker. With his life long ago drained of joy and feeling, he is at once the victim of his pawnshop and life, and the businessman who's lost the ability to empathize with his poor and victimized (but often amazingly hopeful) customers. Add to the drama an urban jazz score by Quincy Jones and you have a picture that belongs in any serious film lover's collection.

The Sounds of Silence
This is one of only a few films in which there are certain scenes which, for various reasons, I find almost unbearable to watch again. The others include the scene at the train station when Sophie must make her choice, the sequence of murders in In Cold Blood, the burning of the church in The Patriot, the multiple hangings in The Ox-Bow Incident, and the evisceration of William Wallace in Braveheart.

Brilliantly directed by Sidney Lumet, with equally brilliant cinematography by Boris Kaufman (both of whom should have at least been nominated for an Academy Award), this is among the first films to dramatize with high levels of seriousness and sensitivity the essential evil of the Holocaust. Sol Nazerman is the central character, played by Rod Steiger who was nominated for an Academy Award for best actor. Lee Marvin received that award for his role in Cat Ballou. (I thoroughly enjoyed Marvin's performance but still think Steiger deserved the award. To his credit, so did Marvin and said so.) Nazerman is a pawnbroker in New York City, having long ago lost (or so it seems) his ability to have an feelings for anyone else...or even for himself. His mind may be especially alert but his heart is numb.

In terms of plot, not much happens. Most of the the film focuses is on Nazerman's dysfunctional interactions with other people, notably with Marilyn Birchfield (played by Geraldine Fitzgerald) and Jose Ortiz (Jaime Sanchez) who works for Nazerman. What's Nazerman's problem? With meticulous care, Lumet gradually reveals the past from which he emerged but, in certain respects, from which he has not survived. His "problem" is that he has lost his will to live but not to exist.

Many of those who have seen the film will insist that, in the final scene, when Nazerman screams out in pain, the sound of that scream has haunted them ever since. In fact, there was no sound. Steiger later explained that his approach to that climactic moment in the film was inspired by Picasso's anti-war mural, Guernica, which portrays unprecedented atrocities committed on April 27th, 1937, against the civilian population of Guernica, a small Basque village in northern Spain. To Steiger's and Lumet's everlasting credit, Nazerman's silent scream allows the film to have the greatest possible subliminal impact on those privileged to experience it. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

It's Dr. Strangelove, but without the laughs. Fail Safe, made within a year of Strangelove and at the height of cold war atomic anxiety, posits a similar nightmare scenario. A U.S. bomber is accidentally ordered toward Moscow, ready to drop its load. The U.S. president (Henry Fonda) and various military and congressional leaders must then scramble to deal with the disaster. The built-in suspense is well maintained by director Sidney Lumet, working from a script by former blacklisted writer Walter Bernstein. The solemn, serious approach doesn't begin to touch the brilliance of Strangelove's inspired take on the nuclear nightmare, but Fail Safe is absorbing and well acted (a memorable role for Walter Matthau, for instance). The movie enters unexpected territory in its final minutes; conditioned for feel-good endings, viewers are still genuinely shocked by the plot turns in the final reels. The climax comes as a sobering slap in the face, intriguingly staged by Lumet. Now that the cold war has passed on into history, Fail Safe stands as--thank goodness--an interesting period piece. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (59)

The "almost" Atomic War anti-fable...
The bleak black and white ...sometimes grainy, occasionally jump/jolt cut film...combined with understated dialogue, few special effects and no dramatized combat sequences produce a movie with a ONCE-UPON-A-NIGHTMARE quality. Henry Fonda is excellent as THE PRESIDENT who must convince the never-shown Soviet Premier not to unleash a retaliatory strike against The United States when a squadron of American Vindicator Bombers (decommisioned B-58 Hustlers) threatens Russia because of a computer/Black Box glitch. Walter Matthau is fascinatingly repellant as THE PROFESSOR...a Herman Kahn/Dr.Strangelove clone... who glories in his role as high-priest/adept of Nuclear Deterrence strategies. A young Larry Hagman is memorable as Buck, the President's Russian language translator. Dan O'Herlihy is convincingly tragic as an Air Force commander who must make "the sacrifice of Abraham" to save the world from WW III. There is not a single "mushroom cloud" shown. Combat actions are reduced to electronic displays on the War Room/SAC Big Board. Many opportunities for "thrills" are foresaken by Director Lumet. Instead, he relentlessly paces his "almost" Atomic War anti-fable until a telephone monitored by the US Ambassador to Moscow howls:..this tocsin signals the death of millions and the beginning of Armageddon. There is no such thing as FAIL-SAFE. The film is 40 years old. But like fable, the "sermon" speaks to today, tomorrow and...probably?...para siempre.

Brilliant, chilling "what-if" Cold War film.
When machines break down and accidentally unleash the nuclear genie out of the bottle, it's up to the President(brilliantly played by Henry Fonda) and his top military and government officials to prevent all-out war. Tensions heighten when military men like Colonel Cascio(Fritz Weaver) crack under the strain; a civilian "hawk" (Walter Matthau) argues for total committment while a military pacifist General(Dan O'Herlihy) adamantly insists that unleashing the H-Bomb would spell the end of the world. When it becomes clear the B-58 Vindicator Bombers mistakenly sent against Moscow will reach their target, the President must make the gravest sacrifice to prevent Armageddon. Lumet's directing and the all-star cast bring to life a nightmare situation that almost happened a number of times in real life. Well worth your viewing!

Fantastic!!
I've seen this movie at least 10 times, always on late night TV, and it still gets me every time. Right up until the last minute your'e hoping that all will turn out well, but of course it doesn't. It's curtains for 1964 New York, with it's World's Fair, Ed Sullivan, the Peppermint Lounge and My Fair Lady. Previously Moscow of course meets a simular horrible fate. But what a fantastic movie, full of drama and suspense. I'll never forget the reaction when the first plane is shot down, and the man who reminds them "That wer'e not at a football match" There are so many powerful scenes throughout the movie, too many to list here. It deserved a lot better recognition that what it got at the time. See it!

LIBERALISM IN HOLLYWOOD AND A TERRIBLE ENDING
In 1965, a serious nuclear movie called "Fail Safe" was released. Henry Fonda is the President. A computer glitch launches The Bomb for the U.S.S.R. Fonda cannot recall it, and apologizes to the Soviet premier. His wife is visiting New York City, and in one of the worst political decisions in Hollywood history, Fonda tells the Soviets that in order to prove to them it was an accident, he will drop a 30-megaton nuclear bomb on the Big Apple! He carries through with his decision, despite his wife's presence there. The Soviets are portrayed as suffering their fate with dignified resolve.

STEVEN TRAVERS
AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
STWRITES@AOL.COM

Incredibly serious and thought-provoking
The main theme of this film is that, with all of the tensions and pressures of the Cold War, and the rapid advancements in weapon development, things could go very wrong, very fast, and become unstoppable. When a drill becomes a false alarm that gets misread by some as a true Soviet nuclear attack against the U.S., American bombs destroy Moscow in "retaliation" and "counter-strike". The President and the Soviet leader try to find a way to prevent full-scale nuclear war, despite decades of mutual distrust. A radical solution is eventually found.

I was born in 1960 and, while that was after the McCarthy era, I grew up with the idea that Soviet Russia might attack at any time. This drama accurately depicts the fear, tension, and suspcion that permeated that time. It is harsh but well-done. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

an additional comment from viewer from NC
In my first review of this video, I neglected to mention that there is a powerful story here. Despite the movie's shortcomings, which are largely the result that telling it in detail would have made it too long, it is a good story. Each character(Gid, Johnny, and Molly) tell their version of their life together. Dates on screen help the viewer track the chronology as the story unfolds. It's a good buy, especially if you read the book also.

read the book/watch the movie/would have been better with be
Lovin' Molly is the film version of Larry McMurtry's book:"Leaving Cheyenne". It is a warm story of two men(Johnny and Gid) and one woman(Molly) and their love for her and her love for them. The movie spans a time of 40 years,in which the characters remain friends and lovers. There is good character development,which shows Molly's freespirited attitudes toward love, sex and friendship and shows Gid's sense of honor toward Molly and his wife(Susan Sarandon). The viewer will enjoy the movie more by reading the book first. Characters and themes are better developed in the book. One shortcoming of the movie is that it too short to tell such a good story. The major fault of the movie is the film editing.In the story, McMurtry tries to communicate to the reader the folkways of Texas. In that regard, the movie is a good reporduction of his intent. In the book, you will find great writing and warm phrasing.Read it first. This reviewer searched for this movie for two years and found it on Amazon.I saw it on screen in the early 1970s. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

In this 1982 courtroom drama written by David Mamet and directed by Sidney Lumet, Paul Newman found the perfect role for a transitional period of his stellar career. As alcoholic Boston lawyer Frank Galvin, Newman shook off his screen persona as a handsome, blue-eyed hunk to portray an aging, weary man whose best years are behind him, with a shot-glass future that looks very bleak indeed. But when Galvin is given a chance to redeem himself--by proving medical negligence in the case of a comatose woman--he makes one final effort to regain his self-respect and tarnished reputation. He's an underdog against formidable odds, facing a powerful, politically connected lawyer (James Mason, slick as ever) who will do anything to win his case, regardless of professional ethics. Further complicating matters is a woman (Charlotte Rampling) who only appears to be worthy of Galvin's trust and love, until Galvin's best friend and colleague (Jack Warden) proves otherwise. Excellent as both courtroom drama and riveting character study, the film crackles with Mamet's sharp dialogue; and Lumet's direction is a brilliant example of forceful restraint. The film gave Newman one of the best roles of his career; many felt he deserved the Oscar (he lost to Ben Kingsley in Gandhi) that would belatedly be given to Newman for The Color of Money. Along with Hud, Cool Hand Luke, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Verdict ranks highly as a signature performance by one of America's all-time greatest actors. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (37)

An outstanding courtroom drama
I agree with the other reviewers that Paul Newman gives the best performance of his career in this intense, well-designed film. There are numerous scenes which are shown without a cut, providing the viewers with an uninterrupted examination of the actors' interactions. Some include (without giving away too much): Newman's character (Frank Galvin) in conflict with the judge's actions toward the court proceedings, Newman and Warden preparing for the trial and the circumstances weighing heavily against them.
All the supporting actors are excellent. Among the noteables: James Mason as the powerhouse defense attorney with a malicious underhand, Milo O'Shea as the unsympathetic judge, Jack Warden as Newman's friend, mentor, and seemingly sole supporter, Charlotte Rampling as Newman's girlfriend with a shady side to herself.
There are a few plotholes and moments of overly dramatic "courtroom hysterics" within the film. Overlook them and enjoy an otherwise very strong movie.

The Very Best of Its Genre
Simply put there is no American film of this genre that comes close. Director Lumet darkly captures the naked power and corruption of the American civil trial system. Actors O'Shea (the judge), Mason (the 'prince of darkness' defense counsel) and Charlotte Rampling (whose shock is best left unrevealed) are the epitome of the seedy wheels of what passes for justice and 'love'. Newman, an alcoholic with one last prospect, struggles for redemption against mountainous odds, giving the most honest performance of his career. Warden is Newman's essential wiser alter ego. This film is no less than that rare cimematic device -- the allegory. Each character represents a larger truth -- in addition to Mason, O'Shea, and Rampling, Joe Seneca as a black, ancient (degraded) doctor for the vegetative plaintiff; Catholic archidiocese bishop Ed Binns up to his collar in fraud; a nationally-renowned physician with secret blood on his hands; and a simple honest woman who wanted nothing more than to be a nurse - Lindsay Crouse in a career performance. And there is the superb Mamet writing throughout. This is a courtroom thriller that will nail you to your seat to the very end. And absolutely true to life -- my view, at least, after 20 years as a lawyer. I also teach law and never miss a chance to show this film to my students. An amazing cinematic achievement, disturbing in its implications.

A grand film of triumph over failure
This film is one of the best in Paul Newman's stellar career, and he carries it convincingly with a spare, taut, no-frills performance. His Frank Galvin, an alcoholic has-been attorney with a bleak future is a defeated and pathetic figure, reduced to appearing at funeral homes during visitation hours to hustle business from bereaved family members. Even when long-time friend Mickey Morrissey [Jack Warden] hands Galvin a lucrative case on a silver platter, his star witness disappears to an unknown Caribbean island after having promised to testify against the hospital and Catholic Church for malpractice. Galvin's determination to see the case through is the first step to his recovery from the bottle and self-pity. The comatose woman's sister and brother-in-law who he represents in court have lost confidence in Galvin, he seems overmatched by the glib and polished Ed Concannon [James Mason] who represents the interests of the Church, and he has incurred the wrath of a biased, mean-spirited judge [Milo O'Shea]. To make matters worse, his girlfriend Laura [Charlotte Rampling] is little more than a Trojan horse in the Galvan camp and her true intentions come to light only after Mickey stumbles on the truth quite by chance. The movie was filmed under Boston's gray, overcast skies and has a gloomy forecast for Galvin in his quest for redemption and reward for a man who has been defeated by life but makes one last attempt to get off the deck and regain his self-respect and stature in his profession.

the film lets down the star
THE VERDICT is one of Paul Newman's most celebrated performances. He plays a down-at-the-heels lawyer named Frank Galvin who lucks his way into a big case involving two doctors who have been horribly negligent, sending a young woman into a coma.
Newman wonderfully gets at Galvin's desperation, and how he fights through an alcoholic haze. It's a thoughtfully worked out performance centered around Newman's wonderfully expressive eyes. Sadly, the rest of THE VERDICT could be taught in a Courtroom Movie Cliche 101 class. The lone lawyer vs the big firm (led by James Mason), altered documents, surprise witnesses, shenanigans by the hospital, it's all here. Even though I enjoyed the acting and the Boston atmosphere, I saw a lot of the plot coming.
The cast includes Jack Warden as Newman's only friend, Joe Seneca, Lindsay Crouse, Wesley Addy, and a chilly Charlotte Rampling as a mysterious woman who crosses Newman's path. The commentary by director Sidney Lumet is of the "everybody was great/this is where we shot" variety.

A Monumental Cinematic Treasure
THE VERDICT may date back to 1982, but few courtroom films since then can come close to matching the powerful production in this near perfect film written by David Mamet and directed with tension, grit, and tenderness by Sidney Lumet. Paul Newman's performance as the alcoholic has-been lawyer called upon to try a case of medical malpractice is one of the finest acting performances in history. He is more than ably abetted by his sidekick Jack Warden. The lawyer for the defense is the haughty and evil James Mason and the real surprise in the cast is Milo O'Shea in a terrifyingly real role of a smarmy Judge. Charlotte Rampling, still one of today's finest actresses, plays the understated love interest. Minor roles become major when they are in the hands of such gifted actors as Lindsay Crouse and Julia Bravasso. But one unsung hero of this fine film is the cinematographer who manages to make every shot appear like a Renaissance painting, so sensitive is he to light and shadow and frame composition.

THE VERDICT is a powerful story of the underdog's struggle for truth in the judicial system and as such is a reminder of how the Law, when stripped to its essentials, is there to protect us. There is no pat ending, only a feeling of breathlessness as all of the details of the story are left to our imagination - well, almost. A stri