Amazon.com essential video

Carol Reed (The Third Man) directed this 1965 portrait of the relationship between Michelangelo (Charlton Heston) and Pope Julius II (Rex Harrison), who commissioned the artist to paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Based on a novel by Irving Stone, the script plods along, juggling the dynamics between the two men along with a somewhat perfunctory love story and distracting battle sequences. Reed seems more attuned to the nuances and great pains of the artistic process, as seen in sequences of Michelangelo working. But the overall focus of the film is unfortunately fuzzy. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (22)

Almost a spiritual journey
Though I am useless at sculpting and almost so at painting, I have sort of adopted Michaelangelo as my creative mentor. This movie cemented that thought.

Michaelangelo is a master sculptor from Florence, carving the tomb for the warrior-pope Julius (no, he isn't dead yet even though they're carving his tomb). But Julias drags him from his commission for another one-paint the ceiling of the Sistine chapel with "appropriate designs." Michaelangelo, who has only dabbled in fresco painting, is both enraged and inspired. He destroys the paintings and runs away from Rome, but returns when a vision shows him how the ceiling should be. Both men, creator and destroyer, artist and pope, are changed forever by the "work of love" that is the Sistine Chapel.

Charlton Heston was in fine form in this movie-he makes you feel everything that Michaelangelo feels. I sometimes think that the real men rather than the monuments (like Moses) that he plays are more his style. He does it realistically, wearing ratty clothing and often covered with paint dribbles. Michaelangelo does not stay the same-at the end of the movie, he is a humbler and wiser man than before.

And don't diss Rex Harrison-once I got over the "Doctor Doolittle as pope" thing, I found him very enjoyable. He manages to overcome some lines that would make me giggle in his place, including, "Is it proper for your pontiff to conduct Mass in a barn?" He makes you hate Julius initially, but as the movie progresses you grow to love him as much as Michaelangelo.

There are some truly excellent secondary characters, like Tessina the noblewoman who sort-of-secretly loves Michaelangelo, but understands that his paintings come first. Her brother, a Medici cardinal, seems a bit stilted, though. Tomas Milian plays another famous Renaissance artist, Raphael, who shows up with only a few lines of dialogue, but changes the course of the movie. Oh, and watch out for ice-cold architect Bramante.

Combine it with the glorious shots of the Sistine chapel's ceiling and Heston painting mockups, and you have a movie that deserves to be a classic.

The Grandeur that is Charlton Heston
The Ten Commandments, The Buccaneer, Ben-Hur, El Cid, Planet of the Apes, all great Charlton Heston movies to be sure. But this movie, Mr. Heston's performance as the passionate and complex Michelangelo Buonarroti, is without parallel in any of the previous or since roles he has played. His portrayal as the great artist is imtimate and shows a tender side. Futhermore, Rex Harrison as Pope Julius II is also extaordinary. The two men create a fine chemistry of the rebellious artist and the stern yet feeling pontiff who commissions Buonarroti to the great task of the Sistine. This performance peaks when the two men are standing beneath the great and not-yet-finished fresco late one night and reflect over the images of God and Adam-classic acting for certain. Please, buy it, rent it, just as long as you watch it. If you love art, I'm sure you will love this.

"I planned a ceiling, he planned a miracle"
There is no other film on the subject of art that is better than this one in my opinion. Irving Stone's best-seller was a great read, but in this case the film is better than the book. It centers on the creation of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, and the contentious but invigorating relationship between Michelangelo and Pope Julius II; one drove the other "to complete his work", and even their verbal battles were productive. It is about the courage of putting one's vision into reality, the hard work, and the faith in one's self and in God.

The script by Irving Stone and Philip Dunne is fabulous; the words flow like sweet wine and there is not a single unnecessary scene, or rarely one that is not meaningful. The direction by Carol Reed is meticulous, the cinematography by Leon Shamroy a marvel, and the score by Alex North adds much to the film. The costuming and sets are lavish for the papal quarters and the Medici household, and give one a sense of 16th century Rome, and the depictions of the fresco painting technique is interesting and educational.

Charlton Heston, gaunt and bearded, is brilliant as Michelangelo, as is Rex Harrison as the warrior pope. The interactions of these two actors is riveting, and the dialogue between them worth hearing repeatedly. Others of note in the cast include Diane Cilento as the Contessina de Medici, Harry Andrews as Bramante, and Tomas Milian as Raphael (the most famous papal portrait I know of is by Raphael, of Pope Julian II).

Though Stone's book and script take much artistic license, there is also a good deal of accuracy. This period of 16th century Italy was one of the most fascinating in all world history, and Pope Julius II was not only one of its greatest art patrons, but also an extraordinary man.
This is a film that moves me to tears with its beauty, and brightens my mind with its words. If you are interested in the artistic process, don't miss this magnificent film.

The film includes a Prologue, a mini-documentary of modern-day Rome and Florence, which traces Michelangelo's life, from his birth in Tuscany in 1475, showing his many wondrous works, including an early sculpture he did at the age of 15, through his death in 1564. Total running time is 139 minutes.

watch it for the art
the painstaking recreation of the sistine chaple was a feat within itself and is wonderfully executed.
the plot of the film pretty much boils down to will he paint it or not and we already know the answer. too bad thta the film didnt exlpore more michelangelos spiritual and moral struggles.
that said heston and harrison do what they can with it.

Art vs Commerce
What I found fascinating was the PROLOGUE: "The Man Who Didn't Want to Paint." This would normally be an "extra" on any DVD (unfortunately, so far, no DVD of the feature has been released). It is here on the VHS tape, as part of the feature. It runs about 20 minutes, but one should not fast-forward through it. It is fascinating, and adds tremendoubly to the enjoyment of the main feature. In fact, movie channels sometimes run this as a featurette without running the full film. And that's just fine with me.
Also, one should see this film in the "Letterbox" format to get the true scope of what director Reed was trying to present. "Full Frame" or "pan and scan" versions add electronic edits where none existed in the original and can chop up a film unnecessarily.
True, this feature reads like a "Reader's Digest" version of the life of Michaelangelo; a sort of "highlights" of the man's life. It does heavily concentrate on the on-again, off-again relationship with Pope Julius II, and sllows Harrison do drop in his deliciously dead-pan one-liners.
Should a new version of Michaelangelo's life be filmed (perhaps as a miniseries)? Most definately. Should an actor who more resembled the artist be cast? Yes. But, remember that AGONY was filmed in the 1960s and star power was the order of the day. Heston was hot; so was Harrison (My Fair Lady). Mr. Heston, however, has left, in print, his impressions (not all of them flattering) of both Harrison and Mr. Reed in his DIARIES. Sometimes, they make more interesting entertainment than the movie, itself. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Moral equivocation was a common trait among several of Marlon Brando's characters in the early part of his career, and so it makes good theoretical sense that he would play the role of Fletcher Christian, the tormented first mate aboard the British naval vessel Bounty. But in fact the part is an ill fit for the actor, whose British accent is poor and who never looked quite right in period costume, anyway. Director Lewis Milestone(All Quiet On the Western Front) makes a good-looking and at times (especially during scenes of shipboard cruelties and conflict) compelling movie out of the material, but overall the film just isn't there.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (31)

If you don't watch this...you're missing out.
If you want to watch a movie about the infamous Mutiny on the Bounty, and you want to see good acting, beautiful camera work, and hear a witty script -rent this version! Or better, buy it. It's fantastic and amazing... and though people are always putting it down, don't listen to them. Any movie about any type of historical event is going to have a thousand people nitpicking it, but just because they aren't satisfied with it because (good god, his accent isn't perfect! or, that isn't how that scene really happened!!) doesn't mean it isn't a good movie. Brando is, contrary to what everyone else has to say, perfect for the role of Fletcher Christian...and his acting makes the film worth watching.

What's so real about a story based on a historical novel?
This film has been assassinated without any qualms by anti-Hollywood witch hunters. Yes! It does reek of production excesses at the expense of faithfulness to fact and Marlon Brando's portrayal of Mr. Christian is thoroughly derisable but isn't that what is needed here? This second film incarnation of the mutiny's occurrence is a refreshing turn on the theme, this time casting it in a technicolored gold mine of a light. It's pure Gilbert and Sullivan and it is great as a comedy piece. That's what makes this version so enjoyable to watch - it's too light in spirit to do anything else. Even funnier is just knowing that this effect was created unintentionally by MGM studios. After injecting so much into the picture in the way of casting, location and sheer beauty, the film's dark subject matter is parodied throughout, turning what 'should' have been a remake of the 1935 by-the-book yarn into something wonderfully warm and impossible to yawn at. The 1962 'Mutiny on the Bounty' is pure family entertainment, notwithstanding the self-deflating way it might present itself to the thinking, prejudiced mind. Brando is ridiculous with his strained S. English accent and Howard delivers one of his finest performances as Bligh. Indeed, to be fair, it was just such hilarious campness/quirkiness which actually did punctuate the mindset of the Eighteenth Century landed gentry. Who cares about the muting of the story's academics in this work? If you want that so badly then why not get the stodgy Gable/Laughton version or, even better, use the next ten minutes to order the 1932 novel from Amazon while you're here! Don't bleat and bang your fists against this gorgeous White Elephant. It is great stuff which finds other giants of the screen like Richard Harris in fine form (he is the perfect straight man to Brando's foppish officer).You don't even have to switch off your intellect to enjoy all three hours of this picture; your intellect is swift to tell you that there is a very good reason why you are laughing. While the 1935 original and the 1983 version are both true-to-story pieces which are miles more thought-provoking, the '62 epic piece is infinitely more watchable and uplifting. In short, this version was made to be too great for its own good and has imploded in overall feel. A rich texture here is the only thing which can hope to keep the viewer from saying: 'This is so bad, it can't be anything else but good!' As a film buff and holder of two degrees, I still am prepared to risk face and declare this one of my all-time favourites. Sorry, fellow illuminati; sometimes I like to have a laugh.

What was he thinking?
Leaving aside the question of which of the three "Bounties" is the best, the most dominant feature of this version, to me, is Brando's laughable Fletcher C. Yes, a foppish, arrogant English aristocrat will be foppish and arrogant. The problem is you get the idea Brando had never encountered, in real life, anyone to give him the basis to ground his performance in reality. It reveals an underlying flaw in method acting ... you can't make bricks without straw and you can't CONVINCINGLY portray a character of a specific class, time period and type just by making him or her up from within yourself.

Why Not On DVD?
I found this 1962 version of "Mutiny on the Bounty" by far the most entertaining and thought-provoking. Sometimes based upon the real event, yet often dramatized, it is mesmerizing and contains a wonderful script. I must agree with another reviewer who asked where Clark Gable's English accent was in the 1935 "Bounty". Although Brando's English accent certainly could have been better, at least he made an effort to HAVE one in the first place. The film contains humour, pathos and great adventure, also moral questions. It did not deserve the level of criticism it received. It is a shame that it is not available on DVD, because I would purchase it then.

THE BEST VERSION, END OF STORY.
I can understand why movie critics would want us to think that the 1935 Gable/Laughton version of this story is still the definitive one. After all it's their job to try to sound like they know what they're talking about. And I can surely respect anyone else's opinion if they feel the same way. To quote a line from Brando as Fletcher Christian, "It takes all sorts to make a world." But what I cannot take seriously is when critics and even viewers here go so far as to call the 1962 wide-screen Technicolor adventure awful or even laughable. I have seen all three major films inspired by the Bounty incident (there was an earlier pre-CAPTAIN BLOOD Errol Flynn version made in 1933 titled IN THE WAKE OF THE BOUNTY which never saw release here in the U.S.) and so far no one's been able to convince me that the overrated, outdated b&w dream factory creation from 1935 is the best of the bunch. C'mon guys, give me a break here, will ya? Yes, I do believe that some film classics (GONE WITH THE WIND, for example) cannot and SHOULD NOT be remade. Unfortunately for die-hard fans, 1935's MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY is not one of them, and the 1962 version is proof of that. I am not trying to imply in any way that the Gable classic is bad. It did, in all honesty, keep me quite entertained when I saw it, and I may even recommend it to anyone who can't find anything better to watch. But let's get down to business and compare the two versions and see why the Brando film is superior.

First of all, for those who say that Brando's English accent is bad, I have but one question to ask: where the heck is GABLE'S accent?? I think Kevin Costner deserves an apology. And so does Brando. His Fletcher Christian was, at least before the mutiny, a foppish and aristocratic snob, no doubt. But a cheesy performance this was not. How else is a foppish, aristocratic snob supposed to act like? I admit that I'm not sure if that's how the character was originally written for the script or if this was something that Brando came up with during filming. I also confess that I'm no expert when it comes to British accents. But in any case I thought he was completely convincing and definitely more English-like than Gable's all-American interpretation of the same role. But the true realism of Brando's character goes far beyond his attempt at an accent. After the mutiny, the troubling thought of never being able to return to England without the possibility of facing execution causes his Fletcher Christian to regret taking command of the ship, and for a while he shuts himself off from the rest of the crew, trying his best to convince himself that he did the proper and civilized thing. Gable's Fletcher, on the other hand, seems pretty content with his new life as an outlaw.
Second, Trevor Howard's Bligh is also better developed than Charles Laughton's more famous (and over-the-top) version of Bligh. Laughton's Bligh is a monster simply for the sake of being a monster. There is never any kind of explanation for his cruel actions, and it's quite possible that no real crew would have put up with his tyranny as it did in the 1935 film. Howard's Bligh, on the other hand, is a man determined to do ANYTHING he can to accomplish his goal, and that is simply to impress the admiralty who entrusted him with the mission of bringing breadfruit from Tahiti to England. Perhaps he also felt just a little beneath Fletcher Christian?
Third, well I'll make it short 'cause there are actually a few more reasons than just one more. The attempt to round Cape Horn is shot so spectacularly that, at least in my opinion, it would not be equaled until well over forty years later in MASTER AND COMMANDER. The uses of widescreen and Technicolor are also a plus, especially in the above mentioned scene, but also in the scenes depicting Tahitian life as it might have been back then. (I don't know how much of what is shown is accurate and how much is not, but one thing is for sure: Tahiti as seen in the 1935 version is so fake and Hollywoodized it's hard to tell which scenes were shot in a studio and which ones were shot in actual location.) And last but not least, Bronislau Kaper's magnificent score.
Did I forget anything else? No, and I can certainly go on, but I think I've made my point. If you've seen it before and didn't like it the first time, try checking it out again. Who knows, you might think differently this time. Thanx for reading my review. Peace, bro. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Great movie from a childs viewpoint
There are no villians or heroes in this movie, just people bumbleing around being people. Just poetic pathos.
Very believable childs eye view.

As impeccable as its title hero
Carol Reed was perhaps even more famous in his day for coaxing superb performances out of children than Steven Spielberg is today... and much of it is due to the astonishing performance in this marvelous film by Bobby Henrey as Phillipe, the son of the French Ambassador to the UK. Henrey delivers what must be one of the greatest child's performances ever on screen (right up there with little Victoire Thivisol in PONETTE). Phile idolizes the butler at the embassy, the sweet but very ordinary Baines (Ralph Richardson), and when his hero becomes accused of murder in the death of his wife young Phile becomes wrapped up in the police investigation. The film does a superb job switching back and forth from a child's to an adult's register--we see things both from Phile's limited child's point of view (and understand his inability to put things together given his naievete), and we also see from an adult perspective how his attempts to help his idol only make things worse and worse. The film is beautifully shot--the embassy itself is something of a marble and tile wonder--and Henrey's frantic need for attention and his jumpy manner (and endearing lisp: "He PUTHED her...") make him seem as real a small child as you can imagine.

From a Child's Eyes
Carol Reed, one of Britain's most masterly directors, handled this gem with consummate grace. This was Reed's final film prior to his masterpiece, "The Third Man."

What makes this film so rare is that it is seen through the eyes of a young boy, played by Bobby Hendry. Most of the action takes place in a South London mansion in fashionable Chelsea, which serves as the French Embassy. The youngster's parents are away in France when the wife of his hero, played by Ralph Richardson, slips and falls down the second floor staircase, plunging to her death. Richardson, the Embassy's caretaker, was caught in a loveless marriage with a difficult woman. He is having an affair with Michele Morgan at the time of his wife's death.

A young child's imagination goes to work. Hendry imagines that Richardson actually killed his wife and, when investigating police officers Jack Hawkins and Bernard Lee arrive, he engages in conduct in which, while seeking to help his hero Richardson, mistakenly implicates him.

By the film's conclusion Richardson is finally cleared, but Hendry's activities make things more difficult for him. The imagination of a youngster seeking to help Richardson almost leads to his downfall.

Reed's deft handling of Hendry was reflective of his ability to work with children. It was further demonstrated in "A Kid for Two Farthings" and in the brilliant musical "Oliver!", which resulted in an Academy Award for Reed.

Idolizing A Murderer?
Ralph Richardson stars as Baines, butler to an ambassador, who is having an affair with an embassy employee. The ambassador's young son Phillipe, played by Bobby Henrey, idolizes the butler. When his wife accidentally falls to her death following an argument with him, Richardson finds himself the only suspect in her murder. Henrey, believing Richardson to be guilty but wanting to protect him, lies to the police to help out. But lies have gotten Richardson into this mess, and more lies only make it worse. The film is quite suspenseful as it goes on, and the scene with the paper airplane is justifiably well remembered for the way it ups the tension. Richardson, as usual, is excellent, as is young Henrey and Sonia Dresdel as the shrew wife. The Fallen Idol grows on you with each passing frame and lie. It's another great film from 1940's England.

Touching, Sensitive Movie of Love, Frustration and Adulation
This is a wonderful movie, superbly written. It has such a subtle way about the frustration of two incompatible spouses, the last-ditch attempt of one to change his life for the better, and his relationship with a young boy in his charge who understands nothing and looks up to him. Ralph Richardson is truly great in this. I love this movie for all its fine touches. I've seen it over and over. The viewer must like movies that really pay attention to how human beings behave, good and bad, and the little fictions they make up to get along in a difficult life. ... Read more

Reviews (84)

Consider it a wonderful experience
The movie musical was on its way out by the time 'Oliver!' hit theaters in 1968. Happily, this marvelously fun and entertaining film swept the Oscars and earns my vote for the best musical of the 60s (although 'The Music Man' ranks a close second). Mark Lester is adorable in the title role and Jack Wild is a kick as the mischievious Artful Dodger. Then there's Ron Moody recreating his stage role as the villainous (but still likable) Fagin. He's not exactly the same character created by Charles Dickens but he's memorable just the same. And Shani Wallis' Nancy along with Oliver Reed's Bill Sikes give the film some real dramatic punch. The production design strikingly recreates the feel and flavor of mid-19th century London. And the songs which include 'Consider Yourself' and 'Oom Pah Pah' are the icing on the cake. Do your family a great favor and add this timeless treat to your DVD collection.

I'm reviewing. . . .the situation.
I bought this movie because I had some vague, but pleasant memories of it from my childhood. I must say that the movie did not disappoint. It is a well-crafted musical with vivid characters. While they're not exactly analogous to their Dickensian counterparts, who portray a much darker, seamier side of London's underworld, the characters sparkle. Ron Moody as Fagin is unforgettable, and Wild as the Dodger was a perfect casting job. The musical numbers are memorable, hum-inducing performances, such as "Consider Yourself" "Oom Pa Pa" "You got to Pick a Pocket or Two" and "Who Will Buy". My personal favorite is "Reviewing the Situation" because I feel the lyrics to that song are so well done and so well executed by Moody. The adorable Mark Lester is the weak link in an otherwise strong chain. He plays a passable Oliver, but lacks the oomph that the others bring to their roles, and his voice is somewhat airy but sweet (according to other reviewers, too sweet). Nevertheless, he fulfills his end of the bargin, portraying a rosy cheeked cherub in the presence of villains. Oliver Reed plays Sykes to perfection, exuding such dark evil that his sinister shadow precedes him onto the screen. I handled his killing of Nancy better as a grown-up; however, young children may find that scene as distrubing as I did twenty years ago. Overall, this is a finely done musical, and for me, was time well spent.

I think I'd better think it out again.

CONSIDER THIS ONE A WINNER - OSCAR WINNER, THAT IS!
Carol Reed's "Oliver!" is the musical version of Dicken's Oliver Twist. It stars Mark Lester as the irrepressible street urchin, suckered into the lair of a vagabond by The Artful Dodger (Jack Wild) and forced into a life of crime by Fagin (Ron Moody). But when Oliver is salvaged from the slums by a benevolent philanthropist, Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed) decides to make a quick buck off of the trade. Shani Willis costars as Sikes' girlfriend, Nancy, who thwarts the kidnapping plot and pays for her betrayal with her life. This is a very stoic, stagy and rather dry musical that may capture the essence of Dickens in its settings characters and plot but seems totally out of touch with the effervescence of the traditional Hollywood musical. Even with such main staple songs as "Consider Yourself", "Boy For Sale" and "Food, Glorious Food", truly, the spoon full of sugar remains a bitter pill to swallow on this occasion.

Columbia Tri-Star has made "Oliver" available in a startlingly good looking transfer. Colors are solid, rich, vibrant and bold. Contrast levels are exactly where they should be. Blacks are incredibly deep. Fine detail is fully realized. Only occasionally do age related artifacts betray the vintage of the film. The audio is 5.1 and wonderfully spread across all five channels of the sound field. There are no extras. This film is spread across two sides of a single disc. The break comes at the point of intermission.

Moody's Fagin steals classic OLIVER!
Until CHICAGO reenergized the movie musical genre, this musical version of Charles Dickens' immortal "Oliver Twist" was widely regarded as one of the last of the great movie musicals. Indeed, with its high-energy performances, infectious music, steady direction by Sir Carol Reed and glorious sets, this movie won the 1968 Best Picture Oscar over such formidable competition as THE LION IN WINTER, CHARLEY, and FUNNY GIRL.

Of course, most people are familiar with the classic story of young Oliver Twist, whose mother dies giving him birth and is forced to be raised under the cruel supervision of the English workhouse officials. When he dares beg for more than his meager ration of gruel, the youngster is apprenticed to an undertaker and his extremely nasty family. After escaping this hostile environment, he finds himself taken in by the roguish Fagin, the Artful Dodger(Fagin's best pupil), and the rest of his band of young pickpockets. In time, however, Oliver will find his home, but not before dealing with the likes of the brutal Bill Sikes with the help of Sike's sympathetic lover, Nancy, and the kindly Mr. Brownlow.

As musical films go, it is hard to fault the wonderful casting in this film. Mark Lester makes a perfectly, if maybe overly, innocent Oliver, while Jack Wild is a delight as the rascally Artful Dodger. Shanie Wallis is heart-rending as the tragic Nancy. Oliver Reed (Sir Carol's nephew) is truly scary as the menacing Bill Sikes. Harry Secombe displays a glorious tenor in the comic role of Mr. Bumble, the beadle of the workhouse. However, it is Ron Moody's fantastic performance of the rascally Fagin that steals this movie. It is not surprising, when you consider that he created the role when the musical was first produced in London. Of course, the character itself has gone quite a change from Dickens' original, going from the debatably nasty anti-Semitic portrait of the novel to that of a lovable, if sneaky, eccentric. Indeed, Moody's excellent portrayal would set the tone for almost all future performances of the role to date, including those of such actors as George C. Scott and Richard Dreyfus, among others.

Some Dickens fans may quibble about the liberties taken with the book, from the softening of Fagin to the elimination of Oliver's evil step-brother Monks from the storyline. And it isn't a perfect film by any means. (The child singer who dubbed Mark Lester's songs sounds like she's in an echo chamber of some sort, which makes Oliver's singing a jarring contrast to the rest of the cast.) But, as a musical film, it is a wonderful entertainment and superb introduction to the classic story. As a result, this is one musical that I would DEFINITELY recommend.

Excellent
If only movies were made like this today. This film is filled with witty comedy, wonderful music, and great acting. One of the best musicals out there!! This film displays a boy's life going from the lowest of low (an orphanage) and slowely rising to a better life. The only thing is, it makes stealing look a little. .. well . . fun! But i'm sure we can all live with that right? ... Read more

Reviews (84)

Consider it a wonderful experience
The movie musical was on its way out by the time 'Oliver!' hit theaters in 1968. Happily, this marvelously fun and entertaining film swept the Oscars and earns my vote for the best musical of the 60s (although 'The Music Man' ranks a close second). Mark Lester is adorable in the title role and Jack Wild is a kick as the mischievious Artful Dodger. Then there's Ron Moody recreating his stage role as the villainous (but still likable) Fagin. He's not exactly the same character created by Charles Dickens but he's memorable just the same. And Shani Wallis' Nancy along with Oliver Reed's Bill Sikes give the film some real dramatic punch. The production design strikingly recreates the feel and flavor of mid-19th century London. And the songs which include 'Consider Yourself' and 'Oom Pah Pah' are the icing on the cake. Do your family a great favor and add this timeless treat to your DVD collection.

I'm reviewing. . . .the situation.
I bought this movie because I had some vague, but pleasant memories of it from my childhood. I must say that the movie did not disappoint. It is a well-crafted musical with vivid characters. While they're not exactly analogous to their Dickensian counterparts, who portray a much darker, seamier side of London's underworld, the characters sparkle. Ron Moody as Fagin is unforgettable, and Wild as the Dodger was a perfect casting job. The musical numbers are memorable, hum-inducing performances, such as "Consider Yourself" "Oom Pa Pa" "You got to Pick a Pocket or Two" and "Who Will Buy". My personal favorite is "Reviewing the Situation" because I feel the lyrics to that song are so well done and so well executed by Moody. The adorable Mark Lester is the weak link in an otherwise strong chain. He plays a passable Oliver, but lacks the oomph that the others bring to their roles, and his voice is somewhat airy but sweet (according to other reviewers, too sweet). Nevertheless, he fulfills his end of the bargin, portraying a rosy cheeked cherub in the presence of villains. Oliver Reed plays Sykes to perfection, exuding such dark evil that his sinister shadow precedes him onto the screen. I handled his killing of Nancy better as a grown-up; however, young children may find that scene as distrubing as I did twenty years ago. Overall, this is a finely done musical, and for me, was time well spent.

I think I'd better think it out again.

CONSIDER THIS ONE A WINNER - OSCAR WINNER, THAT IS!
Carol Reed's "Oliver!" is the musical version of Dicken's Oliver Twist. It stars Mark Lester as the irrepressible street urchin, suckered into the lair of a vagabond by The Artful Dodger (Jack Wild) and forced into a life of crime by Fagin (Ron Moody). But when Oliver is salvaged from the slums by a benevolent philanthropist, Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed) decides to make a quick buck off of the trade. Shani Willis costars as Sikes' girlfriend, Nancy, who thwarts the kidnapping plot and pays for her betrayal with her life. This is a very stoic, stagy and rather dry musical that may capture the essence of Dickens in its settings characters and plot but seems totally out of touch with the effervescence of the traditional Hollywood musical. Even with such main staple songs as "Consider Yourself", "Boy For Sale" and "Food, Glorious Food", truly, the spoon full of sugar remains a bitter pill to swallow on this occasion.

Columbia Tri-Star has made "Oliver" available in a startlingly good looking transfer. Colors are solid, rich, vibrant and bold. Contrast levels are exactly where they should be. Blacks are incredibly deep. Fine detail is fully realized. Only occasionally do age related artifacts betray the vintage of the film. The audio is 5.1 and wonderfully spread across all five channels of the sound field. There are no extras. This film is spread across two sides of a single disc. The break comes at the point of intermission.

Moody's Fagin steals classic OLIVER!
Until CHICAGO reenergized the movie musical genre, this musical version of Charles Dickens' immortal "Oliver Twist" was widely regarded as one of the last of the great movie musicals. Indeed, with its high-energy performances, infectious music, steady direction by Sir Carol Reed and glorious sets, this movie won the 1968 Best Picture Oscar over such formidable competition as THE LION IN WINTER, CHARLEY, and FUNNY GIRL.

Of course, most people are familiar with the classic story of young Oliver Twist, whose mother dies giving him birth and is forced to be raised under the cruel supervision of the English workhouse officials. When he dares beg for more than his meager ration of gruel, the youngster is apprenticed to an undertaker and his extremely nasty family. After escaping this hostile environment, he finds himself taken in by the roguish Fagin, the Artful Dodger(Fagin's best pupil), and the rest of his band of young pickpockets. In time, however, Oliver will find his home, but not before dealing with the likes of the brutal Bill Sikes with the help of Sike's sympathetic lover, Nancy, and the kindly Mr. Brownlow.

As musical films go, it is hard to fault the wonderful casting in this film. Mark Lester makes a perfectly, if maybe overly, innocent Oliver, while Jack Wild is a delight as the rascally Artful Dodger. Shanie Wallis is heart-rending as the tragic Nancy. Oliver Reed (Sir Carol's nephew) is truly scary as the menacing Bill Sikes. Harry Secombe displays a glorious tenor in the comic role of Mr. Bumble, the beadle of the workhouse. However, it is Ron Moody's fantastic performance of the rascally Fagin that steals this movie. It is not surprising, when you consider that he created the role when the musical was first produced in London. Of course, the character itself has gone quite a change from Dickens' original, going from the debatably nasty anti-Semitic portrait of the novel to that of a lovable, if sneaky, eccentric. Indeed, Moody's excellent portrayal would set the tone for almost all future performances of the role to date, including those of such actors as George C. Scott and Richard Dreyfus, among others.

Some Dickens fans may quibble about the liberties taken with the book, from the softening of Fagin to the elimination of Oliver's evil step-brother Monks from the storyline. And it isn't a perfect film by any means. (The child singer who dubbed Mark Lester's songs sounds like she's in an echo chamber of some sort, which makes Oliver's singing a jarring contrast to the rest of the cast.) But, as a musical film, it is a wonderful entertainment and superb introduction to the classic story. As a result, this is one musical that I would DEFINITELY recommend.

Excellent
If only movies were made like this today. This film is filled with witty comedy, wonderful music, and great acting. One of the best musicals out there!! This film displays a boy's life going from the lowest of low (an orphanage) and slowely rising to a better life. The only thing is, it makes stealing look a little. .. well . . fun! But i'm sure we can all live with that right? ... Read more

Reviews (34)

Best intrigue movie ever made.
Welles did not make it: Carol Reed did. Screen play by Graham Greene (before he turned it into a novel in which Holly Martin is English). Show almost stolen by Trevor Howard, even Bernard Lee ("M" in first Bond films) is great. Valli is everyone's kind of girl. Joseph Cotten we have to identify with. Best line: "Unwise..Holly." This is the best intrigue movie ever made. Placed and filmed on location in post-war Vienna, rubble and all. Actors from the German (Viennese) stage are used for main small parts. According to a recent murder mystery set in Vienna when the film was made, the cafe scene where Holly displays a copy of his Western to identify himself to a "friend" of Harry Lime's is misplaced. Direction, mis en scene, acting, music, setting, inter alia, are beyond compare.

A masterpiece in every respect
I've probably viewed this movie more than any ever and yet I still never tire of it. Why do I love it so? Where do I begin? The brilliant cast, Carol Reed's imaginative direction, Robert Krasker's extraordinary photography, Anton Karas's zither score, Welles' 'cuckoo clock speech', the classic final shot - no aspect of this film could have been improved upon. People throw around five stars like there's no tomorrow on this site but, believe me, this is the sort of the movie that the fifth star was created for.

Not very much to say.
I'll Make this short and sweet to the point; This movie does very poorly and it's no wonder why people {excluding critics} think that this is boring right up there with Citizen Kane. I'm sorry for other people that feel differnt, but that's just my opinon and I tell it like it is.

Great Movie
This is just a great movie. Carol Reed has the director's credit, but this sure seems like something Orson Welles had his hand in. I've probably seen this one a dozen times already, and could easily see it another dozen.

Suspense and intrigue with no easy answers
Adapted from Graham Greene's book which was written with a film in mind, Carol Reed did a masterful job of directing this 1949 film which won Academy Awards for film editing, black and white photography, and directing. It's a bit of a masterpiece and holds the viewer in a suspended state of suspense, heightening the tensions as it moves swiftly along.

Starring Joseph Cotton as Holly Martin, an American who comes to Vienna at the request of an old college chum, Harry Lime, played by Orson Wells, the scene is set for intrigue from the very beginning. Martins is immediately told that Harry Lime has been killed in an accident and that his funeral is in progress. The plot thickens as he encounters a British policeman and learns that Harry might not have been such a nice guy after all. Martin suspects murder and goes about investigating on his own, finding himself attracted to Lime's girlfriend, played by Alida Valli.

Orson Wells doesn't appear until more than half the film is over, and only appears in three major scenes. But these scenes will be remembered forever especially the one where he and Joseph Cotton confront each other on a moving Ferris Wheel.

Wells and Cotton are the stars of this film but the there's another star as well. And that's the City of Vienna in all its wartime devastation. There is real rubble everywhere and the oblique angled shots, distorted wide angles and stark black and white photography create a surreal and bleak landscape. And then there is the haunting original zither music by Anton Karas, which became a top hit in 1950.

I recently read the book by Graham Greene and therefore knew the plot. In a way this spoiled the suspense for me. Freed from that however, I was able to concentrate on the details of the directional techniques and the cinematography. There's no doubt about it. This film is a winner. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The unofficial sequel to The Lady Vanishes (also scripted by Frank Launder and Sidney Gilliat) attempts to recapture the thrills of Hitchcock's charming confection of espionage and romance with generally fine results. Margaret Lockwood reprises her role as the flighty heroine, now the daughter of a Czech scientist captured by the Nazis as her father leaves the country. She escapes from a concentration camp with the help of a defiant male prisoner (Paul Henreid) and rejoins her father, only to be kidnapped back by the Germans, and then... Well, you get the idea. Rex Harrison costars as a seaside crooner who turns out to be a resourceful British Secret Service agent, whose stiff upper lip and school wit are handled with smiling aplomb. The headlong plot tosses the characters back and forth across the continent so rapidly the actors have little room to breath life into their roles, and director Carol Reed lacks Hitchcock's deftness and light touch, but Harrison's cocky, effusive charm helps enormously. Basil Radford and Naunton Wayne re-create their roles as blasé British tourists (when Britain declares war they, deep in the heart of Germany, worry about cricket and their golf clubs left behind in Berlin: "I'll never replace those," Radford mourns). Reed would find his stride after the war with such accomplished thrillers as Odd Man Out and The Third Man. In light of those classics, Night Train to Munich is an inconsistent but wholly entertaining lark. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Terrible video of a great film
The framing of the film is completely off. There is a black bar across the top of the screen indicating that when they transferred it to VHS, they didn't have it just right. It's extremely distracting.

The film itself is wonderful. Tense, exciting, interesting... I highly recommend you finding a different release and enjoying it.

British WW2 Espionage
Night Train to Munich is a hopelessly outdated yet watchable British 1940 flick made at the precipice of the commencement of World War 2. Rex Harrison plays a somewhat miscast British agent posing as a German major in an attempt to rescue Margaret Lockwood and her father a Czech industrialist from the clutches of the Nazis. The father played by James Harcourt is the inventor of a revolutionary form of armor plating that the Nazis are desperate to procure. Paul Henreid of Casablanca fame gives a notable performance as a treacherous Gestapo captain scheming to coerce the military secrets from the inventor.

The film possesses that hokey quality of those of that era, however Carol Reed was a talented director and tells the story well with a minimum of wartime propaganda.

Superb WW II espionage thriller
First, the bad news. I have seen two VHS versions of this superb film circulating, but both are of exceedingly low quality. I could be wrong, but I believe that at the moment there is not a first rate version of this film available in any format. We stand in great need of a fully restored DVD version of this film. The available VHS version looks scratched and poorly focused. It is still enjoyable, but one has the illusion of watching a bad print in the wee hours of the morning.

On one level, this film is a sort of remake of Hitchcock's THE LADY VANISHES. The parallels to the latter are especially strong, and not at all accidental. The screenplays for both THE LADY VANISHES and NIGHT TRAIN TO MUNICH were written by Sidney Gilliat and Frank Launder. Furthermore, Naunton Wayne and Basil Radford recreated their delightful characters Charters and Caldicott, two British twits who nearly stole the show in THE LADY VANISHES. Although they don't make quite the impact in this film that they did in THE LADY VANISHES, their presence nonetheless adds considerably to the film. The female protagonist is portrayed by Margaret Lockwood, who was also in the Hitchcock film. New to the Carol Reed film are an utterly delightful (as usual) Rex Harrison and Paul Henreid. Like THE LADY VANISHES, much of the film takes place on the European continent on a train, and the male hero in each film has a career that involves to some degree music.

NIGHT TRAIN TO MUNICH is not, however, as good as THE LADY VANISHES. The difference isn't in the cast and the script but in the directors. In a suspense film of this kind, Hitchcock would shame any competitor, and both his touch with suspense and with comedy (elements dominant in both films) exceeds that of the otherwise quite gifted Carol Reed. If the two films did not resemble each other so sharply, one would not feel compelled to compare the two.

Nonetheless, taken on its own terms, NIGHT TRAIN TO MUNICH is a first rate film, and anyone watching it will have a thoroughly good time. While Hitchcock makes THE LADY VANISHES a better film, Rex Harrison brings a degree of charm and elegance that is unique. This film, in fact, affords Harrison with one of the better roles of his career. All in all, it is hard to imagine someone not having a great time watching this movie. This will be ever truer when someone provides a good, fresh, restored copy of the film on DVD.

A very good film!
I highly recommend this film. It is really good and well worth watching. Paul Henreid and Rex Harrison are great in it.

Discover a gem
Of course with Carol Reed as director I was hoping for a first rate film and I was not disappointed. Suspenseful, humorous, with a nice set of twists, this film left me feeling I had made a small find. Definitely recommended! ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Trapeze
This is a wonderful movie, one of my favriotes actually. I can't tell you how many times I have watched it. It never gets old. It has inspired countless people to learn to fly on the trapeze, Some of todays greats inclued. If you have never seen this movie you're missing out. The first time I saw it was sitting in a circus ring after a show. Where will your first time be?

Trapeze
In those times this was a great movie its was a very in joyable and the outfits where greatand the actors were perfect for the movie then.

Circus Circus?
Burt Lancaster, a former man of the curcus finally gets to do a film about his first love.

Curtis is fine along with Thomas Gomez and Minor Watson. Its a love triangle of course but with the added touch of the great dierctor Carol Reed.

Beautifully photographed love story in circus setting
Great circus shots in a beautiful miniature European circus surround a love triangle. Lots of tension, suspense, interesting characters and a great climax! Tremendous photography of aerial stunts and other circus action. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Thrilling and deeply thought
In this film by Graham Greene we are in Vienna after the war where some shady and immoral business is going on, for the profit of some entreprising ringleaders. An American writer of western novels arrives here to visit of friend of his. He finds him dead and buried. But he asks many questions, too many actually, and finds out that the police report of the accident that killed his friend does not know about a third man on the accident scene. The film is a masterpiece of suspense and plot with a touch of romance. Yet this film is also very political playing on the rivalry between the western allies and the soviets who jointly occupy the city. The immoral businessmen use this rivalry to navigate freely in the city. Yet the International police and the austrian police will find out the truth and will bait and catch the main ringleader. The question asked in the film is a comparison between the Borggias who produced the Renaissance with intrigue, plot and blood, on one hand, and brotherly democratic Switzerland that produced only the cuckoo-clock, on the other hand. Which one is better ? The question is not answered in the film because we are big enough to make up our minds alone. Let say that the ending is moral.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU ... Read more

Reviews (31)

If you don't watch this...you're missing out.
If you want to watch a movie about the infamous Mutiny on the Bounty, and you want to see good acting, beautiful camera work, and hear a witty script -rent this version! Or better, buy it. It's fantastic and amazing... and though people are always putting it down, don't listen to them. Any movie about any type of historical event is going to have a thousand people nitpicking it, but just because they aren't satisfied with it because (good god, his accent isn't perfect! or, that isn't how that scene really happened!!) doesn't mean it isn't a good movie. Brando is, contrary to what everyone else has to say, perfect for the role of Fletcher Christian...and his acting makes the film worth watching.

What's so real about a story based on a historical novel?
This film has been assassinated without any qualms by anti-Hollywood witch hunters. Yes! It does reek of production excesses at the expense of faithfulness to fact and Marlon Brando's portrayal of Mr. Christian is thoroughly derisable but isn't that what is needed here? This second film incarnation of the mutiny's occurrence is a refreshing turn on the theme, this time casting it in a technicolored gold mine of a light. It's pure Gilbert and Sullivan and it is great as a comedy piece. That's what makes this version so enjoyable to watch - it's too light in spirit to do anything else. Even funnier is just knowing that this effect was created unintentionally by MGM studios. After injecting so much into the picture in the way of casting, location and sheer beauty, the film's dark subject matter is parodied throughout, turning what 'should' have been a remake of the 1935 by-the-book yarn into something wonderfully warm and impossible to yawn at. The 1962 'Mutiny on the Bounty' is pure family entertainment, notwithstanding the self-deflating way it might present itself to the thinking, prejudiced mind. Brando is ridiculous with his strained S. English accent and Howard delivers one of his finest performances as Bligh. Indeed, to be fair, it was just such hilarious campness/quirkiness which actually did punctuate the mindset of the Eighteenth Century landed gentry. Who cares about the muting of the story's academics in this work? If you want that so badly then why not get the stodgy Gable/Laughton version or, even better, use the next ten minutes to order the 1932 novel from Amazon while you're here! Don't bleat and bang your fists against this gorgeous White Elephant. It is great stuff which finds other giants of the screen like Richard Harris in fine form (he is the perfect straight man to Brando's foppish officer).You don't even have to switch off your intellect to enjoy all three hours of this picture; your intellect is swift to tell you that there is a very good reason why you are laughing. While the 1935 original and the 1983 version are both true-to-story pieces which are miles more thought-provoking, the '62 epic piece is infinitely more watchable and uplifting. In short, this version was made to be too great for its own good and has imploded in overall feel. A rich texture here is the only thing which can hope to keep the viewer from saying: 'This is so bad, it can't be anything else but good!' As a film buff and holder of two degrees, I still am prepared to risk face and declare this one of my all-time favourites. Sorry, fellow illuminati; sometimes I like to have a laugh.

What was he thinking?
Leaving aside the question of which of the three "Bounties" is the best, the most dominant feature of this version, to me, is Brando's laughable Fletcher C. Yes, a foppish, arrogant English aristocrat will be foppish and arrogant. The problem is you get the idea Brando had never encountered, in real life, anyone to give him the basis to ground his performance in reality. It reveals an underlying flaw in method acting ... you can't make bricks without straw and you can't CONVINCINGLY portray a character of a specific class, time period and type just by making him or her up from within yourself.

Why Not On DVD?
I found this 1962 version of "Mutiny on the Bounty" by far the most entertaining and thought-provoking. Sometimes based upon the real event, yet often dramatized, it is mesmerizing and contains a wonderful script. I must agree with another reviewer who asked where Clark Gable's English accent was in the 1935 "Bounty". Although Brando's English accent certainly could have been better, at least he made an effort to HAVE one in the first place. The film contains humour, pathos and great adventure, also moral questions. It did not deserve the level of criticism it received. It is a shame that it is not available on DVD, because I would purchase it then.

THE BEST VERSION, END OF STORY.
I can understand why movie critics would want us to think that the 1935 Gable/Laughton version of this story is still the definitive one. After all it's their job to try to sound like they know what they're talking about. And I can surely respect anyone else's opinion if they feel the same way. To quote a line from Brando as Fletcher Christian, "It takes all sorts to make a world." But what I cannot take seriously is when critics and even viewers here go so far as to call the 1962 wide-screen Technicolor adventure awful or even laughable. I have seen all three major films inspired by the Bounty incident (there was an earlier pre-CAPTAIN BLOOD Errol Flynn version made in 1933 titled IN THE WAKE OF THE BOUNTY which never saw release here in the U.S.) and so far no one's been able to convince me that the overrated, outdated b&w dream factory creation from 1935 is the best of the bunch. C'mon guys, give me a break here, will ya? Yes, I do believe that some film classics (GONE WITH THE WIND, for example) cannot and SHOULD NOT be remade. Unfortunately for die-hard fans, 1935's MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY is not one of them, and the 1962 version is proof of that. I am not trying to imply in any way that the Gable classic is bad. It did, in all honesty, keep me quite entertained when I saw it, and I may even recommend it to anyone who can't find anything better to watch. But let's get down to business and compare the two versions and see why the Brando film is superior.

First of all, for those who say that Brando's English accent is bad, I have but one question to ask: where the heck is GABLE'S accent?? I think Kevin Costner deserves an apology. And so does Brando. His Fletcher Christian was, at least before the mutiny, a foppish and aristocratic snob, no doubt. But a cheesy performance this was not. How else is a foppish, aristocratic snob supposed to act like? I admit that I'm not sure if that's how the character was originally written for the script or if this was something that Brando came up with during filming. I also confess that I'm no expert when it comes to British accents. But in any case I thought he was completely convincing and definitely more English-like than Gable's all-American interpretation of the same role. But the true realism of Brando's character goes far beyond his attempt at an accent. After the mutiny, the troubling thought of never being able to return to England without the possibility of facing execution causes his Fletcher Christian to regret taking command of the ship, and for a while he shuts himself off from the rest of the crew, trying his best to convince himself that he did the proper and civilized thing. Gable's Fletcher, on the other hand, seems pretty content with his new life as an outlaw.
Second, Trevor Howard's Bligh is also better developed than Charles Laughton's more famous (and over-the-top) version of Bligh. Laughton's Bligh is a monster simply for the sake of being a monster. There is never any kind of explanation for his cruel actions, and it's quite possible that no real crew would have put up with his tyranny as it did in the 1935 film. Howard's Bligh, on the other hand, is a man determined to do ANYTHING he can to accomplish his goal, and that is simply to impress the admiralty who entrusted him with the mission of bringing breadfruit from Tahiti to England. Perhaps he also felt just a little beneath Fletcher Christian?
Third, well I'll make it short 'cause there are actually a few more reasons than just one more. The attempt to round Cape Horn is shot so spectacularly that, at least in my opinion, it would not be equaled until well over forty years later in MASTER AND COMMANDER. The uses of widescreen and Technicolor are also a plus, especially in the above mentioned scene, but also in the scenes depicting Tahitian life as it might have been back then. (I don't know how much of what is shown is accurate and how much is not, but one thing is for sure: Tahiti as seen in the 1935 version is so fake and Hollywoodized it's hard to tell which scenes were shot in a studio and which ones were shot in actual location.) And last but not least, Bronislau Kaper's magnificent score.
Did I forget anything else? No, and I can certainly go on, but I think I've made my point. If you've seen it before and didn't like it the first time, try checking it out again. Who knows, you might think differently this time. Thanx for reading my review. Peace, bro. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The fractured Europe post-World War II is perfectly captured in Carol Reed's masterpiece thriller, set in a Vienna stillshell-shocked from battle. Holly Martins (Joseph Cotten) is an alcoholic pulp writer come to visit his old friend Harry Lime (Orson Welles). But when Cotton first arrives in Vienna, Lime's funeral is under way. From Lime's girlfriend and an occupying British officer, Martins learns of allegations of Lime's involvement in racketeering, which Martins vows to clear from his friend's reputation. As he is drawn deeper into postwar intrigue, Martins finds layer under layer of deception, which he desperately tries to sort out. Welles's long-delayed entrance in the film has become one of the hallmarks of modern cinematography, and it is just one of dozens of cockeyed camera angles that seem to mirror the off-kilter postwar society. Cotten and Welles give career-making performances, and the Anton Karas zither theme will haunt you. --Anne Hurley ... Read more

Reviews (34)

Best intrigue movie ever made.
Welles did not make it: Carol Reed did. Screen play by Graham Greene (before he turned it into a novel in which Holly Martin is English). Show almost stolen by Trevor Howard, even Bernard Lee ("M" in first Bond films) is great. Valli is everyone's kind of girl. Joseph Cotten we have to identify with. Best line: "Unwise..Holly." This is the best intrigue movie ever made. Placed and filmed on location in post-war Vienna, rubble and all. Actors from the German (Viennese) stage are used for main small parts. According to a recent murder mystery set in Vienna when the film was made, the cafe scene where Holly displays a copy of his Western to identify himself to a "friend" of Harry Lime's is misplaced. Direction, mis en scene, acting, music, setting, inter alia, are beyond compare.

A masterpiece in every respect
I've probably viewed this movie more than any ever and yet I still never tire of it. Why do I love it so? Where do I begin? The brilliant cast, Carol Reed's imaginative direction, Robert Krasker's extraordinary photography, Anton Karas's zither score, Welles' 'cuckoo clock speech', the classic final shot - no aspect of this film could have been improved upon. People throw around five stars like there's no tomorrow on this site but, believe me, this is the sort of the movie that the fifth star was created for.

Not very much to say.
I'll Make this short and sweet to the point; This movie does very poorly and it's no wonder why people {excluding critics} think that this is boring right up there with Citizen Kane. I'm sorry for other people that feel differnt, but that's just my opinon and I tell it like it is.

Great Movie
This is just a great movie. Carol Reed has the director's credit, but this sure seems like something Orson Welles had his hand in. I've probably seen this one a dozen times already, and could easily see it another dozen.

Suspense and intrigue with no easy answers
Adapted from Graham Greene's book which was written with a film in mind, Carol Reed did a masterful job of directing this 1949 film which won Academy Awards for film editing, black and white photography, and directing. It's a bit of a masterpiece and holds the viewer in a suspended state of suspense, heightening the tensions as it moves swiftly along.

Starring Joseph Cotton as Holly Martin, an American who comes to Vienna at the request of an old college chum, Harry Lime, played by Orson Wells, the scene is set for intrigue from the very beginning. Martins is immediately told that Harry Lime has been killed in an accident and that his funeral is in progress. The plot thickens as he encounters a British policeman and learns that Harry might not have been such a nice guy after all. Martin suspects murder and goes about investigating on his own, finding himself attracted to Lime's girlfriend, played by Alida Valli.

Orson Wells doesn't appear until more than half the film is over, and only appears in three major scenes. But these scenes will be remembered forever especially the one where he and Joseph Cotton confront each other on a moving Ferris Wheel.

Wells and Cotton are the stars of this film but the there's another star as well. And that's the City of Vienna in all its wartime devastation. There is real rubble everywhere and the oblique angled shots, distorted wide angles and stark black and white photography create a surreal and bleak landscape. And then there is the haunting original zither music by Anton Karas, which became a top hit in 1950.

I recently read the book by Graham Greene and therefore knew the plot. In a way this spoiled the suspense for me. Freed from that however, I was able to concentrate on the details of the directional techniques and the cinematography. There's no doubt about it. This film is a winner. ... Read more

Amazon.com

In the impressive filmography of British director Carol Reed, TheFallen Idol is sandwiched between Odd Man Out and The Third Man--the second of three consecutive masterpieces (adapted by Graham Greene from his short story "The Basement Room") by a filmmaker at the peak of his artistic powers. Of those three, The Fallen Idol is the most delicately subdued, but it's a flawlessly plotted thriller that achieves considerable tension through the psychology of its characters. By telling the story through the eyes of a child, the plot gains even greater urgency as a variation on the theme of "the boy who cried wolf," as young Phillipe (Bobby Henrey)--the 8-year-old son of the French ambassador to England--struggles to clear his beloved embassy butler Baines (Ralph Richardson) from being wrongfully accused of murder.

Baines is burdened with a shrewish, overbearing wife (Sonia Dresdel) whose rigid, disciplinarian control of Phillipe sets the stage for suspense; when Mrs. Baines dies in a terrible fall on the embassy staircase, her husband (who has been having a secret affair with an embassy typist) is the prime suspect. Phillipe, caught between his love for Baines and his suspicion of the butler's guilt, tries to convince investigators of Baines's innocence. But the boy's pleas are ignored, and The Fallen Idol expertly plays on the child's good but woefully misguided intentions. In Reed's visual strategy, a simple paper airplane can become the focus of almost unbearable suspense, and as incriminating evidence builds a strong case against Baines, Reed maintains that suspense to the final moments of the film. Low-key and yet still highly effective, the film received Oscar nominations for Reed's direction and Greene's adapted screenplay. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Great movie from a childs viewpoint
There are no villians or heroes in this movie, just people bumbleing around being people. Just poetic pathos.
Very believable childs eye view.

As impeccable as its title hero
Carol Reed was perhaps even more famous in his day for coaxing superb performances out of children than Steven Spielberg is today... and much of it is due to the astonishing performance in this marvelous film by Bobby Henrey as Phillipe, the son of the French Ambassador to the UK. Henrey delivers what must be one of the greatest child's performances ever on screen (right up there with little Victoire Thivisol in PONETTE). Phile idolizes the butler at the embassy, the sweet but very ordinary Baines (Ralph Richardson), and when his hero becomes accused of murder in the death of his wife young Phile becomes wrapped up in the police investigation. The film does a superb job switching back and forth from a child's to an adult's register--we see things both from Phile's limited child's point of view (and understand his inability to put things together given his naievete), and we also see from an adult perspective how his attempts to help his idol only make things worse and worse. The film is beautifully shot--the embassy itself is something of a marble and tile wonder--and Henrey's frantic need for attention and his jumpy manner (and endearing lisp: "He PUTHED her...") make him seem as real a small child as you can imagine.

From a Child's Eyes
Carol Reed, one of Britain's most masterly directors, handled this gem with consummate grace. This was Reed's final film prior to his masterpiece, "The Third Man."

What makes this film so rare is that it is seen through the eyes of a young boy, played by Bobby Hendry. Most of the action takes place in a South London mansion in fashionable Chelsea, which serves as the French Embassy. The youngster's parents are away in France when the wife of his hero, played by Ralph Richardson, slips and falls down the second floor staircase, plunging to her death. Richardson, the Embassy's caretaker, was caught in a loveless marriage with a difficult woman. He is having an affair with Michele Morgan at the time of his wife's death.

A young child's imagination goes to work. Hendry imagines that Richardson actually killed his wife and, when investigating police officers Jack Hawkins and Bernard Lee arrive, he engages in conduct in which, while seeking to help his hero Richardson, mistakenly implicates him.

By the film's conclusion Richardson is finally cleared, but Hendry's activities make things more difficult for him. The imagination of a youngster seeking to help Richardson almost leads to his downfall.

Reed's deft handling of Hendry was reflective of his ability to work with children. It was further demonstrated in "A Kid for Two Farthings" and in the brilliant musical "Oliver!", which resulted in an Academy Award for Reed.

Idolizing A Murderer?
Ralph Richardson stars as Baines, butler to an ambassador, who is having an affair with an embassy employee. The ambassador's young son Phillipe, played by Bobby Henrey, idolizes the butler. When his wife accidentally falls to her death following an argument with him, Richardson finds himself the only suspect in her murder. Henrey, believing Richardson to be guilty but wanting to protect him, lies to the police to help out. But lies have gotten Richardson into this mess, and more lies only make it worse. The film is quite suspenseful as it goes on, and the scene with the paper airplane is justifiably well remembered for the way it ups the tension. Richardson, as usual, is excellent, as is young Henrey and Sonia Dresdel as the shrew wife. The Fallen Idol grows on you with each passing frame and lie. It's another great film from 1940's England.

Touching, Sensitive Movie of Love, Frustration and Adulation
This is a wonderful movie, superbly written. It has such a subtle way about the frustration of two incompatible spouses, the last-ditch attempt of one to change his life for the better, and his relationship with a young boy in his charge who understands nothing and looks up to him. Ralph Richardson is truly great in this. I love this movie for all its fine touches. I've seen it over and over. The viewer must like movies that really pay attention to how human beings behave, good and bad, and the little fictions they make up to get along in a difficult life. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Terrible video of a great film
The framing of the film is completely off. There is a black bar across the top of the screen indicating that when they transferred it to VHS, they didn't have it just right. It's extremely distracting.

The film itself is wonderful. Tense, exciting, interesting... I highly recommend you finding a different release and enjoying it.

British WW2 Espionage
Night Train to Munich is a hopelessly outdated yet watchable British 1940 flick made at the precipice of the commencement of World War 2. Rex Harrison plays a somewhat miscast British agent posing as a German major in an attempt to rescue Margaret Lockwood and her father a Czech industrialist from the clutches of the Nazis. The father played by James Harcourt is the inventor of a revolutionary form of armor plating that the Nazis are desperate to procure. Paul Henreid of Casablanca fame gives a notable performance as a treacherous Gestapo captain scheming to coerce the military secrets from the inventor.

The film possesses that hokey quality of those of that era, however Carol Reed was a talented director and tells the story well with a minimum of wartime propaganda.

Superb WW II espionage thriller
First, the bad news. I have seen two VHS versions of this superb film circulating, but both are of exceedingly low quality. I could be wrong, but I believe that at the moment there is not a first rate version of this film available in any format. We stand in great need of a fully restored DVD version of this film. The available VHS version looks scratched and poorly focused. It is still enjoyable, but one has the illusion of watching a bad print in the wee hours of the morning.

On one level, this film is a sort of remake of Hitchcock's THE LADY VANISHES. The parallels to the latter are especially strong, and not at all accidental. The screenplays for both THE LADY VANISHES and NIGHT TRAIN TO MUNICH were written by Sidney Gilliat and Frank Launder. Furthermore, Naunton Wayne and Basil Radford recreated their delightful characters Charters and Caldicott, two British twits who nearly stole the show in THE LADY VANISHES. Although they don't make quite the impact in this film that they did in THE LADY VANISHES, their presence nonetheless adds considerably to the film. The female protagonist is portrayed by Margaret Lockwood, who was also in the Hitchcock film. New to the Carol Reed film are an utterly delightful (as usual) Rex Harrison and Paul Henreid. Like THE LADY VANISHES, much of the film takes place on the European continent on a train, and the male hero in each film has a career that involves to some degree music.

NIGHT TRAIN TO MUNICH is not, however, as good as THE LADY VANISHES. The difference isn't in the cast and the script but in the directors. In a suspense film of this kind, Hitchcock would shame any competitor, and both his touch with suspense and with comedy (elements dominant in both films) exceeds that of the otherwise quite gifted Carol Reed. If the two films did not resemble each other so sharply, one would not feel compelled to compare the two.

Nonetheless, taken on its own terms, NIGHT TRAIN TO MUNICH is a first rate film, and anyone watching it will have a thoroughly good time. While Hitchcock makes THE LADY VANISHES a better film, Rex Harrison brings a degree of charm and elegance that is unique. This film, in fact, affords Harrison with one of the better roles of his career. All in all, it is hard to imagine someone not having a great time watching this movie. This will be ever truer when someone provides a good, fresh, restored copy of the film on DVD.

A very good film!
I highly recommend this film. It is really good and well worth watching. Paul Henreid and Rex Harrison are great in it.

Discover a gem
Of course with Carol Reed as director I was hoping for a first rate film and I was not disappointed. Suspenseful, humorous, with a nice set of twists, this film left me feeling I had made a small find. Definitely recommended! ... Read more

Reviews (128)

A landmark Film Noir. Seldom equalled: will not be beaten.
The Third Man is, unquestionably, one of the greatest films of all time. It is probably the greatest British film of all too. Based on a screenplay by Graham Greene, set amidst the rubble of post-war Vienna and starring Orson Welles, Joseph Cotten and Trevor Howard, this one was always going to be good. It was, for many years, regarded as the film noir to beat all others and is my favourite movie. Radical in it's cinematic concept and brilliantly shot by Robert Krasker, the film has more atmosphere than any film I have seen before or since.

It all starts with Holly Martins (Cotten), a drunkard who writes the type of books which used to be known as "penny dreadfuls", arriving in Vienna not long after the end of WWII on the promise of a job. It turns out that his prospective employer, Harry Lime (Welles), has been killed in an accident and Martins has arrived just in time for the funeral. Lime's friends soon make contact with the wayward Martins, who becomes convinced that his friend has been murdered, and eventually through a series of encounters, he winds up in the hands of the Military Police.

In the opinion of this reviewer, this is Cotten's best film and though I've never been a big fan of his, he suits the role admirably. I also believe this is Trevor Howard's finest performance. So good is Howard that there is little doubt over his conviction that Martins is wrong and the scene where all is revealled to him is a feature of the film. Orson Welles was an acting giant in anyone's terms although by this time he was almost universally regarded as box office poison. His characterisation of the psychopathic Lime has been the model for so many film baddies and in may ways is as sinister as Hannibal Lecter.

The cinematography is superb. Shot on the streets of bombed-out Vienna and using minimal lighting, it gives definition to the film noir genre. The lighting reflected off wet cobblestone roads and the hard shadows created by single brute arcs create a cold, stark landscape for Carol Reed's direction and the underlying suspense of the plot. Much of t