Reviews (1484)

Great Action Film
"Gladiator" is a film that should suit all tastes. It is an expertly mounted and eye-filling event; the blood and gore, delivered in split-second imagery (allowing your head to fill in the rest) should satisfy the most blood-thirsty movie goer; and the story is a superb tale of good vs. evil, power vs. honor, and "Might for Right". I was reminded of "Camelot" many times during this film, especially by the almost unrecognizable appearance of Richard Harris as the wise and noble Marcus Aurelis. Joaquin Phoenix gives a bone-chilling performance as the evil and cowardly Commodus, who inherits the title of emperor upon his father's death. But the sole weight of this overwhelming piece rests on the shoulders of the magnificent Russell Crowe. If one doesn't believe in him, then one doesn't believe in this epic costume drama. Kudos to the rest of the cast as well, and hand over heart for the late Oliver Reed. But back to Crowe--he is an actor to contend with. His work in "Gladiator" is a tour de force performance; he very nearly sprays testosterone from the screen. It's what was exactly demanded from him in this role, and he exceeds expectations in that regard.

Gladiator ROCKS!!!
I completely dug this film from beginning to end,and every aspect of it,from the breathtaking cinamatography,the expertly staged battle sequences,and exqusite set-design,to the stellar performances of a top-notch cast,rang true.The film starts with a stunning battle and doesen't let up from the time Maximus says"on my mark,unleash Hell". Do they ever.Russell Crowe is perfect in the lead role,as an expert warrior with a grieving soul and a deep sense of honor and loyalty.It's a true star-making turn,and he oozes rugged charisma from every pore.Equally impressive,but in the exact opposite way,is Juaquin Phoenix as the conniving,decadent,deeply evil Emperor.Also great support from Richard Harris and the late,great Oliver Reed.Director Ridley Scott uses his gift for composition and visual flair to great effect,giving each scene a painterly burnish and unforgettable depth,whether it's the after-life of Maximus' dreams,the bustling,grand sprawl of Rome,the rip-roaring battles of the Coluseum,or the sinister twinkle in the Emporer's eyes.At one point Maximus admonishes the bloodthirsty crowd:"Is this not what you wanted? Are you not entertained?" Indeed we are Russell,very much so.What a great film.

okay
this is a three star movie with a five star dvd. one of the biggest problems with the movie was the first battle. i was expecting braveheart quality but ended with a battle less entertaining than the one in dragonheart. the blurry camera and closeups made it impossible to tell what was happening. if you want to see a movie like this but better, see the last samurai or braveheart.

A Modern Classic of an Old Age
I seldom write reviews for anything, but for a movie like 'Gladiator' I'm willing to make an exception, and gosh if it's worth doing it!!
The movie, by far the best of the year 2000, is not only an award-winning production, but it is also one of the few that I personally enjoy watching again and again and again. Not because it is flawless (at times the storyline is quite predictable) but because it portrays life and death in the Roman Empire in such a way that it really bring those old buildings we all know since childhood (the Coliseum, the Forum, Via Appia, etc) back to life.
And yet it does so not at the expense of the story but through it, from the characters, to the script (they're so many quotables lines from Maximus and Commudus alone to make a CD)...in fact everything in the movie, from the battle in Germanica to the last fight at the Coliseum, is portrayed with realism plus an amazing score lacking in so many movies these days.
The movie of course is not to be seen as "history" in the academic sense but rather as an historical exercise, Holywood style, of one of the most facinating and complex periods of Western History. The attention to the detail is amazing, especially in the opening scene (the battle in Germanica) and the gladiatorial fights. Even most deleted scenes are great in the sense that they allow us to understand the characters a little bit more (Commudus' sword smashing of his father's marble bust is a most see), although they neither add nor take of the story. The casting is superb, with Russell Crow in the main role, Joaquin Phoenix as the Emperor Commudus, along with such legends as Oliver Reed as the freedman slaveholder and Richard Harris as the great Marcus Aurelius.
I'll recomend strongly that anyone who sees this movie shoudl do his/her homework and do a little of reading about Rome, both as a Republic and after, and the huge importance of the entertaining business in her late everyday life (an importance unreached until recent times).
Overall, a classic epic of an scope and ambition not seen since 'Ben Hur'; full of action, drama... and yes, more action.
As the Romans themselves said, Faber est quisque fortunae suae... each one is the architect of his own fortune. Feliciter!

Decent story, captivating effect
Ridley Scott's movie, "Gladiator" is one based on fiction of a General in the times of Marcus Aurelius. It tracks the life of a general who is effective in battle and is to rewarded by the emperor with the crown of Rome until it can be handed back to the senate. The movie won 5 oscars and is compared to Ben-Hur, which is ludicrous. For starters, Ben-Hur had William Wyler as the director who went to Gore Vidal to fix the screenplay. This movie will imaginative has so many historical inaccuracies, it is funny that it can be even thought to be in the same league.

Some of the actors did a decent job, these include Richard Harris as Marcus Aurelius and his daughter, Lucilla. I had problems with Russell Crowe's acting. He is unmistakably patrician, however, and physically very like Richard Burton, with Burton's battered face and gravel-voiced machismo. But Crowe's Maximus is no Mark Antony; there is no destructive love interest in the picture. Maximus is sweetly devoted to his late wife; though it turns out he once had a bit of an unbuckling thing going in his backstory for Commodus's lovely sister Lucilla (Connie Nielsen). I did not think that he deserved the best actor oscar. He has a very limited repertoire of actions and emotions. Crowe is no Tom Hanks or Geoffrey Rush in acting, he does not have depth and breadth of acting.

This movie cannot stand the test of time, it does not have great screenplay and historical integrity. It will gradually ebb away from the minds of the people. To stand out from the other movies, it has to have a new paradigm, either in acting or story or screenplay, none of which are depicted. Another one of those movies that do not deserve the best picture oscars. It is OK to watch this once. If you compare this director with Ang Lee, who did "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", "Eat, Drink, Man, Woman", and "Sense and Sensibility" you can see the difference in directing talent. See them and judge for yourself. ... Read more

Reviews (882)

Scott gets the look, as usual
[This review speaks mainly to the film, not the 3-disc special edition release]

Black Hawk Down is a tough movie to qualify. It's visually amazing--this is some of the best combat I've seen in a movie. It's thrilling, it's realistic, it's exciting. I wouldn't exactly call this an anti-war film because it depicts war as the ultimate thrill, a real game of real bullets and blood. Yes, it's hell, but with Ridley Scott directing it looks like a very, very good video game.

I don't know why this movie was made. There is no political leaning, there is very little context. It's a blow by blow account of what happened when over 100 Army Ranger and Delta Force soldiers were stuck in a hostile part of Mogadishu, Somalia in late 1993. The enemy, as to be expected from a Jerry Bruckheimer film, is given no identity. They are throngs of Africans, many of them kids, firing round after round and coming like swarms of bees even as they get cut down by the superior US firepower.

The problem is that the movie goes to very impressive lengths to play out this story. The production is huge--the battle scenes, the city scenes (filmed in some bombed-out-looking part of Morocco apparently), the gunplay, etc. This is an expensive film, and I have to wonder why the money and resources go into something like this if there is nothing to say. Then it becomes pure entertainment, which is all the film turns out to be. That's fine, but again, once in a while it would be nice to inject some intelligence into a project that obviously commanded so many other resources and considerations.

Why was America in Somalia? Granted, that is not the concern of the film, but some kind of context for the war, the rebels, the aims of the mission, the pov of Somalis who were killing to negotiate, as one Somali says in the only behind-the-scenes bit in the film, would have put the film over the edge and actually made the audience ::gasp:: think about why America fights where it does.

There's also the obligatory war film clichés that are just hard to stomach when we know that these are real soldiers being trivialized for the popcorn crowd. Tom Sizemore, as a veteran and tough-as-nails McKnight, goes back into the fray to rescue more men and walks calmly through the street as bullets ricochet around him, like Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now. Modern movie special effects can simulate rockets blowing people apart, literally, and leg wounds being operated on with someone's bare hands, muscle and sinew and all. It is typical of Hollywood today: they have limitless resources, but those resources (being able to shoot a film as visually and technically impressive as this) serve a story that could use a bit more tweaking and humanization. But the filmmakers are
not interested in that angle.

It would be nice to know why Mogadishu is hell on earth, with hordes of enemies tearing people out of helicopters and raining rockets on American soldiers. Yes, the soldiers were brave, they were highly trained, but the mission was a disaster, and it does the real story a disservice to portray it as just another chapter in American gung ho-ism. Also, the single most memorable bit of that real story was the body of an Army Ranger being dragged through the streets by an angry mob that spit on him, and much worse. That was a disturbing bit of footage for Americans to watch. Would that have been more tasteless than showing an RPG rocket stuck in someone's side? Massive, gaping wounds? Missing legs? Why clean up real events and their aftermath for the sake of a night out at the movies? Maybe they should put their mouths where the money is.

Make no mistake--I couldn't turn this film off. It's exciting; it made me want to play Ghost Recon or one of those games. It also made me want to find out more about this grim chapter in President Clinton's tenure as Commander in Chief, even though it was his predecessor who landed troops there when he was a lame duck. Somalia was an embarrassment, an event that told America we were no longer willing to sacrifice men--18 as compared to over 1,000 Somalis killed in battle--in some foreign wasteland. The film is not enlightening in that regard. It's exciting, it's Jerry Bruckheimer, folks. Watch it and decide for yourself.

It looks like they went to very impressive lengths to put this out on DVD, as expected with a production like this. Definitely worthwhile to pick up, as multiple commentaries, deleted scenes, and other goodies sweeten the deal.

A Special Operation
It's about time! Sony Pictures finally got around to releasing a deluxe edition DVD of director Ridley Scott's magnificent fact-based war thriller "Black Hawk Down". Fortunately, it's well worth the wait; sporting three discs with every concievable extra feature, it could well be the best DVD package I've ever seen.

Possibly the finest of all pure war pictures and unquestionably the best movie ever made about the Special Forces, "Black Hawk Down" recounts the fierce battle that ensued in Somalia on October 3, 1993 during a mission by the Army's Rangers and elite Delta Force operators to capture two lieutenants of a repulsive warlord.

The film presents a raw, vivid dramatization of the fight, with graphic depictions of violent death on both sides. The difference is that Scott, unlike many of his contemporaries, mostly manages to steer clear of sentimentality, preachiness and jingoism (no small feat when you're making a war movie). Understanding the need for occasional breaks in what is essentially a two-hour-long battle scene, Scott also injects a little comic relief in the form of three lost Rangers and some other great little moments (my favorite is the part where Sgt. Eversmann, played with surprising vigor by Josh Hartnett, has to pause in the middle of battle to pull a scalding-hot spent shell casing from inside his uniform; little details like that are cinematic gold).

The first disc has the film along with three outstanding audio commentaries: one from Scott and producer Jerry Bruckheimer; one from screenwriter Ken Nolan and Mark Bowden, author of the original book; and, most interestingly, another by four actual veterans of the battle, who expand on true elements of the story and comment on some of the film's technical innacuracies ("This scene is really cool - too bad it never really happened").

Disc two features a 150-minute "making of" featurette that explores just about every facett of the production, including technical accuracy, CGI effects and footage of the actors at Ranger boot camp.

Disc three has two absorbing documentaries about the battle from the History Channel and PBS's "Frontline". There's also a feature that allows you to watch the fast-roping insertion scene from multiple camera angles and some Q & A sessions with the filmmakers and actors. There's a nice moment in one of these sessions in which Jason Issacs, who plays the aptly named Capt. Steele, comments on how "BHD" actually made him a better person: "After knowing what these soldiers went through, you feel a bit embarrassed complaining about the size of your trailer."

"Black Hawk Down", simply by virtue of its adherence to telling the story as it happened (as much as is possible, at least, within the confines of a 2 1/2 hour movie), is much more military-friendly than many of the artsy war pictures that depict soldiers as victims or, even worse, as psychopaths. It's also a far cry from the simplistic "super soldier" flicks of the 1980s that stressed a comic book mentality over respect for what real American warriors have endured over the centuries. "Black Hawk Down" is a profoundly patriotic movie, but its patriotism is more subtle, mature and real. The only American flags you really see are patches sewn onto the right shoulder of the troops' uniforms. The flag is backwards, so that the stars are closer to the soldier's heart.

A True Horror Film
It just doesn't get any better than this. I've seen this film 4 times & it never ceases to astound me. The acting is exceptional, Ridley Scott is directing here at the peak of his powers & Pietro Scalia should have received an Oscar for the outstanding editing job. The film itself functions more like a rocket ride than just a war film. The word visceral comes to mind. Violent? Frightening? Absolutely! But to demonstrate the true impact of war, for the soldiers & for us, there is no alternative. I noticed a fellow customer said this film is better than SAVING PRIVATE RYAN; am I the only one who noticed the huge hole in that film's storyline? Move over THREE KINGS, FULL METAL JACKET, THE THIN RED LINE...BLACK HAWK DOWN may just be the greatest war film ever made. Why? Because a war film isn't just bullets & the terrible death of comrades. Ridley Scott has shown us the true horror. I know it will haunt my dreams......

Great War Movie
I recently bought the DVD for this movie and I have to say that I'm blown away by the movie about the operation to capture Adid in Mogadishu, Somalia in October '93. This movie is very accurate in showing the realities of combat and I think that this is a movie that will really convey to people what it's like to fight and die not only for their country, but for each other.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to know about what it's like in the heat of combat and the courage and fortitude of our soliders.

Best Film of Post-WW2 Combat
Prior to "Black Hawk Down", "Apocalypse Down" was hands down my favorite non-World War II war movie. Time and distance works wonders, and Ridley Scott proves he can film modern combat, like sci-fi ("Alien") with the best of them.

This is a post Private Ryan film, which means that the street combat scenes are jumpy, erratic, and extremely violent. But like Spielberg, Scott does not lose sight of character development, particularly Harnett's character who becomes marooned with his "stick" of Rangers overnight in the centre of Mogadishu surrounded by thousands of screeming, RPG-toting Somalis who can use cell phones to mobilize and direct their forces. The movie builds like "Alien", to the point where it becomes incomprehensible that anyone is going to get out alive. The movie does not take sides when commanders sacrifice four or five soldiers to save one - it just happens.

Some reviewers have referred to the book as a "novel" - it is not. This battle really happened, but once we left Somalia (or were pushed out, depending on your point of view) it got quietly shunted aside as a bad sideshow until Mark Bowden wrote his book of the same title, which is a MUST read for people who loved the movie (it goes into greater detail of the Ranger culture and background politics). Lots of lessons abound for our current escapade into Mesopotamia.

Sizemore, who is also in "Private Ryan", is by leaps and bounds the best hard-nosed NCO anywhere. Ewan McGregor, who has had to suffer through Lucas' recent disasters, gets to demonstrate his versatility. Harnett is terrific.

No review should pass up the incredible sound, which demands a 5.1 system and heavy on the subwoofer. The soundtrack (with the exception of the vaguely Celtic ooh-ahhs at the end) is the best I recall of any war movie. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

A wonderfully dark film!
Blade Runner tells of human-like robots which are in danger of gaining emotions and becomming too human to exhist by human laws. I loved this movie when I first saw it and I find it wonderful to notice in the background the company logos (which at the time were powerful up and coming companies) of which most are out of business (though Atari has made a comeback). The soundtrack sets the tone and the weather (which it always is raining in the film except for the very ending) also keep things looking bleak. I do enjoy the directors cut cause I am a big fan of Widescreen... but that is the only reason I like it. I wish they had kept the narration (or at least had a two sided disk so a person could chose to have the original unedited narration or the directors cut version). I know some people think the narration is the studios way of saying that the audiance cannot understand the film without dumbing-it-down with narration. This is definitily not the case. The narration reminds me of those old TV Cop dramas where the cops thoughts are always stated as the action is happening. I do feel that it adds to the film. I highly recommend the movie regardless of which version you see. Rutger Hauer is my favorite.

A Dirty Future run by Businessmen and Politicians
It is never enough for the powerful: in this film they manufacture people and then "recall" them like Chevy did the Vega... but we find that people aren't machines even when they are manufactured. The man who is called to track down the last of the androids falls in tough love with the last best of her breed!

Dark Sci Fi at its best
A truly fabulous cinematic work, I only wish it was still available for purchase. Philip Dick would be proud of the adaption of his novel. Vangelis renders a beautiful score. No one does it better than Rutger Hauer.

A depressingly dark moody film that makes you think.
I have both versions, the original release with Ford's voice over, and the "Director's" cut (which is surprisingly, shorter than the original). Of the two, I tend to prefer the original.

Purists tend to find the voice over of the original distracting and un-necessary, but I find it adds to the mood.

I love the cinematography.

It also sports early or first appearances of many now well known actors.

I would consider this movie to be within my top favorite movies.

The very best science-fiction/action/romance ever made.
Okay, the voice-over detective's dialog is hokey, but I love it; it's Sam Spade with smog. Years after the original release, the movie isn't dated or tired. It may always be my favourite flick. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

This strange, 1985 experiment by Ridley Scott (Blade Runner) starred the up-and-coming Tom Cruise in a fairy-tale world of dwarfs and unicorns and demons. After the horn of a unicorn is broken, darkness and winter descend upon the world. Cruise's character, helped along by a magic sprite played by David Bennent (The Tin Drum), descends into hell to save paradise. This movie is almost a classic case of art direction gone amok. The somewhat amorphous Cruise doesn't lend much dramatic focus or artistic definition, but the drama between Tim Curry's satanic majesty and Mia Sara's character, who becomes a sort of princess of the netherworld, is pretty captivating. A mixed experience all around that makes one wish it had been more successful. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (335)

Be Wary Of The Dark Lord
The long awaited DVD release of Director Ridley Scott's infamous fantasy-adventure, LEGEND, is worth it. Tom Cruise is a forrest dweller, chosen to undertake a mythical quest, to save a beautiful Princess (Mia Sara). She is being held captive by the demon-like Lord Of Darkness, (Tim Curry), who with his great powers, wants to plunge the world into an eternal ice age. When first released in 1986, the director made some drastic cuts to the movie, after a poor test screening. The end result was a 90 minute film that felt rushed and incomplete. When it came time to release LEGEND overseas, Scott reinserted some 24 minutes back into the movie. Now, fully restored, both fans and non-fans can finally see the film, the way the director intended. The story is a bit darker than most fairy tales and that is to the film's advantage. Curry is just great as the antogonist. The make-up and creature effects from Rob Bottin rival anything I have seen lately, using CGI.

Here is how the 2 disc "Ultimate Edition" DVD breaks down:

Disc One-contains the 114 minute cut of the film; along with Composer Jerry Goldsmith's original score for the film. The Goldsmith score was replaced in an attempt to broaden the film's appeal. It is great to finally be able to hear in the film. There is also an ejoyable and informative commentary from Scott that is well done.

Disc 2-contains the 90 minute U.S. theatrical cut of the movie with the Tangerine Dream music. The rest of the special features are on the 2nd disc as well. Among the notable bonus material-a making of documentary, "lost scenes", storyboards, a music video, and photo gallery/publicity. There is also script to scene comparison in the form of DVD-ROM.

I have always been a fan of this film and to finally have both versions in one place is cool. I must say that this film has its detractors but I think that is in large part due to the initial edit. Fans should like the release. If you like the work of Ridley Scott, give this one a look, you will enjoy it. I recommend this DVD as rental. first, for those who have never seen LEGEND. For all others, I Highly Recommend this DVD

Two Movies for the Price of One! Darkness and Light!
LEGEND never really found an audience in theatres despite Ridley Scott and Universal's constant tinkering with the final cut. Seems many movies of this era were victims of audience test screenings, and the desire to give people a commercial product that went down easy -- see BRAZIL for a prime example of how studios think (the "love conquers all" version). So LEGEND was severely edited and rescored with a hasty (but often effective score by TANGERINE DREAM). It was short on plot and long on art direction, but sumptuous visuals and an all-out acting job by Tim Curry and make-up artist Rick Bottin made the movie an easy favorite of many fantasy fans. The movie looks stunning, and the story is a universal plunge into archetypes. Nothing wrong with that, it certainly worked for STAR WARS!

This DVD collection gives you two versions of LEGEND -- the original director's cut with over twenty minutes of added footage and the original Goldsmith score; and in addition, you get the original US release. In essence you get two different movies! The moods vary, the characters seem a little different, with whole new speeches and images to enjoy. If you are a fan of the movie or Ridley Scott it's a MUST-HAVE! This is what DVD dreams are made of. While many bemoan the fact BLADE RUNNER does not come with its 2 versions -- the fact is other than the narration and the happy ending, there is not MUCH different. But here we have a case where you can see what happens to a movie as it goes through development HELL. Fascinating stuff, and it comes LOADED with extras.

The only downside is the director's cut gets the royal treatment of a 5.1 sound mix while the other version gets a 2 channel Dolby mix, and even the video quality seems different with again the director's cut looking better than the theatrical release. But at last we can see a widescreen version of either cut, and we get a lot of extras that explain some of why the movie is the way it ended up. Beautiful images, two good soundtracks (I like both though the mood changes), and basically strong performances. LEGEND is a waking dream!

Great 80's movie.
The villains in this movie are what steal the show. From the goblin, to the orc, to the swamp troll, and to the unforgettable devil they are what make this movie what it is.

Just seeing Tim Curry in that oh so cool satan get up is worth the price of admission for this dvd.

Legend; Ultimate Edition
(Please note that my review mentions a few scenes and plot elements which you may not wish to know beforehand if you have never seen the movie; however, I would definitely not consider them spoilers.)

Legend is one of "those" movies for me. Like many of the movies I saw when I was young, it helped define my childhood. I first saw Legend during its first televised airing in Canada at about the age of 8. My mother taped it off of television for me, and over my unicorn obsessed childhood it became etched into my memory. Strangely, the version I saw then I have never been able to find in stores.

When the taped-from-tv version finally gave out on me, my mother bought for me an official Legend release for Christmas. I watched the movie with a sense of horror as I found that scenes that I felt were pivotal or pleasureably memorable to the movie were not present. The two notable scenes missing were the scene in which Gump riddles Jack about moonbells, and the one in which Jack faces the witch on his way to Darkness. The lack of these scenes brought the movie's greatness down a few notches for me. Perhaps if I'd never seen it with those scenes I wouldn't have noticed, but knowing just what was missing, and what the movie was without them, ruined something for me. So, when I found Legend: Ultimate Edition, I decided to buy it to see if the Director's Cut was the better version. However, I was aware when I bought it that my childhood version of Legend featured the Tangerine Dream score, and not the original. So I wasn't really sure what I was getting.

Imagine my annoyance to find that the Director's Cut is no better. In fact, I think it's worse. I will pick out three specifics that bother me:

Lily: In the U.S. Theatrical release, I like Lily. She is sweet, and innocent, and a little foolish, but endearingly so. In the Director's Cut, Lily's dialogue makes her out to be much less likeable - she seems immature and spoiled, a brat. There were points where I wanted to slap her for being so irritating.

The Score: The Tangerine Dream score has an atmospheric and often shadowy feel to it; the original score is much too over-the-top and takes away from the atmosphere of the film. Really, it does not feel much as though Jerry Goldsmith was watching the same movie everyone else was. Legend's dreamlike fantasy world grows into a dark nightmare, and this is served quite well by Tangerine Dream's interpretation; the original score is comical and clumsy in comparison.

Added Scenes: The scenes left in the Director's Cut were cut from the U.S. Theatrical release, with the exception of the scenes I mentioned previously, for a good reason; in addition to Lily becoming an irritating brat, most of the uncut scenes serve only to make parts of the film drag, or disturb the sense of flow. Some of them seem pointless or silly, as when Jack does a sudden flip in the air for no apparent reason. Perhaps if the score was more suited to the movie, certain scenes (such as the flip) wouldn't seem so comical or out of place, but when his flip is accompanied by a wild clashing of instruments, one has the urge to laugh at the clumsiness of the scene.

Now, back to those two scenes missing from the U.S. release. Why am I griping about two little scenes? Without the riddle scene, there seems a rather uncomfortable transition between Gump's rage at Jack for taking Lily to see and touch the unicorns. Not to mention it's a great scene! Also, Gump's riddling Jack is important to the story - Jack can't simply claim that love is the reason he did something stupid and then not have to answer for it. The riddle is a moment in which Jack can prove himself worthy, worthy of Gump & company's assistance in righting his wrongs, and worthy of the quest itself.

The scene with the witch is just cool. And, yes, Jack again proves himself. Jack's youthful inexperience needs to be tested a few times before he reaches Darkness. The U.S. Theatrical release leaves these out and Jack reaches Darkness untried. It goes against the whole idea of the quest. Silliness.

To be perfectly honest, I would not buy Legend: Ultimate Edition again if I had known the Director's Cut would annoy me so much. I would dearly love to find out why and how I saw a version that came somewhere in between the U.S. Theatrical release and the Director's Cut, and even get my hands on an official copy, but that will likely never be. Needless to say, Legend *is* a beautiful movie, and if you must have it, stick with the U.S. Theatrical release, cut scenes not-withstanding. I think my viewing of it is simply sullied by my memory and from knowing that my first viewings were of a superior version to the ones actually available.

Tiny Tom and The Unicorns
I am adding this version to my Wish List today while I contemplate whether I want to pay 17 buck to see Tom Cruise in tights. I watched this movie (US version) over & over in high school & just loved it (except the cheesey soundtrack, which is not as bad as the one for "Ladyhawke"). I also viewed the UK version when it came out on laserdisc & it is over the top! If only Ridley Scott could issue the drugs he was on when he made this bad boy, we could all know where he was coming from. It is very freaky & vastly enjoyable. I have told so many people about this movie, because whenever Tom Cruise's acting history comes up, this never gets mentioned! Why not?! He's playing some sort of woodland boy-nymph & skipping around with unicorns, fer chrissakes! Plus, Billy Barty is in it, Tim Curry is the personification of evil (his prosthetic chin is bigger than Bruce Campbell's real one), and Mia Sara (aka Sloane from "Ferris Bueller" & Jean-Claude Van Damme's wife from "Time Cop") is a flighty princess who has a serious come-to-Jesus meeting with Darkness. I have suspected for years that this is the movie that paid for Tom's new teeth, because they are quite snaggly here & it is not makeup.Too bad it didn't make him any taller. Anyway, I do recommend this movie highly, but as camp fun. If you have to roll a 20 sided dice to decide whether to buy it or not, just go ahead. You'll love it. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Thelma & Louise is a feminist manifesto writ large on the big screen, a smart and funny gender reversal of the standard Hollywood buddy formula, a road movie extraordinaire, with characters who became instant cultural icons. No matter how you define it, Ridley Scott's 1991 box-office hit pinched a nerve and made the cover of national news magazines for tweaking gender politics like no movie before or since. Callie Khouri's screenplay overhauls the buddy formula with its story about two best friends (Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis) who embark on a liberating adventure that turns into an interstate police chase after a traumatic incident makes both women into fugitives; they are en route to a destiny they could never have imagined. The perfect casting of Sarandon and Davis makes Thelma & Louise a movie for the ages, and Brad Pitt became an overnight star after his appearance as the con-artist cowboy who gives Davis a memorable (but costly) night in a roadside motel. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (90)

Enjoyable "Buddy Film" classic
Is there anything more satisfying then a romantic, funny, action-packed, well scripted AND well acted movie? Perhaps, but after watching "Thelma and Louise" I certainly have my doubts. Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis star in this highly entertaining, truly heartfelt movie. When one begins this film, you immediately feel the need to choose a "favorite" between the two characters, Thelma or Louise. It is impossible. You can masquerade that you like Thelma more, or that Louise tickles your fancy...but the truth is that both characters are immediately likeable and hard not to love.

The basic plot: Thelma and Louise go on a seemingly weekend long roadtrip as a brief escape from their drab, unexciting lives. Their first night out, Thelma has a terrifying experience...Louise, in her efforts to save her, commits a major crime. Suddenly, they are no longer two pals going on a trip...they are fugitives running for their freedom and from the law. As the story progresses, their list of crimes grows longer, and their chances at reaching their destination seem to get slimmer as they get closer to it.

A thrilling romp through the southwest, with beautiful acting, writing and cinematography, this movie is a classic "buddy movie", "road movie" and "chick flick". Whatever label it is given, it is one of the best of its kind.

The Ultimate Road Movie!
This is an instant classic. Controversial and creating two instant female American icons. Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis are nothing short than perfect as Thelma & Louise, both creating equally likable and complex characters. Considered to be a female buddy road-trip movie, but this film is much, much more, mainly because of the excellent multi-layered screenplay. Ridley Scott directed an instant American classic. Some scenes are now considered classics, such as the ending. The 'male' part of the cast are all excellent, Harvey Keitel and Michael Madsen are great. Brad Pitt is also a stand-out in the role that shot him into stardom. Extremely entertaining and even poignant near the end. This one is in a category all of it's own. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film an 8!

A remarkable movie!
Originality is the supreme adjective for this picture. It won deservedly the Academy Award as Original script. Ridley Scott made an authentical road movie but loaded with humor , cynicism , haunting and above all very anti macho movie.
The sinister fact that will turn a twist of fate in these two women who only wanted to have fun just for a while will become in a permanent and menacing nightmare for both of them .
The spectacular landscapes are a huge background all the way reminds us Paris Texas . The use of big lenses and the arresting images walks together with a solid script .
Brad Pitt appears briefly as the hitch hike guy who eventually seduces Thelma . Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis are the mirror images of Sundance Kid , you may consider it a speculation, but think it carefully . Since the accidental murder , and the sweet smell of the risk when Geena robes a supermarket , the dramatic car chase is very close in spirit to the sudamerican getaway and above all the ending sequence .
Keitel works efficiently , once more and Scott shows us once more why he's on the top direction .
Consider this one from its release as one of the most powerful nineties cult movies!

The Ultimate Buddy Movie.
This is definately Ridley Scott's best film to date. Thema and Louise may be one of the most popular chick flicks, but you do not have to be a woman to like it. This film is the absolute perfect movie to watch with your best friend. The way that Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis take you into the lives of these two friends is amazing. On their jouney they encounter lots of characters including a perverted truck driver, and a young drifter played by Brad Pitt. The movie all in all is good, and I would definately give it two thumbs way way up.

A modern classic
I saw an interview with Susan Sarandon, and she said that "Thelma and Louise isn't about feminism, it's about human liberation." I completely agree.

If you put the sexual politics aside, what you have is a story of two human beings who have spent their whole lives being oppressed and controlled by other people. Louise (Sarandon) is a waitress with a tragic past and an unreliable boyfriend. Thelma is a housewife with an arrogant, controlling husband. The two decide to embark on an impromptu vacation, but while stopping for a couple of drinks at a redneck nightclub, Thelma is almost raped by a lecherous customer, and Louise shoots and kills him in the parking lot. Instead of going to the police, the two decide to skip the country and head to Mexico, but a string of unfortunate events forces the two to commit even more crimes, turning them into bona fide fugitives and outlaws.

Strangely, what the two characters discover is that their new lives as outlaws are more satisfying than the stifled lives they led before. At the end of the film, the two make a choice to remain free and never surrender, despite the consequences.

This film asks the question: is the only way to be free in our society to be an outlaw? The answer just might be yes. ... Read more

Amazon.com

One of Ridley Scott's most wrong-headed films, this one (like all of his movies) looks fabulous and sounds utterly ridiculous, almost from the beginning. His first mistake was casting the wonderful Gerard Depardieu as Columbus and forcing him to speak English, which Depardieu does with decided difficulty. After spending way too much time on the ocean with Columbus's three ships (you kind of wish they would sail over the edge of the world), they arrive in the West Indies, only to turn around and sail back. The rest of the film deals with the not particularly comprehensible politics of Columbus's venture, which leads to the violent slaughter of trusting natives by a band of cardboard villains. Depardieu, who radiates sympathy, looks like he's at sea with this material. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (89)

great cinema!
Ridley Scott directed this incredible motion picture about the voyages of Christopher Columbus. Not only is the film about his voyages but it also works quite well as a character study about Columbus. The Columbus depicted here is full of kindess,passion and warmth. He also can be a little selfish,arrogant and at times sarcastic during this film. Gerard Depardieu plays Columbus and he does a great job portraying him. I don't have a problem with him being from France. Afterall Columbus was European and so is Depardieu. The supporting cast is zestful with some excellent performances. Armand Assante was good playing Sanchez. So was Michael Wincott who played the evil Moxica. Also the score for this film was done by New-Age musician Vangelis. And his score is remarkable. Both the movie and the soundtrack go hand in hand. But this film is an acquired taste. Some might be turned off by it's subject matter. And some might be lured in by it. If Columbus interests you and you like films that look and sound good. This is the one you've been waiting for. The rest is common sense.

Stunning film, historically accurate
This is a must-see cinematic landmark of the 90's. There will NEVER be another Columbus movie to top this one. Gerard Depardieu is perfect as Columbus, his French accent helps illustrate the man's foreigner-out-of-placeness in mediaeval Spain. Depardieu's portrayal is very deep and thought-provoking, his eyes say it all. Every word is full of meaning, there is a sad sincerity to Columbus' character here; his intentions in the New World were beautiful, however, due to peer-pressure in the Spanish courts, he is too weak to stop the Conquistadors from marauding this fragile Paradise. Depardieu's character really shows how much Columbus was more of an explorer than a governor, but never got around to fulfilling his dreams due to his short-sightedness and stubborn disposition in relation to the Spanish nobles and those in power. The film is extraordinarily accurate in historical details, from the setting in the time of the harsh Inquisition, the costumes, and the characters in the film. Sanchez (Armand Assante), to history known as Gabriel Sanchez, grand treasurer of the crown of Aragon, was instrumental in convincing Queen Isabella (Sigourney Weaver) to finance the quest. Columbus actually sent him the very first account of his First Voyage to the West Indies on the way back home. Pinzon (Tcheky Karyo) was also the captain of the Pinta, as depicted in the film, and his ties to Santangel in the film are accurate (due to a debt he owed to the Crown through which Santangel was the financial mediator). The role of Adrian de Moxica (portrayed by Michael Wincott in grand form), Columbus' political nemesis during most of the movie on the island of Hispaniola, was also accurate. This movie's cinematography and the wonderful soundtrack by Vangelis are gorgeous and haunting, frightening at times. This is a great film, and ranks with "Blade Runner", "Alien", "Thelma&Louise", and "Gladiator" as Ridley Scott's best. Go to your local video shop and rent it right now.

Stunning!!
This movie is incredible! The score by Vangelis is
breathtaking. I can't believe this has not been
released on dvd. One of Ridley's best!!!!

Realistc or Idealistc Conquest?
We could clearly see that there were many occurrences that the writers left out in Conquest of Paradise. Here, we see an idealistic version of what occurred after Christopher Columbus discovered the New world. The writers produced a cross-word puzzle that, us, the viewers were able to put together before the climax of the movie developed with intensity. I enjoyed the money greatly, yet I was expecting to se the other side of the Conquest, the horrible side. I wanted the rest of the audience to understand that the results of the conquest was not as pleasant as we have told our children. In Conquest of Paradise Gérard Depadieu is portrayed as a hero, or so we are led to think, yet we don't have a chance to see the other version of the story. I was expecting to see how the indigenous culture basically came to be extinct; how their religion was disregarded and Christianity was implemented. We don't see this in this movie; we only see one side of the dilemma.

Ridley Scott's best film
Ridley Scott, best known for such films as Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, is well-known for creating movies that are visually stunning. A trained graphic artist, Scott has an understanding of composition, color, and lighting that few other directors come close to mastering. What Spielberg does for pacing and narration of stories that can be followed by all, Scott does for visual magic. And 1492 is arguably Scott's best work.

Unfortunately, this movie did not receive the popular nor critical attention that it so rightly deserved. There are many possible reasons for this: at the time it was introduced (1992) there was another Columbus film that was really bad. I'm sure many of the negative reviews of that film didn't help ticket sales for this one. Secondly, the political correctness of the time had cast Columbus into an unfortunately negative image. The Columbus in this movie is neither the hero nor the villian extremists wish to make him out to be, so the film does tend to alienate both extremes in its attempt to portray Columbus as that one kind of historical figure many people seem to have a problem with: a human being.

The film itself does have its flaws. The script is a little awkward, as is the pacing. But on the visual and technical side, this is a film that powerfully transports the viewer to that time. Every scene seems obsessed over. The costumes, the position of the sun, the light, even the food. You can feel the cold, the heat, the dust.

Even the music is wonderful. Most of it is electronic based, composed by Vangelis who is best known for his theme to the movie Chariots of Fire. Some have complained this is a bad mismatch, as electronic music wasn't around in Columbus' era. However, neither were contemporary orchestras that drive the scores to many historical movies. While at first unusual the soundtrack for this movie is a perfect fit, serving to powerfully infuse Scott's brilliant visual composition with just the right emotional vibration.

Gerard Depardieu would not have been my first choice for this role, but his performance is certainly very impressive. While it's not the Columbus I was expecting, it is a wonderfully human performance. Many have griped about Depardieu's accent, claiming he's difficult to understand and feeling it's not sufficiently Italian. However, keep in mind that Columbus was from Genoa (and remember where that is). As all of the Spanish characters are speaking English in this film, Depardieu's French accent stands out from everyone else in the same way that Columbus' accent most likely stood out from his Spanish companions 500 years ago. What some people seem rather bothered by I actually found rather fitting.

So what do we have here? A movie that's visually stunning and a technical masterpiece, but a little awkward in the script. If you've been impressed by the visual aspects of other Ridley Scott films, notably Legend, Blade Runner, and Black Hawk Down, be sure to see this. Put aside your prejudices, forget historical authenticity, and simply enjoy one of the most visually impressive films available.

(I was originally going to give this movie 4 stars in recognition that it does have some flaws. However, the visual qualities of the film so make up for the shortcomings that I had to move it up to 5.) ... Read more

Reviews (746)

THE FUTURE IS DISMAL - SO IS THE TRANSFER!
Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" is an apocalyptic postmodernist vision of the future. The story involves a bounty hunter, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) who is assigned to kill three replicants - android style robots that look identical to humans, but who have come to earth to seek revenge on their creator - Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel). Sean Young costars as Rachel, the latest model of replicant who is so incredibly life like that not even she knows that she's not human. Also in the cast are Rutgar Hauer as Roy Batty - the ultimate killing machine, Edward Olmos as a drugged out police detective, Gaff, and Darryl Hannah, as the psychotic replicant, Pris. Flawed in its narrative, but visually stunning, "Blade Runner" has developed a cult following - and it is easy to see why. The production is layered with multi-references to the steady moral and social demise of our own society that stir the mind into rethinking this movie as much more than a sci-fi adventure. This version of the film is the re-edited director's cut that audiences were never shown in 1982. The subtle tweaking of story and plot elements really doesn't enhance one's viewing experience so much as it just alters the story in a different direction.
But what a shame about the transfer! Though the general color balancing and attention to fine details, even in the darkest scenes, is adequate, there is simply NO EXCUSE for leaving the chips, scratches and in some cases, tears in this DVD transfer. Pixelization crops up now and them, but the most disturbing part of the transfer is that it fails to pay attention to the dirt and (in some cases) hair, stuck to the film negative. The result is a dirty looking picture that, while perhaps in keeping with Ridley Scott's vision of a dank, hard universe of the future, is most definitely not what the director had in mind. Saving grace: the transfer is anamorphically enhanced for widescreen televisions. The sonic characteristic of the 5.1 audio is rich, though dated. Strong bass and reasonably well balanced dialogue and effects, though there are a few perceived occasions where dubbing in of dialogue sounds possible. And one final insult from Warner Brothers, this disc has NO extras - not even a theatrical trailer!

Stunning - The Best Sci-Fi Film Ever Made
Directed by Ridley Scott, possibly the best director in Hollywood, Blade Runner: The Director's cut is an outstanding medley of action, noir, sci-fi, and suspense. Robots have been taken to a new level - Nexus 6 Generation Robots called "replicants", which outmatch humans in strength and ability and equal in intelligence, but lack one human quality - emotions. They were used for "slave labor" to work in places too hazardous for humans. However, replicants after a few years begin to develop their own emotions, which causes them to rebel against their masters. Special cops, called blade runners, were assigned to exterminate criminal replicants. Eventually replicants were declared illegal on earth, and were banished to a shuttle in space. LA, 2017. Rick Deckard, (Harrison Ford) a retired blade runner, is forced to "retire" five replicants that have escaped from the shuttle, but winds up falling for one, Rachael. (Sean Young) Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) leads the other three replicants to find their creator, Eldon Tyrell, to expand their short four-year life span. Incredible action scenes, dark, brooding noir, creeping suspense, and excellent sci-fi, Blade Runner: The Director's Cut will please fans of any of these genres. The Director's Cut offers production notes, subtitles, added character developement, the original ending, a unicorn dream sequence, and the deletion of unnecessary scenes and the annoying voice-overs. Plus, it is digitally restored to excellent picture and sound quality. Some "sensitive" viewers might find the plot and noir atmosphere cold, but action, noir, sci-fi, and suspense fans will enjoy it very much. With stunning special effects, incredible cinematography, compelling plot, and rich, incredible characterizations (esp. Rutger Hauer), I strongly recommend Blade Runner: The Director's Cut to action/sci-fi fans.

Not quite the Blade Runner I remember
After purchasing and viewing the DVD director's cut release, all I can think is "where can I find the original theater release version". I sat my family down to watch it two nights ago and they lost interest very quickly. While it is still visually stunning to watch, it is not enough overcome the seeming lack of narrative/plot. In fact, one of the key things removed from the director's cut version is the voiceover narrative by Harrison Ford's character Deckard. For those that know the original version, it can even be a challenge to remember the significance of each scene. For new viewers of BR, they're left wondering, scene after scene, "OK what just happened and what relevance does it have to anything?". Bring back the voiceover!

The Director's Cut is AWFUL.
Compared to the original version the Director's Cut is awful. Background narration has been removed; the ending has been changed. Don't waste your money.

this is still a good DVD
but not as good as the original release. I preferred the narration and for that reason, I probably don't watch this movie as much as i did when I had it on VHS. I really don't understand why they don't make both versions available. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

When Ridley Scott's cut of Blade Runner was finally released in 1993, one had to wonder why the studio hadn't done it right the first time--11 years earlier. This version is so much better, mostly because of what's been eliminated (the ludicrous and redundant voice-over narration and the phony happy ending) rather than what's been added (a bit more character development and a brief unicorn dream). Star Harrison Ford originally recorded the narration under duress at the insistence of Warner Bros. executives who thought the story needed further "explanation"; he later confessed that he thought if he did it badly they wouldn't use it. (Moral: Never overestimate the taste of movie executives.) The movie's spectacular futuristic vision of Los Angeles--a perpetually dark and rainy metropolis that's the nightmare antithesis of "Sunny Southern California"--is still its most seductive feature, an otherworldly atmosphere in which you can immerse yourself. The movie's shadowy visual style, along with its classic private-detective/murder-mystery plot line (with Ford on the trail of a murderous android, or "replicant"), makes Blade Runner one of the few science fiction pictures to legitimately claim a place in the film noir tradition. And, as in the best noir, the sleuth discovers a whole lot more (about himself and the people he encounters) than he anticipates.... With Sean Young, Edward James Olmos, Daryl Hannah, Rutger Hauer, and M. Emmet Walsh. --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (746)

THE FUTURE IS DISMAL - SO IS THE TRANSFER!
Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" is an apocalyptic postmodernist vision of the future. The story involves a bounty hunter, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) who is assigned to kill three replicants - android style robots that look identical to humans, but who have come to earth to seek revenge on their creator - Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel). Sean Young costars as Rachel, the latest model of replicant who is so incredibly life like that not even she knows that she's not human. Also in the cast are Rutgar Hauer as Roy Batty - the ultimate killing machine, Edward Olmos as a drugged out police detective, Gaff, and Darryl Hannah, as the psychotic replicant, Pris. Flawed in its narrative, but visually stunning, "Blade Runner" has developed a cult following - and it is easy to see why. The production is layered with multi-references to the steady moral and social demise of our own society that stir the mind into rethinking this movie as much more than a sci-fi adventure. This version of the film is the re-edited director's cut that audiences were never shown in 1982. The subtle tweaking of story and plot elements really doesn't enhance one's viewing experience so much as it just alters the story in a different direction.
But what a shame about the transfer! Though the general color balancing and attention to fine details, even in the darkest scenes, is adequate, there is simply NO EXCUSE for leaving the chips, scratches and in some cases, tears in this DVD transfer. Pixelization crops up now and them, but the most disturbing part of the transfer is that it fails to pay attention to the dirt and (in some cases) hair, stuck to the film negative. The result is a dirty looking picture that, while perhaps in keeping with Ridley Scott's vision of a dank, hard universe of the future, is most definitely not what the director had in mind. Saving grace: the transfer is anamorphically enhanced for widescreen televisions. The sonic characteristic of the 5.1 audio is rich, though dated. Strong bass and reasonably well balanced dialogue and effects, though there are a few perceived occasions where dubbing in of dialogue sounds possible. And one final insult from Warner Brothers, this disc has NO extras - not even a theatrical trailer!

Stunning - The Best Sci-Fi Film Ever Made
Directed by Ridley Scott, possibly the best director in Hollywood, Blade Runner: The Director's cut is an outstanding medley of action, noir, sci-fi, and suspense. Robots have been taken to a new level - Nexus 6 Generation Robots called "replicants", which outmatch humans in strength and ability and equal in intelligence, but lack one human quality - emotions. They were used for "slave labor" to work in places too hazardous for humans. However, replicants after a few years begin to develop their own emotions, which causes them to rebel against their masters. Special cops, called blade runners, were assigned to exterminate criminal replicants. Eventually replicants were declared illegal on earth, and were banished to a shuttle in space. LA, 2017. Rick Deckard, (Harrison Ford) a retired blade runner, is forced to "retire" five replicants that have escaped from the shuttle, but winds up falling for one, Rachael. (Sean Young) Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) leads the other three replicants to find their creator, Eldon Tyrell, to expand their short four-year life span. Incredible action scenes, dark, brooding noir, creeping suspense, and excellent sci-fi, Blade Runner: The Director's Cut will please fans of any of these genres. The Director's Cut offers production notes, subtitles, added character developement, the original ending, a unicorn dream sequence, and the deletion of unnecessary scenes and the annoying voice-overs. Plus, it is digitally restored to excellent picture and sound quality. Some "sensitive" viewers might find the plot and noir atmosphere cold, but action, noir, sci-fi, and suspense fans will enjoy it very much. With stunning special effects, incredible cinematography, compelling plot, and rich, incredible characterizations (esp. Rutger Hauer), I strongly recommend Blade Runner: The Director's Cut to action/sci-fi fans.

Not quite the Blade Runner I remember
After purchasing and viewing the DVD director's cut release, all I can think is "where can I find the original theater release version". I sat my family down to watch it two nights ago and they lost interest very quickly. While it is still visually stunning to watch, it is not enough overcome the seeming lack of narrative/plot. In fact, one of the key things removed from the director's cut version is the voiceover narrative by Harrison Ford's character Deckard. For those that know the original version, it can even be a challenge to remember the significance of each scene. For new viewers of BR, they're left wondering, scene after scene, "OK what just happened and what relevance does it have to anything?". Bring back the voiceover!

The Director's Cut is AWFUL.
Compared to the original version the Director's Cut is awful. Background narration has been removed; the ending has been changed. Don't waste your money.

this is still a good DVD
but not as good as the original release. I preferred the narration and for that reason, I probably don't watch this movie as much as i did when I had it on VHS. I really don't understand why they don't make both versions available. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

This stylish, smart 1987 movie stars Tom Berenger as a New York cop and family man who falls for the rich and beautiful witness (Mimi Rogers) he's assigned to protect. Ridley Scott (Blade Runner) does something here he should be doing a lot more often: directing contemporary film noir with his eye for extraordinary art direction. Berenger and Rogers rise to the occasion, seemingly aware that they're making something special. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (22)

one of the classiest thrillers ever made
This movie is fantastic. Mimi Rogers plays a wealthy socialate
who witnesses a murder. The killer is after her. Tom Berenger
plays a detective who along with two other detectives are assigned to protect her. He takes the night shift. He is married and has a son. He is impressed by Mimi Rogers upper
class lifestyle, her beautiful apartment, classical music, she
is a very classy lady. I must say Mimi Rogers was perfect for
the part she is beautiful and carries herself so gracefully.
Tom Berenger is a blue collar detective. The two actors have
excellent chemistry. Tom Berenger is married. A romance begins
with Tom Berenger and Mimi Rogers. The killer is released on
a mistake which was made for his arrest. He is crazy and goes
after Mimi Rogers. This movie has a look about it like a 1940's
movie. The sets are amazing and the locations are breathtaking.
The movie is very suspenseful and the ending is excellent. This
is one of the best movies ever made in my opinion

a smart, stylish, thriller
Mimi Rogers plays a wealthy socialate who witnesses a brutal
murder. Tom Berenger and two other detectives are to protect
her in three different shifts. Tom Berenger gets the night shift. This movie shows the side of life that Mimi Roger's
character brings to blue collar detective Tom Berenger. She
introduces him to art, classical music, fancy parties. A romance
develops. Tom Berenger is married and has a son. He is torn
between his family life and the life he can live with Mimi
Rogers. All this aside the murderer is after Mimi Rogers after
he is released from jail. This movie is full of suspense and
a classy thriller. Mimi Rogers was perfect for the part she looks beautiful. She and Tom Berenger have excellent chemistry.
The actress who plays Berenger's wife is good also. This movie
has a shocking ending worthy of the suspenseful storyline. One
of the greatest thrillers ever made

Window to the soul
I have never seen another movie in which the actors were more capable of baring their souls with nothing more than the expression in their eyes. Bracco, Rodgers and Berenger 'spoke' far more than was scripted, leading us through the changes in relationships between the characters and the depth of feeling accompanying those changes without words. In most scenes concerning the confusion, pain, desperation and love which ties Mike, Ellie and Clair together, the spoken word was practically superfluous.

Ridley Scott is a master at creating tangible atmosphere; I could feel the bite of the cold New York air and smell the aromas of the city; I could have wrapped the opulence of Clair's penthouse around me like a silk duvetyn. Mr. Scott is also a master of the understated. Consider the moment that Mike crossed the line of fidelity and kissed Clair for the first time.... There was more passion in that embrace, in that kiss, than I have seen in a dozen movies put together since, because I was left to make of it what I would. Less being more, each viewer is allowed to create their own vision of what took place behind those closed doors, and so to make this part of the movie their own.

I admire the way Mr. Scott used the Manhattan skyline to show the change in Mike's focus. First Mike waits for his train, back turned to Manhattan, absorbed in his daily paper. The next morning he glances up at the skyline wistfully, having seen up close how the other half lives, aware that he could never belong there. Finally he gazes longingly uptown to where Clair waits, unsure as to how he arrived at this impossible juncture in his life.

To add accolaids once again to the actors, director and to the screenplay, I must say that although I am not a proponent of adultery, I completely empathized with each character by the end of the film. (I truely thought that I would hate Mike). The characters were so well developed and their emotions were so clearly defined (in part due to that non-verbal communication) that I cared about each one of them, and for a moment wished that everyone could live 'happily ever after'. This is no fairy tale, though. Life is tough, but we all go on, as do Mike, Ellie and Clair.

One last note .... The only reason I gave this film 4 instead of 5 stars was that god-awful opera that played constantly throughout Clair's penthouse. Had I been Clair I would have jumped off of the building! (Yes, I realize I have just incurred the ire of all opera lovers - I'm sorry.) The saving grace was that we got to hear two renditions of that great classic "Someone To Watch Over Me". A song to soothe all souls.

Not a bad movie for a night in front of the TV...
Personally speaking, I like a nice fairly straightforward thriller-type movie, with a little suspense, and a little romance, so this was up my ally! The characters were amazingly well-developed I thought, given the genre, and their situation was really compelling. Mimi Rogers was wonderful in her role-- not at all the "shallow" socialite stereotype, but a real person with real worries and real needs... Go ahead and check this one out if you're looking for a way to pass an evening! But get the DVD if you can, I found the VHS to be pretty low quality.

Good Date Movie.
This movie somehow got overlooked in theatres, but there's no need to miss it now.

Long story short: Rich socialite Mimi Rogers witnesses a mob hit and thus becomes a target. Tom Berenger is a blue-collar cop assigned to protect her. He is attracted to her, but is married (to Lorraine Bracco, playing the same character she always played before The Sopranos). Complicating matters is that she is attracted to him and the intense situation is constantly pushing them together.

What sets "Someone..." apart from other movies with similar plots is that Bracco's character is pretty sympathetic so it's not a cut-and-dried issue. Berenger is drawn to Rogers because she is a vulnerable woman who needs protection. Bracco's character is a strong, independent Brooklynite who can challenge him in the relationship, but can't provide the one thing he needs (a chance to be needed). High-concept stuff when you think about it.

All of this romance is sandwiched in between a pretty good thriller as Berenger attempts to protect Rogers from some very bad guys. The thriller-story is what the movie was sold on and it succeeds on that level.

The DVD offers some good extras, but nothing inventive.

Don't miss this one a second time. ... Read more

Reviews (601)

Seriously underrated horror film.
Watch this movie back-to-back with Brett Ratner's "Red Dragon" and you'll understand what separates a great director from a pedestrian one. Ridley Scott has crafted a classic horror film. A film that, despite justifiable complaints about the "easy way out" ending, leaves a surprising amount of the novel's surreal mayhem intact.

Dark cinema fans should embrace this one. It's not often you get a true horror film with a dazzling cast (Hopkins, Giancarlo Giannini are incredible, and Julianne Moore doesn't make us forget about Jodie, but makes the best out of a tough situation).

Oldman's portrayal of Mason Verger makes the film, however. Pathetically evil, obsessed with revenge -- it's impossible to take your eyes off him. The opening sequence of the movie (where Verger purchases Hannibal memorabilia) is a delightful intro. Verger's self-mutilation flashback is jarring and surreal.

The Grand Guignol gore style of the movie has been seen by some as laughable. I thought it was quite disturbing, the absurdity adding another dimension of terror to the film. Like all great horror films, as a viewer, you're not sure just how far into nightmare territory this one will go (particularly if you haven't read the book).

If only DeLaurentis had chosen a worthy successor to direct Red Dragon, the Lecter trilogy would've easily been the best horror cinema series ever.

While "Silence" is clearly the biggest crowd pleaser of the bunch, and a very sophisticated thriller, my heart is with Hannibal. It's absolutely beautiful to look at, holds up amazingly well under repeated viewings, and never shies away (until the very end) from the novel's most appalling elements.

Good horror flick. Bad Hannibal Lecter movie.
Hannibal is one of those sequels that continues from the original, but completely changes the story line. The Silence Of The Lambs was a drama about entering the mind of a serial killer with the help of a past one. Hannibal is just about tracking down a serial killer. This was definatly made to be a horror movie, not a suspense drama.

Hannibal picks up awhile after The Silence Of The Lambs. In the first film, Hannibal breaks out of prison torwards the end of the film not to kill again, but to retire and live a normal life. But now Dr. Hannibal Lecter(returning Anthony Hopkins), is about to come out of retirement to hunt again. But only Clarice Starling(Juliane Moore replacing Jodie Foster) knows enough about him to track him down and catch him.

The plot is simple, nothing near the plot of Silence Of The Lambs, the acting is not bad but definatly not at its best(Anthony Hopkins still plays his role rather well, but could have done better). The only thing I could say was rather good was the directing from Ridley Scott(Alien, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down). But other than that, fans of horror movies will probably enjoy this much much more than fans of The Silence Of The Lambs, like myself.

"Hannibal" runs for a little over 2 hours. It is rated R for very strong gore and gruesome violence(some may not even be able to handle the some of the extreme gore), some strong language, and disturbing images.

Disappointing, floundering follow up
When Thomas Harris wrote Hannibal, it was a safe bet that a film wouldn't be far along. Silence of the Lambs director Jonathan Demme and star Jodie Foster declined to take part in Hannibal claiming they found the story distasteful; so director Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, Alien) and actress Julianne Moore (replacing Foster as FBI Agent Clarice Starling) were brought into this disappointing follow up. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins reprising his Oscar winning role), now living the life of luxury in Italy, finds himself on the run from Mason Verger (an unrecognizeable and uncredited Gary Oldman), a former patient who at Hannibal's advice peeled off part of his face. Meanwhile, Clarice finds her career on the downward spiral as she as used as bait by Verger to lure Lecter out of hiding. The suspense can't hold up to that of Silence of the Lambs (movie or book that is) and Scott's direction, even though he gives it his own slick look, is disappointing. Moore, as good an actress as she is, can't hold a candle to Jodie Foster as we find the once strong willed but vulnerable Clarice be more of a victim here than anything else. Finally, Hopkins just isn't scary anymore as Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter. That alone is probably the worst part of the film, and while Hannibal isn't necessarily bad, it's one of the most disappointing films to be released over the past few years. The cast also includes Francesca Neri, Frankie Faison, and Ray Liotta in the film's most infamous scene.

Great, not completely accurate, but very good.
The film is based on Thomas Harris' third installment in the "Hannibal Lecter Series" (Although, Hannibal Lecter is only a major character in one book.) The movie's ending was completely different than that of the book. WARNING: IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK, AND WANT TO, DO NOT READ THE NEXT SENTENCE! In the book, Lecter basically brainwashes Starling and takes her as his wife and moves to South America. WARNING OVER

Hopkins' acting was not as good as it was in "Silence of the Lambs," but it's very good. Julianne Moore's performance was not as good as Jodie Foster's.

The movie excluded the character Margot, Mason Verger's lesbian sister. I think she greatly enhanced the story's progress. In the movie, anything Margot did that was pivotal to the story (basically, just pushing Verger into the pigpen) Verger's personal doctor did.

Basically, if you're just looking for an amazing movie, DON'T pick this up, if you're looking for a gory movie, pick it up. If you're looking for a good sequel to an amazing movie (Silence of the Lambs.)

Mediocre yet oddly satisfying
Let's face it: "Hannibal" is nowhere near as good as "Silence of the Lambs" (I'm talking movies, not books). To quote Charter, "Far-fetched and gory." Plus it fails to capture Lecter's true intentions toward Starling (as brotherly or fatherly, not romantic). Yet, somehow, the film is oddly satisfying, and I find myself draw to it whenever it's on. The mix of operatic score during chaotic scenes is strangely effective (similar to the ethereal tracks during intense scenes in the LOTR series of films). So, no, it's not a great movie, and Lecter's behavior is sometimes "out of character," but the movie is satisfying nonetheless. ... Read more

Reviews (349)

One of the scariest movies ever made
Ridley Scott's original 1979 film pulsates with dread and menace. Its darkened corridors mask a reptillian horror unmatched by any other in cinema. "Alien" scared the hell out of me when I saw it in its theatrical release, and the other night on DVD, it scared hell out of me again. Forget the sequels. This is one of the best movies of all time.

Yes, the story is simple, but that's the whole point. "Alien" is a fundamental horror story, your basic haunted house movie taken to the Nth degree. I love the fact it has only seven characters (OK, nine, if you count Mother and the alien itself ... the space jockey doesn't count). I love its simplicity, its straightforwardness. Aside from being a creepy, blood-curdling horror film (only "The Exorcist" and the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" top the chest-burster scene), it is also hard-core science fiction. James Cameron's sequel was an action-thriller (and an excellent one), and the subsequent sequels were just redundant. Scott's movie is the one for the ages.

It's about evil in a shape-shifting form. It's about our fear of the dark. It's about the bogeyman. It's about our irrational fear of creepy-crawlies, spiders, worms, snakes. It is by turns subtle and terrifying. It scares us by hiding the alien, revealing it only in bits and snatches (those exploding jaws!). There is surprisingly little blood; "Alien Resurrection" was a revolting gore fest. And it's a thoughtful film. It actually pauses to consider what a miracle the alien is on a biological level, which helps reinforce the fear and mystery that surround the creature.

In fact, the whole film is soaked in mystery. What is the intent of the beacon that attracts the Nostromo? What is the nature of the alien pilot, its own chest exploded in a gruesome foreshadowing of Kane's fate? What laid those eggs? How long had they been waiting down in the bowels of that awesome ship? Was the full-grown alien male or female? What did it try to do with Brett and Dallas? How exactly does it kill Lambert and Parker? Questions left largely unanswered. Not a problem for me -- I like loose ends, things left to ponder. That's the difference between a "plot" and a "story."

There's a hidden layer -- the fact that a faceless corporation sent those astronauts to their doom, knowingly, in order to extract the ultimate bioweapon. "Alien" is a subtle jab at Corporate America, the creature itself a representation of "the company's" blind, murderous greed.

See this movie. I repeat, if you love good movies, great movies, then seen this one. If you haven't already.

A Science Fiction Masterpiece!
This is one of the greatest science fiction films of all time. Just watching the opening title of this film suggests a story that will bring you terror and fascination at the same time. Director Ridley Scott ("Blade Runner") has created a masterpiece which transcends time. I sometimes look back on a movie that was made two years prior called "Star Wars" and I laugh at how primitive it seems today. However, Alien is as spectacular as it was in 1979. This movie could be rereleased today with as much fanfare as it had twenty years ago. "Alien" broke the mold when it was made and almost every aspect of it has been copied since. This includes the ingenious set designs and the alien creature itself.

All aspects of this film, the screenplay, direction, acting, special effects, and the awesome set designs took a vast amount of imagination and creativity. The thought process alone that went into conceiving an alien which gestates in a human host, and goes through an incredible metamorphosis of various stages to its final horrific form, was a major accomplishment. Sigourney Weaver, as "Ellen Ripley", is the greatest warrior in movie history. She is not only fighting to save her crew from the "Alien", but she's fighting to save humanity from the evil "Company" that will stop at nothing to gain what they desire.

I cannot say enough good things about this movie. JUST SEE IT!

Starts slow, but gets much better
The first half hour or so of this movie was a bit slow, and I honestly had a hard time not falling asleep. It got a lot better though and kept me on the edge of my seat. I would recommend this movie if you like science fiction or suspense.

A terrifying and spectacular sci-fi horror classic.
Although it took some time for me to appreciate it, today I can easily agree with many that 1979's "Alien" is one of the greatest science fiction/ horror movies that has ever been made.

A team on board a deep space ship called Nostromo is returning to earth after a deep sleep but then while returning to Earth, receives a mysterious distress signal on a distant planet and are sent in to investigate the source of the signal. During that time, one of them discovers large objects with movement within them. It turns out that these 'objects' are actually organic alien eggs and when one of them hatches, one of the crew is attacked and is brought back to the ship to have the 'alien' removed but the 'blood' of this alien is in fact a super strong molecular acid that eats through almost anything it touches. Even worse, the crew are being hunted and killed one by one by an extremely dangerous alien creature and now they must try to destroy the creature and escape with their lives before it's too late.

While nowhere near as action-packed as it's 1986 sequel "Aliens", this movie however is equally intense as the sequel but in a totally different way. While the sequel benefits from it's tons of action sequences, "Alien" is every bit as intense by it's extremely suspenseful tone and while it may be slow at times, when the intense parts come, they'll make you jump right out of your seat. This movie does not rely so much on action for intensity as it does on immense suspense, tension, and disturbingly quiet tone and then the alien jumps right out into the screen! While "Alien" is slow-paced a lot of the time the pace leads up to terrifying confrontations with the creature as it kills the crew members one by one. Perhaps it's most famous scene of all time is the frighteningly vile scene where one of the crew members who was previously attacked by the 'baby' alien goes into violent convulsions and culminating when a 'baby' alien bursts right out of the mans chest killing him instantly. That scene is perhaps the most famous sci-fi horror scenes ever filmed. I had nightmares for many years after seeing that and even now with a stomach made of titanium steel, I still get very queasy at that scene but it is one of the most original sequences ever filmed to this day.

Ridley Scott's directing is absolutely phenomenal. Being that this was a low budget movie of only 11 Million dollars, Scott and the crew have used the limited resources to create a really stunningly beautiful yet terrifying epic that has been virtually unrivalled to this day. The sets are incredible and the special effects are really awesome. Even then the film shows it's age in some places such as some extremely dated special effects, a few of which are ancient even by early 1980s standards but overall, this film is one of the greatest examples of using the limited budget to an efficient degree and the result is not only a terrifying Sci-Fi horror movie but also one of the greatest landmark achievements in these two genres.

The cast is absolutely spectacular. The career of a then unknown Sigourney Weaver would literally take off right through the roof with her playing the main protagonist character Ellen Ripley. Ripley's character is one of t