Reviews (142)

A sumptuous Renaissance feast!
Franco Zefirrelli's 1967 film was revolutionary in using teenaged actors to play the two most famous lovers of all literature. Olivia Hussey is heartbreakingly beautiful, a vulnerable and courageous Juliet, while Leonard Whiting's poetic good looks make him a sensitive and appealing Romeo. Zefirrelli's career as an opera director is put to spectacular use here--each scene is meticulously crafted to be an exact replica of the Renaissance. Stunningly beautiful clothing, jewels, furniture, food, glass, sculpture--it is an overwhelming feast for the eyes. The preserved medieval towns of Tuscany, and the lovely Borghese palace where the balcony scene is set, give the film the look of an animated Renaissance painting. Zefirrelli took some liberties with Shakespeare's original script for the sake of brevity, but unless you are a die-hard purist, this is a minor flaw. I saw this film a dozen times in the theater, and never without the sound of girls weeping by the end--I was often one of them. Leslie Howard was a better actor, and Leonardo DiCaprio/Clare Danes more modern, but if you love beauty, this is THE quintessential Romeo and Juliet on film. END

Zeffirelli's Quintessential Version! Every Aspect Excellent!
This is THE must see version of Romeo and Juliet. Zeffirelli's 1968 masterpiece stars 17-year-old Leonard Whiting and 15-year-old Olivia Hussey with great music by Nino Rota. Filmed "on location" in Italy this version also has the fingerprints of the 1960s all over it, from moddish long hair, the debut of Michael York as Tybalt, John McEnery as Mercutio, the lush balcony scenes, the nude scene, and an emotional intensity throughout. McEnery brings just the right comic touch to the comi-tragedy and screenwriters Franco Brusati, Maestro D'Amico, and Zeffirelli keep true to Shakespeare with a take on the story that's easily accessible to a wide audience, thereby making this one of the most popular films of the '60s.

Especially effective is the ambiguity of intent of the Tybalt-Mercutio duel, and the overall editing of dialogue just enough to keep it succinct and believable yet retain the poetic and philosophical virtuosity of the playwright's playwright. The music is used effectively and as it rises during the love scenes it's a manipulation that's an enhancement to rather than distraction from the emotion--a rare successful pull-off of this. And that balcony scene is extraordinary, the lush dark atmosphere, Romeo's giddiness, Juliet's beauty...I believed it.

Milo O'Shea (who later played the Judge in "The Verdict") does a believable Friar Laurence and Robert Stephens (I)(with a long list of Shakespearian roles to his name) an intensely serious Prince of Verona. It's hard not to fall in love with Olivia (watch for her new film role as Mother Theresa).

Some bits of trivia: Before 1968 Romeo and Juliet was not generally taught in US high schools and this film's popularity changed all that as most of you reading this had it in high school. Michael York turned down the role of Oliver in Love Story--one may read into this he felt it was a poor man's Romeo and Juliet...just a thought. Also Olivia Hussey briefly dated Prince Charles. And here's the clincher: Paul McCartney got the original offer to play Romeo. I'm glad he turned it down, as Whiting is perfect here. And for those who wonder, the story did not originate in historical fact, though one may wish it so. The story came from mythical legend starting in 5th century Greece, later evolving into "The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet" translated into English in 1562 by Arthur Brooke and originally written about 1530 by Luigi da Porto., 'til Shakespeare got a hold of it (circa 1594) and breathed into it the life that will last as long as humanity does most probably.

This towers over the 1st film version with a 34-year-old Norma Shearer and a 43-year-old Leslie Howard, and as for the 1996 mess sorry guys; American accents, present day gang violence, over-the-top overacting, LA locales, and Leonard DiCaprio do not great Shakespearean tragedy make. This 1968 one is the one to see over and over.

Excellent movie...Great actors
Watching this as part of a highschool assignment, the teacher only allowed us to watch about 15 minutes of it. When I saw it playing on cable, I sat down to finish it. This, I must say, is the best version of Romeo and Juliet. In the '68 version The actors are young and even though it was made in '68, you can relate to them in this day. The acting is superb, no one better could have been picked for the parts. It was a real tearjerker. Not to mention the soundtrack...the songs were just amazing to hear. Just watch the movie once, you'll fall in love with it.

The Defintive R & J
I could watch this version of Romeo and Juliet over, and over, and over. The performances are dead on, especially John McEnry's turn as Mercutio (you understand the reason why he's killed off: people would have cared more about him than about the tragic heroes if he'd been around too much longer!). I would advise teachers, however, that this is not the first version they show students of the show. While most ninth graders read this play, the giggling that can abound in a classroom watching Romeo in tights often distracts from the meaning of the film.
So, for with the exception of ninth graders, this is the Romeo and Juliet to see.

Zeffirelli and Shakespeare: A Perfect Match
There is nothing worse than bad Shakespeare but not to worry here-- Franco Zeffirelli and Shakespeare come together here in a lavish, opulent production of ROMEO AND JULIET, just when we thought there was nothing fresh to say about them. Zeffirelli has broken new ground by casting Leonard Whiting, who is 17, and Olivia Hussey, who is all of 15 but looks even younger, in this timeless classic story about "star-crossed" lovers. With the possible exception of some parts of the musical score-- although much of it soars-- this film is as good today as it was when first released in 1968. (The musical theme was beautiful the first 50 times I heard it on the radio. Then it became trite.)

There are no bad actors here. In addition to the two lovers, Michael York as Tybalt and Pat Heywood as the nurse give outstanding performances, just to name two. My only negative comment about the acting is that Romeo always seems to run to and from an event or meeting; he never walks. Perhaps that is what a seventeen-year-old, testosterone-laden lad does, however. On the other hand, Romeo and Juliet's tragic story is completely believable and will put chills on your spine. Additionally, the dance scenes and duel scenes are quite wonderful. The wardrobe department got everything right as well.

A word about the language-- it goes without saying that Mr. Shakespeare is and ever shall be the greatest writer in English. Hearing his words again is a transcendent experience. ... Read more

Reviews (27)

A SAD BUT GOOD ROMANCE FLICK!
I was recently flipping the channels when I first saw this and I came on the scene where Brooke Shields is walking up the stairs to meet up with Martin Hewitt at a party. I was so fascinated by the movie, that I continued to watch it many times after that. Even though it's not out for release right now, it's still good (if you have cable or satellite dish) to look for it on The Love Stories Channel, which frequently shows it. I love this movie and the song. I don't understand why some critics have said it was a bad movie, because it's the best love story I've ever seen. I'm reading the book right now, and they're quite different, but both give a lot of depth and show David's endless love for Jade.

If your are late 20's or early 30's you remember!
I have read the newer reviews, & kids these days just do not appreciate the good "older movies". I can remember watching this
movie OVER & OVER & OVER again years ago. It is one of the best
"younger age" movies of it's time. Movies now have changed (for the worse in my opinion), & in it's day, this movie was extraordinary. Endless Love is & will always be part of my video collection...A classic in it's time...I can only hope I'll get it on DVD one of these days (please release it!!!!).It's worth every penny in my book!

Sometimes you gotta dig a little deeper...
to understand a much misunderstood movie! Endless Love is one such movie. So what brought me to this conclusion? Viewing it three times in a row and finally "getting it." You see, when I read reviews depicting this movie as a world-class disaster I was surprised, seeing as how Franco Zeferelli directed it. It couldn't possibly be that bad, I thought to myself...so I rented it. To be honest, the first time I watched it I was a little disappointed. Although the cinematography was excellent, I noticed far too much "choppiness" and little editing errors here and there. I was also a bit uncomfortable with the way the storyline was headed, partly because I had my own preconceived notions and felt "set up" for something different than what I was seeing. As one reviewer put it, "Endless Obsession" would have been a more suitable title, or so I thought at the time. When the movie ended I felt a little uneasy, like I had just missed something big. So what did I do? I rewound the thing and began to watch again, this time trying to ignore the inconsistancies and kept an open mind. As I sat there immersed in Jade and David's world, I finally began to understand. Franco Zeferelli knew exactly what he was doing, he was telling us this story through the eyes of these kids, not as the more knowledgable interpreter. To suggest that this movie would have been better if Jade and David's love had been more "mature" is ridiculous. That would have killed the whole point. Were Jade and David truly in love? Yes, I believe they were...however, they weren't ready to handle the intense emotions they were experiencing maturity wise, and this is presicely why everything span out of control when Jade's parents allowed them to have adult relations, especially in their own house! For many people, sex can be a powerful force, and it's extremely difficult to break the emotional and physical bond it creates. Most teens are simply too naive and irresponsible to handle the baggage that comes with a sexual relationship. Like the saying goes "fire is beautiful in a fireplace, but it's destructive anywhere else." I believe Jade's mother permitted this to go on because of her own longing for her youth, when her kind wholeheartedly believed in "free love" and the paradoxal delusion of a "more innocent time" ran rampant. Her own twisted nostalgia prevented her from being the older and wiser mother she should have been. When push came to shove and David was banished (Of course he didn't see that one coming), it's no wonder he lost his mind. They had led him on into thinking that he had already became part of the family, then suddenly BOOM, see ya. So what if it was only a month-long banishment? A month feels like eternity to a teenager who is in love. As far as David was concerned, They may as well have told him never to come back again. By that time him and Jade had already spun their cocoon, and come hell or high water testosterone driven David was going to protect what they had created. Simply put, bad news and raging hormones don't mix. I don't believe that David had "metal issues." He was terribly misguided and in his own mind was almost grieving a death. His idea of being the hero who rescues his beloved Jade is extremely stupid in retrospect, however I couldn't help but feel deep pity for him. He needed someone to shake some sense into him and remind him that a month isn't forever, that he still would have seen Jade at school. When I saw David as being the kid he was portraying, my attitude toward his suffering changed. David is a classic example of Freud's theory of "Return of the Repressed," by denying yourself you create what you fear. David and Jade were the victims of a self-fulfilling prophecy, perpetuated by the ignorance and indifference of their parents. In it's own way, Endless Love is a masterpiece, because it doesn't automatically assume that what Jade and David are experiencing is "puppy love," but rather reluctantly allows the idea of them being in love and poses the question "what if?" What if they really are in love, how would it work given the circumstances they are in? Given their lack of maturity, wisdom, positive family influences, life experiences, etc., how exactly would their love flourish? The answer is sad but very realistic. A love at that stage in life has a nil chance of surviving, and even if it does work out, it won't be the likes of a storybook fairy tale. Chances are that the road will be full of impossible hurdles, road blocks and many tears. Problems are inevitable, however love is a precious thing and the movie does its best to emphasize it in the end. Was this movie perfect? NO, I wouldn't go that far. I think that for its time, it does stick out among all the other teen flicks that were made during that decade. Next to Risky Business, Endless Love is one of the better movies that actually have depth if you look for it. Just my humble opinion!

Silly Soap Operaish Teen Exploitation Movie!!
I was about 16 years old when this movie was in the movie theaters and being a fan of Brooke Shields I watched Endless Love and though it started off as a pretty decent movie and had potential it soon dissolved into a silly soap opera. It's really nothing more then a silly teen exploitation movie!

Endless torture
I have no idea why this film is practically out of print & why it's so expensive when it's so indescribably awful. I also have no idea why so many people love this film. I purchased a copy of it recently to see what the hype was all about (e.g. the rumor floating around that it had a lot of sex in it & my parents forbidding my older sisters to see it in the '80's. This was surprising since my parents were pretty lenient in letting us watch almost every movie we wanted to when my sisters & I were growing up). To my dismay, the sex scenes really didn't show that much. The only decent things I can say is that the cinematography is good (e.g. the orange lighting in the scenes where Jade (Brooke Shields) & David (Martin Hewitt) are making love. Martin Hewitt is great eye-candy for the female viewers in this film.

The film's not even so bad it's good. I did recently watch "I Love the '80's Strikes Back 1981" on VH-1 & was amused by how awful the stars on the show said it was & the jokes they made about it. The acting is awful by everybody & no one is really likable in the film. Jade's parents are morons. The father tries to be cool & smoke grass & drink alcohol with the kids. He usually ends up making a fool out of himself, dancing around idiotically. Basically, he's only nice when he's under the influence. Jade's mom struggles to sputter out easy sentences & sayings, souding like a child learning Hooked on Phonics & is so sex-starved that she tries to pull an a la Graduate & make it with David. Jade's older brother (James Spader) is not happy with David dating Jade even though he introduced the two!

Brooke Shields disturbs me in this film. I always got the feeling that she was exploited in this film (as she was in many others when she was young e.g. Pretty Baby as a 12-year-old prostitute, The Blue Lagoon in which she's way too young to be wearing barely nothing & having sex) as some unstable, young nymphomaniac who acts much younger than 15. This is especially evident in the rape scene that was so nauseating I had to fast forward past it. It's long after David has intentionally set fire to Jade & her family's house & they meet up again a couple of years later & he rapes her, making her demand over & over again to proclaim his love to her & she's crying. Afterwards, she's still on his bed, acting flirty & nonchalant as if nothing happened. What a f@#%*# up scene!

After the scene I just mentioned, I kept on fast forwarding through the film to stop the madness & because I really didn't care what would happen. I just wanted it to end. Does it have a point? Maybe it does - that arson will not win back the heart of the girl you love? Or maybe that obsessive love will, most likely & almost always, lead to tragic consequences? But who really cares any way? I suggest you save your money & rent better films about obsessive love like the uncensored version of 9 1/2 Weeks & the 1st version of Romeo & Juliet. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Franco Zeffirelli's stripped-down, two-hour version of Shakespeare's play stars Mel Gibson as a rather robust version of the ambivalent Danish prince. Gibson is much better in the part than many critics have admitted, his powers of clarity doing much to make this particularHamlet more accessible than several other filmed versions. The supporting cast is outstanding, including Glenn Close as Gertrude, Alan Bates as Claudius, Ian Holm as Polonius, and Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia. Zeffirelli's vigorous direction employs a lively camera style that nicely alters the viewer's preconceptions about the way Hamlet should look.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (124)

To Thine Own Self Be True...
While this is a complex movie that demands your full attention, this has to be one of my favorite Shakespeare plays. It is beautifully acted out in a gorgeous castle filled with tapestries and everything you would imagine a castle to be from the candlelight to the dimly lit spiral staircases.

The most enjoyable scenes are when Hamlet expresses his thoughts in soliloquies and gives insight into what his character is feeling. Mel Gibson becomes Hamlet and I thought this was perhaps some of his best acting ever! Glenn Close is exceptional as Gertrude, the incestuous mother. The uneasiness and distrust in Denmark since King Hamlet's death and Queen Gertrude's remarriage sets the mood for the rest of the movie.

The story begins on the outer ramparts of Elsinore castle. A ghost appears and Hamlet, speaks to his deceased father. The ghost asks Hamlet to revenge his "most foul, strange, and unnatural murder." Hamlet then deviously plots a psychological revenge by putting on a play in which a scene portrays the actual murder of his father.

"I'll have grounds
More relative than this-the play's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King." -Hamlet, Act 2, 603-605

Once guilt takes hold of the King, the pieces of the puzzle start to fit together and you realize that one immoral action only makes another wrong even more probable.

Throughout the play, Hamlet shows his intellectual superiority and states his case by saying: "Do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe?" While he desires to have the upper hand until the end, he cannot of course know all the intentions of those around him nor can he escape his own fate.

An Unforgettable story that made an impression on me in school and still holds a
certain fascination for me. Did Hamlet ever really love Ophelia? That is the question.

"It is in my memory locked." -Ophelia

hamlet
The movie Hamlet directed by Franco Zefferelli is a historical drama, based on the popular Shakespearean Tragedy. Zefferelli decided to retain the name Hamlet, which I think could be modified to be more effective. Theoretically, a title is a microcosm of the theme, which 'Hamlet' doesn't really accomplish; a title that can foreshadow the theme of the play will be more formidable. Perhaps the director could have excerpted one of the dominant quotes out of the play, the most famous being "To be or not to be". This would have at least given a foreshadowing to the indecision seen by the tragic hero throughout the plot. Generally speaking, the movie was well done and I comment the director for his concise but accurate representation of Shakespeare's 'Hamlet'.
On the whole the actors depicted the roles of their characters quite well. Hamlet played by the Australian, Mel Gibson took command of his part, and captivated the viewers with his emotional conversations, as well as addition of humor and a masculine vigor to Hamlet. He portrayed his part with a great deal enthusiasm, bringing the play to life. The royal couple played by Alan Bates and Glenn Close, as king Claudius and queen Gertrude respectfully, were able to capture the conduct of a monarchial leadership, of the middle ages with little difficulty. Claudius displayed an exceptional representation of a lusty, murderous king. The minor characters such as Ian Holm as Polonius, Nathaniel Parker as Laertes, and Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia gave considerable support to the leading characters, as they were subtly but effectively able to dictate the plot.
Hamlet is noted as one of Franco Zeffirelli's best productions as he recreated yet another Shakespeare masterpiece. He took a conventional approach to this production of Hamlet as he kept with the mindset most people would have to character and setting, in other words he tried not to give any surprises. Zeffirelli's main goal was to create a lighthearted enjoyable movie that would appeal to the general public who don't have the time and stamina for Branagh's four-hour version. In keeping with typical Shakespearean movies the director chose a soundtrack consisting of classical pieces, which is suitable for what he was trying to achieve. Little special effects were used, which may be a major flaw when trying to grasp the attention of modern day viewers, perhaps he could have included some more dynamic effects, especially with the ghost who appeared almost as though he was a living character.
This movie is a concise version of the original text and has left out and/or shortened many scenes keeping only the ones necessary to tell the story. I really liked the way he incorporated old Hamlet's funeral in the beginning and the voyage to England. However, there were a few scenes like the fight between Laertes and Hamlet in the graveyard, which could have been further accented. The major flaw I observed in the movie when compared to the book was the exclusion of the sub-plot with Fortinbras and the Norwegian influence. This led to the ambiguity the viewers were left in once the movie ended, as there was no hint to the outcome of Denmark.

best film version i've seen (and i've seen them all!)
through my endeavors i've had to read Hamlet 7 times (twice my senior year of high-school). much as i don't like Shakespeare this play is part of my life.

The Olivier version is more accurate to the stage version but the camera techiniques are over-blown and hokey (circling the swords before the duel to see which one is tipped, it made me dizzy). the Branagh version, while creative in it's set up (modernizing it to imerial Russia), and using the entire text, complete with Prince Fortinbras of Norway, is SO long and SO over-acted (especially on the part of Branagh) that i needed a nap after i saw it. and i choose not even to dignify the Ethan Hawke version it was so terrible.

This one is my favorite, all the scenes which are cut aren't necessary for the forwarding of the plot in my humble opinion (the opening scene with the palace guards meeting the dead kingis cut yet horatio's explaination of this happening later in the movie is sufficient). Gibson chooses to play Hamlet as insane (that decision is left to the director) and as i am in the camp that Hamlet IS insane, you could also see why i favor this version. Glenn Close is EXCELLENT as Gertrude as is Helena Bonham-Carter as Ophelia.

solid performances with a great cast, what more does a 400 year old play need?

Mel has captured Hamlet's soul
What a masterpiece. As much as I love Braveheart, I truly think this is Mel Gibson's finest work. It throws all over attempts into shadow, including the great Lawrence Olivier and certainly Kenneth Branaugh or Ethan Hawke. So often the female characters are reduced to cardboard mock-ups of feminine ideals of the Shakespearean age. Not here! Ofelia and Gertrude have souls and minds to probe, filled with as many dark secrets as Hamlet himself. I could never say enough about the caliber of this film. Suffice it to say that it is THE Hamlet of the ages and worth a look as well as a few dollars to own it.

A great BRIEF history of The Bard's greatest Play
There are two main versions that currently work the best in getting a feel for this play, Gibson's & Brannaugh's. Gibson's is very much stripped down to focusing on the three main character's. It does loose a lot by this device, but it does gain considerably in that the viewer doesn't have to shift through all the sub-plots. Brannaugh's, however is far more complete & I would consider it far more the best " study " version of the play. If you've read the play ( & this is the reason I give it 5 stars ), Gibson's version is great beause you can fill in the blanks quite easily & nothing is lost. The Ghost is by far better in Gibson's version ( remember, this is not a ghost in the modern sense, so it's important not to judge by appearences ), & the interplay between them in their first meeting is just amazing. However, the politics of the play suffers badly, in my opinion, becuase many of the characters in the sub-plots are missing, especially Polonius' machinations....however, he certainly DIES better in Gibson's version. I personally like this version & I am impressed with all the actors. If this had been the entire play, I think it would definitely have given Brannaugh's version a run for it's money, but being so stripped down, I feel the actuall story suffers greatly. As one reviewer put it, a CLIFT NOTES verion, with which I must agree. ... Read more

Reviews (47)

Rich, beautiful, layered, and delicious
With Judi Dench, Joan Plowright, Cher, and Maggie Smith, how could this movie be anything but wonderful? Set in Italy in the 30s and 40s, Mussolini's era, with WWII as a backdrop, it's the semi-autobiographical story of director Franco Zeffirelli's childhood. Beautiful scenery and costuming, beautiful sets, it's in many places a mood piece more than a deep examination of the issues involved. It spite of its occasional superficiality, a very wonderful film with stellar acting.

Excellent and worth buying!
One of the best films to ever grace my screen. The film was quite spectacular and really helped to understand the history of WWII more as an outsider caught up in the policies of war. I really felt as though I was there and found myself becoming "friends" with each and every one of the characters. Definately calls for a trip to Florence now! Baird Wallace has a wonderful career ahead of him. Cher was-as usual- great! Judi Dench's character was lovable and emotional. Joan Plowright was truly a gem among stones. She's brilliant! Don't bother to rent this movie. buy it for you, your family and your grandkids. You won't be disappointed!

This Is The Best Tea I've Ever Had!
Tea with Mussolini is an excellent movie. I have to agree with most everyone else's comments. My personal favorite is Hester. Played brilliantly by Maggie Smith, she is a pivitol character with a comically blind faith in Mussolini. I would (and do) recommend this movie in a heartbeat.

A Great Cast!
Set in Florence and covering roughly 10 years from the brink of World War II to the liberation of "Il Scorpioni", Zeffirelli's film boasts a great cast: from the group of English women who love all things Italian-- Maggie Smith as Lady Hester, Judi Dench as Arabella, Joan Plowright as Mary to Lily Tomlin as Georgie, Cher as Elsa, and last but certainly not least, Baird Wallace as the older Luca based loosely on the director, himself. The group of English women will not leave Florece even in the face of an impeding war; Lady Hester, in her naivete assumes that tea with Mussolini will guarantee her and her friends' safety.

The film is a little predictable and somewhat rosy. On the other hand, If Luca is based on Zeffirelli, he obviously lived to tell his tale so perhaps this rosiness is justified. Cher seems to play Cher and isn't terribly convincing as a rich Jewish American; and her wardrobe is gaudy enough to belong to her. On the other hand, the three British actresses are great, particularly Maggie Smith who cannot abide Americans. My favorite line of hers is that Americans [referring to Elsa] can even "vulgarize" ice cream.

Of course it's impossible to make an ugly movie that's filmed in Florence; this one is no exception. (It's probably impossible for this director to make a less than beautiful movie.) While this may not be Mr. Zeffirelli's best film, it's much better than the best efforts of a lot of his contemporaries.

An Engaging Movie Worth Your Time
With the many talented actresses in this film, you might have expected to have heard more about it. While the editing is questionable, this is still a wonderfully acted, engaging little film. Although, it does drag a few times, the story is worth knowing and the performances are top notch.Particularly Cher, who lights up the screen as Elsa. Especially, near the film's end as Elsa boards a small boat to escape with the assistance of the charming character Luka. Simply breath taking!

Grab your favorite beverage and check this film out! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Liz and Dick (a.k.a. Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton) almost seemed to be importing the psychodramas of their marriage into this 1967 film (of course, the same was true of every film they made together). Adapted from Shakespeare's play and directed by Franco Zeffirelli (Romeo and Juliet) with his usual eye for sumptuousness, this version of Taming features a particularly boisterous, bawdy, fun performance by its stars. Composer Nino Rota--best known for scoring several of Fellini's best-known works--received a National Board of Reviews award for his vivid soundtrack. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (31)

This Shrew Remains Untamed
It's very difficult to be very critical of such a roisterous, good-natured version of Shakespeare's rowdiest play, and in truth one has to admit that this is probably the first of the truly modern Shakespeare films. There are some real assets here -- Zefferelli's eye has never lighted on a landscape more beautiful, more seductive, and Nina Rota's score fits beautifully.

But Shakespeare, even on film, stands or falls on the acting. This version -- with one exception -- is filled with one-note performances (they're very GOOD notes, but single notes nonetheless). Let's deal with the exception first -- Elizabeth Taylor is a delightful, intelligent Katarina. Her development is exactly what Shakespeare obviously intended, and if her early scenes are a bit uniformly shrill, the case could be made that that's what the Bard wrote. In general, she's an admirable Kate.

Burton, however, is something else entirely. Despite his acknowledged skill with Shakespeare (his Hamlet was glorious), he takes a monochromatic approach to Petruchio, with an annoyingly stagey laugh running through virtually every scene. By halfway through the film, you tend to want him to get off screen so you don't have to listen to that "manly" laugh any longer. Unfortunately, much of Kate's dialogue was cut (the assumption being, I suppose, that Taylor would have trouble with the language) while too much of Petruchio remains.

The secondary characters, if cut from different bolts of cloth, are all a single color. Michael Hordern bumbles his way through Baptista the same way he did in countless other movies. Michael York and Natasha Pyne as the young lovers are efficient and attractive, but not particularly engaging. The suitors are a group of living cliches. Even the humor is raggedly overdone to the same degree in almost every scene.

There are things to appreciate in this movie, and there's no better Shrew available, but I'd recommend finding another of Shakespeare's comedies until a better version of this rowdy comedy comes along -- someone's bound to get it right soon.

An excellent movie to add to your collection!
This Shakespearean story is about the daughter of Baptista (Michael Hordern), Katarina (Elizabeth Taylor). Very unlike her younger, quiet and gentle sister Bianca (Natasha Pyne), Katarina is strong-willed and has a nasty temper. Many men want to woo the lovely Bianca, including a young scholar (Michael York), but Baptista is adamant that nobody will be wed with his Bianca until the older daughter, the shrew Katarina, is married. And there is only one man who is willing to marry her for her dowry, Petruchio (Richard Burton). When Petruchio and Katarina are wed (forcefully against Katarina's will), Petruchio proceeds to make his 'dear Kate' into a good wife, but is anyone capable of 'taming the shrew'?
A remarkable tale by the talented and famed writer, William Shakespear. And with a delightful cast of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, who can resist liking it? Elizabeth Taylor practically shines in her role! Especially at the part in the end where she makes her strong speech. I was as quiet and attentive as all the guests at the wedding.
For anyone who likes Shakespeare, who likes Elizabeth Taylor, or Richard Burton, or for that matter, want to watch a good movie, watch "The Taming of the Shrew".

More Fun Than A Barrel Full Of Burtons
A rollicking feast for the eye, ear, and funny bone, Franco Zeffirelli's "The Taming of The Shrew" is a tour de force for Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. This pared down version of William Shakespeare's play is a fit morsel for anyone suffering from a fear of the Bard. It's fast pace keeps things going and with a cast of well-known British stars the whole thing is served up to delectable visual perfection.
Richard Burton blends his fabled abilities as a Shakespearian genius with his star power to give us a ribald and loveable Petruchio. This is one of his crowning moments on the screen and we are lucky to have this record of Mr. Burton at his very best.
Elizabeth Taylor is a comic revelation in this, one of her jewels in her acting crown. At the time the film came out, many scoffed at the idea of a mere movie star taking on the challenges of Shakespeare. Miss Taylor rises to the challenge and shines as a stunning, sexy and very funny Kate, in fact she more than rises to the occasion, she shows her command of the medium of film and her understanding of comic timing. The wedding scene is a pure Zeffirelli invention. If you didn't know better you would swear that it was part of the play, it is so well done in faux Shakespeare. Elizabeth shines in this scene. In the final fifteen minutes when she delivers the famous "Lord and Master" speech she is triumphant as she submits to her man. At the same time we know that she is the one who holds all the cards and in the off stage end will rule the roost from now on, all the while letting poor Petruchio think he is king.
The chemistry of Burton and Taylor is pure dynamite that explodes in riotous color across Zeffirelli's Renaissance canvas. Highly recommended viewing, especially if you are new to Shakespeare. It's more fun than a barrel full of Burtons!

The Bawdy Bard !
"The Taming of the Shrew" is a delightful romp, and very entertaining, even for people who do not normally go out of their way to watch Shakespeare. I can imagine serious scholars rolling their eyes at the liberties taken here, and the "star turns" by those two icons of 60s Hollywood, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton.

However, for most of us who basically just want to be entertained--and I suspect with this play, that was the bard's intent--this version is good fun, robustly acted, and with lovely sets and costumes, a feast for the eye. One suspects that Ms. Taylor had a ball, hurling insults and various pieces of furniture at her real-life, on-again off-again, spouse. It looks like Mr. Burton had a good time too, although one frequently has the impression that this was a "well-lubricated" performance !

The supporting cast is fine, with a pleasant film debut for Michael York. As usual, Zeffirelli gives us a film that is gorgeous to look at--and I'm not just referring to Ms. Taylor !
The DVD has a certain haziness to it, but this may be the way that Zeffirelli intended the film to look.

"The Taming of the Shrew" today, of course, is about as "politically incorrect" as a piece of literature can be. While women will find this film amusing, the idea that the female spirit should be "reined in" like that of a wild horse, will cause some discomfort to feminist viewers, I'm sure.

Nevertheless, this film is highly entertaining, and might give younger viewers an idea as to what all the Taylor/Burton fuss was about. Recommended.

Burton & Taylor Are Pure, Fiery, & Feisty Sex Magic
No wonder Burton and Taylor married and divorced many times. The sexual tension between them in this film can be cut with a knife. Taylor plays Kate, the beautiful, fiery, feisty, mean-spirited, unloved eldest daughter of a wealthy man. She has a beautiful & kind sister who has a string of beaus, but... the eldest sister MUST marry first. Enter Burton as Petruchio. Loud, boisterous, dirty, obnoxious and SEXY! He plans to tame Kate, marry her and be a rich man on her dowry. The famous tongue in the tail speech is given on their first meeting, which sets the mood for lusty, sweaty, swarthy fighting. All the while, the sexual tension builds throughout. Many fights & torments ensue... with a beautiful ending that I will not spoil. If you like Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton or just the great and powerful Bard, himself, this is a great movie, directed by the great Franco Zefferelli that is a must see! "There is no other beast on Earth so horrible as man..." (Katharina, Taming Of The Shrew) ... Read more

Amazon.com

It seemed like a good idea in 1973: a musical scored by Donovan about the life and times of St. Francis of Assisi, the passionate ascetic who expressed love for God by loving nature. But the finished product was something else. Filmmaker Franco Zeffirelli (Endless Love) makes a decorous effort at communicating the ideals of Francis and even tweaking the character toward flower-power relevance. But the result is feel-good fluff, a boring movie that doesn't penetrate its subject as much as reinvent him toward a modern bias. Graham Faulkner is entirely forgettable in the lead, and Donovan's songs on this project aren't exactly first-rate, either. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (115)

Vivid religious parable for 'youth' audience
BROTHER SUN SISTER MOON (UK/Italy 1972): The early life of St. Francis of Assisi (Graham Faulkner), the son of a wealthy merchant who underwent a spiritual conversion following his experiences in the crusades and later renounced his worldly goods before establishing a holy order separate from traditional Church teachings.

Conceived and executed in much the same visual manner as his ultra-popular ROMEO AND JULIET (1968), Franco Zeffirelli's BROTHER SUN SISTER MOON attempts to draw parallels between the work and philosophy of St. Francis and the ideology which underpinned the worldwide hippy movement throughout the 1960's and early 70's. Hence the ragged-but-lyrical cinematography (by Ennio Guarnieri), fractured editing (by Reginald Mills), and the use of contemporary - but strangely timeless - folk songs written and performed by Donovan, all of which conjures the requisite mood of spiritual awakening whilst simultaneously dating the movie quite firmly within its period. Cynics will hate it, while others will embrace Zeffirelli's defiant romanticism. Daringly, Zeffirelli's script (co-written by Suso Cecchi d'Amico and Lina Wertmuller) contrasts Francis' piety and virtue with the bloated pomp of official Church doctrine, weighed down by internal politics and social indifference, though it's difficult to gauge if this represents a veiled attack on Christian orthodoxy or is simply a reflection of Francis' dismissal of outdated customs in favor of a return to Nature.

Lovingly crafted by Lorenzo Mongiardino (art direction) and Danilo Donati (costumes), the movie is toplined by a cast of gifted newcomers and screen veterans, including Judi Bowker (one of the most beautiful actresses of her generation), Leigh Lawson, Kenneth Cranham, Valentina Cortese and Alec Guinness. But the film derives much of its visual strength from Faulkner as the young, battle-scarred nobleman laid low by his wartime experiences, who emerges from the horrors of conflict with a completely new and spiritual outlook on life. Faulkner was one of a handful of young actors (including FELLINI-SATYRICON's Hiram Keller and LISA AND THE DEVIL's Alessio Orano) who emerged from European cinema in the 1970's, handsome and talented in equal measure, to burn brightly and briefly before disappearing into relative obscurity. Here, Faulkner's intense beauty and fresh-faced innocence are illuminated by Guarnieri's worshipful camera and Zeffirelli's attentive direction, which places him center-stage throughout (there's even a generous, PG-level nude scene halfway through the movie). This was Faulkner's cinematic debut, and while Zeffirelli couldn't have made a better choice for such a crucial role, the director later described him as being slightly aloof from his fellow actors, which may explain his subsequent disappearance from the movie scene. But here, his grace and dignity are displayed in abundance, and it's hard not to fall in love with him, every time he appears on-screen.

Picture quality on Paramount's DVD is grainy in places and vivid in others, but overall, this is a huge improvement over previous video incarnations, all hideously cropped from the original hard matte widescreen version presented here. Sadly, there are no extras whatsoever, not even a trailer! It would have been nice to see footage from the Italian cut (FRATELLO SOLE SORELLA LUNA), which runs approximately 14 minutes longer and replaces Donovan's music with a fully orchestral score by Riz Ortolani. The film's editor, Reginald Mills, produced a 16mm documentary in 1973 entitled FRANCO ZEFFIRELLI A FLORENTINE ARTIST, compiled from footage shot during the making of the movie and featuring a lengthy interview with the director himself. Running a mere 51 minutes, it provided an invaluable insight into Zeffirelli's working methods and the thinking which gave rise to the finished product, and its absence from Paramount's disc is hugely disappointing. It's nice to have the film on DVD in its present form, but the lack of extras reeks of missed opportunity.

120m 56s
1.75:1 / Anamorphically enhanced
DVD soundtrack: Mono 2.0
Theatrical soundtrack: Optical mono
Optional English subtitles and closed captions
Region 1

A movie that changed my outlook on life
This film with all its historical inaccuracies and its poor account of St. Clare and Bishop Guido has however the spirit of Franciscanism at its heart and its message is a relevant today as it was in the 13th century. Faulkner is brilliant, he captures the simple, pure humility of St.Francis. What ever happened to him after the movie? Donovan's music is outstanding and fits in perfectly with the simple and humble atmosphere permeating throughout the movie. To learn a more accurate account of the life of St. Francis I must recommend a book called 'St. Francis of Assisi, The Legend and the Life' by Michael Robson OFM Conv.

Pax et Bonum, A young Irish Secular Franciscan.

Inspirational
Dated; yes, but boring? . . . Never. Maybe if you're looking for action instead of inspiration. I've watched this movie countless times and have never failed to find its anti-materialist message inspirational. If it contains historical inaccuracies; show me a movie or book about a 13th century character that doesn't. Yes, it is dated to the '70s in places, but what of it? This is a movie with an essential message told well: i.e. The glory of war and possessions can't ultimately satisfy. And while I may hesitate to recommend this movie to anyone, say, under 40; if you want to know how it feels to leave the pursuit of yet another crummy dead-end job, for inner peace, Brother Sun Sister Moon may just do the trick.

Wonderful
The editorial review by Amazon.com (Tom Keogh) should stop after the first sentence. Tom's review is "a decorous effort" to tweak his ego and impress readers who enjoy uppity reviews more than good movies. I don't know why Amazon would even allow their review to discourage sales, for one thing. More importantly, this is a beautiful movie, to a different tempo, with lovely music and spiritual significance for the gentle recipient.

Spirit of Francis
This movie was a major inspiration in my life as a Franciscan. It captures the spirit of Francis of Assisi, the joy, the freedom, the devotion to Christ. It is true that it is "ahistorical" which is NOT to say unhistorical, but rather creative fidelity to the spirit of the saint. All of Zeferelli's work has a quality of caricature, but faithful even though exaggerated. Many people have used those songs by Donavan as well, as they are quite moving and joyous. ... Read more

Reviews (142)

A sumptuous Renaissance feast!
Franco Zefirrelli's 1967 film was revolutionary in using teenaged actors to play the two most famous lovers of all literature. Olivia Hussey is heartbreakingly beautiful, a vulnerable and courageous Juliet, while Leonard Whiting's poetic good looks make him a sensitive and appealing Romeo. Zefirrelli's career as an opera director is put to spectacular use here--each scene is meticulously crafted to be an exact replica of the Renaissance. Stunningly beautiful clothing, jewels, furniture, food, glass, sculpture--it is an overwhelming feast for the eyes. The preserved medieval towns of Tuscany, and the lovely Borghese palace where the balcony scene is set, give the film the look of an animated Renaissance painting. Zefirrelli took some liberties with Shakespeare's original script for the sake of brevity, but unless you are a die-hard purist, this is a minor flaw. I saw this film a dozen times in the theater, and never without the sound of girls weeping by the end--I was often one of them. Leslie Howard was a better actor, and Leonardo DiCaprio/Clare Danes more modern, but if you love beauty, this is THE quintessential Romeo and Juliet on film. END

Zeffirelli's Quintessential Version! Every Aspect Excellent!
This is THE must see version of Romeo and Juliet. Zeffirelli's 1968 masterpiece stars 17-year-old Leonard Whiting and 15-year-old Olivia Hussey with great music by Nino Rota. Filmed "on location" in Italy this version also has the fingerprints of the 1960s all over it, from moddish long hair, the debut of Michael York as Tybalt, John McEnery as Mercutio, the lush balcony scenes, the nude scene, and an emotional intensity throughout. McEnery brings just the right comic touch to the comi-tragedy and screenwriters Franco Brusati, Maestro D'Amico, and Zeffirelli keep true to Shakespeare with a take on the story that's easily accessible to a wide audience, thereby making this one of the most popular films of the '60s.

Especially effective is the ambiguity of intent of the Tybalt-Mercutio duel, and the overall editing of dialogue just enough to keep it succinct and believable yet retain the poetic and philosophical virtuosity of the playwright's playwright. The music is used effectively and as it rises during the love scenes it's a manipulation that's an enhancement to rather than distraction from the emotion--a rare successful pull-off of this. And that balcony scene is extraordinary, the lush dark atmosphere, Romeo's giddiness, Juliet's beauty...I believed it.

Milo O'Shea (who later played the Judge in "The Verdict") does a believable Friar Laurence and Robert Stephens (I)(with a long list of Shakespearian roles to his name) an intensely serious Prince of Verona. It's hard not to fall in love with Olivia (watch for her new film role as Mother Theresa).

Some bits of trivia: Before 1968 Romeo and Juliet was not generally taught in US high schools and this film's popularity changed all that as most of you reading this had it in high school. Michael York turned down the role of Oliver in Love Story--one may read into this he felt it was a poor man's Romeo and Juliet...just a thought. Also Olivia Hussey briefly dated Prince Charles. And here's the clincher: Paul McCartney got the original offer to play Romeo. I'm glad he turned it down, as Whiting is perfect here. And for those who wonder, the story did not originate in historical fact, though one may wish it so. The story came from mythical legend starting in 5th century Greece, later evolving into "The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet" translated into English in 1562 by Arthur Brooke and originally written about 1530 by Luigi da Porto., 'til Shakespeare got a hold of it (circa 1594) and breathed into it the life that will last as long as humanity does most probably.

This towers over the 1st film version with a 34-year-old Norma Shearer and a 43-year-old Leslie Howard, and as for the 1996 mess sorry guys; American accents, present day gang violence, over-the-top overacting, LA locales, and Leonard DiCaprio do not great Shakespearean tragedy make. This 1968 one is the one to see over and over.

Excellent movie...Great actors
Watching this as part of a highschool assignment, the teacher only allowed us to watch about 15 minutes of it. When I saw it playing on cable, I sat down to finish it. This, I must say, is the best version of Romeo and Juliet. In the '68 version The actors are young and even though it was made in '68, you can relate to them in this day. The acting is superb, no one better could have been picked for the parts. It was a real tearjerker. Not to mention the soundtrack...the songs were just amazing to hear. Just watch the movie once, you'll fall in love with it.

The Defintive R & J
I could watch this version of Romeo and Juliet over, and over, and over. The performances are dead on, especially John McEnry's turn as Mercutio (you understand the reason why he's killed off: people would have cared more about him than about the tragic heroes if he'd been around too much longer!). I would advise teachers, however, that this is not the first version they show students of the show. While most ninth graders read this play, the giggling that can abound in a classroom watching Romeo in tights often distracts from the meaning of the film.
So, for with the exception of ninth graders, this is the Romeo and Juliet to see.

Zeffirelli and Shakespeare: A Perfect Match
There is nothing worse than bad Shakespeare but not to worry here-- Franco Zeffirelli and Shakespeare come together here in a lavish, opulent production of ROMEO AND JULIET, just when we thought there was nothing fresh to say about them. Zeffirelli has broken new ground by casting Leonard Whiting, who is 17, and Olivia Hussey, who is all of 15 but looks even younger, in this timeless classic story about "star-crossed" lovers. With the possible exception of some parts of the musical score-- although much of it soars-- this film is as good today as it was when first released in 1968. (The musical theme was beautiful the first 50 times I heard it on the radio. Then it became trite.)

There are no bad actors here. In addition to the two lovers, Michael York as Tybalt and Pat Heywood as the nurse give outstanding performances, just to name two. My only negative comment about the acting is that Romeo always seems to run to and from an event or meeting; he never walks. Perhaps that is what a seventeen-year-old, testosterone-laden lad does, however. On the other hand, Romeo and Juliet's tragic story is completely believable and will put chills on your spine. Additionally, the dance scenes and duel scenes are quite wonderful. The wardrobe department got everything right as well.

A word about the language-- it goes without saying that Mr. Shakespeare is and ever shall be the greatest writer in English. Hearing his words again is a transcendent experience. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Franco Zeffirelli(Romeo and Juliet) and screenwriter Hugh Whitemore strip away a bit of the familiar romanticism of Charlotte Brontë's novel and come up with a more plain but somehow quite interesting film adaptation. Charlotte Gainsbourg(The Cement Garden) makes for an oddly appealing but deliberately unlovely version of Jane (previous actresses have included Susannah York andJoan Fontaine), and William Hurt is excellent as an equally revised Rochester, brusque and self-involved but not the totem of torment and charisma we've seen before. The story clings to the usual chapters in the book, but with Zeffirelli shaping the principal characters to reflect their cautious perceptions of one another--rather than to a Hollywood notion of grand passion--the film has a wonderful accessibility. Great support from Joan Plowright, Billie Whitelaw, Anna Paquin, and the rest of the cast.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (96)

This version is just "eh".
This review contains many spoilers, so you might not want to read it if you haven't read the book.

First of all, Jane Eyre is my favorite book. I love it so much because it is romantic, feminist, exciting and mysterious. It would be extremely difficult for any movie to do the novel justice.

Still, this version COULD have been better. Charlotte Gainsbourg did look very much how I imagined Jane, but she always came across as so cold. It's true that in the book Jane does not always express how she feels, but she is not as stony as Miss Gainsbourg portrays her.

William Hurt wasn't the best Rochester, either. I don't know what they were thinking, casting a blonde, conventionally handsome actor to play the dark and brooding Mr. Rochester! It even says on the back of the box something like, "Jane Eyre falls for her rich and HANDSOME employer..." I'm sure Charlotte Bronte would have been insulted that her character was changed to the point of blasphemy. Elle McPherson as Blanche Ingram was pretty bad too.

I did like Anna Paquin as young Jane though, and the elderly woman who played Mrs. Fairfax was perfect.

It's not just the acting that bothered me...I think they ruined three of my favorite scenes. The first is the scene in which Mr. Rochester dresses up as a Gipsy woman to find out if Jane loves him. This is a WONDERFUL passage in the book, and every version of Jane Eyre I have ever seen always leaves it out! I have a feeling that they originally filmed this scene, but they ended up having to cut it so the movie wouldn't be too long. So I was disappointed about that.

The second scene I didn't like was when Mr. Rochester proposes to Jane. When I read it in the book it brought tears to my eyes, because it was so beautiful and passionate, but in this movie it just falls flat.

Mr. Rochester: Duhhh, I love you. Will you marry me? Jane: Mmm, sure, why not.

OK, so maybe I'm exaggerating a little, but that's how it felt to me. That scene was severely downplayed; it didn't move me at all. And why didn't they film it in the garden by the big tree, like it is in the book? I thought that was an important detail.

I also thought it was cheesy how they showed Thornfield burning down JUST when Jane was leaving! Please, she just walked out the door and she doesn't even stop or notice when the mansion catches on fire? I think this was done for dramatic effect, but it came across to me as ridiculous.

Still, I give the movie 2 stars, because although Mr. Hurt didn't really look his part, he did an OK job of playing it. And I did like how they did the scene in which Mr. Rochester admits to having been married before, and presents Bertha Mason to everyone who was attending his and Jane's wedding. That was pretty well done, and pretty faithful to the book. I'd recommend this movie for that scene alone.

I think that above all, if a movie version of Jane Eyre is to be made, it MUST be faithful to the book. The novel is wonderful enough that they wouldn't have to change anything.

Very Good!
I really liked this movie! It was very good and was a little disapointed with the LOOK of the mad-person, but is still good but the 1944 adaption was a little better!

i like it!
Oh boy, I like this movie... and I like Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt. I don't know... I am a down to earth person, so I like Charlotte and William and how they played the characters. The Jane and Rochester also look like myself from time to time. I like them because they are Pisces and Cancer, in particular late Pisces and late Cancer (March 20 and July 22). I am a Scorpio.

Great as a movie in itself!!
I would highly recommend this as a great movie in itself rather than an accurate depiction of the book. Although it strays a little and there are large key parts missing, it's cleverly brought together and both Hurt and Gainsbourg do a fantastic job of creating the true demeanor of Erye and Rochester.

Not the best, but very good
I'll start with what impressed me about this. The two girls who played Jane (young and grown) were both perfect for the part visually. The older Jane had a sense of quiet intelligence and a gentle strength that gave her a certain charm. The man playing Rochester did quite a good job as well although it wasn't visually. I loved how he acted it, if only they could place his talent into another body. The scenery was gorgeous, just as I might have imagined it. It adheres to the story MOSTLY (the parts it did tell, that is). The music was astounding as well. Now, for the cons of this movie. First of all, it just simply left out SO MUCH of the story for it to be impactful! It also changed so much after Jane left Rochester to something less dreary than what really happened to her. If you haven't read the book, then this is fun to watch. If you have read the book though, and liked it, this version may insult you. I liked it overall though, it's not boring or corny. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This is not strictly Verdi's Otello; it is a fast-moving,hard-hitting film adaptation of the opera that omits some of the music (most notablythe "Willow Song") to enhance the dramatic pace. With brilliant camera work, the"you-are-there" impact of film vs. a videotaped stage production, andoutstanding performances from all the principals, it is also the Otellothat you may find yourself replaying most frequently.

Director Franco Zeffirelli has been criticized for altering Verdi--in effect,for adapting the libretto (the best one Verdi ever had) to a medium that Verdinever imagined. But he is only giving to Verdi the same kind of treatment thatVerdi gave to Shakespeare and Shakespeare gave to his Italian sources. It's adaring treatment, but it works brilliantly. Placido Domingo stands out in hisgeneration as an interpreter of Otello, vocally powerful and dramaticallyconvincing. He is well supported by Katia Ricciarelli as Desdemona and JustinoDiaz as Iago. --Joe McLellan ... Read more

Reviews (13)

opera is so misunderstood
As one who directs opera for a living, I am dismayed by some of the comments by other reviews here. They sound like they were written by college students trying to impress themselves with their new-found intelligence. They could never dream of making a film on this scale. I was greatly moved when I first saw this film. Yes, the willow song is missing. Why? Because it doesn't (as beautiful as it is) further the dramatic story. Would I cut it from the staged version? No. But, what people many involved in the field often forget is that opera was always intended as a synthesis of the dramatic and musical arts. It is NOT just about the music. A good director tells a story. In addition, telling a story in film is not the same as telling a story on the stage. When people see this film (and I have shown it to many) they love it! They even weep at the end. Of course these are people who have no preconceived notions or generally have not seen the staged version. It does its job. It is absolutely beautiful, powerful, breathtaking and dramatic. Iago getting harpooned was a stroke of genius. We all wanted it. Composers write the music and do not pretend to write the staging. So what--if it wasn't written in the score as a dramatic notation. The film did not draw attention to the director but had the opposite effect--it drew us into a different world and made me personally forget that I was watching a film. That is the mark of a good director. Were their flaws? Sure. But all artists are flawed. Get over it. This is a monumental work. From a dramtic standpoint, I prefer it to most staged productions. If you want something from a musical standpoint, get the CD. Those who hate the fact that opera is a synthesis, should stay out of the opera house. The art form has been ruined by these kinds of people (especially at the Met) where fat singers dying of consumption "park and bark" their way through a piece intended to be dramatic--where two singers will stand on opposite sides of the stage and sing undying love to one another without any connection at all. Bravo to directors who are not afraid to take risks and actully tell a believable story.

I agree with Mr. Moreno.
This is one of the most disappointing opera (film) I have ever seen. Not because it was particularly bad. I still rate it highly. But because of several senseless blunders. Otherwise, it could have achieved legendary status.

Mr. Zeffirelli makes a mysterious decision to insert a ballet music in first act only to cut off the Desdemona's beautiful willow song later in act 4. Even worse, he cut off another famous duet "Si, pel ciel marmoreo giuro" (Otello-Iago, end of act 2) in the middle. I mean in the MIDDLE! I, too, believe Otello-Desdemona duet in the end of act 1 without sound effects, but I can live with it. To me, it is just a joke to claim one can stand cracks and hissings of old recordings and dislikes movie sound effects.

Singings and actings were generally good. Domingo's Otello was superb, Ricciarelli's Desdemona was good. Was beautiful, too, physically, in addition to vocally. Diaz has neither Gobbi's evil darkness (with Vickers- Rysanek-Seraffin, RCA) nor Leiferkus' disgusting lightness (with Domingo-Studer-Chung, DG). I didn't like his Iago very much. However, the visual effect for his "Credo in un Dio" was spectacular. When pondering about death and afterlife, Zeffirelli shoots sky looked through a well and then a bottomless pit at the other side, as he sings "E poi? E poi?" before he bursts out "La Morte e il Nulla". I'll give my thumb up only for this one scene. Overall, this film is a mixture of such ingenuity and insensitivity.

Wrong transfer speed is set, but otherwise a beautiful film
as soon as I played this DVD, I knew something was terribly wrong. after comparing it to a few other recordings, I found out what: this film has been set at the wrong transfer speed, and sounds either a half-tone, or even a whole-tone, lower than it should be. so Domingo sounds like a baritone, Diaz like a bass, and Ricciarelli like a mezzo.

visually, however, it is pure Zefferelli; absolutely amazing. the camera work is letter-perfect. And despite the transfer speed, the musical performance is still wonderful, with Domingo sounding at his best. Diaz is a fantastic singer and actor, much more convincing than Milnes ever was (sorry, Milnes fans); Ricciarelli sings beautifully and looks stunning. The supporting roles, chorus, and orchestra are excellent.

If MGM hadn't made this error, I would have given this 5 stars. The wisest choice is to get the soundtrack, which has the right transfer speed, and also has everything this film cut (the Willow Song is, unfortunately, not here, and the list of other cuts is as long as my arm). so definately get this film, but better to get the soundtrack.

Let it be your first Otello
This is, hands down, the best performance of Otello. Domingo is a pretty good actor on his own, but Zefferelli really unleashes Domingo's true potential as a pure acting force. It is said that Lawrence Oliver saw Domingo plsy Otello and said "He plays him as well as i do, AND he has that voice!" That being said, some of the cuts are understandable, most are annoying. But i believe most of the cuts are only annoying to those people who know the score well enough to hear the change of a phrase. I would reccomend this as a firs Otello, because it is at the heart of what Verdi was getting at, a drama through music. Cuts such as "Questa un ragna" and the giant choral piece at the end of Desdemona's "A terra...si..." are beautiful, but hardly dramatically viable. But cuts, such as in the final seen in the "Che le...otello" really ruin the drama in that section i feel. Part of the genius of that section is the way that the music intensifies as the drama intensifies, and Zefferelli doesn't allow that to happen. However, this is nitpicking on my part. Zefferelli's Otello is a beautiful piece, the performances are more convincing than any other production i've other seen, so he cut a little. He had a reason. I don't know it. You don't know it. Enjoy it for what it is.

Great or Horrible?
Well, to start, I am huge fan of Otello, Domingo and Zeffirelli. But somehow I was disappointed (sometimes a lot!) with this movie.

Before I bought the DVD I had read some reviews, and most reviewers were chocked by the cuts in the score and I always thought: big deal. But when I watched it I understood: THERE IS ABOUT 25 min OF CUTS!!! Most of Otellos (Levine's, Karajan's, Toscanini's) are about 2h15. This one is 1h55 with over 10 min of music and ballet that Verdi never wrote (You do the math, and remember that Maazel's tempi are much slower than Toscanini's). Also, not only are these cuts of arias or ensembles, but even worse: Phrases are just cut off here and there throughout the Opera. The 1000 words allowed for the review won't be enough to enumerate them. Why??? A reviewer argued that it's to enhance the drama!! Come on, are you going to convince me that the finale of Act II (Si, pel Ciel) needs enhancement. Even this part is cut, and worse it's "Cut IN HALF AND I MEAN IN HALF" as another reviewer pointed.

So what does go right?
Well the scenary is amazing and I mean amazing. But what about the performance (this is Opera after all). Well again much can be said. Domingo once said that his performance was very much influenced by Zeffirelli. He wanted him to go into some deep barytonal voice (à la Ramon Vinay of you will), and the performance suffers.
Maazel conducting is far from being ideal. Should he be blamed? Well yes, like most of the singers who agreed to represent Zeffirelli's Otello and not Verdi's.

Finally, one of the reviewer said that Zeffirelli tried to "adapt" the opera and those who dislike is are not open-minded. Oh Please! When you buy Verdi's Otello, you are expecting to hear some of the most beautiful music ever written adapted to one of the most successfull libretto and won't expect the director to cut off about 25 min of the score.

It is normal to be disappointed. With a cast like this one and a director like Zeffirelli (his Traviata, Cav. Rusticana, and Traviata are awesome) we could have had the most successful opera movie Ever....

Finally, I need to point out that one who doesn't know Otello "as is" could be thrilled with this version. It is after all a real beautiful movie. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

This title is now available on DVD
It is not immediately obvious (it doesn't come up as an alternate format), but this work is now available in a DVD edition, which has been re-mastered to 5.1 digital sound.

Magnificent, A great opera story ever told , Viva Mascagni
I have seen this video more than three times & each time i see it, it has the same impact on me. The feeling of beauty, tragedy. The way the artists potray the characters is truly superb. My favourate scenes is between the Tiruddu & Santuzza. The song 'No no Tiruddu' is done so well. also the intermezzo. Thelast act my Domingo 'Mama....."saying goodbye to her mother before the fight with Alfio ofcourse he dies at the end. The woman who shouts "Somebody has killed Tiruddu" in Italian is such a thrill & has become so familiar with many movie goers especially "the God Father part 3" saga. This is a great video to own.Obrastva & Domingo have never sounded so good. I also like Alfio's voice with his whip at the beginning of the film when he enters the market & everyone sorrounds him to listen. Buy this one U wont regret.

Cavalleria Rusticana
The greatest opera ever composed. Why is it not available in DVD?

Collect this Cav
Agree with the 9/3/99 review except I like Zeffirelli better than Coppola and Domingo's wig was truly awful in this production. His hair was perfect so why they made him wear a wig is a mystery and unfortunately I found it distracting throughout the film. Otherwise, it is the very best available. The music is devine, passionatly performed. The wig can be forgiven.

Superb
I fully agree with the review which was written 9/3/99 from Summit NJ. Even a newcomer to Opera would have to Love this one. ... Read more

Reviews (47)

Rich, beautiful, layered, and delicious
With Judi Dench, Joan Plowright, Cher, and Maggie Smith, how could this movie be anything but wonderful? Set in Italy in the 30s and 40s, Mussolini's era, with WWII as a backdrop, it's the semi-autobiographical story of director Franco Zeffirelli's childhood. Beautiful scenery and costuming, beautiful sets, it's in many places a mood piece more than a deep examination of the issues involved. It spite of its occasional superficiality, a very wonderful film with stellar acting.

Excellent and worth buying!
One of the best films to ever grace my screen. The film was quite spectacular and really helped to understand the history of WWII more as an outsider caught up in the policies of war. I really felt as though I was there and found myself becoming "friends" with each and every one of the characters. Definately calls for a trip to Florence now! Baird Wallace has a wonderful career ahead of him. Cher was-as usual- great! Judi Dench's character was lovable and emotional. Joan Plowright was truly a gem among stones. She's brilliant! Don't bother to rent this movie. buy it for you, your family and your grandkids. You won't be disappointed!

This Is The Best Tea I've Ever Had!
Tea with Mussolini is an excellent movie. I have to agree with most everyone else's comments. My personal favorite is Hester. Played brilliantly by Maggie Smith, she is a pivitol character with a comically blind faith in Mussolini. I would (and do) recommend this movie in a heartbeat.

A Great Cast!
Set in Florence and covering roughly 10 years from the brink of World War II to the liberation of "Il Scorpioni", Zeffirelli's film boasts a great cast: from the group of English women who love all things Italian-- Maggie Smith as Lady Hester, Judi Dench as Arabella, Joan Plowright as Mary to Lily Tomlin as Georgie, Cher as Elsa, and last but certainly not least, Baird Wallace as the older Luca based loosely on the director, himself. The group of English women will not leave Florece even in the face of an impeding war; Lady Hester, in her naivete assumes that tea with Mussolini will guarantee her and her friends' safety.

The film is a little predictable and somewhat rosy. On the other hand, If Luca is based on Zeffirelli, he obviously lived to tell his tale so perhaps this rosiness is justified. Cher seems to play Cher and isn't terribly convincing as a rich Jewish American; and her wardrobe is gaudy enough to belong to her. On the other hand, the three British actresses are great, particularly Maggie Smith who cannot abide Americans. My favorite line of hers is that Americans [referring to Elsa] can even "vulgarize" ice cream.

Of course it's impossible to make an ugly movie that's filmed in Florence; this one is no exception. (It's probably impossible for this director to make a less than beautiful movie.) While this may not be Mr. Zeffirelli's best film, it's much better than the best efforts of a lot of his contemporaries.

An Engaging Movie Worth Your Time
With the many talented actresses in this film, you might have expected to have heard more about it. While the editing is questionable, this is still a wonderfully acted, engaging little film. Although, it does drag a few times, the story is worth knowing and the performances are top notch.Particularly Cher, who lights up the screen as Elsa. Especially, near the film's end as Elsa boards a small boat to escape with the assistance of the charming character Luka. Simply breath taking!

Grab your favorite beverage and check this film out! ... Read more

Reviews (31)

A Real Tearjerker.
I loved this film from start to finish. I just bought the DVD from Amazon and it played all the way through, no problem. I was a little worried when I ordered it because I read the other customer's reviews and had problems with the DVD being defective. I first saw this film in 1996 when I was 11 when I missed it on TV and I rented it from the video store. I liked the part where the Champ (Jon Voight) gave T.J. (Ricky Schroder) the horse and it touched my heart. The part in scene 17 where Annie (Faye Dunaway) reveals to T.J. that she is his mother is a little disturbing. There is a little foul language in it, but other than that it is a great film for the family.

When you watch this film, don't forget the Kleenex box and this is one of the films that really made me cry. I recommend this film to everyone!

10/10

The one movie that still makes me cry
The Champ is an astounding motion picture directed by Franco Zeffirelli with outstanding performances by Jon Voight, Faye Dunaway and the unbelievably convincing Ricky Schroder.

The movie is the best intimate melodramatic tearjerker that I have ever seen. One view of this film will leave you with a lump in your throat and teary eyes, the next viewings will just leave you in plain tears. Yes, its that kind of movie that you'd see more than once and still feel engaged.

Jon Voight plays former boxer Billy Flynn who is down on his luck raising his son TJ, played by Schroder, alone after his wife, played by Dunaway, left him and the boy and went on to marry a millionaire after he falls out of his life of boxing, doctor's orders. The movie brings you close to the lives of all three of these characters, you feel their pain, their grief, and their emptiness. Billy has turned to drinking to escape the pain of not being able to return to boxing to support a family. TJ does not know his mother since she left him when he was still an infant, and still sees his deadbeat father as a hero, calling him 'champ'. Faye Dunaway's character can't seem to cope with the fact that her son has grown up believing she is dead and can only take him as a friend after bumping into him at a horserace, the horse that 'champ' bought him was competing in this race. The story begins to unfold when the three characters enter each other's lives again.

What's more beautiful about this movie is its musical score. The music is really another character in the film, and is quite breathtaking.

Highly Recommended

A

I Haven't seen The Original But This Remake is Very Good
I haven't seen the original movie that starred Wallace Beery and Jackie Cooper but I saw this remake starring Jon Voight and Rick Schroder and I thought it was a very good movie with great acting from Jon Voight and a young Rick Schroder (Billed as Ricky Schroder back then). It is a tearjerker filled with some sad moments but it's such a good movie and I recommend it.

defective DVD
Movie is excellent after I bought the DVD it would just play up to scene 14 and skip to the end..they replaced it and it was the same thing.. I finally had to go rent the movie and watch it...strong performance by both actors...movie is a ***** (five star) but not on DVD

The Champ
There is only one other movie of this kind that can stand up to the test of time & that is Shane with Alan Ladd. There is no way to aptly describe either other than to see both of these fine videos. Ricky (Rick) did an outstanding job as he really didn't act, he lived the part. Everyone would love to have this boy as his or her child. All of the actors made this movie what it is---GREAT! ... Read more