Reviews (23)

Best Movie of All Time - No Competition
I saw this movie some ten years ago on public Television. No move has moved me so much since then. Mankind's inhumanity onto itself has never been shown in such a manner on cinema before, and as far as I am concerned, since. It would be expected that being a Soviet Movie, it would depict the German advance into the Russian Empire as barbaric, which it does. However, the German Army's retreat from Russia and its treatment from the Russian Army are as barbaric. There are no winner and losers, bad or good guys in this film.

If you can see it, do so. I'm sure it will move you as it did me. One thing for sure, War is indeed Hell!

It's a pity that a classic flim like this is no longer avaiable to purchase....

I Don't Know If I'm Ready to See It Again
I saw this movie in Paris about 15 years ago. Just happened upon it, playing at an obscure theater, and decided to give it a try. I had never seen a Russian WW II movie and was curious to see how they handled it. Seeing the film like that with no foreknowledge or preparation was a devastating experience -- it was frighteningly moving and depicted war in a way I'd never thought possible.

The film made a big impression on me. The years passed, and occasionally I would think about the film. I didn't really even know its title in English (as I said, I saw it in France, with Russian soundtrack and French subtitles).

I happened to come across references to the film recently on the web, so I went to Amazon.com's site (and other on-line sellers of videos) to see if it was available, and, to my surprise here it is.

The problem is that, because this film is so heavy and, in many ways, disturbing, I'm going to have to think about obtaining it and seeing it again. Maybe it was best to have come across it by chance one evening in Paris, and leave it at that . . . .

But for all of you who are wondering about this film, see it. It will likely have a profound effect on you.

Devastating
I was browing through the local public library's video shelves yesterday and pulled down "Idi i smotri" on a whim; I'd never heard of it and hoped only that I might be in for a better-than-average morality play, with the various subplots and melodrama typical of the war movie.

Nothing could have prepared me for the experience. It is a singleminded, intensely focused, harrowing record of war, unlike anything I have ever seen. Elem Klimov gives us no moral context, makes no attempt to ground the viewer in any way (with the exception of a single scene near the end, after the cremation of the living villagers of Perekhody); instead his camera displays a frighteningly dispassionate willingness to simply show us. The title, I've read, may come from a verse in Revelations about the Beast; regardless, to "Come and See" is exactly what the film invites us to do -- simply to see reality. I think this is why the film is so engaging. I was forced to inhabit completely the eye of the camera, with nothing to protect me from what I was witnessing.

The most compelling "event" we're forced to witness is the evolution of the young protagonist's face, from that of a grinning, excited boy to a wizened, ageless yet ancient shell, scarcely a human face at all. (I've read a review which states that this film is about retaining one's humanity in the face of war. This is sanctimonious nonsense; it's about the obliteration of one's humanity.) Other incredible moments: the dreamlike scene in the forest, after the partisan camp is bombed, when Florian watches Glasha dance in a bright nimbus of falling rain...

I'm still recovering from this film... I may never recover. But I will watch it again, I know, because it's one of the most powerful viewing experiences I've ever had. Elem Klimov is a genius.

Just watch it!

A Dark And Hellish World
To begin with, I openly admit that this film about the Nazi destruction of Byelorussian villages brought tears to my eyes. It is a very powerful film utilizing a variety of film techniques to forcefully make its point that Nazism was a mass psychosis that led to many examples of profound horror and cruelty. But, without denying for a moment the reality of what this film portrays, I could not keep from thinking about certain ironies that hover around this film. One being that even though the number of various groups of Russians that the Nazi military killed was enormous, the number killed by the Stalin government itself was even larger. I do not point this out to diminish the horror portrayed in this film, but rather to point to the fact that this type of madness was much more widespread than what is
shown in this film. When you add fascist Italy, the nightmare of the south Pacific, the dropping atomic bombs on Japan, then the depth and reach of this madness becomes almost incomprehensible.
But perhaps it is the more narrow focus of this film which allows one to absorb and process the horror at all. The larger picture is perhaps too much. But then the larger picture is also more real. The essential point seems to be that it is much easier to find examples of mass corruption than it is examples of mass goodness. And a last very interesting irony about this fine Soviet era film is that its unusual coloring, including the prismatic effects of the light surrounding objects, and the unusual mobility of the camera are things that do not originate with this film. Watch Sergei Parajanov's great Ukrainian film Shadows Of Forgotten Ancestors to see their point of origin. The irony here is that Parajanov was imprisoned for five years by the Soviet authorities for making films that encouraged the independent cultures of Ukrainians and Georgians and Armenians. It is indeed a dark and hellish world.

an emotional look at war on the civilian populations
come and see is a good soviet era film with the usual anti-german propoganda. upon watching, several points immediately come to light. 1) this is a very realistic story of the horrors on the eastern front by the ss, wehrmacht and especially the totenkopf and einsatzgruppen. the desecration of civilian populations during barbarosa are legendary and this movie accurately (and graphically)brings these horrors to life on the screen. make no mistake about it; this is an emotional look at the loss of families, villages with complete and utter destruction. you do feel the emotions. 2)this movie is not an action-packed "war" film in the winter war or cross of iron tradition. you do see parts of partisian camps "behind the scenes", villages being ransacked and small bits and teases of action but that, unfortunately, is as good as it gets. if you want strictly action, look elseware. this ain't gonna do it for you "oh my god they're using patton m-48's for the panzers" folks. if you want a rare look from the partisian and civilian viewpont of the german withdrawl...look no further. ... Read more

Reviews (19)

SENSATIONAL--MINUS 20
I've been hearing for years about "Twin Peaks", whether by word of mouth or on the internet. It's popular to mention the numerous pop-culture moments this show created and the fact that so many shows try to imitate, and fail, this landmark show. So after reading recaps of the pilot and first couple episodes, I decided to buy the whole thing.

I took a risk and I'd do it again because this show is one of the greatest achievements of all TV time. The pilot is a perfect intro to the show, establishing the characters and plots, the main one and various subplots, that it's addictive. WHO KILLED LAURA PALMER!? The mix of light and dark, quirky humor, heavy drama, fantastic production values, and so much more! If you haven't seen any of the show, stay clear of the last 15-20 minutes. I heard about the special ending and found out that the original pilot ends at Sarah Palmer's scream after her dream. End it there, watch the rest of the series, then go back and watch the ending.

Other than that, sit back, relax, and ENJOY! And believe me, YOU WILL!

The Best 2 Hours of Film Anywhere!
Twin Peaks is the premier for the greatest TV series ever created. Brought in to investigate the murder of Twin Peaks Homecoming Queen Laura Palmer, Agent Dale Cooper "Kyle MacLachlan" becomes wrapped up in a town full of mystery, murder, damn good coffee and killer cherry pie.

Start here.
This is pretty much what any fan of the show or David Lynch needs to start with. It's the original movie/pilot, and is a great piece of work. The story, the characters, and the whole northwest environment really make for an interesting and sometimes creepy watch. Many cool actors showed up in "Twin Peaks", among them Kyle McLachlan, Lara Flynn-Boyle, Sheryl Lee, Jack Nance, and the sexy Sherilyn Fenn. If you enjoy this, seek out the VHS collectors series, episodes 1-7. Or the DVD first season, which is also episodes 1-7, minus this pilot.

sdrawkcab dneb smra ym
So I'm sitting on this chair, in this house, on mars when this movie comes on. TWIN PEAKS. The first thing I saw was this grotesque factory-mill type place. And then there was this close-up shot of some rusty machine, and it moved...it moved with the music. Sparks were shooting out everywhere, and it was all moving to this other-worldly melody. Then waterfalls, ponds, ducks...in less than one minute, Lynch had sucked me in, shattered me, put me back together (the way he saw fit), and then he dropped me off into TWIN PEAKS.
The whole thing was beatiful. Lynch and Frost had created this soft cloud of a world that was filled shards of glass and rusty nails. It was all like a dream -a dream that you don't want to wake up from. Bobby, Donna, Shelly, Big Ed. I was lost.
"I too have been touched by the devilish one. Ahh, but when I saw the face of God..." This sleek-Norman Rockwell-wrong way on a one way street-imitation silk-nightmare is a mountain top work of art that leads you dead on into the midst of the footstool of the heavens.
-be sure to watch it in the full blossom of the evening, and you just might experience the beatific vision...FIRE WALK WITH ME.

One of TV's best pilots!
If only it were on DVD! This tape contains the classic 2 hour pilot for David Lynch's extraordinary and quirky TV cult favorite, "Twin Peaks". This 2 hour intro is NOT part of the six tape "complete" series collection that has the actual 29 episodes. There is a neat, confusing, untelevised 15 minute ending that was used to "wrap up" the whole murder when this same tape was released in Europe as a made-for-TV movie. Still, it is simply Twin Peaks at its best. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Incredible film!
"Chronicle of a Boy Alone" ("Cronica de un nino solo") from Argentina, was one of the most harrowing and gut-wrenching films I've ever seen. The director uses a unique approach when it comes to filming. Instead of jumping back and forth from one camera-angle to another, he chooses to use a single camera in many scenes, panning in or out as the scene requires.

The little 11 year-old-boy in this film experienced a total loss of human-parental contact, and this void in his life became too much for the child.

Being from the U.S., we are not accustomed to viewing scenes like the ones we occasionally see in this film. The orphanage scenes are emotionally impactful. When the two little boys decide to go swimming, they soon find themselves being chased from their swimming hole by older kids. During their escape, we see the two boys completely unclothed for several minutes of the film. The director does not attempt to film these pre-teen boys from behind or the waist up, but instead chose to film the boys with a single camera from in front of these children.

I wish I could say this film had a happy ending. Sadly, it reminds us of the plight of so many children in our world. Although filmed many years earlier, this movie resembles the classic Brazilian movie "PIXOTE" about another 10-year-old boy.

Overall, I would recommend this film to anyone who needs an emotional burst of energy, to be thankful for the things we have in this life, and in the environment in which we live.

Banned by the Argentinian government
CHRONICLE OF A BOY ALONE Banned by the Argentinian government for nearly thirty years, CHRONICLE OF A BOY ALONE is a searing indictment of a fascist regime running roughshod over its most vulnerable citizens - its children. Focusing on the bleak life of Polin, a boy abandoned by his family and sent to live in a state-run orphanage, it is also a moving protrait of the human spirit imprisoned by the chains of well-intentioned fools. For inside the harsh confines of the supposedly benefical institution, Polin and his friends must deal with constant physical and psychological abuse as well as the emotional tensions brought on by their own burgeoning adolescence. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This 1991 comedy by Gabriele Salvatores was knocked for notbeing deep enough, but it is what it is, and it's actually an easygoing, sunnymovie about eight Italian soldiers who manage to strand themselves on a tiny Greek island paradise during World War II. The sort of mutts who would shoota donkey for not knowing the proper password, these clumsy warriorsbecome a comic variation on the Lotus Eaters of myth, their fighting spirit evaporated in the midst of so much beauty and sexual availability among the local women. There are also sundry opportunities for the men to find another purposefor their lives (one particularly artistic fellow works on the restorationof a church, for example). Amid the sometimes coarse jokes and gratuitous nudity, there are subtle themes about the contrast between what men are truly like in their natural state versus what they are like as killers. (The ThinRed Line this isn't, but Salvatores does, in his own way, touch on some of the same themes.) Watch this one on a cold winter's day and vicariously enjoythe tans as well as the antiwar sentiment. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (32)

Great Movie
Just one quick thought: please release this title on DVD. Cinema Paradiso has been released, Il Postino has been released, now this movie should be released. It easily holds its own when compared to these 2 movies. Simply delightful. The acting, the plot, the scenery, easily give this movie a five-star rating. Makes you want to visit the Greek island where the movie was shot and live the experience of "la dolce vità" portrayed in this movie. This film shows you how, even in the thick of war, enemies are more alike then different. We are all linked by the same human spirit.
I await impatiently for the DVD version.

A Comedy Classic for Foreign Film Lovers
I have the Italian version of this DVD (Region 2, without subtitles) as well as the VHS tape that was made available in the US. It's easily my favorite Italian comedy, and I'm very surprised it hasn't come out on DVD for the United States yet. Afterall, it did win the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 1991. I felt the film did a great job of conveying some of the mystery and serenity of the Greek islands. Also the character development right from the beginning of the film is excellent. According to one Italian review I've read, the various Italian accents in this film also add to the humor. Another major attribute is the soundtrack music...brilliant. I've looked for it on CD but haven't been able to find it. From what I've been able to find out, this film is finally being released in European countries (besides Italy) in mid October, 2002. I would hope that the US release will be timed around that date. We'll see I guess. It's funny to think that if a group of Italian soldiers really got stranded on Meghisti like that during WWII, escaping the island would have been relatively easy. The coast of Turkey is only several miles across the water!

Why is this movie so moving?
Well, it's difficult to explain why is this movie so moving... Essentially, nothing really happens most of the time (like in real life). The background is war but you actually dont see any. There's a love story, sort of, but no real love scene, or emotional romance... it's also a comedy, but there aren't any really great memoreable jokes that knock you off. There is some "philosophy", escapism, let's-enjoy-life-while-it's last or whatever, but that's not that revealing either... So why is it so good? Am not sure, although I've seen it many-many times, over and over, can memorize whole scenes and dialogs, completely obssesed with it. Maybe, it creates a certain atmosphere, a silly happy smile that wan't move from yr face for the duration and some time after... you fall in love
with some of the charachters, the italian language, the greek landscape, you watch it and want to ride (or better walk next to)a donkey, sit on a rock and eat some feta, hide in an olive barrell... every small detail of a scene is beautifully shot and sculpted, tasteful, subtle yet simple, every word in its place, it all fits together so well... everytime I see it I discover new details, change my opinion and preferences about the charachters. Now I am quite convinced "lo Russo" is the main personality, although at some pt I thought it was Farina, or perhaps there is no "main" one, like in real life etc.

I tried to show this movie to some teenagers but they got super bored, which was sad, so I wan't do it again, just watch it myself, over and over again...

A great movie telling a story of forgotten soldiers
Every movie, like life itself, has a beginning and an ending. Comparing the beginning and the ending tells a lot about a movie. The opening picture in Mediterraneo shows a group of people, with little and common, shuffled together by fate. The ending shows a group of friends, who have learnt to share their lives.

It is 1941, and a fierce battle is raging through the eastern part of the Mediterranean, where Italian troops are battling British forces for the control of Islands, such as it happened in similar ways between American troops and the Japanese in the Pacific theatre.

On this background, an Italian platoon is sent to the tiny island of Kastellorizo, the southernmost island of the Dodekanesos, huddled against the Turkish coastline. The cruiser, that brought them to the Island, is sunk the same day, and their radio equipment fails. The soldiers gradually make contact with the Islanders. As the war progresses the soldiers and their little island are forgotten by the war-faring parties.

Step-by-step they find new lives. Some become goat herders, fishermen, while others fall in love with the village prostitute. The commanding lieutenant discovers his talent for fresco painting, and restores the island's church, whilst his eleven members of the platoon serve as models for the followers of Jesus and other saints.

In this movie, the soldiers collectively forget about their identity, and become part of the islander community. However, as the war ends, the island's male abducted population returns to reclaim their wives.

Reluctantly, the Italians leave the island. Only one of them hides in a barrel, after having married the village's prostitute.

This movie is not only highly entertaining. It plays in a rarely portrayed theatre of the WWII.
It portrays the development of human society in the context of compassion and friendship.

I highly recommend this movie to spectators interested in psychology, the absurdity of life, and human development.

Franz L. Kessler www.authorsden.com/franzkessler

Un Film Eccellente!
Excellent movie! It's more than just some WWII Italian soldiers "invading" a Greek isle. I watched it in Italian with English subtitles and not understanding Italian was, in a way, a bonus. It made me more attentive to the music and the expressive tone of the soldiers' screams, grumbling, and delirium. We often watch movies that depict the difficulty of people from one culture to adapt to the environment and get a long with people of another culture. In Mediterraneo, it's the opposite. The Italian soldiers adapted so well and easily to the island and its people. Of course the Mediterranean factor helped, but it's the human factor after all, that bonds people together. ... Read more

Amazon.com

When a recent widower (the wonderfully overemphatic George C. Scott ) moves into an antique Washington mansion, his realization that he may not be the only resident leads him toward a deadly secret that refuses to remain buried....The best haunted-house film since the legendary Haunting, this potent, classy combination of the mystery and horror genres eschews explicit gore and dumb shocks in exchange for a subtle creepiness that occasionally builds to a terrifying peak (watch out for that seance scene!). The result is a satisfyingly intelligent horror film with an intriguing dash of Watergate-era paranoia. Director Peter Medak went on to direct the considerably more gratuitous and somewhat less effective Romeo Is Bleeding and The Krays. --Andrew Wright ... Read more

Reviews (219)

The Changeling (1979)
Director: Peter Medak
Cast: George C. Scott, Trish Van Devere, Melvyn Douglas, Jean Marsh, Barry Morse.
Running Time: 109 minutes.
Rated R for violence and some language.

At a time when the horror genre was shifting away from the suspenseful notions of such classics as "Psycho", "Rosemary's Baby", and "Halloween", this film is a pleasant surprise of a horror-thriller due to its firm, gripping script, excellent musical and orchestrating score, and fine performances from the entire cast. Medak presents George C. Scott's character as a rigid puzzle piece searching for the rest of the connection as a lonely, old composer who thrives on seclusion. Attempting to get on with his life after his wife and child are tragically killed, the music lover buys a new home and looks forward to the new chapter of his life; however, an evil presence lurks in the halls.

As the horror of "The Changeling" proceeds, Scott's character is transformed into a soul searching for the reasons for his failures and short-comings, all the while trying to survive in a haunted estate. A truly ghoulishly fun film that gladly mimmicks the work of previous classic films of the genre, in turn producing a very enjoyable thriller that deserves much more respect than it has received. One of the better supernatural thrillers of the late 1970s.

One of the Best Haunted and Haunting movies ever...
George C Scott suffers the tragic loss of his wife and young daughter and moves to Seattle to teach music and compose. He rents an enormous old house, (the house is so vast, it is hard to imagine one person living in it, or spending one night in it alone)which turns out to come with a ghostly presence. The overall mood and tone of the movie is very dark and sad, I was very moved when the real story behind the haunting came out. There is nothing, in my opinion, more horrific or incomprehensible than murdering a child, for any reason, but this was beyond my worst imaginings. There are many unforgettable images from the movie, most notably, the wheelchair, the ball and the child's voice on the tape recorder, but what I had a hard time getting out of my mind was the music box theme. This is apparently based on a true story, and one can only hope that the real child did not suffer the same fate in the afterworld that this poor little boy did. At times my sorrow and my fear were at odds with each other; suffice to say this is one of the finer, more eloquent, and more haunting of the genre that I have ever seen...

Steal from the best they say...
I’ve owned The Changeling for many years first VHS then DVD. When movies like ‘the Ring”, “What lies beneath” and “the Others” came along I noticed something similar to my favorite old ghost story. Michelle Pfeiffer’s character (Beneath) has her first marriage come to a tragic end by a car accident and looses her children. So does George C. Scott in “The Changeling”. She’s a musician (Ditto). Watch the scene in the bathroom and then watch where they got the idea from in “The Changeling”. The neckless in the story is exact as well. Finding the neckless at the bottom of the lake (Beneath) or finding it at the bottom of a well (Changeling)... “The Ring” nabbed some ideas as well (no pun). The tortured child held captive in some upstairs attic is right from “The Changeling”. Finding the body in the well is right from “The Changeling”. The most similar scene I’ve found out of all is the scene from “The Others”. The seance is taking place and the blind women is writing on paper what she is hearing from the ghost in the house. The assistant takes each piece she finishes writing and reads out loud what the psychic has written. Exact same scene in “The Changeling”. The whole Haunted house murder mystery revenge thing is my favorite type of movie. I just kept thinking, watching these “newer” movies, I think I’ve seen this before.

FOLLOW THE BOUNCING BALL
This movie is truly a frightening ghost story. Director Peter Medak wisely chose to downplay any gore, instead giving us a series of terrifying sequences, revolving around a bouncing ball, a music box, a child's wheelchair, and a mesmerizing seance. George C. Scott and Trish van Devere play their parts well, with some excellent support from Melvyn Douglas and John Colicos (who in one brief scene signifies true evil). All the elements of good film-making come together in this well-filmed and orchestrated movie. A classic yet to be realized.

The BEST ever suspence horror film!
It is not gory, sorry, I like gore, but at the same time gore need not be a crutch to mess with people's heads, you can acheive the same effect with Skinny Puppy, a walk down a long dark windy woods, or watching a movie like this. I've yet to see one better in the Ghost Story Genre.
6th Sence and Legend Of Hell House do not compare! ... Read more

Description

The timeless story of the hero of the Israelites and the beautiful Philistine who tested his faith ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Not your usual Bible-epic
This Italian production is not your usual Bible-epic. With striking set design, beautiful art direction and oftentimes alarming attention to period detail, this is pretty realistic stuff. And pretty brutal. A lot of this can be attributed to British art-house director Nicolas Roeg, who has made "Samson and Delilah" perhaps his most ambitious film to date. At 180 minutes there is nary a dull moment. Roeg afficianados will appreciate the customary Roeg flourishes: shocking edits, liberal use of the zoom lens, intentional placement of humor and a general atmosphere of mysticism and otherworldliness. The performances are all around solid. Dennis Hopper turns in a clever and decidedly Hopper-esque performance as a reluctant Philistine general. Eric Thall, as Samson, comes across as vulnerable and humane yet entirely believable when coerced to flights of rage. His long hair doesn't look fake, chalking up another high mark for this film's realism. And Elizabeth Hurley as Delilah? Well, what more needs to be said? She really delivers with her greedy seduction of Samson and subsequent guilt. Not to mention, that in her Delilah garb, she is absolutely gorgeous. All in all a surprising and entertaining movie for Nicolas Roeg and all involved. Be sure to keep rolling for the credits as not to miss the Ennio Morricone-scored end titles. A short and haunting piece that is very appropriate.

The Weakest of the Bible Collection
I was gravely disappointed with Samson & Delilah. I found the story lagging (one tape would have sufficed) with many biblical inaccuracies including odd characters of no biblical origin. Additionally, I thought Dennis Hopper was horribly miscast. His dry way of speaking seemed too distracting.

Although Eric Thal protrays a pensive Samson, the war between Samson's lust and his passion for God was not at all believable. His period of serving as a judge seemed more like a trist. Admittedly, I enjoyed Elizabeth Hurley as Delilah (I think this is some of her best work anywhere). In my opinion, you'd do best to pass on this video.

Good but doesn't follow scripture very closely
Although worth watching, it is the worst of the Bible series pertaining to following scripture. The biggest problem is that they leave out key event and/or totally get them out of order. All in all it 'is' entertaining a pretty clean considering the story.

Inaccurate
I am a big fan of the Bible Series, Moses, Jacob and David are great movies, a little inaccurate at times but nothing mayor, however Samson and Delilah it's very inaccurate, for instance it completely forgot the part in which Samson offers honey to his parents (to show disobedience) or when Samson asks permission to his parents to marry a Philistian woman. This movie in relation to all others doesn't contain a message but rather its an attempt to make a biblical story a commercial one.

"every gift is also a burden"
This film includes a lot of embelishment as well as fictional characters to fill out the story of Samson, taken from Judges Ch. 13 through 16, but the essence of the story is intact. A man who loved the God of his fathers, but also the women of his enemies, the Philistines, and finds his real strength only after he has lost everything.
Samson is portrayed as man who never cries, not even as a baby at his bris (circumcision), or his father's death, but the feelings of lust and revenge weave continually through his story, and there are many brutal scenes, making this film not recommended for children.

As Samson's mother Mara, Diana Rigg is superb; she is a "type", like Sarah/Isaac, Rachel/Jacob, Hannah/Samuel, and Elisabeth/John the Baptist, all barren women who miraculously give birth to a son that becomes a leader/savior of his people.
Eric Thal is effective as Samson, very big and brawny, and he looks great on horseback. He also carries off the end parts too, which could easily have become cartoonish.
Michael Gambon is terrific as the wily old King Hamun of the Philistines, and in the most bizarre casting, Dennis Hopper as a laid back general. Elizabeth Hurley's Delilah is a cool, calculating vixen, and beautiful enough to make the most of Samson's weakness. Max Von Sydow does the narration throughout the film.

The Philistine interiors are very imaginitive, with their grotesque gods and massive columns, and the devastation of them well filmed. The fight with the lion is cleverly done also, with lots of grunts and roars from man and beast.
Filmed on location in Quarzazate, Morocco, it has a marvelous score by Marco Frisina, the excellent cinematography of Raffaele Mertes, and well paced direction by Nicolas Roeg.
"David", "Solomon", "Jeremiah" and "Abraham", are my favorites of these above average made for TV Bible stories, and this film, though not one of the best, is highly entertaining with some good acting. Total running time: 182 minutes. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Kenneth Branagh's 1993 production of Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing is a vigorous and imaginative work, cheerful and accessible for everyone. Largely the story of Benedick (Branagh) and Beatrice (Emma Thompson)--adversaries who come to believe each is trying to woo the other--the film veers from arched wit to ironic romps, and the two leads don't mind looking a little silly at times. But the plot is also layered with darker matters that concern the ease with which men and women fall into mutual distrust. Branagh has rounded up a mixed cast of stage vets and Hollywood stars, among the latter Denzel Washington and Michael Keaton, the latter playing a rather seedy, Beetlejuice-like version of Dogberry, king of malapropisms. The DVD release has optional full-screen and widescreen presentations, Dolby sound, optional Spanish and French soundtracks or subtitles.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (129)

funny and just plain enjoyable! by a 14 year old
This movie is so, as I said, enjoyable! It's hilarious - it has both physical and oral comedy. The scenes with Benedick and Beatrice are great.

Shakespeare's play is about two romances. One with a young, innocent, beautiful Hero and a naiive guy (I forget his name). The other is with Beatrice and Benedick, a couple who love to hate each other and don't realize their true feelings without a little help from some friends. Unfortunately, all is not completely happy. Someone is trying to put a damper on everyone's fun with lies and false accusations. But don't worry! Much Ado About Nothing isn't a tragedy.

The music and scenery is beautiful and the who feel is the movie is sprightly and energetic. I think everyone did a good job. Branagh and Thompson obviously were wonderful. Everybody says Michael Keaten (spelling?) and Keanu Reeves were terrible, but I strongly disagree. Perhaps they were a little prejudiced by former viewings of the actors. Keaten was so funny - I am sure Shakespeare was not always refined - and Reeves was evil. They both were fine!

I recommend this movie to Shakespeare lovers (though it may not be COMPLETELY true to the original text) and to anyone who wants a good laugh.

Much Ado About Something!
This is my absolute favorite Branagh version of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing"!!
Thank you, Mr. Branagh, for creating interpretations of Shakespeare's masterpieces which are entertaining, understandable, and excellent in quality. If the thought of reading Shakespeare makes you nervous, please do yourself a favor and rent one of Kenneth Branagh's movie versions first. He does an EXCELLENT job of interpreting Shakespeare's text and of helping to bring the stories to life (in a way that almost anyone can understand what's going on!) The casts of these film versions are equally talented and greatly contribute to the success of these movies. If it obvious that the actors understand what they are saying, and understand Shakespeare in such a way that allows them to pass that understanding on to the viewer.
This version of "Much Ado About Nothing" is wonderful in it's imagery and dialogue (interaction between the actors/characters). Emma Thompson (Beatrice) and Kenneth Branagh (Benedick) bring their characters to life with wonderful humor and personifications. Their dialogue and bantering is absolutly amazing in it's flow and "natural-ness"-- they truly make the movie. Please see this one-- it's most definitely the best!!!!!

Best Movie Ever!! by melmcc13
This movie is one of my favorite movies of all time!! I am a huge fan of of Keneth Branagh and Emma Thompson and think they are both wonderful! I absolutely loved this movie and thought that all the actors did a very good job. There were absolutely no confusing parts, and everything from drama to comedy in this film was perfectly displayed. The directing was excellent, and Kneth Branagh makes the movie seem very real. This movie does an excellent job at making Shakespeare fun and exciting!!

yuck!
I'm no fan of the original play and this film version is even worse. The film adds pointless scenes (nudity, along with others) not in Shakespeare's work and twists others; all aimed at an audience that doesn't care about solid acting--of which this film has none (spoiling the few interesting bits of the play)--to begin with and many of the actors simply shouldn't have even been considered-both Reeves (who can't act at all), and Keaton could never work out in a drama movie.
It should be said that nearly every big-screen Shakespeare translation (apart from Zeffirelli's version of Hamlet and Branagh's Henry V) have stunk. Parker's Othello is just as bad as this piece of trash to say nothing of Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet or Hoffman's A Midsummer Night's Dream. It's my suggestion, that if you really want to see Shakespeare off the stage, then look for BBC material.

A little ado about not much
I believe that the reading of this book/play shouls be encouraged for students across the country, because it shows a comical yet realistic view of love, and the effects it has on people.
When Shakespeare wrote this play, I believe that his purpose was to show the two differing sides of love. He uses two examples, the first being Hero and Claudio, who embody the spirit of romantic, superficial love. The two of them never seem to talk, and as far as the reader knows, they don't have a whole lot in common. Claudio puts so much stock in his "love" for Hero that he overreacts too easily. For example, at a party where Don Pedro agrees to woo Hero for Claudio, Don Pedro's bastard brother Don John tricks Claudio into believing Pedro wants Hero for his own. WIth this fresh in his mind, Claudio stomps off in a huff, without even checking the facts. This kind of love is based on gazing wistfully at the one's partner across the room, and sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.
The other kind of love that Shakespeare chooses to display in this play is the realistic kind of love that is displayed more often in society around us. This is shown in the couple of Benedick and Beatrice. These two quick wits are constantly bickering and at each other's throats, until they are tricked by their friends into each believing the otehr loves them. At this, all of their criticisms of love and claims to remain unmarried until death go right out the window. Suddenly, they are seized by a desire to be with each other, and their true feelings come out. It shows how love actually works in real lifeI would reccommend this play to anyone who enjoys a good comedy with just a twinge of love intrest in it. ... Read more

Description

A modern filmmaker magically finds himself transported to the 18th century, where he embarks on a time-traveling journey through 300 years of Russian history in Alexander Sokurov’s masterpiece. ... Read more

Reviews (54)

Russian Ark
Russian Ark, which consists of a single uninterrupted shot that lasts 96 minutes, truly is an amazing technical feat. Other films have dealt with similar premise (the ill-conceived Timecode, for example, features 4 uncut shots simultaneously), but it's even more impressive here because the movie isn't in real-time. We follow our narrator as he roams through the Hermitage, interacting with various people and historical events that span several centuries. It's also a visually breathtaking film. The magnificent Hermitage alone is enough to cause visual sensory overload, but gorgeous costumes and perfectly executed and choreographed scenes were very impressive as well. The final dance sequence (followed by people exiting the room) can only be fully appreciated on the big screen.

What's the Russian Word for 'Magnificent' ?
Digitally shot by a single high-definition steadicam, 'Russian Ark' is a 96-minute journey through 300 years of Russian art and history filmed in one unedited take. One might call back Mike Figgis' 'Timecode' (2000) that made it with four cameras, each shooting one take/story in real time and simultaneously displaying all takes on a quadruple-split screen. The finale comprised the climatic moment of all stories circumstantially coming together. Figgis utilized a cast of dozens. 'Russian Ark,' in contrast, features a masterfully orchestrated cast of 2,000 actors, dancers, and musicians all geared up to the full. To boot, Sokurov had only one day to get his shooting job done. We find us/him/them (all or none) in the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, among dramatic historical figures acting out startling fits in the Tsarist Empire, aggrandized by phenomenal sets and costumes, all drawn up by camerawork and choreography of surpassing excellence, and a mysterious man (out of place and time) introducing the feature with an appetizing "Where am I? I don't remember much. But there was an accident." As the camera transports that man from one situation to another, the film's power point begins to break through. And what a point it is. 'Russian Ark' is not a visit to the Hermitage. Rather, it is a tap on time's door; an unbroken train of thought that only our creative consciousness can make sense of and appreciate.

I believe the film was a challenge on all imaginable levels. Director of 'Empire,' 'Elegy of a Voyage,' 'The Dialogues with Solzhenitsyn' and other resplendent documentaries and feature films, Alexander Sokurov gives rise this time to a defining moment in cinema history.

A Cinematic Wonder
A film shot straight in 90 minutes, in one un-interrupted sequence - no cuts- not more than one take for any of the scenes!

Not just that, Alexander Sokurov - the legendary Russian director who debuted in 1978 with his "The Lonely Voice of Man" has done so many firsts in the movie that this wonder just has to be taken seriously. Sokurov has generated his works at the cross-roads of two fundamental film genres: documentary and "fiction". After having made nearly forty films over a period of two decades he is still searching for the language of cinematography which, as he says, the now hundred-year-old child - Cinema, has as yet not been able to develop.

Shot in high definition digital format and then put on 35mm, this film used the latest in digital technology and was recorded, entirely, on a hard-disk. The movie is shot at The Hermitage in St. Petersburg and was the first feature to be allowed to be shot in the museum, or at least the first movie that wasn't about the Revolution. Hundreds of actors gathered at The Hermitage in 36 different rooms on the 23rd of December 2001 to shoot this movie. Shooting on the shortest day of the year, and balancing the light in that season in St. Petersburg for a one-take sequence of 90 minutes wouldn't have been an easy task mind you. The movie features live performances from 4 symphonic orchestras one of which is The Hermitage's own famous philharmonic orchestra. Void of modern cinematic luxuries, Alexander has, in truly a work of artistic genius, managed to add a touch of complete surrealism to the movie.

Set across four centuries in an extremely surreal time-travel fashion, the movie captures the life in and around The Hermitage and re-enacts moments of history and art in one of the most epic and elaborate fashion. Not for even a single second does the movie compromise on the theatrical details for the sake of the challenge of being shot in one take. Authentic costumes and the comments on the work of art on display at The Hermitage museum are immaculately detailed and accurate. The movie almost effortlessly takes the viewer through the history, like a story-teller talking about the ages in one breath. Not failing to capture the sentiments of the ages, you would find comments on the Russian dislike of the European, as well as the political bonds and resistances that existed between Persia and Russia.

Termed most often as one of the best post-soviet Russian movie, Russian Ark is more than just that. If it weren't a Russian Movie, or was set in centuries of Italian history, the world would have perhaps come to admire it more. Fully recommended to everyone for the storylines of the movie as well as for the flawless technical details. Surely goes down in the history of cinema as one of the most artistic works ever.

A Unique, Great Film
A 90-minute movie centered on St. Petersburg's Hermitage Museum, filmed in one unbroken take by a digital steadicam, didn't send a lot of Americans racing to buy tickets when it was shown here two or three years ago. The movie, however, is far more than just a technical stunt. It's a unique tour de force with emotional impact.

Russian Ark portrays the Hermitage as a kind of cultural and historical ark floating on centuries of Russian seas. The narrative device is a shadowy eighteenth century Frenchman who wanders the halls and time periods, commenting often with good-natured European condescension on what he sees. He is accompanied by a Russian who is never seen, and who questions him about his comments. The movie ranges through time with appearances of Peter the Great, Catherine II, Puskin, Nicholas II and his family, generals, maids, flunkies and diplomats. The Frenchman, played with great style by Russian actor Sergei Dreiden, takes us to painting and sculpture galleries, kitchens, ballrooms, storerooms, basements and living quarters as we observe things that happened in the Hermitage over the centuries.

At first, I was very aware of the technical feat of no cuts. Gradually, though, I think most people just relax and accept the skill of the director and photographer, and become immersed in what they are seeing. A kind of unreal imagery takes hold. The movie ends with the last dance held in the Great Ballroom before WWI. Hundreds of actors and dancers, in full costume, swirl around this ornate setting, and swirl around the camera as well, while the camera glides through the crowds. It's a terrific scene, and is followed by the end of the dance with all the hundreds of guests making their way through the halls and staircases to leave the building, with the camera facing them and moving along in front of them.

The DVD has several extras, but in my view the best is Film in One Breath. It is the documentary of the making of the movie. Enormous planning went into Russian Ark, and the actual filming required split second coordination with the actors, the lighting and the camerman. Any mistake, and they had to start over. There were two mistakes; they were successful on the third try. Tillman Buttner, the movie's director of photography who wore the steadicam, has excellent stories to tell.

This is a highly unusual film, probably a great one.

The DVD transfer is first rate.

Comparison with Real Time (Tiempo Real)
by Beth Accomando, KPBS Film Critic

Yet even Sokurov¹s careful staging and deft touch can¹t completely distract us from the novelty of his device. There are times when scenes seem staged just for us to marvel at the difficulty of their execution rather than for strict advancement of the story. So there are moments when we are pulled out of the story simply to gape in awe at the logistics and that¹s a flaw. In some ways the low budget Mexican film Tiempo Real (which is certificated by Guinness Book of World Records as the first film to be shot entirely in one shot from one camera) makes less self-conscious use of its one-shot formula precisely because it is gritty and low budget. The lack of funds combined with shooting on contemporary, real streets ends up distracting us from the gimmicky technique because we¹re less conscious of how everything¹s being staged. So in an odd sense, it is the very elaborateness of Sokoruv¹s film and its spectacular choreography of people and events that makes it more self-conscious in its technique. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This lush, perfectly cast 1969 drama concerns both a doomed, royal loveaffair and a pivotal moment in British history. Based on Maxwell Anderson's 1948 play, Anne of the Thousand Days concerns the mess that surroundedKing Henry VIII's decision to rid himself of his first wife, Catherine ofAragon (Irene Papas), and marry the young Anne Boleyn (Geneviève Bujold).Anglophiles know what happened next: Henry (Richard Burton) solved hisproblems with the Vatican's condemnation of divorce by having himself named head of the Church of England (see also A Man for All Seasons), whileAnne's perceived problem conceiving a male heir made her vulnerable to plotsby the nefarious likes of Oliver Cromwell (John Colicos). Director CharlesJarrott does a splendid job bringing all of these intrigues to life, though the storyis ultimately about Anne, a naive young woman who prepares herself tonavigate some of the dangers of Henry's court. Bujold and Burton never gave better performances, and this strange, tragic chapter in the history of the kings of England has never been more compellingly told on film. --TomKeogh ... Read more

Reviews (43)

....And My Blood Will Have Been Well Spent
This movie, based on the 1948 play by Maxwell Anderson, owes much of its success to the popularity of the Tudor England film genre of the mid-to late 1960s, of which it is a part.
It is a fine, gracefully portrayed, albeit sometimes inaccurate account of the life of the mother of Queen Elizabeth I. In the title role, Quebequoise Genevive Bujold is the quintessential Anne Boleyn, whose slight French accent comes nicely into play, as Anne had just returned from the French Court when she first appears onscreen. Bujold gives a lot of strenghth and dignity to the role, happily without the neck tumour and extra digit on her right hand like the real Anne. One major accuracy portrayed in the film is that Anne originally wanted nothing to do with Henry.
Richard Burton is a beefy-looking Henry VIII, a bit slimmer than most actors I've seen in the role. With his lovely, lyrical Welsh accent, he captures much of Henry's nuances and temperment, and the scene of him dancing the galliard with Anne is particularly seductive.
Valerie Gearon captures the sense of betrayal and frustration that must have been experienced by the real Mary Boleyn when the King casts her aside, and her story is an interesting footnote in this drama. Sir Michael Hordern, as Thomas Boleyn comes across as both an amoral man willing to sell his wife and daughters into the King's concubinage to advance his position, and also as someone who is a bit intimidated by Henry.
Anthony Quayle's Cardinal Wolsey is a cold, impersonal schemer, and immoral churchman who acts as the King's procurer. Terence Wilton's spurned Harry Percy looks to have been a more suitable match for Anne, but unfortunately, the King thwarted their plans for marriage.
John Colicos'Cromwell is the ultimate snake-in-the-grass lawyer, who succeeds in making the King's power absolute, which would ultimately be to his own detriment.
Solemn Irene Papas bears little resemblance to the real Catherine of Aragon, but emphasizes the spurned Queen's piety and firmness in the face of her ordeal. Nicola Paget as her daughter, Mary has a brief scene at her deathbed. But in reality, when Anne became Queen, the only condition under which Catherine could see her daughter was if she admitted that her marriage to the King was invalid. So mother and daughter never saw each other again.
Another point of interest in the movie was when Anne asked that the lives of Henry's adversaries be spared, she gives birth to a living child; later, when she does the opposite, she gives birth to a still born son.
Things soon come to a head for this noblewoman who became ensnared in the King's lair originally through no will of her own, but who suffered greatly when she finally accepted Henry when the King becomes enamored of Jane Seymour, and Anne becomes a political liabity. The reenactment of Anne's arrest on trumped-up charges of treason is not accurate. But the scene of Anne's final moments with Elizabeth is very poignant.
Gary Bond's Mark Smeaton is a pityable charcter as the court musician tortured into a confession of adultery with Anne. Michael Johnson's George Boleyn, Anne's wrongfully convicted brother, displays a certain gutsiness when he tells off Cromwell during the trial for his life. As was the case with his impregnated daughter, Mary, we see Thomas Boleyn once more turn his back on a teary-eyed daughter in order to keep the King's favor during the trial.
The final confrontation scene between Anne and Henry is fictitious, but it provides a great piece of acting. The speech Anne made before her execution is mercifully deleted; there is no place for her to praise the King who was having her executed in this production.
One wonders about the significance of the theme of Anne's Thousand Days in the years just after the 1,000-day Kennedy Administration ended tragically.
Placed in historically accurate settings, filled with regal pomp and splendor, and costumes in colors that were fashionable at the time of its release, "Anne of the Thousand Days" enthralls a viewer with its story, and Anne's prediction of her daughter's glorious future in her abscence reminds us that destiny, even in the face of the scheming brutality of a powerful King, can be greater than any of us know.

Wonderful Performances! Warning: Spoilers
Now, if Henry VIII had looked like Richard Burton, it might have been a little more tempting to be his queen. Both Bujold and Burton are lovely onscreen whereas, their real life counterparts were not. But we can't very well have a Hollywood movie with plain looking leads can we? This a beautiful movie to watch, and both of the leads play their roles very well. The chemistry between them is electrifying and the roller coaster ride that was Henry and Anne's tempestuous relationship is well portrayed here. Yes, there are inaccuracies, but who cares? Once you get engrossed in this film, it won't matter. Bujold brings the fiery and cunning Anne Boleyn to life in a believable and honest way. She is not shy about exposing Anne's faults. Her jealousy, nagging, teasing, and enormous ambition are all laid bare here. And this just makes her human, a real person rather than a footnote in a history text. That is why it is all the more heartbreaking when the film reaches it's tragic end. The last scene shows a small Elizabeth, later to become Queen Elizabeth I, with a voice over by Bujold proclaiming that one day her daughter would be queen, and her blood "will have been well spent." It is a very touching end to a pleasing film.

Applause, applause - now please get this on DVD
A nicely done docudrama regarding the relationship between King Henry VIII of England and Anne Boleyn. Much of the filming was done on location, which adds to the " atmosphere. " Mr Burton played Henry as a strong, but majorly flawed person, as he should have. Ms Bujold was lovely, more than competent and held her own against some of the finest actors of that time. The story is as old as air, but with a twist - it really happened and it changed the course of England. How far would a man go to secure a son ? An heir ? This film lays it out beautifully and it is a eye feast and makes one want to learn more about the woman who helped bring about great social and religious change and also gave birth to one of Englands' most dynamic rulers, Queen Elizabeth I. It holds up very well.

A Wonderful Film
Just thought I would add my comments to those already here. As a small child before Hever Castle was open to the public I spent many happy holidays with friends who were in service to Lord and Lady Astor, and who lived in the Staff Quarters in the Tudor Village adjoining the Castle.

In the absence of Lord and Lady Astor the Castle and the Gardens were my playground - I had complete freedom to roam all over the Castle, and used to enjoy walkng His Lordship's dogs in the grounds.

When the film was released I was delighted to see the places I remembered so well. It's a fine film and I would recommend it to everyone

Movie Freak
A Sensible statement is worth repeating:

Another viewer stated:

PLEASE, September 2, 2003
Reviewer: A viewer from Dayton, Ohio United States
This is gonna be short and sweet. Loved the movie, it is one of my all time favorites. But would one of the studios please, please put THIS MOVIE ON DVD! I think it is about time. My tape is deteriorating fast and I won't buy it again unless it comes out on DVD. Thank you.

--------------

It's now, May 8, 2004, and I still look for this movie on DVD.

Now, I will add my two cents, and say; please, please, please! Put this movie on DVD! Genevieve Bujold was absolutely robbed of an Oscar for Best Actress in this film. When Ms. Bujold is delivering that final speech, you want to stand up and cheer for her as an outstanding actress. Those of us who love period epics have this one in our library, now we want it the way it ought to be seen, i.e., in widescreen, in all it's spectacular glory with all those wonderful words, costumes, lush settings, and incredible acting by an incredible cast. So what do you say? GIVE IT TO US ON DVD ALREADY! PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE. There, now I've begged enough. I feel much better now that I got that off my chest. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Ziad Doueiri established his credentials as the assistantcameraman on Quentin Tarantino's early films, but his feature debut,West Beirut, belongs to the more European strain ofcoming-of-age films than Tarantino's cool crime wave. Tarek is a rebelliousclass clown and aspiring filmmaker, a restless Lebanese teenager who railsagainst European colonialism with little acts of defiance at the FrenchHigh School of Beirut. It's 1975. Fighter jets ominously screamoverhead, soldier convoys rumble through the streets, and the tensionsthat grip the city explode when a violent terrorist attack sinks Beirutinto civil war.

Tarek, played by director Doueiri's younger brother Rami in a spirited,charming performance, becomes Ziad's cinematic alter ego and aspiritual cousin to François Truffaut's Antoine Doinel. When amilitary blockade splits the city in half, cutting Tarek and hisfriends off from their school, the war zone becomes their playground.Doueiri never slights the danger of their situation and fills thebackground with telling detail (from snipers and booby traps to theincreasing racial and religious intolerance), but his heart is with theadolescent adventure of his recklessly naïve kids. He captures anexcitement and energetic curiosity only possible in the innocence ofyouth as they dodge military patrols, sneak across checkpoints, shoottheir Super 8 movies, and fall in love in the shadow of war. FormerPolice drummer Stewart Copeland provides a funky rhythmic score with aMideast inflection, easily one of his best. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (23)

Funny and sad.
This is a great movie for anyone who has lived in Lebanon at the start of the civil war in 1975. The movie depictes the times and mood of Beirut in 1975 very well. The movie accurately depicts the Lebanese youth, their sense of humour, and unrelentless desire to live, and have fun. However this is a sad movie. This is a movie about war, people, and survival. The consequences that war has on the youth is also well depicted. Yes kids were happy that school was shut for a day, a week, a month at times, but the future was uncertain to them, their dreams were shattered, and they began to feel these consequences as the war progressed.

Pure Lebanon at time of war
This movie represents pure Lebanon at time of war. The anxiety of the parents, and the fun of the children. The way the movie is written is genuinely clever, it's not directly about the war, but it's about 2 guys from Muslim West Beirut that want to develop a porn movie in Christian East Beirut. The beauty is not about this small and trivial story, but the things that they got through while trying to get to East Beirut. Everything in there used to happen at times of war, like the behavior of the armed guys on the check point to East Beirut, and the hiding in the warehouses at time of bombing. Though the movie is presented in a comic way, you can't help but cry many times if you are a Lebanese, because it makes you remember the bad times. The acting of everyone is almost perfect, even though it's the first acting experience for most of them. The only bad thing about this movie is the translation to English. I highly recommend this movie for everyone who's interested in what really went on in Lebanon, and the true identity and personality of the Lebanese people.

Shrewd comdey
This movie is about the beginning of the civil war in beirut . The director did a great job portraying the life of teenagers , parents , and common people during this period. I had tears in my eyes while i was watching the movie... because i was laughing so hard. Ziad doueiri gathered a brilliant cast , that didnt need to act a role but rather paraphrase their lives in the movie. This movie is one the happiest dramas you can watch, and it will give you true insight on how it is to grow during wartime .

Innocense lost and real life sadness
This movie was amazing and when I watched it back in 1999, it really moved me. Eversince then I had begun to appreciate movies as forms of communication and not just hollywood entertainment. It was raw and real. As a Kiwi-Arab, I truly can relate to this, and recommend to all estranged Arabs as well as anyone interested in Arab society. i am only sad that I can't find anymore movies he had directed.

EXCELLENT - A MUST SEE!!!!!!!!!!!
Summary: EXCELLENT MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a WONDERFUL movie, it is a historical glimpse on Lebanon, 1975, through the eyes of a teenager. If (usually) U.S. citizens ask themselves "how can "those people" live in "those countries"? This is the perfect answer to it. When you have a LIFE, FRIENDS, FAMILY, when you don't believe that things can be changed, when life is LIKE THAT, you accept things that you cannot change.

The protagonist (EXCELLENT actor Rami Doueiri) goes through life as a happy go lucky teenager, used to living under such political changes, but untouched by them. In this movie of "coming of age", you can follow him in his seamless transition into adulthood: the realization of what life has became.

PLEASE DO NOT MISS THIS MOVIE - IT IS A MUST SEE - from any angle that you may want to look at it. You will gain different undertanding of things that you probably had before, if you are not a citizen from Lebanon, watch it and learn something. ... Read more

Reviews (291)

'The Rocky Horror Show' Movie
There is one reason why everyone should see "The Rocky Horror Picture Show": it is the best cult film ever made. There are also three reasons why everyone should want to watch it: 1) It is one of the only 'R' rated musicals in existence. 2) It has strong science-fiction overtones. 3) It is very funny. The movie starts Barry Bostwick and Susan Sarandon (before they were stars) as the recently engaged Brad and Janet. However, they are upstaged in nearly every scene by Tim Curry who plays Frank N. Furter, the mad doctor. The cast delightfully performs many memorable songs including "Over at the Frankenstein Place" and, of course, the "Time Warp". To fully enjoy RHPS, one must not be closed minded or the picture could prove to be quite offensive. Don't think it's gratuitously violent- it isn't. Merely, the situations the characters find themselves in could shock or appall overly sensitive viewers. If you think you won't enjoy RHPS, going to a midnight screening might be your best bet. The live audience participation will guarantee you a good time, despite your opinion of the actual film. So overall, RHPS is quite a good adaptation of Richard O'Brien's original concept, which always honors its roots on the stage.

DVD = Perfect format to truly experience "Rocky" at home
I loved going to "Rocky Horror" when I was in college, but watching on home video just wasn't the same. I'm probably committing heresy but there's a reason why this sci-fi, horror, B-movie satire, rock musical didn't really make it big until theaters started showing it as a midnight movie and fans started attending in costume and talking back to the screen. The 25th anniversary DVD, with several audience participation options, really is the next best thing to being there.

For the uninitiated, "Rocky Horror" tells the story of two clean-cut American youths, uptight Brad Majors (Barry Bostwick of "Spin City") and Janet Weiss (Susan Sarandon of "Dead Man Walking") whose car breaks down on a dark, deserted road in the middle of a storm--the classic beginning to many horror movies--and who seek help at a nearby castle. Castles, as Rocky fans know, don't have phones! What this castle has instead is a cross-dressing mad scientist Frank-N-Furter Tim Curry, in perhaps his finest performance), two very creepy servants, Riff-Raff (Richard O'Brien, who wrote the musical) and Magenta (Patricia Quinn), and various other hangers-on, including lovers Columbia (Little Nell) and biker Eddie (Meat Loaf). Brad and Janet walk in on a party celebrating the creation of Frank-N-Furter's muscle-bound boy-toy "Rocky." Bed-hopping chaos soon ensues, until the servants reveal their true identities and take control.

Punctuating this wacky plot are some of the wildest rock-musical songs ever written. In addition to the classic "Time Warp," there's O'Brien's salute to cult-classic B-movies, "Science Fiction Double Feature," Meat Loaf's "Hot Patootie," and Sarandon ode to sexual self-discovery, "Toucha Toucha Touch Me!"

So much for the "Rocky virgin" portion of the review... What makes the DVD so exceptional is the chance to experience "Rocky Horror" at home nearly like you would in the theater. The DVD has the option of turning on the audience screen comments as well as another option for viewing members of the Rocky Horror Fan Club performing select scenes before returning to the main movie. For those less familiar with audience participation, the DVD can prompt when to throw toast, toilet paper, rice, etc., light a match, put your newspaper on your head, etc.

The second disc contains fascinating interviews with cast members, where fans can find out about their reaction to starring in this cult classic. Meat Loaf's description of not realizing what "Rocky Horror" was going to be about and running out of the theater when Tim Curry entered wearing fishnet stockings, spiked heels, a merry widow, and a leather jacket and singing "Sweet Transvestite" is hysterical. Patricia Quinn talks about how her fondness for the opening song, "Science Fiction Double Feature" made her want to take the role even though she hadn't read the rest of the script. What? Don't remember Quinn singing that number? In the stage versions she did, but the song got reassigned in the film version--and Quinn makes her feelings about that QUITE clear. Sarandon makes the interesting observation that "Rocky Horror" probably kept a lot of art house theaters in business over the years, since they could count on good revenue from the midnight movie, even if the latest regular-hours offering flopped. In Bostwick's interview, however, the actor sounds a bit like William Shatner giving his anti-Trekkie diatribe on "Saturday Night Live."

The only disappointments on the DVD are that the outtakes really aren't that interesting and actor bios aren't provided. I would have liked to see what else the "minor" cast members did after Rocky, but that information is limited to a few lines in the companion booklet. Also, some of the audience-participation comments are nearly impossible to understand because fans are talking over each other. But then that's part of the modern-day theater experience. Even Sarandon noted in her interview that talking back to the screen has gone from the more unison catechism approach to a loud free-for-all.

What seemed so risqué and shocking a few decades ago seems much more innocent today, but it was great when it all began and it's still great! If you've never ventured into the theater to experience "Rocky Horror," this is the best way to experience it at home.

Mesmerizing film.
This is a very outrageous movie. The rock is the background to tell us a horror movie but also spiced with sex , ransvestism and above all a splendid tribute to the movies specially King Kong .
One couple strands in an old house full of weirdos . This movie (here between you and me)could have inspired for Tim Burton in Beetle juice .
In this decade there were great visuals films too . Sherman built a magnificent story absolutely free , intelligent and sarcastic, irreverent and bitter . You might state that Fellini's influence (dressed of english manners and clothes) is present all along the film .
Inmediatly after its release this one acquired the status of cult movie.

The original is still the best!
Don't bother with the play, or the music from the play. The original is still the best. Nobody can fill the shoes of Sarandon, Curry, etc. They originated the roles and have been associated with them for far too long for anyone else to come in try to change them so many years later and attempt to redo them. Stay with the best.

Those Gold Shorts!
Ahhhhh...Rocky had such a lovely outline showing in his gold lame shorts. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

This emotionally moving romantic drama was adapted by William Nicholson from his own acclaimed play, based upon the real-life romance (during the 1950s) between the British writer C.S. Lewis and a divorced American poet named Joy Gresham. Best known for writing The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, Lewis (Anthony Hopkins) is living comfortably as a respected Oxford don, his academic lifestyle a kind of shell protecting him from the emotional risk of love. Joy Gresham (Debra Winger) arrives at Oxford as an avid admirer of Lewis's writing, and the safety of his collegiate routine is quickly disrupted when Lewis realizes that he's fallen deeply and unexpectedly in love. Their courtship is uniquely engaging; he's shy and uncertain, she's outspoken and bold. But when Joy is diagnosed with cancer, Lewis's Christian faith is put to the test--he cannot fathom why their happiness together would be so drastically challenged. Together, they find a way to accept and honor the time they have shared together, and under the sensitive direction of Richard Attenborough, Shadowlands arrives at a conclusion that is both heartbreaking and uplifting at the same time. Hopkins and Winger are equally superb in this absorbing story of personal and spiritual transformation--a story previously filmed for British television in 1985, with Joss Ackland and Claire Bloom. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (85)

What Price Love?
This review refers to the DVD(HBO) edtion of "Shadowlands"...

With every viewing of this touching and true romance, I become more appreciative of what a fine film this is. Had I written a review after the first time I watched it, I probably would have gone 4 stars. The first time around, I really got to know C.S. Lewis and Joy Gresham thanks to the deep and moving performances of Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger. After that it was joy spending more time with them, really getting to know their story, and taking in the magnificent work of Director Richard Attenborough and the photography of Roger Pratt.

The story is a bittersweet tale of a mid-life romance that is all to short. C.S. Lewis, the famous writer of children's stories, lives the quiet life of a proper gentleman. He's a professor at Oxford,devout Christian,set in his ways, never married and is repsected by all that know him.When Joy Gresham a divorced, Jewish, Communist, brash New Yorker, with a young son enters his world,things as he knows them are about to change.They develop a friendship and soon she starts to melt the icy wall he has built up around his perfect world. To the shock of all those that know him well, Lewis finally lets his emotions be a part of his life. It is only when Joy becomes terminally ill with cancer, that he realizes the full depth of his love for this woman and her son, and must learn to deal with the pain as well.

I can't think of anyone else who could be C.S. Lewis. Hopkins is a virtuoso. One look at his eyes and we know the depth of his feelings. Winger is an impressive of a match for him as Gresham was for Lewis. She knows how to grab your heart and keep it("Terms of Endearment"). I must also mention the talented young Joseph Mazzello who turns in a remarkable performance as Douglas, Joy's son. William Nicholson has turned his stageplay into a beautiful screenplay, and the music by George Fenton flows with the story.

The DVD is a nice presentation in widescreen, that takes in the splendor of the scenery and sights of England. The tech info here states that the sound is in Dolby Dig 5.1. It is not.(This appears to be the only edtion) The sound is in DD2.0 Surround, and although the dialouge is a little low, the surround sound is very good. Special features include a "Behind the Scenes Featurette" and excerpts of interviews with the stars, the filmmakers and a now grown Douglas Gresham.

The story is a true love story.Five Stars for one that reminds us that to love and to be loved is worth the price of the pain it sometimes brings......enjoy....Laurie

Anthony Hopkins is the (almost) perfect CS Lewis
This is the story of CS Lewis's life--at least, his later life. Lewis, the brilliant intellectual, the revered Christian apologist, the man who seemed to have answers to everything, was living a calm and adequate life with his brother Warren. All of that changed when an American woman named Joy came along. Suddenly, Lewis (Jack, as he's called) finds he does NOT have the answers, and that there has been something missing from his life all along. This film is a story of the love that Lewis found, lost, and found again.

This movie is well-made, and very accurate as to the period and setting. Anthony Hopkins's performance is stunning--he seems to fit Lewis perfectly. I have always had a picture in my mind of how Lewis would look and behave, and Hopkins comes about as close to my mental image as is reasonably possible.

That having been said, Debra Winger's acting is absolutely horrid. Her accent is bad, her mannerisms are annoying, and she is simply not convincing in her role as Lewis's love. Also, I did not like that the movie ignored such great friends of Lewis's as Owen Barfield and JRR Tolkien (even if these men played a less significant part in his later life).

I would have liked to see these men, as well as others, in the movie, but was disappointed. Despite these shortcomings, however, Shadowlands is a pretty good representation of Lewis's life, and you can't beat Hopkins's brilliant acting when he plays the Oxford fellow. If you're a CS Lewis fan, this movie is worth seeing.

Is it about Lewis?
The movie was done well. The cast was magnificent. The scenes of the Oxford Campus were beautiful. The story drew me in. However, it did not present Lewis very well. First, it presents Lewis as being rather naive about suffering. He kept giving the same sermon over and over and implies that did not really understand suffering. This is not so. His mother died when he was very young. He was a soldier in World War 2. His close friend, Charles Williams, died around this period of his life. Second, the movie left the viewer with the impression that Lewis left his simple Christianity and grew into a better understanding of the world. He truly suffered when Joy died as the book, "A Grief Observed" describes beautifully, but he did not leave the faith.

I like the BBC version better. It is closer to the original play.

I recommend the movie, because it well done. However, I do not recommend the movie as a way to learn more about C. S. Lewis. It is a beautiful, fictional love story.

TIMELESS, INTENSE ROMANCE WITH LOADS OF OLD-FASHIONED VIRTUE
You should certainly see Joss Ackland's version of this film, which was a BBC production and hence true to the original play etc. Come to think of it, you may also want to read the original play itself by Hanff (which is on my wishlist but I have not yet read.)

Nonetheless, the thrilling chemistry between Debra Winger and Anthony Hopkins is very, very hard to resist and I wholeheartedly recommend this supposedly "Hollywood" version. It's ranks for me in the same genre as "The Remains of the Day" and "84 Charing Cross."

To begin with, how immaculate the casting is: Debra Winger plays an uninhibited and witty American poetess, while Anthony Hopkins plays a reclusive British middle-aged scholar at Oxford.

They meet over tea. She is in a withering marriage, but in her bull-in-a-china-shop American fashion, she arrives like a fresh wind to rock his musty ivory-tower existence.

As the film progresses, her crudeness (only exacerbated by Winger's awkward NY accent) is soon peeled away to reveal a heart of gold and a life-affirming sense of humor. For instance, while escorting her around Oxford, Hopkins haughtily says, "I do not really go in for seeing the sights." In response, she says, "So what do you do, walk around with your eyes shut?"

Such sprightly but tender moments evoke the screenplay's stirring underlying message -- pain is an inevitable ingredient of love. If you are looking for a somewhat weepy but always warm and wonderful romantic film, this is one of the best you'll find.

the hollywood-ized version of an interesting love story
When I discovered this movie was being made I was so excited. Unfortunately I spent most of my viewing time thinking, it didn't happen that way and WHERE IS HER OTHER KID?!?

But, if you know absolutely nothing about CS and Joy Lewis' life together and know nothing much about CS and Joy Lewis at all, you will enjoy this movie. It is a well-made, Hollywood love story. The acting is excellent and the storyline is compelling. Just keep in mind that this is NOT how it really happened and PLEASE go read for yourself the true story.

Oh, yeah, don't forget the Kleenex. It's a three box-er. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Originally made for TV in 1977, this in-depth (six hours plus) version of Jesus' life is so thorough that the first hour is devoted solely to the story of his birth. The film doesn't skimp on some of the other landmark events of this famous story either. Director Franco Zeffirelli gives more than 12 minutes screen time each to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.Passages of the Bible are quoted verbatim, the locations have a Palestine-like authenticity, and, aside from some of the principals (Robert Powell as Jesus, Olivia Hussey as Mary, and Stacy Keach as Barabbas), many of the non-Roman characters are actually played by Semitic-looking actors. Zeffirelli diligently provides the sociopolitical background that gave rise to Jesus' following and the crisis in belief it caused for the people of Israel (and one or two Romans). While not graphic by today's standards, some of the scenes--baby boys being ripped from their mothers' arms and slaughtered, nails being driven into Jesus' hands--may disturb young and/or sensitive children. --Kimberly Heinrichs ... Read more

Reviews (234)

Majestic version of Christ's life
Majestic and beautifully shot with strong performances all around, Jesus of Nazareth lacks the overblown almost operatic production touches of Nickolas Ray's "King of Kings" but still manages to retain a sense of the importance of the subject through subtle, nicely wrought character touches.

Although not completely faithful to the New Testament, director Franco Zefferelli embellishes in such a way as to make the story more dramatically compelling and interesting. The performers particularly Robert Powell in the central role all give strong, interesting performances. Powell's characterization is less bland than many of the other versions we've seen and, as such, makes the Christ come alive much more so for the modern viewer.

"Jesus of Nazareth" makes a fine companion piece to Mel Gibson's controversial "The Passion of the Christ" focusing on different elements. The big difference between the two films, though, is the level of explicit onscreen violence. Zefferelli's film still shows what happens but with a more subdued touch (due to the constraints of network television censors as it was originally produced for NBC).

Both films in their own ways tell what could be termed essential variations on the same great story. Their contrasting styles make each suitable to very different audiences.

A MUST-HAVE FOR EVERY BELIEVER!
It is inconceivable that on Amazon there are only 90 reviewers for Franco Zeffirelli's masterful and inspiring masterpiece as opposed to over 2000 for "The Matrix," a less-than-monumental piece of fluff from 1999.

"Jesus of Nazareth" sports a cast of Academy Award-winners (Lawrence Olivier, Anne Bancroft, Ernest Borgnine, and Peter Ustinov, to name a few) and nominees (James Earl Jones, James Mason, Christopher Plummer) as well as a support from an international group of performers. Olivia Hussey brings just the amount of warmth and humanity in the role of Mary; Rod Steiger deftly portrays Pontius Pilate as a man torn between duty to his country and awe of this man called Jesus; Michael York is stunning as John the Baptist.

Robert Powell brings to the movie the definitive portrait of Jesus. His passionate performance is the stuff of legend. Prior to this motion picture, there had been few instances wherein Christ had been seen; it is as if the screen was awaiting the right man for the part. Powell proves that to be true; he is perfect!

If I have motivated even one soul to purchase this masterwork, then I have accomplished the goal of this review. Money could not be better spent.

Jesus Christ Never Existed.
'Jesus of Nazareth' is a famous film some people have seen or at least heard about. Most people fail to realize all of that doesn't matter because Jesus Christ never existed!! Jesus Christ is a mythological figure the church has exploited for hundreds of years and now the film industry has for almost a hundred years. There is absolutely no archeological or historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Even if he did exist, it would be highly unlikely he would have received that kind of punishment.
It is a shame that con artists like these filmmakers are using this mythological figure to make millions of dollars. People have to start swaying away from the manipulations of the church and the filmmaking industry and start looking at the hard facts. Jesus Christ and his crucifixion never happened.

Realistic interpretation
Each movie of the life of Jesus is subject to the creator's interpretation and perspective, however, I found this movie to be the best depiction of the humanity of the individuals involved in experiencing Jesus' mission. It is respectable and not corny. The only thing my father (a priest) found odd was the way the Virgin Mary was wailing at the foot of Christ's cross. He felt she would have displayed quiet resignation.
It's beautiful and the score is fantastic. I've watched this movie a million times and watch it when I need some spiritual renewal.

Jesus of Nazareth Music
I watched on the first for the first time yesterday the DVD movie Jesus of Nazareth on my computer. All of my some previous negative emotions of the film were replaced with honest love. Good pc equipment will enhance your feelings. I spent the day watching the complete movie. I played 'ALL' the correct songs to the movie. You need to play some songs to comprehend the true concept of the movie. The songs do not waver true Christian beliefs. I played near 20 original concept songs. If you're looking for love about faith then this is the movie for you. ... Read more

Reviews (138)

Brutally Honest!
City of God is certainly one of the most exceptional foreign language films in movie history! The movie excels in every level. The captivating camera shots make a truly fascinating cinematography. Editing was brilliantly done with some Pulp Fiction influence added into it. No single actor's performance particulary outshine the most, but the ensemble performance, from the street kids to the crime masterminds, is remarkably convincing! The screenwriter made the story so suspenseful, bold and daring, that you would not want to miss a single scene. And the truly best aspect of the movie is its ingenious filmmaking. Watch out for the "apartment scene" where the genius director shows how one small apartment drastically transforms as its inahabitants change through the years.

I would not recommend the film though to people with a weak stomach. I must admit that watching this film was pretty difficult to me because i have no experience of residing in the slums or what other people calls "the ghetto." Everything might come extremely shocking if you are not aware of the reality drug trades and gang wars. There are very graphic violent scenes so watch it at your own risk.

I would recommend it though to people who wants to see something honest, bold and dare. It is one of the, or probably the, most brutally honest film you will ever see! What this film achieved is boldness, directness, and honest filmmaking at its finest!

City of God will blow your mind away
After you finish viewing 'City of God' you are left wondering about the irony of the title. It is not long in the movie where you realize that the City of God is a place totally forgotten by everybody. Still, that is the name that the government of Brazil gave to the housing developments outside Rio, constructed in the early '60s to hold thousands of people. Those slums, known as "the favelas", eventually led to the isolation of poor people from the city center, becoming a place where music, life and colour can be sensed in the air, but at the same time the law is absent and the violent gangs rule the streets.

The story of 'City of God' is based on a book written in a period of 9 years by Paolo Lins, a man who grew up in the favelas and managed to escape. In it, he describes his experiences regarding the creation and the rise of the gangs that control the drug dealing business.

Fernando Meirelles, who started as a director for TV commercials, transforms this complex and demanding material (the book includes more than 200 characters), into a breathtaking, terrifying film that is visually stunning (among others, it includes extensive use of hand-held cameras, flashbacks to introduce the different characters, fast cuts and distinct colours to distinguish the '60s from the '70s, where all the action takes place) and at the same time, shockingly violent: The rate of deaths is so high while the age of the victims so small. 7-year old boys look for guns before they are even able to go to school, and to make things even worse, use them against each other without any hesitation. The gangs provide them with status, power and recognition, replacing importance social structures such as the family.

'City of God' is a film that will blow your mind away; it will certainly trouble you and probably make you feel a bit ashamed and guilty about the things that actually happen around the world, without us doing or knowing anything about. It is certainly refreshing to see occasional moments of humour intervene with its otherwise grim and serious nature. In any case, it is one of the most powerful motion pictures of the current year.

A Frightening, yet Uplifting Masterpiece
City of God is disturbing. It gave me chills seeing coked up juvenile kids putting bullets through other kids' heads, and a ghetto neighorhood which offers no hope whatsoever to any of its occupants. The cinematogrophy is lush, the story, told by a famous photogropher, "Rocket" Rodrigues, is layered and candid. The acting is frightengly excellent, and it contains many scenes which will remain sketched on your brain (unless you grew up there, maybe). An emotional rollercoaster ride, City of God succeeds in transporting the viewer to probably one of the worst areas that has ever existed on this planet, and making us not want to leave.
Bravo!

Tragic Side Of A Great People
For those who think Rio isn't any worse than the likes of LA or any other US city,watch the DVD extra.Apart from that,Rio's murder rate in 1992 according to two reliable sources was 86 per 100,000 - a massive murder rate for a city of ten million(far more striking than Washington D.C. which was 80 per 100,000 in a city of 500,000).What that says is that Rio's worst parts dwarf D.C. or anywhere else in the states.There were some misleading claims in the film and DVD though, such as organized criminality(we are clearly dealing with common criminals here)and Rio being the most dangerous gangland on earth(possibly San Pedro Sula,Honduras and early 90's Bogota,Colombia - CERTAINLY Medellin - also Colombia,have worse areas). The thing that stood out from the film for me was the harrowing scene with the main gang cornering the two little kids - shocking and realistic.Rio is really like this and people need to see the staggering levels of common gang violence in Rio and throughout Latin America(more coverage of the problem in Colombia,Honduras and El Salvador would be welcome).To end I would like to pay tribute to the Brazilian people,they have to be some of the nicest people in the world yet put up with seriously dangerous situations.I have nothing but respect for their bravery.

The Documentary Included on the DVD is just as good
This movie is excellent, in every way. What is so good about this DVD is that it comes with a documentary in the special features that is one of the best I've ever seen. Well worth the money. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Terry George, the cowriter ofIn the Name of the Father, wrote and directed this 1996 drama based on actual events from 1981, when Irish Republican Army prisoners in Belfast's Maze Prison staged a hunger strike to protest against British prime minister Margaret Thatcher's political policies. Led by IRA prisoner Bobby Sands, the hunger strike eventually lead to the deaths of 10 prisoners, who had refused to wear prison uniforms to emphasize their identity as political (and not criminal) prisoners. But this fictionalized account is not about the hunger strikers as much as the moral dilemma faced by two of the strikers' mothers, played by Helen Mirren and Fionnula Flanagan in an emotional drama that gets right to the heart of the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland. While Annie (Flanagan) understands her son's political motivations and supports his readiness to die, Kathleen (Mirren) is a pacifist who cannot comprehend how any mother could sacrifice her own son to a political principle. The women become friends despite their opposing views, and desperately hope for a compromise in Irish-British negotiations while the hunger strikers continue to wither away. By keeping the Northern Irish conflict on such a purely personal level, Some Mother's Son both clarifies and complicates the difficult issues involved, making clear arguments for both mothers' actions in the context of a milestone event in Northern Ireland's history. The film doesn't pretend to hide its anti-British position, but the cause of death on both sides is deeply acknowledged. Through Helen Mirren's richly layered performance, Some Mother's Son asks if any belief is truly worth dying for, and poses the question on powerfully personal terms.--Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Where would Ireland be without her strong Celtic women?
Despite the background drama of Irishmen in prison who are starving themselves to prove a point....the women (mothers) in the foreground display the greatest courage. Helen and Fionula are brilliant in their somewhat contrasting personalities. As an Irish-American, I am still amazed by the strength of Irish women.

Sad but true.
"Some Mother's Son" is yet another in a long list of films dealing with the strife in Ireland. This film is a thought provoking look into the world of the Irish Hunger Strike. Based around the activities of two IRA members who get captured and jailed. They fight for PoW status and begin a hunger strike to win support. One of the strikers (Bobby Sands) is elected to the British Parliament and their hopes are raised only to be dashed by Maggie Thatcher.

If you are into political, humanitarian or real life films, this film is for you.

SOME MOTHER'S SON
A brilliant, provacative film. Very strong performances by Fionnula Flanagan and Helen Mirren.

Some Mothers Son - The Truth Will Out.
I have watched this video several times. Everytime I see it, this movie has a different impact on me. Each time, it leaves a different mark. Cannot stress how important non-fictional stories are! The truth needs to be told, and told it was!

A powerful movie, as it should be! A brilliant movie! A must see!

Caveat emptor: a good, if obivously slanted, film
I like films about political conflict. I find that they stir my conscience and stimulate my critical thinking skills. I particularly like films about political conflicts on which I have little background because they spark my desire to know the truth. This is my reason for focusing on films on the Northern Ireland conflict.

My great-grandfather lived and worked in Belfast when he was my age, so, as a way to learn a little about him, I sometimes seek out books and films and websites related to his hometown. What I usually come up with is an interesting mix of news, views and propaganda. I was taught in a persuasive speaking class that grabbing ahold of people's emotions is an excellent way to persuade them to endorse your beliefs.

'Some Mother's Son' could serve just that purpose if not balanced out with some objective information. To look at this film as a representation of said conflict is flawed; it only tells one side of the story, but it is told very, very well. The 1981 hunger strike could stand as one of Margaret Thatcher's biggest blunders, policy-wise. It also stands as one of the IRA's greatest public-image triumphs to this day, and this film plays up the latter very well with good acting, a believable story line and good cinematography.

This is a very insightful film. It is also very balanced in how it discerns Kathleen Quigley from her son Gerard and those two from the Higgins family. But where 'Some Mother's Son' fails is in the distribution of blame. While Westminster certainly dug its own hole, the IRA did its part as well. It played on the emotions of watching a minor Republican, Bobby Sands, wither away in prison and used the resulting emotional tidal wave to indoctrinate onlookers to its anti-British view, which is rooted partially in truth and partially in myth. This film, without a grain of salt, is perfect IRA propaganda and needs a supplement of objective information to educate viewers naieve to Northern Irish politics as to its proper context.

So, sit back and watch and weep and learn all you like. Just don't take this as gospel truth, because it only tells one side of one story. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Marcello at his best!
This is a heart-wrenching but beautiful film about a lonely but hopeful Sicilian pensioner who happily chats to his long-deceased wife and thinks his five adult children, who have moved to live separate lives in the mainland, are all huge successes. When his children disappoint him by not agreeing to a family reunion beach-side holiday in Sicily, he packs his bag and boards a train to go visit each of them, for the very first time. As he travels to Naples, Rome, and Milan, trying to surprise each child with his visit, he is the one surprised to find that as the film's ironic title suggest "Everybody is not Fine". Despite the bittersweet realities Matteo Scuro is faced with, the film has much humour and the character of Matteo, charmingly played by the legendary Marcello Mastroianni, is totally enchanting. Entertaining film that will make you think about life, about our expectations of those we love, and about what's really important.

wonderful movie
Very good movie! Quite moving, done with good humour. Highly recommended.

Wonderful, moving, intelligent!
This English-subtitled Italian film is the perfect film to entertain the whole family, except for perhaps younger children. In this film, you will feel pain, joy, wonder, and a feeling somewhere in-between as you travel with an elderly and charming Sicilian man from Sicily to the mainland. You will understand a bit more clearly the Sicilian family system and how it plays out- the importance placed upon extraordinarily close family relationships and honour within the family unit. This film will remind you of your Sicilian grandparents and refresh your appreciation for a simpler, more beautiful life.

another Mastroianni hit
A touching story of an elderly man who goes on an excursion to visit his five grown children. It is a touching story of a man slowly losing touch with reality and slipping back into the past. The more he finds that his children are not quite telling him the truth about their lives, the more his memories darken and become more sinister. It is a touching yet disturbing tale that keeps you guessing about not only the true lives of the children, but whether or not the father can handle that truth. ... Read more

Amazon.com

In this classic 1963 adaptation of William Golding's novel, a planeload of schoolboys is stranded on a tropical island. They've got food and water; all that's left is to peacefully govern themselves until they're rescued. "After all," says choir leader Jack, "We're English. We're the best in the world at everything!" Unfortunately, living peacefully is not as easy as it seems. Though Ralph is named chief, Jack and the choristers quickly form a clique of their own, using the ever-effective political promise of fun rather than responsibility to draw converts. Director Peter Brook draws some excellent performances out of his young cast; the moment when Ralph realizes that even if he blows the conch for a meeting people might not come is an excruciating one. Well acted and faithfully executed, Lord of the Flies is as compelling today as when first released. --Ali Davis ... Read more

Reviews (50)

A Bit Rushed, A Few Omissions, But Overall Very Good
"The Lord of the Flies" tells the tale of a group of English schoolboys stranded on a tropical island, with no adults, after a plane crash, while war rages on worldwide. The boys, ages 5 or 6 through 12 or 13, have food, water, and a pleasant climate. Their only challenges are to fight boredom and stay civilized until they are rescued.

I saw this videotape for the first time only a few weeks after reading the book for the first time. To me, the film was a little rushed, and there were a few important omissions, but it was still quite faithful to the brilliantly disturbing novel. The picture quality was a bit grainy, and the dialogue of a few of the child actors was a bit stilted at times, but Jack, Ralph, Piggy, and Simon were portrayed very well. The dialogue is hard to hear at times, against the sounds of surf and jungle, but I wonder if that was intentional and symbolic (i.e., the words of civilization struggling to rise above the roar of primitive Nature).

The important omissions were: Ralph's gradually increasing difficulty with thinking things through and needing more and more help from Piggy; Ralph's encounter with "The Lord of the Flies" in his mad dash for survival; the disappearance of the never-named boy with the birthmark, in the very beginning, which, in the novel, set off the fears and wild imaginings of the boys. The whole movie had a rushed pace to it, as if the producer and/or director had been given a tight budget.

Overall, I found this to be a good rendering of an excellent novel. I have never seen the remake, but have heard it's shallower.

Are we humans really THAT bad???
This movie is a very skillful presentation of William Golding's eponymous, timeless sociological horror story. A group of boys ranging from around 6 to, I would guesstimate, 14 or 15, are stranded on a desert island. Unfortunately for the boys, the general spirit of their story parts ways with the spirit of "Gilligan's Island" immediately, and they end up deteriorating into tribal, superstitious savages, rent with internecine strife, in a matter of (evidently) weeks.

Any viewer out there who plans to see this movie should absolutely make an effort to read the book. You could possibly see the movie first, if you digest storylines more easily through movies than books. But whatever order you carry out the two activities in, you must see the movie AND read the book, if you want a full understanding of what the director was doing here.

Here are a few good things to notice. First of all, you should be aware that this film was shot mostly on the islet of Vieques, off the coast of Puerto Rico. It's hard to believe that this is true, because it's just so perfect -- Vieques is the island where the U.S. Navy practices bombing these days, and protesters against war have been getting into all kinds of clashes with the authorities the past few months (spring and summer of 2001). Maybe "Lord of the Flies" was more prophetic than the director, actors and writers ever even realized.

A second thing to notice is the song that is constantly playing, throughout most of the movie. The song is "Kyrie Eleison." At first Jack's choir sings it, and then it sort of becomes general background music. If you happen not to be particularly into going to church, let me just clue you in that "kyrie eleison" is Greek for "Lord have mercy," which I think you'll agree is a chillingly apt refrain for this relentlessly dark movie.

A third good thing to notice is the little boy, who progressively loses his memory of his own identity, over the course of the film. At first, he automatically recites his full name, address and phone number to any stranger he meets, as he was apparently taught to do by his parents. Midway through the film, he can remember only his name, and part of his address. By the end, not to spoil the ending by giving too much away, he cannot even recollect his name. "How quickly," one envisions William Golding bemoaning, "we forget!"

But I'm just pointing out a few minor things to notice. The basic theme is obviously the clash between savagery and civilization, and the tendency for things to fall apart, for the center not to hold... George Washington himself used to say that the job of government has to do with Fear -- instilling it in possible malefactors, in enemies of the state, even in respected members of the community, just to keep everyone in line. This movie makes you think about what might happen if that force were removed from society as a whole. If the function of art is to raise awareness of painful truths, as this movie does, then the individual must be sure to bring things other than art into their lives, in order to raise awareness of kinder truths which are no less valid, no less serious, and no less important for being kind. That's what I think anyway.

This is an interesting movie, and it will really make you think. Two thumbs up.

a disturbing film.
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.

This film, based on William Godling's novel, is a film that many will find disturbing.

Having not read the book, I am uncertain if the film is close to the book or not, but I have heard people say both. The story is about some schoolboys who become stranded on an island after a plane crash. They later, (with no adult presence) start regressing to a savage state and do not remain civilized.

The film itself also has nudity which I am surprised the censors let pass given the time period in which the film was made. Even by today's standards, some may question the legality of nudity involving children. Since the nudity is clearly non-sexual it is legal, but still will offend some people.

There are numerous special features which are as follows.

Full length audio comentary by the director Peter Brook, producer Lewis Allen, director of photography Tom Hollyman, camera operator and editor Gerald Feil.

Theatrical trailer with and without audio commentary about a major problem that almost happened at the film's premire.

Deleted scene with and without commentary and a reading by author, William Golding.

Excerpts from the novel read by the author William Golding.
Screen tests and outtakes.

Scenes from a documentary about director Peter Brook's theatrical techniques.

Very bad adaptation.
Some books should not be attempted as movies, this clearly is one of them. If you just watch the film instead of reading Golding's story, you'll be missing out on much of the wonderful symbolism, the character development and most bizarre of all, the actual Lord Of The Flies itself. It would seem logical that some of the more disturbing parts of the book would be minimized on screen but the amount of this story that was neglected to turn this tragic tale into a film is criminal, might as well be a different story. Not recommended at all.

Peter Brook's 1963 version of William Golding's novel
The 1963 version of "Lord of the Flies" was made on an island off of Puerto Rico by director Peter Brook with a cast made up on the sons of English parents that could be found on the island and in the United States. Only one of the children playing a major character, James Aubrey, who played Ralph, ever made another movie (although Nicholas Hammond, who played Robert, would have a real career in films and television). This becomes a key factor in the film because we are not dealing with child actors, which usually works for the film, but not always. But the more telling factor is that this film is only 92 minutes long, which meant some key elements from William Golding's celebrated novel are omitted. Ultimately, your feelings for this film are going to depend on your familiarity with the novel.

Brooks creates an effective prologue consisting of a series of stills that set up the key elements of the situation: a boys school, a war, an evacuation, and a plane going down near enough to an island for a group of boys to survive. They find themselves on the island without any adults. Ralph (James Aubrey) argues that there have to be rules, while Jack (Tom Chapin), the leader of the choir (he can hit high C) thinks he should be in charge. If Ralph represents civilization while Jack is hearing the call of the wild, then it is Piggy (Hugh Edwards) who represents human intelligence. But in the inevitable shift in power that goes from Ralph to Jack as the children devolve into savages, it is Piggy who becomes the pivotal victim.

What is sacrificed in the film are the two characters who occupy the next level of significance in the novel, Roger (Roger Elwin) and Simon (Tom Gaman), and while that choice is understandable it is what keeps this from being a great adaptation. Still, you cannot fault Brook for reducing the novel to the pivotal triad and the essence of Golding's novel is here if not the depth and rich symbolism. But even as we marvel at the performances that Brook coaxes from his young actors, and the cinematography by Tom Hollyman (who had been a still photographer before this film), we really do have to remember that it is 1963 and the idea of depicting the horrors of this novel on the screen was a risky endeavor. The fact that the novel is allegorical (i.e., Brooks is probably right in claiming on the basis of his filming experience that in the real world the boys would not have lasted a week) would not be enough to temper the reactions of audiences to little boys killing one another in the wild.

This Criterion Collection edition has the usually goodies, although instead of a scholarly commentary track this time it consists of reminiscences by Brook, producer Lewis Allen, director of photography Tom Hollyman and cameraman/editor Gerald Feil. As such tracks go it is certainly above average, but I have to admit that I enjoy the academic approach usually found on Criterion's DVDs. There are also excerpts from the novel read by Golding that are interesting, although obviously not insightful (the excerpts are keyed to the same scenes in the movie). There is also a clip from Gerald Feil's documentary "The Empty Space" showing Brook's method of creating theater, a production scrapbook, outtakes, home movies, a deleted scene, and the original theatrical trailer ... Read more

Amazon.com

Micky O'Neill (Adrian Dunbar) is a born salesman. As the booker of the local theater/dance hall, he is famous for hiring almost-celebrities like Franc Cinatra. When he is unable to tell his girlfriend (the beautiful Tara Fitzgerald) that he loves her, in so many words, she storms out of their bedroom. In order to win her back--and curry favor with her mother, not to mention keep his job--he decides to book famous tenor Joe Locke, who's wanted by the government for tax reasons and hasn't performed in decades. So begins Micky's quest to find the reclusive singer--and himself. The movie is so enthusiastically cheerful, it wins you over early on with its good-natured energy, and then never lets up. Hear My Song is like a rural British version of The Blues Brothers, with a tenor instead of a blues band, minus a whole lotta car wrecks, but a final performance surrounded by police. Really, how can you argue with that? --Andy Spletzer ... Read more

Reviews (15)

Wow!! Maltin agrees with me!!
Hear My Song's plot has features loosely based on the true career of the Irish singer, tenor Josef Locke. Jo Locke is Irish (yes, IS), but is not the diddly diddly Irish Rovers type. His career filled music halls and ornate Victorian pubs and seaside resorts, and as one of Mickey O'Neill's staff says "There won't be a dry seat in the house." There are still websites devoted to the man and his music. This is a well-crafted movie, with great photography, and a lush soundtrack filled with Jo Locke ballads(sung by Vernon Midgely) and more traditional tunes by Patrick Street. Ned Beatty gives a nicely subdued performance, his lipsynching of Locke's(Midgely) music is well done, and unlike most American actors, his "Irish" accent comes across well. Adrian Dunbar is a gem as impresario Mickey O'Neill, Tara Fitzgerald is very fetching as Nancy, Mickey's love interest, and one of my favorites, James Nesbitt, is Mickey O'Neill's oldest friend, Fintan. Normally, I'd love to see Tara Fitzgerald naked, but the one scene here is out of place. That is one of two bones I'll pick with Hear My Song. The other is that in the credits, roles are listed for "Young Mickey", "Young Fintan", and "Mickey's Mum". These roles never crossed the Atlantic, because there are no scenes with these characters. (Since I originally posted this review, I went to Britain & picked up a copy of Hear My Song in PAL format on EbayUK. The omitted part deals with Mickey, Mickey's Mum, & Mickey's problems with love. A tiny piece that probably cost more to delete than to keep in) More's the pity, because whenever Hear My Song ends, I wish it were just a wee bit longer, like a pint of Guinness that's a few drams short. I can hardly wait for it to be released on DVD here in the colonies.

ATouch of Irish Charm
I had seen this film once and knew I had to have it. It has a charm and wit that goes with the Irish who dominate this picture. Ned Beatty is delightful, as is the rest of the cast. The end may strain one's credulity a little, but it's what we all wanted. Why Adrian Dunbar hasn't done more in pictures is a mystery to me. And, Tara Fitzgerald is fey throughout the movie.

Right On!
We all fall in line for love . . . it even brings the infamous Joe Locke back to England. A happy little low budget diversion that proves a good time doesn't require fancy sets or glamourous stars. The parts those two assistants play are the least physically attractive but the warmest in the movie.

'I WAS BORN IN PEACETIME...
...I haven't seen what you've seen...' So begins the oft-given speech by one Micky O'Neill (Adrian Dunbar) - not too bad a bloke, but a little short on sincerity, and having a very difficult time making his way in the world without occasionally scamming nearly everyone with whom he comes into contact. Micky is a theatre manager - and he's hanging on by his fingernails to a seedy-but-polished venue in an Irish neighborhood in a large UK city (Liverpool, I'm guessing). He has had one too many performer bail on him at the last minute, and the Ryans - the family of elderly women who own the building - are losing patience with him. To make matters worse, he has a VERY hard time saying the words 'I love you' to his gorgeous sweetheart, Nancy Doyle (portrayed by the stunning Tara Fitzgerald). Threatened with eviction by the Ryans - who aren't buying anymore of his BS - he books one Josef Locke, an Irish tenor who '...when he sings, women weep'. Locke is, unfortunately, a fugitive from Her Majesty's Tax Inspectors - he fled the UK in a bit of a hurry some 25 years previously, after having a fling with the newly-crowned Miss Dairy Goodness, who, to make matters worse (if that's possible) for Micky, just happens to be Nancy's mum. Deeper into misfortune sinks Micky - the Josef Locke he books turns out to be a fake. Not only does he break Kathleen's heart all over again, he's found out by the general populace. A near riot ensues, with people demanding their money back - and the Ryans evict Micky from the building. So far he's lost all of his money, his business, many of his friends and the girl he loves. If this is starting to sound like the things that a wonderful Irish comedy (albeit partially set in the UK) is made of, you're right.

Micky hies back to Ireland, hooking up with old pal - and theatrical agent in better standing than himself - Fintan O'Donnell, wonderfully portrayed by James Nesbitt (check out another great performance by this fellow as 'Pig' Finn in WAKING NED DIVINE). The two buddies travel off in search of the REAL Josef Locke (played excellently by Ned Beatty [and NO, he doesn't sing his own parts...]) - Micky is sure that if he can find him and tell him his story, he can convince him to come back to the UK and play the gig for him. It's the only way he can think of to right all of the wrongs he has committed, and to win back the heart of the girl he loves.

There are schtick Irish gags a-plenty in this film - but thanks to the fine acting by all concerned, and the gently funny script (by director Chelsom and actor Dunbar), it comes off very nicely indeed. It's not Shakespeare, but it'll make you laugh out loud, and feel good at the end to boot. Yeah - it's a little corny in places, but that's more than OK. I'd recommend this for the whole family, but there's a brief scene of nudity (just a few seconds, but probably not for the kiddies) - I'll say save this one for the adults who enjoy Irish humor. Too bad it's not available on DVD.

Bloody Marvelous!
You will beleive that women wept when Jo sang. ... Read more

Description

Joseph Conrad's sprawling masterpiece of the quest for dominion over a backward South American country comes to life in this spectacular production.Featuring an all-star cast. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Archimedes Succeeds
When Archimedes declared that he could lift the earth with a long enough lever,the extent of his endeavors became readily apparent. Joseph Conrad in "Nostromo" attempted much more using the lever of language.He created his own universe with the finest prose that has ever been written.

The BBC attempted not much less converting this perhaps best ever work of literature into film. I congratulate them first for their enormous courage, their incredible endurance, and for their excellent production. After having tried to read this wonderful literary work most of my life, how wonderful it was to relax and through the medium of film have it revealed.

I could criticize this work, but it would be like critizing the dragon for having too many scales, or the elephant for its ugly
trunk. That this work was even finished deserves immense praise. That it succeeds as great entertainment to modest
moviegoers like me, implies that it deserves some critical acclaim. "Nostromo" as a work of literature will last as long as mankind, and I suspect that this movie will too. I am truly thankful for those bold ones so full of love that they were willing to hand us their lives through their work that we might have a blueprint for tomorrow. Their stories are every bit as interesting as the stories they wrote and rendered into film.

Fine, Except for Two Huge Flaws
One of the great shames of Cinema history is that David Lean died while working on bringing Nostromo to the big screen. He was the perfect man for the assignment, given his track record for bringing larger than life stories to audiences around the world. This effort, while commendable on several fronts, lacks the vision and scope that Lean would no doubt have brought to the endeavor.

The usual BBC miniseries apparata are at play here: solid cinematography, script, editing, directing, etc. The problem lies directly in the lap of the casting director (and the Producers, who have the final say in such matters). Two more incompetent actors could not have been conjured up for the crucial roles of Martin Decoud and Antonia Avellanos. I've spent a good part of my life involved in theater, and put simply, Lothaire Bluteau and Ruth Gabriel shouldn't be allowed a job in the most nondescript summer stock company in Amazonian Brazil. They are so inept and so miscast that they bring down the foundations of all scenerey, lighting, etc in their radii. They lack all acting skills. Sans elocution. Sans characterization. Sans any emotion faintly resembling human.

Too bad, because they really do blot out what could have been an absorbing miniseries. Even though Albert Finney is basically reprieving his Geoffrey Firman part in UNDER THE VOLCANO, he is still fun to watch. Claudio Amendola (notice you've never heard of these people?) is a passable Nostromo, though the part demanded a more dimensional, star quality actor. Joachim de Almeida chews the scenery as the nefarious Colonel Sotillo. Colin Firth does a commendable job as Charles Gould, though Serena Scott Thomas as Mrs Gould is another wrong person in a wrong role. A young Julie Christie is what is called for. Serena doesn't have the chops.

It looks indeed like the budget for this series was spent on location work and cinematography. If they'd done the thing on a soundstage in Warwick and spent a bit more on hiring a quality cast, it might have ended up as a worthy representation of Conrad's masterpiece. As it stands, I would imagine that David Lean is rolling over in his grave, every time this less than spectacular attempt is viewed.

BEK

"I will go to any lengths to succeed."
This 5 hour long BBC production of the Conrad novel is set on the South American republic of Costaguana at the end of Nineteenth Century. Costaguana boasts a once productive silver mine, but the republic's troubled political past includes a bloody anti-foreigner phase which resulted in the mine's closure. Now, murdered mine-owner's son, Charles Gould, returns to Costaguana to put the mine back in production. Of course, it is clear that in returning, Gould's determination--while ostensibly driven by the desire for silver--is also fueled by a sense of finishing his father's mission.

Gould (Colin Firth) arrives with his naive new bride, Emilia (Serena Scott Thomas), and for a while, the political climate is one of optimism. The small country is run by a benevolent, democratic governor, and soon Gould's mine is back in full operation with railroads shipping the silver from the mine to the port of Sulaco. However, the political largesse does not last, and before long, numerous factions all want a share of the silver. Everyone demands their tribute--the local bandits, a local priest, various corrupt officials--they all want a share of the silver. After a bloody coup, various factions vie for possession of the mine, and military officers and civilians alike change sides whenever the political winds seem to favour one side over another.

There is a benefit to watching the film "Nostromo" before reading the book--I came to the film with no visual expectations of the characters whatsoever. There are many 'big' names in the cast list. Colin Firth was simply marvelous as the mine owner, Charles Gould, and Brian Dennehy plays a small role as the American Joshua C.Holroyd (the man who finances the entire venture). Claudia Cardinale plays Teresa Voila--the Italian wife of an Innkeeper. Albert Finney plays Dr Monygham-a crippled drunk who managed to survive the last revolution only to face another. I preferred the scenes with Albert Finney sober--or almost so--it's just boring to watch Finney playing yet another role of a drunk.

I found the on-screen romance between Martin Decoud and Antonia Avellanos completely unbelievable. There was no spark between them, and yet we were supposed to believe that Martin returned from France to almost certain death for his love of Antonia. All I saw was a few hysterics, and it all fell flat. This was unfortunate and it did alter my perception of the film overall. Some of the revolution scenes were a bit cheesy too. One of the most interesting aspects of the film, however, was the development of some of the characters over time. Charles Gould wavers when making decisions in the beginning of the story, and he seems just a little unsure of himself, but by the end of the film, Gould has hardened into the ultimate capitalist. Emilia Gould is a giddy bride who metamorphoses into a neglected, unhappy wife. Moynham's character is fascinating. He has no illusions--no faith left, but he still rustles up chivalrous feelings towards Emilia Gould, and she uses these to her advantage. Nostromo is the 'dark horse' in the story. It is not clear at first what motivates him. He seems to be owned by no one--a true free spirit, and not subject to the corrupting desire for silver. Nostromo, in fact, refuses to leave the service of Capt. Mitchell for higher pay from the American Holroyd, and Nostromo boldly states, "you can't buy me." Exactly what characteristics make Nostromo tick--ego, vanity, and pride--develop over time. And it is the story here that makes the film worth watching. All throughout the film--right until the powerful closing scene, I heard the words 'money is the root of all evil' in my head. This production does not have quite the usual standard that I have come to expect from the BBC. While the lush location added to the atmosphere of the story, somehow the film had the feel of a prime time television series. Nonetheless, I was still extremely interested in how the story and the characters developed. Now I shall have to read the book. displacedhuman.

A rant
NOSTROMO is the BBC production of Joseph Conrad's novel of the same title. Set in the second half of the 1800s in the fictional South American backwater of Costaguana, the country's only resource is a silver mine owned and operated by a British entrepreneur. The indigenous people are exploited, naturally.

As the film opens, a local demagogue mounts a popular insurgence against the hated foreigners, during which spasm the mine owner is slaughtered. The storyline quickly moves forward a couple of decades when the owner's son, Charles Gould (Colin Firth), arrives with his wife Emilia (Serena Scott Thomas) to reopen the abandoned mine, make a fortune for the investors, and bring relative prosperity to the local labor pool. Charles is a benevolent exploiter. Gould must accomplish all this in the face of self-serving politicians, greedy army officers turned self-serving politicians, opportunistic banditos, another rebellion, and the disloyalty of a trusted native worker, Nostromo (Claudio Amendola), elevated by Gould to a high level of responsibility. Business as usual in a Third World armpit.

The beauty of the shoot's locations doesn't mitigate the fact that the film is five hours of tedium made possible by a succession of on-screen characters that inspired nothing but yawns.

Somber taciturnity, which was integral to Colin Furth's role as Darcy in PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (1995), renders Charles just a monumental bore. At least Emilia shows some spirit, but she ultimately has no effect on the outcome of anything.

Nostromo, who's apparently so important to the story that the book and film are given his name, is such an uncharismatic, minor player in the first two reels that by the time he becomes the Great Tragic Figure in the last I didn't care in the slightest.

Dr. Monyghan (Albert Finney), the Has-Been physician that lives in a personally more glorious past, and the venomous snake Colonel Sotillo (Joaquim de Almeida), are marginally interesting for the their first few minutes of respective screen time, then become tiresome because they offer no surprises.

The good friend that loaned me NOSTROMO is aware of my opinion, and called it a "rant". Now that I've put it in writing and made it public, perhaps I'll become a Horrid Person. The bottom line is that any nascent kernel of interest I may have had to read the original Conrad novel was smothered by the torpid pace of this TV miniseries evidently padded with ho-hums to fill a predetermined time slot.

So, that rant went well, don't you think?

Pleasent surprise
...it caught my attention. As I continued to watch it I was drawn further into it. It is a long movie, I think about 4 hours but the ending was really surprising. Its a must see movie. ... Read more

Reviews (31)

Good surrealist film
I consider children's youthful ignorance as innocense so when I say that Seth was ignorant, I'm referring to this innocense thing. This film has been compared to the visual style of David Lynch and I'd say that's correct. There are some very beautiful shots and set pieces. What this film doesn't have is the exact feel of a Lynch picture. In particular, the way Phillip Ridley depicts Seth's ignorance. Seth's ignorance is depicted as a destructive force that is simply curious and devious. Many performances seem demented, but they are probably the closest the real life. They come off as jagged and sharp with human emotion because of their lack of personal control. Such performances include the mother of the boy's missing friend, the murderers, his mother, his brother, the sheriff, and Dolphin Blue. For this reason the film will upset some people, or seem stupid to others who can't take anything that's real.

American Gothic
This a highly original, creepily surreal film dealing with the loss of innocence, the depths of irrational childhood fears, and the dark underbelly of middle America. If this description makes it sound like a David Lynch film, you're not far off the mark. Ridley's film shares with Lynch's work the artful, compositionally balanced cinematography, the disquieting psychosexual undertones, and, yes, even the wooden characters. The one-dimensional archetypes that populate this film have been criticized by many reviewers, but, as in Lynch's films, the "flatness" of the acting/dialogue serves an important purpose: the characters are mere canvases for the depiction of aspects of the work as a whole. The overall mood of the film is paramount, and the various libidinal energy flows underlying it are best served by characters who act as conduits for paticular eruptions of perversity and other compositions of incident which manifest in discreet situation rather than autonomous personality. The collective madness at the heart of America, the latent violence that came to a head with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, repressed sexualities, and oedipal sadism: this film is NOT easy to swallow. That the seemingly placid expanses of midwestern fields could incubate such twisted madness suggests that "the world's breadbasket" has been feeding us something far more sinster than corn and wheat.

Sometimes Terrible Things Happen Quite Naturally...
Written and directed by Phillip Ridley... Phillip Ridley's (The Passion Of Darkly Noon) journey vis-a-vis into Vietnam, vandalism, vampirism, and viviparity in the Lynchesque "The Reflecting Skin". It's hard not to compare Ridley's visuals with Lynch, however, Lynch's visualizations are more "mainstream" type of feel than Ridley's, if you can believe that! That is what makes Ridley's films so odd, disquieting and singular and quite remote in their style.

9 year old Seth Dove lives in a surreal 1960s prairie community. His mother is abusive towards that whole family, his father is most likely a repressed homosexual who reads vampire pulp fiction, and his brother is just returning from Vietnam, Cameron who is obviously dying of radiation sickness but Seth is convinced that it is Dolphin Blue, the crazy English woman, who is sucking the life out of his big brother.

Seth and his friends torment the local English eccentric lady, Dolphin Blue, with exploding frogs in a great first scene. That is, until his best friends start turning up dead. Sheriff
Ticker, who knew about Seth's father's long ago penchant for young boys before he was married to Mrs. Dove, suspect the odd but harmless gas station owner. Mr. Dove ends up burdened over being a suspect in the young boy murders and so commits suicide in front of 9 year old Seth by gas pump. When bodies still turn up, the police and locals still suspect the father, even though he is dead and buried. For some reason, nobody connects the long black car filled with sinister teenage boys with the disappearances.

Even Seth, who pumped gas for them and even watched them kidnap the last of his friends,inexplicably blames the eccentric vampire neighbor lady, Dolphin Blue.

Watch this oddly surrealistic film and see for yourself what is happening to the Dove family.

Happy Watching!

innocence is hell
I don't know exactly how this movie is meant to be taken, but I have loved it since the first time I viewed it. I don't know what it is, if it is just the dramatic cinematography juxtaposed with a seemingly plotless storyline, or how the sequence of events undeniably raises many questions. Probably questions that no one can answer but the director himself. Many people have written about how horrible The Reflecting Skin is, but I feel that it's perhaps because they may be trying to find a meaning that isn't there. I love watching this with someone who has never seen it before simply to gauge their reactions and subsequently have one more person to talk about it with. Just accept it for it's abstract quirkiness and let it be what it is, a cult favourite that will undoubtedly remain on of the greatest movies ever!!

A Tepid Attempt
An appealing concept that has been gorgeously filmed, "Reflecting Skin" manages to fall far short of remarkable. While I appreciated the film's attempt to show us how evil might be perceived through the eyes of a child, I found the notably poor acting of the children (and much of the rest of the cast) to be immensely distracting. The few moments of brilliance are overshadowed by all the clumsiness that sews them together. Instead of finding the performances to be quirkily Lynchian as other reviewers have suggested, they struck me instead as being just plain bad. While I certainly would recommend this film as being worth seeing if you have absolutely nothing else on your list of things to do, I can't in good conscience offer it anything higher than a 3 out of 5 stars. ... Read more