Reviews (84)

Trippy
Zardoz is an extremely heavy-handed social satire. Like most head movies of the early 1970s, it is worth watching, if for no other reason, than as a relic of a period of time when directors really started experimenting with the medium of film (with quite varied results), e.g. using psychedellic images, etc. And, like many such films, while it often comes off as pretentious, it is never actually boring.

The society in Zardoz is an analogy for our own and you get a general picture of its setup in the first 20 minutes (so I'm not giving away any surprises). Sean Connery is part of a gang which is provided with weapons by a flying figure-head (literally speaking). This gang's role is to go around killing people, raping and pillaging and, consequently, they help control the population and keep it weak. The rest of the population does things like grow food and give it as offerings to the flying head, partly because it offers some semblance of control over the brutal gangs it created (and maintains) in the first place.

Sean Connery decides to jump on board the flying head for a ride and learns that it is not a god, but a machine built by an elite race of immortals who have all their needs provided for (via the flying head) by the rest of society while they live in leisure. The immortals also have (exclusive) access to all recorded art and knowledge, but seem incapable of producing any themselves. In other words, there are clear analogies to inner-city gangs, police states, law and order government, capitalism, media control, and their interdependence. The rest of the film is then concerned with Connery's interaction with the immortals, learning their weaknesses, etc., and the immortals' reactions to Connery when they realize that he is mentally and physically superior to them when freed from their continued interference and control of the rest of society. Like I said, rather heavy- handed satire, but definitely not unrealistic. People from the inner-cities will recognize its accuracy the most.

There are many campy touches, however most (not all) I believe are intentional. And the film has Boorman's usual stunning cinematography. This film is a cult classic which is at least always interesting if not always good. And keep in mind that Boorman, that whiz (wink wink), is not being entirely serious.

Zardoz does it!
No matter how critical an attitude I bring to it, I simply cannot dislike this film! Its premises, performances, and images are a godsend to a lover of "thinking person's" science fiction. I have no idea what previous reviewers mean when they talk of a hippie sensibility pervading the film. I saw it twice during its initial release and have just seen it again after twenty some odd years; it still holds its special relevance and the satire still connects. Plus, it's a pleasure watching a science fiction film without a surfeit of gratuitous computer generated effects. Most of the story is told with the use of splendid cinematography, interesting sets, and a simple straightforward script with a few compelling twists. Some may argue that the actors' lines are trite; they are, but to wonderful biting effect. The masks worn by the Exterminators are marvelous, as is the floating head of Zardoz. The aerial photography and sound effects are also used to great effect near the beginning of the film to set the stage for the entrance into the Vortex and Zed's "big boy adventure" among the Immortals. Though Sean Connery's Zed chews most of the scenery, my favorite character was Friend played by John Alderton, especially after he received his sentence and was banished to the world of the aging Renegades. Hilarious!
Even the time lapse ending was effective. Normally this device is used as a crutch for a filmmaker simply because he/she doesn't know how to develop a denouement. Not here; it works perfectly!
This DVD release is crisp and vibrant with stunningly saturated colors and fine sound. I concur with a previous reviewer; this has to be the finest use of the Second Movement of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony ever in a film, heard in both it's original scoring and in a special choral arrangement--slow, stately and at a funeral march tempo, the way it should be despite the composer's score markings! I haven't heard the director's narrative track and am in no hurry to do so; the film speaks well for itself.
In my opinion, this rightfully ranks as a "must have" for fans of lovingly-made, imaginative, and thought-provoking films. Bring an open mind and a sense of humor along with the popcorn; you're in for a treat!

Something to Think About ¿ Burt Reynold Was Originally Sched
One afternoon, 10 years after it was released, I saw Zardoz in a moviehouse in Georgetown and didn't get it - except that Sean Connery was still very sexy. Recently, the serendipity of watching The Swimmng Pool with Charlotte Rampling suggested giving this Boorman allegory another chance. I finally get it and had fun seeing it again. Three reasons to watch Zardoz are John Boorman's emerging vision and personal iconography, the power of Sean Connery's presence and acting (especially at the point in his career when he was trying to break from the Bond type-cast), and Geoffrey Unsworth's masterful photography.

Boorman and his actors put their hearts and talent on the line. Connery pulls off wearing the red loincloth and wedding dress, pulling a rickshaw and effectively performing scenes like the lecture on libido with subtle irony. Charlotte Rampling, Sara Kestelman, and other actresses can survive wearing go-go boots or performing nude while portraying strong women in conflict reacting to Zed's mojo. The whole cast of immortals are such good actors that you can giggle about the horror of wearing macramé tops and overly foofed hair, but they suspend your belief in the nightmare society these characters have created. Unsworth not only films this movie; he validates the vision with clear images that indulges Boorman's penchant for setting archetypes and going all Jungian on us. It is beautiful to watch and mostly poetic.

Boorman stuffs the movie with cinematic references like Welles and Peckinpah, much like the immortals have stuffed their museum. In his commentary, he admits putting too much in the film and that he would do things differently with more money and experience. At the beginning, there are moments that almost feel like Monty Python's Holy Grail or Woody Allen's Sleeper, but the movie progresses past that. The set design was interesting, but I felt that the costuming was just a little too groovy. He also admits that some of this cult classic is laughable, but the actors and the camera take it seriously enough to trap us in the Vortex and follow Zed as he searches for the truth. I am a sucker for personal films, and everybody involved made this personal to their truth.

Given what has been going on in Silicon Valley, Zardoz is still very pertinent. The irony is that celluloid projections on glass, superimposed images on film and light refracting from faceted crystals simulated computers, which were used to depict John Boorman's vision of 2293. In any remake, instead of green bread, Boorman's successor would have to direct the brutals in assembling green pizzas, and a notion of a religious mystery commanding the terminators would be named by the corruption of the phrase - Stock Option. Their god would be called Ckoption. Nyahhh! Just watch Zardoz.

Strange, uneven and often beautiful
This is a very strange work, a large-scale but highly personal film with many beauties as well as some dubious elements. The opening fifteen minutes are among the most memorable: Boorman begins the movie with numerous striking compositions (greatly enhanced by this pristine DVD edition), and a dreamlike, largely silent progression which highlights his storytelling talent; Zed's 'learning sequence', later in the film, is also remarkably put together. The main character's quest for truth and knowledge is mostly compelling, but brought down a bit by Boorman's simplistic, rarely subtle views on sexuality and spirituality. On the other hand, his use of mythology, classical art and fairy tales is adept and intelligent, and the twist he gives to the Indo-European functional tripartition famously noted by Georges Dumezil (sovereign-religious / physical strength-war / fecundity) is quite provocative. 'Zardoz' is a cult movie par excellence: flawed but ambitious, its weaknesses are as definitive as its strengths in defining its special flavour. This unique film should be seen by adventurous viewers.

Director John Boorman's Classic
ZARDOZ is director John Boorman's classic tale of future events. This came at a time when Sean Connery was giving up his James Bond image. ZARDOZ was one of the greatest "sleepers"of its time. This DVD combined with the film's shocking ending is very good. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

David Lynch peeks behind the picket fences of small-town America to reveal a corrupt shadow world of malevolence, sadism, and madness. From the opening shots Lynch turns the Technicolor picture postcard images of middle class homes and tree-lined lanes into a dreamy vision on the edge of nightmare. After his father collapses in a preternaturally eerie sequence, college boy Kyle MacLachlan returns home and stumbles across a severed human ear in a vacant lot. With the help of sweetly innocent high school girl (Laura Dern), he turns junior detective and uncovers a frightening yet darkly compelling world of voyeurism and sex. Drawn deeper into the brutal world of drug dealer and blackmailer Frank, played with raving mania by an obscenity-shouting Dennis Hopper in a career-reviving performance, he loses his innocence and his moral bearings when confronted with pure, unexplainable evil. Isabella Rossellini is terrifyingly desperate as Hopper's sexual slave who becomes MacLachlan's illicit lover, and Dean Stockwell purrs through his role as Hopper's oh-so-suave buddy. Lynch strips his surreally mundane sets to a ghostly austerity, which composer Angelo Badalamenti encourages with the smooth, spooky strains of a lush score. Blue Velvet is a disturbing film that delves into the darkest reaches of psycho-sexual brutality and simply isn't for everyone. But for a viewer who wants to see the cinematic world rocked off its foundations, David Lynch delivers a nightmarish masterpiece. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (185)

"It's a strange world, isn't it?"
That line of dialogue from David Lynch's unquestioned masterpiece BLUE VELVET describes Lynch's film universe perfectly. With the new SPECIAL EDITION dvd out we truly get a glimpse inside the making of a great film and how it can immediately be misunderstood by someone like Roger Ebert. The behind the scenes documentary is great with interviews from many of the film participants. To enter the world of David Lynch is to cross into an unknown vortex of subconscious desires, fears, and dreams. The film brilliantly shows us the illusion of the perfect smalltown life vs. the city underworld right next door. The images stay with you long after the movie is over. Dennis Hopper is absolutely perfect in a harrowing, funny, and brutal psychopath filled with self loathing and anger. I just saw a revival showing at a theater in Los Angeles and I highly recommend to anyone to see it in a theater if possible. On the big screen the movie envelops you into its world from which there is no escape. BLUE VELVET is definitely not for everyone, and that's ok. Lynch wasn't trying to make a film for the masses, but rather as a complete personal expression in the movie art form.

Blue Velvet, the best film of the 80's
In what one could regard now as a precursor to TWIN PEAKS, David Lynch explores his primary fascination, the possibly seedy under-belly that may or may not exist in Middle America.

Jeffrey(Kyle Maclachlan) lives in an idealic small town. It's picturesque, everybody knows everybody, and the doors are left unlocked at night. However, evil is lurking. Jeffrey discovers this one day as he walks through a remote field, he finds a human ear. Jeff takes the ear to a local Police Detective, who thanks him and then asks him to stay away from the case. But Jeff, with the Hardy Boy inside getting the better of him, does no such thing, and with the help of the Detective's Daughter(Laura Dern) he decides to investigate. His snooping eventually leads him to a mysterious and seemingly disturbed night club singer, Dorothy(Isabella Rossellini), who Jeffrey is uncontrollably intruiged by and attracted to. In fact, it is only when Jeffrey meets Dorothy's derranged tormentor Frank Booth(Dennis Hopper at his twisted best) that he starts to realize that he just might be in way over his head.

Bizarre, captivating, hypnotic, and haunting. You've heard these words describe BLUE VELVET before. But that's because these descriptions are very accurate. This is David Lynch's brilliant painted portrait of what might lie beneath. It's violent, it's comedic at times, it's disturbing at others. It's a film that Lynch fans will love, and that non-Lynch fans will find pointless and boring.

But then again, that's true of all of Lynch's work. His films are definately an acquirred taste. Here's the best way to describe it. All the mystery aside, it's about a young man who loses his innocence on his way to adulthood. That's BLUE VELVET in a nutshell. In way it's one of Lynch's most straight forward stories(THE STRAIGHT STORY being an exception).

So to all Lynch fans to have yet to see BLUE VELVET for themselves, log off your computers, run to your nearest Blockbuster, check out this masterpiece, and be prepared to pay some major late fees. Because this is one film you will want to experience over and over again.

Thanks for reading my review.

Much Less Than its Rep
Weird, dully acted, occasionally gross and sometimes unintentionally funny. Lynch desperately wants to have his cake and eat it too by being so uncool that he's cool. Lynch cannot just tell, he has to show. All the time. Like the weird kid in 3rd grade who always brought something unsettling to show-and-tell and the kids told their parents and the parents complained and the teacher had to talk to his parents about his not bringing anything else. The weirdos Lynch populates his underworld with are hilariously overacted by actors who obviously don't know what the heck is going on and probably think Lynch is full of it. Dennis Hopper is hysterical. He basically didn't change his act a bit from Apocalypse Now and, of course, the critics and fans raved about how "brilliant" ansd "electrifying" his performance was. After Blue Velvet, I imagine Hopper got down on his knees every night and thanked God for giving most people short memories and short attention spans.

Hey neighbor
I've had a weird experience with this movie. The first time I saw it, I couldn't help being disappointed having already seen some of Lynch's other films. While Dennis Hopper's performance was impressive and many of his quotes from Blue Velvet stuck in my memory, somehow things just didn't click and I more or less thought of 'Blue Velvet' as a somewhat interesting, but ultimately forgettable experience. The seemingly good vs. evil theme of the film (the robins and Sandy's dream) in particular annoyed me and the whole thing added a definite 'cheese' factor.

One night I decided to give Blue Velvet another chance and surprisingly the experience was a much richer one; in fact, I would now say that this is an excellent movie.
[Incidentally, Lynch's Lost Highway had a somewhat similar, but completely opposite effect - I went from thinking that it was a great flick to thinking it was an alright one].

I would say that it is wrong to say that this film is about 'good vs. evil' or that Lynch is trying to make any sort of a moral statement in it; the nuances of Blue Velvet are much more subtle than that and the characters more complicated. As most of Lynch's work, Blue Velvet is about obsession and obsession luring people into dark corners of the world. The film pulls the viewer (as a voyeur) into its dangerous and strange universe and relies much (as a lot of other Lynch movies) on the pure flow of images, the atmospheric experience. The sound element adds much to enriching this powerful experience and Blue Velvet as a whole invites multiple viewings.

In my opinion this is one of Lynch's fairly straight forward films in terms of the linear-time progression (along with The Elephant Man and The Straight Story) and as such might serve as a good introductory movie to those who want to become more familiar with his work. (Mulholland Drive is, I believe, so far the consummation of Lynch's previous efforts into one crowning achievement).

Also, there are many interesting bonus materials in this little DVD package.

Weird film
Blue Velvet has got to be one of the strangest films I have ever seen. It started off o.k. but when we first see frank booth it just gets weirder and weirder. The film also suffers from bad script. The acting in the film is very poor expect Dennis Hopper.
There are so many films like this and I can't understand why people think this one is so special. I was really looking forward to watching this when I bought the DVD but after watching it I felt cheated into buying a poor film.
Overall bad film, bad acting and bad script. People who appeciate those three should steer clear. ... Read more

Description

A couple expecting a baby discover it's a monster that kills when it's scared. ... Read more

Reviews (17)

"What's wrong with my baby!!?"
One of the great cult films of the '70's, Larry Cohen's "It's Alive" plays less as a horror film than as a psychological drama, smartly focusing on the emotional devastation wrought on the marriage of the parents, Frank and Leonor Davis (well played by John Ryan and Sharon Farrell) and, to a lesser extent, their existing eleven-year-old son Chris. The theme Cohen plays with is less a "monster on the loose" picture than one in which the very human parents are forced to confront the ugly consequences in which society, and particularly the media, want only to feed on and exploit the pain of individuals thrust into a situation beyond their immediate comprehension or control. Farrell, (understandably) close to the edge of insanity, still maintains a mother's love for her child - no matter what it might look or behave like. Ryan, seeing this as a slam against his manhood, simply refuses to accept that this "child" is anything that he could have fathered. The film also raises dark questions concerning the pharmaceutical industry's cynical promotion of birth-control drugs and their side-effects, as well as a speculating on the effect pollutants in the air and water might have on our bodies. (A theme revisited by director Phillip Kaufmann in the 1978 version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers").

Unfortunately, these themes are a bit hamstrung by Larry Cohen's flat-footed direction; there are some great, and funny scenes to be sure (the milkman comes to mind), but the film is unsure whether it wants to be a social satire or a real horror film. Ironically, it ends up being neither; the "Davis baby" actually emerges as a truly tragic figure, crawling up alongside King Kong and Frankenstein's monster (who Ryan's character makes reference to in the film) as a poor creature unwittingly thrown into the harsh world of mankind, which always fears and hates what it doesn't understand.

Flaws aside, this is still a great example of how far out (and how much sick fun) horror films of the '70's could be. Even though this was distributed by a major studio (Warner Bros.), this was essentially a low-budget independent film. The "baby" was created by the brilliant, multiple Oscar-winning makeup artist Rick Baker. At the time the film was made, the "baby" puppet didn't permit (nor did the budget) any of the cable-control mechanisms inside to create movement, as Baker and his crew would later use to great effect on "An American Werewolf in London", "Harry and the Hendersons" and "Gorillas in the Mist". Still, few could argue that the "Davis baby" is one of the wildest and most bizarre characters ever to emerge from '70's horror films.

Highly dated, but still recommended nonetheless!

Funny, Ferocious Fun!
" It's Alive " is a part of a horror series directed by Larry Cohen, the sequels are " It Lives Again " and " It's Alive III : Island Of The Alive. " But before we get to those sequels, let's talk about this cult classic, of baby-time carnage!!

I absolutely love this movie and its sequels, I once watched, I believe all three films on Monstervision, hosted by Joe Bob Briggs. It was ofcourse during the nightly hours. I was just captured and must say these flicks are certainly some of the great mid-night horror marathon movies. I don't give a damn how long ago they came out, these are cheese-ball, absolutely hilarious classics! The humour is, intentional or not, abundantly apart of the fun. This first one picks up with a normal man and his wife who have a baby, who turns out to be a monster baby. The man is John P. Ryan, and his wife, Sharon Farrell, two marvelous actors in this movie. The supporting cast is there too. The Rick Baker babies may look cheesy, but its all apart of the fun. Some of the funnest moments come when the baby is running amock, attacking, milk men, and all sorts of prey. Also the score, by Bernard Herrmann (Psycho) is perfect, absolutely perfect. His last score by the way before his death was " It Lives Again, " the remarkable sequel, which is even better, and keep a look out for the third picture too, not as good as 1 & 2, but still just a great fun time.

It's a B-Movie Classic!
Larry Cohen has always had fun making no-frills, slightly creepy "B" Horror movies. As a result, his films tend to be non-cerebral, quirky, violent, cheesy-looking, infectiously funny, and, most of all, fun. It is in this spirit of fun that I write this review for one of Cohen's most memorable and fun films, IT'S ALIVE! (1974).

The plot is simple: a relatively normal (though slightly quirky) middle-aged couple with an 11-year-old son, who decided to have one more child, is going through what is obviously a prolonged, painful pregnancy for the expectant soon-to-be-second-time-mother. The Davis family, consisting of Frank (John P. Ryan), Lenore (Sharon Farrell) and Chris (Daniel Holzman) just want to get through it, already. Lenore finally goes into labor one night, and the whole family drives to the hospital, during which time Frank tries to lighten the mood with a little humor. During the interminable wait in the hospital lobby, Frank overhears two men discussing something about the toxins being released into the environment and how scientists are warning of the possible mutations this could cause for humans. Suddenly, a badly wounded doctor comes stumbling out of the O/R and drops dead on the hallway floor. Frank and the others run into the room to find a scene of sheer horror: five doctors and nurses dead, their throats all torn and bloody. As they stare in shock and amazement, Lenore (who is uninjured) delivers the chilling news: she gave birth to a newborn baby monster. As Frank and the police try to find the Davis' mutated son, who had escaped the hospital through a ventilation shaft, Baby Davis tries to find his way home by himself, dispatching several unaware victims in the process. Frank is torn amongst his feelings of protectiveness for his son, of the sense of duty to snuff out this newborn killer's life, and anger at those he feels are overly anxious to kill him.

I have rented this film and seen it on three separate occasions (all on VHS, of course; unfortunately, Warner Brothers has not yet seen fit to issue it on DVD) and it gives me something new to focus on each time. The first time, it was the visceral violence of the film (it is quite bloody); the second time, it was the sheer campiness of the whole thing. The third time, it was the emotional suffering of Frank Davis, as he tries to simultaneously make sense of the situation, figure out what his newborn monstrosity will do next, and to make it right.

Although all of the acting in the film is effective and dependable, none stands out more than John P. Ryan. I love his goofiness at the beginning of the film as he's talking to his "young whipperschnapper" son in a comic Humphrey Bogart-meets-Edward G. Robinson voice. I like the effectiveness of the quiet, tense scene that takes place right after the horrible slaying in the hospital, in which the police try to dance lightly around Frank as they begin to ask him uncomfortable questions at this very awkward time. Frank's foot-shifting, equally uncomfortable responses and increasing agitations hit just the right note, and are a subtle example of great Method Acting. Finally, I like the heartbreakingly somberness of the climactic, and inevitable, final scene.

The PG-rating for IT'S ALIVE! remains something of a deceptive mystery; it IS quite bloody, although there isn't much in the way of graphic gore. Still, this got rather strong ratings abroad: According to IMDb, it received a "15" rating in Sweden, an "18" rating in both the U.K. and The Netherlands (the numbers referring to the age at/above to which the film's viewership was restricted), an "R" rating in Australia, and in Finland, it was banned!

I know it's cheesy, I know that you hardly see the monster baby (which, given the lack of special effects, was probably a good thing and even added to the suspense), and I know that future multiple-Oscar-winning makeup genius Rick Baker was basically beginning to learn his craft here; the fact is, I find it impossible not to like IT'S ALIVE! If you love those late-night creepy old movies, then you know you will like this too. You've got to admit, you like this kind of stuff--and director Larry Cohen sure makes it fun to watch!

RECOMMENDED
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED FOR FANS OF 1970'S FILMS

Terrible.
This movie is rotten. It's not scary enough to be a legitimate horror movie or funny enough to be a comedy. Instead, it's like a bad high school film project. Stiff acting, long boring periods where nothing interesting is going on, and a dopey looking monster baby puppet straight from the corner toy store. However, I did sympathize with the anguished cries of the monster baby, because that's exactly how I felt after watching this junk.

Songs that Acompany this trilogy
This is more like an inquiry....! I was just wondering if anyone out there knows the Hit single that was released from one of these movies, if so can you leave a message letting me know what it is called and by who

Thank you, Regards

Johnny ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Seven Deadly Sins - 1962
This is an awesome classic!!!

In the 'sloth' segment I saw the most beautiful body on earth. I was a twenty year old college student when I viewed this movie at the Times Fine Art theater in Milwaukee in 1962.

Her name, I believe, is Danielle Aubry. I have made love to women with gorgeous... but Danielle is still #1 even after all these (40) years.

There are also some socially redeeming qualities about this film but I forgot what they were.

GM ... Read more

Amazon.com

This well-regarded cult film is a tense Kafka-esque tale concerning what happens to a likable computer guy who is in the wrong place at the wrong time in the city that never sleeps--New York. This is a New York infested with bizarre characters vividly brought to life by a once-in-a-lifetime cast. Griffin Dunne's wonderfully controlled comic performance as Paul Hackett is the glue that holds this increasingly surreal film together.Scorsese utilizes a full array of independent and underground film techniques, including special film speed manipulations, angles, and edits, deftly capturing the strange rhythms of an after-hours New York City. Many will find the jokes clever, and occasionally laugh-out-loud funny. Some, however, will find the film an excruciating series of staged circumstances setting up a sadistically cruel dark nightmare of horrors. And there are a few lines of dialogue so poorly written they remind you how unbelievable the thin story really is. But forgive the film these few lapses--overall it's a wild, surreal ride. The most offbeat character is the beehive-sporting, Monkee-obsessed neurotic played to perfection by Teri Garr. And the moment when Griffin Dunne uses his last quarter to play Peggy Lee's "Is That All There Is" and dances with Verna Bloom while an angry mob searches SoHo for him is an inspired bit of lunacy. --Christopher J. Jarmick ... Read more

Reviews (43)

Excellent! A Scorsese Gem!
Martin Scorsese was honored with by the Cannes Film Festival as best Director in 1986 for his brilliant dark comedy After Hours. It is an amazing and immensely funny film which features an absolutely amazing performance by Griffin Dunne and great supporting performances by many up-and-comers. What makes this movie so awesome is the fact that you never know what is going to happen next to this poor sap who just wanted a little love. The story is simple and very clever, with Paul Hackett(Griffin Dunne), a boring word processor, who meets an interesting but odd girl(Rosanna Arquette) in a coffee shop. Returning home, he decides to call her, and he is invited over to the apartment. Paul doesn't know it, but he is about embark on an incredible journey through "after hours" New York, where all the weirdos (...) are free to roam. The weirdos (...) include Cheech and Chong, Teri Garr, Linda Fiorentino, Verna Bloom, Catherine O'Hara(In her first film appearance), and John Heard. Bronson Pinchot gives a memorable cameo as an ambitious word processor in the beginning of the film. You will love this film, especially the shocking finale. Scorsese is the best!

Scorsese's Masterpiece.
I remember seeing this movie on cable in 1987, and I remember thinking that it was great. I didn't even realize it was Scorsese at the time. Since then this film has become one of my favorites. A relatively unknown actor, Griffin Dunne, is the lead character of this midnight movie. It's basically the night in the life of your average pencil pusher. What happens to him in one night is hilarious. A dark comedy by Scorsese this is bound to be, and already is a classic. Most people haven't seen this film, but I think it's a must have for any movie collector. Unfortunately, it's still not available at this time on DVD. Soon, I hope. Look for great eccentric appearances by Rosanna Arquette, Teri Garr, John Heard and Cheech and Chong (their last film appearance together).

This review is for Amazon's impeccable memory
When I searched for this film two years ago Amazon.com informed me that it wasn't available on dvd, but if I wanted they'd send me an email when it became available. And now, two years later, they've sent me that email! I've had friends tell me that they'll call me back in five minutes and they forget to do it, but Amazon.com, after two freaking years, remembers to get back to me about this obscure, hard-to-find movie. This blows my mind.

5 stars to Amazon, and maybe I'll get around to watching "After Hours" some day.

In my top 5 favorite films / Totally original script
A funny black comedy set in Manhatten. I remeber as a kid watching this film on movie channel in the 80's and being mesmerized by the quirky characters. The main story is an average guy looking for romance in r Manhatten and for one night can't seem to make it back to his apartment. He goes out for a late night coffee at a diner meets Rosanna Arquette & from there encounters all these wacky characters in west village while trying to get back home. The script is amazing and totally original. This is character driven you don't forget the people in this movie Teri Garr as a crazy lonely monkey obsessed nuerotic waitress. Linda Fiorentino as an underground paper machute artist. John Heard as a paraniod bar owner. Griffin Dunne is a hilarious lead character who gets himself in all these oddball situations from one minute to the next. After refusing Teri Garr's advances he ends up having a mob after him. He ducks into an underground night club puts Peggy Lee's "Is that all there is" in the juke box and dances with a lonely lady who comes to his rescue at the end in a very bizarre way. One of my favorites films of all time. This is a must see original Scorsese movie one can't beat the surreal originality of this script.

Totally original and surreal
I first saw this movie when I was wandering around some party many years ago and came across this room where "After Hours" was showing. I missed the first ten minutes and had no odea what was going on, but I was amazed by this incredibly original and strange movie. Griffin Dunne is excellent as a nervous and nerdy office worker that lands in the bizarre world of SOHO without a dime to his name and no way home. The cast of characters he encounters are all original and bizarre and give the movie a slightly disturbing, yet funny because it isn't you quality. How many other movies are out there where the main character is being hunted by an insane Mr. Softy truck driver and a bunch of gay men? There's also some great music, in particular a "Bad Brains" song I hadn't heard in a decade. Buy the movie and watch it! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Sam Peckinpah weighs in on World War II--and from the German point of view. The result is as bleak, if not quite as bloody, as one expects, in part because the 1977 film was cut to ribbons by nervous studio executives. The assorted excerpts that remain don't constitute an exhilarating or even an especially thrilling battle epic. The war is grinding to a close, and veterans like James Coburn's Steiner are grimly aware that it's a lost cause. The battlefield is a death trap of sucking mud and barbed wire, and the German generals (viz., the martinet played by James Mason) seem to pose a bigger threat to the life and limbs of Steiner's men than the inexorable enemy. Not even Peckinpah's famous sensuous exuberance when shooting violence is much in evidence; the picture is a depressive, claustrophobically overcast experience. The bloody high (or low) point isn't a shooting; it's a wince-inducing de-penis-tration during oral sex. For a fun time with the men in (Nazi) uniform, try Das Boot instead. --David Chute ... Read more

Reviews (112)

A very fine war epic
I first saw this movie (albeit in TV-edited version) as a child and knew right away that this was one of the finest war films I had ever seen. As a WWII buff, I had read many books and seen many war films, and Cross of Iron (the movie) was one of the more satisfying (and horrifying!) accounts of the war.

Sam Peckinpah's directing is superb in this film. Coburn's Sergeant Steiner, who is just trying to survive and keep alive the men who follow him, versus the incompetent Captain Stransky (Maximillian Schell) who is on the Eastern Front only because he wants to win the Iron Cross, Germany's military award for valor in combat - makes for a very tense atmosphere throughout the movie. The viewer ultimately sides with Coburn's character, and can't help but feel outrage when Stransky deliberately tries to hang Steiner's men out to dry as the order to retreat is given, and Stransky does not pass along the order to Steiner.

The battle scenes were magnificent, the best I had seen until "Saving Private Ryan" came along. You got a glimpse of the sheer terror the German soldiers must have felt when facing one of the Russians' human wave charges. The T-34 tanks used by the Russians appear authentic, unlike the substitutes used in many war films (see: Battle of the Bulge). This film is a must-see for anyone interested in WW2. It is unfortunate that so few films were made about the Russian Front. The Soviet Union did more to bring down the Nazi regime than the rest of the Allies combined. 90 percent of all battle casualties suffered by the Germans in the war happened on the Russian Front.

The part of the movie that really grabbed me, however, was the beginning. While German children sing a song to the tune of "Lightly Row, Sweetly Row", images are shown of battle, death and the Holocaust - a wrenching juxtaposition of childhood innocence and the horrifying extents of man's inhumanity to man.

Dirty Harry -- in feldgrau.
"Cross of Iron" is a bad movie, made with preconcieved notions that do not fit history or reality. It makes the double mistake of A) cramming an American-style character (the lone wolf anti-hero) into a German uniform and B) tacking the director's well-known appetite for blood and graphic violence to a silly antiwar message.

The movie follows the conflict between an embittered and defiant combat soldier named Stiener (played by James Coburn) and his new CO, a glory-seeking martinet named Stransky (played by Maximillian Schell). From the git-go, the movie follows every stale antiwar convention in the book: the bitter, insubordinate sergeant with an unspoken love for his men vs. the bloodthirsty killer-officer who wants to win a medal and doesn't care how many men die in the process. We've seen this in numerous American war movies, but it never quite works in German unfiorm. This wasn't a democracy; discipline in the Wehrmacht, particularly during the period in questoon, was severe and the slightest defeatism or insubordination were ruthlessly punished. The scene, for example, where Stiener berates and threatens a replacement soldier who is a Party member would probably never have happened. By late 1943 even officers were being degraded and sent off to suicide-squad 'punishment battalions' for minor transgressions or seditious statements. In reality, a soldier like Stiener would have most likely been shot, sent to a military prison or killed off digging up land mines in a penal outfit. The "lone wolf" mentality was simply not tolerated in the German army of 1943 (in Sajer's "Forgotten Soldier" a lieutenant is demoted to corporal and sent to the punishment squad for losing his field telephone when he swam the 900-yard Don River...what would have happened to Stiener for mouthing off to the colonel?).

Additionally, we have more sterotypes: the loveable but doomed men of Stiener's squad, including the "I have dead meat written all over me" teenage boy, the evil Party member, the cowardly lieutenant, the well-meaning but ultimately hapless senior officers (played by James Mason and David Warner) and the obligatory scene where we find out that the Russians are people too. Really, the film is very similar in structure to a Dirty Harry movie: the lone-wolf anti-hero who scorns medals and glory, the pencil-pushing politician/boss, and nice-guy dead-meat partner, the ultimate hollow victory....blah blah blah.

"Cross of Iron" is undermined by the love of cruelty that Sam Peckinpah was rightly infamous for. Graphic violence certainly has its place in a war movie, but as usual, Peckinpah felt the need to cram the viewer nose-first into buckets of human gore. This cheapens the antiwar theme of the movie; viciousness is fine so long as it is committed by the hero, but dastardly if if perpetrated by the villain. Morally, the massage of the movie is unclear: Stiener does not avenge the death of the innocent young soldier by the Russian POW women, but later brutally kills his own lieutenant for shooting others of his squad. Then, when confronting Stransky, who actually gave the order by blackmailing the cowardly lieutenant, he does not kill him but gives him a chance to "show that Prussians can fight." Okay, Stiener is probably insane by the end of the film, but none of this made sense to me. In Peckinpah's mind, the trembling lieutenant deserves to die more than Stransky, because he's afraid and "just wants to go home" wheras Stransky, while evil, deserves to live because he is not a hypocrite: he is willing to kill and allow others to be killed for his Iron Cross, but is also willing to fight himself. Maybe Peckinpah's theme was that war is unfair. So it all balances out, I guess?

I guess not. "Cross of Iron" is a chronically over-rated war movie that bludgeons the viewer with Americanized themes, graphic violence, and a hypocritical antiwar message, brought to you by a director who idolized violent men. As entertainment it is a matter of taste, but as historical fiction, it is nonsense.

Peckinpah's last triumph
Sam Peckinpah, in his 1977 effort "Cross of Iron", darred to look at the war throught German eyes. Thus becoming one of the handful of directors with the audacity to view the German soldiers as a humans, and not as faceless barbarians. Based upon a novel by Willi Heinrich, Cross of Iron is the tale of Steiner, and his troops fight for survival on the Taman peninsula in 1943. Thought it is not near the final stages of the war as many believe, the film depicts the turning of the tables in favor of the Soviets; after the losses at Stalingrad and Kursk. This gritty, unflinching and realistic portrail of combat on the eastern front, seems more stunning if you keep in mind the budget restraints. Authentic in almost every aspect, all the vehicles, weaponry and uniforms all flawless. The Wehrmacht soldiers are dirty and unreasted as they would be during uncessant battle, unlike many a war film which have the soldiers clean and proper. Also during filming, Soviet T-34 tanks acquired from the Czech Republic, were administered during a skirmish. At the time Peckinpah was addicted to coccain and was an alcoholic, yet through all the self-inflicted harm of his reckless life style, his directing capability remained unscathed. The Sam we know from the "Wild Bunch" and "Straw Dogs" is still here, with the slow-motion seens of carnage and his trademark "zooms". But aside from his usual hallmarks, he also give use a personal view of combat. Sam doesn't want to be a spectator, he wants to be a participant, and in doing so he lets us experience the noise, confusion and horror of the Russan front. The film though however great, is not without flaws. First off the casting is questionable, James Mason, David Warner and James Coburn seem somewhat out of place. Being either American of British they could have made a more conscious effort to sustain a fluent german accent. There also is some scenes, a lack of light, which can cause some confusion. Still Sam Peckinpah has left us with an enduring and powerful statement about war, honor, survival and friendship in a world gone mad.

The Idiot: Simon Gurney
I disagree entirely with what that idiot simon gurney said. I read the novel and have seen the film, and not only is it a faithful adaptation, but the few changes which are made only ameliorate the story. I find your comment on the quality of the action scenes offensive. Perhaps you could offer me an example of better ones in a war film. Maybe if you werent so ignorant to history, you could tell just how well done those scenes are, they convey perfecly the madness, and confusion of the desperate days of the Third Reich. I do not think it is proper for you to to critize a film which you yourself have yet to watch in its entirety. I hope others will not be fooled by your groundless comments, thus missing one of the few great war films.

Not exactly a classic, but better than most WW2 films
I would rate it 3.5 stars, because it's better than average as compared to other ww2 films however there are a few small problems I have with this movie. First off, the opening minutes contain scenes of implied homosexulaity between the german soldiers. I'm not sure the accuracy of this, although no doubt it probably did happen, but seems to be a fairly important point thoughout parts of this movie. If this is supposed to further convince the audience of the depraved nature of the soldiers, it works in that regard but it is quite obvious that they are depraved anyway and that added nothing to the storyline nor to the plot.

The other problem I have is, although most of the battle scenes contain close to accurate german and russian weapons, the overhead bombing scenes contain shots of U.S. navy corsairs dropping bombs. These were probably stock footage taken from a navy film and look horribly out-of place here.

But despite those two issues, most of the rest of the movie is good and portrays an accurate, interesting and engaging portrait of battle in the russian theatre during ww2. I especially liked the use of light as most of the battle scenes were shot as daytime attacks and that indeed was the way it happened on the russian front. The sneak attack at the bridge by Steiner's platoon was filmed and sequenced to show all of the moves by the attackers, leaving nothing hidden or off camera. Certainly an interesting way to portray this kind of sequence and it came out quite effectively.

Sam Peckinpah uses the slow motion to good effect and has indeed changed the face of war films circa 1977. Every war movie that was released after this movie tends to show a more grimmer and graphic view of war and that is certainly how it should be done as there is nothing glorious or heroic about war. Those are the words used by the politicians that order people to fight each other to the death.

Great casting, excellent camera work and a good story combined with music that adds a sense of innocence lost and horror to the subject, all ad up to not quite a classic but a very good depiction of ww2 battle action in the Russian theatre. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Yes, you can get too cerebral in a Frankenstein movie
The title of "Frankenstein Unbound" is an allusion to the Greek tragedy "Prometheus Unbound" by Aeschylus, which makes sense since the subtitle of Mary Shelley's novel was "The Modern Prometheus." Now, in terms of understanding the novel "Frankenstein" the most important thing to understand is that Dr. Frankenstein's crime is not in creating the creature, but rather in abandoning it after it comes to life. "Frankenstein Unbound" takes the counter-position and does so in a rather convoluted manner.

The idea here is that the story of Frankenstein is both a real story and a novel. That story is based on the novel of the same name by Brian Aldiss with the screenplay by F.X. Feeney and director Roger Corman. John Hurt plays Dr. Joe Buchanan, a scientist in the year 2031 who is working on a new secret weapon for the government that dispatches the enemy by sending them into another time. Buchanan ends up being randomly dispatched by his machine and going back 200 years to find himself in the part of Shelley's novel where the younger brother of Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Raul Julia) has been killed by the creature (Nick Brimble); I know he is called the monster, but since I always consider the doctor to be the true monster so on principle I always call the creature "the creature." However, an innocent girl, Justine Moritz (Catherine Corman), is being blamed for the murder and the locals are going to execute her as a witch. Buchanan also runs into Mary Wollstoncraft Godwin (Bridget Fonda), the future Mrs. Shelley, and gets her to help in a futile effort to save the girl. Lord Byron (Jason Patric) and Percy Shelley (Michael Hutchence) show up as well, but there is little time to discuss 19th-century English poetry since the creature is out there ready to kill again. Then it dawns on Buchanan that the technology that sent him back to 1831 might be of some use in writing the wrongs (at which point every Frankenstein movie ever made will cease to exist).

The greatest sin of this 1990 film is that it almost works. The ideas are provocative enough and the cast is too good for "Frankenstein Unbound" to descend to the level of camp. Certainly Corman is trying to make something more pretentious than his nominal fare. But at the end of all this that a lot more is being unbound than Frankenstein pretty much blows your mind. We understand that Doctors Buchanan and Frankenstein are mirrors of each other, and that sooner or later the former will recognize himself in the latter. But the intentional use of anachronisms is glaring rather than creative, the creature's make up suggests Frankenstein needs to work on his sewing technique, and there are enough Cormanisms throughout this film to belie the fact that for the first time in his career he had a decent budget. This is not a Frankenstein film that anyone would want to randomly pick up. At the very least you need to have read the original novel to at least be able to appreciate what Corman (and Aldiss) were trying to accomplish here.

The terror never ends
From the get go, this movie is one of the worst I've seen so far. The fact that the actors have actual talent really makes me wish I liked it, but alas...the terrible special effects, poor plot design, and lousy period costumes and scenes really made me want to turn it off. You can't UNsee a movie, so lets just hope there are better options out there.

Thumbs up!
After 19 years of absence, legendary director Roger Corman returns to direct "Franenstein Unbound". This version is based on Brian Aldiss' novel. It's quite different from the other classic approaches. The idea is about a man (John Hurt) who lives in the future 2031 & moves back in time (19th Century) and meets an earlier scientist Frankenstein (Raul Julia). Frankenstein has created a Monster who has already killed his 6-year-old brother and is now threatening the entire city...

It's wonderful how they blended the life of Mary Shelley - the young woman who will later write the novel FRANKENSTEIN!

What was this load of ... aboot !
When i first saw this movie i thought it was some sort of sci-fi channel spoof, but i guess i was wrong it was meant to be a "serious" sci-fi film! To call this movie campy is an understatement, Frankenstein was'nt just unbound it was a whirling dervish! Jeez... roger corman used to make better ....
later guys.

I am Unbound...
Despite campy moments and the occasional silly special effect, Frankenstein Unbound surprisingly offers up an intriguing morality tale. While it is definatly a horror/sci-fi film, it really is (as the box claims) a monster movie for the thinking person.

When a future scientist (John Hurt) creates an invention that implodes space, he finds himself catapulted back to 19th century England. There he meets Mary Shelly, Percy Shelly, and, of course, Dr. Frankenstein and his monster.

The relationships between Frankenstein, Hurt's arrogant scientist, and their respective "monsters," explore the idea that once you create something you cannot un-create it. Even if you destroy your creation you can never make things the way they were before--It is unbound.

I agree with "THNEEBAN" about the monster--it is the best Frankenstein I have seen on film. I too found the ending surreal and very fitting. While not for all tastes, I am always surprised by how long this film--especially the ending--lingers in my mind. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

ALL KILLER TOMATOE MOVIES
THESE ARE THE GREATEST MOVIES DONE OFF THE CUFF THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY WANT IN YOUR COLLECTION. I DO WISH THAT ALL 4 MOVIES WHERE ON DVD FORMAT SO THAT THEY CAN LAST FOREVER. THEY ARE A TRUE CULT CLASSIC SET AND HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF FOLLOWERS.

The best of the 3 sequels
A hot French babe, WWI reinactments, MEGA-tomato, and an evil tomato concert (complete with a pirate tomato playing a B.C. Rich snakeskin Ironbird). The laughs are fast and furious, ala - 'I thought a threesome was when you used both hands!!'. Fuzzy tomato is back, but not as aggravating as usual. The King of France is cool too in his double role as GangGreen's sidekick. But man that French babe, what a tart.

Great silly fun
First came Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, a low budget musical spoof of monster movies in which giant tomatoes go on a rampage and eat people, a good-natured and amusing small gem. Years later came three sequels, in which John Astin is introduced as the mad scientist who created the tomatoes and wants to rule the world. These films are slicker than the rough around the edges original, but just as much genial fun. I should warn you that my tolerance for silliness is near limitless, but I love John Astin and I loved these movies. By the way, for one season there was a Saturday morning cartoon with Astin and his tomatoes. Bless him, the dedicated mad scientist never gives up. ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Bravura Filmmaking, Great Performances
This is probably Ken Russell's best film after "Women In Love." It is truly unfortunate that only a pan-and-scan video is available; the brilliant opening "Winter Carnival" sequence, which introduces all the main characters - AND establishes their relationships, without a word of dialogue! - is particularly damaged by the cropped aspect ratio. Chamberlain was never better, and still in his physical prime, and Jackson is briliant as always. This is worth the price just for the drunken honeymoon train-ride scene. Why in God's name this isn't on DVD is beyond me- Chamberlain's fans alone would put this one in the black! Hellooo MGM, WB or whoever owns this title now, we're waiting for a widescreen transfer!

Not a masterpiece, but certainly an excellent film
No film critics seem to like THE MUSIC LOVERS, and Cinebook even scored this film 'zero', claiming that this film should be avoided by all 'music lovers'. The film's focus on Tchaikovsky's homosexuality has always been considered inappropriate. While Cinebook scored 5 stars to AMADEUS which places emphasis on Mozart's impudent and vulgar character, I think it should be fairer to this film. THE MUSIC LOVERS is not up to Ken Russell's other masterpieces like WOMEN IN LOVE, but in terms of film-making, this is a marvellous film. In the film's opening, Tchaikovsky (Richard Chamberlain), playing wildly with his sleigh, has a brief encounter with Antonina Milyukova (Glenda Jackson), later his wife. This opening is simply as witty as David Lean's DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, where Omar Sharif has a brief encounter with Julie Christie on a tram in the beginning, not realizing at that time that this is the woman who will become part of his life. Indeed, this is how THE MUSIC LOVERS brings these two important characters together, Nina attending Tchaikovsky's concert, imagining herself having a good time with the soldier she loves, who later turns out to be an abuser. In Nina's imagination and with the 2nd symphony as the background music, Tchaikovsky shoot the soldier dead in a duel for Nina, and the two embrace. Audience will learn that this is Tchaikovsky's fantasy too, resulting in their marriage, which soon becomes disastrous. Throughout the film, Tchaikovsky's music is combined with perfect editing. His 6th symphony is used in the scene on a train, where Nina gets drunk and takes off all her clothes while Tchaikovsky feels sick as he sees Nina's breasts and vagina. The montage here alternating between Tchaikovsky's face of agony and Nina's body is simply perfect. Symbolism is also the key to success for this film. In the house of Madame von Meck, Tchaikovsky's secret subsidizer, fireworks form Tchaikovsky's face, and this is when Madame von Meck finds out about his homosexuality. The fireworks become dimmer and dimmer, signifying the end of their relationship. Now he has to compose without subsidy, and this comes the climax of the film, the use of 1812 Overture, in which we watch Tchaikovsky's fantasy of getting rid of all the people in his life, the canons being used to blow off their heads one by one, again done through the best montage ever. THE MUSIC LOVERS is not at all faithful to Tchaikovsky's life, but which biographic film is? Even LUST FOR LIFE has received the same criticism. When you watch THE MUSIC LOVERS, I think you should be looking for more than just the story itself. Anyway, I have read about Tchaikovsky in encyclopaedia, and I don't find THE MUSIC LOVERS that untrue. The film is not one of Ken Russell's masterpieces, but certainly one of his most stylish. Also, I am convinced that a first-class actress like Glenda Jackson, who won an Oscar just a year before, in WOMEN IN LOVE, would not have agreed to act in a film which she believed to have a bad script. She really sacrificed a lot for this film. Besides showing her breasts and vagina, she even cut almost all her hair for the asylum scene by the end of the film, and this is unquestionably Glenda Jackson in her ugliest. I think such sacrifice should have at least earned her an Oscar nomination, but of course, she was already nominated for another film, SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY, that very same year.

Watch and enjoy !
When is this little gem* going to come out on DVD ?

*for the squared minant.

Tchaikovsky's Genuis Laid Bare
Ken Russell is one of the most underrated directors in cinema, and although his later output does not reflect the great potential he possesses, it is his earlier films that showcased his true talents in their unique and controversial style.
Russell was instrumental, along with directors like Lindsay Anderson and Nic Roeg,in giving British cinema its own more subtle version of 'nouvelle vague' in the early 70s.
His great passion for literature and classical music was a constant source of inspiration,from his adaptation of D.H Lawrence's 'Women in Love' his most acclaimed film to date, to his biographies of Elgar,Liszt, Mahler and Tchaikovsky.
The British film establishment along with almost all critics liked nothing better than to dismiss Russell and his films as pompous and over indulgent.Micheal Winner has always had his share of these snide reviews and remarks, but although he is a remarkable socialite and bon vivant, his direction talents can not be compared to Russell's at all ,thus making the cold shoulder the latter received totally unjustified.
Music Lovers, was one of the first films I ever saw, and it was largely responsible for two main developments in my life,
my love and appreciation of classical music on one hand, and a passion for cinema that remains as strong and vibrant to this day on the other.
It is a biography of this greatest of composers,Tchaikovsky, like nothing you are likely to see..Amadeus was majestic and grand..Beethoven's Immortal Beloved was too polished...Russell in Music Lovers gives us a biography that is troubled, anxious, raw and unashamedly personal.
The crazy camera movements, the use of music both as part of the plot and as a background, the emphasis on an aspect of the great composer's life rarely written about or known:
Russell in Music Lovers was able to show the viewers the human with his failings, successes and indulgences that were behind the creative genius, and the agony, despair as well as joy behind the music.
Critics have slammed the film as an bombastic emphasis on Tchaikovsky's homosexuality, but they did miss the point totally..for I believe Russell was not trying to talk about the composer's sexual orientation, rather more about the demons that haunted him and the confusions and anxiousness that followed him throughout his life, his loves, disappointments, and friendships and from which many masterpieces came to life.
I loved the fact how cleverly Russell uses the music to enhance the drama and the mood of the his film: in a way the music of Tchaikovsky speaks in itself the story of its composer..this Russell I believe understood very well and used it to his benefit.And of course it is safe to say that Richard Chamberlain as the Russian composer gave his best performance to date, while actress turned politician Glenda Jackson who worked with Russell on Women In love,is one of the best actresses in the world, in the Rampling-Dench-Redgrave league, and had she not chosen a different career, I am certain she would have delighted cinema lovers with many more great performances.
The sad fact that Music Lovers is not yet released on DVD just confirms how underrated that great director is. At a time when really awful films get a two disc releases with tons of extras, classic films such as Music Lovers, remain out of stock and out of sight to cinema lovers everywhere to be seen again or rediscovered. It is time to give this film a proper release, and its director the recognition that he truly deserves.

Fantastic!
I must say this is about the best movie I saw that I never knew that it existed. The whole thing is a masterpeice from beginning to end. Never a dull 5 minutes and always stays interesting. Perhaps the best "under-the-influence" movie ever made! Can't wait for the DVD release! *crosses fingers* ... Read more

Reviews (152)

Ignorance is bliss
...Anyone who has done the least bit of research will know that David Lynch has final cut of everything he does. He chose to cut the movie down from its original inception. Please know that this is a fantastic movie, and the DVD IS Lynch-approved. As for the commentary and deleted scenes, Lynch has stated many times that he will NEVER do commentary, and does not agree whole-heartedly with including deleted scenes. He also refuses to use chapter stops (this is good). If you need someone to hold your hand while you watch this movie, and explain how to think for yourself, then I propose you find a different film to watch.

Goodbye Cherry Pie
Remember Laura Palmer? She's the one who was into sex, drugs and..., ended up killed by..., wrapped in plastic, and then it all began. Well here is the oft-times lurid, unsettling and sometimes plain scary film about Laura. This is not the eccentric drama/comedy we know as "Twin Peaks:TV series, and it's not for the fair weather Peaks fans. David Lynch lets us know that this is the flip side right at the opening credits when the violent destruction of a television is followed by a bloodcurdling scream. No wonder they hated it! I love it, and thanks to NewLine who in conjunction with none other than the maestro himself have produced a gorgeous digital transfer of this essential work. Forget the deleted scenes fiasco..with this quality sound and picture, and a good price, this is a no brainer for true Twin Peaks fans. I docked a star because the only substantial extra, the "documentary" is quite a disappointment. If you have absorbed the series and permit the Lynchian universe to enfold you, "Fire Walk with Me" will reveal itself as a coherent,disturbing and beautiful adventure. Great performances by Sheryl Lee and Ray Wise, but the real star is the director who gave us something that we never expected, and it gets better at each viewing.Wow Bob Wow!!

The Reason this movie wasn't as good is becuz.....
In the David Lynch "motion pictures" collection, there are 8 films that have been made since 1978. "Eraserhead," "Elephant Man," "Dune," "Blue Velvet," "Wild at Heart," "Fire Walk With Me," "Lost Highway," and his latest, "Straight Story." The four best are Eraserhead, Fire Walk With Me, Blue Velvet and Lost Highway.

David Lynch's vision of "FIRE WALK WITH ME," is not bad because he wanted it to be. The original fire walk with me movie is romoured to be over 3 and a half hours long. There is PROMISED to be a FIRE WALK WITH ME DVD coming out soon. It should be out later this spring with all the cuts that werent originally in the TWIN PEAKS movie. Please.... dont be disappointed with the original though, it is a good movie. You should try this movie, I THINK, before you watch, rent or buy the TWIN PEAKS TV series.

thanks

garmonbozia, all right.
See, this movie is yet another intentional turkey in the David Lynch stinkography. When will you people believe me when I tell you the man simply likes to make bad movies?!? The picture comes off as a demented episode of Northern Exposure with the plot-wiring torn out and the character development up on blocks. Throw in the obligatory sinister midget and sundry unemployed freaks and... Weee're in business! Oh, wait... we need something for the characters to do... well, they can all just take turns going insane, can't they? Problem solved! David Lynch is a modern freak show operator. The freak show has never gone away. It has just been billed as something else.

Prequel sets the stage for series pilot
Shot after the series was cancelled because there was a demand overseas for more "Twin Peaks" material, "Fire Walk with Me" gives us a glimpse of what occurred just prior to Laura Palmer's murder in the pilot. While it spells out some things only hinted at in the pilot and is a bit more literal than the series, "Fire Walk with Me" also has the benefit of being a theatrical film and, as such, we get to dig deeper into the underbelly of the town.

The first thirty minutes of the film are devoted to a murder similar to Palmer's that occurs in another town. A pair of FBI agents are sent in to investigate (Chris Issak and Keifer Sutherland). When they run into resistence from the local law enforcement, they're forced to flex their FBI muscles a bit. While investigating a clue in a trailer park, one of the agents vanishes. Agent Cooper (MacLachlan)is called in to find the missing agent.

Far more surreal than the series with a number of high profile cameos (David Bowie, Harry Dean Stanton), this is a bit more bizarre as well when compared to the series (and even the pilot). The DVD is chapter encoded (unlike the frustrating "Mulholland Drive"), has an original documentary that's shot in a style like Lynch might have used with the original cast (save Piper Laurie, Michael Ontkean, Jack Nance and a couple of other cast members)about the impact of the show.

It's an excellent companion piece of the pilot (available as of now only as a region 0 DVD from Taiwan)and the series (available as a boxed set for the first season only with, reportedly, the second season coming next year some time). Picture quality is exceptionally good with the sound particularly outstanding in its use of 5.1.

A solid cast with a good script that meanders a bit, "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me" plays better than parts of the first season but isn't quite as strong as both the pilot and first 8 episodes of the series. It's still worthwhile for fans of the show. ... Read more

Reviews (79)

Definitely worth seeing. Worth owning? Questionable.
Dustin Hoffman is a living legend. You can read any of the other excellent reviews here to get a good idea of what the movie is about, so instead I'm going to give you 'the truth as I see it' about why you should see this movie.
Obviously, Dustin Hoffman plays the role of David wonderfully. Susan George does a good job, although it would have been nice for this intended town hottie to have a pretty smile along with her pretty physique. But I guess that's the catch 22 in selecting a British cast, especially from that day and age.
The controversial rape scene in this movie, is almost paralyzingly disturbing. (Yes, paralyzingly...I don't care if it's not a word.) It's disgusting really. It was also very confusing for me, because of the fact that she was saying no, but the viewer actually does get the impression that she doesn't mean no. She kisses her 'rapist' and pulls him closer, and she invites him in in the first place, and then tells him not to leave. A very awkward occurrence. When the second guy rapes her, we understand clearly that she does not want him, but still she seems to have some strange bond with the first guy (apparently and ex-boyfriend or something) as they have a sort of strangely mutually understanding chemistry throughout the movie. This was one of the most disturbing scenes in any movie I've seen recently. It doesn't help that all the while we get up close facial expressions from her, showing a sense of horror and disgust, but at the same time thrilling satisfaction.
Basically, she gives in very easily when there is any sense of punishment as a consequence of resistance. She is trapped in a kind of school-girl mentality, playing childish pranks and teasing the men by showing her breasts and underwear to them. I'm guessing this is related to the way she was treated when she was that age. David, on the other hand, is a controlled, maturing man, trying to focus on his work. He doesn't give in so easily, and although some have said that he plays the role of mouse time and time again until he finally emerges as a 'real man' in the end of the movie, I personally feel that he is not the timid guy everyone thinks him to be, but rather that circumstance does not allow him to show his manliness (for example, when his wife brings in the bowl of milk with the beers). He is more confused than anything because he doesn't believe there is any real reason to confront the hooligans, until the execution of Kitty.
Anyway, like a lot of other people I was very confused by the ending. The implications of David defending his house, his wife, his honor, and his sense of manhood by protecting a man that actually was guilty of murder (albeit accidental), raise a whole other topic of discussion.
The violence, with the exception of the rape scene, is pretty tame according to today's standards, but the psychological horror is in full throttle here. This is a thinker's horror/suspense (not horror in the conventional sense of the word) movie.
The laughter of the crazy hooligan was really annoying to me. I'm sure many people will disagree with my views on the movie, but I think it's important to look at the movie for what it IS, as well as what it means.
I'm definitely glad to have seen this movie, and would highly recommend it, but I don't believe I'll be adding it to my collection. I might see it again one day, but movies this disturbing and confusing aren't usually on my list of favorite flicks to cuddle up to late at night.

PEACENIK HOFFMAN GOES BONKERS
In 1971 Sam Peckinpah's controversial STRAW DOGS was censored by the British Board of Film Classification. The cuts made it even more provocative than Peckinpah intended. Consequently, Straw Dogs was labeled by the media as an obscene, misogynistic piece of filmmaking. Regarding the uncut American version, even the esteemed Pauline Kael said it's "the first American film that is a fascist work of art."

"Straw Dogs" stands as one of Peckinpah's best, and a reminder of the ongoing struggle between an artist's freedom and suppression by the powers that be. But more than that, it's a brilliant and harrowing exploration of man's primitive animal nature and its implied, inherent violence.

The transfer's clean and sharp. Extras include an 80 minute look at Peckinpah's films and a new interview with Susan George, who talks about her daring, controversial performance of a woman who for a few brief moments seemed to enjoy being raped.

What does "Straw Dogs" mean? Is it from the saying: Behind every coward's eyes burn straw dogs? If so, what does that mean? What are "straw dogs"?

Another thing. Recently (of this writingt) Dustin Hoffman has made a point of speaking out about certain military operations to free brutalized, oppressed people. Personally, I'd rather not know what an actor thinks and feels about politics. However, in "Straw Dogs" Hoffman shows what it takes to fight evil aggression. His screen performance will outlive his words.

Recommended.

HORRIBLE!!!
I agree with another reviewer in that you'll either love this or hate it. But I think most people will hate it. (Note: I have nothing against violence in films, and I liked the Kill Bill movies.) The main problem here is that almost every character in this film is utterly unlikable, and terrible things happen to the two characters who are likeable. But even that wouldn't be so bad, if the film had a message.

Dustin Hoffman's character is a whiney, wimpy, and mean spirited person who, when he finally decides to act, he does so for all of the wrong reasons & defends the wrong person. I end up hating him MORE than the bad guys.
I rank this as the most unwatchable movie I have ever seen, even below "Short Cuts".
However, if you liked "Short Cuts", you'd probably like this, and vice versa.

A Remarkable Film Which Stands the Test of Time.
This is a really interesting film on many levels. It's not perfect; but, few works of modern art are. Nevertheless, this work stands the test of time. Firstly, one of the most remarkable things about this film is the absolutely Hitchcockian editing, which is remotely primitivistic, but strangely compelling: the editing engenders a peculiar ambience to the film right from the beginning brawl scene in the pub. Then, from the denoument sequence--which begins with the equally primitive church function and runs through to the climax and epilogue--the editing is nothing less than fine art. Secondly, the sets of the pub and the farm house are very convincing and interesting in their own right: there's plenty to look at. Also, the outdoor scenes with the ocean in background and the Cornish village all have the verisimilitude of realism. Thirdly, the soundtrack is not at all bad. Fourthly, the acting is good: of course, Hoffman is nothing less than brilliant; Peter Vaughn is excellent as the burly boorish Englishman; and Susan George isn't bad: she begins weak, but by the middle of the film she's quite okay, and from the denoument mentioned above, she's fine. Also, David Warner as the half-witted cripple is excellent--though not given notice in the credits. Lastly, the story is fairly well formed and possibly plausible--though that's no recommendation for fiction! It is possible in realistic or naturalistic fiction that a university professor might get a grant and take a semester or even a year off to do research; and this professor might want to go to some remote European destination where his wife has ancestral property by the sea, to get away from it all to do his thought-work; and it is possible that this professor might have married the woman out of sexual attraction, fully knowing that she had much less education than himself and was his intellectual inferior. But the plot has a quasi-classical form of characters with flawed personality traits; tension and contentious issues; incident follows upon incident resulting in a shattering climax, followed by an ambivalent coda. What more can one say?

Another amazing masculine character study by Peckinpah.
It's not at all hard to see the connection between Peckinpah's two greatest movies: Straw Dogs and The Wild Bunch. Both are studies of what it means to be a man, a look at the masculine and sometimes violent male nature. Basically, Straw Dogs is about an extremely timid American intellectual who decides to escape the Vietnam-fueled violence of the USA by moving into the small English town where his wife was raised. However, the man soon realizes that violence is pretty much omnipresent, when the men he hires to fix up his new home begin pushing him and his wife around. I won't give away the ending, but if you know Peckinpah you can probably guess.

of course, most people will probably want to see the movie for its infamous rape scene (which got the film banned in the UK, where it was filmed). Not only is the rape graphic, but the victim actually appears to enjoy it; at least at first. Here I must disagree with the lengthy rant of a prior reviewer when I say that the rape scene is not simply an exercise in mysoginy, but rather helps to show just how immasculinated the main character has become. Throughout the first half of the movie we see his wife slowly flirting with the contractors (at one point even letting them see her topless). This suggests quite obviously that she has become so disgruntled with her husbands lack of backbone that she is actively seducing the very masculine contractors, and the fact that she enjoys the rape is simply the logical extreme of her desire to have a truly "manly" partner. Of course, those who've seen the movie know that eventually she's punished for her covetry of man's aggressive nature.

Overall, I highly recommend this movie. In fact, I'd suggest you get it ASAP, since the Criterion version has been out of print for months now and won't likely be available for much longer. You need a strong stomach to watch it, certainly, and the pace is very deliberate, but those who have patience and put effort into understanding the meaning of the film will be very well rewarded. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Eddie Murphy does keep testing our patience by trying to expand his cinematic horizons. For some reason, he is the only person on the entire planet who can rescue a magically gifted child from the clutches of evil kidnappers. A detective who specializes in locating lost children, he is chosen by a Tibetan princess to lead a rescue mission that will save the world from the clutches of Old Nick.

Murphy was at the height of his career, having enjoyed his first box-office crest when he attempted this more dramatic role. If his career survived the gamble, it certainly was not because of the lackluster script, mediocre production values, or leaden performance of costar Charlotte Lewis. Not that Murphy does much with his role, either. He mugs for the camera and his timing is off in both dramatic and comedic moments. Stick with his earlier triumphs, or explore his subsequent return to confident comedy turns in The Nutty Professor.-- Rochelle O'Gorman ... Read more

Reviews (27)

The Bald Magical Child
Perhaps the success of GHOSTBUSTERS was the inspiration for THE GOLDEN CHILD to mix comedy and horror fantasy. GHOSTBUSTERS had all the elements in perfect sync and THE GOLDEN CHILD is very uneven. Many of reviewers and moviegoers reaction to the movie was basically, to paraphrase many quotes, "Eddie Murphy was great and funny...but the story and plot was stupid!" It was reported that Eddie Murphy hated the out-of-country location shoots and it shows. His character, Chandler Jarrell is the reluctant hero who is a social worker and part time finder of missing children. Chandler is chosen (by divine providence) to find and save a magical child from kidnappers who are in the league with evil. There is an uncomfortable fantasy-supernatural, dream sequence that makes no sense in the context of the story. Also, in the final leg of the film, the stop-motion animated effects of a bat-winged demon and an actual "dragon lady" seems to be out of place and unexpected. The film takes its subject too seriously with Eddie Murphy winking at the audience. With his character's disbelief of the whole absurdity of the situation, maybe it was a tough sell for the audiences. Overall, a movie that showcases the early brilliance of Eddie Murphy but his comedy does not gel wit the rest of the film.

Hmmm
What an odd movie. Its a fantasy children's movie that thinks its a fantasy comedy. Murphy is completely lost at sea in this flick. As if he isn't entirely aware of what's going on or is trying to push the movie in a di