Amazon.com

Michael Radford's adaption of George Orwell's foreboding literary premonition casts John Hurt and Suzanna Hamilton as lovers who must keep their courtship secret.Aside from criminalizing sex and interpersonal relationships, the ruling party in their country Oceania both fabricates reality and reconstructs history for the sake of oppressing the masses.They brainwash their citizens via large, propaganda-spewing TV monitors installed in their living rooms, which also inspect everyone's activities. Hurt and Hamilton are among the few we see desperately trying to fight the system by keeping control of their thoughts and beliefs.While the atmosphere becomes a bit too stifling at times, the images are quite striking with their muted colors and dilapidated sets. In an interesting bit of casting, Richard Burton costars (in his final role) as a government agent who surreptitiously exposes Hurt to the ideas of resistance. Unlike many like-minded films, 1984 does not offer a flashy vision of the future, but then that aspect makes it feel all the more real. In an age when more and more of our everyday activities are being scrutinized, Big Brother may not be so far off after all. --Bryan Reesman ... Read more

Reviews (102)

An outstanding rendition/interpretation of Orwell's novel.
This movie/DVD captures the spirit of Orwell's novel more perfectly than almost any movie I have ever seen that was derived from a book. The film perfectly captures the sense of dispair, the dingy physical lives of the people, the omnipresence of a malevolent Government, all of which constitute the main theme of the story.

William Hurt turns in quite literally a perfect performance as Winston Smith, the main protagonist of the story. The cinamatography of the film is brilliant, and perfectly captures the dingy, ratty existence of life in the ultimate totalitarian/socialist state. The constant background harangue of the Party via the telescreens is perfectly done. If Orwell had lived to see this film I believe that he would find little or nothing to criticize. It brilliantly captures the novel for the silver screen.

Without giving anything away, this is the story of one Winston Smith, a citizen of "Oceania" which is one of three superstates that dominate the world. (Oceania is comprised of Britain, the Americas, and Australasia; its adversaries Eurasia and Eastasia are of similar size and power). The Government dominates and controls everything through the "Party" which promotes the doctrine "Ingsoc" (derived from "English Socialism"). Everyone, even the elite, live in a ramshackle dingy world in which shortages of everything is the norm--it is a world in which "nothing is cheap and plentiful." (Basically your socialist state taken to the nth degree). Winston works in a pointless job that involves constantly re-writing old archives to conform to present "realities" as defined by the Party. Love is forbidden other than love of the Party and its leader ("Big Brother") and the "Thought Police" ruthlessly root out anyone who fails to conform to the requirement of strict orthodoxy and Party loyalty. The fact that Winston is such a one is the central theme to the story. When he falls in love with a beautiful young woman, his troubles begin in earnest.

To properly appreciate this film, the viewer should of course first read the book. I would imagine that the film would be somewhat bewildering to one who was not familiar at least with the novel's basic theme and premise--the dispair of life under the ultimate totalitarian state.

This is not a film for the whole family to enjoy together. It is intense and depressing. The final portion of the movie, involving Winston Smith and O'Brian (Richard Burton in his final role) is long, unhappy, and downright dreary. Although utterly necessary as an essential component of the story, it both drags and depresses.

1984 is essentially the story of the ultimate result of allowing Government (any Government) to run our lives, and what will happen if the people substitute trust in Big Government for the love of liberty and freedom.

Doubleplus Outstanding!!!
"April 4th, 1984 ... I think"

I picked 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' as one of the books for a high school reading assignment in my junior year. I didn't actually read it then (1975), but read it just after high school. By the time I'd finished it was near the top of my list of favorite books ' and remains so. When '1984' came out in 1984 I, naturally, rented the video and fell in love with the film. It was one of the better-done film adaptations of a book that I'd seen. I was really taken with the martial music of Dominic Muldowney so I rushed out and bought ' 'The Soundtrack' ' by the Eurythmics. Well, no martial music, no nothing; just Eurythmics. When the Muldowney soundtrack became available a few years ago I purchased it and tried to envision the film with Mr. Radford's original choice attached. I even wrote the director to ask if it was going to be different than the '84 release (I never heard back from him).

So what's all this about soundtracks and the Eurythmics and Muldowney you ask? When my copy of this DVD came in March 2003 I was more than pleasantly surprised with a number of things. First, the picture quality is plusgood. Secondly, and even though they are credited, there is not a hint of the Eurythmics on this DVD! That's doubleplus-phenomenal! The film has a different 'feel' to it, almost a nostalgic feel, that the original didn't have and that I credit to the soundtrack changes. I know there are some that think the film should have been tampered with, but having followed the history of this film and the conflict Mr. Radford encountered with Virgin, I'm very pleased that it's been released in this format. I would have liked to have seen the Eurythmics soundtrack added as an option, but it was not.

As someone said earlier; this is not the book. It is a well-written, well-adapted, film that captures (for me) the essence of Orwell's work. I highly recommend it.

*sigh* Get the VHS!
I've seen the VHS version a dozen times, and waited a LONG time to get my hands on the DVD. Well, I finally saw it two days ago.

I regret to say, I'm glad I only rented it.

In short, the DVD version of this film is completely, utterly LIFELESS. Not boring, but passionless and without the vitality of the original. I suspect it is a combination of the inappropriately bright, clear colors (not suggestively muted and washed-out as in the VHS) and the new, quietly ponderous "serious" soundtrack which is just plain...well...weak. Overall, this version is about as impressive as a good made for TV movie, if that can be called a compliment.

Please do not judge Radford's 1984 by the DVD, even if he is reported to prefer this version (something I will NEVER understand). The life has been literally SUCKED from this film. If you can find a copy of the VHS, watch it instead. It is literally a different movie - try it and see.

The only good thing about the DVD is the addition of subtitles which do clarify many scenes. That I liked.

Kudos to No Soundtrack Alternative comment
I agree with the review of this DVD concerning the lack of the Eurythmics soundtrack. Absolute blasphemy! Radford has not only made a huge miscalculation in judgment -- he's showing his true colors. His hatred of the Eurythmics soundtrack was only the beginning. He has completely taken Dave Stewart and Annie Lennox out of the film! He has somehow digitally removed them!

meaningless without the novel
A film by Michael Radford

Clever. Very clever. This movie was filmed in 1984 during the months that were specified in George Orwell's novel. It was also released in 1984. This fit perfectly with the title and gave a nice contrast between Orwell's vision of the future and what the world was like at that very time. The question, however, is: Is "1984" any good as a movie? Well, yes and no, and it has everything to do with what was included in the movie.

The year is 1984 and the setting is London. At least, the city used to be London. Now it is just a city in Oceania. Oceania is a communist style society where propaganda rules the day and history is re-written daily to reflect the views of "The Party". One day Oceania may be at war with Eurasia, and the next Oceania is at war with East Asia and has always been at war with East Asia. History is changed and officially, the past never happened if "The Party" says that it didn't happen. Winston Smith (John Hurt) is a worker. It is his job to change history's headlines. Through Winston's eyes we see "The Party" outlaw personal relationships, emotional attachment, and even thought that does not mirror the party line. The latter is called "thought crime".

Winston is a thought criminal. He secretly writes in a journal about the revisionist policies and he visits a store that sells (on the sly) items that are older than Oceania (one piece is said to be 100 years old). Winston is secretly seditious and he meets Julia (Suzanna Hamilton), who, like Winston, is defying Oceania as she can. Her method is sex. Sex for pleasure is highly illegal and this is the foundation of their relationship. We know that a movie set in a world with this sort of a society, they have to be caught because we have to no what the repercussions of their actions will be.

The main difference between this film and the novel is simply that in the film we are seeing what Orwell described, and in the book all we have is the words of George Orwell. The reason this is a difference is that in the movie we know what a thing looks like, but not what it is. One example of this is the "two minute hate". Orwell describes several scenes in which the workers are given a forum where they must vent and scream and express their hatred for the enemies of Oceania. It is a form of social control. We get a sense of what is going on, and why. In the movie, we see what happens and how it affects the workers, but the detail which makes the scene meaningful is missing. This is fairly typical of the film and is the biggest flaw. If I hadn't read the novel, the film would be confusing and meaningless. It is only because I have read the source material that I know what these scenes are and why they are important. We do get a good sense of the type of society that Orwell envisioned as a potential future, and the visualization of the characters and the world is excellent. It is just lacking the meaning that is available in Orwell's text. Film is a different medium than a novel and a movie should not be dependant on the novel to make it comprehensible and meaningful. Unfortunately, "1984" fails in this regard. It is faithful to the source material, but the film can't succeed without the novel.

-Joe Sherry ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Ranking No. 21 on the American Film Institute's list of the 100 greatest American films, this 1940 classic is a bit dated in its noble sentimentality, but it remains a luminous example of Hollywood classicism from the peerless director of mythic Americana, John Ford. Adapted by Nunnally Johnson from John Steinbeck's classic novel, the film tells a simple story about Oklahoma farmers leaving the depression-era dustbowl for the promised land of California, but it's the story's emotional resonance and theme of human perseverance that makes the movie so richly and timelessly rewarding. It's all about the humble Joad family's cross-country trek to escape the economic devastation of their ruined farmland, beginning when Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) returns from a four-year prison term to discover that his family home is empty. He's reunited with his family just as they're setting out for the westbound journey, and thus begins an odyssey of saddening losses and strengthening hopes. As Ma Joad, Oscar-winner Jane Darwell is the embodiment of one of America's greatest social tragedies and the "Okie" spirit of pressing forward against all odds (as she says, "because we're the people"). A documentary-styled production for which Ford and cinematographer Gregg Toland demanded painstaking authenticity, The Grapes of Wrath is much more than a classy, old-fashioned history lesson. With dialogue and scenes that rank among the most moving and memorable ever filmed, it's a classic among classics--simply put, one of the finest films ever made. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (45)

Ford and Fonda do justice to Steinbeck
Take John Steinbeck's Pulitzer-Prize-Winning Novel. Turn it into a movie and let John Ford direct it, and get Henry Fonda to star. In 1940 you could hardly find a more certain recipe for a cinema classic.

As good as the film is, it really should be a companion-piece to Steinbeck's original masterpiece, and if you haven't read it I recommend setting aside enough time to read one of the greatest pieces of American literature ever written.

That being said, the medium of the cinema allows for a visual impact that can't be matched with the written word.

The Grapes of Wrath follows the Joad family during the great depression. That period of economic hardship hit the farmers in Oklahoma a little harder than the rest of the world, at the time of the dust bowl the "Okies" were at the end of their ropes, financially speaking.

Thousands of Okies packed up the house after being foreclosed and moved out to California - many winding up around Bakersfield, at the California end of old US Route 66. (Merle Haggard's family did so and the "Okie from Muscogee" wrote about it in songs like "California Cottonfields".)

Anyway, this is the historical context of the movie. The theme of the movie, and of Steinbeck's book, is the ability of the human spirit to remain intact in these worst of times. The Joads suffer terrible humiliations, one after another, most of them because of their desperate financial status. But as the story proceeds we see that they are fundamentally decent, hard-working people, and every time life knocks them down they get back up, brush the dirt off themselves, and keep moving forward. As a national characteristic, this was an important trait because this was the generation that produced the hard-working, high-minded individuals who did important things like win World War II, followed by America's greatest financial flourishing and the Baby Boom. Tom Brokaw called them "America's Greatest Generation".

The cast is picture-perfect, with Henry Fonda as the spirited Tom Joad and John Carradine as the former preacher with a new social consciousness. Jane Darwell won a well-deserved Best Supporting Actress Award as Ma Joad, and the remainder of the cast is in every way equal to the story and the film.

An American Classic
This is a great movie based on a great novel, and I am surprised by how honestly the film captures the raw humanity of the book. Steinbeck weaved social commentary into the story, and the movie makes many points about the human condition and spirit without being heavy-handed. The story of the Joads and their fight for survival rings very true, thanks to the realistic performances and the atmosphere created by director John Ford. Henry Fonda gives one of the best performances I have ever seen him give, and his "I'll be there" speech is one of the great movie moments. Jane Darwell is also very impressive, and her direct, down-to-earth style of acting makes the quiet strength and the suffering of Ma Joad seem very real. The Grapes of Wrath is an American classic, both as a novel and as a film.

"I'll be all aroun' in the dark."
"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loos'd the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword, His truth is marching on." - Battle Hymn of the Republic.

In 1936, John Steinbeck wrote a series of articles about the migrant workers driven to California from the Midwestern states after losing their homes in the throes of the depression: inclement weather, failed crops, land mortgaged to the hilt and finally taken over by banks and large corporations when credit lines ran dry. Lured by promises of work aplenty, the Midwesterners packed their belongings and trekked westward to the Golden State, only to find themselves facing hunger, inhumane conditions, contempt and exploitation instead. "Dignity is all gone, and spirit has turned to sullen anger before it dies," Steinbeck described the result in one of his 1936 articles, collectively published as "The Harvest Gypsies;" and in another piece ("Starvation Under the Orange Trees," 1938) he asked: "Must the hunger become anger and the anger fury before anything will be done?"

By the time he wrote the latter article, Steinbeck had already published one novel addressing the agricultural laborers' struggle against corporate power ("In Dubious Battle," 1936). Shortly thereafter he began to work on "The Grapes of Wrath," which was published roughly a year later. Although the book would win the Pulitzer Prize (1940) and become a cornerstone foundation of Steinbeck's Literature Nobel Prize (1962), it was sharply criticized upon its release - nowhere more so than in the Midwest - and still counts among the 35 books most frequently banned from American school curricula: A raw, brutally direct, yet incredibly poetic masterpiece of fiction, it continues to touch nerves deeply rooted in modern society's fabric; including and particularly in California, where yesterday's Okies are today's undocumented Mexicans - Chicano labor leader Cesar Chavez especially pointed out how well he could empathize with the Joad family, because he and his fellow workers were now living the same life they once had.

Having fought hard with his publisher to maintain the novel's uncompromising approach throughout, Steinbeck was weary to give the film rights to 20th Century Fox, headed by powerful mogul and, more importantly, known conservative Daryl F. Zanuck. Yet, Zanuck and director John Ford largely stayed true to the novel: There is that sense of desperation in farmer Muley's (John Qualen's) expression as he tells Tom and ex-preacher Casy (Henry Fonda and John Carradine) how the "cats" came and bulldozed down everybody's homes, on behalf of a corporate entity too intangible to truly hold accountable. There is Grandpa Joad (Charley Grapewin), literally clinging to his earth and dying of a stroke (or, more likely, a broken heart) when he is made to leave against his will. There is everybody's brief joy upon first seeing Bakersfield's rich plantations - everybody's except Ma Joad's (Jane Darwell's), that is, who alone knows that Grandma (Zeffie Tilbury) died in her arms before they even started to cross the Californian desert the previous night. There is the privately-run labor camps' utter desolation, complete with violent guards, exploitative wages, lack of food and unsanitary conditions; contrasted with the relative security and more humane conditions of the camps run by the State. And there is Tom's crucial development from a man acting alone to one seeing the benefit of joining efforts in a group, following Casy's example, and his parting promise to Ma that she'll find him everywhere she looks - wherever there is injustice, struggle, and people's joint success. In an overall outstanding cast, which also includes Dorris Bowdon (Rose of Sharon), Eddie Quillan (Rose's boyfriend Connie), Frank Darien (Uncle John) and a brief appearance by Ward Bond as a friendly policeman, Henry Fonda truly shines as Tom; despite his smashing good looks fully metamorphosized into Steinbeck's quick-tempered, lanky, reluctant hero.

Yet, in all its starkness the movie has a more optimistic slant than the novel; due to a structural change which has the Joads moving from bad to acceptable living conditions (instead of vice versa), the toning down of Steinbeck's political references - most importantly, the elimination of a monologue using a land owner's description of "reds" as anybody "that wants thirty cents and hour when we're payin' twenty-five" to show that under the prevalent conditions that definition applies to virtually *every* migrant laborer - and a greater emphasis on Ma Joad's pragmatic, forward-looking way of dealing with their fate; culminating in her closing "we's the people" speech (whose direction, interestingly, Ford, who would have preferred to end the movie with the image of Tom walking up a hill alone in the distance, left to Zanuck himself). Jane Darwell won a much-deserved Academy-Award for her portrayal as Ma; besides John Ford's Best Director award the movie's only winner on Oscar night - none of its other five nominations scored, unfortunately including those in the Best Picture and Best Leading Actor categories, which went to Hitchcock's "Rebecca" and James Stewart ("The Philadelphia Story") instead. Still, despite its critical success - also expressed in a "Best Picture" National Board of Review award - and its marginally optimistic outlook, the movie engendered almost as much controversy as did Steinbeck's book. After the witch hunt setting in not even a decade later, today it stands as one of the last, greatest examples of a movie pulling no punches in the portrayal of society's ailments; a type of film regrettably rare in recent years.

"Ev'rybody might be just one big soul - well it looks that-a way to me. ... Wherever men are fightin' for their rights, that's where I'm gonna be, ma. That's where I'm gonna be." - Woody Guthrie, "The Ballad of Tom Joad."

"The highway is alive tonight, but nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes. I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light, with the ghost of old Tom Joad." - Bruce Springsteen, "The Ghost of Tom Joad."

The Grapes--and Apples and Oranges--of Wrath
It's striking how many reviewers here base their comments on a simplisitic comparison between the film version of "The Grapes of Wrath" and the Steinbeck novel on which it was based. For many such a comparison seems to function simply as an excuse to proclaim the inherent superiority of the Steinbeck original--and, by extension, the superiority of their own literary taste values-- when all it really does is highlight the patent silliness of trying to pit different artforms into some sort of evaluative competition. Literature and cinema are two vastly different modes of representation each with their own strengths and limitations, so the framing question shouldn't be which version of "The Grapes of Wrath" is "better"--as if there were a universal yardstick with which to measure such things--but rather how do they perform in terms of their respective mediums? On that count, I think we are extraordinarily fortunate with both the Steinbeck and Ford versions of "The Grapes of Wrath" to have two masterworks that operate consummately at the peak of their respective artforms. What each does well, it does brilliantly. As a verbal medium that unfolds slowly, literature is good at offering rich, layered descriptions of person and place and mapping complicated narrative links and Steinbeck makes the most of this in his novel. Cinema, by contrast, is an expressive medium that works best through registers of visual and aural metaphor, allegory and performance...and it's on this ground that I think the film version of "The Grapes of Wrath" more than merits its classic status. It is a magnificently "cinematic" film that uses the expressive capacities of the medium to produce a richly layered experience that is truly moving and that lingers long afterward, sometimes for years or even a whole lifetime. I first saw "The Grapes of Wrath" on TV one rainy afternoon in my childhood and it left indelible impressions that have impelled me to go back to the film time and again: The haunted eyes of Jane Darwell's Ma Joad as she sits in the truck cabin, lit from beneath, driving into an uncertain future, the winds of history howling oustside; the terrifying collision montage as the monstrous "cats" move in to destroy the Okies' homes; the soulless gas station attendants, standing together in uniforms like corporatized automata, muttering that the Joads are too miserable to be human. It's a film dense with iconic richness and an enduring testament both to the artistry of the many workers that created it, and to the democratic spirit of popular cinema at its very best.

As good a restoration as possible
This DVD restoration is probably as good as possible given that the original camera negative was lost. This is the one to get.

By the way, there is NO widescreen version of "The Grapes of Wrath." This DVD release exhibits the full frame aspect ratio of the original (1.33 to 1 ratio). Essentially, films made between 1917 and 1952 were filmed with a full frame aspect ratio. Standard televisions were proportioned 4:3 to copy the standard cinema ratio. Widescreen (Cinemascope, etc) was a gimmick introduced by Hollywood in the 1950s to compete with television. So if a film was made between 1917 and 1952 don't go looking for a widescreen version of it because there isn't any! ... Read more

Reviews (119)

An great comedy thriller classic.
When an ambitious Small Time Crook (Two Time Oscar-Winner:Robert Redford) steals $10,000 with his old age partner from an dangerous criminal (Robert Shaw), later on that day, The Crook discover his crime partner has been murder by the crime lord. Then The Crook meets his dead friend ex-partner a Veteran Con-Man (Three Time Oscar-Winner:Paul Newman), who seek revenge on the crime lord.

Entertaining comedy is directed by George Roy Hill (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Slap Shot) and Written by David S. Ward (The Program). Winner of Seven Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Art Direction/Set Decoration, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, Best Score and Best Original Screenplay. The Film recieve Three Oscar Nominations, Including:Best Actor:-Robert Redford, Best Cinematography and Best Sound. The Sting has the Greatest Double Crossing in a Movie History, Complete with an Surprise Ending. Great Fun. Better to Wait for the Special Edition DVD in a Widescreen Version, which it will be 30 Years, Next Year. Grade:A.

The Quintessential Caper Flick
"The Sting" is an extremely well written story by David Ward ("Major League", "Sleepless in Seattle") and David Maurer about some smalltime grifters who attempt to swindle a mob boss. The film was nominated for ten Academy Awards in 1974 and won seven Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director. It reunited director George Roy Hill, Robert Redford and Paul Newman four years after their blockbuster, "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid". Strangely, although Butch and Sundance made it to number 50 on AFI's top 100 of the century, this film did not make that list. This is even more surprising since "Butch" did not win the Oscar for Best Picture in 1970 ("Midnight Cowboy" won it that year).

While I think "Butch" is funnier and more exciting, this film is more intriguing with interesting character studies and some unpredictable plot twists. Hill does a superb job of weaving the elements of the caper together and giving it a depression era feeling. The humor is more ironic than hilarious, but it fits the story well. The period props, locations, and sets are excellent, and the costumes are perfect. The costumes were done by the legendary Edith Head, who designed costumes for over 400 films in her 50-year career. She won an Oscar for best Costume Design for this film, which was one of eight she won in that category in a career marked by an astounding 34 Oscar nominations. The music by Scott Joplin and Marvin Hamlisch is also fabulous, bestowing an early twentieth century flavor on the film, and giving Hamlisch one of three Oscars he won that year (the other two were for "The Way We Were" also starring Redford).

Where "Butch" was probably a little more Newman's film, this film clearly belonged to Redford. Redford, who was nominated for best actor for the role, is marvelous in the lead, giving his character a charming, lighthearted personality to go along with his scheming intellect. Newman plays almost a supporting role as the veteran conman Henry Gondorff, who assembles the team for the caper and oversees its execution. Despite the smaller part, Newman gives an electrifying performance with his conniving tough guy portrayal. Robert Shaw ("From Russia With Love", "A Man For All Seasons", "Jaws") is also terrific as mob boss Doyle Lonnegan. Charles Durning ("The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas"), Ray Walston (TV's "My Favorite Martian") and Eileen Brennan ("Private Benjamin") round out a splendid supporting cast with fantastic character portrayals.

This film is entertaining and fun with a tight plot and wonderful period renderings. I rated it a 10/10. If you have never seen it, you are in for a treat.

THIS ONE REALLY STINGS!
"The Sting" is a classic throwback to Hollywood's golden age: a fish out of water tale about a couple of con artists (Paul Newman and Robert Redford) who seemingly meet their match in a cheating mobster (Robert Shaw). As the police close in from one end and the Mafia from the other, the stakes become higher, the comedy more hilarious and the ultimate con, more rewarding. The supporting cast is a potpourri of stellar characters including Dana Elcar, Eileen Brennan, Ray Walston, Charles Durning, and Harold Gould. Marvin Hamlisch provides a sophisticated score buttressed by Scott Joplin's ragtime jazz.

It is disheartening to see an Oscar wining Best Picture get so shabby a treatment on DVD. For starters, the film is presented in a full frame, pan and scan version only. The shortcomings of this format are that you are not seeing the film in a version director, George Roy Hill would have approved of. But apart from Universal's glaringly obvious oversight, the print quality of "The Sting" suffers from a poorly balanced color spectrum, age related artifacts, edge enhancement, shimmering of fine details and pixelization. Flesh tones are often weak and pasty. Blacks are rarely solid or deep. Fine grain can be excessive in spots. The audio is poorly mixed, sounding strident and tinny. There are no extra features.

Redford and Newman at it again
I just rented this DVD and watched the whole thing, but I've seen this movie several times before.

Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford) is a con artist who unknowingly swindles a lackey of crime boss Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw). After Hooker's partner in the crime is killed, Hooker vows revenge against Lonnegan and seeks Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman), one of the best cons in the game to help in the big Sting. Hooker would love to do more than just hit Lonnegan for a lot of money, but "doesn't know enough about killin' to kill him."

It's not easy separating a crime boss from his money, especially when he owns half the politicians and police. They have to take him without him even knowing he was taken. What follows is an exciting deception, carried out with professionalism and ingenuity.

I don't think the chemistry between Newman and Redford is quite as good as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, but it's still pretty darn good. Lines like this:

Redford (first seeing his arch-enemy): "He's not as tough as he thinks."
Newman: "Neither are we"

The story is classic. You don't exactly know who's who, and you wonder how they're going to pull it off in the end. Scott Joplin's ragtime music, although somewhat anachronistic, is effective at keeping the movie somewhat lighthearted. There are a couple of instances of swearing and a stripper with pasties on, which gives it a PG rating.

The reason for four stars is the fact that the DVD has NO EXTRAS, and the only option is the full screen version, no widescreen. A movie as good as this deserves better, which is unfortunate.

Overall, this is a great movie with great cinematography (transition wipe effects and some tracking shots) and phenomenal acting. Enjoy.

Widescreen?
I love the film, but why is this not available in Widescreen on DVD? There's been a Widescreen VHS, and I've seen it in Widescreen on Turner Classic Movies. I know it was shot in Widescreen, so how about it, Universal? ... Read more

Reviews (103)

But you are, Blanche. You ARE in that chair!
This is one great movie! "What Ever Happened to BabyJane?" is, as stated in Amazon's description, the story of twoaging sisters, each in her own way connected with show business.

Now the good stuff. The sisters are played by Bette Davis and Joan Crawford (the only time the two ever acted together) to absolute perfection. Crawford is wonderful in the role of crippled sister Blanche, but Miss Davis absolutely walks away with the show as the former "Baby" Jane Hudson. The role is meatly and she revels in it! It is obvious that Miss Davis held the philosophy that, if you are going to go over-the-top, don't apologize. And she doesn't. She goes WAY over-the-top with a gleeful abandon that is infectious.

The way she taunts her wheelchair-bound sister (the title quotes one of Jane's best lines), serves her meals of dead rodents and ex-pets, kicks her in the gut, mocks her ever-so-proper speech, etc. It's all so delicious. And check out the ballet that she does to one of the songs from her childhood vaudeville act. Bette Davis was obviously having the time of her life, and so do the viewers of this classic.

For the DVD edition, there are disappointingly few extras, but Davis is credited with developing the absolutely hideous hair and makeup combinations she sports while slouching about the house in her scuffs and house coat (Director Robert Aldrich said that, while he loved the look, he never would have had the nerve to suggest such a thing to Bette Davis).

Joan Crawford was in fine form, as well. But for Jane to be able to be credible doing the things she did, Blanche had to be the "straight man". Crawford or Aldrich knew this and Blanche behaves accordingly. Consequently, it is Bette Davis' Jane who has the best lines and the showier part in general.

If you have never seen this movie, get it. If you have, go back and visit the Hudson sisters again. Then you might want to write a letter to YOUR daddy.

A Classic Psychological Thriller - Truly Sick!
This is the ultimate is psychological thrillers starring two of the greatest "top-billed turned has-been" movie actresses in history.

Betty Davis as Jane Hudson and real life nemesis Joan Crawford as sister Blanche Hudson make for comic and scary thrills. Quick retread: Jane was "Baby Jane Hudson", a child star who lost her popularity after puberty. Blanche Hudson was jealous as a child but becomes a top rated adult movie actress. Jane, of course, becomes an increasingly insane alcoholic. Trouble ensues when Blanche is mysteriously crippled in a car wreck forcing 'whack-job' case sister Jane to care for her. The plot thickens as quickly as Jane loses her mind. It's hilarious. But the sadistic scenes Jane carries out on Blanche are both scary and hilarious, making this film a true cult classic. The ending is a masterpiece of plot twists!

I can't get into more details other than to tell you that every time I've shown someone this movie, they goes nuts over it! It's frightening and comedic simultaneously. It's no wonder these two characters have been Halloween favorites for years!

Quality of 'black & white' is okay and sound is what you would expect from an early 60's nightmare, but it's worth it. Before you pick up your main course covered dinner plate, remember what Jane said to Blanche - "By the way Blanche, did you know we have rats in the cellar?!"

WHO the Hell is Norman?
Check out the editorial review "Sadistic Jane and their servant Norman????" The only servant, err, make that housekeeper in this saga is ELVIRA [No, NOT THAT one!] who meets ..... [Clunk!~ Thud!]

WELL, this utterly dark little Gem of Joy still pack many a wallop!

No quite dated, but such an acidic picture of Tinseltown - as a matter of fact you can still see these old [er] Dolls and Guys on Hollywood Boulevard - or Rodeo Drive [botox-powered] for that matter.

IT hasn't really aged that badly - Crawford is superb as the wheelchair bound glam queen Blance ~ utterly dependent on her increasingly insane sister Jane ~ Davis probably on a par with her turn in THE STAR. Davis sacrifices all for this role, including figure and looks, shuffling around the house in flip-flops, dragging on a cigarette and swigging booze has NEVER been this fun!

Bring along a creepy VICTOR BUONO [debut role] as a grifter with an accent and his dear old Ma ... nasty little jewels they are - check out the scene with Davis and Buono and the sandwich plate ... then the booze scene later! Priceless [It's almost Norman Desmond and Joe - the later years].

Superior lensing and direction etc. etc. etc.

Davis daughter BD HYMAN plays the teen next door.

Roaring fun for late at night viewing - double billed with Sunset Boulevard.

[Now wasn't there a musical version of this one ....?]

Betty Grable and Ginger Rogers
oh well it could have been betty and ginger
both blonde both musical stars (grable was more popular)

Ohh.. But Cha AAH, Blanche, Ya AAH In That Chair!!!
In "What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?" you really DO find out, indeed!

But what horrors you have to endure to see the truth and consequences! With twists, turns, torture & anti-climactic scenes all played to the hilt by the Miss Hudsons (Bette Davis and Joan Crawford), respectively, you will never be able to look at your pet parakeet the same way again.

Miss Baby Jane Hudson, played with great, grotesque gusto by Davis who was once the belle of the ball. Kind of a Shirley Temple of her era. Baby Jane was daddy's girl and Jane, therefore, has quite an Electra complex that is and has been exhibited her entire life.

Her sister, Miss Blanche Hudson, played "aptly and sapply" by Crawford, has a long and lasting career as an adult movie star but is now wheelchair bound because of a little "accident" betwixt the sisters many years back. Jane is the caretaker of Blanche since the "accident" and they both live off of the residuals of Blanche's long and prosperous film career before she became crippled.

After a local California TV station decides to run summer afternoon, back to back Blanche Hudson films, Baby Jane gets that ol' jealous feeling brewing again and wants desparately to revitalize her childhood career. Baby Jane hires pianist from the classifieds, Mr. Edward Flagg, played in a great understated role by Victor Buono, who has his own Oedipal yearnings and problems. They make a great and perfect pair of drunks and crazies, let me tell ya.

Jane is certainly unstable and is likened to a gin and vodka guzzling 60 year old broad with a six year old spoiled brat mentality. SCARY combo, right there! Let alone Jane's guilt of the "accident", her shameless jealousy, and her expressions of the antithesis of "SISTERLY LOVE".

Filmed in glorious black and white, it lends itself to the dark, somber and horrific things that happen to Blanche vis-a-vis Jane...

"Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?" is a cult classic and a true and genuine classic in it's own right.

Happy Watching! ... Read more

Amazon.com

One of the most endearing and intelligent romantic comedies of the '90s, the Oscar-winning Shakespeare in Love is filled with such good will, sunny romance, snappy one-liners, and devilish cleverness that it's absolutely irresistible. With tongue placed firmly in cheek, at its outset the film tracks young Will Shakespeare's overwrought battle with writer's block and the efforts of theater owner Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush, in rare form) to stage Will's latest comedy, Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter. Jokey comedy, though, soon takes a backseat to ravishing romance when the beautiful Viola De Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow) disguises herself as a young man to wangle herself an audition in the all-male cast, and wins both the part of Romeo and, after much misunderstanding, the playwright's heart. Soon enough, Will's pirate comedy becomes the beautiful, tragic Romeo and Juliet, reflecting the agony and ecstasy of Will and Viola's romance--he's married and she's set to marry the slimy Lord Wessex (Colin Firth) in the near future.

The way that Oscar-winning screenwriters Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard enfold their story within the parameters of Romeo and Juliet (and even Twelfth Night) is nothing short of brilliant--it would take a Shakespearean scholar to dissect the innumerable parallels, oft-quoted lines, plot developments, and thematic borrowings. And most amazingly, Norman and Stoppard haven't forgotten to entertain their audience in addition to riding a Shakespearean roller coaster, with director John Madden (Mrs. Brown) reigning in his huge ensemble with rollicking energy. Along the way there are small gems to be found, including Judi Dench's eight-minute, Oscar-winning turn as a truly regal Queen Elizabeth, but the key element of Shakespeare in Love's success rests on the milky-white shoulders of its two stars. Fiennes, inexplicably overlooked at Oscar time, is a dashing, heartfelt Will, and as for Best Actress winner Paltrow, well, nothing she'd done before could have prepared viewers for how amazing she is here. Breathtakingly beautiful, fiercely intelligent, strong-willed, and lovestruck--it's a performance worthy of Shakespeare in more ways than one. By the film's end, you'll be thoroughly won over--and brushing up your Shakespeare with newfound ardor. --Mark Englehart ... Read more

Reviews (456)

Not of an age, but for all time. And better on DVD
Purists who turn up their noses at Shakespeare in Love don't know what they're talking about - or rather, don't know what they're missing. This was, after all, written by Tom Stoppard, author of some of the very best plays of modern times (Arcadia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead - the latter filmed with Gary Oldman and Tim Roth). He's done a splendid job of balancing accessibility with genuine wit. The screenplay is littered with allusions to the bard's works, and gives some great - albeit hypothetical - insights into how and why he wrote.

Beyond that, in true Shakespearean style, we are offered the "play within the play" - in this case Romeo and Juliet. Excellent editing gives us just enough to convey the mood of an Elizabethan performance, leaving us wanting more. This film does a great job of broadening the appeal of the most popular writer.

And don't miss the topical in-jokes - the "cabby" rowing the boat, and especially Glenda Jackson saying she knows what it's like to do a man's job (she plays "M" in the Bond movies). Bill S. would have approved. High praise indeed.

Top-Ten Romance, and One of the Most Clever Screenplays!
"Shakespeare in Love" is a triumph, pure and simple. With screenwriters Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman at the top of their game and feeding immortal lines to a top-notch cast, "Shakespeare in Love" could not fail to succeed.

The film opens with young Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) struggling with writer's block . . . he is clearly not yet the magnificent WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE (insert trumpets here), the world's most famous writer. Indeed, the top playwright of the age is Kit Marlowe (Rupert Everett), as Shakespeare is reminded several times. And young Will is also hopelessly infatuated with Rosaline, a woman completely unworthy of his affections.

After some psychotherapy that anticipates Freud, Will is no better. Still, heavily in debt, Will attempts to stage his next opus, "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter." Working with Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush, who would have stolen a lesser film with his perfect performance), who's also heavily in debt, Will seems headed for disaster.

That is, until he sees his muse, young Viola de Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow, never better). Smitten, young Will begins to write the romantic poetry that becomes "Romeo and Juliet." Viola, who recognizes Will's genius, meets Will through some classic Shakespearean disguises and mistaken identities. Of course, Viola is betrothed to a true slug, Lord Wessex (a plump Colin Firth), who plans to take her to Virginia in seek his fortune across the sea -- essentially sending her into exile.

Despite the roadblocks, Will and Viola are soon hopelessly in love. Viola, daring to breach the silly rule that only men can play parts on stage, has taken the role of Romeo by day. By night, Will and Viola write Will's most romantic play together.

"SIL" keeps the wheels turning mighty fast, and one of the joys of watching this movie over and over is catching a quick joke that you didn't get the first time around.

It's also a pleasure to watch this stellar cast go through its paces. While Judi Dench won her Oscar for her surprisingly brief performance as Queen Elizabeth, other actors turn in equally entertaining performances. Tom Wilkinson, Simon Callow, Martin Clunes, and Imelda Staunton each bring amazing proficiency to the supporting cast, and even the much-maligned appearance of Ben Affleck elevates the movie -- he is perfectly cast as a self-absorbed theater star (first line -- "What is the play, and what is my part?"). Affleck's comeuppance, when he realizes that he, as Mercutio, doesn't have the title role, is handled wonderfully well.

This is simply a movie that doesn't miss a trick. The film is shot beautifully, the extravagent costuming gets at the ridiculous conformity that we associate with jolly old England (and makes the torrid romance of Will and Viola that much more intimate), and the music is uplifting.

The film's final shot, as Viola walks along the beach and we realize that we've just seen the birth of arguably Shakespeare's greatest heroine, Viola of "Twelfth Night," is a masterpiece of powerful understatement.

This movie is simply a must for the film library!

A GOOFY YET DELICIOUSLY SEDUCTIVE ROMANTIC COMEDY!
The DVD casing claimed in big bold letters "Best Screenplay" Academy Award winner. I can surely see why! Must have been some deviously creative team that crafted this crisp comic period-piece.

The film is really two love stories: one a bawdy romance between two smitten humans, and the other an ode to the art of theatre. The writers'/director's love for showmanship is loud and evident throughout the brilliant screenplay, and if you're a fan of wordplay in any way, well then this is a surefire delight.

Both Paltrow and Fienners turn in lusciously romantic performances in their respective roles -- she pulls off the formidable order of gender-switching without a hitch, and he has just the right pitches and patterns for a young, struggling Shakespeare. Geoffrey Rush is magnetic as usual.

Don't be fooled by the Elizabethan accoutrements, this film and its arsenal of laconic quips could easily shoot several contemporary romances to dust. Buy this one in fact, don't just rent, it quite comfortably stands the test of more than one viewing..

Rush in an unforgettable role
Although Geoffrey Rush is not the star of the film, he delivers a memorable performance, as usual. Fiennes does, also. The costuming is very beautiful, and the humour is delightful. Highly reccommended.

Emotionally Fraudulent and Morally Offensive NON-Love Story
Before I start out, I should say that I am NOT one of those people who think they have to deride "Shakespeare in Love" because it's a "chick flick" and therefore unworthy(?!) of Oscars. Nor do I feel the need to condemn it for winning Best Picture over "Saving Private Ryan," as so many have done. I certainly do have a beef in that regard -- and it's that my own favorite film of 1998, "The Truman Show," wasn't even nominated for Best Picture! But none of these things have anything to do with my loathing for "Shakespeare in Love." My beef is solely with the offensive nature of the film itself. It's advertised as a love story, but is emotionally and morally empty when it comes to any notion of love.

You could see the writers straining to convince us that those two awesomely idiotic characters, Will and Viola, were really deserving to be the inspiration for "Romeo and Juliet." The film wanted to show that "the truth and nature of love" so magnificently expressed in Shakespeare's play resulted from this casual (and to my mind very unromantic) affair between a lying weasel of a married man, and an apparently dimwitted girl who can't be bothered to decide whether she wants to marry him or not, though she's being forced into marriage with a man she hates.

Starting out by having a man needing to fall in love for a mercenary reason -- so he can finish his play -- and then conveniently having him decide that the first pretty girl who comes along is the love of his life, doesn't strike me as a convincing way to start a love story. Did writers Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard really stop to think this out? From the beginning we know he's using this girl, and they never find a convincing way to show us that this ever changes.

The worst line in the film, to my mind, comes right after their first soft-core sex scene. Viola murmurs: "I never would have believed that there could be something better than a play -- even your play!" Will: "Huh?" Well, there goes any possible higher emotional or spiritual aspect to their relationship.

This is the deepest flaw in the movie (which was otherwise well acted, gorgeously shot and beautifully costumed). I could not enjoy it or buy into it in the slightest because the fundamental conception of the filmmakers was based on modern notions of love that don't go beyond the purely physical. Descriptions of love in Western literature have at least on occasion gone much deeper than that. The Will in "Shakespeare in Love" not only couldn't have written "Romeo and Juliet"'s dramatic sonnet "If I profane with my unworthiest hand this holy shrine. . ." he wouldn't even have been able to understand it.

Not to mention the glamorization of a man's adultery, and the strenuous attempts to avoid all the real-life emotional ramifications of such an action, in favor of a feel-good justification of it, in spite of the obvious harm to the young virginal woman who was used by a cad. But it's excused and made to seem no real harm, by having her anger abated by thinking Will is dead, then readily going back to him when she discovers he's alive (a cheap dramatic trick if I ever saw one). Above all, no matter what a real Elizabethan girl's attitude miught have been, Viola is made to adopt the "modern" attitude (love is just a "stolen season").

I think there actually could have been a believable story in the idea of Shakespeare falling in love while writing "Romeo and Juliet." Why not start with the historical fact that Shakespeare didn't even make up the plot of the play at all, much less make it up out of his own love life? In fact, "Romeo and Juliet" was an Italian novella that had gone the rounds of Europe, had been turned into a French play, an English poem and at least one preceding English play. What if Shakespeare finds himself adapting this love story, not believing in love, then actually falls in love in a way that resembles the plot of "Romeo and Juliet"? I think it would have been nice if he had fallen in love with a virgin like Viola, realized in all conscience he couldn't take advantage of her, and wrote his play out of his frustrated love, which he turns into art. I think it would have been more convincing. But of course then it wouldn't have been a Miramax film . . . ... Read more

Reviews (62)

Great 70's movie
I used to watch Convoy over and over as a kid. It is unfortunate that it is not being produced on DVD or VHS considering how many movies not nearly as entertaining are being marketed. I think if you didn't see it when it first came out you'd find it silly and dated today, but I feel to those of us who saw it initially growing up, it is a classic. Modeled after a catchy country western song by C.W. McCall and with stars such as Kris Kristofferson, Ali McGraw, Burt Young and Ernest Borgnine, I'm surprised it is so obscure. It has some great 70's car/truck chase and crash scenes and a good soundtrack. Hopefully it will come out of moratorium soon and be available.

Breaker-19
CONVOY is the best trucker movie of all time. I've watched this movie 1000's of times when I was a kid and I enjoy it even more now. This movie has action, comedy and romance. Kris Kristofferson was great in this movie, he really brought out the excitement of being a truck driver. As for Ali MacGraw, she was also great and beautiful co-star. The director, Sam Peckinpah did an excellent job capturing the essence of truck driving. After so many years of searching for this movie I finally have a copy of my own thanks to Amazon.com. I'm impatiently waiting for it to come out on DVD(extended verison)....

Convoy
I bought the VHS version of the movie going off the other reviews listed.I received it yesterday and watched it twice.The quality is excellent.No fuzzy picture or sound.If you want a copy of this old classic movie,get one on video.

CONVOY
i havn't played my copy yet. the dvd i got, came from half.com which is a letterbox version, not digitally remastered and released by PACIFIC FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT. i paid less than $5.00 brand new.

The old days
When you seee this movie, you will realinze how life in America was not anoying. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Kathy Bates stars as an unhappy wife trying to get her husband's attention in this amusing and moving 1991 screen adaptation of Fannie Flagg's novel Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe. After befriending a lonely old woman (Jessica Tandy), Bates hears the story of a lifelong friendship between two other women (Mary Stuary Masterson and Mary-Louise Parker, seen in flashback) who once ran a cafe in town against many personal odds. The tale inspires Bates to take further command over her life, and there director Jon Avnet (Up Close and Personal), in his first feature, has fun with the film. Bates develops a real attitude toward her thickheaded spouse at home and some uppity girls in a parking lot, but dignity is generally the key to Avnet's approach with the story's crucial relationships. Tandy is a joy and clearly loves the element of mystery attached to her character, and Masterson and Parker are excellent in the historical sequences. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (88)

Fried Green Tomatoes
Reviewed Date: October 2003
Studio: Universal Studios
Genre: Drama
Exposure: Color
Running Time: 130 Minutes
Rating: PG-13
Release Year: 1991
Directed By: Jon Aunet

Starring: Kathy Bates, Mary Stuart Masterson, Mary-Louise Parker, and Jessica Tandy.

Co-Starring: Gailard Sartain, Stan Shaw, Cicely Tyson, Gary Basaraba, Grace Zabriskie, Richard Riehle, Grayson Fricke, Lashondra Phillips, Enjolik Oree, Nick Searcy, and Ginny Parker.

If you want to see a good movie for the whole family, "Fried Green Tomatoes" is the movie for you. It shows friendship, compassion, humor, laughter, and real life encounters.

The setting takes place in the late 1980's and takes you back in time a half century to the town of Whistle Stop, Alabama.

"Fried Green Tomatoes" is a movie for anyone. It can make the best of us laugh and cry through the entire movie. "Fried Green Tomatoes" is a movie that gives you two different stories within itself. One story takes you back to the 1930's. The other part of the story takes place in the 1980's between Ninny Threadgooda, telling the story of her past to help her new friend Evelyn get her life together.

The frienships made within the movie show that this woman do hold their friendships in very high regards. The friendship in the 1930's would help both women to get through some really tough times. The friendship in the 1980's between Ninny and Evelyn keep these two ladies on track.

I give this movie 5 stars because it is a movie for anyone. Also because it shows how good friends will help a loved one in need of there help at a drop of a hat. This movie is just a well rounded movie, filled with emotion.

Better than Steel Magnolias
Fried Green Tomatoes is two stories in one ---- depressed housewife Kathy Bates befriends an elderly woman (Jessica Tandy) who tells her the story of two best friends (Mary Stuart Masterson and Mary-Louise Parker) who ran a cafe in the 1930s. The tale of the friends depicts domestic violence, pregnancy, childbirth, and two accidents involving trains. But the courage and spirit that the women have, as told by Tandy to Bates, encourages Bates to stop being a victim in her own life, particularly to her all right but insensitive husband.

The movie does a great job of showing the trials and tribulations of being a woman but how female friendship can conquer all. It is even more riveting to see it set in a time when women -- particularly unmarried women of dubious sexuality --- have to overcome obstacles set by society in general and its views of what a woman's role is. TOWANDA!!!!!

fried green tomatoes, food for the soul
I have seen this movie probably 20 times in my life and I have to say it is definetly a personal favorite in my collection. This movie touches on so many emotions that it will have you angry, sad, touched, uplifted, empowered and roaring with laughter. This movie is told to a fed-up repressed housewife (kathy bates) by a sweet ,lonely ,vivacious old woman (ninny) during visits to a nursing home after a chance meeting. The intertwined story is about Idgy a Tom-boy who distances herself with the world due to a tragedy at a young age. As Idgy ages the only person she is close with is her "hired hand" Big George and his mother Sipsy. Idgy's mother becomes concerned with Idgy and decides to have Ruth ( a girl from idgy's past) come and stay with them to try to reach Idgy. At first Idgy is stand offish but soon they become best friends that is, until Ruth leaves because she marries. I dont' want to "spoil" the rest of the story so I'll leave that alone for the time being. As Ninny tells Mrs. Couch (kathy bates) they become close friends and Mrs. Couch begins to become empowered by the strong women in the stories and making some changes in her own life. It touches on tough topics such as racism, spousal abuse, death, tragedy, loneliness, fear of death, and fear of life for some. This dvd is a must watch and own for your dvd collection.

Great Southern Storytelling on the Screen
I'm always surprised how badly great storytelling makes it to the screen. Particularly, great Southern stories, which tend to make it to the big screen replete with caricatures and stereotypes. I recall, with particular sadness, the movie adaptation of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. While this adaptation to the screen of Flagg's tremendously moving novel does have its share of simple, stereotypical southern "archetypes", these are largely drawn from Flagg's book, and are largely essential to the story. It is, without a doubt, one of the most enjoyable movies I have ever seen and, ten years after first seeing it, it still brings raucous laughter and tears to my eyes. It's the classic "story within the story", and begins with the introduction of a tenacious elderly widow to a repressed younger southern housewife in a nursing home in rural Alabama. What starts off to the housewife as polite and indulgent small talk of past acquaintances with a likely senile elderly woman turns rapidly into an engrossing story with what must be the best "hook line" in storytelling ("Why anybody would have thought she killed that man is beyond me!"). This story then becomes a parable which the housewife uses to change her life for the better.

While certainly a moral parable of the greater value systems of past times, and of loyalty and courage in the face of bigotry and oppression, the story never loses its infectious humor, despite some genuinely tragic events. The lesbian theme of the book is only mildly hinted at, and one would almost overlook it were one not to deliberately search for it. Some of the more brutal aspects of the book are retained, with the rampant racism and wife-abuse still harrowingly reflected, if toned down. Consequently, younger viewers may best appreciate the film in the company of an adult. Regardless, this is one of the best "feeling good" movies I have ever seen, and being a Southerner from an area very near that depicted in the book, makes me pine for the South in profound ways. It's a film about empowerment and, more importantly, the empowerment one gains through friends, and through standing up for one's friends, and through an unshakable belief in self-respect.

No little credit for the success of the film goes to the incredibly strong performances of Masterson as the tom-boyish Idgie Threadgood, and Marie Louise-Parker as Ruth Jamison, along with the underrated performance of Stan Shaw, one of TV's great character actors, as Big George. However, the film's strongest performances come from three grande dames of the screen (and stage): Cicely Tyson, as Sissy, Jessica Tandy, as Ninny Threadgood, and Kathy Bates, as Evelyn Couch. While Tandy and Bates have received their due, Tyson's performance, as always, is often overlooked.

To Wander!!!!
A story of friendship and love, and how they can both intertwin. Mary Stuart Masterson (Somekind of wonderful) and Mary louise-Parker (Boy's on the side) Displaying fabulous performance's along with Jessica Tandy (Driving miss Daisy) and Cathy Bates (Misery). The whole story surrounding a relationship that can not be defined. My Favourite film ever! However i think some people are wrong with one aspect surrounding Ninny and Idgie. That they are one and the same! Best Quote- " Face it girl's.... I'm older and have more insurance"
A film for any Mary Stuart masterson Fan. ... Read more

Reviews (499)

What else is left to say?
This is the greatest American film ever made, as entertaining as it is revolutionary.

When it was made, Orson Welles tackled a seemingly simple topic, a reflection back on a dead man's search for love and happiness in his life, and made a film that's epic in scope, gorgeous in its visual execution, brilliantly written, incredibly acted.

All in all, it's inspiring to filmmakers looking for a great debut film from a new director. "Citizen Kane" also works for regular moviegoers just looking for a good drama.

Using interviews with all his closest friends and colleagues, Welles uses flashback to create a portrait of the life of millionaire media magnate Charles Foster Kane. Kane was, in conflicting accounts of those who knew him, a man of great character and potential or a wealthy, cold, manipulative scoundrel.

What, if anything, can be learned about the man from his last word? What does "Rosebud" mean?

The answer makes for good mystery, and it leads the viewer to ask key questions about what defines our lives and gives them meaning.

This film is fantastic, one that should be watched once a year to help you keep perspective on life.

One of the Best.
Even after sixty years, CITIZEN KANE remains as one of the greatest movies of all time. Though it is true that some are bored by the movie because it's "just a boring black-and-white movie with no action", those who hold that opinion are in the minority. KANE is often held as the pinnacle of filmmaking by movie buffs not just because of the advances the movie made in film production, but also because it set the standard that all filmmakers wish to reach: the total director's vision; a movie made with total control and no studio intervention. With that said, what does KANE hold for the average film-goer? The movie has an excellent script (it won an Oscar), great acting, and a haunting score. The story, though loosely based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, is an old one: powerful man starts out promising and full of ideals, becomes consumed by greed and looses his vision, and ends up loosing it all (anyone read MacBeth or ALL THE KING'S MEN?). Overall, a deeply penetrating and thinking movie that film buffs usually love and that most everyone else will at least enjoy if they don't mind a strong drama filmed in black and white.

AFI got this one right
Can you imagine what the perception of RKO was at the time they made this decision? Let's see, how about we give complete control of a major film to a twenty five year old radio voice with zero film experience (whose claim to fame was scaring the life out of the public with a fake story about aliens landing on earth) and even better, let him staff the movie with actors who have little to no screen experience. On top of that, we'll let it become one of the most controversial pictures of its time because it mirrors the life of one of the biggest names in America today. Why, it may never be able to be released because of the lawsuits-- Great idea!

I have just described Citizen Kane. All of the above is true, which makes the fact that it is possibly the greatest film in American Film History even more amazing. Everything is perfect. The script (which Welles co-wrote), the actors (all relative unknowns except Welles and Joseph Cotton), the special effects (listen to Roger Ebert's Commentary on this special edition for details) and finally, the makeup-- You won't believe how great a job they do making 25 year old Welles look 60.

As for the story, it's done in a most interesting fashion. Charles Foster Kane (Welles) dies at the very beginning of the movie and utters his famous last word "Rosebud". A reporter is given the task of finding out just what that one word meant. So he goes and interviews all the people who knew Kane to try to learn the meaning of the word. In the process, we are shown Kane through the eyes of those who knew him. We never see Kane through his own eyes, always what his former associates saw.

This is interesting, because Kane is a tragic figure as seen by just about everyone. He is unhappy and lonely. We as an audience eventually learn the meaning of Rosebud. I have read reviews that complain that the movie is about this one thing (I won't reveal what it is). But long before we learn the identity of Rosebud, the film has made its point. What is the point? My opinion is that the film shows us basically the worthlessness and despair of materialism. Loving "stuff" or money will ultimately lead to unhappiness.

By the way, this movie almost was never seen. The man I spoke of at the beginning of the review is William Randolph Hearst, former newspaper magnate. He saw too much of himself in the film and sued to squash it. Fortunately he lost. The second disc in the set is a two hour documentary on this topic. It is also excellent and well worth a viewing.

One last thing. Although this movie has been ranked on the AFI list as number one American movie of all time, it did NOT win Best Picture in 1941. That film? "How Green was my Valley"

Review of Review
The best review of Citizen Kane - perhaps of any film - I've ever read is the one titled "Narrative and Eye Disconnect" posted by "A viewer from Richmond, VA USA" on March 21, 2004. I recommend searching through Amazon's reviews to find it, then watching Citizen Kane and re-reading that review. Even though the reviewer gives Kane just one star, s/he writes with great insight into the movie and cinema in general, and has enhanced my appreciation of Citizen Kane exponentially. Thank you, "Viewer from Richmond," whoever you are!

Works on the basic levels as well as artistically
So many of the films that critics unanimously pick as the greatest of all time are overrated, confusing, ponderous, overly symbolic art pieces that leave viewers scratching their heads. The collective reaction is, "What in the hell was the director smoking?" Arty camera work and tons of symbolism and metaphors can never take the place of good acting, solid direction and, most importantly, a good script.

Much has been made of Citizen Kane's technical brilliance -- Welles' use of overlapping conversations, Gregg Toland's deep focus photography, set design that incorporates ceilings, etc. However, none of this would really mean anything if the film didn't have a great story and screenplay. Citizen Kane may be a triumph in filmmaking technique, but it is also a deeply engrossing story with characters we can relate to and sympathize with. Welles' Kane is a selfish, unhappy, overly controlling dictator who has everything and yet still manages to make himself more and more unhappy. Most of us know the feeling of not appreciating someone or something good in our lives until he/she/it is gone. We see the promise and idealism in Kane's early life, like him and believe, as Joseph Cotten's Jed Leland does, that Kane is a great man who can do so much good in society. As Kane's life progresses, however, he becomes more and more bitter, alienates everyone who cares about him and dies alone, longing for the simplicity of his early life before he became wealthy. When Kane, as an old man, loses control when his second wife Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore) leaves him, we can't help but feel for him -- even though most or all of his unhappiness is his fault. That the audience feels such empathy for such a flawed character is Citizen Kane's greatest triumph and is the true basis for Kane's reputation as one of the greatest films of all time. ... Read more

Description

Daughter of a legend.Rising superstar.Proud mother and wife.Natalie Cole seemed to have it all, but a recurring addiction to drugs and hidden grief took her from the top of the charts to the depths of despair.In this powerful and authorized story of her life, Natalie shares her inspiring journey back, and the enduring spirit of the man who led the way -- her beloved father.Directed by Robert Townsend. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

"This Will Be" a great video to own!
Natalie Cole's story, which was based on her best-selling autobiography, comes to vivid life on screen. Like Ms. Cole's book, this movie pulls no punches about the seemingly fairytale life she had as a child to her bouts with drugs, her rise to fame as a singing star, her family life, only for it to all come crashing down due to her addiction--and her amazing comeback due to the one thing she was running away from all her life: acknowledging the legacy of her father, the legendary pop/jazz artist, Nat "King" Cole, who had died a tragic death from lung cancer at the age of 45. At the time of his death, Natalie had just turned 15, and has said that his death was something she never got over, but never had the chance to grieve, which eventually led her to drugs. That, and the need to be daring and experimental. But she explains that it wasn't until the mid-80s when she was in rehab for the second time that she realized this. Bottom line was, she missed her father tremendously.

Diahann Carroll is fantastic as Maria Cole, Natalie's strict disciplinarian mother, and James McDaniel captures the gentle and understanding man that Nat Cole was perfectly, even though his role is not a large one. The two young actresses who play Natalie as a child are enchanting, and Theresa Randle as the young adult Natalie pulls out all the stops for a Emmy-deserving performance.

One of the most touching and true scenes in the movie is when Natalie, playing herself, has to break the news to her young son right before a concert that his father has passed away, then she goes on stage and dedicates her hit song "Our Love" to her former husband. The emotion is very real, and you can tell that Natalie was reliving the pain she must've felt then. Also at the very end of the film, you see real footage of Natalie singing the smash "Unforgettable" with Nat on video at the 1992 Grammy awards. Another heart-touching moment. It also shows the ups and downs of the music industry and how certain situations are handled and overcome. A phenomenal story. Highly recommended! Now if only we can bring Nat's story to the screen....

A GREAT LOOK AT NATALIE COLE'S LIFE
I SAW THIS MOVIE ON TV AND IT WAS FANTASTIC. IT SHOWS HOW SHE USED DRUGS AND HOW IT AFFECTED HER LIFE AND CAREER. IT SHOWS HOW SHE WAS NOT CLOSE TO HER MOTHER. HER MOTHER DIDN'T WANT HER TO BE A SINGER. UP UNTIL THE LAST 30 MINUTES OR SO, THE ACTUAL NATALIE COLE TAKES OVER AS HERSELF. THE MOVIE ENDS WITH NATALIE RECORDING A DUET WITH NAT "KING" COLE AND HER PERFORMING ON THE GRAMMYS. ALL TOGETHER: FANTASTIC ... Read more

Reviews (260)

Weather Report: Tuscan Sun Fun, Diane Lane Shines
Take this for what it is and you might enjoy it -- complete fantasy stuff, wish fulfillment, a brief escape from real world life and complexities into the stuff of make belive, completely lacking in any substance whatsoever.

Why make a book into a movie and COMPLETELY change it? This is Audrey Welles inflicting HERSELF, her agenda, in fact, her completely different story, onto Frances Mayes' story, where the only thing left is the name of the house (Bramasole) and the name of the main characer (Frances/Fran/Francesca Mayes).

In real life Mayes is married to Ed Mayes, they're university professors, writers/poets, and they bought a house in Tuscany over ten years ago and started cranking out books about their new adventure (it's HUGE house, even more imposing than the one in the film).

Apparently not seeing any dramatic potential in Mayes' work, Welles arrogantly GRAFTED a completely different story onto the title ("Maybe no one will notice") wherein HER "Frances Mayes" is married then divorced then goes off to Italy and buys a house on an impulse (and strangely meets a man named "Ed" at the end which is supposed to bring some kind of nod to the real Ed Mayes, like an inside joke or something or a little piece of magic that plays out like a lump of coal on a Christmas morning. Stupid (her last name is already Mayes before she meets this Ed so his had better be Mayes too if you're following the silly logic of the story).

Don't pick this movie apart (pull one thread and it unravels rather easily). Instead see it for the wish fulfillment fantasy of buying a house in Tuscany, the Italian countryside (most of which was actually rainy and overcast all through filming) an attractive cast (Diane Lane is STILL stunning after all these years), and a complete dose of fantasy -- a guilty pleasure, like watching "Dynasty" in the 80s.

Leave the critical thinking elsewhere and pretend the world today is no more complex than an episode of The Brady Bunch (yeah right). Watch the scenery. Watch Lane's comic performance and stunning beauty, and Sandra Oh's great supporting performance. Then forget this crazy thing.

And if you liked the book, may I recommend At Home in France by Ann Barry and Extra Virgin by Annie Hawes, both of which I liked better than the book Under the Tuscan Sun and its followups as did many other reviewers on amazon and elsewhere they report.

The best part of this movie, for me, was seeing it in the theatre and suddenly seeing on screen the love interest's 1980s Alfa Romeo Spider Veloce two-seat convertible driving "picturesquely" through Italian cityscape and Italian coastline, and laughing to myself because it was the same car waiting for me in the parking lot.

Do a theme night. Make some bruschetta and other Italian culinary items and watch this fluff with friends. You won't be able to keep a straight face at how "schmaltzy" it is. You'll be absolutely embarrassed, but you still may take a second look later in privacy for an indulgent pleasure.

Ciao!

Such lovely scenery - such an awful film!
This is a really bad film. Okay, so it has nothing to do with the book except that it shares a title - that I could live with. But the story is hopelessly cobbled together and totally unbelievable. Surely this was a first draft of the script that they accidentally filmed?

The main character is played by the pretty Diane Lane, but looks alone cannot salvage this dreadful character. She cries, she pouts, she is unbearably naive and, let's just say it, she is an idiot.

The storyline is full of cliches. And where there are not cliches, there are gaping plot holes: why does her far-too-attractive-to-be-true Italian boyfriend drive a sports car when his family run a modest cafe on the beach that is supposed to support all of them? And just how does she manage to up and move to Italy without even having to fill in an immigration form? And if she was so broke that she had to move out of her mansion in San Francisco into a run-down fleabag hotel, just how the hell can she afford to suddenly buy and renovate a house in Italy, as well as living there for months with no visible means of income?

The worst part of a spectacularly awful script is the love interest suddenly written in at the very last minute to tie everything up neatly - that really is bad writing of such magnitude that it deserves a special Oscar.

Still, if you turn the sound off, you can enjoy genuinely beautiful photography of Italy.

hooked on tuscany
I have watched this movie twice so far, and will probably watch it more often. Tuscany is a countryside that got me hooked the first time I saw it appearing in front of my train window, and it is the same with the movie. So, I could empathize, seeing the same happening to "Frances" (Diane Lane) when she sees Tuscany and decides to buy a house and stay. Diane Lane in one of her best roles, her face very expressive, her acting excellent.
The only disappointment came when I read the book the movie was made after: in the original autobiographic story, Frances Mayes is not at all a divorcee struggling with recurring bouts of loneliness, but rather, a woman already happily attached again to a new steady boyfriend, with a fulfilled life, and full of energy for the work on their new house. The movie trailer says, the character were "changed for dramatic effect". Wonder who did not like the idea that a woman could be happy again so soon, and decided it should not be shown in the movie that way ? Anyway, both are definitely worth your while, and in the book you can even find the recipes for all that great Italian cooking too.

YAWN!
I eagerly anticipated watching this movie, as I thoroughly enjoyed the book; however, the movie shares only a passing resemblance to the book. It gets 2 stars because I enjoy Diane Lane and Tuscany is gorgeous, but other than that the movie was dull, Lane's character is nothing short of pathetic, and the ending is trite.

Get Your Passport Ready
I loved this movie. I don't usually watch too many movies but a friend loaned me this one and am I glad she did.
It is about a woman betrayed and how she goes on with her life. It made me think that I too could do something exciting with the rest of my life.
For the scenery of Italy alone, this movie is worth watching. Just beautiful.
I had never seen Diane Lane in any performances but I will seek her out now. All in all I give this movie a 5 star rating. ... Read more

Reviews (186)

A Whale of a Tale
"Whale Rider" was released on June 6th 2003, it is rated PG-13, and is 1 hour 45 minutes long. Whale Rider is directed by Niki Caro and is based on the book written by Witi Ihimaera. The main actor in this film is newcomer Keisha Castle-Hughes who was selected from many hopefuls to play the role of Pai. Keisha performs her role extremely well and makes the film complete. Her performance is well balanced by that of Rawiri Paratene who plays Pai's grandfather Koro. Other actors in the film are Vicky Haughton who plays Flowers, Pai's grandmother, and Cliff Curtis who plays Porourangi, Pai's father.

Whale Rider is set in the coastal village of Whangara, New Zealand. It is the story of a young Maori girl, named Pai, and her fight to defy the hard set traditions of her people. The film is told through the eyes of Pai and begins tragically when her mother dies while giving birth to her twin brother. Porourangi is disgraced, as his son was supposed to carry on the line of chiefs, and so leaves the village indefinitely. Pai is left in the care of her grandparents, her grandfather, Koro, being the current chief of the tribe. Once Pai turns twelve Koro rounds up all the boys in the tribe and begins to teach them the ancient ways in hope of finding a new successor. Pai is not allowed to train as she is female so she seeks out the help of her uncle to teach her the customs. Her struggle begins, her aim being to break tradition and take her rightful place in the tribe.

The gorgeous scenery of New Zealand makes a perfect backdrop for this film and the carved meeting houses help to intensify the Maori culture; the visual quality is excellent. The acting in the film contributed to making the characters exceptional, they are very believable and the audience is able to relate to how they are feeling. Much of the music used in Whale Rider is traditional of the Maori people and incorporates song and dance; it has specific cultural significance and is characteristic of New Zealand. Overall I found this film to be outstanding