Amazon.com

Elia Kazan made his directorial debut with this adaptation of Betty Smith's novel about a bright, young girl growing up in turn-of-the-century Brooklyn, trying to rise above her tenement existence. Sensitively filmed by Kazan, and graced with wonderful performances by James Dunn as the wistful, alcoholic father and Dorothy McGuire as a strong-willed mother. Peggy Ann Garner won a special Oscar for her performance. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (35)

Heartbreakingly dissapointing
I read the astonishingly true book A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. I loved it- and understood it. I expected so much from the movie- but when it was finished, I was just dissapointed. I understand that sometimes parts of books had to be changed to make a movie. And yet... it was probably the small cast of characters, and the MANY alterations. Wherer is the cruel, evil Granpa Rommely? Why do the characters talk so FAST. They need to slow down, and relax. Where's Little Tilly, or Gussie? The movie, as I can call it, is cute. I would give it 2.5 stars. But, it shows a glossed over version of Francie's life. Francie was a child who lived in a world of brutality. She went to a school (from 6-10 anyway) where the teachers were CRUEL, and DIRTY. She wore smudged clothes, ripped, and patched. She never had enough to eat. The most refreshing aspect of the book was that she was able to find magic IN SPITE or all of this. But the movie changes a mature book into a G-Rated film.I will never hear the names Francie, Neely,Sissy and Katie, and see Peggy Ann Garner, Ted Donaldson,Joan Blondell and Dorothy McGuire. I will always see Francie as a skinny, ragged looking child, with wondering eyes, and a timid smile. I will always see Neely as a scruffy, ragged kid, with a little-boy grin on his face. I will always see Sissy as a dark-haired, full-figured ''bad girl'' sensitive beauty, and I will always see Katie as a wide-eyed, unexplainable fighter.The only acotr who captured the essence of the character is James Dunn as Johnny. Now HE deserved his Oscar. They took too much out of the book to make the movie good. Where's Aunt Evy, and Uncle Wille Flitmann? More importantly WHERE'S THE EXPLAINATION OF HOW KATIE AND JOHNNY MET. They just skipped right past that part. I have always read reviews of movies I loved- and seen one person who gives a 5-star movie (atleast 5-star to me) and gives it 2-stars for not following the book, and I feel angry. But in this case- I urge anyone who loved the movie to thoroughly read the book, then watch it again. The movie COULD HAVE BEEN SO GREAT! They should have followed Francie's life until the end of the book. They should have shown Francie and Lee, her true love. A part in the book read, after Katie had heard Francie call her ''mother'' instead of ''mama'': '' Mother! Katie remembered when she had called her mother ''mother'' instead of ''mama''. She had said ''Mother'' when she had been ready to marry Johnny. When she had called her mother ''Mother'' she had finished growing up. She had never said ''mama'' again. Now Francie.... And this is just the problem. The movie never fully ''grows up''. I hope someday, someone takes the time (though it will take a long time) to make a movie TRUE TO THE BOOK.If people loved this movie, wait until they see a movie that follows the book. They will be astonished at the difference!

What a Great Film !
From the opening scene, this movie hooks you in. It is the story of a little girl, Francie Nolan, and her family. The setting is turn-of-the-century Brooklyn. This film stands up to repeated viewings, something movies seldom accomplish. The basic story line centers around Francie, an intelligent girl filled with wonder. Her father, Johnny Nolan, loves his daughter and does everything he can to support her wishes. The mother is the serious, single-layered breadwinner of the house, and is often more concerned with public perception of her family than with the family itself. Starring Dorothy McGuire, James Dunn, Peggy Ann Garner, Lloyd Nolan and Joan Blondell, it doesn't get much better than this, folks...have some tissues readily available. Elia Kazan's direction makes tear-jerkers out of certain scenes, like when Francie throws her arms around her father and proclaims "I just love you so much, Papa". Another GREAT scene is when Papa is in Francie's room, just before going to look for a job. The piano scene. The tree catching scene....and on and on. A real classic.

Faithful to the book
Even though this movie has been around for quite a while, one wonders (and worries) how faithful the movie-makers were to the book, especially since the novel made a come-back thanks to Oprah and her gang. What a relief it was to find out that "A Tree Grows" was mostly like the book. One can only hope that McCrae's "The Bark of the Dogwood" will receive similar treatment when it is made into a film--let's hope so. I highly recommend this heart-warming tale of life in Brooklyn, even if it does have its ups and downs.

Francie's World
A Tree Grows In Brooklyn is a beautiful and thoughtful book. The screen version is one of my favorite films of all time. It tells the story of Francie, a poor girl growing up in Brooklyn at the turn of the 20th century. The acting, with Peggy Ann Garner as Francie, James Dunn as her father and Joan Blondell as Francie's aunt, is superb and evocative of that bygone era. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn is a movie that can be enjoyed again and again. You never get tired of it.

The Tender Passage of Youth
Betty Smith's heartfelt and timeless novel of a young girl's passage through her youth in the Brooklyn slums was transformed by director Elia Kazan into one of the most touching and deeply felt films ever made. It has that rare ability to break your heart one moment and make you smile the next. There is a tenderness here that has rarely been captured on film. Many point to Elia Kazan's flashier films, but it was this sentimental film that was his crowning achievement. There are moments in this film when even those who never cry at the movies will be moved to tears.

Peggy Ann Garner was so wonderful as the young and sensitive Francie, the Academy gave her an Oscar for Most Promising Juvenile Performer. James Dunn garnered an Oscar also as Francie's loving father, Johnny Nolan, a singing waiter with a gift for dreaming he passes on to Francie, who wants to be a writer. Francie's papa makes their hard life worth living and Francie worships him. He understands and adores her.

But when he isn't working, Johnny is usually drunk. Everyone in their poor neighborhood knows Johnny is a good man, however, and loves and respects him. He is the one who will find a way for Francie to attend the school she dreams of, even though it is far from their home. Francie's mother is the only one who doesn't seem to see how special Johnny is.

Dorothy McGuire gives another terrific performance as Francie's hard working mother, Katie, who tries desparately not to love her boy Neely more than Francie, and fails; tries desparately not to become bitter with the charming lad she married in her youth, but can't; and tries desparately not to let her heart grow cold and hard, and fails once more.

Francie and her family may live in poverty, but Kazan takes the time to show the joy that can be found in the small things in life. For Francie, her father represents happiness and living. Joan Blondell, as Katie's sister and Francie's aunt Sissy, with her free spirit and big heart, adds to Francie's joy in life. It is one of Blondell's finest roles.

It is Peggy Ann Garner's emotional performance, however, you will always remember. She brings a sweetness and sincerity to Francie that makes her unforgettable. Purchasing this film is an opportunity to own one of the true masterpieces in American cinema. It will touch your heart and remind you what Hollywood was once capable of, and make you wonder where it all went wrong. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Made two years afterCitizen Kane, this 1943 version of Charlotte Brontë'sJane Eyre sure looks like star Orson Welles muscled his way behind the camera much of the time. (In fact, costar Joan Fontaine--who plays the title character--has maintained that Welles methodically did just that every day on the set.) Not that the film's official director was a hack: Robert Stevenson, who later had a busy career at Disney making numerous live-action hits for the studio, such asMary Poppins, gets the credit. But there's no mistaking Welles's masterful hand in the film's bold and creative look, and there's no getting away from his enigmatic charisma as Rochester, the widower who takes in Jane as a governess to his daughter. An engrossing, gorgeous film, there's even a small role for Elizabeth Taylor at the beginning as Jane's unlucky, doomed friend at a cruel boarding school.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (40)

Dark Romance
Joan Fontaine stars as Charlotte Bronte's title character, a governess who began her life as an unloved orphan, raised at a brutal school, now living on an estate run by the mysterious Orson Welles. Lots of things go bump in the night at Thornfield, one of the many strange things about her new home. Welles dominates the film, with a forceful, blunt performance as Rochester, the man with the terrible past. Fontaine is subdued and quietly strong as Jane. The rest of the cast don't get much of a chance to shine with Welles in the film, although Peggy Ann Garner as the young Jane is quite memorable. The look of the film is often amazing. Dark shadows and fog are used to great effect, and there is an unreal quality to it all that matches the story well. When I read the novel in university, I enjoyed it for all of its gothic touches and mysterious tone. Although the film does not follow the novel's storyline exactly, it does maintain that Gothic feel. This film is yet another example why black and white filmmaking can be so effective.

Love is a mystery
Charlotte Bronte's story of an unwanted orphan child growing up in a cold strict school for orphans in 17th century England is beautifully told in the 1943 motion picture Jane Eyre, directed by Robert Stevenson and released by twentieth century fox this grossly under rated movie starting Orson Wells as the dark mysterious Edward Rochester, Joan Fontaine as the plain adult Jane Eyre who becomes a governess for Mr. Rochester's charge Adele. This movie is for anyone who fells like true love is a lost cause, which has had a bad childhood and thinks no one could ever love him or her.
Peggy Ann Garner plays the young Jane Eyre, who was not wanted by her late uncle's wife and children after the lost of her parents. She had never had a friend or family. While she was at the school she met Helen who was played by no other then twelve year old Elizabeth Taylor.
This movie makes you feel for Jane on a personal level. Mr. Rochester and Jane falls in love, but they both had troubled past. Jane had issues with her Aunt. Mr. Rochester has is own in demons in the attic. Jane being heart broken left the old Mysterious English Manor to face her past. When she received word that a tragedy has stricken the Rochester manor.

Good 1940's movie but laughable adaptation of the book
Of all the cinematic Rochesters I've seen, Orson Welles most closely resembles him. But that's where the similarity between the book and this movie end: Welles' performance is a string of screaming fits, nothing like the multi-faceted character of the book.

Joan Fontaine is completely wrong for the part; she's absolutely gorgeous. She makes up for this fact by keeping her head down and shoulder's hunched forward, so we all know that she's plain and humble. Sorry Joan! It doesn't work! You still look gorgeous and completely wrong for the part. Furthermore, Jane wasn't beaten down psychologically, as she is portrayed in this film; considering all of her negative circumstances, she should have been, but she was always able to maintain her steely self-respect. Joan Fontain looks absolutely crushed throughout the entire movie.

The relationship between the two main characters consists, then, of Orson screaming at Joan and Joan hunching down -- not exactly romantic chemistry and nothing like the book which depicts one of the most romantic stories of literature.

I can understand the problem screenwriters have shortening a story for a screen adaptation, but this one really takes the cake: Jane is about to go back to Lowood School, of all places, when she hears Rochester calling her back to Thornfield; instead of almost making a choice to marry St. John Rivers, she almost decides to work for Mr. Brocklehurst again. Huh?

All that being said, a 40's movie is a 40's movie. If you like movies from that time period (and if you can forget about the book for a few hours), there are some very interesting and enjoyable aspects to this; it's a quality film. But if you love the book, I would recommend re-reading it instead of watching this.

Hauntingly Beautiful!
This video was the first black and white movie I had ever seen (with the exception of Lon Chaney's "The Phantom of the Opera," and Mexican Cinema star Cantinflas from the 40's). After watching this movie I became a weird teenager who was all into black and white movies.

This movie is missing some important stuff from Bronte's novel, but it is still a spectacular film with a plain but pretty Joan Fontaine and an intimidating tall dark and handsome Orson Welles. The whole plot makes the story perfect for the effects of black and white film. I've seen newer color versions and I must say that none of them come even close to this one.

I have no idea why in the world this movie isn't out on DVD over here. I've even written to the people that make the Criterion Collection and have suggested to put this movie in with all their other good stuff. Still, I keep watching the video every two weeks. I can't get bored of this one.

WOW!
I loved this movie! The beginnig DEPREESED ME THOUGH! This is movie is 10/10! It was great,suspensful and romantic! ... Read more

Amazon.com

This gorgeous adaptation of Lucy Maud Montgomery's classic children's story is well worth watching with the whole family. Produced for Canadian television, it's one of those rare productions that actually sticks to the book and even enhances it through first-rate performances and an excellent script. Set on bucolic Prince Edward Island in the late 19th century, Anne of Green Gables is the story of Anne Shirley, an imaginative and headstrongorphan. When brother and sister Marilla and Mathew Cuthbert decide to adopt an orphan boy to help Matthew work the farm, they are astonished when Anne arrives at the train station by mistake. "What use is she to us?" grumbles the gruff Marilla."We might be of some use to her," answers Matthew, who has taken an instant liking to the talkative Anne.As Anne grows up, her adventures are both hilarious and moving. It's a delight to watch as she forms a friendship with the beautiful Diana and her admirer--the dashing Gilbert Blythe--then dyes her hair green, cracks a slate over Gilbert's head when he calls her "Carrots," and finds a sympathetic teacher who encourages her to attend college.

Richard Farnsworth is perfect as the shy and gentle bachelor Matthew, who confides to Anne that he never went courting because "I would have had to say something." Colleen Dewhurst delivers a nuanced and powerful performance as Marilla, a seemingly cold-hearted spinster whose no-nonsense exterior conceals a warm heart. And as Anne, Megan Follows strikes the perfect note, maturing from freckle-faced orphan to elegant and poised young woman. --Elisabeth Keating ... Read more

Reviews (231)

Excellent film!
This is a terrific adaptation of the classic L.M. Montgomery coming of age story. It centers on young Anne Shirley, a strong willed, independent orphan who is adopted by siblings Marilla and Matthew Cuthbert. They originally wanted to adopt a boy to help out at their farm, but instead received a surprise when Anne arrived at the train station. Anne's adventures growing up are both funny and heart-warming. This is a fantastic movie that will please youngsters and adults alike, as there is something here for everyone! Megan Follows is excellent as Anne Shirley, Colleen Dewhurst is wonderful as the stern but loving Marilla and Richard Farnsworth is great as gentle Matthew. The supporting cast also give splendid performances. Highly recommended!

Timeless memories of a Canadian childhood
I can still remember the excitement I felt when I first saw Anne of Green Gables almost fifteen years ago. It accurately and lovingly captures the thrills of childhood, of breathless anticipation, the joys of friendship, and the final moment when we must bid our childhood goodbye and take our place in the grownup world. The performances are flawless and capture the original flavour of each of the characters from the book. Megan Follows IS Anne Shirley, Shuyler Grant is a kindred Diana Barry, and Colleen Dewhurst is the stern Marilla Cuthbert who finds her heart unexpectedly embracing the joys of motherhood.

Everything about Anne of Green Gables is done with the utmost love and respect in regard to the original novel by Lucy Maud Montgomery. Anne is every child, with her eyes open to the world, her thirst for knowledge, her immediate trust, her quest for adventure, and most of all her imagination. Megan Follows captures the timeless appeal of the orphaned Anne with spirit, grace, and wit. Her humorous mishaps, personal struggles, and her newfound love for the Cuthberts as well as her love for Avonlea make her an enduring heroine throughout the ages. Who knows? After seeing this film you may discover that you are a kindred spirit as well!

its a classic!!!
What can i say, I LOVE this movie. I grew up watching this one and Anne of Avonlea(now the sequel) I also read the books when i was young. I still enjoy watching them as an adult. I just wish i had a daughter to watch it with and enjoy with me. (we have two wonderful boys and most likely wont have any more) The characters fit the roles perfectly and are excellent. You just fall in love with them all.

DVD QUALITY GREAT ! I can see the print of the wallpaper
After watching this often on vhs I bought a DVD and I noticed the difference right away! You can see the print of fabrics, wallpaper, and details of everything much better. This is a wonderful story and the music is beautiful. All the actors are excellent. Great movie for little girls with red hair! Its not easy growing up with red hair. I love the way Anne is portrayed in this movie. There is a black and white version made in the 1930's and its okay. This movie also shows a girl taking her education seriously. The only thing I didn't like was that Gilbert is a little too much the lovesick fool. I think most guys would have given up on her, she was very mean to him.

A Favorite For Any Generation
This series has always been in my heart and always will be. I can always see myself in Anne Shirley, just as I'm sure every other young girl will. Kevin Sullivan did a beautiful job of bringing to life the works of Lucy M. Montgomery's series of Anne of Green Gables. I loved this movie the first time I saw it on television on PBS and I was thrilled to finally find it on DVD. Anne Shirley is a young orphan girl with a huge imagination, daydreams, and a huge talker. She's transferred from home to home and then back to the orphanage until she is finally picked to live in a town called Avonlea. She lives with a family Marilla & Mathew Cuthbert (played by: Colleen Dewhurst & Richard Farnsworth). After worrying she wouldn't be adopted because she's not a boy she warms their hearts and starts a new life with them. And she then soon meets her bosom friend Diana Barry (Schuyler Grant) and of course Gilbert Blythe (Jonathan Crombie). We follow the lives of these characters that Anne meets along the way. This series is for any young girl or for any girl at any age to enjoy and the entire family. The fun part is you can also see parts of the cast that end up being in Kevin Sullivan's production of Road to Avonlea. But this series is wonderful, charming, and full of adventures. The supporting cast is quite amazing as well they include: Rachel Lynde (Patricia Hamilton), Miss Stacy (Marilyn Lightstone), & Aunt Josephine (Charmion King) just to name a few of my favorites. This movie is also about life and the human heart that we see through Anne's eye's. The DVD is full of tons of great stuff such as Megan Follow's audition, a small behind the scene's moments, missing scene's, & tons more. So I do highly recommend this film for everyone. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

The Persistence of Melancholy
This is a beautiful film that I would recommend to those who have read Joyce's short story and those who have not. This is one of the few instances where the visual medium enhances and even improves appreciation of the original written work. Set in 1904 in an elegant Dublin home on Christmas Day, it is an extremely moving character study of a portion of middle class Dublin society. The characters are shown with their charms as well as flaws intact, as the plot wends its way to the epiphany of Gabriel, the main character, who comes to realize the many things he has never known about his wife to whom he has been married many years. Even the final overwhelming soliloquy of melancholy of Gabriel's character is enveloped in a deep and haunting Irish charm, and the result is magnificent. A powerful film that is a literate must see.

Haunting film version of the James Joyce story.
This is a hushed and moody film version of the famous Joyce story. Those looking for action and non-stop plot will be disappointed. For intelligent viewers, the acting and directing are first rate. The ending is very sad and unforgettable.

Wonderful adaption!
Why is it such a gem of a movie is so difficult to obtain?

I saw the scene of Anjelica Huston on the stairs when I was in college (the professor showed it to us when teaching "Dubliners"). I later decided to rent it and was happy with it.

This year, before my first day of work (I work in a school district), I treated myself to an Irish coffee and read "The Dead" before bed. Forgetting how much I truly enjoyed this story, I decided that I must own the movie.

I searched unsuccessfully throughout the area although did manage to secure a copy through Amazon. What a treat to watch this visual masterpiece. Although we do not have the benefit of Gabriel's musings until the end, we can see the pretentiousness and elitism, where his own image superscedes what is importance. The dancing, music, conversation, and dinner are so mirthful, yet so very artificial. Yet, it isin the hotel room after the party that reality thrust upon us. The illusion of immortality is crushed as Gretta (Angelica Huston) shares the tragedy of a lost love. One does not feel protected in the hotel room, one feels cold, much as it is outside in the snow. The contrast, the emotions stirred, are so very tremendous that few movies are able to match. Unfortunately, many will find the movie to be a sharp yawn and a prelude to falling asleep. The thoughtful viewer (and pronounced James Joyce admirer) will see this as a treat to behold. I am so very lucky to have this for my bookshelf and believe I shall treat myself to it quite regularly!

The Dead Are All Among Us
I am reminded somehow of "An Irish Airman Meets His Death" when I see this wonderful movie-tale. There is an inherent hesitation in its flow -- until the very ending, when Joyce reveals his simple thrust: there are more things in heaven and earth....
The acting is superb. A period-piece, each member of the cast fits into his/her place with perfection. The themes before the End commemorate Humanity. The End commemorates all of them together: lost (or unrequited) love.
I love Irish music and its often heart-rending simplicity (some I know call it 'boozy sentimentality; I disagree). This film has much music, sentimental, subjective and, yes, very, very subtle. The admixture moves one's heart -- and, maybe, one's soul.
This one should be in a thoughtful person's video archive. On wintry nights, when the hearth has lessened to embers awaiting their deaths -- we ought to think of what this film has to say: to all of us.

HUSTON'S FINAL TRIUMPH
Do not buy this video if you do not enjoy movies made with delicacy and wistful melancholy -- it is short, has no real plot and features no special effects. Yet this movie stands as one of the best ever -- it weaves a spell over you, and captivates your every sense. We are treated to the visual trimmings of a holiday feast, along with the Irish folk music that will, just when you least expect it, turn your expectations upside down. The lively characterizations of every player in this movie bring it to vivid life; it's as if you have entered a Christmas card, and can taste, smell and feel everything around you. That James Joyce's story revolves essentially around a simple, but devastating revelation, is what makes it brilliant. So many times in this movie the obvious gives way to more specific visions: as one of the many, many colorful ladies speaks at her party, we are brought inside a bedroom, where we linger with the camera on objects -- picture frames, combs, etc., that spark the imagination and underscore the proceedings with a singluar clarity. Angelica Huston is magically compelling, and the final monologue, delivered with subtle power, will haunt your memory. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

The Best Version of Cinderella w/ some good butt kicking
Drew Barrymore plays Cinderella as never seen before. With a quick wit,brains,looks, and the willingness to kick alittle "step-sisterly bootie" , she wins over the heart of a handsome prince, played by Dougrey Scott. The story alters more with the help of a step-sister who in the end makes you love her as much as Cinderella. Also, you have a wonderful cast who brings this to life, altering a "fairy-godmother" to a "fairy-godfather" with the help of famous artist Leonardo. You will laugh and cheer as you let yourself be pulled into this wonderful story of love, comedy, and "just rewards".

A realistic version of the timeless fairy tale
In this more realistic version of Cinderella, Drew Barrymore plays Gabrielle, a pretty farm girl who's strength and courage(not prince charming) save her from a bleak future. In order to save one of the house servants, Gabrielle passes herself off as a courtier and confronts one of the King's men. Amidst this confrontation, Prince Henry shows up and is impressed by Gabrielle's guts, intelligence, and beauty. Smitten by the Prince herself, Gabrielle lies to him about who she really is.
But Gabrielle's stepmother (Angelica Huston) is determined to have the prince marry one of her daughters and she'll do whatever it takes to get Gabrielle out of the way. Highly recommended for its romance, humor, and suspense.

great family viewing
Drew Barrymore has this charm about her on screen, whether it's in ET as a pretty little girl, or as a beautiful young woman in this Cinderella story that will captivate your heart and senses. This is fairytale but believable because human nature is always the same whether it's fantasy or reality; and it's romantic but very tasteful. And I'm sure many will be pleased with the happy ending :)

David Rehak
author of "A Young Girl's Crimes"

Excellent movie!!!!
This is one of my favorite movies of all time! Of course, as its known by the title the story is based on the Cinderella fairy tale, but in this movie the heroine is smart and strong, yet vunerable at the same time. Drew Barrymore is great and Angelica Houston is just wondrously wicked as the evil step- mother. This movie is recomended to every woman!!!

Going back to the olden times. 15th april 2004.
Danielle de barbarac is a servant, thats the job she does, her cruel mother is like an enemy to her, she can never anything right. [The posh dresses, just like the olden days]. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Winner of the Academy Award for best picture of 1989, this gracefully moving drama, adapted from the hit play by Alfred Uhry, chronicles the 25-year friendship between a stubborn, aging Southern widow (Jessica Tandy) and her loyal chauffeur (Morgan Freeman). At first, the self-sufficient Miss Daisy is reluctant to accept the services of a chauffeur, but Hoke is quiet, wise, and tolerant, and as the years pass the unlikely friends develop a deep mutual respect and admiration. Tandy deservedly won the Oscar for her sassy and sensitive performance, and Freeman earned an Oscar nomination for bringing quiet depth and integrity to his memorable role. Ironically, director Bruce Beresford (Tender Mercies) was not nominated, but the film won Oscars for makeup and for Uhry's screenplay, in addition to a supporting actor nomination for Dan Aykroyd as Daisy's supportive son. Delicate, funny, and bittersweet, Driving Miss Daisy was a surprise hit when released, and marked the crowning achievement of Tandy's great career. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (48)

An Unlikely Pair
This Academy Award winning drama is a touching story about the coexistence of an aging southern woman and her chauffer. Miss Daisy played by Jessica Tandy (Academy Award for Best Actress) is a feisty Jewish woman forced to endure the tragedy of growing older. Her son played by Dan Aykroyd is faced with the dilemma of playing parent to his parent. Morgan Freeman plays Hoke, the black chauffer hired by her son. Set in Atlanta, GA beginning in the late 1940's this film spans 25 years of an unlikely friendship before and during the fight for Civil Rights. A must see classic, this story keeps the audience wondering what will she think of next, and how will he handle it. Skillfully done with everyday events and situations it is certainly deserving of the Best Picture Academy Award.

A Great Tale of an Unlikely Friendship
"Driving Miss Daisy" is one of the best films released in 1989, rightfully winning four Oscars: Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Makeup. This adaptation of the play version is brilliant. It tells the story, set between 1940's-1960's, of a fiesty elderly woman who's unhappy of growing old. As she meets a man who becomes her driver, the story develops into something special. The combination of stories become increasingly interesting as the two develop a close friendship. Their relationship beats the racist society and the painful past that the man has endured. Through everything, their lives change forever. Her son's frequent visits to her house offer the added entertainment value as it adds to the emotional value. Despite the twenty-five year plot span, the storyline flows smoothly. The warm, loving story offers an unforgettable viewing experience.

Jessica Tandy performs her role as the unhappy elderly woman splendidly. Her every expressed emotion is felt upon audiences. She became the oldest person to win an Oscar, at age 80. Morgan Freeman and Dan Ackroyd's Oscar nominated roles (Best Actor/ Best Supporting Actor) offer the added unique theme to this great film. All other actors also performed wonderfully.

The quality of "Driving Miss Daisy" proves that it's destined to become a classic in the following years. It's sure to continue pleasing audiences for many years to come. Most viewers will have to watch it multiple times to fully understand the movie because of its deep storyline. Afterwards, those who do will be glad they did.

Old Friends.
Lovely is such an old fashioned word, I know. But that's the word that describes this film, for me. The story of the developing friendship over many years between the black chaueffeur and the older Jewish woman is very heartwarming in its simplicity. Jessica Tandy is marvelous as "Miss Daisy" the fiercely independant, irascible widow, whose advancing age requires her son to employ, against her wishes, a driver/companion for her. Miss Tandy, who originated the role of Blanche DuBois on Broadway in "A Streetcar Named Desire", was a wonderful actress. This was one of her last films, and all the skill, sublety, and experience of her life-long craft come together to create a living, breathing "Miss Daisy." Morgan Freeman meets her skill in his portrayal of "Hoag", the accomodating chaueffeur. He has the manner of a certain resignation that an older black man may have felt in the turbulent, prejudiced south in which he lived, yet exudes dignity. He has the manner of "Hoag" down pat, right down to the closed mouth laugh that I have seen in the old black men who hang out on the corner. This is not a caricature, he IS "Hoag." His relationship with Miss Daisy starts out very rocky, to say the least, but, as time passes, their places in each others lives develope into almost a "marriage", with a quiet understanding of, and dependence on, each other. And though Miss Daisy insists she was not prejudiced, and inherently wasn't, it is touching to see her slowly let go of her last universally accepted beliefs of peoples place in society, where the "colored" help were always servants of some sort, and the line was just never crossed. Scenes such as the one where she and "Hoag" are both eating their dinner in the house, she in the dining room, he , alone in the kitchen, express this. The very thought of them dining together, it just wasn't done. As time goes on, and she becomes quietly aware of the similarities of the prejudices against her religion and the prejudices and injustice against Hoags race, the differences that seperate them become insignicant. Dan Akroyd and Patti Lupone are fine as Miss Daisy's son and his typically '50s wife, who admonishes her black maid for the unforgivable sin of forgetting to tell her she was out of coconut for the ambrosia she was serving to her guests... a '50s hostess' nightmare. There are a few moments when their performances threaten to lapse into parody, but one is only aware of this because this is basically a two person play, and the skill and realism of Tandys and Freemans performances just eclipse the others, they are basically props compared to the skill and, yes, sublety of the leads . The exception is Esther Rolle as "Idella" , Miss Daisys black maid. Though her part is small, and her lines few, she manages to convey a resigned dignity also, and her dead-pan delivery of several one liners is very humorous. Miss Daisys affection and respect for Idella is clearly etched upon her face, however, at Idella's funeral. This is just a wonderfully simple, beautiful film. It never treads into being overly sentimental, thanks to the casting of two very special stars. This film took many by surprise by winning the Oscar for best film of the year, proving that a movie with no special effects, and, that actually tells a story, can still move audiences. The final scene, where their years-long friendship comes full circle, will have tears in your eyes, as Miss Daisy conveys the sweet sad wisdom of the old, who know that "all shall soon pass...."

Fascinating, Memorable, Perfect
Not much can be added to the praise of others here, or to the film's enthusiastic reception by the public. I feel that this is one of those rare films that is simply perfect from beginning to end. Even if you don't develop an affection for the characters, and even if you don't care for the story line, it's a stretch to fault this movie in any way. The Special Edition DVD is preferred (not many extras, but those included are worth the effort). After watching my copy 7 times and trying to get really picky with it, I juist can't find anything amiss with Beresford's beautiful production. SO why didn't he win a Director Oscar? Must've been the competition that year, but he certainly deserved to win. Only other disappointment: Freeman nominated, but didn't win. And to think this film was made for less than $6 million, and racked in a fortune and a handful of Oscars!

Freeman and Tandy What a Combo!!
Freeman and Tandy are quite a combo!!

This is a sensitive film that says a lot about humanity.
Compassionate humanism oozes from this movie.
It certainly deserved the Picture of the Year in 1989. ... Read more

Reviews (29)

Bergman shines in religious epic
Overlong but fairly engrossing bio of Gladys Aylward, an English-woman who, despite her lack of qualifications, becomes a missionary in China. The film is episodic and covers Aylward's brief career as a parlor maid (saving money for her trip to China), her journey to China, her work at the Inn of the Sixth Happiness and the Chinese-Japanese war which results in her guiding 100+ children in an arduous journey through the mountains to a safer village. I didn't find the film as moving as other reviewers but it is well mounted and nice to look at. Bergman is outstanding as are other supporting players, most notably Curt Jergens and Robert Donat. This was Donat's last film (he died before it was released) and his last screen words are prophetic - "We shall not see each other again, I think. Farewell."

What is most notable about this dvd release is the excellent commentary by Nick Redman, Aubrey Solomon and Donald Spoto. Redman talks about the real Gladys Aylward, Solomon talks about the film production and Spoto discusses Ingrid Bergman. There were many things changed for the film version and many of them are small and inexplicable. For example, Aylward's given Chinese name was Ai-weh-deh (not Jenai), an adopted child was actually named Ninepence (Sixpense in the movie), etc. Other changes were more larger in scope - Aylward's journey to China was quite harsh and she almost died several times. The inn-keeper, Jeanne Lawson (memorably played by Athene Seyler) was no as agreeable a woman as portrayed in the film - she was actually a cantankerous person prone to fits and thought to be quite mad by the villagers. Aylward herself was thought by many to be fanatical and to put it bluntly, off her rocker. Many other fascinating aspects about the film and the women (both Aylward and Bergman) are included.

A must for every video library ! An inspiring tear-jerker !!
One rainy afternoon I was channel surfing and came across this movie and fortunately for me it was very close to the beginning. I was so drawn into the story and captivated by Ingrid Bergman's performance that I forgot I was even watching television!! This is one of the most touching and moving stories I have ever seen and (I won't give this part of the movie away) when the Chinese gave "Gladys" a new name and what that translated to in English I thought I was going to go through a whole box of tissues right then and there. The storyline, scenery and acting are superb and the fact that it is based on a true story only makes it more inspiring. My cousin is 18 years old and wants to pursue a career in the mission field and I told her many times that she has to see this film. So I'm not only going to purchase one for MY video library but one for HER'S as well.

following God's call
This is a magnificent film in every aspect; the acting is brilliant, the landscapes beautiful, the drama intense. Based on the true story of Gladys Aylward, a house maid in England who was "not qualified" to be sent to China as a missionary, so went there on her own, saving every shilling earned for a ticket on the Trans-Siberian railroad. Taking place in the pre-WWII era, it's an adventure story of great spiritual courage, the chaos of war, and a romance between two independent people who never thought they would find love.

Ingrid Bergman is luminous as Gladys. It is one of her very best performances, and my personal favorite. Robert Donat, who passed away before the film was released, is also marvelous as the Mandarin of Yang Cheng, and Curt Jurgens as Captain Lin Nan is handsome and believable as the man who falls in love with Gladys. In a small but pivotal part, Athene Seyler is terrific as Jennie Lawson, the elderly missionary who helps Gladys in her early years, and Peter Chong is a delight as Yang the cook.
It is odd that the only Oscar nomination went to director Mark Robson; perhaps Bergman was overlooked because she had received a "Best Actress" for "Anastasia" two years earlier, but Bergman fans will give this film their own five-star award.

The fabulous location filming by Freddie Young was done in Snowdonia National Park, North Wales, a remarkable substitute for Shaanxi Province, in the heart of China. The village reproductions are very well done, and look incredibly similar to films I have seen shot in China. The lovely score by Malcolm Arnold adds much to the film, and Alan Burgess, whose book "The Small Woman" is the basis of the story, wrote the script, which is witty, wise and wonderful, with Isobel Lennart.
Many times I've laughed out loud , and many times I've cried watching this film; it's good for several viewings, as it is epic in scope, and the script has an intelligence that makes it a rare gem. total running time is 158 minutes.

In the film, Chinese tradition has five "Happiness" wishes: Wealth, longevity, good health, virtue, and a peaceful old age and death. "Each person must decide in their heart what the sixth happiness is".

Break out the Kleenex...
...for this manipulative, mawkish tear-jerker. The story feels superficial (you never get a feeling for Aylward's sense of spirituality, only the very ocassional bit of tacked-on religiosity), and it's all grossly sentimental. All those feel-good moments with singing kids and long hugs actually detract from the important message about selfless service by making self-sacrifice seem all too easy and romantic, even in the face of brutal Japanese invasion.

The casting choices will try your suspsension of disbelief, to say the least: a Swede as an Englishwoman, a hulking German as a half-Dutch/half-Chinese colonel, and an Englishman as a Chinese mandarin. That said, this is still a fun film if you take it for what it is. It boasts an unusual story and exotic setting, and Bergman is as radiant as ever (even if she overacts in a couple scenes). Donat and Jurgens are uqually winning, in their own way.

Hardly Bergman's best film, but certainly worth a watch if you're a fan.

Noah visits the baby Jesus
The Inn of the Sixth Happiness was filmed in Wales and the scenery is beautiful. Ingrid Bergman is in top form as Gladys Aylard would be missionary to China. One of my favorite scenes is when her assistant Yang, who has a fondness for Noah and his ark, is telling the diners at the inn that Noah came in his ark to visit the baby Jesus along with the wise men. When she gives him a disapproving look he goes on to explain that even though Noah was born long before Jesus people lived alot longer back then, so no one could say for sure that he couldn't have been there. ... Read more

Reviews (290)

For those fans who love old-fashioned MOVIE-movies!
What a marvelous film. An absolutely picture-perfect recreation of a era not recently seen in modern film...the Depression.
I had no idea that in the year 1938, this horse occupied more column inches in the newspapers than Roosevelt (#2) or Hitler (#3). One out of three Americans heard the climactic match race on the radio. 40 million people.
Nowadays, it seems we can't even get one out of three Americans to vote.
The story is well summarized in other reviews.
I'd like to point out an amazing effort by the writer/director Gary Ross. There are so many delightful moments...thoughtful touches that "tell the story" in most powerful ways. And this is a great story told VERY well.
The inter-jockey interplay during actual races is terrific. A decision to NOT show a tragic event on-screen, followed by agonizingly silent segments, are far more effective than a traditional special-effect-and-sweeping-orchestral-flourish moment. Horse races are always cleanly conveyed...you know who's where, and what our jockey is thinking.
"Our jockey" being Red Pollard, sharply portrayed by Tobey Maguire. Even better is Chris Cooper. Although he finally has received recognition from the industry, I don't think the public knows how truly gifted he is. He's a joy to watch.
Jeff Bridges, as usual, is solid. He normally elevates his material above it's source, but here he doesn't have to. Ross' screenplay is witty, poetic...it has depth and detail.
As the director, Ross does the same from behind the camera. Just as poetic, with lovely images, thrilling racing sequences, some drop-dead gorgeous vistas...well done Mr. Ross!
Everything from the production design, to the cinematography, to the music (can Randy Newman EVER do wrong?) is so "right" for this movie, that you won't notice it until after the credits roll.
You're WAY too busy being caught up in the tale of this amazing horse, his owner, his trainer and his jockey.
There are very few guarantees in the movie biz. If you have a fondness for the type of movies "they don't make anymore", you will enjoy this film. Guaranteed.

A Triple Crown Winner
Writer/director Gary Ross has made a triumphant film out of Laura Hillenbrand's beloved bestseller. Like the original author, Ross gathers the strands of his story slowly, showing how the lives of three initially unrelated people - an owner, a trainer and a jockey - converge at a single point, the racehorse phenomenon known as Seabiscuit.

Both Hillenbrand and Ross have conceived of Seabiscuit as a metaphor for his time, a beacon of hope and inspiration for a despairing, Depression-ravaged nation. He is certainly that and more for the three troubled men whose lives he touches, providing each with the opportunity to overcome immense odds, achieve some form of redemption, and put some meaning back into his life.

Given its "inspirational" subject matter, "Seabiscuit" could easily have dissolved into little more than a sappy "feel-good" movie. Luckily for us, the low-keyed approach Ross has taken towards the material purges it of sentimentality. The movie is upbeat and heartwarming, yet we rarely feel as if the film is pushing our buttons in any obviously manipulative way. Much of the credit goes to Jeff Bridges, Chris Cooper and Tobey Maguire, three superb actors who know how to underplay their parts to achieve maximum effect. William H. Macy provides a wonderful comic turn as the hilariously overwrought and corny racetrack announcer who reflects the gee-whiz tone of a nation captivated by this amazing animal.

Visually, the film is superb, thanks to John Schwarztman's lovely cinematography, which imbues the bucolic 1930's setting with a kind of nostalgic glow, as well as to the handsome art direction and costume design that perfectly capture the look of the era. The horserace sequences have been masterfully staged and edited and rank with the best ever put on film.

"Seabiscuit," clearly one of the best mainstream movies of 2003, is a true first place finisher.

Seabiscuit's a loser
This movie is stunningly awful. Hollywood took an exciting and terse book and poured five cans of sugar over it. Each component of the film, barring the acting, is terrible. Randy Newman cartoonishly narrates the movie with a ridiculous "period" score and yet, out of nowhere, a track from Moby's over-sampled PLAY appears. The completely misguided voice-over narrative attempts to give the film some historical legitimacy and extra weight. All it does is add gravity to and repeatedly stall the momentum of what should have been a balls out movie. This movie lacks every quality that the horse, as described in the book, had. Its cinematography is grossly opulent, the screenplay is stuffed with self-importance, and the film moves at a snail's pace. One hour into the film and NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. Gary Ross, creator of the equally maudlin and hit-you-in-the-face-with-a-message Pleasantville, keeps the unnecessary history of the three principle characters at the expense of, incredibly, some of the horse races. Worst of all are the horse-racing segments themselves. The races are strangely uninvolving, and knowing that in most shots Tobey Maguire isn't actually on the horse detaches the viewer from the experience. By the end, I started skipping chapters of the DVD and found that doing so made ZERO DIFFERENCE except for the pleasure of knowing I'd kept twenty minutes of my life from being trapped on the back of this lame Seabiscuit. Someone should bar Tobey Maguire and Gary Ross from coming within one hundred feet of each other, because the results of their meetings are excruciating for American movie goers.

GREAT MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BEST MOVIE EVER!!! EVERYONE HAS TO SEE IT!!!

A Conversation With Señor Droll, God of Saltines.
Señor Droll, may I ask you if it was the begining and the end of imagination, at the same time? Exactly how many declarative sentences are required to effectively preface a movie? Do you make exceptions for movies about Seabiscuit? Ah.... I didn't think so... so what would you rate this movie? What? only... two and a half stars? What about the John Cleese cameo, doesn't that count for something? Why not? I've heard he's very tall... OH, aren't YOU Señor grumpypants...we'll see if I ever listen to you again... ah, and toby mcguire ruins jeff bridges too? jesus! will it never end?!?!?!!?!? More Tacky Sentimental Crup? Try Try Try Harder, Again, Again? AGAIN?!?! well gosh, does nothing fail to bore you? I suppose so. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This 1943 version of thehorror story is more Technicolor musical than scare piece. Claude Rains plays the unfortunate, masked anti-hero, but he doesn't get the room to showcase a promising and sympathetic performance. Susanna Foster and Nelson Eddy, on the other hand, get plenty of screen time to warble. Well worth a visit just for the look of the film, which won an Oscar for cinematography.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (44)

A cute but not particularly deep little flick
I wanted to see this because it had Claude Rains mostly, but also because I wanted to see Nelson Eddy as a person after hearing him in the Disney short "The Whale Who Wanted to Sing at the Met". Besides, I've been a fan of the book by Gaston LeRoux and the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber for some time, have seen the silent movie version of this story, and wanted to chalk up another credit to my Phantom experience.

Overall, this wasn't a bad little movie - I felt that the fact that it was in colour rather detracted from the sombre, ominous mood this kind of tale needs - it should really be sort of Victorian film-noir, shot in black and white. But then, I felt that they really changed the story so much in this film version that it can only be looked on as a story independent of the book which was its inspiration, and so for that reason the colour is okay. I also felt that Claude Rains' character seemed as though it was going to be a main character at the beginning of the film, but then he seemed to disappear from the film for much of the rest of it. Also, the progression of his adoration complex for Christine was sadly overlooked throughout the film, and we are to understand his descent into bitterness toward mankind from the few scattered minutes of screen time that he has?

Although the rival banter between Raoul and Anatole was very amusing, it seems a little out of place in a story of such tragic dimensions, and draws one's focus completely away from the relationship between Christine and the Phantom of the film's title, which really is the core of the entire book and should be the same or similar in the movie. As another example of distraction - I like hearing Nelson Eddy sing, but at least two of the operatic numbers could have been shortened to make room for some more character development and depth in Erik and Christine's relationship.

I felt that the silent version of the film not only followed the plot of the book more accurately, but that the emotions and experiences of the characters were ones easier to "jump into", even despite the common (for a silent) over-acting of its players - but at the same time, this 1943 version was easier to watch. It's not as long or nervewracking. Still, I would recommend you to do it all - read the book, watch both films, and listen to the original London cast recording of the musical if you can't go and see it. Each one of these things will enhance your appreciation and enjoyment of the story in some way or another.

A Beautiful Film
I saw the 1943 version of "The Phantom of the Opera" before I read the book and (last) saw the 1925 version. I have to admit that it was not like the book at all, but the Lon Chaney version was a little. Claude Rains was very convincing as the tormented and lovesick Phantom, and was always more interesting than Lon Chaney. But Claude Rains was not given very much screen time, except near the beginning and end of the film. The sets were fabulous. Nelson Eddy and Edgar Barrier were almost constantly trying to win over Christine, and even though these scenes were funny, I've noticed that they can very easily become distractions that seem designed only to de-emphasize Claude Rains, which only hurts the film. Susanna Foster and Nelson Eddy sang a lot, and while these numbers were very nice and a joy to listen to, they were the only time Nelson Eddy really got a chance to shine, which is unfortunate. However, Susanna Foster fared well throughout the entire film. I would not recommend this film to anyone who doesn't like opera, or to anyone who wants to see a lot of the Phantom.

Horror fans will be disappointed
This film is more about the opera and the courting of an opera singer by two suitors than a deranged murderer running amok in the hidden chambers of the Paris Opera House. A great deal of screen time is devoted to the pursuit of the lovely Mademoiselle Dubois by a baritone and a Paris detective as both men are comically inept in trying to win the woman's favors. Claude Rains' phantom is a poignant figure, his madness notwithstanding, and he also has designs on the opera star and spirits her away to the catacombs under the building to possess her forever and have her sing the concerto he composed especially for her. The lush color and sets give the production a professional and polished look but the movie lacks suspense and thrills and is strictly for aficionados of the opera.

Pretty Good
Not my favorite interpretation of Phantom, but still good. Susanna Foster kind of bugs me, but that's okay. And they really changed the story. It's not at all like the origional novel, but it's about Phantom, and that's a good enough excuse for me! Anyways, it was pretty nice. The Raoul character was most realistic. I just don't like Susanna. :)

The Phantom Goes Musical
Gaston Leroux's penny-dreadful novel was hardly the stuff of great literature, but it did manage to tap into the public consciousness with its gas-light-gothic tale of a beautiful singer menaced by a horrific yet seductive serial killer lurking in the forgotten basement labyrinths of the Paris Opera. Lon Chaney's silent classic kept the basic elements of the novel intact'-and proved one of the great box office hits of its day, a fact that prompted Universal Studios to contemplate a remake throughout most of the 1930s. Although several proposals were considered (including one intended to feature Deanna Durbin, who despised the idea and derailed the project with a flat refusal), it wasn't until 1943 that a remake reached the screen. And when it did, it was an eye-popping Technicolor extravaganza, all talking, all singing, and dancing. The Phantom had gone musical.

In many respects this version of PHANTOM anticipates the popular Andrew Lloyd Webber stage musical, for whereas the Chaney version presented the Phantom as a truly sinister entity, this adaptation presents the character as one more sinned against than sinning'an idea that would color almost every later adaptation, and Webber's most particularly so. But it also shifts the focus of the story away from the title character, who is here really more of a supporting character than anything else. The focus is on Paris Opera star Christine Dae, here played by Susanna Foster. In this version Christine is not only adored by the Phantom; she is also romantically pursued by two suitors who put aside their differences to protect her.

Directed by Universal workhorse Arthur Lubin, this version is truly eye-popping in the way that only a 1940s Technicolor spectacular could be: the color is intensely brilliant, and Lubin makes the most of it by focusing most of his camera-time on the stage of the Paris Opera itself and splashing one operatic performance after another throughout the film. But in terms of actual story interest, the film is only so-so. Susanna Foster had a great singing voice, but she did not have a memorable screen presence, and while the supporting cast (which includes Nelson Eddy, Edgar Barrier, Leo Carrillo, and Jane Farrar) is solid enough they lack excitement. And the pace of the film often seems a bit slow, sometimes to the point of clunkiness.

The saving grace of the film'-in addition to the aforementioned photography, which won an Oscar-'is Claude Rains. A great artist, Rains did not make the mistake of copying Chaney, and although the script robs the Phantom of his most fearsome aspects, Rains fills the role with subtle menace that is wonderful to behold, completely transcending the film's slow pace, the lackluster script, and "sanitized for your protection" tone so typical of Universal Studios in the 1940s.

Like most "Universal Horror" DVD packages, this one is superior. The centerpiece of the bonus material is a very nice documentary, "The Opera Ghost: A Phantom Unmasked," which details the origins of the novel and the numerous film adaptations of it'and which is actually quite a bit more interesting than the 1943 film itself. There is also a nice, if somewhat perfunctory, audio commentary track by historian Scott McQueen, trailers, stills, and the like. But when everything is said and done, it's the film that counts'and unless you're a diehard Phantom fan you're likely to be unimpressed. ... 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

Reviews (19)

One of my all-time favorites!
A breathtakingly beautiful film from the "Magic 3" - David Lean, Director, Freddie Young, Cinematographer, and Maurice Jarre, Music -- who also gave us Lawrence of Arabia and Dr. Zhivago. An ordinary enough story, but played beautifully by first rate actors, it moves right along and I became very involved in the fate of its characters. I wanted Sarah Miles to have her passionate love, but then again, I didn't want her good husband (Mitchum) to lose her, I wanted the British officer (Jones) not to be tortured and haunted, and I didn't want anyone hurting the lovable village idiot. (John Mills deserved the Oscar he got for this role!) The relationship between John Mills' and Sarah Miles' characters broke my heart. And I hated, hated with a capital H some of the others (I won't say who and spoil it for anyone). This is all to say that I was pretty much transfixed and transported by this movie from start to finish. And if there's any scene in any movie from the beginning of time that's more erotic than the one in her father's pub when Sarah Miles' character first meets the British lieutenant, I hope someone warns me; I don't think I could withstand it. I love my video of the movie, but I wish I could see it again on the big screen for the impact of the magnificent cinematography of the Irish coast. And of the pub.

A Haunting Masterpiece by Lean
I first saw this film when it came out, it haunted me for days. The score9 by Maurice Jarre) and the photography(Freddie Young won a most desevred Oscar for) is breathtaking and Sarah Miles is so beautiful she takes your breath away. Set in Ireland during World War I and the British occupation of Ireland. Rosy Ryan( Sarah Miles) sets her cap for the local school master played by the great Robert Mitchum. They marry and her life is not what she expects until a British Officer enters it while she is tending bar. The chap is played by Christopher Jones who was the Colin Farrell of his day. The scene in the pub when they meet is one of the most tender loving scenes ever filmed. The affair that follows brings heartache to all. The villagers in this small Irish town gives lynch mobs a bad name. The pleasure they exact from teasing the village idiot(played by John Mills and may I add with beauty and heart) and later taking their revenge on an innocent person they believed to be the traitor. I don't want to give away the ending ot the story but I just purchased it and watched it for the first time in thirty years and was reminded what a storyteller David Lean was. Candace Serviss

When oh when!
Each month I scan the "new" issues to see if the studio has issued this first rate movie onto DVD but to no avail! when one sees the amount of rubbishy films now being re-issued, it really makes me angry, I guess the reason being the fact that Ryans Daughter was panned in the States, but hay Yanks, how about we Brits? the film was well received over here and is still regulary screened on TV. Freddy Jone's photography should be reason enough but add Sarah Miles, Bob Mitchum, John Mills, where is the problem?

Take it From a First-Time Viewer: Pass This One By
The progress of David Lean's visual style is one of honest, thrilling emotion subsumed over the years by unnecessary, rote effect--an artistic hardening-of-the-arteries not entirely unlike the bloat of Wordsworth's later work.

Of his pictures which history will remember well, Lean delivered at least one masterpiece ("Oliver Twist," 1948), which dared to risk anachronism when it evoked the prison camps of WWII in its workhouse boys' scabby, balding heads--not to mention Alec Guinness's frightening Fagin ("What right have you to butcher me!?").

He made two other first-rate pictures: "Great Expectations" (1946), a rare triumph of literary abbreviation, & "The Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957), the most melancholy meditation on suffering I've ever seen--like a paragraph from Dostoyevsky or Solzhenitsyn played deftly out to feature length.

"Lawrence of Arabia" (1962) signalled, I think, the beginning of an elephantiasis in Lean's ambition--though it's been observed that "Lawrence's" minimalist compositions and love of "empty" screen-space may have primed audiences for later, more abstract adventures such as "2001: A Space Odyssey," and even "Apocalypse Now."

Lean's respectful eye for and fascination with natural landscapes, especially as they dwarf people, and the psychologic import of that domination of scale, was often on ostentatious and useful display in his early and middle years. Later, this titanic style of framing became expected of Lean--not least, repeated viewings attest, by the man himself. It's as if he became trapped by his repute for monumentality, which was rarely less appropriate than here.

"Ryan's Daughter," based on a parlor-scale melodrama by Robert Bolt, never has the chance to escape Lean's Olympian regard and withers on film like a bug caught in the projector gate. Never mind the performances, which are generally credible, nor the cinematography, which (in the only home video available, a wretched panned-&-scanned dub with horrible color balance) is typically assured work from Freddie Young.

"Ryan's Daughter" is a failure from a man with a fading vision, and uninstructive ... unless the lesson is to tailor style to substance at all costs.

my two cents
This SOOOOO needs to be on DVD!!!!! This beautiful little gem is one of those great movies that just keeps haunting my memory even after all these years....and considering all the crap hollywood churns and what they deem worthy to go on DVD this would be a welcome bit of fresh air to see this again and add to my library. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Writer William Nicholson's (Shadowlands) directorial debut is a surprisingly refreshing art house drama. Even though Firelight has grandstanding elements of forbidden love, a bodice-ripping tryst, and the moody English countryside, the film is never trite or dreary. It's 1838 and Charles, an earnest sheep breeder (Stephen Dillane), wants an heir, but his wife is an invalid. He hires the penniless Elisabeth (Sophie Marceau, ravishing again) as surrogate mother and hopes a weekend of passionless sex will bring him a baby. The D.H. Lawrence-like love nest brings a surprise or two, as does the bulk of film that takes place seven years later. Whereas many a period drama would focus on potential scandal, Nicholson is squarely looking at love between mother and child, and the unmentioned love between Charles and Elisabeth. Miscast in nearly every film since her breakout performance in Braveheart, Marceau is wonderful here. She keeps her smoldering air, but her character is more hopeful than downbeat. Nicholson's casting of Dillane (think of a British Ed Harris) instead of some gorgeous hunk was box-office poison, but makes for a far more satisfying picture--and they are a very appealing couple. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (66)

Don't overlook this one!
I went to see "Firelight" because it was a costumer and the review I read mentioned something about "Jane Eyre with sex". Was I in for a surprise-- and a very pleasant one at that.

This film is not your typical "young-governess-goes-to-the-mysterious-mansion" story. There're enough plot twists to keep the viewer on his/her toes (yes, men will enjoy it too). The acting, cinematography, settings and music combine to make this a lovely viewing experience. I became an even bigger fan of Stephen Dillane (check him out in "Welcome to Sarajevo") and Sophie Marceau (why waste her in something as silly as "Lost & found"?) after seeing this. The smaller roles are also well done; I was particularily impressed with Kevin Anderson as an American sheep farmer.

Hats off to William Nicholson et al. for this jewel. I hope the video price drops quickly; I'd love to own a copy of this beautiful film.

Rich, romantic, and beautiful to look at
I saw Firelight last year during its all too brief big-screen run and was stunned.

But even though it is a visually perfect film, the two lovers are more than simply exquisite - they have breadth and depth. They actually take on dimension and draw us into their world and time: we share their fears, denials, passions, and the joy they ultimately find in their love.

In addition, the scenery (bleak outdoors, lush in) and weather (winter) were mesmerising because they were deeply a part of the context. Even the ancillary characters (Connie and Lord Godwin especially), were well-played and endearing. Real.

This is absolutely one of my favorite movies. It is a definite MUST HAVE for every lover of romantic period films. Particularly if you like them sensual and erotic without coarseness.

Firelight is a kiss from William Nicholson that touches and warms the skin beneath the lace.

Not for period purists
This film is strictly a modern romance with people dressed in period clothes. As such it works. But it's not for viewers who want any kind of historic accuracy.

The entire plot hinges on a Victorian man with a wife in a years-long coma who wants an heir. He hires a woman he doesn't know as a surrogate mother. In reality there was always _someone_, some nephew or cousin, legally in line to be the heir. Many Victorians were satisfied with maintaining an avuncular relationship without formal adoption. However, when a Victorian couple did want to formally adopt an heir--which was sometimes the case--there was usually some relative with several children who was willing to give one child the considerable financial and social advantages provided by such adoption. Unless disreputable, the parents were allowed to maintain contact with the child.

However, adoption was the resort of a married couple who had entirely given up hope of normal procreation. A man who was unmarried, or whose wife seemed likely to die, would generally prefer to marry or remarry and would anticipate children from that marriage. Victorian medical technology was, as far as I know, incapapable of sustaining someone in a coma for years. In reality, the wife in _Firelight_ would soon die and her husband would be able to remarry.

And, the heir in the film was female. An heir had to be male to inherit a title or an entailed estate, and was always male by preference anyway. Wealthy couples who produced only one daughter--or several in a row--would keep on trying for a son.

Other problems included a man with a mistress bringing her openly to a house/Christmas party attended by "respectable" women and couples. Women known to be courtesans, kept mistresses, or adulteresses were not invited to "nice" private homes or permitted to associate with respectable women and children. A lack of morals was viewed as somehow contagious. Everybody--even respectable women--knew that some men had mistresses, saw noted courtesans at the opera, and saw prostitutes working the streets. But what Victorians did, and what they admitted to, were two different things.

Maybe I'm being particular. But for anyone whose enjoyment of a film would be spoiled by the unbelieveableness of its basic premise and some less important details--well, I'm warning you.

A Modern Version of the Classic
The story might be remininscent of Jane Austen, particularly so when the setting was England in 1840. Yet other than the setting and costume, everything else is modern, the theme and the plot and the rhythm, everything. The main theme here is about desire and obligation or duty or the conflict between the soul and lust. As such, one just fails to see any connotation with DH Lawerence. It would rather remind us of Dr Zhivago instead.

We have everything we possibly could expect from any movie: sound, sight, drama, everything. We have an excellent cast plus exq