Amazon.com essential video

Decades before the Hollywood film industry became famous for megabudget disaster and science fiction spectaculars, the studios of Southern California (and particularly Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer) were renowned for a uniquely American (and nearly extinct) kind of picture known as The Musical. Indeed, when the prestigious British film magazine Sight & Sound conducts its international critics poll in the second year of every decade, this 1952 MGM picture is the American musical that consistently ranks among the 10 best movies ever made. It's not only a great song-and-dance piece starring Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor, and a sprightly Debbie Reynolds; it's also an affectionately funny insider spoof about the film industry's uneasy transition from silent pictures to "talkies." Kelly plays debonair star Don Lockwood, whose leading lady Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen) has a screechy voice hilariously ill-suited to the new technology (and her glamorous screen image). Among the musical highlights: O'Connor's knockout "Make 'Em Laugh"; the big "Broadway Melody" production number; and, best of all, that charming little title ditty in which Kelly makes movie magic on a drenched set with nothing but a few puddles, a lamppost, and an umbrella. --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (223)

The Citizen Kane of musicals
So many films in my collection are "important", "serious", "disturbing", or "great", and as much as I treasure them (films like Citizen Kane, Vertigo, and Ran), there is only so much self-importance a person can take before the pores fairly scream out for something just plain fun; something slight, buoyant, silly, and full of energy. Singin' in the Rain is just that kind of movie. The funny part is, I generally HATE musicals!

In 1951, Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen took a collection of songs by Arthur Freed and Nacio Herb Brown and - assisted by a pitch-perfect screenplay from the writing team of Adolph Green and Betty Comden - sculpted one of the great classic fusions of popular cinematic art and precision dance craft. It is the Citizen Kane of musicals: a virtual catalog of musical film technique, executed flawlessly.

But that alone would not be enough to separate Singin' in the Rain from the kind of musical I can't stand (which is to say, just about every other musical ever made). No, what makes this one special is that it knows what it is and celebrates it. It never for a moment asks you to forget you're watching a movie and then grinds to a screeching halt for the musical number. Instead, it deconstructs itself before your very eyes (and ears) as a razor-sharp, self-aware satire of the movie industry - as well as a joyous expression of the pure ecstasy of great song and dance. In that sense, it is one of the few so-called musicals that actually achieves a genuine symbiosis of drama, music, and kinetic performance art.

If all this sounds rather gushing and pretentious, so be it. This is great film-making. It is Rolex Oyster Perpetual film-making. This DVD edition sparkles with ultra-saturated colors, digitally remixed Dolby 5.1 sound, and some terrific extras (even if you're not particularly into musicals).

My favorite sequence is the eerily fluid dance work between Gene Kelly and Cyd Charisse against a Dali-esque background near the end of the film. Charisse is spellbinding as she trails a gravity-defying veil that must be 30 feet long. It hangs in the air, suspended by wind machines as she uses her extraordinary dance skill (and fantastic legs) to affect a wordless seduction of Kelly's naive, love-struck hero. Great stuff.

Even if you don't think of yourself as the "musical type", give Singin' in the Rain a try. After all that heavy, bitter, existential cinema, it makes one helluva fine dessert.

THE GREAT AMERICAN MUSICAL
Once upon a time there was a place called HOLLYWOOD. It wasn't just a town or even an industry, it was a state of mind. They didn't call the studios Dream Factories for nothing. This film is the epitome of the musical art and craft. This is a real "Movie Movie," made entirely on the MGM lot. The real creme de la creme of MGM contributed to it's creation; produced by Arthur Freed, starring Gene Kelly (with a brilliant turn by the dazzling ,long-legged Cyd Charisse), contract players like Debbie Reynolds and Kathleen Freeman (still going strong, currently appearing on Broadway in "The Full Monty") with costumes by my favorite designer Walter Plunkett (Gone With The Wind, 7 Brides For 7 Brothers, etc). Check out the sumptuous designs for the "Beautiful Girls" number and the outrageous spider dress at the opening night party. The real lowdown is that Jean Hagen and Donald O'Connor practically steal the show from the leads in possibly the best performances of their careers. This film is pure joy. The script by Comden and Green is not only clever but actually goofs on a real period of transition of the American film from silent to talkie.It is also a brilliant job of recycling a trunkload of old songs. This happy film has the courage to do what American musicals and comedies do best: be silly and make you forget you troubles for an hour and a half. Next time you are in bed with the flu or trying to get over a miserable love affair, take a look at Singing In The Rain. It can't help but curl up the corners of your mouth and drive the clouds away.

Wonderful Musical with Terrific Dancing -- a Trifle Dated
"Singin' in the Rain" is the definitive Hollywood musical, and charms and delights our 21st century audiences despite the (very few) characteristics of the genre that don't hold up quite so well.

There are so many high points to this movie -- the amazing cast, the songs, the choreography, and, most surprisingly, the satirical send-up of Hollywood and the "star system."

The plot is well-known. Silent film star couple, Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly, who also co-directed with Stanley Donen) and Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen) are America's sweethearts. At a Hollywood premiere of their latest romance, breathless fans ignore sidekick Cosmo Brown (Donald O'Connor, in perhaps the best sidekick performance in film history) and scream in delight as Lockwood and Lamont pander to their adoration. Nobody, however, seems to notice that the gorgeous Lamont never speaks . . .

Her imposed silence Lamont has a voice that recalls a cat with its tail caught in a wringer, although Lamont is such a "dumb blonde" (bless Hagen -- nobody ever played this stereotype better!) that she is blissfully unaware of her screech. No matter, 'cause it's the silent film era, right? Wrong! Progress brings in "The Jazz Singer" and the era of "talkies." No longer will clever staging of press events suffice.

Soon, Don Lockwood is staring career meltdown in the face as the first Lockwood-Lamont "talkie" sends the audience into hysterics. Not only is Lamont's screech audibly offensive, they can't keep the sound synchronized to the film, and the sound editing even when in synch is as amateurish as a high-school film production.

What to do? Fortunately, Lockwood had fallen for young, beautiful Kathy Selden (a teenage Debbie Reynolds), a starlet in the making. Cosmo comes up with the idea of dubbing Selden's voice for Lamont's, and all is fixed . . . or not. Lamont, an imbecile but smart enough to know her value, insists on ruining Selden's career to preserve her own . . . and so on and so forth.

The plot, ingenious as it is, is really secondary. The main delight in this movie is the amazing dancin' and singin' that the performers offer up. While most of it is pretty silly, campy stuff (particularly the Kelly-O'Connor set pieces), they simply dazzle. Kelly is the most robust, athletic dancer of his generation, and O'Connor, well, the man doesn't have a bone in his body. While the movie's most famous scene comes from Kelly splashing in puddles during the title track, the most amazing dance number has to be O'Connor's comic flailings in "Make 'Em Laugh," where he runs up walls, flirts with a mannequin, and generally pulls out all stops.

Debbie Reynolds does a magnificent job keeping up with these two giants, and is generally a pleasure to watch, even though she's clearly outclassed as a hoofer.

While some great old films seem to get better with age (think "Casablanca," "Gone With the Wind," and "Citizen Kane"), "Singin' in the Rain" is an American classic that does not hold up quite so well in some minor respects. For example, when breaking into choreographed step, Kelly, O'Connor, and Reynolds sometimes appear too rigid, with smiles frozen on their faces, which is incongruous to those raised on more modern musicals like "Moulin Rouge," where the dancers take a more naturalistic, emotional approach to their dancing. The dancing in "Singin'" holds up, but the performers were constrained by the expectations of their audiences, which somehow demanded that the performers "look pleasant" while dancing.

Still, "Singin' in the Rain" remains one of the best tonics to a foul mood ever . . . I defy you to watch this movie and not feel a smile creeping over your face.

The Best Musical Comedy Ever Produced!
I fell in love with this film when I was seven years old; I watched it on a B&W television on "The Early Show" in NY (circa 1957 or 1958). I didn't know who any of the stars were - it didn't matter. It was magic to me. From the Hollywood opening (dignity, always dignity), the romp of the elocution lessons (Moses supposes his toes are roses!), and the trial and mostly error of trying to record the sound ("I can't make love to a BUSH!") when the gorgeous leading lady has a voice that rivals nails on a blackboard, all the way to the grown man dancing in the rain and the final rising curtain - pure magic. In glorious black and white - at the time, I didn't even know it HAD colour! I decided then and there, this was my absolute all-time favourite movie. (One of the highlights of my adult life was seeing this wonder on a full, big screen at a revival in the 1970s.) I have seen many films since then; I have reviewed them for friends & family, written reviews for a monthly entertainment publication. I have an extensive collection of my own (VHS & DVD). I know a lot more about films and production values now.

"Singin'in the Rain" remains my all-time favourite film. (No surprise, this.) It's not just another one of "those MGM musicals." It was released in 1952. Dated stuff? Not a bit. Unlike the marvelous "An American in Paris," which was done as a contemporary film to its time, "Singin' in the Rain" is a period film, and it's based in fact.

This film (which started out to be a western for Howard Keel) takes a fond and loving look at the birthpains of the sound film (the "talkies). Set in 1927, with authentic equipment from MGM's own history (Debbie Reynolds drives Andy Hardy's old jalopy, the microphones are real), it details the frantic efforts to get on the sound bandwagon - no one was completely sure of the new technology. What makes the plot classic is the basis in fact. Many silent stars had totally unacceptable voices or speech (too nasal, unintelligible foreign accents, too high, too low, etc.) for sound production. The songs used were true to the period.

Then we have the performers. Jean Hagen was nominated for an Academy Award for her role of Lina Lamont. The character (whose voice you don't hear for the first 10+ minutes of the film, although she's on-screen) is a one-of-a-kind. [Side note: the voice dubbing Lina's line is actually Hagen's normal voice, not that of Debbie Reynold's Kathy Selden.] Reynolds does an admirable job - it couldn't have been easy keeping up with her two male co-stars. It's still a joy to see Donald O'Connor's "Make 'em Laugh," and wonderful to see Gene Kelly teamed with a good male partner for "Fit as a Fiddle" and "Moses". Gene Kelly is, and always shall be, the best and this was done at his peak.

Of course, for anyone who has been living in the back of a cave under a rock (or too young to appreciate it), the title number is a delight. It looks like one continuous take, it is so smooth. This was not the first appearance of the song, but it's the one we all remember. The sheer exuberance of Kelly's performance carries us right along with him.

The extras with this set are valued items for anyone like me who is interested in the backstory of the era and this film in particular. And don't fuss for a widescreen version. This is the way it was. And now it always will be.

Thoroughly entertaining musical
I have to say first of all that I am *not* at all a fan of musicals (or comedies for that matter) - I am a drama fan. I have seen a few musicals here and there over the years and tried to like them - such as 1964's "My Fair Lady" and 1961's "West Side Story." I liked both of them *somewhat,* but not too much - because I have always strongly preferred films that are realistic --> in real life, people don't burst into song when they are in one particular circumstance or another. Yet, I couldn't help enjoying myself with a smile on my face as I watched this film that landed so high (#10) on AFI's list of the top 100 American films of all time. Donald O'Connor, in particular, as Cosmo, was so perfectly cast in his role. The film was at times hilarious and at times wonderfully romantic. I definitely would recommend everyone to try this film out. B+. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Whether you view it as an alternate reality or the illusions of demented mind, Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere is an intriguing place to visit. The Sandman creator's first TV miniseries suffers from the same traditional shortcomings that plague all British "telefantasy"--namely, micro-budget production values and slapdash direction that betrays a conspicuous shortage of rehearsal time. And yet, within those limitations, Gaiman and director Dewi Humphreys have crafted an ambitious exploration of "London Below," a vast, subterranean capital, far below "London Above," where office drone Richard Mayhew (Gary Bakewell) unwittingly finds himself after rescuing Door (Laura Fraser), an underworld dweller determined to learn why her parents have been killed. Gaiman teases the viewer with hints that Richard may be insane, but Neverwhere maintains its imaginative ambiguity, and presents a dark, dangerous domain of baronies and fiefdoms, bearing familiar British nomenclature but decidedly unfamiliar landmarks. Once you've visited, you might prefer to stay. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (36)

Worth seeing; but don't expect too much
I read the book before I saw the DVDs, so my comments come from that perspective. The book is richer, more detailed, and better. The characters are mostly like I imagined them from the book except that Richard wasn't as nerdy, and the Marquis wasn't the dominating personality, as he was in the book. The bad guys: Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandermar are great. I haven't watch much British SciFi (though this is a Fantasy) but I gather that this DVD has the same low production values. I was too-often aware that I was watching a set. This is not really a problem since the setting and the charactors have the unique Neil Gaiman touch. The acting is mostly quite good; underplayed in that British kind of way. If you've read the Sandman series, you'll know that particular Gaiman imagination - it's here in this story too. One of his many talents is an ability to make his fantasy characters and settings plausable, though, of course, they are full of impossibilities. But then, isn't that what makes fantasy work?

Good... but obviously the book is better
I was one of the few people who actually watched this when it was first on television back in the UK. And come to the think of it I'm not sure why I did, as at the time I hadn't read any of Neil Gaiman's work and just knew that he wrote some comics or something. Obviously in the intervening years I have discovered what a genius Gaiman is, and what a throughly nice man he seems to be as well.

As for Neverwhere: it's good, but it could have (or should have) been great. The premise is interesting and the story is engaging, most of the actors are very good -- particularly those playing Croup and Vandemaar, not to mention the excellent portrayal of the Marquis. But it's let down by a somewhat strange combination of shooting on tape and lighting for film, or something or other, that made all the on location scenes look as though they were amateurishly faked. That coupled with the un-terrifying Beast of London, really let down the whole show.

For me what made the DVD worth buying was the commentary by Neil Gaiman (yes it is on the DVD, strangely located under the individual episodes sub-menu). You get to hear all about the different locations used during the filming. And about what he thought worked really well, and what he was disappointed with. After all he wrote the book to put back in all the things that for one reason or another didn't make it in to the series, or didn't make it in the way he originally envisaged them. All very interesting. After watching the show and then listening to the commentary I really wanted to go and re-read the book... sadly my copy is somewhere over in London Above.

I loved it, but WHERE OH WHERE is the commentary?????
Sorry for substituting a question in place of a review, but I've got a real mystery on my hands. On the back of the slipcase (as well as on the backs of the two DVD cases), it states that there is a "Commentary with Creator Neil Gaiman". If there is, it's VERY well hidden. The first DVD has only the first three chapters on it, as well as a PLAY ALL feature (there are NO BONUS FEATURES ON IT AT ALL). The second DVD has the last three chapters, and a Bonus Features choice, which offers "The Original BBC Neil Gaiman Interview", a "Neil Gaiman Biography", "Character Descriptions", and a "Photo Gallery". On several of the reviews, people rave about the feature-long commentary. Why does my set not include it. I would suspect that someone had switched discs for this set, but that's not possible. I bought this set at Best Buy, and it was shrinkwrapped. Is the commentary hidden, like an "easter egg"? If so, can someone tell me how to access it? Thanks in advance for your help.

Read the Book Instead
I absolutely loved this book. So I was very eager to watch the mini-series. I started it up and was disappointed immediately. I let it play for about 1/2 an hour before I had to make it go away. My imagination did a much better job at depicting this story than this mess. It was so horrible I nearly cried. My view may not be a popular one, but I think for this story to translate well to the "big screen", it would need to be done by someone like Tim Burton and have wonderful character actors like Johhny Depp as the Marquis, Ewan McGregor as Richard Mayhew and Vincent D'Onofrio with possibly Steve Buscemi as Mr. Vandemar and Mr. Croup respectively. This story deserves to be shown as magically as it is depicted on paper, and this mini-series just doesn't cut it.

If you can live without millions spent on CGI...
and love programs with strong writing and acting, you'll probably love this collection that has seen little airplay since it's original release. Having cut my teeth on Dr. Who, I was able to look past the lack of 'whizbang' special effects. To see an example of flash and eye candy w/o story to back it, rent Underworld. On second thought, don't!
Neverwhere is a delightful romp through the London tube system with an interesting array of characters and ideas. To try and compare this program to anything else out there doesn't truly do Neil Gaiman any justice. ... Read more

Amazon.com

You get two hostage crises for the price of one in Hostage, an overwrought but otherwise involving thriller grounded by Bruce Willis's solid lead performance. Making a dramatic pit-stop on his way to Die Hard 4, Willis plays a traumatized former Los Angeles hostage negotiator, now working as a nearly-divorced police chief in sleepy Ventura County, California. Willis suddenly finds himself amidst two potentially deadly stand-offs when a trio of hapless teenagers seize hostages in the fortress-like home of an accountant (Kevin Pollack) whose connections to organized crime result in Willis struggling to rescue his estranged wife and daughter, who are being held hostage by faceless thugs at an undisclosed location. Having directed two of Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell video games, director Florent Siri brings plenty of slick, competent filmmaking to Willis's desperate dilemma, and the film boasts a gritty, graphic style that draws attention away from implausible plot twists. The bothersome, over-the-top performances by the teenaged villains also slightly compromise this gloomy but emotionally gripping adaptation of Robert Crais's novel, named as one of Amazon.com's best books of 2001. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (25)

WORST OF WILLIS
I DID NOT HAVE HIGH HOPES FOR THAT MOVIE.BUT AT LEAST IT IS A WILLIS MOVIE I SAID TO MYSELF.IT WAS MUCH LOWER THAN EXPECTED.THE THEME WAS INTRIGUING BUT THE SCRIPT IS HORRIBLE.YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO IS WHO.THERE ARE THOSE VILLAINS YOU DO NOT KNOW TO WHICH ORGANISATION BELONGS,A PYSCHO KID WHO STARS ALL AND OVERWHELMINGLY TAKE CARE OF ALL PROFESSIONAL KILLERS.A FATHER IN A LETHAL CONDITION WHO GETS WELL MY A MAGIC!! INJECTION.A KID WHO KNOWS ALL SECRET PASSAGES OF A RATHER COMPLICATED BUILDING.
ALOT OF SOUND AND VISUAL EFFECTS HAS BEEN USED TO COVER THE SHAME BUT UNNECESARLY HEAD BLOWING.AND THE STORY END WITH A LOT OF LOOSE ENDS.
SORRY MR.WILLIS BUT THIS IS YOUR WORST MOVIE EVER.MY SECOND WORST AFTER K.COSTNER'S POSTMAN.

WILLIS IS GREAT!!!
devistated by a hostage situation which resulted in the deaths of a young mother and her child, LAPD negotiator jeff talley (willis) exits los angeles for a low profile job as chief of police in the low-crime town of bristo camino in ventura county.
when three delinquent teenagers follow a family home intending to steal their car, they inadvertantly pick the wrong house on the wrong day. the trio find themselves trapped in a multi-million dollar compound on the outskirts of town owned by an accountant. panicked, the teenagers take the family hostage, placing tally in exactly the kind of situation he never wanted to face again. soon after, talley readily hands authority of the hostage situation over to the ventura county sheriffs department and leaves the scene. after it becomes clear that the sheriffs department cannot handle the crisis, talley is forced to resume the command he had abandoned where the stakes quickley evolve into a hostage situation far more volitile and terrifying than anything he could ever imagine.
based on the novel by robert crais.

Wait for the Video
Hostage begins with Bruce Willis as a LAPD hostage negotiator, and not a very good one at that. In the opening sequence, Jeff Talley (Willis) waves off a SWAT sniper from killing a would-be assassin, while raising a sign stating, "No one dies today". Well someone forgot to inform the killer, because moments later the killer, the killer's wife and kid were all dead. Oooops......

Flash forward one year later. Talley is now the chief of police in the hick town of Bristo Camino, CA. He is separated form his wife, but they still meet for weekends. He has issues with his teenage daughter. Talley's life to this point really sucks. But wait there's more.

Three high-school dropout stoners are casing possible car jack-able vehicles, when one of them recognizes a fellow student riding with her family in an Escalade. Bingo! The three punks follow their prize home, only to have the silent alarm on the house tripped, while they're in the middle of their heist. This in turn, sets up another hostage situation. (Did we have any doubts?)

Talley, however, after reporting to the scene of the crime upon receiving reports of an officer being down; turns jurisdiction over to the state authorities. Only after Talley receives a phone call for one of the hostage victims, and has his family kidnapped; does he return to the scene of the crime to negotiate for the victim's freedom.

In a completely unrelated storyline, Kevin Pollack (the hostage family's father) is an accountant for some underworld organization (i.e. drug lords, dirty cops, etc.). Who these people are is never revealed to the audience. However, he has encrypted the entire underworld banking information onto a "Heaven Can Wait" disc, which is located within the confines of the house. The house which is now surrounded by cops, television camera, etc. Talley's family has been kidnapped by the underworld villains in order to motivate Talley (Willis) to retrieve this banking disc from the house; without anyone else finding out.

There are several loose ends in this film that are foreshadowed, but never come into play. For example, the movie makes a point to introduce two "Heaven Can Wait" DVD boxes; however, neither comes into play. Talley negotiates to keep $1 million dollars of the accountant's money for himself; again, it doesn't come into play. Lastly, who is this villainous group seeking the banking disc? With the way the film ended, doesn't anyone fear that they might be back?

Anyways, this is definitely a film worth waiting for. I bought this movie on a disc with four others, all for the low, low price of $5. So I really can't complain all that much.

http://farisreel.com

Waste of time!!!!
OK, this movie is just terrible.In my opinion movies can get away with a lot. if they are great action movies then they dont need a great plot to be good movies, and vice versa.If they are suspense movies they dont need amazing special effects or ground breaking science fiction.But what a slow moving suspense "thriller' needs is content!!!Be very clear, this not an action movie, maybe for about 15 minutes at the end, but for 1 hour and 45 minutes this is suppose to be a plot based thriller, a situational drama.

I am not going to go into a recap of the movie(thats why this is a "review" and not a "recap").The main villians in the movies have no background given on them whatsoever, ni fact you dont even know who the agency controlling all the moves is EVER!!!Who is the kid thats controling everything inside the hostage situation?I wish I could tell you, but all I can say is he's some messed up punk kid, but what normal person kidnaps a total stranger, so of course hes really messed up.The movie does nothing to establish a reason that anything in the movie happen, except that the "voice on the other end of the phone" says so.

This movie tried to tackle too much. You get two hostage situations in the plot, but never really know anything about either one of them. The result is that you are left with two stories that you have no idea what or why anything happened in either one of them.Although I have not read the book, I am sure, like so often happens with book movies, the background required to really get into the movie was cut out to save time, BAD MOVE!!!

The other beef I had with this movie was the whole Virgin Mary thing with the young girl in the movie.I mean it was a little, and when I say a little I mean way, over the top.I hate when artsy directors throw things into a movie that have nothing to do with the plot or story, but just want to show their pseudo-creativity.

Not just good ~~~~ GREAT!
Not going to relate the whole movie for you but will simply say that if you like action and Bruce Willis you better see this FOR SURE!
Best performance by Willis that I've seen yet, guy really can act which I hadn't seen to this degree before.
Kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Something like a perfect artistic union is achieved in the major components of Paris, Texas:the twang of Ry Cooder's guitar, the lonely light of Robbie Muller's camera, the craggy landscape of Harry Dean Stanton's face. In his greatest role, longtime character actor Stanton plays a man brought back to his old life after wandering in the desert (or somewhere) for four years. He has a 7-year-old son to get to know, and his wife has gone missing. The material is much in the wanderlust spirit of director Wim Wenders, working from a script by Sam Shepard and L.M. Kit Carson. If the long climactic conversation between Stanton and Nastassja Kinski renders the movie uneven and slightly inscrutable, it's hard to think of a more fitting ending--and besides, the achingly empty American spaces stick longer in the memory than the dialogue. Winner of the top prize at the 1984 Cannes Film Festival. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (38)

Paris, Texas
I truely hope this wonderful film is released on DVD soon. If it's been released by the time you read this review however, please disregard that first line.

The script for Paris, Texas was written by playwrite and actor Sam Shepard. Shepard has written numerous plays (and the Book Cruising Paradise) including True West and The Burried Child, both of which won numerous awards and put The Steppenwolf Theatre in Chicago on the map.

Paris, Texas is the simple story that begins with a man who's been found wandering in the desert for what could have been years. He cannot speak and seems unwilling to communicate. He is brought back to his brother's home in LA, where his seven year old son is now living. Father and son hesitantly become reaquainted with each other and the memories of thieir past together. And as they do so, the man begins speaking again. They grow closer and eventually decide to find the boy's mother.

Directed by the visionary Wim Wenders and scored by the brilliant slide guitarist Ry Cooder, the film is both subtle and beautiful. Scenes and shots are drawn out and realistic. Do not expect anything cliche, formulated or predictable. Essentially, do not expect a "Hollywood" film. Unfortunatley, with todays media pace, you will have to watch the film with some patience. This is not a crtiticism however. It is a large component of why the film is so warm and almost haunting.

A unique, emotion filled, artistic masterpiece
Paris, Texas is a movie unlike any I've seen before. It uses images, facial expressions, masterful character interactions in a way that takes you on a deep psychological journey with the main character "Travis." This movie wrestles with universal themes that have to do with our attempts to resolve our personal demons, rectifying horrible mistakes, and the restoration of personal dignity and relationships.

The opening scenes reveal an amnesic man whom has been discovered wandering through the desert in Texas and Mexico for four years. His long lost brother claims him, brings him back to civilization, and his journey to remember and to reclaim his life begins.

The story, screenplay, casting, acting, and direction is supurb. The cinematography is wonderful. One word of warning. This is not a movie for people who want a "mindless, don't think or feel movie." Paris, Texas has a lot to say about our country, its people and barriers to closeness with each other.

Not very good
I really wanted to like this movie, but the movie wouldn't let me. Sorry to disagree with everyone, but this movie is a real stinker. I gave it 2 stars for the music and the cinematography. To call this movie slow is the understatement of the year ... it moves like a sedated tortoise. I really can't understand those people who say that this is the best film they have ever seen ... they can't have seen many films. I have been watching films seriously for about 30 years, and have seen many great ones ... but this ain't one of them.

"Okay, wise guy, you didn't like it. Why?" First of all, let me say that the first part, when the main character interacts with his brother, brother's wife, and his kid (who has been raised by his brother), is far better than the end, when he and his son search for his wife. They find her in Houston by waiting outside a bank and following her car (why not try the phone book first?). Then, unexplainably, Travis leaves the kid with her while he takes off again (going to Paris, Texas? Does he intend to come back?). This, after spending much time re-establishing a relationship with his boy. I'm not one that demands happy endings, but I do like endings that make some sort of sense. I hear that much of the ending was unscripted, and it shows.

Dramas require tension, whether between characters or in the plot ("don't ever open the green door!"). This movie has none, which is a primary reason why it is so terminally dull. Travis (Stanton) is a complex character, but is never fully revealed, and although we may feel sorry for him and his condition, he remains simply a screwed up individual.

Dramas also require some kind of contrast. There is very little of that in the film in any respect.

Great dramas usually have great dialogue. Don't look for any memorable dialogue here. I don't expect Shakespeare, but the totally mundane, inane dialogue in this picture does not serve it well. Shepherd could have done better. And the director must have been watching too many Antonioni films, with all the pauses and lacunae.

Acting? Stockwell, as usual, does a good job. Stanton is mute for much of the first part of the film. When he does finally talk, his lines are delivered in a monotone that could put anyone to sleep. Kinski, Travis' wife, is gorgeous, but doesn't have much of a role.

I recently viewed "Scarecrow" with Gene Hackman and Al Pacino. This is a truly fine drama. "Paris, Texas" could have been a very good drama, but it would have taken a lot of tinkering.

A Brilliant Cinematic Journey
A man wanders aimlessly in the Texan desert as he collapses in a rural bar looking for water. The man is brought to a doctor who finds a phone number in his empty wallet, which he calls in order to find out the identity of the man. The man is Travis (Harry Dean Stanton) and his brother, Walt (Dean Stockwell), comes from California to pick him up as he vanished four years ago and left family behind. Walt is puzzled about Travis's whereabouts for the last four years, but Travis remains silent as he keeps a secret deep within himself. When Travis vanished his wife, Jane (Nastassja Kinski), disappeared after she had left their son in the custody of Walt and his wife.

Paris, Texas is a straight forward story, yet mystifying as it discloses very little for the audience. This is Wim Wenders intention as he directed the film. He wants to coerce the audience to participate cerebrally, and if not the cinematic experience will be lost in time. The bewildering element surrounds Travis and his emotional journey through loss, grief, and love. It is through these emotional states that the story expands, but the tale seems to be fixed in time as the progress is minimal. This simplicity brings about a brilliant cinematic experience, which is enhanced by stunning cinematography and vivid colors as the mirage of the desert heat plays tricks on the mind.

Moored and broken.
It's not surprising that Wim Wenders production company is called 'Road Movies'. In the vast majority of his films geography is just as important as characterization and plot. So it is with 'Paris, Texas', where the remarkable vista shots give some sense of the awe and wonder the average European must feel when confronted with this vast American landscape. Originally, Wender's vision was much larger in scope. He wanted the Harry Dean Stanton character to zig-zag his way across the entire country hoping to capture the enormous contrasts of the landscape. In the end though screenwriter Sam Shepard persuaded the German director to base the core of the movie in Texas as this could easily represent the U.S. as a whole.

It's rather unusual to see America through the eyes of a European film crew. The film has a slow, observant quality that contrasts sharply with prevailing American dramas where constant close-ups try to make you feel more involved with the characters. In 'Paris, Texas', Wenders lets the quality of the acting speak for itself without recourse to sentimentality.

The last part of the film was unscripted and tends to drag a bit, but Stanton's understated performance keeps you glued to the screen as the story unfolds. Ry Cooder's score adds a traditional American soundtrack that somehow manages to be something much more ethereal. A poigniant score that colours the film's theme of hope and longing. ... Read more

Reviews (172)

Probably the Greatest Western Ever!
A few years ago I had the opportunity to speak personally with Robert Urich about his role as ill-fated Jake Spoon in the epic western Lonesome Dove. Simply put, he said that it was "the most fun I have ever had making a movie. Think of it. Riding and shooting every day with two of the greatest western stars ever: Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones! I won't have that much fun ever again!" I am sure that he could have gone on for hours but, unfortunately, time would not permit. The look on his face and the light in his eyes said it all. Tragically Urich passed away a year or two thereafter.

The legend and the story live on in the Pulitzer Prize winning book by Larry McMurty and in this faithful video depiction of the classic story.

A star-studded cast, headed by Duvall, Jones and Urich, along with one of the most beautiful western soundtracks ever composed make Lonesome Dove a viewing experience that you will enjoy time and again.

One of the best things ever done for television.
Although the phrase "made for television" conjures up the images of the tabloid story of the week and women-in-peril films; Larry McMurtry's epic novel "Lonesome Dove" would not have been given justice in any other format. Television allowed that magnificent work to be brought to life in some form resembling the novel. The six hour running time enabled character and storyline development that would not have been possible if the novel had been adapted for theaters.

Although it does have the jarring breaks that marked where a commericial interuption had once been and it's share of television stars (Urich, Shroeder, Corbin); "Lonesome Dove" is movie big. Big stars. Wonderful cinematography. Great locations. An authentic look. A terrific score. The producers, cast, crew, and director went the full measure to ensure that this movie did not look or feel like a "movie of the week" production.

Personally, I believe it, along with "Roots," to be the finest work ever done in the medium of television. It really does make you feel for its characters. The viewer will cheer and hope for them, and when tragedy occurs, as it does throughout the film, it will shake the viewer. Nobody is safe: comic relief characters, children, and, even, experienced Rangers. McMurtry drives home the message that death in the Old West could occur to anyone at anytime with shocking suddenness. In the end, Captain Call looks back and remembers his friends and comrades who did not return with him. As he does, tears come to the eyes of this taciturn character; and rest assured he is joined by many in the viewing audience.

The Return of the Western
It's ironic that the western, a staple of TV until sci-fi eclipsed its presence, would find its home again on the small screen during a time when big budget westerns seemed to be biting the dust to space opera blockbusters. And that it would take an Australian to realize it. Director Simon Wincer's big-vista understanding of the genre is apparent throughout "Lonesome Dove," which also features some great performances by screen familiars Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones, even if the latter too often looks like a scowling Kenny Rogers here. This tale of an arduous cattle drive by two retired lawmen has the sweep and grist of such classics as "True Grit," "Red River," and "Once Upon a Time in the West," with which it shares many elements (the conversational style, the brutal drive, and the buddy relationship, respectively, the most obvious). And while "Lonesome Dove" doesn't really say anything new about the old west, it is entertaining and fares better compared to many westerns past in terms of presenting the ethnic diversity that history records. Look for many bravura--and few corny--moments like Captain Call's (Jones) reaction to a cavalry scout's whipping of Call's alleged son (a likable but sometimes too aw-shucks Rick Shroeder), MacCrae's (Duvall) gutsy stand against a pack of outlaws, and the touching and remarkably in-character last goodbye between the leads. Basil Poledouris, an underrated composer, provides a solid score. Of the episodes, only one stands out as pedestrian, making this a pretty good choice for viewers who want to savor their entertainment choice.

Yes, it is 360 minutes, not 240.
240 minutes refers to the much shorter Return to Lonesome Dove mini-series. There is nowhere on the the Amazon website that the original series of Lonesome Dove DVD set is only 240 minutes, it is 360 minutes.

By the way, my daughter and I loved this series when it was on TV and I purchased the multi-tape set VHS way back when. But the last tape was bad and Cabin Fever, the manufacturers/publishers, would not replace my bad tape (they never even answered my mail except to tell me how to order the set), so, now that I have the DVD version, I finally have a complete set of watchable scenes.

Sorry SD, you're wrong. It's not complete. Check IMDb.
I'm sorry to have to point out to those of you who think this is the complete version, but if you go to IMDb and look up Lonesome Dove, you will find that it has a 384 minute running time. Amazon's version is listed at only 240 minutes. That's over two hours difference from the original film, and no, we're not talking about commercials.
So unless Amazon has their listed time wrong and it is actually a full 6.4 hours, you've been duped. I wouldn't pay for less than the original length film.

So, the question stands for those of you who actually bought this DVD, was it 6.4 hours long, or only 4 hours long? ... Read more

Description

Treachery.Madness. Murder.The story of Hamlet has been told for 400 years...but it's never been told like this!Mel Gibson (the Mad Max and Lethal Weapon films) takes on his richest part to date, the title role in a dynamic new version of Shakespeare's Hamlet.Directed by Franco Zeffirelli (Romeo and Juliet, Jesus of Nazareth), the location-shot production has a sumptuous look that won Academy Award nominations for Art Direction and Costume Design.Gibson plays the prince of medieval-era Denmark, who senses treachery behind his royal father's death.Glenn Close (Fatal Attraction, Dangerous Liaisons) plays Hamlet's mother Gertrude, all too dangerously entangled in that treachery.A brilliant supporting cast, including Alan Bates as Claudius, Paul Scofield as the ghost of Hamlet's father, Ian Holm as Polonius and Helena Bonham-Carter as Ophelia, adds its powerful presence to this immortal tale of high adventure and evil deeds.Big, bold and heroic, this is a vivid and virile Hamlet for the modern age and all time. ... Read more

Reviews (124)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It is in my memory locked." -Ophelia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (36)

A sweet video that enchants toddlers
First of all, it's useful to know that there are two sets of "Richard Scarry" videos available, each produced by a different company: Cinar/Polygram/USA Films offers a video series called "The Busy World of Richard Scarry", and Sony/Random House has a set of videos named like "Richard Scarry's Best (fill in the blank) Video Ever". There are notable differences between them.

The "Busy World of...." series consists of episodes from an actual television series, although I don't know what network originally carried it. It's kind of bland and generic kids TV, and it sorely lacks the Richard Scarry charm. Not recommended.

Our family much prefers the "Best...Video Ever" home video series. This series features simple storylines and really sweet, catchy songs that both preschoolers and parents enjoy even after multiple viewings. "Best Learning Songs" is probably our favorite because it covers such a variety of subjects. The story is extremely simple: Huckle and friends put on a show in their backyard. Their show consists of gently educational songs about the alphabet, counting, shapes, opposites, common courtesy, etc.

On the downside, the animation is pretty primitive, the image quality doesn't improve from VHS to DVD (we now own both), and the price could be better for a 30-minute program. But those charming, educational songs really carry the day, and both of our kids were completely entranced by this series of videos while they were preschoolers.

This really is the Best learning video ever!
My two year old son has lots of videos and I hesitated to get a Richard Scarry video because my son seemed to prefer real life children as opposed to animation. He's not into Barney (thank goodness) and really doesn't watch any of the "educational" children's T.V. programs so I'm always trying to find videos that he can learn something from and enjoy. Well I was thrilled when we watched this video for the first time. The children's voices are very clear and they enunciate everything very well and they just couldn't be any more precious. My son loves this video and actually has tried to sing some of the songs along with the video which is great because up til now he hasn't done much talking. The songs are very cute and easy to learn and they are not annoying at all like some children's videos. They teach so many things, including ABC', counting to 10, shapes, manners, opposites. I can't say enough good things about this video. If you're looking for a video that your child will love, and learn from without even realizing it, this is the one video you must get. I wish I had gotten it sooner, instead of spending my money on other so called learning videos that my son only watches twice and then gets bored. This is a must have video!

Recommended!
This is my 2nd Richard Scarry DVD - I also have the ABC DVD. Of the two, I think the ABC is better, but this one is quite good too. It covers a series of concepts with a song each, like counting, shapes, prepositions, alphabet, opposites etc. Of the songs, I don't find any of them memorable except the one teaching the alphabet, which is super (A is for apple, B is for bed, C is for crown that you wear on your head etc).

The DVD is about 30 minutes long, which I find ideal - you can get a bit of housework done without making the TV too much of a babysitter.

Be aware that the Richard Scarry DVDs look a bit low-tech, they are not flashy and polished like Sesame Street DVDs.

Refreshing new songs and great learning concepts
I'm a huge fan of the Richard Scarry DVDs and videos, and this one is certainly amongst my favourites. It is delightful to learn and sing some new songs with my 15 month all that can teach her about opposites, the alphabet, counting and shapes. The tunes are catchy, the music is appealing and the lyrics are well sung. Very sweet and simple, perfect for toddlers! I don't see myself getting sick of this video any time soon, whereas if I hear "Wheels on the Bus" and "Old McDonald" one more time....

Sweet, innocent, simple, captivating - A Great Learning Tool
I started out by buying Richard Scarry's counting DVD. I loved it so much, I bought all the rest (minus the nursery rhymes DVD). My 2-year-old son really enjoys watching the movie, as does my 6-month-old daughter. I personally enjoy the DVD and its innocence. I like that it is simple yet captivating for them. It really holds their attention. I tend to be pretty particular when it comes to movies for my children, making sure they don't teach any bad habits and that it doesn't teach anything contrary to the Bible. I was very pleased to see there wasn't any reference to magic, fairies, etc, as many things tend to include such references these days. The DVD gave more than one example for each letter (F is for Firetruck, etc), and I was so glad to see that all of them were positive examples. What a great learning tool! ... Read more

Reviews (102)

A GREAT AND TOUCHING MOVIE!
DragonHeart was a great movie. A relaxin g break from all of the no stop action packed thrillers like Armageddon. Not that I didn't like Armageddon, it was just too fast. DragonHeart was excellent. That ending was different but made the movie extra ordinary. Sean Connery and Dennis Quaid were exceptional.

5 stars, naa,500 more like.
Dragonheart is an excellent movie! Great actors, better story,and BRILLIANT special effects. You may think I'm exaggerating, after all I am a fan of dragons but honestly, Sean Connery gives it a SIZZLING effect.

A lot of great stuff
This DVD is full of neat extras. You get commentary from a director that very obviously cared a great deal about this film, documentaries, and other cool features. Added to a very pleasant film, this makes a very ownable package that is worth having.

If you buy this disc for no other reason, buy it for the ground-breaking special effect of Draco. The world's first entirely computer generated leading character in a live action film looks phenomenal. Don't think this is just another Jurasic Park effect. Draco is on another level altogether. He flys, he fights, he runs, he even sings (to a cute little Dina Meyers no less). Dennis Quaid has definately had better roles and better dialogue to work with, but as always, he absolutely becomes his character. Draco was actually designed around the personality and mannerisms of Sean Connery, so you can imagine that he does a pretty good job of fitting into the role of the last living dragon. Dina Meyers is adorable and dangerous, once again proving she is a very talented young lady in search of a role worthy of her, and whatever the bad guy's name is (that snotty little guy with bad skin and a huge nose) is once again absolutely abhorrent. I can't believe this guy ever got a role in film at all, much less that he used to play good guys. He's utterly dislikable from the word go.

Dragonheart is a fun film, looks great, and comes with a lot of nice added features in this format. It's well worth the purchase price.

A wonderful tale for dragon enthusiasts
The making of a dragon movie has been neglected for to long. This movie makes up for that neglect. I am TOTALLY pleased with how they betray dragons in this movie. Draco is the good guy! So many stories make dragons bad. This dragon is a loving, gentleman. This is truly a sad movie. I cried when I saw it. Dragons are so misunderstod by the people in this tale, and that leads to there extinction. Dennis Quade is great in this movie, he befriends Draco and tires to help him. I forgive his charcter for killing so many dragons(he was ignorant to the truth). This movie is a must for fantasy lovers. Everything in this movie is great. The special effects are superb. Sean Connery is absolutely loveable as Draco. If you love dragons or fantasy, you will not be dissapointed.

A great movie of special effects and a special message.
DragonHeart is an exceptional movie, both in story and in special effects. It tells the story of Bowen (Dennis Quaid), a knight of the Old Code who trains Prince Einion (David Thewis) in the ways of King Arthur. When Einion is mortally wounded, his mother (Julie Christie) takes him to the cave of a mystical dragon (Sean Connery) where the dragon heals him . . . by giving him half of his own heart. To give away any more would ruin the amazing story of this legend. With superb acting and the most INCREDIBLE special effects I have ever seen, DragonHeart is one of those rare movies that tell a story but also have a meaning hidden inside. Give this movie a chance-----you'll enjoy it. Remember The Code! ... Read more

Reviews (15)

A working girl's dream job!
I recently bought this tape again after I wore out my old one! The scenery in this film is truly beautiful as well as that of the many fountains. The movie starts off with three young ladies, one of which just arrives in Rome to start a new job taking over for another girl returning to America to be married. All three young ladies go through the trials and errors of finding love interests in the romantic city. One finds her handsome prince, one finds a hunky, floundering student and the third falls for her novelist older boss. All three ending up with their heart's desire. Guess those coins in the fountain paid off! Sure wish it was that easy these days!! Truly a delightful film.

One of the Most Romantic Beginnings in Any Hollywood Movie
I don't think you'll find much to top this opener, with the fountains of Rome being turned on one by one while Frank Sinatra croons an ulta-smooth rendition of the title song. Ohhhh!
This movie has a lot going for it after the opening song too, (unlike "Raintree County" for instance), so you'll be riveted to the screen. For starters, it's a wonderful travelogue of Rome, in glorious technicolor. And then, it boasts three of my favorite actors, none of whom ever gave a bad performance: Clifton Webb, Louis Jourdan, and Rosanno Brazzi.
These men each figure in a love story with one of three American secretaries living in Rome, respectively Dorothy McGuire, Maggie McNamara, and Jean Peters. In Webb's case, he is McGuire's boss, and has been totally unaware of her real feelings these past ten years. Jourdan is a wealthy playboy used to preying on innocent young girls who's having the tables turned on him by the very predatory McNamara. And lovelorn Rosanno Brazzi--who always makes my pulse flutter--has been pining after Peters, but afraid to tell her of his love, since he believes her engaged to another. How these unlikely scenarios resolve themselves is a delight for the viewer. Take my advice on this one: If you want to be swept away some night by romantic escapism, "Three Coins in the Fountain" is your best bet.

Great story, great cast and superb cinematography
I saw this movie when I was a child and liked it. Then saw it many times on TV and at a special screening in New York.The best thing about it I discovered is the dialog. It's smart and funny - of course, the script was written by a Pulitzer prize winner: John Patrick.
The film was nominated for an Oscar as Best Picture of 1954, and actually won for Best Cinematography and Best Song
The cast is marvelous - most outstanding are Jean Peters and Rossano Brazi (who are the best looking couple and also share the best story of the three featured in the film)and Clifton Webb, who delivers his lines full of sarcasm and innuendos with perfect timing.
The film's most valued asset is its photography by Milton Krasner. Although many will remember "Roman Holiday" as capturing the best of Rome, this film is much more superior visually - and in color and glorious wide screen Cinemascope.

romance is not that easy in Rome!
This movie tracks one month is the lives of 3 American secretaries working in Rome. It opens with the newest girl being picked up at the station and brought back to the apartment, where the other 2 fill her in on how hard romance is in the Eternal City. One even says she is returning to the USA to get married -- although there is actually no fiancee in question --- just to protect herself and her reputation.

There is to be no fraternizing with other employees -- after all, they are told, they are only secretaries -- but when one falls for a coworker she gets them both into trouble. Another has spent 15 years as the secretary to a great novelist who is obvlivious to her feelings for him. And another goes about being a "Rules Girl" (it IS the 1950s), learning everything about her Italian Prince Charming and pretending to like all the same things as he does, but then feeling horrible for misleading him.

Charming and beautifully filmed, this is a romantic film for audiences of all generations.

THREE COINS IN THE FOUNTAIN
I LIKED THIS MOVIE BUT I THOUGHT THE REMAKE WITH LONI ANDERSON WAS MUCH BETTER. I'D LIKE TO BUY THAT VERSION BUT DONT SEE IT LISTED. ANY SUGGESTIONS? ... Read more

Reviews (1388)

Quentin Tarantino's Tribute &...
The guy is very creative in displaying a story in a very original structure and media. Kill Bill is a cult movie fan's greatest dream come true. Everything is in there from good old Western Coybow movies to the cinema of the east slapped together. For the sterotypical "white" person who only consumes the blockbuster hits of what ever popoular trend is out, this movie may appear silly or confusing to a degree of laughter. Thats the beauty of this movie, it shows us which movie watchers are out there. In the theaters I caught a lot of white people laughing at the asian sequences of the film and they were also dumbfounded by the special appearances of the actors from Wild Zero, Ichi the Killer, Battle Royale, and Suicide Circle to name a few. (i was hoping to see Tekashi Kitano) The only special appearnce of a star they would know is "David carra..whats his name...? the guys from that Kung-Fu show...yeah." A lot of people failed to see the element of honor that was displayed in both films between characters which was a very beautiful element. The action sequences were directed very well so that it made up for a lot of the actor martial arts flaws such as akward positions and hyper extended punches, so there are little moments killed.

One sad thing though is that Kill Bill Vol.2 had a trailer for the 2002 film HERO, which is now going to hit theaters here that did it injustes. They stated that the movie was presented by Quentin Tarantino, but I've overheard many reactions of people thinking that it is directed by Quentin Tarantino rather than the truth (Zhang Yimou). Plus the trailer gave the art film a false representation of an epic war film, many may be disapointed. So are movies like Kill Bill building bridges with Hollywood and Asia or are they just going to jokingly stereotype Asian films and cuture in an unfair way? Fans and crowds shall tell in time.

Oh and by the way, I don't want to sound like "white" people are not cool, I use the term "white" for the typical stereotyping day by day american. As far as stereotypes go, sometimes people enjoy becoming part of it and making it obviously true. I look forward to one day the stereotypes are non existant and everyhting in around our lives is understood for what it is and not what it looks like on the surface.

Maiming and decapitation are never fun. Until now...
Oh, the joy of being a movie geek. This year has been a tremendous blessing for all of the human race, or just us film fanatics, as the movie gods have listened to all our prayers to deliver cinematic goodness. One of these that came as a major grace is called "Kill Bill: Volume One", the latest offering from the dark, perverted but brilliant mind of Quentin Tarantino. Last seen under the spotlight in 1997 with "Jackie Brown", we have been painfully awaiting his next move throughout a six-year-span. Well, time finally came upon us and the wait is definitely worth it.

Appropriately entitled "Kill Bill", Tarantino tells a simple revenge story, albeit through his usual non-linear storytelling structure, about a lanky blonde woman (played by the invigorating Uma Thurman) only known as "The Bride" a.k.a. "Black Mamba" who wakes up from a coma to exact revenge on her former assassin group called "The Deadly Viper Assassination Squad" lead by Bill (David Carradine), who aren't really happy of her decision to quit and marry someone in El Paso, Texas. Hence, bloody carnage ensues as Bill and the gang made of eclectic members-Budd, Vernita Green, Elle Driver and Oren-Ishii-massacres The Bride's family and guests on her wedding day, including her unborn baby. Bill saves her for last and shoots her head (on what could be one of the most startling introductions in a movie). Thinking that she's dead, they leave her cold in her blood-splattered wedding dress, which is a terrible mistake on their part, as The Bride gets up from her hospital bed after four years with furious determination and will to destroy every single one of the perpetrators, saving the best for last, which is, of course, Bill, proving that as far as justice goes, it can easily get very poetic.

However, this is only half of the story, as Miramix, the film distributor, and Tarantino himself decided to cut the three-hour long movie in half and released them four months apart. That being said, I am very sure that Volume Two will be as equally brutal and vigorously entertaining to what I've seen four times in the theaters (Yes, four times! It's that good!)

"Kill Bill: Volume One" is perhaps the most violent American movie ever (and I've seen a lot of movies). It can be easily be used as an example of how the morals of the Western world have dramatically fallen in the 21st century. But it's most important to know that this movie was made as an ode to those rare, odd, cheesy and absurd kung-fu, Western, exploitation, slasher and grindhouse movies we usually see gathering dust in the cult section of a video store or occasionally seen playing on television at 3 in the morning. Kill Bill: Volume One on the surface looks like a very empty fluff made to only shock the already seemingly desensitized viewers, but underneath, it is really a very intelligent piece of art. Intelligent in a sense that it knows the rules of the cinema: it knows it audiences are and doesn't give a damn thing or two to those who don't want to get involved. For instance, The Bride wears a yellow jumpsuit during the last hour of the movie. To the uninitiated, it's just a striking sexy vintage number. To those in the know, it's a replica of Bruce Lee's tracking jumpsuit from his 1979 movie Game of Death. And this is just only a fraction of Tarantino's endless references, in-jokes and homages to old and obscure cinema. From Brian DePalma to Godzilla, from giallo films to Japanese animations, God knows what else are there he injected. I say this movie is an entire pop culture of pop culture.

Even without this quality, it's still deliciously entertaining, boldly creative and visually arresting, it's safe to say that this is an instant classic. No, this is not an Oscar-winning movie, let alone be nominated. But not everything has to have a deep storyline with complex characters to be a great film. This movie has no substance and as empty as a dead shell. But it's an amazingly great film, nonetheless. The fact of the matter is that Tarantino made this with great respect, love and passion of the medium, that he practically utilizes everything to its full advantage from complicated camera shots (the long tracking shot of The Bride going to the washroom is incredible), beautiful cinematography (the claustrophobic and filthy Hospital environment, the beautifully exotic and bright Japanese backdrop), the amazing eclectic selections of music (from Nancy Sinatra's "Bang, Bang" to "The Green Hornet" theme song) and the excellently choreographed fight scenes as if we're watching an amazing, exhausting ballet dance with swords. Oh yeah, and the beautiful gushing of the blood and gore like water coming down from Niagara Falls.

"Kill Bill: Volume One" is an extravagant, highly-stylized, ultra-energized, uber-violent piece of celluloid. It's made up of a world were grativity is without law, violence is sheer poetry, pissed-off Caucasian women likes to play with samura swords, and even assassins have feelings. It's a world where obscure 1970's disco music goes perfectly seamless along with the motion of decapitation and maiming.

Oh what fun!

Aside from that movie that left me with tears featuring hobbits and wizards and that fetus-looking boy-fish who seems to say the word "Precciooooooussssss...." a lot, this year belongs to Kill Bill: Volume One (and I cannot wait for Volume 2!)

Thank you, Tarantino for your sick and twisted mind.

great movie
i loved this film! great STYLE, great action, great story. and very funny. i loved the use of zamfir's famous tune for the samurai scene! it's a delicious homage (or parody?!) of various genres - japanese samurai (esp kurosawa), chinese kung fu, american spaghetti westerns. wonderful.

HOLLYWOOD Tarantino??
Great movie I have to say, paying respect to crazy asian cinema. My only gripe is Uma Therman being in the movie. I would have like to see Quinten dig up and unknown actor or maybe some B movie or expoitation actress. And although I like Lucy Lu I can think of a hundred different asian actresses that would have fit the role better. ANyway, great movie! If you like this movie check out any movie by Takashi Miike like: Iche the Killer, Dead or Alive, Dead or Alive 2, Dead or Alive Final, Audition, Shark Skin Man and Peach Hip Girl.... any one of these movies makes KILL BILL look like a Walt Disney film!!

5 stars for SONNY CHIBA and GORDAN LEU!!!!!
I just saw this movie on DVD after not getting a chance to see this in the theaters. 5 stars for Gordan Leu and Sonny Chiba!! Awsome to see these 2 great legends of asian cinema! I remember seeing Gorden Leu as a kid from just about EVERY great Shaw Bros. kung fu flick! And Sonny Chiba? ..... Cmon! The Japanese James Bond!? Excellent casting. Great flick!! ... Read more

Reviews (311)

Dark and creamy
"Chocolat", chocolate in french, is one of the few quality fables filmed in history. Its sweet tooth theme is perfect with the characters' emotions. The old town french town was wonderfully crafted. The fashion designers crafted the costumes perfectly to look 1959. Lasse Hallstrom directed this movie brilliantly. The writers give the movie the extra unique touches that most other today's movies need. They make all the events fit together as one.

Juliette Dimoche was the perfect actress to play Vianne, a chocolate cook whom most of the town calls her "Satan" for no reason. Judi Dench wonderfully portrays a cranky old woman whose fate becomes unexpected. Both deserved their Oscar nominations. Johnny Depp proves that he's improved greatly in the past few years in his role as a river drifter who falls in love with Vianne. Lena Olin plays a battered wife emotionally.

***Important word of caution: One will become very hungry while watching this movie. A small bowl of chocolate will cure the craving and will give the experience an extra touch.

Yummy!!...
This movie is so well made, it is sometimes difficult to remember it was filmed in 2001 and not 1959. It's a mouth-watering experience. Being that I own this movie now, and have seen it 3 or 4 times, I always order chocolate-drizzled brownies from a local restaurant while we watch it. Beware, you don't want to see this one without something sweet.

Vianne(Binoche) and her daughter Anouke, travel with the North winds. On this new journey(in 1959), they land in a small town outside France that seems to be stuck in a time warp.

"Tranquility" , says the town mayer, is the "motto" of his small province. Vianne and her Chocolaterie, bright red shoes, sexy clothes, and illegitimate daughter are exactly what the mayor does not welcome into his quiet little town. Epecially, during Lent.

Vianne still manages to stir up love and lust with her ancient chocolate formulas under the watchful eye of the Mayor. "One bite and you are hooked". Her time in the little moral town is interupted with wonderful characters and new friends. I loved Johnny Depp as the gypsy who lands his riverboat alongside the little town, only to cause distubances amongst the chuch-going frenzy of people. He and Juliet Binoche light up the screen and make a sexy match.

The movie, although a dramatic one, has some outrageous funny moments as well. Dame Judi Dench, one of my favorite actresses, plays the landlord of Vianne's Chocolaterie. Every word out of her mouth is sarcastic and somewhat "dirty"(very reminiscent of her small coveted role in Branagh's "Henry V"). I enjoyed her truthfulness and laughed along with her lines.

It doesn't need to be Valentine's Day for someone to enjoy this delicious movie. Why not buy it and package it with a box of chocolates for your sweetheart.

Chocolat
I didn't get all the hype around Chocolat that everyone made it seem.The acting and dialogue aren't the problem.The film is just extremely strange which made me kind of like it, but it was to odd and boring at times.It tells a sweet tale and ends well but I just didn't get into it.Binoche does a great job along with much of the cast.The characters are loved and you hurt when they are hurt but it doesn't pay back for the dullness.I just can't sit two hours through a film like that.I get bored and start to doze off especially later at night.Don't get me wrong it has a sort of heart warming tale and great looking chocolate but that doesn't help a movie get a good rating.Johnny Depp and Judi Dench especially do a fabulous job and Dench really was in my opinion a stronger and more believable character.Another thing that is interesting about the film is the setting and it's moral.I didn't like the cloudly dark feeling around the film either.The overall major problems though are the dullness and unusual plot; also it is a bit predictable.I really only reccomend this one if you are very easily impressed by all movies or you may want to check it out if your bored.

It is the late 1950s, but it might as well be the late 1850s in a small French town where everyone behaves as they should (supposedly), and attends church regularly. When a strong North wind blows through town, it brings the vivacious and mysterious Vianne (Juliette Binoche) and her young daughter Anouk (Victoire Thivisol). Vianne is soon the talk of the town: an unwed mother who declines to go to church and opens up a chocolate shop in the midst of Lent. Her good-natured, honorable personality and psychic ability (she can predict what kind of sweets best suit each person, and magically cures each of them of their particular maladies) make her as irresistible as her delectable treats. However, Vianne and her daughter are resented by the conservative mayor, the Comte de Reynaud (Alfred Molina), and by the pious Caroline (Carrie-Anne Moss), who has disowned her own spirited mother (Judi Dench, who plays Vianne's landlady), refusing the elderly woman access to her beloved grandson.This touching fairy tale, based on the novel by Joanne Harris, was filmed on location in rural France. An intelligent, exquisitely filmed fable that deals with the idea of 20th Century paganism rising up against a closed-minded church and a persevering aristocracy, CHOCOLAT is enjoyable, romantic, and entertaining, with affecting performances by both its stars and its supporting actors (Lena Olin and Johnny Depp.)

Where's the "E"?
I'm a collector of movies with the word 'Chocolate' in the title (Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory, Like Water For Choclate, Chinese Choclate, Stawberry and Chocolate, etc.) I don't really watch the movies, A.) becau