Amazon.com

The original cowriter and director of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was Alex Cox, whose earlier film Sid and Nancy suggests that Cox could have been a perfect match in filmingHunter S. Thompson's psychotropic masterpiece of "gonzo" journalism. Unfortunately Cox departed due to the usual "creative differences," and this ill-fated adaptation was thrust upon Terry Gilliam, whose formidable gifts as a visionary filmmaker were squandered on the seemingly unfilmable elements of Thompson's ether-fogged narrative. The result is a one-joke movie without the joke--an endless series of repetitive scenes involving rampant substance abuse and the hallucinogenic fallout of a road trip that's run crazily out of control. Johnny Depp plays Thompson's alter ego, "gonzo" journalist Raoul Duke, and Benicio Del Toro is his sidekick and so-called lawyer Dr. Gonzo. During the course of a trip to Las Vegas to cover a motorcycle race, they ingest a veritable chemistry set of drugs, and Gilliam does his best to show us the hallucinatory state of their zonked-out minds. This allows for some dazzling imagery and the rampant humor of stumbling buffoons, and the mumbling performances of Depp and Del Toro wholeheartedly embrace the tripped-out, paranoid lunacy of Thompson's celebrated book. But over two hours of this insanity tends to grate on the nerves--like being the only sober guest at a party full of drunken idiots. So while Gilliam's film may achieve some modest cult status over the years, it's only because Fear and Loathing is best enjoyed by those who are just as stoned as the characters in the movie. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (424)

"We can't stay here, this is bat country!"!!!
This movie is a masterpiece, and also very very funny. It is a near perfect adaptation of Hunter S Thompson's novel. The book was based on the true story of a drug crazed self proclaimed doctor of journalism and his sidekick turned loose in Las Vegas to cover a dirt bike race called the mint 400. Thompson, known as Raul Duke (Depp) and his attorney Oscar Zeta Acosta known as Dr.Gonzo (Del Torro) run amok in their desperate search for the American dream. Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Torro are absolutely great in this movie. And the cameos are great: Flea, Lyle Lovett, Gary Busey, Christina Ricci, Tobey Maguire, Ellen Barkin, Cameron Diaz, Steven Schirripa, and even Dr. Thompson himself all make an appearance in the film. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a savage journey into the heart of the American dream. If you haven't seen it, you need too, and fast.....

Extreme entertainment
Prepare yourself for a wild journey into the world of bright lights, flashy people, and non-stop substance abuse. Hunter S. Thompson's book about covering a motorcycle race in Las Vegas through pure "gonzo journalism" has been excellently adapted for the big screen by former Monty Python member Terry Gilliam. The movie stays very true to the story, the product of one of the founding fathers of the drug culture of the 70's. This movie covers both extremes: you will love it or hate it, and it won't allow you to stay anywhere near the middle. People who are interested in the drug culture and beat culture, or even a cynical look at one of America's craziest cities, will probably find themselves enjoying the film immensely, laughing and gasping at the insane antics of a drug-abusing "doctor of journalism" and his attorney. People looking for a more down to Earth experience without the odd visual trip and inexplicable dialogue will only be confused and repulsed, wondering what kind of person enjoys this kind of thing. Johnny Depp's performance is absolutely first-rate, Benicio Del Toro sheds the mediocrity he produced in The Usual Suspects, and cameos by Gary Busey, Cristina Ricci, and Thompson himself add to the perfect blend of acting that make this film one of the best of its kind.

Absolutely Hilarious
This isn't your average movie. Based on the H.S Thompson novel, tt quite succesfully captures the literary insanity of Thompson's books (I'm actually 16, not twelve). Here's the scenario, two stoners running around Las Vegas. All the jokes are based around the wild, outrageous hallucinations of Raul Duke, and his "side kick" Dr. Gonzo. But damned if the many variations of the same basic joke aren't guiltily hilarious every single time. In one scene, Raul and Gonzo are in a bar, When Raul freaks out, thinking that all the bar patrons have been turned into monstrous lizards.
Weird- absolutely Funny- You bet.

It took two viewings to make it through
The first time I started to watch this movie I got a big headache. At my friend's urging I watched it again, and still got a headache. Maybe a little less of a headache, but that's besides the point. It wasn't a headache because the movie's plot made me think, it was a headache because the film was just damn strange.

Offbeat camera angles and dim colored lighting are used throughout the movie. The film quality seemed low and it was hard to understand Johnny Depp's narration at times. The film is very strange in all aspects, including its plot. Hunter S. Thompson (Depp) is supposed to be going to Las Vegas to cover a race in the desert for Sports Illustrated. His lawyer accompanies him on this journey for some reason. They don't really get much reporting done and spend most of the time taking illegal drugs. I kind of lost track of the plot and hardly remember how it ends. Was there even an ending? It seemed kind of like the movie just trailed off.

At one point in the movie they mention something about following the American Dream. Somehow I don't believe the American Dream has anything to do with a suitcase full of illegal drugs. Maybe it was just an attempt to find some rationale behind the entire film.

I'm almost ashamed to admit that I found it hilarious at times. I laughed hysterically when at one point Thompson thinks he's standing in a bog and everyone is a lizard. When I was laughing I kept thinking, this is based on a true story, and now this guy is making money off of it? I felt kind of bad for supporting his drug-induced craziness. However, it's almost kind of an anti-drug movie in it's own strange way. Hunter S. Thompson looks like he's having the worst time of his life, and surely should have been arrested multiple times. I don't know, maybe this movie appeals more to stoners and druggies since they can relate to Thompson.

This film is definitely not for everyone. If you are easily offended, I wouldn't recommend it. If you're looking for a normal movie, you really should be someplace else. Look at the cover of the DVD. The whole movie is kind of like that.

---------------------------
http://www.filmstatic.com - We take reviewing movies seriously and with an attitude...but not a serious attitude.

Review of the DVD, not the film
First things first: FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS, the film, is quite good. If you can stomach its content, it IS a rather fun drug odyssey with a fair amount of underlying social commentary. Some of it becomes muddled and the reviews were horrible (Ebert gave it 1/4) but I enjoy this more than Terry Gilliam's BRAZIL, to be honest (which, ironically, Ebert also gave a negative review).

THE DVD

An overall wonderful experience. First, the packaging: superb. Criterion is always good at packaging their DVDs and this is one of my favorites. On the inside is an essay by a film critic and two discs. The first has the film, newly remastered under the supervision of Gilliam, along with three commentary tracks: by Gilliam, Depp and Del Toro, and Hunter S. Thompson. Wisely, they had someone interview him most of the time since he's obviously a bit of an oddball and would be prone to sitting there and saying nothing.

The second disc has some extraordinary specials, including an old BBC documentary about Thompson (whose semi-truthful novel this is based upon), TV spots, the theatrical trailer (with optional commentary by Gilliam - which I've never seen before), poster and photo galleries, Hunter Goes to Hollywood (an amusing short documentary about Thompson visiting the set of the film), a selection of somewhat bizarre letters between Depp and Thompson that date back to the pre-and-post-production of the film (Depp reads all of them to the camera for us).

Overall, one of the best DVDs I own. The film isn't a classic, per se, but it IS enjoyable. I'm sure part of my appreciation for it comes from this superb DVD, which is one of the finest I own in terms of special features.

Criterion can sometimes disappoint with single-disc DVDs priced in the $40 range but this one is fairly reasonably priced (compared to some of the others) and packed with special features to whet any die-hard fan's appetite.

A must-buy for fans, and a must-see for others - I wouldn't necessarily recommend it as a blind buy for a number of reasons. It's very selective taste. You love it, or you hate it; it might be good to rent it first. But definitely rent this version, not Universal's. ... Read more

Description

This comedic and touching family film follows the adventures of a shy young boy (Haley Joel Osment) who is sent to spend the summer with his eccentric uncles (Michael Caine, Robert Duvall).At first shocked by his uncles' unconventional behavior that includes ordering African lions through the mail, the boy soon becomes enthralled with unraveling the mystery that has followed the uncles for years. Hearing tales of their exotic adventures involving kidnapped princesses, Arabian sheiks and lost treasure, not only brings him closer to his uncles but also teaches him what it means to believe in something... whether it's true or not. ... Read more

Reviews (168)

Something for Everyone.
The best way to describe SECONDHAND LIONS is that it's like an independent art film for families. The movie is a hodge-podge of genres and varies between the sublime to the parodical. The plot revolves around a young boy named Walter and how he ended up being raised by two crazy bachelor uncles in the mid 1960s. The uncles (played by Duvall and Caine) have been missing for forty years and have recently returned to Texas to live out the rest of their days. Rumor has it that the old coots have millions of stolen loot stashed away somewhere and every salesperson and relative within a thounsand miles is trying to get their hands on some of the cash.

Children will like this movie especially for the cheesy flashback scenes that appear to be a cross between Indiana Jones and Saturday morning cartoons. However, cheesy as those scenes appear, they fit for the purposes of the film.

The movie also has something to say about faith and honesty. In fact, this is probably the best film I've seen about faith since SIGNS. It takes faith to believe the unbelievable, but when you find out what you were believing really was true, it becomes even that much more amazing.

Highly recommended for families, old codgers, and eccentrics like myself.

Wonderful family film! Rare these days.
This was a great movie. I just saw it last night -- for the second time. With Robert Duvall, Michael Caine, and Haley Joel Osment, how could they go wrong? But there's many a film out there that boasts a multi-talented all-star cast and yet still fails to deliver the goods.

SECONDHAND LIONS is not one of them.

The story is about young Walter who is just barely in his teens and is sent to live with his two great uncles. He constantly hears rumors of their hidden treasure that they stole from Al Capone, or took from a wealthy Arab, or obtained through a lawsuit, or...whatever you want to believe. Throughout the movie, Walter learns from his uncles, Hub and Garth, how to grow into a man and what the truly important things are in life; and Garth and Hub learn from Walter how to enjoy life to the fullest.

The drama here is fantastic, and only once does the emotionalism get a little over-the-top (which is why I gave it four stars instead of five). The acting is fantastic. In this adventurous film you'll be reminded of images of INDIANA JONES, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, among many others.

...

I wish every goofball (i.e. summer blockbuster) filmmaker in Hollywood -- you know, the ones that think creative filmmaking means having alot of CGI characters jumping around on skyscrapers and fighting villains in Power Ranger suits -- would simply sit down and watch SECONDHAND LIONS. Then they would know how to make a good movie.

WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN?
It was sad for me to see adults pushing their kids in the long-winded queues for Spiderman2 and Pokemon at the local theatre, while this touching entertainer was tossed aside (relatively) to the sidelines.

There is no doubt that Secondhand Lions is a semi-manipulative film, it has its fair share of smarmy feel-good contrivances that betray its zeal to tug at our heart strings. But the quirky mirth of all its characters, the idiosynchratic plotline, and a healthy dose of moving, meaningful moments makes this a very wholesome experience.

Duvall and Caine, as two reclusive millionaire uncles drunk on guns and eccentricity, pitch in very well. Caine warms up to his part in the film first, but the screen is really owned by a very fit Duvall, who soon becomes the pivotal character in the film as the uncle that the kid (Hailey Osment) turns to for advice. Osment does remarkably well to hold his own against these two big tykes. A barnful of cute animals and a truckful of drooling relatives round up the doozy cast.

Some fantastic (literally) flashbacks form an interesting trope for the movie's core message: that in our lives having conviction in things we may doubt to be untrue is ultimately a critical virtue. This leads to a somewhat corny twist at the end but it's an interesting one to make the point. There's plenty of action and some amusing gags that even evoked loud guffaws in the theatre.

All in all, whether you have kids or not, but especially if you do, this deserves a recommendation of the highest order.

Best Family Movie in a long time
I loved this movie. Laughed and cried. I do not usually buy movies, I only own three - we rent alot, but this was a must have. It is the best family movie we have seen in a very long time. I can't wait to see it again.

Wow (for sure)
I cannot understand why Amazon uses paid reviewers who are afraid to like the films they review and don't even bother to see many of them, as indicated by the errors of fact in the second quoted review. Make no mistake, folks, this is the real thing: a truly mesmerizing family film that is able to be humorous, scary, thrilling and inspiring - frequently all at the same time. How many years has it been since three generations of your family were able to repeatedly laugh and cheer loudly for a film? This is in the rare class of films that will go on and on, like Wizard of Oz, Shane, Dragonslayer, High Noon, Miracle on 34th Street, and a very few others, except that it is better than several of them. It is a film for all time and all ages. It is definitely not just a "kid's picture". Perhaps I am partial to "modern legends." I think we all are. ... Read more

Reviews (73)

A Disney Great
I recently rediscovered this film in our video collection. I loved it as a young child and still love it now!

Disney's Robin Hood is so funny! There is plenty of silliness for kids and great humor for adults. I find something new to laugh at with each viewing. My favorite line, however, has to be Prince John's "Hiss! Hiss! You're never around when I need you!" (Hilarious in context, I promise) Portraying the characters as animals works well for the film. It makes the story (a classic itself) more accessible to children. The score is simple, but superb and the songs are delightful. Although, as a University of Illinois fan, I am slightly miffed at the use of 'On, Wisconsin!' for Lady Kluck's football-esque run past a score of King John's guards. This is a great story told in classic Disney style.

Although frequently overlooked, I consider this to be the best film version of Robin Hood and Disney's best movie. Enjoyment is guaranteed.

OO-DE-LALLY, golly! What a movie!!
The first movies I can remember watching as a kid are Robin Hood and The Jungle Book. It makes me very curious to read some of the reviews on here that claim that this is a "lesser known" Disney movie, yet so many people have given testimonials about being an adult who still loves this movie. Well... here is my suggestion - buy this movie, a package of microwave popcorn and stake out a spot on the couch with a kid you love and introduce them to this timeless classic!

It is true that the extras are not as great as those on other Disney DVDs (this is a GOLD Collection DVD remember), but are you really buying the DVD for the extras, or for the movie itself? Note to reader: if you answered "extras", then go rent this, rather than buy it. You'll be too disappointed by the one song sing-a-long, storybook option, and brief 16 question quiz to really enjoy your purchase. However, despite being a colorized version of the original, you might get a kick out of the 1933 Mickey cartoon "Ye Olden Days".

Robin Hood is a well-known old English legend, based in part on actual historical people, places and medieval life (ex. King Richard, Price John, Nottingham, caste system, etc). Sounds like a mini history lesson disguised as Disney entertainment! *wink* Older kids might be interested in comparing the Disney version of the story to other film and or book versions of Robin Hood. I know it sounds like I am analysing this too much, but having written a paper on this exact topic for a college english class, I know what I'm talking about. You can't ask for a better assignment than watching a Disney movie, eh?! :)

For whatever reason you choose to watch this DVD, and at whatever age you are, you will love this movie and it will become one of your favorites!

The Best
This is one of the BEST Robin Hood films ever made! I caught this one on Disney when it first came out. I loved the silly king and the goofy vile snake. Such a great classic film. Memories to be made with this one.

A breakthrough in Anthropomorphic characterization!
Disney's version of "Robin Hood" was a breakthrough in the use of Anthropomorphic or "humanized" animals in animation. It was the first time any animation studio created an all-animal cast playing roles usually reserved for humans in a full length movie. It holds a unique place in Disney Animation just for this reason.

Believe it or not, this movie's influence has been far-reaching on the design and stories of later animated movies (Don Bluth's "The Secret of NIMH", Disney's own "Lion King"), many animated television shows ("Ducktales", "TaleSpin"), comic books, video games (Nintendo's "Starfox"), Asian Anime and the growing "Furry" Fandom on the internet today.

The 70's were a uninspired and directionless time for Disney Animation and "Robin Hood" shows the effects of this. The animation is flat and looks cheaply done due to the use of Xeroxing the pencilled animation onto cells instead the precise but expensive way of hand tracing. Some of the animation where characters are dancing was directly copied from "Snow White" and "The Aristocats". When Sir Hiss stares hypnotically into Prince John's eyes for a few seconds - its the same exact animation you saw in 1967's "The Jungle Book". This reuse of animation was fine for Hanna-Barbera and other low-budget TV animation companies but a travesty for Disney which created and set high standards with their animation in the 1930's through the early 1960's (and thankfully recapured some of those standards in the 1990's).

Some characters are recycled from other Disney movies - Little John and Sir Hiss are carbon copies of the Jungle Book's Balloo the bear and Kaa the snake. The songs besides Roger Miller's "Oo-De-Lally" (which was sampled and sped-up for the popular Radio Disney staple "The Hampsterdance") just aren't that memorable or very good. Add to that the direction is very pedestrian with little style or "zing" - typical of most Disney films of the period.

Despite all these flaws the movie is still one of the most charming, fun and entertaining of all of Disney's 1970's output. The biggest reason is the great cast of voice actors - they sound like they were having fun making this movie and their enthusiasm give the characters "life" when the animation doesnt. Peter Ustinov almost steals the movie with his voicing of Prince John. The story is one of the better adaptations of the Robin Hood legend and the script is well paced and full of funny one-liners that might go over the head of young kids but adults will enjoy.

Disney's DVD version is a huge improvement over the old VHS tape from the 80's - but there are still scenes where the colors look washed out from a faded print. Also the movie's soundtrack is still in the original mono. Besides the original trailers and the classic Mickey Mouse short, the extras are only for the kids and not die-hard animation fans. I wish Disney would have spent more time and money for this reissue, restored the color, add archival footage, interviews and remixed the audio for 5:1 stereo like they have done for "Cinderella" and "Sleeping Beauty". This classic movie deserves better than a basic bare-bones presentation.

Awsome!
This is a very good movie. My sister and i really enjoyed it. It is not the modern day war etc. movies it is a nice classic movie with a cool plot.
It is awsome. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky (Marty) sinks his satirical fangs into this story of an American naval officer (James Garner) selected to be the first victim at the invasion of Normandy. Julie Andrews plays a prim, British war widow who falls for him. Cynical in tone, the story becomes an interesting collision of manipulative interests and renewed life, the same formula that worked so well in Chayefsky's scripts for Network and Hospital. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (17)

Nobility In Cowardice
Charlie Madison (James Garner) is pretty much content in his role as "dog robber" in World War II, providing this superiors with liquor and pliant women and keeping out of harm's way.Unfortunately, his commanding officer get's the bright idea of having a Navy man provide the first casualty at Normandy and Charlie is elected to photograph this moment.What's a committed coward to do?I can accept the film's central premise that one should be true to your nature even if you are a swine.What is a little hard to take is that the D-Day invasion was a pivotal event of World War II and critical in breaking the backs of Nazi tyranny and I find it a little hard to accept that cowardice at such a crucial time is noble.That said, Paddy Chayefsky's clever script advances this notion well under the competent direction of Arthur Hiller.Garner has the charm to make Charlie likable and, yes, noble.Julie Andrews, playing against type, is sensuous as Emily, the British war bride who falls for Charlie despite herself.The chemistry between Garner and Andrews is dynamic and was repeated years later in Blake Edwards' "Victor, Victoria".James Coburn as Charlie's "buddy" and Melvyn Douglas as the Admiral also contribute fine performances.

DVD of Classic Satire Looks Good
The Americanization of Emily is one of the best movies of the Sixties and certainly one of the very best of Julie Andrews' career.However, it was relatively overlooked at the time--sandwiched, as it was, between Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music, two films that swamped everything in their massive popularity and influence.It's a pity that this film is not better known, even though it's reputation has continued to grow over the years.With its release on DVD, now is the time to discover (or rediscover) this gem.

The plot has been discussed in other reviews here, so I won't add anything to them except to say that the only fault I see in this film is its partial lack of attention to period detail.It is most obvious in wardrobe and hairstyles.This movie was filmed in 1963 (released in 1964) and the clothes and hairstyles, especially of the actresses, are right out of that time period.It's as if the actors walked in right off the street and onto the soundstage without changing a thing.Did the director forget they were making a World War II movie?This complaint aside, The Americanization of Emily is a highly enjoyable film which deserves to be more widely seen.

The DVD looks and sounds fine for the most part.There are only occasional glimpses of debris, but these are not distracting.Kudos once again to Warner Brothers for the care they put into most of their classic releases.

More dark humor than anti-war
I saw this movie in the theatre when it came out, and I love it. My favorite line is in the beginning when they meet and Garner is directing the delivery of luxury food and liquor to his admiral's quarters, and admiral's driver Andrews (seeing all the luxury items) chews out Garner by accusing Americans of "enjoying" the war. Garner replies, "Let me tell YOU something: Americans would not be here if it weren't for 2,000 years of European barbarism!" It brought the theatre down in cheers and applause.

This story is more dark humor than anti-war, and Paddy Chayefsky is the master of dark humor. In the `70s, he co-wrote with Joan Rivers "Girl Most Likely To...", a dark humor about an ugly-duckling-turned-Cinderella co-ed played by Stockard Channing, that I've been waiting for to come out on DVD.

If you haven't seen "Americanization of Emily", you must. Sure beats the new stuff out there these days.

Finally, I can see and hear this movie, that I have loved
I have loved this movie since I first saw it in the theater in the sixties.I saw it twice then.I was rapidly losing what hearing I had left at the time. I loved what I saw, could put together, and the little that I did hear.Garner's facial expressions told the story to me.
My husband finally got a VHS copy for me about 10 years ago.Unfortunately it was not captioned.I shared it with my grown children.I never thought the movie would come out captioned in DVD.And I could not understand that as Garner himself had said it was his favorite movie that he made.......I "heard" that on a captioned Larry King interview.

Now I will finally be able to know every one of the words, my own copy, with captions.

If you have not seen it, I just highly recommend that movie so highly, it is my favorite of all time.The anti war message is obvious, but it is so funny, in a biting sort of way.There is one scene with Julia Andrews and her mother, along with Garner.I love the dialogue there.

And as I said, the facial expressions are wonderful.That is a tribute to the actors.Who would think a movie with D Day as the center happening to which much leads could be funny, serious, yes, and it is serious, but it is also funny.That takes the sting out of the serious parts.For some reason the black and white seems to work in a way that I cannot imagine color doing.I just cannot recommend this movie highly enough.

I have waited almost 40 years to hear all the words, own the movie myself.I am sure it is worth it.I wish it had not been so long.

ginger jones

One of the BEST movies I'v ever seen
I love this movies. When I first got it for a gift I thought it would be terrible. I love Julie Andrews and James Garner but when I saw it was in black and white I thought it would be dull. I was very wrong it is one of my favorite movies along with Victor-Victoria, also staring James and Julie. I wish the dvd has some special features but atleast its finally coming out on dvd. I have watch the video so many times I think it's begining to break. I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!!!! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

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

Reviews (45)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (347)

Good History, Good Film
Movies based on history fall into one of two categories. They're either wonderful stories that are flawed on facts (Braveheart, JFK, for example), or they're faithful to the facts but lack drama (The Battle of Britain, produced by Harry Saltzman in the late '60s). This film, written and directed by Ronald F. Maxwell, manages to be fairly accurate storytelling and compelling drama at the same time. That Maxwell's movie embodies these two qualities in an almost four-hour picture is no small feat either.

The movie recreates the pivotal battle of the Civil War, when General Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia sought to destroy the Union forces under General George Meade at Gettysburg, a small town in Pennsylvania. Maxwell's towering achievement in this movie, besides the many well-staged battle scenes, is to highlight the personal, emotional anguish of the soldiers on both sides, some of whom had been quite close before the war began. Witness the scene in the tent of General James Longstreet (Tom Berenger) as General Lewis Armistead (Richard Jordan, in one of his last screen roles) speaks emotionally about his friend, General Hancock, who he knows is just over the ridge where they will attack the next day. Tears well up in Jordan's eyes as he recalls the deep affection that he developed for Hancock and his wife many years before.

Gettysburg is not a great movie, but it is a very good one, and well worth viewing for any American who is interested in the war that tore this nation asunder and, in some ways, made it more unified afterwards.

Absolutely excellent film making from a historical novel.
I am writing this review after my review of "Gods and General." I realized the measure of any subsequent movie would be "Gettysburg," and the problem is going to be that it is a hard act to follow. Gettysburg is everything a historical novel to movie should be. Start with a Pulitzer prize winning book, "Killer Angels." This is impeccable story telling. On the confederate side, Martin Sheen as Robert E. Lee and Tom Berenger contributed career best performances and compelling chemistry. On the Union side, Jeff Daniels as Colonel Chamberlain, C. Thomas Howell as his brother and Lieutenant, and Kevin Conroy as the tough old Mick Sargeant /veteran, provide the compelling chemistry. Sam Elliot fits the part of a veteran cavalry General perfectly. In fact, I can't think of anyone that fits the part of acting from the saddle better.

If Stonewall Jackson had lived and had surrounded the federal troops at Chancellorsville, the war might have ended. If Lee had listened to Longstreet and withdrew from Gettysburg to high ground of his own choice, he might have won the battle and ended the war. This defensive style of fighting is why Lee earned the nickname "Gray Fox." Lee made the same mistake as Union General Burnside at Fredericksburg in advancing troops uphill against an entrenched enemy while taking canon fire on three sides. If General Meade had pursued Lee out of Gettysburg to where he was backed up against a storm swollen and impassable Potomac River, the war might have ended. Instead, war went on for more than two more years, and the death toll rose to over 615,000 Americans. This section of American history is critically important and what will be a set of three movies will serve a very commendable purpose.

Gettysburg-an exciting and dramatic review of the final days
I absolutely LOVE this movie. Based on the bestselling novel 'The Killer Angels' by Michael Shaara, Gettysburg is an engaging and [MOSTLY accurate] retelling of the events surrounding what was probably the most major battle of the War of Northern Agression (no offense to anyone, I AM a southerner, but I harbor no serious prejudices toward anyone). Some minor details, such as Chamberlain's position during the battle are slightly off, but most of the historical action is dead on. Martin Sheen delivers an excellent performance as Gen. Robert E. Lee. Although this movie was released earlier, 'Gods and Generals' by Jeff Shaara (same name as the book, and Michael Shaara's son) precedes Gettysburg in historical order. Recommended to anyone interested in the American Civil War and history buffs alike.

Greatest Civil War Movie
Gettysburg is by far the best movie on the ACW ever made. I saw it in the theater as a kid and I am still impressed with it. It is much better than Gods and Generals and I think its better than Glory for the simple fact that it shows BOTH sides displaying their own feelings, emotions, and desires. I dont think Sheen was bad as Lee but at the same time I dont think Duvall had enough on screen time to properly compare him to Sheen's performance. Richard Jordan was superb in his performance as Armistead and it is a lasting tribute that his last movie before his death to a brain tumor was so powerful and emotional; sometimes I wonder if Jordan was thinking on his own death while filming those magnificent scenes for the movie.

And a little FYI to settle the harsh criticism of Maxwell picking Sheen as Lee: ROBERT DUVALL WAS MAXWELL'S FIRST CHOICE TO DO LEE IN GETTYSBURG BUT DUVALL WAS UNAVAILABLE AT THE TIME B/C HE WAS FILMING SOME OTHER MOVIE; SO MAXWELL WENT WITH A BACKUP CHOICE OF MARTIN SHEEN FOR LEE!!!

Gettysburg
I liked this movie very much, but yet I do believe that if it were made at the same time Gods and Generals was, it would have been a much better film. I thought that Sheen did a fair job at playing the great General Robert E. Lee, but he is no match for the outstanding performance of Robert Duvall. I like Tom Berenger as General Longstreet, who was also from my native state, South Carolina. Jeff Danials did a spectacular job in this film as Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain in Gettysburg as well in Gods and Generals. The effort these actors put in to this movie are so dramatic, it takes your breath away to see these men, in fact, you don't see Martin Sheen, Tom Berenger, or Jeff Danials, you see Robert E. Lee, Jamse Longstreet, and Joshua Chamberlain. But I must say, if you are going to watch Gettysburg, you mite want to watch Gods and Generals first. ... Read more

Reviews (368)

Full blown comedy with a killer cast
Meet the Parents is one of the best comedy movies to hit the shelves in recent years. With an all-star cast including Ben Stiller, Robert DeNiro, and the one and only Owen Wilson, this movie delivers the laughs perfectly!

Greg Focker, male nurse, is about to propose to Pam, his "special friend" of ten months, when he hears about her recently engaged sitster, whose husband to be made the right move and asked her father first. Now he's got to do the same, which means he's got to meet the parents. And with the plot set, the laughter ensues...

What really makes this movie work is the characters we can all relate to. First there's Greg, who is desperately trying to win the parents' approval, but somehow manages to screw up everything he possibly can along the way. And to make matters worse, he's got to to deal with Pam's ex fiance while he carries out this death sentence of a weekend. And then there is Pam, whose father is well...just a little strange to say the least.

Also, Owen Wilson is just insane in this and the movie is worth it for his performance alone, not to mention being able to see DeNiro do a comedy this good.

See it for the laughs, see it for the cast, see it for the experience, because this is one of the best lately. And if that is not insentive enough, I leave you with a quote..."Well I have nipples Focker, could you milk ME?"

Skip This Meeting
Stale, unoriginal humor is the downfall of this take-it-or-leave-it Ben Stiller comedy. Stiller plays male nurse Gaylord Focker (whose name is the inspiration for at least a quarter of the movie's jokes), a hapless soul whose attempts to propose to his girlfriend (Teri Polo) are interrupted by a phone call announcing her sister's engagement. This leads to the wedding trip, and Stiller's opportunity to meet the parents.

What follows are a series of mildly amusing situations and one-liners, none of which you'll probably be itching to repeat at work tomorrow. Owen Wilson is a bright spot, as usual, playing Polo's ex-fiance. He also delivers the best line in the movie, a deadpan joke about the inspiration for his hobby, carpentry. Robert DeNiro and Blythe Danner, however, are both too woefully underchallenged to be able to turn in memorable performances.

The DVD's extra features include the standard outtakes, commentaries, and deleted scenes, as well as interactive personality quizzes which are fun to take but whose answers seem somewhat random. Overall, Meet the Parents is only worth renting if you're desperate to see a movie and this is the just about only thing left on the video store shelves.

Calamity after calamity - Very Funny
"Meet the Parents" is funny, outrageous, and full of fun. Pratfalls and pitfalls await our comic star Ben Stiller as he pursues his love and ingratiates himself with his father-in-law to-be, Robert DeNiro. DeNiro is a crazed, over protective, retired CIA agent who zealously protects his daughter from her would-be suitor.

Calamity follows calamity, and the sight gags cascade until the end unwinds all the zaniness in a satisfying ending. It is a lot of fun with several belly laughs thrown in for good measure.

Oh no, no, no, no, no, it's not very good. Way over rated.
This movie is not funny, just dumb. Is saying "focker" over and over and over again really that funny? I'm sorry, folks, but NO, it's just not all that funny, and this is the same dull plot that we've seen over and over again in the movies and on tv. Not recommended.

Unwatchable
I wanted to leave the theater halfway through this garbage but I already ponied up my $8. Predictable gag after predictable gag after predictable gag, this movie made me hate Ben Stiller. ... Read more

Reviews (142)

Fasten your seatbelts, you're in for a bumpy ride!
Bette Davis is perfect as aging movie star who takes newcomer Anne Baxter under her wing. Little does Bette know that Anne is only too happy to walk all over Bette as the former climbs the ladder of success. -- This is Hollywood looking at Hollywood; with all it's glamour, back stabbing and the insatiable desire to be on top. The story line as well as the acting are dated, but even today you can have a grand 'ol time with this entertaining classic! Look for a young Marilyn Monroe in a bit part as a party guest!

Classic NY Theatre comedy
Biting, satiric comedy of the New York theater world. Bette Davis is aging stage actress Margo Channing who finds her career (and her romantic life) threatened when "adoring" fan Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter) worms her way into a job as Margo's assistant. Seems Eve has plans of her own for her future and they may include Margo's next stage role and her fiance. Incredibly witty script by director Joseph Mankiewicz is acted to the hilt by all, especially Davis and Baxter and, in standout supporting roles, George Sanders as a bitchy critic and Celeste Holm as Margo's loyal, long-suffering best friend.

Bette Davis, Bette Davis, oh why are you so great?
And god she is. The Best actress ever, in the best screenplay ever. If I had one thing to say about "All About Eve", it would probably be about Bette Davis. There's nothing else to say. If the film had been less witty, less wise, it would still be a classic because of her performance. She just put herself right on the showcase and and did it. She never wondered, or feared anything. She pushed everybody out to make her way, and changed herself into an instrument for Margo Channing. There's no doubt that Bette Davis was very like Margo Channing in real life. But that just adds to the character, she knew she was Margo Channing, and used it to push the boundaries further to what and actress could do, to what was the limit of what was tolerable or not. But she didn't mind that, and look how it paid off at the end. Never, and I insist on never, is there a moment in the film where you don't believe here. Not a second, not the blink of an eye. It is the perfect performance. And the movie has everything else as good as Bette Davis. When you think of Thelma Ritter, or Celeste Holm, or Marilyn Monroe, or George Sanders, or even Hugh Marlowe, in this picture, they're all astonishing. The dialogue is so brilliant you just can't help to wonder, how long can a writer take to write this? A month? A year? A decade? I don,t know, but it every word in it is placed there for a reason. That's "All About Eve". Every bit of it is carfully put in the perfect ensemble, surrounded by Bette Davis. And to say that Claudette Colbert was suppose to do it...

No good deed goes unpunished
"All About Eve" excels on so many levels it's hard to keep track of them all. It won eight Oscars and was nominated for 14 (a record that wasn't tied until "Titanic"). It has been called "The bitchiest film ever made." It's probably one of the most literate films ever made, too, with references to "paranoic outbursts," Fort Sumter and the dramatists Beaumont and Fletcher. (It's unlikely that its screenplay could be produced today.)

The story of how an innocent-seeming young ingenue slowly worms her way into an older actress's heart and takes her career away from her is now fifty years old but is as fresh as if it were filmed yesterday. The performances are outstanding across the board, and feature Bette Davis as star Margo Channing, Anne Baxter as usurper Eve Harrington, Celeste Holm as Eve's best friend, Thelma Ritter as Eve's live-in companion, and Marilyn Monroe in a small role as Miss Caswell, "a graduate of the Copacabana School of Dramatic Art." This is a film to treasure and to enjoy over and over.

There is also a brand-new book devoted to the movie: "All About 'All About Eve'" by Sam Staggs.

"You can always put THAT where your heart ought to be"
This film is an example of the superb writing talent that Hollywood boasted before the 80's and 90's (when American filmgoers became addicted to special effects and vulgar physical comedy). Whereas the film was one of the most successful of 1950, chances are today even with the Best Picture Oscar under its belt, 50% of Americans would probably lose interest halfway through. The casting is perfect - there was no better choice for Margo Channing than Bette Davis (by the way - stage actress Tallulah Bankhead thought the character was a sendup of herself, and granted, there are shades of Tallulah in Margo). And if I had one wish, it would be to have George Sanders's deep, snide voice - you can just hear the sarcasm dripping in every line he speaks. Some feel that "Sunset Boulevard" lost Best Picture to "Eve" because where the former directed its animosity toward Hollywood, the latter took exception with the theatre; yet after viewing the film several times, it becomes apparent that "Eve" aimed its barbs at all forms of media (stage, screen, television, and even newspapers - the party scene alone sufficiently skewers the glamorous yet empty side of Hollywood and television). It makes one think - just how real ARE these actors and actresses we see on the screen, and how exactly did they get where they are today? The acting business is certainly one of the most competitive, and I can't imagine they all got where they are by being sweet and gentle.

By far, the lion's share of praise belongs to Mankiewicz, who had just won an Oscar for "A Letter to Three Wives" and not only directed this masterpiece but WROTE it (and before simply dismissing such an accomplishment, I dare you to compare a script of this film to any of today's film scripts - 90% aren't NEARLY this tight or fluid). Just one thing - toward the end, what exactly happens to Thelma Ritter's character? She just kind of vanishes, and yet she's one of the most lovable characters in the film. I think it would have made a nice touch if Mankiewicz could have given her a chance to get a couple zingers in on Eve at the end, too. But that's light criticism - this film is one of the most flawless Hollywood films ever made and, if you haven't treated yourself to it, by all means, do so immediately. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Sweetness that doesn't turn saccharine is hard to find these days; Finding Neverland hits the mark. Much credit is due to the actors: Johnny Depp applies his genius for sly whimsy in his portrayal of playwright J. M. Barrie, who finds inspiration for his greatest creation from four lively boys, the sons of widow Sylvia Llewelyn Davies (Kate Winslet, who miraculously fuses romantic yearning with common sense). Though the friendship threatens his already dwindling marriage, Barrie spends endless hours with the boys, pretending to be pirates or Indians--and gradually the elements of Peter Pan take shape in his mind. The relationship between Barrie and the Llewelyn Davies family sparks both an imagined world and a quiet rebellion against the stuffy forces of respectability, given physical form by Barrie's resentful wife (Radha Mitchell, High Art) and Sylvia's mother (Julie Christie, McCabe and Mrs. Miller). This gentle silliness could have turned to treacle, but Depp and Winslet--along with newcomer Freddie Highmore as one of the boys--keep their feet on the earth while their eyes gaze into their dreams. Also featuring a comically crusty turn from Dustin Hoffman (who appeared in another Peter Pan-themed movie, Hook) as a long-suffering theater producer. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (245)

A very beautiful movie.
I agree with T burger.I did do some research after watching this & the main point of the movie is the same.He created this world after meeting & falling in love with those boys.If they made every movie that's based on fact word for word they would probably be boring.They're usually loosely based & meant more to entertain than to inform.I loved it.Story, great, sets, great.Johnny Depp Double great.

wow...
This movie is truly captivating. I am a sucker for fantasy-sort and movies packed with lots of imaginiation. I guess its the kid coming out of me. (which doesn't often go away)
This movie really does make you go back and remember all your dreams as a little child. Wishing you could fly, dreaming of far off places, magic, fantasy lands, and so on.
The reason for this movie is to take a look at how Peter Pan related to its author and his life. It is really interesting to see the parallels between the movie and the events and people he had in his life. I highly recommend it. Its touching and captivating.

Handsome-looking, sentimental tripe
Marc Forster's FINDING NEVERLAND isn't a bad movie, I suppose. In its depiction of playwright J.M. Barrie's creation of the classic PETER PAN, it has its occasional moments of real wide-eyed wonder (mostly during re-enactments of moments in the actual play), and it has generally fine performances from its cast---not even the prestige-pic atmosphere of this movie can keep the wide-ranging actor Johnny Depp down. And, of course, the movie looks sumptuous and handsome (which counts for something in my book).

But FINDING NEVERLAND is yet another example of the kind of sentimental, non-threatening tripe that Hollywood has a tendency to produce and foist upon the masses during Oscar season. This particular Oscar-bait picture has as its mantra "Just believe," but the movie rarely ever elicits the same sense of innocent wonder that this film's Barrie clearly believes in. (Its brief "fantasy" sequences---which includes Barrie dancing with a dog, or Barrie playing a pirate with a widower's kids---are too cheesily done to make us believe in anything.) Nor does it have much of a sharp edge to its potentially disturbing depiction of a writer's sudden fixation on the widower's kids; his attraction to the innocence of these kids---at least, in most of the kids; one of them, played by Freddie Highmore, still carries the pain and anger of loss with him---is depicted (and romanticized) by Forster and screenwriter David Magee as mostly pure and rather beautiful. (Yea right; so is Michael Jackson's, too?) By smoothing away almost all of the rough edges, by manipulating events to fit its banal message, by toning down Johnny Depp's usual actorly exuberance, Marc Forster comes up with a film that, for all its impressive production values, is never very intellectually stimulating. It's insufferably pleasant rather than challenging. Is it deeply moving? For me, not really; when Forster finally unveils his visual depiction of Neverland towards the end, it is mawkish rather than transporting; so is its final scene, in which Barrie tells disillusioned young Peter Davies to "just believe" that his relatives still live on.

Look, it's a nice idea, to be able to hold on to your child-like innocence and all that. But, just because you become an adult, that doesn't mean you have to lose your imagination or sense of child-like wonder. (That's one of the things movies can do best---but not this movie.) But it's hardly a good idea either to be as child-like as this film's Barrie is; in this difficult world, you'd never survive if your only purpose in life was to remain an innocent child throughout, the way Barrie tries to be. Growing up is something everybody has to do; it's something FINDING NEVERLAND apparently doesn't believe in. It's better to remain a naive kid rather than live in the real world. And of course this potentially dangerous philosophy gets applause from gullible viewers who find the movie "enchanting": it's a fantasy that appeals to them, which is precisely why I think the film is intellectually empty. Sorry if that sounds terribly cynical, but that personal reaction to the film's message is the only way I can explain why there was only one scene in the movie that genuinely moved me: a scene in which an angry Peter Davies shouts out to Barrie, "I will not be lied to." It's the only scene with any real dramatic weight to it, because it is the closest the movie comes to challenging its own sentimental, simple-minded "just believe" philosophy. Peter has glimpsed the cold, hard reality of death, and is trying to deal with it in his own way; this film's Barrie, instead, would probably try to tell himself that no one ever really dies, as long as his/her memory is kept alive. Again, a comforting notion; but it can be plain delusional to deny the harsh reality of death.

FINDING NEVERLAND is well-made enough that it's worth the 3 stars I'm granting it here. The movie probably makes worthy family entertainment; there's nothing all that offensive for parents to get too worried about. But if you're expecting something truly insightful or deeply moving from this trite Hollywood prestige pic, you might be disappointed. For all of its adult pretensions, FINDING NEVERLAND is, at heart, as childish as its real-life hero.

Neverland not the place to be
Johnny Depp put in a good performance in this movie. And that's the problem. I expect an actor of his caliber to show me something on the screen that will blow me away every single time. (Sorry about that,but Johnny has spoiled me). Instead what I saw was an actor reigned in. Did the money-mafia intercede somewhere along the line and say "no funny stuff..we're going for main stream here. Think Oscar."Kate Winslet just was not credible in the role of a woman dying of a progressive, wasting disease.Really?!When Barrie finally reveals Neverland to her, supposedly on the eve of her death, she looks like nothing but the beautiful English girl that she is. As fresh and as robust as the proverbial milkmaid. As for Julie Christie and Dustin Hoffman...what about them? Their parts could of been played by actors of lesser talent and the final product would not have suffered for it . This is not the worst movie ever made but it's got to be the worst misuse of acting talent in recent history. Finding Neverland is a medicore commercial product. The invitation implied gourmet but on arrival I got fast food. And I really, reallywanted to LIKE this movie.

An amazing movie, never mind the background...
Although I understand that J. M. Barrie was not perfect, there is no reason to relate him to the "Michael Jackson" scandal. It might be true that he *was* a pedophile, but in this movie, nothing of the sort was shown. The movie is *based* upon events that happened in the past, but is not a documentary of any sort or kind, and therefore cannot be deemed untruthful. Since the movie is not a historical film, nor does it portray any sort of pedophilia, it is unjust to give this movie a bad review for the past events.

Depp came across as a truly kind being who became very close with a family, and especially with that family's kids. He enjoyed being around them because maybe he felt that they needed a father figure, or maybe that he saw himself in the children and just wanted to have fun with them because he had no children of his own. Depp played Barrie in a manner which might have not been accurate, but his performance was amazing.

Winslet, who as well gives a rather good performance, fits with Depp like pieces of a puzzle, and the dynamics between Depp and the boys are amazing in all scenarios.

Overall, this was a stunning movie, and never you mind the reviews that say that this film was boring or stupid. This brings out emotion in almost everyone, from kids to seniors, and the only people who don't find it interesting are those who dislike a movie that actually has a good plot/doesn't have "action"/actually has in-depth characters.

I HIGHLY HIGHLY RECCOMEND THAT YOU PUT THIS ON THE TOP OF YOUR LIST TO RENT OR BUY. I GUARANTEE THAT IF YOU WATCH IT ONCE, JUST ONCE, YOU WILL FALL IN LOVE WITH IT IMMEDIATELY. ... Read more

Reviews (90)

The best contextual musical ever
Norman Jewison's "Fiddler On the Roof" is the story of a poor milkman living in tsarist Russia, which in the outskirts of Russia. This is one of the most original musicals, based on the stories of Sholom Aleichem. Played by Chaim Topol and Norma Crane as Tevye and Golde, the acting of this role of parents of five daughters in an orthodox Jewish family is done brilliantly. Tevye's misquotings of the bible is hilarious. The songs in the movie are outstanding and poignant. Starting from the beginning with "Tradition", with violinist Isaac Stern doing his magic, every song has its uniqueness.

Each of his three older daughters choose a different path. The first one refuses to marry the person chosen by the father as she in love with the tailer Motel. The way Tevye cons his wife into agreeing for this wedding is one of the funniest pieces of the movie. The characters chosen are unique and beautifully portrayed. The song before this, "Matchmaker, matchmaker" is beautiful. The way Yente, the matchmaker looks at the youngest daughters as though they were caravans wares is extremely funny. The second daughter Tseitel chooses the revolutionary who is against the Tsar and wishes communism. The song in the bar "To life, Le Chaim" is unusual and shows the way the Jews and the Christians can get along in a limited manner. The third daughter chooses a gentile.

Though this is a musical, the acting, story and the character portrayal is deep. Songs range from comic like "If I were a rich man", to haunting, "Sunrise, sunset", to sad and lonely, "Little bird". Though being Jewish will help one understand this movie better, it is not a necessity. The screenplay is wonderful. The particular one that I like is when Avraham comes and tells that there are bad things going on in the world. Another person says, "Why should I break my head about the outside world, let the outside world break its own head". Here Tevye says, "He is right, if you spit in the air, it lands in your face." Then the revolutionary says, "Nonsense, you cannot be blind to what happens outside." Then Tevye says, "You know, he is also right." At this time Avraham points to the revolutionary and the other person and says, "He is right and he is right, they can't both be right." Now Tevye looks at Avraham and says, "You know, you are also right."

When the Jews are evicted, it is extremely sad. They console themselves saying that their village Anatevka was not exactly the garden of Eden. This song, "Anatevka", is sad and heartbreaking. They have so little but still love it. It reminds one that happiness is something of the inside and has nothing to do with material possessions. This movie is a classic and a timeless masterpiece. It might be difficult for some people to understand due to the history of Tsarist Russia and its pogroms and the context, otherwise, to date it is my favorite musical.

One of the greatest musicals of all time...
Fiddler on the Roof is a cinematic masterpiece. Originally a musical, this movie is an amazing adaptation that remains faithful to the original, while at the same time not making it seem "theatrical" to the point where it looks contrived. The characters are played perfectly with Topol (who plays Tevye, the poor village milkman) taking the highest honors.

Fiddler on the Roof is simply a timeless story, even if it finds itself placed in czarist Russia. The story revolves around Tevye, a poor Jew living in Russia and his struggle to stay true to his faith (and ideals) in a world that is rapidly changing. This film follows Tevye in his journey to meld his rich Jewish past with the modern world that surrounds him. His arguments with himself ("On the other hand,...") are priceless and allow us to relate with Tevye as he struggles with his heritage (the pogroms), his financial status ("If I Were a Rich Man") and his family (his daughters are entering marrying age).

Ths music is wonderful. The songs are poignant and easily remembered. I guarantee that you'll wind up singing/humming "Tradition" or "If I Were a Rich Man" days after watching the movie. The movie itself is humourous at times, and sorrowful the next and the storyline is deep, but is not a damning social commentary. The cinematics are also extraordinary, with the film being shot "on location" in Zagreb, Yugoslavia.

This is an ideal family movie, and I can remember watching (and loving) this movie at an early age. I'm glad I purchased this movie for my DVD collection, as it will become one of my most watched (and sung to) films. The box comes with only a single DVD, but is double-sided and contains additional footage, an additional song (cut at production) and a commentary on the movie itself.

Fiddler on the Roof
IT was absolutely amazing. Everything about it! The backround and effects were amaxing and it was a very touching story with absolutely wonderful actors and unforgetable songs. SPECTACULAR!

An excellent film, except for the cover art
I love this movie, but was highly dissaponted with the ugly cover art design. They should have stuck to the original poster art. Anyways, the music is great, and it is good to see such movies being restored on DVD.

The best of all musicals.
I agree with HeadbangerDuh in every sense. This is the best of musicals. While some other musicals amy be corny, boring, and downright dumb, Fiddler shows humor, interest, and is educational. Although part one is funnier, part two I feel is richer, and more full, not as goofy. This is probably the best film of the century. ... Read more

Amazon.com

From Hollywood's legendary Cocoanut Grove to the pioneering conquest of the wild blue yonder, Martin Scorsese's The Aviator celebrates old-school filmmaking at its finest. We say "old school" only because Scorsese's love of golden-age Hollywood is evident in his approach to his subject--Howard Hughes in his prime (played by Leonardo DiCaprio in his)--and especially in his technical mastery of the medium reflecting his love for classical filmmaking of the studio era. Even when he's using state-of-the-art digital trickery for the film's exciting flight scenes (including one of the most spectacular crashes ever filmed), Scorsese's meticulous attention to art direction and costume design suggests an impassioned pursuit of craftsmanship from a bygone era; every frame seems to glow with gilded detail. And while DiCaprio bears little physical resemblance to Hughes during the film's 20-year span (late 1920s to late '40s), he efficiently captures the eccentric millionaire's golden-boy essence, and his tragic descent into obsessive-compulsive seclusion. Bolstered by Cate Blanchett's uncannily accurate portrayal of Katharine Hepburn as Hughes' most beloved lover, The Aviator is easily Scorsese's most accessible film, inviting mainstream popularity without compromising Scorsese's artistic reputation. As compelling crowd-pleasers go, it's a class act from start to finish. --Jeff Shannon

DVD Features
In his commentary track, director Martin Scorsese offers his own impressions of Howard Hughes and rattles off his memories of experiencing Hughes's films.He mentions how he made Cate Blanchett watch every Katharine Hepburn film from the '30s on the big screen, and observes that Kate Beckinsale had "a real sense of the stature of a Hollywood goddess."But in general he doesn't talk much about the craft of making the film.That area is covered better by editor Thelma Schoonmaker, who also appears on the commentary track, and producer Michael Mann makes a few appearances (all were recorded separately).The picture is brilliant, but the 5.1 sound is not as aggressive in the rear speakers and subwoofer as one might expect, other than some nice surround effects in the Hell's Angels flying sequence.

The second disc collects almost three hours of features.There's one unnecessary deleted scene, and an 11-minute making-of featurette that's basically the cast and director heaping praise on each other.More interesting are the short featurettes on visual effects (including the XF-11 scene, of course), production design, costumes, hair and makeup, and score, and Loudon Wainwright discusses his and his children's musical performances.Historical perspective is provided by spotlights on Hughes's role in aviation and his obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a 43-minute Hughes documentary from the History Channel (part of the Modern Marvels series, it focuses on his mechanical innovations and spends less than a minute on his movies).More unusual are DiCaprio and Scorsese's appearance on an OCD panel, and a half-hour interview segment DiCaprio did with Alan Alda.--David Horiuchi

The Personalities ofThe Aviator

Click the links to explore more movies by these stars.

Leonardo DiCaprio as Howard Hughes "Sometimes I truly fear that I... am losing my mind. And if I did it... it would be like flying blind."

Cate Blanchett as Katharine Hepburn Howard Hughes: "You're the tallest woman I have ever met." Katharine Hepburn: "And all sharp elbows and knees. Beware."

	Kate Beckinsale as Ava Gardner Howard Hughes: "Does that look clean to you?" Ava Gardner: "Nothing's clean, Howard. But we do our best, right?"

Gwen Stefani as Jean Harlow Jean Harlow in Hell's Angels: "Would you be shocked if I put on something more comfortable?"

Jude Law as Errol Flynn Errol Flynn in Captain Blood: "Up the riggings, you monkeys! Break out those sails and watch them fill with the wind that's carrying us all to freedom!"

Director Martin Scorsese "You get a sense of Howard Hughes being Icarus with the wax wings. Those wings were great for a while, but he flies too close to the sun." --Martin Scorsese

Other Movies by The Aviator's Oscar® Winners

Production Designer Dante Ferretti
Film Editor Thelma Schoonmaker
Costume Designer Sandy Powell
Cinematographer Robert Richardson
See all the Oscar® winners atOscar Central