Reviews (172)

Pretty Woman: the best movie in the entire pretty world!
Everyone knows this story, whether they've experienced certain parts of it, or just love it pure & simply because it's terrific. And if you haven't seen it, why not?! Go out and get it now. Go on!

This is the one Julia Roberts film that can never be out-done. No amount of Erin Brockovich's can beat this movie. This catapulted Julia into the big-time, mainstream movies, and she's now one of the highest paid actresses. I dunno whether something like Pretty Woman was never done before this, or whether I'm just sick of Julia Roberts now, but she won't come across a script as good as this again. Not even the supposed "sequel", with Richard Gere & Julia reteaming (they could go all the way and do a Meg Ryan/Tom Hanks) with Garry Marshall and Hector Elizondo for Runaway Bride. Nowhere near as good. But that's a different movie.

The actors are great, and I think it's the only Richard Gere movie I've ever seen - apart from Runaway Bride. The night elevator operator's face (Patrick Richwood) is an absolute picture most of the time, and he makes you laugh just by looking at him.

Of course, everyone knows that Julia's character, Vivian, turns from a poor hooker, into a rich lady. I much prefer Vivian as the hooker. When you first meets Edward (Richard Gere), she's fine, she's cute, and he gives her all this money, and she turns into a frumpy, awkward lady. The clothes are ill-fitting and really don't suit her.

In a few years, when Julia Roberts is old and grey (Richard Gere already was old & grey in this!), this will be considered a classic.

Watch out for a very much blink and you'll miss him role of the detective, played by Hank Azaria. I've seen this movie a hundred times, and it's the first time I noticed him!

The songs are terrific in this, from Roy Orbison's "Pretty Woman" to Natalie Cole's "Wild Women Do" (the video is not impressive though). The best song is of course, Roxette's "It Must Have Been Love", played as Vivian leaves Edward. It's a very poignant scene, and I always play this song if I'm feeling down about something. The lyrics match any relationship problem perfectly, and matches the scene in Pretty Woman

Romance & Comedy All In One
Pretty Woman is an excellent movie in my opinion. It's about Vivian Ward (Julia Roberts), a hooker who is 'working' on Hollywood Boulevard one night with her friend Kit De Luca (Laura San Giacomo). Around the corner comes a Lotust and the person in that car is none other than Edward Lewis (Richard Gere), a heartless business man on his way to the Regent Beverly Wiltshire Hotel. The car then stalls (he doesn't know how to work a stick shift) and that's when him and Roberts meet. Gere then takes Roberts to the hotel with him and before she knows it he's asking her to stay with him the whole week for $3,000.
Some of the cast members include Jason Alexander as Philip Stuckey, Edward's trusty lawyer, Ralph Bellamy as James Morse, the man who's company Edward's firm is trying to take over, Alex Hyde-White as David Morse, James Morse's son, and Hector Elizondo as Bernard Thompson, the manager of the
hotel.
The music in this motion picture is found on the Pretty Woman Soundtrack. It includes Natalie Cole - Wild Women Do, David Bowie - Fame 90, Roxette - Must Have Been Love, Christopher Otcasek - Real Wild Child (Wild One), and probley the most popular song that relates to this movie is Roy
Orbison - Oh, Pretty Woman.
I recommend this movie to anyone who likes comedy, romantic, or movies where opposites find one another. This movie will stick around for generations to come. I would give this movie five gold stars and two thumbs up.

Modern Day Pygmaelion
Pretty Woman is a great movie. When Julia Roberts acted in this 1990 classic, she was sexy, vibrant and cute. In her latest movies she seems to have lost her charm, and appears awkward and frumpy.
It is a romantic comedy about a lovable prostitute Vivienne (Julia Roberts) hired by a spoiled, jaded billionaire, Edward (Richard Gere) for a highly unusual assignment.

Needless to say, this encounter irreparably changes both of their lives forever. Thouroughly a story that is funny, touching and engaging,

The change is Vivienne from a streetwalker to a lady mirrors a Pygmalion/My Fair Lady type of theme.

As the voice at the end reminds us, sometimes your dreams come true and sometimes they don't but you are always free to dream!

Some pretty memorable stuff in this movie!

Modern Day Pigmaelion
Pretty Woman is a great movie. When Julia Roberts acted in this 1990 classic, she was sexy, vibrant and cute. In her latest movies she seems to have lost her charm, and appears awkward and frumpy.
It is a romantic comedy about a lovable prostitute Vivienne (Julia Roberts) hired by a spoiled, jaded billionaire, Edward (Richard Gere) for a highly unusual assignment.

Needless to say, this encounter irreparably changes both of their lives forever. Though a story that is funny, touching and engaging, Vivienne's dreams come true, and she able to start a new life, and having found love

The change is Vivienne from a streetwalker to a lady mirrors a Pygmalion/My Fair Lady type of theme.

Edward too has finally learned to love!

As the voice at the end reminds us, sometimes your dreams come true and sometimes they don't but you are always free to dream!

Should be called Pretty Stupid
This movie was terrible. If there was a perfume called "essence of fart" then thats what this movie would smell like. ... Read more

Reviews (17)

Great entertainment if you like Wall Street, etc.
People who complained that this movie doesn't compare to the book should relax a little. Any movie that's based on books cannot do the book justice in less than 2 hours. If you have 3 hours a la Lord of the Rings or 4 hours like the A&E production of Pride & Prejudice, then maybe and I would have adjusted my rating accordingly.

But this movie is under 2 hours and managed to take a very complicated topic in Leveraged Buy-Outs (LBO's) in one of the biggest LBO's of our time in RJR-Nabisco and manages to make the story very entertaining. It flows quickly and I had no trouble following what's going on.

The acting is superb; Jonathan Pryce played Henry Kravis as a cold, calculated and ruthless corporate raider (whether Kravis is like that in real life I don't know) and James Garner did a nice job as F. Ross Johnson. Overall, if you like wall street type movies like Wall Street with Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen, I would highly recommend this movie. In fact, I like this better than Wall Street.

Infamous LBO and Characters Interestingly Depicted
In the wild and wooly 1980s, leveraged buyouts (LBOs) -- financed predominantly through the issuance of junk bonds -- reigned supreme. James Garner gives a nice performance as CEO of RJR Nabisco, F. Ross Johnson. After reluctantly meeting with KKR's LBO guru Henry Kravis (portrayed masterfully by Jonathan Pryce), Johnson figures it would be best to go his own route to accomplish the buyout; after all, Johnson wants to retain his autonomy and Pryce would unlikely allow this to happen.

An all-out power war ensues, with Johnson working with Shearson Lehman Brothers pitted against Kravis and the powerhouse Drexel Burnham Lambert (mysteriously downplayed).

The performances are great and the storyline moves fast and holds your interest. Not to be missed if the dynamic world of finance is your thing. A very different movie than Wall Street both cinematically and contextually.

Stars James Garner, Jonathan Pryce (really, really good), and Peter Riegert.

I could see this movie over and over
This is a great movie, particularly for someone interested in true stories of corporate behavior. Several of my finance professors when I was pursing my MBA recommended this movie. I was not disappointed.

Due to a high volume of profanity, this movie is not appropriate for young children.

Not as great as the book, but a DELIGHTFUL farce
The book this movie is made from is a masterpiece of business literature. It is impossible to make that wonderful book into anything less than an extended documentary or a several part mini-series. That being admitted and set aside, this is a very good and very funny movie. Amazingly, it tells a lot of the actual story as you can cram into a standard movie format.

It is bitingly funny and like all satire that truly bites, it is funny because it is based on truth. This movie condenses the RJR - KKR competition into something like a farce (as it seemed in the papers at the time). Some may object to making such a huge deal into something of a joke, but c'mon, this whole deal had a large dose of the absurd about it. How else could they have played this story in two hours?

And it is has the additional benefit of being educational for business students. You will see how managers misuse shareholder money by treating it as if it were their own (agency costs). You will see planeloads of money poured into bad projects (NPV). You will see naked greed, inept investment advice, and broken trust (corporate ethics). You know, late 20th century American business! It is funny, dramatic, and a bit touching, for example, as they fly the sick pooch home on his own private corporate jet. (Which some deny every happening, but it has entered the realm of legend - so whether it happened or not it has become something like a kind of truth.)

James Garner is terrific (he almost always is) as is the whole cast. It really is a delightful movie and that is almost miraculous given how deadly boring this topic could have become.

But don't forget to read the book!

If you read the book, it's a disappointment.
If not, it can be funny even to laymen. Obviously, it's practically impossible to transfer everything from the book to movie. So don't expect too much, Wall Street guys. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

From the moment that Prince Eric's ship emerged from the fog in the opening credits it was apparent that Disney had somehow, suddenly recaptured that "magic" that had been dormant for thirty years. In the tale of a headstrong young mermaid who yearns to "spend a day, warm on the sand," Ariel trades her voice to Ursula, the Sea Witch (classically voiced by Pat Carroll), for a pair of legs. Ariel can only succeed if she receives true love's kiss in a few day's time and she needs all the help she can from a singing crab named Sebastian, a loudmouth seagull, and a flounder. The lyrics and music by Howard Ashman and Alan Menken are top form: witty and relevant, and they advance the story (go on, hum a few bars of "Under the Sea"). Mermaid put animation back on the studio's "to do" list and was responsible for ushering Beauty and the Beast to theaters. A modern Disney classic. --Keith Simanton ... Read more

Reviews (136)

One of Disney's best!
This movie amazes me every time that I see it. Some of the Disney cartoon movies that are being churned out today are okay but not as good as movies like The Little Mermaid. It is such a beautiful movie and so tastefully done. I truly believe it's a movie for the young and the young at heart. It's all about falling in love and doing anything for the person that you love even risking your own life. The songs really touch my heart, the characters are so funny, sweet and lovable from Flounder the dumb and sweet fish to Sebastian the funny and witty crab to Scuttle the absentminded and crazy seagull. Ariel the mermaid kind of reminds me of what almost every young teenage girl is like, headstrong and just wanting to go out and follow her own dreams and having to grow up with a loving, but very overprotective and strict father and going against the schemes and plots of the evil Ursula but in the end after overcoming all the obstacles finally being with her true love forever. It is just a beautiful story and ever since I saw it when it first came out in the theatres with my mother it has grown on me and I have loved and cherished this movie ever since. The songs are everything from upbeat to romantic and the actors/actresses picked to do the voices for the characters are so talented and are just made for the parts. I fell in love with this movie and the characters in it in 1989 and am still in love with it today. The Little Mermaid: being transported from real life into the beautiful underworld of the ocean filled with mermaids/mermen, fish, and many more made me want to be "part of that world"

A true five star film.
I enjoy reviewing movies here on Amazon.com. I am pretty critical so I rarely give out five star reviews because I feel there are so few movies that really deserve a perfect score. However, Walt Disney's "The Little Mermaid" is such a film- a genuine, good hearted, crowdpleasing, five star artistic and entertainment masterpiece! I can't think of anything wrong with this movie. The animation was groundbreaking when it was first released, and it is still pretty stellar. The charactizations were perfect. Is there a more winning heroine in Disney's lexicon than Ariel? Who among Disney's villains can rival the dastardly and cunning Ursula the Sea Witch? The story, reworked from the Hans Christian Anderson classic, is heartwarming, romantic, and inspiring. And the music? Personally, I believe the music for "The Little Mermaid" to be quite simply the best ever written for a Disney movie, and the songs "Part of Your World," "Under the Sea," and "Kiss the Girl," rank among the best songs written for ANY movie.

I guess it's obvious that I really love this film. Therefore, it's ironic that when it was first released in 1989 I didn't even think of going to see it in the theaters. Afterall, I was 18 and Disney movies were for kids. It wasn't until my parents purchased the video for my younger siblings that I first saw this masterpiece and fell in love with it. It now ranks among my favorite movies. Over the years I've gotten some ribbing from friends over my attachment to this movie, but I don't care. A great movie is a great movie regardless if it is a animated feature or not, and "The Little Mermaid" is a great movie!

Disappointing DVD Transfer
save your $ on ebay auctions and wait for the platinum series release. this version's sound is excellent (dolby 5.1), but the bland/dull colors is a big disappointment. poor visibility, below average clarity and very dark throughout the entire movie. i've seen better second generation VHS recordings. this being a classic Disney release, it deserves a new high definition transfer like Beauty and the Beast, and The Lion King (outstanding DVD's).

One of my all time favourites
This is one of the only Disney movies almost everybody loves. The reason? The storyline! It's a perfect movie. Ariel is a mermaid who falls in love with a human and wants to be one, Ursula is the evil octopus that transforms her while King Triton worries madly about his daughter's where-abouts. Prince Eric is Ariel's love interest, this is a very romantic movie and it will have you almost crying because it's so sweet.
Ariel's friends include flounder, a crab (Sebastian) and a seagul who make up interesting yet funny stories on the where-abouts of Ariel. In all, this is a beautiful tale and it's a definite MUST OWN.

Nostalgia
There was once a time in Disney History when the term "That movie underwater" didn't bring to mind a forgetfull blue tang, but rather a Jamacian Crustacian bellowing "Unda' Da' Sea!".

Now many people will argue that this is infact a Disney Classic, while others will argue it was just a mediocre effort. I however, am not sure where I stand on this film.

The Little Mermaid, the film that ended Disneys 80's menu, and as also one of the last to be based on a classic tale, is about a little mermaid, (Obviously) who, against her father King Tritents warnings, frequently goes above water, collecting human things (forks, mirrors, pipes etc.) She soon "Meets" a Prince, and falls in love, also against her fathers wishes. Add in a villian, and some funny side characters and you've got "The Little Mermaid".

This film dosen't do it for me, sadly. Because I've rarely watched it as a child, it has no nostalgia value, the back-bone for why I watch and love Disney Films. The animation is so-so, and the story isn't very strong. I sugest you rent this movie if you haven't already seen it, and then decide for yourself if you really want. ... Read more

Description

Nominated for eight Oscars in 1986, including Best Picture, and winner of three (Costumes, Art Direction and Adapted Screenplay), A Room with a View is the film that defined Merchant-Ivory as the masters of the romantic period piece.A brilliant adaptation of E.M. Forster?s novel, A Room with a View tells the story of the coming of age of Lucy Honeychurch (Helena Bonham-Carter).Longing to burst free from the repression of British upper class manners and mores, she must wrestle with her inner romantic longings to choose between the passionate George (Julian Sands) and the priggish but socially suitable Cecil (Daniel Day-Lewis).Boasting a brilliant supporting cast, A Room with a View is one of the most romantic of romantic comedies ever filmed. ... Read more

Reviews (114)

Merchant/Ivory bursts onto the scene
One of the most charming films of the last century was this chamber love story. Extremely literate and intelligent, this Victorian story is easily accessible as an extremely well versed John Hughes could easily write the simple boy-meets-girl storyline. Fortunately for us, he was unavailable and the resulting film, made outside the Hollywood Studio system, avoids many current clichés and uses smart character to propel the story. Well, this is a Merchant Ivory film so propel might be too big a word. There films are usually soft character driven stories with a lack of speeding cars, ricocheting bullets or clever profanity. If you can tolerate small, romantic character pieces, this is one of the best. Great performances by Denholm Elliot, Maggie Smith and Judy Dench sturdily support the love triangle of Daniel Day Lewis, Julian Sands and the phenomenal Helena Bonham Carter. With beautiful classical music and nice cinematography, this view is a pleasant one. The DVD has a shaky video transfer and sufficient audio. It offers no extra material.

ELEGANT, THOUGHTFUL, FUNNY...A MASTERPIECE YOU NEED TO OWN!
This exquisite classic of Merchant-Ivory is sensually explores the struggle between the tight exterior of the British upper crust and the seething passion that lurks just beneath in the increasingly powerful middle class. You've seen a movie or two for sure that veer around such themes, but very few films have captured this combination of class struggle and personal liberation any more evocatively!

Our protagonist is a young, passionate and repressed Miss Lucy Honeychurch (Helena Bonham Carter in possibly her best role ever) who exemplifies this unspoken inner-outer conflict. As she struggles between what is expected of her, to marry the effete and obnoxious Cecil Vyse (Daniel Day Lewis in a richly textured performance), and what she really wants, to be with the yearning, romantic George Emerson (a soft and unfocused Julian Sands) Miss Honeychurch must juggle class concerns and personal desires.

As with any Merchant Ivory product, the all-round cast is vivid and intriguing. Maggie Smith never leaves a dull moment in any of her movies, a credo she maintains here as well as Lucy's nervous and confused escort -- for which she received a well deserved Oscar. As George's bewildered and sweet father, the marvellous Denholm Elliot steals every scene in which he appears. Lastly, Simon Callow as the ebullient, robust Reverend Beebe captures all that is good and true about humanity.

A word for the DVD. The cinematography in this movie sparkles, and the DVD does complete justice to Ivory's camera skills -- the shots are so pure you will want to taste the dew resting atop the grass in the sumptuous English gardens.

What a complete movie, full of life, love and hope! Highly recommended for your collections, you'll watch this more than once.

They do not come better than this
James Ivory's "Room With a View" is a tour de force. Adapted by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala from the novel by E.M. Forster, "A Room with a View" is a shining example of Merchant-Ivory's ability to achieve maximum quality and opulence at minimum cost. It shows the life of Lucy Honeychurch starting from Italy, going through England and ending in Italy. This is a thoughtful movie that requires one to understand the standards of England then to realize that it is fighting against the set rigid style of life. This style of life is eternal and can be seen in movies like "Guess who is coming to dinner". Denholm Elliot raises his son to not care about anything but truth and beauty. The acting and screenplay is wonderful. Daniel Day Lewis does a superb job as Cecil. Judy Davis is superb as the novelist, Eleanor Lavish as is Maggie Smith.

Even the humor in the movie is unusual. When the English chaplain in Florence, Mr Eager shows a chapel and mentions, "Remember that this was built by faith in the full fervor of medievalism", it prompts, Mr Emerson to say, "Faith indeed. It simply means that the workers were not paid well." The movie has understated humor that is refreshing compared to the usual slapstick. Scenes were the brother and sister are together are especially funny.

A lot of people found the movie too slow. Well, this is not a cop movie, it requires one to think about what goes underneath each person. The movie is based on one of the special books that breaks down class distinctions, though it is subtle and dignified. I personally felt that this was the best movie of the year and easily bet "Platoon" in its class. A winner of three Academy Awards, "A Room with a View" is not what one could call fast-moving, but fans of the Merchant-Ivory team will enjoy luxuriating in the film's leisurely pace and stimulating cast of characters.

One of my favorite films!
I saw this film when it first came out, in the theater, and it has remained one of my favorite films. It was the first film I bought when I got a VCR. This is one of those elegant Merchant-Ivory productions (which also include Maurice and A Passage to India, other E.M. Forster adaptations to film) that sets the late Victorian/early twentieth century world in upper- to upper-middle class England in such gracious light.

The stars of this film include Helena Bonham Carter as Lucy, the heroine, and Julian Sands as George Emerson, her free-spirited suitor, who shocks everyone by doing such risque things as running around without a jacket, or kissing someone (willing) in a field of poppies. The official suitor of Lucy is the stuffed-shirt Cecil Vyse, whose personality seems like it is jammed in a vise. There are great performances by Judi Dench (as a conventional free-spirit, one who likes to be freespirited but not at the expense of reputation), Rupert Graves, Simon Callow, Denhom Elliot, and an outstanding performance (as always, she just has to walk on the set and the film gets an extra star) by Maggie Smith, as the gossipy and fretting aunt and chaperone to Lucy, who eventually comes round to recognizing and rejoicing in the true love of Lucy and George.

The sets are beautiful, the costumes all very much a part of the period, as are the small touches that make up the style of English society that Forster was trying to expose and celebrate in different ways both at the same time. The music is enchanting, with the glorious opera piece "O Mio Bambino Caro" sung by Kiri te Kanawa.

Are you serious?
I heard such wonderful things about this movie and was really looking forward to seeing it. I had a couple friends over to watch it and out of the four of us I was the only one left awake to see the end. I was so disappointed. The movie was too long and left me feeling cheated at the end. So gald I didnt buy it. Rent it first before buying... ... Read more

Reviews (620)

The Ultimate
2001 is the ultimate cinematic experience. This movie has it all for fans of film. When i say this, I don't mean your casual film goer who thinks "2 fast 2 furious" is an instant classic, I mean those who appreciate film for what it is. For those pop culture movie goers, this film will bore them within five minutes. But, those who appreciate the art of film, will drool over the sheer awe that this movie has.
The story is a little more than simple. It starts in prehistoric africa where Moonwatcher the man-ape and his clan. A mysterious monolith appears and teaches them the use of crude, but usful tools in order to eat. It suddenly jumps (via on of the best jumps cuts ever) inot space in the year 2001 where a monolith has been discovered buried in the moons surface. When it is dug up it sends an ear peircing ringing through all of space, a sort of call letting the worlds know it is time. We then jump to the Jupiter mission in which the main story starts. This is where Hal 9000 makes his first appierence with Dave and Frank. We all should know what happens next.
This movie, released in 1968 but filmed before, was a technological phenomenon. Not even star wars can hold up to the power of 2001. The scene in which Dave enters the monolith could be one of the best in cinema. It is a filmed acid trip pretty much. Except it gave us a look at what other constalations might look like (remember we weren't even on the moon yet).
This is Kubricks best film, and by far and away one of the top five films ever made.

Still a masterpiece
Regardless of how "bored" some (probably adolescent) viewers may become (forced to maintain their attention span over vast minutes of time on something other than sex, car chases and dripping blood), this is obviously a great movie. At least for the rest of us. Rated in the top 250 (#66) at IMDb, and the subject of innumerable articles and reviews, Stanley Kubrick's much studied and admired visual, artistic and thematic masterpiece, based on the novel by Arthur C. Clarke, is still--remarkably, after all these years--a mesmerizing motion picture experience even on a television screen.

This is no mean accomplishment when you realize that Kubrick made his film before humans actually walked on the moon in 1969, and furthermore, when you consider how much more we now know about space travel and how much more advanced special effects have become. What I think contemporary movie makers might learn from Kubrick's work is (1) special effects without rhyme or reason may titillate first time viewers and the very young, but quickly grow meaningless; and (2) even in a movie that relies heavily upon special effects and ideas--which 2001: A Space Odyssey certainly does--it helps a whole lot to have a story to tell.

The story begins in the prehistory and ends in the future. It begins with a pre-human consciousness and ends in mystery. (Note that the last sequence in the movie is labeled in part as being "beyond the infinite"--whatever that metaphysical notion may mean.) Along the way we have a creditable hero (Astronaut Dave Bowman played by Keir Dullea, whom I also recall from David and Lisa, 1962) and a very cold and merciless villain (HAL 9000, the computer as megalomaniac--apparently his makers never heard of Issac Asimov's rules for robots!).

Today we know more about pre-humans and more about computers, artificial intelligence and space exploration, and with such knowledge today's movie makers would avoid some of Kubrick's mistakes. For example, the space craft was far too roomy (ask the astronauts!). Real space ships must be as small as possible to save fuel and they are incredibly cramped. Also, the year 2001 has come and passed, and we are nowhere near the practical capability of providing artificial gravity in space. And of course computers (or robots) don't have emotions unless such emotions are built or programmed into them.

Yet the visual sense of space and the terrible isolation of being alone in the vast vacuum has never been conveyed so well. Using music synchronized with visual effects laden with meaning for our earth-bound minds and bodies, Kubrick managed to depict the Pythagorean "music of the spheres" in a most splendiferous and awe-inspiring way.

However, the opening sequence with the hairy apes is probably what Kubrick would most like to redo if he had the opportunity. In the first place, the terrain, which is semi-arid, is all wrong. No hairy, long-armed, bent-legged creature would occupy such a landscape. The "foraging" they were supposed to be doing was ludicrous since there was obviously next to nothing to forage. The tapirs (forest-dwelling animals native to South America and Southeast Asia, by the way, and not to the savannas of Africa, which should have been the terrain depicted) were almost comedically fat for the ecosystem. And the apes themselves, looking and acting a lot like chimpanzees (no doubt the model that Kubrick used), are in conflict with the fossil record as we know it. Our primordial ancestors, the australopithecines, were upright walking apes and probably not exceedingly hairy since they needed to sweat as they walked and ran over the savannas and grasslands of East Africa.

As for using bones as weapons, yes, there can be little doubt that that is what our ancestors learned to do, followed by using hard wood and stones and then shaped stones. And the idea that a bone tool is a proto-type for all the tools to come is also correct, most saliently in the form of the space ship and HAL.

An interpretation of the ending would necessarily include the idea of time as being something other than we think it is. We see Dave as an astronaut in his thirties, and then as a middle-aged man dining in something like a very expensive Parisian apartment, and then on his death bed, and finally as a soon-to-be-born fetus returning to earth. I think it was wise of Kubrick not to attempt to explain what he clearly points to as unexplainable, as "beyond the infinite."

Perhaps the most haunting image of all, at least for me, is the red and yellow "eye" of the HAL 9000 computer as it coldly viewed the two astronauts talking. Therein was expressed, long before it became fashionable, the coming inexorable conflict between us and our machines, between our culture and our biological nature, between natural and artificial intelligence. Never in the history of cinema has that tension been so concisely conveyed as in that scene and in this movie.

See this for Stanley Kubrick, one of the greatest film makers of all time.

the movie that set the standard in sci fi
in 68,this movie was the best sci fi film ever.in it there is this force referred to as the monolith.it shows up at different points in time.finaly,a space crew goes to check it out.it is too intellectual for children.stanley kubrik directs so you know-since hes the greatest directer ever and all-that this movie is a classic!it is better than the sequel.thinkers will like it.in 68 there wasnt a computer paranoia like today.in this film,kubrik explores what would happen if the computer decided to just take the hell over.an idea not toyed with for years to come.he was a visionary.the music in it is very good too.for you wrestling fans,ric flairs theme song begins it.an abselute must for sci fi fans.

One of the greatest sci-fi movies ever made.
This was a brilliant movie. It never ceased to make interesting theories concerning life other than ours, whether or not we should be in space, and how exploration of the ether will affect our lives.

The film opens up with pre-historic man. They are shaggy, ape-like creatures who fight in loud blasts of sound, calls, etc. But at one point, they discover an immense slab of rock that is so finely crafted, they conclude it was made by "something." And with that, they discover they can use left-over bones as weapons, furthering their standing on the planet.

That is the not only the opening for the film itself, but also for its mood and thesis. It makes the case that knowledge of greater beings will propel us into greatness ourselves, using advanced artifacts as motivation and example. But the movie will eventually take a darker turn you'll have to explore for yourselves. If I went into any of the symbolism, I would be writing an essay, not a review, and could potentially ruin your experience.

As a film, it is not traditional by any means. I've heard of people walking out at the premier muttering furiously about how there was no story, or that they had no idea what Kubrick was trying to say and that his obsession with imagery and perfection led to the demise of what could have been a masterpiece. But to those who stayed and to those who see it now, it is apparent Kubrick meant to be challenging and intelligent: this is not for the light-hearted or the impatient. For instance, many of the sequences are realistically slow, such as an early docking sequence. But the images are so engrossing, I doubt you'll turn away.

And to top off Kubrick's obvious genius, there is an unforgettable soundtrack of famous classical music that complements the imagery so well, Kubrick left it in over an underscore that was being prepared. It often conveys the mood very well, expressing wonderment, curiosity and fright with incredible power. If you can't take the movie, if you can't take its themes and its slow-moving plot, if you can't take the sparse dialog (this is essentially a silent movie), at least sit back, close your eyes and watch the film through the tones and moods the music evokes: it matches Kubrick's imagination with every moment from the opening shot of an orb to the end shot of a star-child floating among the nebular and the giant.

Quick-Buck artists ruin a classic.
The video detail and special effects are great. The aspect ratio is good, but the sound track has been trashed. No bass, garbled treble and a dolby 5.1 remastering that sounds as if it was recorded off a small radio in another room. The producers of this remake should be ashamed. The original sound track would blow you away. I was very dissapointed to say the least. What a waste! I wish I could talk to their sound people. ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Good, but bogged down slightly
This was an enjoyable movie, but unfortunately it had many, many plot holes that made liking it difficult.

A spy-movie-enthralled young woman named Linda Voss ("half Jewish, half Irish") gets a job with a man named Ed Leland whom she suspects is a spy. Before long, they are lovers, but their budding relationship is dashed by World War II. Before you can say "Berlin strudel" she's whisked off to Germany as an undercover operative, to discover secret plans in the house of a handsome and sympathetic Nazi (the always-good Liam Neeson)

One of the problems is Melanie Griffith. She might be good in other roles, but as Voss she fails. Voss comes across as amazingly lucky and none too intelligent, constantly licking her lips in a very distracting way. Michael Douglas is completely convincing as Ed Leland, although he looks slightly embarrassed sometimes. Liam Neeson and Joely Richardson are excellent in their smaller roles.

Second problem is the attitude of the heroes. When Voss does not show up in time for the rendezvous, Leland disregards orders in favor of carrying her to the Swiss Border. Though it may seem heartless, an actual spy would have followed his orders and left Voss to die. In fact, we see the evidently smarter Germans such as Neeson's Dietrich and Richardson's Margrete following their orders despite their personal feelings about Voss.

Watch the movie if you are interested, but do not expect great accuracy.

A good comedy -- a bad war drama
I think I might have enjoyed "Shining Through" more if I'd been drunk. This movie is a fantastic ensemble comedy, but I don't think they were trying to make one! The only redeeming points of the movie were Liam Neeson and Joely Richardson's performances as a pair of Nazis.

Melanie Griffith plays Linda Voss, a young woman of mixed Irish and Jewish ancestry in World War II. Because of her linguistic skills, she's hired as a translator for Ed Leland (Michael Douglas), who works for the government as a spy (he keeps denying it, but she's seen movies so she knows better!). They become lovers, until his work comes between them. But no sooner have they been reunited than a spy is needed to sneak into Germany to find some bomb-related plans.

She's accompanied into Germany by Konrad "Sunflower" Friedrichs (Sir John Gielgud, who looks like he's always thinking "What am I doing in this movie?") and his niece Margrete Von Eberstein (Joely Richardson). Her position as a chef blows up on the first night, and she quickly finds herself hired as a nanny by elite Nazi official Franz-Otto Dietrich (Liam Neeson, Richardson's now-brother-in-law). And now that she's inside his house, she has only a limited amount of time to find the plans.

I don't think the people who made this movie wanted me to like the Nazis more than the Americans, but unfortunately the Nazis are a lot more likeable. Richardson comes across as competant and multifaceted, divided in her loyalties; Neeson comes across as a loving father, a nice sensitive guy (we don't ever hear of him actually doing anything bad!) with big puppy-dog eyes. Frankly it's hard not to like him, especially compared to the insensitive clod Leland. Douglas looks unhappy and embarrassed all throughout the movie, he's as stiff and cold as a pine board, and Griffith's performance is the stuff of nightmares.

It doesn't help that the best description of Linda is "ditzy blonde." She gets all her info about spies from movies, whines when Douglas goes on missions, and thinks she's qualified to be a spy because she can make strudel. (In one scene she runs through a crowded street chanting a secret password out loud!) She also mouths off to everyone in a way that would not be tolerated in a mere secretary (prepare to cringe when she says "My other half's Irish"), and bungles everything spy-related.

I would say this is a movie best shown to young children but there's a fair amount of profanity, violence, and a detailed sex scene. The direction is pretty terrible -- you'd think WWII included only a handful of people. The Nazis have none of the casual amorality that the real people did. There are one or two creepy, freaky moments that work, like the German woman who exults that the house they took from a Jewish family had everything they wanted (even bedsheets with correct monograms), but they're few and far between. If they'd had Dietrich doing something, anything wrong, then it might have worked. There are a few moments of intentional comedy ("That pompous little (butt) ate a raw bird to prove it was edible!") but most of the comedy is totally accidental. ("What's a war for if not to hold on to what we love?" Gaaaaaggg!)

I only can recommend this to fans of Joely and Liam, because they are the only ones who actually have good roles to play. "Schindler's List" this ain't!

Shining Through
If it were possible to give this movie a six star rating, I would. Besides being a GREAT movie, the soundtrack helps push this movie to more enjoyment. Moonlight Serenade, I'll Be seeing You, Goodnight Sweetheart and the main musical score lingers pleasantly in your mind long after the movie ends. I recommend it to all who has ever been in love.

Rips the emotional guts from the book
I have a hard time liking this movie because it made such a travesty of Susan Isaacs' book. The book, as originally written, was a classic ugly duckling-to-swan story set in New York, Washington, and Germany during World War II. Linda Voss, the character played by Melanie Griffith, was a working class girl in love with and eventually married to her gorgeous cad of a boss. She had the brains; he had the social cachet. They move to Washington, she gets a job as secretary to a top intelligence agent (played by Michael Douglas), the marriage founders, and in despair she signs up as an undercover agent. The rest of the movie follows the book's plot fairly closely, although the Douglas character does NOT figure in as a romantic interest until the very end. In the book, he's Linda's unexpected reward--pure gold where her husband was only gold-plated. The movie, by simplifying the story, guts its emotional core and turns a contemporary fairy tale into your basic trite Hollywood production--glitzy but without a heart.

That said, there are some strong performances in the movie. Douglas's stiffness makes much more sense in the context of the book, but doesn't work in the movie as filmed. Griffith is Griffith--you either love her or hate her. Liam Neeson is good, as is Joely Richardson (although the "Mein Gott, you have guts" line is a bit over the top). There are some suspenseful moments in the scenes in Nazi Germany. At times the movie's enjoyable, but overall, it disappoints.

Excellent film, with excellent acting!
I have loved this film since I saw it when it first came out on VHS! In fact, I watched it so many times that I ruined the tape. The story is engrossing, and the acting is top-notch! The obvious chemistry between Melanie Griffith and Michael Douglas made the film so much more realistic. I can't say enough good things about it. I am eagerly anticipating the film's release on DVD so I can add it to my growing collection of excellent films. ... Read more

Reviews (27)

Excellent!
Silver Streak is one of my favorite 70's movies and is an excellent mix of comedy with mystery and suspense, everyone is great in this movie, Gene Wilder, Richard Pryor, Jill Clayburg, Patrick McGoohan, etc, the movie also has one of the best endings I have ever seen in a movie and this is a movie I defintely could watch again!

A Holiday
SILVER STREAK needs to come out in a restored letterboxed DVD (adding the reminiscences of the stars on an alternative track would be great - but seems unlikely given Gene Wilder's and Richard Pryor's health concerns). Sitting down to watch this movie is like embarking on a weekend holiday with a group of terrific friends. You feel the excitement as you step on the train with Gene Wilder's character, and you're off! For anyone nostalgic for the 70's, this has the clothes, the cheesy decor, the innocent sense that saying "dirty words" was naughty and funny, and of course it has Pryor and Wilder -- two of the decade's greatest icons. Wilder in his prime here projects a sweetness and grace that is one-of-a-kind, and so endearing. Pryor is at the height of his hilarious talent and skill. Their pairing produced magic. Fine direction from Arthur Hiller following a warm-hearted script by Colin Higgins.

DVD Edition Needed
Really like to see this movie in DVD!!

Vote for DVD version
One of my all-time favorites. Still waiting for the DVD. If you would like to see this movie on DVD, do a search for the DVD on Amazon (it's now actually listed) and enter your e-mail address to be notifed of it's release. This information is passed onto the studio.

Please release this on DVD
This is Gene Wilder's best movie and it is one of the best adventure/comedies that came out of the 70's. I feel this is Gene and Richard Pryor's best film together and I just can't believe they haven't released it on dvd.

I watch it whenever it is on cable and was very disappointed to see that it is only available in VHS format.

It would be wonderful if they would release it on DVD with special features and to have Gene, Richard and Jill's commentaries would be an added treat.

So many movies are being released every week on dvd that aren't even close to being as good as this one - I don't understand why it takes so long to get some of these classics on dvd.

If you haven't seen it, and you love Gene and Richard, you won't be disappointed - the comedy is great and the scenery is wonderful also. I have taken Amtrack through the Rockies, and this brings back some fond memories, even though it was filmed in Canada, the scenery is just as beautiful.

I also love the woman who always calls him "Steve."

I just rented Stir Crazy, The Woman in Red, and bought Hanky Panky and although I think they're good, this is still Gene's best movie - I even like it better than Willie Wonka!!!! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

More timely now, perhaps, than when it was first released in 1957, Elia Kazan's overheated political melodrama explores the dangerous manipulative power of pop culture. It exposes the underside of Capra-corn populism, as exemplified in the optimistic fable of grassroots punditry Meet John Doe. In Kazan's account, scripted by Budd Schulberg, the common-man pontificator (Andy Griffith) is no Gary Cooper-style aw-shucks paragon. Promoted to national fame as a folksy TV idol by radio producer Patricia Neal, Griffith's Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes turns out to be a megalomaniacal rat bastard. The film turns apocalyptic as Rhodes exploits his power to sway the masses, helping to elect a reactionary presidential candidate. The parodies of television commercials and opinion polling were cutting edge in their day (Face in the Crowd was the Network of the Eisenhower era), and there are some startling, near-documentary sequences shot on location in Arkansas. An extraordinary supporting cast (led by Walter Matthau and Lee Remick) helps keep the energy level high, even when the satire turns shrill and unpersuasive in the final reel. There's an interesting parallel in Tim Robbins's snide pseudodocumentary Bob Roberts: both these pictures have almost as much contempt for the lemmings in the audience as for the manipulative monsters who herd them over the cliff. --David Chute ... Read more

Reviews (49)

Cognitive Dissonance
My image of Andy Griffith as and actor and as a person has always been positive. I don't know him, he may be the biggest jerk in the world for all I know, but he has managed his public image well and has kept his name unsullied by sordid rumors, so I have always liked him.
If your image of Griffith is the same, and you have never seen this movie, brace yourself for the cognitive dissonance you will feel when you watch this! Griffith turns in a powerful performance as a hobo troubador who is "discovered" by a small-town radio host while in jail and then uses the opportunities that unfold to rocket to fame as a canny, folksy and cynical television entertainer and pundit.
My take after watching the movie is that Griffith's character, Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes, was always self-centered but was quite the ladies man as well. He found with Patricia Neal's help that he could use his folksy manner to get what he wanted. He also found that simple folks fell for and identified with his cornpone stories. But it was his handlers who led him to believe his own press and that his insight was indispensable in every situation.
Kazan and Schulburg use the movie as a vehicle to show not only how television could be misused in politics, but also in advertising. With Rhodes as its spokesman, sales ofa worthless energy pill soared and so Rhodes became a sought-after spinmeister in other areas as well. Television does for Rhodes what radio did for the real-life folksy musician/politician Pappy O'Daniel.
On the romantic side, Rhodes was a real skirt-chaser, full of promises but always with his eye out for his next conquest. His come-uppance came when he jilted the woman who had helped bring him to his great heights for the charms of a groupie-like baton-twirling teenager (Lee Remick) he met when a judge at a twirling contest. The cliche is that "hell hath no fury...", and the jilted Patricia Neal lost no time in conspiring to bring him down. She got her chance when she burst in to the studio and aired for the nation to hear all of Griffith's contemptuous comments about his fan base to the bunch of "hayseeds" he used as a focus group on his show. That put a quick end to his popularity and the ranting,raving ending is really something to witness! It is left to the viewer's imagination as to whether Griffith follows through on his threat to jump from his office tower if Neal leaves him.
I never heard of this movie until recently and bought it on the strength of a recommendation. I'm glad I did. You won't be sorry either when you add A Face In The Crowd to your DVD collection.

Media Fascist
At first the central premise of "A Face in the Crowd" was a little hard for me to swallow.I'd like to think that the general public is a little more discerning and would not be so easily taken in by a megalomaniac like Lonesome Rhodes.But then, the argument goes that Abe Lincoln would never be elected president today.When you think about it our more successful presidencies, depending on your political persuasion, would be Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton who were all masters of the medium.I'd like to think of this film as more of a cautionary tale of the dangers of the new medium of television.Director Elia Kazan from a script by Budd Schulberg have crafted their parable quite well.I would like to think that Rhodes is not quite the monster that he inevitably became, that he started his career humbly and with good intentions only to be corrupted by forces that manipulated him to the darker side.Andy Griffith, in probably one of the most criminally overlooked performances in American film history, is simply mesmerizing as Rhodes.He manages to convey the folksiness tainted with contempt and self-loathing that ultimately is Lonesome Rhodes.Patricia Neal is superb as Marcia Jeffries, the woman who discovers Rhodes and has mixed emotions about his fame.Walter Matthau is also good as Mel Miller, a writer on Rhodes' show who feels he's sold his soul in the process.I am trying to think of another film that tackled the beast that is television and the only comparable one that comes to mind is "Network".By all means check out the documentary on the film that includes reminisces from Griffith, Neal, and Schulberg.One priceless moment is Griffith recalling the filming of the baton-twirlers scene.

The First Andy Griffith Show
If you are a big fan of the great TV series, "The Andy Griffith Show"(and who isn't), you might want to think twice about watching "A Face in the Crowd".This is NOT the same character.There is a brilliant mind behind the easy-going "ah shucks" delivery in each of the characters.However, the sheriff always does the right thing, while Lonesome the drifter seems to always do the wrong thing.Yet if you're a fan of the actor, Andy Griffith, you can't miss this movie; it's his best acting role bar none.

What makes "A Face in the Crowd" so impressive is its' foresight in understanding media, politics, and the ability of one to manipulate the other.After all, this movie was made in the mid-50's when the power of TV was little understood or appreciated.It may well have gotten reviews that ridiculed its' premise when it was released.Yet, seen today, it is an amazing study of how one man, with a willing media accomplice, can control public opinion.Griffith's evolution from a Saturday night drunk to one of THE most influencial persons in the county is brilliantly scripted and directed.In addition to Andy Griffith, there is a very worthy cast.

Most of us would love it if the world was like Mayberry.Unfortunately, "A Face in the Crowd" comes a lot closer to reality.

One of the Greatest of ALL films....
Having read others' comments here (and on IMDB) and having just watched its new DVD, I'll add my two cents. This has been one of my faves since first seeing it (too) long ago. Well, it is more relevant than ever and should be seen be everyone (literally)!! I notice some (likely younger) folks mentioned comparisons to some politicians, but indeed Lonesome Rhodes was based on the phenomenally successful (and notoriously haughty) radio & early TV host Arthur Godfrey. Yes, Godfrey discovered Julius La Rosa, but La Rosa probably got fired for asking for a raise (after becoming very popular, both on the show and solo records). Apparently Arthur, like Lawrence Welk, was a cheap prick who only paid scale -- no matter what the tenure or how successful were his performers.

"A Face In the Crowd" was most definitely social commentary, NOT satire; although, as one from that era, I can understand why it seemed so to many at the time. It's apparent why it inspired so many future talents! That this film was not nominated on its own merits due to political differences/grudges is a GD crime!!!Can't say why Andy Griffith wasn't, but he sure deserved it... Awesome!! So awesome, it actually effected his personal life.

Anyway, re: politicians, "A Face In the Crowd" was a prescient warning of the dangers of that new media (TV), thus akin to those who subsequently capitalized on its propaganda potential and the *science* of people's weakness of mistaking "image" for truth!

But Kazan was not simply a great director; he was perhaps the most socially conscious of all Hollywood directors!! And he was one of the greatest actors' directors; hence, one reason why you never saw an Andy Griffith act like this in film again! (The DVD also has an excellent up-to-date documentary about the making of AFITC and its genesis, with many pertinent historical tidbits re: Kazan.)

In just 21 films, Kazan directed at least 10 GREAT films:
"America, America" (1963), "Wild River" (1960), "Baby Doll" (1956), "East of Eden" (1955), "On the Waterfront" (1954), "Viva Zapata!" (1952), "A Streetcar Named Desire" (1951), "Panic in the Streets" (1950), "Gentleman's Agreement" (1947), and "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" (1945).

In his films, 21 different actors had Oscar-nominated performances: James Dunn, Celeste Holm, Gregory Peck, Dorothy McGuire, Anne Revere, Jeanne Crain, Ethel Barrymore, Ethel Waters, Karl Malden, Vivien Leigh, Kim Hunter, Marlon Brando, Anthony Quinn, Eva Marie Saint, Lee J. Cobb, Rod Steiger, Jo Van Fleet, James Dean, Carroll Baker, Mildred Dunnock, and Natalie Wood -- of which Dunn, Holm, Malden, Leigh, Hunter, Quinn, Brando, Saint and Van Fleet ALL won Oscars for their performances in one of Kazan's movies.

Not too shabby, eh!?

A great film with a great cast...
Beginning there, it is hard to go wrong.Andy Griffith plays a drifter/con man who can play the guitar and tell stories.He is discovered by Patricia Neal's character and he begins a "Will Rogers" type of career.Part humorist, part philosopher, and all-round phony, he parlays his talent into a national following which builds to a stunning climax.

What I liked about this film was its depth and the talent of the actors. Director Elia Kazan was fantastic in what I believe to be his finest picture.The emotions he drew out of the actors was fantastic! Everyone was perfect in their respective roles.This is also a movie you won't grow tired of watching.When you see it a few times, you notice things you didn't catch the first go-round.This one's a keeper! ... Read more

Reviews (108)

BEN KINGSLEY'S FINEST HOUR ON DVD
Richard Attenborough's "Gandhi" is a masterfully told, massively mounted epic motion picture, depicting the life and times of Gandhi, a benevolant crusader for peace, whose shocking assassination rocked the world. Ben Kingsley rightfully took home the Oscar for his subtle but stunning transformation into the title role. WARNING: This is a slow paced movie but well worth the three hour plus investment of your time.
Columbia Tristar has given us a very beautiful print of the film. Colors are rich, bold and vibrant. Contrast levels are good. Although black levels are not always at their darkest, this is relatively forgivable, since most of the film takes place during the day. Shimmering, aliasing and edge enhancement are all present but in extremely minute amounts, leaving one with nothing to do but admire the visual presentation in all of its breathtaking cinematography. The soundtrack is 2.0 surround but well represented. Some of the audio has a tendancy to appear thin or strident but, again, considering its dated fidelity and the source material, it is remarkably well represented. No extras - disappointing for a big time Oscar winner like this. Perhaps we'll get a special edition eventually.

Excellent movie about a 'mover' in this world
Every once in a while this world produces an exceptional human being whose presence makes it a much better place to live in. Such a person was Mahatma Gandhi; the Indian 'radical' whose teachings about non-violent resistance lead to the eventual independence of India from British colonial rule. His teachings have inspired other such movements in the world and his life has been looked up to as a standard which others have tried to emulate.

Every once in a while those responsible for the academy awards have chosen deserving films. This is one of them. Ben Kingsley gives a grand performance as Gandhi, from his youth to his death. The impersonation is spot on; everything from the accent to the gait is so convincing that one could swear Kingsley was Gandhi.

If you are looking for a biography of this man on film, this movie is an excellent source. Condensing Gandhi's life into a few hours is such a great feat, especially when there is so much of this man that could be explored. The movie was filmed in India, with 300,000 extras, so if you like epic films you will definitely enjoy this one. The scenery is authentic and the characters have a reality about them so often lacking in 'hollywood' films. No 'eye-candy' version of a historical event, this is a real movie about a real person.

The DVD extras were ok for a film this old. There is some original newsreel footage which is quite short but still worth watching to see the real Gandhi as he was. Kingsley also gives a talk about how it was being Gandhi, there is also some of the sayings of Gandhi; great candidates for those memorable sayings we all try to memorize to motivate ourselves. All in all a great DVD, the movie is a timeless classic about a great man of the modern world.

Movie does not do justice to the person
Richard Attenborough's movie "Gandhi" was a movie of epic proportion. Mohandas Gandhi was probably the most influential person of modern day India. If one reads any of his biographies or his autobiography, one would find that he was a very complex person. The movie was well directed and showed some of the important parts of the freedom struggle starting from his initiation in South Africa. However, for the sake of marketing, the movie concentrates largely on the european angle and sidetrakes the Indian angle completely.

Gandhi was a person who started a new line of thinking that inspired people like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and Dalai Lama. He was a complex person who right from childhood was afraid of ghosts and speaking in public. He was a disaster as a lawyer initially. The transformation happened when he saw the injustice happen to him in Pietermaritzburg in South Africa. I wish that the movie had shown the transformation in the person. This was an important catalysis. Most of the people shown in the movie were not important in Gandhi's life, though they were decent actors, such as Candice Bergan and so on. The Indians who associated with him such as Patel, Nehru, Azad and so on are given minor importance.

Some of his important speeches were left out, which are thought provoking. Recently Time magazine had Salman Rushdie write a piece about Gandhi. Granted there is freedom of speech, but I had never seen a more badly written piece about Gandhi than that. Rushdie should stick to fiction - well he is losing his touch in that too. Gandhi had his faults like any human, some of his ideas may not apply in the present day world. But his positives far outweigh his negatives. The sad part is that he is largely forgotten in India itself. Most people in India do not take the trouble to read and know about the real person, what he stood for, his ideals. In fact, I am ashamed to say that South Africa remembers him more than India, even though his is the father of India. Even in the last elections in South Africa, he was used as an icon. However, in India, he is slowly ebbing away.

A soul-conquering fine work of art
Never before have I seen such a powerful work of art. It made me forget the finesse of the technological masterpiece, an advanced Macintosh computer running MacOsX, which delivered the breath-taking scenes in vibrant colors with soul-stirring sound effects. Instead all that stood in my mind was the movie and movie alone. This was a radical change in thought for a person like me who is a avid technology enthusiast. Never before have I been so involved in the scenes of a movie. Every scene and every peice of sound hits the nail right on its head with a powerful strike of the hammer. I must appreciate the dedication of the team and their quest for perfection. Years of their work has produced this masterpiece which mankind can cherish for the eons to come. This certainly is one of the best creations of collective human intellect of superlative degree. The story of the life of a great soul in a soul-conquering work of art.

gandhi-whats the point?
i mean he wasnt that great was he? there are plenty of annorexic people out there. plus its not healthy. throughout that whole movie i was yelling, " GIVE THAT MAN A SANDWICH!" he needs to eat something. I cant tell the difference between mahatma gandhi and paris hilton. in closing WHO LET THE DOGS OUT
WHO WHO WHO WHO.
who let the dogs out-good tune
gandhi-OK flick

i give it ***

GO GANDHI! he is my favorite linebacker in san diego chargers history ... Read more

Reviews (339)

One of the greatest films ever.
I think this film is a masterpiece. Luc Besson has beautifully directed this achievement and it is probably his best film (Fifth Element aside). The best thing about this film is the different emotions you feel. You feel hatred, happiness, worry, and sadness all for one character. Leon is a professional (hence the title) cleaner, or hitman. He is a very alone person who has no friends. He does have a soft spot for the 12 year old girl Mathilda(wonderfully portrayed by Natalie Portman). When Mathilda's family is killed, she stays with Leon, but she wants revenge. Leon begins teaching her the tricks of the trade which provides some very funny moments. They begin to get very close, and he feels love for the girl. I will not ruin the whoile story for you but it really is a must see.Jean Reno was born for this part and Gary Oldman plays the eccentric bad guy very well. This movie does have some explosive action scenes, but it is really more of a drama. Yes there is a directors cut which in my opinion isn't much better than the regular and the regular is 10 bucks cheaper. Buy this film either way and you will be wonderfully happy with your purchase.

Best Film Ever Made. Natalie Portman is Perfect.
This movie has, what I beleive, the best performance from a child actor ever, from a 12-year-old Natalie Portman. Her character Mathilda shows the innocence of a kid, and the depth of a person out for revenge. Why she didn't get an Oscar is beyond me. And this was her first movie.

The story is really good. A hitman named Leon (Jean Reno) helps a girl named Mathilda after her family is shot down by corrupt DEA officers led by Norman Stansfield (Gary Oldman). When she finds out about Leon's job as a "cleaner" she asks to be trained as a hitman to avenge her little brother's death. Despite Leon's concerns he teaches her anyway, but over the course of his teachings, Mathilda develops feelings for him. This is something the uncut version explores a little deeper.

I suppose some of the scenes were taken from the American release for their subject matter. A scene where Mathilda wants to take her love for Leon to the next level really gives a good insight into Leon's past. It dosen't lead to anything between the two, so I don't see why they cut it. Other scenes included are Leon giving Mathilda some on the job training when he goes on his hits. I can see where some groups in America could have protested that, but it makes their relationship more deeper and complex.

An outstanding film, you really should see this version to get the whole story. I highly recommend it, it is my favorite of all time. Luc Besson's masterpiece can be fully appreciated on this release. I've been hearing rumors about a sequel in the works. I can only pray it's true, but this film is a tough act to follow.

Natalie Portman in her best role!
I don't usually like to watch movies about hit men or cops and robbers. I remember I got interested in this movie because of two things: Luc Besson's movie the Fifth Element, which was so wildly different and fascinating that I wanted to see what else this French director had done; and secondly, seeing Natalie Portman for the first time in the Star Wars: Phantom Menace movie.

Behind all of the dense make up and bad script and horribly non-existent directing from George Lucas in Phantom Menace, I sensed in Natalie Portman one heck of a terrific young actress struggling to come up with a meaningful performance. In "Leon - The Professional", working with a superb director, her acting talent is on full display.

When one thinks of modern day child actors, Anna Paquin comes to mind, in "The Piano", because she aced out some terrific adult actresses in 1993 to win the Oscar. Well, Natalie Portman, at age 12, had Anna Paquin beat by a mile in this movie, since her character takes up about half of the movie. If not for the truly unusual and off-beat story line of this movie, Portman would have gotten a lot more attention for her role in this movie, I think.

If you just focus on Portman's facial expressions and the way she carries herself in this movie, she goes through an amazing acting range in this movie, from hurt, terrified, bored, stuck up, cool and calculating, manipulative, sweet, child-like, and pubescent sexual allure.

As mentioned by other reviewers, the uncut version restores scenes that basically give a harder edge to Natalie Portman's character. The additional scenes of her assassin training with Leon and her efforts to attract and get closer to Leon definitely put her character in a harsher light. I remember from my first viewing of the cut U.S. version that Mathilda came across as a much more sweet and innocent child. The uncut version shows her more to be a hardened child of the mean streets of New York. Given the usual Hollywood propensities, it's not that surprising that these scenes got cut for the U.S. release. The uncut version does show the fullest acting range of Natalie Portman, even if they make her character less sympathetic.

Basically, the movie skates close to, but avoids the pedophilia controversies of the "Lolita" movies by having the character of Leon adhere to a strict code of ethics that firmly blocks all of Mathilda's advances. Even at the end, when he kisses her good-by and says that he loves her, it is clearly in the vein of being her protector and a big brother/father surrogate figure.

All in all, this was a great movie. Jean Reno was just so hauntingly sad as the loner-assassin Leon. Gary Oldman was definitely over the top in his portrayal of the crazed DEA agent - you almost expected his Dracula fangs to come out and his eyes to glow red when he popped those pills into his mouth.

So all of you Natalie Portman fans, this movie is a definite must-see. All of you Phantom Menace/Attack of the Clones haters who think that Natalie Portman can't act, you've got to see this movie to understand that no, Natalie Portman is a terrific actress. It's just really, really tough to play opposite total stiffs like Hayden Christiansen and Jake Lloyd, working with an idiot director like George Lucas.

Got Milk?
There's hardly anything I can say that will do justice to the splendor of 'Leon - The Professional'. The insanity of both the action sequences and Gary Oldman's performance... the touching love story of 2 lonely outcasts... the fantastic cinematography... the heart-breaking tragedy... the pulsing score... the violent life of a shy, milk-drinking, plant-loving hitman... the soul of an innocent little girl... the blistering, chaotic, blood-drenched fury that lives in all 3 of these characters...

...Wow...

...It's just a vortex of beautiful destruction. All these things crammed into one amazing film. A remarkable cast giving remarkable performances, and a very visual director shoving this seething powerhouse of a film right in our faces...

Like I said, there's nothing I can say. So, just believe me when I tell you that this is a very great film.

Great cinematic masterpiece
REALLY GREAT! IT WAS DONE LIKE A FOREIGN FILM, BUT I REALLY LOVED THE WAY IT WAS DONE. AND THE ACTING WAS GREAT! ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Come on, they are giving us the same movie in 2 cases.
Sandlot 1 is a true classic but part 2 is horrible. It just makes the box set even more trashy because it also comes with part 1. Part 2 is almost the same exact thing and the first. [see the movie and you will know what I mean.] I say just buy the original and don't even look at the second no matter what kind of fan you are or how tempted you may get. Might as well sell this movie and just copy it and put it in the set with a new cover, add some new characters and kiss the box before you ship it out. The director hangs his head in shame over this one.

i remember the first
i'll alwasy reemmber the first, the 2nd not as good as first but my nieces, nephews still liked it

Butchering a Classic
I haven't seen this movie, and I never plan to. The Sandlot is one of the best movies I have ever seen and they go and make a sequel! I can't believe they would stoop so low to make another one. I refuse to see this movie and I encourage you to do the same. POOR CHOICE!! ... Read more

Reviews (44)

This movie is very intelligent
I liked the plot and the technical twists and turns of this thriller. Robert Redford plays a cia employee who reads books to find possible codes. He finds patterns and trys to break them or alert the Cia to there existence. He comes across something that causes his whole office or team to be wiped out leaving him as the only survivor, because he was out to lunch. How he goes about trying to survive is very intelligent and entertaining. There is a dry romance between he and Dunaway. He is on the run and time is not on hand so there scenes are quick and to the point. I liked the dialogue it was also dry and to the point. It sometimes took a few minutes for it to sink in. A highly intelligent film with good entertainment value. Worth watching.

4 Stars For "Condor"--One for the DVD!
Wire-rimmed glasses and a slight stubble of beard isn't enough to make Robert Redford completely convincing as a bookish CIA researcher, though he gives a terrific "movie star" performance (partially the result of co screenwriter David Rayfiel being brought in to customize some of Redford's dialouge).

Also, Director Sydney Pollack ("Tootsie") doesn't seem to have the feel for suspense-thriller pulp (the way someone like Peckinpah had), so "Three Days of the Condor" is a little too monotone and flat at times to be a completely successful representative of the genre.

No matter.

"Three Days of The Condor" had all the timing in the world going for it.

Released in 1975, just on the heels of Watergate and in the midst of the Church Committee hearings on CIA excesses, "Condor" became the only box office success of Paramount Pictures "Conspiracy Trilogy" (the others being "The Conversation" and Parallax View").

It's also worth noting the cinematography (done by the great Owen Roizman) is spectacular...the rainy Manhattan streets never looked so beautifully moody....and the score by Dave Grusin avoids all the usual thriller movie stabs and sting.

The transfer quality of the DVD is superb, but the special features are non existent (all that's included is the original theatrical trailer--hardly a "special feature" in today's DVD world).

"Three Days of the Condor" remains essentially a stylish artifact of mid-70's paranoia, and viewed today, in light of recent events, contains some really bizarre echoes.

The invisible government! Where?
Whenever I see this movie I always hear Roger Daltry's voice singing, 'can you see the real me?' Which is what a less loquacious Robert Redford tries to do after what may be one of the top ten movie opening scenes of all time, 70's, 80's, 90's or beyond.

Earlier reviews have fairly well constructed and described the plot but what's interesting is the unbelievability of it. Sydney Pollack keeps the heat on and the emotional cul de sacs plentiful as Redford tries to whittle down not so much the who killed all his coworkers but the why.

I believe alongside "Bullit," "French Connection," "Body Heat" and a few others, this is an essential movie both for it's time and our time. In light of Vietnam and Watergate, we just didn't blindly trust Uncle Sam anymore and were frequently reminded of the protest idiom, 'love your country; fear your government.' And for a captivating two hours, Redford is 'everyperson' ever profiled, searched, audited, traffic stopped, drafted and perhaps far worse. We didn't have to read George Orwell to know big brother was and is watching.

Cliff Robertson, a gifted actor denied his peak years because of pseudo-administration influence (do you remember 'Flowers for Algernon/Charley?), ironically plays the government role, as you would expect, brilliantly, and Max Von Sydow, is as always, superlative. I agree with some of the criticism of Faye Dunaway. She did better in other roles than she did here. It could have been Meryl Streep or Glenn Close as well, possibly better.

Essential movie if you want to know what you're talking about. Larry Scantlebury. 5 Stars.

Dated and Often Bizarre Thriller Amusing only to Old People
Like probably most people who were born well after Watergate broke, I became interested in seeing this film after seeing it lumped in numerous times with other paranoid conspiracy thrillers of the era, most notably Coppola's The Conversation and Pakula's The Parallax View. Those are two outstanding films, and Pollack's effort doesn't hold a candle to either. This movie is a disaster. Despite a dynamite opening act and a somewhat intriguing conclusion, together with a modicum of timeliness and poignancy with regard to real-world goings-on at the CIA, the vast majority of the film is spent slogging through dated fight choreography, awkward sex scenes, and some of the most atrocious dialogue ever committed to the silver screen. Faye Dunaway is particularly off-putting in a muted and emotionally confusing performance as a photographer who always blathers on about metaphorical pictures she keeps hidden away and only lets some people see.

Only Cliff Robertson and Max von Sydow escape unscathed from this silly, dated picture, resisting Redford's overacting and turning in fine performances (although Robertson's hair is perhaps the film's greatest mystery). To make matters worse, the soundtrack sounds like pornography, a perfectly awful mix of xylophone and smooth jazz.

For a much better time, please consider The Parallax View. If you have your heart set on Pollack, just watch The Firm, and you'll get the paranoia, the chasing and spying, and the pretty male lead, while what you sacrifice in political overtone you will gain in character development. I really thought I had something special when I took this home to watch it; it began with such promise. Truly it does not compare to the emotional wallop of Gene Hackman's Harry Caul, nor the mind-blowing psychadelic tension of Pakula's government coverups. Of this trio of would-be master Seventies spy storytellers, Sidney Pollack is the odd man out.

GREAT FILM, UNIMPRESIVE POLITICAL VIEWS
Robert Redford made a clunker called "The Way We Were" with Barbra Streisand that desperately tried to explain, apologize for, justify, glorify and approve of being an American Communist during McCarthyism, but just plain fails. He made the 1973 classic "Three Days of the Condor" (1973), with Cliff Robertson and Faye Dunnaway. He plays a CIA reader, a kind of pre-Tom Clancy research guy, a benign fellow among other benign CIA fellows, all of whom are murdered in a fuzzily explained hit by bad CIA fellows. After escaping, Redford tries to get to the bottom of it. Since he is a genius he has the intellectual tools to outwit his chasers. This is the film's highlight, revolving around the sexual tension between Redford and the redoubtable Faye, who he "kidnaps" in order to have a place to hide out, her apartment. The movie goes off the deep when the whole conspiracy turns out to be about the CIA's covert operations in the Middle East, where the U.S. apparently is planning the invasion (that never actually occurred) to take over OPEC. The message is that The Company murders innocents, the U.S. is a warmongering empire, and tool of capitalist greed. It is Redford's answer to Guatemala, Iran and Chile, where the people killed were generally Communists. Redford would rather show the CIA killing Chinese- and African-Americans and other non-threats.

STEVEN TRAVERS
AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
STWRITES@AOL.COM ... Read more