Amazon.com essential video

From its first gliding aerial shot of a generic suburban street, American Beauty moves with a mesmerizing confidence and acuity epitomized by Kevin Spacey's calm narration. Spacey is Lester Burnham, a harried Everyman whose midlife awakening is the spine of the story, and his very first lines hook us with their teasing fatalism--like Sunset Boulevard's Joe Gillis, Burnham tells us his story from beyond the grave.

It's an audacious start for a film that justifies that audacity. Weaving social satire, domestic tragedy, and whodunit into a single package, Alan Ball's first theatrical script dares to blur generic lines and keep us off balance, winking seamlessly from dark, scabrous comedy to deeply moving drama. The Burnham family joins the cinematic short list of great dysfunctionalAmerican families, as Lester is pitted against his manic, materialistic realtor wife, Carolyn (Annette Bening, making the most of a mostly unsympathetic role) and his sullen, contemptuous teenaged daughter, Jane (Thora Birch, utterly convincing in her edgy balance of self-absorption and wistful longing). Into their lives come two catalytic outsiders.A young cheerleader (Mena Suvari) jolts Lester into a sexual epiphany that blooms into a second adolescence. And an eerily calm young neighbor (Wes Bentley) transforms both Lester and Jane with his canny influence.

Credit another big-screen newcomer, English theatrical director Sam Mendes, with expertly juggling these potentially disjunctive elements into a superb ensemble piece that achieves a stylized pace without lapsing into transparent self-indulgence. Mendes has shrewdly insured his success with a solid crew of stage veterans, yet he's also made an inspired discovery in Bentley, whose Ricky Fitts becomes a fulcrum for both plot and theme. Cinematographer Conrad Hall's sumptuous visual design further elevates the film, infusing the beige interiors of the Burnhams' lives with vivid bursts of deep crimson, the color of roses--and of blood. --Sam Sutherland ... Read more

Reviews (1022)

Astonishing
This is one of the truly rare films that works brilliantly on every possible level. As a satire, it delves deep into the heart of society, and illuminates the strong undertones of resentment, despair and desire that flourish beneath glossy facade of American life. It displays the reasons why so many lives unfold without any happiness, because people choose to live without going after their dreams and ambitions. On the other side "American Beauty" is also a modern tragedy, a story of one man's search for identity and freedom, and the way he profoundly impacts the people around him. The film slowly unravels the masks people where, and explores the moral obscurity and emotional chaos they could plunge into when they decide of follow their heart instead of their conscience. Kevin Spacey is phenomenal as Lester Burnham, his performance is 100% worthy of an Oscar. Alan Ball's script never ceases to amaze me, it's abundance of shrewd observations and insights is something to marvel at. Visually, the film is stunning, it's imagery is nothing short of cinematic poetry, you will find yourself in awe in every frame, every moment. "American Beauty" never shies away from reality, no matter how sad, and in the end, you will find yourself looking at the things that surround you with a whole new outlook. This is a truly remarkable film, one of the decade's best.

Visually stunning and utterly repellent.
There's a scene in American Beauty in which a teenaged boy is found filming a dead bird by two girls his age. They ask him why, and he explains, "Because it's beautiful." That's one opinion: another, which also applies to "American Beauty," is that no matter how beautifully you light, film and score it, something foul and rotten is still foul and rotten.

Director Sam Mendes is clearly gifted; cinematographer Conrad Hall's use of color and light is stunning; the music is haunting, and the cast talented, and even Alan Ball's script shows a deliberate intelligence too many movies lack. But none of these elements can disguise the fact that this movie is sad, cynical and sick at heart. It's a mean-spirited chronicle of suburbia as hell which tries to patch itself over with a feel-good moral and fails utterly.

With the possible exception of one semi-redeeming choice Kevin Spacey's character makes at the end of the film, none of the main characters exhibit any likeable or even remotely worthwhile traits. Spacey's Lester Burnham goes from being a wimp to an arrogant lecher; Annette Benning as his wife is a shrill Martha Stewart caricature; Mena Suvari, as Burnham's teenaged lust object, is profoundly unlikeable; Thora Birch's daughter character is selfish and sullen; her creepy love interest, boy-next-door Wes Bentley, deals drugs when he's not filming her obsessively. Then there's Bentley's abusive ex-Marine dad... the list goes on and on.

No one is having a good time in American Beauty. Everyone is miserable. And the one person who figures out a way to escape that misery is horribly dead soon after. There is a worthwhile message in American Beauty, as well as one utterly lovely scene involving nothing more than a videotape of a windblown plastic bag. But the brighter elements of this movie feel hastily tacked on to its warped, unrealistically dark world view, and in the end they cannot compensate for the utter, gaping landfill where this film's moral center ought to be.

An amazing film
I thought this movie was awful. It's amazing to me how anyone could like this. I couldn't wait for it to be over. I had to rate it when I saw how many people thought it was a masterpiece? This simplistic piece of badly acted crap? The situaion with the father and the teenage girl is almost child pornography.

AN EXQUISITE AFFIRMATION OF LIFE
On the surface, this stunner from Sam Mendes is such a relentlessly bleak look at the vacuity of the supposed "American Dream" that viewers may just turn off to it en masse. And it shows in the acute polarization of reviews here on Amazon.

But if you can be a little less knee-jerk and not shut off all rational thought when confronted with what's disturbingly familiar, you may also find that the film is genuinely, voraciously amusing, and directed with such breathtaking flair that Spacey's bravura performance seems like a career-defining one.

Beneath the surface of all the seeming pettiness in our daily idiosynchrasies, the theme points out, is an entire world of such simple elegance that chortles to be seen and heard, but is neither recognized nor heeded to.

An interesting visual device in the film is the use of windows. Not just a use, but a splurge, come to think of it. Almost everything important happens in front of, around, or through windows. Could this be a metaphor perhaps for self-examination, for viewing one's life from the outside?

What I do not understand is why most films in this genre (Ice Storm, Ordinary People) end with a dramatically tragic finale. Does it take a shattering turn of events to break everyone out of their daily reverie? Something to think about.

Any rate, long story short: an evocative gem you need to own.

There is only one word for this movie..... PERFECT
I've seen a lot of Hollywood crap, and I was just getting sick of that whole movie industy when I happened to see American Beauty. I'm a story-line fanatic and I've seen way too many stupid blunders on most movies, but this one was just flawless.
It was absolutely perfect. In fact, the only camparable movie to this one was that Korean film, Old Boy. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The futile yet inspiring stand of 300 Greek soldiers against the hugestarmy ever assembled in the ancient world inspired this typical example ofHollywood epic movie-making. King Leonidas of Sparta (Richard Egan,Demetrius and the Gladiators), prevented by political squabblingfrom sending his entire army to defend the narrow pass of Thermopylae,sets out with his personal bodyguard to fight off the ambitious Persianking, Xerxes. Along the way are a pair of young lovers, scantily claddancing girls, and treachery though a secret mountain path. The 300Spartans, made in 1961, has an overstated cold war subtext--there'smuch talk of freedom vs. slavery--and there are a few too many shots ofarmored men marching through the Greek countryside, but the historicalconflict has a fundamentally stirring quality. Also featuring Sir RalphRichardson (Dr. Zhivago, Dragonslayer) as a wily Athenianpolitician. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (32)

Memory vs now
Many of us grew up on these Hollywood 'epics' of ancient history. We remember them fondly. "The 300 Spartans" is one such film. Our memories, however, can play tricks on us. Then we see them again as we age, and our opinions change. We have to remember the times in which they were made and the type of audience that eagerly went to see them.

As a widescreen epic (and you have to see it in the 2:35x1 aspect ratio which the DVD presents), it stills holds some strange fascination.

Sir Ralph Richardson is the one stand-out performance; somehow, British actors seem to be able to deliver stilted dialog in such a way that it seems somehow classical. Richard Egan was also a good actor. As the Spartan king, his performance is consistant and even believable. He is rugged-looking and seems to understand what his character is all about. He brings the character on the page to some sembelence of life.

The rest of the cast make their characters seem cut from a comic book, or a very bad high-school production. This is especially true of David Farrar as the Persian King, who tears up the screen without once delving beneath the skin to give his role any dimension. These are supposedly professional actors, able to rise above a bad script. Unfortunately, the director accepted only fair performances and let it go at that.

Barry Coe and Diane Baker have the unfortunate roles of the young lovers. They were both young contract players at Fox and neither convinced anyone that they were either Spartans or that they were ever actually in love. Mr. Coe has one unfornutate line: "Have you heard anything about the Persians?" He delivers this like a football player asking his coach about the opposing team.

The script does present the story's history with fair accuracy. Once the Spartans get on the march, the pace picks up nicely, and the battle scenes are well staged. As usually happened with these epics, the production values of the behind-the-camera talent clearly outshone those being photographed.

300 Spartans revisited
I first saw this film when I was 12 or 13. At that age I thought it was an action movie and I took it solely for that - it was good with large battle scenes, sword clanging against shield, etc. However, it is a little deeper than that. The film tells the story of King Leonidas of Sparta who took a small cohort of Spartan soldiers to stand at Thermopylae against a huge Persian army. Most of the rest of the Greek city-states declined to send troops because the pass was so far from their territory. Leonidas realized that the pass was the best place to meet the Persians as the narrow space would allow a small force to block a tremendously larger force. The Spartans marched hard to get to the pass before the Persians and then fought like demons when the Persians arrived - actually driving them back and temporarily routing them with some well-planned tactics and ferocious sword play. After several days their position is betrayed and their meager allies killed or put to flight. The Spartans are then surrounded. Their sacred customs do not permit surrender or retreat so they make a suicidal charge at the Persian king. Leonidas falls and the Persians then massacre the remaining Spartans who refuse to give up his body.
Richard Egan is suitably noble and brave as Leonidas. It is obvious that he fears nothing as he wades into battle with spear,sword and shield. One comment is that Leonidas is like his name - that is, like a lion, and he is. The supporting cast is also quite good, including Sir Ralph Richardson as Themistocles (a crafty Athenian politician and statesman) and Diane Baker in an early role. The film is in technicolor or some similar process so the color of the Spartan's cloaks is a brilliant red and there are a lot of other bright colors, perhaps a little bit much considering the gore. What is perhaps most impressive and memorable is the music playing in the background as the Spartans march - it is haunting. As Leonidas says - no army in the world marches faster. The Spartans march for several days with almost no rest and the music slows to mirror their exhaustion - the men look haggard, dirty and unshaven - yet they continue to march. These marching scenes may be the best in the film showing the desperate race to reach Thermopylae before the Persians. At the end of the film there is a flashback to the Spartans marching with the music in the background. A narrator explains that the Greeks went on to defeat the Persians in large part because the Spartans delayed them long enough for an organized defense to be planned - also, perhaps because all of Greece was awed by the remarkable courage and nobility of a small band who sacrifice their lives for their country.
The film has definite defects and the end result could have been better. However, it is still quite good and I find that I like it even better now. While the film takes a few liberties with history, the basic story line is accurate - small group of Spartans under Leonidas hold off huge Persian army at Thermopylae and go down fighting. I have seen the film rated as only one star - I don't know who did this rating but it is off the mark badly - it is easily rates four stars and just missed five.

Exciting,dramatic recreation...
THE 300 SPARTANS does creditable job of recreating one of the most famous Last Stand battles in history. Director Rudy Mate makes excellent use of on-location sites to render the mytho-historical Battle of Thermopylae fought in August of 480 BC. An elite, 300 man-guard of Sparta's Battle King Leonidas arrayed itself in the narrow "Hot Gates" pass.[North of Athens and Thebes, but far north east of Lacedaemon/Sparta. This is critical,because Sparta's senate initially voted to defend much closer-to-home portion of the Peloponnesian Peninsula near the strategic land bridge of the Gulf of Corinth]. Xerxes,invading Persian Monarch and would-be world conqueror, myriad legions were averred so numerous that their force "drank the streams dry" marching to the attack.

Richard Egen does excellent job as Leonidas. He is charismatic yet characterisically laconic leader of Lacedaemons whose "warrior cult" society was legendary even to its Greek City-State peers,embodying The "RETURN HOME WITH YOUR SHIELD...OR ON IT!" victory or death ethic. David Farrar is fine as haughty despot Xerxes who none the less conveys astonishment(and once when a desperate,final Flying-Wedge assault by the Spartans threatens him personally)and respectful fear. Sir Ralph Richardson's role as Athenian senator who struggles to cobble unity from fiercely independent Hellenic poleis is "instructive" and understated.As noted,the background romance involving Diane Baker and a Spartan soldier initiate is essentially filler; Mate employs it well,however, to introduce a Greek traitor who discloses the mountain pass which allows Persians to flank...annihilate...the Spartans and their small cohort of allies.

THE 300 SPARTANS may not be epic film making but it's quite good. It's interestingly attentive to detail(wicker shields for Persians;the Lambda signum on shields of Spartans...dressed in red cloaks so enemies cannot see them bleed.)Photography is fine using both panoramic sweep and jump-cut close-up's. Battle scenes are convincing(lacking CGI magnus/extravagance)effectively conveying claustrophobic chaos and terror of close, no-quarter combat. This is an exciting,dramatic recreation of one of the signum battles of history. Overwhelming odds are confronted by resovled courage. It's the right stuff of myth that both chides the spirit as well as excites the imagination.

Your spear is for yourself. Your shield is for the line.
Here is a credible portrayal of the heroic stand that the 300 Spartans made at the pass of Thermopylae in 480BCE. Trying to make their way through the pass was a Persian army that likely numbered around 200,000. It was led by king Xerxes, son of Darius.

The Persians were set on conquering Greece, and Xerxes was out for revenge. 10 years earlier, in 490BCE Darius had launched an ill-fated invasion force that was turned back at Marathon. This time, Xerxes believed he had a large enough army that the outcome of the war between Greece and Persia would not be in doubt.

Unfortunately for Xerxes, he had never faced a fighting force of the like fielded by the Spartans. The valiant Lacedamons along with a handful of Greek coalition forces held the pass for the better part of 3 days.

On the third day, the Spartan king Leonidas dismissed the rest of the Greek forces so that they would live to fight another day. The Thespians declined to leave and they stayed and fought to a last man alongside the Spartans.

It is this obstinate and awe-inspiring battle that is depicted in the film. All-in-all, it is quite well done and does a reputable job of introducing most of the major characters in the period such as Themosticles, Leonidas, Xerxes, Mardonious, Aspasia and Ephialtes.

The best part of the film lies in its authenticity regarding Spartan battle dress and weaponry. In the film the Spartan shields have an upside down "V," which was the symbol of the Homoioi (full citizens). This was, in fact, what their shield depicted.

The Laconians had a long (roughly 8 foot) spear + a short-sword, and this is what the actors wielded. The Spartans also wore red to (supposedly) hide their blood, and this is accurately brought out in the film as well.

On the downside, there are a few weak parts of the script. The most egregious is an anachronism; Mardonious informs Xerxes that the Spartans "fight like machines."

There are also some directorial lapses and a few spots where armies are supposed to be in close combat and yet the extras move so slowly that you think they don't have a care in the world. I rather doubt the tension at Thermopylae 2,500 years ago would allow for such insouciance.

The acting is fairly good. Richard Egan gives a solid performance as the venerable Leonidas. The Xerxes in the film is not, I would think, too far removed from the actual pompous king who invaded Greece all those centuries ago.

Aside from all that, the primary reason one should buy this DVD is that it is real history. While some of it is fabricated and fudged, it is nevertheless an excellent representation of what really happened. To this day, to commemorate those three days in August of 480BCE there is an epigraph at Thermopylae. Translated into English, it reads thus:

GO TELL THE SPARTANS, STRANGER PASSING BY
THAT HERE OBEDIENT TO THEIR LAWS WE LIE.

Not as good as I remembered
Of course, that is because I was a very young child when this movie was originally being played. It's still fun to watch. The acting is marginal, costumes are poorly done and some of the spoken lines are terrible. It's main redeeming quality...it's a good clean movie that is biased toward the admirable qualities in mankind...duty, honor, country. This is something that you don't get to see very often from Hollywood these days.

I waited a very long time for this to come out on DVD, and bought it immediately. It will forever be part of my collection, and I will watch it many more times over the years. It's not The Ten Commandments or Ben Hur, but for me and probable many other baby boomers, it's still a "must have" movie. ... Read more

Reviews (303)

Landmark in US filmmaking
----
Don't be fooled. "Big Fish" is not the classic want-to-be "surreal" tale with random psychedelic elements. "Big Fish" is not a movie that "tries to hard" to be different or bizarre. "Big Fish" is *real*. It embodies much more than what it may seem at first glance.

After a somewhat decline during his last movies (since his masterpieces "Edward..." and "Ed Wood"), Tim Burton finally decided to explore two more realistic subjects: first; a father-son relationship and second; the story of ones life. "Big Fish" is left to the viewer to be understood, analyzed, and interpreted. Like any other film, the final interpretation lays on the viewer. However many directors are often biased and leave little room for personal interpretation making their own. Burton, on the contrary, leaves a universe for multiple interpretations. One can wonder how he managed with such a solid plot. Nonetheless, he succeeded.

The beauty of the profound subject, the imaging, the style, and the meaning and purpose of "Big Fish", makes it a film to be remembered by many generations to follow. Tim Burton has delivered a masterpiece like never before: a landmark in US filmmaking.

5/5 - "Big Fish" is huge.

Wow
I've been a big Tim Burton fan for years, so when the combination of his imagination with the heavenly creature that is Ewan McGregor are combined - it's a match made in movie heaven.
The story revolves around a man who feels disconnected from his father and all of his "tall tales" of growing up. When his father falls ill, he returns home with his pregnant wife and tries to get to the truth of the matter when it comes to his father's life.
I loved how the story kept going back and forth between the present day and the past. Burton's imagination is one of the things I love about his films and he didn't cease to amaze me with this project. Plus, all of the interesting characters brought into the story made the movie even more enjoyable. (My particular favorite was Karl the Giant.)
Albert Finney and Ewan McGregor's performances were amazing. I'm surprised and a bit disappointed that this movie didn't get as much credit as it deserves. Another aspect I loved was the relationship between Bloom and his wife. That scene where he is in the tub in his pajamas and his wife joins him just about brought me to tears. You could still feel the love between the two characters.
Go see this movie. It may just be a movie about tall tales, but it you'll leave feeling better about life.

Greatest Movie Ever
This is the greatest movie I have ever seen. And for all of you people that thought it was terrible, you are either one of three things: mentally handicapped, void of any emotion, or just plain stupid.

Just Plain Awful
After seeing the movie, I was without words to describe my disappointment with the movie. Seeing the comments and reviews on Amazon, I am without words as to how people could be giving such an awful movie 5, 4 or even 3 stars. It is phony from start to finish, with a terrible plastic feeling throughout. It has the most stupid script ever, jokes that are simply not funny, and the bottom line is the I just could not believe someone actually released this movie to the theaters. I simply cannot put into words how deep my disappointment is.

Something's missing...
There are things worth seeing in Tim Burton's Big Fish. Some of the scenes are visually stunning. There are some colorful minor characters (especially the poet/bank robber played by the wonderful Steve Buscemi). And the ending is pretty moving.

Other than that, there seems to be something aimless to the film. It was difficult for me to get interested in what was happening to the characters; I never felt that I truly got to know them, and though perhaps this is part of the point, it was frustrating. Also, Ewan MacGregor's insistently upbeat performance would occasionally get on my nerves. ... Read more

Amazon.com

It's tempting to call this harrowing picture a World War II version of All Quiet on the Western Front: both films take the perspective of ordinary German soldiers at ground level. Stalingrad surveys the misery of the battle of Stalingrad, the winter siege that cost the lives of almost one and a half million people, Russian defenders and German invaders alike. Not unlike Spielberg's approach to Saving Private Ryan, German director Joseph Vilsmaier rarely steps outside the action to comment on the higher purpose of the war, assuming the audience is aware of the evil of the Nazi regime. Instead, we simply follow a group of soldiers as they endure a series of gut-wrenching episodes, events which have the tang of authenticity and horror. Vilsmaier has a taste for symbolism and surreal touches, which only add to the unsettling sense of insanity this movie conjures up so well. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (149)

Best war movie I've ever seen
I liked this movie from the very start. Not only does it give the viewer an eye-opener into how ordinary German soldiers thought (not all or even most Germans were Nazi fanatics and anti-Semite but Hollywood doesn't know or care) but it offers something different from typical American propaganda. The combat scenes are as powerful as the opening of Saving Private Ryan (a good movie until the end, when the heroic Yanks defeat the evil Krauts) but we know that it will all be a waste and for nothing, and what's worse, Hitler or the senior officers don't even care (neither do American leaders, but they keep a lid on that kind of stuff).
I don't need to say much about the film itself (there are other reviews for that) but I will say that this film does an excellent job at showing how the fighting at Stalingrad was, and how the German army struggled to gain Hitler his Lebensraum. It displays the character's slow realization that their cause is lost and their reaction, which would happen to just about any soldier in any army (yes, even the Waffen-SS, uh, the U.S. Marines).

All in all, an excellent movie.

A balanced account of the German Soldier in WWII
It seems to me that so-called "Anti-war" movies make the best accounts of warfare and "Stalingrad" is no exception. This acclaimed anti-war film delivers solid acting and characters with depth, excluding the two-dimension Military Police Captain, who fulfills the obligatory role of as the film's token "true Nazi" (there had to be at least one!). Aside from that, I'm hard-pressed to name another movie that portrays the German soldier in World War II with such historical accuracy and objective portrayal. Military history buffs will appreciate the attention given to uniforms and the correct organization of the unit in the film as an Engineer battalion with an attached Feldgendarmerie company. (Though in the English version, the translators botched this, choosing to translate "Sturmpioniere" to the politically pejorative "Stormtroopers" rather than the more accurate "Assault Engineers") Real Russian T34s, magnetic anti-tank mines, a PAK 40 and a host of other authentic equipment make the setting for the tale believable.

But the movie is more than an active display of 1942 militaria. It is an intensely human tale of person within the soldier. For me, the film was strongly reminiscent of Guy Sajer's "Forgotten Soldier", particularly in capturing the deadly misery of the Russian winter and the daily lot of the common soldier. "Stalingrad" will be of interest to military viewers for leader professional development training. In particular, the film is solid precursor to values training and discussions of the boundaries of duty, selfless sacrifice, and loyalty.

I am extremely pleased to add this film in my collection and thank you for the opportunity to recommend it further.

About as much fun as being there.
"Stalingrad" is the most depressing film I've ever seen. Mind you, I didn't think a story about the death of 260,000 German soldiers would be as uplifting as, say, "The Sound of Music" but this movie pulls out all the stops in an effort to leave the viewer a quivering, glassy-eyed emotional pulp.

Made by the same producers who gave us the seminal "Das Boot" I found it not in that league. The film is overlong, sterotypical, and spends too much time cramming postwar German conscience pangs down the viewer's throat. Moreover, the last hour or so reminds me of those interminable scenes from "Born on the Fourth of July" that seem more interested in punishing the audience than advancing the story. The battle for, and siege of, Stalingrad, was no doubt an experience of horror and misery beyond the power of words or images to describe it, but what I was hoping for here was a German version of "Saving Private Ryan" -- high on combat and confusion, short on moralizing. Unfortunately, all postwar German cinema is filtered through the same revisionist political opinions; this explains why all German war movies inevitably leave you with the feeling like you've been punched in the stomach or clubbed over the head. After about an hour I was hoisting my own flag of surrender; but the pummeling continued.

The scene at the airfield, for example, when the wounded men are trying desperately to get out on the last transports, is very hard to watch. From what I've read, however, it seems that discipline in the Stalingrad pocket was maintained until the bitter end, and the airfield scene may more resemble how the producers of the film wanted history to unfold rather than the actual way it did. In fact, the 90,000 men who lived to surrender (all but 5,000 of whom died in captivity) did so only when they were completely out of fuel, medicine, and ammunition, and had no other means to resist; but the producers, of course, permit to trace of pride in military accomplishment to enter into their film.

Most American movies and television portray the Germans in World War II as heel-clicking cartoon idiots ("I know nutink! Nutink!"). Most German war movies portray the Germans as either villainous martinet Nazis, or cynical disbelievers who carry arms only for Germany and not for Hitler or the Party. In fact, the record shows that the Germans overwhelmingly trusted Hitler and were deeply inspired by his ideology. It is this fact, and not what was done in the name of National Socialism, that seems to sit very hard in the modern German stomach.

What's my motivation to buy this dvd?
Why does this dvd have an english (dubbed) soundtrack only. It was obviously made in german (like Das Boot), so why no german soundtrack available? Surely some people would prefer to watch the film in the original german soundtrack with english subtitles. But no subtitles either! What were the people who compiled this dvd thinking! Why not include the original soundtrack. Surely this was available.
One of the best parts of the film, a scene showing the platoon listening to a speech by Hitler (the actual recording) over an improvised radio, also has no subtitles! So good luck to anyone who would have been interested in knowing what the speech was about.

If ever there was a film that could benefit from rudimentary features like a choice of language or subtitles - this is it.

Probably one of my favourate war films. Probably the worst DVD in my collection.

The way war should be shown : Vivid and Horrifying
I had never heard of this film untill I spotted this DVD out of the corner of my eye in the store and bought it, and I am glad I did. This movie has surpassed any previous depiction of the stress and hardship's that the common soldier and civilian alike faced in WW2 that I have ever seen and I felt this is also the first war movie to take the glory out of battle and replace it with the truth "war is hell".

I like many other reviewer's here have seen the endless stream of documentories about stalingrad and have heard the accounts from veteran's of the battle and about the horror and suffering that wen't on, but I feel that the word's and tear's from these veteran's never quite sunk in. After seeing this movie I feel like the pain that was depicted has allowed the words of these veteran's to finnally sink in and I have a new understanding of just what these men had endured...and yet I feel like I still dont know the whole truth.

This film has a permanent home in my collection....I only regret that this movie was not embraced by the U.S. film industry and shown to a wide audience a long time ago....I recommend that anyone who is fan of war movie's or just curious about the war that changed the world.... this is a movie that you cannot pass up seeing. ... Read more

Description

Cary Grant teams with director Alfred Hitchcock for the fourth and final time in this superlative espionage caper judged on of the American Film Institute's Top-100 American Films and spruced up with a new digital transfer and remixed Dolby Digital Stereo.He plays a Manhattan advertising executive plunged into a realm of spy (James Mason) and counterspy (Eva Marie Saint) and variously abducted, framed for murder, chased and in another signature set piece, crop-dusted.He also holds on for dear life from the facial features of the Presidents on Mount Rushmore (backlot sets were used).But don't expect the Master of Suspense to leave star or audience hanging. ... Read more

Reviews (224)

Hitchcock and Grant: An Unbeatable Combination
"North by Northwest" (1959) was the fourth and final collaboration between director Alfred Hitchcock and actor Cary Grant -- and it's easily the best. Both men were at their artistic zenith when they made this superb comic thriller, which screenwriter Ernest Lehman promised would be "the Hitchcock picture to end all Hitchcock pictures." Lehman's script incorporates some brilliant setpieces that the Master of Suspense was unable to work into his previous films, such as the famous crop-dusting chase and the surreal Mount Rushmore climax. However, the highlight remains the Chicago auction sequence. Grant's screwball humor and dark charm make him the ideal Hitchcock leading man -- complemented by excellent performances from Eva Marie Saint, James Mason and Martin Landau. "North by Northwest" was Hitchcock's sole effort for MGM and he makes the most of the studio gloss. It's a top-notch production in terms of set design and matte work. In fact, author Ian Fleming considered "North by Northwest" to be the stylistic prototype for the James Bond series and wanted Hitchcock to direct the first 007 production (he turned down the offer). To fully appreciate this classic film, it should be seen in the letterbox format that Hitchcock intended. One of the all-time greats.

I'M AN ADVERTISING MAN, NOT A RED HERRING...
I won't bore you with the summary as I'm sure who ever is on this page has seen other reviews with the synopsis of North by Northwest. In my opinion, this and Psycho represent Alfred Hithcock at his apex and definitely NBNW is one of the greatest films of all time (it's in the AFI Top 100 Movies of all time). Sure maybe there are errors in it but no movie is perfect, nonetheless it comes close to perfection. It moves along, solid storyline, legendary actors and actresses (the always debonair Cary Grant; the beautiful Eva Marie Saint; the cool, calm, evil that James Mason exudes and the dark, sinister presence of Martin Landau) performing their parts to perfection. Hitchcock didn't need to use special effects, loud explosions or graphic violence to keep the viewers entertained. The characters and the storyline keep the viewers glued to the screen and the underlying espionage story was appropriate given the era of the Cold War. This was the template for future action/adventure/spy thrillers and I am even tempted to say that this could be a 1959 version of The Fugitive, ordinary man accused of a crime he didn't commit and has to exonerate himself! You forget this movie is over 2 hours long the way it moves briskly along. A perfect melange of comedy, action and suspense. See it if you haven't and buy it if you can, you WILL NOT regret it. A timeless classic!

HIS BEST CHASER...
It seems 2 me that Hitchcock sort of stole many elements from his pre-chaser-films and said: "Good-eeeeevening..... You think you have seen my best efforts, but I must unfortunately dissappoint you.....!"

Indeed this is a neurotic and clastraphobic chaser and suspenser - maybe the BEST EVER - thanks 2 the talents of Ernest Lehman, Hitchcock himself, his crew and the entire cast. There are numerous highlights from this film; I prefer NOT 2 single out any of them in favour of others. This film belongs IN EVERY HOME:-)

I LOVE this movie!
This movie is not only Hitchcock's best (just a tad behind 'Vertigo', in my opinion), but is one of the best movies ever made. Movies rarely have it all (story, acting, visuals, music, wit, action, suspense, 'hipness', and sexiness), but this movie has it all in spades.

Some of my favorite things about this movie:

1. Eva Marie Saint - Stunning...absolutely stunning. Everybody always thinks about Grace Kelly or Kim Novak in association with Hitchcock, but, for my money, Eva Marie Saint is the most drop-dead gorgeous of any leading lady.

2. The settings - The United Nations interior scenes are mouth wateringly rich. It really makes you want to go back in time to when everything 'modern' was new and exciting. We take so much for granted these days. The Cropduster scene is exciting and vastly more inventive than action movies being made today. Van Damm's House is the epitome of the promise that modern organic architecture once held. The scenes at Van Damm's house are even more amazing when you consider that the exterior settings are entirely fabricated, in a pre-CGI effects sort of way. They are more convincing than CGI scenes of today. Amazing.

This is one movie I never get tired of. Buy it and you won't be sorry.

One of the Greatest Thrillers of All Time
This is arguably Cary Grants best film. Couple that with a terrific cast, dynamite story, immortal one-liners, some great scenes in actual locations, and classic Hitchcock editing and you have a shoe-in on any "best of all time list". This movie was made in 1958 and although it was current in it's day, it now is just as current as a period film set in 1958, keeping in mind of the political climate and cold war attitudes of the time. The costumes are very natural, having been bought in actual New York stores, and the set designs are beautifully designed. The set decoration is also first rate.

This DVD is a superb transfer. The color looks perfectly natural, the sound is full, low noise stereo and the widescreen is anamorphic. There is hardly any flaw in the print. Amazing. The menu is also animated to match the Saul Bass opening title and is wonderful. The "making of" film (30 minutes long) is superb and hosted by beautiful leading lady "Eve Marie Saint".

Finally, the score by Bernard Hermann adds to the high tension of the action. The orchestration and performance on this film is one of the very best of all time. I can't recommend this film enough for action, solid story and terrific action besides just being completely entertaining. ... Read more

Reviews (202)

The DTS version rocks the home theater!
This is the first disc I bought since I got the home theater set up and this one you won't believe! Ok, I'll admit the story here is a little weak, but this isn't supposed to be a "Raging Bull" type of character study. This is a very entertaining, state of the arts effects, fun film. The sound from this DTS version is extraordinary. The separation of the 5.1 is incredible. The twister sequences will blow you away. You feel the sound and the fury! The only other disc that compares is the Saving Private Ryan one. For you home theater fanatics, this is your film.. you'll see it, hear it, and feel it. This disc also has some great extras like director commentary and a cool documentary of how it was made. All in all, it's not one of the finest 100 or 200 movies ever made, but you may find yourself watching it over and over for the experience of it! You'll love it! The movie itself is about a 3, but the DVD DTS is about a 5!

I like it anyway...
OK, I've read the other reviews...I think "Twister" is entertaining, with great CGI effects. The plot is intense, and most sub-plots are silly. Helen Hunt is beautiful, and quite a good actress. Bill Paxton is customarily hammy. Still I enjoy this film as entertainment. It's interesting to note that a lot of our current best actors today got a start in this film. Philip Seymour Hoffman, in particular, shows great flair, as well as Jeremy Davies, playing the wimp. Director Jan de Bont seems to use Alan Ruck a lot, and for good reason: He's talented. I was disappointed when Jamie Gertz won the Razz Award as "Worst Supporting Actress" in '96. I thought she gave a fine performance...her character was written to be reactionary, and I thought her every nuance was touching and sincere. As far as writing, well, some of the soap opera stuff could've been cut short. Jan de Bont, with all the films he could've chosen, showed scenes from Kubrick's "The Shining" (at the drive-in), and Cukor's "A Star is Born" (before Aunt Meg's house is blown away). If these are homages, he has good taste. And Lois Smith was solid as the aunt; I've liked her since she played Nicholson's sister in "Five Easy Pieces". A fine character actress. With this stuff in mind, I watch "Twister" often, and enjoy it each time. Why be so analytical? It was made as mass-marketed entertainment and, on that level, it succeeds. Doesn't seem to matter that it was also on quite a few "10 Best" lists in '96. I like it a lot; if you don't, maybe you should get out more...

the suck zone II
In the movie, the twister destroys a drive-in while The Shining is showing on the screen. One could only imagine that this amounted to a review of The Shining. I don't agree with this review. The Shining is a very good movie.

the suck zone
I rented this movie thinking it was going to be a remake of The Wizard of Oz. Boy what a letdown. Come to think of it I had the same experience watching Zardoz.
While watching this movie, it became clear to me that "actors" are people who have been randomly selected to get in front of a camera and pretend to do things. The characters say things like, "these satellite readings have increased in the last ten minutes" "Keep monitoring this pattern" "Ok" Then there is a tossing aside of sodas and a melee of excited, riot-like running toward vehicles. Then there is more dialog, like "We're not going to be able to intercept!" "No, we will. Hang on!" "Are you out of your mind?"
"We gotta get outta here!" "I know!" This last dialog is screamed over the sound of lots of wind. The movie appears to be about a weather phenomenon wherein lots of wind causes a general sucking effect: the script sucks, the acting sucks, the effects even pretty much suck.

The tornadoes alone save this movie.
I have had interest in the concept of severe weather for my entire life and had high expectations for the movie "Twister" and the result cuts boths ways for me.

The movie is of a married meteoroligist couple who are in the midst of getting a divorce, and have not gotten along for a very long time and they make a new invention that they believe will help them see what it looks like, inside a full blown tornado. They have ambition to deploy this new technology to disperse 'lighter than air' radio transmitters into a twister and record the signals to see what it may look like inside a tornado.

The special effects when the tornadoes strike are absolutely awesome not to mention the chase scenes especially towards the ending when the couple speed away from a tornado drive right through a house that was thrown onto the countryside road by a tornado (Impossible in real life) and the other of when a drive-in movie screen showing a snippet of the movie "The Shining" being ripped apart by a F5 tornado in the middle of the night.

"Twister" though suffers from several things and I can sometimes see where some of the detractors are coming from when regarding this movie. While the action scenes and special effects are amazing, the movie's plot lacks a good flow and the film drags on and on in several places and one scene which is just like a boring day at home would've been better left out altogether. Plus the characters are very unconvincing and lack personality.

Even for me who doesn't mind ocassional deviation from the laws of physics in movies, some of the tornadoe scenes are completely unrealistic. For example as I said earlier in a review, there is no way a twister could fling a whole house across a countryside road or even roll the whole intact house across the countryside because most houses are built on foundations and strong tornadoes in real life would shed houses into tiny pieces or otherwise reduce them to ruin. An F5 tornado would leave nothing of a house behind and can even rip the pavement off a road if the conditions warrant. \

This movie is nonetheless worth watching just for the tornadoes alone but this movie could have been a lot better than it turned out to be. While having it's share of flaws Roland Emmerich's "The Day After Tomorrow" is far superior on many levels and corrects a lot of the flaws of "Twister" in my opinion. ... Read more

Reviews (102)

One of the funniest and darkest comedy/musicals of all time!
There's never been a movie like "The Little Shop of Horrors" before, and there probably never will be. The film it resembles the most is undoubtedly "The Rocky Horror Picture Show," but I find it cleverer, funnier, and more enjoyable than that movie, if still as sick in its own twisted little way.

The movie stars Rick Moranis in the role he was born to play: that of a geeky and timid New York City kid named Seymour, who works at a crummy florist shop way downtown along with Audrey (Ellen Greene), a blonde gal who sounds as if she's sucked in too much helium. Seymour is too shy to confess his love for Audrey, and his only way of dropping a hint is when he finds a mysterious plant at another flower shop and names it Audrey II. "I hope you don't mind," he tells her, and then he drops it by the front window of the store in hopes of drawing customers.

It does. The first customer (Christopher Guest) enters with a cheerfully stupid grin and buys $50 worth of roses. "Do you have change for a hundred?" he asks. They don't. "Oh, well, then I guess I'll just have to buy one hundred dollars' worth!"

Business starts to boom, and the plant starts to bloom, turning into a ferocious man-eater that demands a sacrifice of human blood from Seymour to crave its hunger. After a few weeks, Seymour is bone dry, unable to slice any more fingers open and feed his gargantuan plant. "Feed me, Seymour!" the talking plant bellows.

Audrey has a new boyfriend who has been beating her up. He's a dentist, played by Steve Martin, and as he puts it, "I have a natural talent for causing people pain!" He likes to cause people intense pain, walking through his dentist's office and purposely knocking orderlies in the face with door handles and pulling teeth without applying sedatives. "Wait! I'm not numb!" a customer shouts during an introductory song. "Eh, shut up, open wide, here I come!" his dentist yells, starting to drill away.

Steve Martin has played a dentist since, in the undoubtedly lesser but unjustly bashed "Novocaine" (2001). His outing as a pain-driven dentist in "The Little Shop of Horrors" is ten times better, and Martin is truly the highlight of the entire film, from the point when he is introduced riding his motorcycle to the job with a leather jacket (only to strip it off and reveal a white dentist's coat as he enters his office), to the part where Seymour enters his office with a gun in hopes of killing him and feeding him to his plant. Martin doesn't get what's going on, because he's wearing a comedically oversized laughing gas mask he invented that's making him chuckle like a moron. "What are you gonna do? Shoot me? Ha!" The laughing gas kills him before Seymour musters up the emotional strength to.

Seymour drags the dentist's dead body home, chops him up and feeds him to Audrey II, but this is only the start of his worries, because soon the media frenzy centered around the wonderfully odd plant starts to drive him to insanity, as he desperately tries to juggle between keeping a clean conscience and keeping away the media.

Then Audrey II reveals its true intentions - to take over the world with its offspring - and Seymour decides that it's time to stop Audrey II before it gets too far.

"The Little Shop of Horrors" is such a wonderfully offbeat comedy it's almost impossible to dislike. It's one of my favorite comedies, the type of odd little film that doesn't promise to be very much at all but provides a lot.

Frank Oz directed the film (based on Roger Corman's classic), and it was filmed on a visibly low budget, but that's okay, because it's supposed to be that way. It's part of the fun. All the stages are obviously just that, with poorly painted backgrounds of New York City and the skyline. You can literally see the cracks in the wall where the different stages meet with each other. And it's great! It makes the movie, and the movie knows it isn't anything special. At one point, Audrey has a dream sequence of living in a nice little Brady Bunch home, and we see Seymour cutting the lawn with a lawnmower. It's so cheesy and fake that it barely meets the quality standards of a children's television show - but, once again, it helps makes the movie.

The movie has tons of cameos, too, including James Belushi, John Candy, Christopher Guest, Bill Murray, et al. And if the guest stars, dark humor, and delightful direction don't interest you, perhaps the songs will - because many of them are quite good. The highlight is "Suddenly Seymour," in which Seymour and Audrey have a duet, and Audrey's voice suddenly turns from meek to booming, overpowering Seymour's lyrics and pounding the stage.

This is the definition of a cult film. Everything about it just strikes you as a cult film. But whereas "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" is a cult film for - in my opinion - sick people, "The Little Shop of Horrors" is a cult film for people who love comedy. It's all in good nature, with cheery little musical numbers every once and a while that are as funny as the songs in "The Blues Brothers," if not more so. But what makes the film particularly different from the rest is its deliciously dark humor - especially for a mainstream comedy like this. From the plant's adamant bloodlust to the shadowy image of Steve Martin slapping Audrey around behind a backlit stage prop, this is one of the funniest, darkest, and yet also cheerfully lightweight comedies ever.

What a Great Film it Could Have Been
Little Shop of Horrors is the definitive modern musical comedy. The music, as written by Alan Menkin, is melodic and beautiful, with some of the best lyrics in recent memory. The pacing is quick, with sharp directing by Frank Oz and great comedic performances by Steve Martin, Ellen Greene, and Rick Moranis (and the very over-rated Bill Murray, in a painfully extended cameo as a masochistic dental patient). The film knows that it isn't art, or thought-provoking, which is what keeps it from being truly campy. But what prevents it from being great is the extremely controversial, oft-discussed original ending.
In the play, Audrey and Seymour are eaten by Audrey II, and the Greek Chorus sings a cautionary song to the audience. In the movie, Audrey survives, Seymour electrocutes Audrey II, and they all live happily ever after. It wasn't always so, however. Oz had filmed the play's ending, but in test screenings, the audience was angry and appalled, so Oz opted to reshoot the film for the ending as it is.
In 1998. a Special Edition DVD was released with a VERY rough cut of the original ending, but it was pulled from the shelves by the producer after only two days. A second release DVD came out in 2000, sans original ending. The first issue DVD has become a collector's item of the highest degree, often selling at online auction sites for upwards of $100.
Well, I own that first issue DVD, and having seen what the film could have been, I can't rate it higher than 3 stars. In that ending, Audrey's death is handled with dramatic emotion now absent from the film, never playing for laughs. There is a breathtaking Death March (Now available on the New Broadway Cast Album) as Seymour carries her body to Audrey II. Seymour undergoes a psychological spiral within minutes, before being devoured by the plant. And during the finale, "Don't Feed the Plants," many enormous Audrey II's are shown wrecking havoc on a devastated New York City, blowing up cinemas, eating trains, and crushing the very symbol of our country, the Statue of Liberty (sort of). Had this ending been used, the film would have been a memorable masterpiece, but as is, it is merely a forgetable (if enjoyable) musical flop.
It's a shame Frank Oz surrendered his vision to please the people. I can only imagine what the ending would have been like in full technicolor on the big screen.
Let's hope for a 20th Anniversary Deluxe Edition DVD in 2006 with a re-edited film containing the original ending, as promised by the producer when he had the disks puled from the shelves.
Little Shop of Horrors is a fun film, if not for younger audiences. If you have 90 minutes to spare and are a fan of musical theatre, check out this modern classic-that-should-have-been, about a singing plant, a daring hero, a sweet girl, and a demented dentist.

Mean, Green and Mad!
Can you imagine Barbra Streisand in this film as Audrey? Although everyone familiar with this movie (and stage musical) immediatly sees Ellen Green in the part, we find out from the documentary on this disc that Babs was offered the role first. Thankfully she wasn't interested.
The film itself is the best stage-to-screen musical adapt. since Grease and none (even Chicago) have since come along to beat it. The music by Alan Menken and the lyrics by the late, great Howard Ashman are fantastically intertwined to evoke laughs as much as the required early-1960's atmosphere. This talented duo went on to score Disney's The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and (in part, due to Ashman's death) Aladdin. When listening to Little Shop's Somewhere That's Green it's easy to see where Mermaid's Part of Your World came from.
The cast are uniformly excellent and succeeded in making their parts their own (meaning that any production now seen on stage features clones of Moranis, Green, Martin etc.). Rick Moranis as Seymour seems to have been born to play the part and his singing voice comes as something of a revelation! Green, as I have already said, IS Audrey but Steve Martin just about manages to steal the entire film from all of them in an extended cameo as Orin the sadistic dentist. Other cameos include James Belushi, John Candy and (brilliantly) Bill Murray.
Audrey II (the plant) is a wonder of engineering and puppetry and watching the film now, I couldn't help but think that if this movie was made today Audrey II would be CGI - impact lost! Thank goodness then, that Frank Oz, director and some-time Muppet-man, gathered a group of talented people together to create a truly startling character. Although the character would be nothing without Levi Stubbs so wonderfully providing his voice.
Wisely it was decided to change the ending from the stage shows bleak (and, frankly, poor) conclusion to a more up-beat and 'Hollywood-style' finale. The original ending is glimpsed in the all-too-short deleted scenes section of this disc, as a couple of Audrey IIs attack a building, but it would have been nice to see the scene in tact perhaps with an option to swap it for the actual ending when watching the film. Also the inclusion of 'Mean, Green Mother' really helps the second half of the film which sadly sags in the show due to the absence of such a show-stopping number.
The 'making of' was made of the time and so is light and fluffy. I would have prefered a little more depth on the realisation of Audrey II. The trailers are worth watching - mini masterpieces of campy kitch but Oz's commentary is a little on the ponderous side.
So, in conclusion, the extras are acceptable if a little dull, but who needs extras when the film is as thoroughly enjoyable and toe-tapping as this! Just remember: - whatever they offer you - don't feed the plants.

Fun, Fun and way out fun!
This off beat musical comedy is too fun, too sick and just plan rolicking for words!

The cast is perfectly matched to each character, the do wop Motown ala Crystals combined with Levi's rock out bass as "da plant" draws you onto the screen!

One for today's generation, sophisticates and those who want to really enjoy a musical - when it's over, all you want to say is "Wasn't that a lot of fun!"

Rent it, buy it, but ENJOY it.........

Oz & Corman-Fabulous Musical With TONS OF SURPRISE CAMEOS!
Frank Oz's masterpiece of Roger Corman's B- Schlock Horror movie of the same name. Originally produced off broadway, it had a very successful run. So... What is Hollywood to do but make it into a blockbuster with big name stars and cameos.

Ellen Greene as the plucky Audrey, who also played the part on stage, Steve Martin as the sado-masochistic Dr. Orin Scrivello, DDS, Rick Moranis as the milquetoast Seymour, Vincent Gardenia as the crusty Mr. Mushnik & the voice of Levi Stubbs as the people-eating, mean green mother from outer-space, Audrey II.

Bill Murray has a hilarious cameo as Arthur Denton, the pain loving dental patient. He screams CANDY BAAAAR whilst the dentist inflicts pain upon him! John Candy cameo as the radio announcer, Wink Wilkinson, Jim Belushi as Patrick Martin, Christopher Guest as the first flower shop customer.

Great musical numbers from all, especially Ellen Greene who has one of the best set of pipes EVER!

Great family movie with only mildly irreverent language.

Happy Watching! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Gracefully adapted from Dava Sobel's extraordinary bestseller, the four-part TV production of Longitude combines drama, history, and scienceinto a stimulating, painstakingly authentic account of personal triumph andjoyous discovery. Equally impressive is the way writer-director CharlesSturridge has crafted parallel stories that complement each other with enrichingperspective. The first story involves the successful 40-year effort of 18th-century clockmaker John Harrison (Michael Gambon) to solve the elusive problemof measuring longitude at sea. In 1714 the British Parliament had offered agenerous reward to anyone who solved the problem, and Harrison devoted his lifeto that solution. The second story, some 200 years later, involves the effort ofshell-shocked British Navy veteran Rupert Gould (Jeremy Irons) to restore theglorious clocks that Harrison had built. Like Harrison, Gould is the mostadmirable type of obsessive, but, also like Harrison, he risks his marriage toaccomplish his difficult task.

Thousands of sailors perished at sea before Harrison's triumph changed history, but Longitude demonstrates that Harrison's glory was slow to arrive--and his prize money even slower. A fascinating study of 18th-century British politics and clashing egos in the arena of science, thefilm is both epic and intimate in consequence, and Sturridge's magnificentscript inspires Gambon and Irons to do some of the best work of theiroutstanding careers. The ever-reliable Ian Hart appears in Part 3 as Harrison's now-adult son and apprentice, and Longitude approaches its dramatic climax with the exhilarating tension of a first-rate thriller. Rallying after sickness to prove the integrity of their marvelous seafaring chronometers, the Harrisons still had to fight for official recognition, and Gould's restoration of the Harrison clockworks provides a fitting coda to this exceptional story about the thrill of discovery and the tenacity of remarkable men. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Better Than the Book
This film is described as an adaptation of Dava Sobel's book of the same name. It is far more than an adaptation, however. Charles Sturridge took a somewhat threadbare tale and turned it into a stirring, dramatic account of the life, tribulations, and ultimate achievement of the 18th century English horologist, John Harrison. It's not that Sobel's book is poorly written. It is in fact entertaining and engrossing as far as it goes. The trouble is that she doesn't go into enough detail and leaves a lot of questions unanswered for the reader. Sturridge takes up her story and fleshes it out, providing the sort of background and character development that the book lacks. Providing the audience with a parallel storyline involving the WWI veteran, Rupert Gould (briefly noted in Sobel's book) also is a stroke of genius on the writer/director's part. The parallels between the lives of the earlier inventor and the shell-shocked vet are striking and poignant.

It does nothing to hurt Sturridge's cause to have assembled such a sterling British cast. Irons and Gambon have great roles to their credit, but they surpass themselves in this production. Sturridge has demonstrated that he can squeeze good acting out of a virtual lemon (Ted Danson in Sturridge's adaptation of "Gulliver's Travels"). He has far more to work with here, and the results are remarkable. Gambon, perhaps best known to American audiences for his lead role in "The Singing Detective," and the recent "Gosford Park," again delivers the goods in this masterful performance. He captures perfectly his character's idiosyncrasies, vicissitudes and ultimate triumph.

Much of the series of course focuses on the "chase" for a solution to the longitude problem that plagued seamen from time immemorial. Methods for determining longitude before the chronometer was invented ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous. Heavenly charts were sometimes supplanted by such ludicrous schemes as "the wounded dog method". The following is a transcription of a dialogue delivered by the method's inventor:
" Now, it is vital to my process, Sir Edmund, that each dog be wounded with the *same knife*, as these three animals have been, under my instructions, some three days ago. Now, the animals are then to be conveyed aboard one of His Majesty's ships, uh, under the supervision of a designated officer, whose task it is to *prevent the wound from healing*. Now the knife, however, would remain here, in London, and at *precisely noon*, each day, is to be plunged into the Powder of Sympathy, which would immediately aggravate the wound, so that each dog, no matter how many thousands of miles away he may be on his particular vessel, would begin to howl... thus."

Clearly, there was a need for a practical solution to this age-old problem, as thousands of sailors were placed in constant peril, owing to the fact that, without a reliable method, they really couldn't get their bearings. This is one area where Sobel does a very good job in her book describing the difficulty in determining longitude, versus the rather simple methods for calculating latitude. That a rather simple man of humble origins could work out the method was disconcerting to several members of the vaunted Board of Longitude, which was composed of members of the ruling class. Harrison's chief detractor and a rival for his claim of the longitude prize (20,000 pounds, equivalent to almost a million dollars by today's standards) was Sir Nevil Maskelyne. Maskelyne comes across in the film and in Sobel's book as a rather arrogant, self-inflated snob, who engages in actual subterfuge of Harrison's claims. Viewers/readers may be interested to note that Maskelyne also appears as a character in Thomas Pynchon's "Mason & Dixon," also in an unflattering light.

In terms of a recommendation, I would have to give Sobel's book between three and four stars. While it is highly readable and engaging, it leaves way too many avenues and dramatic possibilities unexplored. Sturridge fills in all the gaps, and then some. It is not often that I recommend a film over a book, but in this instance, the film is a far richer and satisfying experience.

The Quest for Longitude.
I just watched this docudrama this weekend, and while it is too early to see if critics will give this film any latitude, I will.

As a historian, I often long for at least a blend of authenticity when discussing historical events. Often, as in Jean d'Arc films, accuracy is forgotten in leiu of mythology. Longitude give us the story of one of the greatest quests in history, and remains true to Dava Sobel's book on John Harrison and his son William. The two of which have perhaps saved more mariner's lives than life preservers! One mistake of a few minutes cost more than 1,700 men their lives in one incedent.

The drawback to accuracy is length, as this is a four hour film. However, it took the Harrisons 40 years to construct the four clocks/watches, thus an hour per decade seems reasonable.

If you care about maritime travel, history or clocks, this film will keep you interested for the entire four hours.

Exodus I; BA History EWU

A wonderful tale of vital historical importance
The beginning of this film makes clear the importance of knowing one's position at sea. Disasters--some of epic proportions--were distressingly regular when doubts about one's position relative to land or dangerous reefs were the order of the day. This film tells two stories in parallel. The first is of John Harrison's efforts to make accurate nautical clocks--called chronometers--that could be used at sea and provide a simple means of acertaining longitude (by comparing the time at the home port of known longitude to that of the ship determined by the sun or the stars). Harrison had to struggle against many technical odds to make his machines--and against many bureaucratic barriers to getting them accepted.

The second story is that of Rupert Gould, the Royal Navy officer, who, suffering from his experiences in the first world war, begins the process of restoring the old Harrison clocks to working order. This story is of less historical significance than the first, of course, but it is why we are able to go to the Royal Observatory at Greenwich and see the clocks running today. The poor fellow turned the clocks into an obsession as his life changed dramatically around him.

Well done, and well worth the time.

True Story of a Lone Genius who Captured Time
=====>

Note: This review has been written from a city with the following position on Earth:

LATITUDE: (43 degrees 2 minutes North)
LONGITUDE: (81 degrees 9 minutes West)

This 3 hour 20 minute movie (based on the 1995 book by Dava Sobel) that was first on television in 1999 (and transferred to two 100 minute DVDs in 2000) is "a sweeping epic that takes place in two worlds." The two worlds are the eighteenth century of John Harrison (1693 to 1776) and the twentieth century of Lieutenant Commander Rupert Gould (1890 to 1948). This movie chronicles the life of Harrison who builds sea clocks and alternates his story with Gould's who restores Harrison's clocks and at the same time restores his own health. (Note that most of Sobel's book {that has the same title as this movie} is concerned with Harrison's story while only four pages in the last chapter of her book are devoted to Gould's story.)

The beginning of this movie is narrated and lasts less than three minutes. However, this narration is probably the most important part of this movie because it tells the viewer about latitude and longitude, indirectly how to calculate longitude, how time is related to longitude, and why longitude was so difficult to measure "during most of human history." (How to determine latitude was discovered centuries before this.)

I felt this narration was adequate but it did not mention one simple and important fact:

In 24 hours, the Earth spins 360 degrees on its axis from east to west. (Thus, as the narrator states, four minutes of time equals one degree of longitude east or west.)

The first DVD tells the story of how ships (with their crew and valuable cargo) were being lost at sea because they could not determine their position properly since their navigators were unable to calculate the ship's longitude accurately. As a result, the British parliament offered a reward that's equivalent to many millions of dollars today to anyone who could practically solve "the longitude problem."

Most of the scientists of this time thought that this problem's solution, even at sea, was astronomical. However, a lone genius, simple carpenter, and clockmaker named John Harrison (acted superbly by Michael Gambon) knew the fact stated above, so he reasoned that time was the solution to this problem.

So Harrison began building a clock (eventually called a "chronometer") that would be accurate enough to be used by a ship at sea. (Realize at this time there were only pendulum clocks that were quite bad at keeping time on a swaying ship at sea.) The viewer is shown Harrison constructing his clocks with it's many components. As well, we are shown the final beautiful result -- a clock that was to be used at sea. (Note that this first clock was named "H-1.") We are also shown the maiden voyage of H-1 as it's tested in 1736 on a ship bound for Lisbon (with Harrison, a non-sailor, on board). H-1 worked well during this trial. Because of Harrison's perfectionism, he elected after this trial, to build a better clock called H-2 (which was never tested). H-2 led to H-3 (which was also not tested).

As mentioned above, we are also shown scenes of Rupert Gould's life (very well-acted by Jeremy Irons) that alternate with Harrison's adventure described above. We are made aware that Gould's own life was tragic. As a result, he volunteers as a sort of therapy to restore clocks H-1, H-2, and H-3 that, in his time, were almost two centuries old. The result is that the viewer is shown more of the exterior and interior of Harrison's beautiful and complex "timekeepers" and how they actually work.

The second DVD tells us of Harrison's masterpiece -- H-4 (that was the size of a large pocket watch). As with H-1, H-4 is tested in 1761 on a ship bound for Jamaica with Harrison's grown son (well-acted by Ian Hart) on board. This timepiece worked well.

Also we are shown how Harrison had trouble collecting his monetary prize. In fact, we hear one official on the board (the "Board of Longitude") responsible for bestowing this prize say, "I would not wish to see the longitude prize stolen by a country toolmaker." As fate would have it, an astronomer who favored an astronomical method, Nevil Maskelyne (well-acted by Sam West) became the head of this board, causing further delays. Harrison has to seek the assistance of King George the Third (well-acted by Nick Rowe) to cut through this bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, Gould finishes restoring the clocks and manages at the same time to overcome his own problems.

The acting of those indicated above and the supporting cast is exquisite. The cinematography is breath-taking with the scenes at sea very realistic. All costumes that represented the two alternating time periods transport the viewer back to those periods. The movie itself has it all: intrigue, science, history, geography, astronomy, navigation, clockmaking, ambition, and greed.

A minor complaint is that a simple calculation for determining longitude was not shown. As well, the DVD only has one extra feature called "Behind the Scenes."

Finally, although not absolutely necessary, I recommend reading Sobel's book before viewing this movie. Doing this will enhance your enjoyment and understanding of the movie.

In conclusion, this movie was an A&E production. As a result, viewing this movie is definitely "time well spent."

<=====>

The Best!
This has it all! History, science, a great adventure story, great acting. Michael Gambon and Jeremy Irons are superb! Though I haven't read the book I got the book for my Dad a number of years ago. He's a scrooge about books and loved it!
This has a fast-paced story; lots of action shots, verve and movement. The story never dulls and moves easily and effectively. I've watched it nearly a dozen times. If you are interested in how academy, science, and politics collide; are interested in how difficult the scientific and historical processes were almost 300 years ago, this is a DVD for you! ... Read more

Reviews (213)

2 thumbs down
I found John Hughes' 1985 movie The Breakfast Club to be an extremely generalized, heavy handed, piece of trite filmmaking that may or may not have been relevant to teenagers fifteen years ago, but is certainly nowhere near on target now.
Obviously it was by design that his five main characters were one-dimensional character sketches of so-called 'traditional' high school stereotypes. You have Andy the jock (Emilio Estevez), Claire the princess (Molly Ringwald, a John Hughes staple), Bender the criminal (Judd Nelson), Brian the nerd (Anthony Michael Hall), and Allison the basket case (Ally Sheedy). In my opinion, for Hughes to insinuate that these five people come from completely different backgrounds and had absolutely no contact with each other or anyone else from their particular 'type' during school is just plain silly. For example, it is quite likely that Claire and Andy, being popular people, would know each other, or at least that princesses and jocks would interact on a regular basis. Same thing goes for Bender and Allison as social outcasts. Only Brian, being the brain, would logically be shunned by all other classes.
For another thing, these categories have little relevance today because in today's modern society, and indeed this has always been true, teens simply cannot be categorized and labeled, even by their peers, in this manner. I myself saw elements of my personality in every one of the characters, and neither I nor anyone I know would fit neatly into these stereotypes.
The last thing I'm going to gripe about in this review is, logically enough, the ending. For a film that tried so hard to be edgy, the denouement was awfully hackneyed and predictable. Four out of the five characters hook up at the end? Gosh, I never saw that coming! Also, the treatment of Allison was laughable. This girl has serious psychological issues that have been with her all her life, but all she needs is a little makeup, a nice dress, and a clean-cut boyfriend to set her to rights? I don't think so, pal. Willful suspension of disbelief is all fine and good, but to trivialize Allison's pain and emotional trauma in this manner is irresponsible and does a disservice to those young people who do identify with her character. I think that's enough bashing for this film; while it had its moments, it certainly is by no means the 'classic' that it is reputed to be.

One for the ages
This movie is a classic and it will stand the test of time. This is the second "teen coming of age" installment from John Hues, and round 2 for Molly Ringwald and Anthony Michael Hall. The first installment, Sixteen Candles, was more of a sexual coming of age movie whereas The Breakfast Club is more of a coming of age for one's character and social awareness. Where they are "teetering" with; do they stay with the social allegiances of their perspective pack, or do they listen to that inner voice...the voice of reason, maturity and human compassion that's not bound to any "click". I also like the choice of actors here; I think they all fit like pieces in a puzzle and make their characters totally believable. I am in the same age range as almost the entire cast and I was a senior in High school when this film came out. Allot of reviews seem to put this film within the Junior High crowd but I feel it's much more mature than that. The very message that it's trying to get across isn't understood in real life until we get close to 18 or so. The story is simple; 5 kids have to come into school on a Saturday for detention. At first they try to segregate themselves according to their school social standings. Inevitably they find out that they are more alike than they ever thought. The movie, in my eyes, is broken into 3 parts; the first part is pure character development. This is where you (the viewer) get to know each person they way they are supposed to be seen with their everyday face. At first, they act the way they think they should act, and stand up for what they always had, with out question or defiance. They stay true to their cause never steering away for a second. The second part of the film is where the movie itself develops. These 5 separate entities realize that they are variations of the same person. They have the same desires and anguishes. Their pressures and stresses are the same even though it's generated from very different sources.
The jock (Emilio Estevez) has the pressure to be on top of his sport (wrestling). In return for this he gets attention from his dad, coaches and keeps his standing within his social group. This is his priority in life and he doesn't stray.
The Princess (Molly Ringwald) has to conform and obey the rules of her social group in order to be accepted and keep her standing within the group. She keeps her eyes closed; mouth shut and goes along for the ride.
The Metal Head/criminal (Judd Nelson) is an angry guy! He wears the physical and mental scars of growing up in an abusive house. He hates most people, like the ones Emilio and Molly play, because in his eyes, they have had a free ticket and earned nothing...things are handed to them because of their social and/or economical standings. On the other hand, he feels that he's on a whole other plain because his eyes have been beaten open and he was forced to grow up a little faster than he wanted too or was ready too. I feel that Judd Nelson's character is the most crucial to the movie. He is the key to this whole new self-awareness for everyone, including himself.
The nerd (Anthony Michael Hall) is the quintessential geek. His every woken moment is spent learning. He hides behind his grades and in fact, he wants to be more accepted by the "cooler" groups. He also is a little "cocky" about his better grades and academically superiority to the other people in the room.
The weirdo (Ally Sheedy) is a loner and an outcast. She doesn't have friends that we (the viewers) know of. Because her parents ignore her, She feels ugly and without a place in the world. She is starving for positive attention. I think her character was needed in this movie to balance off the cast. It would have left out a very critical part of teen angst!
Richard Vernon (Paul Gleason) is the "Villain" of the movie. To the kids, he represents the out of touch older generation and the mean spirited, high testosterone adult. For Richard Vernon, these kids are the source of his anger and agony. He has lost touch with the younger generation for 1 reason, he got older...and the older you get, the harder it is to relate to youth. Youth recycles right before your eyes, but you keep getting older. His character is the key that releases these kids. He helps them to strip away the blindfolds and to take a fresh look at every thing and everyone (including themselves).

This leads to the 3rd and final part of the movie. Where they cleanse themselves of all the pentad up anger and prejudices. When the kids realize that they all have the same goal, they were just taking different roads to reach it. I highly recommend The Breakfast Club and it should go down as one of the all time great teenage movie!

A little time - a little perspective
I first saw this movie at a cinema in Austin in March, 1985. Just a year out of high school, I thought this was a deep, moving motion picture with a quality cast that really showed the feelings of different groups of students in schools. I could relate to the characters.

Move forward more than 19 years. This movie has not aged well. I read on the IMDB that John Hughes wrote this script in two days. After watching this movie again, I find that very easy to believe. It is horrible! - and this coming from a man who loves all things 80's! Was Judd Nelson about 35 when he made that movie? He looks about 20 years older than Anthony Michael Hall. Unbelievable characters and dialogue. Then they tie it up nice and neat at the end - with 2 unlikely couples pairing off leading us to believe there's no social caste in high schools.

With the small cast and lack of location shots, I'm amazed that I've never read about some high school drama club doing a stage production of this disaster. In any case, I've got a Breakfast Club DVD I'll never watch again - I'll post it used "New & Used" above.

Still relevant after all these years
Some question the durability of "The Breakfast Club," saying that the themes and plotlines do not hold up in today's teen society. As a 15-year-old, I would like to say that that is thoroughly untrue. 19 years after its release, "The Breakfast Club" is still a truthful, relateable account of teenagers and their personalities, and the ways in which they interact with each other. Sure, the stereotypes of the characters may be a bit exaggerated -- but that's necessary in order to get the point across. Watching this movie, I feel as if I know these people, or at least I've run across them at one point in my high school career.

The plot, as most people know, involves five different kids being assigned Saturday detention together. Each kid represents a typical high school stereotype -- a princess (Molly Ringwald), a jock (Emilio Estevez), a brain (Anthony Michael Hall), a basket case (the excellent Ally Sheedy), and a criminal (Judd Nelson). At the beginning of the day, none of them know each other, except for the princess and the jock. Throughout the day, they learn more about each other and work at tearing down the stereotypes that pit them against each other. As for the reviewer who said this isn't realistic that they would open up so much to each other -- it absolutely is. Put five kids into a room without an adult for nine hours, and they will talk about anything.

The beauty of this movie is the depth of the characters beyond the stereotypes -- particularly the nerd, Brian, who as we find out in the movie has problems well beyond what people think of him. He is the one that I most relate to in the movie. Watch "The Breakfast Club," and see who you most relate to. It's a great experience. Beyond the social commentary aspect, it's also just a funny movie. The jokes come at breakneck speed, especially for the first half of the movie (before it gets somewhat serious). The actors are also very enjoyable in their roles, particularly Ally Sheedy and Anthony Michael Hall. Highly recommended.

Must have to any collection.
The quintessential John Hughes film. I remember in my English class my junior year (1987) we had to analyze this movie. Only 2 years after it's release it was had all the qualities needed for a class analysis. I will spare you the report that I did back then.

Since then I have watched this movie at least once a year (and contrary to popular believe it is not for the panty shot). The characters are very well done. There is something that anyone who went through high school can relate to, even if we fit more than just one character. The interactions between the teens towards each other and then towards the principal as a group is classic. It's got love, teen angst, popular kids, geeks, dweebs, outcasts and the ever popular kid that doesn't fit in but always tries to get the attention. Nothing like dumping out your bag for people to go through to get attention.

Of course you can't forget the star cast of strong 80's actors, Emilio Estevez (Andrew 'Andy') Anthony Michael Hall (Brian) Judd Nelson (John Bender) Molly Ringwald (Claire) Ally Sheedy (Allison) and Paul Gleason (Principal). Great acting, John's look at teenagers and a great script all make for a very enjoyable look at the interactions and 'attitude' typical of the high school years.

I truly could go on about this movie but I won't. I'll just say that this is a much have for any movie buff and if you haven't seen it you must. ... Read more