Amazon.com

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

Reviews (245)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (3)

Great Movie"
This is a wonderful story full of true values that are so important in today's world. It has a wonderful story line with great actors and most of all a wonderful message of love and hope despite adversities in life. It is worth watching over and over.

About this movie and Michael Landon Sr./Jr.
When i watched Love comes softly.I saw it directed by Michael Landon's son Michael Landon Jr. When i watched this movie... Michael Landon Jr. Was exactly like his father Michael Landon. In my own opinion i think Michael Landon Jr. learned from his father!. Love comes softly is a good movie it's made me cry and it was...... amazing!

Wonderful Touching Story
This is one that I can watch over and over. It leaves you feeling optimistic and hopeful. Tender love story, with the lead man being strong, and with strong spiritual principals. I wish movie makers would wake up, and realize there is a huge population of people that would love more movies like this. ... Read more

Reviews (90)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (42)

Finally, we get Alien vs Predator !
Wow, this movie has been in the works for too long! It's about time!

From what I've read, Lance Henriksen is in AvP as the original Charles Weyland, the 'father of modern robotics', thats why the android looked like him in Aliens, and his great grandson is the character in Alien 3.

That would make Alien vs Predator a 'prequel' to the other 4 Alien films, and so there is no continuity error in the stories.

In any case, I'll wait to see it before I pass any final judgements. Im sure the action & effects will be great, lets just hope there isnt too much cheap CGI. :P

Whoever wins, we lose!
I can't for this film to come out! It's been on the shelf for years, and I'm surprised "Aliens vs. Predator" will premiere in August 2004. I don't know why it took so long for both creature franchises to pair up together for one film. I mean, both are produced by studio Fox, but I think the story was the problem. I don't know that many details about it, but i heard the film is set in the near-future, with soldiers likely being the heroes from exterminating the alien beings.

I'm not really a big fan of the "Alien" series, and I never seen any "Alien" film entirely,except for the medicore "Alien Resuruction." Don't count on heroine Siguorney Weaver to return, she's a recycled character and doesn't even have first billing for this movie.Lance Henriksen, who potrayed a robot in a couple of "Alien" films, does return. I can't wait with the new race of creatures this film will have for the "Alien" franchise.

Now "Predator" I'm familar with. The "Predator" should be the ultimate foe to beat. It kills for sport, and has an amazing array of gadgets, each armed to kill. It has the ability to become self-invisible. Even a dummy will know "Ahhnold" Schwarzenegger won't return (he's busy saving California), he didn't even return for the sequel. Despite making only two movies, the Predator creature surely lasted a mark in creature making and I can't wait to see another Predator again.

"Alien vs. Predator" basically got the idea from the successful comic book and video game franchises. Hopefully this film will succeed because the technology of computer graphics has improved dramatically that it would make this film outstanding. Happy Kills! (For the aliens and predators, I mean.)

Alien and Predator go PG-13
Let's face it: any movie that pits two of the coolest sci-fi creatures of all time against each other, while killing lots of human beings (completely nessecary mind you) has to be cool, right? Every person (including myself) who saw this movie went into it with that decieving mindset; coming out six bucks in the hole, and none too satisfied. Take the worst of every Alien and Predator movie (i.e. Arnold S./Danny Glover), a watered down plot, horrible acting, and a WHOLE LOTTA CRAP, and blend it all together - and you get this. The vs. part is the hook, the hope of seeing an actual Alien vs. Predator battle is the line, and the movie? The sinker. The humans do not die fast enough! Any movie where lots of humans die trying to stop something a) of no concern to them and b) that is going to ruin their chances of greed - is okay by me. I was waiting for a cameo by Danny Glover telling us veterans of age that we are indeed "too old for this @#$%!" (Lethal Weapon throwback there) However, this review isn't all bad: the Aliens and Predators look tremendous, with awesome detail, and the Predator makes use of that cool weaponary it possesses. This "PG-13" is the training wheels to its "R-rated" predecessors. And if this battle ever turns into a series, pray it finds its way into space...where all franchises go to die.

Not Bad, not bad at all!
I saw this movie twice, I liked most of what I saw, there were somethings that I did not like in Alien vs. Predator, one of them being how the quickly and how the first 2 predators were killed in this movie, and the second is how cheazy looking the predators shoulder cannons looked. Other than that the movies was spectacular, strange but still a good movie regardless. I have been a fan of both the Aliens and Predator franchises since I was 10 and I have to say that this alien vs. predator movie has been long overdue.

Hope it's good....
I love all of the alien and predator films, So I'm incredibly excited. This movie comes out on my birthday so I'm really phsyced( Don't know if i spelled it right). But I heard that the director also directed Resident Evil which was kinda a let down... But i personally think that people that like the Alien and Predator movies are still gonna love it. I hope it doesn't fall into crap like Freddy vs Jason but also i know for a fact people love these characters alot more than 2 mediocre( but still cool) horror killers. Im just hoping for the best. But please if you are gonna see this movie watch all 4 Aliens and 2 Predators!!!! They are all good in my opinion. August 13, 2004
Smash Hit or Hit Smashed in the ground... ... Read more

Amazon.com

To call Orson Welles's F For Fake a documentary would be somewhat deceitful, but deceit itself is very much the subject of this curious film essay. Welles ruminates on the nature of artistic fakery through two examples, that of infamous art forger Elmyr de Hory and the writer Clifford Irving, whose bogus autobiography of Howard Hughes set off a minor media flurry in the 1970s. Postmodernist that he is, Wells then proceeds to narrate and edit the film in such a perversely frenetic way as to blur the lines between what is real and what is deception, making for an often confusing but engaging work of art in itself. We even see the footage we've been watching as it's being spliced together in Welles's editing room. The specter of Welles's often maligned later career hangs over the proceedings like a challenge--is he going to actually complete this strange movie about chicanery, or will it become one of the many unfinished experiments of his twilight years? Happily, Welles concludes the proceedings with a delightful sequence about Picasso, lust, and what constitutes real art. F For Fake is a fine example of a master filmmaker who had at least a couple tricks left up his sleeve. --Ryan Boudinot ... Read more

Reviews (17)

G For Great
Orson Welles' "For for Fake" can be at times a very confusing movie. But, if you find yourself confused, the problem is your thinking to hard. You're trying to make sense of a movie that simply doesn't want you to make sense of it. Think of the film as a magic act. You know you're being fooled, but you sit and watch anyways because you are being entertained. To think how the trick was done that's away from the mystery. And just like a magican Welles' doesn't want to reveal his secrets.

"F for Fake" is supposedly about a famous art forger, Elmyr de Hory and the relationship between himself and a man named Clifford Irving. Right from the beginning Welles tells us we are going to watch a movie about lies and deception.

At first the film, notice a called it a film not a documentary, plays off as real. We think we are seeing a movie that is examing how in fact is Elmyr de Hory. At admittedly it is very interesting. Welles comprises this material in a very effective way. Though all the while we are asking ourselves, just how much as this can we trust?

The film zips through three main plot points. One dealing with de Hory another involving Howard Hughes,which leads us back to Clifford Irving, and then finally a segment about Welles himself and some of the tricks he has pulled off, namely his famous "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast.

"F for Fake" I believe was the last film Welles directed, and while it may not be in the same league as his other works; "Citizen Kane", "Touch of Evil", or "Chimes at Midnight" it is still an enjoyable film. In some ways it is quite fitting that this would be his last film. He was a man who had to struggle to find a place in the Hollywood studio system to get his films made and here he has the last laugh.

Bottom-line: Highly entertaining film about lies and deception. The movie has the ability to suck us into its story, and manages to fool us. Worthwhile for fans of Orson Welles.

A rich film, nothing else like it
Orson Welles's F For Fake is a great film, and it's surprising to me that it isn't more widely acclaimed.A brilliant investigation into lying, manipulation, and the chicanery that forms the foundation of high culture, it reminds me of something Michael Moore might do if he were more concerned with metaphysics than politics, or Ross McElwee if he wore a cape and was outwardly self-obsessed.Great stuff, especially for anyone jaded by the b.s. flowing from the art world.
My one complaint-a few too many shots of Kodar prancing around in high heels-Welles's work in those sections was like a twelve year old's idea of what sexually attractive looks like.
Brilliantly shot and edited, narrated with style and panache by Welles, and it has substance to back up the style.
Criterion added some good extras.The unreleased trailer for F For Fake might be even better than the movie itself--it makes promises God himself couldn't keep.The documentary on Welles's late period of unfinished work is enjoyable, but by no means a revelation.The clips that are shown are intriguing, but a more penetrating and honest analysis of his later years by someone more removed from the subject would have been preferable to Kodar's well-intentioned puff piece.The swinging london skit shown in the film is hilarious.
The documentary on De Hory is okay, a bit dry, and has a bit of a smell of "expert" posturing about it.The 60 minutes interview with Clifford Irving is strange.The man reveals nothing that rings sincerely.Based on it, Irving comes off to me as the most dangerous and desperate man involved in the proceedings.There doesn't seem to be anything there beyond an enthusiasm for finding an angle and playing it successfully.Hughes's telephone interview is sad for the promises he makes and the potential he had.
In all, a great package and nearly worth the steep price tag

Fake in the most truthful way possible.
Sure, I saw Citizen Kane. It was pretty good, but despite what all the experts said, it wasn't the best film I'd ever seen, let alone of all time. After seeing Kane I was utterly convinced of Greg Tolland's genius but Orson Welles? Eh, not so much. Having seen him in Kane I thought he was terribly overrated, because I just couldn't see what the whole fuss was about. I wasn't impressed because the first time I saw Kane, it reminded me of the Simpsons episode that paid homage to the movie--and I thought the Simpsons was better! I thought that it was so full of cliches, but then I remembered it's like that joke about the person who went to see Hamlet for the first time and came back pouting that it was full of cliches.

But because I'm a sporting type of person, I finally decided to watch F for Fake just to figure out if Welles really was as good a director as everyone in the world seemed to think he was. I'd give him one more film, I said to myself, but really I'd written him off. I thought I was going to unmask the fake--I'd expose Welles for the overrated, overblown director he was.

Boy, was I wrong. This movie is like nothing else I've ever seen; as someone else remarked, this is MTV before MTV, this is meta before meta, this movie blows Kane out of the water and more. Oja Kodar said that Orson Welles often edited his films with an ear for music, and if that's the case then this film is pure jazz. Such unparalleled virtuoso narration is nothing short of AMAZING. Prior to seeing this film, I'd fallen in love with Michael Winterbottom's 24 Hour Party People released in 2002 which is a pretty good send-up of the Manchester scene, that also takes place in the editing room. But F for Fake came out a full 25 years before that movie and despite the retro feel, it blows it out of the water.

The extra features on the second disc are quite noteworthy, if only because they showcase footage from Kodar and Welles' unfinished movies, a veritable treasure trove of lost masterpieces. Watching Kodar and Welles together, one gets a sense of a real, loving, creative partnership between the two of them.

On a sidenote, I left this film with a great appreciation for Orson's "intractable contrariness" and his great desire to always push the envelope in service of his Art. Though Welles does claim to be a charlatan, a fraud, an utter fake, he was perhaps the very best at using lies to tell the truth.

Genius Stifled
Orson Welles' 1937 "Julius Caesar" is the longest running Broadway production of the play. Welles played Brutus. In 1938, Welles' On-the-Air Mercury Theatre broadcast "War of the Worlds". It was a hoax. But it caused a nationwide panic. Listeners were convinced that the Earth was being invaded by Mars. RKO Studios signed Welles to direct "Citizen Kane" in 1941. It is regarded by many as the Best Film ever made. Welles had conquered stage, radio, and the cinema. Criterion has just released the flawless, two-disc DVD, "F For Fake", an anamorphic, digitally-restored transfer(1.66:1).Disc One is Welles' 1976 essay/documentary; a non-linear, freeze-frame interview of art forger Elmyr De Hory, culled from 35mm and blown-up 16mm. Elmyr's biographer, Clifford Irving, is later exposed as the fraudulent chronicler of Howard Hughes. "F For Fake" features Joseph Cotten, Laurence Harvey, and Welles' mistress, Oja Kodar. Filmed in France, Rome, and southern California, "F For Fake" includes shots of Howard Hughes' bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel. It was the last film Welles ever directed. Extras include a Peter Bogdanovich introduction, a nine-minute trailer(curiously un-restored), and a commentary track. Disc Two contains the elusive 88-minute documentary, "One-Man Band". It has never been available before on film, video, or DVD( I saw it once 2 years ago on late-night cable). The 1995 "One-Man Band" examines Welles' lost/unfinished movies. This treasure trove includes scenes from "The Other Side of the Wind", "The Deep", and, reportedly, his mysterious "Don Quixote(A work in progress, on-and-off, for 15 years)". Welles stares into the camera, pauses, and recites Herman Melville in fragments of his "Moby Dick". He is electrifying. The process is staggering; and finally heart-breaking. So much talent, and finally, a sense of loss. Disc Two has another stunning documentary, an essay, a 60 Minutes excerpt, and a Howard Hughes press conference. Director, actor, writer, painter, magician. Orson Welles was, perhaps, the greatest auteur of the 20th Century. Big words. Big man. Big cigar. Welles once said that we are all really 2 or 3 different people inside. Or none of these at all. Was Orson Welles a fake?Welles' classic 1958 "Touch of Evil" ended in these last lines:Tanya: Isn't somebody gonna come and take him away?Schwartz: Yeah, in just a few minutes. You really liked him, didn't you?Tanya: The cop did..the one who killed him...he loved him.Schwartz:Is that all you have to say for him? Tanya:He was some kind of a man...What does it matter what you say about people?

Film Unlike Other Films - A Cinematic Thesis...
Society consists of symbols with a wide range of meanings within the world.The alphabet is one of most commonly used code systems of symbols.The letters in the alphabet have the power to form words and every single word has a meaning.When a number of words such as nouns, verbs, and adjectives fuse together, they form a sentence.The structure of a sentence is to produce a contextual meaning, which sometimes uses symbolism to enhance the sentences in regards to the theme of the topic.Several joined sentences create a paragraph, which usually focuses on one idea that also could be a symbol.A number of ideas compiled into a narrative form makes a thesis for readers to contemplate, which could help the person either assimilate, or adapt the new ideas to previous knowledge and wisdom.This is due to the notion that new ideas comprise a symbolic meaning for the individual.Orson Welles seems to have used this concept when he made the film, F for Fake.

F for Fake playfully utilizes every single scene while maximizing the symbolic value of words, images, and behavior among the individuals portrayed in the film.These scenes offer several representational impressions to the audience, as Welles' meticulous editing seems to have the same meaning a typewriter has to a writer.In this sense, F for Fake does not offer a conventional film or documentary, as Welles uses both authentic film clips edited with stage performances.Instead, Welles advocates his ideas in neither a fictionalized nor a non-documentary manner, as he fuses these two into a notion of deceit, forgery, trickery, and any other way that could deceive the audience.In 1972 over a Parisian lunch with writer and film essayist Jonathan Rosenbaum he expressed that he was working on this film, which Welles referred to as a new kind of film.The structure of the film brings the notion of a thesis where the candidate attempts to support his or her own thesis from a wide range of angles.Each visual symbol has a meaning while the scenes form the visual sentences, as the different acts form paragraphs in this cinematic thesis.The heavy editing, which Welles spent over a year on, describes Welles' cerebrally complexity while trying to defend this extraordinarily cinematic thesis.

In the beginning of the film Welles implies that a key he used for a magic trick "...was not symbolic of anything."This, however, suggests another deceit, as the audience has already seen the sequence and had time to ponder the meaning of the key to which Welles is fully aware.The pondering has already caused the audience to give the key a visual meaning, which the viewer has either assimilated or adapted to previous knowledge.There is also a scene where the audience gets to follow a stunning woman in high heels and a short miniskirt , as several people open their eyes starring while salivating and car horns honk in the background.Suggestively, the scene causes the audience to think that all the men probably are secretively wishing for the woman's company.This too is a clever lie, as Welles simply has edited together a number of scenes which insinuate that people are starring while horns can be heard in the background.Welles seems to suggest that what one sees cannot be believed, as what one sees might only be a fabricated version of the truth.

To comfort the audience Welles informs that the viewers that they will not be victims to deception as he places in writing that "For the next hour everything in this film is strictly based on the available facts."This portion of the film leads the audience through a two-piece sequence about a famous art forger named Elmyr de Hory, Cliff Irving, and the eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes.One focuses on Elmyr while the second part emphasizes Elmyr's biographer Irving who also was into forgery, as he wrote a forged autobiography by Howard Hughes who then lived secretively in a luxury Las Vegas penthouse.This brings several of the previous notions back, as Welles continues to discuss the idea of deceit.One of the interesting ideas in this sequence explains the meaninglessness of experts, as fakers cannot be troubled by experts.One thing that Elmyr advises of is that no one should have the ultimate power to decide quality, as he himself probably fooled many so-called experts with his own forgeries.This also implies that the expert could as well be the faker, if this one person knew what was good.This notion would also suggest that this very review would be a fake, as it also does not express anything unique while it merely retells the design and purpose of the film.

F for Fake offers an intriguing cinematic thesis that crawls within the brain causing an itch that does not seem to want to leave.The film is nothing like anything that Welles has done before, or after this film, which also supports what he has said in regards to the film.One reason that no other film that he created since did not mimic this film could be the concept of the film, as it provides an opportunity for him to play with his own ideas in a visual manner.This film took over a year for him to make, as it also seems to be a film of personal growth and understanding of the world as a whole.The personal aspect of the film seems to saturate the whole experience, as he refers to himself while acting and making comments in regards to the people in film from behind the cutting board.Ultimately, Welles attempts to erase the idea of him being the "expert", as he provides examples of his own forgery from when he provided the War of the Worlds over the radio, which caused mass hysteria throughout the United States. ... Read more

Reviews (61)

Loneliness, Love, Solitude, Eternity
"The Ghost and Mrs Muir" is one of those extraodinary films that works on a deeply emotional level. One would think, "A romance between a woman and a ghost? How silly!" Well, that kind of reasoning does not apply here. Joseph Mankiewicz, along with splendid performances by Tierney, Harrison, Sanders, along with the rest of the cast (including a very young Natalie Wood) achieve a very moving, touching story about loneliness and unrequited love. Miss Tierney, one of my favorite actresses, portrays Lucy Muir-a young widow of strong character who moves into a haunted cottage by the sea, and develops a friendship/romance with the cottage's ghostly former owner, Captain Gregg, played with great charm and gusto by Rex Harrison. This "love that can never be" will only reach fruition when Lucy dies. Captain Gregg, knowing this, decides to leave Lucy, leaving her with no memory of him. After a disastrous affair with a philandering author, played by George Sanders in one of his signature "cad" roles, Mrs. Muir resolves to live her life companionless-until her true love comes to claim her in death. Lucy grows old and finally dies, Captain Gregg returns for her, and the two walk off together into the mists of eternity. This film has a very quiet charm-it never bashes you over the head with pathos-it just works its way into your heart. Even its humor is very subtle-not the thigh-slapping kind, but far more subtle. Add to this lovely photography, and, of course, Bernard Herrmann's remarkable score. Herrmann proclaimed this score his personal favorite, even jokingly referring to it as "my Max Steiner score". It is filled with great warmth and longing, and, even listening to it by itself without the images, brings tears to my eyes. It is very hard, in my opinion, to pull off romantic films without becoming maudlin and sappy. Happily, this gem of a film pulls it off beautifully. They certainly DON'T make them like this anymore!

A Little Gem
This is a fabulous film. The gorgeous Gene Tierney was born to play the widowed Lucy Muir--a young woman seeking personal fulfillment, as well as financial independence from her loathsome in-laws for herself and her young daughter, Anna (portrayed by Natalie Wood). While house hunting, she finds herself irresistibly drawn to a seaside dwelling considered uninhabitable by its agent and, after taking up residence, falls in love with the spectral former owner, Daniel Gregg (Rex Harrison), a full-of-himself sea captain who hasn't quite come to terms with his accidentally having taken his own life. After helping Lucy to acquire financial security, Gregg unselfishly opts to make the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of his soulmate: concerned that she feels divided between his world and that of the living, he suggests to her while she sleeps that her recollection of their association, if any, is a dream and so it is until the film's climax. This tender, perfectly-cast love story is presented without the slightest trace of mawkishness under Joseph L. Mankewicz' direction and the performances are all stellar--George Sanders as Lucy's caddish suitor is particularly entertaining. Bernard Herrmann's appropriately haunting soundtrack is justifiably famous--one can detect the direction he'll take in his future work--and is available on CD from Amazon. It's entertaining on its own and definitely worth having.
The DVD is mastered from a good print and has nice, crisp contrast; the audio is fine, too. I haven't watched the film with the commentary, but the extras are nice and include an A&E Biography segment of the life of Rex Harrison, a theatrical trailer, and a collection of stills. Viewers are offered a choice of Spanish or French dubbing, as well as Spanish or English subtitles, and the menus are easily navigable. This film spawned a short-lived, late-60's TV show starring Edward Mulhare and Hope Lange in the title roles, as well as a condensed, made-for-TV production on Fox's Hour of Stars in the late 50's that has only recently resurfaced--it stars Michael Wilding and Joan Fontaine.
Kudos to Fox for staying competitive with the likes of heavyweights such as Criterion and Kino in their treatment of the classics in their catalogue. They provide quality (including nice keep cases as opposed to Warner's crummy cardboard "snappers") at very attractive prices and are clearly attuned to the public's expectations unlike, for instance, Universal. Fox has made it very easy on the wallet to own some of the finest movies ever made. If you agree with me that they're doing a good job, drop them a line at FoxDrop@4icc.com to let them know.

Unexpectedly wonderful love story
On paper, the premise of the movie sounds ridiculous. A ghost and a woman falling in love with one another? But watch what happens and you'll totally be drawn in. After Lucy Muir moves with her young daughter and trusted servant to a seaside cottage, she discovers that it's haunted. However, she is so in love with the house - it suits her in a way she can't define - that she can't stand the thought of leaving. After the ghost, a sea captain named Daniel, fails to scare her away, they reach an agreement to live amicably with one another.

The conversations between the two are initially hilarious, but gain a strong emotional dimension as the prim Victorian woman and coarse sea captain get to know each other better. Their connection becomes so powerful, you almost forget at times that the captain is a spirit. However, as right as they are for one another, there is still that physical barrier between the living and the fleshless. What's also interesting about the film is its psychology. Daniel is Lucy's ideal man - is he really a ghost, or just the product of her overactive imagination? Regardless of what you think the answer is, the question becomes increasingly important during the second half of the movie, when Lucy is pursued by a flesh-and-blood man, a suave and oily writer, who is certainly not her ideal but makes her commitment to the sea captain waver.

As Lucy, Gene Tierney is wonderful - she is great in both the humorous scenes and the troubled, emotional ones. She makes Lucy come alive as the proper, well-bred lady who also has a quirky side to her, and a resilience not found in many women of the time. And Rex Harrison is marvelous as Daniel. Though I first cracked up when hearing his gruff, earthy voice, he quickly won me over. Especially memorable is his bedside monologue to Lucy, which will bring tears to your eyes.

An unusual film with spectacular music and cinematography
More of a romance and a mood piece than a ghost story, this lovely little one-of-a-kind work from Fox (of all studios) brought out the very best in most of the people concerned. The score by Bernard Herrmann, has been justly praised again and again, and its evocative and sophisticated (and extremely non-sugary) romanticism it rivals his later beautiful work for Hitchcock and Truffaut. The gorgeous cinematography (eloquently described on the commentary by Greg Kimball) is exceptional, with exceptional black and white tonalities and use of mise en scene. And Gene Tierney, that most beautiful and inconstant of Hollywood actresses, was never more up to a script than here: her manneredness never seemed more charming, and she is quite fine in her later scenes when she's asked to be her character in middle age (and then old age). Only Rex Harrison, in a barking performance as the dead Captain Gregg, doesn't seem up to standards of the others. The film has nice extras, especially in Kimball's very informative commentary, which gives fine background material about how things were filmed and how Fox operated.

Poodle rates this 5 wags of a tail
This great film touched me deeply.
I love everything about it.
Please do not forgett the tissues. ... Read more

Amazon.com

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

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

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

The Personalities ofThe Aviator

Click the links to explore more movies by these stars.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Movies by The Aviator's Oscar® Winners

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

The Aviator at Amazon.com

The Aviator soundtrack

The Screenplay

Howard Hughes: The Real Aviator

Howard Hughes movies

Great movies of the 1930s

The films of Martin Scorsese

Reviews (148)

Hughes at His Peak But Epic Biopic Not Quite a Masterpiece
This is an audacious, surprisingly amusing piece of Hollywood filmmaking by a veteran craftsman of the first magnitude, yet for a number of reasons, not necessarily of Martin Scorsese's sole doing, the movie does not resonate as much as you wish it would. In staying true to the spirit of multimillionaire magnate Howard Hughes between the late 1920's and the late 40's, Scorsese and screenwriter John Logan are stuck with the facts as they happened, and consequently, the film feels episodic with a great, sometimes dazzling story in the first 2/3 of its epic 166-minute running time and a pedantic, only occasionally involving last hour.

You need to have some familiarity with Hughes' life to understand his halcyon years proving himself as a Hollywood tycoon worthy of respect, and his legendary excess during the three-year production of the now-forgotten "Hell's Angels" is captured perfectly here with truly thrilling aviation sequences. Scorsese then focuses on Hughes' romance with Katharine Hepburn and captures the oddball chemistry of burgeoning eccentrics amid the frenzied environment of studio-owned Hollywood, in particular, the Cocoanut Grove nightclub. These sequences remind me a lot of Scorsese's failed musical, "New York, New York", but this time he seems far more assured. Ava Gardner enters the picture in the forties, as Hughes builds luxury airplanes that can't fly and his obsessions and paranoia start to take over. There's a magnificently filmed sequence of Hughes crashing his XF-11 plane in the middle of Beverly Hills.

Once he recovers from this incident, the film starts to drag, as the story focuses on his power struggles of positioning Hughes' airline TWA against the European-route monopoly of Pan Am and the machinations of Pan Am CEO Juan Trippe and the corrupt Maine senator Owen Brewster who investigates Hughes' WWII government contracts. Even the legendary mini-flight of the Spruce Goose fails to excite this late in the story. Only Scorsese's famous "Taxi Driver"-like, mind-bending touch brings off the surrealism of the sequences where Hughes locks himself up in his room. The film ends rather anticlimactically with Hughes' successful 1947 appearance before Brewster's committee before he drowns in his obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).

Leonardo DiCaprio's chief asset as an actor is his intensity of purpose, and as Hughes, he has plenty of opportunities to display this attribute with his character's obsessions with aviation, moviemaking, glamorous movie stars and ultimately germs. What he is missing is a level of gravitas that would have made his character's increasing eccentricities more bearable to watch. Even though the reed-thin Texas-tinged voice is accurate, there is something perpetually juvenile about DiCaprio's appearance regardless of the twenty-year span of the story. This unfortunately compromises the chemistry between him and the obviously more mature Cate Blanchett, who initially seems to be crossing the border into parody as Hepburn. She displays the familiar brusque manner without caution and even affecting the even more familiar voice but with an inaccurate throatiness that belies the legendary actress' high, fluttery pitch at the time. But she eventually finds her grounding, especially as she recognizes their too-similar personalities and softens during the Hepburn family gathering scene.

With less to do, the too-patrician Kate Beckinsale is in over her head as Ava Gardner, unable to convey the real actress' palpable sultriness or predatory voraciousness without posturing. On the other hand, Alec Baldwin is becoming a strong character actor with every new film, and he plays Trippe with disquieting authority. John C. Reilly plays assistant Noah Dietrich in his typically hangdog fashion as he subsists more in the shadows. Alan Alda plays Brewster with Hawkeye's familiar mannerisms unafraid to show the underlying sliminess of his character. All the externals are impressive - Thelma Schoonmaker's sharp editing (the pacing never drags...just the story), Robert Richardson's cinematography, Dante Ferretti's production design, Sandy Powell's costumes. Yet for all of this, the movie fall short as a masterwork in Scorsese's filmography.

The first disc has an excellent commentary track by Scorsese, Schoonover and producer Michael Mann - all full of insights without being pedantic. The number of extras on the second disc of the two-DVD set is staggering, really too much for anyone except for those deeply interested in Hughes. There is one deleted scene and twelve separate featurettes and documentaries covering everything from the production to Hughes' role in aviation to OCD to the music. Beyond the sheer number, my complaint about the set is that it's hard to maneuver around the decidedly viewer-unfriendly menus.

"Bring in the milk!"
Let me state a few facts about myself and, in doing so, set up a very sincere question about "The Aviator."

1) I'm a huge fan of Howard Hughes, an absolute buff on the guy.I've read two biographies of him and have to say he's one of the most interesting historical figures of the past century: His brilliance, his wealth, his flaws, his successes, his peculiarities and the periods in which he lived all combine to create a fascinating figure.

2) I'm a tremendous fan of Martin Scorsese.He's made some of my favorite movies and I think he's probably one of the top five greatest directors working today.There's just something about the way he photographs images and people that makes even his worst movies worthwhile.

3) I also think Leonardo DiCaprio is a really good actor, a fact that has been publicly obscurred (but not hampered) by the "Titanic" hype and by some poor choices (or lack of choices, in recent years).

4) And I think "The Aviator" was probably the best produced movie of 2004.The cast is excellent, the sets and costumes and designs are fabulous, the cinematography is exquisite.

So, THAT SAID, why didn't I like the movie more?It's an impressive achievement but I seem to appreciate the parts more than the whole.And as good as DiCaprio is, I think he may have been miscast.Only a star of his level could've gotten this kind of budget, but he simply doesn't look right in the part.It's not until after he grows a moustache that he really start to resemble Hughes.Most of the time, Hughes looked like a guy who was quietly trying very hard not to leap out of his skin but DiCaprio seems more intent on burrowing deeply *into* his body.
He just doesn't have the same kind of intrinsic uncomfortability.

Still, it's an impossible movie not to recommend.There are long stretches of space but every so often, there's a brilliant explosion.

The opulance and scope. Brought to you by Scorsese.
This film is entertaining, and much more effective than any one biography of Howard Hughes. The pace of the movie, coupled with the fantastic acting by Leonardo DiCaprio as the livid Howard Hughes, gives an aura of 3hrs much in the way of inspiration. For underachievers this is a shockingly, unbelievable film. You can feel the energy pulse out of the life of Howard. Sharing his passions for aviation. Revealing the breadth of his contributions to air america. The esprit de corp is flavorful, in symbolisms of the fastest jet planes and the hardest hitting reality at zero hour. A much more breaking of the usual norm of film. It is so wonderful to think that movies such as these aren't being overlooked by the latest craze. When will Scorsese win a *(**( academy award for best director!

IT WAS OKAY!
THE AVIATOR WAS OKAY I REALLY DIDN'T CARE TOO MUCH ABOUT IT IT WAS TOO LONG!

FROM KIRSTEN

Another Oscar-worthy epic from Martin Scorsese.
Director Martin Scorsese makes filmmaking look so easy sometimes.With "The Aviator" he once again breaks from the Gangland themes of his more famous films such as "Mean Streets" and "Goodfellas" and journeys off on yet another unexpected road (e.g. "The Age of Innocence," "Kundun," "The Last Temptation of Christ").Yes, he recently directed "Gangs of New York," but he followed that with yet another left turn by doing a biography on the intensely eccentric Howard Hughes, "The Aviator."Leonardo DiCaprio owns his role here of the off-center genius who has frequent and exponential mental breakdowns, leaving all around him wide-eyed and wondering why he keeps repeating himself as if a record in his brain is skipping.This is easily the best work he has done in years.There are two other actors here that match him.One is Cate Blanchett who nails her characature of the late, great Katherine Hepburn and her short-lived romance with Howard Hughes.Her performance is a breath of fresh air amid all the seriousness of the story.The other is a diabolical and utterly slimy turn from veteran actor Alan Alda.It doesn't hurt that he has some of the best lines in the script, but his scenes with Leonardo DiCaprio have some of the best ebb-and-flow, subtelty acting that I've seen in a very long time.The two pros are butting heads and enjoying every minute of it!There are many solid acting performances from a stellar cast of name actors, though it would have been nice to see the character of Ava Gardner, played competently here by Kate Beckinsale, in depth and her more substantial connection to Howard Hughes.But the movie was long enough, anyway.The visual effects and overall production value are excellent, and the scope of the picture is epic and professionally done.This is top-notch filmmaking in every respect, and is easy to recommend. ... Read more

Description

Nazi Panzer forces stage a last-ditch Belgian front offensive that could turn the tide of WWII. Henry Fonda, Robert Shaw and Robert Ryan in the spectacular recreation of a crucial campaign. ... Read more

Reviews (81)

A seemingly controversial film!
Judging from all the previous opinions written on this movie, it is obvious few see it in the same light.This movie, while highly Hollywoodized (is there such a word?) is entertaining and only remotely connected to any historical reality. There is a star-studded cast with heavyweights (all gone now, I believe) like Henry Fonda, Robert Shaw, Robert Ryan, and Dana Andrews, among many others, and it is an interesting, and I found it to be, a very entertaining movie. I have owned this movie for many years on VHS and was disappointed for many of those years that it was unavailable on DVD.Why was it not available?Who cares now--it is finally out on DVD.If you don't like the movie, DVD won't change that, however.

This movie, with whatever faults (and it has many) you wish to attribute to it, is a must in any collection of war genre movies simply because of the stars and the insight it gives to movies made in 1965 while another, but realtively unpopular, war was going on. Even if you're not into war movies per se, I think it is enjoyable to watch.

If you are looking for a documentary on the history of The Battle Of the Bulge, this isn't it. As others more knowledgable than I have pointed out already, there are many inaccuracies, historically, with equipment, etc,etc.Most Hollywood movies are that way--Saving Private Ryan, Pearl Harbor, MacArthur, Patton--that's just a movie fact of life.I am sure only period films of actual combat would please some purests, so put that aside, it is worth a look soley as entertainment.In my opinion, a movie that generates this much controversy also generates curiosity as to why the controversy.See it, if you can, before buying and make up your own minds.

As comic book man would say..."Worst War Movie Ever!"
Mildly entertaining, this movie lacks in so many areas I don't know where to begin. I like to watch war movies to relive my days in the Army (I was in a tanker unit for awhile), and this movie just loses all realism and historical accuracy to the point that it resembles a circus. I saw it as a kid and liked it of course, and viewers who aren't so discerning might actually like it also, but watching it as an adult who has already watched the greatest war movies ever, I now have to give a thumbs down to this flick.
There are no unit patches on any of the soldiers whatsover. Obviously the studio must have had to cut costs somewhere. The German Tiger and Panther tanks suspiciously resemble American made tanks, the acting is so horrendous and hollywoodish, that I actually found myself rooting for the Nazis to kill them so I would no longer have to listen to their phony imitation of real soldiers over and over. Yes it was a big budget film and yes they did assemble a very all star cast, but did any of those actors ever spend 15 minutes trying to learn how actual soldiers act and talk? Actors are supposed to be believable in their roles, and this group just couldn't do it. They obviously didn't even know the right military expressions or jargon at all. Example: One of the generals making a call to HQ asks for "One hundred and fifty fives" (Howitzers), which to my knowledge has always been called one five fives (especially over a radio). Small error though it is, to me it's enough to remove any belivabilitythat the actor has ever spent a day in uniform.
The special effects are laughable, but you do have to remember the era in which this movie was filmed.High explosive tank rounds only cause a puff of smoke on enemy tanks followed by gasoline being lit on the turret.Dont expect to see turrets flying off as would be the case, oh and, soldiers don't bleed when shot either.
The end of the movie was so preposterous that I couldn't help but chuckling as Henry Fonda and Savalas rolled barrels of gasoline towards an entire column of German tanks and then tossed grenades at them and singlehandedly won the Battle of the Bulge.
This movie just seems like a sorry excuse to put Charles Bronson and Telly Savalas in other movie together to attempt to entertain the public.I'll stick to "Band Of Brothers", "When Trumpets Fade", "The Thin Red Line" or even "The Big Red One", when I need my WWII fix.

WW II Action Drama of the 1944 Ardennes Counter-Offensive
Warner Brother's 1965 epic war movie that portrays the German Ardennes Counter-Offensive in December of 1944 during WWII."Battle of the Bulge" depicts Adolf Hitler's gamble that committed three German armies to attack west to Antwerp, Belgium, and halt the Allies to force a negotiation for peace.Producer Milton Sperling and Director Ken Annakin created a movie of grand scale, but apparently chose big-screen action over historical precision to maximize box office revenue.Long relegated to infrequent television play and a chopped video tape edition, it returns on DVD restored for movie fans who like tanks and a screenplay that borders on camp by contemporary standards.

The movie depicts this historic battle through several fictional characters that eventually meet in a climatic battle that seals the Germans' fate.Henry Fonda is Lieutenant Colonel Dan Kiley, an American intelligence officer whose warnings of the coming attack fall on deaf ears.Robert Shaw is Colonel Hessler, the charismatic German Panzer (tank) commander who leads the armor spearhead towards Belgium.Charles Bronson is Major Wolinski, a tough American commander fighting the German onslaught to the last man.Telly Savalas is Sergeant Guffy, a jaded American tanker who is in the thick of the battle facing superior German tanks that relegate his to a tin can.James MacArther is Lieutenant Weaver, a slack infantry leader who survives a massacre of Allied prisoners by German soldiers.Sperling and Annakin appear to have chosen this simpler screenplay to create a few heroes who fight to overcome a seemingly invincible villain-forgoing a complex storyline as used in 20th Century Fox's 1962 "Longest Day."It works OK, certainly not on the level of "Band of Brothers," and lends a somewhat campy appeal for this 1960's action flick.

The movie does portray actual events with German paratroopers disguised as American soldiers who disrupt Allied operations, the Malmedy Massacre, and the siege of Bastogne.Their depictions contain a lot of artistic manipulation, and the relatively simple storyline faults the German defeat to depleted gasoline reserves-setting the stage for a climatic battle when Kiley, Guffy, and Weaver find themselves face-to-face with Hessler at a gasoline dump.Another gross oversight is a massive tank battle in the latter part of the movie that was apparently filmed during the spring-summer season in Spain-deplete of snow.

As long as viewers don't mind these faults-this is an entertaining movie.The M24 Chafee and M47 Patton tanks rented from the Spanish Army serve well as facsimiles for American Sherman and German Tiger tanks, and the live sets look great on the wide screen.Robert Shaw is the most charismatic in this feature and the Panzerlied chorus near the beginning of the movie is rousing.

I've always enjoyed this movie and I'm pleased with the DVD edition's restored imagery and Dolby Digital 5.1 sound, particularly the restoration of footage that I've not seen in years.

A good transfer
I will not review the movie but the DVD. It's in Widescreen. No scenes have been cut. Every minute of the movie is on this DVD. It has the overture, intermission & exit music.I saw no pops or lines in the picture. The sound & pitcure quality of this 60s movie is as good as any DVD I have. I like the movie & wish all old movies on DVD were as well done as this DVD.

dump your VHS version
I'm not going to waste your time telling you about the movie, and how great it is.
The only thing I have to say is someone did something right for a change. Whoever put this one together gave you the full version as it was first shown.
My advice if you know and love this movie, this is the one to buy, and dump your VHS. ... Read more

Reviews (226)

An Incredible Amount of Depth for a Film
Almost invariably, "Waking Life," the 2001 animated film from Richard Linklater is described as 'original.' For once, this oft-overused moniker is accurate: there isn't anything quite like this movie. It advertises itself as a series of philosophical vignettes, which range all over the subject spectrum but are usually united by a common thread of meaning: that of dreams and the reality of the 'dream world.'

A film based upon that premise could easily fall into the highschool-discussion/drug-induced-nonsense level of discourse, but "Waking Life" plunges headlong into the fray without batting an eye. Fairly early in the film, pretentious philosophy is dismissed with a nice rebuttal to the sophomoric question: "What if you're just a construct of my dream, and exist only in my mind?" "Well, then I'm as real as anything else." And that's the starting point for a meditation on the meaning (if any) of dreams, and some of the dreamlike things people encounter in their daily lives.

"Waking Life" is also animated, using a pretty unique form of animation: each scene was shot, and then "drawn over" by animation artists in a variety of styles, from expressionist art to nearly-photographic digital renderings, depending on the mood of each scene. The result is something that resembles an acid trip or a hallucination, where tables of restaurant patrons float above the ground, faces change while moustaches stay the same, and the background is in a near-constant state of flux. It can get nauseating after a while, but the overall effect is subtle enough not to draw attention from the content of the film, which is a rare quality for so-called "art" films. It's almost a crime that "Jimmy Neutron" was nominated for "Best Animated Film" while "WL" was not.

Because of these varied qualities, "Waking Life" isn't for everyone, and certainly gets a "rent-if-before-you-buy-it" caveat. The DVD presentation is as good as one could want: an anamorphic widescreen presentation with crisp colors and a 5.1 soundtrack (not that philosophical conversation requires dynamic sound), and a nice helping of extras. Don't write "Waking Life" off as something smart people (or those who pretend to be smart) will enjoy and yack about - it's just not the average, everyday film and requires an attentive mind and (perhaps) multiple viewings to fully enjoy. For those willing to take the plunge with an open mind, "Waking Life" is a rewarding film experience.

Final Grade: A

Glorious
"Waking Life" is so full of ideas, one flowing to the next, it really does feel like some sort of lucid dream. The animation adds to the overall vitality of the film. It jumps off the screen, challenging the viewer to wrestle with these questions, to take responsibility for his/her existence for at least a couple of hours. There is a sense of urgency bordering on desperation as the dream continues and the search for a center, for some kind of clear understanding begins to seem endless.

There is so much here to absorb, you can really loose yourself completely in the film. At one point, we watch two men discussing the nature of film as an art form (I can't remember who they were) and then the perspective widens and we see that they are, themselves, on a movie screen in a theater with our main character as its sole occupant, which makes sense since it only exists in his mind - in his dream. Of course, we are also in a theater watching the film, adding another level to this already multi-layered context.

After seeing this movie, I felt thoroughly invigorated. I wish there were more films like this.

This review reflects the film, not the DVD
which I assume I'll review again once I buy it.
Waking Life is for the most part, a successful experiment, that is beautiful to watch unfold. I'm a pretty big Richard Linklater fan, from Slacker, Dazed and Confused, Before Sunrise, and even School of Rock (I've yet to see Tape or the Newton Boys, however). I like him, because he seems to have a real love for making movies. But also, he seems to have a love for life. Think about it, not counting School of Rock most of the movies above are about wandering (and wondering) and talking and learning, and living. I don't think this movie is pretentious because that would imply Linklater is trying to be something he's not-and he is not doing that. He genuinely cares and is interested by these ideas, and I think if you thought this movie was pretentious, you weren't watching it close enough.
Yes, the movie is fascinating to watch. Different animators were brought in for every scene, right? Well, it shows. Sometimes, the scenes have a strong abstract feeling (like the scene with Wiley and the red-headed woman) where the characters have rough geometric shapes and blank or abstract backgrounds. Sometimes, they're very realistic (like Ethan Hawke/Julie Delpy scene). All of it is great to watch, however.
The "plot" of this movie, is that Wiley Wiggins is in a dream from which he cannot wake up. He floats and flies (on occasion) from scene to scene, and each scene features someone talking to him about anything. However, he's not in every scene, so some of the movie (in my opinion) is even more abstract than that: it's just a film about dreaming and living, sometimes starring Wiggins. Follow? Good.
And now for the scenes themselves. Most are good, and sometimes even enthralling. The best scenes in my opinion are scenes that unravel like someone telling you a great story (the ones that immediately come to mind are the ones with Wiley and the two guys that explain to him how you know you're in a dream, and the one at the very end with Linklater himself). Some are a little long-winded but none are boring, if only because of the great animation.
The only scenes that give me trouble are the one with the prisoner planning revenge, and the scene with the bartender telling the man about how he almost got killed (which ends bizarrely). I just don't know what to make of them.
The worst part of the film is that, yes, you are basically watching people talk for about ninety minutes. Until the end scene with Linklater, it can be a tad grating (especially on a first viewing) towards the middle-end, but you'll keep watching. I think this movie uses the film medium to its extent...I mean, can you imagine reading the novelization of this movie? It strikes a balance between abstract but watchable. If I have another problem it's that I wish it could be a little more exciting, like if the stories being told were visualized, but that would mean changing the whole format of the movie and going for something more obvious.
This movie itself is like a dream. It leaves you feeling a little dazed at the end and you're not quite sure what to make of it. It sure is inventive though and unique, though. I like Waking Life because it's full of ideas and original thoughts, maybe too many of them, which is why it's not exactly a masterpiece but certainly not a movie to pass over like so many bad Hollywood pieces of junk. I like it because it's a movie that has too many ideas, instead of too few.

Beautiful but boring!!!
Richard Linklater has made some good movies and I appreciate what he's trying to do here, but the film was downright excruciating to watch. I can't imagine anyone finding it interesting, but apparently, many do. Maybe Philosophy itself just bores me. I did think the animation was cool, and the Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy Before Sunrise scene was inspired, otherwise, this film is better left on the shelf. It is definitely not for all tastes.

The best how to do animation DVD in the World
The real utility of this DVD - "Waking Life" - is that it is the ultimate "how to" book for any would be animator in this 21st century and a counting.

My comments arise from how I watched it - first without any of the special features, then I watched it with the text-feature, third I watched the movie under the animation and then I watched the special feature in which I watched the explanation by the director of how he had done things with the computer and why he had done so - or rather how he had managed to direct over twenty different animators and get it as seamless as he did - tips like taking the color from the movie instead of from the palette. I suppose if one animator did the entire movie that would be less an issue. As it is you may note that some of the other reviewers still note the movie is not seamless and no it is not but many of the methods that the director explains make it more so than would otherwise be so.

There is I suppose a message and medium issue - as for the message whether it is philosophy made simple or existentialism made simple to just concision is up to the viewer - If you view it 5x as I have you see how animation makes it work where the film does not - in the film there is too much information in how the speakers really look - each one could have been a movie in themselves and I can recommend the DVD to point new viewers to these ideas towards the real speakers - if you watch the film with the text on you can capture the names and hence go deeper - as it is - it is an astonishing concision of the meaning of lucid dreaming, cognitive science, existentialism and the big questions. And as the animation holds it together you hear not one speaker but twenty. And that is what makes it so extra-ordinary. The director tells you how they do that. I mean how they animate - it is amazing and an incredible act of kindness to share method. Wow wow. ... Read more

Description

Errol Flynn is eternally charming as Robin, defender of the poor, in this rousing family adventure that co-stars Olivia de Havilland and Claude Rains. Year: 1938 Director: Michael Curtiz, William Keighley Starring: Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Basil Rathbone, Claude Rains, Alan Hale ... Read more

Reviews (140)

The BEST action/adventure film ever made.
Errol Flynn at his best...swashbuckling at its best...action and adventure galore. This film is simply the best of the genre. The casting is perfect, from Flynn in the best role of his career, to Herbert Mundin as Much the Miller's son. The 3-strip color photography remains as vibrant today as when it was released 61 years ago. The dialogue between Flynn and Oliva de Havilland, between Flynn and Basil Rathbone, between Flynn and Claude Rains, is always lively, always fun. And Miss de Havilland's costumes are absolutely gorgeous, as is she.

The film moves, never stops, and you are never bored. If you watch this movie alongside Kevin Costner's ill-advised Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves, you realize why one should never try to improve on perfection.

As the New York Times said in its original review in 1938, this film entertains everyone from 8 to 80. No argument here!

The Greatest Robin Hood ,Flynn now a fantastic WB DVD set!
Warner Brothers (WB) Studios has begun meticulously digitally restoring its action classics of the 1930's & 40's under the "Two Disc Special Edition" Series. This 1938 TECHNICOLOR (awesome) film "The Adventures of Robin Hood" starring Errol Flynn, Olivia deHavilland, Basil Rathbone & Claude Rains is still the best rendition of this fictionalized English tale.

Warner Brothers has given us with this 2 Disc set the complete movie theatre experience circa 1938. DISC 1 - First we get a complete "Night at the Movies" program. Introduction by film critic Leonard Maltin explaining for your 10 cent investment what you got in a 1938 movie house. Next the entire continous show with; coming attraction, news reel, Bugs Bunny Cartoon, short subject feature and then the main feature, "The Adventures of Robin Hood". This is a totally ingenius idea!!! Also on Disc 1 - you have 12 Errol Flynn movie trailers and finally an indepth feature commentary by film historian Rudy Belhmer.

Disc 2 - Includes 3 hours of everything about Robin Hood, the movie, the stars, documentaries, cartoons, and a most informative documentary about TECHNICOLOR and why even today it still was the best color process ever.

I love this fun filled DVD set. My hat is off to Warner Brothers for their dedication to the golden age of Hollywood and bring back the grandest of movies for us to see again & again better than their original release. Enjoy.

great movie ....second DVD is amaaazing!
This is more a review of the package than the movie , which is a classic and extremely well presented on disc one....vivid colors , crisp images....not a complaint there....and the bonus