Reviews (85)

It's Good to Be Mel Brooks
When this film first appeared more than 20 years ago, it temporarily threatened to replace world history courses in schools, colleges, and universities. Of course, that didn't happen. Probably just as well, given the fact that screenwriter, producer, and director Mel Brooks never wrote, produced, and directed Part II and its eagerly-awaited portrayals of "Jews in Space" and "Hitler on Ice." There are historians' homes in which Brooks is still not welcome. In any event, what we have in Part I is a combination of five extended sketches: The Dawn of Man, The Stone Age, The Spanish Inquisition, The Bible, and The Future. Inevitably there are some gaps.

Brooks appears in several different roles while (in fact) portraying himself: Moses, Comicus, Torquemada, and King Lou. Other members of the Brooks Ensemble Company include Madeline Kahn (Empress Nympho), Cloris Leachman (Madame de Farge), Harvey Korman (Count de Monet), Ron Carey (Swiftus), Andreas Voutsinas (Béarnaise), and Shecky Green (Marcus Vindictus). Brooks has assembled a cast of thousands. The production values are remarkably good. However, as in other Brooks films such as Blazing Saddles and High Anxiety, the quality of the humor varies from Brilliant & Inspired (e.g. King Lou professing love of "the little people" while shooting at airborn peasants who have been launched as targets: "Pull!") to Oh No (e.g. Moses reducing the number of Commandments to Ten by dropping/breaking one of three tablets while descending Mount Sinai, and, Jesus becoming confused by use of his name as an expletive). Brooks is an incurable gagster and punster. More often than not, the humor in this film works. But when it doesn't....

Several clever touches. For example, beginning the film with a parody of 2001: A Space Odyssey, with Orson Welles providing the voice-over. Also, it is fun to play the equivalent of "Where's Waldo" by trying to spot familiar actors in supporting roles such as Bea Arthur (Clerk), Charlie Callas (Soothsayer), Jack Carter (Rat Vendor), Sid Caesar (Chief Caveman), John Gavin (Marche), Ronny Graham (Oedipus), Nigel Hawthorne (Official), John Hillerman (Rich Man), Hugh Hefner (Entrepreneur), Barry Levinson (Column Salesman), Spike Milligan (Monsieur Rimbaud), Howard Morris (Court Spokesman), Jan Murray (Nothing Vendor), and Henny Youngman (Chemist). As I said, a cast of thousands...if not more.

Brooks' best films, those most effectively developed, are The Producers and Young Frankenstein, the latter being a remarkably respectful version of several earlier films. All comics are thieves. The best comics steal from the best sources. I thought about that when I saw this film again recently, wondering if Brooks' History of the World -- Part I was in any way influenced by The Story of Mankind (1957), a film based on Henrik Willem Van Loon's bestseller. For purposes of parody, The Story of Mankind would be an excellent target of opportunity. Those among its diverse cast of thousands (if not more) include Charles Coburn (Hippocrates), Ronald Colman (The Spirit of Man), Cedric Hardwicke (High Judge), Dennis Hopper (Napoleon), Hedy Lamarr (Joan of Arc), Peter Lorre (Nero), Virginia Mayo (Cleopatra), Chico Marx (Monk), Harpo Marx (Isaac Newton), Groucho Marx (Peter Minuit), Agnes Moorehead (Elizabeth I), Vincent Price (The Devil), and Cesar Romero (Spanish Envoy). Whenever a list of the Ten Most Pretentious Movies Ever Made is formulated, The Story of Mankind is frequently and deservedly given serious consideration.

Despite its several flaws, The History of the World -- Part I remains a generally entertaining, at times hilarious film. Whenever I see it again, I feel eager anticipation as I await its strongest scenes, willing to endure its weakest meanwhile. To me at least, the previews for Part II (which conclude Part I) suggest why Brooks resembles the Little Girl with The Curl: "When she's good, she's very very good but when she's bad...."

Mel Brooks at his Bawdy Best
Mel Brooks is at the top of his game with this hilarious spoof on world history beginning with the Stone Age and touching on subjects all the way through the French Revolution. While much of the humor is far from sophisticated, it doesn't diminish the fact that the film is just plain funny!

Lots of comedic actors, great and small, make side-splitting appearances in the film, including Sid Ceasar, Harvey Korman, Dom DeLuise, Bea Arthur, Madeline Kahn, Cloris Leachman, Jackie Mason, and Gregory Hines.

The beauty of Brooks' scathing spoofs of historical events and figures is that the humor is timeless, holding up just as well in 2004 as it did when the film was originally released in 1981. If you have never seen or heard of this film, rent or buy it now, as you have missed an iconic movie. I've even heard of European History professors using Brooks' wacky take on the Spanish Inquisition in their history classes.

When it comes to bawdy satire, Mel Brooks found it "good to be the King" in the 1970s and 80s!

written by David Laing, not Julia Laing
One of Mel Brook's finest movies, in this one, he sets out to parody history, from the Stone Age, to the French Revolution. The first time period is the Stone Age, where we see the first homosapien and homosexual marriage, and discover how music was invented. Next, in a very short bit, we see Moses coming down from a mountain with the 15 commandments, until he drops one slab, and it becomes the 10 commandments. The next era is the Roman Empire, where after Philatipis[or something like that] gets a gig to do comedy for Caescar, he offends, the emporer, so him and his new found friend must fight each other to the death, but instead stop fighting and try to escape from Rome. The 4th era is by far the funniest, and the most offensive, The Spanish Inquisition. So in a musical extravaganza, we see how the Catholics tried to convert the Jews to become Catholics, and in the last part, we behold the French Revolution, and one of the greatest lines in this movie. So, see this hilarious movie, but if you are easily offended, then do not see this. The only thing that aggravates me was that Brooks had a part 2 planned out, but it was never released. At the end of the movie, we get a preview of the unreleased History of The World part 2.

History has never been more hilarious.
I wasn't familiar with History of the World until someone recommended that I see it. I knew a little of who Mel Brooks was and had seen Young Frankenstein so I knew this might be good. Now I think it is one of the funniest movies ever, a genius spoof of world history troughout different period of time. You get to see prehistoric man invent art, and along with the first art came the first art critic. We see the real story behind Moses and the Ten Commandments. The best part to me was the part about the Roman times, when Comicus the stand up philosopher is introduced. I was laughing long and hard when Comicus gets a job as waiter at the Last Supper. Also spoofed are the Spanish Inquisition and the French Revolution.

History of the World is a great movie that features a terrific cast including Mel Brooks, Gregory Hines, Madeline Kahn, Harvey Korman and Sid Caesar. There are others, but together they give an entertaining perspective into some of history's most important events. There are also countless quotes from the movie that will stick with you for a long time after you hear them. This is something I recommend seeing, as even after 23 years it still seems as fresh as ever with the humor it provides.

Nobody Expects the (Musical) Spanish Inquisition
Probably the success of MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN two years earlier was the inspiration for Mel Brooks' HISTORY OF THE WORLD - PART I (A year earlier Python/'Brian' probably also inspired the also lesser ripoff WHOLLY MOSES). One reason are many of the biblical spoofs in this episodic movie. A lot of this is pretty lame especially during the Dom Deluise as Nero sequence that seems to go on forever. The only funny thing to come out of this is the classic line "When you die at the Palace..you really die!". Included is a scene outside of the actual Las Vegas casino Ceasar's Palace with Roman citizens going into it as if it is actually in ancient Rome. The rest of this particular sequence seems to come right out of Richard Lester's/Zero Mostel's A FUNNY THING HAPPENED TO ME ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM only it is not very funny. There are a couple inspired gags (i.e. The Spanish Inquisition- the musical,Moses receiving the 15..er, 10 Commandments, and a tribute to Esther Williams/MGM musical aqua dancing extravaganzas featuring bathing beauty nuns) in the rest of the film, but they are not very memorable. Whereas Monty Python's 'BRIAN' was deemed sacrilegious (at least in 1979) and brilliantly irreverent, 'HISTORY' is just plain dumb. Brooks' seemed to lose his touch starting with this film and would continue with SPACEBALLS,ROBIN HOOD MEN IN TIGHTS and DRACULA DEAD AND LOVING IT etc. Overall, a general waste of celluloid,talent, and time. ... Read more

Reviews (177)

The Depths Of Depp
Johnny Depp plays George Jung, your every day man turned multi-millionaire drug dealer. The amazing journey starts with just a bit of weed going to people on the beach, soon he and his friends are working their way to Mexico in major exports. After a brief stop in jail Depp changes from marijuana to cocaine. Soon Depp has so much money he can't fit anymore in his house. It is in this time he meets his wife-to-be decently played by Penelope Cruz. A mishap with his wife later and he is in jail again. The part about this film that sets it apart from most drug movies is that it shows the highlights of the illegal exchange business but it also shows the bottoming out. The other thing it has is a connection with the characters. You actually begin to feel for Depp as he is separated from the one thing that he loves in his life, his daughter. Franka Potente (Run Lola Run) and Paul Rubin (Pee Wee Herman) also have roles in this film that has heart and substance(s).

Strong Powder
BLOW is based on the true story of George Jung (Johnny Depp). In the 70s and 80s, Jung was the single largest importer of Columbian cocaine, to the United States. Therefore, he alone, changed America, and helped to create the "drug culture" in this nation. At the film's center is the partnership between Jung and Pablo Escobar, (Cliff Curtis) and how they operated, with and against each other. It really is true what others have said about Depp's performance in the film. He doesn't let this highly complex role intimidate him. He pulls it off brilliantly. He scenes with Penelope Cruz are pure magic. Directed by the late Ted Demme, BLOW offers viewers an inside look into how some people got very rich off of other people's addiction to drugs. Even though some have blasted the film because, in their opinion, it glorifies drug use, I see it more as an anti drug film. Having said that, dont expect an overt anti-drug message in the movie either. My take on it is that the "message" hides as a subtext as an implied theme. If the film does have any connection to any indictment against drugs, that comes from the fact that Demme died last year from apparently using the stuff himself.

The DVD is part of New Line Cinema's Infinifilm series. Like all other discs in the series, it is packed with extras, allowing viewers to have more of an interactive experience, while watching the film. Hearing Demme talk about drugs on the commentary track with Jung, may unsettle some, given what happened to him, but there really isn't much of that on the track. The deleted scenes don't really add much to the film and were properly edited out of the picture. The Ted Demme Production Diary is cool because it takes us through how movies are made (I always enjoy that stuff). Rounding out the standard features are trailers, filmographies, and a Nikka Costa Music Video. The disc also has a few DVD-ROM extras. The Infinifilm extras include interviews with Jung conducted by Demme, a trivia track, among others. Use of the Infinifilm mode gives you access to these features for a unique look at BLOW.

Thanks to powerful performances and solid, well produced extras, BLOW is a Highly Recommended film/DVD **** and a half stars.

Blow is about the life of Mr. George Jung from childhood to
his final drug bust for which he is still serving time. Johnny Depp carries this movie very well, like all movies about gangs or drugs or anything crime related, this movie starts off with everything going well and then everything starting to go downhill again, it is a true story, obviously with quite a bit of Hollywood fabrication but none the less, it inspires sympathy for the characters, I for one am someone who isn't really a very emotional person when it comes to movies, at least I don't think so, but this movie brought a tear or two to my eye, especially the ending, where Depp recited a poem written by Jung and it is the saddest thing, the special features are quite amazing, I would recommend this movie to people over 14 because it does have an R rating which is due to a lot of language, drug content, extremely brief nudity and some violence here and there. Enjoy.

extras no good
I rated this movie 5 stars, until I got a load of the DVD extras. These extras actually serve to drag down the enjoyment of the movie. First, there are the "character outtakes" whatever that term is supposed to mean. These consist of various characters being interviewed about George Jung - the character, not the real person. They say poorly thought out and inarticulate things like, "This guy... he's like... this guy don't care what anybody thinks, you know?" My impression was that the actors just got in front of a camera "in character" and extemporized. The results are pretty ghastly. Also, there is the jailhouse interview that director Ted Demme makes of George Jung, the real person. This is also pretty disedifying, consisting at the end of Demme sitting next to Jung on a bench and saying similarly inarticulate and poorly thought out things, like, "Yeah, its like schoolteachers make minimum wage and there's truckdrivers making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year..." Now, I am an ex-schoolteacher and though I did not make a mint at my job I certainly did not make "minimum wage" and I worked for one of the most underfunded school districts in the country. One has the impression of being a witness to a guy blowing his mouth off on the balcony of somebody's post-college get-together. Not pretty. How Demme ever got people to trust him with millions of dollars remains a mystery: the man is simply not preposessing intellectually. Also, his world is morally vague and equivocal. He tells Jung he takes a non-judgemental stance to his crimes and then says that he himself has skeletons in the closet, its just that his are not so well known. Now, I kind of doubt that Ted Demme is himself a serious criminal who has simply evaded discovery. But that is what he is in effect implying, in bad faith to George Jung - a hardcore criminal. The real implication is that any degree of malfeasance is equivalent to any other. If one man has smuggled enormous quantities of drugs, and another man has left the cap off his toothpaste well, they're pretty much the same: we all do bad things. Interestingly, the stance that Demme takes is NOT that what Jung did was not morally wrong. His stance is that, though it was wrong, so what? I can respect and perhaps agree with someone who says that smuggling drugs, though illegal, is not immoral. I can understand the argument that by and large it is an utter liberal myth that anybody is forced to use drugs by anybody else. Peer pressure? One gravitates to "peers" with similar interests. If you get into drugs and your friends don't, you find new friends: druggie friends. This happened in my circle of friends and I have seen it happen first-hand. I had many druggie and non druggie friends and I never saw anybody use drugs who did not want to. And there is simply no substance so addictive that it turns a straight arrow into a degenerate against the straight arrow's will and inclination. Drugs simply help you along in the direction you are inclined.
All this being said, I can agree with someone who does not morally judge George Jung. Personally I am morally indifferent to his actions. But this is not the same thing as saying that what he did was wrong but so what we all do bad things. If I once ignored a parking ticket, is this the same thing as being a murderer? I suspect that Demme's thus cozying up to Jung actually lowered him in Jung's regard.

Luff ist der drug
Let me be clear, this is a great film. It actually reassures me that all movies are not garbage. But for me the best part of the movie is Franka Potente's performance as Barbara, a comely stew who, so far as I can tell, is not supposed to be German. It is a special pleasure for me to watch Franka Potente, with her thick Cherrrmann accent, ya? trying to speak in a vey zat iss recognizeable as chust typical yanqui American dialect. I also thrilled to her performance in The Bourne Identity, hearing her deliver such lines as, "But he vas chust shining us all on" like the Munchen-frau she is. Yeah, I'll get all liquored up on Spaten Premium, or maybe even brave the forbidding slopes of the Optimator, then I'll hunker down for a triple-bill of Run Lola Run, Bourne Identity, and Blow. Its like my own private Oktoberfest that I chust by myself heff got going on, ya?
unt ich bein auss. ... Read more

Reviews (113)

Disney's Pocahontas Gold Collection DVD
Pocahontas is a good tale that deserves to have the Disney name. While far from the most entertaining in the Disney library, this one does have some of the most spectacular animation and imagery then any of them! The film is definatley not for the very young, there is much war violence (superficial, yes, but it's still there), including some blood-free shot wounds. The story is much more mature oriented, with Pocahontas trying to end the war between her people and the white-men for the sake of her love for John Smith.

The film has many songs, but only a few stand out - -Oscar Award Winner "Colors Of The Wind" is one of them, "Around the River Bend", and "If I Never Knew You" is the other - - the rest are catchy, but unmemorable numbers.

The "Gold Classic Collection" DVD edition of the 1995 film, has a mediocre picture. There is constant grain, and it is rarely perfectly clear. On the plus side, the animation is still able to be appreciated and the Dolby Digital 5.1 mix is good.

Again, this is NOT the Disney movie to show little kids (it would probably be a complete fly-by for them), but it does have much appeal to an older audience who can appreciate the animation, and the Oscar- winning music. A true modern masterpiece.

POCAHONTAS DVD REVIEW: What happened to the video???
I suppose this movie has a more meaning for me due to a past romance and the this to be the movie we shared, so I enjoyed it. Sure, Disney knows how to take some part of history and make it so fictional but one of the things I like about this movie is the detail they put into Pocahontas facial expressions. That feature always caught me.

Anyway, you either like the animation or you don't. The audio is very well done. No major sound effects but the music and the dialogue is the main things for this film. What about the video? The video is a shock. Where Tarzan bursts with a radiance of colors, not Pocahontas. What happened during the transfer? It's like a transfer from a video tape seen 10 times before. Not acceptable with a DVD! I can't believe the colors aren't superb.

Extras...well, I guess after the fans were upset that Disney didn't include any extras in their previous releases, now they are with their "Gold Collections". I like how the DVD has the two music videos especially "Colors of the Wind" by Vanessa Williams. There are a lot of trailers before the movies which you can fortunately skip over, a trivia game and DVD storybook like the Tarzan DVD and a fun with nature booklet which they should of added to the DVD. Otherwise it's better than what we got before from older Disney DVD's. So, we have the movie at above average, the special features in the C to C- range and the DVD Overall probably a B-/C+.

Otherwise, for a DVD from Disney, this movie deserved better. A better video transfer and they could at least added the making of Pocahontas or something. (sigh)...

Anyway, if you want to watch Pocahontas, get the DVD version. Even those it's VHS quality, you get those extras and good sound. If you don't care about the extras and just want to see the movie, then the VHS might be your thing.

Politically-correct racism
I wish my children had never seen this movie, but since I made the mistake of trusting Disney and since it reappears on TV frequently, I've used it as an opportunity to talk about the blatant (but politically-correct) racism woven through it. My point to my children: racism is wrong, no matter who it's directed at (a point that goes directly against the main theme of the movie).

In this movie, there is one and only one exception to the rule that all Native Americans are good and all English are bad. John Smith is the exception that proves the rule - other than him, all British are evil (and crude, dirty, greedy, etc.). The Native Americans aren't all quite perfect but all come around in the end, while the English are clearly rotten to the core, and the world would be a better place if they were all gone.

Get this movie for your children IF you want to teach them to use skin color as a way of predicting good versus evil. And don't worry, they won't get the wrong, racist lesson that dark skin is bad - they'll get the politically-correct lesson, that people with white skin are bad.

Disney produces yet another inaccurate cartoon...
As always, Disney provides us with an hour-glass shaped, beautifully dashing, ever accomodating heroine, and a strong, handsome, brave, conquering hero; a romance story that is historically inaccurate, romanticized, racist, and sexist. "Pocahontas" was not her real name, and she was about ten years old. According to LEGEND, she saved John Smith's life - the woman of color saves the white man, while falling in love with him. According to REAL history, he was brought in to the village, well-fed and well-treated. Most likely, she simply talked with him while he was in her village. There was NO romantic relationship. She was actually kidnapped a few years later and held for ransom in Jamestown. She died of a White Man's disease. Disney has created a cartoon "Romeo & Juliet" story for children, and what hurts my heart the most is that people really believe that the Disney version is true. There are so many un-truths in the world, especially in our Media, and "Pocahontas" is one of them.

Love Story with a touch of History
In reality Pocahontas was the wife of another white settler named John Rolfe. She later became Lady Rebecca. We can say she fell in love with John Smith but their love story didn't workout.
The story of Pocahontas repesents us all Americans. That no matter how you look like, Black or White we are all foreigners on this land.The original Americans are the American Indians, cause they are already here when Columbus discovered America.As for this movie itself, I love it especially the music. ... Read more

Reviews (30)

Hollywood Classic
This film starts with the 1685 Duke of Monmouth rebellion. The battle of Sedgemoor rages in the background as Errol Flynn's character is wrongly accused of supporting the rebels. King James II is portrayed as an arrogant prince, something which most Protestants of the day would have agreed with, and which Hollywood does not seem to deny. James, while detached, was not the cold hearted fool we see here. But this is only a minor point. The film has historic interest, portraying England as it does during the 1680s, the reign of James II before the advent of the Glorious Revolution which sees him removed in favor of William III of Orange and Queen Mary. The movie only touches on these political developments, but its interesting to see them as factors in the background.

The rest is pure Hollywood adventure with fiction playing havoc with fact! Still, the movie is so entertaining and classy that we don't mind a few historical gaffes. Flynn is elegant in his first major role, and Olivia Dehavland is strikingly beautiful. Hard to beleive she was only 18 when this film was made. The rest of the supporting cast may be a bit standard for a 1930s production, but they pull their weight well with all the cute touches of the day. The production value of the film appears more impressive than it actually was. The fast pace combined with clever plot makes for a classic of its kind. The French as perenial villins may strike a chord with today! For period swashbuckling, romance and class, you won't find better than here.

Blood! Blood! ......And A Film Legend Was Born
"Classic", is written all over this legendary Warner Brothers production from Hollywood's heyday in the 1930's. A fine literary source in the novel by Rafael Sabatini formed the basis for what was to become easily one of the best loved pirate tales ever filmed by a Hollywood Studio. Many (myself included) believe that "Captain Blood", is THE definitive swashbuckling adventure and contains everything to satisfy the pirate enthusiast, from a dashing leading man fighting for justice in a corrupt world,a beautiful damsel in distress to be rescued by the hero, lively swordplay, brilliantly staged sea battles, and the essential quota of villianous characters to add spice to the drama. "Captain Blood", was as well a "first", in many ways. Firstly it marked the breakthrough role for Tasmanian born Errol Flynn who was perfect for the role of Dr. Peter Blood, a man of good character wrongly condemmed to a life of slavery for helping tend the injuries of a rebel soldier in the corrupt England of James 2nd. Also this film marked the first teaming of Flynn with rising young actress Olivia de Havilland and the two went on to work beautifully together in eight films over the next seven years earning them immortality as one of filmdom's most unforgettable screen couples.

It's hard to imagine nowadays anyone but Errol Flynn in the role of Captain Blood but he was not even considered in the original casting of the film being an almost complete unknown at the time. Robert Donat was set to play the lead but had to withdraw due to illness and Jack Warner took a considerable gamble in casting the untried Australian actor in the lead of one of the studios biggest productions for the year. Once the decision was made however the rest as they say was film history as Errol Flynn swashed and buckled his way to Hollywood stardom in a stunning debut which helped make "Captain Blood", one of the years most successful films and helped gain it a nomination as Best Picture of the year. "Captain Blood", relates the story of Irish Doctor Peter Blood who is called out to tend the wounds of a rebel soldier fighting the corrupt governement of King James 2nd. Caught at the scene Peter is imprisoned as a rebel of the crown and in a sham court hearing is condemmed to a life of slavery in the infamous colony of Port Royal. Suffering brutality under the cruel Planatation owner Col. Bishop (Lionel Atwill in a masterfully evil role) Peter has the chance to escape when Port Royal is attacked by the Spanish. He forms a crew with his men and together they head out to sea on a stolen ship to become pirates with no country to call home. Very soon the name of "Captain Blood" is infamous throughout the Carribean and no ship Spanish, French, or English is safe from his looting. Making an uneasy alliance with French Pirate Capt. Levasseur(Basil Rathbone in a small but effective role) Peter finds his loyalties tested when Levasseur captures Arabella (de Havilland) the niece of Col. Bishop who Peter loves, as she returns to Port Royal with Lord Willoughby (Henry Stephenson). Fighting a duel to the death with Levasseur over Arabella's safety, Peter learns from Lord Willoughby the King James has been driven out of England and the new King William 3rd has not only pardoned Peter and his men but also offered them places in his navy. Returning to Port Royal the men find the port under attack from the Spanish and Captain Blood now fighting for King and Country in a exciting finale manages to defeat the Spanish invasion and save Port Royal from falling into enemy hands. For his great service to the crown King William then makes Peter the new govener of Port Royal much to the distress of his old enemy Col. Bishop but to the utter joy of Arabella who now plans to marry Peter at the happy conclusion.

Errol flynn had no peer when it came to these types of dashing adventure roles. His performance here and in such classics as "The Adventures of Robin Hood", and "The Sea Hawk", certainly saw him in his element being ideally cast. He teamed perfectly with Olivia de Havilland, he all bravado, masculinity and dashing energy, while she was the epitome of the demure refined young lady waiting for love. "Captain Blood", however is peopled with some other great acting talent that must not be forgotten under the bright light of Errol Flynn's screen charisma. Lionel Atwill excels as the cruel Col. Bishop in a tailor made role and character actors Donald Meek and especially George Hassell as the comical gout ridden Gov. Steed are both excellent in their smaller parts that help give "Captain Blood", some of its fine acting moments. Directed with usual high energy by Michael Curtiz, he manages to extract a marvellous performance out of the still largely inexperienced Flynn. Theirs was a definite hate relationship as the two loathed each other but by some miracle produced consistently excellent work together.The visuals of the film are first rate with the superbly staged sea battles unrivalled in their authentic look. Erich Wolfgang Korngold furnished another of his rousing musical scores that succeeds in really adding a high level of excitment to all the action secquences in "Captain Blood".

"Captain Blood", makes for ideal entertainment of the old fashioned kind and is a perfect example of Errol Flynn's great screen presence in a role idealy suited to him. Here we see him and Olivia de Havilland in the full bloom of their youthful vibrance in an exciting tale of adventure and romance,with good winning out over evil. It's Hollywood filmmaking of the old school and it is sure to leave you cheering as the good Captain romances his ladylove and fights against corruption and cruelty on the High Seas. Enjoy!

Simon Davis
Now that I have read Simon Davis' review, I dont have to watch the film?

Actually , I have seen the film a few times..and I can only add that Lionel Atwill pouts as well as any actor I have seen and Mr Rathbone begins his legacy as one of the great screen villians

CP

Shine on
Captain Blood is a great film, let alone a tremendous pirate film. There's something about the plot that has a certain resonance today as much as that of Robin Hood, namely that age-old sense of justice triumphing over rigid law and order, of robbing the rich to feed the poor. Yet Captain Blood is a little rougher edged, a little crueler in its machinations. Peter Blood (Flynn) is a well-meaning doctor who happens to aid the wrong side in one of Britain's innumerable civil wars, and is sentenced into slavery in the outer colonies along with a pack of other unfortunates. Right from the moment you see him level his icy gaze at the consumptive, soon-to-be dead Royal judge who passed the sentence, you know this party is just getting started.

Hollywood has used the 'good-man-wronged' scenario countless times since this movie, but rarely to such effect. Battered, beaten, but never broken, Dr. Peter Blood transforms into Captain Blood, the terror of the high seas that crushes his enemies without ever letting anyone affect his high-minded moral core. It was not his choice to become an outlaw, but if he has to become one, he will be the best one there ever was. Redemption, honor, and love all make their appearances in the fine script enacted by a worthy cast, but at every point Blood is a man in control of, and therefore responsible for, his own destiny. It's a great film and one you definitely should check out.

A great buccaneer epic.
I think that this is one of the greatest action - adventure films and perhaps the greatest adventure-epic film about pirates ,ever made in cinema's history. Adapted from Raffael Sabbatini's homonymous novel, "Captain Blood" introduced 26 years old Australian-born actor Errol Flynn, in Hollywood as a great star and it was the first of a movie-series that granted him the title of "swashbucklers's king".The film also created Flynn's image (solidified in the next years) as the dashing young romantic adventurer hero who always saves the day. Flynn plays the Irish doctor Peter Blood who becomes the handsome gentleman rogue pirate of the Caribbean with bravado and charisma ,appearing his great talent that made him a legend. But here we can locate some historical inaccuracy , (an inheritance of 19th century's romantic literature ) because the real pirates were quite repulsive, poor , illiterate and not fascinating and educated sea knights. The historical background on the contrary is quite accurate and very interesting. The film beggins in 1685 when Duke of Monmouth organised an unsuccessfull rebellion and portrays England during the 1680s, the reign of James II before the advent of the Glorious Revolution which sees him removed in favor of William III of Orange and Queen Mary. An other notable point is that the film portrays pro-catholic King James II as an evil and cruel tyrannical persona ,a fact that might be seen as a film's pro-protestant position on history, yet don't forget that this story is adapted from a novel and this was Sabbatini's view on historical facts.
Curtiz's direction is excellent and impressive,especially at the great terrific sea battle which is amazing. Olivia de Havilland is brilland and adorable as Flynn's sweet love interest ,with astonishing beauty. Even she is only 19 years old ,she plays her role with maturity and high professional capability. Basil Rathbone is perfect as the villain-fond of women French pirate Levasseur (and as swordfighter) using a peculiar french accent . Lionel Atwill as de Havilland's uncle is very convincing as a brutal plantation owner who finally reconciles with Captain Blood (Errol Flynn).You have also to notice the great performances by the actors who compose Captain Blood's crew. They're really charming.
A must-see high entertaining master piece epic. I give it all the stars I can . Enjoy it and love it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

After the Sunset may not be the greatest jewel-heist caper comedy ever made, but it sure is easy on the eyes. Shifting back into his crowd-pleasing Rush Hour mode, director Brett Ratner kicks off the action with a rousing chase scene that pretty much describes the entire film: utter nonsense, but adequately enjoyable. Things get very sunny thereafter, when FBI agent Woody Harrelson lands in the Bahamas to track down ace diamond thief Pierce Brosnan and his lovely accomplice Salma Hayek, whom he suspects of planning their next big heist on a cruise ship. A Bahamian gangster (Don Cheadle) wants in on the action, and the whole thing's about as fluffy as an Elmo doll and just as harmless, especially when you consider Hayek's revealing wardrobe (which, thankfully, distracts from Brosnan's less-than-Bond-like physique). There's an abundance of witty banter between everyone, and the tropical locations make After the Sunset a balmy, vicarious vacation. Critics weren't exactly kind to this breezy dose of popcorn entertainment, but it's an agreeable time-killer and an instant cure for seasonal affective disorder, even if the comedic chemistry leaves something to be desired. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (45)

Better Than I Expected
This isn't really a caper film, which is one reason I enjoyed it more than I thought I would.Sure, it has some of the elements of the Hollywood caper movie--the debonaire, super-clever and super-successful thief, the cop out to thwart him, exotic locations--but the movie isn't really about will-he-pull-it-off-or-won't-he.It's more of a cat-and-mouse buddy movie.That the heists are utterly implausible, to the point of being ridiculous (as they are in most caper movies, like Oceans's Eleven and Ocean's 12) doesn't matter as much, because it's not what the movie focuses on.

Instead, we get a lot of cute banter and bonding between Harrelson and Brosnan, who are fun to watch.There are some good, low-brow laughs in this movie--they are enough for me.I laughed out loud, for instance, when during the fishing scene Harrelson is putting tanning lotion on Brosnan's back, and Brosnan says, "My pole!" and Harrelson pulls back with disgust and says, "No way, I'm only doing your back!" (Of course, Brosnan meant, Look at the pole; I caught something.)There are other, similar crude jokes and sight gags.

Both men are good in their roles, and fun to watch.The female roles in the movie seem incidental, a formulaic requirement of Hollywood movies, and are never really developed beyond that basic requirement.And what is Don Cheadle, a great actor, doing in such a miniscule role?Anyone could have done his rolel he's sadly wasted.Chris Penn has an amusing cameo...but my goodness, has he gotten fat.I remember seeing him in movies in the 80's, before he starting hitting the Big Macs.You don't often see an actor let himself go like that.

Commercial for Bahama Tourism Starring...
After the Sunset is a fluffy piffle that is almost always beautiful to look at, but emptier than the nutritional content of cotton candy.

Pierce Brosnan and Salma Hayek make a good-looking couple, and the movie actually TRIES to address a theoretical dilemma that is infrequently brought up in movies.If a rich and successful criminal retires, what do they do?If, presumably, part of why they were a criminal in the first place is for the thrill of it, how can they be content simply retiring?If being a thief is both your job AND your hobby, what do you do after the last "big one"?The only film I can think of that showed the boring lethargy that sets in on a successful criminal is the end of "Scarface" when Al Pacino is lying around in the marble tub of his palatial bathroom, smoking a cigar and cursing at his wife and buddy.

But I digress.After the Sunset would be familiar territory if the only movies you had seen were the "Ocean's 11" remake(s).It's a "steal the jewel" caper.It tries to be a comedy, but Brosnan and Woody Harrelson don't have the comic chemistry we've seen both of them have in other work. Harrelson appears as the FBI agent who has been repeatedly burned by Brosnan, and wants to get his revenge.It follows the film cliche where the lawman is "hot on the trail" of the criminal - a la "Heat", etc., but instead of an edgy relationship between the Thief and the Lawman we get a bumbling comic relationship between Brosnan and Harrelson.

The "star" of the film is the way it looks, and much of that is owed to the Bahamanian resort standing in for paradise.The movie made me want to go there - but it didn't make me want to ever see this film again.

Our family has been in manure for three generations!
Did I miss something?Was there a contest going through all the Grade Schools of America to find the best story for acclaimed director Bret Ratner to bring to the silver screen?If so, why wasn't there a calendar made for those who didn't make the final cut?Oh, wait, apparently children did not write this film, but instead a guy that wrote for the TELEVISION SERIES the Weakest Link.That surely makes him ready by all means to tackle the caper genre and inherit a big payday ... right?You are the weakest link ... good-bye.This movie was a disaster from the beginning.With cardboard acting, an aging (and girth growing) sex symbol, and a corny ending that incorporated nothing that we were shown through the entire film, it is a big wonder how After the Sunset ever saw the illustrious "green-light".Perhaps it was the size of Salma's boo ... name, or perhaps the fact that Pierce Brosnan's The Thomas Crown Affair was such a cult film, or maybe because Don Cheadle was in it, because it had really no pull with just Woody headlining.So, how did this film get made?This film targeted pre-teen boys and retirement communities, and with their great pull, the financing behind this film became very easy.

This was a caper film right?We are supposed to go on this roller coaster ride of who's conning whom, coupled with lies, deceit, and a surprise ending that will make you want to rewatch from the beginning to experience anything that you missed.That is the focus, goal, and overall tone that a film like this should have followed.Instead, Ratner decided to just make a movie without any sort of excitement or drive.As I watched this film, I never once felt excited about the plot.Why?Because there was nobody getting me excited.The acting in this film was well below par for anything that Hollywood has released.Pierce tries, but just can't seem to capture the essence of the film.There is no little demon inside you rooting for anything.Salma's role was basically for eye-candy.She provided nothing spectacular either.I can literally say the same for Woody and Cheadle as well.Here we have strong actors doing absolutely nothing during the course of about two hours.These characters never drive the plot, they bring nothing but clichés to the table, and by the end we really don't have any true grasp as to whom they are.Honestly, cardboard cutouts could have replaced the actual actors and After the Sunset would have been a better film.There was no depth to the characters, no emotion, no structure, just the simple direction of "step here, say your line, step here, look surprised".It was embarrassing for all that were involved.

I think a major flaw to this film was that Ratner did not fully understand, or was prepared, for the caper genre.From the opening moments until the end of the film, you can tell that Ratner is just trying to use his friends in the industry and show the world that he has some power as well.I say this because I saw no true direction or moment of impressiveness where he defines himself as a director.He reuses the same ideas throughout the entire film, he doesn't give anything strong to his players, and nothing stood out in this movie.Sure, it was a beautiful location, but am I to believe that Salma spend a majority of the film building a deck for them to sit on?Am I to believe that Pierce is still a sex symbol even with a HUGE gut sticking out?Am I to believe that Cheadle is a bad guy/imported American who is at the top of the community?Finally, am I to believe that Pierce could still move as quickly as Ratner defined?I swear that in the final unclimactic moments of this film, I could hear Pierce doing some heavy breathing to get from point A to point B.Maybe he isn't ready for the next Bond role.

So, without a good story, or decent characters, maybe there was some humor in it that could pull us away from the sour sensation cultivating in your mouth.Well, guess who is placed in to do the humor element? Woody Harrelson.Now, I don't mind Woody, but in this role, he just wasn't believable and his humor was so cliché that I had trouble believing that he brought anything to this character.He literally plagiarized his entire role.Teachers, and film viewers of the world, should be very upset with him.Instead of bringing a new twist to his character, he resorted to weird sex humor, skimpy bully humor, and that ever-popular drunken humor while fishing that is sure to make that senile woman in the front burst out with laughter. To me it was pathetic and a worthless attempt to make a joke out of already dead film.

Overall, this was a massive disappointment.Here you had a decent director, some strong players, but the worst story ever written by a man who wrote for a game show.Which piece does not fit?There was this huge sense of apathy throughout this entire film and clichés riddled it that I just couldn't get past.Brosnan had trouble with this film, and I couldn't tell if it was because he just didn't care, or because he was working with such low-talent that his heart just wasn't in it.The ending hurt as well.There was no excitement or intensity, just plain ... "here it is ... like it or not".I personally couldn't digest this film with its poor acting and below-par story.This may be a good film for some that are not familiar with the caper genre, but for me it was just hogwash.

Grade: * out of *****

I Liked It
I liked this movie alot. I watched it twice. I really enjoyed the little twist it had at the end.

AFTER THE BOREDOM! (21/2 ) STARS
Where the hell was the action in this movie! It started off
decent, then went down hill from there. The only thing that
kept me watching this lame script, was Salma Hayek! I gave the
movie 1 1/2 stars, and Salmas body 1 extra diserved star! ... Read more

Reviews (24)

Overlong, but worth seeing
Original little gem about love, hypnosis, and reincarnation all queezed into the package of a bright, colorful musical. Yves Montand plays a college professor who begins hypnosis treatment on Daisy (Barbra Streisand) in order to help her stop smoking. While under, he discovers she lived a former life as a 19th century vixen who was stood up by her husband and beheaded for treason. The doctor slowly falls in love with the woman of the past, while, in the present, Daisy (unaware of her former exsistance) falls in love with him.

Big-budgeted film was a box office flop when first released, but it's actually pretty enjoyable. The offbeat story line and the public's sudden lack of interest in musicals are the probably the main reason for the film's failure.

As a Barbra Streisand fan I must say that she is great even though this film is far from her best. She is adorable as Daisy and divinely sensual as the gold digger from England that she ecomes once hypnotized. Montand is a little too stuffy and mechanical as Dr. Charbot, but he and Streisand do share some chemistry.

Streisand's good, Montand is acceptale, but on the whole the movie is was too long and even a bit forced at times. Still, it worth seeing. The costumes and sets are beautiful, the ending is sweet, and there are some great songs.

Bottom line: the movie's cute, often funny, occasionally silly and sometimes moving.

Wonderful Movie the Whole Family Can Enjoy!
This has always been one of my favorite Barbra movies. ESP and reincarnation might be old hat now, but back in 1970 they were hot topics and you could count on controversy when they were discussed. I don't care much for Yves Montand, but the guy that plays Robert is very fine, even as a fine young dandy from 200 years ago! I've heard all about this movie from different sources over the years, and I think it's wonderful that Barbra was pregnant during the filming (you'd never know), that she was allowed to keep the clothes, that she played the part at cost instead of an increased fee (just after Funny Girl), and that she wasn't even the person the film was written for, but Audrey Hepburn. Again, this is an enjoyable film--remember it's a musical and the songs are very catching, don't be surprised if you find yourself humming one of the songs after you've seen the movie!

WIDESCREEN DVD PLEEEEESE !!!!!
This beautiful little gem needs to be on DVD period. The color is absolutely fabulous, the costumes beautiful. It's a colorfull cleaned up snip-et of 60's style. My favorite Barbra Striesand musical. And for those of who believe in re-incarnation or even just like to toy with the concept it is enjoyable fun.

Barbara is simply Marvy! Damn the pretentious Frenchman!
A great movie directed by a fantastic director. All this and more made in spite of Paramount's choice for one of the century's most horrid leading actors. Two words..."Yves Montand" I would certainly like to know who was responsible for telling Yves that he could act. Luckily for us, Barbara's comedic timimg and on screen presence distracts us from Yves witty droll and cardboard persona. Much of the films salvation has to be given to the credit of Vincente Minnelli, who has directed many wonderful & memorable movies such as "Meet me in St Louis" It is also a wonderful treat to see a young and handsome (yes I said handsome.. if you can believe that) Jack Nicholson who plays one of Daisy's neighbors. What's most intresting about Jack's character, is that there was a sense of ambiguity about his sexual orientation. A definite first for the Jackster! I give this movie 5 stars even though Yves is in it. The story, art direction and musical numbers are just fabulous. Besides we all know that anyone who buys this movie, certainly isn't purchasing it on account of the leading man. Now when is Paramount going to release this on DVD? Hello? Paramount? Are you listening? Hello? Is anyone awake over there?....

"Is anything else comin' off?"
This was one of the very last of the lavish screen musicals to be made in the classic mode, and, by the time of it's early 1970 theatrical release, it already seemed tired and dated. This is why it is somewhat shocking that, when viewed today, ON A CLEAR DAY is not only tremendously entertaining, but that it's also possibly the most underrated film of both director Vincent Minnelli and star Barbra Streisand. The film's reincarnation theme was pretty cutting-edge back in the early-seventies, and it still feels unique even today. The film received fair-to-negative reviews from critics at the time, and even though it proved to be a modest hit at the box office, it has been long forgotten by the general public, and it even goes unlisted on many of Streisand's selected filmographies. This is a shame, for Streisand's highly impressive dual performance may prove to be a revelation for some of her admirers and critics alike.

Like the film itself, Streisand is at her very best in the film's frequent flashbacks. Not only does she look absolutely beautiful as Melinda in Cecil DeVille's many elaborate costumes, but her Regency- era poise and accent are completely flawless. However, the film isn't absolutely perfect. Though Streisand's gives one of her most likable performances as kooky Daisy (her character's present-day incarnation), her "modern-day" wardrobe is a little too extreme. I realize that the costume designers wanted to draw a sharp contrast between Daisy and Melinda, but they went a little too far and ended up making Daisy look too buffoonish. They didn't need to go to such lengths with her garish "contemporary" wardrobe - Streisand's convincing performance alone is enough to make the contrast believable. Yves Montad is acceptable in his role - I don't believe he really deserved all of the criticism that he's received over the years, yet I do find his performance to rather stiff, and am convinced that many other actors could have done more with the part. Jack Nicholson, Bob Newhart, and John Richardson appear in small supporting roles, but they all feel rather underused.

However, there's something about the Streisand-Minnelli pairing that seems to have brought out the best in the two legendary talents. The flashback segments in particular provide the perfect showcase for Minnelli's imaginative visuals, and these are also the very scenes that allow Streisand to stretch the most as an actress. In particular, the "Love And All The Trimmings" sequence is easily one of the best moments that Minnelli ever captured on film, and Streisand has rarely been more intensely seductive than in this one sequence. Score-wise, the soaring title song is the only real classic of the eight Lenner-Lowe compositions, but a few of the others (the comic "Go To Sleep," the gorgeous "He Isn't You") are nearly as great. Bottom line: ON A CLEAR DAY is a film that's usually funny, sometimes touching, and always inventive and enjoyable. It's undervalued gem if there ever was one. ... Read more

Reviews (453)

An OK movie for my favorite book
POA was my favorite book of the sieries. but in the movie, i have MANY complaints.

Things that were left out

-cho chang
-how sirius got out of azkaban
-how sirius betrayed lily and james (no mention of fidelius)
-no mention of word secret keeper
-who moony wormtail padfoot and prongs are
-why sirius hates lupin, james, sirius
-why crookshanks was attacking scabbers
-why all of a sudden sirius isn't the bad guy
-why sirius tried to attack ron (oh wait, that never happened)
-that ron and peter pettigrew were in the paper is why sirius broke out of azkaban
-what hogsmeade is
-why there is a tunnel from the whomping willow to the shrieking shack
-connection between the stag patronus and "prongs"
-draco malfoy is the slytherin seeker

things that were changed
-hermione shows up late to everyclass. come on it's HERMIONE.
-the firebolt comes later
-much more interaction between past selves and future selves in time turner sequence. (made harry being his father predictable instead of shocking)
-the patronus was just lame (looked like an atomic bomb or those superballs on dragonballZ)

basically i think the movie was really good as long as i don't think about it being the same as the book.

parts of it were really good. i'm just kind of annoyed that i knew the book too well to really enjoy it. i sppent most of my time going "that never happened" (harry serching for peter pettigrew)

Marvelous Mischief!
I have not read the books yet because I like to be surprised. So I only view the movie on it's own merits.

The third installment was indeed a pleasant one. A new director,Alfonso Cuarón, handled the performances perfectly. Daniel Radcliffe ...Harry Potter is becoming a fine actor and he is great in this movie. He loses his temper with his Aunt and he plays the scene brilliantly.
Gary Oldman ...Sirius Black is always so great that you don't know it is him until the credits.
Rupert Grint ...Ron Weasley is very funny.
Emma Watson ...Hermione Granger has become a fantastic young actress and her character is strong and confident and also caring which makes her a great role model.
Alan Rickman ...Professor Severus Snape, Robbie Coltrane ...Rubeus Hagrid, and the new Dumbledore were superb as well. (I was sad to learn that the original Dumbledore, who was wonderful, has died.)

The visuals of Hogwarts and it's grounds were beautiful and for me the high point was flight of the Hippogriff with Harry. The Hippogriff was an amazing creation.

I reccomend the movie even if you are a total muggle.

Well Done!
I am an avid Harry Potter fan and I have read all the books at least four times each. I think that the "Prisoner" movie was done much better than the first two. To start, it shows how the magic world is changing for Harry and how it will continue to change as the story unfolds throughout the future novels. It's important to point out that the new director has been known in the past to put a dark spin on his interpretations in movies. But I thought that this dark point of view is what is needed at this point in order to show that Harry and co. are no longer children and are entering into more dangerous territory. Although the director did edit some parts of the book that I would have like to see, I think the movie overall does a great job in showcasing the future of the series. I think the actors are really starting to come into their own and showing more depth in their interpretations of the characters. I love to see how comfortable they are with each other in this film and to see how they are growing with these characters. Overall, I think this movie is great and I can't wait to see "Goblet". Although I do agree that "Goblet" should be longer or made into a two part movie because to edit book four too much will ruin the movie and movie goers that don't read the books will be completely lost then.

Some people just don't get it...
One of the joys about the Harry Potter series is that the style of the books matures with the characters. This is finally true with the movies as well. Yes, this is a much darker film than the first 2...so is the book. Yes, Harry, Ron and Hermione act more like real teenagers and less like 1950's television children. There were choices made in this film that were risky, but in my opinion the risk paid off! This is the perfect progression in the films of Harry Potter!

new look to a changing story
I thought the newest Harry Potter movie was VERY WELL DONE. A new look for an ever changing story line. Why would anyone want to watch a movie thats done exactly like the first two? Change it up a bit and keep the audiance wondering how their favorite books are going to be brought to screen. It doesnt hurt to have many peoples different views bring a great book to screen in another way then the first two. As long as the story gets told, isnt that all that matters? ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

This restored, animated valentine to the Beatles offers viewersthe rare chance to see a work that's been substantially improved by its technical facelift, not just supersized with extra footage. Recognizing that its song-studded soundtrack alone makes Yellow Submarine a video annuity, United Artists has lavished a frame-by-frame refurbishment of the original feature, while replacing its original monaural audio tracks with a meticulously reconstructed stereo mix that actually refines legendary original album versions.

What emerges is a vivid time capsule of the late '60s and a minor milestone in animation. The music represents the quartet's zenith--Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. The story line, cobbled together by producer Al Brodax and a committee of writers, is a broad, feather-light allegory set in idyllic Pepperland, where the gentle citizens are threatened by the nasty, music-hating Blue Meanies and their surreal arsenal of henchmen, with the Beatles enlisted to thwart the bad guys. Visually, designer Heinz Edelmann mixes the biomorphic squiggles, day-glo palette, and Beardsley-esque portraits of Peter Max with rotoscoped still photographs and film; Edelmann's animated collages also nod to Andy Warhol and Magritte in properly psychedelic fashion, which works wonderfully with such terrific songs.

High orthodox Beatlemaniacs can still grouse that the animated Fab Four are (literally) flat archetypes, but that's missing the sheer bloom of the music or the giddy, campy fun of the visuals. Making sense of the story is second to submerging blissfully in the sights and sounds of this video treat. --Sam Sutherland ... Read more

Reviews (211)

Masterful restoration of 60's Classic
After reading the New York Times article about the restoration process for Yellow Submarine, I had high hopes for this DVD. I was not disappointed.

The color saturation is sumptuous. There are some imperfections, but on the whole this is a first class restoration. If you want appreciate the restoration, look at the original theatrical trailer or the "making of" documentary extras.

The re-mastered audio brings new complexity and detail to familiar Beatle material (even on my strictly middlebrow home entertainment system). The opening a cappella chorus of "Nowhere Man" sounded like it was recorded yesterday.

For a generation that has not seen this film, Yellow Submarine is a perfect time capsule for 60's psychedelic era. The film begins in under the sea in Pepperland, an idyllic musical community, which is attacked by the music-hating Blue Meanies. "Young Fred" manages to escape the attack in the Yellow Submarine, which takes him to England. He recruits the Beatles to return with him to Pepperland to join the battle between the forces of order (the Blue Meanies) and the forces of creativity and love. The plot is pretty much as hokey as it sounds, but it is merely a vehicle for the music, humor, surrealism, artistic and social sensibilities of the psychedelic 60's. And it is there that the movie emphatically succeeds.

The animation is certainly not as sophisticated as some more modern efforts, but it stands up remarkably well. There was a lot of revolutionary (for the 60's) integration of animation and live action. The colors are gorgeous. Visually, this is still a very entertaining film.

If you don't like the Beatles music, or are bored by animation, stay away. If you are on the fence about getting this DVD, buy it. You won't be disappointed. And if you love the Beatles, this DVD should move to the top of your list.

Fab
More of a series of Beatles videos than a film, this is excellent for what it is, and it has Beatles music in it, so it can't be bad. I'd forgotten how good 'Nowhere Man' was, in particular, until I saw this again on DVD. George Harrison does a really good guitar solo near the beginning of the song, so top marks to George. The other songs are usually described as lightweight throwaways, although I think that's a bit harsh. 'Hey Bulldog' is fun, and although 'Only a Northern Song' and 'It's All Too Much' aren't as good as 'Eleanor Rigby', they fit the images very well. 'All Together Now' is dire, though. The extra DVD bits are nice to have, but not really worth buying the disc for on their own. The 'Making of' documentary is from 1968, doesn't tell you much, and only goes on for 17 minutes. The commentary is a bit dull too, and Heinz Edelmann only appears for five minutes at the end. The 'isolated music score' simply turns off the speaking voices and sound effects - you don't actually get the full soundtrack in order, you get snatches of George Martin's instrumental music and the Beatles' songs. The remastering is a bit iffy in places - there are film scratches and blobs were there shouldn't be any - and although it could be my speakers, the Beatles' dialogue seems to be drowned out by the orchestral score. As for the film, you've probably already seen it. It looks and sounds wonderful, but it has a long, dull bit in the middle; there isn't really much of a plot; and I still can't make out what the Beatles are saying most of the time. But that's just me. The bit at the end, where the Beatles appear, makes me wince, as they seem so self-conscious and embarrassed.

My daughter is 5 and loves it!
I never thought the movie was great until my 5 year old started watching it. I am hooked (or re-hooked on the Beatles). The music and images are far better than anything on TV. Sure, squint your eyes (or ears) real hard and find some type of references to the 60's - but the're not there if you simply enjoy the feast.

My daughter now hums the songs, we have a Beatles poster in her room - - an no more Sponge Bob, Scooby Doo, or those Princesses. YEA!

The music was great but the movie wasn't
I just don't get why people love the movie. Yes, the music in it is exeltnet and it did introduce three new great Beatles songs (All Together Now, Only a Northern Song, and Hey Bulldog) but the music OUTDOES the movie. I don't care what other people say, the animation is bad, and the plot is confusing. The movie is really just an excuse to get the Fab Four back on the big screen. They were barly involved anyway. They added three new songs and didn't even do the voices of their characters. THe movie is decent and is worth watching once. I give it three stars becasue the music is good and I like the message that good will always win over evil and greed (even if it has been proven wrong by big corperations taking over everything and MTV manipulating everyone ages 7 - 17 its nice to think good will win out in the end.) If you want a good Bealtes movie I recamend A Hard Day's Night.

Perfect for those that keep the inner child alive
Turn off your mind
Relax and
Float down stream

¿Do you wanna watch a movie...
with no blood, no bad words, no nudes, no witchery, no romance, and... no Hollywood?

Sounds boring?

Well, my nephews love this movie. Perhaps it's because it's quite the same style as Sesame Street cartoons. I love it, too. But my pop-music-fan brother... He just can't stand it. It's too psychedelic for his simple mind. Some of my friends hate it, too. But strangely, kids love it! Could it be that there is a something about appreciating this kind of things that most adults seem to loose when they grow up?

If you still can appreciate things like you did when you were a child, you'll love this one. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Both epic and intimate, A Very Long Engagement reunites Audrey Tautou and Jean-Pierre Jeunet, the star and director of the hugely popular Amelie. A young woman named Mathilde (Tautou, Happenstance)separated from her lover by World War I refuses to believe he's been killed and launches an investigation into his fate--an investigation that spins in all directions, creating dozens of miniature stories (including that of an Italian prostitute avenging the death of her own lover by elaborate means) that shift to and fro in time. The dazzling curlicues of narrative put brutality and tenderness back to back, shifting between crushing inevitabilities and miraculous rescues with deft storytelling skill and the lush visual style of the director of Delicatessen and The City of Lost Children. Through it all, Tautou--fierce and luminous--anchors the movie effortlessly. She's among the most emotionally engaging actresses in cinema, with the kind of expressive beauty that transcends language. A gorgeous, far-reaching film; the huge cast also includes Jodie Foster (The Silence of the Lambs), Gaspard Ulliel (Strayed), and Dominique Pinon (Alien: Resurrection). --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (30)

Ridiculous comments!
I can't help but commenting on the review featured below posted by: Vyto Stoskus "Bookroom regarding the film `A very long engagement'. I respect the fact that the film is not everybody's cup of tea (I personally think it's a masterpiece) in the end, it's all a matter of tastes. But suggesting the French people stick to making comedy because (apparently) it's what they do best is the most ridiculous comment I have ever heard. Some people sadly (and it's a shame) don't much about French cinema!

flying bodies
90% flying corpses and those--bleeding to death--about to be corpses. Great showcase for the make-up dept. 10% storyline: amnesia--big hairy deal. Aren't there any more stories worth telling? Shame on everyone associated with such travesty. The French should stick to what they do best--comedy. Or maybe this was and they're laughing at all us suckers who spent our money and an interminable 2 hours+ watching their multimillion dollar joke on us.

A great artistic film!
Once more the French fertile imagination decides to make a real punch demostration of superb good taste and charm picture, get its goals without apparent effort. The dinamism and engaging script won't let you down. You will face and be part of this sensible drama in search for a love in the middle of the First War. Pierre Jeunet employs the War only as a big frame to tell us a love story and the inexhaustive hope that feeds the soul of Audrey Tautoo, a twenty years old girl who never gives up for his love's life. She suffered of polio in her early childhood but that is not any obstacle to prevail in what she believes.
The script is real web that will involve several secondary stories but the whole ensamble is conceived as a huge watch mechanism, so well articulated and filled of intelligent doses of black humor all the way.
Andre Dussollier, Jodie Foster, Dominique Pinon and all the cast is simply outstanding. The crude war sequences are admirably well filmed, loaded with intense realism and profound humanity before any other circumstance. Jeunet does not judge, he just only watchs and presents the kindness and the abominable horror of certain human beings not only in the War but far beyond the War field. The destroyed indult letter of Poincaré that never came, will work as a complex fixed idea of revenge because the life of these five men will be narrowed linked.
If you like the artistic films, if you want to enjoy of a whole film, without fissures that face you with the reality of those years you will enjoy this one. No doubt just a second and go for this artwork.
Nowadays the lovely, funny and expresive face of Audrey Tautoo. Jeune as Stanley Donen with the other Audrey, and at least fifty million people in the world are simply bewithced with her charisma and outstanding presence. Undoubtedly she would seem to fill the long long time expected emptiness left by the other Audrey, at last.
Pierre Jeunet's handle camera is just equalled by Terry Gilliam in what rapture travellings and close up concern.
A must in your collection.

Sustaining Plot and High Film Art
This film reminds us of how films can be made, with care and sincerity. Each scene renders a time and place with vivid imagery and authentic treatment. The acting is excellent, and story compelling, and editing and directing inspired. It may have deserved the Oscar for best picture last year.

Simply Engaging Story about Love That Prevails
To make a filmed version of French bestselling novel 'A Very Long Engagement' has been THE dream of director Jean-Pieere Jeunet, best known for international hit 'Amelie.'Now Warner Brothers, who owned the right of the book, agreed to co-produce the film with the star Audrey Tautou, and now this is the result of this Hollywood studio's wise decision.Thank you, Warner Bros.

But the film is definitely French, in language and in style, and the story begins NOT with the endearing characters in Paris, but with the rain-soaked trenches during the time of WW1.Five soliders are being court-marshalled for wounding themselves, and they are sentenced to be expelled into the no man's land, the terrirory between the German and French lines.One of them happens to be young Manech (Gasper Ulliel, 100% different from 'Strayed'), who received a terrible shock during the last battle.

But the true protagonist is Matilde (Tautou radiently beautiful as ever).She was in love with Manech, and still is even after the war is over, and the five soliders are supposed to be dead.However, Matilde believes that her love is still alive.Believing in her unfailing intuition, she doggedly follows the traces of the witnesses and clues that are scattered all over France while she needs a wheelchair to travel.

A word of warning first; unlike 'Amelie' in which everything looked charming (but in fact it is not though), some parts of 'A Very Long Engagement,' especially the war scenes, are very violent, though not too graphic.And don't forget that there are some killings (by one mysterious lady Tina).But her MOs are so ingenious that you may be rather fascinated to see them.

The film is well-crafted in whatever way you may think of -- gracefully Gothic visuals, rousing music score (by Angelo Paralamenti known for David Lynch films), and first-rate acting (including by one Jodie Foster speaking French.And she was once in a French film 'Blood of the Others' by Claude Chabrol, so that's no surprsing matter).At the end credit you will find many names familiar to French film fans -- Tcheky Karyo, Jean-Claude Dreyfuss, Dominique Pinon, and ... but making a list may be pointless after all.

For the star of the film is Audrey Tautou as Matilde.Every audience will fall for her, and be impressed with her strong acting as the independent heroine.Though the film looks awfully whimsical at times with so many characters and incidents, she remains the pivotical presence all through thefilm.

The original novel is written by veteran Sebastian Japrisot, who died one year before the film was completed.(Many of his books had been filmed, 'Rider on the Rain' for example.)As they compressed so many things in the original into 130 minute film, 'A Very Long Engagement' suffers from very confusing relations between so many characters.In book, we can stop and think; in film, well, you can stop your DVD player, but I'D rather not.Let the film keep on telling its story, and enjoy the world of Jeunet's visual genius.You never get bored with the strikingly original images he presents. ... Read more

Reviews (470)

VERY funny and original
Yeah, the F-word is uttered about 500 times, the lead character is either drinking or smoking grass all the time, and the core plot was probably written on a couple bar napkins at 2:00 a.m. But this is a laugh-out-loud masterpiece, full of both subtle humor and farce/slapstick. To those who are tired of unfunny Hollywood comedies (does the name "Adam Sandler" mean anything to you?), this is a breath of fresh air. Marvelously inventive in its concept and presentation, with dialogue that almost demands that you watch the movies again. The fact that I came of age in the 60s and was a dedicated stoner for a number of years undoubtedly enhanced my appreciation of this flick. But anyone with a taste for over-the-top humor and quirky characters will love it. While Jeff Bridges was quite good, John Goodman's character is the most memorable in recent memory. BTW, after seeing this movie, you'll never be able to think of the drink "white russian" without laughing.

A very interesting movie..
You wouldn't expect anything lesser from the makers of Fargo and Raising Arizona, arguably two fantastic movies in their own right. The B L is a freaky comedy without any situational plot in particular but weirdly engaging in the theme and its treatment nevertheless.

It's about a man named Jeff Lebowski, who calls himself the Dude, and is described by the narrator as the laziest man in LA County. He lives only to go bowling, but is mistaken for a millionaire named the Big Lebowski, with funny consequences. The Dude is played by Jeff Bridges with a goatee, a potbelly, a ponytail and a pair of Bermuda shorts so large they may have been borrowed from his best friend and bowling teammate, Walter Sobchak (John Goodman). Their other teammate is Donny (Steve Buscemi), who may not be very bright, but it's hard be sure since he never is allowed to complete a sentence.

Los Angeles in this film is a zoo of peculiar characters. One of the funniest is a Latino bowler named Jesus (John Turturro), who is seen going door to door in his neighborhood on the sort of mission you read about, but never picture anyone actually performing. The Dude tends to have colorful hallucinations when he's socked in the jaw or pounded on the head, which happens often, and one of them involves a musical comedy sequence inspired by Busby Berkeley. (It includes the first point-of-view shot in history from inside a bowling ball.)

Some may complain The Big Lebowski rushes in all directions and never ends up anywhere. That isn't the film's flaw, but its style -- ala "Go" and "Swingers". The Dude, who smokes a lot of pot and guzzles White Russians made with half-and-half, starts every day filled with resolve, but his plans gradually dissolve into a haze of missed opportunities and missed intentions. Most people lead lives with a third act. The Dude lives days without evenings.

Definitely a light hearted allround enjoyable movie -- something that deserves more than 9 reviews at Amazon! (as of this writing)

gay
this movie really sucks hairy old fat balls. what kind of trashy filth is this? it dosen't even make sence.

Times like these call for a Big Lebowski.
While I haven't seen the latest Coen Brothers films, like Intolerable Cruelty (2003) or The Lady Killers (2004), I have seen all their movies since O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000), and I can say I've never been disappointed, and that certainly holds true for The Big Lebowski (1998), the film, not received well by the critics, they made after their Oscar winning film Fargo (1996). While it may not have been a critical success, it is one of my favorite films, and one the rarely gathers dust on my shelf, as I've seen it a few times.

The film boasts quite a cast of actors including Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, Jullianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Tara Reid, Ben Gazzara, Sam Elliot along with a few veterans of previous Coen brothers films like Steve Buscemi, John Tuturro, and Peter Stormere. So what is the film about? Well, I'll tell you...The film, which takes place in California in the early 90's, starts off with a little expository by a narrator known as The Stranger (Sam Elliot) giving us a little detail about the main character, Jeffery Lebowski aka The Dude, played by Bridges, who seems to have put on a bit of weight for the role, and sports long hair much like that he had when he was in the 1976 flopperino remake of King Kong. Anyway, the first thing you notice about The Dude is he is extremely laid back, very possibly a casualty of the California counterculture of the 60's and early 70's who seems perfectly content to take each day as it comes. While returning to his modest rental home one night, he finds two thuggish men waiting for him, one who soon acquaints The Dude's head with the inside of The Dude's toilet, while the other decides to despoil The Dude's living room rug in the manner of a unhousebroken dog. Seems these two men work for a smut peddler named Jackie Treehorn, and are looking to collect money owed to Mr. Treehorn by Jeffery Lebowski's wife, Bunny (Reid). Only thing is they got the wrong Jeffery Lebowski. Seeking reimbursement for his rug, The Dude visits the other Jeffery Lebowski, an older, well-to-do wheelchair bound man whose young trophy wife seems to have amassed quite a debt to a number of people, including Mr. Treehorn. This meeting sets into motion a complicated series of events including kidnapping which evolves into a mystery, a ransom request for one million dollars, a suitcase of dirty underwear, a stolen car, an altercation with nihilists, various beatings, guns, a bowling tournament, interpretive dance, a sexual liaison, a ferret, some drugs, painting in the nude, the removal of a toe, a wicky drug-induced dream sequence, copious amounts of profanity and even a death, all with The Dude right smack in the middle.

Jeff Bridges is wonderful as The Dude, a laid back individual with a self awareness few possess having to deal with harshness put upon him by circumstances just always a bit out of his control. He ends up basically going with the flow, finally stumbling on a moment of clarity as the mystery resolves itself. The funniest scenes usually involve The Dude, his friend and bowling teammate Walter Sobchek (Goodman), and fellow friend Donny (Buscemi) as their conversations, riddled with ludicrous tangents, usually devolve into heated debates and personal attacks, usually with Donny getting the worst of it. One of the things I like so much about this film is there is just so much going on, much of which may seem unrelated to the main plot, but I think it's purposeful, weaving an thick, intricate, colorful tapestry right before your eyes and definitely requires numerous viewings, just to soak it all up. There is definitely a beginning, a middle, and an end here, but the path between is very convoluted at times, but not confusing, if that makes sense. Normally I dislike dream sequences in films, as they often tend to be a mish mash of stylistic tripe, but the one in this film was truly enjoyable and laden with symbolism relating to the events preceding it, and even utilizes a song I consider to be a classic in that of Just Dropped In (To See What Condition My Condition Was In) by Kenny Rogers and the First Edition. It was funny, because the core of the story is based on a mystery, but I spent little time in trying to decipher it, as I was so intrigued with everything that was going on, the related and seemingly unrelated material. A word of warning, though, as I've mentioned before, there is a good amount of profanity throughout the film, so if you are easily offended, you might steer clear of this movie.

The film is offered in both wide screen and full screen format, and the picture quality is good, but not as good as I would have expected with such a recent release. Some scenes seemed a bit dark, and there was a slight fuzziness at times, but nothing very notable unless you are seated very close to the screen (I normally refrain from getting so picky, but I've seen this film a number of times). Special features are pretty slim, including a 30-minute interview with the Coen brothers on the making of the film, along with a teaser trailer and cast biographies. I didn't care for presentation much, as after putting the disc in your player, you are directed to pick a format, wide screen or full screen, and the movie would start playing, skipping entirely over the menu, presenting it only after completion of the film, or by pressing the menu button on the remote. This is most common on older or extremely cheap releases (this was originally released in 1998, and then again in 2003 with no enhancements or changes). If any film was ripe for an enhanced special edition re-release, this is it.

Cookieman108

The Coens at their best
I saw this when it came out and didn't get it. After Fargo, The Big L just seemed like a loser's mystery that never went anywhere. A year later my friends are cracking me up doing movie quotes and it helped me see it in a new light. The movie is hilarious! It's awkward at first because the Coens are messing with you, setting up expectations and constantly doing something else instead. Once you're in on the game, sit back, make a white russian, and let the funny happen. ... Read more