Description

In his late color masterpiece Kagemusha (The Shadow Warrior) director Akira Kurosawa returned to the samurai film and to a primary theme of his celebrated career—the play between illusion and reality. Sumptuously reconstructing the splendor of feudal Japan and pageantry of war, Kurosawa creates a soaring historical epic that is also a somber meditation on the nature of power. The Criterion Collection is proud to present Kagemusha for the first time in its full-length version. ... Read more

Reviews (33)

Fine precursor to the classic "Ran"
Just before "Ran," Kurosawa got American funding for this movie about a "shadow warrior" who was assigned to impersonate Takeda Shingen should he die. This was to keep the Takeda clan's border secure and prevent enemies (of which Takeda had many) from invading. It is a wonderful film, and has two very strong points: the visuals, and the characters.

The strong visuals should be obvious - an Akira Kurosawa film with no strong visuals is like a Monet painting with poor use of color. The battle scenes are stunning and seem to come out of a nightmare, with rifleman shooting down on soldiers with a bright light flashing behind them. The colored armor of Takeda's men were also nicely picked and, as Kurosawa would later do with "Ran", give their presense a hauntingly beautiful yet horrifying tone. The final scene at the Battle of Nagashino (which was wrongfully nitpicked in Stephen Turnbull's Osprey book of the battle) chooses to show us only the aftermath of the battle, with shots of cavalry charging to the gunners and then cutting to the horrified expressions of those who watch the unfolding massacre of Japan's greatest army. The shot of the fields of dead is some thing that could only have come out of the nightmare of war.

I think the strongest part of the film, though, were the characters. The film has a slew of fascinating characters, from Takeda's generals (each with their own personality) right down to the rifleman who shot Takeda. Even the spies from Oda and Tokugawa interact and talk like real people, and I can't think of any one in this film I easily forget. I especially liked Oda Nobunaga, and I think this film has the best portrayal I've ever seen of him. He can be seen walking out with his army and stopping briefly to listen to a Christian priest give a prayer. There is another part where he rides around on an Arab horse, followed by a scene where he offers Tokugawa Ieyasu a glass of Western wine (poor Tokugawa chokes on it!).

The best character is, of course, the shadow warrior himself. The actor did a wonderful job of playing Takeda and the imposter, and even though being a common thief that nearly quits his job in the beginning, you find yourself growing to like him. The scene where he confesses to the concubines he is an imposter, knowing they'll take it as a joke, and then winks at a general was hilarious! Also, notice in the scene where a retainer describes to Takeda's nephew what the meaning of the clan flag is...the imposter is listening just as intently as the boy is! He also comes out strong in the second-to-last battle sequence, where he watches as men fight and die for a man they strongly admire. The final Kurosawa metaphor at the end (which I won't describe because its a serious spoiler) also gives the whole point of the story. The man tried to undertake a role that was perhaps too big for him, a role only one man could really play.

Overall, I was very impressed with this movie, and I would definately recommend it as viewing for those fans of the master of film himself. I hope soon a DVD will be released of it and I will be able to add it to my growing Akira Kurosawa DVD set. In the meantime, I happily own a video copy for viewing.

The shadow warrior
Kagemusha is another entry in Kurosawa's decades-long string of Samurai movies and is replet with rank-n-file anti-war themes: empires are fleeting, stubborn pride proves costly, and human life is cheap. Although not without its problems in pacing and stiffness, it is better than some of his more famous films, though no where near as good as Ran. The plot: The warlord Shingen is mortally wounded whilst besieging a fortress. His dying wish is that his dynasty continue. This is accomplished by using an impersonator, Kagemusha (Tatsuya Nakadai), who is a thief with humble ancestry. Kagemusha serves as Shingen's stand-in for three years, improving morale and even helping to win battles. The most impressive feature in Kagemush is the photography along with the splendid costumes. Indeed, outstanding cinematography and convincing sets are a familiar hallmark for Kurosawa. While one can hardly fault the films character development, for a war film, the pace is slow -- very slooow. Kagemusha was an expensive film by Japanese standards, and Kurosawa had alienated himself from Japanese studios with his cutting comments about their uncompromising attitude towards fimmaking. So unfortunatley (and ironically), he turned to the crass commerical master himself, George Lucas (as well as Francis Ford Coppola). Both are credited as executive producers for the "international" version of Kagemusha. Kagemusha was nominated for two Academy Awards, Best Foreign Language Film and Best Art Direction.

Better than Ran
Comparing Kagemusha with Ran is a thread that runs through many of the reviews. Both are dramas centered around warlords during Japan's feudal era, and were directed by Kurosawa late in his career. Both films are visually stunning, but there are differences in how the stories are presented. Ran seems affected by its self-conscious adaptation of King Lear, and has a more theatrical (and less cinematic) feel about it. The acting is very stylized, as if in adapting Shakespeare's play Kurosawa also wanted to reaffirm the Japanese qualities through similarities to traditional ritualistic Noh dramas.

The story of Kagemusha seems more of a natural portrayal in comparison. The loyalty of the thief to the warlord is perhaps a quintessentially Japanese story, and is beautifully evoked in many small scenes throughout the film. It is the battle scenes which are highly stylized in this film, as they serve to illustrate the changing fortunes of the clans, and are not centerpieces. They are a part of the amazing beauty of the film's images. One of my favorite images of all the films I have seen is that of the warlord's unhappy son plotting in a traditional room, while in the background we can see the blue of a lake being whipped up by a storm.

Some people will prefer Ran, and others will like best Kurosawa's earlier and more earthy films, such as Yojimbo. They are all wonderful, but for myself Kagemusha is his crowning achievement.

Great movie
I actually prefer Kagemusha to Ran. My Japanese language University teacher used to gripe that Kurosawa represented a "western" style of cinema, as opposed to Ozu, for instance. Ran is basically King Lear set in medieval Japan, whereas Kagemusha is more original in many ways, and less anachronistic. The themes of the Kagemusha's futile fight aganst destiny and his doppelganger-like identification with Shingen are also magnificently played. Finally, the very Japanese emphasis on passive control (Shingen's strategy is always to act as an umovable mountain on which to shatter his enemies) resonates in interesting ways.

I Want My DVD!!!!!!!
Why, oh why, is Kagemusha not available on DVD? I have seen probably a dozen of Kurosawa's movies, and Kagemusha is my favorite of them all. For the wonderful cinematography and score alone, it is deserving of a better format than VHS. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The daughter of legendary British actor John Mills and novelist Mary Hayley Bell (as well as the sister of actress Juliet Mills), young Hayley Mills broke the surface of fame at the tender age of 12, starring opposite her father in the thriller Tiger Bay. That film, along with a Berlin Film Festival award, was enough to attract the attention of Walt Disney, who promptly signed her to a five-year contract and put her in the starring role of Pollyanna. After wringing hearts and nabbing a special Oscar, Mills segued into the comedy thing--for double the fun--in The Parent Trap, the 1961 farce in which she played twins, separated at birth, who scheme to reunite their biological parents (Maureen O'Hara and Brian Keith, both surprisingly sexy for a Disney movie). On the brink of adolescence, Mills was a saucy role model for children of the Kennedy era: cute, endearing and, above all, wholesome despite her sneaky ways--everyone's meddlesome sister. Easily stepping into the Disney child-star gap as the original Mouseketeers were (literally) outgrowing their uniforms, Mills was the studio's live-action bread and butter for a brief moment in time, and The Parent Trap still remains her best vehicle, a classic now to adults who came of age during the early '60s. It also pioneered the processed split-screen technique, which while not seamless was revolutionary and exciting enough that, upon seeing the initial results, Uncle Walt asked the filmmakers to shoot more scenes in which Mills played opposite herself. --Mark Englehart ... Read more

Reviews (97)

A Fun, Spirited Adventure Starring Hayley Mills
In the original movie, The Parent Trap, Hayley Mills stars, twice! As twins, not knowing about each other's existence, who meet at a summer camp where they immedietly dislike eachother, until, of course, they discover that they are twins. In the course of all this, they switch places in attempt to reunite their parents, played by Maureen O'Hara and Brian Keith. A fun movie to watch. Though perhaps not quite as colorful as the new version, it is a nice addition to your video collection, especially to compare to the new one. A must see movie that your whole family will enjoy.

"Let's Get Together,Yeah,Yeah,Yeah!"
"The Parent Trap" tells the story of two girls at summer camp: Sharon McKendrick and Susan Evers(both played by Hayley Mills). Their parents got divorced and took both of them separately. Maureen O'Hara plays Margaret McKendrick,and the late Brian Keith plays Mitchell Evers. The song that Hayley sings in the movie was a # 1 hit for her in 1961: "Let's Get Together" is written by Richard M. Sherman and Robert B. Sherman,who also wrote the title song sung by Tommy Sands and Annette Funicello. Hayley Mills also reprised the roles of Sharon and Susan in "The Parent Trap II" (1986),"The Parent Trap III"(1989),and "The Parent Trap Hawaaian Honeymoon"(1989). Lindsay Lohan took Mills' roles in the remake of "The Parent Trap"(1998).

Help, I'm seeing Double........
I love this movie. Both versions arwe great. The first one, with Haley Mills, has the song,"lets get together yeah yeah yeah, why don't you and I combine.." and the second one with Lindsay Lohan, has the song "There She Goes" And there are some other diffrences. Like in the new one, there is the lizard fiasco. I'm pretty sure that wasn't in the old one. But they are both good. if I wer you I wouldn't chose. I'd get both.:)

Hayley to the Rescue
This was the highest grossing box office success in America in 1961 and if there isn't a statue of Hayley Mills in Disneyland there oughta be. Her successive hits for Walter and Roy Disney bailed them out of a tight spot financially. Ms. Mills effortless adolescent charm is backed by two first rate performers in Brian Keith and Maureen O'Hara and neither was ever better. The plot about separated twins is older than Shakespeare and doesn't bear too close examination, but the theme of a re-kindled love and re-united family is one very few of us can resist. Highly recommended.

Special features are wonderful
Of course this is a wonderful Disney family film. I'm in my twenties, and I can remember watching this movie since I was a toddler. Since I'm sure you know how great the movie is and can read other reviews for that, I'll concentrate on the special features of this DVD, some of which aren't even mentioned above.

• "Caught in the Act: The Making of the Parent Trap" is a good documentary (about 30 minutes), including interviews with Hayley Mills, Maureen O'Hara, director David Swift, Joanna Barnes, and more. It provides a lot of background details on how the idea for the film came about, selecting the cast, fine-tuning the screenplay, etc.

• "Disney Legend: Hayley Mills" is a 25-minute feature all about Hayley, and it's quite good. It includes photos and home movies from her childhood as well as interviews with Hayley, Maureen O'Hara, Dean Jones, Kevin Corcoran, David Swift, Nancy Olson, and others she worked with at Disney. Hayley talks about her family, her experiences at Disney, and her departure from that Disney image in the late '60s.

• "Seeing Double" is a short feature on the split-screen technology that allowed viewers to see two images of Hayley Mills side by side at once. This technology was quite innovative and experimental at the time, but it worked beautifully.

• The Sherman Brothers featurette is a short but interesting bit of facts and trivia on two men who wrote songs for many memorable Disney films, including "Mary Poppins" and "The Parent Trap."

• "Lost Treasures: Who's the Twin?" is an interesting feature about Susan Henning, the girl who played the double for Hayley Mills in the film (in scenes with the camera over her shoulder or to her back). Now that I know to look for her, I can plainly see in several profile shots that the other twin is NOT Hayley. Watch the fight scene at the dance closely too. Henning is a warm presence and gives some little-known facts about the film and about Walt Disney.

• "Let's Get Together" is a music video of the two Hayleys singing the song from the movie.

• The Donald Duck animated cartoon, "Donald's Double Trouble," is a Disney short filmed a few years before this movie, but it's a cute bonus.

• Other special features include theatrical trailers, TV spots, radio spots, a lengthy Parent Trap photo gallery, and a 1961 Disney studio album.

• The film's audio commentary by Hayley Mills and director David Swift is also a great feature. Hayley reveals many interesting tidbits about her experiences on the film, her relationships with her costars and Walt Disney, and how she views the film today. Swift offers his own recollections on Hayley's performance and other background information on the film. For example, the scene where Brian Keith finds the bra hanging on his shower was almost censored!

The widescreen transfer is wonderful. I'd never seen this film in its original aspect ratio, so this was a treat. The abundance of special features make this DVD edition truly wonderful. (I had no problems with it playing in my DVD player, either.) This is simply a fun family film that you can watch over and over. I know, because I have for the past 20 years. ... Read more

Description

Get ready for fun! (Leah Rozen, People) with the "feel good movie of the year!" (Clay Smith, Access Hollywood)Love Actually is the ultimate romantic comedy from the makers of Bridget Jones's Diary and Notting Hill.Funny, irresistible and heartwarming, an all-star cast (Hugh Grant, Liam Neeson, Colin Firth and Emma Thompson, to name a few!) will take you on a breathtaking tour of love's delightful twists and turns.Fall under the spell Love Actually and share the laughs and charm again and again. ... Read more

Reviews (397)

Romantic fluff, but a little romance never hurt anyone
I was only mildly interested in seeing this movie, but I really enjoyed it. Yes, there was an amazing amount of different threads to follow as this film told the story of nine or ten different people and their partners over a five week period leading up to Christmas. Nevertheless, the witty script and the first rate acting made the whole process relatively painless.

There was charm in abundance from Hugh Grant, playing Hugh Grant as usual, but he does it so well that you can't help but warm to him. Martine McCutcheon as his love interest was surprising unannoying, and not in the least bit chubby!

Plenty of laughs from Bill Nighy and Gregor Fisher as a faded rock star and his long-suffering manager. Colin Firth in pursuit of his Portuguese maid also provided a few laughs courtesy of the language barrier, and the nerdish caterer with his dreams of being a sex god based soley on the strength of the lure of his British accent would have on American women kept the humour flowing.

Acting kudos go to Alan Rickman, Liam Neeson and most notably Emma Thompson. Ms Thompson once again plays the kind of gung-ho, upper middle class woman who has contributed to my usual dislike of her chosen roles, but she outdid herself in this slight role. I was moved to tears by her brilliant acting performance in the scene where she retreats to her bedroom to adjust to the knowledge that her husband is having an affair with his secretary.

Eye candy was provided for both sexes in the shape Keira Knightley and Andrew Lincoln. I enjoyed their storyline, despite it's flaws, but that may be because I'm just a sucker for physical beauty. Laura Linney and her erstwhile Latino lover were also very attractive, but slightly less sympathetic. And what can I say about the wonderful performances given by young Thomas Sangster and Liam Neeson as his grieving stepfather? Excellent, believable acting rescuing a storyline that verged on unashamed bathos.

Overall, I would recommend this film and commend Richard Curtis for an enjoyable, feel-good movie that left me smiling with tears in my eyes.

Lovely actually
Love Actually is a wonderful movie in all respects. Its cast, script, and direction are all absolutely top-notch. Set at Christmastime, the story encompasses numerous plots, all of which are equally interesting and effective in leaving one on the edge of one's seat, waiting to see what's going to happen with each group of characters next.

One of the most wonderful aspects of the film, in my opinion, is how we eventually discover that every single one of the vignettes is interwoven. For example: one story is about Karen (Emma Thompson) and her husband (Alan Rickman). The latter, although certainly not without affection for his wife, has begun to dabble in infidelity - thanks to his attractive secretary. Working with Rickman's character is Sarah (Laura Linney) who has been desperately in love with her co-worker Karl (unfortunately, I can't recall the actor's name, but he does a nice job) for years. And then of coure there's David, the prime minister (Hugh Grant) - who just happens to be Karen's brother.

Wonderful performances are also given by Liam Neeson (as a recent widower), 13-year-old Thomas Sangster (as Neeson's young son), Rowan Atkinson (who does a hilarious job as Rufus the Jewelry Salesman), and in one of the best vignettes, my personal favorite, Colin Firth.

This is an extremely funny and extremely touching movie. As usual, I hesitate to give away too much more about it. Nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING, should deter you from seeing it.

One of the Best Current British Comedies I've Seen in Ages.
I saw this in the theater when it first came out and, despite the fact that a couple behind me kept talking through it, I fell in love and decided to own it as soon as it was released on video. Now I have it on DVD, and want to spread the word. Love Actually is a great English romantic comedy full of several different stories going on at the same time, and each engages you in its plot quickly.

1. We have a young couple who are just married, and the groom's best friend is in love with the bride. Keira Knightley plays the role of Juliet with such sweetness and innocence, that even her dialogue free acting is powerfully convincing. Watch the scene where she views Mark's video of her wedding day and realizes he's in love with her.

2. Liam Neeson is Daniel, a newly widowed father who has to bridge the communication gap between himself and his son Sam. Sam's crush on an American girl provides this link, and the story is touching to watch as it unfolds throughout the film. Thomas Sangster is a promising child actor in his role as Sam, so keep your eyes on him. He is sure to be cast in more movies down the line.

3. Emma Thompson is always exceptional in every movie she's in. This is no exception as she plays Karen, a devoted and loving housewife who must come to terms with the fact that her husband Harry (Alan Rickman) is cheating on her with the office tramp.

4. Laura Linney plays Sarah, an American office worker who is in love with another American at work, but her sick brother makes the relationship difficult to see to its fruition.

5. Hugh Grant is David, the newly appointed Prime Minister of Britain, and he falls for his staff caterer Natalie, played by Martine McCutcheon. This story line is not without charming, laugh-out-loud moments, but it's also a bit corny and Benny Hill-ish at times.

6. One of my absolute favorite stories is the one involving Colin Firth's character Jamie, a writer who leaves England for the European countryside to write after discovering his brother is cheating with his wife, and he falls in love with his Portugese housekeeper Aurelia (Lucia Moniz). Neither of them can speak the other's language, but they manage to communicate in their own way, and the plot is very sweet.

7. Chris Marshall is very funny as Colin, the ugly, rude guy who strikes out romantically with English women, so he thinks he'll have better luck in America because of his "cute" accent. He goes to Milwaukee and discovers supermodel-type girls hanging out in a bar that fall for him instantly which really makes me laugh. I live an hour away from Milwaukee, and we are NOT plentiful with thin beautiful girls hanging out in bars. This was one joke that wasn't lost on me for a moment, and I couldn't help laughing quite loudly.

8. My favorite storyline is Billy Nighy as Billy Mack, a washed up 50-something rock star who makes a comeback on the charts with a shameless revamp of the old Troggs song, "Love is All Around" for Christmas. He is absolutely hysterical with his outrageous behavior as he publicly bashes the song and pulls all kinds of defiant public stunts. Of note is his relationship with his longtime manager Joe (Gregor Fisher) who, despite all the headaches his charge gives him, is still admirably loyal and proud of him.

One small storyline I detest is the porn actors we see a few times, conversing as they shoot dirty scenes on a movie set, and I also don't like the anti-American plot of the evil lecherous US president played by Billy Bob Thornton. These are two points for my not giving this film 5 stars.

Other than my minor grievances, I couldn't recommend Love Actually more highly. This movie is rated, R so please don't expose children to it just because one of the stories involves a little boy. This is great adult entertainment, and some of the DVD extras are a bit blue as well. Moving, funny, and full of clever dialogue (A favorite line: "Ten minutes with Elton John, and you're as gay as a maple!"), Richard Curtis has directed one of his best comedy projects yet. With the exception of small children, there's something here for everyone. You shouldn't just come away liking this one; it should be Love Actually.

Quite simply the worst movie I have ever seen...
Really! This has to be one of the worst movies ever produced and speaking as a Brit, I am ashamed. The plot or lack of any plot(s) is absurd. The jokes aren't funny, the premise is farcical and it is about as entertaining as being stung by a wasp.
Really, avoid this movie at all costs - it is that bad.

Not for the kids!
My inlaws came over to visit me from England, and raved on about this movie. They were keen to take us to the movies with our 2 children, 8 and 10 yrs to see it again with them. In the end we chose something more fun for the kids, as children don't want to go to the movies to watch a love story.
Anyway, not long after it came out at Blockbusters, and we hired it out of curiosity.
After the first 5 minutes we and sent the kids off too bed, as it wasn't really the swearing /cursing but the just that it seemed a little too explicit for my kids to watch.)
I would say that some scenes are just too crass, and they could had done without them.
In the second half of the movie, I noticed that the swearing and the sexual content tended to calm down...unless I was just getting used to it by then. The story was very funny at times, but alittle confusing having so many couples to follow...hard to get into their characters, or you forget at times that someone was in the movie, until they showed up on screen 20 minutes later, and would have to remember what their life was all about.
I'm not a prude in the slightest, and love comedies like Euro Trash, Coupling (the BBC Series) and American Pie etc...but the beginning half of this movie really did make my husband and I cring at times.
I'm surprised that my inlaws, who are in their late 50's really wanted to show this to my children...especially as they are very conservative.
Anyway it does get better, if you can stick with it after the first 30 minutes.
Hugh Grant's story line was also bit too cheesy. ... Read more

Amazon.com

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

Reviews (32)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon.com

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

Reviews (149)

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

All in all, an excellent movie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (213)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (710)

A truly horrific masterpiece
"Requiem for a Dream," directed by Darren Aronofsky, affected me like few other films I've ever seen. "Requiem" tells the intertwined stories of Sara Goldfarb, a lonely widow (Ellen Burstyn), her son Harry (Jared Leto), Harry's girlfriend (Jennifer Connelly), and Harry's best friend (Marlon Wayans). As Sara sinks into a nightmare of prescription drug addiction, her son experiences a parallel hell of "street" drugs. Thus, the film explore two sides of drug addiction in the life of a single family.

Aronofsky directs this film brilliantly, and his ensemble cast gives outstanding performances. Ellen Burstyn is heartbreaking in the starring role. In addition to the principal actors mentioned above, Christopher McDonald gives a creepy performance as a talk-show host with whom Sara is obsessed.

This is an incredibly intense, upsetting film. Never before have I seen such graphic and relentless images shown in a theater. Aronofsky turns his cinematic eye on the extremes of human suffering, disorientation, and exploitation, and he never flinches. The images and sounds he presents were, to me, more upsetting than Holocaust video, Klan rally footage, or other real-life horrific material which I have seen over the years. And most conventional horror films will look like children's cartoons next to this movie. The final 20 or so minutes of the film are particularly intense; the unsettling musical score and sound effects blend perfectly with Aronofsky's visual symphony of pain.

Despite the shocking images, I did not find "Requiem" to be exploitative. I believe this is because Aronofsky never loses sight of the humanity of these characters. Sara and the others are not just cinematic "cannon fodder"; they are characters with whom, despite their faults, we can empathize.

"Requiem" is a technical tour-de-force. Be warned: the graphic scenes of sexual exploitation, cruelty, and suffering will, I believe, be simply too much for many viewers to bear. But the discriminating film lover may, like me, find "Requiem" to be a haunting masterpiece.

a beautifully tragic film with stunning visuals
Wow. I just saw Requiem For A Dream for the first time. I don't really know what to say about it. What a stunning film. Gorgeously filmed, beautiful visuals...wholly depressing...crystal clear filmmaking. Excellent performances by the cast. The story almost seems inconsequential somehow (even though it's not)...mostly, I felt like I was was watching a moving painting.

Ellen Burstyn's performance as the mother, a lonely widow whose hope of being on TV (so that her loser son and deceased husband would be proud of her) leads to an addiction to diet pills and a severe case of dementia, was one of the finest moments of acting I believe I've ever seen.

The film style itself employs a variety of different camera angles, split screens, and some truly beautiful juxtapositions. The scenes become darker, more jagged and frantic, as the movie progresses and the four main characters spiral steadily downward.

The music and the sound in this film is also extremely powerful. The popping of pill bottles, the quitly mocking laughter of the empty mailbox...those are the two sounds that really stick out for me. Then the music, the haunting background theme that plays nearly constantly over much of the film, will stick in your mind and haunt you long after the movie has ended.

I believe everyone I know that has seen this movie has loved it, and I have to say that despite its disturbing content, I really loved it too. That said, this is definitely one of those films that people will either love or hate...it's really not a middle-ground type of movie. It's truly an example of movies as an art form. As you can see from my first impressions of it there, first viewings of it seem to lend themselves more to the art of the filmmaking itself rather than the actual content of the movie...it was so clear cut that I don't think there's a lot left to 'understand', but at the same time, repeated viewings will likely be necessary just to let it sink in.

I resisted watching it for a very long time because no one could tell me why they loved it so much and I had it in my head that it was going to be 'just another of those stupid drug movies'. I understand now why they couldn't explain it, and I only wish I could explain it myself. :) Unfortunately, I think I'm going to fall short of that wish tonight.

Disturbing, Graphic and Great
I went to this movie hearing plenty of buzz about how graphic the content was. Over the course of the movie you see just how Aronofsky wants to send his message to the audience. The characters start off with somewhat mild addictions and then next thing you know the four main characters are living in hell. I couldn't believe how low they all fell. This movie may be the greatest anti-drug message of all time. I dare anybody to watch this and to not be touched and frightened by these characters. Before the movie started I noticed the audience was quite loud and garrulous, but as it ended and the credits rolled the whole place was stone cold silent. It was amazing.

As a whole I felt the movie was excellent. The visuals were well done and the editing was outstanding. The actors really put themselves into their roles. Jared Leto and Jennifer Connelly had very good chemistry, while Marlon Wayans showed he is a talented actor and not just a talented comic. Ellen Burstyn. Wow! She was amazing. I can't believe an older woman would allow herself to be filmed like that. She has some serious guts. Hands down the best female performance I've watched this year, not even close. I was totally amazed by her.

All in all, I would say Requiem For a Dream is a great movie. It had a profound impact on me and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since I watched it on opening night. I definitely recommend this movie to anyone. This is a movie everyone should see, but unfortunately not enough will.

A dream of a Movie
Ooooooh baby!
If one appreciates Independent Films, this is one of the best.
Three characters (mostly)--- Ellen Burstyn, Jennifer Connelly, and Jared Leto make up the brilliant cast.

each of them despartely stuck in situations they appear they cannot get out of, each of them pathetically sick (in different ways), each of them will grab the viewer by the neck and demand their full attention.

they will get it.

Ellen Burstyn in one of the most superb roles of her career...absolutley stunning as the old, lonely, heart-wrenching widow with nothing to look forward to except a pathetic, no-mind game show.

Jennifer Connelly and Jared Leto as heroine junkies...who need it so bad they steal, lie, she sells her body, performs at stag parties---and all of this for a temporary high.

This movie is powerful, will bring you out of your seat (if you're alive), will bring you into places you do not want to be, dark, lonely, bug-filled filth.
But you'll stay...because you cannot bring yourself to leave..,
because you want so much for the characters to change, to be what they are meant to be.

But they don't---they only take up space---only exist while life happens around them. They are like bugs, moving, eating, breathing, but really nothing. Nothing.

This movie was directed beautifully, multi-layered, poetry on the screen (the kind of poetry that will make you cry, feel, and think about for weeks on end.

Another film about what happens when you do drugs.
Alright the plot is simple. A movie about four individuals who are junkies. Three are addicted to illegal drugs and one is addicted to prescription drugs. This movie has been done before. But what sets it apart is how the movie reflects the four seasons. The movie starts with the excruciating heat of summer where the four characters becomes agitated, restless, due to drugs. Then Fall, which means when their lives starts to unravel before being doomed to the the dark uncertainties of drugs. Winter becomes their death. When we think of winter we think of bare tress, lifeless like the characters. The director associated the lives of the four individuals with the four seasons. Except at the end there is no spring because spring is hope, spring is a where life starts again. For them there is none anymore. A simple plot based on how we live our lives with the seasons of changes. ... Read more

Reviews (135)

A rich experience worth viewing over and over again
This is a magnificent movie. It is visually beautiful - the colors and the way the shots are framed are stunning. The visuals are controlled in ways that add to the poetic power of the story. I do not speak Japanese, but the sound of the language combined with the musical score also adds to the intensity of this movie. The subtitles are good, but I am sure that those who understand Japanese get even more from this story.

This is not a film of Shakespeare's "King Lear". Rather, it is an adaptation and is based on the underlying themes of the play. It is not important for me to list the differences between the play and the movie, it is just important that a first time viewer not expect the Shakespearian story. If you know the play you will recognize aspects of the movie and enjoy the ways in which Kurosawa adapted the story to his own and Japanese sensibilities. It may nod to Shakespeare, but Kurosawa makes this his story.

The costumes, music, and acting are superlative. For me, the trademark Kurosawa battle scenes are more wonderful here than usual. This is a masterpiece by a filmmaking virtuoso who is also a sensitive enough artist to make a spectacular movie that is also poetic, humorous and heart breaking, tender and brutal as well images that are beautiful and others that are hideous.

This isn't light viewing or mind candy, but it has so much to offer that it is worth watching and learning from over and over again.

The Greatest Adaptation of Shakespeare to Film
"Ran" (Chaos) is the greatest cinematic adaptation of Shakespeare and a masterpiece in its own right. In adapting the broad scenario of "King Lear" to a setting in Sixteenth Century Japan, Akira Kurosawa felt free to manipulate it to his own purposes, leading to a film that is perhaps even more bleak than the play.

First and foremost "Ran" is a visually stunning film, unencumbered by the received tradition of Shakespearean language, which never translates well onto the cinema screen, he has allowed the scenario to develop into images that are beautiful and horrific. Filmed on the slopes of Mount Fuji there is a sense of unreality, or nightmare about the whole epic, as though it is taking place in a mythic space, at once recognisable and alien. For a director best known for his black and white movies ("Seven Samurai", "Rashomon"), Kurosawa surprisingly uses color to breathtaking virtuoso effect. The scenes of soldiers flooding in waves across the volcanic wasteland of Mount Fuji carrying vivid blue, red or yellow flags are amongst the most extraordinary ever filmed. The battle scenes shock and astonish, not least because Kurosawa's use of sound is so exquisite and original; many of the most horrendous images of battle are shown without sound effects with only an elegiac musical accompaniment. Far from sanitising them, the effect is to shock you out of the viewing habits formed watching so many other "war" movies.

Yet "Ran" is so much more than a broad epic, or war movie. The more intimate scenes are carried off with understated conviction, the sly hypocrisy hidden behind formality and convention is conveyed in highly poised and stylised interior shots. This film can be both visceral (prepare yourself for the beheading of Lady Kaede: as visually explosive as anything by Tarantino, and set within a film that is more than mere surface) and restrained, depending on the nature of the scene. There are moments of quiet and tenderness that resonate long after the film had ended.

It is odd that so few successful films have been made from Shakespeare. The pre-eminent playwright of the western canon has translated beautifully into opera and stage directors can continually find fresh things to say about the plays themselves, yet in general film had been hopelessly incapable of doing anything of note with Shakespeare. Think of the ghastly declamatory rhetoric of Laurence Olivier in "Henry V", or the inane pop video that Baz Lurmann made from "Romeo and Juliet", not to mention Kenneth Brannagh's tediously self-important "Hamlet". Somehow Kurosawa succeeds where all these others fail. His earlier "Throne of Blood" was a beautifully realised adaptation of "Macbeth" to the Samurai period in Japan: "Ran" builds on that achievement and surpasses it. Perhaps the fact that Kurosawa was Japanese allowed him more creative license to work with Shakespeare, able to approach it simply as valid material for film making, and not as the shibboleth that it is to western artists.

In Ran we have the late masterpiece of one of the greatest and most important film makers. It is a distilled and precise work, powerful, visceral, contemplative, epic and intimate. In short this is film making on a par with the greatest art. Ran shows us what mainstream film making can achieve, but so rarely does.

WHO WILL ENJOY THIS SENSATIONAL MASTERPIECE:
People who care about grandiloquent visuals yet a controlled palette accentuated by the immemorable use of sound -- or, in one major battle scene, the absence of the sounds of the battle, the horrors of war somehow magnified by the silent screams and the unheard bullets, only the quietly mournful dissonance of the haunting background score to be heard.

Castle gates close with resounding, hollow booms, shutting people out, shutting people in. A crescendo of cicadas. And the final anguished shriek of a flute lending a much more effective voice to the great tragedy that has been played out than closing words might have done.

If you're expecting flaming Gladiator-type fight scenes or Samurai action, you may be disappointed. That said, the battle scenes are magnum opus if you know how to appreciate visual splendor. The screenplay may be relaxed overall, sure, it takes a while to unfold a tale of filial destruction ("King Lear" adaptation) but when the forts crumble and arrows fly asunder, the pace of the film is unbridled.

Whether you're a film philistine or a major Kurosawa buff or simply someone who relishes tastefully done cinema, this is absolutely worth the ride. I highly recommend this as a rental, but the discerning types may also want to add it to their collections. It's among Kurosawa's best.

Not as good as all you people are making it out to be
This movie is terrible. I bought it expecting a good action epic with lots of battles and sword fights. There are no battles there are 2 massacres where all that happens is "samurai" with guns? shoot each other and women. samurai dont have guns. The story was good but they ruined it with 2 hours and 30 mins of talking on and on about the same topic over and over, yak yak yak. There is no drama the characters dont develope except for the old guy who just walks around starring and goes crazy. The perfomances are the same in everyone, yelling even when there happy, and they all sound the same even the women. No action, no drama, nothing except talk and fake blood from the stupid shooting, not swords, guns, What? Very bad movie, I was dissapointed, greatly. I would give 0 stars but they dont let me.

William Akira Shakespeare Kurosawa
This film is undeniable the most notable adaptation of any work of William Shakespeare to the movie. The insights in every detail, the superb cast, the overwheelming photography, the camera's handle makes us inevitably to remind that happy sentence of Orson Welles who said once:
"One film is really extraordinary , when the camera is an eye in the mind of a poet".
Casually this film is made in 1985, the same year of Welles'death.
Kurosawa was a truly master. Once upon a time a critical compared to Kenji Mizoguchi with Bach. If this methaphor is assumed valid, then Kurosawa would have his musical image in Ludwig van Beethoven.
The amazing scene of the castle in flames, with a remarkable red that invites us to reflect about the human condition, his hunger for power, the horror generated by that unthirsty ambition. The multiple readings that concern with the violence and the passion carrying the devasting facts that appear all along this film.
The opening sequences in which the three brothers are together with their father is filmed with such kind of perfection that I wouldn't wonder to know that this an obligated reference for all those students of direction. In this sense, this multiple exchange of points of view reveal us without affections of any kind,the essencial nature of the human being inmersed in the purest spirit shakesperian.
Kurosawa, like the great giants of th cinema handles the camera like Gods, includes the color and the nature's elements like adittional actors (Dreams). Just remember that Akira was the first filma maker who dared film against the sun in that glorius film Rashoman from 1950. His achievements all along his brilliant career are too many and certainly, would be beyond the reach of this shorts analysis.
This is one of these gems that you must see over and over, just when you admire this eternal masterpiece.
To be true the others Shakespeare's versions that deseve to be carried to the desert island would be in my opinion Titus 2000 (Julie Taymor), Othelo 1953 (Welles) , Richard III 1955 (Olivier), and Throne of blood 1957(Kurosawa).
But this movie is just several steps ahead all the titles above mentioned. ... Read more

Reviews (155)

An Overdose of Comedy
In the 1970's, Hollywood created an endless stream of disaster movies. Having found a "winning formula" they latched onto it and milked it for every penny producing disaster flick after disaster flick until it all became a joke onto itself. Enter Airplane. The result of a couple of guys who, seeing all these airplane disaster movies thought it had all gotten so ridiculous that the entire genre was a joke, a brilliant idea was born. Enter the era of the spoof.

Today we take spoofs for granted but back then the idea was brand new, and thats what makes Airplane such a brilliant masterpeice, it literally spawned a whole new genre of movies that is being copied this very day. Naked gun, or Scary movie would not exist today without Airplane, and yet, Airplane is funnier than every other spoof ever made even all these years later.

Put simply, this movie is non stop rapidfire comedy. It's saturday night live on qualudes. It's nonstop wisecracks and jokes and gags. If you like intelligent critical movies, run away...quickly. This is not your movie.
If however you enjoy pure slapstick a la three stooges, just pure bumbling humour. Totally idiotic side gags. This is your dream come true. This is more than likely the most hillarious movie ever made. It's become a classic like Gone with the wind or the godfather, but for Comedies, and with good reason. The jokes simply are nonstop beggining to end. Right from the opening scene with the Hare Krishna's at the airport until the autopilot waving goodbye in the end scene. The movie simply does not stop for even an instant. At certain points you literally have to stop laughing even if you think a joke is funny just to breath. Don't expect brilliant writting here, it's all slapstick but it REALLY is hillarious stuff. The guys who did this by the way have gone on to write many of hollywoods great comedic scenes and we can see their raw talent to great effect here, completely unrestrained. This is the granddaddy of the Spoof Genre. If you love slapstick, by all means, Get this movie. You won't regret it.

I AM serious, and don't call me Shirley!
The greatest movie spoof and funniest film of all time is on DVD! Directed by the Zucker Brothers, AIRPLANE is the king of all spoofs, putting lame attempts like SCARY MOVIE to shame. The relentless number of gags is the key here, with so many jokes it takes several viewings to catch them all. My favourite gags are the Saturday Night Fever disco mock, the mayhem jokes on the plane (crash postions etc), Stephen Stucker as Johnny ("The tower! Rapunzel!) and the very patient cab driver! And of course, one of the best lines, "Surely you can't be serious!" "I AM serious, and don't call me Shirley!" and "Joey, do you like movies about Gladiators?" Classic! The jokes come fast and frequently, providing enough weird humour to satisfy fans of this genre. Great fun. The DVD extras consist of a terrific Commenatary from the directors and a trailer. More extra stuff would be nice, but the commentary alone is worth it.

Outrageously funny!
God this movie is so incredibly hilarious! Few movies have such witty and original jokes as 1980's Airplane! does. This is one of the best comedy movies of all time and is strongly recommended for those struggling with depression or just want a good laugh.

A jetliner is bound for Chicago but when contaminated fish spreads illnesses on most of it's passengers and incapacitates both of it's pilots, it's up to a war veteran to fly and land the airliner and save the passengers before the illness claims their lives.

This movie is so incredibly funny and is highly recommended for comedy audiences. They sure don't make comedy movies like they used to.

Outrageous Comedy About 70's Disaster Films
Airplane was released in theatres in 1980 and was in production in 1979. Evidently, "Airplane" was a spoof of the 70's disaster film "Airport." This movie was an original concept in comedy at the time that made way for future spoof movies as the Scary Movie series in recent years and the Naked Gun movies in the 90's. Stars Robert Hays, Julia Hagerty, Leslie Nielsen and Peter Graves with a special appearance by Lakers player Kareem Abdul Jabaar. Leslie Nielsen would move on to doing other such comic films, particularily at home with the Nake Gun series and Spy Hard.

The movie was a comic farewell to the 70's, a milieu which this movie holds on to visually- disco music, including a scene ripped off from Saturday Night Fever in which Robert Hays and Julia Hagerty dance while two women fight each other at a disco/bar. The comedy is non-stop and everything is a gag or joke, written into the script. Highlights include an elderly white lady who can speak Jibe or black street slang, Ted and Elaine in an African village as part of a peace corps mission. Ted is teaching the native men how to play basketball while Elaine demonstrates Tupperware to the village women. The movie is cartoonish, over-the-top, silly but lots of fun. Look also for the film's sequel, released in 1982.

One of the all-time great comedies!
Airplane! is most definitely one of the ten greatest comedies of all time, and it's held up well over the past 24 years or so. Normally, this type of parody/slapstick comedy bores me to tears, but I think it's the dry delivery in Airplane! that makes everything work. A classic performance from Leslie Nielsen doesn't hurt, either. Even though this movie spoofed some of the biggest movies of its time period, the fact that Airplane! is remembered just as fondly (if not "fondlier") is testament to how great this film is. Anyone that enjoys comedies must A)Watch this movie, B)Own this movie, and C)Repeat lines from this movie as often as possible. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Star Trek fans were decidedly mixed in their reactions to this, the ninth big-screen feature in Paramount's lucrative Trek franchise, but die-hard loyalists will appreciate the way this Next Generation adventure rekindles the spirit of the original Trek TV series while combining a tolerable dose of New-Agey philosophy with a light-hearted plot for the NextGen cast. This time out, Picard (Patrick Stewart) and his executive crew must transport to a Shangri-la-like planet to see why their android crewmate Data (Brent Spiner) has run amuck in a village full of peaceful Ba'ku artisans who--thanks to their planet's "metaphasic radiation"--haven't aged in 309 years.

It turns out there's a conspiracy afoot, masterminded by the devious, gruesomely aged Ru'afo (F. Murray Abraham, hamming it up under makeup resembling a cosmetic surgeon's worst nightmare), who's in cahoots with a renegade Starfleet admiral (Anthony Zerbe, in one of his final screen roles). They covet the fountain-of-youth power of the Ba'ku planet, but because their takeover plan violates Starfleet's Prime Directive of noninterference, it's up to Picard & crew to stop the scheme. Along the wa