Reviews (169)

Beautifully Boxed 40 th Anniversary Edition
This was Cecil B. De Mille's last film as a director. De Mille's old-fashioned style of filmmaking and story telling is elegant, larger-than-life and rather elegiac and exactly suited for the enormous task of bringing this spectacle to the screen. Charlton Heston gives an excellent and powerfully dramatic performance as Moses. Yul Brynner, who approaches his role with style and confidence, is the prince who outmaneuvers Moses to the Egyptian throne in one of the best performances of his career. Supporting Heston and Brynner is a diverse and powerful cast of actors and performers. John Derek is memorable as Joshua the stone cutter. Anne Baxter is Nefretiri who yearns for the love of Moses. Cedric Hardwicke is an agreeable and levelheaded Pharaoh Sethi. Edward G. Robinson is the traitor to his people memorable for constructing the false idol golden calf. Vincent Price is the villainous and diabolically likable Baka. The beautiful Debra Paget is Baka's slave girl Lilia. Yvonne De Carlo gives a very thoughtful performance as Sephora, Moses' earthly love. John Carradine is Aaron. Woody Strode can be seen as the King of Ethiopia. Laboriously produced, Cecil B. De Mille's THE TEN COMMANDMENTS looks as though it was filmed and acted in a style more suitable to the early days of Hollywood. But that is a very positive quality. The film takes biblical events and turns them into Hollywood's version of history quite effectively. This style of filmmaking brings the larger-than-life scope of the Old Testament to the screen preserving the mystery and awesome power of the concept of a monotheistic divinity. One very effective feature of this film that reinforces this concept are the unearthly looking special effects, which are so eerily disturbing and beyond our comprehension that they truly approach a successful vision of the universal power of God. These distinctively unique special effects by the innovative John P. Fulton are essential to the telling of this story. Elmer Bernstein's rousing and inspirational score is brilliantly moving as it reinforces the vision that De Mille has created. Interestingly, in the earlier parts of this film De Mille shows us the construction of an Egyptian empire. We are witness to and experience the ingenuity of man to engineer and create such mammoth structures. But De Mille through the use of these special effects wipes all this out and shows the futility of man's efforts to subjugate other men when divine intervention prevails. This is such a brilliantly visual film that it still evokes awe and wonder to this day. This 40th Anniversary boxed set handsomely holds the restored and widescreen version of this epic film.

"His god IS God!"
That's the last line Yul Brynner utters in "The Ten Commandments", and for me, that is really the end of the film; the whole rest of the Wandering in the Desert isn't all that interesting, compared with what had gone before. You might wonder why then a five-star rating, but that's how much fun I find all the "Egyptian" characters in the movie. They certainly have all the best parts: Sir Cedric Hardwicke as Pharoah Seti; Yul Brynner as Ramses, heir presumptive; Anne Baxter as Neferteri, the throne princess destined to marry solely a Pharoah; Dame Judith Anderson as the Memnet, Egyptian slave in on a big secret; Vincent Price as Baka, the Master Builder of Seti's treasure city. Throw in Edward G. Robinson as Dathan; even though he's a Hebrew overseer, he spends most of his time among the Egyptians. Star Charlton Heston as Moses is actually kind of boring--he's one-dimensional and has no character development. But every time one of those "Egyptians" comes along on camera--pow!--you've got some wonderful scenery chewing. Check out the great special effects, too.

Good but not great edition of a classic
I already had "The Ten Commandments" on DVD, but with almost no extras and no commentary, it wasn't all that satisfying. This new Collector's Edition is easily worth its low price, to me, even as a replacement. The colors are breathtaking, Elmer Bernstein's store is still luscious, and it's probably as close to what DeMille intended as you'll get on a screen smaller than twenty feet.

I enjoyed Katherine Orrison's commentary track quite a bit (and have put her book on the movie on my wish list), although much more about the movie than some of her amateur theological comments. After spending so much time with Henry Wilcoxon, DeMille's right-hand man on this and many other movies, she has anecdotes and understanding that help you understand how the film was made. I had no idea it took five full years to make, or how some of the seemingly-odd decisions were made or even how some of the effects were created.

The other extras are a bit disappointing. The six-part documentary (complete with titles in Paramount's "Star Trek" font because they can't recreate the hand-lettering of the movie's titles, over leather that shows up in richer color than I've ever seen it) doesn't offer nearly as much as AMC's "Cecil B. DeMIlle" biography from earlier in 2004. That special included pre-matte shots of the parting of the Red Sea - the actual water in the tank, including the sides of the parted Red Sea, and how it was created. Paramount may not own that documentary, but some of that footage should have been on this disc. Without it, there are still some good interviews, but not enough behind-the-scenes footage that we now know exists.

If you like "The Ten Commandments" and don't have it on DVD, this is for you. If you have the older version but like it a lot, this one's also for you - but get the Cecil B. DeMille biography when it comes out on DVD, too.

An enduring film classic
Cecil B. DeMille's wonderful epic is a film for the ages. The entire cast is excellent, beginning with Charlton Heston's devoted and obedient Moses who lives only to serve the Lord and deliver his people from Pharoah's bondage; Yul Brynner's excellent reading as the fierce, stubborn Rameses who witnesses God's miracle from a hill overlooking the Red Sea; Anne Baxter whose love and desire for Moses was so intense and consuming that she killed for him; Sir Cedric Hardwicke's poignant Sethi who tries to forget Moses but never loses his love for his adopted son; the massive exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt to freedom; the exciting pursuit by Rameses' charioteers and soldiers of Moses and the Hebrews that culminates in the memorable Red Sea escape and the destruction of the Egyptians, with Rameses left alone to realize that Moses' God is God.

Great Film STILL Short Changed
I wonder why this edition wasn't held for the C.B. DeMille bio that Turner just produced. Instead we get a lot of anecdotes from Orrison, whom made an inaccurate statement that Brenner and Heston were about the same age. This is wrong, Brenner was in fact 9 years older than Heston. Also, her commentary really spotlighted an actor named Clint Walker who was just an extra. This was a definite who cares moment, like many within her commentary.

C.B. DeMille was the star along with Heston, Brenner and Baxter. There should have been more attention given to the 'stars'.

Why was I surprised that the packaging was 'downgraded'. You actually have to remove 'the first' disc to get to the second disc and no chapter card insert. It takes too much time to sum up this mess. Lets just hope that Warners will get the next edition right. This one needs work - except for the transfer that is which was fine the first time around without the ho hum 'extras'. ... Read more

Reviews (620)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (44)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (139)

Peckinpah's ode to the closing of the American West.....
It would be impossible for film fans to have a conversation about controversial movies throughout the years, and for the epic western, "The Wild Bunch" not to get a solid mention.

Since I first saw this film over twenty years ago, I have owned numerous versions on VHS and laser disc, and it is particularly satisfying to finally have the restored directors version, with the accompanying documentary "The Wild Bunch : An album in montage" available on DVD in true widescreen format.

Sam Peckinpah's blood and thunder tale of outlaws on the Texas/Mexican border with their own set of unique morals has been such a dynamic influence on many directors and future films since it's release way back in 1969. But what sets "The Wild Bunch" apart from it's many imitators is it's deep, almost mythical storytelling, the complex moral nature of the characters peopling the tale and the gritty passion & energy that Peckinpah infused into the entire production. William Holden and Ernest Borgnine are simply tremendous as Pike & Dutch, the leaders of the Bunch...each man with his own individuality. Ben Johnson & Warren Oates portray the crazy Gorch Brothers, Jaime Sanchez is the arrogant and fiercely partiotic Mexican, Angel...and Edmond O'Brien is the grizzly, old timer Sykes.

Additionally, Peckinpah's film features Emilio Fernandez as the bloated, evil dictator Mapache...Albert Dekker as the manipulative and remorseless railroad man, Harrigan....and Robert Ryan putting in another one of his strong performances as the ex-gang member turned reluctant bounty hunter, Deke Thornton. And a Peckinpah movie almost wouldn't be complete without the appearance of LQ Jones and Strother Martin as a pair of filthy, grave robbing bounty hunters out for the reward on the heads of the Wild Bunch.

The Wild Bunch pulls no punches in it's tale of desperado's who they themselves are desperately running out of time...as Holden reflects in the film "We've got to start thinking beyond our guns...those days are closing fast". Whilst "The Wild Bunch" is most notorious for it's two bloody shootouts that book end the film's 144 minute running time...there is so much excitement, passion, adventure and personal conflict within the movie that can be found upon each repeated viewing of this stunning work.

A film that can be treasured and enjoyed by any true film fan....The Wild Bunch will be continually looked upon as one of the most important contributions to American cinema.

Director's cut not needed, but great moments still abundant
The Wild Bunch is, without a doubt, one of the greatest westerns that has ever been thought up, but it is also quite controversial. The romantic view of the Old West is shattered in this 1969 film; no sign of John Wayne anywhere, and most of the cliches found in a typical western are nonexistant(not that I dislike typical western movies, they're actually quite entertaining). Sam Peckinpah, a master of improvisation, creates an unforgettable movie that is not only responsible for redefining cinematic violence, but also carries with it an engrossing story of friendship, betrayal, and the dying west. I didn't feel a Director's cut was needed for this film though, because the original version moved at such a lightning-fast pace. The restored scenes may interest some viewers, but I just wasn't interested. That is probably why I don't own this version of the movie. I'd prefer that other Sam Peckinpah flicks be restored, preferrably Major Dundee. Besides that, the DVD still captures all the explosive action and catchy dialogue. I particularly enjoyed the presentation of the credits, and Jerry Fielding's music adds to the realistic atmosphere, and that's not a bad thing. If you're looking for a great action flick with a plot, The Wild Bunch is a winner for a weekend rental, but RENT this version before you buy it.

One of the best westerns of all-time
The Wild Bunch-Restored Director's Cut is one of the best westerns ever made and also one of the best movies ever. In 1913 during the Mexican Revolution, times are changing as the Old West disappears into oblivion. After a botched robbery in the town of Starbuck, the Wild Bunch, a gang of aging outlaws must decide what their next move is. The remaining members of the gang decide to head south into Mexico where their services may be needed. The bunch robs a gun shipment for a Mexican general, hoping this will be their last job. At the same time, a posse is hunting them down with a former gang member at the posse's head. While this movie is most well known for its violence, it is ultimately a story about honor among men in a changing time. Knowing that the world they knew is changing, the bunch has to try and survive as their end closes in. Nonetheless, director Sam Peckinpah knows how to construct an action sequence. The Battle of Bloody Porch is a balletic, slow-motion, masterpiece of blood and guts as the Wild Bunch meets their end. Just as good is their final march through the streets knowing what awaits them. One of the best westerns, if not the best, ever made and highly recommended.

What makes this movie special, along with the groundbreaking filmmaking of Sam Peckinpah, is the cast. The whole cast gives excellent performances. William Holden stars as Pike Bishop, the leader of the Wild Bunch who knows time is running out for the bunch. His right hand man, Dutch Engstrom, is played by Ernest Borgnine in a perfect part for him. Robert Ryan plays Deke Thornton, a former member of the Wild Bunch and the unwilling leader of the posses following the gang. The rest of the gang includes Edmond O'Brien as Freddie Sykes, Warren Oates and Ben Johnson as brothers Lyle and Tector Gorch, and Jaime Sanchez as Angel. Emilio Fernandez plays Mapache, the Mexican general who pays the bunch to steal a shipment of guns. Strother Martin and L.Q. Jones are great as Coffer and TC, members of the posse. What is surprising about these characters is that as despicable as they are, they are still likable. The Restored Director's Cut DVD includes about ten minutes cut from the original version, a theatrical trailer, production notes, an excellent making of documentary, "The Wild Bunch: An Album in Montage", and a great-looking widescreen presentation. For a great western with incredible gunfights, a terrific cast, and a great story, check out the truly classic western, The Wild Bunch!

NOT ONE OF YOUR GRANDPA'S WESTERNS.
"The Wild Bunch" is not the typical western that tells the story of a bunch of good ol' cowboys versus the mean ol' Indians, this movie goes beyond the cliches of the earlier westerns, so in some way "The Wild Bunch" resembles more to a Spaghetti Western than a John Wayne-versus-the-indians western.

Sam Peckinpah took two steps forward the use of violence in the movies, he show the world how to use violence in a movie to produce visual art. Of course, some might complain about the cruel scenes in "The Wild Bunch", but open minded people know that the violence in the movies is not even close to the cruelty of the real world violence, plus, the violence in a movie can produce visual art if it's used in the right way, like Sam Peckinpah or Sergio Leone did in their movies.

"The Wild Bunch" has an excellent cast: the always efficient William Holden and Ernest Borgnine plus a great supporting cast that includes names like Robert Ryan, Warren Oates and Emilio Fernández. Also, the director Sam Peckinpah gave importance to each character, and that contributed to form a solid story. The cinematography is spectacular, "The Wild Bunch" has a lot of impressive camera angles that show the cruelty of the bullets and explosions, and the movie has some of the most impressive scenes ever put to film.

"The Wild Bunch" is in a very selected group of westerns. That list includes movies like "High Noon". "The Searchers", "Stagecoach", "The Good, The Bad And The Ugly" and "Once Upon A Time In The West", among few others. That list includes the best westerns, and "The Wild Bunch" belongs in the list.

A Grand Finale to the Old West - An American Classic
This is simply a rich, masterful, nostalgic story of the Old West, in all of its fading glory.

The charaters too, are fading in their own time - pursued relentlessly by forces reshaping the country, lives and landscape they ravaged, shared, and loved.

A long-in-the-tooth band of outlaws set out on one last job - to lighten the rich railroad barons of a few sacks of gold. Doublecross meets disaster and they're thrown back on their heels in a narrow escape. Then on to Mexico to trade a stolen shipment of rifles, stolen from under the government's nose, to a Mexican general who is a ruthless hombre in his own right.

Good guys and bad guys change roles and the moral lines of right and wrong shift beneath their feet as they make a last stand for honor among men.

This is a fun, exciting, warm movie which is excellent in every respect. Beautifully filmed, extraordinarily acted, and a terrific story, wonderfully told.

Five stars for a truly American Classic. ... Read more

Reviews (275)

One Super DVD
Faster than a speeding bullet. More powerful than a locomotive. Able to leap the tallest building in a single bound. The world's greatest superhero has finally arrived on DVD with "Superman: The Movie" Special Edition. The film focuses on the young survivor of the doomed world of Krypton. After crash-landing on earth, the young alien is adopted by a caring farm couple and grows up with amazing superhuman abilities. Moving to Metropolis, he uses his incredible powers to protect the people and fight injustice. "Superman- the Movie" is probably the best superhero movie to date. The story is quite entertaining but does lose some strength during the second half though it still manages to preserve its entertainment value. The film contains some great performance by Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder and Marlon Brando as Jor-El. The cast also includes Jackie Cooper, Terence Stamp and Ned Beatty. From daring rescues to superhuman feats of strength, the film contains some impressive action sequence and terrific visual effects.

The DVD honors the Man of Steel like it should. The comic book film is presented in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen format. The DVD contains a sharp video transfer and a fine 5.1 Dolby Digital sound with great surround effects. This amazing DVD features an audio commentary with director Richard Donner and consultant Tom Mankiewicz, additional footage including an extended sequence inside Lex Luther's underground gauntlet, behind-the-scenes documentaries, theatrical trailers, deleted scenes and DVD-ROM extras. With such a striking DVD presentation, "Superman" earns an "A".

Super features, super options, JUST PLAIN SUPER!
I enjoyed the Superman DVD. 25 years after this movie came out and seeing it so many times on TV with pan and scan, the newly remastered print blows everything out of the water. The music only option works for the title sequence and hearing the extra tracks on Side B adds to the genius that was John Williams soundtrack.

The audio is remastered and put on a surround sound system instead of the setup I have at home would shake your house to the core. The extra scenes were a good touch as well. Behind the scenes added the great touch of mystique that was Superman. Having Marc McClure host the BTS stuff added a bit of credibility.

Until Spider-Man last year and Batman in 1989, this was the film on which Superheroes were judged. The Hulk disappointed and Daredevil and X-2 were moderate hits.

Superman still stands the test of time, no matter what your views.

Spider-Man has kind of surpassed it...
Well now that we have seen the two Spider-Man movies, I tend to belive that they are now the standards by which other comic book films (both Marvel and DC) will have to live up to now. In a way, Superman is now kind of the odd film out. It works better as an origin story in how Clarke Kent becomes Superman and Chris Reeve's effective perfomance in the title role still works, In the comics, Lex Luthor has always been a one dimensional cartoon character, the only time that he was an effective villian was when Gene Hackman played him in this movie. The final scenes of Superman turning the Earth backward to save lois lane, are what they are. It might be a bit far fetched to put in a movie, but that does not stop audiences from enjoying it. and it doesn't stop me from watching it over and over again.

Born on Krypton, raised by the Kents on Earth, Becomes Hero
The Man of Steel flys into the spectactular motion picture, Based The DC Comic and also appearing in Action Comics, Christopher Reeve stars as Clark Kent.Reporter in Metropolis,Illnois for the newspaper the Daily Planet,And trouble emerges Clark Kent flys to the rescue as Superman, a blue suited red caped powerful wonder. He takes on Lex Luthor played Gene Hackman and falls for Lois Lane played Margot Kidder and Marlon Brand as the Krytonian father of Superman Jor EL. This Film is a Great Superhero movie and great film all around, probably the most imaginative thing the Man of Steel has been in. Superman began as the comic, then a radio show, several 1950s B movies, TV show and in 1978 the true Superman ovie. Superman is imaginative in everthing because hes an imaginative character. A pop culture icon on screen and in everthing else. the Special Effects are incredible, This a Super high flying ride. You Want a good superhero movie before Batman and Spider-Man this is it. If it wasn't for this classic we would'nt have superhero movies like Spider-Man 1&2,Batman,Hulk and X-Men 1&2. Thank Hollywood for making a great superhero film that lauched other superhero films. A thrilling Film of one of the greatest heroes of the 20th century, The Man of Steel, SUPERMAN.

Release Superman into our 21st century!
Very bad film.
They released Spiderman into the 21st century, why not Superman?
I've always found him to be the most appealing comic book character. He is sure for an amazing performance.
RELEASE HIM INTO OUR CENTURY! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

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

Reviews (49)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not too shabby, eh!?

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

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

Reviews (424)

"We can't stay here, this is bat country!"!!!
This movie is a masterpiece, and also very very funny. It is a near perfect adaptation of Hunter S Thompson's novel. The book was based on the true story of a drug crazed self proclaimed doctor of journalism and his sidekick turned loose in Las Vegas to cover a dirt bike race called the mint 400. Thompson, known as Raul Duke (Depp) and his attorney Oscar Zeta Acosta known as Dr.Gonzo (Del Torro) run amok in their desperate search for the American dream. Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Torro are absolutely great in this movie. And the cameos are great: Flea, Lyle Lovett, Gary Busey, Christina Ricci, Tobey Maguire, Ellen Barkin, Cameron Diaz, Steven Schirripa, and even Dr. Thompson himself all make an appearance in the film. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a savage journey into the heart of the American dream. If you haven't seen it, you need too, and fast.....

Extreme entertainment
Prepare yourself for a wild journey into the world of bright lights, flashy people, and non-stop substance abuse. Hunter S. Thompson's book about covering a motorcycle race in Las Vegas through pure "gonzo journalism" has been excellently adapted for the big screen by former Monty Python member Terry Gilliam. The movie stays very true to the story, the product of one of the founding fathers of the drug culture of the 70's. This movie covers both extremes: you will love it or hate it, and it won't allow you to stay anywhere near the middle. People who are interested in the drug culture and beat culture, or even a cynical look at one of America's craziest cities, will probably find themselves enjoying the film immensely, laughing and gasping at the insane antics of a drug-abusing "doctor of journalism" and his attorney. People looking for a more down to Earth experience without the odd visual trip and inexplicable dialogue will only be confused and repulsed, wondering what kind of person enjoys this kind of thing. Johnny Depp's performance is absolutely first-rate, Benicio Del Toro sheds the mediocrity he produced in The Usual Suspects, and cameos by Gary Busey, Cristina Ricci, and Thompson himself add to the perfect blend of acting that make this film one of the best of its kind.

Absolutely Hilarious
This isn't your average movie. Based on the H.S Thompson novel, tt quite succesfully captures the literary insanity of Thompson's books (I'm actually 16, not twelve). Here's the scenario, two stoners running around Las Vegas. All the jokes are based around the wild, outrageous hallucinations of Raul Duke, and his "side kick" Dr. Gonzo. But damned if the many variations of the same basic joke aren't guiltily hilarious every single time. In one scene, Raul and Gonzo are in a bar, When Raul freaks out, thinking that all the bar patrons have been turned into monstrous lizards.
Weird- absolutely Funny- You bet.

It took two viewings to make it through
The first time I started to watch this movie I got a big headache. At my friend's urging I watched it again, and still got a headache. Maybe a little less of a headache, but that's besides the point. It wasn't a headache because the movie's plot made me think, it was a headache because the film was just damn strange.

Offbeat camera angles and dim colored lighting are used throughout the movie. The film quality seemed low and it was hard to understand Johnny Depp's narration at times. The film is very strange in all aspects, including its plot. Hunter S. Thompson (Depp) is supposed to be going to Las Vegas to cover a race in the desert for Sports Illustrated. His lawyer accompanies him on this journey for some reason. They don't really get much reporting done and spend most of the time taking illegal drugs. I kind of lost track of the plot and hardly remember how it ends. Was there even an ending? It seemed kind of like the movie just trailed off.

At one point in the movie they mention something about following the American Dream. Somehow I don't believe the American Dream has anything to do with a suitcase full of illegal drugs. Maybe it was just an attempt to find some rationale behind the entire film.

I'm almost ashamed to admit that I found it hilarious at times. I laughed hysterically when at one point Thompson thinks he's standing in a bog and everyone is a lizard. When I was laughing I kept thinking, this is based on a true story, and now this guy is making money off of it? I felt kind of bad for supporting his drug-induced craziness. However, it's almost kind of an anti-drug movie in it's own strange way. Hunter S. Thompson looks like he's having the worst time of his life, and surely should have been arrested multiple times. I don't know, maybe this movie appeals more to stoners and druggies since they can relate to Thompson.

This film is definitely not for everyone. If you are easily offended, I wouldn't recommend it. If you're looking for a normal movie, you really should be someplace else. Look at the cover of the DVD. The whole movie is kind of like that.

---------------------------
http://www.filmstatic.com - We take reviewing movies seriously and with an attitude...but not a serious attitude.

Review of the DVD, not the film
First things first: FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS, the film, is quite good. If you can stomach its content, it IS a rather fun drug odyssey with a fair amount of underlying social commentary. Some of it becomes muddled and the reviews were horrible (Ebert gave it 1/4) but I enjoy this more than Terry Gilliam's BRAZIL, to be honest (which, ironically, Ebert also gave a negative review).

THE DVD

An overall wonderful experience. First, the packaging: superb. Criterion is always good at packaging their DVDs and this is one of my favorites. On the inside is an essay by a film critic and two discs. The first has the film, newly remastered under the supervision of Gilliam, along with three commentary tracks: by Gilliam, Depp and Del Toro, and Hunter S. Thompson. Wisely, they had someone interview him most of the time since he's obviously a bit of an oddball and would be prone to sitting there and saying nothing.

The second disc has some extraordinary specials, including an old BBC documentary about Thompson (whose semi-truthful novel this is based upon), TV spots, the theatrical trailer (with optional commentary by Gilliam - which I've never seen before), poster and photo galleries, Hunter Goes to Hollywood (an amusing short documentary about Thompson visiting the set of the film), a selection of somewhat bizarre letters between Depp and Thompson that date back to the pre-and-post-production of the film (Depp reads all of them to the camera for us).

Overall, one of the best DVDs I own. The film isn't a classic, per se, but it IS enjoyable. I'm sure part of my appreciation for it comes from this superb DVD, which is one of the finest I own in terms of special features.

Criterion can sometimes disappoint with single-disc DVDs priced in the $40 range but this one is fairly reasonably priced (compared to some of the others) and packed with special features to whet any die-hard fan's appetite.

A must-buy for fans, and a must-see for others - I wouldn't necessarily recommend it as a blind buy for a number of reasons. It's very selective taste. You love it, or you hate it; it might be good to rent it first. But definitely rent this version, not Universal's. ... Read more

Reviews (339)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...Wow...

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

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

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

Reviews (3)

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

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

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

Reviews (44)

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

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

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

No matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon.com

In his 19th screen outing, Ian Fleming's superspy is once again caught in the crosshairs of a self-created dilemma: as the longest-running feature-film franchise, James Bond is an annuity his producers want to protect, yet the series' consciously formulaic approach frustrates any real element of surprise beyond the rote application of plot twists or jump cuts to shake up the audience. This time out, credit 007's caretakers for making some visible attempts to invest their principal characters with darker motives--and blame them for squandering The World Is Not Enough's initial promise by the final reel.

By now, Bond pictures are as elegantly formal as a Bach chorale, and this one opens on an unusually powerful note. A stunning pre-title sequence reaches beyond mere pyrotechnics to introduce key plot elements as the action leaps from Bilbao to London. Bond 5.0, Pierce Brosnan, undercuts his usually suave persona with a darker, more brutal edge largely absent since Sean Connery departed. Equally tantalizing are our initial glimpses of Bond's nemesis du jour, Renard (Robert Carlyle), and imminent love interest, Elektra King (Sophie Marceau), both atypically complex characters cast with seemingly shrewd choices, and directed by the capable Michael Apted. The story's focus on post-Soviet geopolitics likewise starts off on a savvy note, before being overtaken by increasingly Byzantine plot twists, hidden motives, and reversals of loyalty superheated by relentless (if intermittently perfunctory) action sequences.

Indeed, the procession of perils plays like a greatest hits medley, save for a nifty sequence involving airborne buzz saws that's as enjoyable as it is preposterous. Bond's grimmer demeanor, while preferable to the smirk that eventually swallowed Roger Moore whole, proves wearying, unrelieved by any true wit. The underlying psychoses that propel Renard and Elektra eventually unravel into unconvincing melodrama, while Bond is supplied with a secondary love object, Denise Richards, who's even more improbable as a nuclear physicist. Ultimately, this World is not enough despite its better intentions. --Sam Sutherland ... Read more

Reviews (447)

The best Bond film yet.
The 19th MGM James Bond-007 movie is here. It's probably the best movie yet. It has the best stunts.

Filmed in: England, France, Spain, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and the Bahamas. The name is taken from 1969 On Her Majesty's Secret Service when James takes a look at his coat of arms and is told that the family motto is: The World Is Not Enough.

Of course, Pierce Brosnan returns as the role of 007. Sophie Marceau as the murdered tycoon's daughter, Elektra King. Denise Richards as nuclear expert, Dr. Christmas Jones. Robert Carlyle as the doomed terrorist, Victor Zokas aka Renard. And John Cleese as R, Q's assistant. The movie also sees Robbie Coltrane's return as Valentin Zukovsky and Judi Dench 3rd appearance as M, the boss.

The plot involves Sir Robert King, an oil industrialist. He buys a report about the Soviet's missile department accidentally thinking it contained info about the terrorists attacking his pipeline in the East. Surprised to find out his money was wasted, a Swiss banker retrieves the money. M sends 007 to pick it up. But the banker, Lachaise, is in for a surprise. The report Sir Robert bought was stolen from an MI-6 agent who was killed for it. Knowing Lachaise knows who killed the agent, Bond threatens him. Unfortunately, Bond only escapes with his life and the money. No name. After a spectacular scene, Sir Robert is dead. Days later, his daughter Elektra takes over the construction of the pipeline. But 007 suspects there is something suspicious about terrorist Renard, the King organization, and even Elektra herself. M refuses to listen to 007's crazy instincts. Only Dr. Christmas Jones & Valentin are on Bond's side.

The movie sees Q's retirement. And a good thing too. After all, the DVD isn't dedicated to Desmond Llewelyn for nothing. However, Q has given the Q labs to R. Probably a bad choice. R will talk you through putting a shirt on!

The language features are: Languages-English and French. Subtitles-English, Spanish, and French.

Special Features. Music video performed by Garbage (the band). The Making of The World Is Not Enough. Audio Commentaries. The Secrets of 007-alternate video options. Theatrical Theater.

Well, that's about everything this DVD includes. Hope the review was helpful.

Bigger and Better!
Here's a Bond film that deserves to be ranked among the best in the series. Along with the usual Bond formula of high tech gadgets, one-liners, and of course, the Bond girl(s), this latest installment also provides a story with a different twist. Throw in a combination of mind games, an unusual villain, exotic locales, and amazing stunts and you get an explosive, testosterone driven, eye-candy, action-packed thriller with a dash of high quality performances. One sequence in particular is the high adrenaline boat chase along the Thames River that takes place very early in the movie. Cool stuff!

The story delves much deeper into the psyche of James Bond than previous 007 flicks. Pierce Brosnan plays a much darker and vulnerable 007 in his third run as the British super agent spy James Bond. The World Is Not Enough also showcases the acting talents of Dame Judi Dench (who plays M) and Sophie Marceau as well as many others. John Cleese, of Monty Python fame, also plays a role in the movie as the heir apparent to Q. Every character played a larger role in this movie, in which, there were times when I felt James Bond was a supporting character rather than a leading one. There is definitely no shortage of star power in this movie.

A few things I didn't like about this movie (just my personal opinion mind you) were the opening Bond song, the paraglider-ski sequence, and the miniature scaled models. Yuck! Still though, this latest 007 thriller gives a good ride! Humor, international intrigue, and plenty of action. This is a James Bond of the 21st Century and I hope Pierce Brosnan sticks around to do many more like this one!

Bond is the best of this time......Dry,humorous,and elegant,
Mr.Bond is ranking itself as the highest of his quality,and is back once more,but this time dry as a glass of martini,and elegant as far as he could ever get,making his job as right as Beethoven while composing his 9th.
James bond,her majesty's loyal star,is back in a very different style and story;He is involved in a complex of a villian trying to take over the world with his lover's own oil pipe line. The thing is,you see,he feels no pain.Nothing.Amazing,as it is surprising for the first time to hear it. Elektra,the new bond girl,is to my own taste one of the best bond girls ever in the series,simply because she has many sides to be related with,and sophie marseau,the actress,bringing an excellent performance in the role of Elektea.The other bond girl,christmas,portrayed by denise richards,has a small relation to a bond girl,but still interesting,though.
As well as the deep and dark plot which develops suprisingly,we also discover a more darker side inside the familiar characters,like M,for example,Which makes this movie special and wonderful.
Also,We are introduced to the the next Q(The great,humorous,and giant John Cleese,from the mighty "Fawlty towers" and "Monty Python's flying circus"),Which is,and believe in my own words,the best there is to portray the charcacter of Q.He is doing it very,very well.
You are going to see a different bond,a new bond,a complex and dar