Amazon.com

The political wrangles of a fledgling country may sound dull compared tothe drama of a war, but the early history of the United States only getsmore fascinating as the Revolutionary War is left behind. FoundingBrothers, a documentary from the History Channel, examines thestruggle to not only establish democracy, but to give it the economicstrength and governmental structure that will allow it to survive andthrive. George Washington grappled not only with politics, but withquestions of style and propriety--how should a president, as opposed to aking, behave? Understanding the conflicts between Alexander Hamilton, JohnAdams, and Thomas Jefferson will illuminate ideas that have shaped the government of the U.S. ever since. Founding Brothers provides a wealthof portraits and illustrations from the time, as well as discreetdramatizations, that bring the rise of party politics to life, humanizingthese historical figures with tales of the scandals and squabbles theyfaced as well as their political achievements. An excellent introductionto the roots of the American experiment, and a bracing illustration ofwhat Jefferson meant when he said of the presidency, "No man will bringout of that office the reputation which carried him into it." --BretFetzer ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Great Companion To The Book
This DVD set combined with the book of the same title offers excellent insight to the birth of a great Republic. The DVD is limited in breadth due to time constraints, though it does offer a nice amount of information. Because there were so many heroes and important figures of this historical time, the film makers chose to focus mainly on a few key people: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. Almost two whole segments are spent, and rightfully so, on George Washington.

Nothing new is exposed for well-read historians, but for casual history buffs there are some great details presented. Interesting analysis, questions, answers, and anecdotes throughout. We get an insiders view of the events and people. We see political tactics used by the key players that would make modern politicians shy up. We get a picture not normally found in text books of the stage set for this experiment. Washington, for example, after being elected President had an interesting ride from Virginia to Philadelphia in a carriage with a driver so drunk that his baggage was tossed over several times. Once in Philadelphia, Washington wondered, how should a President act? After all there was no model. He had to act important, but not monocratic, a tough thing to do.

The filmmakers do a nice job contrasting the Federalist and Anti-Federalist (Republican) differences and the very strong personalities involved. They do a nice job weaving the relationships in and out as the years progressed. DVD one starts at the tail end of the American Revolution and DVD two wraps up with the death of Jefferson and Adams on July 4, 1826. It would be very tough to make a two DVD set that properly covers all the material, events, and people involved with this important time period. I think the filmmakers did a fine job here. A one star hit for all but ignoring Franklin's political, philosophical, diplomatic, and social contributions. Even though Franklin was in his advanced years, his contributions to the development of the young nation were very significant. Maybe they felt Franklin too overwhelming a figure for this project, I don't know. Still an effort should have been made.

I applaud the material offered and find this to be a worthy set to own and plan to view it many times.

Good but slanted intellectual history
In our modern politization of history, people are forced into two groups. The first are those who've only now realized that their larger-than-life image of Jefferson, Washington and the other founders as an uncommonly civil and reasonable bunch is just that, a myth. This group is hurt by this and looks at any attempt to point out the founders weaknesses, internal inconsistencies and what-have-you as nothing less than high slander. Then there is the group that realizes that the founders WERE flawed, contradictory and not quite the proper stuff of legends. This group, though generally out of political spite, not only embraces this fact, but loves to rub any history buff's face in it, pointing to our flawed history as certain proof that America was concieved in shame.

This video is refreshing because we get a good dose of amunition for both sides. Starting with George Washington's innaguration, this film takes us through a brilliant story of a people forced to govern from scratch. The film does a good job in pointing out that unlike today, presidents, cabinets, legsilators had no precedents. Who could Washington, Hamilton, the congress who in 1800 dealt with the first election recount in history; none of these, had anyone to look to anyone to see how it was done before. It wasn't done before! We go through the Washington, Adams, and Jefferson presidency; our dealings with France, a new economic system, slavery, and colliding visions of the federalists and the republicans (nowadays these would be termed the republicans and the democrats, respectively). Not quite a Ken Burns film but close!

With that said, this film is extemely biased towards the federalists. Whether in the battle of words between Adams and Jefferson, where only Jefferson is made to look hot-headed, or the constant understatement of Madison's intellect (well, that is the republican, not the federalist Madison). If you are like me, an olld whig republican (nowadays called a libertarian or classical liberal) you will be slightly annoyed at oversights like these. Jefferson was by no means a perfect or for that matter, a thorougly respectable individual but this film highlights these flaws while letting Hamilton's slide.

The only other quip I have is that the legislature and judicial branch are completely ignored. It's understandable because for a film on the History Channel must focus on what the general public is most interested in and this by far is the executive branch (can you name at least one federal judge?) but it would have been nice once in a while to be reminded of their existence.

Altough this film lacks some of the vigor that Founding Fathers had (with the fiery orations by speakers at the Constitutional Convention), it is still thorougly engrossing. It conveys what so few films, books and (PUKE!!) history lessons seem to almost, but never fully, get across; the founders and our history were/was living and breating.

Astounding.
Founding Brothers is a phenomanal DVD. This documentary is one of a kind. Founding Brothers wet my apetite to learn more about this time period and since then, I have read many books on the same subject matter. What makes Founding Brothers so unique, is that it puts the politics of the era in perspective. For example; the myth that the founding fathers cooperated and worked peacefuly to found the single greatest document in American History, the constitution, is not true. These men were passionate, ambitious, and lived with codes of honor that rival American politicking even today. What could drive two outstanding fathers, Hamilton and Burr, to fight a duel to the death? How could the very man who wrote the words "All men are created equal," enslave his own children? And why is there a dark cloud over the Adams presidency? In Founding Brothers, you will find answers to these questions and more as this film takes you into the greatest crisis of American history, even greater then the Civil War.

the fun way to learn more about early U.S. history
I love history and in recent months I have been voraciously reading / viewing various books / DVD collections. Founding Brothers is a documentary from the History Channel that is based on the Pulitzer-Prize winning book by Joseph Ellis. I would note that there is another DVD collection (created a few years ago by the History Channel) entitled Founding Fathers.
Both DVD collections discuss the lives and times of the founding fathers (brothers). This particular DVD collection starts with post revolution times (i.e constitutional congress - 1820 or so) and really dives into how, once the war was over the bickering and infighting began amongst the founding fathers. If you are looking for pre-revolution commentary than Founding Fathers is a better DVD collection to pick up as it starts with New England dissent to the winning of the war.

1. This DVD collection is well produced. Famous actors provided the voices for the characters as in Founding Fathers. Many of the voice overs are done by the same people in both collections.

2. While the DVD is certainly worth watching I found myself wishing it had more facts about the economy and its progress but, as the title states, this series is about the founding fathers.

3. The series did a nice job of discussing how various fathers had issues with slavery. It discussed whether they were pro-slavery or against it and how some had serious troubles dealing with it.

4. The one thing I thoroughly enjoyed about the DVD collection was that it clearly depicts how each of these men came together despite their different backgrounds and temperaments to found a nation.

Most of my reviews are in business / economics and I encourage people to read them, whether here on Amazon or at my personal website. If you are interested in economic history book I would encourage everyone to read The Worldly Philosophers by Robert Heilbroner since it is more international in scope and deals with the lives and times of the most famous economists in history. If you are interested in economic development / evolution of U.S. property history I would encourage you to read Hernando DeSoto's Mystery of Capital but note his lack of focus on corruption in certain countries. A great general business book is by the management guru Peter Drucker entitled "The Essential Drucker."

one of the best I've ever seen
I saw the History Channel show FOUNDING FATHERS and thought it was great. FOUNDING BROTHERS is even better. The stories they tell in here just make your jaw drop. I had no idea that their nasty political feuds were as bad as what goes on today - maybe worse.
The commentators great at telling what really went on and the images are fun to watch. The guy who plays Thomas Jefferson is his spitting image! They have a bunch of well known actors reading the letters of these men which works pretty well, too.
My main complaint -- I wish it was two hours longer! Kudos to the History Channel and their producers for making this wonderful show. I'm buying DVD's for all my kids.
L7 ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Robert Bolt's successful play was not considered a hot commercial property by Columbia Pictures--a period piece about a moral issue without a star, without even a love story. Perhaps that's why Columbia left director Fred Zinnemann alone to make A Man for All Seasons, as long as he stuck to a relatively small budget. The results took everyone by surprise, as the talky morality play became a box-office hit and collected the top Oscars for 1966. At the play's heart is the standoff between King Henry VIII (Robert Shaw, in young lion form) and Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield, in an Oscar-winning performance). Henry wants More's official approval of divorce, but More's strict ethical and religious code will not let him waffle. More's rectitude is a source of exasperation to Cardinal Wolsey (Orson Welles in a cameo), who chides, "If you could just see facts flat on without that horrible moral squint." Zinnemann's approach is all simplicity, and indeed the somewhat prosaic staging doesn't create a great deal of cinematic excitement. But the language is worth savoring, and the ethical politics are debated with all the calm and majesty of an absorbing chess game. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (92)

A longtime favorite
One of the greatest English language films ever made about one of the greatest men who ever lived. St. Thomas More was a man of extraordinary conviction and through the years has proven to be a great inspiration to me, personally. When Sir Thomas is asked to endorse Henry VIII's petition for annulment from his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, he's fully aware of the consequences of his refusal. Nevertheless, he did what he knew and felt was right and he paid the ultimate price. A true martyr in every sense of the word and a film that makes the viewer question his own value system and sense of passion and integrity. Paul Scoffield's brilliant and profound characterization of Sir Thomas is still a wonder to behold. He imbues this larger than life person with such quiet dignity and grace that it belies the reality of his existence. This is not a man worried about dying. This is a man worried about living without the courage of his convictions, knowing that he supported something he truly abhorred and knew was wrong. Robert Shaw's performance as Henry VIII is equally wonderful, as are Susannah York, Dame Wendy Hiller and Orson Wells. I never tire of watching this film or reading the play; incidentally, also one of my favorites.

A well-crafted film...
I first saw "A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS" in 1966 when it first came out. I was a senior in high school, and since this was the pre-hippie era, everyone was gung-ho about Sir Thomas More's duty, integrity, etc. There's no question that Fred Zinnemann crafted a masterpiece on the tiny budget allowed him by Columbia, since all the studios were losing money on talky, period pieces.The acting is incomparable, a perfect ensemble centering around the unflinchingly confident performance of Scofield (he'd done the role hundreds of times on stage). The costumes won an Oscar, and were certainly beautiful, though they were so bulky it looked really difficult for the characters to get close to each other. It won an Oscar for Cinematography, too, though the film really is somewhat of a filmed play (I thought the filming of "Hawaii" and "The Sand Pebbles",also nominated, was more breath-taking). Though these are minor problems, they are soon forgotten when one pays attention to the incredible screenplay of Robert Bolt.Loaded with passion and strong character development, it's also a valid history lesson. Don't watch this if there are any distractions (kids, company, etc.) since its maximum appreciation requires concentration. I'm also wondering why the DVD is substantially higher-priced than most others, since there are absolutely NO extras of any kind. This film is notable also for Vanessa Redgrave's unbilled film debut as Anne Boleyn, on screen for only a few minutes, but an absolutely riveting film moment. Everyone should see ths film, but I'd hesitate to recommend you buy it if only due to the unreasonable price.

"Seasons" offers poignancy, pause
Paul Scofield's quiet, dignified portrayl of Sir Thomas More is one of the most riveting performances one will ever find.

With a determined, yet not brash or unseemly stance against Henry VIII (Robert Shaw, in all his young glory), More creates a devastating question for the viewer: how long do our principles remain dear to us. To discomfort? To imprisonment? To death?

Perhaps one of the most endearing qualities of More's character is that he does not waver. It is a quality that is only universal in the sense that it is respected by all men and possessed by very few.

In the end, perhaps the only validation More is given is the dignity of his death, his detractors exposed as dishonest, biased men. Is that enough? Certainly More was able to change little of history by the manner of his death. It did not stop the divorce OR the Anglican church. Perhaps the only prize integrity has is itself. Certainly More himself believed a much higher reward awaited him. After watching this movie, regardless of religion, you will find yourself hoping he was right.

The Most Interesting of Six Thomases
This period in English history and then the Elizabethan era which follows have always interested me. You thus can understand my appreciation of Derek Wilson's book In the Lion's Court: Power, Ambition, and Sudden Death in the Reign of Henry VIIII. Wilson focuses his primary attention on six Thomases: Wolsey, More, Cromwell, Howard, Wriothesley, and Cramner. Henry's VIII's relationships with all six serve as the basis of Wilson's narrative. By the way, there really were lions in London at that time ("the King's Beasts") housed in the Tower menagerie and a major tourist attraction. More once compared the king's court to a lion pit "in which the magnificent and deadly king of beasts held sway." Of the six, More interests me the most. His rectitude threatens and infuriates Henry, and eventually results in More's execution. Thus presented, More is a tragic but noble political victim and religious martyr, later canonized by the Roman Catholic Church. He is no less admirable as portrayed by Wilson but, in my opinion, is much more complicated than Bolt and others suggest. For years, More skillfully navigated his way through a court ("a lion pit") characterized by what Wilson refers to as its "seamy realities": "The royal entourage was a vicious, squirming world of competing ambitions and petty feuds, guilty secrets and salacious prudery. Courtiers, vulnerable to threats and bribes, could be induced to perjure themselves, to exaggerate amorous incidents which were innocent in the context of stylised chivalric convention, to indulge personal vendettas....Over all these momentous happenings looms the larger-than-life figure of Henry VIII, powerful and capricious yet always an enigma."

People still disagree about Robert Bolt's characterization of More in the play and then in the film for which Bolt received an Academy Award for best adapted screenplay. I agree with others who insist that More was less noble than Bolt suggests. No one, however, disputes the fact that More courageously accepted decapitation rather than compromise his religious faith. Cynics suggest that More was already a dead man...and knew it. He had an estate to protect and family obligations to accommodate. I am unqualified to speculate or even comment further on More's motives even as I marvel at his survival skills when drawn into "the lion's court."

Paul Scofield received and deserved his Academy Award for best actor in a leading role. The film and director Fred Zimmermann also received Academy Awards. The cast is exceptionally talented, especially Nigel Davenport (Duke of Norfolk), Wendy Hiller (Alice Cromwell), John Hurt (Richard Rich), Leo McKern (Thomas Cromwell), Vanessa Redgrave (Ann Boleyn), Robert Shaw (Henry VIII), Orson Welles (Cardinal Wolsey), and Susannah York (Margaret More). Unlike many stage productions later filmed, this one derives substantial benefit from Ted Moore's cinematography, especially the exteriors shot throughout and beyond royal residences. Moore also received an Academy Award for his work.

Those with an especially keen interest may wish to examine The Last Letters of Thomas More as well as several solid biographies of him by Peter Ackroyd, J.A. Guy, Richard Marius, and Gerard B. Wegemer.

A film for all viewers
Without a doubt, this is one of my top ten films of all time, mainly because there is so much that can be drawn from.

Zinnemann's adaptaion of the Robert Boltman play was done on a low budget, and whilst it takes artistic license slightly further, the film remains a historical masterpiece. Paul Schofield as More is magnificent, combining a stoical adherence to truth on the one hand, with a dry wit on the other, and this is an accuracy of depiction that could not have been drawn from the words of the script. Robert Shaw as Henry is also fantastic, showing the viewer both the very personal side of the monarch, when he is disappointed at More's non-attendence at the wedding to Anne Boleyn; and the aggression of a lion as he shouts (in full hearing of all party guests) - "I ask you, do they take me for a simpleton?" The swift change from an amiable friend to a dominating absolute monarch is brilliantly played by Shaw, and though it is a marked contrast to the plain More, the performances are equally great.

In October 2000, John Paul II made Thomas More the Patron of politicians (he was already the unofficial patron of Catholic lawyers in the UK). Both positions indicate what a great man he was. A scholar of great learning, a man of letters, a liberal in an autocratic age. His character was perhaps best displayed as his end, in his words to the executioner - "Pluck up thy spirits, man, and be not afraid to do thine office; my neck is very short; take heed therefore thou strike not awry, for saving of thine honesty." The combination of humor and greatness, even in the face of death, povide a role model for all.

If you enjoy the film, read the play and 'The Life of Sir Thomas More' by William Roper, his nephew. Although it bears relation to a specific incident, this popular poem of the time is a fitting epitaph for this great man -
When More some time had Chancellor been
No more suits did remain.
The like will never more be seen,
Till More be there again. ... Read more

Amazon.com

It's not too surprising that Shag flopped on its 1989 release butfound a devoted cult following on cable TV and home video. This featherweightcomedy looked like a waste of space on the big screen, but it plays very cozilyon the tube, where it lends itself to popcorn breaks and pajama parties. (Thelousy title must have had something to do with the movie's initial failure, aproblem worsened by the film being marketed as Shag: The Movie, a trulydumb idea.) Shag is in the tradition of Spring Break pictures, athoroughly formulaic stroll through the conventions of the minigenre:beachsideromance, a wild party, one tender deflowering, and lots of rock & roll. The timeis 1963, as three gal friends trick their soon-to-be-married pal (Phoebe Cates)into one final all-girl fling in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Cates is engagedto a local well-bred stick (Tyrone Power Jr.), but soon she's tempted by a beachboy (Robert Rusler) bound for Yale (mm-hmm). The so-so material is buoyed bylovely Annabeth Gish, as the supposedly pudgy one in the group, and BridgetFonda, as a prematurely sophisticated sexpot. After a while it's easy enough torelax and enjoy the girls' breezy adventures, which are served up without thesoap opera melodrama of the similarly tooled Where the Boys Are. Oh, andAustin Powers notwithstanding, the title refers to the dance, not somethingelse. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (67)

Fianlly, on DVD!! I want my own Chip!!
Like many here, I found the transfer of this movie to VHS to be awful (grainy,bad color). Thus, the DVD is a relief--crisp picture, letterbox format, just like in a theater! The music on the soundtrack is the same that I've always remembered (Stagger Lee, Alley Oop, It Will Stand, etc.), so those who say it had different music, please e-mail me and tell me what it was. The music now is so perfect for the film, I can't imagine anything else! Thew film itself is a delight, a great "summer film." If you have girlfriends, definitely gather them up to watch it on a summer night. The performances are great (esp. by Phoebe Cates and Annabeth Gish), and my first great crush was Scott Coffey as the sweet Chip. (BTW--My God, is Robert Rustler (Buzz) tan in this film, freakishly so. When Buzz goes off to Yale, he'll either have to pale out or buy some sun lamps to stay that red!) This film is a must see for anyone who enjoyed "Mystic Pizza," "Dirty Dancing" or "Footloose." Watch it soon! ("It's the most fun!")

You will marry Bullwinkle and have 3 kids!
Okay...you all think you are fans? My friends and I loved this movie so much (it released to VHS when we were in high school) and watched it so many times that we had our own last fling before going off to college and spent a week in Myrtle Beach. (Unfortunately, life isn't always as fun as a movie but we still had a good time!) Yes, the movie is cheesy, but everyone in it is so completely likeable. The music, the dancing, the outfits, the southern drawls...what's not to like? Even my mom loves this movie! It definitely fits under the category of "Chick Flick" but we all need movies to watch with our girlfriends... what ever happened to some of these fun actors? If you have not seen this movie, I highly recommend you try it out!

GRITS
This movie has got to be the best movie (along with Gone With the Wind) ever! I have actually worn out my VHS tape because my girlfriends and I (all from South Carolina) get together to watch it at least once a week! I went to Senior Week (as Sun Fun weekend is known to graduating seniors from SC) four years ago, as did every graduating senior in SC, as did our parents before us. My mom loves to watch it because it reminds her of her Senior Week (in 1963)! Those who don't like it, are usually guys or those who don't know what shagging is or how to do it (people not from SC or the South, basically). So give it a chance, don't just rent it, you have to buy it!

NO SELF-RESPECTING SOUTHERNER SHOULD BE WITHOUT IT
Ah, Shag! This is one of my favorite movies for so many reasons. The movie is definitely lightweight, but also very memorable. The perfect casting had one thing to do with that. Everyone in this movie, down to the late Carrie Hamilton, is made-to-order. The "Southern" details of this movie are also dead-on. As a North Carolinian who's spent a heck of a lot of time in Myrtle Beach (though in the '90s, not in the '60s) the accents, expressions, music, and clothes are all correct for the time and place. The story is simple, but most great movies have simple plots when you get right down to it. What makes Shag shine is great acting, fantastic period details, and quotable dialogue. Watch this movie with another Southerner or anybody else who could appreciate the humor and the fun of this great movie. Whether it's your first time or your 100th time watching it, Shag is absolutely the "most fun"!
By the way, though this is not the original motion picture soundtrack, it's still pretty darn good. For those of you who didn't see the early VHS version of the movie, let me explain: some of the songs were in the original version of the movie and are still in this version; others were added later. The original movie soundtrack, which I still have, contains new versions of old songs, plus a couple of original ones. I don't know why it was changed, but I'd sure like to have a copy of the DVD with the original soundtrack, which includes songs by K.D Lang and Randy Newman, to name a few.

Loved Scott Coffey
ok the movie was just like every spring break movie you had ever seen even the characters were the same the prim one, the slut, the one that used to be a duckling and became a swan, they all go to the beach to have one last fling before they go their own ways.the movie wasn't bad it just wasn't all that memorable. but all throughout the movie i kep screaming how much i loved chip (scott coffey) his character was so lovable. i wish i could find more movies he was in. ... Read more

Reviews (351)

Hail to the Queen!
During its theatrical run, critical praise of ELIZABETH was subdued somewhat due to the film's historical inaccuracy and emphasis on melodrama. While both of these observations are admittedly correct, ELIZABETH is none-the-less a spectacular production. From the riveting opening credits to the chilling finale, this movie is full of provocative dramatic elements: sex, betrayal, politics, religion, violence, and revenge. The cinematography, set design, and costumes are outstanding. The settings alternate between dank medieval gloom and brilliant regal spendor. Cate Blanchett gives a dynamic performance of Meryl Streep calibre. (She should have won the Oscar, but ELIZABETH wasn't nearly as popular as SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE.) In plot and theme, ELIZABETH is like a hybrid of THE LION IN WINTER and THE GODFATHER. It begins as the reign of Elizabeth's sister, Queen Mary ("Bloody Mary")is coming to an end. The film then details the controversial ascension of Protestant young Elizabeth to the throne. The movie focuses on the early years of her reign, as Elizabeth struggles to solidify her power and overcome conflicts of religion and political intrigue; questions of marriage; and numerous plots to depose or assassinate her. As previously mentioned, the movie takes a good deal of license with history, taking events and relationships that occurred throughout Elizabeth's reign and condensing them into the first few years of her reign. Overall, ELIZABETH is an excellent production-- as chilling and dramatic as SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE is romantic and funny. The two films are wonderful counterparts.

Not Your Average Costume Drama
Shekar Kapur's account of the early years of Elizabeth I's reign in not your average costume drama, it is a visceral and entrancing film that despite all the historical inaccuracies that other reviewers have noted (and they are many), perfectly captures the climate of religious conflict, struggle for power and constant danger that characterised the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. Michael Hirst's script portrays the young queen as an innocent caught in the throes of international politics, who by the end of the film has become a calculating monarch willing to sacrifice almost anything to ensure her survival and the welfare and prosperity of her kingdom. Kapur's brilliant direction gives the film a vertiginous rhythm, while Remi Adefarasin's ominous cinematography adds a menacing and sinister atmosphere that sometimes gives Elizabeth the feel of a horror movie. Also worthy of praise are the magnificent production design, the gorgeous costumes and a surprisingly eclectic soundtrack that includes Byrd, Mozart, Holst and Elgar as well as some great original music.

The acting is also excellent. Especially Geoffrey Rush as the unscrupulous yet reliable Walsingham; Christopher Eccleston as the devious Duke of Norfolk; Richard Attenborough as Cecil, Elizabeth's most loyal and trusted aide; and Kathy Burke as the frustrated and paranoid "Bloody Mary". However, the real jewel is Cate Blanchett's amazing, star-making turn as the title character. She gives a complex, mesmerising and moving performance as she makes the transition from scared and vulnerable young woman to quasi-preternatural icon.

If you are interested in the "true historical facts" of Elizabeth's reign you should choose a documentary of one of the many great books that have been written about her (my favourite is Alison Weir's biography), but if you are looking for a great cinematic experience that explores the young queen's personality and motivations in remarkable depth this is definitely the one to choose. In my opinion Shekar Kapur's masterpiece is the best film of its kind.

Entertaining, but wildly inaccurate
If you're not bothered by historical inaccuracies, then go ahead and check out this movie. It's extremely well-acted for the most part, although Fiennes's Dudley turns milksop in an entirely fictitious turn of events that aligns him with a Catholic plot to replace Elizabeth with Mary, Queen of Scots (whose death in the movie is all wrong, too). Events from decades later are all condensed into what is clearly supposed to be the first year or two of Elizabeth's reign (which begain in 1558): Norfolk didn't rebel until the Northern Rebellion in 1569; Elizabeth wasn't excommunicated until 1570; she didn't even enter the Anjou courtship until 1578; and Mary, Queen of Scots was beheaded in public, not murdered in her bed, and that not until almost thirty years later, in 1587! Furthermore, in 1558 Lord Robert Dudley was not yet Earl of Leicester (he wouldn't be until Elizabeth gave him that title in 1564, and he was NEVER a duke!), and as another reviewer has pointed out, there's certainly more drama and intrigue in his REAL story than the movie allows -- he was rumored to have murdered his wife, Amy Robsart, after all.

I won't go on, but my point is that there is a hell of a lot wrong with the storyline that didn't even need to be wrong. It's still an entertaining movie, as I mentioned before, and Cate Blanchett really does deliver an exceptional performance. But at least some sort of gesture towards a measure of historical accuracy would have been appreciated.

Well acted, but distorts the actual events
Elizabeth is a well acted and entertaining movie, with some very well done performances and is visually stunning. The problem is that the writers decided to change so many events, that it ends up unnecessarily distorting the actual history.

To see a factual, well-acted, and still superb movie of the same era, get the 1971 film "Mary Queen of Scots" with Vanessa Redgrave. Not only does this follow the actual events, but the drama of 2 queens battling for power is so forcibly played that you can watch it over and over

What's wrong with the real story?
Lovely, beautifully acted, blah blah...

But why would the producers/writers take such an EXCITING true story, and change all the facts, and make is so much boring than it actually was? The real story has everything: romance, murder, betrayal, a wife pushed down the stairs, politics... so why turn it into such a dull, ordinary, mushy romance?

If you want to watch a strong woman influencing world events, watch "The Lion in Winter." If you want to read about the TRUE story of Elizabeth's ascent to the throne, read Alison Weir's books. If you want to watch a goopy romance movie, there are plenty of much better ones to choose from. But don't waste your time with this movie. ... Read more

Reviews (47)

Restored edition, fantastic!!!!!!
The movie Reefer Madness seen by itself is really nothing to brag about, but this special addition for this best-selling cult classic is fantastic. It's a must buy, because for how cheap it is, you really get your money's worth. For the first time ever, I can say that the colorized version (complete with multicolor smoke and over saturated psychedelic color schemes) is better and looks better than the original black and white, and both versions are available to watch which is considerate of the DVD producers to give us both, and it looks as good as we can ever expect. Extra features are fantastic highlighted by a hysterical commentary by Mike Nelson, formerly of Mystery Science Theater 3000, which is the sole reason why I bought this edition. The commentary by the people who colorized the film is also worth a look. I highly recommend this new edition.

Reefer Madness IN COLOR for the First Time - Fire UP!
Reefer Madness is the quintessential cult classic. Originally made as a 1930's propaganda film, it was meant to scare America's youth away from drugs, showing them that one puff of the "demon weed" turns teens into raving reefer addicts. Now, years later, this ham-fisted effort to warn you off weed has become the height of camp entertainment. A 'must watch' film among students, Reefer Madness continues to entertain today's youth with the edgy exploits of their high school predecessors. This movie is so beautifully bad, it's great!

Finally someone has released Reefer Madness the way it should be: Beautifully restored, in color for the first time, and in 5.1 surround sound. Both the color and black-and-white versions are on the disk. Plus this DVD has loads of fantastic bonus material. Mike Nelson of Mystery Science Theater 3000 does a hilarious commentary track, cracking wise from start to finish. Grandpa's Marijuana Handbook, A short film by Grandpa Ganja himself, graces this edition and tells us everything we need to know about dope.

No question this is the "FEEL GOOD" DVD of the year!

TELL YOUR CHILDREN!!!
After hearing about this movie for years I finally picked it up, and its better than I ever expected. This one dude smokes a reefer and appears to drive around the block 2 times then hits this old man and then he drives away. oh, yeah, this other guy named Ralph really loves his reefers, he smokes a few hits, then laughs, then he falls in love with Mary, he tries to win her heart by ripping her clothes off and groping her. It doesnt really work out for Ralph, because his fanciful advances cause Mary to get capped, and then Jimmy gets blammed for it because he's a total dork. In the end everything works out, because this stupid girl spills the beans to judge turtlehead, and Jimmy gets aquitted then the stupid girl jumps out of the window. all in all I loved this movie, it really opened my eyes to the evils of the demon weed. thanks for saving me from a life of crime and dispair Reefer Madness!

Re Urban Legend
To address xerxes59's question about the urban legend:

I never heard any evidence about Dupont funding Reefer Madness, but they would have a motive.

Dupont was facing enormous loses because their inventions rayon and nylon could not compete with natural hemp (in quality, cost effectiveness, not to mention environmental friendliness). Andrew Mellon, US Treasury Secretary and chairman of Mellon Bank, one of the major financers of Dupont, did appoint Harry Angslinger (who was also married to his niece) as Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. As seen in Ron Mann's documentary "Grass", Angslinger was an extremist zealot who managed to criminalize marijuana and create ridiculous sentences for smoking pot. One of Angslinger's methods was to demonize pot with completely false evidence throughout the various media (newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst, whose financial interests in paper mills was also being hurt by hemp, was a great ally). Of course this is a tenuous connection between Dupont and Reefer Madness, but Dupont clearly had a direct financial interest in demonizing reefer, just like the movie attempts to do.

Pointless
You mean they used to think pot was bad!!! Wow! Actually I saw this film and it was boring. It wasn't suprising, it had no point. It probably wasnt even that great back in '38. This movie is for children who just learned how to roll one and now they want to be cool. This movie SUCKS!!! ... Read more

Reviews (136)

Great Movie To Bad It Is Based On Lies
I just watched this movie for the first time last nite, I dont know how I never heard of it, or the story of Hurricane Carter but I had not.

I really liked this Movie (until I did my homework). The Movie was very powerfull leaving you in disbelief, how could this happen? How could a innocent man be sentenced to Life for a crime he didnt commit?

The Movie's 2nd half left me teary eyed of the injustice done to Hurricane Carter and very touched by the young man that wrote, visited & belived in his innocence and who along with his Canadian Family worked so hard to free him.

Denzel Washington Does an exceptional peformance, what a great actor, But SHAME ON YOU Mr. Washington, This Movie is Based More on Lies than on the Truth, you were one of my favorite Actors, but your credibility has suffered, you had to of known of the Untruths of this Movie, and then to embrace Hurricane Carter and make a statement that this man is full of Love?

I gave this Movie 5 Stars because it was entertaining. The Movie left me with wanting more, immeadiately after watching the movie I did a search on Boxer Hurricane Carter. The First site was:

http://www.graphicwitness.com

My first impression was, Wow this must be some Racial Web Site against Hurricane Carter, but after spending hours reading all the many pages of well documented articles and interviews, my conclussion is their is more evidence that this man, Hurricane Carter is a Guilty as charged, than an innocent man wrongly accused as partrayed in the Movie.

A Movie to be seen by all!
THE HURICANE is a movie that is to be seen by all ages and members of the family. It speaks of a problem which continues to haunt American democracy--racism and prejudice. The movie communicates its story very well and there are not enough adequate words to say how excellent a job Denzel Washington did as an actor. I was very, very impresssed with the plot and acting from the very beginning and tears were in my eyes as, finally, Carter was declared innocent. To think that such blatant things can happen in the America we love in this day and age is unbelievable.

I highly recommend the film and would hope that someday Hollywood would consider giving Mr. Washington an oscar for such excellent acting. It is films such as THE HURRICANE which will create an awareness in the minds of Americans that we can no longer and must no longer tolerate such behaviour by those who are in authority. In a day when prejudice and racism seem to be on the rise in the so-called first world countries, the movie's message is a must for all. May God help us!

Rev. Eriberto (Eddie) Soto Presbyterian Missionary to Brazil, South America

"And the Oscar goes to..."
Well, it should've gone to Washington for his breathtaking performance in this biopic from 2000. Washington captures the very essence of the different modes of "Hurricane" Carter, a man wrongly incarcerated for a crime that he didn't commit. Washington superbly displays the various sides of this most complex man: anger, defiance, reflection, intelligence, humility, and perseverance. As others have hypothesized, Denzel's win for "Training Day" was a reward for Academy oversights for earlier tremendous performances...and his work in "The Hurricane" ranks as one of his best.

Besides the work of Washington, the film benefits from marvelous turns from co-star Vicellous Reon Shannon as a young man enamored of the boxer and determined to right the wrong that has befallen Carter. The young man possesses the right amount of "wide-eyed innocence" as he confronts a man that he discovers in a long-forgotten autobiography. Who cannot be moved when man and boy share a tender moment by touching through the bars of the convict's cell???

This kid deserved a supporting acting nod, if nothing less.

And a film that sports such stellar character performers as Rod Steiger, Debbi Morgan, Dan Hedaya, Harris Yulen, Clancy Brown, and David Paymer is a cut above the others. Liv Shrieber, Deborah Unger, and John Hannah are wonderful as Canadians that assist Shannon's "Lesra" as the lad works to free his friend.

While there are a few slow moments, the overall film is worth viewing...and owning.

Consistant
This film always kept its focus and Denzel was supurb. The inaccuracies of the movie are to be expected because afterall, this is Hollywood's take. I don't understand why there are so many condemnations of Ruben by reviewers who are taking information from a questionable website. Of course there are documents out there that suggested he is guilty or he never would have been convicted in the first place. Whether those documents are truthful or not should be considered before wasting space on amazon, not giving any commentary on so much as the acting in the film.

Hollywood Revisionism At It's Freakin' Finest
The story is about 15% factual. Carter was set free because of two alleged procedural errors, NOT because of new evidence. His resume was 27-12-1 - high point of his career was his 1st round TKO of former welter & middleweight champion, Emile Griffith. he didn't destroy the great Emile as depicted in the movie. The fight was stopped after 3 flash knockdowns. Griffith was never dangersouly hurt, he was caught cold & never regained his legs - due to the three knockdown rule, the fight was prematurely stopped.

Carter was a rough, tough, seasoned boxer, with slightly above average power, a decent mandible & average hand/foot speed. He struggled against slick styled boxer's that were defensive gurus - movement off angles, stylists and great side-to-side movement. Carter would literally give up when outclassed in the ring - ie. the Joey Giardello and Luis Rodriguez fights. The Giardello fight is one of the key elements of the movie. In the movie, Carter pounds on Giardello for 15 rounds & then gets outrageously robbed of the decision by a racist conspiracy by boxing's powers that be. Joey Giardello - foolishly portrayed as a racist in the film - beat Carter as convincingly as Nigerian Dick Tiger did - both beat Carter like a drum.

Carter's main weapon was sheer intimidation. He looked as bad (mean) as Sonny Liston, but when he was about to do battle with someone who wasn't intimidated, Carter simply had problems - not to mention he was easily outboxed. USA Today described Rubin Carter as, "A true folk hero" & a "warrior scholar" - obviously the public seemed to be buying the movies hook, line & sinker. The fact is, Carter was never a world champion and clearly lost to every upper echelon fighter he fought. Though wrongfully accused, Carter was well out the game when convicted. Unfortunately "The Hurricane" is more about artistic rape. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Bill Murray was heading toward a career peak on the back of comedies such as this one from 1981, the second film in his ongoing collaboration with director Ivan Reitman (the two went on to make Ghostbusters). Murray plays a chronic loser who joins the army and fails to find a fan for his ironic sensibilities in his by-the-book sergeant (Warren Oates). When push comes to shove, however, the smirking hero takes charge of his ragtag unit and turns them into fighting machines, albeit to the rhythm of hit songs by Manfred Mann and Sly Stone. The film is occasionally funny, but it mostly plays like any one of a dozen underachieving comedies featuring players from Saturday Night Live and SCTV. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (67)

Classic Bill Murray
If you like Bill- this movie in my opinion is a must own. This is Bill at his best!! I have the older version of this dvd- and this version has more "goods" do I would easily reccomend!!!!!
4 1/2 stars

Not exactly the special edition we were hoping for, but...
If you grew up during the 1980s, chances are you saw or heard of "Stripes." It's one of the pioneers of the bad taste genre -- a bunch of social misfits with bad attitudes take back the power. It started with post-Vietnam films such as "M*A*S*H" and extended into "Animal House" and, by 1981, "Stripes."

Now the film will be coming out on a Special Extended Edition next month (June 7th according to Amazon). The special features are:

-- Available subtitles: English, French
-- Available Audio Tracks: English (Dolby Digital 5.1)
-- Features 18 extra minutes, including 6 never-before-seen deleted scenes

-- Hour-long documentary

-- Interviews with Bill Murray and the cast

-- Mastered in high definition

It's worth noting that the interviews with Bill Murray and the cast are part of the documentary, which means the only special features for this disc are:

1. A new transfer
2. An hour-long documentary

For those of us who enjoy this film and have been waiting on the Special Edition for quite some time (it's been rumored for as far back as two years! I actually held off buying the previous disc because I was waiting for an SE), the features here might be rather disappointing.

I expected something like this:

DISC ONE

1. Commentary by Harold Ramis and Ivan Reitman
2. Commentary by Bill Murray (he hasn't spoken to Ramis since the filming of "Groundhog Day," so a commentary together is highly unlikely)
3. New anamorphic widescreen transfer
4. New DD5.1 Surround and DTS 5.1 Surround audio tracks.
5. Teaser trailer
6. Theatrical trailer
7. Talent files
8. Photo gallery

DISC TWO

1. An hour-long documentary
2. Separate reel of new interviews
3. Goofs/outtakes
4. Screen tests
5. John Candy retrospective documentary
6. Original "Making-of" featurette

That was more of what I was expecting from something two years in the making (and perhaps even longer!).

My main worries about this new DVD are:

1. The special features are dire
2. It looks like a typical double-dip rip-off
3. The new artwork is atrocious

I liked the old artwork better.

That said, I am happy at least that the film is coming out on a new DVD and I will purchase it. I'm not obsessed with this film by any means, and in fact I think it loses a lot of steam in the final act once they leave boot camp, and after that it turns into a pretty tiresome action-adventure movie with no laughs until the very end.

But the first 3/4 of "Stripes" is very funny stuff in the typical underdog-film-style. I was at least hoping for a commentary by Ramis or Reitman on the new DVD, but oh well.

what a hoot
i watched this on comcast in demand last night and man was it hilarious!!john candy rules and cover your little children's eyes 'cause there are naked ladies sometimes.

Stripes 5 Stars For DVD (1 Star for Regular TV Broadcasts!)
Just buy the DVD or tape or what have you or try to catch it on the premium cable stations. DO NOT watch STRIPES on COMEDY CENTRAL or TBS or TNT or other network broadcasts because it is always butchered beyond recognition.When shown on COMEDY CENTRAL, there's a commercial every ten minutes and the whole rhythm of the film suffers. Otherwise this is a classic Bill Murray vehicle that's funny from the beginning to the very end.The film features the late John Candy and the late Warren Oats (who is excellent as Sgt Hulka), Sean Young (before she went psycho), and Harold Ramis (Murray's co-star on GHOSTBUSTERS, director of GROUNDHOG DAY). NOTE: Classic Scene(s)- The "Graduation Drill Excercise" with Murray leading the platoon to synchronized perfection; Bill Murray and Harold Ramis leading the platoon to march to the lyrics of Manfred Mann's "DO WAH DIDDY DIDDY"; the "Urban Assault Vehicle"; and Harold Ramis (as Russel) teaching foreignors to speak English.

Classic that remembers funnier than it is while watching it
Stripes is one of those movies that I remember more affectionately than I feel towards it while watching it.I chuckle as I remember Sgt. Hulka, Ox, the fool Stillman, and so forth.There are so many little scenes, such as the beginning cab scene with the old woman wanting to get to the airport and giving the depressed Winger (Murray) a hard time.His defiant parking of the cab in the middle of a bridge, blocking two lanes, and throwing the keys into the river, retain some of the leftover anti-establishment feeling of the 60s & 70s that has become the seeming birthright of all teenagers since.

I love the scene where Winger is shooting baskets in his apartment and puts it through a window out into the street and asks people below for a "little help".They throw the ball back to him through the unbroken window.The scene where the young guys are all telling Hulka about what led them to the army is funny as is Winger's and Hulka's exchange about Hulka being the big toe leading their foot.

And the classic mud wrestling scene with John Candy as Ox.The Murray speech rallying the men the night before graduation and their entrance onto the graduation grounds.

There are so many funny scenes.I am SURE you can think of many more.

Yet, it still never really gels as a movie and it really was never meant to.It seems to me that it remembers funnier that it is in watching it now.The culture has moved on.Remember, this was just after Vietnam and Carter and at the beginning of Regan.Pre-AIDS, pre-fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR.Clearly, it is a Baby Boomer comedy.

Since so much of this movie, like Animal House and Caddy Shack, have become cultural touchstones, seeing the movie is almost a requirement.However, there are scenes where you will find yourself wondering why the heck THAT was necessary.That effect is a measure of how far we have moved on from 1981. ... Read more

Reviews (132)

"Superman II: The Wrath of Zod!"
That would have made a better title when it came out into theaters in 1981(Giggle)! Anyway, the second Superman movie was definately a gem for anyone to watch! It is action packed as the Man of Steel (Christopher Reeve) takes on the 3 Kryptonian villains (wonderfully played by Terrence Stamp, Sarah Douglas, and Jack O'Halloran), and its romantic in terms of Superman becoming serious with Lois Lane (Margot Kidder)! Although it was sad that Richard Donner didn't get to direct the second movie, Richard Lester did a wonderful job filling his shoes! However, this was the first film which really began the down-fall of the series! It was clear that Richard Donner did set the tone for Superman which meant not to muck around with the legend! That being the case with the powers you see in this film! If you are a die-hard Superman fan, and know the character and his powers, you'll know what I mean when you watch it! Second, the romance of this film with Lois and Superman does reach it's peak, but then at the end of this film, the fans will be upset with the total outcome! The worst was yet to come with the next 2 films! Fortunately, this DVD is special to me because the magic is still there! Along with the "letterbox" widescreen version to the film which preserves this film and the other so well! Still, I know there were scenes cut-out of the original film that I wish could have been added onto this DVD! Maybe they will come out with the complete version someday soon! Still, a very good movie I recomend to anyone!

Superman II - Extended ONLY
This film gets 4 stars from me based on its extended version and not on the pathetic theatrical cut! A lot of footage was cut from this film but did make it onto various extended versions that were screened across the world. The theatrical cut of this film is a poor reflection on what director Richard Donner intended the world to see. After his sacking by the Salkinds, Richard Lester was dragged in to complete the film and refilm perfectly filmed scenes which Donner filmed in 1977. This decision cost everyone a great movie.

In 1984 fans finally got a well edited film when a lot of Donner's footage was re-inserted into TV broadcasts of the movie. The longest version having accumalated some 24 mins of additional footage. This version has only been screened in Europe and Australia and contains 7 mins more footage than the 1984 ABC telecast. Most notable extended scenes are of Lex and Eve exploring the exterior of the fortress. Miss T to Les, "...It is funny that there is no front door...". Also present is Superman's "Blast off!" line after Lex and the villains are taken away by the Arctic police. These crucial scenes were cut from the theatrical and ABC extended broadcasts.

In saying that still, the film will get 5 stars when I see all director Richard Donner's footage restored into the film.

Anyone thinking that the theatrical is a good film is much mistaken. Any of the extended TV broadcast are a MAJOR improvement over an average film!

A Richard Donner Cut is what I'm after
Not nearly as good as the first movie, this suffers from production problems as a result of Donner's sacking by the Salkinds.
It's plainly obvious which scenes were shot by Donner and which weren't. And sadly, they left out a hefty chunk of what Donner had filmed, giving Lester the top billing as director.
Another sad omission is John Williams rousing score, which has been poorly duplicated. Not nearly as uplifting and powerful as John William's efforts in one.
Although the primary focus is on Lois and Superman's relationship, it doesn't save this picture from stinking. Even Gene Hackman's wonderful performance(which was all directed by Donner, with the exception of scenes where Lester used a body double and an impersonator for Hackman's voice) can't salvage this.
So why do I give this three stars? Because it does have it's moments, though scattered, and I live in the hope that a Richard Donner cut, using primarily all his footage, which would bring back all the scenes with Marlon Brando, will eventually pop up and finally put to bed the question of what could have been.

We need a 21st Century Superman movie!
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!

BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL!!!
All you people complaining about what is and should have been (Donner not being able to complete the project) the end result is a movie that many people view as better! Leave my Superman II alone! ... Read more

Reviews (32)

gloom, despair, agony, bleak, depressing...I LOVE IT !
Jane Fonda left her fluff pieces behind her and became a REAL actress after her Oscar-nominated performance here as Gloria, the bitter and hopeless woman who joins a grueling dance marathon (a craze of the Depression '30s) with Michael Sarrazin as her partner. She leaves nothing behind and throws herself into this bleak role taking huge risks that 'STAR' actresses don't do anymore. The film also put Sydney Pollack on the map as a director to be reckoned with. Finding an audience for this film may be tough because of its unrelenting gloom, but if you watch it and don't find yourself thinking about it for weeks after you have seen it, you don't know what movies are about. The message here is that there are no winners in life....only survivors. These are the kinds of films I favor (bleak and depressing) as that is what real life is about....it's a struggle. If you're looking for a diversion from real life, don't come here. The film also contains an Oscar-winning turn by Gig Young as the dance marathon's promoter and emcee and an Oscar-nominated performance by Susannah York as a Garboesque wannabe actress looking for a break. Horses is more a disaster film than anything else. No ship hits an iceberg and no building catches fire, but everyone involved experiences disaster. Don't pass this up.

A MASTERPIECE RESTORED
I was overjoyed to receive a gift of the reissue of this video in 1995, that is until I watched it in all its "pan & scan" desecration. It is truly a joy to watch this DVD (VHS is now available in widescreen as well) in the right format with all the extras. But all that aside, this is a towering, neglected masterpiece of American cinema that virtually put director Sydney Pollack on the map and established Jane Fonda as the premier American actress of the Sixties and Seventies. Who else could have captured the tragic essence of the bitter, beaten Gloria but Fonda? Watch her especially in the final elimination round as she desperately (and literally) carries her ailing partner around the floor in a final attempt to win the big prize and (symbolically) maybe give life one more try. Fonda never sentimalizes this great character as a lesser actress would have been tempted to; no simple answers or easy forgiveness will do for Gloria--she is too important to be trivialized. Red Buttons, Susannah York, and Gig Young are also superb in supporting roles; the cinematography and music also deserve kudos. If you haven't seen it, do not miss this American classic and one of the century's greatest actresses just entering her prime. How we do miss Jane.

An Awful Movie
They Shoot Horses, Don't They? is an awful film. It is about as interesting as watching water boil. It is also unhistorical in that the 1930's are depicted as a time of prosperity even though in real life that was the decade of the Great Depression.

There is no real depth to the plot. Nor is there anything exceptional about either the direction, photography or the soundtrack. Jane Fonda is badly miscast in this role and she delivers her lines poorly. None of the performances in this movie are especially good.

In sum, this is a movie to avoid.

Possibly the worst movie of all time!
The only movies that may be worse would be Accidental Tourist or maybe Blair Witch Project. It's tough to pin down what exactly made this movie so bad. Thats probably because every facet of it STUNK SO BAD! All I know is that I wasted 2 hours of my life of this tripe, 2 hours that I'll never get back. Go ahead and rate my review as unhelpful if you must, but DON'T SPEND MONEY ON THIS FILM!

Jane Fonda's Performance was Overlooked!
Horace McCoy's depression era play, They Shoot Horses, Don't They? is tragically brought to life through the performances of an ensemble cast. Jane Fonda delivers her greatest performance, as Gloria, a loner trying to cope with an everyday painful existence.
Be prepared for a shocking ending, if that's possible. There arises a glimmer of hope that life is better.
Sydney Pollack directs a masterpiece in the exploration of the human condition under the throngs of depression. The utter despair, agony, and suffering of each character is felt, heard, seen, and endured by the viewer. It becomes so intense that you want to scream, "Enough, I can't watch any more." There's no need to scream out. Horace McCoy solves the problem for the viewer, and for Gloria. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A classic screwball comedy with a supernatural twist, Topper starsthe incomparable Cary Grant and sparkling Constance Bennett as George andMarion Kirby, a fun-loving couple who cap an evening of jazz and champagneby running their car into a tree. They return as ghosts with a mandate toliven up the straight-laced hen-pecked life of bank president Cosmo Topper(Roland Young), who's hungry for just such a shake-up. Before long he'sboozing, dancing, and getting into fights, all of which gives him a rakishreputation--much to the consternation of his wife (Billie Burke, bestknown as Glinda the Good Witch in The Wizard of Oz). The sequelreplaces Grant and Bennett with Joan Blondell, who can't quite compare,but she's charming in her own way. Topper Returns is a rambunctiousmurder mystery with some gorgeous sets and elegant cinematography--thesequence of Blondell's death and ghostly rise is dazzling. --BretFetzer ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Funny 1937 Original w/1941 sequel now on remastered DVD!!
ARTISAN Home Entertainment brings us a remastered DVD of Hal Roach Studios (who brought us Laurel & Hardy and the Little Rascals in 1920's through the 1930's on the side experimented with full length feature films,greater than 65 minutes in length) original 1937 Topper. In 1937 Hal Roach used trick photography, camera magic and ground breaking FX technology for the amazing ghost creations.

"Topper" with a Star studded cast Cary Grant as Millionaire George Kirby (at his comedic best), Constance Bennett as his wife Marion (a beautifully devine actress), Roland Young as their Banker Cosmo Topper (nominated for Best Supporting Actor as "Topper") and Billie Burke as Mrs. Topper (best known as Glenda the "Good Witch" from the 1939 "The Wizard of OZ"). Included is a very young song writer/singer Hoagy Carmichael.

This wonderfully remastered Black / White Standard Feature DVD is delightful. Worth the price of admission alone but the 1941 sequel "Topper Returns" is also included. Note: a very weak sequel but still a cute storyline featuring Roland & Burke in reprise. A double feature DVD with no extras.

Summary: The jet setting, ever partying Millionaire Kirby's die in an automobile accident on a late night country road. They enter a state of limbo (earthbound ghosts) until they perform a good deed. So they go about trying to free their banker "Topper" from his dull routine high collar lifestyle and make him a jet setting man of high society. This is a great story with ghosts, floating objects and Topper talking to himself. Mrs Topper has the hardest time trying to figure out whats happening to her timid obedient husband. Lots of laughs here. Enjoy.

Hilarious and utterly charming!
As a screwball comedy, Topper has it all: high spirits and hijinks, wonderful acting all around, sharp dialogue, deft physical comedy, and a theme lots of people can relate to. If you're in the mood for a screwball comedy that still has a real message, this is one to watch.

Topper Returns is like an episode of Scooby Doo come to life: spooky mansion, secret corridors, creepy servants, and a masked murderer on the loose. Mix in a hard-drinking ghost, a befuddled detective, a blonde bombshell, and Eddie "Rochester" Anderson of Jack Benny fame, then add a string of razor-sharp one-liners, double-takes, and pratfalls, and you get a recipe for hilarity. Billie Burke, as Topper's ditzy, jealous wife, is even funnier in this one than in the original: she takes blithe cluelessness to a new level!

The special effects in both films are suprisingly good for the era, and the beautiful DVD transfer really brings them to life. Great films!

Well worth the price
Although I don't think Topper with Cary Grant is as good as some of his other B&W comedies, "Bringing up Baby", "The Bachelor and Bobby Soxer" or even "Monkey Business", it is a good old B&W movie to watch. However, I think I like "Topper Returns" even better, "Topper" gets bettter as the movie nears the end, but "Topper Returns" seems to keep laughs coming throughout the picture. I find the scenes with "Rochester" from the old Jack Benny show most memorable, the comments he makes ( he has a very memorable voice) , the way he rolls his eyes and responds to the ghost extremely funny. "Topper Returns" has more people doing the funny scenes, little things throughout the movie.

The picture and sound quality on this DVD seems better on our Hitachi 57S700 better than "Topper Returns" by Alpha Video. We have one of our Dtivos getting every Cary Grant movie for the past few years but never seemed to get Topper. We were at a store and saw "Topper Returns" by Alpha Video. After buying this I decided to buy Topper/Topper Returns here on Amazon, just to get "Topper" with Cary Grant, and glad I did. Once again, for those of you that like old B&W comedies, this DVD is welll worth the Amazon price.

THIS TWOSOME TOPS OUT IN HILARITY!
"Topper" is the supernatural screwball comedy about a pair of fun-loving ghosts who wreak havoc on the life of henpecked banker, Cosmo Topper (Roland Young). Cary Grant and Constance Bennett simply glow as George and Marion Kirby, a couple of devil-may-care free spirits who accidentally kill themselves by wrapping their car around a tree. They return as a couple of blithe spirits, determined to introduce Cosmo to the good life. Billie Burke costars as Cosmo's stuffy and hilarious bubble-head wife. The sequel, "Topper Returns" uses this same premise but replaces Grant and Bennett with Joan Blondell. Although she's amply cast, she doesn't quite eclipse the memory the original. The engaging murder mystery plot of "Topper Returns" with its sumptuous setting and elegant cinematography compensate, particularly the surreal visual splendor of Blondell's haunting death and her ghostly reincarnation.
THE TRANSFER: "Topper" is a little bit worse for the wear than "Topper Returns". This is to be expected since, after years of being a late night television fav', the rights to this classic have fallen into public domain. MGM is credited with originally making this classic. The gray scale is a trifle underexposed on "Topper" well seemingly close to dead on in "Topper Returns." Age related artifacts are more heavy and noticeable on "Topper" as well. Over all, the image has a dated appearance but contrast and black levels are generally good on both movies. Edge enhancement is present slightly on "Topper" only. The audio is mono for both films. "Topper" suffers from slight hiss and popping but "Topper Returns" is generally more natural sounding on the ears.
EXTRAS: None.
BOTTOM LINE: "Topper" is an outstanding Cary Grant comedy with few equals - save "Bringing Up Baby." Perhaps one day we'll see the release of that classic on DVD!

clear DVD from Artisan
This is a good transfer indeed. I know Artisan is hit and miss. This DVD title is clear. The 1st Topper is always my favorite. Why? Cary Grant and Constance Bennett are in it. Wow she has a figure no man today would turn away. And I am a woman saying that.

The second movie has the couple that play the Toppers. But Not the Kirbys. (No Grant and Bennett). he Kirby's haven't been re cast, they aren't in it. It is still an interresting movie though. A comedy/murder movie.

At the price this DVD can be bought at it is a steal. A must get for your collection. ... Read more

Reviews (138)

Parting the waters of the medulla oblongata of mankind
Normally, movies that are written, directed and star the same person have some fatal flaw due to over-control and a lack of another voice of reason. However, in this case, Billy Bob Thorton put together a great movie.

Billy Bob's portrayal of "Karl", a retarded man who killed his mother and lover as a child, is one of the best characters ever on screen. With his high-water pants, bad haircut, underslung grin and gravelly voice, he's not someone you'll soon forget.

A finely acted film, even the smallest parts were well-done. Suprisingly, John Ritter (an actor who I can not normally watch), gave the finest performance of his career as a gay store manager. Dwight Yoakum was great as the abusive boyfriend, and Lucas Black was good as the kid. J.T Walsh, Robert Duvall, and James Hampton are also in it.

This is not a Disney type plot, and there is a fair amount of swearing and yelling, and some violence. It all is natural to the story however, and the dialogue is some of the best you'll hear anywhere.

I don't give out 5 stars to movies very often. Mmm-hmmm.

An terrific wonderful film, which is unforgettable.
When a man by his early forties living in a Mental Hostipal, who being release by the first time in thirty years by the name of Karl Childers (Billy Bob Thornton) for murdering her's mother lover and then his mother. Karl is a mentally challenge man, who never really experience the outside world. Once he's out to the World, Karl befriend with a sad-sensitive boy (Lucas Black), His Mother (Natalie Canerday) and a nice man (John Ritter), who take a liking in him. Karl hits reality with mean-spirited alcoholic abuser man (Dwight Yoakam) and his past comes to haunt him.

Writted and Directed by Billy Bob Thornton (All the Pretty Horses, Daddy and Then), which is based on his Play, which also he win for an Oscar for Best Adatped Screenplay. Thornton was also nominated for Best Actor. This independent film has First-Rate Performances by all. J.T. Walsh, James Hampton and Brent Briscoe appears in Small Roles-including Oscar-Winner:Robert Duvall. This film is touching, sad and funny also. This is a real one of a kind, unique film. A true classic of the 90's-A Winner. Grade:A+.

Billy Bob does everything but sell the popcorn
Billy Bob Thornton took his screenplay and directed himself in this unforgettable film.

Thornton's Karl Childers became one of the Icons of American cinema, and I still hear people doing Karl's gravel-throated mumble which gets an immediate look of recognition from the people around.

Karl is an essentially good man who is mentally challenged. He recognizes good and bad in others, and he seems to understand his place in the world, even if the intricacies of complex human relationships pass by him as unnoticed as the ozone layer.

As the movie opens we learn that Karl is being held in a State Mental Hospital many years after he has killed a couple of people he thought were doing wrong. I'd say more here, but I think it might spoil some of your enjoyment of the movie to learn more - so just watch the movie! We also learn that Karl is being released because they've "cured him".

He goes back to his home town with all his worldly belongings in a sack. A kindly Doctor from the institution gets him a job as a lawn-mower mechanic and he meets a little boy who is friendly to him.

This is a movie of characters, and simply describing them would not do the characters justice. Karl is a simple man with a pretty well-developed sense of right and wrong. The little boy has lost his father, and the boy's mother, Linda, (portrayed in a wonderfully understated performance by Natalie Canerday) has taken up with a hard drinking, bad-mouthing redneck played by Dwight Yoakam. The late John Ritter is almost unrecognizable playing the soft-spoken crew-cut manager of the store where Linda works. Ritter's Vaughan is devoted to Linda and the little boy, Frank (played by Lucas Black), but Vaughan is also a homosexual in a small town in the south, and his social status is precarious.

There are many serious and tender and hilarious and moving scenes, and most of them involve Billy Bob's Karl. For example, there is one scene where Vaughan invites Karl to the diner where Vaughan proceeds to pour his heart out to the uncomprehending Karl. Vaughan goes on about the difficulties he has had in life, and with his father, and being a homosexual. The entire time Karl sits silently, eating his "french-fried 'taters".

Vaughan finally pauses and says "You always seem to be deep in thought. Tell me, what are you thinking right now?"
Karl replies: "I was thinkin', I'm gonna take me some of these taters home with me."

This movie will stick with you long after you have seen it. Highly recommended.

A legendary performance for Billy Bob Thornton
Sling Blade starts out at a mental home where Karl, played by Thornton, is being released after 25 years. He killed his mother and a boyfriend after he caught them having sex and he didn't think it seemed right. But Karl is deemed to be safe for society and he is also a man with a good heart that when asked if he will do it again replies,"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody." Karl, by the way is somewhat mentally challenged. So it is time to be released, and Karl returns to the town he used to call home with no place to go and no one to return to (except a father who will not recognize him).

Karl befriends a young boy named Frank, and the two are friends from the start. Both of them share some of the same emotional issues, but in Frank's case it is due to his mother's abusive boyfriend Doyle (played by Dwight Yoakam). Karl gets a job working on small engines at a local garage and lives there for a while, but Frank and his mother agree it would be good for Karl to live with them. From the first time Karl meets Doyle, he begins to see what a terrible person he is. Doyle is constantly belittling Frank and Vaughn (a friend of Frank's mother who is gay), and is verbally and physically abusive to Linda (Frank's mom). Karl appears to be a very simple man, but it is apparent that his mind is always at work analyzing the people around him. Doyle grows worse and worse, and Karl becomes increasingly fed up with him. Karl always remains calm no matter the situation, but we start to see that he is the only one who can make things better for Linda, Frank and Vaughn and that as the movie progresses Karl realizes something must be done. I will spare you the ending, but the final conflict revolves around Karl's love for Frank and Linda and with him making a choice, a choice that could send him back to the mental hospital.

This is an incredible movie that deserves all of the notariety is has collected since its release. It won many awards, and deservingly so. There is a little bit of dark comedy here, some tragedy (like when Karl is talking about his brother he had to bury when he was just born), but most of all it is a disturbing examination of internal conflict in one simple man that really is a good guy at heart. It is pretty disturbing at times, so you have been warned. The movie is nothing short of perfect though and it is definately one that you need to see in your lifetime.

A darker, more sinister Forrest Gump
Thornton portrays a man whose apparent stupidity masks a deeper understanding of morals and circumstance than the common man. Everyone treats him as, and calls him, a "retard", yet he sits in his own presence watching and learning...taking in his surroundings to figure out who is decent, and who isnn't. He just wants to get on with his life, yet, he befriends a young boy by happenstance who he can relate to through common toils and emotion, who he can share his innermost thoughts and dark history with, and who he can - within his own diminished capacity- protect in full with his own paternal....no fraternal....regards.

This movie will make you laugh, it will make you cry, it will make you cringe. But it won't let you go until you see it in its entirety, and question the fact - is it okay to kill if it's for a better cause?

A must-see. ... Read more

Reviews (58)

Phenomenon: A Moving, Under-rated movie
I took me awhile to catch on to the John Travolta "comeback." Always a good actor, he is trancendent in "Phenomenon." Taking his character of George, struck by a mysterious light, and turning him from an average man to a genius, could have been an actor's trap. Travolta makes it his triumph. He gives George such a humanity that even with the genius powers we are aware that George of old is still there, trying to desparately to just be his old self, and only the girl he longs for, played excellently by Kyra Segwick seems to understand his wanting to remain the same, no matter how many "miracles" he perfo