Amazon.com

Nowadays it's rare to find a movie that pays attention to human weakness as well as strength, and that sees a whole person as having both. When a sports magazine gets bought by a media conglomerate, an ad sales executive named Dave Foreman (Dennis Quaid, The Rookie) finds himself playing second-in-command to Carter Duryea, a hotshot barely half his age (Topher Grace, Win a Date with Tad Hamilton!) whose marriage has just fallen apart. One evening Carter invites himself over to Dave's house to escape his loneliness, where he meets Dave's daughter Alex (Scarlett Johansson, Lost in Translation). The two strike immediate sparks and when they run into each other later in the city, a relationship begins--which they discreetly keep from Dave. But the heart of the movie is not in its plot, but in the way that Dave responds to the news that his wife is pregnant, or how Carter tries to fortify his self-image with a new car. These aren't jokes; the actors inhabit these moments fully and turn them into psychological events. Quaid plays Dave as a simple man, but his straightforwardness feels genuine (rather than a failure of the writer's imagination). Grace and Johansson have terrific chemistry as lovers, but so do Grace and Quaid, both as rivals and as a substitute father and son. In Good Company isn't likely to win any awards, but it's honest and honorable; there's a core of truth to its characters and their problems aren't resolved too neatly. Sometimes, that's worth watching. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (59)

Moral Fable Never Gets Sappy
Dennis Quaid plays a 51-year-old father of two daughters and head of a sales division for a sporting magazine. After a buyout, he is demoted and has a new boss, a 26-year-old coffee-drinking yuppie full of corporate speak and blind ambition who falls in love with Quaid's gorgeous daughter. The father's self-worth is tested savagely in this comic film which, exploring the absurdity and brutality of the corporate world, actually has a moral message about integrity and being true to yourself. It's rare that a comedy is both funny and packed with moral meaning as it attempts to find redemption for the father and his new boss. For a darker look at corporate life with no redemption for the characters, check out the bleak and nihilistic In the Company of Men by Neil LeBute.

Not exactly what I expected.
Dennis Quaid gives a magnificent performance as a long-time salesman who's proud of his work, and who suddenly loses his status when he gets demoted. Topher Grace plays the new boss, and he's terrific as an obnoxious but charming kid on a power trip. Quaid and Grace's awkward, amusing, and (eventually) fond friendship is the crux of the film, and the best reason to see it. The movie's flaws: First, it's slow at times, I expected more inter-office interaction. Second, for a film about cold corporations and job insecurity, the comedy is less sharp than it could be. It's almost as if the movie is too light for its subject. Characters get laid off but you never see how it would hurt their families. The only really bad thing that happens to anyone is that they have to take out a second mortgage! Another reason the comedy is so lightweight is that there no major bad guys to make fun of. Quaid and Grace (who lays off Quaid's colleagues) represent different business philosophies, but they're both essentially good-hearted. Only one or two characters are slightly villainous, and they're on screen for just a couple minutes.

An Excellent satire
"In Good Company" is a lovely movie - part romance, part drama, part satire. It strays occasionally into the obvious, but, overall, it's enormously entertaining. While the satire and drama elements are marred by pat endings, the romance part is given a blissfully hopeful, rather than a happy, ending.

Dan [Dennis Quaid] is a high powered advertising executive at a big sports magazine. At age 52, he's at the top of his game. Out of nowhere, his company is bought by a media conglomerate headed by a billionaire megalomaniac. To Dan's horror, his new boss is a 26-year old kid named Carter [Topher Grace]. In typical early 21st Century fashion, Carter has arrived through sheer ambition and charm. He has zero experience in advertising. Carter does, however, have some experience in romance. He meets and falls deeply in love with Alex [Scarlett Johansson]. As fate would have it. Alex is Dan's daughter.

The acting here is superior. Quaid was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar. Johansson is one of the best young actresses working today. The revelation is Grace, prior to this best known for his role in a hit sitcom. Here he creates one of the more memorable movie characters in recent movies.

Funny and original
Genre: Indie Comedy

Genre Grade: B+

Final Grade: B

This movie was disguised as somewhat more of a romantic comedy, but it indeed was not. It did have some of that in it, but mostly the movie was about the connection of a younger, naive boss taking on the older, experienced salesman. There was some hilarious moments and some really cheesy, odd ones too, but overall it had a good feel to it and was a good movie. The best part about this movie was the music - from The Shins, Damien Rice, and Iron & Wine. Unfortunately, Iron & Wine is the only bad that appears on the soundtrack to the movie. Bad mistake!

On a side note, this movie does not have a cliche Hollywood ending, but rather a more realistic approach to a very possible situation. Some people may not like the ending because of that, but I applaud the creators of this film for doing what they did. Wandering outside the box is something more movies should do these days. I would compare this movie to Garden State, and while Garden State may have seemingly followed the Hollywood guidelines more than this film did, I just think it was more appropriate in that film, because of the depth of the connection between Zach Braff and Natalie Portman. I don't think Scarlett Johannson and Topher Grace shared as much of a connection. Or maybe they did, but that was not the entire focus of this movie.

Not the greatest movie!
Kind of cute. I really thought I would have liked this movie, it was really great until the end of it.They could have done better on the end, kind of cheap.It definetly deserves three stars. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Nowadays it's rare to find a movie that pays attention to human weakness as well as strength, and that sees a whole person as having both. When a sports magazine gets bought by a media conglomerate, an ad sales executive named Dave Foreman (Dennis Quaid, The Rookie) finds himself playing second-in-command to Carter Duryea, a hotshot barely half his age (Topher Grace, Win a Date with Tad Hamilton!) whose marriage has just fallen apart. One evening Carter invites himself over to Dave's house to escape his loneliness, where he meets Dave's daughter Alex (Scarlett Johansson, Lost in Translation). The two strike immediate sparks and when they run into each other later in the city, a relationship begins--which they discreetly keep from Dave. But the heart of the movie is not in its plot, but in the way that Dave responds to the news that his wife is pregnant, or how Carter tries to fortify his self-image with a new car. These aren't jokes; the actors inhabit these moments fully and turn them into psychological events. Quaid plays Dave as a simple man, but his straightforwardness feels genuine (rather than a failure of the writer's imagination). Grace and Johansson have terrific chemistry as lovers, but so do Grace and Quaid, both as rivals and as a substitute father and son. In Good Company isn't likely to win any awards, but it's honest and honorable; there's a core of truth to its characters and their problems aren't resolved too neatly. Sometimes, that's worth watching. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (59)

Moral Fable Never Gets Sappy
Dennis Quaid plays a 51-year-old father of two daughters and head of a sales division for a sporting magazine. After a buyout, he is demoted and has a new boss, a 26-year-old coffee-drinking yuppie full of corporate speak and blind ambition who falls in love with Quaid's gorgeous daughter. The father's self-worth is tested savagely in this comic film which, exploring the absurdity and brutality of the corporate world, actually has a moral message about integrity and being true to yourself. It's rare that a comedy is both funny and packed with moral meaning as it attempts to find redemption for the father and his new boss. For a darker look at corporate life with no redemption for the characters, check out the bleak and nihilistic In the Company of Men by Neil LeBute.

Not exactly what I expected.
Dennis Quaid gives a magnificent performance as a long-time salesman who's proud of his work, and who suddenly loses his status when he gets demoted. Topher Grace plays the new boss, and he's terrific as an obnoxious but charming kid on a power trip. Quaid and Grace's awkward, amusing, and (eventually) fond friendship is the crux of the film, and the best reason to see it. The movie's flaws: First, it's slow at times, I expected more inter-office interaction. Second, for a film about cold corporations and job insecurity, the comedy is less sharp than it could be. It's almost as if the movie is too light for its subject. Characters get laid off but you never see how it would hurt their families. The only really bad thing that happens to anyone is that they have to take out a second mortgage! Another reason the comedy is so lightweight is that there no major bad guys to make fun of. Quaid and Grace (who lays off Quaid's colleagues) represent different business philosophies, but they're both essentially good-hearted. Only one or two characters are slightly villainous, and they're on screen for just a couple minutes.

An Excellent satire
"In Good Company" is a lovely movie - part romance, part drama, part satire. It strays occasionally into the obvious, but, overall, it's enormously entertaining. While the satire and drama elements are marred by pat endings, the romance part is given a blissfully hopeful, rather than a happy, ending.

Dan [Dennis Quaid] is a high powered advertising executive at a big sports magazine. At age 52, he's at the top of his game. Out of nowhere, his company is bought by a media conglomerate headed by a billionaire megalomaniac. To Dan's horror, his new boss is a 26-year old kid named Carter [Topher Grace]. In typical early 21st Century fashion, Carter has arrived through sheer ambition and charm. He has zero experience in advertising. Carter does, however, have some experience in romance. He meets and falls deeply in love with Alex [Scarlett Johansson]. As fate would have it. Alex is Dan's daughter.

The acting here is superior. Quaid was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar. Johansson is one of the best young actresses working today. The revelation is Grace, prior to this best known for his role in a hit sitcom. Here he creates one of the more memorable movie characters in recent movies.

Funny and original
Genre: Indie Comedy

Genre Grade: B+

Final Grade: B

This movie was disguised as somewhat more of a romantic comedy, but it indeed was not. It did have some of that in it, but mostly the movie was about the connection of a younger, naive boss taking on the older, experienced salesman. There was some hilarious moments and some really cheesy, odd ones too, but overall it had a good feel to it and was a good movie. The best part about this movie was the music - from The Shins, Damien Rice, and Iron & Wine. Unfortunately, Iron & Wine is the only bad that appears on the soundtrack to the movie. Bad mistake!

On a side note, this movie does not have a cliche Hollywood ending, but rather a more realistic approach to a very possible situation. Some people may not like the ending because of that, but I applaud the creators of this film for doing what they did. Wandering outside the box is something more movies should do these days. I would compare this movie to Garden State, and while Garden State may have seemingly followed the Hollywood guidelines more than this film did, I just think it was more appropriate in that film, because of the depth of the connection between Zach Braff and Natalie Portman. I don't think Scarlett Johannson and Topher Grace shared as much of a connection. Or maybe they did, but that was not the entire focus of this movie.

Not the greatest movie!
Kind of cute. I really thought I would have liked this movie, it was really great until the end of it.They could have done better on the end, kind of cheap.It definetly deserves three stars. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Half of the characters in this 1988 John Landis potboiler seem to be played either by Eddie Murphy or costar Arsenio Hall, swaddled in elaborate Rick Baker makeup appliances that render them unrecognizable but also weirdly immobile. As a pampered African prince who journeys incognito to Queens, New York, to find a bride who will love him just for himself, Murphy manages to look smug and naive at the same time. There are enjoyable sequences of Murphy's Prince Akeem applying his lordly manner to his new job in a fast-food emporium, and falling for the boss's spirited daughter (Shari Headley), who teaches him how to party down, American style. But the fish-out-water premise is never fully exploited. Star spotters will have a field day locating Cuba Gooding Jr., Donna Summer, Louie Anderson, Vondie Curtis Hall, E.R.'s Eriq La Salle, and Samuel L. Jackson in their minuscule supporting roles. --David Chute ... Read more

Reviews (68)

Hilarious classic that will live in our hearts forever!!!
This is one of my all time-favorite African-American movies. First of all, Eddie Murphy is hilarious (in all of his roles). Arsenio Hall is a perfect foil for Eddie's hijinks. Eddie let his full range of talent show in this film; he played an innocent person who grows into a mature adult right in front of our eyes and realizes that there is a price to pay for love; whether or not you are born into royalty. This is one of those movies that a person watches over and over again and ends up reciting the lines as the movies is playing. James Earl Jones and Madge Sinclair are wonderful in this movie as well as the King and Queen. Madge Sinclair was one of the world's best actresses and I miss her greatly. She tells James Earl Jones "put a sock in it, Geoffrey, the boy is in love." Nobody can deliver that line to a black king, except a black queen. John Amos, (whom I have loved since Good Times), is a great actor as well. He plays the part of a black businessman so well, and as a father he takes no stuff off of the King. He tells James Earl Jones, "I will break my foot off in your royal _____); now that's a ghetto father for you. James Earl Jones knew where to draw the line with Cleo McDowell.

I also like the fact that the Kingdom of Zamunda was filled with kindness, and the people were happy, the royal family was truly wealthy and had everything. You know, this movie is truly a fantasy and helps us escape from our everyday lives. Just to see the Queen and King eating breakfast and talking to their son on a "speaker phone" because the table is so long, is funny. The King and Queen taking their entourage to Queens when they received the telegram to send $1 million to Semmi who had spent up all his pocket change is one of my favorite scenes. That music that is playing during the sequence when the entourage arrives in Queens is so wonderful, moving and swirling, I am buying the soundtrack just to get that song. When I get married, I would like that song to play as my "court" walks down the aisle before me.

All the cameos in this movie are great as well. Nobody can play a doped-up thug like Samuel L. Jackson; Samuel is a natural at playing a killer. Also, Louie Anderson was funny, so was Eriq LaSalle, and Alison Dean.

Now the guys in the barbershop have to be taken from classic characters in the black community. In all the black neighborhoods I have been in during my whole life; there has got to be a black barbershop full of men eating, talking stuff, and cutting hair. When "Clarence" says that Martin Luther King, Jr. ran up to him and hit him in the chest, I just crack up, cause Martin Luther King, Jr. was a prophet of non-violence. And, Eddie Murphy playing a white man is too funny, and a Jewish white man on top of that. Now, that takes creativity; and comic genuis, and Eddie's got it. And, Arsenio's portrayal of Rev. Brown is right on target, there is always some country preacher in the neighborhood that comes to every event, eats up the food, and blesses the weddings, blesses the children, and buries the dead.

One of my favorite parts is when Lisa tells Prince Akeem, she cannot marry him; because he lied to her about his identity. That made Akeem grow up very fast, and learn that nobody; no matter who he is, can buy love.

The clothes in this movie are also wonderful. Deborah Nadoolman did a great job showing how royalty would dress in a foreign country where it is warm, Also, how they would dress in Queens during the winter; those fur coats Madge Sinclair had on were fantastic and so were the suits worn by the King himself. His coat of an entire lion's skin was dramatic and the diamond eyes on that lion's head were cool.

The ending this cinderella story was great, love did really win out in the end.

Well, I could go on and on about how much I liked this movie but, I am going to stop now. Get this movie and keep it in your video collection so you can watch it and laugh over and over.

FUNNY !
This is a feel good movie with the main players being Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall. Young Prince Akeem is about to be wed to a beautiful woman, but the problem is he does not love this women. He decides he will travel to Queens, NY In America and find his true love. Now how does a pampered Africian Prince
survive in Queens. Soon he falls in love with his bosses daughter and the story takes you through a tender courtship.
I loved her father, and the King and Queen were priceless!
This was a really fun movie! The wedding scenes at the end were beautiful and my favorite part. Well worth your time to watch!
Qute enjoyable!

F U N N Y
I love this movie. There is nothing I can complain about. This is Eddie Murphy at his Best. This is when Eddie and Arsenio was the BOMB. Every scene makes you laugh. Do you see Samuel Jackson in one of his early roles? Also, ER's Eric LaSalle in his Jeri Curl. This movie is wonderful. I can watch it over and over and over again and laugh at the Soul Glow commercials, because everyone in my area wore a Jerri Curl that looked that nasty. This is a must own.

Fun Relaxed Comedy
Coming to America cheerfully pokes fun at everything. There isn't really a meanspirited moment in the movie. A spoiled Afican Prince comes to Queens, NYC to live a normal life & find his true love. Queens for a future king, get it? The humor isn't exactly highbrow but its constant and Arsenio Hall is hilarious.

Five star cast in a hilariously funny film "fit for royalty"
Coming to America is truly the creme de la creme of the comedic genre. I have watched this movie many times, and never can resist throwing my head back and laughing out loud in total glee. Sometimes I even admit to falling right off the couch in fits of laughter!

Murphy's principal role in the movie is that of Prince Akeem, with Arsenio Hall as his sidekick and personal servant Semi (though both play numerous other minor roles with the help of elaborate makeup to disguise the fact). Promised in marriage to a beautiful woman raised from birth to please him, Akeem finds himself dissatisfied with the very idea of an arranged marriage. He wants to select a wife with a mind of her own who loves him for himself.

Hence Akeem's decision to leave the kingdom of Zamunda to travel to America. Unaware of his son's true purpose for the trip, King Jaffre Jafur decrees that Akeem simply needs to take a trip to "sow his royal oats." James Earl Jones as the King, and Madge Sinclair as the Queen are hilarious in their roles as Akeem's parents.

Akeem and Semi leave their luxurious lifestyle in the palace behind and end up in Queens, NY, posing as "average Americn students." They secure jobs at a knockoff of McDonald's, owned by Mr. McDowell (engagingly portrayed to hilarious effect by John Amos) and his daughters Lisa and Patrice. Falling hard for the eldest daughter Lisa (Shari Headley), Akeem competes with her boyfriend, Darrell(Eric LaSalle), the arrogant, smooth talking heir to the "Soul Glo" hair product fortune, for her affections. The numerous conflicts and silly situations that stem from this will keep you in stitches.

Blessed with an EXCELLENT cast who each make the utmost of their roles (those mentioned previously, plus Samuel L.Jackson, Louie Anderson, Don Ameche and others), truly funny material, witty dialogue, and a delightful feel-good ending, Coming to America is a movie not to be missed. I hope you enjoy this frothy funfilled comedy as much as I did! ... Read more

Description

A sweeping epic charting the early years of the Civil War and how campaigns unfolded from Manassas to the Battle of Fredericksburg, this prequel to the film Gettysburg explores the motivations of the combatants and examines the lives of those who waited at home. ... Read more

Reviews (586)

Severely Underrated
Apparently, all it takes to be a film critic these days is a combination of the right political views on the right issues and a fourth grade education. This would explain why "Gods and Generals" -- an excellent film -- was a box office flop. The critics killed it before it had a chance. Smug remarks by less-than-intelligent reviewers like "this is a film that would make Trent Lott proud" gave potential viewers a bad opinion of the movie before they'd even seen it. And what was it that the critics didn't like? One reviewer said it was too much like a history lesson!! Pardon me, but how could one make a movie about the Civil War and NOT include historical data? This just goes to show how averse a large portion of the American people are to thinking. But enough of this. Onto the film itself. Mr. Maxwell does an admirable job of cramming the first two years of the Civil War into a three hour movie. The film's star, Stephen Lang gives a performance worthy of an Academy Award as Stonewall Jackson. Since the Confederate forces were dominant in the first half of the war, the film focuses on them more than their blundering Union counterparts. This was percieved as Neo-Confederate propaganda by the critics, which of course is not true. And, due to the fact that most of the people in the 1860's were Christians, the movie delves into the religious side of the conflict which nearly sent the snide reviewers into an epileptic fit. The battle scenes were nearly flawless (the only thing missing was the gore and blood) and very exciting to watch. The only scene I could have done without is the infamous "Hail Caesar" scene that semmed to last a half hour. Overall this is a great film about great men who stood against tyranny and died to preserve freedom. If only this generation could understand that. I eagerly await "The Last Full Measure".

War interrupts Stonewall Jackson's prayers
A couple of years back, a spectacular war epic had the Japanese launching a sneak attack on a love triangle and PEARL HARBOR just happened to get caught in the collateral damage. In GODS AND GENERALS, several Civil War battles serve to interrupt the idyllic home life and prayers of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.

There's a core of usefulness to this film, which is its reputedly and apparently accurate rendering - such as they are - of the battles of First Bull Run (1861), Fredericksburg (1862) and Chancellorsville (1863). For the historical knowledge to be gained, I would rather that today's young generation watch this than the steady diet of silly, albeit spectacular, fairy tales served up on the Silver Screen. Unfortunately, the combat footage is interspersed with too much overwritten and pretentious dialogue played to the tune of an overly melodramatic soundtrack. And since they're almost carnage-free compared to such recent war epics as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and BAND OF BROTHERS, the battle sequences have been criticized as glossing over the horrors of war. But how else does the studio get the film a PG-13 rating that will allow younger audiences in to see it? To be sure, its 3 hour and 40 minute run time could have been slashed by an hour, at least. GODS AND GENERALS makes GETTYSBURG (1993) seem like a great film in comparison.

Stephen Lang (General Pickett in GETTYSBURG) does a creditable job as the screenwriter's vision of Jackson, though I'm not convinced that this and the "real" Stonewall resemble each other. Unfortunately, much of the General's career and reputation was established by his brilliant Shenandoah Valley campaign of early 1862, events outside the scope of this epic. From reading, my impression of Jackson is that he was an austere, aloof, brilliant and eccentric commander who drove his men to the breaking point, and won their devotion in the process. The Jackson played by Lang comes across as almost warm and fuzzy. I don't know which version is more accurate, but this relatively pallid cinematic one isn't what I expected.

Robert Duvall plays General Robert E. Lee in GODS AND GENERALS, and his rendition is much more robust and believable than Martin Sheen's in GETTYSBURG. Jeff Daniels, a little chunkier and nearly a decade older, pretty much reprises the Joshua Chamberlain character of the 20th Maine Regiment, although he occasionally falls victim to windy monologs about the sanctity of the Union and the evils of slavery. In GODS AND GENERALS, unfortunately, there's no Little Round Top to valiantly defend to the last minie ball. The best Chamberlain can do is get pinned down by Confederate fire below Marye's Heights at Fredericksburg

Civil war buffs such as myself will certainly enjoy this film while fidgeting between battles. First Bull Run comes across rather stiff and awkward, but the troops are fully into it by Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. It also helps if the viewer has some pre-knowledge of the battlefields and the locations of the opposing lines because there's too little elucidation provided by the on-screen tacticians. Those who've seen GETTYSBURG will recognize many of the actors who reprise their roles from the earlier sequel.

See GODS AND GENERALS and appreciate it for what it's worth. But don't expect a profoundly moving or satisfying experience.

I keep wanting to like this movie, but....
Glory was a great civil war film, it had characters with character, it had a story with a story, it had a believable premise. But, this movie I don't know what this movie was all about. The acting was like a cross between stage acting and politicians trying to act emotional about their causes on a debate stage. And to have it centered in the 19th Century south in this format is like having the cast of the Andy Griffith Show deliver their lines with Shakespearean drama, it just doesn't work. I really don't think General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson would be proud to be remember for his endless droning philosophy on lemonade.

This movie has been playing endlessly on cable for the last few months, and I admit I keep getting drawn into watching it, and if you turn the sound down it's not so bad as a silent movie, but the dialog is, well it's what it is. I could care less about the message personally. The facts about the motivation of the Confederacy are so muddled due to southern pride and political correctness I really don't expect a movie to portray them accurately.

Glory did at least make an effort not to sugar coat the reality of the time to a degree. You can't be politically correct about a time that just plain wasn't politically correct, and unfortunately in the times we live in this means that our history is being rewritten all around to either exaggerate the "bad" guys or glorify the "good" guys in whatever perspective the author seems to think those "guys" are. The simple fact is that 19th century America was a terribly racially divided place and it went much further than skin color and the South.

I guess I keep watching it trying to figure out how someone could bankroll so much effort in costuming and location shoots and battle scenes and all and wonder if they actually watched it before they released it. Does the director of this movie actually have conversations like this? I think the real problem with this movie is that it tries to hard to be politically correct, and that the Author, the Director, the Producer, the Editor, or someone feels that you can't portray the glorious careers of men who don't fit into the political correctness mold of the modern day. This is a serious disservice to historical fact.

So much preaching you can skip church for a year!
Save your $ and just watch the excellent "Gettysburg" again. This one is simply terrible, almost painful to watch. If this was an accurate portrayal of Gen. Jackson, then I'm amazed that his troops waited until after Chancellorsville to shoot him. Returning actors are ten years older than in "Gettysburg" while playing in action that happened months+ before. The only positive was Robert Duvall as an excellent Gen. Lee.

candy for the history buff
I like to study history, and the civil war is one of my favorite points in American History. Mainly because it was so controversial, the reasons, the bad guys, the death toll, etc..... It was one of the bloodiest battles in our history, not because both sides were american, but because of the percentage of dead per battle, sometimes reaching 30%.

I do believe that the South got a raw deal for a long time. They weren't blameless, but they also weren't the evil group of racists that were potrayed. Plus this delves into the fact that the war wasn't about slavery until the later stages, something the North didn't even want. But that is all up for debate in another forum.

This movie is well filmed, the characters feel more three dimensional and close to their real life counterparts, and the recreation of some of the battles are done in an almost loving fashion done by those who spend their pasttime recreating major events. It shows two major early battles where the confederacy won stunning victories causing heavy losses for the Union. The battle of Fredericksburg cost over 17,000 troops on the side of the Union.

The main complaint from people who like this movie was that it left a lot out, there were a lot of smaller battles that where, but it would have added another 2 hours easily to the already 4 hour movie. Maybe we can hope for a special edition some day.

This movie is very pro southern, so if your views tend to favor the union, this is probably not for you. If you don't love history or recreations of battles, especially ones using Napoleonic Tactics and weapons, it probably also is not for you. It is like marzipan, not a lot of people like it, but those that do, love it. ... Read more

Reviews (362)

One of the best thrillers!
Absolutely as scary a movie as Hollywood could ever produce. The acting, writing, cinematography, and dramatic lighting effects are awesome. The story, based on my favorite book by Thomas Harris of the same title, is incredibly chilling. FBI trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) is assigned to an interview with "Hannibal The Cannibal" Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), who is, without a doubt, the completely immoral personification of evil. Hopefully, Lecter will aid in the capture of another grizzly murderer who skins his victims. The plot twists and turns as will your stomach. However the explict and grizzly visuals are sumptous rather than repulsive. However, this film still can not be recommended to the squeamish. Anthony Hopkins makes the most of his part and leaves you with an impression that will haunt you forever. If you like the movie, read the book alone in the dark, which will also send chills up your spine. Nightmares Gaurenteed!

The movie also won five accolodes from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Including Anthony Hopkins only Oscar which he won for Best Actor, and Jodie Foster's for Best Actress. It even won Best Picture of the Year.

A classic, master-mind of a thriller
The Silence of the Lambs

Score: 96/100

When it won the 5 most important Oscar's (Picture, Actor, Actress, Director, Screenplay) in 1991, The Silence of the Lambs proved not only is it tear-jerking drama's that get so much attention, but the full-of-plot, intriguing thriller's are also an important part of film history.

Young FBI agent Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) is assigned to help find a missing woman to save her from a psychopathic serial killer who skins his victims. Clarice attempts to gain a better insight into the twisted mind of the killer by talking to another psychopath Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), who used to be a respected psychiatrist. FBI agent Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn) believes that Lecter who is also a very powerful and clever mind manipulator have the answers to their questions to help locate the killer. Clarice must first try and gain Lecter's confidence before he is to give away any information.

The Silence of the Lambs is a clever, chilling and brain-numbing movie which just keeps getting better and better. The performances are quite simply superb, the two leads, Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins both pull off uniquely amazing performances, and they have a great screen chemistry, while Scott Glenn and Ted Levine back them up nicely. Director Jonathan Demme pieces everything together awesomely with Ted Tally's extraordinary script, adapted from Thomas Harris' novel. On the subject of books and novels, this is one of the few films that has surpassed the high standards of its book, and The Silence of the Lambs deserved to be praised for that alone!

The Silence of the Lambs is a brilliant, immediate classic that everyone should've seen after 10 years of stunning the world.

Hannibal Lecter the best bad guy in a movie
The first one of the trilogy of Hannibal Lecter. Anthony Hopkins at his very best. A fantastic movie, don't miss any of the three.

The very best
Roger Ebert said, "I t has been a good long while since I have felt the presence of Evil so manifestly demonstrated as in the first appearance of Anthony Hopkins in "The Silence of the Lambs", and it is exactly that manifestation of evil caused The Silence of Lambs to leave such an indelible mark on moviegoers. Hopkins performance surely rates as one of the best performances, male or female, in Hollywood history.

Credit also goes, in enormous quantities, to Jonathan Demme and Jodie Foster. To Demme because he realized that the horror of this film was psychological, and to Foster because her perfectly played naiveté to Lecter's arrogant worldliness created the canvas on which the film resonates.

Too many thrillers and wanna-be thrillers fall into the least common denominator - trite scare tactics. Here, there was nothing trite. The images were clear, original, and gripping.

I've seen this film half a dozen times (there are very few films that I've watched more than twice), and every time my mind brings up the scene that Ebert is referring to - in Chilton's psychiatric ward - my mind's eye sees Lecter wearing orange. This is Demme's brilliance. He has done such a terrific job of creating Lecter as a devil, that when I think of him, I clothe him in colors of fire. In reality, he wears blue in that scene.

In a later scene, the scene that names the book and film, Lecter is imprisoned in a tall cage in the center of a wide open room, and Foster sneaks in to visit him, hoping to garner more clues to the murder she's investigating (it's easy to forget while watching this film that there is something going on other than the relationship between Lecter and Starling, like the other serial murderer in the film, the one that is actively killing people). This is where Demme (and Hopkins and Foster, for that matter) shines. Lecter, seated, asks Starling, "What does he do, this man you seek?" Starling answers, "He kills women." "No, that is incidental," Lecter replies. When Lecter speaks - and his diction is flawless, perfect, and amazing, capturing his contemptful personality - the camera is completely focused on his face, and the lighting and shadows that Demme employs evokes images of every devil or demon our imagination, or literature, has ever conjured.

This scene, and everything that follows (the second meal of raw meat, the killing of the guards), is a breathtaking piece of artistry.

This is, quite simply, the very best thriller Hollywood has ever produced.

Pretty good - I liked it
With excellent directing, writing, and acting...Jodie Foster plays a great role and should have won the academy award. ... Read more

Reviews (53)

History/360
We already had black face movies people. Are you from America or not? White people are the only race allowed to be made fun of in this way because of America's history. There have been countless movies made in this manner where there was an uproar from the minority community with no response from the movie studios. Now the old white men who are the head of these companies have decided that it is OK to make fun of themselves. ITS ABOUT TIME. You don't have to look too far to see the blackface movies being made recently (without the black paint on the faces). One of the most recent racist hits was Bringing Down the House when Steve Martin did his "hip hop" minstrel show. Give me a break with the racist crap OK.

White Chicks is an all-time favorite.
This movie is spectacular!!! The Wayans brothers are fantastic and the entire cast keep you laughing through the entire movie. This movie also has a great ending and message for all.

black men II white chicks
White Chicks is a rehash of every single 'man dressed up as a woman' movie. This plot has been done to death in countless movies like Tootsie, Mrs. Doubtfire, Big Momma's House, among dozens and dozens of others, but White Chicks doesn't bother to hide its unoriginality; it has fun with it. Add a hint of Miss Congeniality and you have the formula for this standard, but enjoyable comedy.

The problem with this one is that the Wayans Bros. are totally unconvincing in their woman make-up and do not look ANYTHING like the women they are pretending to be. In fact, they look damned scary. This can get a bit distracting. If that is something you could get past, White Chicks turns out to be a forgettable but entertaining time-waster. There are a few scattered laughs and the story certainly stays interesting. Add the beautiful and extremely talented Brittany Daniel, of SWEET VALLEY HIGH fame, to the mix, and you have a fun, if unenlightening motion picture experience. Yes, it's stupid, but it sure is fun to watch.

Extremely hilarious
I have watched this movie 4 times in Theatre, and would not mind seeing it the fifth time. This movie is lovably funny and nice. You can laugh till your hilt for the 1 hr 45 min. I do not care about what critics say, but this movie is a must see for people who love sense of humor and fun!!

Hmmmm
Yes some people think this movie sucked. Some people think it was great. I personally think that it was good. It wasn't the best movie ever, but it was good. It had all the things a good movie needs...comedy...love...stupid blonde's...etc. This was a great movie, my friend and I both agree. I went into it thinking it would be stupid, but when I came out I was laughing my head off. I don't what there is not to like about it. I mean they fought, there were jokes, dancing, laughing, and lots more. If you ever get the chance, you should go see this movie. I mean you should at least rent it. I loved it and am thinking about buying it on DVD. :-) Thank you for your time and I hope you enjoy this movie as much as I did. ... Read more

Amazon.com

For the Hollywood remake rule, which dictates that an update of an older film be inferior to the original in almost every aspect, The Thomas Crown Affair stands as a glorious exception. The original 1968 film, starring a dapper Steve McQueen and a radiant Faye Dunaway, was a diverting pop confection of mod clothes and nifty break-ins, but not much more. John McTiernan's new version, though, cranks up the entertainment factor to mach speed, turning what was a languid flick into a high-adrenaline caper romance. Thomas Crown (Pierce Brosnan) is now a man of industry who likes to indulge in a little high-priced art theft on the side; Catherine Banning (Rene Russo) is the insurance investigator determined to get on his tail in more ways than one. If you're thinking cat-and-mouse game, think again--it's more like cat vs. smarter cat, as both the thief and the investigator try to outwit each other and nothing is off-limits, especially after they start a highly charged love affair that's a heated mix of business and pleasure.

What makes this Thomas Crown more enjoyable than its predecesor is McTiernan's attention to detail in both the set action pieces (no surprise from the man who helmed Die Hard with precision accuracy) and the developing romance, the witty and intelligent script by Leslie Dixon (she wrote the love scenes) and Kurt Wimmer (he wrote the action scenes), and, most of all, its two stunning leads (both over 40 to boot), combustible both in and out of bed. Brosnan, usually held prisoner in the James Bond straitjacket, lets loose with both a relaxed sensuality and a comic spirit he's rarely expressed before. The film, however, pretty much belongs to Russo, who doesn't just steal the spotlight, but bends it to her will. Beautiful, stylish, smart, self-possessed, incredibly sexy, she's practically a walking icon; it's no wonder Crown falls for her hook, line, and sinker. With Denis Leary as a police detective smitten with Russo, and Faye Dunaway in a throwaway but wholly enjoyable cameo as Brosnan's therapist. --Mark Englehart ... Read more

Reviews (279)

"'Think you can get me ?"
High quality DVD !

As I watched again and again the (new) Thomas Crown Affair, I realize I came to enjoy it more and more. Dense entertainment: action, tumultuous and steamy romance, inspired direction from McTiernan ("Die Hard", "The Hunt for Red October"), and appropriate musical score. Good performances from Brosnan, Russo and Leary. A tour-de-force for Rene Russo ("tougher" in her portrayal of the insurance agent than Faye Dunaway in the original affair), considering the fact that in real life she is very much unlike the character she plays in this movie (see Russo's press and TV interviews). Kudos for Pierce Brosnan - much better and diversified delivery here than in all his three James Bond impersonations. (The wonder of the last 007, "The World Is Not Enough", is Sophie Marceau - not just good looking, but a good actress !)

No, I am not saying we should ever go out steal Manet, Monet, Degas, ... as a passe-temps, but, we do like this film because no matter who we are, deep-down in our subconscious mind lies the desire to be successful, which, somehow means being wealthy enough to allow us to indulge, satisfy all our needs, whims, and caprices, to be "rewarded" with an absorbing and adventurous life.

Pierce Brosnan and Renee Russo's affair is, perhaps, more alert, technical, and graphic (adapted for the 90's) than the original one involving Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway. I have distinct praise for the 99 rendition of this fantasy, but I believe Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway are better actors (watch their other films), and their 68 performance is just better. Do not trust me ! Watch both films on DVD or VHS, and decide. Steve McQueen has presence, is sure of himself (that is what makes a man sexy !), and Faye Dunaway does not have to wear a see-through dress to make us feel she is sophisticated, beautiful, and desirable. The dialogues there are shorter, sparse, and to the point. Exquisite direction (and good use of the split-screen tech) from Norman Jewison teaming with Michel Legrand who raved us with the Oscar winner "Windmills of My Mind". The 68 "chess seduction scene" (subtle touching, teasing, warm eyes) has no equal in the 99 film, and the "chemistry" between the characters played by McQueen and Dunaway is more intense.

There is more entertainment packed in the 99 film, while there is more film in the 68 entertainment ! Enjoy both affairs !

The Caper Sizzles While the Romance Fizzles
This breezy remake of the 1968 original "Thomas Crown Affair" is a slick, enjoyable, and occassionally clever caper film. But the film suffers from several shortcomings that detract from it's initial promise. But it's mostly the film's wrong-headed romance that stops the action dead in its tracks.

I've never seen the first "Thomas Crown Affair" so I have nothing on which to judge this film but on it's own merits. Where once stood Faye Dunaway and Steve Mcqueen, we now have Rene Russo as the sultry insurance investigator Catherine Banning and Pierce Brosnan as high-living billionaire Thomas Crown. Both actors are good in their respective roles, especially Russo who basically steals the show from Brosnan and everyone else around her coming off as both smashingly smart and sexy. Unfortunately Brosnan and Russo share no chemistry and generate no heat. This subsequently renders their romance sequences together, from passionate love-making in Crown's apartment to basking in the sun light of a sandy island beach, all the more uninteresting.

But the problems don't stop there. Russo and Brosnan's characters also never seem really interested in each other in an emotional sense. Throughout the entire film I never felt Catherine Banning's interest in Crown stretched beyond revealing him as a crook. Her only purpose for sleeping with him or accompanying him to his island getaway always seemed to be just killing time.

But that's not to say the movie is without it's bright spots of which it has plenty. The actual caper is a cleverly devised one, and whenever time isn't being wasted on romance the movie is often highly entertianing and genuinely interesting. Still, so much time is wasted with Crown and Catherine jetting around for recreation that the final twist isn't nearly as astonishing as it should have been, simply because we've lost track.

All in all, "Thomas Crown Affair" is a glossily-textured, gorgeous-looking package. It's not a bad film by any means, and has alot of terrificly played sequences. There's a general lack of suspense and drama but it's still entertaining enough.

I'm a sucker for romance and intrigue (shhh)
I am such an avid movie watcher that I rarely feel inclined to watch a movie more than once. Well, let me admit to not only having bought the DVD, but to having watched it numerous times!

I love the sound track of the movie and will be doing my own remake--going Duo Discus glider riding with my significant other ;).

The love scene is wonderful, the chemistry between the actors works like a MIT Lab experiment and the whole movie is simply spot on.

I recommend it highly!

Russo At Her Best!
I won't go into the plot of this movie, most buyers will already know it anyway. The DVD transfer is superb. This is the only movie I've ever seen where I liked Pierce Brosnan and thought he was cast properly. What makes this movie for me, though, is the performance of Ms. Russo. She is the perfect combination of sex and brains. Her wardrobe is amazing and she knows how to wear it! There are some slow parts to this movie, particularly the tropical part, but overall it's a keeper.

The Two Crowns
I have been a huge fan of the original Thomas Crown Affair since I first saw it while in the military in 1969..... and bought this "re-make" because I heard so many good things about it. I must say that honestly there are good points in BOTH films. I never quite bought the fact that the original Crown had McQueen's character robbing a bank.... so stealing the "Monet" made much more sense to me. I also thought the story was improved upon in the new version and I was more satisfied by the challenge Bronsnan's character found in Russo's bluntness. On the other hand, the sumptuous music score by Michel LeGrand in the early film was superior to the weak, lackluster and frangmented score that Bill Conti created for the new one. I also think I preferred the sensuous and sexy elegance of the fire between McQueen and Dunaway to the overtly sweaty lust that Brosnan and Russo desparately share. HOWEVER.... I must say I did enjoy BOTH films and find each beautiful and entertaining in their own ways.

(...) The ART of the earlier version is a unique and compelling one and makes that film so fascinating to watch in widescreen! ... Read more

Reviews (601)

Seriously underrated horror film.
Watch this movie back-to-back with Brett Ratner's "Red Dragon" and you'll understand what separates a great director from a pedestrian one. Ridley Scott has crafted a classic horror film. A film that, despite justifiable complaints about the "easy way out" ending, leaves a surprising amount of the novel's surreal mayhem intact.

Dark cinema fans should embrace this one. It's not often you get a true horror film with a dazzling cast (Hopkins, Giancarlo Giannini are incredible, and Julianne Moore doesn't make us forget about Jodie, but makes the best out of a tough situation).

Oldman's portrayal of Mason Verger makes the film, however. Pathetically evil, obsessed with revenge -- it's impossible to take your eyes off him. The opening sequence of the movie (where Verger purchases Hannibal memorabilia) is a delightful intro. Verger's self-mutilation flashback is jarring and surreal.

The Grand Guignol gore style of the movie has been seen by some as laughable. I thought it was quite disturbing, the absurdity adding another dimension of terror to the film. Like all great horror films, as a viewer, you're not sure just how far into nightmare territory this one will go (particularly if you haven't read the book).

If only DeLaurentis had chosen a worthy successor to direct Red Dragon, the Lecter trilogy would've easily been the best horror cinema series ever.

While "Silence" is clearly the biggest crowd pleaser of the bunch, and a very sophisticated thriller, my heart is with Hannibal. It's absolutely beautiful to look at, holds up amazingly well under repeated viewings, and never shies away (until the very end) from the novel's most appalling elements.

Good horror flick. Bad Hannibal Lecter movie.
Hannibal is one of those sequels that continues from the original, but completely changes the story line. The Silence Of The Lambs was a drama about entering the mind of a serial killer with the help of a past one. Hannibal is just about tracking down a serial killer. This was definatly made to be a horror movie, not a suspense drama.

Hannibal picks up awhile after The Silence Of The Lambs. In the first film, Hannibal breaks out of prison torwards the end of the film not to kill again, but to retire and live a normal life. But now Dr. Hannibal Lecter(returning Anthony Hopkins), is about to come out of retirement to hunt again. But only Clarice Starling(Juliane Moore replacing Jodie Foster) knows enough about him to track him down and catch him.

The plot is simple, nothing near the plot of Silence Of The Lambs, the acting is not bad but definatly not at its best(Anthony Hopkins still plays his role rather well, but could have done better). The only thing I could say was rather good was the directing from Ridley Scott(Alien, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down). But other than that, fans of horror movies will probably enjoy this much much more than fans of The Silence Of The Lambs, like myself.

"Hannibal" runs for a little over 2 hours. It is rated R for very strong gore and gruesome violence(some may not even be able to handle the some of the extreme gore), some strong language, and disturbing images.

Disappointing, floundering follow up
When Thomas Harris wrote Hannibal, it was a safe bet that a film wouldn't be far along. Silence of the Lambs director Jonathan Demme and star Jodie Foster declined to take part in Hannibal claiming they found the story distasteful; so director Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, Alien) and actress Julianne Moore (replacing Foster as FBI Agent Clarice Starling) were brought into this disappointing follow up. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins reprising his Oscar winning role), now living the life of luxury in Italy, finds himself on the run from Mason Verger (an unrecognizeable and uncredited Gary Oldman), a former patient who at Hannibal's advice peeled off part of his face. Meanwhile, Clarice finds her career on the downward spiral as she as used as bait by Verger to lure Lecter out of hiding. The suspense can't hold up to that of Silence of the Lambs (movie or book that is) and Scott's direction, even though he gives it his own slick look, is disappointing. Moore, as good an actress as she is, can't hold a candle to Jodie Foster as we find the once strong willed but vulnerable Clarice be more of a victim here than anything else. Finally, Hopkins just isn't scary anymore as Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter. That alone is probably the worst part of the film, and while Hannibal isn't necessarily bad, it's one of the most disappointing films to be released over the past few years. The cast also includes Francesca Neri, Frankie Faison, and Ray Liotta in the film's most infamous scene.

Great, not completely accurate, but very good.
The film is based on Thomas Harris' third installment in the "Hannibal Lecter Series" (Although, Hannibal Lecter is only a major character in one book.) The movie's ending was completely different than that of the book. WARNING: IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK, AND WANT TO, DO NOT READ THE NEXT SENTENCE! In the book, Lecter basically brainwashes Starling and takes her as his wife and moves to South America. WARNING OVER

Hopkins' acting was not as good as it was in "Silence of the Lambs," but it's very good. Julianne Moore's performance was not as good as Jodie Foster's.

The movie excluded the character Margot, Mason Verger's lesbian sister. I think she greatly enhanced the story's progress. In the movie, anything Margot did that was pivotal to the story (basically, just pushing Verger into the pigpen) Verger's personal doctor did.

Basically, if you're just looking for an amazing movie, DON'T pick this up, if you're looking for a gory movie, pick it up. If you're looking for a good sequel to an amazing movie (Silence of the Lambs.)

Mediocre yet oddly satisfying
Let's face it: "Hannibal" is nowhere near as good as "Silence of the Lambs" (I'm talking movies, not books). To quote Charter, "Far-fetched and gory." Plus it fails to capture Lecter's true intentions toward Starling (as brotherly or fatherly, not romantic). Yet, somehow, the film is oddly satisfying, and I find myself draw to it whenever it's on. The mix of operatic score during chaotic scenes is strangely effective (similar to the ethereal tracks during intense scenes in the LOTR series of films). So, no, it's not a great movie, and Lecter's behavior is sometimes "out of character," but the movie is satisfying nonetheless. ... Read more

Description

The hottest day of the year explodes onscreen in this vibrant look at a day in the life of Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. Featuring a stellar ensemble cast that includes Danny Aiello, Ossie Davis, Ruby Dee, Richard Edson, Giancarlo Esposito, Robin Harris, Samuel L. Jackson, Bill Nunn, Rosie Perez, and John Turturro, Spike Lee's powerful portrait of urban racial tensions sparked controversy while earning popular and critical praise. Criterion is proud to present Do the Right Thing in a new Director Approved special edition. ... Read more

Reviews (94)

A brilliant, scorching movie
Spike Lee takes us to a single block in Brooklyn on the hottest day of the year in his awesomely brilliant movie "Do The Right Thing". The movie opens on a sultry early morning; by the time it ends, on a sweltering midnight of the same day, the heat, and the movie, have built up unbearable tensions that explode in in a confrontation that engulfs the street and everyone in it. At the heart of the block and the movie is Sal's Famous Pizzeria, run by Sal and his two sons from Bensonhurst (also in Brooklyn but it might as well be on the other side of the planet), with its "Wall of Fame" covered with photographs of famous Italian-Americans, glaringly out of place and insultingly insensitive on this African-American street in Bedford-Stuyvesant. The movie presents us with an unforgettable set of characters, including Danny Aiello in a great performance as Sal, Spike Lee as Mookie, his delivery man, Rosie Perez as Mookie's long-suffering and neglected girlfriend, Giancarlo Esposito as Mookie's radical friend Buggin' Out, Bill Nunn as Radio Raheem with his suitcase-size boom box that eats up 20 D batteries at a clip, the nearly legendary husband-wife acting team of Ossie Davis and Ruby Lee as Da Mayor, the street bum, and Mother Sister, the neighborhood snoop (every neighborhood has to have one), Samuel L. Jackson as Senor Love Daddy, and Joie Lee, Spike Lee's real-life sister, who plays Mookie's sister Jade in the film. Among a host of minor characters, the best are the three men parked on the sidewalk, ML, played by Paul Benjamin, Coconut Sid, played by Frankie Faison, and Sweet Dick Willie, played by the late Robin Harris, who act as a kind of Greek chorus to the unfolding events. Much of the speaking parts of these three was ad-libbed on camera, and the actors seem to have had a ball with their characterizations (Buggin' Out: "You wanna boycott Sal's Famous Pizzeria?" Sweet Dick Willie, observing Buggin' Out's every-which-way haircut: "You oughta boycott that barber who f---ed up your head.") Always present, and intrusive, are a squad car with two white cops, who view the neighborhood inhabitants, and are viewed by them, with undisguised contempt. The street, and the environs, are so convincingly portrayed that the heat is palpable; we can almost feel their discomfort as we sympathize at their attempts to alleviate it. One of the most priceless scenes in the film is the loudmouthed "alien" who drives through the block in an open Cadillac convertible and dares the kids to get it wet (when he finally manages to pull over and open the door, Niagara Falls spills out). A demand by Buggin' Out that Sal put some photographs of blacks on the Wall of Fame, which Sal dismisses out of hand, sets the stage for the confrontation that will blow sky-high. Buggin' Out returns to the pizzeria just before closing time with Radio Raheem, boom box blasting away at full volume, and Sal, his last nerve shot, silences the noise with a baseball bat. The resulting free-for-all spills out into the street just as the police arrive; Radio Raheem is pulled off Sal, who he is choking silly, and killed by the police with an illegal choke-hold. The police speed off (one could say they fled the scene of their crime), leaving Sal and his sons alone to face the neighborhood's rage. The pizzeria is torched, the neighborhood riots, and the firetruck arrives with firehoses turned on the rioters instead of the pizzeria, in a scene reminiscent of Sheriff Bull Connor in 1960's Alabama. "Do The Right Thing" is one of the most searing commentaries on American race relations that has ever been put on film. It's provocative, it's insightful, it's profound, it's a masterpiece, and it's definitely Spike Lee's best movie.

Do the Right Thing Review
It's the hottest day of the summer and racial tensions run deep in the Bed-Stuy section of Brooklyn, New York. This is the backdrop for Spike Lee's controversial 1989 film, "Do The Right Thing". Many critics and movie-goers were quick to blast this film for being what they perceived to be a "racist" movie. Most people who say this have probably only seen the movie once and were so quick to complain about its tension-filled ending.

"Right Thing" stars writer-director Lee as Mookie, a somewhat lazy pizza delivery boy who works at the local pizzeria run by Sal and his Italian-American sons. Through Mookie's many trips through the neighborhood, we get acquainted with some of the other "characters" such as the block's "wise man" (or "town drunk", depending on how you perceive him), "Da Mayor" (Ossie Davis). We also get introduced to the trouble-making Buggin' It Out who is intent on boycotting Sal's Famous until they "put some brothas on the wall". Then, there's Radio Raheem, whose boombox blasts Public Enemy's "Fight The Power" loudly through out the movie. He doesn't speak much as the music seems to be his outlet of expression. It also happens to get him in a lot of trouble as the movie progresses.

Lee's treatmant of certain characters in "Right Thing" is questionable at times. He seems to feel strongly that many of the white characters in this New York neighborhood would root for Boston sports teams because their top players are also white. At times, Danny Aiello's Sal seems sympathetic and kind while in the end, he is more or less portrayed as a "closet racist". This might be why some of us are so fast to make observations about the film's racial biases but I've never felt that "Do The Right Thing" has ever been about who is right and who is wrong. In the end, everyone loses out because rather than go about handling certain small problems by compromising, people choose to argue over who is "doing the right thing" and who isn't. In the end, people are hurt and killed, property is destroyed, and all that seems to remain is animosity.

While I may argue with the way that Spike wrote certain characters, this is "his" movie. Would the ending situation have been any different if he had re-wrote them? Probably not. So many of its critics fail to see the big picture with "Do The Right Thing". It isn't about whether Sal was right or whether Mookie was right or Buggin' It Out. The original problem was so small, so minor, and each of the characters allowed it to balloon into a big one. Even the less important characters contributed to the problem by instigating it further. The only character who seemed to understand what was going on was Samuel L. Jackson's almost narrator-like radio DJ, Senor Love Daddy. He understands it, he sees the tension esculating, and he is telling everyone to relax but it's too late. "And that's the triple truth, Ruth".

"The left hand is hate. The right hand is love."
This movie is largely an angry, outrageous film. But it is also a beautiful and enlightening one. DO THE RIGHT THING garnered Spike Lee, writer, director, and star of the film, both praise and criticism. But what you must remember, those who either praise it or look down upon it, is that DO THE RIGHT THING couldn't be further from the truth.

DO THE RIGHT THING was an introduction to Lee's brazen and bold style of filmmaking. He had a part in every aspect: direction, cast, production, writing the screenplay, etc. That's why, if someone is interested in seeing a "Spike Lee joint", I will definitely recommend DO THE RIGHT THING first and foremost.

It's a look at race relations in America circa 1989, a drastic glimpse in which the outsiders, meaning the audience, can feel as if they are right there in Harlem with Mookie (Spike Lee).

Mookie is an unmarried father, a boyfriend to Tina (Rosie Perez), loud and outspoken with her buxom figure. She pushes Mookie to spend more time with her and their son, complaining about him being a deadbeat dad. His excuse? Work.

True, much of Mookie's time is spent working at Sal's, a pizzeria in Harlem, run by white Italians in a neighborhood where the population appears to be around 99.5 percent black.

Other characters include Radio Raheem (Bill Nunn), Da Mayor (Ossie Davis), Mother Sister (Ruby Dee), Buggin' Out (Giancarlo Esposito) and Jade, Mookie's sister (Joie Lee). Radio Raheem's dialogue throughout the film it limited - he more or less expresses his freedom through his incessantly blaring radio. In fact, throughout the entire movie, Public Enemy's "FIGHT THE POWER" blasts throughout the neighborhood. Buggin' Out is irked with a situation at Sal's that he feels must immediately be taken care of. He just wants Sal to "put some brothas" up on his restaurant's walls, right beside pics of Frank Sinatra and Clark Gable. Sal (Danny Aiello) refuses to comply with Buggin' Out's request.

In the end, Radio Raheem and Buggin' Out fuel an argument that quickly evolves into a neighborhoodwide conflagration. Alas, Mookie fuels the fire by hurling a trashcan through the glass window of the pizzeria - his boss' pizzeria - and the brawl proceeds, with Sal and his sons standing on the sidelines.

DO THE RIGHT THING is an odd title for a film like this, some people may think. Is the right thing done? Does Lee believe that the characters in his film did the right thing? I'm not sure. The title can be interpreted in a number of ways, I suppose. First, I suspected it was irony. No, Mookie didn't do the right thing! He fueled the fire and instigated the riot to mammoth proportions! Property was destroyed and damaged! My second conclusion was merely that "doing the right thing" serves as an argument for the people, for people unwilling to make compromises or verbally come to an agreement through reasonable, mature conversation. In reality, the film isn't about who is right and who is wrong and why. You had people like Mookie, who seemed to act on impulse, and then you had Da Mayor, trying to calm the livid people down, trying to talk sense into their heads. People evidently followed Mookie's lead and in the process, they hurt and killed others, seriously damaged and neighborhood properties. Not only that, but mere misunderstanding and hate seems to exist between them, even after the riot ends. That's a sad thing, yet it's also a very true thing.

Lee's picture clarifies the fact that yes, misunderstanding between peoples does fuel hate, which, in turn, fuels even bigger and uglier physical problems. DO THE RIGHT THING was taboo for how it portrayed peoples of different races, yet for film's time, the state of Harlem and its residents was portrayed with frank and genuine realness that simply can't be denied. Certain characters, settings, and events rung clear and true. DO THE RIGHT THING is arguably one of the finest examples of race relations illustrated in film. You can watch and rewatch - and learn - from this tumultuous and dramatic "Spike Lee joint".

An EYE OPENER
The eye opener of the year...I loved it. Excellent story line and a must see movie by mature audiences only. Very compelling!

That¿s the double-truth¿ Ruth
In all likelihood Spike Lee's most important achievement - as director, writer and actor (though to my taste Mo' Better Blues is just as good a picture) and one of the strongest films you'll see about race relations, 'Do The Right Thing' looks dated at times, but it lost none of its impact and relevance. The movie takes place in a particularly hot day in a primarily African-American neighborhood in Brooklyn, and follows the various personalities who live there throughout the day; the center of the story is Sal's Famous Pizzeria - its owners, some of the few white people living in the neighborhood: Sal (Oscar nominated performance for Danny Aiello) and his two sons (John Torturro and Richard Edson), and Mookie (Spike Lee himself), the black delivery boy. What starts out as a light, entertaining movie with some amusing characters and light humor, gradually builds up tension to the point of being unbearable, up to the dramatic and tragic climax. Spike doesn't put as much emphasis on the characters themselves as he does on the relationships and the tension between them; and in this image of a very specific and small frame in time and place, makes a strong and important message about racism and race relations in general.

The film is populated with many different characters, all of them very memorable and each one a representative of a certain belief, mode of behavior or state of mind - on both sides of the conflict. From the uninhibited anger of Buggin Out (Giancarlo Esposito) and Radio Raheem (Bill Nunn) on one side and Pino (John Torturro) on the other side, to Jade (Joie Lee, Spike's sister in the film and in real life) and Vito (Richard Edson), who are trying to connect and live at peace with the other side, to Da Mayor (Ossie Davis), in his isolated but peaceful state of mind, living in complete peace with the world around him, and Smiley (Roger Smith), living in his own isolated existence. Then there's Mookie, who is stuck in the middle, torn between his commitment and responsibilities to both sides. Finally we have Mister Senor Love Daddy - played gorgeously by the one and only Samuel L. Jackson, in one of his finest performances - half active character and half all-knowing narrator - who represents the voice of reason in the conflict, the reason which is bound, ultimately, to collapse. Each and every character plays an important part in the climatic and dramatic conflict to which the movie builds up, and though it's the radical ones - Buggin Out and Radio Raheem - who trigger the events that cause the tragedy, they are not necessarily the ones who finish it. It is Mookie and Sal, in fact, who ultimately play the main part.

Do The Right Thing is not an easy watch; it's a mesmerizing, tense, difficult film that breaks many taboos and slaughters many holy cows. But in the end of it - hopefully - you'll be wiser than you were in the beginning, and that's what Lee have always tried to achieve in all his films. Watch it to get a real view on racism that doesn't duck the difficult issues and isn't afraid to tackle the real problem, and to see a master director at work. It's one of the best films of its time. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe star in this well-intentioned and largely successful civil rights-era thriller. Mississippi Burning, using the real-life 1964 disappearance of three civil rights workers as its inspiration, tells the story of two FBI men (Hackman and Dafoe, entertainingly called "Hoover Boys" by the locals) who come in to try to solve the crime. Hackman is a former small-town Mississippi sheriff himself, while Dafoe is a by-the-numbers young hotshot. Yes, there is some tension between the two. The movie has an interesting fatalism, as all the FBI's best efforts incite more and more violence, which becomes disturbing--the film's message, perhaps inadvertently, seems to be that vigilantism is the only real way to get things done. The brilliant Frances McDormand, here early in her career, is not given enough to do but still does it well enough to have racked up an Oscar® nomination for Best Supporting Actress. (Hackman also received a nomination for Best Actor, and the film won an Academy Award for Cinematography). The story line of Mississippi Burning is ultimately unsatisfying--it is, after all, the story of white men coming in to rescue poor blacks--but it is beautifully shot and very watchable and features a terrific cast playing at the top of their games. --Ali Davis ... Read more

Reviews (36)

SCINTILLATING HISTORY LESSON (AND A GREAT SUSPENSE THRILLER)
A gut-wrenching thriller from start to finish, the movie's breakneck pace is akin to any topnotch suspense movie of our time, while managing an excellent depiction of the 1960's civil rights struggle in the US as well.

Despite its theme's sombre contours the film never gets all preachy about the subject. Gene Hackman is picture perfect although his vigilante FBI loose-cannon role occasionally gets a bit far-fetched. A salon scene between him and one of the rogue cops who moonlight as members of Ku-Klux-Klan will remain in your memory for a long time.

The racism theme may appear a bit dated to viewers of this generation, but it is integral to the theme (as it was to the actual civil war.) Plus, let's not forget that the movie was made in 1988, and watching it now I still couldn't help getting touched by the identifiable theme. Frankly, I don't really understand what racially oriented quibbles reviewers have with the movie -- this is not some drummed up theme, this is ACTUALLY what happened in Mississippi.

A taut, absorbing, and worthwhile film that you must watch if you haven't already.

Powerful Drama
Mississippi Burning is griping and powerful civil rights era drama that is based on real life events. Three civil rights workers (two white, one black) are missing and feared dead. They were last sceen in a small Mississippi town. The FBI sends down a team of agents led by Willem Dafoe and Gene Hackman. Mr. Dafoe is a young, idealistic agent while Mr. Hackman is one time small town Mississippi sheriff with alot views on how the case should be handled. The two bang heads, before they eventually come to a common ground. The town is segregated and the Ku Klux Klan runs rampant. The film's graphic depiction of racism and hatred is disturbing. It is difficult to image that something this grotesque and reviling could happen in this country, but it unfortunately did. Francis McDormand is the wife of Brad Dourif who is town's deputy sheriff. Despite the fact her husband is knee deep in the missing kids situation and is a hateful and violent man, she rises above it and shows compassion to her fellow man. There is alot of sexual tension between her and Mr. Hackman and it adds a calming touch to the turbulent surroundings. Mississippi Burning is a film that is movie making at it's best. It comments on society, makes you think, educates you and in the end entertains.

The Racial Divide
The filmography of director Alan Parker is an eclectic one. His work covers a large spectrum of genres and themes. This diversity allows Parker to keep his career fresh and invigorated Of course, lots of directors do the same thing, but, Parker is truly diverse. One minute he can do the controversial and very complex Angel Heart, then switch gears to do a lighthearted film, like The Commitments. In 1988's Mississippi Burning, Parker was lucky enough to get a superb cast, willing to tackle some tough material.

When three civil rights activists 2 whites and one black, are murdered in the middle of the night, the small Mississippi town becames a cauldron of racial tension. Two FBI agents are soon dispatched to investigate. Soon the veteran Anderson (Gene Hackman) and his green around the gills by the book partner Ward (Willem Dafoe), find themselves at odds with many of the town's citizens and each other. As the case boils over, the two agents must overcome their differences to solve the case before the town is torn apart.

Parker sucessfully recreates the look and feel, of a small town in 1964, gripped in the throws of a turbulent time in U.S. history. You get a real sense of what it must have been like at that time. Once again Hackman proves why he is a master at his craft. As Anderson, he gives one of his most complex performances, offerng a multifaceted character study. Like in so maany of Hackman's films, he can turn on a dime, portraying a guy that's charming but with a darker side...Da Foe is nicely matched against Hackman in the film. He gives one of his best performances as well. The supporting players, R. Lee Ermy, Brad Dourif, and Frances McDormaand, really shine too. I don't think there's a rotten apple in the entire film

The latest DVD improves only slightly, over the movie only disc, as far as the extras are concerned. While I really enjoyed Parker's audio commentary, aside from the theatrical trailer, I found myself really curious to hear from others who worked on the film. Those ommisions really gnawed at me. Still, Mississippi Burning shows us just how far we have come when dealing with racism...and reminds how far both sides still need to go before it is defeated.

It's worth it to see Hackman do his thing on that alone. All the other good stuff about the movie appears as icing on the cake.

A powerful indictment of Democratic Party's past sins
This film reminds us of the horrors that the Southern Democrats inflicted upon African Americans. As Wayne Perryman reminds us in his book, "Unfounded Loyalties",

"One party and their abolitionist supporters believed the Bible instructed them to lay down their lives for the slaves, the other party and their supporters believed the Bible gave them the right to take the lives of blacks if they rebelled against being slaves.

"On the issue of slavery, one party and its supporters gave their lives to expand it (to Northern states) and the other party and their supporters gave their lives to ban it.

"One party was heavily influenced by the Abolitionists and the radical wing of their party ... and the other party was influenced by the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist groups.

"One party and its supporters started the Freedman's Bureau and other programs to help build communities for blacks, the other party and their supporters engaged in practices to hinder those efforts and to destroy those communities (Wilmington, North Carolina).

"One party and its supporters established quality schools and colleges for blacks, the other party and their supporters engaged in practices that attempted to close some of those schools or diminish their quality.

"One party passed laws and Constitutional Amendments (13th , 14th , 15th) to include blacks as part of mainstream society, the other party passed laws to exclude them from the mainstream (Jim Crow Laws and Black Codes). ..."

Sadly, many do not know that that "one party" was the Republican Party, while the "other party" was the Democratic Party. I myself didn't know at the time I watched this stirring film. I suppose burning crosses make us assume the bad guys are aligned with the religious right. Unfortunately, the "other party" used a nonsensical interpretation of the "curse of Ham" to justify slavery; fortunately, "one party" saw through it.

This film is also a great example of how history is being rewritten or dumbed down. While many films have shown lynchings and other abuse of African Americans, they usually leave you with the impression that the bigots were "Bible bashers" ... as you can see, this is only half the truth. Very rarely are we reminded that it was Republicans who laid their lives on the line to defend blacks, based on their Christian faith.

Willem Dafoe is, as always, fascinating to watch. His gesture of futility during Hackman's interrogation of a suspect is priceless. Perhaps the shameful past that the Democrats are trying to forget - indeed, most youngsters today do not need to forget, they haven't even been taught - will spur them onto greater deeds that may even outshine the "one party".

Insidious, particuarly if this is the only source
"[A]n excellent depiction of the 1960's civil rights struggle in the US," a reviewer called this. Read Coming of Age in Mississippi by Anne Moody, see Eyes on the Prize, get it from the library. While it may be "based on a true story", the story is very unrepresentative and the story here historically was insignificant compared to what blacks themselves--and _other_ whites--did as far as voter registration, the "Freedom Summer," etc. As critic Pauline Kael argued, "...the movie hinges on the ploy that the FBI men can't stop the Ku Klux Klan from its terrorism against blacks until they swing over to vigilante tactics.

Amazon.com writes:

As critic Pauline Kael argued, "...the movie hinges on the ploy that the FBI men can't stop the Ku Klux Klan from its terrorism against blacks until they swing over to vigilante tactics. And we're put in the position of applauding the FBI's dirtiest forms of intimidation. This cheap gimmick undercuts the whole civil rights subject; it validates the terrorist methods of the Klan."

This becomes irrelevant to more informed readers when they realize that FBI men usually were one of the major obstacles of the civil rights movement.

Once again, Anne Moody's book is the place to start on Mississippi specifically. It's a story at least as gripping. It makes more sense in the context of the rest of the movement and the 60s, so these are other places to look:

Eyes on the Prize (Eyes on the Prize II gives how and why the civil rights movement ended/disintegrated) videos, companion book, and document reader.

Parting the Waters by Taylor Branch--Martin Luther King, but we really don't know much about him and this also deals with the movement in general. Sweeping, along with Eyes on the Prize, frames much of the movement.

The Children by David Halberstam--Black students taking on Nashville.

Making Sense of the Sixties--A PBS video series on the sixties. Try to find it at your library.

These all are only a few of the books/videos that I think everybody should read and watch to be familiar with this very relevant, passionate, and tragically forgotten part of history. A true understanding of the civil rights movement destroys the audience for this kind of film--though the bias may be unintentional, it reflects ignorance--and gets us focused on major questions of life in America today.

Some of you may be surprised to find that these books are at least as gripping as this movie. But if you'd rather watch something, Eyes on the Prize is the ideal place to start. The violence there is real, there are civil rights workers who happen to be victims of violence (that is, drawn out as real people through interviews), and the violence on the blacks is not absurd (again, realistic as it may be, the framing makes it absurd), reminiscent of Birth of a Nation. ...