Description

Shakespeare is rightly considered the world's greatest playwright for the soaring beauty of his language, for his profound insight into human nature, for the truths he dramatized and for the realism of the characters he created.He was, and remains, a superb entertainer.

These BBC and Time-Life film productions feature some of Britain's most distinguished theatrical talent (Anthony Hopkins, Sir John Gielgud, Patrick Stewart, Derek Jacobi, Claire Bloom and more), these DVD's now are the number-one choice for continuing personal enjoyment.

This special Drama DVD Giftbox Set contains 5 of Shakespeare's most popular tragedies: *Romeo and Juliet

*Hamlet

*Macbeth

*Julius Caesar

*Othello.

The Plays contain sub-titles in English that can be turned on or off.

TV Guide Raves: "Shakespeare Would Be Amused.by the care, money, time and talent that are being lavished on the mammoth task of producing all 37 of his plays." ... Read more

Reviews (2)

At Last! The First Part Of The Ambrose Series!
This is the Ambrose video series that many libraries have purchased...The 37 play VHS series is still >$2,500 with individual plays around $100. The series was remarkable in that it actually included all 37 plays in full with a solid set of players (some famous) who worked hard at maintaining as much historical accuracy as possible, but especially with the verbiage.

This set has selected some of the best ones, so it is well worth the expense. The problem is that many of the scenes are less than sparkling....it's very much like watching the filming of the series of plays instead of watching a movie or TV version.....even the Bard himself would have struggled to keep the life in them with no audience. Sometimes the effort for accuracy actually shows in some of the acting. You have to give the various troups credit for sticking to the goals of the series, but realize that it is done with some sacrifices to the thrill and magic at some points.

Romeo & Juliet stars Sir John Gielgud, Rebecca Saire, & Patrick Ryecart
It's difficult to make a really bad R&J and with these folks this is a good version.

Hamlet stars Derek Jacobi, Patrick Stewart, & Claire Bloom
Jacobi makes this work....because it certainly is possible to do a horrible Hamlet.

Macbeth stars Nicol Williamson & Jane Lapotaire.
The scenes work even though there are times when you know for sure they are filming a play, not acting for the big screen.

Julius Cesear stars Richard Pasco, Keith Michell & Charles Gray.
I have to admit that this is the one play where my kids were so bored they actually asked if they could just read it instead of watch the video.....this one is not done as well as the rest of the series....I'm surprised it was chosen for the DVD set.

Othello stars Anthony Hopkins, Bob Hoskins, & Anthony Pedley
Hopkins said Othello was the one role he most wanted to play, so they gave it to him.....of course he's good....this is by far the best of the 5 play set

What I like about the Ambrose Video series is the hard-to-find plays.....like All's Well That Ends Well, Coriolanus, Cymbeline, Measure For Measure, Henry VI, Henry VIII....it's nice to see the whole Henry and Richard historical series with the same troup. Perhaps we'll get a "rare" set and a "historical" set on DVD out of them next.

The Best of Shakespeare
In this gorgeous set of 5 plays produced by the BBC & Time-Life you get the pleasure of seeing some of the most wonderful talent such as, the late Sir John Gielgud in Romeo & Juliet, Jane Lapotaire in Macbeth, Anthony Hopkins in Othello, Patrick Stewart & Derek Jacobi in Hamlet just to name a few!!! The set comes with a full cast list for all titles and english sub-titles so you can read along. A must-see. ... Read more

Description

Roman history comes alive in this magnificent 13-part series. "I, Claudius" (1976, 668 min.) ranks among the most acclaimed productions in BBC history. Tracing the lives of the last of the Roman emperors, it's an epic of ruthless ambition, shocking debauchery and murderous intrigue set in one of history's most fascinating eras. Bearing witness to the saga is Claudius, whose stutter and limp have marked him a fool--yet whom prophesies have foretold will one day rule Rome. This collector's edition set includes a unique documentary feature, "The Epic That Never Was" (1965, 71 min.), a remarkable behind-the-scenes look at Alexander Korda's ill-fated 1937 screen adaptation of "I, Claudius." Starring Merle Oberon and Charles Laughton, the chronicle of this uncompleted masterpieces is an unforgettable coda to one of the greatest stories ever told. ... Read more

Reviews (129)

A true masterpiece
This is quite an ambitious project taken on by the BBC. It covers the reigns of Caesar Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius. It is more or less the memoirs of the sagacious Claudius (based on the book by Peter Graves). The series features Derek Jacoby as Claudius, Brian Blessed as the eccentric but magnanimous Augustus and Patrick Stewart as the conspiring Sejanus, head of the Praetorian Guard. We also get some cameos of Livy and Horace to boot!

The film starts before Claudius was born - about 20 years post-Actium. It traces thru enough conspiracies, scandals and debauchery to make modern day soap-operas look tame by comparison. It has its share of femme fatales, between the insidious Livia, the selfish Messalina and the gregarious (to say the least) Julia. It details the ruthless nature of those close to the top, all wanting to wear the purple themselves, or conniving to get their next-of-kin to assume the throne.

The film has the "feel" of a play. The sets are static, there is no incidental music and the movie lacks panoramic views of the architecture of ancient Rome. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with this approach, just that it is not the same type of movie as, say, "Gladiator" or "Spartacus" in this respect.

This is a wonderful, must-see production for any fan or historian of antiquity. The film covers a whole lot of ground (to say the least), but still fits in allusions to numerous historical nuances (such as the defeat of Varrus by Armenius of Germany, as well as the horse that Caligula made into a senator). I would suggest that anyone who wishes to watch this film first read Michael Grant's "The Roman Emperors" thru the reign of Nero to get a backdrop on what is going on. Also, the DVD "Cleopatra," starring Timothy Dalton as Julius Caesar, was an ambitious project which leaves off about 20 years before the beginning of "I, Cladius."

Brilliant, Fearsome; A Great Work of Art
Based on Robert Graves' famous novel, I, CLAUDIUS is the ultimate soap opera, vicious, cruel, manipulative--and this famous English miniseries grabs the attention and holds fast throughout the entire length of its complex tale of ancient intrigue.

The great strengths of I, CLAUDIUS are in the driving pace, sharp wit, and ferocity of Jack Pulman's script and the host of brilliant performers who play it out. Chief among these are Sian Phillips as the calculating, murderous, and unspeakably cold Livia, wife of Augustus; although Derek Jacobi gives a justly famous performance in the title role, it is Phillips who dominates and drives the story with this, the most brilliant performance of her career. But this is not to disparrage the overall cast, which is remarkably fine and includes such noted artists as Brian Blessed, John Hurt, Patricia Quinn, Patrick Stewart, and a host of others.

Like the serpent that appears in the open credits, the story twists and winds--and covers several generations of the ruling family as Rome slips from the republic to royal rule, largely due to the manipulations of Livia, who has few if any scruples in her determination to rule first through her husband and then through her son. Although the look of the film is somewhat dated, it in no way impairs the power of the piece, and I, CLAUDIUS remains one of the handful of miniseries that actually improves upon repeated viewings. Strongly, strongly recommended.

Not Enough Stars in a 5-Star Scale to Give Praise!
"I, Claudius" is, quite simply, a masterpiece of acting, of writing, and of what television can do like no other medium.

Clocking in at eleven hours, "I, Claudius" rips the curtain back from Imperial Rome and shows the savagery, the venality, the evil, and yes, the goodness at work in the court during the early days of Imperial Rome. Tracking a story over several decades, "I, Claudius" tells an epic story of murder, deceit, seduction, and justice that is simultaneously grand and intimate -- the story is simply too grand a scale to be made into a feature film (well, with the caveat that if Peter Jackson can film the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, he can film any epic out there).

Narrated by an aged Emperor Claudius (Derek Jacobi, in a career-making performance), "I, Claudius" starts with the reign of Caesar Augustus (Brian Blessed, delightfully Machiavellian) and his vicious wife, Livia (Sian Phillips, almost stealing the show). Augustus, reluctant to drive a stake through the heart of the Roman Republic, nevertheless seeks to consolidate his power; Livia is fully committed to burying the Republic forever and seating her reluctant son, Tiberius (George Baker) on the throne. Through seduction, wily craft, and generous doses of poison, Livia gets her way. Her parting scene with Augustus is a masterpiece of acting on both sides.

As an aside, the acting in "I, Claudius" more than makes up for an obviously limited budget and virtually no special effects . . . it's like watching a televised play. On-screen violence is nevertheless convincing, and the entire cast hits each precious note with skill. Watch for a young, bewigged(!) Patrick Stewart as the ambitious Sejanus, John Hurt as the deranged Caligula, and John Rhys-Davies as Marcro, Sejanus' second-in-command.

Claudius, born lame with both a twitch and a stutter ("That boy could destroy the Empire just by strolling through it!"), is nevertheless prophesied to save Rome from her bloody fate. As his older, wiser friends repeatedly tell him (usually just before their own murder), Claudius should play up his disabilities in order to stay alive. Which Claudius does, and as an amateur historian he chronicles the lives (and deaths) of so many noble Romans.

Tiberius succeeds Augustus (thanks in large part to Livia's gift with poisons), and as he falls into depths of depravity, Sejanus makes his play for the throne. Caligula inherits the throne from Tiberius, although not as smoothly as he would have liked, and he shows the truth in the absolute corruption brought about by absolute power. Claudius, staunch Republican that he is, nevertheless finds himself on the Imperial throne, a captive of the Praetorian Guard, following Caligula's untimely end. He works to restore the Republic, but such is not to be, and ultimately Nero ascends to the throne.

But on the way, Claudius spins one heck of a tale. Far from the magisterial views of Imperial Rome so often shown in films, "I, Claudius" thrusts us into the courtrooms and bedrooms of the Roman nobility, and it's a captivating, but often ugly, sight.

tedious and boring
first i must explain that i am a longtime student of roman history and the julio-claudinians in particular. my expectations were very high in regard to this series and i was very disappointed. i knew i wasn't going to be seeing a visual spectacle like gladiator, but i expected something to happen. i don't mind the historical inaccuracies for the sake of drama too much. what bothers me is that the characters are nothing like the real people that are recorded in the history books. brian blessed's portrayal (or should i say betrayal) of augustus could not have missed the point any further. he was in fact a stern serious minded man devoted to his work, not the joking buffoon presented here. the pacing reminded me of dark shadows and it was almost as campy. this series is far too english for the subject matter. i give it 2 stars for the handful of good actors who couldn't save this flawed project. watch caligula to get a closer look at what rome was about during this time period.

Great drama
I remember seeing this series on TV many, many years ago when I was still in high school. And was very happy to find it on DVD now. The DVD transfer is very good too. But enough said about that.

If you like British historical drama of outstanding quality or just Roman history, this is a set you ought to buy. The acting and script are spellbinding. I have watched all of the 5 DVD's in three days, which was sth of a marathon watch. There are no weak spots in the acting and it is fun watching a young 'captain Picard' (yes I also love to watch Star trek). The sets are old-fashioned and nothing like the sets of, for instance, productions like Elizabeth.

But who cares about sets and the like if the acting is so good. The whole series breathes 'theatre' and I love it. It brings back the stories from Latin classes in High school. The Gods, Augustus, the Roman empire and all the Roman stories come to life, as seen through the eyes of Claudius. They are living and breathing (and very fascinating) people. No computer tricks and such needed. The script and the acting speak for itselves.

Just buy, borrow or hire the set. Pretend you are not at home in the weekend, do not answer the door or the phone (better still, get it off the hook). And enjoy. ... Read more

Amazon.com

With its high-intensity plot about an attempt to assassinate French President Charles de Gaulle, the bestselling novel by Frederick Forsyth was a prime candidate for screen adaptation. Director Fred Zinnemann brought his veteran skills to bear on what has become a timeless classic of screen suspense. Not to be confused with the later remake The Jackal starring Bruce Willis (which shamelessly embraced all the bombast that Zinnemann so wisely avoided), this 1973 thriller opts for lethal elegance and low-key tenacity in the form of the Jackal, the suave assassin played with consummate British coolness by Edward Fox. He's a killer of the highest order, a master of disguise and international elusiveness, and this riveting film follows his path to de Gaulle with an intense, straightforward documentary style. Perhaps one of the last great films from a bygone age of pure, down-to-basics suspense (and a kind of debonair European alternative to the American grittiness of The French Connection), The Day of the Jackal is a cat-and-mouse thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat until its brilliantly executed final scene (pardon the pun), by which time Fox has achieved cinematic immortality as one of the screen's most memorable killers. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (72)

Why can't they make movies like this any more?
Rarely does a movie do justice to a book, but Fred Zinneman's production of "The Day of the Jackal" is wonderful adaptation of Frederick Forsyth's novel which, I continue to believe, is one of the greatest thrillers ever written.

It's hard to put a finger on what exactly makes this film great: excellent performances by relatively unknown actors, a wonderful plot, fantastic location shooting or a complete desire to avoid the bells and whistles, special effects laden movies that are all that makes up the "suspense" genre of films these days. Like other reviewers have said, be this the first or the fiftieth time that you watch this film, you will be left on the edge of your seat with its "cat and mouse" plot of the search for a lone assassin hired to murder President De Gaulle. The young Edward Fox is brilliant in the title role and the supporting cast excellent.

If anything, this film proves that you do not need big named stars, explosions around every corner or computer generated effects to make a fantastic film. The only downside to watching this film is that you realise that the movie industry just does not make films like this any more.

Highly, highly recommended.

ONE SHOT IS NEVER ENOUGH !
Fred Zinnemann's THE DAY OF THE JACKAL is not the kind of thriller you are familiar with nowadays. For once, french actors don't look silly and have the terrible task to trace Edward "The Jackal" Fox who gives an award-deserving performance.

DAY OF THE JACKAL made me think of these cold war spy movies of the seventies. Do you remember ? We had the impression they were filmed only in green and blue, the characters didn't speak much leaving to the audience the task to understand the plot by itself. You will feel this kind of atmosphere in this film with the difference that Zinnemann worked with a solid gold screenplay.

The final scene, the day of the jackal, is about 30 minutes long and is already part of Motion picture History.

A few problems with the images ; white spots, images standing still during 1 or 2 seconds. The sound is, in my opinion, the best we can expect from a 1973 movie.

A DVD worthy of multiple viewings.

Excellent adaptation from Forsyth's novel. A winner!
Why not the jackal?
This is the answer given by the hard and cold assasin who signs the agreement to kill De Gaulle.
The story runs through a set of historical issues who are part of the story. A group of officers decides by themselves to revenge the lost honor of France due the fact about the independence of Algiers.
Edward Fox - one of the best actors of his generation - played with sublime perfection the demanding role of the Jackal.
So from the first images of the film you'll be engaged with this chess film. All the movements of this exceptional mind are guided by an amazing sense of hunter behavior. He acts like a western samurai , without blinking , he kills when the circunstances don't let him other choice. The feelings don't exist in this professional.
You are invited to presence an authentical tour de force. And since the moment an important link is arrested , your histamina and cold sweat will invade you.
The efforts of Le Surete for following any possible clue leads to an unforgettable mind game to spark the human chase since the moment the Jackal decides to go ahead with the plan and drive to France from Niza.
The rest of the story runs for you when you acquire this legendary and hair raising punch thriller. And once more you'll admire how the famous film maker Fred Zinemann could win with this story.
The locations and the sense of the drama are extraordinary made. And the words are not enough to describe the countless sequences of hard beating you'll experience.
A perfect film and believe me ; you won't feel the 140 min of the picture.
This is the first and best version!

A First Rate Spy Thriller

Not so much "spy" as "assassin," though, for Edward Fox is cast as an assassin, doing a job that will earn him his retirement. He is to kill President Charles de Gaulle, "le Grand Charles" himself, in Liberation Day, as we eventually find out--but not until much later in the film.

The killer goes through many personalities, disguises, and changes, and manages to kill a few innocents on the way to his final conquest. He is unknown to the gendarme, who are on his trail early, with the help of an informer on the inside, but eventually his appearance becomes known to them--and even then, in spite of an alert commissioner of police in Paris who is every bit his match, Inspector Lebel (Michel Lonsdale)--he almost makes his kill. Had he done so, of course history would have had to be re-written because of a movie, an unlikely event--so we knew that he would fail, but still the plot was so well played that the suspense was never lost.

Written by Frederick Forsyth and directed by Fred Zinneman, perhaps this film was predestined for greatness, but in any case it is one of the great ones.

Joseph (Joe) Pierre

author of Handguns and Freedom...their care and maintenance
and other books

If only it had had a happy ending
_Day of the Jackal_ is one of the best film adaptations of a book ever done, the directors managed to keep the vital elements of the plot and the pacing of the book and successfully transfer them from one medium to another. When I read the book after seeing the movie I was amazed at how much they had managed to keep. Edward Fox was perfect as the Jackal, it's a pity that he's ended up starring in so many bad films in his career as he is truly a fantastic actor. There are some wonderful moments of irony such as when the leader of the French terrorists says that no soldier of France will ever raise a weapon against him and then is shown being shot by firing squad the next day. The only thing that would have improved this movie is if the Jackal had succeeded in blowing Charles DeGaulle's head all over the pavement in Paris, I mean really, the guy goes to all of this work and fails in the end, and come on, he's trying to shoot DeGaulle, it's not as if he was attempting to shoot a decent human being or something, heck, even Eisenhower and Churchill wanted to shoot DeGaulle because he was such a useless, vainglorious prick. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Very few films come close to the brilliance Kenneth Branagh achieved with his first foray into screenwriting and direction. Henry V qualifies as a masterpiece, the kind of film that comes along once in a decade. He eschews the theatricality of Laurence Olivier's stirring, fondly remembered 1945 adaptation to establish his own rules. Branagh plays it down and dirty, seeing the bard's play through revisionist eyes, framing it as an antiwar story. Branagh gives us harsh close-ups of muddied, bloody men, and close-ups of himself as Henry, his hardened mouth and willful eyes revealing much about this land war. Not that the director-star doesn't provide lighter moments. His scenes introducing the French Princess Katherine (Emma Thompson) are toothsome. Bubbly, funny, enhanced by lovely lighting and Thompson's pale beauty, these glimpses of a princess trying to learn English quickly from her maid are delightful.

What may be the crowning glory of Branagh's adaptation comes when the dazed, shaky leader wanders through battlefields, not even sure who has won. As King Hal carries a dead boy(Empire of the Sun's Christian Bale) over the hacked-up bodies of both the English and French, you realize it is the first time Branagh has opened up the scenes: a panorama of blood and mud and death. It is as strong a statement against warmongering as could ever be made. --Rochelle O'Gorman ... Read more

Reviews (107)

Stunning
This may be the best Shakespeare film ever made. In 1942, Laurence Olivier delivered a jingoistic, stylized wartime production of "Henry V" that nonetheless stood as the standard interpretation. Nearly fifty years later, Kenneth Branagh's film appeared not only as a powerful and amazingly accessible recasting of the text, but a serious examination of the nature and the costs of the war that was Henry the Fifth's only real achievement.

Although studded with a fine array of subsidiary characters, "Henry V" is essentially a one-man play, and Branagh's performance informs and naturally influences all of the rest. His character has most of the lines, and he delivers them with a refreshing naturalism and candor that re-infuses the humor into the funny bits and cuts a lot of the potential for stilted jingoism out of the patriotic and warlike ones. If the real Henry's delivery of the St. Crispin speech was anything like Branagh's, it's no wonder the English won.

Slogging through the mud and rain of Harfleur and Agincourt with Branagh is a masterful supporting cast, including the incomparable Judi Dench as Mistress Quickly, Brian Blessed as a marvelously solid Exeter, and Ian Holm, wonderful as the irreverent and sarcastic Fluellen. On the French side, Paul Scofield's King is weary and indecisive rather than weak and mad; Michael Maloney's Dauphin is entertainingly arrogant, and Emma Thompson delivers a small but charming performance in playwright-broken English and much better French than Shakespeare likely spoke. Tying it all together is Christopher Ravenscroft, who invests the herald Mountjoy with a sympathy that extends to both sides, and a phenomenal showing by Derek Jacobi as the earnest, mocking and informative Chorus.

"Henry V" was released and went to video before the heyday of production for DVD, and as such, a "deluxe edition" has not been produced- this disc contains no making-of documentaries, no in-depth interviews with the cast, no online screenplay. But at least in this case, that's all for the best. The film is stunning enough on its own to need no such accompaniment, and its magic is thereby undiminished.

Oh, for a muse of fire...
For a first effort at feature-film direction, now-veteran director/writer/actor Kenneth Branagh provided an astonishing introduction to his many talents in filmmaking with his 1989 production, 'Henry V'. There is a gritty realism brought to the screen in this production that combines in dynamic and interesting ways with the Shakespearean dialogue and situations. The battle scenes are some of the best in cinema for depicting the kind of royal and knightly battles. A special commendation goes to cinematographer Kenneth MacMillan, art directors Martin Childs, Norman Dorme, John King, and costume designer Phyllis Dalton for combining elements of stage and screen together to complement the story perfectly without overpowering it. Indeed, the picture won the Oscar for Best Costumes; Branagh was nominated for Best Leading Actor and Best Director. The film and crew were nominated for and won many other awards as well.

One of the problems of Shakespeare on the silver screen is that the situations, settings, and acting often ends up somewhat contrived. That rarely happens here, because of this remarkable team.

The principle writing credit of course goes to William Shakespeare, but as is always the case, the play is recast to make the film medium more natural for the story. Kenneth Branagh is the one credited here, and has shown himself several times after this film as a master of adapting Shakespeare faithfully to the screen.

The play itself is one of Shakespeare's history plays -- remember the broad three categories of Shakespeare: history, drama (some say tragedy), and comedy. Like most of the history plays, there is creative license taken with the actual history, as it is invariably adapted to make the present regime look good, credible and more legitimate. This explains why Richard III in Shakespeare is far more villainous than in actual life; in Henry V, the country had a great and (for the period) uncontroversial hero - the last king of England to be acknowledged the dominant power in Britain and in France, succeeding in unwinnable situations, and, as befits a good historical hero, dies young before he has the chance to destroy his image. The play has always been popular in times of national crisis - see Olivier's production of Henry V during World War II depicting the king as a national saviour against continental foes.

The action of the play and film turns on the legitimacy of Henry's rule in France (an issue still for Elizabethan audiences, as Elizabeth was crowned with supposed rights to France). The French are depicted as haughty and disdainful of the young king (interesting how some things don't change), and the battle lines are drawn. The film here sets the stage for a far more ambiguous justification for war than is often depicted in the play, leaving the viewer wondering if, for all the glory of the battles, was there a real point, or was it legalistic/diplomatic trickery?

There is also the interesting scene with the conspirators against the king, unmasked as the forces are about to depart for France. Cambridge, Scrope and Grey are exposed, but the dialogue and acting hints as a more intimate relationship with Henry V - possibly this references obliquely the rumours of homosexuality, or at least bisexuality, in the historical Henry.

The players are excellent here, from Branagh himself as Henry V, and Brian Blessed his strong right arm Exeter. Paul Scofield (Thomas More in 'A Man for All Seasons') plays the ancient French king, Charles VI, and his son the Dauphin is played by Michael Maloney. This is, on the whole, a rather 'young' film, as Branagh himself was not yet 30 at the time of production, and most of his aides and friends in the play are similarly young, save for a few senior advisors. Emma Thompson, a staple in Branagh's films, plays the only significant female role, the princess Katherine, to whom Henry will be wed. Her part is almost entirely in French. Her maid, Alice, is played by Geraldine McEwan (perhaps best known from 'Mapp & Lucia').

The famous speeches here are preserved; Branagh does a fantastic job with his spirit-raising monologue for the troops prior to the battle of Agincourt, on Crispin Crispian day. The speech on horseback in the early seige of Harfleur, 'once more into the breech!' is also remarkable. The lines delivered by all the actors are done with care and precision - Exeter's report to Henry at the opening ('tennis balls', said with great sneer) and to the French party ('scorn', said with so much scorn the word need not be spoken) are but a few examples of this.

The film expands upon the play's use of Falstaff's companions as a comic relief, by incorporating what would be flash-back scenes from events in the Henry IV play cycle, premonitions of events currently in the play. Robbie Coltrane turns in a good performance as Falstaff; look for Judi Dench in a minor role as the Mistress, and a very young Christian Bale as the boy.

The music for the film is triumphant, foreboding and dark. This is a wonderful score produced by Patrick Doyle, known for work on other Branagh films such as 'Dead Again' and 'Much Ado about Nothing', as well as other films such as 'Indochine' and literature-based films like 'Gosford Park' and 'Great Expectations'.

Derek Jacobi, veteran Shakespearean, portrays 'Chorus', the narrator of the action, one who casts the right spirit from beginning to end, and appears throughout. There are few Shakespearean asides done by the actors here (a few under-the-breath comments that might qualify), but Jacobi's role is always directly to camera, directly to us as the spectators. The ending portrayed by Chorus is both victorious and tragic, much as the cycle of history must be.

This is a glorious film.

Great Film, Less than Great Transfer
Kenneth Branagh's splendid Henry V is the best Shakespeare film of the last forty years. Unfortunately, the picture quality of this DVD is only so-so. MGM really needs to do a better job than this.

"Cry Harry! England! And Saint George!!!"
Kenneth Branagh is truly inspired. As both the director and lead actor he is simply superb. Of all the Oscars this was nominated for, including Best Actor and Best Director for Branagh, all it walked away with was Best Costume Design. The costumes are great, by the way. But what makes this film work is the authentic emotional element that all the actors bring to their roles. Tears fall, hearts soar, and blood flows! This is easily my favorite film from director/actor Kenneth Branagh. There is a huge cast of name actors, such as Ian Holm, Judi Dench, and Emma Thompson, and all acquit themselves with honorable performances worthy of singular recognition. There are complex tracking shots and finely tuned film editing, all adding to the immense grandeur that envelopes this film. It is easy for me to recommend this outstanding Shakespearean adventure. If you love Shakespear, this film is an absolute necessity for your collection. Thank you.

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England....
From various reference sources, in brief, here's the historical background both to Shakespeare's play and to this film. Henry V, the eldest son of Henry IV and Mary Bohun, was born in 1387. An accomplished and experienced soldier, at age fourteen he fought the Welsh forces of Owen Glendower; at age sixteen he commanded his father's forces at the battle of Shrewsbury; and shortly after his accession he put down a major Lollard uprising and an assassination plot by nobles still loyal to Richard II . He proposed to marry Catherine in 1415, demanding the old Plantagenet lands of Normandy and Anjou as his dowry. Charles VI refused and Henry declared war, opening yet another chapter in the Hundred Years' War. His invasion of France served two purposes: to regain lands lost in previous battles and to focus attention away from any of his cousins' royal ambitions. Henry possessed a brilliant, strategic military mind and defeated the French at the Battle of Agincourt in October of 1415. By 1419 he had captured Normandy, Picardy, and much of the Capetian stronghold of the Ile-de-France.

By the time the Treaty of Troyes was signed in 1420, Charles VI not only accepted Henry as his son-in-law but passed over his own son to name Henry heir to the French crown. Had Henry lived a mere two months longer, he would have been king of both England and France. However, he had prematurely aged because of having lived the hard life of a soldier, became seriously ill, and died after returning from yet another French campaign. Catherine had given birth to his only son while he was away but Henry died without ever seeing the child.

The historian Rafael Holinshed, in Chronicles of England, summed up Henry V's reign as follows: "This Henry was a king, of life without spot, a prince whom all men loved, and of none disdained, e captain against whom fortune never frowned, nor mischance once spurned, whose people him so severe a justicer both loved and obeyed (and so humane withal) that he left no offence unpunished, nor friendship unrewarded; a terror to rebels, and suppressor of sedition, his virtues notable, his qualities most praiseworthy."

It would be a disservice to compare and contrast this film with the version which Laurence Olivier directed 45 years earlier. Each has its own unique strengths and both are worthy of high regard. When Shakespeare's play and this film begin, newly crowned Henry V (Branagh) attempts to resolve animosities between England and France. When those efforts fail, he and a small army invade France and defeat the French troops at Agincourt. Branagh brings to the role exceptional energy and dramatic impact, most evident in two scenes: when he delivers his St. Crispin's Day speech just before heading into battle and then afterward as he rides amidst the carnage, carrying a dead boy across one shoulder. The resources and technologies for special effects available to Branagh were far more abundant than those available to Olivier. Branagh makes the most of them, recreating the gore and grime of Agincourt with a series of indelible images. (I suspect that Mel Gibson carefully studied the tracking sequence when preparing to film Braveheart.) The acting throughout is first-rate, notably Paul Scofield (King Charles VI), Judi Dench (Mistress Quickly), and Ian Holm (Captain Fluellyn). Sir John Falstaff does not appear in this film version (as he does in Olivier's) and scant attention is paid to the "corrupting influences" in Prince Hal's "decadent" youth. Branagh focuses primarily on the human dimensions prior to and following the magnificent military victory at Agincourt. It is also a pleasure to observe Branagh's interaction with Emma Thompson in her role as Katherine. The "word games" courtship scene is delightful.

This is a visually stunning and emotionally stimulating tribute to Henry V and his warriors, of course, but also to the country which produced such men:

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,-
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

(Richard II, Act II, scene 1) ... Read more

Reviews (1484)

Great Action Film
"Gladiator" is a film that should suit all tastes. It is an expertly mounted and eye-filling event; the blood and gore, delivered in split-second imagery (allowing your head to fill in the rest) should satisfy the most blood-thirsty movie goer; and the story is a superb tale of good vs. evil, power vs. honor, and "Might for Right". I was reminded of "Camelot" many times during this film, especially by the almost unrecognizable appearance of Richard Harris as the wise and noble Marcus Aurelis. Joaquin Phoenix gives a bone-chilling performance as the evil and cowardly Commodus, who inherits the title of emperor upon his father's death. But the sole weight of this overwhelming piece rests on the shoulders of the magnificent Russell Crowe. If one doesn't believe in him, then one doesn't believe in this epic costume drama. Kudos to the rest of the cast as well, and hand over heart for the late Oliver Reed. But back to Crowe--he is an actor to contend with. His work in "Gladiator" is a tour de force performance; he very nearly sprays testosterone from the screen. It's what was exactly demanded from him in this role, and he exceeds expectations in that regard.

Gladiator ROCKS!!!
I completely dug this film from beginning to end,and every aspect of it,from the breathtaking cinamatography,the expertly staged battle sequences,and exqusite set-design,to the stellar performances of a top-notch cast,rang true.The film starts with a stunning battle and doesen't let up from the time Maximus says"on my mark,unleash Hell". Do they ever.Russell Crowe is perfect in the lead role,as an expert warrior with a grieving soul and a deep sense of honor and loyalty.It's a true star-making turn,and he oozes rugged charisma from every pore.Equally impressive,but in the exact opposite way,is Juaquin Phoenix as the conniving,decadent,deeply evil Emperor.Also great support from Richard Harris and the late,great Oliver Reed.Director Ridley Scott uses his gift for composition and visual flair to great effect,giving each scene a painterly burnish and unforgettable depth,whether it's the after-life of Maximus' dreams,the bustling,grand sprawl of Rome,the rip-roaring battles of the Coluseum,or the sinister twinkle in the Emporer's eyes.At one point Maximus admonishes the bloodthirsty crowd:"Is this not what you wanted? Are you not entertained?" Indeed we are Russell,very much so.What a great film.

okay
this is a three star movie with a five star dvd. one of the biggest problems with the movie was the first battle. i was expecting braveheart quality but ended with a battle less entertaining than the one in dragonheart. the blurry camera and closeups made it impossible to tell what was happening. if you want to see a movie like this but better, see the last samurai or braveheart.

A Modern Classic of an Old Age
I seldom write reviews for anything, but for a movie like 'Gladiator' I'm willing to make an exception, and gosh if it's worth doing it!!
The movie, by far the best of the year 2000, is not only an award-winning production, but it is also one of the few that I personally enjoy watching again and again and again. Not because it is flawless (at times the storyline is quite predictable) but because it portrays life and death in the Roman Empire in such a way that it really bring those old buildings we all know since childhood (the Coliseum, the Forum, Via Appia, etc) back to life.
And yet it does so not at the expense of the story but through it, from the characters, to the script (they're so many quotables lines from Maximus and Commudus alone to make a CD)...in fact everything in the movie, from the battle in Germanica to the last fight at the Coliseum, is portrayed with realism plus an amazing score lacking in so many movies these days.
The movie of course is not to be seen as "history" in the academic sense but rather as an historical exercise, Holywood style, of one of the most facinating and complex periods of Western History. The attention to the detail is amazing, especially in the opening scene (the battle in Germanica) and the gladiatorial fights. Even most deleted scenes are great in the sense that they allow us to understand the characters a little bit more (Commudus' sword smashing of his father's marble bust is a most see), although they neither add nor take of the story. The casting is superb, with Russell Crow in the main role, Joaquin Phoenix as the Emperor Commudus, along with such legends as Oliver Reed as the freedman slaveholder and Richard Harris as the great Marcus Aurelius.
I'll recomend strongly that anyone who sees this movie shoudl do his/her homework and do a little of reading about Rome, both as a Republic and after, and the huge importance of the entertaining business in her late everyday life (an importance unreached until recent times).
Overall, a classic epic of an scope and ambition not seen since 'Ben Hur'; full of action, drama... and yes, more action.
As the Romans themselves said, Faber est quisque fortunae suae... each one is the architect of his own fortune. Feliciter!

Decent story, captivating effect
Ridley Scott's movie, "Gladiator" is one based on fiction of a General in the times of Marcus Aurelius. It tracks the life of a general who is effective in battle and is to rewarded by the emperor with the crown of Rome until it can be handed back to the senate. The movie won 5 oscars and is compared to Ben-Hur, which is ludicrous. For starters, Ben-Hur had William Wyler as the director who went to Gore Vidal to fix the screenplay. This movie will imaginative has so many historical inaccuracies, it is funny that it can be even thought to be in the same league.

Some of the actors did a decent job, these include Richard Harris as Marcus Aurelius and his daughter, Lucilla. I had problems with Russell Crowe's acting. He is unmistakably patrician, however, and physically very like Richard Burton, with Burton's battered face and gravel-voiced machismo. But Crowe's Maximus is no Mark Antony; there is no destructive love interest in the picture. Maximus is sweetly devoted to his late wife; though it turns out he once had a bit of an unbuckling thing going in his backstory for Commodus's lovely sister Lucilla (Connie Nielsen). I did not think that he deserved the best actor oscar. He has a very limited repertoire of actions and emotions. Crowe is no Tom Hanks or Geoffrey Rush in acting, he does not have depth and breadth of acting.

This movie cannot stand the test of time, it does not have great screenplay and historical integrity. It will gradually ebb away from the minds of the people. To stand out from the other movies, it has to have a new paradigm, either in acting or story or screenplay, none of which are depicted. Another one of those movies that do not deserve the best picture oscars. It is OK to watch this once. If you compare this director with Ang Lee, who did "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", "Eat, Drink, Man, Woman", and "Sense and Sensibility" you can see the difference in directing talent. See them and judge for yourself. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

A big-budget summer epic with money to burn and a scale worthy of its golden Hollywood predecessors, Ridley Scott's Gladiator is a rousing, grisly, action-packed epic that takes moviemaking back to the Roman Empire via computer-generated visual effects. While not as fluid as the computer work done for, say, Titanic, it's an impressive achievement that will leave you marveling at the glory that was Rome, when you're not marveling at the glory that is Russell Crowe. Starring as the heroic general Maximus, Crowe firmly cements his star status both in terms of screen presence and acting chops, carrying the film on his decidedly non-computer-generated shoulders as he goes from brave general to wounded fugitive to stoic slave to gladiator hero. Gladiator's plot is a whirlwind of faux-Shakespearean machinations of death, betrayal, power plays, and secret identities (with lots of faux-Shakespearean dialogue ladled on to keep the proceedings appropriately "classical"), but it's all briskly shot, edited, and paced with a contemporary sensibility. Even the action scenes, somewhat muted but graphic in terms of implied violence and liberal bloodletting, are shot with a veracity that brings to mind--believe it or not--Saving Private Ryan, even if everyone is wearing a toga. As Crowe's nemesis, the evil emperor Commodus, Joaquin Phoenix chews scenery with authority, whether he's damning Maximus's popularity with the Roman mobs or lusting after his sister Lucilla (beautiful but distant Connie Nielsen); Oliver Reed, in his last role, hits the perfect notes of camp and gravitas as the slave owner who rescues Maximus from death and turns him into a coliseum star. Director Scott's visual flair is abundantly in evidence, with breathtaking shots and beautiful (albeit digital) landscapes, but it's Crowe's star power that will keep you in thrall--he's a true gladiator, worthy of his legendary status. Hail the conquering hero! --Mark Englehart ... Read more

Reviews (1484)

Great Action Film
"Gladiator" is a film that should suit all tastes. It is an expertly mounted and eye-filling event; the blood and gore, delivered in split-second imagery (allowing your head to fill in the rest) should satisfy the most blood-thirsty movie goer; and the story is a superb tale of good vs. evil, power vs. honor, and "Might for Right". I was reminded of "Camelot" many times during this film, especially by the almost unrecognizable appearance of Richard Harris as the wise and noble Marcus Aurelis. Joaquin Phoenix gives a bone-chilling performance as the evil and cowardly Commodus, who inherits the title of emperor upon his father's death. But the sole weight of this overwhelming piece rests on the shoulders of the magnificent Russell Crowe. If one doesn't believe in him, then one doesn't believe in this epic costume drama. Kudos to the rest of the cast as well, and hand over heart for the late Oliver Reed. But back to Crowe--he is an actor to contend with. His work in "Gladiator" is a tour de force performance; he very nearly sprays testosterone from the screen. It's what was exactly demanded from him in this role, and he exceeds expectations in that regard.

Gladiator ROCKS!!!
I completely dug this film from beginning to end,and every aspect of it,from the breathtaking cinamatography,the expertly staged battle sequences,and exqusite set-design,to the stellar performances of a top-notch cast,rang true.The film starts with a stunning battle and doesen't let up from the time Maximus says"on my mark,unleash Hell". Do they ever.Russell Crowe is perfect in the lead role,as an expert warrior with a grieving soul and a deep sense of honor and loyalty.It's a true star-making turn,and he oozes rugged charisma from every pore.Equally impressive,but in the exact opposite way,is Juaquin Phoenix as the conniving,decadent,deeply evil Emperor.Also great support from Richard Harris and the late,great Oliver Reed.Director Ridley Scott uses his gift for composition and visual flair to great effect,giving each scene a painterly burnish and unforgettable depth,whether it's the after-life of Maximus' dreams,the bustling,grand sprawl of Rome,the rip-roaring battles of the Coluseum,or the sinister twinkle in the Emporer's eyes.At one point Maximus admonishes the bloodthirsty crowd:"Is this not what you wanted? Are you not entertained?" Indeed we are Russell,very much so.What a great film.

okay
this is a three star movie with a five star dvd. one of the biggest problems with the movie was the first battle. i was expecting braveheart quality but ended with a battle less entertaining than the one in dragonheart. the blurry camera and closeups made it impossible to tell what was happening. if you want to see a movie like this but better, see the last samurai or braveheart.

A Modern Classic of an Old Age
I seldom write reviews for anything, but for a movie like 'Gladiator' I'm willing to make an exception, and gosh if it's worth doing it!!
The movie, by far the best of the year 2000, is not only an award-winning production, but it is also one of the few that I personally enjoy watching again and again and again. Not because it is flawless (at times the storyline is quite predictable) but because it portrays life and death in the Roman Empire in such a way that it really bring those old buildings we all know since childhood (the Coliseum, the Forum, Via Appia, etc) back to life.
And yet it does so not at the expense of the story but through it, from the characters, to the script (they're so many quotables lines from Maximus and Commudus alone to make a CD)...in fact everything in the movie, from the battle in Germanica to the last fight at the Coliseum, is portrayed with realism plus an amazing score lacking in so many movies these days.
The movie of course is not to be seen as "history" in the academic sense but rather as an historical exercise, Holywood style, of one of the most facinating and complex periods of Western History. The attention to the detail is amazing, especially in the opening scene (the battle in Germanica) and the gladiatorial fights. Even most deleted scenes are great in the sense that they allow us to understand the characters a little bit more (Commudus' sword smashing of his father's marble bust is a most see), although they neither add nor take of the story. The casting is superb, with Russell Crow in the main role, Joaquin Phoenix as the Emperor Commudus, along with such legends as Oliver Reed as the freedman slaveholder and Richard Harris as the great Marcus Aurelius.
I'll recomend strongly that anyone who sees this movie shoudl do his/her homework and do a little of reading about Rome, both as a Republic and after, and the huge importance of the entertaining business in her late everyday life (an importance unreached until recent times).
Overall, a classic epic of an scope and ambition not seen since 'Ben Hur'; full of action, drama... and yes, more action.
As the Romans themselves said, Faber est quisque fortunae suae... each one is the architect of his own fortune. Feliciter!

Decent story, captivating effect
Ridley Scott's movie, "Gladiator" is one based on fiction of a General in the times of Marcus Aurelius. It tracks the life of a general who is effective in battle and is to rewarded by the emperor with the crown of Rome until it can be handed back to the senate. The movie won 5 oscars and is compared to Ben-Hur, which is ludicrous. For starters, Ben-Hur had William Wyler as the director who went to Gore Vidal to fix the screenplay. This movie will imaginative has so many historical inaccuracies, it is funny that it can be even thought to be in the same league.

Some of the actors did a decent job, these include Richard Harris as Marcus Aurelius and his daughter, Lucilla. I had problems with Russell Crowe's acting. He is unmistakably patrician, however, and physically very like Richard Burton, with Burton's battered face and gravel-voiced machismo. But Crowe's Maximus is no Mark Antony; there is no destructive love interest in the picture. Maximus is sweetly devoted to his late wife; though it turns out he once had a bit of an unbuckling thing going in his backstory for Commodus's lovely sister Lucilla (Connie Nielsen). I did not think that he deserved the best actor oscar. He has a very limited repertoire of actions and emotions. Crowe is no Tom Hanks or Geoffrey Rush in acting, he does not have depth and breadth of acting.

This movie cannot stand the test of time, it does not have great screenplay and historical integrity. It will gradually ebb away from the minds of the people. To stand out from the other movies, it has to have a new paradigm, either in acting or story or screenplay, none of which are depicted. Another one of those movies that do not deserve the best picture oscars. It is OK to watch this once. If you compare this director with Ang Lee, who did "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", "Eat, Drink, Man, Woman", and "Sense and Sensibility" you can see the difference in directing talent. See them and judge for yourself. ... Read more

Reviews (106)

the ultimate in animated movies
I'd give this movie 10 stars if possible. I watched this movie everyday when I was a kid and when i watch it now, i can still recite it. This is such a great movie. As some of the other reviewers said, this movie is a little more realistic, a little grittier.
This movie truly does have something for everyone. Children will love the talking creatures, the ridiculous crow, Jeremy, (voiced with perfection by Dom DeLuise), and they'll recognize the overwhelming, self-sacrificing love Mrs. Brisby (the mother) displays for her family. Adults will enjoy the more subtle humor as well as the message of pure love conquering all obstacles. This movie (along with my role model mother) formed my image of how mothers should be: loving, strong and self-sacrificing. Even when Mrs. Brisby if forced to face her deepest fears (an owl, the cat), she does it, not without fear, but to save her son's life. This is a touching movie.
Another point of appreciation for this movie is that it does not try to simply dumb things down for kids. I like most Disney movies but this aims a little higher. There are some deep issues, such as death, jealousy, fear and hate, that aren't dwelt on but are brought up and as children grow older, they will grow to understand and love this movie more and more.

An enduring tale of love, courage and trust
Don Bluth's "The Secret Of NIMH," based upon the novel "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH," was released in 1982 and was quickly forgotten at the box office in favour of Steven Spielberg's E.T. (which was released around the same time). I picked this up for less than ten dollars on DVD and I haven't stopped playing it since. It has been at least fifteen years since I had last seen it, and I enjoy it more than ever.

Bluth and close to two dozen Disney animators defected from Disney's studios in favour of having a chance to express and explore their artistic visions and creativity. One of their first animated films was "The Secret of NIMH." Other Bluth films include "Anastasia," and "An American Tail." But no other animated film captures the sense of magic and wonder like "The Secret of NIMH."

Mrs. Brisby, a recently widowed field mouse, tries desperately to protect her invalid son Timothy from Moving Day, when the farmer's plough will destroy their underground home. She is led to a colony of superintelligent rats, ex-subjects of laboratory experiments at the National Institute of Mental Health. They are led by wise old Nicodemus, a friend of Mrs. Brisby's late husband Jonathan, also an escaped lab mouse from NIMH.

The somewhat dark tale does feature light-hearted comedic relief in the form of Jeremy, a trouble-prone young crow voiced by Dom Deluise. The story sticks fairly close to the book version, although several new elements are added and some side plots are cut due to time restraints. The artwork is breathtaking; vibrant backgrounds, clever special effects, the play of light and shadow. The characters are real and you quickly become attached to them. No one breaks into song every five minutes, although there is a very beautiful lullaby on the soundtrack that Mrs. Brisby sings to Timothy.

To me, this film is deeper, darker, and more imaginative than anything that Disney has produced. There are no fancy CGI effects, only the skilful work of animators that love what they do. The film carries a message of courage, love, and trust without being preachy or simple. There are plenty of tense, dark scenes, some of which might upset smaller children. But "Secret of NIMH" is a beautiful, intelligent movie that is so much more than a cartoon or a children's fable.

filled with wonder
As a kid in the 1980's, this was a favorite film of mine. I remember thinking how cool and imaginative this was compared to the sludge of rerun 80's tv cartoons (did anyone else have to suffer through the "USA network cartoon train" as a kid?) like "The Flintstones."

Don Bluth, like Tim Burton, was a very talented artist and animator who broke away from Disney. Both Burton and Bluth could not stand redrawing the same animation cells for other people all day long. Burton found profit, Bluth, sadly, did not. However, that is not to say that Bluth did not create some very fascinating films along the way.

This is a tale of wonder and imagination. Watching this film is almost like seeing the equivalent of an American film with Miyazaki style and presentation. If you have ever seen "Spirited Away" or "Kiki's Delivery Service" there is an obvious similarity here between Miyazaki and Bluth. However, Bluth is very much an American, as is the setting for this imaginative tale.

It is a tale of rats who were experimented on by humans, who became very intelligent, strange, and different as a result of what the humans had done to them. Eventually, these creatures managed to escape their bondage from humans, and formed their own kingdom far out in the country. This is the tale of Mrs. Brisby encountering this strange race of rats, but it is so much more.

Please check it out and experience one of the more unique animated films ever made. This is not Disney, this is a new and different style. Sadly, these films just didn't catch on with the 80's crowd and Bluth was forced to go underground and now, today, makes a living in the straight-to-video kid market (He churns out those Land Before Time sequels just about every month).

Not the same as the book, but just as good anyway!
While this movie is a bit more fantasy-like than the book, I think it's just as good. The first time I saw this was several years ago when Nickelodeon used to play movies on Sundays. Once I saw it, I immediately went after the book, Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH. Told in the style of Poppy or Watership Down, both the movie and the story have the same main plot: A family of mice must move out of their home before the tractor comes for the yearly harvest. The problem is, little Timothy mouse is sick with pnemonia (forgive my spelling) and if he goes out of the house, he will die. Now Mrs. Frisby must look to the Rats, a race of intelligent rodents, to help them to be able to survive the tractor without leaving their home.

A childhood classic
This had been my favorite cartoon movie since I was six years old. I knew every line Mrs. Brisby spoke. This is the stuff that flying dreams are made of and will always be treasured in my heart.

A great tale of bravery and overcoming the odds with a touch of magic. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Stylish and boldly unflattering portrait of an artist
Before seeing this film, I was familiar with Francis Bacon's paintings, but knew very little about him as a person. Visually, this film is extremely faithful to his paintings. It's full of shattered, twisted, and disturbing imagery that suggests suffering, confusion and psychological torture. Judging from this film alone, Francis Bacon, as a person, was just as twisted and disturbed as his work. The film begins when a rugged boxer named George breaks into his studio to burglarize it, and Francis, instead of being alarmed, instead offers to take George to bed in exchange for whatever he wants. George, himself obviously a homosexual as well, agrees and the two begin an unlikely relationship, both as boyfriends and as artist and subject/muse. It is soon apparent, though, that despite George's tough exterior, Francis is by far more cruel, sadistic, and detached than he is. Francis constantly belittles George, treating him like nothing more than a novelty and sexual object, and George, surprisingly, falls in love with Francis and begins trying to win his sympathy in increasingly self-destructive ways. At some point in the movie, after seeing Francis constantly berating both George and everyone around him, the viewer is left asking himself "Does this man have a heart at all?" Francis' reaction to George's sad fate seems to bring about a definitive answer. No.

Portrait of the artist as an unpleasant man
This film is about the famous painter Francis Bacon, specifically his relationship with his lover George. Francis meets George when George is breaking into his studio to rob it. Francis offers George a deal: he can have anything he wants if he sleeps with Francis. This marks the beginning of their tumultuous and unlikely relationship. Francis, although a famous and respected artist, is cold, sarcastic, and often cruel. Aside from George, his only other relationships seem to be a handful of artistic friends who occasionally hang out in pubs together and mostly take turns putting each other down. George, an uneducated boxer, obviously doesn't fit into this world at all. But it doesn't really matter at all to Francis, who sees him mostly as a sexual plaything, as opposed to a real partner. Surprisingly, George falls in love with Francis, and begins trying to win his attention and sympathy in increasingly self-destructive ways.

Visually, this film is very true to Francis Bacon's paintings. It's full of imagery that suggests cages, pain, confusion and psychological torture. As a character study, this film suggests that Francis Bacon was just as disturbed and unpleasant as his paintings.

To either love or hate as a film
The question is whether you're viewing this as a lover of Bacon's work or to enjoy what is simply a fascinating cult film in itself. A few of the intermittant shots are not the most original and the storyline might not be to all tastes, but the Jacobi-Craig clash and borderline humour of supporting characters combine for some wonderfully twisted dialogue that brings it alive! If you're aware that none of Bacon's work is on offer, and appreciate tongue-in-cheek humour of it's darkest type then you will love this film.

Artistic Cliches and worse metaphors
While the casting of Derek Jacobi for this film on Francis Bacon's tumultuous affair with George Dyer seemed promising, the film was bankrupt much on plot and they had no authority to show either the man or his work. Instead, they opted for this odd exercise in film interpretation and come up with some of the worse cliche's of madness and creativity: Bacon smearing himself with paint, looking at himself in fractured mirrors, George descending down a spiral staircase, looking at people through distorted barroom glass. These are all images pulled from other artist biographies obviously and seem to want to make the cooerlation that life is a distorted sewer and we're all Bacon's subjects. Oh please. We got that message in the first 10 minutes. Why continue?
That said - alot of the other imagery was beautiful and some of the camera techniques would have made for a better low budget movie on Bacon had they taken the time to invest in actual interesting script development, not images and vignettes. They did try to make an effort and draw a line between what the artist saw and how he painted. The problem was that this failed miserably, and Jacobi comes off as petty and comical.

Brilliantly Shows Rather Than Tells
The essence of painter Francis Bacon is not a personal life lived on the sordid side but how he was forced to take in life. Seen through his central nervous system and eyes, we experience his world of fragments, like collage pieces of existence. The only place he could make those fragments whole was in a painting. Otherwise, he was wholly inable to put a fully realized human being, himself, together. Tellingly, one of his best friends comments that he has done a superb one-on-one job with his lover George in his paintings of George. However, he has been unable to do that in his actual life lived with George! That sums up Bacon, his art and his life, in a nutshell. Bacon is not a person you will like but you will understand him and how the fragments of his existence made for great art. Yet he is also the most alone person imaginable, something no amount of lovers and sordid excess could allay. One of the very best films about an artist ever made. You don't need to see the actual finished paintings since it is the fragments he used to build his paintings in his head that matter here. If you want to see his paintings, you should be able to find page after page of them online in about a minute, or less, using any visual search engine. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Why aren't we all like this man?
This movie......was wonderful. I know that it will never make its way up there with those classic historical films that we all have heard of (Shindlers List and the like) but there was something so moving about this man's story. The acting on all parts was excuisite, and the life that they were portraying brought me to tears. Father Damien was such an exemplary priest that we could all learn quite a deal from. He gave his life to save the lepers, and his story is wonderful. Though few are aware of this films greatness, and still fewer are aware of the man behind it, this will be one of my favorites for years to come. I was truly touched by this movie.

Moving Drama about a Servant of God
Molokai is the story of a priest, Father Damien, who chose to spend his life serving in a leper colony. The movie is a heroic story of great compassion and persistence in the face of physical hardship and isolation. Filmed on location on the Hawaiian Island of Molokai, the scenery is gorgeous, and it touches on the history and culture of Hawaii. I found the movie very, very moving, but some may find the conditions of the lepers too depressing to bear.

An Australian, David Wehan plays the role of Damien. Two other actors you may recognize are Kris Kristofferson and Peter O'Toole, who both play lepers. Peter O'Toole, who I never like previously, seems to have really enjoyed his role.

Molokai is one of the more remote Hawaiian Islands. During a leprosy epidemic in Hawaii during the mid-nineteenth century, the government established a peninsula on the island of Molokai as a leper colony. It was chosen because it was so difficult to get to or escape from.

In the movie, there is a scene where, instead of transferring the lepers to rowboats, the crew forced the lepers at gunpoint to jump overboard and swim to shore. These included women and children. In the actual historical incident, some people drowned, some died from injuries from being bashed against the rocks on the beach, and others died on shore of exhaustion. Although not shown in the movie, often, ships depositing lepers would tie a rope from the ship to land and the lepers had to climb hand-over-hand to shore.

Father Damien had grown up on a farm in Belgium. He was very strong physically and was an experienced carpenter and builder. Before going to Molokai, the historical Father Damien had been a parish priest and pastor in several parishes in the Hawaiian Islands. He learned to speak Hawaiian and understood native Hawaiian culture. In the opening sequence of the movie, Father Damien is shown helping some Hawaiians build a house. Bounty hunters arrive on horseback to take away suspected lepers. Villagers run and hide. The scene is reminiscent of the slave catchers in Roots. Historically, before going to Molokai, Damien experienced parishioners being taken away to the colony, and he had assisted people in avoiding the bounty hunters (not shown in the movie).
Father Damien volunteered to be assigned to Molokai. Damien's bishop instructed him to take all measures to avoid infection. In the movie, we see Damien simply ignoring the instructions. In historical fact, after two months on the island, he formally requested permission from the bishop to risk infection. He did this because it was the only way he could gain the lepers trust.

The leper colony was a living hell. When Damien arrived in 1873, there were six hundred lepers with inadequate housing and food, and no doctors, nurses, or medical supplies. Essentially, there was no law. Gangs of physically able lepers looted the belongings of the very sick. Prostitution and pedophilia were rampant. The bodies of the dead were either thrown into a ravine or buried very shallowly, where they were dug up and eaten by wild pigs. To be sure, with the arrival of Damien, there was a significant improvement in the lives of the lepers, but in the historical reality, the conditions and problems Damien faced were far worse than depicted in the movie.

Besides serving as priest, Damien's construction worker skills were invaluable. He built, supervised, or organized volunteer labor to build hundreds of buildings-over half the buildings in the settlement. When he arrived, there was no running water. He built a pipeline (In the movie, there is no pipeline). Damien cleaned and bandaged wounds and amputated gangrenous limbs. The son of a farmer, he taught the lepers to grow crops (not shown in the movie). He was the island's undertaker, funeral director, grave digger, and coffin maker-he built over 1,600 coffins. He also witnessed seven murders (not shown in the movie).

Besides having no resources to care for the sick, Damien had constant conflicts with both the government health authorities and his own religious order. In addition, he had many critics in the medical and clerical professions. The Hawaiian government's board of health didn't like him simply because he made them look bad. He alone was accomplishing orders of magnitude more for the lepers than the whole state government. His religious order was not able to provide any other permanent people to help, until near the end of his life. To their credit, they tried, but the only other people they could get to go to Molokai were misfits that were so bad, Damien sent them back. The order had other priests in Hawaii doing good work, and they didn't like Damien getting all the publicity.

Father Damien did not go to the leper colony just care for their bodies, although he did so tirelessly. He also went to save their souls. In the movie, it is very moving to see Damien administer the Sacraments. He buries lepers with half-bodies of rotting flesh, with all of the dignity and respect that one would expect to be given a member of high society in Paris or Rome. Actual historical witnesses on Molokai said that Damien said Mass every day with the utmost reverence and liturgical decorum in a tiny chapel filled with lepers bleeding and spitting, with Damien seemingly oblivious to an almost unbearable stench of rotting human flesh.

Since 1944, medicines have been developed that stop leprosy from being contagious and spreading within the body. The colony on Molokai was disbanded in 1969. At the time of the filming, there were forty-seven surviving patients from the settlement. Today, they are free to come and go as they please, although they all feel like outcasts shunned by society. A number appeared as extras in the movie. Today, Hawaiians consider Damien to be one of the great heroes of their state.

A sleeper that will remain in my top 10
When I ordered this DVD I knew a bit about the life of Fr. Damien but nothing about the film. I expected it to be "pleasant fare" but not much better. What a surprise! Molokai is as near to being a perfect film as could ever be made. It is an interesting and inspiring story that is told without any of the over-sentimentality one might expect from a "religious" film. The screenplay is wonderful - absolutely believable and natural dialoge delivered flawlessly. The cinematography is breathtaking and the soundtrack is, well, I'm going to track it down to buy it - a first for me. So much for the technical stuff. Fr. Damien was an extraordinary individual and an ideal priest. The film portrays this with great respect as it does with the Catholic Church in general - another rarity these days! There are at least a dozen scenes that stand out as illustrations of true virtue in practice and from which we can draw inspiration to improve our own characters. This is a beautiful film in every sense and will remain in my top 10 list of all time great movies.

Makes you think.
In a modern world where money and success are now the only goals for many people this reminds us of the story of a man who gave up everything, ultimately his life, simply to care for those who had leprosy. The worst thing about this disease is that those who have it are often cast out from their homes & families for whom the stigma is such that they would rather them have died. It was like this at the time of Fr Damien and in many parts of the world is still like this today. Don't forget to watch the Making of Molokai which is also on the DVD.

An Epic of Stead-Fast Faith
This is truly an epic gem. A film that not only chronicles a portion of Father Damien's life, but also captures his undying devotion to God. In a grand way, it is Father Damien's story of selflessly helping those people who were strickened with the terrible disease of leprosy. In it's quieter moments, it is a reflection of the lives who were touched by the kindness of one man and uplifted by his neverending faith in God.

The film is masterfully photographed by Nino Martinetti and poetically directed by Paul Cox. With a screenplay by John Briley (Oscar winner for Gandhi) and a brilliant cast featuring David Wenham, Kris Kristofferson, Peter O'toole, Aden Young, Sam Neil, Derek Jacobi, Kate Ceberano and the list goes on. Even the music is beautifully composed by Paul Grabowsky and Wim Mertens and features a wonderful symphonic score mixed with traditional Hawaiian chanting.

The DVD contains the film in letterbox format (2.35:1) and a wonderfully informative documentary showing the difficulties encountered in filming on location at Kalaupapa on the island of Moloka'i. ... Read more

Reviews (38)

A rousing adventure tale! Highly recommended!
I was pleasantly surprised to find this version of JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS as a worthy successor to the original film starring Todd Armstrong.

I admit I was expecting some cheesy, low budget, badly-acted made-for-tv series but was pleased to find an entertaining film that stays faithful to the original myth. Add to that a strong cast, good production values and impressive special effects and you have a film that you will want to watch again and again.

The story centers on Jason (Jason London), who returns to reclaim his kingdom from his uncle, Pelias (Dennis Hopper). In order to regain the throne and save his mother's life, Jason agrees to sail to Colchis and obtain the golden fleece. With a crew that includes Orpheus, Atalanta, the mighty Hercules and the shipbuilder Argos, Jason faces many dangers on his quest for the fleece. The argonauts encounter the bronze giant Talos, the women of Lemnos (led by their queen Hypsypile - Natasha Henstridge), blind Phineas (Derek Jacobi) and the frightening harpies, the clashing rocks and more. When Jason arrives in Colchis, he falls in love with the lovely Medea (Jolene Blalock) but must face more challenges (including its ruler, King Aertes - Frank Langella) before he can leave the island with the fleece.

This version is more faithful to the myth than the 1963 film. For instance, Orpheus, Atalanta, Castor and Pollux make their appearance here. Also, this version shows what happens when the argonauts return home and has a better, more tightly woven ending than the original. The special effects are impressive and I enjoyed the behind-the-scenes bickering between Zeus (Angus MacFadyen) and Hera (the lovely Olivia Williams). I also thought that this version's Hercules (Brian Thompson) was a lot more convincing than Nigel Green from the original. This film also does a great job of portraying the role of the gods in Jason's quest.

However, there are also a few weaknesses. For one, I certainly miss the Talos of the original. Watching Talos first come to life on the 1963 film still gives me goosebumps up to this day. That Talos was definitely one of Ray Harryhausen's greatest creations. I also preferred the many-headed hydra to this version's giant lizard-like creature. Jason London is a passable lead but I believe the filmmakers could've picked a stronger actor. He certainly is nice to look at and the supporting actors more than make up for his shortcomings.

All in all, I enjoyed this film and would recommend it to those who enjoy mythological, fantasy or action/adventure films. For those who enjoy Greek mythology, I suggest you also check out the 1963 version of JASON OF THE ARGONAUTS if only to see the fantastic Talos and the army of skeleton soldiers as well as CLASH OF THE TITANS (starring Harry Hamlin) and upcoming film TROY (starring Brad Pitt). Edith Hamilton's book MYTHOLOGY: TIMELESS TALES OF GODS AND HEROES is also a great introduction to the wonderful world of Greek and Roman myths and legends.

Despite weak lead, this "Jason.." still entertains.
This recent NBC mini-series covers the classic Greek myth of young Jason, who sought the Golden Fleece in his quest to be king. Unlike the classic Ray Harryhausen film of the 60's, this version is a little more grim and dark than usual for this type of film, but it entertains nevertheless. Brian Thompson (the alien bounty hunter from THE X-FILES TV show) is a hearty and jovial Hercules, while the kings of Frank Langella and Dennis Hopper and Natasha Henstridge's queen provide ample opposition for our hero. As the musician Orpheus, Adrian Lester delivers a thoughtful and solid performance. Robert McFadden is good as a petulant, yet puckish, Zeus. Unfortunately, where this movie falters is in the performance of Jason London as our hero. While he has the "angry young man" aspect right, he lacks the heroic passion and fire (that Todd Armstrong displayed in the 60's version) needed to be a credible leader of his Argonaut crew. Fortunately, there is so much action and special effects in this film that it can be overlooked to some degree. While not the classic that Harryhausen created, this is still an intelligent and solid film version of a favorite myth.

One of the Best Movies Ever Made
This movie is based on the classic Greek myth. As it begins, Iocles is being invaded by King Pelias(Dennis Hopper) and his soldiers. He defeats the defending army and marches into the palace, where he tricks his brother and murders him. He tries to kill the king's son, Jason, but a soldier of the king rushes in and saves him just in time.

Some years later, Jason(Jason London) awoke from a dream. It was a dream that he had many times before. It was the memory of the day Pelias invaded. He asks the centaur Chiron, who had been raising him ever since the day his father was murdered, what the dreams meant. Chiron told him that they were a memory, that the man who was murdered was his father, and that the man who murdered him was his uncle, and that the woman present was his mother, the queen, whom Pelias had taken as his wife. So with this information in minds, he goes to the capital of Iocles to meet his mother. Along the way, he loses one of his sandals.

The court seer sees Jason, and informs Pelias that a dangerous threat to his throne has arrived at Iocles, but that all he knew about him was that he only had one sandal. So, Pelias orders Jason to be brought to him. He speaks with Jason, and is about to have him killed, and asks Jason for one good reason not to, and Jason says that he will find the Golden Fleece, which Pelias wanted above all other things. Now, the Golden Fleece was said to be the Gods greatest gift to man, for it brought it's wearer his hearts desire. And Pelias's desire is to live forever, so that he may rule Iocles forever.

Pelias has ordered a ship to be built for Jason by the famous shipbuilder Argos. The ship is named the Argo, in homage of it's builder, especially as seen as Pelias had ordered Argos to travel with Jason under pain of death. Jason goes off to look