Reviews (167)

Best. Movie. Ever.
The following is quoted from the Official Buckaroo Banzai website, and should be taken as canon. These guys work with the facts, and I hope this helps people who are on the fence about buying the DVD edition...

"Wow - we've just gotten our hands on the revised and final list of specs on MGM's upcoming The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai: Special Edition (street date 1/1/02), and you guys are gonna flip for it! These come straight from the amazing Mojo, who was an associate producer on the project. The disc was produced by Michael Arick, whose other recent work includes Forrest Gump and The Magnificent Seven. So here goes... special features on the DVD will include a brand new anamorphic widescreen transfer (presented for the first time on home video in the original 2.35:1 aspect ratio), remixed Dolby Digital 5.1 audio, 2 versions of the movie (the theatrical cut plus a special extended version with restored opening sequence starring Jamie Lee Curtis), feature audio commentary from director W.D. Richter and Reno from the Banzai Institute, a behind-the-scenes documentary and retrospective, 14 deleted scenes, the original teaser trailer, an all-new "Jet Car" special effects trailer, extensive interactive menus with new material from Buckaroo Banzai screenwriter Earl Mac Rauch, special 'watermelon' Easter eggs, Pinky Carruther's Unknown Facts subtitle track, the Banzai Institute Archives, a Banzai Radio segment, original production designs, Jet Car secrets revealed and a still gallery with never-before-seen photos. SWEEEEET! I actually ran into Mojo at the recent Studio Day event here in L.A., and from what he told me, this may be one of the coolest discs in a long time! Everything on this thing is done up as if the disc was produced by the Banzai Institute itself, and there's a ton of new and original film-themed material produced by the folks who worked on the movie. If you love Buckaroo Banzai as much as we do here at The Bits, this is a must have title if there ever was one. ... It's a adventure/sci-fi/comedy in the same vein as Big Trouble in Little China, and it's just plain fun. Don't miss it..."...

Where The Future Begins Tomorrow...
This movie was unfortunately released before its time. It got good reviews in the newspapers and magazines, but I saw it on opening night in a nearly-empty theater and it was gone shortly afterwards. A few years later, films such as Back to the Future, Ghostbusters, Big Trouble In Little China (same writer as BB), Men In Black, and Galaxy Quest would make audiences more receptive of sci-fi and/or fantasy movies that played as comedies. Its production values aren't the greatest, and it definitely looks dated (8o's hairstyles, clothing, and music), but it has a quirky, hip quality to it. The movie also features a lot of stars (John Ligthow, Christopher Lloyd, Ellen Barken, Peter Weller, Jeff Goldblum) who went on to bigger and better things. A campy film that could have been the start of something great...too bad it never caught on!

Elvira would be proud to narrate this...!
Okay, here's the bottom line line: If you didn't like this movie you should go to the morgue and check to see if you are late... as in 'the late Mr. Smith', 'cuz you don't have a pulse or a funny bone. Peter Weller did this better than he did 'RoboCOP'. Jeff Goldblum is suave and funny in this feature, even more so than in 'Transylvania 6-5000' with Ed Begley, Jr. and Geena Davis. To V. Mejia: Calling this a boring film is the most absurd thing that I have ever heard since George Bush said 'Read my lips.'. You must have been watching a different film or the humor is just beyond you. It is hard to be funny when your audience doesn't understand little things like science and levity. If you don't laugh every couple of minutes at this film you should hit yourself in the funny bone with a rubber mallet. If that doesn't work, well, get yourself a toe tag and follow the instructions in the first sentence above. Where else could you find some calling themselves 'John Big Bootay'? Hmmm??? Buy this, show it to your kid, your grandkids and everyone else that you know. This movie is on a par with 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show', 'Clue', 'Back to the Future' (I,II & III), and many other classic cult films. As Elvira would say: 'Unpleasant Dreams...'.

Live Japanimation
This movie came out before Japanimation became big. If this movie was animated it would make more sense to those who don't get it. It's a parody of Japanese movies, particularly the animated ones. The bizzare costumes, the aliens, and the implied history are all aspects of these films.

pure torture
Like many other reviewers here, I have tried and tried to watch this film in its entirety. But it's just not possible. This movie is tedious. The entire opening home-movie sequence is incredibly laborious. There are a few funny moments in the film, but overall, this movie is painful. The folks at the School of The Americas could probably use this movie as part of their torture training program. John Lithgow's performance is excrutiating to watch. It's uncomfortably over the top. I first saw this movie when it came out in theaters and fell asleep. This movie is BAD. People say it's a cult classic, but it's nothing like the Rocky Horror Picture Show, which is a true cult classic. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A rarely screened cult favorite from Paul Verhoeven, this story of medieval war and revenge should please action fans and admirers of the director and his semi-regular leading man, Rutger Hauer, but its graphic scenes of sexual violence earmark it for mature viewers only. Hauer stars as a 16th-century mercenary hired by a Western European ruler (Fernando Hilbeck) to assault a neighboring kingdom; when the king reneges on his promises to Hauer and his men, they kidnap his son's fiancee (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and hole up in a nearby castle. Hauer and Leigh are standouts in a strong cast that includes Tom Burlinson, Bruno Kirby, the late Brion James, and Susan Tyrrell; Verhoeven's realistic approach to the down-and-dirty facts of medieval life and the bloody aftermath of warfare offers a refreshing alternative to most Hollywood period films, but a pair of brutal rape scenes may be too much for some audiences. MGM's DVD is widescreen. --Paul Gaita ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Flesh and Blood - a movie for a New Years' Eve
This movie is such a pleasant surprise! Rutger Hauer is soooo handsome and sexy. As "Martin" he and his band of mercenaries roam the 'northern european' countryside (where is this supposed to actually be?) with a statue of St. Martin (Martin's patron saint) guiding them to their destiny--a castle with the plague awaiting them.

Agnes looks very much the part of the child princess bride. Some of this movie reminds me of the (in)famous "War Lord" with good 'ole Charleton H.--princess bride ravaged by the warrior--only in this one the bride isn't long suffering but actually has some fun with Martin too.

The war machines add to the plot but man did the director take liberties. How did the wood on the 'telescoping' ladder keep from burning? Did they have dynamite for the 'bomb' invention back then? And how would the Arab medical texts suggesting the plague swellings be cut open rather than bleeding the victim make it all the way up there?

The dialogue is so camp! At the most inappropriate times you find yourself laughing outloud--like at the end of the rape scene where Martin says: "I'm done, I hope you are". And the scene when Martin's first woman is having a baby and she says: "That hurts!"--an understatement if I ever heard one. The sexy bath scenes are very seductive--a mideaval hot tub, candles and all sorts of frolic.

The film is shot in SPAIN--Avila and other beautiful locations but the weather is not always all that sunny--the rain and mud--whew!

Loved this movie--you will too!

Paul Verhoeven's "transition" film
Flesh and Blood can be considered Paul Verhoeven's transition between Holland and Hollywood. This film was his first English-language one and was funded by an American studio (Orion), but was filmed with a largely European crew in Spain. It is interesting to note that the shoot was absolutely miserable, with terrible weather and infighting on the set that caused a years-long rift between Verhoeven and leading man Rutger Hauer. The bad feelings really seem to come through in both the directing and the acting. It was after this movie, having severed ties with his former producer and star, that Verhoeven blew town for Hollywood and filmed Robocop.

I've been waiting for this on DVD for a long time, and now MGM has finally announced a February 2004 release for Flesh and Blood. Now if we could only get the Dutch miniseries "Floris" translated to English and released, our Verhoeven collections could be complete!

FLESH + BLOOD
Well, this is a good movie, although it has some bad parts it still is worth watching. It has everything in it to make it a good movie and it has a heart. This is a good movie. GREAT!

what a mess!
This was one of the worst flicks I've ever seen....the acting was atrociously bad--especially Jennifer Jason Leigh (was this her 1st movie)? The plot is ridiculous, the fighting is amateurish and completely unrealistic and the actors look like they were just handed a script and asked to improvise. Rutger Hauer looks like he can't wait to get this mess over with.
You'll need to see "Braveheart" to cleanse your palette after viewing this mess.

One of my favorite films EVER!
Flesh and Blood is one of the most wonderful films of all times!
I saw it for the first time when I was 8 years old, and it immediately become my favorite! I was longing for this films launch on DvD for a long time!
It is dark, and raw but it has many elements apart from what is apparent. It is actually a love story, surrounded by sin, war, plague and lust; and all these in an incredibly mystical setting and time...Definately reccomend it! ... Read more

Description

After her family is murdered, a young woman becomes a master of the sword and seeks revenge on the evil queen responsible for the mayhem that has befallen her. ... Read more

Reviews (33)

So bad it is good
I just got finished watching this movie on the high definition HBO channel. I'd seen it before when I was much younger and like it then. Essentially part three of the Conan movies and directed by the same guy who did the second Conan movie. The Schwarzenegger character in this one isn't Conan though, he's some other barbarian who tells Red Sonja early in the movie "Danger is my business." This movie is so campy, so woodenly acted, and so fantasy movie cliche ridden it's hilarious. I'm a little torn. As an example of the art form, this is a dreadfully bad movie and worth one star. As Saturday morning entertainment, along the lines of watching cartoons, the movie is brilliant and worth five stars. The scenery in some of the outdoor shots can be pretty spectacular, especially in the scene where the gang was staring across a chasm to the place where the sun doesn't shine (I think that was the name of the evil queen's land). The special effects are cheesy. The dialog is...uh, well Arnold and Brigitte were the lead characters. The annoying brat should have fallen into the boiling mud early on. The queen's pet spider was a cute touch. If this ever does come out on DVD I'm getting it. It's both one of the funniest and worst movies ever made. Take some pain medication before watching though because this one can be painful to sit through.

Old but but better than Scorpion King
If you like swords fights, Muscles,and warriors at it's best then you'll like to watch this film.<br /> <br /> If you're looking for more "acting kind of stuff" you can watch Bridget Jones Diary.<br /> <br /> Arnold can look like a robot or a Kindergarde teacher or a man from 2000 years if he wanted to, we all know that. this movie is from 1985 so it may not have the same effects that we see these days but It was meant to be an old flick anyway, IN the dvd version the sound It's terrific, a must have specially if you have kids or If you're an Arnold fan!!!<br /> the story is plain and simple but everyhting looks real and Arnold is in his own surroundigns unlike the Rock who was more like an showing off in Scorpion King.<br /> Everything looks real(from that era) if you get in to the story.<br /> Again you got to love those swords man they are real Briggitte did a good work also!!!<br />

Red Sonja on DVD
Red Sonja was Directed by Richard Fleischer(who also directed Conan the Destroyer). Admittedly, this was the worst film of the Conan style fantasy series, but it still has something to offer to loyal 80's fans. Excellent casting with the top action stars of the moment. This film has Arnold fresh off his Terminator hit, Brigitte Nielsen fresh off Rocky 4, and 80s karate star Ernie Reyes JR(star of the 80s TV series Sidekicks).

Red Sonja is fun, but it doesn't offer anything original. Just the same old save the world, good versus evil stuff.

If you couldn't get enough of the first 2 Conan movies and you need more, then pick up red Sonja. She isn't as pretty as Xena, but she and Arnold swing one hell of a sword! really excellent barbarian style sword fighting.

casting=4.5 stars
ending=4 stars
Directing and Editing=3.75 stars
plot & storyline=2.5 stars
replay value=3.5 stars

OVERALL= 3.65 TOTAL STARS

DVD FEATURES: Red Sonja has a very nice wide screen transfer, chapter selection and movie trailer.

Sadly after a long wait for this DVD, we didn't get any commentary from the director or Brigitte. That's pretty sad that they don't try to give a little more quality to the fans after a long wait. Brigitte Nielsen hasn't done a good film since Beverly Hills cop 2 in 1987, so it's not like she is too occupied. The DVD special features are pathetic. At least give us some filmographies or something...

Cheesey campy 80's classic
Arnold.
He is the reason this is watchable and without him this would be one of the worst movies ever.

Nielson has the acting talent of a cherry tree but plays the role well physically. The biggest joke of a scene was Bridgette mourning her dead sister. A true Oscar worthy performance!

And young Prince Tarn... ugh!!!
He is the reason this movie is 3 stars and not 5.
He is easily one of the most annoying characters to ever grace the silver screen and his servant, who has an IQ of a turnip, is almost as bad. His sidekick is not funny, overweight, and uses a giant bone for a weapon. Wow what a great mix!

This movie is enjoyable, but only if you were a young male growing up in the 80's and for nostalgic purposes. Without Arnold this would be unwatchable.

An Eighties Classic
I was raised on Conan and Red Sonja, so I can't help but highly recommend these movies. No, the acting isn't great, and there are homosexual connotations that I just didn't catch when I was six, but these movies have stood the test of time-- at least in my estimation. Wonderful adventures with unforgetable characters, and the swords are just darn cool. ... Read more

Reviews (60)

First Class Entertainment
I first watched this film on the television at Christmas in about 1982 (under the title "Dance Of The Vampires"), and even then, as a 12 year-old, was impressed by this superior vampire 'caper'. The film starts with a beautifully haunting score (by the late Christopher Komeda) and the arrival of a pair of intrepid vampire killers to a Transylvanian Inn. Throughout the film, the viewer is treated to a visual and musical feast, enhanced by brilliant acting from the likes of Ferdy Mayne, Jack MacGowran, Alfie Bass, and of course, Iain Quarrier as the token gay vampire! The enchanting qualities of Sharon Tate as the inn-keeper's young daughter, Sara, add to the overall enjoyment of the film; which, in my opinion, is easily the best vampire and/or Polanski movie to date.

A Comedic Rendition of Bram Stoker's "Dracula"
"The Fearless Vampire Killers" is producer/director/screenwriter/actor Roman Polanski's comedic rendition of Bram Stoker's "Dracula" legend. The bumbling Professor and his timid assistant Alfred (played by Roman Polanski) travel to Transylvania to study vampires. The Professor and Alfred rest at an inn festooned with garlic. That evening, the innkeeper's daughter (played by the *stunningly beautiful* Sharon Tate) is kidnapped by the Count (played with a characterization combining elements of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing). The distraught innkeeper (played with a Zero Mostel characterization) runs out into the night to rescue his kidnapped daughter and never returns alive. The Professor and Alfred seek the Count's castle. The Count invites the Professor and Alfred to stay at his castle and to study in his library. The Professor and Alfred agree, they learn that the Count and his flock are planning a formal dress ball, and the real fun begins ...

This film's scenic vistas and its theatrical sets are impressive -- they are complex, ornate, and convey a somber atmosphere. And Sharon Tate's beauty is impressive -- previously an unknown actress, this film gave general public recognition to Sharon Tate. Roman Polanski was involved in *all* aspects of this film's production, and his quality touch is visible throughout the film.

It is ironic that this film's plot revolves around Sharon Tate's kidnapping by the Count and his flock. After this film was released, Sharon Tate and her real life friends were murdered in their home by members of the Charles Manson family.

Not his best
... when u compare it with Rosemary`s Baby, Repulsion and Frantic. But it DOES have its moments... What really saves this film is the music by Komeda, choreography by Norwegian Tutte Lemkow, the scenary, the make-up, the off-key characters, Sharon Tate and the costumes... Too often u find yourself wondering what-the-heck this is all about and why doesn`t Polanski move a bit faster into the action??? Still; it`s watchable and I`m glad that so many have found it to their hearts:-)

A Timeless Classic
This is one of my all-time favorite films. I first saw this movie as a young girl and never forgot it. I was thrilled when I found it on VHS years later and am now excited about owning the DVD. This film is a mixture of an early silent film and a Laurel & Hardy-type comedy. Our "fearless vampire killers" keep getting themselves into tight spots and then must work to get themselves out again. The sets are terrific, especially the castle. You can get wrapped up in this film, it won't bore you for a minute. It's a subtle spoof of a vampire movie keeping the thrills while adding comic relief. A must-see and a must-have.

A Vampire Classic
Late one night many years ago I had the pleasure of watching the great Roman Polanski vampire film. Now, many years later, I have added the complete and uncut edition to my collection.

This tongue-in-cheek begins with Professor Abronsius and his assistant (Polanski) arriving in Transylvania. The professor, who has one of the silliest mustaches of all time, is researching the legends of vampires. He is convinced that they really exist and that he can eliminate them. Shortly after their arrival it becomes apparent that there are indeed strange creatures about. All of the evidence convinces the professor that his suspicions are correct.

When the inn they are staying in is hit by a vampire the two journey to a bleak castle. There they encounter the local lord, who is a vampire. The lord and the professor hit it off quite well as both are men (ahem) of learning. During the day the professor and his assistant search for the vampires tomb. They find it but are unable to dispatch the creatures and wind up losing all of their tools in the process. Then night falls.

With the fall of night the two become targets and must avoid their vampiric hosts. then they make a startling discovery. There are more vampires in the castle than just the lord and his son. There is a graveyard filled with generations of bloodsuckers. As the vampires hold an annual ball at which they will feast on a number of locals, the professor and his protégée manage to make off with one of the victims and successfully flee into the night pursued by a hunchback sledding in a coffin.

The film then ends with a very dark note. The woman they have saved makes the complete transition to vampire while they are fleeing and she bites the young assistant. It is in this way that the bumbling Professor Abronsius enabled vampirism to spread out of Transylvania into the rest of the world.

This edition restores the twenty minutes that were cut out when the film was first released in America. This is an unusual film in that much is communicated through action. The dialogue is rather sparse throughout. But with the almost exaggerated actions of a silent film combined with a haunting score result in a richer movie than had it been full of dialogue. The special effects, what few there are, are quite effective and possibly more effective than current effects. In one scene the vampire killers and the woman they are trying to rescue are leading a dance at the ball. The procession advances towards a mirror and only the three are reflected although dozens are in direct line. Spectacular. The rest of the film uses small dashes of comedy to season an otherwise dark story. This is a true classic among vampire films. If you have not seen it you should. ... Read more

Reviews (74)

Interesting,but from what I've hear Valmont
besides Colin Firth can't hold a candle to Dangerous Liaisons. I now would like to see this adaption of the book Les liaisons dangereuses. The movie is allright ummm Annette Bennings performance was pretty convincing and Colin Firths performance was pretty sexy...lol But nothing amazing. This movie is okay if you have'nt seen Dangerous Liaisons first and since I haven't I liked this movie quite a bit. The girl that played Cecile was done well she did it very convincingly. Probrably the best performance in the film. Alltough I as well found the ending about Annette Benning glaring at Cecile's ex-lover confusing. Lol I'm not good at remembering characters names so excuse that. But I love historical films and the clothing was beautiful. One thing that... me off is when Valmonts witnesses those bum butts from the bar ran away. And there should have been a MUCH MUCH better sword fight I mean come on a 10second fight? I love swords and anyways. I suggest this movie to people who like historical films,and if you catch it on TV watch it,but if you plan on buying a film based on the book Les Dangereuses Liaisons from what I've heard you're better off purchasing Dangerous Liaisons,but if you want to rent Valmonth go ahead it'll be cheap hehe!!!Anyways enjoy either way you go!!!

God Bless ~Amy

Better casting than Dangerous Liaisons
I bought this tape because I liked the movie Dangerous Liaisons with Glenn Close, John Malkovich et al. Dangerous liaisons had more punch to it, especially the ending. However, the casting in Valmont is far superior (with the exception of Meg Tilly). I found John Malkovich repulsive and reptilian--he didn't convince me that he was a rake who could charm a virtuous woman. Colin Firth, however, was very sexy and suprisingly vulnerable as Valmont. Annette Benning was great--playful, conniving, and beautiful. Glenn Close looks dried up and past her prime in comparison. I was actually most suprised by Fairuza Balk. Her role was meatier than Uma Thurman's. While Uma was stiff and (imo she can't act), Fairuza was fresh, young, and talented. I heard she was only 14 when she filmed this! The only casting I didn't like was Meg Tilly. She was weak and very stilted. It almost seemed like she had a hard time just saying her lines. No chemistry with Colin Firth whatsoever. Michelle Pfieffer was infinitely more tragic and tortured. I wish I could combine Dangerous Liasons' script with the cast of Valmont--that would be my ideal version of this movie.

An outstanding yet neglected film
I happened to watch this movie on TV, quite a while ago. Despite the rather "unastable" ending (towards the book) I found it very good. Colin Firth (apart from being an absolute hunk in period frocks is also fantastic-though he smiles too much for such a tragic character) is much more down-to-earth and handsome than -otherwise great actor- John Malcovitch. Colin is brooding, John is SCARY. Not the person I'd trust my heart or body to. Glenn Glose is a lot more scary - Anette Benning is fantastic because she is bad, she is sexy,and can be even good sometimes. Glose is bad, bad, and scary. Not to mention that ravishing - and too old - Uma Thurman can't possibly persuade anyone for being innocent, pure and well, virgin. Fairuza Balk, is yet a child. Milos Forman gives the characters a depth that we don't see in DL1. The only thing I consider a good choice, was Michelle Pfeifer as the tragig widow. She is brilliant, beautiful (Meg Tilly was pretty but not as ravishing), and most of all, CAN ACT. A few years younger and next to Firth, could produce sparks. I definitely go for the Milos Forman edition. Despite the really bad ending, he gives his characters more dimensions. In DL1, the good are too good, the bad are too bad, and the people between, insignificant. Life isn't just that way.
I hope i will be able to find it in a DVD region 2 someday. Unless I buy an All-regions DVD player. (sigh).

MGM Home Video Does a Hachet Job On This Masterpiece
Please, don't get me wrong--Valmont is one of my favorite films of all time. But I just discovered to my HORROR that it's true--MGM Home Entertainment has edited out a crucial and beautiful scene from this cinema masterpiece. I can't believe I missed it for the past two years, but the other reviewers are right. The lovely scene where Valmont buys a bouquet of flowers and brings them to Madame de Tourvel's apartment, and leaves them on her bed when she is not there, has been hacked out of this DVD! This scene is so beautiful and ingrained on my mind, that I must have mentally inserted it into my viewings for the past two years and consciously overlooked its absence. I can't tell you how betrayed and violated I feel, realizing that I have been watching the movie for two years without this important scene included. The scene is one of the most delicate and mysterious of the whole movie, showing a tender side of Valmont's character in such a subtle way. I am going to send my copy of the DVD to either MGM or Milos Forman and complain about this monstrosity. And I am going to buy a copy of the old VHS version that is intact and complete. If you care anything about the integrity of art and artistic accuracy, don't buy this DVD. You will be missing an imprtant part of the film. This DVD is tantamount to taking Monet's "Coquelicots", taking some shelack, and brushing over the woman's parasol. How does an outfit like MGM have the NERVE to commit such an atrocity on a masterpiece of art? They have no shame. I am totally appalled.

Best version of LIAISONS
Milos Forman was scooped. Stephen Frear's DANGEROUS LIAISONS came out first and had a starrier cast. But it was Forman's film that captured the tragic irony of the original book. Frear's film is pure cornball. Glenn Close and Malkovich ham it up as rich, spoiled, and extremely mean people who go through great lenghts to use and hurt as many people as possible for no apparent reason, until the day that Malkovich falls for the nun-like Pfeiffer and then the plot develops with all of the misunderstandings and forced tears of the old, stage melodramas.
Milos Forman's film, however, is a masterpiece. He did not make the characters so black and white as they are in the other film, and he also gave his characters motivations, which justify all actions and turns of the plot. In fact, the film is a vast improvement on the novel, as Forman adds his great observations of human nature and his own unique brand of irony. In VALMONT, you never assume anything. I recommend seeing both films as a great tool to compare real art with crap. ... Read more

Description

An ex-flyer who is a distress victim from Vietnam experience is ordered back into military duty to head a secret mission. His assignment is to sneak into Russia and steal a Soviet warplane which is far more advanced than any other air machine being used by the NATO alliance. ... Read more

Reviews (52)

Awesome! Firefox takes off with suspense and excitement!
This movie is one of my favorite movies. Eastwood is absolutely fantastic in his role as Mitchell Gant, and the scenes for Russian locales are very much how I thought the USSR would be like. The first half of the movie, with Gant sneaking into Russia, and the base where the Firefox is, is very suspenseful. The sleek, black, Firefox aircraft itself is an incredibly cool looking design, and one of the most realistic looking movie aircraft I've ever seen, both when it's on the ground, and flying in the air. The aerial sequences are great, and the dogfight at the end of the movie between the two Firefoxes, Gant's and a pursuing, Russian pilot's, is incredible, and as realistic as the ones in Top Gun. With all these great qualities, Firefox is a great movie that deserves far more than 5 stars. I would recomend this movie to any aircraft, espionage, or Clint Eastwood fan, and anyone who likes great movies.

"Go Ahead...Mig My Day."
If you liked "The Hunt for Red October" and you're a BIG Clint Eastwood fan, you're still not likely to cheer "Firefox". With lame-o generic spy genre characters, obvious "clip and paste" special effects and the burden of having to believe that Eastwood's character was born Russian, "Firefox" taxes the audience severely. The young Smithers-esque intellience guy that gets giddy as a school girl everytime Eastwood does anything and Freddie Jones who's character is completely unintelligable throughout the whole movie (even though he's speakin English) are as distracting as dancers with pulled hamstrings. Add a "psychic" Russian general who can predict Eastwood's every move and a "super jet" that appears to be as aerodynamic as a dictionary and you've got yourself one pretty bad flick. So why the two stars? Well, it IS Eastwood and he IS kicking Ruskie butt...

An adequate, unusual techno-thriller from Clint Eastwood
This was Clint Eastwood's second dip into the waters of the espionage thriller (the first was the awful "Eiger Sanction" back in 1975), and one of the few films he directed which relies heavily on visual effects. As a director, Eastwood seems uneasy with both modes, which go against the grain of his realistic, tough, and often stoic & silent directorial style. Nonetheless, "Firefox" works better than it should. Eastwood brings understated realism to what might have been a hopelessly hokey Cold War techno thriller, and the visual effects-laden last third is fairly exciting. However, the mixture of elements ultimately produces only an adequate film, a strange entry in Eastwood's long string of hits.

The plot is a Tom Clancy story before there were Tom Clancy stories (this is based on a novel by Craig Thomas). The Soviets (remember them?) have developed a super fighter jet, the Firefox, with thought-controlled weapons system. The Firefox threatens the balance of power in the Cold War, so NATO needs to get their hands on it, pronto. The only man who can do it is pilot Mitchell Gant (Eastwood). He speaks fluent Russian, can infiltrate the base with the help of Russian Jewish dissenters (played by Ronald Lacey, Nigel Hawthorne, and Warren Clarke), and has the skill to fly the Firefox. Only problem: Gant is highly unstable from his Vietnam experience, is prone is nasty flashbacks (a problem if you're flying a though- controlled plane!), and has done no undercover work before.

"Firefox" is overlong at 136 minutes, and tends to drag with far too many scenes of Russian and NATO boardroom arguments. The film works best in the early parts during the scenes with Lacey, Hawthorne, and Clarke, who all give fine, sentimental performances as double agents who know they are doomed but struggle on for what they know is right. In a few place, Eastwood shows traces of the later themes of the consequences of violence that would mature in "Unforgiven" and "Mystic River." Eastwood himself is fairly good in the role, avoiding any "Dirty Harry" clichés or relying too much on his tough guy image, but he does look rather silly in his undercover disguise scenes.

Nonetheless, it does seem to take forever until the last third, where the Firefox tries to blaze an almost hopeless escape trail out of the Soviet Union, with another Firefox prototype on its tail. The effects (by John Dysktra of "Star Wars" fame) are zippy and fantastic, but any human element left in the film pretty much bails out at this point. Enjoy the planes, enjoy the speed, enjoy Clint just staring out the window and not moving much. It's fairly exciting, but when it's all over, you'll feel a bit let down.

The DVD, like most Warner Bros. discs in the Clint Eastwood Collection, looks very good, and the sound is 5.1. But also like most Warner Bros. discs in the Clint Eastwood Collection, there are no extras.

Good, but not great
FIREFOX is one of those films made back when the U.S.S.R. still existed, and espionage is the key here. Clint Eastwood plays Mitchell Gant, a retired Air Force pilot who is resurrected to steal the FIREFOX fighter jet from Russia. Based on a novel by the same name, FIREFOX certainly looks like an interesting movie, and it is to some extent. It has a little James Bond flavor in it too. It is not great, however, and has many flaws.

Eastwood constantly changes deguise throughout the film as his allies seek to get him to the jet. The process is long and confusing, and the whole time Clint doesn't look like he has any idea what he is doing. Once he grabs the jet itself, and pulls out of the hanger, night suddenly changes to day! The special effects during the flying sequences are exciting. John Dykstra, who won an oscar for the special effects in STAR WARS, did the job on the effects here and the results are impressive, even though they look dated. The movie does drag, however, when the U.S.S.R. intellegence constantly is trying to figure out which direction he is headed. The worst thing about this film is the ending. After winning a dramatic dogfight with the other FIREFOX, the movie ends right there in the sky. It would have been interesting if Eastwood could have entended it a little more to at least see him land the plane in his home country. This was Eastwood's eighth time as a director as well. The movie is interesting, but the minor flaws, and flat ending are what kind of hold it back from being great. FIREFOX wass a good movie, but it could have been better, alot better.

Not a bad espionage thriller
I remember when I first saw this 20 years ago on cable TV. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Fans of Sean Connery who are curious to see him explore roles outside of his usual heroic characters may enjoy his robust turn as the mythic Green Knight in this 1982 British-made fantasy. Based loosely on the classic epic poem "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight," Connery is quite a sight as the glittering green figure, who challenges young Gawain (Miles O'Keefe of Tarzan the Ape Man infamy), a squire in King Arthur's court, to solve his riddle or lose his head. O'Keefe is a stiff Gawain, and the film suffers under its low budget and awkward comic moments, but Connery and the rest of the cast (which includes Trevor Howard as Arthur, John Rhys-Davies, Lila Kedrova, and Peter Cushing) are game and provide sufficient star power to keep fantasy-adventure fans distracted from the film's shortcomings. Writer-director Weeks also directed a version of this story in 1973, with Murray Head of Jesus Christ Superstar fame as Gawain. --Paul Gaita ... Read more

Amazon.com

Of all the Sherlock Holmes tales written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Hound of the Baskervilles (one of the four novels) remains the best-known. Adding a dash of the supernatural to the Great Detective's adventures, it is certainly one of the most dramatic--and an obvious target for screen interpretation. Prior to Jeremy Brett's indelibly making the role his own to modern TV audiences, Ian Richardson made for a suitably incisive and enthusiastic Holmes in this enjoyable 1983 adaptation. The much-filmed tale finds Holmes and Watson drawn in to the mysterious curse afflicting the well-heeled Baskerville dynasty. Is a monster stalking the heir to the Baskerville fortune, or is the culprit a far from demonic force? As Holmes, Richardson is blessed with the avian features that, like Basil Rathbone's or Peter Cushing's, effectively capture Sidney Paget's original likeness. Though Holmes's more antisocial facets are dispensed with, Richardson is engaging in such a well-explored role, recalling the razor-sharp wit and intelligence of Rathbone. Attracting a distinguished British cast (Brian Blessed, Denholm Elliot, Martin Shaw) and decent production values (though with a few Hammer Horror moments), this will not disappoint fans of Victorian literature's finest detective, nor those in search of a classic, chilling thriller. --Danny Graydon ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Unforgettable triumph of storytelling.
Without doubt, this is by far the finest screen version of Conan Doyle's famous story I have (so far) seen. Ian Richardson (who will no doubt be familiar to fans of House of Cards and To Play the King) is perfect as Holmes. The film boasts just the right cast (whether central characters or bit parts, they all give strong performances), the moor's thin line between beauty and deadly is just right, the soundtrack is unforgettable, there is myriad memorable dialogue and the whole thing flows very well. There is not a dull moment. Recommended to fans of Sherlock Holmes, Doyle or just horror in general.

Solid, but not totally spectacular version
This version of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic story featuring Sherlock Holmes offers a fun and solid take on the tale of the Great Detective and his investigation of a deadly family curse. Wonderfully photographed, the film makes great use of the dark settings of the moor. Ian Richardson leads the pack with a sly, puckish take on Sherlock Holmes. It is a wonderful performance that makes one wish that he had filmed more Holmes stories then he did. Denholm Elliott has his amusing moments as the local doctor with a case of absent-mindedness. Unfortunately, the actor playing the faithful Dr. Watson, seems to be too much the Cockney with his gravelly voice. It's frustrating since his character spends much of the time onscreen, while Holmes is offscreen thoughout the middle part of the film. Brian Blessed and Connie Booth (formerly married to John Cleese, and a sometime performer with Monty Python), do well in smaller roles. A decent film, but not the definitive version.

warning
I made the mistake of watching this with my kids and family after church one Sunday. I had no idea there would be a rape scene! For kids stick with the Halmark version with Matt Frewer.

Probably the best
With the exception of the cheesy merry-go-round dog attack at the beginning of this TV movie, this version of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" is superb. Ian Richardson plays Holmes with a flair that matches the great Jeremy Brett. It's a shame that Richardson's Holmes is only captured in one other occasion on film. ("The Sign of Four")

In contrast, it's also a shame that "Hound" is probably the most screen adapted literary work ever (there are at least 10 films) but there is no perfect definitive version. This is probably as close as we're going to get. This film, made in 1983, far outshines the 2000 BBC version with its horrid CGI dog and a Watson who is likely computer generated as well. Fans of the Jeremy Brett film may be surprised at the stellar cast of this one, featuring Denholm Elliott ("Raiders of the Lost Ark"), Eleanor Bron ("The House of Mirth"), Connie Booth ("Monty Python"), and noted actor Brian Blessed (you'll know him when you see him if you don't already). The film also features Ronald Lacey as probably the best Inspector Lestrade ever. (Lacey was also in "Raiders" and the Jeremy Brett version of "The Sign of Four".) Martin Shaw's spin as the Texan Sir Henry Baskerville surprisingly turns out to be more pleasant than not.

At times the film is on the gritty side. The scene with Sir Hugo chasing his servant's daughter for that evening's recreational rape is darker than one would expect, but precisely where it needs to be cinematically. When you consider realism, this "Hound" is unequalled.

Fans of Ian Richardson should also check him out in "Murder Rooms", a BBC series where he plays Dr. Joseph Bell - a real Victorian doctor universally recognized as Arthur Conan Doyle's inspiration for the Sherlock Holmes character.

Excellent and Memorable
This 1983 version of the Hound, with Ian Richardson as Sherlock Holmes, has rarely received the accolades it so richly deserves. While not the most faithful adaptation of the Conan Doyle classic, it is nevertheless sumptuously atmospheric. It features a truly menacing hound that more closely approximates the horror elicited by the novel's original than the veritable slew of disappointing hounds from several other film versions, the obvious exception being the equally terrifying Basil Rathbone hound. This TV movie's strengths stem from a variety of sources. First of all, Michael Lewis's engaging, memorable film score is exquisitely dynamic and resonates with excitement. Secondly, the production's choice of authentic Devonshire locales for outdoor filming, and effective use of sound stages to evoke the melancholy and dreary mystique of the moors at nighttime,imbues this stylish version with an appropriately gothic flavor. It stunningly depicts the eerie essence of the Grimpen Mire, replete with its miasma of swirling, amorphous ground mist, and compellingly involves the viewer in the visual ambience of its surroundings. The film's denouement, as Holmes pursues his villainous quarry through the mire's impenetrable sea of fog, is masterfully photographed and provides a highly dramatic and satisfying catharsis to an enjoyable film.
This is not to discount the film's few shortcomings. Certainly Richardson's Holmes, invariably prone to overtly amiable behavior, deviates from the disconcerting arrogance and brooding demeanor so brilliantly and faithfully rendered by Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett. This is not to negate Richardson's charismatic and magnetic presence, however, and he is a pleasure to watch. (Recently, he compellingly played Dr. Joseph Bell, the real-life inspiration for Sherlock Holmes, in an equally atmospheric mystery series broadcast on Public Television). However, his Holmes portrayal remains somewhat revisionist. Furthermore, Donald Churchill's slightly bumbling rendition of Dr. Watson is too much of a frustrating throwback to Nigel Bruce's comedic and dim-witted depiction of the much maligned-doctor in the classic Basil Rathbone films of the 1940s. As Watson's character, for once, takes center stage in the Hound, casting for this role is more imperatively crucial than for Holmes. Among the most convincing and enjoyable Watsons from productions past included the more cerebral Andre Morell from the 1959 Hammer film and the equally astute and somber Edward Hardwicke from the 1987 Jeremy Brett version. However, that said, this stylish production deserves unstinting praise for the masterful way in which it skillfully reproduces the macabre spirit of the classic novel. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Part One
"The Final Programme" is an adaptation of Michael Moorcock's first book in the Jerry Cornelius series. Like Elric, the Jerry Cornelius stories, an epic in themselves, comprise a subset of his Eternal Champion epic, inspired in part by Jungian psychology and the theories of Joseph Campbell. Of all of Moorcock's books, the Jerry Cornelius stories are the most experimental and are by far those which lend themselves the least to movie adaptation.

Robert Fuest, who was a set designer and director of the Avengers TV series and the Dr. Phibes movies, makes an admirable, and visually entertaining, attempt at adapting the first novel, however what he creates is ultimately flawed. This is most noticeable in the ending (which I won't spoil) which comes off as purely pretentious camp in the film, although it works well in the novel.

One of the things which makes the Jerry Cornelius series most interesting is that each novel takes place in a slightly different world with slightly different characters with similar names, reliving the same dramas over and over again. For example, there is the love triangle between Jerry and his brother and their sister, which is barely developed in the movie, perhaps for censorship reasons. As you progress through each book, the themes become reinforced and the series' exploration of archetypes becomes stronger. The love triangle, for example, becomes more profound and takes on mythic tones, like the legends of Osiris, Isis and Anubis. By adapting only the first novel, the movie loses most of its impact and its focus on the themes in the novel becomes quite surface. So instead of an amazing intellectual journey, you instead get what appears to be an especially campy, bizarre and racey episode of the Avengers, with secret agents and spies in fancy dress racing to retrieve a mysterious microchip in a psychedelic and decadent age.

Another weakness of the movie is that it gives only a bare glimpse at the End of the World, something that is wonderfully portrayed (in different manners) in each of the Cornelius books. The largest indication of the movie taking place at the end of the world is a speech about the approaching end of the current Yuga (or "age"). However, it is preferable that the movie is a bit too subtle in this regard instead of hitting you over the head with it.

Someone who has read the Cornelius books will likely have greater appreciation for this film than others, recognizing what it accomplishes in attempting to adapt an impossible to film book. But all should find at least the first half an enjoyable trip with great, creative visuals and avant garde late 1960s fashion and architecture.

Better than I expected
I had read Michael Moorcock's somewhat scathing comments on this movie and its history. Jon Finch was a friend of Moorcock's and he also knew some of the other actors -- it has a superb cast including Hugh Griffiths, George Chakaris, Jenny Runacre, Sterling Hayden. According to Moorcock the only thing wrong with the film (produced by Putnam and Leiberson who had just done Performance -- Jagger turned the Cornelius part down as being 'too freaky') was the director, who came in after the success with EMI of his Doctor Phibes movies. Fuest certainly didn't rise to glory after this and seems to have disappeared almost entirely. Moorcock claimed the director had 'reversed' much of his attack and added sexism whereas Moorcock was celebrating gender bending. For all that, there are some fine performances and some great comic scenes, with Finch and Co. coming in to their own as, according to Moorcock's account, they gradually took charge of the picture. Jerry starts out as a sort of freaky James Bond, but by the middle of the picture is playing it far more for laughs (and a lot better than The Spy Who Shagged Me!). Still well worth watching, if only for its incredible list of British and American repertory movie actors giving their baffled best. Moorcock's piece also notes Chakaris coming up to him 'Young man, young man -- what is this film all about ?' By this time Moorcock had no idea himself. "I don't know," he said. "Ah, there you are," said Chakaris triumphantly, "the author doesn't know what it's about, either.' Really, if you want the full strength of what this could have delivered, you need to read the new Cornelius Quartet, just out from Four Walls, Eight Windows -- this first was always the weakest -- but would have been so much better with a director who understood its targets. The relative failure of this movie meant that the other Cornelius movies, optioned to Goodtimes, never got made. Imagine The English Assassin as a movie -- or better still The Condition of Muzak. Someone should start thinking about a good remake...

"A very tastey world!"
What can you say about a film that, opening scene onwards, you either love or loathe? It's fantastically dated, and that's what makes it fantastic. From the London Red-Bus Movie music, the bizarro pseudo-science, the biting dialogue, and the (almost) Cast of Thousands, "Final Programme" is one of my favorite films ever. I've almost worn out my copy.

The plot's incidental, but what the hey? Jerry Cornelius (Jon Finch) is a Nobel Laureate living on Bell's scotch, pills, and chocolate digestives in a chaotic world where Trafalgar Square is a vast dump, arms dealers operate in basements across from the National Gallery, and Amsterdam's now "25 square miles of white ash--for once the Americans got it right." Jerry's dad, mad-scientist and founder of the Cornelius line, was working on something weird in Lapland when he died, but that's not Jerry's problem now. He's more worried about his crazy brother Frank (the wonderful Derek O'Connor), who is holding their sister Catherine hostage in the Family Manse and is, if possible, more strung out than Jerry.

But Lapland returns to haunt him in the form of Miss Brunner (Jenny Runacre) and three Magritte-like scientists. They need Jerry to help them get his dad's microfilm, the last piece of The Final Programme---a project staggaring in conception and quite, quite funny. The microfilm is locked in the house with Frank, and as the old family retainer tells Jerry,"There's another problem--it's that house. You know what that old house is like." "I haven't forgotten" says Jerry.

That "old house" is a super-modern fortress, of course, complete with lights of simulate "pseudo-epilepsy", booby traps, poison gas, and a pantheon of James Bondish dangers. Along the way to the microfilm, it becomes apparent there's something very odd about Miss Brunner, and that Frank's not the fool he seems.

I know it's dated and I don't care. I don't care if the continuity is bad. I don't care if the budget could've been bigger. I don't care if the "science" is Junk with a capital "Juh". I'm oblivious to it all, because this is such an entertaining movie. For one thing, Jon Finch is incredible. He's the perfect Jerry, and Prince could only PRAY to wear a Goth/New Romantic suit as well as Finch does. For another, Jenny Runacre's Miss Brunner was feminist before there was a common understanding of what that word meant. And the versatile Derek O'Connor's greasy, desperate Frank is brilliant.

You'll need to have your finger on the "rewind" button--the dialogue comes fast and urbane. You'll keep recognizing British character actors, and let's face it, if you're female, you'll want to gaze on Finch's beautiful, intelligent face again.

And the visual jokes--watch for "LOVE" embroidered on the vampirical Brunner nightie in the "climactic" final scene!

A warning, though: this really does deserve its R rating. Hustle the kiddie-winks to bed first--then enjoy!

Planet Weird
This film is based on the original Michael Moorcock story of the same name. I have read the Moorcock version and I genuinely have to say that the film seems to be better. It is an existential romp through conscienceness. It takes you to a weird alternate reality of planet earth. In the end it leaves you with more questions than it answers (what can be better than that). You get to sit back and decide. A film that really makes you think.

I saw it as 1974's Last Days of Man on Earth
You can definitely see the Austin Powers roots here. But unfortunately, much of the gadgetry is only alluded to in events presumably happening off-screen (i.e. several references to the main character flying around in an F-4 jet). Was this for budgetary reasons?
I laughed at the end when I spotted the credit listing the person responsible for "continuity" since this movie had very little. And at only an hour and 15 minutes it is no wonder--all the transition scenes were cut. But perhaps wisely, otherwise it would have been criticized for being "plodding" among its other faults.
Really more of an action/spy flick than sci-fi. I guess this is why sci-fi movies had such a bad image before Star Wars. When I think of sci-fi, I think of what is more accurately called "hard" sci-fi, rather than this mildly apocalyptic-themed movie.
Campy and wacky in a dated, 1970's British way. My favorite scene is the sloppy fight with "the Greek guy" (gotta love the plaintive, "help, I think I'm losing..."). Oh, and the black fingernail polish. If you like that sort of thing, this is good for you. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Compared to the rest- this was a major disappointment.
Those two stars out of five go to the brilliant acting abilities of Mr. Brett and Mr. Hardwicke, the only things next to the dog that kept this film from being more disappointing that it already was. But before I start, please remember, Grenada may have soiled the Sign of Four, but this is truly their only blunder. They do great justice to the rest of the series.

First of all, the film's beginning. Next to the murder and mystery, The Sign of Four is most well known for the introduction to our favorite detective's rather surprising vice. The occasional (I say occasional because throughout the majority of the Sherlock Holmes stories it is indeed on occasion. In The Sign of Four, Watson says something of "three times a day for a month.") use of the narcotic, cocaine. They exclude that completely. I have been told that they do infact include it somewhere in the Grenada television series, but I was exceedingly disappointed to not see it in this film. On the note of cocaine, the last few lines of the novel were very clever. After Inspector Jones takes all the credit for the work of Holmes and Watson, Mr. Watson says something along the lines of, "You have done all the work in this business. I get a wife out of it, Jones gets the credit, pray what remains for you?" For me, said Sherlock Holmes, "there still remains the cocaine-bottle." Instead, Mr. Holmes simply falls asleep.

Besides that let down, this film manages to make one of the, if not THE most suspenseful chase scenes in all of English literature very, very boring. No, "Pile it on, men, pile it on!" cried Holmes, looking down into the engine-room, while the fierce glow from below beat upon his eager, aquiline face. "Get every pound of steam you can." or, "See here," said Holmes, pointing to the wooden hatchway. "We were hardly quick enough with our pistols." There, sure enough, just behind where we had been standing, stuck one of those murderous darts which we knew so well." Just a slow, average boat chase for this film.

Another great, and extremely important part left out by the film version of the Sign of Four, was the Watson/Mary Morstan subplot. This is absolutely, and I say this without a doubt in my mind, the most adorable scenes in the entire Sherlock Holmes collection, yet they left it our for fear of getting the amount of wives Watson had incorrect. Watson himself admits to being un connoisseur des femmes. Or, they could simply have NOT killed her off in their series instead of adding to the ruin of film adaptation of the greatest Holmes novel in existence. (After the Valley of Fear, of course. And not including the short stories, which in my mind, are far superior to the novels.)

If you want finer examples of the exceptional Grenada series, go with 'The Master Blackmailer,' 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' or any of the series episodes from Return or Adventures. I assure you, you will not be disappointed with those. And please, do not bother with Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes. I'll say what I said in the beginning of this rant, Grenada may have soiled the Sign of Four, but this is truly their only blunder. They do great justice to the rest of the series.

Beautiful adaptation
This may be my favourite of the magnificent Granada series starring Jeremy Brett, most of which I love; it's definitely the best of the two-hour versions. Watson doesn't get the girl, but the sentimental look on his face when he comments "What a very attractive woman!" at the end is a nice touch, considering that marriage for Watson wasn't really an option in a TV series. Jeremy Brett is brilliant as always; I love the way he speaks to Toby, the dog, and the expression on his face as he comments "It was I who opened it" to the weird Athelney Jones. The chase down the Thames is classic. Holmes is possibly a bit more arrogant and inconsiderate in this adaptation than he was in the book, but Brett was able to do that; sometimes his Holmes shows unexpected flashes of compassion, sometimes he's wonderfully intolerable! This is a good introduction to the series, though one of the shorter classics like "The Red-Headed League" or "The Second Stain" might be even better to whet the appetite.

Masterpiece
What a treat! This two-hour film for television gives us even more fun than the many fine one-hour Holmes mysteries that Granada television made with Jeremy Brett. There is a delicious air of the bizarre that hangs over this tale, in which a young woman seeks Holmes' help to discover who has been sending her valuable pearls in the mail since the disappearance of her father. Throughout, we are treated to an almost Dickensian cast of odd characters, including a slightly incompetent police inspector, a wooden-legged sailor, a hookah-smoking fop, a keen-nosed dog, and the beloved Baker Street Irregulars (street boys who act as Holmes' eyes and ears.) Filmed with panache and period detail, this version sweeps us away in the adventure and remains overall quite true to the Conan Doyle novel upon which it is based. (True, in the novel Watson ends up marrying the client, but this film does not rule out the possibility.)Brett is brilliant as Holmes, whose powers of deduction (and disguise) are razor sharp.

One of the best
All the Jeremy Brett renditions of Sherlock Holmes are good. This particular story of a treasure that brings death from a one legged man and a pygmy is more interesting. We follow Holmes as he meets a young woman that catches Dr. Watsons eye but has a odd story to tell of her fathers death. We then find that the meeting of an acquaintance of her father has the police arresting the wrong man. Holmes with the aid of the Baker Street Boys searching the Thames leads to the capture and confession of the true culprit but an incredible telling of the whole history of the treasures change of hands through theft and murder. The DVD copy has a clean picture and the sound is good. It is well worth owning.

Excellent....!
The Sign of Four is it self is a very fantastic and bizare case from Sherlock holmes series. The film is well directed by Mr. Peter Hammond. He successfully created the necessary surroundings. Especially in the room and palace like house of Sholto and sons company, as per the story much more expected.
The film is giving full 100% justice to Sir Doyale's writing including dialogs. Brett and Edward Hardwicke with as usual doing well in the film. Tongo character is well makeuped and is as per storyline. Other characters are good. When you first look to Mary Morstan character you feel that it is the appropriate actress for that. It has given me the satisfaction at my best. Worth to purchase and see. If and If not the fans of Brett/Holmes. Thanks for Granada TV. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

Brilliant, dark satire on the darkest of subjects.
Richard Lester created in "How I Won the War" a film that simply cannot be categorized.

Symbolism abounds in the film, and in alternating instances, its overtness and its subtlety can prove confusing. For this reason, the film needs to be viewed more than once.

The blatant attack on the military mindset is brilliantly executed. In swift strokes he makes a mockery of military officers and warmongers; one scene in particular has two British officers exchanging bubble gum cards of war scenes, with one insisting in a haughty accent "I want school bombing ... I do."

Michael Crawford and John Lennon are joined by an excellent supporting cast, including Victor Spinetti the brilliant (but unfortunately "late") Leo McKern. Crawford plays the role with just the right amount of smarminess, egoism and overt stupidity that it calls for. Lennon and McKern's innocence causes the closing segment to be doubly powerful.

Overall ... a fine film worth seeing, especially for any fans of social commentary.

Not Chuffed, Mate
Richard Lester has directed great movies, and Three Musketeers (Michael York) is on my ten favorite action movie list. "How I Won the War" is not one of his best.

The problem with the movie is it is English humor with a capital "E." The movies consists of a melange of British Butlin's holiday camp farce and insider public school jokes shot in rapid fire. The lead character is an irritatingly eager chipmunk of an officer who is impossible to connect with. I didn't like him and quickly wished to see him capped by the equally incompetent Germans. The movie would have definitely fed George Patton's biased stereotype of British officers as fawning twits.

Oh, and John Lennon? He doesn't occupy much of this film, and when he speaks, it's rapid-fire one line blitzkreig Liverpudlian. Had trouble understanding "Magical Mystery Tour?" This will really be a stumper.

A historical artifact, only, if harmless.

Surrealistic Anti-War Movie
HOW I WON THE WAR was filmed in Spain in late 1966. The movie features John Lennon and Michael Crawford of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA fame. Richard Lester is the director. The movie is a surrealistic anti-war movie.

The surrealism will turn off many viewers. There is no standard plot structure. This movie can almost be seen as experimental and avante-garde. These qualities drew Lennon to the project. But they are bound to draw viewers away.

HOW I WON THE WAR is akin to REVOLUTION 9 on THE WHITE ALBUM or WHAT'S THE NEW MARY JANE from ANTHOLOGY 3. This movie is cutting edge and pushes the envelope. It is unconventional and approaches psychedelia. Not surprisingly, Lennon composed STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVER while making this movie.

The movie suffers from not having songs or compositions by Lennon on the soundtrack. Both Lennon and Crawford are singers, but there are no songs in the movie. John Lennon's character Gripweed is a supporting character in the movie.

The movie, moreover, has an anti-war theme by showing the absurdity, banality, and hollowness of all war. There is no good war. The movie shows how "winning" a war really occurs. The movie, thus, lacks a feelgood perspective. It leaves the viewer disgusted with war by showing that war is not glorious and noble, but the opposite.

Viewers should realize that this movie is surrealistic and experimental. In other words, it is not a commercial movie. It is a satirical look at war. It is a unique movie unlike any other Beatles movie. It is closest to MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR in that it is not a traditional movie. It is a very different war movie. Obviously such a surrealistic movie will not appeal to many. Nevertheless, it is a unique movie experience, not the usual formula movie.

Don't expect to be laughing the whole movie
First off, don't expect a fun M*A*S*H or Hard Day's Night romp. this is a dark movie, and it's supposed to be. but you can't judge it because you want to see a lighthearted Lennon. it's dark and sad and very well filmed. as a war movie, this is one of the best (in my opinion). the last scene with lennon is almost otherworldly, guaranteed to depress. True, the cover is really rather irritating, lennon is only on for a bit. But the cast is top-notch, the writing crisp, and the overall feeling one of amazement. which is, after all, the point of a movie to begin with.

Beatles fans be forewarned
If you're seeking this movie out as a Beatles fan there are a few things you ought to know. First of all, despite John Lennon's handsome mug being prominately featured on the cover of this videotape, he only features in about 15 minutes of this film. (It is NOT how John Lennon's character Gripweed won the war - as the artwork on this tape might lead you to believe - but rather how Michael Crawford's character won the war). Secondly, John does not have much of an opportunity to act silly when he IS featured on camera so if you are expecting another performance like "A Hard Days Night" you will be disappointed. Thirdly, John's last scene in this movie is somewhat uncomfortable to watch given the tragic way in which he died (John's character is mortally wounded in combat and he addresses the camera one final time lying dazed and bleeding). Some of the British humor and the accents in particular are hard to interpret but not any more so than "A Hard Days Night" or "Help". Being that it's a Richard Lester film some of the same actors seen in "Help!" are featured here but this is by no means a vehicle for Lennon's acting career. ... Read more

Description

Reclusive artist Victor Clare's bronze female sculptures look so lifelike that they seem eerily... human! In the tradition of Vincent Price's "House of Wax," "Crucible of Terror" is the tale of an occult-dabbling sculptor possessed by a dead woman's ghost. Under her spell, he lures young, beautiful models to his remote studio where he carries out his horrific secret method for obtaining such realism--pouring hot wax over the living girls, molding them to his liking with plaster and, finally, imprisoning them forever in hot molten bronze! A chilling, atmospheric thriller with a twist ending. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

This New Release Does The Film Justice!
A psychotronic gem and a rather original tale in the "mad artist" subgenre of horror film, this is the first version of "Crucible of Terror" not to suffer from ghastly editing and bad prints that have so far been the norm. Having seen the entire film while vacationing in London, I can say that this is 99% intact but I am not complaining about the missing 1%. The print is clear and some of the more erotic and disturbing scenes have not been hacked out. Character actor Ronald Lacey is a hoot as the embittered toad of a son to an equally piggish and megalomaniacal reclusive artist played by former BBC DJ Mike Raven. Raven definitely looks the part and a whole slew of other British character actors round out this macabre tale of art, obsession, and murder most foul. Recommended for lovers of bizarre low-budget cinema!

An acceptable time-killer for hard-core horror fans only.
This British horror film is slow-moving and takes a long time to get to its "possession" theme. Worse, this video is taken from a poor print. It has that washed-out, old color film look, like some old 16mm TV print.

Actress Mary Maude is wasted here, basically just sitting around with the other characters waiting for something to happen. She was much better (and had a meatier role as a sadistic lesbian disciplinarian) in the 1969 Spanish horror film, THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED. Actually, her cameo as a witch-hunter's wife in TERROR (1979) was meatier then in this tepid film.

I'm giving this film 1 star, plus another for Mary Maude, plus another because, well, because it's a horror film and I like even slow-moving, washed out horror films. Non-genre fans might be less generous.

Bad treatment of a classic psychotronic film.
A good bad film is a thing to treasure, as with this dark gem that shows character actor Ronald Lacey years before he stalked the screen as the Nazi interrogator in Raiders of the Lost Ark. However, this has ten minutes of the original footage edited out and it spoils the whole thing. To discuss it further is pointless. I have heard similar treatment has struck some classic Hammer films as they made their way here. I am very disappointed. ... Read more

Reviews (74)

Interesting,but from what I've hear Valmont
besides Colin Firth can't hold a candle to Dangerous Liaisons. I now would like to see this adaption of the book Les liaisons dangereuses. The movie is allright ummm Annette Bennings performance was pretty convincing and Colin Firths performance was pretty sexy...lol But nothing amazing. This movie is okay if you have'nt seen Dangerous Liaisons first and since I haven't I liked this movie quite a bit. The girl that played Cecile was done well she did it very convincingly. Probrably the best performance in the film. Alltough I as well found the ending about Annette Benning glaring at Cecile's ex-lover confusing. Lol I'm not good at remembering characters names so excuse that. But I love historical films and the clothing was beautiful. One thing that... me off is when Valmonts witnesses those bum butts from the bar ran away. And there should have been a MUCH MUCH better sword fight I mean come on a 10second fight? I love swords and anyways. I suggest this movie to people who like historical films,and if you catch it on TV watch it,but if you plan on buying a film based on the book Les Dangereuses Liaisons from what I've heard you're better off purchasing Dangerous Liaisons,but if you want to rent Valmonth go ahead it'll be cheap hehe!!!Anyways enjoy either way you go!!!

God Bless ~Amy

Better casting than Dangerous Liaisons
I bought this tape because I liked the movie Dangerous Liaisons with Glenn Close, John Malkovich et al. Dangerous liaisons had more punch to it, especially the ending. However, the casting in Valmont is far superior (with the exception of Meg Tilly). I found John Malkovich repulsive and reptilian--he didn't convince me that he was a rake who could charm a virtuous woman. Colin Firth, however, was very sexy and suprisingly vulnerable as Valmont. Annette Benning was great--playful, conniving, and beautiful. Glenn Close looks dried up and past her prime in comparison. I was actually most suprised by Fairuza Balk. Her role was meatier than Uma Thurman's. While Uma was stiff and (imo she can't act), Fairuza was fresh, young, and talented. I heard she was only 14 when she filmed this! The only casting I didn't like was Meg Tilly. She was weak and very stilted. It almost seemed like she had a hard time just saying her lines. No chemistry with Colin Firth whatsoever. Michelle Pfieffer was infinitely more tragic and tortured. I wish I could combine Dangerous Liasons' script with the cast of Valmont--that would be my ideal version of this movie.

An outstanding yet neglected film
I happened to watch this movie on TV, quite a while ago. Despite the rather "unastable" ending (towards the book) I found it very good. Colin Firth (apart from being an absolute hunk in period frocks is also fantastic-though he smiles too much for such a tragic character) is much more down-to-earth and handsome than -otherwise great actor- John Malcovitch. Colin is brooding, John is SCARY. Not the person I'd trust my heart or body to. Glenn Glose is a lot more scary - Anette Benning is fantastic because she is bad, she is sexy,and can be even good sometimes. Glose is bad, bad, and scary. Not to mention that ravishing - and too old - Uma Thurman can't possibly persuade anyone for being innocent, pure and well, virgin. Fairuza Balk, is yet a child. Milos Forman gives the characters a depth that we don't see in DL1. The only thing I consider a good choice, was Michelle Pfeifer as the tragig widow. She is brilliant, beautiful (Meg Tilly was pretty but not as ravishing), and most of all, CAN ACT. A few years younger and next to Firth, could produce sparks. I definitely go for the Milos Forman edition. Despite the really bad ending, he gives his characters more dimensions. In DL1, the good are too good, the bad are too bad, and the people between, insignificant. Life isn't just that way.
I hope i will be able to find it in a DVD region 2 someday. Unless I buy an All-regions DVD player. (sigh).

MGM Home Video Does a Hachet Job On This Masterpiece
Please, don't get me wrong--Valmont is one of my favorite films of all time. But I just discovered to my HORROR that it's true--MGM Home Entertainment has edited out a crucial and beautiful scene from this cinema masterpiece. I can't believe I missed it for the past two years, but the other reviewers are right. The lovely scene where Valmont buys a bouquet of flowers and brings them to Madame de Tourvel's apartment, and leaves them on her bed when she is not there, has been hacked out of this DVD! This scene is so beautiful and ingrained on my mind, that I must have mentally inserted it into my viewings for the past two years and consciously overlooked its absence. I can't tell you how betrayed and violated I feel, realizing that I have been watching the movie for two years without this important scene included. The scene is one of the most delicate and mysterious of the whole movie, showing a tender side of Valmont's character in such a subtle way. I am going to send my copy of the DVD to either MGM or Milos Forman and complain about this monstrosity. And I am going to buy a copy of the old VHS version that is intact and complete. If you care anything about the integrity of art and artistic accuracy, don't buy this DVD. You will be missing an imprtant part of the film. This DVD is tantamount to taking Monet's "Coquelicots", taking some shelack, and brushing over the woman's parasol. How does an outfit like MGM have the NERVE to commit such an atrocity on a masterpiece of art? They have no shame. I am totally appalled.

Best version of LIAISONS
Milos Forman was scooped. Stephen Frear's DANGEROUS LIAISONS came out first and had a starrier cast. But it was Forman's film that captured the tragic irony of the original book. Frear's film is pure cornball. Glenn Close and Malkovich ham it up as rich, spoiled, and extremely mean people who go through great lenghts to use and hurt as many people as possible for no apparent reason, until the day that Malkovich falls for the nun-like Pfeiffer and then the plot develops with all of the misunderstandings and forced tears of the old, stage melodramas.
Milos Forman's film, however, is a masterpiece. He did not make the characters so black and white as they are in the other film, and he also gave his characters motivations, which justify all actions and turns of the plot. In fact, the film is a vast improvement on the novel, as Forman adds his great observations of human nature and his own unique brand of irony. In VALMONT, you never assume anything. I recommend seeing both films as a great tool to compare real art with crap. ... Read more