Amazon.com essential video

When Havana was released in 1990, a lot of reviewers unfavorably compared it to Casablanca, and those comparisons (in addition to audience indifference) turned the film into a box-office disaster. It deserved a better fate, because, while this is certainly no masterpiece, it's an intelligent and lavishly produced film about a chapter of history--the final days of Cuba under the collapsing Batista regime--that remains largely unfamiliar to the American mainstream. It's a compelling political backdrop for the story of a high-stakes gambler (Robert Redford) who comes to Cuba seeking the big score in poker games, following his expectation that high rollers will bet wildly as the Cuban government crashes around their heads. In Havana, Redford meets the wife (Lena Olin) of a Communist revolutionary (Raul Julia) with ties to Fidel Castro, and their attraction becomes powerfully mutual after her husband is presumed killed by Cuban police. What follows, as Cuba falls and Redford's character is forced into a crisis of conscience, is a mini-epic love story with tragic overtones, handled with great skill (albeit lagging pace) by long-time Redford collaborator Sydney Pollack. True, it's not nearly as memorable as Casablanca, but this is a worthwhile film, especially if you're interested in the political upheavals in pre-Castro Cuba. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (13)

A moving love story with beautiful performances
I was really surprised that this film film did so bad at the box office. I mean it gave a chance to Robert Redford to not play Robert Redford again. As Siskel (god bless him) and Ebert said this film is a burried treasure. It has a great story and becautiful sceneries and performances. There was a lot of chemistry between Redford and Olin and they are good together. For those who complained about lack of chemistry watch Horse Whisperer with Redford. Now, that is a film with no chemistry among leads. I particulary enjoyed the last scene when Redford gets out of his car in front of the beach and looks at horizon hoping for Bobby to show up. But he knows she is not coming. It was an unjustice not to give Raul Julia credit. I don't why they did that. But he was very good. I think in time this film will be rediscovered. Frankly, I enjoyed this much better than Out of Africa which I found slow and non involving.

Bad Reputation Undeserved.
Many will claim that Sydney Pollack and Robert Redford were on auto-pilot while making this film. Based on their previous collaborative efforts, the well-received Three Days of the Condor, The Way We Were, The Electric Horseman, and Out of Africa, which swept the Academy Awards, people wanted to see their movies. They could make any movie they wanted. They made Havana, and NOBODY wanted to see it.

Maybe Pollack, brilliant in his own right, set his watch according to Redford's schedule at this time, and history shows that, subsequent to Havana, and its box office failure Sydney Pollack basically quit directing. His influence in film is still served, and may be better served as a producer, witness Sliding Doors, Sense and Sensibility, Fabulous Baker Boys, and Searching For Bobby Fischer, all of which he helped bring to the screen.

But, back to the matter at hand-Redford as a gambler, Lena Olin, his distraction (and what a distraction)--the film feels good, looks good, and gives us some perspective on Cuba in the waning hours of Batista.

Olin (pre-Romeo is Bleeding, post Unbearable Lightness of Being) is properly introduced to American audiences, and is not inappropriate as leading lady to one of Hollywood's leading stars, Redford, who, even on auto-pilot, delivers a strong, engaging performance.

I understand this film was heavily maligned at release, and failed dismally at the box office, but I enjoyed it. It is a beautiful film to watch with attractive leads-and that alone stands it well ahead of many of the alternatives out there today.

Cuba Libre.
In a highball glass, pour 1.5 - 2 oz rum over ice cubes, add the juice of 1/2 lime and fill up with coke.

That's the recipe for the drink political correctness has renamed "Rum and Coke," but which most of us also still know by its original name, Cuba Libre. And the cocktail invented just over 100 years ago to celebrate Cuba's freedom from Spain perfectly epitomizes the state of the island republic's society towards the late 1950s' end of the Batista regime: A sweet, tangy, intoxicating Caribbean foundation, mixed with the classical American exports; from Coke, cars and cigarettes to expatriates and their money ... except, alas, for the greatest thing the U.S. might have brought to Cuba, assistance in establishing democracy. Instead, during Batista's 30-year dictatorship, Cuba - and particularly Havana - became the Latin Las Vegas, a place where the action was on, the stakes were high, flesh was cheap, gambling was legal (and largely controlled by American mobster Meyer Lansky) and the party never ended.

Until, beset by the revolutionary movement led by a certain Fidel Castro, Batista fled the country in the early morning hours of January 1, 1959. And suddenly the party was over.

The last days of Batista's regime are the backdrop for 1990's "Havana," which sees high-stakes poker ace Jack Weil (Robert Redford) in Cuba for the game of his life. He has played "every elks' club and moose hole in America" and remembers every hand of every game, he tells Lansky's right-hand man Joe Volpi (Alan Arkin). Now he wants a shot at the big one - playing with guys who don't even think how much they're playing for. And he knows that the revolutionary fever in the air has the same effect on gamblers as a potent aphrodisiac on those in pursuit of Havana's other main commodity; so in Jack's eyes, now's the time or never. Yet, although liberally indulging in all of Havana's pleasures, he couldn't care less about Cuban politics. All he thinks he needs to know is who's in charge, and how to stay out of trouble.

But then he meets Roberta Duran (Lena Olin at the top of her game), the wife of a wealthy physician aligned with Castro. (Raul Julia who, despite a stellar performance, chose to remain uncredited, reportedly because he didn't receive first billing alongside Redford - a great pity, and a disservice to himself.) Now Jack falls in love, badly enough to go against his life's entire philosophy to try and save Roberta from Batista's henchmen after her husband has been arrested and supposedly killed, and she questioned and tortured by the secret police. And now Jack really does get to play the game of his life - except that now it's no longer about cards at all; and when Volpi at last does put together the big game he has lobbied for, Jack is no longer even in attendance. Instead, he's out putting his personal interests at stake for Roberta.

"Havana" was Robert Redford's and director Sydney Pollack's seventh cooperation after "This Property Is Condemned" (1966), "Jeremiah Johnson" (1972), "The Way We Were" (1973), "Three Days of the Condor" (1975), "The Electric Horseman" (1979) and "Out of Africa" (1985); and it shows, for better and for worse. At his best, Redford delivers magically, whether dealing cards at a poker table surrounded by marks and beautiful women, or arguing with Roberta about her stake in the revolution, or letting her captured husband know how he has enjoyed being with Roberta; realizing jealousy's potency in stirring a betrayed, hot-blooded husband's fighting spirit, after Jack has decided, against all self-interest, to free and reunite him with her. But there are those few occasional lines, those few mannerisms that smack of just a pinch too much routine; and why an exchange like "Were you waiting for me?" - "All my life" didn't make Redford's and Pollack's usually unfailing kitsch-o-meters go into overtilt, I honestly don't understand. (Besides, whoever had the brilliant idea of making Redford wear a Hawaii shirt in the closing scene should be flogged and hung out to dry in a Hawaii shirt himself. Eeeewwww ...)

Undeservedly, "Havana" flopped at the box office and only later began picking up audience favors. This is primarily blamed on its unfair (and shallow) initial comparison to "Casablanca," which I don't think it ever set out to replicate; in addition to its somewhat two-dimensional political outlook (and here I agree). Redford himself has also been quoted commenting on his suddenly prominent facial lines, an effect only underscored by the fact that he had last been seen on the big screen four years earlier in "Legal Eagles" with decidedly lesser visible lines. But come on, folks - the man was over fifty when he made "Havana" ... have you ever wondered to what extent you've internalized Hollywood's youth addiction if you did *not* expect his age to start showing at some point? Frankly, I rather think it's admirable if an actor whose looks have always factored highly in his appeal makes a point in going against the expectation that he submit to plastic surgery, *and* then continues to make his mark on society and the movie business regardless.

So forget "Havana"'s bad rep. This is a beautifully shot, superbly edited, sumptuous drama (a particular delight editing-wise are the scenes setting Jack's forays into Havana's night life against the city's less glamorous realities); part romance, part political thriller; magnificently scored by Dave Grusin and endowed with all of Pollack's and production designer Terence Marsh's known attention to detail, whose authenticity even "spooked" Cuban-born Tomas Milian, (who plays secret police commander Menocal), as Milian says in the DVD's featurette - and this although for obvious reasons the entire set had to be reconstructed in the Dominican Republic. It may not be one of the multiple Oscar-winning Redford-Pollack collaborations ... but overall it's still head and shoulders above many another production I'll refrain from naming here.

Disapointing
It could have been a good one. But everything seems to be out of focus. The love story does not work between Redford and Lena Olin, the story is too simplistic: revolutionaries are good and the Batista regime is evil. What a way to learn some of your neighbor's history! Of course there's more than that.
Simplifying the views may be good for propaganda effects but as for art or even for plain entertainment you need to give us something better. We may not know or care about Cuba's recent history but we know when the teacher is playing sides.
I don't understand how a good director like Pollack can sell himself -and his reputation- so cheap to the Holywood-propaganda-industry.

Loved it then, love it now
I absolutely loved this film when it was first released in 1990. I thought it was terribly underrated, and was disappointed when I learned that it got some negative reviews. The performances by Redford and Olin were understated and wonderful. I thought they worked well together. The music alone is worth the price of admission. I purchased the sound track on cassette, and played it to death. Today this movie was shown on AMC and I, once again, was mesmerized by all of it. Now Olin is gaining some fame again on the TV show,"Alias" as Jenifer Garner's mother. She is as beautiful as ever. Havana is a great flick-----buy it and see for yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... Read more

Description

Return to the magnificence of Notre Dame in Disney's all-new movie, The Hunchback of Notre Dame II - a fun, romantic adventure told with vibrant animation and music as soaring as its setting. Still the faithful protector of Notre Dame's beloved bells, Quasimodo now rings them with the help of Zephyr, who is Quasi's best friend. Stopping with Zephyr at a traveling circus owned by the evil magician Sarousch, Quasi is captivated by Sarousch's lovely assistant, Madellaine. But greedy Sarousch is about to force Madellaine to help him steal the Cathedral's most famous bell. Encouraged by some laughable romantic advice from his gargoyle pals, Quasi listens to his own heart and discovers that he, too, must look past appearances to find true love. ... Read more

Reviews (39)

Another rare Disney animated movie
This is a rare Disney animated movie without violence. This movie deserves a G rating, then a lot of there animated movies. While the Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) had both lanuage and violence, this had one of either, and zero scary scenes. This movie reunties most of the characters from the first movie, and has some new characters like Zephyr and Madelliane and Sarousch. The archdeacon makes a breif appearnce in the movie. Quasimodo's evil master is not back, and which whould be good news if you hated him in the first movie. Clopin also returns in the movie with Esmeralda, Pheobus, Laverne, Hugo, Victor, and Quasimodo. As the movie opens, Emseralada (Demi Moore) and Pheobus (Kevin Kline) are maried, and they have a son named Zephyr (Haley Joel Osment). With leaves Quaismodo (Tom Hulce) without a girl he lives to shout her name while the bell Le Fieilde rins during a festival. That is into an evil circus ringmaster named Sarousch (Micheael McKean) sends Madelliane (Jennifer Love Hewitt) to gfet informationm on the bell, so he can steal the bell. The cast also includes Quasimodo' best friends Hugo (Jason Alexander), Victor (Charles Kimbrough) and Laverne (Jane Withers).

Touching Sequel
While the animation of Hunchback II was not as crisp as that of the original, it had a brighter, more cheerful ambiance. Most of the characters from the first movie have returned, with a few additions. Young Zephr (voiced by Haley Joel Osment), the son of Phoebus and Esmeralda, is Quasimodo's best friend. Quasimodo also finally meets his true love in Madellaine (voiced by Jennifer Love Hewitt), a spunky yet insecure circus performer. Unfortunately, Madellaine has been forced by her boss, the evil, flamboyant Sarousch, to help steal La Fidal, a valuable bell from the cathedral.

The developing affection between Quasi and Madellaine was beautifully depicted: he helped her to focus on her strengths while she was able to see the beauty within him. (La Fidel could perhaps be seen as a metaphore for Quasi since it was plain on the outside with a beautiful, glittering interior.) The scene where the hunchback was showing Madellaine the sights of Paris was a joy.

Although I initially didn't think that the songs were as good as those of the first film, I found that, after a couple of viewings, they have grown on me: I find them playing through my head from time to time.

Overall, this is a very enjoyable film and a pleasing compliment to the first Hunchback movie.

The First One is Better
Whoever said Quasimodo was ugly deserves to have a burning spear thrust through their skull and their arms and legs nailed to bricks. "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" teaches that superficiality never pays, and that a loving heart is much more important than looks, but what's the point if people are too shallow to understand?
The first movie was outstanding, and this one isn't as good, but it's still entertaining. It's much more kid-oriented than the first. Rent it first.

As bad as they say...
This movie is as bad (or worse) than everyone has said. the animation is shoddy, and the storyline is boring. If you are looking for a good cartoon... look elsewhere. You'd be throwing your money away on this one.

STUPID! Stupid! Stupid!
Stupid story, stupid animation, stupid charecters!
YOU WASTED OUR MONEY!
DON't BY THIS TERRIBLE FILM!!!! ... Read more

Amazon.com

More than 15 years after the debut of The Professional: Gogol 13 (1983), Duke Togo, the assassin-hero of Takao Saito's popular manga, returns to the screen. Queen Bee plays like the animated daydreams of a frustrated high school sophomore: lots of nudity, sex, and violence, strung together by an over-the-top, clichéd story line. A ruthless Democratic vice presidential candidate hires Gogol to murder Sonia, a.k.a. the Queen Bee, because of her ties to his weak-willed running mate. She's a big-time cocaine dealer and the assistant leader of a Marxist revolution in a small Central American country. Although she's had at least eight children by different fathers, Sonia is built like a brick guerrilla camp. Her amoral indifference to murder and her sexual passion make her fire to Gogol's ice. Gogol and Sonia have no trouble outwitting the Secret Service, U.S. law enforcement, and a rogue army unit led by a deranged Vietnam veteran. But their mutual respect and passion don't stop Gogol from fulfilling his contract. U.S. viewers can only hope Japanese audiences don't see this bloody James Bond rip-off as a realistic portrait of American politics. Rated for mature audiences ages 18 and older for graphic sex, profanity, tobacco use, and extreme violence. --Charles Solomon ... Read more

Reviews (7)

tricks of the trade
ACTIVE STEALTH stars Daniel Baldwin, Fred Williamson, and Hannes Jaenicke (sp.?) in a standard rescue-mission action flick. Soldiers fly in a "modified" Stealth fighter to save their comrade, held prisoner by a Central American drug lord. Watching the DVD the first time, the movie held my interest, and I thought it was average fare--entertaining but not memorable.

I watched the DVD again with commentary by director Fred Olen Ray, and it was a blast. Ray is a hoot. His comments give all kinds of insight into how the movie was made. He introduces actors, and explains how shots are usually set up and executed. He explains special effects. Ray tells what it cost to rent the plane, and how the crew created "smoke" blowing past the actors in a few scenes (a worker blowing pipe smoke at them, actually).

Throughout the commentary, Fred is entertaining. If you've ever wondered how a B-movie gets made, ACTIVE STEALTH is for you.

I give the movie 3 stars, and the DVD 5 stars. Split the difference, and the ACTIVE STEALTH DVD gets 4 stars.

This is so innaccurate!
This movie was a real loser. It is so innaccurate. "Rangers assulting a target in broad daylight with standard issue M-16's an M9's with no silencers or scopes. Most Rangers would use an M-4 or an MP5. No face paint, no stealth at all. Also, what Army unit flys a news crew style helicopter to pickup Rangers in the middle of South America? It should have been a Blackhwawk or a Huey gunship with AH-64 Apache air support.
The capabibility to shoot of these "Rangers" is terrible too. At little more than 100 feet they empty an entire clip and hit nothing but air.
The worst part of the movie was Army pilots flying an Air Force F-117 TWO SEATER WITH A CARGO BAY? NO NO NO!! It is a 1 man AIR FORCE, stealth bomber. Also Army pilots "carrier qualified" and F-14 qualified? No.
No. This movie was terrible, do not rent or buy it.

Horrible! Don't even rent it!!!
First of all, the movie/plot description on the DVD clamshell is so inaccurate that I wondered if I had received the wrong DVD. Example: The plot description states that a new Army (?) Stealth aircraft" has been stolen, so some special forces rangers are to lead an AH-64 Apache Squadron to bring the Stealth back to U.S. hands. Fine. BUT, there were NO AH-64's in the movie at all. AND, since when does the Army develop fixed-wing aircraft these days? Rangers in dire need of haircuts with no body armour going into battle? USAF/Army pilots that are carrier qualified to fly F-14s?
This movie is so technically inaccurate that it was frustrating. Very rarely do you see any of the actors (good or bad) actually aim there weapons when firing. Horrible acting, horrible technical advising (if there was any), lousy plot...I can go on and on. WARNING!: Don't be fooled by the DVD cover!!!!

short but sweet
This movie shows that with some team work anything can happen, even if you get killed in the process you did what you could to make a difference in the world. This movie was short but it a good movie.

What were they thinking??
The budget for this movie obviously didn't include any technical advisors. This might have made for some enjoyable fare if there weren't so many obvious technical goofs and downright stupid plot points. Examples: An army pilot is carrier qualified to fly the F-14. Battle sequences that any Quake player could execute better. An F-117A with a cargo bay to carry passengers! There are many more, but I think you get the point.

This movie is for someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the real world. I can usually suspend belief if the story is any good, but this one just stinks!

Daniel Baldwin, I hope you don't include this turd on your resume because it's a career killer! ... Read more

Reviews (7)

tricks of the trade
ACTIVE STEALTH stars Daniel Baldwin, Fred Williamson, and Hannes Jaenicke (sp.?) in a standard rescue-mission action flick. Soldiers fly in a "modified" Stealth fighter to save their comrade, held prisoner by a Central American drug lord. Watching the DVD the first time, the movie held my interest, and I thought it was average fare--entertaining but not memorable.

I watched the DVD again with commentary by director Fred Olen Ray, and it was a blast. Ray is a hoot. His comments give all kinds of insight into how the movie was made. He introduces actors, and explains how shots are usually set up and executed. He explains special effects. Ray tells what it cost to rent the plane, and how the crew created "smoke" blowing past the actors in a few scenes (a worker blowing pipe smoke at them, actually).

Throughout the commentary, Fred is entertaining. If you've ever wondered how a B-movie gets made, ACTIVE STEALTH is for you.

I give the movie 3 stars, and the DVD 5 stars. Split the difference, and the ACTIVE STEALTH DVD gets 4 stars.

This is so innaccurate!
This movie was a real loser. It is so innaccurate. "Rangers assulting a target in broad daylight with standard issue M-16's an M9's with no silencers or scopes. Most Rangers would use an M-4 or an MP5. No face paint, no stealth at all. Also, what Army unit flys a news crew style helicopter to pickup Rangers in the middle of South America? It should have been a Blackhwawk or a Huey gunship with AH-64 Apache air support.
The capabibility to shoot of these "Rangers" is terrible too. At little more than 100 feet they empty an entire clip and hit nothing but air.
The worst part of the movie was Army pilots flying an Air Force F-117 TWO SEATER WITH A CARGO BAY? NO NO NO!! It is a 1 man AIR FORCE, stealth bomber. Also Army pilots "carrier qualified" and F-14 qualified? No.
No. This movie was terrible, do not rent or buy it.

Horrible! Don't even rent it!!!
First of all, the movie/plot description on the DVD clamshell is so inaccurate that I wondered if I had received the wrong DVD. Example: The plot description states that a new Army (?) Stealth aircraft" has been stolen, so some special forces rangers are to lead an AH-64 Apache Squadron to bring the Stealth back to U.S. hands. Fine. BUT, there were NO AH-64's in the movie at all. AND, since when does the Army develop fixed-wing aircraft these days? Rangers in dire need of haircuts with no body armour going into battle? USAF/Army pilots that are carrier qualified to fly F-14s?
This movie is so technically inaccurate that it was frustrating. Very rarely do you see any of the actors (good or bad) actually aim there weapons when firing. Horrible acting, horrible technical advising (if there was any), lousy plot...I can go on and on. WARNING!: Don't be fooled by the DVD cover!!!!

short but sweet
This movie shows that with some team work anything can happen, even if you get killed in the process you did what you could to make a difference in the world. This movie was short but it a good movie.

What were they thinking??
The budget for this movie obviously didn't include any technical advisors. This might have made for some enjoyable fare if there weren't so many obvious technical goofs and downright stupid plot points. Examples: An army pilot is carrier qualified to fly the F-14. Battle sequences that any Quake player could execute better. An F-117A with a cargo bay to carry passengers! There are many more, but I think you get the point.

This movie is for someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the real world. I can usually suspend belief if the story is any good, but this one just stinks!

Daniel Baldwin, I hope you don't include this turd on your resume because it's a career killer! ... Read more

Reviews (7)

tricks of the trade
ACTIVE STEALTH stars Daniel Baldwin, Fred Williamson, and Hannes Jaenicke (sp.?) in a standard rescue-mission action flick. Soldiers fly in a "modified" Stealth fighter to save their comrade, held prisoner by a Central American drug lord. Watching the DVD the first time, the movie held my interest, and I thought it was average fare--entertaining but not memorable.

I watched the DVD again with commentary by director Fred Olen Ray, and it was a blast. Ray is a hoot. His comments give all kinds of insight into how the movie was made. He introduces actors, and explains how shots are usually set up and executed. He explains special effects. Ray tells what it cost to rent the plane, and how the crew created "smoke" blowing past the actors in a few scenes (a worker blowing pipe smoke at them, actually).

Throughout the commentary, Fred is entertaining. If you've ever wondered how a B-movie gets made, ACTIVE STEALTH is for you.

I give the movie 3 stars, and the DVD 5 stars. Split the difference, and the ACTIVE STEALTH DVD gets 4 stars.

This is so innaccurate!
This movie was a real loser. It is so innaccurate. "Rangers assulting a target in broad daylight with standard issue M-16's an M9's with no silencers or scopes. Most Rangers would use an M-4 or an MP5. No face paint, no stealth at all. Also, what Army unit flys a news crew style helicopter to pickup Rangers in the middle of South America? It should have been a Blackhwawk or a Huey gunship with AH-64 Apache air support.
The capabibility to shoot of these "Rangers" is terrible too. At little more than 100 feet they empty an entire clip and hit nothing but air.
The worst part of the movie was Army pilots flying an Air Force F-117 TWO SEATER WITH A CARGO BAY? NO NO NO!! It is a 1 man AIR FORCE, stealth bomber. Also Army pilots "carrier qualified" and F-14 qualified? No.
No. This movie was terrible, do not rent or buy it.

Horrible! Don't even rent it!!!
First of all, the movie/plot description on the DVD clamshell is so inaccurate that I wondered if I had received the wrong DVD. Example: The plot description states that a new Army (?) Stealth aircraft" has been stolen, so some special forces rangers are to lead an AH-64 Apache Squadron to bring the Stealth back to U.S. hands. Fine. BUT, there were NO AH-64's in the movie at all. AND, since when does the Army develop fixed-wing aircraft these days? Rangers in dire need of haircuts with no body armour going into battle? USAF/Army pilots that are carrier qualified to fly F-14s?
This movie is so technically inaccurate that it was frustrating. Very rarely do you see any of the actors (good or bad) actually aim there weapons when firing. Horrible acting, horrible technical advising (if there was any), lousy plot...I can go on and on. WARNING!: Don't be fooled by the DVD cover!!!!

short but sweet
This movie shows that with some team work anything can happen, even if you get killed in the process you did what you could to make a difference in the world. This movie was short but it a good movie.

What were they thinking??
The budget for this movie obviously didn't include any technical advisors. This might have made for some enjoyable fare if there weren't so many obvious technical goofs and downright stupid plot points. Examples: An army pilot is carrier qualified to fly the F-14. Battle sequences that any Quake player could execute better. An F-117A with a cargo bay to carry passengers! There are many more, but I think you get the point.

This movie is for someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the real world. I can usually suspend belief if the story is any good, but this one just stinks!

Daniel Baldwin, I hope you don't include this turd on your resume because it's a career killer! ... Read more

Description

Named "Athlete of the Century" by Sports Illustrated and USA Today,the film focuses on Muhammad Ali’s life up to his spectacular fight with GeorgeForeman in 1974 in which he regained his Heavyweight Title.Against extreme odds— personal, racial, social and political—Muhammad Ali has become a legend in his ownlifetime by consistently reinventing his colorful persona.Audiences will be captivated bythis gripping story of a man’s dogged determination to rise to the top of the boxingprofession and ultimately redefine it, in the process becoming a living icon of sportshistory. ... Read more