Amazon.com

John le Carre's classic spy yarn gets a suitably brisk, unromanticized telling in this quintessential Cold War movie. A British agent (Richard Burton) sets up an elaborate cover story for being lured into defecting to the Communists, but he hardly needs to manufacture his disgust and cynicism over spying. The grim business of point-counterpoint espionage has rarely been depicted with less glamour; Burton's great climactic speech on the subject is the definitive take on sinking to the level of the enemy. Claire Bloom is an offbeat love interest, and a bearded Oskar Werner is an East German investigator on Burton's case (the pecking order in the Communist spy hierarchy is a source of black humor). Director Martin Ritt extends his unvarnished approach to the movie's stripped-down look, which means that Richard Burton is constantly in a harsh, unflattering light. He looks terrible, but it's in the service of a fine performance. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Scary black and white film....
The world John Lecarré describes is without mercy and forgiveness. The films based on his books are not nearly as terrifying, though they are frightening enough. THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD is an early adaptation of one of Lecarré's books by the same name, and in it he introduces albeit briefly, the character George Smiley.

The three main characters in this production Alex (Richard Burton), Nan (Claire Bloom) and Monque (Oskar Werner) were all very fine actors in the 1950s and 1960s. This film was one of the last Burton made (965) and in it he plays a "burnt-out" spy who has been the operations officer in Berlin for 15 years of the Cold War. Alex was recruited by British Intelligence shortly after WWII just as the East Bloc began to descend behind the "Iron Curtain" according to Western leaders like Churchill. The CIA was also spun from military intelligence during this period, and there is a brief interaction between Alex and a CIA officer at the beginning of the movie as Alex awaits a defecting East German spy at the infamous "Checkpoint Charlie".

SPY is shot in Black and White which enhances the spooky subject. Night time scenes with flashing lights and rainy London weather add to the atmosphere. I first saw this film in the theater, and I was so young I could not figure out what was going on. The plot is complex, but not as complex as that of later adaptations such as SOLDIER, SAILOR...,or SMILEY'S PEOPLE which were given ample air time for the unraveling. It is a frightening film, and some one my age might wonder why anyone would ever become a spy.

Cold-Blooded Fever
Inside a grim little room in the empty countryside somewhere east of the Berlin wall an East German agent is interrogating a defecting British spy. The defector is anxious and weary. He wants his money now. Prompting the Communist agent to say this : "You are a traitor, the lowest currency of the cold war. We buy you, we sell you, we lose you, we can even shoot you. Not a bird in the trees would stir if we did just that."

Except that Alec Leamas(Richard Burton) is not really a defector, he is only masquerading as one. On his last assignment for the British Secert Service, he is to pretend to be burnt out and jobless. Never faraway from a bottle he walks around the streets of London cynical and depressed, his "masterstroke" in this act is an ugly fight with a shopkeeper who refuses to give him credit. This ofcourse attracts the attention of the East German agants who view him as a potential defector because of his dire need for cash and his embitterment towards the British Agency for abandoning him. It is a credit to Burton's brilliant and painfully realistic performance that you are pretty sure his embitterment in not entirely an act. That he really is a drunk. That he wholeheartedly agrees with the German when he calls him "the lowest currency of the cold war", even if he is not a defector. To him, all spies, on both sides, are scum.

John Le Carre was an ex-British intelligence officer when he wrote the celebrated novel on which this film was based. It was called "the finest spy story ever written" by the writer of The Third Man, Graham Greene. And in a sense, The Spy Who Came In From The Cold starts where The Third Man left off. The lead character has already lost any faith he had in humanity. I suspect that the only reason Leamas hadn't really defected is because even money has lost its lure. Surprisingly the most sympathetic characters in the book(and the film) are the communist spy Fiedler(Oskar Werner) and naive communist librarian Liz Gold(renamed Nan Perry in the film and played by Claire Bloom), and both pay dearly for it. In the world of The Spy Who Came In From The Cold idealism is not merely misguided, it is pathetic. When Fiedler sincerely asks Leamus "How do you sleep at night without a philosophy?". Leamus's typically jaded answer is "I don't believe in God or Karl Marx. I don't believe in anything that rocks the world. I reserve the right to remain ignorant."

In adapting the novel, scripters Paul Dehn and Guy Trosper retained the icy restraint of the novel. Director Martin Ritt(who made the better known but inferior Norma Rae) shoots the film in a harsh black and white. Accompanied by a sad violin score, The Spy Who Came In From The Cold is finally a sentimental film about unsentimentality. Ridiculously Burton lost out on the Oscar infavour of Lee Marvin in the frankly ridiculous Cat Ballou. The film was nominated for just one other Oscar which was for Art-Direction. A shame. With its moral and asthetic complexity, this is as far away from Bond or Tom Clancy based thrillers as you can get. Possibly the greatest film in its genre, and in its own quiet way the equal of The Third Man. The final message being that people who are driven enough to enter the world of espionage are not(and can't afford to be) driven by ideals. In that world the only motive is expediency.

color?
Amazon lists this film as being in color. It was shot in b/w. It was colorized in the '80's. I hope this is NOT the colorized version.

The Spy who Came In from The Cold
This is probably one of Richard Burton's best performances and deserves more attention. It is the story of a Cold War spy sent out to pasture as a clerk in a book store/library. He turns to alcohol to escape the humm-drum existence. The "agency" has one more job for him to do and brings him out of retirement. Is he being set up or is there something deeper afoot. This is NOT the glitzy James Bond spy!! A cold, hard, look at the world of spies during the Cold War Era and the smarmy people in their world. Very thought provoking and a great performance by Burton.

The Spy Who Came in From the Cold
One of my all-time favorite Spy flicks! Burton is fabulous, as is Oskar Werner. The VHS quality is very good. I had hoped for a DVD version but I'm happy to own this. Video rental stores in my area simply do not have this in stock - so I had to buy it. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Arguably the most intelligently written film to feature the masterful stop-motion animation of Ray Harryhausen, Jason and the Argonauts is a colorful adventure that takes full advantage of Harryhausen's "Dynarama" process. Inspired by the Greek myth, the story begins when the fearless explorer Jason (Todd Armstrong) returns to the kingdom of Thessaly to make his rightful claim to the throne, but the gods proclaim that he must first find the magical Golden Fleece. Consulting Hera, the queen of gods, Jason recruits the brave Argonauts to crew his ship, and they embark on their eventful journey. Along the way they encounter a variety of mythic creatures, including the 100-foot bronze god Talos, the batlike Harpies, the seven-headed reptilian Hydra, and an army of skeletons wielding sword and shield. This last sequence remains one of the finest that Harryhausen ever created, and it's still as thrilling as anything from the age of digital special effects. Harryhausen was the true auteur of his fantasy films, and his brilliant animation evokes a timeless sense of wonder. Jason and the Argonauts is a prime showcase for Harryhausen's talent--a wondrous product of pure imagination and filmmaking ingenuity. The DVD contains an informative interview with Harryhausen by filmmaker John Landis. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (51)

The Ultimate Classical Greek Adventure is dishonered.
JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS may very well be THE classic adventure film. Everything about it shines with sheer perfection in the art of entertainment. Spectacular music by Bernard Herrmann, a sweeping story full of suspense and surprise, and some of Ray Harryhausen's all-time greatest effects work. I cannot commend this film enough.

After giving what was probably Harryhausen's worst film FIRST MEN IN THE MOON an awesome DVD treatment, they completely dishoner his good name with this edition of JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS. This is honestly one of the [worst] DVDs I've ever seen! (Hence the four star rating instead of five.) The picture and sound quality are so unbelievably bad!!! I've seen some VHS copies that easily outshine the print seen here. All other titles in the "Ray Harryhausen Signature Collection" sported digitally mastered audio and video, and looked like pure gold. Shame on you, Columbia!

The special features ..., too. Completely devoid of the documentaries featured on other "Signature Collection" DVDs, all we get is a pretty [bad] interview of Ray Harryhausen by John Landis. I guess it would seem interesting, but only for those who haven't seen "The Ray Harryhausen Chronicles", one of the previously mentioned documentaries. That feature is far more insightful than the one here.

JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS is a masterpiece, and this DVD is worth buying only if you absolutely must own it. If you don't, then avoid it at all costs.

greatest film from a special fx master
I love this film. I first saw it when I was twelve and I've loved it ever since. Especially after seeing this wonderful film butchered for television viewing, I couldn't wait to get the DVD. This is a fairly faithful adaptation of the myth; the script is well-written and the cast does a great job -- this has got to be the best Hercules (Nigel Green) in any classical movie.

The wonderful music is by Bernard Herrman (Fahrenheit 451, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Vertigo), and the effects by Harryhausen are superb, maybe his best. I'll never forget the first time I saw the giant bronze Talos turn his head and step down from his pedestal. Seeing the harpies come to life, and the seven-headed Hydra, the skeletons, Triton, the gods on Mount Olympus .... too many great effects to list!

The DVD version is worthwhile. The picture quality here is very good and the sound quality average. Special DVD features include English, French or Spanish language and subtitles; a great 12 minute discussion between John Landis and Ray Harryhausen (1995); a 1963 trailer.

The fight against the triviality!
Mircea Eliade defined the triviality as the absence of physical tension in the human being.
If we agree this concept ; then the argonauts represent the fight against the triviality. Notice for instance the greek meaning of Argos: the white ship. And the white color means purification.
The seek of the golden fleece means the search for the triumph of the truth ; since the gold symbolizes spirituality and the fleece innocence ; the circle is completed.
Besides the mission has one last goal: to fight against the dragon and exterminate it ; because the fleece is its prisoner . The dragon symbolizes the perversity ; so if you want to access to the sublimity . you must to kill the dragon.
This movie is a winner. Ray Harryhausen inspired to many film makers , specially a teenager called Steven Spielberg who confessed this confidence to James Lipton in The actor's studio .
The mythical monsters are the magnificient background all along the movie. A film conceived as family entertainment but loaded of smart clues , who teachs us the huge wisdom who lives beneath the underestimated term myth: wrong choice as you know.
Great special effects ; and from all standpoints a cult movie since its release.!

Movie deserves a better DVD release....
Well, if you look at only the movie, then you get your money's worth. It's done in widescreen with great picture and sound quality. regretfully, Colombia/Tri-Star did not put in many bonus features, such as a more detailed making of featurette to tell how the movie was made and all the wonderful effects work. Instead, Ray is reduced to talking to a not so bright John Landis about the making of the movie and Landis's interviewing skills are about as professional as a nine year old. Maybe one day, they will give this movie a more worthy DVD release. Then this barebones edition.

More Harryhausen greatness
This is a great popcorn movie - swashbuckling, mythic, and a little quaint by today's effects standards. The effects, acting, and visual style all work together well, though. It can't be compared to today's movies any more than Charlie Chaplain can.

Once you allow yourself into its mood, it's great entertainment. Treasure is captured, danger is faced, and other-wordly foes are defeated. Keep it around for a rainy saturday, and make sure you have popcorn. ... Read more

Amazon.com

After establishing his signature style with such moody classics as Cat People and I Walked with a Zombie, Jacques Tourneur returned to peak form with the first-rate supernatural thriller Curse of the Demon. It's a horror-noir set in England, adapted from the M.R. James story "Casting the Runes" and built around the ominous notion that black arts--particularly the use of ancient runic symbols--can summon a deadly beast from hell. Dana Andrews is the stubborn American skeptic, determined to debunk a genteel occultist (Niall MacGinnis) whose evil powers are ultimately incontestable. The briefly seen demon may be cheesy by latter-day standards, but its nightmarish appearance--and Tourneur's masterful use of subtle suggestion, threatening atmosphere, and eerie special effects--make Curse of the Demon one of the best horror films of the 1950s. This splendid DVD offers the longer British version Night of the Demon for film-buff comparison; it's essentially the same film with a few extended scenes. Both are highly recommended. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (61)

By the Pricking of my Thumbs Something Wicked this Way Comes
I am a sucker for old B&W horror films, and Jacques Tourneur was the best, rivalled only by maybe Mario Bava. Both men understood that shadow and light and the grey/silver play in between could set the mood as no colour film movie could. The black and white film could be lensed at such lower light settings, they achieve spooky shadows and the looming sense that something could be hiding in them as no modern colour film ever could.

And Night/Curse of the Demon is the genre at its best. This movie takes a premise that demons can be called forth and 'sicked' upon a person by the mere passing of a slip of paper of runic symbols - and proceeds to make believers of the audience. The only sour note in the wonderful production is the monotone perform by Dana Andrews who seems determined not to take the role serious. It is quite a shame it could not have had an actor with the deftness of Ian McShane give breath to the doubting thomas professor. Still, even Andrews lack luster performance cannot sink this marvellous film.

Andrews plays a parapsychologist who has come to England to debunk a witch-cult. Once he arrives, he finds the man who asked him to come has been killed under very mysterious circumstances. His niece is convinced he was killed by Carlson, the head of the witch, for she finds a reference in her uncle's diary saying Carlson passed him the slip of paper with runic symbols and then he found his diary had all the pages torn from them after a certain date - the date Carlson said something would come for him. Andrews is a confirmed doubter, but even his faith in logic is rattled has he comes face to face with people of the Auld Ways. He also have been passed a slip with the symbols and Carlson has informed him his time allotted nears - and his diary is found with all the pages torn from it.

It is horror films at their best, Jacques Tourneur the master showing how it was done. Be sure to keep an eye out for his I Walked with A Zombie - another masterpiece despite it stupid title.

One the great turning points in horror films
The distributor advertising this DVD as a "Double Feature" stretches the truth a bit. "Curse of the Demon" is merely the shortened American version of the British film "Night of the Demon." The American version runs thirteen minutes shorter and is by far the weaker cut of the film, if still a fine piece of work. It's a nice feature to have the complete American cut on this disk for the sake of comparison with the original, but this is hardly a "double feature." And there's no reason to watch the edited, shorter version when you have the superior British original of one of the seminal horror movies of all time on the same DVD.

"Night of the Demon" hit theaters in 1957 and marked a turning point in macabre cinema. Director Jacques Tourneur had made some important 1940s horror films ("Cat People," "Leopard Man," and "I Walked with a Zombie," as well as the film noir classic "Out of the Past") that moved against the grain of the gothic fantasies that Universal produced during the 1930s. With "Night of the Demon," Tourneur cemented the idea of the modern horror film, where the terrors of the gothic, demonic, and supernatural appear within the realm of the modern, everyday world -- the essentially rational setting of the contemporary times. The success of this film would eventually lead to such movies in the following decades as "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Exorcist," which took place in the recognizable contemporary world, where the invasion of supernatural forces seemed all the more ghastly.

The screenplay comes from the short story "Casting the Runes" by master Victorian ghost story writer M. R. James. (You can find this story in an excellent and currently in-print volume of the same name.) In the story, a professor and practitioner of the black arts, Karswell, has found a way to send demonic forces against his academic foes by passing them a slip of paper covered with magical runes. The movie expands the premise: Karswell (Niall MacGinnis, who played Zeus in "Jason and the Argonauts") leads a witchcraft circle and uses his rune-tracker to send a demon after his opponent, professor Harrington. After Harrington's death, his American friend, psychologist Holden (Dana Andrews), comes to America to learn more, but scoffs at the idea that anything supernatural could lurk behind Harrington's death. Unfortunately for Holden, Karswell feels threatened enough to decide to send his murdering monster after the American.

Tourneur brilliantly films the movie in a split style, dividing between realistic, bland daytime scenes, meant to have an almost documentary feel, and increasingly warped and bizarre nighttime scenes as the curse of the demon moves closer and closer to Holden and it becomes harder for him to deny the truth of what is occurring. The demon itself is a point of controversy among film students. Tourneur was famous for keeping his horrors hidden, and some people believe that he never planned to show the demon at all, but the producer forced him to shove it up front. The appearance early in the film of the full demon might have been an error (it would have worked better to save it for the finale), but its materialization at the end is pretty incredible and it's hard to believe that Tourneur wouldn't have wanted the ending any other way. This is (excuse the pun) one hell of a demon. Designed by Ken Adam (who would later create the sets for most of the James Bond films, as well as "Dr. Strangelove"), the monster looks like it leaped from the freakiest medieval woodcut representation of Hell. The special effects and sounds accompanying it are also eerie and disturbing.

Andrews is a bit stodgy in his part, but Niall MacGinnis makes up for it with his scene-stealing role as Karswell. MacGinnis is both a bumbling, whimsical British professor (complete with a doting and scolding mother), and a cold-blooded sorcerer -- often both in one scene. The ending of the film, involving the passing of the runes, is both funny and incredibly tense, leading to one of the most stunning climaxes in horror films. Peggy Cummins as the love interest is delightfully perky and intelligent, much more so than female leads in most horror films.

The only extra on the disk is the inclusion of the American cut. However, the film is in perfect condition, and is finally shown in the original aspect ration of 1:1.66 (a typical European screen format infrequently seen in the U.S.; it's halfway between the shape of a TV screen and the typical 1:1.85 that most American movies are shot in today). "Night of the Demon" is essential horror film viewing for anyone who wants to understand the development of the genre into its current form. (And I have to repeat it, that's one helluva demon!)

Good for the Era
I enjoyed this movie not because it was such a good horror film but because it was representative of the era, the time it was made. Predictable and not horrifying. It is a good addition to my film library. I'm glad these oldies are making it to DVD.

Why did I Laugh during a Horror Film?
I read some of the previous reviews of this film right here on Amazon. I read the reviews and I was excited about seeing the film. I had not seen the film before I read the reviews. I was very excited to see the film, I was.
My first comment is this matey, I think it was wise to show the demon at the beginning of the film, as so many of you have objected to. It was wise because otherwise I may not have made it to the end of the film when they showed the demon again. Yes, it looked fake, but it was effective.
The film starts out waaaaay too sloooow. So at least by showing the demon you know you may get more action.
My second comment goes a little something like this, I laughed my little clover leaves off during the seance. When the "medium" starts speaking in tongues and moaning like he is going downhill on a bike on a bumpy road. I don't mean to offend the fans of this movie, but that scene was too much camp, too funny, when the little child's voice started, I almost choked.

I got a bigger laugh though when the central character, Dana Andrews goes to Stonehenge, and my friend said "Oh he's at Stone hedge."
I had such a good time watching this film.
Let me see, I do have a good point of the film. During the doctor convention, it was kind of spooky, you know? There is a bunch of students sitting watching a doctor and his patient. The patient is comatose because he had once seen the demon. The doctor shoots the patient up with "amphetamines" (um hum we know what he pimping in that needle). The patient jumps up and runs into the audience, then runs and jumps out of a window to his death. Well it takes him 2 times to get out of the window, the first time he just runs into it and falls down.
Oh I did laugh again during the big finale, when the demon shows up again, picks up the "satanic cult leader" and starts smacking him around. Whew.
Do I recommend this movie? I don't know. I do know I had a good time watching it though.

One of the best
Without a doubt this is one of the best movies of all time.
I was on the edge through the whole movie. Great camera work,
great scenery with that dreary English landscape. Rent it, but it, you'll be glad you did. ... Read more

Description

Winner of four Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Actor, Sir Laurence Olivier's Hamlet continues to be the most compelling version of Shakespeare's beloved tragedy. Olivier is at his most inspired-both as director and as the melancholy Dane himself-as he breathes new life into the words of one of the world's greatest dramatists. Criterion is proud to present Hamlet in a luminous black-and-white digital transfer. ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Great Dane
Sir Laurence Olivier's 1948 version of Hamlet sets the standard for film version of the play about the Danish prince. Much as he did with Henry V, Sir Laurence exercises some significant plot points and characters from Shakespeare's play, but it is done to concentrate the focus of the film on the brooding prince. Make no mistake about it, this is Sir Laurence's film all the way. He brings an amazing breadth to character who disintegrates from a happy and sensitive man into a tormented and lost soul. There are some other great performances including Eileen Herlie who plays the Queen and is Sir Laurence's mother in the film despite being thirteen years his junior, a young Jean Simmons is luminous as Ophelia and Basil Sydney is effective as the villainous Claudius. Horror film notables Peter Cushing and the now ubiquitous Christopher Lee also appear as does Stanley Holloway. The film was a major success and it helped earn Sir Laurence his only competitive Oscars in 1948 as Best Actor and as producer on the Best Picture award in addition to two others for Best Art Direction (B&W) and Best Costume Design (B&W). He is also the only Best Actor Oscar winner to direct himself to the award.

OLIVIER MASTERFUL IN HAUTING ADAPTATION
There are several film versions of Shakespeare's great play about the troubled Prince of Denmark; Mel Gibson's imbues the drama with a barely restrained mania while Kenneth Branagh's is notable as the most nearly complete version yet made. Still, it is Olivier's production which remains the standard, and justifiably so. His is the performance which I believe most nearly matches the Bard's own vision of how the tormented Hamlet should be played--sensitive, caustic and impassioned yet tortured and lost. Olivier's direction leads the viewer inexorably into the heart of the play, whose characters move through the nearly inescapable walls of Castle Elsinore like sleepwalkers through a lucid dream. But Olivier couldn't do it all himself, and doesn't need to. Felix Aylmer is a likeable wise old fool as Polonius; Eileen Herlie is an appropriately confused queen and mother; Basil Sydney is well-cast as the villain who would rather not be; and Jean Simmons shines as Hamlet's innocent love, whose disintegration is so realistic it breaks the watcher's heart. More, the individual scenes are beautifully orchestrated. Oliver's rendition of the "To be or not to be" soliloquoy is pure magic, and the story's climactic duel is worth the wait, as Hamlet and Laertes (Ophelia's brother, well assayed by Terence Morgan)duel to the death--one unwittingly, and both to the death of more than each other. True, the production is incomplete, and the lack of Rosencranz and Guildenstern is a regrettable omission. But overall, Olivier's film captures the essence of Shakespeare's play like no other. As long as Hamlet is studied in schools, this will be the version most often used to show how the play should be done. A worthwhile addition to even the most discerning video library.

Another good Lawrence Olivier adaptation of Shakespeare
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.

In this release Olivier's second adaptation of a Shakespeare play, Olivier again plays the title role. Unlike the previous film, this one is in black and white,

It follows the story of a Danish prince bent on avenging the murder of his father by his uncle.
I would assume that most people know the plot so that is all I will say about it,

The DVD has no special features which is not normal for a Criterion release.

Olivier is fantastic!
A film by Laurence Olivier

The word "masterpiece" is thrown around far too often these days, but for years I have heard that this version of "Hamlet" is Olivier's masterpiece. Recently I had the opportunity to see this masterpiece and for the first time I saw Olivier at work. I was impressed with what I saw. To the modern ear, Shakespearean language can sound awkward and archaic, but with Olivier, much of the dialogue sounded like easy conversation.

I once heard "Hamlet" described as the most structurally perfect play, that every action stems directly from something else in the play and that every action happened in that particular way because it had to, that there was no other way for the actions to work out. I am not enough of a Shakespeare scholar to be able to really speak to this, but I do know that when done well, "Hamlet" is a fascinating play, and a fascinating film. Olivier succeeded at doing this play well.

The story is one that is well known. Hamlet (Laurence Olivier) is a prince of Denmark. His father had died a month prior, and Queen Gertrude (Eileen Herlie) married the dead king's brother, Claudius (Basil Sydney). Hamlet has been brooding, unable to accept either his father's death or his mother's rather quick remarriage. This continues until Hamlet sees the ghost of his father, who tells him that he was murdered, and that the murderer is now sitting on the throne of Denmark. As a character said early in the film, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Hamlet must avenge his father, but in such a way that he can get away with it. As he begins to plot, he pretends to be mad (crazy), so that his excesses can be excused away. So begins the story.

This is an impressive movie, from the acting to the set design. The castle has a dark, gloomy atmosphere and it feels (and looks) real rather than looking hokey (the movie is more than 50 years old, after all). I was most impressed with Olivier, and rather less so with Jean Simmons, as Ophelia. The character (and her motivations) just didn't feel real to me this time. Excellent movie and highly recommended for classic film buffs.

"Dead for a ducket! Dead!!!"
With those words spoken with a maniacal glare, Lawrence Olivier had my complete attention. He is both director and the lead in this classic version of the celebrated play. The direction is smart, reminiscent at times of visual techniques used in "Citizen Kane." Praise, indeed! However, his acting performance is frustrating. He speaks softly, letting the poetry of the language speak for itself, then has a brilliant moment or exceptional scene, only to blaze sensationalistic at the wrong times. One such instance was just after Hamlet slays Polonius. Olivier cries out at the top of his voice, "Is it the King?!" Hamlet states early in the play that he is only playing at madness. Why is he then drawing so much attention to his bloody actions when we all know he just left the King praying on a lower level? He knows it couldn't be the King. Once again, his direction is amazing, but there are some excellent examples of why actors should not direct themselves. Seriously, who's going to tell them their performance needs work? Another scene that had me scratching my head was after the "players" first arrive. Why does Olivier pull the lead player aside, telling him that he has lines for him to memorize, only to have the "play-within-a-play" enacted without any words at all? He should have cut that earlier scene, or let the players have their lines.

The meeting with Hamlet's ghost is incredibly creepy here, with trick camera work, an eerie score, great special effects, and a thudding heart-beat announcing the ghost's arrival. This is my favorite version of this particular scene.

Jean Simmons looks very pretty here, and she does have her moments, but there are better portrayals of Ophelia in other renditions of the play. Both Helena Bonham Carter, in the Mel Gibson version, and Kate Winslet, in the Kenneth Branagh version, are superior. Jean Simmons is good, but not great.

Horatio is wooden for the most part. When will actors learn that one doesn't stop acting simply because it is not their turn to speak. Gestures and expressions, people! Lawrence Olivier uses subtlety in ever scene at ever moment, that is why so many consider him a great actor.

Once again, the character of Laertes is portrayed with only a little passion. Catch the Kenneth Branagh version to see a vengeful Laertes on the verge of exploding with blood-lust!

Overall, I was disappointed with the supporting cast. They have their moments, but none of them can match Olivier's performance. To quote a critical review I read, "Olivier is triumphant!" As both director and actor, his work here, for the most part, shines. Thank you. ... Read more

Description

Historical drama exposing the famous love triangle in King Arthur's Court. ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Exciting and Lush Arthur Tale
1953's KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE was MGM's first wide-screen motion picture (filmed in CinemaScope in England). What the film lacks in scripting is made up by spectacular and brilliant cinematography by Freddie Young, colorful art designs by Alfred Junge and Hans Peters and an exciting score composed by Miklos Rozsa (a prelude to his majestic EL CID score). Robert Taylor looks good as Sir Lancelot of the Lake. Mel Ferrer is King Arthur. Ava Gardner is Queen Guinevere. (Sir) Stanley Baker comes off best as Sir Modred who plots to undermine King Arthur. There are large-scale battles and much swordplay throughout the adventure. The sword fight between Sir Lancelot and King Arthur is well filmed and the most dramatic which sets the stage for the relationship between these two men. There is another sword fight later in the film between Sir Lancelot and Sir Modred's men. This is a well-staged and choreographed duel which takes place on the steps outside Lancelot's quarters in the castle. Despite all this swordplay the story is somewhat static and does not really evoke that much emotion from the viewer. However director Richard Thorpe is successful in conveying Guinevere's love, through a restrained but effective performance by Ava Gardner, for Sir Lancelot. Ultimately it is a solid film in the old Hollywood traditions of storytelling.

GENERALLY STILTED PRODUCTION - NICE LOOKING DVD
"Knights of the Round Table" was MGM's first feature in the newly christened widescreen format of Cinemascope and the studio's inexperience with a 2:35:1 aspect ratio, in retrospect, is rather obvious. The audience is treated to drawn out battle scenes (that are thrilling) and lavish spectacle. But the whole look and feel of the film is very theatrical, like Shakespeare on stage. Robert Taylor, usually so natural, is uncomfortably stiff as Lancelot, while Mel Ferrer fairs slightly better as King Arthur. Ava Gardner is wasted as Gueneviere. Sets and rear projection are glaringly obvious. Over all, for its historical context in the early days of widescreen film, more than entertainment value, "Knights" is a worthwhile movie.
Warner Home Video has given us a generally good looking print. No attempt has been made to remove age related artifacts from the negative. Overall, the quality of the transfer is very smooth though, at times, it can seem somewhat digitally harsh. Exterior footage tends to suffer from a considerable amount of film grain while interiors are well balanced. Black levels are perhaps a bit weak and fine details are lost in the darker scenes. Close ups look gorgeous. Long shots suffer from pixelization. Fades between scenes tend to suffer from a sudden grainy quality that is customary for all Cinemascope film stock of this period. The audio is stereo surround and amply provided for considering the limitations in the original recording.

EXTRAS: Mel Ferrer comments on the film's production. There's a featurette movietone trailer and the film's original theatrical trailer too.
OVER ALL: Not a bad movie but an incredibly dated one, "Knights of the Round Table" nevertheless offers up a good example of vintage Cinemascope film making from the 1950's.

Calvary Charges, Fierce Battles and Pageantry
KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE is a movie about the classic tale of King Arthur, Sir Lancelot and Guinevere. Lancelot's ill-fated love for Guinevere is played out against a background of cavalry charges, fierce battles and pageantry. The plot is amplified by the rivalry between Lancelot and Mordred as well as Sir Percival's quest for the Holy Grail. Merlin appears in the film as an advisor to Arthur and Lancelot's wife dies while giving birth to the future Sir Gallahad.

Robert Taylor as Lancelot and Mel Ferrer as Arthur are both superb. Ava Gardner makes a beautiful Guinevere but her acting seems to be a little flat. The strong supporting cast includes Stanley Blake, Felix Aylmer and Robert Urguhart.

KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE received Academy Award nominations for Best Color, Art Direction and Sound. The main competition for Oscars in 1953 came from STALAG 17, ROMAN HOLIDAY and FROM HERE TO ETERNITY.

Richard Thorpe also directed Robert Taylor in IVANHOE in 1952.

The Age of Chivalry
A very enjoyable movie about the legend of King Arthur, Lancelot and Guinevere. Robert Taylor is perfect as Lancelot... noble and chivalrous, although human at the same time. Colorful and full of heraldry, if you like stories of the age of chivalry, you'll enjoy this.

Knight of the Round Table
I've always like a Robert Taylor movie. It's one of those movies, you could add to your video collection, and watch it again periodically. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Highly Recommended On All Levels
Great entertainment and historically correct, for the most part. Richard Burton plays a convincing Alexander. From the start, with the background on Alexander's youth and his relationship with his father Philip and mother Olympias, the movie awesomely captures history. The battle scenes are recreated very well. I especially liked the post-battle scene at Chaeronea with the drunken Philip's singing echoing through the valley. Only minor errors, such as Darius's daughter being called Roxanne (a Bactrian princess) instead of Statira, can easily be overlooked. Alexander in fact, married both women anyway. The Persians are also shown historically correct for the most part, especially Darius' murder and the scene at Persepolis. For an under two-hour movie, what you get is quite spectacular. Of course, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to reduce to film everything in Alexander's life.

Disappointing
Robert Rossen 1950's attempt at writing and directing a film on a character as intriguing and dynamic as Alexander The Great falls flat. The subject itself calls for only the most devoted and skilled masters of film which Rossen was not for purposes of this genre.

Because Alexander The Great accomplished so much within only 13 years of his 33 years of life, it is virtually impossible to make a good movie on that part alone in less than 3 hours. Richard Burton delivers a strong performance as Alexander but also seems too constrained; Butrton fails to deliver the youthful vigor of which Alexander had so much of. Not only was Alexander a king and conqueror, he was a military genius; a philosopher; a bold explorer; and, in his own mind anyway, a god among mortal men. Burton's performance often seems too grave and reserved and fails to reflect Alexander's dynamic personality.

I did like the movie for its focus on Alexander's childhood but that also came short. It seems that, other than for biblical movies, the 1950s and early 1960s was a really bad period for making films dealing with the classical pagan world. All such movies were inevitably constrained by prudish christian values that restricted what subjects such a movie could touch upon and limited the characters depicted. Although a military genius in his own right, Phillip was a debauche and drunkard whose bizzare sexual preferences shocked even his Greek neighbors. For example, after the battle of Charonea, Phillip II swaggered drunk around the corpses of the enemy and, lifting their heads as if seeking an audience, would yell for Demonsthenes (Athenian orator and staunch enemy of Phillip.) Olympias was a conspiring queen and pagan priestess whose incessant scheming were directed at both Alexander and/or Phillip at one point or another. Such characters were poorly presented due to a squeemish 50s audience: unfortunate.

The movie doesn't really cover the campaign or its battles very well either. Looking at the movie, one barely gets any view as to how Alexander refined his father's tactics of the Macedonian phalanx to its peak; a military tactic unmatched until it came against the more fluid ones of the Roman legions almost 200 years later. The same is true as to Alexander's great siege of Tyre in which he built a mile-long jetti into the sea to connect with the City's gates; his hard fought geurilla campaign against Darius' renegade satraps; or his victories against Porus' elephants in India. There are also gross inaccuracies in the film in that Roxanne wasn't Darius III's daughter.

I have heard that Oliver Stone with perhaps the help of Copola is completing a new film on Alexander the Great with Leonardo Di Caprio as Alexander: I look forward to seeing that. In the meantime, we can only look at where others have failed. Roughly paraphrasing Phillip II, I would tell viewers, "Seek a greater movie, for that which Rossen leaves you is too small for thee."

A less than stellar 1956 epic film about Alexander the Great
With films about Alexander the Great directed by Oliver Stone and Baz Luhrmann supposedly being released in 2004 and 2005 respectively, the 1956 film "Alexander the Great" from director Robert Rossen with Richard Burton in the title role is probably going to see renewed interest. However, despite providing a realistic portrayal of a historical legend and being one of the most historically faithful films about the ancient world ever to be made, there is something missing from this would be epic.

"Alexander the Great" was written, produced and directed by Rossen, who had won the Academy Award for "All the King's Men" (1949) and would be nominated gain for "The Hustler" (1961). All three films have in common the realistic portrait of a complex psychological figure. Burton plays Alexander as being both energetic and a visionary, with quicksilver changes in mood. Alexander is both idealistic and practical, intelligent but hot-tempered, courageous but shrewd. Although he conquers the Persian Empire while still basically a boy, this is a conqueror who suffers defeats and almost falls prey to becoming an Oriental potentate just like Darius (Harry Andrews), the Persian king he just conquered. This is a man who can kill a friend in a moment of anger while drunk and weep over the body.

The more you know about the historical Alexander the more impressed you are by the film's fidelity to what appears in Plutarch. Here is the Alexander who worshiped Achilles and loved Homer's "Iliad," who was taught by Aristotle, cut the Gordian knot, destroyed Persepolis, and died a young man at Babylon. The battles sequences, such as the battle at the river Granicus, run rather short, but are not all that bad. The problem is that for all the complexity of Alexander's character and the intensity of Burton's performance, there is no real sense of mission or accomplishment to his conquering the known world. We see what happened, but are curiously unaffected by the film's implicitly explanation for why he did it.

The rationale suggested by the film is found in Alexander's father, King Philip of Macedonia. Played by Fredric March, Philip has a memorable scene after the battle of Chaeronea against the united city-states of Greece when he gets drunk and mocks the Athenian orator Demosthenes for having called him a barbarian. When Philip is assassinated Alexander chases after the assassin and kills him, and even the most basic understanding of Freudian psychology tells us that the son will spend the rest of his life trying to impress his dead father.

In the end the explanation for conquering the world becomes the same as Sir Edmund Hillary's famous quote for why he climbed Mt. Everest. To wit, "Because it was there." When you are on top of the world, there is a certain logic to such a quip. But when the subject is conquering the known world starting with a relatively small kingdom north of Greece, the same idea seems rather hollow. Hopefully Stone and/or Luhrmann can come up with not only better explanations, but much better films.

An Epic That Never Was
Someday, someone is going to make a great film about Alexander. Writer/director Robert Rossen took a crack at it in the mid-1950's, an era of epic films. The result was interesting but ultimately disappointing. Perhaps Rossen tried to squeeze too much into a standard running time. Some scenes, usually the historic ones, seem rushed and truncated while others, the fictionalised ones, seem superfluous. Visually, the film is quite good. In fact, it is one of those films where the stills are more impressive than the actual scenes.

But Rossen obviously wanted to make an "intelligent" epic. Some of the script and casting reflect that. The supporting cast has a number of respected British thesps -Claire Bloom, Harry Andrews, Peter Cushing, Michael Hordern, Stanley Baker. But there are also a lot of Italians whose dialogue is dubbed by those same two guys who did all the film dubbing in the 1950's. One can only wonder who chose Fredric March (hammy as ever) as Philip of Macedon or Danielle Darrieux (who apparently had only one facial expression) as his mischievous queen.

But the critical casting was Richard Burton as Alexander. He certainly looks the part, despite the blonde hair. But he frequently suffers from his career-long inability to adapt his stage-acting technique to the more intimate demands of cinema. Or maybe that's how he thought a wannabe god should behave. You sit there praying for him to lighten up - just a little.

For the rest, the many battle scenes tend to be confusing rather than spectacular, the uncertain pace suggests a lot of pre-release cuts were made, and the music not only sounds primitive but seems to have been recorded in somebody's basement. Still, the film is an interesting failure. But you end up admiring its ambitions more than its results.

Alexander the Great
Richard Burton, hair dyed blond, wandering around in a miniskirt. A movie only Liz Taylor could love. Drags ... Read more

Description

Homer's Illiad surges to the screen in Helen Of Troy, from the '50s heyday of big-screen spectaculars. Robert Wise (Westside Story, The Sound Of Music) directs this lavish epic capturing some 30,000 people on screen at a then huge cost of $6 million. ... Read more

Reviews (22)

50's style splashy, superficial treatment of the Iliad
Having seen Troy, the blockbuster from the Hollywood "Pitt of horror," I also aver that other efforts to tell the story of the Iliad have met with limited success. Take the case of Helen Of Troy, the 1955 movie with Rossana Podesta and an all-star British cast. Despite its near two-hour length, it's all splashy pageantry with no substance, with all sorts of liberties taken with Homer's tale.

In this version, Paris, en route to Sparta on a peace mission with his cousin Aeneas, is swept overboard, and rescued from Menelaus's soldiers by Helen. Menelaus is portrayed as a portly bearded unloving tyrant, similar in Troy, but he nevertheless rallies Agamemnon, Nestor, Diomedes, Achilles, and Ulysses (he's not called Odysseus here) when Paris and Helen flee and sets sail for Troy.

Naturally, Paris is condemned by nearly every Trojan for bringing the Greeks to their doorstep. Helen of course still cherishes him, as does his brother Polydorus, someone all too eager to spill some Spartan blood. Priam's wife Hecuba is the only other one to show sympathy for Helen.

Another contrast between this and Troy is that the latter spends too much time on certain aspects, whereas Helen Of Troy only brushes the surface. The conflict between Agamemnon and Achilles over Briseis played a huge part in Troy. Here, Briseis is not even mentioned by name, but Achilles refuses to fight per the Iliad.

So what does work? The costumes on both sides, the actual ships with oars and the sight of marching Greek phalanxes, and the city of Troy itself is of good 50's quality. And the grief on Andromache's face is visible on her face, as she realizes that Hector is about to be killed--pretty good for the 50's.

However, anachronistic errors include the medieval wooden towers the Greeks use to scale the walls of Troy and the battering ram. The funniest are the leopard or jaguar skins worn by Achilles and at one point Hector. Achilles, king of the jungle... yeah right! And the statue of Athena is so grotesque that I wondered if I was looking at Medusa, or worse yet, Kali.

As for the performers, Harry Andrews was an interesting choice as Hector. Ronald Lewis shines as Aeneas, as does as Nora Swinburne as Hecuba and Robert Brown as Polydorus. But Janette Scott as Cassandra is my favourite, a slip of a girl maddened by the gift of foresight, yet doomed not to be believed. And Jacques Sernas's wooden blonde, blue-eyed Paris was clearly meant for the women at the time. He does bring shame to Troy, but he's more of a fighter here than Orlando Bloom's version, as he bests Ajax in Sparta. However, Stanley Baker's Achilles leaves much to be desired. Brigitte Bardot has a small part as Andraste, Helen's cute personal slave, before she became a blonde temptress in the 60's and much worse later.

Movies in the 1950's only took a superficial cliched approach to novels or classics, with a sheer disregard for accuracy (Paris kills Patroculus here, not Hector), and that is Helen Of Troy's Achilles heel. At the sight of the Greek ships massing along the Aegean, Priam says the phrase of "the face that launched a thousand ships." I'd probably launch a few row boats after this Helen, but not a thousand ships. Later, it is Helen who seeing the wooden horse wheeled in, steals Laocoon's line: "Timeo danaos et dona ferente." Or in English per the movie, "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts." A not bad, though dated effort, especially for those used to hoards of digital armies and gory violence.

Helen of Hollywood's Troy
This is my favorite movie version of the story of Helen of Troy. It's more melodramatic and theatrical than the recent cable TV miniseries, but it is faster paced and has a grandeur and fascination with Greek mythology lacking in that version. At least Cassandra is Kassandra in this film - she's endowed with the gift of prophecy, yet no one believes her until it's too late. Then again, many other mythological details are sacrificed for simplicity's sake.

In the role of Helen, Rossana Podesta is radiantly beautiful. She indeed has the face that could launch a thousand ships. And the Paris of Jacques Sernas is nearly as beautiful as his beloved. Their passion is believable, if a tad overblown. The rest of cast is good too, especially the Priam of Sir Cedric Hardwick, Achilles of Stanley Baker and Odysseus of Torin Thatcher. Although the Trojan War occured during Mycenaean times, most of the set designs and costumes appear to use Classical Greece as the model, and to very good effect, for it gives the movie a nobility lacking in the more recent version. It's all pure Hollywood and many liberties have been taken. The spectacular scenery, great matte work and action sequences nevertheless make for a very entertaining movie. So where's the DVD?

Better Than OK
First of all, anyone who depends upon films to understand history (especially ancient history) is on a fool's errand. Moreover, both of Homer's epic poems possess a scope and depth which simply cannot be accommodated within a film with a running time of less than 15-20 hours. That said, this is a generally entertaining presentation of the basic plot: Prince Paris of Troy (Jacques Sernas) visits Sparta, falls in love with Queen Helen (Rosanna Podesta) and she with him, they return together to Troy, her outraged husband Menelaus (Nial MacGinnis) organizes an army and follows them, lays siege to the city, and eventually Troy is occupied and then obliterated.

Most of the film's tension (such as it is) involves Achilles (Stanley Baker) and his adversarial relationships with Menelaus and Agamemnon (Robert Douglas) and then with Prince Hector (Harry Andrews) whom he slays in hand-to-hand combat. This is an above average spectacle, comparable with predecessors Samson and Delilah (1949) and Demetrius and the Gladiators (1954). By no means a great film, nonetheless Helen of Troy (as directed by Robert Wise) offers generally solid acting throughout its cast and several memorable battle scenes without benefit of digital technologies when filmed in 1955. Yes, that's Brigitte Bardot as Andraste and Eduardo Ciannelli as Andros. And yes, I enjoyed seeing this film again, motivated to do so after seeing Wolfgang Petersen's Troy. The inclusion of various gods and goddesses in the earlier film now seems silly but the absence of a "superstar" such as Brad Pitt in one of its lead roles is (at least for me) refreshing.

back to the fifties
This movie typically dates from an era, when the many local movie theatres were visited regularly for their newest issues. An era when television could not compete yet, also an era when society wasn't as hectic and demanding as it is today.

So just sit back, relax, and take your time to watch 'Helen of Troy'. Enjoy its 'overture' for instance, a fine piece of film-music to get you in the right mood. The concert lasts about five minutes, without occurring any change in the picture on your screen.

Once this movie is on its way, its shots are fine. Its characters are played well, too, although in some heroic style not fashionable anymore.
Further there isn't much to tell. The fifties show a clear trend for pompous movies lending their plot from ancient Greek or Roman history. The enjoyable 'Helen of Troy' is just one of them.

P.s.: what about Brigitte Bardot? Her tiny role as a slave-girl in a pompous Greek-history setting does not suit her talents very well. Brigitte makes the best of it, though, occasionally succeeding in letting her famous image shine through.

Long before there was "Troy," there was "Helen of Troy"
After watching the current big budget film "Troy" and complaining bitterly about what the screenplay did to Homer, Euripides, and other ancient writers it seemed time to finally check out the 1956 Hollywood version of "Helen of Troy," which stared Rossana Podestà in the title role and Jack Sernas as Paris. Podestà was an Italian sex siren her had to learn her lines by rote in English and who was picked over established stars including Elizabeth Taylor, Lana Turner, Rhonda Fleming, Ava Gardner and Yvonne DeCarlo for the part of Helen. Of course, it is hard to say she is the most beautiful woman in the film let alone the world since Brigitte Bardot is playing Andraste.

The script by Hugh Gray, N. Richard Nash, and John Twist, does a good job of including the goddesses Aphrodite and Athena without having them literally appear. The idea of the pact among the princes of Greece to decide who would win Helen's hand and the promise to defend anyone who violated the pact is ignored. Helen's father, the king of Sparta, just married her off to Menelaus (Niall MacGinnis), who, along with his brother, Agamemnon (Robert Douglas), is interested in attacking Troy to take its riches. The kings of Greece have gathered in Sparta to plan the attack when Paris comes along, falls in love with Helen, and steals her away to Troy.

Once there, nobody is happy to see this development. King Praimus (Cedric Hardwicke) and Hector (Harry Andrews) are upset over the fact the Greeks are going to come to attack Troy and the priestess Kassandra (Janette Scott) is crying gloom and doom, but, of course, nobody is listening to her. The people even come to throw things at Paris and his woman but he sways them with a short speech. Of course, nothing is going to stop the Greeks, because Helen is just an excuse for conquering the rich city that controls the Dardanelles (the importance of which is explained in the prologue), and we are treated to the spectacle of 30,000 men fighting it out on the plains of Troy in glorious Warnercolor.

In terms of Homer's "Iliad," the wrath of Achilles (Stanley Baker) has to do with the fact that he flat out does not like Agamemnon, which is made clear the first time we see them together in Sparta. At some point he starts pouting in his tent. The death of Patroclus (Terence Longdon) still sets into motion the chain of deaths that defined the end of the Trojan War, but the context is different and reinforces the idea that the Trojans are the good guys. The extension of that is that our young lovers deserve to live happily ever after. But will the screenplay violate the classical story that far? Wily Odysseus (Torin Thatcher) comes up with the stratagem of a rather impressive looking Trojan Horse and the end game of the ten year war is played out.

Like "Troy," this version also avoids the worst part of "The Trojan Women" by Euripides, allowing Andromache (Patricia Marmont) to flee with Aeneas (Ronald Lewis) instead of having her endure her baby boy being tossed off the walls of Troy (which reminds me: for future reference, finish looting a city before you start burning it). But once again Hollywood proves that when it comes to adapting Homer and the rest of the story of the Trojan War they always think they can improve on the original. Yet despite the spectacle there are no transcendent moments in this film, let along the dramatic highpoints of the epic poem by Homer.

The battle sequences are certainly spectacular and much better than the individual combat sequences, so it is hard not to favor the marching formations of the thousands of extras with their spears and shields over the CGI tens of thousands we saw in "Troy." Director Robert Wise gives the action a sense of classical splendor while Max Steiner's rousing score standing out a lot more than the dialogue. There is an interesting feel to that dialogue and the performance of actors, most of whom are British and classically trained. They are not doing Shakespeare, but they give the drama a certain weight. There is no real passion between Helen and Paris, but at least he has the virtue this time around of being a real prince of Troy, capable of going toe to toe with Ajax (Maxwell Reed).

The DVD contains the original trailer, with its hyperbolic titles, and a trio of black & white featurettes by Gig Young for some sort of 1950s television movie show in which he promotes "Helen of Troy." Ultimately this is a respectable version of the classical story and if it is not great at least it does not have any of those transcendantly bad moments found in so many of the European sandal-and-spear spectacles. ... Read more

Description

Add: Bonus Feature: Commentary by Academy-Award® winning editor Thelma Schoonmaker Powell, film historian Ian Christie and Daniel Day-Lewis reading from Michael Powell's book on the making of the film, "200,000 Feet on Foula." ... Read more

Amazon.com

Let's leave aside the small problem of Krakatoa actually being west of Java. This 1969 epic adventure about treasure hunters who encounter the volcanic island just as it blows apart and who then get bounced around in the ensuing tidal wave is technically impressive if narratively lame. An interesting cast of familiar actors portray the mixed group of adventurers, but the script and dialogue are so weak one just wants to get past all their drama on the high seas (the group is seeking sunken fortunes on the ocean floor) and watch the geological fireworks. Fortunately, they make for quite a show. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Krakatoa in all it's uncut glory!!! Anchor Bay rules!!!
This review is for the Anchor Bay version of this classic disaster film!!! This is the full 131 minute cut of the film. And the film transfer is superb!!! You also get the choice of Fullscreen and Widescreen versions!!! This movie has a great all star cast!!! The original volcano flick!!! Five Stars!!! A+

Entertaining disaster flic....
if you don't take it too seriously!Mediocre acting, but pretty good special effects.The build up to the tidal wave sequence is quite effective and the wave scene doesn't disappoint. The unedited version does help to put the story together and it's now not so disjointed.Transfer is pretty good for its age and I'd recommend.

action clear through
Tidal waves,hat air baloons,erupting volcanos,convicts and good looking women. What else do you need.
So Krakatoa is west of Java, I could have cared less.
The special effects were excillent.
Maxmillian Schell gives his usual good preformance as owner of salvage boat,Brian Keith is a diver with lung problems,
Rossano Brazzi and son Sal Mineo try to spot werckage from air baloon,while John Leyton goes down in a deep sea bell and native girls dive down to the wreckage.
Ending ,each person must choose to stay aboard salvage ship or take a smaller boat to a near by island,those that made wrong choice are doomed. Film will never make the greats,but for entertainment value I felt it moved right along,was easy to understand and preformances were steady but not great. Just don't take too seriously and you should enjoy it.

One to avoid!
Terrible movie, awful picture transfer and sound. What more can I say...except why weren't the film reels destroyed years ago? I saw this movie at the cinema when it was released in the UK. I bought the DVD (cheap)on the basis that it was one of the first movies I had taken a girl to see (ah! memories). What a mistake I made (the DVD not the girl). Do not make a similar one...avoid!

Krakatoa Goes Boom
Although it takes almost an hour and forty minutes for this to happen, when the big rock does blow the film really comes alive with fireworks, boiling lava, miniature ships and some great tsunamis.Unfortunately the story leading up to those events is less enthralling, with a handful of familiar faces giving mostly flat, or in Diane Bakers case - overwrought, performances and faced with the glum prospect of being a mere supporting cast to the real star, the special effects.They play a group of disparate people who sail to the island in search of a sunken cache of diamonds, except for one woman who is trying to find her young son.Soon(not soon enough), there will be an eruption but not before Captain Maximilian Schell is forced to deal with the doped up rampage of Brian Keith, the almost-hijacking of his ship and too many other perils to mention.
This big production has a nice period design and is better than many of the 70's disaster flicks that would (dis)grace the movie screens only a few years later.The film's main purpose however was to showcase the Cinerama process it was made on and for that reason viewing the movie in it's widescreen form is strongly recommended... ... Read more

Reviews (1)

The Classic
This is the classic black and white movie on Luther's life, shown in nearly every Lutheran church basement! It takes the viewer from Luther's entry into the monastery to around 1530, when the Augsburg Confession was presented to the Emperor. For many years, this was the best film on Luther. Unlike Luther (1973, with Stacy Keach) which showed only Luther's struggles, this movie shows his triumphs and successes, and the support he had from others.
This DVD has several good features. Several languages are supported, Spanish, German, Korean, and a few others. Unfortunately, the film was not digitally remastered-- but the picture quality is still not that bad. An interesting documentary is included on how the movie was made and the reaction when it was shown. It also includes a slideshow of Luther sites.
This movie can't compare with the new movie (Luther, 2003 with Joseph Fiennes) as far as presentation is concerned. Yet it is still inspiring, and a faithful presentation of Luther's life. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Viking Queen, simply fun...
Viking Queen is a low budget 60's film, with some great costumes, great dialog, and little historical accuracy.

Why did I give it a high rating? Viking Queen, is simply a hell of a lot of fun!

Carita stars as Celtic Princess, Selena, who must liberate her people, the Iceni tribe from the brutal control of the romans. Torn between her love for a roman general, and the needs to help her people, Carita dons a skimpy warrior's costume and leads her people into battle.

Historical purists steer clear of this one, but everyone else might enjoy this film. Be warned, there is a fair amount of gratuitous nudity and violence in this film, it may not be appropriate for all viewers.

Hmmmm...
Totally fails to live up to any SM expectations you may have.
Carita is an absolute honey, though.

Cheap and historically inaccurate...but fun to watch!
It's a damn shame that the average American is totally ignorant of the Celtic legacy of the western world; modern pop culture and three centuries of fundamentalist Christianity have done their part in obliterating all accurate memory of our northern European roots from the minds of the masses. That's why I applaud any movie that treats the subject of Celtic antiquity, even if most of these films are a far cry from historical reality. This is certainly the case with The Viking Queen: The Celtic Britons were NOT Vikings (a later Germanic people), the druids did NOT worship Zeus (the druid character in the film invokes this Greek deity), Brythonic Celts never had the name Angus (the name of a Briton prince in the film...the name itself is Gaelic Celtic), and on and on. However, the film does make a somewhat lame attempt to depict the political turmoil in the Britain of the first century of the Common Era; the invading Roman legions never did win the undying loyalty of the entire isle of Britain and uprisings were common throughout the remaining years of the empire. That being said, the film is otherwise good cheesy fun for the non-sticklers: hot chicks, lots of violence, humorous over acting, the typical Hammer offering (and I'm not at all surprised that a movie with this subject matter was produced in Britain and not the United States). Carita's "Viking" Queen character is loosely based on the historical personage of Boudicea of the Iceni tribe, who ravaged Roman occupied Londinium during the Briton uprising against the forces of the general Paulinus. So, this is not the worst film ever made, I'm just a little disappointed that we have countless biblical and Roman celluloid epics to choose from but precious few serious films about our own ancestors;The Viking Queen is hardly serious...it reduces a dynamic period of our history into a lusty comic book farce.

Historical Hammer Hilarity or something to that effect!
Roman Britain? Not quite. A fun foray into Hammer's skewed history? Definitely. This film works on the most basic level. Warrior chicks and Roman villainy with a mad druid for fun. The best acting in this little sizzler comes from that late great charactor actor Patrick Toughton. There are moments when it seems like he is in a completely different film...yes, he's that good. Andrew Keir is not to be missed as the scenery chewing evil centurion. A mediocre effort at historical film making, but a great deal of fun!

Gloriously Bad!
This is a thinly-veiled retelling of the real-life story of Boudicca, the British/Celtic Queen who led a failed rebellion against Roman occupying forces in the mid-1st century AD. Yes, thinly-veiled, with the names changed to protect the innocent.

This is b-grade movie sap at it's finest, complete with an unbelievable love story, fine British overacting, and... well, it's just plain silly. For instance: Blue-woaded bandits, looking like extras from a Caveman flick; Scythe-wheeled chariots, which neither the Celts, nor anyone else for that matter, ever used in real life; this whole "Viking queen" title -- what's up with that? This film has nothing to do with Vikings, who were Norse raiders starting in the 700's AD; Highly-trained Roman soldiers who let themselves get run down by the aformentioned chariots; And of course Selena, the "Viking Queen" herself, with that out-of-place German (?) accent and Xena-esque corselet... ah yes, the stuff of dreams... On a positive note, the equipment and armor of the Roman Troops are handled fairly well, considering the level of research available at the time the film was made. Not perfect, but not as bad as the rest of the movie!

So if it's so bad, then why do I give it such a high rating? Sentimentality. When I was a kid, I loved this film! And it's still fun. There are worse ways to waste a slow afternoon than popping this in the VCR and vegging out. No, it's not "Spartacus" or "Ben Hur", nor is it the wonderful British documentary of "Boudicca" which was released a couple years back, but hey, what do you expect, anyway? So, toss all your cares (and good taste) to the wind, and revel in this gloriously awful "celtsploitation" movie! ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Vivien is remarkable
She is clearly one of the best actresses of all time.The movie itself was not that great, but Vivien Leigh manages to bring some life into it. The movie falls when she's not on the screen.The quality of the movie is somewhat bad. There are times when the screen goes a little bit black and you cannot see what's going on. There's some problem with the speech,a few instances when you cannot hear properly. But overall phenomenal performance by Vivien Leigh.Buy it to see Vivien give yet another extraordinary performance.

Classic Tragedy
While this is not as sweeping an epic as Gone with the Wind, Vivien Leigh is still the beauty that makes this movie come alive. Even in black-and-white, she is stunningly beautiful and the costumes and authentic 19th century sets are perfect.

This is of course an adaptation of Tolstoy's novel and deals with a mother caught in a loveless marriage. She wants her stuffy bureaucrat husband's (Ralph Richardson) attention, but when he refuses to give her what she needs, she turns to army officer Vronsky.

The consequences of her search for love is unthinkable, yet does she really have any other way out of her absolute heartache? She can't have the love of her family and the love of her lover at the same time. It just isn't possible in this situation.

While we want to feel sympathy for Anna, her decision to pursue her own interests at the expense of her children's happiness seems unforgivable. She is likeable, just we can't understand why she doesn't find a way to protect her children and still pursue her passions.

This movie is covered in snow. There is snow swirling everywhere. The chilly aspects show the harshness of the situation. There is a scene by the fireplace which seems to warm up the movie, if slightly.

Tragedy and passion in an unforgiving society. A movie that, like the modern "Unfaithful," makes you think about consequence of action.

Another Great Role for Vivien Leigh
What a beautiful and talented actress she was! Though most only remember her for Gone With The Wind, Miss Leigh's other roles were equally captivating. My copy of the DVD is fine, no quality issues, and it features Miss Leigh on the cover, not Garbo as another reviewer mentioned.

On to the romance. Anna Karenina is locked in a loveless marriage to a much older count. She falls in love with a handsome, dashing younger man and defies society by running off with him. In one scene, she comes back "home" to sneak in to see her beloved young son, whom she left to pursue her passion. What a heart wrencing scene that is!

Treat yourself to a night of classic cinema. Buy Anna Karenina!

What a shame!
I can barely review the movie: everyone knows a movie adaptation of a great book like Anna Karenina is bound to have shortcomings. But let me tell you about this heck of a ghastly DVD production! Who on earth is behind this sloppy transfer? The movie was made in 1948, but you'd think it was 1918, looking at the hideously blurry, fuzzy, melted frames, and chopped soundtrack. Funny color gizmos even appear sometime for a split second on the screen, definite signs of the little care that was paid to the DVD production of this otherwise decent movie. A reviewer here mentionned the error in the poster on the cover (yes, that's Garbo indeed): if only that was the only sloppiness in this DVD output! Shame shame shame......

I can't believe it
This version of Tolstoi's classic isn't as good as the Garbo version, no doubt, although the lovely Vivien tries her best. What gets me is that they have chosen the wrong poster for the DVD edition, cause it's clearly Garbo who is in it, as any good fan could tell you. How can it be? ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Four episodes of The Veil anthology
Presented here are four tales of suspense that I believe were part of a ten episode series created by Hal Roach Studios called The Veil, a series that was never broadcast on television. The show stars Boris Karloff, who presents each story, and then appears at the conclusion to wrap it up. He also appears in three of the four stories available here.

The first episode deals with a bachelor who witnesses from his apartment window a crime that happens in the building across the way. When he contacts the police to investigate, they discover the apartment is empty, and no one has lived there for quite awhile. The police, thinking the man has a screw loose, take him to a mental hospital, where Karloff plays a psychiatrist. When the crime actually happens the next day, the man is considered the prime suspect, even though he can accurately describe the perpetrator to a tee. Can this man see events before they happen? Or is he the actually the man behind the crime?

The second story is about a family living on a farm and the father passes on. After his death, it is discovered that there are two wills, one leaving everything to the older, more responsible brother who wants to keep the farm and care for his mother, and a second that names the younger, reckless, self-involved brother who wants to sell the farm, keep the money, and put the mother into an old folks home. Which one is real? A spectral vision will tell for sure. Karloff plays the family lawyer in this episode.

The third episode tells the tale of a cold-hearted sea captain and his tumultuous relationship with his wife. The love has left the marriage, and the captain sees an opportunity to finance a new ship in the arms of another woman, one who has recently come into a large sum of money. If only he wasn't married...What to do? Karloff stars in this episode as the sea captain.

The fourth and final episode is a story about a man who has dreams about Jack the Ripper. He sees the crimes before they occur, and can give great detail about the events. The police are skeptical, and then believe the man may be the Ripper due to his intimate knowledge of the crimes, but soon discover otherwise as the crimes continue despite the man with the visions being locked up. Do they discover the identity of the Ripper before he kills again? Karloff does not appear in this last episode at all, only prior to the story starting and then again at the end, to wrap t