Reviews (567)

More like A Clockwork Tangerine!
Some consider this to be Kubrick's masterpiece. In my opinion Dr. Strangelove was his masterpiece, but Orange is a master work, nonetheless. It's a dark tale of prophecy, a vision of a bleak future, violent and vicious in the extreme, which some might also say we're living in today, judging by the headlines.

So this is a great movie, but this DVD is a great disappointment! Despite what the details above say and what it says on the disc snap-case, the film is not in widescreen letterbox format, but is in full screen format! And the image quality is only fair-to-good. The sound is OK on my mono TV speaker but evidently is not Dolby multi-channel. And the theatrical trailer freezes at various points during playback. There's a chapter index and a list of awards the movie won or was nominated for, and that's about it for bonus features! One can only hope that the next release of this movie on DVD will do it justice, and make it a true Kubrick collectible!

Substance and Style!
Perhaps the greatest irony in "A Clockwork Orange" occurs in the scene where Alex is reading the Bible in prison. He informs the viewer that he loves the violence and sex contained in the first part, but really has no use for the preaching in the latter half. I've come across a lot of folks who have seen this flick and it never fails- there are many out there who, like Alex and the Bible, love the brutality of the first hour of the film, and cannot abide the preachy second half. If you are one of those, stop reading this review.

"A Clockwork Orange" is an ingenious comparison of two theories of punishment- retributivism and utilitarianism. Debate has raged over the proper role of a criminal justice system. Is the goal to punish the criminal according to the old eye for an eye standard (retributivism) or to reform the criminal into a useful, law abiding citizen (utilitarianism)? At the outset, many people dismiss utilitarian values as a lot of liberal silliness: soft on crime. A more important question is whether we should reform criminals whether they desire to be reformed or not for the good of society. One of the more interesting aspects of this film is that is shows utilitarianism can be a far more brutal method than retributivism, contrary to popular thought.

Here we have the debate crystallized as if the proponents of both, Kant and Bentham, were debating the merits before our very eyes through the characters on screen. Alex is unquestionably rotten to the core; he maims and rapes helpless victims for laughs. The first hour of the film is dedicated to underscoring this point. When Alex is apprehended by the authorities, he is dealt with in the old fashioned Kantian way- punishment.

Alex then volunteers for a special treatment that will "cure" him, in exchange for freedom. The cure is a form of conditioning that causes Alex to become terribly ill whenever any inclination towards sex or violence surfaces- he now has a reflexive aversion toward evil, and "ceases to be a being capable of moral choice". The final act of the film deals with the consequences of being "cured" in such a way.

By now you probably get the idea- go see this film (but not as a "date"). To further entice you, it's one of the most visually exciting movies ever made, with vibrant images that will burn themselves into your mind. If you've never seen it on DVD, the transfer is great, and you will see things you've missed before. And as a final bonus, look for the guy who plays Darth Vader as a bodyguard.

I'm laughing at clouds
"A Clockwork Orange" is screenplay writer/director/producer Stanley Kubrick's interpretation of the book of the same name by Anthony Burgess. The dialog includes some of Burgess' made-up language from the book.

The plot revolves around Alex de Large and his group of friends who are very violent, and get their kicks by raping and assaulting people. After Alex and friends commit various crimes, Alex is finally arrested and put in prison with a sentence of 14 years. Eventually, his sentence is commuted in exchange for him undergoing experimental aversion therapy which makes him physically ill at the thought of sex or violence. However, it also makes him hate Beethoven's 9th Symphony which was played as background music to some aversion films during treatment. After an attempted suicide, Alex is re-treated with apologies by the government for inhuman treatment, and Alex appears he will resume his old ways.

This movie is highly stylized, including wardrobe, hairdo's (mom has purple hair, another woman had dark blue hair), set dressing, location and props. There is a fair amount of full frontal nudity of both sexes, and some stylized and slow-motion violence. Kubrick has made some good and bad movies, but this is his most stylized and over-the-top effort. Not for everyone.

DVD has chapters, English or French spoken language, several subtitle languages, a trailer and list of awards.

MUST SEE!!!
Amazing portrayal of the effects of a violent youth on society, and the effects of society on the violent youth in turn. Not enough can be said for Malcom McDowell's genious, artistic performance as the lead character "Alex". This character would be despised if played by any other actor, but Mr Mcdowell's rendition somehow finds us leaving the film with an almost endearing "fondness" for the boy.Fabulous must see art film, but definitely not for sissies!

gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh
With this provocative, amusing and beautiful tour-de-force Stanley Kubrick established himself as the most audacious and original directors of his time. Though the are thoses who despise it, no one can deny the power of this film to spark impassioned discussions on the film's sudject matter. And I for one feel this is an achievement all on its own. This stirring classic, I hope, will endure and inspire generations of young film enthusiasts like myself. ... Read more

Reviews (567)

More like A Clockwork Tangerine!
Some consider this to be Kubrick's masterpiece. In my opinion Dr. Strangelove was his masterpiece, but Orange is a master work, nonetheless. It's a dark tale of prophecy, a vision of a bleak future, violent and vicious in the extreme, which some might also say we're living in today, judging by the headlines.

So this is a great movie, but this DVD is a great disappointment! Despite what the details above say and what it says on the disc snap-case, the film is not in widescreen letterbox format, but is in full screen format! And the image quality is only fair-to-good. The sound is OK on my mono TV speaker but evidently is not Dolby multi-channel. And the theatrical trailer freezes at various points during playback. There's a chapter index and a list of awards the movie won or was nominated for, and that's about it for bonus features! One can only hope that the next release of this movie on DVD will do it justice, and make it a true Kubrick collectible!

Substance and Style!
Perhaps the greatest irony in "A Clockwork Orange" occurs in the scene where Alex is reading the Bible in prison. He informs the viewer that he loves the violence and sex contained in the first part, but really has no use for the preaching in the latter half. I've come across a lot of folks who have seen this flick and it never fails- there are many out there who, like Alex and the Bible, love the brutality of the first hour of the film, and cannot abide the preachy second half. If you are one of those, stop reading this review.

"A Clockwork Orange" is an ingenious comparison of two theories of punishment- retributivism and utilitarianism. Debate has raged over the proper role of a criminal justice system. Is the goal to punish the criminal according to the old eye for an eye standard (retributivism) or to reform the criminal into a useful, law abiding citizen (utilitarianism)? At the outset, many people dismiss utilitarian values as a lot of liberal silliness: soft on crime. A more important question is whether we should reform criminals whether they desire to be reformed or not for the good of society. One of the more interesting aspects of this film is that is shows utilitarianism can be a far more brutal method than retributivism, contrary to popular thought.

Here we have the debate crystallized as if the proponents of both, Kant and Bentham, were debating the merits before our very eyes through the characters on screen. Alex is unquestionably rotten to the core; he maims and rapes helpless victims for laughs. The first hour of the film is dedicated to underscoring this point. When Alex is apprehended by the authorities, he is dealt with in the old fashioned Kantian way- punishment.

Alex then volunteers for a special treatment that will "cure" him, in exchange for freedom. The cure is a form of conditioning that causes Alex to become terribly ill whenever any inclination towards sex or violence surfaces- he now has a reflexive aversion toward evil, and "ceases to be a being capable of moral choice". The final act of the film deals with the consequences of being "cured" in such a way.

By now you probably get the idea- go see this film (but not as a "date"). To further entice you, it's one of the most visually exciting movies ever made, with vibrant images that will burn themselves into your mind. If you've never seen it on DVD, the transfer is great, and you will see things you've missed before. And as a final bonus, look for the guy who plays Darth Vader as a bodyguard.

I'm laughing at clouds
"A Clockwork Orange" is screenplay writer/director/producer Stanley Kubrick's interpretation of the book of the same name by Anthony Burgess. The dialog includes some of Burgess' made-up language from the book.

The plot revolves around Alex de Large and his group of friends who are very violent, and get their kicks by raping and assaulting people. After Alex and friends commit various crimes, Alex is finally arrested and put in prison with a sentence of 14 years. Eventually, his sentence is commuted in exchange for him undergoing experimental aversion therapy which makes him physically ill at the thought of sex or violence. However, it also makes him hate Beethoven's 9th Symphony which was played as background music to some aversion films during treatment. After an attempted suicide, Alex is re-treated with apologies by the government for inhuman treatment, and Alex appears he will resume his old ways.

This movie is highly stylized, including wardrobe, hairdo's (mom has purple hair, another woman had dark blue hair), set dressing, location and props. There is a fair amount of full frontal nudity of both sexes, and some stylized and slow-motion violence. Kubrick has made some good and bad movies, but this is his most stylized and over-the-top effort. Not for everyone.

DVD has chapters, English or French spoken language, several subtitle languages, a trailer and list of awards.

MUST SEE!!!
Amazing portrayal of the effects of a violent youth on society, and the effects of society on the violent youth in turn. Not enough can be said for Malcom McDowell's genious, artistic performance as the lead character "Alex". This character would be despised if played by any other actor, but Mr Mcdowell's rendition somehow finds us leaving the film with an almost endearing "fondness" for the boy.Fabulous must see art film, but definitely not for sissies!

gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh
With this provocative, amusing and beautiful tour-de-force Stanley Kubrick established himself as the most audacious and original directors of his time. Though the are thoses who despise it, no one can deny the power of this film to spark impassioned discussions on the film's sudject matter. And I for one feel this is an achievement all on its own. This stirring classic, I hope, will endure and inspire generations of young film enthusiasts like myself. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

In 1964, German playwright Peter Weiss wowed the international theater scene with his Berlin production of The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade. An instant sensation, the play caught the attention of iconic theater director Peter Brook, whose own stage production captivated audiences in New York the next year. Brook then filmed his production in 1966, and the resulting movie, Marat/Sade, stands as one of the best-loved screen adaptations of a play, by both critics and theater fans alike. (The 1996 film Quills is a good example of the story's lasting resonance.) As can be surmised by the play's original title, the action focuses on the Marquis de Sade (Patrick Magee) circa 1808, who, while imprisoned at Charenton Asylum, writes and directs a play starring his fellow inmates. Dramatizing the final hours of French revolutionary Jean-Paul Marat (Ian Richardson) before he was killed by Charlotte Corday (Glenda Jackson, in one of the defining moments of her career), de Sade offers the play as an entertaining whim for the tiny audience of asylum director Coulmier (Clifford Rose) and his family. Utilizing the "theatre of cruelty" theory of avant-garde pioneer Antonin Artaud--once an asylum inmate himself--Brook's presentation of Marat/Sade confronts with jagged language, sounds and visuals, in an attempt to shock the movie audience into dissatisfaction and action against the status quo, mirroring the way de Sade's play within the film stirs the asylum inmates to high dudgeon and revolution. --Heather Campbell ... Read more

Reviews (18)

More Spectacle than Substance.
In 1808, at a mental institution in Charenton, outside of Paris, France, the patients perform a play for a visiting audience of the city's high society. The play was written and directed by the infamous Marquis de Sade (Patrick Magee), a long-term resident of the asylum known throughout the Western world for his scandalous philosophical novels. The play -and sometimes musical- is a reenactment of key events in France's tumultuous recent past. It dramatizes the French Revolution, its aftermath, and the eventual murder of revolutionary leader Jean-Paul Marat (Ian Richardson) by Charlotte Corday (Glenda Jackson) in 1793. Interspersed throughout the play are monologues by Marat and de Sade that articulate their conflicting socio-political ideologies.

"Marat/Sade" is a movie of a play -indeed of a play within a play- that was performed by The Royal Shakespeare Company under the direction of Peter Brook in 1967. The play was originally written by playwright Peter Weiss and entitled "The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum at Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade", which is an accurate, if cumbersome, title. "Marat/ Sade" is a film of that play, and it is filmed in a style that draws attention to the fact that we are watching a play. To put it bluntly, it is filmed more awkwardly than well. The style of the play/movie reflects some of the experimental fashions in the art world of the late 1960s. The performances are interesting and heartfelt, but more melodramatic than convincing. The actors are playing performers who suffer from various mental ailments who are in turn playing roles in a play. -Kind of like playing two characters at once. The behavior of the asylum's histrionic inmates sometimes seems to coincide with their particular mental conditions and sometimes seems to be an acting class exercise in various extreme but unlikely emotional states. The chorus and minor players are generic crazies: ugly, outrageous, and pitiful, who seem to exist primarily to be just that. The most interesting aspect of the film is its philosophical monologues by Jean-Paul Marat and the Marquis de Sade. The antics of the mental patients trying to stage a proper full-length play and occasionally being overcome by their madness are funny, but ultimately most of the film just seems like clutter between the far more coherent monologues.

Like most experimental theater, "Marat/Sade" is more about spectacle than about presenting a credible story or characters. The Marquis de Sade actually was an inmate at the Asylum at Charenton. And he did write plays which were performed by his fellow inmates for visiting Parisian aristocrats. But those plays have not survived. Whatever de Sade's plays at Charenton were about, they almost certainly had philosophical underpinnings. "Marat/Sade" showcases the conflicting ideologies of The Marquis de Sade and Jean-Paul Marat, but it doesn't do it very well. Philosophy also plays second fiddle to spectacle. The monologues are disjointed and none of the ideas are complete. The film toys with themes here and there, and then drops them. Only the idea that humans are violent savages if left unchecked is expressed coherently. Ultimately, "Marat/Sade" has the feeling of something that actors, writers, and directors like to create because it exercises their abilities, but that audiences don't like to watch because it isn't valuable beyond that. It's a movie made for performing, not for viewing. In a nutshell, this is 1960s experimental theater. It you like that, you'll probably like this. If you don't, you won't.

The DVD (This refers to the Image Entertainment DVD only.): The disc has very poor sound, as if some dialogue simply wasn't miked. You'll have to turn the volume way up to hear some of the dialogue and then quickly back down so as not to be deafened. The sound badly needs to be remixed. This disc is full screen; the movie was filmed in a widescreen aspect ratio. Instead of compressing the wider image into a full screen ratio, the sides of the image have simply been chopped off. So you can't see what's going on in the periphery. There are no bonus features on the disc. Basically, this is a bad disc. Image Entertainment usually does better. But it looks like they're no longer producing it, so perhaps the MGM/UA disc is better.

Demanding, Stimulating, But Of Limited Appeal
MARAT/SADE is the film version of a play that arose from an actor's workshop exploring various theatrical theories expressed by French actor-director-writer Antoine Artard, who extolled a style of performance he described as "theatre of cruelty"--which, broadly speaking, consists of an assault upon the audience's senses by every means possible. Ultimately, and although it makes effective use of its setting and the cinematography mirrors the chaos expected of such a situation, the film version of MARAT/SADE is less a motion picture than a record of a justly famous stage play that offers a complex statement re man's savagery.

The story of MARAT/SADE concerns the performance of a play by inmates of an early 1800s insane asylum, with script and direction by the infamous Marquis de Sade. (While this may sound a bit farfetched, it is based on fact: de Sade was known to have written plays for performance by inmates during his own incarceration in an asylum.) The story of the play concerns the assasination of the revolutionary Marat by Charotte Corday, but the play itself becomes a debate between various characters, all of which may be read as in someway intrinsically destructive and evil. Since all the characters are played by mentally-ill inmates of the asylum (the actor playing Marat, for example, is described as a paranoid, and the actress playing Corday suffers from sleeping sickness and meloncholia), the debate is further fueled by their insanity, unpredictability as performers, and the staff's reactions to both their behavior and the often subversive nature of the script they play out.

Patrick Magee as de Sade, Glenda Jackson as the inmate playing Corday (it was her breakout performance), and Ian Richardson as the inmate playing Marat offering impressive performances; indeed, the ensemble cast as a whole is incredibly impressive, and they keep the extremely wordy script moving along with considerable interest. Even so, it will be obvious that the material works better as a live performance than as a film, and I do not recommend it to a casual viewer; its appeal will be largely limited to the literary and theatrical intelligentsia. The DVD includes the original theatrical trailer, but beyond this there are no extras of any kind.

Filming a play has mixed results
The legendary stage production of Marat/Sade was, I am sure, one of those great moments in theater history. I am somewhat grateful that an attempt was made to capture the moment on film for people who didn't witness it, but the film drags at times. I watched with interest at the directing choices, but was not fully involved with the action. I don't imagine there is any way to capture the sight of all the lunatics challenging the audience by their very presence. It doesn't communicate from a tv screen in quite the same way. This is a good record of theater history, but only an mediocre film.

Intense, intelligent film
This 1966 film depicts the Marquis de Sade's imprisonment in a mental asylum and a play that he directs using the other inmates as actors. The story of Sade was recently related in "Quills," and that film is somewhat similar in tone, but not plot. Believe it or not, the film is also a musical! The "play" within the movie chronicles events from the French Revolution pertaining to Marat, and is put on for the asylum's leader and the local gentry. The local gentry are shocked at times, and the asylum leader interrupts the play several times with interjections concerning the play's radical ideas and how the gentry are depicted. As the play reaches its culmination, the inmates inevitably begin to stage their own revolution. The action is often confusing, but the emotions conveyed are so intense, that the film can be enjoyed on a visceral level.

The direction of this film is quite brilliant, and it must have been pretty shocking when it was released 36 years ago. The acting is also very intense and realistic. Glenda Jackson has her starring debut here and is quite appealing, considering that she's playing a mental asylum inmate. The only quibble I have with the DVD is the poor sound quality. Even on DVD, the sound is muddled and the actor's dialogue is often unintelligible, especially during the songs. Unfortunately, the DVD does not include captions/subtitles, which would have helped immensely (there are no other extras either). A very worthwhile movie that could have been presented better on this DVD.

Prophecies Of The Divine Marquis.
This is certainly one of the great events of cinema history. Director Peter Brook wanted to re-create the play by Peter Weiss, The Persecution And Assassination Of Jean-Paul Marat, with the multiple-view possible only in cinema but without losing the immediacy of the stage. So, he used a stationary camera for long shots and hand-held camera for close-ups and the result, somewhere bewteen cinema and stage, is phenomenal. Everything in the production is first-rate. There are large exquisite performances by Patrick Magee as Sade, Ian Richardson as Marat, and Glenda Jackson as Corday and equally fine smaller performances down to the most anonymous lunatic. The script is very fine and well translated from the German. The music is wonderful.
This film was released in 1966, one year after Grove Press issued its handsome 750 page paperback volume The Marquis De Sade (...) which, along with this film, really began the popular American interest in Sade which has continued up to the present. But the picture of Sade in this 1966 film is much more interesting, deeper, and closer to the truth than anything that has come since then. Sade was not a pornographer or a smut peddler, he was a literary philosopher whose books were not intended to arouse sexual desire, but rather to overthrow conventional premises and assumptions about reality itself. The endless sadistic/masochistic sex scenes in his books are really not about sex at all, they are about breaking down the illusions in the human mind and seeing reality for what it is: an endless, bottomles process of creation and destruction that is utterly indifferent to any human desire or feeling. Sade's 'perverse criminals' are merely people attempting to identify with this transcendent force as individuals because that is the only real power and 'dignity' that they have. Sade believed that the world was destined to become one vast mad slaughterhouse and the film conveys this very well. But what Marat/Sade really captures is Sade's passionate and prophetic position in modern history. Who could deny that this film is at least as relevant now as it was in 1966 and that its relevance will probably continue to deepen? Where is the modern philosopher who can prove Sade wrong? Whether one likes it or not this is what makes this film still such an urgent work of art. Only in Bresson or Tarkovsky can the negative force of its revelation be countered by a different perspective. It remains a crucial masterpiece. Highly recommended. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The come-from-behind winner of the 1981 Oscar for best picture, Chariots of Fire either strikes you as either a cold exercise in mechanical manipulation or as a tale of true determination and inspiration. The heroes are an unlikely pair of young athletes who ran for Great Britain in the 1924 Paris Olympics: devout Protestant Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson), a divinity student whose running makes him feel closer to God, and Jewish Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross), a highly competitive Cambridge student who has to surmount the institutional hurdles of class prejudice and anti-Semitism. There's delicious support from Ian Holm (as Abrahams's coach) and John Gielgud and Lindsay Anderson as a couple of Cambridge fogies. Vangelis's soaring synthesized score, which seemed to be everywhere in the early 1980s, also won an Oscar. Chariots of Fire was the debut film of British television commercial director Hugh Hudson (Greystoke) and was produced by David Puttnam. --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (126)

Uplifting and Inspiring
"Chariots of Fire" makes the list of my ten favorite movies of all-time. The film depicts the true life journey of two sprint champions from the 1924 Paris Olympics. This isn't your average sports movie as the character development is more significant than the competition on the track. The "Flying Scotsman" Eric Liddell is man of deep moral conviction and joyful heartfelt devotion to God. As he runs he senses God's pleasure. Harold Abrams is an intense Jewish student at Cambridge who is driven to win in defiance of the obstacles of prejudice and institutionalism. He runs to prove his worth.

The film is slow moving and filled with numerous flashbacks. Knowing the history of the characters would enable you to better follow the story and appreciate the men portrayed. The acting is excellent with terrific performances by supporting actors such as Ian Holm as track coach Sam Mussabini; John Gielgud and Lindsay Anderson as the stuffy masters of the university; and Nigel Havers as the likeable Lord Lindsay. The electronic sounding musical score is the most recognizable part of the movie and the costuming is exceptional. I was deeply moved and inspired by "Chariots of Fire."

The Brilliant Resurgence Of The British Movie Industry
The time is 1924. The finest athletes of England have begun their quest for glory in the Olympic Games. Their success will win honor for their nation - but for two champion runners, the honor at stake is a personal one...and their challenge one from within.

Chariots Of fire tells the exciting, inspiring true story of Harold Abrahams, Eric Liddell, and the dedicated team of competitors who brought Great Britain one of her most legendary victories in international sports. It is also the film that marked the brilliant resurgence of the British movie industry - and won four 1981 Academy Awards - including Best Picture.

Virtually a succession of smashing debuts, which it proved to be for Ben Cross, Ian Charleson, Nigel Havers, Nicholas Farrell, Alice Krige, Jeremy Sinden, and Daniel Gerroll in their first major film roles, and Hugh Hudson (a veteran of British Television)directing his first theatrical feature. With such other wonderful talents by veteran actors Sir Ian Holm, Sir John Gielgud, Lindsay Anderson, and Nigel Davenport, the collective people together shaped a film whose impact is still lasting and unique. From its bracing footage of competition and pagentry, to the haunting image of the English runners on the beach, to the extraordinary music score by Vangelis, Chariots Of Fire has left its mark on film fans everywhere. It also has proven that British filmmakers and film crews are the best, and only the best, in the world.

If you are looking for the finest in entertainment, art films, or otherwise, you need not look any furthur than Chariots Of Fire. The finest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Competition and Character
Chariots of Fire is an outstanding epic based on the lives of two men (among others), Eric Liddel and Harold Abrahams. Eric Liddel, a Scotsman and a missionary believes he can succeed as a testament to his undying faith. Harold Abrahams, a Jew wishes to succeed to prove that Jews are no inferior to others in post WWI England. This movie is one of refinement, ambition, commitment and integrity. In that era, there are tempers when the Masters of Cambridge do not take lightly to Harold being trained by a professional as they pride in the amateur aspect of the sport and the esprit de corps. His interaction with his girl friend when he loses a race is a special point. She says, "He won fair and square. There is nothing you can do about it." Then he retorts, "I do not run to compete, I run to win, if I cannot win, I should not run." She replies, "If you do not run, you cannot win." It ends with her frustration and saying, "Grow up". As compelling as the racing scenes are, it's really the depth of the two main characters that touches the viewer, as they forcefully drive home the theme that victory attained through devotion and sacrifice is the most admirable feat that one can achieve.

I am glad that I have a wide screen edition of this DVD, however this is a region 3 and cannot play in a regular DVD player, as they play only the region 1 version. It is similar to the version released in UK. Even this version does not have a good audio and video transfer. There are dots in the video and the audio should be better considering the outstanding score by Vangelis. The widescreen edition is farbetter than the one released in US though. I am sad that they are not releasing this one here. I got this one in US through another website, thanks to my enhanced DVD player. So, I would give 5 stars for the movie and 4 stars for the transfer (I am being very generous here).

With hope in our hearts and wings in our heels!
The athletes of the British running team who went with hope in their hearts and wings in their heels in the VIII Olympiad in Paris in 1924 is the focus of this movie, but there's also the dynamics of what it means to be English, and the reconciliation of one's soul and religious convictions in the Modern Age. Three of them are students from Cambridge. There is the quiet and soft-spoken Aubrey Montague, Lord Andrew Lindsey, and Harold Abrahams. As the head of Caius (pronounced Keys) College tells them when they first attend in 1919, they are the first post-war generation who have inherited the dreams of a generation that perished on the fields of France, a generation embodying "goodness, zeal,...and intellectual promise."

The two main athletes here are a contrast from one another. One is Harold Abrahams, a Jew who wants to be seen as English as the fellow next to him. Hence his enrolling in all these clubs and fraternities in Caius College, from track, tennis, and even the Gilbert and Sullivan glee club-he wants to enter the Christian, Anglo-Saxon corridors of power, i.e. the old school tie. He succeeds in getting to an English girl in the form of Sybil Gordon, who doesn't mind he's Jewish. He can run like the wind, and nothing would fulfill his dream of being English more than winning so he'll be accepted, but he's so driven, hinging so much of his success on his winning, that he acts like its his own funeral when he loses in a race. He engages Sam Mussabini, a private and professional coach, which is contrary to the implied rules of Cambridge. When the heads of Trinity House and Caius House, (Sir John Gielgud and Lindsay Anderson) use their prep-school mentality to chastise him, saying Cambridge prided itself on the amateur attitude as opposed to the professional, and an esprit de Corps as opposed to individual glory, Abrahams tells them off.

Scottish Eric Liddle, on the other hand, is a missionary born in China, who plans to return there to continue God's work, but the "muscular Christian" runs like a wild animal. With religion as a metaphor, he compares faith to running a race, describing the energy of the soul, the elation of breaking that tape, but he says that the power comes from within. "If you commit yourself to the love of Jesus Christ-that is how you win a straight race." To win is to honour God, and the gift he was given. His faith is tested twice, between the missionary work and running, and his respect for God and running on the Sabbath. He's clearly more Victorian, but also a Scot, choosing God over country instead of the more secular British. But will his faith help him triumph over favoured Americans Jackson Scholz and Charles Paddock?

The slow-mo shots of the running athletes, the looks of elation, the disappointment of those who didn't qualify shows the various reactions of the soul. And New Age composer Vangelis Pathaniossou made his mark with his score, during the races and the scenes of Americans training, but especially the moving main theme that opens and closes the movie as the athletes are running along the ocean shore. This sequence itself is repeated twice, once where we know nothing about these athletes on who the cameras pan in on, but by the end, when the camera does its work, we know these people better, and they have names, as the credits identify actor and role. This was an early role for Nicholas Farrell (Montague), who was Horatio in Branagh's Hamlet. But Ben Cross as the driven Abrahams, Ian Charleson as the debonair blond Christian Liddell, Nigel Havers as Lindsay, Ian Holm (Mussabini), and Alice Krige (Sybil) do well. And yes, the Head Porter at Caius College is Richard Griffiths, best known as Harry Potter's Uncle Vernon, and quite thinner too.

As the winner of four Oscars including Best Picture, Chariots Of Fire remains an unpretentious film where the finish line is a moral, spiritual, and of course a physical goal, and how one must be true to oneself to reach that goal.

Refined, inspiring, intelligent
Even though this has an air of Merchant-Ivory crossed with Masterpiece Theater, and no genuine movie stars (at least at the time, except Sir John Gielgud), the movie shines from beginning to end.

I saw this in the theater when it first came out and was very pleasantly surprised. It's a true story with a great message that still plays like Rocky with a brain -- exciting, funny, dramatic, well-acted, beautifully photographed. Unfortunately, not everyone will like it, though, because it brings back the days when drama meant dialogue, subtlety and intelligence, not explosions, predictable plots and computer-generated imagery. You have to watch and listen and have an appreciation of history. You can't watch this one and be distracted. Best to watch when you have time and can savor the moments, not when you have a room full of children, for instance. ... Read more

Reviews (193)

The Ultimate Struggle for Survival Under Siege
The story begins with the Zulu army fresh from their stunning massacre of 1300 British soldiers at Isandhlwana. This force of over 5000 seasoned warriors then turns their attention to a small outpost called Rorke's drift. Only one hundred men, many sick and some malingerers man this camp in the middle of South African wilderness. Two lieutenants, one, engineer, and one the son of an English aristocrat are in command. These young officers are not battle tested but must quickly prepare for the fight of their lives. Fortunately, they are supported by efforts of the quintessential sergeant major that hardly breaks a sweat as he fights the fierce adversaries while maintaining proper British manners and discipline. By the use of military tactics and shear resolve, the two officers galvanize their small force against nearly insurmountable odds. This film is full of breathtaking sequences, exciting heroics and slackers becoming heroes. A scene where the Zulus attack the hospital is particularly brimming with action. Zulu also has its fair share of honor and humanity. Stanley Baker and Michael Caine turn in fine performances as the commanders of Rorke's Drift. Cy Endfield directs one of the most exciting movies ever made about the tenacity of the British soldier.

Outstanding re-telling of the 1879 battle at Rorke's Drift
In January, 1879, a column of British soldiers comprised primarily of the 24th Regiment of Foot, South Wales Borderers, was wiped out at the base of the mountain, Isandhlwana, in Natal, South Africa. A large contingent of 4,000 Zulu warriors then moved on to the undermanned expedition base at Rorke's Drift. This movie tells the incredible true story of the subsequent battle, and of the victory of the 90 some British soldiers, many of them sick, who held their post in the face of overwhelming odds. See Donald Morris' definitive book, _The Washing of the Spears_, against which this film account compares most favorably.

This neglected classic was filmed at a time when it was still just possible to associate the word "glory" with military victory-- without a sneer. The makers of the film avoid preaching and just let the battle tell the tale of the men of both sides. The British soldiers are not the "good guys" nor are the Zulus "bad guys," and the lone derogatory comment about the fighting ability of the Zulus is instantly rebuffed by a tough Boer cavalryman who says, "And just who do you think is coming to wipe out your little garrison, the Grenadier Guards?" This is a soldier's story about a soldier's fight.

Did the Welsh really sing "Men of Harlach" as they manned their mealie-bag barricades?

Did the Zulus really render a warrior's salute as they broke off the action on the second day of the battle?

It doesn't matter. The film is accurate in the historical basics that really count.

Beautifully filmed on location, with an outstanding, stirring score by John Barry, this film features solid but appropriately understated performances by Stanley Baker, Michael Caine, and Jack Hawkins.

I hesitate to mention the hideous, politically correct pre-quel, _Zulu Dawn_ which was released almost 25 years after _Zulu_, but any viewer who has the unhappy experience of seeing _Zulu Dawn_ should not be put off from seeing _Zulu_, which shines in comparison.

Whether one is interested in military history or a "movie for men who like movies," _Zulu_ is a worthy addition to a film library. From first to last, it is a compelling, superior film.

So where's Zulu Dawn?
Trying to find this movie and it's only available in Region 2. What gives?

Is it coming to the US soon?

Basically an Anti-War Movie
Zulu is basically more of an antiwar movie than an action adventure flick. War is not glamorized in Zulu and it is shown in all its horrific repulsiveness. Nor for that matter are there any heroes in Zulu for nobody acts heroically. The officers and soldiers know that its likely that they will die defending their isolated frontier outpost against the Zulu hordes and they are bitterly resentful of that fact.

This makes Zulu an original and different movie. However, the quality of the acting is generally low, although Michael Caine delivers a splendid performance. The script, direction and special effects are also deficient. Zulu was made on a low budget and it shows.

Zulu is an example of how a great idea does not necessarlily result in a great movie.

Girls can love this movie too!
I have always enjoyed this movie since I was a little girl. At 27 I love it even more. The gentleman behavior of the English, the breathtaking battle sequences and the fantastic score are spectacular. I have my favorite characters that just send shivers up my back and tears to my eyes at times for their heroism. If you don't take my word for how great this movie is you can refer to Lord of the Rings Two Towers extras. Peter Jackson was inspired by a few of the scenes from Zulu for the beginning of the battle at Helm's Deep. ... Read more

Amazon.com

In 1975 the world was at Stanley Kubrick's feet. His films Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, released in the previous dozen years, had provoked rapture and consternation--not merely in the film community, but in the culture at large. On the basis of that smashing hat trick, Kubrick was almost certainly the most famous film director of his generation, and absolutely the one most likely to rewire the collective mind of the movie audience. And what did this radical, at-least-20-years-ahead-of-his-time filmmaker give the world in 1975? A stately, three-hour costume drama based on an obscure Thackeray novel from 1844. A picaresque story about an Irish lad (Ryan O'Neal, then a major star) who climbs his way into high society, Barry Lyndon bewildered some critics (Pauline Kael called it "an ice-pack of a movie") and did only middling business with patient audiences. The film was clearly a technical advance, with its unique camerawork (incorporating the use of prototype Zeiss lenses capable of filming by actual candlelight) and sumptuous production design. But its hero is a distinctly underwhelming, even unsympathetic fellow, and Kubrick does not try to engage the audience's emotions in anything like the usual way.

Why, then, is Barry Lyndon a masterpiece? Because it uncannily captures the shape and rhythm of a human life in a way few other films have; because Kubrick's command of design and landscape is never decorative but always apiece with his hero's journey; and because every last detail counts. Even the film's chilly style is thawed by the warm narration of the great English actor Michael Hordern and the Irish songs of the Chieftains. Poor Barry's life doesn't matter much in the end, yet the care Kubrick brings to the telling of it is perhaps the director's most compassionate gesture toward that most peculiar species of animal called man. And the final, wry title card provides the perfect Kubrickian sendoff--a sentiment that is even more poignant since Kubrick's premature death. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (107)

not kubrick's best work
First let me say that Stanley Kubrick is one of my favorite filmmakers. Only Hitchcock, Welles, David Fincher and a few others can compare with him. But that doesn't mean that every movie he made was great (anyone see Eyes Wide Shut?). Barry Lyndon is not a great movie. It's a period piece, and it seems well researched. The costumes are great. The sets are magnificant. And the photography is beautiful. I heard somewhere that it was like watching a painting move. And that is pretty accurate. Kubrick paid very close attention to detail, and it is a very beautiful picture to watch. The problem is that the characters are one dimensional, Lord Bullingdon being the one exception. The acting is wooden. The story moves at such a slow pace. The movie feels like it goes on for hours and hours. It's hard to believe that the same guy who made A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket is the same filmmaker who made this movie. It's just plain boring. If you are a serious film student or a hard core fan of Kubrick, I'd say watch it once, just so you can say you did. Otherwise, rewatch A Clockwork Orange.

Gordon Gekko in 1767
Barry Lyndon is traditionally seen as Stanley Kubrick's weakest film. Yet a certain number of newer reviewers - and Martin Scorsese - are only now beginning to see that this film has been terribly underrated.

When I first saw this movie I sided very much with those who believed the film to be pointless eye candy. I couldn't see any point to this movie, which seemed to consist of more or less random events with no real beginning or end, and nothing worth remarking on in between.

Of course, years later I began having flashbacks of this movie, and was sorely tempted to buy the DVD, a purchase I finally made (the DVD is very good).

"Barry Lyndon" is as much a Greek tragedy as Godfather Part II or the second half of Gone with the Wind. Here Barry Lyndon is trapped by fate, after a series of events set off by aspects of his own character. His very attempts to make himself still richer, towards the end of the film results in an awful mess that is suspiciously reminiscent of Gone with the Wind. I think Margaret Mitchell may possibly have read the novel.(*spoiler!* Hmm, where have I seen a child falling off a horse before?)

Barry Lyndon, as a nouveau riche social climber desperately trying to find what we would call "the American Dream" is strangely modern as a figure. The story of his rise and fall is like that of any modern, money-hungry social climber, and is quite relevant to our present world.

At any rate, the film is also a masterpiece of atmosphere and style. The care with which the film was made was clearly excruciating, with scenes as carefully plotted out and filmed as any oil painting. Despite Kubrick's reputation as a rather emotionless director, there are plenty of funny scenes. My favourite scenes in this regard are the scenes showing the Chevalier de Balibari playiong cards - the innocent look on his face as he cheats his opponents gets funnier every time you see it.
Of course, there is the famous Schubert Trio scene, where Redmond Barry seduces Lady Lyndon in an incredibly long, slow, but well-timed scene. The movements of eighteenth century aristocrats through their ritualised world is truly as absorbing to watch, as the incredibly slow space pod scenes in Space Odyssey.

Of course, there is no Star Gate here; no profundity of theme or mysticism; no deep truths. Barry Lyndon does not try to be as deep as Clockwork Orange, in the same way that Scorsese's Age of Innocence did not aspire to the depth of Taxi Driver. That is not the point. The film could be said to be more style than substance; but in that case it could be said to join Citizen Kane and Blade Runner. It's still damn fine filmmaking.

The original novel frankly bears little resemblance to the finished film. (I am reading it now). The novel Barry Lyndon is truly a picaresque novel with a rascally, lively narrator far removed from Ryan O'Neal's very understated portrayal; and in fact the general atmosphere of the book reminded me much more of Oliver Twist or Gulliver's travels than the stately and classy environment of the film. In this respect Kubrick has taken the skeleton of plot from the novel, and laced it with copious amounts of Kubrickian flesh.

I never tire of watching it
When director Stanley Kubrick lensed a film based on William Makepeace Thackeray's novel "Barry Lyndon," many fans wondered why. Why would a man who made the science fiction classic "2001: A Space Odyssey," a film set in the future about man's move into outer space, go so far into the past to film a story about a guy social climbing his way through the nineteenth century English aristocracy? Good question. Fortunately, the answer, if there is one, isn't nearly as important as the fact that Kubrick made the film. "Barry Lyndon" may well rank as the finest piece of cinematic art made in the last thirty years. I personally love watching period piece films, and this movie ranks at the very apogee of the pictures from the genre that are often made but rarely successful. The only other film I have seen that matches Kubrick's eye for detail and flair for style is Eric Rohmer's "The Marquise of O," another film lifted from the pages of an early nineteenth century writer. Both of these men, but especially Kubrick, seemed to realize that the only way we can understand the distant past is to look closely at the things they left behind. Therefore, "Barry Lyndon" borrows heavily from paintings, letters, and accounts of the era. It's very difficult to spot an anachronism in this film. The movie has a timeless, ageless feel most other period pictures fail to capture.

The story follows the trials and travails of an Irishman named Redmond Barry (Ryan O'Neal). Born into poverty on a small farm, Barry first runs into trouble during his teens when he falls in love with his cousin. The family seeks to remove young Redmond from the picture because an English officer, a Captain Quinn, has taken a shine to the girl. If they allow the cousins to marry, the family will not take part in the officer's considerable wealth. Barry refuses to play along, challenging the Englishman to a duel whereupon he promptly puts a bullet through the officer's chest. Whisked away from the scene by family members concerned about the duel, our hero joins the English army as a way to escape from his bleak future. Then comes war, with England fighting nearly everyone else on the continent. Barry, unimpressed with the idea of dying for his king, deserts but soon falls into the hands of the enemy. Faced with the threat of execution, Redmond agrees to join the Prussian Army, which turns out to be worse than his stint with the English. Fortune smiles when the Irishman saves the life of an officer, an officer with connections to the ministry of information. A plot is hatched whereby Redmond Barry will act as a confidante of the Chevalier de Balibari (Patrick Magee), a French diplomat suspected of espionage.

De Balibari is actually an Irishman living in exile, a fact that causes Redmond Barry to confess his true identity to the man. The Chevalier, impressed with such honesty, promptly takes his fellow countryman into his confidence. The two form a plan that allows them both to sneak out of the country, whereupon they take up lives as confidence men and swindlers on the continent. It is during his tenure as a card shark that Barry meets Lady Lyndon (Marisa Berenson), a beautiful and extremely wealthy woman married to the ancient, crotchety Sir Charles Lyndon (Frank Middlemass). Redmond ingratiates himself into Lady Lyndon's graces to the point that when her husband dies, the good lady marries our hero. Redmond Barry disappears, replaced by Barry Lyndon, a wealthy man with property, money, and connections. Lyndon knows his success depends on his wife, so he spends enormous sums to curry favor with the court. He hopes to acquire his own title, which would translate into his own property and money deeded him by the Crown. Life isn't all roses, as Barry Lyndon must cope with Lord Bullingdon (Leon Vitali), Lady Lyndon's sullen and hateful son as well as his wife's suspicious assistant Reverend Samuel Runt. Lyndon thinks he's got it made when his wife gives birth to a child, Bryan, who carries the precious noble blood. What goes up must invariably come down, however, as a series of massive tragedies rock the Lyndon household.

"Barry Lyndon" is an intriguing film. One wonders why Kubrick made it. Perhaps the director liked the idea of an underclass individual scheming his way into the rigid upper classes of the time. Perhaps the movie is a morality tale about a ruthless scalawag eventually getting what he deserves. If the answer is the latter, I don't think it works. If Barry Lyndon were truly ruthless, he would have seen to it that Lord Bullingdon pulled a disappearing act. Doing so would have assured his child's role as heir of the Lyndon title. Whatever the reasons behind this film, you don't have to worry about it too much to enjoy Kubrick's work. The set pieces and costumes are phenomenal, the acting wonderful, the photography breathtaking. Especially developed for this film was a special camera lens that could work by candlelight. The musical score consists of Mozart, Vivaldi, Bach, Schubert, and Handel.

Arguably the best element of the film is the way Kubrick places his characters in a way that resemble paintings of the period. Pay attention to the scenes that take place in the garden where Barry meets Lady Lyndon or the confrontation between Bullingdon and Barry at the gentleman's club. You can literally see characters move into position and pose as though for a portrait. And that final duel! I could watch that scene a million times-and probably have. A wonderful film, "Barry Lyndon" on DVD contains only a trailer as an extra. I'm not complaining too much, though. The movie is more than enough reason to buy the DVD. Watch it and wonder.

Stunning Cinematography For a Subtle Tragedy
_Barry Lyndon_ is absolutely stunning to watch. Kubrick's masterful hand at orchestrating sweeping views of naturally lit countryside transports the audience into the 18th century and alongside our characters. Some complain that Kubrick, while commanding the visual aspects of the film, allows the acting to fall by the wayside. Ryan O'Neill does not do an adequate job as Lyndon, it is claimed, failing to capture the character's motivation and nature. I disagree most strongly on this point. Kubrick and O'Neill have managed to capture a human being, one who defies the trend of most Hollywood films and popular fiction. Lyndon is not the loveable character-his rise to power is not paved with nobility and honor, nor is his downfall laced with a deep sense of tragedy. Yet, I still feel for Lyndon's character in the declining stages of his life. Just as he is not completely approachable, he is not repulsive either. By allowing this level of subtlety to emerge from the character, Kubrick and O'Neill have managed to create a tragedy more along the lines of Shakespeare's _Coriolanus_ than some sentimental special on the Hallmark channel.

_Barry Lyndon_ clocks in at just over three hours, breaking once in the middle for an intermission. For its visual appeal, it is worthy every penny, though it may leave some members of the audience wishing for quicker pacing and a plotline that is easier to digest. If you have the time and are a fan of Kubrick's masterpieces, I could not recommend this film more highly-just make some popcorn during the intermission and stretch your legs.

A Worthy Masterpiece
If you appreciate good filmmaking you must watch this film! This is an artistic masterpiece for those who appreciation the visual arts. Some reviewers might complain as to the lack of character development, which I agree with, but I don't think it was in Kubrick's interest to have the viewer identify with Ryan O'neal, that focus would do a disservice to the viewer in that it would make him ignore the films more aesthetic qualities. Like a great masterpiece Barry Lyndon's magic does not lie with a single character but with the work itself. Barry Lyndon's strengths lie in the totality of the film and in the immense beauty that is found in every scene. This film is grandeur immortalized, a picturesque view of 18th century Europe. This is a delightful film, and cannot be measured in terms of success and mass appeal, this film is well beyond that. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

An emotionally distant version of Euripides's "Trojan Women"
"The Trojan War" was written by the Greek tragic dramatist Euripides as a plea for peace after the Athenians had slaughtered the populace of the island of Melos for refusing to aid Athens in the war against Sparta, and as preparations were being made for the ruinous expedition against Syracuse. Consequently there is a strong rhetorical dimension to the play, which prophesies that a Greek force would sail across the sea after violating victims and meet with disaster. However, there the play also has a strong literary consideration in that the four Trojan Women all appear in the final chapter of the "Iliad," mourning over the corpse of Hector, retrieved by his father Priam from the camp of the Acheans. Following the episodic structure of Greek tragedy, we begin with the lamentations of Hecuba (Katharine Hepburn), queen of the fallen city, then have the wild prophecies of her crazed daughter Cassandra (Geneviève Bujold), and then have to watch Astyanax, the son of Hector and Andromache (Vanessa Redgrave), be ripped away from her mother's arms so he can be thrown from the walls of Troy. When the beautiful Helen (Irene Papas) is brought out, Hecuba tries to convince Menelaus (Patrick Magee) to kill his unfaithful wife. The tragedy ends with the women of Troy being taken to the ships of their captives.

This 1971 film was directed by Michael Cacoyannis, who is best known for directing "Zorba the Greek," but who also did an excellent version of another Euripides play "Electra" in 1962 with Irene Papas in the title role. Cacoyannis tries for something a bit more naturalistic than that previous effort, but the end result this time around creates an unfortunate distance between the characters and the audience that puts these performances in a weird sort of limbo. This is rather surprising because we are talking some formidable talent with these four actresses (who represent four different countries of origin). I first saw this film in high school, when I had absolutely no understanding of the forms and conventions of classical Greek tragedy, and I found I have less appreciation for the film today. Understand that I am a Katharine Hepburn fan of the first order and teach Greek tragedies at any and all opportunities, but I am just not inspired by this film. Hepburn's performance is overly animated, Bujold's is mannered affectation, Redgrave's is understated at the expense of the situation, and only Papas manages to bring some fire to her role that rings true.

"The Trojan Women" reflects the cynicism of Euripides at its most strident. In this play the Greeks do more than enslave the women of fallen Troy: they have already slain a young girl as a sacrifice to the ghost of Achilles and they take a little boy and kill him. Even the herald of the Greeks, Talthybius (Brian Blessed), cannot stomach the policies of his people. The play also reminds us that Helen was a most unpopular figure amongst the ancient Greeks, and there is no satisfaction in her saving her life. Your ability to enjoy this play, whether we are talking about watching the film or simply reading the text, is going to be based on how much you know about Homer's epic poem "The Iliad" and the entire story of the Trojan War. Final Note: Edith Hamilton, author of a classic book on mythology that I use in my Classical Greek and Roman Mythology course, did the English translation for the film. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Joseph Losey's masterpiece
Joseph Losey overtook the landmark with this corrupt,sordid,struggling and deacednt gotic atmosphere created where the human condition exposes all its nasty nakedness.
Harold Pinter and Losey worked in other themes like Accident but I've never seen any other film with the only exceptions of Mephisto and Vatel such kind of perversion level.
Losey never before directed so well any other film. It deserves to mention a very usual forgotten film of Losey : Mr. Klein where Losey intends a close approach but the script doesn't help him due its predictableness.
Bogarde as the servant makes the greatest role of his winner career; James Fox also shares honors and Wendy Craig is worthy too.
Losey made a celebration film ; not only you remember Welles (The stranger) ,the sinister shadows of the glorius age of german expressionism (Murnau and Wiene) but the employement of the famous crossed mirror image sequence , so many times adapted for a lot of film makers of second rate.
This is not only a cult movie; it's a reference example for all those people interested in how to make a film, but also a must for those cinema lovers and even a sociological study of the fall of the will and slow process of moral decay in any age; it's a no mercy view of the brittish society in that unusual decade.
It's not for all tastes, but you are in front (in my personal opinion) of the most sinister movie made in the sixties and one of the best in Brittish filmography ever filmed.
Overwhelming!

Deliciously Dark!
What a creep fest! This film is fantastic.

The idea of having a manservant, like the main character does, is frightful in itself- I certainly wouldn't want anyone lurking around picking up after me & every movement I made. Shiver!

So, when this particular hired helped (played to perfection by Dirk Bogarde), brings his sex kitten 'sister', into the household, & the sinister sex & drinking begins- watch out!

It's enthralling to watch, & brings up thoughful (albiet dark) ideas about class, & friendship & working relations- a definite thriller & one of the best I've seen.

Highly Recommended!

Acting masterclass served on a silver tray
There are no axe murderers lurking in the closet, but Joseph Losey's decadent class-struggle allegory "The Servant" matches Polanski's "Repulsion" as a classic of psychological horror. Dirk Bogarde delivers a note perfect performance as the "manservant" hired by snobby playboy James Fox (in his screen debut) to help him settle into his new upscale London digs. It soon becomes apparent (to the viewer) that this butler has a little more on the agenda than just polishing silverware and dusting the mantle. Actors talk about giving the character "an inner life"-just watch Bogarde's facial expressions and see a craftsman at work! A young (and quite alluring) Sara Miles is memorable as Bogarde's "sister" who is hired as the maid. If you've seen "Wings Of The Dove" or "Days Of Heaven" you will likely figure things out early on, but you'll enjoy the ride all the same. The expressive chiaroscuro cinematography sets an increasingly claustrophobic mood as the story progresses (Watch for the clever use of convex mirrors to "trap" the images of the principal characters). By the way, if you are a fan of 1960's British folk music, you'll want to keep your eyes (and ears) peeled for a rare, unbilled (and all-too-brief) glimpse of legendary (and reclusive) guitarist Davey Graham, playing and singing (live-not dubbed!) in a scene where James Fox walks into a coffeehouse. The DVD is bare-bones, but picture and sound are excellent. A must-see.

All-time British classic
The social metaphors may be a little worn nowadays, but Joseph Losey's film has lost none of its drama and intensity.

Dirk Bogarde stars as the butler who responds to rather foppish architect James Fox's advertisement to find a servant. Enter Sarah Miles, and a complicated love triangle ensues. Order eventually descends into chaos as servant-master roles become blurred in this riveting allegory of social disintegration.

It is the sheer brilliance of the ensemble here that makes this film a true classic: Much of the credit must go to the skillful black-and-white photography of Douglas Slocombe, one of the most talented British cinematographers of all time. Stylistically, this is quintessential sixties British realism. Also noteworthy are John Dankworth's jazz-oriented score and Harold Pinter's screenplay. It cannot be denied, however, that the film stands or falls on the strength of the performances, and the cast here are on top form, especially Bogarde in perhaps his finest role.

who's the master, who's the servant?
Dirk Bogarde is great in this role!! Role reversal,(or was it role rectification?) ... Read more

Reviews (126)

Uplifting and Inspiring
"Chariots of Fire" makes the list of my ten favorite movies of all-time. The film depicts the true life journey of two sprint champions from the 1924 Paris Olympics. This isn't your average sports movie as the character development is more significant than the competition on the track. The "Flying Scotsman" Eric Liddell is man of deep moral conviction and joyful heartfelt devotion to God. As he runs he senses God's pleasure. Harold Abrams is an intense Jewish student at Cambridge who is driven to win in defiance of the obstacles of prejudice and institutionalism. He runs to prove his worth.

The film is slow moving and filled with numerous flashbacks. Knowing the history of the characters would enable you to better follow the story and appreciate the men portrayed. The acting is excellent with terrific performances by supporting actors such as Ian Holm as track coach Sam Mussabini; John Gielgud and Lindsay Anderson as the stuffy masters of the university; and Nigel Havers as the likeable Lord Lindsay. The electronic sounding musical score is the most recognizable part of the movie and the costuming is exceptional. I was deeply moved and inspired by "Chariots of Fire."

The Brilliant Resurgence Of The British Movie Industry
The time is 1924. The finest athletes of England have begun their quest for glory in the Olympic Games. Their success will win honor for their nation - but for two champion runners, the honor at stake is a personal one...and their challenge one from within.

Chariots Of fire tells the exciting, inspiring true story of Harold Abrahams, Eric Liddell, and the dedicated team of competitors who brought Great Britain one of her most legendary victories in international sports. It is also the film that marked the brilliant resurgence of the British movie industry - and won four 1981 Academy Awards - including Best Picture.

Virtually a succession of smashing debuts, which it proved to be for Ben Cross, Ian Charleson, Nigel Havers, Nicholas Farrell, Alice Krige, Jeremy Sinden, and Daniel Gerroll in their first major film roles, and Hugh Hudson (a veteran of British Television)directing his first theatrical feature. With such other wonderful talents by veteran actors Sir Ian Holm, Sir John Gielgud, Lindsay Anderson, and Nigel Davenport, the collective people together shaped a film whose impact is still lasting and unique. From its bracing footage of competition and pagentry, to the haunting image of the English runners on the beach, to the extraordinary music score by Vangelis, Chariots Of Fire has left its mark on film fans everywhere. It also has proven that British filmmakers and film crews are the best, and only the best, in the world.

If you are looking for the finest in entertainment, art films, or otherwise, you need not look any furthur than Chariots Of Fire. The finest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Competition and Character
Chariots of Fire is an outstanding epic based on the lives of two men (among others), Eric Liddel and Harold Abrahams. Eric Liddel, a Scotsman and a missionary believes he can succeed as a testament to his undying faith. Harold Abrahams, a Jew wishes to succeed to prove that Jews are no inferior to others in post WWI England. This movie is one of refinement, ambition, commitment and integrity. In that era, there are tempers when the Masters of Cambridge do not take lightly to Harold being trained by a professional as they pride in the amateur aspect of the sport and the esprit de corps. His interaction with his girl friend when he loses a race is a special point. She says, "He won fair and square. There is nothing you can do about it." Then he retorts, "I do not run to compete, I run to win, if I cannot win, I should not run." She replies, "If you do not run, you cannot win." It ends with her frustration and saying, "Grow up". As compelling as the racing scenes are, it's really the depth of the two main characters that touches the viewer, as they forcefully drive home the theme that victory attained through devotion and sacrifice is the most admirable feat that one can achieve.

I am glad that I have a wide screen edition of this DVD, however this is a region 3 and cannot play in a regular DVD player, as they play only the region 1 version. It is similar to the version released in UK. Even this version does not have a good audio and video transfer. There are dots in the video and the audio should be better considering the outstanding score by Vangelis. The widescreen edition is farbetter than the one released in US though. I am sad that they are not releasing this one here. I got this one in US through another website, thanks to my enhanced DVD player. So, I would give 5 stars for the movie and 4 stars for the transfer (I am being very generous here).

With hope in our hearts and wings in our heels!
The athletes of the British running team who went with hope in their hearts and wings in their heels in the VIII Olympiad in Paris in 1924 is the focus of this movie, but there's also the dynamics of what it means to be English, and the reconciliation of one's soul and religious convictions in the Modern Age. Three of them are students from Cambridge. There is the quiet and soft-spoken Aubrey Montague, Lord Andrew Lindsey, and Harold Abrahams. As the head of Caius (pronounced Keys) College tells them when they first attend in 1919, they are the first post-war generation who have inherited the dreams of a generation that perished on the fields of France, a generation embodying "goodness, zeal,...and intellectual promise."

The two main athletes here are a contrast from one another. One is Harold Abrahams, a Jew who wants to be seen as English as the fellow next to him. Hence his enrolling in all these clubs and fraternities in Caius College, from track, tennis, and even the Gilbert and Sullivan glee club-he wants to enter the Christian, Anglo-Saxon corridors of power, i.e. the old school tie. He succeeds in getting to an English girl in the form of Sybil Gordon, who doesn't mind he's Jewish. He can run like the wind, and nothing would fulfill his dream of being English more than winning so he'll be accepted, but he's so driven, hinging so much of his success on his winning, that he acts like its his own funeral when he loses in a race. He engages Sam Mussabini, a private and professional coach, which is contrary to the implied rules of Cambridge. When the heads of Trinity House and Caius House, (Sir John Gielgud and Lindsay Anderson) use their prep-school mentality to chastise him, saying Cambridge prided itself on the amateur attitude as opposed to the professional, and an esprit de Corps as opposed to individual glory, Abrahams tells them off.

Scottish Eric Liddle, on the other hand, is a missionary born in China, who plans to return there to continue God's work, but the "muscular Christian" runs like a wild animal. With religion as a metaphor, he compares faith to running a race, describing the energy of the soul, the elation of breaking that tape, but he says that the power comes from within. "If you commit yourself to the love of Jesus Christ-that is how you win a straight race." To win is to honour God, and the gift he was given. His faith is tested twice, between the missionary work and running, and his respect for God and running on the Sabbath. He's clearly more Victorian, but also a Scot, choosing God over country instead of the more secular British. But will his faith help him triumph over favoured Americans Jackson Scholz and Charles Paddock?

The slow-mo shots of the running athletes, the looks of elation, the disappointment of those who didn't qualify shows the various reactions of the soul. And New Age composer Vangelis Pathaniossou made his mark with his score, during the races and the scenes of Americans training, but especially the moving main theme that opens and closes the movie as the athletes are running along the ocean shore. This sequence itself is repeated twice, once where we know nothing about these athletes on who the cameras pan in on, but by the end, when the camera does its work, we know these people better, and they have names, as the credits identify actor and role. This was an early role for Nicholas Farrell (Montague), who was Horatio in Branagh's Hamlet. But Ben Cross as the driven Abrahams, Ian Charleson as the debonair blond Christian Liddell, Nigel Havers as Lindsay, Ian Holm (Mussabini), and Alice Krige (Sybil) do well. And yes, the Head Porter at Caius College is Richard Griffiths, best known as Harry Potter's Uncle Vernon, and quite thinner too.

As the winner of four Oscars including Best Picture, Chariots Of Fire remains an unpretentious film where the finish line is a moral, spiritual, and of course a physical goal, and how one must be true to oneself to reach that goal.

Refined, inspiring, intelligent
Even though this has an air of Merchant-Ivory crossed with Masterpiece Theater, and no genuine movie stars (at least at the time, except Sir John Gielgud), the movie shines from beginning to end.

I saw this in the theater when it first came out and was very pleasantly surprised. It's a true story with a great message that still plays like Rocky with a brain -- exciting, funny, dramatic, well-acted, beautifully photographed. Unfortunately, not everyone will like it, though, because it brings back the days when drama meant dialogue, subtlety and intelligence, not explosions, predictable plots and computer-generated imagery. You have to watch and listen and have an appreciation of history. You can't watch this one and be distracted. Best to watch when you have time and can savor the moments, not when you have a room full of children, for instance. ... Read more

Description

When England's aging King Lear renounces his throne to divide his kingdom among his three daughters, treachery, madness and murder soon follow. After banishing Cordelia, his most loyal daughter, Lear is betrayed and cast out by her elder sisters Regan and Goneril. Meanwhile, evil brews at the Gloucester castle as Edgar falls victim to his brother's deception. As battle lines are drawn and backs are stabbed, Lear rages against a fearsome storm. Can a man undo his wrongs? Will Cordelia be saved? Or will the wheels of fate crush all in its way? Produced by Britain's distinguished Thames Television, this compelling production of Shakespeare's KING LEAR stars Patrick Magee (A Clockwork Orange), Ronald Radd (The Iceman Cometh), Patrick Mower (Emmerdale), and many other mainstays of stage and television. DVD Features: Edmund: A Pivotal Role - An Interview with actor Patrick Mower; Interactive Menus; Scene Selection ... Read more

Reviews (20)

overall, very entertaining
I am a great student of the English Civil War and found this movie to be, overall, very entertaining despite just a few historical inaccuracies such as Oliver Cromwell being one of the five Parliament memebers that Charles I personally came to arrest ( Cromwell wasnt one of the five ). The costumes, stage sets and battle scenes, especially the cavalry charges, were without equal. A lot of the musical score was fitting and added to the atmosphere of the film. I dont believe that Harris's portrayal of Cromwell was uninspiring as previous reviewers have suggested. Cromwell, according to some historical sources, was a deep believer in freedom, both religious and private property, hence the films early reference about Cromwell leaving England for America. Cromwell was simply not known, historically, to have worn his emotions on his sleeve. Timothy Dalton's Prince Rupert was magnificent. Alec Guiness certainly looked like Charles I. Truthfully, most of the actors fairly resembled their characters.

I know this film was made for mass audiences and thus needed star name appeal to sell it. But it is too bad that this most interesting period of history could not have been portrayed in a miniseries (in the way Glenda Jackson's ELIZABETH R was) with all the same actors. That way, other central characters such as Charles I, Thomas Wentworh the Earl of Strafford, Parliamentary leader John Pym and others could have been developed more fully because they are just as interesting as Cromwell. Not to mention the decade or so long struggle between Parliament and Crown that led up to the Civil War and Thomas Wentworths treachery by going from Parliaments greatest champion to being Charles I right hand man thus earning Parliaments unending enmity. Lots of great storyline potential there.

Yes, it is too bad it was not made as a miniseries because so much dramatic history was left out. This film gem was unfortunately to brief. But I liked it alot!

Satisfying Historical Film
This film has been shown in history classes in both Britain and the USA, and rightfully so. CROMWELL is a powerful, albeit uneven, movie depicting the struggle between Parliament and the crown that ultimately led to the English Civil War.

Alec Guinness as King Charles I is simply superb. This gifted actor brings the insecure monarch to life before our very eyes, from his indecision to his eventual desperation to save his thrown--even his slight stuttering problem. Indeed it was Charles himself, by attempting in secret to form alliances with Catholic Ireland and France in order to defeat Cromwell's army, who was the catalyst to his own demise.

Richard Harris is good, but somewhat over the top, as the brooding Oliver Cromwell, the musical score is nothing short of annoying, and the movie succumbs to the gushy melodrama characteristic of the time in which it was made. But despite its flaws, CROMWELL delivers a satisfying story about a turbulent time in English history.

More Yelling!
Great production values and a terrific performance by Sir Alec Guinness cannot entirely overcome the turgid pacing of this lavish historical epic. The biggest fault with "Cromwell" is well...Cromwell. Richard Harris, an actor who was either very, very good or very, very bad, seemed convinced that he was on the London stage rather than a film set. His postures and attitudes all seem very staged as if for a theatrical performance. Then there is the yelling. I swear 80% of Harris' dialogue is yelled and at one point in the movie his voice is hoarse from constant yelling. (It's like that SNL skit about Chris Matthews- "More yelling!) Overall, it's just too over-the-top and hurts the film.

Movies about historical subjects ALWAYS have to take liberties with their subjects. It's just the way it is. Thus, I tend to judge movies on history by a scale- some rate higher than others in capturing an era and the facts. I would rate "Cromwell" in the low mid range on that scale. It certainly captures the look of the era. The battle scenes are very impressive with literally thousands of extras courtesy of Hollywood's then favorite rent-an-army- dictator Franco's Spanish army. However, it puts Oliver Cromwell in the midst of every important decision of the English Civil War which is way off the mark. I guess the scriptwriters wanted to ensure that in almost every scene Richard Harris would be there scowling and yelling at the camera and forget about historical accuracy.

Entertaining historic epic
I found Cromwell to be an entertaining historic epic movie. I know the period pretty well and although the movie is hardly historically accurate, I thought it was entertaining. Alec Guiness totally steal the movie. He managed to generate a lot of sympathy for being a bad King while Cromwell played by Richard Harris gets too hammy and his character comes out looking like a blood thirsty tyrant. Bit ironic. I hope no one is looking for any history lessons here. Sir Thomas Fairfax founded the New Model Army, not Cromwell who only commanded the cavalry during the initial stages of that army's creation. Historical inaccuracy are too many to write down here. The battle scenes were great (although bit short) but both Guiness and Harris were well supported by an excellent cast.

The DVD looks pretty good overall. It was nice to see this movie in (anamorphic) widescreen once again - I haven't seen it that mode since I last saw it in the theaters back in 1971!! The audio is good (Dolby surround), clarity in the presentation but there was no extra features outside of few trailers. This is a totally strip-down DVD, just the movie!

BEAUTIFUL AND OUTSTANDING HISTORICAL EPIC
Richard Harris gives an impassioned performance as Cromwell. The script is literate without being rhetorical. But Guinness steals the show as the fateful King Charles--watch this performance carefully and see great acting at its greatest! The sets and (Oscar-winning) costumes are flawless. This movie is visually impressive and emotionally involving. For some reason certain reviewers in the past and present have dismissed the movie as less than what it is. That's just plain (1970s) snobbery by critics who just want to impress other critics with their limited wit and abundant sarcasm. Forget about the so-called inaccuracies. History in general is one inaccuracy after another. This is a movie, and as a movie it works beautifully! Highly recommended for adults, although I find nothing offensive for mature youngsters. They don't make these films anymore! ... Read more