Reviews (31)

Wonderful telling of Genessis
I do not understand why most critics have very few good things to say about this movie. Okay, maybe the atmosphere is a little dead at times, and perhaps there could be more dialogue, but overall this is one of the most beautiful biblical stories I've ever seen. A superb cast - including Michael Parks as Adam, Ulla Bergryd as Eve, Richard Harris as Cain, George C. Scott as Abraham, and Ava Gardner as Sarah - bring warmth and sensitivity to the familier stories. John Huston's somewhat comical portrayal of Noah is definitely the highlight of the film. I first saw this movie when I was very young. I now own it and watch it often. The script sounds like it was taken directly from the Bible itself. The opening dialogue is, of course, "In the beginning..." The creation scenes which follow are simply magnificant. And the music which coincides with it is just beautiful. Right now I have that image of the birds in flight and the raging sea waters. The one scene which gets me every time ( and which I keep rewinding to see ) is the scene with Hagar and Ishmael in the desert. The spring of water bursting up through the ground at Hagar's feet is one of the most moving moments in the entire movie. This film is definitely worth seeing. Never mind what the critics say.

The Bible As Film: A Worthy Retelling
1966: Huston's film covers the first twenty chapters of Genesis- from the Creation, the Flood to Isaac's near sacrifice. With lush cinematography, fine acting and superb music. Richard Harris, Ava Gardner, George C. Scott and Peter O'Toole are among the cast. In the 60's, and in fact years before in the 50's, the bible dramas were quite popular and appealed to many audiences who had undergone war and conflict from home- it was the turbulent 60's after all. The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur were transcendent films only a couple of years before.

Making a film about the first book in the Bible, the most mysterious and most alluring, Genesis, must not have been an easy task for director John Huston, nor was it easy enough for actors portraying biblical characters. But this film is exquisite, well-done with fine performances by the actors, most notably Richard Harris as Noah and George C. Scott as Abraham. The actor and actress playing Adam and Eve are just as most of us imagine them to be - gorgeous in the nude, walking around a beautiful, semi-tropical garden and being seduced by the apple in a tree which a treacherous snake deceived them into eating.

The film goes on to describe the biblical scenario established before the Flood, of humankind's lechery and vice in Sodom and Gomorrah, and God's wrath resulting in destruction. Very powerful imagery and very fine interpretation. It is not just a Christian or Catholic film, it is a film worth watching just for the moving drama. After all, life is but a drama, a film of which we all take part of. The music to this film is also very inspiring, although subtle and haunting. "The Bible.. In The Beginning" (as this film is often called) makes a great assignment to watch in a college or high school in which students read the Bible as a form of literature and work of human history, mainly that of the ancient Hebrews.

Almost perfect
I liked the movie in all parts except for two. I'll start with the positive things.

Another reviewer mentioned it was a little slow in the beginning, and that is true, but if you can be patient, you can get into it.

The Ark scenes were great -- a little humor never hurt anyone.

Sodom and Gomorrah was icky. Probably they did a good job of recreating what it was like, but really, I don't want to see all of that. If a couple quick shots were removed, this scene would be good.

Abraham goes on this weird monologue sort of thing, that I didn't really get. I am engineer, so perhaps I just don't appreciate the drama of it.

FIRES BELOW .....
EXCEPT for the MAGNIFICENT score by TOSHIRO MAYUZUMI ... this one does not quite hold up as it was promised. Granted ... it IS different ... lots of hoopla during the filming - after all we would be seeing Adam & Eve [variously] buffish ...

BUT the producers must have spend quite a fortune on EYE MAKEUP .... Ye, Gods, even the kids are sporting green or vaguely lavender eye-shadow - as for NIMROD's golden brows!

AVA GARDNER does shine as SARAH - unafraid of unflattering lighting or angles, but she was and still is quite special, and GEORGE C. SCOTT does have a few pithy moments .... the make-up though! BRINGING UP THE REAR - so to speak is Peter O'Toole as Triplet, blue-eyed Angels of Wrath [!], Richard Harris - star rising ["This Sporting Life"] as Cain, Zoe Sallis as the 'other woman' in Abraham's life, Stephen Boys [utterly wasted] as Nimrod, John Huston as a bemused, befuddled and bewildered Noah [nice comic turn though], and somewhere in there a Young Franco Nero!

COSTUMING is dreadful - pity for this almost completely Italian Production. And the famous SODOM AND GOMORRAH sequence? Pale Fellini or is it George Romero? The styrofoam blasted 'Wife of Lot' - really!

WISH the score was available on CD - MAYUZUMI went on to score Huston's "Reflections in A Golden Eye" - somewhat better fare.

DVD sound is VERY ODD - stereo? Color is quite washed out too - pity - this one could be wonderfully restored in full 5.1 or even DTS - it is as close to an epic as we'll ever come!

if adam & eve were this dull, they 'd never have multiplied
thank god (pun intended)that the bible characters werent really this over inflated and boring because if they were, they would have never had the energy to recreate, to be fruitful and to multiply.
the where would be?
if disney or some other company were to take their fairy tales this seriousely they be laughed off the planet. ... Read more

Reviews (45)

Pure Emotion
Camelot made an impression on me over 30 years ago, and today, watching the remastered video, all the songs and lines come easily to me, yet I probably only saw it twice. Most reviews treat this film version unkindly, but I quite prefer Richard Harris as Arthur. In my mind, it's the greatest thing Harris has ever done, and his almost impish Arthur is appropriate for a boy-turned-king. He's neither too regal nor too arrogant, like some who have performed the role. He inhabits Arthur. I'd not have chosen Redgrave but she turns out to be luminous: by turns innocent, lusty, loving, and decent. Marni Nixon's dubbed singing works through her. Franco Nero's Lancelot is a sculpted icon of steel-eyed beautiful purity. Nero may not the greatest actor in the world, but he is endearing as Lancelot, and his physical loveliness in muscle, jaw, cheekbone and eye is probably unmatched for this role. The costumes are brilliant and gorgeous enhancements. (although a bit more real fur could have been used, back in the 60s!) The fact is, the score could not be more magnificent; the "natural" style singing is charming. Rather than focusing on "great" voices, we instead hear the intended core of each scene through "real" characters expressing themselves. These actors portray their roles gamely and truthfully as three people in love with each other. The entire production is a lush, bittersweet escape that infuses me with the sheer emotion and passion of ideals imagined and dashed. Love both lavished and betrayed is a sweet torment that this film tenderly displays to this viewer. I think it's highly underrated.

Drama tops everything
I enjoyed this movie. It seems to pale in comparison with the play, but i never saw the play, so I viewed it without anything to compare it to. I thought it was good. The songs were good, though not great or espicially memorable (they seem to have been better in the play), the sets and costumes were good, and many of the performances, espicially Richard Harris', were great. Harris sings well (assuming he wasn't dubbed), he's great at playing the boy-turned-king, though he looks 40 (he was 35), and he handles the film's drama perfectly. Vanessa Redgrave is good, too, easily turning from innocent bride to flirtatious married woman to passionate lover. And it's quite obvious that, even though she saves her passion for Lancelot, she still loves Arthur. Franco Nero isn't as good, but he's suitably passionate. (Whose idea was it to have Lancelot and Guenivere making love in the pool? They wouldn't have done it, just like they wouldn't have done most of the "loverly" things shown, and the scene in the pool's too From Here to Eternity!) Over everything tops the film's dramatic scenes, the ones in which Arthur confronts the love between his wife and best friend, both of whom he loves and both of whom love him. As I've said, Harris really shines here, really showing us his character's torment. Redgrave holds her own, too, espicially in the scene where she cries at the thought of never seeing Arthur's forgiving eyes again. Maybe it would have been better if they'd cast Richard Burton and made better use of the songs, and it would have been interesting seeing Julie Andrews have an extramarital affair, given as how she was still considered sugary-sweet at the time. Still, this movie was good.

ugh!!!!!
This is the worst movie musical ever made.It's hard to believe
that this piece of junk was made by the same producer who did
the magnificent "My Fair Lady".I've read that Jack Warner spent
$18 million on the production.Yes,it looks good.But the script
is terrible-not that the show was great,anyway.And the entire
cast overacts badly.One critic called it "an appalling film with
only good orchestrations to recommend it".Well,he's right.At
least Alfred Newman and Ken Darby did a great job with the score.
Their work makes the soundtrack listenable.Other than that,a poor
script,atrocious direction(Vincente Minnelli and George Cukor
weren't available???),and SEVERE MISCASTING add up to a complete
misfire.Forget it-listen to the soundtrack CD or the Broadway
cast album and watch "My Fair Lady " or "Gigi" instead.

AWFUL!!!!
Awful, awful, awful. Overacting run amok in a silly, unnecessary movie. The worst part was that it looked like a lot of effort went into this film and how horrible was the effort. What a waste of time. AWFUL.

Legendary Musical Falls Flat
This is a magnificent musical. It SHOULD HAVE been made with Julie Andrews, Richard Harris and Robert Goulet. Vanessa Redgrave looks wonderful, but her character seems depressed most of the time and the woman can't sing a note to save her life. Franco Nero was handsome, but looks Italian, not English... fortunately they found a very English voice to dub his songs. The other problem with this film, which bothered me when I first saw it was that it has the most cardboard looking stage sets for some scenes I have ever seen, and worse, the cameras move about exposing the painted backdrops even more. I do believe in the late 60s when this movie came out they had cameras that could be transported to real locations. My hope is that this beautiful musical will eventually be re-made with a SINGING cast using real outdoor locations.... please!! ... Read more

Reviews (75)

NOW, THAT'S HOW YOU MAKE A SEQUEL!!!!!!
The timing of this film's release was perfect. Ten days after the September 11th attacks. I saw The Omega Code when it was released in theaters in 1999 and bought it on DVD. I liked it very much. I also saw Megiddo twice in theaters (especially the day it opened - with my god-sister) and was thoroughly impressed. Although, I haven't read The Bible as much as I should have, the parts of Revelation that I did read (especially the rise and fall of the Anti-Christ) were visually depicted (as far as I'm concerned) with almost perfection in this film. I also knew (when seeing this film) that TBN had to have a storyline and put a touch of "Hollywood" to draw the type of attention needed. It has the makings of a great Christian movie with characters quoting scriptures from The Bible as well as the protagonist (played by Michael Biehn) going to GOD in prayer seeking guidance. The Anti-Christ (played convincingly by Michael York) challenges GOD and deceives the world by convincing everyone that he's all for peace and humanity in "the new world". When that challenge is made, GOD's wrath immediately goes into action. Before I saw The Omega Code and Megiddo, I was thoroughly convinced that somewhere someone knows how to get to the missing books of The Bible and that this person or beast is controlling all governments of this world. Think about it. While both films may not touch every issue in the books of Daniel and Revelation, it does manage to interject the word of GOD and the fact that Jesus is Lord. The special effects are pretty cool. And to think that the devil is 1,000,000+infinity uglier than the visual depiction in this film scares the hell out of me. The depiction in the film sent chills throughout my anatomy everytime I saw this film and still does. I like the fact that this film relies heavily on storytelling rather than an all-out special effects extravaganza. The second time I saw this film was after church and, like the first time I saw it, had me as well as others praising GOD and saying/shouting "Hallelujah" when the devil finally bow down and admits that Nazarene is Lord right before being cast down into the firey pits of Hell and chained. The praises got even louder when the scripture from Revelation appeared on the screen. I bought the DVD for this film and was not disappointed at all. My mother (she only saw the second half of the film) and I watched it last night and we both were very much into the film. I will play it again so that my parents and I can enjoy the film in its entirety. I've also told my extended family members (you know, very close friends) about this film as well as The Omega Code. I told them to see both films. As a matter of fact, I recommended both films to a friend of mine who happens to work in the CD/Video/DVD department at Best Buy (thus, having seen the Megiddo title in stock but have not seen the movie). Now, he's going to at least rent or buy it on VHS. I'm also recommending both films to whomever is reading my review for Megiddo. Buy it!!!! Buy it!!!! By it!!!! The film is truly a message from GOD.

A Little Surprised.
Kudos to the producers and writers of this screenplay who managed to avoid the pit-falls of this movie's predecessor - Omega Code. Production values, greatly increased in this attempt, and a human story-line which lasts virtually throughout the first 2/3's of the movie, help to carry it along. More sophisticated writing, editing and directing make the experience far more engaging, while the holes in plot and realism (still present on occasion) are kept to a minimum. While the "Omega Code" suffered greatly from hammy acting, "Megiddo" stars shine, including the performances of each actor who played the Beast at various ages (with deference to Michael York's wonderful portrayal), a superb performance by Gabrielle (the Beast's Christian wife) and young David (brother to the Beast). For technical quality, the first half of the movie seems to have shaken the problems inherant to "Omega." The score was greatly and pleasantly improved the first half, yet regressed the latter during heightened battle scenes. While the final battle scene is visually anti-climatic and long, the anticipated destination of the Beast keeps genuine interest till the end. "Megiddo" may be the best blatantly "Christian" work to date and is worth the trip for the story. Don't go expecting it to be incredible, but perhaps maybe a little surprised.

Just as believable as any other christian fairy tale
More offal from the TBN money machine that operates on the guilt and fear of the unintelligent.

D-list actors, horrid script, clunky direction, cable-access quality cinematography - all I can say for it was the crappy special effects were kind of fun if you like that sort of thing.

"the battle for the souls of men"
This possible scenario of the Last Days is outrageously entertaining, with a script that delights after many viewings, and some fine performances.
It starts in 1960: Stone Alexander (the anti-christ) is the son of a media magnate, a horrid child who almost succeeds in immolating his baby brother. Ten years pass and we see him as a young (meaner and leaner) cadet, and then 25 years later, he appears as a full-blown menace, in the form of Michael York. Ten more years pass, and as the Chancellor of the United World Union, York makes the most of this part, and has some delicious dialogue; there is his sacrament, "This is my flesh, made foul with sin, etc...", and best of all, in a speech in Africa, where he is like Jimmy Swaggart in his heyday, with the words twisted inside-out. It is a brilliant piece of scripting and acting.

Others in the cast that are noteworthy are Diane Venora, an actress who has never received her dues, is wonderful as Stone's wife, Michael Biehn is good as his brother, the president of the U.S., Udo Kier lurks about as "The Guardian", and R.Lee Ermey is marvelous as President Benson.
There are lovely scenes of Rome, and some of the sets are clever, like the old diner with a sign that reads "Hamburger $ 15.00, with cheese, $ 20.00". Nothing like world chaos to bring about a little inflation.
Not all the effects and battle scenes are believable, and it is far from being a "movie masterpiece", but if you are interested in Bible prophesy plots, this is a film that is fascinating as well as a loads of fun.

TBN, please make a better film on the end of the world!!
This is TBN's second attempt at telling the story of how the anti-christ comes to power and it's really quite bad.

The anti-christ also known as Stone Alexander, (played by a wide-eyed Michael York in overacting mode). Meanwhile his brother David, (Michael Biehn) is also high up in government and is also in love with his brother's wife, (Gabriella Francini).

Now the film started off well enough, watching a young anti-christ at school brought back memories of the Omen, that is where all simulat but it soon degenerates into melodrama and suffers from a very poor script and uninspired acting. I really did not care for the characters either which is important in this kind of film.

Now don't get me wrong, I as a christian enjoy a good movie about the end of the world, but it needs to have a good story to work out. And as with Omega Code, the ending is ridiculous, unless your in the know you would not know that Jesus has returned, the cheesy cgi devil just yells out "the nazerene", for some obscure reason. There is so much great material in the book of revelation, if the filmakers would use that as the basis and write the story around the events described there it could be sensational. I hear on the grapevine that there is a mini-series out soon on t.v. on revelation that is written by the same guy who wrote the Omen, that fills me with a little hope. Until then, steer clear of this one and check out "Revelation", by cloud ten pictures or "the Omen", "Left Behind 1 and 2." or better yet read the book!!

TBN seem to have a penchant for making bad films and seem to get the christian message distorted, "Omega Code", "the Champion" and now "Megiddo" all suffer the same fate.

Thanks for reading my review and have a good day. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Dark Yarn With Dragging Coffins EASTER EGG and tech specs
This DVD came with The Spaghetti Western Collection. I simply didn't relate to the characters as most others seem to have. My enjoyment of the movie was limited by the lack of what I felt was a thoughtful score. Maybe I'm so used to Ennio Morricone's moving scores, as they seem to fit movies like another character. I wasn't impressed with the composition by Luis Enriquez Bacalov, whose music starts the title off. I don't know, maybe I don't care for lyrics. I guess lyrics shouldn't be used if the story is well- told in the movie.

This movie is quite dark and opens to some intense beating of a woman. Django is also dragging a coffin through mud towards a bleak- looking town where havoc eventually fills the streets which were emptied by the numerous killings.

I would lie to give it 4 stars because the music to me detracts from the movie. And the English dubbing just adds to not help me identify with the characters like I'd enjoy. Other macaroni flicks have gotten me to feel something for the characters, but something was missing here. I couldn't even feel for the woman being tortured (Loredana Nusciak). Yet for a movie like The Good The Bad and The Ugly, I could even identify with Al Mulock's character at the very beginning (the bounty killer whose head fills the screen from a once- empty desert scene). I would give it a very average score and tack on just a smidgen more for the DVD quality presented by Blue Underground, which is consistent with the other nice presentations they have distributed.

Tech Specs and Easter Eggs: Region- free NTSC DVD from a 90- minute master print, in its original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.66:1 (only) and enhanced for 16X9; English mono and Italian mono with optional English subtitles; Django: The One and Only interviews; trailer; movie poster/production stills photos; linear notes; a two- page double- sided pamphlet with more detailed notes. I also found only one Easter Egg (I have found up to 3 in two other DVDs by Blue) which can be accessed by going to the Extras page, higlighting Django - The One and Only and then pressing LEFT on your remote to access a hidden feature.

A guy who loves spaghetti westerns is disapointed
Too many Corbucci films are inept, sloppy, and cartoonish. Speed Racer can be less cartoonsish. (see Navajo Joe). Django is not the worst but it is also no exception.
Two clever ideas in the film - a laconic anti-hero drags around a coffin with a machine gun inside
and a showdown in a graveyard with an interesting use of a cross.
That's it.
Otherwise -
Silly unconvincing action scenes - Django holds off dozens of incredibly stupid bad guys by sitting behind a log in the middle of a street. No one thinks to come up from the sides and behind?
Bad guys come off like Snidely Whiplash. And this may be insulting to poor Snidely.
The editing is uninspired.
Continuity errors (for some inexplicable reason a unconsious woman keeps changing positions on bridge - this is actually funny)
The violence and action are unrealistic and stupid. Just because Tarantino may have borrowed the infamous ear-eating scene does not make the movie any better. Incidentally the ear looks like a fig, and the scene is even sillier with the inane acting and dubbing involved.
Franco Nero's understated anti-hero style acting is completely ruined be hokey dialogue and a dubbed voice that sounds like Casper Milquetoast.
Worst of all - there is no film-making-style, especially for a spaghetti western.
Anchor Bay's version looks and sounds only OK but I doubt the film ever looked or sounded very good.
Quality spaghetti westerns can be very engaging but its hard to understand why this one was so popular Maybe it comes off better dubbed into German - for some reason it was very popular in Germany.
I gave this film two stars but not for its merits but for its place in history as being the predecessor of many other far superior spaghetti westerns. Had the sound, picture, dialgue and dubbing quality been better I may have squeezed out three stars.

Django lives
I'd heard lots about this film over the years but was unable to see it until a few years ago. It has the usual flaws of a spaghetti western (poor dubbing, choppy editting and almost silly lyrics for the title song), which are to be expected,and after having seen so many, are even endearing, but its quirkiness more than makes up for it. (Any film with the main character constantly dragging a coffin behind him in the mud has a certain deviant appeal.) Excepting the Leone westerns (which are so far above the ordinary Italian western that they are literally in a class by themselves), this is one of the best.

Django is djust dreadful
I head a lot of good things about this -- comparisons to Leone's films and that it was so popular it spawned a horde of sequals. I had contemplated buying the Anchor Bay DVD, and upon viewing, I'm so glad I didn't. Franco Nero is absolutely dreadful -- i'm not sure if he or the dubbing is to blame but the delivery and dialogue are some of the worst I've ever witnessed. The character is such a goody goody with lines like, "You shouldn't treat women like that" and "That's not right." To compare this to Leone is to reduce Leone's interesting characters and cinematography into cardboard gunfights. I didn't even finish the film.

Corbucci's best film!
Don't listen to any claims made made for Bullet For A General, Django is without a doubt the best non-Leone spaghetti Western of all time. The opening scene (blue-clad Nero carrying a saddle over his shoulder and dragging a coffin through the gooiest mud in film history)is beautiful. Corbucci's direction is more controlled here than anywhere else--less zooms, less jarring close-ups, and neater editing. And Django has to be one of the first action heroes to fire a heavy machine gun from the hip (without even pulling the trigger, no less!).

But make no mistake. This is Italian exploitation--love it or hate it. An ear is cut off, prostitutes fight in the mud, and our hero's hands are crushed in gory detail that would make One-Eyed Jacks mumble in disgust. Don't expect John Ford here. But if you're looking for something different, are curious about spaghetti Westerns but afraid to buy any because so many are horrible--then this is the movie for you! ... Read more

Description

Helen Mirren (Prime Suspect, The Clearing) stars in this compelling murder-mystery set amid the murky underworld of illegal art trade.

Maggie Sheridan (Mirren), once one of the most famous blues voices of her generation, lost decades of her life to drinking and hard-living. After a failed suicide attempt, she was taken in by Sir Charles Stafford (Iain Cuthbertson, Antonia and Jane) and his son Sebastian (Iain Glen, Tomb Raider). She has lived quietly on their Irish estate for ten years. But one summer evening, her peaceful life is shattered when Sir Charles is brutally murdered, and a valuable sixteenth century painting is stolen. The painting is one of several disturbing pictures sent to Sir Charles marking the major events in his life.

Maggie is convinced that the stolen painting holds the key to Sir Charles' death and decides to track it down. Meanwhile, Sebastian uncovers a terrible secret, with horrific consequences. ... Read more

Reviews (41)

Underrated?
I admit I have had a soft spot for this movie ever since I saw it during its theatrical run when I was 8 which is why I give it four stars instead of three. But I've always felt it is a fun action-adventure film with a great cast and fantastic vistas of the Yugoslavian countryside. Critics have lambasted it as being a highly inferior sequel to one of the classic war movies of the 60's, and maybe some of that criticism has some merit. Yet "Force 10 from Navarone" as viewed on its own merits without the comparisons to "Guns" is not too shabby. A straight-foward action story of an Allied force consisting of two British commandoes (Robert Shaw and Edward Fox), an American Ranger (Harrison Ford), and an escaped American prisoner (Carl Weathers) trying help Yugoslavian partisans blow-up a bridge to foil a German offensive. It's not Oscar material, but it is fun and definetly not as bad as the critics claimed.

Great WWII action movie!
First off, I enjoy anything having to do with World War II. I remember seeing this movie as a kid before I saw the original "Guns of Navarone." I was flipping channels last night and saw that "Force 10" was on. I watched it and remembered how much I enjoyed it the first time.

Not only does this film focus on a remote battlefield (remote in the sense that it's not a Normandy or anything you might have seen in "Patton"), but it provides an exciting story that the viewer just can't forget. After so many years, I fondly remembered Carl Weathers' knife fight with that big guy (the name escapes me, but he played the character Jaws in two Bond films), the amusing explosives expert Miller, and all the crazy twists and turns that took the commandos to their final objective - destroy a dam to destroy a bridge. (What I never understood, though, was why didn't the Germans just have their armored and infantry divisions cross the dam rather than face hostile fire on the bridge from the Partisans!).

Anyhow, the film is great. They just don't make movies like this anymore. Harrison Ford and Robert Shaw (and the rest) make a great team, best shown when they walk cavalierly away from that ticking bomb that's about to explode in the dam! Yes, a great war flick that I highly recommend and rank right up there with the best.

"We're Talking About the Wrong Target!"
I first saw this movie as an in-flight movie while flying from Copenhagen to Seattle in September 1979. A sequel to "The Guns of Navarone" (1961) that starred Gregory Peck who played Keith Mallory and David Niven as Dusty Miller, Mallory and Miller return to action with Robert Shaw as Mallory and Edward Fox as Miller who have been assigned to a new mission in Yugoslavia to kill a Nazi agent posing as a Yugoslav partisan. Here they tag on with Force 10 led by American Army Ranger Lt. Col. Mike Barnsby (Harrison Ford) whose mission was to blow up a bridge to prevent the Nazis from crossing into the region defended by the partisans. The sequel was planned for filming back in 1967 with Peck and Niven playing their respective roles. The novel by Alistair MacLean was released in 1968, becoming his 17th million-copy best seller, but due to creative and economic concerns, the movie version was stalled. By 1977, the plans for filming commenced. Because of their ages, Peck and Niven would not star in the sequel. The following year the movie was released with Shaw, Ford and Fox. Sadly, Shaw did not live to see the film's release when he died of a heart attack August 28, 1978 in Tourmakeady, Ireland at the age of 51. Former Oakland Raider Carl Weathers plays his role well as the fiery Sgt. Weaver who merely "invited" himself on the mission, not knowing what was going on at first. Franco Nero plays Capt. Nikolai Leskovar, the Nazi agent Mallory was assigned to kill. Alan Badel plays the partisan leader Maj. Petrovich who assigned his daughter Maritza (Barbara Bach, also known as Mrs. Ringo Starr) as a partisan agent to spy on the Nazis and their Chetnick allies at a camp where they were operating. Richard Kiel plays the Chetnick leader Capt. Drazak who dupes Force 10, leading them to the camp where they would fall into the hands of the Germans commanded by Maj. Schroeder (Michael Byrne).

Like "The Guns of Navarone" the sequel is action-packed from start to finish from the stealing of an R.A.F. Lancaster at Termoli Air Base in Italy to the destruction of a dam that washes away the targeted bridge with several million tons of water. This is a great movie for those who love action dating back to World War II.

force 10 uncut is not for my kids
I love this movie. I have seen it many times on television but when I rented it I was suprised to see that this rated PG movie had full frontal female nudity. I was lucky that I wasn't watching it with my kids. I really don't understand how a pg movie can have this but its there. Just a warning in case any parents are considering it for a family war movie like I was. After all war is a good family history lesson.

very mediocre
Passes the time, that's all. Notable that the Partisans (Communist anti-nazis) are portrayed as purely heroic, while the Chetniks (anti-communist anti-nazis) are shown as purely evil. In fact the film portrays the Chetniks as in essence a German auxiliary force--very very few historians would agree with that idea. But then, if you're filming on location in a Yugoslavia under Marshall Tito's communist dictatorship I guess you have to toe the local ideological line. Hey, it's only a movie, right? ... Read more

Reviews (66)

Suprisingly Weak
The first, and worst, sequel to Die Hard, is terrorised by the same plot as the original. While waiting for his wife's plane to arrive at Dulles Airport (on Xmas Eve), McClane notices a few suspicious exchanges between a group of men amidst the busy yuletide passengers.

Before you know he is neck deep in trouble with an army of mercenaries, led by Colonel Stewart (William Sadler), who are hell-bent on setting free a corrupt South American General/Drug Baron (Franco Nero). There are more bad guys than before. And more suspension of disbelief is required.

There are so many plot holes and illogical moments that the film almost drowns in its own absurdity. But there is enough action and stunts to cancel it out and distract our attention. Though they not presented in a breathtaking or memorable way. It's all too generic and a bit mean-spirited. No audience nowadays would be satisfied with it so prepare yourself for 80's violence.

William Sadler and Franco Nero lack the callous efficiency of Alan Rickman. And a hero can only be measured by his nemesis. But most of the time McClane is just capping off nameless mercs. How boring. Tho this should not be blamed on Sadler, he has a threatening and intense presence and as he has proved himself in movies like Trespass and Demon Knight. Too bad his character here is so badly written and underdeveloped. I'm sorry but blowing up 250 people off-screen to show how evil you are just won't cut it.

This was Renny Harlin's second movie of 1990 (the other was Ford Fairlain) and it is without a doubt the movie that made him a certified action director. It was a tough, and huge, movie to pull off. He just pulled it off with no particular charm. Though he does a wonderful job of capturing the look and feel of an East Coast winter. The wide-open snowfields and ice-covered runways will definitely make you feel chilly.

Although this is another problem. The first Die Hard worked entirely within the space of Nakatomi Plaza. It was claustrophobic and almost plausible. The scale and scope of Die Hard 2 is too big for its own good. Similar to the problems of ID4, the staples of reality are ripped out with ignorance and over-confidence. The bulk of the film is nothing but one dumb action scene after another. It doesn't make for coherent viewing.

Die Hard 2 is a definite lag in between both of McTiernan's very strong outings. By today's standards it seems dated and very 90's. Which is a shame considering the original and 'With A Vengeance' are, in a way, 'timeless'. It's movies like this that inspired 'Last Action Hero'.

Filmed in Panavision, the 2.35:1 anamorphic picture is superb looking with true blacks (a lot of this film is set at night) and nice fleshtones. Fire effects and colors look beautifully orange and overall the quality is top notch aside from a few instances of minor pixelation.

The gunshots are loud and ferocious in both the Dolby Digital and DTS tracks. All explosions and every punch and kick are rendered with amazing clarity. Some of the surrounds tend to stick to mono but the plane crash in the middle of the movie will convince it is actually happening in your living room. Dialogue scenes tend to stick to the front speaker and the musical score by Michael Kamen is well recorded and is sure to excite.

Renny Harlin's commentary is much more interesting that John McTiernan's fatigued and labored effort on the first movie. Harlin talks about the characters more and how he prefers his movies to be in terms of motivation and why characters should smoke only if it is necessary. Among other things. Such as how many of the effects he did then, in many different ways, would be so much quicker and easier to do today in Digital CGI.

The Featurette was made for Fox TV back in 1990 and it is a bit better than the usual, self-congratulatory nonsense that bogs down most featurettes. But it still can't resist talking about how 'great' the movie is. Tho thanks to this extra we now know that most of the snow in the movie is shredded soap. A second, 4-minute, Featurette is basically an extended trailer.

There are a few deleted scenes that are not that interesting and it's easy to see why they were cut from the film. Although the alternate scene on how McClane gets to the Annex Skywalk (The Boiler Room) is quite cool.

The interview with Renny Harlin and the Villain's Profile are promotional titbits in which they discuss how to direct a high-concept sequel and how to be an evil bad guy.

Behind the scenes and storyboards focuses on 2 scenes. The first is 'Breaking the Ice' and the second is 'Chaos on the Conveyor Belt'. The storyboard and film comparison is for the 'Skywalk Ambush' sequence.

Visual effects breakdowns explore, in great length and tedious, repetitive slo-mo, the Ejector seat scene and the Airport Runway. These are basically green-screen evolutions. The other model effects scenes broken down are 'Chopper', 'Airplane Models' and 'Wing Fight'.

Fast-paced follow-up fueled by thrills...
While not as original or inspired as the first, "Die Hard 2: Die Harder" is still an action-packed, slick movie with twists and turns fit for a roller-coaster ride of pure mayhem! Bruce Willis reprises his role as John McClane, this time in trouble at a Washington D.C. airport, where terrorists have taken the air traffic control captive. With McClane's wife on one of the stranded planes, our hero races to kick the butts of the bad guys once again! This is a worthy follow-up to the 80s hit film, with some cool action sequences and some pretty decent scripting.

Almost as good as the original
Count me among the few, it seems, who believe DIE HARD 2 to be almost as good as the original DIE HARD. I personally don't understand why this sequel always seems to be undervalued in favor of the jaggedly uneven, incoherent DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE.

Certainly DIE HARD 2 is not as good as the original. It lacks the first film's grittiness and claustrophobic atmosphere (but of course a loss of the latter was expected when the scriptwriters expanded the playing field to an entire airport as opposed to one floor of a highrise); its villain is no match for DIE HARD's subtly chilling Hans Gruber; and director Renny Harlin disappointingly favors action over those little human touches that so distinguished the original, insteading favoring more action. (Besides, couldn't the screenwriters have come up with a more creative plot than simply recycling the general structure of the original? But hey, this is a Hollywood product, where it's best not to take too many chances in the quest to cash-in on a big success, which DIE HARD certainly was.)

All that being said, the action sequences are undeniably thrilling---the action of the second half, particularly, moves so quickly from one great setpiece to another that the momentum never lets up 'til the very end---and Bruce Willis is just as good as he was in the original, proving that he will always be John McClane in my mind. All in all, DIE HARD 2 is arguably even MORE entertaining viscerally than DIE HARD.

In short, DIE HARD will forever be a genre classic, but DIE HARD 2 is a worthy sequel when it comes to pure action---and when you are talking about action movies, isn't the action what's really important anyway?

A fan's review
I would like to start by pointing out that this movie gets a lot of crap. A LOT. This is in no way as bad as the reviews may make you think, and in fact this is my favorite Die Hard film.

I'm a huge fan of the series. I've seen them all plenty of times, and this one stands out for me. I'm not the only one, either; Ebert also claims this to be the greatest Die Hard. You've heard the same complaints about this movie a thousand times, I'm sure of it. But what tends to be left out is the amazing special effects, the truely die hard enemies, and the perfectly directed action scenes. This was directed by a different director than the other two blockbusters. Die Hard 2 also made the most money at the box offices. It really is the best!

Overreaches but still exciting
While this installment is the weakest of the three, it still has some exciting moments. All in all, I think the film tried so hard to top the first (best) Die Hard film, that the failure is that much more evident.

The characterizations are not as well fleshed-out as in the others. The action scenes become predictable and less exciting as the movie progresses.

I had to laugh at one of the BIGGEST continuity flaws I've ever witnessed in a big-budget movie: the plane that crashes is forced to the ground by lack of fuel. Why, then, does it explode in a HUGE fireball if it's out of gas? Somebody screwed up. ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Wild Boys
An ambitious and original movie, Rainer Werner Fassbider`s "Querelle" is an interesting effort with some compelling moments but ends up being too flawed as a whole. This experimental release presents a surreal and dreamy mood that showcases Querelle`s (a marine played by Brad Davis) search for himself and his true nature. His search will lead to some risky relationships with a couple of his mates, presenting a movie that combines campy moments with some introspective and symbolic ones. What we have here is a film that explores human desire, narcisism, homo(sexuality) and seduction in an unique and peculiar way, even if the characters are too self-absorbed and the plot drags in many scenes. "Querelle" is too ambiguous and ethereal to deliver a convincing resolution, even if it delivers an unusual dark atmosphere with compelling settings and brilliant direction (the photography is also good, displaying excellent colours and textures). The acting is not very intriguing and the weird characters turn this into an unusual yet cold cinematic experience. Fassbinder presents some good ideas here, still this effort is to sparse and disjointed to become a solid movie.

Not bad, just too uneven to convince.

Rub a Dub Dub
First of all when you get the DVD version, you have the opportunity to watch the film as it was originally filmed - in English. Anyone who speaks French and can read lips knows that the film was dubbed into French (and not just bad sync-sound) - the film was later released back in the states with English subtitles under the French dub (talk about a triple threat).

I must say that I love this movie for tackling issues that 20 years ago were definitely still taboo in the mainstream. Although not a masterpiece in terms of plot development, I believe it stays true to the development of Jean Genet's characters - and of course the cinematography is stunning. Like watching a live action Tom of Finland cartoon directed by David Lynch at times... Wonderful.

Wings Of Querelle? Little To Desire?
These comments refer to the DVD edition. First of all and for the record, this flick was obviously filmed in English (!) as anyone who watches lip movements can readily detect. Of course, if you only saw it on VHS or a VHS derivative, you probably couldn't see any lips, much less lip movements.

This flick is so bad that it rapidly becomes a parody of a cheap porn flick without the porn part. HEALTH WARNING TO PROSPECTIVE VIEWERS: The ubiquitous voice-overs, presumably reflecting the deepest and innermost feelings of the particular character involved in a given scene, can send viewers into uncontrollable spasms of laughter! Just when one expects some profound reflection by a character on the current state of affairs (no pun intended) what emerges are increasingly banal sexual descriptions that, were they to be quoted here, would be canned by the censors along with the rest of this review. If you could somehow cross this flick's "thought-bubbles" with those in Wm. Wender's fatally dull and unimaginative "Wings Of Desire", you would have the instantaneous creation of not one, but two cult classics!

Wooden acting by Brad Davis and others makes this flick a parody. Stay away from this turkey unless you want to liven up a party with the X-rated unintended hilarity, where caustic comments by the audience can greatly add to the fun. A zero-star flick if ever there was one.

sorry, this is not a good farewell for Fassbinder
It's very sad that this film became his last. I too love Fassbinder's work and Brad Davis is great, but you can't say that by watching this piece. Please see this after you went through all other movies from this master otherwise you would get wrong impression about his talent.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
This movie truly made me rethink my pompous blow-hard nature: that is to say, I'm fanatical about Jean Genet, madly in love with Brad Davis, and I even MOSTLY like Fassbinder. But for some reason, I can never seem to get through the first half of this movie.

Jean Genet's forbidden story of Querelle was, simply put, never meant to be translated into a movie. The internal struggles of Querelle were too innate, too complex...to ever be categorized and flow-charted and minced down into two hours of a panel-by-panel film script.

Now, with that said, I think Fassbinder made an excellent attempt to put you right up inside the taboo story of our favorite murderer/hero. The scenery is luscious, the costumry finely detailed, the casting superb. Not to mention the delicious sailor booty of a certain leading man, Brad Davis.

Still, I find this movie left me with much to be desired. After the torrid affair of Querelle and Nono, I wanted to roll over and go to sleep (no underlying meaning meant). Even THEN, there was only so much tension up until that point, and the plot manuevering that Fassbinder undertook did nothing to appease me. For example, the lusty leiutenant who writes of Querelle in the novel, keeps, instead, a tape recorded diary. With any horribly tedious passages taken directly from the text. In terribly stiff monologues.

Scary stuff.

All in all, I rated this movie with four of five stars. It perfectly compliments any Genet collection and makes for wonderful ornamentation on your DVD shelves. But if you've never heard of Jean Genet or never saw a Fassbinder movie, you should probably buy a different homoerotic brothel-lined story of metamorphoses and love. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Director Renny Harlin (Cutthroat Island) took the reins of this 1990 sequel, which places Bruce Willis's New York City cop character in harm's way again with a gaggle of terrorists. This time, Willis awaits his wife's arrival at Dulles Airport in Washington, D.C., when he gets wind of a plot to blow up the facility. Noisy, overbearing, and forgettable, the film has none of the purity of its predecessor's simple story; and it makes a huge miscalculation in allowing a terrible tragedy to occur rather than stretch out the tension. Where Die Hard set new precedents in action movies, Die Hard 2 is just an anything-goes spectacle. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (74)

Enjoyable but Rather Dumb
Think about it folks. You are running Washington's Dulles airport. Some evil baddie terrorists cut out your radio communications to incoming planes so they have nothing to do except circle around for the next couple of hours until they start running out of fuel. By then you are told, they will be allowed to land if and only if you cooperate with the baddies. The baddies have not, however, cut your capacity for ordinary telephone communications. You can still call the government and ask them to, e.g. send along a bunch of special forces. What do you do? Easy really. You call the Pentagon where they have all the technical resources of the world's biggest ever military superpower. Somewhere in there is a little man with very very thick glasses who knows lots and lots and lots about radios. In about two minutes he's speaking to the pilots of all affected airlines and quietly rerouting them to unaffected neighbouring airports. Then you tell the terrorists to get stuffed and quietly get on with your job.

Consequently I'm afraid this whole movie is premised on a supposed crisis that it is completely impossible to take remotely seriously. It's a huge plot hole and not the only thing that's silly about the plot of this movie. The climactic fight scenes on the wing of a jumbo jet about to take off are ludicrous in the extreme. And why the devil did the baddies ask for a jumbo jet when there are only a handful of them - so there would be room for the fight scene obviously! Really we have to say of the Die Hard franchise the same thing sensible people say about the Alien series. One is terrific; three is pretty good; two is by miles the weakest of the three.

There are other reasons aplenty. Notably the baddie. Rickman and Irons and 1 and 3 gave us splendid classic mad genius villains. William Sadler's evil Colonel Stuart is pretty pale in comparison. We first meet him stark naked practicing his tai chi moves and then zapping his TV remote control in the manner of a small boy playing at shoot outs. I think this is meant to make him look tough and scary. It just makes him look ridiculous and ridiculous he stays. Then we get William Atherton reprising his unscrupulous journalist role from the first movie as he shares an aeroplane with Mrs McClane but here it's badly overdone and with a misjudged attempt at humour. Dumb nonsense really none of which is to say it's not a reasonably enjoyable crash bang wallop popcorn action movie if, as even the best of us occasionally are, you're in the mood for that sort of thing.

Die Hard I; II; and III - Great 5.1 sound
Recently, I picked up each single disc version of Die Hard I; II; and III at bargain prices.Since there are plenty of reviews, I will keep this short.All three of the movies are great, with plenty of action.I like the second movie best.

The best part is the transfer to DVD.The video transfer is wonderful and the 5.1 sound is superior.There is excellent usage of the low bass and the surround speakers.All three movies are a definite purchase.

There are rumors of a Die Hard IV.....

Another Christmas, another terrorist crisis for John McClane
"Die Hard" has become the standard by which every action film made since 1988 has been judged and almost invariably found wanting. Films were sold in Hollywood on the basis of being reduced to such ideas as "'Die Hard' in a bus" (i.e, "Speed"). Of course another Hollywood tradition is to make a sequel of any successful film, so in 1990 Bruce Willis went back in front of the camera, this time with director Renny Harlin ("The Long Kiss Goodnight"), to do a sequel. "Die Hard 2: Die Harder" is not as good as the original, but it does have a self-reflexivity that (for the most part) makes this film work. Ultimately I would rate this at 4.5 stars, but by the standard of sequels that is an exceptional accomplishment, so I round up.

The plot for "Die Hard 2," which is more unsettling today than it was at the time, has a group of terrorists taking control of Dulles International Airport in Washington D.C in order to secure the release of a South American drug lord (Franco Nero) on his way to the United States for trial. If their demands are not met, they are going to start crashing the circling airplanes. Once again, John McClane (Willis) is in the wrong place at the wrong time, at the airport to pick up his wife, Holly (Bonnie Bedelia), who is on one of those circling airliners. McClane picks up on something wrong and when the airport cops refuse to take it seriously he starts pursuing it on his own, getting in deeper and deeper into the situation. Soon it is clear that what we have here is "Die Hard" in an airport.

As I indicated above, the self-reflexivity of the film works in its favor for the most part. The exception to this idea is when McClane repeats the "Yippie-kay-yay" line from the first film, albeit in a large context this time around, put the best example is when a bewildered Holly turns to her husband and asks "Why do these things keep happening to us?" Otherwise, throughout the film what McClane did at the Nakatomi Building comes into play as various characters either dismiss him out of hand or take him seriously because of his reputation. The first time around it was his anonimity that was one of his biggest weapons; this time his "fame" is a double-edged sword.

In many ways this sequel follows the original. But the scope has been enlarged as other parties besides the terrorists become much more problematic for our hero than they were the first time around. Plus, this time McClane gets to keep his shoes on, which is good because there is a blizzard going on in addition to the all the terrorist fun. Actually, there is probably too much going on, because "Die Hard 2" lacks the driving focus of the original. It also lacks as strong of a villain, with William Sadler's Colonel Stewart being restrained to the point of inertness. Granted, it would be hard to top Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber, but they certainly could have found something and someone that would have worked a lot better.

They could not work Reginald Veljohnson in for anything more than a cameo in this one, but the cinematic law of convenient coincidences finds William Atherton's slimy reporter stuck on the plane with Holly. Of the new members of the supporting cast Art Evans as Chief Engineer Leslie Barnes, who can come up with creative problem solving in an emergency, Dennis Franz as Capt. Carmine Lorenzo, the airport chief of security who has no use for McClane, Tom Bower as Marvin, who lives in the bowels of the airport with all of the maps, John Amos as the major from special forces who taught the bad guy everything he knows, and future senator Fred Dalton Thomas as the man in charge of the airport control tower.

In the final analysis despite the problems with this movie, especially in comparison to the original, it is Bruce Willis as John McClane who makes this work because he manages to keep his character as more or less a real person in extraordinary circumstances. He is not as strong as Stallone or Swarzenegger and he is not as smart as Harrison Ford or whoever is playing James Bond in any given year. But he has enough to get the job done. More importantly, I did not have the sense of disappointment that so often comes at the end of movies with this one, which is a pretty good bottom line for anything coming out of Hollywood. We will have to see what happens with the upcoming "Die Hard 4.0" next year.

ahhhh, the memories.
I recommend this title to those who saw it way back in the day back in '90 and want to revisit (like me). Make no mistake that the genre has been done to death some time before and definitely afterwards. There are so many cliches in the sequences. However, this movie that 'launched a thousand careers' should not have that held against it. It was a joy going back and reliving all the action, no matter that it was predictable at times. Listening to director Renny Harlin's commentary was enlightening because he had no illusions of the limitations the genre has to adhere to, especially at that time. And gladly, he had a lot to talk about during the course of the film. Hardly any silence once he got going.
This, being the Special Edition, is the preferrable version of the DVD. Thank goodness the menus are not drawn out too long and I can access the options. Sometimes 20th Century Fox gets carried away with the menu effects and I have to wait too long to exercise my options (X-Men, anyone?). Two discs come in the package. And you can probably guess that the first disc is the main feature along with commentary and obligatory language, subtitle and audio options. And you might have guessed that the second disc is all the production and behind-the-scene documentaries (which, in total, is a little more generous than I expected).
But to reiterate, The movie is a little dated and the dialog is stuff you've heard before. Newer cinema buffs may not find much here if they haven't seen it. Rent first and decide. But fans of the series should not pass up the chance on this Special Edition. Yippee ki yay. Four stars, not quite five.

Good action flick that perpetuates a myth
I enjoy all of the Die Hard movies.They are great action flicks, and this one is no exception.

While McClane is at Dulles Airport in D.C. waiting for his wife to arrive, terrorists take over the airport's air traffic control system.

There are numerous "shootouts" with the terrorists and McClane, as in the other movies, is the reluctant hero.

Early in the movie, McClane is trying to explain to the airport's security director (Carmine) about the terrorist, and says: "That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me. You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It dosen't show up on your airport X-ray machines, and it cost more than you make here in a month."

There is no such thing as a "Glock 7".This is a perpetuation of the "plastic gun" myth that was started in the mid 80's by an erroneous newspaper article about the Glock 17.This myth is still being hyped by many, including Kerry & Edwards during their recent unsuccessful presidential campaign.

It's always fun to see "facts" in movies (fantasy) get used in the real world.I guess some people can't tell the difference. ... Read more

Reviews (13)

My favorite western ever.
This movie surpasses even the Leone trilogy. It is indeed very diferent than those other ones but they seem to be the benchmark when it comes to westerns. It is entirely unique and Franco Nero hasn't made another movie that even comes close to this.
I truly can't stand the music that goes through this movie but somehow even that can't detract from it.
The story is completely absorbing and enjoyable. The casting of the three brothers is great and I especially liked the flashbacks without the use of effects. Pretty cool stuff.
The final showdown is phenomenal and makes me want to watch it again and again.
Give this movie a try but don't go expecting anything resembling an Eastwood western...or any other for that matter. You won't regret it.

Music detracts from the movie
First let me say that the quality of the DVD is on par with most other Spaghetti Westerns out there on DVD. I don't know, maybe I'm just too used to Morricone scoring this genre, but the music in Keoma is aged. Don't give me an lyricized story song with a mysterious movie -- I want a haunting soundtrack, like in For a Few Dollars More, or The Good Bad & Ugly. Keoma seems to be a decent guy, but at times he come across as almost savage.

You have to survive
Being a veteran of very few spaghetti westerns (I was on National Guard Duty at the time, so to speak), I wasn't sure what to expect from this one. I've seen KEOMA listed on a couple of top-100 westerns and decided to give it a go.
It's opening, atmospheric and a little over-the-top, fulfilled my expectations. A bearded, unidentified man (Keoma - Franco Nero) slowly rides into a desolate landscape. It looks like a town that has cantered over onto its side. The winds blow and small fires burn here and there. An old crone (The Witch - Gabriella Giacobbe) confronts Keoma, it turns out, is no stranger here. "I changed destiny," the Witch says, "when I decided that you alone would survive that useless massacre."
"Aren't you tired of killing?" The Witch asks the first of many questions thrown at Keoma throughout the movie. Keoma, thick bearded with hair down to the bare chest under his white duster, doesn't answer. His eyes flash, he gallops off a short way, turns and yells back to her: "You have to survive."
Keoma is back home from "the war" (the American Civil War, I think) and home has changed drastically. A plague has hit town and those who aren't dead are carted off to a internment center by the evil mine-owner Caldwell (who doesn't allow anyone to leave town to get food or medicine.) Keoma intercepts a cart loaded with plague-infected victims and rescues a pregnant woman, (the drop-dead gorgeous Olga Karlatos).
Keoma has to protect this woman and her unborn child, and defeat the evil Caldwell. It's a heavy task, but Keoma can throw a knife through the palm of a man drawing his gun from a half-mile off and shoot three men dead before any one of them has the chance to draw their gun from their holster. If he goes down, he'll bring a lot down with him.
Keoma will also have to deal with his three evil step-brothers; the massacre the Witch spoke of must have happened in an Indian village. Keoma is a half-breed, adopted and best beloved by his father and George (Woody Strode), and his half-brothers hate him for it.
KEOMA revels in its excesses and isn't to everybody's tastes. Dust is ALWAYS blowing through the broken down town unless a raging night thunderstorm rolls through. Keoma plays a savior of sorts and to show their appreciation the townfolk tie him down on a large wheel that is an obvious and heavy-handed reference to a crucifixion. When a bad guy is shot, he tumbles backward in a slow-motion shot that would make Sam Peckinpah blush. You'll either love or hate the soundtrack (I hated it. Hated it, hated it, hated it.)
This one wouldn't make my top 100 list, but it wouldn't make a worst-of list, either.

Turn the sound back on!!
This film is just great in its category -- and I think it is far from being any kind of western. You need a little intelligence to get the point, otherwhise you overlook it. And the music is just very good (if you are not made of wood or stone) -- it fits the film excellently. I suggest it to everyone who lives his life in at least more than two dimensions... :o)

Definitely not over-rated.
This is a haunting, mesmerizing film. It's a totally unique film. The plot is typical, yes, but it does things with style, imagery, insight and atmosphere that made me look at this age-old story in new ways. It's true what they say about the music, or at least the vocals/lyrics to the music: they're annoying as hell. But the music itself is wonderful, especially certain pieces without vocals utilizing banjo and wierd, snaky guitar and overall it only adds to the wonderful atmosphere of this Spartan, Nietschzean, Apocolyptic Christian from Hell philosophical masterpiece.

There are some slow parts, some villains doing conveniently stupid things to accomodate the poetry of certain scenes and like I said the annoying as hell vocals. That's why I said 3 stars (maybe more like 3 and a half) but I would not tell anyone NOT to see this film, and I'd be surprised if anyone watching it once won't want to do so again.

The back of the box says something about a man in a wasteland massacring his way to redemption; that's pretty accurate. The atmoshere is so powerful at some points that I forget it's a western and not some Robert E. Howard, post-nuclear or medieval fairy tale-type fantasy. Neat, neat, neat. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

The Best
This is an awesome movie. What's to say? It has Jack Palance as a "very bad dude." Plus, the best musical score ever written. If you don't hum "companeros" when you have watched this - I don't know what to say. Great fun, great movie. The best spaghetti western ever. If you like westerns this is the best one to see. I can't say enough good about this film. This would be the one western I owned if I was only allowed one. A good fun time.

An OddBall Movie That Makes No Sense
The action drifts from one scene to another, none of it making any sense. Spaghetti Western genre better left undone and unviewed.

Swedish Bullets and Cuban Berets
Although "The Great Silence" may well be Corbucci's best spaghetti western, "Companeros" is surely his most enjoyable-- and probably the closest he ever comes to vivid characterization in his films. Franco Nero's Yodlaf Peterson (aka "The Swede") is an amusing riff on the Gringo figure with "much money but not much heart" (to borrow a line from "A Bullet for the General"). And Nero clearly enjoys playing off Tomas Milian's sometimes buffoonish yet always committed "El Vasco" (meaning "beret," which Milian wears throughout the entire film, Che Guevera style, only taking it off during his marriage ceremony to Iris Berben)--the two generate a chemistry that seldom occurs in spaghetti westerns, especially the highly political ones. ("A Bullet for the General" explores the growing alienation between the Gringo and the revolutionary, for instance; "Faccia a Faccia" documents the growing horror of the bandit for the Western intellectual; and "The Big Gundown" shows grudging respect between the American sheriff and the Mexican outlaw against the forces of capital--but no real friendship.) Significantly, the film ends with the true *beginning* of friendship-- "Companeros" turns from an ironic statement by "Il Penguino" (the Swede) to one of political commitment and personal investment. Against the amoral greed of prior Gringo characters (starting with Eastwood's "Man with No Name"), Yodlaf learns by the end of the film that there is something more important than the self. By naming himself a "companeros," he effectually rejects the greed and apoliticism typical to the role.

Ennio Moriconne's music is outstanding, and, as he says in an interview in the disk's "extras," he intentionally worked to create a unique "style" for Corbucci's film, one far different from the haunting score he had just provided for Leone's "Once Upon a Time in the West." Unfortunately, Corbucci's camerawork is generally undistinguished, perhaps because he was no longer working with his longtime collaborator Enzo Barboni, who had gone on to make his own films. Alejandro Ulloa's photography is far less accomplished and stylish (perhaps a reason why he worked almost entirely in low-budget, exploitative films).

Overall, a highly enjoyable movie, although the pacing (as is often the case with Corbucci's works) is at times lumbering. One particularly interesting feature of Anchor Bay's print is its inclusion of the expository "backstory" of how Milian's character receives his nickname at the film's opening (the US version cuts right from the opening gunfight back in time to Yodlaf's arrival, several weeks earlier, in San Bernadino). It's a wonderful five minute sequence, reminiscent of his "Tepepa" role-- and a shame that American viewers have been unable to appreciate it for thirty years.

I am Yodlof the Swede...but they call me "the Penguin"
Another must have for any Spaghetti western as well Franco Nero fan. What happens when Yodlof the Swede(Nero)steps of the train,fresh as a daisy (spats and all) into a dirty south of the border town is one of my all time gut-busting faves of any Spaghetti Western.His rather sacreligious appropriation of the town's patron saint is another knee slapper.I'm no big fan of leftist politics and I thought the professors pacifistic message was interesting...being that it had to share such large chunks of screen time with machine gun battles and all.But Tomas Milian and Jack Palance did bang up jobs and "il pinguino" was,in my opinion,one of Nero's best roles.Mr. Morricone put out another real winner of a soundtrack as well.This movies strong points far outweigh it's one or two weaknesses.Rome on the range ...Corbucci style!

"No, I'm swedish.."
A trigger-happy swede roaming around mexico with his not-so-bright "compañero"?? Yeah, sounds about right to me.. :)
Ignoring this, Compañeros is a good eurowestern. Franco Nero is really cool in this movie, and even gets the chance to hook up with his old buddy Mr. Machinegun towards the end. Jack Palance does a good job as the sleazy crook you really want to see dead. If you haven't seen this movie already, now would be a good time. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy was scarier.
Hitch-hike is one of those small movies you watch becouse you hope that becouse of it's budget they would spend some real quality time on the script and try to make up for it by giving us a good move ie- Night Of The Living Dead, Holloween, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Mad Max, and Blair Witch.

So it sould come as no surprise that this film is as bad as those movies are good. David Hess plays a hitch hiker picked up by a husband and wife couple. After getting into thier car he reeks havok with thier lives. I don't know if the movie The Hicher with Rutger Hauer came before or after this but either way it is a much better film. THat movie was suspensefull where as this movie is just tiersome. By the end you don't really care who wins just that the movie ends.

"The Devil Thumbs a Ride"
Ah, the wonderful warped world of David Hess. How I love it.

Ever since the first time I saw "Last House On The Left" - I've been infatuated with this man's ability to be a monster. He's tremendous at it, and that's what compelled me to buy this movie sight unseen. What do I think? Well,...

"Last House On The Left" and "House On The Edge Of The Park" are a couple of my favorite movies of all time. This coupled with the knowledge I've read on the internet claiming the character Hess plays in this movie is very similar to the aforementioned 2, I had to check it out. David Hess is outstanding in the movie as his usual typecast character. But the movie, umm well, it's ok.

The film is about a husband and wife that pick up a hitch-hiker (David Hess) and trouble obviously ensues. The plot is a little weak, (ok, very weak) - and the audio is a little out of sync. But the movie moves along at a surprisingly quick pace, being that there isn't THAT much killing and/or violence. There are some quality dialogue from Hess and Franco and some quality shots of the wife (I forget her name) nude. Small amounts of violence scattered throughout. (Though not nearly as much as I was hoping for)

In comparing this movie to Last House and House On the Edge, I would have to say it is a failure. However, looking as a stand alone movie without comparing it to the aforementioned films, I would say it is an enjoyable way to spend an hour and a half, even if it's just for Hess's faces and dialogue and the wife's body.

The dvd looked good for the year the film was made and the budget I'm sure it was made on. Pretty clear, not too much grain or dirt. The audio is acceptable and there are a couple extras on the disc, a trailer and a few interviews with the cast.

Story: C-
Violence: C-
Nudity: B-
Comedy (Intentional or Unintentional): B
Overall Entertainment Grade: C+

Joy Ride
Talk about movies for guys who like movies, this is one joy ride for sure!!! David Hess deserves the Best Actor Oscar for this completely ridiculous performance that makes you laugh one second, then become slack-jawed the next. For the fellas, we get bush, nice boobs and some good action.....for the chicks, you might want to rent another flick...haha.....ENJOY!!!

David Hess keeps getting UGLIER!
while not as entertaining as the acclaimed HOUSE ON THE EDGE OF THE PARK, David Hess pulls off another showcase of ugly, grimacing faces and trash talking lines. my question is, why would anyone pick up DAVID HESS as a hitch hiker? they should know better, SHAME ON THEM! and whats this rubbish about "international superstar Franco Nero"? who the HELL is this yutz? I guess oversees anyone can be a superstar, but here in America, his acting gets a big PEEEEEEE-YEEEEWWWWW!!

A Classic
Not a well known movie but a thrilling and entertaining storyline
with three excellent under-rated actors. Saw it as a teenager 20 years ago and it still kept me intertested today. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Are Justice And Revenge One And The Same?
Terrific fast paced and tightly plotted spaghetti western directed by Fernando Baldi. Franco Nero is the second greatest western actor next to Clint Eastwood. Great score and some potent shootouts. A well rounded film with an interesting thematic message on retribution and vengeance that rings true throughout. One of the best italian westerns I have ever seen.

Action-packed fun
OK. So there's no way you can claim this is a classic. The dialogue is shocking (but that's the case with most spaghetti westerns). But I'm going to give it 5 stars for sheer enjoyment value. Like the great spaghetti westerns of the mid sixties (Navajo Joe, Django, the Leone trilogy, The Hills Run Red, Death Rides a Horse), Texas Adio starts with a hiss and a roar and just keeps on going at a break-neck pace, building up to what has to be one of the loudest gunfights in western history. The action is brutal and frequent as in all classic spaghettis, although the tone and manner is more like those big boisterous American westerns of the forties and fifties. I''ve only seen this on a wiedescreen version from the UK, so I can't comment on the DVD extras. But get it for the film content alone. it's one of the best.

Nero plays Cooper
Franco Nero is surely one of the pleasures of this film-- or rather, watching Nero before he started to parody the types of roles that made him famous in the first place (as he would soon do in Corbucci's work). Nero's carefully controlled performance (indeed, he seems to be modelling his persona after a Gary Cooper, Henry Fonda, or early Burt Lancaster)lends gravity to a *very* thin plotline (sheriff Nero and his younger brother head south to finally find their father's murderer who [surprise!] turns out to be the younger brother's actual dad). Unfortunately, the generally good acting can't always hide the fact that there just isn't anything behind these stereotypes. If "For a Few Dollars More" (which, in an interview on the DVD, Nero mentions was filmed at the same time as "Adios") Leone was busy sending up the American western and consequently helping to forge a new genre, then writer/director Ferdinando Baldi was a bit too busy trying to fit every possible stock character into this "Americanized" spaghetti western--his screenplay just can't support the burden of his Oedipalized, archetypal tale. Even the superior music score seems a faithful copy of Elmer Bernstein or Max Steiner rather than a unique Morricone-like "homage". The outstanding photography (perfectly captured by this flawless anamorphic widescreen print)also helps to make up for some of the erratic pacing. In short, not a particularly inventive spaghetti Western, but fun viewing.

Episode 1 - The Franco Menace?
I keep saying this but nobody seems to know what I am going on about: This must be 'the other' big influence on the original Star Wars film! The first being "The Hidden Fortress" which Lucas has credited. But as far as I know has never credited this.

Has anybody else spotted the 'cantina' scene (pistols instead of light sabres) - or the 'old ben' character in the desert... or the son going to avenge his father's death then finding out that... well you know the rest. There's a whole bunch of other bits you'll recognise too even if you're not a Star Wars nerd. The lead character even looks a bit like Luke Skywalker!

Besides that, it's a great film with a great score and beautifully shot.

This, along with Django, Bullet for the General (Quien Sabe), Compañeros, are all glorious in their own ways (and available on DVD!) but my favourite - just because it's a film like no other is The Great Silence... BUY IT NOW!!!

An American Style Spaghetti Western !
First, a word of warning: if you think Texas Adios is another of those ultra-violent, stylized spaghetti westerns, you may be disappointed. On the other hand, if you like your westerns on the melodramatic side, you'll enjoy this movie. In fact, this one has a more "classic" feel than say "Django", as Franco Nero himself pointed out in an interview included on the DVD. Away from the always dependable Nero, the movie lacks a good, charismatic villain a la Gian Maria Volonte and the acting level is undistinguished. I did enjoy watching Nero in the mos