Description

Caligula may very well be the most controversial film in history. Only one movie dares to show the perversion behind Imperial Rome, and that movie is "Caligula," the epic story of Rome's mad emperor. All the details of his cruel, bizarre reign are revealed right here: his unholy sexual passion for his sister, his marriage to Rome's most infamous prostitute, his fiendishly inventive means of disposing of those who would oppose him, and more. The combined talents of cinematic giants Malcolm McDowell, Peter O'Toole, John Gielgud and Shakespearean actress Helen Mirren, along with an acclaimed international cast and a bevy of beautiful Penthouse Pets, make this unique historical drama a masterwork of the screen. Not for the squeamish, not for the prudish, "Caligula" will shock and arouse you as it reveals the deviance and decadence beneath the surface of the grandeur that once was Rome. ... Read more

Reviews (165)

Porno or poor movie, absolutely unique among movies
This movie is a masterpiece in that it accomplishes what it set out to do: to depict decadent, pagan Rome circa 37 AD. I cringed throughout the FIRST VIEWING, unsure what to expect, fearing revulsion in each scene. The SECOND VIEWING was better, I knew what to expect: a simple plot about unchecked power with gratuitous violence and sex. Guccione may have overstated the sex and violence but that is what you get from pagan cultures. The THIRD VIEWING reveals the movie as art: as pornographic and dangerous as ancient Rome at its worst with interesting props and sets. Maybe Guccione wanted to contrast sexual cultures of ancient Rome with his magazine culture of today: to prove that he himself and/or current exploitation of women isn't so bad after all--only sexually explicit. Generally, sex of any kind still has a bad reputation. This movie only needs be a reasonably accurate historical account (ostensibly derived from museum artifacts commonly found around the world) to maintain historical relevance. Many will hate this sort of reality, but not every movie has to "sublimate" reality according to family movie standards to please puritanical hypocrites. Face it: only a world as lost as Caligula's could crucify Christ. (Notice how persecution against the spiritually pure was greatest then?) Yes (?) Nevertheless, this movie entertains by being so over-the-top that exquisite sound and editing are not necessary. Again, this was the real Rome. Finally, if you are an adult who desires full knowledge of the depth of human depravity, then Vidal, Guccione, et al. should be praised for accomplishing such an important (by virtue of its controversy) historical film. I recommend this film to everyone to either love or hate. I love it!

A graphic depiction of a decadent time and a ruler gone mad
Caligula is a non-stop parade of perversions, gore, and stunning sets. Mix all that with a decent job of acting from some brilliant actors and you find that while you may be repulsed by some of what you see, you'll also want to see it again.

The movie graphically depicts of the rise and fall of Caligula (Malcolm McDowell), one of the most notorious of all Roman emperors. It's rather straight forward in it's portrayal of the man and his exploits. Throughout the movie you definitely get a feel for how demented Caligula became and in the end you are almost relieved when his life is ended. The major draw back to the story line is that they never really develop any of the other characters and it leaves them as shallow figures.

Keep in mind that this movie was brought to us by Penthouse so to say that there is a fair amount of nudity and sex is an understatement. There are also some rather gruesome scenes as well. I've read many reviewers use these points to put the movie down, but what they fail to realize is that Rome did have it's dark days of mass perversion. Yes, the movie did go over the top a bit, but it's not too far off from the decadence of the time. If you keep this in mind you will love the movie.

As for the DVD itself. The sound quality is much better the the original VHS version, but still leaves a bit to be desired. The picture is a bit grainy and that does tend to draw away from the breathtaking sets. I recommend the unrated version for the sole fact that the R-rated version cuts out a large chunk of the movie. It also has a nice documentary on the making of the film.

Whoops! Caligula isn't anything like Gladiator
Let me share a true story.

Ridley Scott's Gladiator is probably one of the best movies I have ever seen. You know, the film with Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, etc. Totally jazzed after seeing the epic Gladiator in the theater, my girlfriend and I rushed over to the local video store in search of another Roman-era flick.

In the New Release section was ... Caligula. (It had just come out on DVD.) We had never heard of it before. But starring Malcolm McDowell! and Helen Mirren! and Peter O'Toole!, we were certain we had found a winner.

Boy, were we surprised! Caligula turned out to be a banal porno movie albeit a lavish one (a lot of money must have been spent on this production). Beyond the overwhelming flesh and violence, the plot was simply ridiculous! My girlfriend fell asleep in 20 minutes, but I watched the whole thing (hey, it was too outrageous to stop).

Thank goodness it wasn't our first (or last) date!

I need a shower
What a horrid, disgusting little movie "Caligula" is. If anyone knows much about history, then thay know that Caligula was an insane Roman Emperor who had most inappropriate relationship with a lot of women (including a prostitute and his sister), played sick games with gladiators and political opponents, and was too self absorbed for the Imperial Senate to let rule. That story would be very interesting to tell, and to film. But this is not that movie. I guess I should have known better than to go watch a Bob Guccione movie (for those of you who are unaware of who Mr. Guccione is, he is editor in cheif of "Penthouse" magazine). But I like Malcolm McDowell, and it was about one of my favorite historical periods, so I took the chance. The plot of the movie is as I had stated above. We are introduced to Caligula while he is commiting the moral crime of incest. He is then summoned by the current Roman Emperor (played by Peter O'Toole), and sees (and approves of) the perversions and corruption of the current throan. After O'Toole's death, Caligula is appointed Emperor, and then brings the Empire through the most depraved and perverted era of human existance. The violence in the movie is done with such a combination of malice and nonchalance that it was hard to take, even for me. The many (many) sex scenes are handled much the same way, with all the sensitivity that an ape would have. "Caligula" has to be the most unpleasent movie I have ever set through and watched. There was absolutly no redeeming value to this move what so ever. The spirit of the movie is so mean that it is almost like the directors (well Guccione anyway) is daring you to like it. I have a feeling it will appeal to only the most hardcore members of the S&M lifestyle. I usually don't have a problem with some sex and violence in a movie for gratuitous sake only (look at my reveiws for the "Friday the 13th" movies); but this was too over the top, completly and pointlessly sleezy. I just couldn't stomach it. The cast is an odd assortment. Like I said, Peter O'Toole is present, which really sort of shocked me; I would have thought he would have been above such junk as this. Malcolm McDowell I can imagine in a movie like this; his Caligula is like Alex from "A Clockwork Orange" if Alex had remained unchecked. Helen Mirren looked totally lost here, and indeed she probably was. And the rest of the cast was filled out by "Penthouse" centerfolds who are subject to humiliations innumerable. I would like to see a movie that takes the material about Ancient Rome and the Emporer Caligula seriously. But not this piece of junk; not by a long shot.

One of the best movies ever produced
I first saw this movie when it came out in the movie theatre. I have been waitng since then to purchase the movie. I almost bought it on VHS about 10 years ago but wasn't prepared to pay $80 then. This is a must see. It has one of the best story lines of any movie in recent history. Oh the sex scenes aren't too bad either. ... Read more

Reviews (41)

"..OH, PA-PAHHH...SELLING A FAKE MASTERPIECE IS A 'CRIME'! "
This delightful comedy has all the delicate sparkle of a newly-opened bottle of French Champagne. Forget "My Fair Lady," forget "Breakfast At Tiffany's,"...1966's "HOW TO STEAL A MILLION" is Audrey Hepburn's best film from the 1960's. One of the last great romantic comedies of style to be filmed before the anti- establishment films of the late '60's prevailed, "How To Steal A Million" combines the elements of visual elegance (opulence even, look at the purple velvet bannisters and carpet on the golden staircase in Audrey Hepburn's Paris chateau) with sophisticated dry wit; a beautiful, romantic score with a "kooky" twist on the "French farce." Beautiful scenery, sublime chaos, near-Hitchcockian-intrigue, zippy car chases in quirky autos, and Audrey Hepburn's wacky fashions make for one of the best combinations the screen has seen so far. Ironically, the best twist in this story is that the "MILLION" Audrey Hepburn's and Peter O'Toole's characters are trying to "STEAL" is not what they 'actually' ARE stealing (on purpose). To figure that one out...watch AND ENJOY this MAGNIFICENT movie! "Oh, Pa-Pahhhh! ..."

Fantastic Movie :)
I love this movie. It has everything: romance, comedy, quirkiness and a kissing-in-a-closet scene! Audrey Hepburn was as adorable and entertaining as ever, and this was the first time that I'd ever seen a Peter O'Toole movie and he was fabulous! He's extremely funny and pretty darn spunky! You could just instantly fall in love with him, the second you saw those bewildered round blue eyes peering over the top of the "Van Gogh" painting. I didn't find this movie boring for an instant and I loved watching them steal back the "Cellini" sculpture, using, amongst other things, a bucket, a magnet and a boomerang! I think that this is now my favourite Audrey Hepburn movie. They make an extremely likable couple and their exploits in "How To Steal A Million" are engaging and engrossing.

I give 5 stars to everything I review...Don't I?
I love Breakfast at Tiffany's, but this has to be my absolute favorite Audrey Hepburn film!!! It will be released in December 2004 on DVD!!! Very good plot...cool cool cool....beautiful actress...yeah yeah yeah.....what more could you ask for???...It is a long wait, maybe you should order the video cassette used......!

You don't think I'd steal something that didn't belong to me
Charles Bonnet, Nicole Bonnet's incorrigible father, makes a living forging long-lost masterpieces and then selling them at auctions or to private collectors, such as American business magnate David Leland. Bonnet's quite a character and is an artist, albeit a forger, living the moment, but also being the artist. When he paints a Van Gogh, he IS Van Gogh. Nicole is exasperated, worried that he'll be caught and sent to prison. Charles' flippant response is "The trouble is, you're so honest." So when he authorizes the loan of the prize of his collection, the Cellini Venus, a copy of it sculpted by her grandfather which her grandmother posed for, Nicole thinks her father has flipped his wig. It is worth a million dollars--hence the title.

What Nicole dreads the most occurs when the museum announces that one Professor Bauer will be conducting tests to determine the statue's authenticity. To that end, Nicole enlists the aid of Simon Dermott, a burglar she caught in her father's house trying to steal a Van Gogh (fake, of course), to steal her father's sculpture to save him from being jailed for fraud. She doesn't tell him the real reasons, of course. Dermott thinks it's a crazy idea, given the high-tech security devices and the numerous police detail milling around the museum, but combined by Nicole's persistence and her charm, finally gives in. But just what does he hope to accomplish with a toy boomerang?

The actual heist and scenes in the museum are worth waiting for, as that's where the exciting parts are. The cramped quarters in the broom closet underlines the tension of two people scared that they'll be caught, although it furthers the budding romantic storyline. And Dermott's ingenuity is well demonstrated. As he says, "wait for normal human reaction." A particular comical touch comes in the form of a portly museum guard who has a large mustache and quite a fondness for the bottle. Oh, and that alarm is pretty annoying, so beware!

Audrey's Givenchy fashions become ridiculously funny, such as the pillbox hat and large-rimmed sunglasses in her opening scene, and even becomes a point of parody when Dermott remarks at Nicole dressed as a cleaning woman, "It Givenchy a night off." As it turned out, one night turned into thirteen years, as Givenchy was pressed back to work for Bloodline.

The last comedy Audrey acted in, How To Steal A Million, originally titled Venus Rising, was the third and last film Audrey did for William Wyler, after Roman Holiday and The Children's Hour. It was also the first time Hepburn acted with a leading man closer to her own age since Anthony Perkins in Green Mansions, Peter O'Toole being three years her junior. Her wide expressive eyes and that winning smile are put to good use here. And she does have a great line: "You don't think I'd steal something that didn't belong to me?"

Hugh Griffith is fun to watch as the rascally Charles Bonnet, with the same bulging eyes, funny hair, and goatee. O'Toole (Simon) is also an asset, suave, calm, clever, and quick with one-liners. So is Eli Wallach (Leland), an excitable and impulsive millionaire with his sights on the Venus. And Jacques Marin, who is the befuddled senior museum guard, previously appeared with Ms. Hepburn in Charade, as the chief of police.

Panned when it first came out, I'm not sure why this doesn't hold out even today. Hepburn herself acted in it because she felt indebted to Wyler, who made her what she became, but at least she had fun with O'Toole, as the two were gigglers and many takes had to be required, especially in the broom cupboard scene. It's an enjoyable and frantic caper film, a genre popularized by Topkapi six years ago.

Who Knew I'd Fal, For Someone old Enough To Be My Father?
After watching this movie I was struck by how gorgeous Peter O'Toole's blues are. He's funny and sweet and sarcastic, as well as wealthy and intelligent, in other words, any straight woman's dream. The plot is sweet and quick and very tongue in cheeck. Audrey's at her best and "gives givenchy a break" "in one of the scenes, a genuinely hilarious one that I won't describe lest I ruin the plot. And remember - boomerangs and empty whisky bottles are a lot more useful than you might think them. ... Read more

Description

Director David Lean follows the heroic true-life odyssey of T.E. Lawrence (Peter O'Toole) in this dramatic portrait of the famed British officer's journey to the Middle East. Assigned to Arabia during World War I, Lawrence courageously unites the warring Arab factions into a strong guerrilla front and leads them to brilliant victories in treacherous desert battlefields where they eventually defeat the ruling Turkish Empire. ... Read more

Reviews (278)

DVD the best looking version yet
Apart from the slightly soft, washed-out picture quality during the opening credits of the movie, the DVD edition of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is superb. The movie itself is spread onto 2 discs, with the disc break occurs just before Intermission. The Overture, Intermission, and the exit music are all played to a black screen, as per director David Lean's original wish. The picture quality looks as fresh and clean as, quite frankly, any film made in the 90s. In the dramatic shot where Lawrence appears on the far horizon after he rescued his Arab companion, the higher picture resolution of DVD makes it possible for us to notice his tiny figure whereas on VHS tapes or laserdisc it is so small it is almost impossible to see. Anyone who is serious about watching this film should get this DVD instead of any other version in order to appreciate the opulent cinematography and majestic atmosphere of this epic.

The disc has over 100 minutes of old and new documentaries and news footage about the making of the film, plus two well-designed DVD-ROM features (for Windows PC only): a interactive map showing the various journeys undertaken by the real T.E. Lawrence, and a "split-screen" feature that simultaneously plays the movie and shows you text of behind-of-scene information of the particular chapter of the movie that is playing. Since the DVD lacks a second audio commentary, being able to watch the film while reading facts about it is not a bad substitute.

The included "booklet" is a reproduction of the 1961 program given to theater goers, we are told. A nice touch: the disc case resembles Lawrence's diary in the movie.

Arabian Winner
Lawrence Of Arabia is one of the biggest and grandest films ever made. Director David Lean crafted a stunning epic that tells the tale of World War I British soldier T.E. Lawrence. Lawrence joined the various desert tribes of Arabia against the Turks and the desert battle scenes are breathtaking. Peter O'Toole is amazing as Lawrence in what would be a star-making turn for him. Omar Shariff, Anthony Quinn and Alec Guinness provide strong support, but this is Mr. Lean's film through and through. His direction provides sweeping shots of the desert vistas and gives the film its big look, but he also allows the story to flow and we really get inside the complicated head of Lawrence and see his psychological foibles. The film is beautifully transferred to DVD and it brings justice to the film that had previously suffered on video transfers. The movie was a major success as it swept through the 1962 Oscars winning Best Picture and Best Director, but Mr. O'Toole lost out on what would be the first of his of his seven unsuccessful Best Actor nominations.

Conservatives support slavery? This movie makes the case
Hi. My name is Steven Thulen. You might know me from such reviews as "Bowling For Columbine" and "My Life." I am here today to talk to you about "Lawrence of Arabia." While this may shock and astonish you, I will offer a long-winded review without actually discussing this film.

I am that good.

First, a history lesson. In the year 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. He landed in Haiti and raped the native there, then enslaved them. Later, many Africans were captured and made slaves by white people. White people continued to terrorize other races throughout the latter half of the 19th Century.

Finally, World War I took place. During that war, many people died, including white people. Some people who were too cowardly to serve in the world fled to California, where they became subpar sports writers. Later, World War II took place. In that war, white people dropped atomic bombs on Asians.

Peter O'Toole was probably gay and acted really well in this movie.

STEVEN THULEN
AUTHOR OF "JIMMY KEY: BASEBALL'S BATMAN"
(...)

The Greatest Historical Epic Ever
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is, without a doubt, the greatest historical epic ever filmed and the crowning achievement of David Lean's career. It's also the film that makes best use of the majestic desert landscape with shots of extraordinary rock formations, dunes, shimmering "mirages," and caravans making their way across seemingly endless sands.

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA tells the story of T.E. Lawrence and his adventures in the Middle East during World War I as he led the Arab revolt against the Turks. It is loosely based on Lawrence's book, THE SEVEN PILLARS OF WISDOM.

Even though there are battle scenes in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, this film is, first and foremost, a character study of Lawrence who was, by anyone's account, a fascinating figure. Even the battle scenes serve to enhance the character of Lawrence rather than detailing the horrors of war and we see Lawrence's dark, embittered side as well as his heroic one.

Although Peter O'Toole wasn't David Lean's first choice to play Lawrence (both Marlon Brando and Albert Finney were offered the part), I can't imagine anyone else in the title role.

Omar Sharif is impressive as Sherif Ali Ibn El Kharish. Prior to this film, he was a virtual unknown, but LAWRENCE OF ARABIA launched Sharif on a long career that made him instantly recognizable the world over.

Even though O'Toole and Sharif weren't well-known when they starred in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the film's supporting case is certainly stellar: Alec Guiness, Anthony Quinn, Jose Ferrer and Claude Raines.

Although I think LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is best viewed on a large theatrical screen, this doesn't mean anyone should pass up the DVD. It's just too good for that, especially the Director's Cut (but do make sure you get the widescreen edition; this film demands it).

Don't watch LAWRENCE OF ARABIA expecting to get a history lesson. Watch it to learn more about the fascinating man who was T.E.Lawrence. If you do, I can't see any way you'll be disappointed.

Read the book, then watch again in awe.
I have seen this masterpiece many many times, but only after reading T.E. Lawrence's book "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" this year do I now begin to understand. This movie is a product of two of the century's greatest minds, one an author and soldier, the other a film maker. The power of Lawrence's descriptions of the desert matches the great cinematography. No film could fully project the power of the inner thoughts of this most introspective man; for that you absolutely need the book to fill in the gaps. Many of the scenes take on a much deeper meaning once you have read the book in detail. The Columbia Tri-Star two-DVD edition is faultless, something I will always treasure. I find it hard to believe that someday a better movie could possibly be made, but we can hope against hope. ... Read more

Amazon.com

It's hard to imagine a finer Don Quixote than Peter O'Toole, who's spent most of his career with a slightly mad, dreaming look in his marvelous eyes. O'Toole's suitability for the role is tested by the Broadway treatment of Man of La Mancha, the film version of the hit stage musical. Everybody knows "The Impossible Dream," that indomitable hymn to, well, quixotic questing, and it is indeed the best of the Spanish-inflected songs. Despite the location shooting in Italy, Love Story director Arthur Hiller can't elude the stagey concept (in which Cervantes, imprisoned by the Inquisition, acts out the tale of Don Quixote for his fellow prisoners). James Coco, as Sancho Panza, is overshadowed by the film's irresistible Dulcinea:Sophia Loren, at her mature peak. (Her singing, alas, is not as ripe as her beautiful self.) If you love Cervantes for his earthy ironies, this movie will seem a curious slice of inspirational shtick. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (54)

Coulda been Better. Coulda been worse
Though I am a huge fan of both the Original Cast CD and the stage version, I will disregard them for the sake of giving this movie a fair and accurate review. This movie has a lot of poor choices and bad ideas, but it's also got a lot of good ones that make it worth while. Let's start with the bad and get that out of the way: #1 The dubbing of Peter O'Toole and Sohia Loren is poorly done. The singers (I am not sue of their names) are weak and not suited for the roles. #2 Don Quixote's make up. Poor Peter O'toole has a rubber headpiece that leaves him looking rather suprised through the movie. #3 For somereason entire songs and some resprises are completely missing from this movie. #4 The supporting cast. For the most part the supporting cast is rather unimpressive. Not that they're all that bad, just a bit disappointing. #5 The begginging drags on a bit and makes you want to fast forward a bit to get to the prison. Now for the good. #1 Peter O'Toole's Cervantes is so brilliantly acted you'll find yourself moved by his speeches. #2 Sophia Loren. A beautiful Woman and a fine actress. The scenes between her and Sancho are so sincere they'll make you laugh out loud. #3 James Coco. Too many Sancho's are rather annoying, but not this one. he's funny, cute, and you can tell how much he cares for his friend #4 This is a beautifully shot film with wonderful angles and just the right lighting to set the mood for each scene. #5 Though I do not know his name, the singing voice of Don Quioxte hits the final note of The Impossible Dream brilliantly. It's amazing. All in all this film is worth watching if you're a fan of the show. Don't exect the stage version though, this is nothing like it but give it a chance and you might really enjoy it. Don't let reviews about how it's nothing like the book scare you away. It's true, it's a loose adaptation, but it's a good one

An excellent film...one that should get more recognition!
This film is very beautiful, and has imporessed me with the song "Impossible dream". The film is well written, and I enjoyed Sophia Loren in it. It has very good restoration on the dvd. Thank you!

Full of Meaning
The acting and singing is not always that great in this film (though the songs are fun), but I love this musical. The whole plot and point of the movie is inspiring to me. To me the movie expresses that: We should see the world as it should be - filled with honesty, loyalty to doing right, care for others, and honor to God - and then to make it our quest in life to seek these things and make the world a better place. I know that others may not see the movie the same as I - but I recommend this movie, it is an inspiration to me.

DARE TO DREAM THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM!
Peter O'Toole and Sophia Loren dared to dream the impossible dream with this musical film version of "Man of La Mancha". Don Quixote set to music must have seemed like a good idea to director, Arthur Hiller at the time, but on screen it's about as painfully shocking as seeing your own mother drunk! Quixote(O'Toole) is a crazy nobleman who is an embarrassment to his respectable family. Together, with faithful sidekick Sancho Panza, he duels windmills and defends his "lady" (Sophia Loren), who is actually a [prostitute]. The songs, including "Impossible Dream" had their merits on Broadway. But on screen - and sung by actors to whom the concept of singing is clearly as foreign as the subject matter of this film - we get a cackling of melodies that is genuinely painful on the ears. All this would be forgiveable if the production values didn't herald the coming of a lavish film that, sadly, vaporizes the moment any of the principles open their mouths. But such a waste of money and talent is malicious!
TRANSFER: Presumably because this film didn't get that much play time in theaters, the DVD picture exhibits striking image quality. Colors are rich, bold and vibrant. Black levels are solid. Fine details are fully realized. There are NO age related artifacts. Digital anomalies; edge enhancement, pixelization, shimmering of fine details, are rarely present for a smooth visual presentation. The audio is 5.1, made all the more strident and shrill by the deplorable lack of musical talent belting out some truly horrific tunes.
EXTRAS: A Photo montage - as if reliving the film experience wasn't scary enough!
BOTTOM LINE: The transfer is stunning but the film is a disaster. Like "One From The Heart", "Man of La Mancha" is a misguided attempt to capture the magic of musicals of old. It fails miserably on all levels of entertainment and isn't recommended for anyone who isn't tone deaf!

Stage comes to life for the rest of us
Seems that Miguel de Cervantes (Peter O'Toole) was caught performing a politically unhealthy play during the time of the Spanish inquisition. So he gets tossed in a dungeon to await trial. There he is put on trial by the others also awaiting their trial. They threaten to burn his manuscript. He explains his story by putting on a play that involves the people listening. It is the story of Alonso Quijana who in a fever becomes a great knight (Don Quixote de la Mancha); he seeks adventure and the "impossible dream."

It is the nature of plays that when preformed one tries to get the best stage actors. In film they strive for the best know movie actors. This movie has accomplished the feat. Each actor brings the character that he/she is playing alive and just as in the movie when they transit from telling the story to being the story, we go from watching the movie to being the story. The music will stay with you long after the movie has finished. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Everything that was good about the 163-minute theatrical release of Bernardo Bertolucci's The Last Emperor in 1987 is even better in this new 218-minute director's cut. By contrast, much that was peculiarly distant and lifeless the first time around isn't really better or worse in this edition.Conclusion: the net gains are considerable if you invest time to appreciate Bertolucci's full feeling for the odd story of Pu Yi, China's final monarch.You remember the saga: taken from his mother at the age of three, Pu Yi is brought into the enclosed walls of the Forbidden City to replace the real emperor. There he becomes a pampered prisoner and hollow symbol of an older monarchy that has since given way to a ruthless, 20th century republic.With his pining loyalists beheaded or kept at bay by armed soldiers outside the City's walls, Pu Yi is tutored by an English gentleman (Peter O'Toole) and wed to a kindred spirit (Joan Chen). Eventually cast from his gated paradise, Pu Yi (wonderfully portrayed in adulthood by John Lone) becomes, by turns, a playboy, a dupe to the Japanese, and a victim of China's cultural reforms and re-education programs. This longer cut largely top-loads the film with greater reason to feel compassion for the emperor, with his often wordless sense-adventure in the mysteries that could only be known to one little boy plunged into indecipherable alien decorum, robbed of self-determination and common sense by his infinite privilege. Added scenes (including some in the political rehabilitation camp where Pu Yi is held for a decade) fill out not so much added facts as density of experience. This improved The Last Emperor is richer in soul and a pronounced sense of Bertolucci actually directing this film in the most personal and profound sense. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (103)

Masterpiece!
If you somehow missed this one, do yourself a favor and make time available in your schedule for viewing this masterpiece from director Bernardo Bertolucci! Nine academy awards, including Best Picture [1987], only gives partial credit to this magnificently epic and absolutely unforgettable true story. It is the story of Pu Yi, who at the age of 3 comes to the Imperial Dragon Throne to become the Last Emperor of China. His whole life is spanned in this film, from his childhood, to his ultimate fate as an unskilled gardener in the streets of Bejing. Throughout this film we are treated to a cinematic feast for the senses, so rich in detail and imagery, you will be compelled to see it again as soon as possible (I saw it again the very next night!). You will have felt the full range of emotions from having experienced this movie, and few others in recent memory have mesmerized me so totally in an almost 3 hour (164 min) time span. Truly one of the greatest films of all time! Masterpiece!

Bertolucci's Last Epic!
By that I mean with great respect! Bernardo Bertolucci is known for such cinematic extravaganzas as 1973's LAST TANGO IN PARIS and 1977's 1900; and to add to his credits, 1987's Best Picture winner THE LAST EMPEROR!

A film of major diversity. An Italian director (Bertolucci), a predominately Chinese cast including frequent costars John Lone and Joan Chen, British actor and seven-time Oscar nominee Peter O'Toole, an American producer named Jeremy Thomas, and distributed by an American studio, Columbia Pictures!

John Lone is the title character, Chinese emperor "Henry" Pu-Yi, who became the last Emperor of China at the age of 3, and would be the "Lord of Ten Thousand Years!" Nothing would prepare him for the change that would eventually occur when he is forced into abdication, forced into retaking his kingdom, and forcing him to attempt suicide after his arrest and capture by Chinese and Russian communist troops after World War II. Eventually, after serving his time for conspiracy, he released from prison and lives out the rest of his life in 1967 -- as a simple gardner.

Imagine. From Emperor to gardner, totally heartbreaking! Heartbreaking is the fact that it cost him EVERYTHING! His wife "Elizabeth" Wan Jung, played with grace by the gorgeous Joan Chen; his kingdom and his freedom. But, you can't simply hate the guy! He is, of course, a man who was spoiled by his servants and soldiers as a child.

The film has both an epic scope and an excellently-written character story. (Though most historians believed that the film embellished on certain facts, like Pu-Yi's homosexuality.) It is played competently by an Asian cast and a wonderfully witty Peter O'Toole, who should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor that year, as the Emperor's patient tutor Reginald "R.J." Johnston.

Needless to say, I cried at the very end of this film! I LOVED that scene between the elder Pu-Yi and a little boy who appears to be just like the Emperor as a child. And the symbolic message this film taught with the cricket in the jar, as the little boy opens the jar to reveal the insect (by then, Pu-Yi has magically disappeared). An epic film with a heart (like my PRISONER OF WAR)!

Winner of all 9 of its nominations including: Best Picture - Jeremy Thomas, producer; Best Director - Bernardo Bertolucci; Best Adapted Screenplay - Bertolucci and Mark Peploe; Best Cinematography; Best Art Direction/Set Decoration; Best Costume Design; Best Score; Best Sound; and Best Film Editing.

THIS FILM IS APPROXIMATELY: 2 HOURS AND 40 MINUTES.

But well worth it!

great film, awful dvd
I had the misfortune to buy this BEFORE I read the Amazon reviews and discovered that the DVD looked awful-a particular injustice for a film that won Best Picture. It's only 17 years old; there are films from the 30's that look great on DVD! I see though that in the U.K. they released a 2-disc version with commentary and both the original theatrical cut as well as the director's cut. I assume it's also restored and anamorphic and can only hope that we get an American version soon. The movie gets 5 stars, even at 219 minutes. The DVD gets 1 star, so that averages out to a generous 3.

Breathtakingly Beautiful, Decadent and Misconceived.
I revere every Bertoluccifs work tremendously, and this lavish film is no exception.
I was completely mesmerised by the view of the Forbidden City, beautiful period costumes of the Emperor and the Imperial family with which the director says he really cared about the historical accuracy to recreate as well as other things.
The historical accuracy is, however, not necessarily applied to the part of which Japan was involved. The foundation of Manshu-koku, (Manchukuo is the Chinese word) and the restoration of the Manchu Emperor Pfu Yi, and the alleged atrocities made to the Japanese Imperial Army, namely, gRape of Nankingh, etc. It is so because both Bernaldo Bertolucci and the producer Jeremy Thomas seem to have truly believed in the auto-biography of Pfu Yi, gFrom Emperor to Citizenh that written for propaganda purpose, and the Frank Caprafs U.S. propaganda film; gThe Battle of Chinah at their face values.
First thing is first, Chinese Communistfs gbrainwashingh undeniably exists. In the same year this film first came out, 1987, gFrom Emperor to Citizenh was re-published by Oxford University Press with new comprehensive general introduction and chapter introductions by W.J.F. Jenner, the translator of the original 1964 gdeliberately restricted editionh published by Foreign Language Press, BeiJing.
Jenner explains; gThe special consideration shown Pfu Yi and other high-ranking Manchukuo(sic), Japanese, and Nationalist officials cannot be regarded as typical of Chinese prison conditions. These were all people of potential value in winning over others in future, and political considerations saved them from the harsh justice that many lesser figures received.h And, Jenner continues, Pfu Yifs gsuccessful thought reformh which made him gusefulh and able body to work like other ordinary people, that Bertolucci praises vigorously, was, in fact, gsomething of ritualh. Pfu Yifs fourth wifefs account of his incapableness of looking after himself, even after his release of 1959, reveals some part of the truth.
His fifth and final marriage to a well qualified nurse was garranged by the Chinese Peoplefs Political Consultative Conference and the Communist Partyfs United Front Department. [cccc] He was even protected from the Cultural Revolution by Chou En-laifs intervention, and the local police kept Red Guards away. [cccc] Pfu Yifs presentation to foreigners as a living advertisement for the Peoplefs Government and the Communist Party began in 1956, while he was still in prison; and after his release he was often required to meet foreign visitors to China.h Those facts show that Pfu Yi was not successfully remolded@into an ordinary citizen after all, but made a perfect gmouthpieceh of the Communist Party Propaganda Department.

Bertolucci may never have read this revealing version of the Pfu Yifs gauto-biographyh. (In fact, the book was re-written before it was published in 1964 by Communist Propaganda Department writers based on the gconfessionsh Pfu Yi and Pfu Chieh had made in the prison as outcome of gbrainwashingh.)
But, in any case, the directorfs knowledge on the so-called gRape of Nankingh is awfully wrong.
He believes; gThe Japanese killed 300,000 Chinese people in *2 or 3 days* in Nanking.h (How did he think it was possible as the matter of reality?)
In fact, however, the *200,000* civilian refugee in Nanking were well protected by the Japanese Army and decrease of the number never recorded by the gobjectiveh foreigners of the International Committee of the Nanking Safety Zone, who, by the way, are assumed by many people including scholars as gthe witnesses of the Rape of Nankingh. They, on the contrary, recorded *increase* of the population to 250,000 within a few weeks after the capture of the city. No one saw such barbaric massacre except the Chinese propagandists and, actually, some members of the Committee who were hired by the Chinese Nationalist Party as international propaganda agents. Some ordinary Chinese people (genuine citizens of Nanking) even condemned the Chinese soldiers for the wrong-doing in Nanking.
Apart from gRape of Nankingh, the gnewsreelh in the film Pfu Yi and his co-inmates had watched is full of errors and, I dare to say, pernicious propaganda.
The planes that bombed Shanghai International Settlement and killed thousands of civilian was actually the Chinese. (Page 352 of The China Year Book 1938, edited by H.G.W. Woodhead, North China Daily News) And, the gexecutionh scene of the Chinese civilian is, I am sure, taken from the famous propaganda film by Frank Capra; gThe battle of Chinah that shows, in fact, the executioners are the Chinese Nationalist Party Army. Because of the fact the scene was gtrimmedh to ghideh the true identity of the executioners, I think Bertolucci did know they were using propaganda material.
What I do not know is their purpose. It may have been to get permission to make the film in Beijing under ghawk-eyeh of the Communist Party authorities they might have pretended to be pro-communist. In either way, this filmfs authenticity was sullied and that is very a shame.

Still, to me, this special edition is very interesting as a resource to understand the Cultural Revolution and the nature of brainwashing because it includes first-hand interviews of aging Pfu Chieh and the real life prison governor. Only one thing I would desire is subtitles, for the sake of clarification of the dialogues spoken by non-English speakers.

Good movie.... Awful DVD
Enough comments have been made on the movie so I'll just tell you my opinion on the DVD edition. It is one of the worst DVD transcription I have ever saw. I really had the impression to watch a DivX. Do I need to tell more about the resolution? Only the english soundtrack is available (I wish the movie had been shooted in Chinese or Mandarin but that's not the point) and no subtitles. The DVD presents the director's cut which makes the movie 3 and a half hour instead of 2 and a half. The theatrical version is not available on the DVD... Otherwise there is no additionnal material. ... Read more

Reviews (121)

Impeccably written and acted, this is a movie for the ages
Yes, this movie is a period piece. But this movie, adapted from a wonderful play,is at the end of the day a powerful tale of an acutely dysfunctional family. Set during the Christmas season in 12th century England, this story is powerfully scripted and superbly acted by everyone. Peter O'Toole gives his tour de force performance as Henry II, a world-weary monarch intent on maintaining supremacy and establishing his legacy. Katherine Hepburn, in what is the among the finest movie performances I have ever seen, plays his deadly foil (and oh yes, estranged wife) Queen Eleanor of Acquitaine, who is determined to thwart his plans. The issue: which of their surviving children will inherit the throne of England, and marry Alais, the sister of the King of France? The pawns in this game are Alais and the English Princes, Richard the Lionhearted (Anthony Hopkins), John (Nigel Terry of Excalibur fame), and Geoffrey. Then of course, there is the wild card, the teenage French monarch, Philip (Timothy Dalton).

In this movie you have all of the themes of familial dysfunction: the vitriol and wistfulness of an estranged couple, the frustrations of the "model" eldest child, the resentment of the neglected middle child, the eccentricities of the overindulged youngest child, a May-December affair triggered by a mid-life crisis, holiday depression, and it goes on and on. This movie is so adept at exploring these topics that it makes "American Beauty" (a good film in its own right) seem almost sophomoric.

What makes this movie stand out is the writing. There is no other movie this side of "The Godfather" that has contained such enjoyable dialogue and character development. The dialogue in this movie is outstanding ("It's not the power I feel deprived of, it's the mention that I miss"; "Give me a little peace/A little? Why so modest? How about eternal peace? Now there's a thought.")

I doubt there will ever be another movie that will be so skillful in weaving together historical material, political intrigue, and slice-of-life issues into so seamlessly. This is one of my 10 favorite movies. Please rent it, and if you can find it, buy it.

Five Stars PLUS
This is my all-time favorite movie. TEN STARS! Every actor's performance is absolutely superb. The dialogue crackles with excellence. It is so good that one could listen to it alone without the video portion. I know, I have. Whether watching of just listening, the experience sends chills up and down my spine.

My obsession with this film is partly explained by my love for English history, and the conviction that Henry II was the greatest of that kingdom's monarchs. Notwithstanding that, this film should have won that year's Academy Award in every major category. I would love to see it re-released onto the big screen.

Lion In Winter All-Time Favorite
I concur with all the reviews I have read here. This is one of two movies I can watch any time, the other being the K. B. and E.T. "Much Ado About Nothing". I am desperately seeking a Vhs copy or original for my brother, if anyone has "The Lion..." for sale, please contact me at: Suzannefoote@netscape.net

ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL !
I was a teenager when I first saw this, and it was an "old" movie then....but this film is timeless, and the performances of the actors are untouchable! The entire movie is so engrossing, with it's costumes, dialogue, storyline, and actors, that anyone who watches, young or old, will be entranced....Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn are absolutely STUNNING....not to mention Anthony Hopkins and a future James Bond....it's twenty years since I first saw this film, and I fall in love with it again every time I see it.

O'Toole and Hepburn--you can't go wrong
This is one of my all-time favorite films, and I can't say how disappointed I am that it is not available for purchase--I bet one can find any number of copies of Friday the 13th part 8 on video, but great classics get yanked. Anyhow, Katherine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole are fabulous as the famously conflicted royal couple Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitane. A really young Anthony Hopkins also stars as the (future) Richard the Lion Hearted. the film doesn't suffer from that 1960s glamorization of the medieval era--the sets and costumes are authentic. Hepburn is perfect as the strong willed and infamous Eleanor of Aquitane--and O'Toole holds more than his own as the king who married then imprisoned her. Pray that they rerelease this film--there aren't many out there that can hold a candle to it! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Exuding the charm and grace for which he seems to hold the patent, Peter O'Toole plays Doctor Harry Wolper, a renowned research biologist whose pet project is to clone his sorely missed wife, dead now for 30 years. Assisting him in fine fashion are Meli (Mariel Hemingway), a self-proclaimed 19-year-old nymphomaniac bent on capturing the affections of Dr. Wolper, and a research assistant (Vincent Spano), whose love interest is fellow student Virgina Madsen. This sweet and enjoyable romantic comedy is brought to a head when the Madsen character drops suddenly into a coma. Then Wolper's nemesis, played almost lovably by David Ogden Stiers, thwarts his cloning attempts by reclaiming the stolen equipment he's using to do so. While Dr. Wolper preaches the beauty of The Big Picture as a way of apprehending life, this one is decidedly a small picture, but in the sense of being attuned to small details, probably owing to the foreign sensibilities of Czech director Ivan Passer (Cutter's Way). The many disparate plot threads are eventually brought into harmony, though the sheer number of them may seem a jumble to many viewers. Better to let the big picture take care of itself, and content oneself with the many smaller pleasures this delightful film affords. --Jim Gay ... Read more

Reviews (26)

Get the "Big Picture" and Enjoy
A very captivating movie. Peter O'Toole is as charming as ever and the love story, in the end, will leave you crying for joy that all is right with the world. Though probably not suitable for kids, it is still a good, clean, funny movie. When the movies over, you feel like you finally get "the big picture". This movie is definitely for the hopeless romantic!

An all-time classic! Must watch!
A beautifully written and produced movie with something for everyone with a tender-heart. The music score gently swept me off my feet and into the movie. It carefully propelled me into the life of the characters. You will laugh with them, and you will cry with them. You will be forced to re-define the meaning of love. You will wonder: how far am I willing to go to bring back a loved one? You will be challenged to ask yourself: would I stand by someone I loved even if he/she was on the verge of death? This movie is worth watching. No kidding. On the side of the characters, I admire Boris (played beautifully and delicately by Vincent Spano) the most. His innocent boy-like nature will charm you. His desire to find true love and his passion to understand "the big picture" will challenge you to think in the same vein.

Eric, you are a genius!
I'm a world-class cynic, but this movie reminds me to keep my mind and heart open.

epalfreyman
This will be short. The movie is one of my favorites, ever. The romance is moving and both realistic and idealistic at the same time. Hemingway and O'Toole take a relationship that should be a joke and make it touching and believable. O'Toole is excellent as the eccentric professor. The theme of love is what holds the movie elements together and it deals with love in many manifestations. I'm not Catholic, but it was one of the few films that didn't turn Catholics into jerks, and I really enjoyed that here was a young couple trying to find love without having to disparage their faith to do it. The movie is charming, witty and touching. If you're a cynic, it won't be for you; but if you believe in love, believe in the big picture, and believe in redemption; this is a film for you.

Creative genius
I must first start out saying that this is one of the few movies that has actually brought me to tears.
Boris and Barbara's relationship struck me as the most sincere and heart wrenching love affair that I have ever witnessed. Peter O'Toole is captivating as the eccentric scientist and David Ogden-Stiers has perpetuated his typecasting with his role as the arrogant intellectual.
This is the first major movie role for Ms Hemmingway and she shows flashes of the talent that made her so famous on TV a few years later.
This is a love story with a cast of suporting characters that make it shine. It also asks some very serious questions about the medical establishment and how terminally ill patients are treated. Your hopes will be raised and your heart be broken by this movie. It is well worth the cost. ... Read more

Reviews (36)

"If You Believe in Fairies...Clap Your Hands!"
I saw "Fairy Tale - A True Story", when it had it's theatrical release and I was utterly charmed and moved by this wonderful movie. I am so glad that it has finally been released to the DVD format.The story is based upon the true life events surrounding the famous and sensational 'Cottingly fairies photographs'.The film takes place during the dark days of WWI Britain. A young Elsie Wright (Florence Hoath) is sent off to live with relatives, because her father is 'missing in action'.Elsie becomes fast friends with her twelve year old, cousin, Frances (Elizebeth Earl) both of whom seem to have a playful fascination with the subject of fairies. One day the girls borrow an old camera and go off to a local brook to take pictures. When the photographs are later developed, they show images of what seem to be real, live fairies!Through a series of events the photographs fall into the famous hands of Sherlock Holmes Writer, Sir Author Conan Doyle (Pete O'Toole) and Magician & Escape Artist, Harry Houdini (Harvey Keitel). Doyle publishes the photographs in a national magazine and causes a sensation throughout the country.Are the pictures real or did these two young girls pull off the hoax of the century? The movie puts it's own twist on the facts and attempts to come up with some very interesting answers.Director, Charles Sturridge and Screen Writer, Ernie Contreras have created a magical and moving film about the subject of faith. Sometimes if you believe in something hard enough, maby it can come true. This is found throughout the film. It applies to everything from the belief in the unseen (such as fairies, spirits of love ones), the return of a father, or even the faith needed to win a brutal war.The acting in this movie is splendid.I especially like the casting of the two girls (Florence Hoath & Elizebeth Earl). Even in the unusual situations, that occur, they both act like normal, everyday, children. Not a false note in their performances.The film's special effects are also great. They are well done and realistic (flying miniature fairies), yet do not overwhelm the story.This is greatly aided by cinematographer , Michael Coulter's beautiful photography, which highlights both the colors found in nature (the woods and brook) and the light and darkness of urban, Victorian England. All these elements come together to make a wonderful fantasy film, which I highly recommend!

"Fairytale:A True Story" absolutely wonderful-A MUST SEE!
For young and old alike,this delightful film has it all! Based on the true story of two young girls who claim to have seen fairies in England during WW1,"Fairytale:A True Story" features superb acting throughout,especially Elizabeth Earl and Florence Hoath as Francis Griffiths and Elsie Wright, whose fairy sightings stir up quite a bit of controversy throughout wartime England. Among the people caught up in the excitement are Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,brilliantly portrayed by Peter O"Toole and Harry Houdini,featuring Harvey Keitel in one of his finest performances. Paul McGann and Phobe Nicols are also wonderful as Elsie's parents. I really can't say enough about this film. Brilliantly cast and beautifully photographed,it is enchanting entertainment from beginning to end. The film score is even well worth the price if you can still find the CD! This film is not your average children's movie and I have read alot of reviews that ask weather this film was aimed at children or adults.This could very well be why it was not more of a commercial success.A pity, because I believe this film offers something for all ages.I also regret that I have not seen Florence Hoath in many other roles,save for "The Governess" and I haven't seen Elizabeth Earl at all-they deserve more recognition!

Don't Let This One Pass By
This amazing film is about two little girls who, with no photographic experience, take photos of Fairies. Kodak examines the photos and says they are untouched, but refuses to acknowledge the existance if these little sprites. In come two of my personal heroes, Sherlock Holmes, because he believes the girls, and Harry Houdini, because he dosn't believe them.
But, reguardless, if you believe, you will be facinated. If you do not believe, you might, just for a moment, question that belief.
Either way, do NOT miss this film!

HORRIBLE
if youre getting this movie for your kid, or any kid, save them the misery. i remember seeing this movie the day it came out, and it was so awful i fell asleep, along with about 5 other kids in the theater. it was by far the WORST movie i have ever seen in my entire life, even worse than that planet of the apes movie. and trust me, i have seen almost every movie that comes out. spare your kids the pain and spare yourself some money. DONT get this movie for them.

Charming little movie
This movie is a gentle story, one that the whole family can watch. Doesn't have much in the way of action, vulgarity or even scimpily dressed faires. The fairies are not a huge part of this story anyway. The story is about two young cousins who concoct a tale about some fairy sightings. This "true" story happened during WWI in England. The story also shows what happens to a small country town when they receive some unwanted publicity after the girls' photos are anonymously published in a leading magazine. It is an interesting tale, charming and cute. People who like trashy, faster movies won't like this one. ... Read more

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 (18)

A true pleaser
I didn't see this movie when it first ran on television, but recently bought the DVD and saw it for the first time. For a made for tv production, it was very well done, with an excellent and stellar cast. Ted Danson does a wonderful job as the title character, inflecting his character with the proper touch of wonder, disbelief, incredulity, and disgust at the different lands and things he sees during his travels.

I have to admit I wasn't sure what I would think when I first started to watch. I had read the book many years ago, when I was in school, and didn't recall a lot of it. However, as the story progressed, I was happy to see that the more I saw, the more I remembered of what I had read, and that the movie seemed to follow the important parts of the book. The thing I had most remembered were the talking horses, and wondered how well they would do that, but it was done well, so I have no complaints on that score.

As I said, the actors all did a remarkably good job, and the special effects were decent, making Gulliver appear to be both huge in the land of the little people, and then small himself in the land of the giants.

First rate family entertainment, and well worth seeing. Do yourself a favor and get it for your collection.

Wonderful production
I didn't know what I was going to see when I sat down to watch this movie. I had read the book many years ago when I was in high school, and didn't remember a lot of it, but certain things had stuck in my mind, and I was curious to see how they would go about matching the things I had in my imagination on the screen.

Well, I'm glad to say that what I saw was a very good adaptation of a novel into a splendidly made movie. From the acting, the scenery to the special effects, this was a well made production, especially considering that it was made as a television mini series when it was released.

Ted Danson does an excellent job of portraying Gulliver, from his wonder at some of the sights he comes upon to his ultimate revulsion of his own kind as he nears the end of his journeys. A lot of time and commitment were spent on ensuring that we are swept along with Gulliver on his travels so that we can understand his feelings.

I could go on naming the actors and actresses and how well they portrayed their parts, but I dont' want to get too redundant. If you want to see a well made movie that tells a good story without a ton of violence or a lot of swearing, then I highly recommend you pick up this movie. The price is right on it too.

Charming!
* Although video versions of Jonathan Swift's classic satire GULLIVER'S
TRAVELS have been done before, most prominently the prewar Fleischer animated
version, NBC felt the need to do a TV miniseries on the story. The result
turned out to be surprisingly interesting.

The producers did try, with little success, to impose a "personal interest"
story on top of Swift's non-stop satire, with Dr. Lemuel Gulliver (Ted
Danson) held in a lunatic asylum in reaction to the wild stories he told of
his journey, with his wife (Mary Steenbergen) trying to rescue him. That is
all neither here nor there, because it really doesn't either add much or get
in the way of the real story. Similarly, the fact that Danson's Lemuel
Gulliver isn't all that inspired isn't a problem, because even in Swift's
original he was little more than a narrator anyway.

All that said, however, this video production actually remains more true to
Swift's vision than other productions, in particular including (if in a brief
fashion) Gulliver's later voyages, such as to the floating city of Laputa.
The story is presented much as Jonathan Swift intended it -- as a scathing
and somewhat sanctimonious condemnation of human venality -- but it is still
entirely charming.

Much of this was due to excellent special effects. For example, Dr. Gulliver
reaches around the dome of a building in miniature Lilliput, and pigeons the
size of insects flutter away from his fingertips. Hwowever, short
appearances by well-known faces such as Omar Sharif and Geraldine Chaplin
(appearing lovely in Indian-style sari as the wife of the Rajah of Laputa,
complaining about the dullness of the learned and enjoying Gulliver's company
as an "ordinary unintelligent male") and the wit of Swift's story (the
intellectuals of Laputa are batted by their servants to bring their attention
back to reality when needed) also help carry it very well.

I keep wondering if anyone ever decided to come up with a new printing of
GULLIVER'S TRAVELS that uses the picture-pretty imagery from the NBC
production as illustrations. GULLIVER'S TRAVELS is a great book but a old
one, and such marvelous illustrations would help make it more accessible to a
modern audience. [Update of review from 1996.]

I know I usually give 4 stars as my best...
But this Hallmark TV production was so exceptional, I felt five was the least this sucker deserved.

This was the first of an extended series of high-toned TV movies produced by Robert Halmi Sr. for NBC and ABC that had production values previously unseen on television. In art direction and general feel, this production of the Jonathan Swift classic resembled "Amadeus" more than it resembled "The Winds Of War" or "Mother, Can I Sleep With Danger?".

And considering the choice for the titular lead, comic actor and former model Ted Danson, it could have been a real disaster. It wasn't! The man acquits himself nicely as the somewhat incredulous Lemuel Gulliver, the hero of a satirical tale told by the very cynical Jonathan Swift, Britain's answer to Voltaire.

The story features very fanciful alllusions to pettiness, classic paranoia of the delusions of grandeur variety, pomposity, a favorite target of Swift's, and superciliousness. There's the tiny Lilliputians, their opposites, the Brondignagians, the equine Houiynihms, (who, I seem to remember, were supposed to resemble giraffes as well,) and many other fantastic characters, all rendered beautifully in this, the first of a distinguished list of first rate classical adaptations shown on NBC in the late 90s.

The cast list is unbelieavble...people who had NEVER been on TV before, like Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, James Fox, Isabelle Huppert, Geraldine Chaplin (hello!), Shashi Kapoor and John Gielgud were sprinkled all through it. The sets are incredible and acting superb. If either this or the later "The Odyssey" had been released as feature films, they would have garnered significant praise for production values and acting, as well as fidelity to their sources, (despite some serious key scene omissions,) and probably would have generated respectable box office.

Special effects, cinematography and scene direction made this a good bellwether for a raft of films unlike any TV had ever seen since the fifties, when top quality productions of plays by well known playwrights peppered prime time schedules.

The general take on the story treats the main character, Lemuel Gulliver, as someone just about everybody, including his wife, for a while, thinks is certifiably insane, as he keeps rambling on about the fantastic lands and people he has supposedly seen. Most of the "real world" story, in fact, takes place in either an asylum, where he has been committed, or a courtroom, where his case is being heard.

It's obvious to the viewer, too, that Lemuel has dreamt all of this, because these places couldn't possibly exist. However, a real curve ball is thrown in the end when a truly diminutive sheep is found and provided as evidence that at least proves Lilliput existed.

Mary Steenbergen went on after this, ( a lot of the actors were recycled in future productions of this type by Halmi,) to portray the wife of Noah in a gawd-awful NBC production of "Noah's Ark", a production that mated the story of Lot and Sodom & Gomorah, (sans Abraham,) with the story of the flood. There was a ridiculous dream sequence inserted in this disaster that showed that Halmi's production crew was getting a WEE bit too satisfied with itself as Steenbergen, especially, spoke bubbleheaded lines that seemed WAY out of place for the setting of the story.

She should have stuck with 18th century satires! :-)

Excellent film adaptation true to a great Novel
I admit to being skeptical, but tried this DVD based upon other reviews. I've seen a number of film adaptations of Swift's intelligent & scathing 18th c. satire which routinely treat the story as a children's adventure novel. Ted Danson is a wonder; his acting is superb; the script is excellent. On the whole, don't be misled to think this a fluff production by star-studded cast; many are amazing. The novel is treated with respect & the ideas area conveyed with integrity. A must for adults & children. My daughter who is 12 was pulled in & kept interested by the great acting & scenery - to learn & watch the story. This is the stuff that great novels & films are all about. ... Read more

Description

Peter O'Toole gives a tour-de-force performance as Jack, a man "cured" of believing he's God-only to become Jack the Ripper incarnate. Based on Peter Barnes' irreverent play, this darkly comic indictment of Britain's class system peers behind the closed doors of English aristocracy. Insanity, sadistic sarcasm, and black comedy-with just a touch of the Hollywood musical-are all featured in this beloved cult classic directed by Peter Medak. ... Read more

Reviews (29)

A unique and hilarious black comedy
The Ruling Class remains a unique film in many ways. Totally iconoclastic, brilliantly concieved and executed, original in style and tone from start to finish, it is both hilarious and touching in its story of the 14th Earl of Gurney (played by Peter O'Toole) who believes himself to be Jesus Christ. The picture painted of the British upper classes is mercilessly biased but the comedy that is mined from their shallowness and greed is as funny as when the film was made. O'Toole's performance is delightful. He gets to do a little bit of everything in this film, including sing and dance. The cast of supporting players is brilliant, especially Alister Sim as a tongue tied Bishop trying to perform a wedding between 'Christ' and the bride picked for him by his family so they can control his fortune. Other standouts include such characters as 'The Master in Lunacy', who decides that the Earl is sane because he has the right school pretensions. The pivotal twist of the plot comes in the 'healing' sequence when the Earl is transformed from 'Christ' into 'Jack'. Unfortunately, the Jack in question is Jack the Ripper. This new persona seems so much more sane, but violently less so.

This is a strange concoction but never fails to amuse. Everything about it continues to be fresh because nothing about it has ever been copied. It is a one of a kind film that deserves a place in any serious video collection of great, original movies.

o'tooles tour de force
the main flaw of this film is that it overstays its welcome. that said, o'toole delivers one of his most powerful over the top performances.
this is a true cult classic and, thanks to criterion, it has gotten the remastering it deserves.
not for the closed minded to be certian, but a challenging and rewarding comedy that delivers and jolts.

A Fantastic DVD of a Fantastic Film
I will eschew the plot summary which ye will find in other reviews above . . . as well as a few spoilers!

This is one of my favorite films that examines a number of issues, particularly what is "acceptable" in a religion. It is extremely well-cast, with Peter O'Toole turing in one of his best performances. It is a pleasure to watch Alister Sim--the best Scrooge ever--as a befuddled Anglican bishop. Fans of the Blackadder will enjoy seeing "Nursey" as a village busy-body who wishes to bring back flogging.

The DVD is a wonderful treatment. The US release--and subsequent videos--lacked some scenes lost for length. This is a film that is based on a play, and every character had a soliloquy--until someone cut them! Here, finally is the complete film. Visually, it is beautiful.

A big suprise is the "goodies." The running commentary includes the director, Peter Medak, the playwright/screen writer Peter Barnes, and even Peter O'Toole. It is an excellent addition to the movie rather than voices blathering about themselves.

The insert also has a nice essay from a British film professor.

Fans of the film need this DVD.

A review above complained it was not "funny." How one cannot laugh at Harry Andrews in a tutu, military garb, hanging himself in order to [CENSORED--Ed.] I do not know?! However, it is NOT a comedy. It is a play that has social satire, some comedy, a fair amount of farce and darkness and tragedy.

The only warning that I give is the DVD back-notes reveals some spoilers! If you have NOT seen the film or stumbl'd upon them in some reviews above, make sure you do not read the back!

the brother of Sherlock Holmes!, you illeterate oaf!
wow, this is quite honestly the weirdest(not to be confused with strange, that is reserve for clockwork orange) movie i have ever seen, and ive seen some weird ones, but nevertheless, very very funny but make sure you dont have some apahty for dark british humor, imean honeslty its a fanstatic film and hsa some great songs(everybody do the varsity slag!) its very very pricey though, so keep in mind to have an open mind nad very liking to british humor, i am very proud it is in my collection though, deffinatly worth price

Decent, and very British
I wasn't sure what to expect of this movie. The concept is brilliant: an aristocrat who believes himself to be Jesus, and is "cured" of this mania only to become Jack the Ripper--with musical numbers interspersed throughout. Genius idea. The movie is ripe for a modern re-make.

Unfortunately, a lot of the British-isms and dated style of humor can make the movie seem awfully corny in places. And I agree with the reviewer who mentioned a dragging pace at many points. The musical numbers aren't quite as funny as they could/should be, I thought. The funniest moment for me was when we see Peter O'Toole as Jesus for the first time, absurdly made up, commanding the people on his estate to bow down before him while he delivers a pompous monologue to the Heavens. And there are a few classic, great lines here and there. (Society Lady: "When did you first realize you were God?" Jack/Jesus: "When I realized that every time I was praying I was really talking to myself.")

The movie seems dated, I have to admit. In all, I have mixed feelings about it. I found myself wishing the whole ariistocrat-as-Jesus angle could have been played up more. The movie is definitely worth seeing, but don't let all the ecstatic, glowing reviews by the hardcore cult fans prepare you for some unbelievably, otherworldishly hilarious comedy. It's best to go into it with low expectations and be pleasantly surprised by what does work.

Like I said, a re-make of this in the right directors' hands would be marvelous. The concept is brilliant. The execution could have been better. That said, rent it before you buy it and see if it's for you. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Augustus is equal parts history lesson and soap opera, and thoroughly engaging at all levels. Peter O'Toole plays Octavius/Augustus, heir to his doomed uncle Julius Caesar's command of the far-flung Roman empire. Surviving an assassination attempt and struck by news of the death of his old friend and ally, Agrippa (Ken Duken), in the same day, Octavius waxes nostalgic about his youthful exploits in Caesar's army (Benjamin Sadler plays the young Augustus in flashbacks) and his unprepared immersion in the deadly politics of the Mark Antony (Massimo Ghini) era. More immediate are Octavius' problems trying to stave off conspiracies by his wife Livia (Charlotte Rampling) to set up the emperor's stepson, Tiberius (Michele Bevilacqua), as heir, and talk his dutiful daughter Julia (Vittoria Belvedere) into a marriage she doesn't want. Roger Young (Jesus) directs this highly watchable costume drama, and O'Toole's golden presence makes the ancient intrigues tragically human. --Tom Keogh ... Read more