Amazon.com

How did Bob Rafelson, the director of small-scale American studies such as Five Easy Pieces and The King of Marvin Gardens, find himself helming an old-fashioned adventure story such as Mountains of the Moon? Whatever the reasons, Rafelson invested this 1990 epic with passion and professionalism. The hero is one of the greatest British explorers of the 19th century, Sir Richard Burton (played by Patrick Bergin), a fascinating figure and a man out of time: a modern in the Victorian era. Mountains of the Moon is primarily concerned with Burton's trek into East Africa to discover the source of the Nile, accompanied by fellow adventurer John Hanning Speke (Iain Glen). Rafelson is at least as interested in the tricky psychological jockeying between the two men, as he is in the grueling conventions of the adventure movie, but he delivers well on both counts. The brawny Bergin is sensational in a role that should have made him a star, but didn't (though he had a shot, menacing Julia Roberts in Sleeping with the Enemy); the film disappeared quickly. Perhaps audiences were put off by the lack of marquee names and confused by the title, which refers to a piece of African landscape. Providing solid support are Fiona Shaw (another should-have-been star), Richard E. Grant, and Delroy Lindo, as an African warrior. A very satisfying excursion into the National Geographic pith-helmet genre. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Description

British stage and screen legends Alan Bates (Gosford Park, Women in Love) and Sinéad Cusack (Stealing Beauty) star in an irresistible blend of romantic comedy and mystery. He is a professor obsessed with word games who is forced into early retirement; she is a policewoman suspended from the force for voicing suspicions about a superior officer. They team up to find a missing person and wind up discovering much more. Traveling through some of Britain’s most glorious countryside from South Wales to the Orkney Islands, they uncover a web of nefarious activity, dodge an aerial attack, and exchange some of the wittiest banter since Hepburn and Tracy.

Written by Alan Plater (The Barchester Chronicles, The Last of the Blonde Bombshells) and also featuring Bill Paterson, Mollie Sugden, and Miles Anderson, this story proves once again that with mystery and love—getting there is more than half the fun.

Amazon.com

If Franz Kafka had been an animator and film director--oh, and a member of Monty Python's Flying Circus--this is the sort of outrageously dystopian satire one could easily imagine him making. However, Brazil was made by Terry Gilliam, who is all of the above except, of course, Franz Kafka. Be that as it may, Gilliam sure captures the paranoid-subversive spirit of Kafka's The Trial (along with his own Python animation) in this bureaucratic nightmare-comedy about a meek governmental clerk named Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce) whose life is destroyed by a simple bug. Not a software bug, a real bug (no doubt related to Kafka's famous Metamorphosis insect) that gets smooshed in a printer and causes a typographical error unjustly branding poor Sam as a miscreant.

The movie presents such an unrelentingly imaginative and savage vision of 20th-century bureaucracy that it almost became a victim of small-minded studio management itself--until Gilliam surreptitiously screened his cut for the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, who named it the best movie of 1985 and virtually embarrassed Universal into releasing it. This DVD version of Brazil is the special director's cut that first appeared in Criterion's comprehensive (and expensive) six-disc laser package in 1996. Although the DVD (at a fraction of the price) doesn't include that set's many extras, it's still a bargain. --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (302)

the definitive look at this masterpiece
Brazil is, arguably, Terry Gilliam's crowning achievement. Originally called 1984 1/2, this film was embroiled in an infamous battle to be distributed. The studio didn't like Gilliam's version and cut together one of their own. Gilliam went to the press and got the L.A. critics behind his movie and finally shamed the studio into releasing his version.

Criterion's 3-DVD set documents the struggle Gilliam went through to get his film shown. Disc One contains his cut of the film with an informative and entertaining commentary by the director. The second DVD contains the bulk of the extra material. Not only is Gilliam's struggle documented but also various aspects of the production are examined -- including the screenplay, costumes, art direction, etc. The final disc contains the studio's ....py cut with a film historian's audio commentary documenting why this version sucks.

Once again, Criterion comes through with an exhaustive look at an important film of modern cinema. Brazil is a brilliant satire of a dystopian society run amok by pointless bureaucracy. Anyone who has worked a souless job in an office will immediately empathise with the protagonist's plight. Like any great work of science fiction, Brazil offers more questions than answers -- not everything is wrapped up neatly, instead the viewer is left questioning certain aspects of our modern society. Great stuff.

Great movie about dreams and hope
Brazil, despite the science fiction, social commentary and surrealism, is at it's core a film about a man who trapped by the mundanity of life, imagines himself in a more fantastic world.

Jonathan Pryce stars as a tiny unimportant member of a vast hyper-capitalistic society. Life is cold and dreary for everyone. All his spare time is spent dreaming of magical romantic worlds and the beautiful woman who lives there. One day, a simple beaucratic mistake causes a monumental disaster. Not that anyone cares... they just don't want to be blamed. Sent to solve the problem, or maybe to be a scapegoat, Pryce accidentally meets the literal woman of his dreams. As he pursues her, he brings suspicion on himself of being a terrorist (the scourge of the government), and his dreams begin to invade his waking thoughts.

A suprising list of talent lend themselves to the film and is written, minus Kafka and Orwell themes, by Monty Python's Terry Gilliam so expect some obvious humor and much biting satire throughout. Depressing and magical without losing it's hope, any person who can identify with the main character should find themselves entranced.

Despite being made in 1985 the special effects prove to be suprisingly effective (although easily noticed). I personally think this movie is the second best Science Fiction film, 2001 being first, and the best 1984 type movie ever made.

Much loved, but I never got it ...
This is a cult classic, but I find it over-rated. It delivers the zaniness, surreality and crazy camera work, but the film has no interest in its characters -- you'll feel nothing for them, and for me that leaves a big hole in the center of the movie.

For a movie with a similar feel but considerably more heart, try Barton Fink instead. Or even Amelie.

Boring
This movie is really disappointing and boring.

a bizzare and frightening film
If you enjoy futuristic Sci-Films then I would heartily reccomend this, as it presents a number of interesting and imaginative concepts.
The setting is the far future.The world is a polluted wasteland. A strange network of wires covers the ceiling of every room.
A corporation-government, Central Services, controls all trade enterprises. Any who indulge in the businesses they control (which are almost everything) without the proper paperwork are labeled terrorists. So, unfortunately, are those who criticize Central Services' inane policies.
Their Cops, clad in spacesuits that look like they came straight out of David Lynch's adapatation of "DUNE", frequently capture these "terrorists" to be interrogated, tortured, and/or executed with bizarre devices.
The "food" eaten by the characters in this film is premasticated garbage, into which are stuck pictures of what the characters believe they are eating.
The rich and powerful under Central Services rule get daily facelifts and parties,
and they strike the viewer as stupid and frightening.
The plot of the film concerns a daydreaming young paper-pusher (Jonathan Pryce) for Central Services' Ministry of Information who discovers a glitch in some paperwork that led to the wrongful arrest and unfortunate execution of Archibald Tuttle, who was mistaken for Archibald "Harry" Tuttle (Robert DeNiro), who has fallen out with the law because of his entrepeneurial fix-it man services.
Soon, a truck-drivin' gal(Kim Greist) who witnessed Archibald Buttle's wrongful arrest pleads for his release to the Ministry of Information, who label her a terrorist.
Later, The young MOI employee notices her picture in the lobby of his workplace, and decides to pursue her. He saves her from being arrested, and, in doing so, is labeled an enemy of society, which eventually leads to his tragic end at the hands of his friends(Ian Holm and John Palin).
This frightening look at the evils of technology, corporations,wrongful arrests, and totalitarian governments is not to be missed by any except the very young(if it gave ME nightmares, imagine the effect it would have on a seven-year old boy!) . ... Read more

Amazon.com

It's easy to stay glued to all 390 fascinating minutes of this 1981 television series, which concentrates, in great detail, on an agonizing decade in the political life of Winston Churchill. Ousted in 1928 from his powerful position in Britain's Conservative government, Churchill (Robert Hardy) assumes--for the first of many times to come--that his career is over. But a pattern emerges: Churchill, the maverick defender of Britain's empire, is pressed back into service only to be attacked for unpopular views about the King's abdication and Hitler's threat. Time and again Churchill is banished, but this sprawling drama provides much colorful detail about the great man's trips to America (what a sight: Churchill in Monument Valley), his passion for his family, and his prescient drive to complete a historical tome before 1939--the year he becomes Prime Minister. Hardy is superb; excellent support comes from, among others, Eric Porter as Neville Chamberlain. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Great movie, poor picture and sound quality - NO subtitling!
...This is a Churchill movie that anyone interested in British WW2 history MUST see. Hardy is just superb as Winston Churchill. For a none-English native, though, it is absolutely incomprehensible how the producers could put this movie out without subtitling at least in English! The sound quality is not good (the picture quality far from neither), and for a none- native English too much is lost in the sometimes somewhat muffled colloqial performance, not to speak of the simple fact that Churchill's famous whisky voice would surely benefit by subtitling...However, it is a must-see all the same!

Wonderful Story Overcomes Horrible Transfer
I don't know which is worse, the sound or the picture. It's astounding that the copyright holders of this remarkable series was so hard up that they had to hand "The Wilderness Years" over to Lance Entertainment. This sorry outfit gives Madacy a run for the money as the worst mutilator of film since nitrate.

Robert Hardy is the most convincing imitator of Churchill I've seen. He is wisely depicted here with his foibles - his rashness and ineptitude in areas beyond his ken, such as the stock market and raising offspring - as well as strengths. And it's a treat to see Siân Phillips and Tim Pigott-Smith supporting.

Here's a story well-told, with interesting locations, too, from Churchill's home at Chartwell, in UK, to the Arizona desert. For anyone with an appreciation of the titanic events that shaped World War II, "The Wilderness Years" provides invaluable background, not only for Churchill as a major player, but for the others - Baldwin, Beaverbrook, Chamberlain, as well as movers and shakers with unfamiliar names, like the Sir Samuel "Iago" Hoare, who manipulated and connived on behalf of appeasement, and Horace Wilson, Chamberlain's oily doorkeeper.

Despite the vandalism of the print by Lance Entertainment, I give 5 Stars because "The Wilderness Years" is such an indespensible document that demands viewing.

A Brilliant Story Well Told
While much has been made of A Gathering Storm, and Albert Finney's splendid portrayal of Churchill in that riveting film, Robert Hardy's Churchill in The Wilderness Years is as good, and more consistent, than Finney's, and this mini-series is better history. Hardy was arguably too young to play Churchill here, but his acting is superb, and one forgets the age disparity. This DVD--originally a TV mini-series from 1983, and the picture quality suffers for it--is engrossing, and with more time gives a fuller picture of the 1930s, up through the declaration of war in 1939. While A Gathering Storm omitted some things (and some people, with Neville Chamberlain unforgiveably absent), The Wilderness Years explores much more, and is much more accurate. A Churchill fan would need both DVDs, but if you are required to choose only one, this is the one to get.

Excellent Content; Horrible DVD Reproduction
I purchased this for my father who has studied Churchill's life and writings for many years. He really enjoyed the HBO movie "The Gathering Storm", so I thought I would purchase this since so many recomended it.

While the drama is not quite as gripping as in "The Gathering Storm" the content and depth of this series is excellent (worthy of 5 stars). Unfortunately the reproduction of this series onto DVD is sub-par. In fact it is the worst rendering to DVD I have ever seen or heard. I mention "heard" because we can hardly understand some of the dialogues do to poor sound quality. Either it is too muffled or at times too loud and distorted to make out. Given that this film is made up soley of scenes with a lot of dialogue this is a major annoyance and hence the 3 star rating.

Perhaps the best television drama ever produced
Anyone with an interest in Churchill MUST VIEW this series. It is history at it's best. I viewed this series and taped in on VHS and treated myself over the years by rewatching it. In fact, based on this series I named my son after Churchill, with Winston as his middle name.

In short I can't say enough about the quality of this series. It will hold your attention for every minute, educate you on the main events and political drama affecting England in the 30's, and more importantly, give you the insight into how the politcal elite can lead themselves to craven acts of national destruction AND, how one man standing on principal can still save a nation from itself. The lessons here are timeless.

I would also echo the sentiments of the other reviewer who noted that this is far superior to "A Gathering Storm" which, though a good effort,is cartoonish in its characterization of Churchill, compared to Robert Hardy's performance. Hardy deserves the equivalant of the oscar for "Best Televison Performance of the 20th Century".

Get it, then watch it at least once a year. Each time, you'll come away with new insights, and new respect for what Churchill accomplished, and sacrificed, to save England from those willing to choose shame over war, only to get both.

Terry Martin ... Read more

Description

An elderly religious fanatic whose son was killed in an auto wreck several years ago kidnaps her dead son's former fiancée and keeps her locked up in the basement in order to cleanse the girl's soul, making it fit to be reunited with her son in heaven. Stars Stefanie Powers (TV’s "Hart to Hart") and screen legend Tallulah Bankhead in her last film. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

DELICIOUSLY CAMPY
DIE DIE MY DARLING was one of Hammer's diversions into "psychological horror", and it is a very interesting and well-made film. Scripted by the talented Richard Matheson, the story unfolds lazily, although we know the minute Stefanie Powers meets the irrepressible Tallulah Bankhead, the fun is about to start. Bankhead's remarkably smoky voice propels this fanatical old woman, and her performance is remarkably restrained; I think she did better in some ways than Bette or Joan in their "horror" movie days. I actually came to hate the woman with each ridiculous dependence on her Biblical reasoning for tormenting Powers. Powers herself does an excellent job in going from the sweet young thing to the venomous hussy who wants to tell Bankhead exactly what kind of girl she is. Yootha Joyce as Anna, and Peter Vaughan as her lecherous husband Harry, are very good in supporting roles; Donald Sutherland's idiot role demonstrates what a versatile actor he was going to be.
The film's opening credits, with the cat chasing the mouse, and the unusually bouncy jazz score, indicate that what's about to happen is being done tongue in cheek; yet the movie has a dark underlying evil that crescendos into a descent into madness.
This is a good, sturdy film.

As It Says In The Bible, I Must Kill! Kill! My Darling!
Stefanie Powers is Patricia "Pat" Carroll, a beautiful young american woman visiting England with her fiance. While there, she decides to keep a promise she'd made to her late boyfriend's mother (Tallulah Bankhead) and pay her a visit. Bad idea! You see, mum is actually a hyper-religious maniac who's been going increasingly bonkers in her moldering old mansion. Pat arrives and the fun begins. Mrs. Trefoile (mum) is distressed by Pat's attitude and worldly ways. She had figured that Pat would remain a devoted "wife" to her dead son, saving herself for him in heaven. Pat does not measure up to mum's expectations at all! So, with the help of her housekeeper Anna (Yootha Joyce) and Anna's lecherous husband Harry (Peter Vaughan), mum sets out to "save" Pat by kidnapping, starving, and torturing her with hours of monotonous bible teachings. When Pat finally stands up to her, mum pulls a gun on her! Now, THAT'S some old time religion! Pat's clothes are shredded, her make-up destroyed, and her jewelry confiscated. Mum has a "simpler" life in store for her. Thankfully, Pat is not a complete mush, and does try to escape many times. Her character is fairly realistic and sympathetic. Mrs. Trefoile is of course the demented center of this story. Her hidden basement room contains the truth of her existence. What's in there? Why does she go there late at night? DIE! DIE! MY DARLING! is a tense cat and mouse flick with some nice sharp turns. I loved every minute! Check out Donald Sutherland as the gardener! Highly recommended...

Camp classic comes to DVD
This is a film that is great fun if you like Tallulah Bankhead and camp. Bankhead didn't make very many films, especially in her later years, but she did this one basically for the money and because other distinguished actresses (Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Olivia de Havilland, etc.) were making horror films.

In "Die, Die, My Darling", a Hammer production (originally titled "Fanatic" in England where it was filmed), Tallulah plays a religious zealot who cannot get over the death of her son. When her son's former fiancee (Stephanie Powers) arrives to pay her a visit, she becomes more and more enraged when she finds that Powers has participated in all kinds of ungodly things like falling in love again and heaven forbid, wearing make-up! She then traps Powers in her attic where she torments her. It's all quite over the top, offering a minimum of suspense, but it is, nevertheless, quite entertaining.

Bankhead filmed the movie just a few years before she died. She was plagued by a number of health problems at the time (most of them caused by too much drinking and smoking). She wears no make-up, her hair was dyed gray and put in a bun and there were many harsh, unflattering close-ups. Before the film was released, it was shown to Tallulah and a small audience of her friends. After her first scene, she stood up and told everyone, "Darlings, I must apologize for looking older than God's wet nurse."

"Die, Die, My Darling" is a hoot to watch. The role had to have been 180 degrees from Tallulah herself, but she pulls off the role flawlessly. She delivers Bible verses in her sonorous voice in a rapid-fire manner. Her double takes, as in response to Powers appearing in red dress and red lipstick, are hilarious. It was Tallulah's only appearance in a color film and she is practically unrecognizable except for her distinctive voice, which gives her away.

It is great to see this film restored to dvd. The picture has never been sharper - you can actually see a fly buzzing around Tallulah in one scene where she is lying on her bed! The film featured a muted color palette and they appear true and not saturated. The sound (Dolby Digital monaural) is decent for a film over 40 years old. The extras are a disappointment though and feature only three trailers ("Homicidal", "Strait Jacket" and "Mr. Sardonicus").

Remember: NO Lipstick!
I enjoyed the powerful performances turned in here by Miss Powers and Miss Bankhead. Bankhead appears to be having a ball as a bible-spewing nut case, who proceeds to torture the daylights out of her deceased son's ex-fiancee, after she comes for a friendly visit. The beautiful Stefanie Powers is perfect as the tormented prisoner of the wicked old battle-ax. A very good ending as well. A movie well worth your viewing time. Keep an eye out for Donald Sutherland as a dim-witted servant.

Holy Zealot!
Die! Die! My Darling! is a great movie. The basic story is that this chick (Stefanie Powers as Pat) goes to pay her belated condolences to the mother of a man she was once engaged to (mother being Tallulah Bankhead as Mrs. Trefoile), but who had died. The mother..., decides to hold Pat captive after learning about her plans to marry (or remarry, since Mrs. Trefoile considers Pat and her son to be married in the eyes of the lord). Sinner, repent! So, Mrs. Trefoile keeps Pat a prisoner, on a diet of scripture and not much else. Bankhead is great as a fundamentalist who is so fundamental she's in a religion all her own! If you want your supper in her house, you better get down on your knees, bow your head and sit through about 20 verses of scripture. And then, if you're lucky, you'll get a miniscule portion of some bland concoction. Remember, the Lord wants us to lead simple lives!

In light of her personal life, the fact that Tallulah Bankhead plays a religious fanatic is just so ripe with irony. Her performance, while not up there with the old hag horror movies of Crawford and Davis, is still pretty solid and surprisingly not as campy as I expected. Yeah, if you didn't know who Tallulah was, you might not detect the booze-drinking (even on the set of this film), ...lady that she was. Also of note is a young Donald Sutherland as a mentally handicapped servant at the Trefoile house. ... Read more

Description

A quiet English shopkeeper, a secret spy for the Russian Embassy, is ordered to plant a bomb that will wreak havoc on the British public. Starring Bob Hoskins, Patricia Arquette and Gerald Depardieu. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Heavy-Handed and Sluggish Conrad Adaptaion (See 'Sabotage')
'Secret Agent' (1996) stars very strong cast -- Bob Hoskins (also ex-producer), Patricia Arquatte, Christian Bale, Gerard Depardieu, Jim Broadbent, Eddie Izzard, and uncredited Robin Williams.The music score is Philip Glass, and the director is Christopher Hampton, who made 'Carrington' before this one.So the film should be better than average classic novel adaptaions, which it isn't.This Conrad adaptation is sluggish, not knowing what it really wants to show.

One great disadventage is that we have seen the adaptation of this Joseph Conrad novel before -- Hitchcock's 'Sabotage' (1936) starring Sylvia Sydney.(Not to be confused with the same director's film named 'Secret Agent.')This version, not perfect to be sure, knows what it is doing, for the master of suspence turned it into a spy story with a thrilling sequence about a bomb hidden in a bag carried by an innocent boy.

However, the new version, though it is more faithful to the original novel, and proud of its great cast, has no sense of what it really is doing.The film opens quite promisingly, with Bob Hoskins' Verloc, a shopkeeper in 1890s London, who actually is a spy in the pay of Russian embassy.He is summoned by the Russain ambassador (very good Eddie Izzard), who tells Verloc to demolish one symbolic building in Britain with a bomb, the building which represents 'time' (you know where).

So far, interesting.But as if to imitate the original novelist's slow moving narrative, the film unwisely introduces many flashbacks that tell us the outcomes of the botched plans.Yes, Conrad uses (intentionally or not, I do not know) the confused narrative that seems to have lost the sense of coherent chronological order (read 'Nostromo').Hampton not only employs this flashback method once, but twice (!) to show how Mrs. Verloc (miscast Arquatte) meets her fate.So irritating.

The production designs are excellent, the acting is good all in all -- Jim Broadbent as police inspector and Robin Williams as The Professor around whose body a bomb is strapped are memorable among them -- and Philip Glass provides good socre.However, all is wasted or misused, and even Glass's music starts to sound repetitious.The film uses it when there is no need, and that is really annoying.

I like the atmosphere, and I don't think Joseph Conrad is a difficult material to make a film out of it (see 'Victory' made the year before).But Christopher Hampton as director, though good as screenwriter, seems to have killed the material with heavy-handed direction.And its characters that should be more interesting with a smooth story, too.

Bomb's the word
I actually made it to the end of Christopher Hampton's disastrous adaptation of Conrad's atypical novel, but I envy the wisdom of those who gave up halfway. It's yet another in the long line of failed Joseph Conrad adaptations, and quite possibly the very worst. This German-British co-production was an infamously troubled picture that spent a long time on the shelf before being barely released, and it's easy to speculate that much of that time was spent in re-editing. If that was the case, it certainly didn't improve the end product.

Conrad is an incredibly cinematic writer at times, but for some reason the film adaptations have all too often been staid, lifeless and overly verbose, and this is certainly a classic example. Where Ridley Scott gave a visual feast to represent the failure of the Napoleonic dream in The Duellists and Richard Brooks managed an relatively intimate epic adventure with Lord Jim, Hampton merely manages a way below average Masterpiece Theater TV adaptation that is short on real cinematic flourish, opening and closing shots aside. The script never comes to grips with the web of daily betrayals on the domestic front that are mirrored by political and official ones, nor does it ever reflect the self-loathing with which Conrad filled the novel (the Verloc family is a grotesque parody of his own). In fact, all it does is hit story points while leaving character and subtext barely touched.

Hampton's direction is even worse. Despite paring down the narrative and losing whole characters, he never builds up a sense of momentum. Shots seem awkwardly timed - not disastrously so, but just never quite right - and his handling of what should have been an impressive cast (bar the typically disastrous Patricia Arquette) extremely poor. The three lead performances are particularly anodyne. Hoskins is invisible in all the wrong ways as Verloc in an utterly inconsequential performance, Christian Bale never once convinces as the retarded Stevie and the bafflingly prolific Arquette once again proves that while she may have worked with some of the top directors in the business, she's managed to learn absolutely nothing from the experience. To be fair, the performance is not her usually utterly inept zombie impersonation: she has actually risen to the level of merely being very bad, her passable cockney accent almost giving the vague illusion that there might be vague signs of life somewhere under her clumsy line readings. But as a tragic heroine, she is indeed pitiful in all the wrong ways.

Robin Williams is almost successful in his dialog scenes as the Professor, the one part of the film where Conrad's nihilistic vision of the impossibility of combating political violence remains. His scenes in the restaurant with a gaunt Gerard Depardieu (a long way from his best here) have real power, but this is dissipated by those scenes that require more that stillness. When he moves through the streets of Soho with his hand on a bomb trigger, his stern demeanor frankly looks comical. Nor is he helped by his alleyway encounter with Inspector Heat, played all too broadly by Jim Broadbent in full "'allo, 'allo, 'allo, and what do we 'ave 'ere?" mode. Comparisons with his corrupt copper Slater in the Britcom Only Fools and Horses are sadly unavoidable. Nor does Hampton's obsession for casting comedians end there, with Eddie Izzard's naturally hesitant demeanor making him an awkward presence as the ambassador who triggers the plot (Germanic in the novel, Russian here). He almost manages, but menacing bureaucracy is beyond him.

Making matters worse is a typical Phillip Glass score. On its own musical terms, it is fine, but allied to the images it does the picture no end of damage. It smothers the performances, draws constant attention to itself and doesn't fit the milieu at all. Only in the impressive opening and closing themes does it add anything: elsewhere it just adds the final nail to the coffin.

A complete misfire on every level.

Great any way you slice it.
This follows the 1904 (I think) Joseph Conrad novel fairly closely. (There is also, by the bye, a bowdlerized, squeamish, and ineffectual 1937 Alfred Hitchcock version called "Sabotage".) It can be enjoyed as a psychological character study, as a political critique, or as a thriller. Each way it is thoroughly satisfying.

Although it was released in 1996, its political premise closely parallels the situation the United States has been in since September 11, 2001. The ethically dubious "anti-terrorist" tactics of the foreign embassy that protagonist Verloc works for are essentially the "anti-terrorist" tactics of a certain 21st-century un-elected American president.

Bob Hoskins and whoever it is who plays Inspector Heat are brilliant. Patrica Arquette, Gerard Depardieu, and Robin Williams are in fine form. I love the Philip Glass score.

Bleak but powerful.A tour de force.
Not for everyone.Powerful and true to the spirit of the book.A lot of it is from Conrad's own life, an alienation in a world of academic ideas set against the harsh world of everyday economics in bleak London.Robin Williams is excellent as the professor, a rebel without a cause except rebellion for its own sake.And Phillip Glass's soundtrack is perfect, a haunting cello.I watched this before reading Michael Mello's THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VERSUS THEODORE JOHN KACZYNSKI: ETHICS, POWER, AND THE INVENTION OF THE UNABOMBER.Powerful stuff!

The movie is bleak, it is Joseph Conrad!
The novel itself is a good play. If you have read the novel, you will find this movie a true and great visualization of it. The acting is exceptional, especially Christian Bale, Robin Williams and Bob Hoskins who plays thefat, fake anarchist. Although I think the director and actors have done agreat job, there are a lot of thoughts and political backgrounds of thecharacters very difficult to grasp for those who have not read the novel.You might want to watch the movie the second time to really appreciate it. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

A Dreyfuss affair a fair 'Dreyfus affair'?
This is an accurate account of the famous (infamous, more likely)
Dreyfus affair, a scandal that nearly drove France to civil war at the
turn of the century. And it could have been a good movie too, if
director Ken Rusell hadn't overdone it miserably by pretending
"the whole thing was a comedy"!

The film manages to get
its facts right (a rare acomplishment for a Hollywood movie), features
an elaborate production, with fine costumes and sets (although its
'Paris' resembles London), and boasts a great cast led by Richard
Dreyfuss, who gives an above-his-usual performance as the officer
trying against all odds to save Dreyfus, while disliking him
personally for being a Jew.

Why, then, spoil it with all those
cartoonish "comic" details that serve no purpose whatsoever,
except to ruin the whole picture?: A French general, at work, dresses
as Zeus for a portrait (its painter complete with pointy moustaches
and a red beret!) later on display in his office. Another general (a
fat, grumpy, bearded lout who looks a lot like Bud Spencer, and sinks
every scene he's into) sings child-like racist songs with his junior
officers at an elegant military club that seems to accept all ranks
inside its halls, for one sees in one room the entire French army,
from maréchales to privates, getting drunk, pounding tables and
shouting at each other in their messed up uniforms. There's a War
Minister serving cake to his subordinates, a chanteuse lampooning 'La
Marsellaise' (the French applaud!), a German officer -pickelhaube and
all- dancing with a male spy in drag, and a sinister meeting inside a
church, with generals sniggering as they cross themselves. My, oh my!
Aren't these the bad guys!

Seems to me, the director tried so hard
to stress the point, he completely missed it. ....


... Read more

Reviews (79)

Definitely worth seeing. Worth owning? Questionable.
Dustin Hoffman is a living legend. You can read any of the other excellent reviews here to get a good idea of what the movie is about, so instead I'm going to give you 'the truth as I see it' about why you should see this movie.
Obviously, Dustin Hoffman plays the role of David wonderfully. Susan George does a good job, although it would have been nice for this intended town hottie to have a pretty smile along with her pretty physique. But I guess that's the catch 22 in selecting a British cast, especially from that day and age.
The controversial rape scene in this movie, is almost paralyzingly disturbing. (Yes, paralyzingly...I don't care if it's not a word.) It's disgusting really. It was also very confusing for me, because of the fact that she was saying no, but the viewer actually does get the impression that she doesn't mean no. She kisses her 'rapist' and pulls him closer, and she invites him in in the first place, and then tells him not to leave. A very awkward occurrence. When the second guy rapes her, we understand clearly that she does not want him, but still she seems to have some strange bond with the first guy (apparently and ex-boyfriend or something) as they have a sort of strangely mutually understanding chemistry throughout the movie. This was one of the most disturbing scenes in any movie I've seen recently. It doesn't help that all the while we get up close facial expressions from her, showing a sense of horror and disgust, but at the same time thrilling satisfaction.
Basically, she gives in very easily when there is any sense of punishment as a consequence of resistance. She is trapped in a kind of school-girl mentality, playing childish pranks and teasing the men by showing her breasts and underwear to them. I'm guessing this is related to the way she was treated when she was that age. David, on the other hand, is a controlled, maturing man, trying to focus on his work. He doesn't give in so easily, and although some have said that he plays the role of mouse time and time again until he finally emerges as a 'real man' in the end of the movie, I personally feel that he is not the timid guy everyone thinks him to be, but rather that circumstance does not allow him to show his manliness (for example, when his wife brings in the bowl of milk with the beers). He is more confused than anything because he doesn't believe there is any real reason to confront the hooligans, until the execution of Kitty.
Anyway, like a lot of other people I was very confused by the ending. The implications of David defending his house, his wife, his honor, and his sense of manhood by protecting a man that actually was guilty of murder (albeit accidental), raise a whole other topic of discussion.
The violence, with the exception of the rape scene, is pretty tame according to today's standards, but the psychological horror is in full throttle here. This is a thinker's horror/suspense (not horror in the conventional sense of the word) movie.
The laughter of the crazy hooligan was really annoying to me. I'm sure many people will disagree with my views on the movie, but I think it's important to look at the movie for what it IS, as well as what it means.
I'm definitely glad to have seen this movie, and would highly recommend it, but I don't believe I'll be adding it to my collection. I might see it again one day, but movies this disturbing and confusing aren't usually on my list of favorite flicks to cuddle up to late at night.

PEACENIK HOFFMAN GOES BONKERS
In 1971 Sam Peckinpah's controversial STRAW DOGS was censored by the British Board of Film Classification. The cuts made it even more provocative than Peckinpah intended. Consequently, Straw Dogs was labeled by the media as an obscene, misogynistic piece of filmmaking. Regarding the uncut American version, even the esteemed Pauline Kael said it's "the first American film that is a fascist work of art."

"Straw Dogs" stands as one of Peckinpah's best, and a reminder of the ongoing struggle between an artist's freedom and suppression by the powers that be. But more than that, it's a brilliant and harrowing exploration of man's primitive animal nature and its implied, inherent violence.

The transfer's clean and sharp. Extras include an 80 minute look at Peckinpah's films and a new interview with Susan George, who talks about her daring, controversial performance of a woman who for a few brief moments seemed to enjoy being raped.

What does "Straw Dogs" mean? Is it from the saying: Behind every coward's eyes burn straw dogs? If so, what does that mean? What are "straw dogs"?

Another thing. Recently (of this writingt) Dustin Hoffman has made a point of speaking out about certain military operations to free brutalized, oppressed people. Personally, I'd rather not know what an actor thinks and feels about politics. However, in "Straw Dogs" Hoffman shows what it takes to fight evil aggression. His screen performance will outlive his words.

Recommended.

HORRIBLE!!!
I agree with another reviewer in that you'll either love this or hate it. But I think most people will hate it. (Note: I have nothing against violence in films, and I liked the Kill Bill movies.) The main problem here is that almost every character in this film is utterly unlikable, and terrible things happen to the two characters who are likeable. But even that wouldn't be so bad, if the film had a message.

Dustin Hoffman's character is a whiney, wimpy, and mean spirited person who, when he finally decides to act, he does so for all of the wrong reasons & defends the wrong person. I end up hating him MORE than the bad guys.
I rank this as the most unwatchable movie I have ever seen, even below "Short Cuts".
However, if you liked "Short Cuts", you'd probably like this, and vice versa.

A Remarkable Film Which Stands the Test of Time.
This is a really interesting film on many levels. It's not perfect; but, few works of modern art are. Nevertheless, this work stands the test of time. Firstly, one of the most remarkable things about this film is the absolutely Hitchcockian editing, which is remotely primitivistic, but strangely compelling: the editing engenders a peculiar ambience to the film right from the beginning brawl scene in the pub. Then, from the denoument sequence--which begins with the equally primitive church function and runs through to the climax and epilogue--the editing is nothing less than fine art. Secondly, the sets of the pub and the farm house are very convincing and interesting in their own right: there's plenty to look at. Also, the outdoor scenes with the ocean in background and the Cornish village all have the verisimilitude of realism. Thirdly, the soundtrack is not at all bad. Fourthly, the acting is good: of course, Hoffman is nothing less than brilliant; Peter Vaughn is excellent as the burly boorish Englishman; and Susan George isn't bad: she begins weak, but by the middle of the film she's quite okay, and from the denoument mentioned above, she's fine. Also, David Warner as the half-witted cripple is excellent--though not given notice in the credits. Lastly, the story is fairly well formed and possibly plausible--though that's no recommendation for fiction! It is possible in realistic or naturalistic fiction that a university professor might get a grant and take a semester or even a year off to do research; and this professor might want to go to some remote European destination where his wife has ancestral property by the sea, to get away from it all to do his thought-work; and it is possible that this professor might have married the woman out of sexual attraction, fully knowing that she had much less education than himself and was his intellectual inferior. But the plot has a quasi-classical form of characters with flawed personality traits; tension and contentious issues; incident follows upon incident resulting in a shattering climax, followed by an ambivalent coda. What more can one say?

Another amazing masculine character study by Peckinpah.
It's not at all hard to see the connection between Peckinpah's two greatest movies: Straw Dogs and The Wild Bunch. Both are studies of what it means to be a man, a look at the masculine and sometimes violent male nature. Basically, Straw Dogs is about an extremely timid American intellectual who decides to escape the Vietnam-fueled violence of the USA by moving into the small English town where his wife was raised. However, the man soon realizes that violence is pretty much omnipresent, when the men he hires to fix up his new home begin pushing him and his wife around. I won't give away the ending, but if you know Peckinpah you can probably guess.

of course, most people will probably want to see the movie for its infamous rape scene (which got the film banned in the UK, where it was filmed). Not only is the rape graphic, but the victim actually appears to enjoy it; at least at first. Here I must disagree with the lengthy rant of a prior reviewer when I say that the rape scene is not simply an exercise in mysoginy, but rather helps to show just how immasculinated the main character has become. Throughout the first half of the movie we see his wife slowly flirting with the contractors (at one point even letting them see her topless). This suggests quite obviously that she has become so disgruntled with her husbands lack of backbone that she is actively seducing the very masculine contractors, and the fact that she enjoys the rape is simply the logical extreme of her desire to have a truly "manly" partner. Of course, those who've seen the movie know that eventually she's punished for her covetry of man's aggressive nature.

Overall, I highly recommend this movie. In fact, I'd suggest you get it ASAP, since the Criterion version has been out of print for months now and won't likely be available for much longer. You need a strong stomach to watch it, certainly, and the pace is very deliberate, but those who have patience and put effort into understanding the meaning of the film will be very well rewarded. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Great movie, poor picture and sound quality - NO subtitling!
...This is a Churchill movie that anyone interested in British WW2 history MUST see. Hardy is just superb as Winston Churchill. For a none-English native, though, it is absolutely incomprehensible how the producers could put this movie out without subtitling at least in English! The sound quality is not good (the picture quality far from neither), and for a none- native English too much is lost in the sometimes somewhat muffled colloqial performance, not to speak of the simple fact that Churchill's famous whisky voice would surely benefit by subtitling...However, it is a must-see all the same!

Wonderful Story Overcomes Horrible Transfer
I don't know which is worse, the sound or the picture. It's astounding that the copyright holders of this remarkable series was so hard up that they had to hand "The Wilderness Years" over to Lance Entertainment. This sorry outfit gives Madacy a run for the money as the worst mutilator of film since nitrate.

Robert Hardy is the most convincing imitator of Churchill I've seen. He is wisely depicted here with his foibles - his rashness and ineptitude in areas beyond his ken, such as the stock market and raising offspring - as well as strengths. And it's a treat to see Siân Phillips and Tim Pigott-Smith supporting.

Here's a story well-told, with interesting locations, too, from Churchill's home at Chartwell, in UK, to the Arizona desert. For anyone with an appreciation of the titanic events that shaped World War II, "The Wilderness Years" provides invaluable background, not only for Churchill as a major player, but for the others - Baldwin, Beaverbrook, Chamberlain, as well as movers and shakers with unfamiliar names, like the Sir Samuel "Iago" Hoare, who manipulated and connived on behalf of appeasement, and Horace Wilson, Chamberlain's oily doorkeeper.

Despite the vandalism of the print by Lance Entertainment, I give 5 Stars because "The Wilderness Years" is such an indespensible document that demands viewing.

A Brilliant Story Well Told
While much has been made of A Gathering Storm, and Albert Finney's splendid portrayal of Churchill in that riveting film, Robert Hardy's Churchill in The Wilderness Years is as good, and more consistent, than Finney's, and this mini-series is better history. Hardy was arguably too young to play Churchill here, but his acting is superb, and one forgets the age disparity. This DVD--originally a TV mini-series from 1983, and the picture quality suffers for it--is engrossing, and with more time gives a fuller picture of the 1930s, up through the declaration of war in 1939. While A Gathering Storm omitted some things (and some people, with Neville Chamberlain unforgiveably absent), The Wilderness Years explores much more, and is much more accurate. A Churchill fan would need both DVDs, but if you are required to choose only one, this is the one to get.

Excellent Content; Horrible DVD Reproduction
I purchased this for my father who has studied Churchill's life and writings for many years. He really enjoyed the HBO movie "The Gathering Storm", so I thought I would purchase this since so many recomended it.

While the drama is not quite as gripping as in "The Gathering Storm" the content and depth of this series is excellent (worthy of 5 stars). Unfortunately the reproduction of this series onto DVD is sub-par. In fact it is the worst rendering to DVD I have ever seen or heard. I mention "heard" because we can hardly understand some of the dialogues do to poor sound quality. Either it is too muffled or at times too loud and distorted to make out. Given that this film is made up soley of scenes with a lot of dialogue this is a major annoyance and hence the 3 star rating.

Perhaps the best television drama ever produced
Anyone with an interest in Churchill MUST VIEW this series. It is history at it's best. I viewed this series and taped in on VHS and treated myself over the years by rewatching it. In fact, based on this series I named my son after Churchill, with Winston as his middle name.

In short I can't say enough about the quality of this series. It will hold your attention for every minute, educate you on the main events and political drama affecting England in the 30's, and more importantly, give you the insight into how the politcal elite can lead themselves to craven acts of national destruction AND, how one man standing on principal can still save a nation from itself. The lessons here are timeless.

I would also echo the sentiments of the other reviewer who noted that this is far superior to "A Gathering Storm" which, though a good effort,is cartoonish in its characterization of Churchill, compared to Robert Hardy's performance. Hardy deserves the equivalant of the oscar for "Best Televison Performance of the 20th Century".

Get it, then watch it at least once a year. Each time, you'll come away with new insights, and new respect for what Churchill accomplished, and sacrificed, to save England from those willing to choose shame over war, only to get both.

Terry Martin ... Read more

Album Description

Import only NTSC/Region 1 DVD. The touching story of a man (Tim Roth) who was born and raised on a ship. His only interactions with the outside world are through the ship's passengers. As he matures, he becomes an accomplished pianist, and eventually falls in love with a woman who threatens to tempt him into stepping off the ship for the very first time. Tornatore's fairytale is at once a tender and moving motion picture that gives Roth a chance to shine. Stars Tim Roth, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Clarence Williams III, Melanie Thierry, Bill Nunn, Peter Vaughan. Directed by Giuseppe Tornatore. Widescreen 2.35:1, 1989, 125 minutes. 2001. ... Read more

Reviews (82)

Music Of The Ocean
You probably know Tim Roth from playing bad guys, as in "Reservoir Dogs", "Pulp Fiction", "Planet of the Apes" --if you didn't notice, he was the bad ape--, or ,even, in "Vatel". Now, watching "The Legend of 1900", you'll be surprised seeing him playing the title role, 1900 -- yes, this is his name-- who is a very melacholic musician.

1900 was found in a ship when was still a baby. Adoped by one of the men who worked in it, he grew up watching people immigrate to America and being greeted by the Statue of Liberty. He is a natural born musician, so he can perfectly play piano, and it starts to call people's attention. So the film follows the life of this man who never leaves the ship. The story is told by one of his band mates.

The script is very fine, balacing some funny moments and some melancholics events. It is impossible to forget the impressive duel between 1900 and the father of the jazz. And Ennio Morricone's score is superb. The music that 1900 'composes' in the very moment a record is being recorded and he falls for a beautiful girl resonated in my mind for days. This piece is deeply touching. Giuseppe Tornatore is, as everybody knows, Italian and he directs the movie with the Italian approach, in other words, it will touch your heart and will make you cry many times.

There is no doubt that Tim Roth is the heart, soul and fingers of the film. Although he does not play piano, he just mimes, it is so good that one may think he is actually playing the songs. Other thing that is not impossible to avoid mentioning is his eyes. They are so deep and expressive. Most of his feelings are expressed by those melancholic pair of eyes. 1900 grabs your heart and, even though being so surreal, he looks so believable that you think you're watching a story very likely to have happened.

I recomend this movie for those who like Italian Cinema, and music as well. I don't think this is the kind of film for everyone, but, surely, it has its audience.

Incredibly well done!
I agree with some other reviews I've read above on how some people criticize this movie too easily. I don't think it's necessary to sit down and watch it with some preconcieved idea as to what to expect, rather than just let the movie and the soundtrack seduce you to it's full extent. I believe Guiseppe Tornatore and Ennio Morricone have put together a film that will be referred back to by many generations. It's one of those films that refuses to age in time. The brilliant performance by Tim Roth in an not-so-usual role brings to life 1900, a character so much within us all, representing what he has to say and do in this world through his magnificent piano-playing, ("A light that shines so bright yet for so little time"...taken from blade runner). I haven't the slightest intention of drawing any conclusion for the reviewer of this movie but if your not into great expectations, you'll probably wind up with more than that at the end of the film. My opinion is that the story didn't necessarily need to take place on an ocean liner, it could have been anywhere where 1900 felt safe and secluded from the bustle of the surrounding world but through his greatness as a pianist, he was always bound for fame and glory as well as his inevitablity. I feel it's important to get this point across to those who feel the need to compare this "insignificant" aspect with the movie "Titanic", yet I would have wished half the musical score in "Titanic" this film has. The main character leaves me with the sensation that he's subconsciously set out the task to leave a mark on this Earth while he's never literally set foot on dry ground and that all of us who have strived in our own lives can relate to easily yet again, he leaves an unfinished task to those who haven't. My advice, get the DVD, listen to the beautiful music and put your thoughts aside, the film will do the rest and you'll surely be wanting to see it more than once!

one of the greatest movies ever made w/o commercial minded
this is one of the most profound movies i've ever viewed. 'red violin' is good but not as good as this one. some of the other great movies that are always on my mind are: "the music teacher", 'somewhere in time'. i'd like to thank to those producers who could put this kind movie into production without putting the big denero boxoffice in mind. otherwise we would never have any chance to have such sublime and profound feelings and opportunity to learn that we do also have some passions revived by such great stories.

A mythical fable
This work of Giuseppe Tornatore is an original issue in the celluloid.
The story tells us about a child born in the middle of the ocean , (so forget about what's his birthplace), that lack of no land human being gives him that mythical character.
The script shows the process of growing up of this boy , who gradually became in the official pianist of that ship called Virginian, (another smart clue) .
The time comes for him , the piano and his intimate friend , the trumpeter are the only friends he has.
All the story is told in third person, before a seller of old musical instruments and musical scores; I mean a true dialogue between two categories of memories ; the emotional and the historical.
In that sense Tornatore signs his directorial prints on his favorite theme: the memory. That's the clever device of Cinema Paradiso.
But the pianist (in a brilliant performing of this underestimated actor of one million carats talent, Tim Rith), refuses in every decisve moment to leave his own country ship; he belongs to it. He was born there and a invisible link ties him: not even the only love , and mighty inspiration motive for his best composition is capable of make leaving his water home.
Beautiful , poetical and amazing tale with multiple laughable sequences, are surrounded by that duty fate of mixing with the ground land .
An unforgettable experience that will reward you from beginning to end.
Don't miss this one.

The Legend of 1900
This is undoubtedly the VERY BEST and MOST BEAUTIFUL movie I have ever seen. It is a movie that, after you have seen it, you can not forget. The story and characters, and music, haunt you, and Tim Roth is unbelievably fabulous. I can not understand why this movie, Tim Roth, and the soundtrack, did not win some major awards because the movie certainly deserved best picture of the year, Tim Roth deserved best actor, and the haunting and very original soundtrack should have also received the top academy award. This movie is even better than Cinema Paridiso, which is also one of my other favorite films. I buy this movie for everyone I really like. Lucky for me that I heard about this movie only on the Netflix website and ordered it. Why did this movie never get the publicity it deserved (that is something that I would like to know from anyone out there who may know)?? ... Read more

Reviews (1)

A pleasant surprise !
I'm a long time fan of Horatio Hornblower books, and when I've read about TV film based on Forester's novels I was worry that TV production cannot bring Hornblower times to life.... I cannot be mistaken more. Quality of production is superb, acting is very good. Some Forester's fans may don't like some changes in story, but I've found them acceptable. As for DVD - image quality is medicore, sometimes there are visible artifacts, but the sound is good (or very good). If you feel exitement when you see frigate under full sails it's a must buy for you ! ... Read more

Reviews (77)

It's About Time
You'd be hard pressed to find a story more compelling than the one that inspired Arthur Miller's 1953 drama The Crucible. Except the one about how it became a movie. It's taken all these years to bring a full version to the screen, and the only thing that explains it is Hollywood's perpetual cluelessness. The Salem witch trials of 1692 destroyed nineteen lives and countless reputations. Hoodwinked by a bunch of flighty teenage girls who wished to escape a whipping for their frolics in the woods, the town brought in the colony magistrates to sort out the devils from the angels.

Miller, who also wrote the screenplay, expresses his blatant contempt for hypocrisy in all forms through the character of John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis), a humble but once-adulterous farmer. Proctor's sexual escapades with the town's main accuser Abigail Williams (Winona Ryder) could, through the girl's treachery, end in his wife's hanging. He can either save himself with a lie or free Elizabeth (Joan Allen) with the truth about himself and Abigail.

It's potent stuff any way you slice it, and the actors here aren't afraid to take big bites of their meaty roles. The film's pacing is fast and furious, hysterical like the history of the event it interprets. If it lacks the McCarthyist subtext it once had, so what. This here's a tragedy--a good old American one.

The movie's inevitable ending won't satisfy those who want only fluff and feathers at the cinema, but the hard lesson won by those who refuse to compromise their principles can't be denied. The Crucible is a faithful testament to their sacrifice.

Great Adaptation of an American Masterpiece
Since Miller helped write the screenplay and one of his sons produced or coproduced the movie, it shouldn't be a shock that the movie is so faithful to the original text where it needs to be and broadens the story where it needs to, as well. Miller knows how to write for the stage, and he apparently knows how to write for the screen, also. After seeing so many "classic" books and/or plays butchered by Hollywood, this movie is a real delight, despite its morbid and all-too-realistic story. This movie has become an essential to my Grade 11 American Literature classes, spectacularly complementing their reading of Miller's play and several pieces from the Salem Witch Trial era.

Ignoring the play's historic flaws and inaccuracies (that's another debate for another time), Miller brilliantly captured the essence of the Salem Witch Trials in his play and has conveyed them to the screen. Hatred, fear, jealousy, hypocrisy, religious mania, attention-seeking, conviction, strength, determination, repentance, and a host of other emotions and character traits are vividly brought to life by a superb cast: Daniel Day-Lewis is a great John Proctor (nobody else could have done better), Winona Ryder is very good as the conniving and bitter Abigail Williams, Joan Allen was nominated for an Oscar for her portrayal of Elizabeth Proctor, and Paul Scofield should have won an Oscar for his cold-hearted portrayal of Justice Danforth. The conflict between Proctor and Danforth is what sustains the play's momentum for the second and third acts (about the last hour and fifteen minutes of the movie), and Lewis and Scofield bring that epic conflict to life: the classic good v. evil, with the sides getting somewhat mixed up as to who is who. . . . Lewis plays the flawed hero to Scofield's self-righteous and vindictive villain with palpable energy. How Scofield's performance was overlooked by the Academy is just another example of their oblivion. He gives me the willies with his methodical, calculating delivery of Miller's chilling dialogue: "Who weeps for these weeps for corruption" (among a bunch of great lines from the play/movie).

This isn't simply a play enacted in front of movie cameras (like Death of a Salesman). The director uses his camera very effectively, capturing some great close-up moments, unique perspectives and camera angles, and bringing a sense of "bigness" to the whole story. The play can seem very isolated, with its sparse sets and black-and-white costumes. Miller also expands the movie to begin well before the play does (giving the movie-goer information that he must have assumed the play-reader would already have) and extending it beyond the conviction of Proctor to include his execution, along with that of Rebecca Nurse and Martha Corey. Just as a side note, each of those three was hanged in a separate group in the original trials--great symbolism from Miller, including each larger original group of victims in the final trio. Also great symbolism in Proctor's Christ-like physical placement in the middle of the two "sinners," as he takes their sins upon him--the crucifixion is represented very effectively.

Bottom line: You won't see a better adaptation of a play to movie anytime soon. Nothing essential is left out, and some nice details are brought in to give the movie a distinction from its original source, the play. If you can make it through this play and not be outraged by the injustice and hypocrisy, then you have a heart as cold as Danforth's. What Miller would likely want you to do is apply that outrage to similar situations that go on every day, just as he intended with his original play (the McCarthy hearings, the "Red" Scare). At least watch the movie, though.

"Your justice would freeze beer."
Although the playwright Arthur Miller was also the screenwriter for this production starring Winona Ryder and Daniel Day-Lewis, the film bears little resemblance to the play in tone and impact. Director Nicholas Hytner has abandoned the intimate, almost claustrophobic atmosphere of the dark, interior scenes in the play, in favor of an expansive setting, with many scenes set outside, including panoramic shots of Salem in 1692, full of costumed "citizens." The expanded setting makes the psychology and motivation of the witchcraft hysteria more difficult to determine, since the intensity of the settlers' repressed, interior lives is not obvious. The explanatory notes which Miller incorporates into the play about land disputes, religious controversies, and personal animosities, which led to specific individuals being accused and arrested for witchcraft, are seen only peripherally.

As a result, we see Winona Ryder, as Abigail Williams, and her coterie of bewitched girls, screaming hysterically and accusing innocent women of witchcraft without the background which would make these accusations plausible. Her previous relationship with John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis), in the absence of other motivations, seems to be the primary reason for her behavior, but this thwarted love does not explain the extent of her rage and, especially, the involvement of the other girls. Day-Lewis is reduced to the role of victim, and one of the hallmarks of his acting, his subtlety, is absent here, except in a wonderful final scene with his wife, played by Joan Allen. Details of the scenery also ring false--houses in this period were very small because of the difficulty of heating, one third the size they are here, and the church/meeting houses were modest in accordance with religious restrictions against unnecessary display.

This is a Hollywood version of the witchcraft trials, capitalizing on the sensational at the expense of the complex and subtle forces behind the accusations of witchcraft--the Indian wars which were just ending, the growing independence of individuals, the increasing resentment of hard-line theocratic rule, the abolition of traditional property laws, and most importantly, the lack of any societal role whatsoever for young women, who were not old enough to assume a woman's role and who, bored and left out of decision-making, were on their own in dealing with their adult feelings. The film is beautiful, and the acting, though one-dimensional, is as effective as it can be in the absence of fully-developed motivation for the girls' hysteria. The "witches" are reduced to cartoons here, and Miller's parallels between these trials and the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, which give the play a modern context, are missing. Mary Whipple

A Superbly Directed and Acted Film
It is rare nowadays that I come out of a movie feeling moved and enlightened. Suffice it to say that when I first saw The Crucible in the theatre several years ago, I left the movie understanding a bit more about human nature and a greater appreciation for the power of group hysteria. This film draws on the fine acting talents of Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder (in her best role ever), and Joan Allen. Not only is the dialogue brilliant, but the emotional content is incredibly affecting. I am so glad to see it finally on DVD. In this day and age of disposable art, it is heartening to see that movies of this caliber are still being made (even if it is with less frequency).

A great film
I have seen this movie perhaps a dozen times, and never tire of it. It is one of the most compelling, well-written movies I can think of, and the acting is superb throughout, particularly from Day-Lewis, who gives a heart-stopping performance. Because of its theme about witches, the movie gets played a lot around Halloween, but it is by no means a horror movie. It's not even a thriller, really, yet it does manage to thrill and keep the viewer totally involved. I love this movie and can't wait for the DVD. ... Read more