Reviews (142)

A sumptuous Renaissance feast!
Franco Zefirrelli's 1967 film was revolutionary in using teenaged actors to play the two most famous lovers of all literature. Olivia Hussey is heartbreakingly beautiful, a vulnerable and courageous Juliet, while Leonard Whiting's poetic good looks make him a sensitive and appealing Romeo. Zefirrelli's career as an opera director is put to spectacular use here--each scene is meticulously crafted to be an exact replica of the Renaissance. Stunningly beautiful clothing, jewels, furniture, food, glass, sculpture--it is an overwhelming feast for the eyes. The preserved medieval towns of Tuscany, and the lovely Borghese palace where the balcony scene is set, give the film the look of an animated Renaissance painting. Zefirrelli took some liberties with Shakespeare's original script for the sake of brevity, but unless you are a die-hard purist, this is a minor flaw. I saw this film a dozen times in the theater, and never without the sound of girls weeping by the end--I was often one of them. Leslie Howard was a better actor, and Leonardo DiCaprio/Clare Danes more modern, but if you love beauty, this is THE quintessential Romeo and Juliet on film. END

Zeffirelli's Quintessential Version! Every Aspect Excellent!
This is THE must see version of Romeo and Juliet. Zeffirelli's 1968 masterpiece stars 17-year-old Leonard Whiting and 15-year-old Olivia Hussey with great music by Nino Rota. Filmed "on location" in Italy this version also has the fingerprints of the 1960s all over it, from moddish long hair, the debut of Michael York as Tybalt, John McEnery as Mercutio, the lush balcony scenes, the nude scene, and an emotional intensity throughout. McEnery brings just the right comic touch to the comi-tragedy and screenwriters Franco Brusati, Maestro D'Amico, and Zeffirelli keep true to Shakespeare with a take on the story that's easily accessible to a wide audience, thereby making this one of the most popular films of the '60s.

Especially effective is the ambiguity of intent of the Tybalt-Mercutio duel, and the overall editing of dialogue just enough to keep it succinct and believable yet retain the poetic and philosophical virtuosity of the playwright's playwright. The music is used effectively and as it rises during the love scenes it's a manipulation that's an enhancement to rather than distraction from the emotion--a rare successful pull-off of this. And that balcony scene is extraordinary, the lush dark atmosphere, Romeo's giddiness, Juliet's beauty...I believed it.

Milo O'Shea (who later played the Judge in "The Verdict") does a believable Friar Laurence and Robert Stephens (I)(with a long list of Shakespearian roles to his name) an intensely serious Prince of Verona. It's hard not to fall in love with Olivia (watch for her new film role as Mother Theresa).

Some bits of trivia: Before 1968 Romeo and Juliet was not generally taught in US high schools and this film's popularity changed all that as most of you reading this had it in high school. Michael York turned down the role of Oliver in Love Story--one may read into this he felt it was a poor man's Romeo and Juliet...just a thought. Also Olivia Hussey briefly dated Prince Charles. And here's the clincher: Paul McCartney got the original offer to play Romeo. I'm glad he turned it down, as Whiting is perfect here. And for those who wonder, the story did not originate in historical fact, though one may wish it so. The story came from mythical legend starting in 5th century Greece, later evolving into "The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet" translated into English in 1562 by Arthur Brooke and originally written about 1530 by Luigi da Porto., 'til Shakespeare got a hold of it (circa 1594) and breathed into it the life that will last as long as humanity does most probably.

This towers over the 1st film version with a 34-year-old Norma Shearer and a 43-year-old Leslie Howard, and as for the 1996 mess sorry guys; American accents, present day gang violence, over-the-top overacting, LA locales, and Leonard DiCaprio do not great Shakespearean tragedy make. This 1968 one is the one to see over and over.

Excellent movie...Great actors
Watching this as part of a highschool assignment, the teacher only allowed us to watch about 15 minutes of it. When I saw it playing on cable, I sat down to finish it. This, I must say, is the best version of Romeo and Juliet. In the '68 version The actors are young and even though it was made in '68, you can relate to them in this day. The acting is superb, no one better could have been picked for the parts. It was a real tearjerker. Not to mention the soundtrack...the songs were just amazing to hear. Just watch the movie once, you'll fall in love with it.

The Defintive R & J
I could watch this version of Romeo and Juliet over, and over, and over. The performances are dead on, especially John McEnry's turn as Mercutio (you understand the reason why he's killed off: people would have cared more about him than about the tragic heroes if he'd been around too much longer!). I would advise teachers, however, that this is not the first version they show students of the show. While most ninth graders read this play, the giggling that can abound in a classroom watching Romeo in tights often distracts from the meaning of the film.
So, for with the exception of ninth graders, this is the Romeo and Juliet to see.

Zeffirelli and Shakespeare: A Perfect Match
There is nothing worse than bad Shakespeare but not to worry here-- Franco Zeffirelli and Shakespeare come together here in a lavish, opulent production of ROMEO AND JULIET, just when we thought there was nothing fresh to say about them. Zeffirelli has broken new ground by casting Leonard Whiting, who is 17, and Olivia Hussey, who is all of 15 but looks even younger, in this timeless classic story about "star-crossed" lovers. With the possible exception of some parts of the musical score-- although much of it soars-- this film is as good today as it was when first released in 1968. (The musical theme was beautiful the first 50 times I heard it on the radio. Then it became trite.)

There are no bad actors here. In addition to the two lovers, Michael York as Tybalt and Pat Heywood as the nurse give outstanding performances, just to name two. My only negative comment about the acting is that Romeo always seems to run to and from an event or meeting; he never walks. Perhaps that is what a seventeen-year-old, testosterone-laden lad does, however. On the other hand, Romeo and Juliet's tragic story is completely believable and will put chills on your spine. Additionally, the dance scenes and duel scenes are quite wonderful. The wardrobe department got everything right as well.

A word about the language-- it goes without saying that Mr. Shakespeare is and ever shall be the greatest writer in English. Hearing his words again is a transcendent experience. ... Read more

Reviews (108)

A visually stunning sci-fi spectacle
I have fond memories of seeing "Logan's Run" in the theaters many years ago, and am delighted to see this film getting a fine presentation on DVD. Directed by Michael Anderson, the film takes place in a post-apocalyptic future where humans live a hedonistic life in the shelter of a domed city. There's just one catch to this pleasure-oriented utopia: nobody is permitted to live past the age of 30. The title character, played by Michael York, is a Sandman: an elite policeman assigned to kill those who flee the birthday death sentence. But a surprising assignment takes Logan on a voyage that will change him profoundly.

"Logan's Run" is an adventure tale, a love story, a crime drama, a social satire, and a sumptuous visual spectacle all in one. The whole package is superbly enhanced by Jerry Goldsmith's inventive and varied score. This is one of the most visually stylish science fiction films ever made; it's full of scenes that are truly unforgettable.

The film is really grounded by the performances by the superb cast. Michael York and Jenny Agutter make an absolutely enchanting screen couple; the evolution of their characters' relationship is one of the key pleasures of the film. Richard Jordan brings complexity and intensity to his role as a fellow Sandman. And Peter Ustinov is delightfully warm, funny, and loveable in a critical supporting role.

The DVD includes a vintage "making of" featurette, as well as a full-length audio commentary by actor York, director Anderson, and costume designer Bill Thomas. The three discuss casting, stunts, special effects, Peter Ustinov's ad-libbing, and other aspects of making the film. They reveal some fascinating and delightful bits of trivia along the way. This is one of those great commentary tracks that makes you appreciate the film even more.

Solid sf adventure less than the sum of its parts
Logan's Run started off with a pretty amazing concept--(courtesy of science fiction writers William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson)what if our youth obsessed society put everyone over the age of 30 (21 in the novel)to death as a means of population control? This film version of a classic cautionary tale is intermittantly successful. David Zelag Goodman's screenplay condenses and changes around several key characters. Goodman's script essentially refocuses the novel into The Fugitive in the future. In the original novel Francis (played brilliantly by the late Richard Jordan)and the Old Man character (played as befuddled by Peter Ustinov) were one and the same. You'll need to read the novel to see why this was an important altered plot point.

Additionally, Sanctuary did exist in the novel while here it's clear that it's something of an urban myth. While these plot points might not seem essential, altering them radically reshaped the film. Still, it's clear that the film's director, producer and screenwriter (respectively, Michael Anderson the late Saul David and Goodman)wanted to streamline what could have been a confusing plot if not layed out correctly.

The basic plot--In the future our society is enclosed in domes. As a means to control the population, everyone has a life clock crystal on their hand. When you reach 30 you have the option to become "renewed" in a ceremony attended by the citizens. Logan (Michael York) and Francis (Richard Jordan) are Sandmen who hunt, capture/or kill runners (people who choose to not go through renewal and try to escape).

After one incident, Logan is debriefed by the computer that runs the city. The runner wore a symbol representing life. During this debriefing he is send undercover to become a "runner" and find out 1)Who is behind the network that tries to get people out of the city and 2) If sanctuary exists. Logan's life clock is prematurely aged to 30. He contacts a girl who he had met before on the circuit (a system where people can "dial up" others for casual sex)who he had seen wearing the same symbol. Despite her better judgement, she elects to help him escape.

Francis, alarmed that his friend is running, elects to chase him and either bring him back for renewal or kill him.

The film is quite good despite some gaping plot holes. Michael York gives a impassioned performance as Logan 5. Jenny Agutter is enchanting as Jessica. Richard Jordan shines as Logan's former partner Francis who feels betrayed and hunts Logan down. Roscoe Lee Brown is exceptional in his cameo as the demented cyborg Box. Michael Anderson, Jnr. gives a nice cameo performance as the surgeon hired to alter Logan's appearence. Made for $6 million, Logan's Run looked quite good when it was released in 1976. The symbolism of having Francis and Logan fight in the House of Representatives with an American flag was quite evident given the year of release (1976).
In many respects the themes in the film are more timely than ever. The obsession with youth, looking good and plastic surgery have come to define our culture in the 21st Century. The only thing missing from the film are botox injections.

Jerry Goldsmith's brilliant score is a highlight of the film. Like his score for Planet of the Apes, Goldsmith chose to go with a mix of sythesizers and orchestra to portray the city of the future. He eschews cliches in his music and the various themes and cues are at turns suspenseful and witty. The optical effects are pretty good given the time. The matte paintings by Albert Whitlock are outstanding and fairly convincing. The miniatures are a mixed bag. They didn't look completely convincing in 1976 nor do they today. Part of the problem has to do with the fact that waters don't fare well when placed in miniatures. You can't miniaturize the bubbles and water drops. Also, the use of the miniatures in combination with live action is quite grainy due to the film stock and amount of composites. Still, if you can suspend your disbelief, you'll enjoy the film despite its limitations.

Logan's Run attempted to tell an adult cautionary tale in a world of light weight escapist movies. It's a commendable film and the film makers frequently bite off more than they can chew. I'd rather have a film that's too ambitious than not at all.

Still, I appreciate the ambitions if not the execution. It's nice to finally have this fine if flawed movie on DVD. The transfer is quite good although the print has a number of flaws. There's also quite a bit of dirt evident on the print. These probably could have been cleared up with a direct digital transfer. Additionally, the 5.1 soundtrack occasionally sounds "tinny" and when played in the stereo format can be quite difficult to hear.

The extras are limited but nice. The commentary by director Michael Anderson and Michael York is quite good and informative. A pity the terrific actor Richard Jordan isn't around any longer to give us his perspective. I would have liked to see a fresh retrospective documentary on the making of the film. It's not likely to happen, though as no one is going to champion this film at the expensive of other newer projects (particulary since producer Saul David is gone). The featurette included is the original one made to promote the film. It's actually pretty decent given the age and purpose of it. The trailer is included as well. The disc is a dual sided single layer DVD with the widescreen and pan & scan versions on the same disc.

classic!
logan's run is a real gem. love the cast and the look of the film and it's a good dvd to have when you want to see something that's out of this world!

fantastic futuristic fun
Logan's Run was one of my faves as a kid. It was different from othe Sci Fi at the time. It created a weird world that was great to watch. I also watched the TV show version and loved it too (sure it was just a TV show and not quite as grand as the the more expensive flick but it was still weird enough to keep me watching). You've just got to love a show that creates it's own strange world and takes you away from reality. Logan has it's own style that provides just the right escape from the played out worlds of other Sci Fi flicks and shows. Give this a chance if you want something that's different and you've never seen it.

A bit excentric, but absolutely worth watching.
This is an awsome movie, even by today's standards. Granted the special effects can sometimes look corny or cheesy, but for the time when this movie was produced, the effects were top notch.

The story line goes like this. It is the year 2275. Disasters have forced what remains of civilization into a self contained, domed city. No one goes outside the city becuase they all beleive it to be a barren wasteland, incapable of supporting life. This is because it WAS that way when the city was founded, but that was over a hundred years ago. Since the city was founded, there was realised a great need to maintain the population to acceptable levels. So, it is determined that at age 30 you will "terminate". If you do not want to end your life at 30, you can participate on the "Carosel" on your "Last Day" (30 years to the day of your birth). The recorded message basically says that if you have a strong enough desire to renew, you will. Renewing gives you an unstated amount of extra time. If you are ready to end, you don't have to participate on Carosel. However, there exist a few people who don't want to follow the rules. They "run" from their fate. To prevent people from running (as well as for general law enforcement) there are a group of cop like folks. Each is refered to as a SandMan. It is their responsibility to enforce law in the domed city, and to track down anyone who decides to run, and terminate them.

Now meet Logan 5. He's a sand man, and he loves his job. But one day when he is doing his job and terminates a runner, he finds an Ankh on the runner. He doesn't think much of it. So he picks it up with the rest of the runner's belongings, and heads back to HQ to be "debriefed". But the central computer DOES recognise the Ankh. It is determined to be a symbol associated with a legenday place called Sanctuary, where runners can go and hide and live out their life normally (as you and I would consider normal). The computer determines that Sanctuary must be either right on the inside of the dome, or outside the city. Logan 5 is assigned to find sanctuary, and destroy it.

And so begins his Grand adventure, during the process of which he leaves the city, Falls in love with his "partner in crime, Jessica" (which is strictly forbidden in the city), Finds a man who has more cats than I could count, and returns to the city to try and stop the madness.

A very good movie on all counts. It should have been more popular. ... Read more

Reviews (37)

Approved by Agatha Christie
Having read the book many times I've come to know its complexities well enough. Albert Finney embodied Poirot from top to bottem so much so that all other portrails pale by comparison. Even the remarkable work of David Suchet cannot touch Finney. Poirot is an eccentric ego-ist who is also one of the most intelligent characters ever created and Finney captures his qualities perfectly. The rest of the cast is equally superb! With an interational cast of Vanessa Redgrave, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Wendy Hiller, Sean Connery, Richard Widmark, Jean-Pierre Cassel etc. one wonders why all of them were not nominated for Oscars. The entire film is a work of art from the production design to the costumes, make-up and music. All these elements under the direction of Sidney Lumet are kept flowing swifty so that you have to rewind over and over till you catch all the nuances. The book can be a bit confusing and plodding despite the wonderful prose but the film clears away any clutter and solidifies the story. Yes the film changes some names and some early locations but it also clarifies some plot points particularly the Armstrong case. Agatha Christie saw this version of her story brought to life on screen and approved of it. This film will delight the viewer with each repeated playing to the point that after a while you're going to have to get another tape the old one will become so worn!

Still one of the most stylish who-dun-its
Nearly 30 years after its release, the star-studded "Murder on the Orient Express" remains one the the best of the big screen's adaptations of Agatha Christie's works. Confined to the fabled train with the richest of the ultra-privileged class and trapped by a mammoth snow drift, everyone comes under suspicion when a self-described businessman (Richard Widmark) who turns out to be the mastermind of a child kidnapping that ends in murder of the child, is himself murdered (who can ignore the obvious similarity to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping?). Everyone in the all-star cast comes under suspicion, from Lauren Bacall as a character intended to scrape the nerves raw, to Ingrid Bergman in an Oscar-winning supporting role, to the breathtakingly beautiful Jacqueline Bissett, to Anthony Perkins, the late Sir John Geilgud and a magestic Wendy Hiller. But Albert Finney, as celebrated investigator Hercule Peroit, is amazing. True to Christie form, we come to a totally unexpected solution and resolution that doesn't deter us from watching this film time and again. Lavishly produced and rich in scenery, we actually get a sense of being trapped on the motionless train wondering who of our fellow passengers did the dirty deed, which is what makes this film so enjoyable with every viewing. More satisfying is that the viewer won't feel cheated by an ending that one critic at the time dismissed as "too easy." That aside, it's little wonder the film was an Academy favorite in multiple nominations.

Can't wait...
"Murder on the Orient Express" probably had the most intense production values as any film in 1974. The period detail was exquisite and the ensemble cast was stellar, all put into perspective by the brilliant Sidney Lumet. 1974 saw "Godfather II" and "Chinatown", wonderful in their own right. Can't argue too much about comparisons, but the editing in "Orient" is a true work of art, shifting its time-frame constantly. The viewer always knows everything, but really knows nothing. Albert Finney is a terrific Hercule, and the whole ensemble cast was great! Ingrid Bergman won the Oscar for this, but I thought Rachel Roberts was the best of all. So VERY classy, and so very grisly... all done with aplomb by a brilliant cast and America's own, very underrated great director, Mr. Lumet. Don't forget, Lumet did the original "12 Angry Men" in the 50's, as well as "Long Day's Journey Into Night". The man has control. Experience it!

"...there are too many clues in this room..."
Thirty years ago in 1974, Sidney Lumet (who is known for directing "Network" in 1976, "Serpico" in 1973 and "Death Trap" in 1982) directed a murder-mystery film based upon the 1934 novel "Murder on the Orient Express" (a.k.a. "Murder in the Calais Coach"). The novel was written by the famous murder-mystery author Agatha Christie (1890-1976) and was the ninth book in the series that featured her famous fictional detective named Hercule Poirot. The Orient Express began service in 1883 as a passenger rail service between Paris and Venice. An additional southern route (known as the Simplon Orient Express) was started in 1919 that ran from Paris to Istanbul that also passed through Venice. It is upon the Simplon Orient Express that Agatha Christie placed the location for her novel.

The 1974 film adaptation included an all-star cast, including the famous actor Albert Finney who played Hercule Poirot, for which he received an Oscar nomination for Best Actor. (Albert Finney has been nominated 4 times by the Academy for Best Actor and once for Best Supporing Actor, which was for his role as Ed Masry in the 2000 film "Erin Brockovich".) Poirot boards the Orient Express on his journey home after solving a murder case. On the train, in the sleeper cabin next to his is the millionaire businessman Mr. Ratchett (Richard Widmark), who is accompanied on the train by his secretary, Hector MacQueen (Anthony Perkins, 1932-1992), and his butler, Mr. Beddoes (Sir John Gielgud, 1904-2000). Other passengers on the train include the Countess Andrenyi (Jacqueline Bisset), Greta Ohlsson (Ingrid Bergman, 1915-1982), Mrs. Harriet Belinda Hubbard (Lauren Bacall), Colonel Arbuthnot (Sean Connery), Princess Dragomiroff (Wendy Hiller, 1912-2003), Mary Debenham (Vanessa Redgrave), Hildegarde (Rachel Roberts, 1927-1980), Count Andrenyi (Michael York), Mr. Hardman (Colin Blakely, 1930-1987) and Signor Bianchi (Martin Balsam, 1914-1996). The conductor was Pierre Paul Michel (Jean-Pierre Cassel). One night with the train en route, Mr. Ratchett was murdered. When Poirot learns this, he begins an immediate investigation in the hopes of finding the murderer before the train reaches its next scheduled stop. As Poirot questions the passengers, he is amazed that many of them may share something in common from many years earlier. Tension on board mounts when the train becomes trapped following an avalanche covering the tracks ahead of it. Before the tracks can be cleared, can Poirot solve this very mysterious murder on board the Orient Express? You'll have to watch this very well made film to understand the mystery.

In addition to Albert Finney's Oscar nomination for Best Actor, "Murder on the Orient Express" received four other nominations including Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Original Score and Best Adapted Screenplay. Ingrid Bergman won her nomination for Best Supporting Actress. Overall, I rate this outstanding film with 5 out of 5 stars. It is a tribute to the great mystery and literary skills that Agatha Christie shared with the world in her many novels. I highly recommend the purchase of this film that is being released on DVD, which, thankfully, is in widescreen format.

Overall good, but as for Finney's Poirot...mon dieu!
One of Agatha Christie's most famous mysteries was adapted to the big screen in 1974, two years before the author died. Murder On The Orient Express was the first in a brief series of cinematic and TV movie Christie adaptations continuing with Death on The Nile, Evil Under The Sun, Easy To Kill, A Caribbean Mystery, The Mirror Crack'd, and Appointment With Death.

Mr. Ratchett, an American businessman, tries to employ Poirot after he has been getting threatening letters. Poirot turns him down, and the following morning, he is found dead in bed from multiple stab wounds. Clearly, it was someone on the coach, but who? And before the murder, there was a lot of weird activity going on. Someone wearing a fancy nightgown knocks on Poirot's door. Ms. Hubbard calls the wagon-lit conductor and reports a man in her room.

There then follows the usual Poirot method of questioning the suspects one by one, sifting out lies and clues, of which he notices there are too many, after speaking to them. Poirot discovers that Ratchett was the mastermind behind the kidnapping of Daisy Armstrong, a young girl who was ransomed and murdered despite the money being paid. But Daisy was not the only casualty. A maid was falsely blamed in collusion and committed suicide. Ms. Armstrong gave birth to a stillborn child and died later, and Colonel Armstrong ended up shooting himself.

One of the key motifs of Christie mysteries and others was the use of flashbacks to accompany testimony of the people being interrogated, as well as the denouement, where in tried and true Christie fashion, Poirot gathers everyone in the room and tells them who did it, with scenes of what actually happened, something used in the later movie adaptations.

Murder On The Orient Express boasts an all-star cast of the top draws at the time, Sean Connery (Colonel Arbuthnot), Vanessa Redgrave (Miss Debenheim), Jacqueline Bisset (Countess Andrenyi), and Anthony Perkins (Hector McQueen), as well as some old veterans such as Dame Wendy Hiller (Countess Dragomiroff), Martin Balsam (Mr. Bianchi), Richard Widmark (Ratchett), and George Coulouris (Doctor Constantine). Despite being more svelte than the character to the novel, Lauren Bacall is the strongest actress as Harriet Hubbard, and one who exasperates Poirot and the other passengers with her aggressive bossiness, although her character's name was Caroline Martha Hubbard in the novel. Ingrid Bergman won her third Oscar, albeit for Best Supporting Actress as the simple-minded Greta Ohlson.

Some changes made in the movie is John Gielgud as the elderly and masterfully unflappable valet Biddoes. In the novel, it was Edward Masterman, who was 39 years old! And originally, Mr. Bianchi was a Monsieur Bouc, a fellow Belgian friend of Poirot. And the second set of interviews with the suspects is deleted from the movie. Other than that, I was surprised that the movie more of less followed the book.

There is a splashy elegance to the whole thing. The music veers from the sumptuous glamorous orchestra to the eerie horror sounds given in the prologue and in the reenactment of the murder. However, the biggest debit is Albert Finney (Poirot), who doesn't fit Agatha Christie's famed dignified Belgian sleuth. He's tall, has a rough voice, laughs like he's on drugs, and looks more like a grotesque gargoyle than a calm and refined gentleman. A pity David Suchet wasn't born sooner, as Peter Ustinov's Poirot is only slightly better. ... Read more

Description

A movie musical landmark that won eight Academy Awards(R)! Liza Minnelli and Joel Grey star in Bob Fosse's smashing film version of the Broadway hit set in pre-Nazi era Berlin. ... Read more

Reviews (89)

Life is a cabaret, old chum...
It's often been said about old musical movies that they went too far in the conceit of people "bursting out in song" during a scene. Well, in his film version of Kander & Ebb's masterful Cabaret, Bob Fosse completely got around that problem by presenting the songs on stage. It was handled brilliantly, the choreography was incredible, and the movie just plain works.

Cabaret the movie doesn't share many songs in common with the original stage version - it still has "Willkommen," "Two Ladies," "Tomorrow Belongs To Me," a German version of "Married," "If You Could See Her," and "Cabaret" - but that's it. A few new songs were added - "Mein Herr," "Maybe This Time," "Money, Money," - but for the most part it's a lot less sung than the staged version. A lot of musical numbers dealing with the world outside the Kit Kat Klub were used as underscoring, preserving John Kander's great tunes. But this doesn't detract from it being one of the best filmed musicals out there.

Fosse's direction is a big help; it has a great eye for early 1930s Berlin, and presents the decadence and foreshadows the Nazis brilliantly. Fosse created great, sensual choreography for the film, and it is completely entrancing to watch the musical numbers. And the rest is worth it, too.

Flipflops aside, the couples are presented well; Liza Minelli's portrayal of Sally Bowles is definitely the acting part of a lifetime. She was just completely *convincing* as Sally, from end to end. Michael York as Brian is very reserved, very British, and very studied. Helmut Griem is entirely convincing as Max, who creates tension between the couple after befriending them. The secondary couple is played to perfection by Fritz Wepper and Marisa Berenson, as opportunistic Fritz Wendel who falls in love with the rich young Jewess Natalia Landauer, respectively. And, of course, Joel Grey is spectacular as the haunting, Puckish Emcee.

In general, this movie presents itself as a stunning revelation to viewers of a story that will stick around for a very long time. It's a virtuoso interpretation of one of the greatest American musicals, and deserves to be seen.

wonderful new collector's edition
CABARET has never looked better, remastered for it's 25th anniversary, with additional features.

Liza Minnelli gives the performance of her career as the singer Sally Bowles, on a self-imposed exile in Berlin, entertaining at the seedy Kit Kat Klub.

Into her life comes Brian Roberts (Michael York), a mild-mannered English bisexual who falls in love with her. Both are seduced by the wealthy Maximillian (Helmut Griem) before Sally falls pregnant, aborts the child and Brian leaves Berlin just as the Nazi's gain power.

The musical, set against the stormy backdrop of Berlin in the 1930's, is a marvellous piece of film making. Directed and choreographed by maestro Bob Fosse, CABARET also boasts original Broadway performer Joel Grey as the Master of Ceremonies, and Fritz Wepper and Marisa Berenson.

Also includes reminiscences by Liza Minnelli, Joel Grey, Michael York, Cy Feuer, John Kander and others from the creative team, an old featurette on the making of the film, and the original theatrical trailer.

THE BEST
As for musical-drama concerned... THIS IS IT! The producers of Chicago should have seen this(indeed they did - every major moment in that film is "stolen" from Cabaret) and put REAL musical stars in the film.

When u have Joel and Liza u are not let down... I give flowergreetings to the entire cast and crew... The filmversion of Cabaret has a lot of "new songs"(Maybe This Time, Mein Herr, The Money Song) and the plot follows the 1955-movie "I AM A CAMERA" more than the stage musical. Since then; the Liza-songs have found themselves in numerous revivals of this stageplay since this 1972-masterpiece. The film is still frightening and raw......Trivia: The scene in which Liza meets Marisa they talk about diseases... On video, here in Europe at least, that was cut....

Don't pass on this
I almost passed over this DVD because a couple of Amazon reviewers forcefully complained about the presentation. I'm glad I bought it. The widescreen was just as I expected, and picture and sound quality were fine. Anyone who's seen the movie knows how good it is. If you haven't seen it, you're in for a treat; and this DVD serves it well. (A five-star review is for the absolutely superlative.)

PLEASE PLEASE Don't buy this!
CABARET is one of the greatest movie musicals ever. I adore it. It is flawless, IMHO.
Why, then am I giving it one star? Because, as others have said, Warners should be ashamed of themselves. This is not the first, but the SECOND release of this movie in a non-anamorphic transfer. I bought the original and was mighty p****ed because it was non-anamorphic. I thought they would have honored this magnificent film in the "anniversary" release. But no. It is, as stated by another reviewer, the same disc as before, in terms of picture quality.
On a small TV you won't notice. But if you care about these things, then believe me, this release sucks big time. As did the first one.
I'm angry, not at being ripped off (I sent this one back for a refund) but because a wonderful work of art has been abused by a greedy, careless film company. And I have been robbed of the chance to see the film in its glory.
Having said that, nothing could improve the truly dreadful sound quality - which was terrible from day one.
I don't suppose there ever will be another release of this movie. What a terrible shame. ... Read more

Reviews (46)

Grand Entertainment on a large scale.
The Three and Four Musketeers I recommend to anyone who loves swashbucklers and the writings of Alexandre Dumas.These films remain pretty faithful to the original novel.Michael York does an excellent job as D'Artagnan.The musketeers excellently played by Oliver Reed(not as attractive as Athos in the book),Frank Finlay (not as tall or large as Porthos in the book or other screen versions),Richard Chamberlain (perfectly cast as Aramis).Raquel Welch did a great comedic turn as Constance but did not fit the characterization in the book.Faye Dunaway perfect in her acting ability as Milady de Winter.Christopher Lee and Charlton Heston great in their rolls as Count de Rochefort and Cardinal Richelieu.Simon Ward,Geraldine Chaplin,Jean Pierre-Cassel,Roy Kinnear and Spike Milligan also very good as the Duke of Buckingham,Queen Anne,King Louis,D'Artagnan's servant Planchet and Constance's cuckold of a husband Monsieur Bonancieux.The costumes,acting and scenery excellent for this period swashbuckler.I highly recommend it.Be sure to watch both parts to get the full story.Part 1 deals with D'Artagnan and the musketeers saving the Queen's honor from the machinations of Cardinal Richelieu and his agents "The bad and beautiful Milady de Winter and her lover Rochefort two birds of prey in fine feathers".Part 2 known as the Four Musketeers deals with the Cardinal and agents going for revenge against D'Artagnan and the Musketeers and viceversa.To fans of this version Ursula Andress was also considered for the part of Milady de Winter (an excellent choice,good actress and a real blonde beauty) and Charlton Heston was first wanted for the part of Athos but demanded the part of Cardinal Richelieu and got it.For those who love this version also be sure to see the sequel The Return of the Musketeers:The Musketeers 20 Years After.It has the same cast as the Three and Four Musketeers filmed 14 years later and also might add it has some new character additions.It's ashame that Oliver Reed and Roy Kinnear are gone.There could have been a fourth film about the Musketeers final days.If you want full film treatments of this novel I recommend The Three Musketeers-Gene Kelly version,The two part French version of 1961-62(quite similar to this one)the 1999 145 minute made for video stageplay and the Douglas Fairbanks 1921 version and its sequel the Iron Mask which not only deals with the Man in the Iron Mask Story but with the second half of the Three Musketeers novel (Fairbanks versions were Richard Lester's (Director of the Three,Four and Return of the Musketeers)favorites.If you've never seen these see them.If you have seen them and love them-BUY THEM!

ANCHOR BAY DOES IT AGAIN!!!
You can tell that the folks at Anchor Bay Entertainment love movies. It shows in every disc they release (like last years wonderful "MAD MONSTER PARTY" DVD). And this new release of director Richard Lester's delightfully enjoyable 70's comedy/ swashbuckler's "THE THREE MUSKETEERS" and "THE FOUR MUSKETEERS" in one 2-disc set is yet another example of their care and love. This is a wonderful release and a superior job over the DVD's Fox-Lorber have had on the market for the last couple of years. No one ever mentioned it (maybe nobody noticed it), but the Fox-Lorber DVD of "3 MUSKETEERS" was missing about 1 minute of footage in a scene between Charlton Heston and Christopher Lee. These new discs have the complete versions of both films and they look and sound great! For the first time they are presented in anamorphic widescreen in their proper aspect-ratio (full screen versions are also included but I haven't yet viewed them so I can't comment on them). The extras are also very nice. Two half hour documentaries on each disc includes interviews with stars Raquel Welch, Christopher Lee, Charlton Heston, Michael York and Frank Finlay and producers Ilya Salkind and Pierre Spengler. Trailers, tv spots, radio spots, photo & poster galleries and star biographies (that are actually informative and worth reading) round out this very pleasing package! Buy it, watch it and enjoy!

ALMOST PERFECT
Almost, but not quite. Too much unnecessary slapstick, especially in Part One, and the Spanish locales used in both films (well, three films actually, if you include THE RETURN OF THE MUSKETEERS, 1989) cannot possibly pass for France. But still, very lavish, handsome and entertaining films the whole family can enjoy. I was especially impressed with the costume designs and period detail, and I never tire of watching Raquel Welch in just about anything, but the entire cast was equally excellent. A definite must for Dumas aficionados. Peace, bro.

Easily the Best Version but what about the Region!
I love these films! Pure joy! They differ a little from the books but the spirit is spot on! What annoys me is that I cannot buy this pack because it is not in my region (Australia)!!! This whole region thing is a cruel joke. It is especialy unnessesary when it is an old film like this. When will these distributors wake up to themselves???

A Swashbuckling 2 DVD Set!!! Awesome!!! 5 Stars!!!
This is the ultimate collection of these two classic movies!!! Two Thumbs Up!!! Anchor Bay does another quality job with this "Complete Musketeers" 2 DVD set!!! You get both full and widescreen versions of both movies(The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers!!! Excellent picture and sound quality!!! And the extras are top notch too!!! A five star package!!! AWESOME!!! A+ ... Read more

Amazon.com

The political wrangles of a fledgling country may sound dull compared tothe drama of a war, but the early history of the United States only getsmore fascinating as the Revolutionary War is left behind. FoundingBrothers, a documentary from the History Channel, examines thestruggle to not only establish democracy, but to give it the economicstrength and governmental structure that will allow it to survive andthrive. George Washington grappled not only with politics, but withquestions of style and propriety--how should a president, as opposed to aking, behave? Understanding the conflicts between Alexander Hamilton, JohnAdams, and Thomas Jefferson will illuminate ideas that have shaped the government of the U.S. ever since. Founding Brothers provides a wealthof portraits and illustrations from the time, as well as discreetdramatizations, that bring the rise of party politics to life, humanizingthese historical figures with tales of the scandals and squabbles theyfaced as well as their political achievements. An excellent introductionto the roots of the American experiment, and a bracing illustration ofwhat Jefferson meant when he said of the presidency, "No man will bringout of that office the reputation which carried him into it." --BretFetzer ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Great Companion To The Book
This DVD set combined with the book of the same title offers excellent insight to the birth of a great Republic. The DVD is limited in breadth due to time constraints, though it does offer a nice amount of information. Because there were so many heroes and important figures of this historical time, the film makers chose to focus mainly on a few key people: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. Almost two whole segments are spent, and rightfully so, on George Washington.

Nothing new is exposed for well-read historians, but for casual history buffs there are some great details presented. Interesting analysis, questions, answers, and anecdotes throughout. We get an insiders view of the events and people. We see political tactics used by the key players that would make modern politicians shy up. We get a picture not normally found in text books of the stage set for this experiment. Washington, for example, after being elected President had an interesting ride from Virginia to Philadelphia in a carriage with a driver so drunk that his baggage was tossed over several times. Once in Philadelphia, Washington wondered, how should a President act? After all there was no model. He had to act important, but not monocratic, a tough thing to do.

The filmmakers do a nice job contrasting the Federalist and Anti-Federalist (Republican) differences and the very strong personalities involved. They do a nice job weaving the relationships in and out as the years progressed. DVD one starts at the tail end of the American Revolution and DVD two wraps up with the death of Jefferson and Adams on July 4, 1826. It would be very tough to make a two DVD set that properly covers all the material, events, and people involved with this important time period. I think the filmmakers did a fine job here. A one star hit for all but ignoring Franklin's political, philosophical, diplomatic, and social contributions. Even though Franklin was in his advanced years, his contributions to the development of the young nation were very significant. Maybe they felt Franklin too overwhelming a figure for this project, I don't know. Still an effort should have been made.

I applaud the material offered and find this to be a worthy set to own and plan to view it many times.

Good but slanted intellectual history
In our modern politization of history, people are forced into two groups. The first are those who've only now realized that their larger-than-life image of Jefferson, Washington and the other founders as an uncommonly civil and reasonable bunch is just that, a myth. This group is hurt by this and looks at any attempt to point out the founders weaknesses, internal inconsistencies and what-have-you as nothing less than high slander. Then there is the group that realizes that the founders WERE flawed, contradictory and not quite the proper stuff of legends. This group, though generally out of political spite, not only embraces this fact, but loves to rub any history buff's face in it, pointing to our flawed history as certain proof that America was concieved in shame.

This video is refreshing because we get a good dose of amunition for both sides. Starting with George Washington's innaguration, this film takes us through a brilliant story of a people forced to govern from scratch. The film does a good job in pointing out that unlike today, presidents, cabinets, legsilators had no precedents. Who could Washington, Hamilton, the congress who in 1800 dealt with the first election recount in history; none of these, had anyone to look to anyone to see how it was done before. It wasn't done before! We go through the Washington, Adams, and Jefferson presidency; our dealings with France, a new economic system, slavery, and colliding visions of the federalists and the republicans (nowadays these would be termed the republicans and the democrats, respectively). Not quite a Ken Burns film but close!

With that said, this film is extemely biased towards the federalists. Whether in the battle of words between Adams and Jefferson, where only Jefferson is made to look hot-headed, or the constant understatement of Madison's intellect (well, that is the republican, not the federalist Madison). If you are like me, an olld whig republican (nowadays called a libertarian or classical liberal) you will be slightly annoyed at oversights like these. Jefferson was by no means a perfect or for that matter, a thorougly respectable individual but this film highlights these flaws while letting Hamilton's slide.

The only other quip I have is that the legislature and judicial branch are completely ignored. It's understandable because for a film on the History Channel must focus on what the general public is most interested in and this by far is the executive branch (can you name at least one federal judge?) but it would have been nice once in a while to be reminded of their existence.

Altough this film lacks some of the vigor that Founding Fathers had (with the fiery orations by speakers at the Constitutional Convention), it is still thorougly engrossing. It conveys what so few films, books and (PUKE!!) history lessons seem to almost, but never fully, get across; the founders and our history were/was living and breating.

Astounding.
Founding Brothers is a phenomanal DVD. This documentary is one of a kind. Founding Brothers wet my apetite to learn more about this time period and since then, I have read many books on the same subject matter. What makes Founding Brothers so unique, is that it puts the politics of the era in perspective. For example; the myth that the founding fathers cooperated and worked peacefuly to found the single greatest document in American History, the constitution, is not true. These men were passionate, ambitious, and lived with codes of honor that rival American politicking even today. What could drive two outstanding fathers, Hamilton and Burr, to fight a duel to the death? How could the very man who wrote the words "All men are created equal," enslave his own children? And why is there a dark cloud over the Adams presidency? In Founding Brothers, you will find answers to these questions and more as this film takes you into the greatest crisis of American history, even greater then the Civil War.

the fun way to learn more about early U.S. history
I love history and in recent months I have been voraciously reading / viewing various books / DVD collections. Founding Brothers is a documentary from the History Channel that is based on the Pulitzer-Prize winning book by Joseph Ellis. I would note that there is another DVD collection (created a few years ago by the History Channel) entitled Founding Fathers.
Both DVD collections discuss the lives and times of the founding fathers (brothers). This particular DVD collection starts with post revolution times (i.e constitutional congress - 1820 or so) and really dives into how, once the war was over the bickering and infighting began amongst the founding fathers. If you are looking for pre-revolution commentary than Founding Fathers is a better DVD collection to pick up as it starts with New England dissent to the winning of the war.

1. This DVD collection is well produced. Famous actors provided the voices for the characters as in Founding Fathers. Many of the voice overs are done by the same people in both collections.

2. While the DVD is certainly worth watching I found myself wishing it had more facts about the economy and its progress but, as the title states, this series is about the founding fathers.

3. The series did a nice job of discussing how various fathers had issues with slavery. It discussed whether they were pro-slavery or against it and how some had serious troubles dealing with it.

4. The one thing I thoroughly enjoyed about the DVD collection was that it clearly depicts how each of these men came together despite their different backgrounds and temperaments to found a nation.

Most of my reviews are in business / economics and I encourage people to read them, whether here on Amazon or at my personal website. If you are interested in economic history book I would encourage everyone to read The Worldly Philosophers by Robert Heilbroner since it is more international in scope and deals with the lives and times of the most famous economists in history. If you are interested in economic development / evolution of U.S. property history I would encourage you to read Hernando DeSoto's Mystery of Capital but note his lack of focus on corruption in certain countries. A great general business book is by the management guru Peter Drucker entitled "The Essential Drucker."

one of the best I've ever seen
I saw the History Channel show FOUNDING FATHERS and thought it was great. FOUNDING BROTHERS is even better. The stories they tell in here just make your jaw drop. I had no idea that their nasty political feuds were as bad as what goes on today - maybe worse.
The commentators great at telling what really went on and the images are fun to watch. The guy who plays Thomas Jefferson is his spitting image! They have a bunch of well known actors reading the letters of these men which works pretty well, too.
My main complaint -- I wish it was two hours longer! Kudos to the History Channel and their producers for making this wonderful show. I'm buying DVD's for all my kids.
L7 ... Read more

Reviews (31)

This Shrew Remains Untamed
It's very difficult to be very critical of such a roisterous, good-natured version of Shakespeare's rowdiest play, and in truth one has to admit that this is probably the first of the truly modern Shakespeare films. There are some real assets here -- Zefferelli's eye has never lighted on a landscape more beautiful, more seductive, and Nina Rota's score fits beautifully.

But Shakespeare, even on film, stands or falls on the acting. This version -- with one exception -- is filled with one-note performances (they're very GOOD notes, but single notes nonetheless). Let's deal with the exception first -- Elizabeth Taylor is a delightful, intelligent Katarina. Her development is exactly what Shakespeare obviously intended, and if her early scenes are a bit uniformly shrill, the case could be made that that's what the Bard wrote. In general, she's an admirable Kate.

Burton, however, is something else entirely. Despite his acknowledged skill with Shakespeare (his Hamlet was glorious), he takes a monochromatic approach to Petruchio, with an annoyingly stagey laugh running through virtually every scene. By halfway through the film, you tend to want him to get off screen so you don't have to listen to that "manly" laugh any longer. Unfortunately, much of Kate's dialogue was cut (the assumption being, I suppose, that Taylor would have trouble with the language) while too much of Petruchio remains.

The secondary characters, if cut from different bolts of cloth, are all a single color. Michael Hordern bumbles his way through Baptista the same way he did in countless other movies. Michael York and Natasha Pyne as the young lovers are efficient and attractive, but not particularly engaging. The suitors are a group of living cliches. Even the humor is raggedly overdone to the same degree in almost every scene.

There are things to appreciate in this movie, and there's no better Shrew available, but I'd recommend finding another of Shakespeare's comedies until a better version of this rowdy comedy comes along -- someone's bound to get it right soon.

An excellent movie to add to your collection!
This Shakespearean story is about the daughter of Baptista (Michael Hordern), Katarina (Elizabeth Taylor). Very unlike her younger, quiet and gentle sister Bianca (Natasha Pyne), Katarina is strong-willed and has a nasty temper. Many men want to woo the lovely Bianca, including a young scholar (Michael York), but Baptista is adamant that nobody will be wed with his Bianca until the older daughter, the shrew Katarina, is married. And there is only one man who is willing to marry her for her dowry, Petruchio (Richard Burton). When Petruchio and Katarina are wed (forcefully against Katarina's will), Petruchio proceeds to make his 'dear Kate' into a good wife, but is anyone capable of 'taming the shrew'?
A remarkable tale by the talented and famed writer, William Shakespear. And with a delightful cast of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, who can resist liking it? Elizabeth Taylor practically shines in her role! Especially at the part in the end where she makes her strong speech. I was as quiet and attentive as all the guests at the wedding.
For anyone who likes Shakespeare, who likes Elizabeth Taylor, or Richard Burton, or for that matter, want to watch a good movie, watch "The Taming of the Shrew".

More Fun Than A Barrel Full Of Burtons
A rollicking feast for the eye, ear, and funny bone, Franco Zeffirelli's "The Taming of The Shrew" is a tour de force for Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. This pared down version of William Shakespeare's play is a fit morsel for anyone suffering from a fear of the Bard. It's fast pace keeps things going and with a cast of well-known British stars the whole thing is served up to delectable visual perfection.
Richard Burton blends his fabled abilities as a Shakespearian genius with his star power to give us a ribald and loveable Petruchio. This is one of his crowning moments on the screen and we are lucky to have this record of Mr. Burton at his very best.
Elizabeth Taylor is a comic revelation in this, one of her jewels in her acting crown. At the time the film came out, many scoffed at the idea of a mere movie star taking on the challenges of Shakespeare. Miss Taylor rises to the challenge and shines as a stunning, sexy and very funny Kate, in fact she more than rises to the occasion, she shows her command of the medium of film and her understanding of comic timing. The wedding scene is a pure Zeffirelli invention. If you didn't know better you would swear that it was part of the play, it is so well done in faux Shakespeare. Elizabeth shines in this scene. In the final fifteen minutes when she delivers the famous "Lord and Master" speech she is triumphant as she submits to her man. At the same time we know that she is the one who holds all the cards and in the off stage end will rule the roost from now on, all the while letting poor Petruchio think he is king.
The chemistry of Burton and Taylor is pure dynamite that explodes in riotous color across Zeffirelli's Renaissance canvas. Highly recommended viewing, especially if you are new to Shakespeare. It's more fun than a barrel full of Burtons!

The Bawdy Bard !
"The Taming of the Shrew" is a delightful romp, and very entertaining, even for people who do not normally go out of their way to watch Shakespeare. I can imagine serious scholars rolling their eyes at the liberties taken here, and the "star turns" by those two icons of 60s Hollywood, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton.

However, for most of us who basically just want to be entertained--and I suspect with this play, that was the bard's intent--this version is good fun, robustly acted, and with lovely sets and costumes, a feast for the eye. One suspects that Ms. Taylor had a ball, hurling insults and various pieces of furniture at her real-life, on-again off-again, spouse. It looks like Mr. Burton had a good time too, although one frequently has the impression that this was a "well-lubricated" performance !

The supporting cast is fine, with a pleasant film debut for Michael York. As usual, Zeffirelli gives us a film that is gorgeous to look at--and I'm not just referring to Ms. Taylor !
The DVD has a certain haziness to it, but this may be the way that Zeffirelli intended the film to look.

"The Taming of the Shrew" today, of course, is about as "politically incorrect" as a piece of literature can be. While women will find this film amusing, the idea that the female spirit should be "reined in" like that of a wild horse, will cause some discomfort to feminist viewers, I'm sure.

Nevertheless, this film is highly entertaining, and might give younger viewers an idea as to what all the Taylor/Burton fuss was about. Recommended.

Burton & Taylor Are Pure, Fiery, & Feisty Sex Magic
No wonder Burton and Taylor married and divorced many times. The sexual tension between them in this film can be cut with a knife. Taylor plays Kate, the beautiful, fiery, feisty, mean-spirited, unloved eldest daughter of a wealthy man. She has a beautiful & kind sister who has a string of beaus, but... the eldest sister MUST marry first. Enter Burton as Petruchio. Loud, boisterous, dirty, obnoxious and SEXY! He plans to tame Kate, marry her and be a rich man on her dowry. The famous tongue in the tail speech is given on their first meeting, which sets the mood for lusty, sweaty, swarthy fighting. All the while, the sexual tension builds throughout. Many fights & torments ensue... with a beautiful ending that I will not spoil. If you like Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton or just the great and powerful Bard, himself, this is a great movie, directed by the great Franco Zefferelli that is a must see! "There is no other beast on Earth so horrible as man..." (Katharina, Taming Of The Shrew) ... Read more

Amazon.com

The four programs from the History Channel in this set profile America's Founding Fathers, noting right at the outset they were a "mismatched group of quarrelsome aristocrats, merchants, and lawyers." The story of how these disparate characters fomented rebellion in the colonies, formed the Continental Congress, fought the Revolutionary War, and wrote the Constitution is told by noted historians, and the production is enhanced with beautifully photographed reenactments as well as intelligent use of period paintings and engravings. The story begins with Samuel Adams and John Hancock in Boston, whose protests against British taxation led to the Boston Tea Party. Moving on to the Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia, the brilliant delegates from the South, particularly George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, appear on the scene, and the story is told of how an improbable cohesion between the colonies began. Other main characters, including Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, appear in turn, and each of the major participants is portrayed in a biographical profile. How these men all came to act together, despite the stark differences in their backgrounds and temperaments, becomes the main thread of the story. They were all quite human, as the historians who appear in interviews remind us. Some of them drank too much, some had illegitimate children, some owned slaves, and some could hardly get along with anyone. Yet these men with complicated private lives worked together and performed heroically. This is an intelligently rendered and captivating look at the men who formed the American nation. --Robert J. McNamara ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Well worth watching despite the annoying commentators.
This DVD offers an interesting and useful perspective on the Founding Fathers. It is a relatively painless way to learn a great deal about these men, their ideals, and some of the things that gave rise to the American Revolution.

I personally thought that the historian-commentators were largely mouthy and annoying. The narration was pretty good, and in fact I wish there were a way to simply edit out the commentators while leaving the narration. It is possible to present the Founders both as the human beings they were without losing sight of the fact that America was extraordinarily fortunate to have brought forth such men at this critical time. At times I thought that this series missed the mark in this regards, and went out of its way to focus on minor personal quirks that frankly are of no importance and only minor interest. The Founding Fathers were, after all, giants.

Nevertheless, at least this piece deals with the American Revolution and the Founders, which are underrepresented topics.

History, As Good As It Gets-Pure & Simple
We often think of historical documentaries as a bunch of boring pictures with a cracked voice describing events like a list. This is however something very different. It tells the story of how we (USA) became a country through independence and the formation of a constitution as a true yet still continiously fasinating story. The history channel does that by telling the COMPLETE BACKGROUND (like how Franklin was a womanizer, or John Hancock was kind of a rich playboy, Patrick Henry's recitation of Church sermons that developed his speaking and ablities & much more that I encourage you to find out by buying this video) and from that they show you how those past personal experiences influenced all the actions of our founding fathers that resulted in the founding of America. By doing that the history channel allures any viewer to hold there breath and feel the amazement of how as humans such different yet all bright men found a country. And with that along with the hollywood style of clear, realistic-like voices of our founding fathers and with broadway like re-enactments that makes watching this movie feel like watching Braveheart. By shows end any viewer will be off better informed about the true founding of America (I learned so much, I even stumped my 9th grade teacher) and have this great feeling of how lucky we are to be Americans thanks to the amazing contributions of human people (for those overseas, the feeling of how extraordinary America is).

Good Cover, No Meat
What a waste of time. I wanted to learn about the founding of America, instead I am force-fed moronic "professors" obviously chosen for their willingness to say stupid things. One said he was surprised the Founding Fathers were able to function because they were so drunk, using about four different descriptive slang terms rather than "intoxicated." Another said that John Adams was a candiate for Prozac and implied that the first child he had with his wife may have been illegitimate despite being born 9-10 months after the wedding (married in October, baby born in July).

I am so sick of the tripe A&E and the History Channel release. The History Channel used to seem more legitimate than A&E, now it's just the same nonsense. Something calling itself "The HISTORY Channel" should do more than try to revise it.

Don't waste your money.

Great way to learn.
This helped to shine an unexpected new light on our heritage.... Definetly more real than the way it was presented to me in my youth.
A good additional learning tool.

Brings intellectual history to the masses
Recently, I viewed and purchased the sequel to this, "Founding Brothers". I found this series, focusing on the start of the revolutionary spirit to the creation of the Constitution, a bit better.

It is very rare indeed that any video (let alone something for the always mainstream 'History Channe') focuses on the intellectual history of our nation. Usually, the physical aspects of the revolutionary war is focused on. The subject matter here, the revolutions intellectual fire, is not only interesting; it's host of characters: Patrick Henry, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Thomas Paine, etc. is a great "cast".

There are two problems. First, the documentary, like its sequel (see my review) is very one sided towards the federalists. Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and John Adams are treated as saints whereas Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson are written off as purely self-motivated hacks. Similarly, James Madison is focused on AS a federalist but his later anti-federalist leanings are not even MENTIONED.

The second flaw is that some of the voice-overs do not seem quite right. Burt Reynolds as Patrick Henry, James Woods as John Adams, Hal Holbrook as Franklin, these are fine. But imagine my suprise when I found country singer Randy Travis reading for James Madison. And whoever did Thomas Jeffersons voice had equally little passion.

Ryan Setliff's review below may well be a typical reaction to a DVD like this. No, it does not paint the founders as perfect noblemen, but it is accurate. Patrick Henry had a monstrous temper, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were flirts. John Hancock and Alexander Hamilton were greedily ambitious, John Adams was disagreeable in most senses of the word and Thomas Paine was a drunk. Strong statements but I would challenge Mr. Setliff or anyone else to find citations to disprove them. many of the scholars, contrary to Mr. Setliffs contention, have proven themselves. Jack Rakove anyone? ... Read more

Reviews (352)

Not As Good As The First Two
The first Austin Powers movie was hilarious. The second movie basically recycled the same jokes, but I laughed anyway, probably because I was reminded at how good the first movie was. It was comedy by association. I'm sorry, but I can't give this third movie, Goldmember, the same sort of pity laugh. There were a few mild chuckles here and there, but it doesn't even come close to reaching the bar set by its two predecessors.

I'd tell you about the plot of the movie, but I couldn't remember what it was even when I walked out of the theater. Beyonce Knowles did a solid acting job, but it was fairly easy to tell that she was acting in her first movie. Unlike Elizabeth Hurley and Heather Graham in the previous movies, Beyonce doesn't serve as Austin's love interest, so there isn't any of the playing hard-to-get that viewers found so funny in the first two. She's strictly business, which isn't very funny. There's also a new character added to this movie called Goldmember. He's a disco-dancing rollerskater who peels off and eats pieces of his own dry skin. Disgusting? Yes. Funny? No. And, of course, there's Dr. Evil, Fat Bastard, Mini-Me, and all the rest of the usual supporting cast. They each have their funny moments, but not many.

I know several screen writers, and they all say that every scene in a movie is supposed to mean something. In this case, every scene should either provide some sort of comedy or advance the plot of the story. There were several scenes in the movie that didn't do either of these. They were just there holding the movie and its audience in limbo. Everyone in Hollywood is under pressure to meet deadlines and cut costs, and it was very evident that this pressure played a major part in the making of this movie. I'm sure the movie studio knew that people were going to see this movie regardless of quality just because the previous movies were successful, so there was no incentive to make a good movie.

I have to admit that I'm a big Austin Powers fan, and if they make a fourth movie I'll definitely go see it no matter how good or bad it is. Unfortunately, there are alot of other people just like me, and the movie studios know it.

Beyonce can really work it out!
I was so excited to see Beyonce as Foxxy Cleopatra. The movie is extremely funny! The opening scene was extremely funny! The dialogue, the casting and the usual Austin Power pranks are really enjoyable. The movie is basically a trip back in time- a modern day type past? Myers is back but this time he's actually funny. Maybe Knowles helped his performance? Probably! Knowles is the latest in the series, we've loved Liz Hurley, loved Graham, now it's time for Beyonce. The enjoyable part was the usual the dirty jokes, the pranks, and the overacted cast! But you'd probably only enjoy this if you enjoyed the others in the series. If you thought the others were fake and unrealistic, you'd probably hate this! The feature is hilarious!

After quite a lot of years Myers finally once again meets Dr. Evil. Teaming up with the unexplained Goldmember, Dr. Evil comes up with a time-traveling plan to take over the earth, one that includes the capturing of Nigel Powers, Austin's darling dad. In 1975, Myers meets his lovely Foxxy Cleopatra (Beyonce) who plays a sexy detective. It's up to Foxxy and Austin to save the day and to stop Dr. Evil from his evil plans. The movie is great!

Written by Myers himself, the movie is yet another creative weird James Bond movie. The soundtrack includes Beyonce's solo performance in "work it out" as well as two songs written by Myers! Myers was eager to make the third film in the series interesting and just as funny, and he has succeeded! Way to go Myers and Knowles!

----Ahmed Mashhood

Same Old, Same Old...
I won't hesitate a second longer - 'Goldmember' was terrible. The first sequel,' The Spy Who Shagged Me', was bad enough but this really stretches the franchise way too far and over the top.

I would have thought that the writers would have come up with some new material but no, its still the same 'Yeeeah Baby' and 'Very Shagadelic' one liners which bring down this films' credibility even more. It's only saving grace are the vast amount of cameos near the beginning, from then on; its trash. The overused 'mole' joke really gets on your nerves after a while and is just another blatant lack of fresh ideas for this third instalment. Even the appearance of Destiny's Child beauty Beyonce Knowles isn't enough to keep you interested. For real comedy, just stick to the first film.

Funnier Than #2
I found this movie to be more entertaining than the 2nd installment so in that sense it was an improvement, however I would like to know why Beyonce was cast in this film? She is atractive, yes, but so is a good portion of Hollywood women and believe it or not-- Black Hollywood women if that is what their aim was. But alas, I have chalked it up to some good dealing with through her management and tried to look beyond her role at the overall movie. It was decent and I did laugh enough to say it is worth renting. Owning the DVD, on the other hand, is for those who want the deleted scenes which they did a god job of packaging.

Just as Funny as the Other Two Austin Powers Movies
I like all of the Movies in The Austin Powers movie trilogy and Austen Powers - in Goldmember didn't disappoint me at all. Yeah sure, they copied some of the gags from the first two movies but they were still funny and I think Mike Myers was great as always as Austin Powers and Dr. Evil and the rest of the cast was pretty good too, Michael Caine and Seth Green were great and Beyonce Knowles was good too. I have watched this movie two times and each time I watched it on DVD in widescreen and I highly recommend the widescreen because it allows you to see the whole movie while the Fullscreen DVD is just an edited pan & scan with the sides cropped. ... Read more

Amazon.com

"I put the grrr in swinger, baby!" a deliciously randy Austin Powers coos near the beginning of The Spy Who Shagged Me, and if the imagination of Austin creator Mike Myers seems to have sagged a bit, his energy surely hasn't. This friendly, go-for-broke sequel to 1997's Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery finds our man Austin heading back to the '60s to keep perennial nemesis Dr. Evil (Myers again) from blowing up the world--and, more importantly, to get back his mojo, that man-juice that turns Austin into irresistible catnip for women, especially American spygirl Felicity Shagwell (a pretty but vacant Heather Graham). The plot may be irreverent and illogical, the jokes may be bad (with characters named Ivana Humpalot and Robin Swallows, née Spitz), and the scenes may run on too long, but it's all delivered sunnily and with tongue firmly in cheek.

Myers's true triumph, though, is his turn as the neurotic Dr. Evil, who tends to spout the right cultural reference at exactly the wrong time (referring to his moon base as a "Death Star" with Moon Units Alpha and Zappa--in 1969). Myers teams Dr. Evil with a diminutive clone, Mini-Me (Verne J. Troyer),who soon replaces slacker son Scott Evil (Seth Green) as the apple of the doctor's eye; Myers and Troyer work magic in what could plausibly be one of the year's most affecting (and hysterically funny) love stories. Despite a stellar supporting cast--including a sly Rob Lowe as Robert Wagner's younger self and Mindy Sterling as the forbidding Frau Farbissina--it's basically Myers's show, and he pulls a hat trick by playing a third character, the obese and disgusting Scottish assassin Fat Bastard. Many viewers will reel in disgust at Mr. Bastard's repulsive antics and the scatological bent Myers indulges in, including one showstopper involving coffee and--shudder--a stool sample. Still, Myers's good humor and dead-on cultural references win the day; Austin is one spy who proves he can still shag like a minx. --Mark Englehart ... Read more

Reviews (426)

An funny sequel(Which it`s has alot of [Sick] Humor).
After Austin Powers (Mike Myers) has discover his wife is a Femmebot. Dr. Evil (Also Myers) has come back to Earth to try to make peace with his son (Seth Green) but Dr. Evil`s Partner (Mindy Sterling) has made a small clone of Dr. Evil named Mini-Me (Verne Troyer). Dr. Evil has created a time machine to go in the pass to Steal Austin Mojo! When Austin know his Mojo is gone, he goes back in the Pass to get back his Mojo, while he`s teamed up with attractive blonde (Heather Graham), who is a Spy.

Directed by Jay Roach (Meet the Parents, Mystery-Alaska) has made a entertaining fantasy comedy mixed the Spoof gerne. Verne Troyer steals the show, when he`s on screen. One of the highest grossing films of 1999. DVD`s has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and a strong Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD Extras are:an running commentary track by Director, Actor and Co-Screenwriter of the film. Deleted Scenes, Outtakes, Behind the Scenes featurette and More. This is not as clever than the Original but it`s still a very funny film. Super 35. Grade:B+.

Not my kind of comedy, I guess
When I was a kid, I was always badgering my parents to tell me about movie stars who were famous before I was born. One day I saw a W. C. Fields comedy called Never Give a Sucker an Even Break. I asked Mom and Dad about this funny looking man with the weird voice. My questions triggered an argument, because Mom thought Fields was one of the funniest men ever to light up the screen, while Dad felt he was obnoxious, crude and certainly not amusing. When I got older, I understood that humor is a very personal issue. Tell a joke to two different people, and it may be that one rolls on the floor laughing, while the other turns stoned-faced. Mike Myers as Austin Powers is a fine example. You either love the character, or you hate him.

A few years ago, Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery was a fairly big hit. On video, it acquired cult status. Before Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me even opened last summer, it was assured of being a blockbuster. It did nearly four times the business the original did. Another sequel is inevitable.

There are moments that are genuinely funny in the movie, but these are largely like burst of sunshine on a mostly cloudy day. Mike Myers plays three characters - Austin Powers, his nemesis Dr. Evil, and a grotesquely fat Scotsman called Fat Bastard. He is at his best as Dr. Evil, a mean man who is bent on taking over the world, apparently because it's the only thing he can do well. Evil made me laugh. The scene in which he tells his whiny, disrespectful son to shut up is almost a classic. I liked Evil's interactions with his clone, a three foot tall replica of himself called Mini-Me. As for Austin Powers himself, he is a skit character who wears thin in a whole movie. Powers is a parody of the 60s mod man. Fat Bastard is not at all funny, and it is this character who carries the bathroom humor so far that the movie itself often deserves to be flushed down the toilet. I have been known to laugh at gross-out jokes, but the ones built around this character are over the edge. Some are just plain mean-spirited.

Heather Graham as Felicity Shagwell, the spy the movie's title refers to, is decidedly pleasing to look at. To quote another critic, the only thing flat about her is her acting. Michael York, Rob Lowe and Robert Wagner waste their time in their parts. The money was just too good to turn down, and they have been around too long to worry about their resumes.

I haven't said much about the plot, because there's little to say. Dr. Evil goes back in time to steal Austin's "mojo". The rest of the movie involves his attempts to get said item back.

At its best, this Austin Powers is a fond spoof of the spy genre, which has been around since Sean Connery was the first James Bond in 1964's Dr. No. At its worst, it wouldn't even bring a laugh in a locker room or a redneck bar.

Very shagadelic baby!
Now this is a great movie. Although the jokes are recycled there are some new jokes as well. For example Fat Bastard and Mini Me make their debut here and the jokes about that rocket are almost genius. I say while this isnt as good as the first one it is still a grand movie and anyone who likes good comedy should own it.PS- Goldmember sucked.

Good sequel
In 1997, Austin Powers: International Man Of Mystery became more popular a film than anyone could have ever imagined. There was no denying that the film was an instant spy spoof classic, so it's not surprising that a sequel got released two years later. How does the second installment in the series, Austin Powers - The Spy Who Shagged Me - measure up? Read on for my review.

BASIC PLOT:
Dr. Evil has returned from space and has used a time machine to travel back to the sixties. Once there, he meets up with his henchmen from the past, and begins work on a fortress on the moon - where he will put a giant laser he can use to hold the world hostage. Of course, Austin Powers isn't going to stand for this (once again, Mike Myers plays both hero and villain. Myers also plays Dr. Evil's newest henchman, Fat B*stard.) Austin travels back to the sixties to pursue Dr. Evil, and once there, meets an American secret agent who he falls for. The two join forces and set out to stop Dr. Evil's plan from being successful.

FILM OPINIONS:
This film wasn't as good as the first one, but it was still excellent nonetheless. I was a bit disappointed to see time travel introduced into the series, as it is often the plot device that can ruin a perfectly good series. Although it doesn't ruin the series, it creates a ton of plot holes here (of course, since this is a comedy film, it's not THAT important.) Although the film is just as funny as the first one was, this one seems less polished. It's obvious that the film makers just made up most of these ideas as they went along, and that they probably had no plans for a sequel initially (the Vanessa scene in the beginning demonstrates this well.) Despite some serious plot problems, this ends up being a good film. And you've gotta love all the Star Wars references (these were probably due to Episode I also being released in 1999.)

DVD:
After the subpar DVD release of the first film, I was worried that New Line would mess up the second film. Fortunately, they ended up getting it right this time. You get nearly twenty minutes worth of deleted scenes on here, and unlike the first film's deleted scenes, these ones are worth watching. You also get music videos of the songs that were made for the film, including Madonna's Beautiful Stranger and Lenny Kravitz's cover of the Guess Who classic, American Woman. The behind the scenes footage is a nice touch as well, and the commentary track is WAY better than that of the first film. All in all, a good DVD release.

OVERALL:
Overall this movie isn't as good as the first film was, but it's still an excellent film, and if you want to laugh, I strongly recommend checking it out. All of the Austin Powers films are comedy masterpieces, and the second installment in the series demonstrates that well.

Hilarious
All truth be told, the only reason I orginally bought this movie was because Steve Wilkos was in it.

I didn't see the first movie, so I really wasn't sure what to expect from this one. However, I quickly found out that previous knowledge of what happens in the first movie isn't needed to enjoy the second one.

Basic plot: Austin Powers is trying to save the world and meets some chick along the way that helps him.

The movie opens with Austin and Vanessa on their honeymoon. Their marital bliss soon shattered when Austin realizes Vanessa is a fem-bot sent by Dr. Evil to kill him.

Since the robot didn't work, Dr. Evil steals Austin's mojo!

The rest of the movie is Austin and Felicity (Heather Graham) trying to get Austin's mojo back and stop Dr. Evil from going through with the Alan Parsons Project, which will slam an asteriod into the Earth while Dr. Evil and his crew are safe in outer space.

There is a lot of sexual humor that isn't appropriate for younger audiences. It is definitely a PG-13 film. ... Read more