Reviews (275)

One Super DVD
Faster than a speeding bullet. More powerful than a locomotive. Able to leap the tallest building in a single bound. The world's greatest superhero has finally arrived on DVD with "Superman: The Movie" Special Edition. The film focuses on the young survivor of the doomed world of Krypton. After crash-landing on earth, the young alien is adopted by a caring farm couple and grows up with amazing superhuman abilities. Moving to Metropolis, he uses his incredible powers to protect the people and fight injustice. "Superman- the Movie" is probably the best superhero movie to date. The story is quite entertaining but does lose some strength during the second half though it still manages to preserve its entertainment value. The film contains some great performance by Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder and Marlon Brando as Jor-El. The cast also includes Jackie Cooper, Terence Stamp and Ned Beatty. From daring rescues to superhuman feats of strength, the film contains some impressive action sequence and terrific visual effects.

The DVD honors the Man of Steel like it should. The comic book film is presented in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen format. The DVD contains a sharp video transfer and a fine 5.1 Dolby Digital sound with great surround effects. This amazing DVD features an audio commentary with director Richard Donner and consultant Tom Mankiewicz, additional footage including an extended sequence inside Lex Luther's underground gauntlet, behind-the-scenes documentaries, theatrical trailers, deleted scenes and DVD-ROM extras. With such a striking DVD presentation, "Superman" earns an "A".

Super features, super options, JUST PLAIN SUPER!
I enjoyed the Superman DVD. 25 years after this movie came out and seeing it so many times on TV with pan and scan, the newly remastered print blows everything out of the water. The music only option works for the title sequence and hearing the extra tracks on Side B adds to the genius that was John Williams soundtrack.

The audio is remastered and put on a surround sound system instead of the setup I have at home would shake your house to the core. The extra scenes were a good touch as well. Behind the scenes added the great touch of mystique that was Superman. Having Marc McClure host the BTS stuff added a bit of credibility.

Until Spider-Man last year and Batman in 1989, this was the film on which Superheroes were judged. The Hulk disappointed and Daredevil and X-2 were moderate hits.

Superman still stands the test of time, no matter what your views.

Spider-Man has kind of surpassed it...
Well now that we have seen the two Spider-Man movies, I tend to belive that they are now the standards by which other comic book films (both Marvel and DC) will have to live up to now. In a way, Superman is now kind of the odd film out. It works better as an origin story in how Clarke Kent becomes Superman and Chris Reeve's effective perfomance in the title role still works, In the comics, Lex Luthor has always been a one dimensional cartoon character, the only time that he was an effective villian was when Gene Hackman played him in this movie. The final scenes of Superman turning the Earth backward to save lois lane, are what they are. It might be a bit far fetched to put in a movie, but that does not stop audiences from enjoying it. and it doesn't stop me from watching it over and over again.

Born on Krypton, raised by the Kents on Earth, Becomes Hero
The Man of Steel flys into the spectactular motion picture, Based The DC Comic and also appearing in Action Comics, Christopher Reeve stars as Clark Kent.Reporter in Metropolis,Illnois for the newspaper the Daily Planet,And trouble emerges Clark Kent flys to the rescue as Superman, a blue suited red caped powerful wonder. He takes on Lex Luthor played Gene Hackman and falls for Lois Lane played Margot Kidder and Marlon Brand as the Krytonian father of Superman Jor EL. This Film is a Great Superhero movie and great film all around, probably the most imaginative thing the Man of Steel has been in. Superman began as the comic, then a radio show, several 1950s B movies, TV show and in 1978 the true Superman ovie. Superman is imaginative in everthing because hes an imaginative character. A pop culture icon on screen and in everthing else. the Special Effects are incredible, This a Super high flying ride. You Want a good superhero movie before Batman and Spider-Man this is it. If it wasn't for this classic we would'nt have superhero movies like Spider-Man 1&2,Batman,Hulk and X-Men 1&2. Thank Hollywood for making a great superhero film that lauched other superhero films. A thrilling Film of one of the greatest heroes of the 20th century, The Man of Steel, SUPERMAN.

Release Superman into our 21st century!
Very bad film.
They released Spiderman into the 21st century, why not Superman?
I've always found him to be the most appealing comic book character. He is sure for an amazing performance.
RELEASE HIM INTO OUR CENTURY! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Robert Bolt's successful play was not considered a hot commercial property by Columbia Pictures--a period piece about a moral issue without a star, without even a love story. Perhaps that's why Columbia left director Fred Zinnemann alone to make A Man for All Seasons, as long as he stuck to a relatively small budget. The results took everyone by surprise, as the talky morality play became a box-office hit and collected the top Oscars for 1966. At the play's heart is the standoff between King Henry VIII (Robert Shaw, in young lion form) and Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield, in an Oscar-winning performance). Henry wants More's official approval of divorce, but More's strict ethical and religious code will not let him waffle. More's rectitude is a source of exasperation to Cardinal Wolsey (Orson Welles in a cameo), who chides, "If you could just see facts flat on without that horrible moral squint." Zinnemann's approach is all simplicity, and indeed the somewhat prosaic staging doesn't create a great deal of cinematic excitement. But the language is worth savoring, and the ethical politics are debated with all the calm and majesty of an absorbing chess game. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (92)

A longtime favorite
One of the greatest English language films ever made about one of the greatest men who ever lived. St. Thomas More was a man of extraordinary conviction and through the years has proven to be a great inspiration to me, personally. When Sir Thomas is asked to endorse Henry VIII's petition for annulment from his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, he's fully aware of the consequences of his refusal. Nevertheless, he did what he knew and felt was right and he paid the ultimate price. A true martyr in every sense of the word and a film that makes the viewer question his own value system and sense of passion and integrity. Paul Scoffield's brilliant and profound characterization of Sir Thomas is still a wonder to behold. He imbues this larger than life person with such quiet dignity and grace that it belies the reality of his existence. This is not a man worried about dying. This is a man worried about living without the courage of his convictions, knowing that he supported something he truly abhorred and knew was wrong. Robert Shaw's performance as Henry VIII is equally wonderful, as are Susannah York, Dame Wendy Hiller and Orson Wells. I never tire of watching this film or reading the play; incidentally, also one of my favorites.

A well-crafted film...
I first saw "A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS" in 1966 when it first came out. I was a senior in high school, and since this was the pre-hippie era, everyone was gung-ho about Sir Thomas More's duty, integrity, etc. There's no question that Fred Zinnemann crafted a masterpiece on the tiny budget allowed him by Columbia, since all the studios were losing money on talky, period pieces.The acting is incomparable, a perfect ensemble centering around the unflinchingly confident performance of Scofield (he'd done the role hundreds of times on stage). The costumes won an Oscar, and were certainly beautiful, though they were so bulky it looked really difficult for the characters to get close to each other. It won an Oscar for Cinematography, too, though the film really is somewhat of a filmed play (I thought the filming of "Hawaii" and "The Sand Pebbles",also nominated, was more breath-taking). Though these are minor problems, they are soon forgotten when one pays attention to the incredible screenplay of Robert Bolt.Loaded with passion and strong character development, it's also a valid history lesson. Don't watch this if there are any distractions (kids, company, etc.) since its maximum appreciation requires concentration. I'm also wondering why the DVD is substantially higher-priced than most others, since there are absolutely NO extras of any kind. This film is notable also for Vanessa Redgrave's unbilled film debut as Anne Boleyn, on screen for only a few minutes, but an absolutely riveting film moment. Everyone should see ths film, but I'd hesitate to recommend you buy it if only due to the unreasonable price.

"Seasons" offers poignancy, pause
Paul Scofield's quiet, dignified portrayl of Sir Thomas More is one of the most riveting performances one will ever find.

With a determined, yet not brash or unseemly stance against Henry VIII (Robert Shaw, in all his young glory), More creates a devastating question for the viewer: how long do our principles remain dear to us. To discomfort? To imprisonment? To death?

Perhaps one of the most endearing qualities of More's character is that he does not waver. It is a quality that is only universal in the sense that it is respected by all men and possessed by very few.

In the end, perhaps the only validation More is given is the dignity of his death, his detractors exposed as dishonest, biased men. Is that enough? Certainly More was able to change little of history by the manner of his death. It did not stop the divorce OR the Anglican church. Perhaps the only prize integrity has is itself. Certainly More himself believed a much higher reward awaited him. After watching this movie, regardless of religion, you will find yourself hoping he was right.

The Most Interesting of Six Thomases
This period in English history and then the Elizabethan era which follows have always interested me. You thus can understand my appreciation of Derek Wilson's book In the Lion's Court: Power, Ambition, and Sudden Death in the Reign of Henry VIIII. Wilson focuses his primary attention on six Thomases: Wolsey, More, Cromwell, Howard, Wriothesley, and Cramner. Henry's VIII's relationships with all six serve as the basis of Wilson's narrative. By the way, there really were lions in London at that time ("the King's Beasts") housed in the Tower menagerie and a major tourist attraction. More once compared the king's court to a lion pit "in which the magnificent and deadly king of beasts held sway." Of the six, More interests me the most. His rectitude threatens and infuriates Henry, and eventually results in More's execution. Thus presented, More is a tragic but noble political victim and religious martyr, later canonized by the Roman Catholic Church. He is no less admirable as portrayed by Wilson but, in my opinion, is much more complicated than Bolt and others suggest. For years, More skillfully navigated his way through a court ("a lion pit") characterized by what Wilson refers to as its "seamy realities": "The royal entourage was a vicious, squirming world of competing ambitions and petty feuds, guilty secrets and salacious prudery. Courtiers, vulnerable to threats and bribes, could be induced to perjure themselves, to exaggerate amorous incidents which were innocent in the context of stylised chivalric convention, to indulge personal vendettas....Over all these momentous happenings looms the larger-than-life figure of Henry VIII, powerful and capricious yet always an enigma."

People still disagree about Robert Bolt's characterization of More in the play and then in the film for which Bolt received an Academy Award for best adapted screenplay. I agree with others who insist that More was less noble than Bolt suggests. No one, however, disputes the fact that More courageously accepted decapitation rather than compromise his religious faith. Cynics suggest that More was already a dead man...and knew it. He had an estate to protect and family obligations to accommodate. I am unqualified to speculate or even comment further on More's motives even as I marvel at his survival skills when drawn into "the lion's court."

Paul Scofield received and deserved his Academy Award for best actor in a leading role. The film and director Fred Zimmermann also received Academy Awards. The cast is exceptionally talented, especially Nigel Davenport (Duke of Norfolk), Wendy Hiller (Alice Cromwell), John Hurt (Richard Rich), Leo McKern (Thomas Cromwell), Vanessa Redgrave (Ann Boleyn), Robert Shaw (Henry VIII), Orson Welles (Cardinal Wolsey), and Susannah York (Margaret More). Unlike many stage productions later filmed, this one derives substantial benefit from Ted Moore's cinematography, especially the exteriors shot throughout and beyond royal residences. Moore also received an Academy Award for his work.

Those with an especially keen interest may wish to examine The Last Letters of Thomas More as well as several solid biographies of him by Peter Ackroyd, J.A. Guy, Richard Marius, and Gerard B. Wegemer.

A film for all viewers
Without a doubt, this is one of my top ten films of all time, mainly because there is so much that can be drawn from.

Zinnemann's adaptaion of the Robert Boltman play was done on a low budget, and whilst it takes artistic license slightly further, the film remains a historical masterpiece. Paul Schofield as More is magnificent, combining a stoical adherence to truth on the one hand, with a dry wit on the other, and this is an accuracy of depiction that could not have been drawn from the words of the script. Robert Shaw as Henry is also fantastic, showing the viewer both the very personal side of the monarch, when he is disappointed at More's non-attendence at the wedding to Anne Boleyn; and the aggression of a lion as he shouts (in full hearing of all party guests) - "I ask you, do they take me for a simpleton?" The swift change from an amiable friend to a dominating absolute monarch is brilliantly played by Shaw, and though it is a marked contrast to the plain More, the performances are equally great.

In October 2000, John Paul II made Thomas More the Patron of politicians (he was already the unofficial patron of Catholic lawyers in the UK). Both positions indicate what a great man he was. A scholar of great learning, a man of letters, a liberal in an autocratic age. His character was perhaps best displayed as his end, in his words to the executioner - "Pluck up thy spirits, man, and be not afraid to do thine office; my neck is very short; take heed therefore thou strike not awry, for saving of thine honesty." The combination of humor and greatness, even in the face of death, povide a role model for all.

If you enjoy the film, read the play and 'The Life of Sir Thomas More' by William Roper, his nephew. Although it bears relation to a specific incident, this popular poem of the time is a fitting epitaph for this great man -
When More some time had Chancellor been
No more suits did remain.
The like will never more be seen,
Till More be there again. ... Read more

Reviews (132)

"Superman II: The Wrath of Zod!"
That would have made a better title when it came out into theaters in 1981(Giggle)! Anyway, the second Superman movie was definately a gem for anyone to watch! It is action packed as the Man of Steel (Christopher Reeve) takes on the 3 Kryptonian villains (wonderfully played by Terrence Stamp, Sarah Douglas, and Jack O'Halloran), and its romantic in terms of Superman becoming serious with Lois Lane (Margot Kidder)! Although it was sad that Richard Donner didn't get to direct the second movie, Richard Lester did a wonderful job filling his shoes! However, this was the first film which really began the down-fall of the series! It was clear that Richard Donner did set the tone for Superman which meant not to muck around with the legend! That being the case with the powers you see in this film! If you are a die-hard Superman fan, and know the character and his powers, you'll know what I mean when you watch it! Second, the romance of this film with Lois and Superman does reach it's peak, but then at the end of this film, the fans will be upset with the total outcome! The worst was yet to come with the next 2 films! Fortunately, this DVD is special to me because the magic is still there! Along with the "letterbox" widescreen version to the film which preserves this film and the other so well! Still, I know there were scenes cut-out of the original film that I wish could have been added onto this DVD! Maybe they will come out with the complete version someday soon! Still, a very good movie I recomend to anyone!

Superman II - Extended ONLY
This film gets 4 stars from me based on its extended version and not on the pathetic theatrical cut! A lot of footage was cut from this film but did make it onto various extended versions that were screened across the world. The theatrical cut of this film is a poor reflection on what director Richard Donner intended the world to see. After his sacking by the Salkinds, Richard Lester was dragged in to complete the film and refilm perfectly filmed scenes which Donner filmed in 1977. This decision cost everyone a great movie.

In 1984 fans finally got a well edited film when a lot of Donner's footage was re-inserted into TV broadcasts of the movie. The longest version having accumalated some 24 mins of additional footage. This version has only been screened in Europe and Australia and contains 7 mins more footage than the 1984 ABC telecast. Most notable extended scenes are of Lex and Eve exploring the exterior of the fortress. Miss T to Les, "...It is funny that there is no front door...". Also present is Superman's "Blast off!" line after Lex and the villains are taken away by the Arctic police. These crucial scenes were cut from the theatrical and ABC extended broadcasts.

In saying that still, the film will get 5 stars when I see all director Richard Donner's footage restored into the film.

Anyone thinking that the theatrical is a good film is much mistaken. Any of the extended TV broadcast are a MAJOR improvement over an average film!

A Richard Donner Cut is what I'm after
Not nearly as good as the first movie, this suffers from production problems as a result of Donner's sacking by the Salkinds.
It's plainly obvious which scenes were shot by Donner and which weren't. And sadly, they left out a hefty chunk of what Donner had filmed, giving Lester the top billing as director.
Another sad omission is John Williams rousing score, which has been poorly duplicated. Not nearly as uplifting and powerful as John William's efforts in one.
Although the primary focus is on Lois and Superman's relationship, it doesn't save this picture from stinking. Even Gene Hackman's wonderful performance(which was all directed by Donner, with the exception of scenes where Lester used a body double and an impersonator for Hackman's voice) can't salvage this.
So why do I give this three stars? Because it does have it's moments, though scattered, and I live in the hope that a Richard Donner cut, using primarily all his footage, which would bring back all the scenes with Marlon Brando, will eventually pop up and finally put to bed the question of what could have been.

We need a 21st Century Superman movie!
Very bad film.
They released Spiderman into the 21st century, why not Superman?
I've always found him to be the most appealing comic book character. He is sure for an amazing performance.
RELEASE HIM INTO OUR CENTURY!

BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL!!!
All you people complaining about what is and should have been (Donner not being able to complete the project) the end result is a movie that many people view as better! Leave my Superman II alone! ... Read more

Reviews (32)

gloom, despair, agony, bleak, depressing...I LOVE IT !
Jane Fonda left her fluff pieces behind her and became a REAL actress after her Oscar-nominated performance here as Gloria, the bitter and hopeless woman who joins a grueling dance marathon (a craze of the Depression '30s) with Michael Sarrazin as her partner. She leaves nothing behind and throws herself into this bleak role taking huge risks that 'STAR' actresses don't do anymore. The film also put Sydney Pollack on the map as a director to be reckoned with. Finding an audience for this film may be tough because of its unrelenting gloom, but if you watch it and don't find yourself thinking about it for weeks after you have seen it, you don't know what movies are about. The message here is that there are no winners in life....only survivors. These are the kinds of films I favor (bleak and depressing) as that is what real life is about....it's a struggle. If you're looking for a diversion from real life, don't come here. The film also contains an Oscar-winning turn by Gig Young as the dance marathon's promoter and emcee and an Oscar-nominated performance by Susannah York as a Garboesque wannabe actress looking for a break. Horses is more a disaster film than anything else. No ship hits an iceberg and no building catches fire, but everyone involved experiences disaster. Don't pass this up.

A MASTERPIECE RESTORED
I was overjoyed to receive a gift of the reissue of this video in 1995, that is until I watched it in all its "pan & scan" desecration. It is truly a joy to watch this DVD (VHS is now available in widescreen as well) in the right format with all the extras. But all that aside, this is a towering, neglected masterpiece of American cinema that virtually put director Sydney Pollack on the map and established Jane Fonda as the premier American actress of the Sixties and Seventies. Who else could have captured the tragic essence of the bitter, beaten Gloria but Fonda? Watch her especially in the final elimination round as she desperately (and literally) carries her ailing partner around the floor in a final attempt to win the big prize and (symbolically) maybe give life one more try. Fonda never sentimalizes this great character as a lesser actress would have been tempted to; no simple answers or easy forgiveness will do for Gloria--she is too important to be trivialized. Red Buttons, Susannah York, and Gig Young are also superb in supporting roles; the cinematography and music also deserve kudos. If you haven't seen it, do not miss this American classic and one of the century's greatest actresses just entering her prime. How we do miss Jane.

An Awful Movie
They Shoot Horses, Don't They? is an awful film. It is about as interesting as watching water boil. It is also unhistorical in that the 1930's are depicted as a time of prosperity even though in real life that was the decade of the Great Depression.

There is no real depth to the plot. Nor is there anything exceptional about either the direction, photography or the soundtrack. Jane Fonda is badly miscast in this role and she delivers her lines poorly. None of the performances in this movie are especially good.

In sum, this is a movie to avoid.

Possibly the worst movie of all time!
The only movies that may be worse would be Accidental Tourist or maybe Blair Witch Project. It's tough to pin down what exactly made this movie so bad. Thats probably because every facet of it STUNK SO BAD! All I know is that I wasted 2 hours of my life of this tripe, 2 hours that I'll never get back. Go ahead and rate my review as unhelpful if you must, but DON'T SPEND MONEY ON THIS FILM!

Jane Fonda's Performance was Overlooked!
Horace McCoy's depression era play, They Shoot Horses, Don't They? is tragically brought to life through the performances of an ensemble cast. Jane Fonda delivers her greatest performance, as Gloria, a loner trying to cope with an everyday painful existence.
Be prepared for a shocking ending, if that's possible. There arises a glimmer of hope that life is better.
Sydney Pollack directs a masterpiece in the exploration of the human condition under the throngs of depression. The utter despair, agony, and suffering of each character is felt, heard, seen, and endured by the viewer. It becomes so intense that you want to scream, "Enough, I can't watch any more." There's no need to scream out. Horace McCoy solves the problem for the viewer, and for Gloria. ... Read more

Reviews (80)

Great aerial combat sequences with even better cast
Battle of Britain is a huge war epic along the lines of A Bridge too Far and The Longest Day. In the years before the United States entered WWII, England had to hold back Nazi Germany almost singlehandedly. After the disaster at Dunkirk, it looked like there was no stopping the Germans. All that remained was for the German Luftwaffe to weaken England to the point where a land invasion could take place allowing Hitler to take control of Great Britain. The only surviving hope for England was the RAF, Royal Air Force. Hopelessly outnumbered, 2500 German planes to 690 British planes, the RAF had to hold back the Luftwaffe in the skies above England. The movie tells the story, from both sides, of the British pilots and their efforts to stop Germany from complete domination of Western Europe. This movie has the best aerial combat sequences ever put on film. One particularly effective scene has the musical score playing over the silent dogfights between the RAF and the Luftwaffe. Battle of Britain is a great war movie, full of action that should not be missed.

Battle of Britain boasts an impressive cast full of notable British actors. The huge list includes, in alphabetical order, Harry Andrews, Michael Caine, Edward Fox, Trevor Howard, Curt Jurgens, Ian McShane, Kenneth More, Laurence Olivier, Nigel Patrick, Christopher Plummer, Michael Redgrave, Ralph Richardson, Robert Shaw, Patrick Wymark, and Susannah York. The ones that really stand out from the rest are Robert Shaw as a squadron leader trying to get his fighter squadron through the battle and Christopher Plummer as a fighter pilot trying to save his marriage. The DVD offers a great-looking widescreen presentation and the theatrical trailer. For a great war epic with a huge cast and great aerial combat footage, check out Battle of Britain!

A Terrific & Accurate Depiction of The Fight For Britain!
Sit back and relax, for you are about to enter the stirring, deep blue, and rarified air above the skies of England, where the battle for supremacy of the skies is about to commence. In one of the finest war movies ever made, the familiar saga of how the few available aviators with their Spitfires and Hurricanes simply out-flew, out-fought, and out-lasted the waves of Luftwaffe airplanes while the future of Britain and the free world hung precariously in the balance. The cinematography is magnificent, as are the dog fighting sequences of so many carefully restored vintage Spitfires and Hurricanes, and a number of German aircraft as well. In what became known as the biggest and longest running air battle in history, the British flyers overcame the stunning numerical superiority of the Nazi air services with luck, courage, and the assistance of the newly developed land-based radar systems.

The cast is splendid, with Michael Caine, Trevor Howard, Sir Lawrence Olivier, Michael Redgrave, Christopher Plummer, Edward Fox and many others. The German players are excellent, as well and the oft-told tale of how the Germans at first devastated the British air force by overwhelming it through sheer numbers and often catching them on the ground in their most vulnerable positions. In the initial few weeks the losses of both planes and pilots was catastrophic, and it appeared that they would soon be overwhelmed and defeated. Yet, after the Brits decided to pursue a desperate bombing campaign over Berlin to inflict some punishment of their own, Hitler made a fateful vengeful error by angrily deciding to redirect the focus of attacks to urban areas such as London, thus making his unescorted bombers much more vulnerable to anti-aircraft batteries and much more open to attack by the British fighters. This is a wonderful and quite historically accurate depiction of the fabled 'finest hour' of the Brits in staving off the hordes of invading 'Huns', and carving a place in history for themselves in the process. It is quite long, but there is a terrific set of action sequences, and one can't help but be impressed by the magnitude of the events as they are portrayed here. So, turn down the lights and fire up that VCR, the battle is about to begin! Enjoy!

irresistable
Although made as a tribute to the RAF and this episode in World War II history, it nonetheless followed the successful formula of Tora, Tora, Tora, by making the enemy human and reasonable. It captures the essential spirit of the contestants in this epic air battle. The fact it was done for real, before CGI effects were what they are today, is an asset. There is a reality about it, a versimillitude, that comes from actually using the real articles. It gives the film an authentic look and thus there is no temptation to monkey with history by flooding the skies with an exaggerated computer panoply of planes or having the aircraft demonstrate exciting but very unrealistic maneuvers.

Their finest hour: the movie
Some years ago I was talking with a late-middle-aged Englishman who had been involved in the U.S. film industry. After we had exhausted, for the time being, a mutual interest -- beautiful leading actresses -- the subject somehow got around to the film The Battle of Britain. My acquaintance said that among the film's distinctions was that, having been released in 1969 (which probably meant it had been written and filmed a year or more earlier), it possessed an authenticity that was becoming less possible with each passing year: many members of the cast and crew were old enough to remember the World War II years, and some had actually been involved in events related to the story.

When I saw the film in its DVD incarnation recently, it was that aura of authenticity, of being visualized through having "been there," that leaped out at me. The most critical year of the battle, 1941, was 28 years before the movie appeared. The key personnel could remember that time well enough to get the less obvious details right.

So, in The Battle of Britain, it's not just the uniforms and aircraft insignia and such that are accurate; you also get a sense that the words the characters speak, the vocal style (more formal by far than today's U.K. English), the interior decor, and the countryside as seen from the air (much less built-up in 1969) ring true in a way that would be hard to reproduce now.

(The only serious anachronism is that the women sport hairstyles that no one would have dreamed of in the '40s.)

The film is a remarkable technical triumph in its thrilling depiction of air battles. I know nothing about the production background, but they obviously used real Spitfires, Messerschmitts and Heinkels in dazzling maneuvers. I would not have thought there'd have been enough left in airworthy condition, or that anyone would have allowed them to be used in simulated aerial combat that surely had the potential for accidental destruction of the aircraft. Perhaps the Spitfires' owners felt that it was worth the risk to aid a movie that might enable the younger generation to better understand the heroism and sacrifices of the RAF pilots in the war.

The shots of the planes exploding and crashing were presumably done with models, but the verisimilitude is outstanding. You are almost never conscious that you are watching special effects.

In the intervals between aerial dogfights, the scenes on the ground are less compelling, although it's interesting to see how the locations of the German bombers and the RAF fighters were plotted on huge horizontal maps by RAF women (Wrens?) receiving radio messages from spotters via headphones.

With all this going for the film, it's too bad I have to tell you not to get too excited when you see the cast list. Many of the famous names involved have only routine or minor roles. Even Michael Caine doesn't make much of an impression. In the movie's one concession to romance, Christopher Plummer is a colorless "leading man." Susannah York, playing the object of his affections, blows her one big moment, in the aftermath of a bombing attack on the airfield where she's stationed, by egregiously overacting.

Two greats of the English stage and screen provide some compensation. Ralph Richardson, as a diplomat who receives a German ambassador who wants to persuade the British government that they have no chance against an invasion, has only one scene. But Richardson, with that extraordinary voice that Kenneth Tynan compared to the sound of very expensive tissue paper being crinkled, offers a riposte that stirs the blood.

Laurence Olivier plays the air chief marshal in overall charge of the RAF defense strategy, with an air of controlled, bottomless melancholy, as though he feels that every RAF airman who will die in the cockpit is his brother. We, too, should mourn all those who were killed or maimed to save Britain in her darkest hour, and honor them for every hour of freedom that they helped make it possible for us to enjoy. The Battle of Britain isn't the ideal tribute to those heroes, but it's a heartfelt one, and its virtues well outweigh its lesser moments.

The DVD transfer is good. And if you haven't seen the widescreen version, you haven't seen the film.

Perhaps the best aerial combat movie I've seen
"Battle of Britain" starts with RAF pilots evacuating in France with the Germans in hot pursuit. The situation is grim, as the RAF are outnumbered nearly 4-1 and the Germans seem to be unstoppable. Despite this, the British continue a stiff upper lip and refuse to back down, and from then on must deal with constant German attacks and shortages in manpower - all real issues the RAF had to deal with back in this point in the war.

Much of the storyline is told from different perspectives of the characters, some historical figures and some from the ranks of the front-line. It is much like the way they did the story in "A Night to Remember": there is no real main story, but different characters in different parts of the event having their own experiences. It works fairly well, with the exception of perhaps Christopher Plummer's and Susanna York's characters. It's not so much that it's a love story as much that it's never really resolved and therefore makes itself pointless - I don't want to give away any spoilers, but if you watch the film you'll know what I mean. Otherwise, the other characters and subplots don't get in the way of the story too much and serve to give you a perspective of what the war was like.

The aerial combat scenes were - as I've already suggested in my title - completely astounding. The accuracy is very good, with Spitfires looking like Spitfires and Heinkels looking like Heinkels. The way they filmed the combat was well done, and I must give the cinematographer thumbs up for the beautiful shots of the sky backdropped against the planes. The point-of view from the cockpit was the best part of the film, especially a shot where you watch from cockpit-view as a Spitfire flies right over the edge of a Heinkel, nearly crashing into it.

The DVD is a bit lacking, I'm afraid. As far as special features...I hope you like the theatrical trailer and watching the movie with French or Spanish subtitles. The theatrical trailer isn't worth you're time, unfortunately. It's a series of random images from the film with a narrator chanting, "Never before has a movie been done like this! Watch as planes zoom around and things fall down and go boom!" The movie itself looks and sounds good, and I suppose that's what really matters to most people. Still, I see a waste of potential.

Despite this, I would definately suggest to my fellow war-film gurus that they pick up this movie. It is in the same breath of "Tora, Tora, Tora" and "A Bridge Too Far," and it doesn't fail. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Venerable British actors Alec Guinness and John Mills give two of their finest performances in Tunes of Glory, a compelling, emotionally charged study of leadership in a peacetime Scottish battalion. In one of his most memorable roles, Guinness plays Jock Sinclair, the brash, red-haired colonel who temporarily commands his regiment of loyal, devoted soldiers. He's quick with a drink and hearty tales of military bravado, placing him in fun-loving contrast to his replacement, Col. Barrow (Mills), a hot-tempered martinet whose by-the-book style couldn't be more different, or less likable, than Sinclair's. In adapting his own novel for director Ronald Neame, James Kennaway keenly establishes the psychological opposition of these two stubborn men, demonstrating the equal merit of their military careers while exploring class distinctions and, ultimately, the inevitable tragedy of their failure to reach a mutual understanding. Ironically, Guinness was originally offered Mills's role, but suggested a switch to avoid comparison to his role in The Bridge on the River Kwai. It was an inspired decision, allowing each actor to shine in a timeless film that speaks volumes about military men and the winning (or losing) of hearts and minds. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (17)

a tour de force of acting!
Alec Guinness and John Mills - two of the best actors for decades, though I don't think either really received their full dues. Face it, a lot of people's awareness of Guinness came from Star Wars. And that is a shame. He was a brilliant actor with a touch of comedic genius, and he shines in this battle of wits and wills with Mills, another great.

It's basically a two man film, though there is a fine supporting cast of John Fraser, Dennis Price, Susannah York, Gordon Jackson, Percy Herbert and Peter McEnery.

Guinness is Major Jock Sinclair who has been with this Highland regiment since he joined as a boy piper, and rose to Second-in-Command during war time. The unit is now back in Scotland during peace time. Had he stayed as second-in-command, it might now have set tone for the conflict with Lt. Col. Basil Barrow (John Mills). But Jock has been Acting-Commander, so he fully expected to be promoted to full command. The men love him, he's a real man's man. He is devastated, a blow to his ego, when they bring in Barrow to assume command.

Barrow is not a very likable character, a martinet, so it's easy for Jock to wage psychological warfare by undermining Barrow at every turn. A Sandhurst trained disciplinarian, Barrows quickly alienates everyone with his prissy by the book ways, giving Jock the power to slowly rot Barrows authority, ultimately shaking Barrows mental foundations.

While Jock is doing all he can to send Barrows into a tissy fit, Jock's daughter is slipping around meeting John Fraser, which is pushing Jock to the edge as well.

There is a coming confrontation and only one man will survive.

This is acting at is best, and this film really should get more attention.

An astonishing story by Ronald Neame...
The sociable and veteran Major Jock Sinclair (Alec Guinness) has been the acting as Commanding Officer for the Highland Regiment since World War II where he once began as a piper. However, Jock is about to be replaced by a new Commanding Officer, Lt. Col. Basil Barrow (John MIlls), and the mere thought of being swapped with another officer upsets Jock. Colonel Barrow is an aloof and pedant officer with deep scares from the war where he spent most of his time in a prison camp. When Colonel Barrow takes over he immediately begins to set his changes into action, which upsets the lenient Jock who does not like Colonel Barrow or his new strict changes that he has brought to the Highland Regiment. These changes instigate Jock to begin a private psychological warfare toward Colonel Barrow where he plays on the fact that the other officers are not used to changes.

Tunes of Glory is an astonishing story as it displays the rough surface of the Highland military, but at the same time presents the affectionate side of grown men that have returned from war. On top of this the audience gets to see two outstanding performances by Alec Guinness and John Mills that are supported by a terrific cast. In the end the audience will have experienced a wonderful film that leaves them with thoughts and stirred feelings.

One astonishing movie
This smart film shows us one true tour de force between John Mills and Alec Guiness.
Besides all the technical aspects that support this work, the dramatic nucleus deserves be remarked.
Yet this film was made in 1960 ; this script turns around one the essentials lines that support the question about what an effective leader must be.
Look inside what Guiness means; he has set up his mood leadership in a crowd of soldiers accostumed to his irreverent behavior.
He shares what they like; he drinks and he's vulgar too; in other words he flies with them , even ridiculizes the essential role of the authority. This a style yet employed for many managements specially in organizations composed by people of medium professional rank ; this leader stans up about the warm scent of the charisma; that behavior lets to Guiness smell and know the hidden weakness of every man under his power.
This approach is suddenly disturbed when an officer (John Mills) comes for him to replace. Obviously; that fact generates an inmediat reaction state in all the officers. Guiness knows his days are gone and yet he fights with his rules ; you disagree with his psycolghical handles; but you think that Mills a distingued officer, will be capable to end with this screwy state of things.
The obstacle are countless: some are direct and the rest you can imagine: that invisible match to establish the real rules of game , will turn in an unexpected twist ending.
The script is very carefully made ; just remember just two years before Stanley Kubrick had filmed Paths of Glory. This is important due the bitter atmosphere about every item related with the authority excess was not accepted in any society status.
Add to this, the Korea Cold War from the fifties ; the russian invassion over Hungary ; the growing nuclear tension around the nuclear weapons and the visible increase of peace movements all around the world in multiple facets as Litherature; poetry ; painting (Jason Pollock) ; music (rock & roll); cinema (New Wave birth) and challenging films as Baby doll, On the waterfront or Anatomy of a crime ; the raising movements for protecting the nature ; at this decade (fifties) the society was opened for new discoveries and sensations search (remember that the pill was discovered in the middle of the fifties) ; and this mood made the loss of certain principles you assumed as permanent.
And this movie walks in that direction. Watch this one; because its values and intentions goes far beyond a mere entertainment , the movie inquires you ; it challenges you and invites you to react.
Another superb achievement.

Fine DVD for a Guinness classic
No need to say much about the film itself: it is superb as others have agreed, with a phenomenally compelling performance from Sir Alec Guinness, with Sir John Mills (who won Best Actor prize at the 1960 Venice Film Festival) and the rest of the cast giving great support.

The Criterion DVD offers a really fine transfer: colours are rich, and there is a total absence of any artefacts, nicks or blemishes in the print. Sharpness is also very good, there is a hint of occasional grain but this is in the original celluloid I think - and anyway is nothing to worry about.

One slight caveat which has been commented upon by various review sites (so is not just a flaw in my DVD copy) is near the end of the film the appearance on the transfer of an opaque vertical line close to the right edge of the image, about a centimetre wide on my 28" screen. This is not really as distracting as it sounds and was presumably unfixable by Criterion from the source print. It starts near the end of the snooker room scene and stays for about 5 minutes - disappearing during Guinness's tour-de-force final scene where he addresses the assembled officers in a bravura display of fine acting - which leads to the unforgettable (and very moving) climax of the film. Certainly no-one should be put off by this slight flaw as it didn't interfere with my enjoyment of the film.

Soundwise this film offers a straight mono track - which with a 5 channel set-up will unusually use only the centre speaker. Manually adjusting my amp I was able to switch to the two fronts (minus the centre) which gives a slightly wider soundstage. In any event the dialogue is clear (subtitles will help with some of the more inpenetrable lines) and Malcolm Arnold'd bagpipe-based score comes through well.

The extras are slight but OK: the audio-only interview with the aged John Mills in 2002 is not too revealing but he is a lovely man, as comes across well here. The filmed interview with Guinness is better but covers his whole career rather than this film - and he doesn't give too much away of the real man. The trailer is interesting - because it is so appallingly (and hilariously) bad, with a dreadful voiceover and bizarre captions.

Get this DVD for the fine transfer of a brilliant film, which at the end of the day is the prime reason for any DVD package.

Och aye, a supairrb disc!
One of my favorite films has finally made it to DVD. One of the true gems of the postwar British cinema, by a director who often gets short shrift alongside his illustrious contemporaries, Ronald Neame. Everything about the picture's been said - some of the best screen acting of all time in this one. The disc does it justice. The delicate color balance is magnificently rendered,
and the sound is equally well-presented. The real kicker, tho',
is in the extras. The Neame interview is a delight, as is the Guinness one. The Mills one is marred slightly by the rather fatuous questions he is aked, but still quite fine. In short, Criterion hits another one out of the park. Pour yersailf a
wee dram, sit down, and enjoy a bona-fide classic. ... Read more

Reviews (25)

LOVE this movie!!!!
I saw this in the theatre when it was first released, and the passage of time has done nothing to dim my love and fascination of this superb translation of the novel by Fielding. Of course, Albert Finney made a very dashing Tom Jones, and wqas so perfectly suited to the role; Susannah York great as his true love, Sophie, and the other roles, Hugh Griffith as Sophie's father, and hilarious in his part as a drunken, boisterous, lusty squire, and Dame Edith Evans as his rather disapproving, but very funny sister, reprimanding him with a trilling "Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrother...." while he is wrestling some country maidens in the haystacks, straw in his hair and a pack of bulldogs surrounding him. The dinner scene with him eating a roast chicken with great gusto, so much so that he harangues Sophie with pieces of it in his nose, is delightful, as is his unscripted departure from Squire Allworthy's residence, on his horse, and turning so tightly that the horse rears and collapses with Hugh Griffith on top of him...so funny Richardson wisely decided to keep it in the film.
I also appreciated the performances of David Warner, as the disgustingly priggish tutor, Mr. Bliful, and Diane Cilento (once married to Sean Connery...) as Tom's sometime paramour. The entire cast is excellent, including Joan Greenwood as the predatory older woman after Tom at any cost. Watch for the Masquerade Ball and see Hugh Griffith in his elephant mask; what a great scene!
The peripheral players are superb, as is the setting of London in the eighteenth century, with the deplorable lack of sanitary conditions and the terrible poverty. The music is haunting, the scene at the Inn (yes, the food scene, of course, one of the more outstanding in the movie) but also the frenetic byplay of the characters winding up in each other's beds with different wives and lovers, it is such a classic melange of humor, drama and near tragedy, there simply isn't one moment of bad film or minute of tedium...you will be absorbed all the way through, and enjoy this rambunctious, joyful frolic with Tom and his supporting cast of finely drawn characters. One last comment: The scene of Tom and Sophie, running, taking turns rowing a boat and falling in love on the grounds of her father's estate, is absolutely beautiful; watch for the scene of them picking blossoms and Sophie laughing and the blossoms falling into her mouth; very sensual and exquisitely detailed, as is the entire production.

Pay No Attention to the One Star Voters
Just want to add my 2 cents worth. There is a reason this film won best picture. It WAS the best picture that year and one of the best for any year. The writing and direction is consistently inventive, clever, witty and intelligent. The massive old novel has been rendered down to its essence and filmed with wit and verve and played by a dream cast. The narration punctuates the humor and the depiction of 18th century England, both country life and London, is excellent. Tony Richardson and his cast had fun with the material, using every manner of technique (fast motion), asides to the audience, and so on to make a rollicking good modern comedy, that was much imitated (Woody Allen did the eating scene at least twice in his films). Comedy is definitely in the eye of the beholder, as witnessed by the negative reviews. All I can say is, they missed the point entirely. See Tom Jones and enjoy how much can be packed into a movie in under 2 hours.

A Masterpiece
Perhaps in 1968 there were fewer idiots in this world than in 2004? It's difficult to explain why this film has so many negative reviews. It is one of the best movies of the late 60s, and I have watched it so many times, nearly every scene has burned itself into my memory.
It is a perfect adaptation of Fielding's Tom Jones. Every minute of the film has so much joy, humor, excitement and hilarity that it's very difficult to sum up in this review.
If you have any taste in film at all, and are a patient and intelligent filmgoer, you'll want to buy this classic.

If there is a God...
...why does he allow people to suffer through this movie?

If you think it's funny to watch people kick dogs and have sex with their own parents, then this is the movie for you. Albert Finney looks about 15 years too old to portray the virile title character in this adaptation of the classic 18th century novel. The "plot," if you can call it that, is a little hard for me to describe since I am expending a tremendous amount of energy trying to block it from my mind. Suffice to say it plods along much like a typical episode of Three's Company, with it's misunderstandings, sexual escapades and slapstick humor. The difference of course being that a typical episode of Three's Company is better written, better directed and far easier to stomach. In particular, the last hour of the movie is a boringly boring bore. Sitting through it is like sitting through the end credits of the Olympics. I find it to be unbelievable that this movie was nominated for any Oscars much less win for best picture given the fact that it is as difficult to watch as footage of starving African babies with flies all over their heads. Wow, that is two hours of my life I can never get back.

Of its Time
Heavily influenced by Godard's 1959 mould-breaker "Breathless" (jump-cuts, hand-held camera, addresses to the viewer) this film is full of brilliant episodes, especially the stag-hunt. Contrary to the opinions of some reviewers, imho it does an outstanding job of presenting the uninhibited flavour of 18th century England; especially by bringing out the contrast between town and country, which incorporated one of the greatest and most far-reaching social changes which took place in that century. The luxury and squalor of London compared with the almost idyllic feeling that many had for the vanishing bucolic life is commented on by almost every notable writer of the age. However, the film doesn't seem to be well-paced, overall. The first part is too slow, and the second is too disjointed, and there is a sense of dissatisfaction in the end at the lack of balance and rhythm. It is not quite as good as I remembered from having seen it when it first came out, 1963. The leading performances are nevertheless superb, although Squire Western's boorishness is, let's face it, just a bit over-played. The dialogue is nonetheless excellent: not artificial in the slightest. The narrator's accent is not assumed, as somebody supposed: it was delivered by a very well-known Irish actor in his natural speaking voice. The use of a narrator in this instance makes for an intelligent transfer of Fielding's long, picaresque novel to the screen. The film expects a literate audience: which is not supplied by the negative reviews posted here. ... Read more

Description

After six months at sea on a solo trip around the world, Georgia Perry's44-foot sail boat sits idle with no wind in her sails for several days. Cabin fever sets in,and the border between fact and fantasy begins to trickle away. Are uninvited visitors bordering the vessel, or is her mind deceiving her? But if these arejust tricks of the mind, how do these ghostly encounters leave Georgia with bruises and ifthe visitors are real, is there a bigger danger? ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Story Elements Weren¿t A Proper Fit
Australian Georgia Perry (Radha Mitchell) sets out on a nonstop solo voyage around the world determined to be the first woman to make it aboard a yacht. She has to follow the following rules: no human contact save for over the radio, no landfall, and no engines or she'll be disqualified. Three quarters of the way into her voyage the wind dies stranding her in the middle of the ocean.

While the Leander sits dead in the water, barnacles and algae begin collecting on the hull and growing inside the bilges. This is not supposed to happen in the middle of an ocean. Her vapor detector keeps going off as well. With only her cat for company, she starts experiencing paranormal phenomenon.

Georgia speaks to Robby aboard the Nordic Prince. He tells her that one of his crewmen hanged himself in the bilges. Later he tries to get a warning to her about the bilges but she looses his signal.

It seemed to me that the filmmakers had two different ideas for the causation of the hallucinations but they never followed up on either. It could have been a really good horror picture or adventure film if they'd cut the horror element. Overall it was confusing and has no real resolution to the paranormal phenomenon. Not recommended!

Claustrophobic chills from down under
Some of our most inane fears come not from outside, but from within our own minds. "Visitors" is a psychological thriller that examines a woman on the brink of madness and insanity as she struggles to fight her own personal demons while in complete isolation. She, as well as us viewers, are continuously faced with one nagging question throughout this film: "Is the threat real or is it imagined"?

Georgia Perry is 25 years old and an avid sailor. She sets herself on the biggest challenge of all: Sailing around the world non-stop. The rules are that she is not allowed any company except for her cat, must not ever set foot on land and have no contact with the outside world except with her boyfriend by radio transmission. The journey is expected to take about 5 months.

By the time "Visitors" begins, Georgia is already about ¾ of the way around the world and seems to be doing just fine, except for the occasional bouts of loneliness. Throughout the film, we see clips of Georgia's life before she decided to set sail. All indications point to a happy life and fine relationship with her parents and her lover. And then the noises begin...At night while trying to sleep, she hears footsteps on the deck, and distant voices. Her cat talks to her. Her dead mom pays a visit. Slowly but surely, Georgia is going insane. And the flashbacks get darker and darker. At first the flashbacks were all happy but as the film progresses we are shown clips of Georgia's past that indicate her life was far from the rosy picture painted on earlier. It is this sudden transformation from happy sane Georgia to tormented soul Georgia that makes the film as creepy as it is. The descent into madness is not sudden, but gradual.

What "Visitors" lacks in action and pacing it more than makes up for with atmosphere, atmosphere that changes as Georgia's mood changes. The bright blue sky, crystal clear water and warm sunshine of the opening sequences are quickly replaced with the violent roar of the sea, pitch black darkness and dense fog as Georgia's feelings of dread increase. Aussie actress Rhada Mitchell pretty much has to carry the picture by herself, and does a fine job. One of the challenges I found of watching this film is that it's so weirded out and hallucinatory that we are left to wonder what is real and what's not, and are never offered any explanation, not even at film's end. The appearance of Georgia's dead mother as a hallucination is a given, but how about the boatload of pirates? Or the aborigenese midnight lover? If not real, then how come Georgia woke up with a hickey? All in all, a fine little film but not for those looking for coherence or logic. It's not one of those films where the pieces fall neatly in place by the end. Whether the threat is real or imagined is up to the viewer to decide.

Psychological Thriller of "Pitch Black"s Radha Mitchell
Radha Mitchell (quite impressive in "Pitch Black" against Vin Diesel) stars in this Australian psychological thriller. The co-stars include Suzannah York ("Superman II") and an Aussie veteran Ray Barrett. The director is Richard Franklin, possibly best known so-so thriller "Psycho II."

Georgia Perry (Radha Mitchell) is on the last log of the first sole female around-the-world cruise by a yacht. She is not to set foot on the land during the course, and if she uses the engine, she is disqualified instantly. But now her yacht is not moving at all, because of the dead calm that seemingly stopped everything around the ship. She can only talk to her cat (her only partner), and to the finace waiting for her in Australia through the radio.

However, Georgia hears some strange sound, and sees the figures of the person(s) who should never be on board. What does that mean?

"The Visitors" is not a horror film. The film actually tries to include many factors -- thrills, symbolism, meaning of life, etc. -- and achieves none of them. The reference to poetry (S.T. Coleridge) is clumsy or insignificant, and the frequent flashbacks to the heroine's past only detract the claustrophobic suspence of the story. Possibly as psychological thriller it works best, but also it misses potential that the orginal premise has.

Incredibly, there are many (at least three) scenes in which Radha Mitchell's character is in bikini (but her skin does not seem tanned much). How the filmmakers thought about the scenes, I leave it to you, but it certainly does not hurt.

Radha Mitchell shows pretty good acting as the lead, and her meeting with her beloved dad (Ray Barrett) is even touching. Suzannah York's nervous mom is also convincingly portrayed, so while watching I started to think that the filmmakers should have thrown away any "horror" part of the film, and the end result would have been much better. As it is, "The Visitors" remains as it is, just an OK thriller.

If you really want to see a thriller on the lonely boat, see the Aussie film "Dead Calm" starring Nicole Kidman and Billy Zane. That was really scary.

Pretty good movie, disappointing ending
Well here we have a psychobabble insanity movie from our good friends in Austrailia. A woman is sponsored to sail around the world by herself. A high seas cabin fever sets in and she is attacked by her dead mother (suicide)and pirates. Along for the ride are her mother's friends, a tattooed aboriginee, and her recently deceased father. Her only companion is a cat that talks back to her. Her communication with the outside world is a SAT phone and the radio. I won't give away the ending, but I was a little disappointed. It was like the director wanted to sell out and give it a wimpy 'American style chick flick ending'.

As you watch this film you will notice that you spend an incredible amount of time looking at this woman's armpits and up her nostrils. ... Read more

Reviews (106)

DVD is one of My Favorite Christmas Presents of 2002!
I have seen several different movie adaptations of A Christmas Carol and have liked them all but I think the three best versions are this George C. Scott adaptation, the Alastair Sim adaptation and the adaptation starring Patrick Stewart and I also like the adaptations starring Albert Finney, Reginald Owen and Sir Seymour Hicks. This adaptation is very good and I'm very impressed with George C. Scott's acting, he gave an excellent performance as Ebenezer Scrooge and I also liked David Warner as Bob Cratchit and there are many other fine performances too, Edward Woodward, Suzannah York, etc. I very highly recommend this adaptation which seems pretty faithful to the Charles Dickens classic and I like that they included aspects of the book that are not in the other Christmas Carol movies! I had seen some of this version a few years ago but didn't see the whole movie but I got this DVD today for Christmas and I just finished watching it and I loved it, definitely one of my favorite Christmas presents of 2002.

The best CAROL ever, with the best Scrooge ever
There's a reason that of all the stories woven around the Christmas season, and of all the tales Charles Dickens told, this one is still being retold over a century later. And it's the same reason Clive Donner's version, out of all the many filmed and staged retellings, is still around and now being offered in DVD format: they are, quite simply, both the best of their breed. The script is faithful to Dickens' original text as few other versions have been, the production values are sumptuous and conscientious in their historical accuracy, and the performances from a star-packed cast are pure British sterling, above all the late, lamented George C. Scott's unforgettable limning of an all too human Ebenezer Scrooge. Also not to be missed are Edward (THE EQUALIZER) Woodward as the Ghost of Christmas Present, cruelly rebuking Scrooge with his own words; Mark Strickson (Turlough of DOCTOR WHO fame) as the young Scrooge in the Christmas Past sequence; Roger Rees, Susannah York, Frank Finlay as a suitably fearsome Marley's Ghost, the always reliable David Warner as Bob Cratchit, Angela Pleasance as the gentle Ghost of Christmas Past, Joanne Whalley (the former Mrs. Val Kilmer, of SCANDAL and many other films) and Michael Gough (another DOCTOR WHO veteran [the Celestial Toymaker in Hartnell's First Doctor era] and Alfred the butler in the BATMAN films).

Seeing Scott as Scrooge crying out in anguish over his own gravestone, "Why show me this if I am past all hope?"; then on Christmas morning, jumping up and down on his four-poster with glee; showing up on his nephew's doorstep, properly shame-faced and hoping for a chance to begin again -- these moments bring a tear to my eye and a lump to my throat every time. If you need a reminder of why this season is so important even to those of us who have lost faith in the Christian church, bookend this film with Clive's brother Richard Donner's equally excellent updating of Dickens' classic tale, SCROOGED, starring Bill Murray (his speech at the end is worth the price of the DVD all by itself!) for a night of holiday laughter and tears like no other. Scrooge embodies the hope that all of us have that, whatever our failings and our misdeeds, our lives may yet be counted of value and our souls admitted into heaven; and this version of his odyssey from miserdom to redemption makes it abundantly clear why this one short story holds such a special place in the canon of Western literature.

Why (Officially) I Love This Movie!
Every winter, I enjoy watching A Christmas Carol on TV whenever I can, and the 1984 version is my favorite. The production and performances add up to a moody, realistic and touching adaptation of the Charles Dickens' classic.

Director Clive Donner (editor of the much celebrated 1951 Alastair Sim version of Scrooge) presents a stunningly authentic recreation of Dickens' London. From effectively foggy streets to Ebenezer's own cobwebbed-infested manor, Donner provides a gritty, appropriately dark atmosphere, enhanced by the wonderful score.

The film's pacing is exquisite. In showing Ebenezer the error of his ways, the filmmakers give equal time to his past, present and future, never once lingering to the point of boredom. Thus the story seems to fly by compared to the other adaptations.

George C. Scott is excellent as Scrooge. Like all of those who've portrayed the character, his old miser starts out mean and bitter and ends up joyous and thankful! But throughout his performance, true sadness runs deep. Scott makes his emotional transformation subtle, painting a realistic portrait of a man haunted by the mistakes of his past, taking his pain out on the world.

But what separates the 1984 production of Christmas Carol from all others is the terrific supporting cast. David Warner may give the warmest performance of his career as Bob Cratchet (all the more poignant considering the many villains he's played over the years). Frank Finlay is the most compelling Jacob Marley I've ever seen. You can almost feel this man's torture just by gazing upon his unblinking expression. Edward Woodward brings great depth to the Ghost of Christmas Present, communicating tremendous power, yet just the right touch of humor. Finally, this adaptation of the Dickens' tale features the scariest, most intimidating Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come you'll find anywhere!

Most of us look forward to a healthy dose of A Christmas Carol at the end of each year and we all have our favorite version. Thanks to the handsome production values, expert pacing and perfect cast, led by the magnificent George C. Scott, I believe they truly got it right in 1984!

The Best All Around Version of a Christmas Classic!
Some people are under the impression that this is an American production of A Christmas Carol while others (namely the 1951 Alastair Sim version) are British. Truth is, while the George C. Scott 1984 version was televised on an American network, it was filmed on location in England, and presents an effectively murky, gritty atmosphere where other versions, including the most recent Patrick Stewart version, look a little too "pretty".

Perhaps most telling is that the director of the 1984 Christmas Carol is Clive Donner. Not only is he British, but he was also the editor of the 1951 version...the very same Scrooge featuring Alastair Sim's acclaimed performance! This indicates that Donner had a unique perspective when he decided to revisit A Christmas Carol. He could easily have chosen to tell the tale just as it was done in 1951, but he diverted slightly. Thus, the George C. Scott production is much more atmospheric and concentrates a little more on Scrooge's present and future whereas the Sim version devoted way too much time on Scrooge's past. In giving Scrooge's past, present and future equal time, Donner is able to depict Scrooge's emotional tranformation convincingly and realistically (having George C. Scott doesn't hurt either).

The 1951 production of Scrooge: A Christmas Carol will always have Alastair Sim's celebrated performance, but this 1984 production has become the definitive film version of the Dickens classic!

lower class adaption
I saw this video two weeks after reading the book. It came across as flat and lifeless compared to the book and the 1951 Alastar Sim version I have. Instead of taking you back to the time of Dickens, it takes Dickens up to our time. Another problem is that the characters have lower class characteristics with their confrontative behavior and their arrogance which is always a cover for incompetence. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Effectively a "lost film" soon after its original release, this dreamlike yet razor-sharp movie from the amazing early-'70s arc of Robert Altman's career was among the most mesmerizingly beautiful color films ever made.Where on this planet did Altman and cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond find such colors, such an awesome fairy-tale landscape?(Ireland, as it happens.)Even more extraordinary was the inside/outside landscape of the heroine's consciousness: this is a movie in which madness is inseparable from imagination.Susannah York gives a brave, supernally freaky performance as a married woman who may be an adulteress, may only be fantasizing about it, may be pregnant, may merely be giving birth to a world.René Auberjonois, Hugh Millais (McCabe and Mrs. Miller's fur-clad assassin), and Marcel Bozzufi play the men in her life, some of whom may be dead, some of whom are going to be.They all exchange names at various times as Cathryn meets herself coming and going, in search of unicorns.--Richard T. Jameson ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Freaky 70s Altman
After hearing about this being one of Altman's "lost films" I was in a hurry to find it once I learned it had been released on DVD. This is Altman much closer to "3 Women" than to "Nashville." The story is fairly surreal with some great dreamlike sequences here and there. It had me guessing for most of the film and was never boring. If you like well thought out thrillers this is for you. It probably plays best when you've read as little as possible about it too. One of my favorite 70s pieces from Altman.

Surrealist, Horror, Psychological Thriller, Art Film
I love Altman, especially from this period, but IMAGES is an aquired taste. It's what would have happened if Maya Deran had made psychological thrillers instead of art films, or if Hitchcock had followed the avant-garde (instead of leading it). It's an interesting experiement, and I enjoyed it, but I would only recommend it to hardcore fans who like the art films of the era (like Antonioni's work). The fact that Altman had a structured story makes it less "fun" than M*A*S*H or NASHVILLE, but film buffs will still find a lot of amazing concepts.

Pretentious
The only reason why I saw this was because of Susannah York. This shows she was more capable of the dix she played in "The Killing of Sister George" and was a fine actress. Otherwise this movie is blah. It's okay to make a surreal other world but you have to make it interesting. The men in this movie are so disgusting one can't blame her for getting mad anyway. For another pointless film of this caliber see Secret Ceremony.

most exciting psychological triller!
This is the most exciting psychological thriller ever made,I thought.Direcior Robert Altman's unique style on this film magnificiently presents the see into tormented woman'madness, same as Altman's other film like "that cold day in the park('69)"and "three women('77)". The music on this film(by John Williams) is still more exciting, espesially for the percussion of Stomu Yamash'ta(the famous japanese percussionist known by Red Buddah Theatre of '70s).To my regret, this film isn't released on theatre in Japan.

FORGOTTEN CHILLER
Robert Altman's freaky fairy tale IMAGES (MGM) disappeared shortly after it's 1972 release. Susannah York is a married children's author who may or may not be a schizophrenic adulteress fantasizing about being pregnant and killing her "ghosts". Cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond perfectly captures the evanescent Irish setting. Especially haunting is Stomu Yamashta's brilliant sound design. Altman's most original -- perhaps best -- film. ... Read more

Reviews (275)

One Super DVD
Faster than a speeding bullet. More powerful than a locomotive. Able to leap the tallest building in a single bound. The world's greatest superhero has finally arrived on DVD with "Superman: The Movie" Special Edition. The film focuses on the young survivor of the doomed world of Krypton. After crash-landing on earth, the young alien is adopted by a caring farm couple and grows up with amazing superhuman abilities. Moving to Metropolis, he uses his incredible powers to protect the people and fight injustice. "Superman- the Movie" is probably the best superhero movie to date. The story is quite entertaining but does lose some strength during the second half though it still manages to preserve its entertainment value. The film contains some great performance by Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder and Marlon Brando as Jor-El. The cast also includes Jackie Cooper, Terence Stamp and Ned Beatty. From daring rescues to superhuman feats of strength, the film contains some impressive action sequence and terrific visual effects.

The DVD honors the Man of Steel like it should. The comic book film is presented in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen format. The DVD contains a sharp video transfer and a fine 5.1 Dolby Digital sound with great surround effects. This amazing DVD features an audio commentary with director Richard Donner and consultant Tom Mankiewicz, additional footage including an extended sequence inside Lex Luther's underground gauntlet, behind-the-scenes documentaries, theatrical trailers, deleted scenes and DVD-ROM extras. With such a striking DVD presentation, "Superman" earns an "A".

Super features, super options, JUST PLAIN SUPER!
I enjoyed the Superman DVD. 25 years after this movie came out and seeing it so many times on TV with pan and scan, the newly remastered print blows everything out of the water. The music only option works for the title sequence and hearing the extra tracks on Side B adds to the genius that was John Williams soundtrack.

The audio is remastered and put on a surround sound system instead of the setup I have at home would shake your house to the core. The extra scenes were a good touch as well. Behind the scenes added the great touch of mystique that was Superman. Having Marc McClure host the BTS stuff added a bit of credibility.

Until Spider-Man last year and Batman in 1989, this was the film on which Superheroes were judged. The Hulk disappointed and Daredevil and X-2 were moderate hits.

Superman still stands the test of time, no matter what your views.

Spider-Man has kind of surpassed it...
Well now that we have seen the two Spider-Man movies, I tend to belive that they are now the standards by which other comic book films (both Marvel and DC) will have to live up to now. In a way, Superman is now kind of the odd film out. It works better as an origin story in how Clarke Kent becomes Superman and Chris Reeve's effective perfomance in the title role still works, In the comics, Lex Luthor has always been a one dimensional cartoon character, the only time that he was an effective villian was when Gene Hackman played him in this movie. The final scenes of Superman turning the Earth backward to save lois lane, are what they are. It might be a bit far fetched to put in a movie, but that does not stop audiences from enjoying it. and it doesn't stop me from watching it over and over again.

Born on Krypton, raised by the Kents on Earth, Becomes Hero
The Man of Steel flys into the spectactular motion picture, Based The DC Comic and also appearing in Action Comics, Christopher Reeve stars as Clark Kent.Reporter in Metropolis,Illnois for the newspaper the Daily Planet,And trouble emerges Clark Kent flys to the rescue as Superman, a blue suited red caped powerful wonder. He takes on Lex Luthor played Gene Hackman and falls for Lois Lane played Margot Kidder and Marlon Brand as the Krytonian father of Superman Jor EL. This Film is a Great Superhero movie and great film all around, probably the most imaginative thing the Man of Steel has been in. Superman began as the comic, then a radio show, several 1950s B movies, TV show and in 1978 the true Superman ovie. Superman is imaginative in everthing because hes an imaginative character. A pop culture icon on screen and in everthing else. the Special Effects are incredible, This a Super high flying ride. You Want a good superhero movie before Batman and Spider-Man this is it. If it wasn't for this classic we would'nt have superhero movies like Spider-Man 1&2,Batman,Hulk and X-Men 1&2. Thank Hollywood for making a great superhero film that lauched other superhero films. A thrilling Film of one of the greatest heroes of the 20th century, The Man of Steel, SUPERMAN.

Release Superman into our 21st century!
Very bad film.
They released Spiderman into the 21st century, why not Superman?
I've always found him to be the most appealing comic book character. He is sure for an amazing performance.
RELEASE HIM INTO OUR CENTURY! ... Read more