Amazon.com

In The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, director Wes Anderson takes his familiar stable of actors on a field trip to a fantasy aquarium, complete with stop-motion, candy-striped crabs and rainbow seahorses.And though Anderson does expand his horizons in terms of retro-special effects and a whimsical use of color, fans will otherwise find themselves in well-charted waters. As The Life Aquatic opens, Zissou (Bill Murray), a self-involved, Jacques Cousteau-like filmmaker, has just released a documentary depicting the death of his best friend Esteban, who was eaten by some sort of sea creature--possibly a jaguar shark. Zissou’s troubles also include his waning popularity with the public, and a nemesis (Jeff Goldblum) who hogs up all the grant money. Hope arrives in the form of Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson), an amiable Kentuckian who may be Zissou’s son. Despite his lack of enthusiasm for fatherhood, Zissou welcomes Ned--and Ned in turn saves Zissou’s new documentary (in which he seeks revenge on the jaguar shark) in more ways than one.

One of Wes Anderson’s greatest achievements as a director to date has been launching the autumnal melancholy phase of Bill Murray’s career, starting with Rushmore in 1998, and Murray delivers a similarly comedic yet low-key performance here. Unfortunately, Zissou is one of the few characters in this ensemble to achieve multi-dimensionality. Even co-star Wilson doesn’t get to develop Ned much beyond Noble Southerner, and he ends up seeming more like a prop for illustrating Zissou’s emotional development rather than his own man. The Life Aquatic probably won’t be remembered as a great film, but it is still one that no Anderson (or Murray) fan can afford to miss.--Leah Weathersby ... Read more

Reviews (152)

Stinks
worst movie of the year. This movie has alot of great actors but the story is lame and the jokes are not funny. In short stay away from this bomb.........

A beautiful, intelligent, and fun film
I loved this film from start to finish and it only got better the second and third times I watched it.There is a very nice feel to it: mellow, easy and cool, even when the action is on.This feel is perhaps captured best in the remarkably enjoyable Brazilian covers of classic David Bowie songs.

One thing worth noting about this film, beyond the "quirky" stylings that you expect from Wes Anderson (and that don't always come off, to my mind, as I just couldn't get in to The Royal Tenenbaums much as I wanted), is the way the film plays with and responds to the popularity of the "nature documentary," especially those of Jacques Cousteau.In the nature documentary, we feel as though we are getting "closer" to nature.We believe that we are getting at something real.What we tend to forget or be unaware of, is how much mediation is involved in the presentation of nature.The nature we see on film is never nature "as it is" but nature as it has been framed and captured in accordance with certain expectations of what will sell, what values will play to a wide audience.

It should also be remembered that this is a Disney film, and Wes Anderson appears tobe very self-conscious of the fact that a large part of Disney's name and popularity was established through Disney wildlife films.Walt Disney himself once remarked that he saw his live action wildlife films to be merely an extension of his animations -- because he knew how much the editor and filmmaker are involved in showing what you want to show.What they did show was not Darwin's "nature red tooth and claw" but a sanitized nature, where danger was always contained, and family values were reinforced by the behaviors of animals: a mother and her pups, for example.

That, it seems to me, helps explain the fact that Wes Anderson chose not to employ "real" underwater animals but chose stop motion animation as his medium.It reminds us that nature appears on screen always mediated, through a "nature hero" (as Zissou once was) and through a set of decisions about what to include, how to edit it, what to value.

Anyhow, I could go on and on about what I liked and thought about this film, but I can say that I didn't expect to like this film but found myself surprised feeling very nice (and a bit odd, not sure what to think) about half way through and leaving with a smile and a hint of sadness as I walked the theater.Any film that can do that to someone as jaded as I am has something going for it.

ZZZZZ....Is This A Movie?!
Holy cow! I tried staying awake long enough to see if this movie would develop a plot, have some intersting special effects, but nothing even remotely resembling a movie ever took place. I barely was able to keep my eyes open. I thought maybe it was an artsy attempt at being clever, but this was absolutely the lamest, low budget, poor plot-movie I had ever seen. Even the usually likeable and clever Bill Murray fell FLAT in this movie. I watched it wih my brother and wife. She only made it through the first 20 minutes. My brother and I are more optomistic and somehow made it through the first 70 min., fast forwaded to the end, and didn't even carre that Owen Wilson's character had died!! If you want a movie that will put you to sleep, this is it!

Call me weird...
...but I really enjoyed watching this film. Willem Dafoe carried a manic comic energy throughout that was the perfect foil to Bill Murray's well developed drollery. I thought the take off on the Jacques Cousteau TV specials was spot on and truly humorous. I did not laugh out loud all the way through this film mind you, it is chock full of dull stretches and things that just make you want to scratch your head in puzzlement. I do that all the time with Wes Anderson movies, so I guess this one should be no surprise. I found this film to be clever, smart, profoundly silly, and usually just plain fun. The views of the fanciful sea critters encountered by the crew were very well done and showed a great deal of imagination and wonder at work. The fellow who kept popping up singing David Bowie songs in Portuguese somehow stole my soul and I couldn't get the sounds out of my head. Lovely idea squeezed into a wonderfully odd little film. C'mon, since when does everything have to make sense to be fun?

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
This was a pretty funny, ironic, amusing yet realistic story. I think it deals with some interesting existential issues. Giving wrong people too much credit and basing your life on it. Like in real life, it is not always (or ever?) that better people win and suceed. You can base your whole life on wrong assumptions and pay for it dearly...
I was definitely inspired to re-examie the values I base my life on and instincts I trust. The music is brilliant and many scenes were extremely beautiful. Anjelica Houston is very good. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The facts have become legend. Star Trek, the NBC series that premiered on September 8, 1966, has become a touchstone of international popular culture. It struggled through three seasons that included cancellation and last-minute revival, and turned its creator, Gene Roddenberry, into the progenitor of an intergalactic phenomenon. Eventually expanding to encompass five separate TV series, an ongoing slate of feature films, and a fan base larger than the population of many third-world countries, the Star Trek universe began not with a Big Bang but with a cautious experiment in network TV programming. Even before its premiere episode ("The Man Trap") was aired, Star Trek had struggled to attain warp-drive velocity, barely making it into the fall '66 NBC lineup.

The series' original pilot, "The Cage," featured Jeffrey Hunter as U.S.S. Enterprise captain Christopher Pike--a variation of the role that would eventually catapult William Shatner to TV stardom. Filmed in 1964, the pilot was rejected by NBC the following year, but the network made a rare decision to order a second pilot. "Where No Man Has Gone Before" was filmed in 1965, and only one character from the previous pilot remained--a pointy-eared alien named Spock (played by Leonard Nimoy), whom Roddenberry had retained despite network disapproval. The second pilot was accepted, and production on Star Trek began in earnest with the filming of its first regular episode, "The Corbomite Maneuver."

Never a ratings success despite a growing population of devoted fans, Star Trek was canceled after its second season, prompting a letter-writing campaign that resulted in the series' third-season renewal. It was a mixed blessing, since Roddenberry had departed as producer to protest the network's neglect, and Star Trek's third season contained most of the series' weakest episodes. And yet, the show continued to "to explore strange new worlds…to seek out new life and new civilizations…to boldly go where no man [a phrase later amended to "no one"] has gone before."

There were milestones along the way. The first interracial kiss on network primetime TV (between Shatner and series co-star Nichelle Nichols) furthered a richly positive and expansive view of a better, nobler future for humankind. The series offered a timelessly appealing balance of humor, imagination, and character depth. And at least one episode (Harlan Ellison's "The City on the Edge of Forever") ranks among the finest science fiction stories in any popular medium. Beloved by long-time fans in spite of its cheesy sets and costumes, and the now-dated trappings of late-1960s American culture, "classic Trek" has aged remarkably well, and its sense of adventure and idealism continues to live long and prosper. --Jeff Shannon

The three 2004 DVD sets collect all 79 episodes of the show, including "The Cage" in both a restored color version and the original, never-aired version that alternates between color and black and white. Each set is supplemented by over an hour of featurettes incorporating new and old interviews with Shatner, Nimoy, other cast members, and producers, and there's also some vintage footage of Gene Roddenberry. Accompanying the 20-minute seasonal recaps ("To Boldly Go...") are a number of interesting featurettes: "The Birth of a Timeless Legacy" examines the two pilot episodes and the development of the crew; "Sci-Fi Visionaries" discusses the series' great science fiction writers; Nimoy debunks various rumors in "Reflections of Spock"; "Kirk, Spock & Bones: The Great Trio" focuses on the interplay among Kirk, Spock, and Dr. McCoy (DeForest Kelley); and, in what is probably his last Star Trek appearance, James Doohan (Scotty), slowed by Alzheimer's but still with a twinkle in his eye, recalls his voiceover roles and his favorite episodes.As they've done for many of the feature-film special editions, Michael Okuda and Denise Okuda provide a pop-up text commentary on four of the episodes filled with history, trivia, and dry wit. It's the first commentary of any kind for a Star Trek TV show, but an audio commentary is still overdue. The technical specs are mostly the same as other Trek TV series--Dolby 5.1, English subtitles--but with the welcome addition of the episode trailers. The plastic cases are an attempt to replicate some of the fun packaging of the series' European DVD releases, but it's a bit clunky, and the paper sleeve around the disc case seems awkward and crude. Still, the sets are a vast improvement both in terms of shelf space and bonus features compared to the old two-episode discs, which were released before full-season boxed sets became the model for television DVDs. --David Horiuchi ... Read more

Amazon.com

Entourage is everything viewers have come to expect from an HBO series: smart, hilarious, and highly addictive, especially when taken in full-season, DVD form. As implied in the title, the show follows Vincent Chase (Adrian Grenier), a rising Hollywood star with bedroom eyes and an over-active libido, along with his three childhood companions-turned-hangers-on. Kevin Dillon plays Johnny Drama, Vincent's less-attractive, B-list actor of a brother (he is Matt Dillon's less-attractive, B-list actor of a brother in real life). Jerry Ferrara plays Turtle, the weasel, and Kevin Connolly appears as Eric, the Everyman hero who hopes to parlay his friendship with Vincent (plus two years of community college) into a career in talent management. Along the way Eric contends with the predictable self-doubt, romantic indecision, etc. The cast is rounded out by Jeremy Piven (Doug Hughley from Singles) as a foul-mouthed agent reminiscent of Jay Mohr's short-lived Peter Dragon character. Finally, it's produced by Marky Mark himself--and you've got to believe that guy knows something about the star-entourage relationship. If possible, watch with a friend so you'll have someone to quote lines back to later. --Leah Weathersby ... Read more

Reviews (4)

The TV show equivalent of a Little Debbie Swiss Cake Roll
...which is to say rich, sugary, not very nutritious but tasty and addictive as hell.It's junk food, no doubt about it, but it's also so enjoyable it's pretty hard to begrudge.

Four friends live together and hang out around L.A.: Vince is a DiCaprio-level star on the rise (though he's reportedly loosely based on producer Mark Wahlberg); Eric is his best friend, a smart kid trying to help him manage his career; and Turtle and Johnny Drama (Vince's has-been older half-brother) are the comic relief.Adding shards of garlic to the mix is Jeremy Piven as Ari, Vince's razor-tongued agent who, were he played by anybody other than Piven, would probably be too much to digest in such an otherwise tangy environment.

In stark contrast to most HBO Sunday night shows ("Sopranos," "Six Feet Under," "Deadwood," all of which usually leave me feeling devastated and so much the better for it) this is bummer-free TV.The characters don't have to work, don't have to worry about money, have infinite free time and access to women and recreational misadventures.Even in those rare moments when they have an actual problem it's never really a pressing problem ("Eric, which movie should I do???").And each episode seems to end with the main characters sharing a drink while watching the sun set from some beautiful vista.

And you know what?Why not?The show ain't exactly Tolstoy but it's a lot of shiny, colorful fun -- smart dialogue, sharp "inside baseball" industry jokes, attractive ladies, cool toys and an eclectic mix of hip-hop and classic rock.It's like HBO fused the Y chromosome of "Larry Sanders" with the X chromosome of "Sex and the City" and came up with a precocious but charming little tyke.

Great Show ! Can't wait for Season 2 to start
This show is truely awesome. The dialogue is amazing and suits every situation in the show perfectly. Kevin Dillon and Jeremy Piven are hilarious. You couldn't ask more from a supporting cast. The music is really good too. Anybody have any info on a soundtrack?

Fantastic show
Entourage is the show produced by and loosely based on Mark Wahlbergs rise into tinseltown with his best friends. The show is witty, well written and will keep you laughing from start to finish. The second season starts on June 5th on HBO, and proves to be an even bigger and better. The boys travel to the sundance film festival for tons of laughs, I was an extra for these episodes and guarantee this will be one hell of a season. So get watching!

Great series
If you've already seen the first season of Entourage, you'll be buying this set for sure.If you haven't seen it, you really need to buy these DVD's.The characters are engaging and the dialogue is hilarious.Jeremy Piven is a stand-out as he absolutely chews up and spits out every scene in which he appears.I hope that Season 2 is more than 8 episodes. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Saved from the brink of cancellation by its loyal fanbase, Star Trek's third and final season rewarded them with a number of memorable episodes.Tight budgets and slipping creative control, however, made it the series' most uneven season, though it did have some of the coolest episode titles ("For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky," "Is There in Truth No Beauty," "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield").Some of the best moments involved a gunfight at the OK Corral ("Spectre of the Gun"), a knock-down drag-out sword battle with the Klingons aboard the Enterprise ("Day of the Dove"), the ship getting caught in an ever-tightening spacial net ("The Tholian Web"), TV's first interracial kiss ("Plato's Stepchildren," and it should be easy to guess who participated), Sulu taking command ("The Savage Curtain"), and Kirk's switching bodies with an ex-love interest ("Turnabout Intruder").

Also appearing in the set as a coda are two versions of the series pilot, "The Cage," a restored color version and the original, never-aired version that alternates between color and black and white.Starring Jeffery Hunter as Captain Pike, Leonard Nimoy as a relatively emotional Spock, and Majel Barrett (the future Nurse Chapel and Mrs. Gene Roddenberry) as a frosty Number One, this pilot was rejected, but a second was commissioned, "Where No Man Has Gone Before," now considered the "official" beginning of the series.But "The Cage" is very recognizably Star Trek with its far-out concepts (telepathic aliens collecting species samples), sexy humanoid women, character development, and of course cheesy costumes and special effects.Footage was later reused in the season 1 two-parter, "The Menagerie."

The best of the 63 minutes of bonus material focuses on three of the actors: Walter Koenig, George Takei, and James Doohan.Koenig discusses how he was cast and shows off his various collections, one consisting of Chekov figurines.Takei speaks movingly about the Japanese American internment and, in what is probably his last Star Trek appearance, Doohan, slowed by Alzheimer's but still with a twinkle in his eye, recalls his voiceover roles and his favorite episodes.The Easter eggs are amusingly called "Red Shirt Files" in tribute to those poor saps who everyone knew were only in the landing party so they could die.--David Horiuchi ... Read more

Reviews (3)

The Third Complete Season in an 8-DVD Set! Fantastic!
When Paramount Home Video first started to release the original series of "Star Trek" in 1999, I was aghast at the fact that only one DVD with two episodes per DVD were being released one DVD at a time at a very high cost. The cost to own all 40 volumes (DVD's) was staggering. Of course, this doesn't even address the amount of shelf space required for all 40 DVD's.

Now, with this repackaged version, all 24 episodes of the third season are being released together on 8 disks. It will probably also include both versions (color and black-and-white) of the unaired original pilot "The Cage". This is the packaged version of the original "Star Trek" that I fully intend to purchase because even at full list price, the cost of owning the third complete season is less than half the cost of owning its earlier cousins on an equivalent 13 DVD's. Also, the packaging itself has been designed similarly to the packaging used for other "Star Trek" series released in complete seasons, meaning that it will only require a small amount of shelf space. It is also possible that extra documentary and commentary material not released originally will be included in this complete third season box set.

The original series of "Star Trek", that ran for three complete seasons between 1966 and 1969, started a franchise that has included six television series and ten big screen motion pictures. The main original characters of Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner), Lt. Commander/Commander Spock (Leonard Nimoy), Dr. Leonard H. 'Bones' McCoy (DeForest Kelley, 1920-1999), Lt. Cmdr. Montgomery 'Scotty' Scott (James Doohan), Lt. Hikaru Sulu (George Takei), Lt. Nyota Uhura (Nichelle Nichols), Ensign Pavel Chekov (Walter Keonig from 1967-1969), Yeoman Janice Rand (Grace Lee Whitney from 1966-1967) and Nurse Christine Chapel (Majel Barrett) have become an inseparable part of Americana. Though series creator Gene Roddenberry (1921-1991) was not able to keep the original series alive for five seasons as originally envisioned (it was cancelled after its third season), he, along with the countless series fans, was able to resurrect it in the form of six motion pictures beginning in 1979 and the first series spin-off, "Star Trek: The Next Generation" in 1987, which ran for seven years and had spin-offs of its own. There was also a 22-episode animated version based upon the original series that ran from 1972 to 1974.

In spite of receiving five Emmy nominations during its life and several previously successful efforts (including letter-writing campaigns) that had saved the show from cancellation on more than one occasion, the combination of poor Nielsen ratings, a shrinking budget and too-often weak episode writing made the third season of "Star Trek" its last. The most memorable episodes of the third season include "Spock's Brain", "The Enterprise Incident" (using Klingon ships for Romulans), "The Paradise Syndrome", "Is There No Truth in Beauty" (with guest character Dr. Ann Mulhall as played by Diana Muldaur, who had previously guest acted in the second-season episode "Return to Tomorrow" and also played the unpopular character Dr. Katherine Pulaski in the second season of "Star Trek: The Next Generation"), "For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky", "The Tholian Web", "Plato's Stepchildren" (which had the first inter-racial kiss on televsion), "Wink of an Eye", "The Empath", "Elaan of Troyius", "Whom Gods Destroy", "The Mark of Gideon", "The Lights of Zetar", "Requiem for Methuselah", "The Cloud Minders", "The Savage Curtain" and "All Our Yesterdays". Arguably, the worst episode during the third season was "The Way to Eden", about a group of hippies searching for Eden (the probable inspiration for the worst-ever "Star Trek" film, "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" in 1989). Other particularly weak third-season episodes include "And the Children Shall Lead", "Spectre of the Gun" featuring a re-enactment of the old-West shoot-out at the O.K. Corral, "Day of the Dove", "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" about racism, "That Which Survives" and the final episode "Turnabout Intruder" that showcased some of Shatner's worst acting abilities.

Ironically, six weeks after "Turnabout Intruder" aired on 6/3/1969, Neil Armstrong and 'Buzz' Aldrin became the first human beings to land and walk upon an extraterrestrial body, Earth's moon, on 7/20/1969. Shortly thereafter, interest in "Star Trek" grew considerably. Paramount Pictures nearly resurrected the television show in 1977 (called "Star Trek: Phase II") after all but Leonard Nimoy had signed on, but the project was abandoned shortly after George Lucas' 1977 film "Star Wars" blew audiences away. Fans had to wait another two years when the disappointing film "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was released. It is interesting to note that two of people (Jo and John Trimble) who started one of the successful letter-writing campaigns that had once saved "Star Trek" from cancellation in 1968, were the same people that started a letter-writing campaign to convince NASA to name the first space shuttle "Enterprise" in honor of "Star Trek".

Overall, I rate the 8-DVD set of "Star Trek: Original Series Season 3" with an anticipatory 4 out of 5 stars. Clearly, this is how Paramount should have released the original series to begin with. Though the third season suffered from more poor episodes than the previous two, I continue to thank Gene Roddenberry for taking all of us "where no man has gone before".

Only a small handful of good shows.
Thrid Season of Star Trek was it's last and it was marked by both a feud between Gene Roddenbery and a new producer over the show's budget. Somewhat more cheaper production values, decreaaed visual effects work, and poore writing. The few Exceptions were "The Enterprise Incident, The Tholian Web, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, That Which Survies, The Lights of Zetar, and the Savage Curtain

ST's final frontier
Barely getting renewed for a third season,Star Trek had two disadvantages when it returned.First was executive producer Gene Coon's departure from the series, as well Gene Roddenberry's decreased involvement.The other was a new timeslot on Friday at 10:00 PM, a slot known to bury flagging shows by the networks.
Over the years, many blamed the new producer Fred Frieberg for the lacking quality of the show. Freiberg's only sin was coming aboard a sinking ship which was suffering budget cuts as well as weak stories and it's creator's lack of interest due to the networks total disregard of the show.
Even with the few brilliant episodes (Empath, Paradise Syndrome,Enterprise Incident, Tholian Web, Requium Of Methuselah,All Our Yesterdays), season three is notorious with two of the worst ever in the history of Trek (The Way To Eden, and Spock's Brain).
By the end of season three,ST was finally cancelled after 78 aired episodes in 1969.Even fans couldn't save it, as NBC buried the show.But thanks to syndication, ST became even more popular than when it originally aired and build upon a growing franchise (Conventions, Saturday Morning cartoons,toys, etc,).The ten years after the end of the series,Star Trek The Motion Picture premired.And that was just the beginning. ... Read more

Amazon.com

In The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, director Wes Anderson takes his familiar stable of actors on a field trip to a fantasy aquarium, complete with stop-motion, candy-striped crabs and rainbow seahorses.And though Anderson does expand his horizons in terms of retro-special effects and a whimsical use of color, fans will otherwise find themselves in well-charted waters. As The Life Aquatic opens, Zissou (Bill Murray), a self-involved, Jacques Cousteau-like filmmaker, has just released a documentary depicting the death of his best friend Esteban, who was eaten by some sort of sea creature--possibly a jaguar shark. Zissou’s troubles also include his waning popularity with the public, and a nemesis (Jeff Goldblum) who hogs up all the grant money. Hope arrives in the form of Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson), an amiable Kentuckian who may be Zissou’s son. Despite his lack of enthusiasm for fatherhood, Zissou welcomes Ned--and Ned in turn saves Zissou’s new documentary (in which he seeks revenge on the jaguar shark) in more ways than one.

One of Wes Anderson’s greatest achievements as a director to date has been launching the autumnal melancholy phase of Bill Murray’s career, starting with Rushmore in 1998, and Murray delivers a similarly comedic yet low-key performance here. Unfortunately, Zissou is one of the few characters in this ensemble to achieve multi-dimensionality. Even co-star Wilson doesn’t get to develop Ned much beyond Noble Southerner, and he ends up seeming more like a prop for illustrating Zissou’s emotional development rather than his own man. The Life Aquatic probably won’t be remembered as a great film, but it is still one that no Anderson (or Murray) fan can afford to miss.--Leah Weathersby ... Read more

Reviews (152)

Stinks
worst movie of the year. This movie has alot of great actors but the story is lame and the jokes are not funny. In short stay away from this bomb.........

A beautiful, intelligent, and fun film
I loved this film from start to finish and it only got better the second and third times I watched it.There is a very nice feel to it: mellow, easy and cool, even when the action is on.This feel is perhaps captured best in the remarkably enjoyable Brazilian covers of classic David Bowie songs.

One thing worth noting about this film, beyond the "quirky" stylings that you expect from Wes Anderson (and that don't always come off, to my mind, as I just couldn't get in to The Royal Tenenbaums much as I wanted), is the way the film plays with and responds to the popularity of the "nature documentary," especially those of Jacques Cousteau.In the nature documentary, we feel as though we are getting "closer" to nature.We believe that we are getting at something real.What we tend to forget or be unaware of, is how much mediation is involved in the presentation of nature.The nature we see on film is never nature "as it is" but nature as it has been framed and captured in accordance with certain expectations of what will sell, what values will play to a wide audience.

It should also be remembered that this is a Disney film, and Wes Anderson appears tobe very self-conscious of the fact that a large part of Disney's name and popularity was established through Disney wildlife films.Walt Disney himself once remarked that he saw his live action wildlife films to be merely an extension of his animations -- because he knew how much the editor and filmmaker are involved in showing what you want to show.What they did show was not Darwin's "nature red tooth and claw" but a sanitized nature, where danger was always contained, and family values were reinforced by the behaviors of animals: a mother and her pups, for example.

That, it seems to me, helps explain the fact that Wes Anderson chose not to employ "real" underwater animals but chose stop motion animation as his medium.It reminds us that nature appears on screen always mediated, through a "nature hero" (as Zissou once was) and through a set of decisions about what to include, how to edit it, what to value.

Anyhow, I could go on and on about what I liked and thought about this film, but I can say that I didn't expect to like this film but found myself surprised feeling very nice (and a bit odd, not sure what to think) about half way through and leaving with a smile and a hint of sadness as I walked the theater.Any film that can do that to someone as jaded as I am has something going for it.

ZZZZZ....Is This A Movie?!
Holy cow! I tried staying awake long enough to see if this movie would develop a plot, have some intersting special effects, but nothing even remotely resembling a movie ever took place. I barely was able to keep my eyes open. I thought maybe it was an artsy attempt at being clever, but this was absolutely the lamest, low budget, poor plot-movie I had ever seen. Even the usually likeable and clever Bill Murray fell FLAT in this movie. I watched it wih my brother and wife. She only made it through the first 20 minutes. My brother and I are more optomistic and somehow made it through the first 70 min., fast forwaded to the end, and didn't even carre that Owen Wilson's character had died!! If you want a movie that will put you to sleep, this is it!

Call me weird...
...but I really enjoyed watching this film. Willem Dafoe carried a manic comic energy throughout that was the perfect foil to Bill Murray's well developed drollery. I thought the take off on the Jacques Cousteau TV specials was spot on and truly humorous. I did not laugh out loud all the way through this film mind you, it is chock full of dull stretches and things that just make you want to scratch your head in puzzlement. I do that all the time with Wes Anderson movies, so I guess this one should be no surprise. I found this film to be clever, smart, profoundly silly, and usually just plain fun. The views of the fanciful sea critters encountered by the crew were very well done and showed a great deal of imagination and wonder at work. The fellow who kept popping up singing David Bowie songs in Portuguese somehow stole my soul and I couldn't get the sounds out of my head. Lovely idea squeezed into a wonderfully odd little film. C'mon, since when does everything have to make sense to be fun?

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
This was a pretty funny, ironic, amusing yet realistic story. I think it deals with some interesting existential issues. Giving wrong people too much credit and basing your life on it. Like in real life, it is not always (or ever?) that better people win and suceed. You can base your whole life on wrong assumptions and pay for it dearly...
I was definitely inspired to re-examie the values I base my life on and instincts I trust. The music is brilliant and many scenes were extremely beautiful. Anjelica Houston is very good. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Writer/director Pedro Almodóvar's dark, sexy Hitchcock homage is his best work since his Oscar-winning All About My Mother, and deepened by a sun-dappled sadness. Handsome, enigmatic Ángel (Gael García Bernal) arrives at the Spanish movie offices of director Enrique Goded (Fele Martinez) and happily proclaims that he's actually Enrique's long-lost school chum Ignacio--an announcement that is both less than convincing and more than it seems. A novice actor, Ángel pitches a semi-autobiographical screenplay in which he's determined to star, a revenge-laden reflection of the doomed love he and Enrique shared as boys before a pedophile priest cruelly intervened. The script, and the lost days it recalls, carefully unfurls into a series of brooding movies-within-movies and memories-inside-memories, which allow the sensual, multiple-role-playing Bernal to give the performance of his young career--among other things, he makes a stunningly convincing drag queen--and Almodóvar the opportunity to movingly suggest that people will pay any price to ensure that their stories are told. --Steve Wiecking ... Read more

Reviews (37)

'¡Eh!' '¡Despierta!'
This film is incredible. I'm relatively fluent in Spanish and had to make do without subtitles which always tend to detract from the full experience of a film. It took me a couple a viewings to fully understand everything that was said but when I finally twigged, the hairs on the back of my neck stood up.
We start off with Enrique, an up and coming movie producer. He's on the look out for a good story and one comes walking right through his door. Turns out his old school friend, Ignacio, who now wants to be known adamantly as Angel, has the perfect solution. He's written a screen play depicting certain points of their lives with added fiction, naturally, and hopes Enrique will consider producing it, with him staring as the principle character Zahra, a transvestite. Sound unusual? We haven't even scratched the surface. When Ignacio and Enrique were boys, they attended a strict catholic boarding school. The two of them were in love, much to the distress of El Padre Manolo, who wanted Ignacio all to himself. One poignant scene is during a field trip. We see the school boys frolicking happily in a lake while hearing a beautiful coir boy rendition of `Moon River'. All of a sudden the song is cut short with Ignacio running out from behind a bush with El Padre in pursuit. Ignacio falls, a rock cutting his forehead. As the blood slides down the centre of his face, we here him remark `I knew that ever since that moment, my life would for ever be divided in two'. After a little mis-hap in the boys bathroom after lights out, El padre Manolo expels Enrique and continues his advances on Ignacio, which is left to the viewers' imagination. The years go by, and they never meet again, until now, back to the present day. Enrique is delighted to have been reunited with his lost love but Ignacio or `Angel' is behaving rather strangely. Not remembering their favourite song from their school days and indeed turning a rather horny Enrique down in a risqué pool sequence (¡calienta poyas!), something's definitely not right. Angel leaves in a huff and forgets his lighter which conveniently has his hometown address on the side. Enrique journeys to Valencia only to find that *his* Ignacio died 4 years ago and his brother Juan, Stage name Angel, took it quite hard. Part devastated part intrigued, Enrique decides to play along, giving Angel the part and taking him as a lover, all in the desire to find out what makes Juan tick, he's an impenetrable mystery. The story, aptly named `La Visita' has its ending rewritten and as the final dramatic shoot comes to an end Enrique is still at a loss, that is, until he receives a visit of his own!
I'll leave the rest to you; this movie has many intricate threads woven in. A story within a story as they say. The actors are spectacular and Gael García Bernal manages to come off as childish, sensual, innocent, conniving and in the end quite chilling, he also makes a stunning drag queen. I recommend this move to anyone that likes a good mystery. I'm on the hunt for the soundtrack. ¡Cómpralo ya!

Intense & Provocative but not how you'd think
This exceptional film is entirely unique in its intensity and depth, but not how I expected. The priestly molestation is rather matter-of-fact, and not dramatized to the extreme as so many movies have done of late. The sex & nudity is very carefully placed, not at all gratuitous (unfortunately-more would have been welcomed albeit unnecessary for the story). In fact I can not tell why this version is NC-17, have Americans really become That Victorian?
Much has been written about the story, what I didn't know prior to viewing was the intensity of plot twists and turns. I won't spoil any secrets here, but suffice it to say that it isn't even the secrets that are so intense, it is the masterful way in which things are revealed. This is really a film about sex as power, and all of the power plays which don't make anyone happy.
Almodovar's direction and cinematography are stunning, erotic, and intensley emotional. He tells so much of the story visually without dialogue. What a treat.
The film ends on a realistic note. There are no firey car crashes, no earth-shattering explosions, no full-frontal nudity, none of the usual supects, but this film sneaks up on you, shakes you to your being, and as you are drawn in by the sensuality and drama, the film demonstrates that life isn't fair, kind, or even very pretty sometimes.

all stars
After watching many of Almodovar's films in a Spanish cinema class at UNC-Chapel Hill, I must say this one is the most accessible so far.Gael Garcia Bernal does one of the best acting jobs I've ever seen in a film- ever.If you can stomach the subject matter it's worth watching.

Almodovar's attention to detail is amazing, just watch Sr. Serrano cut stories out of the newspaper and you'll see what I mean... Amazing.And Almodovar messes with your mind by the way he does the casting.. don't want to spoil it for anyone, just see for yourself.

Almodóvar Illustrates the Aftermath of Bad Education...
To see is to believe, some say, yet what one sees in Bad Education should not be trusted, as everything has a sinister characteristic.All of the characters are ominously sleazy, even the protagonist of the film offers an element of darkness around him, which seems to stem from a criminal background.This dark theme suggests that the story offers a film noir experience.However, even the concept of film noir does not give this film justice, as it goes beyond the known borders of this genre while venturing into a new territory.Pedro Almodóvar creates a refreshing cinematic experience that takes sudden turns when least expected while traveling into a dubious world.Many of Almodóvar's previous films offer laughter and contemplation, yet most of them deal with a dubious theme, as does Bad Education. His personal insignia with colorful photography still leaves traces throughout the film, even though it is slightly subdued.

Enrique Goded (Fele Martínez), who some might have seen in the bloodcurdling Thesis (1996), or in the mesmerizing Open Your Eyes (1997), is on the rise in the Spanish world of cinema as he has recently made a successful film.Nonetheless, he is now struggling to come up with an equal or better idea for his next film when Ignacio Rodriguez (Gael García Bernal), from Amores perros (2000), Y tu mamá también (2001), and the recent Motorcycle Diaries (2004), appears from out of the blue.Together Enrique and Ignacio used to attend a private catholic school where sexual and physical abuse was predominantly common while the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco heavily tainted the school regulations.They were close friends, but they also discovered their first love in one another in the unforgiving school run by Catholic priests.Now years later they reunite, as Ignacio offers him a film script that he has written based on their time at the Catholic School.

At first, the film seems to focus on the Catholic School where Ignacio was a victim of severe sexual abuse, which is told through the screenplay.This is a clever curveball that Almodóvar throws at the audience, but it is necessary to understand what happens as the development of the story rests in the past of Ignacio and Enrique.However, this review will not elaborate on the notion of what happens next, as it would skew the initial experience with the film.Nonetheless, the script that Ignacio gives to Enrique portrays a world where Ignacio seeks a way to have an operation to reach what he desires the most - to be a woman.Cleverly, Almodóvar throws out the gender boundaries of film noir, as he exchanges his femme fatale for a man that seeks womanhood through modern technology.This displays Almodóvar's ingenious way of telling a captivating story, as it does not follow the conventional rules that often make films one of dozens.

As mentioned previously, the film does not concentrate on the Catholic Church, but instead the aftermath of Ignacio's education.Through several turns the film illustrates what happen to Ignacio.Much of this goes back to his years when the head priest sought him out for his own pleasure, which continues to trouble Ignacio well into adulthood.This seems to be the reason why Ignacio wrote the script in the first place, as he tried to exorcise his demons while trying to find an existence that fits with his upbringing and education.The story drifts between Enrique reading the script to the present time with occasional flashbacks that provide additional information in regards to the story.Initially, it might seem a little confusing, however, Almodóvar has been nice enough to add a couple of side bars whenever there is a flashback or a scene from the script that Enrique reads.Eventually, the audience will have gone through a very troubling, yet spellbinding tale that makes All About Eve (1950) seem like a Cinderella story.

Excellent acting from Bernal
García Bernal is not only doing one, but three roles in the same movie, and he plays them all convincingly. Seeing dressed in drag is quite an experience. However, the movie is darker than previous Almodovar works, because of the nature of the plot: church, sex and homosexuality. Those are touchy subjects, but Almodovar makes us watch by using a well played game of role reversals and twists. It's and enjoyable film, I recommend it. ... Read more

Description

Nazi Panzer forces stage a last-ditch Belgian front offensive that could turn the tide of WWII. Henry Fonda, Robert Shaw and Robert Ryan in the spectacular recreation of a crucial campaign. ... Read more

Reviews (81)

A seemingly controversial film!
Judging from all the previous opinions written on this movie, it is obvious few see it in the same light.This movie, while highly Hollywoodized (is there such a word?) is entertaining and only remotely connected to any historical reality. There is a star-studded cast with heavyweights (all gone now, I believe) like Henry Fonda, Robert Shaw, Robert Ryan, and Dana Andrews, among many others, and it is an interesting, and I found it to be, a very entertaining movie. I have owned this movie for many years on VHS and was disappointed for many of those years that it was unavailable on DVD.Why was it not available?Who cares now--it is finally out on DVD.If you don't like the movie, DVD won't change that, however.

This movie, with whatever faults (and it has many) you wish to attribute to it, is a must in any collection of war genre movies simply because of the stars and the insight it gives to movies made in 1965 while another, but realtively unpopular, war was going on. Even if you're not into war movies per se, I think it is enjoyable to watch.

If you are looking for a documentary on the history of The Battle Of the Bulge, this isn't it. As others more knowledgable than I have pointed out already, there are many inaccuracies, historically, with equipment, etc,etc.Most Hollywood movies are that way--Saving Private Ryan, Pearl Harbor, MacArthur, Patton--that's just a movie fact of life.I am sure only period films of actual combat would please some purests, so put that aside, it is worth a look soley as entertainment.In my opinion, a movie that generates this much controversy also generates curiosity as to why the controversy.See it, if you can, before buying and make up your own minds.

As comic book man would say..."Worst War Movie Ever!"
Mildly entertaining, this movie lacks in so many areas I don't know where to begin. I like to watch war movies to relive my days in the Army (I was in a tanker unit for awhile), and this movie just loses all realism and historical accuracy to the point that it resembles a circus. I saw it as a kid and liked it of course, and viewers who aren't so discerning might actually like it also, but watching it as an adult who has already watched the greatest war movies ever, I now have to give a thumbs down to this flick.
There are no unit patches on any of the soldiers whatsover. Obviously the studio must have had to cut costs somewhere. The German Tiger and Panther tanks suspiciously resemble American made tanks, the acting is so horrendous and hollywoodish, that I actually found myself rooting for the Nazis to kill them so I would no longer have to listen to their phony imitation of real soldiers over and over. Yes it was a big budget film and yes they did assemble a very all star cast, but did any of those actors ever spend 15 minutes trying to learn how actual soldiers act and talk? Actors are supposed to be believable in their roles, and this group just couldn't do it. They obviously didn't even know the right military expressions or jargon at all. Example: One of the generals making a call to HQ asks for "One hundred and fifty fives" (Howitzers), which to my knowledge has always been called one five fives (especially over a radio). Small error though it is, to me it's enough to remove any belivabilitythat the actor has ever spent a day in uniform.
The special effects are laughable, but you do have to remember the era in which this movie was filmed.High explosive tank rounds only cause a puff of smoke on enemy tanks followed by gasoline being lit on the turret.Dont expect to see turrets flying off as would be the case, oh and, soldiers don't bleed when shot either.
The end of the movie was so preposterous that I couldn't help but chuckling as Henry Fonda and Savalas rolled barrels of gasoline towards an entire column of German tanks and then tossed grenades at them and singlehandedly won the Battle of the Bulge.
This movie just seems like a sorry excuse to put Charles Bronson and Telly Savalas in other movie together to attempt to entertain the public.I'll stick to "Band Of Brothers", "When Trumpets Fade", "The Thin Red Line" or even "The Big Red One", when I need my WWII fix.

WW II Action Drama of the 1944 Ardennes Counter-Offensive
Warner Brother's 1965 epic war movie that portrays the German Ardennes Counter-Offensive in December of 1944 during WWII."Battle of the Bulge" depicts Adolf Hitler's gamble that committed three German armies to attack west to Antwerp, Belgium, and halt the Allies to force a negotiation for peace.Producer Milton Sperling and Director Ken Annakin created a movie of grand scale, but apparently chose big-screen action over historical precision to maximize box office revenue.Long relegated to infrequent television play and a chopped video tape edition, it returns on DVD restored for movie fans who like tanks and a screenplay that borders on camp by contemporary standards.

The movie depicts this historic battle through several fictional characters that eventually meet in a climatic battle that seals the Germans' fate.Henry Fonda is Lieutenant Colonel Dan Kiley, an American intelligence officer whose warnings of the coming attack fall on deaf ears.Robert Shaw is Colonel Hessler, the charismatic German Panzer (tank) commander who leads the armor spearhead towards Belgium.Charles Bronson is Major Wolinski, a tough American commander fighting the German onslaught to the last man.Telly Savalas is Sergeant Guffy, a jaded American tanker who is in the thick of the battle facing superior German tanks that relegate his to a tin can.James MacArther is Lieutenant Weaver, a slack infantry leader who survives a massacre of Allied prisoners by German soldiers.Sperling and Annakin appear to have chosen this simpler screenplay to create a few heroes who fight to overcome a seemingly invincible villain-forgoing a complex storyline as used in 20th Century Fox's 1962 "Longest Day."It works OK, certainly not on the level of "Band of Brothers," and lends a somewhat campy appeal for this 1960's action flick.

The movie does portray actual events with German paratroopers disguised as American soldiers who disrupt Allied operations, the Malmedy Massacre, and the siege of Bastogne.Their depictions contain a lot of artistic manipulation, and the relatively simple storyline faults the German defeat to depleted gasoline reserves-setting the stage for a climatic battle when Kiley, Guffy, and Weaver find themselves face-to-face with Hessler at a gasoline dump.Another gross oversight is a massive tank battle in the latter part of the movie that was apparently filmed during the spring-summer season in Spain-deplete of snow.

As long as viewers don't mind these faults-this is an entertaining movie.The M24 Chafee and M47 Patton tanks rented from the Spanish Army serve well as facsimiles for American Sherman and German Tiger tanks, and the live sets look great on the wide screen.Robert Shaw is the most charismatic in this feature and the Panzerlied chorus near the beginning of the movie is rousing.

I've always enjoyed this movie and I'm pleased with the DVD edition's restored imagery and Dolby Digital 5.1 sound, particularly the restoration of footage that I've not seen in years.

A good transfer
I will not review the movie but the DVD. It's in Widescreen. No scenes have been cut. Every minute of the movie is on this DVD. It has the overture, intermission & exit music.I saw no pops or lines in the picture. The sound & pitcure quality of this 60s movie is as good as any DVD I have. I like the movie & wish all old movies on DVD were as well done as this DVD.

dump your VHS version
I'm not going to waste your time telling you about the movie, and how great it is.
The only thing I have to say is someone did something right for a change. Whoever put this one together gave you the full version as it was first shown.
My advice if you know and love this movie, this is the one to buy, and dump your VHS. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The Longest Day is Hollywood's definitive D-day movie.More modern accounts such as Saving Private Ryan are morevividly realistic, but producer Darryl F. Zanuck's epic 1962 account isthe only one to attempt the daunting task of covering that fateful dayfrom all perspectives. From the German high command and front-lineofficers to the French Resistance and all the key Allied participants,the screenplay by Cornelius Ryan, based on his own authoritative book, is as factuallyaccurate as possible. The endless parade of stars (John Wayne, HenryFonda, Robert Mitchum, Sean Connery, and Richard Burton, to name a few)makes for an uneasy mix of verisimilitude and Hollywood star-power,however, and the film falls a little flat for too much of its three-hour running time. But the set-piece battles are still spectacular, andif the landings on Omaha Beach lack the graphic gore of PrivateRyan they nonetheless show the sheer scale and audacity of theinvasion. --Mark Walker ... Read more

Reviews (131)

Comparisons are inevitable; they're also unhelpful
The comparisons are of course between THE LONGEST DAY and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. The only similarities are: both movies depict the allied landings at Normandy on D-Day, they are tributes to the servicemen of WWII, and most importantly, both are good movies. That said, general comparisons are unhelpful because the realism that made Spielberg's movie so memorable is totally absent from THE LONGEST DAY; for two very good reasons: (1) technically, the capability was unavailable in 1962 and (2) morally, that level of graphic violence would have been unacceptable. Also, Mr Zanuck, as director, did not want to make bloody messes of his numerous stars.

Realism aside, on its own merits THE LONGEST DAY is a tribute that has stood the test of time. The huge collection of stars (over 40) and the near 3 hour length qualifies it as epic. On an emotional level, it is a patriotic salute to the soldiers who went ashore. With a scope larger than Omaha beach, the focus is not exclusively American; the movie depicts the role of the British, and other allied troops, as well as the work of the French resistance. German dialogue is subtitled to add some realism. Perhaps the best aspect of the movie is that as an adaptation of Cornelius Ryan's book of the same name, it is based on a historically accurate account of the battle.

For realism, patriotism, and a sentimental heroic story, only partially based on real events of D-Day, watch SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. For an old fashioned, "clean" war movie based on history with good acting (Henry Fonda, Robert Mitchum, John Wayne, Curt Jurgens) watch THE LONGEST DAY. Better yet, view both, just don't spoil the experience with a lot of comparisons.

The Longest View
Unlike Saving Private Ryan, The Longest Day was filmed to dramatize the true, unfolding story of the invasion of France beginning several days before the invasion, which was documented for all time by journalist Cornelius Ryan. Ryan did something few historians have successfully accomplished since the end of the war. He compiled thousands of interviews and wrote a realistic account of the invasion which reads like a suspense and action novel. The movie seeks to combine many characters taken from Ryan's book, and is therefore fiction as well as history, but it is masterfully done and is otherwise true to history. Stereotypes of incompetent German officers and troops, so common in film and television of the early 1960's was not a problem in this movie, nor is the graphic violence of Private Ryan observable. The true story is the focus of the movie, and it was made primarily for veterans who had seen the real violence and had fought tough, intellegent and brave Germans, and had no need to be reminded of those horrors. They did have a desire to see their sacrifices and trials acknowledged alongside the background of historical context. It is a gripping movie. A side note for those who might want to compare The Longest Day with Saving Private Ryan. These should compliment each other, not be compared with each other. The audience for The Longest Day was primarily the veterans, their peers and children. The audience or Saving Private Ryan is primarily the grandchildren of the veterans, young people who are in the main, quite ignorant of history. There is no doubt that Saving Private Ryan is more accurate a portayal of historical American and German weapons and villages, but this was not even attempted in the Longest Day. If you will read The Longest Day before watching Saving Private Ryan, you will see that the sites and sounds remembered by many of the interviewed veterans who were at Omaha and Utah beaches somehow happened at the same time and place in Saving Private Ryan. That makes Saving Private Ryan as inaccurate for what it shows, as is The Longest Day, for what it doesn't show. Both movies are excellent, and both are moving.

IT HAS NOT STOOD THE TEST OF TIME
Director Darryl F. Zanuck tried his best with the technical resources at his dispostition at the time and using the narrative standar for epic movies of that time. But watching this movie today is a really act of courage. It drags and drags, the three hours seem to never end. Also, even if they tried to give a view of the global situation, they failed miserably.

The movie is an endless sequence of shell and fire sounds, a really pain. I simply don't like the movie, although I understand what they tried to do.

Only a Partial View of D-Day and Operation Overlord
Although this film is certainly worth watching, the viewer who has little idea of what Operation Overlord was about won't learn very much about it. Of course, we see many examples of heroism, but so much was left out that one can easily get a distorted view of things.
(1) Contrary to the impression that the Hollywood movie industry gives, the Americans and British did not defeat Germany alone. Three-quarters of the strength of the German Wehrmacht was destroyed by the Soviet Union. I realize that this film was made a the height of the cold war, but still some mention should have been made of their contribution to victory.
(2) The most impressive part of Overlord were the meticulous preparations made. Some mention of it was made, but more of it should have been shown, such as the various special weapons and ships that were made to ease the assault on the fortified beaches. Archive film could have been easily procured to show the various devices used to clear mine fields and barbed wire.
Most crucial was the development of the "Mulberry" artificial ports.
(3) This film used several Germans as advisors such as Blumentritt who were in the Wehrmacht High Command. They use this film as a vehicle for pushing the now largely discredited line that "if only Hitler had let the Generals run the war, they would have won it for him", and the also the myth that they opposed Hitler and held nothing but contempt for him (von Rundstedt calls Hitler "that Bohemian Corporal" in the film). In reality they were all very loyal to him and they really strongly supported him and his criminal policies when they were winning the war.
(4) The importance of the deception campaign making the Germans think the assault will be at the Pas de Calais and not a Normandy was very important and continued even after the landing on D-Day to make the Germans think Normandy was just a diversion.
This was not mentioned. A whole "virtual army" was created with fake radio traffic opposite Calais. This could have been shown as well.
(5) Although I have nothing personal against the man, John Wayne is a very poor actor and I have no idea where he got his reputation as one of Hollywood's leading men!

The Longest Movie
I watched on June 6th 2004 "The Longest Day" to learn about D-Day June 6th in 1944. In general it was a painfully boring movie. I accomplished my goal of learning about D-Day, but it was at a cost of wasting about three hours of my life. It is my belief that this story could have been told in one and a half hours instead of three. ... Read more

Description

The Academy Award winner for Best Original Screenplay, Gosford Park is a whodunit as only director Robert Altman could do it.As a hunting party gathers at the country estate, no one is aware that before the weekend is over, someone will be murdered - twice!The police are baffled but the all-seeing, all-hearing servants know that almost everyone had a motive.
This critically-acclaimed murder mystery features a who's who of celebrated actors.With a diverse cast of characters - all with something to hide - it'll keep you guessing right to the surprising end.Gosford Park proves that murder can be such an inconvenience. ... Read more

Reviews (343)

Not for 14 year old boys?
While taking all those guided tours through cavernous estate houses in England and Ireland (and even a few on the north shore of Long Island), I always wondered what it was like to live that lifestyle. But of course, walking around those still houses doesn't really tell you about the people who lived there anymore than a stage tells you about its actors. However, Gosford Park was a great way to fill in those blanks. The way it pulls you into the world of 1930's English high society and all its pretense and hypocrisy is great. This movie definitely enlivened my understanding of class in old European societies.

The reason Gosford Park has such great insight is the film's screenwriter, Julian Fellows who himself grew up as part of the English aristocracy. Much of what makes this film fun is the idiosyncrasies of its characters and their world that Fellows has personal experience with. A maid and driver stand in the pouring rain until their mistress gets in the car. Servants only refer to each other by their master's name, and they maintain the same hierarchy as their masters so that a duke's servant is treated better by other servants than a baron's. Only married women are allowed to have breakfast in bed; unmarried women must go to the dining room. What a strange world they lived in, especially to someone like me who grew up in a middle class New York neighborhood.

The spine of Gosford Park is, without question, NOT the murder mystery. In fact, the murder mystery plot is about 5% of the movie-if that. It's what's known in film lingo as a McGuffin, a device that helps propel the plot in a story but is of little importance in itself. If a viewer turns to the murder mystery plot for what this movie is all about, they will most likely be sorely disappointed, seemingly like many of the negative reviewers here were.

The key to enjoying this movie is to think about what it's like to live in a society that is extremely oriented by class. What must it take to keep it going? As I alluded earlier, pretense and hypocrisy grease the gears of high society. From scene to scene, we peep around corners and into bedrooms to see characters trying to hide one secret or another. And in the end, we see the unpleasant consequences of this duplicity.

This is definitely not a film that lays out its purpose before the audience. Since the almost 60 characters (for a chuckle, look under product details above for the colossal cast list) each add something unique to the larger picture, and since the audience is usually only told something once, you definitely have to be your own detective. However, Julian Fellows does a brilliant job interweaving these characters into a solid whole, and he definitely deserves the Oscar he received for the screenplay.

Since this is a complex and subtle film, multiple viewings are helpful, but unlike some other reviewers, this is something I really enjoyed. Like a good album, each time with it reveals another layer and increases your appreciation. Robert Altman, the director, says in his DVD commentary (which was boring except for a few insights, but Julian Fellow's commentary was excellent) that the film is "like looking in through the windows of a house, you only get part of the picture at a time." I think this analogy fits nicely, especially since the film is set in a house. Altman also acknowledges what some of the negative reviewers complain about, saying he meant the audience to be left wondering after the first viewing. He didn't intend this movie for the "wham, bam, thank you ma'am" set. In fact, Altman went out of his way to insert curse words, guaranteeing an R rating so that "14 year old boys couldn't walk off the street and watch it."

And of course, last but not least, the acting was great. Gosford Park has an excellent ensemble cast with not a single weak link. Maggie Smith as the snobbish Aunt makes you smile; Kelly MacDonald as the Aunt's young, innocent maid makes you want to give her a big wet kiss (maybe that's just me); and Clive Owen's cool restraint as a mysterious footman keeps you following him around the screen.

All through, Gosford Park is a movie very well done.

Buy this DVD and watch it again and again....
because you miss most of the film the first time around!

On the surface this appears to be a very formulistic murder mystery. It has the classic setting, 1930's period, an isolated English manor house filled with guests for a weekend shooting party, and all of the servants both resident and visiting. Everybody has secrets, the tension is so thick it could be cut with a knife and there is conveniently one missing from the kitchen. For more than half the film we see motives offered and wait for the murder and yet after it occurs it becomes evident that this is NOT a murder mystery at all!

The film has been compared to Upstairs Downstairs and it does involve the lives of those both above and below stairs, but it is much more than that. The various stories are added layer by layer some, such as the imposter in the servants' hall are obvious while others like the secret abortion are only alluded in a couple of lines. The various stories are, while interesting, not really the point of the film either. This is a beautifully drawn portrait of a way of life that is long gone and will probably never return. Almost everyone has read about or seen depictions of English Country Life in the '20's and '30's. It is a setting that has been used in drama, comedy, romance and of course mystery genres for years but Gosford Park makes it clear that we have only the faintest ideas of what that life was really like. The genius of this film is that it takes all the information that could have been spread out in a PBS documentary series and used fiction to illustrate the same points in a much more effective and enjoyable way.

The cast is huge and filled with actors, both well known and soon to be well known. No one is given such a large role that it becomes their film and yet each performer manages to turn their scenes into a polished little gem.

The extras included in the DVD are wonderful. They include deleted scenes (with commentary), features on the making of, and authenticity of the movies as well as Q & A with cast and filmakers. The best of the extras by far are the commentaries with the director, Robert Altman and screenwriter, Julian Oscar.

I highly recommend the purchase (as opposed to the renting) of this film. It is so packed with detail that it would be impossible to absorb it all in just one or two viewings.

"Nothing's more exhausting than breaking in a lady's maid."
The upperclass friends and relations of Sir William McCordle (Michael Gambon) arrive at his country house for a weekend of shooting, accompanied by maids, footmen, and valets, all of whom will be staying under one roof. Sir William is a mean-spirited and self-centered old man, married to a much younger, emotionally distant wife (Kristin Scott Thomas), with many family members dependent upon his continuing largesse. The hilariously waspish Countess of Trentham (Maggie Smith), who believes she has a lifetime stipend, arrives with young Mary Maceachran (Kelly MacDonald), who is trying valiantly to become a good lady's maid. Ivor Novello (Jeremy Northam), a Hollywood star, and Morris Weissman (Bob Balaban), a producer of Charlie Chan movies, are the only guests without aristocratic backgrounds and inherited privilege. The atmosphere of the house, filled with venomous "friends" and relations, soon becomes even more poisonous.

The "below stairs" lives of the servants are also fully revealed, as they share living quarters, eat meals together, tend to the laundry and cooking, and gossip about their employers. The butler Jennings (Alan Bates) and the head housekeeper (Helen Mirren) run the household and try to guarantee that no real-world cares will intrude upon the lives of their employers. Since "upstairs" and "downstairs" occasionally meet very privately at night, secrets abound, many of them secrets of long standing. When Sir William is poisoned and stabbed ("Trust Sir William to be murdered twice"), nearly everyone has a motive for wanting him dead.

For director Robert Altman, the primary focus of the film is on the characters, their way of life, and their values, with the murder mystery secondary. Set in late November, the end of the year 1932, the action takes place when this secure aristocratic lifestyle is also nearing its end, something that the arrival of the newly rich Hollywood characters, Novello and Weissman, illustrates. Dramatic cinematography (by Andrew Dunn) emphasizes the cold and rainy dreariness of the weekend, and suggests parallels with the coldness of the dying aristocracy.

Interior shots reveal the contrasts between the elegant and mannered lives of the "upstairs" characters and the hardworking daily lives of the "downstairs" characters, who adhere to their own rigid social codes. Every detail rings true, and as the characters' lives and interrelationships are revealed obliquely in brief snippets of seemingly unrelated conversations, a broad picture of the upstairs and downstairs lifestyles gradually emerges. Fully developed, many-leveled, wonderfully acted, often funny, and impeccably directed and filmed, this is a film one can watch again and again with delight. Mary Whipple

The Triumph of the Tried and True... a la Robert Altman!
GOSFORD PARK is an enchanting movie on every level and should please even the most discerning audience. Quite unexpectedly, Robert Altman has thoroughly researched the Agatha Christie murder mystery-type stories, the archetypical British mystery/drawing room genre, and (more important) the stuffy and unbelievable class disparities of olde England and has produced a stylish, smart, lushly beautiful recreation of England in the 1930s. The settings are elegant - a mansion/castle where the 'haves' and their lowly servants carry on their lives as though 'to the manner born'. Blessed with a dream cast that includes nearly all of the greats of the British acting school, Altman has given plumb roles to Maggie Smith, Helen Mirren, Eileen Atkins, Emily Watson, Kristin Scott Thomas, Stephen Fry, Michael Gambon, Jeremy Northam, James Wilby, Alan Bates, and Derek Jacobi. The story is an interesting murder mystery but it merely serves as the matrix upon which these fine actors, writer, cinematographer and director capably flaunt their skills. This movie is Delicious! It is so fine that it bears repeated viewings just to make sure you catch all the innuendoes and rapid, superb double entendres encased in this bit of magic. Altman devotees will not be disappointed and those who are not fond of the eccentric director's previous films are bound to be won over to the genius of Robert Altman.

Upstairs, downstairs, cold stares
No matter how many actors, including bankable stars, appear in a Robert Altman movie, it seems to be about Altman. He has an individual, if by now familiar, style of filmmaking that is always calling attention to itself. That style includes very fluid camera movement, quick-cut editing, and a good deal of dialogue that is covered by other dialogue or sounds distant. We are meant to be awed by the spontaneity and naturalism of it all.

Apparently many people are impressed by this mannerism and consider it a sign of artistry. On the whole, I find it pretentious and irritating. In one of the supplementary features on the DVD, Altman, his screenwriter and a handful of the actors from Gosford Park are interviewed in front of a studio audience. Altman and the writer rattle on about how every scene is shot by two cameras that are always in motion, so that the actors are never sure whether they are going to be foreground or atmosphere, or what angle they'll be seen from. Does Altman really think he invented the idea of shooting a scene from multiple angles, and choosing one during editing? And why is a camera that's gliding and panning constantly somehow more "truthful" than one that's framing the character or group that the director believes is most essential to telling the story at that moment?

It can be said in Altman's favor, though, that he never makes a merely conventional or routine film; they are all a bit eccentric (a compliment in my book) and, despite my reservations about the camera and sound-recording style, usually offer a fresh view of the theme or its environment. Gosford Park is your standard Agatha Christie-style murder mystery set among a dinner-jacketed, evening-gowned crowd in an English manor house in 1932 -- except, in this case, the doings of the upper crust are set against the army of servants below stairs who work their tails off to make everything straight, gleaming and smooth for their social betters.

Altman and his screenwriter Julian Fellows do a very creditable and humane job of conveying the personalities and individuality of the servants; they aren't just symbols of The Oppressed. The characters of the gentry, though, while ably portrayed (the acting talent makes sure of that), are almost universally so sour, rude and calculating that it's hard not to feel that there's a touch of old-fashioned, left-wing agit-prop involved. (The one exception is Jeremy Northam, who plays Ivor Novello -- a real singer and film star of the period -- with considerable charm.) I can believe that an assembly of English bluebloods in that era might have carried within themselves much wickedness, but they would have been far too polished to display it as openly and crudely as they do in Gosford Park.

Altman recruited a clutch of A-list British stage and film actors, and they don't fail him. Altman's casual attitude toward the basics of craftsmanship (as opposed to displaying his self-assumed creative genius) ensures that you will be lucky to figure out who half the characters are and their relationships with one another by the time of the denouement, but their cultivated swinishness holds the attention anyway. I think actors love playing obnoxious and unlikeable characters; these seem to be enjoying their roles, and you will, too.

The English have a term, "curate's egg." The meaning is, "parts of it are very good." ... Read more

Reviews (34)

Authenic replicant aircraft top this 16:9 grand comedy DVD!!
1965 was the year of the big screen action race comedies with lots of stars, grand costumes, lavish sets and authentic classic vehicles. "The Great Race" a 1910 auto race from New York to Paris and the "Those Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines" a 1910 International Aircraft race from London to Paris.

What makes this 1965 Action Comedy so Grand is the attention to detail by Director Ken Annakin who had 6 replica flying machines built by real aero - engineers from the original blue prints and specifications. The accuracy of these replicants even proved the critical pilot weight limitations. They had to even substitute a female stunt pilot to fly the French mono - wing because the original pilot was a very small man. Now available for the first time on a spectacular panoramic 2.20:1 Aspect ratio. (Anamorphic WideScreen DVD (automatically adjusts picture to viewing tv size) with Dolby Surround Sound.) NOTE: THIS IS A FANTASTIC MOVIE TO WATCH ON WIDESCREEN 16:9 HDTV!!!!!

This film is 138 minutes and has many extras which include very detailed information and the history regarding all the 1910 vintage aircraft used in the film.

With an All-star 1960's International cast; Stuart Whitman, Sarah Miles, James Fox, Robert Morley, Red Skelton, Gert Frobe, Jean-Pierre Cassal, Benny Hill, Alberto Sordi and Terry Thomas.

This is a magnificent movie and the ingenuity and comedy of 1910 flight is a delight to watch on the BIG SCREEN. Enjoy.

An airplane movie for the flight buff and general audience .
This is a marvelous film for people who love airplanes, but it also has much to recommend it for anyone in the family. It captures the romance of the pre-WWI era and takes an affectionate look at the pre-war planes as well. The story is set around a race from London to Paris, and is also a fractured take on the political and social situation of the period. Flyers from all over the world meet at an airfield set in the infield of a Brooklands style race track. The first half of the film introduces us to the somewhat caricatured but nevertheless engaging pilots from each major flying nation: the womanizing Frenchman, the stiff-backed Prussians, the rich and prolific Italian, the cowboy from Arizona, and several British types, most notably Sir Percy Ware-Armitage, played with black-hearted delight by Terry Thomas. The film boasts a whole gamut of great character actors like Gert Frobe, Robt. Morely and even Red Skelton. The flying sequences before and during the race combine slapstick comedy with truly awesome shots of the other stars of the film, the authentic reproductions of 1910 aircraft. I've loved this film since I saw it as a child, and my non-airplane daughter even counts it as one of her favorites. Highly recommended.

The best racing comedy of the 1960s.
This was yet another in a series of big-budget comedies that were so stuffed that had to include an intermission. (This 138 minute film has an intermission at the 79 minute mark, followed by a 6-minute Entr'acte, so that the second act is only 52 minutes.) It's also possibly the best one, along with IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD, but where IAMMMMW was at times overlong and peopled with nasty characters, you can care about the people in TMMITFM. It's funnier-with much broader comedy than the other, and a careful sense of time and place. There are a few laggy romantic