Reviews (12)

I cried the entire time...
This is a heartwarming story of two tiger cubs separated when they were young, raised in very different environments, and finally reuniting through a sequence of events that could only be described as fate. The shots in this movie are breathtaking, and the tigers' performances put the human actors to shame. There were times when the tigers were talking to each other that I expected subtitles to pop up on the screen - so complex and expressive their language was, and indeed is. But, of course, you don't need subtitles to understand what they say, for they speak in a universal tongue that all beings across the cosmos can understand.

Beautiful Movie!
This movie, "Two Brothers" is magnificent! The script/storyline is great, the acting on the part of the Tigers is absolutely amazing, and best of all, you leave the movie theater with a smile on your face!
I must warn you however: This movie contains scenes that depict violence towards Animals. Of course, the Animals in the movie arent really hurt, but when you realize that things that happen in the movie actually go on in this cruel world that we live in, it will be sobering.
You may actually hate the human race a little after seeing this movie.
But, thankfully, a couple of humans redeem themselves (atleast in the movie they do) by movie's end.
The movie begins with the two precious, and beautiful Tiger cubs, Sangha and Kumal, as they frolic and play in the jungle with their parents.
Then, as usual, humans come along and ruin all that was once beautiful.
The Cubs are seperated and learn just how mean humans can really be.
But fate had something else in store, that the hunters hadnt counted on.........a beautiful, happy reunion of the Two Brothers that will leave a happy tear in your eye, a nice chill up and down your spine, and best of all, a toasty warm feeling in your Soul.
You'll even laugh a few times, too!
This movie accomplishes exactly what it set out to do: To make us realize that HUMANS ARE THE TRUE ANIMALS, AND THE TRUE PREDATORS, AND THAT IT'S UP TO US HUMANS WHO HAVE LOVE AND COMPASSION IN OUR SOULS, TO SAVE THESE BEAUTIFUL ANIMALS, FOR ANIMALS ARE GOD'S CHILDREN AS MUCH AS THE HUMAN ANIMAL IS!
Tigers are coming closer and closer to becoming extinct, and WE MUST ACT NOW OR THEY WILL BE FOREVER GONE FROM OUR PLANET!
We must NOT allow that to happen.
How do we prevent it?
By treating Animals, like the beautiful, precious Souls that they are. The same Souls that were created from God's loving hands, just like the human animals were.
This movie proves that Animal Souls, like human Souls, share love, and that love truly can conquer all!

Another great animal film from Annaud
"Two Brothers" tells the story of two tiger cubs, living in the jungles of Asia, who are suddenly split up when treasure hunters who are plundering a temple shoot the father tiger in self-defense. One of the tiger cubs, Kumal, is found by the expedition leader Aidan McRory (played by Guy Pearce). When McRory is thrown into prison, Kumal is sold to a gypsy circus. The other tiger, Sangha, escapes with his mother. Mother and son are separated during the Prince's hunting expedition, and Sangha is found in a cave by the son of the regional governor who brings the tiger home. But, determined to be a danger to the boy, he is given as a gift to the Prince. The tigers re-unite at a staged fight and manage to escape with McRory hot on their trail.

If you've ever seen Director Jean-Jacques Annaud's other animal film, "The Bear," it's told in much the same way -- very little dialogue between the human characters. The animal trainers and the director did an amazing job with the tigers so, at times, I could almost tell exactly what was going through the tigers' minds. Also, Annaud films some of the scenes from their point of view to give that additional depth to the characters. Guy Pearce shows some fine work as McRory who is torn between the spoils of hunting and his love of Kumal. Great scenic shots of the Asian jungles, too. It's just a great family film.

A rare diamond among children's films
"Two Brothers" is a very rare film among the bombastically stupid kiddie pleasers that have filled in the movie landscape for some time now. It does what the best children's films do: It rises above the genre in such a way that it is not a children's film. It supposes that children are intelligent, thoughtful, and emotionally eloquent, and these terms describe the film well. The story surrounds two tiger cubs separated by fate and how they change the humans with whom they interact. One is rescued by a hunter and the other is taken in by a young French boy. The film meditates on issues such as animal cruelty and the choices we make in regard to nature itself. Jean Jacques Annaud, known for films such as "Seven Years in Tibet", and the similar, "The Bear," has made a film of unusual power. As in "The Bear", the dialogue is kept to a minimum, and story is all the more eloquent for it. There is no rapid fire, sound bite dialogue. When the two human leads speak (a great white hunter played by Guy Pearce & young Freddie Highmore) they communicate through, simple, direct dialogue that is somehow more moving by sparing us drizzly speeches or dewey eyed sentimentality. The tigers are wonderous to watch. The movie was shot on High Definition Digital Video instead of film, which also helps with the special effects. The illusion is created by simply filming the animals and adding some CGI alterations here and there. The result is magical. This is somehting of an art house children's film, it feels like a French import and its pacing and visual style. It is distinctly "non-Americanized" and I am grateful for that. While film's like "Shrek 2" which is clever yet obvious dominate the box office, I am hopeful that audiences will discover this film either in its theatrical engagement or on video and DVD. Kids who have seen it have told me it is the best movie they have ever seen, which I think is due to the fact there are no longer any films that credit them with having an attention span or interest in a film that has a fully realized, emotional story (save of course PJ Hogan's spectacular version of "Peter Pan", another underrated gem). More than that, adults will be every bit as enchanted and as taken by suprise as I was.

"Two Brothers" theatrical release
My sister and I saw this movie today and what a wonderful movie! Being animal lovers, we did shed a few tears and fell in love with these lovable tigers, and was so glad that there was a happy ending - I loved the ending. I can't understand why this movie didn't do better at the box office. The tigers were so well trained and the human actors did a great job too! I plan to buy the DVD when it comes out so that I can watch it again. ... Read more

Reviews (88)

"The game of life is hard to play, I'm gonna lose it anyway"
Probably no cinematic comedy produced by Hollywood in the last half of the twentieth century is as irreverent, disdainful of authority, critical of war and its effects, and, incidentally, as funny as "M*A*S*H", that 1970 comedic masterpiece starring Donald Sutherland, Elliott Gould, Tom Skerritt, Gary Burghoff, and Sally Kellerman; written by Ring Lardner, Jr.; and directed by Robert Altman, in his directorial debut.

"M*A*S*H" is actually a very difficult film to review for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, it's darned near impossible to provide an adequate synopsis for readers who've never seen the movie. Because, unlike most modern films that contain a linear story line, an easy-to-follow plot, and well developed characters that one can either root for or vilify with ease, "M*A*S*H" is a film that can only be described as a series of loosely joined comic vignettes, featuring a set of very true-to-life characters that are all BOTH very likeable and flawed.

"M*A*S*H" is one of the best comedies ever made, and for good reason. It is genuinely funny. It is artistically produced; it contains great writing and acting; and it proclaims an important social message to viewers.

Having said all that, "M*A*S*H" is very likely NOT a movie that will appeal to everyone's tastes - even now, 32 years after it was first released. How the movie was written and produced has a lot to do with that fact.

As the story goes, the idea for producing a movie version "M*A*S*H" got its start when literary agent Ingo Preminger referred Dr. Richard Hooker's famous novel of the same name to 20th Century Fox executive Richard Zanuck. Zanuck enthusiastically supported the idea, hired Preminger as the movie's producer, and set out to find a screen writer and director. Ring Lardner Jr. (son of the famous 1930s sports writer) was brought in to write the script. Robert Altman was hired to direct. (As Altman tells it, he was about the "13th choice" of the studio to direct.)

Shooting began during the summer of 1969. At the same time, the films "Patton" and "Tora! Tora! Tora!" were in production. Altman, eager to be successful in his first major film, decided to "hide out" on a back lot of the studio, where he would escape the watchful eyes of studio executives.

As a result, Altman was able to apply many innovative techniques to the film. He wanted his actors to improvise as much as possible in each scene. He wired each actor with an individual microphone and encouraged them to talk over one another. He incorporated several bloody operating room scenes in the film. He tried to mask the fact that the film was supposed to be set during the Korean War. He wanted audiences to assume that this was a film about Vietnam, and he wanted them to understand his clear message about the monstrosity of war.

(By the way, Altman's technique enraged Lardner, who thought Altman had basically thrown away the script. Lardner came perilously close to disassociating himself from the project, but in the end, accepted both the sole writing credit for the film... and the Oscar for Best Screenplay at the 1971 Academy Awards.).

Because of Altman's innovative (some say crazy) filmmaking techniques, "M*A*S*H" succeeds as a brilliant film that achieves almost all of Altman's goals. The film is deeply imbued with a lifelike realism that allows viewers to "feel" what it was like in the fictional 4077th MASH. The actors speak like one would expect them to when confronted with the reality of war and the boredom of inactivity.

Comedy scenes are uniformly uproariously funny, employing jokes and gags that range from subtle to coarse to borderline lewd. Interspersed with the comedy scenes are operating room sequences that are bloody to the point of horrific, but that bring home with full force the full brutality of war... so much so that, for a short time, the Defense Department banned the "M*A*S*H" from being shown in military theaters worldwide.

I've read some reviews of "M*A*S*H" in which a criticism is leveled that the movie's characters are not well developed. I disagree with this judgment. I found I was readily able to identify with all the characters, whether they were likeable or not. Hawkeye, Duke, Trapper, Frank, Hot Lips, Henry, Radar, and all the others were completely believable, and fleshed out in detail... no small feat since the actors who played these parts were directed to perform their roles in such a highly improvisational manner.

"M*A*S*H" is one of those rare films that gives viewers everything they could ask for from a great film: wonderfully realistic acting; a great script; brilliantly funny comedy; superb drama, important social commentary; and artful, innovative filmmaking techniques. "M*A*S*H" has steadfastly stood the test of time for thirty years, never becoming outdated or irrelevant. Whether you've never seen it, or, like me, you've seen it many times: RUN, don't walk, to your nearest video store and check it out!

M*A*S*H - intelligent satire in a benchmark DVD release
M*A*S*H is one of the zaniest and most intelligent satires ever produced by Hollywood. This is a war movie in which only two shots are fired -- as signals in a football game. It is a masterpiece of wider appeal -- even to veterans -- than is suggested by its setting in Korean War military hospitals, or by its director's explicit aim of promoting liberal opposition to the Vietnam war during the '60s and '70s.

The 2002 two-disk M*A*S*H special edition from 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment in many ways is a benchmark for DVD releases of cult movies. Picture and sound quality are high. The special feature content is entertaining and insightful.

This content includes extensive retrospective comment by director Robert Altman, producer Ingo Preminger, former studio boss Richard Zanuck, scriptwriter Ring Lardner Jr, actors including Donald Sutherland, Elliott Gould, Sally Kellerman, Tom Skerritt, John Schuck and Gary Burghoff, and medical veterans of the Korean War. We see the 30th anniversary M*A*S*H reunion at Fox, and presentation of a studio life achievement award to Altman.

The special content gives fascinating insights into the driving half-mad genius that so often makes a great director, and of egos and bigheartedness in movie making.

Almost everyone, from the scriptwriter to the studio executives and the actors, lined up against the director at some time. Donald Sutherland and Elliott Gould once even tried to get Altman fired, fearing that he would damage their careers. In the M*A*S*H special edition features they eat their words and graciously pay tribute to Altman. Former studio boss Richard Zanuck says that until Altman came along other directors were afraid of the screenplay or didn't like it. 'Altman came in, and seemed unruly enough to be able to understand this subject matter.'

M*A*S*H was made on a shoestring budget with Fox's Century Ranch standing in for Korea. It emerged from chaotic creative tension as an enormous artistic and financial success. Altman accepted a salary of only $75,000. His son Mike is reputed to have made more money from writing the lyric to the keynote ballad, 'Suicide Is Painless', with Johnny Mandel. Altman kept costs down by casting the movie with mostly unknown and out-of-work actors. 14 of the movie's 30 speaking roles were played by actors making their screen debut. Shooting finished three days ahead of schedule in 1969, and almost half a million dollars under budget. M*A*S*H went on to earn more than $80 million at the box office, a Palme d'Or at Cannes and an Oscar (for the heavily reworked script of formerly blacklisted scriptwriter Ring Lardner Jr), and to inspire a long-running popular TV series.

This is a rare thing: a five star classic movie in a five star DVD release.

Second Release on DVD?
Normaly I would give this movie a 5 stars. I mean it is that good. The movie is outstanding.

Here is the reason I am giving this only 3 stars:

I am puzzled of why 20th Century Fox is re-releasing this movie as a single disc DVD.

They should have released the single disc first, then the Five Star Collection edition.

Hey 20th Century Fox, why????????

GOTTA HAND IT TO ALTMAN, GRUDGINGLY
At the same time, Robert Altman's "M*A"S*H" came out. It, too found an audience, and truth be told many who enjoyed "Patton" enjoyed "M*A*S*H". It was just plain funny, and the anti-military theme was subtle. Altman walked a brilliant tightrope between a pro-American and unpatriotic premise. There is no doubt that Altman intended it as an anti-Vietnam movie. It was written by former Communist Ring Lardner, Jr. Lardner had been Blacklisted, and this fact featured prominently in the politics of the film's aura. It was based on a sexy paperback novel about surgeons in Korea. The film was set in Korea, yet made every possible attempt to convey the image that it was actually Vietnam. Many of the movie's set pieces were deliberately Vietnamese in nature and costume, for that very purpose. To the extent that it was unpatriotic, it subtly described "regular Army" officers as unyielding, intolerant Christians, utterly blinded by stupid jingoism. The draftees, however, are funny and attractive as they drink and love their way through a bevy of good-looking nurses, all while saving lives in the style of comic Galahads. Altman showed genius as a filmmaker. The movie avoided real controversy because it was just so darn good.
"M*A*S*H" spurred a television show that ran for years. In the 1970s it played for its time and audience. Re-runs, however, strain its credibility beyond Altman's original themes. Two doctors played the "bad guy." The first was a complete buffoon. Frank Burns was prominently identified as a Republican. He is given zero good qualities. He is ugly, a bad doctor, a coward, a racist and all-around mean SOB who cheats on his wife with Major Margaret Hoolihan, who at least is given some character. She is half-Vixen, half-Fascist, naturally Republican, a patriotic American in the "worst way," who worships the idols of war. Over the years the writers gave Margaret a little development. Very little. Burns was replaced by Major Charles Emerson Winchester, a Boston Brahmin, naturally a Republican whose father "knows Truman. He doesn't like him, but he knows him." Winchester, like Hoolihan, is allowed a touch of humanity when the liberal writers felt charitable, but generally was available for all possible bashing. Two hero-doctors anchor the show by showing their intelligence, medical skills and tolerance as direct contrasts to the war effort. The CIA is lampooned, and a military effort that in reality featured MacArthur's Inchon campaign, perhaps the most brilliant invasion in history, is also played as foolish. In the end, the TV show and the film avoid being really and actually unpatriotic because they do feature an emphasis on the basic goodness of the American spirit under stress, but you will not catch me tuned in to those old re-runs(...)

Suicide is painless
Dear lord, I could not stop laughing during this movie, everyone from Hawkeye to Hotlips are back in a special edition five star collection restored set, the picture and sound are restored wonderfully, I watched this on VHS when I was 12 and I can appreciate DVD quality, the anti-war message is beautifully satirical, right from the opening theme to the heart warming ending, it is quite a trip ... Read more

Reviews (27)

The best film I have seen in a LONG time.
When I first saw Cry Freedom it was as an assignment forced to us by by History teacher. I thought of it as a way to escape writing essays. But when I began watching, I became completely immersed in the movie. Denzel Washington portrayed Steve Biko with such accuracy, it gave me chills. I loved it and I would recommend it to anyone that wants to have a better opinion of apartheid and about Steve Biko's life and about Donald Woods. It was the greatest biographical movie I have EVER seen. It not only was interesting but it was a great source of learning. Even though I am 14, I enjoyed this movie very much.

One of the best movies I've seen
... I'll tell you the truth about this movie. It's not the kind of thing you just pick up at the video store and say to yourself "now that looks like a good movie." I was forced to watch it at first by my history teacher, at which point I fell in love with it. It's a wonderful depiction of the past situation in South Africa. If you want a good perspective of what Apartheid Africa was like, as well as a beautiful story about freedom and the triumph of the human spirit, this is your movie. ...

A Study of Loss
The criticism I've heard when this movie is being discussed has always bothered me to some degree. The knock against it is that Denzel Washington is so strong in the role of Steve Biko, and he himself was such an important figure in South African history, that he deserves a movie of his own. Now, while I agree with this assessment, and hope that maybe a Djimon Hounsou or Chiwetel Ejiofor will revisit the role at some future date, I can't help but feel that these people are judging the movie for what they wanted it to be, and not what's actually up there on the screen.

Not only that, but I feel that the loss of Biko midway through the film actually serves a purpose. And that purpose is, by the final half-hour, when we're privileged enough to have a few flashbacks of him, we realize what a loss he has been to the movie, and to the world. So by having him cut out of a good portion of the film, we're made to grieve his death while the movie continues to soldier forward.

Oh, and by the way, it's not like that second half is a dog, either. It's just not quite as good as the first. I mean, if this movie were cut in two (ala "Kill Bill"), we'd being saying that part one was brilliant, while part two was merely very good. And considering that the 80's were hardly a golden age for Hollywood, that ain't bad.

Now, getting back to Denzel, this is not only the best performance of his career, but possibly one of the greatest ever captured on celluloid, and I find it deeply disconcerting that he didn't win an Academy Award for this performance while he was honored for a menial role in "Training Day" (I'll post a review later explaining my opinion). Not only that, but why, dare I ask, was he nominated in a supporting role, when the Golden Globes acknowledged him as a leading man? Sure, his character was murdered an hour and a half into the movie, but Anthony Hopkins had no more of a lead in "Silence of the Lambs" than Denzel was here.

I hate to cry racism against "liberal" Hollywood, but how else can you explain this, along with the fact that some of the best performances of recent years, given by black actors, have been overlooked? For example, Delroy Lindo in "Clockers," Giancarlo Espisito in "Bob Roberts," Larenz Tate in "Why Do Fools Fall in Love," and the list just goes on and on. I could probably name 50 more if given the time. Not to mention the fact that Spike Lee has never been nominated for Best Director, not even for "Malcolm X" or "Do the Right Thing," neither of which can be disputed as one of the best films of their respective years.

But now I've gone off on a rant, and forgotten to mention Kevin Kline's great supporting work here, and Richard Attenborough, who has yet to top this movie in the seventeen years since it's release. This is also his best work to date, in my opinion, and even tops his much more lauded "Gandhi."

Of course, if you're watching this movie for the first time and don't understand why anyone would make such a fuss about it, I challenge you to sit through the closing credits without being moved to tears. It's just a remarkable bit of filmmaking, simple but powerful, and may be the best end credit sequence since Martin Ritt's "The Front."

It looks like South Africa
I suspect the details of the escape from South Africa were over-dramatized at some points. But my main point is simply this: having lived in South Africa for two years, I can confirm that the movie transmits a perfect impression of what the country feels and looks like. I don't mean the political situation under apartheid; I mean the streets, roads, landscapes, and how people interact with each other - a good example is the jokes between the delivery man from Lesotho and the South African border guards. The film was mostly shot in Zimbabwe, to maximum effect.

pretty boring
I had to watch this movie for a History Project. My teacher made it sound inspiring and dramatic. Maybe it was, but it's hard to know when it makes you fall asleep after 10 minutes. Look elsewhere buddy. ... Read more

Reviews (120)

Rocky meets Rockne
Attention all cynics...

I'm bored with the Rocky story and all its progeny. I can't stand strained Jerry Goldsmith musical scoring. I'm not even really a football fan, and don't 'get' the whole Notre Dame mystique. And I've always thought Sean Astin to be the dullest of actors. So why, then, does the climax of 'Rudy' consistently set my tear ducts flowing, and produce a lump in my throat the size of a football?

Because it just throws obstacle after obstacle at this kid. Because it is all so improbable, and true. Because we see a series of stoic, hardened men (including characters played by Ned Beatty, Robert Prosky, Jason Miller, Chelcie Ross, and especially Charles S. Dutton -- all great) turned into enthusiastic innocents by this one boy. Because it just takes so damn long to get to the conclusion, that all that emotion has to go somewhere, doesn't it? And because Sean Astin actually does a credible job making you believe that his short, pudgy, untalented, unathletic, dyslexic yet determined Rudy could pull the whole thing off. This is not a great movie, but it does accomplish its goal. It does move you.

Also, check out the pre-"Swingers" Vince Vaughn and (an enormous) Jon Favreau.

The only football movie for your collection
"Rudy" is uplifting in its own sappy, goofy way, and it's impossible not to cheer. It's the true story of Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger, an unremarkable student and football player from 1970s working-class Chicago with the very remarkable dream of playing football for the University of Notre Dame. He overcomes everything you can think of--poverty, doubtful parents, bad grades, friend's death, height deficiency, girlfriends, learning disability--to accomplish his goal, and believe it or not, the movie is every bit as inspiring as it claims to be.

The ending is predictable (with the truth being stretched by more than those few seconds) but doesn't detract from his struggle to land in the House that Rock built. Its charm comes from a great ensemble cast that delivers solid performances throughout. Sean Astin does well as the pint-size player, allowing his character to be more than the typical wholesome underdog. Rudy's frustrations with his family, school, and football all resonate clearly on screen, in effect making his triumph all the more powerful. Ned Beatty as the father powers the familial tensions that drive Rudy to succeed while Jon Favreau's D-Bob, Rudy's loyal bud, lends a gentle touch of humor. His two mentors, played by Charles Dutton and Robert Prosky, add strong doses of determination and prayer, respectively. Director David Anspaugh wisely capitalizes on Notre Dame's beautiful campus by using the scenery to frame the luckless student's persistence and desire. A moving score by Jerry Goldsmith coupled with Notre Dame chants and fight songs balance the emotional visuals.

There are many elements that will appeal to an audience of any age including relationships within the family, overcoming obstacles, self-motivation, etc. As an ND student, I admit my bias, but in fairness to the movie, "Rudy" will capture your heart; be assured, this film survives multiple viewings.

Generally Irresistible But Occasionally Manipulative
My Four Star rating reflects both overall enjoyment while seeing the film (Five Stars) and occasional irritation with director Anspaugh's manipulative strategies insofar as emotions are concerned (Three Stars). The dramatic impact of Rudy Ruettiger's struggles to suit up for, if not play in a Notre Dame football game is diminished by such manipulation. That said, Sean Astin is wholly credible as Rudy. Other noteworthy performances are provided by Ned Beatty (Rudy's father, Daniel), Charles S. Dutton (Fortune), Robert Prosky (Father Cavenaugh), Jon Favreau (D-Bob), Lili Taylor (Sherry), and Scott Benjaminson (Frank). Both the "Real Rudy" and the "Reel Rudy" faced two significant barriers to being admitted to Notre Dame and then playing in a varsity football game: weak grades and diminutive size. Eventually, through tenacious study while enrolled at nearby Holy Cross College, both Rudys are finally admitted to Notre Dame; through rigorous training, both then became fit enough to be selected to play on the practice (i.e. fodder) squad. And finally, both play (the "Real Rudy" for 27 seconds) in the last home game against Georgia Tech in 1975.

Others have their own reasons for liking this film so much. Here are three of mine. First, the casting of Astin in the lead role. His performance is endearing, to be sure, but also convincing. Hence my discomfort with Anspaugh's use of gimmicks when none is necessary. Second, the exteriors shot on the Notre Dame campus which is especially lovely during each of the four seasons. I really did feel as if I were tagging along with Rudy as he attends classes, works for Fortune as a member of the stadium's groundskeeping crew, and then participates in especially brutal team practices. Third and finally, I enjoyed observing what seems to be a totally authentic respect for Rudy among the team's starters both on offense and defense. That respect was earned day in and day out, brutal practice after brutal practice, as Rudy and his battered companions helped to prepare the team for its next game. It is worth noting that Rudy Ruettiger was the only player ever to be carried off the field at Notre Dame stadium. The filmmakers recreated the scene with real fans during a break in the 1992 Boston College game. Some 60,000 fans stood and cheered as actor Sean Astin was carried off the field.

Those who enjoyed this film should also check out The Natural (1984), Hoosiers (1986), Babe (1995), Remember the Titans (2000), and Miracle (2004).
___________________________________________________________________________________

Those who are curious about the "real" and "reel" Rudy Ruettiger are encouraged to visit http://www.chasingthefrog.com/reelfaces/rudy.php. Here are brief excerpts:

Q: Was the groundskeeper played by Charles S. Dutton a real character?

A: Rudy answered no to this question himself during an interview with the Pigskin Post by saying the following, "He was a composite, but that was reality. And that's what happened in my life...all through my life. I would encounter people like that and they would help me get through the tough times through their wisdom and their encouragement."

Q: Was there actually a priest who helped Rudy get into Holy Cross Junior College?

A: In the same Pigskin Post interview as above, Rudy replied to this question by saying, "There were several who played important roles, but, again, you can't develop them all in one two-hour movie."

Q: Did Rudy really sleep in the maintenance room of the football stadium?

A: Rudy actually slept in a room in the basketball arena. The school had the room there for someone to stay during off-hours for insurance reasons.

Q: Was coach Dan Devine really that cold-hearted against dressing Rudy for the last home game of Rudy's college career?

A: In Devine's autobiography, Simply Devine, he writes that it was his idea to dress Rudy for the final game of his college career and also to play him. Devine says that the screenwriter, Angelo Pizzo, told him that the plot would only work if Devine became the heavy. He agreed in order to help out Rudy, someone whom he calls a friend. "I didn't realize I would be such a heavy," he writes.

Drivel!
Woo hoo! So he wanted to play football for Notre Lame, and he waited and tried really really hard and he cried about it and he walked on to the team and he cried some more. Whoopdee freakin doo! A lot of people want to play college football really bad, but that doesn't mean we make a movie about all of them! Typical job of everyone sucking up to the Domers. Save your money and buy a copy of a movie with a plot that requires more than 6 seconds of rational thought.

A thoroughly enjoyable crowd pleaser
I have seen critics dismissed this movie as highly predictable and manipulative. And they are probably right. But it doesn't mean it can't be a highly enjoyable film. You can't help feel happy for the guy when predictably he achieves his dream.

The film score by Jerry Goldsmith is simply outstanding too. And Sean Astin, as usual, is terrific as Rudy. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Disaster movies used to work because there was little certaintyas to who would survive. Not so in this film, really an amalgam of twooriginal stories, about a group of well-to-do celebrants at the top floor of askyscraper. Cheapo electrical wiring and bad construction managementcause an enormousblaze at the lower floors, steadily rising to consume the revelers. Newman'san architect, McQueen a firefighter, and Fred Astaire a kind oldgentleman, for which he was Oscar-nominated. O.J. Simpson plays asecurity guard who rescues acat. Now that's a disaster. --Keith Simanton ... Read more

Reviews (68)

No doubt, BEST DISASTER MOVIE EVER!
Firstly, this movie deserves praise for Faye Dunaway's dress that she wears throughout the entire film. But movies shouldn't all be beautiful women in provocative clothing, this movie has it all. Produced by Irwin Allen, who produced "The Poseidon Adventure" before this movie. Allen bested himself in this flick.

The story is relatively simple; the world's highest skyscraper catches on fire. There is a large party on the top floor, and we watch as people fight for survival as the fire creeps towards them. Only Steve McQueen playing a streetwise firehouse captain, and Paul Newman acting as the tower's architect can stop the fire before everyone inside dies. As I was re-watching this film I couldn't help but think of the similar situation faced by many in the 9-11 attack. Their result was not as positive.

throughout the film there are too many people, too many relationships, and too much death to keep track of everything. However, the important people to watch are Fred Astaire, Faye Dunaway, Paul Newman, and Steve McQueen. This is the only real weakness to the film.

Also, for a film that is approaching 30 years old the special effects are still good, and that will make this a good film for a long time. The images of the tower burning, the fires, and the stunts are superb.

At times, the acting in this film can seem a bit stiff. That's early on, however after the first 20 minutes of the film everyone seems to find their place in the film. One of the notable performances is done by O.J. Simpson, who plays as a senior security guard. The interplay between McQueen and Newman is also well done, especially since there was a good chance of major dorkdom in the architect of the "perfect" building versus the blue-collar fireman plotline.

Some may complain that the movie is slow, and maybe by modern "immediate gratification" standards it is, I say that the tension builds, you care about the characters, many of which, and are left at the end of your seat. And I was watching the thing on a computer; imagine what a decent entertainment system will do.

This definitely is an "essential" film.

An epic disaster film! Not to be missed!
I remember first seeing this movie at a very early age. As a child, I loved this movie for it's spectacularity. As an adult (sort of), I love it for the acting performances of it's marvelous cast.

This is a disaster movie. During the seventies this type of movie was extremely popular, with timeless hits such as "The Poseidon Adventure" and "Airport".
Disaster films seemed to have lost their appeal during the eighties but recent hits like "Armageddon" and "Titanic" show that this type of movie is still very popular and here to stay.

In San Francisco, the tallest building in the world, "The Glass Tower" has finally been completed. An awesome superstructure and the new icon of the city.
On the night of the dedication ceremony on the 130th floor a seemingly harmless fire erupts fifty floors below the partying crowd. When the situation grows out of control their pleasant happening turns into a nightmare struggle for survival.

With some of the best actors of that time (Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, William Holden, Faye Dunaway and Fred Astaire to name a few), true drama and an absolutely convincing inferno this movie deservedly took the world by storm!

Got a Match?
Somebody once asked James Garner's character on "The Rockford Files" TV show if there was nothing he wouldn't do for money. He wouldn't kill for it and he wouldn't marry for it, he said, other than that he was pretty much open to suggestions. Paul Newman and Steve McQueen must have been open to suggestions when they ok'd this turkey, and I wish they had said no. The world's tallest skyscraper is burning due to shoddy construction work, and architect Newman and fireman McQueen would like to put it out before the entire cast is incinerated. On top of the building are a million gallons of water in reserve Newman forgot about in all the excitement. Why this 2500 ton weight hasn't gone crashing into the basement we are not informed but the daring duo manage to blow up the tanks and there's your happy ending. O J Simpson rescues a cat and Fred Astaire, after a lifetime of giving the American movies some of their greatest moments, was awarded an Oscar for enduring this production.

A better film than is often assumed
More than 10 years ago, Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel did a special edition of their program that examined "The Early '70s: The Last Golden Age of American Film." It was a great show, with a look at each nominee for the Best Picture Oscar for the years 1970-1974, and then which film Siskel and Ebert would have chosen as the winner.

When the duo got to 1974, and a split screen revealed the five Best Picture nominees for that year, Ebert expressed some amusement at "The Towering Inferno's" nomination, when compared with the others ("Chinatown," "The Conversation," "Lenny" and the winner, "The Godfather Part II."). But while it was not the best film in a truly great year for the medium, "Inferno" did deserve to be considered one of the best.

This is polished, professional filmmaking. It was not intended to be a scathing expose of construction politics, or an actor's showcase. "The Towering Inferno" never tries to be anything more than an action spectacular, pure and simple, and on that level, it has few equals.

The film has been criticized for being almost gleeful in its depiction of various deaths, but I'm not sure what those critics would have had directors John Guillermin and Irwin Allen do. The story is about a giant skyscraper on fire, which means that the primary dangers involved are burning, falling, smoke inhalation and being buried under tons of debris. All of these are horrific, and "Inferno" conveys that horror.

The movie takes on a different hue than the Irwin Allen film it's inevitably compared to, "The Poseidon Adventure," the minute Steve McQueen arrives at the scene as the San Francisco Fire Dept.'s battalion chief, O'Hallorhan. Unlike "Poseidon," in which a small band of ship passengers follows a layman toward safety, the "Inferno" disaster is going to be taken on by a competent, experienced professional, leading other professionals. McQueen conveys an authority that anchors the film.

None of the acting struck me as truly bad, even in action-oriented scenes that called for broad playing. Aside from McQueen, my favorite performances were those of Susan Flannery and Jennifer Jones. Flannery makes the most of a small but memorable part as Robert Wagner's love interest, while Jones, looking very good for a woman of 55, plays the kind, heroic love of Fred Astaire's con man character.

Fred Koenekamp's cinematography received a well-deserved Academy Award, as did L.B. Abbott's special effects. The song "We May Never Love Like This Again," sung by Maureen McGovern, also won an Oscar, though I found it to be forgettable. "The Poseidon Adventure's" similar "The Morning After" is much better (which will certainly be faint praise to some).

John Williams' Oscar-nominated score would have been a perfectly reasonable choice as the winner, though Jerry Goldsmith's evocation of film noir classics for "Chinatown" was probably the year's best. Carmine Coppola and Nino Rota wound up winning for "The Godfather Part II."

Williams is in majestic form here. The main title is appropriately busy and exciting, the love themes for the Paul Newman/Faye Dunaway and Astaire/Jones duos are poignant, and the finale is one of the masterpieces of the art. This is a justifiably a favorite score among film music buffs, and Williams' greatest triumph, in my opinion, until "Star Wars" in 1977.

"The Towering Inferno" is a must for action film fans, and the finest representation of the "disaster film" genre.

The Glass Tower - tallest building in the world... on fire.
After a long vacation, away from the hectic city life, Doug Roberts (Paul Newman) returns to San Francisco in order to participate in the opening of his newest architectural wonder, The Glass Tower - tallest building in the world. The seemingly perfect skyscraper has one big flaw as James Duncan's (William Holden) son-in-law has received kick backs to ignore Doug's requests on the top-of-the-line electrical circuitry. The installed electrical circuits cannot handle the electrical use of the Glass Tower and on the opening night a fire begins on the 81st floor, which Fire Chief Michael O'Hallorhan's (Steve McQueen) men try to get under control while the opening party is taking place on the 135th floor. Towering Inferno has an immensely talented cast (e.g., Faye Dunaway, Fred Astaire, Richard Chamberlain and many more), however, the cast cannot enhance the cinematic experience. Overall the film is hurt by the many scenes that go on ceaselessly as the director attempts to create suspense through tedious climbing and rescue scenes. This occurs through occasional lapses in realism in the film, such as the ending, prevent the audience from receiving a top notch suspenseful drama. Instead the audience is left with an epic rescue mission that seems endless, and leaves the audience with a barely acceptable cinematic experience. ... Read more

Description

Get ready to reload as L.A. homicide detective Rick Hunter (Fred Dryer) and his partner Dee Dee McCall (Stepfanie Kramer) return to toss out the rulebook and blow away every other cop show on TV! In this explosive second season, Hunter and McCall take on deadly heists, killer porn stars, gangland murders, international terrorists, street hookers, punk rockers, McCall’s rapist and more. Bruce Davison co-stars as Captain Wyler in the legendary Saturday night series that shot down all critics to become one of the hottest action hits in television history! HUNTER – THE COMPLETE SECOND SEASON features all 23 episodes – including the shocking two-part "Rape & Revenge"– with such guest stars as Robert Englund, Jane Russell, Robert Davi, Stuart Whitman, Kay Lenz, Sheryl Lee Ralph, John Matuszak and Isaac Hayes. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

ONE OF THE BEST SHOWS OF ALL TIME
THIS SHOW IN UP THERE WITH A TEAM AND HAPPY DAYS AS THE BEST SHOWS ON TV EVER I GOT THE FIRST SEASON THE FIRST DAY IT CAME OUTI OWN OVER 2000 DVDS AND BOX SETS AND HUNTER IN THE TOP 2 A TEAM BEING NUMBER ONE GET THIS SET RIGHT AWAY:) ITS AMAZING ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

The flaws are easily forgiven in this beautiful version ofLouisa May Alcott's novel. A stirring look at life in New England duringthe Civil War, Little Women is a triumph for all involved. We follow one family asthey split into the world, ending up with the most independent, theoutspoken Jo (Winona Ryder). This time around, the dramatics andconclusions fall into place a little too well, instead of finding life'slittle accidents along the way. Everyone now looks a bit too cute and oh,so nice. As the matron, Marmee, Susan Sarandon kicks the film into amodern tone, creating a movie alive with a great feminine sprit. KirstenDunst (Interview with the Vampire) has another showy role. The youngensemble cast cannot be faulted, with Ryder beginning the movie in a roleakin to light comedy and crescendoing to a triumphant end worthy of anOscar. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (113)

What You Would Call a "Beautiful" and Brilliant Movie
In my opinion, this is the best version of "Little Women". Although it sways just a bit from the book, it captures the essence of the book perfectly and weaves a story that works splendidly. The acting is phenominal and the casting was done incredibly well. Claire Daines, Christian Bale, and Susan Sarandon provide a stability to the movie that grounds it (and they do it so well), and Winona Ryder brings the passion and character of the beloved "Jo" that makes it such a fantastic film.

I also find this movie a thing of beauty. Everything about it, from the cinematography, to the color schemes, to the sets, to the seasons and the natural shots, to the Oscar nominated score, to the costumes, to the acting and the storyline, are beautiful. They work together in an artistic collaboration to create an atmosphere of reality and eye candy that can only be achieved through a period film. Certain period films have elements that will stand out and ruin the feeling of belief, but this movie suceeds in it's efforts to keep you suspended there, and the whole movie flows wonderfully together.

This is a brilliant movie.

This film captures the spirit of the book
While this film version of LITTLE WOMEN does not follow the book exactly, it captures its spirit with expert performances and cinematography. The soundtrack beautifully enhances this classic story of a family of women, struggling largely by themselves, in unforgiving New England.

This may be Winona Ryder's best role - she captures the ambitious spunk of Jo with a winning performance. As Jo's sisters, Trini Alvarado (Meg), Claire Danes (Beth) and Kirsten Dunst (the young Amy) give strong, if sometimes uneven, performances. Susan Sarandon as Marmee has the right measure of no-nonsense Puritanism; her feminist lines often are too heavy-handed for this film that otherwise has a light touch, but the way she sweeps into a room overshadows any flaws in the writing.

All in all, this is an excellent adaptation. Children may be bored by the art film pace, but teens and adults will delight in these characters brought to life by nuanced performances.

Highly recommended.

The best movie adaption of the novel!
Of all the versions of Little Women that I have seen, Gillian Armstrong's is the best! She definitely chose her actors/actresses well - the cast includes: Winona Ryder (Jo), Claire Danes (Beth), Trini Alvrado (Meg), Kristen Dunst (Amy), Christian Bale (Laurie), Susan Sarandon (Marmee), and Gabriel Bryne (Professor Bhaer). What an astounding performance they gave - this movie made me laugh, cry, and feel for the characters each and every time I watched it! . . . And though some of my favorite scenes from the book were missing, it still portrays the characters extremely well. I love this movie and highly recommend this to all Little Women fans, the people who didn't bother to read Little Women, and everyone else!

blah
if one was to compare katharine hepburn to winona ryder, the results would be obvious. the book isn't supposed to be a feminist account, it's supposed to be a civil war tale of a family. since it's so modern, and the acting and even the colors are modern, we never feel the full experience, or that we are in the 1800's. In the 1933 version we feel a part of the family. This is less than inspiring. how clare danes became Beth, i'll never know, what Kirsten dunst is doing here is a mystery. Although SUsan Sarandon is fine, she is the best thing in here, but nowhere near spring bryington. Christian bale is too dreamy, and his and winia'a chemisrty isn't right. it doesn't follow the book, and the cast is miscast. I don't recommend, instead watch the beautifully done 1933 CLASSIC, or even the 1949 one with June Allyson and Margaret O'brien. Skip this.

The best version, and NOT just for kids
This version of Alcott's classic story is luminescent, brilliantly acted, perfectly staged, and far more emotional than the book.

Katharine Hepburn's Jo, six decades earlier, was hard to top, but Winona Ryder does it -- with sensitivity, more believable passion, and a far more expressive face. Ryder's Jo is entirely believable in her plunging into writing with reckless abandon, more so than Hepburn, for whom it took second place to love. Yet, paradoxically, the romance is far more believable for the newer Jo when it does come along.

Everyone else in the story reflects her struggles and triumphs, and it's a stellar ensemble cast. Especially adept are Trini Alvarado, a conflicted and beautiful Meg; Claire Danes, trembling and heartbreaking as Beth; Christian Bale, giving a raucous edge to next-door Laurie; and most of all, Gabriel Byrne, a younger-by-15-years Prof. Bhaer, finally made both believable and romantic.

All actors portray the same character throughout except for Kirsten Dunst and Samantha Mathis, who assay Amy at ages 12 and 17. Others have criticized this casting, but it worked well for me, especially in the older Amy taking her propriety and "finishing" far more seriously than it deserved.

The story does depart slightly from the book, but not from Alcott, and the film is better for it -- certainly less precious and affected. A few plot elements from "Little Men" and later books flesh out this story, and Alcott's own attitudes about empowering women are brought into Susan Sarandon's quietly powerful Marmee. The Alcott family's intellectual interests inform Jo's stay in New York, adding some depth and grounding to her character and romantic feelings.

This new DVD's features are a delight, especially in Gillian Armstrong's intense narration on the commentary track. She had a vision and depth of attention to this film's details that ought to be celebrated, yet rarely is for women directors. Outtakes are also narrated, a rarity. The making-of featurette and other elements are well-shaped, though Danes's behind-the-scenes program from HBO is not present, which is a bit disappointing.

The transfers are crisp and clear, both video and audio. Thomas Newman's brilliant music can be heard on a separate audio track, and anyone who likes this film should watch it once with just his evocative (and often-imitated) score filling the ears. ... Read more

Reviews (38)

Cheerful, Delightful version of Pippi
The setting of Pippi Longstocking's home is supposed to be Sweden, in this movie it's relocated to America. That was perhaps unfaithful to the books- but this version of Pippi manages to be sweet and endearing in spite of this.

I've read a lot of negative reviews of this movie- I'm not exactly sure how many people don't like this movie, but I happen to think it sweet and charming for people of all ages.

The performances by the actors in this manage to recreate magic in a different setting. Tami Erin gives a positively charming performance as a little girl- she manages to give Pippi the trademark innocence, oddness, and yet she manages to give Pippi a sort of beginning of wisdom as well. Tami conveys the hurt and pain as Pippi is aquainted with the realities of kids who are unloved, her friend Annika's father's dislike of her, and the gradual evaporation of the magic of her childhood. She manages to make Pippi human and accesible while still making her an enduring, endearing figure. Some people refer to her as ''spoiled brat'', but I think her reaction toward these adults was more her shock that her cheer could not please them. The adventures between her and Tommy and Annika were sweetly shown, and it can end in Pippi's understanding of what she's done.

I have seen the other versions of Pippi and Inger Neillson portrays Pippi as a strange, detached, though not charmless character- but she is in no way human or accessible.

The songs are cute too- they manage to show Pippi's enduring innocence, and her good-hearted spirit.

I would recommend this movie to people of all ages ready to see a new version of the sweet, charming Pippi- Tami Erin was a charming young actress, I don't know why she didn't persue acting after this.

Bad Acting Bad Directing
No charm, no plot, just bad acting. Give me the original Swedish movie versions any day.

What words can describe Pippi Longstocking?
Arrogant is a good one. Another is rascal. Other ones that fit rather well are show-stopper, shameless, unrepentent, metahuman, Goddess, and powerful almost to the point of being menacing but not quite. You need only fear her if your life depends on NOT having fun.
Oh, yeah. And she's probably older and smarter than she pretends to be, and she's definitely MUCH wiser.
All these things have made her one of my favorite fictional characters ever.
So why is it that in this movie, she is none of those amazing things?
As a child, I was a fairly poor individual, not at all like Pippi, but I did have a library card, and so I spent much time reading. Naturally, when this movie came out, I couldn't go to see it, however, I did read the book, and I was immediately swept up into a childhood crush on its main character that lasted for years and years.
At the age of 18 or so, I finally got the chance to see this movie, and I was apalled! This film makes a mockery of everything Pippi is.
For about 70% of the film, Pippi behaves completely out-of-character, and much of the rest of it is consumed by lousy characters who have no substance. Pippi does get to rough up a few people, but unlike in the books, she only does it to three bad guys that act like the Curly, Larry and Moe.
Additionally, this movie is plagued by the curse of having way too many unnecesary songs. It could have been so much better.
If you want to speak kindly of this movie, however, you won't be entirely without ammunition. It does contain a few scenes of pleasing metahuman powers, and several of Pippi being a brat which ALMOST threaten to drag the movie out of the gutter it made for itself.
If you still don't understand what I'm griping about, read all three Pippi books, then carefully review the scenes in the children's home. You should be able to tell quite easily that none of them should have happened, especially the one where Pippi flinches at the striking of a ruler, as opposed to her book incarnation, whose skin was about the consistency of a brick wall.
Long and short, as a movie, it's only marginally bad, but you definitely don't want to watch it because frankly, you're better off reading the books by about a billion times.

The Old Swedish Pippi Movies are Better!
I grew up watching the old Swedish Pippi movies on TV, they seemed to show them a lot on TV in the 70's and I remember watching this 80s remake with my nephews, I think we first saw it in a movie theater and then I remember them taping it off Showtime and watching it several times. It's good but not as good as the old Pippi movies and I noticed that some of the changes they made in this remake were changes in the personalities of Tommy, Annika and their parents. In the Swedish movies Tommy was the more willing partner to Pippi's schemes while Annika was the fussy whiney one and the father seemed to like Pippi while the fussy mother thought Pippi was a bad influence on her children and in this remake Annika was the more willing partner to Pippi's schemes, Tommy was the fussy whiney one, the mother seemed to like Pippi and the father was the fussy, uptight one who thought Pippi was a bad influence on his children. This movie has it's moments but just isn't as good as the Swedish movies.

What were they thinking?
I first saw this movie during its initial theatrical release in 1988. Even then, as a 5th-grader, I could tell from the opening scene that this movie would be a horrible disappointment. I was actually ashamed for that 15-year-old girl who tried to pass herself off as Pippi. In the books, Pippi was a quick-witted, harmless trouble-maker (who was, by the way, supposed to be 9 years old), but in this movie version she is a brainless ding-dong who instigates a countless number of harmful schemes. While trying to elude the truant/social worker, she selfishly convinces her two "best friends" to leave their parents and run away with her on a mindless "adventure." When Tommy and Annika begin to have second thoughts about leaving home, Pippi consoles them with a bar of chocolate to be shared by the three of them. The simpletons are actually cheered up by the offering, as if any kid would rather have one-third of a chocolate bar over a warm home-cooked meal. And just when I thought this movie couldn't get any worse, the characters actually begin to sing songs that sound like they were written by a 5-year-old contest winner. You'd think that the adults involved in the making of this movie would try as hard as possible to please young fans by staying true to the books, but while watching this heartless sacrilege unfold in the theater that day, I had the awful feeling that Astrid Lindgren (author of the Pippi books) had rolled over in his grave. ... Read more

Reviews (59)

The Demon of the Amazon
The classic feature "The Creature of the Black Lagoon" is the latest DVD in Universal's Classic Monster Collection. In a forbidden lagoon on the Amazon, a scientific expedition searches for the fossilized remains of an "amphibious missing link" and discover a living specimen that falls for the head scientist's female assistant. When attempts to capture the creature failed, the powerful beast plots his revenge upon the scientists. Though not the scariest feature in the Universal Monster Collection, "The Creature of the Black Lagoon" is a solid and effective Sci-Fi film that features one of the most inventive movie monsters. This 1954 film contains a well-paced storyline, interesting characters and great underwater photography. The "Gillman's" scaly design is quite remarkable. The cast includes Richard Carlson, Julie Adams and Richard Denning.

Universal earns high marks for giving a classic monster feature a great DVD presentation. The film is presented in its original fullscreen format. The DVD contains a stunning B&W picture quality with great clarity. The 2.0 Dolby Digital sound is well preserved and surprisingly clear. The DVD also includes audio commentary with film historian Tom Weaver, theatrical trailers and "Back to the Black Lagoon" featurette. With such fine picture quality and interesting supplements, "The Creature of the Black Lagoon" earns a solid "B".

THE GILL-MAN OF THE AMAZON.....
Probably the most celebrated monster film of the 50's (it even had a small role in "The Seven Year Itch"), "Creature from the Black Lagoon" deserves re-issue along with it's two sequels "Revenge of the Creature" and "The Creature Walks Among Us". The legendary tale of an ill-fated expedition up the Amazon after the discovery of a humanoid claw fossil remains a favorite for so many reasons. The Gill-Man monster suit and the leading lady Julie Adams are two reasons in my book. The Creature still looks good on film and Adams was the perfect heroine in her short-and-halter top oufits and, of course, that white swim suit. The underwater scenes of the Creature swimming underneath her in the lagoon have stayed in my memory all these years. Director Jack Arnold created a lasting film that may not hold up as well as it once did, but it's a treasure for sci-fi/horror fans all over the world. Richard Carlson and Richard Denning provided the stalwart male drama and heroics but the Creature's pursuit of Julie Adams is what gives this classic that strange sort of sex appeal that lies underneath the terror. It's a beautifully photographed b&w thrill ride for those of us who never get tired of watching it. Out of print? For now maybe. But he'll be back. And maybe with his sequels...

Should have included a Field Seqential 3-D version!
Not that many people are aware of the Field Sequential 3-D.
This is a 3-D TV system that uses special shutter glasses that can be purchased here through Amazon in a set that includes 3 DVD's using this process. This system Is the only way to view a 3-D film effectively on TV to date. The result is about 90% close to the effect you will see in a theatre showing.. like IMAX and Disney and Universal.
These glasses are made of sturdy plastic and clear not these cardboard red and blue pieces of garbage, so you can view the film without constricted to seeing red and blue colors and with this system you will see more actual 3-D depth with the films true colors.. It's really amazing!
For some add reason the big studios haven't adapted to include a separate version of a 3-D title in this great format.
Films like:
"House of Wax","Kiss Me Kate","Friday the 13th Part 3", "Robot Monster, "Cat Woman on the Moon", "Creature from the Black Lagoon" and "Jaws 3" are all now in 2-D DVD, but were originally shown in 3-D and could have been included using the Field Seqential 3-D system on the same disc with the 2-D version.
In Japan in the late 80's there were a few 3-D titles released using Field Sequential and can be found on e-bay converted to DVD and VHS.
Why aren't the studios producing these now!
I boycott any film DVD release that was originally intended to be seen in 3-D that's only presented in a 2-D version or anaglyph (Red and Blue Glasses).

Since this is out of print maybe we can hope that Universal will wake up and produce a new version containing Field Seqential 3-D!
The studios should really be awaken to this great 3-D system.

Good thing it was made in the 50's
This movie is one of the best horror/scifi/monster movies ever! Its shows how good monster movies could be even after the Golden Age of Universal's horror into the fifties where there were more chessy than classy monsters terrifying audiences. A marine humanoid goes after a human girl for whom he is attrached to. May sound hoaky but this movie is nothing of the sort. If it had been made today, it would proably be another crapfest like "Sabertooth" or "Reptilian" made by the Sci Fi channel. The characters wouldn't be likable (Yeah I think Mark's a jerk) and the Creature would just have no pride. This movie was good enough and the Creature is cool enough to be included alongside Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolfman, the Mummy, the Invisible Man, the Bride of Frankenstein and the Phantom of the Opera. To stand alongside such a classy work of Gothic art like Dracula or the first two Frankensteins is pretty good. This movie got me into old horror movies. Now I am a classical horror fanatic thanks to this movie. Above are the eight characters I think of when I think of horror

Better than I thought it would be, now one of my favorites.
First of all, I am fairly new to these classic monster movies. I have seen Dracula before but that was it. I knew that the Creature dvd was out of print and considerably rare, so when I stumbled upon it for $25 I knew I had to give it a shot. I am glad because it turned out to be a great movie, a true classic to be sure.

The story revolves around a scientist who discovers the hand of some unknown creature in the rocks. Knowing it was a water based creature, he heads back to get an expedition together to further explore his finding. The thought was that this creature could be the link between man and aquatic animals. When two scientists dive into the black lagoon they encounter the creature, and one of the scientists becomes determined to kill the creature in order to get the credit for this find. Later Kay, played by Julie Adams, goes for a swim in the lagoon and becomes the object of the creature's desires. That is all I will say about the plot, but you need to see this classic for yourself because it has such a great story, great acting, and the underwater scenes look terrific.

I love this movie now, and I am sure any fan of classic monster movies will too, that is if you havent seen it already. I was lucky enough to find this for a reasonable price but since it is out of print it is in high demand, selling for around $60 and up on Amazon/Ebay. Also there are some great extras on the disc, such as the 40 minute Back to the Black Lagoon which goes behind the scenes for The Creature and two sequels made after it. There are also theatrical trailers and posters which are interesting to see. Since I liked this so much I will view The Monster Legacy set, but I am sure the Creature will rank right at the top with the best of them. Get this if you can, you won't be sorry you did.

(...) ... Read more

Amazon.com

It's brash! It's grotesque! It's a blistering display of psychological terrorism! One of the blackest comedies ever made, this 1962 thriller rejuvenated the careers of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford and played heavily on their own Hollywood legends, incorporating film clips from their earlier stardom to add depth and realism to a severely twisted tale of sibling rivalry. Davis plays the former child star turned wrinkled hag Jane Hudson, whose sister Blanche (Crawford) eclipsed her star in Hollywood, and has been paying for it ever since. Now confined to a wheelchair, Blanche is held prisoner in the musty mansion she shares with Jane, who terrorizes Blanche with maniacal control (and dead rats for dinner), and embarks on an absurd campaign to revive her career, curly-haired wig and all. A deranged showcase for its stars, the film also introduced Oscar nominee Victor Buono as the sycophantic pianist hired to accompany Jane's bizarre vaudeville revival. Hilarious, frightening, and not to be missed! --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (103)

But you are, Blanche. You ARE in that chair!
This is one great movie! "What Ever Happened to BabyJane?" is, as stated in Amazon's description, the story of twoaging sisters, each in her own way connected with show business.

Now the good stuff. The sisters are played by Bette Davis and Joan Crawford (the only time the two ever acted together) to absolute perfection. Crawford is wonderful in the role of crippled sister Blanche, but Miss Davis absolutely walks away with the show as the former "Baby" Jane Hudson. The role is meatly and she revels in it! It is obvious that Miss Davis held the philosophy that, if you are going to go over-the-top, don't apologize. And she doesn't. She goes WAY over-the-top with a gleeful abandon that is infectious.

The way she taunts her wheelchair-bound sister (the title quotes one of Jane's best lines), serves her meals of dead rodents and ex-pets, kicks her in the gut, mocks her ever-so-proper speech, etc. It's all so delicious. And check out the ballet that she does to one of the songs from her childhood vaudeville act. Bette Davis was obviously having the time of her life, and so do the viewers of this classic.

For the DVD edition, there are disappointingly few extras, but Davis is credited with developing the absolutely hideous hair and makeup combinations she sports while slouching about the house in her scuffs and house coat (Director Robert Aldrich said that, while he loved the look, he never would have had the nerve to suggest such a thing to Bette Davis).

Joan Crawford was in fine form, as well. But for Jane to be able to be credible doing the things she did, Blanche had to be the "straight man". Crawford or Aldrich knew this and Blanche behaves accordingly. Consequently, it is Bette Davis' Jane who has the best lines and the showier part in general.

If you have never seen this movie, get it. If you have, go back and visit the Hudson sisters again. Then you might want to write a letter to YOUR daddy.

A Classic Psychological Thriller - Truly Sick!
This is the ultimate is psychological thrillers starring two of the greatest "top-billed turned has-been" movie actresses in history.

Betty Davis as Jane Hudson and real life nemesis Joan Crawford as sister Blanche Hudson make for comic and scary thrills. Quick retread: Jane was "Baby Jane Hudson", a child star who lost her popularity after puberty. Blanche Hudson was jealous as a child but becomes a top rated adult movie actress. Jane, of course, becomes an increasingly insane alcoholic. Trouble ensues when Blanche is mysteriously crippled in a car wreck forcing 'whack-job' case sister Jane to care for her. The plot thickens as quickly as Jane loses her mind. It's hilarious. But the sadistic scenes Jane carries out on Blanche are both scary and hilarious, making this film a true cult classic. The ending is a masterpiece of plot twists!

I can't get into more details other than to tell you that every time I've shown someone this movie, they goes nuts over it! It's frightening and comedic simultaneously. It's no wonder these two characters have been Halloween favorites for years!

Quality of 'black & white' is okay and sound is what you would expect from an early 60's nightmare, but it's worth it. Before you pick up your main course covered dinner plate, remember what Jane said to Blanche - "By the way Blanche, did you know we have rats in the cellar?!"

WHO the Hell is Norman?
Check out the editorial review "Sadistic Jane and their servant Norman????" The only servant, err, make that housekeeper in this saga is ELVIRA [No, NOT THAT one!] who meets ..... [Clunk!~ Thud!]

WELL, this utterly dark little Gem of Joy still pack many a wallop!

No quite dated, but such an acidic picture of Tinseltown - as a matter of fact you can still see these old [er] Dolls and Guys on Hollywood Boulevard - or Rodeo Drive [botox-powered] for that matter.

IT hasn't really aged that badly - Crawford is superb as the wheelchair bound glam queen Blance ~ utterly dependent on her increasingly insane sister Jane ~ Davis probably on a par with her turn in THE STAR. Davis sacrifices all for this role, including figure and looks, shuffling around the house in flip-flops, dragging on a cigarette and swigging booze has NEVER been this fun!

Bring along a creepy VICTOR BUONO [debut role] as a grifter with an accent and his dear old Ma ... nasty little jewels they are - check out the scene with Davis and Buono and the sandwich plate ... then the booze scene later! Priceless [It's almost Norman Desmond and Joe - the later years].

Superior lensing and direction etc. etc. etc.

Davis daughter BD HYMAN plays the teen next door.

Roaring fun for late at night viewing - double billed with Sunset Boulevard.

[Now wasn't there a musical version of this one ....?]

Betty Grable and Ginger Rogers
oh well it could have been betty and ginger
both blonde both musical stars (grable was more popular)

Ohh.. But Cha AAH, Blanche, Ya AAH In That Chair!!!
In "What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?" you really DO find out, indeed!

But what horrors you have to endure to see the truth and consequences! With twists, turns, torture & anti-climactic scenes all played to the hilt by the Miss Hudsons (Bette Davis and Joan Crawford), respectively, you will never be able to look at your pet parakeet the same way again.

Miss Baby Jane Hudson, played with great, grotesque gusto by Davis who was once the belle of the ball. Kind of a Shirley Temple of her era. Baby Jane was daddy's girl and Jane, therefore, has quite an Electra complex that is and has been exhibited her entire life.

Her sister, Miss Blanche Hudson, played "aptly and sapply" by Crawford, has a long and lasting career as an adult movie star but is now wheelchair bound because of a little "accident" betwixt the sisters many years back. Jane is the caretaker of Blanche since the "accident" and they both live off of the residuals of Blanche's long and prosperous film career before she became crippled.

After a local California TV station decides to run summer afternoon, back to back Blanche Hudson films, Baby Jane gets that ol' jealous feeling brewing again and wants desparately to revitalize her childhood career. Baby Jane hires pianist from the classifieds, Mr. Edward Flagg, played in a great understated role by Victor Buono, who has his own Oedipal yearnings and problems. They make a great and perfect pair of drunks and crazies, let me tell ya.

Jane is certainly unstable and is likened to a gin and vodka guzzling 60 year old broad with a six year old spoiled brat mentality. SCARY combo, right there! Let alone Jane's guilt of the "accident", her shameless jealousy, and her expressions of the antithesis of "SISTERLY LOVE".

Filmed in glorious black and white, it lends itself to the dark, somber and horrific things that happen to Blanche vis-a-vis Jane...

"Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?" is a cult classic and a true and genuine classic in it's own right.

Happy Watching! ... Read more

Reviews (123)

good plot but horrible outcome
Jaws 3 had a very good story line plot.

Mike Brodie, played by Dennis Quaid, works at Sea World and his brother, Sean comes over to visit, and that's when the fun happens, sort of.

first, a baby great white is caputured and placed in captivity. the park immmediately gains fame as being the only park to hold a live great white shark in captivity, but the fame quickly dies out as the baby shark dies.

then, Momma comes to town. the shark for jaws 3 is the biggest in the series. huge monster shark that swallows people whole.

what really killed Jaws 3 to me, was the cheap special effects at the end, when the shark attacks the main control center of the under sea kingdom. the shark never moves, and the effect is that of a cheap B movie. i realize that this effect is probably better appreciated in 3-D, but watching it in 2-d is just flat out horrible.

the ending also suits the special 3-d version, where the 2 jaws explode in front of the camera.

i like Jaws 3 for the simple fact that Jaws is Jaws, but it had so much more to offer.

Should have included a Field Seqential 3-D version!
Not that many people are aware of the Field Sequential 3-D.
This is a 3-D TV system that uses special shutter glasses that can be purchased here through Amazon in a set that includes 3 DVD's using this process. This system Is the only way to view a 3-D film effectively on TV to date. The result is about 90% close to the effect you will see in a theatre showing.. like IMAX and Disney and Universal.
These glasses are made of sturdy plastic and clear not these cardboard red and blue pieces of garbage, so you can view the film without constricted to seeing red and blue colors and with this system you will see more actual 3-D depth with the films true colors.. It's really amazing!
For some add reason the big studios haven't adapted to include a separate version of a 3-D title in this great format.
Films like:
"House of Wax","Kiss Me Kate","Friday the 13th Part 3", "Robot Monster, "Cat Woman on the Moon", "Creature from the Black Lagoon" and "Jaws 3" are all now in 2-D DVD, but were originally shown in 3-D and could have been included using the Field Seqential 3-D system on the same disc with the 2-D version.
In Japan in the late 80's there were a few 3-D titles released using Field Sequential and can be found on e-bay converted to DVD and VHS.
Why aren't the studios producing these now!
I boycott any film DVD release that was originally intended to be seen in 3-D that's only presented in a 2-D version or anaglyph (Red and Blue Glasses).

Especially this terrible movie should have included 3-D!
The studios should really be awaken to this great 3-D system.

Not bad for a 3rd sequel
I saw this movie yesterday and it is really good. Part of it was 3D and part of it wasn't. Some of it scared me so much I left the room!! Great film, if you think about it. For my rating, the fourth Jaws was good. Keep shopping!!!!

Unworthy of the original.
I've read very few good reviews of this "Jaws" sequel, but decided to check it out for myself anyway. All I can say is that this is a pretty lousy addition to the series.

To maintain some relationship with the first two films, this sequel centers on Mike and Sean Brody, the sons of Sheriff Martin Brody. Mike is an engineer working at Sea World and he's just helped build the park's latest venue: a series of underwater tunnels that allow tourists to get closer to the marine life. But the Brody boys hard luck around water soon catches up with them when a baby Great White and its 35-foot mother get into the park via lagoon. The baby is caught and put on display but it soon dies and its mother (which, initially, nobody knows is around) begins to wreak havoc on the park.

"Jaws 3-D" is a cheaply made film to be sure. And it certainly isn't worthy of Steve Spielberg's original classic. One thing that really stuck out for me in this sequel was that, unlike the first two movies, it wasn't well acted. That's lame considering the good cast, which includes Dennis Quaid, Louis Gossett Jr., and Lea Thompson. The characters were underdeveloped and uninteresting too, which made the human side of things even worse. Joe Alves' didn't help matters with his shoddy direction either. Much of film seemed to lack focus and the scares, which were so powerful in the first movie, were cheap(though they were probably more effective in the 3-D format, which is no longer there on the video). From what I can see, the biggest complaint people have with this film is the special effects, and I can partially see why. The blue screen techniques are pathetic, but the shark, which is sorely hated by a lot of viewers, isn't totally bad; it actually LOOKS decent. The problem is it's as stiff as a two-by-four when it moves (not to mention that it roars and swims backward).

"Jaws 3-D" stands as a cheesy movie in the end. Given it's sub-par acting, direction, and effects, the only people who are going to really like it are fans of B-movies and diehard "Jaws" freaks. See this if you like but don't be surprised if you're shaking your head when it's all over.

An okay sequel.
This may not live up to the reputation of the first two Jaws series, but it is still good to watch. Dennis Quaid has done a good job with the performance as Mike Brody, along with co-stars
Bess Armstrong and Louis Gossett,Jr. For all Jaws fans, this will satisfy your collection. ... Read more