Reviews (135)

A rich experience worth viewing over and over again
This is a magnificent movie. It is visually beautiful - the colors and the way the shots are framed are stunning. The visuals are controlled in ways that add to the poetic power of the story. I do not speak Japanese, but the sound of the language combined with the musical score also adds to the intensity of this movie. The subtitles are good, but I am sure that those who understand Japanese get even more from this story.

This is not a film of Shakespeare's "King Lear". Rather, it is an adaptation and is based on the underlying themes of the play. It is not important for me to list the differences between the play and the movie, it is just important that a first time viewer not expect the Shakespearian story. If you know the play you will recognize aspects of the movie and enjoy the ways in which Kurosawa adapted the story to his own and Japanese sensibilities. It may nod to Shakespeare, but Kurosawa makes this his story.

The costumes, music, and acting are superlative. For me, the trademark Kurosawa battle scenes are more wonderful here than usual. This is a masterpiece by a filmmaking virtuoso who is also a sensitive enough artist to make a spectacular movie that is also poetic, humorous and heart breaking, tender and brutal as well images that are beautiful and others that are hideous.

This isn't light viewing or mind candy, but it has so much to offer that it is worth watching and learning from over and over again.

The Greatest Adaptation of Shakespeare to Film
"Ran" (Chaos) is the greatest cinematic adaptation of Shakespeare and a masterpiece in its own right. In adapting the broad scenario of "King Lear" to a setting in Sixteenth Century Japan, Akira Kurosawa felt free to manipulate it to his own purposes, leading to a film that is perhaps even more bleak than the play.

First and foremost "Ran" is a visually stunning film, unencumbered by the received tradition of Shakespearean language, which never translates well onto the cinema screen, he has allowed the scenario to develop into images that are beautiful and horrific. Filmed on the slopes of Mount Fuji there is a sense of unreality, or nightmare about the whole epic, as though it is taking place in a mythic space, at once recognisable and alien. For a director best known for his black and white movies ("Seven Samurai", "Rashomon"), Kurosawa surprisingly uses color to breathtaking virtuoso effect. The scenes of soldiers flooding in waves across the volcanic wasteland of Mount Fuji carrying vivid blue, red or yellow flags are amongst the most extraordinary ever filmed. The battle scenes shock and astonish, not least because Kurosawa's use of sound is so exquisite and original; many of the most horrendous images of battle are shown without sound effects with only an elegiac musical accompaniment. Far from sanitising them, the effect is to shock you out of the viewing habits formed watching so many other "war" movies.

Yet "Ran" is so much more than a broad epic, or war movie. The more intimate scenes are carried off with understated conviction, the sly hypocrisy hidden behind formality and convention is conveyed in highly poised and stylised interior shots. This film can be both visceral (prepare yourself for the beheading of Lady Kaede: as visually explosive as anything by Tarantino, and set within a film that is more than mere surface) and restrained, depending on the nature of the scene. There are moments of quiet and tenderness that resonate long after the film had ended.

It is odd that so few successful films have been made from Shakespeare. The pre-eminent playwright of the western canon has translated beautifully into opera and stage directors can continually find fresh things to say about the plays themselves, yet in general film had been hopelessly incapable of doing anything of note with Shakespeare. Think of the ghastly declamatory rhetoric of Laurence Olivier in "Henry V", or the inane pop video that Baz Lurmann made from "Romeo and Juliet", not to mention Kenneth Brannagh's tediously self-important "Hamlet". Somehow Kurosawa succeeds where all these others fail. His earlier "Throne of Blood" was a beautifully realised adaptation of "Macbeth" to the Samurai period in Japan: "Ran" builds on that achievement and surpasses it. Perhaps the fact that Kurosawa was Japanese allowed him more creative license to work with Shakespeare, able to approach it simply as valid material for film making, and not as the shibboleth that it is to western artists.

In Ran we have the late masterpiece of one of the greatest and most important film makers. It is a distilled and precise work, powerful, visceral, contemplative, epic and intimate. In short this is film making on a par with the greatest art. Ran shows us what mainstream film making can achieve, but so rarely does.

WHO WILL ENJOY THIS SENSATIONAL MASTERPIECE:
People who care about grandiloquent visuals yet a controlled palette accentuated by the immemorable use of sound -- or, in one major battle scene, the absence of the sounds of the battle, the horrors of war somehow magnified by the silent screams and the unheard bullets, only the quietly mournful dissonance of the haunting background score to be heard.

Castle gates close with resounding, hollow booms, shutting people out, shutting people in. A crescendo of cicadas. And the final anguished shriek of a flute lending a much more effective voice to the great tragedy that has been played out than closing words might have done.

If you're expecting flaming Gladiator-type fight scenes or Samurai action, you may be disappointed. That said, the battle scenes are magnum opus if you know how to appreciate visual splendor. The screenplay may be relaxed overall, sure, it takes a while to unfold a tale of filial destruction ("King Lear" adaptation) but when the forts crumble and arrows fly asunder, the pace of the film is unbridled.

Whether you're a film philistine or a major Kurosawa buff or simply someone who relishes tastefully done cinema, this is absolutely worth the ride. I highly recommend this as a rental, but the discerning types may also want to add it to their collections. It's among Kurosawa's best.

Not as good as all you people are making it out to be
This movie is terrible. I bought it expecting a good action epic with lots of battles and sword fights. There are no battles there are 2 massacres where all that happens is "samurai" with guns? shoot each other and women. samurai dont have guns. The story was good but they ruined it with 2 hours and 30 mins of talking on and on about the same topic over and over, yak yak yak. There is no drama the characters dont develope except for the old guy who just walks around starring and goes crazy. The perfomances are the same in everyone, yelling even when there happy, and they all sound the same even the women. No action, no drama, nothing except talk and fake blood from the stupid shooting, not swords, guns, What? Very bad movie, I was dissapointed, greatly. I would give 0 stars but they dont let me.

William Akira Shakespeare Kurosawa
This film is undeniable the most notable adaptation of any work of William Shakespeare to the movie. The insights in every detail, the superb cast, the overwheelming photography, the camera's handle makes us inevitably to remind that happy sentence of Orson Welles who said once:
"One film is really extraordinary , when the camera is an eye in the mind of a poet".
Casually this film is made in 1985, the same year of Welles'death.
Kurosawa was a truly master. Once upon a time a critical compared to Kenji Mizoguchi with Bach. If this methaphor is assumed valid, then Kurosawa would have his musical image in Ludwig van Beethoven.
The amazing scene of the castle in flames, with a remarkable red that invites us to reflect about the human condition, his hunger for power, the horror generated by that unthirsty ambition. The multiple readings that concern with the violence and the passion carrying the devasting facts that appear all along this film.
The opening sequences in which the three brothers are together with their father is filmed with such kind of perfection that I wouldn't wonder to know that this an obligated reference for all those students of direction. In this sense, this multiple exchange of points of view reveal us without affections of any kind,the essencial nature of the human being inmersed in the purest spirit shakesperian.
Kurosawa, like the great giants of th cinema handles the camera like Gods, includes the color and the nature's elements like adittional actors (Dreams). Just remember that Akira was the first filma maker who dared film against the sun in that glorius film Rashoman from 1950. His achievements all along his brilliant career are too many and certainly, would be beyond the reach of this shorts analysis.
This is one of these gems that you must see over and over, just when you admire this eternal masterpiece.
To be true the others Shakespeare's versions that deseve to be carried to the desert island would be in my opinion Titus 2000 (Julie Taymor), Othelo 1953 (Welles) , Richard III 1955 (Olivier), and Throne of blood 1957(Kurosawa).
But this movie is just several steps ahead all the titles above mentioned. ... Read more

Reviews (567)

More like A Clockwork Tangerine!
Some consider this to be Kubrick's masterpiece. In my opinion Dr. Strangelove was his masterpiece, but Orange is a master work, nonetheless. It's a dark tale of prophecy, a vision of a bleak future, violent and vicious in the extreme, which some might also say we're living in today, judging by the headlines.

So this is a great movie, but this DVD is a great disappointment! Despite what the details above say and what it says on the disc snap-case, the film is not in widescreen letterbox format, but is in full screen format! And the image quality is only fair-to-good. The sound is OK on my mono TV speaker but evidently is not Dolby multi-channel. And the theatrical trailer freezes at various points during playback. There's a chapter index and a list of awards the movie won or was nominated for, and that's about it for bonus features! One can only hope that the next release of this movie on DVD will do it justice, and make it a true Kubrick collectible!

Substance and Style!
Perhaps the greatest irony in "A Clockwork Orange" occurs in the scene where Alex is reading the Bible in prison. He informs the viewer that he loves the violence and sex contained in the first part, but really has no use for the preaching in the latter half. I've come across a lot of folks who have seen this flick and it never fails- there are many out there who, like Alex and the Bible, love the brutality of the first hour of the film, and cannot abide the preachy second half. If you are one of those, stop reading this review.

"A Clockwork Orange" is an ingenious comparison of two theories of punishment- retributivism and utilitarianism. Debate has raged over the proper role of a criminal justice system. Is the goal to punish the criminal according to the old eye for an eye standard (retributivism) or to reform the criminal into a useful, law abiding citizen (utilitarianism)? At the outset, many people dismiss utilitarian values as a lot of liberal silliness: soft on crime. A more important question is whether we should reform criminals whether they desire to be reformed or not for the good of society. One of the more interesting aspects of this film is that is shows utilitarianism can be a far more brutal method than retributivism, contrary to popular thought.

Here we have the debate crystallized as if the proponents of both, Kant and Bentham, were debating the merits before our very eyes through the characters on screen. Alex is unquestionably rotten to the core; he maims and rapes helpless victims for laughs. The first hour of the film is dedicated to underscoring this point. When Alex is apprehended by the authorities, he is dealt with in the old fashioned Kantian way- punishment.

Alex then volunteers for a special treatment that will "cure" him, in exchange for freedom. The cure is a form of conditioning that causes Alex to become terribly ill whenever any inclination towards sex or violence surfaces- he now has a reflexive aversion toward evil, and "ceases to be a being capable of moral choice". The final act of the film deals with the consequences of being "cured" in such a way.

By now you probably get the idea- go see this film (but not as a "date"). To further entice you, it's one of the most visually exciting movies ever made, with vibrant images that will burn themselves into your mind. If you've never seen it on DVD, the transfer is great, and you will see things you've missed before. And as a final bonus, look for the guy who plays Darth Vader as a bodyguard.

I'm laughing at clouds
"A Clockwork Orange" is screenplay writer/director/producer Stanley Kubrick's interpretation of the book of the same name by Anthony Burgess. The dialog includes some of Burgess' made-up language from the book.

The plot revolves around Alex de Large and his group of friends who are very violent, and get their kicks by raping and assaulting people. After Alex and friends commit various crimes, Alex is finally arrested and put in prison with a sentence of 14 years. Eventually, his sentence is commuted in exchange for him undergoing experimental aversion therapy which makes him physically ill at the thought of sex or violence. However, it also makes him hate Beethoven's 9th Symphony which was played as background music to some aversion films during treatment. After an attempted suicide, Alex is re-treated with apologies by the government for inhuman treatment, and Alex appears he will resume his old ways.

This movie is highly stylized, including wardrobe, hairdo's (mom has purple hair, another woman had dark blue hair), set dressing, location and props. There is a fair amount of full frontal nudity of both sexes, and some stylized and slow-motion violence. Kubrick has made some good and bad movies, but this is his most stylized and over-the-top effort. Not for everyone.

DVD has chapters, English or French spoken language, several subtitle languages, a trailer and list of awards.

MUST SEE!!!
Amazing portrayal of the effects of a violent youth on society, and the effects of society on the violent youth in turn. Not enough can be said for Malcom McDowell's genious, artistic performance as the lead character "Alex". This character would be despised if played by any other actor, but Mr Mcdowell's rendition somehow finds us leaving the film with an almost endearing "fondness" for the boy.Fabulous must see art film, but definitely not for sissies!

gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh
With this provocative, amusing and beautiful tour-de-force Stanley Kubrick established himself as the most audacious and original directors of his time. Though the are thoses who despise it, no one can deny the power of this film to spark impassioned discussions on the film's sudject matter. And I for one feel this is an achievement all on its own. This stirring classic, I hope, will endure and inspire generations of young film enthusiasts like myself. ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Don't monkey around with religion
This film is based on the play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee about the 1925, Scopes Monkey Trial. It is tricky to keep the differences between this play and the real trial apart in one's mind. Spencer Tracy (Henry Drummond) and Fredric March (Matthew Harrison Brady) spar over the legality of teaching of evolution in Tennessee. This combination is guaranteed to keep you glued to your seat. In this movie Scopes, while teaching evolution to a high-school biology class is arrested and placed in jail.

Some time the other characters get lost in the shuffle yet one other will show through. That is Gene Kelley who plays E. K. Hornbeck who reports the trial.

I will not give a blow by blow of the trail but to say it gets rather heated and is broken up with several adjournments with time to reflect on what was said and going to be said.

If you are interested in the real thing then read Scopes Autobiography "Center of the Storm."

Pr 11:29... "HE WHO TROUBLES HIS OWN HOUSE WILL INHERIT THE WIND."

"Sit down, Sampson, you're about to get a haircut"
Although Inherit the Wind was made in 1960 about a trial in 1920, it retains a surprising amount of bite.

In the film, based on the stage play of the same name, in turn based on the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, a biology teacher is jailed for teaching evolution. This sets up the film's centerpiece: a courtroom battle between famed attorneys, portrayed by acting heavyweights Spencer Tracy and Frederic March.

Gene Kelly is surprisingly good in a non-dancing role, and gets the best lines as the cynical journalist from Baltimore ("Sit down, Sampson, you're about to get a haircut," he says to the teacher when his girlfriend is called to testify).

Directed by the great Stanley Kramer, the film works well on a number of levels: comedy, courtroom drama, and commentary on religion's place in society.

A unforgettable tour de force and superb script!
This film is a triumph against the intolerance and the dark sides of the reason. The dreams of the reason produce monsters.
The generated legal battle between a Mathew Brady the hard fan religious and politician and Henry Drummond an opened mind lawyer about the Darwin ideas , keep full intensity all the film.
This historical process lets you thinking about the imaginary circunstance about what would the destiny of USA if Brady would have been President?
Spencer Tracy and Frederic March are like the alpha and the omega in this match . One timeless classic film in any age.
Don't even doubt it. This film is for you and for a wide target in the social spectre.
A must and a winner movie!

Incredibly Boring at Best
This movie is terrible. When people make a movie, you assume they would try to make it entertaining at the very Least. Don't waste your time viewing this film. It lasts way too long and you'll be happy when its over. Even if you do like the movie, it has a terrible ending. Hardly any of the conflicts are solved, and you're left with a feeling of disgust. That is only if you manage to make it through the entire movie. The songs in it as well are way too long and sound terrible. To sum it up, this movie is terrible.

A LITTLE BACKGROUND
As previous reviewers have noted, _INHERIT THE WIND_ is a work of fiction that is based on what came to be known as "The Scopes Monkey Trial." Also previously noted is the fact that Spencer Tracy, as Henry Drummond, the character adapted from the real life Clarence Darrow, and Frederic March, playing the role of Matthew Harrison Brady, whose character is based on William Jennings Bryan, engage in a carefully choreographed and outstandingly acted "pas de deux" that, to this day, has rarely been matched in any movie.

It should be understood that this is a work of fiction, and is not meant to duplicate the facts of the Scopes trial. That's why the names have been changed -- to allow literary license for dramatic purposes.

With this as background, one needs to understand the political climate that prevailed when the play from which the movie was adapted was written. The play was written in 1950, in the middle of what has come to be known as the "McCarthy Era." The anti-Communist hysteria of the time was seen by many as a threat to intellectual freedom. It was politically dangerous, at that time, to directly take on those threats to freedom of ideas, so the playwrites (Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee) came up with the idea of using the Scopes Trial, which was safely in the past, as a vehicle to express the importance of the constitutional guarantees of such things as freedom of speech. That the play they wrote in 1950, and its 1960 movie version, were of such dramatic intensity was just icing on the cake.

I think that looking at _INHERIT THE WIND_ from the standpoint of historical perspective should do away with some reviewers beliefs that it is some sort of atheistic plot to challenge their belief systems. Also, repeating myself, I believe that it is important to realize that it is a work of fiction and need not accurately reflect the details of the real trial.

It's worth seeing from several perspectives. As a well acted movie; as one that creates an atmosphere that makes the viewer feel that he is in that hot, humid courtroom; and as one that expresses how important our freedoms really are. ... Read more

Reviews (620)

The Ultimate
2001 is the ultimate cinematic experience. This movie has it all for fans of film. When i say this, I don't mean your casual film goer who thinks "2 fast 2 furious" is an instant classic, I mean those who appreciate film for what it is. For those pop culture movie goers, this film will bore them within five minutes. But, those who appreciate the art of film, will drool over the sheer awe that this movie has.
The story is a little more than simple. It starts in prehistoric africa where Moonwatcher the man-ape and his clan. A mysterious monolith appears and teaches them the use of crude, but usful tools in order to eat. It suddenly jumps (via on of the best jumps cuts ever) inot space in the year 2001 where a monolith has been discovered buried in the moons surface. When it is dug up it sends an ear peircing ringing through all of space, a sort of call letting the worlds know it is time. We then jump to the Jupiter mission in which the main story starts. This is where Hal 9000 makes his first appierence with Dave and Frank. We all should know what happens next.
This movie, released in 1968 but filmed before, was a technological phenomenon. Not even star wars can hold up to the power of 2001. The scene in which Dave enters the monolith could be one of the best in cinema. It is a filmed acid trip pretty much. Except it gave us a look at what other constalations might look like (remember we weren't even on the moon yet).
This is Kubricks best film, and by far and away one of the top five films ever made.

Still a masterpiece
Regardless of how "bored" some (probably adolescent) viewers may become (forced to maintain their attention span over vast minutes of time on something other than sex, car chases and dripping blood), this is obviously a great movie. At least for the rest of us. Rated in the top 250 (#66) at IMDb, and the subject of innumerable articles and reviews, Stanley Kubrick's much studied and admired visual, artistic and thematic masterpiece, based on the novel by Arthur C. Clarke, is still--remarkably, after all these years--a mesmerizing motion picture experience even on a television screen.

This is no mean accomplishment when you realize that Kubrick made his film before humans actually walked on the moon in 1969, and furthermore, when you consider how much more we now know about space travel and how much more advanced special effects have become. What I think contemporary movie makers might learn from Kubrick's work is (1) special effects without rhyme or reason may titillate first time viewers and the very young, but quickly grow meaningless; and (2) even in a movie that relies heavily upon special effects and ideas--which 2001: A Space Odyssey certainly does--it helps a whole lot to have a story to tell.

The story begins in the prehistory and ends in the future. It begins with a pre-human consciousness and ends in mystery. (Note that the last sequence in the movie is labeled in part as being "beyond the infinite"--whatever that metaphysical notion may mean.) Along the way we have a creditable hero (Astronaut Dave Bowman played by Keir Dullea, whom I also recall from David and Lisa, 1962) and a very cold and merciless villain (HAL 9000, the computer as megalomaniac--apparently his makers never heard of Issac Asimov's rules for robots!).

Today we know more about pre-humans and more about computers, artificial intelligence and space exploration, and with such knowledge today's movie makers would avoid some of Kubrick's mistakes. For example, the space craft was far too roomy (ask the astronauts!). Real space ships must be as small as possible to save fuel and they are incredibly cramped. Also, the year 2001 has come and passed, and we are nowhere near the practical capability of providing artificial gravity in space. And of course computers (or robots) don't have emotions unless such emotions are built or programmed into them.

Yet the visual sense of space and the terrible isolation of being alone in the vast vacuum has never been conveyed so well. Using music synchronized with visual effects laden with meaning for our earth-bound minds and bodies, Kubrick managed to depict the Pythagorean "music of the spheres" in a most splendiferous and awe-inspiring way.

However, the opening sequence with the hairy apes is probably what Kubrick would most like to redo if he had the opportunity. In the first place, the terrain, which is semi-arid, is all wrong. No hairy, long-armed, bent-legged creature would occupy such a landscape. The "foraging" they were supposed to be doing was ludicrous since there was obviously next to nothing to forage. The tapirs (forest-dwelling animals native to South America and Southeast Asia, by the way, and not to the savannas of Africa, which should have been the terrain depicted) were almost comedically fat for the ecosystem. And the apes themselves, looking and acting a lot like chimpanzees (no doubt the model that Kubrick used), are in conflict with the fossil record as we know it. Our primordial ancestors, the australopithecines, were upright walking apes and probably not exceedingly hairy since they needed to sweat as they walked and ran over the savannas and grasslands of East Africa.

As for using bones as weapons, yes, there can be little doubt that that is what our ancestors learned to do, followed by using hard wood and stones and then shaped stones. And the idea that a bone tool is a proto-type for all the tools to come is also correct, most saliently in the form of the space ship and HAL.

An interpretation of the ending would necessarily include the idea of time as being something other than we think it is. We see Dave as an astronaut in his thirties, and then as a middle-aged man dining in something like a very expensive Parisian apartment, and then on his death bed, and finally as a soon-to-be-born fetus returning to earth. I think it was wise of Kubrick not to attempt to explain what he clearly points to as unexplainable, as "beyond the infinite."

Perhaps the most haunting image of all, at least for me, is the red and yellow "eye" of the HAL 9000 computer as it coldly viewed the two astronauts talking. Therein was expressed, long before it became fashionable, the coming inexorable conflict between us and our machines, between our culture and our biological nature, between natural and artificial intelligence. Never in the history of cinema has that tension been so concisely conveyed as in that scene and in this movie.

See this for Stanley Kubrick, one of the greatest film makers of all time.

the movie that set the standard in sci fi
in 68,this movie was the best sci fi film ever.in it there is this force referred to as the monolith.it shows up at different points in time.finaly,a space crew goes to check it out.it is too intellectual for children.stanley kubrik directs so you know-since hes the greatest directer ever and all-that this movie is a classic!it is better than the sequel.thinkers will like it.in 68 there wasnt a computer paranoia like today.in this film,kubrik explores what would happen if the computer decided to just take the hell over.an idea not toyed with for years to come.he was a visionary.the music in it is very good too.for you wrestling fans,ric flairs theme song begins it.an abselute must for sci fi fans.

One of the greatest sci-fi movies ever made.
This was a brilliant movie. It never ceased to make interesting theories concerning life other than ours, whether or not we should be in space, and how exploration of the ether will affect our lives.

The film opens up with pre-historic man. They are shaggy, ape-like creatures who fight in loud blasts of sound, calls, etc. But at one point, they discover an immense slab of rock that is so finely crafted, they conclude it was made by "something." And with that, they discover they can use left-over bones as weapons, furthering their standing on the planet.

That is the not only the opening for the film itself, but also for its mood and thesis. It makes the case that knowledge of greater beings will propel us into greatness ourselves, using advanced artifacts as motivation and example. But the movie will eventually take a darker turn you'll have to explore for yourselves. If I went into any of the symbolism, I would be writing an essay, not a review, and could potentially ruin your experience.

As a film, it is not traditional by any means. I've heard of people walking out at the premier muttering furiously about how there was no story, or that they had no idea what Kubrick was trying to say and that his obsession with imagery and perfection led to the demise of what could have been a masterpiece. But to those who stayed and to those who see it now, it is apparent Kubrick meant to be challenging and intelligent: this is not for the light-hearted or the impatient. For instance, many of the sequences are realistically slow, such as an early docking sequence. But the images are so engrossing, I doubt you'll turn away.

And to top off Kubrick's obvious genius, there is an unforgettable soundtrack of famous classical music that complements the imagery so well, Kubrick left it in over an underscore that was being prepared. It often conveys the mood very well, expressing wonderment, curiosity and fright with incredible power. If you can't take the movie, if you can't take its themes and its slow-moving plot, if you can't take the sparse dialog (this is essentially a silent movie), at least sit back, close your eyes and watch the film through the tones and moods the music evokes: it matches Kubrick's imagination with every moment from the opening shot of an orb to the end shot of a star-child floating among the nebular and the giant.

Quick-Buck artists ruin a classic.
The video detail and special effects are great. The aspect ratio is good, but the sound track has been trashed. No bass, garbled treble and a dolby 5.1 remastering that sounds as if it was recorded off a small radio in another room. The producers of this remake should be ashamed. The original sound track would blow you away. I was very dissapointed to say the least. What a waste! I wish I could talk to their sound people. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

More timely now, perhaps, than when it was first released in 1957, Elia Kazan's overheated political melodrama explores the dangerous manipulative power of pop culture. It exposes the underside of Capra-corn populism, as exemplified in the optimistic fable of grassroots punditry Meet John Doe. In Kazan's account, scripted by Budd Schulberg, the common-man pontificator (Andy Griffith) is no Gary Cooper-style aw-shucks paragon. Promoted to national fame as a folksy TV idol by radio producer Patricia Neal, Griffith's Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes turns out to be a megalomaniacal rat bastard. The film turns apocalyptic as Rhodes exploits his power to sway the masses, helping to elect a reactionary presidential candidate. The parodies of television commercials and opinion polling were cutting edge in their day (Face in the Crowd was the Network of the Eisenhower era), and there are some startling, near-documentary sequences shot on location in Arkansas. An extraordinary supporting cast (led by Walter Matthau and Lee Remick) helps keep the energy level high, even when the satire turns shrill and unpersuasive in the final reel. There's an interesting parallel in Tim Robbins's snide pseudodocumentary Bob Roberts: both these pictures have almost as much contempt for the lemmings in the audience as for the manipulative monsters who herd them over the cliff. --David Chute ... Read more

Reviews (49)

Cognitive Dissonance
My image of Andy Griffith as and actor and as a person has always been positive. I don't know him, he may be the biggest jerk in the world for all I know, but he has managed his public image well and has kept his name unsullied by sordid rumors, so I have always liked him.
If your image of Griffith is the same, and you have never seen this movie, brace yourself for the cognitive dissonance you will feel when you watch this! Griffith turns in a powerful performance as a hobo troubador who is "discovered" by a small-town radio host while in jail and then uses the opportunities that unfold to rocket to fame as a canny, folksy and cynical television entertainer and pundit.
My take after watching the movie is that Griffith's character, Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes, was always self-centered but was quite the ladies man as well. He found with Patricia Neal's help that he could use his folksy manner to get what he wanted. He also found that simple folks fell for and identified with his cornpone stories. But it was his handlers who led him to believe his own press and that his insight was indispensable in every situation.
Kazan and Schulburg use the movie as a vehicle to show not only how television could be misused in politics, but also in advertising. With Rhodes as its spokesman, sales ofa worthless energy pill soared and so Rhodes became a sought-after spinmeister in other areas as well. Television does for Rhodes what radio did for the real-life folksy musician/politician Pappy O'Daniel.
On the romantic side, Rhodes was a real skirt-chaser, full of promises but always with his eye out for his next conquest. His come-uppance came when he jilted the woman who had helped bring him to his great heights for the charms of a groupie-like baton-twirling teenager (Lee Remick) he met when a judge at a twirling contest. The cliche is that "hell hath no fury...", and the jilted Patricia Neal lost no time in conspiring to bring him down. She got her chance when she burst in to the studio and aired for the nation to hear all of Griffith's contemptuous comments about his fan base to the bunch of "hayseeds" he used as a focus group on his show. That put a quick end to his popularity and the ranting,raving ending is really something to witness! It is left to the viewer's imagination as to whether Griffith follows through on his threat to jump from his office tower if Neal leaves him.
I never heard of this movie until recently and bought it on the strength of a recommendation. I'm glad I did. You won't be sorry either when you add A Face In The Crowd to your DVD collection.

Media Fascist
At first the central premise of "A Face in the Crowd" was a little hard for me to swallow.I'd like to think that the general public is a little more discerning and would not be so easily taken in by a megalomaniac like Lonesome Rhodes.But then, the argument goes that Abe Lincoln would never be elected president today.When you think about it our more successful presidencies, depending on your political persuasion, would be Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton who were all masters of the medium.I'd like to think of this film as more of a cautionary tale of the dangers of the new medium of television.Director Elia Kazan from a script by Budd Schulberg have crafted their parable quite well.I would like to think that Rhodes is not quite the monster that he inevitably became, that he started his career humbly and with good intentions only to be corrupted by forces that manipulated him to the darker side.Andy Griffith, in probably one of the most criminally overlooked performances in American film history, is simply mesmerizing as Rhodes.He manages to convey the folksiness tainted with contempt and self-loathing that ultimately is Lonesome Rhodes.Patricia Neal is superb as Marcia Jeffries, the woman who discovers Rhodes and has mixed emotions about his fame.Walter Matthau is also good as Mel Miller, a writer on Rhodes' show who feels he's sold his soul in the process.I am trying to think of another film that tackled the beast that is television and the only comparable one that comes to mind is "Network".By all means check out the documentary on the film that includes reminisces from Griffith, Neal, and Schulberg.One priceless moment is Griffith recalling the filming of the baton-twirlers scene.

The First Andy Griffith Show
If you are a big fan of the great TV series, "The Andy Griffith Show"(and who isn't), you might want to think twice about watching "A Face in the Crowd".This is NOT the same character.There is a brilliant mind behind the easy-going "ah shucks" delivery in each of the characters.However, the sheriff always does the right thing, while Lonesome the drifter seems to always do the wrong thing.Yet if you're a fan of the actor, Andy Griffith, you can't miss this movie; it's his best acting role bar none.

What makes "A Face in the Crowd" so impressive is its' foresight in understanding media, politics, and the ability of one to manipulate the other.After all, this movie was made in the mid-50's when the power of TV was little understood or appreciated.It may well have gotten reviews that ridiculed its' premise when it was released.Yet, seen today, it is an amazing study of how one man, with a willing media accomplice, can control public opinion.Griffith's evolution from a Saturday night drunk to one of THE most influencial persons in the county is brilliantly scripted and directed.In addition to Andy Griffith, there is a very worthy cast.

Most of us would love it if the world was like Mayberry.Unfortunately, "A Face in the Crowd" comes a lot closer to reality.

One of the Greatest of ALL films....
Having read others' comments here (and on IMDB) and having just watched its new DVD, I'll add my two cents. This has been one of my faves since first seeing it (too) long ago. Well, it is more relevant than ever and should be seen be everyone (literally)!! I notice some (likely younger) folks mentioned comparisons to some politicians, but indeed Lonesome Rhodes was based on the phenomenally successful (and notoriously haughty) radio & early TV host Arthur Godfrey. Yes, Godfrey discovered Julius La Rosa, but La Rosa probably got fired for asking for a raise (after becoming very popular, both on the show and solo records). Apparently Arthur, like Lawrence Welk, was a cheap prick who only paid scale -- no matter what the tenure or how successful were his performers.

"A Face In the Crowd" was most definitely social commentary, NOT satire; although, as one from that era, I can understand why it seemed so to many at the time. It's apparent why it inspired so many future talents! That this film was not nominated on its own merits due to political differences/grudges is a GD crime!!!Can't say why Andy Griffith wasn't, but he sure deserved it... Awesome!! So awesome, it actually effected his personal life.

Anyway, re: politicians, "A Face In the Crowd" was a prescient warning of the dangers of that new media (TV), thus akin to those who subsequently capitalized on its propaganda potential and the *science* of people's weakness of mistaking "image" for truth!

But Kazan was not simply a great director; he was perhaps the most socially conscious of all Hollywood directors!! And he was one of the greatest actors' directors; hence, one reason why you never saw an Andy Griffith act like this in film again! (The DVD also has an excellent up-to-date documentary about the making of AFITC and its genesis, with many pertinent historical tidbits re: Kazan.)

In just 21 films, Kazan directed at least 10 GREAT films:
"America, America" (1963), "Wild River" (1960), "Baby Doll" (1956), "East of Eden" (1955), "On the Waterfront" (1954), "Viva Zapata!" (1952), "A Streetcar Named Desire" (1951), "Panic in the Streets" (1950), "Gentleman's Agreement" (1947), and "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" (1945).

In his films, 21 different actors had Oscar-nominated performances: James Dunn, Celeste Holm, Gregory Peck, Dorothy McGuire, Anne Revere, Jeanne Crain, Ethel Barrymore, Ethel Waters, Karl Malden, Vivien Leigh, Kim Hunter, Marlon Brando, Anthony Quinn, Eva Marie Saint, Lee J. Cobb, Rod Steiger, Jo Van Fleet, James Dean, Carroll Baker, Mildred Dunnock, and Natalie Wood -- of which Dunn, Holm, Malden, Leigh, Hunter, Quinn, Brando, Saint and Van Fleet ALL won Oscars for their performances in one of Kazan's movies.

Not too shabby, eh!?

A great film with a great cast...
Beginning there, it is hard to go wrong.Andy Griffith plays a drifter/con man who can play the guitar and tell stories.He is discovered by Patricia Neal's character and he begins a "Will Rogers" type of career.Part humorist, part philosopher, and all-round phony, he parlays his talent into a national following which builds to a stunning climax.

What I liked about this film was its depth and the talent of the actors. Director Elia Kazan was fantastic in what I believe to be his finest picture.The emotions he drew out of the actors was fantastic! Everyone was perfect in their respective roles.This is also a movie you won't grow tired of watching.When you see it a few times, you notice things you didn't catch the first go-round.This one's a keeper! ... Read more

Reviews (556)

Heeeere's Johnny! A modern horror classic on DVD
It's tough to believe that Stanley Kubrick received a Worst Director Razzie nomination for "The Shining." While "The Shining" may not be given the classic status of some of his other films like "Dr. Strangelove" and "2001", it's actually the least polarizing of this highly-praised and atypical filmmaker's work.

This atmospheric thriller is sure to creep you out with its pacing, eery editing and cinematography (those tracking shots are highly effective), and Jack Nicholson's powerful performance as Jack Torrance. Horror films often tend to divide audiences into genre fans who follow the gore and those who laugh in the face of so-called scares, insisting their own resiliancy to cheap thrills and lamebrain plotting.

Fortunately, "The Shining" doesn't make you take sides, because its chills come from plotting and character study as much as they do from odd sights that will make you jump. It may stray from Stephen King's book and not all of it may make sense, but "The Shining" has so much going for it that you won't mind. It's a gripping and satisfying film experience, and in my opinion, one of the best films of the '80s.

This Warner DVD re-release is definitely the version to get. The fullframe presentation comes at the wishes of Kubrick and the video and audio offer significant improvement over the drab initial release. (Unfortunately, the original Mono audio track has been dropped altogether in favor of an effective 5.1 remix. They could have included both with no problem.)

In the way of extras, there is an engaging half-hour on-set documentary, filmed by Kubrick's daughter Vivian. It provides a candid experience of the film's creation, and interviews with some of the actors. In addition, this DVD re-release includes an audio commentary on the documentary (sort of a "making-of the making-of") by Vivian Kubrick. There's also the spooky trailer, which shows how a movie preview can perfectly pique one's interest in a film, without spoiling (or even saying) much.

Possibly the Best Horror Movie Ever
This was a spectacular piece of work. It had a chilling soundtrack, and had some very good camera work. In the case of the Shining, a movie has finally exceeded the book upon which it was based. Things that would normally make a movie terrible have made the Shining a spellbinding movie. For example, the dialogue throughout the entire movie seems forced and unnatural. Another example is during an argument between Jack Nicholson (who performs incredibly well throughout the entire movie) and Shelley Duvall, after which Jack storms out of the room and glances at the camera as he goes by. If you're a horror fan, or just into movies, this is definetely one to see again and again and again.

A great horror movie..
This film slowley but shorley creepes you out, I don't think any one but Jack Nicholson could have played this role that well, and Krubrick has the best feal in the world, and the score is one of the best ever put in a movie. The movie is really scary.
It all starts off kinda slow thenwe see Dany talking to himself, and then there's a few images that are veary frightning, the holtel gives you a veary creepy isalated fealing, like if something were to happen there'de be no way out. Jack slowly starts going crazyer and crazer, and the hole time creepy images are appearing in the hotel, and the last half hour of the movie is trueley scary, a must see.

267
When i first saw this movie i was scared to death. realy it may have beeen the scariest movie i have ever seen. i also read the book but the movie was even scarier.
i realy recomend you this movie.
maby it had beeen the scariest movie i have ever seen...you are going to love this movie.

Another Kubrick Classic
I loved this movie. It freaked me out I must say. Jack Nicolson is the perfect crazy man in the movie. Another thing this movie possesed was great cinematography as any Kubrick film posses and great acting by all of the actors and actresses. Great movie deffinate buyer. ... Read more

Reviews (74)

Schmaltz In A Purple Wrapper
[Add a half-star if you don't mind being manipulated.]

All during the summer, in seeing previews, I was worried about To Wong Foo... being an American version or rip-off of Priscilla: Queen Of The Desert. Trust me, there are a lot of similarities; however To Wong Foo... stands on its own as an enjoyable movie experience. In the audience I sat in, there was laughter and applause throughout and I found myself laughing and applauding along. (I hadn't expected to.)

Patrick Swayze is Vida Boheme, a drag queen from Bala Cynwyd, PA living in New York City. Bala Cynwyd is pivotal in his story. So is Noxeema Jackson (Wesley Snipes). Boheme and Jackson are friends competing against Chi Chi Rodriguez (John Leguizamo) and others for "Drag Queen of the Year". Well, as luck would have it, Boheme and Jackson tie for the honors and both win an all-expense paid trip to Hollywood.

Well, Boheme is a queen with a heart. She can't stand to see Chi Chi, who lives in the same building, so upset about not winning the crown; so, Vida bullies Noxeema into trading their paid-for airline tickets for a car and, together, the three set off to drive cross-country. Shades of Boys On The Side.

Early on, the trio is stopped in the middle of nowhere by a county sheriff (Chris Penn in a hoot of a role). What happens next brings more remembrances of Boys On The Side.

Eventually, our fun-loving "females" end up in Snydersville, a small hamlet where everyone seems to have a problem and our girls have a solution for every single one of them. Despite this manipulation, To Wong Foo... delights at every turn. It's laugh-out-loud funny and not at all subtle. Normally, that would be a criticism, but in this case, it turns out to be a refreshing change of pace.

Of course, all of the elements in the story come together for a schmaltzy conclusion. But, that's OK. You'll get all wrapped up in it anyway, just like I did.

(Boy, was I surprised.)

[Originally written 10 September 1995]

A Fine, Fun and Snazzy Film, anything but a Drag!
This movie is one of those rare perfect films. Casting is brilliant (especially Stockard Channing, who only gets better and better as the years go by--and she was always totally incapable of less than a fantastic performance). The general plot line of the movie is a congenial road trip, as three drag queens drive from New York City to California to compete in a contest, and the themes are fulfilling.

In essence, the movie deals with the healing of "broken people." (For other such films, see such gems as "Batteries Not Included" and "Fried Green Tomatoes.") The unlikely angels? The three drag queens. The situation? Their car breaks down in a red-neck hamlet. Unlikely hijinks and dangerous confrontations lead to a satisfying conclusion.

And Julie Newmar was never better!

Uneven but when it's good it's GREAT
"To Wong Foo" seemed horribly miscast when you found out who was in it ... I mean, John Leguizamo had done drag before, proving himself to be very convincing and most definitely in touch with his "feminine side" -- but Wesley Snipes and Patrick Swayze??! Two macho movie stars pulling off parts as drag queens on a road trip?

But then you saw the movie ...

The three men do excellent jobs, Wesley Snipes in particular a total surprise in his role as Noxeema Jackson, drag queen with Attitude. Swayze, as Vida Boheme, is the "lady" of the trio who can get down and dirty when she has to -- and Leguziamo as Chi Chi Rodriguez is nothing short of perfection.

The plot is simple: At New York's Drag Queen of the Year contest, Noxeema and Vida tie for the crown. The title comes with a free airline ticket to Los Angeles, to compete in the Drag Queen of America competition, and the two "girls" couldn't be more excited. But then they meet little Latin Chi Chi Rodriguez, whose drag queen self-esteem was not at all helped by losing this competition. Vida, the kind of person who always believes in helping those less fortunate, talks a VERY disgruntled Noxeema into selling their plane tickets ... and using the money instead to buy a cheap car and drive to the L.A. contest. The night of the win, Vida spots an autographed photo of Miss Julie Newmar on the wall of the reataurant they are dining in, and reads the inscription: "To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar". For those not in the know ... for years actress/model Julie Newmar, best known for her role at Catwoman on the tv series "Batman," has had rumors floating around saying that she's a drag queen in real life -- not a woman. She's just too statuesque, her face too strong on bone structure, to be a real woman! When Vida sees the framed autographed photo on the wall, she takes this as a sign that the three of them will be blessed on their quest. She also takes the photograph.

Halfway 'cross country, in Nebraska, the threesome is stopped by a racist sheriff who notices their tail light is out. Taking Vide back toward his car, he comes onto her, thinking she is a real woman. When he reaches under her dress and learns the truth, Vida tries to break free ... and knocks the sheriff to the ground, where he conks his head. They drive off quickly, before he can come to and REALLY do them all some damage.

Soon after, their old Cadillac breaks down, and Chi Chi hitchhikes them all a ride into Snydersville, a town that makes Mayberry look like New York City. Tiny and hick and populated with small-town minds as well, Snydersville seems to be the LAST place three drag queens would want to get stranded (if they want to live, that is), but when these three are stalled there for the weekend, until they get their car repaired, they decide to make the best of it by making over the town's women, addding some spark to a Strawberry Social - and, in general, bringing tons of color to an otherwise drab existence. But little do they know that Sheriff Dollard (Chris Penn) - who is less than thrilled by being knocked unconscious by a "boy in a dress," is out to find them ...

The movie is uneven in spots - the scenes in the town go from hysterical to being too stage - but overall whenever Snipes or Swayze or Leguizamo are on-screen, you could never be bored. Funny and with some VERY sharp one-liners, the movie comes close (especially in the end) to turning sappy with its "why can't we all just get along" mind-set -- but never quite pushes that envelope. The three leads are EXCELLENT, and backed beautifully by a great supporting cast the includes Stockard Channig, Melinda Dillon, Chris Penn, Jason London - even "Alias" star Michael Vartan. Ru Paul and Robin Williams add both class and style to brief cameos ... as does the one and only Miss Julie Newmar herself.

Stylish and funny and just corny enough to work, this comedy is anything but a drag ...

Oh no girlfriend, did you just do a ue?
Nothing but praise for this great flick! Let's face it, while it may not be a movie that George Bush would ever watch (mind you if he did he could learn a thing or two about love and acceptance). I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to watch a great movie. Even after seeing it over five times I still laugh out loud and get a kick out of all three "ladies"! Robin Williams is hilarious and RuPaul makes a surprise visit! Rent it today and you will be glad you did!

"It comes down to that age-old decision: style or substance"
One year after the success of the 1994 Australian film "The Adventures Priscilla, Queen of the Desert", Amblin Entertainment and Universal Pictures joined to produce the 1995 American version, "To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar". Like the Australian film, which featured a trio of drag queens traveling across the rugged Australian outback from Sydney to the isolated resort of Alice Springs in a pink bus, the American version featured its own drag queen trio traveling from NYC to Los Angeles in an aging yellow Cadillac convertible; but the similarities end there. The drag queen trio featured in the American version was Miss Noxeema Jackson (Wesley Snipes), Miss Vida Boheme (Patrick Swayze) and Miss Chi-Chi Rodriguez (John Leguizamo). After Noxeema and Vida share the title of a drag queen contest, they invite (with Noxeema's reluctance) Chi-Chi to join them to participate in a national contest in Los Angeles. Not having enough money for all three to fly to Los Angeles from NYC, Vida convinces them to instead use their winnings to purchase a car that all three could travel in. The film's title comes from an autographed picture of Julie Newmar that Vida steals from a restaurant and places in the used yellow Cadillac convertible that the trio purchases. Similar to the Australian version, the car breaks down along the way, forcing the trio to stay a few days in a small, languishing town. There, they meet the town's assorted residents that include hotel owner Carol Ann (Stockard Channing), her abusive husband Virgil (Arliss Howard), Beatrice (Blythe Danner), the polite Bobby Ray (Jason London), Merna (Melinda Dillon), Loretta (Beth Grant), the aging Clara (Alice Drummond) and restaurant owner Jimmy Joe (Mike Hodge) to name a few. They also meet law enforcement officer Sheriff Dollard (Chris Penn) who wants to arrest them.

Though arguably not as well made as "The Adventures Priscilla, Queen of the Desert", "To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar" is still a very entertaining and engaging film that is sufficiently different from the former to not be redundant. Cameo appearances in the film include Julie Newmar, Robin Williams (as John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt), RuPaul (as Miss Rachel Tensions) and Naomi Campbell. Memorable scenes in the film include the restaurant, the used car lot, Vida seeing her mother (Margaret H. Flynn), Chi-Chi earning rites of passage, Sheriff Dollard, Noxeema's interactions with townsfolk, the clothing store, the beauty parlor and the closing scenes. Patrick Swawye received a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor in a Comedy/Musical, and John Leguizamo received a Golden Globe nomination for Best Supporting Actor in the Comedy/Musical. Sadly, Wesley Snipes did not receive a nomination for his excellent performance. Overall, I rate the film with 4 out of 5 stars. After watching the deleted scenes on the DVD, I concluded that they were best left deleted. ... Read more

Description

Brimming with action while incisively examining the nature of truth, Rashomon is perhaps the finest film ever to investigate the philosophy of justice. Through an ingenious use of camera and flashbacks, Kurosawa reveals the complexities of human nature as four people recount different versions of the story of a man's murder and the rape of his wife. Toshiro Mifune gives another commanding performance in the eloquent masterwork that revolutionized film language and introduced Japanese cinema to the world. ... Read more

Reviews (90)

Kurosawa's breakthrough film
Akira Kurosawa, known as one of the greatest directors of all time, got international attention with this film, that opened up the Japanese film market to the world. Released in 1950, this film, along with the director won many coveted awards. The story is simple, but at the same time the film is very complex. Tajomaru, a bandit, played wonderfully by the great Toshiro Mifune, is accused of raping a woman, and murdering her husband, in the woods. Tajomaru, the woman, a witness, and the man himself (speaking through a medium) tell their version of the events. The thing is each one tells a different story, with their own perspective on the events, and perception of those involved. So as each story is told we go into flashback and see the different events, and how the characters act differently.

The film from a technical standpoint is perfect, with innovative use of the camera, and editing. Acting is done superbly, with each actor, playing a slightly different version of their characters in each flashback. The script cannot get better, based on two short stories. The film is very serious, and is a meditation on the nature of truth.Its about how truth is relative, and how we each have a different viewing of events, tastes, and concepts. It is also about how each person makes up their own truth, lies, to deceive themselves. Our ego is so big we need to comfort it, and keep it safe from harsh reality. In all this film is perfect, and is even sometime called Japan's Citizen Kane, in the way it impacted Japanese filming. The two films have many similarities. If you enjoy serious films, investigating the nature of truth, and ourselves, see this film. 5 stars.

Truth is elusive, reality subjective. A tale well told.
I've heard about this 1950 Japanese film all my life and have even incorporated the word "Rashomon" into my vocabulary. It means that the truth is elusive and people will remember things with their own particular spin. When the film first came out it was nominated for an academy award and is still considered the masterpiece of the director Akira Kurosawa.

Shot in black and white, the mood is set right at the beginning, as there's a rainstorm going on and a priest and a woodcutter are seeking shelter in an ancient temple. Both of them are troubled, as they have heard witnesses to a crime explain events that they just "don't understand". When a third man joins them, they tell their stories. Eventually the audience watches the reenactment of four different versions of the same incident. At the end, there is still confusion.

The acting is done in classical Japanese style, which is more appropriate for a large auditorium than for a small screen. The actors shout, they roll their eyes, and every gesture is exaggerated. There's passion throughout and a great mythic theme. It seemed all to be set on a great stage. And the interesting part is that three out of the four people telling the story claim to be the killer. The cinematography is also special, using the rain as one realm of reality and harsh sunlight as another. The woods in which the crime takes place look hot and stifling, and the actors are all excellent.

However, once the novelty of the setting and the dramatic elements of this stylized film wore off, I found myself restless. It was only 83 minutes long but it seemed much longer. I do applaud its art and its message. I therefore recommend it. However, I just can't help the fact that it didn't engage me completely.

Classic stuff
A man travelling with his wife in feudal Japan is murdered by a bandit... or is he? As the main protagonists - the bandit, the wife, a passer-by and (I kid you not) the man himself - tell their versions of events, a series of contradictions emerge. Who, if anyone, is telling the truth?
Rashomon's Byzantine plot structure was unique at the time, and still feels fresh over half a century down the line. Presenting no easy answers (there is reason to doubt the motives, and thus the stories, of all of those involved), it leaves the audience to make up their own minds about who to trust. Fans of latterday head-spinning efforts such as The Usual Suspects and Memento will find plenty to get their teeth into here.
It all looks gorgeous, to boot (Kazuo Miyagawa's cinematography is done justice by an excellent DVD transfer here), and the performances - especially Toshiro Mifune, as the bandit Tajomaru, cackling hysterically and pausing mid-fight to swat mosquitoes on his neck - are superb. If I've got one gripe, it's the slightly pat "redemptive" ending, but that's a minor fault at best.
Otherwise, Rashomon is downright essential. It's too easy to get all rose-tinted when trying to assess a long-established "classic", but this is one that's more than stood the test of time.

The one that set the standard
When Akira Kurasawa released this film in 1950, it was not expected to do well. When it won various awards around the world, including the Academy award for best foreign film, the reaction was one of some surprise. Now, over 50 years later, Rashomon stands as a benchmark in cinema, a film that has been copied and ripped off countless times, but never duplicated. The camera work, storytelling, script, and setting are flawless, giving us the proper mood right from the start.

The start is a torrential rainstorm, where several men sit around discussing a trial they have either witnessed, or taken part in. The trial concerns the murder of a samurai and the rape of his wife, apparantly at the hands of a famous bandit (played by Toshiro Mifune, a Kurasawa favorite). The story of what actually happened is told through the point of view of the bandit, the woman, the dead man (through a spriritual medium) and a woodcutter who was there and now is standing with these men at the beginning of the film.

The interesting thing is that we as the audience are left to assume what really happened, as the film gives no definitive solution. The subject is really the nature of man, and how point of view will change the perception of a scenario to favor or in some cases, cast a negative light on events that transpire.

This was the first film to shoot directly at the sun. In fact, the beginning shot of the woodcutter traveling into the woods to cut lumber is breathtaking, the camera weaves in and out, up and down, through branches and leaves, showing just how far out of the way these things will be happening. The excellent DVD has a feature on the camera work, which you will find interesting and will help you when you go back to the film for a second viewing.

Also included with the disc is a booklet with the two short stories Kurasawa used as the premise for the film (most notably "In the Grove")along with an excerpt from Kurasawa's book about the shooting of the film and the apprehension of the Japanese film companies about the fact that the story seemed to have no good ending. Kurasawa explained that the story was not about the solution of the murder as it was about the nature of man.

Film fans need to see this movie. So many movies made in the last few years (Snake Eyes, The Usual Suspects) owe themselves to Rashomon, movies which show us points of view that are not necessarily the truth. The fact is that four people can see a situation but report it four completely different ways. What's the truth? The truth is--that's just human nature.

A milestone in the story of cinema in any age
Rashomon is a masterpiece. This film shows us a hard statement that maybe disagree to many people; the truth doesn't exist. We see always fragments of it no matter how old you are.
Aesop in his fables states: in every man always there are three ; that who he thinks he is; what other people think he is and finally that one who really is. In that sense Goethe talked about four levels of the reality; lineal, literal, methaporical and finally the cosmic.
In what level are you when you assume the judgement about a fact?
Remember his beliefs are always relative; your ethical world depends about a lot of issues; such as your social status; your religion; your birthplace; your culture and even your age; so be careful when you say are in possesion of the absolute true.
And that's what the movie shows us; a terrible murder; five persons state about the fact ; and before you five different versions are given. So, the questions is; who of these persons is lying and who is true?
All of us have a sight blind; and because of this you may agree with some of these people; and your close friend or even your couple may be perfectly disagree with you.
The reasonable doubt is a very well konwn device employed by all the lawyers in their cases . Indeed, this term inspired to Sidney Lumet for making his opera prima "Twelve angry men" in 1957.
Back to Rashomon we find to Akira Kurosawa in one of his major achievements. The handle camera is superb; and this is the first film in the story where , by the first time the camera shows us the sun; a brilliant methapor and also a challenging aaproach by this master director.
Mesmerizing ; unforgettable ; you'll be shocked every time you watch. Remember what the woman says uin a sequence: "The men lie because they are weak".
And this point is remarkable, just because the fragile human condition; the human being always will keep his dignity, pride and a set of values above all the odds; and through this process, the truth is always put in a second place, by obvious reasons.
Heissenberg established the uncertain principle in 1930 and this review is far to explain about this issue, but what it deserves to call your attention at the time you say ; I found the truth; or even worst; I represent the truth.
This procedure is typical of dictatorial regimes; the state is me and other similar statements reveal a syntom of being out of the life and even the nature, a wise mind always thinks and acts; after rethinks and reacts; but never remains quiet.
Kurosawa adapted this film from a novel from the same title Rashomon from 1927 written by Yabu no Naka.
This film is a wonderful exploraton of truth and human weakness.
In fact this film is watched and analyzed in Post Grade School of Management, for purposes related with another goals.
This film was remade in 1964 as Outrage for Martin Ritt, where Paul Newman plays the role of Toshiro Mifune in the original version.
A true landmark. Don't miss it.
A superb classic! ... Read more

Description

James Stewart stars as Elwood P. Dowd, a wealthy alcoholic whose sunny disposition and drunken antics are tolerated by most of the citizens of his community. That is, until Elwood begins to claim that he has a friend named Harvey who is an invisisble six foot rabbit. Elwood's snooty socialite sister, Veta, determined to marry off her daughter Myrtle to a respectable man, begins to plot to keep Elwood's lunacy from interfering. ... Read more

Reviews (69)

Pookah Power!
Loving Veta thinks her brother Elwood has a problem. But Elwood feels he doesn't have a problem at all! Okay maybe he drinks a little, but when he is bothered by something he can always turn to his best friend, Harvey. Where is the problem in that? The problem stems from the fact that Harvey is a six foot three invisible rabbit. From this simple concept spins a most charming story about psychoanalysis.

The film was adapted from the Pulitzer Prize winning play of the same name and it never falls far from those roots. The entire film carries most of the dialogue and farcical scenes that thrilled theater crowds. The cast is stellar but the strongest performances come from Josephine Hull as Veta and from Jimmy Stewart's surprisingly dark turn as alcoholic Elwood P Dowd.

The DVD has a special audio introduction by Jimmy Stewart recorded just before his death. As it was shot, the film is in a pristine full-screen black and white and will keep purists happy. However, younger children may find the stage-like pacing and lack of color nothing short of deadly. Otherwise, this is a great family film sure to spur some interesting discussions.

Aren't We All A Little Crazy?
Jimmy Stewart stars as Elwood P. Dowd, a very ordinary man except for the fact he sees and talks to a large white rabbit (a pooka, actually). His overwrought sister Veta can't take it anymore, since he is ruining the chances of her daughter Myrtle Mae finding a suitable husband. She wants to get him committed to the Chumley Sanitarium. And that's when things begin to get very complicated for all concerned. As comedies go, Harvey isn't one of those riotous, laugh out loud howlers. It does have some laugh out loud moments, mostly supplied by the inimitable Josephine Hull as poor Veta. She's extremely funny, with her quavering, fluttery voice, and expressive eyes. The comedy is more gentle and rooted in human nature. Stewart hits all the right notes as Elwood, a terminally calm and happy man who seems much more at peace with himself and the world than the apparently sane people around him. He and the film leave you questioning what the harm is in a man who sees a big white rabbit, but loves life and making friends and who really disturbs no one. After all, don't we all have our own oddities and quirks - myself excepted, of course ;) .

One of James Stewart finest...
Elwood P. Dowd's (James Stewart) best friend is an invisible 6-foot rabbit named Harvey with whom he likes to spend his time with in bars drinking. This is something most people in Elwood's hometown find disturbing so his sister attempts to put Elwood in a mental institution. However, Elwood is perfectly happy with his situation and with Harvey. Harvey is a story that depicts two sides, one pessimistic and one optimistic. The gloomy side presents problems such as alcoholism, isolation, and cynicism. However, these negative issues are presented through light comedy and Elwood's positive view of life, which is a result of his friend Harvey. This story offers a blissful journey, which presents moments of self-reflection and amusement.

"Harvey and I warm ourselves in these golden moments."
Mostly everyone has had an imaginary friend at one time or another when growing up. Henry Koster's "Harvey" posits the notion that perhaps some imaginary friends are not imaginary after all. Yep, according to this film, it just might be true that there are invisible entities among us who are in actuality playful spirits. Therefore, think twice about dismissing the next person you see talking to no one in particular.

Elwood P. Dowd (James Stewart) is a simple man who is befriends everyone he meets. However, he does have one eccentric characteristic about him - his constant companion is an invisible rabbit who is over six feet tall named Harvey. Elwood always is keen to point his friend out but no one can see or has ever seen Harvey. Concerned about his mental health, Elwood's sister, Veta Louise Simmons (Josephine Hull) decides to have her brother committed to a sanatorium. The plan goes awry when the sanatorium staff mistakenly commits the wrong person and releases Elwood. A chase ensues when the situation is sorted out even though Elwood hasn't the slightest clue about what all the fuss around him is about.

"Harvey" is a cute film on one level and an insightful commentary on perception and sanity on another. Yet, it is a one-joke film that gets more and more tired as it goes along. Stewart brings much conviction to his role but his trademark charm is not enough to save the production. The screwball-comedy-inspired sequences at the sanatorium are amusing but are nothing people familiar with the genre have not seen before. "Harvey" is unfortunately too simple a film for adults and too slow for children. It boasts a great Jimmy Stewart performance but is one of the mid-tier films in his filmography.

Say Hello to Harvey
True insight comes from within-and it doesn't hurt to have an oversized friend giving you some guidance. Just ask Elwood, an eccentric bon vivant who has just that- a seldom seen, but often heard ( through Stewart ), six-foot-plus Rabbit friend, named Harvey.

Some in town just don't get it, and others even want to lock Elwood and Harvey away, so that they are out of view. Our two protagonists take it all in stride and teach those around them about the value of seeing the good in everybody instead of the bad.

Elwood is having too much fun to let life get in the way. Timeless film about societal concern of keeping up one's image, over substance and true friendship. One of James Stewart's best screen performances. ... Read more

Description

In this film, considered by some critics to be Akira Kurosawa's greatest and most compassionate achievement, Takashi Shimura (Seven Samurai) portrays Kenji Watanabe, an aging bureaucrat with stomach cancer forced to strip the veneer off his existence and find meaning in his final days. ... Read more

Reviews (63)

A powerful meditation on the fragility of human life.
As a big fan of Kurosawa and the Criterion Collection, I couldn't wait to recieve this DVD in the mail.

Human life can be lost before a person dies, Kurosawa's film shows, and it is difficult for anyone to remain truly alive with all of life's challenges and setbacks. Like a thin thread, life's inspiration is easy to lose. But what happens when a man loses that thread for decades and discovers it again only months before dying?

The answer to this question is both heart-warming and heart-breaking. But ultimately this film will burn brightly in the viewer's mind.

Two years after becoming world famous for Rashomon, Kurosawa released this thematic sequal - a meditation on truth and meaning in the modern world. While Rashomon became a cinematic landmark, I think this film blows rashomon away. It, along with Ozu's Tokyo Story, are the most moving films I've ever seen.

What makes Kurosawa so great here? It is the centrality of the movie's meaning. We all die and we all struggle to find truth. Watanabe, a placid and unquestioning bureaucrat, glimpses the truth about his life when he finds that he has only months to live. He immediately sets out to live his life to the fullest - eventually granting the dearest wish of the citizens that the other bureaucrats would just rather ignore.

But like the man who emerges into the sunlight from the cave in Plato's allegory - none of the other cave dwellers understand his actions.In fact, it's worse, the grandstanding officials claim credit Watanabe's inspired actions, despite having stood in his way.

But ultimately the truth saves Watanabe before he dies. This is masterful filmaking - more on par with Kurosawa's heroes Dostoyevsky and Shakespeare than his cinematic peers. It is a must purchase for his fans and, I think, a story that will move the viewer towards greater compassion and consciousness of life passing by.

Perhaps it's no wonder Criterion chose this fim to include two feature documentaries on Kurosawa on a second disc. And the commentary track is done by the always entertaining Stephen Prince. You can't go wrong here.

Excellent movie, but terrible transfer
I should start by saying that I think Ikiru is the best movie I've ever seen, but I'll try to address some of the negatives.

The story of Ikiru is that of a bureaucrat who upon learning he has stomach cancer begins a desperate search for meaning in his life. He tries family, liquor, and women, but eventually finds purpose in a cesspool that troubles a local community, and their attempts to have a playground built on the site.

The story is absolutely compelling, and the intricate subtleties of Kurosawa's direction make this film very powerful, especially in the second half of the film, where Watanabe's (the protagonist) coworkers discuss his final few months at his wake. The acting is superb. Takashi Shimura gives a performance that is stand out.

Ikiru is not a universally liked movie, for several reasons. The movie is black and white and has subtitles. The cuts and scene changes have a very old-fashioned feel to them (quite rightly... it's old. But this gives a lot of people trouble). The pacing of this movie is deliberate, and by that I mean slow. It is not quick or action-packed. It moves subtlely.

While most all the reviews rave about it, I'd caution that this movie will not beat you over the head with its brilliance. It is a gentle story with subtle nuances, and often, the meaning is conveyed more in facial expressions and quiet moments than in anything said or done.

That being said, I thought the transfer of this movie to DVD was terrible. It is my understanding that this was the best that could be done, which is a shame. Many feel this to be Kurosawa's best work, and to know that this terrible transfer is the best it can ever get, that's sad. Specifically, the vertical lines noted in previous reviews are definitely there, and definitely problematic. There is poor contrast, and it is often difficult to see the actors defined well at all.

The bonus material on this DVD is so so. The commentary is certainly interesting, but the documentaries didn't thrill me too much. The main sell of this DVD is the movie itself.

If this movie sounds like something you can sit through, you should watch it. It's a great movie. I really do think it's the best movie I've ever seen. But it's not for everyone. If you've already seen it and want to own it, this DVD set is fine, but it comes with the caveat that the quality of the transfer is not impressive.

Occasionally quite moving but a bit too sentimental
I don't profess to be an expert on the films of acclaimed Japanese director Akira Kurosawa, but I will say that, though I haven't seen a great many of his films, I've definitely admired the ones I have seen. Films like RASHOMON, THE SEVEN SAMURAI, and THRONE OF BLOOD show a director that not only has an acute visual sense---I have never seen equalled the unforgettable images of the moving trees and then Toshiro Mifune with all the arrows launched at him at the end of THRONE OF BLOOD---but also a human sensitivity that may be more flamboyant and theatrical in style than his Japanese counterpart Yasujiro Ozu, but is no less impressive. He is a true film artist, to be sure...but, though IKIRU is often called one of Kurosawa's most human film achievements, I personally would not quite put it in the same level as those aforementioned three.

Not that it's not moving. The first half of the film actually made me shed quite a few tears, watching poor Kanji Watanabe first find out he has stomach cancer, and then try to actually have some fun with his life. His attempts to do so are quite touching, even though it does not always work out---esp. with the girl that eventually gets annoyed with him b/c he insists on hanging out with her so much. Finally, he decides to do something noble for the people he works for, and thus we get to the second half of the film: Mr. Watanabe's wake, in which colleagues reminisce about the noble act he accomplished for a town before he died. His act---he steps over bureaucratic lines and gets built a children's park in an area where there was only a dirty pool of water previously---slowly inspires the others to perhaps break out of their bureaucratic mold...and perhaps will inspire you too, in a different way.

I dunno, though...I was inspired but only sometimes moved by this film. For me, I think Kurosawa's penchant for lack of subtlety and heavy-handed sentimentality sometimes mutes its power. Kurosawa, for example, is not content to simply allow us to visually observe how lifeless our hero truly is at the beginning: no, he must give us a voiceover that drums it into our head that "this man has not truly lived." And then there is the scene in the bar in the middle of the film, in which Watanabe sings, with tears coming out of his eyes, a mushy song that expresses his feelings of hopelessness and despair. If nothing else, though, the second half of the film seems to expose this unfortunate tendency---a very long scene, intercut with flashbacks, set in Watanabe's wake in which his fellow workers first try to deny Watanabe's deep heroism, but then eventually resolve to be as noble as he was in his last months of life. It is certainly intriguing structurally, as we see the effects of his death on fellow workers and the townspeople Watanabe helped so greatly. A