Reviews (161)

THREE REASONS TO SEE THIS FILM: DE NIRO, NORTON AND BRANDO.
"The Score" is a thriller with slow pace, but that is not a factor because two screen legends and the best actor of his generation are in the leading roles. So the semi-slow pace is an advantage, because Robert De Niro, Edward Norton and Marlon Brando displayed better their acting talent. I don't want them dodging bullets and climbing walls all the time, I want to see their performances.

However, "The Score" still has some stunts, and above all, a smart direction. The movie has a lot of interesting camera angles, a nice choreography for the stunts, cool gadgets, and a very welcome movie score, by Howard Shore. But that's just the icing in the cake, because the three actors are the main reason to see "The Score".

Robert De Niro's latest films aren't exactly nice movies, so perhaps "The Score" is the latest good movie that he has appear on. Also, "The Score" is the last chance to see Marlon Brando (R.I.P.) at the top of his game, we know that he didn't like his acting career very much, so "The Score" was the last time that he showed us his acting talent, perhaps because he was stimulated to share scenes with Robert De Niro and the promising Edward Norton.

The DVD doesn't have a lot of features, but they are good. The audio commentary is very informative because not only Frank Oz, the director of the movie shares his experiences, but also Rob Hahn, the director of photography reveals some tricks and resources used to film "The Score". The Behind-the-Scenes feature and the additional footage are really interesting, because we can see a lot of Marlon Brando's famous improvisation. So the DVD features are few, but they are solid, plus the audio and video quality are very good, because this is a recent film.

"The Score" is not a groundbreaking film, but the cast is stunning, the plot is familiar but it's also interesting, the direction is smart, the music is good, and all that results in an amusing film. Specially recommendable for fans of Robert De Niro, Marlon Brando or Edward Norton.

Brando Rules - Yet Again!
That is the only reason why I saw this film. My first time of seeing Marlon Brando on the big screen! .... And, boy, what a treat! But I'll be honest, THE SCORE, despite it's generic title, was truly a suspenseful and satisfying film. ....

Robert De Niro plays Nick Wells, an aging thief who wants to get out of the business and settle down with his flight attendent girlfriend Diane, played by Angela Bassett. Ed Norton plays upstart thief Jackie Teller, who sometimes masquerades as retarded janitor Brian. And my favorite actor in the world, Marlon Brando, plays Nick's fence and mentor Max Baron.

The film has Nick drawn back once more for a final steal, a royal specter hidden in Montreal, Canada. He teams up with Jackie in order to steal the scepter and make their fortunes. Of course, there is conflict. Nick doesn't want to team up with Jackie; he has never worked with a partner before. ....Unfortunately, things go awry and there is some backstabbing towards the end. ....

This film was definitely a good way to reissue the faded genre of thief films. ....But this film, aided and abetted by the masterful Brando, charmismatic De Niro, and, ...Ed Norton.... Frank Oz, known for directing many Muppets films for Jim Henson, does an excellent job in putting us along for the ride.

And what a ride it is!

Good solid heist film
When watching this film you can't help but think about the missed opportunities. A movie with De Niro, Norton and Brando should have been great, like something never before seen. In that sense, The Score is a letdown, though if you're a fan of these great actors, you'll still have a good time watching it (be warned though - Brando doesn't appear all that often and usually he's in some dim, shadowy environment...)

What I liked about The Score, other than the actors, is that it takes its time providing us with all the details of the heist. So many heist movies have stunts that seem entirely implausible; they don't explain much to the viewer and just count on the fact that we won't think too deeply about what's going on. This one builds things slowly, while providing us with the tension and contrast between the characters - steady dependable De Niro and the hotshot, Ed Norton. Don't expect much violence; this movie is about people using their wits and trying to trip each other up. The ending is also deeply satisfying.

mediocre
good:

1. action takes place in a foreign country! Canada and in foreign language (fr)
2. no blood, no one killed (2 shots only)
3. racially correct (fiance of RdN is black)

bad:

slow action, predictable, schematic, boring, abscence of imagination, non-entertaining. looks like a piece of "lemon" from the hollywood conveyer line. this is not "movie art", just an example of "movie industry".

and finally, i realized why so high the crime rate in the usa, so low in canada: the canadian criminals never "pee in their own pool", that's why they come to the usa.

You can't beat experience

Director: Robert De Niro, Frank Oz
Format: Color
Studio: Paramount Home Video
Video Release Date: May 7, 2002

Cast:

Robert De Niro ... Nick Wells
Edward Norton ... Jack Teller
Marlon Brando ... Max
Angela Bassett ... Diane
Gary Farmer ... Burt
Paul Soles ... Danny
Jamie Harrold ... Steven
Serge Houde ... Laurent
Jean-René Ouellet ... André
Martin Drainville ... Jean-Claude
Claude Despins ... Albert
Richard Waugh ... Sapperstein
Mark Camacho ... Eric (Sapperstein's Cousin)
Christina Colburn ... Woman in Study
Gavin Svensson ... Man in Study
Thinh Truong Nguyen ... Tuan
Carlos Essagian ... Cop
Christian Tessier ... Drunk
Lenie Scoffié ... Storekeeper
Bobby Brown ... Tony
Maurice Demers ... Philippe
Christian Jacques ... Guard
Henry Farmer ... Guard
Dacky Thermidor ... Guard
Gerard Blouin ... Guard
Charles V. Doucet ... Old Engineer
Pierre Drolet ... Worker
Norman Mikeal Berketa ... Bureaucrat Official
Eric Hoziel ... Ironclad Tech
John Talbot ... Janitor
Richard Zeman ... Thug
Nick Carasoulis ... Thug
Cassandra Wilson ... Special Appearance
Mose Allison ... Special Appearance
Bill Haughland ... Newscaster
David L. McCallum ... Rich Man
Andrew W. Walker ... Jeff

An old pro jewel thief, Nick Wells (Robert De Niro) is talked into one last heist by Max (Marlon Brando) for a centuries old scepter worth millions. Max has him set up to partner with a volatile inside man, Jack Teller (Edward Norton) who works at Canadian Customs as a disabled assistant janitor, where the sceptre is securely stored and guarded. Nick wants to pay off his jazz club and marry Diane (Angela Bassett). She wants him to quit his criminal pursuits as a condition.

Teller tries to make a double-cross, things go wrong, and that's what the story is about. It is a good thriller, directed by De Niro and Frank Oz, who do a commendable job.

Altogether, a well acted, well directed story that is entirely entertaining.

Joseph (Joe) Pierre

author of Handguns and Freedom...their care and maintenance
and other books

... Read more

Reviews (94)

Mystery and Suspense Without Sherlock Holmes
One of the finest suspense movies that I have seen in long time. Avery has had the unfortunate luck to have his sister kidnapped and ransomed for $2,000,000. Unfortunately, neither he nor his father have that kind of money. So he and his friends kidnap retired mob boss Charlie Bartolucci (expertly played by Christopher Walken) so that he can use his contacts to find the girl and pay the ransom. Shocked, angered, and ultimately amused by his novice captors, Bartolucci agrees to help with Avery's sister. While doing so, one of his contacts lets him know that the kidnapping had help from an inside party. Slyly playing the friends against each other with this information, the tension slowly continues to boil until the movie's explosive climax. With an underrated but excellent supporting cast (including Jay Mohr, Sean Patrick Flanery, and Denis Leary), this movie keeps you on the edge of your seat the entire time because you're never sure who to trust. Perhaps the most brilliant aspect of Josh McKinney's script is the unending depth of the characters. Denis Leary's role is a perfect example: as Bartolucci's lieutenaant he posesses an expected viciousness and sarcasm. However, he allows a good soul to shine through at odd moments: like when he shows up to question a friend of the boys and instead protects her from the forced advances of her stepfather. Filled with tension that is only heightened by the film's biting humor and its complex characters, this is a great flick to watch with a bunch of friends so you can all guess whodunnit and be shocked by the ending.

Very Funny and Dark
"Suicide Kings" is a very good movie with a great ensemble cast. Different viewers will chose their particular favorites, but if you are an admirer of Christopher Walken you have all the reason you need to see this film. Denis Leary is the second best aspect of this film, and that is largely due to his smaller, but critical role. His defensive riffs on justifying his $1500.00 Stingray boots that others acknowledge as, "fish-boots", is quality stand up material.

Four prep-school, rich kid, lifelong friends, and a fifth that they mislead as only friends can do, decide they need to kidnap Christopher Walken for his diplomatic skills. His character is a modern version of Don Corleone so a decision to detain him against his will is poor judgment at best and lethal at worst. When Walken contacts his attorney to unravel this mess his first comments include, "don't send your kids to boarding school". The unwitting friend Ira, as played by Johnny Galecki is a riot as he frets over his parents newly finished floors and marked liquor labels, while, "The Godfather", is duct-taped to his father's favorite chair.

Christopher Walken is an amazing actor that deserves more recognition than he has been given. If there is an actor who can play a more sinister, purely evil character, without raising his voice, I have never seen him. This role is comparable to the part he played in another film when he introduced himself as the Anti-Christ. As brilliant a, "Player", as his character is, there is also a pair of low level goons that are the mob's equivalent of Laurel and Hardy.

The R rating is appropriate for the violence, and language that may or may not offend some viewers. There are no, "adult situations".

A movie to watch time after time
I don't exactally know what made me watch this movie. I think my dad picked it up from some $5 bin and one day while bored out of my mind I picked it up a random movie and decided to watch it. But I am glad that I watched it for sure. It is a movie that I have literally watched twice in the last week (well that could be due to the fact that I have nothing better to do...) and cracked up thru both times. and everytime i watch this movie knowing the ending I am still questioning who the inside player is and how everything is going to end. basically it is in my top 5 favorite movies of all time and it is a movie tht i recommend to everyone who likes dar comedies and doesnt mind blood and cussing.

Christopher Walken the Great.
Great script, great directing, great acting, great movie. it is a blend of crime drama and thin satire. it combines very smoothly the abilities of great actors (Christopher Walken)with the exuberance of young prospects. and Dennis Leary was born for his role in this motion picture.
this is a must have for any christopher walken fan, and movie lovers in general. you will not be dissapointed, especially with the deleted scenes and alternate endings extras. enjoy.

1 of my favs
christopher walken is a mob boss kidnapped for ransom by a bunch of college kids who didnt plan well dennis leary is the mob boss hitmen coming to find the kids who kidnapped his boss to compound the problem the kids cutoff the mob boss fingers then regret it and panic a dark comedy/thriller many people have not seen cause its an independent film buy this killer dvd today ... Read more

Reviews (236)

Still LMAO
I first saw Kung Pow in a theater a couple of years ago and laughed 'til it hurt. This DVD version makes the transition to the small screen very well and I've enjoyed it many times since. Kung Pow's critics are correct in saying it's "stupid". But it's deliberately stupid...brilliantly stupid. Steve Oedekerk takes an old kung-fu potboiler and through computer imaging, inserts his image into the older movie, then dubs in voiceovers and narrative to create a comedy classic.

Oedekerk stars as "The Chosen One"; a martial arts virtuoso out to avenge his parents deaths at the hands of "Evil Master Pain", aka "Betty". However, the standard plotline is merely the vehicle for a series of hilarious send ups, visual jokes and witticisms. Along the way we meet the despicably cruel "Betty", "Tonguey", Moon Yu (a kung-fu fighting cow), and a host of other zany characters. Oedekerk pours on the laughs and there probably isn't a ten second stretch in the movie without a joke of some kind.

It surprises me greatly that there are people here who *really* disliked Kung Pow. How can anyone not get it? Fortunately, the naysayers are a minority, and hopefully Kung Pow II will be along soon.

So dumb it's actually funny!
Steve Oedekerk, the warped mind that gave us Thumb Wars (parody of Star Wars), Thumbtanic (parody of Titanic) and the infamous Blair Thumb, now inflicts upon us his bizarre humor in Kung Pow.

This is not a movie that will stretch your cerebral cortex, and is probably best enjoyed while on thorazine. It is a dumb movie, nearly tragically so, but despite my personal cynicism, I found myself laughing right out loud. Perhaps the reason this movie seems funny is that Kung Pow is almost as stupid as most of the martial arts movies themselves. Stupid begets stupid, but at least Oedekerk employed creative and entertaining stupidity.

Do not mistake my meaning here, as I was entirely entertained watching this movie. If the viewer can appreciate "ludirous as art", they will find this an entertaining movie. With wild abandon, Oedekerk unleashes his wit on everything in sight, particularly other movies, such as the Matrix.

Personally, I do not see this movie being any more, nor less ludicrious, than many Jett Li movies or those of Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. Lets be ruthlessly honest. Some of the traditional martial art flicks are really insipid, and Oedekerk lampoons them with ruthless satire and deadly accurate humor.

I suspect those who are fans of foreign karate pictures may be highly upset with Oedekerk and regard this movie with a hypercritically jaundiced eye. For others who regard most martial arts flicks as absurd, if not ridiculous, they will be thoroughly entertained as Oedekerk renders his parody with black belt humor.

It isn't a movie that is going to appeal to everybody. It isn't a movie that will enhance your baseline I.Q. It is a dumb movie. Dumb, funny, silly, and even ridiculous. But I enjoyed this film, and if you accept it for what it is, then you are likely to find it entertaining as well.

Funny as hell!
I NEVER laughed so hard!!! My favorite part was when the main character used the "gopher chucks". It was so funny!!!! And the voices of that girl and Master Pain(I think that's his name, i'm talking about that badguy)were so funny!!

SPARE ME THIS MOCKERY OF THE MARTIAL ARTS!!!!
Kung Pow: Enter The Fist? Oh, bruddah! As if it needed a review. I mean, Toungie, Moon-Yu the Cow, MASTER "BETTY" PAIN?!?!?!? Please don't buy this wanna-be martial arts movie.

"Your story makes my heart heavy, and my prostate weak."
"Kung Pow!" is an extremely original and hillarious comedy, period! I LOVED this film, it had me rolling on the floor! There are a few amount of clunkers (the talking tongue and the French aliens could've been left out), and it begins to lose it's charm about two thirds of the way through, but most of it is ingenious! I have no idea why critics hate this movie so much, don't listen to them. It is one of the funniest movies in recent years whether those uptight cinema snobs admit it or not. It's tempting to list every hillarious moment in this film, but you really should see it yourself. I know it looks stupid, but just trust me. You WILL laugh, and laugh often. It's not the perfect comedy, but it's pretty damn close! It breathes new life into a genre that's currently overflowing with clones of the "different people switch places" and "white guy meets black cop" plots.

If you enter a film like this with a bad attitude, like most of the critics out there, you'll hate it. If you enter it with an open mind and the willingness to laugh at a group of really stupid yet really clever jokes, you may find it to be the funniest comedy that you've seen in a long, long, time.

I give "Kung Pow! Enter the Fist" a very solid 8.0 out of 10.0 ... Read more

Amazon.com

Devotees of Diana Rigg's Mrs. Emma Peel will be especially thrilledby this two-volume collection of seven black-and-white episodes that closed out the fourth season of The Avengers in high and often provocative style. One Avengers Web site ranks "A Touch of Brimstone" among the 10 best episodes of the Mrs. Peel era; "What the Butler Saw" and "Honey for the Prince" rank among the top 20.

To these add "The House That Jack Built." This mind-bending tour de force finds Mrs. Peel at the mercy of a vengeful techno-obsessed mastermind who has rigged a mansion to drive her insane. Also included in this collection are "The Danger Makers," in which umbrella-toting gentleman spy John Steed (Patrick Macnee) and Mrs. Peel uncover a secret society of thrill-crazed soldiers; "A Sense of History," about a deadly clique of university students; and "How to Succeed... At Murder," in which secretarial assassins take their orders from, yes, a puppet. The mysteries are intriguing, the villains suitably mad, and the banter between Steed and Mrs. Peel charged with erotic possibilities. With the ravishing, knee-weakening sight of Emma decked out as Robin Hood in "A Sense of History," as a harem girl in "Honey for the Prince," and--be still my beating heart--as the Queen of Sin in "A Touch of Brimstone," this Avengers collection boasts very potent Emma "a-Peel." --Donald Liebenson ... Read more

Reviews (7)

New partner for Steed
These DVD's from A&E represent the best known and certainly the most popular era of the long running British TV fantasy-adventure series "The Avengers." Made between 1965 and 1966, all 26 episodes of the fourth season of the show are available here on four discs.

When Honor Blackman (Mrs. Cathy Gale) left the series after season 3 to take up the lead role in the Bond movie "Goldfinger," the producers had already made the decision to start filming the series, moving it out of the TV studio and giving it a much glossier and dynamic feel. John Steed (Patrick MacNee), the debonair British government agent stayed on and his new partner was devised by the production team to be another tough, all-action girl with "Man Appeal." M-Appeal (geddit?) Elizabeth Shepherd was cast as Mrs. Emma Peel and two episodes were filmed before it was mutually agreed that she didn't meet the expectations of the production team. A quick replacement was sought and in stepped Diana Rigg. A TV legend was born.

The relationship between Steed and Mrs. Gale had always been haughty to say the least. With the introduction of the widowed (or seemingly) Mrs. Peel, the relationship between the two leads became much closer. Mrs. Peel was as intelligent, quick thinking and emasculated as her predecessor, and initially at least shared her penchant for leather outfits, but she was also certainly softer and more readily prepared to act as Steed's partner in their adventures.

The stories were certainly becoming much more fantasy bound, and the use of diabolical masterminds and organizations with bizarre acronyms became the norm for the stories from this series on. The fantasy and sci-fi elements of the show were highlighted more than before and the fashions and design of the show took on a much more stylish and indeed 'stylized' look. The success of these elements was immediate, and huge ratings in the UK followed, plus overseas transmissions of the show followed for the first time. Such was their success indeed that another 26 episodes were soon commissioned, this time to be made in color.

The stories have supposedly been digitally re-mastered for these DVD releases, and indeed the picture quality is pretty impressive, but there is still sparkle and dirt on the prints that may detract from the quality for some viewers. The 26 episodes are presented in the same order of their original UK transmission.

This for me is the very best season of the show, with great style and wit accompanying the excellent scripts, direction and production values. I'd certainly recommend this release to anyone.

One of the best Avengers EVER!
This set is a classic! This has some of my favorites on it. Patrick Macnee as John Steed and Diana Rigg as Emma Peel are my favorite duo from the Avengers. This set includes The Danger Makers, A Touch of Brimstone, What The Butler Saw, The House That Jack Built, A Sense of History, How To Succeed at Murder, and Honey For the Prince. These are some of the all time best episodes.

A best of `The Avengers'
For anyone unfamiliar with the stylish, tongue-in-cheek 1960s spy series, `The Avengers,' these episodes make the best introduction to the show's Diana Rigg years.

As Emma Peel, the tall, lithe Rigg made a strong female partner for Patrick Macnee's suave, polite agent John Steed, the lifeblood of the series.

Macnee provided brilliant support for all his leading ladies, and crisp, buxom Honor Blackman originated the role of leather-clad, judo-chopping woman warrior. But those show were not originally broadcast in the US, where viewers first tuned in and were turned on by Macnee's sparkling chemistry with the modelish Rigg.

A few caveats: this never more than a cult show in the U.S., and the shortcomings of its shoestring budgets are sometimes obvious. The writing varies in tone from intense action to silly comedy. The quality of the disks is generally quite good, but not always great. The A&E disks have few extras compared to the Contender series available in the UK. American fans: the checkerboard intro is missing, because these disks were made from UK masters, where the lead-in wasn't used.

That said, these episodes present several high points for the series in writing and direction, and also several of Rigg's more notorious costumes.

All that applies to the atmospheric historical thriller, `A Touch of Brimstone.' Diana Rigg is poured, padded and pushed up into black dominatrix gear, with boots, corset and snake. But the plot is ingenious, and Pat Macnee holds his end up, outwitting as well as outfighting particularly nasty villians.

Perhaps the best episode, though, has Peel trapped in a computerized house, trying to `reason her way out' of the predicament. Compared to the typical damsel-in-distress plots of other TV shows of the time, `The Avengers' women were decades ahead of their time.

`The Dangermakers' is another thriller, as the heroes infiltrate a group of thrill-seekers, military men who don't get enough buzz from civilian life.

`Honey for the Prince' presents nefarious goings-on with a lighter touch, and includes sterling performances by the best gallery of eccentric supporting characters ever assembled. Still, some fans fast-forward to Emma's dance of six veils. Her unpadded bustier does nothing for Diana Rigg's waifish bust _ think Kate Moss, not Pam Anderson. But her Emma Peel character does does think, and Rigg also shows endearing spunk in something as simple as tugging on her Turkish trousers. Scantily clad, she still takes out the bad guy.

In a fashion sense, the boyish Rigg does better dressed as Robin Hood in `A Sense of History.' Diana still saves the day in a costume that flatters her thin figure and shows off her legs. The plot is not quite as sharp as `Brimstone,' but there's another off-beat villain to provide a surprise.

`What the Butler Saw' is a bit fluffy, but gives Patrick Macnee a chance to have some fun in various undercover guises, including, of course, a true gentleman's gentleman.

The only real clunker in the lot is `How to Succeed.. at Murder,' a tiresome and condescending take on feminism that is even more dated now.

Six out of seven isn't bad, especially as part of a charming series that greatly influenced the `X-Files,' `Dark Angel,' `Alias,' `Charlie's Angels,' maybe even `Ed.' If you're curious about `The Avengers,' this is the place to start.

The Show At Its Peak
For my money, this set represents The Avengers at its peak. They did terrific shows before and after these last seven episodes of '66, but they never had another such sustained streak of brilliance as this here.

The set includes "The House That Jack Built," my favorite episode of the Diana Rigg series. I love it because it's such a great showcase for Diana as an actress, but also that we can see a strong, intelligent female character saving her own skin (rather than being rescued by a dashing hero) by *reasoning* her way out of the problem. I also think the house itself is just an ingenious idea: what would you do if you were stuck in a house designed as a machine to trap you inside? Apparently the producers were so intrigued by the idea, they gave Mrs. Peel a similar problem in the '67 episode, "The Joker."

I also see the influence of the episode pop up in other series from time to time. Some writers have noted the debt that the X-Files owes to the Avengers. Look for the X-Files episode called "How the Ghosts Stole Christmas" (w/ Ed Asner & Lily Tomlin) playing on FX during the holidays, and see if you don't think it's Chris Carter's homage to "The House That Jack Built."

Anyway, every episode in this set is just as inspired and witty in its own way, most of them variations on secret societies and assassination conspiracies. We also get some of Diana Rigg's most notorious costumes here: the Queen of Sin in "A Touch of Brimstone," a harem girl in "Honey for the Prince," and Robin Hood in "A Sense of History."

My only complaint: where is the chessboard introduction to the episodes? I realize that the intro was created only for the American audience, but for Americans who saw the program on TV it's become part of the show! Every US fan who knows the show from TV can recite the narration from memory: "Extraordinary crimes against the people and the state have to be avenged by agents extraordinary... two such people are John Steed, top professional, and his partner Emma Peel, talented amateur... otherwise known as... THE AVENGERS!"

Come on, you hear the burst of bongos, you see the guy fall onto the chessboard with a knife in his back, there's the narration, Emma steps forward in her catsuit, Steed breaks out the champagne... and you're primed to go. How could they take that out? It's classic! So classic, the definitive book on The Avengers, THE COMPLETE AVENGERS by Dave Rogers, has a cover photo of Steed & Mrs. Peel standing on the set. I just don't understand what A&E was thinking.

If you're new to the show, you won't miss what you never knew, and nobody should let that omission deter them from getting the set, anyway. It's just a small frustration for me because I like the intro so much. Apart from that, five stars for the set. The stories are as clever as the series ever got, Rigg has really found herself in the role by now and the chemistry between her and Patrick MacNee is electric, and the b&w film looks incredible after the restoration. If you're buying your first Avengers set, start here.

This Is the House that Steed Built
What a provocative cover! If you fondly remember that great British import that we watched on TV way back in the 60s then you no doubt know about the content of what you are getting. You are more likely concerned about the quality of the product. Like John might say to Emma, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your back. Just watch the hat please." John and Emma are back and are here to stay. Being on DVD, the aesthetics about the actual episodes are not in question here. More appropriately one may ask how they look. They look good, very good, excellent in fact. Still can't get that great theme out of my head. You get seven on this one. ... Read more

Description

In THE STEPFORD WIVES, Walter (Broderick) and Joanna (Kidman) Eberhart are the newest residents in a suburban neighborhood in Stepford. Seeing that the women she surrounds herself with all seem to be cut from the same mold, and are seemingly incapable of thinking for themselves, Joanna begins to think something suspicious is going on in Stepford.Upon realizing that her friends have been replaced by robots and that she's next on the list, Joanna and Walter decide to turn the tables and expose the truth about what's really been going on in Stepford. ... Read more

Reviews (73)

Under-appreciated
Honestly. This movie really is underappreciated. Aside from an all-star cast, the plot really isn't -that- bad. I will admit that there are a few holes, (Okay, so there are more than a few....) but it all made sense to me. The part about how the wives are Stepford-ized really should have been cleared up, but I didn't think it was that hard to understand.

The actors in this movie made it come to life. Nicole Kidman had my attention from the beginning, all the way through to the end. She is such an amazing actress, and deserves a lot more credit than she gets. Bette Midler, as always, does a bang-up job. She is incredibly hysterical, and has some of the best lines in the movie (The stuff about pine cones is a riot.) Christopher Walken is just as sinister as always, but he fits the role of Mike to a tee. Faith Hill was sorely under-used, but funny in the two words she did have. Glenn Close was wonderful, even if she didn't look her best, and Matthew Broderick...was in it. Don't get me wrong; I love him (especially in Ferris Bueller's Day Off), but he seemed slightly out of place in TSW.

There isn't exactly chemistry between Kidman and Broderick, but I think that's part of the whole point. I mean, they did have their moment after their fight on the stairs, and, of co urse, at the ending. Speaking of the ending, I thought it fit perfectly with the theme of the movie, even if it was extremely different from the ending of the first movie (which I haven't seen) and the book (which I have read). This new version of TSW isn't as dark and cynical as the original, or as the source novel, but it's message is more clear for today's MTV generation. All in all, I thought it was done very effectively, for all it's plot holes, and was just a generally entertaining movie. I didn't stop laughing from beginning to end, and I left the theater with a refreshed outlook on marriages today. Quite a feat from a two hour movie. Go see it. Soon. It's fun, and it's funny.

Remake marred by political correctness
In 1975, Katharine Ross starred in the original THE STEPFORD WIVES, in which an unsuspecting wife, Joanna Eberhart, moves with her loving husband to an idyllic town, where all the wives are suspiciously perfect and their husbands are up to something (besides Boys' Night Out playing cards) in a secretive men's association. The film was a low-key horror flick, and the ending would leave any respectable feminist seeing red, as in spilled male blood.

This 2004 version stars Nicole Kidman as the same Joanna, a high-powered, TV network CEO that's canned when one of her reality shows generates a lawsuit capable of bankrupting the organization. Her husband Walter (Matthew Broderick), a VP at the same network, quits in sympathy, and moves the family to a gated Connecticut town called Stepford so that Joanna can de-stress. Almost immediately, she perceives something wrong with all the other wives. They're almost all blonde, and invariable physically fit, perfect housekeepers, wonderful cooks, oversexed, and perkily devoted to their husbands' every whim. Only one woman seems "normal", the smart-mouthed, disorganized writer, Bobbie Markowitz (Bette Midler), who isn't afraid to sass her own demanding mate. But, after Joanna and Bobbie are almost caught one night while spying on the menfolk in their posh mansion clubhouse, the latter undergoes a terrifying transformation. And Joanna knows her days as an imperfect woman are numbered.

Besides gawking at the sumptuous Connecticut estates which provide the exterior location shots, the best reason to see this version of THE STEPFORD WIVES is the ever svelte and gorgeous Nicole Kidman as the high-strung and apprehensive Joanna. (How does she manage to stay so thin?!) The plot itself is more darkly comedic than the 1975 version. This, by itself, could have resulted in a more engaging film except that the screenwriters chose to extend the ending beyond that of the original into a denouement that, apparently thought necessary for the enlightened twenty-first century, had to be politically correct, and thus came out just silly. I felt like walking out of the theater during the last, over-the-top scene involving Claire Wellington (Glenn Close) and the head of her husband, Mike (Christopher Walken).

Women of the world, unite! By God and Gloria Steinem, those evil and smug males can't be allowed to get away with it!

great potential marred by a lack of consistency
A film by Frank Oz

Joanna (Nicole Kidman) is an executive who runs a television network. She seems to be responsible for some of the big reality shows that are being aired (we meet her as she is announcing several new shows that take "reality tv" to a ridiculous level). When one of the reality shows backfires in a public way, Joanna is fired from her job and suffers and emotional breakdown. It is to help Joanna and to begin a new life that her husband, Walter (Matthew Broderick) moves the family from the big city up to Connecticut to a town called Stepford.

Stepford seems like the perfect town. Everyone is pleasant, if a little too perky and perfect. Joanna and Walter are welcome to the community by Claire (Glenn Close). Claire seems to be the leader of the Stepford women's group and the town seems to be organized around the Men's Club and the Women's Day Spa. Walter is welcomed right into the Men's Club and he feels at home. Joanna, on the other hand, is very skeptical because all the women seem like they are exaggerations and someone else's idealizations. For example, the women all exercise wearing dresses because they wouldn't want their husbands to see them wearing black sweatsuits and have stringy hair (which was exactly what Joanna was wearing at the time). Joanna befriends Bobbie (Bette Midler) and Roger (Roger Bart), the only other two women who are not in the "Stepford" mold. A note about Roger: Roger is a gay man, but because he fits the stereotype so well of what a gay man is, he counts in Stepford as "one of the girls". Together, the three of them try to find out what is going on in Stepford and why the women are all so strange (and why one of them seemed to spark at the ears during a dance). Why are all the women such male fantasies and the men remain their geeky selves?

This 2004 adaptation of "The Stepford Wives" is more of a comedy than the horror leanings that the original is said to have had (I admit, I have not seen the original film, nor have I read the book). Since I cannot compare the film to either the novel or the original film, I can only work with what I am given on screen. The first half of the movie is fairly effective and interesting as the world of Stepford is being set up. The problem lies in the fact that the second half of the movie may or may not have contradicted information given in the first half. Something is going on with the women in Stepford, that is clear. The question is: What is going on with the women in Stepford. The term "Stepford Wives" is such a part of the Americal cultural lexicon that many people have an idea of what a Stepford Wife is, but the film never quite makes the connection. It sets up one idea, then gives us another idea, but in the end the film does not answer the question as to what exactly a Stepford Wife is. I am trying not to give away a spoiler, though the film's trailer gives away much of the twist of the movie, so the most I can say is that "The Stepford Wives" as a film does not seem to know exactly what a Stepford Wife is at the most technical level.

It is my confusion with what the premise of the film ultimately is (and thus what the ending means) that is leading to my growing dissatisfaction with "The Stepford Wives" as a movie. I enjoyed my time in the theatre watching this movie, and it is pleasant enough, but the inconsistency of the plot is enough to knock the film down a couple of notches.

-Joe Sherry

Pure Entertainment
With an all star cast like this film has and the filming location of Connecticut how could you go wrong. The film is extremely campy and has something for everyone to enjoy. Wonderful costumes, great acting, beautiful music just adds to the enjoyment of pure entertainment on a grand scale. This film does differ from the orginal but a few scenes are played out exactly as the older film but in extremely good taste. The new ending is just an added bonus and Matthew Broderick has that never aging cute face. There is no stress and no gore on viewing this film, just pure popcorn mutching, relaxing, laughing and having a good time. Enjoy!

Funny, but a misfire.
THE STEPFORD WIVES, as it was written, was supposed to be scary, but, in this version reimagined by director Frank Oz and screenwriter Paul Rudnick, it's a farce.

It's not a particularly successful farce, though it is occasionally funny. Nicole Kidman stars as a castrating, domineering harpy who's neglecting her family. Matthew Broderick is there but doesn't make much of an impression. Bette Midler's somewhat funny.

But co-star Roger Bart, playing a gay "Stepford Wife," and the magnificent Glenn Close pretty much steal the movie. ... Read more

Description

Olivier mustered out of the navy to film this adaptation of Shakespeare's history. Embroiled in World War II, Britons took courage from this tale of a king who surmounts overwhelming odds and emerges victorious. This sumptuous Technicolor® rendering features a thrilling recreation of the battle of Agincourt, and Sir Laurence in his prime as director and actor. ... Read more

Reviews (18)

Pro Henry
Sir Laurence Olivier's 1945 version of Henry V was not the first attempt to bring Shakespeare to the screen, but it was the first to be successful. Up to that point, filmmakers had tried to translate the Bard to film, but failed to achieve any success. Sir Laurence was given the task to create a film that would be pro war and pro England in order to bolster the spirits of the people during World War II. While his version of Henry V is far from a faithful adaptation, it captures the essence of the play and was a tremendous critical and commercial success. It showed Sir Laurence's tremendous talent not only as an actor but as a writer and director. The film is a visual marvel, shot in glorious Technicolor, it opens with the play being performed on stage at the Globe Theater circa 1600 and then dissolves into the actual battlefields of Agincourt. Through the years the film has come to be derided as just a piece of wartime English propaganda. The film definitely was made to serve that type of purpose, but to simply classify in that vein is take away from the masterful job of producing a visually stunning and well crafted film that was very much on the cutting edge of filmmaking in 1945. In fact, the Academy gave Sir Laurence an honorary Oscar for his achievements in creating the film in addition to nominating him for Best Actor and the film for Best Picture.

This is the Gold Standard
This is a brilliantly conceived movie-within-a-play-within-a-movie that showcases the genius of Laurence Olivier. Today's audiences are exposed mainly to Olivier the movie star. But if you want to see a purer form of acting, see Olivier the stage actor. This is possible by watching his Shakespeare plays on film. And these films are by Olivier the "auteur," long before the title was coined. Olivier's is the legacy to which Branaugh, the darling of the current generation, fancies himself the pretender.

And lest you're expecting a camera pointed at a stage, don't worry. Olivier, who produced and directed most of his Shakespeare films, has actually used the film medium to enlarge his plays' visual scope, while maintaining the intimacy that is the essence of live theatre. Moreover, Olivier is mindful of how daunting the language of Shakespeare is for modern audiences and has modified much of the original script to be more comprehensible, while preserving the feel of Elizabethan English.

Olivier's "Henry V" was to England what Eisentein's "Ivan the Terrible" was to Russia - a familiar history rendered as a national epic, for morale purposes, while audiences were fighting off the Germans during World War II. There are other parallels. For example, both use static, formalized composition, in Henry V's case, meant to resemble the images in medieval illuminated manuscripts and books of Hours. (In Ivan's case, according to Kael, like Japanese Kabuki.) Thus, a soundstage "exterior" backdrop becomes a tableau that serves to enhance, with its flat perspective and subjective scale, the view we have of that fabulous Age of Chivalry, for which the play's Battle of Agincourt was the closing act.

I've always sneered at the extravagant accolades which show business gives its own. But after seeing this film, or the equally brilliant "Hamlet," I can understand why this man was so good that a knighthood wasn't enough, and why he was raised to the peerage.

By the way, the Criterion DVD is beautiful.

Visually splendid
I've seen this movie only once, and what thrilled me was the design -- the colors, the costumes, the amazing sets. The cavalry charge, done in a single tracking shot that lasts about a minute, is alone worth the price of admission. And I'm a guy who is most interested in plot.

The plot, unfortunately, stinks. The propaganda plays are not Shakespeare's best, and Henry V is not the best of the propaganda plays. Forget the politics, and the really embarassing courtship scene (maybe just turn the sound off), and watch.

Another reviewer complained that Olivier feminized the title role. I think this is likely a misunderstanding -- in the "play" part of the movie, Henry is an actor wearing stage makeup.

Improves with age
When I first saw this film, in about 1948, I only really enjoyed the battle scenes, and then mainly the first flight of arrows streaking into the French cavalry. Since then I have revisited it countless times, most recently just now, and my admiration for it steadily grows. I sympathise with those reviewers who couldn't understand the circumstances of the film's production, were disappointed, or thought the actors foppish. It is true the English stage of the day was somewhat overloaded with old queans, some of whom appear here. But these things are basically irrelevant. Olivier's delivery, his perception of the significance of every word that Shakespeare wrote, is impeccable. Appreciation of it sinks in deeper every time his performance is re-savoured, and the bits I was bored with 50 years ago --- eg the opening, the death of Falstaff, the discussion of "nationhood", and the courtship scenes --- grow more and more enjoyable and interesting. By comparison, Branagh is almost totally insensitive to the rhythms and latent meanings of the text. Both versions are heavily edited: Branagh wallows more in the brutality, but Olivier is infinitely more subtle and perceptive. Branagh tries to be different, but several of Olivier's speeches and scenic exchanges are just so fine and powerful that all Branagh can do is produce pale copies of them. Not everyone will agree. Time will tell. I know the arrows were just scratched into the celluloid.

A Truly Regal Experience
From various reference sources, in brief, here's the historical background both to Shakespeare's play and to this film. Henry V, the eldest son of Henry IV and Mary Bohun, was born in 1387. An accomplished and experienced soldier, at age fourteen he fought the Welsh forces of Owen Glendower; at age sixteen he commanded his father's forces at the battle of Shrewsbury; and shortly after his accession he put down a major Lollard uprising and an assassination plot by nobles still loyal to Richard II . He proposed to marry Catherine in 1415, demanding the old Plantagenet lands of Normandy and Anjou as his dowry. Charles VI refused and Henry declared war, opening yet another chapter in the Hundred Years' War. His invasion of France served two purposes: to regain lands lost in previous battles and to focus attention away from any of his cousins' royal ambitions. Henry, possessed a masterful military mind and defeated the French at the Battle of Agincourt in October of 1415. By 1419 he had captured Normandy, Picardy, and much of the Capetian stronghold of the Ile-de-France.

By the time when the Treaty of Troyes was signed in 1420, Charles VI not only accepted Henry as his son-in-law but passed over his own son to name Henry heir to the French crown. Had Henry lived a mere two months longer, he would have been king of both England and France. However, he had prematurely aged because of having lived the hard life of a soldier, became seriously ill, and died after returning from yet another French campaign. Catherine had given birth to his only son while he was away but Henry died without ever seeing the child.

The historian Rafael Holinshed, in Chronicles of England, summed up Henry V's reign as follows: "This Henry was a king, of life without spot, a prince whom all men loved, and of none disdained, e captain against whom fortune never frowned, nor mischance once spurned, whose people him so severe a justicer both loved and obeyed (and so humane withal) that he left no offence unpunished, nor friendship unrewarded; a terror to rebels, and suppressor of sedition, his virtues notable, his qualities most praiseworthy."

It would be a disservice to compare and contrast this film with the version which Kenneth Branagh directed 45 years later. Each has its own unique strengths and both are worthy of high regard. The year is 1413. As Shakespeare's play begins, newly crowned Henry V (Olivier) attempts to resolve animosities between England and France. In the film, however, Olivier creates a truly magical introduction which enables us to wend our way out of London and across the fields to a performance at the Globe Theatre. Once inside, we observe the audience around us but he also takes us backstage as the actors prepare. Following a welcome greeting by Chorus (Leslie Banks), the brief portrayal of a live performance continues as a film in 15th century England. This is a brilliant device. For many years, I showed this opening sequence to my English students before their reading of one of Shakespeare's plays. The "You Are There" effects are compelling and unforgettable.

The quality of acting throughout the cast is outstanding, notably Olivier, Robert Newton (Pistol), Renee Asherton (Princess Katherine), Esmond Knight (Fluellyn), Leslie Banks (Chorus), and Felix Aylmer (Archbishop of Canterbury). Special note should also be made of the cinematography (Jack Hilyard and Robert Krasker) and production design (Carmen Dillon), given the severe limits on what could be done (and what could not be done) when producing a film in England during World War Two.

Whereas Branagh chose to film Shakespeare's play in intensely human terms, and does so with great skill, Olivier takes a more formal approach after the initial scenes discussed earlier. His is a more regal Henry V, cunning as well as eloquent to be sure, but (or so it seems to me) a far more mature, self-assured monarch. Stated another way, Branagh's style reminds me of Mel Gibson as Hamlet or Braveheart whereas Olivier's style reminds me of, well yes, Olivier: In total self-control and of all he surveys. Never for a single moment did I doubt that his Henry V would conquer the French and wed Katherine. And so he did. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Although Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, the third part of George Miller's post-apocalyptic Mad Max trilogy, is certainly the least of the bunch (Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior is the undisputed masterpiece, and maybe the best action movie ever made), it has still got a good share of imaginative industrial-wasteland-pastiche imagery. And casting Tina Turner as Aunty Entity, the queen of Bartertown, was a masterstroke. Mel Gibson's character Max is pitted in a battle to the death against the bizarre Master Blaster in the Thunderdome, flying around on rubbery straps inside a sort of gigantic overturned colander with bloodthirsty spectators clinging to the outside. Miller's producing partner, Byron Kennedy, was killed in a helicopter crash while scouting locations for this film. Miller was devastated, only agreeing to direct the action sequences--and, somehow, you feel his heart wasn't entirely in it. --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (48)

A Worthy Sequel
The third chapter of the Mad Max films can't possibly outdo the success of The Road Warrior, but it's a worthy successor, an exciting film with a very interesting story.

Mel Gibson's Max is back again and finds himself helping another group of ragtag characters. Max finds his way to a town called Bartertown and is forced to engage in a gladiator battle to the death. After refusing to kill his beaten enemy, he's dragged back out to the wasteland, there he's rescued by a group of tribal children. A small group from Bartertown is looking to escape to "The Promised Land" Max and some of his young rescuers lead the way.

Tina Turner is on hand as the wicked Aunty Entity, ruler of Bartertown. Bookending the film are two excellent songs from her as well. Mad Max "3" is a worthy sequel, while not as intense as the previous two, the story is thought provoking and while a bit slow paced, the ending is more than worthwhile. Maurice Jarre's music score isn't as intense but does create an appropriate epic atmosphere. George Miller and George Ogilvie are the directors and create both a sequel and a film that can stand on it's own.

Mel Gibson's most underrated film
I'm probably one out of only a handful of people that thinks Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome is just as good as The Road Warrior, and for different reasons, too. The Road Warrior was a spectacle of frenetically paced action sequences and it would feel like a complete retread if Beyond Thunderdome tried to do the same thing again. Instead, they added new elements, and the result is a very entertaining and imaginitive action/adventure.

Max (Mel Gibson) has just been robbed of all his belongings in the middle of nowhere in Australia. He searches for the thief and this leads to Bartertown, a unique society built upon methane energy dependent on pig manure, no less.

Max's search leads him to Aunty Entity (Tina Turner), Bartertown's lawmaker, who strikes a deal with him. All Max has to do is kill a certain somebody in Thunderdome arena and he'll get provisions in return. Not everything goes according to plan and Max is banished to the desert where he is rescued by a small group of lost children.

For those expecting the action of The Road Warrior you might be disappointed. While there is a good bit of action in Beyond Thunderdome, it's not as much as its predecessor and doesn't have as much energy. However, Beyond Thunderdome should be noted for having what is perhaps one of the best action sequences in American film history with the gladiator fight in Thunderdome arena between Max and the gigantic Blaster. The sequence is undeniably inventive and clever; it involves the two men tied to bungee cords that allow them to spring and leap throughout the arena and grab any weapons placed all around such as a mace, chainsaw, spear, etc.

What makes the film so good, though, are its successful attempts at creating complex societies. Bartertown is a sight to behold and is made all the more interesting by the rituals the "citizens" perform and the laws they obey.

As for the performances, Mel Gibson excels and gives a fine performance as usual. Tina Turner is a real surprise as the villainess; she certainly knows how to act and delivers a fairly good performance. Most of the supporting cast do a decent job with the material they're given. Angry Anderson, in particular, is quite humorous as the henchmen who rarely talks and mostly grunts, screams, and yells in exaggerated tones.

After Brian May's exciting score in The Road Warrior, Maurice Jarre takes over the job and composes a score that is quite poetic and, at times, lush and beautiful.

As with all the final scenes in the Mad Max films, this one ends perfectly. This time, we get the feeling that humanity has hope so long as men like Max are around.

classic
I grew up with the mad max trilogy, and i have to say this is one of my favorite movies. Yes it does not totally fit in with the first 2, but personally its still a good movie. Mel does an excellent job as always, and i was very impressed with tina turners performance, not to mention the children being just absolutely fun and witty for their roles. Yes the last road battle was sorta a letdown compared to mm1 and 2, but mm3 had a different tone to it, more optimistic and cheerful, which i didnt seem to mind. The musical score is very nice, and overall id say pick this one up if u get mm1 and 2- but dont be expecting a dark, road rage type of film that road warrior excelled at being. I still have many questions like- why were all those children on that plane?- err did they grow up in the crack in the earth never having "the things that were worth knowin" (or whatever savanah says lol)- all in all i highly reccomend this movie.

Third best of the trilogy, but fun watching anyway.
The Mad Max films finish their transformation from the edgy, ultra-violent first movie to this kid-friendly adventure picture with slick production values and flawless photography. The violence is toned down and the fantasy elements are played up; unfortunately, this means the post-apocalytpic kick of the second movie (just about one of the greatest action flick -- EVER!) has vanished. "Thunderdome" has some fine moments, especially the well-directed scenes with the tribes of children and the haunting images of the coda, as well a couple of good action sequences, such as the face-off in the Thunderdome arena, but it doesn't stay in your memory the way the first two films do. It is still worth seeing if you enjoyed the other movies in the series. Tina Turner's performance is certainly interesting, similar to Grace Jones turn in "Conan the Destroyer," which was made at about the same time.

Of course, if you've never seen a Mad Max films, don't start here. Go back to the first one (available in a great deluxe DVD), then work up to the best of three "Road Warrior" (available in a not so deluxe DVD), then you'll be ready for this finale -- and this DVD doesn't have much in the way of extras on it either.

Nearly as good as _The Road Warrior_
The original _Mad Max_ suffered badly from its tight budget, but _The Road Warrior_ more than made up for it. The third and final film in the trilogy is, to my tastes, almost as good.

In some respects it's superior. I like Brian May's scores, but this one (by Maurice Jarre) is better. There's a lot more action in this one too; the plot sails along swiftly and we get to see quite a bit more of the postapocalyptic world (the politico-economic constraints of which are well embodied in the iconic Bartertown). And Tina Turner (who also sings on the soundtrack) as Auntie Entity is a fine piece of casting.

Good stuff, and Mel Gibson is in top form as well. Still, it just seems to me that a bit of the wind has gone out of the sails. Maybe it's because of the untimely death of producer Byron Kennedy (to whom this film is dedicated). Maybe it's just because this film is clearly intended to be more 'mainstream' than its two predecessors. But in some respects it just doesn't quite have the Mad Max 'feel'.

At any rate, it's a very cool film and highly recommended to anyone who enjoys a good postapocalyptic thriller. ... Read more

Reviews (48)

The Muppets Take Manhattan and then Give it Back
The best Muppet Movie ever? It is a debate that rages on still today. Let's simplify the debate a little, by clearing one thing up. There are only THREE Muppet movies. I don't like to count the ones made after the tragic passing of the magical Jim Henson. His general spirit is missed in them, not even mentioning he not only provided the voice for Kermit the Frog, he WAS Kermit the Frog. That was him, that scrappy, intelligent, witty little frog...that was Jim Henson, and nobody could ever replace him. So that leaves three Muppet movies to choose from: The Muppet Movie, The Great Muppet Caper, and The Muppets Take Manhattan. As I child, I always felt a special connection to The Muppets Take Manhattan, seeing as I had it on tape and I watched it constantly. As I grew, I would see the others, and I liked them, but I felt they never measured up to my favorite, The Muppets Take Manhattan. It all starts in college: The Muppets are graduating, and they're putting on their stage show, and everybody loves 'em. Kermit announces after the successful show that the Muppets are going to take their show to Broadway. Kermit and his buddies ship off to New York, encountering obstacles and splitting up, missing each other and then finding each other again. BUT WHERE'S KERMIT? He's been hit by a car and he's lost his memory! Then he starts to work for an advertising agencies with other frogs! He adapts to his surroundings. He doesn't know where or who he is. But soon, Gonzo finds him, and the show goes on and it's a smash! But that wedding scene...every time it comes on I can't hold the tears back. My God it's magical. It'll change you inside! It's the BEST MUPPET MOVIE EVER!

Another Great Muppet Classic For ALL Ages
If you like the Muppets, you don't need to be reading this review. Just buy this classic Muppet movie. If not, I'll try to give you a glimpse of the great show this really is.
All the Muppets have just got out of college and now all leave for different destinations and job. They all split up, but Kermit tries to get them all on Broadway meanwhile with their show "Manhattan Melodies". My favorite scene in this film is when Miss Piggy is spying on Kermit and another lady Kermit is talking to. Kermit gives a hug to her, and Miss Piggy, who is being teased by some contstruction workers bend a bar of metal and then starts denting metal. It's really hard to explain, but it is absolutely hilarious. You have got to buy this DVD! I also recommend "The Great Muppet Caper", "The Muppet Movie", "Muppet Treasure Island", and "Muppets From Space".

The Muppets Messed-up DVD
The Muppets Take Manhattan is the third Muppet film and although not the strongest, it's sure to entertain the entire family. The story follows the Muppets on their quest to get their show, "Manhattan Melodies", produced on Broadway. It's a terrific story that hits at the core of what the Muppets are all about, namely putting on a show. Sure the music isn't as memorable as that in the first muppet movie (except "I'm Gonna Always Love You"), but you can't help appreciating the lengths to which the Muppets will go to entertain you. Singing chickens? Got 'em! Frogs with hair? Check! Unbelieveable action sequence? Of course, and it's unbelieveable in more ways than one! A Muppet staple is the cameo and they abound in this film. Everyone from Liza Minelli to Art Carney sets some screen time. Joan Rivers is particularly funny in her over the top make-up scene with Miss Piggy. For all you Trekkers, Gates McFadden even appears as a secretary to a con man!

The film is great entertainment, but this DVD has problems. First of all the digital tranfer isn't that good. Plenty of older films like Fantasia look stunning on DVD, but not this film. There is a graininess to the picture that can be discracting and artifacts abound. Sound is presented in only a mono format. Was the original film released this way? I don't know, but if so some mention should be made on the packaging, otherwise it feels like we're getting ripped off. On a positive note the film is presented in both a formatted and widescreen version. As for the other bonuses, there is a strange feature called "Muppetisms" that I can't really figure out. They are minute, minute and a half long segments featuring one or two muppets just goofing off and benign wacky. Not too sure what it's all about, but it was fun to watch - once. By far the best bonus feature is the interview with Jim Henson. He talks a bit about the making of the film, how decisions are made and such. It's an incredible peek into the creation of a Muppet film. There is one glarig problem though - the chapter stops are just little minute or so long bits of the interview. To see the whole thing you have to continually stop and start up again. It's a big mistake and makes watching the entire thing quite a chore.

My final word on this edition is buy it for the widescreen version of the movie only. The transfer isn't that good, the bonuses aren't that great, but the film itself is a real treat. Not the strongest Muppet film, but not the weakest either. If you have the video and don't care about widescreen, you can easily (and sadly) pass on this DVD. If not, pick this up for a fun romp around Manhattan that you and your family are sure to enjoy again and again.

THE MUPPETS ROCK!
I saw this movie, when i was a child, about 14 years ago.
I looked everywhere for a long time trying to find it on dvd.
Finally, thanks to amazon i found it! very cute, funny and good family entertainment for the whole family.
i'm 23 years old, and i LOVE THIS MOVIE! perfect for anyone who likes comedy!
way to go jim henson!

Funny and delightful, but not the best Muppets movie
I grew up with the Muppets, and it's impossible not to love them. They still make me laugh (especially that Swiss chef), and what can you say about Kermit the Frog? He's a legend, pure and simple. The Muppets Take Manhattan is great fun, as the gang reunites to take on Broadway and become stars, but there just seems to be a little something missing here. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that all the players go their separate ways over the course of a big chunk of the film - I don't know. It's still a great movie that children of all ages should enjoy, but it's not my favorite Muppet film. Certainly, one thing in this movie's favor is the fact that, in 1984, Jim Henson was still alive and well, and his collaboration with Frank Oz makes this a vintage Muppets motion picture.

As the film opens, the Muppet gang are graduating from college, and the big show they put on for the school is such a hit that they decide to go to New York and take their show to Broadway. It is a decision that helps keep everyone together, but even Kermit the Frog has a hard time getting any Broadway producers to sign a show featuring song and dance performed by a frog, a pig, a dog, etc. When hope is all but lost, everyone decides to split up and live their own lives - they feel as if they have been unfair to Kermit by depending on him alone for so long. Kermit vows to stay and sell the show, and he can't way to get the gang back together. Luckily, Kermit has developed a friendship with a fashion design student/waitress and gets a job at a diner (which also features a funny and delightful little group of rats). Kermit's new three-phase plan to sell the show offers a lot of comedy but doesn't exactly pan out the way he would like. Then he has to make things right with a certain someone who has been stalking him. In the end, of course, everything works out for the best - but not before Kermit completely disappears for the two weeks leading up to opening night.

This film boasts a number of cameo appearances by well-known personalities: Dabney Coleman, Joan Rivers, Gregory Hines, Linda Lavin, Art Carney, Elliott Gould, Liza Minnelli, Brooke Shields, and many others (including a pre-Star Trek: The Next Generation Gates McFadden). Some extra special guests from a certain street everyone knows and loves also show up for the big finale. As always, the Muppets themselves steal the show, and there are some really comical scenes of physical humor as well as funny dialogue. You even get to see what the gang might have been like if they had all met as children. By all means, watch and enjoy The Muppets Take Manhattan, but I think there are better Muppets movies out there. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A polished gem from 1995, this disarmingly sweet and dramatically insightful love story provided a charming showcase for Chris O'Donnell and, especially, then-newcomer Minnie Driver, whose performance drew critical raves and boosted her career to Hollywood. Smoothly adapted from the novel by Maeve Binchy and set in Ireland during the 1950s, the story focuses on Benny (Driver), a somewhat plump, plain-looking young woman attending university in Dublin who meets and quickly falls for Jack (O'Donnell), a handsome star of the university's rugby team who surprisingly reciprocates her glowing admiration. They're drawn together as soul mates, and their love is dramatically contrasted with a subplot involving Benny's more conventionally beautiful friend Nan (Saffron Burrows), whose appetite for older men leads her into a misguided and ultimately tragic relationship. A betrayal by Jack sets the stage for potential heartbreak, but director Pat O'Connor prevents these carefully drawn characters from resorting to sappy melodrama. They have lessons to learn about life and love, and Circle of Friends teaches those lessons with grace, humor, and heartfelt sincerity. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (46)

An unlikely love story.
This is one of my favorite movies. The story follows Benny(Minnie Driver) and her best friends Eve and Nan as the discover their own sexuality. Growing up Irish Catholic they have been taught to repress any of their feelings. Benny gets hooked on the cutest boy in school Jack(Chris O'Donnell). And Jack falls for big-girl Benny because she is so easy to talk to. Nan gets involved with an older, rich man Simon(Colin Firth). Benny's parents want her to marry "Creepy Sean Walsh"(Alan Cummings) but Benny refuses to go with him because she is in love with Jack. When Nan gets pregant she changes everyones lives. Defiantly worth watching. Enjoyable, and a great look at Catholics view on Sexuality. And Chris O'Donnell is looking exceptionally good.

A Great Love Story
I first saw this movie several years ago when it was still in the theater and I immediately had to buy it as soon as it came out on video. Now that I have bought the DVD and rewatched the movie, I remember the first time that I saw the movie. I think that many people can relate to the character of Benny, portrayed beautifully by Minnie Driver in her first movie role. The rest of the actors are all well cast for their roles, esp. Chris O'Donnell. Two hidden treats in the movie are Alan Cumming as the creepy Sean Walsh and Colin Firth as Simon Westward. As another reviewer mentioned, no the movie doesn't get into too much of the book. If they did, the film would have been three hours long. To sum it up, it is a sweet love story for someone who never thought that they would get the most popular guy on campus

worth watching
i read the book, but as usual, i try to refrain from comparing the movie to the book. because if you do, you're usually up for one big fat disappointment. i would highly recommend people to read the book too.

this is a pretty straightforward and simplistic film. and my only complaint is that the film doesn't flesh out some things that i really would have liked fleshed out, and it had some loose strings left hanging in the end. for example, i loved eve and aidan as a couple, yet the film gave them pretty flat portrayals. on the one hand, you're left wanting to see more, but on the other hand, there is the possibility that the film could spread itself too thin in terms of plot.

the movie was well cast. minnie driver is phenomenal. chris o'donnell doesn't get much credit. and my other favorite was the one who played eve. she really had spark! and alan cummings as the irrepressible sean walsh just makes me want to barf!

all in all, the movie's plot is a little thin, but the cast and great scenery more than make up for it.

Diappointment
I'm amazed how they could have completely destroyed the theme of such a charming book when adapting it to the screen. The novel didn't focus on the love story of Benny and Jack, but more on how Benny becomes to love and accept herself through her relationship with Jack. Maybe one day someone will make an honest adaptation of this great book.

Read the BOOK
Yes, it is a very good movie, but the book is so much better. It has a way better ending. I suggest first reading the book, it is so much better. ... Read more

Description

In the majestic and sweeping 1955 version of Richard III, LaurenceOlivier transfigures Shakespeare's great historical drama into a mesmerizing vision ofMachiavellian villainy. Olivier's performance, considered by many the greatest of hiscareer, charges Richard with magnetic malevolence as he steals his brother Edward'scrown through a murderous set of machinations. His inspired direction brings to thescreen superlative performances by actors Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud, and theyoung Claire Bloom. The Criterion Collection is proud to present the restored full-lengthversion in a special double-disc edition featuring audio commentary by Russell Lees andJohn Wilders, a 1966 BBC interview with Olivier hosted by theater critic Kenneth Tynan,a gallery of on-set and production stills and posters, a 12-minute television preview forthe film and the original theatrical trailer. ... Read more

Reviews (19)

One of the greatest Shakespeare films...
Only two of Orson Welles' Shakespeare films rival "Richard III" for the title of greatest Shakespeare movie ever made. That said, Olivier's film may contain the most sheerly enjoyable performance any actor gave on film. His Duke of Gloucester is the definitive performance. Elia Kazan once said Olivier had a certain girlish quality, and that quality is used in the film: His Richard is seductive--a prancing, charming monster whose voice sounds like "honey mixed with razor blades." But one look into his black eyes, framed by false hawk nose, violently angled eyebrows and fright pageboy wig, will tell you that he's also stone-cold pure evil. Richard enacts all our homicidal, plotting fantasies as he cheerfully knocks off all his stuffy relatives and rivals.

Olivier emphasizes the black comedy and wittiness of Shakespeare's play, which he cut and refashioned into a star vehicle for himself. Though Sirs Gielgud, Richardson and Hardwicke co-star, they don't make much of an impression. (Blame that on Shakespeare too) Interestingly, Olivier later regretted not having cast Orson Welles as Buckingham.

You experience two major innovations concerning the filming of Shakespeare: the first is Olivier's old custom of using extremely stylized, artificial sets, thereby making Shakespeare's stylized, artificial verse fit in with the settings. The second is the source of Olivier's triumph: he delivers his soliloquys directly to the camera. This daring move destroys the fourth wall and takes true advantage of what the movies offer. He becomes our friend and confidante and we become complicit in his mounting evil. The production values are top-notch: we get deliriously vibrant technicolour, William Walton's pompous, irresistible music of pageantry, and the book-of-hours sets. And through those sets Olivier's camera subtly glides and skulks like the snake Richard himself is. Olivier is still an underrated director, and his grasp of the frame's spatial properties is excellent: he knew how to move the camera into and out of the frame for maximum impact. For an example, look at the moment Richard finally becomes King, and his satanic powers become unbottled: He slides down the bell rope to greet his minions, and expecting to shake his hand they approach, only to fall on their knees when Richard silently demands they kiss it. As they sink downward, the camera flees backward until the awful composition is complete, with half a dozen men in black on their knees as Richard presides all in the center of the frame: on twisted and bent legs as the bells announce the triumph of evil.

Machiavellian cunning and ingenius
In what I deem Laurence Olivier's finest Shakespearean performance, Richard III is quite simply an absolute must see for any true Shakespeare aficionado. Having just read the play and viewed the movie subsequent to the reading, I was afraid I might be somewhat disappointed after such an enjoyable read. Not the case.

From the word go, or rather the words "Now is the winter of our discontent," Olivier adroitly plays a most egregiously evil, yet sinfully likable, villain. Olivier's skillful mastery of the soliloquy is readily manifest as he conspiratorially confides in the audience his countless connivances and sordid schemes as he maniacally murders and manipulates all of those unfortunate enough to be in his way on his morbid quest for the crown. He's so good you'll find yourself rooting for the dastardly villain that is Richard III. Pop some popcorn and sit back and enjoy.

Excellent acting but overrated as a film
I must disagree with the reviewers who praised this as one of Shakespeare's best movie adaptations. Sorry, it's not. The main strength of the movie is the acting, and for that alone it's a must-see. Yet, as a movie it has many stylistic and visual flaws.

The camera shots are very long and there are very few shifts in angles, there are almost no close-ups, the settings, costumes and makeup are overdone and look too fake and low-budget (perhaps on purpose?), and it's done almost entirely in a studio (the outdoor battle scenes feel like a Western..). The result is that you feel that you're watching a two-dimensional play. Perhaps black-and-white would have been a more suitable vehicle.

I'm also annoyed with the liberties the movie has taken with the text, shifted scenes around, chopping lines, etc. I didn't like that it begins with a scene from Henry IV. The Bard's original structure is better. Stick with it!

Also, for the first half of the movie I felt distant from Richard, possibly because until then we almost always see him from a distance and rarely up close. That changes once he become king. Overall, the second half is much better.

If you want to see a truly great Shakespeare adaptation, watch "Julius Caesar" with Marlon Brando and James Mason, even though the play itself is not as good as Richard III.

In spite of all this, I recommend it. Certainly worth seeing Olivier in action.. and it has some great moments.

A must see!!
I won't rehash the plot. Suffice to to say the Olivier's performance is magnificent. Also magnificent in this Criterion collection edition, is the addition of a top notch commentary which explores both Shakespeare's structure of the play and Olivier's decisions in bringing the character to the screen. Also interesting is a 1960's era interview with Olivier that reviews his acting career.

Even More Impressive in the DVD Format
Those who criticize Laurence Olivier and Alan Dent -- co-authors of the screenplay -- for taking certain liberties with Shakespeare's play should also criticize Shakespeare for taking certain liberties with the historical material on which he often relied so heavily. In this instance, Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, Vol. 6, and various Tudor Historians. In my opinion, such quibbling is a fool's errand. This much we do know about the historical Richard III. He was born in 1452 in Fotheringay Castle, Northamptonshire, the youngest son of Richard, Duke of York. He was created Duke of Gloucester by his brother, Edward IV, in 1461, accompanied him into exile (1470), and played a key role in his restoration (1471). Rewarded with part of the Neville inheritance, he exercised vice regal powers, and in 1482 re-captured Berwick-upon-Tweed from the Scots. When Edward died (1483) and was succeeded by his under-age son, Edward V, Richard acted first as protector, but within three months, he had overthrown the Woodvilles (relations of Edward IV's queen), arranged for the execution of Lord Hastings (c.1430-83), and had himself proclaimed and crowned as the rightful king. Young Edward and his brother were probably murdered in the Tower on Richard's orders, although not all historians agree. He tried to stabilize his position but failed to win broad-based support. His rival Henry Tudor (later Henry VII), confronted him in battle at Bosworth Field (August 22, 1485), when Richard died fighting bravely against heavy odds. Though ruthless, he was not the absolute monster Tudor historians portrayed him to be, nor is there proof he was a hunchback.

Cleverly, this film begins with the final scene of Henry IV, Part III, the coronation of Edward IV (Cedric Hardwicke). Locating himself at a strategic distance from the throne, the Duke of Gloucester (Olivier) carefully observes those around him. He shares with those who see this film or read the play his most private thoughts and feelings, many of which are as deformed as his body. Gloucester's "winter of discontent" will soon end. With a systematic tenacity unsurpassed by any other of Shakespeare's villains, Gloucester's coronation as Richard III (his own "glorious summer") will be the fulfillment of his royal ambition. The acting throughout the cast is outstanding. I do not recall another film in which Olivier, John Gielgud (George. Duke of Clarence), and Ralph Richardson (Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham) all appeared together, joined by Claire Bloom (Lady Anne Neville) and Stanley Baker (Henry Tudor). Special note should also be made of Otto Heller's cinematography which is integrated seamlessly with their performances. It is a pleasure to have this film now available in a DVD format, one which offers much sharper images and much clearer sound. Other special features of this DVD version include high-definition digital transfer; newly discovered footage; a commentary by playwright and stage director Russell Lees and John Wilder, former Governor of the Royal Shakespeare Company; 1966 BBC interview with Olivier hosted by Kenneth Tynan; a 12-minute television trailer; a theatrical trailer; and an essay by film historian Bruce Eder. ... Read more