Description

For her last feature, Brigitte Bardot teamed up once again with the man who made her famous, Roger Vadim (And God Created Woman).Bardot plays Jeanne, a proud destroyer of men who lives on board an ultra-mod submarine.As Jeanne confesses her sexual conquests to a priest, one can't help but see Bardot as the sex symbol whose public persona was so often synonymous with the characters she portrayed.Home Vision Entertainment is proud to present this cult classic in a luminous new transfer enhanced for 16X9 televisions. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

The 2 Je t'aime women together in BB's last film. Erotic!
Brigitte Bardot stars here in her last film along with Jane Birkin, the other singer who recorded the Serge Gainesbourg hit, "Je t'aime". This film is worth seeing, as we see BB's and Vadim's evolution from "And God Created Woman" to this post-sixties over-the-top comedy-drama.

We get some great nude scenes with Brigitte and Jane, and BB's character Jeanne is someone fed up with men, so she resorts to seduce and destroy tactics. As in "And God Created Woman" she's pretty much playing herself, but with an exaggerated storyline of driving men to ruin, murder, and suicide. The campy ironic humor is there in such scenarios as seducing a priest as well as setting up a fake menage-a-trois to madden a bete homme. Also a scene with Robert Walker Jr. (Charlie X in Star Trek TOS) where the price she asks for making love is no less than his life, which he takes seriously. The ending is a multiple meaning one as BB saves a man who makes her "pay for her sins" (though he's unappreciative). I think the end hits home for Brigitte in real life saying in effect, "look you male-dominated world, you've made my life hell". And it's the last scene she ever did on film. Worth seeing for it's erotic quality (but what BB film isn't), the submarine home, the early '70s fashions, and the camp.

Brigitte Looks Fabulous!
While the story is a bit odd, it is interesting. The film is very stylish and Brigitte looks absolutely fabulous! Besides, it is better than most of what Hollywood dishes out even today. But, I suppose having the gorgeous Brigitte grace our TV screens for a couple hours just isn't enough for some critics. It certainly works for me!

Classic Bardot!!!
This is the Bardot I love! Captured within Classic early seventie's stylings, But they never Eclipse her great aura. Cool story of sexual domination, and it's inevitable destuction. Directed with a surprisingly steady hand of Roger Vadim. Stylish clothes, sexy french locales, even a prophetic mention of how computers will enhance our lives. Pick it up before it disappears like all great Foreign films/DVDs!

Beautiful transfer of a miserable film
I know it's not cool to speak ill of the dead, but Vadim was a terrible director. Of the Vadim movies I've seen, only The Night Heaven Fell was remotely worth watching, and then only as a stock melodrama.

Don Juan, on the other hand, is yet another example of Vadim's prediliction for directing his wife while she wears little or no clothing. With little or no script. What makes Don Juan different from the other Vadim/Bardot "films"? This time, she lives in a submarine. No, really.

Bardot seduces her cousin (a priest) by telling him about her erotic exploits, in which she humiliates men. Not in a kinky, female-empowerment role-reversal kind of way, but in a boring, time-wasting kind of way.

For some reason, HVE has seen fit to restore this film - it looks gorgeous. Unfortunately, a great transfer and a luscious leading lady do not a great film make.

The one thing I will say for this film is that it taught me to be very careful with fire around concrete. That stuff burns like crazy.

If you're looking for a good Bardot film, try Plucking the Daisy.

Bewildering, fascinating film
This is a bewildering but fascinating film. Bardot plays the part of a wealthy woman who seeks to conquer and destroy men especially weak and despicable ones. Bardot gives a very strong and convincing performance. At age 38, her beauty remains in tact. She looks virtually the same as she did 11 years earlier in the film A Very Private Affair. Her face and figure are fuller than they were in the late 60's when she seemed to have lost too much weight. Gone is Bardot's golden hair. She begins and ends her film career as a brunette. Gone are Bardot's tight sweaters and skirts. She dresses in mostly hippie fashion. Near the end of the movie she Wows you in a steamy love scene when she disrobes and seduces her cousin, a priest. She is more shapely than ever.

For whatever reason Bardot retired not long after this film's release. You'll never see Bardot grow old on the screen. And she didn't have to die young to fix her place in film history. Today she is a living legend and icon.

One final thought. I have never seen a leading actress get slapped around like Bardot. From her first film Crazy For Love to her last film, Don Juan, and countless films in between she gets slapped in her pretty little face. Sure it's all make believe but it sends a terrible message and should be an affront to all women. If you can abuse Bardot, then any woman is fair game and that just isn't right. ... Read more

Amazon.com

They've tried Catzilla, a feline so ferocious it can't be euthanized. They've tried booby traps that RubeGoldberg would marvel at. They've even tried Caesar (hilariously played by Christopher Walken), a dementedexterminator whose "Squeak Seeker 2000" mouse-cam will infiltrate even the cleverest rodent's secret lair. But theSmuntz brothers Ernie (Nathan Lane) and Lars (British comedian Lee Evans) just can't win against the tenacious mousethat wreaks havoc in the vintage home they've inherited from their father. That's the one-note premise of this chaotic,lavishly produced comedy that starts on a high note and never lets up, eventually leaving the viewer exhausted. Thespecial mouse effects (live-action, animatronic, and computer-generated) are delightful, and the slapstick is frequentlyingenious, but the title says it all in a movie that is little more than an elaborate variation of Home Alone. Aprime choice for family fun, but it's really just a live-action cartoon that overstays its welcome. It's harmless fun if allyou're looking for is a marathon of slapstick gags and pratfalls, and it's notable as the final film appearance of veterancharacter actor William Hickey, who died in June of 1997, shortly after filming of Mouse Hunt was completed.--Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (67)

Hilarious!
I think one of the most annoying things about movie critics is that they're supposed to know their stuff, but in the end they come across as just being college guys looking for something dirty to watch! Isn't it funny how they can't help but get down on a hilarious, old fashioned comedy like this and yet show them something like American Pie and it's great intellectual humor! A modern classic! Sickening! This movie was totally hilarious with hardly any sexual humor at all! Allright, just a hint here and there that wasn't necessary. Beyond that this movie was such a perfect comedy for everyone! I absolutely loved this movie! They used every cartoon trick in the book to try and stop that mouse! And wasn't Christopher Walken just incredible?!!! The casting in this was soooo great! It makes me so sad when movies like this come out and hardly get noticed by the public for whatever reason! Probably the lack of sex humor is evident and the previews and it keeps the movie goers away. Anyway I loved it! Do yourself a favor and pick it up! I've got it on VHS but hope to get the DVD eventually!

Mouse Hunt Movie Review
MOUSE HUNT- Movie Review
Critic's Grading
Story: B+
Acting: A-
Artistic Value: B
Entertainment Value: A
Interest Level: A-
Production Value: A

Mouse Hunt, one of the most hilarious movies that DreamWorks produced in 1997 is just fantastic! After Peacemaker (1997), DreamWorks produced another children's movie, this time with a mouse. Even though this movie did not get huge attention like Cinderella or any of the Disney movies, it sure did capture not only the children, but also the adults' attention. It gives children laughter and happiness.
Two greedy brothers, Ernie (Nathan Lane) and Lars Smuntz (Lee Evans) inherit the string factory and a house, which is worth ten million dollars from their father (William Hickey). Two brothers try to sell this old and scary house for money, but there is an obstacle; a tiny mouse. With the tiny mouse, who is afraid of losing his house, and these two brothers, who think this mouse would reduce the value of the house, they get into big chaos which leaves a big mess at the end.
The story gets intense and hilarious via the effect of the shots and different media. The mouse, which has been shot with CGI, looks pretty realistic and gives extra comedy to it. The setting of the house and its effect permeates the mood to this movie. The sounding of the thunder and lightening, shouting, and all sorts of sounds add to the great amount of intensity. The destruction of the house, also shot with CGI, is great! My heart almost fell down as this gigantic house fell down!
Ernie, acted by Nathan Lane, is great fun both physically as a character of his own. Ernie is the oldest son of the two, and he is greedy and blinded by money. In other hand, Lars, played by Lee Evans is skinny with a very heart warming character. These two opposite characters bring out the conflicts and humorous events that make the story more amusing. The mouse, one of the cleverest characters in this movie, has created lots of brilliant ideas to prevent him from losing his house. They are all very fantastic!
This movie can be entertaining to everyone, including adults. Even though it is rated as PG, some scenes aren't proper for young children. There is a part where Lars's wife suddenly takes off her clothes. Also, some of the black jokes are inappropriate. The way they fight and joke might overwhelm some of the young children. It is likely that youngsters may also follow some of the inappropriate scenes in their daily lives. Mostly, it is very entertaining and everybody should see it!
For this movie, I can rate its overall grade as A-. Even though there are some parts which could have been improved, I think it is an excellent movie which puts a smile and laughter in everyone's mind. I strongly recommend this movie to anybody in any age. Why won't you follow me and adventure into this hilarious world?

Man vs Mouse
Last week, thanks once again to the wonderful Patio theater located on Irving Park at Austin, I caught a delightful fantasy film. It was the Dreamworks production Mouse Hunt.

Two brothers inherit the family string business (Smuntz String) and a run-down old house. Neither is worth anything. Or so it seems at first. The house was designed by an eccentric architect named LaRue and was believed to be only a rumor. Suddenly the house is worth millions. Instead of selling outright, the brothers decide to hold an auction to get a better price. But to reach that point they need to do some restoration and get rid of a very determined mouse.

There are then some scenes of the brothers trying to outwit a mouse that could outwit Einstein. Finally they think they have sent the mouse to Castro and the auction begins. As the price reaches unheard of levels the mouse returns. The brothers are so distraught that they bring about their own ruin and destroy the house. Having nowhere else to go they return to the old string factory. The mouse follows.

Once in the factory the mouse shows some more of its intelligence by starting up the factory line and adding Gouda to the mix. The result is a new form of string cheese that becomes the rage with the mouse hired on as head taster.

This movie is truly hilarious. The mouse is great. I believe the mouse is near immortal as well as a genius. I believe this because there is a tendency for owners of the LaRue house to be found locked in a trunk in the attic. We know for a fact that the mouse defeated Christopher Walken (playing the strangest exterminator you have ever seen) and managed to get him from in front of the house into a trunk in the attic. It is even possible that the mouse was responsible for the architect going mad. Whatever the case, this movie is really worth seeing. If you can not find it in a second-run theater, look for it when it comes out on video.

Great movie, I really enjoyed it !!!
It's the type of movie, you can watch
repeatedly, and enjoy it every time.

It's a must have in anyone's dvd collection.

Great movie, I really enjoyed it !!!
Great movie, I really enjoyed it !!!

It's the type of movie, you can watch
repeatedly, and enjoy it every time.

It's a must have in anyone's dvd collection. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Masterpiece or masquerade? Lars von Trier's digicam musical split the critics in two when it debuted at Cannes in 2000. There were those who saw it as a cynical shock-opera from a manipulative charlatan, others wept openly at its scenes of raw emotion and heart-rending intensity. There is, however, no in-between. Dancer in the Dark is that rarest of creatures, a film that dares to push viewers to the limits of their feelings.

In her first and most probably last screen performance (she has foresworn acting after her bruising on-set rows with von Trier), brittle Icelandic chanteuse Björk plays Selma, a Czech immigrant living in a folksy American small town with her young son, Gene. Selma is going blind and so will Gene if she does not arrange an important operation for him. To cover the expense, Selma works every hour she can, cheating on her eye tests so she can keep working at the local factory long after her vision has become too unreliable to work safely. She sublets a house from a local cop, Bill (David Morse), and his wife, Linda (Cara Seymour). When nearly bankrupt Bill asks Selma for a loan, she refuses, but he later returns and steals the money, which she demands back in a furious confrontation. In the ensuing melee, Bill is fatally shot and Selma is arrested and put on trial. Will justice prevail?

Von Trier's passionate, provocative film runs all our emotional resources dry with suspense, giving us occasional flashes into Selma's gold heart and mind with superb song-and-dance numbers she conjures to banish the nightmare (Björk also wrote the score). At some two-and-a-half hours, it's not for lightweights, but anyone bored with today's smug, "ironic" cinema will relish this as an astonishing assault on the senses and a stark reminder of von Trier's uncompromising talent. --Damon Wise ... Read more

Reviews (260)

Au contraire mon Frere!!...
I beg to differ with the opinion of the last reviewer! Dancer in the Dark is unlike most films you would see in regular "mainstream" cinema. The innocent character, Selma, played by Bjork, draws you straight into her story and keeps your attention. This is a wonderful story about a hard-working immigrant mother slaving her days to make a better life for her young son and daydreams mostly about musicals, which sometimes lands her in trouble. In her daydreaming, Selma has a tendency to create a musical of her own which is played out in the movie scenes as well. The diversity of the camera angles, and not using your typical still-cam, gives the viewer the perspective that you are watching Selma over her shoulder with all the trajedies, mishaps, and comedic times.

Bjork plays such a wonderful role and obviously has taken the character's personality to heart as she gives an absolute stunning performance. This film deserves much more credit than the last reviewer has given. With Bjork helping in the creation of the musical score any fan would appreciate this dramatic film.

If you are someone to pull apart a film piece by piece then maybe this film will not be for you. From an artistic point of view, there are some quirky points to the film...the flow of some dialog between some characters, the distorted camera scenes...but it all makes for a stunning performance. In essence, it all works together.

I wouldn't say it is a masterpiece, but it stil deserves 5 stars in ratings. Give the film a chance. Bjork will grow on you. Selma will grow on you and the film as well.

A complex & devastating work of art
There is so much pain going on in "Dancer in the Dark," it's almost impossible to begin to explain. But one thing that I can say is that it was one of the most original and nostalgic (in its fallback on being a musical) and devastating movies I've ever seen. Believe me, only the truly perceptive and seeking filmgoers will understand and appreciate the film's message.

However, one thing that was a little distracting (yet, also, I think it added to the rawness of film and its subject matter) was the shaky camera work close-ups. At times, you'll want to spring for the bottle of asprin to overcome an oncoming headache via watching the film, but restrain. Just finish the movie. If the headache is still there, then you've experienced "Dancer in the Dark."

The last 10 minutes of this movie is probably the most riveting, suspenseful and adrenaline-pumping movie sequence I've ever seen. Bjork's voice, facial expressions and inner emotion bleed through her body in a way that is both unsettling and undeniably powerful.

I must say that I'm no Bjork music fan, but the songs in the film did touch me. They were so radical, so inventive, so simple and bizarre, if you will, that it's almost impossible to not simply appreciate them for being so outlandish. But nonetheless, the movie is really about suffering.

You can draw many symbolisms to Selma's (Bjork) lonely, simple and heartbreaking character, one being almost christological. (that may be a stretch, but it's valid if you look closely at the film, what Selma's purpose was and how she was "wrongly" accused in a sense and then attempted to be put to death) Either way though, it still is a pretty amazing movie. I can't believe I wrote this much. Movies that make me want to write this much about them are truly unique. "Dancer in the Dark" is one of the precious few. Devastatingly powerful and unflinchingly raw. See it. (all of it)

A beautiful, utterly devastating movie.
Björk, an accomplished singer from Iceland who is best known for her progressive music, unusual style, and quirky personality, absolutely should have won Academy Awards for the her outstanding score and sublime performance in this phenomenally beautiful, yet utterly sad motion picture. Why she didn't is beyond my capacity for reason, and is a testament to a commercialized Hollywood that rarely bats an eye at outstanding independent filmmaking.
Working beside a knockout cast (including Joel Grey, Catherine Deneuve, David Morse, and Stellan Skarsgård), Björk plays Selma, a woman who copes with the increasing difficulties of her life through music. She suffers from a degenerative blindness, which causes her to lose her job - a significant loss, since she had been saving money to pay for an operation that would prevent the same blinding disease from befalling her son. All the while, the cruel world around her works against her undying selflessness, and, in the end, she unfairly pays the ultimate price.
Not since "West Side Story" has music been more of a compliment to a movie than it is in this musical. The music, arranged and composed by Björk (and performed with original, effective choreography), is almost a being in itself, popping in at a moments notice when Selma hears the slightest rhythm of a passing train, a metal press, or even the light scratching of a pencil on paper. It is through music that Selma finds her escape from an increasingly hostile world...and us along with her.
This movie, phenomenally written and directed by Lars von Trier, raises the soul and the spirit, then brings it crashing to the ground as we witness the martyrdom of one of the most stirring and decent characters in recent memory. Yet, despite the inevitable depression you may feel at the movie's end, you will feel fortunate to have even encountered a soul such as Selma in the first place.

Simply the best...
The first time I watched "Dancer in the Dark", I had already listened to a good portion of Bjork's music, primarily her "Post" album. However, I do not remember if I watched DITD because of her or if because my sister recommended it. Probably a combination of both. Either way, watching this movie was probably one of the most emotional events of my life. I have never ever seen a movie more intense or moving than DITD and I recommend this film to anyone who would like to really feel again for a character who truly is beautiful and fulfills the highest ideal of any human being.
Let me just say that while this movie is rated R, there is little if any profanity and no sexual content whatsoever. Rather, this film is probably rated for its extremely intense displays of violence. In the scene where Selma "kills" David Morse's character, there is a sense that Selma does not want to do what she is doing and you can sense this in her sobbings as she slams a large metal box over Morse's face.
The final scene at the gallows is without a doubt one of the most cringing and intense scenes in movie history, rivaled probably only by the end of Part 1 of the Green Mile.
DITD takes you places that you most likely would not voluntarily want to go in real life. Selma's sacrifice for her blind son is so beyond 'average American humanity'. Although Selma believes in communism (heaven forbid, so Anti-American!), her selfless actions prove that there are no real lines of separation in our world. The lines we believe are there are only imaginary.
I truly recommend DITD for Anybody; however, please be prepared; DITD could just change your 'vision' of things forever.

Compare to "the Passion of Joan of Arc"
Lars Von Trier must have seen The Passion of Joan of Arc and liked it so much that he decided to make a movie (or a trilogy of movies) that parallelled the same female martyrdom. If you have seen the Passion of Joan of Arc, then you have seen a real masterpiece, perhaps the best movie of all time. It's no wonder why Von Trier would want to copy it.

In both Carl Dreyer (ironically another Danish director from the 20s)'s film trying to take the material from another country's story (Jeanne d'Arc), the main character is put on interrogation for being criminal when she was in fact more saintly than her interrogators. Falconetti, like Bjork, the main character of Dancer in the Dark, decided never to act again after the traumatic experience.

Both Carl and Lars liked to purposefully film from a strange tortured angular way so as to thoroughly torment the viewer. Lars's camera holding technique was more painful to experience, because he sometimes shook the camera, as if it were a home video making me want to practically throw up at times. But in both films, the way that the camera is held, and the scenes are viewed give the viewer more reason to feel sympathy for the main character's plight, (in Bjork's case, that she was blind and poor and a single mother who needed to work to take care of her kid) ...(and in Falconetti's case, that she was imprisoned and humiliated for freeing her country of intruders.) Each character always seemed cornered out, or set aside from whatever reality they had to confront.

The depiction of Selma by Bjork was just as honest and heartfelt and raw and real and tormenting to experience as Falconetti's portrayal of Jeanne d'Arc. In both films, the acting is more as if the actors arent's actors but they just let the character of their story possess them and speak through them.

Also in both films, the music is incredibly powerful and moving and enhances the emotional situations that both women had to undergo and confront and overcome, even in martyrdom. In DITD, the music is modernly inspired electronic music composed by Bjork and sung by Bjork, and has beats made from normal sounds in the surroundings in the film, whereas in the Passion of Joan of Arc, the music score was only added to the silent movie 50 years afterwards, ...after the film was salvaged from its disappearance in a fire and found in the attic of a Norwegian insane asylum. The Passion of Joan of Arc's music was done by a modern composer as well (Richard Einhorn) and sung by a choir and a female quartet of singers called Anonymous 4.

I'm sure that other comparisons can be made, if one views both movies in the same night. My only complaint is that both movies leave you with the feeling that this sacrosaintly behavior from honest, defiant women who dare to step out of the lines and do what their heart, or their spirituality tells them to do, only get squashed in the end. It's a real depressing view of mankind and what devastation we are capable of.

Leave it to two Danes to critique American society (in Dancer in the Dark, and Dogville) or tell the story of a French saint who was slandered as a heretic (in the Passion of Joan of Arc.) Carl Dreyer got censored, his film was lost in a fire for 50 years and then found in an insane asylum, only to be restored and upgraded with a soundtrack that he never asked for but which made his film even more powerful. Perhaps Jeanne's spirit was playing tricks on the movie that tried to portray her plight, and that's why it (the film negatives) went up in flames (as did she, in the end) and were lost for 50 years only to be found in an insane asylum (coincidence? ...her interrogators accused her of lunacy and of conspiracy with the devil...like a crazy person, or a witch) and then when the negatives were found, they were treated like a treasure, just as Jeanne was only called a saint hundreds of years after her death.

Maybe Von Trier will be just as cursed by the stories he tries to tell, (he tries to talk about America when he's never even stepped foot here, and never probably will) only that his are ficticious stories, and DITD was brought to life only by a fierce force to be reckoned with...a practically pagan and mystical Icelandic woman who can believe wholeheartedly in her character, Selma, and in the apparent reality and gravity of her situation, just as the people of Iceland can seriously believe in elves and gnomes possessing rocks and mountains and rivers. (Icelandic people will build a road around a rock instead of destroying it, because they believe that the gnomes/elves would be disturbed or mad if they destroyed the rock or moved it.) I think that this belief in characters and in spirits is obvious in Bjork's way of acting and being Selma and being true to Selma's plight, ...just as true as Falconetti was to Jeanne d'Arc's plight. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Good action...great transfer!
So far, the Republic films of John Wayne that have made it's way onto DVD have been hit or miss, when it comes to how nicely they get transferred. Some, like "The Fighting Kentuckian" and "The Quiet Man" appear to be transferred from a poor VHS source. Others, like "Wake Of The Red Witch" or "King Of The Pecos" look to come from the original film elements. So, needless to say, I was wondering how "Three Faces West" would look, when it showed up on my doorstep. I'm happy to say it looks great! It has some age-related problems, like a few "pops" and "ticks" in the soundtrack, but that's to be excused...seeing as a film like this would never get the full restoration process.

As for the film itself, it's a quick moving take on the dust bowl farmers of the 1930s, and their trek to a new land in Oregon. Many compare this film (unfairly) to John Ford's "The Grapes Of Wrath", seeing as both deal with the same subject matter. While John Ford's film was made to make a statement about the plight of the mid-western farmers, this was made to be mostly just an 80 minute action film for John Wayne. And for that purpose, it succeeds! Pick this one up, you won't be disappointed....

The story line is pretty good for an older John Wanyne flix
Three Faces West is not Wayne's best movie,but it is worth watching. It takes place in Oklahoma right before the great depression. A refuge doctor and daughter come to a desperate town in hopes of finding a new life. ... Read more

Description

As the mid-July sun sets on one of the summer's hottest days, little groups of people gather to discuss the newest neighborhood scandal. Standing in front of a rusty brownstone in Manhattan's West Sixties, they gossip about all the tenants of the building, but especially Mrs. Marrant, who has been seeing the local milkman behind her husband's back. When Mr. Marrant takes a trip out of town, the two lovers have a tragic meeting when her husband doubles back, catching them together. The confrontation will change everyone's lives forever, especially the Marrant's beautiful young daughter Rose (Sylvia Sidney, in one of her first starring roles), who is left to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives.Presented by Samuel Goldwyn and based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning drama by Elmer Rice, who also wrote the screenplay, director King Vidor (Duel In the Sun, Our Daily Bread) has fashioned a raw, harrowing and powerful film with striking camera work by Academy Award-winning cinematographer George Barnes (Rebecca) and musical direction by nine-time Oscar winner Alfred Newman (Camelot, The King and I). ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Wonderful, charming, sweet story!
I can't help but love this movie. Every time I feel blue, I can pop it in the VCR and feel wonderful by the time it's over. Rita Hayworth has never been more beautiful than in this picture. Her dancing talents are showcased beautifully, though as usual, not enough. Gene Kelly sparkles brilliantly as her nightclub-owner boyfriend who wants her to work hard to get to the top, not go the easy road as a "Cover Girl". Gene's "Alter-Ego" dance in this picture was at the time technically revolutionary.

Also featured is Phil Silvers is a crackup as Gene's wisecracking friend, and the always wonderful Eve Arden gets her witty two cents in as well with a big cast of colorful characters to back it all up. Also, it is said that a very young Shelley Winters can be seen as one of the chorines, though I haven't found her yet! :o)

Shakespeare it's not, but Cover Girl is what it is: a lighthearted, romantic musical and a really fun ride the whole way!!

Watch it and enjoy!

ravishing, enchanting musical dream
Rita Hayworth has never looked better than in the charming musical COVER GIRL, where she displays her astute dancing and singing skills.

Also starring, Gene Kelly, Phil Silvers and Eve Arden, COVER GIRL tells the story of nightclub hoofer Rusty Parker (Hayworth) and her rise to stardom after being made the cover girl of a magazine's 50th anniversary issue. The editor of the magazine (Louis Calhern) is taken with her, she reminds him of a girl he fell in love with long ago, who turns out to be her grandmother!

Hayworth plays the grandmother in several well-costumed flashback scenes, and she is very fetching .

Featuring the song "Long Ago And Far Away" and Kelly's bravura "Alter Ego" dance number, COVER GIRL is a bright, bouncy, musical delight.

GREAT MUSICAL WOTH THE MONEY
I don't know what the other neg. reviewers are talking about. This is a great film. It's very entertaining and wonderful to look at. Your DVD collection is incomplete without this film.

LOVELY RITA.....
If you can get past the zany (and tiresome) antics of Phil Silvers and the corny, cliched script, there's a wonderful Technicolor musical here called "Cover Girl". Gorgeous Rita Hayworth is Rusty Parker, a nite club chorine who becomes the toast of Broadway overnite when she's chosen to be the cover girl of Vanity magazine---albeit to the chagrin of the club's owner Danny McGuire (Gene Kelly) who's her boyfriend and her catty co-workers. Hayworth is absolutely beautiful and dances with the most natural grace and elegance ever captured on screen as far as I'm concerned. Gene Kelly's acting is stiff but HIS dancing is what you're watching here as well. Boy, could he dance! He has a great solo number on an empty street where he dances with his reflection from an empty store window. Absolute artistry in motion. Eve Arden, as a talent scout, brings much needed relief to the tired script with her right-on-the-money delivery of brittle comebacks and one liners. She's also outfitted in the most outre' chic costumes and hats Hollywood ever laid out. All the costumes (by the great Travis Banton) are something to behold. But it's the Technicolor that brings things to life and Hayworth who brings the Technicolor to life. In her Broadway debut, she comes running down a seemingly endless elevated platform in a flowing gold gown like a goddess descending from the heavens---her long red hair cascading behind her. Then, after a dance number with chorus guys, she runs back up the platform through a downpour of shimmering sparkles and into a cloud of pink smoke. Sheer Technicolor movie magic. "Cover Girl" isn't the best musical ever made, but as a showcase for one of the most beautiful actresses ever photographed in Technicolor and a very nice song called "Long Ago and Far Away" it gets 5 stars from me. When you watch this, you can see there was only ONE Rita Hayworth and her grace, talent and beauty are captured in splendor on this DVD print.

VERY NICE LOOKING TRANSFER FROM COLUMBIA - HOW UNUSUAL!
"Cover Girl" is a star vehicle for Rita Hayworth. Having stated the obvious, its quick paced and elegant good fun, bookended by Gene Kelly's superb dancing and Eve Arden's "hotter than fire" one-liners. Rita is cast as a nobody who gets her face plastered on one magazine and overnight becomes the toast of Broadway. Her duet with Kelly, "Long Ago and Far Away" is the real highlight in this nimble minded programmer that really took audiences by storm. - people used to be so easy to please!
TRANSFER: Well, what do you know? After a slew of bargain basement trasfers (though by no means was Columbia's pricing what this reviewer would consider a bargain) we at last get a transfer that's worthy of the digital format. Colors are vibrant and well balanced. Contrast and black levels are bang on. Film grain and age related artifacts are present but they don't terribly distract. There are no digital compression artifacts. The audio is MONO but nicely balanced.
EXTRAS: Forget it! Columbia remains on their penny-pinching kick, but hey - at least the film looks good.
BOTTOM LINE: This is not an outstanding example of the Hollywood musical. However, it is adept at poking fun at itself and having a good time doing it. For a night of light fluff that will put a smile on your face, I recommend "Cover Girl". ... Read more

Amazon.com

The imperious Jeanne Moreau stars in this modernized adaptation of theclassic French novel of seduction and deceit, Les Liaisons Dangereuses.Moreau and Gérard Philipe play the amoral Juliette and Valmont, a wife andhusband in 1960s Paris who tell each other everything about their endlessaffairs; they respect nothing but each other's manipulative skill. But whenValmont genuinely falls in love with a virtuous woman (Annette Vadim, thedirector's wife at the time), Juliette tastes the bitterness of jealousy for thefirst time. Her revenge destroys not only their lives, but the lives of severalinnocents as well. Director Roger Vadim is unsubtle, but not without style. Likehis other films (And God Created Woman, Barbarella),Liaisons features discreet nudity and aloof displays of passion, but thebrilliantly orchestrated plot gives Liaisons real momentum, helped by afantastic score from jazz giant Thelonious Monk. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Interesting but disappointing....
"Les Liaisons Dangereuses" by Choderlos de Laclos is one of my favorite books. I've seen all the other adaptations, and with a cast like Jeanne Moreau and Gerard Philippe I was really looking forward to seeking this one. Well... the performances are great, but the film leaves a lot to be desired. In contrast to the more recent TV film with Rupert Everett and Catherine Deneuve, it does not fare quite so well in adapting the story to a 20th century (1950s/early 1960s) setting. Making Valmont and Merteuil (Juliette in this version, perhaps a reference to the Marquis de Sade's anti-heroine) husband and wife rather than ex-lovers was a really bad idea, since it totally alters their dynamic and removes one of the key elements in the characters' motivation: Valmont's pact with Merteuil that she will spend the night with him if he can seduce the pious Madame de Tourvel. Also, the film feels very "rushed," especially toward the end -- 106 minutes just isn't enough to do justice to this story and these characters.

There are some very good touches: Valmont's break-up letter to Tourvel -- which, in the novel, he copies verbatim from a letter Merteuil writes to him -- becomes a telegram dictated by Juliette. This is also the only film adaptation of the novel which preserves the theme of Merteuil's disfigurement and "her soul turning out on her face"; the novel's smallpox becomes a fire in the film. The final image is very arresting. But it's not enough to make up for the scant characterization and the other flaws of this film.

A Masterpiece from Roger Vadim?! Was it possible?! Yes!
This one is up there with Stephen Frears' version starring Glen Close and John Malkovich and is in some ways even better. Most of Vadim's films are laughed at today and people tend to throw this one in with the rest, which is a mistake. Chaderlos de Laclos' sensibility is very close to what Vadim imagined himself to be at the time, or at least was striving for, before he sold-out and became a completely insignificant director. This film was his last try at something approaching integrity and he seems to have given it his all, because the results are more than a little magnificent.

First of all, the fabulous Jeanne Moreau is at the peak of her career in this film, and she just absolutely OWNS her role, even more so than Glen Close did in the Frears version, radiating a mixture of evil and sensuality and whimsical decadence that's hard to describe but easy to be completely fascinated by on the screen. Also, Gerard Phillipe, the 'James Dean of France' who was known as one of the most wooden actors of his generation (for proof of this woodenness in a GREAT film that transcends Phillipe's acting limitations, check out Jacques Becker's MODIGLIANI, MONTPARNASSE 19), finally comes into his own on this film (his last before he died), and gives a magnificent nuanced performance, full of decadent amorality. The influence of the New-Wave is all over the film, as it was enjoying the only commercial successes it was to have at the time in films like "The 400 Blows," and "Breathless." Phillipe would've adjusted himself to these types of films had he lived just fine, if his performance here is any indication, and Moreau is a complete natural in the freer more neo-realist inspired mise-en-scenes of all the younger directors. Her huge scandalous success in Louis Malle's "The Lovers" had shown that she was the most daring actress of her time and since the New-Wavers weren't opposed to exploiting a little sex to get themselves more of an audience, she was the more refined and elegant natural anti-dote to Brigitte Bardot (After putting Moreau in maybe her greatest role in "Jules et Jim," Truffaut could've made his film "Mississippi Mermaid," 3 years sooner had he agreed to go with Bardot, yet he insisted that it was "Catherine Deneuve or nothing" and waited until 1968 because of Bardot's reputation for being a difficult and capricious star).

Vadim transposes the story to a contemporary setting of 1960s France & ski resorts for the upper classes, and best of all, puts a Thelonious Monk jazz soundtrack on throughout, with Kenny Dorham and other black jazz players in the film's party scenes throughout. He introduces the film himself hilariously in a heavily French-accented English (striking that intellectual-super-pimp-of-the-rich-and-famous pose he was already known for), contrasting the type of woman he made famous in Briggite Bardot (the overripe girl), with the type he's trying to represent through the Moreau chacater (a woman who refuses to adjust herself to a man's world, etc), in this film, which indicates that he was trying to fuse Chaderlos de Laclos with trends he saw in contemporary France! Now that's ambition! Certainly much more than it would take to make "Barbarella"!

Rent it from a well-stocked store today & see what Vadim was up to once! Let's hope someone brings out the DVD and they bless us with a good friggin transfer. This film deserves it. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

BEST SERVED COLD
The blackest of black comedies, Bertrand Blier's surreal "BUFFET FROID" (Fox Lorber,...), stars Depardieu as Alphonse, a jobless man who may or may not be a murderer and his relationships with his wife's killer, an oddball police inspector and other cynical misfits.

Very French in it's skewed perspective and very cold-hearted in its execution, this bizarre film is from the director of the shockingly funny "Get Out Your Handkerchiefs" and the equally disturbing ugly love story "To Beautiful For You." When I first saw this movie it held my attention and I thought about it for days. Seeing it again, I recall that I never had emotional or intellectual closure. It's meaning escaped me and the subtext was unsettling. I was not enlightened about life but only allowed to share a dream where life is unpredictable, has no meaning and the attempt to seek answers is the first step in one's eventual downfall. Pretty cold servings to digest (hence the title?). Still, this singularly bizarre tale from 1979 is worth seeing. Maybe somewhere in this material is the key to David Lynch's "Mullholland Dr."

The best black comedy in the seventies
In the best tradition of Luis Buñuel and a touch of Billy Wilder, this puzzle comedy turns around three paranoid men each one with his particular focus.
Blier plays the role of the policeman who decides to break the rules.
Depardieu as always is top notch.
The script sails between the irony and the tragedy. It's a clever surrealistic journey about situations out of control.
Please, let the logical out your mind and be part of this well made film.
Enjoyable from beginning to end.

A buñuelian film noir
In the best tradition of the sarcasticc, ironic and devasting spirit of Luis Buñuel's filmography (and obviously a Billy Wilder's touch), the film runs by its own with a masterful plot brilliant travels and remarkable performances.
Blier made a film absolutely free of any kind of convencionalism, intelligent humor, clever sense of absurd and mesmerizing laberyntic journey into the underworld, the acid view about a policeman who decides breaking the rules together with two men who are under a high stress anguish by different reasons . Suddenly all the sense of reality suffers a blackout and you become part of it.
Watch this film. And convince by yourself this is a fascinating tale, a brilliant work, and an unforgettable movie in any age.
You'll be widely rewarded. And please, forget the logical and drown in this surrealistic story.
Eternally enjoyable.
Depardieu as always at his top.

Death Warmed Up
"Buffet Froid" is a thriller without thrills, a murder mystery with no solution, and a comedy that's only funny to a certain type of person. When you add all these ingredients up, you get one heck of a surrealist piece. It is a movie many people will hate after just one viewing. It is bleak, morbid, ruthless, and bizarre in its apparent lack of concern for plot or realism. When I watched in my high-school French class, there wasn't much laughter, though there was a lot of "What??" and "Oh, my God..." I didn't hate it, though. I was quite intrigued.

The film opens in a metro station, where a young man named Alphonse (Gerard Depardieu) attempts to engage an unfriendly older man in conversation. Oddly, the man warms up when the topic of duscussion switches to death and murder. Alphonse produces a switchblade knife, and it's hard to tell if he's threatening or just emphasizing his words. The knife vanishes; the older man grows frightened and flees on a train; and very shortly afterward, Alphonse finds him lying in a passageway with the knife buried in his stomach. Is Alphonse the murderer? Not even he knows.

Alphonse goes home, where his wife doesn't react at all upon learning of the murder. They live in a cheerless apartment halfway up a large tenement complex that is completely uninhabited except for them and their new upstairs neighbor, a police chief. Alphonse's wife goes missing and turns up murdered in a vacant lot, and before we know it, a short, nervous man is knocking on Alphonse's door and introducing himself as the murderer. Alphonse invites him in for a drink, and they are soon joined by the police chief ("I'd like you to meet my wife's murderer." "Pleasure."). Then another man shows up who wants Alphonse to assassinate someone for him, but the victim turns out to be...and so on.

"Buffet Froid" may not look like a surrealist piece, but it definitely is. All throughout the movie, there's a sense of wrongness and unreality. Alphonse, the chief, and the murderer form a kind of alliance and have an odd series of adventures that all result in someone's death. Over the course of the film, no less than fifteen people are shot, stabbed, strangled, drowned, or suffocated, and yet the characters never react to the deaths with anything other than vague interest or mild annoyance. Everyone in the movie is either a murderer or has the potential to be one. No one behaves like a normal human being would in the circumstances, and this makes the film much more unpredictable and unsettling.

It's not just the acting, either. The cinematography is all browns, grays, and earthy colors, with an occaisonal startling splash of bright red (not blood; there is no blood anywhere in the film, despite all the death). There is virtually no music, except in a bizarre scene where Alphonse and the police chief visit a wealthy home and the chief is literally tortured by a string quintet. The scenes have little connection, and the motives of the characters are completely random, except for one person who I won't reveal. The closing scenes involve a bridge, a rowboat, and an ironic final twist that brings the plot in a macabre full circle. As the end credits roll, you feel unsatisfied because you're used to a conclusion that makes sense and wraps everything up. Oh, "Buffet Froid" wraps everything up, but definitely not in a happily-ever-after kind of way.

So, these are my thoughts on this peculiar little film. I recommend it to fans of surrealism and/or morbid humor. I can't say how much I "liked" it, but I admired its style and unapologetic ghoulishness. As long as France keeps making weird movies, I suppose I'll keep watching them. That is all.

comedy's hard to do...black comedy even tougher
I'm a fan of "Get Out Your Hankerchiefs" so assumed this offering from the same director would at least be enjoyable. I kept waiting for something funny to be done or said. I waited and waited. "The Trouble With Harry" or "Dr.Strangelove" are both great black comedies. This strives to be in their league but falls way short of the mark. It's possible that something's lost in the translation because to give the subtitles a dry read is to only further understand why French people revere Jerry Lewis-silliness in a somewhat surreal setting (wow, listen to that alliteration) does not necessarily make for a good comedy. Also the lack of subtlety (in every way with every character)makes this particularly off-putting. I'm at a loss as to how anyone could consider this even mediocre, much less brilliant. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Numerous critics had already sharpened their knives even before Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot color "re-creation" of the 1960 black-and-white Hitchcock classic was released, chiding the Good Will Hunting director for defiling hallowed ground. This intriguing cinematic curiosity, though, is hardly as sacrilegious as critics would lead you to believe. If anything, Van Sant doesn't take enough liberties with his almost slavish devotion to the material, now updated with modern references. At times, you wish Van Sant would cut loose with a little spontaneity, a little energy, a little something. Unfortunately, when he does venture outside Hitchcock's parameters, with inserted shots of storm clouds during the murder sequences, it's to little effect. Granted, he liberally splashes color throughout the film (especially in the case of the infamous shower scene), and this is a great-looking movie, but in his obsession with adding a new physical dimension to the film, there's little insight into these characters that Hitchcock hadn't already provided. Vince Vaughn, a robotic and giggly Norman, doesn't crawl under your skin the way boy-next-door Anthony Perkins did, and Anne Heche is admirable if not very sympathetic in the Janet Leigh role. Van Sant does score a minor coup, though, in his casting of the supporting roles: Julianne Moore provides a welcome shot of energy as Heche's irritable and curious sister, William H. Macy is a perfect small-time detective, Viggo Mortensen is studly enough to make you understand why Heche would want to run away with him, and James LeGros walks away with his one brief scene as a used car salesman. And Danny Elfman's gorgeous rerecording of Bernard Herrmann's score is a potent supporting character unto itself. Students and fans of the original film will get a kick out of the modern revisions, but don't expect anything of Hitchcockian caliber; watch it for the sum of its intriguing parts, but not the whole. --Mark Englehart ... Read more

Reviews (218)

Nothing New
Though no worse on several levels than the original, much-overrated "Psycho," Gus Van Sant's remake offers little that is new. Thuggish Vince Vaughn takes up the reins as Norman Bates--he's about as interesting to watch as the stuffed birds in the motel office--and pixie Anne Heche--who is more talented than most people give her credit for--gets to be his first on-screen victim. The comparisons to Alfred Hitchcock's "masterpiece" are not only obvious but required, as Van Sant, a bit too lovingly, literally re-creates nearly every scene, and Danny Elfman's score raids Bernard Herrmann's. Despite all the technical attention, though, there's something desperately missing from this version . . . perhaps the casual, plasticky times in which we live in seem rather "hollow" compared to the "grown up" 1960s in which the original was set, making the style of this film more campy than creepy. In an age when sex and violence are common commodities, even the subtext of the infamous shower scene probably gets lost among viewers used to seeing a 14-year-old's conception of such things. By the time blank-slate Jullianne Moore arrives, much of the momentum from comparing this version to the first is gone, making the rest of the film an exercise rather than entertainment.

Psycho (1998)
Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho made an impact on all audiences around the world. Director Gus Van Sant is here to give you this word-for-word remake to make you forever take showers with the curtains open.

Starting off in Phoenix, Arizona on Friday, December 11th, 1998. The beautiful MARION CRANE (played by Anne Heche) has rented a posh hotel room with her boyfriend, SAM LOOMIS (played by Viggo Mortensen), during her lunchbreak. Marion has to get back to work, while Sam has to get back to Fairvelle. Marion gets back to work a little late, but lucks out in knowing that her boss, GEORGE LOWERY (played by Rance Howard) is late himself, for he is in a meeting. In comes George Lowery, following a businessman named, Tom Cassidy (played by Chad Everett). He walks over to Marion and begins telling her about his 18-year old daughter tying the knot. He hands Marion $400,000, the money Mr. Cassidy will be using to buy his daughter a house as a wedding present. George invites Tom into his office and tells Marion to bank the $400,000 until the following Monday. Marion asks George for permission to take the rest of the day off because of her supposed headache and goes on her way.

While in her bedroom, Marion packs a suitcase and changes clothes. She so temptingly stares at the $400,000 and tries to restrain herself, but not for long, for, in one quick movement, she steals the $400,000 and heads out to her car. Seems as though that Marion is on her way to Fairvelle to see Sam. While at a red light, she notices George crossing in front of her. Unfortunately, he notices Marion, but Marion, as worried as she is about having being noticed, continues on her way. She drives into dusk until pulling over to sleep. The next morning, Marion is awakened by a suspicious cop. She nervously talks to the cop and goes on her way, as the cop follows her. She pulls into a dealership and requests to trade in her car for another. She makes her decision rather quickly and pays for it with her car, plus $4000.

She drives on her through the morning, afternoon, and into dusk. Suddenly, it's starts to storm. She gets off a main road and finds The Bates Motel sitting quietly off the highway as if it were hidden from it. She gets out and sees nobody in the office. She looks up and finds a sinister looking house and notices, through a window, an elderly woman walking about. She beeps her car horn until someone comes running out. He finally comes to Marion's aide and takes her inside. The man who took Marion inside the office is NORMAN BATES (played Vince Vaughn), a seemingly-sweet young man, who owns both the house and motel. He checks Marion in to cabin No. 1 because 'it's closer in case you want anything'. Marion says she wants sleep more than anything, except maybe some food. Norman invites her to the house for some sandwiches. As he goes off to make the sandwiches, Marion hears a woman, viciously yelling at Norman. The woman is the elderly woman Marion saw and it turns out that the woman is Norman's mother. Norman yells back and comes back into Marion's room. The two have supper in Norman's polar, which is located in the back of the office. The polar is decorated with stuffed birds. Turns out that Norman's hobby is taxidermy. They have a brief conversation, leading to Marion wanting to get some sleep. She goes off into her cabin and gets ready to take a shower. She steps in and begins washing herself. While in the middle of her shower, the curtain opens to reveal a dark figure of an elderly woman. Marion turns around and screams in fright as she is murdered in cold blood. The woman disappears and Norman comes in to erase the crime.

A week later, a young woman runs into Sam Loomis' store and demands to talk to Sam. Sam comes out and walks over to the young woman. The young woman is LILA CRANE (played by Julianne Moore), Marion's curious sister. She tells Sam what Marion had done the Friday before. As Sam and Lila are talking about it, a private investigator by the name of MILTON ARBOGAST (played by William H. Macy) comes in and begins talking to Sam and Lila about Marion. He goes off to investigate and comes across Norman and The Bates Motel. He questions Norman, but claims that Marion stayed overnight and left early the next morning. Arbogast then sees Norman's mother and asks to question her, but Norman refuses. Arbogast calls Lila and Sam, gives them the news and goes into the house to question Norman's mother, only to be killed by her.

Lila and Sam have been waiting for Arbogast to return for three hours. Sam drives up there, but finds no Arbogast, but only Norman's mother. He drives back to Lila and they visit SHERIFF AL CHAMBERS. Al and his wife, ELIZA CHAMBERS listen to Lila and Sam's story of Marion's disappearance and of Arbogast's disappearance. Sam says that when he went up there, he too noticed Norman's mother. Both Al and Eliza make them aware of the death of Norman's mother that happened ten years earlier. Sam is certain of seeing Norman's mother in the house. The next morning, Lila and Sam drive up to the motel and decide to check in as man and wife, in order to search the motel. They are checked in by Norman. They settle in and begin searching Cabin No.1 and find that it was occupied by Marion. Sam tells Lila to take the job of questioning Mrs. Bates, while he distracts Norman. Lila enters Norman's fruitcellar, only to see that Mrs. Bates is dead, as the real killer is finally revealed. Watch this remake and be terrified of showers all over again.

Why?
Why? Why? WHY? Why remake a classic horror film? That means remaking it with exactly the same screenshots, lines, right down to the same camara angles used in the original. The only difference is that this one's in color. So if they're basicly the same then this will be just as good, right? Wrong! I don't know exactly what it is, but the remake just doesn't have any of the style and flair of the first.
I was bored while I watched this movie (because I watched it before the original.) The remake of Psycho actually made it into the top 100 celebrity opps! I dunno, I guess I'm not really one for remakes (but I do like the Fly (1986)) esp if it's a remake of a really good movie. Most remake are, because no one wants to remake a bad movie, even though bad movies are the ones they actually SHOULD be remaking.
Don't buy this movie. Well, I don't know, if you love it then you can get it. But the 1960 version is way better. The acting was also better. Nothing beats Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates, or Janet Leigh (mother of Jamie Lee Curtis) as Marion Crane. Also I think the film just 'works' better in black and white.
I'm giving the remake two stars because it's still a great story. But the question still remains-why?

This isn't a remake. It's a tribute!!!
Loads of people are slating this movie for being made at all considering the original was perfect in so many ways and constantly ask why did they do it?

Gus Van Sant isn't remaking Psycho here he's doing what is his version of a tribute. If you go to the film's official website there is a whole section about why they decided to remake the film. Many people said the reason they did this movie was so we'd all have a version of Psycho that is in colour. So why not release the original in coloured format? Well that's because the film works as a black and white piece and turning it into colour would probably ruin it's effect. The classic shots would just end up looking tacky! Gus Van Sant states he isn't trying to make a film which would try and sqaush the original because that just can't be done! He's simply creating a film which would be available to a young audience the way the original Psycho was when it was first released because a group of teenagers would rather see a film with good effects and currently popular stars right! Not watch a black and white film with a cast that is mostly dead now. He wants to keep the memory of Psycho going and by doing that has released this film.

A lot of people also criticise Vince Vaughn for not playing Norman Bates the way Anthony Hopkins did. Vince clearly states on the website that when he read the book he realized that Anthony had portrayed the character in a completely different way. A better way! He didn't want to risk trying to do that so portrayed Norman the way he is written in the original book. Also personally I thought Anne Heche was great as Marion! Plus Alfred Hitchcock's daughter worked on this movie a lot and she says that her father would be extremely proud and flattered that somebody is remaking his movie. If you wanna read all these interviews for yourself just go to www.psychomovie.com

People set their expectations too high for this film and they only have themselves to blame. Gus Van Sant picked Psycho up from the ground when it was dying to revive it so younger audiences would remember it and it would live on forever and you're putting him down for it! SHAME ON YOU!!! At least this film is better than the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre if you can call it that! It was a completely different story just with the same name! It would've been a lot more fitting being named The Texas Chainsaw Massacre : Part 5!

Psycho
I just finished watching the remake of Alfred Hitchcock's classic Psycho.This movie is totally and utterly pointless.Anne Heche is the only thing that makes this film any good.She does a great performance.First of all this film is exactly the same as the original shoot to shoot.The only difference is it is in color and has different actors and acteresses.The director must have been watching the original in the back while directing at the same time.I think that it's nice they tried but you can't remake PSYCHO.They should have at least tried to make it their own version.Thumbs up to the actors but thumbs down to originality.The man playing Norman Bates does a good job but you can't be as good as the original Bates.If there was an award for a film that was a remake and exactly like the original then Psycho(1998) would be a nominee and winner.If you like this movie then you should definetly like the original if you haven't already seen it.Don't waste your time if you've already seen the original.I just wish this one could have made it, but maybe there will be another remake that's better.

"So much of Van Sant's 'new' version of the classic remains the same that you sit there shaking your head, mumbling, why, oh, why?"
-- Peter Brunette, FILM.COM ... Read more

Description

The second haunting film from director Luchino Visconti presents a wrenching study of a family struggling to find happiness against the backdrop of Sicily's fishing community. Real Sicilian locals played all of the villagers, whose lives undergo dramatic changes when they plot to overthrow the wholesalers depriving them of a decent living. Against the odds, they still enjoy love, laughter, and friendship within their community. Experience the drama and visual poetry of this international classic, now presented in its complete European cut. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

What We Need are Tax Cuts for the Fishermen
I had read about this movie because it comes up on an occassional "All Time Greatest Movie" lists. As such, I was aware of the fact that the movie was made with a complete cast of amateurs taken from a Sicilian fishing village which was also the location of the movie. The opening credits substantiate that by not naming the actors but, rather, citing them as the people of the village. They do a very good, sometimes excellent, job. There might not be an Academy Award-level preformance in the bunch but they out-shine the cast of most "B" movies I've seen. In fact, only the person who plays Mara's boy friend, the mason, give anything like a one-dimensional preformance and it is mostly noticeable by how it stands apart from the others.

The story is that of a struggle against the powers that be; sometimes the powers are people, sometimes it is nature. The focus is on one family who tries to overcome their poverty by buying their own boat and becoming their own boss. The instigator is the son, Ntonio, who has been in the army and seen the outside world. He is ready to level the playing field and, at first, the family succeeds. However, the writer/director Visconti does not intend to give us a quick happy ending. Misfortune strikes and we see success turn to failure. The movie becomes a sort of Marxist message that only when everyone works collectively for the common good can we all succeed. However, I did not feel that this message was overbearing to the viewer who is not inclined to buy into that philosophy. There is much in the movie that could even substantiate Capitalism. Look, for example, how Ntonio and his family succeed when they save up their money, mortgage their house and go into business for themselves. The writer/director's point might be that their own greed led them to failure but it could easily be just a twist of fate that kept them from rising to the top. This example of individual initiative is a powerful part of the story. Nonetheless, it is the depths of the descent that comes after success that takes us through the film.

I rated this film a "5 star" because of its' cinematic achievement. Visconti worked something short of a miracle on a shoestring in putting this film together. On the negative side, the movie is too long (Visconti appartently had to "cut" it to 160 minutes). In addition the politics is too one-sided. I don't profess to know how things were in a post-war fishing village in Sicily. I presume that much of the scenarios presented are close to the reality of the time and place. However, nothing succeeds like a good example and the idea that no one would attempt to duplicate the family's idea struck me more as a comment on the fishermen than a comment on the system. Still, the interpersonal relationships and the life in the village are brought to the screen in such an excellent way that I'll let the politics be.

Visconti Goes Fishing
I've searched a very long time to see this movie. I've noticed that all of Luchino Visconti's films are extremely hard to obtain. Now that I have finally seen this movie I have seen everything that is available on vhs or dvd by the great Visconti.

"La Terra Trema" reminds me heavily of a film Visconti would make later entitled "Rocco & His Brothers". Both films deal with poor Sicilan families trying to make a living. Each family facing the injustice of the upper class vs the lower class. But between the two I must admit I prefer "Rocco..ect". Because it seems to be more about plot. "Rocco" has more of a story to tell. And it's three lead characters make the the movie. "La Terra Trema" is a little short on plot. And the film goes on way too long. The movie is over 2 hours.

"La Terra Trema" is about the local fishing community. About the hardships the fisherman face when trying to sell their fish to the merchants. The merchants it is felt are cheating the fisherman out of decent pay. The begining moments of the film work quite well. But the plot cann't sustain the entire lenght of the plot. If this movie had been cut down to at least let's say 1 hour and 45 minutes this could of truly been an unforgettable Visconti masterpiece. As the film is now it's an enjoyable over-long Visconti epic and has choice acting moments,by non actors, & beautiful cinematography.

Luchino Visconti is one of my all-time favorite film-makers. He had an unmatched talent for details. He has given us so many entertaining films such as "Ludwig", to me his masterpiece. Also "Rocco & His Brothers", "The Damned", & "The Innocent", his final film. "La Terra Trema" belongs high up on Visconti's list of films. If anything just for the acting. *** 1\2 out of *****

Bottom-line: One of Visconti's best films. A little long but has it's share of strong moments. Worth while for all Visconti fans.

The Beauty of Deprivation
I have had something like a thirty year desire to see this, director Luchino Visconti's second film. To my knowledge, it has never enjoyed wide theatrical distribution, which given its content and tone, is hardly surprising. A relentlessly downbeat view of the lives of Sicilian fishermen, it's also a tad on the long side. Still, to have it available on video is a wonderful treat. I can't imagine myself watchiing it frequently, but it has a compositional integrity that more than compensates for the depressing subject matter.

Never having seen the film projected, I cannot gauge the effectiveness of the video transfer. My guess is that it is so-so: good enough to give a sense of what the film looks like but not produced with enough care to bring out all the richness of detail and contrast. The opening credits, for example, superimposed over images of dawn in the fishing village, are barely intelligible. With a little more effort, the disc producers could probably have found a way to make the sequence work on video. As it is, we more or less have to imagine what it would look like.

"La Terra Trema" is Italian Neorealism at its most epic. Unlike De Sica's "Bicycle Thief," for example, which reveals the tragedy of one man's decline, "Terra" self-consciously uses the Valastro family as an example of a larger phenomenon. Visconti makes no effort to conceal his political prejudices, at one point clearly identifying the corrupt, exploitive wholesalers with the recently deposed Mussolini regime while relentlessly identifying the central characters' problems with social and economic forces.

The hopelessness of the situation is relieved only by the internal cohesion of the family which, nonetheless, undergoes severe tests. While we can well imagine the Valastros sinking even lower after the film's ambiguous ending, what is most striking about the film more than fifty years after its release, is its essential *optimism.* The call for a united front to withstand exploitation is good, old-fashioned Marxism at its most bald and unapologetic. The film's unabashed faith in human nature and the possibility of positive change feels not so much naive as nostalgic, the product of a time when it was still possible to believe in broad, systemic change. Wrapped in Visconti's well-known eye for sensuous spectacle, "La Terra Trema" is a good two-and-a-half hour tract just shy of convincing. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

A GREAT DRAMA! STANWYCK GIVES A TOUR-DE-FORCE PERFORMANCE!
"Stella Dallas" is an extraordinary emotional rollercoaster of a movie, and a must-see for fans of the legendary Barbara Stanwyck. Stanwyck is Stella Martin, a tough cookie mill girl who steps up in class by marrying the wealthy Stephen Dallas (John Boles). They have a daughter, Laurel (Anne Shirley), whom Stella lavishes love on. But although Stella has a heart of gold, her coarse manners and unrefined taste are looked down upon by society. Stella won't have her daughter looked down on, too, and in securing her daughter's future happiness, Stella realizes that she must make a sacrifice greater than any she could ever make...

Stanwyck walks off with the picture, absolutely perfect as Stella (Stanwyck, I believe, REALLY should have won the Oscar she was nominated for for this film). Anne Shirley is just a tad overly enthusiastic as Laurel, but she is also sincere and honest in her Oscar-nominated performance. John Boles is- fair in his relatively small role. Barbara O'Neil is excellent as Helen Morrison, a kind-hearted friend of Stephen Dallas. Alan Hale is perfectly vulgar in his meaty role of Ed Munn, a coarse friend of Stella's.

The film has a sensitive but wrenching screenplay which calls for handkerchiefs in many scenes: (One scene has Stella and Laurel waiting for children to come to Laurel's birthday party who never come because of Stella's notoriety, a scene in which Stella overhears Laurel's friends talking about her with snide remarks, and the final, heartbreaking scene...) King Vidor's direction rounds out the exquisite drama and makes "Stella Dallas" one of the most powerful dramatic masterpieces of all time.

One of Hollywood's greatest melodramas
It's funny how, in this day and age, golden-age dramas can fall very definitely into one of two categories: ridiculous, and sublime. Happily, Barbara Stanwyck's finest hour, 'Stella Dalls', falls firmly into the second category, thanks to a wonderful performance by Ms. Stanwyck as the titular heroine.

Stella Martin is the daughter of an impoverished steel-mill family. She is ambitious, however, and when she catches the eye of the recently-broke Stephen Dallas, he pushes his feelings for his wealthy ex-girlfriend aside and makes the best of a bad situation. Unhappily married to the uncouth Stella, he spends more and more time away from her, taking only short holidays with his beloved daughter, Laurel. Stella soon realises that a mother's love cannot provide the best social advantages for Laurel, and makes the ultimate sacrifice for the good of her family.

Stanwyck's supporting cast are of a type, but they're still good - John Boles as Stephen and Barbara O' Neil as Helen Morrisson give strong performances. Alan Hale does an excellent job with the character of Ed Munn, a good-time gambler on the road to self-destruction. He plays the role with a sensitivity and pathos rare to films of this era. Anne Shirley as Laurel is cloying and sentimental, but then again, she's supposed to be.

It's Ms. Stanwyck's performance as Stella that saves this movie from mediocrity, and catapults it into the ranks of other big-league melodramas such as 'Now, Voyager' and 'Imitation of Life'. As Stella, she is perfectly capable of forcing us to empathise, and we respond in kind. Surely, hers is the ultimate sacrifice, and we are with her every step of the way. Her eyes, her expressions of total selflessness and her total devotion to the betterment of her daughter give us a true sense of what motherhood is about.

Beautifully directed by King Vidor, it's a triumph that this picture is finally available on DVD. It's not a happy movie, but it is a testament to the once-extraordinary power of Hollywood to create beautiful and emotional pieces of cinema.

Stanwyck is the gem of this 1930s melodrama
As other reviewers have said, "Stella Dallas" is a highly sentimental, soap-operaish 1930s movie. But it's still a good film, despite that fact that many aspects of the plot and characterization are dated.

Barbara Stanwyck is the gem of this film, and she gives the most convincing performance (except for Alan Hale, her drunken friend, Ed). The movie begins with Stella, a girl from a working-class mill family, who dreams of marriage to Stephen Dallas, a well-to-do mill executive. With all the charm she can muster, Stella walks into Stephen's office at a crucial point in his life: he is in despair. She revives him, and the two are married within two weeks. What follows is rather predictable: the marriage was a mistake. Stephen's upper class society of manners and Stella's burning desire to experience the passion and wealth of life are sorely incompatible. After the birth of their daughter, Laurel, they part ways: he lives in New York, and she stays in Boston with their daughter. However, they do not divorce for nearly 15 years. Stella raises Laurel, and Stephen takes the child on vacations often. As Laurel grows older, it is obvious that her intellect and mannerisms mirror her father, and not her working-class, garish mother. Despite the fact that Laurel is essentially the only person or thing that Stella loves, Stella contrives a plot to deceive Laurel so that the teenage girl will willingly go live with her father, his new, beautiful, wealthy wife, and her three sons in a New York mansion.

Stanwyck's acting is superb, one of the best in her career. She convincingly portrays a woman who is trapped in her lower-class social status, but desperately reaches for money and associations with the "right people." Anne Shirley, who plays Laurel in her teen years, seems to overact at times, but she delivers a top-notch performance as an innocent, wholesome teen torn between her separated parents. John Boles' performance is stiff and restrained, as usual, and his character is very flat (but it's supposed to be). Barbara O'Neil earns the audience's respect as the only person who genuinely understands Stella. And Alan Hale is brilliant as the crass, drunken, party-animal Ed Munn, and Stella simply can't resist his zest for life (at least initially).

Although the film is encumbered with overly sentimental dialogue and a bit of overacting, it's a pretty good 1930s melodrama.

Barbara Stanwyck's Finest Hour - Classic Tear-Jerker
Barbara Stanwyck, although barely 30, convincingly plays the loving mother to a young adult daughter. Coming from a working-class background, the young "Stella" is determined to climb the social ladder. Her meeting with executive "Mr. Dallas" seemed to be mutual love-at-first-sight. Soon after their child, Lollie, is born, Stella's disposition changes. When hubby suggests the family move to New York to be near his business dealings, Stella flat refuses.

The action skips about 16 years, showing a grown-up Lollie, still happily living with her mother. During a visit with the father and his wealthy new wife, Lollie is showered with expensive presents, and asked to stay with them permanently. Lollie refuses, insisting that her place is with Mother.

Here is where the Kleenex moments come in: Having overheard some cruel dialogue about them while traveling with Lollie in a train compartment, Stella, unable to provide the lavish life her daughter was sure to enjoy with the father, puts on a bawdy act of meanness and cruelty, to turn the daughter away. The ultimate heartbreak is the scene of Lollie's Wedding Ceremony (which I will not devulge).

Lollie's character is basically a sweet young woman, devoted to her mother. When at an outing with her friends she denies the mother (who is making somewhat of a spectacle of herself in a drug store), my sympathy for Lollie drops significantly. The scene is reminiscent of "Imitation Of Life", where the entire story is centered around the daughter's shame for her mother. This one spoiling scene seems unnecessary in the otherwise brilliant film. Still I highly recommend "Stella Dallas" to fans of the leading lady. The original radio play is also well worth the time!****

One of Stanwyck's greatest roles and an all time favorite
Tearjerker supreme, with a top-notch performance by Barbara Stanwyck, who impersonates and gives true life to coarse, low class, self-effacing Stella Dallas, "mother above all". This is one of the greatest and strongest dramatic performances ever achieved on the screen by an American actress.

Stanwyck plays an ambitious girl of humble origins, who falls in love and marries recently impoverished aristocratic Boles (Stephen Dallas), whose social differences eventually separate them. She raises their little child, Laurel, suffering, crying and sacrificing herself for her daughter's sake, from then onwards.

John Boles is quite effective, but, as usual, lacks punch as Stephen Dallas. On the other hand, Anne Shirley is believable and very good as grown-up Laurel. Alan Hale is simply incredible and the epitome of vulgarity, as lowbrow and ever-partying Ed Munn; and Barbara O'Neil (future Scarlett O'Hara's mother) is rightly patrician, well-bred and classy, as Boles' old-time fiancée and friend.

In spite of its 30's ultrasentimentality by today's standards, absolutely recommended viewing. The DVD quality is good indeed. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Good Silly Fun
As a little girl I remember watching this film with my father (or should I say, watching him lose it over the silly antics of Gerard Depardieu and Pierre Richard). The movie itself has a fun and energetic plot, lots of silly twists and fine acting. I can't say I have watched enough French films to be an expert, but as comedies go, this one is a true gem. To those of you who are a little iffy about investing 26 dollars or so on this DVD, the hilarity involved is similar to Tom H