Reviews (10)

film study in a box A+
This along with best of #2 is the greatest box set of all time. these movies span decades of great film making. every DVD came with wonderful extras and a documentary. most are widescreen and set up for the home theater experience. These movies are timeless and can be watched 10 years from now and still be enjoyed. great buy!

THE ULTIMATE HITCHCOCK COLLECTION!
This is one of the BEST collections of Alfred Hitchcock yet!! Featuring the #1 Hitchock film "Psycho"! Along with "Shadow of a Doubt", "Rope", "The Man Who knew Too Much","Topaz", "Family Plot" and the classic, "Rear Window".I have this collection and it is a great gift to own! Each disc comes with it's original trailer and behind the scenes documentary! Plus as a special BONUS DISC, you get three episodes from the ORIGINAL Hitchock TV SERIES!If you are a major HITCHCOCK fan like me, you will want to own this!No Hitchcock collection is complete without it! Plus get Vol 2! Which has more of Hithcock's best including, "The Birds" , "Vertigo" "Frenzy", "Sabotuer", "Torn Curtain" any many more! So don't miss out! Buy it today!!

Discover Why Today's Filmmakers Worship His Work
"Shadow of a Doubt", "Psycho" and "Rear Window" are the A+ movies in this boxed set. My absolute favorite is "Shadow of A Doubt," about Uncle Charlie who comes to stay with his sister and her family to hide out from being hunted as the serial Merry Widow killer. Joseph Cotton plays Uncle Charlie with all of the charm, grace and elegance which came naturally to him as a member of Virgina's upper class in real life. Yet the sinister undercurrent of his personality is quietly apparent throughout. "Psycho" is the film Hitchcock is now most identified with as was its star, Anthony Perkins, who played twisted Norman Bates. Janet Leigh is also best remembered as the larcenous woman who met her fate in the infamous Bates motel shower. Taking a shower was never the same after people first saw this film! I've reviewed "Rear Window" previously and that is Hitch at the top of his game as well. The other work is all roughly C+ to B+, with "Rope" being a too stagey, limp version of "Leopold and Loeb" and being the C+, the lowest, in the set. "The Man Who Knew Too Much," however, comes in at a strong B+ with Doris Day and Jimmy Stewart being the perfect Every Mr. and Mrs. America who find themselves up to their ears in an international intrigue situation, a role that they never expected or wanted in their perfect mainstream American lives. If there is a film student in your life, these Hitchcock boxed sets will make the perfect gift.

Great Movies - love the extras! Worth the $$$$$$$$$$
I totally disagree with the person who said this collection is expensive.

Each one of these movies comes with a documentary feature (not just a publicity film like most DVD's) that feature the stars of the picture (if possible), the writers, creative teams and even Pat Hitchcock (his daughter & sometimes actress). These documentaries are an hour long sometimes and very detailed. Some of them even talk at length about the film restoration process. They are worth having even without the movie and the movies are classics.

If you price out these movies individually it is a Deal buying this collection together. There is only one movie here not worth having (TOPAZ in my opinion) unlike the #2 collection which is mostly duds.

These are great movies with tons of extras - the documentataries, storyboards, deleted scenes, screen tests etc etc.

Buy this if you are a Hitchcock fan!

A Classic
There really is no point in reviewing this collection of Hitchcock's works. He is among the top 5 directors of the 20th Century. This collection can compare with a selection of ANY 7 other movies put together in a collection. ... Read more

Description

The is the year 2022. Overcrowding, pollution, and resource depletion have reduced society's leaders to finding food for the teeming masses. The answer is Soylent Green -- an artificial nourishment whose actual ingredients are not known by the public. Thorn is the tough homicide detective who stumbles onto the secret so terrifying no one would dare believe him. ... Read more

Reviews (97)

3 1/2 stars for sharply written and directed sf classic
THe 70's were a strange time for science fiction films. There were a number of minor classics (Westworld, the absurd and pretentious Zardoz, Logan's Run) and major space operas (Star Wars)that dominated the scene. While none of these films were perfect, Soylent Green was one of the outstanding efforts from the era. Although it's a flawed minor masterpiece, the strong performances from Heston, Robinson, Leigh Taylor-Young and Chuck Conners help the film continue to shine. All the actors benefit from the assured direction of veteran Richard Fleischer. The film was produced during one of MGM's bleakest periods and, in turn, has a rather bleak out look about the future.

Set nearly twenty years from now, humanity has used up most of our resources and spoiled the planet. There isn't enough to eat and there's even less space to live in; the cities are crowded with street people everywhere. The middle class is virtually extinct and only the wealthy have lives approaching the comfort to which we've become accustomed.

A executive with a major food corporation is murdered. The company produces a variety of pre-processed foods that are popular among the general population. Fresh fruit and foods are almost as extinct as many of the species that have disappeared from our overburdened, overdeveloped planet. Charleton Heston plays Detective Thorn who is investigating the murder. In the process, his life is threatened and he comes into major conflict with the police force about his methods. What Heston's character discovers about the food maker could unravel the fabric of the comfortable society that runs the world.

Soylent Green is based on Harry Harrison's fine novel Make Room, Make Room!. The adaption incorporates a lot of common themes from films during the 70's particularly the issue of the ecology. That isn't to say this film is obsessed with issues. While there are a number of importance observations, all of them are well integrated into this sharply written science fiction murder mystery. The direction by Richard Fleischer (Fantastic Voyage, 20,000 Leages Under the Sea, Treasure Island)isn't as stylized as one would expect but he does manage to get the most out of the material. The director's commentary is often wry and observant--a rarity now on most DVDs.

This was Edward G. Robinson's last film and his 101st. A talented, popular actor often misused by Hollywood, Robinson gives a startling fresh and powerful performance as Heston's roommate and assistant Sol. His final scene in the film is both powerful and gives Heston's character the faith to carry on his investigation. The dinner scene between Heston and Robinson (which was ad libbed) is terrific and much of the dialog and banter between the two actors is both funny and touching.

The DVD looks terrific particularly after all the poor prints that have circulated on television. Yes, there's analog artifacts but this is probably about as pristine a print as were likely to see. The transfer is vivid and well balanced. The sound is fairly strong given the fact that this was pre-THX and stereo. The DVD includes a couple of short featurettes about Heston and the making of the film. Robinson also gets due notice. A vintage theatrical trailer is also included.

Soylent Green's importance in science fiction cannot be underestimated. There were a number of bad films produced after 2001 and Planet of the Apes (including many of the sequels to the original Apes film)that had cheapened the luster these two fine films had temporarily given to science fiction. Soylent Green is a somber, powerful film. It's also an entertaining mystery. After this the genre would fall back into decline (although there were a few highlights) until the success of Star Wars in 1977. Thoughtful, impactful science fiction films were rare during the 70's. Although Soylent Green hasn't aged as well as one would expect, it's intent and the power of the performances, script and direction still make it a potent look into the future.

'Soylent Green' still nourishing after all this time!
If there was ever such a thing as 'sci-fi-noir', this is it. This wonderful, pessimistic, science fiction flick works as a cautionary tale, an action-mystery and a love story to boot. Charlton Heston fans will love it! It's 'Taylor-made' for the big guy (pardon the 'apes' pun). Heston excells at playing the cynical, tough yet decent sort; here a cop who's trying to unearth a cover-up reaching into the very top of government and industry. The movie is paced well and allows us to experience the gritty, sooty, reality of an exhausted, failing industrial society in the all too near future. The story line is supported by wonderful supporting performances by notable actors like Leigh Taylor-Young, Brock Peters, Chuck Connors, Joseph Cotten, and the great Edward G. Robinson, in what I believe is his last move. Unlike some 70's science fiction movies, the premise of 'Soylent Green' has not proved dated. It's as frightening and riviting today as it was when it was filmed nearly three decades ago. It's also poignant. The scene where Sol Roth (Edward G. Robinson) weeps out of sadness as the delighted Thorn (Heston) tasts the first real food he's ever eaten, is pristine, pure, gut-level story telling. Thorn's ultimate abandonment of his love interest, (Leigh-Taylor Young) to her unhappy fate is in keeping with the film's hard edge. Ultimately Thorn and Roth uncover a secret best left hidden. This movie never flinches. It's not as well known as Heston's other science fiction classic, 'Planet of the Apes' but 'Soylent Green' is great entertainment and perhaps the most underrated science fiction movie of the 1970's!

"Sorry We Went" Green
My wife and I saw this film in his initial theater release, expecting a good couple of hours entertainment, because of our faith in Charlton Heston. Bad move! Though it did depict rather well a bleak Malthusian future, its focus was entirely on efforts to obtain the wondrous Soylent Green as food, since it was so much superior to the other 2 colors. Alas, as soon as we had guessed the "shocking" source of the Green, there was nothing more to this one-trick-pony of a movie.

A nightmare every time closer
In 2022 the population's growth may reach eight billions people So the awful warning call given by Aldous Huxley ( A new visit for a brave new world) , George Orwell (Animal's farm or 1984) will suppose several restrictions about the free circulation vehicles and also an estimated amount of liters of water by each one of us.
This film is a very clever scifi story about a overcrowded world, where the reduced free spaces of the world we know actually , may be more narrow.
The story holds a deep reflection about the effects of a claustrophobic world, the lack of certain benefits you assumed almost naturally till now.
This movie shows us about a reality not so far. This work was the last appearance of Edward G. Robinson; thanks to Heston efforts for including him in that role. The last sequence in which you watch the ancient world like it was; it depicts a bucolic landscape; and the Pastoral Symphony works out perfectly with this goal. You may feel it something tearful, but the remarkable point is the hidden message. Still we are on time to avoid it. But who'll take this dangerous flag?
This film was released just one year after since Roma's club establihment, in 1972. In that age I had the opportunity of reading that fundamental work of Barry Commoner titled The circle that it closes.Watch for this one. Because with these raising reflections about the enviroment concern around the world made it possible, by instance, avoid to throw several hazardous weapons over Vietnam, whose direct and collateral effects had not studied enough. Chernobyl was just only fourteen years before and Long island twelve years.
Only with this long introduction you'll be capable of understand why this film,together with Farenheit 451, Capricorn one, The Omega man, Zardoz, The planet of the apes , 2001 and Solaris were made between 1967 and 1972. We are taking about movies of film makers so distant in style and view directorial as Kubrick , Tarkovski, Truffaut, Schafner ,Hyams and Boorman, but surrounded by that cloudy atmosphere who involved the world in those days.
A must for you to watch. It will let you thinking for a long, long time.

An Underrated SF Thriller
I just rediscovered this classic movie on DVD recently. It is an extraordinary and haunting film with a powerful message. The performance by Edward G. Robinson is moving, and it's almost obligatory to say that Charles Heston chews up the scenery (as usual).

Some of the reviewers here have bemoaned the fact that there are so many 70s-type vehicles in the world of Soylent Green, which detracts from its setting in the year 2022. Nothing could be further from the truth. I remember watching this film in 1973 and was very conscious of that fact that it was projecting what NYC might look like 49 years from then. Why so? Read on.

Not to state the obvious, but this is a film about a dystopian future. The planet is overpopulated and running out of resources. All of the major oil fields on earth have passed peak production (our experts tell us that the last major fields in Saudi Arabia and Iraq will reach peak production in just a few years from now). Most of the automobiles are old and broken down. Infrastructure is decaying. Even in 2004, here and now, you can see this process beginning. In many parts of the city where I live, people are driving vehicles manufactured from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Things are run down. People are working harder and making less money. Richard Fleischer's vision of the future is brilliant and spot on.

So what about the cheesy 70s background music, you say? All I can say is that by 2022 there might very well be a 70s renaissance, because by then people will have realized how good things were in the 1970s. Look at us in 2004, we're still playing Beatles music, and it is quite likely that the music industry will dramatically change or won't even exist by 2022.

And finally, to underscore the scope and brilliance of this film, just do some investigative research into today's Monsanto Corporation and see if you can't find an overwhelming parallel with the Soylent Corporation depicted in the film, whose aim was to control the world's food supply.

And who knows, by the year 2022, food processing and Chicken McNuggets will be so pervasive that NOBODY will know where their food really comes from. What a chilling thought.

I wish that every person on this planet owned this DVD. It's not just a great Heston film, or a brilliant science fiction thriller, it's an important film for all of mankind...because it's still not too late.

p.s. the amazing quality and sharpness of the images in this film are astounding. This is the film that I saw in 1973. All other versions have been muddy and dark. Another outstanding transfer!! ... Read more

Reviews (493)

Way underrated
Anyone who has ever worked in corporate America will relate to this hilarious gem.
It is low key as opposed to slapstick comedy. I think the movie was well cast about a cube dweller who had enough and basically quits working and gets a promotion to upper management while his hard working and dedicated buddies get slated for layoffs by "The Bob's" two management consultants.
Ron Livingston does a great job as Pete Gibbons, and Ajay Naidu as "Samir Nu, ne, nunu, uh nnn ,not work here anymore" David Herman as Micheal-why should I change - Bolton.
The boss Lundbergh is played perfectly deadpan by Gary Cole, and I think there is a Tom Smykowski and Milton Waddams in every organization. Lets not forget the "Bob's" I knew two idiot consultants just like them.
Office Space has it all, from stupid meetings, CI programs, and of course the infamous TPS reports - "didn't you get the memo about the new cover sheets?"
I could not stop laughing through the whole thing.

Well worth the price of the DVD, even though the transfer was only fair.

Hiliariously Close to the Truth
Though the situations and characters in Office Space are certainly larger than life, they are not that far from the truth--to which those of us in the corporate world will readily attest. That's what makes the movie so delightfully funny: seeing characters on screen act out (without much exaggeration) the trials and tribulations of today's desk-bound workforce.

The plot of the movie itself is somewhat secondary to its entertainment value. Basically, the main character (Ron Livingston) isn't happy with his job; having been asked once by his high school guidance counselor to picture what he'd do without being paid and consider that his ideal job, he responded that he's like to sit around and do nothing. The rest of the main plot centers on his attempt to get his life back on track, from discovering a love interest in a local waitress (Jennifer Anniston) also unhappy with her job to plotting revenge on his company for firing his friends.

Quickly one sees exactly why the characters are so unhappy with their jobs: a clueless, paper-shuffling boss who speaks in total monotone; inane office regulations requiring more time spent on reports than on real work; faulty office equipment; and so on. Carefully crafted to represent archetypes we all know from our own office experiences, the characters and their attempts to break free of the 9-to-5 drudgery are absolutely hilarious.

You don't have to be a computer programmer or engineer to enjoy this film--all you need is to have worked somewhere once in your life that was far from the ideal environment. Watch this film and enjoy a laugh at schmucks who have it ten times worse than you ever have!

THE comedy movie to see from the late 90s
If you see one comedy from the late 90s, see this one! The cast is great, and the story is better. The only person I know who didn't like this movie just doesn't understand the modern industrial/metroplitan environment. Driving to work in Silicon Valley REALLY IS THIS BAD, and if your definition of heavy traffic is going 15-20 mph on the freeway, you might not appreciate this film.

Dilbert's got it easy!
OFFICE SPACE either suffered from bad marketing or poor distribution because I had never heard of it nor did many of my movie-going friends. When I saw it on cable, I kept asking myself, "Where did this come from?" While the film occasionally breaks down in predictable sequences and cheap shots, it really does hold together remarkably well. This is one of the better written, directed and acted comedies in a long time. Even though the late 90's office world it illustrates is long gone, muddle-headed supervisors, know-nothing consultants, and very weird office workers are not. Enjoy this movie!

A MODERN CULT CLASSIC
Having seen and enjoyed bits and pieces of this movie countless times on cable (usually on Comedy Central) over the last couple of years, I finally broke down and purchased it to add to my DVD collection. Smart move on my part. Now that I've seen the entire movie from start to finish, it makes a lot more sense now (I'd never seen the hypnotism scene). It has all the makings of a modern cult classic. How do I know? Because every time I roll across it on cable I usually wind up watching the balance of the film and enjoying it all over again. Having 2 Geto Boys songs on the soundtrack and co-starring Jennifer Aniston doesn't hurt either. Damn it feels good to be a gangsta. ... Read more

Reviews (85)

It's Good to Be Mel Brooks
When this film first appeared more than 20 years ago, it temporarily threatened to replace world history courses in schools, colleges, and universities. Of course, that didn't happen. Probably just as well, given the fact that screenwriter, producer, and director Mel Brooks never wrote, produced, and directed Part II and its eagerly-awaited portrayals of "Jews in Space" and "Hitler on Ice." There are historians' homes in which Brooks is still not welcome. In any event, what we have in Part I is a combination of five extended sketches: The Dawn of Man, The Stone Age, The Spanish Inquisition, The Bible, and The Future. Inevitably there are some gaps.

Brooks appears in several different roles while (in fact) portraying himself: Moses, Comicus, Torquemada, and King Lou. Other members of the Brooks Ensemble Company include Madeline Kahn (Empress Nympho), Cloris Leachman (Madame de Farge), Harvey Korman (Count de Monet), Ron Carey (Swiftus), Andreas Voutsinas (Béarnaise), and Shecky Green (Marcus Vindictus). Brooks has assembled a cast of thousands. The production values are remarkably good. However, as in other Brooks films such as Blazing Saddles and High Anxiety, the quality of the humor varies from Brilliant & Inspired (e.g. King Lou professing love of "the little people" while shooting at airborn peasants who have been launched as targets: "Pull!") to Oh No (e.g. Moses reducing the number of Commandments to Ten by dropping/breaking one of three tablets while descending Mount Sinai, and, Jesus becoming confused by use of his name as an expletive). Brooks is an incurable gagster and punster. More often than not, the humor in this film works. But when it doesn't....

Several clever touches. For example, beginning the film with a parody of 2001: A Space Odyssey, with Orson Welles providing the voice-over. Also, it is fun to play the equivalent of "Where's Waldo" by trying to spot familiar actors in supporting roles such as Bea Arthur (Clerk), Charlie Callas (Soothsayer), Jack Carter (Rat Vendor), Sid Caesar (Chief Caveman), John Gavin (Marche), Ronny Graham (Oedipus), Nigel Hawthorne (Official), John Hillerman (Rich Man), Hugh Hefner (Entrepreneur), Barry Levinson (Column Salesman), Spike Milligan (Monsieur Rimbaud), Howard Morris (Court Spokesman), Jan Murray (Nothing Vendor), and Henny Youngman (Chemist). As I said, a cast of thousands...if not more.

Brooks' best films, those most effectively developed, are The Producers and Young Frankenstein, the latter being a remarkably respectful version of several earlier films. All comics are thieves. The best comics steal from the best sources. I thought about that when I saw this film again recently, wondering if Brooks' History of the World -- Part I was in any way influenced by The Story of Mankind (1957), a film based on Henrik Willem Van Loon's bestseller. For purposes of parody, The Story of Mankind would be an excellent target of opportunity. Those among its diverse cast of thousands (if not more) include Charles Coburn (Hippocrates), Ronald Colman (The Spirit of Man), Cedric Hardwicke (High Judge), Dennis Hopper (Napoleon), Hedy Lamarr (Joan of Arc), Peter Lorre (Nero), Virginia Mayo (Cleopatra), Chico Marx (Monk), Harpo Marx (Isaac Newton), Groucho Marx (Peter Minuit), Agnes Moorehead (Elizabeth I), Vincent Price (The Devil), and Cesar Romero (Spanish Envoy). Whenever a list of the Ten Most Pretentious Movies Ever Made is formulated, The Story of Mankind is frequently and deservedly given serious consideration.

Despite its several flaws, The History of the World -- Part I remains a generally entertaining, at times hilarious film. Whenever I see it again, I feel eager anticipation as I await its strongest scenes, willing to endure its weakest meanwhile. To me at least, the previews for Part II (which conclude Part I) suggest why Brooks resembles the Little Girl with The Curl: "When she's good, she's very very good but when she's bad...."

Mel Brooks at his Bawdy Best
Mel Brooks is at the top of his game with this hilarious spoof on world history beginning with the Stone Age and touching on subjects all the way through the French Revolution. While much of the humor is far from sophisticated, it doesn't diminish the fact that the film is just plain funny!

Lots of comedic actors, great and small, make side-splitting appearances in the film, including Sid Ceasar, Harvey Korman, Dom DeLuise, Bea Arthur, Madeline Kahn, Cloris Leachman, Jackie Mason, and Gregory Hines.

The beauty of Brooks' scathing spoofs of historical events and figures is that the humor is timeless, holding up just as well in 2004 as it did when the film was originally released in 1981. If you have never seen or heard of this film, rent or buy it now, as you have missed an iconic movie. I've even heard of European History professors using Brooks' wacky take on the Spanish Inquisition in their history classes.

When it comes to bawdy satire, Mel Brooks found it "good to be the King" in the 1970s and 80s!

written by David Laing, not Julia Laing
One of Mel Brook's finest movies, in this one, he sets out to parody history, from the Stone Age, to the French Revolution. The first time period is the Stone Age, where we see the first homosapien and homosexual marriage, and discover how music was invented. Next, in a very short bit, we see Moses coming down from a mountain with the 15 commandments, until he drops one slab, and it becomes the 10 commandments. The next era is the Roman Empire, where after Philatipis[or something like that] gets a gig to do comedy for Caescar, he offends, the emporer, so him and his new found friend must fight each other to the death, but instead stop fighting and try to escape from Rome. The 4th era is by far the funniest, and the most offensive, The Spanish Inquisition. So in a musical extravaganza, we see how the Catholics tried to convert the Jews to become Catholics, and in the last part, we behold the French Revolution, and one of the greatest lines in this movie. So, see this hilarious movie, but if you are easily offended, then do not see this. The only thing that aggravates me was that Brooks had a part 2 planned out, but it was never released. At the end of the movie, we get a preview of the unreleased History of The World part 2.

History has never been more hilarious.
I wasn't familiar with History of the World until someone recommended that I see it. I knew a little of who Mel Brooks was and had seen Young Frankenstein so I knew this might be good. Now I think it is one of the funniest movies ever, a genius spoof of world history troughout different period of time. You get to see prehistoric man invent art, and along with the first art came the first art critic. We see the real story behind Moses and the Ten Commandments. The best part to me was the part about the Roman times, when Comicus the stand up philosopher is introduced. I was laughing long and hard when Comicus gets a job as waiter at the Last Supper. Also spoofed are the Spanish Inquisition and the French Revolution.

History of the World is a great movie that features a terrific cast including Mel Brooks, Gregory Hines, Madeline Kahn, Harvey Korman and Sid Caesar. There are others, but together they give an entertaining perspective into some of history's most important events. There are also countless quotes from the movie that will stick with you for a long time after you hear them. This is something I recommend seeing, as even after 23 years it still seems as fresh as ever with the humor it provides.

Nobody Expects the (Musical) Spanish Inquisition
Probably the success of MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN two years earlier was the inspiration for Mel Brooks' HISTORY OF THE WORLD - PART I (A year earlier Python/'Brian' probably also inspired the also lesser ripoff WHOLLY MOSES). One reason are many of the biblical spoofs in this episodic movie. A lot of this is pretty lame especially during the Dom Deluise as Nero sequence that seems to go on forever. The only funny thing to come out of this is the classic line "When you die at the Palace..you really die!". Included is a scene outside of the actual Las Vegas casino Ceasar's Palace with Roman citizens going into it as if it is actually in ancient Rome. The rest of this particular sequence seems to come right out of Richard Lester's/Zero Mostel's A FUNNY THING HAPPENED TO ME ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM only it is not very funny. There are a couple inspired gags (i.e. The Spanish Inquisition- the musical,Moses receiving the 15..er, 10 Commandments, and a tribute to Esther Williams/MGM musical aqua dancing extravaganzas featuring bathing beauty nuns) in the rest of the film, but they are not very memorable. Whereas Monty Python's 'BRIAN' was deemed sacrilegious (at least in 1979) and brilliantly irreverent, 'HISTORY' is just plain dumb. Brooks' seemed to lose his touch starting with this film and would continue with SPACEBALLS,ROBIN HOOD MEN IN TIGHTS and DRACULA DEAD AND LOVING IT etc. Overall, a general waste of celluloid,talent, and time. ... Read more

Reviews (177)

The Depths Of Depp
Johnny Depp plays George Jung, your every day man turned multi-millionaire drug dealer. The amazing journey starts with just a bit of weed going to people on the beach, soon he and his friends are working their way to Mexico in major exports. After a brief stop in jail Depp changes from marijuana to cocaine. Soon Depp has so much money he can't fit anymore in his house. It is in this time he meets his wife-to-be decently played by Penelope Cruz. A mishap with his wife later and he is in jail again. The part about this film that sets it apart from most drug movies is that it shows the highlights of the illegal exchange business but it also shows the bottoming out. The other thing it has is a connection with the characters. You actually begin to feel for Depp as he is separated from the one thing that he loves in his life, his daughter. Franka Potente (Run Lola Run) and Paul Rubin (Pee Wee Herman) also have roles in this film that has heart and substance(s).

Strong Powder
BLOW is based on the true story of George Jung (Johnny Depp). In the 70s and 80s, Jung was the single largest importer of Columbian cocaine, to the United States. Therefore, he alone, changed America, and helped to create the "drug culture" in this nation. At the film's center is the partnership between Jung and Pablo Escobar, (Cliff Curtis) and how they operated, with and against each other. It really is true what others have said about Depp's performance in the film. He doesn't let this highly complex role intimidate him. He pulls it off brilliantly. He scenes with Penelope Cruz are pure magic. Directed by the late Ted Demme, BLOW offers viewers an inside look into how some people got very rich off of other people's addiction to drugs. Even though some have blasted the film because, in their opinion, it glorifies drug use, I see it more as an anti drug film. Having said that, dont expect an overt anti-drug message in the movie either. My take on it is that the "message" hides as a subtext as an implied theme. If the film does have any connection to any indictment against drugs, that comes from the fact that Demme died last year from apparently using the stuff himself.

The DVD is part of New Line Cinema's Infinifilm series. Like all other discs in the series, it is packed with extras, allowing viewers to have more of an interactive experience, while watching the film. Hearing Demme talk about drugs on the commentary track with Jung, may unsettle some, given what happened to him, but there really isn't much of that on the track. The deleted scenes don't really add much to the film and were properly edited out of the picture. The Ted Demme Production Diary is cool because it takes us through how movies are made (I always enjoy that stuff). Rounding out the standard features are trailers, filmographies, and a Nikka Costa Music Video. The disc also has a few DVD-ROM extras. The Infinifilm extras include interviews with Jung conducted by Demme, a trivia track, among others. Use of the Infinifilm mode gives you access to these features for a unique look at BLOW.

Thanks to powerful performances and solid, well produced extras, BLOW is a Highly Recommended film/DVD **** and a half stars.

Blow is about the life of Mr. George Jung from childhood to
his final drug bust for which he is still serving time. Johnny Depp carries this movie very well, like all movies about gangs or drugs or anything crime related, this movie starts off with everything going well and then everything starting to go downhill again, it is a true story, obviously with quite a bit of Hollywood fabrication but none the less, it inspires sympathy for the characters, I for one am someone who isn't really a very emotional person when it comes to movies, at least I don't think so, but this movie brought a tear or two to my eye, especially the ending, where Depp recited a poem written by Jung and it is the saddest thing, the special features are quite amazing, I would recommend this movie to people over 14 because it does have an R rating which is due to a lot of language, drug content, extremely brief nudity and some violence here and there. Enjoy.

extras no good
I rated this movie 5 stars, until I got a load of the DVD extras. These extras actually serve to drag down the enjoyment of the movie. First, there are the "character outtakes" whatever that term is supposed to mean. These consist of various characters being interviewed about George Jung - the character, not the real person. They say poorly thought out and inarticulate things like, "This guy... he's like... this guy don't care what anybody thinks, you know?" My impression was that the actors just got in front of a camera "in character" and extemporized. The results are pretty ghastly. Also, there is the jailhouse interview that director Ted Demme makes of George Jung, the real person. This is also pretty disedifying, consisting at the end of Demme sitting next to Jung on a bench and saying similarly inarticulate and poorly thought out things, like, "Yeah, its like schoolteachers make minimum wage and there's truckdrivers making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year..." Now, I am an ex-schoolteacher and though I did not make a mint at my job I certainly did not make "minimum wage" and I worked for one of the most underfunded school districts in the country. One has the impression of being a witness to a guy blowing his mouth off on the balcony of somebody's post-college get-together. Not pretty. How Demme ever got people to trust him with millions of dollars remains a mystery: the man is simply not preposessing intellectually. Also, his world is morally vague and equivocal. He tells Jung he takes a non-judgemental stance to his crimes and then says that he himself has skeletons in the closet, its just that his are not so well known. Now, I kind of doubt that Ted Demme is himself a serious criminal who has simply evaded discovery. But that is what he is in effect implying, in bad faith to George Jung - a hardcore criminal. The real implication is that any degree of malfeasance is equivalent to any other. If one man has smuggled enormous quantities of drugs, and another man has left the cap off his toothpaste well, they're pretty much the same: we all do bad things. Interestingly, the stance that Demme takes is NOT that what Jung did was not morally wrong. His stance is that, though it was wrong, so what? I can respect and perhaps agree with someone who says that smuggling drugs, though illegal, is not immoral. I can understand the argument that by and large it is an utter liberal myth that anybody is forced to use drugs by anybody else. Peer pressure? One gravitates to "peers" with similar interests. If you get into drugs and your friends don't, you find new friends: druggie friends. This happened in my circle of friends and I have seen it happen first-hand. I had many druggie and non druggie friends and I never saw anybody use drugs who did not want to. And there is simply no substance so addictive that it turns a straight arrow into a degenerate against the straight arrow's will and inclination. Drugs simply help you along in the direction you are inclined.
All this being said, I can agree with someone who does not morally judge George Jung. Personally I am morally indifferent to his actions. But this is not the same thing as saying that what he did was wrong but so what we all do bad things. If I once ignored a parking ticket, is this the same thing as being a murderer? I suspect that Demme's thus cozying up to Jung actually lowered him in Jung's regard.

Luff ist der drug
Let me be clear, this is a great film. It actually reassures me that all movies are not garbage. But for me the best part of the movie is Franka Potente's performance as Barbara, a comely stew who, so far as I can tell, is not supposed to be German. It is a special pleasure for me to watch Franka Potente, with her thick Cherrrmann accent, ya? trying to speak in a vey zat iss recognizeable as chust typical yanqui American dialect. I also thrilled to her performance in The Bourne Identity, hearing her deliver such lines as, "But he vas chust shining us all on" like the Munchen-frau she is. Yeah, I'll get all liquored up on Spaten Premium, or maybe even brave the forbidding slopes of the Optimator, then I'll hunker down for a triple-bill of Run Lola Run, Bourne Identity, and Blow. Its like my own private Oktoberfest that I chust by myself heff got going on, ya?
unt ich bein auss. ... Read more

Description

The next installment in the Harry Potter series finds young wizard Harry Potter (DANIEL RADCLIFFE) and his friends Ron Weasley (RUPERT GRINT) and Hermione Granger (EMMA WATSON) facing new challenges during their second year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry as they try to uncover a dark force that is terrorizing the school. ... Read more

Reviews (649)

Fascinatingly enchanting as it is entertaining
Summer vacation is a dreaded time for Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) as it means having to endure the histronics of his mean aunt and uncle. Returning back to his Hogwarts School of Witchcraft would seem a much wiser option but Dobby the House Elf warns him of "a plot to make most terrible things" is in the brewing. With disregard of the warning, the boy wizard begins his sophomore year at the school of magic - and things happen - when his schoolmates are 'petrified' into statues. In fact this is only the beginning when he later takes on gigantic spiders, screeching mandrakes, Fawkes the phoenix and the fearsome Basilisk.

The second entry adapted from J.K Rowling's legacy has neither the epic sweep of the fourth book (The Goblet of fire) nor the mystery of the third (The Prisoner of Azkaban) but is nonetheless an engaging adventure and a riveting story. What's more with director Chris Colombus at the helm who shows more precision and familiarity after his first attempt, Harry Potter and the Chamber of secrets is a majestic adventure filled with visionary sets and fluid CGI effects that astonishingly enhance the darker fantasy tale and adventure. The soaring adventure thrills with its enshrouding perils, awesome moments of wonder and enlightening morality and friendship.

It thus resembles more of an awkward adolescence stage in this saga for the three main casts. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grinch as Harry, Hermoine and Ron reprises their role with the loss of their innocence along with veterans Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall, the late Richard Harris as the benevolent headmaster Dumbledore, Robbie Coltrane as giant Hagrid and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape. The new interlopers are equally scene-grabbing in their own rights: Kenneth Branagh does a rib-tickling interpretation of braggadocio Gilderoy Lockheart as well as Jason Issacs as the wicked Lucius Malfoy.

With a solidly ensembled cast and sumptuous sets, the second installment is fascinatingly entertaining as it is enchanting enough to sustain its 3 long hours without any misgivings.

Just as good if not better!
This DVD gives you a great movie, lots of special features, and great commentary from the stars and people behind the scenes. Just as good a movie as the first Harry Potter installment, this is definitely a great addition to anyone's DVD collection!

Not as goood as the book
This film is not as good as the book, but still a very good film. There are a few scenes from the book that I wish had made the final cut. It does drag a little after the climax, but those scenes are need to tie up loose plot lines as well as items that might have an impact in future editions.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets-Widescreen Edition
This movie was definately a great work of theatre and art alike. The entire movie was captivating, and while the director, Christopher Columbus, could of done better on some parts, this movie does what most do not, and it stayed true to the book. I loved this, and I watched it about 3 times before I was satisfied with it! Go get the movie and see it, and you'll see what I mean!!! The scenes with the Chammber of Secrets were beautifully detailed, giving you a clearer picture than even the book did! So buy this, sit back and be amazed by the production of Harry Potter's second year at Hogwarts school of Withcraft and Wizardry! Enjoy!

Harry Does It Again! Better Than The First!
"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" pulls off something that only "The Empire Strikes Back" has done. It's better than the first film! Not only is the story more interesting(though the first was tops as well), it's packed with even more wonder and imagination than the first as well. The castmembers of the first flick return, as well as Kenneth Branagh in a superb performance as Lockhart, the bumbling, vain writer of "Magical Me."

I'm sure the naysayers had a wonderful time bashing this sequel for its evil undertones. Students get "petrified" and the basilisk takes shots at Harry, but all in all, Harry prevails. He makes the right choices, does the good deeds and fights a good fight. How dare he promote such horrible values!

Please folks, I used up a lot of space harping on how kids need to have fun in my review of the first film. The same applies to this movie as well. Don't worry about your kid becoming a warlock or praying to Satan, just let them have a little fun. If you raise them right, you won't have to worry about any of that anyway.

The "Potter" books encourage kids to read and use their imagination. That's a good thing in my book. The movies encourage kids to use their imaginations as well.

You've just got to love something that promotes so many good things. We need more heroes like Harry. He's a good character to let your kids read about and watch on the big screen. He's caring to others, takes his studies reasonably serious(you might want to promote Hermione's study habits to your kids, though) and he always tries to do the right thing.

Overall this movie is fun and enjoyable for the whole family. Some of the scenes might scare the little ones, but this movie is worth explaining those scenes in order to get the message across.

Watch this one and have a ton of fun. It's great for everybody. Highly recommended. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The world can be divided into two camps: those who will watch Joshua reverently and gratefully, and those who will not touch it with a 10-foot pole. The reverent probably own Joseph F. Girzone's bestselling novel about a mysterious but friendly loner who shows up in a small American town and blesses every life he touches. Whites and blacks, Catholics, Protestants, and Jews will work side by side as newly recognized brethren; an estranged couple will resolve to save their marriage; the lonely and disconnected will embrace and be embraced by community; etc. The message--the healing power of Christ's love--is beyond reproach, the intentions of the filmmakers entirely benign, but there is not one whit of dramatic tension or narrative complication to any of it. The cast is stronger than usual in such religious projects (Tony Goldwyn, Oscar^® winner F. Murray Abraham, Giancarlo Giannini as the Pope), but no one has a prayer with a script that posits the hero's Christhood on the fact that 12 people show up for his going-away dinner. --Richard T. Jameson ... Read more

Reviews (96)

Uplifting and inspirational... a movie to treasure
All too often the lack of quality acting, writing or a budget tends to ruin filmaker's attempts to bring a quality Christian work to the screen. Left Behind is an example and if you are a fan of the series and saw the movie, then you understand what I mean. So it should come as no surprise that anyone like myself who has so enjoyed the Joshua series written by Joseph Girzone would be skeptical about the movie. But very quickly I realized that not only was this movie going to be fairly faithful to the original book, it was also going to maintain the consistant message of love and salvation that sometimes gets lost in Christian filmmaking. Tony Goldwyn whose probably been typecast since Ghost, quickly made me forget that role and pulls off an extraordinary portrayal of Joshua. Add that to a quality supporting cast and some surprises that stray a bit from the book but are nonetheless enjoyable, I would recommend this movie to anyone, whether you are a fan of the series or not.

Touches the Soul
This movie adaptation of Father Girzone's book wonderfully compells the viewer to sit back and be fascinated by a modern day Christ story.

Joshua, an artist and woodcarver, drifts into a small town and within days turns a disjointed group of citizens into a community of good neighbors. Joshua's manner is straightforward, kind, yet fun and amusing---just the kind of guy you'd want at your next get-together. He doesn't preach---he simply is---his love and selflessness runs out from him like cool fresh water to the thirsty. His actions are transforming---but alas, they also cause trouble. The pastor of the local church is frightened by Joshua's charisma and he does his worst to disassemble the band of neighbors by attempting to blacken Joshua's name.

The movie is not as complicated as the novel, the scenes where Joshua is asked to speak at the nearby Jewish Synagogue are completely eliminated as is Girzone's hopeful message of all roads--all houses of worship--leading to the same goal rather than insisting that their way is the only way. The dialogue at times can be a little too persuasive in attempting to disclose the true nature of Joshua--which the audience identifies correctly from the start anyway.

I was disappointed that more attention was not paid to Joshua's exquisite carvings----only one of the statues of Peter is manifested here.
Of note is F. Murray Abraham's portrayal of the threatened pastor and lovely sad-eyed Giancarlo Giannini as the Pope.

Recommended to all who enjoy or need a spiritual kick in the head.

What if Jesus showed up as a carpenter in a small town?
"Joshua," based on Joseph F. Girzone's novel, is not about the Second Coming of Christ. In fact I would think that it is not about a second coming either, because I get the feeling from this film that Jesus has shown up in similar ways countless times before. This time a stranger named Joshua (Tony Goldwyn) shows up in the quiet town of Auburn. He moves into a dilapidated old barn on the outside of town and when he finds a Baptist church that was destroyed in a storm, he starts working on fixing it up. This seems odd to the members of the congregation of that church, but some of them start to pitch in and help Joshua.

There are no real surprises in "Joshua," especially since the opening credits tell us that Giancarlo Giannini plays the Pope in the movie we are about to see. But the point of the story here is not to tell you anything you do not already know. The message, when Joshua actually articulates one, is the one that has been around for almost two thousand years. So the attraction here is the enticing "what if?" as to what it would be like if Jesus suddenly showed up in your neck of the woods and started doing things and talking to people. Joshua does not preach series nor does he tell parables. The important thing here is that when you talk, he listens to you.

This is not the first time that a movie has tried to portray a more "realistic" type of Jesus. There was Jeffrey Hunter in the 1961 film "King of Kings," where Jesus walked among the masses while he gave the Sermon on the Mount. In "The Passion of the Christ" the focus on the story is on the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus, but in the film's few flashbacks James Caviezel reveals a remarkably accessible figure. Tony Goldwyn has an advantage in that he does not have to wear the beard, long hair, and flowing robes of the conventional images of the Biblical Jesus. He plays Joshua as what you can only describe as being a good guy, which is more difficult to play that you would think.

Auburn is not a modern Sodom or Gomorrah. The worst you can say about the place is that the different denominations are not paying attention to each other. But then one of the points about Joshua is that he not only fixes churches and carves statues of Peter, he also fixes small things. "Joshua" is about the ministry of Jesus and the miracles have the same affect they did the first time around.

The supporting cast is solid, with F. Murray Abraham as Father Tardone, the local priest who is suspicious of the stranger in town, Kurt Fuller as Father Pat Hayes, who is captivated by that same stranger, and Stacy Edwards as Maggie, who has a different idea as to what void in her life Joshua can fill. Granted, anyone who has never been to church on Sunday is not going to be interested in this film, but "Joshua" should appeal to most Christian audiences, who will find it a pleasant reaffirmation of their beliefs.

A Gift from the lord
I have watched this movie well over 50 times, though i dont beleive in the church i do beleive in god, this movie i have recommended to others in need weather it be for emotional support or physical pain, it is uplifting, and beautiful. I truely beleive that the actors in this movie at the making were guided by the hand of God, This is a MUST SEE MOVIE....if not a must own movie, one of the nicest aspects of it was all ages can watch it, and get something out of it

A true call to everyone
The first time seeing this movie was completely by chance. My family and I rented it one evening without knowing what it was about at all. For whatever reason it stood out on that shelf, I may never know, however, the impact it has left upon me will last my lifetime. ... Read more

Reviews (349)

Fantastic!
Quentin Tarantino's debut film RESERVOIR DOGS broke new ground that many other directors and screen writers were afraid to tread upon. This amazingly well-written, directed, and acted film is about a jewel heist gone wrong and the consequences of each man's suspicions. Harvey Keitel is wonderful as tough but compassionate Mr. White(Each man is given an alias name, no one's real name is used), Michael Madsen is cool and psychotic as Mr. Blonde, Sean Penn delivers a strong performance as Nice-Guy Eddie, Lawrence Tierney is very intimidating as Joe, the crime boss, and Quentin Tarantino gives a great cameo performance as the short-lived Mr. Brown. The really great performances definitely go to Tim Roth and Steve Buscemi. For Roth(Mr. Orange), this was a breakthrough role in which he spends a good deal of the movie drenched in his own blood and in his screams of pain never once goes into an over-the-top performance. It's right on the money. Buscemi is dripping with attitude and gives one of his best performances until FARGO in RESERVOIR DOGS. From the moment he appears on screen, you know its gonna be a bumpy ride. A must-see for anyone who enjoys lotsa suspense, catchy dialogue and music, and some great action scenes.

Tarantino Makes His Mark
Quentin Tarantino's directorial debut, Reservoir Dogs is a brilliantly written, unique film that paved the way for Mr. Tarantino's breakthrough film, Pulp Fiction. The plot of Reservoir Dogs revolves around a diamond heist that goes afoul. A group of criminals who have never worked together are assembled and given names like Mr. White, Mr. Pink and Mr. Blonde. The film is intercut with flashbacks in which the characters played by Michael Madsen, Harvey Keitel and Tim Roth are explored in more detail. Mr. Madsen is incredible as the psychotic Mr. Blonde and his scene in which he brutalizes a cop in medieval fashion is alternately disturbingly brutal and humorous. Steve Buschemi is a scream as the jumpy Mr. Pink and Mr. Keitel provides the film with its backbone as Mr. White. Mr. Tarantino has keen eye for detail and the opening scene in a diner in which the crooks are discussing everything from what Madonna meant in her song "Like A Virgin" to 70's songs to tipping contains some of the sharpest dialogue in years. Mr. Tarantino also uses music to great effect and he overlays scenes with the voice of comedian Steven Wright as host of a radio show K Billy's Super Sounds of the 70's. Reservoir Dogs is a tremendous debut film and introduced Mr. Tarantino as a force.
The 10th Anniversary Edition is nice a step up in sound and quality from the first edition. The extras are good, but just the overall better sound and picture is worth purchasing this version if you already own the first.

Stylized, intelligent--but someone tell Quentin he can't act
To a degree amateurish, but to an equal degree compelling and original, Reservoir Dogs is a stylistic, gritty look at the gangsters of Quentin Tarantino's imagination. The story, such as it is, is the weak point of the film. The strange tale of an undercover cop who tries to bust up a family-sized gangster ring is just plain silly at times. The strong points, however, are many. Each character has a terrific, interesting voice; the dialogue is snappy and artistic; the music choices are inspired. And that infamous "ear" scene? Frankly, it's one of the few scenes that doesn't work. It just comes off as dumb.

Think of Reservior Dogs as the rough sketch for a movie yet to come: Pulp Fiction. Pulp Fiction is superior in every respect, but it's a treat to see its progenitor.

Bold enough to be a new genre
Quentin Tarantino has done an amazing job at taking a very low budget, and using a unique method of story telling and raw dialogue to turn it around. He was also lucky to get a great cast much like Pulp Fiction did. This film creates a new genre, because his un-chronological and very raw vision will be and is being copied all over the world. Many people criticize Tarantino for worshipping violence and profanity. However, when you examine the film's plot, it is really quite reasonable that characters swear as much as they do. And also, the violence in the movie only seems as bad as you make it in your mind, as the worst parts are only partially shown. This is another one of Tarantino's tricks. Some great performances are had too, for example Michael Madsen. His cold-blooded and partially psychotic character misleads us, up until a scene where he attempts to burn a kidnapped police officer, where our adoration of him turns to hate. However, Quentin quickly balances that out wonderfully. The ending may be a little "off" for some people, but all in all a great film.

Awesome movie. Awesome DVD. Definitely one of the Best!
First and foremost, this is indisputably Quentin Tarentino's best film ever. After having seen it some dozen-plus times, it still captivates and intrigues me with every watching. The way the plot works itself out is ingenius, the suspense is second-to-none. Steve Buscemi, as Mr. Pink, is a highlight of this movie: He plays his character ridiculously well.

The entire two hours of this film are violent, disturbing, riveting, captivating, and raw: All said, this film is like a cinematic car accident - you rubberneck, you gasp, you feed this primordial urge to see violence and power. The story of five men - Mr. Blue, Mr. Pink, Mr. White, Mr. Brown, Mr. Blonde - converge when they are called into do a jewelry store heist. However, theyf ind out that one of their fellow gangsters has set them up: That the heist failed because someone among them had ratted them out.
The entire movie unfolds as, really, a two hour dialogue between Mr. Blonde, Mr. Pink, and Mr. White - as well as with the subsequent intruders into the wharehouse. The entire film, essentially, takes place in a wharehouse with sporadic flashbacks and cuts to other instances which lead up to the final scene.

This DVD is an awesome buy. It comes with a fullscreen and widescreen edition, as well as lots of special editions: trailors, posters, picture galleries, etc. Definitely, this movie is an excellent addition to anyone's DVD collection. One of the best values I have in my collection! ... Read more

Reviews (30)

Hollywood Classic
This film starts with the 1685 Duke of Monmouth rebellion. The battle of Sedgemoor rages in the background as Errol Flynn's character is wrongly accused of supporting the rebels. King James II is portrayed as an arrogant prince, something which most Protestants of the day would have agreed with, and which Hollywood does not seem to deny. James, while detached, was not the cold hearted fool we see here. But this is only a minor point. The film has historic interest, portraying England as it does during the 1680s, the reign of James II before the advent of the Glorious Revolution which sees him removed in favor of William III of Orange and Queen Mary. The movie only touches on these political developments, but its interesting to see them as factors in the background.

The rest is pure Hollywood adventure with fiction playing havoc with fact! Still, the movie is so entertaining and classy that we don't mind a few historical gaffes. Flynn is elegant in his first major role, and Olivia Dehavland is strikingly beautiful. Hard to beleive she was only 18 when this film was made. The rest of the supporting cast may be a bit standard for a 1930s production, but they pull their weight well with all the cute touches of the day. The production value of the film appears more impressive than it actually was. The fast pace combined with clever plot makes for a classic of its kind. The French as perenial villins may strike a chord with today! For period swashbuckling, romance and class, you won't find better than here.

Blood! Blood! ......And A Film Legend Was Born
"Classic", is written all over this legendary Warner Brothers production from Hollywood's heyday in the 1930's. A fine literary source in the novel by Rafael Sabatini formed the basis for what was to become easily one of the best loved pirate tales ever filmed by a Hollywood Studio. Many (myself included) believe that "Captain Blood", is THE definitive swashbuckling adventure and contains everything to satisfy the pirate enthusiast, from a dashing leading man fighting for justice in a corrupt world,a beautiful damsel in distress to be rescued by the hero, lively swordplay, brilliantly staged sea battles, and the essential quota of villianous characters to add spice to the drama. "Captain Blood", was as well a "first", in many ways. Firstly it marked the breakthrough role for Tasmanian born Errol Flynn who was perfect for the role of Dr. Peter Blood, a man of good character wrongly condemmed to a life of slavery for helping tend the injuries of a rebel soldier in the corrupt England of James 2nd. Also this film marked the first teaming of Flynn with rising young actress Olivia de Havilland and the two went on to work beautifully together in eight films over the next seven years earning them immortality as one of filmdom's most unforgettable screen couples.

It's hard to imagine nowadays anyone but Errol Flynn in the role of Captain Blood but he was not even considered in the original casting of the film being an almost complete unknown at the time. Robert Donat was set to play the lead but had to withdraw due to illness and Jack Warner took a considerable gamble in casting the untried Australian actor in the lead of one of the studios biggest productions for the year. Once the decision was made however the rest as they say was film history as Errol Flynn swashed and buckled his way to Hollywood stardom in a stunning debut which helped make "Captain Blood", one of the years most successful films and helped gain it a nomination as Best Picture of the year. "Captain Blood", relates the story of Irish Doctor Peter Blood who is called out to tend the wounds of a rebel soldier fighting the corrupt governement of King James 2nd. Caught at the scene Peter is imprisoned as a rebel of the crown and in a sham court hearing is condemmed to a life of slavery in the infamous colony of Port Royal. Suffering brutality under the cruel Planatation owner Col. Bishop (Lionel Atwill in a masterfully evil role) Peter has the chance to escape when Port Royal is attacked by the Spanish. He forms a crew with his men and together they head out to sea on a stolen ship to become pirates with no country to call home. Very soon the name of "Captain Blood" is infamous throughout the Carribean and no ship Spanish, French, or English is safe from his looting. Making an uneasy alliance with French Pirate Capt. Levasseur(Basil Rathbone in a small but effective role) Peter finds his loyalties tested when Levasseur captures Arabella (de Havilland) the niece of Col. Bishop who Peter loves, as she returns to Port Royal with Lord Willoughby (Henry Stephenson). Fighting a duel to the death with Levasseur over Arabella's safety, Peter learns from Lord Willoughby the King James has been driven out of England and the new King William 3rd has not only pardoned Peter and his men but also offered them places in his navy. Returning to Port Royal the men find the port under attack from the Spanish and Captain Blood now fighting for King and Country in a exciting finale manages to defeat the Spanish invasion and save Port Royal from falling into enemy hands. For his great service to the crown King William then makes Peter the new govener of Port Royal much to the distress of his old enemy Col. Bishop but to the utter joy of Arabella who now plans to marry Peter at the happy conclusion.

Errol flynn had no peer when it came to these types of dashing adventure roles. His performance here and in such classics as "The Adventures of Robin Hood", and "The Sea Hawk", certainly saw him in his element being ideally cast. He teamed perfectly with Olivia de Havilland, he all bravado, masculinity and dashing energy, while she was the epitome of the demure refined young lady waiting for love. "Captain Blood", however is peopled with some other great acting talent that must not be forgotten under the bright light of Errol Flynn's screen charisma. Lionel Atwill excels as the cruel Col. Bishop in a tailor made role and character actors Donald Meek and especially George Hassell as the comical gout ridden Gov. Steed are both excellent in their smaller parts that help give "Captain Blood", some of its fine acting moments. Directed with usual high energy by Michael Curtiz, he manages to extract a marvellous performance out of the still largely inexperienced Flynn. Theirs was a definite hate relationship as the two loathed each other but by some miracle produced consistently excellent work together.The visuals of the film are first rate with the superbly staged sea battles unrivalled in their authentic look. Erich Wolfgang Korngold furnished another of his rousing musical scores that succeeds in really adding a high level of excitment to all the action secquences in "Captain Blood".

"Captain Blood", makes for ideal entertainment of the old fashioned kind and is a perfect example of Errol Flynn's great screen presence in a role idealy suited to him. Here we see him and Olivia de Havilland in the full bloom of their youthful vibrance in an exciting tale of adventure and romance,with good winning out over evil. It's Hollywood filmmaking of the old school and it is sure to leave you cheering as the good Captain romances his ladylove and fights against corruption and cruelty on the High Seas. Enjoy!

Simon Davis
Now that I have read Simon Davis' review, I dont have to watch the film?

Actually , I have seen the film a few times..and I can only add that Lionel Atwill pouts as well as any actor I have seen and Mr Rathbone begins his legacy as one of the great screen villians

CP

Shine on
Captain Blood is a great film, let alone a tremendous pirate film. There's something about the plot that has a certain resonance today as much as that of Robin Hood, namely that age-old sense of justice triumphing over rigid law and order, of robbing the rich to feed the poor. Yet Captain Blood is a little rougher edged, a little crueler in its machinations. Peter Blood (Flynn) is a well-meaning doctor who happens to aid the wrong side in one of Britain's innumerable civil wars, and is sentenced into slavery in the outer colonies along with a pack of other unfortunates. Right from the moment you see him level his icy gaze at the consumptive, soon-to-be dead Royal judge who passed the sentence, you know this party is just getting started.

Hollywood has used the 'good-man-wronged' scenario countless times since this movie, but rarely to such effect. Battered, beaten, but never broken, Dr. Peter Blood transforms into Captain Blood, the terror of the high seas that crushes his enemies without ever letting anyone affect his high-minded moral core. It was not his choice to become an outlaw, but if he has to become one, he will be the best one there ever was. Redemption, honor, and love all make their appearances in the fine script enacted by a worthy cast, but at every point Blood is a man in control of, and therefore responsible for, his own destiny. It's a great film and one you definitely should check out.

A great buccaneer epic.
I think that this is one of the greatest action - adventure films and perhaps the greatest adventure-epic film about pirates ,ever made in cinema's history. Adapted from Raffael Sabbatini's homonymous novel, "Captain Blood" introduced 26 years old Australian-born actor Errol Flynn, in Hollywood as a great star and it was the first of a movie-series that granted him the title of "swashbucklers's king".The film also created Flynn's image (solidified in the next years) as the dashing young romantic adventurer hero who always saves the day. Flynn plays the Irish doctor Peter Blood who becomes the handsome gentleman rogue pirate of the Caribbean with bravado and charisma ,appearing his great talent that made him a legend. But here we can locate some historical inaccuracy , (an inheritance of 19th century's romantic literature ) because the real pirates were quite repulsive, poor , illiterate and not fascinating and educated sea knights. The historical background on the contrary is quite accurate and very interesting. The film beggins in 1685 when Duke of Monmouth organised an unsuccessfull rebellion and portrays England during the 1680s, the reign of James II before the advent of the Glorious Revolution which sees him removed in favor of William III of Orange and Queen Mary. An other notable point is that the film portrays pro-catholic King James II as an evil and cruel tyrannical persona ,a fact that might be seen as a film's pro-protestant position on history, yet don't forget that this story is adapted from a novel and this was Sabbatini's view on historical facts.
Curtiz's direction is excellent and impressive,especially at the great terrific sea battle which is amazing. Olivia de Havilland is brilland and adorable as Flynn's sweet love interest ,with astonishing beauty. Even she is only 19 years old ,she plays her role with maturity and high professional capability. Basil Rathbone is perfect as the villain-fond of women French pirate Levasseur (and as swordfighter) using a peculiar french accent . Lionel Atwill as de Havilland's uncle is very convincing as a brutal plantation owner who finally reconciles with Captain Blood (Errol Flynn).You have also to notice the great performances by the actors who compose Captain Blood's crew. They're really charming.
A must-see high entertaining master piece epic. I give it all the stars I can . Enjoy it and love it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

After the Sunset may not be the greatest jewel-heist caper comedy ever made, but it sure is easy on the eyes. Shifting back into his crowd-pleasing Rush Hour mode, director Brett Ratner kicks off the action with a rousing chase scene that pretty much describes the entire film: utter nonsense, but adequately enjoyable. Things get very sunny thereafter, when FBI agent Woody Harrelson lands in the Bahamas to track down ace diamond thief Pierce Brosnan and his lovely accomplice Salma Hayek, whom he suspects of planning their next big heist on a cruise ship. A Bahamian gangster (Don Cheadle) wants in on the action, and the whole thing's about as fluffy as an Elmo doll and just as harmless, especially when you consider Hayek's revealing wardrobe (which, thankfully, distracts from Brosnan's less-than-Bond-like physique). There's an abundance of witty banter between everyone, and the tropical locations make After the Sunset a balmy, vicarious vacation. Critics weren't exactly kind to this breezy dose of popcorn entertainment, but it's an agreeable time-killer and an instant cure for seasonal affective disorder, even if the comedic chemistry leaves something to be desired. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (45)

Better Than I Expected
This isn't really a caper film, which is one reason I enjoyed it more than I thought I would.Sure, it has some of the elements of the Hollywood caper movie--the debonaire, super-clever and super-successful thief, the cop out to thwart him, exotic locations--but the movie isn't really about will-he-pull-it-off-or-won't-he.It's more of a cat-and-mouse buddy movie.That the heists are utterly implausible, to the point of being ridiculous (as they are in most caper movies, like Oceans's Eleven and Ocean's 12) doesn't matter as much, because it's not what the movie focuses on.

Instead, we get a lot of cute banter and bonding between Harrelson and Brosnan, who are fun to watch.There are some good, low-brow laughs in this movie--they are enough for me.I laughed out loud, for instance, when during the fishing scene Harrelson is putting tanning lotion on Brosnan's back, and Brosnan says, "My pole!" and Harrelson pulls back with disgust and says, "No way, I'm only doing your back!" (Of course, Brosnan meant, Look at the pole; I caught something.)There are other, similar crude jokes and sight gags.

Both men are good in their roles, and fun to watch.The female roles in the movie seem incidental, a formulaic requirement of Hollywood movies, and are never really developed beyond that basic requirement.And what is Don Cheadle, a great actor, doing in such a miniscule role?Anyone could have done his rolel he's sadly wasted.Chris Penn has an amusing cameo...but my goodness, has he gotten fat.I remember seeing him in movies in the 80's, before he starting hitting the Big Macs.You don't often see an actor let himself go like that.

Commercial for Bahama Tourism Starring...
After the Sunset is a fluffy piffle that is almost always beautiful to look at, but emptier than the nutritional content of cotton candy.

Pierce Brosnan and Salma Hayek make a good-looking couple, and the movie actually TRIES to address a theoretical dilemma that is infrequently brought up in movies.If a rich and successful criminal retires, what do they do?If, presumably, part of why they were a criminal in the first place is for the thrill of it, how can they be content simply retiring?If being a thief is both your job AND your hobby, what do you do after the last "big one"?The only film I can think of that showed the boring lethargy that sets in on a successful criminal is the end of "Scarface" when Al Pacino is lying around in the marble tub of his palatial bathroom, smoking a cigar and cursing at his wife and buddy.

But I digress.After the Sunset would be familiar territory if the only movies you had seen were the "Ocean's 11" remake(s).It's a "steal the jewel" caper.It tries to be a comedy, but Brosnan and Woody Harrelson don't have the comic chemistry we've seen both of them have in other work. Harrelson appears as the FBI agent who has been repeatedly burned by Brosnan, and wants to get his revenge.It follows the film cliche where the lawman is "hot on the trail" of the criminal - a la "Heat", etc., but instead of an edgy relationship between the Thief and the Lawman we get a bumbling comic relationship between Brosnan and Harrelson.

The "star" of the film is the way it looks, and much of that is owed to the Bahamanian resort standing in for paradise.The movie made me want to go there - but it didn't make me want to ever see this film again.

Our family has been in manure for three generations!
Did I miss something?Was there a contest going through all the Grade Schools of America to find the best story for acclaimed director Bret Ratner to bring to the silver screen?If so, why wasn't there a calendar made for those who didn't make the final cut?Oh, wait, apparently children did not write this film, but instead a guy that wrote for the TELEVISION SERIES the Weakest Link.That surely makes him ready by all means to tackle the caper genre and inherit a big payday ... right?You are the weakest link ... good-bye.This movie was a disaster from the beginning.With cardboard acting, an aging (and girth growing) sex symbol, and a corny ending that incorporated nothing that we were shown through the entire film, it is a big wonder how After the Sunset ever saw the illustrious "green-light".Perhaps it was the size of Salma's boo ... name, or perhaps the fact that Pierce Brosnan's The Thomas Crown Affair was such a cult film, or maybe because Don Cheadle was in it, because it had really no pull with just Woody headlining.So, how did this film get made?This film targeted pre-teen boys and retirement communities, and with their great pull, the financing behind this film became very easy.

This was a caper film right?We are supposed to go on this roller coaster ride of who's conning whom, coupled with lies, deceit, and a surprise ending that will make you want to rewatch from the beginning to experience anything that you missed.That is the focus, goal, and overall tone that a film like this should have followed.Instead, Ratner decided to just make a movie without any sort of excitement or drive.As I watched this film, I never once felt excited about the plot.Why?Because there was nobody getting me excited.The acting in this film was well below par for anything that Hollywood has released.Pierce tries, but just can't seem to capture the essence of the film.There is no little demon inside you rooting for anything.Salma's role was basically for eye-candy.She provided nothing spectacular either.I can literally say the same for Woody and Cheadle as well.Here we have strong actors doing absolutely nothing during the course of about two hours.These characters never drive the plot, they bring nothing but clichés to the table, and by the end we really don't have any true grasp as to whom they are.Honestly, cardboard cutouts could have replaced the actual actors and After the Sunset would have been a better film.There was no depth to the characters, no emotion, no structure, just the simple direction of "step here, say your line, step here, look surprised".It was embarrassing for all that were involved.

I think a major flaw to this film was that Ratner did not fully understand, or was prepared, for the caper genre.From the opening moments until the end of the film, you can tell that Ratner is just trying to use his friends in the industry and show the world that he has some power as well.I say this because I saw no true direction or moment of impressiveness where he defines himself as a director.He reuses the same ideas throughout the entire film, he doesn't give anything strong to his players, and nothing stood out in this movie.Sure, it was a beautiful location, but am I to believe that Salma spend a majority of the film building a deck for them to sit on?Am I to believe that Pierce is still a sex symbol even with a HUGE gut sticking out?Am I to believe that Cheadle is a bad guy/imported American who is at the top of the community?Finally, am I to believe that Pierce could still move as quickly as Ratner defined?I swear that in the final unclimactic moments of this film, I could hear Pierce doing some heavy breathing to get from point A to point B.Maybe he isn't ready for the next Bond role.

So, without a good story, or decent characters, maybe there was some humor in it that could pull us away from the sour sensation cultivating in your mouth.Well, guess who is placed in to do the humor element? Woody Harrelson.Now, I don't mind Woody, but in this role, he just wasn't believable and his humor was so cliché that I had trouble believing that he brought anything to this character.He literally plagiarized his entire role.Teachers, and film viewers of the world, should be very upset with him.Instead of bringing a new twist to his character, he resorted to weird sex humor, skimpy bully humor, and that ever-popular drunken humor while fishing that is sure to make that senile woman in the front burst out with laughter. To me it was pathetic and a worthless attempt to make a joke out of already dead film.

Overall, this was a massive disappointment.Here you had a decent director, some strong players, but the worst story ever written by a man who wrote for a game show.Which piece does not fit?There was this huge sense of apathy throughout this entire film and clichés riddled it that I just couldn't get past.Brosnan had trouble with this film, and I couldn't tell if it was because he just didn't care, or because he was working with such low-talent that his heart just wasn't in it.The ending hurt as well.There was no excitement or intensity, just plain ... "here it is ... like it or not".I personally couldn't digest this film with its poor acting and below-par story.This may be a good film for some that are not familiar with the caper genre, but for me it was just hogwash.

Grade: * out of *****

I Liked It
I liked this movie alot. I watched it twice. I really enjoyed the little twist it had at the end.

AFTER THE BOREDOM! (21/2 ) STARS
Where the hell was the action in this movie! It started off
decent, then went down hill from there. The only thing that
kept me watching this lame script, was Salma Hayek! I gave the
movie 1 1/2 stars, and Salmas body 1 extra diserved star! ... Read more

Reviews (24)

Overlong, but worth seeing
Original little gem about love, hypnosis, and reincarnation all queezed into the package of a bright, colorful musical. Yves Montand plays a college professor who begins hypnosis treatment on Daisy (Barbra Streisand) in order to help her stop smoking. While under, he discovers she lived a former life as a 19th century vixen who was stood up by her husband and beheaded for treason. The doctor slowly falls in love with the woman of the past, while, in the present, Daisy (unaware of her former exsistance) falls in love with him.

Big-budgeted film was a box office flop when first released, but it's actually pretty enjoyable. The offbeat story line and the public's sudden lack of interest in musicals are the probably the main reason for the film's failure.

As a Barbra Streisand fan I must say that she is great even though this film is far from her best. She is adorable as Daisy and divinely sensual as the gold digger from England that she ecomes once hypnotized. Montand is a little too stuffy and mechanical as Dr. Charbot, but he and Streisand do share some chemistry.

Streisand's good, Montand is acceptale, but on the whole the movie is was too long and even a bit forced at times. Still, it worth seeing. The costumes and sets are beautiful, the ending is sweet, and there are some great songs.

Bottom line: the movie's cute, often funny, occasionally silly and sometimes moving.

Wonderful Movie the Whole Family Can Enjoy!
This has always been one of my favorite Barbra movies. ESP and reincarnation might be old hat now, but back in 1970 they were hot topics and you could count on controversy when they were disc