Amazon.com essential video

Ranking No. 21 on the American Film Institute's list of the 100 greatest American films, this 1940 classic is a bit dated in its noble sentimentality, but it remains a luminous example of Hollywood classicism from the peerless director of mythic Americana, John Ford. Adapted by Nunnally Johnson from John Steinbeck's classic novel, the film tells a simple story about Oklahoma farmers leaving the depression-era dustbowl for the promised land of California, but it's the story's emotional resonance and theme of human perseverance that makes the movie so richly and timelessly rewarding. It's all about the humble Joad family's cross-country trek to escape the economic devastation of their ruined farmland, beginning when Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) returns from a four-year prison term to discover that his family home is empty. He's reunited with his family just as they're setting out for the westbound journey, and thus begins an odyssey of saddening losses and strengthening hopes. As Ma Joad, Oscar-winner Jane Darwell is the embodiment of one of America's greatest social tragedies and the "Okie" spirit of pressing forward against all odds (as she says, "because we're the people"). A documentary-styled production for which Ford and cinematographer Gregg Toland demanded painstaking authenticity, The Grapes of Wrath is much more than a classy, old-fashioned history lesson. With dialogue and scenes that rank among the most moving and memorable ever filmed, it's a classic among classics--simply put, one of the finest films ever made. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (45)

Ford and Fonda do justice to Steinbeck
Take John Steinbeck's Pulitzer-Prize-Winning Novel. Turn it into a movie and let John Ford direct it, and get Henry Fonda to star. In 1940 you could hardly find a more certain recipe for a cinema classic.

As good as the film is, it really should be a companion-piece to Steinbeck's original masterpiece, and if you haven't read it I recommend setting aside enough time to read one of the greatest pieces of American literature ever written.

That being said, the medium of the cinema allows for a visual impact that can't be matched with the written word.

The Grapes of Wrath follows the Joad family during the great depression. That period of economic hardship hit the farmers in Oklahoma a little harder than the rest of the world, at the time of the dust bowl the "Okies" were at the end of their ropes, financially speaking.

Thousands of Okies packed up the house after being foreclosed and moved out to California - many winding up around Bakersfield, at the California end of old US Route 66. (Merle Haggard's family did so and the "Okie from Muscogee" wrote about it in songs like "California Cottonfields".)

Anyway, this is the historical context of the movie. The theme of the movie, and of Steinbeck's book, is the ability of the human spirit to remain intact in these worst of times. The Joads suffer terrible humiliations, one after another, most of them because of their desperate financial status. But as the story proceeds we see that they are fundamentally decent, hard-working people, and every time life knocks them down they get back up, brush the dirt off themselves, and keep moving forward. As a national characteristic, this was an important trait because this was the generation that produced the hard-working, high-minded individuals who did important things like win World War II, followed by America's greatest financial flourishing and the Baby Boom. Tom Brokaw called them "America's Greatest Generation".

The cast is picture-perfect, with Henry Fonda as the spirited Tom Joad and John Carradine as the former preacher with a new social consciousness. Jane Darwell won a well-deserved Best Supporting Actress Award as Ma Joad, and the remainder of the cast is in every way equal to the story and the film.

An American Classic
This is a great movie based on a great novel, and I am surprised by how honestly the film captures the raw humanity of the book. Steinbeck weaved social commentary into the story, and the movie makes many points about the human condition and spirit without being heavy-handed. The story of the Joads and their fight for survival rings very true, thanks to the realistic performances and the atmosphere created by director John Ford. Henry Fonda gives one of the best performances I have ever seen him give, and his "I'll be there" speech is one of the great movie moments. Jane Darwell is also very impressive, and her direct, down-to-earth style of acting makes the quiet strength and the suffering of Ma Joad seem very real. The Grapes of Wrath is an American classic, both as a novel and as a film.

"I'll be all aroun' in the dark."
"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loos'd the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword, His truth is marching on." - Battle Hymn of the Republic.

In 1936, John Steinbeck wrote a series of articles about the migrant workers driven to California from the Midwestern states after losing their homes in the throes of the depression: inclement weather, failed crops, land mortgaged to the hilt and finally taken over by banks and large corporations when credit lines ran dry. Lured by promises of work aplenty, the Midwesterners packed their belongings and trekked westward to the Golden State, only to find themselves facing hunger, inhumane conditions, contempt and exploitation instead. "Dignity is all gone, and spirit has turned to sullen anger before it dies," Steinbeck described the result in one of his 1936 articles, collectively published as "The Harvest Gypsies;" and in another piece ("Starvation Under the Orange Trees," 1938) he asked: "Must the hunger become anger and the anger fury before anything will be done?"

By the time he wrote the latter article, Steinbeck had already published one novel addressing the agricultural laborers' struggle against corporate power ("In Dubious Battle," 1936). Shortly thereafter he began to work on "The Grapes of Wrath," which was published roughly a year later. Although the book would win the Pulitzer Prize (1940) and become a cornerstone foundation of Steinbeck's Literature Nobel Prize (1962), it was sharply criticized upon its release - nowhere more so than in the Midwest - and still counts among the 35 books most frequently banned from American school curricula: A raw, brutally direct, yet incredibly poetic masterpiece of fiction, it continues to touch nerves deeply rooted in modern society's fabric; including and particularly in California, where yesterday's Okies are today's undocumented Mexicans - Chicano labor leader Cesar Chavez especially pointed out how well he could empathize with the Joad family, because he and his fellow workers were now living the same life they once had.

Having fought hard with his publisher to maintain the novel's uncompromising approach throughout, Steinbeck was weary to give the film rights to 20th Century Fox, headed by powerful mogul and, more importantly, known conservative Daryl F. Zanuck. Yet, Zanuck and director John Ford largely stayed true to the novel: There is that sense of desperation in farmer Muley's (John Qualen's) expression as he tells Tom and ex-preacher Casy (Henry Fonda and John Carradine) how the "cats" came and bulldozed down everybody's homes, on behalf of a corporate entity too intangible to truly hold accountable. There is Grandpa Joad (Charley Grapewin), literally clinging to his earth and dying of a stroke (or, more likely, a broken heart) when he is made to leave against his will. There is everybody's brief joy upon first seeing Bakersfield's rich plantations - everybody's except Ma Joad's (Jane Darwell's), that is, who alone knows that Grandma (Zeffie Tilbury) died in her arms before they even started to cross the Californian desert the previous night. There is the privately-run labor camps' utter desolation, complete with violent guards, exploitative wages, lack of food and unsanitary conditions; contrasted with the relative security and more humane conditions of the camps run by the State. And there is Tom's crucial development from a man acting alone to one seeing the benefit of joining efforts in a group, following Casy's example, and his parting promise to Ma that she'll find him everywhere she looks - wherever there is injustice, struggle, and people's joint success. In an overall outstanding cast, which also includes Dorris Bowdon (Rose of Sharon), Eddie Quillan (Rose's boyfriend Connie), Frank Darien (Uncle John) and a brief appearance by Ward Bond as a friendly policeman, Henry Fonda truly shines as Tom; despite his smashing good looks fully metamorphosized into Steinbeck's quick-tempered, lanky, reluctant hero.

Yet, in all its starkness the movie has a more optimistic slant than the novel; due to a structural change which has the Joads moving from bad to acceptable living conditions (instead of vice versa), the toning down of Steinbeck's political references - most importantly, the elimination of a monologue using a land owner's description of "reds" as anybody "that wants thirty cents and hour when we're payin' twenty-five" to show that under the prevalent conditions that definition applies to virtually *every* migrant laborer - and a greater emphasis on Ma Joad's pragmatic, forward-looking way of dealing with their fate; culminating in her closing "we's the people" speech (whose direction, interestingly, Ford, who would have preferred to end the movie with the image of Tom walking up a hill alone in the distance, left to Zanuck himself). Jane Darwell won a much-deserved Academy-Award for her portrayal as Ma; besides John Ford's Best Director award the movie's only winner on Oscar night - none of its other five nominations scored, unfortunately including those in the Best Picture and Best Leading Actor categories, which went to Hitchcock's "Rebecca" and James Stewart ("The Philadelphia Story") instead. Still, despite its critical success - also expressed in a "Best Picture" National Board of Review award - and its marginally optimistic outlook, the movie engendered almost as much controversy as did Steinbeck's book. After the witch hunt setting in not even a decade later, today it stands as one of the last, greatest examples of a movie pulling no punches in the portrayal of society's ailments; a type of film regrettably rare in recent years.

"Ev'rybody might be just one big soul - well it looks that-a way to me. ... Wherever men are fightin' for their rights, that's where I'm gonna be, ma. That's where I'm gonna be." - Woody Guthrie, "The Ballad of Tom Joad."

"The highway is alive tonight, but nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes. I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light, with the ghost of old Tom Joad." - Bruce Springsteen, "The Ghost of Tom Joad."

The Grapes--and Apples and Oranges--of Wrath
It's striking how many reviewers here base their comments on a simplisitic comparison between the film version of "The Grapes of Wrath" and the Steinbeck novel on which it was based. For many such a comparison seems to function simply as an excuse to proclaim the inherent superiority of the Steinbeck original--and, by extension, the superiority of their own literary taste values-- when all it really does is highlight the patent silliness of trying to pit different artforms into some sort of evaluative competition. Literature and cinema are two vastly different modes of representation each with their own strengths and limitations, so the framing question shouldn't be which version of "The Grapes of Wrath" is "better"--as if there were a universal yardstick with which to measure such things--but rather how do they perform in terms of their respective mediums? On that count, I think we are extraordinarily fortunate with both the Steinbeck and Ford versions of "The Grapes of Wrath" to have two masterworks that operate consummately at the peak of their respective artforms. What each does well, it does brilliantly. As a verbal medium that unfolds slowly, literature is good at offering rich, layered descriptions of person and place and mapping complicated narrative links and Steinbeck makes the most of this in his novel. Cinema, by contrast, is an expressive medium that works best through registers of visual and aural metaphor, allegory and performance...and it's on this ground that I think the film version of "The Grapes of Wrath" more than merits its classic status. It is a magnificently "cinematic" film that uses the expressive capacities of the medium to produce a richly layered experience that is truly moving and that lingers long afterward, sometimes for years or even a whole lifetime. I first saw "The Grapes of Wrath" on TV one rainy afternoon in my childhood and it left indelible impressions that have impelled me to go back to the film time and again: The haunted eyes of Jane Darwell's Ma Joad as she sits in the truck cabin, lit from beneath, driving into an uncertain future, the winds of history howling oustside; the terrifying collision montage as the monstrous "cats" move in to destroy the Okies' homes; the soulless gas station attendants, standing together in uniforms like corporatized automata, muttering that the Joads are too miserable to be human. It's a film dense with iconic richness and an enduring testament both to the artistry of the many workers that created it, and to the democratic spirit of popular cinema at its very best.

As good a restoration as possible
This DVD restoration is probably as good as possible given that the original camera negative was lost. This is the one to get.

By the way, there is NO widescreen version of "The Grapes of Wrath." This DVD release exhibits the full frame aspect ratio of the original (1.33 to 1 ratio). Essentially, films made between 1917 and 1952 were filmed with a full frame aspect ratio. Standard televisions were proportioned 4:3 to copy the standard cinema ratio. Widescreen (Cinemascope, etc) was a gimmick introduced by Hollywood in the 1950s to compete with television. So if a film was made between 1917 and 1952 don't go looking for a widescreen version of it because there isn't any! ... Read more

Amazon.com

The Waltons' nearly 10-year run on network television grew out of the popular, 1971 made-for-TV movie The Homecoming, which was derived from a Depression-era, rustic setting ("Walton's Mountain"), and characters based on Earl Hamner Jr.'s autobiographical novel Spencer's Mountain--itself the source for a very nice 1963 feature film starring Henry Fonda and Maureen O'Hara.That's a lot of entertainment sprouting from Hamner's prose. But something about his seminal story of family values, rugged independence, and big dreams amidst a hardscrabble existence captured the hearts of American audiences, many of whom personally recalled severe economic adversity in the 1930s.

The Waltons: The Complete First Season collects those initial episodes from the series building on the strengths of the Homecoming pilot, which introduced the extended Walton clan led by a strong-willed mill owner, John (Andrew Duggan), and his equally resolute wife, Olivia (Patricia Neal). The Waltons recast those key roles (as well as a few others) with Ralph Waite and Michael Learned (yup, a female), but Richard Thomas carried over as oldest child John-Boy Walton, an aspiring writer whose cusp-of-manhood view informs the series. Will Geer (Seconds) replaced Edgar Bergen as Grandpa Walton, Ellen Corby remained as Grandma, and John and Olivia's large brood (seven kids in all) were filled out by largely unknown, young actors. The episodes, still delightful and touching, strong on production values and unusually tight and polished for primetime drama, tended to focus on creator Hamner's pet themes of self-sacrifice and heroic effort when the going got tough.

Year 1 highlights include "The Carnival," in which the impoverished Waltons, who can't pay for tickets to see a circus performance, end up sheltering stranded carney folk. "The Typewriter" is a classic about John-Boy "borrowing" a museum's antique typewriter, only to have his sister Mary Ellen (Judy Norton) sell it as junk. "The Sinner" concerns the arrival of a fundamentalist minister on Walton's Mountain, finding comfort in the words of religious iconoclast John Walton after the clergyman makes a fool of himself with moonshine. That's Hamner himself providing touches of narration. During the long run of the multiple-award-winning The Waltons, there were many changes in casting and storylines. But this boxed set reveals a fine series in its pristine state.

Year 2 still finds the original cast complete and the show humming along nicely on nostalgia for an earlier America, specifically the Depression-era 1930s, a time of sacrifice and family unity as The Waltons portrays it. The characters we came to know so well in season 1 continue to live in a spirit of cooperation and generosity, and with hope that a younger generation of Waltons will prosper and dream new dreams for everyone. The 24 episodes included in this boxed set feature a number of very strong stories, including a handful of classics, all immersed in the series' typically old-Hollywood production values. (Several season 2 shows were directed by Waltons star Ralph Waite.) Among the best is the premiere, "The Journey," in which the ever-noble, college-bound John-Boy (Richard Thomas) passes on a school dance and an important date to take an aging neighbor, Maggie Mackenzie (Linda Watkins), on a special, final journey. "The Separation" finds Grandpa (Will Geer) and Grandma (Ellen Corby) Walton feuding--even living apart--after the former crafts a secret plan to raise money to pay the family's electricity bill. (Their reconciliation is one of the series' most enjoyable and tender moments.) The memorable "The Thanksgiving Story" is a nail-biter in which John-Boy, facing a hopeful future as he awaits college and a visit from his girlfriend, endures a head injury in the family mill and must undergo surgery. Finally, "The Honeymoon" sees John (Waite) and Olivia (Michael Learned) finally taking their honeymoon after 19 years of marriage and seven kids. Throughout all the major storylines is a constant buzz of subplots concerning John-Boy's younger siblings--their joys and disappointments, first loves, accomplishments and relationships with one another. The Waltons never slows down, but it is capable of revealing the most delicate of feelings within shared or private moments. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Amazon.com

Like a Hardy Boys mystery on steroids, National Treasure offers popcorn thrills and enough boyish charm to overcome its rampant silliness. Although it was roundly criticized as a poor man's rip-off of Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Da Vinci Code, it's entertaining on its own ludicrous terms, and Nicolas Cage proves once again that one actor's infectious enthusiasm can compensate for a multitude of movie sins. The contrived plot involves Cage's present-day quest for the ancient treasure of the Knights Templar, kept secret through the ages by Freemasons past and present. Finding the treasure requires the theft of the Declaration of Independence (there are crucial treasure clues on the back, of course!), so you can add "caper comedy" to this Jerry Bruckheimer production's multi-genre appeal. Nobody will ever accuse director Jon Turtletaub of artistic ambition, but you've got to admit he serves up an enjoyable dose of PG-rated entertainment, full of musty clues, skeletons, deep tunnels, and harmless adventure in the old-school tradition. It's a load of hokum, but it's fun hokum, and that makes all the difference. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (263)

Entertaining movie!
Imagine a cross between "Indiana Jones" and "Mission Impossible" and you have some idea of what's in store for you with this movie.Nicholas Cage plays the current generation of a family which long ago was given the secret of the location of the Knight's Templar treasure.Succeeding generations of the family have hunted for the treasure with no success.Cage takes the hunt one step further and discovers that vital clues are on the back of the Declaration of Independence.Unfortunately some of the men who were originally helping him look for the treasure have decided that they want it all to themselves and they plan to get to the Declaration before he does.Throw in a beautiful government agent and an amusing sidekick and you have all of the ingredients for an entertaining evening.Enjoy!

A Fun Movie
I liked this movie. Lots of adventure, history and it reminds me of the Indiana Jones Trilogy. Some of it is a little formulaic and you might roll your eyes when 200+ year old torches light up like they were made yesterday, but the story is intriguing and gets your attention. If you don't know the story line by now it involves Cage as Benjamin Franklin Gates whose Family has been convinced about a massive treasure older than colonized America, hidden away during the revolutionary years. Through each succeding clue he finally learns that there is a map on the back of the Declarition of Independance, the only drawback is his partner has turned on him and is going to steal it for himself. No on in the government will listen to him, so Gates decides he'll steal it first to protect the document and the treasure. Lots of High-Tech action, spooky Mason intrigue and history, although some of it is a little questionable. All in all, definetely recommended.

Accomplishes An Entertaining Goal
One of the first things taught at journalism schools is that most "news stories" are to be written at a 6th grade level of education - the editorial page is the place for more erudite discussion.National Treasure is written at a level that would make the "average" person think "hey, that's pretty clever!", keeping in mind that the "average" person might not know that Benjamin Franklin wrote anonymous letters to newspapers while a teenager under the name "Silence Dogood". (He wrote hundreds of OTHER letters under other fictitious names as well and, given the piddling state of education in the U.S. I'd guess that the "average" person doesn't know that Old Ben was also "Poor Richard" or even know what his almanac was all about.) But I digress. Some people love to trash things that they think aren't up to their level, and so "National Treasure" didn't receive stellar reviews from the professional critics. I think it's safe to say the movie wasn't made for professional critics.

It's an entertaining little adventure and anyone who claims that it has no clever parts must be very clever indeed.Much of the movie is a historical scavenger hunt that the founding fathers have laid out for the person who can decipher the clues - with the treasure of the Templar Knights at the end of the rainbow.One of the first clues is carved into the stem of a meerschaum pipe. The stem of the pipe detaches from the carved bowl, andhas raised etchings.Our hero figures out that these etchings are intended to be used like an ink stamp, so he pricks his finger to use his blood as ink and rolls the pipe stem out to reveal the next clue.I thought that was pretty clever.

The hero, Benjamin Franklin Gates, is the Grandson of John Adams Gates, and the Gates have been thought of as the mad scientists of American History because every generation has handed down the story of the hidden treasure and spends decades of their life trying to find the treasure, or at least get other historians to take them seriously.The plot takes them to Washington (to steal the Declaration of Independence in a concise little caper that's at least as clever as the one in "After the Sunset", and THAT was SUPPOSED to be a "caper" movie.) Ben has an assistant named Riley who serves two purposes: to add clever little comments like "so who wants to go down the creepy tunnel first?" and to provide someone that Ben can give exposition to: such as who Silence Dogood was.Diane Kruger is the love interest - a Washington Ph.D. who works at the National Archives.She's the pretty face used to represent all the keepers of the Declaration of Independence.Sean Bean is a rival treasure hunter and the movie goes to great lengths to show that Heroic Ben is only after the treasure for it's historical significance while Bean's Ian is only out for the money.Harvey Keitel plays the FBI agent who becomes interested after the Declaration is stolen, but he's little more than a plot marker himself.A couple of times he gets to say "SOMEBODY's going to prison."

Hmmmm... Will good Ben or Evil Ian be the one going to prison?Will Ben and company find the magnificent treasure? For the answers to those questions check out National Treasure.... but is it too much of a clue if I tell you it's a Disney movie?

Fun for the WHOLE family!
It is very unusual to find action films in today's society that is appropriate for kids and adults alike. That is just one reason that I was thrilled to see National Treasure. It has the wit and humor one would expect from a Disney film as well as a lot of action and adventure thrills, but steers clear of gratuitous language and violence. If you like "Indiana Jones" or "Pirates of the Carribean", this film is a must see. Be sure to bring your kids, though, because they're sure to love it too!

national treasure
this is avery good movie, i watched it last night. the things that ben(nicholas cage) does are hard to predict and the story has many twists. i would recomend renting this movie because it is not as goodf the second time around and there after because you now what is going to happen ... Read more

Reviews (368)

Full blown comedy with a killer cast
Meet the Parents is one of the best comedy movies to hit the shelves in recent years. With an all-star cast including Ben Stiller, Robert DeNiro, and the one and only Owen Wilson, this movie delivers the laughs perfectly!

Greg Focker, male nurse, is about to propose to Pam, his "special friend" of ten months, when he hears about her recently engaged sitster, whose husband to be made the right move and asked her father first. Now he's got to do the same, which means he's got to meet the parents. And with the plot set, the laughter ensues...

What really makes this movie work is the characters we can all relate to. First there's Greg, who is desperately trying to win the parents' approval, but somehow manages to screw up everything he possibly can along the way. And to make matters worse, he's got to to deal with Pam's ex fiance while he carries out this death sentence of a weekend. And then there is Pam, whose father is well...just a little strange to say the least.

Also, Owen Wilson is just insane in this and the movie is worth it for his performance alone, not to mention being able to see DeNiro do a comedy this good.

See it for the laughs, see it for the cast, see it for the experience, because this is one of the best lately. And if that is not insentive enough, I leave you with a quote..."Well I have nipples Focker, could you milk ME?"

Skip This Meeting
Stale, unoriginal humor is the downfall of this take-it-or-leave-it Ben Stiller comedy. Stiller plays male nurse Gaylord Focker (whose name is the inspiration for at least a quarter of the movie's jokes), a hapless soul whose attempts to propose to his girlfriend (Teri Polo) are interrupted by a phone call announcing her sister's engagement. This leads to the wedding trip, and Stiller's opportunity to meet the parents.

What follows are a series of mildly amusing situations and one-liners, none of which you'll probably be itching to repeat at work tomorrow. Owen Wilson is a bright spot, as usual, playing Polo's ex-fiance. He also delivers the best line in the movie, a deadpan joke about the inspiration for his hobby, carpentry. Robert DeNiro and Blythe Danner, however, are both too woefully underchallenged to be able to turn in memorable performances.

The DVD's extra features include the standard outtakes, commentaries, and deleted scenes, as well as interactive personality quizzes which are fun to take but whose answers seem somewhat random. Overall, Meet the Parents is only worth renting if you're desperate to see a movie and this is the just about only thing left on the video store shelves.

Calamity after calamity - Very Funny
"Meet the Parents" is funny, outrageous, and full of fun. Pratfalls and pitfalls await our comic star Ben Stiller as he pursues his love and ingratiates himself with his father-in-law to-be, Robert DeNiro. DeNiro is a crazed, over protective, retired CIA agent who zealously protects his daughter from her would-be suitor.

Calamity follows calamity, and the sight gags cascade until the end unwinds all the zaniness in a satisfying ending. It is a lot of fun with several belly laughs thrown in for good measure.

Oh no, no, no, no, no, it's not very good. Way over rated.
This movie is not funny, just dumb. Is saying "focker" over and over and over again really that funny? I'm sorry, folks, but NO, it's just not all that funny, and this is the same dull plot that we've seen over and over again in the movies and on tv. Not recommended.

Unwatchable
I wanted to leave the theater halfway through this garbage but I already ponied up my $8. Predictable gag after predictable gag after predictable gag, this movie made me hate Ben Stiller. ... Read more

Description

This 4-title boxed-set contains all of the titles in the Batman series, including: Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman & Robin. ... Read more

Reviews (49)

The Dark Legend
BATMAN.......this movie was a classic, the original Batman, we've got Michael Keaton as the alleged Masked hero, and outstanding performance by Jack Nicholson playing the one and only Joker, of corse we've got outstanding makers of this film, Tim Burton's first time directing which was extrordinary, he really put the right image of the Dark comic book version of Batman in Gotham City, and let us not forget the beautifle masterpiece of Batman's theme and the score by Danny Elfman in which he won an oscar for. Batman Returns,a very most darker tone, the same people,includinge new stars; Michelle Pheiffer and Danny Devito as the sick and twisted Penguin, this movie had some insite with its story of Batman, Catwoman and, Penguin. Batman Forever.......this movie was a completly different point of view of the Dark Batman Knight, with Zanny Jim Carrey as the Insane Riddler [aside from the possible oneliners to be said, it was a great role] and of corse the great Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face, but this wasn't Batman, Keatonless, Burtonless, Elfmanless, the greats that made the first 2 landmarks, yet the director did capture the cartoonish Batman comic style introducing Robin. As for Batman & Robin, whew! nice cast and all but, these guys are flying through the air,swinging from strings, Mr.Freeze is frozen not Mr.super human strength, Poisun Ivy.....just think Uma Thurman, it was a nice role, too many pointless oneliners, interfacing with God only to put a dramatic realization to the un real, un dark, un batman story and not only that they dragged it on for 2 hours or so, the only thing worth the price of admission is the cast and the "action". Aside from the 4th, the first 2 are absolutly incredible movies the 3rd is entertaining and watchable and.......worth the price.

Batman Legacy
The film version of BATMAN saw director Tim Burton ditch the campy 60s "KAPOW!" action and outrageous villians and go much deeper and darker. Michael Keaton IS Batman, evoking the same troubled character from the DC comics, and of course, Jack Nicholson as The Joker, a great character played brilliantly. Burton, master of the bizzare, was the perfect man to bring the legendary comic book to the screen, and he does it wonderfully. Danny Elfman's excellent score is another added plus, and the action is well done. The look of Gotham City is inventive and fascinating, creating a nuance of comic book-styled-action and dark storytelling.

BATMAN RETURNS is much darker than the first film, yet still satisfying, popcorn-munching fun, with an apt blend of comic book action and trademark Burton weirdness. With Michael Keaton returning as the bat, Danny DeVito as the creepy pengiun and Michelle Pfeiffer as the sexy Catwoman, Batman Returns has everything fans could want. The styilised look of Gotham City is fantastic. Danny Elfman's exciting yet creepy score fits perfectly with the film's tone. The only thing slightly amiss is the plot, but that hardly matters when it's Burton at the helm, and a sharp script and some witty one-liners make up for it's flaws.

BATMAN FOREVER has it's flaws, but it's still a solid entry into the franchise. Val Kilmer takes over the role of Bruce Wayne, and while he's not as good as Michael Keaton, he manages to portray the character well. Joining Kilmer is Chris O'Donnell as Robin, and the bad guys; Tommy Lee Jones as the disfigured "Two Face" and the suitably manic Jim Carrey as the crazed Riddler. There are problems; the action takes over most of the time, leaving little in the way of exposition or plot for that matter. And the vertigo-inducing camera angles and frenetic pacing leaves the audience wanting something perhaps a little more grounded.
And then BATMAN AND ROBIN came along and killed the franchise. One of the worst movies ever made. Joel Schumacher owes me two hours of my life back!

BATMAN REVIEW
Okay, for all those people who are wanting to know which of the four batman movies are the best. Well here is my two cents.
Batman#1- staring Michale Keaton as the dark night himself batman, Jack Nicolson as the dark comical feind joker,and Kim Basinger as the sexy Vicki Vale. This was a dark beginning for the series and it explained the troubles of Bruce Waynes two lives Billion Dollar buissness man, and the dark night. Michale Keaton played an awsome batman, his two attitudes as both characters Bruce Wayne and Batman never reveal that they are the same person. Jack Nicolson as the joker was pure brilliance. His facical expressions through out the movie and his remarks make him the number one batman movie villian. This movie was directed by the brilliant mind of Tim Burton.
Batman#2- Batman returns- staring- Michale Keaton returns as the role of Batman , Michelle Phieffer as the sly sexy Cat Woman, Danny DeVito as the sewer ridden Penguin, and Christopher Walken as the notorious Max Shreck. This movie was again directed by the brilliant mind of Tim Burton. This was the darkest of all four movies. It shows the trials and errors of masterminds against the dark knight. Danny DeVito played a spectacular role as penguin. He was definitly the man for the part. Michelle Phiffer as cat women was a great selection. Props on the skin tight body suite. This was another good movie from a good cast, and a great director. Until #3
Batman#3-Batman Forever- staring- Val Kilmer as Batman, Nichole Kidman as Dr. Chase Meridian, Chris O'Donnelle as the boy wonder Robin, Tommy Lee Jones as the physcotic Two Face, and Jim Carrey as the clever Riddler. This was the worst of the 4. Jim Carrey played an awsome Riddler, Tommy Lee Jones played a fantastic two face. Nicole Kidman played a beautiful role as the sexy physco-therapist. But the other two was the downer. Starting with the least of the worst, Chris O'Donnell as robin. He was good in the beginning but as the movie progressed, his image slowly died out. Drew Barrymore played a quick role as one of two faces girls. But the number 1 reason for the faliure of this movie is the man himself Batman, played by a no personality Val Kilmer. Dont get me wrong Val is an awsome actor, but not for Batman. He had no personality, except when he tried to rival with Edward E. Nigma (The riddler for the non true batman fans) other than that he had no personatlity split between the two Bruce Wayne and Batman.

Batman#4-Batman and Robin- staring George Clooney as the role of Batman, Chris O'Donnell as the return role as Robin, Uma Thurman as the sensual Dr. Pamela Isley, also known as Poison Ivy, amd the governator himself Arnold Schwarzenegger as the bone chilling Mr. Freeze. This was an alright movie but not the best. Again the role of batman was trivialized by another actor. George Clooney as batman was good, on paper, but his performance was too wity for some. Again not seperating the lines between batman and Mr. Wayne.
So all in all the batman series is a definite DVD collection to have my ratings on the movies are.
BATMAN#1-*****
BATMAN#2-****
BATMAN#3-**
BATMAN#4-***
TAKE FROM A TRUE BATMAN FAN. ITS A GOOD BUY.

Its all about personal taste!
Whats there to say about these four movies? Plenty!

The first Batman stars "Michael Keaton" as Bruce Wayne A.K.A"Batman" and Jack Nicolson as "The Joker" the plot evolves from the major crime boss of Gothem played by Jack Palance gets a little upset to find out one of his men is having an affair with his girl! So he sets him up to be captured by the police, only to have that man be accidently tossed over a rail into a batch of toxis waste and thought to be dead! But he's not, after he recovers and has some surgery he has become a new man, and calls himself "The Joker" and he takes over as the new crime boss of Gothem, and beeing ruthless he has sent out a mysterious virus that is killing people off slowly and Batman comes along to save the day, along the way there action, explosions , new gadgets and some cool effects! Kim Bassinger plays the leading lady and this movie is worth watching, its the best of what came out of these four movie....the first may not be the original, but its the original to this series of the Batman saga, and its the best of these four!

Batman returns has had alot of mixxed reviews. some like it, some dont! Me personally I dont think its a great movie! Batmans back and this time he has a new villian to deal with, a man who was abandend by his parents almost after birth and has been living in the seweres since .... and when he emerges he has become the golden boy of gothem, suckering people into making him beleive hes a good guy. That man is the Penguin played by Danny Devito! Batman knows he's dirty and sets out to proove it! Also Michelle Pheifer plays the Catwoman, many i think liked the film because of seeing her in a tight costume, seeing as how sex doesnt sell in my book, it may be why i dont see this film as beeing any good! Also stars "Christpher Walkin" he plays a wealthy buisness man who is not a nice man, and with such scum running around gothem, Batman is there to try and save the day once again from the crime around gothem!

Batman Forever I would bet money on is in any ones top 10 worst movies of all time list! This movie starred a new leading man for Batman "Val Kilmer" as Batman and also bringing in the new villians of The Riddler (Jim Carey) and Two Face (Tommy Lee Jones) and the new leading lady is played by barf girl (Nicole Kidman) even with a cast like that this movie failed! Its plot is bad, the whole serisness and almost beleiable first two movies have just completly taken a 180 turn and gone into a stupid comic book looking city with some of THE worst acting of all time! The only actor who played a decent role was the other new comer to the series Robin (Chris O'donnel)

Batman & Robin introduces "George Clooney" as Batman, Chris O'donnel returns as Robin, and introduces Alicia Silverstone to play Bat Girl.... two new villians have emerged in Gothem , Mr.Freeze (Arnold Shwartzenegger) and Posion Ivy (Uma Thermon) this movie was a bit better then the last one, but Arnolds acting is by far some of his worst! And Uma's parading around in tights trying to sell a sexy image does not do it for me! George Clooney IMO did not play that bad a role as Batman, he is certinlly better then Val Kilmer, but no where near as good as Keaton!

Final Advice on these movies
1 - Good, well worth watching ***** five stars!
2 - Eh, wasnt as good as the first **** four stars
3 - ONE OF THE WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME! / Zero Stars
4 - An improvment on the last, but not good enough *** 3 stars!

My advice is to buy only the first one and maybe the second one if you liked it! But if you buy Batman Forever, you will make one of the worst purchases of all time! You will regret it! And the 4th isnt really worth having...if you get a great deal on all four, then go for it, but IMO part one and two is the only ones worth getting!

The worst downfall to ALL of these movies, is not one of them comes with any bonus features!!!! I remember heaps of stuff that was around when all 4 of these films where made, starting with the trailer to the first movie "a man in black" and its very disapointing that they neglect some of the biggest movies of all time like this!

Great Box Set
This is a great movie and I recomened it too anyone who has ever liked Tim Burton, Batman, or action movies. So you should think about getting this set. Some of these films can be dark sometimes but they will always remain entertaining. Michael Keaton is the best actor for Batman. George Clooney is a great actor but he wasn't too good as Batman and Val Kilmer was almost as good Michael. If they ever did make a 5th Batman movie, they should use Michael Keaton, even thou he is getting quite old. But who the hell cares. These are great films that you could watch with your kids, just don't let kids under 5 watch the second one. It is a bit too dark for younger viewers. But I'm sure you can let your kids under 5 watch the other ones.

Batman-This is the best one of the series of coarse and has the best bad guy, The Joker played by, who else but Jack Nicholson. He's the only one who could have done the Joker. This film isn't as dark as the others and is a great action film.

10/10
Rated PG-13 for violence, mild graphic violence, stylized action and some language.

Batman Returns-This is a great film and was one dark dark movie. Danny DeVito was great as the Penguin and made it an enjoyable bad guy, not like alot of bad guys out there today.
Michael Keaton is Batman for the last time in this one.
8/10
Rated PG-13 for violence, dark humor, language, and stylized action.

Batman Forever-Val Kilmer should have been Batman is Batman and Robin. He is almost as good as Keaton is. This time the bad guys are The Riddler played by the one and only Jim Carrey, and Two Face as the great Tommy Lee Jones. The thrid time around is great for most third sequels never really work out.
9/10
Rated PG-13 for violence, dark humor, and stylized action.

Batman and Robin-This is an ok entry in the Batman series but could have been much better. I think Joel rushed through it to get it out as quick as possible. George Clooney puts up an ok job as Batman and Arnold is awsome as Mr. Freeze. And that's my opinian.
7/10
Rated PG-13 for violence and stylized action.

So all in all I would have to give this set a 9/10 and is well worth your money. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

A mixed bag of Hitchcock classics and also rans
This second boxed set has a number of stunning works by Hitchcock; Vertigo and The Birds are stunning masterpieces from the Master of Suspense. The former film is his most personal while the latter his most expansive in scope and a radical departure from what had come before. These two films represent Hitchcock's brilliance at its best.

Torn Curtain isn't a complete disaster but is far from a perfect film. Marnie is downright embarrassing. I know a number of Hitchcock scholars consider it his last great work; I'd argue that this misogynistic Freudian work of mumbo jumbo is among Hitchcock's worst films. Sure, it has a couple of stunning set pieces but the film script has clearly traveled through too many hands (although it was based on Hitchcock's concept of the film and Evan Hunter is the only screenwriter credited, Ernest Lehman, Joseph Stefano and a couple of other writers tried their hand at adapting this meandering mess). It suffers from flaws that Hitchcock had worked through earlier in his career (with the flawed but interesting Spellbound).

The only other film that comes close to Vertigo and The Birds is the minor masterpiece Frenzy. Hitchcock was clearly energized by the competition of young upstarts following in his footsteps. Frenzy, again, demonstrates that Hitchcock could be at his best even this late in his long career.

The Trouble with Harry is a fine dark comedy from Hitchcock and, although it hasn't aged all that well, still features sparkling dialogue (courtesy of writer John Michael Hayes)and strong performances.

Saboteur is another minor masterpiece from Hitchcock that still manages to be engaging. The sequence set on the Statue of Liberty as Robert Cummings tries to save the foreign spy (played by Hitchcock regular Norman Lloyd)is still gripping and powerful today.

The real reason to own this set is the episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents included on the bonus DVD. Hitchcock directed all these himself. They vary in quality from good to exceptional. Since they aren't available indivdually, it's a must have for fans of the director's work.

If you want to purchase Hitchcock's best films, get them individually but if you need this bonus disc, this set is the expensive way to go.

GREAT COLLECTION OF THE MASTER'S WORK
I loved all the selections offered in this boxed set. I especially enjoyed the additional commentary offered by Pat Hitchcock (his daughter) - it provided a great perspective of Hitch's intentions for each of these films. I loved the bonus disc of 4 episodes from his TV show "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" and wish more of these were made available in this format. I always enjoyed his television show especially his intros and summations at their beginnings and endings. Truly funny stuff!! My only dissatisfaction was with "Saboteur" - I have a Panasonic Portable DVD player and during playback there were times the picture broke up and pixilized - not always in the same place. That may be a problem with this particular player but since I didn't have another brand to test it on - I'm not sure. Anyway - a great collection!! A MUST HAVE FOR ALL HITCHCOCK FANS!

A Fine Sampling Of The Master At Work!
The "A" films for me in this collection are "Marnie", "The Birds", "Frenzy" and "Vertigo", all of which I've seen multiple times. I never tire of seeing these Hitchcock classics. "Marnie" is a husband and wife story between Sean Connery and Tipi Hendren. Marnie, coerced into marrying Connery, has led a life of crime based on a past that Connery seeks to uncover. It took the public some years to warm up to this film but I loved it at once. "The Birds" is one of Hitchcock's instant hits where he literally has the birds in a coastal California community go on the attack against the populace. Just seeing the birds line up on the telephone wires, ready to attack the people, is chilling! "Frenzy" was made in the '70s, set in London, and involves two men, one who sets the other up to be the fall guy for the necktie stranglings that he himself is committing. There is a scene is a truckload of potatotes where the killer needs to get a piece of jewelry back from a corpse that is absolutely unforgettable. "Vertigo" showcases Jimmy Stewart, who is rendered powerless by heights by an earlier mishap, who falls in love with a mysterious woman, Kim Novak that he follows. She seems to be fatally drawn to the bell tower of a church on the California coast. The remaining films in the collection range from B- ("Torn Curtain") to B+ ("Saboteur"). I've viewed them all at least once, sometimes twice. Most movie directors would claim them as their "A" work but Hitchcock's "A" work was so fabulous that it is indeed his lesser work. In any event, once you've started watching Hitchcock's work, you've got to see all of it. It's as simple as that.

THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION
Vol. 2 is just as great as Vol. 1! It has all of Hitchcock's best classics which include, "Torn Curtain","Marnie" "The Birds", "Vertigo", "Frenzy", "Sabotuer",and "The Trouble with Harry". Plus as a special BONUS DISC, three episodes from the original HITCHCOCK TV SHOW!! This is a great collection to own and anybody who is a major Hitchcock fan like me, must own this collection! No Hitchcock Collection is complete without it! So don't miss out! Buy it today! You will not regret it!! ... Read more

Reviews (90)

The best contextual musical ever
Norman Jewison's "Fiddler On the Roof" is the story of a poor milkman living in tsarist Russia, which in the outskirts of Russia. This is one of the most original musicals, based on the stories of Sholom Aleichem. Played by Chaim Topol and Norma Crane as Tevye and Golde, the acting of this role of parents of five daughters in an orthodox Jewish family is done brilliantly. Tevye's misquotings of the bible is hilarious. The songs in the movie are outstanding and poignant. Starting from the beginning with "Tradition", with violinist Isaac Stern doing his magic, every song has its uniqueness.

Each of his three older daughters choose a different path. The first one refuses to marry the person chosen by the father as she in love with the tailer Motel. The way Tevye cons his wife into agreeing for this wedding is one of the funniest pieces of the movie. The characters chosen are unique and beautifully portrayed. The song before this, "Matchmaker, matchmaker" is beautiful. The way Yente, the matchmaker looks at the youngest daughters as though they were caravans wares is extremely funny. The second daughter Tseitel chooses the revolutionary who is against the Tsar and wishes communism. The song in the bar "To life, Le Chaim" is unusual and shows the way the Jews and the Christians can get along in a limited manner. The third daughter chooses a gentile.

Though this is a musical, the acting, story and the character portrayal is deep. Songs range from comic like "If I were a rich man", to haunting, "Sunrise, sunset", to sad and lonely, "Little bird". Though being Jewish will help one understand this movie better, it is not a necessity. The screenplay is wonderful. The particular one that I like is when Avraham comes and tells that there are bad things going on in the world. Another person says, "Why should I break my head about the outside world, let the outside world break its own head". Here Tevye says, "He is right, if you spit in the air, it lands in your face." Then the revolutionary says, "Nonsense, you cannot be blind to what happens outside." Then Tevye says, "You know, he is also right." At this time Avraham points to the revolutionary and the other person and says, "He is right and he is right, they can't both be right." Now Tevye looks at Avraham and says, "You know, you are also right."

When the Jews are evicted, it is extremely sad. They console themselves saying that their village Anatevka was not exactly the garden of Eden. This song, "Anatevka", is sad and heartbreaking. They have so little but still love it. It reminds one that happiness is something of the inside and has nothing to do with material possessions. This movie is a classic and a timeless masterpiece. It might be difficult for some people to understand due to the history of Tsarist Russia and its pogroms and the context, otherwise, to date it is my favorite musical.

One of the greatest musicals of all time...
Fiddler on the Roof is a cinematic masterpiece. Originally a musical, this movie is an amazing adaptation that remains faithful to the original, while at the same time not making it seem "theatrical" to the point where it looks contrived. The characters are played perfectly with Topol (who plays Tevye, the poor village milkman) taking the highest honors.

Fiddler on the Roof is simply a timeless story, even if it finds itself placed in czarist Russia. The story revolves around Tevye, a poor Jew living in Russia and his struggle to stay true to his faith (and ideals) in a world that is rapidly changing. This film follows Tevye in his journey to meld his rich Jewish past with the modern world that surrounds him. His arguments with himself ("On the other hand,...") are priceless and allow us to relate with Tevye as he struggles with his heritage (the pogroms), his financial status ("If I Were a Rich Man") and his family (his daughters are entering marrying age).

Ths music is wonderful. The songs are poignant and easily remembered. I guarantee that you'll wind up singing/humming "Tradition" or "If I Were a Rich Man" days after watching the movie. The movie itself is humourous at times, and sorrowful the next and the storyline is deep, but is not a damning social commentary. The cinematics are also extraordinary, with the film being shot "on location" in Zagreb, Yugoslavia.

This is an ideal family movie, and I can remember watching (and loving) this movie at an early age. I'm glad I purchased this movie for my DVD collection, as it will become one of my most watched (and sung to) films. The box comes with only a single DVD, but is double-sided and contains additional footage, an additional song (cut at production) and a commentary on the movie itself.

Fiddler on the Roof
IT was absolutely amazing. Everything about it! The backround and effects were amaxing and it was a very touching story with absolutely wonderful actors and unforgetable songs. SPECTACULAR!

An excellent film, except for the cover art
I love this movie, but was highly dissaponted with the ugly cover art design. They should have stuck to the original poster art. Anyways, the music is great, and it is good to see such movies being restored on DVD.

The best of all musicals.
I agree with HeadbangerDuh in every sense. This is the best of musicals. While some other musicals amy be corny, boring, and downright dumb, Fiddler shows humor, interest, and is educational. Although part one is funnier, part two I feel is richer, and more full, not as goofy. This is probably the best film of the century. ... Read more

Amazon.com

To call Orson Welles's F For Fake a documentary would be somewhat deceitful, but deceit itself is very much the subject of this curious film essay. Welles ruminates on the nature of artistic fakery through two examples, that of infamous art forger Elmyr de Hory and the writer Clifford Irving, whose bogus autobiography of Howard Hughes set off a minor media flurry in the 1970s. Postmodernist that he is, Wells then proceeds to narrate and edit the film in such a perversely frenetic way as to blur the lines between what is real and what is deception, making for an often confusing but engaging work of art in itself. We even see the footage we've been watching as it's being spliced together in Welles's editing room. The specter of Welles's often maligned later career hangs over the proceedings like a challenge--is he going to actually complete this strange movie about chicanery, or will it become one of the many unfinished experiments of his twilight years? Happily, Welles concludes the proceedings with a delightful sequence about Picasso, lust, and what constitutes real art. F For Fake is a fine example of a master filmmaker who had at least a couple tricks left up his sleeve. --Ryan Boudinot ... Read more

Reviews (17)

G For Great
Orson Welles' "For for Fake" can be at times a very confusing movie. But, if you find yourself confused, the problem is your thinking to hard. You're trying to make sense of a movie that simply doesn't want you to make sense of it. Think of the film as a magic act. You know you're being fooled, but you sit and watch anyways because you are being entertained. To think how the trick was done that's away from the mystery. And just like a magican Welles' doesn't want to reveal his secrets.

"F for Fake" is supposedly about a famous art forger, Elmyr de Hory and the relationship between himself and a man named Clifford Irving. Right from the beginning Welles tells us we are going to watch a movie about lies and deception.

At first the film, notice a called it a film not a documentary, plays off as real. We think we are seeing a movie that is examing how in fact is Elmyr de Hory. At admittedly it is very interesting. Welles comprises this material in a very effective way. Though all the while we are asking ourselves, just how much as this can we trust?

The film zips through three main plot points. One dealing with de Hory another involving Howard Hughes,which leads us back to Clifford Irving, and then finally a segment about Welles himself and some of the tricks he has pulled off, namely his famous "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast.

"F for Fake" I believe was the last film Welles directed, and while it may not be in the same league as his other works; "Citizen Kane", "Touch of Evil", or "Chimes at Midnight" it is still an enjoyable film. In some ways it is quite fitting that this would be his last film. He was a man who had to struggle to find a place in the Hollywood studio system to get his films made and here he has the last laugh.

Bottom-line: Highly entertaining film about lies and deception. The movie has the ability to suck us into its story, and manages to fool us. Worthwhile for fans of Orson Welles.

A rich film, nothing else like it
Orson Welles's F For Fake is a great film, and it's surprising to me that it isn't more widely acclaimed.A brilliant investigation into lying, manipulation, and the chicanery that forms the foundation of high culture, it reminds me of something Michael Moore might do if he were more concerned with metaphysics than politics, or Ross McElwee if he wore a cape and was outwardly self-obsessed.Great stuff, especially for anyone jaded by the b.s. flowing from the art world.
My one complaint-a few too many shots of Kodar prancing around in high heels-Welles's work in those sections was like a twelve year old's idea of what sexually attractive looks like.
Brilliantly shot and edited, narrated with style and panache by Welles, and it has substance to back up the style.
Criterion added some good extras.The unreleased trailer for F For Fake might be even better than the movie itself--it makes promises God himself couldn't keep.The documentary on Welles's late period of unfinished work is enjoyable, but by no means a revelation.The clips that are shown are intriguing, but a more penetrating and honest analysis of his later years by someone more removed from the subject would have been preferable to Kodar's well-intentioned puff piece.The swinging london skit shown in the film is hilarious.
The documentary on De Hory is okay, a bit dry, and has a bit of a smell of "expert" posturing about it.The 60 minutes interview with Clifford Irving is strange.The man reveals nothing that rings sincerely.Based on it, Irving comes off to me as the most dangerous and desperate man involved in the proceedings.There doesn't seem to be anything there beyond an enthusiasm for finding an angle and playing it successfully.Hughes's telephone interview is sad for the promises he makes and the potential he had.
In all, a great package and nearly worth the steep price tag

Fake in the most truthful way possible.
Sure, I saw Citizen Kane. It was pretty good, but despite what all the experts said, it wasn't the best film I'd ever seen, let alone of all time. After seeing Kane I was utterly convinced of Greg Tolland's genius but Orson Welles? Eh, not so much. Having seen him in Kane I thought he was terribly overrated, because I just couldn't see what the whole fuss was about. I wasn't impressed because the first time I saw Kane, it reminded me of the Simpsons episode that paid homage to the movie--and I thought the Simpsons was better! I thought that it was so full of cliches, but then I remembered it's like that joke about the person who went to see Hamlet for the first time and came back pouting that it was full of cliches.

But because I'm a sporting type of person, I finally decided to watch F for Fake just to figure out if Welles really was as good a director as everyone in the world seemed to think he was. I'd give him one more film, I said to myself, but really I'd written him off. I thought I was going to unmask the fake--I'd expose Welles for the overrated, overblown director he was.

Boy, was I wrong. This movie is like nothing else I've ever seen; as someone else remarked, this is MTV before MTV, this is meta before meta, this movie blows Kane out of the water and more. Oja Kodar said that Orson Welles often edited his films with an ear for music, and if that's the case then this film is pure jazz. Such unparalleled virtuoso narration is nothing short of AMAZING. Prior to seeing this film, I'd fallen in love with Michael Winterbottom's 24 Hour Party People released in 2002 which is a pretty good send-up of the Manchester scene, that also takes place in the editing room. But F for Fake came out a full 25 years before that movie and despite the retro feel, it blows it out of the water.

The extra features on the second disc are quite noteworthy, if only because they showcase footage from Kodar and Welles' unfinished movies, a veritable treasure trove of lost masterpieces. Watching Kodar and Welles together, one gets a sense of a real, loving, creative partnership between the two of them.

On a sidenote, I left this film with a great appreciation for Orson's "intractable contrariness" and his great desire to always push the envelope in service of his Art. Though Welles does claim to be a charlatan, a fraud, an utter fake, he was perhaps the very best at using lies to tell the truth.

Genius Stifled
Orson Welles' 1937 "Julius Caesar" is the longest running Broadway production of the play. Welles played Brutus. In 1938, Welles' On-the-Air Mercury Theatre broadcast "War of the Worlds". It was a hoax. But it caused a nationwide panic. Listeners were convinced that the Earth was being invaded by Mars. RKO Studios signed Welles to direct "Citizen Kane" in 1941. It is regarded by many as the Best Film ever made. Welles had conquered stage, radio, and the cinema. Criterion has just released the flawless, two-disc DVD, "F For Fake", an anamorphic, digitally-restored transfer(1.66:1).Disc One is Welles' 1976 essay/documentary; a non-linear, freeze-frame interview of art forger Elmyr De Hory, culled from 35mm and blown-up 16mm. Elmyr's biographer, Clifford Irving, is later exposed as the fraudulent chronicler of Howard Hughes. "F For Fake" features Joseph Cotten, Laurence Harvey, and Welles' mistress, Oja Kodar. Filmed in France, Rome, and southern California, "F For Fake" includes shots of Howard Hughes' bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel. It was the last film Welles ever directed. Extras include a Peter Bogdanovich introduction, a nine-minute trailer(curiously un-restored), and a commentary track. Disc Two contains the elusive 88-minute documentary, "One-Man Band". It has never been available before on film, video, or DVD( I saw it once 2 years ago on late-night cable). The 1995 "One-Man Band" examines Welles' lost/unfinished movies. This treasure trove includes scenes from "The Other Side of the Wind", "The Deep", and, reportedly, his mysterious "Don Quixote(A work in progress, on-and-off, for 15 years)". Welles stares into the camera, pauses, and recites Herman Melville in fragments of his "Moby Dick". He is electrifying. The process is staggering; and finally heart-breaking. So much talent, and finally, a sense of loss. Disc Two has another stunning documentary, an essay, a 60 Minutes excerpt, and a Howard Hughes press conference. Director, actor, writer, painter, magician. Orson Welles was, perhaps, the greatest auteur of the 20th Century. Big words. Big man. Big cigar. Welles once said that we are all really 2 or 3 different people inside. Or none of these at all. Was Orson Welles a fake?Welles' classic 1958 "Touch of Evil" ended in these last lines:Tanya: Isn't somebody gonna come and take him away?Schwartz: Yeah, in just a few minutes. You really liked him, didn't you?Tanya: The cop did..the one who killed him...he loved him.Schwartz:Is that all you have to say for him? Tanya:He was some kind of a man...What does it matter what you say about people?

Film Unlike Other Films - A Cinematic Thesis...
Society consists of symbols with a wide range of meanings within the world.The alphabet is one of most commonly used code systems of symbols.The letters in the alphabet have the power to form words and every single word has a meaning.When a number of words such as nouns, verbs, and adjectives fuse together, they form a sentence.The structure of a sentence is to produce a contextual meaning, which sometimes uses symbolism to enhance the sentences in regards to the theme of the topic.Several joined sentences create a paragraph, which usually focuses on one idea that also could be a symbol.A number of ideas compiled into a narrative form makes a thesis for readers to contemplate, which could help the person either assimilate, or adapt the new ideas to previous knowledge and wisdom.This is due to the notion that new ideas comprise a symbolic meaning for the individual.Orson Welles seems to have used this concept when he made the film, F for Fake.

F for Fake playfully utilizes every single scene while maximizing the symbolic value of words, images, and behavior among the individuals portrayed in the film.These scenes offer several representational impressions to the audience, as Welles' meticulous editing seems to have the same meaning a typewriter has to a writer.In this sense, F for Fake does not offer a conventional film or documentary, as Welles uses both authentic film clips edited with stage performances.Instead, Welles advocates his ideas in neither a fictionalized nor a non-documentary manner, as he fuses these two into a notion of deceit, forgery, trickery, and any other way that could deceive the audience.In 1972 over a Parisian lunch with writer and film essayist Jonathan Rosenbaum he expressed that he was working on this film, which Welles referred to as a new kind of film.The structure of the film brings the notion of a thesis where the candidate attempts to support his or her own thesis from a wide range of angles.Each visual symbol has a meaning while the scenes form the visual sentences, as the different acts form paragraphs in this cinematic thesis.The heavy editing, which Welles spent over a year on, describes Welles' cerebrally complexity while trying to defend this extraordinarily cinematic thesis.

In the beginning of the film Welles implies that a key he used for a magic trick "...was not symbolic of anything."This, however, suggests another deceit, as the audience has already seen the sequence and had time to ponder the meaning of the key to which Welles is fully aware.The pondering has already caused the audience to give the key a visual meaning, which the viewer has either assimilated or adapted to previous knowledge.There is also a scene where the audience gets to follow a stunning woman in high heels and a short miniskirt , as several people open their eyes starring while salivating and car horns honk in the background.Suggestively, the scene causes the audience to think that all the men probably are secretively wishing for the woman's company.This too is a clever lie, as Welles simply has edited together a number of scenes which insinuate that people are starring while horns can be heard in the background.Welles seems to suggest that what one sees cannot be believed, as what one sees might only be a fabricated version of the truth.

To comfort the audience Welles informs that the viewers that they will not be victims to deception as he places in writing that "For the next hour everything in this film is strictly based on the available facts."This portion of the film leads the audience through a two-piece sequence about a famous art forger named Elmyr de Hory, Cliff Irving, and the eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes.One focuses on Elmyr while the second part emphasizes Elmyr's biographer Irving who also was into forgery, as he wrote a forged autobiography by Howard Hughes who then lived secretively in a luxury Las Vegas penthouse.This brings several of the previous notions back, as Welles continues to discuss the idea of deceit.One of the interesting ideas in this sequence explains the meaninglessness of experts, as fakers cannot be troubled by experts.One thing that Elmyr advises of is that no one should have the ultimate power to decide quality, as he himself probably fooled many so-called experts with his own forgeries.This also implies that the expert could as well be the faker, if this one person knew what was good.This notion would also suggest that this very review would be a fake, as it also does not express anything unique while it merely retells the design and purpose of the film.

F for Fake offers an intriguing cinematic thesis that crawls within the brain causing an itch that does not seem to want to leave.The film is nothing like anything that Welles has done before, or after this film, which also supports what he has said in regards to the film.One reason that no other film that he created since did not mimic this film could be the concept of the film, as it provides an opportunity for him to play with his own ideas in a visual manner.This film took over a year for him to make, as it also seems to be a film of personal growth and understanding of the world as a whole.The personal aspect of the film seems to saturate the whole experience, as he refers to himself while acting and making comments in regards to the people in film from behind the cutting board.Ultimately, Welles attempts to erase the idea of him being the "expert", as he provides examples of his own forgery from when he provided the War of the Worlds over the radio, which caused mass hysteria throughout the United States. ... Read more

Description

Includes CSI Seasons 1-4 ... Read more

Amazon.com

From Hollywood's legendary Cocoanut Grove to the pioneering conquest of the wild blue yonder, Martin Scorsese's The Aviator celebrates old-school filmmaking at its finest. We say "old school" only because Scorsese's love of golden-age Hollywood is evident in his approach to his subject--Howard Hughes in his prime (played by Leonardo DiCaprio in his)--and especially in his technical mastery of the medium reflecting his love for classical filmmaking of the studio era. Even when he's using state-of-the-art digital trickery for the film's exciting flight scenes (including one of the most spectacular crashes ever filmed), Scorsese's meticulous attention to art direction and costume design suggests an impassioned pursuit of craftsmanship from a bygone era; every frame seems to glow with gilded detail. And while DiCaprio bears little physical resemblance to Hughes during the film's 20-year span (late 1920s to late '40s), he efficiently captures the eccentric millionaire's golden-boy essence, and his tragic descent into obsessive-compulsive seclusion. Bolstered by Cate Blanchett's uncannily accurate portrayal of Katharine Hepburn as Hughes' most beloved lover, The Aviator is easily Scorsese's most accessible film, inviting mainstream popularity without compromising Scorsese's artistic reputation. As compelling crowd-pleasers go, it's a class act from start to finish. --Jeff Shannon

DVD Features
In his commentary track, director Martin Scorsese offers his own impressions of Howard Hughes and rattles off his memories of experiencing Hughes's films.He mentions how he made Cate Blanchett watch every Katharine Hepburn film from the '30s on the big screen, and observes that Kate Beckinsale had "a real sense of the stature of a Hollywood goddess."But in general he doesn't talk much about the craft of making the film.That area is covered better by editor Thelma Schoonmaker, who also appears on the commentary track, and producer Michael Mann makes a few appearances (all were recorded separately).The picture is brilliant, but the 5.1 sound is not as aggressive in the rear speakers and subwoofer as one might expect, other than some nice surround effects in the Hell's Angels flying sequence.

The second disc collects almost three hours of features.There's one unnecessary deleted scene, and an 11-minute making-of featurette that's basically the cast and director heaping praise on each other.More interesting are the short featurettes on visual effects (including the XF-11 scene, of course), production design, costumes, hair and makeup, and score, and Loudon Wainwright discusses his and his children's musical performances.Historical perspective is provided by spotlights on Hughes's role in aviation and his obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a 43-minute Hughes documentary from the History Channel (part of the Modern Marvels series, it focuses on his mechanical innovations and spends less than a minute on his movies).More unusual are DiCaprio and Scorsese's appearance on an OCD panel, and a half-hour interview segment DiCaprio did with Alan Alda.--David Horiuchi

The Personalities ofThe Aviator

Click the links to explore more movies by these stars.

Leonardo DiCaprio as Howard Hughes "Sometimes I truly fear that I... am losing my mind. And if I did it... it would be like flying blind."

Cate Blanchett as Katharine Hepburn Howard Hughes: "You're the tallest woman I have ever met." Katharine Hepburn: "And all sharp elbows and knees. Beware."

	Kate Beckinsale as Ava Gardner Howard Hughes: "Does that look clean to you?" Ava Gardner: "Nothing's clean, Howard. But we do our best, right?"

Gwen Stefani as Jean Harlow Jean Harlow in Hell's Angels: "Would you be shocked if I put on something more comfortable?"

Jude Law as Errol Flynn Errol Flynn in Captain Blood: "Up the riggings, you monkeys! Break out those sails and watch them fill with the wind that's carrying us all to freedom!"

Director Martin Scorsese "You get a sense of Howard Hughes being Icarus with the wax wings. Those wings were great for a while, but he flies too close to the sun." --Martin Scorsese

Other Movies by The Aviator's Oscar® Winners

Production Designer Dante Ferretti
Film Editor Thelma Schoonmaker
Costume Designer Sandy Powell
Cinematographer Robert Richardson
See all the Oscar® winners atOscar Central

The Aviator at Amazon.com

The Aviator soundtrack

The Screenplay

Howard Hughes: The Real Aviator

Howard Hughes movies

Great movies of the 1930s

The films of Martin Scorsese

Reviews (148)

Hughes at His Peak But Epic Biopic Not Quite a Masterpiece
This is an audacious, surprisingly amusing piece of Hollywood filmmaking by a veteran craftsman of the first magnitude, yet for a number of reasons, not necessarily of Martin Scorsese's sole doing, the movie does not resonate as much as you wish it would. In staying true to the spirit of multimillionaire magnate Howard Hughes between the late 1920's and the late 40's, Scorsese and screenwriter John Logan are stuck with the facts as they happened, and consequently, the film feels episodic with a great, sometimes dazzling story in the first 2/3 of its epic 166-minute running time and a pedantic, only occasionally involving last hour.

You need to have some familiarity with Hughes' life to understand his halcyon years proving himself as a Hollywood tycoon worthy of respect, and his legendary excess during the three-year production of the now-forgotten "Hell's Angels" is captured perfectly here with truly thrilling aviation sequences. Scorsese then focuses on Hughes' romance with Katharine Hepburn and captures the oddball chemistry of burgeoning eccentrics amid the frenzied environment of studio-owned Hollywood, in particular, the Cocoanut Grove nightclub. These sequences remind me a lot of Scorsese's failed musical, "New York, New York", but this time he seems far more assured. Ava Gardner enters the picture in the forties, as Hughes builds luxury airplanes that can't fly and his obsessions and paranoia start to take over. There's a magnificently filmed sequence of Hughes crashing his XF-11 plane in the middle of Beverly Hills.

Once he recovers from this incident, the film starts to drag, as the story focuses on his power struggles of positioning Hughes' airline TWA against the European-route monopoly of Pan Am and the machinations of Pan Am CEO Juan Trippe and the corrupt Maine senator Owen Brewster who investigates Hughes' WWII government contracts. Even the legendary mini-flight of the Spruce Goose fails to excite this late in the story. Only Scorsese's famous "Taxi Driver"-like, mind-bending touch brings off the surrealism of the sequences where Hughes locks himself up in his room. The film ends rather anticlimactically with Hughes' successful 1947 appearance before Brewster's committee before he drowns in his obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).

Leonardo DiCaprio's chief asset as an actor is his intensity of purpose, and as Hughes, he has plenty of opportunities to display this attribute with his character's obsessions with aviation, moviemaking, glamorous movie stars and ultimately germs. What he is missing is a level of gravitas that would have made his character's increasing eccentricities more bearable to watch. Even though the reed-thin Texas-tinged voice is accurate, there is something perpetually juvenile about DiCaprio's appearance regardless of the twenty-year span of the story. This unfortunately compromises the chemistry between him and the obviously more mature Cate Blanchett, who initially seems to be crossing the border into parody as Hepburn. She displays the familiar brusque manner without caution and even affecting the even more familiar voice but with an inaccurate throatiness that belies the legendary actress' high, fluttery pitch at the time. But she eventually finds her grounding, especially as she recognizes their too-similar personalities and softens during the Hepburn family gathering scene.

With less to do, the too-patrician Kate Beckinsale is in over her head as Ava Gardner, unable to convey the real actress' palpable sultriness or predatory voraciousness without posturing. On the other hand, Alec Baldwin is becoming a strong character actor with every new film, and he plays Trippe with disquieting authority. John C. Reilly plays assistant Noah Dietrich in his typically hangdog fashion as he subsists more in the shadows. Alan Alda plays Brewster with Hawkeye's familiar mannerisms unafraid to show the underlying sliminess of his character. All the externals are impressive - Thelma Schoonmaker's sharp editing (the pacing never drags...just the story), Robert Richardson's cinematography, Dante Ferretti's production design, Sandy Powell's costumes. Yet for all of this, the movie fall short as a masterwork in Scorsese's filmography.

The first disc has an excellent commentary track by Scorsese, Schoonover and producer Michael Mann - all full of insights without being pedantic. The number of extras on the second disc of the two-DVD set is staggering, really too much for anyone except for those deeply interested in Hughes. There is one deleted scene and twelve separate featurettes and documentaries covering everything from the production to Hughes' role in aviation to OCD to the music. Beyond the sheer number, my complaint about the set is that it's hard to maneuver around the decidedly viewer-unfriendly menus.

"Bring in the milk!"
Let me state a few facts about myself and, in doing so, set up a very sincere question about "The Aviator."

1) I'm a huge fan of Howard Hughes, an absolute buff on the guy.I've read two biographies of him and have to say he's one of the most interesting historical figures of the past century: His brilliance, his wealth, his flaws, his successes, his peculiarities and the periods in which he lived all combine to create a fascinating figure.

2) I'm a tremendous fan of Martin Scorsese.He's made some of my favorite movies and I think he's probably one of the top five greatest directors working today.There's just something about the way he photographs images and people that makes even his worst movies worthwhile.

3) I also think Leonardo DiCaprio is a really good actor, a fact that has been publicly obscurred (but not hampered) by the "Titanic" hype and by some poor choices (or lack of choices, in recent years).

4) And I think "The Aviator" was probably the best produced movie of 2004.The cast is excellent, the sets and costumes and designs are fabulous, the cinematography is exquisite.

So, THAT SAID, why didn't I like the movie more?It's an impressive achievement but I seem to appreciate the parts more than the whole.And as good as DiCaprio is, I think he may have been miscast.Only a star of his level could've gotten this kind of budget, but he simply doesn't look right in the part.It's not until after he