Reviews (312)

See this movie after you have read the book
If you are interested in the turning point of the Eastern Front in World War II, I would encourage you to see this movie after reading "Enemy at the Gates" by William Craig.

It would be very difficult to capture the full essence of the Battle of Stalingrad as detailed in the historic masterpiece by William Craig. Film director Arnaud did a great job of creating atmosphere with special effects in the introductory scenes.

Why the writers created a fictitious story about a love triangle is not quite clear. It really does not add to the story line and discredits the film by needlessly altering historical fact. The ending of the sniper duel is pure Hollywood fantasy and a bit stupid. The German Master Sniper Konig strolls out into the middle of the street, in the light of day and Vassili puts a bullet through his brain.

Hollywood Bolshevism rears its ugly head here and there in the film by downplaying the brutality of the NKVD Commissars to Soviet men, women, children and German prisoners. All one has to do is read the Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn to get the real story of the brutality of the Communists.

The bloodthirsty hero of Stalingrad, Nikita Khrushchev, later nearly plunged the world into a nuclear World War III.

Great War Film
Based on a true story, this movie attempts to bring the climatic battle of WWII to life--Stalingrad. 1942 was the make or break year for Russian resistance to Hitler. Defeatism was abundant in the Red Army, they felt they couldn't win. Being a maniac also, Stalin needed the enemy to be halted at the city bearing his name.

Jude Law plays Vassili, the Russian supersniper who claimed 242 kills at Stalingrad. Joseph Fiennes is Danilov, the political officer who makes him a star--it seems in real life Danilov really was not terribly involved. Rachel Weisz is Tani Chernova, another sharpshooter and Vassili's love. Like many other people, I too had a problem with these British Russians, particularly Weisz--I kept waiting for Brendan Fraser and a mummy to show up.

The love story between Tani and Vassili is out of place in this film. Perhaps we were shown to understand that even love can flourish in the worst of conditions. The sex scene does seem terribly out of place.

Ed Harris is Major Koning, sent from Berlin to hunt Vassili down. In many books I have never found a Major Koning, but rather an SS Colonel Heinz Thorwald who hunted him down. Take it for what it is, there was a German sniper hunting him so let's not worry about the name.

The cat and mouse game which many seem to dislike is the best part. It's a struggle between two men, told through their eyes. The backdrop is impressive, fighting among the ruins of a once great city. This was some of the most savage fighting of the war and it is accurately depicted.

Some complain about historical inaccuracies---movies will always have them. The Russians may have been outproducing the Germans, but the supplies weren't reaching the troops. Guns and ammunition were in short supply at the beginning of the battle, which in when the movie takes place.

The Russians suffered casulties of 750,000 at Stalingrad, the Germans were defeated soundly for the first time and began their march backwards. Excellent film---pick up a book on Stalingrad and get the full story.

ETMR - Enemy at the Gates
1. Humanity: Stalingrad, with its torn buildings, dismal skyscapes, and eternal battles of gunfire, is almost more important than the sniper Vassily, the main protagonist. What does the landscape of the city tell you about the passions of men?

2. Implications: This film tries to pay credence to both the Russians and the Germans, while trying to play at their faults as well. It appears, however, that the film is still in favor of the Allies, from the distasteful humor in Major Konig toward his work, the ominous rows of sleek black German battle tanks, and the hopeful dancing of the Russian soldiers who knew they were to die. How does this movie paint the German personality? Do you think it is a valid statement?

3. Evolution: Cinema has seen many, many WWII films. From the blood and dust of Saving Private Ryan, to the practical jokes and youthfulness of The Great Escape, WWII films showcase a museum of human feelings regarding the Second Great War. Where does Enemy at the Gates fit into this grand tradition? How does it compare?

4. Realism: It's obvious the film tries to be realistic. The bloody battles and lost friends and gloomy atmosphere only emphasize and accent this theme. Yet there is a certain glee in the gun-battles, as if it were a video-game being played out. This is perceived in the cycling of snarpshooters beside Vassily the inevitable conflict between Vassily and Konig, the kill count papers, and the soap-opera love triangle between Danilov, Vassily, and Tanya. Do these elements become shortcomings, or do they flourish the film in its cinematic quest?

5. Stageplay: One of the first surprises of the film is that the Russian actors have British accents, while the Germans have German accents and speak English. How does this affect the atmosphere of the film?

visuals are fine - dialogue a crime
This film should have been great. Its clear that the director has a great eye for detail such as the the realistic Children's Fountain which matches the real life documentary footage of the battle. I can even overlook the fake CGI stukas which don't look quite real as well as the soldiers standing alongside the Panzerkampfwagen IV shooting their guns in a completely un-realistic fashion. At least the tank is not a Sherman with German markings which you so often see, so I was kind of impressed with that.

In fact I was pretty well captivated with this film ... until things started to descend into Buddy-Buddy-Movie hell where I was half expecting Zaitsev the sniper & his new chum the Political Commisar to start exchanging 'High Fives' & 'Home Alone' 'YES's. And add in a Hollywoodesque ubiquitous love triangle and I found the whole concept barely tolerable.

The dialogue is not the best I have heard, but the irritation factor is magnified by the Cockney accents which halted my suspension of disbelief.

The actors certainly try their best & if this film was the 'Rats of Tobruk' I'd be pretty pleased with their performance, but hampered by an appalling script & a clueless yet earnest director, they fall way short of expectations.

Its still worth checking out but to have repeated viewings is a asking a bit too much.

Love and Bullets
Wow! Who could have guessed that plucky little Vassili would get the drop on Hitler's top gun, spork the local hottie, make headlines, win medals, and even get a hug from Kruschev? Oh yeah, all the shots and explosions are because it happened during the Battle of Stalingrad. I give it three because there is a great deal of fabulous eye candy. ... Read more

Description

The Name of the Rose is a gothic medieval mystery thriller set in a 14th-century Italian monastery. Franciscan monk William of Baskerville (Sean Connery) and a young novice (Christian Slater) arrive for a conference to find that several monks have been murdered in mysterious circumstances. To solve the crimes, William must rise up against the Church authority and fight the shadowy conspiracy of monastery monks using only his wit and intelligence. ... Read more

Reviews (66)

Interesting Medieval Movie
Sean Connery plays William of Baskerville, a 14th cenutry Franciscan Monk who comes to an abbey high in the Italian Alps and investigates a series of murders that surround a mysterious book.

A young Christian Slater plays his companion/student. Connery is similar to a Sherlock Holmes, using very modern methods of investigation during this dark ages period.

The Monastery is home to all sorts of creepy monks including Ron Perlman playing a hunched backed simpleton. William find himself the target of heresy charges by a vengeful cardinal portrayed by the villian F. Murray Abraham.

The movie is somewhat slow but not in a bad way. It's a dark but thought provoking movie with religious overtones. Throughout is an on-going battle between William and some of the older monks. It seems the older Monks want the book supressed because it's a comedy and comedy is thought to be the work of the devil.

I've heard that the movie doesn't hold a candle to the book, but since I've never read it I have nothing to compare it to.

The film shows Connery's richest & diverse acting talents !
From the opening scenes you are mesmerized at the story and characters throughout this movie. The setting takes place in an old Italian Monastery where several Monks have died in mysterious ways and Connery, as a fellow Monk of the Order, is called in to investigate what is behind it. I was especially enlightened to this movie when on a trip to Europe I took a Rhine River Cruise and had actually visited the German Monastery where the movie was shot. The props created for the altar scenes are still there for visitors to see. As this movie unfolds the plot thickens testing your wits as to what is really going on in this remote monestary, heightened by the intervention of the Grand Inquisitor because the movie takes place during the period of the Inquisition in Europe. The acting is superb because the casting was excellent. The movie has enough historical fact and content that the viewer will learn something about medieval history as well as being entertained. If you are a Connery fan you will enjoy this movie for its content and story line. As with any GOOD actor you know Connery will not become involved in a bad script, you will not be disappointed with this Monk that he portrays. See it, rent it, buy it for your home library, you will watch it over - and - over again !!!

A Winner in Every Way
I have seen this fine film 5 or 6 times and each time I see something new and fascinating in it. Umberto Eco's novel was a complex story to adapt to a major film, and this was done with skill and intelligence by Andrew Birkin, Gérard Brach, Howard Franklin & Alain Godard. The idea of such a tragic murder solved with only the tools of the time is nothing short of brilliant. I am wondering how much the BBC television series "Cadfael" with Derek Jacobi is based on this motion picture. Both are superb in their own way.

If you enjoy a film with mystery, brilliant performances, gothic photography and magnificent art direction, you will enjoy this masterpiece. Be warned, however... you will require an attention span. This is not a film kids will understand.

Excellent adaptation.
How do you take a long and very dense book, and turn it into a cohesive and quickly-paced film? The makers of THE NAME OF THE ROSE answered that riddle.

All around, this film has everything going for it. The performances are compelling and right on--no one acts like a 20th Century actor trying to act 14th century. The setting is gorgeous, although the squalor of the less fortunate is vividly conveyed. The intricate almost Escher-like quality of the labyrinth within the monastery is an amazing feat of set design and engineering.

Most of all, it's the script and direction that carry the day. Given how much information had to be siphoned and sifted from Umberto Eco's novel, the screenwriters and director Jean-Jacques Annaud masterfully created a taut and convincing murder mystery without getting bogged down in the details. The only time I thought it did was during the dragged out Inquisition scenes. However, these scenes did represent what was at risk for these characters. All in all, this is a marvelous film which murder mystery fans or fans of period pieces will want to have in their collections.

Rocco Dormarunno, author of THE FIVE POINTS.

Dark Rose
1986's The Name Of The Rose is a dark, deep mystery set in the unusual setting of a medieval Italian abbey and is based on Umberto Eco's bestseller. Sean Connery stars as William of Baskerville, an English monk who is sent to the secluded abbey to investigate a murder. Along with his apprentice Adson von Melk (a young Christian Slater in just his third film), they dive into the case in which more dead bodies start turning up. F. Murray Abraham (in his first film after winning the Oscar for Amadeus) plays Bernardo Gui, an icy inquisitor who gets involved in the case, but whose motives are questionable. William struggles to solve the case against the intense religious fervor of the time and the film tries to show the conflicts between religion and justice. Director Jean-Jacques Annaud captures the dark and dank feeling of medieval times and captures the period well. The cast gives strong performances, especially Mr. Abraham in yet another menacing role. ... Read more

Reviews (71)

A sensuous, erotic and touching love story
"The Lover" is a gorgeously sensuous and erotic film about a young girl's awakening to love and her own sexuality. Whover categorized this movie as soft porn needs to wash his or her mind out with Lysol. It is, quite simply, a love story. Jane March plays "the young girl", a French adolescent in colonial Vietnam living with her widowed mother and two brothers. Her mother barely makes ends meet by teaching, her younger brother, with whom she has a relationship both protective and erotic, is weak and passive, and her older brother is brutally antisocial, stealing the family's few funds to support his opium habit and bullying his younger siblings through violence. The girl attends a lycee in Saigon where she and her friend are the only Caucasian pupils. On a trip from her home back to school she meets "the Chinaman" played by Tony Leung, and their encounter sets off sparks. Leung is the son of a rich overseas Chinese, engaged to marry the Chinese girl picked out by his father, who spends his own days in an opium haze; his feelings for the young girl are at first purely sexual but ripen into a love so deep it confuses and frightens him. It's a love that is doomed from the start; his father will not hear of him marrying a non-Chinese, and her family, although the equivalent of white trash, still considers themselves better than the Asians they live among. When the word of her affair with the Chinaman gets out, she becomes an outcast among her schoolmates. The young girl tries to cope with the social and emotional conflicts by convincing herself and telling him that she doesn't love him; he knows she's kidding herself and so do we, and toward the movie's end, when she has lost him forever through his marriage to the woman chosen for him by his father and her own repatriation to France, she herself realizes she is in love with him. Jane March is incredible in the role of the young girl; she brings out all her character's innocence, sexuality and adolescent confusion. Tony Leung is just right as the pampered son of a rich family who is hamstrung by the mores and traditions of his family and society; and Frederique Meininger is especially effective as the mother, who dotes on her worthless older son (the more venal she knows he is, the more she dotes on him, helpless to deal with the reality of what he is, and worse, what he will become), and condemns her daughter's relationship with a Chinese on the one hand while she has no problem taking her daughter's lover's money on the other. The cinematography is beautiful and conveys all the heat and languor of colonial Vietnam. This is no film for children; the sex scenes are as explicit as can be shown in any film not rated X. At the film's end (Jeanne Moreau does an excellent voice-over throughout the movie), when the Chinaman after decades of silence telephones the girl who is now a middle-aged woman and tells her he has never forgotten her and will love her until death, we realize how strong was the love between these two. It's a beautiful film of two people who were just right, even while they were all wrong, for each other.

From Lust to Love
This is a physically beautiful film, set in an exotic locale (Vietnam) and inhabited by very attractive actors who know their trade. It starts as a lustful adventure for the wastrel son of a Chinese merchant and a bored teenage girl who finds her all-girls academy to be quite stifling. It ends as a true and tragic love story as the protagonists find that their sexual affair leads to real caring.

Many professional critics disliked this movie, but my wife and I both found it quite involving. This director (Jean-Jacques Annaud) also created "Quest For Fire", which I think met a similar fate among the critics. And again, both my wife and I found that very unusual film to be quite impressive.

I do hope that movie-lovers will give this one a chance. It was meant to be a film of quality, and in spite of its frank sexuality it is by no means to be considered soft-core pornography. It is perhaps in the same genre as "Sirens", a little Australian movie that combines a rather complete view of Elle MacPherson with a clever, well-photographed story.

Let me say that if you're looking for a good "date" movie, here's your answer. This is a love story that both sexes will enjoy. Warm up the DVD player, and lower the lights.

The Lover - A Passionate Love Story
For those who think this movie is only carnal, I extend my deepest sympathies for your apparent ignorance. This is a romeo and juliet parallel not to be missed.

This is one of, if not the best, love story ever written. It tells of a young woman, barely 17, whose life is already a tragedy. Her family was thrown from wealth and good standing, to poverty and squalor, scraping by to make ends meet in French occupied Vietnam. She is all but shakespearean in her suffering, without the guidance of a father, and the love of a weak and unscrupulous mother and drug addicted brother. There is much tenderness in the cannonization of the youngest brother, as a living saint, the one pure thing in her life.

The lover, played by Tony Leung Kai Fai, is himself, a tragic hero. Educated in France, he longs to shirk the burden of his chinese culture, buck tradition and marry for love. He is consumed by the forced arranged marriage, and pursues the young Jane March with the guile of an experienced and wealthy man, but with the tenderness and respect of a true lover.

The two make an arrangement to meet in his bachelor pad, which according to chinese tradition, is a "practice area" for marriage. Jane March's young virgin surrenders to passion and experience, while remaining emotionally detatched from her chinese lover, for he tells her that they can "never be married" as it is "not allowed", and he would be disowned and poverty stricken if he went against the wishes of his family. Seemingly, Jane March's character cares little for the potential of this toxic relationship, revelling only in the sexual experience and conversation that they share in their secret room, away from the rest of the world. He is her escape, as surreal as the life she escapes from.

The scenes are intimate and touching, full of tenderness and imagery that conveys the worship like reverence with which they experience each other. He, worshiping her sexual innocence, while she worships his sexual experience. A powerful and erotic culmination.

Truly as story continues, you believe each of the characters less and less, as they joke about how they would not fit in to each others world. They do a wonderful job trying to convince each other that the affair means nothing. It becomes less believable, as you see them fall deeper and deeper into love, and examples of arguments where they truly hurt each other, in the way that only two people in love can wound.

A truly touching ending that had me in tears, as her ship pulls away from the harbour and he is there, in his car, watching her leave.

Highly recommend this movie as a measure to restore your faith in the very real power and strength of love, even when there is no "story book" ending.(...)

Visually stunning, well-told story
I'll admit it, I first watched The Lover for the erotic scenes with Jane March, who I happen to think is gorgeous. But the more I watched it, the more the direction (Annaud) and the story (Duras) shone through. I recently bought my own copy, and I watch it more frequently than I would have thought. If it were only the sex, there are more efficient films, although the sex is quite good and again Jane March is truly a hottie.

The story, which is based on Duras' own life, talks about a young girl living at school, a 1-day trip away from her dissociative family in French Indochina in the 1930s. One day, returning to school from a visit with her family, the 15 year-old meets a Chinese man, who offers her a ride. They begin an affair, based on her curiosity and his desire for love. Needless to say, this causes scandals on both sides of the relationship. As their intimacy deepens, the Chinese man's arranged marriage looms closer, until he has to leave her for his new wife. Shortly after, the French girl and her family leave for France. As we see, the relationship was stronger than either one suspected it had become, but by that point it's too late.

The physical beauty of the film, which owes much to both Annaud's direction and the Vietnamese countryside, is amazing. I find myself watching it over and over just to see the cars driving through incongruous fields, bridges and streets. The subtext of foreigners (French, Chinese) in a foreign land (Indochina) governed by foreigners (French) reinforces the story's quality of isolation, as do the locales: there are rarely more than a handful of people in any scene, and the exceptions are telling, as well.

This is definitely one of the best films of the decade and deserves to be seen over and over.

Diffrentiating Between Sex and Love
This movie has one thinking what sex and love is. Can sex and love go hand in hand? That is the question of what the movie brought to my attention. I saw this movie on an independent film channel and the character, a young girl, has an affair with an older Chinese man. Her family struggles financially. The mother is a widowed schoolteacher and her brothers are obnoxious and want to get into her personal life. She does introduce her lover to her family and he does treat them to dinner. However, what was puzzling was their relationship. Did they actually have real feelings toward one another? He was arranged to be married and there would have never been anything more between them.
This movie diffrentiates between sex and love. Is it possible to have a sex only relationship? If so, how can it last? Do emotional feelings get in the way of their relationship?
Duras was experimenting sex for the first time. It was an experience that she would carry through her adult life. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

I cried the entire time...
This is a heartwarming story of two tiger cubs separated when they were young, raised in very different environments, and finally reuniting through a sequence of events that could only be described as fate. The shots in this movie are breathtaking, and the tigers' performances put the human actors to shame. There were times when the tigers were talking to each other that I expected subtitles to pop up on the screen - so complex and expressive their language was, and indeed is. But, of course, you don't need subtitles to understand what they say, for they speak in a universal tongue that all beings across the cosmos can understand.

Beautiful Movie!
This movie, "Two Brothers" is magnificent! The script/storyline is great, the acting on the part of the Tigers is absolutely amazing, and best of all, you leave the movie theater with a smile on your face!
I must warn you however: This movie contains scenes that depict violence towards Animals. Of course, the Animals in the movie arent really hurt, but when you realize that things that happen in the movie actually go on in this cruel world that we live in, it will be sobering.
You may actually hate the human race a little after seeing this movie.
But, thankfully, a couple of humans redeem themselves (atleast in the movie they do) by movie's end.
The movie begins with the two precious, and beautiful Tiger cubs, Sangha and Kumal, as they frolic and play in the jungle with their parents.
Then, as usual, humans come along and ruin all that was once beautiful.
The Cubs are seperated and learn just how mean humans can really be.
But fate had something else in store, that the hunters hadnt counted on.........a beautiful, happy reunion of the Two Brothers that will leave a happy tear in your eye, a nice chill up and down your spine, and best of all, a toasty warm feeling in your Soul.
You'll even laugh a few times, too!
This movie accomplishes exactly what it set out to do: To make us realize that HUMANS ARE THE TRUE ANIMALS, AND THE TRUE PREDATORS, AND THAT IT'S UP TO US HUMANS WHO HAVE LOVE AND COMPASSION IN OUR SOULS, TO SAVE THESE BEAUTIFUL ANIMALS, FOR ANIMALS ARE GOD'S CHILDREN AS MUCH AS THE HUMAN ANIMAL IS!
Tigers are coming closer and closer to becoming extinct, and WE MUST ACT NOW OR THEY WILL BE FOREVER GONE FROM OUR PLANET!
We must NOT allow that to happen.
How do we prevent it?
By treating Animals, like the beautiful, precious Souls that they are. The same Souls that were created from God's loving hands, just like the human animals were.
This movie proves that Animal Souls, like human Souls, share love, and that love truly can conquer all!

Another great animal film from Annaud
"Two Brothers" tells the story of two tiger cubs, living in the jungles of Asia, who are suddenly split up when treasure hunters who are plundering a temple shoot the father tiger in self-defense. One of the tiger cubs, Kumal, is found by the expedition leader Aidan McRory (played by Guy Pearce). When McRory is thrown into prison, Kumal is sold to a gypsy circus. The other tiger, Sangha, escapes with his mother. Mother and son are separated during the Prince's hunting expedition, and Sangha is found in a cave by the son of the regional governor who brings the tiger home. But, determined to be a danger to the boy, he is given as a gift to the Prince. The tigers re-unite at a staged fight and manage to escape with McRory hot on their trail.

If you've ever seen Director Jean-Jacques Annaud's other animal film, "The Bear," it's told in much the same way -- very little dialogue between the human characters. The animal trainers and the director did an amazing job with the tigers so, at times, I could almost tell exactly what was going through the tigers' minds. Also, Annaud films some of the scenes from their point of view to give that additional depth to the characters. Guy Pearce shows some fine work as McRory who is torn between the spoils of hunting and his love of Kumal. Great scenic shots of the Asian jungles, too. It's just a great family film.

A rare diamond among children's films
"Two Brothers" is a very rare film among the bombastically stupid kiddie pleasers that have filled in the movie landscape for some time now. It does what the best children's films do: It rises above the genre in such a way that it is not a children's film. It supposes that children are intelligent, thoughtful, and emotionally eloquent, and these terms describe the film well. The story surrounds two tiger cubs separated by fate and how they change the humans with whom they interact. One is rescued by a hunter and the other is taken in by a young French boy. The film meditates on issues such as animal cruelty and the choices we make in regard to nature itself. Jean Jacques Annaud, known for films such as "Seven Years in Tibet", and the similar, "The Bear," has made a film of unusual power. As in "The Bear", the dialogue is kept to a minimum, and story is all the more eloquent for it. There is no rapid fire, sound bite dialogue. When the two human leads speak (a great white hunter played by Guy Pearce & young Freddie Highmore) they communicate through, simple, direct dialogue that is somehow more moving by sparing us drizzly speeches or dewey eyed sentimentality. The tigers are wonderous to watch. The movie was shot on High Definition Digital Video instead of film, which also helps with the special effects. The illusion is created by simply filming the animals and adding some CGI alterations here and there. The result is magical. This is somehting of an art house children's film, it feels like a French import and its pacing and visual style. It is distinctly "non-Americanized" and I am grateful for that. While film's like "Shrek 2" which is clever yet obvious dominate the box office, I am hopeful that audiences will discover this film either in its theatrical engagement or on video and DVD. Kids who have seen it have told me it is the best movie they have ever seen, which I think is due to the fact there are no longer any films that credit them with having an attention span or interest in a film that has a fully realized, emotional story (save of course PJ Hogan's spectacular version of "Peter Pan", another underrated gem). More than that, adults will be every bit as enchanted and as taken by suprise as I was.

"Two Brothers" theatrical release
My sister and I saw this movie today and what a wonderful movie! Being animal lovers, we did shed a few tears and fell in love with these lovable tigers, and was so glad that there was a happy ending - I loved the ending. I can't understand why this movie didn't do better at the box office. The tigers were so well trained and the human actors did a great job too! I plan to buy the DVD when it comes out so that I can watch it again. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

I cried the entire time...
This is a heartwarming story of two tiger cubs separated when they were young, raised in very different environments, and finally reuniting through a sequence of events that could only be described as fate. The shots in this movie are breathtaking, and the tigers' performances put the human actors to shame. There were times when the tigers were talking to each other that I expected subtitles to pop up on the screen - so complex and expressive their language was, and indeed is. But, of course, you don't need subtitles to understand what they say, for they speak in a universal tongue that all beings across the cosmos can understand.

Beautiful Movie!
This movie, "Two Brothers" is magnificent! The script/storyline is great, the acting on the part of the Tigers is absolutely amazing, and best of all, you leave the movie theater with a smile on your face!
I must warn you however: This movie contains scenes that depict violence towards Animals. Of course, the Animals in the movie arent really hurt, but when you realize that things that happen in the movie actually go on in this cruel world that we live in, it will be sobering.
You may actually hate the human race a little after seeing this movie.
But, thankfully, a couple of humans redeem themselves (atleast in the movie they do) by movie's end.
The movie begins with the two precious, and beautiful Tiger cubs, Sangha and Kumal, as they frolic and play in the jungle with their parents.
Then, as usual, humans come along and ruin all that was once beautiful.
The Cubs are seperated and learn just how mean humans can really be.
But fate had something else in store, that the hunters hadnt counted on.........a beautiful, happy reunion of the Two Brothers that will leave a happy tear in your eye, a nice chill up and down your spine, and best of all, a toasty warm feeling in your Soul.
You'll even laugh a few times, too!
This movie accomplishes exactly what it set out to do: To make us realize that HUMANS ARE THE TRUE ANIMALS, AND THE TRUE PREDATORS, AND THAT IT'S UP TO US HUMANS WHO HAVE LOVE AND COMPASSION IN OUR SOULS, TO SAVE THESE BEAUTIFUL ANIMALS, FOR ANIMALS ARE GOD'S CHILDREN AS MUCH AS THE HUMAN ANIMAL IS!
Tigers are coming closer and closer to becoming extinct, and WE MUST ACT NOW OR THEY WILL BE FOREVER GONE FROM OUR PLANET!
We must NOT allow that to happen.
How do we prevent it?
By treating Animals, like the beautiful, precious Souls that they are. The same Souls that were created from God's loving hands, just like the human animals were.
This movie proves that Animal Souls, like human Souls, share love, and that love truly can conquer all!

Another great animal film from Annaud
"Two Brothers" tells the story of two tiger cubs, living in the jungles of Asia, who are suddenly split up when treasure hunters who are plundering a temple shoot the father tiger in self-defense. One of the tiger cubs, Kumal, is found by the expedition leader Aidan McRory (played by Guy Pearce). When McRory is thrown into prison, Kumal is sold to a gypsy circus. The other tiger, Sangha, escapes with his mother. Mother and son are separated during the Prince's hunting expedition, and Sangha is found in a cave by the son of the regional governor who brings the tiger home. But, determined to be a danger to the boy, he is given as a gift to the Prince. The tigers re-unite at a staged fight and manage to escape with McRory hot on their trail.

If you've ever seen Director Jean-Jacques Annaud's other animal film, "The Bear," it's told in much the same way -- very little dialogue between the human characters. The animal trainers and the director did an amazing job with the tigers so, at times, I could almost tell exactly what was going through the tigers' minds. Also, Annaud films some of the scenes from their point of view to give that additional depth to the characters. Guy Pearce shows some fine work as McRory who is torn between the spoils of hunting and his love of Kumal. Great scenic shots of the Asian jungles, too. It's just a great family film.

A rare diamond among children's films
"Two Brothers" is a very rare film among the bombastically stupid kiddie pleasers that have filled in the movie landscape for some time now. It does what the best children's films do: It rises above the genre in such a way that it is not a children's film. It supposes that children are intelligent, thoughtful, and emotionally eloquent, and these terms describe the film well. The story surrounds two tiger cubs separated by fate and how they change the humans with whom they interact. One is rescued by a hunter and the other is taken in by a young French boy. The film meditates on issues such as animal cruelty and the choices we make in regard to nature itself. Jean Jacques Annaud, known for films such as "Seven Years in Tibet", and the similar, "The Bear," has made a film of unusual power. As in "The Bear", the dialogue is kept to a minimum, and story is all the more eloquent for it. There is no rapid fire, sound bite dialogue. When the two human leads speak (a great white hunter played by Guy Pearce & young Freddie Highmore) they communicate through, simple, direct dialogue that is somehow more moving by sparing us drizzly speeches or dewey eyed sentimentality. The tigers are wonderous to watch. The movie was shot on High Definition Digital Video instead of film, which also helps with the special effects. The illusion is created by simply filming the animals and adding some CGI alterations here and there. The result is magical. This is somehting of an art house children's film, it feels like a French import and its pacing and visual style. It is distinctly "non-Americanized" and I am grateful for that. While film's like "Shrek 2" which is clever yet obvious dominate the box office, I am hopeful that audiences will discover this film either in its theatrical engagement or on video and DVD. Kids who have seen it have told me it is the best movie they have ever seen, which I think is due to the fact there are no longer any films that credit them with having an attention span or interest in a film that has a fully realized, emotional story (save of course PJ Hogan's spectacular version of "Peter Pan", another underrated gem). More than that, adults will be every bit as enchanted and as taken by suprise as I was.

"Two Brothers" theatrical release
My sister and I saw this movie today and what a wonderful movie! Being animal lovers, we did shed a few tears and fell in love with these lovable tigers, and was so glad that there was a happy ending - I loved the ending. I can't understand why this movie didn't do better at the box office. The tigers were so well trained and the human actors did a great job too! I plan to buy the DVD when it comes out so that I can watch it again. ... Read more

Reviews (71)

The story of one man's remarkable journey
Seven Years in Tibet, being a true account, is a tale of journeys, both a physical journey and a spiritual one. The film centers around the selfish and arrogant Heinrich Harrer (Brad Pitt), an Austrian who joins an expedition to climb Nanga Parbat in British India in 1939. When World War Two breaks out, he is arrested with his team and interned in India. Finally he and his friend escape and make their way into Tibet, the remote country of which few foreigners had ever entered. After a harrowing and near death two year trek across the remote regions of Tibet, Harrer and his companion arrive in the forbidden city of Lhasa, home to the Dalai Lama of Tibet. After a few more years of living amongst the Tibetan people, Harrer is forced to leave after the Communist Chinese invade Tibet.

The movie does an excellent job of developing Harrer's character, who goes from being a lonely man who cares only for himself and his own personal glory, to a man who after encountering the gentle spirituality of the Tibetan people and the Dalai Lama, becomes a man who is at peace with himself and has attained his own level of self knowledge. While some may criticize Harrer as he was a member of the Nazi party, the film shows that he didnt really have any involvement with the party, and didn't seem too interested in the theories put forth by his country at the time. Besides, how can a man become friends with the gentlest people on earth and best friends with the human incarnation of the Bodhisattva of Compassion if he is a man of hatred and racism?

The film also realistically shows the true brutal nature of the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Scenes of cultural destruction and genocide show the tragedy that engulfed Tibet, and that still continues to this day.
The actor playing the young Dalai Lama also does a wonderful job, playing the part with convincing compassion, wisdom and youthful earnestness that made him into one of today's most respected leaders.

One of the best aspects of the film is it's photography and eye for detail. Spendid shots of mountains (although filmed in the Andes, it is uncanningly identical to Tibetan Himalaya.), mist shrouded valleys, and the grand Potala Palace that towers high above Lhasa, create a visually stunning film.

Respectful, visually stunning tribute to Tibetan culture
The only thing more beautiful than Brad Pitt in Jean-Jacques Annaud's low-key drama "Seven Years in Tibet" (1997) is the astonishing location photography (Argentina, Canada, Austria and the Himalayas standing in for Tibet), rendered in glorious Panavision widescreen by Robert Fraisse and preserved with stunning clarity on this eye-popping DVD. Pitt, every inch the blond Aryan god, plays real life explorer Heinrich Harrer (on whose book this film is based), an arrogant Nazi bully who ran from his wife's unhappy pregnancy to conquer the Himalayas toward the end of the 1930's. Stranded there by the outbreak of World War II, Harrer found his way to the forbidden city of Lhasa, where his unexpected friendship with the teenage Dalai Lama (played with great warmth and sincerity by non-actor Jamyang Jamtsho Wangchuk) curbed his ruthless streak and provided him with a fresh outloook on life, until he was forced to flee the country following the Chinese invasion.

Suffering from unfair comparisons with Martin Scorsese's "Kundun" (1997), which opened shortly afterward - both movies were denounced by mainland Chinese officials - Annaud's film evokes the splendors of a remote mountain community founded exclusively on Buddhist principles (in an amusing sequence, Pitt is asked to build a movie theater without killing the hundreds of worms uncovered by his workers' excavations). It may be a Hollywoodized vision, but it's also respectful and, in places, deeply moving ("Do you think someday people will look at Tibet on a movie screen and wonder what happened to us?" the Dalai Lama asks Pitt in one of the movie's most self-referential moments). When Chinese troops invade the Tibetan stronghold towards the end of the film, they display all the arrogance and hostility which had typified Harrer's behavior until he was transformed by the example of his gracious hosts. Distinguished by John Williams' majestic score (so much better than the tuneless dirge he provided for "Sleepers" the previous year), the film also features David Thewlis ("Naked") as Pitt's climbing partner, Lhakpa Tsamchoe as the beautiful woman who comes between them for a while, and B.D. Wong as a lowly Tibetan official whose vanity and cowardice prompts the downfall of his own culture.

Columbia Tristar's dual-sided DVD runs 135m 56s and features both a full-screen and widescreen (2.35:1, anamorphically enhanced) version - for maximum visual impact, try to see it on a 16:9 monitor. Released theatrically in a choice of Dolby Digital or SDDS, the disc's 5.1 Dolby track has plenty of energy where needed, but the sound mix is fairly subdued overall. There's also a 2.0 surround track, equally restrained. English captions and subtitles are included, but due to the film's length, no other extras have been provided, not even a trailer.

Ironic issue
The fact is simple that most of Americans know nothing about Tibet.

This country liberated itself from Britain but inherited many colonial scars from Britan as the Tibitan issue.

This country fought a civil war for slavery, but unconciously sympathetic to the ghost of the most notorious slavery society: Dalai Lama.

What an irony!

Pitt seems brighter than the Play Girl icon and religion-lost R. Gear, but his taking of this role appears culturely illiterate.

propaganda
This film is a kind of propaganda. Historycally and oviously, Tibet has been a part of China for a thousand years and Tibetean is one of Chinese group. Now Tibetian redidents create great culture and Chinese people respect them.

A White Silk Scarf
This is a story about a stubborn and arrogant man who needs to push his body to its absolute limits, but who dedicates very little of his energy to his soul or intellect. Let us remember that films owe no debt to the books or the reality on which they are based (read the book "Monster" by the late screenwriter and author John Gregory Dunne if you need to get that straight).

Brad Pitt is not too bad as Heinrich Harrer, but you may cringe occasionally at his Austrian accent. Let us remember that this film may not have been made at all without his interest and participation, and it wouldn't have been permitted the sort of budget that gave us the amazing landscapes which pervade the movie.

I suppose once they had their big star, casting went for the very finest actors they could find regardless of their status: therefore, we have two beautifully resonant performances by David Thewlis as Pitt's climbing companion and Lhapka Tsamchoe as the Love Interest.

Because this movie is about Heinrich Harrer, not the Dalai Lama, we ought not to whine about the time spent in the camp for enemy aliens (those were YEARS of his life) or the difficult scrabble to simply exist once he escaped. The shots of the Dalai Lama's early childhood are there not only to foreshadow the important role the Dalai Lama ultimately plays, but also to establish a link between the child who will befriend Harrer and the son who Harrer does not know.

The authenticity and detail of Tibetan life, dress, buildings, and so forth is rare and overwhelming. Even if it was staged, it is a good record of a lost time.

With respect to the Chinese invasion as it is filmed, let us recall what "virtues" were instilled in the Army of the People's Republic of China. If the soldiers behaved like "automatons" or "killing machines", that was precisely the point. Leaders rarely want their underlings to think for themselves, and in Communist China such an activity was a capital offense. I see no disregard of history.

Further praise to the screenwriter (Becky Johnston) who translated a good book into a good movie. The addition of a few good laugh lines and the general development of character was well done.

Heinrich Harrer is an interesting man and merits a movie about his life. Of course, the elements of living in Tibet and developing a friendship with the Dalai Lama are crucial to the interest. For my part, I've watched the movie several times not just for its other virtues, but because I get deliciously lost in the scenery. ... Read more

Reviews (41)

"The greatest thrill is not to kill, but to let live"
Truer words were never spoken. This movie deftly illustrates both the inate similarities and disturbing rifts between mankind and the animals with which we share this planet. A sincere, moving, and thought provoking drama that paints a vivid cinematic picture of compassion for all living things.

What makes this movie so great is the way all of its characters are portrayed. There is no clear villian or hero, but rather simple creatures following their basic instincts, including the humans. Our first impulse is to judge the humans (played wonderfully by Jack Wallace and Tcheky Karyo) as evil, but really pay attention and you'll find they are quite, well, human. The bear characters, Youk (cub) and Bart (grizzly) portray emotions and feelings stronger than any other animal in any movie I've ever seen. They truly steal the show here.

But the obvious difference in the sides is that while the bears kill only for survival, humans kill for recreation, which, as this movie clearly intended to say, is wrong. ... Maybe they'd benefit from watching this movie, from experiencing the change and lesson Karyo's character goes through, and discovering that indeed, the greatest thrill is not to kill, but to let live.

Bambi, only hairier.
I KNOW what you're thinking... How could all these freaky people feel so strongly about a movie about a BEAR ??, and with almost no dialogue. Well, this is a FABULOUS movie, for adults as well as children.(Maybe more so.) It shows that, with a beautiful, simple story, and no computerization, that a terriffic movie can still be made. This movie is not only beautifully filmed amongst breath-taking natural locations, but has wonderful and true lessons about man and animals, and our supposed superiority over them. You will fall in love with the little orphaned bear cub as he struggles to survive the assaults of hunters, elements, and other beasts. As you're watching it, those tears are welling up in your eyes because you realize the little fellow is only searching for what we're all searching for, someone to love and protect us in this harsh world. (You ARE, so don't deny it!) The little bear who played "the bear" deserved at least the same academy award that Judy Garland received for "The Wizard Of Oz", best actor in a juvenile role. When I first saw this film, which was by accident, I was surprised at how moved I was by it. And, amazed at what the film makers got the animals to so realistically do. Well, on viewing it again recently, I was just as impressed, and just as overwhelmed. By the last five climactic minutes, I was blubbering right on schedule. You will be too.(I'm crying now thinking of it, I need to get a life!) I don't own it, but I've decided I have to buy it, it's just too good not to be re-watched every so often. You don't have to be an animal lover (I am,... you should be), to love this movie. A pure, wonderful, heart-tugging, simple but powerful film, definatley a classic. Watch it with those you love.

Excellent nature film
Wonderful film with the animal's point of view. This has funny moments,tender moments,goofy moments and some very tense moments.
This also includes some beautiful scenery.

Definitely get this one!

How did they do it?!
During whole movie I couldn't stop wonder how did they film all this amazing actions with bears. You really start to believe that bears 'act'. The scenery where the action takes place (British Columbia) is gorgeous. The main character, the bear cub, is unbelievably cute. The main message of the movie is very straighforward: let them live. I had some issues with the way the message was delivered, which annoyed me just a little. It was to simplified, too cliche. I would understand if this movie was for children but it's really not and PG-13 rating is right. Still, amazing beautiful movie.

RUN LITTLE GUY, RUN!
An uplifting, intelligent movie that does not portray hunters in the usual stereotypical way. This film teaches the lessons of compassion, partnership and honor in the actions of both the bears and the hunters.

That little cub will grab your heart and never let go. At the end I was shouting, "Run! Run!" ... Read more

Description

Winner of the 1976 Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film,Black and White in Color is a voracious and timely satire on racism, colonialism, andwar.Set in the Ivory Coast during the First World War, a group of bungling Frenchcolonials learns that their country is at war with Germany.Spurred on by a capriciousmoment of patriotism, the Frenchmen decide to attack their German neighbors. In Frenchwith English subtitles ... Read more

Amazon.com

Quest for Fire is so detailed in its depiction of prehistoric man that it might have been made by time-traveling filmmakers. Instead it's a bold and timeless experiment by visionary director Jean-Jacques Annaud (The Bear), inviting scientific debate while presenting a fascinating, imaginary glimpse of humankind some 80,000 years ago. Using diverse locations in Kenya, Scotland, and Canada, Annaud tells the purely visual story of five tribes (some more advanced than others) who depend on fire for survival. They "steal" fire from nature, but the actual creation of fire remains elusive, lending profound mystery and majesty to the film's climactic, real-time display of fire-making ingenuity. Employing primitive language created by novelist Anthony Burgess and body language choreographed by anthropologist Desmond Morris, a unique ensemble of actors push the envelope of their profession, succeeding where they easily could've failed. They're carnal, violent, funny, curious, and intelligent; through them, and through the eons, we can recognize ourselves. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (55)

A uniquely entertaining film
This is a great watch- gripping, humorous, touching, and totally unique. Taking place as it does in the prehistoric past, let's just say that this isn't a dialogue-driven film, and the fact that the film is as engaging as it is while relying on non-verbal narrative testifies to the talent of film maker Jean-Jacques Annaud. Ron Perlman is about the only recognizable actor (and he's been the biggest hit with the French since Jerry Lewis, apparently, because you can find him in several French productions)although Rae Dawn Chong (thespian daughter of Tommy Chong of "Cheech and Chong" fame) is a notable name to look for when the credits roll. The scenery is absolutely incredible and is worthy of David Lean or Stanley Kubric (the movie was filmed on location all over the globe). I have to caution people though not to take the pre-historical content too seriously, or rather, seriously at all. There is precious little anthropological accuracy in this film despite the consultation of Desmond Morris ("The Naked Ape"). Just consider, for example, a hominid society that has fewer words in their language than a Chimpanzee call system. This is ABL (a technical anthropological acronym that stands for "Aint bloody likely"). Considering also that Homo erectus used fire about 1.2 million years ago, you'd think that an anatomically modern Homo sapiens would have mastered the concept by then. As another reviewer stated, the anthropological accuracy isn't the point of this film, so enjoy it for the great story that it is, but if you want a realistic picture of life in the Upper Paleolithic, well, this film falls somewhere on the continuum between "The Flinstones" and "Caveman."

A VERY GOOD MOVIE, BUT VERY BAD PREHISTORY
I am sorry that I will be an exception among the reviewers who appreciate quality of this movie, but I must remark that the number of inaccuracies appearing there is really extremely high. Quest for fire is certainly the best spectactle that has ever been shot about prehistory (or, at least, the best movie about this topic that I have ever seen), it has a very good story, very good music, but - I am sorry again - I think that even an anthropologist of that time would suffer heart failure after watching it. I don't know what specialists Annaud asked for help, but I can't believe that they could help him in such a way. It is set 80 000 ago, so I suppose it would be in the Near East, because it could not be otherwise (modern humans were not in Europe that time yet) . I am really doubtful that they behaved like half apes - as it is in this movie - and that they could met 2 metres high primitive neanderthals who looked like orangutans. In fact, neanderthals were very robust, but only 1,5-1,6 m (5-5'4 feet) high people, who had burial customs and relatively developed social structure (and I don't have to add that they spoke, which I couldn't expect from such creatures that are presented here). They were not too different from modern people in their look (I mean it relatively), so there couldn't be such hairy monsters in the Near East or Europe (and whatever in the world) 80.000 years ago. I think I could continue, but it wouldn't be a film review, but a scientific essay, so I will conclude my rating with this: Quest for fire is a very valuable film attempt to depict life in prehistory of humans, but due to the problematic things I mentioned above, I would be very glad if someone in the future would shoot a better movie about this topic, carefully based on scientific facts. It is true that "scientific facts" of each time may change, but I am sure that the life in prehistory didn't look like Annaud presents it here.

A Great Film
Rae Dawn Chong makes it a worthwhile watch. I've been in love with her since seeing the movie on HBO many years ago.

Oh yeah, the other actors are good also...

Think twice
This non-drama has its points: good photography, interesting locales. Its problems: The story is not one of the discovery of how to make fire, as its cover promises. Instead, three Neanderthals travel in search of fire already made, find a tribe who shows them how to make fire and return home. That's it. That's the whole movie. Their walk traverses deserts, swamps, jungles, tundra, etc., yet they never need to hunt or gather and take their time (and yours) getting there. The group they left are still standing in the middle of a swamp shivering with cold waiting for them when they return. On top of all this, the small tribe that shows them how to make fire is composed of Oriental and Black people--yes, you heard me, Orientals and Blacks in the same tribe of 100 or fewer people. They are an advanced, superior race with pottery, medicine, etc. as well as fire and teach the poor white Neanderthals, who don't even know how to laugh. The viewer, however, will need an ability to laugh to sit through this.
The main advantage of this much-touted, highly promoted film is that it makes you appreciate Clan of the Cave Bear. For all its faults, Clan is a far superior movie. And if you see both, you'll wonder why all the critics condemn Clan and praise Quest to the skies.

Quest for Fire
"Quest for Fire" (1981 - 100 minutes), under Jean-Jacques Annaud direction and written by Gérard Brach, was based on the book of J. H. Rosny. The movie develops a travel in time showing one of the biggest conquest of human kind: the domain of fire.
It's a 80 thousand years ago beautiful drama.
The Ulan tribe lives nearby a natural source of fire. When the fire went out, three members of the tribe have to search for a new flame.
After several days of walking and having to face many dangerous situations like wild animals, down temperatures and even cannibal tribes, they found the Ivakas, a more evolved human group that had already discovered how to "make" fire.
With locations in Kenya, Scotland, Island and Canada, the movie was based on scientific knowledge, showing convincing habitats and characters. The preparation work of the actors body language was done by the Anthropologist Desmond Morris and Anthony Burgess took care of the "talking" of these human ancestors.
Almost an Anthropology documentary, this excellent movie shows at the end a scene that suggests the "discovery of love" between male and female.
Absolutely unforgettable.

Visit: www.enigmasonline.com/enigmidia ... Read more

Description

The Superbit titles utilize a special high bit rate digital encoding process which optimizes video quality while offering a choice of both DTS and Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. These titles have been produced by a team of Sony Pictures Digital Studios video, sound and mastering engineers and comes housed in a special package complete with a 4 page booklet that contains technical information on the Superbit process. By reallocating space on the disc normally used for value-added content, Superbit DVDs can be encoded at double their normal bit rate while maintaining full compatibility with the DVD video format. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Seven Years in Tibet
If it hadn't been for Brad Pitt signing on to play the lead role of obsessive Austrian mountain climber Heinrich Harrer, there's a good chance this lavish $70 million film would not have been made. It was one of two films from 1997 (the other being Martin Scorsese's exquisite Kundun) to view the turmoil between China and Tibet through the eyes of the young Dalai Lama. But with Pitt onboard, this adaptation of Harrer's acclaimed book focuses more on Harrer, a Nazi party member whose life was changed by his experiences in Tibet with the Dalai Lama. Having survived a treacherous climb on the challenging peak of Nanga Parbat and a stint in a British POW camp, Harrer and climbing guide Peter Aufschnaiter (nicely played by David Thewlis) arrive at the Tibetan city of Lhasa, where the 14-year-old Dalai Lama lives as ruler of Tibet. Their stay is longer than either could have expected (the "seven years" of the title), and their lives are forever transformed by their proximity to the Tibetan leader and the peaceful ways of the Buddhist people. China looms over the land as a constant invasive threat, but Seven Years in Tibet is more concerned with viewing Tibetan history through the eyes of a visitor. The film is filled with stunning images and delightful moments of discovery and soothing, lighthearted spirituality, and although he is somewhat miscast, Pitt brings the requisite integrity to his central role. What's missing here is a greater understanding of the young Dalai Lama and the culture of Tibet. Whereas Kundun tells its story purely from the Dalai Lama's point of view, Seven Years in Tibet is essentially an outsider's tale. The result is the feeling that only part of the story's been told here--or maybe just the wrong story. But Harrer's memoir is moving and heartfelt, and director Jean-Jacques Annaud has effectively captured both sincerity and splendor in this flawed but worthwhile film. --Jeff Shannon

Legends of the Fall
A box-office hit when released in 1994, this sprawling, frequently overwrought familial melodrama may get sillier as its plot progresses, but it's the kind of lusty, character-based epic that Hollywood should attempt more often. It's also an unabashedly flattering star vehicle for Brad Pitt as Tristan--the rebellious middle son of a fiercely independent Montana rancher and military veteran (Anthony Hopkins)--who is routinely at odds with his more responsible older brother, Alfred (Aidan Quinn), and younger brother, Samuel (Henry Thomas). From the battlefields of World War I to his adventures as an oceangoing sailor, Tristan's life is full of personal torment, especially when he returns to Montana and finds himself competing with Alfred over Samuel's beautiful widow (Julia Ormond), whose passion for Tristan disrupts the already turbulent Ludlow clan. Under the wide-open canopy of Big Sky country, this operatic tale unfolds with all the bloodlust, tragedy, and scenery-chewing performances you'd expect to find in a hokey bestselling novel (in fact, it's based on the acclaimed novella by Jim Harrison), but it's a potent mix that's highly entertaining. Not surprisingly, John Toll won an Academy Award for his breathtaking outdoor cinematography. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more