Amazon.com essential video

One of the key films of the 1970s, John Boorman's Deliverance is a nightmarish adaptation of poet-novelist James Dickey's book about various kinds of survival in modern America. The story concerns four Atlanta businessmen of various male stripe: Jon Voight's character is a reflective, civilized fellow, Burt Reynolds plays a strapping hunter-gatherer in urban clothes, Ned Beatty is a sweaty, weak-willed boy-man, and Ronny Cox essays a spirited, neighborly type. Together they decide to answer the ancient call of men testing themselves against the elements and set out on a treacherous ride on the rapids of an Appalachian river. What they don't understand until it is too late is that they have ventured into Dickey's variation on the American underbelly, a wild, lawless, dangerous (and dangerously inbred) place isolated from the gloss of the late 20th century. In short order, the four men dig deep into their own suppressed primitiveness, defending themselves against armed cretins, facing the shock of real death on their carefully planned, death-defying adventure, and then squarely facing the suspicions of authority over their concealed actions. Boorman, a master teller of stories about individuals on peculiarly mythical journeys, does a terrifying and beautiful job of revealing the complexity of private and collective character--the way one can never be the same after glimpsing the sharp-clawed survivor in one's soul. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (104)

What REALLY happened on the Cahulawassee River?
When it comes to fictional survival stories, few can approach the sheer grueling brutality of DELIVERANCE. Brilliantly adapted by James Dickey from his best-selling book and superbly directed by John Boorman (POINT BLANK, HOPE AND GLORY), this is a tremendous endeavor. So much so that horror writer Stephen King and Boorman's fellow director Stanley Kubrick both expressed a tremendous admiration of it.

As pretty much everyone knows, DELIVERANCE focuses on four Atlanta businessmen (Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty, Ronny Cox) who decide to take a canoe trip down the Cahulawassee River in the Appalachian Mountains of northern Georgia before it is dammed up into a lake. It is apparent, however, that the local folk don't take kindly to these "city boys" messing around in their woods. And when Voight and Beatty are sexually assaulted at gunpoint by a pair of sadistic rednecks (Bill McKinney, Herbert "Cowboy" Coward), in the infamous "SQUEAL!!" segment, what began as a canoe trip explodes into a nightmare.

Much is made, and justifiably so, not only of the "SQUEAL" scene but also of the "Dueling Banjos" part, between Cox and a retarted mountain kid. But DELIVERANCE has much more to offer besides these moments. Like A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and STRAW DOGS, it offers a hard-hitting and unflinching look at Man's penchant for violent and (arguably) abhorrent behavior. The four leads are extremely good in their roles, and McKinney and Coward make for two of the more frightening and vicious villains in screen history. Dickey appears in the film's final reel as a local sheriff who, as he puts it would "kinda like to see this town die peaceful."

Shot totally on location, and featuring ominous cinematography from the legendary Vilmos Zsigmond, DELIVERANCE is a great and frightening piece--arguably a modern gothic horror film, certainly a great action film with an undercurrent as sinister as the Cahulawassee River itself. It is not to be missed,

Terrific, violent and distressing thriller!
In 1972, the English filmmaker John Boorman ("Excalibur", "Hope and Glory") accomplished one of the most contusing and acclaimed dramas of Hollywood history.Based on James Dickey's original best-selling novel, Deliverance is a vigorous picture about the human cruelty directed with mastery by Boorman, who substituted the original profesional chosen to make the film, Sam Peckinpah. Dickey also worked on the movie (and he even has a small part as a sheriff), helping to give the correct contours and maintaining the fidelity to his shocking book: four friends, common and hard-working citizens, decide to spend the weekend challenging the dangerous and fast rapidses of the "last unpolluted river in Georgia".Worst is what waits for them in the margins. Starting from the moment in which they arrive in the mountains, the confusion with the eccentric hillbillies gets announced and explodes later into mutilation, murder and rape. After Voight and Beatty are assaulted by two hillbillies, comes one of the most distressing cinematography's sequences ,Ned Beatty under the power and strength of a sick local's inhabitant .Then, Reynolds kills one of the homosexuals, and the other scapes, this is the point in which Boorman sets inside that hostile and natural enviroment a type of "primitive" tribunal. This is the most frightening moment: what should they do?hide the body, kill the other mountain man who fled, and pretend that nothing happened, deceiving the authorities, or go to the police, admit the crime and take the risk that resides in a possible trial? the dignity and the heart of each character will be tested!Burt Reynolds gives an outstanding performance and, perhaps, the best of his career, as a man obsessed by adventure who will do to everything to survive,but the most astonishing and brave acting belongs to Ned Beatty,terrific as a poor overweight salesman who receives the most impressive punishment by the hillbillies. Agile, violent, and extremely dramatic, this thriller is powerful and courageous.

Thrilling, Exciting and Still Disturbing...
DELIVERANCE (1972) was adapted from the great and controversial best-selling novel, written in 1970 by James Dickey. Made by British director John Boorman, who was relatively new to Hollywood at the time, this film was a faithful adaptation of the book, with the exception of some humor being interlaced into some of the earlier scenes. In some ways, it is even more disturbing; by juxtaposing some light comedy in the first half, Boorman makes what happens in the second half that much more nightmarish by comparison. And it is a nightmare...happening in the middle of the woods on a sunny day in the deep South.

The book told the story of four middle-aged surburbanites---Ed Gentry, Lewis Medlock (guess he did have a last name, after all), Drew Ballinger and Bobby Trippe---encouraged by nature-loving, alpha-male Lewis to brave the rapids of a river before it gets dammed for good. Told in first-person by Ed, who harbors latent homosexual desires for Lewis (though never acts upon them), the men paddle downstream in two canoes---Lewis & Drew in one, Ed & Bobby in the other---when they are separated at a river fork. As Ed & Bobby manage to get their boat ashore, and try to figure out a way to rejoin their friends, they are confronted by two mountain men with shotguns. Both are ugly. One of them is toothless. The non-toothless one forces the chubby, soft-bodied Bobby to strip half-naked and then rapes him at gunpoint, as Ed is restrained by being chained to a tree. When he has finished with Bobby, the toothless man prepares to force Ed to go down on him when Lewis finally catches up with his lost friends and shoots the first attacker with his bow & arrow, killing him almost instantly. As the toothless man runs off, Lewis attempts to lead his friends to safety down the river. However, banjo-playing Drew is shot to death by an unseen sniper (presumably the Toothless Man) and Lewis is incapacitated in an accident soon after. It is up to citified friends Ed and the now-broken-spirited Bobby to somehow gather their muster, and for Ed to learn to use his long-buried primordial instincts to help them get out of this horrible situation *and* to not arouse suspicion by the law.

The book was a compulsive page-turner and nail biter, and the well-made film is no different in that respect. Deciding to work with a 30-something cast instead of 40-somethings, Boorman cast then-rising-stars Burt Reynolds and Jon Voight as Lewis and Ed, supporting player Ronny Cox (who would achieve stardom over a decade later in BEVERLY HILLS COP, 1984) as Drew, and then-unknown Ned Beatty (in his film debut) as the unfortunate Bobby. It was casting genius. Reynolds fills Lewis Medlock perfectly, with his macho swagger hiding a surprising sensitivity which emerges once he is rendered practically useless. This performance made him a superstar (and should have earned him a Best Supporting Actor nomination), and began a decade of Burt dominating at the box office, though usually in Southern-fried comedies. Voight, who had already been Oscar-nominated as urban cowboy gigolo Joe Buck in MIDNIGHT COWBOY (1969), correctly tones down his usual overplaying tendencies to convey Ed Gentry's low-key complacent nature. Ronny Cox brings Drew Ballinger to life, and nearly steals the show with the film's early "Duelling Banjos" scene, and shows a lot of dramatic ability in the film's darker half. But it's Ned Beatty, in his brilliant performance as the at-first clownish and wimpy insurance salesman Bobby Trippe whose horrific trial-by-fire at first breaks him, then rebuilds him into a man who can stand up for himself and prevail, that is the film's emotional centerpiece. He definitely should have earned an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor for this very difficult role. Kudos must also be given to Bill McKinney, as the Mountain Man who rapes him; his portrayal is among the most chilling and creepy in cinematic history.

Speaking of that, this was the very first time male-on-male rape had ever been depicted on the big screen. John Boorman directed this scene with utmost care for his actors, while creating a scene that was in some ways even more horrific than had been described in James Dickey's book (there is no "squeal like a piggy" order given by the Mountain man in the book). According to Burt Reynolds' account in his autobiography, Ned Beatty was only going to do one take of this scene and Bill McKinney took his Method Acting a little too far and actually seemes like he was really going to "bang" Ned Beatty (it is maintained that he even had an erection at the beginning of this scene!); Burt and director Boorman had to intervene at one point! No matter what actually happened, this scene was handled bravely, and considering the fact that it was filmed in 1972, was especialy not easy to do. Lastly, the author himself appears at the end as Sheriff Bullard, and is amazingly well-cast in a subtely threatening (as scary as heck) cameo.

DELIVERANCE is still no less impacting as it was over 30 years ago. It is a must-see for anyone who calls themselves a movie fan.

MOST RECOMMENDED; AGES 15 & UP

Banjo, anyone?
City folk Burt Reynolds (Louis), Jon Voight (Ed), Ronnie Cox (Drew) and Ned Beatty (Bobbie) take a canoe trip down a backwoods Georgia river which will soon be flooded out when a new dam is constructed.

The foursome hire some possibly-inbred hillbillies to drive their cars down to Aintry to be picked up later. Off they go downriver. They encounter small rapids, bugs, and then Ed and Bobby are assaulted by two unpleasant hillbillies. They make Bobbie drop his drawers and squeal like a pig, and tell Ed he has a "real purty mouth". Louis and Drew sneak up on them and kill one of the men as the other runs off.

This leads to a moral dilemma among the four canoers. Do they tell the cops? Do they bury the body and act innocent? They make a decision, and continue downstream. At one point going through some rapids, Drew falls overboard, apparently shot by the second hillbilly, and Louis breaks his leg. Bobby camps out with Louis as Ed climbs up a cliff to reconnoitre and ferret out the second man. Finally, they continue down to Aintry, where they recuperate, and are questioned about their experience.

The screenplay was written by James Dickey based on his book, and he has a small part as the sheriff who wonders what the men had been up to.

Good ensemble acting (probably Burt's best role), beautiful photography and locations, and a great story make this an impressive movie. Oscar nominations for director (John Boorman), picture and editing, and Golden Globe nominations for director, picture, actor (Voight), song ("Dueling Banjos") and screenplay. The reasonably-priced DVD has the R-rated full-screen and wide-screen format movie, a good documentary, English or French language and subtitles, Dolby sound, chapters, cast/crew/production notes, and a trailer.

Duelling banjos and a lot lot more
I have always known the movie 'Deliverance' because of the dueling banjos tune and that is why I finally wanted to see this movie. Turns out that this is one of the best movies I have seen in a long long time.

It is the story of four Atlanta businessmen on a rafting trip. While on the river they encounter some 'crackers'. One of the four gets raped and the other almost before one of the businessmen (someone who does not believe in law) kills the attacker with an arrow. Because the whole valley will be flooded soon they decide to leave the body there and tell no one. The one with a heavy heart falls overboard however.

What is right? What is wrong? are questions asked in this movie and no one is sure. The movie is very disturbing, a strange look into the human mind and human society and also that part of the world where civilization as we know it does not exist.

The duelling banjos are fun, but the movie is really good. ... Read more

Amazon.com

John Boorman's 1985 South American epic never quite gets all of its gears working simultaneously, but it remains an often startling work with an extraordinary performance by the director's own son, Charley Boorman. Powers Boothe plays an American engineer working on a dam project in Brazil. When his young son is seemingly absorbed one day into the dense perils and beauty of the Amazon rain forest, Boothe's character goes on a protracted, 10-year search for him. In the interim, Boorman puts his full storytelling powers to work by characteristically exploring the arcane rhythms and dangers of an indigenous world hidden from ordinary view. Specifically, Boorman leads us into the life of a forest tribe who have assimilated the missing child and who will ultimately send him back with the opposite of his father's pro-development sensibility. The movie is gorgeous to behold, and it's great fun watching Boorman find ever-novel ways of making the same film again and again. But the environmental message and the emotion of the core relationship get in each other's way a bit, preventing the film from uniting on every front. Still, this is a must for Boorman fans. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (22)

This is my favorite movie of all time
The beauty and power of the rainforest juxtaposed to the beauty and power of "civilization," on of my favorite themes. Who is the true savage? Powers Boothe plays a construction engineer building a dam in the rainforest that is increasingly changing the structure of the most valuable real estate on earth. Not only is it effecting the plants and animals, creating desert where there was once rich vegetation, but it is affecting the indigenous tribes in horrendous ways. Charley Boorman plays the beautiful young son who is kidnapped by the leader of the "Invisible People." His father and mother (played by the beautiful Meg Foster) spent the next ten years searching for the boy as he is being raised in tribal customs.

Meanwhile, as the living space for the tribes grows increasingly smaller, the "Invisible People," who are basically good hearted, land loving indigenous people who keep to themselves and only want to survive, are increasingly threatened by the "Fierce People," a carnivorous, cannibalistic tribe who are desperately seeking space for themselves.

We watch Tomme grow up, learn from his new "father" who loves him dearly and was perhaps initially attracted to the tyke's golden blond hair and his own need for a son. We watch Tomme go through a ritual rite of passage that sends him on a dangerous quest for the special green rock that allows what are now his people to become "Invisible." It is in this quest that Tomme and his father cross paths again, and a lesson is learned about the cost of the damage civilization has brought to what is truly a beautiful and rich country better off left alone.

For a long time I couldn't find this movie anywhere. Not even at amazon.com. I cherish the copy I did finally find. I am thrilled to see that it is now available on DVD, but would like to see a DVD created with educational "special features" about the rain forest and the fight to preserve it. That's really what this movie is all about. See it now, before it gets away again.

ENTERTAINMENT'S EMERALD
A dam-builder is in the rain forest one day with his family, showing off his stuff. Suddenly his young son takes off to the woods and is never seen again. For the next few years the father leads a double life. Half the time he's building this dam, while the other half he's picking up his machine gun and running into the jungle to find his son. Pretty interesting life and a pretty interesting idea. And it's based on a true story. Some of the natives are truly weird, trying to put elongated bones into a machine gun that they find. There's a neat scene where they learn about either barbed wire or electricity. Another part I liked was where the native scales a small multi-story building with nothing but his bare hands and feet. The climax is really ironic. Very rarely do I see a movie where I watch it once and immediately want to see it again. This is one of those movies. I haven't seen it in a while, but my mind wanders back to it quite a lot. Definitely worth buying.

"Do you know my people?"
John Boorman's "The Emerald Forest" marks the director's return to nature a decade after "Deliverance" (1972). Once again, Boorman so ably captures the essence of the outdoors that it almost becomes a tangible supporting character. Nature in the cinematic world of Boorman is an entity to be revered and feared if you know what is good for you.

Bill Markham (Powers Boothe) is an American engineer who is in Brazil to help oversee the construction of a dam. While inspecting the construction site, tragedy strikes when his young son, Tommy (William Rodriguez) disappears. Haunted by his loss, Markham returns to the rainforest every year for ten years in search of his lost son. He eventually finds the adult Tommy (Charley Boorman) - now know as Tomme - living with the native "Invisible People." As Markham tries to re-establish his relationship with his son, he slowly learns of the devastating ecological and cultural consequences his industrial world has had upon the area.

"The Emerald Forest" sometimes comes across as too heavy-handed in its critique of modern society's threat towards the natural world. Yet, despite its labored message, the film's central story of Markham's searching for his son is involving on an emotional and dramatic level. Furthermore, the scenes with the natives are an insightful venture into an unfamiliar way of life that is as compelling as it is informative. Chalk up "The Emerald Forest" as another little nugget from the Eighties.

So . . . what did he say?
I have to give this film five stars for all the reasons that the other fans of this movie discuss. This commentary is on an unusual glitch that I discovered with the DVD. I'm referring to the MGM "Contemporary Classics" edition (in case there's another version out there).

I was surprised to discover that, when the native people were speaking, some of the subtitling was left off. Moments of indigenous dialogue were left un-subtitled in the VHS version (moments when a character appeared to be saying something like "Move" or "Hey, look."). However, with the DVD, there was one scene where a bit of dialogue that was significant to the development of the plot went unsubtited, and we were all left in the dark. It happened in only one significant scene, that I noticed, and eventually it was apparent what the character had said, but it was still frustrating and strange.

However, I still recommend that you get the DVD. When comparing scenes between the DVD and my old VHS copy (in order to see what had been said during the previously mentioned scene), I discovered that the old pan and scan version occasionally cut out almost 50% of the screen! With a film this beautiful, this is intolerable!

If you have this on VHS and are considering upgrading to DVD, I recommend that you do so - the visual pay-off is great! But keep your hands on the old VHS copy, unless you know the dialogue from memory.

Western ideaolgy versus indiginous values
I loved this movie in the theatre, bought the vhs in pan and scan and then the dvd in wide screen. I also have the sound track. This movie represents the values of western culture versus the indiginous culture. I have been to Las Amazonas 5 times and have seen what is happening. This movie compares the two cultures. This movie has a message about what indiginous people have and are happy with versus the destruction and modernazation of the western culture. Please, see the video and understand that western culture has something to offer but is not necessarily the panacea for the indiginous. ... Read more

Reviews (242)

An amazing movie
Ok, its not a perfect movie, but for this movie, which covers the mythology of Arthur, Camelot and Excalibur(very very difficult to do) it succeeds remarkably well. There are scenes that are nearly perfect throughout the film. When the Knights of the Round Table first form, when Arthur and Lancelot joust, the sins of adultery scene, the 'unholy child' scene, the search for the Grail, when Perceval strips his armor and is born anew(remarkable), when Arthur and Guenevere meet one last time with some beautifully poetic dialogue, the scene where Arhur sees Merlin in his dreams while at Stonehenge at dusk, and of course the final battle. Wow, there are just so many great scenes. Probably my favorite is when Perceval casts Excalibur back into the lake and the Lady of the Lake reaches out to take it back. Then, we see another amazing scene as Arthur is seen being taken away in a boat to Avalon. I could go on and on about this film. See it in DVD, though, the widescreen vision. A beautiful, remarkable film that few directors would even begin to attempt today. I think a younger Speilberg would be daring enough to attempt it, but I doubt he would succeed nearly as well. Zemeckis gave it a try with Sean Connery and Richard Gere. It was called First Knight. Watch that movie and then watch Excalibur and it is almost laughable how much better the latter one is... Buy this movie now, sit back and enjoy.

Not Perfect, But Darn Close...
It's tough to compress the 900-some-odd pages of text that Thomas Malory used to tell his story of Le Morte d'Arthur into 140 minutes, but director John Boorman and screenwriter Rospo Pallenberg give it a good shot. While it sometimes leaves out important details or compresses events in the interest of time, it can never be accused of playing fast and loose with the legend. However, the film also requires a bit of work on the part of the viewer to fill in some of the details, and it's obvious Boorman expects his viewer to be at least passing familiar with the traditions of the Arthurian legend (anyone unfamiliar with the mythology associated with Avalon, for example, may be baffled by the imagery in the film's closing moments).

With its darkened, cloud-streaked skies, lonely stone castles, eerie green lighting, (all caught in beautiful widescreen glory on the DVD!) and use of the music of Richard Wagner, you won't find a moodier, more beautifully shot film. In fact, there are some downright breathtaking cinematic moments in this film -- from the wedding of Arthur and Guinevere (complete with medieval chants and armor polished to a mirror-like sheen) to the Lady of the Lake's clean catch of Excalibur over the swooshing music of Wagner. Great stuff.

While Nicol Williamson turns in a very game performance as Merlin, it's Nigel Terry who carries the film in an underappreciated but wholly believeable interpretation of King Arthur. Terry leaves the scenery-chewing to Williamson, and anchors the film instead with a steady, understated performance. Look also for stars-in-the-making Liam Neeson as the jealous Gawain, and Patrick Stewart as Guenevere's father, Leodegrance.

EXCALIBUR has all the elements one expects in a fantasy; yet, in a sense, Boorman does for the sword-and-sorcery film what Sergio Leone did for the western: whereas prior horse operas showed cowboys riding across the desert and shuffing down dirt streets without a bit of sweat, and firing pistols that never drew blood, Leone made everyone look hot and sweaty, and showed that a Smith & Wesson could rip a real hole through your gut. Boorman does the same for the knight in this film -- knights clunk around clumsily in heavy armor, get skewered on pikes, get their heads bashed in, and cough their guts out in bloody mud puddles. It all lends an air of veracity to the film that makes it all seem like It Could Really Have Happened This Way.

The widescreen format available on DVD gives this film the weight and heft it has long deserved, and there are some real gems lurking among the additional features -- a surprisingly cheezy, Grade B trailer, and a really great alternate soundtrack in which director John Boorman discusses the action and shares some behind-the-scene goodies (such as the fact that Nicol Williamson and Helen Mirren couldn't stand each other, or that the actor playing the teenaged Mordred was actually a first-rate horseman).

weak but at least it sticks to the legends
Of all the horrid films based on Arthurian legends (it seems there's a curse preventing a good Arthurian film!), this is the "best" there is. The screenplay is weak and the acting bearable at best but at least it sticks (roughly) to the legends (which is more than I can say for every other "Arthurian" film in existence). For that reason, I recommend "Excalibur" over any other Arthurian film.

Classic
The thing to remember about this movie is that it was made in 1981. By that token, do not expect non stop battle sequences, one dimensional acting and obviously fake computer cg graphics. This is a movie in the old tradition, in the vein of something like "The Lion in Winter." It is not a non stop action epic and takes pride in slowly building up the story according the classical tales of King Arthur. I like to think of this as a great adaptation in the grand old style. Bravo.

Only ordinary
The Arthur story has been told and retold in dozens of ways. Some (like Mists of Avalon) give a unique perspective, others emphasize the character drama, yet others apply the newest effects to the story.

This version, though competent enough, never seemed to find itself. It has good action, reasonable interprtations of characters, and a generally high standard of craftsmanship. When the story is as familiar as Arthur et al., it takes something more for a movie to become memorable.

It's exciting and it's watchable. It just has nothing to put it ahead of other versions of the Arthur story. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A bewigged Sean Connery is Zed, a savage "exterminator" commanded by the mysterious god Zardoz to eliminate Brutals, survivors of an unspecified worldwide catastrophe. Zed stows away inside Zardoz's enormous idol (a flying stone head) and is taken to the pastoral land of the Eternals, a matriarchal, quasi-medieval society that has achieved psychic abilities as well as immortality. Zed finds as much hope as disgust with the Eternals; their advancements have also robbed them of physical passion, turning their existence into a living death. Zed becomes the Eternals' unlikely messiah, but in order to save them--and himself--he must confront the truth behind Zardoz and his own identity inside the Tabernacle, the Eternals' omnipresent master computer.

A box office failure, John Boorman's Zardoz has developed a cult following among science fiction fans whose tastes run toward more cerebral fare, such as The Andromeda Strain and Phase IV. An entrancing if overly ambitious (by Boorman's own admission) film, Zardoz offers pointed commentary on class structure and religion inside its complex plot and head-movie visuals; its healthy doses of sex and violence will involve viewers even if the story machinations escape them. Beautifully photographed near Boorman's home in Ireland's Wicklow Mountains by Geoffrey Unsworth (2001), its production design is courtesy of longtime Boorman associate Anthony Pratt, who creates a believable society within the film's million-dollar budget. The letterboxed DVD presentation includes engaging commentary by Boorman, who discusses the special effects (all created in-camera) as well as working with a post-Bond Connery. --Paul Gaita ... Read more

Reviews (84)

Trippy
Zardoz is an extremely heavy-handed social satire. Like most head movies of the early 1970s, it is worth watching, if for no other reason, than as a relic of a period of time when directors really started experimenting with the medium of film (with quite varied results), e.g. using psychedellic images, etc. And, like many such films, while it often comes off as pretentious, it is never actually boring.

The society in Zardoz is an analogy for our own and you get a general picture of its setup in the first 20 minutes (so I'm not giving away any surprises). Sean Connery is part of a gang which is provided with weapons by a flying figure-head (literally speaking). This gang's role is to go around killing people, raping and pillaging and, consequently, they help control the population and keep it weak. The rest of the population does things like grow food and give it as offerings to the flying head, partly because it offers some semblance of control over the brutal gangs it created (and maintains) in the first place.

Sean Connery decides to jump on board the flying head for a ride and learns that it is not a god, but a machine built by an elite race of immortals who have all their needs provided for (via the flying head) by the rest of society while they live in leisure. The immortals also have (exclusive) access to all recorded art and knowledge, but seem incapable of producing any themselves. In other words, there are clear analogies to inner-city gangs, police states, law and order government, capitalism, media control, and their interdependence. The rest of the film is then concerned with Connery's interaction with the immortals, learning their weaknesses, etc., and the immortals' reactions to Connery when they realize that he is mentally and physically superior to them when freed from their continued interference and control of the rest of society. Like I said, rather heavy- handed satire, but definitely not unrealistic. People from the inner-cities will recognize its accuracy the most.

There are many campy touches, however most (not all) I believe are intentional. And the film has Boorman's usual stunning cinematography. This film is a cult classic which is at least always interesting if not always good. And keep in mind that Boorman, that whiz (wink wink), is not being entirely serious.

Zardoz does it!
No matter how critical an attitude I bring to it, I simply cannot dislike this film! Its premises, performances, and images are a godsend to a lover of "thinking person's" science fiction. I have no idea what previous reviewers mean when they talk of a hippie sensibility pervading the film. I saw it twice during its initial release and have just seen it again after twenty some odd years; it still holds its special relevance and the satire still connects. Plus, it's a pleasure watching a science fiction film without a surfeit of gratuitous computer generated effects. Most of the story is told with the use of splendid cinematography, interesting sets, and a simple straightforward script with a few compelling twists. Some may argue that the actors' lines are trite; they are, but to wonderful biting effect. The masks worn by the Exterminators are marvelous, as is the floating head of Zardoz. The aerial photography and sound effects are also used to great effect near the beginning of the film to set the stage for the entrance into the Vortex and Zed's "big boy adventure" among the Immortals. Though Sean Connery's Zed chews most of the scenery, my favorite character was Friend played by John Alderton, especially after he received his sentence and was banished to the world of the aging Renegades. Hilarious!
Even the time lapse ending was effective. Normally this device is used as a crutch for a filmmaker simply because he/she doesn't know how to develop a denouement. Not here; it works perfectly!
This DVD release is crisp and vibrant with stunningly saturated colors and fine sound. I concur with a previous reviewer; this has to be the finest use of the Second Movement of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony ever in a film, heard in both it's original scoring and in a special choral arrangement--slow, stately and at a funeral march tempo, the way it should be despite the composer's score markings! I haven't heard the director's narrative track and am in no hurry to do so; the film speaks well for itself.
In my opinion, this rightfully ranks as a "must have" for fans of lovingly-made, imaginative, and thought-provoking films. Bring an open mind and a sense of humor along with the popcorn; you're in for a treat!

Something to Think About ¿ Burt Reynold Was Originally Sched
One afternoon, 10 years after it was released, I saw Zardoz in a moviehouse in Georgetown and didn't get it - except that Sean Connery was still very sexy. Recently, the serendipity of watching The Swimmng Pool with Charlotte Rampling suggested giving this Boorman allegory another chance. I finally get it and had fun seeing it again. Three reasons to watch Zardoz are John Boorman's emerging vision and personal iconography, the power of Sean Connery's presence and acting (especially at the point in his career when he was trying to break from the Bond type-cast), and Geoffrey Unsworth's masterful photography.

Boorman and his actors put their hearts and talent on the line. Connery pulls off wearing the red loincloth and wedding dress, pulling a rickshaw and effectively performing scenes like the lecture on libido with subtle irony. Charlotte Rampling, Sara Kestelman, and other actresses can survive wearing go-go boots or performing nude while portraying strong women in conflict reacting to Zed's mojo. The whole cast of immortals are such good actors that you can giggle about the horror of wearing macramé tops and overly foofed hair, but they suspend your belief in the nightmare society these characters have created. Unsworth not only films this movie; he validates the vision with clear images that indulges Boorman's penchant for setting archetypes and going all Jungian on us. It is beautiful to watch and mostly poetic.

Boorman stuffs the movie with cinematic references like Welles and Peckinpah, much like the immortals have stuffed their museum. In his commentary, he admits putting too much in the film and that he would do things differently with more money and experience. At the beginning, there are moments that almost feel like Monty Python's Holy Grail or Woody Allen's Sleeper, but the movie progresses past that. The set design was interesting, but I felt that the costuming was just a little too groovy. He also admits that some of this cult classic is laughable, but the actors and the camera take it seriously enough to trap us in the Vortex and follow Zed as he searches for the truth. I am a sucker for personal films, and everybody involved made this personal to their truth.

Given what has been going on in Silicon Valley, Zardoz is still very pertinent. The irony is that celluloid projections on glass, superimposed images on film and light refracting from faceted crystals simulated computers, which were used to depict John Boorman's vision of 2293. In any remake, instead of green bread, Boorman's successor would have to direct the brutals in assembling green pizzas, and a notion of a religious mystery commanding the terminators would be named by the corruption of the phrase - Stock Option. Their god would be called Ckoption. Nyahhh! Just watch Zardoz.

Strange, uneven and often beautiful
This is a very strange work, a large-scale but highly personal film with many beauties as well as some dubious elements. The opening fifteen minutes are among the most memorable: Boorman begins the movie with numerous striking compositions (greatly enhanced by this pristine DVD edition), and a dreamlike, largely silent progression which highlights his storytelling talent; Zed's 'learning sequence', later in the film, is also remarkably put together. The main character's quest for truth and knowledge is mostly compelling, but brought down a bit by Boorman's simplistic, rarely subtle views on sexuality and spirituality. On the other hand, his use of mythology, classical art and fairy tales is adept and intelligent, and the twist he gives to the Indo-European functional tripartition famously noted by Georges Dumezil (sovereign-religious / physical strength-war / fecundity) is quite provocative. 'Zardoz' is a cult movie par excellence: flawed but ambitious, its weaknesses are as definitive as its strengths in defining its special flavour. This unique film should be seen by adventurous viewers.

Director John Boorman's Classic
ZARDOZ is director John Boorman's classic tale of future events. This came at a time when Sean Connery was giving up his James Bond image. ZARDOZ was one of the greatest "sleepers"of its time. This DVD combined with the film's shocking ending is very good. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Walker (Lee Marvin) strides through Los Angeles with the steel-eyed stare of a stone-cold killer, or perhaps a ghost. Betrayed by his wife and best friend, who gun him down point-blank and leave him for dead after a successful heist, Walker blasts his way up the criminal food chain in a quest for revenge. Did he survive the shooting or return from the grave, or is it all a dying dream? The question is left in the air in John Boorman's modern film noir, a brutal revenge thriller based on Richard Stark's novel The Hunter (remade by Brian Helgeland as Payback), set in the impersonal concrete and steel canyons of Los Angeles and eerily empty cells of Alcatraz. Walker kills without remorse, guided by shadowy "informant" Keenan Wynn, whose own agenda is carefully concealed, and assisted by Angie Dickinson, as he desperately searches for someone, anyone, who can just give him his money. But if Walker is an extreme incarnation of the revenge-driven noir antihero, the modern syndicate has been transformed into a world of paper jungles and corporate businessmen, an alienating concept to the two-fisted, gun-wielding gangster. Boorman creates a hard, austere look for the film and fragments the story with flashes of painful memory, grafting the New Wave onto old genres with confidence and style. Haunting and brutal, Point Blank remains one of the most distinctive crime thrillers ever made. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (26)

This is where 40's noir went in the 1960's
No, it's not full of Raymond Chandler style simile's.No, there's no voiceover.There's no Bogie or Bacall, but Lee Marvin is more believable taking on the syndicate in this movie than Bogie could ever be.And Angie Dickinson serves quite nicely as replacement eye candy for Lauren Bacall, thank you.The soundtrack is very good, too.

The depiction of the corporatized mob is also brilliant.Carroll O'Connor is excellent as the surprisingly energetic mob middle manager.

I saw an interview with Schlesinger in which he said that Lee Marvin completely improvised his silence in the scene where he meets up again with his girlfriend.He was supposed to say some fairly standard things ripping her for leaving him but decided it'd play better not saying a thing.It does.

July 5, 2005 DVD release!!!
I have heard that this movie will finally find its long, long, long overdue release on DVD in July, 2005.

I can't rate the transfer or the sound or the extra features (which reportedly include a commentary and two vintage featurettes), but I can give 5-stars to whomever made this happen.Hell, you can get "Payback" on DVD. You can get "Point Break" on DVD. You can even get the totally unrelated 1998 movie "Point Blank" on DVD.You should at least be able to get "Point Blank" with Lee Freakin' Marvin on DVD.

I realize this is a film that has had many release dates that haven't come through, but I'm hoping this one happens.I've heard that Boorman does a commentary with Steven Soderbergh.Soderbergh's one of my favorite commentators, even when he's talking with another director about that director's movie (his track with Mike Nichols on "Catch-22" is one of my favorites).

A Subversive Noir Masterpiece!
"Point Blank" fans take heart----a DVD version is promised in 7/05, supposedly complete with a commentary by John Boorman & Steven Sonderburgh(sp.?).The movie is among the greatest noirs ever made, with a pitch-perfect cast.One persuasive theory about the film is that the whole story actually never happens, but is instead a last dying revenge fantasy running through Lee Marvin's brain as he checks out on Alcatraz Island.Hence, the sequences where Marvin will swoon unexplainably into near-unconsciousness (his character is named "Walker" as in "sleepwalker"), Marvin being framed by the huge excavator digging out a grave in a graveyard, & various other hints along the way that he's actually a dead man, with the final sequence being cut short inconclusively as the camera pans across San Francisco Bay back to Alcatraz Island where the whole movie started, possibly indicating that Marvin has finally died along with his final fantasy.Very intriguing, tantalizing stuff!Hang on, folks, the DVD is on the way!

WHERE IS THE DVD???
This is probably the best post-noir film ever made.The DVD has been promised since at LEAST 2004, early in the year.WHERE IS IT??

Are there legal problems, as is the case with another great film, O Lucky Man?That film is so snagged in legal problems that a DVD of it looks completely unlikely EVER.Is that the case with Point Blank?

Sorry for the rant.

What makes this post-noir film so great is the big three--plotting/writing, acting, directing.Based on The Hunter by Richard Stark (Donald Westlake), Point Blank has Lee Marvin as a whipsmart thief, shot by his partner in a doublecross and left for dead, recover and seek revenge.True this is not exactly an original storyline.But director John Boorman knew exactly what Stark was trying to do and, true to the writer's name, made the film a lean, stark portrayal of revenge.

Who better to carry out a plan of revenge than Lee Marvin?No one; at least, no one in 1967, the year this film was made.Marvin nails his role like no one else has done in any neo-noir film, and it's also great to see Carroll O'Connor, long before his All in the Family days, as a nasty piece of work with whom Marvin tangles.John Vernon's also on target as one of Marvin's enemies and Angie Dickinson supplies just the right sizzle for what she has to do in the film.

Hands down, the best American crime film of the 60s, the fact that Point Blank is STILL not on DVD is a total embarrassment to the film industry, and to the studio who owns the rights to it, whoever that may be at this time.

Hopefully if enough people raise a squawk, things will change.

Rock solid noir, and a model for all kinds of films since then.Interestingly enough, the remake, Payback starring Mel Gibson was, in my estimation, not a bad film at all.But for the real deal, this is it.

A debt is always a debt!
In the underworld language the honor is much more than as simple world. The term implies in many cases an absolute respect and ethics . whenmember of the band is sent to prison under weird circumstances and his assigned part is $ 93.000, you really should think it over specially if this man comes back hunger for greed and fury.

Lee Marvin is perfect as the rough guy who will make these codes maintain its right profile. To my mind this is not only one of the most famous films of the noir films of the late sixties but besides one of my top cult movies ever filmed. Boorman as you know is a real master in what direction concerns and this picture will prove it.
... Read more

Reviews (28)

Life During War!
John Boorman's "Hope and Glory" is a nostalgic look at a family's trials and tribulations of living through the London blitz during World Warr II. The film told from the perspective of a young boy shows us both smiles and tears as we see people fall in love, go off to war, lose all their possessions and even those they love.It shows that even though war can cause kaos and the world around us seems to be falling apart, life goes on.People still mow there lawns, go on day trips, attend school and escape daily life at the local cinema.The film does have its serious moments, yet there is a comic undertone that runs through this episodic story.My favorite comic moment is when the father tries to convince his family that the German jam he has brought home from the front isn't poisoned.They all look at him like he's crazy and about to keel over.Truely hilarious!Sabastion Rice-Edwards is excellent as young Billy, who is afraid he's going to miss the war. Sara Miles is great as she plays the emotional role of a mother who is trying to keep her family together during both the good and bad times.This movie really takes you to the British homefront!

Great Film For Practically Anybody
This is one of my top 20 all time favorite movies. If you can imagine all the trials and tribulations, joys and sorrows and aches and pains of childhood and then imagine going through WWII at the same time you have some idea of what this movie is about. Told primarily through the eyes of a young boy, this movie shows a very personal experience of what the Home Front was like for London civilians. Neighbors get bombed out, shrapnel lies in the streets, friends die, and life somehow still goes on. The movie does a really good job of showing how the war could be a source of wonder to a child living through it and a cathartic experience for the adults. At the same time it can be incredibly funny and this is really why the film is so good. Probably my favorite scene is when the grandfather sends the young boy fishing with orders not to come back until he has caught some fish. A close second is the german jam scene. If you like period films, you'll love this. If you just like good movies, not too serious or too silly or too sad, give this one a viewing. Also, the punting instructions given in the movie actually work. Soon after watching this film, I ended up in Oxford, England and was able to teach myself to punt in less than an hour just from remembering this movie, so it's also educational!

Can't go wrong
This movie is great. I am 25 and I love it and I loved it when I was 8 and it came out... looking at WWII through the eyes of a child is exciting in a way. Its one of those rare war movies that doesn't center around soldiers but a normal family instead.

Fabulous Film!
This is a film that sticks in your head. Years after I'd seen it, I searched until I could find out what it was again just so I could see it again. Not only is it beautiful, but funny and wonderful. I highly recommend this!

hope and glory
I like so many avivid lovers of this movie fell in love with it the first time i saw it on showtime back in the eighties when i was just twelve.i never knew the name until i a discussion of movies with some close friends lead me to it. now that i know off i rush to buy this wonderful movie. You know with movie that have so much blood and gore it nice to sit down and watch this movie it take me back to my parents house intently watching this wonderful movie ... Read more

Description

Some of the world's leading directors (David Lynch, Spike Lee, Wim Wenders, Zhang Yimou, John Boorman) use the original Lumiere picture camera to create short films all over the world.Interactive Menus, Production Notes, Scene access, Trailer, Languages: French, Subtitles: English ... Read more

Reviews (9)

A Filmmakers Dream Project
In 1885, the Lumiere Brothers perfected a hand-cranked movie camera that moved the world. This 100th year anniversary takes forty filmmakers to task with the same camera to produce a film less than a minute. It's not as interesting in its results as one might have hoped. It was a huge challenge and few really completed something of interest. Of those, David Lynch, Patrice Leconte and Alaine Corneau are the most intriguing, while well known directors like Spike Lee and Liv Ullmann are less so. However, this is subjective. Many of the directors are asked simple questions with the hopes of profound answers. "Why do you film" and "Is cinema immortal" get answers as mundane as 'climbing a mountain because it is there'. Film students will, however, be fascinated with this project and historians will marvel that an invention so old can still be of artistic use. For the average viewer, this 88 minute documentary might seem boring, but at the very least, it is historic.

Cinemaphiles will love this film
As a tribute to the spirit of motion pictures, Lumiere & Company is a tremendous achievement and a sublime experience for true cineastes who are fortunate to find a copy on DVD. Produced in celebration of the centennial of what is considered to be the first motion picture camera, invented by the Lumiere Brothers of France, the approach is similar to asking the most accomplished electric guitar player to go acoustic.

The producers asked a collection of international film directors to create a 52-second piece each using the same technology as the Lumieres did more than one hundred years ago, 52 seconds being the amount of time it takes for one spool of film to run through their camera. Therefore, each of the segments is done in one take. All the directors are well respected, but among the more well-known participants are David Lynch, Wim Wenders, John Boorman, Spike Lee, James Ivory, Zhang Yimou and Liv Ullman.

Each segment is intriguing. While the results are understandably uneven, the pleasure of watching this film is in discovering the remarkable diversity in the working minds of motion picture's prominent practitioners. The DVD allows for free roaming and alternative selection of each short film. Given the nearly limitless possibilities available in the modern film industry, it's worth noting how the directors make use of their limited time and yet still reveal their own styles.

The subject matter ranges from miniature narratives to political statements and social documents. The locations are as varied as the directors themselves, from Bedford-Stuyvesant to Hiroshima. Although this film may seem a bit obscure and tedious to the non-enthusiast, historians and die-hard cinema fans will marvel not only at how limitations forcibly create ingenious ideas to spring forth, but also at how well the Lumiere camera still functions.

The DVD release also offers production notes, a trailer, French language, and English subtitles.

GOOD GOOD VERY GOOD
THIS IS GREAT WORK,GOOD GOOD GOOD VERY GOOD,YOU MUST TO SEE

A gem.
Lumiere and Company (Sarah Moon, 1995)

No, Lumiere and Company is not some sort of obscure sequel to Disney's Beauty and the Beast. (And where I got that idea, which I had for years, is completely beyond me.) Instead, it's Sarah Moon's third film, and a kind of global version of her second, Contriere l'oubli. Moon took the original camera manufactured by the Lumiere brothers, set some ground rules, and asked forty world-famous directors to shoot a fifty-two second scene with it. She then made a documentary incorporating behind-the-scenes footage with the short pieces themselves.

The result is a wonderful look into the mind of the filmmaker as he goes about the filmmaker's art. Each of the filmmakers does something completely different, and each answers the five questions put to him by Moon so disparately that the overall effect is one of a sort of comprehensive feeling about how films get made; one that no one director would subscribe to, but all embrace.

The short films themselves are directed by such luminaries as Costa-Gavras, Spike Lee, David Lynch, Liv Ullmann, Lasse Hallstrom, and many others who are easily recognizable; the trick was to get Moon, the relative neophyte, to create a wrapper that is the equal of the movies therein. And she did so, admirably. The is a fine little gem of a film, and well worth seeing. **** ½

Less Is More
What an intriguing idea. Take several well known directors used to working with today's state of the art equipment and see what they can do with the first practical motion picture camera. And to make it more of a challenge, give them less than a minute to work with. The results are naturally uneven. How could they not be? I won't name names but even the weakest entries have something to offer while the best lend credence to the old adage "less is more". The viewer will ultimately have to decide for him or herself which is which. As a longtime admirer of silent films I found the voiceovers during the segments rather distracting in the manner of Mystery Science Theatre 3000. One of the rules should have called for no comments made during filming to be allowed on the soundtrack. Let us supply our own voices to what we see. All in all an interesting concept that is well executed and worth seeing for any serious student of film. The DVD format is ideal for this type of omnibus film as you can easily select the segments that you want to see again and again. You should also check out the LUMIERE BROTHERS FIRST FILMS on DVD to see what was originally done with this remarkable piece of equipment. ... Read more

Reviews (111)

Exorcist 2: the Heretic is a better sequel than Exorcist 3
I really thought that Exorcist 2: The Heretic was a better sequel than Exorcist 3! Though the film may have been flawed, but what sequel isnt? I in some ways got just as scared watching this one as I did watching the first. Linda Blair was once again brilliant in this film. Richard Burton added a subtle chill to the film which I thought worked very well. The film over all I think was very creepy in a very psycological and subliminal sense. All the African and Pazuzu back story was a nice touch as well. The climax of the film I would say is the best part of it. I feel that the reason that this film was not accepted as well as the first is because that people expected too much from it, and also in my opinion it did not need to be like the first. I think the film stands on it's own merit very nicely! I give it four stars!

"You Must Tear Out Her Evil Heart"
Okay, I've got it all figured out. This sequel takes place in a parallel universe (of which there are many), so these are only some of this particular Regan's adventures. I happen to have documented proof that the Regan from the first movie is a Vegas showgirl who DOES NOT fall down during her tap routines. Richard Burton is like a piece of wood in this movie, I still can't figure out why Ned Beatty's in it, Louise Fletcher was better as Nurse Cratchet (maybe THAT'S who they should have sent Regan to), and what in the name of Pete is that thing that James Earl Jones spits out of his mouth? A phlegm ball?? Still, this is a mezmerizing movie and Linda Blair is better than ever. The special effects are excellent and I feel safe having it in the house, unlike its predecessor. Watch it with someone you love today.

Linda, Linda, Linda!
Being a horror movie fan AND a Linda Blair fan, I was stoked when I was younger and got this movie from my dad for Christmas (what better way to say you love somebody at the holidays than with horror?). But from the very opening credits with the opera singing demon, to the scene where Linda Blair's psychiatrist calls the fire department just so they can tell her to use a fire extingusher, to the groovy little tapdancing number where Linda faints, to the bitter end... it just, well, reeked! However, there's so much going on that it still manages to entertain for some reason. I also like the part where Linda waves her hand around in the air like she's holding a lasso to kill some grasshoppers (locusts!). But the special effects in the final scene of the 117 minute version are pretty amazing. Give it a chance, it's just a good timekiller.

Pretty bad flick.
Linda Blair did a good job of acting, but the writer needed coaching

ok film
linda blair is a teen who is having flashbacks of the first film amd doesn't bleave she was possessed and realizes she WAS possessed good film sometimes but not all the time i would recomened for viewing matter not of all the reasons that it is good just to know what regan is doing ... Read more

Reviews (14)

The Best of Enemies
This review refers to the Anchor Bay DVD "Hell in the Pacific"...

You won't find a big ensemble cast in this World War II film from 1968. Only 2 actors tell the story, and they don't even speak the same langauge. But they don't need to, these two actors are Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune. They portray enemies, one American, one Japanese, marooned on an island in the midst of the war. They are so brillant in their portrayals, that actions really do speak louder than words. You won't even miss the fact that there are no subtitles when Mifune is speaking. His every expression, lets us know exactly what he is thinking.
Add to this the artful direction of John Boorman, who brought us such exquiste films as "Excalibur", the wonderful music of Lalo Schifrin (Mission Impossible), and the expert eye of Cinematographer Conrad Hall(Butch Cassidy, American Beauty) and you're in for a real cinematic treat.

When a disciplined Japanese Naval Officer discovers he is not alone on the small Island in the Pacific, he immediatly goes into high gear to protect and defend his territory. But he has met his match in the very undisciplined American Marine that has been washed ashore. And so it begins...these two do everything they can to capture, torture, and generally make life miserable for each other(and at times is on the comical side). The need for human contact though, becomes apparent and they stop short at killing each other, and actually form an attachment to each other. The ending is a bit of a shocker, but there is also an alternate ending included with this DVD.

Anchor Bay as usual has really made this 35 year old film a pleasure to watch. You have the choice of widescreen(2.35:1) or full format(by the way, my DVD was mismarked as to which side was widescreen, so don't panic if this happens, just flip it over). Excellent picture, vibrant colors and the sound in Dolby Dig Stereo is clear as a bell. And don't forget to check out the alternate ending.

A great buy for fans of war movies, Marvin and Mifune, and anyone who appreciates artful film making.

Enjoy....Laurie

One of the weirder war movies I've seen
It's been a long time since I saw this on the big screen (I was in my teens), but I remember a few vivid images of this intense drama of two men, one American, one Japanese, stranded together on a tiny Pacific island. Although bitter enemies, the y each go through a transformation of character and purpose, forced upon them by their harsh circumstances. In a way, the film is as much a commentary on how mankind can get along, or how we can destroy each other, depending on which way the wind blows (literally, here). Parts of the movie seem to drag on with little development, while others are rich in humor, sadness, violence, and characterization. I didn't like the ending, as it seemed pointless. However, that may well be the message of the entire movie.

Incomplete, murky, May-04 version from MGM
MGM cut the heart out of this excellent intense movie, when it excised the scenes of "training" Lee Marvin by Toshiro Mifune in the art of sword/staff fighting, and the scenes of hand to hand combat in/around the abandoned freighter. Further, the video quality is so dark one can sometimes barely follow the action.

Island life
This is in my top 10 of all time.
I watched this movie - heres what blew me away.
1. minimal use of soundtrack - breathing of the actors is enough to convey thirst, fear, hate - I cant tell you how much I appreciated the nuances - something lost in todays movies - which is why this stands from the pack

2. minimal script - words fail to tell the story

3. cinematography - artistically right on

4. character studies - of characters that are believable and interesting. I did not find find Marvins character to be any less so than Mifunes. Marvin played the stereotype well and so did Mifune. Characteristics are nuanced as well.

5. alternative ending was very satisfying - in reality the alternative ending would have been more likely.

Best WWII film
"War movies" generally exaggerate or trivialize or ignore the facts and rarely bring you into the actual feelings of the participants. This one does the best job of any, and makes Tom Hanks look like a piker. ... Read more

Reviews (89)

Old-fashioned spy pic is long on character, short on action
The Tailor of Panama is an old-fashioned thriller. It is high on character delineation, plot and well written, often witty dialog. It is low on action, which perhaps makes it a poor choice for those viewers who are addicted to the adrenaline rushes found in most current thrillers. For those who believe that adventure doesn't always have to be linked with action, it should make for a perfect evening's entertainment.

Pierce Brosnan plays Andy Osnard, an intelligence agent for the British government. Don't expect to see him reprise his James Bond character. Andy is a sleazy, devious, self-obsessed guy, and the actor obviously delights in this change of pace. Perhaps one day they should make a Bond movie in which Brosnan also play's the hero's evil twin. That would be fun.

Osnard has recently been caught having an embarrassing affair with someone's mistress in Spain. As punishment, the agency banishes him to Panama, where the Brits are keeping a close eye on the Panamanian government's controlling of the canal, that vital, strategic link between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Our spy soon is going over a list of locals who might be able to give him information on the dealings of officials there. He settles on Harry Pendel [Geoffrey Rush], an exclusive tailor who advertises himself as being of London and Panama City. What Osnard knows is that Harry has no London connection. The man is a convicted felon who learned his trade in a British prison. He's the perfect stool pigeon. He dresses all the important men in the city, and Osnard has the information that could destroy his career. Better yet, Harry's wife, Louisa [Jamie Lee Curtis], happens to be the top aide to the man in charge of running the canal. Harry becomes a reluctant spy. As Osnard puts increasing pressure on him, the poor guy attempts to satisfy him by given him false information. Osnard realizes this but quickly sees that he can use these false claims for his own benefit. Everyone becomes trapped in a potentially lethal game.

As in the best thrillers made twenty to thirty years ago, there is a lot of humor in The Tailor of Panama. Spying for a living is fertile ground for a few jokes because it is so contradictory. It is a profession in which deception is the primary tool for finding the truth. Brosnan, Rush and Curtis have a talent for comedy, and it's a pleasure watching them. it helps a great deal that the script provides them with some memorable lines to work with.

Appropriately, director John Boorman was a major director in the 70s and was at the helm of such memorable hits as Deliverance and Excalibur. A decade later, he tired of Hollywood and returned to his native England where he concentrated on small, independent films and on theater. The Tailor of Panama is his return to bigger projects, and it's a welcome return. His style hasn't changed much in the last thirty years, but that's okay. One of the great things about the movies is that they are made by all sorts of people with all sorts visions and points of views. There's something for everyone, and Tailor of Panama may be something for you.

Not the story LeCarre wrote
This movie presents a different story altogether than the one LeCarre wrote. The plot line of Harry and Marta was not the unspoken love story of the book, and the ending in no way resembled LeCarre's tale. The verbally explosive scene at the tailor shop makes Harry the one who gets upset, rather than Mickey (via Harry's humiliation of him), giving Mickey's suicide a different motivation entirely. The episode where Harry moves Mickey's body and cleans up Mickey's apartment is left out. Louisa is given an alternate personality more suitable to Jamie Lee Curtis. Don't waste your time and money--read the book. Better yet, listen to The John LeCarre Collection audio. Let LeCarre tell the story himself--he does so wonderfully.

A spy flick with a different angle and a streak of humor.
This movie is the opposite of the Bond movies. This is not a showcase of the smooth or sophisticated. Most of the characters are seedy. They are generally examples of pride, greed, incompetence, and power mongering. However they are likeable and understandable in their own twisted ways. I am not suggesting that you'll like everything they do. Yet I found myself hoping for a happy ending for the primary characters. (I won't spoil it for you.) Also there is some great humor. I laughed at the vibrating bed scene. A must-see for a fresh look.

Sex, Lies and Saville Row.
If before the release of John Boorman's adaptation of John le Carre's "Tailor of Panama" (scripted by the novel's author himself) anybody had told me I'd ever see Geoffrey Rush and Pierce Brosnan costarring in the same movie, I'd have snapped "And pigs fly" in response. Apparently I wasn't alone in that feeling, as Mr. Rush himself said much the same thing - although more politely - in an interview broadcast around the time the movie hit the theaters.

Yet, on second thought, who'd have been more appropriate to play James Bond's evil twin than the latest incarnation of Bond himself? Who more appropriate to play the story's multifarious title character than the actor who shone in complex roles like David Helfgott, the Marquis de Sade and Shakespearean theater owner Philip Henslowe?

Going in, I didn't doubt that Geoffrey Rush would be an amazing Harry Pendel - the role of the seemingly pathetic antihero, the little man desperately trying to maintain his dignity in the face of overwhelming odds fits him like a glove; and he does indeed give a bravura, almost Chaplinesque performance. The greater surprise for me was Pierce Brosnan, who takes every single Bond cliche and merrily runs with it in the opposite direction: I confess this took some getting used to, but once I'd gotten into the swing of it, I enormously enjoyed his skill and courage in deconstructing the very image on which his fame is grounded.

Brosnan is Andy Osnard, an MI6 agent sent to Panama as a punishment for having stepped on one toe to many during his last posting. He isn't exactly enthusiastic about the assignment to what he views as a seedy tropical backwater, but his superiors tell him that he's there to safeguard British interests in the wake of the Panama Canal's turnover to the Panamanian government after General Noriega's ouster. Generating leads in preparation for his arrival, Osnard comes across the name of Harry Pendel, a tailor billing himself as one half of "Pendel and Braithwaite," ostensibly an enterprise in the venerable Saville Row tradition, founded by now-deceased Arthur Braithwaite. But the shop's alleged provenance is as big a fabrication as Harry's personal history; for in fact, he learned tailoring in prison, where he was sent for burning down his Uncle Benny (Harold Pinter)'s shop. Discovering this - and the fact that Harry used to be Noriega's tailor and is still very much in favor with the currently reigning clique (the same people already in power under Noriega: "They got Ali Baba but missed the 40 slaves," Harry comments) - Osnard quickly decides that Harry Pendel is the weakest link in the British expat community; the perfect guy to lean on and generate intelligence.

Soon Harry is trapped between the growing pressure exercised by Osnard, his considerable financial needs (which Osnard has promised to remedy) and the admonitions of his faux conscience Uncle Benny never to tell the truth, the only thing that can really hurt him: "Try sincerity, that's a virtue" Uncle Benny advises - "truth is an affliction." And so Harry spins lie after lie; constructing a mesh in which he is ultimately caught together with his wife (Jamie Lee Curtis in one of her best-ever performances) and closest friends Micky Abraxas (an almost unrecognizable Brendan Gleeson) and Marta (Leonor Varela), who have barely survived Noriega's regime - Micky broken in spirit, Marta with a perpetually scarred face. Because Harry's lies about a "silent opposition" network and alleged plans to sell the Panama Canal to the Chinese are good enough to eventually prompt the British *and* American governments to plan a new invasion - and with that prospect looming large over Panama City's infamous "cocaine towers" skyline, the Pendel family, Micky and Marta find themselves in an almost inescapable stranglehold.

Although written by one of the great masters of the spy thriller genre and despite a plot featuring all the trademark elements, "The Tailor of Panama" is *not* a thriller but a farce; as much parody of the genre as mordant satire on the intelligence community (which le Carre knows intimately from personal experience) and sharp criticism of the first world's exploitation of the corrupt power structures of strategically located, cash-strapped countries in the developing world. References to both "Casablanca" and Graham Greene's "Our Man in Havana" are deliberate; obviously so in its setting and in the satirical creation of a would-be spy spinning a web of lies just to keep the cash coming in and eventually caught in that web when his lies come true; but also in Harry's reference to Panama as "Casablanca without heroes," and when Osnard, taken to a small plane by a British diplomat, wonders aloud whether this could be "the beginning of a beautiful friendship" ("I think it desperately unlikely," is the icy response).

The movie seems to be particularly unpopular with two groups: Brosnan fans disappointed not to see him play another superhero like James Bond and Remington Steele (and there's little to be said about this; you either buy into his deconstruction of that image or you don't) and Panamanians alienated by their country's portrayal as a corrupt banana republic. I admittedly haven't been to Panama (yet); and I'm sure it has more to offer than corruption, cocaine and the colorful, seedy nightlife so amply displayed here. But Panama's history is a troubled one, and the ongoing role of the Western powers (particularly the U.S.) in its politics is problematic; so I do think le Carre and Boorman have a legitimate point.

In sum, this is a fine production, featuring great performances from its entire cast (also including Catherine McCormack as the career diplomat who becomes Osnard's love - err, sex - interest and Daniel Radcliffe, now of "Harry Potter" fame, as Pendel's son) and spellbinding cinematography by Philippe Rousselot, making Panama's lush, tropical setting come to life in all its vibrant facets. Don't be discouraged by the naysayers ... take a look and judge for yourself!

Bad ending
As a great fan of Le Carré I was very disappointed with the ending of this movie. I had hoped that the alternative ending was better, but it wasn't. Pierce Brosnan was good, though I had imagined that the actor was more like a Michael Caine-type. I don't think that Jamie Lee Curtis was the best for that part - at least not with Geoffrey Rush as her husband. However he was a perfect taylor. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Best known for Deliverance (1972), John Boorman produced what isarguably his greatest film withPoint Blank (1967). In that ambiguous gangster flick, set in a pastel L.A.wasteland, Lee Marvin may or may not be a walking dead man, animated by the desire to avenge his fatal betrayal by the woman he loved and his bestfriend. Many of Boorman's films take the form of quests, fueled by some dreamof utopia; on some level, Point Blank is the tragedy of a just man, appalledand ultimately defeated by the complexity of his world's corruption. The General begins with the death of Martin Cahill--celebrated Dublin gangsterwho stole millions during the 1980s--then literally reverses the approach andassault of his IRA assassin, flashing back in time, back through Cahill'scolorful, criminal quest for his kind of ideal community. Boorman says hisCahill is a throwback to those Celtic chieftains of old who ruled by thieveryand violence; as an anachronism, this charming, brutal bear of a man(perfectly incarnated by Brendan Gleeson) is undeniably reprehensible, but hestands in deliberate contrast to the institutionalized hypocrisy andcorruption of church, state, and IRA alike. Brazenly hanging out inpolice HQ to establish an alibi; maneuvering gracefully through perfectlychoreographed heists; dispensing affection to his wife, and her sister;nailing the hands of a suspected cheat to a pool table; handing out food to women whose husbands are out of work--Gleeson's bluff, often comic gangster is always bigger than life, an eruption of unsocialized energy through thelayers-deep sediment of socially acceptable sin. (In real life as in thefilm, Cahill always hid his faceunder a sweatshirt hood, or behind hisspread fingers--he looks like some mischievous, giant-child.) Shot by thegreat Seamus Deasey in color, then transferred to black-and-white stock, TheGeneral is visually voluptuous, the anatomy of a charismatic monster's soul expressed in lustrous light, silken shades of gray, and ebony shadows.--Kathleen Murphy ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Generally Excellent
Somewhere and sometime. in a galaxy far away, filmakers are going to realize that colloquial Irish brogue is extremely difficult to digest and even more so when enhanced by inherent slang. Thankful I had the DVD version it did not take me more than 15 minutes to flip on English subtitles.
That notwithstanding, this is an excellent film portraying the life of Martin Cahill. Brendan Gleeson was so compelling in this role that I could'nt help but despise him throughout. Jon Voight, as the inspector, is also well worth the price of admission. Funny thing. Voight was criticized for his phony accent but in reality was the only actor that could be totally understood at all times.
See this film. There are 2 versions. Color and B&W. Watch the B&W version. It is much more "mood oriented" where the color(desaturated) can be distracting.

excellent movie, but confusing and poorly made disc
This is a very good movie, Boorman's best since Deliverance, but the disc, which presents a 2:35:1 version in "desaturated color" and a 1:85:1 version in black and white, makes it unclear which way the director intended it to be seen. After carefully analyzing several scenes in both versions, I discovered that the 2:35:1 version is cropped from the original aspect ratio, which was most likely 1:85:1, which is the ratio of the black and white version (unless Boorman filmed it in 1:33:1, as Kubrick and some others liked to do), so I'm guessing that this version, the b+w version, is the one which the director prefers. (also, he filmed it in black and white and probably wanted it to be seen this way.) The computer-colored version is also very cheesy-looking anyway. Hope this helps!

Brendan Gleason as the charming Irish rogue, Martin Cahill
The home of director John Boorman was one robbed by Martin Cahill, who stole, among other things, the gold record from Boorman's wall for "Dueling Banjos," the hit single from his film "Deliverance." That scene is included in Boorman's 1998 film "The General," along with Cahill's disgust at learning gold records are not made of gold, and helps to establish the idea that Cahill is an engaging rogue. Most of that particular task is accomplished by Brendan Gleason, who creates such a likeable character that when he nails one of his men to a snooker table to force a confession, we are inclined to overlook the act of violence.

I checked out "The General" after watching "Veronica Guerin," in which Cahill's murder is an early scene. Ironically, both films begin the same way, with the death of the title character. We then go back to the point in their lives where the filmmaker begins to explain how they came to such a violent end. Cahill starts off stealing potatoes and promising young Frances that he will never be caught. Having been forced to break this promise once he grows up to be man who plans on avoiding returning to prison by planning his robberies with such care than he is nicknamed "The General." But he also has a great sense of flair, which he demonstrates when his wife and mistress, who happen to be sisters, persuade him to buy a house for 80,000 pounds. Then there is his habit of always wearing a hood or having his hand in front of his face in public so that his picture can never be taken.

The Dublin police play into making Cahill look good by sinking to his level and well below. There is also the clear implication at the start of the film that there were complicit in Cahill's murder, although more by an act of omission than commission. So when the police put first Cahill and then his gang under 24-hour surveillance, we enjoy it as he finds a series of ways to get the better of them, with relative ease. In the end, it is not his dealings with the police, but rather his disdain for the IRA that is going to get him killed.

Jon Voight plays Ned Kenny, the cop turned inspector who is supposed to be Cahill's nemesis, but who does not really get to do enough to even be a model of futility in his pursuit of the criminal and his gang. Adrian Dunbar as Noel Curley and Sean McGiley as Gary are Cahill's chief henchmen and it was a treat to see two-thirds of the backup singers from "The Committments" showing up in this film, with Maria Doyle Kennedy as Frances and a black tressed Angeline Ball as Tina.

I keep seeing comparisons between Cahill and Robin Hood, followed by an inevitable caveat that Cahill took from the rich and kept it for himself, but I think that misses the mark. Cahill is more in the mode of Jesse James, who also enjoyed popular support in his community without always spreading around the wealth. The American outlaw also had more of a violent streak, even in the popular folklore about his robberies, than the outlaw of Sherwood Forest. Consequently I see the Robin Hood analogy as another attempt to make Cahill look better than he was, which Boorman's film has absolutely no trouble doing. In the end, "The General" is neither a celebration of Cahill's life nor a warning about the path to be avoided, but a look at a captivating rogue, which is always an interesting journey.

Boring and, well, inertly comic
This movie is like a soup whose ingredients are so good that you can't miss, and yet it comes out bland as dishwater. It's a true and incredible story, masterfully photographed, well acted, lots of great Irish accents, and.... it's boring as hell. It might have come out okay if Boorman had added pathos, but he only goes for humor (like the movie Robin Hood), and it plays so forced that it comes across as desperate and callous (to Cahill's victims). I love just about everything Irish, but this movie was impossibly boring, and its humor was forced.

Great authentic Irish movie
This was a most unexpected treat, not least because I despaired of an Irish movie with John Voight playing an Irish Garda (cop). The movie was delightfully sleazy and gritty, with a great depiction of the flexible morality of the main character, the General. As an Irishman in exile I was impressed the authenticity of the Irishness of the movie, none of your stage Irish here. Big bonus, Voight was terrific and his accent was great. I saw it on the big screen and so cannot comment on the DVD issue. Well worth renting, but be prepared for some heavy accents and heavy language. ... Read more

Reviews (14)<