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

Reviews (724)

"TECH SUPPORT!!!!!!"
Watching this after viewing the convoluted mess, MULHOLLAND DR., was like a breath of fresh air. Here is a convoluted film with BIG IDEAS and an actual pay-off at the end. AND IT'S FUNNY!! Some [people] claim this movie made no sense and was full of holes. Huh? The whole thing is spelled out in it's conclusion. Cameron Crowe practically leads you by the hand. ... Having seen this PSYCHOLOGICAL MASTERPIECE 3 times so far, I couldn't find a single hole in it's superbly delineated plot.

Not being a fan of Penelope Cruz or Cameron Diaz, I went into this film with low expectations. I was wrong. Cruise and Cruz have great chemistry together. Obviously because of their off- screen chemistry. And Cameron Diaz' performance is chilling. I have a newfound respect for her. Next to BORN ON THE FORTH OF JULY, this is Tom's best performance by far. He says, it's his favorite film to date. No kidding!! His performance is sad, hilarious, and profoundly touching. BRAVO!! Jason Lee is always great and he's a riot in this film. Hope to be seeing more of him, now that he's mainstream. Kurt Russell in a marvelously understated role.

... Granted what at first appears to be a psychological thriller, which it is, ultimately becomes a science fiction odyssey of the mind. [For those] who couldn't understand why Tom Cruise gets in the car with Cameron Diaz: Diaz offers Cruise sex. This is the important choice that Cruise makes which ultimately changes his whole life and the direction or conflict of the story. And he doesn't "punch her in the face" because he's trying to talk her down. ... It's about the male libido. It's about thinking with one's head and not one's.....ahem. "It's about choices" is stated several times in the film. As for the identities changing during Cruise's nightmare nothing could be more obvious: his subconscious is playing out his tortured feelings of guilt about Cameron Diaz' character. "The subconscious is a powerful thing" is stated several times in the film. Psychology 101. Pretty simple stuff when you see it unfolding. ... As for comparing this to MEMENTO: OK, a psychological thriller with an unusual timeline device. But MEMENTO had a fill-in-the-blank pay-off. What was the motivation behind it all? Why was this guy manipulating this other guy's mind? We'll never know. Doesn't really matter. These two films are pretty far apart in their intentions.

This script could have come from the mind of Phillip K. Dick- sheer paranoia, except for the ending, which is full of redemption and hope. Stunningly put together and masterfully directed by Cameron Crowe. The music is wonderful. One expects the music in a film such as this to be haunting and weird, ala David Lynch, but the choice of tunes is a reflection of the main character's taste in music. GOOD VIBRATIONS?- man, that was out of left field.

The DVD format is artfully done and the extras are good, although the MAKING OF segment, PRELUDE TO A DREAM, could have been more extensive. DO NOT watch PRELUDE TO A DREAM before watching the film. It gives away a part of the plot ... You do get a COMMENTARY by the film maker which I haven't clicked on yet.

Not as psychologically disturbing as FIGHT CLUB, but close.

Wow, I thought the meaning of this MASTERPIECE was fairly obvious, but after reading some of the other reviews, I guess I have to say, go into this one with an OPEN MIND.

BRILLIANT!! Thanks, Cameron Crowe and Tom Cruise, for helping to restore my faith in Hollywood. This movie is one of the reason's why I love film. One of the 2 or 3 best films of 2001.

What Is Real?
Vanilla Sky is a visually and intellectually fascinating film that many viewers and critics found too confusing to enjoy. What starts out as a surreal mystery turns out to be an exploration into the nature of reality. In this way, it is similar to The Matrix, Dark City and some other recent films where the characters are never sure what is real and what is a dream (or computer-generated fantasy). Vanilla Sky also has some David Lynch-like features, as when people's identities seem to randomly morph. Unlike Lynch films such as Mulholland Drive, however, Cameron Crowe's story at least offers an explanation for the confusion. The explanation won't satisfy everyone (as some of the harsh criticism of the film shows), but to focus too much on this is to miss the point, which is to make us ponder some big questions regarding truth and reality. Helped by some very good performances by Tom Cruise, Penelope Cruz and Cameron Diaz, and some stunning visual effects (such as a truly eerie scene of a deserted New York City), Vanilla Sky is an entertaining and intellectually stimulated film. Just don't expect a straightforward, linear story.

IF YOU LIKE PLOT TWISTS YOU WILL LIKE THIS MOVIE.
"Vanilla Sky" is a remake of the Spanish film "Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes)", and if you have seen the original film, you know that "Vanilla Sky" was made almost in the same way, but there a few key differences. The camera angles, the plot and most of scenes are almost the same in both movies, but "Vanilla Sky" uses a different music, this movie has a rock-oriented music score. Also, the character played by Cameron Diaz is an improvement over the original character, because Cameron adds more depth with her performance. Of course, since "Vanilla Sky" is a Hollywood movie, the visual effects and the budget are bigger this time.

"Vanilla Sky" offers a lot of plot twists, so the first screening might be mind-blowing to some viewers, if you like simple plots perhaps "Vanilla Sky" is not your movie. But if you like to be tricked with the characters and the plot, this film is for you. "Vanilla Sky" plays with the time, the movie goes back and forth between past and present, and sometimes you don't know if some events really happened or if the main character is just having a nightmare.

The cast in "Vanilla Sky" is very interesting: Tom Cruise is David, the main character, and Cruise gave one of his most inspired performances in recent years. Cameron Diaz is outstanding as Julie, she improved the character from "Open Your Eyes". Penelope Cruz plays exactly the same role, yes, the same role in both movies, one might think that she would improve her performance this time, but nop, she reprises her role step by step. Jason Lee plays Brian, the best friend of David, and he does a good job here, he adds sympathy and charm to his character. Kurt Russell plays McCabe, the psychiatrist that tries to solve the puzzle.

"Vanilla Sky" is an effective thriller, packed with plot twists and good music, if you like this movie, I strongly recommend you to see the original film "Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes)", you might find that both films share similarities, but they are different movie experiences.

An amazing film that could have been stellar
I have watched Vanilla Sky three times now, and every time it has left me powerfully affected. It deals with many topics that interest me, particularly the study of dreams vs. reality, and the nature of relationships, and love. There is much that is very good about it, however it contains one major flaw that prevents it from being truly great.
The acting, is overall top notch. Jason Lee turns in yet again another stellar supporting role; he radiates charisma in this performance, and fits the role given perfectly. Cameron Diaz is a fine choice for Julianna, she brings an almost maniacal sense of urgency to her character that was both disturbing and complusively watchable; she simply looks amazing on film. Tom Cruise performs more than adaquetly as well, and perhaps the greatest kudos must be given to Penelope Cruz, who simply lights up the screen here. Her charisma is unmistakable, and she infuses this film with life and vibrancy. This is a film with many powerful images, be it the gorgeous vanilla skies that soar over New York within the dream, or the (SPOILER) unforgettable image of Cruise's David Aames waving farewell to his disfigured reflection in the mirror. It entices in the first viewing, draws you in irresistably, and apon further viewings still moves with great pacing, and many subtle clues and hints can be found that help the viewer understand the nature of David Aame's reality. My only real complaint is that Cameron Crowe for some inexplicable reason (though it certainly must have been because of confused test audiencies, those who this film is not intended for anyway) chose to come out at the end of the film and blatantly reveal all of the films secrets and twists; he talks to the viewer as if we were 5 years old and need him to hold our hand. This film could have been very similar in nature to, and even rivaled Lynch's masterpiece Mulholland Drive had Crowe not chosen to do so, and it is very disappointing that he did in fact choose to do so. But this aside, the film is very compelling and often powerful. I still love the questions it raises concerning love (if his love with Sofia wasnt "real", than does it still have meaning?), and the image of "I will find you in another life, when we are both cats" that so powerfully emphasizes the power that love can have, and the joy and awe surrounding that human emotion. For a similar image look in the closing chapters of the novel The Amber Spyglass by Philip Pullman. But i digress. This film is solid, even coming from hollywood, and with big name stars attached. I would certainly recommend it to anyone who is willing to be challenged slightly by the film they watch, and those who love to be moved.
Highly Recommended

5 STARS FOR THIS BLOATED TRASH? YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING!!
The most amazing thing about this movie is finding people who are actually giving it 5 stars. I guess this just goes to show you that if you pour enough money in any misguided enterprise with flatulent ego, there are some people who are going to think it's great. Especially amazing are those who actually compare this horrible incoherent mess favorably to the original, ABRE LOS OJOS. Very depressing indeed. As depressing as watching a really ugly and annoying woman wearing a ton of make up and expensive designer clothes and parading around in a roomful of myopic and deaf people applauding her as she screeches away fit to break windows...................... ... Read more

Reviews (231)

The Greatest Vietnam Movie, In my opinon.
Oliver Stone's "Platoon" is one of the best and most powerful of all war pictures. It is the best movie ever made about the Vietnam war. Stone's film is gritty, frighteningly realistic and incredibly powerful. Stone doesn't just show us the Vietnam war, he takes into the Vietnam war. The screenplay is brilliant and doesn't fall into the trap that other war films fall into, where the violence turns into a fun experience and fighting seems "cool." This is a movie that truly shows the horrors of war realistically and with great effect. The cinematography by Robert Richardson (JFK, Natural Born Killers) is rich and gritty, giving more feeling to already great material. The characters are believable and convincing. It's great work because Stone himself went to Vietnam, so he has a better idea of what happened than Francis Ford Coppola when he made "Apocalypse Now" (which is also a great movie). "Platoon" is mesmerizing, powerful, effective, disturbing and even philosophical. It is one of Stone's greatest works. He ignites the screen with passion. The music is incredibly moving. No other director has made better films about Vietnam than Stone, who's "Born On The Fourth Of July" and "Heaven And Earth" followed "Platoon," and opened our eyes to greater clarity. I was never less than spellbound by this work. "Platoon" vibrates with realism and energy. A very special motion picture

The Nam
Oliver Stone's Vietnam War film, PLATOON, remains a very intense film, even some 15 years after its theatrical release.
As seen through the eyes of Private Chris Taylor, (Charlie Sheen), the film focuses on the experiences of this naive young man and the other soldiers in his unit. As tensions mount and fears of the enemy threaten to overtake the men, a sick rivalry develops between Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berenger) and Sgt. Elias (Willem DaFoe) that sets soldier against soldier. The entire film takes you inside the minds of these 3 men for different views on the war and what it was like for the men that were there. Of course some of it seems tamer now, especially after, more recent war films. But PLATOON still is an intense look at the war, that, even today, no one really understands. Stone puts his real life experiences as a "Nam" vet, to direct to perfection. The performances by the cast are superb...

The Special Edition DVD has an excellent retrospective documentary on the film that is quite comprehensive. Of equal interest, were the 2 audio commentaries The first by Stone, the second by millitary advisor Dale Dye---both men put the actors through their paces. The photo gallery, theatrical trailer, t.v. spots and "collectible" booklet round out the disc's extras. This edition is vastly improved over the movie only edition and comes highly recommended

not God as some people praise it at but pretty damn good
very very enjoyable flick, mainly because it reminded me of FMJ(full metal jacket) and the humor was pretty good too. i might have preferred this film a little better if charlie s. wasnt in it but he actualy didnt do that bad of a job one part i found hysterical was that johnny depp has a part in it. with short blonde hair and he just is walking by then gets blown up. this film should deffinalty be in a war collects colection.

way too isolated and without emotions
Oliver Stone's was a veteran of Vietnam himself and he appears late in this movie, which is unfortunate for his own sake, because if I were him, I'd want to be hiding from this movie, pretending to have nothing to do with it. The three main soldiers (Willem Dafoe, Charlie Sheen, Tom Berenger) hate each other from the very beginning and everyone knows before it begins that it is about the loss of innocence because war is hell, so the things that happen to the three of them are pretty predictable. In some of his better work, mainly The Doors and Natural Born Killers, Oliver Stone uses a lot of effort to show the effect that the plot is having on the rest of the world. In The Doors, we see footage of Vietnam because it was transpiring at the same time. Likewise for Nixon. However, in this movie, we just see the war itself without seeing the outside world reacting to it as it unfolds. Oliver Stone does better work in the 90's.

Favorite Vietnam Piece
This is my personal favorite vietnam film. It blew away the others for me (ie..Hamburger Hill, Full metal jacket etc) The story, acting and gritty take of the war made this film VERY important. It asks some pointed questions and is a breathtaking film. Not to be missed! This should be in EVERY war film fan's library. plain and simple. ... Read more

Amazon.com

One of Jim Henson's finest hours was the Storyteller series that aired on HBO in 1987. As with his other non-Muppet creations (Labyrinth), Henson fills the screen with wonderful creatures that have a wisp of a J.R.R. Tolkien fantasy. Half of the eight-part series was adapted from Greek myths by Anthony Minghella, who became an Oscar-winning filmmaker a decade later with The English Patient. Minghella weaves the narration of the storyteller (a sturdy and wonderful Michael Gambon, accompanied by a scene-stealing dog) with dialogue from the stories to beguiling effect.

By nature, the Greek myth episodes are a bit more mature and downbeat (ages 8 and older) than the rest of the series, yet give the audience lasting impressions of oft-quoted tales. In "Perseus and the Gorgon," King Argos locks away his wife when it is foretold his future son will kill him. Soon mother and son (Perseus, fathered by none other than Zeus) are washed ashore and another angry king looks to take away Perseus's mother. How can Perseus win the day? By killing the evil Gorgon whose snake-covered head includes eyes that turn humans into statues. Derek Jacobi stars as the brilliant Greek designer in the second tale, "Daedalus and Icarus." The father goes through many hardships, including the famous episode of his son flying too close to the sun. All is not well and does not end well. John Madden (Shakespeare in Love) directs the tale of "Theseus and the Minotaur." A young man reunites with his father, King Aegeus, but is cursed by his witch of a stepmother (literally). When Theseus tries to stop the regular sacrifice to the half-bull, half-man Minotaur, a new curse awaits the young prince. The magical musician Orpheus (Art Malik) finds his muse in "Orpheus and Eurydice." Unfortunately, she soon dies and goes to Hades where Orpheus follows, attempting to win her soul from the devil himself. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Immerse Yourself In Ancient Mythos...
Whether you are a Mythology major in a university or one who has become so familar in the subject that you consider yourself an expert, you are sure to love these myths-come-to-life retellings brought to the screen. Kept in the same vein as Jim Henson's The Storyteller series featuring John Hurt, this series is also told by a teller of stories represented by Michael Gambon and with as much ability to mesmerise the listener as his predecessor.

The music (which is a crowning point, in my opinion) is weaved by Rachel Portman who, as always, delivers a lovely score marred fittingly with dark, forboding - yet bittersweet tones. In many instances such as in the tale of 'Orpheus & Eurydice', the climatic storytelling is accompanied by the score which successfully heightens the intensity of what will happen next. Everything set to music from Eurydice's 'birth' to Ariadne's furious curse when she realises Theseus has abandoned her is rapturously beautiful, chillingly haunting.

The acting performances are also well worth mentioning, most notably that of Gina Bellman [Eurydice], Jesse Birdsall [Aristaeus] and Maggie O'Neill [Ariadne]. Whether it be the wonder found in new life, mischief or the sting of being betrayed, these things prove small feats to bring across by such seasoned performers as these.

Having waited what seems forever for this program to come to DVD, I am ecstatic that it finally has. Remaining true to the original Grecian myths, this series will be cherished for ages to come in the homes of fantasy and mythology lovers alike.

Complete your Jim Henson's The Storyteller Collection
Last year, fans were thrilled to find Jim Henson's The Storyteller Collection on DVD for the first time featuring the fairy tales crafted for the series. Thanks to the success of that DVD, the Greek Myths are also being released this year. While the effects of the series are somewhat dated, the series is still spectacular, incorporating the genius of Jim Henson and those he gathered around him. Also note that the storyteller in this series is Michael Gambon, the new Dumbledore in the third Harry Potter movie.

And to let you know what is on the DVD, here is the episode info provided by Columbia Tristar Home Entertainment:

DAEDALUS AND ICARUS: Daedalus, one of the greatest inventors of ancient Greece, and his son Icarus are betrayed by cruel King Minos and must flee for their lives. To escape Daedalus creates wings to they can fly to safety but will the young Icarus heed his father's instructions or will their dreams melt away.

ORPHEUS AND EURYDICE: The great musician Orpheus vows to bring back the soul of his beloved Eurydice from the depths of Hades. But the task he must complete to reunite with his love turns out to be as tortuous as the fate he will have to endure.

PERSEUS AND THE GORGON: When the evil king threatens Perseus' mother, he must bring back the head of Medussa - who's stare will turn anyone who looks upon her to stone. Will the help of the gods be enough to aid in this seemingly impossible task?

THESEUS AND THE MINATAUR: With the help of a beautiful princess, Theseus tracks down the man-eating Minotaur, half-man, half-bull to prove his courage and loyalty. A fight to the death ensues, and a shocking secret emerges. ... Read more

Reviews (62)

An extraordinarily good film ...
At the end of a disappointing summer movie season, I've started watching some of my favorites on tape. This movie is near the top of my all-time list; here's why:

ACTORS -- Most of the actors gave career-high performances in this movie. "Witness" helped establish Harrison Ford as a serious (i.e., non-Star Wars) action hero, and he demonstrates emotional range in this movie that doesn't show up very often in more recent films. Kelly McGillis is compelling, gradually and believably transforming from a shy widow out of her element to a strong, spirited member of her Amish community. Lukas Haas, who plays her son, offers a level of child acting that has only recently been matched by Haley Joel Osment. As other reviewers have noted, his wordless scene with Ford in the police station is a brilliant piece of acting -- an enormous amount of information and emotion is conveyed in complete silence. And Alexander Godunov brings a gentle grace to his role as the Amish farmer competing with Ford for McGillis' affections. It's sad that he didn't get more opportunities to demonstrate his acting ability before his death a few years later.

CINEMATOGRAPHY/SCORE -- As with most of Peter Weir's films (cf. "Dead Poet's Society"), "Witness" is visually stunning. The shift from the gritty heart of Philadelphia to the rolling hills of Amish country is jarring, and leaves one with a palpable sense of longing. I think the barn-raising scene in the middle of the movie is one of the most beautiful scenes I've ever seen filmed, both visually and thematically. Underscored (so to speak) with music reminiscent of Copland's "Appalachian Spring," it drives home the value of community and shared endeavor. It's a marvelously uplifting segment.

ROMANCE/EROTICISM -- The relationship between Ford and McGillis is very well done. The attraction that arises between them (driven in no small part, apparently, by Ford's kindness to the young boy) is constantly and realistically tempered by the awareness that they come from fundamentally different cultures. That slows the development of a relationship between them, which provides the movie with a delightful undercurrent of romantic tension. That tension reaches a peak in a powerful scene in which Ford sees McGillis giving herself a sponge bath. There is nudity in this scene (McGillis turns and shows herself, topless, to Ford), but it seems to be precisely the kind of nudity that, as actresses like to say, "is essential to the story." Given the way in which the Amish are portrayed in this film, McGillis' character is making a very bold (and risky) offer, and the difficulty of Ford's refusal is evident in his face. There certainly is a lot of gratuitous nudity in film, but "Witness" is not in that category.

This movie is aging extremely well, in large part because of the sweep of its vision, the powerful simplicity of its story, and the skill of its execution. It is a terrific movie.

Impressive film!
"Witness" is defineately one of the greatest thriller/romance movies ever made. Directed by Peter Weir, the plot concerns a yuong Amish boy (Lukas Haas) who witnesses a murder in a Philadelphia train station bathroom while traveling to the city with his mother Rachel (Kelly McGillis in her best performance). Detective John Book (Harrison Ford) is assigned to the case, and quickly discovers that a corrupt narcotics cop (Danny Glover) is the killer. After a close shave, Book, Rachel, and her son escape to Amish country, where Book hides out as an Amish farmer--while also protecting the witness and his mother.
Of course, at the end there is one whopper of a scene when the corrupt cop & friends discover Book's safehouse.
"Witness" received several Academy Award nominations including Best Picture, and won for Screenplay, Cinematography, Sound, and Film Editing.

Ford at the top of his game
Some of the most powerful romances can spring up when both sides have to be restrained; here, the widowed Amish woman and the cop-in-hiding know that they come from different worlds, know that a relationship between them will not practically work, and so fill the screen with unresolved sexual and romantic tension.

Woven into the more grisly details of murder and police corruption are scenes of humor and beauty. Dancing in the barn to "Don't Know Much About History". Having to wake up at 4 a.m. to milk the cows. It's funny to see how the cop, John Book, tries to fit himself into Amish life the best he can. And it's very moving to see his growing love for the Amish woman who nursed him through a bad gunshot wound and has enchanted him with her character and beauty. The movie's climax is also riveting; it's not often that one sees gunfighting at an Amish farm.

Great film, poor quality transfer
"Witness" captures director Peter Weir's first exploration of the cultural clash between America's Amish community and modern society. We witness two worlds that collide and two people that can't bridge the gap between their two worlds despite their blossoming love for each other.

The story revolves around Samuel a little boy who has witnessed the murder of an undercover police officer, his mother Rachel (McGillis)and John Book (Ford) who investigates the murder discovering corruption, deceit and a conspiracy at it the heart of his department. After he discovers that his witness isn't safe, Book whisks them back to their Amish farm where he's forced to hideout as well.

One of Weir's finest films to focus on America, this so-so transfer looks grainy and has lots of compression issues. The transfer isn't a widescreen anamorphic transfer but is presented in that format (i.e., it's presented with the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen but the transfer isn't high definition). The picture occasionally comes across as soft and the rich use of color and light that vividly brought the film to life in theaters isn't well represented here. Hopefully Paramount will update this and remaster it the way it deserves to be done.

The extras include an interview with Weir obviously done around the time the film was made or first appeared on video and the original theatrical trailer. I would have expected a commentary track but since Weir isn't all that big on them to begin with, that would be hoping for too much.

A great film just a poor translation to DVD.

Comparing Witness: 1985 and 2004
As I write my title, it is weird to think this film is nearly 20 years old! How time flies! Anyway...I first saw this film when it first came out and I remember I really really liked it. I was 23 years old and not a Christian at that time. Now, I am soon to be 42 and have been a Christian for over 18 years. For 10 years of my life, I lived as a Mennonite (like Amish in many ways, but we drove cars, had electricity, etc.) I am no longer a Mennonite, and now I watch films again. I appreciate classic cinema very much, but recently have wanted to watch Witness again, to see if I would like it as much as the first time, and to see if I thought they portrayed the Amish correctly.

So, I watched it last night. It was interesting in that I remembered so much, even some small details about it. So it really did impress me that first time when I was young. This time, I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't say it is a film I would watch over and over again, as I watch some classic films. To see it once more was enough to just satisfy my curiosity about my memories of it.

I did feel they portrayed the Amish quite well, with the clothes and such. What they did wrong about the portrayal was that in no way would it be allowed for an Amish woman to tend to a wounded man who wasn't her husband, by herself in a room alone with him. It just isn't proper, isn't done. In reality, a man would have done that, or an older woman would have done it, with another woman there. I think the movie allowed the Rachel character to have way more "access" to a man alone than would be allowed in a real Amish or Mennonite community. I doubt he would have really been allowed to stay in the house. In reality he would have been placed in a home with a family who had a bunch of boys and he would work with them and the father, and not have all that time alone with Rachel.

I don't like violence...I knew that the bad part happened in the train station in the beginning, so we were able to fast forward that part. Also, we were able to fast forward the ending "shoot out" stuff. I didn't care for the bad language. The scene with Rachel taking her sponge bath, well when I was young and not a Christian, I found that very romantic. Now, I found it rather silly. A devout Amish girl/woman would not have just calmly turned around and let a man stare at her while unclothed. And later on, when she and he finally "meet" for the romantic moment, I found that sort of offensive. Why kiss out in the yard where anyone could see you? Eli could have easily looked out the window (a real Amish father would have kept better tabs on his daughter with a strange man around the place). I felt that scene was very much just an animal passion thing...sort of vulgar. Not at all romantic, truly loving or gentle. It seems people sure knew how to kiss and show romantic love a lot better in the old movies! And right before she went out there, she took her prayer veiling off. Which again, no Amish woman would do. But then she obviously was rebelling. There was that other time too, when she and John Book were in the barn listening to his radio, and she had it off then, and I am not sure why, for no Amish or Mennonite woman will go without it in front of people or outside the house.

The ending left me wondering...would Rachel just go ahead and marry Daniel? Would she really be happy with him? She really would have to repent of her sins with John Book to be truly happy. I also noticed that the film never showed a church service. Also, none of the Amish folks never seemed to care to tell John Book how to be a Christian. But then there are many Amish who are not born- again Christians, but just are "culturally Amish"...they live the way they do because they have always done so. These must have been that type of Amish. It did seem that Grandfather knew the Bible...he quoted some good verses when talking to the boy about the gun. That was good to see, yet sad that such violence had to even be witnessed by this child.

Oh, of course any film with Amish must have a barn raising scene, and this one did. Also, so many movies with cows mus have the scene where the city person doesn't know how to milk a cow. Of course John Book must learn. He makes a joke about "teats" in this scene, and grandfather Eli laughs at it, which again, I doubt a devout Amish man would do.

Well, these are my thoughts. It was interesting to revisit this film again. In closing, I would say it is an okay film for adults but I would not recommend it for children. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Considered by many to represent a low point in Steven Spielberg'scareer,1990's Always did suggest something of a temporary drift in thedirector's sensibility. A remake of theclassic Spencer Tracy film A Guy Named Joe, Always starsRichard Dreyfuss as a Forest Service pilot who takes great risks with his ownlife to douse wildfires from a plane. After promising his frightened fiancée(Holly Hunter) to keep his feet on the ground and go into teaching,Dreyfuss's character is killed during one last flight. But his spirit wandersrestlessly, hopelessly attached to and possessive of Hunter, who can't see orhear him. Then the real conflict begins: a trainee pilot (Brad Johnson), alikable doofus, begins wooing a not-unappreciative Hunter--and it becomesDreyfuss's heavenly mandate to accept, and even assist in, their buddingromance. The trouble with the film is a certain airlessness, ahyper-inventiveness in every scene and sequence that screams of Spielberg's self-education in Hollywood classicism. Unlike the masters he is constantly quoting and emulating in Always, he forgets to back off and let themovie breathe on its own sometimes, which would better serve his clockworkorchestration of suspense and comedy elsewhere. Still, there are lovelypassages in this film, such as the unforgettable look on Dreyfuss's face ahalf-second before fate claims him. John Goodman contributes good supportingwork, and Audrey Hepburn makes her final screen appearance as an angel. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (44)

ALWAYS--An Unfairly Maligned Movie
A loose reworking of Victor Fleming's 1943 World War II drama A GUY NAMED JOE, ALWAYS has to rank as perhaps director Steven Spielberg's most unfairly maligned movie. Even though it has a very old-fashioned feel updated to the late 1980s, this is still a fine movie done with real poignancy. This is nowhere near the bottom of the Spielberg canon; that dubious distinction belongs to "1941" and HOOK.

Richard Dreyfuss stars as Pete, a dare-devil aerial firefighter with a penchant for taking a lot of unneccesary chances in his line of work. As much "fun" as he has, he is worrying not only his partner Al (John Goodman), but also his one true love Dorinda (Holly Hunter). After much pressure, including Hunter's threat to leave him, he agrees to settle down and become an instructor for up-and-coming flyers in Colorado after one last mission. But on that mission, in the process of saving Goodman when his plane catches fire, Dreyfuss loses his life when his aircraft explodes. Goodman is horrified, and Hunter devastated.

In heaven (or a burned-out section of forest), Dreyfuss is met by a guardian angel (Audrey Hepburn, in her final role). He comes back to earth as a spirit, to help a rookie fire-fighter (Brad Johnson) learn the tricks of the trade. Johnson does this and more; unfortunately, he also falls head over heels for Hunter, and Dreyfuss feels the pain of having to watch this, not being able to let go. But Hepburn gives him very good counsel, and he is redeemed by saving Hunter from a fiery death in a flight through a nightmarish firestorm.

One of Spielberg's most touching movies, ALWAYS was unfairly castigated by critics as being heavy-handed and manipulative. I, however, am extremely cynical of such critics who only analyze certain films and don't really FEEL anything. This is a film of pure emotions, ranging from comedy, both dark and slapstick, to tear-jerking drama to a suspense and terror-laden climax. The cinematography and the special effects are typical for Spielberg--convincing and top notch. Spielberg, however, wisely, does not stint on the drama. Dreyfuss and Hunter are excellent, as are Goodman and Hepburn. Johnson, often heavily trashed, does a fairly good job with his role, complete with his John Wayne imitation (specifically borrowing a line from John Ford's THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE).

A typically fine score by John Williams, which presages his work for Spielberg's controversial 2001 sci-fi drama A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, tops off ALWAYS, one of the most misunderstood movies of recent times. For poignant romantic drama, this is an essential movie, a true must-see.

An wonderful fantasy drama.
When a daredevil pilot (Oscar-Winner:Richard Dreyfuss), who died, after saving the life of his best friend (John Goodman) and leave behind his darling fiancée (Holly Hunter) until he comes back as a guardian angel to give advice to his Successor (Brad Johnson) but his Successor ended up falling in love with his fiancee, he still loves.

Directed by Four Time Oscar-Winner:Steven Spielberg (Empire of the Sun, Schindler`s List, A.I.-Artifical Intelligence) remade this from a 1947 film named A Guy named Joe. Dreyfuss is in Top-Form here. John Goodman is good in this supporting role, so is Holly Hunter as the second lead of the film. Two-Time Oscar-Winner:Audrey Hepburn (in her last film) is also great as Dreyfuss Guide. DVD has an sharp non-anamorphic Widescreen (1.78:1) transfer and an excellent Digitally Remastered:Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. This is a touching, funny, life-affrming and lightweight. Fine music score by John Williams (Fiddler on the Roof). Grade:A-.

One Of Williams's Most Enchanting Scores
John Williams has created a very beautiful score for, in my opinion, Steven Spielberg's most underappreciated film. Williams's score is very subtle and heavenly since we're talking about a dashing air firefighter (Richard Dreyfuss) who dies while trying to save his best friend (John Goodman), thus leaving behind the woman he loves (Holly Hunter).
After a string of good songs, -The Platters' 'Smoke Gets In Your Eyes' is included here, along with a very nice version by J.D. Souther -Williams's score begins with 'Among The Clouds', a lovely piece that has something like an overture before giving way to a full treatment of the main theme, itself repeated in cues like 'Pete And Dorinda', 'Saying Goodbye', and 'Seeing Dorinda'. There is also a fun moment with 'Follow Me' where Williams uses one of his trademark techniques: allegretto, if I'm not mistaken. We have also an element of suspense with 'The Rescue Operation', in which the fire flyers are getting ready to put out a big forest fire; in here what I call the "farewell theme" is heard for the first time when the Dreyfuss character is ready to say goodbye to his loved one. That "farewell theme" is better represented in the final cue 'Dorinda's Solo Flight'. However, we have sort of a "heaven-like motif", especially when the Audrey Hepburn character is present, and I'm not quite satisfied with it; somehow it makes the album feel a bit long.
In general, "Always" is a beautiful and touching score. A fine work by John Williams.

The air is full of surprises
Now this I stumbled across at the library. I didn't expect much of it, there were only three reasons I got it. One: I really like flying. Two: it had Richard Dreyfuss in it, one of my favorite underrated actors, and Three: An appearance by the lovable Audrey Hepburn. After watching it, I knew I had to have it. You'll like it too. The acting is superb by some of the greatest actors of our time. A surprising movie that will definitely keep your interest soaring.

Fires are raging out of control in the forest. As one of the particapants of the containing of the fires, Pete (the likeable Richard Dreyfuss) is torn between his true loves, his tomboy girlfriend, Dorrinda (the beautiful Holly Hunter), and his career. His choices would be made too soon. When his friend Al (John Goodman, hilarious as ever) is in danger when his plane engine catches fire, Pete heads for the rescue, only to get killed himself.

Not aware that anything has happened to him, he meets up with a strange yet kind angel named Hap (Audrey Hepburn's last role) who tells him what really happens. Pete has one more duty to do before leaving Earth. Hap gives gim an assignment, six months after his death, of helping a rookie fire fighter pilot named Ted (Brad Johnson in his first movie) in the ways of getting the job. Things don't go too well for Ted, for it is obvious he has a lot of work to do after dumping red fire retardent all over Al. Things begin to go for Ted, but bad for Pete as he begins to fall in love with Dorrinda. Pete soon realizes that he has to help Ted with his blossoming relationship with Dorrinda, his firefighting carrer, and that it's not his time anymore, and that life must go on, for them anyway.

I loved the movie from the start and immediately purchased it. Some people may not like it, but it is their choice. I will Always love this movie, and I suggest it to anyone who needs a little drama, and laughter rolled together in a movie. 5 stars to a great Spielberg movie once again.

Mr Spielberg, is that you?
"Always", starring Richard Dreyfuss as Pete Sandich, Holly Hunter as Dorinda Durston, Brad Johnson as Ted Baker, John Goodman as Al Yackey with a special appearance by the late Audrey Hepburn as an "angel" Hap. Dreyfuss plays a firefighter who lives life on the edge, flying his plane precariously into danger and causing his girlfriend much grief in the process. He soon comes to grief in a horrific accident and is sent back by an "angel" to help out a young pilot (Brad Johnson).

I really did not enjoy this movie. Being a Spielberg film and one that I was not familiar with, I gave it a shot. This was a fairly weak effort, Holly Hunter does not make a good leading lady at all. I like Richard Dreyfuss, but his creepy stalking of his old girlfriend was just that - creepy. I like Brad Johnson, he's an ok actor and he did well with the poor script he was given. The film was very melodramatic and Hunter delivered her lines as if she was in a high school play.

Audrey Hepburn was still as lovely as ever playing the character "Hap" who sends Dreyfuss' back. The writer's understanding of the afterlife and angels was very poor though, (I know it's only a fantasy film). I have seen the original with Spencer Tracey but did not find that memorable at all either.

Allow me to go up on my soapbox for a moment (cause I feel like it). Yes I know it's just a movie but it got me thinking. You will not learn anything of the afterlife from watching Hollywood movies. This one, like Ghost, show that if you are what the world considers a "good person", you will go to a good place when you die. In Ghost, the baddies got dragged of by demons when they died whilst the goodies went off to God. In reality, it's only through Jesus' death and sacrifice that we are made ready for heaven and those who live in wilful sin (such as Dreyfuss and Hunter shacked up in a fornicating relationship), show no true faith or repentance and would not enter heaven. As far as good or bad people, only Jesus was a perfect human being, everyone else is sinful and needs God's forgiveness which is available to all who will sincerly come to Him and ask Him for it, (you don't need to go through a priest either, there is only one go-between, his name is Jesus). All of us have broken God's ten commandments, (the first one is to love Him with all our hearts, who has done that?).

In conclusion, Always is a mediocre film that could have been great had the script been more interesting and even theologically sound (...)that everyone goes to heaven and that there are many ways to God. Check out a christian movie "escape from hell" if you want to see a film that is based on fact and that shows the afterlife as it could be. (...) ... Read more

Reviews (101)

A Heartbreaking and Powerful Testament to the Human Spirit
"The Joy Luck Club" is a ground-breaking film with universal themes that anyone can relate to regardless of age, gender or nationality. Truly epic in its scope and haunting vision, the movie is also deeply heartfelt and familial, enhancing its ability to speak to the audience in myriad, boundless ways. This is an intimate portrait of two generations of Asian women - the mothers who risked everything to create a better life for their daughters in the United States. At this juncture in American history, the movie resonates more than ever by reminding the viewer of our fore-mother's immigrant experience. In doing so, "The Joy Luck Club" serves as a vibrant contemporary document on freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

Ming-Na Wen (now known to millions as Ming-Na or Deb Chen on NBC's top rated drama "ER") is superb in the central role of June, greiving for her recently deceased mother with the 3 "aunties" who miantain her place at the mah-jon table. Their gatherings continue, with June's presence, and in the process form the backdrop from which these women's personal stories and life-journies are shared. Each auntie - and their now-adult Americanized daughters - explain their often-harrowing attempt to escape Communist China and their difficult transition to an American way of life in the U.S. Tears flow in both generations, not only for what has been lost, but also for what has been found here - a society with different values that challenges these women in unexpected but nearly universal ways. As both generations - and all eight women eventually - share their stories, the viewer literaly steps into each life, aware of where the characters end up, yet fully experiencing the challenges each of them faces. Set against the backdrop of June's trip to China to find her long-lost sisters (whom her mother was forced to leave behind in one of the film's most powerful sub-plots) "The JOy Luck Club" can be ANY family's story, regardless of how long they or their ancestors have lived in this country. In doing so, it succeeds at building bridges to the past, while staunchly looking ahead to the future. This is the sort of film that embraces real life and human themes, but also puts a face on what it means to be a zero-generation immigrant, or an exile in a land far from one's home and culture. Like the current spate of Latin and Soviet block immigrants and the last century's explosion of new Americans from Europe and Africa, we recognize through the characters the meaning and value of freedom, family and peace as well as the unimaginable challenges our elders faced in coming to this land of opportunity.

The cast of Asian-American actresses is uniformly superb, straddling a delicate balance for the viewer that requires they be both accessible AND remote at once. Although long seen as a "woman's movie" the film deserves to be widely experienced by all people, including men, who might otherwise reject the film as nothing more than handkerchief fluff. In fact, since few similar films exist with central male characters, "The Joy Luck Club" stands as a film I believe many men would embrace if they give it a chance. The film speaks for our fathers and brothers, not just our sisters, mothers or wives. This is grand, epic storytelling with a heart, beautifully directed by Wayne Wang and amazingly accessible in every way, due to its stellar cast. Had there been a Best Ensemble Oscar designed to honor the contribution of a group of actors at the top of their form, "The Joy Luck Club" cast would have surely been honored.

A magnificent film that fully captures what it means to be an American of any descent.

One of the great overlooked gems! Deserves a DVD release!
This and the Ang Lee film "Eat Drink Man Woman" were both released at about the same time. And I think they may have cancelled out each other. Both are great but like any wonderful film, if another equally great film with a similar theme is released at the same time it can cause an overload. People won't go see either.

So why should you see the Joy Luck Club? Because the acting is wonderful. Really top notch. If the current affection for having asian women in films lasts then maybe we could see more of these fine actresses. Too bad that so many wonderful actors can get typecast because of race but there is hope. I'd absolutely love some more films like this.

Wayne Wang's direction is great. This story goes from funny to sad to touching without being cliche. This movie might be marketed more toward women, and it does hit on great female relationships, but it's not to sappy the boyfriend will cry from boredom.

This is not only about being Chinese
Plenty of people have pointed out the movie's good points but beyond the mother - daughter theme that is so wonderfully dealt with, this movie is also about the immigrant experience. In this world today, so many people immigrate and must contend with the difficult process of watching their children grow up in another culture - wonderful, different, distant, restive - and they have to figure out how to connect with their children. "Joy Luck Club" portrays this poignantly. How many children of refugees really have any idea what their parents went through? Many people from a variety of cultures will appreciate the film for that reason alone.
As for those who say Tan is "male-bashing", keep in mind the very loving character of June's father. Also, if you've read Tan's other books, (The Kitchen God's Wife, for example), there are both good and bad men with great depth of character.
Let's remember, too, that history is not exactly littered with the stories of women, and Tan is just trying to rectify that imbalance. Having lived in Asia for 8 years, I'd say that male privilege is still alive and well...and in support of Tan's story, the (lack of) legal rights of women alone in pre-war China should illustrate the possiblity that four women might have had such experiences.

A great movie from a story by a wonderful writer

Having spent a year in China (1948), I admit to a soft spot for the Chinese people and their stories, and especially for Amy Tan, whose books I have read and loved. This superlative movie was based on her book of the same name.

In this story (the script was written by Tan and Ronald Bass) the tension between four Chinese women, who were born in China and later came to the United States, and their Americanized daughters, is the foundation of the story, and is the theme that epitomizes Amy Tan's stories. She has noted in an interview that such tension existed in her own life between her and her own mother.

Much of the tension is due to the cultural clash. Times in China were hard a few short decades ago, and life was harsh. Starvation and disease was rife even in later years, when I was there in the late 'forties. When Americans today refer to poverty or hunger in this country, they have no conception of the real poverty and hunger that existed in China in the 'thirties and 'forties, or customs like the very painful historical binding of women's feet, which in effect crippled them for life, in the name of beauty, or the custom of wealthy Chinese men often having multiple wives and concubines, or the total degradation of women which existed and was totally accepted throughout the culture. Not to mention the impact of continuing warfare between warlords, the nationalists (Kuomintang) and communists, and the Japanese occupation all of which lasted for generations.

This is an emotion evoking story. It is more than simply entertainment; it is a story with which you will identify, with characters with which you will empathize.

Amy Tan knows whereof she writes, and her stories are compelling and sympathy evoking. Another Chinese woman who wrote her autobiography which touched on some of the same themes, who was in Tsingtao when I was, and whose tale enchanted me, was Dr. H. Mei Lu, who now lives in Honolulu, and whose book was titled, "Grandfather's Microscope" q.v. Coming from a humble background, in China, she became an esteemed pathologist in the United States. I heartily recommend her book as well as Amy Tan's, for any Sinophile. These ladies both write extremely well, and have immensely interesting things to say.

Joseph (Joe) Pierre, USN (Ret)

author of The Road to Damascus
and other books

Not Very Impressed with EITHER the Book or the Movie
I had to read the Book and watch the movie in school and I did not like either of them. I had to also write a movie review for it so im gunna publish it to the whole world to see. Hope this helps anyone who is thinking about watching this movie or buying the book. Also there are a few spoilers in this review so be forwarned but their isnt anything that really ruins the story, wait what am i saying the story is to mixed up to really understand in the first place that it shouldnt make much of a difference. O well here goes nothing:

The "Joy Luck Club" was just an average film due to its soap opera-like quality and random flashbacks. This made me confused by sending the plot into all different tangents and directions. When a book changes time frames, the reader can go back and re-read sections if need be. In a movie setting, however, the viewer cannot turn back and rewind the lost moments and the time frames quickly occur. The movie features only fine looking Chinese daughters who are part of this "Joy Luck Club." I felt that this was an unrealistic portrayal, as in the real world; there are many types of people. The "Joy Luck Club" is not explained to the audience and assumes that all have read the book prior to this movie. This movie was directed by Wayne Wang and the screen play was written by Amy Tan, who also wrote the book.

This movie begins in San Francisco where a party is being held for Jing-Mei "June Woo". She has been given money to go to China to see her two lost sisters. Jing-Mei June Woo is played by Ming-Na. The movie followed closely to the book in some respects by not others. For instance, during the red candle scene in the movie, there was no mention of the importance of the candle. The chapters in the book were scrambled when they appeared in the movie.

The acting was inconsistent. At the end of the film when she meets her sisters for the first time they do not seem to be reacting to each other. One of the women who is supposed to be the sister, also played the mother of June in a flashback. Andrew McCarthy who played Ted Jordan did a good acting performance and sold the scenes he was in, such as the scene where he told his mother off. Some of the mothers, such as Ying Ying and Lena Saint Clair who were played by France Nuyen and Lauren Tom respectively, made me want to laugh because of some of their unrealistic portrayals of overly broken Chinese accented English.

The plot was sporadic at times and seemed to take away from the original story line to the point that was irritating. The whole movie was a series of flashbacks that each person lived through. There was originally a party at the beginning of the movie, but then the scenes would quickly shift backwards in time to each person's life. I liked the transition that the director made when June's father talked about her mother's past because he explained what the mother had experienced. The flashback of best quality, however, didn't quite fit into the movie where it had been placed. It seemed to throw the viewer into the scene without hesitation. This movie was also quite choppy with too many events occurring in rapid sequence which began to lose steam while becoming dull and redundant. Three out of the four mothers seem to have lived the same story comprised of a bad marriage followed by a divorce and remarriage with many trials and tribulations along the way.

The themes were spelled out much more in the movie than in the book. The feather that was given to June was explained to her by her father without subtlety. The mother who sacrificed her life for her daughter was also played out and the reasons for it were amply described by the daughter. There was one theme that was explained in the end of "Best Quality". The scene was not portrayed or shown in the beginning of the flash back scene.

This book, turned movie, would be better for an older audience, such as 40 and up. It is more of a "woman's movie" with a sappy ending that most men probably wouldn't like, me included. I give this movie a C, but would probably receive a B from a more mature viewer who may be more interested in true life situations as opposed to comedy or action movies that a younger viewer might enjoy.

I would give this 2 1/2 stars but I could only select either 2 or 3 which is why I selected 2. Hope this helps! ... Read more

Reviews (65)

Beautiful Score, Amazing Choreography
"Hair" boasts one of the most beautiful scores in Broadway history. While the film changes the plot, it keeps most of the songs and even adds some stunning dance numbers.

Set in the 60's, filmed in the late 70's, the film shows its age. Still the amazing score shines. Some of the best numbers include:

*the still popular "Age of Aquarius" and "Let the Sun Shine" both of which became anthems for an era.
*the haunting "Easy to Be Hard," sung by Cheryl Barnes with cutaways of a little boy that will break your heart
*"Good Morning Starshine" sung primarily by Beverly D'Angelo (the Mom in Chevy Chase's Vacation Movies!)
*"Hair" the title song performed by one of the lead singers of the band Chicago

Twyla Tharp, pre her major fame, choreographed much of the movie. It shows.

As for the plot, well it's thin and it has been changed from the play. An Oklahoma boy wanders into Central Park, a few days before he is to ship off to boot camp for Vietnam. He befriends some "hippies," led by Berger "Treat Williams" and falls in love with Sheila (Beverly D'Angelo), a debutante who ride her horse through Central Park. It's all an excuse for the songs-HOWEVER, the final scenes-including one of hundreds of soldiers marching into a plane heading to Vietanm-turn darker and are far more thought provoking.
I would recommend this movie to those individuals who crave 60's entertainment in any form. Also-if you enjoyed "Moulin Rouge," you probably will like this movie.

Hair: Revisiting the Age of Aquarius...
Ever since it opened off-Broadway in 1967, the Tribal Love Rock Musical "Hair" has been spreading it's message of love, harmony, understanding, and mystisism everywhere. It's catchy and well written music brought musical theatre into the new decades. Still, today, there continues to be a following throughout the world for this musical.

This film was directed by Milos Formann, who is famous for "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Amadeus." This film was made in 1979, a decade after the musical's debut. The music was influenced greatly by the 1970's pop funk and disco entanglements. (The original musical was a more rock-based sound, which unfortunatly is not captured in this film's revival of the score.) Starring here, is Treat Williams as Berger, John Savage as Claude, and even Nell Carter, who is in the ensemble.

Every time I watch this, I have to cringe at the plot structure of this film. It leaves behind the organized chaos of the original musical, and turns it into something that they thought would be "exceptable" to the movie-going audience. Indeed, the cast getting undressing completly, and showing drug-induced hallucinations, are barely filmable, but the script of this is ridiculous at best. We turn Claude into an Oklahoma enlistee, and Berger into a hippee, who gets sent off to war in his plce. Sheila is no longer a protestor but a rich school girl. What many people have found strange about this film is that the script incorperates touches from the musical, that make no sense on film. As a reason to put nudity into this film, the writers added a skinny dipping scene. An in place f the drug-hallucinations, Claude has a bizarre envisionment of he and Sheila getting married, in a confusing and irevalent dance sequence. (When you see the movie, you will see what I mean.)

The portrayals are excellent, however. John Savage is an interesting Claude, but his singing throughout the film was a bit confused. Treat Williams is literally, a treat (sorry for the pun), when it comes to his amazing voice during the songs "Donna" and his solos in "Let the Sunshine In." His acting was just as good, but one admits to wishing that he had better material to work with. Beverly D'Angelo is a sweet Sheila, and her rendition of "Good Morning Starshine" is very cute. I would have liked to see her perform the part, as it was written in the musical. She would have had a much better chance of getting noticed as a wonderful actress.

The music is, of coarse, excellent. The score is still unmatch when it comes to rock-musicals. The lyrics echo the spirit of the time period, and the music mirrors the rebelious personality of the people of the era. The only qualm I have is that this movie makes Hair seem a bit outdated. The entire score has been redone to fit a disco-flavour mood, that does not capture the poignancy of the original.

Overall, this is a film to be watch on moderation. Watch it on a Friday afternoon before leaving to a night out. It isn't the type of thing you will want to see over and over, but it leaves an impression on you. Most people will enjoy it as a film - not as a valid representation of the musical. I hope that you watch it in that light. Otherwise, you will find yourself a bit disapointed at the end.

hair
the most underrated musical of our time. Anyone who loves great music will love this movie. A powerful score keeps the movies heart thumping throughout, definetly worth the wait to see on dvd.

Ready for another generation
We showed this movie to our young daughters last night. Prompted by a growing sense of anti-war feelings we're experiencing with the daily reports of growing death tolls in Iraq, we felt it was appropriate. They were rapt. I think it was primarily the music and Twyla Tharp's choreography; however, the girls asked a lot of questions, and I think it gave them a little better understanding of what many teenagers felt during the Viet Nam War.

The movie version of this story is a worthy effort, made great by Milos Forman. The quality is not as I remembered it back when I saw it in the movie theater in 1980. And while our expectations of quality may have changed, our expectations of a good, entertaining film have not. Hair has grown into another generation of viewers who can appreciate it on many levels. It's worth another look.

it was a good effort
This is a prime example of a great director, Milos Forman (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Amadeus) making a film that doesn't quite pull together. It's a good effort though. Start with one of the great musicals of all time, Hair. It is one of those that needed to be put on film (like the more recent Chicago). But in this case it didn't quite transfer successfully to film. One problem I think was casting Treat Williams as Berger. The acting was a little off. The dialogue was a little off. And the musical numbers didn't quite mesh in with the film (like they do in Grease, Chicago, or Moulin Rouge). I applaud the effort by Forman, if not the finished project. ... Read more

Album Description

Exclusive 2 DVD Canadian version features, Q & A with Roman Polanski, Production Diary, The Warsaw Ghetto - Historical Background, Wladyslaw Szpilman Biography, Filmographies, Bonus Audio Tracks from the Sony Classical CD Soundtrack, Soundtrack spot, 'Story of Survival' Featurette, Theatrical Trailers, Television Spots including Adrien Brody Interview Segments, Poster Gallery, Photo Gallery & Director's Note. Widescreen Version. Aspect Ratio 1.85 1. Dolby Digital 5.1, DTS 5.1. Region 1/NTSC. ... Read more

Reviews (281)

Intense Life Story During the Holocaust
"The Pianist" is one of the top 10 best films of 2002. It was rightfully nominated for seven Oscars, including Best Picture, going on to win three: Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Adapted Screenplay. Its true story of world-famous pianist, Wladyslaw Szpilman, who struggles for his life during the Holocaust is very powerful, yet brilliant. The hardcore drama begins the moment his passionate music career becomes threatened by Hitler. Its material is close to as graphic as the actual conditions, which is how it should be displayed. Such intensity, which is never lost for a second, guarantees an emotional reaction. All the emotions in the scenery and through the characters are heartpounding through Szpilman's entire unfortunate journey. The immense research of these events is present. The writer's own heart and soul was written in every word. This project was wonderfully led by Roman Polanski's brilliant vision. His directing talents answer why he deserves his legendary status.

The set scenery is as accurate to the actual buildings and living conditions of Europe in 1939-1945. The hard work through the construction paid off, adding extra living intensity. The clothing worn in the movie adds the necessary emotional value that keeps audiences watching. All other physical details in this film are also flawless, namely the make-up and the dirty scenery (dirt, burns, blood, etc.). The musical score was composed beautifully, blending perfectly with every scenes' particular mood.

The performances from all the actors are beyond words. Adrien Brody beautifully portrays Szpilman in his career-launching role. His every drop of heart and soul are obviously presented through his character. This is one of the best Holocaust movie roles in cinema history. His talents prove that he'll be around for many more years. A few other actors could have received Oscar nominations for their supporting roles without critic complaints.

"The Pianist" is a great movie for entertainment and education. This future classic is sure to please many audiences. Those looking for more perspectives on the Holocaust should also watch "Schindler's List", which offers a more graphic look.

One of the best films ever about the Holocaust.
In an earlier review, I proclaimed "Chicago" the best film of 2002. Now I realize my judgment was hasty: "The Pianist" is really the year's best film. Roman Polanski has fashioned a horrifying, deeply moving film based on the life of Wladyslaw Szpilman, a Jewish pianist who manages through the kindness of friends and strangers and the sheerest strokes of luck to survive in Warsaw during the six years of World War II. Polanski's understated style makes the horrors he records all the more powerful, as Nazis matter-of-factly murder Jews in the street for no other reason than that they can. Polanski actually lived through these atrocities, and makes them absolutely real on the screen. Polanski also had the enormous luck to find the perfect actor to play Szpilman, the young American actor Adrien Brody. With his soulful eyes and aquiline, otherworldly face, Brody was born to play Szpilman; in a performance that is nearly wordless through long stretches of the film, he moves us to tears. Brody brings Szpilman to breathtaking life, a decent, reasonable, exceptionally talented man in a world where decency, reason and talent count for less than nothing. In the early portions of the film, Brody bears more than a passing resemblance to portraits of Chopin; toward the end, long-haired and scraggly-bearded after years of hiding in bombed-out buildings, he looks like Jesus on the road to Calvary. There is one scene in which, ordered by a German officer to play, Szpiilman plays a Chopin ballade--the first time he has touched a piano in years. The performance, technically choppy but impassioned, reaches heights of emotion the cinema rarely achieves. This moment, and many others in the film, are magnificent testaments to the artistry of Polanski and Brody. At the end, it's not that you shouldn't leave before the credits are finished rolling, as Szpilman returns to his old life at the end of the war, playing Chopin's Grande Polonaise with the Warsaw Philharmonic, the beauty of the performance and the human triumph it represents leave you transfixed in your seat. No other non-documentary film about the Holocaust--not even "Schindler's List"--has moved me as deeply as "The Pianist."

For shame
Even though barely deserving a rebuttal, some of the reviews here are so beyond asinine that I cannot restrain myself, particularly with regard to those reviewers who had the gall to call Mr. Szpilman a coward. Mr. Szpilman risked immediate death every time he helped to smuggle a weapon or ammunition into the ghetto. The ghetto uprising itself was essentially a suicide mission, and everyone involved probably knew that. So Mr. Szpilman was a coward because he wanted to live, then? How dare you. While I don't believe that any work of art should be above criticism no matter what its subject matter, I have not read a single negative review here that has any remotely intelligent criticism of this film whatsoever. They pretty much describe it as "boring" or "another Holocaust movie." Schmucks. One reviewer couldn't even remember the protagonist's name, yet had no shortage of would-be scathing things to say about the movie. Almost as absurd are the unfavorable comparisons to "Schindler's List." Yes, Oskar Schindler was a great man, but the very straightforward good vs. evil nature of the subject matter must have appealed to Steven Spielberg's very American sensibilities. "The Pianist," on the other hand, boldly treads a ground that is decidedly messier, morally less clear-cut, and I think that only a man like Roman Polanski, who understands the particular time and place where these events transpired, could have made this film. And Adrien Brody fully deserved the Academy Award for this performance. And, yes, he does spend a good deal of time searching like a "rat" for food. What do these buffoons think it means to survive in such an environment? Idiots. Anyhow, this film is a masterpiece, an artistic triumph of the highest rank. The naysayers have not been able to level a single legitimate criticism against it.

Some lied when they vowed "Never Again"
For the record, let me comment on Dennis Littrell on his same review of this film. I find his opening statement repulsive, as he used the persecution of Jews during WW II as an excuse to justify Zionist persecution against the Palestinians here. Littrell is solely wrong if he thinks The Pianist is a film of Jewish supremacy overcoming all odds. Adrian Brody commented that in Szpilman's book (which this film is based), he narrates his experiences in an objective view. There were not just evil Nazis running around persecuting Poles and Jews, but there good Poles and bad Poles, good Jews and bad Jews and even good Germans among Nazi ranks. Even Polanski allows this in his film, where poor and suffering Jews complain of rich and influential Jews doing nothing to allevate their suffering. You can see the extreme contrast of rich and poor gap where you see the Jews in the restaurant where Szpilman plays the piano and the streets where you can see corpses lying on street, victims of starvation.

In the beginning of the film, the Germans have invaded Poland and the Szpilman family are adjusting their lives to the new ruling of the Nazi Germans. They find their living conditions deteriorate as they are hustled away from their comfortable home to Ghetto and finally to the "melting pot". We see two brothers conflicting with each other as Hendrik, Szpilman's brother did not like the way he supposedly grovel to the authorities and using his privilage as a famous pianist which many Jews may envy. Even Hendrik was ungrateful when his brother freed him from prison. "Are you mad?" Szpilman asked. Hendrik's reply was "That is also my business."

Szpilman's influence was so great that he was spared when his family was sent off to the gas chambers. He lost every one of his family and when he goes back to the Ghetto where virtually all Jews were wiped out, here is a man completely devastated. We see the second half of the movie being akin to The Fugitive where he wriggles away from the claws of ever-suspecting Nazis.

When caught by Captain Wilm Hosenfeld and asked to play the piano, he plays the piano for the first time in a few years he had to be in silence for fear of alerting those around him (in apartment where he lives, he cannot play the piano as to alert everybody around him that there is a hiding Jew). This is one of the most redemptive scenes in the history of film, Szpilman plays the Chopin's Ballade reflecting the ordeal he went through. It is akin to Furtwangler conducting the great Beethoven Ninth in 1942 with battlefield sounds heard from distant.

At this age, where we cannot foretell the conclusion to the Middle East conflict and Americans squandering up their operation in Iraq, the pathetic music of MTV is contrary to music in Szpilman's time. Great music can only be created with great suffering. Gustav Mahler said that if his life flows like a calm meadow, he would not have the ability to compose anything. The classical music age has lost it's Szpilmans, Furtwanglers, Menuhins and the like. When another horrific World War comes, will there be another artist like Szpilman? Time can only tell.