Reviews (93)

Julia Ormond shines in role played by Hepburn!
Being a huge Audrey Hepburn fan, I NEVER thought I would find the remake as entertaining as the original. But was I ever wrong!

Julia Ormond's transformation to the luminously beautiful "woman of the world" Sabrina, is every bit as believable as Hepburn's earlier transformation. Ormond's chemistry with Harrison Ford is far more believable and charming, as Linus tries to distract Sabrina from her obsessive fascination with his younger brother, David, now engaged to the daughter of a business associate.

Harrison Ford gives his portrayal of Linus the needed humanity that Bogart's portrayal lacked. Linus, in Ford's capable hands, revealed the weight of being the older, more responsible brother, in whom the family fortune rested. Yet, Linus yearned to fall in love, and until Sabrina's return from Paris, and their mock courtship, he didn't believe it could ever happen. I really believed he was falling in love with Ormond's Sabrina.

Ford's Linus seemed genuinely heartbroken when he admitted the truth about the Paris trip to Sabrina. He watched with dismay, as her heart broke, to realize he'd been playing her for a fool during their romance. That's why their reunion in Paris, at the end, was so satisfying!

Greg Kinear's David was also more humane and less calculating, than William Holden's in the original version. I felt David's anger at his brother's deceptive romance of Sabrina. And so his punching Linus was a more realistic response.

I highly recommend this movie to all romantics! It also makes a great date film. A great update of an earlier classic, this film may well become a classic in its own right.

Enjoyable, more meaningful/romantic version than original
If you look through the reviews for this version and those for the old B&W, you'll see that there is a little debate going on about which is better. Really, both films have their merits. The original was cute and unpretentious, presenting a fragile Audrey Hepburn in some fashionable clothing (including that absurd gown she dragged through the tennis court scene). But this recent version has the benefit of having a much more appealing hero. Harrison Ford, though he is awkward in romantic roles, is still a far better choice than the clumsy and unattractive Humphrey Bogart. Ford plays the lead, Linus Larrabee, the oldest of two brothers and the responsible (even greedy) one. Greg Kinnear gives a brilliant performance as the younger brother, David, a playboy with only women on his mind. Caught between the two is Sabrina, even more brilliantly played by Julia Ormond. Unlike Hepburn, who presented a shy and awkward Sabrina, Ormond plays the role with not just shyness or insecurity, but an underlying gentleness that fleshes out the character, making her very real and very appealing. Each scene, she delivers just the right amount of insecurity combined with the right amount of emotion, and each line is delivered perfectly. Yet you are never aware that she is acting. The interactions between Kinnear and Ormond have tremendous "chemistry", more so than those she has with Ford. But between Julia and Greg, or rather their characters, there is so much honesty and quite frankly such superb acting that what you are witnessing is not some celebrity actors playing themselves playing a role, but two true actors who make it all look natural. (I know, something Hollywood typically doesn't appreciate.) Their scenes bring a passion and a reality to the film that is rather inspiring -- I'd like to see these two paired again, this time as the lovers and not those who end up "just friends". The storyline is played gently, more for comedy than drama. This film owes a lot to its predecessor, but I have to vote that this is the better, more charming, more emotional and more natural version. The cast of supporting characters is marvelous and expert, including Nancy Marchand as the Larrabee matriarch, John Wood as Sabrina's sensible father, Angie Dickinson and Richard Crenna as the Tysons of Tyson Electronics and a billion dollar merger if David marries their daughter, a physician played by Lauren Holly. Dana Ivey is Mack, Linus' secretary, who has all the funny lines ("We were up to our arms in your underwear drawer. It was like touching the Shroud of Turin.")All the supporting cast do a wonderful job of, well, supporting the stars. The pace never lags, the fun and the drama don't stop. The DVD version has excellent sound and color picture. This is a good investment if you want to see a film that is adult, gently dramatic, clever, and pure pleasure.

My Favorite Movie, Bar None
This movie is wonderful. It takes an already-good plot and updates it -- an Ever After for our classic Cinderella story. The new Sabrina is more self-sufficient, worldly, and her relationship with Linus is much more mature than the variety of relationships portrayed in any movies from Hollywood's Golden Era. It's not that the first Sabrina isn't a wonderful classic, but while that one was classic for its fairy-tale quality, and cute scenes that could never be truly be duplicated, this one meets the demands of an audience who today, wants proof that these are actually two people in love. With Ormond's character, we, the audience, understand and participate in her transition from teenage infatuation to mature love. There are no petty emotional mind-games here, as are so common in Bogart-era romantic comedies.

In addition, the actors themselves add considerably to the movie's success. Kinnear's David matures as well, from playboy to partner, and it is easy to see that his relationship with his brother has played no small part in the formation of his playboy image. Additionally, many of his lines are priceless. Ormond delivers a few ringers as well, including my favorite, when she refers to Linus as "the only living heart donor."

And all this is without speaking of the music. The soundtrack is excellent. The score is classy for its infusion of jazz, yet made passionate by John Williams' unmistakable orchestration. Sting also contributes a haunting ballad. It all fits beautifully into the movie.

Everytime I watch the new Sabrina, it makes me cry. And I'm not the crying type. I highly recommend it -- not as a remake, but on its own merit.

Enjoy it without comparing it to the original
In addition to this movie I've also seen the older one starring Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart, and I found that both can be enjoyed almost as two different kinds of films. Though not without its moments of drama, the Bogart/Hepburn film was lighter, more sparkling and witty, but also a little more shallow. In that movie, I couldn't understand the attraction between Bogart and Hepburn; they never seem to connect across their age gap.

In this remake of Sabrina, Julia Ormond gives a performance that's more mature and has more depth. Once she goes to Paris and grows up, she truly grows up (unlike Hepburn, who is loveable but too childlike). The love that develops between her character and Harrison Ford's is more believable; the movie takes more time and trouble to develop a plausible relationship between the grown up chaffeur's daughter and the billionaire without a social life. In addition to that, it also has witty dialogue and funny moments, just like the original.

Genuinely terrible remake of movie classic
This is a simply awful remake of the 1950s original with Audrey Hepburn, Humphrey Bogart and William Holden. Their roles are reprised by Julia Ormond, Harrison Ford and Greg Kinnear.

Of the three leads, Greg Kinnear (David Larrabee) does the best job. I think he is a very underrated actor, especially after his excellent work in "As Good As It Gets". He even slightly resembles a young William Holden.

Harrison Ford does an adequate but uninspired job as Linus. Actually both Ford and Bogart were both too at least 20 years old to play Linus, who is supposed to be the older brother, not the father. This detracts a little from the romance, which is supposed to be May-September, not May-Decenber in character, but in the original film, Bogarts sheer charisma carried the day. Harrison Ford has many talents, but romance isn't one of them. He's a good performer in action flicks like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" but he just has no chemistry here.

The worst of the pack is Julia Ormond, an otherwise fine British actress ("Smilla's Sense of Snow"). She is everything wrong for Sabrina -- I can only think they picked her for her smooth voice and accent, which do superficially resemble Ms. Hepburn's. But Julia Ormond is too old to play Sabrina (she was in her thirties when it was filmed and Sabrina is supposed to be about 20!) and doesn't come across as an ingenue. She is just plain painful in the early scenes, where the costume/makeup people went into overtime making her a frump with mounds of frizzy hair. Later, she is "transformed" with a short haircut but unlike Audrey Hepburn -- one woman who was utterly enchanting and beautiful with very very short hair, a hard look to carry off -- Julia looks just awful. It's an unflattering cut and served only to make her look even more mature, rather than sophisticated and charming.

Much of the delightful, sparkling dialogue has been chopped out, towards what end I can't imagine. Also, instead of going to Paris and training as a chef (a very acceptable modern profession for a woman!), they have decided to make Sabrina a Vogue fashion photographer (despite no previous interest or background in photography OR fashion). Frankly, I think the writers were getting "Sabrina" mixed up with Audrey Hepburn's other great classic "Funny Face", where she plays a frump-become-fashion-model. There is no other believable explanation! This also ruins her Paris experience, which was handled so delightfully in the original. If that isn't bad enough, they have innocent little Sabrina having a love affair, a point which terribly muddles the whole idea that she is a naive virgin pining for David. OK, frankly, not many girls stay virgins that long these days, but Sabrina had a reason for doing so and the additional lover (who is quite attractive) really skews the storyline off course.

As a fashion buff, one of the great charms of the original film is the utterly exquisite, iconic fashions wore by Audrey Hepburn, who was not only one of the most beautiful actresses of her day but one of the most stylish women ever, period. (Both Edith Head and Herbert Givenchy designed her costumes.) Every outfit she wore in the original film is an absolute style classic. Some, like the dress she wears to the Larrabee's party after returning from Paris -- a white, strapless gown with black embroidery and a long swishy train -- are so absolutely breathtaking that the hairs on the back of your neck go up when you see her.

In contrast, the remake "Sabrina" has some of the lamest, plainest costumes I have ever seen. In the identical scene (the party), Sabrina wears a drab, dark green evening dress. Not that Julia Ormond isn't attractive, but there is nothing dramatic or stunning about her appearance that would make every head turn when she enters...it's even more lame when other characters, like Mrs. Larrabee (the late Nancy Marchand, in her last role) make comments about how ravishing she is.

Actually, while the filmmakers were "updating" Sabrina to be politically correct, I wonder why they didn't consider making Sabrina and her chaffeur father African American or Hispanic? Certainly that would reflect the reality in the 90s of what ethnic background servants to the very rich are likely to come from. (How often do you see a British chaffeur, really? Almost never! and why would Sabrina, who was raised in the US have a British accent anyways?) I think an interraccial romance would emphasize the cultural/economic differences between the Larrabees and the Fairchilds in a way that modern audiences could truly understand. BTW: I think Hallie Berry or Jennifer Lopez might have done very well in that kind of remake, and they each have a "star" quality that Ms.Ormond utterly lacks. Well, just my two cents.

At any rate, this is a lifeless, tired and completely unnecessary remake. Do yourself a BIG favor and rent the original with Hepburn and Bogart and try to forget that this bloated remake was ever made. ... Read more

Amazon.com

James Garner substitutes for Rock Hudson in this hilarious Doris Day outing. Housewife Beverly Boyer (Day) happens by chance to give an executive of Happy Soap an honest appraisal of one of his company's products. Charmed by her forthright and honest manner, he makes Beverly the company spokesperson. When she becomes an advertising sensation, her husband (Garner) has to deal with the social ramifications of his wife making more money than he does. Day and Garner are both in good form, and Garner nicely portrays the mounting frustration of bewildered husband Gerald.

Gerald's refusal to accept that Beverly's new career infringes on her duties as housewife is, of course, outdated thinking today. Nevertheless, the film works and is sincerely funny. No wonder: comedian Carl Reiner cowrote the script. --Mark Savary ... Read more

Reviews (33)

Sophisticated memories from childhood.
"The Thrill Of It All" was one of my favorite childhood memories. In the days prior to wall-to-wall cable stations, there were certain films that enjoyed a regular place on the weekend matinee lineup on local TV stations. This was one of them. And the funny thing is when I originally saw it, I never thought of it as dated or sexist (this is a memory from about 28 years ago). Even though I grew up in a household where both my parents worked (and my dad never gave it a second thought since there were six of us), I merely accepted the script as a reflection of the 1963 sensibility and not my own. You really can't watch a movie that's older than you are (I'm guessing lots of you are waaay under 40) and expect it to reflect modern-day sensibilities. That said, the film is expertly written taking several stabs and jabs at the TV advertising (as well as the network) industry. Doris Day was the quintessential (and exquisitely beautiful) screen wife and mother, and James Garner was a perfect spousal foil for her. And what you had from Arlene "What's My Line" Francis was a welcome touch of class in the role of a mature expectant mother (heady stuff for 1963!) along with nervous expectant father Edward Andrews. The movie is right in line with the other 60's comedies with Hudson, Grant, and Rod Taylor- fun!!

A classic Doris Day gem... fun movie!
A hip and happening Doris Day comedy in which the girl next door becomes a media sensation. Doris stars, not surprisingly, as a wholesomely sexy suburban housewife who is hired to become the spokesperson for the Happy Soap company, because Happy Soap's crotchety old president finds her stammering, unprofessional endorsements to be refreshingly honest and -- more importantly -- so does the soap-buying public. In fact, the only one who doesn't like her ascent into the media is her grouchy, fragile-egoed husband (played by James Garner), who can't stand the thought of his own wife having a job -- it's just too much of a blow to his masculinity, and besides, who will raise the kids if mommy goes to work? The depth and sheer matter-of-factness to the sexism in this pre-women's movement comedy will be both astounding and instructive to a modern audience, but besides all that, it's also a great vehicle for Day's bubbly, frowsy charm. Garner's character is a bit hysterical, but it's all worth it for the big payoff: his double-take during the swimming pool scene is a golden comedic moment. Scriptwriter Carl Reiner's touch is easy to pick out; Reiner also has some choice cameos as a hammy TV actor on the show that Happy Soap sponsors. There are also plenty of great early '60s character actors, such as Edward Andrews, who you may recognize from old TV re-runs and the like. [Crazy cast note: the Pamela Curran, who plays "Spot Checker," the glamorous model who was the former Happy Soap Girl, is a dead ringer for Drea de Matteo (best known as Adriana, of the Sopranos...) The likeness must be seen to be believed.] Anyway, this is a fun movie, entirely enjoyable and also a real blast of Kennedy-era camp.

Dated, mythical view of American Life, but Fun & enjoyable!
Hi all,

Just got done re-watching "The Thrill of It All" and here are my reactions:

First I think the film is light-hearted fun, and a great look back to the golden days of people living "The American Dream". As usual, Doris was superb as Beverly Boyer, a suburban housewife content to be home caring for her husband and two children and doing amazingly domestic activities such as bottling her own ketchup!! Wow!

While Doris looks as I remember her, I was quite taken aback by the youthfulness of James Gardner, whom we have seen on-going on television and movies so have had the opportunity to see him "age" gracefully in front of our eyes. I couldn't surpress a chuckle when the good doctor, frustrated with growing friction with his wife, lights up a cigarette in his hospital office. That's something we pretty much won't see in a hospital these days! :)

As much as I liked Gardner as Dr. Gerald Boyer, I wasn't too sympathetic with his disdain for his wife's decision to also take on a career. It was 1963, however, and the career woman was still more exception than the rule, so I tried to see it from that lens. The film seemed to be on the cusp of the stirrings of women entering the work force in larger numbers because when Dr. Boyer was objecting to his wife working and having a career, he was more than once referred to as a "victorian" man, in a most unflattering way. Perhaps writer Ross Hunter (producer), Carl Reiner (writer), and Norman Jewison (director) were trying to push the envelope a bit here by suggesting that women having careers was not contrary to American values of a stable homelife and happy families.

Having said all of this, part of me yearned for the days when the world seemed a happier place and everyone lived with a "can do" attitude. I know it is myth mostly, but the early 60s were a time before the great social divides brought on by the assasination of President Kennedy and protests against the Vietnam war. America, it seems, still was living in a "Norman Rockwell" picture perfect era where most had a beautiful home, the proverbial 2.5 children, and a dog and/or cat. The romance of this rosy colored view of life is certainly an attractive escape from our modern world problems of terrorism, rampant drug abuse, poverty, and violence. Watching "Thrill of It All" was like a mini-vacation, taking us back to a time when perhaps we all felt safer, more secure, and optimistic about the endless possibilities that laid ahead for us. Since I was only 3-4 years old at the time, I know I was certainly optimistic! :)

About casting: I think Doris and James showed great chemistry throughout the film. I think casting Arlene Francis as Mrs. Fraleigh was a bit of a stretch however, as much as I admired her presence in the film, because she was already 58 years old in real life, so the likelihood of her becoming pregnant would be almost nil. But she rose to the occasion and played the role of a pregnant rich woman to the hilt. It was a great hook for bringing Beverly and Gerald into the lives of The Fraleigh's and their elderly father, the founder of Happy soap, thus providing the backdrop for further escapades! All quibbling aside, I think Arlene was fun in the role. A small note: Arlene died 3 years ago this month in San Francisco of complications from Alzheimers and cancer.

I really enjoyed watching the cars in this film. The cars added an additional element of nostalgia as I looked back at America's earlier vehicles. I was thinking the film had been made in early 1960, but as the limo driving the Fraleighs to the hospital gets stuck in a traffic jam, and Mr. Fraleigh keeps asking this aggressive man for a shoe lace or an unused newspaper, my eyes did a double take! The guy in the car next to them was driving a 1963 or 1964 Mercury Monterey with the "breezeway" window in the back. That was my Grandfather's last car, he died in 1965 or 4, can't remember now, and my Gram kept using the car into the early 70s. Because I was particularly close to my Gram, seeing the car again touched my heart and made me smile.

I'm sure most of my women friends would disagree with the film's premise that babies are what give women purpose in life, but one can certainly enjoy the romantic fun at the end of the film as the Boyers decide to make good on Mr. Boyer's promise to bring a baby home if "mommy helped with it". I couldn't help laughing at the twin beds in the Boyer's bedroom however, which begged the question "how easy was it to make babies in a space so little?" :-)

All in all a fun escapist comedy, highly recommended if for nothing else than Doris' classic facial responses to goings-on around her. It's time to get your own copy of the film and see what a "The Thrill of It All" it really is.

Tom

Great film for new mommies and new daddies!
This film has a real cute opening with Arlene Francis ("What's My Line" game show 1968-1975) and Edward Andrews (Send Me No Flowers [1964]). Nice surprise! James Garner is Arlene's doctor and Arlene invites the doctor and his wife Doris Day to celebrate. At the dinner party, they meet an excited old man who is the owner of the Happy Soap Company. They all hush to see the new Happy Soap commercial on color tv. There is the new girl naked in the bathtub explaining Happy Soap. Afterwards, Doris day begins to tell the man about how Happy Soap saved her life today. Her kids took a bath today and liked Happy Soap instead of Pine Tar. The older man gets excited and enjoys her story. He decides to make Doris, the ordinary housewife, the new spokesperson for Happy Soap in the next commercial. The commercials work and she becomes a star. However, her husband feels neglected. With her busy schedule and his schedule at the hospital, they just can't find time to be together or with the children. Also the first maid quit due to a misunderstanding and the new maid speaks German and misunderstands english. This is really a cute and funny movie and I highly recommend it to those new mommies and new daddies. The children are: Brian Nash (Please Don't Eat The Daises tv series 1965-67) and Kym Karath (Spencer's Mountain [1963], Sound Of Music [1965]). Directed by Norman Jewison, Produced by Ross Hunter and Martin Melcher. A great filming of a movie with good camera angles and one-shot moving scenes by Director of Photography Russell Metty & Associates.

it smells better than the oohcky soap
this movie is truly charming buy this ... Read more

Reviews (69)

Great movie
This was my first "Ang Lee" movie and I am impressed. I like foreign movies because most of them do not follow the Hollywood standard of relying heavily on famous movie stars to make cash for the studios at the sacrifice of a good plot, skillful acting, and good storytelling.

This movie is a slice of Tawainese life. Master Chu is a renowned chef and a widower who raised three beautiful daughters. The movie observes the lives of the members of this family and the poeple around them. The storytelling is simple and sweet. Ang Lee has us observing the character's lives as forces around them change the circumstances they find each other in. The film is engrossing and satisfying as we watch the conflict of tradition and modernization affect Master Chu and his loved ones. I'm sure I would've enjoyed it ten times more if I spoke chinese, but the subtitles are better than dubbed. Never watch a dubbed foreign movie. The language will be lost.

I made the mistake of watching this movie with an empty stomach. Never do that. The cooking scenes are fantastic. The food Master Chu prepares are a feast for the eyes, and an empty stomach would only make you yearn for a taste.

Tantalizing Cuisine and Family Drama in Taiwan
Sunday dinner at master chef Chu's home resembles a spectacular banquet you would only expect at a gourmet restaurant. He works tirelessly to prepare a feast for his daughters who hardly seem to appreciate his culinary skills.

Jia-Jen (Kuei-Mei-Yang) is a chemistry teacher who has discovered Christianity, Jia-Chen (Chien-Lien Wu), is an airline executive who is in love with a man who will never marry her and Jia-Ning (Yu-Wen Wang) has her eye on a friend?s boyfriend.

The basic plot centers around a father who is not only trying to find a new life but is watching all his daughters leave and start their own lives.

Indirectly we also learn a great deal about men through the relationships the daughters pursue. We have a man who is living the bachelor lifestyle, a naive lover who is just learning about the games women play and a man who is willing to change religions to get the girl of his dreams.

This movie is deliciously dramatic with some deeply religious themes. I was pleasantly surprised with the light humor which was not at all offensive. You also see three lifestyles presented by the daughters showing how they each deal with their libidinous whims. The most unexpected twists and turns appear, making the plot entirely entertaining.

While chef Chu finds ways to show his love to his daughters, he is especially estranged from one of his daughters who only communicates with him through criticism of his food. There is a scene later in the movie which shows the father using this same tactic to communicate his love to his daughter.

Some of the comedy is all in the facial expressions. I especially loved the part where chef Chu is trying to eat the inedible lunch and where the children in his adopted granddaughter's classroom are all placing orders for lunch. As a woman, I could not help laughing when he pulls out the nylons and bras all tied up together in the washer.

I?m always complaining about the lack of chef themes in movies. If you are hungry for movies with cooking themes, add this movie to your must-see menu. You almost have to watch this movie twice. Once with the subtitles and the second time just to view all the tantalizing dishes master chef Chu (Sihung Lung) prepares.

This movie reminded me of "The Scent of Green Papaya" (1994). However, "Eat Drink Man Woman" excels in the presentation of the cuisine, while "The Scent of Green Papaya" was more poetic in its presentation. This movie is a visual feast. All I want to know now is where is the cookbook so I can learn how to make that dragon?

Playful romance, creative cuisine, deep rivers of emotional drama and original comedy are the ingredients that make this movie a satisfying feast for the heart and soul.

Three words to take Very Seriously "before" watching this movie: Order Chinese Food!

Don't say we didn't warn you. ;)

Also look for: Babette's Feast, Like Water for Chocolate, Simply Irresistible and Chocolat.

~TheRebeccaReview.com

Loved the cooking
This movie has the same story and is the basis for the film "Tortilla Soup." If you want to see the more accesible and entertaining of the two, see "Tortilla Soup" in which the Chinese culture is swapped for Hispanic-American culture. The culture differences and dry sense of humor in "Eat Drink Man Woman" kept me from identifying with the characters. It was still a wonderful movie and is worth watching for the cooking sequences alone. It was also interesting as a Chinese cultural study.

A DELICIOUS SERVING OF LIFE, LOVE AND LAUGHS
Apart from a fabulous peep into the Chinese culinary worlds and its delectable blend of touching yet hilarious screenplay (a natural, unfolding rhythm), this movie for me represents Ang Lee's peak.

A bit like a Chinese version of Woody Allen's "Hannah and her sisters", the film traverses through the lives of three sisters and their father. Lee manages to tell each character's story with care and humor. There are some hearty laughs, a number of touching dramatic moments, and towards the end even a couple of startling twists.

There are a handful of movies that employ cooking as a metaphor of life. But Lee doesn't stop there -- he uses the *preparation* of food as a motif of life's experience as a whole, to include friendship and familial devotion, as well as desire, passion and love. On occasion, food also represents a substitute to all that.

Ultimately, what makes a movie like this work is how much you care for its characters, each one wholesomely well-drawn and glibly multi-dimensional. With the possible exception of a family friend, who comes across as a bit cartooney, there are no caricature villains. Everyone is complex and human.

A terrific offering from China that I highly recommend. You may leave with a craving for some noodles soon after..

DVD Review
Eat Drink Man Woman is a joyous film that celebrates family, love, and food. Sure to evoke smiles, laughs, and tears. The film is wonderfully entertaining as the lives of three sisters and their father go through changes due to unexpected events. Throughout we are treated to breathtaking photography that caress and studies the art of food perparation. The film is sure to make anyone hungry.

Video: (1:85) A great transfer from MGM, good sharpess and shadow detail.

Sound: Clean and clear, very good audio track.

Extras: Trailers and an interview with Ang and his co-writer. Do not watch the interview if you haven't seen the film, it gives away all the pleasant surprises in the film. ... Read more

Reviews (86)

In both senses, a black comedy
After the terrors of "Summer of Sam", Spike Lee has come up with "Bamboozled", in which he roasts TV and the way it exploits the black population. Unhappy with his situation at a television network, Pierre knows he can be sued if he quits, thus breaking his contract, so he figures out a fail-safe solution: he'll get himself fired by producing a show so outrageously offensive it will cause a racial backlash. (It's a variation of "The Producers"; even the initial audience reaction is similar.) Pierre is a re-invented man: he wears expensive suits and greets us with "Bonjour", but about half-way through the movie we learn his name is really Peerless and his father is a second-level night club comic. Pierre is very sensitive to racial issues, and so he's convinced his proposed showcase will be a shocking failure: a minstrel show for the new millennium. Two Afro-American street performers are re-named Man-Tan and Sleep 'n' Eat and put into situations (in a watermelon patch, no less) displaying how lazy and untrustworthy Negroes are -- but, hey, great tap dancers! The two are even required to wear black face. (I assume the N word cannot be used in Amazon.com, but it's used ad nauseam in this screenplay.)To Pierre's consternation, the show is a big hit; and he is faced with the dilemma of denying his principles to court success. In fact, he has fantasies of winning everything except a Nobel Prize. One of Spike Lee's strongest points as a writer-director is providing flashy roles for capable actors. I was appalled that Samuel L Jackson's performance in "Jungle Fever" was ignored by the Academy. In "Bamboozled" Lee has provided several such oppportunities, though nothing as showy as Jackson's. At first viewing, Damon Wayans may seem a little excessive with Pierre's affectations, but look again. Paul Mooney is compelling as his father, an entertainer who realizes he's gone as far as he's going to go. Savion Glover, Tommy Davidson, Michael Rapaport, and Jada Pinkett-Smith are all good in their different roles. (Al Sharpton and Johnnie Cochran play themselves, and one can't help but wonder: did they realize they were satirized?) The big flaw in "Bamboozled", the reason I can't give it four stars, is the violence with which Lee has chosen to end his dark comedy. I think it would have been much more powerful to circumvent the deaths and have the characters, chastised, watching the devastating montage which closes the picture: the humiliations, the buffooneries, the relentless yassuh yassuh yassuh that degraded black people for generations. It's the death of the spirit that is the revelation in Spike Lee's screenplay,and he weakens that message with physical destruction.

Minstrel Shows Aren't The Only Cliche
.... Let's take as a given that some of [Spike Lee's] films are "heavy-handed". Anyone see Jungle Fever? Do The Right Thing? School Daze (oh, never mind...)? Anyone ever see or read a Spike Lee interview? He's an intense Brother who makes intense films, and true, subtlety isn't one of his strong suits. But you knew that going in.

...

In Bamboozled, as in many of his other flicks, Spike rubs your face in the problem and challenges the viewer to action, if so inclined.

This was "black comedy" in the more ways than one. Damon Wayans was an excellent choice to play the part of media corporate climber Delacroix, whose plan to stick it to The Man went cataclysmically awry. But I still believe Wayans' best work is before him. He's a talented actor who happens to be a comedian, and he just hasn't broken through the mold yet.

As with many Spike Lee joints, this film either satirizes or condemns everything in sight. In Bamboozled, he sets his sights on "wiggers", rappers and the hip hop lifestyle, the WB, UPN and the television and movie industry in general. Robert Townsend addressed similar problems about a decade before in his film, "Hollywood Shuffle". It wasn't as "heavy-handed", and there weren't any "solutions" offered other than from his grandmother, who told him to eschew portraying racial stereotypes on film for money, because after all, "there's always work at the Post Office".

Bamboozled, on the other hand, took no prisoners. From Scatman Crothers to Shirley Temple's dance routines to Farina and Stymie to Aunt Jemima to Fleishman's cartoons to "Good Times" to "In Living Color" (the reference to which was humorous in that both Wayans and the minstrel show side-kick, Tommy Davidson were cast members of that show) to "Martin" (a true minstrel show) to Jerry Springer.

Tommy Davidson is deserving of more work.

Bamboozled isn't too far from the truth. Martin Lawrence used to bug his eyes out and stick out his [behind] and show his teeth and it was a favored show in police departments throughout Ohio. Don't ask me how I know, but some of you might wanna be judicious in your application of the accelerator, if you know what I mean...

This was a better movie than I thought it would be. I didn't buy Wayan's performance for a minute, but there's some really good acting from people you wouldn't expect. That's all I'm saying.

Say what you want about the other Spike Lee joints. In this one, he was completely on point. And as with the rest, the solution is up to you.

Spike Lee's Best
This is the movie that got me turned on to Mr Lee. When I rented this movie just a few years ago I watched it 3 times and then watched it with the audio commentary. I found the movie *that* interesting. Also, the movie has a few layers to its plot so each time one watches it, they're sure to pick up on something new.

The characters are also great - I especially love Damon Wayan's boss who is a caucasian married to a black woman and tells Damon "I'm more black than you are" From that point on, you know this movie is going to put a lot of stuff in your face.

The basic premise - Damon's character is tired of the types of shows with black people that show on tv nowadays. It's all very stereotypical (think this summer's "Method and Red" on fox) and he wants to do something creative. His boss wants something along the lines of "homeboys in outer space". Damon's character is so incensed that he decides he'll get fired in order to break his contract.

What could be better for getting him fired than to make the most racist and ignorant show on tv? He decides to make a show called "Bamboozled" which will recreate the blackface shows of the 30s and 40s only it will be black actors putting on blackface. There's only one problem with his plan: the show becomes a hit.

The rest of the movie shows what happens to the rest of the characters in the style of a Shakesperean tragedy. In other words, a few things don't quite go according to plan and everyone suffers. (ie Romeo & Juliet, MacBeth, etc)

Another thing that makes this movie so awesome is the fictitious commercial spot during the show Bamboozled. Spike Lee takes a pot shot at Tommy Hilfigger's alleged marketing directed at blacks with another brand whose name I can't write or my review will be banned. You'll be shocked, but in a revealing sort of way.

Some People Just Don't Get It
I have to applaud Spike for making this film. People can argue if he is a racist or not, but on this film he showed how corporate America market their products to black inner city people. I for one used to work in a marketing department at a large corporation and this type of behavior went on all the time. So many times, I had to smile and walk away when I heard "you people" and "those people like stuff like that". What is worst is some black artists (namely rappers) help build on these negative stereotypes. They are NO different from the black actors of the 30s who was paid to demean their race. Instead of black people getting mad at Spike for making these films, I suggest you take your anger out on the real culprits and their marketing schemes. BTW, these culprits come in ALL RACES.

What I really want is O Stars...
In high school, I tried to convince our African American STudies teacher to plan a field trip to see this movie. He rebuffed me, and when I saw this movie on tape, I knew why.

I am glad that I am not the only one who knows Spike Lee is a racist. And a slick one at that. He does these movies and black people go see them (I am black, so don't attack me). Do The Right Thing was horrible, Jungle Fever (he ought to be ashamed) all in the name of "eye-opening" filmmaking. Give me a break

Bamboozled...I don't know what to say about this movie. Stereotypes, senseless violence, just downright shameful. There was no message here...except that, we, as black people, sometimes do it to ourselves (ex. Soul Plane? same problem). And helping this man, for the sake of a paycheck is deplorable.

Please spare yourself of this film. ... Read more

Reviews (97)

This has to be the funniest movie that no one ever heard of!
Noises Off is a treasure of a movie buried in the comedy section of the video store. And after viewing it as a chance discovery, I would rank it as one of the funniest movies I've ever seen ' bar none! There is no message, no lingering camera work and precious little plot actually, but the sight gags and interaction of the characters make this movie an absolute laugh riot.

The premise of this film deals with the rehearsals and pre-Broadway tour of a play that aspires to be a classic British sex farce. Michael Caine plays the beleaguered director, with Julie Hagerty as his stage manager, trying to corral a collection of stage and movie actors on both sides of the career loop. Carol Burnett, John Ritter, Christopher Reeve, Denholm Elliott, Marilu Henner and Nicolette Sheridan make up the onstage ensemble, with the able support of Mark Linn-Baker. Throughout early rehearsals and performances the cast conspires with and against each other in matters of romance, revenge and profession expression ' all to hilarious effect.

It all culminates in a fateful performance that we view/hear primarily from backstage as conflicts of love and stage presence boil over in mid-show. It just might be the funniest thing ever filmed that didn't involve the genius of Mel Brooks.

Don't Miss the Original
I'll echo the companion reviews in raves for the film itself and my great delight in replacing my timeworn VHS with a new DVD. But what I'd like to add is that this is a remarkably skillful screen adaptation of the even funnier original stage play. By all means, buy the DVD. And if you like the movie, take pains at all costs to see "Noises Off" on stage.

The startling novelty is that the entire set rotates between scenes to show first the chaotic tech/dress rehearsal from the front, or audience, view, then depicting a subsequent performance, loaded with interpersonal conflicts and amazingly choreographed sight gags and goofs as seen backstage! The last act shifts back to an audience view of an ensuing performance disaster, leaving you to imagine clearly what must be going on behind the set. The title refers both to the scripted off-stage sound effects and the thumps and crashes that signal the hi jinks backstage.

The play is a popular choice for resident theater companies and occasional roadshow productions. Don't miss it!

Backstage exposed
That actors get confused between their real life and their acting on-stage (and backstage) is not quite new, but I never saw it better done than in 'Noises off...'. Above all, I'm more than grateful to the reviewer "archibael", thanks to whom I knew the DVD would be in the original screen format (when it's cropped to full-screen, and especially for good movies, I consider it's a kind of swindle and refrain from buying).

Exit...Stage Everywhere
An oddity of sorts because you have the two actors who played Superman and Captain Avenger in one movie (Christopher Reeve and John Ritter respectively...Ha! Ha! Just kidding! For joke reference, see review for film SPEECHLESS,"...Well Spoken Movie" starring Micheal Keaton, Geena Davis, & Christopher Reeve! by same reviewer from Gilroy,CA)
Anyway, NOISES OFF is different from anything that has been done in film in recent years and is a salute to the art of theatre. A movie farce about a small midwest theatre group putting on a stage farce. The play will tour parts of the U.S. and finally make it to Broadway. It is during a test run on the small theatre circuit that the hilarity begins. Egos and personal differences manifest a literal physical battle among the cast members behind stage during one performance. A classic shot is of a stagehand witnessing the proceedings who shakes his head in comic disgust. However, as true professionals, no matter what happens behind the scenes, the show must go on. The film is very fast, physical and the ensemble cast is excellent. The movie audience sees rehearsals and performances on tour that take the kinks out of the presentation and stage direction finally bringing the cast together. Peter Bogdanovich directs one of his best films to date with Michael Caine, Carol Burnett,John Ritter, Christopher Reeve, Marilu Henner,Denholm Elliot,Mark Linn Baker, Julie Hagarty and trooper Nicollette Sheridan (trooper because she's in her under garments practically the whole movie). This film died at the box office maybe because movie going audiences are not theatre types. This film may not be for all tastes, but it is worth a look especially to see the late John Ritter and a healthy Christopher Reeve in outstanding comedic roles.

A must see. . . over and over!
I have been waiting impatiently for this show to come out on DVD. I can't believe it's not a bestseller. One of the funniest shows I have ever seen! We watch it frequently just to lighten our day. ... Read more

Reviews (584)

Superbly executed
You'll enjoy this stylish blend of sci-fi and film noir if you're willing to suspend your disbelief at the door. Many have decried the illogical holes in Scott Frank and Jon Cohen's otherwise excellent screenplay, but in the end these deficiencies hardly matter. Movies dealing with predestination never answer the big questions effectively - they just use them as the springboard for a story. And "Minority Report" tells a pretty good one, even if it does reveal where it's going too soon and is occasionally marred by Spielberg's trademark mawkishness. Tom Cruise is hugely enjoyable as the frantic John Anderton, and Colin Farrell does a fine job of making you hate Detective Witwer. It looks great, sounds great, holds your attention for all 147 minutes, and will even have you giggling at the spectacular product placements and some unexpected comedy. It's a reasonably faithful adaptation of Philip K. Dick's story, too, so fans of the original should be pleased - although Act 3 does see the writers wandering into Hollywood-ending territory and has Spielberg wrapping things up on a typically optimistic false note. Still, it's refreshing to see a bunch of filmmakers tackling a sci-fi adaptation seriously and successfully while still keeping an eye on the box-office. If you're going to spend close to $100 million on a sci-fi project - and, let's face it, these days you have to - then you also have to consider the return. The result is a memorable film that strikes a savvy balance between deep thought and commercial appeal. "A.I" flopped because it glorified the former and "The Time Machine" failed by pandering to the latter. "Minority Report" wisely walks the middle-path. It won't have enough explosions to thrill die-hard action fans, nor quite enough depth to really please sci-fi devotees. But for the rest of us, it works.

Critics say this is five stars. For once they're right!
I probably would have waited until Minority Report hit the rental stands if it weren't for all the five-star ratings critics have been giving this movie. After being digitally assaulted by the current crop of high-budget special effects films like Spiderman and Attack of the Clones, I was already weary of acting and storyline taking a backseat to gee-whiz computer graphics. I underestimated Spielberg's ability.

So what is the plot exactly? Well, dear reader, take comfort in knowing I will not spoil the movie for you. In the year 2054, Americans are subjected to Gap clothing stores (that scan your retina and hard-sell khakis by your name) as well as USA Today newspapers with animated front page covers that update in real-time. Tom Cruise is John Anderton, Washington D.C.'s top-cop in the experimental pre-crime unit that seeks out and eliminates would-be murderers through the use of precognitive beings that are able to sense murders shortly before they happen. The premise sounds wonderful until John discovers he's about to murder someone he has never met. This is the story on the surface yet it is not the story. I fear many will avoid this movie because this is all they will expect. I will stump for this movie because it's not just an action-thriller and it's not just a thinking-man's science-fiction movie. What lies beneath the story is much deeper and darker.

You see, even in knowing the future, Mr. Anderton is confronted with an awful dilemma. How can he prevent himself from killing the person he is supposed to murder if he has never seen the person he is supposed to kill or the location the murder is supposed to take place? Is the future preordained or does man create his own destiny? As Anderton uncovers the answers to these questions, viewers will find that this is not the underlying story either.

Minority Report is a dark and disturbing vision of the future made believable with Cruise's much more human characterization of Anderton than his previous Mission Impossible persona. Samantha Morton, Colin Farrell, and the incomparable Max von Sydow all serve to effectively help and hinder Anderton's quest. Are there flaws in the movie? Perhaps. The action scenes are impressive and appropriate, but one particular scene in the LEXUS factory contained so much eyeball-jarring camera manipulation that I felt I was hit by a "sick stick." And speaking of brand-names, reviewers complain of the blatant commercialization of the movie. Without question, an obscene amount of advertising permeates almost every frame. Did Spielberg sell out to the highest bidder or is he making a statement about the not-so-distant future, or even the present? I'll let you decide. Finally, the fact this movie received a PG-13 rating is a statement in itself. I remember all the controversy generated by parent-groups when Poltergeist received a PG rating. It seems so long ago...

Yet credit must go to Steven Spielberg as there was much of this movie that could've been done ineffectively. After the disappointing box-office numbers of A.I., many (including myself) were expecting a dumbed-down formulaic hack to swing alongside the rest of the massives. Instead, Spielberg shows he's master of the technology as the impressive display of visuals serve to add to, not overwhelm the story. By the time the movie ends, you may find yourself pondering the kind of questions only philosophers argued over.

does not live up to the hype.
this was supposed to be a glimpse into a very possible future.i heard on an hbo special that the directer payed the top experts in almost every field to come to his house for the weekend to discuss the realities that will be in the future.the fields included automative,law enforcement,science,marketing etc.im having a hard time beliving this now.the whole point of this story has any basis in reality at all.there are these 3 psycic chicks who the government keeps in a tank.there only function is to send mental images into these computers that fortell future murders.the murder rate drops to 0 and the system is perfect.well one day tom cruise gets his name as a would be murderer and decides to buck the system.there is a child abduction/murder angle in this movie.i think it is unthinkable enough that this really happens.i think it is an abselute atrocity that moviemakers feel like they have to put that in movies.i watch movies for entertainment not to be reminded how sick and twisted this world really is.or two hours i could escape the harsh realities.then some jerk says hmmmm we could use any bad guy we want.lets use a child killer.that sucks!i would have rated this movie a 4,if not for that.steven spielsberg is your director.ill give him yet another award.the most overated directer of all time.this is his best work ever though.theres a lot of slow parts in it also.a lot of police detective type work and talk.there are a couple gross parts but if you dont mind watching a movie centered around a child killer youll be alright.when the bad guy is finaly met,a very intense scene goes on.i was right there.the main psycic chick would be sexy if she wasnt so damn wierd.tom cruise does a great job in this one.this is a very good movie all in all but the hype makes it sound better.this is tom cruises 2nd best movie.this movie drags on longer than most.

Do You Have One?
Minority Report definitely ranks as one of the best future-theme movies of all time. Although not as groundbreaking as The Matrix or visually stunning as Blade Runner, it has it's own pro's.

In a future where future crimes are predicted using triplets or 'Pre Cogs' with the ability to foresee events yet to come, the Police Officer in charge and support of the device himself (Tom Cruise) is accused of a murder that he has yet to commit. Though he believes that he is innocent, the squad doesn't, so Cruise sets out on his journey to find the truth.

The storyline for the movie is interesting, very thought provoking. A lot of what is talked about sounds complicated at first, but listening closely will reveal that they are really talking about the Minority Report of Cruise. Listen even more closely and you'll understand the entire movie, otherwise you will be lost.

Good actors playing good characters, impressive special effects, quality action, and a deepening plot - Minority Report is definitely worth the price of admission.

Awful Minority
I may be in the minority, but Minority Report is awful. Tom Cruise shines in actual human dramas like Jerry McGuire or Rainman, but this futuristic garbage, this futurramma cop is just a showcase of movie technology without a heart. Vanilla Sky had the same problem. Why should I care about these characters that are so zippy futuristic? Spielberg cannot get science fiction right unless it's for children. His best movie required no computer gyration, Shindler's List, but then again, that movie had a script. I was asleep by the time they put this morph in the water. ... Read more

Reviews (285)

The Best War Movie Of All-Time!
Francis Ford Coppola risked his career, his money and his sanity in making this Vietnam adaptation of 'Hearts Of Darkness'. The result is a large-scale war movie that ranks among the best movies of all-time. Martin Sheen has the role of a lifetime as Captain Willard, and he does deliver a credible performance. Marlon Brando is equally credible as the mysterious and possibly mad Colonel Kurtz. Robert Duvall creates a brilliant character; Colonel 'I love the smell of napalm in the morning' Kilgore. Grandly majestic war sequences are awe-inspiring. Thought provoking and filled with eerie chaotic imagery. Simply masterful filmmaking from Coppola. Extras: Laurence Fishburne and Harrison Ford in small roles, also spot Francis Ford Coppola in a cameo. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 10!

Dark and somewhat slow-paced, but excellent epic film
I saw this film for the first time on video, and was somewat surprised by its somewhat deliberate pacing and lack of straightforward action. For someone who is not a huge Coppola fan, nor a reader of "Heart of Darkness", I found the movie somewhat difficult to follow.

That is not to say that this isn't an excellent film. Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) is an apparently unattached Airborne soldier who is "waiting - waiting for a mission" and is enlisted to find and "terminate the command" of the renegade Special Forces Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando). Along the way, we meet a motley crew of a Navy riverboat, including a very young Lawrence Fishburne as a 17-year-old machine-gunner. The plot takes an almost whimsical turn when we meet Lt. Col Kilgore (Robert Duvall) who is an Air Cavalry commander, and plays the immortal "Flight of the Valkyries" while systematically laying waste to a North Vietnamese village. While the fighting is still going on, he orders a couple of his soldiers to either "surf or fight", being that he is a huge fan of surfing. It is from Duvall's character that we get the immortal line, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like --- it smells like victory!"

After this scene, Sheen and his crew of Navymen proceed further upriver, until they reach the last American outpost on the river. The outpost is under apparent heavy attack, and there are no officers to be found. This scene, which makes no sense in the context of a typical war movie, makes perfect sense in this film. The leaderless American soldiers seem to move about in a haze, apparently oblivious to anything outside their immediate surroundings, particularly the grenadier, who is either at far beyond the point of psychological exhaustion, or heavily drugged. Copolla never makes either clear, but rather leaves that to the imagination of the viewer.

When Sheen and his crew get further upriver, the plot takes stranger and stranger turns - the crew is attacked by an unseen enemy, in which Clean (Fishburne) is killed, and shortly thereafter, the boat's chief is killed in an attack by natives hurling, of all things, spears at the Americans!

However, the strangest part of the movie is the last half-hour or so. Sheen reaches his objective, but Col. Kurtz is heavily guarded by native warriors toting modern weaponry. There are bodies everywhere - hanging from trees, floating in the river, laying sprawled about on the ground. It is truly horrific, and speaks to the level of insanity to which Col. Kurtz has descended, but it also begs the question - "How could all those people stand being around all those rotting corpses?" In the climax, Sheen sneaks past Kurtz' guards, and hacks the colonel to death. As he lay dying, Kurtz whispers, "The horror - the horror..."

All in all, an extremely powerful and moving film, although rather slow-paced.

A True Masterpiece!
I watched this movie in 1978 when it first came out and was totally in awe! Francis Ford Coppola spent almost 3 years making this film and it was well worth it. The all star cast in this film rocks! Everytime I watch this film, I wind up mimicing the characters. The lines are memorable! (I love the smell of Napalm in the morning.) It is the greatest movie ever made!

A great adaptation
To write that this movie is a comment on war or the politics of the period is a gross misconception in my view. this movie like the book Heart of Darkness, which I suggest everyone who sees this movie reads, is a powerfull commentary on human nature. The line 'the horror, the horror' does not refer to the horrors of war or acts of violence commited but is a general judgement and condemnation of the darkness that resides in human nature.

Anyway this is a brilliant adaptation and well worth the few bucks it costs.

The horror, the horror.
The horror of war and what it does to teh mind of men is exposed beautifully here in this grande epic. Great performances, plot and cinematography. It doesnt get much better than this. ... Read more

Description

Stanley Kubrick directed a cast of screen legends-including Kirk Douglas as the indomitable gladiator that led a Roman slave revolt-in the sweeping epic that defined a genre and ushered in a new Hollywood era. The assured acting, lush Technicolor cinematography, bold costumes and visceral fight sequences won Spartacus four Oscars©; the blend of politics and sexual suggestion scandalized audiences. Today Kubrick's controversial classic, the first film to openly defy Hollywood's blacklist, remains a landmark of cinematic artistry and history. ... Read more

Reviews (107)

A Cry for Freedom
Even though the story of SPARTACUS takes place in ancient Rome, the film itself is a profoundly contemporary work of the time that it was made; the eve of the Civil Rights movement in the US, and at the end of the HUAC witch hunt in Hollywood.

The chief engineer of this project is producer Kirk Douglas who portrayed the salve hero, but the wisdom behind all that is screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, black-listed in Hollywood, worked under various pseudonyms during the fifties for films such as ROMAN HOLIDAY, here properly restored to his rightful position of one of the best screenwriter in the business, with his own name credited on screen. The original novel is also written by another black-listed writer, Howard Fast, who claims that the idea of writing a film about the slave revolt came into his mind during the time that he spent in prison.

So the message that its story carries is unviersal, and even contemporary: man's struggle for freedom, striving for human equality, the solidarity of all that are oppressed disregarding their creed, birth and color of skin--the gladiator whose death triggers Spartacus' revolt is portrayed by Woody Strode, afro-american actor and a regular of John Ford's movies. The film embraces humanity, freedom to chose the way he wants to live, the freedom to trust one's friend, even the freedom of sexuality --Spartucus and his lover Varinia are never legally married, but she gives birth to his son--, and the freedom and passion to sacrifice oneself for the sake of his pears and the great cause of human freedom.

One the other hand, the film strongly accusse the corruption of power, the decadence of those who have power, and the rise of fascism. Democratic politician Charles Laughton, with all the virtues and vices that a regular politician has, taken over and eventually eliminated by seemingly much "cleaner" military leader Laurence Olivier. Needless to say, the clashes performed by those two great actors is a great excitment to watch.

Kirk Douglas gives one of his most convincing performances as the revolutionary leader of slaves, Jean Simmons plays his innocent, healthy and strong partner with a healthy sensuality, and Tony Curtis gives credibility to Spartacus' surrogate son who represents culture and education; they are not barbaric slaves, they can be as cultured as their masters are, and even better because they are true, honest humans as opposed to the corrupted masters whose wealth and culture are based on oppression of other humans.

To simply put, SPARTACUS is a fine example of how a good entertaining movie can carry a powerful message; when it truly suceeds, it'a great joy to watch.

This fully packed DVD is a re-issue of Criterion's celebrated LaserDisc edition. Added to a interesting commentary track by the filmmakers including Douglas and Peter Ustinov who won an oscar for his performance, there is another track on which Dulton Trumbo's notes to the rough cut of the film is read--a great lesson to all those who wants to learn how to write a film. Othe supplements includes a hillarious interview with Peter Ustinov, a lot of scketches and stills, and more. It's a great DVD. Please enjoy it as many times as you want.

note: the superb package design is a reproduction of the original poser art created by Saul Bass. The poster is also among the suplements of this DVD.

Strong story, weak depth, but epic & entertaining
Based on the novel by Howard Fast, Spartacus recounts the life of a slave turned gladiator turned freedom fighter. The story of Spartacus begins with him as a free spirited Thracian slave in 70BC. Spartacus is trained in a gladiator school, where he meets and falls in love with the slave girl Varinia. He then leads the other gladiators in revolt, and assembles a huge army of thousands of slaves to challenge the might of Rome. The ending is tragic, but not without hope. Spartacus was in fact a historical figure and the movie's story of his squashed rebellion against Rome - including the crucifixion of 6000 survivors - is largely rooted in truth.

The movie can best be described as epic. On a grand scale, the Roman empire is brought to life, with its corrupt aristocracy and its simple lower class. The epic battle scene which forms the climax of the movie features 1000s of extras, and although it is sometimes hard to tell who is on which side, the effect is magnificent and grandiose. Despite the action scenes, the movie is surprisingly introspective at times. Unlike modern efforts such as Gladiator, Spartacus is not an action movie as such, and fans of contemporary action movies not surprisingly find it disappointing. Spartacus' struggles are just as much emotional as they are physical. But to me this is a strength and not a weakness: the shortcoming of most modern action movies is not present here because the characterization is superb.

Even though the movie is not gory (although it is bloody at times), the adult themes make it unsuitable for children. For instance, successful gladiators are given women to have their way with them. And on numerous occasions, although nudity is not shown it is strongly implied and barely concealed. The implication of bisexuality (in a scene not present in the original) and promiscuity is also strongly evident as part of the corruption in Rome. But it also touches Spartacus. In a rather daring move for the 1960s, Spartacus and his woman Varinia conceive a child out of wedlock, which is presented as natural and good. Spartacus' fight for freedom apparently includes sexual freedom. Its hardly surprising that these two fall in love in a rather sappy love-at-first-sight Hollywood romance, where they don't even know each other as yet. Ultimately it is not only Rome that chases gold, girls and glory without morals, but Spartacus himself is not really much different.

But it is not only the moral ambivalence of this movie that disturbs me, but also its underlying political themes. How is Rome presented? As totally corrupt, with no redeeming qualities. "If a criminal has what you want, you do business with him." How are the slaves presented? As noble and good. "We're brothers." The army of slaves proceeds in a carnival like atmosphere, and the producers present lots of images of joyful children and exuberant elderly as part of their number, to arouse sympathy for their cause. But isn't this rather a cliché? It is, but that's the whole point. Aristocratic Rome is presented as evil, and the oppressed lower class need to be liberated from her corrupt rule. The rich are all evil, the poor are all good. Sounds familiar? It's a defence of the brotherhood of communism. Ultimately the movie endorses peasant revolt as a legitimate option, and advocates rebelling against authority. Rather than rendering to Caesar what is Caesars, it encourages open rebellion, in order to usher in a new political system of brotherhood and freedom from repression. Sound too far-fetched? Here's the clincher: Howard Fast, author of the novel on which this movie was based, was a devout and committed member of the Communist Party of the USA, and for many years his works were black-listed. The story of Spartacus may be rooted in history, but Howard Fast has reinterpreted it as a defence of his own political communist ideals. Rome represents Western Capitalism, and the slaves represent the oppressed peasant proletariat. Spartacus' defence of liberty, equality and fraternity is in fact anachronistic.

So sure this is an epic movie. At the time of its production in 1960, Spartacus was the most expensive movie ever made. With a cast of star actors, especially the compelling performances of Kirk Douglas as Spartacus, Laurence Olivier as Crassus (the influential Roman senator), Peter Ustinov as Batiatius (the bumbling and greedy owner of a gladiator school), and Charles Laughton as Gracchus (the corrupt and scheming Roman senator), it's no wonder it won four academy awards. But the fact that Spartacus is an epic movie does not disguise the fact that it is not deep. Any deeper themes that the movie does have to offer are communist and hedonistic, and this ideology mars the story. This may be a movie that rivals the grandeur and scale of Ben Hur, but thematically, it doesn't come close.

Even so, it's still worth a look. Even if one cannot share the cause of Sparticus and political ambitions it embodies, one has to admire the spirit in which Spartacus fights for his cause: it is a losing battle, and yet with dignity and fervour he fights for what he believes is right - a quality to be coveted. And it's ironic that if you can overlook the weaknesses of its depth, the strength of this movie lies in its superficial story. It has comedy, tragedy, triumph, romance, action, intrigue, and an epic scale. As entertainment, it's an enduring epic that still can be enjoyed today.

3 Stars For 3 Outstanding Performances...
Kubrick replaced Tony Mann on directing duties for this brave, but lumbering costume epic which is ultimately propped up by three beautiful performances. Peter Ustinov(won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his work here), Charles Laughton(should have been similarly nominated)& Laurence Olivier all do incredible work under the guidance of a very young Kubrick & all deliver what comes very close to their best work. Their presence is notable chiefly for the fact that without them, SPARTACUS would never have been the extraordinary spectacle it surely is. Kirk Douglas gives a brooding(& lifeless)performance in the title role, ultimately undermining any sequence not containing the three aforementioned thespians. Jean Simmons, as the love interest, is similarly uninteresting & while undeniably beautiful, fails to evoke for the viewer the love & devotion she receives from Douglas & ultimately Olivier. Pre CGI, it comes armed with some beautifully choreographed & violent battle sequences, but for those looking for an earlier version of Ridley Scott's GLADIATOR, this one may come off a little old-fashioned. It is worth noting(& you'll learn this from the wonderfully insightful 1992 Ustinov interview[his impersonation of Laughton is a riot]contained in the bonus material)that Ustinov rewrote all the scenes he plays with Laughton. It should come as no surprise to the discerning viewer, they are easily the best moments in the film.....

Divine Right of Kings
Sparticus represented more than a gladiator-slave uprising. Sparticus represented the Italian's people dissatisfaction with the Roman Senate and the general corruption and impotence within the Senate.

Citizens once had a voice with the Senate and the Senate listened keeping the republic free. Now, the Senate caved to the demands of the dictators and military commanders and installed for the first time an Emperor giving him six legends too suppress the slave uprising.

In the end the slave and citizen uprising could not resist the Roman legions. Many of the people joining Sparticus were discontent citizens of Rome and individuals from countries that did not like Rome. Originally, the republic which was composed of strong free men. The military started the slow strangulation of the republic by replacing it with an empire. Julius Caesar was introduced as the shadow of the wings of power. Crassus was depicted as the total dictator who put oppressive demands on Rome and the Senate as the body that had lost its power. The Senate historically would have debated the issues and objected to outrageous demands. Instead, the Senate allowed the Emperor to rule Rome and the Emperor established the laws and source of the law and executed the law. The Emperor had power too repeal old laws and establish new laws, in place of the old ones. The punishments for violation of the law could be death and probably a Roman death on the cross demonstrating the Emperors absolute power. The Citizen did what they were told and they did not act without permission. Secret police reported any activity that could bring punishment on the citizen. The laws were supposedly designed to bring security. As the Emperor distrusted and feared the people this only accelerated the downfall of Rome.

The notion of divine right of kings was established. Taxes imposed on the people support the huge military appetite generated as Rome conquered many European countries. The government would become an autocracy and the Emperor the supreme commander.

Sparticus hoped to flee Rome, negotiated with pirates too build ships using gold taken during conquests that would take them from the tip of Italy away to a promise land. Instead, the pirates betrayed Sparticus and did not build the ships allowing the Roman legends to trap Sparticus from the South pushing him towards Rome and forcing a confrontation in the fields close to Rome.

Sparticus was defeated, his men cruxified along the way to Rome, when captured his men coined the phrase "I am Sparticus" when asked who was Sparticus. Sparticus wife would become a member of Crassus Heirloom yet the Senator would arrange for her escape and continue with his own suicide and Sparticus son would remain free.

Good movie, bad transfer
It should be noted that the reviews on this page refer to two different versions of the Spartacus DVD. This review refers to the Universal single disc edition, not the Criterion two-disc release.

While both versions of the film are the same, this version is devastated by a bad transer: both sound and picture quality are seriously lacking - even as far as a blue edge to blacks, including the widescreen matting, and blue fades in parts of the film. The sound is poorly balanced - voices are too quiet, music too loud. I was contantly turning the volume up and down throughout. So much for "fully restored."

If you are interested in quality and really like this movie I would skip this version and go for the Criterion release, which many other people own and have approved. ... Read more

Description

From Hollywood's hottest new director comes the outrageous epic that throws the covers back on California's adult entertainment industry in the swinging seventies. It's a touching and often humorous portrait of a most unusual family of filmakers, brought ... Read more

Reviews (248)

Why don't you feast on that?
Boogie Nights is a very stylish and funny film that is sure to please movie fans. While its slightly subtle and offbeat humor may be lost on some viewers, Boogie Nights is a hilarious movie.

The film is centered around the rise and fall of adult film star Dirk Diggler (played by Mark Wahlberg). Diggler starts out as a polite, bright-eyed kid but is slowly corrupted by life in the fast lane. Wahlberg gives a great performance as the dopey Diggler, whose words aren't necessarily meant to be funny yet often come off as hilarious.

The supporting cast also does an excellent job in this film. John C. Reilly plays Diggler pal and fellow adult film star Reed Rothchild to perfection. Reilly is funny throughout the movie, but stands out particularly in a scene where he is being interviewed about the impact of movie violence on viewers. Burt Reynolds, Julianne Moore, Don Cheadle, William H. Macy, and Philip Seymour Hoffman also deliver very strong supporting performances.

It's hard to explain what makes Boogie Nights such an entertaining movie. The humor in the dialogue is often quite subtle, but is nevertheless very effective. The characters are colorful and really seem believable despite their sometimes odd behavior and personalities.

Director/writer Paul Thomas Anderson did a great job with this film. Viewers are sure to feel empathetic towards the characters as they struggle and yet will likely find themselves laughing at just how bad and weird things get at times.

The scene that best sums up Boogie Nights as a whole occurs when Diggler, Rothchild, and friend Todd Parker find themselves in the home of an oddball drug addict trying to sell him some bad dope. The use of music and camerawork in this scene really creates a feeling of tension, yet viewers will probably be tempted to laugh at some of the various events of the scene. I won't say exactly what happens, but the entire sequence shows how Boogie Nights is a dichotomy of the laughable and the tragic.

In short, Boogie Nights is a very entertaining and memorable film. Wahlberg's portrayal of Dirk Diggler is top notch and the other actors also do excellent work in the film. Boogie Nights seems to get better with each subsequent viewing and I highly recommend the movie to fans of subtle and slightly dark humor.

Worthwhile
Boogie Nights is an entertaining movie, but not a fantastic one. While Burt Reynolds and of course Don Cheadle are solid choices for their roles, the film hinges largely on the performance and natural charisma of Wahlberg, who is possibly the only actor who could even be imagined in this role without risking his career. Claims that the story is based on that of John Holmes are nothing but publicity to give it more legitimacy than a completely fictional narrative about the porn industry, which is really what it is. Wahlberg's character bears no specific resemblance to Holmes whatsoever, and the narrative is entirely generic of its topic: pool parties, drug use, filming porn scenes. The "big package" schtick is too repetitive and overdone, and in fact is the main drama of the entire film: Will we get to see it after witnessing the jaw-dropping over-reactions of nearly everyone else who appears on screen, or not? Such tension. Wahlberg's persona is portrayed as overly stupid, almost appearing to have a significant mental impairment, and with minimal comic advantage. His total wide-eyed gullibility gets tiring, but is balanced somewhat by the grittier drug deal scenes in the second half of the film.

Although this film does have its moments and is worth watching overall, it is not a legendary cinematic achievement.

Interesting, but good
Boogie Nights is a good movie(i watched it last night) with a lot of good actors just some of the scenes seemend to drag but you want to see what happens. while i was watching it seemend like it lasted about 4 hours and i just began to get bored with it but it still kept an intresting story with great performances from Burt Renyolds, Mark Whaelberg, and Julianne Moore

This movie was funny, touching and even nostalagic
When I first saw this film, I was skeptical, thinking it was a low-brow glossed-over "milk the renewed interest in Disco".

I am pleased to say I was wrong!!

In a very elite cast, I thought Mark Wahlberg, as "Dirk Diggler" aka John Holmes, the well-endowed porn king who winds up a hapless coke addict "stole the show". Growing up in this "era", it was very nostalgic to see Hi-Fi's, 70's hair, and the soundtrack brought back the whole era, along with a story of people who extended themselves past their most essential limit- that of self-control.

I rated it a "5 of 5"; to all who enjoy it, "54" is a must-see, also!!

the arrival of a truly great director
although Hard Eight was the first time people may of heard of Paul Thomas Anderson (and a really great movie also) Boggie Nights was the film that truly marked the arrival of great director..for my money this movie is a well made and ENTERTAINING (something many film makers forget about) as almost any films to come out in the last 10-15 years. great story arc..well written script..authentic feel, without trying too hard for that 70's cheesiness it just seems natural..and just flat out stellar performances from a huge cast...too me while not on the same level it has the same sweeping through the gutter, rags to riches to rags feel as Goodfellas..and like that movie gives realness and depth to a group of people who live outside of the world the rest of us live in..but are still effected by it...P.T. Anderson with his next movies Magnolia and Punch Drunk Love cemented his place as one the great directors in hollywood...check out Boogie Nights to see where it started ... Read more

Amazon.com

Two disparate worlds come together in thoroughly unexpected ways in this intriguing film directed by Academy Award winner Bernardo Bertolucci. The opening sequence, in an impoverished, unnamed African dictatorship, is painfully intense: we watch in horror as the movie's heroine, Shandurai (serenely beautiful Thandie Newton), witnesses the brutal arrest of her husband,a rebellious reformer. Then suddenly we are transported to Rome, where Shanduraiis studying medicine and cleaning house for a reclusive, wealthy pianist, Mr. Kinsky (David Thewlis). Knowing nothing of her past, Kinsky falls hopelessly in love with Shandurai. She finds his clumsy courtship insulting, especially in contrast to the heavy load she's borne in her life. But it gradually becomes clear Shandurai has sorely underestimated Mr. Kinsky.

This is a film by a true master of moviemaking craft, who refuses to spell things out or bludgeon the audience with a message. The story builds almost imperceptibly, with an accumulation of details, striking visual imagery, and a haunting soundtrack, in which classical piano, African music, and silence are all used to powerful effect. A tantalizing erotic undercurrent bubbles to the surface as the narrative takes the story in directions both unpredictable and captivating. --Laura Mirsky ... Read more

Reviews (24)

Master director outdoes previous marvels.
I purchased "Besieged" upon strong recommendations of trustworthy friends and my own appreciation of "Stealing Beauty" and "Sheltering Sky". I came to like that relatievly short (93 min.) movie with only two major characters more than the director's past films.
Bertolucci tells an extraordinary story with a compact outline with great skill and makes it believable. He was able to throw in great camera angles and little cinematographic inventions for a totally fresh feeling. That film is most probably among the best of the best representatives of the art of cinema. Great directing, photography, acting and music. A jewel.
Absence of a 5.1 ch. soundtrack is not felt at all, yet this film could benefit from stereo PCM sound since it is loaded with piano playing.

A truly intelligent love story
The title of Bertolucci's Besieged is a subtle reference to both main characters--Thandie Newton's Shandurai and David Thewlis' Mr. Kinsky. The former, an African emigre now living in Rome, is both a medical student and Mr. Kinsky's housekeeper. Her state of "besiegement" is the situation of living in Kinsky's confining environment--confining principally because of the owner's emotional isolation, and simultaneously of her husband having been arrested in her native country; she is besieged by exposure to a foreign culture, by forces previously unknown to her.

Kinsky's besiegement is, as mentioned above, his emotional isolation. He keeps himself inside his house and is rarely seen venturing outside. Only after he professes his passion for his housekeeper and realizes that he must do more than verbalize his feelings does he break the confines of his physical surroundings and leave the barriers he has besieged himself with.

Kinsky, a composer and pianist, is initially seen playing standard Western classical music, but as he becomes more enamored with Shandurai, the rhythms of her African music begin to influence his own compositions. In a beautiful scene, a session at his piano begins with a simple two-note structure and ultimately results in a piece that fervently echoes the hypnotic, percussive feel of the songs she listens to on her cassette player in her downstairs apartment.

Kinsky's intensity throughout, paralleled with Shandurai's combined intelligence and semi-bewilderment are what gives this work its resonance. This is a truly memorable film, one worth seeing repeatedly.

a perfect movie
IMPORTANT!!

Neither AMAZON nor the DVD box tellS you that there is a second COMMENTARY featuring the writer then more with the director and his wife. Both TRACKS 2 and TRACKS 3 are compelling.

Howard in Manchester UK

The Benevolent Master
I could not help but to watch this film with all of my African American female sensibilities. Despite the proficient acting, cinematography and directing, I found the content highly offensive and trite. Mr. Kinksy claimed to love Shanduri and was willing to do anything to possess her affections. He was put off to find out that Shanduri was married, but not deterred. Shanduri gave him what she believed was an unattainable challenge to have her husband, who was arrested for speaking out against the government, freed from an African prison. I recognize that it is possible for a servant to fall in love with her employer, however I know that it is extremely rare. (Ask any black woman who's cleaned a white person's house, 'how much love do you have for your boss.' The relationship between Shanduri and Mr. Kinksy was one of abuse of power and emotional manipulatio