Reviews (473)

One serious horror flick! TREMENDOUS!
"The Evil Dead" is one serious horror masterpiece. It makes "The Exorcist" look like a "G" rated film. My flesh is still crawling...it will definitely give anyone nightmares, and this digitally remastered version has it all. I bought the Special Edition on DVD. I have never seen more gore, greater sound, so many jump-out-of-your-skin scenes in my life. If you are a horror fan...and have a strong stomach...this one's for you. No kidding everyone...this is a SERIOUS film. It was rated NC-17 when it first came out in 1982. It should stay that way! I was raised on horror films, but I never thought they'd go this far!!! The setting is a deserted cabin in the woods. For 85 minutes you never leave it...nor do you want to! Don't go into the woods! Whatever you do, don't go into the woods! Of all people, I may not sleep well tonight. This film accomplished what I thought no horror flick could ever do...it scared the %$#( out of me. There have been "moments" in other films, but this one is non-stop. I think I'll take a break now and go watch "Peter Cottontail" or something. Wanna get scared? Wanna venture deep into the horror genre'? See "The Evil Dead" and don't let anyone or anything interrupt you. It's better than any thrill ride I've ever been on. It takes your stomach to the same place. I gave it 5 stars on Amazon.com scale. It deserves a 6. Don't rent this. Buy it! It's one you'll want to relive over and over again when you need/want a good scare...or need/want to scare others.

10 Stars - This Is Some Serious Horror Flick
Having been raised on horror films, "The Evil Dead" is a must-see for all hor-gore fans. It makes "The Exorcist" look like a G-rated film. It is non-stop, out-of-your-skin, out-of-the-dark, out-of-the-woods terror. While it is 20 years old, it holds its own. Many have failed in trying to capture the essence of true horror...this film does it with no finesse, no class, no-holds-barred. This is one serious horror flick. If you have a good stomach, love to feel your flesh crawl, haven't had a good scare lately, buy "The Evil Dead". But whatever you do, don't go into the woods. DON'T GO INTO THE WOODS! The entire film is shot inside and outside a rickety cabin in, yes (how'd you guess it?) the woods. The DVD even has a printed color insert called "The Girls of The Evil Dead". Does that tell you something? These three ladies will, at the outset, win your heart. By films end, they will tear your heart out - LITERALLY!!

The BEST packaging EVER
Wow, your own copy of the necronomican (sp?). This case rocks!! I have it sitting on a little easle in my office -- what a conversation piece. It rocks.

With regard to the movie. If you are reading this then you know the whole Evil Dead saga. If you ask me, while this movie is interesting, it is good to watch sam and bruce warm up for the second one. Taken on its own, this movie is enjoyable, but when it is viewed as their honing of their skills it is incredible. You can see what they wanted to do in this one, and then watch them execute it in the second.

The new sound and picture are a huge improvement over the first three releases. It sounds and looks awesome.

These guys crack me up
Okay. I'm going to have to admit it. I really only like this movie because of Bruce Campbell. I admit it's really interesting filmmaking on such a limited budget, and I laud the result. But I wouldn't come back for repeated viewing if it weren't for Bruce.

And that's what makes this DVD so great. There is a whole Bruce Campbell commentary track that is so much more amusing than the movie itself. I can watch that over and over again. (The Sam Raimi/Rob Tapert commentary is interesting, but it's also clear why they are behind the camera.) This DVD also features Bruce's short documentary, "Fanalysis" - also great if you are a Bruce fan. (I still think that Evil Dead 2 is better, both the movie and the dvd, but that doesn't mean this one doesn't rock.)

As for the Book of the Dead keepcase, it's creepy in that manufactured kind of way. It's spongy and textured. The pages inside are hilarious. I spent an evening on the sofa with two friends figuring them out and laughed til I hurt.

If you are an Evil Dead fan or a Bruce Campbell fan, get this. Get it for the spongy book so you can poke its nose and watch it spring back into place. Ewwww...

Fantastic Flick ... but only a warmup of what's to come.
This movie is incredible ... it is an incredible study on how to make a great movie on a shoestring budget. The sound explosion in the new dts version is unbelievable. However, pass on this one, and get the BOOK OF THE DEAD version -- best packaging ever ... Read more

Reviews (160)

A straightforward story honestly told.
A wonderful gentle movie that I'm still enjoying after several viewings. Clearly Mr Lynch is not afraid to experiment and deliver something different and this is so unlike his previous output. Judging from some of the reviews this is not a movie for everyone but fortunately the one or two stars are in a minority. Most of the others, like me, appreciated the slow moving (just like five mph Deere mower) unfolding of Alvin's big adventure and the folks he met. Where else other than the Midwest, where honesty comes as standard, could this story take place.

There is so much to enjoy! Angelo Badalamenti creates the perfect bluegrass style theme music, cinematographer Freddie Francis captures the gorgeous colors of the Midwest, the actors and especially Richard Farnsworth sparkle. Great lines, too, Alvin says to a hitchhiker, who has run away from home and shares a meal with him around the campfire, "A warm bed in a house sounds a mite better than eating a hot dog on a stick with an old geezer travelling on a lawn mower".

The 'Straight Story' is a little gem and I bet I'll still be enjoying its warmth and honesty for a long time.

Clearly one of the best acted films of the year
This film is probably one of the warmest and heartbreaking films of the year and it is all because of David Lynch and Richard Farnsworth. Unlike your typical Hollywood movie, David Lynch is able to work in the multitude of charachters in "The Straight Story" in a very natural and unpretentious way. The beauty of the picture is the way in which Alvin Straight (Farnsworth) is able to touch all the people he meets as he travels from Iowa to Wisconsin on his tractor to meet his ailing brother. The ending, which may leave the typical moviegoer scrathching his head and asking "so what happens?", is brilliant in how the expressions on the brothers' faces explain how they feel; and there is no need for a long drawn out speech that screams for the Academy's attention.

This film, in essence is about getting old and how aging has its benefits as well as its tragedies; how anger and resentment of family and friends is really not worth it in the end. Richard Farnsworth does a brilliant job that not many actors could have done. The wisdom he seems to have just by staring at him is astonishing. The second best line in the movie is when a young man asked him, "What is the worst thing about getting old?" and Alvin stares at him and says quietly, "Remembering when you were young." The best line, of course is the last sentence of the movie which makes you feel happy as well as sad inside.

David Lynch did a beautiful job in making the cornfields of the midwest seem amazingly scenic; trust me, I have been through Iowa and it is not as gorgeous as he made it out to be. The soundtrack goes perfect with the movie also. And I did not even mention Sissy Spacek, who plays Alvin's daughter and she does a great job as well as the rest of the cast in playing characters touched by Alvin and his mission.

What makes a movie a classic or a great film is that after you watch it, you sit there and think about it and have discussions with your friends about it. This movie did that to me, and I have been reccommending it to all my friends. But I must warn you, you also have to be in the right mood for it, and it might be best if you either watched it alone or with only a couple of other people. It is a must see for anyone.

a (mostly) orthodox story
wilhelm furtwngler; the conductor of the berlin philharmonic up until 1954, had a very unorthodix beat. indeed, his conducting was in itself unorthodox. he had heard some grumbling amongst the orchestra members that his beat was hard to follow, and that his conducting was too improvisational.
he then appeared before them and said ' so you dont think i can give you an orthodox beat?, okay let's go' and he proceeded for several minutes to do a 'by the book' reading of brahms. he then stopped. ' see i can do it, but it has no life. its not interesting!'.
the same could be said for the films of david lynch and his most ardent critics.
lynch has, all along, been able to tell a story straight, as he did here and elephant man. but even then lynch has to be lynch. he has to filter the story through his own sensabilites and style.
elephant man and straight story both have lynchs style deeply stamped upon them.
elephant man has his visual artistry, straight story his quirkiness.
the beauty of straight story is this is his 'g' rated quirkiness, and that's very appropriate for a man,who despite all of his progressive accomplishments in film, still lives in the suburbs.
with straight story lynch set out to prove that he could indeed tell a story straight and its most certain there was a sly wink in titling this film.
he actually upped the furtwangler philosophy one in that he did an orthodox narrative and STILL made it interesting, but naturally its still lynchian all the way through.
by the way this was farnsworth last film. he was terminally ill and took his own life about a year later.
he was a charactor actor with grace and vulnerability.
he will be missed

Boring... These other reviewers are nuts!
The Straight Story is horribly boring. Nothing of note happens in the entire film. The people that have given this four and five stars must be crazy. You will be very disappointed if you watch this film "The Straight Story". There are some nice views of Iowa in the film, and if that's all you expect you may be satisfied. If you want to see a plot or story line you will be disappointed. All you will to see is character development with nothing ever happening. The retarded daughter(Sissy Spacek) is totally pointless btw. Anyway, don't say I didn't warn you!

What a priviledge
Where do you begin with a film that is as beautiful, poetic, moving, powerful, substantial, grounding, uplifting, and definitively sublime as The Straight Story. From it's emotionally and technically pitch perfect score by Angelo Badalamenti to the brilliant direction of David Lynch, the film takes us on a journey we will never forget.
Despite everything I've offered, the film depends upon one man- Richard Farnsworth. In his last role, his award-winning performance is a master class in listening and being. He IS Alvin Straight instead of acting like Alvin Straight. His beautiful blue eyes are weary with pain and memories. I have never seen the eyes convey so very much. To watch his scene at the bar and not have a resounding physical reaction- well, there may be no help for your soul.

Simply put, allow yourself the priviledge of viewing The Straight Story. ... Read more

Reviews (79)

He is not an animal.
The magnificent visuals in *The Elephant Man* are rather less due to director David Lynch than they are to cinematographer and Hammer vet (and former director himself) Freddie Francis. On purely visual terms, this has to be one of the greatest black & white movies ever shot. Victorian Europe becomes Hell, here: gritty, damp sidewalks; plumes of smoke everywhere (light and dark, steam and coal); impenetrable shadows; nauseating grays; daguerreotype snapshots in hallucinogenic fogbanks. It is the work of no less than a genius. The photography all by itself raises this otherwise conventional drama to near art. Also worthy of praise are the set design and -- of course! -- the costuming. Only by the film's credits do you realize that it's John Hurt who's portraying the horribly deformed John Merrick, the famous personage in Victorian London who rose from sideshow degredation to national celebrity. Watching this movie again, I wished that Francois Truffaut had written and directed it. I was constantly reminded of that director's *The Wild Child*, in which he played the equivalent doctor-role that Anthony Hopkins plays here. Nothing wrong with Hopkins' performance, mind you; it's more the heavy-handed moralizing that his character is forced to personify. Lynch, that famous finger-waggling moralist, insists on putting Dr. Treves' ethical quandary into the character's own mouth, thereby making sure we "get" it. (Truffaut understood that the ethical quandary of bringing a wild child -- or an elephant man -- into normal society is already a given, without requiring sage speechifying, oratory, declamation.) Every time I hear about what a "daring" director David Lynch is, how he "thinks outside the box", how "revolutionary" he is, I recall this tear-jerking film. *The Elephant Man* is ultimately as sentimental as any Academy Award-bucking Hollywood product. Of course, that's exactly what the movie is. It's also as sentimental and moralistic as most of Lynch's other movies. It's definitely worth seeing, but let's not get carried away.

A Masterwork
The Elephant Man is a movie so emotionally draining you only watch it something like once in five years, if that. On top of brilliant filmmkaing, you know the story is also true. Anthony Hopkins is top billed as a doctor who discovers John Merrick, a man so horribly disfigured by disease he is nearly unrecognisable as a human, and called The Elephant Man. Hopkins delivers an excellent performance. John Hurt plays Mr. Merrick. He isn't recognisable, as he's under layers of makeup that make him The Elephant Man(ive seen a picture of Merrick, and the movie has Mr. Hurt looking just like him) but I don't know if anyone else could've played the role as well. Very moving. David Lynch(director) tacles his first full length picture with this amazing movie. His last short, Eraserhead, got him the job. There just arent enough stories like that of John Merrick, so I don't know that Lynch can get so close to his calling again, though he does a damn good job anyway(Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks, Wild At Heart, Strait Story, Lost Highway). Amazing job.

The tyranny of normality.
Although generally interpreted as David Lynch's breakthrough, the main force behind the making of 'The Elephant Man' was Mel Brookes. Brookes fought agressively for David Lynch's final cut, including the opening and closing dream sequences that Paramount wanted to drop.

Lynch, whose fascination with the industrial landscape permeated his cinematic debut 'Eraserhead', must have taken a fancy to directing a movie set in smoke-staked Victorian Britain. Lynch himself likened John Merrick's facial structure to a series of uncontrollable explosions, an industrial-like catastrophe of the body (which sounds like the basis of an architypal David Cronenberg movie).

Although initially cared for by men of varying degrees of affection, it is with women that John Merrick shares his strongest bond. Within the moral confines of Victorian society, he is treated as the passive spectacle that women would have been viewed as at the time. His sensitivity and feminine affectations remain intact despite the brutality society has inflicted upon him. This bond would be almost impossible to imagine if he did not receive some maternal affection as a child. Yet ironically what ultimately dooms Merrick is the tyranny of normality that prevades Victorian society. All of those well-bred, well-meaning people who try to help, raise in him a fantasy of acceptance. A 'normality' he will always be excluded from. This tyranny of normality even leads him to believe that there is a 'proper' and 'accepted' way to sleep. Such is the huge leap from the conformist coventions of a century ago, that I believe if Merrick were alive today, he would wear his difference as a badge of individuality, something that has become a convention in itself.

DVD interviews welcome addition to film classic
I saw the original in 1980, and the DVD in 2004. The DVD really is a nice package. Not only do you have this great film in crystal clear quality, but the interview package at the end is really informative, especially regarding the makeup and how the screenplay was discovered -- the producer's babysitter handed him her boyfriend's script! John Hurt's insights were particularly interesting; there are so many things that could have torpedoed the project but thankfully didn't.

I only wish David Lynch could have been interviewed, as this was his first major project after Eraserhead and he really matured in terms of being able to work in a major production with so many shining talents.

Recommended for those with a heart and soul
The Elephant Man is a film of incredible passion and power. For those who think "power" in the movies involves supernatural abilities or mastery of martial arts or destructive weapons - The Elephant Man is perhaps not for you.

David Lynch's film is shot in black and white which gives a Victorian feel to the era depicted, but also gives a startling chiarascuro visual to many scenes.

Much of the information about the life of Mr. Merrick was obtained from accounts written by Dr. Treves, who became so celebrated that he was chosen to be Royal Physician, so it is perhaps not surprising that Treves comes off well in this film. The central performances are by John Hurt as Merrick and Anthony Hopkins as Treves, and they are both absolutely stunning. I have viewed the film a half-dozen times, and there are moments that I am moved every single time.

The Elephant Man suffers from terrible physical deformities that are only gradually shown to the audience. But we discover that his mental faculties are not hindered at all, and the scene in which this discovery is made is absolutely astonishing.

The late John Gielgud does excellent work as the hospital administrator, Mr. Carr Gomm. In the scene after it is revealed that the Elephant Man has normal intelligence Carr Gomm takes Treves aside.

"Can you IMAGINE what sort of life he has had?" (Merrick has spent his life up to that point as a side-show freak, beaten and jeered at.)
Treves looks absent-mindedly out the window before starting to reply "Yes, I think I ...."
Carr Gomm rebukes him sharply. "No you can't!" He softens his voice. "No one can."

And watching that scene we TRY to imagine the myriad of humiliations and sufferings that the poor man has endured simply for his unfortunate appearance. But we realize that we cannot "walk a mile in his shoes" and we recognize that we truthfully can't imagine what he has been through.

Nonetheless we find John Merrick witty and engaging and pleasant. Later on Merrick has become the Belle of the Ward and there is a steady stream of dignitaries who come by to visit. One of the wise old nurses, played by the wonderful Wendy Hillar, gives Treves a piece of her mind and suggests that Merrick has simply become a sideshow again and is being stared at all over again. This leads to a wonderful scene at home between Treves and his wife, played by Hannah Gordon, in which Treves does some honest soul-searching. Another scene where Treves has invited Merrick to his own home is remarkable for it's emotional amplitude. Treves has become very used to being around The Elephant Man, but Mrs. Treves is not, and despite being "prepared" for his sight, there are multiple instances when she is clearly struggling to "seem normal".

There are several other touching scenes, such as when Anne Bancroft,playing a famous London Actress, visits and her acting ability enables her to overlook his deformities more easily than Mrs. Treves, or when Princess Alex arrives at a key hospital board meeting to personally deliver a plea from Queen Victoria for a permanent place for "one of England's least fortunate sons". It would have been easy to turn overly sentimental or to pander, but Lynch knows when to reign things in perfectly.

This work has much to say about the dignity of man, and I recommend it highly. ... Read more

Reviews (230)

Hitchcock's Masterful Tale of Neurosis and Obsession
Vertigo brilliantly and hypnotically displays many of Hitchcock's famous themes: the ordinary man caught up in a world of intrigue beyond his control (Scotty), the icy, mysterious blonde (Madeline), the smothering maternal figure (Midge), the obsession with the past, and the blurring of the line between illusion and reality. All of the aforementioned elements are enhanced by Bernard Hermann's passionate, romantic music, and combine to make this film one of Hitchcock's most complex, most richly rewarding films.

In "Vertigo," the characters and the viewing audience rarely know what is real and what is illusion. Many of the scenes in the film have a hazy, dreamlike quality: Madeline disappears behind and re-emerges from the Sequoia trees; Madeline steps out of the hazy, hotel light after her transformation as if she is a ghost reappearing from the past. Hitchcock brilliantly uses light, shadow and music to create a dizzingly uncertain atmosphere, forcing the audience to question what is really happening in the scene.

Scotty's obsession with the past and his desire to transform the charater "Judy" into his former love "Madeline" brings up an intriguing question. To what lengths will people go to change themselves to please the one they love? How much of their identities are they willing to give up for love? Madeline poignantly says to Scotty after he has asked her to change one thing after another about herself, "If I let you change me, then will you love me?"

"Vertigo" is a brilliant director working out his neurosis and obsessions through cinema. Luckily for the audience, the director is Hitchcock, and the film he has created is a fascinating, haunting masterpiece.

Absolutely the best film Hitchcock ever made
Everybody's got a favorite Alfred Hitchcock movie. Mine is VERTIGO. Everything about this movie is more than perfect. The performances from Kim Novak, James Stewart and Barbara Bel Geddes- beyond Oscar quality. The film is a masterpiece. There are multiple themes that are repeated throughout the movie, which make it subject to many repeated viewings. I've seen it many times, and I could see it all the time. Every time I see it, I find out something new. When you see John "Scottie" Fergeson going over the top, you'll have a hard time believing that it's Jimmy Stewart up on screen. Kim Novak is a beautiful, shimmering brilliance in her two- actually THREE roles (Madeline, Carlotta Valdes, Judy). And I found it hard not to sympathize with Barbara Bel Gedde's Midge. Alfred Hitchcock's meticulous direction pays off more than ever. The ending delievered such an emotional, psychological shock that I couldn't stop thinking about it. My advice to you: stop reading, go out and see VERTIGO. You won't regret it.

The very first shot is the best.
I watched Vertigo for the first time when I was about 12 years old - I remember I couldn't sleep well afterwards. I guess I was a little too young at the time to fully appreciate its scope. Watched it now again in its restored form on DVD.

In my opinion the best moment in the movie is the very first shot of the woman's mouth and face and her eyes - the look in her eyes - all in black and white - and then the introduction of colour - the spirals etc., and the ingeneous score. The score is incredible. Very efficient. It really gives the whole thing a dreamlike quality.

Generally, I don't like dark haunting movies too much. And Vertigo is haunting.
Most of the other Hitchcock movies have a kind of upbeat humour - an optimistic atmosphere. Take Psycho, for example. Yes, people get killed - but in a strange, almost perverse way the movie is almost funny. And, of course, there is a satisfying conclusion, a happy end. Not so in Vertigo.

Note that Hitchcock returned in subsequent movies - North by Northwest, Frenzy, Family Plot ...to his characteristic dark humour. That's why I think that Vertigo - while it deals with themes also present in his other movies - is something of an exception : there is no happy end and there is no relief for the audience.

Most of Hitchcock's movies deal with horrible things - like murder, the innocent being wrongfully accused and hunted by society, malice and intrigue,.. - but he always balances this with this typical British dark humour which in a way protects the audience and helps it to digest the on-screen violence. So this dark humour, this distancing of the audience, fulfills a very important function. For instance, after the shower scene in Psycho, we witness Norman Bates clean up the bathroom.
The same kind of dark humour - not quite as dark - can be found in some of the James Bond movies. Its always about helping the audience to accept what has just happened.

In Vertigo, this dark humour is missing and this accounts for its dark haunting quality.

Again, I am not much of a fan of obssesive love and all that - and probably neither
are most other people - and certainly Vertigo is not as much fun to watch as, say North by Northwest, but the score and the use of colours in it alone are worthy of our attention.

Darkest Hitchcock
"Vertigo" is a disturbing tour de force. You would probably have to roll forward to David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" and "Mulholland Drive" is find comparable weirdness. Is it Hitchcock's best? That's a tough question. Personally, I think "Notorious" is a better film, because the story fits easier into expectations of what a story should be, while at the same time being very edgey in matters of men and women, sex and love, and intrigue that blurs the lines. Everything about "Notorious" is balanced. But "Vertigo" takes chances few directors are willing to attempt, and that has to be recognized - especially when it involves a director with the abilities and genius of a Hitchcock. With that in mind, "Vertigo" is the important film, necessary if you want to fully understand Hitchcock.

"Vertigo" is about obsession. Ex-detective John Ferguson (Jimmy Stewart) is following the wife of an old friend, who fears his wife is losing her mind. It's a deadly scam, but you know that. The real story is Ferguson's descent. Stewart is excellent and increasingly strange as the movie progresses. Novak also works, but in a way she strikes the viewer as a deliberately coarser version of the Hitchcock "blondes." I don't pretend to be a Hitchcock specialist, but I've been spending this summer going through the major Hitchcock films, and I've noticed a few things that have me wondering over Hitchcock's creative arc in general. Blondes, yep. But look at the role of mothers. "Strangers on a Train" has psycho killer Walker's mother as a babying influence, and "Vertigo" has former Stewart girlfriend, played by Barbara Bel Geddes, visiting Stewart/Ferguson, and telling him "mother" is there for him. And check out the Nazi mother to mama's boy Claude Rains in "Notorious." The capper is of course the "mother" of Norman Bates in that movie explosion called "Psycho." What was it with Hitchcock and mothers? Also note that the swirl imagery of "Vertigo" reappears in the swirling drain of "Psycho."

"Vertigo" is a much more free-floating effort, and deserves all the praise. Narrative structure is allowed to slacken, and interior pathologies allowed to take priority, all amazing terrain for a director to explore - and to be allowed to explore by the dollar driven studios. The logic of the "story" is in fact is so suspended, that the fact that there is a murder and a murderer become secondary - they are merely triggers. Oh, Stewart/Ferguson eventually remembers he's a cop, but the difference in "Vertigo," which sets it apart from even "Psycho," is that it doesn't matter and darkness falls. And with it a final madness?

NOT his best! Why is everyone raving about this movie??
It's good, not great. The storyline is just too basic. Nothing really grabbed my attention. As far as the directing aspect of it, it may be one of his best. But also this may be his most boring film. It was a flop at the box-office. I'd like to know why it's considered his masterpiece. Am I missing something? This movie has little intrigue in comparison to his other films.

"North By Northwest" was by far his best.
"Rear Window" was great.
"The Birds" was very exciting to watch and was a great feat in film-making for its time with all those birds.
"Lifeboat" was good too.
"Psycho" would have been much better if I saw it for the first time without knowing what was going to happen.
"Dial M For Murder" has a great storyline with intrigue.

But as for "Vertigo", ehh.... not as good in comparison. It will be very good if it is your first Hitchcock movie to watch. ... Read more

Reviews (25)

JOAN FONTAINE'S OSCAR -WINNING ROLE
"Suspicion" is a intriguing film and one of Hitchcock's best;it's beautifully made and perfectly played. The role of Lina McLaidlaw is not too unlike Fontaine's character in 1940's "Rebecca". Johnny Aysgarth (Grant) is the lovable scoundrel Fontaine marries,only later to become horribly suspicious of him for various reasons. In the last reel,director Hitchcock builds on every clue, every plot turn; in the final confession scene, he is dependent upon Grant's skills as an actor;the infuriating moral ending is expected but nevertheless, "Suspicion" remains a highly satisfying diversion.

Let's hope the DVD is truly a "Special Edition".
"Suspicion" is a wonderful suspense ride for Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine. In his interview with Francois Truffaut many years later, director Alfred Hitchcock talked in detail about this film. He had a small flashlight put in the ominous glass of milk that Grant carries up the stairs to Fontaine, as she is having doubts about her play-boy husband. I can only hope that if the films original ending still exists, as it apparently was filmed, it is included on the upcoming DVD. Even if the footage is gone, perhaps story boards exist. The movie originally had Cary Grant actually plotting to off his wife. Fontaine is last seen writing a letter to her mother confessing her fears that her days are numbered. She gives Grant the letter to post when he brings her the "glowing" glass of milk. The last scene had a much relieved Grant, Fontaine having been dispatched, whistling as he mails the letter that will convict him. The music swelled to a judges gavel and the credits ran. Instead, we got a very happy, but very contrived and not terribly convincing ending. The studios did not want Grant, their matinee idol, playing a heavy. Hitchcock still made a wonderful film and hopefully the DVD release will pay homage to his original vision.

Stop Complaining! Just Watch the Movie!
"Suspicion" is one more classic Alfred Hitchcock film. Like many, it too is filmed in murky but beautiful black and white. The key character is Cary Grant, who worked with the great director so often. Grant plays the role of a lying, scheming, swindling, cheating and thoroughly unlikable fellow. He marries a young but wealthy ingenue, Joan Fontaine. He is patently and without remorse after her inheritance. Fontaine quickly realizes the type of jerk she has married. She even starts to suspect that Grant is out to kill her! The plot further thickens when Grant's buddy, actor Nigel Bruce, dies suddenly on a business trip with Grant. We wait for one of those English detectives that Hitchcock casts so well to haul Grant off to jail. And then? Then there is that famous car ride that ends the movie so abruptly and has given other reviewers fits. It is all too true that "Suspicion" ends quickly with no clear-cut resolution. We are left with no clue if the couple divorced, lived happily ever after or if Grant finally got tossed in a British cooler. The abrupt and unresolved ending is similar to "Notorious". This reviewer has no problems with murky endings. Why not appreciate them "as is"? Some interesting sidebars: 1)"Suspicion" was filmed with an entirely British cast on a Hollywood lot, nowhere close to the English seashore.2) Grant was said to be furious at the Director because Hitchcock allegedly was very patient with Fontaine but hassled him during production. 3) Ms Fontaine won a 1941
Best Actress Oscar for her role, making her the ONLY actor/actress to be so recognized for a Hithcock film. The recommendation from this reviewer is to enjoy "Suspicion" for what it is-an above average suspense film with perhaps a hole or two in it. Viewers should ignore the fact that Grant and Hitchcock have done better work elsewhere. They might also ignore the fact that RKO Pictures changed the "original" ending. That scarcely makes Hollywood history. Why not just calm down and watch the movie? "Suspicion" should stand alone on its' own merits.

A Suspicion that this Could Have Been More Memorable
There are no directors better than Alfred Hitchcock in setting a mood of menace or a string of clues that point to some truly climactic ending. In SUSPICION, Hitchcock presents a view of good guy Cary Crant as a leering, lying, cad who may be guilty of even worse criminal behavior.

Grant is Johnnie, who opens as the Cary Grant his fans have always known: suave, handsome, dashing. Joan Fontaine is Lina, a rather bookish frump who nevertheless catches Johnnie's eye. Early on, Johnnie's interest in Lina is at least partly based on her family fortune. When the audience sees Grant going against type by playing the caddish Johnnie, they can see that behind the smiling eyes and suave grin lay a twist that no one would have believed. Director Hitchcock slowly builds up the character of Johnnie by innuendo. At each step of the way, Lina hears and sees the implied charges, but she always tries to find a rational answer that does not point toward what the audience sees as the inevitable truth. Nigel Bruce as Beaky, a childhood chum of Johnnie's, supplies the same innocent charm that he displayed earlier as Dr. Watson in the Sherlock Holmes series. Here as Beaky, Bruce reinforces the twin nature of Johnnie: that is one must accept his negative side if one is to as readily accept his positive. With each revelation, first from Beaky, then from Johnnie's employer (Leo G. Carroll), the mounting evidence accrues to convince Lina that her husband is guilty of a series of crimes ranging from theft, to deception, to murder. The famous scene in which Johnnie brings Lina a glass of glowing milk indelibly etches in the audience's collective mind the conviction that Johnnie is indeed the creep that he appears to be.

Unfortunately, Hitchcock could not allow the reputation of Cary Grant to be tarnished by ending the movie on the affirmation of a guilt that he had spent the better part of two hours so carefully constructing. The turn about of the closing scene leaves the viewer gasping in disbelief. Even if that viewer accepts the glib explanation of Johnnie of his true motivation, then this acceptance still leaves him as the same cad he was at the start of the film. Still, Joan Fontaine as Lina managed to snare an Oscar for best actress. SUSPICION is the kind of quality film that except for the last minute manages to engage the viewer in a race against time during which one woman must balance her feelings against mounting suspicions against a man whose charm is source both of her love and her deepest fears.

Slight thriller with star power
Cary Grant (Johnnie Aysgarth) was 37 when this was released and perhaps at the pinnacle of his sexual charm (but not at the pinnacle of his career by a long shot); and Joan Fontaine (Lina Aysgarth--not "Linda," as the video jacket mistakenly has it), 24, was fresh from her very fine performance in Rebecca (1940) alongside Laurence Olivier, also directed by Alfred Hitchcock, for which he garnered his only Best Picture Oscar. I don't think this film is nearly as good. It is saved from being something close to annoying at times only by the star power of the leads and a fine supporting cast, especially Nigel Bruce (best known perhaps as Dr. Watson in a number of Sherlock Holmes films) as Cary Grant's friend "Beaky."

The problem with the film lies partly with the casting of Cary Grant, although not in his performance as such. He was seen as such a valuable property by the studio that the proper ending of the film was considered inappropriate and so it was changed. Along the way we see a lot of mixed foreshadowing so it is impossible to tell whether his character is that of a loving husband who is a bit of a rogue or a cold-blooded murderer who married Lina for her inheritance and intends to kill her. We can see how the latter possibility might not work so well since she was only getting a subsistence allowance from the will of her father who disapproved of the marriage. And there are all those dark scowls that Grant manufactures, somewhat awkwardly I must say, to keep us in doubt. What is apparent is that Hitchcock had one ending in mind and then had to change it and wasn't able to redo some of the earlier scenes that worked better with the old ending.

At any rate, Joan Fontaine is very good, lovely, graceful and focused. With this performance she went one up on her older sister Olivia de Havilland by winning the Best Actress Oscar. And it is a bit of a spicy treat to see Cary Grant as something of a heavy, at least part of the time. For most of us, who have seen him in many films, his character has always been sterling.

I must also note that some of the production seems a bit unnatural. Grant wears his suit and tie all buttoned up even when visiting Fontaine in their bedroom (carrying the infamous glass of milk, which I understand was backlighted with a bulb inside the glass to make it almost glow). Fontaine's Lina appears mousey and bookish at the beginning (it is suggested that she was in danger of being an old maid!) but later develops a more sophisticated style. And I don't think Hitchcock or Grant really gave her enough cause for the sort of fear she experienced. The final scene with its quick about-face was not entirely convincing or conclusive either.

Contemporary audiences might wince at the plodding direction by Hitchcock. They might even wonder why he decided to make a movie from such a familiar and lightly plotted tale not far removed psychologically from a romance novel. But Hitchcock always erred on the side of giving the mass audience what he thought they wanted. What they wanted here was Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine together romantically with some mystery and doubt along the way. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The Dark Star's crew is on a 20-year mission to destroy unstable planets and make way for future colonization.The smart bombs they use to effect this zoom off cheerfully to do their duty.But unlike Star Trek, in which order prevails, the nerves of this crew are becoming increasingly frayed to the point of psychosis. Their captain has been killed by a radiation leak that also destroyed their toilet paper."Don't give me any of that 'Intelligent Life' stuff," says Commander Doolittle when presented with the possibility of alien life. "Find me something I can blow up."When an asteroid storm causes a malfunction, Bomb Number 20 (the most cheerful character in the film) has to be repeatedly talked out of exploding prematurely, each time becoming more and more peevish, until they have to teach him phenomenology to make him doubt his existence.And the film's apocalyptic ending, lifted almost wholly from Ray Bradbury's story "Kaleidoscope," has the remaining crew drifting away from each other in space, each to a suitably absurd end.Absurd, surreal, and very funny. John Carpenter once described Dark Star as "Waiting for Godot in space." Made at a cost of practically nothing, the film's effects arenevertheless impressive and, along with the number of ideas crammed into its 83 minutes, ought to shame makers of science fiction films costing hundreds of times more. The DVD contains both the original 68-minute release and the director's full version. --Jim Gay ... Read more

Reviews (68)

Early Brilliance
Much like George Lucas' THX-1138, Dark Star had its beginnings as a film school project which was later expanded into a full-length movie with the help of later investors. However, while Lucas became far less serious when he started working with big budgets, the opposite phenonmenon occured with Dark Star's creators Dan O'Bannon (later scripter of such hits as Alien and The Abyss) and John Carpenter (later director of such hits as The Thing and Halloween). In fact, Dark Star often seems to make fun of elements found in Carpenter and O'Bannon's later works, as if they knew what directions they would later be taking and decided to parody themselves before anyone else got the chance. For example, there's an alien that looks like a blown-up beachball bouncing around the ship and causing trouble, providing a very silly alternative to the insect in Alien. Of course, other classics are billiantly parodied in this movie as well, especially 2001 with its out of control, intelligent computer and in the scene of astronauts floating off into space.

Much like Monty Python, the humour works on many levels. In addition to slapstick, you get rather intelligent and philosophical humour. Not all of it works, but there are enough hits to make up for all the misses.

Given the original budget of the film, don't expect a visual spectacular. Comparing Dark Star to the creators' later works is like comparing Lord of the Rings to Peter Jackson's first film, Bad Taste. This first film has a sort of roughness and lack of polish to it which really emphasizes its moments of brilliance. Too bad the film isn't longer.

Cult classic, off the wall, Carpenter's finest
So, I thought I would show this movie to my fiancee and a friend of hers, both of whom I would definitely say are picky and typically like the empty flashy movies that draw in money, but have no substance. She was laughing very loudly by the end (and so was her friend, by the way).

John Carpenter may be known for his other really big hits (Halloween, In the Mouth of Madness [his best, in my opinion], or Vampires), but before fame arrived, he was a student. This was his film. Along with co-conspirator Dan O'Bannon, the two made this student film with zero budget (the chest plate on the star suit is a muffin pan), until it was viewed by a producer. $60,000 and a few extra scenes later, it was released and immediately picked up a cult following. I first saw it on PBS, back in the days when they showed such classic films.

Funny, irreverent, and strikingly enough, deep and meaningful. Don't look for famous actors here, go rent a Bond flick for that. Look for insight into the human spirit, the plight of the isolated, and one of the most humorous sci-fi movies ever made! I highly recommend it for fans of a good comedy or science fiction flick. You won't be disappointed!

Boredom Has never been so funny!!!
Made with their own money! John Carpenter and Dan O'Bannon made this quite bizarre tale of boredom in space. The crews mission is to blow up planets but other than that they have no life, they have been doing this for so many years they can't even remember their first names. Their captain is dead, well frozen!, They have a beach ball for a pet, and their ship is falling apart. One of the most interesting bits in the film is when they have to philosophise with a talking bomb to stop it from blowing up the ship. The score is excellent and the special effects....well they were made on the cheap. :)

Jack Harris wanted the original college film to be extended to 90 minutes, so that he could release it. So, John Carpenter and Dan O'Bannon completed the film but unfortunately their friendship did not survive the involvement of Jack Harris.

A gem in the rough is still a gem
What's also amazing is the sensitivity to characters and personalities in this movie. Each crew member is different, and has his own unique coping mechanisms (or none at all) for the sheer boredom of space.

The ongoing diary of Bill Froop is a hilarious peek into one character's personal journey and transformation. You'll find a much more intriguing storyline here than in any of the last few Star Trek movies combined - unless you're a baby boomer reminiscing about your Half Moon Bay hippy commune days, that is.

Make a big batch of popcorn and settle in for a lot of fun!

Only for John Carpenter fans
If you're a John Carpenter fan (Starman, Alien, etc.), you might be interested in seeing his early work, but if not, skip this DOG of a film. The one laugh I did get from the film was from the use of the muffin baking pan as part of the spacesuit design. It was so tacky that it was funny. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The mind-bending worlds of author H.P. Lovecraft have long interested horror directors, but the films have rarely successfully captured his nightmarish mix of madness and mythology. John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness is not directly based on Lovecraft's work, but screenwriter Michael De Luca draws his inspiration from Lovecraft's Cthulu mythology and then adds his own ingenious twists. John Trent (Sam Neill), an insurance investigator recently fitted for a straightjacket, tells his story to a psychiatrist. Hired to track down the missing pop-horror phenomena Sutter Cane, a Stephen King-like author whose fans are literally made for his books, Trent finds the supposedly fictional Hobb's End.He watches the town collapse into madness, murder, and monstrous transformations: the fantastic horrors of Cane's novels played out in front of his eyes. "Reality isn't what it used to be," deadpans one zombielike townsperson. In fact, it is how Cane writes it--but is he Devil, dark oracle, or simply a preacher in the service of an evil that grows stronger with every soul his books convert? The script never quite gets a grip on the blurry relationship between fact and fiction, but those details fade in the face of Carpenter's demented imagery, shiver-inducing twists, and dark wit. It's more eerie mind game than straight-out horror, a portrait of a world gone mad, and Carpenter relishes every hallucinatory moment.

The DVD features both widescreen and pan-and-scan editions of the film--like all of Carpenter's films, this is shot in CinemeScope, so widescreen is a must--and commentary by Carpenter and cinematographer Guy Kibee that fills every second of the audio track with observations, technical information, and production stories. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (102)

Among the top Horror Films of our Times
I've seen a lot of horror and sci-fi movies, and this is among the best. For anyone who likes to read, this movie is a must. It blurs the boundary between what's fact and what's fiction. Neill goes in search of the elusive horror writer Sutter Cane, and finds that perhaps he is more than a good horror writer. The movie is scary without all of the expensive special effects that other movies rely upon to scare the audience. The ending is classic. This movie may make you want to think twice about settling down with a good book...

Best horror film of the '90s
John Carpenter has been to hell and back and now he wants us to know what it is like! No other movie this decade can compare with the disturbing imagery of Madness. Sutter Cane is the top selling horror novelist in the world, but it appears that Cane's writings are having no shortage of ill effects on his readers. Cane is writing to bring about the end of the world and it looks like he just might succeed! Carpenter spares no expense in the dementia department and pulls no punches with the gore. Along with Event Horizon & Lord of Illusions this is a 90's classic!

This movie is so horrifying,it'll put you in an institution!
This movie is so scary you will have nightmares for years! Sam Neill is absolutely fantastic for the part! This is quite possibly his best movie!

Leaves something to be desired
If I was an avid fan of John Carpenter, perhaps I would have found the movie more appealing. After viewing it two times, I still find it lacking. First, Julie Carmen STINKS! She lends no support to Sam Neill... (can someone please tell me what he's doing in this movie?! He's so much better than this!) She's stiff and I found this distracting. The plot, although potentially good, failed to deliver. I saw the movie twice just to find any redeeming qualities. While there are some good parts to it, my overall review is that there are better movies to spend your time watching.

This is one great movie!!
This is the best movie John Carpenter did since Halloween. His creepy style of music and plot makes this a bone chilling movie. It is well thought out and definetly should not be a disappointment to anyone. If you like creepy movies and music, then this is a must have.

Movies that I would also recommend is:

(1) Event Horizon
(2) Scream 1 and 2
(3) From Dusk till Dawn
(4) Maximum Overdrive
... Read more

Reviews (261)

A True Terror Classic
When the onslaught of 80's slasher films was in high gear, most ripping off "Halloween", and "Friday The 13th", there were hardly any original frights in the bunch. " A Nightmare On Ellm Street" came along and changed that. This movie, like "Psycho", and "Halloween" before it, and "Scream" after it, changed the world of horror. Good horror films can still happen. A bunch of kids are having nightmares of a ghastly looking killer with knives for fingers. Is he for real?. Will they die if they sleep?. That is such a great, ingenious premise. The movie has several heart pounding scenes that will leave you holding on to your seat. It's that good. Robert Englund, as Freddy Krueger, helped create one of the most memorable and incredible cinema villains of all time. The movie always has that eerie feel and pull of a horrible, sweat soaked nightmare. Wes Craven is truly a master. Heather Langenkamp, as the heroine Nancy, is one of the all time great Scream Queens. This movie is frightening. If you don't like it, you must be an alien. A brilliant, legendary classic. Don't fall asleep!.

One, two...Freddy's coming for you....
Horror films usually have the reputation as being mindless slasher movies filled with half-naked (and invariably stupid) bimbos. I mean just how many times can someone trip over nothing just to be slashed to bits by some masked axe/knife-wielding maniac? Is "Nightmare On Elm Street" an exception to this rule? In a word, YES!

Wes Craven's masterful creation known as Freddy Kruger is more than just a disgruntled maniac looking for sex starved teens. He is clever and dark and witty and horrifying and well, creepy as hell. There is actually a story line to this movie. Freddy was once an actual person...a monster in his own right, that was destroyed (burned to death, no less) by the good people on Elm Street. An eye for an eye? Well, Freddy's not finished yet...he re-emerges as a nightmare for Nancy, the daughter of one of the people who burned him years ago. Only Freddy's more than just a bad dream as Nancy (wonderfully played by Heather Langenkamp)and her friends (keep an eye out for a very young Johnny Depp) soon find out. He has gained power through their dreams and has very real consequences in the waking world.

Make no mistakes, this is a horror film, but the thinking person's horror film. You want to unravel the mystery of this creepy nightmarish figure that seemingly can do or become anything. Craven keeps it real, while managing to keep it fascinating...something few horror movies can claim. Freddy himself, is never really revealed or completely seen until the very end. This adds a great deal to the overall darkness of this movie. This film is gory but somehow that is not the focal point. It also explores the characters, especially Nancy, who emerges as the unlikely role-model/heroine.

"Nightmare On Elm Street" is a good flick, period. It is smart, clever, creative, witty, creepy, dark and down-right SCARY. Kudos to Wes Craven and his most-original masterpiece. Freddy is a force to be reckoned with!

Good night, Sleep tight, Don't let Freddy Kreuger bite!
I must say that this is by far the most...Incredible thing I have ever seen!!! A lot of people didn't approve of it(when I was 6 I didn't approve of it but more on that later.) Because this movie had a low body count.(Find out wich one did on www.freddyvsjason.com) But even thought the BC was low, the Blood Count was phenomenal. Remember the scene where whatsherface was wrapped in that sheet with blood all around it? what about when that dude got pulled through the bed?(I hate to admit it but to make a long story short I didn't sleep in my bed till the next time I saw it!) But I wont spoil the movie for you 'First Timers'. But If you are a first timer, watch this movie by yourself in the middle of the night, door locked, lights off, (And maybe some rubber pants and a blanket! If you think it's that scary) Good night, Sleep tight, Don't let Freddy Kreuger bite!

Freddy Krueger was the Boogeyman...
Wes Craven provided the final truly great film of his directorial career with A Nightmare On Elm St, initiating yet another successful horror franchise that deteriorated quickly but made Freddy Krueger a viable part of North American horror film iconography.
In this film, the teen residents of Elm St. are tormented by recurring nightmares of a razor fingered, fedora wearing maniac horribly scarred beyond recognition. When the teens begin to meet untimely and gruesome deaths, it would seem that their nightmares have become reality. Child molester and murderer Freddy Krueger has returned from the grave to wreak vengeance on the offspring of the vigilantes who burnt him alive many years previous.
The film benefits from a great cast of notable actors such as John Saxon (Black Christmas, Cannibal Apocalypse), Robert Englund (Eaten Alive, Tv's V mini-series) and a pre-stardom Johnny Depp (Donnie Brasco, Pirates of the Carribean). Heather Lagenkamp is also terrific as the main protagonist Nancy, who takes it upon herself to stop Krueger's murder spree. Lagenkamp would return in Nightmare on Elm Street 3 and Wes Craven's New Nightmare.
The film offers a surreal tone that consistently blurs the line between dream and reality making for a unique and terrifying experience, the viewer never knows what to expect, quite a departure from the usual predictable slasher film.
In Krueger, Craven and Englund have fashioned a completely hideous and unforgettable villain. Far removed from the ridiculous caricature that Krueger would later evolve into in the many sequels that followed.
The film will also please gore fans as a plethora of gruesome effects are employed that far surpass those in either Halloween or Friday The 13th. The murders are very imaginatively orchestrated and original.
A Nightmare on Elm St. is a fast paced and very effective horror film that deserves to be seen. Too bad the myriad sequels failed to live up to the promise of this first outing. After this Craven would move on to more mainstream material like the mega-failure Deadly Friend and the hugely successful teen horror parody Scream.

Revolutionary Modern Classic
Director Wes Craven was inspired by a series of newspaper articles to create "A Nightmare on Elm Street." Children were suffering terrible dreams and in desperation, told their parents they were frightened of dying. Then, one by one, the kids started inexplicably dropping away.

And what better foundation to create a horror film? Craven decided that his generation's horror films weren't up to snuff, and tended toward the "slasher" genre that was becoming very popular after the release of "Halloween." He upped the ante by attacking vulnerable young people the only place they felt safe: asleep.

This is an effective and unsettling idea, and is executed with masterly precision. Craven knows how to create suspense while building strong, endearing characters the audience will actually care for. The dream sequences are put together very well, and while the special effects seem dated as compared to today's high-budget Hollywood standards, it is perhaps their gritty, slimy quality that enhances the fright factor.

Overall, the acting is fairly decent. Johnny Depp isn't quite the Johnny Depp we know and love yet, so don't get moist in the panties when you see his name. Heather Langenkamp is convincing as the innocent, virginal girl caught in a web of parental lies and secret cover-ups. But it's Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger who steals the show. Later in the "Nightmare" series, Freddy became a comedic character, and all the scariness was lost. Sure, his face became more mangled, and his style of slaughter grew sophisticated and detailed, but the true allure of the Freddy character is portrayed only in this film.

"Nightmare" revolutionized the modern horror film, and brought science fiction and horror one step closer to each other. This allowed writers and directors to take more challenging projects and demand an imagination of their audience. Like all good things, though, Freddy was sucked in by Hollywood and New Line Cinemas and turned into an absolute joke. It wasn't until the final addition to the straight-up Freddy series, "Wes Craven's A New Nightmare" that the fright and creativity was redeemed, as once again Craven took it to the next level of horror and surreality.

Not only is Craven masterful in his directing, the film is an enjoyable hoot. It's a fun and scary journey into the black heart of a ruthless serial killer -- and cultural phenomenon -- you cannot escape. ... Read more

Reviews (145)

how spy films should be done!!!!
We've seen James Bond, the Man from Uncle but Mission Impossible is the only spy film that shows how to create a real world of espionage and action.
Based on the successful 1960's series, it starts off with the impossible missions force(a group of specially qualified agents) doing a simple job of catching a traitor,who is stealing secret files of every undercover agents real identity. The team is wiped out except for Tom Cruise who becomes the number one suspect for their deaths. Using all his skills he has to prove his innocence, find the real culprit and keep one step ahead of the authorities.
The set pieces are truely dazzling, the finale on the Channel Train tunnel is absoloutly stunning and the possibly one of THE best action sequences in cinematic history.
The story never slows down for a second and although at first viewing a little confusing its still gripping stuff.
The supporting cast is fantastic from Jon Voight to Vanessa Redgrave it's very hard to criticise a film so well-thought out.
The best action-orientated espionage film since You Only Live Twice. Shame De Palma would'nt stay for the sequel.
The DVD extras are few but who cares when you've got a film this good!!!!!!

Ethan Hunt is right up there with James Bond!
"Mission Impossible" is probably one of the best spy films I've seen in a long time! Different from James Bond 007 movies, "Mission Impossible" has a clever plot, lots of twists and turns, edge-of-your seat suspense, some parts where there is witty humor, and action which would satisfy any movie lover!

Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is sent on a mission with other IMF agents Jim Phelps (John Voight), his wife Claire Phelps (Emmanuelle Beart), Sarah Davies (Kristin Scott Thomas), Jack Harmen (Emilio Estevez), and Hannah Williams (Ingeborga Dapkunaite). It's a fairly simple job in Prague, their mission is to keep surveillance on the top-secret NOC list. But everything goes wrong as the list in stolen and one by one, all of the agents are killed, leaving only Ethan alive. He then learns that the list that was stolen was actually fake, and that the whole thing was a set-up to capture a 'mole'. And since Ethan was the only one left alive, he is now the prime suspect for being the traitor. Now disavowed with a man-hunt going on for him, Ethan must find out who the real culprit is and to do that, he plans on stealing the real NOC list to bait him! With help from Claire who had not really been killed and two other disavowed agents Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames) and Franz Krieger (Jean Reno), they now have a 'mission impossible', to catch the traitor!

This is certainly a 5 star movie since it has what I think all the ingredients that are needed in a good action movie: acting, plot, action, suspense, and a bit of humor. And "Mission Impossible" has it all! But probably the two ingredients which were the most well used was the superbly written plot and the action.

The plot was pretty original, not the usual 'an evil man/group planning to take over the world' plot, but one where agents all over the world would be in danger if the NOC list isn't kept safe. Also there was plenty of mystery, surprises, and twists and turns, making the watcher actually having to think during the movie. You would actually have to watch "Mission Impossible" a few times to get the whole story.

As for the action, probably the highlights of the film are most probably the beginning where the agents are keeping surveillance on the NOC list, the breaking into the CIA computer vault, and the helicopter/train scene. My personal favorite is the breaking into the safe in the CIA safe, it was a really exciting part!

There was a sequel made after this movie, "Mission Impossible 2". Returning in the movie are of course Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt and Ving Rhames as Luther Stickell. Though it was very exciting and more action packed, the plot was very, very simple compared to the first movie and also it had a different director, John Woo, direct. All in all, an OK movie which I recommend to watch. And of course, all James Bond movies are must-sees.

Mission Declassified
Adapting a popular television series for the big screen is never an easy undertaking. Not only do you have to compete with audience expectations, but, the filmmakers also have to make it their own as well. Considering all of the rumored backstage problems, that were said to have happened while Mission Impossible was being made, it's amazing that the movie got made at all.

Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is the leader of a crack squad of intelligence operatives. When a dangerous mission in Prague goes inexplicably wrong, Hunt finds himself out in the cold. A mole has infiltrated the CIA, and suspicions are that it's Hunt. His only chance to clear his name, is to find and expose who the realmole is, and turn the tables on that person. With potential enemies all around him, it's hard to know whom he can trust. The plan takes Hunt through a series of close calls as he tries to stay one step ahead of his foes.

Anyone who has followed the career of director Brian De Palma will recognize many of his familiar trademarks. The cast is top notch. Ving Rhames as Luther, Henry Czerny as the smarmy Kittridge, Emmanuelle Béart as Claire, are just great support for Cruise. Sadly though, save for Jim Phelps (John Voight), none of the chacacters from the television series are in the film. The only other connective elemements of the show are the "Good Morning Jim...mission briefings and Lalo Schifrin's classic theme song, updated by coposer Danny Elfman. As a fan of the seies, I wish more of a direct homage were paid to what came before. The script, credited to Robert (Chinatown) Towne and David (Panic Room) Koepp, has plenty to keep the viewer guessing. But the major twist is pretty easy to spot and that's disappointing. One final problem--we don't really see The IMF work as a team all that much-- everyone's kind of scattered for too much of the film.

"Friction" between Cruise and De Palma may explain why a special edition DVD hasn't been released yet. Whatever the case may be...Mission Impossible is good enough to deserve an upgrade. As it stands now, the only extra on the current release, is the theatrical trailer. You can watch the film in either the widescreen or fullscreen formats.

de palma: cruise
Brian De Palma's (Carrie; Scarface; The Untouchables) 1996 action film starring Tom Cruise and Jon Voight is a pretty good action film. Well, once you suspend all belief. But that is what this movie is about. Putting real life on hold and believing in the impossible, the fantastic. Cruise, an excellent dramatic actor, does a great job crossing over into an action star--even with the bad haircut. Lots of cool gadgets and interesting scenarios and that great Mission: Impossible theme. And it is great to see the intimidating Ving Rhames casted as a computer genius/geek. Inspired casting.

Mission: Impossible (1996)
Director: Brian De Palma
Cast: Tom Cruise, Jon Voight, Emmanuelle Beart, Emilio Estevez, Vanessa Redgrave, Harry Czerny, Ving Rhames, Jean Reno.
Running Time: 110 minutes.
Rated PG-13 for violence and some language.

Based on the popular 1960's television series, this Brian De Palma ("Carrie", "Scarface") production possesses all of the qualities of a fun, top-of-the-line action flick--only to see it slightly crumble due to a storyline that is extremely tough to follow. Tom Cruise stars as the slick covert agent Ethan Hunt, who has been assigned with a crack team of American undercover agents to set up operations in Prague to catch a double agent (Jon Voight) in the act.

There are many scenes that are very exciting, especially the chase scene on the train finale; however, De Palma does not expand on a script that assumes the audience knows all of the technological and spy jargon, leaving us loving the action but lost in the wind. Cruise is only fairly adequate as Hunt, not given the chance to expand his character. Excellent special effects, a riveting, catchy musical score, and some fine supporting roles from Voight, Emmanuelle Beart, and Ving Rhames. A good action movie, but nothing more. Luckily director John Woo stepped in as director the second film, creating a rough-and tough, out of this world sequel that surpasses the original. ... Read more

Reviews (33)

Another review of the German DVD
If you are able to play Region 2 PAL discs (as I am), the German edition of Lost Highway on DVD is the way to go. The English soundtrack is included in Dolby 5.1, and (unlike the Canadian edition) it's in W-I-D-E-S-C-R-E-E-N. Another review of this disc convinced me to purchase a copy from Amazon.de. Surpisingly, Amazon.de recognized my Amazon.com login! And placing the order was pretty easy, even though my German is almost non-existant.

The picture and sound quality are good (though not exquisite), and the disc even has some extras - which, on Lynch DVDs, are usually scarce. The sound track does appear to be slightly out of sync with the picture, but that could be an artifact of converting PAL to NTSC on the fly. What I wouldn't give for a multi-standard widescreen monitor...

The film itself is a dark psychological study similar in many ways to David Lynch's more recent Mulholland Drive. It's about obsession, murder, guilt, secret identities, and the demons that often drive people to desparate, destructive acts. Don't try to make sense of it the first time through; just go with it. Then, on repeat viewings, look at it as a symbolic map of a man's mind stressed beyond the breaking point. Apply a little Jungian psychology, and its meaning should, if not exactly come clear, at least brush past you close enough to touch.

Lost Highway is an underrated masterpiece of psychological horror, and not to be missed by fans of David Lynch! C'mon, you can get through the German...

A Masterpiece of Crime Cinema
I'm not an audiophile nor an expert on video quality. However, I have quite a number of DVD's in my collection and this one plays just as well as any of the others. Anyone saying otherwise are maybe hoping to generate interest in a new edition of the film on DVD or something, which I certainly wouldn't be against if it contains some nice extras.

If you're already a David Lynch fan then I won't preach to the choir because you already must love this film. However, if you're new to Lynch's work, you must not expect anything 'normal' to happen. He usually breaks the rules of linear story-telling. This effort is no exception. The film, according to one theory, is one man's nightmare dreamt from inside the cell of a penitentiary, but it is time displaced and characters switch roles. The nightmare is based on what we can only assume is real events that involve the main character murdering a young woman whom he loves, but who is tied to a nefarious character named Mr. Eddy. It's hard to tell who Lynch sees as the real villain here - Mr. Eddy or the girl.

Knowing the dream/nightmare premise, though, you can stop wondering what's going on and just enjoy the ride. If you're of the Freudian psychoanalysis school of though there will be a lot to keep you focused. If not, there's still enough linear filmmaking here to keep you enthralled as in a 'normal' movie, but there's enough strange weirdness (Robert Blake's character for instance) that tips you off that this is all a really wacked out nightmare. The fact that it is probably based on actual events that the main character is remembering in the dream makes it all the more chilling.

insane Pyshc Thiller, or devilishly complex mystery
This movie left me bedazzeled for a week. After I watched it I was still trying to solve it,once i did figure it out, {i'm no dummy}, my senses were delighted

WARNING! STOP! RED LIGHT! LISTEN UP!
DO NOT BUY THIS LOST HIGHWAY IMPORT DVD! I should have trusted the other reviewer who said that the transfer quality is beyond awful because it is! Honestly, the quality of this import DVD is as bad as a poor quality bootleg DVD. There is a small strip on the left side of the picture because the picture isn't centered. The look of the picture is very poor and grainy. The sound does not even match up with the picture. I love this movie, but do yourself a favor and do NOT buy this import DVD. The VHS version not only looks better than the import DVD, but it is also in widescreen.

Lost Movie
This is my theory on David Lynch. He is either the greatest filmmaking genius of our time, or he is completly insane. Take your pick. "Lost Highway" is a very deep movie that relies almost completly on the moment, what is happening now. As a whole coherent story, it would be hopeless to try to give a synopsis. I think it is basicly a nightmare caught on film. It is not logical; the concept of time is meaningless; and characters are literally interchangeable. It is hard to say if the actors did a good job or not because a lot of what they do makes no sense, but it was designed that way. I remember reading an article where Bill Pullman said that no one knew what the story meant. I believe it. Patricia Arquette plays two women who are the same soul (I think). Bill Pullman is her husband, a paranoid man who is caught up in a mental breakdown. He literally transforms into a 19 year old mechanic in his prison cell (he was arrested for murdering his wife). Then the movie shifts over to the kid's story. He is involved with a mobster (played by Robert Loggia, who actually makes me thing he's related to Frank, the crazy Dennis Hopper character from David Lynch's "Blue Velvet"). And finally Robert Blake plays...um, well, some guy who can literally be in two places at once. He is really creepy in this movie, we're a long way from "Beretta". All I can say is that this movie is all about atmosphere and style over content, and that isn't a good thing at all. I keep thinking that Lynch will make the movie that will make all his other movies make sense. But, good luck trying to guess what it means. ... Read more

Reviews (49)

Good film, less suspenseful than dramatic
There is great tension in this film, but the suspense is less frightening than we see in some of Hitchcock's other films.

What's really great about this film is the directorial art, in visuals and timing and setups -- and the acting is fabulous. How often did we get to see Stewart really flex his dramatic muscles in so complex and potentially somewhat dark and hard character? Song or no song, Doris Day does a fine job of acting through Que Sera-Sera, and it is artfully placed and used within the film for dramatic effect. Personally, I feel and understand her predicament, even though I don't find myself as involved with the characters as I do in Rear Window. That, however, may just be me, since Rear Window is my favorite Hitchcock film -- and I find it easier to identify with Grace Kelly's character than I do with this one.

Overall, a fabulous film, worth watching. If you get past the clothes and cars, you'd never know when it was made -- personally, I don't care!

Hitchcock Sleeper Classic now on WIDESCREEN DVD!!!!
The 1956 Widescreen Color "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is a remake of Hitch's 1934 Standard Screen Black & White British version. (Hitch didn't come to the United States until 1939). As he stated, "the 1934 version was directed by an amateur and the 1956 version by a professional."

This was to be the second of 5 brilliant films made from 1954 - 1960. (the others are; Rear Window (1954), Vertigo (1958), North by Northwest (1959) & Psycho (1960)). This was Hitchcock at his best, in fact these last 4 were voted to AFI's (American Film Institute's) top 100 films in the last 100 years (1998). So you can see why "The Man Who Knew Too Much" was overlooked. A definite sleeper classic!!!

Summary: James Stewart, wife Doris Day and son are on a vacation in Morocco. They are accidently swept up in an assassination plot to occur in London. The assassin group kidnaps their son as insurance of their silence and hold him hostage. Doris Days rare dramatic role is outstanding and her singing the Oscar winning song, ("Que Sera, Sera") high light this brilliant spy thriller. Jimmy Stewarts natural acting ability (Hitchcocks favorite male actor) pulls off being Doris Days husband.

The Anamorphic Widescreen Color presentation is excellent. The "Making of - with Patricia Hitchocks (Hitch's daughter) comments is very interesting & informative.

Que Sera Sera

Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Format: Color
Studio: Universal Studios
Video Release Date: August 3, 1999

Cast:

James Stewart ... Dr. Ben McKenna
Doris Day ... Jo McKenna
Brenda De Banzie ... Lucy Drayton
Bernard Miles ... Edward Drayton
Ralph Truman ... Buchanan
Daniel Gélin ... Louis Bernard
Mogens Wieth ... Ambassador
Alan Mowbray ... Val Parnell
Hillary Brooke ... Jan Peterson
Christopher Olsen ... Hank McKenna
Reggie Nalder ... The assassin
Richard Wattis ... Assistant manager
Noel Willman ... Woburn
Alix Talton ... Helen Parnell
Yves Brainville ... Police inspector
Carolyn Jones ... Cindy Fontaine
Harry Fine ... Edington
Alex Frazer ... Man
Wolf Frees ... Aide to the foreign Prime Minister
Milton Frome ... Guard
Leo Gordon ... Chauffer
Walter Gotell ... Guard
Frank Atkinson ... Taxidermist
Bernard Herrmann ... Himself (conductor)
Alfred Hitchcock ... Man in Morocco marketplace
George Howe ... Ambrose Chappell Sr

Harold Kasket ... Butler
Barry Keegan ... Patterson
Lou Krugman ... Arab
Lloyd Lamble ... General manager of Albert Hall
Donald Lawton ... Desk clerk
Mayne Lynton ... Taxidermist
John Barrard ... Taxidermist
Edward Manouk ... French waiter
Richard Marner ... Aide to the foreign Prime Minister
John Marshall ... Butler
Lewis Martin ... Detective
Louis Mercier ... French policeman
Ralph Neff ... Henchman
Leslie Newport ... Inspector at Albert Hall
John O'Malley ... Uniformed attendant
Liddell Peddieson ... Taxidermist
Arthur Ridley ... Ticket collector
Patrick Aherne ... Handyman
Eric Snowden ... Special Branch officer
Alexi Bobrinskoy ... Foreign Prime Minister
Guy Verney ... Footman
Anthony Warde ... French policewoman
Patrick Whyte ... Special Branch officer
Peter Williams ... Police sergeant
Richard Wordsworth ... Ambrose Chappell Jr
Allen Zeidman ... Assistant manager
Clifford Buckton ... Sir Kenneth Clarke
Peter Camlin ... Headwaiter
Abdelhaq Chraibi ... Arab
Gladys Holland ... Bernard's girlfriend
Barbara Howitt ... Soloist in Albert Hall sequence
Enid Lindsey ... Lady Clarke
Janet Macfarlane ... Lady in audience
Betty Bascomb ... Edna
Elsa Palmer ... Cook
Mahin S. Shahrivar ... Arab woman
Alma Taylor ... Box office woman
Janet Bruce ... Box office woman
Naida Buckingham ... Lady in audience
Barbara Burke ... Assassin's girlfriend
Pauline Farr ... Ambassador's wife
Bess Flowers ... Woman in Hotel Lobby

On vacation in Marrakech, Morocco, Dr. Ben McKenna (James Stewart), his wife Jo (Doris Day) and their son Hank (Chrisopher Olson), meet a secret agent, Louis Bernard (Daniel Gélin) who is killed because he is in possession of a secret: a statesman is about to be assassinated in London. Before he dies, he confides in McKenna some of the details. To keep the doctor quiet, the
bad guys grab his son, Hank, and threaten his life.

This is the story as it unfolds. Hitchcock does his usual fine job of keeping up the tension, and of course Stewart and Day do their usual excellent job of acting. This is a superb thriller, and endlessly entertaining.

Joseph (Joe) Pierre

author of Handguns and Freedom...their care and maintenance
and other books

Shows that Doris Day can act
When this film was made, people were confused at the choice of Doris Day as the mother whose son is kidnapped. However, Doris Day is outstanding in this, and very convincing. She is more than just 'funny girl' actor who appeared in so many comedies.

The film does however suffer from being very dated. It starts off well, but goes pair-shaped halfway through. I'm not a fan of James Stewart, and wonder why Hitchcock used him so often. Didn't he realise that there were other actors around? He acted the same in all his films. Yawn!

The DVD is features packed. There's a "Making Of," Trailors and nice anamorphic transfer. Some reviews have criticised the transfer, but i actually think it is much cleaner than the supposedly restored "Vertigo" withDVD.

Doris Day Shines!
Alfred Hitchcock did a wonderful job on this 1935 remake of The Man Who Know Too Much. Dr. Ben McKenna, played by James Stewart, his wife, Jo (Doris Day), and their son are vacationing in French Morocco. They meet up with many suspicious charaters, but they befriend one man, played by Daniel Gelin. Their friend was a detective and was shot in front of many people while in the midst of trying to solve a case. Then the McKenna's son is kidnapped by some other "friends". The police aren't helping with the case so Ben decides to figure out who the kidnappers are by himself. This is the only Alfred Hitchcock film in which a song is sung. The song "Whatever Will Be, Will Be (Que Sera, Sera)" won an Acadamey Award. Doris Day's acting is brilliant. She really got me to feel like I was her. That my son had just been kidnapped and I could not go on living. The movie was so good that I cried because I was deeply affected by the charaters feelings and emotions. This is one of my favorite Alfred Hitchcock thirllers and one of my favorite Doris Day films. ... Read more