Reviews (156)

Did Not Want To Stop It
The movie "Odyssey" was very good. I did not want to stop it. Odysseus had a son on the same day that he was called to war. Before he left he told Penelope( his wife)that she should remarry when his son had grown a beard. He went and fought in the Trojan war for ten years and then he told the god Poisedon that he had won the war without the gods. So Poseidon curses him to roam the seas until he realizes that humans are nothing without gods. He then goes to the Island of the Cyclops but does not know that the Cyclops is there. He goes into a cave and he eats goat cheese which was common for the time. He also drinks wine and gets the Cyclops drunk. He stabs him in his one eye. Odysseus goes on to fight a witch but ends up taking her to bed. He stays with the witch for five years. He then goes to the underworld and finds the old prophet who tells him how to get to Ithaca his home. He sets out on the journey again when his ship is attacked by a three headed monster. Before he can catch his breath he is attacked by a tidal pool monster who eats the ship. Odysseus catches a branch but later falls and floats to and island with Calypso and her virgin nymphs. He stays there for two years and then goes to sea again. He sees Poisedon and tells him that he understands. Poisedon then lets him go to his home and kill all of the men who were staying there. He is soon reunited with his wife and they live happily ever after.

The Odyssey
The Odyssey

This movie was really good. It is the best movie I have seen in school. Some of my favorite characters are Athene (Isabella Rossellini), Odysseus (Armand Assante), Calypso (Vanessa Williams). The movie started off with Odysseus being called to fight in the Trojan War. It had good effects of how they hide in the horse. Odysseus ran into a lot of mythological creatures. Some of them helped him and some tried to make his trip back to Ithaca really hard. I liked the way Vanessa Williams played Calypso. She is a really good actress. I also liked the effects of Poseidon (Miles Anderson) it was really good how they had his face on the wave since he is the god of the sea. The best part to me is when Odysseus gets home and shoots the arrows through the twelve axes. I also like when Odysseus and his son fight the men who want to marry Penelope. It is really good when he hits everyone with an arrow and he hits one man going out he door to escape and the arrow goes out of the man and hits the woman I think who is suppose to take care of OdysseusÕs son. This movie was really and I hope to watch it again in school some other time.

4 gold stars
This movie was based on the epic poem by Homer. The Odyssey was a great movie. I loved the way the war was fought . The Wooden Horse was amazing. I wouldn't thought of that in a million years.The mountains in greece is rockyand the and the land was, too.They ate flat bread and the palace was open with all the animals inside it.They grew olives and made oils from it. Then Odysseus thinks that he was so clever that he could live with out the gods. So when Poseidon hears it, he cursed him so he couldn't see his home land for many years. While he is trying to get home, he meets some interesting people and islands like the Cyclopes and he out smarts it. Next he lands on another island of aeolos ,the wind god, and he tries to help him, but one of his men opens the bag and let all the wind out. Lands on the island of Circe and stays with her for five years, while he thinks it is five days. Then he goes to the underworld to find a blind prophet, sees his mother,and leaves. Meets the two creatures, one is a five headed hydra and the other is a gigantic mouth underwater. That's how the rest of his crew dies. Then lands on another island and there he meets Calypso. Stays two years ,when he leaves he sees Poseidon and he "broke" him, then he can sail homewards.

Now he lands on another island and the king of that island helps him by getting him a boat. Sails home,and sees his son, goes home, fix the contest. And the rest is history. That's is what I like the most about the story.

Wow
I think The Odyssey by Homer is a pretty good movie. The cast members look like they lived in that time period. Some of the people that played in the movie are (Armand Assante) Odysseus, (Greta Sacchi) Penelope, (Isabella Rosselini) Athene, and many more. Also the clothes they wore were authentic. Like the tunic, all the dresses, and the armor. The casting by the actors made you think that you were watching the real thing. My favorite character in the movie is Michael Pollard who played Aeolus the god of wind. During the movie they started new adventures as soon as the finished one. The movie is pretty good but is slow in some parts. After a slow part it picked back up into an action scene. It is also more historical than entertainment. They had to press the wine, sacrifice goats, heard goats, fish, make weapons, and several other things. So in conclusion I give The Odyssey four stars

A Very Interesting Movie
Hi my name is Kymberly Nicholas and I think "The Odyssey"was a very interesting movie, Especially when Odysseus went on his long interesting journey. And on his journey he came to the 3 headed creature that ate three of his men. And the witch that turned one of his men into a pig. And if you are into things that has to deal with the ocean this is just the movie for you it has some very good and nice pictures for you in it. And the food they ate was things like goatchesse,goatmeat,and goat milk. They traded the gods for a goat because the land that they lived on was very rocky and water was everywhere and they couldn't grow alot of crops. And everyday they would have something like a party when all them sit around and drink wine and watch the pretty girls dance. The type of clothes they wore, they wore these kilts and the queen had to wear something that covered half of her face. And Odysseus had been gone for 15 years and he told his wife if he wasn't back by time his son was a man that she should remarry and that what she was going to do and the man that she was going to marry had to shoot a arrow through six of these little holes things and the only one that could do it was her husband. And Athena helped him to descise hiself and after he shot the arrow he came back to his old self. and the saddest part of the movie was when his mother killed herself. ... Read more

Reviews (24)

Best Worst Movie Ever!
This movie is so bad, so stupid, that it's great. Where to start? Well, to begin with the acting. No one ever expects a movie headlined by Stallone and Russell to be a groundbreaking film. Nevertheless, their over the top cheesiness (especially Russell's) lends the film a sort of idiotic charm. Stallone's inane delivery of his lines will keep you captivated. Jack Palance even seems to up the cheese factor in his performance. Teri Hatcher is a highlight of the movie, playing Stallone's spunky sister. She plays the part of damsel in distress, but is also very clever and strong willed. (Who knew there would be a role-model for feminists in a film like this? I kid, I kid) The story is pretty cookie-cutter for an '80s action buddy film. You could almost transplant Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte into this film and it would just about have the same effect.

So, with a mediocre script and subpar acting, Tango & Cash could very well be a train wreck of a film (like any Seagal or Van Damme flick). It avoids this though, by being so tongue-in-cheek. Whether or not this is intentional can be debated. I only know that I can't help but watch this film every time it comes on!

So if you're looking for big, dumb fun, this is the flick for you!

I miss the 80's
I bought this dvd for christmas and watched it for the first time in a while. Kurt Russell steals the show from his partner and if this movie starred anybody else, then it would have came out a lot worse than it did. Russeell is Gabe Cash and Stallone is Ray Tango, the two toughest and hardest cops in the city. They have done so much damage to the crime syndicate's income that Yves Perret(a brilliant Jack Palance)has to take matters into his own hand and get the duo off the streets. They get set up and end up in a maximum security prison only to discover that if they don't escape, their is no hope for survival. This movie really owes a debt of gratitude to Harold Faltermeyer, who uses all kinds of COOL beats in his score throughout the film and keeps the viewer interested. This movie could have been longer, but I won't complain considering the action films that are being made these days are really stupid!

Stallone & Rusell - an explosive combination
I must say I'm a big fan of detective movies, and '80 were great time for that kind of films (action comedies, adventures...). We already had LETHAL WEAPON in that time, but this film really pushed the limits. Critics often say that this is a B-movie, but that is what they think. For me, this is one of the best Stallone's movies and he and Rusell are really good together as two heavy cops alway aguing and having a lot of troubles with Jack Palance, leader of some terrorist organization who send them to prison where they will meet their doom. Of course, they will win and the rest is to you to be seen. Don't listen the others who didn't like it - give your own oppinion (possitive, I hope).

A lot of fun!
I have to agree with the majority of reviews posted so far regarding this flick. I saw it when it came out in theatres (with my dad; I was just a little kid) but this movie is so cheesy that it's laughable (in a good way) and a lot of fun to watch at the same time. Very adrenaline rushing, action pact destruction and pyrotechnics best define this movie as Stallone and Russle play two cops from the East and West side who cost the local drug lord big bucks by busting all of his drug deals, so he has them framed and sent to prison. They escape of course in order to clear their names and seek retribution. You could probobly find it on VHS for a few bucks at the local pawn shop.....just don't expect Shakespeare. Appriciate it for what it is.

Plenty of Action!!
Lots of action for gals (like me!), watchin Sly and Kurt's cute buns and hot bods running through this movie- also Terri Hatcher is great for the guys to see, she can act but not dance ha ha- lots of one-liner wisecracks and great second performances- Jack Palance as a hilarious chief villain, Geoffrey Lewis (who, incidentally, didn't get listed in the credits!)Clint Howard and more! As fine of a plot as one expects for an action flick, come on, its a MOVIE!! and a mighty FUN one, at that! Two L.A. cops, rivalling for headlines & high total of drug busts, and the bad guys that try to take them out! Not to mention lots of zany characters along the way- WHY can't hollywood make a Clive Cussler Novel like this? Funny, witty, lots of action, just like its written! as the Aussie villain puts it, "Balls to plan A!!" as a "B" movie, this one gets MY vote!! Hope you have fun watching it!:) ... Read more

Reviews (40)

Smashing Through All Obstacles...
I'm a railfan -- i try to go to virtually every "train" movie that i hear about. I've seen some mediocre films ("Breakheart Pass"), some Awful Films ("The Cassandra Crossing") and some Pretty Good films ("Silver Streak") that way.

And i saw "Runaway Train" -- an Incredible Film.

With Jon Voight nominated for Both Oscar and Golden Globe (which he won) as Best Actor, and Eric Roberts nominated for both Oscar and Golden Globe as Best Supporting Actor, and featuring Rebecca deMornay in a decidedly UN-glamourous role, this is obviously not your standard action film.

And when one adds that the original screenplay was by Akira Kurosawa, one realises that this is NOT the usual Golan-Globus production at all, at all.

In brief, the story is simple -- two cons, one old and experienced and dangerous and one young, cocky and ignorant, break out of a max security prison in Alaska, hop a train headed for the Lower 48, and find themselves (along with a female railroad worker) on a hair-raising ride to nowhere on a runaway train with no brakes and no engineer.

But the performances and the nuances make this film Something Special Indeed.

Voight's portrayal of Manny, the man so dangerous that for three years his cell door was *welded* shut, is scary, compelling and sympathetic by turns. "Anything that doesn't kill me makes me stronger" is his motto.

Eric Roberts's performance as the cocky young loser, destined to spend major parts of his life inside, who can't even recognise good advice when Manny practically rubs his nose in it, is at almost the same level, and honestly deserving of the "Best Supporting" nominations he earned for it.

John P. Ryan, as Assistant Warden Rankin, Manny's antagonist and would-be nemesis, is adequate, but not up to the level of performance of Voight and Roberts.

In the end, after all of the incredible stunt work and amazing train work, after all of the violence and emotion, it comes down to two big men (Manny and Rankin) finally confronting each other, in one final test to prove which is the stronger.

Along the way, Voight, playing the existential monster to the hilt, gives us a view of a man who knows all too vividly that he long ago chose the wrong road, but also knows that there is no turning back for him.

When the girl screams at him that he is an animal, he replies "No -- Worse! Human!"

He tries to set the kid straight -- tells him that if he's smart he'll find a job flipping burgers or scrubbing toilets, and do it well and earn his pay -- "...and, if you could do that, you could be President of the United States." But the kid knows better -- he wonders why this big tough guy is talking such nonsense; and he doesn't hear the longing in Manny's voice.

And the final confrontation and the end -- after one last, horrifying and exhilirating stunt sequence -- is exactly what the film needs for its perfect conclusion; as exhilirating and appropriate in its way as the end of "Thelma & Louise" or of "Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid".

Be warned -- this is a brutally, horrifyingly violent film (i spent a lot of time wincing and cringing, reacting in a way that most film violence doesn't bother me), and the language used, while probably somewhat less graphic than actual cons would use, is not for Little Old Ladies.

Add in the Almost Perfect portrayal of railroading (there is one major departure from the way a real railroad would Do Things, but it's necessary for the film to work, and it *could* happen, i suppose), some incredible cinematography, and generally perfect design and execution of sets and costume, and you have got one incredible film experience; a thrill ride you will NOT soon forget.

((Knowing that Kurosawa wrote the original screenplay and had intended to make this film himself, i kept trying to guess whether Manny or Rankin would have been played by Toshira Mifune...))

Entertaining From The Get Go
when i first heard of this movie i thought a movie that is an hour and fifty minutes that is based on a train i thought i can get pretty boring after awhile, but as it turns out i was very wrong. Jon Voight plays a man just released from the hole (inside a prison) after three of being in it and is accompanied by Julia's brother Eric Roberts in this thrilling tale about two men breaking out of prison and catching a ride on a train which quickly becomes out of control. Voight is amazing as the title role and really shows his acting skills in this all out preformance. Roberts plays his part well but no comparison to Voight. Some memorable lines i feel came out of this movie such as when Rebecca DeMorney says "Your an animal" Voight replys "No, Worse. I'm Human." an outstanding movie with some violent scenes definatly worth watching

High drama and intensity
Jon Voight's riveting performance and his battle onboard the train with a prison warden are the most compelling moments in this otherwordly movie about escaped convicts and a railroad employee on a runaway train headed for disaster in the Alaskan wilderness. This film begins with a prison riot -- filmed at an actual prison in Alaska -- and the white hot pace never lets up for a moment...until the closing scene where Voight takes the engine to oblivion.

Along the way, viewers are treated to one of Voight's best performances since "Midnight Cowboy". The cast is comprised of character actors Eric Roberts and John P. Ryan in significant roles with sexpot Rebecca De Mornay playing the railroad employee on board the runaway with convicts Voight and Roberts. They stir up a lot of mayhem running through a red light and crashing with another train and going over a rickety bridge about 100 MPH before facing the inevitable when they are pushed onto a siding with only a fatal end in sight.

This movie has an extraordinarily high intensity level comparable to another great train movie, 1974's "The Taking of Pelham One-Two-Three". The intensity and drama never relents throughout the 111 minutes of screen time. The script isn't much and the plot is lean but the action, violence and high voltage footage will keep you locked to the screen during this most exciting movie.

A MUST-SEE!!!
A beautiful movie - this is beyond action...

Childhood memories.....
I remember watching this movie when I was 10/11 years old. It was mesmorizing then, and it still is now. While I do not yet own the DVD, today I was able to catch this wonderful film on cable...and it was so good! John Voigt and cast put in such a great performance. The drama is very riveting and the final scenes of the movie make one actually shiver. It's a haunting and chilling tale....and an albeit sad one. There are so many good themes riding along throughout: the meaning of freedom, friendship, the beauty of winter. I highly recommend this movie. You won't be disappointed! ... Read more

Description

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

Reviews (9)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon.com

Splicing scenes featuring his protagonist, Ivan (John Savage, The Deer Hunter), among excerpted interviews with real soldiers from John Huston's landmark World War II documentary Let There Be Light, director Andrei Konchalovsky brilliantly sets the stage for a morally ambiguous tale of a war hero's return home to a small town. Disappointingly, the opening of Maria's Lovers promises much more than it ultimately delivers. Ivan has survived the tortures of a Japanese POW camp by continually dreaming of his childhood sweetheart Maria (Nastassja Kinski). When he returns to find her with a boyfriend and a grown-up libido, Ivan can't reconcile his guardian vision with the real Maria. Even as she declares her love for him and they hastily marry, Ivan's nightmares intervene. In short, Ivan can't perform. Minor roles for Robert Mitchum and Keith Carradine (as a ridiculous wandering minstrel who seduces Maria after Ivan flees in shame) seem wasted on a melodramatic script that often sounds as if it was poorly translated into English. The nostalgic scenery of Brownsville, Pennsylvania, (rolling fog, river ferries, careening factories) is compelling, as is Kinski (who is at her most seductive and downright breathtaking), but Konchalovsky's affection for his characters and their landscape cannot surpass his stilted vision of America. --Fionn Meade ... Read more

Amazon.com

Schemes and double-crosses abound in The Lion in Winter, the storyof England's King Henry II (Patrick Stewart, Star Trek: The Next Generation,X-Men) as he manipulates (and is counter-manipulated) by his wife,Eleanor of Aquitaine (Glenn Close, Dangerous Liaisons, FatalAttraction), and their three ambitious sons, each of whom hopes toascend to the throne. The ghost of the 1968 film version hangs over this2003 miniseries; Stewart and Close can't match Peter O'Toole andKatherine Hepburn in that classic. Nonetheless this new version is solidwork, and though the witty dialogue verges into camp, the script'scunningly orchestrated machinations work like a charm, drawing the viewerin with every fiendish ploy and overturned expectation. Also featuringJonathan Rhys-Meyers (Velvet Goldmine, Bend It Like Beckham)as the King of France. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Was this remake really necessary
In a world which sees more and more remakes - some classics are better left alone. This is one of them. Glenn Close is no Katherine Hepburn and that's probably the major weakness of this remake although Patrick Stewart isn't a Peter O'Toole either. The image of Jean-Luc Picard keeps popping up and you keep expecting him to utter something like "Make it so, Number One" at any moment.

The original also gave us a pre-James Bond Timothy Dalton as Phillip of France in a vastly underrated performance. And let's not forget Anthony Hopkins as Richard.

Historically, if this movie were to be made with any accuracy it would feature French actors instead of English ones since French was the language spoken by Henry and his family. It's highly unlikely any of them - including Richard and John - spoke much if any English, so if its going to be re-done, perhaps utilizing French actors is the answer.

Meanwhile, pop in your DVD of the O'Toole/Hepburn original and if you're wondering which version to purchase - go with the original.

But Why?
To be sure, the reasoning behind many of today's films defies understanding. This one is no exception.

Although the main stars all give adequate performances, and the screenplay is exactly the same as the original, the question remains. Why remake one of the finest films of all time? Who could have possibly thought there was room for improvement? Why not remake Casablanca or Citizen Kane while we're at it?

Again, I fault not the actors in this treatment, for they all did fine jobs - if pale by comparison to the originals. My problems with this film stem with the powers that be who decided to produce it in the first place.

Slight correction
One correction for a previous review. JULIE Harris was not in the Broadway production of "Lion In Winter". It was another wonderful actress, ROSEMARY Harris.

One other interesting piece of casting, it was an early role for Christopher Walken as the King of France.

Two and a half hours of pure delight and intrigue ...
I was certainly a pleasant surprise that this fast paced (not in action to be sure) intellectual game of intrigue and give and take could keep my solid attention for the full movie. The viewers attention is required to keep track of the plot twists and turns as we see King Henry sparring with his wife Elanor and his three woebegotten sons in the hills of France.

The greatest thing about this movie is that it depicts an interpretation of the life and times of King henry II, Richard and of course Prince John, an era that I have always felt were taken hostage by Shakespeare and Arthur and the knights of the round table......

Certainly a great depiction/interpretation of historical value that would, for me in any case, be too troublesome to read.

I do give the viewer fair warning without any intellectual snobbery intended. The story is complex and chacrter development is long but thorough .... The action is of course limited and most, if not all the movie takes place on the set of the castle..... Unless you enjoy this type of human chess game, oddds are that you'll walk out after the first half hour ...

A relatively light weight production of Goldman's drama
It is impossible for me to watch this Showtime remake of "The Lion in Winter" starring Glenn Close and Patrick Stewart without constantly comparing it to the 1968 theatrical film with Katharine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole. That was the first Hepburn film I ever saw and the way she delivers James Goldman's great lines (my favorite would be "I could peel you like a pear and God himself would call it justice!") is forever etched in my brain.

However, I also think that it is clear that the specter of the original film hangs over the entire cast of this production. By that I mean that it seems like every single memorable line from the play (and there are literally dozens) is delivered in a decidedly different way. Specifically, Close plays Eleanor of Aquitaine as being much more emotional, which is rather ironic given that her ex-husband, the late King of France, is described as being a weeper. This means that when Eleanor has what should be her final emotional collapse at the end of the film, it is really just another in what has been a series of emotional moments. As for Stewart, his Henry II tends to underplay all of the key moments. It certainly seems that every time O'Toole engages in bluster and bombast, Stewart goes quiet, bordering on a whisper. Again, I can only conclude that these were conscious choices because they stand out so boldly against the original film version.

This is not to say that I am against new productions of the play. I would have loved to have seen Robert Preston and Julie Harris on Broadway or the Roundabout Theater production starring Laurence Fishburne and Stockard Channing. But Stewart and Close make choices, obviously endorsed by director Andrei Konchalovsky, that remove much of the fire from Goldman's brilliant dialogue. For those who have never seen a production of "The Lion in Winter" they may get a sense of the high quality of the drama, but I do not believe they get the complete picture.

"The Lion in Winter" takes place during Christmas 1183, when Henry II, King of England, summons family to his castle in Chinon, France. At issue is the question of who will be Henry's successor to the English throne. Henry wants his youngest son, John (Rafe Spall), while Eleanor supports their eldest surviving son, Richard the Lionheart (Andrew Howard), which leaves middle son Geoffrey (John Light, in what I think is the best performance because I like his spin on the character). Also along for the ride are Henry's mistress, Alais Capet (Yuliya Vysotskaya), who is supposed to marry the heir, and her brother, Philip (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), the young King of France.

The chief attraction here is that while Henry and the rest play out their power games through a series of confrontations, feints, compromises, and sudden reversals they are delivering their lines with an extraordinary level of insight, wit, and irony. That is, of course, provided they are delivered so as not to undercut the power of the lines. The confrontations between Henry and Eleanor are supposed to be a clash of heavyweights and the cast here is dropping down in weight class. ... Read more

Amazon.com

It takes place during the Russian-Chechen war, but House of Fools has the aura of the 1960s about it, specifically the anti-war picture of the King of Hearts variety. Set in a mental hospital near the front lines, the movie poses the age-old question:what happens when the inmates take over the asylum? The doctors have fled from the fighting, so the patients create their own society. Julia Vysotsky, a livewire actress, plays the central role, a blissfully unbalanced woman convinced she is the girlfriend of the singer Bryan Adams (and, game for the challenge, Adams plays himself, endlessly crooning his hit "Have You Ever Really Loved a Woman"). Director Andrei Konchalovsky (Runaway Train) finds suspense here, and also absurdity, but it's hard to see what the film adds to the roster of "war is hell" movies. The conflict in Chechnya deserves attention, but Konchalovsky overstates his case. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (6)

The Bets Movie of 2002
This film deserved an Oscar but as always the academy does a horrible job at giving credit where it is deserved. This movie is one of the best anti war movies of the last 40 years it is on par or above such classics as "Full Metal Jacket" but just below "Apocalyps Now", it really is a great movie to watch and enjoy. Filled with symbolism and Fellinian characters that you cannot help but laugh and cry with them on this crazy journey. It makes a stronger case against war since you really see the absurdity of it all and how people become entagled in a vicious circle of death and absurdity. The ending is very symbolic as a soldier finds salvation in embracing the crazies since they are the only ones sane and humane in a crazy world.
P.S. The other two guys whom gave this movie 4 out of 5 stars really need to expand their cinematographic understanding and familiarity with good movies because this movie is not on par with loosers like "As good as it gets", I saw their reviews. Its like saying that Steven King is on the same level with Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, big error.

Mad Good!
what can i say? this is one of the most odd and amazing and beautiful and gorgeous movies i have ever seen!! With its beauty and literal insanity all rolled into a Russian film, you will find yourself moving from emotion to emotion. Try to catch it on tv (as i have done) and wait to buy it later because, honestly, $73.00?? that;s a little much. but you definitely need to see this Russian treasure!

Awesome.
Excellent film. Everything from the story line to acting is absolutely outstanding. In fact, I have a really hard time coming up with something negative to say... The only thing that I can pick at is the scene where a helicopter falls to the ground - it was obvious that the fall was staged. But other than that small technical nitpicking, it's an awesome film.

An exquisite, hauntingly beautiful Russian masterpiece
I come to this review with as much humility as I can muster, knowing that I cannot possibly - no matter how many fantastic things I say about this Russian movie - truly do it justice. House of Fools is a flat-out masterpiece, in my opinion. Some critics express dissatisfaction with the film, and I believe their dissatisfaction stems from a desire, be it conscious or unconscious, to make this film "say" what they want or expect it to say. Thus, some criticize the movie for a failure to truly examine or perfectly satirize a problematic war; some say the film is too disjointed to adequately express any kind of serious message; some seem disappointed this isn't some sort of reborn King of Hearts; others call it pretentious and over-done. I personally carried very little baggage with me into this film, which allowed me to let the film communicate whatever it wanted to communicate to me. Certainly, warfare is central to the story and there are scenes that wonderfully depict the horror and inanity of war, but House of Fools is so much more than an anti-war movie. This is a story about nothing less than the heart of humanity itself, and I believe multiple viewings would impart an almost limitless number of emotional epiphanies for the serious viewer.

The background for this powerful motion picture is the war in Chechnya in 1996. We meet the residents of a Chechen psychiatric hospital (oblivious to the war being waged outside their protected walls) just before their ordered, insulated lives change forever, and each of the many characters touches your heart in some way. Of course, none grab the viewer's attention as forcefully as Janna (Julia Vysotsky). Janna can at times seem quite sane, and the care and love she has for those around her can easily be seen in everything she does. She is always quick to help out, shares a strong bond with even the most uncommunicative of patients, and in no small way holds the group together with her beautiful attitude, ethereal charm, and spirited accordion-playing. When conflict or trouble rears its head, she reaches for her accordion, and we are provided a glimpse into her own momentary vision of everyone enjoying themselves as she plays; of course, reality intervenes all too quickly, but her kind-hearted efforts normally do help ease the tension. Janna is clearly delusional, though; she has a veritable shrine to singer Bryan Adams in her room and believes she is his fiancée. Clearly, I wasn't expecting Bryan Adams cameos in a Russian film, but these segments of the film are masterfully done.

One night, the splendidly-lit train that the patients all love to watch does not come, and the next morning the hospital staff is gone. The institution quickly becomes a radically different place, and the patients have little choice but to stay there when war finally knocks on the door in the most unmistakable of ways. Chechen forces eventually take over the hospital, treating the patients in quite a humane manner. One of these soldiers jokingly asks Janna to marry him after she plays and dances for the men, not realizing that Janna would take his offer seriously. We watch her undergo the agony of saying goodbye to her friends even as they transform her through clothes and makeup into a strikingly beguiling young woman. From here on out, the movie really pulls on the old heart-strings. Janna is as endearing a character as I have come across in a long, long time. While her troubled state of mind continues to reveal itself more and more emotionally, we can do nothing but helplessly watch her endure heartache, pain, and numb terror in the face of spiritual as well as military warfare.

This was Julia Vysotsky's first starring role, and I personally would give her any best actress award she asked for. Some critics feel as if she did not truly blossom into the role or succeed in giving it the depth it required; these are obviously some of the most demanding people on the planet, as I don't think any actress could have given a better performance than Vysotsky delivered in this film. House of Fools did win some prestigious awards, and rightly so. At the Venice Film Festival, it took home the jury grand prize. It was also Russia's official submission for consideration by the Academy Awards in the Foreign Language category, but the Academy did not nominate it for the award (proving once again how capricious and questionable Academy Award nominations can be). I don't know if this was the best foreign language film of the year or not, but I can't possibly understand how House of Fools did not merit nomination.

Just as I suspected, I have not been able to communicate at all satisfactorily my sense of the power, exquisite beauty, and poignant grace of this film. A number of scenes remain vivid in my mind: for example, the meeting of opposing Russian and Chechen leaders in which the two discover a strong bond from the past, as well as the scene in which Janna states that we are all alive because someone somewhere is praying for us. As far as I am concerned, writer and director Andrei Konchalovsky - a name already familiar to Western audiences - is a cinematic genius, Julia Vysotsky is one of the most impressive young actresses in the world today, and House of Fools is a film that all who love movies and hold them up to the highest of standards should see and experience.

Great Russian Import
"House of Fools" deserving received an Oscar nomination for 2002's Best Foreign Film. It combines war action, drama, and fantasy wonderfully. The plot was written beautifully. They desplict the true story of a woman staying in a mental institution while in the middle of the Russian-Chechian War. Her high spirits are the only hopes of everyone else's survival. The writer's creative side shines in the scenes of her dreams about Bryan Adams. The creates another war: her love for Bryan Adams vs. her newfound love for a war soldier. Such conflicts combine as one brilliantly. Yuliya Vysotskaya, the lead actress, played her role emotionally. She could become a worldwide success someday with such level of talent. All other actors also played their roles wonderfully. The special effects in the war fighting scenes were created realistic looking. The elaborate scenes desplict the realisms of war gruesomeness. This allows the characters' deathly fears to be expressed much more. Such movie quality makes "House of Fools" worth watching. Many will enjoy this regardless of genre favorite. ... Read more