Amazon.com

By any rational measure, Alan Parker's cinematic interpretation of Pink Floyd: The Wallis a glorious failure. Glorious because its imagery is hypnotically striking, frequently resonant, and superbly photographed by the gifted cinematographer Peter Biziou. And a failure because the entire exercise is hopelessly dour, loyal to the bleak themes and psychological torment of Roger Waters's great musical opus, and yet utterly devoid of the humor that Waters certainly found in his own material. Any attempt to visualize The Wall would be fraught with artistic danger, and Parker succumbs to his own self-importance, creating a film that's as fascinating as it is flawed.

The film is, for better and worse, the fruit of three artists in conflict--Parker indulging himself, and Waters in league with designer Gerald Scarfe, whose brilliant animated sequences suggest that he should have directed and animated this film in its entirety. Fortunately, this clash of talent and ego does not prevent The Wall from being a mesmerizing film. Boomtown Rats frontman Bob Geldof (in his screen debut) is a fine choice to play Waters's alter ego--an alienated, "comfortably numb" rock star whose psychosis manifests itself as an emotional (and symbolically physical) wall between himself and the cold, cruel world. Weaving Waters's autobiographical details into his own jumbled vision, Parker ultimately fails to combine a narrative thread with experimental structure. It's a rich, bizarre, and often astonishing film that will continue to draw a following, but the real source of genius remains the music of Roger Waters. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (323)

Same as the last DVD release but still a great film
If you are a fan of this film, as I am, please note that this release is an exact duplicate of the last DVD release but with new packaging.The documentaries are worth the price of the disc alone, as they are excellent.A great transfer of a great film.

As a side note to "Der Kommissar", the last I heard, we have freedom of speech in this country.So, I am mentioning your "review" in my own and there is nothing you can do about it.I could care less if you are a "top reviewer" or not - never presume to tell me what I can or can't do again.Who the hell do you think you are?

New but....whats new?
I did notice a clearer picture overall when comparing it to the first DVD release, since it does say high definition. As far as audio is concerned...havent ran it on a legitimate 5.1 or better system to compare the audios...email me if anyone knows if this new version is remastered, again?

jorgejz@bellsouth.net

Greatest Rock Movie Ever!!!
Pink Floyd is the greatest band ever and the wall is one of their best albums. The movie is not for everyone though. If you don't like Pink Floyd then you probably won't dig the movie. But if you like Pink Floyd, you will definetly like the movie.

Respectable
I am a long-time fan and follower of The Floyd, their music has touched me in a way that no other band has. My favorite works by them are Dark Side, Animals, and Meddle. The Wall is an amazing story more than it is an album. Although it is great, it is not really a Floyd album to me, because it lacks the greatest asset that floyd has to offer: the epicly symphonic pieces of rock music. (excepting Comfortably Numb). The album was made to be listened to by yourself in a dark room. The story is meant to be composed by you, in your head. It is supposed to be meaningful to you in your own head. You deserve to have your own interpretation of it. The Wall is a good movie by movie terms, but it goes against everything that the Wall stood for. The album is ofcourse, asking for a movie like this, but it is much better for the movie to just be in your head, not spoonfed to you by the screen. If you want the quintessential Floyd movie, sync up the Wizart of Oz with Dark side of the Moon, and you will see the Floyd for what they really are.

A horrible disappointment and mangling of The Wall
I just watched this movie this afternoon for the first time and I was truly stunned and blown away with how absolutely abysmally horrid this movie is.What makes it truly unbearable is that in addition to just being a bad movie in the first place, the actual music of The Wall is distorted and re-recorded in such a horrible way -- for example, the actor who plays the teacher says "Stand still, laddie!" instead of the original recording, and says it very badly and unconvincingly. ... Read more

Amazon.com

After more than a decade of false starts and several potential directors, the popular Andrew Lloyd Webber/Tim Rice musical finally made it to the big screen with Alan Parker (The Commitments) at the helm and Madonna in the coveted title role of Argentina's first lady, Eva Perón. A triumph of production design, costuming, cinematography, and epic-scale pageantry, the film follows the rise of Eva Perón to the level of supreme social and political celebrity in the 1940s.Like Madonna, Perón was a material girl (she was only 33 when she died); she was instrumental in the political success of her husband, Juan Perón (Jonathan Pryce). But Eva was also a supremely tragic figure whose life was essentially hollow at its core despite the lavish benefits of her nearly goddess-like status. The film has a similar quality--it's visually astonishing but emotionally distant, and benefits greatly from the singing commentary of Ché (Antonia Banderas), who serves as a passionate chorus to guide the viewer through the elaborate parade of history. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (168)

A great adaptation of the stage musical
Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber's and Tim Rice's musical telling of the life of Eva Peron successfully makes the leap from stage to screen. Alan Parker ably directs a fine cast, which includes Antonio Banderas as Ché, Jonathan Pryce as Juan Peron, and Madonna as Eva Peron. The acting and the voice work are very good, and Madonna surprises you with her talent.

The music is equally wonderful, keeping the rock opera feel of the original stage show. Also, the new song "You Must Love Me," written by Sir Andrew and Tim Rice, flows nicely with the original music and won a deserved Academy Award for Best Original Song.

Costumes, acting, sets, visuals and music all combine to create a great movie experience. A note of caution to some, though: this is sung through with very little spoken dialoque. I remember seeing this in the theater and listening to some people complain about it and walk out of the movie. Stick with it, and you will definitely enjoy it!!

Flawed, but still excellent, adaptation.
Watching the movie of Evita was my first real experience with the musical, and that puts it in a different light for me, I suppose, than with many others. The points I make, though, I still think are valid.

The casting of this movie was quite good...the stars of the show pulled off their roles magnificently. Antonio Banderas, in the lead as the narrator, Ché, sung surprisingly well. He also acted out the part superbly. While he's no Colm Wilkinson, there's an undeniable charm to his portrayal. Even with the abbreviated material he's given to work with, he pulls it off with style, which says something for a role with magnificent performances by Colm and by David Essex. He's not vocally better than either, but he plays the part to a T, and his songs seem HONEST. Also, he's a better Ché than Mandy Patinkin, but I suppose anybody who tried to actually play the part would be.

Madonna is the surprise of this movie. She sings quite well, and given the rock feel of the show, is fairly appropriate for the part of Eva Peron. She's also visually very similar to photographs of Eva, and looks very convincing after the scenes where she is supposed to be young. However...the point of the musical is that Eva Peron is a manipulative (rhymes with witch). Madonna scared me here by seeming VERY sympathetic to her character. Still, her performance is excellent, if not up to Antonio Banderas's. Jonathan Pryce put in an outstanding performance as Peron, too.

A caveat emptor: the musical was actually made less harsh for the movie version, so that it could be filmed in Argentina. It was very nearly worth it...not entirely, mind you, and the addition of "You Must Love Me" seemed entirely out of place in a musical about a man and a woman who mutually USE each other. Still, her "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" was manipulative to the audience just as the speech was meant to be to the crowd. And the two Ché tours de force, "Oh What a Circus" and "High Flying, Adored" are more or less in tact, and done wonderfully. The re-adaptation of "The Lady's Got Potential" was excellent, and "And the Money Kept Rolling In" was toned down a lot, but Banderas had a LOT of fun in the number.

The movie's worth seeing if you like Evita, or are thinking you might be getting into it. Don't watch for Madonna's big numbers, watch for her and Banderas performing, for once, like they really mean it.

Madonna did fine...admit it!
Don't Cry for me Argintina was the song that got me into musicals and so I have always loved Evita. In my opinion Madonna did quite an excellent job playing Eva. Most of you have a problem with her because she is Madonna. I am not a fan of what she does outside this movie, but I will defend her performance in this movie. She was not off-key at all and I have never heard Elaine Paige or anyone else sing "Don't Cry for me Argintina" with such emotion and clearness. She was Eva standing up singing that song. "You must Love Me" was another beautiful song that I have never heard been done better. When I heard Elaine Paige wailing these two songs on PBS I had to shut it off, she wasn't bad and she is a good singer, but when it comes to Evita no one can top Madonna. This movie was unfotunately hammered by critics and got a bad wrap.

Don't Cry For Us at the Ocars
Now first let me state that this one of my favorite movies. I have also researched into the life of Eva Peron. The movie is about 95% true. Madonna stars in movie as the title role of Evita. This movie is the story of Argentina's former first lady, Eva Peron. This film starts from the end and then goes from beginning to end. It shows how she went to Buenos Aires with a tango singer. It shows hows Eva took on lovers to get jobs, and even helped her husband, who is played by Jonathan Pryce, get the presidency for 2 terms. She and her husband did have 2 weddings, one was in a church and one was a civil ceremony. Eva also traveled while she was first lady. She got woman the right to vote. She also did start a foundation. She did help build houses, hopitals, and schools. When her husband went for his 2nd term as president, the people rallied for her to be vice-president. Eva Peron did had many Christain Dior, over 100 furs, and a jewelry collection comparable to Cleopatra's. Sadly, Evita died when she was just 33, of uterine cancer. This movie won some Acadmeny awards and a gloden globe, I believe

Wonderful to watch but unfulfilling
One of the interesting sidelights to this movie is the fact that Oliver Stone wrote part of the screenplay. While watching it I kept wondering what part? Stone, whose edgy, over the top indictments of oppression, corruption and especially military stupidity, wouldn't seem to be one to celebrate the elevation of Eva Peron to something close to sainthood, which is what this movie does. Maybe all his work ended up on the cutting room floor. Or maybe it was obscured by Andrew Lloyd Webber's music. Certainly we do not see the decamisados (Peron's version of his friend Mussolini's Blackshirts) torturing anyone, and although the "disappeared" are mentioned in passing, there is no retrospective that allows us to see just how widespread and horrific were the murders committed by the Peronists.

Anyway, Madonna, who certainly fits the part like a glove, stars as Evita, and she gives the performance of her life. Yet somehow it is unconvincing, or I should say, somehow the film doesn't really get to the essence of the woman who rose from poverty to the pinnacle of power in Argentina, a woman extravagantly loved by the common people of Argentina even while she was a party to the fascist oppression. I don't think this is Madonna's fault. Her voice is good, not great, of course, but her dramatic skills are very much in evidence, skills that have always been underrated, although I'm not sure why. If you watch her in this and in Desperately Seeking Susan (1985) you can see that she has a range easily exceeding that of most actresses. I think that ironically it is the very quality of common origin and common appeal that the Argentines so loved in Evita that the critics hold against Madonna.

Antonio Banderas plays Che, who narrates and attempts to objectify the events while symbolizing both Evita's alter-ego and the man who would really be her proper mate were it not for her rapacious political appetite. Che's character and his dramatic role (from the play by Tim Rice) is perhaps the most important artistic achievement of the musical after Webber's beautiful and inspiring music. Banderas is winning and enormously vivid in the part, and he sings well and expressively.

Jonathan Pryce plays Peron with more dignity and humanity than history might allow. His sensitivity as an actor combined with a modest demeanor seemed to me so unrealistic as to be almost a miscasting. Yet he is perhaps as compelling as anyone on the screen and he certainly looked the part. Interesting is Jimmy Nail as the cabaret singer Magaldi. He combines sleazy good looks with a kind of vulnerable persona that seems exactly right.

Well, what can be said about the music except that it is one of Webber's great triumphs and so very typical of his work. It is beautiful, stirring, moving, enchanting and memorable. Who can forget the haunting, plaintive refrain of "Don't Cry for Me, Argentina" or the gorgeous simplicity of "You Must Love Me"? While Madonna's voice would not fill up a concert hall or take her by itself to the Broadway stage, she does an outstanding job with Webber's songs. A natural performer (Madonna's key talent), her expressive interpretations range from the ordinary to the transfixing. I very much enjoyed her efforts and predict that critics in the future will be kinder to her than today's critics.

The ending seemed too drawn out and then when the screen faded to black and the credits began to run it seemed almost abrupt and without resolution. I also did not like the way that Madonna (38 at the time) seemed no younger in the earlier scenes with her hair dyed pitch black. I think director Alan Parker should have given us more of an illusion of youth, perhaps spared her some of the closeups and fuzzed out the lines under her eyes. Strange how the golden blonde hair and exquisitely applied makeup in the remainder of the film made her look younger. All directors should know what Madonna learned many years ago: blonde hair usually makes a woman look younger because those with naturally light-colored hair are their blondest as children. Like big eyes and relatively big heads, blonde hair is a signal of youth that arrests our eyes.

Despite the flaws this is an engrossing cinematic experience, and for Madonna fans, Banderas fans, and in particular fans of Andrew Lloyd Webber, it is a film not to be missed. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe star in this well-intentioned and largely successful civil rights-era thriller. Mississippi Burning, using the real-life 1964 disappearance of three civil rights workers as its inspiration, tells the story of two FBI men (Hackman and Dafoe, entertainingly called "Hoover Boys" by the locals) who come in to try to solve the crime. Hackman is a former small-town Mississippi sheriff himself, while Dafoe is a by-the-numbers young hotshot. Yes, there is some tension between the two. The movie has an interesting fatalism, as all the FBI's best efforts incite more and more violence, which becomes disturbing--the film's message, perhaps inadvertently, seems to be that vigilantism is the only real way to get things done. The brilliant Frances McDormand, here early in her career, is not given enough to do but still does it well enough to have racked up an Oscar® nomination for Best Supporting Actress. (Hackman also received a nomination for Best Actor, and the film won an Academy Award for Cinematography). The story line of Mississippi Burning is ultimately unsatisfying--it is, after all, the story of white men coming in to rescue poor blacks--but it is beautifully shot and very watchable and features a terrific cast playing at the top of their games. --Ali Davis ... Read more

Reviews (36)

SCINTILLATING HISTORY LESSON (AND A GREAT SUSPENSE THRILLER)
A gut-wrenching thriller from start to finish, the movie's breakneck pace is akin to any topnotch suspense movie of our time, while managing an excellent depiction of the 1960's civil rights struggle in the US as well.

Despite its theme's sombre contours the film never gets all preachy about the subject. Gene Hackman is picture perfect although his vigilante FBI loose-cannon role occasionally gets a bit far-fetched. A salon scene between him and one of the rogue cops who moonlight as members of Ku-Klux-Klan will remain in your memory for a long time.

The racism theme may appear a bit dated to viewers of this generation, but it is integral to the theme (as it was to the actual civil war.) Plus, let's not forget that the movie was made in 1988, and watching it now I still couldn't help getting touched by the identifiable theme. Frankly, I don't really understand what racially oriented quibbles reviewers have with the movie -- this is not some drummed up theme, this is ACTUALLY what happened in Mississippi.

A taut, absorbing, and worthwhile film that you must watch if you haven't already.

Powerful Drama
Mississippi Burning is griping and powerful civil rights era drama that is based on real life events. Three civil rights workers (two white, one black) are missing and feared dead. They were last sceen in a small Mississippi town. The FBI sends down a team of agents led by Willem Dafoe and Gene Hackman. Mr. Dafoe is a young, idealistic agent while Mr. Hackman is one time small town Mississippi sheriff with alot views on how the case should be handled. The two bang heads, before they eventually come to a common ground. The town is segregated and the Ku Klux Klan runs rampant. The film's graphic depiction of racism and hatred is disturbing. It is difficult to image that something this grotesque and reviling could happen in this country, but it unfortunately did. Francis McDormand is the wife of Brad Dourif who is town's deputy sheriff. Despite the fact her husband is knee deep in the missing kids situation and is a hateful and violent man, she rises above it and shows compassion to her fellow man. There is alot of sexual tension between her and Mr. Hackman and it adds a calming touch to the turbulent surroundings. Mississippi Burning is a film that is movie making at it's best. It comments on society, makes you think, educates you and in the end entertains.

The Racial Divide
The filmography of director Alan Parker is an eclectic one. His work covers a large spectrum of genres and themes. This diversity allows Parker to keep his career fresh and invigorated Of course, lots of directors do the same thing, but, Parker is truly diverse. One minute he can do the controversial and very complex Angel Heart, then switch gears to do a lighthearted film, like The Commitments. In 1988's Mississippi Burning, Parker was lucky enough to get a superb cast, willing to tackle some tough material.

When three civil rights activists 2 whites and one black, are murdered in the middle of the night, the small Mississippi town becames a cauldron of racial tension. Two FBI agents are soon dispatched to investigate. Soon the veteran Anderson (Gene Hackman) and his green around the gills by the book partner Ward (Willem Dafoe), find themselves at odds with many of the town's citizens and each other. As the case boils over, the two agents must overcome their differences to solve the case before the town is torn apart.

Parker sucessfully recreates the look and feel, of a small town in 1964, gripped in the throws of a turbulent time in U.S. history. You get a real sense of what it must have been like at that time. Once again Hackman proves why he is a master at his craft. As Anderson, he gives one of his most complex performances, offerng a multifaceted character study. Like in so maany of Hackman's films, he can turn on a dime, portraying a guy that's charming but with a darker side...Da Foe is nicely matched against Hackman in the film. He gives one of his best performances as well. The supporting players, R. Lee Ermy, Brad Dourif, and Frances McDormaand, really shine too. I don't think there's a rotten apple in the entire film

The latest DVD improves only slightly, over the movie only disc, as far as the extras are concerned. While I really enjoyed Parker's audio commentary, aside from the theatrical trailer, I found myself really curious to hear from others who worked on the film. Those ommisions really gnawed at me. Still, Mississippi Burning shows us just how far we have come when dealing with racism...and reminds how far both sides still need to go before it is defeated.

It's worth it to see Hackman do his thing on that alone. All the other good stuff about the movie appears as icing on the cake.

A powerful indictment of Democratic Party's past sins
This film reminds us of the horrors that the Southern Democrats inflicted upon African Americans. As Wayne Perryman reminds us in his book, "Unfounded Loyalties",

"One party and their abolitionist supporters believed the Bible instructed them to lay down their lives for the slaves, the other party and their supporters believed the Bible gave them the right to take the lives of blacks if they rebelled against being slaves.

"On the issue of slavery, one party and its supporters gave their lives to expand it (to Northern states) and the other party and their supporters gave their lives to ban it.

"One party was heavily influenced by the Abolitionists and the radical wing of their party ... and the other party was influenced by the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist groups.

"One party and its supporters started the Freedman's Bureau and other programs to help build communities for blacks, the other party and their supporters engaged in practices to hinder those efforts and to destroy those communities (Wilmington, North Carolina).

"One party and its supporters established quality schools and colleges for blacks, the other party and their supporters engaged in practices that attempted to close some of those schools or diminish their quality.

"One party passed laws and Constitutional Amendments (13th , 14th , 15th) to include blacks as part of mainstream society, the other party passed laws to exclude them from the mainstream (Jim Crow Laws and Black Codes). ..."

Sadly, many do not know that that "one party" was the Republican Party, while the "other party" was the Democratic Party. I myself didn't know at the time I watched this stirring film. I suppose burning crosses make us assume the bad guys are aligned with the religious right. Unfortunately, the "other party" used a nonsensical interpretation of the "curse of Ham" to justify slavery; fortunately, "one party" saw through it.

This film is also a great example of how history is being rewritten or dumbed down. While many films have shown lynchings and other abuse of African Americans, they usually leave you with the impression that the bigots were "Bible bashers" ... as you can see, this is only half the truth. Very rarely are we reminded that it was Republicans who laid their lives on the line to defend blacks, based on their Christian faith.

Willem Dafoe is, as always, fascinating to watch. His gesture of futility during Hackman's interrogation of a suspect is priceless. Perhaps the shameful past that the Democrats are trying to forget - indeed, most youngsters today do not need to forget, they haven't even been taught - will spur them onto greater deeds that may even outshine the "one party".

Insidious, particuarly if this is the only source
"[A]n excellent depiction of the 1960's civil rights struggle in the US," a reviewer called this. Read Coming of Age in Mississippi by Anne Moody, see Eyes on the Prize, get it from the library. While it may be "based on a true story", the story is very unrepresentative and the story here historically was insignificant compared to what blacks themselves--and _other_ whites--did as far as voter registration, the "Freedom Summer," etc. As critic Pauline Kael argued, "...the movie hinges on the ploy that the FBI men can't stop the Ku Klux Klan from its terrorism against blacks until they swing over to vigilante tactics.

Amazon.com writes:

As critic Pauline Kael argued, "...the movie hinges on the ploy that the FBI men can't stop the Ku Klux Klan from its terrorism against blacks until they swing over to vigilante tactics. And we're put in the position of applauding the FBI's dirtiest forms of intimidation. This cheap gimmick undercuts the whole civil rights subject; it validates the terrorist methods of the Klan."

This becomes irrelevant to more informed readers when they realize that FBI men usually were one of the major obstacles of the civil rights movement.

Once again, Anne Moody's book is the place to start on Mississippi specifically. It's a story at least as gripping. It makes more sense in the context of the rest of the movement and the 60s, so these are other places to look:

Eyes on the Prize (Eyes on the Prize II gives how and why the civil rights movement ended/disintegrated) videos, companion book, and document reader.

Parting the Waters by Taylor Branch--Martin Luther King, but we really don't know much about him and this also deals with the movement in general. Sweeping, along with Eyes on the Prize, frames much of the movement.

The Children by David Halberstam--Black students taking on Nashville.

Making Sense of the Sixties--A PBS video series on the sixties. Try to find it at your library.

These all are only a few of the books/videos that I think everybody should read and watch to be familiar with this very relevant, passionate, and tragically forgotten part of history. A true understanding of the civil rights movement destroys the audience for this kind of film--though the bias may be unintentional, it reflects ignorance--and gets us focused on major questions of life in America today.

Some of you may be surprised to find that these books are at least as gripping as this movie. But if you'd rather watch something, Eyes on the Prize is the ideal place to start. The violence there is real, there are civil rights workers who happen to be victims of violence (that is, drawn out as real people through interviews), and the violence on the blacks is not absurd (again, realistic as it may be, the framing makes it absurd), reminiscent of Birth of a Nation. ... Read more

Reviews (74)

Roddy Doyle's modern Irish classic
Quite simply, this is one of my all-time favorite films. Based on the first book of Roddy Doyle's Dublin trilogy, The Commitments is more than a story of a bunch of Irish kids forming a soul band. From the harsh realities of poverty to the power of the Irish spirit, this movie is a portrait of life in working class Dublin, and is true to Doyle's book in every way. It is raw and irreverant, extremely funny but also poignant. One of the remarkable aspects of this film is the cast of virtual unknowns - all actually Irish, thank goodness. Andrew Strong, who plays the lead singer, was only about 16 when the movie was filmed, and he did his own vocals. In fact, the cast is extremely musically talented and appears on two very good soundtrack volumes. The one familiar face belongs to veteran actor Colm Meaney (Miles O'Brien on Star Trek TNG/DS9). Meaney also appears in the two other films from the trilogy, The Snapper and The Van. Rent them all and have an Irish film festival! If you want to be entertained with great soul music while being magically whisked away to Dublin, by all means buy this video so you can watch it over and over again.

A MOVIE WITH SOUL
First off, I usually don't like soul music, R&B, whatever you want to call it. I can like anything but bluegrass, country, and rap. But I must admit that, even if you don't normally like soul, this movie will make you a believer. I had to watch this film in my college film class. I must say that I was VERY impressed, and even more so after I heard the following from my film teacher concerning this film: 1-The lead singer(the chubby one, can't miss 'em) was only 16! but he sang GREAT! Like a pro, even. 2-This movie is full of first-time actors, and that is because it was open-audition for all or nearly all parts. With that in mind, someone did a great job in casting this movie. This is one of those movies that keeps your eyes riveted to the screen. There's some comical moments, as well as some normal moments as well. At times you feel like you're watching a live music video. A very well done film, that reminds me in some respects of the Blues Brothers, which I also like. Apart from the language, there isn't much to the R rating. Overall an outstanding film about a bunch of Dubliners singing music that is normally associated with African-Americans. Buy it today and enjoy!

The Soul of the City
Alan Parker once again put together a previously unknown cast and has produced a fantastic movie with some stellar individual performances.

"The Commitments" is the story of the struggle to escape unemployment and poverty, set in Dublin but equally relevant in any major city this movie chronicles the efforts of a new band to achieve fame and glory. The band choose soul music as their vehicle out of the ghetto at a time when James Brown is just a memory adding spice to an already engaging tale. After a faltering start the band start to pull it together only for their lack of discipline and focus to abort their chances at the very moment when real opportunity is at their door.

The music is the star of the show with fantastic numbers such as "At the Midnight Hour", "Mustang Sally" and "Try a Little Tenderness" littered through the movie. The musical performances of Mary Doyle Kennedy (Natalie)and Andrew Strong (Deco)and the acting of Robert Arkins (Jimmy) are really superb.

This movie is enhanced by this new format on widescreen DVD, but what makes it work is the screenplay, great acting and wonderfull music regardless of format.

Say it Once, Say it Loud!
"The Commitments" is a raucous and joyful celebration of music. It's a gloriously simple and lovable tale, told with passion, profanity, and a deep understanding of how music can infect even the most despairing life with joy. About time the movie got its proper release on DVD.

If you've never seen "The Commitments" because you cringe at the notion of white Dubliners singing American soul tunes, well, I hear ya. I fully expected watered-down music along the lines of Michael Bolton butchering Percy Sledge. However, I was wrong - the music, in the context of the movie, is pure and genuine, and performed by young actors who understand that you don't have to pretend to be anything you're not to get soul. Besides, Jimmy Rabbitte, the mastermind behind the band, gives them all a thoroughly convincing speech that assures the lads and lasses from Dublin that they, too, are qualified to sing soul.

The movie - well, it's wonderful. Hilarious, free, sometimes moving, life-affirming. I almost wish the movie let the characters develop a little more before the inevitable and mythical ending, but then Joey the Lips gently reminds me (and Rabbitte), "this way, it's poetry." He's right - this is the proper ending for these guys, and the movie.

The DVD offers some great extras, including a revealing making-of doc, where we learn that director Parker combed the nightclubs of Dublin nightly, looking for fresh talent. I also love the 10-years-later feature, where we get to revisit our old friends again. These are suitable extras for a movie that just plain makes you feel glad to be alive - how much more can you ask of a movie than that?

Howzit? Deadly!
I was excited to find out they were releasing this movie again with some more behind the scenes interviews. I was surprised to see that the cast they did recently interview, looked relatively unchanged. It was like seeing a long lost friend. I remember seeing this movie the first time in the theatres being shocked at their monumental use of the f-word. This time, it just seemed to be natural. Maybe it's because I'm in my thirties now and it takes a lot to shock me or maybe it's because I've had a chance to read the short story the movie is based on. Roddy Doyle's adaptation of his story of a Dublin soul band was, for the most part, straight out from the page. There were a few parts that could have made it into the film, and a few parts in the movie that didn't need to be there, but on the whole I LOVED IT AGAIN! Seeing these actors come together as a real band was fun. I hope they re-release the last of the Barrytown Trilogy, The Van to DVD soon also. ... Read more

Description

At the New York City High School for the Performing Arts, students get specialized training that often leads to success as actors, singers, etc. This movie follows four students from the time when they audition to get into the school, through graduation. ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Baby Remember My Name
This Alan Parker film came out in 1980, after the director had horrified everyone with visions of Turkish Prison in MIDNIGHT EXPRESS. But here we have a loving valentine to the kids of New York who dream of being performers at the high school for performing and visual arts. It's a musical, but one where the songs and dancing come out of the kids naturally as they goof off or perform for themselves or each other. You get to see four years of high school, and about 8 kids who reach varying levels of realizations about how hard the world really is when you want to be famous.

Finally FAME gets the DVD treatment! A widescreen transfer, featurettes, and a wonderful video commentary that shows 4 of the leads TODAY talking about their 15 minutes of notoriety as a star of FAME. It's a fun experience to see how they have aged, and what they remember of the filming. Alan Parker is the real star of the commentary though! He gets to talk over the entire movie, but thankfully he's witty and informative. My favorite tidbit was the original name of FAME was HOT LUNCH! Okay... that would have been ... disaster.

Best reason to own this? The music! You can watch the movie once, but I dare you to ever forget the title song "FAME". My personal fave is "Out Here On My Own" for sentimental reasons. You'll want to sign up for dance, voice, and acting lessons after this one.

See where all the hoopla started! Before the television shows, before the musical hit the stage ... there was this gritty movie showing foul-mouthed kids trying to make it in The Big Apple. Or at least through high school!

Good DVD release
So finally a movie the caliber of Fame comes to DVD.
I guess if you are here it's because you've seen the movie and wonder if the DVD is worth buying. Just in case: Fame tells the story of a group of students who enter a Performing Acts school in NY. It starts with the auditions and finishes after graduation. Fame has a very good cast, a better script, and even a better soundtrack - featuring of course Irene Cara.
As for the DVD, the picture quality is somewhere from good to very good (no complains, but it won't blow you away) and so is the sound quality.
Extras are 'ok'. I miss new interviews with the crew (there's some from when the film premiered), a 'where are they know' (yeah, we do know Alan Parker is one of the most respected directors, Irene Care had a music career...what about Lee Curreri and rest?
All in all, I think the DVD won't dissapoint to Fame fans that want to have the movie in digital quality.

A brilliant but unsatisfying film!!!
From the opening credits, Fame seemed extremely promising. Here is a musical about the trials and tribulations of the talented kids at a New York City High School for Performing Arts. I mean, you can't go wrong. This just screams masterpiece. And even after the credits began to roll, that promise was still there.
So why didn't Fame hold up to that promise? Maybe because it tried to tell too many stories in too short a time and never fully developed them. Maybe there were to many primary characters. Or maybe because none of the individual stories resolved themselves and the film seemed unfinished, ending too soon and too fast, despite it's lengthy running time.

We follow eight of the accepted students through three years of their education. They grapple with discipline, praise, disappointment, growth, friendship, love, sex, competition, and initiation into the world of entertainment where there are more failures than successes. As in his two previous movies, director Parker demonstrates his gift for working with youth and drawing out their best performances, which greatly benefits the film.

Barry Miller is Ralph, a fast-talking Puerto Rican whose hero is Freddie Prinze and whose hip comic sense hides a painful personal life. Irene Cara plays Coco, an ambitious singer whose longing for fame leads her to the seamy side of showbiz. Gene Anthony Ray is a tough black ghetto youth who dances like a leopard and resists the disciplinary strictures of one of his teachers (Anne Meara). Maureen Teefy is very convincing as a Brooklyn girl who must free herself from a domineering mother in order to express her artistic sensibilities. Lee Curreri plays a synthesizer enthusiast whose single-minded genius is the source of pride for his taxicab-driving father. Also featured are Paul McCrane as a homosexual acting student, Antonia Fransceschi as a rich ballerina, and Laura Dean as a lackadaisical dance student.

Fame is an emotionally involving and exuberant movie. It contains many moments of cinematic poetry. For every clichéd portrait of teenage anxiety there is a matching character revelation of depth. But in the end, it all seems unsatisfying and that's a shame. With all these great qualities going for it, I try not to think about what could have been. It's definitely a motion picture experience worth taking, but it should have been a lot more satisfying!!!!

FINALLY!
I AM SO EXCITED TO SEE THAT FAME HAS FINALLY MADE IT TO DVD. I HAVE BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME FOR THIS. I WOULDN'T MISS THIS SHOW AT ALL WHEN IT WAS COMING ON. I AM GLAD THAT THIS HAS COME OUT. THIS IS GREAT.

Entertaining, realistic, involving, fun.
In the series of realistic/dark movies about music (like Footloose, Saturday Night Fever). This type of film minimises hollywood gloss, using as many unknown or fresh actors as possible and minimises "I feel a song coming on" moments and other movie-musical cliches. If anything, these movies are closer to movies than musicals. Music is everywhere in Fame, though. Its about dance, theatre, movies and playing instruments - yet instances of any of these are fit into a real-life situation, like kids trying out for a special talent school, or rehersals or performances. For those who aren't really fans of musicals (i am, but i know some people are not), no-one spontaneously bursts into song during Fame. Or when they do it is made seem spontaneous and immensely fun. And fun is the key element in Fame. Like Footloose and Fever, there are definite moments of hard-edged drama, but unlike the other two, there is more than enough fun to be had. You probably like the characters in Fame a lot more than you do in those other two also. The opening audition section very cleverly makes you interested in this quirky cast of characters, and you gladly follow their adventures for the hefty running time thereafter. Well-directed by Parker, Fame is still fun, exciting and involving decades later. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Forever embroiled in controversy, Midnight Express divides viewers into opposing camps: those who think it's one of the most intense real-life dramas ever made, and those who abhor its manipulative tactics and alteration of facts for the exploitative purpose of achieving a desired effect. That effect is powerfully achieved, regardless of how you may feel about director Alan Parker and Oscar®-winning screenwriter Oliver Stone's interpretation of the story of Billy Hayes. It was the American Hayes--played by the late Brad Davis in an unforgettable performance--who was caught smuggling two kilograms of hashish while attempting to board a flight from Istanbul, Turkey, in 1970. He was sentenced to four years in a hellish Turkish prison on a drug possession charge, but his sentence was later extended (though not by 30 years, as the film suggests), and Hayes endured unthinkable brutality and torture before his escape in 1975.

Unquestionably, this is a superbly crafted film, provoking a visceral response that's powerful enough to boil your blood. By the time Hayes erupts in an explosion of self-defensive violence, Parker and Stone have proven the power--and danger--of their skill. Their film is deeply manipulative, extremely xenophobic, and embellishes reality to heighten its calculated impact. Is that a crime? Not necessarily, and there's no doubt that Midnight Express is expertly directed and blessed with exceptional supporting performances (especially from John Hurt as a long-term prisoner). Still, it's obvious that strings are being pulled, and Parker, while applying his talent to a nefarious purpose, is a masterful puppeteer. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (109)

Emotionaly brutal but excellent film.
Midnight Express is the true story of Billy Hayes who is thrown into a turkish prison for trying to smuggle hash out of the country.During the five years he spends in the prison,he suffers emotional,physical and mental torment.The prison is run by a brutal guard played by Paul Smith who seems to have a good time beating the prisoners which makes him a symbol of cruelty.Among with Brad Davis' great performance as Billy Hayes is John Hurt and Randy Quaid who both deliver really great performances as well.Brad Davis I think was overlooked by the academy which surprised me because he displayed his character with so much emotion that you had to feel sorry not just for his character but also for him.Midnight Express is the kind of prison film that makes other prison films too hard to compare.The Shawshank Redemption was also a film I enjoyed but wasn't as gut wrenching or emotional as this film.Midnight Express is in my opinion a film that is too horrifying to ignore which means that this film should not be ignored.It shouldn't be watched for entertainment value.That isn't why this film was made.Midnight Express I highly recommend.

Alan Parker's masterpiece
This is an absorbing and arresting film. Since the first minute of the opening sequence , the dramatic mood will live in our heart .
The inner tension in the airport is perfectly made , the fear , the insane atmosphere in the turkish jails , the language obstacle , the hopeless , the dramatic sense when the Turkish Court gives the veredict in the middle of a bitter political conflict are a true landmark in its style.
John Hurt (Max) plays an unforgettable role as the addict friend of Billy Hayes (Brad Davis) and his performance is only overcome for The elephant man two years after this film.
Magnificent script and extraordinary performances.
A winner.

Lighten Up Folks, Its Only A Movie
I have read some of the reviews posted here for this movie and they almost laughable. People need to lighten up a bit and stop being so goddam politically correct. This true life story is a Hollywood dramatization folks. Its purpose is to entertain. And I for one am not ashamed to say that I would watch this movie just to look at Brad Davis in the buff. Nuff Said.

Very current film
Some might think that this 1978 film is out of date. In fact,
not only is it a riveting film, but it is very current. On page A21 of the February 25, 2004 Washington Post in a story entitled "Turkey's Human Rights Record Is Taken to Task," reporter Nora Boustany writes of hearings on Capitol Hill before the US Congressional Human Rights Caucus that while Turkey now has laws forbidding torture, these laws are not enforced; torture continues in Turkey. Hence, everyone who cares about human rights should buy this film.

Come on, now!
This is one of the best prison films alongside "Papillion," "Death and the Maiden," and "Kiss of the Spider Woman."

It's purpose is to juxtapose foolish freedom with insane ancient cultures. The result is tragic, terrifying, and almost beyond comprehension in it's cruelty. And if you don't believe prison life in Muslim countries isn't still like this, you must be crazy! (Read "Not Without My Daughter;" the film doesn't even begin to touch on the horrors she survived in Iran).

One cool note: you can see the REAL Billy Hayes acting in a play about prison life filmed at San Quentin!! It's called, "The Cage" and it's only available on half(dot)com. Hard to believe that he'd want to recreate the "sadism of prison guards and the inmates' frenzied cruelty to each other" (Variety) only 15 years after escaping the Turkish prison! ... Read more

Reviews (71)

The genius of Mickey Rourke...
is fully evident in this late 80s Alan Parker film, an overlooked classic if there ever was one. In my opinion, no one then or now could do the job portraying detective Harry Angel that Rourke did. He captures every nuance of the character perfectly, running the gamut from emotional wreckage to physical haggardness. How someone so gifted could let said gift get away from him the way Rourke did is a mystery almost as compelling as the one serving as the subject of this film.

The basic storyline is deceptively simple; Harry Angel is a down and out post WWII New York detective hired by a shadowy figure to find a missing singer, one Johnny Favorite. That search leads him from New York City to the bowels of the Louisiana bayou, and it's that setting that gives the film so much of its powerful atmosphere. Things are not as they seem, and the story becomes stranger the further along it goes...

Alan Parker did a fantastic job of using muted colors to convey the sense that this story is not taking place in our time, but rather one of a recently faded past. Visually, the film transports you to that place and moment in a way that few "period pieces" manage to accomplish. Add in his notorious attention to detail, and you have little doubt that you are seeing the deep south of Louisiana as it was in the 1950s.

The other major performances (Robert De Niro, Charlotte Rampling, Lisa Bonet, Brownie McGhee) are wonderful in their own right, but IMO, this is Rourke's show. A modern classic!

Good old Louisiana spooky film noir.....
Angel Heart never quite got the critical acclaim it deserved. Long before Mickey Rourke was reduced to doing Iglesias music videos, he actually had something of an acting career. In this, perhaps his best work, although not his best known, he plays an amnesiac private investigator sent on the trail of a 1940s crooner/singer named Johnny Favorite. While some of the plot twists are pretty evident to modern viewers (some later films have used similar twists to further their own plots), they were quite novel at the time of the film. The eerie film-noire atmosphere gives everything a sinister, seductive feel, and, while you can pretty much ascertain the identity of the PI's patron (Cypher), the identity of the elusive crooner remains a shocker at the end. Also, if you are a jazz fan, the eerie jazz of Trevor Jones provides a suitably melancholic atmosphere to the film. Lisa Bonet, the Cosby show's wild-child, performs admirably as a voodoo priestess who is also the daughter of Favorite, and the eventual lover of the PI. Rourke is great, as he was in those days, reflecting more emotional range than he was allowed in more notable films in which he participated, namely 9 1/2 Weeks and Wild Orchid. De Niro oozes diabolical smugness and a certain sinister quality that you just cannot quite put your finger on (yeah, if you READ the name of the guy, you know what he is...but those seeing the movie didn't have that luxury until the end credits ... MUCH better in this role than Pacino), and this is one of my favorite roles for him. The film works in a little bit of everything darkly occult, from benevolent, poor but soulful black-folks in voodoo cults, to rich and powerful white-folks with their secret devil worship to keep them rich and powerful. Set against the mysterious bayou backdrop of New Orleans, which only serves to enhance the spooky atmosphere, this film is a classic for anyone who is a fan of film noir.

A CRISP, CHILLING TREAT OF THE OCCULT
Let's see. A mesmerizing Mickey Rourke in his element. A brief but blood-curdling cameo from DeNiro sporting overgrown fingernails, dark flowy suits and a baritone drawl. A starkly bold turn from the beautiful Lisa Bonnet who exudes sexual abandon..

Cut to the chase, Angel Heart is a riveting psychothriller with cojones. It absolutely boggles me, then, why this is not the cult classic that it so richly deserves to be!

What begins as a fairly innocuous sleuthing adventure quickly takes on the contours of a supernatural drill, replete with mythological and biblical symbolism, as our private-eye discovers the true nature of his horrifying engagement.

Trevor Jones' riveting score and Parker's immaculate direction could be some of the reasons why this grand nightmare lingers in your thoughts long after the credits have rolled, but whatever the motivation, I highly recommend getting a hold of this classic with an unforgettable twist.

Angel Heart
This is definitely one of the creepiest movies you'll ever see and the ending is a shocker. Set in 1955, a private detective named Harry Angel (played my Mickey Rourke) is hired by Louis Cyphre to find a long ago crooner named Johnny Favorite, who owes him something. The search leads Angel to a dark underworld of voodoo and strange murders. In his search for Favorite, Harry goes to New Orleans, where he runs into Epiphany Proudfoot, played by Lisa Bonet. As Harry gets closer to the truth of Favorite's whereabouts, things just get weirder and weirder. And Louis Cyphre turns out to be Harry's worst nightmare. And the title is an excellent play on the movie's denoument. Overall this is a great creepy thriller.

The DVD extras are also interesting (see the Mickey Rourke interview, is tragi-comic).

fantastico
a wonderful little piece of film noir that will be right at home in any horror or suspense fans library. well done alan parker ... Read more

Reviews (36)

Hilarious, but where's the big picture?
Quite simply, this movie is hysterically funny. Well written, evenly paced and contains one of the most catchy soundtracks ever recorded. Chances are, if you're looking at this page for the DVD, you've seen the movie. If not, you can read the other reviews for the particulars because I'm going to focus on the technical aspects of the DVD. Besides, this is my second-favorite movie of all time, so any attempt to review the plot would be extremely biased and I know this movie isn't everyone's cup of tea.

First of all, the movie itself looks beautiful. They did a great job on the digital transfer... the compression isn't all that noticeable and everything is crisp and clear. Audio is par for the course. Nothing too special here, but nothing lacking.

However, one question begs to be asked: why, in these days of "Enhanced for 16:9 televisions," is a DVD being released containing ONLY a full screen version? The fact that they have "Full Screen Presentation" bulleted as a special feature shows just how far Columbia/Tristar missed the boat. The lack of widescreen is the only reason I've deducted a star from my rating. As for the other special features, don't be fooled by the "Bonus Trailers," which are all for other movies.

Should you get the DVD? Certainly! If you love this movie, you'll enjoy watching it with a clean digital picture (especially if you've had the tape for years and it's getting worn out.) But if you've been waiting all these years for a widescreen version, you're going to have to keep waiting. This DVD can only be described as a visual and audio upgrade from the videotape, but not a definitive version of the film.

Uneven, not for everyone, but still pretty good
It's uneven because the movie can't quite figure out what it wants to be. It's a comedy, mostly--I burst into laughter several times. Yet, at times it's sad, and at other times it's almost horror, as when people start dying through electrical contraptions gone bad, and possibly through anorexia. It's also pretty scatalogical, what with all the enemas and obsessions with bowels (that's why it's not for everyone). It's a pretty good satire of John Kellogg, of Kellogg's Corn Flakes (who, by all accounts, was a thoroughly strange fellow), and it does a good job of sending up the kind of obsessive vegetarian anti-fur silliness that exists even today (there is an amusing scene when Kellogg shows the audience his "vegetarian wolf"). Anthony Hopkins, with buck teeth and glasses, is unrecognizable, as is Dana Carvey as his rotten-toothed adopted son. What the movie says clearly is that people who are this obsessive-compulsive over their health have sexual problems, and come from dysfunctional families. It's pretty funny, but certainly not for everyone.

Don't read the book first...
I made the unfortunate mistake of reading The Road to Wellville before watching the movie. I think it would be less forgiving if I had watched the movie first, then read the book, but the inconsistencies in the movie vs. the text are so blaring that I just lost all interest in the movie.

The screenwriter took many liberties with the text to make this movie a more "adult" film, and I found this really disheartening since this is not what T.C. Boyle intended it to be. I'm not against "adult" movies (i.e. nudity), but there a few things that occur in the movie that do not occur in the book at all.

The ending of the movie was to most "let's tie this up real quick-like" ending I've seen in awhile, and in fact, the ending (where all the main characters meet to watch the "san" burn down and then slowly walk away) didn't even happen like that.

I know, I know.... it's like comparing apples to bananas to pineapples, but I just want others to know that if you've read the book, don't bother with the movie. If you haven't read the book, then you'll probably get a bit of a kick out of the really quirky movie. Laura Flynn Boyle plays an excellent patient with "green sickness" (this was before she became unusually thin). There is a great cast of actors involved as well. Nice to see them play characters outside of what they normally do.

Blah. Not necessarily awful, just blah.
The Road to Wellville (Alan Parker, 1994)

I have thought for years that the novel upon which The Road to Wellville was based was written by the loathsome Garrison Keillor. Well, my copy showed up in the mail the other day, and I found out the novel was written by the far more easily-digested T. Coraghessan Boyle, so I decided I wouldn't exile the wife to the living room to watch this alone as I had planned.

What a horrible mistake.

The Road to Wellville chronicles, supposedly, the doings of a number of folks in the late nineteenth-century, all presided over by cornflake inventor John Harvey Kellogg (Anthony Hopkins). The story centers, if there can be said to be a center, around the Lightbodies, Eleanor (Bridget Fonda) and Will (Matthew Broderick), who come to Kellogg's sanitarium in order to recover from an unspecified disease of Will's (his wife confides in someone later what it is, and it's something of a major plot point). Also weaving through the tale is that of Charles Ossining (John Cusack), who gets involved with Kellogg's outcast adopted son George (Dana Carvey) and a crook named Bender (Michael Lerner, the "lost another loan to Ditech!" guy). And we haven't even begun to cover the principal actors yet, much less the cameos.

You may already be able to see where I'm going with this. If so, feel free to skip to the end of the review.

I've always considered Alan Parker an inconsistent director, but while mulling this travesty of a film over, I realized why. The movies he made early in his career that worked so very well (Midnight Express, Fame, The Wall, etc.) are movies where a lot of stuff is going on, and the viewer is being bombarded by stuff from every direction at all times. That's how the movies are written, and they succeed very well.

The movies he's made since then have had scripts that are more focused (or, in the case of The Road to Wellville, were in desperate need of more focus), but Parker is still using the same technique. And we're still getting bombarded when we require focus. Simply put, there's too much going on in any two hours of Alan Parker celluloid, and whether or not it works has to do with the material rather than the director or the actors. After all, Parker has a history of getting fantastic actors to work on his films (perhaps another thing; in every movie Parker made until Birdy, he was working with a cast of unknowns. Starting with Mississippi Burning, he started getting the A-list) and do things that could very well destroy their careers. I'm amazed that, after this mess, Hopkins, Broderick, Cusack, and a number of others survived with their careers intact.

Yes, this is a mess. Provides a few good one-liners here and there, but is basically the grown-up version of the unfunny teen sex comedy (and I can never say that without saying "American Pie and its sequels are not funny, and if you think they are, you're wrong"). Will probably be enjoyed by those who thought Scary Movie was a laff riot. Everyone else can safely stay away without feeling like they've missed anything. **

Does no one get this move?
Let me first say that the only reason this movies got made was because it seemed an interesting script to the Hollywood execs. Luckily enough it was shopped to enough big stars that it made at least a little splash in Hollywood. Part historical record, corrupted by the industrialism of America, and part comedy. Not one review I read captures the truth of this movie. I must admit I should read this book first, but having studied Eastern and Western medical practices for over a decade, I understand the premise behind the book, movie, and Dr. Kellog's, somewhat, misguided health practices themselves. The truth behind them is real, despite what your doctor wants you to belive, "become an slave to the pharmaceutical companies." I emplor all that read this to discover the power of "food combining" and a fitness related lifestyle. Your health and longevity depend upon it. Please read anything by Daniel Reid, and any author he recomends. I myself am working on writing a series of books that tackle this problem and many more. This movie is nothing more than Hollywood taking liberty with a, slightly, misguided idealist from almost a hundred years ago. He had the right idea, just a little early for what we really need in this day and age. ... Read more

Reviews (77)

I missed McCourt's narrative
Oh, well. Maybe next time. Being one of the legions of fans of the book, I also came to the film with high expectations, and most were statisfied, at least as far as cinematography and acting go. Emily Watson was very good, and the three boys playing the various stages of Frank were wonderful. I question the film's attempt to positively portray some of the characters, for example the grandmother who, by McCourt's account, was a mean-spirited old woman who treated the children quite badly. However, in a tale so oppressive, I guess there must be some redeeming traits, at least in Hollywood.

What I missed most of all was McCourt's rambling, Joycean narrative and light tone which makes the book such a joy. His accepting, wistful, voice permeates every aspect of the written story and, more than any of his personal triumphs, it is this calm, all-forgiving voice, looking back from many years later, which is the shining ray of hope in the end. I sorely missed this, and found myself overcome by the appropriately squalid scenery.

Another problem I have with the film is the uninspired score by John Williams. Is this man even going to try anymore? Some of Hollywood's younger composers surely could have provided a more interesting and evocative accompaniment. Williams' dull ideas, repeated ad nauseam, had no more place in this film than his quasi-klezmer tunes had in Schindler's List.

Overall, Angela's Ashes was a fine effort in film, made anemic by the absence of McCourt's narration. It was inevitable that a book so popular be snatched up by Hollywood, but I will not go out of my way to see it again. I'd rather let the written word carry me away...

WHAT ASHES? SHOULD PERHAPS HAVE BEEN LEFT AS A BOOK
I have not read the eponymous book, and after watching this despondent drivel I probably won't. One can just hope that the book did a more honest job of potraying Angela's memoirs.

The film is set in Limerick, which, from the looks of it, is in the middle of an incredibly wet rainforest. Two brothers grow up with a mother who struggles and begs to keep her family alive and together. The predictably antisocial father squanders every bit of money he ever earns on truckloads of alcohol.

We are shown slices of life in the coming-of-age up process, and how Frank finally gets the money to leave Ireland and come to America. The boys were no cherubs, but they survived without getting into too much trouble, and became literary lions in America. That's pretty much it.

The acting is good, especially by the boy who plays the teenage version of Frank McCourt. The cinematography stretches and scampers to be oh-so-noir, and is thus overwrought with dark pigmented colors almost all of the time. Background music is run of the mill, one that you would typically expect from movies of this nature.

What boggles me though is the touchy-feely title of the book/movie: Angela (the mother) does not die. Or did I miss something? Where are the ashes?

Does justice enough for me!
Overall, I think the film does justice to the book as justice as a film can do. Obviously, the film cannot convey the powerful emotion though to the viewer as well as the book does. The actors did a brilliant job, especially Emily Watson and teenage Frank McCourt, played by the attractive Michael leg. The film won my commpassion just as the book did. The sogginess of the settings perhaps slightly puts you off a visit to Ireland. Though it is also enriched with history, and the acrhitectual structures are simply amazing. The ending leaves you hanging, as when the film came to a conclusion I felt deeply unsatisfied. Someone tell Mr.Parker to get of his behind and make something of the sequel 'Tis!

Mediocre movie of a classic book! READ THE BOOK!
Emily Watson is one of my favorite screen actresses and here she does not disappoint. She gives a wonderfully undertated performance. Robert Carlyle is also very good as he usually is. The boys also give really nice performances.

The filmmakers do bring the wet locations to life - very much as they are imagined in the book.

The major thing missing is the "tone" of the book. The book is hilarious - you laugh at the innocence of the boys point of view. Share his triumphs and sad at the set backs. That is what does not work about this movie.

Also they left out a characted in the book (the little girl in the hospital) which was one of my favorite parts.

Skip the film - read the book.

Wonderful Book, Awful movie
I loved this book so much. I was so in depth to every page. I read the book for my junior class book chat. I am so happy that I picked that book to read. The movie on the other hand, left out so many details. I recommend not watching the movie after reading the book. It will dissappoint you. Go ahead and watch the movie if you never read the book it might be very good to you. I am not much of a book reader, but I love to watch movies but this movie was really not good. Sorry to Mr. Frank McCourt who wrote such a wonderful book that his movie had to be so bad. ... Read more

Reviews (140)

Innocent Until Proven Guilty?
Are we truly innocent until proven guilty or does circumstantial evidence contribute heavily to the verdict? Are there innocent men and women on death row? These questions are part of the underlying messages found in The Life of David Gale, which is a disturbing movie about the politically charged subject of capital punishment. Directed by Alan Parker and released by Universal Studios in 2003, Kevin Spacey is cast in the leading role of David Gale, who is a philosophy professor at the University of Texas in Austin and an outspoken critic of the death penalty. As a member of a political activist group called Deathwatch, which is a non-profit organization seeking to abolish the death penalty, Gale gained notoriety as political hothead in a state that traditionally supports capital punishment as a crime deterrent.

The irony of this film is that one of the state's leading death row abolitionists, Gale, is now on death row for the brutal rape and murder of his Deathwatch colleague, Constance Hallaway (Laura Linney). The film begins as Gale's attorney requests Bitsey Bloom, a New York investigative reporter who is played by Kate Winslet, for three exclusive two-hour interviews with Gale before he is put to death by lethal injection. In these two-hour sessions, Gale relives the events that led to his downfall and asserts his innocence in a series of flashbacks. Alcoholism contributed to a sexual indiscretion with a college student, which led to the breakup of his marriage and the loss of his position at the university. Bloom has three days to uncover the truth surrounding Hallaway's death and to free Gale from his impending doom.

The use of foreshadowing in this suspense thriller is rampant and sometimes overdone, such as the problems with Bloom's car or the mysterious cowboy that constantly follows her as she and her sidekick, intern Zack Stemmons (Gabriel Mann), try to discern the truth about the death of Gale's colleague. In one flashback, Gale is in a heated debate over capital punishment with the governor of Texas. The governor proclaims he would readily place a moratorium on all capital punishment if Gale could provide him the name of one innocent man or woman that has been erroneously put to death. Of course, Gale could not. But, this is a critical scene that is linked to a surprise ending with a twist.

I enjoyed this movie, which runs for 131 minutes. But, it is definitely not for everyone. One must be prepared for the liberal stance that is taken on the issue of capital punishment and they must also be able to tolerate nudity, violence and obscenities.

Suspenseful and Haunting
The performances of Kevin Spacey, Laura Linney, and Kate Winslet are extraordinary in this sleeper hit. Spacey plays David Gale, a philosophy professor and doting father who finds himself on Death Row for the rape and murder of his friend, Constance Hallaway (played by Laura Linney). With only three days before his scheduled execution, Gale chooses reporter Elizabeth Bloom, played by Winslet, for a series of final interviews to explain how he has been wrongly convicted. "Bitsey", as Elizabeth goes by (it's a little hard to believe she allows herself to go by this nickname, as she seems to want to be taken seriously), finds herself caught up in Gale's story and becomes sympathetic with his misfortunes and she begins examining the loose threads that made up his eventual conviction.

If you have strong pro-death penalty opinions or are religiously devoted, and are not open minded about this issue, you may want to take a pass on this film. Devoted Bush fans may also not be impressed, as you can't help notice the subtle poking fun of Texas and Texan politicians in the movie.

This movie is done with flashbacks, which creates suspense and interest. The flashback scene that begins the movie is of a car breaking down, and this reoccurs and is foreshadowed throughout the movie enough so that by the end, you're pretty sure how things are going to turn out. However, you will find yourself surprised because there's more to this film than a predictable ending and a nicely tied up story.

WOW!
TRULY AN AMAZING MOVIE. DAVID GALE IS ON DEATH ROW JUST 4 DAYS AWAY FROM HIS EXECUTION. HE CALLS ON ONE REPORTER, A MS. BITSEY BLOOM, (PLAYED BY KATE WINSLET) TO CONDUCT HIS FINAL INTERVIEW OVER A 3 DAY PERIOD (THE LAST 3 DAYS BEOFRE HIS EXECUTION DAY). AS SHE SPENDS MORE TIME WITH HIM BITSEY STARTS TO THINK THAT MAYBE DAVID REALLY HAS BEEN SET UP AND IS ACTUALLY INNOCENT OF THIS MURDER. SHE RACES AGAINST TIME TO FIND THE EVIDENCE WHICH WILL PROVE HIS INNOCENCE AND SPARE HIS LIFE. WILL SHE MAKE IT? AND WHAT EXACTLY WILL SHE FIND? YOU'LL HAVE TO WATCH IT FOR YOURSELF TO FIND THAT OUT! BUT THIS IS DEFINITELY AN INTENSE AND A VERY EMOTIONAL MOVIE. I HAD IT FIGURED OUT ABOUT MID-WAY THROUGH THE STORY WHICH WAS A LITTLE BIT DISSAPOINTING TO ME BUT IT WAS STILL A GOOD MOVIE. AND IT RAISES SOME INTERSTING QUESTIONS SUCH AS: ARE SOME CAUSES REALLY WORTH DYING FOR? AND SHOULD WE (AS HUMAN BEINGS) HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHO LIVES AND WHO DIES? AND WHERE SHOULD WE DRAW THE LINE? LASTLY, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DIE FOR SOMETHING YOU BELIEVED IN?

An A for effort - I suppose.
Released relatively briefly after such films as "Dead Man Walking" and "The Green Mile," "The Life of David Gale" is yet another cinematic work with the intention of questioning the efficiency (and morality) of capital punishment in the United States.

Of course this takes us to Texas.

Star reporter Bitsey Bloom (Kate Winslet) is assigned three interviews with death-row inmate David Gale (Kevin Spacey), one of Texas's most avid anti-death-penalty activists who has been sentenced to death for the murder of Constance Harraway (Laura Linney), his faithful colleague. Gale wishes for the reporter to uncover the truth in the case; Bloom, however, initially maintains her position that Gale is probably guilty and does deserve to die. However, after many flashbacks as told by Gale and many, many plot twists, Bloom's views begin to change, of course, and in the end she must race against the clock (literally) to make sure that justice is truly served.

Spacey is dry and lackluster as Gale, and he fails to keep us interested long enough to care whether he is guilty or not in the end. Winslet does well enough with Bloom, although her character is written to act so stupidly at some points that not even her acting talent can redeem. Gabriel Mann is fine as Zack Stemmons, Bloom's intern sidekick, if you will, and the ever-memorable Leon Rippy is precise Braxton Belyeu, Gale's attorney, who provides some funny albeit unfitting comedic relief. The film's greatest asset is the vividly marvelous Laura Linney as doomed Constance Harraway, whose real emotions are the only ones in the film that make us think twice about the matter at hand.

Randolph's screenplay is irritably calcuable, and Gerry Hambling's clunky editing makes the film seem quite a bit longer than its true 130-minute running time.

It's difficult to tell what message director Alan Parker is trying to put forth here. By portraying both sides as crazy, radical monsters out to advance their political agendas does not contribute well to the film's conclusion, which has a rather blatant conviction. This leaves a really bad taste of insincerity in the mouths of the audience members.

The film does succeed to keep one guessing throughout, and it is genuinely suspensful at some points - despite its disorganized, predictable mechanics. OF COURSE no one is in the hotel room shower, OF COURSE the engine overheats at the time it's needed most, and OF COURSE there is always more than meets the eye - literally, in this case, on a videotape.

Still, the film has one truly shocking revelation (not in it's conclusion - sorry), and Linney's performance is definitely worth a viewing. If you want a truly sincere view on anti-death-penalty, however, I suggest to go back to "The Green Mile" and "Dead Man Walking."

Brilliant
When I decided to view this movie I didn't know what it was about, no idea.

As the movie progressed I was so engrossed with what was going on and what was the plot. I was so shocked as to what happened in the movie and the roles that everyone played. People that you though meant nothing in the movie were some key players. The theme of the movie centers around the death penalty and how far people will go to let the goverment know that it is not fair.

Watch it, you will not be disappointed!!!!

Later ... Read more

Reviews (140)

Compelling
The Life of David Gale is an amazingly intense movie that keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat. The performances from Kevin Spacey, Laura Linney and Kate Winslet are incredible. This movie has so many twists and turns up until the fabulous, shocking conclusion!

See the film before the reviewers barricade its effect
THE LIFE OF DAVID GALE is, I believe, a much better film than many fellow reviewers would indicate. Perhaps they are influenced by the reviews that came out in the media at the time of the film's theatrical release, perhaps the Editorial slam on the Product Page by Bret Fetzer taints opinion. I would urge you to see and/or buy this DVD, keep an open mind, and witness the effect on your own emotional response.

Kevin Spacey fleshes out the title role as a believable philosophy professor who speaks against capital punishment in the state of Texas which just happens to be the place where more executions are performed than any other state. He is not without problems: alcohol, a drunken sexual relationship with a former student, and an awkward but deeply significant relationship with Constance (Laura Linney) who later when found 'murdered and raped' on videotape results in the arrest and conviction of Spacey's Gale, now facing death on death row. Laura Linney is most credible as a driven anti-death penalty activist for reasons we discover are beyond the range of civil rights reponsibilty. The third part of this triangle is the reporter brought in to investigate Gale's claim to innocence in the last four days of his wait on death row. Kate Winslet captures all the parameters of this contemporary woman with seamless detail. To tell more of the story would be injurious to the unfolding of this worthwhile drama.

For a 2 hour plus movie THE LIFE OF DAVID GALE manages to hold our interest, encouraging us as viewers to keep our invetigatory eyes and ears open and struggle along with Winslet and her cohort to finally put together all the pieces of the puzzle. Others have complained that the clues are in every scene: isn't that true of most crime investigations? I see no fault in placing all the information in front of the audience to test the observation of the viewer as much as the skill of the screenwriter in resolving a case with the important message of this film. Alan Parker uses a lot of visual tricks in addressing the facts of the crime and even makes interesting parallels in the background music (the fairly obvious metaphor of TURANDOT arias by the presuicidal Liu appear repeatedly).

In the end this story is on a par with DEAD MAN WALKING as far as a significant plea for anti-Capital Punishment voices. See it for yourself. The skills of actors like Kevin Spacey, Laura Linney, and Kate Winslet pledging belief in this script can't be ignored.

wow
i was pleasently surprised by this movie. it's not a drama. it doesn;t over dramatize the guys life but it was shocking how cruel some people are. i didn't believe in the dath sentence in the 1st place but this movie made me think why is he in jail and why are they going to kill him. get ready to cry for david at the end though. enjoyable but the ending should've been better.

Great Whodunit Movie
This is a good mystery/thriller/detective movie that makes you always guessing and wondering. Don't get caught in the "death penalty" situation, since you may or may not agree with it. Instead, pay attention to the story, ie. what Kate Winslet found, what Kevin Spacey did, how his reaction was, etc. If you do that, you'll find yourself a great whodunit movie.

Great Plot, not great movie
I enjoyed this movie for the plot.I liked Kevin Spacey's performance, but the rest of the movie felt flat, undimensional. The story is great whether you are for or against capital punishment. Ever see a movie where you think "I'd rather read the 'book'"? Well this was one of those movies for me.
But the "endings" are worth watching the movie for. Very good surprises. ... Read more