Reviews (130)

Takes classic film noir detective story to new heights
This 1974 film takes the classic film noir detective movie to new heights. Yes, there is murder, scandal and lots of lies. But yet Jack Nicholson, cast as a private eye, is a sympathetic character. There's one scene in which the director, Roman Polanski, playing a bit part as a thug, rips open Nicholson's nose with a knife. This is the kind of wound that makes the audience grimace every time someone refers to it in the film. Faye Dunaway is cast as the femme fatale. She's beautiful, of course, and it's hard to take our eyes off of her. She's a woman of mystery, but little by little we glimpse her humanity. And by the time her secret is revealed, she's won everyone's heart.

Based on a real life scandal in Los Angeles in 1908, another underlying theme is about water and power in this desert city. The action takes place in the 1930s, and the details of that period of time are well portrayed, right down to Faye Dunaway's shaved and penciled eyebrows. The screenplay won an Academy Award and I can understand why. It was tightly written and revealed details that moved the plot forward at just the right pace. I sat there fascinated, not wanting to take my eyes off the screen, trying to figure out what would happen next and constantly surprised by the next twist and turn. John Huston is cast in the role of a wealthy landowner with a huge secret of his own. He's a fine actor and his presence on the screen added depth to the whole production.

The DVD has a special interview with the writer, Robert Towne, as well as Roman Polanski. This added to my enjoyment of the film and provided further insight about its production. Definitely recommended.

Transcendent Film Noir
I've seen very few "greatest film" lists that don't have Chinatown among the top 10, or even top 5. It's deserving. It's done in the style of a '50's film noir, but transcends the genre.

There are great performances here by Jack Nicholson and John Huston. Nicholson plays a jaded but heroically decent private investigator in the mold of Humphrey Bogart. He's much less the tough guy than Bogart, though, and you get the impression that he'd rather being doing something less seedy for a living. It's a very subtle portrayal. Huston, on the other hand, plays a tycoon whose mere presence on the screen can make your skin crawl.

The film stands out in just about every respect. The sets are wonderful and the cinematography beautiful to look at. Even the score is exceptional.

The DVD is a little short of extras, but they really aren't missed. The transfer is very high quality in all respects.

To the brainiac above who doesn't understand why the water is being dumped in the ocean: they're trying to create a drought to drive the farmers out of business. That's pretty much the key point of the plot. And, yes, a .38 snubnose is perfectly capable of hitting someone at 50 yards. Guns & Ammo tests them to that distance all the time. Get a clue!

A Master Screenplay, A Perfect Film
Many writers consider Robert Towne's screenplay for 'Chinatown' as the perfect screenplay. It is, and is also in fact the example of how important good writing is in the art of cinema. It is perfection and in the hands of Roman Polanski it became a film masterpiece. But it all goes back to the writing. Robert Towne has taken the true story of how Los Angeles stole water to grow and wound around it the fictional story of Jake Gittes, Evelyn Mulwray, and Noah Cross and made them major participants in an ugly little tale of lust and greed. Towne's screenplay is layered like a decaying Dahlia with twisting mysteries and taught suspense. There is not a loose end in sight and a few well placed red herrings are added to the mix to delight any fan of this type of story.
The attention to detail from vintage cars, sets, real L.A. streets and alleys to the excellent score by Jerry Goldsmith and the golden cinematography of John A. Alonzo contribute to all the aspects of this classic of the post 60's film noir.
Faye Dunaway as Evelyn Mulwray is at the top of her game creating a neurotic exotic hothouse flower that carries death within the heart of her dark and dirty secret. Lacquered and veiled in the most perfect black widow getup of the genre she is superbly brittle and vulnerable at the same time. She is fascinating to watch as she slowly unravels along with the mystery until she is naked in the horror of what her past and present prison is. This is a great performance by a great artist.
As Evelyn's father Noah Cross, John Huston is the debauched cancerous center of evil and greed captured within the crumbling casing of a seemingly charming old man. He too gives the performance of a lifetime and his soliloquy on what a man is capable of is chilling.
The center of this masterwork is Jack Nicholson who became a star with this, the best of his early work. His J. J. Gittes is hardboiled and ruthless in getting to the bottom of why he is being used to take the fall for a murder. He embodies the soul of Bogart and the heart of a romantic fighting to stay tuff in a rotten world. He is drawn with such skill that he seems not to be acting but simply existing the real world of L.A. in the late 1930's.
"Chinatown" is seminal in its place in film history. It bridged and old and forgotten genre with a new Hollywood in its post studio infancy and laid the groundwork for later films of equal ambition such as "Mullholland Falls" and "L.A. Confidential".
This is one of the best film ever made and a must have for any serious film collector.

I cut my nose shaving
Not since Otto Preminger's LAURA had filmgoers the pleasure of watching a classic film noir, until Polanski's CHINATOWN. The plot and characters are complex but chillingly believeable. I can't find anything wrong with this film. It is well-paced for a fairly long movie. The lighting, cinematography, setting, costumes... everything is as should be. The performances by John Huston and Faye Dunaway are eerie and tragic, respectively. Then of course there's Nicholson. Mad Jack was already firmly established on the Hollywood map having already won acclaim for EASY RIDER, THE LAST DETAIL, and FIVE EASY PIECES. This film however fixed him permanently in the constellation of Hollywood stars. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST would soon follow. In any event, his portrayal of an aloof, world-weary gumshoe who stumbles in over his head into an intrigue involving crooked politicians and the money-slobbering wealthy still holds up 30 years later. This is an incredible film.

THIS IS WHAT FILM IS SUPPOSED TO BE
The mid-1970s saw a spate of "government conspiracy" films, all with liberal themes that emanated from Watergate. None of them were about Kennedy stealing the 1960 election. Hmm.
"Chinatown" (1974) may be the best screenplay ever written. A historical look at 1930s Los Angeles, it actually condensed events from the 1900s with events that, uh, never happened but made for good drama. Written by L.A. native Robert Towne, directed by Roman Polanski, produced by Evans and starring Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunnaway and famed director John Huston, it told the story of how Los Angeles became a metropolis. In Towne's version, Huston "owns" the L.A. Department of Water & Power with a character based on actual L.A. City engineer William Mulholland. Mulholland had orchestrated the political deal which built the aqueduct that brought water from the Owens Valley into the L.A. Basin, allowing millions of Southern Californians to keep their lawns green to this day.
The Mulholland character is "sacrificed" at the altar of greed, embodied by Huston, who secretly buys the San Fernando Valley, knowing that once the water deal is set, it will be incorporated into the city, making him a gazillionaire. It is rather cynical, although nobody suggests the L.A. "city fathers" were boy scouts. The same old theme is that capitalism and American political power are corrupt. To make sure the audience is convinced the corruption is beyond redemption, Huston is in the end found out be an insatiable, incestual monster. He plays the role so well it brings up minds-eye imagery of his real daughter, Angelica. The film is utterly beyond any criticism, regardless of political colorization. For decades, film students and screenwriters have studied it. It spawned an artistic quest to lace the screen with symbols, metaphors, backstory, and twists.
"Chinatown" seems to be the apex of the American film period, the mid-1970s. The period from 1960 to 1979 is unparalleled, but the backstory of the people who created these classics is a telling tale of why the genre leans to the Left. In the 1960s, film schools became popular. Four schools emerged, and have held their place as the place to learn the craft. In Los Angeles there was the USC School of Cinema-Television. Their first big alumnus was "Star Wars" director George Lucas. UCLA combined their film school with their drama program, so as to bring actors, writers, directors and producers together. Coppola went to UCLA along with a future rock star named Jim Morrison, who would form The Doors with another UCLA film alumnus, keyboardist Ray Manzarek.

STEVEN TRAVERS
AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
STWRITES@AOL.COM ... Read more

Album Description

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

Reviews (281)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Stunning Achievement
The depiction of the brutality of the Nazis toward the Jewish population of Poland is heartbreaking and unforgettable. This film captures the range of emotions that a family experience as they subjected to the gradual increase in persecution that ultimately leads to Treblinka.
Adrien Brody is a marvelous actor and is perfectly cast as Spilmann the famous pianist who is the only member of his family to survive. Spilmann's Survival depends on the kindnes of others who take great risks to protect him. Thes heroic acts are contrasted with the forementioned brutality of Germans to great effect in the film. A final act of redemptive kindness by a german officer near the end of the war brings the absurdity of the circumstances we have just witnessed into full relief.

Based on Spillman's memoirs , the film is very accurate relative to the book. The cinematography is astounding, particularly the transformation of Warsaw to a spectoral ruin where Spillman struggles to survive. The movie is well acted, well written and shocking in it's realism.

IT will leave you numb if you haven't seen it yet. ... Read more

Reviews (264)

Gate to the Kingdom of Disillusion
First, a few reasons why I bothered to see this movie:

1. Roman Polanski is one of my favorite directors. 2. The theatrical/tv trailer looked intense 3. Interesting subject matter (occult). 4. French actress/wife of Polanski Emanuelle Seigner 5. Emanuelle Seigner 6. Last but not least, Emanuelle Seigner

Now, a few reasons why I was left disappointed:

1. The ending 2. The ending 3. ...and the ending.

This film was excellent for it's spectacular cinematography and various global locations. The plot and story itself were easy to comprehend . The mood, setting, atmosphere was very creepy and at times Gothic. Yet, it was not enough to frighten or thrill. As for the climax, maybe some of us are lazy and lack imagination to draw conclusions;However, I still wanted to know what really happened to Johnny Depp's character Corso at the end ( and have it explained to me by the director and actors) The ending was too ambiguous and symbolic (though the movie was filled with symbols figuratively and visually). As for Emanuelle Seigner, she is one underrated talented beauty only known for her modeling and acting in Europe. I wanted to know more about her character; Was she one of Satan's dominions or Satan himself ? She was definitely not heavensent(only to the eyes)...

This movie gets 3 stars because it left me with more questions than answers; No closure whatsoever...and leaving the ending for personal or individual interpretation doesn't count Mr. Polanski

The Worst Movie I Ever Viewed
I made the mistake of seeing this in the theatre...DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE! It is far and away the most disappointing movie experience of my like.

2 hours of my life I wont get back.
Your time and money would be better spent if you were to commmit these rescources to the study of your own ass!

not a FLOP by any means
I'm currently watching the TRIO channel's disgusting butchery of this film as apart of their "month of flops" promotion. The only FLOP I see is their editing of essential footage. They have condensed the movie to under 2 hours...and have subsequently made certain scenes appear as "stupid" (for lack of a better word).

This movie grew on me. I was not intially impressed, but after viewing it with friends and family, I have become a big fan of its haunting yet calming persona. The subject matter deals with Satanic idolatry, but the movie is in no way "goth". It's the kind of film you could watch with your children and not worry about them being scarred for life.

As far as comedy, Johnny Depp's bad luck with women is hilarious. His facial expressions (even while killing "the albino") are a hoot.

As for the ending, after many viewings I believe Depp went to hell where he was praised for being the human father of the anti-Christ. All along, the lady in the sneakers was Satan.

YES, THE END IS A GYP. OTHERWISE A HAUNTING THRILLER!
The absolutely creepy yet sublime direction of this Polanski endeavour makes it a worthwhile watch. Almost Kubrick-like, wide angle shots and lax-paced screenplay and all.

I was riveted. Riveted, that is, right until the somewhat confusing fire and cobblestone ending, which admittedly leaves you with very little to chew on and instead of appearing clever and ambiguous, as it perhaps wanted to, mostly comes off as complacent.

Yet, the point of a mystery noirish film is to keep you intrigued through out, and the movie manages to do that quite successfully. The sleuthing process is almost done in tandem with the audience, which is fun. Johnny Depp is immaculate in his potrayal of a detached book detective and all others contribute richly. The music is tacky in bits, but not too distracting.

Recommended rental for haunting cinematography of Portugal and France, and a fabulously captivating atmosphere in general. ... Read more

Reviews (63)

Martin Brody likes it dark and violent
Please ignore the poorly thought out review on this page. Anyone with either a passing interest in Shakespeare or an appreciation of film should seek this out now. Polanski, avoiding the trap so many other filmmakers fall into, makes a film based on Macbeth, not merely recording a performance of the play. He has crafted a breathlessly paced film, making very reasonable cuts in the text in order to bring the film in under 2½ hours. I have seen much longer versions that had no grasp of the play at all.

Polanski also wisely chose not to use well-known stars for the major roles; instead utilizing some of the best (and youngest) British stage actors of the time. Jon Finch and Francesca Annis perfectly capture the most emotionally wrenched marriage ever, without the moustache twirling that finds its way into Shakespeare film adaptations too often. This film is dark, muddy, and violent; it is not intended for children. I have to assume that the people who complain about the violence in the film have never actually read the play. And I hope, for the sake of their own sanity, they steer clear of Titus Andronicus, Richard III, Julius Caesar, Othello, and if beheadings put a bee in your bonnet, beware Cymbeline!

... This is a raw, passionate telling of one of the great fictional works in the English language, by one of the great filmmakers of our time. But wait for the wide-screen DVD.

Shakespeare as Cinema!
Purists beware, Roman Polanski and Kenneth Tynan have cut, rearranged, and shaped Shakespeare's material to make a MOVIE! And what a grand film they created. Flowingly cinematic, with stunning location filming and superb cinematography the many cuts allow for a smooth narration without sacrificing the gut and heart of the play.

There was much controversy when this film debuted, probably due to it being financed and produced by Hugh Hefner and Playboy, and probably because it was unblinkingly bloody upfront (although the blood is in the play, much of it is naturally offstage), and because of nudity in several key scenes (including the witches....all those old nude crones, while factually correct, no doubt upset many). Today, these seem like perfectly reasonable choices. The film is relentless and remorseless, as befits the story. I don't know what part of Polanski's personal tragedy had any part in his work here, but the direction is excellent. Finch and Anis are fine as the murderous Laird and his Lady, as is the rest of the cast.

If you want the play, see the play. If you want a stimulating and fully realized CINEMATIC treatment of Shakespeare's great themes of greed, ambition, murder, guilt and destiny, see this finely produced, directed, and acted work. Well worthwhile.

Vaulting Ambition
This is a terrific cinematic adaption of one of Shakespeare's greatest plays. The film is also known as "The Tragedy of Macbeth", or sometimes "Roman Polanski's Macbeth". Set in early medieval Scotland ( although filmed, I understand, in Wales ), this is a well-known tale of the ruthless ambition of a young noble, Macbeth, who is goaded into acts of evil by his scheming, manipulative wife. Macbeth literally murders his way to the throne of Scotland. Of course, we know what happens to those who "live by the sword" !

British actor, Jon Finch, has the title role, and he expertly peels away the various levels of his character's personality--his Macbeth is no cardboard villain. His performance is more than matched by Francesca Annis as Lady Macbeth, whose twisted mind and blood-soaked hands drive her to madness. Performances by other members of this primarily British cast are all fine, with Martin Shaw particularly effective as Banquo.

The other "star" here, of course, is Polanski. The story of Macbeth, and the times in which it occurred, were brutal, primitive, stark--wars were constant--men settled disputes with swords, daggers, axes and maces--death was not heroic or pretty--women and children could be victims as well. Polanski portrays this environment with as much matter-of-fact authenticity as possible. There are certainly some gory scenes, even by current cinema standards, and the final battle between Macbeth and his sworn enemy Macduff is far from some of the choreographed sword fights in Hollywood movies. The spare landscape and ancient castles add to the atmosphere--for interior scenes, light is used very sparingly, to add to the mood and sense of foreboding.
The scenes with the three witches are creepy and effective.

I do have one question. The credits indicate that the script was written by Polanski and noted drama critic, Kenneth Tynan. Doesn't William Shakespeare deserve a little credit here ? Those soliloquies sound awfully familiar !

The DVD exhibits a decent, occasionally hazy, colour wide-screen picture. I was concerned at first when I noticed a vertical line on the right of the picture, but it disappeared, and the rest of the print seemed fine.

There have been numerous versions of this classic play, and I'm sure there will be more. How long before Kenneth Branagh decides that we need a new version on film ? In the mean time, Polanski's "Macbeth" gives us a totally engrossing, if bleak, cinematic experience.

A Great Performance For A Great Play
If reading the play wasn't enough, this movie kept me asking for more. Roman Polanski brilliantly executed what I had envisioned while reading the script for the play. The dark of the night at Macbeth's, to the special effects which were quite good for their time. I especially enjoyed the scene with the dagger, it was exactly as I had imagined it.

Truly Inspiring
I can't recommend this enough. I teach Shakespeare to 6th and 8th graders, and this movie absolutely engrosses kids of this age. Polanski makes every nuance of the play clear, and the acting is superb. We read a little of the play, work with it, then I show just that part of the DVD. (I have to leave out very few scenes because I teach in a public school, so no nudity allowed.) I wish Polanski would tackle other of Shakespeare's plays. ... Read more

Reviews (60)

First Class Entertainment
I first watched this film on the television at Christmas in about 1982 (under the title "Dance Of The Vampires"), and even then, as a 12 year-old, was impressed by this superior vampire 'caper'. The film starts with a beautifully haunting score (by the late Christopher Komeda) and the arrival of a pair of intrepid vampire killers to a Transylvanian Inn. Throughout the film, the viewer is treated to a visual and musical feast, enhanced by brilliant acting from the likes of Ferdy Mayne, Jack MacGowran, Alfie Bass, and of course, Iain Quarrier as the token gay vampire! The enchanting qualities of Sharon Tate as the inn-keeper's young daughter, Sara, add to the overall enjoyment of the film; which, in my opinion, is easily the best vampire and/or Polanski movie to date.

A Comedic Rendition of Bram Stoker's "Dracula"
"The Fearless Vampire Killers" is producer/director/screenwriter/actor Roman Polanski's comedic rendition of Bram Stoker's "Dracula" legend. The bumbling Professor and his timid assistant Alfred (played by Roman Polanski) travel to Transylvania to study vampires. The Professor and Alfred rest at an inn festooned with garlic. That evening, the innkeeper's daughter (played by the *stunningly beautiful* Sharon Tate) is kidnapped by the Count (played with a characterization combining elements of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing). The distraught innkeeper (played with a Zero Mostel characterization) runs out into the night to rescue his kidnapped daughter and never returns alive. The Professor and Alfred seek the Count's castle. The Count invites the Professor and Alfred to stay at his castle and to study in his library. The Professor and Alfred agree, they learn that the Count and his flock are planning a formal dress ball, and the real fun begins ...

This film's scenic vistas and its theatrical sets are impressive -- they are complex, ornate, and convey a somber atmosphere. And Sharon Tate's beauty is impressive -- previously an unknown actress, this film gave general public recognition to Sharon Tate. Roman Polanski was involved in *all* aspects of this film's production, and his quality touch is visible throughout the film.

It is ironic that this film's plot revolves around Sharon Tate's kidnapping by the Count and his flock. After this film was released, Sharon Tate and her real life friends were murdered in their home by members of the Charles Manson family.

Not his best
... when u compare it with Rosemary`s Baby, Repulsion and Frantic. But it DOES have its moments... What really saves this film is the music by Komeda, choreography by Norwegian Tutte Lemkow, the scenary, the make-up, the off-key characters, Sharon Tate and the costumes... Too often u find yourself wondering what-the-heck this is all about and why doesn`t Polanski move a bit faster into the action??? Still; it`s watchable and I`m glad that so many have found it to their hearts:-)

A Timeless Classic
This is one of my all-time favorite films. I first saw this movie as a young girl and never forgot it. I was thrilled when I found it on VHS years later and am now excited about owning the DVD. This film is a mixture of an early silent film and a Laurel & Hardy-type comedy. Our "fearless vampire killers" keep getting themselves into tight spots and then must work to get themselves out again. The sets are terrific, especially the castle. You can get wrapped up in this film, it won't bore you for a minute. It's a subtle spoof of a vampire movie keeping the thrills while adding comic relief. A must-see and a must-have.

A Vampire Classic
Late one night many years ago I had the pleasure of watching the great Roman Polanski vampire film. Now, many years later, I have added the complete and uncut edition to my collection.

This tongue-in-cheek begins with Professor Abronsius and his assistant (Polanski) arriving in Transylvania. The professor, who has one of the silliest mustaches of all time, is researching the legends of vampires. He is convinced that they really exist and that he can eliminate them. Shortly after their arrival it becomes apparent that there are indeed strange creatures about. All of the evidence convinces the professor that his suspicions are correct.

When the inn they are staying in is hit by a vampire the two journey to a bleak castle. There they encounter the local lord, who is a vampire. The lord and the professor hit it off quite well as both are men (ahem) of learning. During the day the professor and his assistant search for the vampires tomb. They find it but are unable to dispatch the creatures and wind up losing all of their tools in the process. Then night falls.

With the fall of night the two become targets and must avoid their vampiric hosts. then they make a startling discovery. There are more vampires in the castle than just the lord and his son. There is a graveyard filled with generations of bloodsuckers. As the vampires hold an annual ball at which they will feast on a number of locals, the professor and his protégée manage to make off with one of the victims and successfully flee into the night pursued by a hunchback sledding in a coffin.

The film then ends with a very dark note. The woman they have saved makes the complete transition to vampire while they are fleeing and she bites the young assistant. It is in this way that the bumbling Professor Abronsius enabled vampirism to spread out of Transylvania into the rest of the world.

This edition restores the twenty minutes that were cut out when the film was first released in America. This is an unusual film in that much is communicated through action. The dialogue is rather sparse throughout. But with the almost exaggerated actions of a silent film combined with a haunting score result in a richer movie than had it been full of dialogue. The special effects, what few there are, are quite effective and possibly more effective than current effects. In one scene the vampire killers and the woman they are trying to rescue are leading a dance at the ball. The procession advances towards a mirror and only the three are reflected although dozens are in direct line. Spectacular. The rest of the film uses small dashes of comedy to season an otherwise dark story. This is a true classic among vampire films. If you have not seen it you should. ... Read more

Reviews (162)

"Pray for Rosemary's Baby"
This is the greatest horror film, and one of the greatest films ever, period.

Everything in it works. From that terrific tag line to the creepy poster art, to that off kilter lullaby Mia Farrow croons, to every single performance, line of dialogue and scene. The cast is perfection. The terror is palpable. The extras set the movie in its time, but the movie has surpased its time and become, like all true classics, for the ages. The Bramley will never be razed for a parking lot. Ira Levin's superb novel was blessed by Roman Polanski's film. Both are landmarks touched with more than a little genius.

The movie is wickedly funny, deliciously entrancing, groundbreakingly "real" because it's horror is set in present day New York; also, the elderly couple next door, who are the coven leaders, are played to the hilt by nosey Ruth Gordon and the intriguing Sidney Blackmer; therefore, it's easy to come under their spell. Blackmer especially gives an almost noble performance that is rich and wise. The entire cast is at the top of their game.

Maurice Evan's Hutch is the hope and comfort of the film, the logical reality against what is inexorably happening, while Ralph Bellamy's Dr. Saperstein (he was on "Open End," you know)is that soft spoken easygoing evil that you just know hides a little below the surface of most of his ilk. It's also fun seeing Hope Summers (Clara Edwards of "The Andy Griffith Show") as a Satanist. Not out of character here, really. Did Aunt Bea ever find out?

It's ironic that the movie probably could not be made today. The current crop of puritans would rail against it; odd, since the bare bones of the plot hew to what they say they believe. But while those lame Left Behind movies and the others artlessly propound beating foolish stuff into its audiences heads, "Rosemary's Baby" plays knowingly with fiction, with what ifs, with the paranoia come true, all in a twisty gripping eerie exciting film, produced by the great William Castle, who has just the right cameo that comes with the chill first, then the laughter.

Mia Farrow's heart wrenching Rosemary Woodhouse leads us into her terror and pain, then into her first goosebumpy nightmare come true reaction to her son, propelling into that final reaction, maybe even scarier, as the camera wisely pans to the window and the outside of the Bramley. There are some fine character actors as well, always dependable Elisha Cook, Jr. Philip Leeds and Patsy Kelly.

John Cassavetes, as Guy Woodhouse, also creeps us out as he sells himself and Rosemary, and I guess, their baby, and the world, to Satan, to further his acting career. Being in bit parts in "Luther" and "Nobody Loves an Albatross" can only take an actor just so far. Priorities, after all. So settle down with some "plain old Lipton Tea," a bowl of "chocolate mouse" and a Vodkda Blush, and watch a classic again or for the first time. Watch out for mouse bites, though.

CLASSIC TERROR
Roman Polanski concocted a devilish, stylish witches' brew of paranoia and real terror with this movie -- the movie is literally soaked with detail and imagination. Yet the terrors are mostly psychological, pulled off in the most amazing way, filling you, along with Rosemary, with absolute dread. Ira Levin's story, which reads significantly more outlandish in its terrors, is given a 60's pop art/New York look, what with its fabulous use of the Dakota as the ominous Bram, and Mia's delightful costumes. The dream sequences actually further the plot, and are spectacular visualizations of the narrative, providing insight into her strictly circa-late 60s Catholic upbringing. Mia Farrow is sensational as Rosemary, with her big eyes and winning sweetness; her transformation is riveting. Ruth Gordon provides more than enough creepiness all on her own, and John Cassavettes is absolutely perfect as Rosemary's ambitious, cunning husband. The wildly provocative premise places the son of the devil in Manhattan -- and as the movie cast its spell, you descend into madness with Rosemary, who, after all, simply wants the dream of motherhood in her pretty apartment. The bookend lullaby will continue to haunt you for days.

ROMAN AND MIA`S BEST
With all-star-performances from Mia, Ruth Gordon, Sidney Blackmer and John Cassavetes, Polish-director Roman Polanski offers his BEST film.... The seduction-scenes with the Devil - and Rosemary`s nightmares were based on LSD-trips and discussions between Roman and his wife, Sharon Tate. Sharon can be seen briefly in the "making of" and supposedly as an extra when Rosemary is having a party. The film is still disturbing and watchable. Rosemary`s humming is indeed by Mia Farrow.

ROSEMARYS BABY DVD- MIA FARROW
A BRILLIANT MOVIE!! A DEFINITE CLASSIC TO HAVE IN YOUR COLLECTION.ONE OF THE SCARIEST MOVIES OF ALL TIME. MIA FARROW IS EXCELLENT IN HER POTRAYAL OF ROSEMARY AS WELL AS RUTH GORDON AS THE NOSY,WITCH NEXT DOOR. DONT MAKE AN APPOINTMENT WITH DR. SAPERSTEIN!!!! ALSO,SEE A VERY YOUNG CHARLES GRODIN. THE BEGINNING SEQUENCE IS CLASSIC AS THEY SHOW ALL SHOTS OF THE DAKOTA FROM ALL ANGLES. A MOVIE YOU WILL LOVE.

"What have you done to his eyes?"
The cast of Rosemary's Baby really help bring the wonderful characters of the novel to life. Mia Farrow is perfectly cast as Rosemary, as is John Cassevetes as her husband Guy. I could not imagine anyone other than Ruth Gordon playing Minnie Castevet, the annoying neighbor with a dark secret. Sidney Blackmer as her husband is truly memorable. The supporting cast is equally terrific and the story is suspenseful and chilling, brilliantly written for the screen by Roman Polanski. I have not seen a more faithful adaptation of a novel yet, and it works wonderfully, conveying Rosemary's turmoil and madness effectively. Mia Farrow plays her to perfection, vulnerable yet brave. The ending is truly memorable and creepy. I just wish the tone of the film was darker, but perhaps the subject matter was controversial enough in 1968. Perhaps a darker remake is in order? That would be great! ... Read more

Reviews (30)

Nobody Does It To You Like Roman Polanski!
Roman Polanski's THE TENANT, released in 1976 (two years after his blockbuster CHINATOWN), is my all-time favorite movie. It isn't Polanski's best film (MACBETH gets that honor in my opinion), but this story (taken from Roland Topor's equally strange but less inspired novel) really "does it to me". Polanski himself (who also co-wrote the screenplay with long-time friend and collaborator Gerard Brach) plays Trelkowski, a timid, lonely Polish immigrant trying to make ends meet as a file clerk in Paris. Polanski's performace is genuinely amazing. There are not many actors, let alone directors, who would feel so comfortable playing such a difficult and potentially career-shattering role. In the film, Trelkowski finds an apartment in a dingy old building run by the oddly sinister Monsieur Zy (Melvyn Douglas) and a rude Concierge (Shelley Winters). The previous tenant, Simone Choule, attempted suicide by jumping out of the window. Monsieur Zy tells Trelkowski that if she dies, he may have the apartment. Trelkowski hot-foots it to the hospital to see how long it'll be before he can move in. Simone lies, semi-comatose, swathed in bandages like a mummy from head to toe. When she screams upon seeing Trelkowski's face, the head nurse demands that he and Stella (Isabelle Adjani), Simone's best friend, leave immediately. Trelkowski tries to initiate a half-hearted love affair with the frumpy Stella that evening, but they are unable to connect for some reason and go their seperate ways. The next day, Trelkowski learns of Simone's death. When he moves in, he begins to notice strange things: neighbors complain of noise, usually without cause; people seem to spy on him from the communal bathroom across the way; he finds a human tooth stashed in a hole in the wall behind his wardrobe; there are knocks on the door when no one is there; he is constantly bothered by neighbors who are either obnoxious (such as Jo Van Fleet) or pitiable (like Lila Kedrova). Eventually, surrounded by artifacts from the dead girl's life, and torn apart piece by piece by his increasingly demanding neighbors, Trelkowski slips into insanity, dressing in Simone's clothes, pulling out his own tooth to match the one lodged in the wall, and even purchasing a wig and high heels, intoning things like "I think I'm pregnant" to himself in the mirror. He begins to hallucinate, and his persecution complex turns into a severe case of schizophrenia. I won't tell you the ending, but I will say that if you enjoyed REPULSION and ROSEMARY'S BABY, then you will find this to be a fitting third piece of the puzzle. Like Carole and Rosemary in those films, poor Trelkowski is a victim of urban living, a pathetic lost soul not unlike Travis Bickle of Scorcese's TAXI DRIVER (released the same year), except that Trelkowski is a danger mostly to himself. Like I said, this isn't a great film, but it's worth your time if you enjoy horror films Polanski-style. And as a vision of one man's private hell, it's indispensable. I love this movie, flaws and all. Obviously not for all tastes.

ANOTHER GREAT CINEMATIC WORK - wanna know why?
In CHINATOWN, Polanski gave us a great story of corruption. In ROSEMARY'S BABY, he studied the occult. In REPULSION, he gave us a portrait of a troubled mind. Here, in THE TENANT, Roman Polanski gives us a stunning new portrayal of absolute paranoia.

Polanski stars himself as the main character: a man who rents the apartment of a dead woman - who apparently jumped from her window.

Strangely enough, Polanski's character starts to identify with the dead woman little by little as he starts to live in the same environment... the same apartment, the same neighbours, the same window, the same talk... and - guess what! - maybe she did not commit suicide after all...

But this is just the beginning. To reveal more, it would be unthinkable.

Why is this a great film? A first rate screenplay (beautifully constructed), amazing actors (Shelley Winters and Melvyn Douglas are great!), and...

...The sets! The bulding (a parisian quartier) is absolutely fantastic. Like REAR WINDOW, it was entirely built in a sound stage - incredible!!! - allowing Mr.Polanski enough freedom to put the camera wherever he wanted.

But the great thing about this film is that (like in a state of paranoia) you never know what is truth or what is imagined. The main character starts to see, hear and discover things that may actually be true! - only at the end (with a finalle that makes perfect sense) you'll discover the truth behind it all.

After those beautiful sets, comes the cinematography by one of the top Directors of Photography: Sven Nykvist (PERSONA, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, ANOTHER WOMAN, CRIES AND WHISPERS, AUTUMN SONATA, and many other works)... this film has one of the best studio cinematographies I have ever seen. The music is also beautiful and you will love it from the moment it begins. Also a great achevement is sound design.

This is one of those great films where mood and atmosphere set an exemple for what to do in a film - a work where everything is right.

Unfortunately, the DVD only comes with the trailer (which is also beautiful). No photos, no commentary (I was hoping this DVD would come with a commentary by Mr.Polanski), not even a small interview with anybody. Too bad if you consider the quality of the craftsmanship of this work.

But at this incredible low price... one cannot complaint.

One of Polanski's best -- but be prepared
When this film came out in 1976, critical reaction was strongly negative. Only one writer I can recall -- Penelope Gilliatt in the New Yorker magazine -- had the insight to see beyond the general weirdness, focusing on the title character's increasing paranoia and alienation.

The unnerving plot gets underway when Trelkovsky, played disarmingly by Polanski, moves into a creepy Parisian apartment building, into a flat in which the previous tenant committed suicide. Trelkovsky gradually grows suspicious that some of his disgruntled, crabby neighbors would like to see him do the same thing. The outstanding cast includes Melvyn Douglas, Jo Van Fleet, Shelley Winters and Isabelle Adjani, all seemingly having a great time with an utterly mesmerizing story.

The film has high production values, including gorgeous, moody photography by the great Sven Nykvist (who often photographed for Ingmar Bergman), and an appropriately eerie score by Philippe Sarde. The DVD transfer is beautifully clear.

Not everyone will warm up to the bizarre, shocking ending -- and I can't possibly give away any of the details -- but suffice to say that it shows Polanski in a way that few have seen him. For all the attention that "Chinatown" gave this director in 1974, this film, coming two years later, is just about as striking in a completely different vein.

I'd go crazy too if shelly winters was my landlord
polanski films should be watched chronologically. the tenant stars polanski and documents his ascent into madness. after taking the flat of a girl who committed suicide, polanski, due to his own isolation and psychosis, begins to question his own sanity and blames it on everone else. the beauty here is that the film never allows the audience know what is real and what is concocted until its climax that, at first, resembles a comedy of errors, but develops into an incredily eerie disposition.

i will have the galouises please, i don't care for marlboro either

Movin' On Up.........
Original. Witty. Ironic. Creepy. Thoughtful. Detailed. VERY KAFKAESQUE.......For anyone who has ever felt like they had to be quiet when coming or going from their apartment...... ... Read more

Amazon.com

Unquestionably one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, Roman Polanski(Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, The Pianist) turns histalents to the realm of sexual perversity and its emotional toll. While ona Mediterranean cruise, Nigel and Fiona (Hugh Grant and Kristin ScottThomas) find a young French woman named Mimi (Emmanuelle Seigner) cryingin a bathroom. Mimi's paraplegic American husband Oscar (Peter Coyote)forces Nigel to listen to how Oscar and Mimi fell in love--as well as howthey discovered kinky erotic games and finally arrived at a curdled,mutual sadism. Bitter Moon veers erratically from salaciouserotica to black comedy to clumsy psychodrama, but individual scenes havea definite punch. Coyote chews the scenery with glee, Seigner (Polanski'swife, adding a hint of lurid autobiography) flounders moodily, and Grantseems miscast, but Scott Thomas gives the movie some actual dignity.--Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (37)

Fascinating Erotic Story
Roman Polanski has never been accused of being a timid filmmaker. Over the years, his many movies have been distinguished by their potent subject matter and sure-handed direction. They are certainly not for everyone's taste, but those who like Polanski films tend to like them very much indeed. Bitter Moon is no different. It is one of the most frank and deliciously outrageous films I have seen in a long time.

The story begins with a very staid and proper British couple on an ocean voyage. Nigel and Fiona (Hugh Grant and Kristen Scott-Thomas) are hoping to rekindle the faint spark of romance that is left in their marriage. What they get instead is something much more than they bargained for.

Almost immediately, they meet Mimi (Emmanuelle Seigner), a seductive French femme fatale, and her crippled husband Oscar (Peter Coyote), a failed American writer. Oscar knows that Nigel desires Mimi and he is willing to accommodate him, but first Nigel must listen to the sordid story of their life together.

I don't want to give away too many of the details, for the shock of hearing their tale is the best part of the film. It is, at various turns, erotic, outrageous, outlandish, hilarious, titillating and unbelievable. What it is certainly not is boring. As we peek in on their bizarre sex life, first stimulated, then horrified, we are never quite sure what is true and what is fantasy. Against his better judgment, Nigel finds himself drawn into their twisted, little world and the results do not disappoint.

It seems that it always takes a European director to make a film such as this one. Americans are far too timid about sexuality to deal with it in an frank and adult manner. You can count on Polanski or Paul Verhoeven or Bertrand Blier to make a film like "Bitter Moon." But what about Spielberg or Scorsese or Coppola? Never. When it comes to films involving violence, American directors can be as bold and explicit as one could ever desire. In stories involving eroticism and sensuality, however, they are sadly lacking.

Due to some regrettable incidents in Polanski's past, his films seldom get the respect they deserve in this country. That is unfortunate because his work is generally superb. His 1988 thriller "Frantic," starring Harrison Ford, remains one of the best, most unappreciated films of recent years. "Bitter Moon" was first released in Europe in 1992, but it took two years for it to finally be shown in America. Anyone who ignores this one, though, will be missing a damn fine film.

Whoa!!
This is probably one of the most depraved movies I have ever seen. It's a Roman Polanski film. (I usually have high regard for his films, so it's no surprise to me that I "enjoyed" this one.) Nigel (played by Hugh Grant) is on a cruise ship with his wife. He meets a strange couple, the crippled husband and his lovely young French wife, Mimi. The story he tells is one of extreme sexual passion and the consequences of a greedy sex life. (A strange sex life, at that!) There are two extremes to this relationship. This movie had my gut tied up in knots the entire time I was watching it. I was still having flashbacks from the film the next morning! I really can't recall having a movie effect me in such a manner. This movie is NOT recommended for the more "reserved" people.

Accccaaip güzel bi film
Yaw yýllar önce tv de seyretmiþtim, bi daha da yayýnlamadýlar. Çok þaane bi film harbiden. Þimdi de DVD olarak alacam. Ama Türkçe altyazýlý veya dublajlý olarak bulamadým.

Less than 3 stars?!! Madness....
I was compelled to write this review based on the handfull of negative reviews (like the one below).

I think this movie is an absolute gem. First off, taking a step back, this movie isn't about two good people that meet and fall in love. I believe this movie is about what happens when two very base, very bored, and largely devoid of virtue collide. It's about the danger in irrational immoral entanglement (again, this is just my opinion). You see, the sex scenes (some of them anyway) are meant to be laughable. These two hit bottom together and reach (what Peter Coyote, the male partner calls) "sexual bankruptcy"....right in front of your eyes, they get slaughtered by their own insane urges! Brilliant, strange, interesting, depressing, important (especially if you're prone to confuse urges with love).

Peter Coyote gives an amazing performance, Polanski offered up his own wife (Emmanuelle Seigner) as the temptress (c'mon, you've got to give him at least one star for having enough love for this film to direct his own wife through sex scenes).

If you haven't seen Bitter Moon, don't miss this film. I think it raises important questions and warnings about certain popular behavior (or at least tendencies) in relationships. All the while being entertaining, and at times utterly shocking.

Hope this was helpful.

Atrocious
I admire director/actor Roman Polanski very much; not only because he can be a consumate filmaker and has made some of the more interesting films of the late 20th. Century, but also because he has managed to surive the loss of his family to the Nazi gas chambers, the loss of his pregnant wife to the Manson lunatics as well as many other problems.

"Bitter Moon", in my opinion, has no redemming features whatsoever. If I didn't know that Polanski was involved I never would have believed it. The script is trite, corny and shallow. The acting performances, without exception, are utterly pedestrian and completely unbelievable.

In case anyone believes that my distaste for "bitter Moon" stems from its sexual or violent content let me assure you that is certainly not the case. I did, however, find the sexual content to be absolutely laughable. I am a great fan of intricate and thoughtful movies; some of my favourite directors are Atom Egoyan, Krystof Kiewslowski, David Lynch, Martin Scorsese, Stanley Kubrick, David Cronenberg, Akira Kurosawa and, indeed, Roman Polanski.

However intricate, deep, simple or spectacular a film may be, it must be engaging. In my opinion, "Bitter Moon" is a laborious and boring film. I wouldn't be surprised if Polanski wishes he had never made it. ... Read more

Description

A marriage becomes strained when the wife is confronted with a man she is convinced tortured and brutalized her when she was in jail years earlier. ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Death & The Maiden
Based on a play (by Ariel Dorfman ) which why most of the action takes place almost completely in the house. Might make some people feel "claustrophobic" (not me)

Signourney Weaver plays Paulina a woman who had suffered torture and rape by a doctor, during the revolution, when she worked for an underground newspaper and was "arrested" She refused to tell the name of her leader, the man that is now her husband

The movie is set in "A country in South America, after the fall of dictatorship" Paulina is seen preparing for the arrival of her husband Gerardo Escobar ( A lawyer & civil right activist), making dinner and listening to the radio. A story on the news concerning a formation of a commitee on human rights violations that'll investigate acts of tortures commited between 1975-1980 comes on, she looks uncomfortable and goes to switch it off, then hears her husband is being considered to chair the commitee (news to her) and rumor has it that he has accepted.

The power goes out, and she continues to wait for Gerardo, an unfamiliar car pulls up to the house, she runs around blowing out the candles and grabs a gun. But it's just Gerardo, their car had a flat and he hitched a ride with a doctor (Roberto Miranda) who also has a house nearby.

They fight about the comission. Paulina thinks it's whitewash, and 'dignifying a betrayal" "What'll happen to the men they can prove were on the death squads?" she askes "the evidence will be turned over to the courts" says Gerardo, Paulina scoffs "Maybe over the judge who told Maria Bautista, no her husband wasn't tortured, he just ran off with a younger woman." It'll only involve cases that ended in death for the victim, Gerardo says he has get the president to change the rules, but to Gerardo it's a job worth doing.

A car again pulls up to the house, and Paulina wakes Gerardo, they hide in the dark looking out the window. Someone knocks on the door, it's the doctor again, Gerardo has forgotten to take his tire, he also wanted to tell Gerardo what an honor it is to meet him. "But do you know to know the truth, the real real truth?" The doctor asks, Paulina is listening from the bedroom and gasps when she hears him, his voice, his laugh (he snorts when he laughs) and 'the real real truth"
She finds other things, like his smell, he likes to quote Neitzsche " I think it was Neitzsche..." and he has a tape of Schubert's Death and the maiden in his car. The music which "the doctor" played during the torture and rape.

Is he the doctor, or not?

Receives great direction from Roman Polanski, great preformances from Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley & Stuart Wilson. A well done mystery that'll leave you guessing till the end.

Even with the knowledge of the outcome, it is still a movie I can enjoy watching over and over. :-)

Intense and disturbing
I would not recommend this for most people. It is painful to watch and artificial, very stagy (not surprising since it was adapted from a stage play written by Ariel Dorfman), and ultimately not redemptive (as the video jacket claims), but perverse and depressing.

Sigourney Weaver gives a raw-edged performance almost entirely in one key. She plays a woman (Pauline Escobar) who was raped and tortured by a Nazi-like doctor named Roberto Miranda played by Ben Kingsley in some unidentified South American country. Since Dorfman is from Argentina, we'll assume it's Argentina. Certainly this sort of thing happened there during the time of the "Disappeared." The other member of the three-person cast is her husband (Gerardo Escobar) played by Stuart Wilson. Roman Polanski directed.

The title comes from Franz Schubert's string quartet of the same name which was played by the doctor as he tortured Pauline.

This is a polarizing film. Women who have ever suffered anything at the hands of men will identify with Weaver's character and may find the film brilliant. Most men will not even be able to watch it.

There is some ambiguity in the ending, as to whether Roberto really was guilty as charged. My opinion is that he was without doubt. The final scene (which I can't describe since it would give away too much) is really a statement about the nature of horror and how it can live on amidst the most familiar settings, a man patting his son on the head, some people attending a concert.

I thought Wilson gave the most balanced performance. He had the most difficult role since it required subtlety and that he walk a fine line between accepting something monstrous in his presence or disbelieving his wife. He also had to be a weak sister, as it were, to the dominating presence of Sigourney Weaver who played most of the film with a gun in her hand. Yet he had to provide the strength of character and to symbolize the sense of justice. Kingsley looked very much the part of a sneaky little man, and his usual caged intensity was much in evidence.

Bottom line: any film that exposes the atrocities committed by the right wing dictatorships that dominated South and Central American during the Cold War is on the side of the angels; however most viewers I think will find this too intense and disturbing. Beware of some crude sexuality.

intense
this is the most intense movie i have ever seen. i thought my heart had stopped at the end. i don't want to give anything just watch it....

Excellent Kingsley performance but a cookie-cutter ending
The majority of this high rating is due to Kingsley's riveting performance; even when he is just pacing in the background he dominates the screen. He absolutely steals the picture, and he will have you guessing even past the end.
IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT OR DON'T WANT THE ENDING SPOILED, READ NO FURTHER
I didn't like the ending. Even though I was convinced of Kingsley's innocence, when it turned out he was guilty it was really no surprise, because come on, what would you expect? In a suspense movie where a seemingly innocent person accused by another of being a villain, gee, what happens at the end? In spite of all his denials, he turns out to be guilty. A better ending would have been if it had turned out Weaver's character was simply paranoid and had been wrong the whole time. But then we wouldn't have had Kingsley's Lorre-esque final monologue, so I suppose it all worked out.

Wanted to like this movie but......
There was something about this movie that was boring. I don't think the acting was anything special and Ms. Weaver...well. .She just didn't come across as a victim to me. The movie just didn't hang together.

Others have given it rave reviews but I can't. ... Read more

Album Description

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

Reviews (281)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Stunning Achievement
The depiction of the brutality of the Nazis toward the Jewish population of Poland is heartbreaking and unforgettable. This film captures the range of emotions that a family experience as they subjected to the gradual increase in persecution that ultimately leads to Treblinka.
Adrien Brody is a marvelous actor and is perfectly cast as Spilmann the famous pianist who is the only member of his family to survive. Spilmann's Survival depends on the kindnes of others who take great risks to protect him. Thes heroic acts are contrasted with the forementioned brutality of Germans to great effect in the film. A final act of redemptive kindness by a german officer near the end of the war brings the absurdity of the circumstances we have just witnessed into full relief.

Based on Spillman's memoirs , the film is very accurate relative to the book. The cinematography is astounding, particularly the transformation of Warsaw to a spectoral ruin where Spillman struggles to survive. The movie is well acted, well written and shocking in it's realism.

IT will leave you numb if you haven't seen it yet. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Roman Polanski was still a newcomer to the world of cinema when he unleashed this unforgettable exercise in skin-crawling terror. Repulsion was the Polish director's first film in English, but that hardly mattered: much of the movie is as wordless (and as weird) as the silent Nosferatu. The young Catherine Deneuve plays a Belgian girl stranded in '60s London, a shy beauty with no social skills. When her sister leaves their shared flat, Deneuve goes gradually, quietly, completely mad. Her world becomes Polanski's paintbox, as the devilish director distorts reality via a series of surrealistic touches (grasping hands that protrude from elastic walls) and out-and-out murderous horror. Very few films cast the kind of eerie spell that this 1965 classic achieves, and it clearly points the way toward Polanski's Rosemary's Baby. As with most of the director's work, what is unsettling is not the overt violence, but the terrifying sense of emptiness and isolation, and the boiling unease inside one's own mind. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (70)

Shocking "gets-in-your-head" suspense/horror.
Very enjoyable film. Catherine Deneuve is a favorite of mine anyway, but she is very convincing as the mousey nut-case. A bit on the avante garde side, but not as cryptic as "Belle du Jour".

A Poor Transfer
Only 3 stars because of poor quality transfer. A well crafted film. The disc claims to be 'digitally remastered" but appears to be copied from VHS;1.33:1 not 1.75:1 as filmed.I could have done better by using my DVD Recorder ,a video stabilizer and stereo synthesizer on my VHS copy taken froma rental copy.otherwise the disc should have rated 5 stars!!!
Edd
iegolden@shaw.ca

Wow
"Repulsion" is one of those films you like to use for an Oscar retrospective, to illustrate both the farce of the award nomination process and the attitude change that comes with a little historical perspective. While perhaps not Best Picture material for a mass audience, Polanski's direction and Deneuve's performance dwarf those actually nominated; when is the last time anyone even gave a thought to "Darling" or "Ship of Fools". And though worthy of its nominations, "The Collector" (in the same Psycho-Drama genre as "Repulsion") loses any contest between directors and actresses. Only Elizabeth Hartman in "Patch of Blue" turned in a better (arguably of course) 1965 performance than Deneuve's "Carol".

Films are a storytelling device with a common visual language and with certain conventions. "Repulsion" is an example of elliptical storytelling as Carol's decent into madness is revealed in a maddeningly slow process as thin layers of her coping skills are peeled away one-by-one.

For most first time viewers the pacing will be agonizingly slow. In part because it is hard to identify with Deneuve's' character and the secondary characters are too irrelevant for any special concern. Once you understand that this is a film you are meant to read, you see that the slow pacing is both intentional and necessary. It gives an attentive viewer enough time to explore the depth of each scene. Then you will see an entirely different film than the one a causal viewer is watching because "Repulsion" has this third dimension. Watch it a second time because you have to know the shape of this movie (and its surprises), before you can become totally involved in its process. This is a film that withholds its best from a first viewing.

Reading a film is something we all should be able to do, not just the pompous people who prattle on about the language of film. The fact is that all movies have codes and most of the codes are part of our general culture-we just have to train ourselves to find them and make them a part of our conscious viewing and not just something that acts on our subconscious.

"Repulsion" is the best primer I can think of for picking up this viewing technique because it is full of shared cultural codes and it does not race along so fast that you miss the images. Polanski positioned it midway between European new wave and conventional Hollywood, you get a concrete and relatively easy-to-follow story with tons of subtle visual and audio clues working on the attentive viewers subconscious.

Some are obvious, like the bathtub. Carol uses the bathtub as a means of purgation and regeneration after her unsatisfactory interactions with the world outside. This is an appropriate use in our culture, so when she allows the tub to overflow it signals that her life is coming apart. When she turns off the water but does not get into or even drain the tub Polanski is signaling that Carol is doomed; because as time passes the now cold water in the tub (soon joined by a dead body) prevents her from performing the purgation and regeneration ritual she needs.

Throughout the film the scenes are filled with dysfunctional and disorienting images and sounds. When Carol goes outside the street is torn up for pipeline work, there is a car accident, street musicians walk backwards (banjo and spoon players are weird even when walking conventionally). The bells of the convent next door chime discordantly during moments of torment. The sounds of children playing inside the walled convent courtyard taunt Carol with a world of peace and protection that she can never hope to share.

Progressively, Polanski goes deeper and deeper into Carol's