Amazon.com

Tony Richardson's film about the colossal Crimean War blunder combines his sociopolitical anger with the splendors of a David Lean epic for a fascinating artifact of that boiling-point protest year, 1968. Like America's contemporaneous Vietnam War, Britain's mid-19th-century conflict with Russia in defense of Turkey made less sense the deeper they sank into it; John Gielgud's Lord Raglan keeps referring absentmindedly to the enemy as "the French"! Aside from a peripheral romantic triangle involving apparently the single sane officer in Her Majesty's army (David Hemmings), his friend (Mark Burns), and the friend's wife (Vanessa Redgrave--Mrs. Richardson), the film is really about the profoundly jingoistic Victorian imagination; transitional animation sequences by Richard Williams seem to plunge us directly into the British national psyche. Somewhat muddled as drama, but irresistibly persuasive in its historical detail and stunning camerawork (David Watkin, Chariots of Fire), The Charge of the Light Brigade is a prime candidate for rediscovery. --Richard T. Jameson ... Read more

Reviews (38)

Cartoons in a war movie? Please!
This movie is very good and the battle scenes are dramatic, just not long enough. The main flaw of the film is the ridiculous animations that drastically take away the power & value that this movie should have had to audiences. And although Capt. Nolan was a dashing and brave officer, his role was very limited in reality. Overall the film is very authentic in capturing the era of the Crimean War. Trevor Howard is great; he acts like he was made for this role. A lot of the dialogue at the end is what the real officers actually said. I wish the battle at the end could've shown in more detail how the light brigade fought against the vastly superior Russian cavalry and actually drove off many of them before being forced to retreat. This is far more accurate than the Errol Flynn versian although many prefer that over this versian. I admit Flynn was much better than David Hemmings's stale performance, but for history stick with this film.

Supurb Remake of the Charge
The late 1960s saw some of the best period costume war movies ever made. This re-make of the old 1936 Errol Flynn classic bares little resemblence, but is more historically accurate.

For background sets, unifroms and period feel this movie has few equals. Only the 1968 Waterloo movie can compare with its sets and costumes. The historical accuracy of these sorts of things is what maks this movie a visual treat. The storyline itself is a little hard to follow at times. Depictions of regimental life in the cavalry is excellent, but the Britishisms of the actors are also hard to understand. The story provides striking contrasts between the upper and lower classes in Victorian England, but the droppy romance between Captain Noland and Captain Morris's wife seems contrieved. Although both actual characters, I doubt they knew each other so well, as they were both in different regiments. The adulturous affair is added for plots sake.

Lord Cardigan is brilliantly played by Trevor Howard, although a number of his famous controversial "Black Bottle" scenes have been combined and attributed to Noland and him. Again this didn't happen, but it is a minor alteration for plot and it does not hurt the movie. It allows us to still see the characters of Cardigan and Noland accurately within the context of the film.

Lord Raglan in all his feebleness is also wonderfully portrayed by Sir John Gielgud. The movie accurately shows the Victorian mindset of the British army which was shockingly conservetive but incredibly brave. More details on the battle of the Alma as as well as the events leading up to the Charge at Balaklava would have been nice. Perhaps the editing axed out the Charge of the Heavy Briagde and the 93rd Highlanders Thin Red Line. These episodes would have placed the Light Brigade Charge in better perspective.

Still, the depiction of the charge is extremly good and must rank as one the best shown on film. The fact that the director actually used 600 men and horses for the scene is an indication of how much detail was used for this film. This kind of production value is not seen much these days. Cinema and history buffs should love this movie. It deserves to be watched several times as dialogue and rich scenes should be savored over and over again. This movie is crying out for a directors cut DVD or VHS edition as there must be a lot of footage that was removed.

Terrible
Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad...

They should have negative star ratings for movies like this.

If the British were such baffoons as this pictures makes them out to be, how did they have such an empire. Man, the rest of the world must have been filled with idiots.

Poor anti-war movie
I am trying to decide if I am going to throw this DVD away. I watched the whole movie. It was the toughest sit through since "Mosquito Coast" with Harrison Ford. I do not mind watching a movie that is making the case that war is bad...war is bad, even though sometimes it is necessary. However, the movie itself jumped all over the place. As another review said, the relationships were poorly built. At first the animated portions of the film were interesting in an artsy way, but they kept coming back and were over used. The battle/war itself should have been more focused upon. The Crimean War was badly fought and this could have been a much better movie if it had shown the poor quality of generalship on both sides instead of just showing the character of the British and French generals.

Into the valley of death they rode ...
I first saw this version after seeing the 1936 film (both, ca. 1968) . Both are extremely good. In truth, I cannot remember which one was better. But this film did not disappoint me, that much, I recall. ... Read more

Reviews (25)

LOVE this movie!!!!
I saw this in the theatre when it was first released, and the passage of time has done nothing to dim my love and fascination of this superb translation of the novel by Fielding. Of course, Albert Finney made a very dashing Tom Jones, and wqas so perfectly suited to the role; Susannah York great as his true love, Sophie, and the other roles, Hugh Griffith as Sophie's father, and hilarious in his part as a drunken, boisterous, lusty squire, and Dame Edith Evans as his rather disapproving, but very funny sister, reprimanding him with a trilling "Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrother...." while he is wrestling some country maidens in the haystacks, straw in his hair and a pack of bulldogs surrounding him. The dinner scene with him eating a roast chicken with great gusto, so much so that he harangues Sophie with pieces of it in his nose, is delightful, as is his unscripted departure from Squire Allworthy's residence, on his horse, and turning so tightly that the horse rears and collapses with Hugh Griffith on top of him...so funny Richardson wisely decided to keep it in the film.
I also appreciated the performances of David Warner, as the disgustingly priggish tutor, Mr. Bliful, and Diane Cilento (once married to Sean Connery...) as Tom's sometime paramour. The entire cast is excellent, including Joan Greenwood as the predatory older woman after Tom at any cost. Watch for the Masquerade Ball and see Hugh Griffith in his elephant mask; what a great scene!
The peripheral players are superb, as is the setting of London in the eighteenth century, with the deplorable lack of sanitary conditions and the terrible poverty. The music is haunting, the scene at the Inn (yes, the food scene, of course, one of the more outstanding in the movie) but also the frenetic byplay of the characters winding up in each other's beds with different wives and lovers, it is such a classic melange of humor, drama and near tragedy, there simply isn't one moment of bad film or minute of tedium...you will be absorbed all the way through, and enjoy this rambunctious, joyful frolic with Tom and his supporting cast of finely drawn characters. One last comment: The scene of Tom and Sophie, running, taking turns rowing a boat and falling in love on the grounds of her father's estate, is absolutely beautiful; watch for the scene of them picking blossoms and Sophie laughing and the blossoms falling into her mouth; very sensual and exquisitely detailed, as is the entire production.

Pay No Attention to the One Star Voters
Just want to add my 2 cents worth. There is a reason this film won best picture. It WAS the best picture that year and one of the best for any year. The writing and direction is consistently inventive, clever, witty and intelligent. The massive old novel has been rendered down to its essence and filmed with wit and verve and played by a dream cast. The narration punctuates the humor and the depiction of 18th century England, both country life and London, is excellent. Tony Richardson and his cast had fun with the material, using every manner of technique (fast motion), asides to the audience, and so on to make a rollicking good modern comedy, that was much imitated (Woody Allen did the eating scene at least twice in his films). Comedy is definitely in the eye of the beholder, as witnessed by the negative reviews. All I can say is, they missed the point entirely. See Tom Jones and enjoy how much can be packed into a movie in under 2 hours.

A Masterpiece
Perhaps in 1968 there were fewer idiots in this world than in 2004? It's difficult to explain why this film has so many negative reviews. It is one of the best movies of the late 60s, and I have watched it so many times, nearly every scene has burned itself into my memory.
It is a perfect adaptation of Fielding's Tom Jones. Every minute of the film has so much joy, humor, excitement and hilarity that it's very difficult to sum up in this review.
If you have any taste in film at all, and are a patient and intelligent filmgoer, you'll want to buy this classic.

If there is a God...
...why does he allow people to suffer through this movie?

If you think it's funny to watch people kick dogs and have sex with their own parents, then this is the movie for you. Albert Finney looks about 15 years too old to portray the virile title character in this adaptation of the classic 18th century novel. The "plot," if you can call it that, is a little hard for me to describe since I am expending a tremendous amount of energy trying to block it from my mind. Suffice to say it plods along much like a typical episode of Three's Company, with it's misunderstandings, sexual escapades and slapstick humor. The difference of course being that a typical episode of Three's Company is better written, better directed and far easier to stomach. In particular, the last hour of the movie is a boringly boring bore. Sitting through it is like sitting through the end credits of the Olympics. I find it to be unbelievable that this movie was nominated for any Oscars much less win for best picture given the fact that it is as difficult to watch as footage of starving African babies with flies all over their heads. Wow, that is two hours of my life I can never get back.

Of its Time
Heavily influenced by Godard's 1959 mould-breaker "Breathless" (jump-cuts, hand-held camera, addresses to the viewer) this film is full of brilliant episodes, especially the stag-hunt. Contrary to the opinions of some reviewers, imho it does an outstanding job of presenting the uninhibited flavour of 18th century England; especially by bringing out the contrast between town and country, which incorporated one of the greatest and most far-reaching social changes which took place in that century. The luxury and squalor of London compared with the almost idyllic feeling that many had for the vanishing bucolic life is commented on by almost every notable writer of the age. However, the film doesn't seem to be well-paced, overall. The first part is too slow, and the second is too disjointed, and there is a sense of dissatisfaction in the end at the lack of balance and rhythm. It is not quite as good as I remembered from having seen it when it first came out, 1963. The leading performances are nevertheless superb, although Squire Western's boorishness is, let's face it, just a bit over-played. The dialogue is nonetheless excellent: not artificial in the slightest. The narrator's accent is not assumed, as somebody supposed: it was delivered by a very well-known Irish actor in his natural speaking voice. The use of a narrator in this instance makes for an intelligent transfer of Fielding's long, picaresque novel to the screen. The film expects a literate audience: which is not supplied by the negative reviews posted here. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Tony Richardson's adaptation of The Hotel New Hampshire proves that the unique qualities of John Irving's fiction are accessible in print and elusive on screen. (Not surprisingly, Irving's books were not truly successful as films until Irving himself adapted The Cider House Rules, although some viewers will prefer The World According to Garp.) Here, Richardson distills the essence of Irving but misses the author's dominant themes; the result is a film that follows Irving closely and understands its characters without ever giving them complete and coherent personalities. Without that essential ingredient, this film--about the exploits of a highly eccentric and dysfunctional family--grows thin and repetitious. We're left to enjoy the quirks of a fine ensemble cast, and the resilience of a family that has learned to survive by "passing open windows" (in other words, avoiding suicide no matter how tempting).

Beau Bridges is the Berry family patriarch and resident free spirit of the Hotel New Hampshire, where his children thrive on liberal parenting, a parade of unusual patrons, and their own lust for life, love, and--in the case of incestuous siblings John (Rob Lowe) and Frannie (Jodie Foster)--each other. Their coming-of-age tales are often a joy to behold, and Richardson draws some excellent performances from his young, stellar cast. What's missing here is a sense of deeper meaning and resonance; the film seems oddly random, while Irving's book clearly conveys an affectionate fascination with the tenacity of the human spirit. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Bizarrely entertaining
This movie is quite odd, but never boring. I didn't read the John Irving book from which it was adapted, but I can guess that, as is typical of the author, the book must juggle a multitude of characters and sub-plots. Unfortunately, it really doesn't work as a movie and ends up feeling like a series of loosely connected vignettes. The plot speeds along much too quickly and characters appear and disappear without much reason. The movie does, however, have a few positive points...

First, the cast is first-rate and Rob Lowe has one of his most unusual roles (this was his third movie after "The Outsiders" and "Class"), as a confused young man lusting after his sister (Jodie Foster, who's ok). Paul McCrane (ER's Dr. Romano) has one of his few relatively large film roles. The movie looks great, with beautiful location shooting with Canada substituting for New Hampshire and Vienna. Finally, this is probably the only place you can see Matthew Modine being raped by a person in a bear suit. Overall, a very strange journey that makes little sense and doesn't bear up to much scrutiny. A definite disappointment.

Crowded Hotel
Based on author John Irving's story about the ecletic Berry family, The Hotel New Hampshire, may boast a star studded ensemble and have a steady hand behind the camera, yet, the film isn't as good as the sum of its parts at times.

Patriarch Win Berry (Beau Bridges) has an obsession with hotels, which leads to the purchase of a delapidated New England monastary, to be transformed into a hotel. This leads to the coming together of the entire Berry clan. The family's eldest son John (Rob Lowe), foul mouthed Franny (Jodie Foster), Frank the dwarf (Paul McCrane) Egg-the youngest son (Seth Green), Iowa Bob (Wilford Brimley) Win's Dad are just some of those who put their two cents in. Soon the brood is invited by a family friend (Wallace Shawn) to take over another hotel in Vienna. Upon arrival, the get more then they bargained for.

I never read the book so I can only guess as to how it compares to the film. The movie, though watchable thanks to its cast, can at times seem like a jigsaw puzzle--with some pieces missing. The story as told through the eyes of Lowe's character, has great and "darkly" funny moments, with some satire thrown in. But the film can also be quite disjointed at times--perhaps so that the writer/director Tony Richarson could adapt the story for the film. The cast does their best and gives solid peformances, despite some of the scripts faults. There's enough subplots in The Hotel New Hampshire to fill two movies.

The DVD doesn't have any extras on it. That is to say, save of course, for the theatrical trailer. I thought the film was good--but had Richardson reworked the script a bit--it could have been much better.

Black-humored, subtle, inteligent, explicit - fun.
"The Hotel New Hampshire" is, indeed, not "very easy". If you're into "American Pie" or something, it's likely not to work for you. It's fast, subtile, black humor, surrealistic sometimes, and there's no "audience laugher" to know when you're supposed to laugh - and that's probably why people don't like (or understand) it. It can take more than one watch to get it all, and it sure deserves it.

The book's no requirement at all, like some of the obtuse reviewers above are arguing. In fact, i only know of Irving's existence from hearabouts - and still HNH was a masterpiece that made me laugh to tears. The flatulent dog named Sorrow. The (quick) way people die. Incest, clowns, rape, and Kinski wearing a bear suit. Do you want more to life than this? and there is.

Like one of the reviews i've read before, in this film the joke isn't assigned, all weird is put as just normal and if you don't have the hability to laugh at the bizarre on normal things you'll maybe find this movie a bored, puzzling experience.

It's ironical, thought, to think that maybe it was made to be this little hermetic and still so little people can get it. This world is ruined.

Not your typical movie
I first wanted to see this movie because I am a fan of Jodie Foster. I rented it and found it a little muddled. I liked it, I was just confused as to what was going on in certain parts. After watching the movie, I decided to read the book (which is very, very good!!!), and I rented the movie again after a while and found it much more enjoyable. My advice is to read the book before you see the movie!!! It's an oddly entertaining film... but you might get lost without the help of John Irving's novel.

Please spare me the agony...!!
A savagely bad movie, adapting John Irving's novel wherein the baby boomer generation attempts to digest the muddled narcissism of the '70s. That description, however, gives this flick too much credit. Mostly this is just a terrible film -- badly written, uninvolving and lurching about without apparent purpose, and without an emotional center. An incestual relationship between brother and sister, amid a wacky, unconventional family is supposed to somehow elicit our sympathies -- but its execution is as flat an unbelievable as the rest of the film. The cast, however, has some nice celeb-spotting eye-candy: Jody Foster, Wallace Shawn, and a 9-year old Seth Green. Rob Lowe is the movie's sole saving grace... As the perv-bound sibling, he was certainly breaking out of his brat pack bimbo typecasting; it's fascinating to see him working on the quirks and mannerisms he later built into a solid acting style. And at age 19, he's pretty hunky... easy on the eyes. But other than a chance to see a bunch of famous folks at an odd moment in their careers, this film is a total waste of time. (See also: "The Royal Tennenbaums.") ... Read more

Amazon.com Review

Laurence Olivier broke with the theatrical poise of previousroles to play seedy music-hall entertainer Archie Rice in JohnOsborne's acclaimed play, The Entertainer, reprising the role inTony Richardson's 1960 screen version and earning an Oscar nominationfor his performance. Olivier gives his all as the gap-toothedvaudevillian living in the shadow of his music-hall-legend father BillyRice (Roger Livesey), spitting out pithy wisecracks and muggingpathetically for bored audiences in seaside dives. Under thelife-of-the-party patter, however, is a pathetic music-hall dinosaur trying toohard for his moment in the spotlight, nursing his wounded humiliationin trysts with naïve young girls and pouring out his passion inhis finale tune, "Why Should I Care." "I have an affinity with ArchieRice," Olivier once opined. "It's what I really am. I'm not likeHamlet."

Shot on location on the boardwalk carnivals and holiday camps of theBritish seaside, the shabby show-biz world is beautifully photographedbut never quite shakes off its origins on the stage. It's the vividperformances that drive the drama: Joan Plowright (who married Olivierin 1961) as his pragmatic daughter; Alan Bates and Albert Finney(making their film debuts) as his sons, a next-generation show-bizhustler and a soldier shipped off to the Suez, respectively; and Brendade Banzie as Archie's long-suffering wife. "You've been a goodaudience. Let me know where you're playing tomorrow and I'll come seeyou." --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Not quite "Tom Jones", but delightful
"Joseph Andrews" is not as witty, charming, and disarming as its predecessor, "Tom Jones", but performances by Ann Margaret and, even moreso, Beryl Reid, lend this film its best moments. The film's hero is a bit bland, his love interest beyond bland, and the film has the feel of "haven't we been here before... and wasn't it funnier then?" There are some genuinely funny moments, but the real reason to see it is the aforementioned Ms. Reid.
The late Beryl Reid, one of the most underrated (and sadly least filmed) character actresses of the film age, is Lady Booby's maid, Slipshod. Her scenes are the best in the film and it's a rare opportunity to see this actress in a role that she can sink her teeth into. See also the hard-to-find "Entertaining Mr. Sloane" and "The Killing of Sister George".

Lady Booby: 'nuff said
What can I say? AM's finest moment. Spectacularly sleazy.

Oh, and the rest of the film's nice too, etc.

Underrated period comedy classic!
JOSEPH ANDREWS is a glorious adaptation of the Henry Fielding novel. Done in much the same style as Tony Richardson's previous film TOM JONES. This viewer prefers JOSEPH ANDREWS as a more satisfying film experience. The adaptation from book to movie works better. The performances from all the classic British actors are priceless. The dialogue, filming, editing, costumes and locations are perfectly brought to life. Special mention has to go to Ann-Margret for her performance as Lady Booby. You won't see a more controlled, flawless, hilarious performance in any other film. She is striking to watch. Not only in her beauty, but in the delivery of her lines. Her accent is totally convincing. When has an actress made eating asparagus look soooooooo enticing! JOSEPH ANDREWS is definitely one of the forgotten gems from the 70's. Mixed-up identities and bawdiness at it's best!

It Works In So Many Ways
This film worked for me in so many ways. Ann-Margret is wonderful as Lady Booby. Tony Richardson is top notch with his direction. The sporting cast is superb, notably Peter Firth.
This is the kind of film worth watching more than once. Not only because Ann-Margret is so beautiful to look upon, but there are so many levels of humor that more than one viewing is required to appreciate it all.
A must see for Ann-Marget fans!

A secret gem!
Henry Fielding wrote Joseph Andrews before he wrote Tom Jones and in my opinion this is the better novel to screen adaptation.
The real surprise regarding this film is Ann-Margret's stunning performance. Here she's up against some of the most established and accomplished English character actors (Sir Michael Hordern, Sir John Gielgud, Beryl Reid, Jim Dale and Peter Firth) and not only does she hold her own, she steals every scene she's in.

Ann-Margret as Lady Booby is genuinly funny dressed as a cherry glazed tart with the most persuasive English accent I've heard in years. The interplay between Lady Booby and her hand maiden Slipslop (played brilliantly by the late Beryl Reid) is hilarious! With a stellar cast and bawdy humour to boot, I can't think of a better way of spending a night in front of the TV. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Richard Burton was riding high in grandiose roles in Hollywood and onBroadway when he returned to Britain to portray trumpet-playing social dropout JimmyPorter in Tony Richardson's adaptation of John Osborne's groundbreaking 1956play. Burton's Jimmy works in a public market "sweet stall" where he rubs shoulderswith the working class with a condescending air, while he takes out his contempt ofbourgeois complacency at home on his spiritually whipped wife (a numb-looking MaryUre) and her best friend (Claire Bloom). Burton is too old for the part of the self-loathingcollege grad, but his performance simmers with frustration and misdirected rage thatmasks the sad, vulnerable underside to his misanthropic swipes. The film became theopening volley in Britain's "New Cinema," a new wave of young directors, working-classthemes, and social-realist style. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (4)

When Harry Met Misery
This film is an abomination. I don't fault Burton, Malcolm MacDowell couldn't carry the remake either. The problem is the tireseome cliches of the social realist author, using the characters as mouthpieces for DEEP (and predictably painful) TRUTHS. If there are people who talk and behave as these characters do, one would do everything in one's power to avoid them. Pitiful, angry, self-indulgent, foolish people. The film unintentionally presaged (and was itself an example of) the age of utter self-indulgence and perpetual self-analysis that has eventually swamped us. It belongs with the swill in the self-help section. One can easily imagine Burton's character as the macho leader of a social movement to right all wrongs, while he can barely manage to feed himself.

From a real Osborne fan
First, one of the other reviews for this film seems to be stating that Burton played Jimmy Porter on stage. This is not true. Osborne's autobiography describes Burton as needing a serious career boost after his previous toga films had gotten him nowhere (though, still, Osborne then says it was Burton's name that got the film financed). Burton took on the film for very little money (and, yes, he is too old for the part.) Mary Ure is the only actor from the stage production. (And at this late date it seems a great loss Alan Bates didn't reprise Cliff in the film.) My thanks to the reviewer who mentioned Pauline Kael's review. It certainly makes me reconsider how much power the film had in its time. But still everyone seems to be missing the point of the story. It isn't a conventional triangle. The play greatly upset the establishment in its day because it is an violent assault on class and cultural issues of the time. Jimmy is not a working-class hero. Kenneth Tynan described him as part of the "non-U intelligensia" but this is wrong. The film mentions, though perhaps doesn't make clear, that Jimmy has been to college, a very mediocre college. His working a sweets barrel is part of his rejection of the social order. But it is his marriage that is the central class conflict, as his wife, Alison, is from a very good family, father an old soldier returned from India, brother at Sandhurst, surely some day an MP. Her family instantly rejected Jimmy, and Jimmy resents Alison's inability to decisively choose sides, hates her for even writing letters to her mother. Alison believes Jimmy decided to marry her only after her parents rejected him. In the scheme of the play it is Cliff who is working class, Alison who is ruling class, and Jimmy in-between raging at the world. His rage, his need for a dust-up, is his response to a collapsing England, an England determined to be static, dead. The movie begins in a jazz club, which was wrongheaded, since the central image of a stiffling Sunday morning reading the papers (with no church attendance) is so important to the play. Jimmy wants to eat more and shout more and love more than the world around him affords him. A previous reviewer states Osborne gives us some pop psychology to explain Jimmy ' Jimmy, when a boy, watches his father die ' but one thing Osborne should never be accused of is being faddish. The point is that Jimmy's father died upon returning from fighting in Spain, dying for a cause, while his mother didn't care. It explains Jimmy's sense that there is no cause to fight for. Also it has left Jimmy a deep belief in honoring the dead, and this, in turn, causes him to feel Alison betrays him when she fails to appear at the funeral for Ma Tanner, his surrogate mother, the woman who bought him the sweets stall. (Spoiler warning). This take on death is what makes the ending meaningful when Alison miscarriages. It is why Jimmy cannot just be a bastard who dismisses his wife.

Or maybe it's all just Osborne's attack on his first wife in a very autobiographical play (his attacks on second wife Mary Ure in his autobiography can be equally savage).

On whole I find the film a disappointment. Burton's unconvincing performance cannot be saved by good work by Mary Ure and Claire Bloom. Worse, the film eliminates many of the most biting and relevant rages from Jimmy in the play, perhaps the best parts of the play. Nigel Kneale, who wrote some great science fiction, should never have been allowed to rewrite Osborne. The whole teddy bear/toy squirrel metaphor from the play makes no sense whatsoever in the film. I do like the scenes with Edith Evans, which Osborne at least in part wrote especially for the film, the character not ever actually appearing on stage in the play (Evans, priding herself on being Cockney, bought her own wardrobe for the role in second-hand shops). In some ways I prefer the filmed version of the play done years later by Lindsay Anderson with Malcom McDowell (though he too was too old for Jimmy). Oh, and reviewers please note, you won't find the phrase "angry young man" in the play. It was never a phrase Osborne liked. It was invented by the promotions man at the Royal Court Theater.

A Great (sorry, Mr. Burton) Classic
Richard Burton - who started a legendary career (first on stage, later on screen) with playing Jimmy Porter - would probably have hated the description "classic". But it can't be helped: This movie adaptation of a theatre hit of the London Westend IS a classic by now. And that is mainly due to his wonderful, once-in-a-lifetime performance as Jimmy.
When John Osborne tried to put into words - and he indeed succeeded! as the great theatre critic Kenneth Tynan so rightly pointed out - the deep frustration, sadness and sometimes furious rebellion of the young generation of the 50s (not so far away from the frustration and rebellion of the young generation of today, mind you!), he was incredibly lucky to find a hitherto unknown, rebelliously minded young Welsh actor to play the lead! Burton's tremendously energetic performance became a legend in no time, - and it was and is great to see that he managed to transfer most of that energy into the film version.
It is also great that the wonderfully subtle performance of Mary Ure lost nothing of its riveting intensity in the film, and how convincingly she succeeded in playing up to her partner! Miss Ure (who in my eyes until today is only being matched by Meryl Streep, Jessica Lange and Kate Blanchett) was an actress of great beauty and tremendous talent. Above all, she radiated humaneness and vulnerability, but also great inner strength, in her parts.
Claire Bloom does not quite match the leading performances, but is also very good as the intervening guest who at first hates, and later is fascinated by the husband of her best friend.
It seems unlikely that this superb film version of a great play - after all, it does not seem accidental that Osborne's "angry young man" (Jimmy Porter) has long since become a figure of speech - will impress 'cool' young people as Peter Shelley from Australia who talks about "dull Ure" and finds it appropriate to refer to a wonderful supporting performance of the great Dame Edith Evans as "mention is made of Edith Evans in a nice turn". However, there is hope that a timelessly brilliant production as this will always and everywhere find its admirers - be they 19 or 90!

he learned to be angry early and never looked back
Perhaps Tony Richardson's film of the John Osborne play needs to be assessed at the time it was first released. In I Lost it at the Movies, Pauline Kael describes it as "bursting onto the screen, delivering some of the most electrifying dialogue of it's era". However seen today, it comes across as basically a conventional triangle, with Richard Burton's Jimmy Porter, known as an "angry young man", simply a frustrated cruel soul. Considering Burton's eloqution, it's hard to accept him as a working class hero, someone with lofty ambition but no means to achieve. He's the kind who settles for an income as a lolley seller in a street stall. When he does his "The Entertainer" vaudeville routines, one is more likely to be aghast than amused at the incompetence, since Burton is not the Archie Rice type. His Jimmy Porter famous rantings sound more like psychotic episodes, coming in reaction to some perceived blunder by his wife (Mary Ure), and one only wishes he could find the right medication to control his mood swings. Osborne gives us some pop psychology reasons for his anger and mysogyny - that he watched his father die when Jimmy was merely a boy, a death that his mother was indifferent to - but he remains a neurotic enigma. When Claire Bloom as a friend of Ure's, slaps him, he withdraws like a coward, confirming the earlier accusation when he had pushed Ure into an iron - though I suppose being a coward by not being aggressive is preferable to physical confrontation. Even when we see that perhaps his view of people can be true, in relation to Ure's middle class conservative parents, it doesn't make Burton any more likeable. Occassionally he gets a funny line eg he calls Bloom "a saint in Dior clothing", and at times is youthfully handsome. This film was made before his American success with Camelot, and his celebrity with Liz and Cleopatra. Richardson provides a nice cut from Burton crying for help to a group of running schoolchildren, and I liked how Bloom's slap leads to an embrace - the affair may not be a surprise since it's the usual animosity-hiding-desire, but Bloom is a welcome change to the dull Ure. Richardson actually gets an unintentional laugh when Ure is shown like a drowned rat to prefigure a loss. Mention is made of Edith Evans in a nice turn as a friend of Burton's. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

almost perfect
The border is a great film,drama,action,and a feeling that jack is gonna snap and the fit will hit the shan before the end.the only problem is it ends way to quick,leaving a situation with his wife unresolved.but I guess a film that leaves you wanting more is a good thing?

Tony and Jack
When i saw this film on it's first release back in 1982, i walked out of the theatre moved to tears. As i've grown older, i realize how much i've grown into the politics of this film. We're all corruptable, we're all tempted, but we all make choices and decide which line we will not cross. Further, as in Traffic, there are wars we cannot win. So choose small battles and win those. Do something you can feel good about. This is atypical Jack Nicholson (he even hides his famous arched eyebroes under mirror shades for much of the film)and i was thrilled to read elsewhere that he considers this perhaps his best film. (I've thought of trying to tell him this somehow just as i've wanted to tell Duton Hoffman about his Straw Dogs performance). He's amazing in a performace that matches the pain and sublte beauty of the film. He has so many quotable lines ("I sure miss feeding those ducks." "I married a #*&% bananna.")) Tony Richardson, the man who brought us Tom Jones, couldnt be more out of his element yet there's no one else who could have pulled the emotion from this riveting story. Buy, rent, steal today. Great freeze at the end with Ry Cooder playing over.

Underrated and overlooked, but definitely worthwhile
Although this is not a great film it is a lot better than its reputation. Jack Nicholson is excellent and Harvey Keitel is very good. The beautiful and beguiling Mexican actress, Elpidia Carrillo, handles a limited role with enough artistry to make me wonder why I never heard of her before. Turns out she does have a healthy list of credits both internationally and in the US.

The direction by Tony Richardson, who had his heyday in the sixties with films as varied as The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (1962), Tom Jones (1963), and The Loved One (1965), all adapted from novels, is at times inspired and artistic, and at other times as ordinary as dishwater. I don't think he was able to make up his mind while directing this film about whether he wanted win an award at Cannes or Venice or to just sell some tickets. As it turns out he did neither as well as he might have. Nonetheless as a snapshot of poor Mexican immigrants (and would-be immigrants) as they clash with the border patrol culture twenty-some years ago The Border is definitely worth a look. Particularly vivid is the depiction of the absurdities and hypocrisies among the coyotes, the "wets," the border patrol rank-and-file, the law and the realities of life along both sides of the thin strip separating the promised land from the third world.

Nicholson plays Charlie Smith, a border patrol cop with a trailer trash wife (Valerie Perrine) who yearns to move up to the luxury of duplex living. In particular she wants to move in next door to her high school girlfriend Savannah (Shannon Wilcox) who is married to the "Cat" (Harvey Keitel). Charlie Smith is a bit of an innocent who was satisfied with his trailer home and his sexy, loving, but not overly sharp, wife Mary. When they do pick up and move to Texas he runs headlong into the corrupt lifestyle of the Cat and the cruel realities of his job which consists of arresting illegal immigrants and sending them back to Mexico. Meanwhile Mary isn't just sitting home twiddling her thumbs. Instead she is out buying water beds and dinette sets, overstuffed chairs and sofas, and other knickknacks that put a strain on the couple's budget which leads Charlie into temptation. But when taking kickbacks turns to murder, Charlie draws the line in the sand (literally as it happens) and he and the Cat have a rather rude falling out. Meanwhile Charles spots Carrillo as the lovely Maria with babe in arms and a little brother at her side. Predictably the system cruelly exploits her, bringing Charlie to her rescue.

I think the striking contrast between Charlie's air-headed Mary and the desperate and needy Maria needed to be further explored. As it was played Charlie is just a good joe doing a good deed or two when in fact we know he is much more involved than that. I think the movie would have been improved by making him choose between the two women as he had to make the moral choice between going with the Cat's corruption or going against him.

See this for Jack Nicholson, one of the great actors of our time, who brings subtlety and veracity to a role that could have been ordinary, while giving us only a hint of the commanding and irreverent style that he would adopt in later years.

Great film, great Nicholson
At one point in his career, not that long ago, Jack Nicholson mentioned that of all the films he'd done, he thought The Border was his best. And he just may be right about that. His performance as a good, simple man who's caught up in the pressures of corruption and material life is perfect. Tony Richardson, director of such diverse films as Blue Sky and Tom Jones, knows how to keep the focus on his characters rather than on the superficial bulls**t that so often marks films these days. The supporting cast includes Harvey Keital, Warren Oates, and Valerie Perrine, and they, along with the remaining cast, are just as great as Nicholson is.

Keitel plays Cat, a fellow border patrol officer and Charlie's (Nicholson's) neighbor and so-called friend. Cat, the C.O. (Oates), a crude lowlife Texan, and a sleazy Mexican are all in on a corrupt scheme to sell wetbacks (Mexican laborers in the U.S.) for profit. When murder becomes part of the mix, Charlie--who had finally agreed to cash in--backs out and the others turn on him. He helps a young Mexican woman whose baby has been snatched and meanwhile tries to put up with his greedy wife (Perrine) who loves material objects more than life itself.

For some very strange reason, this film has sunk so far into the depths of obscurity that no one seems interested in releasing this on DVD. This is a great dramatic work and showcases not only Nicholson himself, but a story that means something, a director who knows how to do what has to be done, and a film whose emphasis is where it should be--on story and characters, not on shallow emotions that can be resolved with the snap of a special effects finger.

Very highly recommended.

One of Jack Nicholson's greatest performances
Of all Jack Nicholson's finest performances, this is without question the least rarely seen. Although Nicholson can excel at over-the-top performances, in many of his greatest, he goes to the opposite extreme. In this one, he rarely expresses emotion, rarely smiles, and instead communicates a simmering, barely contained rage at life and himself for having settled for being so much less than he ought and would like to be. By the end of the movie, he discovers that he has become a person he really doesn't want to know.

Told parallel to the story of Nicholson's descent into corruption is a Mexican woman who clearly wants to cross the physical borderline (just as Nicholson in the film has clearly crossed the moral borderline) with her baby to try and find a better life for him and her. Over and over we confront her and her trials, until her destiny becomes entwined with Jack Nicholson near the end of the film when he has to decide whether he will help her and run up against the other corrupt cops, or lose whatever tiny bit of self-respect he has left. The quiet, understated dynamic between their two stories is beautifully contrasted with the tawdriness of the lives of the border cops.

There are so many positives about this film: an incredible supporting cast, including Valerie Perrine as Nicholson's grasping, materialistic wife, Harvey Keitel as the corrupt border guard who pulls Nicholson into, and Warren Oates as a thoroughly despicable associate. I am not sure of the name of the young Mexican girl, but I love the innocence and yearning that she manages to project. The soundtrack is extraordinary, with one superb musical sequence after another by Ry Cooder, capped off by Freddy Fender's vocal on the Cooder-written "The Borderline."

The film is somewhat predictable, but, you know, I find that nearly all films are. Was this film does feature is a phenomenal performance by Jack Nicholson as a tortured, conflicted, unhappy man who barely managed to keep from losing all sense of his own worth and manages to salvage his humanity. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Mick Jagger had one of his rare sizable acting roles, as the famed Australian outlaw, in this atmospheric biopic (remade in 2004 with Heath Ledger). The movie has the look and spirit of other Vietnam-era counterculture Westerns, with Irishman Ned Kelly a rebel against the unjust Establishment. Tony Richardson's direction has the free-for-all laxity of the era, though the general sense of mess is tidied up by the often stunning location photography by ace DP Gerry Fisher. What makes the film memorable is the soundtrack, a heavy portion of which is made up of Western ballads written by witty Shel Silverstein and sung by Waylon Jennings; elsewhere, the Amish-bearded Jagger croons "The Wild Colonial Boy." A charitable assessment of Jagger's performance would conclude that he brings an intriguing Pirandellian presence to the role; a more clear-eyed view would say that he simply doesn't have the acting chops to carry it off. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (7)

the music is the thing
Okay so Mic Jagger was an odd choice to play Ned Kelly but so what? Before this movie came out most of the world didn't know who the Kellys were. Perhaps the movie made people decide to learn more which is why we now have at least two very good books on Ned Kelly's life. But this is supposed to be about the sound track and I'll get to that. Waylon Jennings was brilliant on this album. Every song moves the movie along and actually comments on the action on the screen. Once you hear it you'll never forget Blame it On the Kellys or Daddy Does His Ranching (Dad's a cattle thief) in the Evening.

Kelly YES..Jagger NO
as a straight forward attempt to tell Kelly's story it succeeds. but Jagger, sadly, is Mick Jagger, not Edward Kelly. Unartistic as a film, it nevertheless tells a great story quite well, and i must confess, whenit first came out (1970) it started me on a Kelly quest that has lasted ever since. So BRAVO for Tony Richardson's attmept....and I like Mick and found SOME of his work here "ok"...but if you watch a movie on Kelly and can only see Mick Jagger, then the casting director should be fired!!

youth is born again
in the seventies I saw the movie in London at the odeon, naturally I went to see it, because Mick Jagger was the star. Nowadays I recognize, the movie is very thin, but the music is still great, and I love to remember those crazy days. ( 47 years)

Grossly inaccurate
I'm an Australian and have been researching Ned Kelly for 25 years. I watched this film at the movies when it came out. It was terrible then, and is even more terrible to watch now. If you are interested in the Kelly Gang, there are some very good books: recommended "A Short Life" by Ian Jones. See if Amazon has it! It is a very accurate account of the life of Edward Kelly, which is more than I can say for this movie.

A Big casting mistake
Ok, the only reason I watched this was because I'm a big Stones fan but I didn't really expect it to be too good or even memerable and its not. One thing is that I read somewhere that Ned Kelly was a big guy, about 200 pounds, and so I don't think Mick Jagger was a very good pick for him since Mick is so skinny. Another thing is the beard. It just looks hideous. The accent Mick puts on is also hideous, anyway, he mumbles the whole way through and his acting is VERY flat. The other actors weren't too good or memoralbe either. The script must not have been too hot because the only scenes that I really remember are the wrestling match and the end when he gets captured. If you want to watch a good movie with Mick Jagger in it watch Performance instead. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Well, at least Andy Milligan Liked it . . .
Jeanne Moreau! Tony Richardson! Jean Genet! Art! Art! Art! Mod! Mod! Mod! Oh brother . . . Crazy, repressed schoolteacher pants after hunky woodcutter in small French town, setting fires and such to relieve her epic sexual tensions in the process. The woodcutter, who is even dumber and hornier than most males, stays in this town because he's apparently keeping every woman in town but Moreau very, VERY happy . . . Anyway, she eventually has some sort of erotic(?) encounter with him and accuses him of rape. None too happy ending follows. In short, a nasty little exploitation drama dressed up with bad dialogue, a draggy pace, and portentous acting. Moreau is terrible, and you have to wonder how anyone talked her into appearing in this piece of dreck . . . Did someone have proof she paid for acting school by robbing banks?

"The fire had been made just for him."
The film "Mademoiselle" from director Tony Richardson is based on a story by Marguerite Duras and adapted by Jean Genet. It's a riveting and very unusual tale of the violence of female sexual repression. Jeanne Moreau is 'Mademoiselle'--the only teacher in a sleepy French village. However, life in the village isn't exactly sleepy and peaceful as it becomes clear to the village residents that a malicious person is on the loose. Someone is responsible for setting fires, causing floods, and poisoning farm animals. Suspicion naturally falls on the unpopular outsider--an Italian woodcutter named Manou (Ettore Manni). Manou is already very unpopular with the jealous husbands whose wives are luring Manou off to dally in the fields, and tensions in the village reach boiling point after yet another disaster. It matters little that Manou is on the scene of each disaster as he risks his life to salvage the meagre possessions of the villagers. Manou's friend and fellow woodcutter, Antonio, urges Manou to move away from the village, but Manou choses to stay--partially because the women in the village provide him with many distractions, but also Manou thinks his son, Bruno, should stay in school where he receives attention from Mademoiselle.

Jeanne Moreau as Mademoiselle is magnificent in this role. She is at once the very prim and proper, sexually repressed school mistress, and also the wanton, violent woman who desires Manou and will stop at nothing to get him and keep him. The highly erotic scenes between Manou and Mademoiselle are perhaps some of the oddest in cinema, and certainly it doesn't get more symbolically graphic than Manou uncovering the snake he has around his waist which he then persuades Mademoiselle to fondle.

Fondling the snake, unleashes Mademoiselle's buried passions, and the viewer is privy through flashbacks, to the most bizarre courtship to exist on film. A horrible, seductive pattern exists to explain Mademoiselle's behaviour. Mademoiselle dresses--complete with make-up, seamed stockings, black laced gloves, and high-heeled shoes for each destructive act as she watches her witless prey--stripped and sweaty, muscles rippling for the occasion. Jeanne Moreau manages the duality of the role marvellously as she seamlessly moves from the bitter, cruel schoolmistress to the abandoned sexual wanton with a penchant for pyromania.

The film is in black and white with French subtitles. Cult film director, John Waters discusses "Mademoiselle," one of his favourite films in his book "Crackpot"--displacedhuman.

Interesting Work Here
MADEMOISELLE is the kind of picture that always caused Quentin Crisp to roll his eyes and hiss, "FESSSTIVAL MATERIAL!!" -- meaning too arty and rarefied for mere mortals chomping down popcorn at their local movie palace. A major thud in its day, this movie still features plenty worth seeing. Directed with intelligence and care by Tony Richardson from a Jean Genet screenplay, MADEMOISELLE features a story like a Bunuel fever dream, without his sly humor. Jeanne Moreau gives a subtle, controlled performance as the titular sack of seething neuroses; her first scene, opening a sluicegate to flood a stable while sporting fetishistic hat, gloves and high heels, all cut in counterpoint to a processional of priest and villagers blessing the crops, certainly grabs the attention! Watch her careful underplaying in the schoolroom scene where she fills her students in on that ultimate Gallic bad guy, Gilles de Rais. Moreau's one actress who never lets you down. At times way over the top (surely someone connected with this project could have given the scene where she ogles her sexy Italian's snake a second thought), MADEMOISELLE is a picture that's fallen between the cracks of cinema releasing, hardly seen since its initial release. In this satisfactory MGM DVD, at long last, you can take a look. Please do!

Cinematography looks superb, Moreau and others do not
I am a huge Jeanne Moreau fan and was thrilled to see some fine cinematography and those classic faces Moreau gives off without having to utter a word. But this was just the first 10 minutes of the film, and usually you know a film is going to be good when the first 10 minutes or so is very intriguing, however this one went downhill from there.

I have to say that Moreau probably looks the worst here than she did in any other film either 5 years prior or 5 years after this. I am not sure why, but while the cinematography was carefully filmed, I don't think they spent much time on lighting and make-up for our lovely Jeanne.

The story is very far fetched, and was presumably quite risque for the time (and still has scenes that would shock most even today) however there is no one in this film to either care about or be intrigued by. We quickly jump into Moreau's character's devious acts of violence, but we never really know why. Why does she act so deviously? And now that she is, you just can't relate or care to relate.

Besides Moreau, there are no other adults in this film who give any decent performances, or develop any characters which held my attention. The only other interesting player in this bleak (but ironically beautifully filmed) film is Manou's son, who the boy who played him gives a very credible performance.

I quickly lost interest in this film, and a lot more could have happened, and should have happened. The plot and story development, while risque and shocking, was not very intriguing. No likable roles, no likable scenes, I just didn't care about the people in this film or the film. 2 stars for the cinematography and ahead of it's time shock value.

Mademoiselle's Return to Nature
Opening shot: In the countryside a religious procession moves along under a hot sun. Somewhere in the hills above Jeanne Moreau cranks open a floodgate. She is wearing black fishnet gloves, a black dress and heels. The water pours downhill toward a farm flooding it. The church bell rings alerting everyone of the disaster, the procession disperses, and Moreau heads down hill to watch as they all try to save the livestock from drowning.

Tony Richardson directed Tom Jones and in that picture showed he had quite a knack for capturing English rural folk. But with this tale filmed in a gorgeous tinted black and white which makes apple blossoms look more beautiful than they ever do in color he has swapped the 18th Century ribaldry of Fielding for the 20th Century subversive austerity of Genet and made a French language film which I'm certain raised quite a few eyebrows, French and English, in its day. Its shock value I do not think has diminished much, if at all.

The star of the film is Jeanne Moreau as the chaste schoolmistress who comes from the city to educate the rural children. But lurking within her cool reserved impassive demeanor are passions that have perhaps been too long divorced from nature so she is especially vulnerable when her long hidden passions are stirred by the presence of an Italian woodsman who she spies on one of her solitary strolls through the woods. "Be careful miss," yells one of the villagers as he sees her heading toward the woods, "there's a wolf in those woods." But thats just what shes seeking. Meanwhile a series of fires have been set and being the foreigner the Italian woodsman is the the prime suspect. We know who it is however setting those fires, and we slowly learn why. Tony Richardson captures Moreaus face as it changes from mood to mood. He captures her melancholy and isolation as she applies her lipstick and puts her hair up in preparation for one of her "acts", and then he shows what she looks like when she returns and looks in the mirror again seeing how the "act" has changed her. Moreau is one of the more mysterious beauties of French cinema and in this role that beauty is used to greater effect than any other director has used it. She is fascinating to watch as this prim sophisticated schoolmistress who finally undergoes the transformation she has been longing for.The night Moreau and the woodsman spend together is one of unleashed instinct and abandon and it is all filmed in an unforgettable series of vignettes: the two lying down in tall grass as the sun goes down, beside a pond in utter darkness as a storm breaks, running from each other and surrendering to each other time and again. Raw and sensual as anything you will see in a film then or now Richardson takes the film to a completely different plane with these scenes. When Moreau returns to the village the next morning covered in mud and clothes in shreds the villagers ask her if it was the Italian. Her answer and her final expression seen from a car window as she drives away from the village is one of utter self-content.

Also recommended: Elevator to the Gallows, The Lover, Bride Wore Black. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Winner of four Academy Awards including best picture, director, screenplay, and music, this 1963 adaptation of Henry Fielding's classic novel is a rousing, bawdy comedy about a young man's ribald adventures in 18th-century England. Albert Finney is splendidly hilarious in the title role of a charming womanizer who was discovered as an abandoned infant in the bed of Squire Allworthy, a wealthy landowner who named the child Tom Jones and raised him as his own. As a young man, Tom yearns for the comely daughter (Susannah York) of a neighboring squire, but his amorous adventures (including an extended food orgy that becomes the film's funniest scene) lead him to London and to a duel with a jealous husband. He's sentenced to hang, but fate intervenes. A hit around the world, the film was expertly written by noted playwright John Osborne, and Richardson uses a variety of old-style movie techniques to heighten the lusty, good-natured fun. Don't miss this one! --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (25)

LOVE this movie!!!!
I saw this in the theatre when it was first released, and the passage of time has done nothing to dim my love and fascination of this superb translation of the novel by Fielding. Of course, Albert Finney made a very dashing Tom Jones, and wqas so perfectly suited to the role; Susannah York great as his true love, Sophie, and the other roles, Hugh Griffith as Sophie's father, and hilarious in his part as a drunken, boisterous, lusty squire, and Dame Edith Evans as his rather disapproving, but very funny sister, reprimanding him with a trilling "Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrother...." while he is wrestling some country maidens in the haystacks, straw in his hair and a pack of bulldogs surrounding him. The dinner scene with him eating a roast chicken with great gusto, so much so that he harangues Sophie with pieces of it in his nose, is delightful, as is his unscripted departure from Squire Allworthy's residence, on his horse, and turning so tightly that the horse rears and collapses with Hugh Griffith on top of him...so funny Richardson wisely decided to keep it in the film.
I also appreciated the performances of David Warner, as the disgustingly priggish tutor, Mr. Bliful, and Diane Cilento (once married to Sean Connery...) as Tom's sometime paramour. The entire cast is excellent, including Joan Greenwood as the predatory older woman after Tom at any cost. Watch for the Masquerade Ball and see Hugh Griffith in his elephant mask; what a great scene!
The peripheral players are superb, as is the setting of London in the eighteenth century, with the deplorable lack of sanitary conditions and the terrible poverty. The music is haunting, the scene at the Inn (yes, the food scene, of course, one of the more outstanding in the movie) but also the frenetic byplay of the characters winding up in each other's beds with different wives and lovers, it is such a classic melange of humor, drama and near tragedy, there simply isn't one moment of bad film or minute of tedium...you will be absorbed all the way through, and enjoy this rambunctious, joyful frolic with Tom and his supporting cast of finely drawn characters. One last comment: The scene of Tom and Sophie, running, taking turns rowing a boat and falling in love on the grounds of her father's estate, is absolutely beautiful; watch for the scene of them picking blossoms and Sophie laughing and the blossoms falling into her mouth; very sensual and exquisitely detailed, as is the entire production.

Pay No Attention to the One Star Voters
Just want to add my 2 cents worth. There is a reason this film won best picture. It WAS the best picture that year and one of the best for any year. The writing and direction is consistently inventive, clever, witty and intelligent. The massive old novel has been rendered down to its essence and filmed with wit and verve and played by a dream cast. The narration punctuates the humor and the depiction of 18th century England, both country life and London, is excellent. Tony Richardson and his cast had fun with the material, using every manner of technique (fast motion), asides to the audience, and so on to make a rollicking good modern comedy, that was much imitated (Woody Allen did the eating scene at least twice in his films). Comedy is definitely in the eye of the beholder, as witnessed by the negative reviews. All I can say is, they missed the point entirely. See Tom Jones and enjoy how much can be packed into a movie in under 2 hours.

A Masterpiece
Perhaps in 1968 there were fewer idiots in this world than in 2004? It's difficult to explain why this film has so many negative reviews. It is one of the best movies of the late 60s, and I have watched it so many times, nearly every scene has burned itself into my memory.
It is a perfect adaptation of Fielding's Tom Jones. Every minute of the film has so much joy, humor, excitement and hilarity that it's very difficult to sum up in this review.
If you have any taste in film at all, and are a patient and intelligent filmgoer, you'll want to buy this classic.

If there is a God...
...why does he allow people to suffer through this movie?

If you think it's funny to watch people kick dogs and have sex with their own parents, then this is the movie for you. Albert Finney looks about 15 years too old to portray the virile title character in this adaptation of the classic 18th century novel. The "plot," if you can call it that, is a little hard for me to describe since I am expending a tremendous amount of energy trying to block it from my mind. Suffice to say it plods along much like a typical episode of Three's Company, with it's misunderstandings, sexual escapades and slapstick humor. The difference of course being that a typical episode of Three's Company is better written, better directed and far easier to stomach. In particular, the last hour of the movie is a boringly boring bore. Sitting through it is like sitting through the end credits of the Olympics. I find it to be unbelievable that this movie was nominated for any Oscars much less win for best picture given the fact that it is as difficult to watch as footage of starving African babies with flies all over their heads. Wow, that is two hours of my life I can never get back.

Of its Time
Heavily influenced by Godard's 1959 mould-breaker "Breathless" (jump-cuts, hand-held camera, addresses to the viewer) this film is full of brilliant episodes, especially the stag-hunt. Contrary to the opinions of some reviewers, imho it does an outstanding job of presenting the uninhibited flavour of 18th century England; especially by bringing out the contrast between town and country, which incorporated one of the greatest and most far-reaching social changes which took place in that century. The luxury and squalor of London compared with the almost idyllic feeling that many had for the vanishing bucolic life is commented on by almost every notable writer of the age. However, the film doesn't seem to be well-paced, overall. The first part is too slow, and the second is too disjointed, and there is a sense of dissatisfaction in the end at the lack of balance and rhythm. It is not quite as good as I remembered from having seen it when it first came out, 1963. The leading performances are nevertheless superb, although Squire Western's boorishness is, let's face it, just a bit over-played. The dialogue is nonetheless excellent: not artificial in the slightest. The narrator's accent is not assumed, as somebody supposed: it was delivered by a very well-known Irish actor in his natural speaking voice. The use of a narrator in this instance makes for an intelligent transfer of Fielding's long, picaresque novel to the screen. The film expects a literate audience: which is not supplied by the negative reviews posted here. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

The British version of The Longest Yard
This was the story later used in the American film with Burt Reynolds, The Longest Yard. British actor, Tom Courtenay, in his first major film role plays the downcast, but likeable youth from the seedy side of town.

Courtenay's character is saturated with events in his life for which he has no control. He lives in poverty, his father dies, his mother's waiting in the wings-boyfriend is a jerk, and he has no job skills or future. He is ultimately placed in a youth detention facility where he finds, to his warden's joy, that he has athletic ability. He is ambivalent about this skill, but he can obtain privileges and possible early freedom if only he wins the running trophy for the warden.

The Burt Reynolds film, centered on his character developing an interest in his fellow prisoners to decide on how to respond to the warden's promised rewards and punishments. The British version focuses almost completely on the character's internal conflict. Ultimately, his decision is based on how he could best gain an aspect of control in his life. His decision is based not for his peers, and not for the authorities, but for his own sense of self. Aspects of the youth prison may seem funny by today's standard, but the story remains fresh and interesting. I highly recommend it.

I cant believe its still not on DVD!
This is one of the great classics that I watch every couple of years. It has no Hollywood cosmetics. The people look and feel very real and there is truth to their emotions. It's such a great movie I can't believe its not on DVD yet!
You certainly get the feeling you've ran a mile in his shoes and that it was worth the ride.

"Rebel with a Pause"
This British film is a stark masterful portrayal of a young working class man, and the urban world he is trapped inside. The black and white photography lends a honest depiction of his tough bare existence. Colin watches his foolish widowed mother fritter away her meagre inheritance, and he seems to be as incarcerated in this world, as in the reform school he ends up in, after a bungled robbery. His stolen cash, stashed away in a drain pipe at the front door, floats out during a rainy day at the very feet of a detective making inquiries at his house. So it goes for Colin, a man trapped at every turn. His life gets a lift when he joins the cross country team at the reform school. The scenes of him running freely through the woods during meets are poetry on film. Colin lashes out against his fate and lot with one bold pause at the end. His expression as he stands there is priceless. This film's images will last with the viewer for a life time. This is great art.

The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner
Tony Richardon's grim evocation of the experience of one bottom feeder at the low base of Britain's crumbling class pyramid features editing as harsh - and cinematically effective, especially in the film's well-placed flahsbacks - as this story of hard-bitten young Colin Smith (grittily portrayed by Tom Courtenay). For a petty theft Smith is sentenced to borstal (reform school) where his speed in the long distance run elevates him, in the eyes of his inmate brethren, to become the "guvnor's blue-eyed boy", because the warden's goal is to win the special long distance running cup in the borstal's trial athletic competition against an upper-class public school. Smith finds himself trapped between the guvnor's self-serving, manipulative solicitude and the class-based peer pressure of his borstal mates. Courtenay plays out Smith's repsonse to his dilemma with breathless, bristling, teeth-clenched defiance that the film, grippingly, doesn't reveal until its withering dénouement.

Avis Bunnage lends a biting performance as Smith's mother: a woman hardened by her straitened life circumstance as the working class widow of a resentful factory worker, struggling on welfare to raise her children in a grimy, shabbily built, claustrophobic low-income dwelling. Alec McCowen, as the borstal's pyschologist, deftly adds depth to the story as a well-meaning advocate of fresh approaches to rehabilitating inmates, whose efforts are trumped by the warden's timeworn methods. As the warden Michael Redgrave communicates all that's right - and wrong - about the upper reaches of the class pyramid.

Developed from a short story by Alan Sillitoe (author of Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, and screenwriter of that eponymous 1961 film), rooted in industrial Nottigham, filmed in sooty, bleak black & white, 1962's The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner may, in 2002, feel a bit dated, yet its theme of the bottom-of-the-food-chain working class individual clamped in the maws of animals and powers beyond his influence remains trenchant, timeless and thought-provoking.

There is more than one way to win the race
I saw this British film when it first came out in 1962 and never forgot it. I even remember an argument I had with my aunt about its controversial theme - that of an alienated angry young man who defiantly refuses to conform to the system. Shot in black and white, the video stars Tom Courtenay as a working class Nottingham youth who is sent to a reformatory because of a robbery. Michael Redgrave is cast as the warden, referred to as the "governor" as this is a British film. It is a modern reformatory, and plans are being made to for it to compete in sports with a private school. The long distance run is considered the biggest prize and Courtenay is granted special privileges as he stands out as someone who could actually win. He's allowed to take long runs outside of the reformatory gates each day, and the cinematography here is outstanding. During these runs, Courtenay experiences flashbacks of his life and we see a picture of its grimness. We see his anger at the system and admire him for belief in his ideals. And yet we also want him to win the race and move into a more privileged life. Finally the day of the run arrives. And young Courtenay makes his decision. It is startling and yet something we can understand. No wonder it's haunted me all these years.

Now, watching the video all these years later, I found it a little slow for my taste, especially since I already knew the ending. And, also, as with many British films on video, I sometimes wish there were subtitles. But this is a film that makes me think. I think about choices I've made in my own life. I think about how they turned out. And I think about the message of the film - still fresh after all this time. Recommended. ... Read more

Reviews (29)

Wonderful Masterpiece by Berry Gordy
Mahogany is a Wonderul black love story of a woman raised in Chicago's inner city ghetto (Diana Ross). She has dreams and aspirations of becoming a fashion designer and eventually achieves that goal. But when she leaves home to go to Rome to claim her fame as a model she learns that it's lonely at the top and she starts to miss home and her one true love (Billy Dee Williams) who she's forsaken. The movie has a great moral to the story simply put by Billy Dee Williams, What's sucess (money and fame) when you don't have no one to share it with. This was a great performance by both actors.

Bringing back memories...
Even young people might like to hear old Supremes songs like "Baby Love" or "You Can't Hurry Love", they really have something going for themselves. The Supremes were enormously successful in the sixties. It all seemed to end when Diana embarked on a solo career in 1970. Luckily she managed to return to the top of the charts with her dramatically version of "Ain't No Mountain High Enogh". She then surprised everyone when she did a wonderful acting role in her first movie "Lady Sings The Blues" in 1972. She followed with "Mahogany" in 1975 and scored a #1 single with the beautifully sung title theme "Do You Know Where You're Going To?". The film doesn't belong to what you could call "classics" but for all those Ross fans, who enjoyed almost every career-step Diana made, the album brings back nice memories. But let's be honest after all those years: the music - except for the nice title theme - can't tempt anyone anymore.

Diana screeches, Billy Dee mumbles
MAHOGANY is a camp classic featuring screechy acting by Ms. Ross, mumbling by Billy Dee Williams, and drama queen antics by Anthony Perkins. Talent is wasted all around in the film depicting the rise of a poor-little-rich African-American model and fashion designer who has her mouth poked out because she misses her man. After this film, Berry Gordy never stepped up to the director's chair again (thank God). Good for its camp factor and that's about it.

A camp classic
Like so many divas before her and after her, "La Ross" shines in this 1975 camp classic which exemplifies the cliche saying "it's lonely at the top."

The gowns, the glamour, the nails and the youth of Miss Ross are unparalleled. She was beyond fabulous and at the height of her artistic zenith. The montage is especially pleasing and one can only fantasize about being in Rome in the mid 70's while swathed in those fantastic creations and Fendi and Maximillian furs (read the credits).

Substantively, the film is not to be taken seriously....but I agree with one reviewer's assessment back then who said that it is "testament to how glorious it is to be Diana Ross." I wholeheartedly agree.

Classic!
Diana Ross returns after her acclaimed film debut in 'Lady Sings The Blues. She plays the role of an ambitious struggling secretary who becomes a world famous designer-model (hmmm...). Diana Ross is a challenging & versatile performer and in this classic flick she showcases her impressive talents. Watch out for Anthony Perkins 'reprising' his Norman Bates persona.
Over the top plot, cheesy dialogue, wonderful soundtrack, glamorous costumes... Diana Ross never looked more gorgeous! ... Read more

Description

Burt Lancaster, Teri Polo and Charles Dance star in Academy Award-winning director Tony Richardson's stunning, Golden Globe-nominated television miniseries. The classic tale of a hideously disfigured man who haunts Paris's subterranean labyrinths while harboring an all-consuming passion for a beautiful opera singer continues to enchant audiences. With its timeless story, "The Phantom of the Opera" endures as not only a deeply touching love story, but as a chilling spectacle of desire and vengeance played out against the grandeur and decadence of 19th century France. ... Read more

Reviews (54)

Great Interpretation..with weird plot twists
A must for any Phantom fan....just to have it and see it. The only problems I had with this movie were that lip-syncing during the opera scenes was a bit annoying and that the relationship between Christine and Raoul was a little bit underplayed. But, the phantom is one of the best I've seen, he has a commanding presence and a sensuality to him, and you just feel so bad for him(when you need to of course, he is definite;y not a sap). The Phantom has a more human characteristics and doesn't seem so aloof, which in most plots and plays would be bad but it fits perfectly with this one. And the Carlotta is just so annoying...which makes her perfect for the role.
Written wonderfully with funny ancdedotes...a perfect part of the collection for any phan. And a great movie to watch, very Entertaining.

Why 5 stars....because
The first time I saw this movie was in my secondary school somewhere in Europe. I saw it just once...but the film has been echoing in my being since...Later when I came to America I started searching for it...It has been almost 14 years before my wish has been finally granted...Over the years searching for this movie and not finding it gave me the ooportunity to compare the movie with the other movies that bear the same title...But alas ! Many carry the shadow of horror movies in which "the so called phantom" is hungry for victims...So I will say no more of these movies. On the other hand, Phantom of the Opera (TV Miniseries) presents,...reality, even if a tragic one, based