Reviews (21)

A true sleeper!!
This movie is a bit on the slow side but the pace increases later in the movie. Tremendous acting by James Garner & Sally Field. Even the supporting cast is fabulous. You won't regret owning this film.

sweet, sappy, unadulterated fun!!
though a sleeper at the box office, this movie is one of my all time favorite films! with a superb cast, headed by sally fields and james garner, and a great soundtrack by carole king, "murphy's romance" is fun for everybody.

sally fields plays a single mom trying to start a new life for herself and her pre-teen son. simultaneously, she's falling in love with james garner's murphy, a warm, charismatic, much older man.

Murphy is a character to look up to in a great film.
James Garner as Murphy is smart, confident, capable, wise and one class act. He is truly one of the greatest characters of all-time. This film is very romantic and the ending is brilliant. I have shown it to four friends and they all fell in love with the movie.

This is a subtle movie and if you like things obvious and over the top then you might miss the point of this one.

Open your eyes to an exquisite film
I cannot add much more praise than what has been said about this film, but I would advise film students, film instructors, and screenplay writers and teachers to study this film and add a proviso to their pedagogy that great filmmaking cannot BE TAUGHT. Imagine how many film schools, film students, and books on filmmaking and screenplays have been churned out since the nearly two decades that this film was produced, and ask yourself the question, why don't films today measure up the quiet brilliance of this fabulous work. The answer is plain. Inspired filmmaking, directing, acting, and genuine love for the medium and the audience cannot be taught or bought. Take my simple test: read and study Robert Mckee, Syd Field, etc., go get your M.F.A. in filmmaking and go out and make your film. If it's even close to the quality of this film, I'll eat my DVD player. Like a rock music addict's ears that have been damaged by loud music and can't distinguish the nuances of sound, our post-millenium sensibilities have numbed us to the nature of cinematic, albiet commercial art. To paraphrase Alan Paton, "Cry the Beloved Medium."

Charming and relaxed
This is one of my favorite movies. James Garner and Sally Field are just great, the writing is very good (Garner's lines are just great), the pacing is relaxed but not slow, and the theme music by Carole King is as good as you'd expect (see if you can spot King in a cameo). What makes it all work wonderfully, however, is the excellent supporting cast. Everyone is a fully realized individual, the town feels like a real community, and there's not a bad actor in the bunch. If you want a love story that's about love and not hormones, buy this DVD. You'll be glad you did. ... Read more

Amazon.com

John le Carre's classic spy yarn gets a suitably brisk, unromanticized telling in this quintessential Cold War movie. A British agent (Richard Burton) sets up an elaborate cover story for being lured into defecting to the Communists, but he hardly needs to manufacture his disgust and cynicism over spying. The grim business of point-counterpoint espionage has rarely been depicted with less glamour; Burton's great climactic speech on the subject is the definitive take on sinking to the level of the enemy. Claire Bloom is an offbeat love interest, and a bearded Oskar Werner is an East German investigator on Burton's case (the pecking order in the Communist spy hierarchy is a source of black humor). Director Martin Ritt extends his unvarnished approach to the movie's stripped-down look, which means that Richard Burton is constantly in a harsh, unflattering light. He looks terrible, but it's in the service of a fine performance. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Scary black and white film....
The world John Lecarré describes is without mercy and forgiveness. The films based on his books are not nearly as terrifying, though they are frightening enough. THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD is an early adaptation of one of Lecarré's books by the same name, and in it he introduces albeit briefly, the character George Smiley.

The three main characters in this production Alex (Richard Burton), Nan (Claire Bloom) and Monque (Oskar Werner) were all very fine actors in the 1950s and 1960s. This film was one of the last Burton made (965) and in it he plays a "burnt-out" spy who has been the operations officer in Berlin for 15 years of the Cold War. Alex was recruited by British Intelligence shortly after WWII just as the East Bloc began to descend behind the "Iron Curtain" according to Western leaders like Churchill. The CIA was also spun from military intelligence during this period, and there is a brief interaction between Alex and a CIA officer at the beginning of the movie as Alex awaits a defecting East German spy at the infamous "Checkpoint Charlie".

SPY is shot in Black and White which enhances the spooky subject. Night time scenes with flashing lights and rainy London weather add to the atmosphere. I first saw this film in the theater, and I was so young I could not figure out what was going on. The plot is complex, but not as complex as that of later adaptations such as SOLDIER, SAILOR...,or SMILEY'S PEOPLE which were given ample air time for the unraveling. It is a frightening film, and some one my age might wonder why anyone would ever become a spy.

Cold-Blooded Fever
Inside a grim little room in the empty countryside somewhere east of the Berlin wall an East German agent is interrogating a defecting British spy. The defector is anxious and weary. He wants his money now. Prompting the Communist agent to say this : "You are a traitor, the lowest currency of the cold war. We buy you, we sell you, we lose you, we can even shoot you. Not a bird in the trees would stir if we did just that."

Except that Alec Leamas(Richard Burton) is not really a defector, he is only masquerading as one. On his last assignment for the British Secert Service, he is to pretend to be burnt out and jobless. Never faraway from a bottle he walks around the streets of London cynical and depressed, his "masterstroke" in this act is an ugly fight with a shopkeeper who refuses to give him credit. This ofcourse attracts the attention of the East German agants who view him as a potential defector because of his dire need for cash and his embitterment towards the British Agency for abandoning him. It is a credit to Burton's brilliant and painfully realistic performance that you are pretty sure his embitterment in not entirely an act. That he really is a drunk. That he wholeheartedly agrees with the German when he calls him "the lowest currency of the cold war", even if he is not a defector. To him, all spies, on both sides, are scum.

John Le Carre was an ex-British intelligence officer when he wrote the celebrated novel on which this film was based. It was called "the finest spy story ever written" by the writer of The Third Man, Graham Greene. And in a sense, The Spy Who Came In From The Cold starts where The Third Man left off. The lead character has already lost any faith he had in humanity. I suspect that the only reason Leamas hadn't really defected is because even money has lost its lure. Surprisingly the most sympathetic characters in the book(and the film) are the communist spy Fiedler(Oskar Werner) and naive communist librarian Liz Gold(renamed Nan Perry in the film and played by Claire Bloom), and both pay dearly for it. In the world of The Spy Who Came In From The Cold idealism is not merely misguided, it is pathetic. When Fiedler sincerely asks Leamus "How do you sleep at night without a philosophy?". Leamus's typically jaded answer is "I don't believe in God or Karl Marx. I don't believe in anything that rocks the world. I reserve the right to remain ignorant."

In adapting the novel, scripters Paul Dehn and Guy Trosper retained the icy restraint of the novel. Director Martin Ritt(who made the better known but inferior Norma Rae) shoots the film in a harsh black and white. Accompanied by a sad violin score, The Spy Who Came In From The Cold is finally a sentimental film about unsentimentality. Ridiculously Burton lost out on the Oscar infavour of Lee Marvin in the frankly ridiculous Cat Ballou. The film was nominated for just one other Oscar which was for Art-Direction. A shame. With its moral and asthetic complexity, this is as far away from Bond or Tom Clancy based thrillers as you can get. Possibly the greatest film in its genre, and in its own quiet way the equal of The Third Man. The final message being that people who are driven enough to enter the world of espionage are not(and can't afford to be) driven by ideals. In that world the only motive is expediency.

color?
Amazon lists this film as being in color. It was shot in b/w. It was colorized in the '80's. I hope this is NOT the colorized version.

The Spy who Came In from The Cold
This is probably one of Richard Burton's best performances and deserves more attention. It is the story of a Cold War spy sent out to pasture as a clerk in a book store/library. He turns to alcohol to escape the humm-drum existence. The "agency" has one more job for him to do and brings him out of retirement. Is he being set up or is there something deeper afoot. This is NOT the glitzy James Bond spy!! A cold, hard, look at the world of spies during the Cold War Era and the smarmy people in their world. Very thought provoking and a great performance by Burton.

The Spy Who Came in From the Cold
One of my all-time favorite Spy flicks! Burton is fabulous, as is Oskar Werner. The VHS quality is very good. I had hoped for a DVD version but I'm happy to own this. Video rental stores in my area simply do not have this in stock - so I had to buy it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Paul Newman is the blue-eyed "savage," a white man raised by the Indians who rejects so-called civilized society for his spiritual family, in Elmore Leonard's take on Stagecoach. It's not exactly Grand Hotel on wheels. The hypocrites, crooks, and racists Newman travels with cast him out of their polite company in the coach, then turn to him for salvation when outlaws hold up the stage and hunt them through the desert. It's hard to "like" Newman's cold, hard survivor, but you can't help but respect his cunning and his unsentimental directness. Fredric March is sweaty with corruption as a crooked Indian agent, and Richard Boone smiles his deadly charm as a lusty bad man. While this 1966 Western wears its social politics on its dusty sleeves, director Martin Ritt tempers the revisionist moral of the tale with a stripped-down ruthlessness befitting the rugged, unforgiving landscape. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (29)

AN OVERLOOKED CLASSIC
This is a flat-out great western, even though often it is overlooked on many "Best" lists. It is existential, yet spiritual. It has action, but not too much. It focuses more on the interaction of its characters; the human condition. The cinematography by James Wong Howe, one of his last efforts, is crisp and expansive; shown magnificently on the DVD version. The score, by David Rose, is energetic and melodic. Director Martin Ritt made the most out of an unconventional plot with his powerhouse of a cast; and ultimately he filmed a picture that delivers a message without preaching.

Paul Newman, a giant among actors, found something in his character, John Russell; a stillness, an incredible strength buried deep within honed survival skills, a quiet confidence, and ultimately a compassion for others. It is a very layered, compex, and brilliant portrayal.

The supporting cast was excellent, surrounding Newman with talented adversaries and cronies. Diane Cilento, as Jesse, was willful, pragmatic, outgoing, yet still sexy; the earth mother of the piece. Richard Boone was the bad-to-the-bone Cicero Grimes; adding a new dimension to villiany. Yes he was mean, was a bully, was hard-as-nails, yet Boone still was able to show us an interesting man with deep shadows on his past; a gem of a performance. Fredric March, as the San Carlos Indian Agent, Mr. Favor, allowed us to dislike him, then pity him. He managed to dredge up a form of redemption out of the shoals of a potentially one-dimensional character. Martin Balsam found an odd humanity within his Mexican character, the stage driver Mendez; a man prone to compromise, a survivor. And in a small flashy part of a Mexican bandit, Frank Silvera made a tremendous impact. He helped us to like this brigand, and he shined with every gesture and line.

Barbara Rush as Mrs. Favor, and Margaret Blye as the young Mrs. Blake, were both quite competent. One false note in the casting was Peter Lazer as Billy Lee Blake. Even with repeated viewings, his performance never improves. There is no real substance to it. He never managed to rev up his character to the level of those around him; like a Shetland pony competing in race with thoroughbreds. Cameron Mitchell and David Canary had great energy and smooth professionalism fused into their supporting roles.

The most haunting moment of the film, what stays with you, is the death of John Russell. Newman had carefully established that this Hombre would not "bleed" for others. He was like a coyote bedding down with domestic dogs; an outcast. Yet it was his strength that all the others clung to in a crisis. So why, in the last gasp of the plot, would this hardened pariah suddenly sacrifice himself to save a woman who had demonstrated contempt for him ? We are left without a real answer, just a sweet sadness, and the awesome realization that we have witnessed some level of greatness.

'Hombre' is great example of the western in transition
"Hombre," one of Paul Newman's "H" movies of the 1960s, meanders along for its first two reels before things kick into overdrive with the introduction of Richard Boone's villain. From his first moment on screen, Boone projects a very believable image of evil, a study of bullying, intimidation and ruthlessness, and his performance is only matched by the film's star.

Newman, as a cynical white man who has been raised by Native Americans, takes a cold and calculated approach to the threat Boone represents, one entirely at odds with the one preferred by the woman who wants to love him, Diane Cilento. For much of the film, Newman seems never to make a move that comes from sentiment or gallantry, and the film asks a number of pointed questions about sacrifice, manhood and chivalry, at a time when America was reconsidering these and other ideals.

Any DVD worth buying is one that rewards repeated viewings, and "Hombre" definitely meets that standard. For a fine example of the Western as it began to redefine itself in the late '60s, you can't go wrong with this one.

Hombre
The blue-eyed Paul Newman as a half-breed Apache? Weren't there quite a few folks a-waiting on a stage considering that the stagecoach company was practically defunct, presumably because of a lack of customers? Why didn't most of them, 'ceptin' the women folk, ride horses rather than take the stage? Why did they leave the water in the mine shaft? If you're sure the nasty bandito is going to shoot at you, why tell the kid to "wait 'til he reaches for his gun" before shooting him?
I asked a lot of questions while watching HOMBRE, and that usually ain't a good thing. Considering this was taken from a novel written by the usually reliable Elmore Leonard, it's a little mystifying as well.
A cynic would say these plot pimples were necessary to make things work. Look, you ain't gonna put brown contacts on Paul Newman's eyes, for criminy sake, and in 1967 there weren't many stars with stronger box office than Newman. We had to get the folks together on a stagecoach so Barbara Rush, the wife of corrupt Indian agent Frederic March, could get the vapors and see to it that half-breed John Russell (Newman) would be asked to ride on the roof. We had to keep the boys off the horses and on the benches because we needed to see bad guy Grimes (Richard Boone, excellent as usual) stink up the coach with his boorish manners and his cigars. They had to leave the water in the mine shaft so that the corrupt Indian agent Dr. Alex Favor (March) could reunite his venal self with the group.
That said, with all its question, HOMBRE is a good movie. In a beautiful opening scene a boss horse leads a group of wild horses into a corral. Director Martin Ritt is a master at sustained scenes that build with little or no dialogue.
HOMBRE belongs in that herd of movies that came out in the 60s and 70s that cast a critical eye on American culture. They reflected the tensions in society - hawks versus doves, pacifists versus Joe hardhats, the silent majority versus the vocal minority. Like other movies of that ilk, HOMBRE has a quasi-religious outsider at the center of the movie, and that central character is used to reflect and magnify the failures of society. In HOMBRE the white men are venal, immature, corrupt, evil and impotent.
The transitional figure, the one that links the hero to the dominant society, is the Mexican Henry Mendez (Martin Balsam.) That a movie attacking racism should cast the anything-but-latino Balsam is one of the sweet ironies of the time. Balsam is good, though, and in a pivotal scene with Russell he lays it out for him. Russell's adoptive uncle has died and leaves him a boarding house and some land. Leaves him a stake in society. He tells Russell, who is living on the reservation at the time, to get his haircut. Look like a white man. Make it easier on yourself. "A Mexican," Mendez says, " is closer to a white man than an Apache. I'll tell you that." Tune out, turn off and drop in, Hombre.
Well, quasi-religious figures in a Judeo- Christian culture haven't got a lot of options left by the time they reach the end of the last reel. For some strange reason we find ritual bloodletting deeply satisfying and a road sign to Higher Meaning. So be it. Many people will love HOMBRE for its passion. For my part, I'll remember with fondest pleasure watching Richard Boone guffaw, threaten, and intimidate his bad bad self through an otherwise okay western.
The only extras on this dvd are a clutch of theatrical trailers for Paul Newman movies. The trailer for THE HUSTLER has a snazzy, jazzy feel to it and I recommend it.

One of the Best Westerns Ever
Western films are not often thought to be intellectually edifying on matters of political philosophy. With the possible exception of Cormac McCarthy's Western novels, Western fiction--popular or not--has not even been designated as literature, never mind philosophically instructive. Hombre, however, deserves a serious look at its edifying possibilities. I am not interested in arguing on behalf of a literary or cinematic reassessment of the Western genre as such; rather, my intent is to simply adumbrate some of the philosophically political themes one can find in Hombre. First, there is man in the state of nature (human nature) and the instinct for self-preservation versus social responsibility (contract theories of political organization); secondly, we have imperial domination and cultural conflict versus unmitigated toleration (contemporary cosmopolitan orthodoxy grounds itself on liberal contract theories founded by Hobbes, which postulate and mythologize pre-political "rights"). These "rights" are mythologized by cosmopolitanism inasmuch as their metaphysical existence is dubious at best and more likely simply derivative of historically relative cultural norms, and therefore not cosmological or universal.

Hombre should not be interpreted along Hobbesian lines wherein the state of nature for man is the status belli, nor on Kantian terms that stress toleration based on cosmopolitan law [Weltburgerrect] emanating from multicultural understanding whereby "the peace of the political order stands in sharp contrast with the violence of the state of nature." This multicultural cosmopolitanism, as noted above, is obviously based on the Hobbesian theory of the necessity of negating the state of nature as the status belli, simply amplified and applied on a cultural and global rather than an individual level. Even less, then, should Hombre be understood in revisionist or postmodernist terms, which are merely cheap and incoherent versions of the Kantianism described herein that lack self-knowledge regarding their own historical genesis. In contrast to these modern, liberally humanistic contract theories of equality (whether it be equality of persons [Hobbes] or equality of cultures [as in current neo-Kantian cosmopolitan orthodoxy]), Hombre is best understood in Platonic political terms that affirm a hierarchy--not only of the political order but within humanity as such--in the practice of "moralities of command and obedience" as the natural disposition of humans as social and, eventually, if properly cultivated, political animals. There is a hierarchy of men within a Platonic dialogue that is rooted not in the contingencies of birth but in the natures of diverse human souls. As the narrator of Hombre tells us in Elmore Leonard's excellent novel _Hombre_, on which the film is based (with some not so slight changes, especially concerning the rapaciousness of the Apaches), "I guess we had to follow somebody" (90).

One of the Great Westerns of the Modern Cinema
This movies has most elements of a good Western. It has cowboys and Indians, a stagecoach robbery, a shootout, the man (and woman) against nature theme, and much much more. Most of all, it has a great script, strong directing, and outstanding acting. Just about all of the characters are memorable for their performances but the soul of this movie is Paul Newman. His character is that of the quiet yet strong man who shares his thoughts with no one and takes no guff from anyone. The bad guy in this movie is nearly as memorable in the person of Richard Boone. He is about as evil a character as you will find in a G rated movie.

Then story is that of a man (Mr. Randall) who was raised on an Apache reservation in the Arizona Territory. He inherits some money and property and sets off to check out a different life style. On the way, he meets up with a diverse group of people on a stagecoach leaving town. Bad things happen but the only man who seemed equipped to handle things is Mr. Randall, played by Paul Newman. The movie explores the nature of good and evil which recalls the old Woody Guthrie line, "Some will rob you with a six-gun and some with a fountain pen". The movie also contrasts the values of the "savage" with that of civilization and you can probably guess who comes out ahead. This movie does not have a happy ending which is not unusual for a modern Western. Yet there is a true feeling that Good has prevailed.

This movie mixes plenty of action and thought-provoking situations and is a good movie for the whole family to enjoy. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Rae of Hope
Sally Field gives a career turning performance in 1979's Norma Rae. Up to that point, Ms. Field was better known as a TV actress who starred in fluffy comedies like Gidget, The Flying Nun & The Girl With Something Extra. In 1976, she showed a more serious side, taking home an Emmy for her work as a young girl with multiple personalities in Sybil. After Sybil, she proceeded to star in more fluff pieces like Smokey & The Bandit, Hooper & The End with her then boyfriend Burt Reynolds. Norma Rae was a film with much more substance. In fact after reading the script, Mr. Reynolds advised her that she would win an Oscar for the film. He turned out to be quite prophetic. Ms. Field is superb in the title role. Norma is an unassuming factory worker from a small town in the South, who is widowed and has two kids with two separate fathers. That is until she meets Reuben Warshawky (Ron Liebman). Reuben is an Union organizer from New York City and he is trying to get the mill workers to set up a union. Most people ignore as they are fearful for their jobs, but Norma is intrigued and she starts meeting with Reuben to try and start a union. She is met with resistance and is bullied by her bosses, but Norma is not persuaded to quit. She feels that she has stood by her whole life without making a difference and this is her chance to actually matter. There is of course the famous scene where Norma is about to be removed from the mill and she defiantly stands on a table with the Union sign. Her co-workers one by one realize the chances she's taken for them and they shut off their machines in support. The film has some excellent supporting work from Mr. Liebman, Beau Bridges and Pat Hingle, but this is Ms. Field's film all the way. She proved Mr. Reynolds right and took home the 1979 Best Actress Oscar and set forth on a path that would add another Oscar to her collection and feature some of the best films of 1980's & 1990's.

A stunning achievement!
Director Martin Ritt reportedly commented that his film of a mother working in a southern textile mill was flawed but that he hoped it was a realtistic portrayal of life and its flaws. It's tough to find the flaws in this superb film that earned Sally Field the first of her two Oscars ("Places in the Heart" won her the second five years later). As mill worker Norma Rae, Field's character lands the reluctant role of union organizer but in the process uncovers the essence of her own character and courage. The latter is no better conveyed than in what turned out to be one of cinematic history's most memorable images when the near-beaten Norma Rae stands on a table in front of 800 co-workers and, in so doing, becomes her own person. The film expertly conveys life in a southern town, but its devastating impact is Norma Rae's gradual emergence as a truly courageous person who is willing to risk it all to literally stand up for what she knows is right. Field's riveting performance reeled in every major acting award the year the film was released, and justly so. It may well remain her best work ever.

A textbook example of how to organize in your workplace!!
I finally got the chance to watch this movie after missing out for almost 20 years. I should have watched this film years ago. Not only is Sally Field's acting great, but the screenplay was just as great as well. My only problem was the length of the movie as I thought 20 minutes could have been chopped off. With that said, this movie should be mandatory watching for all workers. If you care about the conditions in your workplace, watch it and learn how to organize your workplace!! It's a film much needed for required viewing in our society today!

One of the 10 Best Performances by an Actress Ever!!!
"Norma Rae" contains the thrilling performance by Sally Field as a woman on the wrong side of the tracks of life who decides it's time to stand up for the rights of her co-workers at a small textile plant.

She is offered and accepts a promotion when the plant's management tries to divert her, but a supervisory role doesn't appeal to her when her mother loses her hearing and she has to chastise her father for poor performance. Logically, inevitably she becomes more committed to fighting for a better life for herself and her loved ones and joins forces with a union organizer who came down from NYC. She ends up sacrificing all, including her self esteem, to give the workers more control over their working conditions.

Chills ran down my spine during the scene where she held up the "union" sign and another where she rebuked her husband for being non-supportive of her union efforts. I am not a union supporter, but I know good drama, strong performances, and a logical and interesting plot when I see it, so I recommend this fine film to all.

Hopefully they will give as much time and attention to dubbing and subtitling this movie into languages of third world countries because that's where this textile plant probably relocated a year after the events this film portrayed. A sad, sad outcome to an ideal.

No matter what the outcome, Sally Field delivers one of the finest performances in film history so "Norma Rae" gets only my highest recommendations!

TWO THUMBS UP! FIVE STARS OF EXCELLENCE!!!!
This movie is definitely a monster of a hit. Sally Field was great playing the single mother who wouldn't let unsafe conditions go undetected. This movie was Oscar material. It was strong, smart, and very uplifting. I like the part when she had the black men in the meeting and she told her husband played by Jeff Bridges that "they didn't give me a hard time". Whatever you say about it, but it's AWESOME! 10+ ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Based on a Larry McMurtry novel, this Martin Ritt film was a testament to the sex appeal of the young Paul Newman. Playing the title character--a total rotter who, by the end of the film, has double-crossed or screwed over everyone he knows, including his hard-working father and brother--Newman turns him into an intriguing antihero. Things are tough on the ranch and Hud's dad (Melvyn Douglas) needs help, but Hud is too busy looking out for number one, even as things fall apart. And guess who's going to land on his feet? Beautiful black-and-white cinematography by James Wong Howe won an Oscar, as did performances by Douglas and Patricia Neal. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (39)

Magnificent in every respect
I cannot say enough about this movie. Paul Newman ("HUD") is completely convincing as the narcissistic son of an aging cattle rancher (Melvyn Douglas) who takes all he can get from life, leaving only destruction in his wake. Perhaps the reason Newman is so convincing is that, despite HUD's reprehensible character, one is drawn in to the allure of his personality, just like those on the screen that are used and tossed aside. Although we may not be "rooting" for HUD, we become more than a little sympathetic to his cause, probably a reflection of our own selfish natures. And it is a tribute to Newman's acting ability to draw out these conflicting emotions from the audience.

The supporting cast in this "character study" is nothing short of superb. Melvyn Douglas as the pious and self-righteous father is the perfect mirror image of HUD. Patricia Neal (who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress) is simply outstanding as the earthy, motherly yet somewhat-still-sexy housekeeper who both HUD and Lon (Brandon De Wilde) have sexual yearnings for, but for very different reasons. James Wong Howe's cinematography is top notch and his choice of black and white film really makes this movie work - far more than it would have in color.

There are also other "small touches" that add so much to the film. When HUD picks up Patricia Neal by the side of the road with her groceries, she offers him a Fig Newton. The same effect was used again when Lon is discussing the book "From Here To Eternity" with the local drugstore owner. Not a just a "cookie" or a "book", but real pieces of "Americana" the help set the mood, tone and timeframe of the film.

There is one last item I think is worth commenting on, because it is often overlooked. That is the seeming genuine affection that HUD has for his nephew (Lon). Yes, HUD is a scoundrel out for himself first and foremost, but there are many scenes where HUD appears almost human (particularly when HUD finally tells Lon how his father died), and those scenes are always with Lon. This is why, if the movie has any flaw in my mind, it is the ending where Lon is leaving the ranch and HUD is left all alone. I get the sensation that HUD is practically begging Lon to stay, though outwardly this isn't the case at all and HUD tries to act aloof and non-caring, shouting one of his famous lines "This world is so full of ..., a man's gonna get into it sooner or later whether he's careful or not." Whether my reaction was the one Martin Ritt had in mind I am not sure, but the last scene always leaves me unsettled, at least in terms of HUD's humanity.

Regardless, a first class film in every way. There are very few this good.

POWERFUL, POIGNANT and PACKING A WALLOP ON DVD
"Hud" is the story of an embittered, ruthless son (Paul Newman) of cow rancher Homer Bannon (Melvyn Douglas). Determined to take over his father's prosperous farm, Hud bides his time with sexual conquests and playing big brother to Lonnie (Brandon DeWilde). Lonnie worships Hud as a god, a rabid fascination that will be irreversible shattered when Hud attempts to rape the ranch's cook and housemaid, Alma Brown (Patricia Neal). However, before the disillusionment comes the spoils. The family partake in a county fair in which Hud wins the 'greased pig' contest. He and Lonnie start a victory fight inside a barroom. Hud takes Alma to the movies. There's really nothing extraordinary about the film, and yet it captures, perhaps better than most, the raw emotion of a powerful slice of Americana in the mid-west. However, as the story drags on the tide begins to turn away from Hud's favor. Homer becomes ill and unable to tend the far. The cattle contract an infection, forcing the farm hands to exterminate the entire herd. Alma, realizing that Hud is incapable of any sort of compassion or tenderness, abandons him and the farm in search of a new life somewhere else.

The transfer is a bit disappointing. Though the picture is free of many age related artifacts and digital artifacts, the overall presentation is somewhat soft, with blooming around the edges that renders parts of the B&W picture in various rainbow hues - even with the color on one's television set turned to zero. Also edge enhancement is sometimes obvious. Finally, the overall presentation tends to be just a little too soft for the vintage of the camera negative. Close ups and medium shots look fairly sharp but long shots become a blurry mess. The gray scale is reasonably balanced, though during scenes shot at night, fine detail tends to get lost in the shadows. The audio is remastered and well balanced. There are NO extras.

You're an unprincipled man, Hud
Welcome to the last Western. HUD is a chronicle of what killed the western ethos - it was done in by a man with a "barbed wire soul" driving a pink cadillac. Before HUD men raised cattle or plowed the earth, after HUD men ceded the land to the oil drillers.
The movie opens with 17-year-old, wide-eyed Lonnie looking for Hud. The trail leads him past a busted up saloon and ends when he finds a married woman's high heel shoe carelessly flung on her front porch. Hud seems to have a taste for married women and a way with the bottle that the curious Lonnie finds attractive.
When they get home Homer drives them out to a freshly dead heifer. There are no bullet wounds or other signs of injury and Homer decides to call the authorities. Hud disagrees. If the heifer died of a disease it could jeopardize everything, and Hud is too close to inheriting the ranch for that. Homer has more at stake, but burying the cow without an investigation would simply be wrong. The drama proceeds from there as deliberately, and inevitably, as a Greek tragedy.
Like other epics, and HUD deals with epic themes, there are great battles. Hud Bannon battles with his father, Homer Bannon (Melvyn Douglas) for the heart and mind of his nephew Lonnie (Brandon de Wilde.) Hud and Lonnie battle over their "half-wild" maid Alma (Patricia Neal.)
Hud, a man of little patience, is brutally direct in his approach to Alma. The inexperienced Lonnie admires her from a gentler distance. Director Martin Ritt includes two scenes that highlight this difference. One night Hud tomcats his way into Alma's room asking for a cigarette. The experienced and wary Alma gives - Hud lights the handout and blows out the match just as Alma asks for a light. With his back to her Hud drops the burnt out match into her hands and waits a beat before dropping the matchbook. It's a short throwaway that highlights Hud's loutish behavior. It gains relevance a little later when Lonnie takes a blow to the head and has to take to his bed. Alma brings him a glass of 'fresh squeezed lemonade.' Lonnie takes the drink and a worried look beetles his brow. Alma puts her hand under his mouth and urges him to spit. 'C'mon, honey,' she says, 'they're just lemon pits.'
Lonnie spits his seeds into her hand, Hud a useless, burnt out stick, and Dr. Freud has just left the building. Maybe Ritt put those scenes in to delight louts like me four decades on. HUD is filled with powerful, multi-layered scenes. Another memorable one occurs when Homer Bannon's herd is driven into an enclosure. It is very long, maybe four minutes, and deliberately edited. I don't know if we'd see its like today, but its length and deliberation gives it awesome power.
Melvyn Douglas won an Oscar in this movie, and he portrays Homer Bannon as a man about as played out as his over grazed land and about as obsolete as the two longhorn he keeps solely for sentimental reasons. Neal also won an Oscar in this one, and her character is almost as worn out as the elder Bannon. Life has used her hard. Paul Newman was nominated as the title character, and in my opinion would not have made an embarrassing winner. One of the most charming and charismatic actors in movie history, Newman manages to play a man of hollow charm. When he flirts, we see the snake lurking behind his smile. HUD won a third Oscar for photography, and James Wong Howe presents a parched and arid black-and-white landscape.
This is an excellent movie, and well worth the investment of anyone's time.

Out of the dust rise an excellent cinematic experience...
The charming Hud Bannon (Paul Newman) is a restless, selfish, and cynical man in his 30s that lacks the ability to be compassionate and caring for others as he fights his own demons. Hud drowns his feelings in booze and takes any woman he can to fill the void and loneliness. In essence, Hud is a very lonely and sad character that seems to be looking for something, but does not know what it is. On the family farm Hud has his dad Homer, nephew Lonnie, and maid Alma who all care about him. However, blinded and lost in his inner battle Hud rejects and hurts them as he feels that they all are doing something wrong. The question is whether Hud's close family will care for him as he is careless of the family. Martin Ritt creates a story that enters the personal lives of the Bannon family and through this family the audience can learn some very valuable lessons in love, trust, and care. These life lessons are brought to the audience with a brilliant cinematic experience as the theme of the story will always be of vital importance to mankind.

A Great family Drama!
Here is a motion picture that is never written or produced any more. A family drama that is more about relationships between father & son, grandfather & grandson, uncle & nephew, rather than
about who is sleeping with whom with four letter words making up the dialogue. It's about people finding out what they mean to "significant others" and what those "others" mean to them. And, who they are to themselves. What they want from life, what their values are, or in Hud's case aren't. Douglas his father has the value - That money isn't everything. How "dated" is that value, 40 years later? ONE OF THE BEST MOVIES I HAVE SEEN IN QUITE SOMETIME., of course GREAT ACTING BY NEWMAN, NEAL, DOUGLAS AND DE WILDE adds to the package. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Paul Newman has his glorious youthful swagger in this southern-fried melodrama, which marked his first picture with Joanne Woodward (they married after shooting ended). The script is a melange of William Faulkner stories, although it appears more under the influence of Tennessee Williams and Picnic than the Nobel Prize winner. Drifter Newman catches the eye of schoolmarm Woodward and her father, a rural Mississippi bigshot (Orson Welles). This is not one of Welles's better moments; he appears to be conducting make-up experiments. There is some enjoyable flapdoodle along the way, in the Freud-meets-Gone with the Wind manner of '50s southern cooking, but the ending is embarrassingly compromised. The same production team would leave out the box-office concessions a few years later on Hud. A studly Newman justifies this description of his character:"I wish I was Ben Quick. He's got the whole state of Mississippi to graze on." --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Steam Heat
I rated this film with four stars though on most measurable levels, it is worthy of maybe three. The plot is a montage, some say mish-mash of Faulkner's literary works. Still, the film works..... most of the time. Jerry Wald's production has 1950's sensibilities written all over it. A real strength of this film lies in the charismatic on-screen performance of young Paul Newman's Ben Quick and his incendiary relationship with Orson Welles' Will Varner. It is said the editing room had to re-do much of Welles' dialogue to make it intelligible for the audience. Whatever. I am fascinated by virtually every word uttered in Welles' quirky interpretation of a portly, gravelly voiced redneck hell-bent to leave his greasy thumbprint on all who would come under his influence. For 62 year old Varner to race about town in a Jeep as his personal conveyance of choice completes the picture of a man unbowed in the presence of all others. Eager to marry his daughter off to perpetuate his legacy, Will encouraged Ben anyway he could. In all things, he could be demanding and callous, yet in a rare display of affection, Will uncharacteristically and tenderly explained to his sensitive daughter Clara, (Joanne Woodward) "Sometimes the strong just rolls over the weak." Angela Lansbury played Minnie LittleJohn, a retired women of the evening. As an inevitable consequence of age, her world weariness and palpable sense of urgency that time was running out expedited a patient and sincere pursuit of Will for his hand in marriage. Richard Anderson portrayed Alan Stewart, Clara's long-time supposed suitor, an elegant, tasteful and honorable southern gentleman. Outed by an impatient Varner, and forced to declare his sexual orientation, he had to finally declare his unsuitability for Clara's hand in marriage. To me, the one miscast major actor in this film was Anthony Franciosa as Will's disaffected son, Jody. It was difficult for me to accept a dark and somewhat ethic Franciosa as a privileged son of the deep south, though Lee Remick positively shined as his highly desirable sexually charged wife Eula. The obvious on-screen chemistry shared of Newman and Woodward in "The Long, Hot Summer" is the stuff of Hollywood legend. Those were real sparks of passion arcing between them, the camera just documented the fireworks for posterity. Their highly charged scenes make the price of admission all the more reasonable and justification enough for me to rate this film with 4 stars.

A LONG HOT SIZZLER WITH EXTRAS TO BOOT
"The Long Hot Summer" was (for its time)a steamy study of sexual repression and sensual misbehavior. It starred Paul Newman as a drifter accused of barn burning who sets up house-keeping with the daughter (Joanne Woodward) of a rich plantation owner (Orson Welles). The on screen chemistry is certainly there and why not. This film just happened to be the catalyst for the real life romance between Newman and Woodward. Contextualizing the fact that the censors still reigned supreme during the time of its production, "The Long Hot Summer" still proved to be a smoldering, sexy drama fraught with tension and chaos.
THE TRANSFER: Fox has done a particularly nice job on remastering this movie. Yes, the flicker of scene changes (inherant in all early Cinemascope films)remains present and yes, color consistancy leaves something to be desired. But over all, colors are nicely balanced, if showing slight fading. Contrast and shadow levels are well represented. Pixelization, shimmering and edge enhancement, though all present, are kept to a bare minimum. The audio is Stereo surround and, even though considerably dated, still manages to have a hearty kick in all of the speakers.
EXTRAS: Very nice - the Backstory featurette that details the production of the film, a Paul Newman gallery, original movietone snippet and the film's theatrical trailer.
BOTTOM LINE: This is a nice presentation and a pretty good film besides. At the extremely economical price that Fox has advertised it at, "The Long Hot Summer" is guaranteed to burn up your DVD player.

Infinitely superior to the Don Johnson remake.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The TV-movie version of "The Long, Hot Summer" suffers from miscasting (Judith Ivey was passable, but just, and I can't decide if Don Johnson's attempt to fill Paul Newman's shoes represents touching bravery or misguided arrogance), dreadful accents, and jarring anachronisms.
This film, the 1958 original, leaves it in the dust. Newman and Woodward generate palpable heat, and Orson Welles--clammy, jowly, bullfrog-voiced, crudely vigorous--is unforgettable as a classically bullying, overbearing Southern patriarch. In contrast to the pallid TV remake, it features a top cast whose work transcends the sometimes creaky melodrama of the plot. Nearly every white Southern archetype is brought to life: the brutish, domineering, castrating patriarch; the arch, charming, coyly seductive belle with hot pants; the aging good-time girl, simultaneously randy and prim, with her eye on the prize of a rich widower; the hotheaded but weak son and heir, cuckolded by his wife and utterly dominated by his father, whom he both adores and despises; the sharp-tongued old maid, smoldering with repressed fire, who just needs a "real man" to take the place of her suspiciously lukewarm long-term suitor; and, of course, the roguish, charming, sexy, potentially dangerous outsider, spiritual heir to Rhett Butler, who gets both the community and the heroine in a lather. There's even a lynch mob--chasing a white man, for a change.
Skip the TV-movie remake, which at best is a clunky imitation, in favor of the classic--if for no other reason than to see Paul Newman, at the peak of his beauty, in an undershirt. If that's not inducement enough, it's also marvelously cast, scripted, acted, and directed, and it captures Southern family dynamics with humor, pathos, and wince-inducing accuracy. Florence King would be proud. ... Read more

Reviews (47)

i dont recommend seeing ths movie unless you are Irish
The Molly Maguires is a movie that takes place in 1876 on an American coal mining town. The movie stars Sean Connery and co-stars Richard Harris. Sean Connery plays an Irish coal miner by the name of Jack Kehoe. He is the leader of an underground mining terrorist group. Richard Harris plays Irish man by the name of James McKenna/McParlan. Who is hired as a detective to rat out the Molly Maguires. I think the movie was well thought out just did not appeal to me. With visual aid it totally explained what Irish work life was like when they got to Ameica.

CAUTION: Not to be treated as History
The spirit of the industrial boom times is captured, but not in a factual way. With some exageration, and with few facts in order, scenes from the past brought alive in an excellent manner. Totally worth owning if you like action/suspense! Sean Connery does an excellent job, as usual, as does the late Richard Harris. Rumor, with good source, has it that during the making of this film, Harris went to a Hazleton, PA bar and 'hit' on somebody's wife, and was punched out on the spot. Hazleton, PA, is also the childhood home of Hollywood great, Jack Palance.

......But don't treat this movie as the gospel truth - it's not even close.

Viewed with prior knowledge of the period is the best way to go. Once again, Hollywood misfires its facts. Amid the Industrial Revolution, Irish Catholic, in addition to several other ethnic groups (the Irish certainly not the only ones in the mines at the time), worked in horrid conditions when having a job anywhere in the world was an accomplishment, wages were slim, and rarely was there enough to save. If you can justify the shootings and murders of people in order to exonerate a secret society, masked by an organization (the Ancient Order of Hibernians) that was supposed to be humanitarian - for other Irish Catholics.

This movie is not an accurate portrayal of events, but certainly is entertaining, with a very good glimpse of what coal mining was like for many ethnic groups, including: English, Scots, Welsh, Polish, Italian, German, Bulgarian, and Hungarian individuals, not just Irish Catholics. Granted, Irish were mistreated, giving Molly Maguires, who definitely existed, a Saintly Status (which is what some people want to do), is truly ridiculous. They were hanged, caught by another very similar to their own background, in a court system somewhat flawed, red-handed, at a time when few had any tolerance for outlaws and the violence they forced on honest, hardworking communities from many diverse backgrounds. Glorify the Mollies if you must, but don't confuse them with heroes in an objective light and expect to be treated seriously. Read up on it, even the local Catholic Priests condemned them by name, "Molly Maguires," making themselves targets and getting brutally beat up for it. Irish Catholics themselves considered Molly Maguire violence outrageous acts.

Excellent portrayal of Irish gangs and "Shillelagh Law"
This film tells the true story of an Irish gang or 'faction' which was active in the American labour movement in themid to late 1800's. It was brought over from Ireland and further took root among the Irish coal miners of Pennsylvania. Several books have been written about the Molly Maguires, but to understand them in-depth, you need to get the books "Understanding The Molly Maguires", and "Irish Gangs And Stick-Fighting". Martin Scorcese's "Gangs Of New York" is also about Irish gangs like the Mollies, but films usually don't do full justice to this topic. Get this great, very entertaining movie, but for the whole story get the books mentioned above as well.

The Molly Maguires, fact or fiction
Having seen this film several times I was very impressed by the acting, particulary Sean Connery and Richard Harris. The Cinemtography was superb, after all James Wong How was easily one of the greatest Cinematographers of the 20th Century. The music was fantascic and Henry Mancini captured the flavor of the 19th Century Irish. However, even though the script as script was powerful and compelling, it was more fiction than fact. Why is it that script writers must take such liberties with history?
The so-called Molly Maguires, a name invented by the publisher of the Miner's Journal newspaper, were in fact a group of men who were fighting for fair conditions in the coal mines, honest pay for honest work. Many of the men, though certainly not all, hanged were, in fact, innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. These brave men gave their lives for a movement that would eventually lead to the United Mine Workers of America. However, this being said, the movie is entertaining and certainly worth watching even if only to watch Connery, Harris and the beautiful Anjanette Comer.

A Socialist (...) Film
This film is loosely based on the historical Molly Maguires of Pennsylvania, a secret group of Irish immigrant criminals who terrorized the anthracite coal fields after the Civil War.

In this fictionalized film version, the Molly Maguires are sympathetically portrayed as victimized miners trying to start a labor union. As a matter of fact, however, most of the Molly Maguires who were hanged were not employed as miners, but as saloon-keepers and small-time politicians, and they were condemned by the real miner's union because of the terrorism and cold-blooded murders they committed. The screenplay author who wrote the script for this film and co-produced it, Walter Bernstein, was once a member of the American Communist Party and was blacklisted during the Hollywood red scare. The movie director, Martin Ritt, was also a blacklisted leftist. Be forewarned, this movie is essentially left-wing propoganda with little similarity to actual history. The cinematography and sets are excellent, and the soundtrack by Henry Mancini is very enjoyable. The acting of Sean Connery and Richard Harris, and the effectiveness of their "Irish brogues," are so-so. ... Read more

Description

A strong-willed woman launches a fierce battle to prove her mental competence to stand trial for manslaughter. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Cute story about a writer struggling for independance
My main interest in this movie was the story of Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings. She is a writer who is leaving her life to pursue her writing dreams and find fulfillment in publishing a novel.

Her husband is not interested in her dreams. She decides to seek solitude in an isolated orange grove in Florida. Little does she know, this will not be an ideal life. After 30 years of urban life, she is not prepared for a small Florida town.

After many rejections, Marjorie finally realizes "Gothic Novels" are not her specialty. Her agent helps her see how interesting her life actually is and she begins to write about what she knows best. In the process she falls in love, makes a best-friend, helps the community by hiring everyone who lives around her to help remodel her house and fix up her orchard.

Cross Creek is based on the best-selling memoirs of Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings and has some very human moments when you realize the beauty or ugliness of life. The local business man (Peter Coyote) who falls in love with her, does something so amazing. It reminded me of when my father bought my mother her first car. I only know the story, but the situation is similar. Marjorie of course is very head strong and not about to take help from another man. Until she realizes what Norton Bascomb has secretly done.

Slow-paced movie that is more "cute" than "dramatic." Although, there are a few heart-wrenching moments. I thought they dwelled too long on the party, however the chocolate cake sure did look good!

Only view this movie if you have chocolate cake in the house! Preferably decorated with candied orange slices.

A Writer's Life
Cross Creek is a film of exquisite beauty and perhaps the finest portrait of a writer ever put on celluloid. Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings was one of America's greatest writers, her body of work including The Sojourner, South Moon Under, Cross Creek, and the Pulitzer prize winning The Yearling. This wonderful film from director Martin Ritt (Sounder, Norma Rae) shows the struggles of a writer to find both her voice in literature and in her heart.

Mary Steenburgen gives an Oscar worthy performance as Rawlings, a writer unhappy with her life in society and the husband she has grown apart from in 1928. Her famous editor Max Perkins (Malcolm McDowell) keeps rejecting her gothic romances so she purchases a run down orange grove in Florida and after filing for divorce begins a new life in Cross Creek. What she discovers in this beautiful but harsh place will change who she is as a person and a writer.

Director Ritt stunningly captures the beauty of Cross Creek and the few people who live there. It is here that Rawlings meets her future husband Norton Bascomb (Peter Coyote) and everyone else who would inspire her great novels. Rawlings slowly becomes a part of Cross Creek herself as she cares for her orange groves and keeps writing. Her letters to Perkins are better than her romance novels he keeps rejecting and the people of Cross Creek begin to take precedent in her work.

Rip Torn gives a memorable performance as Marsh Turner and a young Dana Hill is unforgettable as Ellie May, the apple of his eye holding tightly to the last of her youthful dreams in the form of her fawn, Flag. Alfrie Woodard, as the enthusiastic Geechee, put herself on the map with her fine portrayel of Rawlings housemaid and friend. Joanna Miles is fine as Marsh's wife, a delicate woman who has slipped into a better world due to the harsh nature of life in Cross Creek.

Rawlings's empathy for a young couple struggling to survive would finally take form and be published by Perkins as Jacob's Ladder. But it would of course be the plight of Ellie May and her fawn Flag which would bring forth the American classic, The Yearling. Steenburgen's magnificent portrayel of a woman struggling for independence and searching for her voice as a writer is powerful.

Ritt's direction is sure as he mixes the humor and drama of life in Cross Creek with the inner struggle of a very unique and gutsy woman. This is a wonderful film that is an inspirational tribute to one of the most distinctive voices in American literature. This warm and lovingly filmed tribute to a great writer and the life she chose to live will never be forgotten once you see it, which you must do.

Superb Drama - Brilliant Performances
Cross Creek is the story of Marjorie Rawlings, the author of the Yearling. Set in a backwoods community in Florida in the 1920s, Ms. Rawlings sets off to write the perfect gothic romance and become a published author. She arrives at her recently purchased property in a broken down automobile to find her house is nothing more than a run down shack and her orange grove completely grown over from neglect. The conflict in the movie arises from her strong willed independence and the need to become part of the community at Cross Creek in order to survive. The characters that are part of that community and the actors and actresses that portray them is precisely what makes this film one of the best dramas ever made. The screenplay is strong, the character development is rich, and the screenplay and story line is completely convincing.

Mary Steenburgen performs the lead role with elegance and a vitality rarely found in roles like this. She has more charm than Kate Hepburn, and she manages to be so believable because she can navigate the feistiness, fear, anger, frustration, sadness, and humor of Ms. Rawlings and her adventures at Cross Creek without missing a beat. Peter Coyote plays Mr. Norton Baskin, a local innkeeper seeking her attention. Alfre Woodard brilliantly plays Geechie, her maid and manages to steal a few scenes in the process. But the two supporting performances that stand out are those of Rip Torn and Dana Hill. Torn and Hill are father and daughter from a dirt poor family try to scrap a living on the creek. They befriend Rawlings, and what results is the real life inspiration for the Yearling.

I believe this film was nominated for four Academy Award Nominations - with three acting nominations - one each for Rip Torn, Alfre Woodard, and Steenburgen. If you enjoy good drama, strong female roles, true stories, or just plain great acting, this would be a fine addition to any collection. My only disappointment with the DVD package is the film is presented in mono instead of Dolby Stereo, but the picture quality is superb. They even managed to include a short featurette. Still, I give this movie five stars, and highly recommend. It is one of my personal favorites.

"Cross Creek" is unforgettable, in the good way.
When was the last time you felt the hairs stand up on your arms as you watched a film? This radiant, measured drama, with a stubborn, diffident and magnetic performance by Mary Steenburgen, does it for me every time. Telling the story of writer Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings and her sojurn in rural Florida in the 20's, it paints (and for once "paints" is the right verb) an eloquent portrait of the artist-as-not-always-likeable person, and also conveys an overwhleming sense of place and community. Martin Ritt's great feeling for ordinary people breathes extraordinary life into this material, and the location settings and photography are superb. Also superb are the supporting performances, including the acclaimed pairing of Rip Torn and the late, astonishing child actor Dana Hill as father and daughter. But my personal favorite is Alfre Woodard's all-out, headlong portrayal of Geechee, Rawling's devoted, wild woman housekeeper. This is the only film I know that conveys a real sense of the writer's life, and without pretense at that. As for the raising of the hairs, there is nothing else in film to compare with the final lyrical montage that concludes the picture. As Steenburgen speaks words from the text of Rawling's original "Cross Creek," Ritt gives us image after ravishing image of Cross Creek and environs. Once seen, you will never forget it. The DVD is beautifully produced. A treasure.

Wonderful characters, beautiful location, funny and poignant
Mary Steenbergen's portrayal of writer Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings is very believable - she's independent and a little stand-offish, but comes to care for her backwoods (and often eccentric) neighbors at Cross Creek as she adjusts to country life in the 1920's. Rip Torn is entertaining and touching as her sometimes-inebriated friend and neighbor Marsh Turner, and Peter Coyote is a charming friend and suitor. The movie is shot on location near Cross Creek, which enhances this interpretation of her 1941 bestselling book of the same name. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The Front is both a comic delight and perhaps the most graceful act of show business revenge in cinema history. Written by, directed by, and starring various talents blacklisted during the McCarthy-era witch hunts of the 1950s entertainment industry, the film stars Woody Allen as Howard, a cashier and bookie approached by blacklisted television-writer Alfred (Michael Murphy) to act as a "front," i.e., the alleged author of Alfred's works. The scam proves hugely successful. Soon Howard is fronting for several other banned writers, taking a cut from every sale to the networks, and basking in praise (and romantic attentions) for his prolific talent. It all unravels when congressional investigators dig into Howard's past for Communist ties and squeeze him to name others with supposed links to the Red Menace. The Front is charming, tragic, heroic, and briskly intelligent, featuring a heartbreaking performance by Zero Mostel and directed by Martin Ritt (Hud). --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (14)

A serious movie reflecting a sick period in our history
Of the "ism's" that we have had very few was worse than McCarthyism that took place in the late 1940's and early 1950's. After ruining careers and lives ruthlessly of people in many different areas but particularly in the entertainment business he was finally censured, lost his seat in the Senate and died. There are some of us that still celebrate the anniversary of Joe McCarthy's death.

The movie is a somewhat dark comedy. Woody Allen is the only person in real life in the movie who was not affected by the infamous blacklist that ruined so many careers and even caused some to die. The role that the late Zero Mostel had shows how he(also blacklisted in real life) kills himself after not being able to find work.

Woody does not play the typical schlep as in so many of his other films. Rather, at the end, he finally expresses (censored on television) his exact feelings to the HUAC members and is last seen being taken off to prison. Yes, there are some funny moments for example, when he is asked to change a script at the last moment and has to depend on some rather interesting methods of doing so.

For those who did not live through those dark days and who are not familiar this "ism" this is one avenue to look at and learn just how bad things were. The sad thing is that this movie is simply not shown enough to remind us of all of that.

Mostel Showcase
The screen time may belong to Woody Allen, but the movie belongs to Zero Mostel. Few actors are more improbable than the artfully bulky Mostel, whose round head, tiny snub nose and large expressive eyes resemble a cartoon more than an actual person. Yet his range is phenomenal. Watch the breadth as he slyly tries to work around head witch-hunter Francis Hennesee, or comically greets the diminutive Allen, or explodes in eye-popping rage at the Borscht-belt proprietor who cheats him. His metaphorical loss in the film mirrors the very real loss film-goers suffered during his years of blacklist. And it's to Allen's credit that he generously showcases this prodigious talent in what would be Mostel's last film.

The movie itself handles the blacklist of the 1950's with a congenial light touch. Allen is perfect as the nebbish who fronts for his screenwriter pals, and it's fun to watch him puff up and fluff out as the spotlight shifts abruptly his way. As expected, there are many amusing Allen bits scattered throughout. Even the romantic angle with Marcovicci works nicely into Allen's character as he evolves through the story-line, ending in a perceptive example of the old "worm turns" plot twist. All in all, this 1976, Martin Ritt film amounts to an amusing look at a dark period in American civil liberties, made unusually memorable by the sublime presence of the unforgettable Zero Mostel.

Biased but important reminder of a dark time
I suppose first up, given some of the comments here, that it's worthwhile acknowledging that communism was a threat to the United States and the West in the 1950s, and that the CPUSA played a subversive role in supporting the foreign policy interests of the Soviet Union. How culpable were the one-time communist sympathisers in Hollywood is another matter entirely, however, and the crudity and narrow-mindedness of McCarthy was unworthy of a democratic nation.
That the real danger of Soviet-style communism (both to the Americanist flagwavers and the progressive liberals and workers who understandably despised both the right and the CPUSA left) doesn't come across in this film is perhaps understandable: the personal hurt felt by all those who made it may over-ride their own sense of complicity. Unfortunate, but there you are. And it is a comedy.
As for the film itself, Allen is brilliant as Howard Prince, although once again, he seems to be playing Woody. The real star, however, is Mostel, whose bravura performance throughout puts you through the wringer with him.

The ending is ambiguous - his testimony before HUAC is supposedly carefully planned by him (without his counsel's knowledge), but instead Woody playing Woody (ie. with all the nervous tics and unfinished, stuttering sentences) gives the perhaps misleading impression that he's floundering, and therefore can leave viewers wondering whether his rebuke to the system was a political statement or merely a desperate outburst from one who was outwitted by a group of professionals.
Nevertheless, the film is v. enjoyable.

Great movie, short on features
It is always interesting to watch an old movie about an older time. This 1976 examination of the McCarthy-era serves a couple of purposes. At a time when the cold war was focusing on East Asia, the time was right for a re-examation of the excesses of the 50s lest they fade from memory (something that still applies to today). We start off during the opening credits with newsreel scenes from 1952: Joltin' Joe DiMaggio, frontlines from the Korean War, Marilyn Monroe getting her star on Hollywood Blvd, the Rosenbergs being carted off to their execution, new cars, new homes complete with bomb shelters, etc. But the movie focusus on the blacklisitng of writers, directors, and actors in entertainment; specifically at NBC television. The details and the methodology of the blacklist are exact and don't involve a lot of exposition. Halfway through the film, you get a fairly complete picture of how the blacklist worked.

The movie is also a good old-fashioned "Screw You!". The film was written by a blacklisted writer (who is obviously drawing from his own experience), directed by a blacklisted director and is populated (not exclusively) by blacklisted actors. The actors who were blacklisted get their own titles in the closing credits.

And thirdly, (and most importantly) the movie is good entertainment. Amateur bookie Harold Prince, described by his brother as "a lowlife bum", cares about two things: making money with as little effort as possible and getting laid. He has no apparent talent and no political convictions. Prince's lifelong buddy Al Miller (played by Mike "Jack Tanner" Murphy) has problems of his own: despite award-winning work, he can't get a job writing because word is out that he marched in a May Day parade. Al makes a proposition. He writes the stuff, Harold submits it, and Harold gets to keep 10% of the money.

By his own admission, Harold knows nothing and cares nothing about politics or the blacklist. ("Why don't you just sue someone?" he asks). But he doesn't protest: this is easy money, he takes it. When it works, he takes on more writers and finds himself getting both more easy money and more tail than he would have imagined; but as he starts to realize some of the bigger issues at stake, he very slowly (VERY slowly) starts developing a conscience.

The humor comes from Prince, trying horribly to fake being a writer. The producers of the TV shows he writes for love him because he doesn't act like a writer. As he becomes more popular, he keeps trying to play it cool with varying results. He finds himself getting very used to success and keeps thinking he can just finesse his way out of whatever problems come up. There are also some priceless scenes with the writers he fronts for as he keeps needing to be reminded that he's not the talented one.

Special paragraph for people who hate Woody Allen:
Don't let that stop you from seeing this. It is not "A Woody Allen Movie." (aka "Movie about being neurotic in New York") Woody Allen plays Prince. He doesn't write, he doesn't direct, he even tones down the uber-nebbish character he usually plays. With everything that's come up about Allen since 1975, it is easy to forget that the guy can be very, very funny.

But even though Woody is the lead, Zero Mostel (in one of his last films) is the star of this picture. In a couple of scenes we watch him go from top-of-the-world everybody-loves-me, to I've-had-a-setback-but-they-still-love-me, to deep despair. This is made particularly poignent since it parallels Mostel's own career. Even if you don't know Mostel's story (he came up through vaudeville and when he was discharged for disability, spent the rest of the war with the USO entertaining the troops, became a huge splash in Hollywood then couldn't work for 10 years when a producer turned his name over the the House of Un-American Committee and Mostel refused to implicate any of his colleagues in the entertainment industry) his peformance is incredible to watch. You go from hating the guy, to loving him, to pitying him. His emotions really run the gamut.

If there's one negative, it is that the DVD has NO features at all. If a flick ever cried out for a special edition, this is it.

So give it a rent when you've got a free night. Its got everything: humor, sex, political intrigue, nostalgia, Danny Aiello as a guy selling fruit, Andrea Marcovicci's film debut, and other historical importance.

One of the best films ever made about the showbiz blacklist
Woody Allen stars in this sharp political satire, in which a schleppy, low-life bookie is enlisted by an old friend to act as his "front," so that the friend -- a socially progressive Hollywood screenwriter -- can circumvent the Korean War-era anti-Communist blacklist. Allen is great in his role, projecting his nebbish image onto the Howard Prince character, in a fine turn that makes you wish he'd taken on more acting roles outside of his own films. Zero Mostel also stars, poignantly, as Hecky Brown, a TV comedian who also runs afoul of the censors -- Mostel's tragic role is made infinitely more moving by the fact that he himself actually was blacklisted in the 'Fifties, as were the film's director, Martin Ritt, the screenwriters and several of the other participants, many of whom star as characters in the film. Their firsthand experience with the cruelty and absurdity of this dark era in showbiz history comes through loud and clear, as they skewer the suits and sleazes who had ruined their careers decades earlier. The film's drama and comedy are not sacrificed to the political message, however, and this is a thoroughly entertaining, emotionally moving film. Highly recommended! ... Read more

Reviews (5)

James Earl Jones at his finest....
This is a remarkable and forceful film, well written and directed. Jones shows a physical prowess that does not come through in any other film I have seen him in and carries the role with a natural grace. Sharply exposing the prejudice of the time, it is also unfliching in the portrait of a man brought to ruin by the forces around him, with not a little assistance from his own feeling of being untouchable. Highly recommended.

tight film
this Movie for it's time frame was Ground-Breaking.in 1971 to be doing a Movie with a Black Actor&White Female Lead was Big.well sorry to say it still is in 2001.James Earl Jones was Good as Jack Johnson.but I'd dig a New up-dated take on it.anyway The Soundtrack was a Knock-Out.Miles Davis&His Band went the full 15 Rounds.this Film has a Cool Pace&isn't like many other films for that Reason alone.It's History seldom mentioned.

Riveting early performances by two great actors
I saw this movie when it first came out in the theatres in 1970. It may not be quite as powerful today as it was then, but it is definitely worth seeing for the performances by Jones and Alexander, two of the finest actors in America.

Definitely Worth Seeing
This movie (which claims to be based on true events) compellingly deals with the struggle of America's first black heavyweight boxing champion against racism (both black and white).

Far from being pointless, the movie (adapted from a successful stage play) realistically presents the outrageous way this man is treated for having the "audacity" to win the heavyweight championship from a white man, have a relationship with a white woman, and openly celebrate both of these facts. He is shamelessly persecuted by the governement (using obscure laws never intended for the purpose) and disowned by some in the black community for being a "traitor" to his own race and a bad role model to young blacks who admire him.

The acting is superb, and the story (set in the early 20th century) takes on an added dimension when one considers how closely it parallels the events of the year it was released (1970 - a time when Muhammed Ali had been deprived of the right to box for several of his best years due to his refusal to be drafted into the U.S. armed forces; many have argued the real reason for this was that he scared and outraged some white Americans, being a vocal, opinionated black man who embraced the teachings and religion of Malcom X). there are a number of people who have seen this relatively obscure movie and who think very highly of it.

AWFUL
This was an awful movie that had no point and was extremely boring. Don't see it! unless its just to make noise in the background while you do something thats going to be worth ur time. i hate it i hate it i hate it! note: it doesnt even derseve one star! ... Read more

Reviews (13)

A very satisfying movie
I love this movie. In a world where movies consist mostly of horny school kids and people who only believe in multiple sex partners and drive by shootings, this movie is such a refreshing change. It concentrates on normal people just trying to make lives for themselves. This is a movie that probably most of middle America can relate to on some level. Jane Fonda is beautiful, and Robert DeNiro is so sweet and endearing. Yeah, it's a chick flick...you got a problem with that?

Fantastic Love Story Concerning Illiteracy!!
In this film,Stanley(Robert DeNiro),a hard worker, unable to read or write is befriended by a blue class hardworking widow,Iris(Jane Fonda) who teaches DeNiro how to read and write in which their friendship later blossoms into love.It's a fantastic love story concerning illiteracy!!

A Small Triumph
Roger Ebert and the Maltin crew have been unnecessarily unkind to this film, each giving it only two-and-a-half stars. Ebert's Sun-Times review of this film is not available at his Web site or at imdb.com, so I cannot comment on his criticisms. The Maltin crew, in "Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide," complains that the movie is flat and underdeveloped.

There is some justification for the Maltin crew's comment. At the beginning of the film we find Iris (Jane Fonda) sharing her home with her children, her barely working sister, and her shiftless, dishonest brother-in-law. These last two characters disappear quickly from the film and make only brief reappearances. Their relationships with Iris are never developed. The two children are, for the most part, simply "there." There is, likewise, no exploration of Stanley's (De Niro) relationship with his father, except to show unexpressed love and respect. Nor is anything made of the relationship of Stanley with Iris' son. Nor of Stanley with his various employers. Neither Stanley nor Iris seem to have any friends, at least we never see them. There is some very limited development of Iris' relationship with her pregnant unwed daughter. There is a lot of exploration of the relationship between Stanley and Iris. The film is about them and really only about them. Anyone else in the film has little more than a brief walk-on. Is this film "flat" or "thin," or would it be more just to call it "lean?"

This was Martin Ritt's last film. Certainly, it must have mattered to him, and just as certainly he knew how to create a more richly textured film with well-developed subplots. Obviously, he chose not to. He chose instead to concentrate on the relationship between the two title characters and included other characters only if he needed them briefly to better define these two. Stanley and Iris are both tortured souls, troubled by demons, he wi