Reviews (335)

Be Wary Of The Dark Lord
The long awaited DVD release of Director Ridley Scott's infamous fantasy-adventure, LEGEND, is worth it. Tom Cruise is a forrest dweller, chosen to undertake a mythical quest, to save a beautiful Princess (Mia Sara). She is being held captive by the demon-like Lord Of Darkness, (Tim Curry), who with his great powers, wants to plunge the world into an eternal ice age. When first released in 1986, the director made some drastic cuts to the movie, after a poor test screening. The end result was a 90 minute film that felt rushed and incomplete. When it came time to release LEGEND overseas, Scott reinserted some 24 minutes back into the movie. Now, fully restored, both fans and non-fans can finally see the film, the way the director intended. The story is a bit darker than most fairy tales and that is to the film's advantage. Curry is just great as the antogonist. The make-up and creature effects from Rob Bottin rival anything I have seen lately, using CGI.

Here is how the 2 disc "Ultimate Edition" DVD breaks down:

Disc One-contains the 114 minute cut of the film; along with Composer Jerry Goldsmith's original score for the film. The Goldsmith score was replaced in an attempt to broaden the film's appeal. It is great to finally be able to hear in the film. There is also an ejoyable and informative commentary from Scott that is well done.

Disc 2-contains the 90 minute U.S. theatrical cut of the movie with the Tangerine Dream music. The rest of the special features are on the 2nd disc as well. Among the notable bonus material-a making of documentary, "lost scenes", storyboards, a music video, and photo gallery/publicity. There is also script to scene comparison in the form of DVD-ROM.

I have always been a fan of this film and to finally have both versions in one place is cool. I must say that this film has its detractors but I think that is in large part due to the initial edit. Fans should like the release. If you like the work of Ridley Scott, give this one a look, you will enjoy it. I recommend this DVD as rental. first, for those who have never seen LEGEND. For all others, I Highly Recommend this DVD

Two Movies for the Price of One! Darkness and Light!
LEGEND never really found an audience in theatres despite Ridley Scott and Universal's constant tinkering with the final cut. Seems many movies of this era were victims of audience test screenings, and the desire to give people a commercial product that went down easy -- see BRAZIL for a prime example of how studios think (the "love conquers all" version). So LEGEND was severely edited and rescored with a hasty (but often effective score by TANGERINE DREAM). It was short on plot and long on art direction, but sumptuous visuals and an all-out acting job by Tim Curry and make-up artist Rick Bottin made the movie an easy favorite of many fantasy fans. The movie looks stunning, and the story is a universal plunge into archetypes. Nothing wrong with that, it certainly worked for STAR WARS!

This DVD collection gives you two versions of LEGEND -- the original director's cut with over twenty minutes of added footage and the original Goldsmith score; and in addition, you get the original US release. In essence you get two different movies! The moods vary, the characters seem a little different, with whole new speeches and images to enjoy. If you are a fan of the movie or Ridley Scott it's a MUST-HAVE! This is what DVD dreams are made of. While many bemoan the fact BLADE RUNNER does not come with its 2 versions -- the fact is other than the narration and the happy ending, there is not MUCH different. But here we have a case where you can see what happens to a movie as it goes through development HELL. Fascinating stuff, and it comes LOADED with extras.

The only downside is the director's cut gets the royal treatment of a 5.1 sound mix while the other version gets a 2 channel Dolby mix, and even the video quality seems different with again the director's cut looking better than the theatrical release. But at last we can see a widescreen version of either cut, and we get a lot of extras that explain some of why the movie is the way it ended up. Beautiful images, two good soundtracks (I like both though the mood changes), and basically strong performances. LEGEND is a waking dream!

Great 80's movie.
The villains in this movie are what steal the show. From the goblin, to the orc, to the swamp troll, and to the unforgettable devil they are what make this movie what it is.

Just seeing Tim Curry in that oh so cool satan get up is worth the price of admission for this dvd.

Legend; Ultimate Edition
(Please note that my review mentions a few scenes and plot elements which you may not wish to know beforehand if you have never seen the movie; however, I would definitely not consider them spoilers.)

Legend is one of "those" movies for me. Like many of the movies I saw when I was young, it helped define my childhood. I first saw Legend during its first televised airing in Canada at about the age of 8. My mother taped it off of television for me, and over my unicorn obsessed childhood it became etched into my memory. Strangely, the version I saw then I have never been able to find in stores.

When the taped-from-tv version finally gave out on me, my mother bought for me an official Legend release for Christmas. I watched the movie with a sense of horror as I found that scenes that I felt were pivotal or pleasureably memorable to the movie were not present. The two notable scenes missing were the scene in which Gump riddles Jack about moonbells, and the one in which Jack faces the witch on his way to Darkness. The lack of these scenes brought the movie's greatness down a few notches for me. Perhaps if I'd never seen it with those scenes I wouldn't have noticed, but knowing just what was missing, and what the movie was without them, ruined something for me. So, when I found Legend: Ultimate Edition, I decided to buy it to see if the Director's Cut was the better version. However, I was aware when I bought it that my childhood version of Legend featured the Tangerine Dream score, and not the original. So I wasn't really sure what I was getting.

Imagine my annoyance to find that the Director's Cut is no better. In fact, I think it's worse. I will pick out three specifics that bother me:

Lily: In the U.S. Theatrical release, I like Lily. She is sweet, and innocent, and a little foolish, but endearingly so. In the Director's Cut, Lily's dialogue makes her out to be much less likeable - she seems immature and spoiled, a brat. There were points where I wanted to slap her for being so irritating.

The Score: The Tangerine Dream score has an atmospheric and often shadowy feel to it; the original score is much too over-the-top and takes away from the atmosphere of the film. Really, it does not feel much as though Jerry Goldsmith was watching the same movie everyone else was. Legend's dreamlike fantasy world grows into a dark nightmare, and this is served quite well by Tangerine Dream's interpretation; the original score is comical and clumsy in comparison.

Added Scenes: The scenes left in the Director's Cut were cut from the U.S. Theatrical release, with the exception of the scenes I mentioned previously, for a good reason; in addition to Lily becoming an irritating brat, most of the uncut scenes serve only to make parts of the film drag, or disturb the sense of flow. Some of them seem pointless or silly, as when Jack does a sudden flip in the air for no apparent reason. Perhaps if the score was more suited to the movie, certain scenes (such as the flip) wouldn't seem so comical or out of place, but when his flip is accompanied by a wild clashing of instruments, one has the urge to laugh at the clumsiness of the scene.

Now, back to those two scenes missing from the U.S. release. Why am I griping about two little scenes? Without the riddle scene, there seems a rather uncomfortable transition between Gump's rage at Jack for taking Lily to see and touch the unicorns. Not to mention it's a great scene! Also, Gump's riddling Jack is important to the story - Jack can't simply claim that love is the reason he did something stupid and then not have to answer for it. The riddle is a moment in which Jack can prove himself worthy, worthy of Gump & company's assistance in righting his wrongs, and worthy of the quest itself.

The scene with the witch is just cool. And, yes, Jack again proves himself. Jack's youthful inexperience needs to be tested a few times before he reaches Darkness. The U.S. Theatrical release leaves these out and Jack reaches Darkness untried. It goes against the whole idea of the quest. Silliness.

To be perfectly honest, I would not buy Legend: Ultimate Edition again if I had known the Director's Cut would annoy me so much. I would dearly love to find out why and how I saw a version that came somewhere in between the U.S. Theatrical release and the Director's Cut, and even get my hands on an official copy, but that will likely never be. Needless to say, Legend *is* a beautiful movie, and if you must have it, stick with the U.S. Theatrical release, cut scenes not-withstanding. I think my viewing of it is simply sullied by my memory and from knowing that my first viewings were of a superior version to the ones actually available.

Tiny Tom and The Unicorns
I am adding this version to my Wish List today while I contemplate whether I want to pay 17 buck to see Tom Cruise in tights. I watched this movie (US version) over & over in high school & just loved it (except the cheesey soundtrack, which is not as bad as the one for "Ladyhawke"). I also viewed the UK version when it came out on laserdisc & it is over the top! If only Ridley Scott could issue the drugs he was on when he made this bad boy, we could all know where he was coming from. It is very freaky & vastly enjoyable. I have told so many people about this movie, because whenever Tom Cruise's acting history comes up, this never gets mentioned! Why not?! He's playing some sort of woodland boy-nymph & skipping around with unicorns, fer chrissakes! Plus, Billy Barty is in it, Tim Curry is the personification of evil (his prosthetic chin is bigger than Bruce Campbell's real one), and Mia Sara (aka Sloane from "Ferris Bueller" & Jean-Claude Van Damme's wife from "Time Cop") is a flighty princess who has a serious come-to-Jesus meeting with Darkness. I have suspected for years that this is the movie that paid for Tom's new teeth, because they are quite snaggly here & it is not makeup.Too bad it didn't make him any taller. Anyway, I do recommend this movie highly, but as camp fun. If you have to roll a 20 sided dice to decide whether to buy it or not, just go ahead. You'll love it. ... Read more

Reviews (1484)

Great Action Film
"Gladiator" is a film that should suit all tastes. It is an expertly mounted and eye-filling event; the blood and gore, delivered in split-second imagery (allowing your head to fill in the rest) should satisfy the most blood-thirsty movie goer; and the story is a superb tale of good vs. evil, power vs. honor, and "Might for Right". I was reminded of "Camelot" many times during this film, especially by the almost unrecognizable appearance of Richard Harris as the wise and noble Marcus Aurelis. Joaquin Phoenix gives a bone-chilling performance as the evil and cowardly Commodus, who inherits the title of emperor upon his father's death. But the sole weight of this overwhelming piece rests on the shoulders of the magnificent Russell Crowe. If one doesn't believe in him, then one doesn't believe in this epic costume drama. Kudos to the rest of the cast as well, and hand over heart for the late Oliver Reed. But back to Crowe--he is an actor to contend with. His work in "Gladiator" is a tour de force performance; he very nearly sprays testosterone from the screen. It's what was exactly demanded from him in this role, and he exceeds expectations in that regard.

Gladiator ROCKS!!!
I completely dug this film from beginning to end,and every aspect of it,from the breathtaking cinamatography,the expertly staged battle sequences,and exqusite set-design,to the stellar performances of a top-notch cast,rang true.The film starts with a stunning battle and doesen't let up from the time Maximus says"on my mark,unleash Hell". Do they ever.Russell Crowe is perfect in the lead role,as an expert warrior with a grieving soul and a deep sense of honor and loyalty.It's a true star-making turn,and he oozes rugged charisma from every pore.Equally impressive,but in the exact opposite way,is Juaquin Phoenix as the conniving,decadent,deeply evil Emperor.Also great support from Richard Harris and the late,great Oliver Reed.Director Ridley Scott uses his gift for composition and visual flair to great effect,giving each scene a painterly burnish and unforgettable depth,whether it's the after-life of Maximus' dreams,the bustling,grand sprawl of Rome,the rip-roaring battles of the Coluseum,or the sinister twinkle in the Emporer's eyes.At one point Maximus admonishes the bloodthirsty crowd:"Is this not what you wanted? Are you not entertained?" Indeed we are Russell,very much so.What a great film.

okay
this is a three star movie with a five star dvd. one of the biggest problems with the movie was the first battle. i was expecting braveheart quality but ended with a battle less entertaining than the one in dragonheart. the blurry camera and closeups made it impossible to tell what was happening. if you want to see a movie like this but better, see the last samurai or braveheart.

A Modern Classic of an Old Age
I seldom write reviews for anything, but for a movie like 'Gladiator' I'm willing to make an exception, and gosh if it's worth doing it!!
The movie, by far the best of the year 2000, is not only an award-winning production, but it is also one of the few that I personally enjoy watching again and again and again. Not because it is flawless (at times the storyline is quite predictable) but because it portrays life and death in the Roman Empire in such a way that it really bring those old buildings we all know since childhood (the Coliseum, the Forum, Via Appia, etc) back to life.
And yet it does so not at the expense of the story but through it, from the characters, to the script (they're so many quotables lines from Maximus and Commudus alone to make a CD)...in fact everything in the movie, from the battle in Germanica to the last fight at the Coliseum, is portrayed with realism plus an amazing score lacking in so many movies these days.
The movie of course is not to be seen as "history" in the academic sense but rather as an historical exercise, Holywood style, of one of the most facinating and complex periods of Western History. The attention to the detail is amazing, especially in the opening scene (the battle in Germanica) and the gladiatorial fights. Even most deleted scenes are great in the sense that they allow us to understand the characters a little bit more (Commudus' sword smashing of his father's marble bust is a most see), although they neither add nor take of the story. The casting is superb, with Russell Crow in the main role, Joaquin Phoenix as the Emperor Commudus, along with such legends as Oliver Reed as the freedman slaveholder and Richard Harris as the great Marcus Aurelius.
I'll recomend strongly that anyone who sees this movie shoudl do his/her homework and do a little of reading about Rome, both as a Republic and after, and the huge importance of the entertaining business in her late everyday life (an importance unreached until recent times).
Overall, a classic epic of an scope and ambition not seen since 'Ben Hur'; full of action, drama... and yes, more action.
As the Romans themselves said, Faber est quisque fortunae suae... each one is the architect of his own fortune. Feliciter!

Decent story, captivating effect
Ridley Scott's movie, "Gladiator" is one based on fiction of a General in the times of Marcus Aurelius. It tracks the life of a general who is effective in battle and is to rewarded by the emperor with the crown of Rome until it can be handed back to the senate. The movie won 5 oscars and is compared to Ben-Hur, which is ludicrous. For starters, Ben-Hur had William Wyler as the director who went to Gore Vidal to fix the screenplay. This movie will imaginative has so many historical inaccuracies, it is funny that it can be even thought to be in the same league.

Some of the actors did a decent job, these include Richard Harris as Marcus Aurelius and his daughter, Lucilla. I had problems with Russell Crowe's acting. He is unmistakably patrician, however, and physically very like Richard Burton, with Burton's battered face and gravel-voiced machismo. But Crowe's Maximus is no Mark Antony; there is no destructive love interest in the picture. Maximus is sweetly devoted to his late wife; though it turns out he once had a bit of an unbuckling thing going in his backstory for Commodus's lovely sister Lucilla (Connie Nielsen). I did not think that he deserved the best actor oscar. He has a very limited repertoire of actions and emotions. Crowe is no Tom Hanks or Geoffrey Rush in acting, he does not have depth and breadth of acting.

This movie cannot stand the test of time, it does not have great screenplay and historical integrity. It will gradually ebb away from the minds of the people. To stand out from the other movies, it has to have a new paradigm, either in acting or story or screenplay, none of which are depicted. Another one of those movies that do not deserve the best picture oscars. It is OK to watch this once. If you compare this director with Ang Lee, who did "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", "Eat, Drink, Man, Woman", and "Sense and Sensibility" you can see the difference in directing talent. See them and judge for yourself. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

A big-budget summer epic with money to burn and a scale worthy of its golden Hollywood predecessors, Ridley Scott's Gladiator is a rousing, grisly, action-packed epic that takes moviemaking back to the Roman Empire via computer-generated visual effects. While not as fluid as the computer work done for, say, Titanic, it's an impressive achievement that will leave you marveling at the glory that was Rome, when you're not marveling at the glory that is Russell Crowe. Starring as the heroic general Maximus, Crowe firmly cements his star status both in terms of screen presence and acting chops, carrying the film on his decidedly non-computer-generated shoulders as he goes from brave general to wounded fugitive to stoic slave to gladiator hero. Gladiator's plot is a whirlwind of faux-Shakespearean machinations of death, betrayal, power plays, and secret identities (with lots of faux-Shakespearean dialogue ladled on to keep the proceedings appropriately "classical"), but it's all briskly shot, edited, and paced with a contemporary sensibility. Even the action scenes, somewhat muted but graphic in terms of implied violence and liberal bloodletting, are shot with a veracity that brings to mind--believe it or not--Saving Private Ryan, even if everyone is wearing a toga. As Crowe's nemesis, the evil emperor Commodus, Joaquin Phoenix chews scenery with authority, whether he's damning Maximus's popularity with the Roman mobs or lusting after his sister Lucilla (beautiful but distant Connie Nielsen); Oliver Reed, in his last role, hits the perfect notes of camp and gravitas as the slave owner who rescues Maximus from death and turns him into a coliseum star. Director Scott's visual flair is abundantly in evidence, with breathtaking shots and beautiful (albeit digital) landscapes, but it's Crowe's star power that will keep you in thrall--he's a true gladiator, worthy of his legendary status. Hail the conquering hero! --Mark Englehart ... Read more

Reviews (1484)

Great Action Film
"Gladiator" is a film that should suit all tastes. It is an expertly mounted and eye-filling event; the blood and gore, delivered in split-second imagery (allowing your head to fill in the rest) should satisfy the most blood-thirsty movie goer; and the story is a superb tale of good vs. evil, power vs. honor, and "Might for Right". I was reminded of "Camelot" many times during this film, especially by the almost unrecognizable appearance of Richard Harris as the wise and noble Marcus Aurelis. Joaquin Phoenix gives a bone-chilling performance as the evil and cowardly Commodus, who inherits the title of emperor upon his father's death. But the sole weight of this overwhelming piece rests on the shoulders of the magnificent Russell Crowe. If one doesn't believe in him, then one doesn't believe in this epic costume drama. Kudos to the rest of the cast as well, and hand over heart for the late Oliver Reed. But back to Crowe--he is an actor to contend with. His work in "Gladiator" is a tour de force performance; he very nearly sprays testosterone from the screen. It's what was exactly demanded from him in this role, and he exceeds expectations in that regard.

Gladiator ROCKS!!!
I completely dug this film from beginning to end,and every aspect of it,from the breathtaking cinamatography,the expertly staged battle sequences,and exqusite set-design,to the stellar performances of a top-notch cast,rang true.The film starts with a stunning battle and doesen't let up from the time Maximus says"on my mark,unleash Hell". Do they ever.Russell Crowe is perfect in the lead role,as an expert warrior with a grieving soul and a deep sense of honor and loyalty.It's a true star-making turn,and he oozes rugged charisma from every pore.Equally impressive,but in the exact opposite way,is Juaquin Phoenix as the conniving,decadent,deeply evil Emperor.Also great support from Richard Harris and the late,great Oliver Reed.Director Ridley Scott uses his gift for composition and visual flair to great effect,giving each scene a painterly burnish and unforgettable depth,whether it's the after-life of Maximus' dreams,the bustling,grand sprawl of Rome,the rip-roaring battles of the Coluseum,or the sinister twinkle in the Emporer's eyes.At one point Maximus admonishes the bloodthirsty crowd:"Is this not what you wanted? Are you not entertained?" Indeed we are Russell,very much so.What a great film.

okay
this is a three star movie with a five star dvd. one of the biggest problems with the movie was the first battle. i was expecting braveheart quality but ended with a battle less entertaining than the one in dragonheart. the blurry camera and closeups made it impossible to tell what was happening. if you want to see a movie like this but better, see the last samurai or braveheart.

A Modern Classic of an Old Age
I seldom write reviews for anything, but for a movie like 'Gladiator' I'm willing to make an exception, and gosh if it's worth doing it!!
The movie, by far the best of the year 2000, is not only an award-winning production, but it is also one of the few that I personally enjoy watching again and again and again. Not because it is flawless (at times the storyline is quite predictable) but because it portrays life and death in the Roman Empire in such a way that it really bring those old buildings we all know since childhood (the Coliseum, the Forum, Via Appia, etc) back to life.
And yet it does so not at the expense of the story but through it, from the characters, to the script (they're so many quotables lines from Maximus and Commudus alone to make a CD)...in fact everything in the movie, from the battle in Germanica to the last fight at the Coliseum, is portrayed with realism plus an amazing score lacking in so many movies these days.
The movie of course is not to be seen as "history" in the academic sense but rather as an historical exercise, Holywood style, of one of the most facinating and complex periods of Western History. The attention to the detail is amazing, especially in the opening scene (the battle in Germanica) and the gladiatorial fights. Even most deleted scenes are great in the sense that they allow us to understand the characters a little bit more (Commudus' sword smashing of his father's marble bust is a most see), although they neither add nor take of the story. The casting is superb, with Russell Crow in the main role, Joaquin Phoenix as the Emperor Commudus, along with such legends as Oliver Reed as the freedman slaveholder and Richard Harris as the great Marcus Aurelius.
I'll recomend strongly that anyone who sees this movie shoudl do his/her homework and do a little of reading about Rome, both as a Republic and after, and the huge importance of the entertaining business in her late everyday life (an importance unreached until recent times).
Overall, a classic epic of an scope and ambition not seen since 'Ben Hur'; full of action, drama... and yes, more action.
As the Romans themselves said, Faber est quisque fortunae suae... each one is the architect of his own fortune. Feliciter!

Decent story, captivating effect
Ridley Scott's movie, "Gladiator" is one based on fiction of a General in the times of Marcus Aurelius. It tracks the life of a general who is effective in battle and is to rewarded by the emperor with the crown of Rome until it can be handed back to the senate. The movie won 5 oscars and is compared to Ben-Hur, which is ludicrous. For starters, Ben-Hur had William Wyler as the director who went to Gore Vidal to fix the screenplay. This movie will imaginative has so many historical inaccuracies, it is funny that it can be even thought to be in the same league.

Some of the actors did a decent job, these include Richard Harris as Marcus Aurelius and his daughter, Lucilla. I had problems with Russell Crowe's acting. He is unmistakably patrician, however, and physically very like Richard Burton, with Burton's battered face and gravel-voiced machismo. But Crowe's Maximus is no Mark Antony; there is no destructive love interest in the picture. Maximus is sweetly devoted to his late wife; though it turns out he once had a bit of an unbuckling thing going in his backstory for Commodus's lovely sister Lucilla (Connie Nielsen). I did not think that he deserved the best actor oscar. He has a very limited repertoire of actions and emotions. Crowe is no Tom Hanks or Geoffrey Rush in acting, he does not have depth and breadth of acting.

This movie cannot stand the test of time, it does not have great screenplay and historical integrity. It will gradually ebb away from the minds of the people. To stand out from the other movies, it has to have a new paradigm, either in acting or story or screenplay, none of which are depicted. Another one of those movies that do not deserve the best picture oscars. It is OK to watch this once. If you compare this director with Ang Lee, who did "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", "Eat, Drink, Man, Woman", and "Sense and Sensibility" you can see the difference in directing talent. See them and judge for yourself. ... Read more

Reviews (601)

Seriously underrated horror film.
Watch this movie back-to-back with Brett Ratner's "Red Dragon" and you'll understand what separates a great director from a pedestrian one. Ridley Scott has crafted a classic horror film. A film that, despite justifiable complaints about the "easy way out" ending, leaves a surprising amount of the novel's surreal mayhem intact.

Dark cinema fans should embrace this one. It's not often you get a true horror film with a dazzling cast (Hopkins, Giancarlo Giannini are incredible, and Julianne Moore doesn't make us forget about Jodie, but makes the best out of a tough situation).

Oldman's portrayal of Mason Verger makes the film, however. Pathetically evil, obsessed with revenge -- it's impossible to take your eyes off him. The opening sequence of the movie (where Verger purchases Hannibal memorabilia) is a delightful intro. Verger's self-mutilation flashback is jarring and surreal.

The Grand Guignol gore style of the movie has been seen by some as laughable. I thought it was quite disturbing, the absurdity adding another dimension of terror to the film. Like all great horror films, as a viewer, you're not sure just how far into nightmare territory this one will go (particularly if you haven't read the book).

If only DeLaurentis had chosen a worthy successor to direct Red Dragon, the Lecter trilogy would've easily been the best horror cinema series ever.

While "Silence" is clearly the biggest crowd pleaser of the bunch, and a very sophisticated thriller, my heart is with Hannibal. It's absolutely beautiful to look at, holds up amazingly well under repeated viewings, and never shies away (until the very end) from the novel's most appalling elements.

Good horror flick. Bad Hannibal Lecter movie.
Hannibal is one of those sequels that continues from the original, but completely changes the story line. The Silence Of The Lambs was a drama about entering the mind of a serial killer with the help of a past one. Hannibal is just about tracking down a serial killer. This was definatly made to be a horror movie, not a suspense drama.

Hannibal picks up awhile after The Silence Of The Lambs. In the first film, Hannibal breaks out of prison torwards the end of the film not to kill again, but to retire and live a normal life. But now Dr. Hannibal Lecter(returning Anthony Hopkins), is about to come out of retirement to hunt again. But only Clarice Starling(Juliane Moore replacing Jodie Foster) knows enough about him to track him down and catch him.

The plot is simple, nothing near the plot of Silence Of The Lambs, the acting is not bad but definatly not at its best(Anthony Hopkins still plays his role rather well, but could have done better). The only thing I could say was rather good was the directing from Ridley Scott(Alien, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down). But other than that, fans of horror movies will probably enjoy this much much more than fans of The Silence Of The Lambs, like myself.

"Hannibal" runs for a little over 2 hours. It is rated R for very strong gore and gruesome violence(some may not even be able to handle the some of the extreme gore), some strong language, and disturbing images.

Disappointing, floundering follow up
When Thomas Harris wrote Hannibal, it was a safe bet that a film wouldn't be far along. Silence of the Lambs director Jonathan Demme and star Jodie Foster declined to take part in Hannibal claiming they found the story distasteful; so director Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, Alien) and actress Julianne Moore (replacing Foster as FBI Agent Clarice Starling) were brought into this disappointing follow up. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins reprising his Oscar winning role), now living the life of luxury in Italy, finds himself on the run from Mason Verger (an unrecognizeable and uncredited Gary Oldman), a former patient who at Hannibal's advice peeled off part of his face. Meanwhile, Clarice finds her career on the downward spiral as she as used as bait by Verger to lure Lecter out of hiding. The suspense can't hold up to that of Silence of the Lambs (movie or book that is) and Scott's direction, even though he gives it his own slick look, is disappointing. Moore, as good an actress as she is, can't hold a candle to Jodie Foster as we find the once strong willed but vulnerable Clarice be more of a victim here than anything else. Finally, Hopkins just isn't scary anymore as Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter. That alone is probably the worst part of the film, and while Hannibal isn't necessarily bad, it's one of the most disappointing films to be released over the past few years. The cast also includes Francesca Neri, Frankie Faison, and Ray Liotta in the film's most infamous scene.

Great, not completely accurate, but very good.
The film is based on Thomas Harris' third installment in the "Hannibal Lecter Series" (Although, Hannibal Lecter is only a major character in one book.) The movie's ending was completely different than that of the book. WARNING: IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK, AND WANT TO, DO NOT READ THE NEXT SENTENCE! In the book, Lecter basically brainwashes Starling and takes her as his wife and moves to South America. WARNING OVER

Hopkins' acting was not as good as it was in "Silence of the Lambs," but it's very good. Julianne Moore's performance was not as good as Jodie Foster's.

The movie excluded the character Margot, Mason Verger's lesbian sister. I think she greatly enhanced the story's progress. In the movie, anything Margot did that was pivotal to the story (basically, just pushing Verger into the pigpen) Verger's personal doctor did.

Basically, if you're just looking for an amazing movie, DON'T pick this up, if you're looking for a gory movie, pick it up. If you're looking for a good sequel to an amazing movie (Silence of the Lambs.)

Mediocre yet oddly satisfying
Let's face it: "Hannibal" is nowhere near as good as "Silence of the Lambs" (I'm talking movies, not books). To quote Charter, "Far-fetched and gory." Plus it fails to capture Lecter's true intentions toward Starling (as brotherly or fatherly, not romantic). Yet, somehow, the film is oddly satisfying, and I find myself draw to it whenever it's on. The mix of operatic score during chaotic scenes is strangely effective (similar to the ethereal tracks during intense scenes in the LOTR series of films). So, no, it's not a great movie, and Lecter's behavior is sometimes "out of character," but the movie is satisfying nonetheless. ... Read more

Amazon.com Customer Note

We regret that this DVD is under certain restrictions that prohibit sales to customers who live outside the North American continent. If you do not live in the United States or Canada, we will not be able to ship you this DVD. Thank you for understanding. ... Read more

Reviews (746)

THE FUTURE IS DISMAL - SO IS THE TRANSFER!
Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" is an apocalyptic postmodernist vision of the future. The story involves a bounty hunter, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) who is assigned to kill three replicants - android style robots that look identical to humans, but who have come to earth to seek revenge on their creator - Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel). Sean Young costars as Rachel, the latest model of replicant who is so incredibly life like that not even she knows that she's not human. Also in the cast are Rutgar Hauer as Roy Batty - the ultimate killing machine, Edward Olmos as a drugged out police detective, Gaff, and Darryl Hannah, as the psychotic replicant, Pris. Flawed in its narrative, but visually stunning, "Blade Runner" has developed a cult following - and it is easy to see why. The production is layered with multi-references to the steady moral and social demise of our own society that stir the mind into rethinking this movie as much more than a sci-fi adventure. This version of the film is the re-edited director's cut that audiences were never shown in 1982. The subtle tweaking of story and plot elements really doesn't enhance one's viewing experience so much as it just alters the story in a different direction.
But what a shame about the transfer! Though the general color balancing and attention to fine details, even in the darkest scenes, is adequate, there is simply NO EXCUSE for leaving the chips, scratches and in some cases, tears in this DVD transfer. Pixelization crops up now and them, but the most disturbing part of the transfer is that it fails to pay attention to the dirt and (in some cases) hair, stuck to the film negative. The result is a dirty looking picture that, while perhaps in keeping with Ridley Scott's vision of a dank, hard universe of the future, is most definitely not what the director had in mind. Saving grace: the transfer is anamorphically enhanced for widescreen televisions. The sonic characteristic of the 5.1 audio is rich, though dated. Strong bass and reasonably well balanced dialogue and effects, though there are a few perceived occasions where dubbing in of dialogue sounds possible. And one final insult from Warner Brothers, this disc has NO extras - not even a theatrical trailer!

Stunning - The Best Sci-Fi Film Ever Made
Directed by Ridley Scott, possibly the best director in Hollywood, Blade Runner: The Director's cut is an outstanding medley of action, noir, sci-fi, and suspense. Robots have been taken to a new level - Nexus 6 Generation Robots called "replicants", which outmatch humans in strength and ability and equal in intelligence, but lack one human quality - emotions. They were used for "slave labor" to work in places too hazardous for humans. However, replicants after a few years begin to develop their own emotions, which causes them to rebel against their masters. Special cops, called blade runners, were assigned to exterminate criminal replicants. Eventually replicants were declared illegal on earth, and were banished to a shuttle in space. LA, 2017. Rick Deckard, (Harrison Ford) a retired blade runner, is forced to "retire" five replicants that have escaped from the shuttle, but winds up falling for one, Rachael. (Sean Young) Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) leads the other three replicants to find their creator, Eldon Tyrell, to expand their short four-year life span. Incredible action scenes, dark, brooding noir, creeping suspense, and excellent sci-fi, Blade Runner: The Director's Cut will please fans of any of these genres. The Director's Cut offers production notes, subtitles, added character developement, the original ending, a unicorn dream sequence, and the deletion of unnecessary scenes and the annoying voice-overs. Plus, it is digitally restored to excellent picture and sound quality. Some "sensitive" viewers might find the plot and noir atmosphere cold, but action, noir, sci-fi, and suspense fans will enjoy it very much. With stunning special effects, incredible cinematography, compelling plot, and rich, incredible characterizations (esp. Rutger Hauer), I strongly recommend Blade Runner: The Director's Cut to action/sci-fi fans.

Not quite the Blade Runner I remember
After purchasing and viewing the DVD director's cut release, all I can think is "where can I find the original theater release version". I sat my family down to watch it two nights ago and they lost interest very quickly. While it is still visually stunning to watch, it is not enough overcome the seeming lack of narrative/plot. In fact, one of the key things removed from the director's cut version is the voiceover narrative by Harrison Ford's character Deckard. For those that know the original version, it can even be a challenge to remember the significance of each scene. For new viewers of BR, they're left wondering, scene after scene, "OK what just happened and what relevance does it have to anything?". Bring back the voiceover!

The Director's Cut is AWFUL.
Compared to the original version the Director's Cut is awful. Background narration has been removed; the ending has been changed. Don't waste your money.

this is still a good DVD
but not as good as the original release. I preferred the narration and for that reason, I probably don't watch this movie as much as i did when I had it on VHS. I really don't understand why they don't make both versions available. ... Read more

Reviews (349)

One of the scariest movies ever made
Ridley Scott's original 1979 film pulsates with dread and menace. Its darkened corridors mask a reptillian horror unmatched by any other in cinema. "Alien" scared the hell out of me when I saw it in its theatrical release, and the other night on DVD, it scared hell out of me again. Forget the sequels. This is one of the best movies of all time.

Yes, the story is simple, but that's the whole point. "Alien" is a fundamental horror story, your basic haunted house movie taken to the Nth degree. I love the fact it has only seven characters (OK, nine, if you count Mother and the alien itself ... the space jockey doesn't count). I love its simplicity, its straightforwardness. Aside from being a creepy, blood-curdling horror film (only "The Exorcist" and the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" top the chest-burster scene), it is also hard-core science fiction. James Cameron's sequel was an action-thriller (and an excellent one), and the subsequent sequels were just redundant. Scott's movie is the one for the ages.

It's about evil in a shape-shifting form. It's about our fear of the dark. It's about the bogeyman. It's about our irrational fear of creepy-crawlies, spiders, worms, snakes. It is by turns subtle and terrifying. It scares us by hiding the alien, revealing it only in bits and snatches (those exploding jaws!). There is surprisingly little blood; "Alien Resurrection" was a revolting gore fest. And it's a thoughtful film. It actually pauses to consider what a miracle the alien is on a biological level, which helps reinforce the fear and mystery that surround the creature.

In fact, the whole film is soaked in mystery. What is the intent of the beacon that attracts the Nostromo? What is the nature of the alien pilot, its own chest exploded in a gruesome foreshadowing of Kane's fate? What laid those eggs? How long had they been waiting down in the bowels of that awesome ship? Was the full-grown alien male or female? What did it try to do with Brett and Dallas? How exactly does it kill Lambert and Parker? Questions left largely unanswered. Not a problem for me -- I like loose ends, things left to ponder. That's the difference between a "plot" and a "story."

There's a hidden layer -- the fact that a faceless corporation sent those astronauts to their doom, knowingly, in order to extract the ultimate bioweapon. "Alien" is a subtle jab at Corporate America, the creature itself a representation of "the company's" blind, murderous greed.

See this movie. I repeat, if you love good movies, great movies, then seen this one. If you haven't already.

A Science Fiction Masterpiece!
This is one of the greatest science fiction films of all time. Just watching the opening title of this film suggests a story that will bring you terror and fascination at the same time. Director Ridley Scott ("Blade Runner") has created a masterpiece which transcends time. I sometimes look back on a movie that was made two years prior called "Star Wars" and I laugh at how primitive it seems today. However, Alien is as spectacular as it was in 1979. This movie could be rereleased today with as much fanfare as it had twenty years ago. "Alien" broke the mold when it was made and almost every aspect of it has been copied since. This includes the ingenious set designs and the alien creature itself.

All aspects of this film, the screenplay, direction, acting, special effects, and the awesome set designs took a vast amount of imagination and creativity. The thought process alone that went into conceiving an alien which gestates in a human host, and goes through an incredible metamorphosis of various stages to its final horrific form, was a major accomplishment. Sigourney Weaver, as "Ellen Ripley", is the greatest warrior in movie history. She is not only fighting to save her crew from the "Alien", but she's fighting to save humanity from the evil "Company" that will stop at nothing to gain what they desire.

I cannot say enough good things about this movie. JUST SEE IT!

Starts slow, but gets much better
The first half hour or so of this movie was a bit slow, and I honestly had a hard time not falling asleep. It got a lot better though and kept me on the edge of my seat. I would recommend this movie if you like science fiction or suspense.

A terrifying and spectacular sci-fi horror classic.
Although it took some time for me to appreciate it, today I can easily agree with many that 1979's "Alien" is one of the greatest science fiction/ horror movies that has ever been made.

A team on board a deep space ship called Nostromo is returning to earth after a deep sleep but then while returning to Earth, receives a mysterious distress signal on a distant planet and are sent in to investigate the source of the signal. During that time, one of them discovers large objects with movement within them. It turns out that these 'objects' are actually organic alien eggs and when one of them hatches, one of the crew is attacked and is brought back to the ship to have the 'alien' removed but the 'blood' of this alien is in fact a super strong molecular acid that eats through almost anything it touches. Even worse, the crew are being hunted and killed one by one by an extremely dangerous alien creature and now they must try to destroy the creature and escape with their lives before it's too late.

While nowhere near as action-packed as it's 1986 sequel "Aliens", this movie however is equally intense as the sequel but in a totally different way. While the sequel benefits from it's tons of action sequences, "Alien" is every bit as intense by it's extremely suspenseful tone and while it may be slow at times, when the intense parts come, they'll make you jump right out of your seat. This movie does not rely so much on action for intensity as it does on immense suspense, tension, and disturbingly quiet tone and then the alien jumps right out into the screen! While "Alien" is slow-paced a lot of the time the pace leads up to terrifying confrontations with the creature as it kills the crew members one by one. Perhaps it's most famous scene of all time is the frighteningly vile scene where one of the crew members who was previously attacked by the 'baby' alien goes into violent convulsions and culminating when a 'baby' alien bursts right out of the mans chest killing him instantly. That scene is perhaps the most famous sci-fi horror scenes ever filmed. I had nightmares for many years after seeing that and even now with a stomach made of titanium steel, I still get very queasy at that scene but it is one of the most original sequences ever filmed to this day.

Ridley Scott's directing is absolutely phenomenal. Being that this was a low budget movie of only 11 Million dollars, Scott and the crew have used the limited resources to create a really stunningly beautiful yet terrifying epic that has been virtually unrivalled to this day. The sets are incredible and the special effects are really awesome. Even then the film shows it's age in some places such as some extremely dated special effects, a few of which are ancient even by early 1980s standards but overall, this film is one of the greatest examples of using the limited budget to an efficient degree and the result is not only a terrifying Sci-Fi horror movie but also one of the greatest landmark achievements in these two genres.

The cast is absolutely spectacular. The career of a then unknown Sigourney Weaver would literally take off right through the roof with her playing the main protagonist character Ellen Ripley. Ripley's character is one of the best woman protagonists that I've ever seen in any movie especially towards the latter half of this movie. It was this that made Weaver into a superstar. She's even better in the 1986 James Cameron directed sequel "Aliens". Perhaps another favorite 'actor' of mines in this movie surprisingly enough is the cat Jones. I absolutely love the scenes where he like hisses at the guy in the storage unit and literally walks away when the alien grabs him and makes a meal out of him.

This "Collector's Edition" two disk set is a massive treat. The first disc alone is a vast improvement on both the VHS and the 1999 "Special Edition" DVD. The picture and sound quality of the original movie was not all that great but this "Collector's Edition" gives this movie a much needed clean-up job on a phenomenal classic and the picture quality is now crystal clear and the sound quality is also vastly improved too and I no longer have to turn the volume up to eardrum bursting levels to hear the movie clearly enough. The first disc contains the original theatrical version untouched for the 'purists' who don't want anything done to it. Disc One also comes with the "Director's Cut" edition where some footage that Scott didn't feel to happy with is removed but is replaced with some newly incorporated footage that wasn't on the original. The result is the movie being only a minute longer but gives the movie a different light.

The second disc contains an excellent 'making of' documentary and you can witness some ego battles between some of the members of the cast especially between Yaphet Kotto and the actor who played the 'Alien' and how they edited it to make their tensions work in the movie itself. It also has tons of other amazing extras that I don't want to point out, out of fear of spoiling the fun of this DVD.

Most horror movies to me are nothing but vile gore fests with little to no plot behind them but "Alien" is one of the best horror movies of all time. It was groundbreaking back in 1979 when it was released and now 25 years later (at the time of writing this review), it is an absolutely classic today. I strongly recommend that you buy this today and get this DVD. This is one of the most smartly assembled DVDs that I've had in recent years and it is on the border of being flawless.

True Horror Movie
The original Alien is the first and probably the best of the series. Alien may have a slower pace than the action packed Aliens, it had more tension and suspense which is more important in a horror movie. The suspense in Alien is more unnerving than the Alien it self. In Alien, the alien was invicible, no one could kill it. The aliens in Aliens were fairly easy to kill which made for stuning action sequences, but adversely made them less frightening.
Don't get me wrong Aliens is a great Action Thriller movie and it is the perfect sequel to Alien, Aliens is an Action Thriller movie while Alien is a true horror movie. ... Read more

Reviews (746)

THE FUTURE IS DISMAL - SO IS THE TRANSFER!
Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" is an apocalyptic postmodernist vision of the future. The story involves a bounty hunter, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) who is assigned to kill three replicants - android style robots that look identical to humans, but who have come to earth to seek revenge on their creator - Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel). Sean Young costars as Rachel, the latest model of replicant who is so incredibly life like that not even she knows that she's not human. Also in the cast are Rutgar Hauer as Roy Batty - the ultimate killing machine, Edward Olmos as a drugged out police detective, Gaff, and Darryl Hannah, as the psychotic replicant, Pris. Flawed in its narrative, but visually stunning, "Blade Runner" has developed a cult following - and it is easy to see why. The production is layered with multi-references to the steady moral and social demise of our own society that stir the mind into rethinking this movie as much more than a sci-fi adventure. This version of the film is the re-edited director's cut that audiences were never shown in 1982. The subtle tweaking of story and plot elements really doesn't enhance one's viewing experience so much as it just alters the story in a different direction.
But what a shame about the transfer! Though the general color balancing and attention to fine details, even in the darkest scenes, is adequate, there is simply NO EXCUSE for leaving the chips, scratches and in some cases, tears in this DVD transfer. Pixelization crops up now and them, but the most disturbing part of the transfer is that it fails to pay attention to the dirt and (in some cases) hair, stuck to the film negative. The result is a dirty looking picture that, while perhaps in keeping with Ridley Scott's vision of a dank, hard universe of the future, is most definitely not what the director had in mind. Saving grace: the transfer is anamorphically enhanced for widescreen televisions. The sonic characteristic of the 5.1 audio is rich, though dated. Strong bass and reasonably well balanced dialogue and effects, though there are a few perceived occasions where dubbing in of dialogue sounds possible. And one final insult from Warner Brothers, this disc has NO extras - not even a theatrical trailer!

Stunning - The Best Sci-Fi Film Ever Made
Directed by Ridley Scott, possibly the best director in Hollywood, Blade Runner: The Director's cut is an outstanding medley of action, noir, sci-fi, and suspense. Robots have been taken to a new level - Nexus 6 Generation Robots called "replicants", which outmatch humans in strength and ability and equal in intelligence, but lack one human quality - emotions. They were used for "slave labor" to work in places too hazardous for humans. However, replicants after a few years begin to develop their own emotions, which causes them to rebel against their masters. Special cops, called blade runners, were assigned to exterminate criminal replicants. Eventually replicants were declared illegal on earth, and were banished to a shuttle in space. LA, 2017. Rick Deckard, (Harrison Ford) a retired blade runner, is forced to "retire" five replicants that have escaped from the shuttle, but winds up falling for one, Rachael. (Sean Young) Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) leads the other three replicants to find their creator, Eldon Tyrell, to expand their short four-year life span. Incredible action scenes, dark, brooding noir, creeping suspense, and excellent sci-fi, Blade Runner: The Director's Cut will please fans of any of these genres. The Director's Cut offers production notes, subtitles, added character developement, the original ending, a unicorn dream sequence, and the deletion of unnecessary scenes and the annoying voice-overs. Plus, it is digitally restored to excellent picture and sound quality. Some "sensitive" viewers might find the plot and noir atmosphere cold, but action, noir, sci-fi, and suspense fans will enjoy it very much. With stunning special effects, incredible cinematography, compelling plot, and rich, incredible characterizations (esp. Rutger Hauer), I strongly recommend Blade Runner: The Director's Cut to action/sci-fi fans.

Not quite the Blade Runner I remember
After purchasing and viewing the DVD director's cut release, all I can think is "where can I find the original theater release version". I sat my family down to watch it two nights ago and they lost interest very quickly. While it is still visually stunning to watch, it is not enough overcome the seeming lack of narrative/plot. In fact, one of the key things removed from the director's cut version is the voiceover narrative by Harrison Ford's character Deckard. For those that know the original version, it can even be a challenge to remember the significance of each scene. For new viewers of BR, they're left wondering, scene after scene, "OK what just happened and what relevance does it have to anything?". Bring back the voiceover!

The Director's Cut is AWFUL.
Compared to the original version the Director's Cut is awful. Background narration has been removed; the ending has been changed. Don't waste your money.

this is still a good DVD
but not as good as the original release. I preferred the narration and for that reason, I probably don't watch this movie as much as i did when I had it on VHS. I really don't understand why they don't make both versions available. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Based on Thomas Harris's novel, Jonathan Demme's terrifying Silence of the Lambs really contains only a couple of genuinely shocking moments (one involving an autopsy, the other a prison break). The rest of the film is a splatter-free visual and psychological descent into the hell of madness, redeemed astonishingly by an unlikely connection between a monster and a haunted young woman. Anthony Hopkins is extraordinary as the cannibalistic psychiatrist Dr. Hannibal Lecter, virtually entombed in a subterranean prison for the criminally insane. At the behest of the FBI, agent-in-training Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) approaches Lecter, requesting his insights into the identity and methods of a serial killer named Buffalo Bill. In exchange, Lecter demands the right to penetrate Starling's most painful memories, creating a bizarre but palpable intimacy that liberates them both under separate but equally horrific circumstances. The Silence of the Lambs won 1992 Oscars^® for best picture, actor, actress, director, and adapted screenplay.

Ten years later in Hannibal, Dr. Lecter (Hopkins) is living the good life in Italy, studying art and sipping espresso. FBI agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore, replacing Foster), on the other hand, is now a quiet, moody loner. A botched drug raid results in her demotion--and a request from Lecter's only living victim, Mason Verger (Gary Oldman, uncredited), for a little Q&A. Little does Starling realize that the hideously deformed Verger is using her as bait to lure Dr. Lecter out of hiding. Taking the basic plot contraptions from Harris's baroque novel, Hannibal is so stylistically different from its predecessor that it forces you to take it on its own terms. Director Ridley Scott adeptly sets up an atmosphere of foreboding, but it's all buildup for anticlimax, as Verger's plot for abducting Dr. Lecter doesn't really deliver the requisite visceral thrills, and the much-ballyhooed climatic dinner sequence wobbles between parody and horror. Hopkins and Moore are both first-rate, but the film contrives to keep them as far apart as possible, when what made Silence so amazing was their interaction. When they do connect it's quite thrilling, but it's unfortunately too little too late. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Solid thriller combo.
The Silence of the Lambs-Probably the most genuinely disturbing psychological thriller ever made, Silence of the Lambs is a must see, but its dramatic power, dark insight into the human psyche, and ugly violence (most of which is implied) ensures it's unlikely you'll watch this film more than once. But on a first viewing, almost nothing matches this thriller's heart-pounding suspense, from Hannibal Lecter's attempted escape to the literally dark climax. Howard Shore's foreboding score adds nicely to the intense atmosphere.
**** 1/2 out of *****

Hannibal-This underrated sequel looks and feels quite different from its predecessor. It has no intention of excelling as a pyschological thriller, but neither is this a straight through-and-through gorefest. Certainly entertaining but hardly mind-blowing, Hannibal is at least visually stylish and unpredictable, if not also somewhat silly.
*** 1/2 out of *****

Two GREAT, GREAT movies on wonderful special edition DVDs!
While it is a bit sad that all four Hannibal the Cannibal classics will most likely never be released in a box set, I can understand it because of the different companies who have made the movies. This box set, however, is quite excellent. I myself feel that The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal are both equally brilliant and deserve a place in any person who calls himself a movie buff's collection.

The Silence of the Lambs was director Jonathan Demme's academy award winning 1991 classic. The success of the film, however, should not only be attributed to the director, because it was the work of the cinematographer, editor, writer, set director and, most of all, brilliant actors. Jodie Foster -IS- FBI agent Clarice Starling, brilliant, young, attractive (well, not really) and tough. Foster perfectly displays the emotions that go through her character and her growth throughout the picture. Some of my favorite scenes were where she discovers Buffalo Bill (the way she yells "freeze" is great!) and when she stands up to a crowd of men and orders them out of the room where an autopsy is taking place. Anthony Hopkins completely deserved his academy award as Hannibal. His portrayal of Hannibal and his personality was quite interesting. The way I see it, Hannibal is quite a nice gentlemen, but has a very large problem, that being his love for the taste of human flesh. I think you can tell from his scenes with Clarice Starling what a polite person he is. He might ask some personal questions, but the way he talks is courteous and friendly, if a bit intense. The cinematography of the film is fabulous, too. Clarice's descent into Lecter's holding cell is expertly handled, and the near final sequence with Clarice and Buffalo Bill is almost unbearably intense, thanks also to some wonderful music by Howard Shore. All in all, The Silence of the Lambs is a classic thriller which will live forever and deserves a place in everyone's collection.

The controversial sequel, 2001's Hannibal, is really quite an underappreciated piece of brilliant cinema. Ridley Scott is in top form as director here. The movie is overloaded with style of every type. Slow motion, overhead views, stylish flashbacks, sped up film, intense action and a brilliant use of classical music all add up to create an extremely memorable viewing experience. As for actors, they are all perfect. I was surprised to not think once about how well Julianne Moore was doing in comparison to Jodie Foster, and that was because she was equal to Foster. Rather than copying Foster's performance in The Silence of the Lambs, Moore makes the character her own. The Clarice of this film is meaner, more cynical and has a much smarter mouth than Foster's Clarice. This is because Hannibal takes place ten years after The Silence of the Lambs, so naturally, she wouldn't be such a goody goody, follow-the-rules woman. Anthony Hopkins steals the show as Hannibal. He is just as great as in the previous movies. In this film, Hannibal is free and loose, and from Hopkin's great acting, you can tell how much he treasures his freedom. Just look at how he sips his brandy and his cappachino. I loved that Lecter was free to do what he wanted in this film. Critics like Roger Ebert didn't seem to, and felt it took away from his mystery and creepiness. As much as I love Ebert, I must disagree. Having Hannibal out of the mental home was a work of genius and added a ton of creepiness to the flick. I have read Thomas Harris' novels The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal and feel that both movies do the books extreme justice, and, unbelievably, outdo them. In the case of The Silence of the Lambs, the movie version very accurately portrays the book version. Hannibal, however, was changed quite a bit. One part of the book I really liked that is nowhere in the film was Mason Verger's lesbian, body building sister, Margot. Also, Mason's love of terrorizing kids wasn't shown much in the film. The ending was suprmemely changed, but believe it or not, I liked the movie ending better. Hopkin's and Moore's performances in the finale are pitch perfect. Nothing removed from the book lowered my love for the film.

This set comes with two fantastic special editions. On The Silence of the Lambs, we find two documentaries, one old and one new, with the latter being quite fabulous. There are twenty minutes worth of deleted material. Some stuff was worthless and some stuff was very good, like one where Clarice is suspended by the FBI (Krendler's hate of her is set up for the sequel). There's also a rather funny phone message Anthony Hopkins left on his answering machine. Finally, posters, TV spots and a trailer are presented. The movie is in excellent 1:85:1 anamorphic ratio and has great 5.1 surround sound. The sequel is a fully laden two disc extravagenza which includes commentary by Ridley Scott, a very long documentary, 38 minutes of deleted and extended scenes, trailers and an "anatomy of a shootout" feature. Also presented in 1:85:1 anamorphic widescreen and with really good 5.1 surround sound. If there is any problem with these DVDs, it is the fact that the The Silence of the Lambs disc has almost none of the features found on the Criterion DVD, which included what I hear was an excellent audio commentary. It sounds like Criterion has a real problem with passing over any special features to a different company, so I can't blame MGM.

Overall, both of these films are masterpieces and the set is great. Also pick up Manhunter and Red Dragon on DVD from Anchor Bay and Universal.

If you found my review helpful, please vote for me. Thank you.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm having an old friend for dinner. Ta ta.

A Thrilling DVD Collection
1992: "Silence Of The Lambs" struck a chord with audiences, causing them to visit their therapists more often, it was said, and people became fans of Anthony Hopkins' portrayal as the elegant, intellectual, charming but psychotic cannibal ex-therapist Hannibal Lecter. Based on the novel by Thomas Harris, the movie won a host of awards, including best picture. Jodie Foster portrayed the novice FBI agent Clarice Starling, whose chemistry with Hopkins was what carried the weight of the film and made it an Oscar winner.

On DVD, the experience is very thrilling and state-of-the art. Silence Of The Lambs still sends chills down our spines, and engages us in a disturbing world of madness, tinged with cynical humor and engrossing conversations between Hopkins and Foster. Anthony Hopkins is Hannibal Lecter, the former therapist turned cannibal and criminal. It's undoubtedly Anthony Hopkins' trademark role and one that he will be remembered by. We are unnerved when Hannibal Lecter first meets Clarice Starling in the dungeon of the prison, where he confesses that he once "ate a man's liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti". To extract information revolving the transvestite skin-collector Buffalo Bill, Clarice must reveal deeply personal and traumatizing events from her childhood. She recalls running away from an abusive home only to witness the slaughter of innocent lambs in a farm house. The memory continues to haunt her and is reawakened by the hypnotic power of Dr. Lecter. The movie ends with the capture of Buffalo Bill and Clarice Starling's promotion. But Dr. Lecter manages to escape his cell and vanishes into Italy. Which brings us to the next film in the collection, the sequel, also based on the book by Thomas Harris. The follow-up "Hannibal".

2002: Ten years after the release of "Silence Of The Lambs", and ten years after the plotline of that particular film, we find Clarice Starling in a precarious situation. She has been demoted during a violent incident and is still haunted by memories of Dr. Lecter. A lonesome woman, she receives letters from Dr. Lecter, who (like old times) wishes to help Clarice get her career going again and capture another notorious psychotic killer. Dr. Lecter has been living a comfortable and reclusive life in Florence, Italy, a city which had always enchanted him. In Florence, Lecter attends operas, plays Bach's "Goldberg Variations", sips champagne and yes, still hungers for human flesh. Clarice and another agent (played by Ray Liotta) attempt to foil Dr. Lecter's machinations, but are captured and imprisoned in the dining room of Starling's home. In a disturbing sequence, Dr. Lecter, Starling and the FBI agent eat a dinner with the main course being the agent's own brain. Dr. Lecter manages to escape once again.

Most recently, the pre-quel to the events in "Silence Of The Lambs" was released, based also upon the successful Thomas Harris novel "Red Dragon". Red Dragon is still to be released on DVD. These films are the perfect "thriller" collection, each with its own striking features, plus interviews with the actors and director. For fans of the Thomas Harris novels and fans of the films, this is a genuinely superb gift.

Good Movie, Good guy Lecter
I honestly think this is a good movie, but their are a few things that bother me. For one, besides when he hung the one guy, Hannibal Lecter is more of one of the good guys in this movie. Lecter has some sort of skill to make people do what he wants, He even made Mason's helper throw Mason into a lair of boars and Clarice helps him escape.

Brilliant Anthology
Although Hannibal may not have been nearly as good as the first I still thought Ridley Scott did a great job of directing it and The Silence of the Lambs was also very very good and had great acting all around. Be sure to check out Red Dragon it's as good as The Silence of the Lambs! ... Read more

Reviews (90)

Enjoyable "Buddy Film" classic
Is there anything more satisfying then a romantic, funny, action-packed, well scripted AND well acted movie? Perhaps, but after watching "Thelma and Louise" I certainly have my doubts. Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis star in this highly entertaining, truly heartfelt movie. When one begins this film, you immediately feel the need to choose a "favorite" between the two characters, Thelma or Louise. It is impossible. You can masquerade that you like Thelma more, or that Louise tickles your fancy...but the truth is that both characters are immediately likeable and hard not to love.

The basic plot: Thelma and Louise go on a seemingly weekend long roadtrip as a brief escape from their drab, unexciting lives. Their first night out, Thelma has a terrifying experience...Louise, in her efforts to save her, commits a major crime. Suddenly, they are no longer two pals going on a trip...they are fugitives running for their freedom and from the law. As the story progresses, their list of crimes grows longer, and their chances at reaching their destination seem to get slimmer as they get closer to it.

A thrilling romp through the southwest, with beautiful acting, writing and cinematography, this movie is a classic "buddy movie", "road movie" and "chick flick". Whatever label it is given, it is one of the best of its kind.

The Ultimate Road Movie!
This is an instant classic. Controversial and creating two instant female American icons. Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis are nothing short than perfect as Thelma & Louise, both creating equally likable and complex characters. Considered to be a female buddy road-trip movie, but this film is much, much more, mainly because of the excellent multi-layered screenplay. Ridley Scott directed an instant American classic. Some scenes are now considered classics, such as the ending. The 'male' part of the cast are all excellent, Harvey Keitel and Michael Madsen are great. Brad Pitt is also a stand-out in the role that shot him into stardom. Extremely entertaining and even poignant near the end. This one is in a category all of it's own. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film an 8!

A remarkable movie!
Originality is the supreme adjective for this picture. It won deservedly the Academy Award as Original script. Ridley Scott made an authentical road movie but loaded with humor , cynicism , haunting and above all very anti macho movie.
The sinister fact that will turn a twist of fate in these two women who only wanted to have fun just for a while will become in a permanent and menacing nightmare for both of them .
The spectacular landscapes are a huge background all the way reminds us Paris Texas . The use of big lenses and the arresting images walks together with a solid script .
Brad Pitt appears briefly as the hitch hike guy who eventually seduces Thelma . Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis are the mirror images of Sundance Kid , you may consider it a speculation, but think it carefully . Since the accidental murder , and the sweet smell of the risk when Geena robes a supermarket , the dramatic car chase is very close in spirit to the sudamerican getaway and above all the ending sequence .
Keitel works efficiently , once more and Scott shows us once more why he's on the top direction .
Consider this one from its release as one of the most powerful nineties cult movies!

The Ultimate Buddy Movie.
This is definately Ridley Scott's best film to date. Thema and Louise may be one of the most popular chick flicks, but you do not have to be a woman to like it. This film is the absolute perfect movie to watch with your best friend. The way that Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis take you into the lives of these two friends is amazing. On their jouney they encounter lots of characters including a perverted truck driver, and a young drifter played by Brad Pitt. The movie all in all is good, and I would definately give it two thumbs way way up.

A modern classic
I saw an interview with Susan Sarandon, and she said that "Thelma and Louise isn't about feminism, it's about human liberation." I completely agree.

If you put the sexual politics aside, what you have is a story of two human beings who have spent their whole lives being oppressed and controlled by other people. Louise (Sarandon) is a waitress with a tragic past and an unreliable boyfriend. Thelma is a housewife with an arrogant, controlling husband. The two decide to embark on an impromptu vacation, but while stopping for a couple of drinks at a redneck nightclub, Thelma is almost raped by a lecherous customer, and Louise shoots and kills him in the parking lot. Instead of going to the police, the two decide to skip the country and head to Mexico, but a string of unfortunate events forces the two to commit even more crimes, turning them into bona fide fugitives and outlaws.

Strangely, what the two characters discover is that their new lives as outlaws are more satisfying than the stifled lives they led before. At the end of the film, the two make a choice to remain free and never surrender, despite the consequences.

This film asks the question: is the only way to be free in our society to be an outlaw? The answer just might be yes. ... Read more

Reviews (61)

Uncompromisingly a five-star flick...
Based on Joseph Conrad's book "The Duel", the true story of a 30-year feud between two Napoleonic cavalry officers, "The Duellists" was Ridley Scott's first major film. Starring Keith Carradine as the pompous D'Hubert and a particularly menacing Harvey Keitel as Feraud, the film climbs inside the minds of two men for whom honor is more important than life itself.

The two antagonists begin their series of bloody encounters when D'Hubert is ordered by his commanding general to arrest Feraud for wounding the local mayor's nephew in a duel. Feraud, in a hopelessly irrational state, challenges D'Hubert to a duel, which is carried out more or less on the spot. D'Hubert comes off slightly better in the initial encounter, which only serves to fuel Feraud's rage, and the course of the film is set.

The cinematography of this film, shot by Frank Tidy, is almost beyond comparison. The previous versions on VHS simply looked muddy and rather washed out. The colors lacked any real saturation, rendering Feraud's bottle-green dolman black and it almost looked like a poor quality black and white in some scenes, especially those set in Napoleon's abortive Russian campaign.

The DVD transfer, by contrast, is staggeringly beautiful and releases colors, which I did not realize existed in the original. I am, by coincidence, a professional cameraman and I rate this as the best shot film I have ever seen. The only criticism I have is a somewhat inconsistent use of graduated filters, which, whilst they were probably quite innovative for their day, don't always work well. Grads are always a problem and any film made since will tend to suffer the same way. A very minor point.

The costumes and settings; mostly in The Dordogne, make the film not only totally authentic but defy the viewer to believe that it was made on a shoestring budget. The visual splendour challenges any modern filmaker to create the same effect without spending a vault full of money to achieve it. That is only part of the appeal of the film.

The acting performances, particularly by Keitel, want for nothing. The scene with Feraud standing on a cliff overlooking the river valley, taken in context, makes you realise that his life and pretensions to honor have been for nothing. His mania for revenge has cost him everything. Melded to the other performances with superlative skill by Ridley Scott, this film is a masterpiece and has now gone from a film I liked a lot to one which is now firmly wedged in my top ten. Like as not, it will stay there for a long time.

An overlooked masterpiece
Ridley Scott's film The Duellists is due out on Region 1 DVD soon. I have been waiting for a DVD release for this film since I first got my player. It's due out on December 3rd from Paramount.
It has a widescreen anamorphic transfer and looks set to have loads of extras.

This was the first film from director Ridley Scott.
The story is about two Napoleonic officers played by Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel. One offends the other and so they duel. But there is never a conclusion to the duellists bouts and one of the soldiers demands satisfaction and will not let the matter drop. He dogs the other over the course of twenty years. The final sequence in the woods is played out to perfection and I think Harvey Keitel captures the soldiers feelings brilliantly.
The cinematography and score are amazing, performances are strong despite the two leads strained accents. This film is one of the most breathtaking to look at, it's shot on a beautiful landscape and I really liked the story. To offend someone then and for them not to take up the duel was the markings of a coward and not one of honour. I think The Duellists is an overlooked masterpiece.

VISUAL FEAST -
I enjoyed this film because the producers have captured the era magnificentley with respect to period detail as well as the language and of course the mood of the time.

I was captured by the opening scene and wasn't released till the end,as the story appealed to my interest in history in general and the film certainly fulfilled this aspect as well.

The question I asked myself after seeing this film was "...why can't they make films like this anymore?..." as I learnt of the paltry budget this film was produced from. Instead of overdone special effects and mindless violence which assaults us today more often than not, this genre/style of film is appealing and should be copied with more frequency.

Superb Keitel and good solid performance by Carradine.

Obsession
Driven by a compulsion to fight a duel at the slightest insult, Harvey Keitel plays Lt. Feurandin the French army during the time of Napleon who lives by the sword. When Keith Carradine's D'Hubert is sent out to convey a message from their French commander to cease fighting duels after badly injuring the mayor of a town, Keitel's character finds the message and delivery insulting enough to--yes--challenge Carradine to a duel then and there. Carradine ends the duel by knocking Keitel's character out with a block from the butt of his sword.

From there they both spiral into the madness and obsession of Feruand and D'Hubert's need to win at all costs. Fighting over the years, they lose loved ones and, in a sense, lose themselves as the passion for the fight becomes everything. By the end neither man understands why they are truly fighting or what they are fighting for.

Ridley Scott's first feature film was his fourth attempt at making a full length film. Based on a short story by Conrad that eventually became part of a much larger narrative canvas, "The Duelists" catches Scott in perfect form the first time out. While Scott expanded his scope in higher profile films ("Alien", "Blade Runner", "Thelma and Louise" and "Gladiator"), his visual and narrative style blossomed in his very first "epic" (made for a paltry $1 million)film.

The powerful performances by the international cast manages to overcome the minor differences in accents (Keitel's Brooklyn accent vs. Carradine's California twang vs. Tom Conti's British accent, etc.). Visually and thematically powerful, "The Duelists" remains one of Scott's best films.

The anamorphic widescreen transfer looks marvelous despite some minor blemishes. Paramount has Packed this film with extras including a commentary from Scott: "Dueling Directors" featuring director Kevin Reynolds interviewing Scott; Scott's first short film "Boy on a Bike" (featuring his brother and future director Tony Scott); isolated score and commentary by Howard Shore as well as the theatrical trailer. The sound although not quite up to the standard of current films (it was made, afterall, in 1977), has a splendid range and there's minimal distoriton.

This sharply directed and written film deserves as much attention as Scott's other more mainstream features. Although no Scott film is without merit (even "Someone to Watch Over Me" and the Hammer-like "Hannibal"), "The Duelists" deserves its spot as one of Scott's five or six best films.

Point / Counterpoint
The Duellists finally arrives on DVD. At long last Ridley Scott's first film is available to the public and it was well worth the wait. The skimpy $900k budget looks more like $60 million in the hands of Scott. Using only real locations and splurging on costumes, this Napoleonic epic looks as good as any other, if not better. This is an intimate story and not one of those sweeping, libertine war melodramas. The story and acting are good, but what really stands out about this picture is the jaw droping cinematography. Scott employed a special photochemical process to enhance the contrast of the film. This is most noticed in the velvety depths of the shadows, and darker tones. The end result is a film that, often, looks like a moving Rembrandt. The above average DVD transfer serves to preserve this. I may be crazy, but it seems to me that Scott may be trying to provide us with contrapuntal films to those of Kubrick. I think that, thematically and stylistically, the Duellists is simply a boiled down version of Barry Lyndon. I think that it could also be said that Alien was probably the reactionary product of 2001. Anyway, the DVD extras provide some interesting vantage into the making and history of this great film. ... Read more