Reviews (142)

A sumptuous Renaissance feast!
Franco Zefirrelli's 1967 film was revolutionary in using teenaged actors to play the two most famous lovers of all literature. Olivia Hussey is heartbreakingly beautiful, a vulnerable and courageous Juliet, while Leonard Whiting's poetic good looks make him a sensitive and appealing Romeo. Zefirrelli's career as an opera director is put to spectacular use here--each scene is meticulously crafted to be an exact replica of the Renaissance. Stunningly beautiful clothing, jewels, furniture, food, glass, sculpture--it is an overwhelming feast for the eyes. The preserved medieval towns of Tuscany, and the lovely Borghese palace where the balcony scene is set, give the film the look of an animated Renaissance painting. Zefirrelli took some liberties with Shakespeare's original script for the sake of brevity, but unless you are a die-hard purist, this is a minor flaw. I saw this film a dozen times in the theater, and never without the sound of girls weeping by the end--I was often one of them. Leslie Howard was a better actor, and Leonardo DiCaprio/Clare Danes more modern, but if you love beauty, this is THE quintessential Romeo and Juliet on film. END

Zeffirelli's Quintessential Version! Every Aspect Excellent!
This is THE must see version of Romeo and Juliet. Zeffirelli's 1968 masterpiece stars 17-year-old Leonard Whiting and 15-year-old Olivia Hussey with great music by Nino Rota. Filmed "on location" in Italy this version also has the fingerprints of the 1960s all over it, from moddish long hair, the debut of Michael York as Tybalt, John McEnery as Mercutio, the lush balcony scenes, the nude scene, and an emotional intensity throughout. McEnery brings just the right comic touch to the comi-tragedy and screenwriters Franco Brusati, Maestro D'Amico, and Zeffirelli keep true to Shakespeare with a take on the story that's easily accessible to a wide audience, thereby making this one of the most popular films of the '60s.

Especially effective is the ambiguity of intent of the Tybalt-Mercutio duel, and the overall editing of dialogue just enough to keep it succinct and believable yet retain the poetic and philosophical virtuosity of the playwright's playwright. The music is used effectively and as it rises during the love scenes it's a manipulation that's an enhancement to rather than distraction from the emotion--a rare successful pull-off of this. And that balcony scene is extraordinary, the lush dark atmosphere, Romeo's giddiness, Juliet's beauty...I believed it.

Milo O'Shea (who later played the Judge in "The Verdict") does a believable Friar Laurence and Robert Stephens (I)(with a long list of Shakespearian roles to his name) an intensely serious Prince of Verona. It's hard not to fall in love with Olivia (watch for her new film role as Mother Theresa).

Some bits of trivia: Before 1968 Romeo and Juliet was not generally taught in US high schools and this film's popularity changed all that as most of you reading this had it in high school. Michael York turned down the role of Oliver in Love Story--one may read into this he felt it was a poor man's Romeo and Juliet...just a thought. Also Olivia Hussey briefly dated Prince Charles. And here's the clincher: Paul McCartney got the original offer to play Romeo. I'm glad he turned it down, as Whiting is perfect here. And for those who wonder, the story did not originate in historical fact, though one may wish it so. The story came from mythical legend starting in 5th century Greece, later evolving into "The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet" translated into English in 1562 by Arthur Brooke and originally written about 1530 by Luigi da Porto., 'til Shakespeare got a hold of it (circa 1594) and breathed into it the life that will last as long as humanity does most probably.

This towers over the 1st film version with a 34-year-old Norma Shearer and a 43-year-old Leslie Howard, and as for the 1996 mess sorry guys; American accents, present day gang violence, over-the-top overacting, LA locales, and Leonard DiCaprio do not great Shakespearean tragedy make. This 1968 one is the one to see over and over.

Excellent movie...Great actors
Watching this as part of a highschool assignment, the teacher only allowed us to watch about 15 minutes of it. When I saw it playing on cable, I sat down to finish it. This, I must say, is the best version of Romeo and Juliet. In the '68 version The actors are young and even though it was made in '68, you can relate to them in this day. The acting is superb, no one better could have been picked for the parts. It was a real tearjerker. Not to mention the soundtrack...the songs were just amazing to hear. Just watch the movie once, you'll fall in love with it.

The Defintive R & J
I could watch this version of Romeo and Juliet over, and over, and over. The performances are dead on, especially John McEnry's turn as Mercutio (you understand the reason why he's killed off: people would have cared more about him than about the tragic heroes if he'd been around too much longer!). I would advise teachers, however, that this is not the first version they show students of the show. While most ninth graders read this play, the giggling that can abound in a classroom watching Romeo in tights often distracts from the meaning of the film.
So, for with the exception of ninth graders, this is the Romeo and Juliet to see.

Zeffirelli and Shakespeare: A Perfect Match
There is nothing worse than bad Shakespeare but not to worry here-- Franco Zeffirelli and Shakespeare come together here in a lavish, opulent production of ROMEO AND JULIET, just when we thought there was nothing fresh to say about them. Zeffirelli has broken new ground by casting Leonard Whiting, who is 17, and Olivia Hussey, who is all of 15 but looks even younger, in this timeless classic story about "star-crossed" lovers. With the possible exception of some parts of the musical score-- although much of it soars-- this film is as good today as it was when first released in 1968. (The musical theme was beautiful the first 50 times I heard it on the radio. Then it became trite.)

There are no bad actors here. In addition to the two lovers, Michael York as Tybalt and Pat Heywood as the nurse give outstanding performances, just to name two. My only negative comment about the acting is that Romeo always seems to run to and from an event or meeting; he never walks. Perhaps that is what a seventeen-year-old, testosterone-laden lad does, however. On the other hand, Romeo and Juliet's tragic story is completely believable and will put chills on your spine. Additionally, the dance scenes and duel scenes are quite wonderful. The wardrobe department got everything right as well.

A word about the language-- it goes without saying that Mr. Shakespeare is and ever shall be the greatest writer in English. Hearing his words again is a transcendent experience. ... Read more

Description

Treachery.Madness. Murder.The story of Hamlet has been told for 400 years...but it's never been told like this!Mel Gibson (the Mad Max and Lethal Weapon films) takes on his richest part to date, the title role in a dynamic new version of Shakespeare's Hamlet.Directed by Franco Zeffirelli (Romeo and Juliet, Jesus of Nazareth), the location-shot production has a sumptuous look that won Academy Award nominations for Art Direction and Costume Design.Gibson plays the prince of medieval-era Denmark, who senses treachery behind his royal father's death.Glenn Close (Fatal Attraction, Dangerous Liaisons) plays Hamlet's mother Gertrude, all too dangerously entangled in that treachery.A brilliant supporting cast, including Alan Bates as Claudius, Paul Scofield as the ghost of Hamlet's father, Ian Holm as Polonius and Helena Bonham-Carter as Ophelia, adds its powerful presence to this immortal tale of high adventure and evil deeds.Big, bold and heroic, this is a vivid and virile Hamlet for the modern age and all time. ... Read more

Reviews (124)

To Thine Own Self Be True...
While this is a complex movie that demands your full attention, this has to be one of my favorite Shakespeare plays. It is beautifully acted out in a gorgeous castle filled with tapestries and everything you would imagine a castle to be from the candlelight to the dimly lit spiral staircases.

The most enjoyable scenes are when Hamlet expresses his thoughts in soliloquies and gives insight into what his character is feeling. Mel Gibson becomes Hamlet and I thought this was perhaps some of his best acting ever! Glenn Close is exceptional as Gertrude, the incestuous mother. The uneasiness and distrust in Denmark since King Hamlet's death and Queen Gertrude's remarriage sets the mood for the rest of the movie.

The story begins on the outer ramparts of Elsinore castle. A ghost appears and Hamlet, speaks to his deceased father. The ghost asks Hamlet to revenge his "most foul, strange, and unnatural murder." Hamlet then deviously plots a psychological revenge by putting on a play in which a scene portrays the actual murder of his father.

"I'll have grounds
More relative than this-the play's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King." -Hamlet, Act 2, 603-605

Once guilt takes hold of the King, the pieces of the puzzle start to fit together and you realize that one immoral action only makes another wrong even more probable.

Throughout the play, Hamlet shows his intellectual superiority and states his case by saying: "Do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe?" While he desires to have the upper hand until the end, he cannot of course know all the intentions of those around him nor can he escape his own fate.

An Unforgettable story that made an impression on me in school and still holds a
certain fascination for me. Did Hamlet ever really love Ophelia? That is the question.

"It is in my memory locked." -Ophelia

hamlet
The movie Hamlet directed by Franco Zefferelli is a historical drama, based on the popular Shakespearean Tragedy. Zefferelli decided to retain the name Hamlet, which I think could be modified to be more effective. Theoretically, a title is a microcosm of the theme, which 'Hamlet' doesn't really accomplish; a title that can foreshadow the theme of the play will be more formidable. Perhaps the director could have excerpted one of the dominant quotes out of the play, the most famous being "To be or not to be". This would have at least given a foreshadowing to the indecision seen by the tragic hero throughout the plot. Generally speaking, the movie was well done and I comment the director for his concise but accurate representation of Shakespeare's 'Hamlet'.
On the whole the actors depicted the roles of their characters quite well. Hamlet played by the Australian, Mel Gibson took command of his part, and captivated the viewers with his emotional conversations, as well as addition of humor and a masculine vigor to Hamlet. He portrayed his part with a great deal enthusiasm, bringing the play to life. The royal couple played by Alan Bates and Glenn Close, as king Claudius and queen Gertrude respectfully, were able to capture the conduct of a monarchial leadership, of the middle ages with little difficulty. Claudius displayed an exceptional representation of a lusty, murderous king. The minor characters such as Ian Holm as Polonius, Nathaniel Parker as Laertes, and Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia gave considerable support to the leading characters, as they were subtly but effectively able to dictate the plot.
Hamlet is noted as one of Franco Zeffirelli's best productions as he recreated yet another Shakespeare masterpiece. He took a conventional approach to this production of Hamlet as he kept with the mindset most people would have to character and setting, in other words he tried not to give any surprises. Zeffirelli's main goal was to create a lighthearted enjoyable movie that would appeal to the general public who don't have the time and stamina for Branagh's four-hour version. In keeping with typical Shakespearean movies the director chose a soundtrack consisting of classical pieces, which is suitable for what he was trying to achieve. Little special effects were used, which may be a major flaw when trying to grasp the attention of modern day viewers, perhaps he could have included some more dynamic effects, especially with the ghost who appeared almost as though he was a living character.
This movie is a concise version of the original text and has left out and/or shortened many scenes keeping only the ones necessary to tell the story. I really liked the way he incorporated old Hamlet's funeral in the beginning and the voyage to England. However, there were a few scenes like the fight between Laertes and Hamlet in the graveyard, which could have been further accented. The major flaw I observed in the movie when compared to the book was the exclusion of the sub-plot with Fortinbras and the Norwegian influence. This led to the ambiguity the viewers were left in once the movie ended, as there was no hint to the outcome of Denmark.

best film version i've seen (and i've seen them all!)
through my endeavors i've had to read Hamlet 7 times (twice my senior year of high-school). much as i don't like Shakespeare this play is part of my life.

The Olivier version is more accurate to the stage version but the camera techiniques are over-blown and hokey (circling the swords before the duel to see which one is tipped, it made me dizzy). the Branagh version, while creative in it's set up (modernizing it to imerial Russia), and using the entire text, complete with Prince Fortinbras of Norway, is SO long and SO over-acted (especially on the part of Branagh) that i needed a nap after i saw it. and i choose not even to dignify the Ethan Hawke version it was so terrible.

This one is my favorite, all the scenes which are cut aren't necessary for the forwarding of the plot in my humble opinion (the opening scene with the palace guards meeting the dead kingis cut yet horatio's explaination of this happening later in the movie is sufficient). Gibson chooses to play Hamlet as insane (that decision is left to the director) and as i am in the camp that Hamlet IS insane, you could also see why i favor this version. Glenn Close is EXCELLENT as Gertrude as is Helena Bonham-Carter as Ophelia.

solid performances with a great cast, what more does a 400 year old play need?

Mel has captured Hamlet's soul
What a masterpiece. As much as I love Braveheart, I truly think this is Mel Gibson's finest work. It throws all over attempts into shadow, including the great Lawrence Olivier and certainly Kenneth Branaugh or Ethan Hawke. So often the female characters are reduced to cardboard mock-ups of feminine ideals of the Shakespearean age. Not here! Ofelia and Gertrude have souls and minds to probe, filled with as many dark secrets as Hamlet himself. I could never say enough about the caliber of this film. Suffice it to say that it is THE Hamlet of the ages and worth a look as well as a few dollars to own it.

A great BRIEF history of The Bard's greatest Play
There are two main versions that currently work the best in getting a feel for this play, Gibson's & Brannaugh's. Gibson's is very much stripped down to focusing on the three main character's. It does loose a lot by this device, but it does gain considerably in that the viewer doesn't have to shift through all the sub-plots. Brannaugh's, however is far more complete & I would consider it far more the best " study " version of the play. If you've read the play ( & this is the reason I give it 5 stars ), Gibson's version is great beause you can fill in the blanks quite easily & nothing is lost. The Ghost is by far better in Gibson's version ( remember, this is not a ghost in the modern sense, so it's important not to judge by appearences ), & the interplay between them in their first meeting is just amazing. However, the politics of the play suffers badly, in my opinion, becuase many of the characters in the sub-plots are missing, especially Polonius' machinations....however, he certainly DIES better in Gibson's version. I personally like this version & I am impressed with all the actors. If this had been the entire play, I think it would definitely have given Brannaugh's version a run for it's money, but being so stripped down, I feel the actuall story suffers greatly. As one reviewer put it, a CLIFT NOTES verion, with which I must agree. ... Read more

Amazon.com

In filming this semi-autobiographical account of life in Italy duringthe dawn of World War II, director Franco Zeffirelli imbues Tea with Mussolini with the mixed blessings of fond reminiscence. It's a warmly inviting film, as impeccable as any Merchant-Ivory production, but like a hazy memory it's uncertain in its narrative intentions. And yet with an exceptional cast to compensate, the film's as engaging as it is inconsequential.

Zeffirelli's alter ego is Luca (Charlie Lucas in youth; Baird Wallace as a teenager), who is raised in Florence by Mary (Joan Plowright), the middle-aged secretary of his absentee father. Luca lives among a loose band of British and American women, nicknamed "Il Scorpioni" for their stinging wit in the shadows of Mussolini's thuggish dictatorship. Along with Mary there's Hester (Maggie Smith), a crusty ambassador's widow; Arabella (Judi Dench), a lively bohemian; lesbian archaeologist Georgie (Lily Tomlin); and Elsa (Cher), a flamboyant American who quietly finances Luca's education.

Il Scorpioni witness the rise of fascism and the dangers of resistance, weathering dictatorial custody and (in Elsa's case) falling prey to heartbreaking betrayal. But Tea with Mussolini carries little dramatic weight; you have to forgive its unfocused structure to appreciate its merits. Zeffirelli gently conveys the passage from pleasantry to wartime, and he's drawn uniformly fine performances from this seasoned cast. If the film is vaguely unsatisfying, it's only because it had the makings of greatness and settles instead for an ethereal quality of anecdotal enchantment. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (47)

Rich, beautiful, layered, and delicious
With Judi Dench, Joan Plowright, Cher, and Maggie Smith, how could this movie be anything but wonderful? Set in Italy in the 30s and 40s, Mussolini's era, with WWII as a backdrop, it's the semi-autobiographical story of director Franco Zeffirelli's childhood. Beautiful scenery and costuming, beautiful sets, it's in many places a mood piece more than a deep examination of the issues involved. It spite of its occasional superficiality, a very wonderful film with stellar acting.

Excellent and worth buying!
One of the best films to ever grace my screen. The film was quite spectacular and really helped to understand the history of WWII more as an outsider caught up in the policies of war. I really felt as though I was there and found myself becoming "friends" with each and every one of the characters. Definately calls for a trip to Florence now! Baird Wallace has a wonderful career ahead of him. Cher was-as usual- great! Judi Dench's character was lovable and emotional. Joan Plowright was truly a gem among stones. She's brilliant! Don't bother to rent this movie. buy it for you, your family and your grandkids. You won't be disappointed!

This Is The Best Tea I've Ever Had!
Tea with Mussolini is an excellent movie. I have to agree with most everyone else's comments. My personal favorite is Hester. Played brilliantly by Maggie Smith, she is a pivitol character with a comically blind faith in Mussolini. I would (and do) recommend this movie in a heartbeat.

A Great Cast!
Set in Florence and covering roughly 10 years from the brink of World War II to the liberation of "Il Scorpioni", Zeffirelli's film boasts a great cast: from the group of English women who love all things Italian-- Maggie Smith as Lady Hester, Judi Dench as Arabella, Joan Plowright as Mary to Lily Tomlin as Georgie, Cher as Elsa, and last but certainly not least, Baird Wallace as the older Luca based loosely on the director, himself. The group of English women will not leave Florece even in the face of an impeding war; Lady Hester, in her naivete assumes that tea with Mussolini will guarantee her and her friends' safety.

The film is a little predictable and somewhat rosy. On the other hand, If Luca is based on Zeffirelli, he obviously lived to tell his tale so perhaps this rosiness is justified. Cher seems to play Cher and isn't terribly convincing as a rich Jewish American; and her wardrobe is gaudy enough to belong to her. On the other hand, the three British actresses are great, particularly Maggie Smith who cannot abide Americans. My favorite line of hers is that Americans [referring to Elsa] can even "vulgarize" ice cream.

Of course it's impossible to make an ugly movie that's filmed in Florence; this one is no exception. (It's probably impossible for this director to make a less than beautiful movie.) While this may not be Mr. Zeffirelli's best film, it's much better than the best efforts of a lot of his contemporaries.

An Engaging Movie Worth Your Time
With the many talented actresses in this film, you might have expected to have heard more about it. While the editing is questionable, this is still a wonderfully acted, engaging little film. Although, it does drag a few times, the story is worth knowing and the performances are top notch.Particularly Cher, who lights up the screen as Elsa. Especially, near the film's end as Elsa boards a small boat to escape with the assistance of the charming character Luka. Simply breath taking!

Grab your favorite beverage and check this film out! ... Read more

Reviews (115)

Vivid religious parable for 'youth' audience
BROTHER SUN SISTER MOON (UK/Italy 1972): The early life of St. Francis of Assisi (Graham Faulkner), the son of a wealthy merchant who underwent a spiritual conversion following his experiences in the crusades and later renounced his worldly goods before establishing a holy order separate from traditional Church teachings.

Conceived and executed in much the same visual manner as his ultra-popular ROMEO AND JULIET (1968), Franco Zeffirelli's BROTHER SUN SISTER MOON attempts to draw parallels between the work and philosophy of St. Francis and the ideology which underpinned the worldwide hippy movement throughout the 1960's and early 70's. Hence the ragged-but-lyrical cinematography (by Ennio Guarnieri), fractured editing (by Reginald Mills), and the use of contemporary - but strangely timeless - folk songs written and performed by Donovan, all of which conjures the requisite mood of spiritual awakening whilst simultaneously dating the movie quite firmly within its period. Cynics will hate it, while others will embrace Zeffirelli's defiant romanticism. Daringly, Zeffirelli's script (co-written by Suso Cecchi d'Amico and Lina Wertmuller) contrasts Francis' piety and virtue with the bloated pomp of official Church doctrine, weighed down by internal politics and social indifference, though it's difficult to gauge if this represents a veiled attack on Christian orthodoxy or is simply a reflection of Francis' dismissal of outdated customs in favor of a return to Nature.

Lovingly crafted by Lorenzo Mongiardino (art direction) and Danilo Donati (costumes), the movie is toplined by a cast of gifted newcomers and screen veterans, including Judi Bowker (one of the most beautiful actresses of her generation), Leigh Lawson, Kenneth Cranham, Valentina Cortese and Alec Guinness. But the film derives much of its visual strength from Faulkner as the young, battle-scarred nobleman laid low by his wartime experiences, who emerges from the horrors of conflict with a completely new and spiritual outlook on life. Faulkner was one of a handful of young actors (including FELLINI-SATYRICON's Hiram Keller and LISA AND THE DEVIL's Alessio Orano) who emerged from European cinema in the 1970's, handsome and talented in equal measure, to burn brightly and briefly before disappearing into relative obscurity. Here, Faulkner's intense beauty and fresh-faced innocence are illuminated by Guarnieri's worshipful camera and Zeffirelli's attentive direction, which places him center-stage throughout (there's even a generous, PG-level nude scene halfway through the movie). This was Faulkner's cinematic debut, and while Zeffirelli couldn't have made a better choice for such a crucial role, the director later described him as being slightly aloof from his fellow actors, which may explain his subsequent disappearance from the movie scene. But here, his grace and dignity are displayed in abundance, and it's hard not to fall in love with him, every time he appears on-screen.

Picture quality on Paramount's DVD is grainy in places and vivid in others, but overall, this is a huge improvement over previous video incarnations, all hideously cropped from the original hard matte widescreen version presented here. Sadly, there are no extras whatsoever, not even a trailer! It would have been nice to see footage from the Italian cut (FRATELLO SOLE SORELLA LUNA), which runs approximately 14 minutes longer and replaces Donovan's music with a fully orchestral score by Riz Ortolani. The film's editor, Reginald Mills, produced a 16mm documentary in 1973 entitled FRANCO ZEFFIRELLI A FLORENTINE ARTIST, compiled from footage shot during the making of the movie and featuring a lengthy interview with the director himself. Running a mere 51 minutes, it provided an invaluable insight into Zeffirelli's working methods and the thinking which gave rise to the finished product, and its absence from Paramount's disc is hugely disappointing. It's nice to have the film on DVD in its present form, but the lack of extras reeks of missed opportunity.

120m 56s
1.75:1 / Anamorphically enhanced
DVD soundtrack: Mono 2.0
Theatrical soundtrack: Optical mono
Optional English subtitles and closed captions
Region 1

A movie that changed my outlook on life
This film with all its historical inaccuracies and its poor account of St. Clare and Bishop Guido has however the spirit of Franciscanism at its heart and its message is a relevant today as it was in the 13th century. Faulkner is brilliant, he captures the simple, pure humility of St.Francis. What ever happened to him after the movie? Donovan's music is outstanding and fits in perfectly with the simple and humble atmosphere permeating throughout the movie. To learn a more accurate account of the life of St. Francis I must recommend a book called 'St. Francis of Assisi, The Legend and the Life' by Michael Robson OFM Conv.

Pax et Bonum, A young Irish Secular Franciscan.

Inspirational
Dated; yes, but boring? . . . Never. Maybe if you're looking for action instead of inspiration. I've watched this movie countless times and have never failed to find its anti-materialist message inspirational. If it contains historical inaccuracies; show me a movie or book about a 13th century character that doesn't. Yes, it is dated to the '70s in places, but what of it? This is a movie with an essential message told well: i.e. The glory of war and possessions can't ultimately satisfy. And while I may hesitate to recommend this movie to anyone, say, under 40; if you want to know how it feels to leave the pursuit of yet another crummy dead-end job, for inner peace, Brother Sun Sister Moon may just do the trick.

Wonderful
The editorial review by Amazon.com (Tom Keogh) should stop after the first sentence. Tom's review is "a decorous effort" to tweak his ego and impress readers who enjoy uppity reviews more than good movies. I don't know why Amazon would even allow their review to discourage sales, for one thing. More importantly, this is a beautiful movie, to a different tempo, with lovely music and spiritual significance for the gentle recipient.

Spirit of Francis
This movie was a major inspiration in my life as a Franciscan. It captures the spirit of Francis of Assisi, the joy, the freedom, the devotion to Christ. It is true that it is "ahistorical" which is NOT to say unhistorical, but rather creative fidelity to the spirit of the saint. All of Zeferelli's work has a quality of caricature, but faithful even though exaggerated. Many people have used those songs by Donavan as well, as they are quite moving and joyous. ... Read more

Reviews (31)

This Shrew Remains Untamed
It's very difficult to be very critical of such a roisterous, good-natured version of Shakespeare's rowdiest play, and in truth one has to admit that this is probably the first of the truly modern Shakespeare films. There are some real assets here -- Zefferelli's eye has never lighted on a landscape more beautiful, more seductive, and Nina Rota's score fits beautifully.

But Shakespeare, even on film, stands or falls on the acting. This version -- with one exception -- is filled with one-note performances (they're very GOOD notes, but single notes nonetheless). Let's deal with the exception first -- Elizabeth Taylor is a delightful, intelligent Katarina. Her development is exactly what Shakespeare obviously intended, and if her early scenes are a bit uniformly shrill, the case could be made that that's what the Bard wrote. In general, she's an admirable Kate.

Burton, however, is something else entirely. Despite his acknowledged skill with Shakespeare (his Hamlet was glorious), he takes a monochromatic approach to Petruchio, with an annoyingly stagey laugh running through virtually every scene. By halfway through the film, you tend to want him to get off screen so you don't have to listen to that "manly" laugh any longer. Unfortunately, much of Kate's dialogue was cut (the assumption being, I suppose, that Taylor would have trouble with the language) while too much of Petruchio remains.

The secondary characters, if cut from different bolts of cloth, are all a single color. Michael Hordern bumbles his way through Baptista the same way he did in countless other movies. Michael York and Natasha Pyne as the young lovers are efficient and attractive, but not particularly engaging. The suitors are a group of living cliches. Even the humor is raggedly overdone to the same degree in almost every scene.

There are things to appreciate in this movie, and there's no better Shrew available, but I'd recommend finding another of Shakespeare's comedies until a better version of this rowdy comedy comes along -- someone's bound to get it right soon.

An excellent movie to add to your collection!
This Shakespearean story is about the daughter of Baptista (Michael Hordern), Katarina (Elizabeth Taylor). Very unlike her younger, quiet and gentle sister Bianca (Natasha Pyne), Katarina is strong-willed and has a nasty temper. Many men want to woo the lovely Bianca, including a young scholar (Michael York), but Baptista is adamant that nobody will be wed with his Bianca until the older daughter, the shrew Katarina, is married. And there is only one man who is willing to marry her for her dowry, Petruchio (Richard Burton). When Petruchio and Katarina are wed (forcefully against Katarina's will), Petruchio proceeds to make his 'dear Kate' into a good wife, but is anyone capable of 'taming the shrew'?
A remarkable tale by the talented and famed writer, William Shakespear. And with a delightful cast of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, who can resist liking it? Elizabeth Taylor practically shines in her role! Especially at the part in the end where she makes her strong speech. I was as quiet and attentive as all the guests at the wedding.
For anyone who likes Shakespeare, who likes Elizabeth Taylor, or Richard Burton, or for that matter, want to watch a good movie, watch "The Taming of the Shrew".

More Fun Than A Barrel Full Of Burtons
A rollicking feast for the eye, ear, and funny bone, Franco Zeffirelli's "The Taming of The Shrew" is a tour de force for Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. This pared down version of William Shakespeare's play is a fit morsel for anyone suffering from a fear of the Bard. It's fast pace keeps things going and with a cast of well-known British stars the whole thing is served up to delectable visual perfection.
Richard Burton blends his fabled abilities as a Shakespearian genius with his star power to give us a ribald and loveable Petruchio. This is one of his crowning moments on the screen and we are lucky to have this record of Mr. Burton at his very best.
Elizabeth Taylor is a comic revelation in this, one of her jewels in her acting crown. At the time the film came out, many scoffed at the idea of a mere movie star taking on the challenges of Shakespeare. Miss Taylor rises to the challenge and shines as a stunning, sexy and very funny Kate, in fact she more than rises to the occasion, she shows her command of the medium of film and her understanding of comic timing. The wedding scene is a pure Zeffirelli invention. If you didn't know better you would swear that it was part of the play, it is so well done in faux Shakespeare. Elizabeth shines in this scene. In the final fifteen minutes when she delivers the famous "Lord and Master" speech she is triumphant as she submits to her man. At the same time we know that she is the one who holds all the cards and in the off stage end will rule the roost from now on, all the while letting poor Petruchio think he is king.
The chemistry of Burton and Taylor is pure dynamite that explodes in riotous color across Zeffirelli's Renaissance canvas. Highly recommended viewing, especially if you are new to Shakespeare. It's more fun than a barrel full of Burtons!

The Bawdy Bard !
"The Taming of the Shrew" is a delightful romp, and very entertaining, even for people who do not normally go out of their way to watch Shakespeare. I can imagine serious scholars rolling their eyes at the liberties taken here, and the "star turns" by those two icons of 60s Hollywood, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton.

However, for most of us who basically just want to be entertained--and I suspect with this play, that was the bard's intent--this version is good fun, robustly acted, and with lovely sets and costumes, a feast for the eye. One suspects that Ms. Taylor had a ball, hurling insults and various pieces of furniture at her real-life, on-again off-again, spouse. It looks like Mr. Burton had a good time too, although one frequently has the impression that this was a "well-lubricated" performance !

The supporting cast is fine, with a pleasant film debut for Michael York. As usual, Zeffirelli gives us a film that is gorgeous to look at--and I'm not just referring to Ms. Taylor !
The DVD has a certain haziness to it, but this may be the way that Zeffirelli intended the film to look.

"The Taming of the Shrew" today, of course, is about as "politically incorrect" as a piece of literature can be. While women will find this film amusing, the idea that the female spirit should be "reined in" like that of a wild horse, will cause some discomfort to feminist viewers, I'm sure.

Nevertheless, this film is highly entertaining, and might give younger viewers an idea as to what all the Taylor/Burton fuss was about. Recommended.

Burton & Taylor Are Pure, Fiery, & Feisty Sex Magic
No wonder Burton and Taylor married and divorced many times. The sexual tension between them in this film can be cut with a knife. Taylor plays Kate, the beautiful, fiery, feisty, mean-spirited, unloved eldest daughter of a wealthy man. She has a beautiful & kind sister who has a string of beaus, but... the eldest sister MUST marry first. Enter Burton as Petruchio. Loud, boisterous, dirty, obnoxious and SEXY! He plans to tame Kate, marry her and be a rich man on her dowry. The famous tongue in the tail speech is given on their first meeting, which sets the mood for lusty, sweaty, swarthy fighting. All the while, the sexual tension builds throughout. Many fights & torments ensue... with a beautiful ending that I will not spoil. If you like Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton or just the great and powerful Bard, himself, this is a great movie, directed by the great Franco Zefferelli that is a must see! "There is no other beast on Earth so horrible as man..." (Katharina, Taming Of The Shrew) ... Read more

Reviews (234)

Majestic version of Christ's life
Majestic and beautifully shot with strong performances all around, Jesus of Nazareth lacks the overblown almost operatic production touches of Nickolas Ray's "King of Kings" but still manages to retain a sense of the importance of the subject through subtle, nicely wrought character touches.

Although not completely faithful to the New Testament, director Franco Zefferelli embellishes in such a way as to make the story more dramatically compelling and interesting. The performers particularly Robert Powell in the central role all give strong, interesting performances. Powell's characterization is less bland than many of the other versions we've seen and, as such, makes the Christ come alive much more so for the modern viewer.

"Jesus of Nazareth" makes a fine companion piece to Mel Gibson's controversial "The Passion of the Christ" focusing on different elements. The big difference between the two films, though, is the level of explicit onscreen violence. Zefferelli's film still shows what happens but with a more subdued touch (due to the constraints of network television censors as it was originally produced for NBC).

Both films in their own ways tell what could be termed essential variations on the same great story. Their contrasting styles make each suitable to very different audiences.

A MUST-HAVE FOR EVERY BELIEVER!
It is inconceivable that on Amazon there are only 90 reviewers for Franco Zeffirelli's masterful and inspiring masterpiece as opposed to over 2000 for "The Matrix," a less-than-monumental piece of fluff from 1999.

"Jesus of Nazareth" sports a cast of Academy Award-winners (Lawrence Olivier, Anne Bancroft, Ernest Borgnine, and Peter Ustinov, to name a few) and nominees (James Earl Jones, James Mason, Christopher Plummer) as well as a support from an international group of performers. Olivia Hussey brings just the amount of warmth and humanity in the role of Mary; Rod Steiger deftly portrays Pontius Pilate as a man torn between duty to his country and awe of this man called Jesus; Michael York is stunning as John the Baptist.

Robert Powell brings to the movie the definitive portrait of Jesus. His passionate performance is the stuff of legend. Prior to this motion picture, there had been few instances wherein Christ had been seen; it is as if the screen was awaiting the right man for the part. Powell proves that to be true; he is perfect!

If I have motivated even one soul to purchase this masterwork, then I have accomplished the goal of this review. Money could not be better spent.

Jesus Christ Never Existed.
'Jesus of Nazareth' is a famous film some people have seen or at least heard about. Most people fail to realize all of that doesn't matter because Jesus Christ never existed!! Jesus Christ is a mythological figure the church has exploited for hundreds of years and now the film industry has for almost a hundred years. There is absolutely no archeological or historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Even if he did exist, it would be highly unlikely he would have received that kind of punishment.
It is a shame that con artists like these filmmakers are using this mythological figure to make millions of dollars. People have to start swaying away from the manipulations of the church and the filmmaking industry and start looking at the hard facts. Jesus Christ and his crucifixion never happened.

Realistic interpretation
Each movie of the life of Jesus is subject to the creator's interpretation and perspective, however, I found this movie to be the best depiction of the humanity of the individuals involved in experiencing Jesus' mission. It is respectable and not corny. The only thing my father (a priest) found odd was the way the Virgin Mary was wailing at the foot of Christ's cross. He felt she would have displayed quiet resignation.
It's beautiful and the score is fantastic. I've watched this movie a million times and watch it when I need some spiritual renewal.

Jesus of Nazareth Music
I watched on the first for the first time yesterday the DVD movie Jesus of Nazareth on my computer. All of my some previous negative emotions of the film were replaced with honest love. Good pc equipment will enhance your feelings. I spent the day watching the complete movie. I played 'ALL' the correct songs to the movie. You need to play some songs to comprehend the true concept of the movie. The songs do not waver true Christian beliefs. I played near 20 original concept songs. If you're looking for love about faith then this is the movie for you. ... Read more

Reviews (52)

Though Not Perfect, A Good Introduction To Opera
That should sum up the schism viewers have for Zefferelli's opera film starring Placido Domigo and Teresa Stratas. There is no question about the supremacy of the film visually. The famous Italian director has made excellent, quality drama and opera as film in the 60's, 70's and 80's; among them the 1968 Romeo and Juliet, Verdi's Othello (also with Domingo) and the 1991 Hamlet starring Mel Gibson. Zefferelli lavishes his films with artistry and lush photography, especially striking are his sweeping locales and precise camerawork. For Verdi's tragic romance, he has selected a fine location that is meant to resemble the French countryside, luxurious interior "ballroom" scenes, effective lighting and contrast, and actors and actresses that look the part. Vocally speaking, the only reason you should get this opera is the tremendous talent of Placido Domingo. He is the equivalent of Enrico Caruso for the twentieth century, an incarnation of the master, appearing handsome and earthy, as well as singing and acting his roles as any Hollywood star would approach the role (could they sing opera that is ). As the lovestruck Alfredo, his arias are striking and reveal great character, especially his "Un Di Felice", his "De Mei Bolenti Spiriti" "O Mio Rimorso" and his final duet "Parigi O Cara". Teresa Stratas looks the part, she is pale and delicate, exotically beautiful as the dying courtesan Violetta. But she has vocal limitations, especially in the higher registers. She has no warmth to her voice and has rather limpid, straightforward vocal lines. The role of Violetta is not an easy role for most sopranos- the heroine must sing most of the time in the course of three acts, and each characterization differs from the other- in Act I she is a flirtatious, bubbly and charming, even operetta-like heroine where her aria "Sempre Libera" demands coloratura fireworks, and her cavatina "A Fors E Lui" requires mellow lyricism. This same type of lyricism, although sung to serve the theme of pathos and dramatic suffering, should be very clear through her duet with Germont in Act 2. These are the arias "Non Sepete" "Ditte A La Giovine" and "Morro La Mia Memoria". In Act 3, she must convey her immediate situation, she is dying and taking her last breath, urges Alfredo to remember her name and to remarry, consuming the audience with the portrayal that although she has been a glittering, amoral prostitute, she will die with God's forgiveness and the joy of having fallen deeply in love. Though vocally this is not the best La Traviata, this is certainly a good introduction to opera. If you watch this film, you might be tempted to see a performance of La Traviata. For recordings of this classic masterpiece, you should go for your favorite soprano. Most go for Maria Callas and Joan Sutherland. I went for Beverly Sills, who sang the role a record 54 times in the space of 63 days, (no one but Sills could ever know the role of Violetta Valery) and who truly masters the role with dramatic, artistic value and sheer, tonal and vocal beauty. All in all, this is still a good film, despite the negative comments below my review.

La Traviata: Opera For Valentines
This 1982 opera-film is highly recommended. It's a perfect way to get into opera if you are a novice and seek to get deeply in love with opera. La Traviata might just do the trick. Franco Zefferelli was by this time a veteran Italian cinema director. He had directed such romantic classics as 1968's Romeo and Juliet. He has a flair for elaborate visuals and scenery. He selects gorgeous locations to shoot his films and drapes the characters with elegant costumes that they seem to come straight out of the 19th century itself. It's very clear that he spends much money and time on his films. He would also direct Shakespeare's Hamlet starring Mel Gibson in the early 90's. It was no secret that Zefferelli loved opera. An Italian man, the opera was a passion to him instilled since his youth. He loved Puccini operas and Verdi operas. Verdi's La Traviata must have been a real delight for him to direct and he always cast the best singers and actors. In this case, he was smart to cast Placido Domingo and Teresa Stratas as the tenor and soprano lovers Alfredo and Violetta. This opera is given a film treatment- there is enough room for the singers to act as well. The film is made in a retrospective style. Alfredo, the romantic lead, is remembering the one year he spent with Violetta and how she died tragically. It reminds me of the way that Baz Luhrman formatted Moulin Rouge, which has the same technique- boy meets girl, boy loses girl to death, boy is remembering their love story and re-telling it to an audience.

With opera, strong emotions are carried out through the dramatic musical score and through the singing, which is required to be sung with real feeling and passion. Placido Domingo, quite possibly the world's greatest tenor, sings with real substance and real passion, which we are inclined to believe springs naturally from his Spanish heritage. Placido Domingo is sensational as Alfredo, his romantic yearnings expressed in the Brindisi, in the "Un Di Felice" duet, throught Act 2's Flora Party's scenes and in the later portions of the opera, especially towards the end. Teresa Stratas, a Canadian soprano with exotic looks (she reminded people of Maria Callas) has an equally gorgeous and dramatic voice. It's greatly to her credit that she's a beautiful woman as well as actress, who can convince the audience as a frail, glamorous beauty who gives up the courtesan life to live with her true love only to meet with an ill fate. Suffering of tubercolosis (or possibly a sexually trasmitted disease like syphillis but Verdi was'nt going to shock everyone with that much information in his opera) Violetta hides her secret torment by giving herself over to decadent pleasures. She lives it up during the Belle Epoque in Paris as a high-class hooker, owns a villa in the country and has many lovers. But she finally finds meaning in her life when she falls in love with Alfredo, a gentleman caller and one-time client of hers. But Alfredo's father disapproves of their love simply because Violetta is a courtesan or has had a past as a lady of the night. He convinces Violetta to give up Alfredo. The tension builds as Violetta and Alfredo are temporarily seperated. For Violetta, tragedy strikes. She becomes increasingly ill to the point she is confined in bed. Teresa Strats delivers her best work in the last act, in which she is reunited with Alfredo only to die in his arms. Her "Addio Del Passato" is heartbreaking as is her death scene, even if she may lack the brilliance and vocal fireworks for the Act 1 aria "Sempre Libera" and even perhaps the "Amami Alfredo " farewell scene. This is a perfect film to watch on the day dedicated to love- Valentine's Day.

The Supreme La Traviata: A Masterpiece
This is without a doubt the greatest version of La Traviata ever produced.On DVD, it's unbelievably gorgeous and features production notes and cast bios as well as a trailer. The forces behind this masterpiece are responsible for its greatness- Italian director and designer Franco Zefferelli, tenor Placido Domingo, soprano Teresa Stratas and baritone Cornell McNeil. The singers are at the top of their game, Domingo is a young, sexy Alfredo and Teresa Stratas IS Violetta Valery in a performance that even Maria Callas would envy. Zefferelli had Maria Callas in mind when he cast Teresa Stratas. Like Callas, Stratas has a Greek background through her parents though she was Canadian born, she has the same type of voice and she is in Zefferelli's own words "an electrifying actress and soprano of the lyric entertainment". The Callas connection is most obvious when Stratas appears in a black veiled gown in Act 2 at Flora's party where even her hair is similar to Callas' infamous 50's performances.

Released in 1982, Zefferelli sought to "convert" people into opera lovers through the lush visual seduction of the cinema. This is exactly what he did. The cinematography of this film kills you with excessive beauty. The opening credits roll as we see scenes of Paris in the Notre Dame Cathedral area and surrounding residential district by the Seine river. The interior of Violetta Valery's mansion, where she hosts the Act 1 party, is luxurious and Zefferelli allows us to be dizzied with the sheer opulence of the house- gilded mirrors, portraits of Violetta, curtains, chandeliers etc. Visually on film we are able to tell things about the characters that stage performances do not, for example as the guests depart from Act 1's party, an old woman steals a silver box from Violetta proving to us that Violetta is not among real friends, these are only fair-weathered friends and bad ones at that. They were not even there for her when she was dying in the finale.

The beginning of the film has Violetta reminiscing about the better days as a desirable and wealthy courtesan who partied all the time. She is deathly ill and already her house is sold and men are moving her things out. The country scenes are incredibly beautiful as Violetta and Alfredo live happily in seclusion. Alfredo rides his horse and Violetta picks flowers for her greenhouse and feeds her white doves in their big cage. Cornell McNeil's bombastic but fatherly Giorgio Germont is a great support to the refined performances of Domingo and Stratas. The Flora's party scene is exceptional with even more visual beauty as Gypsies and bullfighters dance seductively and professional gamblers enjoy themselves. The closing ensemble is not to be missed and neither is the melancholy and tragic ending. Conductor James Levine leads the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra and Chorus. Once again, this is the greatest and ultimate version of La Traviata ever made. It is a must have for opera fans and for curious non-opera lovers. Other films Domingo made after this film are Carmen in '84 and Verdi's Othello in 86. Teresa Stratas is the greatest Violetta and she will win your heart with her convincing performance as the sickly, passionate and self-sacrificing courtesan whose love for Alfredo redeems her and gives her happiness even if she dies at the end.

Almost perfect
I loved this film. Only about 20 minutes were excised from the score, it was nearly complete. At greater length in the other reviews can be read descriptions of the ballet, breathtakingly beautiful scenery, particularly effective arias. Domingo and Stratas were wonderful. I have Stratas in Boheme on DVD (to replace my original VHS), it made me cry. Traviata made me cry. Can you call anything so painful beautiful? The music was of course glorious. The principals acted and sang to perfection, and of course frail diminutive Stratas looked the part. The movie began interesting, then became wonderful at the first party with the drinking song, then lost interest for me for some time, then picked up again and never let up. The camera-work and crowd scenes were brilliantly done. (I don't like to use the word "brilliant" because it sounds so affected, but I will.) I resent the reviews that call this a good introduction to opera, as though it were somehow inferior to "real opera," I find it condescending, supercilious, pompous and demeaning. However, I gave a copy of the movie to a close friend of mine who also cried, watched it twice and loved it, and this was I think her first opera. It is very beautiful music, well-acted, well-directed, well-sung and with scenery beyond belief.

Traviata agotada
Parece que la extraviada (Traviata)realmente esta muy enferma al final ya que la escena esta incompleta. esto no deberia asombrarnos ya que Zeffirelli hizo algo peor con su Otello con su recortada aria del Sauce. Excepto este detalle no tan importante como el Otello, la pelicula es muy bella aunque para los puristas, entre los que me incluyo humildemente quizas por mi condicion de Profesor de Apreciacion Musical, encuentro en ella tal como note en la Carmen de Migenes y Domingo, ruidos innecesarios que en la presentacion en un teatro serian imperdonables; al fin y al cabo lo importante es la musica y no los extras caprichosos de Zeffirelli. A pesar de estos pequenos detalles la presentacion es maravillosa; las cuatro estrelas en vez de cinco obedecen a estas para algunos quizas necedades. Para mi repito, soy un purista y pienso en la intencion siempre del compositor. Recomiendo la version de Beverly Sills y ni se diga la de Angela Ghiorgiu, superiores excepto los tenores ya que Placido Domingo sigue siendo el mejor. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The second half of this recording is an important item in the too-scantyvideo discography of Maria Callas. Matched with another great singing actor,Tito Gobbi as the lecherous, hypocritical Scarpia, she participates in a textbookdemonstration of how Act II of Tosca should be performed. Thereis a subtlety and nuance in their interactions that one seeks in vain in later,technologically more advanced videos. With a murder onstage, torture offstage,sexual harassment, and deep anguish (beautifully expressed in "Vissi d'arte"), this act provides rich opportunities for these performers, and they take fulladvantage. You may hear it better sung; you are not likely to see itbetter acted. The first half, a 1964 recital, offers less scope for acting, and Callas's voiceis slightly past its prime, but she performs impressively in the mezzo range intwo arias from Carmen.--Joe McLellan ... Read more

Reviews (6)

BRILLIANT!
It's the TOSCA segment that surpasses everything! Besides the superlative vocal aspect - it is her incredible acting that impresses ...... before the 'murder' - the partaking of a goblet of wine - just to 'calm' the nerves - then realizing that the alcohol is taking effect [stress?] she puts her hand over the glass - fingers twitch nervously ... etc. etc. GREAT subtext!

.... confused?

No, no - this rare example of Callas skills as a talented actress is not to be missed - often imitated - the original is the one to see.

Pity so little is left though.

"THIS is the kiss of Tosca!"
And she plunges the dagger into the breastbone of her tormenter, Scarpia, and then it gets really good. She rises
over him as he staggers back mortally wounded and roars, "Did you torture me enough?...And so I forgive you." Most everyone loves the firey brilliance and dramatic dash of a Callas performance, even if her voice isn't that pleasant sometimes. This is a pair of thirty-minute black & white BBC TV programs from 1962 and 1964, the first a concert consisting of three arias, and the second a staging of Act II of Tosca with Tito Gobbi (who was also the finest Baron Scarpia ever). Just a taste, then, of someone who needed to be filmed for her legend to be fully appreciated. If only they had captured her Norma and Lucia of the mid-fifties--JE REGRET!

horrible
I am stunned at the acting and even worst the singing. In the second act. Callas's gestures and body movements-awkward, and hutchback remind me of the wicked witch in snow white.
This is the biggest hype of all time.

O My Goodness!
I first heard about this performance (Tosca) nearly 30 years ago when I was a teenager and new to the world of opera. Since then it had stuck in the back of my mind, occasionally being brought intensely to the forefront whenever a snippet of it was shown during the occasional documentary.

Here it is, after three decades, it's going on 2 a.m., and I've had one of the most profound experiences in recorded opera.....whew!

First of all, this is a barebones dvd: Chapter list and some brief but interesting notes in the accompanying liner.

Then there are the performances...Callas in concert at Covent Garden in 1962. "Tu che la vanità" from Don Carlos, plus the Habanera and Seguedille from Act 1 of Carmen. Callas sings with the expected intensity in the Verdi, and with atypical jovolity and coyness in the Bizet, which are all ably conducted by the young Georges Prêtre. If this were the entire content of this dvd, it would be worth the cost.

But along comes Act 2 of Tosca, from two years later. Holy Toledo! Renato Cioni sings Cavaradossi just adaquetely, and not really serving a whole lot of dramatic purpose with a standard performance. Robert Bowman as Spoletta and Dennis Wicks as Sciaronne are better in their acting, but not very impressive vocally. The conductor, Cillario, leads without much insight...again, standard opera fare.

Obviously, the big bucks went to Callas, Gobbi, and Zeffirelli who all certainly earned their pay. Callas and Gobbi had seen better days vocally, especially Callas who, though in pretty good voice, sounds downright nasty here and there. But those very few exceptions are far and few in between.

Here are two masters, two artists at the very top of their craft, two legendary performers giving a definitive performance of sight and sound. From the beginning of the act, Gobbi dominates with a presence that few could ever hope to do. And when Callas finally enters, the sparks fly. Nearly every gesture, every vocal inflection, every subtle nuance carries weight that cannot be measured. There are very very few moments of stage mannerisms, so complete are their portrayals. While not always pretty vocally, they show off to the world why they dominated the opera stage during their prime. The intensity they create together is incredible, seldom letting up in the cat and mouse game they play.

Technically, the picture is good, but not great.Pretty good by early 60's television standards. The camera work for the most part is well done, save for a few instances of poor angles or exclusionary closeups that can be pretty frustrating.Overall, it is quite good.

Zeffirelli, the ultra conservative, directs a wonderful production,but when you go back in time, you see how little he really changes over the years.

For all it's relatively minor shortcomings, this is one of the greatest operatic moments on film. The earlier clips are priceless, but after a (literally) hair raising Tosca, you may barely remember them! 5 stars to the 10th power! Thank you EMI!

Tosca, finalmente mia! ...
Finally we have the 1962 Covent Garden concert on DVD (previously it was available only on VHS). Of course, for many Callas fans, the coulomb lapse at the end of "tu che vanita" is piece of cake, but this is not the only reason to have this sound document. Maria is relaxed and her voice is is good condition (you will not hear any problems in the upper register here). She is happy and that's all we need from and outstanding artist. One should physically see the young Georges Pretre (with whom Callas recorded in these years Carmen). He conducts in the very extraordinary way, especially the I and III Act preludes from Carmen. The (1964) II act of Tosca with Gobbi and Cioni is an valuable material where Callas shows that she is still THE Queen. Gobbi is a little in rush and one can see that he was getting old. You cannot compare this performance with the 1958 Paris Gala concert (also with Maria, available on DVD). There is not that charm anymore... But despite all the pros and cans, this DVD is an additional step in the journey of the Callas appreciation; and you know that video is always a big deal in opera. Buy it today and you will be fascinated with the presence of Callas! ... Read more

Reviews (96)

This version is just "eh".
This review contains many spoilers, so you might not want to read it if you haven't read the book.

First of all, Jane Eyre is my favorite book. I love it so much because it is romantic, feminist, exciting and mysterious. It would be extremely difficult for any movie to do the novel justice.

Still, this version COULD have been better. Charlotte Gainsbourg did look very much how I imagined Jane, but she always came across as so cold. It's true that in the book Jane does not always express how she feels, but she is not as stony as Miss Gainsbourg portrays her.

William Hurt wasn't the best Rochester, either. I don't know what they were thinking, casting a blonde, conventionally handsome actor to play the dark and brooding Mr. Rochester! It even says on the back of the box something like, "Jane Eyre falls for her rich and HANDSOME employer..." I'm sure Charlotte Bronte would have been insulted that her character was changed to the point of blasphemy. Elle McPherson as Blanche Ingram was pretty bad too.

I did like Anna Paquin as young Jane though, and the elderly woman who played Mrs. Fairfax was perfect.

It's not just the acting that bothered me...I think they ruined three of my favorite scenes. The first is the scene in which Mr. Rochester dresses up as a Gipsy woman to find out if Jane loves him. This is a WONDERFUL passage in the book, and every version of Jane Eyre I have ever seen always leaves it out! I have a feeling that they originally filmed this scene, but they ended up having to cut it so the movie wouldn't be too long. So I was disappointed about that.

The second scene I didn't like was when Mr. Rochester proposes to Jane. When I read it in the book it brought tears to my eyes, because it was so beautiful and passionate, but in this movie it just falls flat.

Mr. Rochester: Duhhh, I love you. Will you marry me? Jane: Mmm, sure, why not.

OK, so maybe I'm exaggerating a little, but that's how it felt to me. That scene was severely downplayed; it didn't move me at all. And why didn't they film it in the garden by the big tree, like it is in the book? I thought that was an important detail.

I also thought it was cheesy how they showed Thornfield burning down JUST when Jane was leaving! Please, she just walked out the door and she doesn't even stop or notice when the mansion catches on fire? I think this was done for dramatic effect, but it came across to me as ridiculous.

Still, I give the movie 2 stars, because although Mr. Hurt didn't really look his part, he did an OK job of playing it. And I did like how they did the scene in which Mr. Rochester admits to having been married before, and presents Bertha Mason to everyone who was attending his and Jane's wedding. That was pretty well done, and pretty faithful to the book. I'd recommend this movie for that scene alone.

I think that above all, if a movie version of Jane Eyre is to be made, it MUST be faithful to the book. The novel is wonderful enough that they wouldn't have to change anything.

Very Good!
I really liked this movie! It was very good and was a little disapointed with the LOOK of the mad-person, but is still good but the 1944 adaption was a little better!

i like it!
Oh boy, I like this movie... and I like Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt. I don't know... I am a down to earth person, so I like Charlotte and William and how they played the characters. The Jane and Rochester also look like myself from time to time. I like them because they are Pisces and Cancer, in particular late Pisces and late Cancer (March 20 and July 22). I am a Scorpio.

Great as a movie in itself!!
I would highly recommend this as a great movie in itself rather than an accurate depiction of the book. Although it strays a little and there are large key parts missing, it's cleverly brought together and both Hurt and Gainsbourg do a fantastic job of creating the true demeanor of Erye and Rochester.

Not the best, but very good
I'll start with what impressed me about this. The two girls who played Jane (young and grown) were both perfect for the part visually. The older Jane had a sense of quiet intelligence and a gentle strength that gave her a certain charm. The man playing Rochester did quite a good job as well although it wasn't visually. I loved how he acted it, if only they could place his talent into another body. The scenery was gorgeous, just as I might have imagined it. It adheres to the story MOSTLY (the parts it did tell, that is). The music was astounding as well. Now, for the cons of this movie. First of all, it just simply left out SO MUCH of the story for it to be impactful! It also changed so much after Jane left Rochester to something less dreary than what really happened to her. If you haven't read the book, then this is fun to watch. If you have read the book though, and liked it, this version may insult you. I liked it overall though, it's not boring or corny. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A young Rick Schroder makes his cute-as-all-get-out film debut in this 1979 tearjerker from director Franco Zeffirelli. Jon Voight plays Billy Flynn, a former champion boxer now given to drinking, gambling, and raising his son T.J. (Schroder, billed here as Ricky) as best he can. The ups and downs of the devoted codependent pair might be enough movie on their own, but soon enough Annie (Faye Dunaway) shows up and displays a strangely protective interest in T.J. Though the plot jumps around too much to quite hold together, The Champ is certainly affecting, and all three leads take the film so earnestly that somehow it works. Voight is believable both as a boxer and as a well-intentioned screwup of a dad, and Schroder is a fine young actor (and irresistibly adorable). Special DVD features include audio commentary from Jon Voight and Rick Schroder and the documentary Behind the Scenes with the Champ. --Ali Davis ... Read more

Reviews (31)

A Real Tearjerker.
I loved this film from start to finish. I just bought the DVD from Amazon and it played all the way through, no problem. I was a little worried when I ordered it because I read the other customer's reviews and had problems with the DVD being defective. I first saw this film in 1996 when I was 11 when I missed it on TV and I rented it from the video store. I liked the part where the Champ (Jon Voight) gave T.J. (Ricky Schroder) the horse and it touched my heart. The part in scene 17 where Annie (Faye Dunaway) reveals to T.J. that she is his mother is a little disturbing. There is a little foul language in it, but other than that it is a great film for the family.

When you watch this film, don't forget the Kleenex box and this is one of the films that really made me cry. I recommend this film to everyone!

10/10

The one movie that still makes me cry
The Champ is an astounding motion picture directed by Franco Zeffirelli with outstanding performances by Jon Voight, Faye Dunaway and the unbelievably convincing Ricky Schroder.

The movie is the best intimate melodramatic tearjerker that I have ever seen. One view of this film will leave you with a lump in your throat and teary eyes, the next viewings will just leave you in plain tears. Yes, its that kind of movie that you'd see more than once and still feel engaged.

Jon Voight plays former boxer Billy Flynn who is down on his luck raising his son TJ, played by Schroder, alone after his wife, played by Dunaway, left him and the boy and went on to marry a millionaire after he falls out of his life of boxing, doctor's orders. The movie brings you close to the lives of all three of these characters, you feel their pain, their grief, and their emptiness. Billy has turned to drinking to escape the pain of not being able to return to boxing to support a family. TJ does not know his mother since she left him when he was still an infant, and still sees his deadbeat father as a hero, calling him 'champ'. Faye Dunaway's character can't seem to cope with the fact that her son has grown up believing she is dead and can only take him as a friend after bumping into him at a horserace, the horse that 'champ' bought him was competing in this race. The story begins to unfold when the three characters enter each other's lives again.

What's more beautiful about this movie is its musical score. The music is really another character in the film, and is quite breathtaking.

Highly Recommended

A

I Haven't seen The Original But This Remake is Very Good
I haven't seen the original movie that starred Wallace Beery and Jackie Cooper but I saw this remake starring Jon Voight and Rick Schroder and I thought it was a very good movie with great acting from Jon Voight and a young Rick Schroder (Billed as Ricky Schroder back then). It is a tearjerker filled with some sad moments but it's such a good movie and I recommend it.

defective DVD
Movie is excellent after I bought the DVD it would just play up to scene 14 and skip to the end..they replaced it and it was the same thing.. I finally had to go rent the movie and watch it...strong performance by both actors...movie is a ***** (five star) but not on DVD

The Champ
There is only one other movie of this kind that can stand up to the test of time & that is Shane with Alan Ladd. There is no way to aptly describe either other than to see both of these fine videos. Ricky (Rick) did an outstanding job as he really didn't act, he lived the part. Everyone would love to have this boy as his or her child. All of the actors made this movie what it is---GREAT! ... Read more

Reviews (13)

opera is so misunderstood
As one who directs opera for a living, I am dismayed by some of the comments by other reviews here. They sound like they were written by college students trying to impress themselves with their new-found intelligence. They could never dream of making a film on this scale. I was greatly moved when I first saw this film. Yes, the willow song is missing. Why? Because it doesn't (as beautiful as it is) further the dramatic story. Would I cut it from the staged version? No. But, what people many involved in the field often forget is that opera was always intended as a synthesis of the dramatic and musical arts. It is NOT just about the music. A good director tells a story. In addition, telling a story in film is not the same as telling a story on the stage. When people see this film (and I have shown it to many) they love it! They even weep at the end. Of course these are people who have no preconceived notions or generally have not seen the staged version. It does its job. It is absolutely beautiful, powerful, breathtaking and dramatic. Iago getting harpooned was a stroke of genius. We all wanted it. Composers write the music and do not pretend to write the staging. So what--if it wasn't written in the score as a dramatic notation. The film did not draw attention to the director but had the opposite effect--it drew us into a different world and made me personally forget that I was watching a film. That is the mark of a good director. Were their flaws? Sure. But all artists are flawed. Get over it. This is a monumental work. From a dramtic standpoint, I prefer it to most staged productions. If you want something from a musical standpoint, get the CD. Those who hate the fact that opera is a synthesis, should stay out of the opera house. The art form has been ruined by these kinds of people (especially at the Met) where fat singers dying of consumption "park and bark" their way through a piece intended to be dramatic--where two singers will stand on opposite sides of the stage and sing undying love to one another without any connection at all. Bravo to directors who are not afraid to take risks and actully tell a believable story.

I agree with Mr. Moreno.
This is one of the most disappointing opera (film) I have ever seen. Not because it was particularly bad. I still rate it highly. But because of several senseless blunders. Otherwise, it could have achieved legendary status.

Mr. Zeffirelli makes a mysterious decision to insert a ballet music in first act only to cut off the Desdemona's beautiful willow song later in act 4. Even worse, he cut off another famous duet "Si, pel ciel marmoreo giuro" (Otello-Iago, end of act 2) in the middle. I mean in the MIDDLE! I, too, believe Otello-Desdemona duet in the end of act 1 without sound effects, but I can live with it. To me, it is just a joke to claim one can stand cracks and hissings of old recordings and dislikes movie sound effects.

Singings and actings were generally good. Domingo's Otello was superb, Ricciarelli's Desdemona was good. Was beautiful, too, physically, in addition to vocally. Diaz has neither Gobbi's evil darkness (with Vickers- Rysanek-Seraffin, RCA) nor Leiferkus' disgusting lightness (with Domingo-Studer-Chung, DG). I didn't like his Iago very much. However, the visual effect for his "Credo in un Dio" was spectacular. When pondering about death and afterlife, Zeffirelli shoots sky looked through a well and then a bottomless pit at the other side, as he sings "E poi? E poi?" before he bursts out "La Morte e il Nulla". I'll give my thumb up only for this one scene. Overall, this film is a mixture of such ingenuity and insensitivity.

Wrong transfer speed is set, but otherwise a beautiful film
as soon as I played this DVD, I knew something was terribly wrong. after comparing it to a few other recordings, I found out what: this film has been set at the wrong transfer speed, and sounds either a half-tone, or even a whole-tone, lower than it should be. so Domingo sounds like a baritone, Diaz like a bass, and Ricciarelli like a mezzo.

visually, however, it is pure Zefferelli; absolutely amazing. the camera work is letter-perfect. And despite the transfer speed, the musical performance is still wonderful, with Domingo sounding at his best. Diaz is a fantastic singer and actor, much more convincing than Milnes ever was (sorry, Milnes fans); Ricciarelli sings beautifully and looks stunning. The supporting roles, chorus, and orchestra are excellent.

If MGM hadn't made this error, I would have given this 5 stars. The wisest choice is to get the soundtrack, which has the right transfer speed, and also has everything this film cut (the Willow Song is, unfortunately, not here, and the list of other cuts is as long as my arm). so definately get this film, but better to get the soundtrack.

Let it be your first Otello
This is, hands down, the best performance of Otello. Domingo is a pretty good actor on his own, but Zefferelli really unleashes Domingo's true potential as a pure acting force. It is said that Lawrence Oliver saw Domingo plsy Otello and said "He plays him as well as i do, AND he has that voice!" That being said, some of the cuts are understandable, most are annoying. But i believe most of the cuts are only annoying to those people who know the score well enough to hear the change of a phrase. I would reccomend this as a firs Otello, because it is at the heart of what Verdi was getting at, a drama through music. Cuts such as "Questa un ragna" and the giant choral piece at the end of Desdemona's "A terra...si..." are beautiful, but hardly dramatically viable. But cuts, such as in the final seen in the "Che le...otello" really ruin the drama in that section i feel. Part of the genius of that section is the way that the music intensifies as the drama intensifies, and Zefferelli doesn't allow that to happen. However, this is nitpicking on my part. Zefferelli's Otello is a beautiful piece, the performances are more convincing than any other production i've other seen, so he cut a little. He had a reason. I don't know it. You don't know it. Enjoy it for what it is.

Great or Horrible?
Well, to start, I am huge fan of Otello, Domingo and Zeffirelli. But somehow I was disappointed (sometimes a lot!) with this movie.

Before I bought the DVD I had read some reviews, and most reviewers were chocked by the cuts in the score and I always thought: big deal. But when I watched it I understood: THERE IS ABOUT 25 min OF CUTS!!! Most of Otellos (Levine's, Karajan's, Toscanini's) are about 2h15. This one is 1h55 with over 10 min of music and ballet that Verdi never wrote (You do the math, and remember that Maazel's tempi are much slower than Toscanini's). Also, not only are these cuts of arias or ensembles, but even worse: Phrases are just cut off here and there throughout the Opera. The 1000 words allowed for the review won't be enough to enumerate them. Why??? A reviewer argued that it's to enhance the drama!! Come on, are you going to convince me that the finale of Act II (Si, pel Ciel) needs enhancement. Even this part is cut, and worse it's "Cut IN HALF AND I MEAN IN HALF" as another reviewer pointed.

So what does go right?
Well the scenary is amazing and I mean amazing. But what about the performance (this is Opera after all). Well again much can be said. Domingo once said that his performance was very much influenced by Zeffirelli. He wanted him to go into some deep barytonal voice (à la Ramon Vinay of you will), and the performance suffers.
Maazel conducting is far from being ideal. Should he be blamed? Well yes, like most of the singers who agreed to represent Zeffirelli's Otello and not Verdi's.

Finally, one of the reviewer said that Zeffirelli tried to "adapt" the opera and those who dislike is are not open-minded. Oh Please! When you buy Verdi's Otello, you are expecting to hear some of the most beautiful music ever written adapted to one of the most successfull libretto and won't expect the director to cut off about 25 min of the score.

It is normal to be disappointed. With a cast like this one and a director like Zeffirelli (his Traviata, Cav. Rusticana, and Traviata are awesome) we could have had the most successful opera movie Ever....

Finally, I need to point out that one who doesn't know Otello "as is" could be thrilled with this version. It is after all a real beautiful movie. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This is a highly professional, sometimesoutstanding production of one of Verdi's greatest operas. With lavish staging by Franco Zeffirelli and distinguished performances by Luciano Pavarotti (Don Carlo) and Samuel Ramey (King Philip), as well as the La Scala Orchestra and Chorus, under Riccardo Muti, it can be recommended as the best available DVD edition of the four-act version that Verdi prepared in response to complaints about the production expense and the length (nearly four hours) of his five-act original.

The hard choice for a prospective owner is between the four-act andthe five-act versions. Riccardo Muti, like most conductors today,omits the first act, set in the forest of Fontainebleau, in whichDon Carlo meets and falls in love with the French PrincessElisabeth, who was his fiancée but instead, tragically, becomes hisstepmother. This is a serious omission of thematically powerfulmaterial, and James Levine and the Metropolitan Opera includeit, beautifully produced, in their all-star video with Placido Domingoin the title role. --Joe McLellan ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Good Don Carlo.
I still prefer The Met production with Domingo, however, I bought this for Sam Ramey's performance as King and certainly wasn't disappointed! He was great! Dessi was a pleasant surprise as Elizabetta! Enjoyed her performance very much! Pav is much better than usual, thinner and more animated. It was well known that his voice cracked on a high note during one of the performances of this run without anyone mentioning the thousands he has hit and, of course, the audience booed. If it was during this one, they fixed with dubbing. Why any major stars put up with the audience behavior at La Scala and Muti's tantrums is still a mystery. The only weak voice was Cano's as Rodrigo - too much vibrato for my taste but his acting was acceptable. Sets were grand if somewhat lifeless. The costumes were beautiful but somewhat colorless which gave the whole effect a dark and somber look. The minor characters were well sung and the orchestra sometimes too loud but colored nicely and chorus sounded just fine. Enjoyed it as a different version when I'm tire of watching The Met and the French verson from the Chatelet in Paris. Both of which I rank above this one. A definite good buy if Pav and Dessi fan and a "must have" if you love Ramey! I look forward to sharing it with friends who haven't seen it and consider it a worth addition to the collection. ... Read more