Amazon.com essential video

Accompanied by a menagerie of products, Ken Burns's expansive 10-episode paean, Jazz, completes his trilogy on American culture, following The Civil War and Baseball. Spanning more than 19 hours, Jazz is, of course, about a lot more than what many have called America's classical music--especially in episodes 1 through 7. It's here that Burns unearths precious visual images of jazz musicians and hangs historical narratives around the music with convincing authority. Time can stand still as images float past to the sound of grainy vintage jazz, and the drama of a phonograph needle being placed on Louis Armstrong's celestial "West End Blues" is nearly sublime.

The film is also potent in arguing that the history of race in the 20th-century U.S. is at jazz's heart. But a few problems arise. First is Burns's reliance on Wynton Marsalis as his chief musical commentator. Marsalis might be charming and musically expert, but he's no historian. For the film to devote three of its episodes to the 1930s, one expects a bit more historical substance. Also, Jazz condenses the period of 1961 to the present into one episode, glossing over some of the music's giant steps. Burns has said repeatedly that he didn't know much about jazz when he began this project. So perhaps Jazz, for all its glory, would better be called Jazz: What I've Learned Since I Started Listening (And I Haven't Gotten Much Past 1961). For those who are already passionate about jazz, the film will stoke debate (and some derision, together with some reluctant praise). But for everyone else, it will amaze and entertain and kindle a flame for some of the greatest music ever dreamed. --Andrew Bartlett ... Read more

Reviews (118)

The Best Series on Jazz, Despite Its Flaws
I am a jazz musician, son of a jazz musician, am conservatory trained, and this series stands toe to toe with the best lectures by the best music historians and music theory experts I have studied with. If Ken Burns chose to follow a the pillars of jazz in depth rather than give ten minutes to every musician to come along in the past hundred years, we are better for it. If you want ten minutes on each musician, read liner notes. Mr. Burns series will be remembered precisely because it does go into such depth. Bird, Duke, Pops and Dizzie do not come clear to you without much study. We should be grateful for the fact that this series is anything but shallow. It is true to the art. If this series, because of such depth, asks more of viewers than they want to give, then let such viewers only seeking entertainment seek that. Americans, everything is not entertainment.

Jazz itself, from its outset and to this very day, asks more of you than any other music. A series about it should do no less.

This series is not perfect. Jazz is also imperfect. As Thelonius Monk said, there are no wrong notes. So are there no bad jazz documentaries, as long as they are unflinching, whole, and about the forces that shaped the music. This one is. It's only real flaw is that it is too in love with its own story and the music. That is entirely forgiveable.

If you have any interest in jazz, buy or rent this series and watch each one like a student, and learn in wonder at the extraordinary music brought to us by African Americans. It is one of the glories of American culture, and of the world, and we should join Ken Burns, his historians, critics and musicians in joyously celebrating the collective creation of the geniuses that graced our land in the past 100 years.

"History," "Documentary," "Theory of" are not in the title.
The negative reviews of this series assume that Burns is compiling a documentary, writing a historical survey, or undertaking some theoretical analysis of jazz. Burns is above all a biographer. His primary interest is in the life of a particular artist, solider, athlete, explorer, etc.: the overall trajectory of their lives--the choices they make, the risks they are or aren't willing to take, their sufferings in the face of prejudice, misunderstanding, and failure--and how the individual life fits within the larger social context. Hence his emphasis on annecdote, personal letter and photograph, character analysis, and why he has baseball players and actors and club owners as well as scholars and musicians commenting on these people. And why he traces the entire career of someone like Louis Armstrong or Billy Holiday, rather than devoting more time to contemporary muscians whose story it is still too young to be told. Everything else is secondary to this main concern, and to miss this focus is to miss the point of all Ken Burns' documentaries. To grasp it is to experience life within a wider, wiser, almost epic, context. The so-called jazz expert who is miffed over some apparent omission, or overemphasis, or seeming bias, is like the librarian who has all the books catalogued and all the facts at their fingertips but can't see that they might refer to something outside the four walls of their narrow expertise.

Provides a very useful orientation
Jazz is a relatively recent interest for me--maybe half a dozen years. I'd learned about scattered fragments of jazz, but never developed a systematic understanding, a clear orientation--though a couple of times I'd tried: I bought Gary Giddons' "Visions of Jazz," for instance, which is very good but just didn't capture my imagination.

Ken Burns' "Jazz" gave me what I've been wanting for years--a clear, evocative, comprehensive way into the genre as a whole.

Okay, it may not be the last word on the history of jazz. Yeah, some things really irritated me--like the slighting, mentioned by many, of Bill Evans, and the excessive excision of many white musicians to make the generally accurate point that jazz springs more from the experience of Black Americans. (Hint to Burns: You make your argument stronger by showing how apparently contrary data fit, not by leaving them out.) But over all, I found this a very helpful overview. And I enjoyed getting to know the biographies of, and the personal relations among, the players.

You won't likely get such an orientation from buying a few of the original CDs *instead* of the "Jazz" series. Few of us have the ears or training to discern what's taught in this series. You'd be highly unlikely to realize that, for instance, what was new with Be-Bop is improvising on the underlying chord changes rather than the melody. You'd really have to be perceptive and paying attention to notice what distinguishes Kansas City jazz from New Orleans jazz from New York jazz from West Coast jazz. And *no* album can place *itself* in history. For instance, you cannot learn from listening to an album featuring Coleman Hawkins-or Charlie Christian or Kenny Clarke--that *before* that album people played very differently. In short, you'd have to be far better trained musically and far more observant than most of us are, and listen to dozens (if not hundreds) of albums, to learn what this series teaches.

As I watched over a period of a couple of weeks, I bought several of the CDs that Burns produced to survey the music, and I found them very instructive. No, as listening experiences, they're not as good as some of the various albums on which the cuts originated. But that's not the point: They are very good ways to get an overview, to get oriented, to know where to go next.

After seeing this series and studying the accompanying CDs, when I go into the music store and start perusing the jazz disks, I find that I recognize a whole lot more and can surmise a whole lot better what's what and what would interest me. For instance, tonight I saw "From Spirituals to Swing," a three CD set of Carnegie Hall jazz concerts in 1938 and 1939. A month ago, the list of personnel would have meant near-nothing to me--I probably wouldn't have even known what I was looking at, and I doubt I would have looked at the thing for more than thirty seconds. Now, though, I studied and comprehended the personnel and got all excited--"This I gotta hear." So I bought it, and it's great.

Now, isn't that reason enough to recommend this series?

That the overall interpretive framework of the series may need correction is not a trenchant criticism, in my opinion. To get a comprehensive understanding of anything, you have to start with *some* systematic framework, which you can then modify, maybe even refute, as you encounter further data. Logically, the first such framework you acquire has to come from someone else, unless you are a genius of extremely wide learning.

No, Ken Burns' "Jazz" isn't the only guide to jazz you'll ever need--as others have noted, some of the omissions are glaring. But it's fine place to start.

If you really want to get a sense of jazz, this is an excellent investment, in my opinion. Yeah, it's pricey--but cheaper than, say, an adult education course on jazz appreciation at your local community college (if you include texts and other supporting material). And if you don't want to spend the money--well, you can hint real hard to your significant other that you'd like it for your birthday or Valentine or some such thing.

Postscript: I almost didn't buy this because of the characterization of Wynton Marsalis's role by several other reviewers here. I'd never much liked his music--it always seemed too cerebral, almost architectural, for my tastes--chilly, not very visceral. (That's just my personal taste--I also find most of Ella Fitzgerald--except her duo wok with Armstrong--a bit emotionally distant, unlike Sarah Vaughan or Billie Holiday or Carmen McRae or many others.)

I was skeptical about any documentary that made Marsalis the central story teller.

Well, two things: (1) He just isn't the central story teller here. He does not have anything approaching the majority of commentator air time. It is certainly true that he plays a role analogous to Shelby Foote's in "The Civil War"--he is a unifying presence, especially in the early going and toward the end. This is just good film making--to establish "characters" whose presence throughout helps give unity to the piece. (2) I really liked Wynton in this documentary. He came off as much earthier, more laid back, mischievous, funnier and more fun, than I ever would have imagined. And he is really quite illuminating, especially when he explains various musical concepts--like the "Big 4." (I went back and listened to "Thick in the South," thinking maybe I'd like his music more now. Nope. Still feels too thought-out, too chilly, to me. Oh, well.)

Could have been so much better
I guess it says something that I have gone back and watched Burns' "Civil War" documentary more than a dozen times since I first saw it, and have only watch "Jazz" once since the first time. The Civil War documentary certainly is rife with factual inaccuracies but by & large gets the essential story of the conflict right. "Jazz," on the other hand, treats its subject as though the last 40-50 years never happened. It is as though the Civil War documentary would have lingered over the years 1861-1863 incessantly, then sped through the last two years ("Oh yeah, there were a couple of battles, Atlanta burned, Lee surrendered, the war was over. The end." Something like that) as though they didn't matter.

As I found the documentary going into its umpteenth hour and we STILL weren't out of the 1930's yet, I had a bad feeling about where this was going. You would have thought that Louis Armstrong had been annointed as the Jazz Pope and he ruled over the world of jazz for 40 years. In his proper context, Armstrong is very important, but Burns seems positively fixated on him. He dwells on every facet of Armstrong's upbringing & early career. Unless he planned on making a 60-hour documentary, there was no way Burns could hope to do justice to the more recent history of the genre, and sure enough he basically hits the fast forward button once the be-bop era is coming to a close.

Personally, I cannot stand fushion jazz, but nonetheless some mention needs to made of a style that was dominant in jazz for almost as long as the swing style, for crying out loud. Also, relying almost exculsively on Wynton Marsalis (doing his best impression of a crochety old man on his front porch, railing at a world that has passed him by) really was not a good idea & imbues the entire documentary with a hopelessly retrograde flavor.

I watched it once, and came away disappointed. I watched it a second time, hoping that I could find more to appreciate, but only found that it continued to disappoint. I don't know if it merits any future viewings, and that is indeed a shame, because it is a subject that deserves better treatment than this.

Excellent for what it is
It's surprizing how vociferously some "snobs" condemn "Jazz" simply because it's not as comprehensive as they seem to think it should be. From reading these reviews you would think Ken Burns is a half-step above a holocaust-denier for not including Roland Kirk or Eric Dolphy. "Jazz" is a wonderful, inspiring and, yes, traditional look at the art form. Newcomers shouldn't be dissuaded because it's not as complete as it should be. ... Read more

Reviews (57)

The spirit and the Spirituals
Two days ago, I finished watching "Roots" ( the re-edited DVD version) , a series I scarcely remembered from my adolescent years. I remembered I had liked it. That was just about it.
Well.....now I'm 40, a musician (choral conductor and educator) and a profound lover of Spirituals and Gospel music. So....let me tell you that "Roots" moved the very bottom of my heart. I cried every episode, deeply touched by the sadness of the story but also by the invincible courage that has led African Americans through a hard history in the U.S. From my knowledge of Spirituals I've always admired this courage, this strength of the spirit reflected throughout all the melodic and rhythmic richness, ( "Hush...hush... Somebody's calling my name") the spiritual and physical beauty of a race, the deep and sincere approach to Christianity!
I think and I do hope that, someday, those "in power" all around the world will open their eyes and finally come to understand that racism, and all forms of discrimination, belong to the darkest and the most ignorant side of the human heart!
Just one last question: Is it possible to buy the printed Screenplay?
Santiago Zuleta. (Bogotá, Colombia)

The Roots of Roots
Warner Brothers has done a wonderful job in bringing David Wolper's 1977 television classic to DVD. This 3 DVD box set comes in an attractive tri-fold insert with an extensive chapter list and summary of each episode of the 573 minute production. The picture is colorful and sharp and the audio is a satifactory digital mono. The box claims "feature-length" audio commentary. Although commentary is extensive and entertaining, it does not run through the entire feature, constantly. There are also video commentaries on each disc from various people who worked on the film, which show highlights from the film as the actors speak on their memories. Some of actors have not aged well. There is also a behind-the-scenes documentary. My only quip is that one can not switch back and forth between the film's audio track and the commentary track at whim. One has to go to the main menu and switch to the commentary feature, much like Warner Brothers's release of Ben Hur, a mild irritation. There is a Spanish language track and English, French, Spanish subtitles. It is interesting to read the subtitles to study subtle nuances of the dialog. It is a pleasure to finally discard my 6 bulky, cumbersome tapes and replace them with 3 thin discs that I can access any portion instantly. If you love the story, you'll want to own this boxset.

Really sad!
All though i only saw first part of these mini-series it's really sad.How kuntah kinte and some other blacks were forced to be in a slaver,get sold to plantation owners and such.And its really heartwrenching when they abuse the slaves and hit them with their whips,anyways this is a cool series.You sometimes think how can other people have treated other people in the past like this.5/5!

Funny & Dramatic
I liked the movie. I mean, I'm kind of young but I really liked the movie. It was funny too. In the way it was funny was when like, they talk in these Southern accents when they come from New York, or something like that. The dramatic part is when they get raped and stuff like that. It's really sad to know that my people was treated like that. You know what I mean? Not the white people's people just the black peoples' people, you know. I think it was a good show. My favorite character was Kizzy my least favorite character was the overseers. You know, the slavemasters. Well, I liked the movie and I can't wait to see the Next Generation.

Great educational series
This is truly one of the great epic mini-series of all time. This series caused me to do research of my own. Everything told in this story happened at various places and times in the United States (both North and South) and some things even worse. One of the glaring things that was left out (that relates to modern times ) was the fact that many of the Africans were sold to Christian White European Slavers or their Black agents by conquering Arabic and Black Moslems (selling people who wouldn't convert to Islam) who were crusading through Africa (and still are). Why would the Whites want to risk getting hurt or killed when they had lots of people willing to gather this "Human" harvest for them? This program of Slavery continues today in Africa and Asia. While you can take my word or not this series should challenge people to find out the truth for themselves. Discover the true "Roots" of the modern world, not just America. Alex Haley did it, but be prepared...Alex didn't tell everything...he was being kind and politically correct. Ask yourself why Mr. Haley didn't become Moslem himself when he had many good friends (he was a very open minded man) who were Moslems. Could it be that he found the idea of converting to a religion that sold his ancestors into slavery unappealing. Buying this DVD and reading the book is a GREAT place to start, but don't stop at the PG version. ... Read more

Reviews (98)

This Movie Iz Crazy
Im am a 14 year old and I want to talk about the Movie Menace II Society.Menace II Society is the tightest Movie I ever saw since "Boyz N The Hood" & "South Central".It all started out as a young boy name Caine (Tyrin Turner) telling a story about surviving the streets for good.My favorite Scence is When Caine & O-Dog(Larenz Tate) was in the liquor store when these two got evloved in a murder by O-Dog kill the korean grocer and also killed the korean lady while O-Dog threatens to get the video tape from her.In The Movie, They mention O-Dog as "The American's Worst Nightmare" and They also mention that O-Dog is Young, Black, And Don't Give A [care]. They also have a cool soundtrack with MC Eith(Streith Up Menace) and all other cool artists.I Recommend this movie to everyone.If U love hood movies and u have not seeen it yet, nows it the time to spend your money and buy this classic.On the internet, they also mention the "Director's Cut"(which is Unrated and the orignal verison is an R-Rated Movie).So if you Moviegooer and u have not seen that movie yet, now's the time to get that movie.One more thing,The Directors Allen & Albert Hugues(From Hell,Dead Presidents) did an good job on this movie.

True 2 Life
Okay, since im from London, i cant accuratly depict if this is, or is not the real situations encountered by members of the LA public. But upon watching this for the first time, it really hit me that the horrific things portraid in this movie could happen to anyone of us.

Caine, the main focus of the movie, was brought up in a drug filled home, his father was a drug dealer, and his mother a heroin addict. Caine first saw someone be shot when he was just a child, as shown in the films early scenes. Following this his father is murdered in a fixed drug deal, and his mother overdoses, and dies.

Caines best friend O-Dogg is a 16year old, who, as is said in the movie is 'Americas worst nightmare', hes young, Black, and he just dont giv'a F***.

I wont spoil the movie by saying anymore, but take it from me this is one of the the best movies you will see in a long time, especially if you like the whole gang thing, it also has historical content of the 'Watt's rights'. I say buy it as soon as you can.

Powerful movie
This movie is a veery powerful movie. It will give you some laughs and then youll be crying. It is very moving and it wshows you what the ghetto is really about. Growing up and surviving in the hood is very hard and this movvie shows just how hard it is.

Top 10
Menace II Society is one of my Top 10 movies of all time. I could watch it 5 times a day every day. Tyrin Turner should have become a big star after this movie. This movie had great actors, a good storyline, and production. Just wanted to say he was in Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation video as the kid walking around that place, whatever it was, for some strange reason.

After Boyz in da hood
came this, a raw powered movie, that brings to the real of the early 90's South Central LA. This movie is pretty violent and gory, but yet it has a pretty strong message in it. Do you care wether you live or die?

Tyrin Turner(Kaydee) did a excellent dabut about a man who gets cought up in a situation he wants to get out of. Larenz Tate(O-Dog) is more of a straight up gangsta, but did a real good job at acting. Movies with strong messages like this make up for a excellent drama.

If you loved boyz in the hood and don't have this, that's a real shame, even if you didn't watch bouz in da hood, you should get this, and boyz in da hood as well, because those 2 movies are wll-worth the money.

peace ... Read more

Amazon.com

An epic in length and breadth, this documentary aims at nothing less than a full-scale portrait of the most dominant institution on the planet Earth in our lifetime--a phenomenon all the more remarkable, if not downright frightening, when you consider that the corporation as we know it has been around for only about 150 years. It used to be that corporations were, by definition, short-lived and finite in agenda. If a town needed a bridge built, a corporation was set up to finance and complete the project; when the bridge was an accomplished fact, the corporation ceased to be. Then came the 19th-century robber barons, and the courts were prevailed upon to define corporations not as get-the-job-done mechanisms but as persons under the 14th Amendment with full civil rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (i.e., power and profit)--ad infinitum.

The Corporation defines this endlessly mutating life-form in exhaustive detail, measuring the many ways it has not only come to dominate but to deform our reality. The movie performs a running psychoanalysis of this entity with the characteristics of a prototypical psychopath: a callous unconcern for the feelings and safety of others, an incapacity to experience guilt, an ingrained habit of lying for profit, etc. We are swept away on a demented odyssey through an altered cosmos, in which artificial chemicals are created for profit and incidentally contribute to a cancer epidemic; in which the folks who brought us Agent Orange devise a milk-increasing drug for a world in which there is already a glut of milk; in which an American computer company leased its systems to the Nazis--and serviced them on a monthly basis--so that the Holocaust could go forward as an orderly process.

The movie goes on too long, circles too many points obsessively and redundantly, and risks preaching-to-the-choir reductiveness by calling on the usual talking-head suspects--Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Moore. And except for an endlessly receding tracking shot in an infinite patents archive, there's scarcely an image worth recalling. Still, it maps the new reality. This is our world--welcome to it. --Richard T. Jameson ... Read more

Reviews (30)

Review of the Corporation
Like the behemoths it chronicles, The Corporation is monstrous in scope, clocking in at nearly two and a half hours.While none of the footage seems dispendable, the documentary could certainly have used some tightening up.If it had remained comitted to its subject matter, the history and structure of the corporation, it would have been more effective.The most useful parts were in the begining of the film, which really made me look at history differently: we see how the post Civil War treatment of the Corporation as an individual, in one legal decision, was actually one of the hugest paradigm shifts of the modern age.However, The Corporation goes on to tackle every single aspect of globalized, late capitalist life: advertising, marketing, branding, intellectual property.There is plenty of scholarship on marketing and advertising out there, and while the segments here were well done, they made this documentary feel bloated and meandering.The argument, while devastating, loses its complexity as it moves along.The documentary begins with Corporations as monstrous structures that are not necesarily the sum of their parts.The most amazing footage is that of a CEO and his wife having their home surrounded by hippy protestors, only to bring them coffee and tea, and sit down to chat with them.This scene, in which consumer-citizens and corporate spokesmen form a genuine ecology, was pivotal and ultimately describes what corporate interface may have to become if they are to survive (or if we are to survive, for that matter), cut off from boardrooms, immersed in the environment of which they are a part.As the documetary progresses, however, the tone becomes one of Evil Empires and patholically insane citizens servicing institutions without understanding their actions.This may be partially true, but it leads to an argument for localized, community based consumer resistance, which may be less effective than corporation-based, intercommunity collaboration. The end of this documentary was a gnostic, transcendentalist veil lifting: we can fight the corporation, if we only take control of our Selves! Where it should have run a bit deeper than that:We ARE the corporation, and the survival, reformation or downfall of these structures relies on how we learn to treat one another.Additionally, blame on environmental destruction was placed squarely on the power of corporations, and not on the more guilty culprit: overpopulation.I believe it's possible to make corporations fiscally accountable for population growth, if only because it is in their immediate best interest.(The lower the population, the more money there is to go around.Every corporation on Earth would benefit from a population decrease in several generations' time.)Despite the overly broad approach, this is an absolutely neccesary documentary to view for anyone interested in corporations or the structures of late capitalism.

Excellent primer on corporate globalization
I saw this documentary twice in the theaters, and recently purchased a copy of the DVD from the film distributor's website, Zeitgeist Video, not Amazon.It's an excellent ethnography of corporations and their abuse of power in the U.S. and abroad.The film starts off with a history of corporate charters, and how they gained a definition of personhood through manipulation of the Supreme Court decision that freed slaves after the Civil War.And, as a person, the corporation can be diagnosed with a psychopathic personality disorder using the DSM-IV.A criticism that I have about the movie is that it doesn't deal with the fundamental problem with corporations: it's not corporations that's the problem, but the underlying economic system of capitalism.It's capitalism that causes corporations to look towards the global south to enslave cheap labor to make a profit.Capitalism that causes corporations to pollute the environment and spew toxins into the air.Capital interests that control the ruling ideology and prevent the voices of dissent from being heard.(The film shows two Fox reporters who were silenced for making a show about cow's milk laced with hormones produced by Monsanto.)The film stops short at pointing a finger at the real culprit for ecological destruction and global stratification today - capitalism.That being said, it's still a good primer on corporations, and I plan to use it in my intro sociology class for undergrads.It is a long movie, for other educators out there, at 145 minutes.The second disc of the movie has 5 hours of interviews with people from the film including Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and the horrid Milton Friedman.And, the website for the film, TheCorporation.com, has a helpful instructor's guide.

Defamation DOES NOT equal credibility
This documentary is absolutely and categorically disgusting in every form of the word.This is a socialist onslaught against capitalist success and no one seems to care.Here's just an example of how radical and meritless this film is...it stretches to compare coporations with Nazi facism...its disgusting.Do not support the liberal lying media; boycot this crap.

Stunning Food for Thought, Whatever Your Politics
Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott, and Joel Bakan have collaborated in THE CORPORATIONto produce a documentary version of Bakan's book of the same name (subtitled "The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power"). In doing so, they have outlined the legal history of corporations in America and compiled a litany of concerns over the increasingly unregulated and growing power of that institution.

There can be no doubt that THE CORPORATION takes a left of center view of American business, as witnessed by the film's featured "talking heads:" Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Howard Zinn, and Michael Moore. Viewers can argue over balance or the choice to "diagnose" the legal personhood of the corporate institution as pathological. Nevertheless, this movie raises important issues that deserve consideration regardless of the viewer's political leanings. When an organizational form accumulates as much power and influence as the corporation has, and when that institution is legally bound to consider first and foremost its profit maximization over all other factors, the consequences of disregard and lax regulation (and popular unawareness) may be dire indeed.

Achbar and Abbott begin with a brief history of corporations, noting that the origin of corporations' rights as "legal persons" arose out of judicial interpretations of the equal protections clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was written to end slavery. This interpretation granted corporations the rights of individuals, but overlooked many of the responsibilities and accountabilities of citizens. "Corporation as person" opens the door for Bakan's psychoanalysis, from which he deems the institution to qualify under DMS-IV as psychopathic.

THE CORPORATION is at its best and most revealing when it tells stories, such as the little-known plot to overthrow FDR in 1934 by a cabal of industrialists, including representatives of Bethlehem Steel, DuPont, Goodyear, and J.P. Morgan. Perhaps only the conscience of General Smedley Butler, the man approached by those industrialists to lead a 500,000-man, militarized march on Washington, prevented America from experiencing a military coup. Stories about GM, Ford, Coca-Cola and IBM under Hitler's regime are equally fascinating, and equally disturbing (did you know, for example, that Coke invented Fanta Orange to keep its German factories open in the 1930's?).

Three particular stories give THE CORPORATION its greatest impact and best serve to humanize the issues. The first concerns child labor in Asian sweatshops, particularly with regard to Kathy Lee Gifford's clothing line. The second story concerns the privatization of water in Cochabamba, Bolivia as a condition for that country's receipt of World Bank loans. Bechtel Corporation comes off as the bad guy here, particularly as a result of the extraordinary greed and hubris the company displayed in managing to make the collection of rainwater illegal in such a poor area. Finally, there is the story of Monsanto's rBGH bovine growth hormone, rejected throughout Europe and Canada for its cancer links but approved by the FDA. The story behind the story here is Fox News's blatantly coercive actions to suppress a report on rBGH compiled by its own staff from ever appearing on the air, presumably in order not to offend a major advertiser. Each of these three stories prove that "little people" can still be heroes - Charles Kernaghan (Director, National Labor Committee) in the first case, Oscar Olivera in the second, and Steve Wilson and Jane Akre in the Fox News story.

THE CORPORATION runs long (145 minutes) and can seem dry at times, but the story is too important to ignore. This movie is two and a half well-spent hours, and you will finish it with a lot to think about. The separate "Majority Report" interview of Joel Bakan by Janeane Garofolo provides a good summary and review of the many different topics covered by the full documentary. It would be nice to imagine NBC or even PBS airing this movie someday, just as it would be nice to imagine students at Harvard or Wharton business schools being required to view it in their coursework. Would that it were so. Hopefully, enough concerned citizens will watch it on their own to raise some consciouses.

Corporation - Politics, Economy, Society, and Logo Loyalty
The documentary Corporation provides an angry and dark image of the leading corporations of the world, and justly so.This image originates with the 14th Amendment, which the government generated in order to give the slaves the same freedoms as its owners.Somehow, similar corporations that exploited the slaves took the opportunity to maximize their powers through the very same document that helped slaves gain their freedom.Through the 14th Amendment, Corporations gained rights of individuals, yet without individual responsibilities for the actions of the corporation.

Cleverly, filmmakers Jennifer Abbott and Mark Achbar utilize the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), which psychological health professionals use to assess and diagnose mental disorders.The psychological profile of a corporation should be justifiable, if they intend to fall under the same category as an individual in a legal sense.Through the psychological profile of corporations, several deviant behaviors occur such as "failure of conforming to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest" (see pp. 649-650 in DSM-IV.) In the film they checked of all seven criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder, and only three of them need to be checked in order to receive this diagnosis, which in common mouth is referred to as being a psychopath.

The case studies in the film offer a more intricate view of how some of the ruthless corporations advance through the American and world community.For example corporations have been found guilty of performing deceitful exploitation of people, their money, and their health as the Monsanto corporation deceitfully informs the public that their rBGH drug does not have any side effects on cows or human beings while Canada and other European countries have banned the supplement for increased milk production.A FOX television news show did research the topic and tried to air the news in regards to the cancer inducing effect of rBGH and how cows suffered dire consequences of the drug.Nonetheless, the reporters could never air the show, as Monsanto methodically prevented the truth from reaching the people through the legal system.This triggers the notion that corporations are above the law while they can squelch the opportunity for all citizens to exercise their first amendment right through exercising economic fear within those who dare to speak up.

Numerous studies have suggested that milk cows injected with rBGH have a lowered immune system and higher bacteria level.Farmers in turn treat cows with high-level of antibiotics to prevent bacterial infestations in the cows, but it also increases the likelihood of the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria that could eventually cause people to die from simple illnesses.Corporations such as Monsanto do not have to carry responsibility, as they have the law on their side while they can externalize the damages (i.e., let someone else pay for the damages) when random health problems such as cancer could appear.Some corporations even take in consideration what it would cost if law enforcement would catch them, and they often deem it to be worth the risk when penalty fees would not exceed the profit margin.This raises the notion, where does society draw the line of biological attacks on a nation?

Besides the negative and dark image of the corporation the audience also gets to hear the CEO of Interface, Roy Anderson, expressing his concern of corporations continual plundering of the earth.The viewers also get to learn about Shell's concern about environmental issues, yet they do not seem willing to hastily find an alternative resource for oil.Even Michael Moore informs the audience that many corporations provide a good product, but it is the excessive profiteering that seems to upset him.

There are several other topics that are brought to the audience's attention such as the stock trading blindness that occur on Wall Street and places alike, as the only notion that crosses the trader's mind is the profit.Several intriguing examples are provided as many made big profits after 9/11 in gold while the first war in Iraq increased the price on oil that gave many a large dollar profit.The audience also learns how companies enter war, that they do not have to pay for while harvesting large profits on the situation.There is also a swift and detailed report on ownership of the patents of living things, as the judicial organ that ruled in the first case had no clue what it was talking about which resulted in people now being able to own the rights to certain genes or microbe essential for living.They even talk about ownership of space, water, and air, which displays an ugly event in Bolivia and how American corporations continued their business deals with the Nazis in Germany.An interesting question would be whether these companies or the people working for these corporations have committed any acts of treason .

Ultimately, the Corporation offers a cinematic experience that will unsettle all viewers without consideration for what side of the issue they stand.It is also remarkable how the film causes cerebral unrest, as if it tries to reach out to the audience to take action.If the audience wants to get more information in regards to the film or issues in the film they can visit the website www.thecorporation.com, which offers a little of everything for the interested.Otherwise, it provides some interesting notions to ponder in regards to current and future politics, economy, society, and corporate loyalty. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Steven Spielberg, proving he's one of the few modern filmmakers who has the visual fluency to be capable of making a great silent film, took a melodramatic, D.W. Griffith-inspired approach to filming Alice Walker's novel. His tactics made the film controversial, but also a popular hit. You can argue with the appropriateness of Spielberg's decision, but his astonishing facility with images is undeniable--from the exhilarating and eye-popping opening shots of children playing in paradisiacal purple fields to the way he conveys the brutality of a rape by showing hanging leather belts banging against the head of the shaking bed. In a way it's a shame that Whoopi Goldberg, a stage monologist who made her screen debut in this movie, went on to become so famous, because it was, in part, her unfamiliarity that made her understated performance as Celie so effective. (This may be the first and last time that the adjective understated can be applied to Goldberg.) Nominated for 11 Academy Awards, including best picture and actress (supporting players Oprah Winfrey and Margaret Avery were also nominated), it was quite a scandal--and a crushing blow to Spielberg--when it won none. The digital video disc requires flipping to play the whole movie. --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (128)

Stunning, effective and heart-felt...
I saw this within the first week of its release, and I was profoundly shaken by its power. Spielberg, after "E.T." proved himself as a director to be reckoned with. Too bad the Academy didn't think so. There's little to be known about the plight of rural Black landowners during the depression, so we're relying on Alice Walker's novel as the basis of the riveting narrative of Celie's journey through a remarkable life. I remember protests against the film because of Danny Glover's wonderfully centered mean guy (even though he's the ultimate, sad hero). I've seen nastier people in White-centered films, and Danny's nastiness doesn't even come close. Still, he was deserving of a nomination, showing many layers of a complicated character. I really think this is a women-driven film, since the best characters (and acting) came from the many fine women's roles. Whoopi was certainly wonderful, though she didn't show up until a half hour into the film. Celie's young character, played with wonderful strength and pathos by Desreta Jackson was appealing. Akosua Busia was confident, as was Dana Ivey, in a bit of inspired casting, as the rich white woman, a grand display of idiocy and ignorance. Rae Dawn Chong's character should've been developed more, since she figured significantly in the final outcome. Oprah, of course, was the most memorable character, since she had the showiest role...or did she? I wanna know what happened to Margaret Avery (Shug). To me, she gave the best performance in the film. Trashy, sweet, soft, sensitive...she had to do it all. Her final scene with her father brought tears, her strength of character made Celie the strong character that she became. Her career should've taken off after this film. The women are the driving force in this film, and there's not a weak one in the bunch. Larry Fishburne (Swain) had one of his first roles, and Willard Pugh was delightful as Harpo...and whatever happened to him? I loved Avery the most, but Glover, after a great role the previous year in "Places in the Heart", showed great versatility. Overall, this is a film of passion, warmth and emotion. It's always been one of my favorites. The DVD version is lacking in too many ways; I'm sure an anniversary version will be coming out soon. Commentaries would be nice, since most of those involved are still around. I was a bit annoyed that I had to turn the disc over during Celie's most life-affirming scene. There was also protest that this film was nominated for 11 Oscars and won nothing, suggesting anti-Black behavior from the Academy. 8 years earlier, "The Turning Point" was also nominated for 11 Oscars and won nothing. As one critic said, "Does this mean the Academy is anti-tutu?" The whole argument is silly, and no one can explain why Spielberg won the Directors Guild award though no Oscar nomination...this is a great argument for people to ignore awards and critics. This film is a delight...sad, humorous, insightful...and very powerful. You should see this, and have tissues handy. When Shug hugs her father at the end, the power of the music and the moment can't help but take you away. Then, of course, there's the final moment when Celie sees her kids... Then there's Oprah, snapping out of her funk and announcing that she's home again. See it. Love it. It's worth it.

"Miss Celie, I Feels Like Singin'!"
I just bought this disc and watched it last night. I bawled my eyes out. I haven't seen it in many years and had forgotten what an incredible film it is. I gave it only 4 stars because of what many other reviewers have said about the DVD -- it's not double-layered and requires a "flip" right after Celie and Shug kiss.

I was particularly moved by Oprah Winfrey's performance. We all know her as OPRAH now. I'd forgotten how amazing she was in COLOR PURPLE.

I think if Spielberg made this movie today he might not shy away from some of the heavier themes like he did in 1985. But his filmmaking technique was incredible for this film. It plays like an old-fashioned Hollywood movie. The colors are gorgeous. (How did they get all those perfectly purple flowers in that field ? ) The camera work is exciting.

Everyone has their "crying" moments in COLOR PURPLE. These are mine: 1. The breakup of the sisters ("Ain't no mountain, ain't no sea..."). 2. Celie gets the letter ("I got two children..."). 3. God's Tryin To Tell You Something ("See daddy, even singers got soul") and, of course, 4. The end.

It's about life. It's about love. It's about us. Thank you Alice Walker, Steven Spielberg, and Whoopi.

"It's about time we had some stability around here."
This film received 11 Oscar Nominations back in 1985, won none of them(Shame on you, Academy voters!), and really should have won Best Picture over "Out of Africa." Whoopi Goldberg never got another role like this one, showing her incredible and untapped acting talent by way of Steven Spielberg's inspired and altogether ambitious direction. Mr. Spielberg was not even nominated for Best Director(Shame on you, Academy voters!). It was great to hear that he did win the Director's Guild Award(handed out by his peers), but this horrible oversight still needles me to this day. Back to the acting. Oprah Winfrey was given an Oscar nomination, as was Margaret Avery, but there are so many stunning performances here from the entire cast that pointing out any standout performances is nearly impossible. There is also some clever film editing(certainly the most under-rated facet of filmmaking), that keeps the film constantly fresh and the story moving forward with some fantastic cinematography. The only thing that breaks the continuity is that the character "Celie" is played by two different actresses, while her sister "Nettie" is played by a single actress both at a young age and when she is older. It is really a small discrepancy given that both actresses that play "Celie" are excellent(in particular, Whoopi Goldberg). For those who know only Whoopi's fairly lame films like "Burglar," I guarantee you will be pleasantly surprised by her amazing work here. There are many moments in the film that are so genuinely touching and heartfelt that by the end of the final scene I suddenly realized that it never felt so good to cry. This is easily one of my favorite "Spielberg" films. Everything about this movie is gorgeous! Thank you.

Definitely A Classic
A black movie nominated for 11 Oscars should hint every citizen that this movie is definitely beyond a classic. It, in every way epitomizes the plight of being black in the United States. Every person should have this DVD in their collection and reflect on the better things of life & respect evry human being. Whoopi Goldberg, Margaret Avery, Danny Glover, Oprah Winfrey, Congratulations to you all. Fabolous performances. I hope that the Academy of Film can give the African American society a chance to bloom their talent. Its really not fair. I mean talent is out there and it is not being regarded in anyway. Once the black man is allowed to make movies then he should be recognized on the same grounds with the white man.

A Very Inspiring Movie.
Usually when people hear the names Whoopi Goldberg and Oprah Winfrey, we usually think of Day Time Talk Shows and comedic film roles. Both women as well as the other cast of the film deliver awesome performances as African Americans fighting to survive in a predominately white town. The movie will make you have a new take on life no matter what race you are. It teaches you respect and loyalty, as well as passion for the people you love. If you are a fan of Forrest Gump and other movies that whisk you away to different eras, you will love this. One of Spieldberg's best. ... Read more

Reviews (173)

A Weekend Classic (5 Stars)
You can't go wrong with this movie. While there wasn't much of a plot, the action and the humor made you forget about all that. The cast alone makes this the best out of the entire series of movies, but what really makes this movie stand out from the other three was the impact it had. Ice Cube was brilliant as Craig, Chris Tucker stole the show as Smokey, and Tiny Lister became America's favorite bully (and in some places, his name is slang for bully now) as Deebo. And the rest of the lineup was perfect too. You had John Witherspoon (Mr. Jones), Bernie Mac (The Reverend), Faizon Love (Big Perm, I mean, Big Worm), and who could forget the hilarious A.J. Johnson (Ezell)? You can sift through the entire movie and find one liners and dialogue that people STILL use today. You can't say that about the other two movies. Even though Next Friday and Friday After Next are funny in their own way, they will never come close to the original. When I first saw it, I laughed so hard that I started crying. Even the opening scene was hilarious (when the Jehovah's Witnesses get the door slammed in their faces). I can watch this movie everyday for a week and still find it just as funny as the first time I saw it. If you haven't seen it by now, then you must not want to see it. Go out and get it, you'll love it. Trust me.

Classic Ghetto Comedy
Ice Cube pulls off a great performance as Craig, who is the straight-laced guy who recently got fired from his job and he has a lot of crazy friends, his best friend 'Smokey' (Chris Tucker) is a pothead who is smoking the weed that he was suppose to be selling for 'Big Worm'. Later we meet the street thug Deebo who is a huge guy and he's the kind of guy who'll mess with you if you ever step in his way and the situations that Craig and Smokey get into are hilarious, Meanwhile Big Worm is getting fed up with Smokey playing with his money and he tells Smokey that if he doesn't have his money by 10:00, he's killing to kill him and Craig and together they try to come up with ideas on how to come up with the money, later on we get to the highlight of the movie when Craig beats the living ... out of Deebo.

If you love gangster comedies, then you'll love Friday, also recommended are Don't Be a Menace and Friday After Next.

Best of Three
If you want to laugh your ass off buy this movie. It stars Ice Cube as Greg, and Chris Tucker as Smokey. Chris Tucker makes this movie good with his winny girly voice and always smokin weed. Ice cube delivers a good performance as Greg the guy who gets fired on his day off for stealing boxes and gets high for the first time. There are other great charecters like Debo the tall bully of the hood, Disel the crack head who will doing anything for two dollars, and daddy Gregs bog catching father who has to use the bathroom constantly. Over all this movie is hilarious just like the second and third one.

Hey Craig...Lemme borrow yo VCR right quick!
"Ain't nobody out here man I don't even know why I'm trippin, Don't nobody wanna mess wit da Smoke Dog Rooo Rooo, roooo rooo, Roooo Roooo!....who dat?!?"

"It ain't dem niccas that act hard...."

"Oh SHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!"

Man this movie is hands down the greatest comedy I have ever seen. Even when it turns serious and they are about to get smoked it is still funny. And when Craig was finna get beat up by Deebo, the classic line that makes me laugh everytime comes up "yeah put that gun down Craig and get knocked out like ya father used to!"
There are so many memorable lines and scenes that it would be useless to try and go through them all cause I would end up reciting the whole movie. My favorite parts however are when REd gets knocked out by Deebo and the father gets out the car.
"YOu want some of this too old man huh!"
"NO!!!!!!!get yo a$$ up boy and get in this car, I told you bout messing around with these people!"

My other favorite part is when Craig is high and he's talking to Debbie on the couch, and he turns and sees little puppie dogs staring at him and he goes "What the FHFG! man i'm trippin"

Another part when it's getting dark and Smokey and craig are trying to come up with a plan and Smokey says:
"Alright here's what we gon do, I'ma give you the gun, then I'ma go to my house and chill, you sit here on the porch and wait for dem niccas and later on you call me and tell me what happened!"

THis movie is funny from beginning (Jehovah's Witnesses and No Milk) to end ("I don't wanna die...Hey craig I love you man") and is very memorable. The performances were excellent, the cast was excellent. Even the concept of letting the plot come to them as they sit on the porch all day and do nothing is excellent. The music and soundtrack was also excellent. The movie is excellent. A Must have.

ONE OF THE GREATEST MOVIES OF ALL TIME!
Hilarious!!! This movie cheers me up everytime I pop it in to my DVD player. Chris Tucker and Ice Cube are brilliant together. Smokey(Tucker) is my favorite character. He's just plain hilarious in this movie and alls he does is smoke weed..."That's alright, dont worry about what the F*** I be doin" LOL. My fav line is..."I know you dont smoke weed, I know this, but its friday, you aint got no job, and you aint got S*** to do". I love watchin this on a hot summer day, sippin on lemonade and chillin. BUY THIS DVD. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The key players in the radical movement known as the Weather Underground are skillfully brought to life in this Oscar-nominated documentary. The Weathermen were born of sixties protest, but took their scheme to overthrow the U.S. government to especially violent extremes. Never a well-populated movement, the Underground petered out as its leaders aged during the seventies; by decade's end, weary of hiding, most of them had turned themselves over to the authorities. That journey, by which a fire-breathing revolutionary such as Bernadine Dohrn became a (still fiery) gray-haired wife and mother, is an intriguing one. This film, rich in period footage (and some unnecessary sensationalism) captures the era somewhat broadly. But the present-day interviews with the participants, contrasted with their radical selves, provides an exceptionally detailed look inside the organization itself. It's not a nostalgic look back, and the overall mood is sobering rather than celebratory. Lili Taylor provides the narration. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (24)

Insightful look at American 60s radicals
In some ways, the group known as the Weather Underground (originally the Weathermen, an offshoot of Students for a Democratic Society) were more a symbol of 1960s radical idealism than a real revolutionary movement. Although they planted many bombs during a decade-long period, they never did anything that seriously threatened the government or power structure. Their goal, of course, was to spark a mass movement and inspire others to follow their example, but they remained essentially marginalized. The film, The Weather Underground does a good job at letting members of this group explain their motives and, in some cases, misgivings about their foray into revolution. Directors Bill Siegel and Sam Green seem to be sympathetic with the movement, and most of the material is told from the point of view of members. Leaders of the group Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers have retained their radical views and are anything but apologetic about their past actions.

Most members of the group, despite the bombings, were committed to not harming people. This brings up a rather blatant omission in the film -Kathy Boudin, perhaps the group's most notorious member (for her participation in a robbery where a man was killed) is not mentioned at all. This was an unfortunate decision, apparently done to portray the Weathermen as essentially nonviolent. To leave out such a well known chapter in the group's history leaves a gaping hole. Still, the parts that are included are fascinating and give a glimpse into the idealism and naivete of these leftist radicals.

In retrospect, it is (at least from one perspective) a little sad to see how little long term effect the 1960s counterculture had on society. It seems that they were no match for the propaganda machine of the government and mass media. This film, of course, employs propaganda methods of its own, as when brutal footage from the Vietnam war is shown. Propaganda it may be, but it does serve to almost trivialize the violence committed by the Weathermen compared with that perpetrated by the government it was opposing. The other side to this argument is that the fact that these radicals are still alive and that a film like this has been allowed to be made is proof that America is not as oppressive as some would have us believe. Yet, this is only true to some extent; as the film explains, the FBI made a concerted (and mainly illegal) effort to destroy radical movements. There is also evidence that the government murdered members of the Black Panthers.

How you react to The Weather Underground depends on your political and cultural perspective. Regardless of this, this film is a compelling study of a radical group and gives us a glimpse into their world.

Nominated and should have taken the Oscar
Looks like McNamara won again with his anti-war doc. film. The insight and proggressive beliefs that the Weather Underground stayed true to act as a legitamite foundation for the liberated America we live in. If you are enticed by politics but are sick of corruption in America check out this film about a group derived from the SDS that took its war with the government to an extreme that had to be recognized. I never knew they busted Timmothy Leary out of jail and attacked symbols of American injustice without using murder (the tool those in power use to stress their point) don't think you've seen a film like this before, it left me energized with a tendency toward learning about political struggles of today! Who'd think a gen-Xer could look at a film about revolutionairy soldiers of the past and wonder what he could do today to maintain the liberation sparked by students from the 60's. A must have for any leftist, documentary fan, or anyone interested about the origins and movements of the "New Left"

Not Bias
Weather Underground doesn not seemed to be a bias look at the organization. It doesnt say their actions were good, they let the people speak for themselves. An interesting film on US history.

An excellent historical treatment
I am absolutely opposed to violence as a form of protest so the Weather Underground was not a group I agreed with, yet, one could agrue that they did play a role in the Vietnam protest era so this film is a good review of that.

The film is well done. I feel the Todd Gitlin, Mark Rudd and Brian Flannagan were the more realistic people on this DVD. Clearly they had come to see that the Weather Underground's methods were not ultimately the most effective and said so. They also saw the orgies as self indulgent and stupid.

In the end, all would truly admire a man of peaceful protest like the late David Dellinger for his methods as his were better than their methods.

This film should be seen as a great period piece. It should also be seen to affirm that violence wasn't the answer then and it isn't in Iraq now.

This is an educationally significant film that should be seen by all who are interested in the 60's.

Spoiled Brats
Where do I sign up for the FBI? And if a few rules are broken - shock! - to break these guys up, so be it. And if they use their rich connections to get out of jail time... the system can't be that bad, right? Most rich kids backback through Europe, and these guys went to Cuba and came back to blow up buildings... before going back to booshy comforts. If Hoover had went over the top to nail these guys, I'd have looked the other way. They are very, very, ugly. ... Read more

Description

Say hello to Darious Lovehall (Larenz Tate) and Nina Mosley (Nia Long), two confused lovebirds who discover that you can never underestimate the power of a love jones. ... Read more

Reviews (76)

Acting with style.............
This movie had reminded me of watching the old black and white movies with my dad. More true to life characters looking for love, being in love, and loosing it. Old story fresh view. Larenz Tate was so Cary Grant in style as the character may have been in a clumsey situation, but the actor kept him from looking silly and like a cardboard cut out.
Nia Long has always been a favorite of mine she is sweet even whe she is tough, almost like a Kathrine Hepburn.
This is one of his best work and showing that he is better than always playing an angry black man.

Great movie an great performance bye all.....BUY THIS MOVIE!!!

When Harry Met Sally: Urban Style
Love Jones is a film worth upholding. It is a beautiful love story full of realistic characters. It is one of the few black films in the last twenty years that deplicts blacks like we truly are: intelligent, cultural and just as obsessed with being in love as anyone else.

Larenz Tate plays Darius. Being an author myself I could relate fully to his character. While struggling with his upcoming book he meets Nina played by Nia Long. Nina is a photographer who's struggling just as much as he is, but her feet appear to be on the ground more firmly than Darius'. Darius and Nina begin a passionate love affair that is cut short when Darius' friends and Nina's ex get too involved. This is the perfect example of how a relationship can suffer due to too many " outside " opinions. Darius and Nina realize they cannot focus on their careers because their hearts and minds are on each other. Nina returns to the spot they first met: the sultry poetry and blues club where Darius first spied her. Nina delivers a touching poem in Darius' honor unaware that he is around. The two pick up where they left off and declare their love for one another.

This film is touching without being as mushy as some romance movies. Larenz and Nia have wonderful chemistry despite the fact that Long is five years older than Tate. The supporting characters include the wonderful Isiah Washington and MTV's Bill Bellemy. If you keep your eyes open you'll see Khalil Kain playing another delightful supporting role as Nina's ex.
I am a big Larenz Tate fan and I've liked Nia Long since her days on " Guiding Light ". The two have both grown tremendously as actors and they prove it in this film. I wish there could be a sequel. I'll keep my fingers crossed. If you haven't seen this movie you've been cheated out of one hell of a love story. It's a modern " starcrossed lovers " romance suited for all ages and professions.

O.K.
I watched this movie about four times before I could begin to like it. It's still not one of my favorites but it does showcase admirable performances by both Larenz Tate and Nia Long.

Not Bad At All
It was great to see Chicago look so beautiful in this well told love story. I hope we get more movies like Love Jones. The DVD is a wonderful edition to my collection.

great love story
i felt as fof that it has happen to me as the characters played on throughout the story. I felt i was well written and the ending was great. ... Read more

Reviews (86)

So-so action film...
I've never watched the original Shaft, so I have nothing to base this remake on. It's not a very serious action film. Jeffrey Wright and Busta Rhymes providing most of the comic relief. It is interesting to note that Richard Rountree (the original shaft) and Gordon Parks (the original director) played parts in this film.

After watching this film, I can say I don't mind it. I've seen a lot worse, and I've seen better. Atleast with this film, you have Samuel Jackson playing another cool, suave character. It's too bad Venessa William didn't play a more integral part to the story. I would've liked to see a better dynamism between the two. But then again Shaft has always been a lone-ranger of sorts.

This is not a plot-heavy story. It's about a rich kid that murders an African American, but this crime is witnessed by a waitress who goes into hiding after being threatened. Shaft is disheartened by the inadequacy of the system and decides to investigate on his own. Like I said, not plot-heavy.

LEAP rating (each out of 5):
============================
L (Language) - 3 (nothing special, except for Jeff Wright's almost incomprehensible speech)
E (Erotica) - 1 (opening sequence and a good kiss scene)
A (Action) - 3.5 (unapologetic killings)
P (Plot) - 2 (simple plot)

This film should have gotten the "shaft"
"Shaft" (2000)

Shaft's (Richard Roundtree) nephew, also last-named Shaft (Samuel L. Jackson), is the star in this movie. But it is nothing like the original starring Roundtree and directed by Gordon Parks (although both of them make cameos in this film). The first "Shaft" was a blaxploitation flick and is a classic. This movie, directed by John Singleton, seems less black, more made-for-Hollywood. The plot is thin and unlike the original, the only love scene to be found is in pieces during the opening credits. And what was Busta Rhymes' purpose? It added nothing to the movie. Sorry, Sam Jackson is a hell of an actor but his Shaft doesn't make me forget about Roundtree's. -EJR

Singleton ruins yet another legend. somebody stop him.......
Samuel L. Jackson in Shaft could have been a great movie. He has the talent and skill to effectively play the role. Unfortunately, he is prevented from doing a giving a good performance because of the weak direction and script by Hack Extrodinare John Singleton. Someone please stop Mr. Singleton Before he directs again.
Singleton's terrible script and direction turns Shaft into a campy over-the top superhero movie instead of an intruigung murder mystery. Most of the characters come off like cartoonish stereotypes instead of real people the way they did in the 1971 original. Shaft fans know he is smart, smooth and clever; he's subtle about the way he does things. He's not a black batman wannabe as depicted in this film. Perhaps Mr. Singleton dreams of doing a Batman movie and thought he could apply those concepts here. He was sadly mistaken.
In the openeing scene he comes off as menacing and threatening, that he scares the witness even more and puts the white racist (Christian Bale) on the offensive by arresting him. A litle subtlety would have helped the story here and made the character more interesting. In the subplot our menacing shaft threatens a neighborhood drug dealer (Geoffrey Rush) and arrests him on some trumped up charges. While in jail the two consipire to find a witness who can finger Bale's character for the murder he committed. Sounds a lot like Batman Returns doesn't it? Just so he can have something to do, Shaft goes on a macho search to find the witness who can help his case. Personally, I think Singleton wanted to have a ton of frames of Sam Jackson looking cool in Armani leather. This goes on until the last act the movie which turns into a great big comic book action sequence chock full of shootings and mayhem. To conclude the story, the scene where Bale's character is coming to court to finally stand trial for his crimes is ripped straight from Mario Van Peebles ending scene of New Jack City.
Singleton wastes yet another opportunity and fails to utilize his cast of talented actors who do their best with his terrible script. Sadly, Gordon Parks, the man who wrote and directed the original Shaft was on set and Singleton did take the opportunity not pick his brain for ideas or even ask him what he was thinking when he set up certain scenes. This film would have been better if Singleton would have done thatn andjust STUDIED the films of this genere and understood the subtle nuances that make them work before starting this project. Then when he understood what made those films work he could then apply those approaches to his work. John Singleton needs to go back to film school. He still has a lot to learn about the craft of moviemaking.

VERY GOOD REMAKE OF THE 1971 CLASSIC
SHAFT'S SAME-NAMED NEPHEW [SAMUEL L. JACKSON] GOES AFTER A DOMINICAN DRUG LORD AND A RACIST SERIAL KILLER. VERY GOOD REMAKE. IT HAS PLENTY OF GOOD ACTION, AN INTERESTING STORY, AND IT HAS GOOD CHARACTERS. THIS IS ACTUALLY NO BETTER OR WORSE THAN THE ORIGINAL. RICHARD ROUNDTREE [WHO PLAYED THE ORIGINAL SHAFT] AND GORDON PARKS, JR. BOTH MAKE APPEARANCES IN THIS MOVIE.

wonderful remake
a great remake with Jackson being the man Shaft. good action with some unexpected turnabouts. Christian Bale is menacing as the racist who kills Mehki Phifer then has to answer to Shaft and Jeffrey Wright is a spectacular badguy as well. a good ride ... Read more

Reviews (279)

Honor and Horror
The story of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry is told in a solid and entertaining movie. The casting is brilliant, including the surprisingly good choice of Matthew Broderick, an actor I'm normally indifferent to, who is utterly believable as the scion of a wealthy Boston family who accepts a commission as Colonel in command of the first black regiment in the Civil War. Rounding out the cast are Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington, the two finest actors of ANY color working in Hollywood these days, and Cary Elwes in easily his best performance since The Princess Bride. If there is anything negative to say about this film, it is in the archetypical nature of several of the characters (I do not know how "fictionalized" the indivdual soldiers are) and a bit of, yes, "glorification" of what ultimately was one of the most horrific and wasteful events in history. But ultimately that is what makes honor and glory: sacrifice for the future. The tragedy should not be forgotten in the glory. So when you see this movie, let your heart swell for the glory and honor, and let your eye weep at the waste of human life.

A Movie for Warmongers and Pacifists alike
The Academy Award winner from 1989 stands out as a monumental film with stunning acting, crisp cinematography and one of the most realistic depictions of the horrors of war ever filmed.

Matthew Broderick is compelling as Robert Gould Shaw, the young and inexperienced commander of the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts, an all-black unit initially deprived of the right to fight but eventually allowed to prove its mettle in a pivotal battle of the Civil War. Morgan Freeman exudes paternal strength and wisdom as the eldest member of the platoon. Andre Braugher, Cary Elwes, Jihmi Kennedy, and a brilliant Denzel Washington (winner of "Best Supporting Actor" Oscar) make this film a genuine classic.

Making small but significant contributions to the film are Jane Alexander as Shaw's mother and veteran Raymond St. Jacques (his last role) as Frederick Douglas.

A further nod of praise goes to James Horner's masterful score. His music, along with the harmonies of the Boys Choir Of Harlem provides as glorious a background as is the inspirational story itself.

A Great American Movie!
This is one of the most historically acurate films about the Civil War. Not only that, it's one of the best acted and best shot movie in many years. Denzel Washington's performance is worth the Oscar he recieved. Matthew Broderick and Morgan Freeman are also exceptional. It's an unforgetable film about an event that changed the course of history.

HOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST MOVIES I HAVE EVER SEEN!
Matthew Broderick is AMAZING buy it and you won't be disapointed.

American tragedy
For so long, the image of the Civil War has existed in the collective American mind as a series of sepia-tone Matthew Brady photographs: ghoulish and nightmarish landscapes littered with bodies and body parts. However, with the notable exceptions of his portraits of the field generals, there is a sort of anonymity to the corpses in Brady's works. In one of GONE WITH THE WIND's most powerful scenes, scores upon scores of wounded soldiers lie in the streets, until they appear to be one large, unidentifiable mass of pain--which was the filmmaker's point. Edward Zwick's GLORY was one of the first films to put a human face and individuality to those who fought and died in America's most brutal years. Based upon the true story of Boston's young colonel, Robert Shaw, and his efforts to allow his all African-American outfit (the "54th") to fight on the side of the Union, GLORY is one of those rare films that successfully combines history with movie-making.

Wonderful performances abound in this powerful film: Washington, Broderick, Freeman and Elwes all give their best efforts. But the real star of the show is the camera. The battle sequences, as other reviewers have mentioned, are horrific, as is the scene in the triage tent. (THIS MOVIE IS NOT FOR PEOPLE WITH WEAK STOMACHS.) But the scenes in between, the relatively quiet ones, have as great an impact. I especially have in mind the training sequences. In another director's hands, the scenes in which the troops begin understanding each other, and as the officers begin understanding their troops could have wound up a syrupy mess. Instead, their horrible predicament unites them in an unsentimental, yet sensitive manner. Zwick's camera-work throughout is exemplary, making GLORY one of the best films about America's most tragic episodes. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Spencer Tracy's last performance was in this well-meaning, handsome film by Stanley Kramer about a pair of white parents (Tracy and Katharine Hepburn) trying to make sense of their daughter's impending marriage to an African American doctor (Sidney Poitier). The film has been knocked over the years for padding conflict and stoking easy liberalism by making Poitier's character in every socioeconomic sense a good catch: But what if Kramer had made this stranger a factory worker? Would the audience still find it as easy to accept a mixed-race relationship? But there's no denying the drawing power of this movie, which gets most of its integrity from the stirring performances of Tracy and Hepburn. When the former (who had been so ill that the production could not get completion insurance) gives a speech toward the end about race, love, and much else, it's impossible not to be affected by the last great moment in a great actor's life and career. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (64)

An All-time Classic
Aside from calmly, reasonably confronting a social taboo of the '60s -- racially mixed marriages -- in a thoughtful, touching manner, this film features career-high performances from several of Hollywood's finest. Spencer Tracy is absolutely brilliant in his final screen appearance as the avowed liberal newspaper publisher Matt Drayton, who, along with his idealistic wife (a role that earned Katherine Hepburn her second Best Actress Oscar) learns that their barely-20-year-old daughter is planning to elope with a black physician (played with cool passion by Sidney Poitier). The story evolves from Poitier's confidence in the two shocked parents that, without their full approval, the marriage will not go on -- and there are only hours to decide. Add his parents to the mix, and as the list of dinner guests grows so does the tension. Aside from the marvelous script, memorable performances and outstanding direction, photography and music there is a chemistry in the mix that truly creates an energy greater than the sum of its parts -- and when the parts are this good, the result is a film for the ages that goes straight to the heart of themes like love, passion, prejudice and family conflict. In the end love does conquor all in Tracey's powerful final speech, made more poignant by a visibly moved and misty Hepburn -- perhaps cognizant that she was witnessing the final curtain call of a great actor. This is the magic Hollywood is capable of, a movie that re-affirms one's faith in the ideals of love and equality, and certainly belongs in every collection.

4.5 Stars; Needs Historical/Cultural Context Remembered
The Story: Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn play the parents of young Katharine Houghton, who brings home her well-educated fiancee to meet the parents. The parents are not expecting their daughter's fiancee, a physician, to be African-American, but Sidney Poitier certainly is. The film focuses on the parents' discomfort over the biracial marriage.

When the story begins, it's easy to think that the movie studios were aiming to do two things: make one more movie with Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy (this was his last film, and he was quite ill during its making); and make a simple statement about racial tolerance. This film could easily have ended up with a very contrived, forced air to it. But, that doesn't happen when you put Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, and Sidney Poitier together in a film. The cast rises above the simplicity of the premise. Some have said that making Poitier's character a well-educated doctor weakened the racial conflict potential, but I lived just outside of Detroit in 1967, and ANY biracial marriage was a controversial idea to base a film upon. It also put the race issue right on the table, as the parents had no basis upon which to object to their daughter's marriage, except for their discomfort over the race issue.

Overall, if the viewer remembers when this film was made, the quality of the cast makes it a real winner.

Bit Prepackaged for My Taste
More like 3.5 stars. There's nothing particularly wrong with this movie but it's not the genius its been made out to be either. It's not nearly as daring as it likes to think it is. He's a wealthy, smart, sophisticated mature professional. She's an airhead. He's black and she's white. He's a catch and a half and she's a twit. The real question should not be why does she want to marry a black man but rather what he sees in her. Of course they will have problems with the intolerant aspects of society. Of course their children will be teased and mistreated by racist adults and ignorant children. But this film was made in the late 60's, not the late 30's. It's also set in San Francisco (Liberal Heaven) and not in rural Mississippi. The white girl's parents are liberals through and through. Poitier's character's parents are a working man & his wife from Los Angeles. Notice how Tracy's character does not object to his daughter marrying a black man but is deeply concerned by how a mixed couple & their children will be received in society. This movie gives itself every break it possibly can to ease its way down a receptive audience's throat.