Reviews (83)

Tender, profound and beautiful
Spain produces, from time to time, real masterpieces. Sex and Lucia (the title could be a better one)blends an astonishing puzzle of love, flesh, scenery, drama, real live, tenderness, music, departure and re-encounter which will glue you to the screen from the beginning to the end.
Should the movie be American, Lucia (Paz Vega) would have been awarded (or would deserve) an Oscar.
A beautiful actress, an amazing interpretation...Lorenzo completes the sweet drama through a remarkable performance and, together with Lucia, brings you so close to real life that I remained impressed by the film for days.
A collector's jewel. No doubt about it. A Must see!
By the way: sex hype has nothing to do with it. Love was so tender that became embedded in the story. Just beautiful!

Sex and Honesty...
If for no other reason than this film's celebration of the pure physical joy of good sex, presented with unflinching honesty, I would have found it a refreshing antidote to the often depressingly unerotic soft porn that passes for sexual exploration in so many films. This film is as vibrant and unselfconsciously erotically charged as its central character, Lucia, in telling its story of relationships, desire, love and loss. It is casual in showing both male and female nudity with a directness and honesty we aren't used to.

A story of the relationship between a writer, the uninhibited and free-spirited waitress who loves him, and the people and events, both past and present that surround and intrude and disrupt that relationship is presented in a convoluted style that shifts back and forth in time.

The story is told elliptically and, at some points, somewhat confusingly, but ultimately resolves itself with the various strands of story joining together with its characters in the sharp clarity of an idyllic sun-drenched isle. Sex in this film is both real and metaphor for those needs and desires that bind us, drive us apart, harm and heal us. Lushly and beautifully filmed, it is yet another example that Spanish cinema is staking out its own claims on our attention, with films of great beauty and startling and unique candor.

Overrated
A little bit overrated base on previous viewer's comments
The story got a little murky sometimes.
If you are looking for sex scenes, this is not the movie for you. It is worst than 9 1/2 weeks.

An amazing movie
I guess people are molded by holywood standards and talk too much about some naked piece of flesh, but this movie is so much more than that. Relax and watch the movie and you'll enjoy it and if you have time to see the extras on the DVD you'll understand even better why it is so special. The plot, the actors, the camera and the music score are absolutely amazing. It's like drinking coffee at work (in US) for years and than you go somewhere overseas, in Italy or Spain and suddenly realize that coffee is so much more than some dirty brown water. You might not like it, but you'll have to accept that the real thing is great. Somewhere in this world some people think of acting and movies as a form of art, not just a money machine.

Not Great
Not awful, but if you want an excuse to watch a few shots of porn and not feel guilty, then this is for you. There are some nice ideas in the movie, but they do not work together. I am not sure what the director was going for. There are many great foreign films to see before wasting your time on this. Watch some real pornography if that's what you want. Don't alibi yourself with this. ... Read more

Amazon.com

No one uses color like Chinese director Zhang Yimou--movies like Raise the Red Lantern or Hero, though different in tone and subject matter, are drenched in rich, luscious shades of red, blue, yellow, and green. House of Flying Daggers is no exception; if they weren't choreographed with such vigorous imagination, the spectacular action sequences would seem little more than an excuse for vivid hues rippling across the screen. Government officers Leo and Jin (Asian superstars Andy Lau and Takeshi Kaneshiro) set out to destroy an underground rebellion called the House of Flying Daggers (named for their weapon of choice, a curved blade that swoops through the air like a boomerang). Their only chance to find the rebels is a blind women named Mei (Ziyi Zhang, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) who has some lethal kung fu moves of her own. In the guise of an aspiring rebel, Jin escorts Mei through gorgeous forests and fields that become bloody battlegrounds as soldiers try to kill them both. While arrows and spears of bamboo fly through the air, Mei, Jin, and Leo turn against each other in surprising ways, driven by passion and honor. Zhang's previous action/art film, Hero, sometimes sacrificed momentum for sheer visual beauty; House of Flying Daggers finds a more muscular balance of aesthetic splendor and dazzling swordplay. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (153)

DO NOT buy this crap!
OK! Who the hell gave this movie 4 stars??!! Poor story, poor dialog, poor EVERYTHING!!! This movie sucked. Get stabbed by a dagger and the girl stays alive until the unnecessary long fight between two bad actors is over??!! Come on! This movie is worse than the Hindi crap that comes out of Bollywood. Wish I could give it zero stars, but I can't. Amazon, will you please see that movies of this low quality get zero stars?

Technically breathtaking, but left this viewer a little cold
Zhang Yimou's HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS continues where the director's HERO left off: it is a film of immense visual beauty and amazing choreography, supporting a plot with melodramatic elements to it. But whereas HERO could conceivably, amidst the dazzling imagistic pageantry and big emotions, be interpreted as a political statement (the film ends with a ruler having to sacrifice a hero for what he considers the greater cause of unifying feudal China), HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS is content to be romantic melodrama, plain and simple.

Personally, I kinda prefer the extra intellectual and thematic stimulation offered by HERO. At the end of that film, you really had something to think about; at the end of HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS...well, the story is over (and a song sung in English by soprano Kathleen Battle plays over the closing credits). Nothing of great consequence, I felt, had really happened in this film; it is basically one ravishing image and one amazing fight sequence following another, interspersed with (admittedly well-acted) moments of intimacy or high drama. If Zhang Yimou was aiming for thematic subtlety in HERO, here he goes for operatic emotions and visual spectacle. And for all its technical brilliance, the whole thing ultimately left me a little cold---maybe a bit too melodramatic and soapy for my taste.

That is a very personal reaction, of course. The technical brilliance Zhang Yimou brings to HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS is not to be denied; these are some of the most breathtaking (and breathtakingly filmed) fight sequences seen since the last notable "wuxia" film, Ang Lee's CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON. And the actors bring as much conviction as possible to their basically two-dimensional characters: certainly, as House of Flying Daggers member Mei, Ziyi Zhang brings convincing passion to her role, as do Takeshi Kaneshiro and Andy Lau as, respectively Jin and Leo, two police deputies who rescue Mei from prison and try to trick her into bringing them to the House of Flying Daggers to stop their rebelliousness once and for all.

Perhaps the best way to appreciate HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS is to look at it as a cinematic opera. Zhang Yimou is clearly not afraid to work on a big canvas, and he brings all the big emotions and spectacular sights he can to tell his melodramatic story. Those who go into this film expecting to be dazzled will most likely be satisfied; it is a genuine technical marvel. For me, though, I was expecting more substance to the film than it delivered. HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS may be more purely enjoyable than HERO, but the latter, to me, is a much more interesting movie than this one.

Super Cool Movie!!!
The action and special effects sequences in this movie are incredibly fun to watch.Zhang Ziyi is flawless as usual, and her perfomance and beauty justifies buying this DVD in itself.

Great cinematography, weak story
Genre: Foreign, Martial Arts, Romance

Genre Grade: B+

Final Grade: A-

This was another great film from Chinese director Yimou Zhang. Although not even close to comparing to his last film, Hero, it still was a great movie. Zhang is an artist, it is as simple as that. His locations are perfect, the colors are vibrant, and the characters are passionate. This is much more a love story than anything. It offers some good surprises concerning the characters and keeps the mystery of the "House of Flying Daggers" a secret to even the viewers. Actress Ziyi Zhang should learn to speak English because she could be a huge star in the United States.

I recommend this film to anyone who enjoyed Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Hero. It is dubbed in English so you don't have to read subtitles if you don't want to.

stunning
Yimou is a true artist of cinema. Hero and House of Flying Daggers are beautiful and spiritual adventures in Asian cinema. Both films are remarkable acheivments that are lost on the reviewer who gave this film one star. True art is often missunderstood by the masses. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Following the successful 1998 video release of Cats comes another Andrew Lloyd Webber blockbuster musical, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, and it's a savvy choice. It hasn't been represented on film before, it's short enough (78 minutes) to present without cuts, and it has the star power of former teen icon Donny Osmond, who played over 1,800 performances across North America. Rather than record a live performance, Cats director David Mallet conceived Joseph as a film, though one that is based strongly on codirector Steven Pimlott's 1991 London revival and relies more on camerawork than venturing beyond its stagelike sets.

Lloyd Webber's first project with lyricist Tim Rice was originally written in 1968 as a school cantata; accordingly, this film uses a framing sequence of a school recital, with an audience of clapping, singing kids and members of the faculty playing the roles. The Old Testament tale of Joseph and his coat of many colors gets a splashy, vigorous treatment with an energetic cast, Las Vegas-style glitz, and catchy, eclectic songs, including "Any Dream Will Do," "Close Every Door," the peppy "Go, Go, Go Joseph," and various bits of country, calypso, and Elvis. Osmond is perfect in the title role, with a strong voice and winning persona, while London stage veteran Maria Friedman performs well in the central role of the narrator. Richard Attenborough appears (and sings a little) as Jacob, and Joan Collins makes a brief, nonsinging cameo.

Joseph certainly isn't revolutionary musical theater, but if you view it as a kids' show, it's a silly good time (though there are poignantmoments too). Parents should note, however, that this production might warranta little discretion due to one suggestive scene and some risquécostumes. --David Horiuchi ... Read more

Reviews (265)

Lloyd Webber missed the boat...
Visually, the film was very good. I would have liked it to be filmed in front of a live audience, seeing that much of the energy comes from the audience. There was something missing without the live excitement. Osmond was the natural choice for Joseph. He has a strong presence and amazing voice. He looks pretty good too. Maria Friedman was a HUGE letdown. Don't get me wrong. I've seen her do other things and she's an amazing performer, but is simply wrong for the role of the Narrator, visually and vocally. Back in '97, I was living in London and I was told that Linzi Hateley (originated the role of the Narrator in the London revival, was Olivier nominated, and played it for the entire run) was going in for a screen test. I have no idea as to why she wasn't cast. She's beautiful, extremely talented, and deserved to have her performance of the Narrator archived for the world to see. Another good choice would have been Donny Osmond's original right-hand Narrator, Janet Metz. She would have been a joy to watch. Also, Kelli Rabke would have been good. I also heard that pop singer Tina Arena was originally cast as the Narrator for the film. I don't know why she backed out or was replaced. She would have been better than Maria Friedman. As I said before, the film production was well done, but since the Narrator sings practically 75% of the show, the casting of Friedman virtually ruined it for me. She is best put in shows like Sondheim's Passion, and more dramatic, operatic/broadway roles. I love her, just not in "Joseph."

Technicolor Dream Video.
Since enough reveiws have been written concerning the costumes, sets, and presentation. I thought I'd concentrate on the perfomers first and then add my bit on the others if space permits. Players:

Maria Friedman (Narrator): I thought she did a very good job! I loved her voice and how she sang the words. Her expressions were quite nice and everyone who has seen this video with me agrees that she seems to be having a GREAT time!

Donny Osmond (Joseph): Great voice, great interpretation and great transistion from Dreamer Joseph to Leader of Egypt Joseph. If you pay attention Joseph is so much more mature at the end of the story. Osmond almost seems born to play the role!

Sir Richard Attenborough (Jacob): Brought grace and dignity to the role. This is how I pictured Jacob! When I first heard he was going to be in Joseph I figured maybe they meant somebody else. I'm glad they didn't. The interaction between Attenborough and Osmond is top notched! You can feel the love between Jacob and Joseph at the end of the show.

Ian McNeice (Potiphar): He has the right millionairish look about him. I liked his performace up until 'Joseph I'll see you'll rot in. . .'. I just didn't like his interpretation as much as say, the Canadian Potiphar.

Joan Collins (Mrs. Potiphar): Excellent choice for the role, bringing star power behind it. I love how she reacts to Joseph's refusal. You can tell THIS is a woman who's used to getting who she wants! And her look of indifferentness as Joseph is carried away is just so fitting to the character. It's like 'Take him away if you want. I'll just find me a new toy.'

Robert Torti (Pharaoh): Best 'King' I've heard, and he is absolutely hilarious!

Christopher Biggins (Baker): He was ok. Didn't care much for his vocal presentation. However, his physical presentation was top notch! Love that faint!

Alex Jennings (Butler): Best Butler I've seen! His performance in the role was perfect! Too bad he was only on for such a short time.

Nicolas Colicos (Reuban, One More Angel soloist): I loved his vocal prsentation of OMA better on the London recording, but his physical presentation is a treat. Also his reprise is quite comical as you can see poor Reuban is making it up as he goes along! I should add that his intro in Jacob and Sons is a treat! It's lively, comical and just plain. . . FUN!

Jeff Blumenkrantz (Simeon, Those Canaan Days soloist): I loved his performance! Not just in Canaan days but throughout the entire show. His performance in TCD is memorable and near perfection. Haven't seen a better TCD soloist yet!

Gerry McIntyre (Judah, Benjamin Calypso soloist): Absolutely hilarious job! He had me laughing all throughout BC. The funniest part by far is his 'Benjamin is an INNOCENT MAN!' Never have I heard it that way! I was rolling on the couch! My only gripe with him is I still have no idea what the heck he's doing in Grovel Grovel lol!

Amanda Courtney-Davies (Apache Dancer, [and, I believe Reuban's wife]): I'm fairly certain she was also Reuban's wife. If not, well then take this next reveiw to whoever was. Was so very funny in OMA. Sometime during OMA watch her the whole time (particularly when Reuban says 'To wrestle with. . . a goat!') Another high point in her performance was in TCD when Zebulun drops her (intended). Though minor characters, her performance with them both was worth mentioning.

Michael Small (Zebulun): A great dancer! I felt his number in TCD days was worth a mention. And check out his jumps at the start of the OMA hoedown!

Other mentions: Martin Callaghan(Asher), Patrick Clancy (Issachar), Peter Challis (Gad). Though they didn't receive much camera time, keep an eye on them in the background of most numbers, you'll definately get a laugh! I only wish space allowed me room to comment on all the brothers!

LOVED IT!
My daughters (6&7) love "Joseph" as do I. The music is great and it's a great way to introduce musical theater to the younger audience. One caution though. Joan Collins' outfit is a little suggestive as is the scene where she begins to take off Josephs clothes. But for little ones, I think its totally over their heads and goes by really fast. I wouldn't let that hold you back from letting them experince this dvd. Donny Osmond is a fabulous Joseph. Our family would love to see him do this on broadway again.

Imperfect, but still terrific fun!
Donny Osmond, it would seem, was born to play this part. Both vocally and in the acting department, he raises the bar for every other Joseph out there. He captures the character's naivete and simultaneous intelligence pitch-perfect, his dazzling smile embodies the character's undying optimism, and his lovely clear tenor is perfectly suited to the singing role. I personally did like the Narrator quite a lot. She's quite funny, and her voice is very pretty. It's true that she's not belting the high notes very strongly - her vocal stylisms are more operatic than the average Broadway soprano, but I think it makes her interpretation unique and adds a quiet intensity that is normally not found in the role.

There are some flaws. For example, I found the Mrs. Potiphar scene unnecessarily graphic. Though Ms. Collins looks gorgeous for her age, and acts the part with irascible charm, her costume is largely a flesh-colored leotard with a few strategic bunches of purple sequins. It looks as though she's nude and wearing pasties. The entire instrumental sequence of that scene, which in the stage version is usually just an over-the-top "seduction" scene, is replaced here with a simulated orgy. I always cover my 6yo's eyes during that part. ;) I also agree with the other reviewers who said that the Baker and the Butler were really lifeless and sang terribly, and Jacob was expressionless throughout. His version of "distraught grief" was to stand there slightly slack jawed. Really pretty boring.

But these will not deter anyone from thoroughly enjoying this video again and again, and there are many aspects of the production that will forever set the standard. The eleven brothers were priceless, and all had very good chemistry with each other, the Narrator and Joseph. They also all clearly had incredible voices. The costumes were spectacular and colorful, the musical arrangement is the best I've ever heard in this show, and the pacing is compelling and consistent. The Pharaoh slays me every time - his comedic timing and appropriately overdramatic expressions coupled with his gorgeous baritone are just sublime perfection for the role. And Donny will make you grin right back at him.

In short, it's a very, very strong production that surpasses every stage version I've ever seen, and it is extremely faithful to the spirit of Webber's vision.

Great visually, severely lacking musically
If I could somehow take my CD of Joseph and line it up with this video, I would love this video. Joseph is excellent, but everyone else is only so-so. Scratch that. Everyone else is pretty bad.

Visually, this was fun to watch. There's one good part in "Joseph's Coat" where the brothers (I think it's the brothers...) grab the bottom of the coat and twirl it around so the bottom half forms a color wheel of sorts. The kids running up on stage is creative, but a bit cheesy. The sets are fantastic, but clearly are designed to keep the movie grounded in its Broadway musical roots.

Also, it's difficult to explain in text, but the kids in the audience look dispairingly cheesy. They have these fake smiles plastered on their faces and generally look dumb. It would not surprise me to find that the kids choir was originally from a Broadway cast and thus accustomed to overaccentuating any sort of movement.

The Narrator is really not very good. I can't explain why, but it just doesn't work.

Potiphar is fairly good, but he spends so much time speaking his lines instead of singing them that you hear very little of what sounded to be an excellent voice.

Jacob is weak. Even if the character is an old man, the part deserves to be a fairly strong singer.

The first "Poor, Poor Joseph" (when he was tossed into the pit) was visually very amusing. Very funny, but the Narrator singing it was still not great.

Donny Osmond is really the only character that seems to grasp that the movie should be presented as a movie, not an overly articulated and video-taped Broadway musical.

(Please understand that I'm mentally playing through the video as I write this)

"Go, Go, Go Joseph" was presented as an interesting disco party. I'm not sure of the original intentions, but that scene was enjoyable. The Butler and the Baker however were again let-downs.

The French accents in "Those Canaan Days," although affected by all of the brothers and Jacob, were not very good. There was a lot of non-French accent creeping in.

This video is no substitute for seeing it live. I've seen it live twice by both a touring company and a local theater and both were far superior to this video. If you want to listen to the music, I suggest the 1992 Canadian Cast Recording, which also contains Donny Osmond as Joseph. ... Read more

Reviews (135)

A rich experience worth viewing over and over again
This is a magnificent movie. It is visually beautiful - the colors and the way the shots are framed are stunning. The visuals are controlled in ways that add to the poetic power of the story. I do not speak Japanese, but the sound of the language combined with the musical score also adds to the intensity of this movie. The subtitles are good, but I am sure that those who understand Japanese get even more from this story.

This is not a film of Shakespeare's "King Lear". Rather, it is an adaptation and is based on the underlying themes of the play. It is not important for me to list the differences between the play and the movie, it is just important that a first time viewer not expect the Shakespearian story. If you know the play you will recognize aspects of the movie and enjoy the ways in which Kurosawa adapted the story to his own and Japanese sensibilities. It may nod to Shakespeare, but Kurosawa makes this his story.

The costumes, music, and acting are superlative. For me, the trademark Kurosawa battle scenes are more wonderful here than usual. This is a masterpiece by a filmmaking virtuoso who is also a sensitive enough artist to make a spectacular movie that is also poetic, humorous and heart breaking, tender and brutal as well images that are beautiful and others that are hideous.

This isn't light viewing or mind candy, but it has so much to offer that it is worth watching and learning from over and over again.

The Greatest Adaptation of Shakespeare to Film
"Ran" (Chaos) is the greatest cinematic adaptation of Shakespeare and a masterpiece in its own right. In adapting the broad scenario of "King Lear" to a setting in Sixteenth Century Japan, Akira Kurosawa felt free to manipulate it to his own purposes, leading to a film that is perhaps even more bleak than the play.

First and foremost "Ran" is a visually stunning film, unencumbered by the received tradition of Shakespearean language, which never translates well onto the cinema screen, he has allowed the scenario to develop into images that are beautiful and horrific. Filmed on the slopes of Mount Fuji there is a sense of unreality, or nightmare about the whole epic, as though it is taking place in a mythic space, at once recognisable and alien. For a director best known for his black and white movies ("Seven Samurai", "Rashomon"), Kurosawa surprisingly uses color to breathtaking virtuoso effect. The scenes of soldiers flooding in waves across the volcanic wasteland of Mount Fuji carrying vivid blue, red or yellow flags are amongst the most extraordinary ever filmed. The battle scenes shock and astonish, not least because Kurosawa's use of sound is so exquisite and original; many of the most horrendous images of battle are shown without sound effects with only an elegiac musical accompaniment. Far from sanitising them, the effect is to shock you out of the viewing habits formed watching so many other "war" movies.

Yet "Ran" is so much more than a broad epic, or war movie. The more intimate scenes are carried off with understated conviction, the sly hypocrisy hidden behind formality and convention is conveyed in highly poised and stylised interior shots. This film can be both visceral (prepare yourself for the beheading of Lady Kaede: as visually explosive as anything by Tarantino, and set within a film that is more than mere surface) and restrained, depending on the nature of the scene. There are moments of quiet and tenderness that resonate long after the film had ended.

It is odd that so few successful films have been made from Shakespeare. The pre-eminent playwright of the western canon has translated beautifully into opera and stage directors can continually find fresh things to say about the plays themselves, yet in general film had been hopelessly incapable of doing anything of note with Shakespeare. Think of the ghastly declamatory rhetoric of Laurence Olivier in "Henry V", or the inane pop video that Baz Lurmann made from "Romeo and Juliet", not to mention Kenneth Brannagh's tediously self-important "Hamlet". Somehow Kurosawa succeeds where all these others fail. His earlier "Throne of Blood" was a beautifully realised adaptation of "Macbeth" to the Samurai period in Japan: "Ran" builds on that achievement and surpasses it. Perhaps the fact that Kurosawa was Japanese allowed him more creative license to work with Shakespeare, able to approach it simply as valid material for film making, and not as the shibboleth that it is to western artists.

In Ran we have the late masterpiece of one of the greatest and most important film makers. It is a distilled and precise work, powerful, visceral, contemplative, epic and intimate. In short this is film making on a par with the greatest art. Ran shows us what mainstream film making can achieve, but so rarely does.

WHO WILL ENJOY THIS SENSATIONAL MASTERPIECE:
People who care about grandiloquent visuals yet a controlled palette accentuated by the immemorable use of sound -- or, in one major battle scene, the absence of the sounds of the battle, the horrors of war somehow magnified by the silent screams and the unheard bullets, only the quietly mournful dissonance of the haunting background score to be heard.

Castle gates close with resounding, hollow booms, shutting people out, shutting people in. A crescendo of cicadas. And the final anguished shriek of a flute lending a much more effective voice to the great tragedy that has been played out than closing words might have done.

If you're expecting flaming Gladiator-type fight scenes or Samurai action, you may be disappointed. That said, the battle scenes are magnum opus if you know how to appreciate visual splendor. The screenplay may be relaxed overall, sure, it takes a while to unfold a tale of filial destruction ("King Lear" adaptation) but when the forts crumble and arrows fly asunder, the pace of the film is unbridled.

Whether you're a film philistine or a major Kurosawa buff or simply someone who relishes tastefully done cinema, this is absolutely worth the ride. I highly recommend this as a rental, but the discerning types may also want to add it to their collections. It's among Kurosawa's best.

Not as good as all you people are making it out to be
This movie is terrible. I bought it expecting a good action epic with lots of battles and sword fights. There are no battles there are 2 massacres where all that happens is "samurai" with guns? shoot each other and women. samurai dont have guns. The story was good but they ruined it with 2 hours and 30 mins of talking on and on about the same topic over and over, yak yak yak. There is no drama the characters dont develope except for the old guy who just walks around starring and goes crazy. The perfomances are the same in everyone, yelling even when there happy, and they all sound the same even the women. No action, no drama, nothing except talk and fake blood from the stupid shooting, not swords, guns, What? Very bad movie, I was dissapointed, greatly. I would give 0 stars but they dont let me.

William Akira Shakespeare Kurosawa
This film is undeniable the most notable adaptation of any work of William Shakespeare to the movie. The insights in every detail, the superb cast, the overwheelming photography, the camera's handle makes us inevitably to remind that happy sentence of Orson Welles who said once:
"One film is really extraordinary , when the camera is an eye in the mind of a poet".
Casually this film is made in 1985, the same year of Welles'death.
Kurosawa was a truly master. Once upon a time a critical compared to Kenji Mizoguchi with Bach. If this methaphor is assumed valid, then Kurosawa would have his musical image in Ludwig van Beethoven.
The amazing scene of the castle in flames, with a remarkable red that invites us to reflect about the human condition, his hunger for power, the horror generated by that unthirsty ambition. The multiple readings that concern with the violence and the passion carrying the devasting facts that appear all along this film.
The opening sequences in which the three brothers are together with their father is filmed with such kind of perfection that I wouldn't wonder to know that this an obligated reference for all those students of direction. In this sense, this multiple exchange of points of view reveal us without affections of any kind,the essencial nature of the human being inmersed in the purest spirit shakesperian.
Kurosawa, like the great giants of th cinema handles the camera like Gods, includes the color and the nature's elements like adittional actors (Dreams). Just remember that Akira was the first filma maker who dared film against the sun in that glorius film Rashoman from 1950. His achievements all along his brilliant career are too many and certainly, would be beyond the reach of this shorts analysis.
This is one of these gems that you must see over and over, just when you admire this eternal masterpiece.
To be true the others Shakespeare's versions that deseve to be carried to the desert island would be in my opinion Titus 2000 (Julie Taymor), Othelo 1953 (Welles) , Richard III 1955 (Olivier), and Throne of blood 1957(Kurosawa).
But this movie is just several steps ahead all the titles above mentioned. ... Read more

Description

In Candida Royalle’s exciting sequel, Lisa’s intense passion for her new lover, Daniel Parrish,leads her down forbidden paths. Her erotic limits are pushed deliciously far when, at Daniel’s suggestion, she offers her quivering body to his friend. When a beautiful European couple(Rebecca Lord and Ramon Fernandez) come visiting, an erotic encounter ensues that leaves Lisa both excited and confused. But is Lisa losing herself to the seductive power of this sensuous man? Find out! ... Read more

Reviews (523)

Homer meets The Three Stooges in the Mississippi Delta!
Alright, folks... here's your riddle of the day: Whaddaya get if you cross the Three Stooges with the Greek poet Homer?

"O Brother, Where Art Thou?" that's what!

Here is another superb comedy finely crafted by screenwriters /producers/ directors Joel and Ethan Coen. Starring George Clooney, Tim Blake Nelson, and John Turturro, it features a brilliantly written script, superb acting by a wonderful ensemble cast, and a musical score that's simply second to none.

"O Brother, Where Art Thou?" is a simple story really... set in the Mississippi delta region during the Great Depression, it's the tale of three petty criminals who escape from the chain gang in quest of buried treasure and experience a series of misadventures along the way. Ulysses Everett McGill (Clooney) is the silver-tongued, self-appointed leader of this odd trio, a man who claims to have stolen and buried over a million dollars in cash. Delmar O'Donnell is the docile, sweet-tempered dimwit (played to perfection by Tim Blake Nelson). The third member of our little gang is an irritable, acerbic fella named Pete. Together they set off, chained to each other, in search of McGill's treasure, which is buried somewhere about to become a man-made lake. Our heroes have only four days to find the loot before it's lost forever at the bottom of the newly created reservoir.

As they begin their journey, the run across an old blind seer who prophesies that they will find a fortune, but not the one they seek. with a posse of law enforcement officers and vigilantes hot on their heels, Everett, Pete and Delmar ditch their chains and prison garb and continue on their quest.

Our trio's journey is anything but quiet and uneventful. They continually run into strange people and situations... At one point, soon after stealing a car and picking up a guitar-playing hitch-hiker, they stop at a local radio station and, posing as an "old-timey" music group called the "Soggy Bottom Boys," they cut a record that's soon all the rage throughout the region. Later they encounter a Baptist congregation at river's edge, singing a beautiful song, lulling our heroes into sweet forgetfulness for a few brief moments. They happen upon three washer-women, also at river's edge, whose siren-like song ensnares our three miscreants... George Nelson, a bank robber on the run, who nearly co-opts our heroes into a REAL life of crime... the one-eyed, fast-talking Bible salesman Dan Teague (played by John Goodman) who offers Everett, Pete, and Delmar a hard lesson on economics and life in general in the Depression-ravaged Deep South... and other characters as well: Governor Pappy "Pass the Biscuits" O'Daniel, running for re-election against a reform-minded candidate named Homer Stokes... Everett's ex-wife Penny, soon to me re-married to a real drone named Vernon Waldrip... and a whole gang of fellas dressed in white sheets and hoods who take exception to our heroes' intrusion into their ceremonies.

One of "O Brother, Where Art Thou's?" greatest strengths is its musical score. As the Coen brothers point out, nary a scene goes by without some kind of music in the background. The songs - 19 of them by my count - are all wonderful. It's a sublime mixture of old-time gospel and country music and African-American spirituals. From James Carter and the Prisoners' "Po' Lazarus," through Alison Krause's sweetly simple and reverent "Down to the River to Pray" (with brilliant harmonies added by the First Baptist Choir of White House, Tennessee); the old-time country classics "I Am a Man of Constant Sorrow" and "Hard Rock Candy Mountain," and "You Are My Sunshine;" to the old-time Gospel classics "Keep On the Sunny Side;" "I'll Fly Away" and "I Am Weary (Let Me Rest)," (and many other songs as well), the music adds an extra dimension to this already multi-faceted film. (By the way, all these songs can be found on the "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" soundtrack compact disc... but that's another review!)

I've now watched "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" about a dozen times. Each viewing has been a genuine pleasure for me. This film is clever in its conception, extraordinary in its execution, sublime in its storytelling, and masterful in its music. In short... wonderfully entertaining in every respect. A definite "must-see" for movie-lovers everywhere!

A Coles Notes approach to Homer's "The Odyssey"
"O Brother Where Art Thou" was an entertaining journey through the Great Depression and Homer's Odyssey. The stellar cast (including George Clooney, John Turturro, John Goodman, and Holly Hunter) shines. All of the characters are quirky to say the least: a one-eyed KKK Bible salesman, a Dapper Dan-obsessed intellectual jailbird, a blues guitarist who sold his soul to the devil, a blind "prophet," the Devil bent on revenge. This is a Coles Notes approach to Homer at best (even the directors, Joel and Ethan Cohen ("Fargo," "The Big Lebowski," "Raising Arizona") admit to never actually having read "The Odyssey," the story on which "O Brother" is based), yet is unusual and highly entertaining in its own right.

Fueled by an eclectic soundtrack, "O Brother" brought about an unheard-of resurgence of early country music, winning the Grammy Award for Best Soundtrack and outselling most other CDs that year. The selections include gospel, blues, a chain gang song ("Po Lazarus") and a hobo anthem ("Big Rock Candy Mountain"), along with plenty of toe-tapping country music from The Soggy Bottom Boys (fronted by Union Station's Dan Tyminski), Alison Krauss, Gillian Welsh, Emmylou Harris, and more.

The film has an unusual look as well: it was digitally edited to give it the washed-out appearance of the Dust Bowl during the Great Depression. There is a very interesting documentary about this process on the DVD; it is the first film to use this technique in North America (although not in Europe). In fact, there are several interesting extras on the DVD, including a making-of, a music video for "I Am A Man of Constant Sorrow," and a script-to-storyboard comparison. "O Brother" is filled with fun, unexpected turns and twists, and a great soundtrack. It may not be the greatest film you'll ever see, but it sure is entertaining!

the best clooney film ever
this is very very loosely based on homers odyssey.you ever hear of this?most people havent.4 dumber than a box of hammers criminals escape from a chaingang to go get a bunch of money one of them stole previously.it is a movie the whole family can enjoy filled with high adventure and many exciting scenes.it is set in 1939.there are a pack of sirens-i call them (...) this one but no fornicating.george clooney gives his best performance ever in this one.it was the best movie in a long time when it came out.an abselute classic.no matter what you hear,this is one of the best films in years.georges ol lady in the movie is a real psycho (...) but is FINE!

Watchable, but why?
The fact is, I've watched this movie three or four times, right through, without really knowing why. It's not exactly Joyce or Kazantzakis. It isn't that good, and Clooney's role and performance are irritating. He didn't play the part well. The songs aren't so very terrific, unless you're addicted to that kind of music. I used to sing "You are my Sunshine" during WWII when I was about 4. I'd heard about Bonnie Face Nelson, and he had a pretty good part. People from the South are often shown as very ugly and extremely fat in movies. The Sirens weren't beautiful, just ordinary. I don't think the Coens really like other people at all: they just watch them. Tommy was a nice fellow, with excellent manners. The cons were very mean to the little kid who rescued them from the burning barn. Early on there were only four days until the valley was to be flooded, then several weeks must have gone by before it actually was. Penelope was not exactly faithful, but she probably wasn't in the original either. That actress has a lot of character: the camera likes her. Probably I just keep on watching it because I'm puzzled and mystified without being bored. You just want to see what happens next, and it could meander on for ever, but stops because it has to. The flood washes nearly all of it away.

One of Their Very Best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I must say at the outset that I am a TOTAL Coen Brothers fan and have seen ALL of their projects. This ranks right up there as one of their crowning achievements.

This is a re-telling of the "Odyssey" by Homer and after viewing this, I finally got a handle on just what the "Odyssey" was about. In a nutshell, it follows the exploits of a man and the exotic characters he meets along his journey. The way the Coen Brothers personified such stalwart literary characters as the Cyclops (John Goodman) and the Furies is most creative.

Excellent performances all around from the likes of George Clooney (in one of his most endearing roles), the incomparable John Goodman, Holly Hunter, John Turturo, Charles Durning and a wonderfully strong supporting cast.

However, one cannot mention the merits of this movie without a mention of the soundtrack. It is most obvious that the Coen Brothers invested an enormous amount of research to make sure that the music adequately accompnaied the mood and tone. A wonderfully indelible example is the use of an acapella song (that utilizes no words, only moans) still used in African-American churches that is beautifully realized.

The music in this project is positively spellbinding, regardless of your particular musical preferences - there is something here for everybody. The soundtrack deserved the kudos it received.

This one you will enjoy over and over and over again!!!!
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeexcellent! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

A biography of the first czar of Russia was the final movie project of the great Sergei Eisenstein's life. It would be his undoing, as Stalin was not pleased with part II of this epic. But Ivan the Terrible, Part I still stands as a magnificent, rich, and strange achievement. This is a "composed" film to make Hitchcock look slapdash; every frame is arranged with the eye of a painter or choreographer, the mise-en-scène so deliberately artificial that even the actors' bodies become elements of style. (They complained about contorting themselves to fit Eisenstein's designs.) If you don't believe movies can be art, this could be (and has been) dismissed as ludicrous. But Eisenstein's command of light and shadow becomes its own justification, as the fascinating court intrigue plays out in a series of dynamic, eye-filling scenes. This is not a political theorist, but a director drunk on pure cinema.

Part II continues with the struggle for power and the use of secret police, a controversial segment that caused the film to be banned by Stalin in 1946 (the film was not released until 1958). The predominantly black-and-white film features a banquet dance sequence in color. Obviously the two parts must be viewed as a whole to be fully appreciated. Many film historians consider this period in Eisenstein's career less interesting than his silent period because of a sentimental return to archaic forms (characteristic of Soviet society in the '30s and '40s). Perhaps it was just part of his maturity.

Alexander Nevsky (1939), Eisenstein's landmark tale of Russia thwarting the German invasion of the 13th century, was wildly popular and quite intentional, given the prevailing Nazi geopolitical advancement and destruction at the time. It can still be viewed as a masterful use of imagery and music, with the Battle on the Ice sequence as the obvious highlight. Unfortunately, the rest of the film pales in comparison. A great score by Prokofiev was effectively integrated by the Russian filmmaker, but stands on its own merit as well. ... Read more

Reviews (18)

Ivan The Terrible...a bizarre classic
Alexander Nevsky is a lively pro-Soviet propaganda piece partially intended as a warning to Hitler at the time not to invade Russia. The epic battle on the frozen lake is justly famous and the sheer scope of the logistics of filming are impressive. Some of the characters are somewhat cliche stock creations of the time including the two soldiers fighting for the love of one woman who must prove themselves in battle, but overall it's a modest success.

The real prize in this three film Criterion set however is of course Ivan the Terrible parts 1 and 2, a great masterpiece, Eisenstein's most "enjoyable" film(s) and indeed one of the oddest works to emerge from Soviet cinema of the time. Highly expressionistic visuals combine with a melodramatic (and slightly revisionist) take of Ivan's life to create one of the stranger filmic experiences one will see. Eisenstein clearly had a very highly developed visual style and the numerous extreme close-ups of faces are extraordinary as are the sets and costumes. Part 2 doesn't quite live up to the promise of part 1 but nevertheless brings the characters to an appropriate conclusion. Bizarrely humorous (perhaps unintentionally at times) Ivan is nevertheless a film more for afficionados than for the casual viewer looking for another classic in the mould of Casablanca.

Regarding the transfers, they are superb and anyone expecting better prints is simply not being realistic regarding the age of the material and the conditions in which they were kept. While not as pristine looking as other recent releases of 40's films on DVD such as Shadow of a Doubt or Monsieur Hulot's Holiday they are more than adequate considering given the circumstances.

Superb and unusual Eisenstein sound films
Alexander Nevsky:

For those familiar with this classic of the Russian cinema, little need be said. For others, here are the high points: the story is set in medieval Russia and it essentially is about a great warrior who is drawn out of seclusion to lead the fight to defend the homeland against invading barbarians, who are German; there is much bravura acting from the loyal patriots, who deal not only with a vicious enemy from without but also with insidious traitors from within; the hero-warrior who leads them is suitably understated and dignified, striking a memorable portrait of nobility and grandeur. All this is dramatically heightened by some of the best cinematography ever, climaxing in a final battle over the ice which is done entirely with striking visuals and music-only sound. The result is one that rises far beyond the level of a mere costume picture or any cartoon story of battling types. This is a rich treasure from cinematic history, with all talents (including Sergei Eisenstein, one of the greatest directors ever, seen at his best) in brilliant form. Don't miss it.

Ivan the Terrible, Parts I and II:

During World War II, with Russia in the grip of Stalin and with Hitler at its door, the greatest Russian director of his day, and perhaps ever, joined the greatest Russian actor of his day, to depict the dark and brooding story of the rise and fall of a ruthless Russian Tsar who tyrannized Russia during the 1500s. While the story hardly amounts to movie uplift, the joy and fascination here lies in the details. Straightaway, in episode one, there is perhaps the most amazing movie opening ever filmed, in the coronation of Ivan the Terrible. Those familiar with Theodor Dreyer's "Passion of Joan of Arc" in 1928 will appreciate what fascination can lie in watching the camera cut skillfully from one grotesque image to another in endlessly imaginative ways, almost as if the gargoyles themselves were about to speak. The fascinating imagery proceeds non-stop from there, in the hands of master craftsman and director Sergei Eisenstein, like a medieval masterpiece come to life, though part two does not quite rise to the exceptional quality of part one. A taste of the high production standards is gleaned from a musical score composed by the great classicist Sergei Prokofiev. A very, very Russian production -- dark and grim, but full of amazing levels of interest, just the kind of production spoofed by Woody Allen years later in "Love and Death." Not necessarily to everybody's taste, but a great treat for connoisseurs.

Excellent box set. Thank you Criterion!
This box set is one of the Criterion Collection's best releases yet. In this set are 3 films.

Alexander Nevsky and Ivan the Terrible (Ivan Grozny) parts 1 and 2.

Alexander Nevsky is based on the true story of 13th century Prince Alexander Nevsky who helped fend off Teutonic (German) soldiers out of what is now Russia.

The film has an excellent score composed for the film by Sergei Prokofiev. The acting in the film is also very good also. The film was very popular and was temporarily banned by Stalin after Germany signed a nonagression pact with the Soviet Union.

The film is on disc 1 and has the following special features.
Restoration demonstration, Production stills and storyboard drawings, a multimedia essay by Russel Merrit on Sergei Eisenstein's work with Sergei Prokofiev on the film's score, an feature length essay on the film by David Bordwell, who wrote a book on Eisenstein's films, and there is also stills and dialog from Eisentein's unfinished film, Bezhin Meadow with photos of the film's set.

Ivan the Terrible parts 1 and 2 are the first two parts of an unfinished trilogy. Several scenes of part 3 were filmed but only one scene is known to survive today.

The film follows the life of Tsar Ivan Vassilivich also known as Ivan the Terrible (Ivan Groznyy). He is credited with uniting the people of Russia into a single nation. The first film covers his coronation and a battle that was fought to reclaim lost territory. The film is also very famous and has music by Prokofiev.

The first part on disc 2 has the folloving special features:
The deleted prologue sequence covering part of Ivan's childhood where he witnesses the poisoning murder of his mother and also contains another deleted scene. It also has the surviving fragment of the unfinished part 3 There are also a slide show of production stills and drawings, and an essay on the history of the film.

Part 2 covers the time where Tsar Ivan roots out the traitors who helped poison his wife and executes them.

The film has an excellent Color sequence cofering much of the last 30 minutes of the film. The Agfacolor film stock was captured from the Germans during WWII and was used for this film. The cinematography is really gpood and there is a flashback sequence from the deleted prologue of part 1

Disc 3 also contains an audio essay by Yuri Tsivian on the stunning cinematography of the film.

The set is well worth the $79 if you are a fan of Russian Cinema like I am. This set remains one of my favorites and it is really worth looking into.

Nevsky DVD
I'm only telling you about the Nevsky DVD here - my local library has a copy of it, and that was all i got to see.

Terrific transfer - firstly. The film's look, like with Ivan, is its greatest attribute - and here it looks incredible. The images are just so clear, i couldn't believe it. You can fully appreciate the brilliance and purity of Eistenstein's cinema.

Sound quality was good.

Special features were particularly good (as usual). Audio commentary and tidbits from film historians and critics. Most interesting was a reconstruction from stills and titlecards of Eistenstein's unfinished/lost pastoral film Bezhin Meadows. This is the only place you'll get to see this. And i was quite impressed by it. There are some striking images in there, similar to some compositions from Nevsky.

Unlike Ivan (which i have seen Part I of, but not on this DVD) in my opinion, Nevsky does not suffer from a creaky plot, but has good unity and good progression to the climax of the battle of the ice. Part love triangle, part battle epic, Nevsky feels wearisome in places for how very much it is soviet propaganda. In both films, the performances are unusual, because they are more like silent performances, which would have been poetic in a silent, but definitely look quirky in a sound movie.

If i had any complaints it would be these:

one for Eisenstein, for his sound engineer, for the terrible job he did of constructing the sound for the battle on the ice. I could hear the foley artist literally clanking a whole lot of swords together rhythmically. Very distracting indeed.

one for Criterion: i would not have subtitled every line of the singing. Nevsky and Ivan are both part Eisenstein movie, part Prokofiev opera. But the lyrics of the songs the people/army are constantly singing in the background of Nevsky get very repetitive, because its the same verse over and over. Continually reinforcing this propagandising message of unity. And i'm sure its the same for Ivan, but the release i saw of Ivan didn't continue to subtitle every line of song, which is why i know this was a much better option.

Otherwise, a beautiful DVD edition (of Nevsky) with an incredible image and good special features.

A Review for Alexander Nevsky
This is a Russian film released in 1938, just before the start of World War II. Although the film features battle sequences between the Germans and Russians, it is not about World War II. It is set in the 13th century cities of Pskov and Novgorod. Alexander Nevsky is the prince and a famous war leader who previously defeated the Swedes when they tried to invade Russia. The film has very strong images (and songs) of Russian patriotism, and is probably one of the reasons it was so popular when it was released. Since the Russians were preparing to fight the Germans once again in WWII, this film was likely a morale-booster for the soldiers and the public alike.

The opening sequences of the film feature beautiful cinematography. Alexander Nevsky and his men are fishing on a lake when a band of Mongols crosses their path. The Russians have just fought a war with the Mongols and so some fighting ensues as the Mongols pass by the Russians. Alexander Nevsky, irritated with this commotion as it is scaring the fish away, breaks up the fight. Some of the Mongol leaders recognize him as the man who defeated the Swedes and invite him to become a general in their army. He replies with an old Russian saying that it is better to die than to leave your homeland, giving yet another shot in the arm to Russian patriotism.

After the Mongols depart, one of Alexander's men comes up to him and warns him that they may have to battle the Mongols yet again. However, Alexander brushes this warning aside and advises that the Germans will have to be defeated before the Mongols.

Next, we move on to the city of Pskov. The Germans have already taken over this city and are holding the surviving Russians captive. The men are tied up in the center of the city while the women and children look on. The site of the German army is actually rather amusing. The Germans are dressed up in sheets, somewhat reminiscent of the garb members of the Ku Klux Klan are famous for wearing. Regular German infantry soldiers have buckets on their heads with cross cutouts allowing for them to see out. The German nobility also have buckets on their heads but they get specials horns and other decorative regalia.

This is probably the most graphic and disturbing scene of the movie as the Germans then proceed to exterminate every surviving Russian, somewhat ominous as this is also what the Germans do in WWII. There are close-ups of a German soldier throwing children into a pit of fire as they are screaming out in fear. Everyone else is either burned to death or hanged. However, at least one man manages to escape Pskov and goes to warn Alexander that the Germans are advancing.

When the escapee relates his message to the famed prince, Alexander is deeply disturbed and begins planning how to seek revenge on the Germans. He forms a company of troops and even orders the peasants to join in. One exceptionally brave female also joins the army. They then march to the city of Novgorod to gather more troops. Although some at Novgorod initially refuse to fight, more patriotic speeches are made and everyone agrees the Germans must be stopped.

Once the battalion is formed, they begin marching towards Pskov and run into some German troops. Although the German troops appear to win this minor battle, Alexander regroups and forms a plan for attack set for the next morning. The attack is staged on an ice-covered lake and while some of the men are worried the ice may give way, Alexander advises them that if it does, the Germans are likely to go in first since their armor is heavier... so, all the better.

The lake battle is really quite spectacular for its time, although it would probably be considered cheesy by today's standards. Some of the more hilarious images involve the German soldiers getting conked on the top of the head with an axe and then their buckets crumple up, presumably squishing their heads. As it is mainly a sword battle, there are images of several soldiers getting played out from swinging their heavy swords and having to lean upon their teammates in order to remain standing. The Russians begin to chase the Germans away, seemingly towards areas of thin ice as the next scene is that of the remaining German troops falling through the ice into the piercing cold lake beneath them.

The rest of the film is rather anti-climatic as the Russians return to Pskov and prove their moral superiority over the Germans by releasing the captured foot soldiers and holding the captive nobility for ransom, rather than executing everyone as the Germans were notorious for doing. Then, some brave soldiers choose wives and Alexander declares that everyone should celebrate. All in all, this is a decent film worth watching. ... Read more

Reviews (29)

Bergman shines in religious epic
Overlong but fairly engrossing bio of Gladys Aylward, an English-woman who, despite her lack of qualifications, becomes a missionary in China. The film is episodic and covers Aylward's brief career as a parlor maid (saving money for her trip to China), her journey to China, her work at the Inn of the Sixth Happiness and the Chinese-Japanese war which results in her guiding 100+ children in an arduous journey through the mountains to a safer village. I didn't find the film as moving as other reviewers but it is well mounted and nice to look at. Bergman is outstanding as are other supporting players, most notably Curt Jergens and Robert Donat. This was Donat's last film (he died before it was released) and his last screen words are prophetic - "We shall not see each other again, I think. Farewell."

What is most notable about this dvd release is the excellent commentary by Nick Redman, Aubrey Solomon and Donald Spoto. Redman talks about the real Gladys Aylward, Solomon talks about the film production and Spoto discusses Ingrid Bergman. There were many things changed for the film version and many of them are small and inexplicable. For example, Aylward's given Chinese name was Ai-weh-deh (not Jenai), an adopted child was actually named Ninepence (Sixpense in the movie), etc. Other changes were more larger in scope - Aylward's journey to China was quite harsh and she almost died several times. The inn-keeper, Jeanne Lawson (memorably played by Athene Seyler) was no as agreeable a woman as portrayed in the film - she was actually a cantankerous person prone to fits and thought to be quite mad by the villagers. Aylward herself was thought by many to be fanatical and to put it bluntly, off her rocker. Many other fascinating aspects about the film and the women (both Aylward and Bergman) are included.

A must for every video library ! An inspiring tear-jerker !!
One rainy afternoon I was channel surfing and came across this movie and fortunately for me it was very close to the beginning. I was so drawn into the story and captivated by Ingrid Bergman's performance that I forgot I was even watching television!! This is one of the most touching and moving stories I have ever seen and (I won't give this part of the movie away) when the Chinese gave "Gladys" a new name and what that translated to in English I thought I was going to go through a whole box of tissues right then and there. The storyline, scenery and acting are superb and the fact that it is based on a true story only makes it more inspiring. My cousin is 18 years old and wants to pursue a career in the mission field and I told her many times that she has to see this film. So I'm not only going to purchase one for MY video library but one for HER'S as well.

following God's call
This is a magnificent film in every aspect; the acting is brilliant, the landscapes beautiful, the drama intense. Based on the true story of Gladys Aylward, a house maid in England who was "not qualified" to be sent to China as a missionary, so went there on her own, saving every shilling earned for a ticket on the Trans-Siberian railroad. Taking place in the pre-WWII era, it's an adventure story of great spiritual courage, the chaos of war, and a romance between two independent people who never thought they would find love.

Ingrid Bergman is luminous as Gladys. It is one of her very best performances, and my personal favorite. Robert Donat, who passed away before the film was released, is also marvelous as the Mandarin of Yang Cheng, and Curt Jurgens as Captain Lin Nan is handsome and believable as the man who falls in love with Gladys. In a small but pivotal part, Athene Seyler is terrific as Jennie Lawson, the elderly missionary who helps Gladys in her early years, and Peter Chong is a delight as Yang the cook.
It is odd that the only Oscar nomination went to director Mark Robson; perhaps Bergman was overlooked because she had received a "Best Actress" for "Anastasia" two years earlier, but Bergman fans will give this film their own five-star award.

The fabulous location filming by Freddie Young was done in Snowdonia National Park, North Wales, a remarkable substitute for Shaanxi Province, in the heart of China. The village reproductions are very well done, and look incredibly similar to films I have seen shot in China. The lovely score by Malcolm Arnold adds much to the film, and Alan Burgess, whose book "The Small Woman" is the basis of the story, wrote the script, which is witty, wise and wonderful, with Isobel Lennart.
Many times I've laughed out loud , and many times I've cried watching this film; it's good for several viewings, as it is epic in scope, and the script has an intelligence that makes it a rare gem. total running time is 158 minutes.

In the film, Chinese tradition has five "Happiness" wishes: Wealth, longevity, good health, virtue, and a peaceful old age and death. "Each person must decide in their heart what the sixth happiness is".

Break out the Kleenex...
...for this manipulative, mawkish tear-jerker. The story feels superficial (you never get a feeling for Aylward's sense of spirituality, only the very ocassional bit of tacked-on religiosity), and it's all grossly sentimental. All those feel-good moments with singing kids and long hugs actually detract from the important message about selfless service by making self-sacrifice seem all too easy and romantic, even in the face of brutal Japanese invasion.

The casting choices will try your suspsension of disbelief, to say the least: a Swede as an Englishwoman, a hulking German as a half-Dutch/half-Chinese colonel, and an Englishman as a Chinese mandarin. That said, this is still a fun film if you take it for what it is. It boasts an unusual story and exotic setting, and Bergman is as radiant as ever (even if she overacts in a couple scenes). Donat and Jurgens are uqually winning, in their own way.

Hardly Bergman's best film, but certainly worth a watch if you're a fan.

Noah visits the baby Jesus
The Inn of the Sixth Happiness was filmed in Wales and the scenery is beautiful. Ingrid Bergman is in top form as Gladys Aylard would be missionary to China. One of my favorite scenes is when her assistant Yang, who has a fondness for Noah and his ark, is telling the diners at the inn that Noah came in his ark to visit the baby Jesus along with the wise men. When she gives him a disapproving look he goes on to explain that even though Noah was born long before Jesus people lived alot longer back then, so no one could say for sure that he couldn't have been there. ... Read more

Description

Presented on 4 DVDs, The Man Who Planted Trees Deluxe Edition is the complete collection of celebrated works by one of the most acclaimed animators of our time, Frederic Back.

This tribute to Frederic Back contains 9 animated short films, fully digitally re-mastered for the first time, featuring: Academy Award winners The Man Who Planted Trees and Crac!, and the Academy Award nominated film The Mighty River.

SPECIAL FEATURES: Interviews with Frederic Back, Interview with Jean Giono (author of The Man Who Planted Trees), Interview with Hubert Tison, Frederic Back Biography, Interactive Menus, Photo Galleries, and Lists of Festivals & Awards. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Back's work deserves to be seen by a wide audience
Others have listed the contents, so I won't bother. I bought this on the strength of two shorts-Crac! and The Man Who Planted Trees, both of which I have on VHS, but wanted on DVD.I figured anything else was a bonus.All nine of the animated shorts are good to excellent, but I now have two more reasons to be delighted to have bought this set: All Nothing and The Mighty River.The Mighty River is almost as incredible as The Man Who Planted Trees.It deserves to be more widely known than it is.Everything on the set is worth checking out, but most especially watch the various Photo Galleries.The detail is all the more impressive in stills.A most highly recommended set.

Pricey, But Worth Every Single Cent
I have heard of Frédéric Back's The Man Who Planted Trees before by virtue of it being an Oscar winner for Best Animated Short in 1988, but have never seen it. When I found out that there was this DVD set collecting all his work, I was quite enthusiastic about it. It was expensive, but I ordered it anyway. And then I was left thinking or the next three weeks if my money was dumped into the drain for something I didn't know what to expect.

Since receiving my copy of The Man Who Planted Trees DVD, I have watched all the animated shorts, and bonus features. I am so amazed by his work -- both as an animator as well as an environmental activist.

When I was watching the films, I was thinking that this guy is carzy -- To think that Back hand-drew and used coloured pencils to complete every individual frame (background and foreground) of the film is just incredible. His films play with a continuous flow of images that is very much like a stream of consciousness projecting life at it's fullest -- alert, active and vibrant. And to add to that liveliness is the suitably used Impressionistic style with the rich beauty, movement and colour.

To some extent, as I watched the "The Man Who Planted Trees" and "Crac!" I was reminded of Winsor McCay's work such as "Gertie the Dinosaur" (1913). Here is a man so dedicated to his art. When McCay drew 10,000 ink-drawings to make the Gertie move, Back spent five years doing some 200,000 drawings to make his 33-minute The Man Who Planted Trees film.

That's what I call dedication and passion to his work and art. And you don't come across people like that very often.

So is the DVD set worth buying? I believe it was money well spent.

Brilliant Animation with a Heart, a Soul and a Purpose
Whether you are a longtime fan of the work of Canada's Frederic Back, or you are just discovering the masters of animation, you'll both be equally and incredibly pleased with this four-disc anthology.Nine films are included: Abracadabra, Inon or the Conquest of Fire, The Creation of Birds, Illusion?, Taratata!, All Nothing, Crac!, The Mighty River and The Man Who Planted Trees -- as well as several insightful interviews and a documentary retrospective of the life and work of Frederic Back.All are presented beautifully, with each film looking and sounding fresh and well-cared for.

But beyond the presentation, these films (particularly The Man Who Planted Trees, Illusion? and The Mighty River) get to the heart of environmentalism and stewardship.They are not shrill or glib, not reactive or stalely didactic -- these films are awash with animism and life, each using this unique medium to exhalt the beauty of creation, and to exemplify the folly of excess.Back's impressionistic style flows like a river itself, rolling and moving and churning, urging us to face the simple truths of our abuses, and to consider the possibility of a more harmonious course.

I'll stop there, because I'm afraid I'm making Back's work sound contrived.Walt Disney once said that a true animated film could not be put into words, and he was right.I can only urge you to see these truly remarkable films, and to share them with the youngest generations. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Irreversible begins with the closing credits running backwards before the film begins (or ends) with Marcus (Vincent Cassell) and Pierre (Albert Dupontel) being escorted out of a gay S&M club by the cops, Marcus with his arm broken and Pierre in handcuffs. The "story" proceeds to unwind in a series of single-take scenes that unfold Memento-style, with each scene giving more context to what we have seen previously.Each scenario depicts actions, dialogue, incident, behavior, and circumstances that the lead characters might have wished didn't happen, ranging from extreme violence through awkward social situations to mild embarrassment. The central character (and possible dreamer of this whole what-if story) emerges as Alex (Monica Bellucci), who suffers the worst in a very hard-to-watch rape sequence in an underpass. Semi-improvised, the scenes all have attack and power as themes, with later/earlier conversational sequences that suggest life isn't all sexual assaults in the dark, showing equal cinematic imagination with the horrors. Arguably, this is not a film most would subject themselves to twice, but it is something that stays in the mind for days after viewing, sparking far more ideas and emotions than most wallow-in-nastiness pictures. --Kim Newman ... Read more

Reviews (172)

Shockingly Powerful
-SPOILERS-

'Irreversible' is a totally unique film experience. It may not be totally enjoyable due to its content, yet a must see for any film enthusiast.Director/writer Gaspar Noe delivers this mind-bending, harrowing film in total reverse sequence. Thus we are given a view of the conclusion at the film's very start. It is immediately known that the principal characters (Vincent Cassel and Albert Dupontel) are engaged on a vicious search for an individual who has committed an extreme act against them. Whether directly or indirectly, we sit eyes affixed to the screen eager to know what has transpired. As the film unfolds, we view the principals in a wild dash around Paris to find this mystery individual. Stopping at nothing, these two characters will clearly not be denied and are willing to assault and harrass anyone who might hold the key. Eventually, we bear witness to an extremely unpleasant and repulsive rape scene of Cassel's girlfriend played by the lovely Monica Bellucci. This scene lasts at least 10 minutes and we now understand the reason for this vengence. The remainder of the film provides the set-up for this awful scene and allows the viewer to gain an understanding of these incredibly complex characters. This is a triumphant achievement for Mr.Noe. He is clearly a man with vision and one who knows no boundaries in terms of what to put on the screen. A big thumbs up to Thomas Bangalter of DAFT PUNK for putting together a musical score that flows so well with the story. This film will not appeal to everyone. If your idea of film is the latest Julia Roberts flick, steer clear of this movie.

9/10

Bleak, unhappy, disturbing, shocking, grim and brilliant
Gaspar Noe's Irreversible is an unforgettable film and one that is guaranteed to provoke a strong reaction. The first half of the film is so bleak and unpleasant that it's almost oppressive. Though it's not exactly a horror film itself, this film is darker and scarier than most horror films. Depicting a brutal head-bashing murder in a dingy hellish nightclub, and a vicious violent rape in the first forty-five minutes, it's difficult to watch and may be too much for most audiences. These scenes will not leave your head for a long time.

The film unfolds in backwards chronological order, similar to Memento. More than just a simple gimmick, this structure adds even more depth to the experience. The main theme of the film seems to be choices that we make and the irreversible consequences of them. By having the film sequenced in reverse, we actually see the consequence before we see the choice. I agree with what Roger Ebert wrote in his review of Irreversible, saying that our present happiness depends on not knowing what will happen in the future. In this film we see the horrible, horrible circumstances that the characters are going to find themselves in. In the second half of the movie, when we see them in happier times, we know what is going to happen while they do not. This just makes it seem all the more tragic the way things turn out.

The style of the film can be a bit much at times. In some scenes, the camera moves all over the place almost making The Blair Witch Project look relatively still in comparison. It's quite a cinematographic achievement, but it does call attention to itself. In contrast, during the rape scene the camera is completely still and does not cut away, presumably to force us to focus on what is happening onscreen.

Irreversible is a fascinating film which will have you glued to the screen and also, at times, wanting to look away. It's powerful, well-made, brilliant and unforgettable. However, the first half of the film is mercilessly grimy, unsettling and dark giving nearly the most unpleasant feelings that this reviewer has ever had in a movie. It's not all that way, however, and the second half of the film shows the couple (Monica Belluci and Vincent Cassel) in happier times and significantly lightens up. Irreversible is not at all for the squeamish but for those who can stomach it, it's an exhilarating cinematic experience.

A brilliant work of art.
There are two sides to "Irreversible". The first one is violent and disturbing, the second one beautiful and romantic. Since all reviewers from this forum chose the first one, I shall write about the second part of the film, which is beyond greatness. There is a party scene and a subway one that would make any film buff more than happy. And then there is a beautiful and tender love scene between Bellucci and Cassel.

The film is told backwards, ergo, the audience knows the characters' destiny. It's so sad to see them having such a great time together -- laughing and dancing, not knowing how their lives will be forever altered. This is great cinema. Monica Bellucci's performance is incredible -- I can't think of any actress (especially one from Hollywood) who would have accepted to play such a difficult part. Vincent Cassel (he did the voice of Robin Hood in Shrek) and Albert Duponteil are equally good. The whole movie is shot in single-take scenes, most of the dialogue being improvised by these great actors. The film has been directed by Gaspar Noe (Seul Contre Tous) and he brings us his unique vision to the material. The sountrack and the special effects are excellent, too.

If you haven't yet seen "Irreversible" and you have reservations regarding the violent content -- here's a tip for you: watch the second half of the film (where the party scene begins) and then judge for yourself if you want to see what's left out of this complex tragedy. Everybody knows that good and bad co-exist together. "Irreversible" has such a fresh and realistic look to life that in less than a year will probably become a classic.

What thrash!
What a thrash of a movie! Can't see what's the rave all about.
Tries to disguise a poor movie by doing silly things like running it in back to front (it starts with the end of the movie and work itself to the start). In between, one gets tortured by foul language aplenty and worse still a cameraman who seems to have been told by the director to point his camera to anywhere other than where he's supposed to. As a result, certain part of the movie was simply a pain and agony to watch with picture of darkened ceiling, flashing lights and nothing more than that.
Then, there's that attempt at plot. What a pathetic attempt at that. If you manage to figure out the back-to-front sequencing, then it's about a young (good-looking one) lady attending a party and deciding to leave early. On the way home, she got raped (and I believe many thought this is ground-breaking since it takes up a few minutes of groaning and further foul language). Boyfriend left party and found her raped, got raging mad running around looking for the culprit, thought he found the guy in a gay club (here's where you gotta tolerate the camera work mentioned above), got into a fight and his mate with him killed the one he was fighting with. Police arrives, take them away. END OF SHOW!!! Now how's that for plot!
Almost had to shut it off after the first 15 minutes but thought why not tolerate it to see how bad it can be. And believe me, it can be and indeed is VERY bad!
So here it is. A very badly made movie trying to disguise itself as something more than that by violence, nudity and sex. Do you need it?
Oh yes, it's in French so be ready to get through the movie reading subtitles if the above doesn't alert you to what's in store.

some of the most disturbing scenes ever
If there's one thing that can be stated with utmost certainty, it is that "Irreversible," a French film by writer/director Gaspar Noe, is not for the faint of heart or weak of stomach. In fact, this tale of the brutal rape of a helpless young woman is one of the most harrowing films ever made and features two of the most graphic scenes ever committed to film: the rape itself and the killing of the man responsible for the rape.

Although I imagine that very few people will end up subjecting themselves to this film in the long run, those who do will witness an amazing piece of work in many ways. Like the movie "Betrayal" from 1983, "Irreversible" tells its story in reverse chronological order. It begins with a frenzied man racing through a gay sex club, madly searching for someone we know merely as Le Tenia. Only as the story develops - as we are taken ever further back in time - do we begin to understand what is going on: that this young man, Marcus, is seeking vengeance on the rapist who has brutally attacked his pregnant girlfriend. Noe keeps us in a state of confusion by filming the scene in such a way as to reflect the maniacal state of Marcus' revenge-obsessed mind. The camera bounces around in epileptic confusion while the audience attempts to get its bearings. Eventually, as the filmmakers backtrack to reveal the events that have led up to this moment, the camera calms down and we get to see the whole ugly story acted out in painfully graphic detail. In fact, in the rape scene itself, Noe reverses his filmmaking style 180 degrees, deliberately leaving the camera stationary and focused on the event as it plays itself out. He simply won't allow us to stop looking.

There are some, I imagine, who might object to this film on moral grounds, feeling that it is little more than a cynical exploitation picture with artistic pretensions. Yet that condemnation would do a disservice to the makers of this film who, I believe, do not want us to revel in the sordidness of what we see, but rather to be appalled by the unspeakably brutal way in which human beings can treat their fellow human beings. By having us sit and witness every moment of this brutality without the comforting filter of cutaway shots or easy dissolves, Noe forces us to face the ugly truths about ourselves as a species. The reverse-order structure of the film heightens the tragic nature of the story for it allows us to see just how happy and hopeful these characters are in the time right before the rape shatters their lives. The latter half of the film contains no physical violence, yet watching it unfold is an ineffably sad experience, for we, unlike the characters themselves, are privy to the Sword of Damocles so precariously poised over their unsuspecting heads, yet find ourselves helpless in being able to rescue them from the inevitable destruction it will cause. Thus, the structure robs us of even the remotest option of hoping against hope that the tragedy can somehow be avoided - for we have seen it as an already completed action. For while the film may be "reversible," life itself is not. In the case of this film, at least, form does, indeed, become content.

Vincent Cassel as Marcus, Monica Bellucci as his girlfriend, Alex, and Albert Dupontel as their mutual friend, Pierre, all deliver excellent, heartfelt performances.

I doubt that many people will have the intestinal fortitude to make it through large segments of this film, but those who do will surely never forget what they've seen. ... Read more