Description

Over a hundred years after his death, Richard Wagner remains an enigma. His was a rags-to-riches saga with a fairy tale ending. He was loved, yet hated; admired, yet despised. He was a heroic villian who was worshipped and whose fame and exploits were the gossip of Europe. Above all, he was an incurable romantic whose affair with Liszt's illegitimate daughter rivals that of Romeo and Juliet. But he was also a dangerous political revolutionary whose influence penetrated the fabric of German society in the nineteenth century. He was a legend in his own lifetime, and he was one of the greatest composers to ever live. Only an actor of the stature of Richard Burton could measure up to the titanic character of Wagner, and this proved to be his final film role. Academy Award winner Vanessa Redgrave co-stars as Cosima, Wagner's second wife, a woman who had a dramatic impact on German history until her death in 1930. The incredible supporting cast also includes screen legends Sir Laurence Olivier, Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud. Filmed in wide screen 35mm Dolby Stereo, this major drama production is one of the largest East West co-productions ever undertaken. ... Read more

Reviews (195)

An all-around superb film
For some reason, people who see this movie either completely adore it or completely despise it. I will never understand those who despise it, because Emma is one of the most well-made movies I have seen. The entire cast is wonderful, with almost all of the actors accurately portraying the characters from Jane Austen's novel (which I believe everyone must read before they can fairly judge this movie). The score was excellent (apparently the Academy agreed) and the costumes were beautiful. Considering that Austen's novel is more than 400 pages long, I would have to say that the director did a fabulous job of turning it into a two hour movie. Gwyneth Paltrow is the exact Emma I envisioned when I read the novel for the first time, and Jeremy Northam is absolutely adorable as Mr. Knightley. The humor is subtle, but that is characteristic of most of Austen's novels. Despite the quality of this film, it's probably not for everyone. The language may be hard for some to take for two hours, and it is a period piece, which not everyone enjoys. However, I would still recommend this movie to anyone.

Brilliant in so many ways
Being a die-hard Austen fan, I couldn't resist watching this movie. Emma Woodhouse's story has always been my favorite of
Austen's efforts, and I am always glad to see her work brought to the screen. I was VERY pleased with this film.

Casting was well done. Northam provides a sturdy, but not overly-stern, Knightley, and Paltrow does an amazing job of convincing us that she is, indeed, British in her portrayal of Emma. Her accent is nearly flawless, and I felt that she truly captured the personality of Austen's most spoiled heroine. The sets and lighting are bright, airy, and perfectly suited to the comedic approach taken by this particular director. The scenes are edited just brilliantly. Each scene flows seamlessly from one to another, and the pace of the plot runs along just perfectly. It moves fast enough to keep everyone interested and slowly enough to make sure that everyone has enough time to absorb what's going on.

The criticism I've heard most often is that the film really only touches on the Jane Fairfax/Frank Churchill subplot for the briefest of moments. I did not find that to be injurious to the film. It's plain, while watching this version, that the director wanted to keep the story light and funny. Adding Jane and Frank's saga would have done two things: First, it would have seriously darkened and dramatized the bouncy and bright atmosphere of the entire film. Second, it would have taken the spotlight off of Emma Woodhouse as the focus of the story. I felt that, given the abbreviated length of time that a movie has in which to communicate a story...the omission of Frank & Jane's affair was a wise choice.

The second criticism I've heard of the film is that it's just too clean and "pretty" to be accurately representative of Regency England. Again...this didn't bother me. The focus of this film is NOT to be true to history. It is not a Regency documentary. It is a fun and aesthetically pleasing depiction of Emma Woodhouse and her friends. It's romantic, funny, charming, and very very pretty to look at.

I loved it.

Misguided, but somehow pleasing.
There's no reason this should work as well as it does. This is a very broad adaptation and the performances in general are unsubtle and broad as well. Ms. Paltrow's accent is heinous, and Ms. Collette's work is frankly annoying (though that is in part as written.) As the movie moves from set piece to set piece, lingering endlessly on the beautiful design, one can't help but think that if Ms. Austen's Emma had actually had so much to do, she'd have been little bored enough to spend so much time meddling in her friends' affairs. But in the end, the good will evinced by all involved somehow makes a film that charms very much in spite of several and severe flaws. The BBC version of Emma is much superior in adherence to the Austen story, and Clueless certainly has the edge for humor, but this is a fair adaptation that ultimately is more success than failure.

Love this movie!
Beautiful people, clothes, quirky characters and a flawed Emma make this movie enjoyable time after time. There aren't a lot of movies I can watch multiple times, but this is one I always enjoy!

Paltrow and Northam light up the screen!
Whether you've read the novel or not, this movie adaptation is enjoyable to watch. The characters are so vividly brought to life that it's impossible not to feel their joys and their sorrows. Paltrow is adorable as the young Emma and her scenes with Mr. Knightly (Jeremy Northam) spark with romantic chemistry. Mr. Knightly comes off as charming and very handsome thanks to Northam's own charm and classy good looks. Miss Bates makes you laugh but at the same time, she breaks your heart. Great sets, scenery, and acting by entire cast. Highly recommended! ... Read more

Reviews (115)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pax et Bonum, A young Irish Secular Franciscan.

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

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

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

Amazon.com

Granada Television's adaptation of The Forsyte Saga achieved the seemingly impossible in spring 2002, matching the BBC's 35-year-old black-and-white classic version with a richly cast and superbly directed take on John Galsworthy's first two novels. The success of these six 90-minute episodes proved that despite the current emphasis on miniseries and dramas developed around the hot actor of the moment, our appetite--and attention span--still craves ensemble pieces that are given space and time to develop. It also demonstrates that nothing generates television gold like a compelling family drama crammed with lust, rape, class conflict, and the insuperable power of money.

The Forsyte Saga is nothing if not superior soap opera. It could all have gone horribly wrong, haunted by the specter of its BBC predecessor--a television legend for anyone over 40. Instead, it succeeds entirely on its own merits with scarcely a weak link--from Stephen Mallatratt's taut and fluid script to David Moore's carefully measured, seamless direction. Risks were taken to banish the old ghosts, particularly in the casting. Damian Lewis's repressed Soames and Gina McKee as his ill-matched bride, the enigmatic Irene, are inspired choices delivering complex portraits of unhappy, damaged human beings who deserve our sympathy. In a sea of marvelous cameos and splendid acting, the top honors go to Corin Redgrave and Rupert Graves for their hauntingly sensitive interpretations of old and young Jolyon, as well as to Amanda Root for her increasingly exasperated Winifred and Gillian Kearney for her sharply intelligent and worldly June. --Piers Ford ... Read more

Reviews (55)

Upper-class, Victorian soap opera
I thoroughly enjoyed this new version of "The Forsyte Saga". The series is well-produced, well-cast, well-acted, with the storyline remaining faithful to the books. The series focuses on the lives of several branches of the Forsytes, an upper-class British family in London, beginning in the 1870s and ending in 1901. Primarily, the story highlights the havoc Irene, first as Soames' wife, then later as (young) Jolyon's wife, unintentionally wreaks upon the family. When viewers are first introduced to them, Winifred has just become engaged to the upper-class, ne'er-do-well Montague Dartie. Soames (Winifred's brother) first sees Irene as she is just beginning to go out in society again after the mourning period following her father's death. Young Jolyon (Soames' & Winifred's cousin), who is married and has a young daughter, June, falls in love with his daughter's French governess and causes a huge family scandal when he leaves his cold-hearted wife for the governess and his father disowns him. Although all of these cousins interact with eachother, though not always for anyone's benefit or support, the main focus of the series is upon Soames' and Irene's disastrous marriage. Soames, who is cold, obsessive, and controlling, falls in "love" with Irene at first sight. He exemplifies a Victorian gentleman in that he views women (and wives in particular) as property. In fact, Soames is often referred to as a "man of property" even by his own family. He never really bothers to get to know Irene, or even to take into account her interests, hopes, and dreams for the future. He does show that he can more than adequately provide for a wife, and viewers see that he is obsessed with her, but none of these things equal love. Soames is nothing if not persistent. He convinces Irene's stepmother to accept him as Irene's suitor, and watches the house, hangs about so often that other potential suitors are discouraged and/or driven away. Irene is young, poor, and clearly at a disadvantage--she clearly tells Soames no, that they would not suit, tells her stepmother the same, to no avail. The stepmother has ulterior motives--she wishes to remarry, and so long as Irene is on the scene, men are interested in Irene, so Soames provides a good way to eliminate a rival on the marriage market. Irene finally caves in to the pressure from both her stepmother and the prospect of poverty--she accepts Soames but only on the condition that he release her from her marital obligations should the marriage not be a success. Soames readily agrees, and they are married. Much of the rest of the series continues with the disintegration of their marriage, Soames' refusal to honor his pre-marital promise to her, and her subsequent attempts at escape from an increasingly jealous and possessive husband, including openly flouting her affair with architect Philip Bosinney (June's fiance), and an absolutely appalling marital rape committed by Soames. The stories of Winifred and her family and young Jolyon and his families are seamlessly interwoven with the central story of Irene and Soames. The series progresses with Irene finally leaving Soames for good, Soames' refusal to accept that his marriage is over (following her, pestering her, bullying her, demanding her return and that she give him a son), and Irene's friendships with both old Jolyon and young Jolyon, including her marriage to young Jolyon once Soames divorces her. The series wraps up with the births of Irene's & Jolyon's son and with Soames remarriage (also of convenience instead of love) to Annette and the birth of their daughter.
The series shows the usual attention to detail that viewers can expect from British period dramas, including beautiful costumes, and lovely sets.
I also like the casting, and, contrary to many previous viewers, find that Gina McKee does an excellent job as Irene! In the books, Irene is described as having blonde hair and brown eyes in some parts, and in more parts is described as having amber hair and brown eyes. To me, amber means a reddish-brown (like the fossils) not blonde. She also conveys how trapped and unhappy Irene is in her marriage to Soames. This is the story of a disastrously unhappy marriage, in which she is trapped, watched obsessively by a husband who has no idea how to treat a woman (to think of her as a human being was well beyond the scope of his intelligence and imagination), who wants out, and to suggest that she should be portrayed as anything but lifeless when Soames is around would go against the story and her character. The only times viewers see any life in Irene is when Soames is not around or when she thinks that he is not around.
The other actors, including Damian Lewis, Rupert Graves, Amanda Root, and Ioan Gruffudd round out the cast and give wonderful performances all around.
Viewers are also treated to wonderful social and political commentary (on the status of women as chattel or property, the cumbersome divorce laws in effect at the time, the British class system, the Boer War, etc.) Wonderful series all around. Highly recommended.

Well, two-thirds of the John Galsworthy literary saga
I have neither read John Galsworthy's novels nor seen the classic 1969 BBC version that was the first "Masterpiece Theater," so my perspective is based on recognizing Damian Lewis from "Band of Brothers," Gina McKee from "Notting Hill," Ioan Gruffudd from "Horatio Hornblower," and Amanda Root from "Persuasion." Actually, when I started watching this Granada Television production my immediate thought that this was going to be like "The Magnificent Ambersons," and that sooner or later (I assumed later) Soames Forsyte (Lewis) was going to get his comeuppance. By the end I was thinking more in line of "Rich Man, Poor Man," because Young Jolyon Forsyte (Rupert Graves) becomes the other pivotal Forsyte in the saga and his path and Soames do cross throughout. These comparisons are not meant to be gratuitous, because I think the mini-series at its best is as good as it gets (think "Shogun," "Lonesome Dove," "Pride & Prejudice," name your own--in your heart you know that I am right).

The short version of this saga is that it chronicles the lives of three generations of a monied, middle-class English family at the turn of the century. As our saga begins Winifred (Root) becomes engaged to the wastrel Montague Darties. Young Jolyon is disowned by his father (Corin Redgrave) after leaving his wife of this daughter June's governess. Soames is a solicitor who forces his marriage to the beautiful but penniless and therefore desperate Irene, who falls in love with Philip Bosinney, the French architect hired by Soames to build a home in the country. Those are the starting points for the major characters, but what becomes important is that the characters prove to be dynamic despite all the soap opera elements of the saga. The predictability of their behavior is tempered by some surprises. I also want to praise the adaptation by Stephen Mallatratt and Jan McVerry for its use of meaningful looks: there is a scene early on where Soames and his father have a discussion as to how much money to settle on Winifred after her marriage. Soames says nothing but provokes an entire series of propositions form his father just by minute facial manipulations.

I was rather surprised to learn after the fact that "The Forsyte Saga" on these three DVDs is not the entire Galsworthy epic. What we have hear is based on "The Man of Property" (1906), the short story interlude "Indian Summer of a Forsyte" (1918), and the novel "In Chancery" (1920). There is another interlude, "Awakening" (1920) and novel "To Let" (1921) which deals with the third generation of the Forsytes, particularly Fleur and Jon, who are born at the end of this series. However, I was actually pleasantly surprised by where and how the saga ended. I guess this is an "average" British mini-series, which certainly makes it above average by anyone's standards. I did not enjoy it so much that I want to go out and read Galsworthy's novels, but it is still a worthwhile viewing experience. However, I do want to check out the old BBC version.

absolutely wonderful!
brilliant acting performance of a wonderful story. I enjoyed every minute of it, and after watching more than eight hours, I couldn't believe it was over.

Do yourself a favour
Do yourself a favour and watch this series of DVDs also Series 2. If you love this era then dont miss this lavishly produced series with gorgous costumes and handsome heroes watch the series then read the books. They are great.

Far superior to the original
Having read the books and now having seen both the 69 version and the 2000 version I am somewhat mystified by some of the reviews. First let me say that I am generally a fan of "original" works rather than remakes. I love black and white and am not at all bothered by dated production values or styles. This said, the 2000 version is far and away superior to the 69 version. The performances here are vastly more nuanced and subtle, especially Damien Lewis as Soams. His predecessor was not only too old for the role but I find his performance very self-conciouse and one note. As for the huge uproar over the casting of Irene, I expected to be bowled over by the original, I was not. Here again a very stagey and also vacant performance. Gina McKee is an Irene who attracts not only with her grace and beauty. She is attractive because of her sensitvity her insight and her unwilingness to bow to Victorian social standards. The very things that attract Soams to Irene are the things that make it impossible for their marriage to work. The other characters are also, with rare exception, played better here than in the original especially June, Young Jolyon, Bossiney and Winifred. Do not let a bow to nostalgia cloud your judgement. This is by far a superior piece of work. ... Read more

Description

With its stunning camerawork and striking compositions, Carl Th. Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc convinced the world that movies could be art. Renée Falconetti gives one of the greatest performances ever recorded on film, as the young maiden who died for God and France. Long thought to have been lost to fire, the original version was miraculously found in perfect condition in 1981-in a Norwegian mental institution. Criterion is proud to present this milestone of silent cinema in a new special edition featuring composer Richard Einhorn's Voices of Light, an original opera/oratorio inspired by the film. ... Read more

Reviews (99)

The best film I have ever seen
MY CURRENT RATINGS:
10/10 Movie: The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)

The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer 1928)

Once thought lost to the world, the film was pieced together in the 1980s from a Danish copy found miraculously in a mental hospital closet.

The introduction on the Criterion DVD tells us this. By film's end, you realize just what a blessing it is that this most beautifully crafted work of art, history and faith was not lost to us all.

I began my first viewing without the later-created score. Something told me to go ahead and add the inspired sounds, as they were approved and revered enough to accompany this most definitive copy of the piece.

From the second she comes on screen, Jeanne (Maria Falconetti) appears Divinely informed, set apart from her persecutors. The brilliance of Falconetti's performance cannot be overstated. Her eyes share a myriad of emotions in each frame, more than a thousand encyclopedias could convey.

I often say there are too many words in films today. I look to classics to find my respite. Silent films are the best vessels for such a cinefile.

The story of St. Joan of Arc is familiar to most today. We've seen everything from picture books to MTV videos imitating the final, passionate days of Her existence. She is somewhat a cult icon for young feminists, though I doubt this was Her purpose.

Whether you take Jeanne's passion as a believer, or a sympathetic, or a skeptic impressed by her self confidence in what she knew as truth, it is impossible to not love a woman so steadfast. One cannot imagine the horror behind those now famous eyes conveying Jeanne's final days here.

I admit being moved to tears on many occasions during this first viewing.

The framing was so emotional, showing angles that impart such immediate recognition of fear, anguish, faith that one can be expected to cry merely for the level of art.

The editing was also vastly fraught with feeling. During one of the film's most frenetic sequences, the pace quickens with a fervor of impending fright, and we are one with our protagonist.

One might think with all these incredible kudos, the film would fail somewhere. It cannot contain such a complete package of filmic greatness at such an early stage of the medium?

It can and does. Visual symbolism is resplendent. From a cross hidden as the window bars to a flock of birds lighting on the steeple, to a babe suckling its mother's milk as stark contrast to the events surrounding it.

Truly the most remarkable, crafted, and moving piece of cinema I have ever seen, heard or experienced.

10/10 and beyond. Every film should rise to the level of The Passion of Joan of Arc.

Restored herstorical trial
First off read the editors review, that sums it up. I just would like to add that the film blows you away with its musical score as performed by Annonymous Four. The cinematography and all aspects of film making are of the highest caliber and the music just further mesmerizes and adds to a fantastic performance by Renee Falconetti as Joan. The judges on behalf of the church are very evil and sinister looking, the camera work accentuates this masterfully. One judge has his typically monk fashion do looking demonic with hair ends from the side pointing straight up like horns. It is brilliant characterizations like this and the use of close ups that leads the viewer into what must have been an insane trial. Not to be missed by movie buffs, or anyone with an appreciation of fine film making before color and sound. Actually the musical score does more probably than a dialogue could have, the subtitles are fine and the restoration is like watching a "new" movie. Don't miss this brilliant vision by Carl Dreyer, a true masterpiece.

A true classic of cinema
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film

This movie is one of the most well known classics of Europe. The 2nd original print, long thought to be lost to fire, was miraculously found in the closet of a mental hospital in Norway in 1981. The 1st original was burned though.

The recent film, "Passion of the Christ" was not the only "passion" film to generate controversy. This film was thought to be anti-England due to its protrayal of their treatment to Joan of Arc. The French were also upset that a non-French and non-Catholic man directed the film. The film's dialoge (by intertitles as it is a silent film) is based on actual transcripts of Joan's trial which have managed to survive also. The film is said to be very moving for some people just like Gibson's "Passion of the Christ." Not being Catholic, I am not sure of what many of the elements of either film may refer to.

The DVD has numerous special features as always.

Audio commentary by Dryer scholar Casper Tybjerg of Copenhagen University (he has a thick Danish accent that is very nice)
Optional soundtrack for Richard Einhorn's "Voices of Light" (a musical piece inspired by the film)alsong with an essay about the music and a libretto booklet.
Production design archive
History of the many different cuts and alternat versions of the film
Audio-only interview with the star's daughter, Hélène Falconetti.

An extraordinary accident -
About 5-10 years ago, I asked my mother (then 70 yrs old or so) what the best movie she'd ever seen was. She said Carl Dryer's Joan of Arc, which then had not yet been re-released. When I told a film lover this, he said "oh, that was EASY." Intrigued I went to see the movie at Avery Fisher Hall at the new release with Einhorn's score. Well, I was speechless. It was nothing I expected it to be. And, as it happens, not what Carl Dryer expected either! He had to create it from rejected footage when the original version was destroyed in a fire. Proof of his genius, now one can't even imagine another version. With all of these close-ups that were originally rejected, could we still today be so amazed by it? Even up close, Maria Falconetti's performance is the most humble I have ever seen in my life. The script is just a court proceeding, which I believe was from the original court transcripts. Seeing the film, witnessing the ridiculous trial, and experiencing Maria Falconetti's soul, I went away feeling sad for the human race.

what gibson's passion should have been
one reads all too frequently a tagline like ' the greatest film of all time'.
like many, i read of this film for years before ever seeing it.
todd browning's freaks was also a film one read of for years before it became readily available.
the difference in finally encountering the two films is remarkable.
while brownings freaks is an essential film to see, it doesn't quite live up to it's expectations, mainly because of the badly stilted dialogue.
it undoubtedly would have been better as a silent film.
however, dreyer's passion leaves you no such dissapointment.
it is an unbelieveable work of art and ranks with chaplin's city lights as the most remarkable achievement in silent film.
and it is possibly the greatest film ever made and,for once, this is not an outrageous or exaggerated statement.
virtually, everything about it works. the only weakness lies in the titles which can be obtrusive. but,then, all films are flawed, of course.
it is fairly well known that dreyer wanted desparately to film the subject of christ and the passion.
chaplin too had wanted to play christ and said he was the perfect actor to do so as he was jewish by birth, an aetheist by choice, and a pantomimist.
he was probabaly right.
objectivity (like in the example of passolini's gospel according to st matthew)can actually lead to a stronger, more honest work of art.
mel gibson's recent proselytizing effort is the quintessential example of how having a personal agenda can actually lead to a monstrousely horrifying expression.
gibson's passion leaves the senses reeling from the onslaught of sadistic images.
not so here.
while the tragedy which befell joan is of unparamount dimensions,
our emotions and heart yearn during the course of the film without experiencing the type of nauseousness we feel from encontering gibson's unrelenting assault of macho torture.
here we experience the lessons of the sermon on the mount, the our father, the hail mary and the passion. and this is the type of balance we desperately need in a film of this nature.
oddly enough, a few years ago a friend of mine had never read the gopels and i encoraged her to read the gospel of john.
her honest reaction (a reaction without preconcieved notions) was that christ possessed an honest, effiminate, nurturing character.
how ironic then that dreyer could give us a female martyr and move us in a way that the macho gibson could not. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Star-crossed lovers, feuding family, royal plots, noble destinies,and salt-of-the-earth heroes. No wonder R.D. Blackmore's romantic classichas been a perennial favorite. Amelia Warner (Michael Caine's innocentchild bride in Quills) is Lorna, the beautiful young brunette"queen" of the feral Doone clan in this latest adaptation, a handsome 2.5-hourco-production between the BBC and A&E. Theonce noble line now lives out of a swamp fortress and preys off the localfarmers and tradesmen, but the family patriarch (Peter Vaughan) has hatched a plot to win back his title and his land. Handsome John Ridd (RichardCoyle) swears vengeance against the Doones when they murder his father, but he falls for Lorna, and the rakish, ruthless Doone scion (Aiden Gillen, whoswaggers through the drama with a perpetual sneer) refuses to give up hisclaim on the girl without a fight.

This is the kind of British romanticadventure that decries the tradition of nobility and privilege while rewardingits heroes with those very privileges, all within a grand framework ofmelodramatic twists, thrilling battles, and chivalrous heroics. Director MikeBarker creates an appropriately larger-than-life world at once pastoral andsavage for his little epic--shot in the verdant British countryside, where alush forest green permeates every outdoor scene, while the dusky interiors glowwith candlelight--giving in completely to the sweeping emotional melodrama atthe core of the story. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (22)

A Promise to Keep
Fortunately I was able to catch this originally when it ran on A&E and was so captivated I pre-ordered both the video and DVD. The video version differs only slightly from the DVD; the color is not as good. That's it. Overall it's a very good purchase at a reasonable price for such an excellent film.

Fans of A&E's lush romances like Pride & Prejudice, Victoria & Albert, and Emma will enjoy Lorna Doone. It's a blend of romance, adventure, mystery, and something of the sinister, with a Romeo & Julietish twist. The acting is stellar, particularly in the casting of Aidan Gillen as Carver Doone. He completely overpowers the screne whenever present and makes a loathable and yet empathetic villain. Richard Coyle is doubly good as the heroic John Ridd, and Amelia Warner proves she can play leads effortly as the spirited but puzzling Lorna.

It's a film my entire family enjoyed... there was enough romance for the girls, some action scenes for the guys, and enough lush English countryside and magnificent costuming for one and all. Rent it, buy it, borrow it -- see it.

Romantic Predictability...
A & E's production of R.D. Blackmore's novel of forbidden love between two hostile families is lushly filmed, action-filled, and surprisingly dull. Yes, there are a few surprises here and there; however, the story runs into predictable territory come the last hour and a half, and the characters become too melodramatic to be considered real.

The star-crossed lovers do play off each other well, embracing the invisible struggle surrounding their union. Amelia Warner (Lorna Doone) gives the right amount of innocence against ambition, creating a lovely, yearning picture of a woman finding her way into the world. Her love (John Ridd), played by the ravishing Richard Coyle, battles endlessly for her deliverance from a power-hungry family. Scenes of swordplay, gun fighting, and warring words dominate the film, along with the green and black tones of the Doone's aura. Their home and demeanor is cold and dark, in stark contrast to that of the Ridd's. Yet despite these dynamic action and aesthetic backdrops, I found myself jumping ahead at various points simply because I was already ahead of the film itself. The characters, though well played, were standard stock-acting fare. Aidan Gillen's performance of Lorna's rejected suitor was extremely cartoonish. Each time he was told he should give up his pursuit of Lorna, he would restate his devotion to her then stomp away like a child. I kept expecting him to grab a skateboard along the way, riding off to his pouting place.

I will say that the romantic standard of hero/villain/heroine is not an easy foundation upon which to build an unpredictable storyline, especially when given a rather caricature-esque setting. Yet director Mike Barker does his best with Adrian Hodges screenplay, and makes a film for inspired romantics. Although it is predictable at most points, the tale does give the audience the desire to rise in hopeful bliss for two souls so like their own. Lorna and John may be of a different time, yet love burns deep in all of us, no matter the age or circumstances. If it is to be, there is no death for love. Lorna and John teach us this, as we rise.

A Weak Link
I got this DVD as part of the A&E Literary Classics Romance Collection, and it's one of the few weak links in that otherwise superb box set (a must for lovers of period films and literary adaptations). Lorna Doone is a fun little romp through 17th-century England if you're willing to lower your standards for a few hours, but in all honesty it's really just a clumsy, formulaic Romeo and Juliet tale.

The main villain is a sneering cardboard cutout. The central romance is unbelievable: Lorna is never fleshed out (and is no great beauty, either, to be frank), so you never see why John falls in love with her--unless it's just simple infatuation because of the "forbidden fruit" factor. You just have to take the whole relationship on faith since it rarely feels real or compelling. On top of that, the clumsy direction makes a total mess of the fight scenes: there's no sense of focus, pacing, momentum, or drama. (There are little historical anachronisms, too, like John's sister wearing the kind of modern eyeglasses with side bows that hadn't been invented in the West at that time--no big problem, obviously, but sloppy and distracting nonetheless.)

On the bright side, this version of Lorna Doone (many have been filmed over the years) features a few memorable performances, like the droll Michael Kitchen as Judge Jeffreys. Plus, there aren't a whole lot of period pieces focusing on 17th-century England; most choose the Middle Ages or the 18th or 19th centuries. So, at least the time period is refreshing.

2.5 stars.

A disappointing departure from A&E's high standards.
We are fans of period films and have enjoyed many A&E and BBC productions. Instead of getting swept up in the drama of Lorna Doone, however, we spent our time mocking the film. I think that poor directing is to blame. Why were we forced to see the same cheesy "vertigo" shot of water in the canyon below every time a character walked on the narrow ledge by the waterfall? Why were all scenes shot in the Doone valley incredibly dark and hard to see, even when the action was taking place in the middle of the day? Why were the Doones and the people of the adjacent town so unfamiliar with one another when it seemed to take approximately 15 minutes to walk from one settlement to the other? Why was Lorna always clean and neatly-dressed, while every other resident of the Doone Valley appeared to have minimal acquaintance with bathing facilities? Why did John and Lorna fall madly in love after exactly two encounters twelve years apart?

The film tried valiantly to fit many of the book's plot points into a two hour movie, but the gaps in character development made for awkward leaps. The actors did a fairly good job with tough material, but even good actors can't overcome strange sequencing of events and cheesy, predictable dialogue.

Exciting the whole way through
John Ridd's father was killed by the Doones-a band of ruthless outlaws who had threatened and stolen from the townspeople. John (Richard Coyle) watched his father die, and vowed he would get revenge for their evil deeds. He falls in love with a sweet and beautiful maiden, only to learn that she's a Doone. Lorna (Amelia Warner) is a granddaughter of the Doone's leader, and she is expected to marry the future leader of the Doones-her cousin Carver Doone (Aiden Gillen). John finds himself in a difficult situation-he not only loves a girl that his family will hate, but he must fight Carver, who is just as determined to marry Lorna. The characters find themselves battling with issues of loyalty. This is a great story based off R.D. Blackmore's classic novel. I would highly recommend it. ... Read more

Description

A beautiful, simple story of a man in post-war Rome who needs his bicycle in order to work at his job. No sooner does he retrieve it from pawn, then it is stolen. The heartwrenching search teaches the man and his son much about the meaning of life and just how far we will go when pushed to the edge. Winner of a special Academy Award. ... Read more

Reviews (51)

Excellent Version of Classic Movie
A beautiful, humanistic portrayal of poverty and desperation as well as one of the most evocative documents of post-WWII European life. The sound and visual quality on the DVD are better than any other version I've seen and yet the film doesn't look "glitzed up" - no Dolby sound, no digital airbrushing - so it retains its common touch. The story simply concerns a man who's lost a bicycle that he desperately needs for his jobs and his day-long attempt to find it. Within this simple narrative framework, the director, Vittorio de Sica, and his writer, Cesare Zattavini, unfold Roman society as it existed just after the defeat of fascism - squalid, predatory, and cutthroat. De Sica astutely prevents the film from becoming maudlin through the toughness of his approach - the laborer's search for his bicycle focuses the film and seals off any intrusive melodrama. The ending, where the father shamefully faces his son after he's caught stealing a bicycle, is one of the cinema's most heartbreaking finales - right up there with Chaplin's "City Lights".

Although its status has diminished somewhat in some circles - by those who see it as a well-intentioned but programmatic Marxist fable - "The Bicycle Thief" remains, for me, a masterpiece and one of the most compassionate portrayals of poverty ever put on film. It would make an interesting double-bill with Bunuel's contemporary "Los Olivados" (1950), his pitiless masterpiece on those left out of the postwar good times. I can hardly wait for that film, as well as de Sica's "Shoeshine", to come out on DVD as well.

Neorealism at its most profound!
Imagine your family's livelihood depending on a bicycle. In post-war Italy, you compete with hundreds for a job where 25% of the work force is unemployed. The job is yours but it requires you to have a bicycle, something so simple as a bicycle and that bicycle gets stolen on the first day.

Neorealism - This wonderful Italian 1948 classic directed by Vittorio de Sica is an emotional depiction of degradation of the soul, loss of humanity and dignity. The film, one of the best in cinematic history, captures neorealism at its best.
Neorealism involves the use of location settings, non-actor roles, and conversational dialogue instead of literary dialogue, simple camerawork and editing. Neorealism offers a compassionate point of view with morality.

Here, we wish an innocent man with a family to support could find relief, satisfaction, comfort and justice. As for literary dialogue, there isn't anything great said here, it is simple conversation. No great special effects takes place, no shoot-um up bang bang, just plain old post-war Italy depicting real life, poverty, degradation and humanity. The VHS 50 year-old film is gritty and at times it is difficult to read the words.

Desperate - Antonio, a father and husband lands a job and on the first day posting movie billboard posters, the bicycle is stolen! Antonio frantically scours the streets and his little son Bruno tenderly tags along to recover the stolen bicycle. Now keep in mind that little Bruno is in the picture for one reason, and without him, we, the audience, would have a more callous attitude to the ending.

We see signs of post-war economic hard times, like the rows and rows of bicycle parts or hundreds of bedsheets that were pawned. The characters are non-actors in the real streets of Italy. You may need to see it more than once to catch everything or to understand its deeper meaning.

Neorealism Director Vittorio de Sica directed 34 feature films and won numerous international prizes. He was honored with four Academy Awards for "Shoeshine" in 1947 and "Bicycle Thief" in 1949 and other film awards for "Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow" in 1964 and "Garden of the Finzi-Continis" in 1971. He died in 1974. I believe "Bicycle Thief" is one of the best.

"The Bicycle Thief" is emotional, prodding one to think explicitly into the actions taken. ...MzRizz

Great Film, Okay DVD
The Bicycle Thief: a very simple, straightforward story, told straight, no plot-twists or fancy story tricks like false endings, etc. This is a simple story: a man who's work requires him to use his own bicycle or lose his job has his bike stolen from him. The rest of the movie is his and his son's attempt to find the thief and get the bike back.
I understand the plot, but I find it just a little hard to imagine life being so harsh as to put a man out of work for having his bike stolen. I'm not saying it's unrealistic; I didn't live in Italy after WWII. But I found it a tad extreme to be honest. It's a great movie, but I don't think it hits its point home as sharply as Rossellini's "Rome Open City".

The DVD is ok - I agree with some reviewers that it could (and indeed should) be transferred at a higher bit-rate with less compression. This film truly derserves the Criterion Treatment if any Italian classic does! It is a better transfer than "Open City", but that's not an excuse. I agree it's time for a quality restoration with more extras and a nice commentary track.

But overall, this is a wonderful classic film full of heart and is a fine product worthy of inclusion in any tasteful home movie collection.

Classic needs a re-release
Classic movie about the cruel nature of life, of inescapable fate. The dvd itself is pretty bad, with defects shown in the transfer, along with terrible audio.

Hopefully a re release will be offered, with the latest restoration software being used. The dvd came out early on, before the current restoration techniques were used.

And the audio/subtitles just suck!

I really enjoyed this movie!
I had never heard of this movie when I stumbled on it late one night right before I went to bed. Instead of turning off the TV because it was late and I needed to go to work the next day, I found myself glued to the screen. This movie was unlike any I'd ever seen. Filmed in Italy after WWII, I felt like I caught a glimpse of Italian life in the late 40's. This was not a Hollywood made movie. There was little if no music in the background to manipulate emotions from the viewer yet I was extremely moved by the silence in between the dialogue. There is no Hollywood ending. The movie just ends, but it is not the end of this father and son story. I'm not sure who to reccommend this film too, but I loved it. It was different. I really felt like I was in Rome in the late 40's. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

All films take a certain suspension of disbelief. Fight Club takes perhaps more than others, but if you're willing to let yourself get caught up in the anarchy, this film, based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk, isa modern-day morality play warning ofthe decay of society. Edward Norton is the unnamed protagonist, a man going through life on cruise control, feeling nothing. To fill his hours, he begins attending support groups and 12-step meetings. True, he isn't actually afflicted with the problems, but he finds solace in the groups. This is destroyed, however, when he meets Marla (Helena Bonham Carter), also faking her way through groups. Spiraling back into insomnia, Norton finds his life is changed once again, by a chance encounter with Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), whose forthright style and no-nonsense way of taking what he wants appeal to our narrator. Tyler and the protagonist find a new way to feel release: they fight. They fight each other, and then as others are attracted to their ways, they fight the men who come to join their newly formed Fight Club. Marla begins a destructive affair with Tyler, and things fly out of control, as Fight Club grows into a nationwide fascist group that escapes the protagonist's control.

Fight Club, directed by David Fincher (Seven), is notfor the faint of heart; the violence is no holds barred. But the film is captivating and beautifully shot, with some thought-provoking ideas. Pitt and Norton are an unbeatable duo, and the film has some surprisingly humorous moments. The film leaves you with a sense of profound discomfort and a desire to see it again, if for no other reason than to just to take it all in. --Jenny Brown ... Read more

Reviews (1184)

This Movie is Why "Professional" Critics Must Go
I didn't see this movie in the theaters because it had gotten very mixed reviews from the so-called professional movie reviewers. But, when it hit the local vidoe store, I thought I would give it a try. WOW, what a kick in the teeth, interesting, and fast moving journey into one man's mind. The path this movie takes is fantastic.

Norton and Pitt are perfectly cast, and supported by a crew of fight club members that make for a well-acted show. Meatloaf, Ed Gil, Jared Leto, et. al. are great in support as the members/followers of the leads. Helena Bonham Carter has the only real female role in this film and is perfectly cast. But as much as the acting, this movie is made by the story. Unconventional, with a great twist at the end, the whole movie kept me on the edge of my seat. As with many great movies, it is hard to classify the genre (action, comedy, drama), as there is a sampling of all in this film. In the end, I would just classify this as a great film.

Much was made of the violence of this movie when it first hit the theaters. Those critics overstated the case. There is blood and violence in the movie, but it is not excessive and it serves the plot well.

If you missed this in the theater, see it now. If you saw it once, see it again. I will.

Fight Club-another reason to own a DVD player.
If any DVD was produced on the same level as the Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition and the Toy Story 3-Disc box set, it is this DVD. Fight Club is not only a VERY well produced DVD, but the supplemental material will keep you busy for LITERALLY hours. You will finally have a reason to 'break in' that angle button on your remote. As a story, Fight Club takes a more cerebral approach to ones thought processes. Containing many cool effects, Fight Club may make the average movie viewer pop a few Excedrins while trying to figure out the point of the film. While many may finish the movie in total confusion, mostly everyone will agree that Fight Club is a unique movie experience. When I received the DVD package, I was instantly impressed with the graphic design of the outer package, the discs themselves and the booklet that is included. Initially, this DVD comes off as a "special edition" rather then a simple "movie release on DVD". Whoever created the graphics on the cover and throughout the booklet has a very active imagination. Disc one has the film, disc two has the supplemental material. ** Pause the third FBI WARNING at the beginning of the disc....it is quite funny** Disc one offers you your usual "chapters" choices with 'moving' scenes (like The Matrix), audio setup for Dolby surround for both a 2 speaker setups and 5.1 setups in English and Spanish. This is also a THX certified DVD, so it includes a THX setup screen. Disc one also gives you the choice of several audio commentaries to listen to throughout the film, including David Fincher, Bradd Pitt, Ed Norton, Helena Bonham Carter, the novelist and the screenwriter, the Director of Photography, Visual Effects Supervisor and a couple of others. In a nutshell, you have a choice to listen to A LOT of people, a great addition to this DVD. Picture quality of Fight Club was incredible. Overall, the picture is moody and dark with beautiful blacks and wonderful color detail. It is beautifully photographed with incredible shadow detail and crystal clear highlights. Sound quality was equally impressive. Being THX certified, you can expect nothing less then awesome. Edward Nortons voice-over sounds very live, as though he's sitting right in front of you. The sound has beautiful detail, with stereo separation being impressively realistic and the music and dialogue recorded incredibly well. Surround detail is amazing with some scenes having deep bass that will make the neighbors call the cops. Disc two will stay in your DVD player for a long time. The supplemental material includes crew and cast information. behind the scenes of the production, the visual effects and on-location footage with commentaires and multiple angles.......WOW! Disc two also contains seven deleted scenes as well as trailers, TV spots, music videos, an interview with Edward Norton and a bunch of storyboards, visual effects stills, paintings and many other additions to keep your fingers happy on that remote. The Producers of this DVD should be applauded....not only is the picture and sound quality top-notch, but the graphical elements and the supplemental materials included are fantastic and incredibly entertaining. I highly recommend this DVD for those who enjoyed this movie in the theatre, who are curious about the film, or those simply interested in seeing what a superb DVD release is all about. Enjoy!

Not bad, but...
OK, blend Matrix, Guy Richi, and Osama Bin Laden and you get a masterpiece? A funny comedy, not more. Fight Club is brilliant in the beginning with all that satire, but when it gets philosophical, I felt like I have seen this before.

Famous Fight Club quote.
"F*** Martha Stewart. Martha's polishing the brass on the Titanic; it's all going down, man."

-- She just 5 months in prison and 5 months of home confinement. Isn't it wierd how much of this film has been almost prophetic?

Outstanding commentaries
All the commentaries you could want, and they're all great. The actor's commentary is at least as entertaining as the film. ... Read more

Description

Lord of the Flies is famed theater director Peter Brook's daring translation of William Golding's brilliant novel. The story of 30 English schoolboys stranded on an uncharted island at the start of the "next" war, Lord of the Flies is a seminal film of the New American Cinema and a fascinating anti-Hollywood experiment in location filmmaking. As the cast relived Golding's frightening fable, Brook found the cinematic "evidence" of the author's terrifying thesis: there is a beast in us all. ... Read more

Reviews (50)

A Bit Rushed, A Few Omissions, But Overall Very Good
"The Lord of the Flies" tells the tale of a group of English schoolboys stranded on a tropical island, with no adults, after a plane crash, while war rages on worldwide. The boys, ages 5 or 6 through 12 or 13, have food, water, and a pleasant climate. Their only challenges are to fight boredom and stay civilized until they are rescued.

I saw this videotape for the first time only a few weeks after reading the book for the first time. To me, the film was a little rushed, and there were a few important omissions, but it was still quite faithful to the brilliantly disturbing novel. The picture quality was a bit grainy, and the dialogue of a few of the child actors was a bit stilted at times, but Jack, Ralph, Piggy, and Simon were portrayed very well. The dialogue is hard to hear at times, against the sounds of surf and jungle, but I wonder if that was intentional and symbolic (i.e., the words of civilization struggling to rise above the roar of primitive Nature).

The important omissions were: Ralph's gradually increasing difficulty with thinking things through and needing more and more help from Piggy; Ralph's encounter with "The Lord of the Flies" in his mad dash for survival; the disappearance of the never-named boy with the birthmark, in the very beginning, which, in the novel, set off the fears and wild imaginings of the boys. The whole movie had a rushed pace to it, as if the producer and/or director had been given a tight budget.

Overall, I found this to be a good rendering of an excellent novel. I have never seen the remake, but have heard it's shallower.

Are we humans really THAT bad???
This movie is a very skillful presentation of William Golding's eponymous, timeless sociological horror story. A group of boys ranging from around 6 to, I would guesstimate, 14 or 15, are stranded on a desert island. Unfortunately for the boys, the general spirit of their story parts ways with the spirit of "Gilligan's Island" immediately, and they end up deteriorating into tribal, superstitious savages, rent with internecine strife, in a matter of (evidently) weeks.

Any viewer out there who plans to see this movie should absolutely make an effort to read the book. You could possibly see the movie first, if you digest storylines more easily through movies than books. But whatever order you carry out the two activities in, you must see the movie AND read the book, if you want a full understanding of what the director was doing here.

Here are a few good things to notice. First of all, you should be aware that this film was shot mostly on the islet of Vieques, off the coast of Puerto Rico. It's hard to believe that this is true, because it's just so perfect -- Vieques is the island where the U.S. Navy practices bombing these days, and protesters against war have been getting into all kinds of clashes with the authorities the past few months (spring and summer of 2001). Maybe "Lord of the Flies" was more prophetic than the director, actors and writers ever even realized.

A second thing to notice is the song that is constantly playing, throughout most of the movie. The song is "Kyrie Eleison." At first Jack's choir sings it, and then it sort of becomes general background music. If you happen not to be particularly into going to church, let me just clue you in that "kyrie eleison" is Greek for "Lord have mercy," which I think you'll agree is a chillingly apt refrain for this relentlessly dark movie.

A third good thing to notice is the little boy, who progressively loses his memory of his own identity, over the course of the film. At first, he automatically recites his full name, address and phone number to any stranger he meets, as he was apparently taught to do by his parents. Midway through the film, he can remember only his name, and part of his address. By the end, not to spoil the ending by giving too much away, he cannot even recollect his name. "How quickly," one envisions William Golding bemoaning, "we forget!"

But I'm just pointing out a few minor things to notice. The basic theme is obviously the clash between savagery and civilization, and the tendency for things to fall apart, for the center not to hold... George Washington himself used to say that the job of government has to do with Fear -- instilling it in possible malefactors, in enemies of the state, even in respected members of the community, just to keep everyone in line. This movie makes you think about what might happen if that force were removed from society as a whole. If the function of art is to raise awareness of painful truths, as this movie does, then the individual must be sure to bring things other than art into their lives, in order to raise awareness of kinder truths which are no less valid, no less serious, and no less important for being kind. That's what I think anyway.

This is an interesting movie, and it will really make you think. Two thumbs up.

a disturbing film.
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.

This film, based on William Godling's novel, is a film that many will find disturbing.

Having not read the book, I am uncertain if the film is close to the book or not, but I have heard people say both. The story is about some schoolboys who become stranded on an island after a plane crash. They later, (with no adult presence) start regressing to a savage state and do not remain civilized.

The film itself also has nudity which I am surprised the censors let pass given the time period in which the film was made. Even by today's standards, some may question the legality of nudity involving children. Since the nudity is clearly non-sexual it is legal, but still will offend some people.

There are numerous special features which are as follows.

Full length audio comentary by the director Peter Brook, producer Lewis Allen, director of photography Tom Hollyman, camera operator and editor Gerald Feil.

Theatrical trailer with and without audio commentary about a major problem that almost happened at the film's premire.

Deleted scene with and without commentary and a reading by author, William Golding.

Excerpts from the novel read by the author William Golding.
Screen tests and outtakes.

Scenes from a documentary about director Peter Brook's theatrical techniques.

Very bad adaptation.
Some books should not be attempted as movies, this clearly is one of them. If you just watch the film instead of reading Golding's story, you'll be missing out on much of the wonderful symbolism, the character development and most bizarre of all, the actual Lord Of The Flies itself. It would seem logical that some of the more disturbing parts of the book would be minimized on screen but the amount of this story that was neglected to turn this tragic tale into a film is criminal, might as well be a different story. Not recommended at all.

Peter Brook's 1963 version of William Golding's novel
The 1963 version of "Lord of the Flies" was made on an island off of Puerto Rico by director Peter Brook with a cast made up on the sons of English parents that could be found on the island and in the United States. Only one of the children playing a major character, James Aubrey, who played Ralph, ever made another movie (although Nicholas Hammond, who played Robert, would have a real career in films and television). This becomes a key factor in the film because we are not dealing with child actors, which usually works for the film, but not always. But the more telling factor is that this film is only 92 minutes long, which meant some key elements from William Golding's celebrated novel are omitted. Ultimately, your feelings for this film are going to depend on your familiarity with the novel.

Brooks creates an effective prologue consisting of a series of stills that set up the key elements of the situation: a boys school, a war, an evacuation, and a plane going down near enough to an island for a group of boys to survive. They find themselves on the island without any adults. Ralph (James Aubrey) argues that there have to be rules, while Jack (Tom Chapin), the leader of the choir (he can hit high C) thinks he should be in charge. If Ralph represents civilization while Jack is hearing the call of the wild, then it is Piggy (Hugh Edwards) who represents human intelligence. But in the inevitable shift in power that goes from Ralph to Jack as the children devolve into savages, it is Piggy who becomes the pivotal victim.

What is sacrificed in the film are the two characters who occupy the next level of significance in the novel, Roger (Roger Elwin) and Simon (Tom Gaman), and while that choice is understandable it is what keeps this from being a great adaptation. Still, you cannot fault Brook for reducing the novel to the pivotal triad and the essence of Golding's novel is here if not the depth and rich symbolism. But even as we marvel at the performances that Brook coaxes from his young actors, and the cinematography by Tom Hollyman (who had been a still photographer before this film), we really do have to remember that it is 1963 and the idea of depicting the horrors of this novel on the screen was a risky endeavor. The fact that the novel is allegorical (i.e., Brooks is probably right in claiming on the basis of his filming experience that in the real world the boys would not have lasted a week) would not be enough to temper the reactions of audiences to little boys killing one another in the wild.

This Criterion Collection edition has the usually goodies, although instead of a scholarly commentary track this time it consists of reminiscences by Brook, producer Lewis Allen, director of photography Tom Hollyman and cameraman/editor Gerald Feil. As such tracks go it is certainly above average, but I have to admit that I enjoy the academic approach usually found on Criterion's DVDs. There are also excerpts from the novel read by Golding that are interesting, although obviously not insightful (the excerpts are keyed to the same scenes in the movie). There is also a clip from Gerald Feil's documentary "The Empty Space" showing Brook's method of creating theater, a production scrapbook, outtakes, home movies, a deleted scene, and the original theatrical trailer ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Good little German Movie
THE BRIDGE is a fine B&W WWII movie that is set in a village deep in Western Germany. All of the action occurs the last week of April, 1945.
This Movie is unique because of the time, location, and entirely German perspective of this tiny War story.
The eight kids who are assigned to guard, then defend, the bridge are 16 year olds. The climatic battle with the American Armored patrol is very well done (for the most part). What is interesting is that, because this is a German made film, the American soldiers and Sherman Tank gunners are all very bad shots (except for an American sniper with a scoped rifle). Where as in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (an American made film), the German Wafen SS troops and Tiger Tank gunners who attack the bridge at Ramelle are also very bad shots!
Still the action is riveting for a low budget, foreign film. Unfortunately, the viewer has to wait an hour for the final battle, because most of the picture is character development, and it consists largely of teenagers yelling at their parents, which can be very obnoxious to listen in German dialouge.

A very good German war film
One of the few post-war (1959) German films to depict actual combat against the Americans, "Die Bruecke" (The Bridge) was shot on location in Bavaria in black-and-white with a low budget and mostly local actors. Still, it tells its story well and avoids the blah-blah, angst-ridden, self-psychoanalysis that plagues much German cinema. Set in the last days of World War Two, the film tells the story of a group of teenage schoolmates drafted into the home guard and assigned to defend the bridge into their village against the approaching Americans. Their leaders are middle-aged WW1 veterans (who recall their own combat experiences with bitterness) and die-hard Nazi fanatics (who can't admit the war is already lost). In simple, realistic scenes the director portrays the futility, confusion, terror and waste of all war, and the hopeless anarchy that existed in 1945 Germany. A well-wrought little gem. Too bad it hasn't found a larger American audience. Compares favorably with "A Walk in the Sun," which is at least available on VHS.

Not my favorite
... The one thing that truly upset me was the seemingly obvious attempt to make the Americans look as stupid as possible. The uniforms and equipment they were clad in were truly insulting. There were enough Americans in Germany at the time the movie was made that authentic gear would have been as close as a call to any American base. I realize this was a German film and was not intended to make the Americans look good, but come on. If the intent was to make the Americans look foolish--it worked. An effort to show the boys fighting a well equipped American force would certainly would have honored the boys efforts more effectively than showing them fighting the bunch of oafs portrayed. Save your money.

Excellent Perspective
I won't give a whole summary of the movie, but this movie is amazing.... you can see a completely different side of what we as Americans are used to. It shows sympathetic Amercian soldiers and the way a war and your pride can bring so much courage to a battle not meant for people this young. I don't think it really has anything else to say but PROPAGANDA, they wanted to fight becuase of what they saw and thier innocence is what held them together. Excellent film.

Little to add except...
Others here have already detailed what a fine (anti)war film Die Bruecke is and why. I can only echo those sentiments: this is a gripping film that really makes you think about militarism and war and their costs. I did find one unfortunate problem with this particular release of the film: the subtitles are at times wrong, but more often they cut and simplify the dialogue and seemingly make little attempt to recreate its nuances. On the bright side, this film isn't heavily rooted in dialogue: the plot and images speak louder than words and get the messages across as clear as day. Still, it would be nice to see this film re-released with better subtitling. ... Read more

Reviews (102)

The Importance of "Seeing" Earnest
Since I have not read the play by Oscar Wilde nor seen any previous performances of this work, I came into this movie completely unprejudiced, and left utterly delighted. I thought the film was hilarious; in particular the interplay between the two male leads, Colin Firth (Jack)and Rupert Everett (Algy). Judi Dench, as the austure Lady Bracknell, is of course perfection, and although less impressive, yet still quite good, are the two romantic interests of the gentlemen: Francis O'Connor (Gwendolyn) and Reese Witherspoon (Cecily). The tangled webs woven by our two heroes lead to some wonderful moments for Firth and Everett, especially when Algy shows up at Jack's manor to woo the fair Cecily. The scenes where Jack takes matters into his own hands had the audience roaring, and it was a treat to see Mr. Firth in a more playful role then is his usual.
There is also a sort of side plot involving the vicar (Tom Wilkinson)and Cecily's tutor (Anna Massey) which is also quite entertaining, and both actors display their humourous sides most credibly. All in all, a wonderful movie. I thought it was a shame, however, that the studio saw fit to release it only as a limited engagement. I, myself, had to drive nearly 200 miles to view this gem(well worth the trip, I might add), yet the lack of accessability disturbed me as it seemed to assume that only those in "larger metropolitan areas" would make the effort. Well, not only did I make the effort, I fully intend to purchase the DVD when it is released, and am looking forward to that date with relish, so that I may watch Firth and Everett over and over and over....

Run! (don't walk!) to see "The Importance of Being Earnest"!
This movie is a must-see and the epitome of a playful, feel-good comedy. Having never seen nor read the original play by Oscar Wilde I went to the theater with the expectation of merely staring at Colin Firth (whom i LOVED in P&P2!!) & Rupert Everett for an hour or so. I was pleasantly surprised and elated to discover that the movie was comedic, witty and filled with a cast of actors who played off each other wonderfully.

The movie is hysterical-i laughed throughout the entire thing-and it was not merely the verbal wit, but the physical comedy and dare I say again the chemistry of the actors that made the movie a true delight. Colin Firth and Rupert Everett are absolutely perfectly fitted to their roles, and "the muffin scene" (which those who have seen it must remember!) had me laughing so incredibly hard! Reese Witherspoon is grand, as is Frances O'Connor. Judi Dench's role was perfectly suited to her, and the twists of the story put the characters in such hilarious situtations. I must say, my only regrets after viewing this movie are:
1. It was only opened in limited release
and
2. I did not go and see it sooner.

I cannot wait for the DVD ~ the extra features *sigh* ~
...i can only imagine...

a treat
I haven't seen the 1952 version of Earnest, but I must say that I love this one. I laughed the whole way through. Purists might say that the dialogue goes too slowly, that the acting was underdone, or that Reese Witherspoon was miscast. My opinion: the dialogue is, of course, brilliant. It's Oscar Wilde. It is also delivered wonderfully, with perfect expressions that make the witty lines even more funny. Attention is, at times, required to catch these little expressions, but they are what help make the film so great. Also: I loved the casting. I loved it the first time I saw the film. I appreciate the casting even more now that I've read the actual play--the actors portray the characters exceptionally well, with all the quirks and nuances that I gleaned from the book. The add-ins (like the knight in Cecily's daydreams) make the movie, in my opinion, even more delightful. It should be quirky, and, thank goodness, it is. I highly recommend this film--it is a very well-done, lighthearted story full of wit. I definitely enjoyed it.

GOOD except some...
Brilliant, lovely, impeccable casting by the entire Oliver Parker's production team. Almost perfect performances by GORGEOUS actors and actresses upon beautiful costumes design, greenest of the countryside, and exquisite interior decorations. This Oscar Wilde adaption will no doubt remain timeless for the next three decades at least before another remake emerges in Hollywood.

Everything's so agreeable except Reese Witherspoon's cast here... Parker must have been mistaken for Christ sake! Witherspoon is so NOT right for the choice. Her indifferent beauty and bubbly profile are totally incompatible with the rest of the casts - who has got the lordly Englishness. She plays the "ward" of Jack Worthing (Colin Firth) who's kept and schooled in his country house, no wonder.

Superb
I must admit that I decided to watch this movie for just one reason. Colin Firth. And needless to say, I was not disappointed. The movie itself was very funny, not the slapstick stuff that has invaded the cinema screens in the recent past but hilarious dialogues and characters that are so rich in their stupidity that you can't help but laugh away. The concept of the play itself is lovely, the fact that so much importance is given to being christened with an appropriate name. However, I was quite upset with Witherspoon being cast as Cecily, there are a million wonderful British actresses for God's sake, why her ? I have this image of her in Legally Blonde, and then you see her faking this Brit accent and its sad, to say the least. Evert, Firth and Dench are superb in their roles, a must must watch movie. ... Read more