Description

Caligula may very well be the most controversial film in history. Only one movie dares to show the perversion behind Imperial Rome, and that movie is "Caligula," the epic story of Rome's mad emperor. All the details of his cruel, bizarre reign are revealed right here: his unholy sexual passion for his sister, his marriage to Rome's most infamous prostitute, his fiendishly inventive means of disposing of those who would oppose him, and more. The combined talents of cinematic giants Malcolm McDowell, Peter O'Toole, John Gielgud and Shakespearean actress Helen Mirren, along with an acclaimed international cast and a bevy of beautiful Penthouse Pets, make this unique historical drama a masterwork of the screen. Not for the squeamish, not for the prudish, "Caligula" will shock and arouse you as it reveals the deviance and decadence beneath the surface of the grandeur that once was Rome. ... Read more

Reviews (165)

Porno or poor movie, absolutely unique among movies
This movie is a masterpiece in that it accomplishes what it set out to do: to depict decadent, pagan Rome circa 37 AD. I cringed throughout the FIRST VIEWING, unsure what to expect, fearing revulsion in each scene. The SECOND VIEWING was better, I knew what to expect: a simple plot about unchecked power with gratuitous violence and sex. Guccione may have overstated the sex and violence but that is what you get from pagan cultures. The THIRD VIEWING reveals the movie as art: as pornographic and dangerous as ancient Rome at its worst with interesting props and sets. Maybe Guccione wanted to contrast sexual cultures of ancient Rome with his magazine culture of today: to prove that he himself and/or current exploitation of women isn't so bad after all--only sexually explicit. Generally, sex of any kind still has a bad reputation. This movie only needs be a reasonably accurate historical account (ostensibly derived from museum artifacts commonly found around the world) to maintain historical relevance. Many will hate this sort of reality, but not every movie has to "sublimate" reality according to family movie standards to please puritanical hypocrites. Face it: only a world as lost as Caligula's could crucify Christ. (Notice how persecution against the spiritually pure was greatest then?) Yes (?) Nevertheless, this movie entertains by being so over-the-top that exquisite sound and editing are not necessary. Again, this was the real Rome. Finally, if you are an adult who desires full knowledge of the depth of human depravity, then Vidal, Guccione, et al. should be praised for accomplishing such an important (by virtue of its controversy) historical film. I recommend this film to everyone to either love or hate. I love it!

A graphic depiction of a decadent time and a ruler gone mad
Caligula is a non-stop parade of perversions, gore, and stunning sets. Mix all that with a decent job of acting from some brilliant actors and you find that while you may be repulsed by some of what you see, you'll also want to see it again.

The movie graphically depicts of the rise and fall of Caligula (Malcolm McDowell), one of the most notorious of all Roman emperors. It's rather straight forward in it's portrayal of the man and his exploits. Throughout the movie you definitely get a feel for how demented Caligula became and in the end you are almost relieved when his life is ended. The major draw back to the story line is that they never really develop any of the other characters and it leaves them as shallow figures.

Keep in mind that this movie was brought to us by Penthouse so to say that there is a fair amount of nudity and sex is an understatement. There are also some rather gruesome scenes as well. I've read many reviewers use these points to put the movie down, but what they fail to realize is that Rome did have it's dark days of mass perversion. Yes, the movie did go over the top a bit, but it's not too far off from the decadence of the time. If you keep this in mind you will love the movie.

As for the DVD itself. The sound quality is much better the the original VHS version, but still leaves a bit to be desired. The picture is a bit grainy and that does tend to draw away from the breathtaking sets. I recommend the unrated version for the sole fact that the R-rated version cuts out a large chunk of the movie. It also has a nice documentary on the making of the film.

Whoops! Caligula isn't anything like Gladiator
Let me share a true story.

Ridley Scott's Gladiator is probably one of the best movies I have ever seen. You know, the film with Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, etc. Totally jazzed after seeing the epic Gladiator in the theater, my girlfriend and I rushed over to the local video store in search of another Roman-era flick.

In the New Release section was ... Caligula. (It had just come out on DVD.) We had never heard of it before. But starring Malcolm McDowell! and Helen Mirren! and Peter O'Toole!, we were certain we had found a winner.

Boy, were we surprised! Caligula turned out to be a banal porno movie albeit a lavish one (a lot of money must have been spent on this production). Beyond the overwhelming flesh and violence, the plot was simply ridiculous! My girlfriend fell asleep in 20 minutes, but I watched the whole thing (hey, it was too outrageous to stop).

Thank goodness it wasn't our first (or last) date!

I need a shower
What a horrid, disgusting little movie "Caligula" is. If anyone knows much about history, then thay know that Caligula was an insane Roman Emperor who had most inappropriate relationship with a lot of women (including a prostitute and his sister), played sick games with gladiators and political opponents, and was too self absorbed for the Imperial Senate to let rule. That story would be very interesting to tell, and to film. But this is not that movie. I guess I should have known better than to go watch a Bob Guccione movie (for those of you who are unaware of who Mr. Guccione is, he is editor in cheif of "Penthouse" magazine). But I like Malcolm McDowell, and it was about one of my favorite historical periods, so I took the chance. The plot of the movie is as I had stated above. We are introduced to Caligula while he is commiting the moral crime of incest. He is then summoned by the current Roman Emperor (played by Peter O'Toole), and sees (and approves of) the perversions and corruption of the current throan. After O'Toole's death, Caligula is appointed Emperor, and then brings the Empire through the most depraved and perverted era of human existance. The violence in the movie is done with such a combination of malice and nonchalance that it was hard to take, even for me. The many (many) sex scenes are handled much the same way, with all the sensitivity that an ape would have. "Caligula" has to be the most unpleasent movie I have ever set through and watched. There was absolutly no redeeming value to this move what so ever. The spirit of the movie is so mean that it is almost like the directors (well Guccione anyway) is daring you to like it. I have a feeling it will appeal to only the most hardcore members of the S&M lifestyle. I usually don't have a problem with some sex and violence in a movie for gratuitous sake only (look at my reveiws for the "Friday the 13th" movies); but this was too over the top, completly and pointlessly sleezy. I just couldn't stomach it. The cast is an odd assortment. Like I said, Peter O'Toole is present, which really sort of shocked me; I would have thought he would have been above such junk as this. Malcolm McDowell I can imagine in a movie like this; his Caligula is like Alex from "A Clockwork Orange" if Alex had remained unchecked. Helen Mirren looked totally lost here, and indeed she probably was. And the rest of the cast was filled out by "Penthouse" centerfolds who are subject to humiliations innumerable. I would like to see a movie that takes the material about Ancient Rome and the Emporer Caligula seriously. But not this piece of junk; not by a long shot.

One of the best movies ever produced
I first saw this movie when it came out in the movie theatre. I have been waitng since then to purchase the movie. I almost bought it on VHS about 10 years ago but wasn't prepared to pay $80 then. This is a must see. It has one of the best story lines of any movie in recent history. Oh the sex scenes aren't too bad either. ... Read more

Reviews (108)

BEN KINGSLEY'S FINEST HOUR ON DVD
Richard Attenborough's "Gandhi" is a masterfully told, massively mounted epic motion picture, depicting the life and times of Gandhi, a benevolant crusader for peace, whose shocking assassination rocked the world. Ben Kingsley rightfully took home the Oscar for his subtle but stunning transformation into the title role. WARNING: This is a slow paced movie but well worth the three hour plus investment of your time.
Columbia Tristar has given us a very beautiful print of the film. Colors are rich, bold and vibrant. Contrast levels are good. Although black levels are not always at their darkest, this is relatively forgivable, since most of the film takes place during the day. Shimmering, aliasing and edge enhancement are all present but in extremely minute amounts, leaving one with nothing to do but admire the visual presentation in all of its breathtaking cinematography. The soundtrack is 2.0 surround but well represented. Some of the audio has a tendancy to appear thin or strident but, again, considering its dated fidelity and the source material, it is remarkably well represented. No extras - disappointing for a big time Oscar winner like this. Perhaps we'll get a special edition eventually.

Excellent movie about a 'mover' in this world
Every once in a while this world produces an exceptional human being whose presence makes it a much better place to live in. Such a person was Mahatma Gandhi; the Indian 'radical' whose teachings about non-violent resistance lead to the eventual independence of India from British colonial rule. His teachings have inspired other such movements in the world and his life has been looked up to as a standard which others have tried to emulate.

Every once in a while those responsible for the academy awards have chosen deserving films. This is one of them. Ben Kingsley gives a grand performance as Gandhi, from his youth to his death. The impersonation is spot on; everything from the accent to the gait is so convincing that one could swear Kingsley was Gandhi.

If you are looking for a biography of this man on film, this movie is an excellent source. Condensing Gandhi's life into a few hours is such a great feat, especially when there is so much of this man that could be explored. The movie was filmed in India, with 300,000 extras, so if you like epic films you will definitely enjoy this one. The scenery is authentic and the characters have a reality about them so often lacking in 'hollywood' films. No 'eye-candy' version of a historical event, this is a real movie about a real person.

The DVD extras were ok for a film this old. There is some original newsreel footage which is quite short but still worth watching to see the real Gandhi as he was. Kingsley also gives a talk about how it was being Gandhi, there is also some of the sayings of Gandhi; great candidates for those memorable sayings we all try to memorize to motivate ourselves. All in all a great DVD, the movie is a timeless classic about a great man of the modern world.

Movie does not do justice to the person
Richard Attenborough's movie "Gandhi" was a movie of epic proportion. Mohandas Gandhi was probably the most influential person of modern day India. If one reads any of his biographies or his autobiography, one would find that he was a very complex person. The movie was well directed and showed some of the important parts of the freedom struggle starting from his initiation in South Africa. However, for the sake of marketing, the movie concentrates largely on the european angle and sidetrakes the Indian angle completely.

Gandhi was a person who started a new line of thinking that inspired people like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and Dalai Lama. He was a complex person who right from childhood was afraid of ghosts and speaking in public. He was a disaster as a lawyer initially. The transformation happened when he saw the injustice happen to him in Pietermaritzburg in South Africa. I wish that the movie had shown the transformation in the person. This was an important catalysis. Most of the people shown in the movie were not important in Gandhi's life, though they were decent actors, such as Candice Bergan and so on. The Indians who associated with him such as Patel, Nehru, Azad and so on are given minor importance.

Some of his important speeches were left out, which are thought provoking. Recently Time magazine had Salman Rushdie write a piece about Gandhi. Granted there is freedom of speech, but I had never seen a more badly written piece about Gandhi than that. Rushdie should stick to fiction - well he is losing his touch in that too. Gandhi had his faults like any human, some of his ideas may not apply in the present day world. But his positives far outweigh his negatives. The sad part is that he is largely forgotten in India itself. Most people in India do not take the trouble to read and know about the real person, what he stood for, his ideals. In fact, I am ashamed to say that South Africa remembers him more than India, even though his is the father of India. Even in the last elections in South Africa, he was used as an icon. However, in India, he is slowly ebbing away.

A soul-conquering fine work of art
Never before have I seen such a powerful work of art. It made me forget the finesse of the technological masterpiece, an advanced Macintosh computer running MacOsX, which delivered the breath-taking scenes in vibrant colors with soul-stirring sound effects. Instead all that stood in my mind was the movie and movie alone. This was a radical change in thought for a person like me who is a avid technology enthusiast. Never before have I been so involved in the scenes of a movie. Every scene and every peice of sound hits the nail right on its head with a powerful strike of the hammer. I must appreciate the dedication of the team and their quest for perfection. Years of their work has produced this masterpiece which mankind can cherish for the eons to come. This certainly is one of the best creations of collective human intellect of superlative degree. The story of the life of a great soul in a soul-conquering work of art.

gandhi-whats the point?
i mean he wasnt that great was he? there are plenty of annorexic people out there. plus its not healthy. throughout that whole movie i was yelling, " GIVE THAT MAN A SANDWICH!" he needs to eat something. I cant tell the difference between mahatma gandhi and paris hilton. in closing WHO LET THE DOGS OUT
WHO WHO WHO WHO.
who let the dogs out-good tune
gandhi-OK flick

i give it ***

GO GANDHI! he is my favorite linebacker in san diego chargers history ... Read more

Amazon.com

The life of St. Thérèse de Lisieux, a young Carmelite nun who died oftuberculosis, is the inspiration for this spare, sincere French film. Theobsessively religious Thérèse (Catherine Mouchet) fights to be allowed to jointhe rigorous order of nuns, taking her petition all the way to the Pope himself.After becoming part of the sisterhood, Thérèse takes joy in the strict ritualsand devotions, until she develops tuberculosis and her inner connection with Godsuddenly leaves her; despite this, she never loses faith, and writes a private diary (which, whenpublished after her death, became hugely popular). The settings of every sceneare depicted only by furniture; the neutral background puts all the focus on therich performances of the actors, including Hélène Alexandridis as a young nunwho falls in love with Thérèse. An elegant film, perhaps best appreciated byCatholics. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Not for Everyone
Keep in mind that the director of this film was an atheist, and that one of his primary purposes in filming it was to experiment with a new/different cinematic style. Therefore, no fancy sets or backgrounds, just a concentration on the life of a very devout, simple, and loving young girl. Not her whole life, only bits and pieces of how she thought, what she said and did, and what life in a Cloistered Convent was like. l've seen this movie several times, and not once did l see any overt or obvious act of the so-called lesbianism. See it for its spititual message, and keep in mind that after this movie was released there was a solid increase in applications to Carmelite Convents and a more solid interest in the life of St. Therese of Lisieux, also known as the Little Flower.

A sweet film about a girl with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
The film is good, it's french and it's minimal. I saw it when I was in the seminary years ago.

If one reads the memoirs of nuns who actually had to live with this eventual saint, none of them really liked her. Short of counting every step she made throughout the day, or avoiding cracks lest she break her mother's back, she was so driven by obsessively compulsive disarray that she HAD to become a saint. She was consumed with the most minor infractions (silly, nonsense sins) that she drove everyone around her crazy.

Is that really a "saint," or is that someone who could have just been helped out a whole lot with a little Zoloft or Prozac? So you think a mean thought of someone who annoys you...well, this woman made mountains out of those inconsequential thoughts, yet she's viewed as special.

Well, she was special. Her neurosis was olympic, and she made others suffer for that. But we didn't have to live with her, so we think she's spectacular.

This film does not deal with her psychological self-induced trauma. This film, like time, makes this woman stand out as a saint.

Fantasy and fond memory beats the heck out of truth and reality.

Mike

seeing a saint from the outside
This intimate, intense little film shows the making of a saint 'from the outside.' When I first saw it, I was so impressed by the portrait of young Therese Martin that I learned all I could about the icon she became to the Roman Catholic World. The after-death publication of her stubby-pencil autobiography "The Story of a Soul" captured the attention of the devout. She rapidly came to be known as 'The Little Flower' or "St. Therese of Lisieux" and was canonized in 1927, becoming co-patroness of France with St. Joan of Arc, and a "doctor of the church". The film shows us this giant figure of the faith as she appeared within the hermitically sealed world of a Carmelite convent-a little girl with quietly extraordinary qualities. No music or heavenly light announces her holiness. The scenes are barren, the light is directional and shadowed, as in a Caravaggio painting. The film presents a series of vignettes, as though on as shallow stage. Within each one, she seems to seek to hide, not allowing herself to dramatize even her own illness and approaching death. But the reactions of other sisters reveal her. An elderly nun chooses her as confessor, surrendering to her the one private possession she has retained, against the rules, for 50 years. A confused and unhappy young sister responds to her clear-eyed and loving compassion. A crabby older sister showers her with flowers and asks her for the relic of a fingernail clipping, astonished that she is unable to withhold her homage. Most important, her Mother Superior, who alone knows her secret desire to become a great saint, requires that she write down the thoughts of her heart, knowing that they will be important. Believers will be moved, the merely curious may find themselves breathless.
One vignette in particular, stays with me as a beautifully rendered cinematic explication of her character. I have never in all my researches on St. Therese encountered a narrative that 'validates' the scene, but it has a haunting truthfulness. Therese is working in the kitchen with another sister. A box is delivered. When opened, it proves to contain a huge, live lobster. Therese boldly lifts it, though she is clearly frightened and awed by its claws and its repulsive appearance. But it is too large for her hand, and falls heavily to the floor, writhing and snapping on its back. She bends over, rights the thing, and picks it up. As she bends, blood streams from her mouth-a hemorrhage from the lungs, and the first sign we see in the film of the tuberculosis that will painfully kill her. She smiles radiantly to her companion sister, wiping the blood away, and saying that she 'bit her tongue.' Thus, Therese faces death. I am struck by this scene because it reflects another painful scene in Dostoevsky's novel, The Idiot. A tubercular young student recounts a nightmare in which he is trapped in a room with a huge scorpion he knows he cannot escape. His terror and horror at this entrapment by inexorable death contrast strongly with Therese's outward reaction, though we later learn that she, too, is afraid. The difference? She boldly asserts her fear as a test of her faith, and continues to give herself to the God she no longer can see.
I see that some reviewers have been unnecessarily disturbed by the young nun who is so attached to Therese. This isn't a sick modern-day attempt to introduce'lesbianism' into the convent. It illustrates that one of the great difficulties religious must face is the inevitable temptation to form special attachment to another individual. Such special, individual love IS a problem for those trying to focus all love on an invisible God. Watch closely. You will see that Therese knows her fellow sister is troubled. Clear-sightedly, but lovingly, she refuses to participate in that exclusivity. The disturbing scene in which this sister eats sputum Therese has coughed up from her dying lungs is clearly based in the girl's attempt to emulate the actions of St. Catherine of Siena, who drank water used to wash a leper's skin. This action is 'perverse' only to those who do not understand it as an attempt to participate sacrificially in another's human suffering. Where the young sister is 'wrong' is that she would do such an action 'for Therese' but probably not for a stranger who is, as Mother Teresa of Calcutta would put it "Jesus in a distressing disguise." Therese herself costantly reveals less self-dramatizing sacrifices in her 'Story of a Soul.' To some, she appears extremely neurotic. To me, her 'craziness' appears the insanity conferred by divine love. Such madness for love of God will always look bizarre to non-participants.

disgusted and appalled
I purchased the VHS version of this movie five years ago. I had difficulty watching this trash as it obviously pandered to every twisted, sick stereotype of Cloistered Catholic Nuns that I have ever heard of (lesbianism, S&M, etc...)! I was so thoroughly disgusted by this poor excuse for a movie that I threw in it the garbage, where it belongs, immediately after forcing myself to watch it in the vain hope that I could unearth at least a single redeeming quality in it. I could not. It is garbage. I only gave it one star because it is a required field. It does not deserve even one!

Strange little movie
I love St. Therese and have read her autobiography, letters, and poems. Unfortunately, this movie does not do justice to Therese. At times, the movie is kind of creepy, paying undue attention to a lesbian nun in love with Therese. This nun is almost the co-star of the movie. It seems to me that the film maker is critical of Therese and the Carmelites. This is not a movie for children in particular, because it would only confuse them. Actually, it would probably confuse anyone. What a shame. The movie gets 1 star only because of good acting by the woman who plays Therese. The movie has other faults, but I'll not dwell on them because its really not worth it. ... 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 essential video

Everything that was good about the 163-minute theatrical release of Bernardo Bertolucci's The Last Emperor in 1987 is even better in this new 218-minute director's cut. By contrast, much that was peculiarly distant and lifeless the first time around isn't really better or worse in this edition.Conclusion: the net gains are considerable if you invest time to appreciate Bertolucci's full feeling for the odd story of Pu Yi, China's final monarch.You remember the saga: taken from his mother at the age of three, Pu Yi is brought into the enclosed walls of the Forbidden City to replace the real emperor. There he becomes a pampered prisoner and hollow symbol of an older monarchy that has since given way to a ruthless, 20th century republic.With his pining loyalists beheaded or kept at bay by armed soldiers outside the City's walls, Pu Yi is tutored by an English gentleman (Peter O'Toole) and wed to a kindred spirit (Joan Chen). Eventually cast from his gated paradise, Pu Yi (wonderfully portrayed in adulthood by John Lone) becomes, by turns, a playboy, a dupe to the Japanese, and a victim of China's cultural reforms and re-education programs. This longer cut largely top-loads the film with greater reason to feel compassion for the emperor, with his often wordless sense-adventure in the mysteries that could only be known to one little boy plunged into indecipherable alien decorum, robbed of self-determination and common sense by his infinite privilege. Added scenes (including some in the political rehabilitation camp where Pu Yi is held for a decade) fill out not so much added facts as density of experience. This improved The Last Emperor is richer in soul and a pronounced sense of Bertolucci actually directing this film in the most personal and profound sense. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (103)

Masterpiece!
If you somehow missed this one, do yourself a favor and make time available in your schedule for viewing this masterpiece from director Bernardo Bertolucci! Nine academy awards, including Best Picture [1987], only gives partial credit to this magnificently epic and absolutely unforgettable true story. It is the story of Pu Yi, who at the age of 3 comes to the Imperial Dragon Throne to become the Last Emperor of China. His whole life is spanned in this film, from his childhood, to his ultimate fate as an unskilled gardener in the streets of Bejing. Throughout this film we are treated to a cinematic feast for the senses, so rich in detail and imagery, you will be compelled to see it again as soon as possible (I saw it again the very next night!). You will have felt the full range of emotions from having experienced this movie, and few others in recent memory have mesmerized me so totally in an almost 3 hour (164 min) time span. Truly one of the greatest films of all time! Masterpiece!

Bertolucci's Last Epic!
By that I mean with great respect! Bernardo Bertolucci is known for such cinematic extravaganzas as 1973's LAST TANGO IN PARIS and 1977's 1900; and to add to his credits, 1987's Best Picture winner THE LAST EMPEROR!

A film of major diversity. An Italian director (Bertolucci), a predominately Chinese cast including frequent costars John Lone and Joan Chen, British actor and seven-time Oscar nominee Peter O'Toole, an American producer named Jeremy Thomas, and distributed by an American studio, Columbia Pictures!

John Lone is the title character, Chinese emperor "Henry" Pu-Yi, who became the last Emperor of China at the age of 3, and would be the "Lord of Ten Thousand Years!" Nothing would prepare him for the change that would eventually occur when he is forced into abdication, forced into retaking his kingdom, and forcing him to attempt suicide after his arrest and capture by Chinese and Russian communist troops after World War II. Eventually, after serving his time for conspiracy, he released from prison and lives out the rest of his life in 1967 -- as a simple gardner.

Imagine. From Emperor to gardner, totally heartbreaking! Heartbreaking is the fact that it cost him EVERYTHING! His wife "Elizabeth" Wan Jung, played with grace by the gorgeous Joan Chen; his kingdom and his freedom. But, you can't simply hate the guy! He is, of course, a man who was spoiled by his servants and soldiers as a child.

The film has both an epic scope and an excellently-written character story. (Though most historians believed that the film embellished on certain facts, like Pu-Yi's homosexuality.) It is played competently by an Asian cast and a wonderfully witty Peter O'Toole, who should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor that year, as the Emperor's patient tutor Reginald "R.J." Johnston.

Needless to say, I cried at the very end of this film! I LOVED that scene between the elder Pu-Yi and a little boy who appears to be just like the Emperor as a child. And the symbolic message this film taught with the cricket in the jar, as the little boy opens the jar to reveal the insect (by then, Pu-Yi has magically disappeared). An epic film with a heart (like my PRISONER OF WAR)!

Winner of all 9 of its nominations including: Best Picture - Jeremy Thomas, producer; Best Director - Bernardo Bertolucci; Best Adapted Screenplay - Bertolucci and Mark Peploe; Best Cinematography; Best Art Direction/Set Decoration; Best Costume Design; Best Score; Best Sound; and Best Film Editing.

THIS FILM IS APPROXIMATELY: 2 HOURS AND 40 MINUTES.

But well worth it!

great film, awful dvd
I had the misfortune to buy this BEFORE I read the Amazon reviews and discovered that the DVD looked awful-a particular injustice for a film that won Best Picture. It's only 17 years old; there are films from the 30's that look great on DVD! I see though that in the U.K. they released a 2-disc version with commentary and both the original theatrical cut as well as the director's cut. I assume it's also restored and anamorphic and can only hope that we get an American version soon. The movie gets 5 stars, even at 219 minutes. The DVD gets 1 star, so that averages out to a generous 3.

Breathtakingly Beautiful, Decadent and Misconceived.
I revere every Bertoluccifs work tremendously, and this lavish film is no exception.
I was completely mesmerised by the view of the Forbidden City, beautiful period costumes of the Emperor and the Imperial family with which the director says he really cared about the historical accuracy to recreate as well as other things.
The historical accuracy is, however, not necessarily applied to the part of which Japan was involved. The foundation of Manshu-koku, (Manchukuo is the Chinese word) and the restoration of the Manchu Emperor Pfu Yi, and the alleged atrocities made to the Japanese Imperial Army, namely, gRape of Nankingh, etc. It is so because both Bernaldo Bertolucci and the producer Jeremy Thomas seem to have truly believed in the auto-biography of Pfu Yi, gFrom Emperor to Citizenh that written for propaganda purpose, and the Frank Caprafs U.S. propaganda film; gThe Battle of Chinah at their face values.
First thing is first, Chinese Communistfs gbrainwashingh undeniably exists. In the same year this film first came out, 1987, gFrom Emperor to Citizenh was re-published by Oxford University Press with new comprehensive general introduction and chapter introductions by W.J.F. Jenner, the translator of the original 1964 gdeliberately restricted editionh published by Foreign Language Press, BeiJing.
Jenner explains; gThe special consideration shown Pfu Yi and other high-ranking Manchukuo(sic), Japanese, and Nationalist officials cannot be regarded as typical of Chinese prison conditions. These were all people of potential value in winning over others in future, and political considerations saved them from the harsh justice that many lesser figures received.h And, Jenner continues, Pfu Yifs gsuccessful thought reformh which made him gusefulh and able body to work like other ordinary people, that Bertolucci praises vigorously, was, in fact, gsomething of ritualh. Pfu Yifs fourth wifefs account of his incapableness of looking after himself, even after his release of 1959, reveals some part of the truth.
His fifth and final marriage to a well qualified nurse was garranged by the Chinese Peoplefs Political Consultative Conference and the Communist Partyfs United Front Department. [cccc] He was even protected from the Cultural Revolution by Chou En-laifs intervention, and the local police kept Red Guards away. [cccc] Pfu Yifs presentation to foreigners as a living advertisement for the Peoplefs Government and the Communist Party began in 1956, while he was still in prison; and after his release he was often required to meet foreign visitors to China.h Those facts show that Pfu Yi was not successfully remolded@into an ordinary citizen after all, but made a perfect gmouthpieceh of the Communist Party Propaganda Department.

Bertolucci may never have read this revealing version of the Pfu Yifs gauto-biographyh. (In fact, the book was re-written before it was published in 1964 by Communist Propaganda Department writers based on the gconfessionsh Pfu Yi and Pfu Chieh had made in the prison as outcome of gbrainwashingh.)
But, in any case, the directorfs knowledge on the so-called gRape of Nankingh is awfully wrong.
He believes; gThe Japanese killed 300,000 Chinese people in *2 or 3 days* in Nanking.h (How did he think it was possible as the matter of reality?)
In fact, however, the *200,000* civilian refugee in Nanking were well protected by the Japanese Army and decrease of the number never recorded by the gobjectiveh foreigners of the International Committee of the Nanking Safety Zone, who, by the way, are assumed by many people including scholars as gthe witnesses of the Rape of Nankingh. They, on the contrary, recorded *increase* of the population to 250,000 within a few weeks after the capture of the city. No one saw such barbaric massacre except the Chinese propagandists and, actually, some members of the Committee who were hired by the Chinese Nationalist Party as international propaganda agents. Some ordinary Chinese people (genuine citizens of Nanking) even condemned the Chinese soldiers for the wrong-doing in Nanking.
Apart from gRape of Nankingh, the gnewsreelh in the film Pfu Yi and his co-inmates had watched is full of errors and, I dare to say, pernicious propaganda.
The planes that bombed Shanghai International Settlement and killed thousands of civilian was actually the Chinese. (Page 352 of The China Year Book 1938, edited by H.G.W. Woodhead, North China Daily News) And, the gexecutionh scene of the Chinese civilian is, I am sure, taken from the famous propaganda film by Frank Capra; gThe battle of Chinah that shows, in fact, the executioners are the Chinese Nationalist Party Army. Because of the fact the scene was gtrimmedh to ghideh the true identity of the executioners, I think Bertolucci did know they were using propaganda material.
What I do not know is their purpose. It may have been to get permission to make the film in Beijing under ghawk-eyeh of the Communist Party authorities they might have pretended to be pro-communist. In either way, this filmfs authenticity was sullied and that is very a shame.

Still, to me, this special edition is very interesting as a resource to understand the Cultural Revolution and the nature of brainwashing because it includes first-hand interviews of aging Pfu Chieh and the real life prison governor. Only one thing I would desire is subtitles, for the sake of clarification of the dialogues spoken by non-English speakers.

Good movie.... Awful DVD
Enough comments have been made on the movie so I'll just tell you my opinion on the DVD edition. It is one of the worst DVD transcription I have ever saw. I really had the impression to watch a DivX. Do I need to tell more about the resolution? Only the english soundtrack is available (I wish the movie had been shooted in Chinese or Mandarin but that's not the point) and no subtitles. The DVD presents the director's cut which makes the movie 3 and a half hour instead of 2 and a half. The theatrical version is not available on the DVD... Otherwise there is no additionnal material. ... 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

Among the bounteous literary and cinematic legacy of Marcel Pagnol, poet laureate of Provence, is a two-volume memoir, My Father's Glory and My Mother's Castle. The enormous success of Jean de Florette and Manon of the Spring (Claude Berri's 1986 remakes of two Pagnol films from the '50s) encouraged Yves Robert to shoot another Pagnol diptych. Like Garlaban, the great bluff overhanging Pagnol's childhood home, the result is "less than a mountain, much more than a hill." The first part, My Father's Glory, spans Marcel's early years from infancy to preteen. The film keeps faith with its juvenile subject, leaping from one quirky detail of landscape, character, or biography to the next--whatever has caught the child's fancy and lingered in the adult narrator's memory. This makes for episodic storytelling, but it's an appropriate way to reflect childhood experience, and it doesn't prevent Robert from developing loving portraits of Pagnol's nearest and dearest, or paying luminous tribute to the Provençal countryside Pagnol loved. You can almost feel the sunshine, smell the wild thyme. --Richard T. Jameson ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Idyll of Boyhood
This film is one of the most honest and beautiful accounts of family life and boyhood in the Auvergne and in Marseilles. The warmth of the Langudoc shimmers through the colours of the film as also through the lives of this happy family drenched in the browning sunlight in the last few years of the nineteenth and the first few of the twentieth century. This warmth is reflected also in the son Marcel's friendship with the young peasant boy, Lili, who modestly asks if he may keep the sailor suit which fits him. In a sense, this is a 'lower professional' childhood rather than the aristocratic one of the Tadzio in 'Death in Venice'. It is completed by a continuation film, equally wonderful, called 'Le Chateau de ma Mere' - and this, too is a must. The two together make for a wonderful winter evening and make you realise just what dross we are generally offered on the television.

Lavish, Beautiful, and Sentimental
My Father's Glory is the first of two films dealing with the novelist/filmmaker Marcel Pagnol's childhood. The film really does not have a plot. Marcel's parents Joseph, a beloved school teacher, and his mother Augustine, a dressmaker meet, fall in love, and get married. Soon afterward Marcel is born, as is his brother and sister. Marcel's family, along with his Uncle Jules and Aunt Rose, vacation in the South of France, and his father wins a hunting contest. On the surface there is not much to hold the film together. Yet the plot of the film is not what makes it so worthwhile. The film's chief strength is the way that each character is developed. We can see that Joseph is a good and descent man, a masterful teacher, and most especially a devoted father and husband. Young Marcel idolizes his father, and wants all others to realize the father's great qualities. The father is not perfect, and Marcel has questions about his doubt of all things religious. Marcel admires his mother as well, who is a nurturing and caring soul. The other major characters are both richly developed and varied.

The setting of the film is sumptuous. The small French town where Marcel and his family hail from seems realistic and the viewer can feel as if he/she has stepped back in time. The music adds to the film and perfectly blends with the scenes and characters.

Some may feel that the film is too saccharinely sweet. This can be an easy dismissal of a film that is unashamedly lavish, nostalgic, and sentimental. Such critics are wrong, however. The film shows Pagnol's appreciation for his parents, and how their good qualities played such a significant role in the man he would later be.

One of the best childhood films ever
This is, quite simply, one of the best films about childhood ever made. But then again, to write this film off as a film about childhood is too easy. This is a gorgeously filmed adaptation of Marcel Pagnol's memoirs of growing up and vacationing in Provence with his family. The cinematography is beautiful, and the cast is uniformly excellent. And as a real treat to film viewers, there are no sentimental or treacly moments that can often bog a film down. A friend noted that while I watched this film, I had a smile on my face the entire time. That's the best kind of film. This is followed by the equally stellar but more somber "My Mother's Castle."

"Le Gloire de Mon Pere". C'est bonne filme
"Le Gloire de Mon Pere" is one of the best films I have seen in a long time. The first time I saw it was in my french class. I thought it was cute and decided to see if the library had it, they did. After I saw it the second time I realised how good it is. The true story of Marcel and his father is unique for the 90's. I highly reccomend this film and its sequel "La Chateau de Ma Mere", the rest of the story of Marcel and his family. It has a sad ending but is worth it.

charming and uplifting
What a beautiful film! This is one of those films where everything works. The visuals are beautiful, the script spare and heartfelt, and the characterizations profound. Can Americans make films like this; where there is warmth and nostalgia but where the humor and the modesty keep sentimentality under control? Forget irony and cliches...this is wonderfully real and exciting. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The second part of Yves Robert's filming of Marcel Pagnol's childhood memoirs completes the narrative so casually begun in My Father's Glory--and fulfills a radiant journey we hadn't even realized we'd embarked on. Marcel is approaching his teens and acquiring a more coherent sense of the world. Accordingly, My Mother's Castle boasts a more concentrated style and unspools its story over (mostly) the space of one year, as opposed to a dozen. Whereas in the first film Robert had worked entirely with little-known players who simply became Marcel's family, here he calls upon screen veterans Jean Rochefort, Jean Carmet, and Georges Wilson to flesh out sharply ironical figures who loom challengingly on the young man's horizon. Consistent with Pagnol's emphasis on Provençal locations, the focal event of the film becomes the weekly walk the Marseilles-based family makes from the trolley station to their remote country cottage--a quintessentially mundane ritual that comes to be fraught with wonder, delight, and terror. It all leads to a payoff that opens the meaning of the title only as the film is reaching its transcendent conclusion. --Richard T. Jameson ... Read more

Reviews (86)

Dicaprio and Thewlis brilliant as creative misfits.
I loved watching this movie mostly because of the acting. The story itself is pretty over-the-top about self-absorbed creative types. All the other characters just take it in the neck, especially if they try to interact or inhibit them. I really related to these characterizations because of personal experience with "artistic types" in NY.

Back to the acting: Dicaprio and Thewlis are both brilliant in these roles. There was no self-consciousness in the middle of either the nonsense philosophizing or passionate sex. There is never any doubt that these two characters have taken over the actor's bodies and minds. Bravo!

The impact of the story, about where the alienated and self-absorbed philosophy that drove early 60s and 70s pop and rock stars came from is worth watching the film for: Morrison fans take note.

Exceptional movie
I must say that this was an excellant film all around. The quality of the production and the acting was outstanding. DeCaprio did a fantastic job, in fact the best acting I've ever seen him do to date. I was totally impressed with the story and I could not find one poor performance in the film. The script is based a true story with damatic additions I'm sure, however it was a very enjoyable film if only for the chance to see what I believe is some of the finest acting I've ever seen. This is a fantastic investment and a must for the video collection. Be aware that most of the film deals with subject matter best viewed by adults because of sexual content,implied sex acts and nudity. This is not a film for narrow minds or prudish thinkers.

Fantastic, Leonardo DiCaprio is brilliant
This is a great movie and is by far Leonardo DiCaprio best performance yet. He should of won an Oscar for his harrowing portrayal of 19th Century French poet Arthur Rimbaud. Rimbaud was a literary genius at the age of 16, who wrote wonderful and obscure poems about sex and death among other topics.

His intense and volatile relationship with fellow poet Paul Verlaine was often times disturbing and mad. Verlaine had trouble accepting the fact that his friend, confidant and lover was extremely gifted and more successful than he ever was.

Arthur Rimbaud was a merciful and shrewed young man who found pleasure in getting his way all the time and making other people look ridicule (especially the ones he did not like). Verlaine's young wife could not tolerate him and blamed him for making her husband abandon her for long periods of time. Verlaine would always come back to his wife but found Rimbaud so irresistable that he always ended up doing what he wanted and would succumb to his every need be it emotional or sexual. Arthur always knew had to get Paul wrapped up around his finger and got him to do whatever he wanted atleast most of the time.

This film is highlated by great performances from the entire cast and once again it is DiCaprio's remarkable performance that makes this film extremely interesting to watch. I don't think this movie is for everyone especially the ones that only think that a good movie is not good unless someone or something gets blown off. DiCaprio's character goes thru many changes in his appearance especially when he is dying of a terrible disease (I'm sorry but I can't seem to remember which one) his character is both physical and emotional and he plays it with incredible strength and emotion.

If you are a serious movie collector this is a "must have" for your collection. I love everything about this film and is one of my favorite movies ever. I gave it a 5 star rating because that as high as it goes but I would give a 10 rating because it has all the ingredients a great movie suppose to have. Watch this movie and it will leave you breathless. Superb and beautiful all the way through.

A Masterpiece!!
an astonishing film. one i wont soon forget. i love how leo dicaprio has a special ability to play any type of character he chooses!

Not altogether accurate, but fun.
Total Eclipse does a fine job at painting a portrait of a beautiful, disturbed genius. However in actuality some of Arthur Rimbaud's photos from his childhood show a less attractive poet.

Much dialogue was taken from Rimbaud's own writings, so don't expect that he actually told Verlaine one day that "Love needed to be reinvented." This is simply a line from his "A Season in Hell" and the verse that proceeds it says that he does not like women. Then again we will never know some of the amazing things that Rimbaud said in his daily life, but from his poetry the director takes the best of what he wrote and almost makes it seems as if he said the phrases to Verlaine one day while drinking absinthe.

One who is truly familiar with Rimbaud should expect the movie to contain sadomasochism and sexual content. I've read other reviews that said the movie contained too much. Denying Rimbaud's role this would make the movie a fairy tale as thankfully the director knew that Rimbaud experienced these things and wrote of them.

Lastly, just expect to see a small portion of Rimbaud's life in the movie. He had other companionships and childhood friends which were more interesting than Paul Verlaine. I do appreciate this film and the viewer should expect to be shocked. Or as Rimbaud would say "Then why would you suppose that I intended you to be?" ... Read more

Reviews (56)

Great Movie
Little Buddha is a wonderfully entertaining and historically accurate film. The story has two plots, making it confusing at some times. One tells of a Buddhist priest searching for the reincarnation of his dead teacher, while the other tells the story of Siddhartha Guatama, the Buddha. (Played by Keanu Reeves)

As far as the acting goes, this film gets five stars from me. Siddhartha, (Reeves) is played beautifully, along with Lisa Conrad, (Bridget Fonda) and Lama Norbu. (Ruocheng Ying) Another plus about the acting are the three children who played the candidates for the reincarnation of the teacher. I especially liked Gita, who is the only girl candidate.

I liked the costumes, too, as they are historically accurate, and stand out with the bright colors and makeup. I found it strange that the men wore makeup, but they do, and the film portrays it brilliantly.

All along I have been mentioning how historically correct this film is. I have been saying this because it is the truth. Not only is the story of Siddhartha correct, but all of the facts about Buddha and Buddhism are too. If you know nothing about the religion, watching this film will give you a basic introduction to Buddhism.

There are two things that would have made this film better. If it did not flash so much between the two plots, it would have been less confusing. Also, I did not like the music. I don't know if it just was not my type or if it didn't go with the movie, but I didn't like it. Little Buddha is a grea movie and I recommend watching it, but don't waste your money on the soundtrack.

Educational
Cast: Ying Ruocheng, Alex Wiesendanger, Keanu Reeves, Chris Isaak, Bridget Fonda

Little Buddha is both an enjoyable and educational movie. This movie has two story lines. One is about the quest of a group of monks, to seek out the reincarnated spirit of a great Buddhist teacher, Lama Dorje. And the other is a retelling of the story of Siddhartha, and how, having reached enlightenment, becomes the Buddha.

During the first plot line, Lama Norbu comes to Seattle in search of the reincarnation of his dead teacher, Lama Dorje. His search leads him to young Jesse Conrad, Raju, a boy from Katmandu, and an Indian girl. Together, they journey to Bhutan where the three children must undergo a test to prove which is the true reincarnation. After finding his teacher the monk then meditates and dies.

The second story is about Siddhartha and how he became the Buddha. It traces his spiritual journey from ignorance to true enlightenment. Young Siddhartha lived a carefree life in the palace. His father, Kind Suddhodana, is shielding him from all unpleasantness such as elderly, sick or dying people. Gradually however, Siddhartha begins to get curious about the world out there, and one day sneaks outside the palace gate. Siddhartha comes in contact with suffering, desires, and death. This movie really opens your eyes to the basic concepts of Buddhism and the theme of reincarnation.

I really liked the costumes and scenery in this movie, because they cam across well along with the theme. The music also added that extra effect needed to keep your attention throughout the movie. There was extremely good acting in this movie, especially by the children. Although this movie was well-written and well thought out, there was no emotional depth or appeal. The running time on this movie is also a little too long, which is not aided by the ragged transitions. And the characters never really connect with the audience, so the viewer's attention span is greatly tested. But overall I really enjoyed this movie and the themes it presents.

A wonderful family film
"Little Buddha" is a wonderful family film that is entertaining and educating without being educational. It provides a view on Buddhist beliefs and explains the basis of this way of life.

Embedded in the main story of the film is the story of the Buddha's journey to enlightenment. It is told in a fashion that will be enjoyable to people of every age. This work is also filmed beautifully and shares with you life in many cultures.

Please take some time and enjoy this film!

PS - Keanu Reeves as Siddhartha (Buddha) - takes some getting used to...

Little Budda, Little thought
It seems to me that this movie was rushed through production. I feel that this movie could have gone deeper into the truth of Buddism and not lingered on the top of it. I don't understand how the parents of the little boy would just leave him with perfect strangers or let him run off by himself in Bhutan. There seemed to be no point with the fact that the fathers freind died, except that it showed connection between Siddhartha and the boy. In the end of the movie, I didn't understand how the kids ended up watching Siddhartha be temtped under the Bo tree and reach enlightenment. While many of the things shown about Buddism were true, they forgot some main ideas such as the four noble truths and the eight fold path.
In all, I feel this movie could have been taken more time on in the making and resulted in a pathetic movie that stretches the reality of our lives

Excellent Film
I really love this film, it wasnt at all what I expected, and that is even more awesome.
I let my son watch this film and he enjoyed it so much he had a ton of questions regarding Buddha and the expeirences of all the children. No child is too young to develop an open mind.
I suggest this film for anyone interested in Eastern Philosophies and/or Reincarnation. Or if you have questions or uncertainities about Buddha, this film brings Buddha's teachings forward and expresses the compassion that his love had. ... Read more

Amazon.com

At last, the complete version of Andrei Tarkovski's 1966 masterpieceabout the great 15th century Russian icon painter (a film suppressed by the Soviet Union and unseen until 1971) is available. It's a complex and demandingnarrative about the responsibility of the artist to participate in history rather than documenting it from a safe distance. A landmark in Russian cinema, AndreiRublev is a beautifully lyrical black-and-white film about harmony andsoulful expression. As the late filmmaker says in a supplementary interview, each generation must experience life for itself; it cannot simply absorb what has preceded it. In fact, a whole host of supplements accompanies the film in this Criterion Collection release. Stick with it; it's worth the effort. --Bill Desowitz ... Read more

Reviews (63)

The epic sense of the life
Andrei Rubliov is the masterpiece of Andrei Tarkovsky. I 've watched very carefullly all his works, and Andrei contains the quintessential thought of this unique film maker.
What Tarkovsky made with this film may be one the most overwhelming and haunting achievemnts in all the story of the world cinema.
Rubliov is a icon painter who after an important fac, decides not continue in that office.
The powerful of the barbarian invassion into a church, where he acquires the human experience gets far away the world, he isolates and becomes in a wanderer.
The unforgettable images that appear before the viewer are of a trascendental poetic beauty never seen before and even now.
All the journey along the Russia of XVI century is a reflexive gaze of the human condition , the sense of the life and how dealing with it, the unsaid code of one must behavior humanly, even in inhuman conditions, facing the world, with his singleness, its little moments of joy, his infinite sadness and its miseries.
The opening sequence in which the fall is shown before us, is a original metaphor of how facing with the failure; and is depicted with such kind of beautiness that mesmerizes you. No other film n the story, with the exception of the ending of A man escapes from Robert Bresson reveals with so frehness and vitality the epic sense before the life.
When Rubliov knows this teenager, in the final chapter, and faces with him the huge challenge that implies to make the asgned mission, turns back çRubliov and it invites him to keep on going in his mission or the moira term greek, his place in the universe, his meaning in this brief stage in the world.
This superb masterpiece, has countless remarkable sequences, the dialogues are feed of a blissness and poetic raprure without a drop of effectism.
When the mission is completed, and everybody celebrates the fact our young hero remains alone and Rubliov will gather with him and will tell wisdom words that I must not tell.
This is the goal of the artist; he must go to the forrest and seek the mushrooms; the people will be just waiting from the safe place for him; and no matter how dangerous or hazardous be the journey; they only expect for your bag. They will consume these gifts; but the creator must seek them.
Tarkovsky was in the middle of the creative universe (remeber his father Arseni Tarkovsky was a poet)in 1966; the script has an inner mytical force ; and every bit of this film is sublime, perfect.
Tarkovsky showed what many film makers haven't been able to do; express with a camera such landscape of images, in all his whole meaning.
Andrei Rubliov will be always a landmark ; an eternal triumph ; a epic statement that will be with all of us till the end of our lives.
And even more.

Revelation in Contemplation
I had never seen a Tarkovsky film before "Andrei Rublev", but I intend to see more. This film was *very* different, but very good, and I was moved by it on many different levels.

Set in Russia in the early 15th century, this film is based on the life of Andrei Rublev, an icon painter and arguably Russia's first great artist. It's told in a series of vignettes that don't always focus on Rublev; many times he is either a background observer or not involved at all. He is a device that Tarkovsky uses to tell a grander tale, a tale about art, life, humanity, history, faith, good, evil and other philosophical ideas that most filmmakers fear like the plague. This film is much more than a historical epic, it is a work of art, and possibly more than that a path to enlightenment.

Like many of the greatest directors, Tarkovsky is more than just a filmmaker. He is an ARTIST, possibly more so than any director I've ever encountered. For example, most directors use techniques like music and editing to elicit specific emotions from the audience, but Tarkovsky uses few to no manipulative devices. Scenes are typically wide, sweeping, epic shots, which often linger for up to several minutes. The viewer is allowed to absorb the situation and the imagery, to internalize them and let them sink into the subconscious. If one is still and contemplative, one will enter into a dialogue with the film and begin to experience it on a higher level.

The film lacks a tightly knit plot, and there's no pat morality tale. Rather it is LIFE, boiled down to its essence. Scenes feel real, and often play out in real time according to the rhythm of life. Characters will sit and wait, and we wait with them. Incidents unfold in real time, with no cuts and nothing edited. Tarkovsky uses the natural world a great deal. For instance, a character will chance upon the carcass of a snow-white egret mired in the swamp, or a somber procession will scale a snowy embankment where the mud has bled through like a pair of weeping eyes.

It's a work of art, I've established that, but I also love the historical setting. Fifteenth century Russia was grim and unforgiving. Orthodox Christianity was the official religion, but paganism was still commonplace. Boyars, kings and princes frequently skirmished with one another. Tartars from the south took advantage of the regional instability to sack villages and cities. Plague and sickness were rampant, and the vast majority of people lived in abject poverty. But the so-called "Dark Ages" were nearly at an end. Art and ideas from West were steadily infiltrating the East. Rublev himself was inspired by a Greek painter named Theophanes, a relationship depicted in the film. Tarkovsky captures the period perfectly in "Andrei Rublev", and to me it seems like the next thing to being there.

Having said ALL that, I cannot in good conscience recommend this film to most people. Here are all the reasons a modern filmgoer probably would not like "Andrei Rublev": it was filmed in black and white; it's old (originally released in 1966); it's long (the unedited Criterion release is nearly 3 and a 1/2 hours); it's in Russian with subtitles; at least one animal was brutally killed during the filming (for which there is NO excuse - shame on Tarkovsky); scenes linger for several minutes without cuts or editing; it's arty (though not pretentious); it's very difficult to understand; it requires repeated viewings and you may never fully "get it"; it's told in a series of vignettes with only a loose overarching narrative; etc., etc. If none of that scares you off, you should definitely check it out, because it's a real gem.

RUINED BY ANIMAL CRUELITY
I was really looking foward to this film as i have enjoyed SOLARIS, THE MIRROR and many other russian films so much. Everything you,ve read about the magnificents of this film is true,it is one of the most striking,poetic and beautiful looking films ive seen period, however i must say thatiam utterly repulsed by the three barbaric acts of animal torture , Seeing a cow running around its enclosure after being set on fire, a horse fall down some steps , breaking its leg and then have a spear shoved through its throat
and a dog being beaten to death and watching its final twitching
make this film ultimi unwatchable ..is this art??is this excusable??Do you think this is okay? these are the most repulsive and distrurbing scenes i have ever seen in a movie. I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS I DETEST ANIMAL CRUELTY/TORTURE, ESPECIALLY SIMPLY TO MAKE A FILM.....im shocked that so many of your reveiwers did not mention this..Please , someone tell me i wrong and that these scenes did not really happen for real
and its all trickery..

THE Russian epic with striking imagery (1966)
Andrei Rublev is probably the greatest looking film of all time. It was shot on a Konvas (you can pick one up on Ebay for $1000) and film students will be stunned by what has been achieved in terms of cinematography with such an old and dated 35mm motion picture camera. It is inspirational in terms of film-making and this is the core reason why you should watch the film. If you are interested in Kino Art then Andrei Rublev can probably lay claim to the greatest art film ever made. If you are looking to experiment with Tarvoksky, then Andrei Rublev is not a bad place to start.

Like most of Tarkovsky's films, Andrei Rublev is extremely artistic, conjectures much on the human condition, metaphysics and Russian life - that all seem to have some hidden meanings that contains the film's truth that Tarkovsky expounds on - namely the wickedness of men and the temptations that they face. It is also about triumph of the will and the nature of man. This is all done via the "narrative" and the look of the film. Tarkovsky mixes moments of dialogue about the metaphysical (a doctrine that would continue to be a theme in all of this other films giving a sense of what was to come - especially the intricateness of Stalker, Solaris), arrestingly simple and slow cinematography (his trademark water shots), complex action sequences (there are full scale battles like from a Kurosawa movie) and visionary set designs (15th century villages, towns and cities). This is Tarkovsky's biggest film ever (and quite possibly the biggest Russian film ever).

The premise is complex. Andrei Rublev, a monk with the gift of painting, is invited to paint churches around the country and in Moscow. Between travelling from job to job he encounters - monks who have lost their faith, monks with too much faith in themselves, fools who are imprisoned for their beliefs, Wicca festivals (the pagan ceremonies of St. John's night), murder, torture (the Russian crucifixion), death, error, the sacking of towns by the Tartars (the sacking of Vladimir), vows of silence and of course the most striking final piece of the film - the making of the bell (the casting of the bell). Characters appear and disappear (a cinematic technique found in The Thin Red Line), but there is also a lot of hidden imagery (every time you watch it you find something new), in particular scenes of novice monks putting dirt on the