Description

"Bridget Fonda is pure dynamite" (WWOR-TV) as a murderous misfit reprogrammed as a high-tech assassin. Gabriel Byrne and Anne Bancroft co-star in "one of the top thrillers of the year" (ABC Radio Network). Year: 1993 Director: John Badham Starring: Bridget Fonda, Gabriel Byrne, Dermot Mulroney ... Read more

Reviews (339)

One of the greatest films ever.
I think this film is a masterpiece. Luc Besson has beautifully directed this achievement and it is probably his best film (Fifth Element aside). The best thing about this film is the different emotions you feel. You feel hatred, happiness, worry, and sadness all for one character. Leon is a professional (hence the title) cleaner, or hitman. He is a very alone person who has no friends. He does have a soft spot for the 12 year old girl Mathilda(wonderfully portrayed by Natalie Portman). When Mathilda's family is killed, she stays with Leon, but she wants revenge. Leon begins teaching her the tricks of the trade which provides some very funny moments. They begin to get very close, and he feels love for the girl. I will not ruin the whoile story for you but it really is a must see.Jean Reno was born for this part and Gary Oldman plays the eccentric bad guy very well. This movie does have some explosive action scenes, but it is really more of a drama. Yes there is a directors cut which in my opinion isn't much better than the regular and the regular is 10 bucks cheaper. Buy this film either way and you will be wonderfully happy with your purchase.

Best Film Ever Made. Natalie Portman is Perfect.
This movie has, what I beleive, the best performance from a child actor ever, from a 12-year-old Natalie Portman. Her character Mathilda shows the innocence of a kid, and the depth of a person out for revenge. Why she didn't get an Oscar is beyond me. And this was her first movie.

The story is really good. A hitman named Leon (Jean Reno) helps a girl named Mathilda after her family is shot down by corrupt DEA officers led by Norman Stansfield (Gary Oldman). When she finds out about Leon's job as a "cleaner" she asks to be trained as a hitman to avenge her little brother's death. Despite Leon's concerns he teaches her anyway, but over the course of his teachings, Mathilda develops feelings for him. This is something the uncut version explores a little deeper.

I suppose some of the scenes were taken from the American release for their subject matter. A scene where Mathilda wants to take her love for Leon to the next level really gives a good insight into Leon's past. It dosen't lead to anything between the two, so I don't see why they cut it. Other scenes included are Leon giving Mathilda some on the job training when he goes on his hits. I can see where some groups in America could have protested that, but it makes their relationship more deeper and complex.

An outstanding film, you really should see this version to get the whole story. I highly recommend it, it is my favorite of all time. Luc Besson's masterpiece can be fully appreciated on this release. I've been hearing rumors about a sequel in the works. I can only pray it's true, but this film is a tough act to follow.

Natalie Portman in her best role!
I don't usually like to watch movies about hit men or cops and robbers. I remember I got interested in this movie because of two things: Luc Besson's movie the Fifth Element, which was so wildly different and fascinating that I wanted to see what else this French director had done; and secondly, seeing Natalie Portman for the first time in the Star Wars: Phantom Menace movie.

Behind all of the dense make up and bad script and horribly non-existent directing from George Lucas in Phantom Menace, I sensed in Natalie Portman one heck of a terrific young actress struggling to come up with a meaningful performance. In "Leon - The Professional", working with a superb director, her acting talent is on full display.

When one thinks of modern day child actors, Anna Paquin comes to mind, in "The Piano", because she aced out some terrific adult actresses in 1993 to win the Oscar. Well, Natalie Portman, at age 12, had Anna Paquin beat by a mile in this movie, since her character takes up about half of the movie. If not for the truly unusual and off-beat story line of this movie, Portman would have gotten a lot more attention for her role in this movie, I think.

If you just focus on Portman's facial expressions and the way she carries herself in this movie, she goes through an amazing acting range in this movie, from hurt, terrified, bored, stuck up, cool and calculating, manipulative, sweet, child-like, and pubescent sexual allure.

As mentioned by other reviewers, the uncut version restores scenes that basically give a harder edge to Natalie Portman's character. The additional scenes of her assassin training with Leon and her efforts to attract and get closer to Leon definitely put her character in a harsher light. I remember from my first viewing of the cut U.S. version that Mathilda came across as a much more sweet and innocent child. The uncut version shows her more to be a hardened child of the mean streets of New York. Given the usual Hollywood propensities, it's not that surprising that these scenes got cut for the U.S. release. The uncut version does show the fullest acting range of Natalie Portman, even if they make her character less sympathetic.

Basically, the movie skates close to, but avoids the pedophilia controversies of the "Lolita" movies by having the character of Leon adhere to a strict code of ethics that firmly blocks all of Mathilda's advances. Even at the end, when he kisses her good-by and says that he loves her, it is clearly in the vein of being her protector and a big brother/father surrogate figure.

All in all, this was a great movie. Jean Reno was just so hauntingly sad as the loner-assassin Leon. Gary Oldman was definitely over the top in his portrayal of the crazed DEA agent - you almost expected his Dracula fangs to come out and his eyes to glow red when he popped those pills into his mouth.

So all of you Natalie Portman fans, this movie is a definite must-see. All of you Phantom Menace/Attack of the Clones haters who think that Natalie Portman can't act, you've got to see this movie to understand that no, Natalie Portman is a terrific actress. It's just really, really tough to play opposite total stiffs like Hayden Christiansen and Jake Lloyd, working with an idiot director like George Lucas.

Got Milk?
There's hardly anything I can say that will do justice to the splendor of 'Leon - The Professional'. The insanity of both the action sequences and Gary Oldman's performance... the touching love story of 2 lonely outcasts... the fantastic cinematography... the heart-breaking tragedy... the pulsing score... the violent life of a shy, milk-drinking, plant-loving hitman... the soul of an innocent little girl... the blistering, chaotic, blood-drenched fury that lives in all 3 of these characters...

...Wow...

...It's just a vortex of beautiful destruction. All these things crammed into one amazing film. A remarkable cast giving remarkable performances, and a very visual director shoving this seething powerhouse of a film right in our faces...

Like I said, there's nothing I can say. So, just believe me when I tell you that this is a very great film.

Great cinematic masterpiece
REALLY GREAT! IT WAS DONE LIKE A FOREIGN FILM, BUT I REALLY LOVED THE WAY IT WAS DONE. AND THE ACTING WAS GREAT! ... Read more

Amazon.com

At first glance, René Clair might seem an odd match for Agatha Christie's mystery thriller Ten Little Indians, but his buoyant touch is exactly what is missing from so many overly solemn remakes. Tenstrangers gather for a mysterious gathering on a secluded island. It turns out to be a farewell party, for they all have been sentenced to die for crimes in their past by a self-appointed judge, jury, and executioner who may be one of them. One by one, the guests are systematically dispatched in the manner described in the lyrics of the children's rhyme "Ten Little Indians," while the survivors nervously eye one another, splintering into tenuous alliances until the next murder throws suspicion on someone new. The terrific cast of character actors has a ball with Dudley Nichols's witty script. The flamboyant sparring of Barry Fitzgerald (whose paternal Irish lilt takes a sinister dimension) and Walter Huston is almost upstaged by Roland Young's deadpan drollery. Romantic leads Louis Hayward and June Duprez come off as arch and stiff in august company that includes a sinisterly detached Judith Anderson, a dotty and distractedC. Aubrey Smith, and a hilariously flippant Mischa Auer. The story has beenremade numerous times under the title of Christie's novel, Ten Little Indians, but never as well. Clair's effervescent, lively little gem is a fatal drawing-room comedy with a body count and a surreal mood of doom. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (53)

The BUTLER did it!! Or did he??
=====>

I watched this black and white 1945 movie (whose New York premiere was on Halloween day at the Roxy Theatre) of almost 100 minutes without first reading the novel that it is based on. I'm glad I did this! Why? Because I was forced to really watch the movie in order to deduce who the murderer was.

According to the opening credits, this movie is "based on the [1939] novel [of the same name] by [Dame] Agatha Christie" (1890 to 1976). However, this is not quite accurate. This movie is really based on the play version of this book that has a slightly different ending than the book. (Note: In America, this novel is known as "Ten Little Indians.")

As a synopsis, ten strangers are invited as weekend guests to the only mansion located on an isolated island. When the host, with the unusual name of "U.N. Owen" and his wife don't show up, the guests start dying, one by one, according to the lines in the children's poem entitled "Ten Little Indians." These guests and the viewer are constantly reminded of the body count as each of the ten figures on a ceramic display are secretly broken, one by one, directly after a murder is committed.

Who exactly are these ten strangers? They are as follows (in the order in which they are killed):

1. Russian Prince Starloff (played by Mischa Auer)
2. Maid Rogers (Queenie Leonard)
3. Retired General Mandrake (Sir C. Aubrey Smith)
4. Butler Rogers (Richard Haydn)
5. Spinster (?) Brent (Dame Judith Anderson)
6. Judge Quinncannon (Barry Fitzgerald)
7. Dr. Armstrong (Walter Huston)
8. Detective Bloor (Roland Young)
9. Explorer Lombard (Louis Hayward)
10. Secretary Claythorne (June Duprez)

The above cast does a stellar job in their roles. They make the movie come across not only as a mystery but also as a black comedy (thanks to a well-crafted script). Personally, I think the actor who portrayed the butler did the best job.

As the murders begin to occur, the guests realize that there is a person acting as "judge, jury, and executioner." And that person, they surmise, is Mr. Owen. Suspense is created when these guests (and the viewer) start asking themselves questions:

(1) Is Owen hiding in the mansion killing them one by one?
(2) Is Owen one of them? That is, is the "loose cannon" one of them?
(3) (Is Owen the boatman that drove them from the mainland to the island?)

The black and white gives the movie a claustrophobic feeling (adding another dimension to this movie). The cinematography is breathtaking. The main background music for this movie is unique, something I did not expect.

I thought this movie was a little rushed at the beginning. However, it slowed down as it progressed.

Finally, the DVD (the one distributed by the studio Image Entertainment) has just one extra. Even though it lasts less than two minutes, it is VERY interesting.

In conclusion, this is a fun movie, even if you have read the book. For those who haven't read the book, I have left clues as to who the murderer may be in the above review. If you think you know who it is, then view the movie to see if you're right!

<=====>

Stylish suspense that ranks with the greatest!
By far the best screen adaptation of Agatha Christie, (not to be mentioned in the same breath with the tepid "Death on the Nile," and "Murder on the Orient Express") you have tantalizing mystery, thrilling suspense, black humor, splendid acting, perfect production, and almost geometrically brilliant direction all in one highly enjoyable package. Internationally famous director Rene Clair here presents the classic mystery with such style and skill, that you truly have no idea what's going to happen next. His craftsmanlike care and attention to detail make all ten characters at once capable and incapable of the murders. The careful casting is also inspired, a troupe containing no types to suggest assured innocence or guilt; yet hardly a collection of no-name fresh off his Oscar-winning performance; Louis Hayward, a now forgotten, but hugely appealing playboy sort; Roland Young, delightfully bumbling; and the adenoidal Richard Haydn, in his most winning performance. These are particular standouts in a sterling cast which also includes Judith Anderson, C. Aubrey Smith, and Mischa Auer. The great mansion is also a triumph of art direction, handsomely photographed in moody black-and-white by Lucien Androit; and music likewise assists to create tempo and atmosphere. Humor is also in generous doses, provided by scriptwriter Dudley Nichols, ("Bringing Up Baby,""Stagecoach," etc.) a master at pointing up the action with the humor, rather than interrupting it. Finally, like all great movies, this one gets better and better as it goes along, culminating in a classic denouement with a neat sting in its tail. Even after the culprit is revealed, you'll want to go back and study the skill at which the mystery was sustained! A true classic totally undeserved of its indifference from the Academy and today's top-ten lists. It will challenge any armchair sleuth out there!

And then there were none
I saw this movie on t.v. years ago. I am a fan of Agatha Christie. I thoroughly loved this movie!!! If you love mysteries you'll love this movie!!

Fun Until The End!
I loved this movie! Although the ending is different from the book, I thought this movie was very well done and well worth the money. I did notice however some parts where the movie was supposed to taken seriously, but ended up being funny through bad lighting or whatnot. But you must realize that this movie is older, so appreciate it. The story line is very well done, and the acting is surprisingly well done. PURCHASE THIS MOVIE! I know you'll love it to death and watch it over and over :D

Film, like book, unable to fully realize idea as a story
Agatha Christie's 1939 story idea captures the imagination. Ten strangers who each, in his or her own way, have gotten away with murder gather by invitation at an isolated mansion. Then their unknown host U. N. Owen systematically and mockingly murders them one by one. The idea was adapted into a film in 1945, 1965, 1974, and 1989. Each adaptation is worth seeing as an attempt to bring the idea to life. Unfortunately, neither Christie nor the filmmakers succeed in turning this compelling but at the same time confining plot concept into a truly fulfilling story.

The book's premise is clever and fascinating. Careful attention is paid to plot detail. Compared to the films, the book's assortment of past crimes and depictions of the characters' attitudes toward them are more varied, subtle, and interesting. The book gives the highly contrived events a certain plausibility. It is the least sentimental about the characters, treating them vaguely and suspiciously. This helps, even if it does not entirely succeed, in making them convincing as people who have killed in the past and could do so again. The book maintains more of a sense of fear, dread, menace, suspense, and purpose than the film versions. It explains at some length why and how Owen carried out the scheme.

However, once the imaginative premise is established, the story becomes thin and formulaic. There is little plot or character development. The storytelling seems flat, frigid, and, at times, slow-paced. There is no lead character to care about. The characters and their past crimes are sketched in summary fashion. Those crimes vary widely in originality, depth, and genuineness. The best are Claythorne's, the general's, Brent's, and the Rogers'. The past crimes of Blore, the doctor, the judge, and Lombard are trite, unexplored, and ineffective. There are only two real plot twists. The second creates a major logical problem, which the book acknowledges and tries to overcome by weakly suggesting that the ploy would trick or "rattle" the murderer. The guests' murders are designed to follow the nursery rhyme and little more. Some cosmetic frills aside, the killings show, in themselves, no special cunning, skill, strategic advantage, or plausibility. Owen strikes crudely without detection too effortlessly.

Worst of all, the book (and each film) has nothing serious to say about the powerful themes of survival, justice, and criminality that are at the heart of the story. The story is inherently an observation of human nature in a desperate situation. How do the characters behave? How do they try to reason? How do they try to survive? Also by its very nature -- as the book's last pages acknowledge -- this is a morality play. How is each character a "criminal"? How is each "beyond the law"? Does each get "justice"? Is justice the point, or simply a "lust" to torture and kill? Is the story about breaking the law or enforcing it, about mistakes or abuses in pursuing justice? None of this is meaningfully explored.

Overall, the films are worse in some respects and better in some respects than the book. The 1945 version develops the plot better in some ways. While as tightly written as the book, it is richer in deductive theories, in taking stock at each stage of the story, and in survival techniques. The dialogue seems sharper than in the book and provides some memorable lines. This adaptation pioneered the technique (repeated in 1965 and 1974 and omitted only from the 1989 version, to its detriment) of playing the Ten Little Indians nursery rhyme on the piano. This brings it to life and sets the stage for what is to come. The cast is mostly outstanding. Many characters -- Lombard, Claythorne, doctor, judge, Blore, Brent -- seem as smart, strong, or distinctive as in the book, or more so. They are more entertaining. Generally, the films do a better job of showing characters interact. Except in 1989, the films make more of an effort than the book to explain the relationship that develops between two characters.

However, the 1945 version handles the past crimes even less effectively than the book. The movie presents the general and his past crime in an obscure, lifeless way; even the weak 1989 adaptation does better. The 1945 version makes a ludicrous change to the judge's past crime. It waters down Brent's. In changing the story to allow characters to survive, it distorts their identities and/or crimes in fundamental ways. In the process, it replaces the book's most complex, interesting past crime with one that is bland, superficial, and false. This confuses the meaning of the host's actions, although it does suggest, but not develop, a new theme of false accusation not present in the book.

Generally, the film's attempts to make the characters entertaining (a re-named Marston, Rogers, doctor, judge, Blore) come at the expense of their plausibility as villains and of the story's seriousness. Characters confess their secrets and treat the horror unfolding around them as if it were a parlor game. Mischa Auer's farcical, clownish performance is a disaster. The character was poorly drawn to begin with, and the 1945 film does a particularly poor job of presenting his past crime. This, and the changed ending, are only the most extreme examples of a general problem with taking such a lighthearted approach to a fundamentally serious story.

Worst of all, the climactic scene, which reveals Owen's identity, means, and motives, is short, sedate, droll, unsatisfying, and leaves a lot unexplained. In 1945, Owen has a weary, rational, amiable armchair chat with the final victim precisely when the character should come alive as someone triumphantly and credibly capable of inflicting such horror. It is left to the otherwise flawed 1974 version to capture more of the tone and intensity of the book and to the generally inept 1989 film to provide an ending that is dramatic, reflects that a deadly serious killer has been at work, conveys a sense of Owen's menace and lunacy, and most fully explains Owen's behavior. ... Read more

Reviews (53)

Van Dammes High Point
From 92 - 94 Van Damme experienced the high point of his career. This movie, Universal Soldier, Time Cop, and even Street Fighter. Now he has returned to straight to video territory but he still makes more then I ever will. Well anyway this is definitely one of his best. Yes it is true that Woo wasn't at his best with his first American flick, it was hacked up and he had to work with Van Damme (The Belgium Oak), but it still has an incrediable kinetic quality and Woo's style was perfectly matched with Van Damme's athletic ability. It was my first exposure to John Woo after having read about his Hong Kong films and I was impressed. The movie is fast, exciting, and is a fest for the eyes. The action scenes choreography is outstanding and Lance Henricksson is always a plus as the heavy.John Woo has the ability to make the craziest movies work - Face Off - and he does it with this movie. I just watched it a couple of weeks ago and I still found myself engrossed. It's rather depressing to see what has happened to Van Damme's career though.

You Must find the Uncut version!
The R-rated version of Hard Target is what happens when censorship gets out of hand. The Uncut verison is so much better, if you can find it than I highly recommend you get it! This film really does belong up there with John Woo's pervious films. It's very violent with lots of action that will surely keep you interested. John Woo is the best! The ending was great, I will not spoil it! but there is one part I didn't really like, that's the whole Shoot than jump in the air kick routine Van Damme did while killing the bad guys seemed really out of place, it's like the kicks were just added because he's Van Damme and I guess John Woo thought most Americans would want to see Van Damme's sissy kicks. As for the actors..... Van Damme is a horrible one, I heard they were going to cast Kurt Russell as the lead instead which would have made the movie 100 times better cut or uncut! But alas! we were stuck with stiff Van Damme, his bad accent on top of another bad accent and his horrible hair. But all is forgiven when sexy Arnold Vosloo (Pik Van Cleaf) makes his way on to the screen, what a wonderful job he did! He literally stole the show from Van Damme with every sence they had together in my book. Lance Herkersion(sp) was also great! all the way through! These two worked great together as the bad guys, they will send chills down your spine, just the thought that there could be guys like them out in the world is really creepy! My favortie sence will have to be the introduction of Pik when he comes in contact with Chance for the first time in Randell Poe's office, the dude looked like the devil standing at that door! A job well done! I will rate this one (R-rated) with 3 stars, but the Uncut one deserves five stars all the way! the difference is, one is a Van Damme film, the other is a John Woo film!

Van Damne, New Orleans style
This has to be the top 3 best Van Damne movies, this was made in New Orleans and I live only a few hours away from it, my god, Van Damne in the same state has me and only a few hours away good god and it was such a good movie.Again another awesome Van Damne movie.

Damme skippy!
The city of Brussels, Belgium is responsible for two crimes against humanity: its sprouts, and Jean-Claude Van Damme.

After getting fired as the monster in "Predator," Van Damme broke into cinema with his star turn in "Kickboxer." Or maybe it was "Bloodsport." Big difference. Somehow, Hollywood deemed him "successful," and he graduated to big-budget fare like "Universal Soldier" and that one flick with Patricia Arquette on a farm, where Ted Levine played a bad guy (shocker).

Around the same time, John Woo got sick of working with Chow Yun-Fat, and decided to quit making Hong-Kong-style action flicks in Hong Kong, and make Hong-Kong-style action flicks in America instead.

The two men joined forces, and with Yancy (hic) Butler as the heroine, perpetrated "Hard Target" upon us all.

In a casting/dialogue-coaching stroke of genius, Van Damme is enlisted to play a Cajun named Chance. When asked about the origin of his moniker, he cryptically replies "Mi'mamma Too Kwan." Exactly who this Kwan character is supposed to be, we never learn. Maybe it's a deleted scene with a martial arts master, or something (I'm guessing James Hong played him. James Hong ALWAYS plays guys named "Kwan").

Rounding out the cast is Lance Henriksen, who can check off another entry in his "the movie stunk, but Lance Henriksen was cool" list.

"Hard Target" is basically an urbanized re-telling of "the Most Dangerous Game," where bad guys hunt the good guy. "Surviving the Game," the one with Ice-T, is better. Sort of.

At least "Hard Target" treats us to a scene where two characters shoot at each other from opposite sides of a row of windows...with nary a scratch. It's even funnier than Chance's mullet. On second thought, NOTHING is funnier than Chance's mullet.

The staggering box-office results from "Hard Target" paved the way for such Van Damme classics as "Sudden Death" and...uh..."Friends" -- while Woo busted blocks with "Windtalkers" and "Paycheck."

And I saw this in the THEATER.

A BULLSEYE!!!!!!
This is by far one of the better from both director John Woo and Jean-Claude Van Damme. With a good music score from Graeme Revell and interesting story as Yancy Butler seeks her Father who was missing in cohorts with a group of mercenaries who excel at game hunting on the streets. It's filmed in New Orleans, therefore features some great shots of the city and later in the film of the jungle settings. Enter Van Damme as sailor Chance Boudreaux, who she seeks help from, sensing he has an uncanny ability of self-defense.

Van Damme actually delivers a pretty good performance this time around with his usual cheesy one-liners. Particularly where after taken in custody when investigating a crime scene is subdued by cops and taken to the station. A receptionist scolds him about trespassing being a criminal offense. Van Damme points to his bruised forehead with "Yes, that Officer was nice enough to mention that." A very good supporting cast includes Lance Henriksen as sadistic mercenary (he can play this kind of role in his sleep by now) Emil Fouchon and Arnold Vosloo as his sidekick Van Cleef. Add them with a crack team of hitman and that can only spell big trouble in game hunting. Wilford Brimley is a particular welcoming standout as Uncle Douvee.

RECOMMENDED TO ANY JOHN WOO OR MARTIAL ARTS FAN! ... Read more

Reviews (22)

THE Movie That Set the Style of 70s
All of Pam Grier movies in the 70s, "Coffy" is the most famous. She deserves it; watch this movie, and you see what so-called blaxploitation films are all about.

The fast-paced "Coffy" starts with a dynamite opening, in which Pam's character Coffy lures her enemy into a nasty surprise, and she blows away poor fool's head with a shotgun literally. Then, her mission of eradicating drug racket goes on until a very bitter ending. There are actions, fighting, nudity, and battling girls at a party where Pam uses most unexpected weapon -- salad! Frankly they look rather bland by today's standard, but good soundtrack by Roy Ayres is still wonderful.

Probably the most interesting thing about "Coffy" is its gorgeous 70s fashion: music, clothes, and hairstyle. even if you find its story a little stale, you never get tired of watching dresses, glasses, hats, and everything -- they are so big! And surprising thing is that the film to certain extent reflects the political condition of those days (see how a black congressman address a speech about drug issues among Afro-Americans).

"Coffy" is one of the movies that set the style of the 70s. Those who are interested in that period should watch it (and the original "Shaft") once.

Vigilante action with Pam!
Pam Grier is Coffy, an inner-city nurse whose younger sister's life has been destroyed by illicit drugs, and who is now out to avenge her by killing the drug dealers. Her method is to lure the dope pushers by offering them her sexual favors, and then blasting them with a sawed-off shotgun!

And what man can resist such a statuesque beauty? Many a dope pusher meets his Maker after making it with Coffy. Pam Grier has some outstanding nude scenes in this movie, and that alone makes this DVD worth the price, but director Jack Hill's commentary is an interesting bonus. This DVD is a must-have for every Pam Grier fan!

One vengeful mama.
For a blaxploitation movie this one isn't too bad, thanks largely to Pam Grier. She is one tough lady in this interesting retooling of "The Bride that Wore Black," only in this case it is little sister who Coffy is seeking vengeance upon. There is plenty of violence and nudity to thrill, but the movie actually develops a story and posits the moral question whether vengeance is justified if criminals can't be brought to justice. Ultimately, Coffy enters the world of prostitution, posing as a sultry Jamaican bombshell, to get the top crime boss in the city. The movie is vintage 70's with luscious babes lounging around swimming pools, garish interiors and love-inducing fireplaces. Too bad Pam Grier had to wait such a long time to get the plum role of Jackie Brown, building her fame on Jack Hill movies.

Errors and omissions
From the information from other sites I am to believe that this is not an 'Anamorphic/16:9 enhanced' DVD. Foxy Brown is. All Region 2's in the MGM Blaxploitation-series are...

They call her Coffy and she'll cream you!
This was a pretty enjoyable movie, but I have to admit that I enjoyed Foxy Brown just a little more. This movie is basically about Pam Griers' character getting revenge on those who have hurt her and her family. She starts out with lower level pimps and pushers, and workers her way up the power structure to the head sleezebags. The one thing that didn't really sit well with me was the way she portrayed the moments of remorse her character felt about what she was doing. I am not saying that a person who becomes a vigilante wouldn't have these feelings, but I just didn't really buy it coming from her. I know, I know, maybe I am delving too deep into the character, but if they're going to go there...anyway, it didn't make me enjoy the movie any less. And it's always nice to see as much eye candy as there was in this movie. Pam Grier is really hot and made most of the other women in this movie look kinda dumpy. To sum it up, it's a fun movie, some minor slow points, but it kept me interested throughout. If funk with a dash of groovitude is your bag, then this movie is for you. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Drifting as far from Michael Winner's original and interesting 1974 Death Wish as possible, this belated sequel in an often ugly series is nevertheless a harmless, fairly conventional thriller featuring a watchable cast. After his life of loss and misery at the hands of criminals, vigilante Paul Kersey is ready to settle down in romantic bliss with a fashion designer named Olivia (Lesley-Anne Down). Unfortunately, the lady happens to be the target of her mobster ex-husband (Michael Parks), who has a tight grip on New York's garment district. Disfigured and finally murdered by her former spouse, Olivia is avenged in very creative ways by Paul, who resorts to such esoterica as using a remote-controlled soccer ball to deliver an explosive punishment. Bronson largely phones it in for this potboiler, though even in the winter of his life he can look quite compelling in his stoic way. Helping to keep things interesting is Parks's kinky cruelty and Saul Rubinek's vaguely bemused performance as a well-meaning prosecutor. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Bronson Really Lets Them Have It This Time!!!
In this, the fifth (and probably final) film of the "Death Wish" series, Paul Kersey has entered the Witness Protection Program and has moved back to New York City (actually Toronto, Canada) to settle down with a famous fashion designer. Unfortunately, his fiancé's mobster/ex-husband (played by Michael Parks) is getting involved in the fashion industry and begins to make life hell for both Kersey and his future wife, Olivia (played by Lesley-Anne Down). When Olivia decides to testify against her ex-husband, she is brutally disfigured and then killed at her home. That is when Kersey goes to work!

Using chemicals, military weapons and even children's toys, Kersey gives the mob something they wish they never got (and does he ever give it to them!).

Definitely one of the best and one of the most violent in the series, this film shows many scenes (albeit brief) of graphic torture, so parents should definitely keep their children away until they're at least 16. Even Bronson (72 when he made this) is still in peak physical shape and it is great watching him kick ass with the best of them. Forget Schwarzenegger, Stallone or Seagal. Charles Bronson is indeed the quintessential tough guy and there's no beating him!

Film lovers who love watching bloopers will have fun with this one (watch for the Canadian mailboxes in front of the fashion factory, especially when it suppose to be New York City)!

If there does happen to be a "Death Wish 6" (and the ending of this film leaves that possibility), I can only hope it was as good as this one and not nearly as horrible as some of the earlier entries (eg: Death Wish II) in the series.

Definitely check out "Death Wish 5: The Face Of Death". You won't regret it.

Worth while seeing
No joke Charles Bronson's Death Wish V is a enjoyable thrilride from start to finnish. Paul Kersey has been retired from the viglante game for several years now is a professer of Arctitecture and has found love and is about to get married. But somehow fate won't leave Kersey alone His girlfried's ex big time mobster Tommy o Shea tries to take over her fashion empire, she goes sees the District attorny ends up with her face disfigued and is killed. Bronson shows more acting ablity this time around and the action is well staged and less idiotic than in previous Death Wish films. Michael Parks is a meanicing presence with a bad haircut, & dopey looking eyewear. This is only Death Wish Entry worth remembering next to the original Death Wish.

creative deaths kept me laughing
The way the bad guys are dispatched in this one is classic. Boy did they deserve it. The smile on Bronson's face...! I loved this series. Thanks for the fun Kersey.

Bad Ending
This was a bad ending to both this movie and the entire sequel. While this movie does have explosions, gunfire, and a story line unlike the previous movies, it seems to abruptly end without a full close to the story.
As far as a close to the sequel, it would have been much better if they would have had Jeff Goldblum come back to face Bronson; after all, he did get away with murder in the first movie.

Over all, I do recomend this movie to all Death Wish lovers. Charles Bronson was correct when he defended thsese movies, it does give a sence of satisfaction to all those who are fustrated with the legal system.

Last time has its charms.
Paul Kersey now lives in the witness protection program (why?) and is preparing to settle down with another woman, a fashion designer in New York, and her daughter. But this new love comes with some ugly baggage. Her ex-husband is a local hood who is using his ex-wife's business to clean his dirty money. When this operation is threatened said ex makes violent threats and then follows through on them with his trio of thugs. Of course the law seems to be unable to do anything about it and Kersey (who everybody on the planet seems aware of) returns to his old ways - nobody puts up much of a fight. There is very little steam in this entry, but writer/director Allan A. Goldstein does manage a few nice touches, just not as many as previous entries had. Bronson still has more star charisma and presence in his winter years than just about any action star of today. You could believe his punch would still pack a wallop. What is sad though is that Goldstein's script is so choked with illogic. As I mentioned before, it seems that every law enforcement officer in New York City (actually cost saving Canada this time around) knows that Kersey is back to his creep killing ways and their only reaction is. "Cut it out, will ya?" That does not tension make. Heck, even Death Wish 4: The Crackdown handled it better. Nonetheless, the cast plays their roles with just the right amount of winking and/or phoning in and one or two inventive dispatchings of the love-to-hate-them bad guys spices up the overly routine aspects of the movie. But it's for the die hard fans only. ... Read more

Reviews (24)

Thrilling, best in it's genre...
This movie is among the the best and most thrilling of the post Harry Callihan, 1980's genre of cop movies. As Nico Toscani, a naturally macho yet morally upright and skilled cop (who is also ex-CIA and former Aikido instructor), Seagal is impressive and yet so refreshingly believable. The short martial arts action sequences are first rate - no drawn out Hong Kong formula stuff. The cafe jazz music score is memorable and rightly paced for the exciting car tailing sequences through downtown Chicago.

Nico Toscani's Sicilian background adds to the color of the drama. There are even hints of his family background being not too far removed from the wiseguys. I mentioned Nico being macho. I'd like to qualify this by saying that he's not devoid of charm and his role is less one-dimentional than one would expect. The tough-guy persona is just a facade for an individual with strong convictions and a democratic political outlook. Equally competent is Nico's partner, Delores Jackson, played candidly by the veteran Pam Grier. The main villain, the pure evil CIA doctor Zagon, is played by the veteran villain actor Henry Silva.

Don't expect any critics' choice awards for this movie, because the script does have its share of cliches. Seagal plays a cop who is on to something very big, defies higher authority and, as expected, is taken off the case - like in so many other cop movies of the genre. The outcome is predictable. You know that good is going to triumph over evil in this movie. Despite it's predictability, the plot is fresh and to a great extent realistic. Most importantly it's entertaining.

There are surprisingly bold political statements made in this movie about the dubious role played by the CIA in the affairs of many a third world country. These statements are not too far fetched and must never be underplayed when you consider the "blowback" - CIA jargon for repercussions - being felt to this day. There are far too few movies being made these days that hold the government accountable. Unfortunately it's usually the ordinary citizen who becomes the indirect victim to the follies of an agency whose modus operandii includes criminal conduct and whose agents operate "Above the Law".

The impressive and ship-shape Seagal in this movie inspires you to ditch your six-pack of beer for a six-pack of Gatorade. He inspires you to reach into your closet for your old karate uniform or gym gear and to whip yourself back into physical and mental shape. Too bad Seagal has physically floundered since then. He does have the potential to stay there. One would hope that he would take his cues from Eastwood and Bronson, both of whose careers have had them stay in shape and play lead roles well into their sixties and seventies.

First and (easily) Best Seagal Movie
Once upon a time, an ex-CIA martial arts master quit the CIA and wrote a movie with a new plot but a character that seemed a lot like the writer

Steven Seagal is best known for his action movies, in particular the parts where he does his hand to hand thing. In his case, he's an aikido expert, and that's hard to explain. Most martial arts movies talk about Kung Fu and Tae Kwan Do where people punch and kick and you can generally tell what's going on. Aikido, on the other hand, is about redirecting an opponent, making him basically want to fall down. In the movie, it looks a lot like a bad guy rushes as Seagal, he touches them with his little finger and then they decide to throw themselves in the air in ways you thought were impossible. The moves take, oh, about two seconds to perform, with Seagal's part being only about 2 microseconds. If you want to watch Seagal in classic aikido action, be prepared to pause, slow motion and rewind. It's amazing looking and absolutley bizzare (since being marveled by the movie, i have gone out and studied aikido, and it seems even more impressive, although realistic, now)

The movie's about an ex-CIA officer turned Chicago cop (and, in my opinion, an extremely unlikeable one; that macho Italian family man thing to me just looks like a dull-witted bully control freak). He runs into some old CIA friends from 'nam who are doing naughty things

This movie has a plot, and a darn good one at that. It's a very, very interesting movie, much unlike, say, all the big budget movies he did after this one. While his later movies are bad jokes, new age mantras and B-movies, this one is really, really good. There are only a realistic number of fight scenes (gosh, i wish there were more, but that would have changed it from a drama to an action film, which this really isn't), but they are wonderful

Bottom line, this movie is awesome. i don't know if Seagal wrote and directed the later films he did (he was close to a one man production company on this one), but i wish he'd turn down those big budget formula films he's been doing and go back to doing the realistic, semi-autobiographical films like this one. He's mostly considered a joke now, but when this movie came out, when he was Seagal the writer and not Seagal the action hero, he was revered, and for good reason

Seagals explodes into cinema!!!
Great score, great story, great action. This is Seagals best film next to Under Seige. Too bad he fizzeled out after a coupla good ones. Charles Bronson remains King of the genre. Check out The Mechanic and Death Wish 2 and 4....

SEAGAL'S FIRST MOVIE IS NOT TO BE MISSED!
A COP [STEVEN SEAGAL] BATTLES POLICE CORRUPTION AND DRUG DEALING. THIS WAS SEAGAL'S FIRST MOVIE. IT HAS SOME VERY GOOD ACTION SCENES. THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL MOVIE FOR ANYONE WHO LIKES TO COLLECT SEAGAL MOVIES OR ACTION MOVIES IN GENERAL. THIS MOVIE IS ALSO GOOD FOR ANOTHER THING, IT SHOWS US THE OLD STEVEN SEAGAL WHO LOOKED TOUGHER AND WAS IN BETTER SHAPE, UNLIKE TODAY.
I ADVISE ALL ACTION FANS TO ADD THIS TO THEIR COLLECTION NOW!

typical but decent
It's always fun to watch Steven Seagal beat [up] 10 people at once, then start running like a 5 year old girl. Yes this is a cheesey action movie with all the usual formulas, but Seagal seems to be a better actor than people like Chuck Norris, Vann Damme, Arnold, and Sly. His wisecracking remarks are definitely better than all the stupid one-liners in those other guys' movies. This was Seagal's first movie. If you've never seen one of his movies, this would probably be the best one to star with. Also a great supporting cast like Henry Silva (what a suprise, he's the lead villian!) Chelcie Ross (Harris from Major League) Pam Grier, Sharon Stone (she can't act, but she's okay here), and those same 2 cops that are in all the other movies filmed in Chicago. (The Fugitive, Code Of Silence, etc) ... Read more

Amazon.com

A somewhat contrived screenplay doesn't stop this thriller from serving up some of the most spectacular fire sequences ever committed to film. Like any Ron Howard production Backdraft is impressively slick and boasts a stellar cast, including Kurt Russell and William Baldwin. The actors play sibling rivals who have been at odds since the death of their firefighter father years earlier. Robert De Niro is the veteran fire inspector who is tracking a series of mysterious and deadly arsons, and Donald Sutherland is effectively creepy as the former arsonist who understands the criminal psychology of pyromaniacs. Rebecca De Mornay, Scott Glenn, and Jennifer Jason Leigh are featured in supporting roles. Backdraft is a triumph of stunt work and flaming special effects. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Firehouse Fairy Tale...
Ron Howard's Backdraft, is a film that centers on the lives of two brothers. Their father, a Chicago firefighter, was killed on the job when they were young boys. As adults, the McCaffreys, are both members of fire department. The elder brother Stephen (Kurt Russell), nicknamed "Bull", is a veteran firefighter, who prefers taking on a fire head on. His younger brother Brian (William Baldwin), is a recent graduate into the department, and though he seeks to serve out of his brother's shadow, he finds himself assigned to Bull's stationhouse. While Bull is something of a legend within the department, all is not perfect in his life, as estranged from his wife (Rebecca DeMornay), he lives on his father's old dry docked boat.

The family drama is set against a subplot, involving a series of suspicious fires that are being investigated by the fire department's arson specialist, Lt. Rimgale (Robert De Niro). A local Alderman (J.T. Walsh) responsible for budget cutbacks to the department, is pressing Rimgale for answers. After another clash with his big brother, Brian transfers to Rimgale's arson investigation unit.

Once this occurs, the story expands to become more than just a sibling rivalry, as the focus shifts to the investigation of arson and other matters. De Niro, Baldwin, Walsh and Donald Sutherland, who plays a crazed imprisoned arsonist, then assume more primary roles. The physics of a backdraft are quite fascinating, and the results spectacular and explosive. The film does feature some fine special effects and stunts, related to the fire fighting scenes. The identity of the arsonist, and the reasons for the crimes, may not be very credible, but the film proceeds towards a spectacular and emotional finish. In the end, it all comes back to the two brothers, and the special bond between firefighters.

The film does have its flaws. Baldwin (28) and Russell (40) are a bit of a mismatch as brothers, with more of an age difference as adults, than it appeared when they were children. The incident where Brian mistakenly rescues a mannequin is simply ridiculous. And the attempts to attribute to fire almost metaphysical qualities, may be something only firemen can truly appreciate. While the film's focus does bounce around a bit between drama, adventure and suspense, overall the presentation is still worth seeing. The DVD however offers very little in the way of extras.

Great special effects, plus a moving ending
"Backdraft is the story of two brothers. After the death of their firefighter father, older brother Steven (Kurt Russell) follows Dad's footsteps into the Chicago Fire Department. Younger brother Brian (William Baldwin) bounces from one scam or get-rich-quick scheme to another. But Brian eventually winds up back in Chicago in the Fire Department, and in Steven's Co. 17, no less. They go back and forth for a while, until finally Steven drives Brian out of the department and into arson investigation. Brian winds up working for an arson investigator (Robert De Niro) investigating a series of murders-by-arson.

This movie features a stellar cast, giving mostly excellent performances. Special notice should be given to Russell, in what I think is his best performance ever. J.T. Walsh gives an excellent supporting performance as the sleazy Alderman Swayczak, as do Rebecca De Mornay as Steven's estranged wife and Scott Glenn as Firefighter "Axe" Adcox. Donald Sutherland is especially creepy, yet charming as an imprisoned arsonist to whom De Niro and Baldwin go to for advice on identifying the arsonist. Baldwin and Jennifer Jason Leigh (playing Brian's girlfriend and Swayczak's aide) could have held up their parts better, but that doesn't detract from the movie as a whole.

The fire is the real star of this movie. The special effects are truly incredible, and have to be seen to be believed. This movie boasts the best effects I've ever seen in a non-science-fiction movie. Whoever the effects man is should have won an Oscar for the fire scenes in this movie.

Some may criticize the ending for being overly sentimental, but every single time I see this movie, I get choked up during Steven's last scenes. As an older brother, I really identified with Steven and how he wants the best for his brother, but he isn't quite sure of the line between pushing him to improve and pushing him down.

The special effects alone are worth getting this movie, but director Ron Howard put together an all-star cast that (mostly) managed to put together a movie in which the plot isn't entirely overshadowed by the effects. All in all, a very good movie that's well worth your $15.

Predictable but watchable
Backdraft sticks to convention and only innovates in its special effects. The plot is rather contrived and provides the excuse for the filmmakers to play with fire -- lots of it.

Hollywood inferno.
"Backdraft" is Hollywood's version of the firefighter's life. The men are blue collar, ordinary guys who are at times heroic and other times cowardly, men who fight fires because it's their job. Being a Hollywood movie, however, most of the men are in-shape, rugged masculine types who cruise to an alarm call with rock music blasting from the fire engine stereo system and who fight fires that contain surprisngly little smoke. Kurt Russell is not altogether likeable in this film, and yet he carries his two roles off successfully with his familiar macho persona. William Baldwin is the standout character, and shows a vulnerable side to the world of firemen that is usually not seen on film. Pyrotechnics are first rate, although there are many more explosions and a lot less smoke than in real-life fires. Another slick film from Opie Taylor.

respectable movie
I was a fire fighter 82-83, and i seen the movie when it was in the theatre, i liked it a lot, in fact i used to work but a few blocks away from the china town station on cermak road where some of the footage was shot, it dealt with fire house comrades, dealt with " hero syndrome", i was not expecting a techical as it really suppose to be movie, but the heroism displayed by
the fire fighters are 5 star commendable. ... Read more

Reviews (33)

Screwface is Dead!
You take a Jamaican druglord named Screwface and you take the funniest, laziest action star named Steven Seagal and you have ingredients to real comedy. Seagal shoots a woman in a rotten country and is ashamed to be a police officer. Hey, he shouldn't feel bad after she killed his partner. Well, Seagal goes back to America and looks for his family and friends. In town, a druglord takes advantage of children and sells them drugs. Oh, that doesn't fly with this genius. Seagal takes matters into his own hands when his niece is shot. Major bone snappage! The fight in the jewelry store is hilarious and Seagal fights Screwface in Jamaica! Eye gouges and decapitation. Distasteful! But, wait, there's another Screwface in Los Angeles, they're twins. What a plot twist. "Screwface is dead, so you can get the freak out of town!" Seagal gives this brother more pain with a back snap, gouge, and thrown down an elevator shaft. It was the most disturbing thing I have ever seen. Pure comedy.

Seagal at his best
Marked for Death is by far Steven Seagals best film. John Hatcher(seagal) has just retired from the Drug Enforcement Agency after his partner dies on a case. When a Jamaican Drug Posse marks seagals family for death, seagal realizes that he needs to pay them back, with interest. Seagal, teamed up with a jamaican cop and an old friend of his, to teach the posse that there's just some families that you don't mess with. If you don't like car chases, snapped arms and heads being chopped off, this movie isn't for you. Its's to bad they don't make action movies this great anymore.

NOT REALLY ALL THAT GOOD
A FORMER COP [STEVEN SEAGAL] GOES AFTER SOME LOCAL JAMAICAN DRUG DEALERS. THIS WAS AN UTTERLY DISSAPOINTING FILM, BEING THAT ''ABOVE THE LAW'' WAS SO GOOD. HAS THE USUAL SHOOTOUTS AND THE USUAL CAR CHASES THAT ONE WOULD EXPECT TO FIND IN A STEVEN SEAGAL MOVIE. DIEHARD SEAGAL FANS [WHICH IS WHAT I AM, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT] MIGHT LIKE IT. OTHERS SHOULDN'T EVEN WASTE THEIR TIME.

The last of his (non-Under Siege) good ones
As someone else said (probably on this website), S Seagal probably became a parody of himself faster than any other action hero of our time. Other than the "Under Siege" pairing, Marked for Death was, to my mind the last really great movie he did.

It is Seagal at his brutal best. As the Editorial Review says, he plays a disillusioned former DEA agent, who comes back home), to find his neighborhood being ravaged by a group of Jamaicans and their drug trade. Seagal cleans it up the situation as only he could: blasting a handful of the bad guys away with pistol and shotgun, and beating the rest savagely.

This movie, like his premier "Above the Law", has some of his technically most proficient Aikido, particularly after he crashes his car into a department store and then takes on about four adversaries in a randori, or challenge of one defender against multiple attackers.

Of course, it would not be some shattering news to reveal here that in the end, Seagal prevails over the leader of this drug posse, nicknamed Screwface (the name comes from a Bob Marley song). They fight with swords, bottles, and ultimately hands. But the climactic fight is equally brutal as it is final.

It was not nominated in the "Best Movie" category. It is not particularly thought provoking. But what it is is an action movie. And as that, it is worth the price of admission.

You want arms being snapped in two? Right here.
This was Seagal's third film, I believe, and he was really in his 'prime'. This flick has the kind of bone-crunching action you demand from the genre.

Seagal plays a cop taking on some scary Jamaican drug lords. They're into voodoo or something, Seagal gets his Mustang wrecked, and before the end, a lot of arms and wrists are going to be snapped like so many twigs.

What has happened to Seagal? In this movie his fight scenes are pretty good. They had perfected the Seagal film formula by this point and would follow it with the equally brutal Out for Justice. This was before the filmmakers had to extensively doctor the fight scenes with camera tricks like fast motion and telephoto lenses in order to disguise the fact that Seagal had become old, fat, and completely out of shape.

Seagal's last few films have gone straight to DVD and they are absolutely appalling, yes, even for a Seagal film. Marked for Death is a actually good for what it is. Compare it to something like Ticker or Out for a Kill and see how the mighty have fallen. Seagal's IHOP excesses have destroyed him. Watch Marked for Death to see him in all of his bullying, macho glory. ... Read more

Reviews (49)

AWESOME!
In the Line of Fire was definitely in the top 10 of suspense/drama films in the 1990's. I was not a big Clint Eastwood fan but he gives a great performance as an old time Secret Service agent. The movie links his "involvement" in the Kennedy assassination to a current potential assassin. That potential assassin is played exquisitely by John Malkovich. At first, we know him as John Wilkes Boothe (another assassin) but as the movie progresses, we come to learn more about "Boothe", his real name, his multiple homes, and his violent past as a ........just watch. The movie is basically a cat and mouse but to the highest degree. Rene Russo, a fellow agent, has good chemistry with Eastwood as they desparately try to locate Malkovich before another U.S. President is assassinated under Eastwood's guard. What Eastwood doesnt know is how vulnerable he is on a daily basis when he is eerily stalked by Malkovich. It all makes for great suspense and fun for a couple hours.

The only Eastwood movie I own
Believe it or not, this was the first Clint Eastwood movie I bought and only the second I?ve seen (the first was ?Blood Work?). So consequently I cannot compare this to a ?Dirty Harry? or any of Eastwood?s older works. I can however say it was a good movie. It is at times rather predictable and follows the example of most other cop vs. killer films, but that?s okay. The acting by Clint and particularly John Malkovich makes up for any lack of originality. That?s not to say there?s no innovation within ?In The Line Of Fire?. There certainly is. Even in their supporting roles, both Rene Russo and Dylan McDermott (aka Will from NBC?s Will & Grace) prove to be at the top of their games. All in all, if you can get past the conventionalism and the random spots of predictability, you?re bound to enjoy the show.

Eastwood plays the role of Frank Horrigan, who?s an older, obnoxious Secret Service agent who, years ago, was unable to prevent JFK from being shot. So when a ?wet-boy? posses a great threat to the current President, Frank?s past is brought back to light courtesy of the self-proclaimed Booth (played brilliantly by John Malkovich). Booth is a very scary character. And it?s not until partway into the movie that we see his face clearly. He is a smart, flawless exhibitioner who has a profound obsession with President?s deaths. Most others in the office ignore the threats and leave Frank as though he?s an old fuddy-duddy past his prime. But Eastwood knows, claiming right from the start: ?I know things about people?. What Booth does is lead Frank and other agents through a series of set-up clues that keep them close; though not too close. Because Booth singles out Frank, the two are able to form an excellent on screen double act. They may not be working together, but they interact with each other just so perfectly. That aspect of the movie was hands down the best element. Along with the aforementioned quote, a few others give Eastwood that appeal that would most likely do for this movie what the ?...punk? quote did for ?Dirty Harry?. And even Malkovich chimes in with a most-memorable quotation: ?all we have is the game?. And the game continues all the way till the very end, when we see if Eastwood?s instincts were right all along. Aside from all the great acting and an exalting story, there were a couple of ugly spots in the movie. The first that comes to mind is the romance scenes between Eastwood and Rene Russo. The bedroom scene was predominantly unlikable, but Eastwood finished it off with a hilariously unforgettable line. I won?t spoil it for you. Also, the special effects were nothing to write home about; a part at the end actually made me laugh. But in the end, the greatness of the movie outweighs the few poor spots.

If you are a Clint Eastwood fan I?m sure you already own this movie. If you?re a budding Eastwood fan born after his time, I can?t tell you ?In The Line Of Fire? is better than any other Eastwood classics. But, again, I can tell you it?s worth watching. The character of Frank Horrigan is played perfectly by Eastwood. And John Malkovich drops in the best performance of his career as the lofty but likable Booth. There is not a moment of this movie that?s not entertaining (romance bits excluded), and the thrills just keep on pilling up. On a more serious note, when you?re watching this movie, it?s frightening to think there?s no one like a Frank Horrigan out there who?d protect the President with such pride. I picked this up for a buck at the Half-Price Book Store; for that price I couldn?t pass it up. And I don?t recommend you pass it up either.

Very Smart movie, although some may not agree
The only actor i liked in this political action thriller was John Malkovitch. I mean he is one of the greatest actors alive today and this movie shows why. I loved his other movies like 'Being John Malkovitch', 'Con Air' and 'Of Mice and Men'. The tension and anger could be felt by the charecter Malkovitch played. On the other hand, this was clearly Clint Eastwood's best preformance too. The reson why this great half and half movie didn't win an oscar is because of
a. The title.
b. Based on fictional charecters and at the same time discriminating the US Government by showing lack of professionalism.
c. Only three major actors.
d. Release date.

So anyway, some might say that this is just another action flick, which it is, so if you'd like to see Eastwood play a hard nosed secret agent and hunt down a humerous, serial killer physcopath played by Malkovitch, then this movie will do alright. It may be a typical movie but the good thing about movies everybody would like to see is the highly awaited climax. So watch this if you are an action fan.

Eastwood is great..Russo is sexy and Malkovich is creepy
Clint Eastwood(Blood Work, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly), a cop..was one of the guys who protected John F. Kennedy before he was assassinated...now he is jumping threw hoops for some killer who likes to toy and play with him..great suspense and Eastwood is a charm to watch..John Malkovich(Knockaround Guys, Con Air) is always evil...there's no denying that. directed by Wolfgang Petersen also starring Rene Russo(Get Shorty, The Thomas Crown Affair), Dylan McDermott(Tv's The Practice, The Cowboy Way), Gary Cole(A Simple Plan, I:Spy), Fred Dalton Thomas(Die Hard 2: Die Harder, Tv's Law and Order), Joshua Malina(Tv's Sports Night, Tv's The West Wing), John Mahoney(Tv's Fraiser, The Hudsucker Proxy), and Steve Railsback(Slash, Made Men). good cat and mouse game

good
This interesting little suspence tale starring Clint Eastwood, Rene Russo, and John Malcovich goes into the world of politics. Eastwood plays FBI agent Frank Horrigan, a man who's been haunted by the fact that he couldn't save Kennedy after the first shot had been fired. Malcovich brilliantly plays Mitch Leary, a psychotic man who's only goals are to taunt Horrigan and to assaninate the president. Russo plays Lilly Raines, the female agent who is bothered by Horrigan's lame attempts to woo her and to help Horrigan solve the mess that Leary has made. Good movie and watch for Gary Coleman,Dylan McDermott, John Heard, and Ed Harris as well. ... Read more

Reviews (320)

Manhunter is a treat....
especially for fans of Michael Mann, and his stylish, intense film presentation. If you absolutely must have your movies true to the book, or if you are watching Manhunter to try to get an early view of Hannibal Lecter (pre-Silence of the Lambs), you may be disappointed.

Mann gives us William Petersen, a little younger and thinner, but much the same as his current role in the television feature "CSI". He has nearly destroyed himself and his family life with his ability to profile serial killers, and his inability to stay out of harm's way. The villain of this setting (and the book, "Red Dragon" by Thomas Harris) is called the "Tooth Fairy" and his slaughter of two families is particularly grisly; how and why he chose his victims will surprise you. Mann's use of rock classics for the score, and his choice of actors for the parts of both villians are brilliant. Although I prefer Anthony Hopkins, the Lecter role is played with brilliant understatement by Cox, an actor who can "ooze" madness and evil, and does so in this film. Like many of the reviewers, I found only the original widescreen DVD, and not the 2 part Director's cut to demonstrate the excellence in this film. BRAVO, Michael Mann!

A little slow at times, but done with great style!
True to the book, with a great sense of the somewhat cheesy 80's style Mann himself invented. Love the Inna Gadda Da Vida scene. It is, to me, one of the greatest marriages of music and video ever put on film, and it saved the movie for me. Also enjoyed the eerie lack of music in the 'burning wheelchair' scene. Mann has the unique ability to create an unforgettable 'moment' in a film which etches itself forever into the viewer's mind (For another prime example of this ability, see the seemingly endless 'shooting to escape capture' scene in the beginning of Mann's HEAT. Excellent!). Performances were good, if not exactly captivating, especially if judged in comparison to those in Silence Of The Lambs. But comparing any movie to a 5-time Academy Award winner is probably unfair. The biggest problem with Manhunter, I found, was Mann's (Or, perhaps, William Peterson's) inability to convincingly portray the overwhelming mental anguish that the Will Graham character goes through in this story. All in all, a good, entertaining film with some truly memorable moments.

Dream Much, Will?
Don't miss this original, the first of the Hannibal Lechtor series. The score, the filmography, (Lighting), is still so vividly used in the best of today's suspence/thrill sequences.
Will Graham, (William Peterson), is the "Manhunter" hunting down "Frances Dolarhyde", and also the man responsible for imprisoning Dr Lechtor, at great phsycial, and emotional harm to himself.
Don't be fooled by Dino's latest grab at a buck, the rediculous "Red Dragon". (Which is odd, since Dino owns "Manhunter" as well..)
So, Red Dragon is only a remake of this great film.
It's ultimately embaressing to watch Lechtor and Chilton's charachter's re-acted, only "made up" to look 20 some years younger! (Red Dragon).
This is the Real McCoy, and Brian Cox, IMHO, should have stayed Hannibal Lechtor.
If you want another good performance by Anthony Hopkins, see "Meet Joe Black".
BTW, as far as I can tell, Barney's character, (Frankie Faison), is the only actor to play in all "Four movies of the Trilogy"..
If you want the original psychological thriller in this series, you found it..

Pete

Michael Mann's controversial crime-thriller ...
MANHUNTER is the 1986 crime-thriller that began Michael Mann's career as a respected filmmaker. Adapted from the novel "Red Dragon" by Thomas Harris, this film will be remembered as "the film with the OTHER Hannibal Lecter" and will dismissed by many as a good first try, but nothing special. CSI's William Petersen stars as Will Graham, a gifted FBI agent who is working to track down a mysterious killer nicknamed the "Tooth Fairy" before the next full moon. Aiding him in his hunt is the (curiously mispelled) criminal genius Hannibal Lecktor, played by Brian Cox. Being a huge fan of the Hannibal Lecter film series and Harris' novels, I have more to work with than some other people. MANHUNTER was adapted and directed by Michael Mann, who also produced "Miami Vice" - and it shows on the glittering design and stunning soundtrack. The acting is okay, but is great only in the cases of Petersen and Dennis Farina (who also featured on "Miami Vice", as well as certain other people who appear in the film). Mann's direction is the greatest part of the film. Brian Cox's performance as "Lecktor" works fine, but is completely incomparable to that of Anthony Hopkins, who played him in the later films. MANHUNTER has been unfairly dismissed as a piece of crap. It's no masterpiece, I'll grant you that, but the fact that the film is so dated, and the work that people like Mann and Petersen have done, make it a wonderful, "Miami Vice"-esque thriller.

Read the novel AND see this film!
I first rented this movie in the late '80s, and I really only did so to see Chris Elliot's cameo -- give me a break, I was really bored that weekend! Years later, when I saw Silence of the Lambs in the theater, I recognized the name of the doctor and realized that these two works were somehow related, and eventually ended up reading all four of Thomas Harris' novels and seeing all five film adaptations, of which Manhunter is my personal favorite.

Upon reflection, I initially found the film's ending a bit stereotypically Hollywood, and not quite up to the same high level of quality found in the rest of the film. As I later read the novel, I at first found myself liking the book's ending better, but understood how it might have been much harder to film -- that is, until I got past the red herring to the novel's REAL ending, which made Manhunter's ending seem positively inspired by comparison. (Okay, so maybe I'm being a bit too hard on Harris, and giving Michael Mann a bit too much of a pass on this point....)

If you don't like Michael Mann's directorial style, or if you're one of those pseudo-intellectuals who can't look at a film made in another decade without calling it "dated" -- or if you think Anthony Hopkins is the only actor who should ever be legally allowed to play the character of Hannibal Lector --then you might not like this film. Though it often strays from the novel a little bit, and leaves almost all of the exposition regarding the Tooth Fairy's origins out, it all still works. Noonan gives an excellent and economic performance, as does Nancy Allen (and their love scene is one of the more tasteful and romantic in recent memory).

Brian Cox also has a different take on the Lector character than Hopkins, but it is ultimately A) closer to the novel's depiction and B) more realistic and believable. Sorry, Tony, but you have to admit, as great as your performance was in Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal comes off much better when the actor playing him resists the urge to chew scenery -- no pun intended....

But it is William Petersen's portrayal of Investigator Graham that really carries the film, and rightly so. As I said before, the novel gives us much, much more background on the Tooth Fairy than the movie does, but the main focus of the story is on Graham and his own internal struggles. I was especially impressed with one scene in particular that Petersen and Mann really pulled off well, as far as taking a great moment from the novel and translating it into a great movie moment. It's the scene in the middle of the film when Graham is seated at a diner, staring out into the rainy night, playing the answering machine message of one of the victims in his head: "Hi, this is Valerie Leads; I'm sorry I can't come to the phone right now..." because she's been murdered, of course. Absentmindedly, Graham says aloud, "Me too." The waitress passing by asks if he was asking for more coffee, and he tells her no. Turning back to the window, having now made up his mind to throw himself completely into the investigation and see it through to the end, Graham says out loud, as if the Tooth Fairy could hear him, "It's just you and me now, sport." This was a great emotional moment in the novel, and Mann and Petersen (and the music score) also manage to make it a great emotional moment in the movie as well, losing nothing in the translation.

I give the same number of stars to Jonathan Demme's Silence of the Lambs, but let's face it -- Mann's asylum for the criminally insane is much more realistic and believable than Demme's, for instance. Two different directorial styles, two different approaches to Lector, etc., but each quite good in its own right. The "re-imagining" of 2002 on the other hand is another story, and a sad one at that....

If you're in the mood for the original modern police procedural on investigating serial killers, or for a good psycholgical character study about the effects of such work on the investigators themselves, then give this film a try!

PS: Why is it that when most people review books and films on Amazon, A) they seem not to notice that most of what they say has already been said in the hundreds of other reviews previously posted, and B) they seem to feel obligated to recount the entire plot, point by point, spoiler by spoiler, in excruciating detail, instead of just giving the rest of us a simple idea of why we might like or dislike the book or film in question?! ... Read more

Amazon.com

John Wayne was in the early stages of superstardom when this lavishCecil B. DeMille adventure was produced in 1942, so it's interesting to see the Duke in a heroic supporting role as opposed to the commanding one. Here he's on equal footing with Ray Milland in the romantic lead; they play a pair of dashing yet wildly different characters who've both fallen for a feisty Southern belle played by Paulette Goddard. It's 1840 on Florida's Key West, and while Wayne plays a daring seaman eager to command a brand-new steamship, his ambitions are hampered by his daredevil reputation and the ruthless profiteering of a salvager (Raymond Massey) who preys on ships that are routinely wrecked in the Key's rocky coastal waters. Milland plays the dapper gentleman who can decide Wayne's future, but Wayne's competitive edge leads to a progression of apparent betrayals and shifting allegiances. Ultimately, both men cast aside their differences to seek justice on the open sea, where an underwater encounter with a giant octopus threatens to bury them both in a watery grave. Providing spectacle and romance as only DeMille could serve it up, this blustery adventure has its share of corny dialogue and obligatory crowd-pleasing action, but that's all part of the movie's considerable charm. It's like Gone with the Wind on the open sea, with the high-spirited Goddard (who had been a candidate for the role of Scarlett O'Hara) holding her own with her chest-thumping costars. DeMille fills his frame with delightful characters and background business, spicing up the story with just enough humor and hokum to offset the movie's forgivable flaws. Presented in glorious Technicolor that's been flawlessly preserved on DVD, the film earned Oscar nominations for its cinematography and costumes, and its still-exciting climax earned an Oscar for Best Special Effects. All in all, this is rousing Hollywood entertainment from the peak years of the studio system that DeMille had dominated for decades. --Jeff Shannon. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

This Film Surprised Me
I enjoyed this film more than I expected to. Another reviewer called it "predictable" but I was surprised several times. Paulette Goddard is enjoyable as the spunky heroine who expects too much of John Wayne's ship captain and not enough of Ray Milland's gentleman lawyer. I too kept expecting John Wayne to display his legendary heroism, but this movie casts him in the role of the weaker man, one led to disastrous decisions through a combination of pride and stubbornness.

The supporting cast, including a young Robert Preston, provide solid backing to the leads, which is always nice. The sets and costumes are beautiful. The pace is brisk, and I never got bored.

The film won a special effects Oscar, and I'm sure the climactic underwater sequence thrilled original viewers -- but I found the rubber giant squid more silly-looking than scary, and its use as a plot device unsatisfying.

probably John Wayne's sole dishonorable role...
Yes, all about "heroic salvage masters" from 1840s Key West, "Reap the Wild Wind" packs a surprise or two, and I think the Duke's actions may take quite a few of his fans aback.

I remember this film from way back, with the exciting climax concerning "a red and yeller shawl" and the Giant Squid, but most of everything else was a blur for me, until I saw it again last week. I liked almost everything in it, but man, do I have one big ol' criticism!

The Good Stuff first:
1. One big surprise were the astounding technicolor marine shots of Key West, where most of the action takes place.
2. Susan Hayward and Robert Preston are supporting cast playing forbidden lovers--what a joy to watch them as they were almost unknown at the time, seeing how their undeniable star power was evident from the start.
3. Hedda Hopper as Paulette Goddard's aunt, pre hat and pre gossip column--she was pretty good herself!
4. Ray Milland; does anything else need to be said?
5. Tension filled battle with the Giant Squid: who will survive?

and best of all, young John Wayne as an earnest young sea captain in love and in trouble because his ship sank while he had been knocked unconscious by a devious first mate. Sis in law had to confess that she'd never known he was so handsome without his 10 gallon cowboy hat. He plays a man who is in over his head dealing with treacherous Raymond Massey, and therefore does something quite un-White Hat. Could only have happened early in his career.

So what's my beef? Well, it's a pretty serious flaw: basically, the heroine stinks! Paulette Goddard's character is just not a good woman. At one point, Raymond Massey accuses her of playing Milland and Wayne off against each other, and frankly, it's the truth. At the end of the movie, there are no recriminations against her, and there really should be. I don't want to disclose too much of the plot to illustrate why I think that, but if you'll see it, you'll be aghast that she gets off scot-free. Meanwhile, Goddard's a beautiful woman; maybe that's all you're supposed to be thinking about during the movie.

So, overall, with the exception of my major problem with the Paulette Goddard character, I thorougly enjoyed "Reap the Wild Wind", and I'm sure you would too!

Great early Wayne flick!
Although this movie is very similar in plot to Wake of the Red Witch, it's a LOT better. It has a similar story about sinking a ship to get its treasure & even has an octopus sequence like Wake of the Red Witch. The difference is that while John Wayne's later B&W Red Witch is somewhat slow & boring, this movie is exciting, entertaining, in color & directed by the one & only Cecille B DeMille! Highly recommended for those seeking out a