Reviews (56)

Many Songs are missing...but still great
Ok, when a movie stars Zero Mostel, Phil Silvers, Jack Gilford and Buster Keaton, you know it is going to be an outrageously funny movie. As is the case with "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum." "Forum" was adapted from the highly sucessful, extremely comical Broadway musical of the same name. The show, the first show featuring the music AND lyrics of now legendary composer/lyricist Stephen Sondheim, was a huge hit.

When it was made into this movie version, many of Sondheim's songs were dropped. In fact, at some points it doesn't even seem like a musical. However, the movie is still extremely hilarious. Mostel played the role of Pseudolous, which he originated on Broadway. When filming began, he was just done wih a little musical called "Fiddler on the Roof". Mostel is great in this , as is the great Phil Silvers.

This movie is highly comical, seeming almost like a Monty Python movie. If your a fan of wild antics and very funny songs including "Comedy Tonight" and "Everybody Ought To Have a Maid", than you'll love this movie. By the way, it also features a very young Michael Crawford, who many years later would win a Best Actor Tony as The Phantom of the Opera.

Classic Funny Men enliven this trip to the FORUM
A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM is one of those shows that you just have to let go of all disbelief, in order to accept the broad and wacky humor. Using the 2 stars from the original cast (Zero Mostel & Jack Gilford), this film is a fun and silly romp for everyone to enjoy. Mostel leads the pack as the crafty slave plotting his way to freedom, while Gilford is perfect as his VERY nervous cohort. Buster Keaton is a gem as the befuddled, blind-as-a-bat, old man searching for his long-lost children, while Phil Silvers is oily perfection as Lycus, the buyer & seller of the flesh of beautiful women. Leon Greene is vanity personified as the roman soldier, Miles Gloriosus. Richard Lester directs using his trademark quick-cuts and cinema tricks, and while they don't always work, they keep the film from dragging too much. Fans of the stage show will be disappointed to see some of the musical numbers cut, as well as the liberties with the script. (The part of Lycus is expanded in the film to accomodate Silvers.) However, the chance to see these old pros of burlesque humor strut their stuff makes this trip well worth taking. Be aware, however, that this film is NOT for the PC inclined. This is a "Comedy, Tonight" worth recommending.

Overall not great, but has its good isolated moments
I do not claim to have a broad knowledge of Broadway musicals, and so this, Richard Lester's film version of Stephen Sondheim's A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM, was my first experience with this musical.

Mr. Sondheim is certainly something, isn't he? In such classic musicals as GYPSY or WEST SIDE STORY, his lyrics always seem to sparkle with such exhilarating wit. It's the same here, at least in the few numbers the filmmakers retained from the Broadway show in the film, particularly with the catchy opening tune "Comedy Tonight" (a tune that's still stuck in my mind right now).

As for the stretches without music---well, for me it's a mixed bag. Having not seen Richard Lester's more famous previous films (like A HARD DAY'S NIGHT), I can't say whether the frantic editing style he employs here is a trademark of his or not. Mostly it works here, giving the material a welcome screwball farcical edge. Lester, though, pursues this chaotic style at the expense of clarifying the story, resulting in a movie that eventually becomes a mess in terms of plot (since so much seems to be going on at once). Perhaps the climactic chase scene towards the end is the prime example of this fault: Lester and his editor John Victor-Smith hardly bother to clarify at certain points who's chasing whom---it's simply chariots and horses flying by, in a visceral whizz of fast motion. That's basically the problem with the storytelling overall. In short, the style is mostly effective but self-conscious (although perhaps it is a forbear of the blitzkrieg comedy style of later movies like AIRPLANE!).

Still, the movie has its moments, although most of those moments come in the witty songs and Zero Mostel's likably over-the-top performance as Pseudolus (a precursor to his classic portrayal of Max Bialystock in THE PRODUCERS). It's not a great film, but for the most part, it's good entertainment.

Schizophrenic; and hardly a MUSICal
This movie is schizophrenic. It is not funny. It is just half-funny slapstick gags delivered as if by a schizophrenic on drugs. Example: the Chariot race... What the hell is going on during that scene? It looks like everyone is just chasing everyone else and has no idea where they themselves are going. It's frightening. Another example: choreography for "Everybody's Gotta Have a Maid"... what the hell is going on during that scene? Rapid cuts from totally different settings and really random choreography make this one of the most bewildering stagings I have ever seen.

I've seen this stage musical, and it is far funnier than the film. Firstly, because it retains the music. Sondheim's music is absolutely hilarious, in many ways funnier than the book. Songs like "That'll Show Him", "Dirty Old Man," "Pretty Little Picture", "Love I Hear", and of course, the fabulous "I'm Free" are all missing. Why? For the love of God, why? And secondly, because the director did not replicate the good pacing of the musical. The musical itself is fast-paced but funny. Apparently, while making the transition to film, the director figured "I can do even more with a film" and thus WAY overdid it. Seriously, this film could give you a heart attack.

Also, other than Zero Mostel (who arguably is not at his best) the performers are not very good, except for the "Lovely (Reprise)" which was the highlight of the film. And the Captain has a good voice too.

Horribly Dated
With apparently no faith in the pretty strong material, the filmmakers decided to do away with most of the aspects that made the musical charming in the first place (like, oh, most of the music!) and replace it with groovy 60's trickery that looks like something right out of Benny Hill (look, the action is sped up to make everyone look like they're running really, really fast...isn't that funny?)

Zero Mostel does what he can, but he can't salvage this. No one else even registers.

I saw this on stage, and that version blows the film version out of the water.

Grade: D ... Read more

Reviews (121)

Impeccably written and acted, this is a movie for the ages
Yes, this movie is a period piece. But this movie, adapted from a wonderful play,is at the end of the day a powerful tale of an acutely dysfunctional family. Set during the Christmas season in 12th century England, this story is powerfully scripted and superbly acted by everyone. Peter O'Toole gives his tour de force performance as Henry II, a world-weary monarch intent on maintaining supremacy and establishing his legacy. Katherine Hepburn, in what is the among the finest movie performances I have ever seen, plays his deadly foil (and oh yes, estranged wife) Queen Eleanor of Acquitaine, who is determined to thwart his plans. The issue: which of their surviving children will inherit the throne of England, and marry Alais, the sister of the King of France? The pawns in this game are Alais and the English Princes, Richard the Lionhearted (Anthony Hopkins), John (Nigel Terry of Excalibur fame), and Geoffrey. Then of course, there is the wild card, the teenage French monarch, Philip (Timothy Dalton).

In this movie you have all of the themes of familial dysfunction: the vitriol and wistfulness of an estranged couple, the frustrations of the "model" eldest child, the resentment of the neglected middle child, the eccentricities of the overindulged youngest child, a May-December affair triggered by a mid-life crisis, holiday depression, and it goes on and on. This movie is so adept at exploring these topics that it makes "American Beauty" (a good film in its own right) seem almost sophomoric.

What makes this movie stand out is the writing. There is no other movie this side of "The Godfather" that has contained such enjoyable dialogue and character development. The dialogue in this movie is outstanding ("It's not the power I feel deprived of, it's the mention that I miss"; "Give me a little peace/A little? Why so modest? How about eternal peace? Now there's a thought.")

I doubt there will ever be another movie that will be so skillful in weaving together historical material, political intrigue, and slice-of-life issues into so seamlessly. This is one of my 10 favorite movies. Please rent it, and if you can find it, buy it.

Five Stars PLUS
This is my all-time favorite movie. TEN STARS! Every actor's performance is absolutely superb. The dialogue crackles with excellence. It is so good that one could listen to it alone without the video portion. I know, I have. Whether watching of just listening, the experience sends chills up and down my spine.

My obsession with this film is partly explained by my love for English history, and the conviction that Henry II was the greatest of that kingdom's monarchs. Notwithstanding that, this film should have won that year's Academy Award in every major category. I would love to see it re-released onto the big screen.

Lion In Winter All-Time Favorite
I concur with all the reviews I have read here. This is one of two movies I can watch any time, the other being the K. B. and E.T. "Much Ado About Nothing". I am desperately seeking a Vhs copy or original for my brother, if anyone has "The Lion..." for sale, please contact me at: Suzannefoote@netscape.net

ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL !
I was a teenager when I first saw this, and it was an "old" movie then....but this film is timeless, and the performances of the actors are untouchable! The entire movie is so engrossing, with it's costumes, dialogue, storyline, and actors, that anyone who watches, young or old, will be entranced....Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn are absolutely STUNNING....not to mention Anthony Hopkins and a future James Bond....it's twenty years since I first saw this film, and I fall in love with it again every time I see it.

O'Toole and Hepburn--you can't go wrong
This is one of my all-time favorite films, and I can't say how disappointed I am that it is not available for purchase--I bet one can find any number of copies of Friday the 13th part 8 on video, but great classics get yanked. Anyhow, Katherine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole are fabulous as the famously conflicted royal couple Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitane. A really young Anthony Hopkins also stars as the (future) Richard the Lion Hearted. the film doesn't suffer from that 1960s glamorization of the medieval era--the sets and costumes are authentic. Hepburn is perfect as the strong willed and infamous Eleanor of Aquitane--and O'Toole holds more than his own as the king who married then imprisoned her. Pray that they rerelease this film--there aren't many out there that can hold a candle to it! ... Read more

Reviews (25)

One of our favorites - a vacation in itself
Every now and again, my wife and I, both avid travelers, feel the need to escape for a while. The problem is that we feel like getting away from the daily grind more often than time-off or money allows. A Year in Provence offers the perfect solution.

For a couple evenings in a row, we curl up on the couch or floor, open some red wine, put in the movie, and let escape to south france. It's fantastic.

The movie is funny and entertaining, but more than that, it is real. It makes you feel as though you could be the one with the house in Provence, getting into the little mishaps, making a big, entertaining deal about the smallest things. There are no epic adventures, it is simply a vacation. We could see anything that happens in the movie happening to anyone else, if only we were there.

The book is also excellent, but a little harder to enjoy at the same time as someone else.

Fun for some, but poor-quality DVD
I've been revisiting this wonderful mini-series on DVD, watching it on a hi-res screen, and note that the image-quality is really appalling. It looks like they took an old VHS tape, and strained it through a sieve. Which is probably pretty close to what actually happened, the "sieve" in this case being a really crude digital-compression system. Too bad, because it contains a lot of beautiful scenic photography, which has been turned to mush.

Is Something Missing?
I thoroughly enjoyed this series(VHS format) but the DVD version seems to be missing some scenes.
Has anyone else noticed this or is it my imagination?

Better Than the Book!
This 4-video set is one of those rare birds -- an adaptation that is better then the original book. Peter Mayle's A Year in Provence is good, but the screenplay made a few important changes that made all the difference.

The addition of a wife for Mayle is the main difference. While Mayle has a wife in the book, she fades so far into the background as to be virtually invisible. I see from the dedication in the book that her name is Jenny, but since the screenwriter had to create a wife out of whole cloth here, he gave her a new name as well -- Annie. The addition of Annie and the casting of Lindsay Crouse make all the difference.

Another difference was to subtract ex-spouses and grown children, which serves to streamline the story. Peter in the film is somewhat more short-tempered and loud than Peter in the book, but this makes a nice contrast with Annie. And who is going to make himself out to be a blowhard in his own book, after all? The rest of the story is much as Mayle wrote it.

This set has become one of our family favorites. We borrowed the public library's copies several times, then finally bought our own and watch it at least once a year. It's broken down into twelve 30-minute chapters, one for each month. You can watch it in half hour chunks or 90-minute doses, a whole season (and tape) at a time. The chapters stand alone, but are also threaded together to make a real story. In fact, the story comes together so neatly, that one suspects that although these episodes may really have happened, perhaps they happened over a period of several years, or in a different order. Still, some of the best non-fiction writers out there are novelists at heart.

The acting and the scenery in A Year in Provence are just great. The French characters are played by French actors and speak no English in the film. Since the Mayles are learning French, they are able to translate for us and it doesn't seem awkward.

There you have it: entertaining writing, good acting, gorgeous scenery, and a free French lesson thrown in.

Enjoyable but Uneven
I enjoyed this. I enjoyed Lindsay Duncan as Annie Mayle having seen her prior as the looney blond in "Under the Tuscan Sun" -- totally different woman here. Having done renovations recently, I also completely identified with the ongoing kitchen renovations and other things. I confess I've only partially finished the book after 10 years of owning it. I always get busy and it seems episodic and not terribly compelling to continue with. The DVD, on the other hand, I enjoyed, but felt it might have been slightly wackier in tone like the books. I don't know what's up with the baker story at the end but it's a complete ripoff of Marcel Pagnol's "The Baker's Wife." Maybe it seemed like a good idea on paper, but it left me searching for the remote to fast forward through these sections. As for Provence, this isn't picture postcard Provence like we're used to but real Provence, complete with telephone poles in frame. It reminded me a lot of California farmland. This is enjoyable but it's not stellar. In the end I'll keep memories of Lindsay Duncan, the beautiful house they chose, a few scattered moments here and there, and little else. But don't get me wrong. I liked it, I just wasn't captivated by it and maybe that's really in the writing and especially the direction which is a bit pedestrian considering the book is so almost universally loved and is of a different tone than this more even-keeled film version. The second disc, by the way, is excruciatingly bad when seen as a whole. Except for the petanque storyline, one finds himself turning on this series as extremely contrived and resents that yet again for the 100th time too many it seems the Mayles are called in to save the day for the French, as if they haven't been doing it on their own just fine for some time. The sense of superiority is annoying. Go home to England TV versions of Annie and Peter Mayle. Your fish out of water story has run out of water and leaves just a little too much fish. ... Read more

Reviews (351)

Hail to the Queen!
During its theatrical run, critical praise of ELIZABETH was subdued somewhat due to the film's historical inaccuracy and emphasis on melodrama. While both of these observations are admittedly correct, ELIZABETH is none-the-less a spectacular production. From the riveting opening credits to the chilling finale, this movie is full of provocative dramatic elements: sex, betrayal, politics, religion, violence, and revenge. The cinematography, set design, and costumes are outstanding. The settings alternate between dank medieval gloom and brilliant regal spendor. Cate Blanchett gives a dynamic performance of Meryl Streep calibre. (She should have won the Oscar, but ELIZABETH wasn't nearly as popular as SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE.) In plot and theme, ELIZABETH is like a hybrid of THE LION IN WINTER and THE GODFATHER. It begins as the reign of Elizabeth's sister, Queen Mary ("Bloody Mary")is coming to an end. The film then details the controversial ascension of Protestant young Elizabeth to the throne. The movie focuses on the early years of her reign, as Elizabeth struggles to solidify her power and overcome conflicts of religion and political intrigue; questions of marriage; and numerous plots to depose or assassinate her. As previously mentioned, the movie takes a good deal of license with history, taking events and relationships that occurred throughout Elizabeth's reign and condensing them into the first few years of her reign. Overall, ELIZABETH is an excellent production-- as chilling and dramatic as SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE is romantic and funny. The two films are wonderful counterparts.

Not Your Average Costume Drama
Shekar Kapur's account of the early years of Elizabeth I's reign in not your average costume drama, it is a visceral and entrancing film that despite all the historical inaccuracies that other reviewers have noted (and they are many), perfectly captures the climate of religious conflict, struggle for power and constant danger that characterised the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. Michael Hirst's script portrays the young queen as an innocent caught in the throes of international politics, who by the end of the film has become a calculating monarch willing to sacrifice almost anything to ensure her survival and the welfare and prosperity of her kingdom. Kapur's brilliant direction gives the film a vertiginous rhythm, while Remi Adefarasin's ominous cinematography adds a menacing and sinister atmosphere that sometimes gives Elizabeth the feel of a horror movie. Also worthy of praise are the magnificent production design, the gorgeous costumes and a surprisingly eclectic soundtrack that includes Byrd, Mozart, Holst and Elgar as well as some great original music.

The acting is also excellent. Especially Geoffrey Rush as the unscrupulous yet reliable Walsingham; Christopher Eccleston as the devious Duke of Norfolk; Richard Attenborough as Cecil, Elizabeth's most loyal and trusted aide; and Kathy Burke as the frustrated and paranoid "Bloody Mary". However, the real jewel is Cate Blanchett's amazing, star-making turn as the title character. She gives a complex, mesmerising and moving performance as she makes the transition from scared and vulnerable young woman to quasi-preternatural icon.

If you are interested in the "true historical facts" of Elizabeth's reign you should choose a documentary of one of the many great books that have been written about her (my favourite is Alison Weir's biography), but if you are looking for a great cinematic experience that explores the young queen's personality and motivations in remarkable depth this is definitely the one to choose. In my opinion Shekar Kapur's masterpiece is the best film of its kind.

Entertaining, but wildly inaccurate
If you're not bothered by historical inaccuracies, then go ahead and check out this movie. It's extremely well-acted for the most part, although Fiennes's Dudley turns milksop in an entirely fictitious turn of events that aligns him with a Catholic plot to replace Elizabeth with Mary, Queen of Scots (whose death in the movie is all wrong, too). Events from decades later are all condensed into what is clearly supposed to be the first year or two of Elizabeth's reign (which begain in 1558): Norfolk didn't rebel until the Northern Rebellion in 1569; Elizabeth wasn't excommunicated until 1570; she didn't even enter the Anjou courtship until 1578; and Mary, Queen of Scots was beheaded in public, not murdered in her bed, and that not until almost thirty years later, in 1587! Furthermore, in 1558 Lord Robert Dudley was not yet Earl of Leicester (he wouldn't be until Elizabeth gave him that title in 1564, and he was NEVER a duke!), and as another reviewer has pointed out, there's certainly more drama and intrigue in his REAL story than the movie allows -- he was rumored to have murdered his wife, Amy Robsart, after all.

I won't go on, but my point is that there is a hell of a lot wrong with the storyline that didn't even need to be wrong. It's still an entertaining movie, as I mentioned before, and Cate Blanchett really does deliver an exceptional performance. But at least some sort of gesture towards a measure of historical accuracy would have been appreciated.

Well acted, but distorts the actual events
Elizabeth is a well acted and entertaining movie, with some very well done performances and is visually stunning. The problem is that the writers decided to change so many events, that it ends up unnecessarily distorting the actual history.

To see a factual, well-acted, and still superb movie of the same era, get the 1971 film "Mary Queen of Scots" with Vanessa Redgrave. Not only does this follow the actual events, but the drama of 2 queens battling for power is so forcibly played that you can watch it over and over

What's wrong with the real story?
Lovely, beautifully acted, blah blah...

But why would the producers/writers take such an EXCITING true story, and change all the facts, and make is so much boring than it actually was? The real story has everything: romance, murder, betrayal, a wife pushed down the stairs, politics... so why turn it into such a dull, ordinary, mushy romance?

If you want to watch a strong woman influencing world events, watch "The Lion in Winter." If you want to read about the TRUE story of Elizabeth's ascent to the throne, read Alison Weir's books. If you want to watch a goopy romance movie, there are plenty of much better ones to choose from. But don't waste your time with this movie. ... Read more

Reviews (216)

At least a comedy that is not only to laugh
The fifth star of this movie is awarded to the DVD itself. It's really enjoyable not only the making off, but the cut scenes and the off-commentaries of the directors. It is interesting to see the real job of editing and making off this excellent film.

I like it very much the way Hugh Grant (Will) and the boy Nicholas Hoult (Marcus) tell the story as it goes for both of them. It seems that complicity of both characters is totally represented by both actors. I have seen Hugh Grant in a huge number of romantic comedies and I didn't expect much of him but THIS IS DIFFERENT. As he says in the extra material he represents 100% a British, rich, handsome, useless bachelor. He is even more irresistible for children than for women.

Some acting parts are beautifully absurd: when Will plays guitar helping Marcus to sing "Killing Me Softly", when he goes to the SPAT to meet all divorced women into therapy, when Marcus tries to conquer the older girl by singing his brand-new rap CD...

And taking in mind the work of the directors, I think now I am even able to go and watch "American Pie".

Great Light Entertainment!
This is a really entertaining if slightly lightweight film. Good story line, wonderful characters, witty dialogue and excellent acting throughout. In fact all the main characters give wonderful performances-none more then Hugh Grant who was an actor I really didn't care much for until recently. He is superb as the spoilt likeable rogue who is the centrepiece of the movie. He's inherited mountains of money from his father who happened to have a fluke Christmas hit in the 50's. The substantial royalty acts as both a blessing and a curse as this journey of discovery takes him from being someone who has brief romances, never has to work, has all the latest gadgets and fashion accessories and of course lives a complete live of leisure. Yet he soon comes to realise that his life is pretty shallow-there's nothing interesting about him, he may as well be a handsome cardboard caracuture. He discovers that single mothers are a great source of romance and it is here he eventually discovers the other lead-the boy Marcus. This boy lives with his closetted, veggie, depressed hippy Mom played by the amazing Toni Colette. Grant pretends to have a son but Marcus discovers his secret and sort of inflicts himself on Grant. You see both characters need each other but obviously in very different ways.
This is a great piece of light entertainment-some of the scenes are hilarious and the dialogue is generally sharp, witty and yet cringe-inducing at the same time. Like another film based on Nick Hornby's writing High Fidelity-some of About A Boy's funniest moments come through the characters expressing their thoughts in a monologue. This film kept me entertained throughout-and even the duller moments you still have the stupendous soundtrack composed by Badly Drawn Boy to enjoy.

A contemporary classic...
First and foremost, I want to state that Hugh Grant, as an actor and screen presence, deserves to be respected more. Some of the abuse this guy has endured, at the hands of the media and general public has been unwarranted and cumulative to the point where one of this generations most unappreciated talents is considering retirement at an early age.

The root of Grant's success and criticism is his championing of the romantic comedy. Once a well respected genre (think It Happened One Night - which swept all major Oscar awards in 1934) the "romcom" is only now reemerging as a force to be reckoned with, due in part by the success of When Harry Met Sally('84), Pretty Woman('90), Sleepless in Seattle('93), Groundhog Day('93), but more in part to the work of Hugh Grant.

The man has almost single-handedly restored the genre to its rightful place as audiences are beginning to appreciate the depth, quality and cathartic power that movies like About a Boy are capable of achieving. But his success has come at a price. Grant is in a unique predicament, not unlike most pop star idols, of being lionized by romcom audiences (largely female) and lambasted by the media and the average Joe six-pack for being too feminine and foppish and (pick your own). When I hear someone make an easy joke about Grant, I have made them myself, it is usually a cheap shot - he is an easy target- but more often than not, everyone who makes them sees a side of themselves in his charming smile and self-depracating humour that we all want to be a part of-this is the appeal of Hugh Grant and the romcom in genral.

So now we have Mr. Grant deliberately seeking out roles with more weight and "steel". Not only is this a step in the right direction for the continued health and success of Grant, but also the logical evolution of the romantic comedy with the drama. This shift is represented by Grant's character Will in About, who at first glance is a carefree, hip thirty-something bachelor with no real worries but finding a nice lay. In reality, however, Hugh, I mean, Will, is vulnerable and afraid and fast approaching a crisis. We watch as he must break his cocoon of complacency or break down and die under its weight. The risks are really quite high: a life is at stake. And we watch this man break his shackles and gain a life of happiness, social connection and ultimately, love.

The story is a timeless one of personal transformation and freedom from mental barriers that we as vulnerable creatures erect to cope with the pressures and anxieties of modern living. About a Boy remembers that at the heart of every good story is a character flawed in some capacity that must engage in battle with his own personal demons before balance and harmony are attained. Through Will's transformation, we as witnesses to his story must embrace his struggle as our own - this is the power of movies - thereby challenging ourselves to grow and improve.

About a Boy is a landmark in cinematic history and is in my personal top-20 list of all-time movie classics. Thank you Mr. Grant (and team) for your excellent work, and continued success.

An Original Feel-Good Movie
I love this movie because it is a sweet story about a jerk (Will) who ends up helping people, with a great girl, and a new look on life, yet it is not sappy or cheesy. Amazing. It's cute, funny, and original. I haven't read the book, but even without reading it, this is a great movie with a wonderful cast and a story that's fun for anyone to enjoy.

movie
I never really liked a hugh grant film until this one. Its very funny and touching about how a boy changed a man's life. The film feels very long but each scene is meant to be there and its worth watching more than once. ... Read more

Reviews (31)

This Shrew Remains Untamed
It's very difficult to be very critical of such a roisterous, good-natured version of Shakespeare's rowdiest play, and in truth one has to admit that this is probably the first of the truly modern Shakespeare films. There are some real assets here -- Zefferelli's eye has never lighted on a landscape more beautiful, more seductive, and Nina Rota's score fits beautifully.

But Shakespeare, even on film, stands or falls on the acting. This version -- with one exception -- is filled with one-note performances (they're very GOOD notes, but single notes nonetheless). Let's deal with the exception first -- Elizabeth Taylor is a delightful, intelligent Katarina. Her development is exactly what Shakespeare obviously intended, and if her early scenes are a bit uniformly shrill, the case could be made that that's what the Bard wrote. In general, she's an admirable Kate.

Burton, however, is something else entirely. Despite his acknowledged skill with Shakespeare (his Hamlet was glorious), he takes a monochromatic approach to Petruchio, with an annoyingly stagey laugh running through virtually every scene. By halfway through the film, you tend to want him to get off screen so you don't have to listen to that "manly" laugh any longer. Unfortunately, much of Kate's dialogue was cut (the assumption being, I suppose, that Taylor would have trouble with the language) while too much of Petruchio remains.

The secondary characters, if cut from different bolts of cloth, are all a single color. Michael Hordern bumbles his way through Baptista the same way he did in countless other movies. Michael York and Natasha Pyne as the young lovers are efficient and attractive, but not particularly engaging. The suitors are a group of living cliches. Even the humor is raggedly overdone to the same degree in almost every scene.

There are things to appreciate in this movie, and there's no better Shrew available, but I'd recommend finding another of Shakespeare's comedies until a better version of this rowdy comedy comes along -- someone's bound to get it right soon.

An excellent movie to add to your collection!
This Shakespearean story is about the daughter of Baptista (Michael Hordern), Katarina (Elizabeth Taylor). Very unlike her younger, quiet and gentle sister Bianca (Natasha Pyne), Katarina is strong-willed and has a nasty temper. Many men want to woo the lovely Bianca, including a young scholar (Michael York), but Baptista is adamant that nobody will be wed with his Bianca until the older daughter, the shrew Katarina, is married. And there is only one man who is willing to marry her for her dowry, Petruchio (Richard Burton). When Petruchio and Katarina are wed (forcefully against Katarina's will), Petruchio proceeds to make his 'dear Kate' into a good wife, but is anyone capable of 'taming the shrew'?
A remarkable tale by the talented and famed writer, William Shakespear. And with a delightful cast of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, who can resist liking it? Elizabeth Taylor practically shines in her role! Especially at the part in the end where she makes her strong speech. I was as quiet and attentive as all the guests at the wedding.
For anyone who likes Shakespeare, who likes Elizabeth Taylor, or Richard Burton, or for that matter, want to watch a good movie, watch "The Taming of the Shrew".

More Fun Than A Barrel Full Of Burtons
A rollicking feast for the eye, ear, and funny bone, Franco Zeffirelli's "The Taming of The Shrew" is a tour de force for Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. This pared down version of William Shakespeare's play is a fit morsel for anyone suffering from a fear of the Bard. It's fast pace keeps things going and with a cast of well-known British stars the whole thing is served up to delectable visual perfection.
Richard Burton blends his fabled abilities as a Shakespearian genius with his star power to give us a ribald and loveable Petruchio. This is one of his crowning moments on the screen and we are lucky to have this record of Mr. Burton at his very best.
Elizabeth Taylor is a comic revelation in this, one of her jewels in her acting crown. At the time the film came out, many scoffed at the idea of a mere movie star taking on the challenges of Shakespeare. Miss Taylor rises to the challenge and shines as a stunning, sexy and very funny Kate, in fact she more than rises to the occasion, she shows her command of the medium of film and her understanding of comic timing. The wedding scene is a pure Zeffirelli invention. If you didn't know better you would swear that it was part of the play, it is so well done in faux Shakespeare. Elizabeth shines in this scene. In the final fifteen minutes when she delivers the famous "Lord and Master" speech she is triumphant as she submits to her man. At the same time we know that she is the one who holds all the cards and in the off stage end will rule the roost from now on, all the while letting poor Petruchio think he is king.
The chemistry of Burton and Taylor is pure dynamite that explodes in riotous color across Zeffirelli's Renaissance canvas. Highly recommended viewing, especially if you are new to Shakespeare. It's more fun than a barrel full of Burtons!

The Bawdy Bard !
"The Taming of the Shrew" is a delightful romp, and very entertaining, even for people who do not normally go out of their way to watch Shakespeare. I can imagine serious scholars rolling their eyes at the liberties taken here, and the "star turns" by those two icons of 60s Hollywood, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton.

However, for most of us who basically just want to be entertained--and I suspect with this play, that was the bard's intent--this version is good fun, robustly acted, and with lovely sets and costumes, a feast for the eye. One suspects that Ms. Taylor had a ball, hurling insults and various pieces of furniture at her real-life, on-again off-again, spouse. It looks like Mr. Burton had a good time too, although one frequently has the impression that this was a "well-lubricated" performance !

The supporting cast is fine, with a pleasant film debut for Michael York. As usual, Zeffirelli gives us a film that is gorgeous to look at--and I'm not just referring to Ms. Taylor !
The DVD has a certain haziness to it, but this may be the way that Zeffirelli intended the film to look.

"The Taming of the Shrew" today, of course, is about as "politically incorrect" as a piece of literature can be. While women will find this film amusing, the idea that the female spirit should be "reined in" like that of a wild horse, will cause some discomfort to feminist viewers, I'm sure.

Nevertheless, this film is highly entertaining, and might give younger viewers an idea as to what all the Taylor/Burton fuss was about. Recommended.

Burton & Taylor Are Pure, Fiery, & Feisty Sex Magic
No wonder Burton and Taylor married and divorced many times. The sexual tension between them in this film can be cut with a knife. Taylor plays Kate, the beautiful, fiery, feisty, mean-spirited, unloved eldest daughter of a wealthy man. She has a beautiful & kind sister who has a string of beaus, but... the eldest sister MUST marry first. Enter Burton as Petruchio. Loud, boisterous, dirty, obnoxious and SEXY! He plans to tame Kate, marry her and be a rich man on her dowry. The famous tongue in the tail speech is given on their first meeting, which sets the mood for lusty, sweaty, swarthy fighting. All the while, the sexual tension builds throughout. Many fights & torments ensue... with a beautiful ending that I will not spoil. If you like Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton or just the great and powerful Bard, himself, this is a great movie, directed by the great Franco Zefferelli that is a must see! "There is no other beast on Earth so horrible as man..." (Katharina, Taming Of The Shrew) ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Robert Bolt's successful play was not considered a hot commercial property by Columbia Pictures--a period piece about a moral issue without a star, without even a love story. Perhaps that's why Columbia left director Fred Zinnemann alone to make A Man for All Seasons, as long as he stuck to a relatively small budget. The results took everyone by surprise, as the talky morality play became a box-office hit and collected the top Oscars for 1966. At the play's heart is the standoff between King Henry VIII (Robert Shaw, in young lion form) and Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield, in an Oscar-winning performance). Henry wants More's official approval of divorce, but More's strict ethical and religious code will not let him waffle. More's rectitude is a source of exasperation to Cardinal Wolsey (Orson Welles in a cameo), who chides, "If you could just see facts flat on without that horrible moral squint." Zinnemann's approach is all simplicity, and indeed the somewhat prosaic staging doesn't create a great deal of cinematic excitement. But the language is worth savoring, and the ethical politics are debated with all the calm and majesty of an absorbing chess game. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (92)

A longtime favorite
One of the greatest English language films ever made about one of the greatest men who ever lived. St. Thomas More was a man of extraordinary conviction and through the years has proven to be a great inspiration to me, personally. When Sir Thomas is asked to endorse Henry VIII's petition for annulment from his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, he's fully aware of the consequences of his refusal. Nevertheless, he did what he knew and felt was right and he paid the ultimate price. A true martyr in every sense of the word and a film that makes the viewer question his own value system and sense of passion and integrity. Paul Scoffield's brilliant and profound characterization of Sir Thomas is still a wonder to behold. He imbues this larger than life person with such quiet dignity and grace that it belies the reality of his existence. This is not a man worried about dying. This is a man worried about living without the courage of his convictions, knowing that he supported something he truly abhorred and knew was wrong. Robert Shaw's performance as Henry VIII is equally wonderful, as are Susannah York, Dame Wendy Hiller and Orson Wells. I never tire of watching this film or reading the play; incidentally, also one of my favorites.

A well-crafted film...
I first saw "A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS" in 1966 when it first came out. I was a senior in high school, and since this was the pre-hippie era, everyone was gung-ho about Sir Thomas More's duty, integrity, etc. There's no question that Fred Zinnemann crafted a masterpiece on the tiny budget allowed him by Columbia, since all the studios were losing money on talky, period pieces.The acting is incomparable, a perfect ensemble centering around the unflinchingly confident performance of Scofield (he'd done the role hundreds of times on stage). The costumes won an Oscar, and were certainly beautiful, though they were so bulky it looked really difficult for the characters to get close to each other. It won an Oscar for Cinematography, too, though the film really is somewhat of a filmed play (I thought the filming of "Hawaii" and "The Sand Pebbles",also nominated, was more breath-taking). Though these are minor problems, they are soon forgotten when one pays attention to the incredible screenplay of Robert Bolt.Loaded with passion and strong character development, it's also a valid history lesson. Don't watch this if there are any distractions (kids, company, etc.) since its maximum appreciation requires concentration. I'm also wondering why the DVD is substantially higher-priced than most others, since there are absolutely NO extras of any kind. This film is notable also for Vanessa Redgrave's unbilled film debut as Anne Boleyn, on screen for only a few minutes, but an absolutely riveting film moment. Everyone should see ths film, but I'd hesitate to recommend you buy it if only due to the unreasonable price.

"Seasons" offers poignancy, pause
Paul Scofield's quiet, dignified portrayl of Sir Thomas More is one of the most riveting performances one will ever find.

With a determined, yet not brash or unseemly stance against Henry VIII (Robert Shaw, in all his young glory), More creates a devastating question for the viewer: how long do our principles remain dear to us. To discomfort? To imprisonment? To death?

Perhaps one of the most endearing qualities of More's character is that he does not waver. It is a quality that is only universal in the sense that it is respected by all men and possessed by very few.

In the end, perhaps the only validation More is given is the dignity of his death, his detractors exposed as dishonest, biased men. Is that enough? Certainly More was able to change little of history by the manner of his death. It did not stop the divorce OR the Anglican church. Perhaps the only prize integrity has is itself. Certainly More himself believed a much higher reward awaited him. After watching this movie, regardless of religion, you will find yourself hoping he was right.

The Most Interesting of Six Thomases
This period in English history and then the Elizabethan era which follows have always interested me. You thus can understand my appreciation of Derek Wilson's book In the Lion's Court: Power, Ambition, and Sudden Death in the Reign of Henry VIIII. Wilson focuses his primary attention on six Thomases: Wolsey, More, Cromwell, Howard, Wriothesley, and Cramner. Henry's VIII's relationships with all six serve as the basis of Wilson's narrative. By the way, there really were lions in London at that time ("the King's Beasts") housed in the Tower menagerie and a major tourist attraction. More once compared the king's court to a lion pit "in which the magnificent and deadly king of beasts held sway." Of the six, More interests me the most. His rectitude threatens and infuriates Henry, and eventually results in More's execution. Thus presented, More is a tragic but noble political victim and religious martyr, later canonized by the Roman Catholic Church. He is no less admirable as portrayed by Wilson but, in my opinion, is much more complicated than Bolt and others suggest. For years, More skillfully navigated his way through a court ("a lion pit") characterized by what Wilson refers to as its "seamy realities": "The royal entourage was a vicious, squirming world of competing ambitions and petty feuds, guilty secrets and salacious prudery. Courtiers, vulnerable to threats and bribes, could be induced to perjure themselves, to exaggerate amorous incidents which were innocent in the context of stylised chivalric convention, to indulge personal vendettas....Over all these momentous happenings looms the larger-than-life figure of Henry VIII, powerful and capricious yet always an enigma."

People still disagree about Robert Bolt's characterization of More in the play and then in the film for which Bolt received an Academy Award for best adapted screenplay. I agree with others who insist that More was less noble than Bolt suggests. No one, however, disputes the fact that More courageously accepted decapitation rather than compromise his religious faith. Cynics suggest that More was already a dead man...and knew it. He had an estate to protect and family obligations to accommodate. I am unqualified to speculate or even comment further on More's motives even as I marvel at his survival skills when drawn into "the lion's court."

Paul Scofield received and deserved his Academy Award for best actor in a leading role. The film and director Fred Zimmermann also received Academy Awards. The cast is exceptionally talented, especially Nigel Davenport (Duke of Norfolk), Wendy Hiller (Alice Cromwell), John Hurt (Richard Rich), Leo McKern (Thomas Cromwell), Vanessa Redgrave (Ann Boleyn), Robert Shaw (Henry VIII), Orson Welles (Cardinal Wolsey), and Susannah York (Margaret More). Unlike many stage productions later filmed, this one derives substantial benefit from Ted Moore's cinematography, especially the exteriors shot throughout and beyond royal residences. Moore also received an Academy Award for his work.

Those with an especially keen interest may wish to examine The Last Letters of Thomas More as well as several solid biographies of him by Peter Ackroyd, J.A. Guy, Richard Marius, and Gerard B. Wegemer.

A film for all viewers
Without a doubt, this is one of my top ten films of all time, mainly because there is so much that can be drawn from.

Zinnemann's adaptaion of the Robert Boltman play was done on a low budget, and whilst it takes artistic license slightly further, the film remains a historical masterpiece. Paul Schofield as More is magnificent, combining a stoical adherence to truth on the one hand, with a dry wit on the other, and this is an accuracy of depiction that could not have been drawn from the words of the script. Robert Shaw as Henry is also fantastic, showing the viewer both the very personal side of the monarch, when he is disappointed at More's non-attendence at the wedding to Anne Boleyn; and the aggression of a lion as he shouts (in full hearing of all party guests) - "I ask you, do they take me for a simpleton?" The swift change from an amiable friend to a dominating absolute monarch is brilliantly played by Shaw, and though it is a marked contrast to the plain More, the performances are equally great.

In October 2000, John Paul II made Thomas More the Patron of politicians (he was already the unofficial patron of Catholic lawyers in the UK). Both positions indicate what a great man he was. A scholar of great learning, a man of letters, a liberal in an autocratic age. His character was perhaps best displayed as his end, in his words to the executioner - "Pluck up thy spirits, man, and be not afraid to do thine office; my neck is very short; take heed therefore thou strike not awry, for saving of thine honesty." The combination of humor and greatness, even in the face of death, povide a role model for all.

If you enjoy the film, read the play and 'The Life of Sir Thomas More' by William Roper, his nephew. Although it bears relation to a specific incident, this popular poem of the time is a fitting epitaph for this great man -
When More some time had Chancellor been
No more suits did remain.
The like will never more be seen,
Till More be there again. ... Read more

Reviews (165)

About as good an adaptation as possible
Just to clarify matters for a couple of confused previous reviewers:-

1. 'Animal Farm' is NOT an animal book (I can't believe I'm having to explain this...); it's a book about socialism and fascism. 'Watership Down' is a book about rabbits. True, there are some references to the evils of fascism, but if you want to pick out a message, it's obviously the spoilation of the planet and the destruction of its wildlife by humankind. Yes, there are mystical overtones, but it's definitely NOT about religion.

2. I seriously hope the person who wrote 'if you want good drama watch a soap opera' was being ironic, but I have my doubts...

In short: this film is a pretty good effort at adapting an extremely difficult novel. Much has been lost, of course, but few of us would pay to see a three-hour animated film about rabbits. Martin Rosen and his team follow Richard Adams's lead in not shying away from showing us the violent side of the rabbits' lives. Children are likely to enjoy the film, but bear in mind it contains unpleasant moments. However, I think these are more likely to encourage sympathy, compassion and respect for the natural world than do any harm ( although many children and quite a few adults may shed tears before the end). Please make sure you read the book, too - it's superb. And look out for the animated version of Adams's 'The Plague Dogs'... although that really IS dark and distressing. I'm a big fan of Disney's work, but I'm still glad they didn't produce this adaptation ( as was originally intended) because I'm sure they would have softened the story's harsher elements. The animation isn't spectacular but it serves it's purpose, and the rabbits themselves are well done. All in all, it's difficult to see how anyone else could have made a better effort.

Consummate children's film
Anyone who claims that Watership Down-- the competent and thoughtful but uncertain adaptation of Richard Adam's geeky classic-- is not for small children has clearly forgotten his own childhood. In fact, childhood is probably the best time to see this movie-- its flaws will not be so apparent and its poetry and brutality will be at their most effective. It's exactly the sort of movie you love when you're seven, hope for years you'll get to see again, and rediscover in your late twenties with a mix of disappointment and elation. The film, eccentrically animated and rather well voiced, suffers from a lack of exposition and the nagging sense that something important has been left out of nearly every scene-- and I can't be alone in finding Zero Mostel's Kehaar obnoxious and overdone (kids will probably find him funny, and do imitations of him while jumping off the living-room couch)-- but the story is exciting and full of shadow, the violence is neither whitewashed nor excessive, and where Disney, for example, would have yielded to the temptation to tack on a happy ending, Watership Down takes its heroes seriously enough to allow them the consequences of mortality. It's not a perfect movie by any means, but it deserves to be seen, and your children probably deserve to see it.

An animated classic!
A group of Rabbits seek a new home in England to a special place called "Watership Down" but unfortunately there is some danger like dogs, cats and some enemy rabbits.

Splendid and brilliant animated British-Canadian drama based on Richard Adam's brilliant novel. The animation is quite good for it's time, there is some bloody violence enough though it's rated "PG" and the music score is just one of the best i've heard.

This is truly a must see animated flick! also listen for the voice of John Hurt.

Also recommended: " The Last Unicorn", " The Secret of NIMH", " Wizards", " Grave of the Fireflies", " The Flight of Dragons", and " The Hobbit".

Most wonderful animated tale on film
I am delighted with the September 2003 release on DVD of the beloved animated feature film Watership Down as a 25th Anniversary special edition. Owning a copy of this movie, which is to me uniquely special, indicated the central role DVD technology has assumed in preserving people's favourite movies for home viewing in a more lasting form than ever before. Only now have I begun to collect movies after many years of avoiding them owing to a concern over the utility, and durability of the decay-prone videotape system. This film, one of the very first I have purchased, has some extras added, the most useful of which is an extensive commentary from director Martin Rosen that covers most aspects of the film's generation and adaptation from Richard Adams's award-winning book. But the film itself is a true classic. I saw it at the cinema in early 1979 aged nine, soon after reading the book (which was a 9th birthday present for me).It made a very strong impression on me, and I found it a beautifully-realised tale that incorporated a mythic prologue that explained the basic workings of rabbit society, a dangerous quest, a very well-defined central cast of rabbit characters- the noble Hazel, the courageous Bigwig, the prophetic Fiver, and the oppressive General Woundwort. There is fear and danger in the rabbits' adventure but also heroism, ingenuity and loyalty, not to mention altruism when the kindly if cantankerous seabird Kehaar (voiced by Zero Mostel) is given shelter by the rabbits and later acts as a scout, helping them hatch a plan to stave off invasion by a ruthless tribe of neighbouring rabbits they come into conflict with. The English countryside is delightfully, and accurately portrayed, and the idea of animated animals enacting a tale that has at its heart the battle to survive in the face of human expansion and ecological destruction works well. The film cannot, in 88 minutes, give too much detail of the several alternative styles of societal organisation (described more fully in the book)that the rabbits encounter on their journey, but nothing crucial to the story is omitted. The other wonderful feature of Watership Down is the original song Bright Eyes, performed by Art Garfunkel. This hauntingly beautiful tune appears in an edited dream sequence in the middle of the film that represents Hazel's rescue after being dangerously hurt. It is my all-time favourite song.

This movie is most suited to older children (8-9+)and adults, and will continue to be enjoyed for generations to come.

Excellent.
Unlike some novels that are converted into videos, they managed to make this one enjoyable. Just a small warning- despite the rabbit characters and bright art, this is definetely not a children's video. For example, during Holly's recount of what happened after he and some other rabbits left the warren, there is a very haunting scene that creeped even me out (for a little while, at least, ^-^;). Oh, and Art Garfunkel sings the song, Bright Eyes. Yay! ... Read more

Reviews (291)

'The Rocky Horror Show' Movie
There is one reason why everyone should see "The Rocky Horror Picture Show": it is the best cult film ever made. There are also three reasons why everyone should want to watch it: 1) It is one of the only 'R' rated musicals in existence. 2) It has strong science-fiction overtones. 3) It is very funny. The movie starts Barry Bostwick and Susan Sarandon (before they were stars) as the recently engaged Brad and Janet. However, they are upstaged in nearly every scene by Tim Curry who plays Frank N. Furter, the mad doctor. The cast delightfully performs many memorable songs including "Over at the Frankenstein Place" and, of course, the "Time Warp". To fully enjoy RHPS, one must not be closed minded or the picture could prove to be quite offensive. Don't think it's gratuitously violent- it isn't. Merely, the situations the characters find themselves in could shock or appall overly sensitive viewers. If you think you won't enjoy RHPS, going to a midnight screening might be your best bet. The live audience participation will guarantee you a good time, despite your opinion of the actual film. So overall, RHPS is quite a good adaptation of Richard O'Brien's original concept, which always honors its roots on the stage.

DVD = Perfect format to truly experience "Rocky" at home
I loved going to "Rocky Horror" when I was in college, but watching on home video just wasn't the same. I'm probably committing heresy but there's a reason why this sci-fi, horror, B-movie satire, rock musical didn't really make it big until theaters started showing it as a midnight movie and fans started attending in costume and talking back to the screen. The 25th anniversary DVD, with several audience participation options, really is the next best thing to being there.

For the uninitiated, "Rocky Horror" tells the story of two clean-cut American youths, uptight Brad Majors (Barry Bostwick of "Spin City") and Janet Weiss (Susan Sarandon of "Dead Man Walking") whose car breaks down on a dark, deserted road in the middle of a storm--the classic beginning to many horror movies--and who seek help at a nearby castle. Castles, as Rocky fans know, don't have phones! What this castle has instead is a cross-dressing mad scientist Frank-N-Furter Tim Curry, in perhaps his finest performance), two very creepy servants, Riff-Raff (Richard O'Brien, who wrote the musical) and Magenta (Patricia Quinn), and various other hangers-on, including lovers Columbia (Little Nell) and biker Eddie (Meat Loaf). Brad and Janet walk in on a party celebrating the creation of Frank-N-Furter's muscle-bound boy-toy "Rocky." Bed-hopping chaos soon ensues, until the servants reveal their true identities and take control.

Punctuating this wacky plot are some of the wildest rock-musical songs ever written. In addition to the classic "Time Warp," there's O'Brien's salute to cult-classic B-movies, "Science Fiction Double Feature," Meat Loaf's "Hot Patootie," and Sarandon ode to sexual self-discovery, "Toucha Toucha Touch Me!"

So much for the "Rocky virgin" portion of the review... What makes the DVD so exceptional is the chance to experience "Rocky Horror" at home nearly like you would in the theater. The DVD has the option of turning on the audience screen comments as well as another option for viewing members of the Rocky Horror Fan Club performing select scenes before returning to the main movie. For those less familiar with audience participation, the DVD can prompt when to throw toast, toilet paper, rice, etc., light a match, put your newspaper on your head, etc.

The second disc contains fascinating interviews with cast members, where fans can find out about their reaction to starring in this cult classic. Meat Loaf's description of not realizing what "Rocky Horror" was going to be about and running out of the theater when Tim Curry entered wearing fishnet stockings, spiked heels, a merry widow, and a leather jacket and singing "Sweet Transvestite" is hysterical. Patricia Quinn talks about how her fondness for the opening song, "Science Fiction Double Feature" made her want to take the role even though she hadn't read the rest of the script. What? Don't remember Quinn singing that number? In the stage versions she did, but the song got reassigned in the film version--and Quinn makes her feelings about that QUITE clear. Sarandon makes the interesting observation that "Rocky Horror" probably kept a lot of art house theaters in business over the years, since they could count on good revenue from the midnight movie, even if the latest regular-hours offering flopped. In Bostwick's interview, however, the actor sounds a bit like William Shatner giving his anti-Trekkie diatribe on "Saturday Night Live."

The only disappointments on the DVD are that the outtakes really aren't that interesting and actor bios aren't provided. I would have liked to see what else the "minor" cast members did after Rocky, but that information is limited to a few lines in the companion booklet. Also, some of the audience-participation comments are nearly impossible to understand because fans are talking over each other. But then that's part of the modern-day theater experience. Even Sarandon noted in her interview that talking back to the screen has gone from the more unison catechism approach to a loud free-for-all.

What seemed so risqué and shocking a few decades ago seems much more innocent today, but it was great when it all began and it's still great! If you've never ventured into the theater to experience "Rocky Horror," this is the best way to experience it at home.

Mesmerizing film.
This is a very outrageous movie. The rock is the background to tell us a horror movie but also spiced with sex , ransvestism and above all a splendid tribute to the movies specially King Kong .
One couple strands in an old house full of weirdos . This movie (here between you and me)could have inspired for Tim Burton in Beetle juice .
In this decade there were great visuals films too . Sherman built a magnificent story absolutely free , intelligent and sarcastic, irreverent and bitter . You might state that Fellini's influence (dressed of english manners and clothes) is present all along the film .
Inmediatly after its release this one acquired the status of cult movie.

The original is still the best!
Don't bother with the play, or the music from the play. The original is still the best. Nobody can fill the shoes of Sarandon, Curry, etc. They originated the roles and have been associated with them for far too long for anyone else to come in try to change them so many years later and attempt to redo them. Stay with the best.

Those Gold Shorts!
Ahhhhh...Rocky had such a lovely outline showing in his gold lame shorts. ... Read more

Reviews (40)

A courageous effort by John Huston
It took a lot of guts to adapt "Moby Dick" to film and instead of maligning John Huston's effort, critics should have hailed his courage. This is a fine, intelligent film with a lean screenplay by Huston and Ray Bradbury. While I would have loved to have seen Laurence Olivier play Ahab, I think Gregory Peck turns in an adequate performance. Much of the action is shot at various outdoor locations and the special effects were impressive for the time. The great Orson Welles appears in the small but important role of Father Marple. The themes of friendship, revenge, and the role of conscience are all examined in "Moby Dick". Great literature often tanks when translated to the big screen. While "Moby Dick" is not among the greatest films of all time, it is a solid, admirable adaptation of Melville's masterpiece. I highly recommend it.

Epic film of American Masterpiece....a wicked great film
The collaboration of Director Houston, script writer Ray Bradbury and Gregory Peck heading a superb cast, make this production of Melville's masterpiece marvelous. It's said that John Houston "drove"...with flattery, fear and abject insult... now justly reputed master of American fantasy/allegory, Ray Bradbury like Ahab himself to create the script that makes MOBY DICK exciting adventure...without diluting its dark, Apocalyptic symbolism and portents. MOBY DICK is regarded by many as THE GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL. No one will disagree its demands and reward are comparable to...for example...Dostoyevsky or Conrad's work. AHAB is one of the great figures of world literature; perhaps,the most powerful ANTI-HERO yet written. Gregory Peck is...in my estimate...uniquely succesful in his cinamatic incarnation of this "godly, ungodly man." The symbolic depths that Moby Dick essays are manifest. Bradbury's pierces "cardboard masks" of the human conditon, ultimately tested, with sure insight and genius comparable to Melville. John Houston's control of his material is equally deft. Pacing is swift. From the moment Royal Dano delivers his "warning"...as Prophet Elijah...the Pequod's foreshadowed doom is pursued with recklessness that hypnotically enthralls the viewer as Ahab intended to beguile his crew. Against Peck's Ahab is Leo Genn's Mr. Starbuck. Genn plays this stalwart Quaker as tragic antagonist but ironic disciple whose fatal conversion to Ahab's defiance/obsession("I'd strke the sun if it insulted me!") seals the fate of his comrades. Richard Basehart plays guileless Ishamel without hint of the cynicism he brings to his most famour role as Ivan in THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV. Comparison with the recent HALLMARK Patrick Stewart hinges on what you surmise MOBY DICK to be about, therefore, expect from a film. Patrick Stewart is magnificent as Ahab. But, in my mind's eye, GREGORY PECK IS AHAB. Moby Dick is about...like Apocalypse Now!...courage confronting radical evil tragically becoming that which it beholds. This is Ray Bradbury's craft above all else. His script focuses on the mankind's combat with Evil. Houston has filmed Melville's ultimate metaphor for such an impossibly malign force of Nature: THE GREAT WHITE WHALE. Ray Bradbury has written many parables about such battles (Fahrenheit 451; Tales "Quicker than the Eye"; Something Wicked This Way Comes) and Herman Melville seems soul-mate blood brother. John Houston's MOBY DICK, and Gregory Peck's Ahab epitomize the grandeur of what Melville called his "wicked book." In my estimate, this is the definitive rendering, the epic film of the American masterpiece. It is a wicked, great film......

Boring!!!!!!!!
This movie is very boring and is not very good. While watching this shameless movie, I fell asleep. It is about Ahab and his obsession with a white whale (Moby Dick). If you are looking for action this is not for you. It gets somewhat suspenseful in the last half-hour. However, I do not recommend it to anyone!!

Very exciting classic!
Moby Dick is a very exciting classical tale, retold in a movie starring Gregory Peck and Richard Basehart. The director also seems very experienced, and his talent really shows in the fight scenes between Moby Dick and the crew in boats. The story tells of a young sailor shipping aboard the Pequod, a whaling ship captained by Ahab. Captain Ahab is obsessed with killing the white whale that took off his leg in a previous encounter. He offers any crew member a spanish doubloon, if they spot the whale first. The entire story is suspenseful, ending in a mind blowing climax. The digital transfer used for this is surprisingly good for a 1958 movie. TCM (Turner Classic Movies) has also broadcast a very pristine version, which I taped off of, and it well rivals the quality of the Moby Dick DVD. The best purchase would be the DVD or the television Turner rendition of this riveting classic.

Movie=5 Stars / DVD= 4 Stars
John Huston's film of MOBY DICK is perhaps a rare exception. It's a great film in its own right, apart from the great novel upon which it is based. The case can easily be made that this film does not 'do justice' to the book, if only for the reason that it does not cover every aspect of Melville's original. But this film proves that a slavish literary imitation is not necessary for a great film.

The director fought with the studio over the color process used in MOBY DICK: it's intentional. He and the cinematographer were trying to capture a visual style that would be evocative of a certain style of painting and that would contribute to the mood of the story. Huston also fought with Ray Bradbury over the screenplay. The great science fiction author was literally reduced to tears by the gruff director, and he wrote a book about the experience. There was also some conflict over the casting of Gregory Peck as Ahab. Some say Orson Welles or Leo Genn (Starbuck) would have been a better choice. This may well be, but it should be admitted that Peck rises to the occasion when it's called for. The great scene with the Spanish doubloon and the great scene with Starbuck on the bridge, where Ahab explains his obsession. Few other actors are likely to have surpassed these moments.

MOBY DICK (1956) was not filmed in widescreen. This DVD presents the film in the original aspect ratio. It looks very good and and nothing appears to have been done to tamper with the look of the film in terms of color. This is how is should look.

Anyone interested in background on this film should read THE HUSTONS by Lawrence Grobel. The harrowing production is detailed, with plenty of attention given to the above-mentioned conflicts and also to the shooting of the INCREDIBLE final sequence.

Some extras would have been welcome, but this DVD is more than worth owning by any fan of Melville, Huston or American film. ... Read more

Description

Episodes: The Lion's Cub, The Marriage Game, Shadow of the Sun, Horrible Conspiracies, The Enterprise of England, Sweet England's Pride. This magnificent 6-volume collection recounts the epic life and times of the remarkable Elizabeth I in a cycle of 6 plays. Won multiple Emmy Awards. ... Read more

Reviews (52)

Masterpiece Theatre's enduring classic
Elizabeth R tells the fascinating story of Elizabeth Tudor's life. She was 25 years old when she became queen of England in 1558 and ruled for 45 years. This six-part series is concerned primarily with her life as queen, hence the 'R' for Regina. The six parts are divided onto three dvds; each part is roughly ninety minutes long. A fourth dvd contains a nice selection of bonus materials. Elizabeth R premiered on Masterpiece Theatre in 1971, the same year as The Six Wives of Henry VIII. In terms of quality, however, its only rival is I, Claudius, produced five years later.

The series stars Glenda Jackson, who also plays Elizabeth in 1971's feature film Mary, Queen of Scots. After watching this series, it is impossible to imagine another actress bringing Gloriana to life. Jackson was in her mid-thirties when filming began. For that reason, part one of this series (The Lion's Cub) has many flashbacks seen through Elizabeth's eyes. The Thomas Seymour affair and the tragic end of Katharine Parr are given due attention. In a nice touch, Rosalie Crutchley reprises her role as Parr from The Six Wives series.

But the story really begins when Elizabeth's Catholic half-sister Mary becomes queen in 1553. Jackson captures the paranoia and danger of Elizabeth's life and her uneasy flirtation with Mary's husband Philip of Spain. She is ably supported by her castmates. Daphne Slater is a wonderful Mary I (like a Mor portrait come to life), as is Peter Jeffrey playing Philip. He returns later in the series, as the conflict between Spain and England leads to the great Armada invasion of 1588. The second part (The Marriage Game) is the story of Elizabeth's first years on the throne, and her romance with Robert Dudley. Robert Hardy plays Dudley, who soon comes into conflict with Elizabeth's most trusted advisor, William Cecil. In part three (Shadow in the Sun), the marriage problem is acute; Elizabeth is no longer young and must wed. We are now introduced to French politics as Catherine d'Medici works to marry her son Francois to Elizabeth. Our heroine must finally decide - will she marry or remain a virgin queen? Jackson makes us feel the personal cost of this political decision. Watch Elizabeth when she learns that Dudley has secretly married her cousin! In part four (Horrible Conspiracies), the tragic story of Mary Queen of Scots takes center stage. Vivian Pickles plays Mary. The filmmakers
take a confusing tale and make it understandable, even for those who have never heard of either queen. We witness the Babington Plot, Elizabeth's famous 'answer answerless' speech, and Mary's dramatic execution. In part five (The Enterprise of England), Philip of Spain returns as his country prepares to invade England. The cautious Elizabeth scores her greatest victory when the English navy, with help from Mother Nature, defeats the Spanish force. Part six (Sweet England's Pride) is the story of the Earl of Essex, Dudley's stepson and the great favorite of Elizabeth's last years. Arrogant and hot-tempered, Essex chafes at court life and longs for glory. He eventually attempts to seize the English throne and is executed.

Throughout it all, Jackson captures the intelligence and passion of this famous queen. Not one moment in this series rings false. The production values are excellent, especially for a television mini-series. For Tudor enthusiasts, there is a real treat in seeing famous portraits of Elizabeth come to life. The beautiful gowns from the coronation, Darnley, Ditchley, and Armada portraits are recreated perfectly.

This is the most accurate historical mini-series I have watched. It is also the most engrossing. The tangled politics and loyalties of 16th century Europe are made intelligible. I have watched it with friends who only vaguely knew of Elizabeth and they loved it. The supplemental materials give some insight into the creation of Elizabeth R. You can watch Glenda Jackson try on various costumes. She also contributes new readings of Elizabeth's most famous speeches and an interview. Historian Alison Weir contributes historical notes. And there is a photo gallery of portraits and locations. There is an error on one of the portraits; I'll let the Tudor fans figure it out.

The dvd set comes in a green slipcase and is beautifully packaged. The BBC put such care and effort into this release that I can only wonder why The Six Wives of Henry VIII received such shabby treatment. If you have some extra money and a desire to slip back in time, to watch a great actress bring a great queen to life, then purchase Elizabeth R. You will not regret it.

An excellent biography
This biography of Queen Elizabeth I, a made for TV miniseries, is composed of six 90-minute shows, each on its own tape. Episode 1 is The Lion's Cub, which documents Princess Elizabeth's early life, surviving the machinations of the royal court, her imprisonment under Queen Mary, and her final ascension to the throne. Episode 2 is The Marriage Game, which documents Elizabeth's contemplation of marriage, and her interaction with her royal favorite, Lord Robert Dudley. Episode 3 is The Shadow in the Sun, which covers the Queen's foreign policy and her contemplated marriage to the French Duc d'Alencon. Episode 4 is Horrible Conspiracies, which documents the plots and intrigues surrounding Elizabeth and her imprisoned cousin, Mary Queen of Scots. Episode 5 is The Enterprise of England, covering England's war with Spain and the Armada. And finally, episode 6, Sweet England's Pride, covers the rise and fall of the Earl of Essex, and Queen Elizabeth's own death.

This miniseries is an excellent biography of Queen Elizabeth I, being remarkably close to the historical record. The quality of the production is not too high, but the wonderful acting by Glenda Jackson, et al, make the series well worth seeing. In reference to family viewing, there are some disturbing scenes (e.g. one where Princess Elizabeth's dress is being ripped off of her, off camera, by an amorous suitor in Episode 1), and two very brief scenes of nudity (both male and female) in Episode 3. Overall, though, this series is very family friendly.

So, this is a great series, and is something anyone interested in Queen Elizabeth I should see.

More extras than listed
There's little I can say that others haven't already stated: this is a brilliantly acted, extremely well-written arc of six plays. Each play could stand on its own, though of course, you'll want to watch them in order. It should be noted, however, that there are a few more extras than are listed here on Amazon or even on the box itself, including a 44-minute documentary on the Queen by A&E, especially useful to those who might want a little historical background, and a conversation with historian Alison Wier which runs for an interesting 21 minutes. This is not the same as the commentary track which I haven't listened to yet, though, from occasionally flipping to it, it seems to be full or information and no silences--amazing for a nine-hour drama. Everything, including the extras, has captions--rather than subtitles--which unfortunately are generated by the TV and not the TV player, but that's a minor quibble for such a great disc.

Highly recommended.

Great production
I was expecting the sets and costume to look like it was produced in 1971, but I was much surprised that it could have passed being produced early 1990s. I have seen some period movies produced in 1990s with much worse sets and costumes. Plus, Glenda Jackson's acting is just fab! This production is as old me and still looking very much up to date!

An Outstanding Dramatisation!
Elizabeth R is an outstanding and refreshingly accurate 1972 dramatisation of the life of Queen Elizabeth I. Headed by an all-star British cast, the acting is flawless, the costumes magnificent, the writing first-rate, and the dialogue sumptuous. Existing documents have been utilised for speeches and such, but the same tone or feel has been maintained throughout, resulting in a rich verbal tapestry.

The series is presented in six 90-minute episodes, and as for the quality of the DVD set, the BBC has done an exceptional job. The picture is nice and clear, the sound is good, and the disc set is encased in a richly flocked, emerald green slip case. Best of all, however, are the numerous special features. Firstly there is a 30-minute interview with Glenda Jackson (2001) wherein she talks about the role and her preparation for it, about Elizabeth, and lastly about politics (she's been a Labour MP for the last decade or so). Also informative is a 20-minute interview with historian Alison Weir (2001), wherein she talks about Elizabeth, her world, and the accuracy of the presentation. There is a 45-minute A&E biography (1996) on the life of Elizabeth, an audio reading by Jackson of a number of period documents, behind-the-scenes' photos of Jackson in make-up and costume fitting, a portrait gallery with stills of various characters displayed beside portraits of the originals, and a text-based guide to who's who in the cast. A wonderful feature (which I highly recommend viewers take advantage of!) is the audio commentary provided by Alison Weir, which one can turn on while watching the episodes. Weir provides a lot of background information and other tidbits, as well as highlighting areas where liberties have been taken.

Born in 1533 to Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth was a woman of formidable intelligence who proved herself to be an extremely capable and dedicated monarch, and Glenda Jackson's portrayal of her from youth through old age is nothing short of a masterpiece. I have seen other actresses in the role but Jackson's portrayal is and (for me) always will be the definitive one. It is sheer perfection--one in which realism (thankfully) is not sacrificed on the altar of vanity. Jackson went so far as to blacken her teeth to mimic the rotting teeth of the ageing Elizabeth; also, she partially shaved her head in order to better resemble the high-foreheaded Queen.

Familiar faces to fans of British television include: Robert Hardy (All Creatures, Edward the King), who is magnificent as the dashing Robert ("Robin") Dudley, Earl of Leicester, the life-long love of Elizabeth. The late Michael Williams (A Fine Romance) is highly enjoyable as Elizabeth's "Frog", the Duke of Alencon--the only real contender for her hand. The late Peter Jeffrey is superb as Phillip II of Spain. Robin Ellis (Poldark) is splendid as the young, handsome, highly ambitious but petulant and