Amazon.com

Forever embroiled in controversy, Midnight Express divides viewers into opposing camps: those who think it's one of the most intense real-life dramas ever made, and those who abhor its manipulative tactics and alteration of facts for the exploitative purpose of achieving a desired effect. That effect is powerfully achieved, regardless of how you may feel about director Alan Parker and Oscar®-winning screenwriter Oliver Stone's interpretation of the story of Billy Hayes. It was the American Hayes--played by the late Brad Davis in an unforgettable performance--who was caught smuggling two kilograms of hashish while attempting to board a flight from Istanbul, Turkey, in 1970. He was sentenced to four years in a hellish Turkish prison on a drug possession charge, but his sentence was later extended (though not by 30 years, as the film suggests), and Hayes endured unthinkable brutality and torture before his escape in 1975.

Unquestionably, this is a superbly crafted film, provoking a visceral response that's powerful enough to boil your blood. By the time Hayes erupts in an explosion of self-defensive violence, Parker and Stone have proven the power--and danger--of their skill. Their film is deeply manipulative, extremely xenophobic, and embellishes reality to heighten its calculated impact. Is that a crime? Not necessarily, and there's no doubt that Midnight Express is expertly directed and blessed with exceptional supporting performances (especially from John Hurt as a long-term prisoner). Still, it's obvious that strings are being pulled, and Parker, while applying his talent to a nefarious purpose, is a masterful puppeteer. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (109)

Emotionaly brutal but excellent film.
Midnight Express is the true story of Billy Hayes who is thrown into a turkish prison for trying to smuggle hash out of the country.During the five years he spends in the prison,he suffers emotional,physical and mental torment.The prison is run by a brutal guard played by Paul Smith who seems to have a good time beating the prisoners which makes him a symbol of cruelty.Among with Brad Davis' great performance as Billy Hayes is John Hurt and Randy Quaid who both deliver really great performances as well.Brad Davis I think was overlooked by the academy which surprised me because he displayed his character with so much emotion that you had to feel sorry not just for his character but also for him.Midnight Express is the kind of prison film that makes other prison films too hard to compare.The Shawshank Redemption was also a film I enjoyed but wasn't as gut wrenching or emotional as this film.Midnight Express is in my opinion a film that is too horrifying to ignore which means that this film should not be ignored.It shouldn't be watched for entertainment value.That isn't why this film was made.Midnight Express I highly recommend.

Alan Parker's masterpiece
This is an absorbing and arresting film. Since the first minute of the opening sequence , the dramatic mood will live in our heart .
The inner tension in the airport is perfectly made , the fear , the insane atmosphere in the turkish jails , the language obstacle , the hopeless , the dramatic sense when the Turkish Court gives the veredict in the middle of a bitter political conflict are a true landmark in its style.
John Hurt (Max) plays an unforgettable role as the addict friend of Billy Hayes (Brad Davis) and his performance is only overcome for The elephant man two years after this film.
Magnificent script and extraordinary performances.
A winner.

Lighten Up Folks, Its Only A Movie
I have read some of the reviews posted here for this movie and they almost laughable. People need to lighten up a bit and stop being so goddam politically correct. This true life story is a Hollywood dramatization folks. Its purpose is to entertain. And I for one am not ashamed to say that I would watch this movie just to look at Brad Davis in the buff. Nuff Said.

Very current film
Some might think that this 1978 film is out of date. In fact,
not only is it a riveting film, but it is very current. On page A21 of the February 25, 2004 Washington Post in a story entitled "Turkey's Human Rights Record Is Taken to Task," reporter Nora Boustany writes of hearings on Capitol Hill before the US Congressional Human Rights Caucus that while Turkey now has laws forbidding torture, these laws are not enforced; torture continues in Turkey. Hence, everyone who cares about human rights should buy this film.

Come on, now!
This is one of the best prison films alongside "Papillion," "Death and the Maiden," and "Kiss of the Spider Woman."

It's purpose is to juxtapose foolish freedom with insane ancient cultures. The result is tragic, terrifying, and almost beyond comprehension in it's cruelty. And if you don't believe prison life in Muslim countries isn't still like this, you must be crazy! (Read "Not Without My Daughter;" the film doesn't even begin to touch on the horrors she survived in Iran).

One cool note: you can see the REAL Billy Hayes acting in a play about prison life filmed at San Quentin!! It's called, "The Cage" and it's only available on half(dot)com. Hard to believe that he'd want to recreate the "sadism of prison guards and the inmates' frenzied cruelty to each other" (Variety) only 15 years after escaping the Turkish prison! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Unquestionably one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, Roman Polanski(Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, The Pianist) turns histalents to the realm of sexual perversity and its emotional toll. While ona Mediterranean cruise, Nigel and Fiona (Hugh Grant and Kristin ScottThomas) find a young French woman named Mimi (Emmanuelle Seigner) cryingin a bathroom. Mimi's paraplegic American husband Oscar (Peter Coyote)forces Nigel to listen to how Oscar and Mimi fell in love--as well as howthey discovered kinky erotic games and finally arrived at a curdled,mutual sadism. Bitter Moon veers erratically from salaciouserotica to black comedy to clumsy psychodrama, but individual scenes havea definite punch. Coyote chews the scenery with glee, Seigner (Polanski'swife, adding a hint of lurid autobiography) flounders moodily, and Grantseems miscast, but Scott Thomas gives the movie some actual dignity.--Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (37)

Fascinating Erotic Story
Roman Polanski has never been accused of being a timid filmmaker. Over the years, his many movies have been distinguished by their potent subject matter and sure-handed direction. They are certainly not for everyone's taste, but those who like Polanski films tend to like them very much indeed. Bitter Moon is no different. It is one of the most frank and deliciously outrageous films I have seen in a long time.

The story begins with a very staid and proper British couple on an ocean voyage. Nigel and Fiona (Hugh Grant and Kristen Scott-Thomas) are hoping to rekindle the faint spark of romance that is left in their marriage. What they get instead is something much more than they bargained for.

Almost immediately, they meet Mimi (Emmanuelle Seigner), a seductive French femme fatale, and her crippled husband Oscar (Peter Coyote), a failed American writer. Oscar knows that Nigel desires Mimi and he is willing to accommodate him, but first Nigel must listen to the sordid story of their life together.

I don't want to give away too many of the details, for the shock of hearing their tale is the best part of the film. It is, at various turns, erotic, outrageous, outlandish, hilarious, titillating and unbelievable. What it is certainly not is boring. As we peek in on their bizarre sex life, first stimulated, then horrified, we are never quite sure what is true and what is fantasy. Against his better judgment, Nigel finds himself drawn into their twisted, little world and the results do not disappoint.

It seems that it always takes a European director to make a film such as this one. Americans are far too timid about sexuality to deal with it in an frank and adult manner. You can count on Polanski or Paul Verhoeven or Bertrand Blier to make a film like "Bitter Moon." But what about Spielberg or Scorsese or Coppola? Never. When it comes to films involving violence, American directors can be as bold and explicit as one could ever desire. In stories involving eroticism and sensuality, however, they are sadly lacking.

Due to some regrettable incidents in Polanski's past, his films seldom get the respect they deserve in this country. That is unfortunate because his work is generally superb. His 1988 thriller "Frantic," starring Harrison Ford, remains one of the best, most unappreciated films of recent years. "Bitter Moon" was first released in Europe in 1992, but it took two years for it to finally be shown in America. Anyone who ignores this one, though, will be missing a damn fine film.

Whoa!!
This is probably one of the most depraved movies I have ever seen. It's a Roman Polanski film. (I usually have high regard for his films, so it's no surprise to me that I "enjoyed" this one.) Nigel (played by Hugh Grant) is on a cruise ship with his wife. He meets a strange couple, the crippled husband and his lovely young French wife, Mimi. The story he tells is one of extreme sexual passion and the consequences of a greedy sex life. (A strange sex life, at that!) There are two extremes to this relationship. This movie had my gut tied up in knots the entire time I was watching it. I was still having flashbacks from the film the next morning! I really can't recall having a movie effect me in such a manner. This movie is NOT recommended for the more "reserved" people.

Accccaaip güzel bi film
Yaw yýllar önce tv de seyretmiþtim, bi daha da yayýnlamadýlar. Çok þaane bi film harbiden. Þimdi de DVD olarak alacam. Ama Türkçe altyazýlý veya dublajlý olarak bulamadým.

Less than 3 stars?!! Madness....
I was compelled to write this review based on the handfull of negative reviews (like the one below).

I think this movie is an absolute gem. First off, taking a step back, this movie isn't about two good people that meet and fall in love. I believe this movie is about what happens when two very base, very bored, and largely devoid of virtue collide. It's about the danger in irrational immoral entanglement (again, this is just my opinion). You see, the sex scenes (some of them anyway) are meant to be laughable. These two hit bottom together and reach (what Peter Coyote, the male partner calls) "sexual bankruptcy"....right in front of your eyes, they get slaughtered by their own insane urges! Brilliant, strange, interesting, depressing, important (especially if you're prone to confuse urges with love).

Peter Coyote gives an amazing performance, Polanski offered up his own wife (Emmanuelle Seigner) as the temptress (c'mon, you've got to give him at least one star for having enough love for this film to direct his own wife through sex scenes).

If you haven't seen Bitter Moon, don't miss this film. I think it raises important questions and warnings about certain popular behavior (or at least tendencies) in relationships. All the while being entertaining, and at times utterly shocking.

Hope this was helpful.

Atrocious
I admire director/actor Roman Polanski very much; not only because he can be a consumate filmaker and has made some of the more interesting films of the late 20th. Century, but also because he has managed to surive the loss of his family to the Nazi gas chambers, the loss of his pregnant wife to the Manson lunatics as well as many other problems.

"Bitter Moon", in my opinion, has no redemming features whatsoever. If I didn't know that Polanski was involved I never would have believed it. The script is trite, corny and shallow. The acting performances, without exception, are utterly pedestrian and completely unbelievable.

In case anyone believes that my distaste for "bitter Moon" stems from its sexual or violent content let me assure you that is certainly not the case. I did, however, find the sexual content to be absolutely laughable. I am a great fan of intricate and thoughtful movies; some of my favourite directors are Atom Egoyan, Krystof Kiewslowski, David Lynch, Martin Scorsese, Stanley Kubrick, David Cronenberg, Akira Kurosawa and, indeed, Roman Polanski.

However intricate, deep, simple or spectacular a film may be, it must be engaging. In my opinion, "Bitter Moon" is a laborious and boring film. I wouldn't be surprised if Polanski wishes he had never made it. ... Read more

Reviews (34)

Wonderful, tragic, story
I love "Nicholas and Alexandra." I read the book when I was a teenager and it helped start me on my lifelong interest in Russian history and history in general. I saw the movie when it first came out in 1971-72 and have seen it many times since. The VHS version is OK but suffers by being too obviously edited down and shortened. The DVD version is much preferable because we now get all of the original film. The parts which were edited from the VHS version were not crucial to the story, but they add so much to it. We see Nicholas and Alexandra in a tender moment with their newborn son, before they learn of his hemophilia, Lenin with his wife helping to start the Bolshevik Party, the Tsar's daughters in a moment of light hearted play, a sweet family discussion between the Tsar, Empress, and their children, and a tense encounter between one of the daughters and a prison guard in Siberia, plus several more scenes. Furthermore, the DVD version has a "featurette" narrated by the actress who played Tatiana. This gives us some interesting behind the scenes looks at the movie's filming. So, even if you already have the VHS version, by all means buy the DVD too!

A spectacular yet flawed film
My beef about the film is that they took liberties in telling and condensing the story when it wasn't necessary. In Tobolsk the family lived in the Governor's Mansion - not a log cabin in the woods. Yekaterinburg looked like some Spanish town rather a city in the Urals. None of the movie was filmed in Russia or Finland (for obvious reasons). The execution involved eleven people - in the movie they cut down the number. Other scenes were outright inventions.

None of the church or religious scenes came off right. They seem more Catholic or Anglican than Orthodox.

Nicholas was taught English from the age of 8 by a Scottish teacher, Mr. Heath. He had an accent in English, but it wasn't identifiable as "Russian". They all would have sounded 'upper crust' so the accents were fine for me.

Suzmann and Jayston were superb. Suzmann was a little too glamorous and Hollywood looking for the role, but she pulled off the characterisation well.

I don't know if it's well known, but the Romanov family walked out on the premier because of the changes made to the story.

Elegant, Ambitious and, yes, Bloody
N&A, though over thirty years old, still plays with the bravura and sweep that a big historical film epic should and that we expect. It has ripened well with time and has lost none of its power. The fall of the Romanovs and the rise of the Soviet Communism would be an extraordinary cinematic undertaking in any age, but few contemporary film makers would attempt so ambitious a project. A shame really; our present epics are more about CGI instead of ... well, anything, and certainly not serious subjects like history. Looking at a film like Nicholas and Alexandra should make us realize how mainstream movies gave audiences credit for intelligence decades ago - and how they need to start doing so again.

Nicholas and Alexandra
I think that this movie was the best movie i have ever seen it was GREAT!!! i saw the pics. of the real Czar and his wife and the people playing the roles looks so much like them . i think that anyone would like this movie (even if they didn't like history)

The greatest story ever told
Wow! That pretty much sums up what i have to say about this movie, I liked it very much. This is a true classic, the movie tells the story of Russia's last Tsar and Tsarina very well. You get a feeling of sympathy for the family and you begin to feel every emotion along with them. Everything from the happy birth of the heir Alexei, to the trials of war and revolution, all the way till their end. The cast picked to play the characters were really great and I swear Michael Jayston(Nicholas)looks exactly like the real tsar. Janet Suzman,(Alexandra) plays a truly loving and devouted wife and mother, just like the real Alexandra. The four daughters are also great and play the real girls just as charming as they really were. Rodric Noble,(Alexei)plays the Tsarivich well also. They make you feel as if they are the real family.
I have seen both the VHS and DVD versions and i must say that the VHS tape is terrible. There is so much cut out, so many moments that contribute to the story of the last Imperial Family of Russia. I would buy the DVD, it is full length and even gives you a behind the scenes look into the making of the film. This is a great movie, I would really encourage everyone who loves the Romanov story to buy this DVD. ... Read more

Reviews (30)

This series made a profound impression on my life...
Yes, I, too, agree with Scott Lahti. I saw this series for the first time nearly 20 years ago when I was 10...PBS aired it over 13 weeks in the summer a couple years in a row. My older sister and I were enthralled, mesmerized. We literally stopped everything to watch Flambards. The characters were, and are, so touching, so real. The music stayed on our mind for years. As we didn't have a VCR the first few years that this was aired, we were left without it for about 10 years, mind you, still talking about the characters as if they were people we know! Humming/whistling "the Song of Christina!" We were so excited when A&E aired it, finally, in the early 90's, albeit with commercials. Even better another local PBS station aired the originals a couple years later (FINALLY!), and we both have them on video now. The astonishing thing is, I've seldom met anyone else who's ever seen it! I introduced my college roommates to Flambards, though, and shortly afterward would come home from class to find everyone in the living room, mesmerized, watching Flambards; I was so happy that someone besides myself "got it"! Soon everyone was quoting lines from the film! Yes! A couple years ago, my friend and former roommate had just had a baby and was staying home. I sent her the "Flambards" videos and she was so excited beyond belief. The point of all this is, this series has the uncanny ability to enter your psyche, leaving a warm contented feeling. I have read the trilogy by KM Peyton, and, though they were quite good, they really can't compare to the series...the casting was terrific (where ARE these people now, I'd like to know...they were incredible) the costuming, the flying machines were fantastic and I can't say enough about the musical score. I'm so happy that it IS available on video and hope it continues to enthrall people for years.

TV SERIES OF A LIFETIME!
Have you ever encountered a TV series which, from the first episode on, became an irreplaceable part of your identity, moving you in ways impossible to describe but felt profoundly? FLAMBARDS was that beautiful a series. Set in the years surrounding the First World War, the story depicts how Christina, a young orphan sent to live with her cousins and uncle at a decaying country estate, Flambards, comes of age amid the conflicts, passions, loyalties, and tragedies which follow from her new life. Her uncle Russell, wheelchair-bound for life due to a fox-hunting accident, compounds his misfortune through heavy drinking by the fireplace, and takes his sole pleasure in life from the vicarious adventures in the hunting field which his rugged son Mark shares with him. They are callous to their servants, and cannot understand anyone who does not share their absorption in the world of hunting, hounds, and endless leisure. Mark's brother William could not be more different. Gentle, sympathetic to the servants and the plight of their class, and passionately devoted to the design, building and flying of planes, he too is injured while engaging in the one sport he hates - fox-hunting - and must now walk with a limp. Christina, in her late teens like William, prefers his gentle company, yet thrills to the excitement of the fox-hunt. And she soon learns that her ample inheritance, due when she is twenty-one, has been earmarked for the restoration of Flambards - and that she is to marry Mark, who, among other brutalities, has provoked the firing of Violet, the kitchen maid, after making her pregnant! The rest of the series portrays the growing attraction of Christina and William, their escape from Flambards into the world of the early aviators, and the disruptions in their new life resulting from the epic slaughter of the First World War. Everything in this series is just right: the casting of Christine McKenna and Alan Parna by as Christina and William, the stirring footage of restored early airplanes in glorious flight (set to the haunting background music of David Fanshawe, itself worth the eleven-and-a-half hours you'll spend loving this series), the tenderness of the scenes where William and Christina discover their love for each other, the portrayal of a bygone age of English social life help make FLAMBARDS a series with something for everybody. But what lifts this series into the realm of the extraordinary for me is its unaffected embodiment of human goodness and innocence, of nobility and the heroic, and of how these qualities can move us still, in a time when we need them more than ever. I've seen dozens of TV shows since I first caught episode 6, "Cold Light of Day," on PBS during a collegiate summer vacation almost twenty years ago. None have found their way as close to my heart as FLAMBARDS. I hope you agree. And I wish you the very best. END

Charming Piece of Britain Pre-Great War
A delightful series with characters you'll love and care about. The filming is rather grainy and the music can be a tad quirky, but I really enjoyed this when originally shown on PBS and have enjoyed it just as much on DVD.

Rather silly
First of all, one should realize this is a British '70s TV series in all that the concept entails. A show populated by stage actors, their style overpowers whatever supposed emotional atmosphere a particular scene is meant to give. Lots of creative directing work, some with handhelds, that doesn't always work (Odd habit of really fast zooms sometimes crops up). The music has not aged well. It sticks out and screams attention to itself, drawing the viewer out of the film. At least the show doesn't switch between film-shot exteriors and video-shot interiors -- the worst cost-cutting measure I've seen.

However, the writing itself fascinates. So if one can overcome the other drawbacks, can be an interesting watch. Just be prepared for the above.

Happy Endings
There were moments when I thought I might have to return the unused portions of this video for a refund. I wasn't sure it was going to turn out the way I wanted it to (or the way I thought it should). I don't want to give anything about the ultimate ending away, so let me just say all ended according to my wishes. About the plot: Christina moves in with her half-uncle and two male cousins. They're an embittered trio of men who are divided between love of horses and hunting and love of a new invention called the airplane and flying (aeronautics). Christina, as most heroines, touches the lives of her two cousins and her riding instructor-servant-first love Dick Wright (who has the brightest, blondest hair I've ever seen in my life and...he's cute). Anyway, twists and turns lead you through love, happiness, friendships, pain, death, tragedy and lessons learned. It's a good movie, though it requires a minor time commitment in order to watch it in its entirety which is what I did, and I strongly recommend it to anyone who loves a period-piece chick flick. ... Read more

Reviews (21)

"Don't worry...He knows you're an idiot!"
HE in this case is NAPOLEON of CRIME,Professor James Moriarty. YOU is "the world's most famous consulting detective",SHERLOCK HOLMES. Speaking is Ben Kingsley essaying the role of CRIME DOCTOR,John Watson.The case is WITHOUT A CLUE. Directed by Thom Eberhardt,WAC is a deft, wacky satire on Conan-Doyle's genius master detective positing what if Dr. Watson was THE MAN;and Sherlock Holmes was master of CLUTZ. Parody works because humor is arch but neither ham-handed nor condescending. Michael Caine (usually epitome of cockney cool from Super spy Harry Palmer, to Super thug Jack Carter)is Clouseau Goofy without overshadowing Kingsley who plays a genuine hero sleuth against England's most nefarious MASTER CRIMINAL. This is a very funny movie with excellent production values and superb(Victorian)ambience. And there is genuine mystery to solve. THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN is sure to revive interest in THE PROFESSOR if not Sherlock. WITHOUT A CLUE may or may not(like Spielberg's YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES)help much with its satirizing of the first League of Extraordinary Crime Fighters. But Doctor Watson's cloning of a Sherlock of extraordinary ineptitude and rank(though charming)stupidity is OXYMORONIC episode of Holmsian mythology in a Major League of its own.(4 & 1/2 stars)

This is a great movie!
Sherlock Holmes has solved unnumbered cases for Scotland Yard, but it turns out that Dr. Watson (played by Ben Kingsley) has a secret - there is no Sherlock Holmes! Having hired Reginald Kincaid (Michael Caine) to play the part of Holmes, Watson now wants to get rid of the man, as he is "a liar, a drunkard and a womanizer." But, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer arrives with a case that threatens the very existence of the Empire, and will talk to no one but the great Sherlock Holmes, Watson has to take Kincaid back for just one more case, and it's a whopper! There is a deep mystery here, one with Professor Moriarty (Paul Freeman) at it's heart, and only Holmes...er, Watson can possibly unravel it. [Color, released in 1988, with a running time of 1:47.]

This is a great movie! Turning the Sherlock Holmes stories any which way but loose, Michael Caine and Ben Kingsley make a great duet, battling crime and each other. The movie succeeds in being outrageously funny, and yet absolutely gripping. The movie is clean, though Leslie Giles' secret is enough to make you squirm in front of little ones. Overall, though, my family and I loved this movie, and highly recommend it to you!

Very clever, a lot of fun!
What if Dr. Watson (Ben Kingsley) is the real detective and Sherlock Holmes is his fictional alter ego whose name he created and uses to protect his medical practice? And what if, when pressured to produce Holmes to the public, Watson hires an out-of-work actor to pretend to be Holmes (Michael Caine). All Holmes has to do is what Watson tells him to do as he, Watson, does all the sleuthing. This is the clever premise of this film -- all the more clever if you know that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a doctor who wrote the Holmes detective mysteries on the side. Of course, things start to spiral out of control when "Holmes" tries to solve the mysteries without Watson and "Holmes" makes up a lot of the famous mannerisms.

Lots of humor, a good mystery and very nice repartee between the two men as Watson becomes increasingly exasperated with his creation. (This has an almost "Remington Steele" like premise if any of you remember that 1980s TV show staring Pierce Brosnam.) A very under-rated film with a top notch cast.

I have not seen this film on the new DVD so can't comment on the quality of this DVD. I'm just reviewing the film itself.

What a delight!
Although I'm a lover of Sherlock Holmes movies, I almost missed this gem. Everything about this film was wonderful, particularly the tremendous performances by Caine and Kingsley. You can see they're having fun with it every scene, and I loved being along for the ride.

The script is intelligent and witty, without getting goofy or slapstick. The plot is hilarious yet holds together as a "mystery" (kind of...). It is totally devoid of the offensive language that plagues so many movies, making it a great family fun flick (but it's NOT at all juvenile).

I just wish they'd made a series of these films -- I didn't want it to end.

"I've got it! His real name is Arty-Morti!"
Without a Clue (1988) poses an interesting and humorous take on the Sherlock Holmes mythos created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The film asks what if the character of Sherlock Holmes was truly a fictional character created by Doctor Watson, and is played by an actor, with Watson being the actual mastermind behind solving the various cases and crimes?

In the film, Ben Kingsley plays Doctor Watson, the man behind the deductive and crime solving skills of his fictional character, Sherlock Holmes. For reasons that are revealed within the movie, Watson was not able to take credit for solving his first caper, so he invented the character of Sherlock Holmes, but soon found his creation was in great demand, so he hired an actor, Reginald Kincaid (Michael Caine) to play the part of the detective while Watson stayed in the background continuing to be the 'brains' of the operation. Only problem is Reginald Kincaid is a buffoonish, womanizing, gambling, drunkard, and unable to, as he put it, '...detect horse manure if he stepped in it.'

After a falling out, Doctor Watson fires Kincaid, and decides to go it alone as 'The Crime Doctor'. Guess what? The legend of Holmes has grown so large and become ensconced so deeply within the public psyche that no one takes Watson seriously, and even his publisher threatens to sue if Watson reveals the truth of the situation publicly. Not only that, but a rather important case involving the financial integrity of the British Empire has surfaced, one involving the nefarious Professor Moriarty, and Holmes is the only man for the job. Watson finds himself in the humbling position of bringing Kincaid back for what will be one last performance.

Kingsley and Caine play their parts perfectly, and are supported by a wonderful cast including Jeffery Jones as Inspector Lestrade, Paul Freeman as Moriarty, Lysette Anthony, and Peter Cook. The dialogue is witty, and even though the plot a bit thin in some areas, the film works wonderfully as a farcical tale with just the right amounts of slapstick and tongue in cheek humor. A completely professional job done by everyone all around. My favorite part of the film was the notion of Watson using Holmes to keep Inspector Lastrade busy tracking down pointless leads while Watson performed the real detection at the crime scene. I was laughing hard when Holmes was on all fours inspecting the pattern of a rug with the baffled inspector right next to him, trying to get the jump on the master detective.

I was a little disappointed in the release of this film on DVD, as I thought the picture and sound quality could have been better. Also, why is there only a full screen release available? Special features are virtually non-existent with the inclusion of a trailer for the film. MGM usually does a pretty good job with their releases, but they seemed to have dropped the ball here. Anyway, this is a great little film, and worth watching if only to see two fine actors at work

Cookieman108 ... Read more

Amazon.com

It was one of the top 10 grossing films of 1952 and garnered seven Oscar nominations, but Moulin Rouge is neglected today. Not to be confused with the Baz Luhrmann-Nicole Kidman extravaganza, this is a color-soaked tale of Toulouse-Lautrec (Jose Ferrer), based on a romanticized novel about the artist's life. Director John Huston explores the discrepancy between the creation of exquisite art and the messy business of living--especially messy for the growth-stunted, alcoholic painter, whose affairs revolve around prostitutes. The soap-opera aspects of the storyline limit the picture (as does the distracting fact of Ferrer walking on his knees), but it has some gorgeous things in it. The experiments in color photography (which horrified the Technicolor people) are spectacularly successful, and the movie won Oscars for set decoration and costumes. George Auric's haunting melody became a standard, so lovely even the dubbed performance of Zsa Zsa Gabor couldn't hurt it. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Description

After slaying the Arthurian legend in their now classic Holy Grail, the Pythons set their sights on the Greatest Story Ever Told. Blind faith, virgin birth, crucifixion-nothing is sacred in this epic send-up of ancient times, which draws on the cornball biblical blockbusters of the 1950s to lampoon celebrity culture in any era. Criterion has gathered the guilty parties-including John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin-for two commentary tracks as provocative and hilarious as the film itself. Available for the first time in a 16:9 enhanced transfer, Monty Python's Life of Brian can finally be viewed in all its - ahem - glory. ... Read more

Reviews (186)

Holy Hilarity!
Life of Brian is not as well known by the movie going public as Monty Python?s classic "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", but it is definitely is as, or maybe even funnier than Holy Grail. This is especially true for people who are familiar with the Biblical stories it pokes fun at. It is perfect satire, for nothing is sacred and everything is a joke.

The story revolves around Brian, a very unlucky resident of Judea who just happened to be born the same day the Christ child was born. Missing his chance at glory, Brian lives his life selling animal parts at the Coliseum, dominated by a violent mother who is very "friendly" to the Roman occupiers. The rest of Brian's environment is inhabited by a very wild bunch. The neo- or archo-Marxist group, the People's Front of Judea, battles the Romans daily by holding meeting after violent meeting, plotting against the legions and their arch rivals, the Judean People's Front. The Romans, on the other hand, are led by the Pontius Pilate, who, contrary to Biblical reports, has quite a lisp and an endearing sense of stupidity. When Brian rebels against his mother and joins up with the wild band of revolutionaries, his life is changed forever. Quite by accident, Brian is then thought to be the messiah, although he is quite reluctant in his leadership.

Satirically, this movie is absolutely ruthless. Everything is skewered, everything. The performances are all fantastic, especially that of John Cleese, who is just the man in this movie, playing about six separate characters. Joke after joke hits the viewer, which results in just non-stop humor. It's just a wonderful movie by the Python pioneers who really revolutionized comedy. The Criterion DVD edition is great, with tons of hilarious extras that are worth the price on their own. To the people that use this to either justify their atheism or believe it to be an attack on their religion, calm down. It's a comedy for God's sake, why do the opinions of some British comedians affect your outlook on life? Just laugh damn it!

Great extras on this Python DVD
THE LIFE OF BRIAN has remained one of my favorite Python flicks after the glow of the Holy Grail began to wear thin from overuse. If you're considering purchasing this movie, you've probably seen the movie already and are a Monty Python fan. If not, get ready for one of Python's most sacrilegious and hilarious movies of their collection! If you are easily offended, you might think twice. However, the satire here is equally distributed and is not aimed so much at religion itself but moreso at the amusing ways in which people can behave "under the influence" of zealotry.

I thoroughly enjoyed rewatching the movie, but it was a great surprise to find that this DVD comes packed with some great bonus materials. Several full-length, revealing interviews with the cast go into more Python history than just that surrounding this flick. And a rather large collection of scenes cut from the final release are also quite interesting.

The video and audio quality seem to be on par with most of the other DVD movies I've seen so far, despite the film's age.

All in all, a great addition to any Python collection.

Is nothing sacred? NO! And that's why this is a riot!
Irreverent, brilliant, ingenius... I'm getting all these words out of the way now before I forget them! Even though I'll probably use them a dozen times!

The funniest thing to come from England since The Stamp Act, Monty Python's Flying Circus could always be depended upon to provide the world with brilliantly twisted humor. The LIFE OF BRIAN is no less a comic masterpiece than anything else these boys have done. Ostensibly a parody of the life of Jesus, LIFE OF BRIAN is a hilarious attack on liberalism, conservatism, colonialism, individualism, communalism, organized religion, disorganized religion, fanaticism, feminism... take your pick of any of a hundred topics. It doesn't matter, it's still brilliant. And the script and direction holds it perfectly all together, even if there's a space ship chase sequence thrown in for the hell of it.

Once again, the members of MPFC each play several roles and every viewer has his or her favorites, so what the hell, I'll mention mine. Michael Palin, while playing a wonderfully foppy Pontius Pilate, is equally hilarious as a twitchy, hyperactive leper that Jesus had cured. Instead of being grateful, he complains that his rehabilitation has ruined his livelihood as a beggar. (Speaking of rehabilitation, Palin plays the part like a junkie in need of a fix.) John Cleese has several great moments, but his role as a Centurion turned sadistic Latin teacher is nothing short of genius. Everyone who has studied Latin will be beside themselves during this scene. And Terry Jones as Brian's mom still stuns me 25 years later. "My Brian is not the messiah! He's a very naughty, naughty boy."

Monty Python's LIFE OF BRIAN is irreverent, brilliant, and ingenius and this edition, complete with outtakes, behind-the-scenes footage, and interviews make this package worth the price. Whether you are an individual or not, "Monty Python's Life of Brian - Criterion Collection" will save your comic soul.

a review of a movie
A brilliant movie with a brilliant finale.

funny but wheres Bodge?
This is a very funny movie. It takes place int he Stone Age. About a guy named Brian and this is his life. Most of the humor is because his name is brian and people confuse him for somebody else. "I'm not so anso I'm Brian." Also there is a very funny moment when a man says his wife is called Continual Buttocks (a butocks is a bottom) or soemthing. Some of the humor is called toilet humor that I'm not a fan of. My friends and I only thought that Bodge would have looked great in this film with his beard and BRITISH accent!!! Where was he? He would have been perfect! ... Read more

Description

A prequel to "Jane Eyre." An Englishman in nineteenth-century Jamaica falls into a tortured marriage with a native Creole. When the woman begins to go mad, her husband takes her back to his gothic estate in England, where he locks her in the attic. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

The Wide Sargasso Sea: A Rich and Thrilling Seachange
When "The Wide Sargasso Sea" was first released in New York, it had received excellent reviews, an R rating and very little attention. I just happened to see a small advertisement in the New York Times one day. It was the title alone that intrigued me. From the moment the film began with that sensual and evocative soundtrack, I sensed we were in for something truly different and original.

"The Wide Sargasso Sea" is a brilliant collaboration of a gifted director, John Duigan, a strong, well paced screenplay and actors who are sublimely suited to their roles. Set in 19th century Jamaica,the screenplay transforms a fairly literal story by Jean Rhys into a rich and thrilling drama, which is driven as much by the individual conflicts and misunderstandings as it is by the cultural. "The Wide Sargasso Sea" is one of the few films that successfully combines the erotic with the lyrical;that depicts the complexity of human passion without becoming either literal or pedestrian.

With its lush, exotic setting,it is easy to become enmeshed in the endlessly subtle and colorful aspects of this film from the psychological to the sociological, individual difference to social conventions. But the story of Antoinette and Edward is the story of the delicate and precarious balance between love and knowledge, intimacy and trust, choice and destiny. So that once seeing "The Wide Sargasso Sea", you will have to see it again.

Years later I bought the VHS and found that "The Wide Sargasso Sea" is one of those superb films that stands the test of time. If only, the producers had recorded the soundtrack with music by Stuart Copeland and some wonderfully original, electronic interpretations of classical string quartets. Why didn't they?

Pretty, but vapid.
Wide Sargasso Sea (John Duigan, 1993)

John Duigan, who aggressively makes indie films, got the most notoriety of his career out of his adaptation of Jean Rhys' prequel to Jane Eyre. It's a very pretty thing, to be sure, but really-how much can you expect of any film made after the mid-eighties that plays up the casting of Michael York?

Let's face it, the main reason to watch Wide Sargasso Sea is that Antioniette (Karina Lombard, whose biggest role since has been in Kull the Conqueror) and Amelie (Rowena King, most recently seen in Proof of Life), who are battling for the affections of Antoinette's husband Edward (Nathaniel Parker, whose days are occupied making the Inspector Lynley mysteries presently), spend a whole lot of their screen time unclothed. (One wishes the same could be said of Naomi Watts, who has a small part here, but one can't have everything.) The story itself is about as riveting as... well, let's put it this way. It's a prequel to Jane Eyre. They share a certain leisure of plot.

Once Michael York's scenery-chewing is out of the way (he plays Antoinette's father, and is only seen in the scenes where she's young), the film settles down into a nice, quiet lull for the rest of its length. The scenery is beautiful, the bodies are beautiful, it's like Winged Migration with nudity and an attempt at a storyline. ** ½

wide sargasso sea
this movie made me finally understand the whole story of Jane Eyre, I understand and look at the people much better ,and understand the women called insane,as drivin that way by lonliness,I look at the master of the house with different eyes. it opens many questions Jane eyre leaves open for thought.

about the movie wide sargasso sea......
What I can basically say is that the actress when young saw her house was burned down by the nigerians and her mother(if I am not wrong) turns mad. I am not going to elaborate the story(no longer interesting) furthur for customer to find out for themselves. There are three erotic scene inside which I can say is normal as there is no so called explict sexual scenes inside. The NC-17 is more or less for show. One scene is the toucbing of ass scene between the actor and actress, the other is just only the facial expression of the actress during the first scene and the last, of course, is the sex scene which some called it as explicit to get the NC-17 rating. The story of this DVD is good and the scenes are very normal like a bright blue sky. ***A recommended purchase for those interested in this genre of movie on DVD***

Gonna Make You Sweat
Few films get as steamy as this one and still manage to convey any kind of story; kudos to Nathaniel Parker and Karina Lombard, who flawlessly pull off a difficult period piece.

What makes this film work is the progression of events; madness as depicted by tangleweed, temperature, voodoo/black magic, lust, etc. makes for a tantalizing feature, but none of it would work if the acting wasn't up to par.

Having read "Jane Eyre" a long time ago, I always thought it would be a great idea to create a story based on Rochester's psychotic wife, and how she got that way.

Steamy, superb drama for those of you who like a little subversion in your lives... ... Read more

Amazon.com

George Eliot's accomplished but underrated last novel is effectively, often stirringly, adapted for this 2002 BBC production, which was scripted by old pro Andrew Davies (Middlemarch) and directed with wit and subtlety by Tom Hooper (Cold Feet). Set in the 1870s, Eliot's story concerns two strong-willed young people whose self-determination is under attack by legal constraints on their rights to an inheritance. The noble Daniel (Hugh Dancy) is of dubious birth; the fiery Gwendolen (Romola Garai) can't possess her late father's estate because she's a woman. They are sympathetic to one another, but not lovers: Gwendolen is obliged to marry into wealth and becomes an unhappy bride of the scoundrel Grandcourt (Hugh Bonneville), while Daniel must sort out his feelings about the much-maligned "Jewess," the beautiful Mirah. Despite Garai's somewhat questionable casting, this lengthy drama--evenly divided between the two leads--never lags in insight or passion. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Simply Marvelous................
I had the wonderful opportunity to first view this film on Masterpiece Theater on PBS. Based on one of George Eliot's lesser-known novels, this film serves as a fascinating interpretation of Victorian England. Not only will viewers attain valuable insight about the treatment of Jews during that particular time period, but they will also become acquainted with the profound, three-dimensional characters who inhabit a society where women are expected to marry respectable gentlemen who possess a strong financial status.
Despite its title, the film mainly focuses on the very different lives of Daniel Deronda and Gwendolen Harleth. Its opening scene takes place at a gambling casino, and that is the perfect symbol for the remainder of the plot. We see Gwendolen taking risks and sacrificing her happiness and liberty through her marriage to the devious and heartless, yet wealthy, Grancourt. In a similar fashion, Daniel Deronda risks his financially stable livelihood in order to uncover his past and fulfill his true ambitions.
I highly recommend this film (and the book) to anyone who enjoys good movies where characters are constantly faced with obstacles and have to rely on themselves to make moral choices.

Stirring, Addictive, yet Resonant Masterpiece Theater
Based on George Eliot's novel of the same name, this masterpiece theater miniseries, in a long list of excellent ones by PBS and the BBC, is viscerally entertaining, yet also incredibly moving and resonant all the same. Daniel Deronda thrives on a strong script, subtle effective directing, and an extremely charming and talented cast. Hugh Darcy couldn't be a more ideal choice to play Daniel Deronda. He beautifully juxtaposes inner strength with sensitivity and compassion, and is instantly likable, absolutely necessary to such a main-character driven story. A shout out to Jodhi May who is absolutely fetching and wonderful as Mirah Lapodoth the "Jewess" and Deronda's love interest. She played the younger sister in Last of the Mohicans. And she continues to act convincingly and be a compelling presence onscreen. The chemistry between her and Darcy is electrifying. Kudos to the two young British actors that make this PBS special truly wonderful.

Absolutely beautiful film
Extraordinary acting and captivating story! The character Daniel Deronda possesses that blend of sensitivity and ability to see right into others' souls that is so rare. Hopefully I'm not stepping over the boundary in saying that every girl dreams of a DD coming into her life. I know I do!

Stunning!
Daniel Deronda is a visual masterpiece. Based on the novel by British author, George Eliot. It tells the story of a young man searching for his true birth lineage and a young woman searching for a way out of poverty. It is a very poignant adaptation of the book. I would highly recommend watching the movie.

Slow pace, rather unacceptable ending.
I don't see that much attraction between Daniel and Mirah, so Daniel's sudden "enlightenment" as a Jew made him realize he loved Mirah who is a Jewess in the movie is quite unexpected. Rather disappointing with his choice, not b'cos she is a jewess, maybe I didn't see enough sparks between them.

The other thing, being brought as a English gentleman, but still have some Jewish calling inside him is a little bit inexplicable. In the book Next of Kin said a chimpazee brought up by human consider themselves human. So, I don't buy that part.

The movie is rather slow, but I would have enjoyed it better if not b'cos of the far-fetched ending. ... Read more

Description

Phileas Fogg bet his fellow club members that he can circle the globe in eighty days.That may not be impressive today, but in 1872, it was nearly impossible.Accompanied by his valet, Passepartout, and the wandering Princess Aouda, Fogg crosses Europe, India, Japan, the Pacific and the United States. ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Approaching 50, but Entertaining as Ever
If you're looking for a steely-eyed, completely objective review of Mike Todd's 1956 blockbuster "Around the World in 80 Days," don't look here! As a very unsophisticated boy of 12 I saw this film in its first release, and though I'm long past being an innocent 12-year-old, its spell over me has never faded. I loved the story, and I thought the "twist" at the ending was wonderfully clever (it still is!), but in 1957 it was the technical aspects of this movie that really blew me away--it was the first movie I ever saw in a super-wide-screen format, and the first I ever heard that was in stereophonic sound. Today, however, as I see ATWIED through adult eyes, the acting and the production values are what make it a great film for me.

The story is about Phileas Fogg (David Niven), a wealthy Englishman of compulsively punctual habits who wagers a staggering sum that he can complete a journey around the world in 80 days--quite a feat for 1872. Accompanied by his somewhat seedy gentleman's gentleman Passepartout (Cantinflas), Fogg sets off on his journey, unaware that Scotland Yard suspects him of masterminding a recent robbery of the Bank of England. Fueled by the bumbling and thick-headed Inspector Fixx (portrayed by Robert Newton, who died shortly after this film was completed), this subplot helps move the action along very smartly.

For movie buffs, the best feature of this film is the profusion of cameo roles, often delightfully tongue-in-cheek, that punctuates the action. (In fact, the term "cameo role" originated with this movie!) In some films--"The Longest Day" comes immediately to mind--cameo roles are often hokey, and an annoying distraction. In this one, they work beautifully because the casting is so good: Evelyn Keyes as a snooty Parisian girl, John Carradine as an blustering denizen of the American West, George Raft as a sinister saloon owner--every role is perfectly filled. And if you're not the type of viewer who immediately recognizes classic film actors at first glimpse, don't worry about it. You won't miss a thing. The good-natured cameos are so skillfully worked into the fabric of the film that they never intrude upon the plot.

Is "Around the World in 80 Days" flawless? Of course not. Parts of it, like the opening monologue by famous, cigarette-in-hand newscaster Edward R. Murrow, are certainly dated--but in a way, this gosh-gee-whiz segment showing a relatively tiny rocket being fired into the stratosphere is a nostalgic reminder of what life was like mere days before the first artificial satellite orbited a planet that would never be the same again.

Now, after a seemingly endless wait, nostalgia buffs can see this wonderfully good-natured film on DVD. The restoration is virtually flawless (there are a few places where the print could have been cleaned up a bit), but compared with the faded VHS copies that have been floating around for years, this release of ATWIED is absolutely stunning, its color and sound brilliantly restored, and well worth the modest investment to obtain it. The special added features are generally worthwhile, too. Highly recommended!

Lots of fun
This wonderfully comic, beautifully photographed mini epic is one of my favorite films of all time. The plot sticks pretty close to the Jules Verne novel of the same name as it relates the unlikely Victorian tale of Phileas Fogg, a mysterious millionaire played with panache by David Niven. (Was there ever a more perfect stiff English gentleman type?) Fogg bets his snooty London club that he can travel around the world in eighty days, and sets off immediately with his new servant Passepartout (played by Cantinflas, the Charlie Chaplin of Mexico.) In beautiful travelogue photography we follow the pair through many adventures in Spain, India (where they rescue an Indian princess, played by Shirley McClean, which may seem absurd today but heck it was made in the fifties), Japan, and the wild west of America. Along the way they take balloons, trains, boats, handcars, etc. all the while playing whist, having four o'clock tea, and encountering as many Hollywood cameos as are found in the other great comic epic of this film era, "It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World." Dogging their every step is the detective Mr. Fix, who suspects Fogg is really a bank robber. Is he? Will they make it around the world in time? And has there ever been such a winning cast in such a splendid story?

A Must
Superb release of the star-studded Michael Todd venture. The film looks great. But what makes this special is the feature-length commentary by Brian Sibley. He not only gives a run down on all the actors (including, helpfully, those whose stars have faded -- how fleetingis fame) but gives an extraordinary wealth of information about the music, costuming, back lots, writers and, especially, Michael Todd. Anyone weary of commentaries with tired directors and vapid actors who tell nothing more than what's going on on-screen, will find Sibley's commentary not onlyl informative but a lot of fun.

AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS
I only give this one 2 stars because it is such a poor transfer. The picture image is very soft. Such a shame...but then that is Warner Brothers who do not seem to take a great deal of care in their work. One of my all time favorite movies....I can't tell you how many times I saw it in the theatre and was thrilled when it came out on VHS a few years ago. But the picture is soft focus....actually gets hard on the eyes. Shame on you Warner Bros.

Aound The World, 1956,
This won best picture in 1956. I cannot understand why. Very cheesy plot in many places. Phileas Fogg is a bore most of the time. Events fall into place so easily its almost laughable ! Phileas Fogg and his assistant just leave with no planning. Just grab some money and go. Phileas Fogg seems to never plan ahead and just assumes the next ship is ready to take him and his assistant to the next location.

Oh yes, when in France and all trains have been cancelled due to a bad crash, the guy selling the tickets happens to have a hot-air balloon ready to go for them !

And don't even mention that Phileas Fogg can just carry larges amounts of cash in a large handbag. And in India they save an Indian princess who is a young Shirley Shirley MacLaine dressed up to look Indian. If filmed in India, you think they could have hired an Indian actress. In the west the Indian attack on the train is so phony, its almost a joke.

Only once did the movie add a bit grit, by having the team buy a steam ship that was headed for South America. They make it go to England with some hard work and ingenuity. ... Read more

Reviews (112)

A very fine war epic
I first saw this movie (albeit in TV-edited version) as a child and knew right away that this was one of the finest war films I had ever seen. As a WWII buff, I had read many books and seen many war films, and Cross of Iron (the movie) was one of the more satisfying (and horrifying!) accounts of the war.

Sam Peckinpah's directing is superb in this film. Coburn's Sergeant Steiner, who is just trying to survive and keep alive the men who follow him, versus the incompetent Captain Stransky (Maximillian Schell) who is on the Eastern Front only because he wants to win the Iron Cross, Germany's military award for valor in combat - makes for a very tense atmosphere throughout the movie. The viewer ultimately sides with Coburn's character, and can't help but feel outrage when Stransky deliberately tries to hang Steiner's men out to dry as the order to retreat is given, and Stransky does not pass along the order to Steiner.

The battle scenes were magnificent, the best I had seen until "Saving Private Ryan" came along. You got a glimpse of the sheer terror the German soldiers must have felt when facing one of the Russians' human wave charges. The T-34 tanks used by the Russians appear authentic, unlike the substitutes used in many war films (see: Battle of the Bulge). This film is a must-see for anyone interested in WW2. It is unfortunate that so few films were made about the Russian Front. The Soviet Union did more to bring down the Nazi regime than the rest of the Allies combined. 90 percent of all battle casualties suffered by the Germans in the war happened on the Russian Front.

The part of the movie that really grabbed me, however, was the beginning. While German children sing a song to the tune of "Lightly Row, Sweetly Row", images are shown of battle, death and the Holocaust - a wrenching juxtaposition of childhood innocence and the horrifying extents of man's inhumanity to man.

Dirty Harry -- in feldgrau.
"Cross of Iron" is a bad movie, made with preconcieved notions that do not fit history or reality. It makes the double mistake of A) cramming an American-style character (the lone wolf anti-hero) into a German uniform and B) tacking the director's well-known appetite for blood and graphic violence to a silly antiwar message.

The movie follows the conflict between an embittered and defiant combat soldier named Stiener (played by James Coburn) and his new CO, a glory-seeking martinet named Stransky (played by Maximillian Schell). From the git-go, the movie follows every stale antiwar convention in the book: the bitter, insubordinate sergeant with an unspoken love for his men vs. the bloodthirsty killer-officer who wants to win a medal and doesn't care how many men die in the process. We've seen this in numerous American war movies, but it never quite works in German unfiorm. This wasn't a democracy; discipline in the Wehrmacht, particularly during the period in questoon, was severe and the slightest defeatism or insubordination were ruthlessly punished. The scene, for example, where Stiener berates and threatens a replacement soldier who is a Party member would probably never have happened. By late 1943 even officers were being degraded and sent off to suicide-squad 'punishment battalions' for minor transgressions or seditious statements. In reality, a soldier like Stiener would have most likely been shot, sent to a military prison or killed off digging up land mines in a penal outfit. The "lone wolf" mentality was simply not tolerated in the German army of 1943 (in Sajer's "Forgotten Soldier" a lieutenant is demoted to corporal and sent to the punishment squad for losing his field telephone when he swam the 900-yard Don River...what would have happened to Stiener for mouthing off to the colonel?).

Additionally, we have more sterotypes: the loveable but doomed men of Stiener's squad, including the "I have dead meat written all over me" teenage boy, the evil Party member, the cowardly lieutenant, the well-meaning but ultimately hapless senior officers (played by James Mason and David Warner) and the obligatory scene where we find out that the Russians are people too. Really, the film is very similar in structure to a Dirty Harry movie: the lone-wolf anti-hero who scorns medals and glory, the pencil-pushing politician/boss, and nice-guy dead-meat partner, the ultimate hollow victory....blah blah blah.

"Cross of Iron" is undermined by the love of cruelty that Sam Peckinpah was rightly infamous for. Graphic violence certainly has its place in a war movie, but as usual, Peckinpah felt the need to cram the viewer nose-first into buckets of human gore. This cheapens the antiwar theme of the movie; viciousness is fine so long as it is committed by the hero, but dastardly if if perpetrated by the villain. Morally, the massage of the movie is unclear: Stiener does not avenge the death of the innocent young soldier by the Russian POW women, but later brutally kills his own lieutenant for shooting others of his squad. Then, when confronting Stransky, who actually gave the order by blackmailing the cowardly lieutenant, he does not kill him but gives him a chance to "show that Prussians can fight." Okay, Stiener is probably insane by the end of the film, but none of this made sense to me. In Peckinpah's mind, the trembling lieutenant deserves to die more than Stransky, because he's afraid and "just wants to go home" wheras Stransky, while evil, deserves to live because he is not a hypocrite: he is willing to kill and allow others to be killed for his Iron Cross, but is also willing to fight himself. Maybe Peckinpah's theme was that war is unfair. So it all balances out, I guess?

I guess not. "Cross of Iron" is a chronically over-rated war movie that bludgeons the viewer with Americanized themes, graphic violence, and a hypocritical antiwar message, brought to you by a director who idolized violent men. As entertainment it is a matter of taste, but as historical fiction, it is nonsense.

Peckinpah's last triumph
Sam Peckinpah, in his 1977 effort "Cross of Iron", darred to look at the war throught German eyes. Thus becoming one of the handful of directors with the audacity to view the German soldiers as a humans, and not as faceless barbarians. Based upon a novel by Willi Heinrich, Cross of Iron is the tale of Steiner, and his troops fight for survival on the Taman peninsula in 1943. Thought it is not near the final stages of the war as many believe, the film depicts the turning of the tables in favor of the Soviets; after the losses at Stalingrad and Kursk. This gritty, unflinching and realistic portrail of combat on the eastern front, seems more stunning if you keep in mind the budget restraints. Authentic in almost every aspect, all the vehicles, weaponry and uniforms all flawless. The Wehrmacht soldiers are dirty and unreasted as they would be during uncessant battle, unlike many a war film which have the soldiers clean and proper. Also during filming, Soviet T-34 tanks acquired from the Czech Republic, were administered during a skirmish. At the time Peckinpah was addicted to coccain and was an alcoholic, yet through all the self-inflicted harm of his reckless life style, his directing capability remained unscathed. The Sam we know from the "Wild Bunch" and "Straw Dogs" is still here, with the slow-motion seens of carnage and his trademark "zooms". But aside from his usual hallmarks, he also give use a personal view of combat. Sam doesn't want to be a spectator, he wants to be a participant, and in doing so he lets us experience the noise, confusion and horror of the Russan front. The film though however great, is not without flaws. First off the casting is questionable, James Mason, David Warner and James Coburn seem somewhat out of place. Being either American of British they could have made a more conscious effort to sustain a fluent german accent. There also is some scenes, a lack of light, which can cause some confusion. Still Sam Peckinpah has left us with an enduring and powerful statement about war, honor, survival and friendship in a world gone mad.

The Idiot: Simon Gurney
I disagree entirely with what that idiot simon gurney said. I read the novel and have seen the film, and not only is it a faithful adaptation, but the few changes which are made only ameliorate the story. I find your comment on the quality of the action scenes offensive. Perhaps you could offer me an example of better ones in a war film. Maybe if you werent so ignorant to history, you could tell just how well done those scenes are, they convey perfecly the madness, and confusion of the desperate days of the Third Reich. I do not think it is proper for you to to critize a film which you yourself have yet to watch in its entirety. I hope others will not be fooled by your groundless comments, thus missing one of the few great war films.

Not exactly a classic, but better than most WW2 films
I would rate it 3.5 stars, because it's better than average as compared to other ww2 films however there are a few small problems I have with this movie. First off, the opening minutes contain scenes of implied homosexulaity between the german soldiers. I'm not sure the accuracy of this, although no doubt it probably did happen, but seems to be a fairly important point thoughout parts of this movie. If this is supposed to further convince the audience of the depraved nature of the soldiers, it works in that regard but it is quite obvious that they are depraved anyway and that added nothing to the storyline nor to the plot.

The other problem I have is, although most of the battle scenes contain close to accurate german and russian weapons, the overhead bombing scenes contain shots of U.S. navy corsairs dropping bombs. These were probably stock footage taken from a navy film and look horribly out-of place here.

But despite those two issues, most of the rest of the movie is good and portrays an accurate, interesting and engaging portrait of battle in the russian theatre during ww2. I especially liked the use of light as most of the battle scenes were shot as daytime attacks and that indeed was the way it happened on the russian front. The sneak attack at the bridge by Steiner's platoon was filmed and sequenced to show all of the moves by the attackers, leaving nothing hidden or off camera. Certainly an interesting way to portray this kind of sequence and it came out quite effectively.

Sam Peckinpah uses the slow motion to good effect and has indeed changed the face of war films circa 1977. Every war movie that was released after this movie tends to show a more grimmer and graphic view of war and that is certainly how it should be done as there is nothing glorious or heroic about war. Those are the words used by the politicians that order people to fight each other to the death.

Great casting, excellent camera work and a good story combined with music that adds a sense of innocence lost and horror to the subject, all ad up to not quite a classic but a very good depiction of ww2 battle action in the Russian theatre. ... Read more

Description

Starring Uma Thurman (THE AVENGERS, PULP FICTION), Gerard Depardieu (THE CLOSET), and Tim Roth (ROB ROY), VATEL is based on the true story of an ordinary man, a decadent king, and the woman caught between them! In the west of France, Prince de Conde has a scheme to save his bankrupt province: he'll regain the favor of King Louis XIV with a weekend of spectacle and merriment. The plan's success rests with Vatel (Depardieu), the one man who can deliver sumptuous food, elaborate amusements, and all-out decadence fit for this king. But in the midst of it all, Vatel catches the eye of the beautiful Anne (Thurman) ... and places himself in direct competition with the King! Visually stunning and grandly entertaining, it's a motion picture you must see to believe! ... Read more

Reviews (28)

Spectacle
"Vatel", is a beautiful film to watch, with the staged entertainments providing the cinematography for a story that tries to keep up with the visual displays. Seventeenth Century France is the setting for this true story of Vatel, the master steward that is charged with entertaining the King during his visit to his employer's home. Gerard Depardieu plays Vatel and is supported by a wonderful cast including Uma Thurman, Tim Roth, Julian Glover, Timothy Spall, and Julian Sands. Roth's character is a bit reminiscent of the insouciant character he played in, "Rob Roy".

This costume period piece is one of the better that I have seen. The DVD includes a mini documentary specifically on the costuming that is well worth watching. I do wish they offered as much insight in to the entertainments that were created by Vatel. Even the food is remarkable with the detailed creation of flower arrangements and vases made entirely from candy that are indistinguishable from their living, or crystal counterparts.

The story goes beyond pure spectacle to include unrequited love, and the same displays that are so spectacular, also are portrayed as such egregious excess that the invention of the guillotine is very understandable. The pampering of the King is shown to a level that goes beyond absurd to almost obscene. The hundreds upon hundreds of people that are exploited for the most outrageous frivolity for the royal court's amusement foretell of the day the peasants will destroy the caricatures the King and his court are.

The causes of tragedy in this film are many; there is love, and also the realization of what it is people are used for as opposed to what they believe they create. There is an illusion of control and responsibility that once dispelled is devastating.

The story is not the strongest, but the beauty of the film makes it a very worthwhile event to watch.

A vivid rendering of royal extravagance
It's 1671, and the King of France, Louis XIV, is looking for a general to carry war to the insufferably insolent Dutch. One of his nobles, the Prince de Condé, wants the job, thinking such royal favor will relieve his chronic impoverishment. The Prince's strategy to entice the sovereign's attention is ... well, to throw a lavish party, of course. VATEL is Condé's master of the kitchen and entertainment planner for the big event, for which the King, his Queen, and a large coterie of sycophants will descend upon the Prince's country estate to be lavishly fed, housed, and amused for several days. The expense and bother of it all will be staggering.

Gérard Depardieu, Julian Sands and Julian Glover play the roles of VATEL, Louis XIV and Condé respectively. Additionally, Uma Thurman plays Anne de Montausier, the King's favorite "lady-in-waiting". ("Waiting for what?" would be an obtuse question.) And, Tim Roth has the role of the creepy Marquis de Lauzan, one of the monarch's carousing buddies.

The best elements of this outstanding film are the opulent costuming and production design. Indeed, the culmination to the King's entertainment is a sensational "live event" that is itself an eye-popping spectacle within a spectacle. Depardieu, relatively unknown to American audiences, gives a bravura performance as the over-worked, hard-pressed and self-sacrificing major domo struggling to make his boss look good on a shoestring budget. (His contribution to the alleviation of Condé's gout is particularly heart wrenching.) Roth, in a style he does so well, is exquisitely slimy as the villainous Marquis. Thurman is fetching as a young woman not yet too debased to not want something better out of her life.

In my opinion, VATEL should have won an Academy Award for art direction if nothing else. Visually, it's a truly sumptuous piece. The viewer will leave the screening disgusted at the extravagant excesses of past royalty, but certainly impressed with the flash of their presentation.

Not such a swell party
The biggest French box-office disaster in recent memory (it lost more money than Heaven's Gate, wiped out the massive profits of Asterix et Obelix Contre Cesar and nearly took Gaumont with it), this pretty much completes Roland Joffe's unbroken post-The Mission run of box-office and artistic failure. While not as bad as The Scarlet Letter, it's also not as much fun. Unfortunately, this is the kind of film Martha Stewart or Delia Smith might appreciate, but few others will.

It all starts off so well. So well that I was wondering why this has such a bad reputation, but it quickly becomes apparent that it really is just a film about a lavish three-day party seen from the point of view of the caterers. The fact that the party is thrown for the Sun King gives it plenty of visual opulence, but the lack of substance becomes more and more apparent as it drags on towards the third day - it's definitely one of those parties that goes on way too long and which you should have left much earlier while it was still in full swing. When one of the characters kills themselves because there aren't enough fish to go around and the script strains to turn it into an act of revolt against a world where nobility of the spirit counts less than accidents of birth, you know that someone's reading a little too much into it.

Gerard Depardieu looks alarmingly unhealthy throughout, Tim Roth gives a very bored reprise of his Rob Roy party piece and the wooden Uma Thurman is borderline disastrous/vaguely competent (the scene where she stops the wind by force of will is one of the most laughable pieces of face pulling in recent years). The supporting cast fare better - mostly Brits like Julian Glover, Timothy Spall, Richard Griffiths and Julian Sands. Shot in English, it is very odd to note that Depardieu is dubbed for the odd few words (but rarely full sentences) by another, very British sounding actor. Maybe he was too ill to make the ADR sessions.

It is lavish and you can see where the money was spent, you just can't see why.

(A version of this review appeared in Movie Collector magazine)

A fine spectacle, but paper-thin story
I have a soft spot for custom dramas. I enjoy all the lavish customs, the meticulously researched sets and the witty and elegant banter unachievable in non-celloid life.

With that said, I didn't like Vatel, which had all of the above qualities. This is due to a lack of remotely serviceable story.

Louis the 14th is visiting the estate of Prince de Conde, who hopes to wrangle an army commande from the king to pay off his heavy debts. His faithful steward, Vatel, is charged with ensuring that the King's visit will be memorable one. Vatel is a genius in all the arts of housekeeping and entertaining, a veritable 17th century Martha Stewart. Of course, when the House of Bourbon come a calling, the word "entertaining" acquire a whole new level of meaning. Throughout the movie we are treated to one dazzling set piece after another of Vatel's epic efforts.

Unfortunately, the highlights are overshadowed by very underwhelming story and characters. The central romance between Vatel and the lady-in-waiting generate less electricity than a AAA battery, and is implausible to boot. Bobbing along in the movie is a theme of a decent man standing up to a world of corruption. But with most of the filmmaker's effort focused on the lavish parties, it quickly gets lost amidst all the fireworks, ice-sculptures and food-preparation.

Of course, all that is pretty enjoyable to watch. Your eyes will have a feast, but it's mostly empty calories.

The dignity's triumph against the decay
A brave and overwhelming movie. Ronald Joffe (a true master director)(The mission) describes carefully the efforts and creative virtues of Vatel, a true artist in the sense of that Jean Renoir statement: The art is not a job; it's the way you make that job".
All the corrupt and decadent atmosphere that surrounds the Kingdom and the Court of Louis XIV are shown through a powerful script and very brief but also bitter dialogues, and an amazing employment of the visual and corporal languages.

The direction is first rate , the astonishing visual angles are supported by a descriptive style, breathtaking "travellings" , monumental images and a superb cast. Depardieu show us once more why he's a living legend and one of the top twenty actors in the world; the exquisite and exceptionally gifted and beautiful Uma Thurman gives probably the most powerful performance in her career and obviously Tim Roth, amazing as always.
Watch this film. You'll be widely rewarded.
You'll feel and experience that special rapture , a trademark of the masterpieces ... Read more