Reviews (74)

Appropriate adaptation
When asked what he thought of Kubrick's film of Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov said it was a "first-rate" film by an "artist." Even though only about twenty percent of his script made it into the final movie product, Nabokov was obviously impressed. The theatrical trailers ask the question, "How did they ever make a film of Lolita?" The only way, in 1962, a movie could be made about such a controversial subject was if it was presented as a comedy. James Mason as Humbert Humbert is excellent--speaks volumes with his eyes. Perhaps Sue Lyon as Lolita is a bit too old--she certainly doesn't fit the strict definition of a nymphet (aged 9-14, as the book mentions), although she was, I believe, 13 when the filming started. Maybe Peter Sellers as Quilty isn't as serious as his character may warrant, and may steal some scenes with his impersonations. But so what? We're talking about a movie made in the early sixties--the theatre audience has certain expectations.

Girls Mature Faster than James Mason
From the moment Humbert Humbert (James Mason) sees Lolita (Sue Lyons) lounging on the grass in her backyard in bikini and sunglasses, he's befuddled. Ain't no way he's gonna pass up renting a room from Lolita's mom, Mrs. Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters) now. So the emigre spends the summer mooning after the 13-year-old nymphette while holding off the advances of the amorous landlady, as author Clare Quilty (Peter Sellers) and his beatnik girlfriend make a big splash at the local dance.

I enjoyed "Lolita" immensely, much more than I thought I would, although I didn't expect the movie to take the plot twists it did, some of which are quite jarring.

Still, the actors are all first-rate. James Mason does a great job as Humbert, appropriately out of it for some scenes, conveying a certain nonconversance with the English language without feigning any sort of accent different from his own famous one. Sue Lyons does the bored teenager quite well, very naturalistic. The real startler, though, is Peter Sellers, whose American accent is right on the money, and who manages to contrive several subcharacters within Clare Quilty. It's a pity, really, that he got so bogged down with Inspector Clousseau and didn't display the full range he might have more often.

Make a date soon to find out "How did they ever make a movie out of Lolita?" and see if you are as helpless as poor James Mason.

Nice movie, but it's not Nabokov's "Lolita"
If ever the statement that the movie is not as good as the book is true, it applies to Kubrick's "Lolita". I really like the movie on its own, but it bears little resemblance to the novel (my favorite) other than young girl/old man, the names, and the broadest structure of the story.

Problem areas:

1. Age - by Humbert's definition, a nymphet is between 9 and 14 years old. Sue Lyons was too old, and looked even older. Mason was about 10 years too old as well, and not really the "glamor man" Lo would be attracted to (as in the book).
2. Disregard for the content of the novel - by ignoring the screenplay written by the original author and making up other scenes that were not part of the book, it makes one wonder what story was being told.
3. Location - in the novel, Humbert and Lolita travel 27,000 miles in the course of a couple years, and geography plays a substantial part in the book. Filming in England provides little geography and motel-hopping lifestyle that was so prevalent in the novel.
4. The same three things in both versions of the movie bother me, as I feel it robs Humbert of some nuance to his character:
A. No mention of his pre-Lolita first wife, Valeria. He was not always just into nymphets.
B. No mention of his post-Lolita second wife, Rita, (and taping a goodbye note to her navel so she would find it as he goes off to track down Lo).
C. The last page-and-a-half from the book was left out. This is possibly the most moving passage of the novel - when Humbert offers his apology for all his nastiness, and his admonition to Lolita, and the revelation that neither Lolita nor Humbert are alive as we read the book, and his pathetic summation..."I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita." It ties everything together and completes the circle.

Strengths:

1. Acting - this was good by the 4 prime characters - Lolita (Sue Lyons), Humbert (James Mason), Charlotte (Shelley Winters) and Quilty (Peter Sellers).
2. Cinematography - nicely filmed, in black-and-white.

This is a good movie - but it certainly is not Nabokov's "Lolita".

The Remake is a Better Film
I was surprised, after seeing both versions of Lolita back to back, that again and again people were calling the original a classic, even a masterpiece, while never having seen the 1997 version.

The original is drab, lacking in sensuality, atmosphere and character depth. Yes, the first hour is devoted to the household of Lo with her mother and more time is devoted to Quilty, who is distractingly entertaining in a number of unnecessary scenes.

Yes, Kubrick is regarded as one of the best filmmakers of all time. But this film is proof that even artists have their limitations when it comes to theme and mood. Kubrick has never been sexy or warm, not even perverse, as Humbert must be explored in all of these contexts as an adult in love with a child.

The story is about the exchange of power and affection between two individuals who should not be indulging in such an unhealthy intimacy. It is not about Charlotte getting drunk at a party, or how many accents Sellers can provide, it is about a human connection and the audiences' judgement of that connection.

It is interesting that Nabakov wrote the screenplay- when he had created such a lusty, colorful novel as Lolita. All color, literally, is lost in the 2 act film adaptation. Lyne made a film with vision, beauty and disturbing performances that do the novel justice. It gives a lot for an artist to think about when the best choices for a film is other than one of the world's most renowned directors and the novel's own author . . .

Pretty great
Do yourself a favor-and see this version of Lolita before you, or if you ever do get around to watching the 1997 film.This movie captures the novel's essence a whole lot more; not to mention, it's superbly acted and written, and feautures an array of great scenes.

James Mason is wonderful as Humbert Humbert. Stiff and charming and doomed all at the same time, he conveys his characters' feelings perfectly.Shelly Winters is an absolute riot and adds all the spunk and humor to the first part of the film.Peter Sellers works in some great lines as the pathetic Quilty, and Sue Lyons; well, she's not much of an actress, and she's a tad too old for the part.But the age gap is hardly noticeable, and one doesn't need to be much of an actress in order to convey the part of Lolita-she's more like a backdrop to the movie than an actual character. Yes, things get a bit drab in the end-the movie is certainly a whole lot more fun and irresistable in the beginning,due partly to the presence of Shelly Winters. And this film lacks the emotional impact, although I'm pretty sure it was intended as more of a dark comedy than a drama.

I don't think this movie is worthy of classic status or anything, but it's quite a great film.It's got great performances, and the script is absolute perfection,a marvel, I can't tell you how good it is(written by Nabokov himself).It's definately worth a watch, whatever your tastes.Don't expect to be blown away, but do expect to be fairly pleased, as all in all, this is a fine film.And if you're really,really curious, well then read the novel, which is more dense and difficult than one would imagine. ... Read more

Reviews (90)

Worthy viewing, sharp look at class culture of the period
While you may find the story bleak going at times, the authentic period details and stunning homes of the time will keep your attention during the slower portions of this film. Gillian Anderson is surprisingly good in her role as Lily, a woman who is both naively unaware of the conventions and manners of the day as well as admirably independent in her own way. Unfortunately, Lily makes some mistakes which "compromise" her and set her course for life, a course that spirals steadily downward. What makes this movie particulary moving, to my mind, was watching Lily fall from a possible place in the upper classes, a place she was never sure she wanted in the first place. By the end of the movie, it is clear that she regrets her choice. A convincing portrait of a particular woman in a particular time, well-acted by Gillian Anderson. Strong supporting roles by Dan Ackroyd, Laura Linney, Eric Stoltz.

TRAGIC
....but not dreary
This film is MORE than pretty costumes and beautiful sets.
The acting on ALL PARTS is very good. Gillian Anderson surprised me, I like her in her role as Scully on the X-files but didn't expect her to pull this off...I was wrong

Based on a story by Edith Wharton, and set in New York in the early turn of the 20th century.
Gillian Anderson plays Lily Bart. She lives with her aunt who gives her a modest allowance. Lily has a taste for luxury and insists she pays her own way, she plays bridge for money, creating debts...she's very naive

She has many influencial suitors and could easily marry. But she's in love with Lawrence Selden (Stoltz) a lawyer. Who is equally in love with Lily, but neither seem to want to marry.

One of her suitors, a married investor "Gus" Trenor, offers to invest some money for her, ending with a sum of $9,000. She spends it, only to learn that it was actually his money. She can't do what he expects from her, so now she's in debt to him.

She becomes in posession of some letters which could be very damaging to her married friend Bertha Dorset (Linney) ; which Bertha had written to Lawrence Selden. Bertha seems to be in an unhappy marriage with her husband George, George tells Lily, if it wasn't for her he would had left Bertha long ago.

Tensions grow between Bertha & Lily, when Lily accompanies them on their yacht. Bertha goes off with a man and doesn't come back to the boat until 7.00 A.M. When Lily approaches her, Bertha turns on her and makes a scene at a dinner party, telling Lily she won't be allowed back on the yacht with her and George.

Her aunt dies and instead of leaving everything to Lily (like everyone expected) Lily only gets $10,000. Which will have to go directly to Mr. Trenor. Mr. Rosedale ( Anthony La Paglia) offers to marry her, only if she uses the letters against Bertha, which would "redeem" Lily in the eyes of her society..."It'd be so easy" she'd have Bertha in the palm of her hand.
She declines... Mr. Selden is also tied to the letters

She instead enters the working class, attempting apprenticeship at millinery, but that doesn't work. Mrs. Hatch takes her in to keep track of her appointments and fill her prescribtions, but lets her go; she fears Lily's reputation might taint her... Lily leaves Mrs Hatch but keeps one of her prescriptions......

Lily refuses all offers of help, even Mr. Rosedale's offer to pay off her debt to Mr. Trenor..she won't swallow her pride, and wants to go it alone.....to the tragic end...

Gillian Anderson is enjoyable, her portrayal is fresh & poignant . Laura Linney is always good, as is Eric Stoltz and Anthony La Paglia. Hopefully we will be seeing more of Gillian Anderson.

It IS a long movie just over 2 1/2 hours, but I hardly noticed. Perhaps not the kind of movie you could watch over and over. But it's a good movie.

Heartbreaking
Couldn't help but feel the pain that the heroine went through. Wonderful film. I was surprised by Gillian Anderson's suberb acting because I had only seen her in the television show "X-Files". I would recommend this film to anyone who is patient to watch this film and who has an appreciating for tragic stories.

Disappointing
It doesn't seem to matter how good a story is, and The house of Mirth is good, casting the right players makes the difference between great and dismal. Dan Akroyd seems to be reading his lines off a nearby wall. Gillian Anderson is beautiful but doesn't elicit sympathy for her role as 'heroine led astray'. Eric Stoltz is a fantastic actor but even he seems to struggle. The movie has sumptuous wardrobe and settings done with meticulous detail. Even so,it's hard to watch without wincing at Akroyd's embarrassing performance or hoping that the heroine falls in the mud.

Uneven performance
The biggest flaw to this movie is the uneven performance put up by Anderson. She is great in the first half an hour, but her performance degenerates into pity (much like the character she plays) and unconvincing for the rest of the film. Aykroyd just looks and acts ridiculous as the married seducer, probably the worst cast role in the film. For some reason I never developed a full sympathy for Lily Bart. It could have been a great film, but the rather theatrical direction leave the film cold. ... Read more

Reviews (74)

All about the Bolger sisters (and Samantha Morton)
'In America' is a quasi-autobiographical work penned by director Jim Sheridan and daughters Naomi and Kirsten (herself a director). I added "quasi" because a little research turns up that Jim Sheridan had a brother Frankie who passed away in tragic circumstances (I'm not giving anything away by telling you that). That character woven into the 'In America' story in conjunction with the story that is obviously the current Sheridan family's own: Irish mother and father with two young girls in tow trying to make it as immigrants in a hardscrabble NYC neighborhood in the early eighties.

Real-life sisters Sarah and Emma Bolger play what are obviously the on-screen portrayals of Sheridan siblings Kirsten and Naomi. Emma - playing younger sister Ariel - is adorable right from the get go. Older sister Sarah is the mature, world-weary (but still sweet) Christy. When she tells her father "I've been carrying this family on my back for over a year," believe it. And don't miss her stark, beautiful rendering of 'Desperado.' Perfect.

In case you can't tell, I was enchanted by these two girls. But Samantha Morton is a treat, too. She was wonderful but obscured as the pre-cog in the fine Cruise/Spielberg film 'Minority Report.' Here, she's front and center and luminous.

Fanciful but Poignant Story of Recovery. And a Great Cast.
An Irish family, grief-stricken after the death of their young son, moves to New York City to start their lives afresh. With little to their names besides the clothes on their backs, Sarah (Samantha Morton), Johnny (Paddy Constantine), and their two daughters, Christy (Sarah Bolger) and Ariel (Emma Bolger), move into a run-down tenement occupied mostly by drug addicts and misfits. The girls make the acquaintance of a reclusive African artist (Djimon Hounsou) who lives downstairs from them, and that unusual friendship helps see the family through their grief and recover their hope for the future and for each other.

"In America" was inspired by two events in the life of its writer and director, Jim Sheridan. Sheridan's brother died when he was a child, and, as an adult, he illegally immigrated with his family to New York in the 1980s. Sheridan has combined these two seminal events into one generation with the help of his two daughters, Naomi and Kirsten Sheridan, who contributed their childhood memories to the screenplay. "In America" is the story of a family that deals with great loss by uprooting itself and making a new life in an entirely different environment. Already emotionally estranged from one another, they become strangers in a new world. Once a working class family in Ireland, they now struggle with poverty in New York. And this somehow cures their ills. While I was watching this film, I was captivated by its dreamlike quality and impressed with the terrific cast. The story is narrated by Christy, a precocious 10-year-old who documents her world and her feelings with her ever-present camcorder. The actresses who play Christy and her younger sister Ariel really are sisters, and they give some of the most charming and impressive performances by child actors that I have ever seen. Samantha Morton is also particularly good as their broken-hearted mother, Sarah. The character that serves as a catalyst for emotional change, Mateo, the artist downstairs, is little more than a cliché, although Djimon Hounsou plays him well. After I had thought about the film for a few hours, I began to realize that the story is more contrived than I had originally noticed. Mateo is far from being the only cliché, and living in destitution doesn't provide opportunities for emotional epiphanies. It is, in fact, very dangerous, exhausting, and depressing. But as I counted "In America"'s contrivances and preposterous elements, I was also struck by the fact that I wasn't inclined to think about them as I was watching the movie. That's because "In America"'s dreamlike quality and its engaging performances overcome its lapses in credibility. I don't know that this film is supposed to be literally believable. The family's emotional journey is poignant and rings of truth. The details are a little fantastic. But it is told through the memories of a child, which may partly explain its uneven realism. Memory is highly subjective, in any case; its only what one person noticed and clung to. I recommend "In America" for its fine performances and its unique and slightly fanciful perspective.

sweet film about family, loss and new beginnings
This story, about an Irish family that immigrates to Manhattan after the death of a son, is a sweet film about family, loss and new beginnings.

What I liked best about the movie were the very strong performances by the two young girls and the neighbor, Mateo.

On the down side, I sometimes found the Irish accents hard to understand and details were sometimes unrealistic.

The story wasn't strong enough for me to consider it outstanding, but it's an interesting watch, a nice change of pace from Hollywood and a good family film.

Thoughtful...Emotional...Powerful
This is a film that will haunt for some time. The acting is superb; the script well-written. It is a true gem, quite different from Hollywood fare.

American Dreams
In America is a caring movie about an American dream that comes true. It's a sweet movie, with great acting from everyone. A true joy. ... Read more

Description

Sharpe is back in England with his reputation fully restored. He is ordered to the north where he is to command the local militia in a troubled town. It is here that Sharpe faces an agonizing decision - whether to side with the town's corrupt gentry or to support his own kind, the rough and tough of the world who are abused by their superiors. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

COOL
I love Sharpe and i love the books to so buy the dvd's and books

lov Strawberry

Sharpe's not the same
The formula for Sharpe's success is fairly straightforward: a good dose of military mayhem, strong (and often quirky) supporting characters, beautiful ladies (preferably a new one each episode), period locales and costumes, and - most importantly - a gorgeous hero, and you're almost guaranteed success. We all know Sharpe is brilliant as a swashbuckling Napoleonic soldier, out on the front lines (of the battlefield or the bedroom, it really doesn't matter...)

But 'Justice' tampers with this formula, and the film suffers for it. It's one of the two Sharpe films (made in the 1990s for British ITV) that is based on an original script, not a Cornwell novel.

Instead of his usual stomping-ground, the Peninsular Wars, Sharpe is at home in Yorkshire in 'Justice'. Here we have an innate problem: we feel most at home with Sharpe when he's out capturing Eagles or laying siege to French castles. Here, the military element is missing, so Sharpe must instead find enemies in the local robber-baron aristocracy (and his unprintable word of a wife, the harridan Jane, who ran off with a foppish aristocrat but unfortunately inherited a house right next door to where Sharpe is stationed).

Add into the mix the tired cliche of The Unknown Brother Whom One Grew Up With But Did Not Realise Was A Relative, and what the viewer is left with is a rather unsatisfying exploit in the British countryside. Sure, Sharpe does eventually save the day (after a great deal of emotional bandying-about), but the bravado and adrenaline of the Continent is missing, and it shows.

Sharpe meets reality head on
In this episode, Sharpe has some of the wind taken out of his sails and meets reality head on. For Sharpe and Harper it's not a hero's welcome ! Facing his past, Sharpe renews old friendships (and enemies) from his childhood, but the plot is NOT from one of Cornwell's novels, but was penned in part by John Tams (Rifleman Hagman) and it flows well. The characters are not too "cartoonish" and there is enough intrigue, skullduggery and romance to go around. There are some surprises and some predictable turns, but I was satisfied with the outcome.

You Can't Go Home Again...
1814 - the war is over, and Sharpe, like many other unemployed soldiers, goes back to England to seek work. He is assigned to Yorkshire, where he was born, as head of local yeomen serving a corrupt cotton mill baron that oppresses the workers. As Sharpe discovers things are not as black and white as they seem, which side will he choose? The people he left 20 years ago, or the establishment that's fed him for all those years?

This is an original story, not based on any of the novels, but it's interesting for a couple of reasons. One is that it firmly establishes that the TV Sharpe at least is born in Yorkshire - a given, because of Sean Bean's accent, but in the books he was supposed to be a Londoner. Another, more historical reason, is that it deals with the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars in England, which Cornwell never did get around to doing. It is true that the countryside was filled with many now jobless soldiers, and also true that the Industrial Revolution was starting to make its presence felt. While the labour movement may not have started this early, it's still an interesting look at the times. But is it Sharpe?

As much as I'm not fond of Sharpe's previous return to England (see my review of "Sharpe's Regiment"), I find myself liking this one, just to see Sharpe's backstory being developed. We find out more about how he grew up, his regret at not knowing who his mother was, and how uncomfortable Sharpe is with the war hero image that he's earned. As an added bonus, we get to see the incredibly beautiful and sexy Caroline Langrishe back as Lady Anne Camoyne, whose skills at political intrigue pull Sharpe out of the fire yet again. I'll even forgive them for adding the estranged Jane Sharpe to the mix, as the little minx actually shows a little fire of her own (the last scene with Sharpe here is particularly harsh).

If the series had ended here it would have been a fine coda (albeit with a few loose ends). But we know it doesn't, not when there's the biggest of battles to fight. So it becomes just a little filler in between "Revenge" and that little contretemps at Waterloo... ... Read more

Amazon.com

Danis Tanovic's Academy Award®-winning satire of the war in the Balkans is an astounding balancing act, an acidic black comedy grounded in the brutality and horror of war. Stuck in an abandoned trench between enemy lines, a Serb and a Bosnian play the blame game in a comic tit-for-tat struggle while a wounded Bosnian soldier lies helplessly on a land mine. A French tank unit of the U.N.'s humanitarian force (known locally as "the Smurfs"), a scheming British TV reporter, a German mine defuser, and the U.N. high command (led by a bombastically ineffectual Simon Callow) all become tangled in the chaotic rescue as the tenuous cease-fire is only a spark away from detonation. Tanovic directs with a ferocious, angry eloquence and makes his points with vivid metaphors and a savage humor as harrowing as it is hilarious. Searing and smart, this satire carries an emotional recoil. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (67)

Best of 2001 --No Man's Land
It's hard to believe this perfectly balanced very funny, dark war satire is the debut feature of writer-director Danis Tanovic. The film has been winning various Festival awards and took the best screenplay prize at Cannes.

I'll keep quiet about the too much of the plot because the film
is full of small moments that work best if they surprise you.

If you have the idea that this film is only about two guys in a trench who do some decent contemporary updated variation of Waiting for Godot you're in for a big surprise. There's a lot that transpires in the course of the film and characters do not just include a Serbian and Bosnian Soldier but others as well including a female t.v. reporter, several French members of a U.N. peacekeeping unit, a British commander (played by the only face some will recognize in the film: Simon Callow), a German bomb expert and others.

This is a sharp witty clever satire that is closer in spirit to
Preston Sturges and Duck Soup, than to Stanley Kubrick but isn't any less poignant in what it has to say about war, particularly the kind of wars fought throughout the middle east.

The film-maker is neutral and refuses to take sides, but the message of the film is clearly that remaining neutral in a conflict allows more killing and brutality to occur.

The film consistently surprises you. You literally aren't sure what will happen from moment to moment. Sometimes nothing, sometimes a great deal. Sometimes it's cruel, sometimes it's
laugh out loud funny, often it's both. Why are we looking at this beautiful shot of clouds and blue sky at one point in the film? Because it's what that guy on his back sees. But we don't realize that right away.

The film isn't flawless. The main problem that's set up surely isn't quite the un-solvable problem it is portrayed to be, but that is also the point about how absurd conflicts often can be.
With every scene the film opens up. The tension increases and then we get to laugh a little more than we should and tension is relieved as the the conflict grows and gets less personal, but then the film comes full circle and delivers what it must--what we expected but almost forgot. It leaves us with a haunting image that reminds us what the stakes have always been. It's not exactly a surprise ending, but it's an ending that has been arrived at without the kind of crass trickery and pretenses we normally get in war films and particularly films that are war satires. There are so many way this film could have and probably should have failed, but instead It's not only successful it also feels fresh and sharp.

No Man's Land is a superb film, it's smart, funny and has something to say. Put it at the top of your list and see it very soon.

Christopher Jarmick, is the author of The Glass Cocoon with
Serena F. Holder a critically acclaimed, steamy suspense thriller.

Meaningful rather than just skillful.
Equal parts humor and horror, Danis Tanovic displays superior directorial ability in "No Man's Land," which goes against the normal traditional war films, and takes a stand against its subject matter. Through the use of extremely dark and satirical humor, the film is a testament to the various absurdities of war, from the hatred those who fight it continually manufacture, to the senselessness of everything that goes on around its characters.

The story is filled with many characters, all of which play important roles in bringing forth the central message. The three men at the center of the mayhem are Bosnian soldiers Chiki (Branko Djuric) and his longtime pal Cera (Filip Sovagovic), both of whom are part of a relief team that becomes massacred by Serbian soldiers. After the bloodshed, Chiki finds himself in a trench between enemy lines, his entire team murdered before him.

Soon after, the Serbs send two men to search for survivors of the onslaught to take as prisoners. One of these men is Nino (Rene Bitorajac), a new addition to the front lines, and a nameless man who is killed when Chiki open fires on the two intruders. Nino is wounded, and taken prisoner, while Cera, who was wounded but not killed, regains consciousness only to discover that Nino and his comrad placed a bouncing mine underneath his "dead" body moments before they were taken down.

As the men begin bickering, Tanovic makes good use of the opportunity he is given, instilling the characters with black humor that is both humorous and meaningful when pondered. During an artillery storm, Chiki and Nino bicker over whose side it was that started the war; Chiki later ends the argument by pointing a gun at his enemy and forcing an admission of guilt from him, which Nino later uses against him once the power changes hands.

Moments such as these provide a hearty dose of laughs, but they go much further than that. The unusual relationship between Chiki and Nino takes many turns; at one point, they make the discovery of a mutual friend between the two of them, and they share a happy moment. In another time and place, these two men would be the best of friends; in this time and place, they hate each other because they are told to. This juxtaposition of different moments of friendship and angst brings home the feeling of senselessness and frustration that accompanies wars, and the unending search for answers as to its purpose.

Tanovic also chooses to instill much more into the film through various other well-drawn characters. A striving female reporter played by Katrin Cartlidge is a halting reminder of the exploitation of war through the media, while the U.N. high official, played by Simon Callow, is a provocative display of the indifference of other countries in such trying times. As the leader of a French unit in the humanitarian forces of the U.N., Marchand, played by Georges Siatidis, seems to have the clearest understanding of the events going on around him ("You can't be neutral facing murder. Doing nothing to stop it is taking sides.").

The beauty of a film like "No Man's Land" is its complexity: every subplot, every character and their hidden themes, all relates back to Cera, lying on his back with a mine underneath him. Each complex character, whether it be out of friendship, remorse for the placement of the mine, hunger for a breaking news story, or the yearning to make an impact on the ongoing battle in hopes of bringing it to an end, all of these messages are interconnected in a way that makes the film meaningful rather than just skillful.

A Film about Human Nature & War
A satire not only on the Balkan war, but also on human frailties and the follies of human institutions as a whole: Once the dark side of human nature is triggered, destruction is a River of No Return.

Where does truth lie: with those holding the gun wielding power? Was the United Nations, vested with the greatest power in this matter, in fact taking side by literaly taking no side? Wasn't the Commander General of the UN army (a British) who wouldn't like to get involved, wise after all: Wasn't the result much the same despite all the efforts? Were the media, exposing the inertia of UN army, doing anybody any service other than themselves? Was the French troop necessarily more helpful by being warm hearted than the British? If so, where did it lead us to?

The film is more like a play than a movie, but we don't need much settings anyway. There is bloodshed but never too bloody, only sadness and definitely not a boredom. You can easily finish it, so to speak, within one breath. However, note that the photos on the box of the DVD are not equally attractive. It may even be misleading at least until you have finished watching the film.

Three Men and a Buried Mine in a Trench
"No Man's Land," starring Branko Djuric as Ciki (pronounced Tcheeky) and Rene Bitorajac as Nino shows the pragmatics of war. These two men represent each side of the Serbian-Bosnian conflict.

Both are convinced that the other side started it, and later, both are convinced the other side is bombing them directly. Both learn of the injustices done in the name of war done by their own side.

The tension of the story is not the war, but the survival of three men, Ciki, Nino, and Cera (pronounced Tsera, played by Filip Sovagovic).

Ciki, a Bosnian, and Nino, a Serb, end up in a foxhole. Neither wants to be there, and both need the other to get out alive. They don't care about the other, even as they find some common ground like a former lover they each had. The war and its wage of death is the vault between them truly acknowledging the other's humanity, but they lean on each other awkwardly, but effectively to persuade the UN to save them, and Cera, also a Bosnian.

The trouble is that Cera lays upon a mine that will detonate when he moves. Naturally, then, he stays still. The fear of the mine blowing up provides the need for them to work toward a solution. With no obvious fix, they attract the UN, who are a mix of competent and incompetent, passive and intentional leaders. The UN's indecisiveness jeopardizes the soldiers, and their philosophical unwillingness to resolve the problem only exacerbates the anger between the soldiers.

It carefully stands away from the divisive, bitter fight, indicating that the both sides aren't pure in motivation. Each character is so far removed from whatever started the conflict, that any ending becomes a tragedy.

There are two sides to any war: those who are governing it, and those who are fighting in it. Within that war, among those fighting in it, are two more sides: those who believe in the fight, and those conscripted to be there. All are part of this movie.

"No Man's Land" shows that the Big Muddy, as Pete Seeger once sang of WWII, is not just in 1942 or Vietnam. In the trenches, as a force of war's reality, evil occurs. It is the default of war that men are asked to kill, and it is the default of man that the living will die.

I fully recommend "No Man's Land." For a look at a similarly powerful movie about the Irish conflict, see Daniel Day-Lewis and Emma Thompson in 1994's "In the Name of the Father."

Anthony Trendl

Heartbreaking
This was an extremley disturbing movie but a brilliant work. It took a week for me to get over the movie.

This was the oscar winner when an indian film called Lagaan was nominated, and i wondered what could be better than a brilliantly made film like Lagaan. But after watching No mans Land, i think Lagaan really did not have even the slightest chance of winning the covetted oscars

Watch it people, it taught me to be more humble and humane in life ... Read more

Reviews (115)

A very touching biographical movie
Rabbit-Proof Fence is a true and real life biography of a girl being snapped away from her mother because she is a half-caste - offspring of a white man and an aboriginal woman. The movie has a very detail description of the intention of the Whilte Australians in the 30s to whiten all these children by removing them from their mothers, sending them to the training camps. The story depicted 3 girls running away from the camp and walked 1200 miles back home to reunite with their mother. The movie is very natural and touching that you will just be drawn inside the hearts of those girls, who has nothing but strong determination to go home and live a life they want. The movie also described the arrogance of the Whitle Australians until the 1970s, who tried every effort to justify their whitening process of this Stolen Generation. It is a very honest portray of the experience of Molly, who was unfortunately being forced into this generation and lived a wandering and heart breaking life due to this policy. It should be watched by all people so that we could learn to respect other people's life and culture as they are, instead of superimposing what we think is the best for them, for they might end up to be a curse of life for these people. This is a very touching and introspecting production that should not be missed. It does not attempt to achieve a melodramatic effect, but a simple honest reminder for respecting the aboriginals who are actually the native people who live on this island continent. Things haven't been really improved in Australian over the aboriginal issues, but this is a very good attempt to raise the conscious of people over the land that the White Australians conquered 200 years ago, and how much the mentality of some of these people have and have not changed. The cinematography is also spectacular. In all, this is not a movie to be missed.

Courage and determination during a dark chapter of history
Between 1905 and 1971, the Australian government had a horrible policy. They forcibly removed all half-caste Aboriginal children to special training schools. The grown daughter of one of these children wrote a book about her mother's experiences. This film is an adaptation of that book.

The story takes place in 1931, when Molly, then 14, her sister Daily, then 8, and her cousin Gracie, then 10, are literally torn from the arms of their mothers, put in a cage, and taken 1,200 miles away to a school which is actually a sort of prison. Here, they are forbidden to speak their own language, they have to attend a Christian church, and are taught the ways of the white Australian culture around them. Led by Molly, the girls run away. And most of the film is the odyssey of their trek back home, following the rabbit-proof fence that bisects Australia, constructed to keep rabbits out of the pastureland.

The villain is clearly the white director of the school. It is amazing, but he actually believes in the racial theories that were prevalent at the time. He believes he is helping them and plays his role well, coming across as stupid and misguided rather than evil. The Aboriginal girls are all unknowns, and terrific actresses, as are the women who play Molly and Daisy's mother and grandmother. The courage and determination of the girls during their three-month journey, the people they meet along the way, and their efforts to dodge the trackers who have been sent to retrieve them by the school, is truly inspiring. This is all set against the backdrop of the Australian outback; the cinematography certainly captures its beauty.

The film is 94 minutes long and moves quickly. I immediately identified with the girls and felt their fear as well as their bravery as they made their way across the Australian continent. In a postscript to the story, we learn more about their lives. It did not turn out to be pretty. But two of the girls have survived into their nineties, and we meet them briefly. They are strong women with weathered faces, one of them walking with a cane, but clearly at home in their Outback surroundings.

The film is a lesson in inspiration and courage as well as a geography and history lesson about Australia. I loved it and highly recommend it.

A Universal Wake Up Call
This is probably the most emotional a film has ever made me. It's powerful, disturbing, and full of hope in the same breath. For "westernized" reviewers who acknowledge the content of this movie as an atrocity, this film is a wake up call to truly challenge to your beliefs. If you were in the same situation as a white person in 1931, would you still feel the same as you do now after seeing the movie or would you believe assimilation was the right thing to do? The most important thing to take away from this film is to never forget.

"In spite of himself, the native must be helped."
Set in Australia's bleak outback, this 2002 film takes place in 1931, when white bureaucrats forced their own morality on aboriginal half-castes living in the bush. Believing that these half-white children "deserved" the "advantages" of "civilization," and convinced that in three generations their blackness could be "bred out," the Australian government forcibly removed them from their families, brought them to settlements hundreds of miles from their homes, and trained them to be domestic servants. Forty years later the government finally abandoned the policy, leaving a "Stolen Generation" in its wake. Molly Craig has long been the symbol of the Aborigines' refusal to accept this genocidal policy, and this film, brilliantly directed by Philip Noyce, celebrates her unconquerable spirit in the face of sanctioned governmental cruelty.

Molly Craig (Everlyn Sampi), her cousin Gracie (Laura Monaghan), and her sister (Tianna Sansbury), aged thirteen to eight, are cruelly removed from their mothers in Jigalong (Western Territories) and taken a thousand miles to the Moore River Native Settlement, which is directed by the self-righteous Mr. Neville (convincingly played by Kenneth Branagh), who believes in the inherent correctness of the resettlement policy. Placed in overcrowded dormitories, prohibited from using their own language, and required to live according to another world's rules, Molly, her sister, and her cousin decide to escape by following the 1500-mile "rabbit-proof fence," which borders both the settlement and their distant home. They must avoid detection by a hired Aborigine tracker (played menacingly by David Gulpilil) and by government workers and white settlers. For nine grueling weeks, the girls live virtually on their own, surviving through their ancestral knowledge of the land.

Written by Molly Craig's daughter, Doris Pilkington Garimara, who, later, was also removed from her mother Molly and forced to live in a settlement, the film is a moving celebration of the human spirit, a tribute to Molly Craig, and a plea to acknowledge the rights of aboriginal peoples, wherever they may live. The harsh and unforgiving land is beautifully photographed, and the haunting music of aboriginal voices and instruments in the Golden Globe-nominated score by Peter Gabriel further the realism. The cast of young girls, all making their film debuts, never makes a misstep, conveying the trauma of their separation, their commitment to returning home, and, in Sampi's case, an anger which is only barely hidden. Branagh, though effective, really does not have to do much to be the villain here. In this beautifully realized depiction of a wrong-headed policy, director Noyce wisely chooses not to embellish the message with unnecessary, artificial melodrama--reality here is drama enough. Mary Whipple

A heartbreaking and inspirational story about the Aborigines
I was aware that the treatment of the Aborigines by those that settled Australia was fairly consistent with that of all European settlers dealing with indigenous people when "colonizing" someone else's land. I specifically recall how during the 2000 Sydney Olympics much was made of the symbolism of Cathy Freeman, an Aborigine on the Australian Olympic team, lighting the Olympic torch. Even more was made of the symbolism when Freeman went on to win the gold medal in the 400 meter. But I have to admit that when it comes to Australian films I tend to think in terms of "Breaker Morant" and "Gallipoli," where the point was how the British Empire was treating the Australian citizens of the Commonwealth as if nothing had changed since the first convicts were sent from Britain Down Under. Still, to see Australians turn around and treat others even more inhumanely was rather something of a shock.

"Rabbit-Proof Fence" is the story of three young Aborigine girls who escaped from a government camp in 1931 and tried to walk home 1,500 miles. Molly (Everlyn Sampi), her sister Daisy (Tianna Sansbury) and cousin Gracie (Laura Monaghan) were taken from their mothers because they are half-castes, their white fathers long gone after constructing the rabbit-proof fence which saves Australia's farm land from being devoured. The fence, of course, is both a metaphor for the separation of the children from their families as well as the touchstone that can help the girls get home.

The reason the girls are removed is because of the edict of A.O. Neville (Kenneth Branagh), who was the administrator in charge of Aborigines in Western Australia. As portrayed in the film Neville is concerned about the creation of a third race and has the idea that with the proper breeding within three generations the half-castes will look white. Now there is conflicting historical evidence on how Aborigine children ended up at the Moore River Native Settlement pertaining to half-castes being ostracized by pure bloods and Aborigine parents wanted their children to receive an education. But in "Rabbit-Proof Fence" the reasons are clearly to "save" these children from themselves, and there is an implication the education is so these children can be domestic servants for white families.

Even if you did not see Branagh in "Conspiracy," the TV movie where he played SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich, Chief of the Reich Main Security Office, and chief architect of the "Final Solution" at the Wannsee Conference the parallels are unmistakable between Neville's theory of eugenics and the Nazis. But once Molly leads the other two girls into the outback Neville is not as important to the chase as Modoo (David Gulpilil), the native tracker who is required to enforce the policies that are resulting in "The Lost Generation" of his people. If this is a film that wants to see the world only in terms of black or white, there is no doubt which side wins your sympathy.

Having made big budget Hollywood films like "Patriot Games," "Clear and Present Danger" and "The Bone Collector," director Phillip Noyes provides a more intimate film like he did back in 1977 with "Backroads." His three stars are a trio of first time actresses, selected (as he explains in the accompanying featurette) so that everybody in the world who say them would want to adopt them. But they also turn out to act and Sampi as Molly Craig is at least as good as Keisha Castle-Hughes was in "Whale Rider."

This is a true story and as such you know not to expect a happy ending, but that does not stop your from harboring such hopes as the three girls continue on their journey and the authorities try to stop them before they reach their home and their families. As a true story there will be the obligatory title cards at the end telling you the rest of the story and explaining how the practice of separating half-castes from their parents continued until 1970, which may well be a more depressing thought than anything engendered by the film. But be forewarned that the most devastating scene on the DVD is not in the film when the girls are taken away from their wailing mothers, but in the featurette when we see what happens to the cast and crew after they finish filming that scene.

Special note needs to be made of the commentary track provided by director Phillip Noyce and featuring musician Peter Gabriel, actor Kenneth Branagh, screenwriter Chiristine Olsen and author Pilkington Garimara. This is not a track where everybody is in the room at once talking about the film. Instead this is mostly Noyce talking about the film, totally independent of what is on the screen, and when he talks about one of the other principles we get to hear their thoughts on the process of turning the original book and the story it was based on into this film. This is usually the sort of deep thoughts you get from a film critic doing the commentary on a Criterion Edition of a classic film, so finding it on this 2002 drama is a nice bonus. ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Gorgeous: Timothy fans don't miss this
I picked this up after admiring Timothy Dalton's work in the BBC version of Jane Eyre. I adore the Olivier version of Heathcliff, but I have to say Dalton is absolutely mesmerizing and INTENSE in this role as well(!!!!). I'm usually not one to confess this sort of thing but I admit he had my knees knocking throughout, YOWSA. The movie is truly and darkly beautiful, with breathtaking landscapes- as haunting as it should be, especially for a "70's movie". Yes Cathy could have been cast differently but I still think she does a fine job, and is believable. If you love Wuthering Heights and Timothy Dalton this is a MUST have version to pick up.

Gorgeous: Wuthering Heights AND Timothy fans don't miss this
I picked this up after admiring Timothy Dalton's work in the BBC version of Jane Eyre. I adore the Olivier version of Heathcliff, but I have to say Dalton is absolutely superb, mesmerizing and INTENSE in this role(!!!). I'm usually not one to confess this sort of thing but I admit he had my knees knocking throughout, YOWSA. The movie is darkly beautiful with a gorgeous musical score and breathtaking landscapes- haunting as it should be, especially for a "70's movie". Yes Cathy could have been cast differently but I still think she does a fine enough job, and is believable. If you love Wuthering Heights and Timothy Dalton this is a MUST have version to pick up.

Not totally true to the book, but still good.
I saw this movie when it first came out and I was very young and impressionable. As someone else said in their review, the young should see it because it really will touch them in a unique, once in a lifetime way. I read a review complaining that it's not like the book. I hadn't read the book yet when I first saw it. Since then I've read the book many times and it is one of my favorites. I don't care that this movie takes license and makes it's own story. I think it still tells a great love story. And the music is beautiful and haunting, as it should be. I'm thrilled it's now on DVD because my old VHS copy is getting worn out! :)

CROSSED LOVERS ON THE MOORS
I SAW THIS IN 1970 WHEN IT FIRST CAME OUT.. AND WAS TOTALLY STRICKEN... THE MUSIC BY MICHELE LEGRAND IS BREATHTAKING.. AND I HAVE YET TO SEE A FINER HEATHCLIFFE THAN A VERY YOUNG TIMOTHY DALTON.. THE TWO CHARACTERS OF CATHY AND HEATHCLIFFE KEPT ME SPELLBOUND AND I AM SOOOO LOOKING FOR THE SOUNDTRACK BUT HAVE YET HAD NO LUCK.. USED TO HAVE IT. AND PLAYED IT DEATH.. LOL... ANYWAY.. THIS IS A HAUNTINGLY BEATIFUL STORY AND DONE VERY VERY WELL..

I saw it as a teenager and then watched it again...........
i remember watching this movie back in college and it moved me so much i could only dream of Timothy Dalton. he was and always will be Hitclif to me. cathy was cute as well, but who cares?.......now in my 30's and as a mother i see this story differently. i think that like romeo and juiet WH is also meant to be seen by the young with pure hearts.....

so, if you know any HS kids let them see this movie and be moved by it because they will never be moved that way again. i often wonder why Timothy Dalton is not as famous as other more mediocre actors (think Tom cruise or Brad Pitt)???? in my heart he is one and only, I love Mr. Dalton, and wish him all the best in his career. hope to see more of him, :) ... Read more

Amazon.com

For Led Zeppelin fanatics, this 1976 feature The Song Remains theSame is a treasure of searing live performances, particularly welcome inlight of the sad scarcity of such visual material from the band's great decade.Despite the group's road weariness after a long tour, their final, three-nightstand at Madison Square Garden in 1973 was full of the old power. Performancesof "No Quarter," "Whole Lotta Love," "Black Dog," "Dazed and Confused," and"Stairway to Heaven" underscore Zep's charisma. Trouble is, you don't get anunbroken performance here. Viewers have to wade through a mishmash ofdocumentary insight into the lives of Robert Plant, Jimmy Page, John Bonham, andJohn Paul Jones, as well as fantasy sequences supposedly inspired by thethoughts and fantasies of the band's individual members. It's mostly garish andsilly, but there are some nice elements, especially insights into the lateBonham's life. The DVD doesn't offer much in the way of add-ons (a theatricaltrailer is about it), but there is also enhanced viewing for 16 x 9 televisions.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (141)

Definitely Of Its Time
I have to give this film four stars, despite its many flaws. I've loved Led Zeppelin for about 22 years now, and parts of this still give me chills: when they kick off with "The Song Remains The Same", I wonder how great it must have been to witness them live, which I never got to experience. And though I haven't seen this in years, I can still remember the fantastic, 15-minute version of "Whole Lotta Love" with Robert singing back at Jimmy's theremin squeals. I don't know if it sounds cheesy, but to a fifteen year old who saw this for the first time in 1981 at the midnight show, it was pure greatness. I still wonder now if there's ever been a better band. People talk endlessly in the music papers about the greatness of the Beatles, and that's fair enough. But Led Zeppelin were, for me, the greatest band rock has ever produced.

That said, parts of this movie don't stand up well, and others are downright embarrassing: the dream sequences may have played well on the film's release, but you might catch yourself giggling watching it now. The performance footage, all shot at Madison Square Garden in 1973, is about as good as you could expect. And there probably are days when you could do with a much SHORTER version of "Dazed and Confused", but there's no denying the power of the violin bow sequence - it's downright chilling near its conclusion.

So, if you love the band and aren't too fussy about film quality and transfer, you'll probably be happy for the most part. Even with the new 2-disc Led Zep DVD on release, there's still a shocklingly small amount of film devoted to this great band.

"Does Anybody Remember Laughter?"
If not for the silly fantasy sequences interspersed throughout the concert footage, I'd give this a "5" rating. A must-have for any Led Zeppelin fan, especially because the movie contains two live songs ((1) an edited version of "Heartbreaker" with most of the Page solo intact and (2) a raw, blistering version of "Black Dog" with the "Out on the Tiles" riff lead-in) that never made it onto the double-album vinyl (and for that matter, CD) motion picture soundtrack version, probably because there wasn't enough space. Too bad Jimmy Page didn't take the time to put a real "bonus features" section into the DVD which he could have used to include unused, left-over footage from these MSG '73 shows (which he presumably has possession or control of) or some later concerts from the '75 and '77 tours of which bootleg video tape versions exist. Regardless, a keeper DVD through and through.

Good for Zep fanatics. Loses its charm for others.
You know already whether you'll like this DVD -- if you're listening to Led Zeppelin right now, then by all means buy this DVD.

Those less enamored with the band may find that there's a lot of self-indulgent crap here, and the band seems to be mailing it in on many of the songs. Of course it is the drugs, and fatigue of being on the road, but the listless performances suggest they didn't really care all that much.

zeppelin freak
This movie was so awsome I LOVE zeppelin

Led Zeppelin film/fans deserve better...* **
I would like to elaborate on two quotes by another reviewer.*, **

1)
"..The sound is excellent on this DVD, but as another reviewer noted: the 'fake' widescreen matte leaves much to be desired. How about a *remastered*, Special Edition DVD version in *anamorphic widescreen* with *all* of the outtake live performance footage (e.g. 'Celebration Day') as extras?"

* I agree: This description is exactly the kind of DVD I would buy and give 5 stars for. In view of film preservation, this version is inaccurate and imcomplete. I too would prefer the very best special edition possible. As much as I want to watch and relive this film experience again, I can't under the present circumstances-paying money now for the current version would mean I am in agreement with the cheapened mindset of the agency responsible.
Fans should unite and press the issue upon Led Zep management to get to work on releasing the film as described above. Maybe Jimmy Page is the one who would be able to get the ball rolling...

2)
"n.b.--Jimmy Page never played a Les Paul Custom [DVD front cover illustration] onstage with Zeppelin."

**...Absolutely. Futhermore, this cover has nothing to do with the movie-where's the MOVIE POSTER??? The proposed Special Edition DVD should include the ORIGINAL MOVIE POSTER artwork. I cannot believe someone would make such an oversight. - what is up with that guitar on the cover of the current DVD??? - Its a gross display of inaccuracy and negligence that should be corrected at once. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

To many, Brief Encounter may seem like a relic of more proper times--or, specifically, more properly British times--when the pressures of marital decorum and fidelity were perhaps more keenly felt. In truth, David Lean's fourth film remains a timeless study of true love (or, rather, the promise of it), and the aching desire for intimate connection that is often subdued by the obligations of marriage. And so it is that ordinary Londoners Alec (Trevor Howard), a married doctor, and contented housewife Laura (Celia Johnson) meet by chance one day in a train station, when he volunteers to remove a fleck of ash from her eye (a romantic gesture that, perhaps, inspired Robert Towne's "flaw in the iris" scene in Chinatown).

It so happens that their schedules coincide at the train station every Thursday, and their casual attraction grows, through quiet conversation and longing expressions, into the desperate recognition of mutual love. From this point forward, Lean turns this utterly precise, 85-minute film into a bracing study of romantic suspense, leading inevitably, and with the paranoid, furtive glances of a spy thriller, to the moment when this brief encounter must be consummated or abandoned altogether. Decades later, the outcome of this affair--both agonizing and rapturous--is subtle and yet powerful enough to draw tears from the numbest of souls, and spark debate regarding the tragedy or virtue of the choices made. A truly universal film, with meticulously controlled emotions revealed through the flawlessperformances of Howard and Johnson, and an enduring masterpiece that continued Lean on his course to cinematic greatness. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (32)

Encounter Brief Encounter
1946's Brief Encounter, directed by David Lean (of Doctor Zhivago fame, which he would later direct in 1965) is a great film full of subtlety, romance and melancholia. Shot in black and white, this film is almost a signature of the 40's, as was the more popular and successful Casablanca. Without mention of World War II, this film deals with internal struggles of the heart. Cecila Johnson stars as the romantic heroine, a married woman and Trevor Howard the love interest, a married doctor. Though it's apparent they are disenchanted with their marriages and they are in love with each other, they never fully give in to a passionate affair. It's a romance that is mostly feelings and emotions, furtive glances, sighs, talk and regular meetings that are brief in a train station.

David Lean is experimenting with many techniques, particularily intimate angles and interior monologue. No film can ever top his Doctor Zhivago, but this film is at least second best and good for its time in 1946. There is a particularly impressive scene in which the lovers are interrupted and Celia Johnson's character must take a train trip with a very chatty, annoying woman friend. The older woman chatters away and we tap into Celia's thoughts. "I wish she would stop talking.. I wish she were dead" (I thought this was hilarious because we are wishing the same thing by that point)....but then she reprimands herself and comes to the conclusion, after a tiring day, that life does not last, that nothing really lasts forever, neither happiness nor despair. It's very poignant. Another reason besides the great acting and the story itself is the fact that Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No. 2, regarded as his finest, is played in this film. The dramatic, romantic storm that is the first movement, followed by a melancholy adagio, is very effective for this type of film.

David Lean's well kept secret.
When you hear the name: David Lean, one will probably think LAWRENCE, Bridge on the River Kwai, etc...never Brief Encounter. I am not saying that Lean's other films are bad...they are excellent but Brief Encounter is different. It is his best film, as far as I am concerned. I am huge film fan. I cannot usually watch movies two days in a row, but I could watch this one every day of the year. This film is perfect in every way. Noel Coward is a brilliant screenwriter and this is one of the best screenplays ever writen. This film was voted 2nd best British film ever made under The Third Man (which I also love and Trevor Howard was also in). I am shocked that this was left off of the AFI List...a film of such perfection is so rare and underrated that it is sad that this beautiful film has been viewed by so few. Sparkling, moving preformaces given by both Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard. I love Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2 in C Minor, but only the version in this film. I loacted a CD on this website with this version on it. It was done by Eileen Joyce. Search for her name under music and you should find it. Celia Johnson was very convincing and her voiceovers and facial expressions were superb. The way the start the film out at the end and she retells the story is brilliant. The editing is even perfect. This film is very realistic...it seems as if David Lean just went out and found some two average nobody's and filmed it. This isn't like Rita Hayworth and Cary Grant in some Hollywood love story. It captures the time beautifully and how people used to have higher standards & actually cared about their families, unlike the vulgar times of now..for example, look at Titanic...enough said. I love the cinematography...capturing the smokey dark train stations with high contrast black and white...it's so grand. This film has it's own atmosphere, like Casablanca. If you like Casablanca, you'll love this movie. I love ending because it is so mysterious-- After Laura relives her story in her mind, you can almost read it on her face and her husband goes over to comfort her: "What ever dream you had, it wasn't a very happy one, was it? You were a long way away. Thank you for coming back to me." He says it as if he heard the story while she was telling it, but then again we shall never know. It is almost haunting because I think about so often. This film my be brief, but my encounter with it will be forever.

Wonderful
If you loved Lost in Translation, you'll love this.

If you love Sleepless in Seattle and similar modern romance classics, see the movie that inspired those filmmakers.

If you like nonlinear movies, like Citizen Kane or Go, you'll love this.

You can gauge how special this movie is by imagining how you would feel if the tape ran out unexpectedly in the middle, and you were not able to go on watching. I realised while i was watching that i would have been devastated! Beautiful, compelling film based on the play Still Life by Noel Coward (though it doesn't feel like a filmed stage play)and shot by David Lean (before he decided to make epics - there is a scene in this where he makes a joke about the epic genre which will be of interest to his fans). The best thing about it (and this is saying a lot) is the two lead performances, Trevor Howard and (particularly) Celia Johnson in her crowning role, the only role she is remembered for.

Henry Blake Would Have Aproved!
. I had long been curious about "Brief Encounter" because on the old M*A*S*H* TV show, LTC Henry Blake made a reference to it. He was afraid that his wife, Lorraine, back home in Bloomington, Illinois was having an affair! Does anyone remember that episode? "BA" is the story of two VERY respectable English folks, who are married to other people. A chance meeting on a train turns into a harmless, though touching affair. The woman, Celia Johnson is the first to realize it can't last. Henry Blake would have approved! (She was nominated for a Best Actress Award.) The male lead, Trevor Howard, eventually does too. The story, and resolution, is predictable given the setting in the prim and proper mid-40s in England. The staging is first rate. Much action takes place in a commuter train station with the whoosh of steam engines, the shrill conductors' whistles, the dashing up and down passenger ramps, the terse announcements and the ratter and clatter/clickity clack of the passing trains. "Mind the Gap", indeed! The scenes in the snack bar, with the tart tongued bartenderess are sharp and poignant. The supporting cast, all of whom hang in the bar are wonderful in that British "old movie" way. Americans never did scenes like these as well. "BE" won no Academy Awards in 1946. "The Best Years of Our Lives" was too much competition. Those that watched Mr. Howard in the classic The Third Man", are due for a surprise. The stiff- necked British Army officer is gone. In "BE" he plays a sensible, sensitive and caring Doctor obviously in painful love with a woman he can never have. This reviewer would easily give 5 stars to the overall production, the secondary cast, the settings and that black and white filming. It is quite obvious that a very talented Director was at the helm of this one. Still, more suspense and/or angst is required for a 5 star rating. Boy meets girl, boy loses girl has been done so often before and since. One star must be deducted for the foreseeable ending. "BE" is yet one more example of why certain old movies should never be colorized.

I adore this movie.
This is one of my favorite films; I never get tired of seeing it. It contains all the elements of a great, yet doomed, romance. I have such sympathy for Celia Johnson's character; I would have fallen in love with Alec, also. He's my kind of man! Great movie!!! ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Back to Business
After mucking about in England during "Sharpe's Regiment", Sharpe and Harper are back in Spain, as Wellington dithers about which way to go to invade France. Along comes the Maquerre, a French aristocrat loyal to the Royalist cause who claims that Bordeaux is ripe for revolt against Napoleon. Sharpe and the South Essex are sent with his new and very green commanding officer, Colonel Bamfylde to take the Maquerre's ancestral castle, a simple mission which quickly becomes more complicated than not. In the meantime, Sharpe's new bride, Jane Gibbons is sick with malaria, and may not survive to see Sharpe return - if he manages at all to do so.

Well, it's back to blowing things up and firing upon the French for old Sharpie, and we're all the better for it. The Chosen Men return, as do the wonderfully grotesque "Sweet" William Frederickson and Sharpe's own nemesis, the French spymaster Ducos. This is a competently told Sharpe, almost by the numbers, with the only thing of note being a completely useless and idiotic Colonel Bamfylde, who shouldn't be entrusted with the command of a toilet brush, let alone a regiment. They overplay this quite a bit and it got annoying - surely nobody could be that stupid. However, having read the military history of that period, I could almost believe it.

The subplot of Jane on the verge of death had me pretty bored. I know that the ladies love the romance bits, but even then, Jane is a pretty useless character, with no real personality. But then, that was the purpose she served in the books, until.... ah, well, no spoilers.

The print on this DVD is suprisingly clear, better than some of the others in fact. Not as crisp as we spoilt viewers demand these days, but above the rest. Perhaps the film stock was improving as the series went on.

A formulaic Sharpe, but we're getting closer to the good stuff now, and right at the end of the road waits a small Belgian town called Waterloo...

Sharpe's SIEGE... another GREAT adventure!
What can I say? I personally found this to be one of my favorite episodes of SHARPE'S. Its not quite as good as the first two episodes (RIFLES and EAGLE) but SIEGE is great all the same. If you're not familiar with the series, see try to see the other episodes first. If you are familiar with the series, try to see REGIMENT before watching SIEGE. A new character is introduced in that story, and she's important in this one.

This adventure sees our favorite British Riflemen on a mission to take a French castle, during the British invasion of France (1813). While battling the French, British forces must also battle fever, and political manipulations from all around. This episode also features appearances by some re-occuring characters (both friend and foe).

The video and audio quality are great, though there are no supplements on the disc, like the other SHARPES discs. Good acting, witty dialogue, and some of the best action scenes in the series make this a must own for fans of SHARPES! ... Read more

Description

London. The 60s. Two unemployed actors-acerbic, elegantly wasted Withnail (Richard E. Grant) and the anxiety-ridden "I" (Paul McGann)-drown their frustrations in booze, pills, and lighter fluid. When Withnail's Uncle Monty (Richard Griffiths) offers his cottage, they escape the squalor of their flat for a week in the country. They soon realize they've gone on holiday by mistake when their wits-and friendship-are sorely tested by violent downpours, less-than-hospitable locals, and empty cupboards. An intelligent, superbly acted, and hilarious film, The Criterion Collection is proud to present Bruce Robinson's semi-autobiographical cult favorite in its complete and uncut version. ... Read more

Reviews (82)

Cult Masterpiece!
Withnail and I is one of those movies that you'd either love or hate. Fortunately, there's a better chance of you falling in love with the film---and no wonder why, thanks to the characters and the great dialogue.
While it will resemble Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (including Marwood's living quarters, messy enough to rival Hunter S. Thompson's hotel suites!), the film itself is more about two drug addicts (and not to mention jobless actors) who gets away from the pessismistic atmosphere of London---and drugs---by moving into a cottage in that wonderful English countryside, where it's as cold as Greenland and as sunny as England can get (read: RAINY) in order to "rejuvenate". And as one can guess, what they really do is far from rejuvenation.
The cast themselves are excellent, from our anxiety-ridden narrator, Marwood, who frequently gets paranoid about things, to the main star of the film, Withnail, an alcholic with a tendency to say insulting things... as well as to recite a few lines of Hamlet, along with a bottle of booze, of course. Also of notable mention is Richard Griffiths, who plays the delightful role of Withnail's old-fashioned, homosexual uncle who lends to our to characters; and Ralph Brown, who plays drug dealer Danny---picture your stereotypical American "Dude", and then add in a British accent, holding the infamous "Camberwell Carrot", a collection of cigarettes rolled into one giant one!
A fascinating, exceptionally funny (in a British sense, of course!), and ultimately engaging, if unconventional, film, filled with outstanding perfomances, and great (if at times insulting, which makes it even greater) dialogue. A definite cult masterpiece, and thoroughly British, too.

One of my favourite films of all time
Criterion has done a wonderful job with this DVD release of WITHNAIL & I. The picture looks sharp, the sound is clear, and the extras are a lot of fun. The biggest difference for me was that the only video version of this film I owned was the full-screen version that contains numerous edits. Watching this film uncut for the first time in years really pointed out how much I had been missing with the video version. Getting this DVD is definitely worth the money.

The film itself is a joy to experience. While the plot cannot be accused of being overcomplicated, this simplicity is more than made up for in the wonderful characters and brilliant dialogue (virtually none of which can be quoted in an all-ages forum such as this). Loosely narrated by Paul McGann's "I" character, this film depicts a brief period in the life of two struggling actors as they attempt to find booze, drugs and jobs in the dying days of the 1960s. The movie covers a wide spectrum from some scenes featuring the funniest lines that you'll ever hear to small touching moments that are surprisingly moving. This is highly recommended to anyone who enjoys good moviemaking.

Every character in the picture is superbly acted and written for. It's a testament to Bruce Robinson's directing skills that the characters compliment each other so well instead of clashing and overbearing the others as could so easily have happened. The secondary characters work as well as the leads and each one adds their unique flavour to the mixture. Robinson doesn't make the mistake of giving the smaller parts too much on-screen time and having them overstay their welcome. Each character says and does no more than they need to and leaves everyone wanting more.

Richard E. Grant and Paul McGann are perfectly cast in their roles. Each bile-covered insult roles off of Grant's tongue as if he'd been swearing at McGann all his life. It's amazing that Grant is a teetotaler in real life and was relying on pure skill for most of his inspiration. Excellent acting.

The documentary that is included on the DVD is 30 minutes long and quite excellent. There are interviews with Richard E. Grant (Withnail), Paul McGann (...& I), Bruce Robinson (writer/director), Ralph Brown (Danny) and a host of other people related to the production. It's a funny and enthralling look at the people and ideas behind the film. Just fast-forward through the trainspotters.

Enjoyably eccentric black comedy
Written and Directed by Bruce Robinson (who would later go on to make the Uma Thurman movie JENNIFER 8) WITHNAIL & I is a semi-autobiographical black comedy about two struggling actors in Camdenton London during the last months of the 60s. The future is looking rather bleak for Withnail (Richard E. Grant) and I (Paul McGann). Both are out of work and in the midst of drug and alcohol problems. After hitting rock bottom the pair decide to take a peaceful vacation in the country and plan on how to re-establish some direction in their lives before the new decade begins.
However their stay in the country turns out to be anything but tranquil when the boorish, self absorbed Withnail manages to bring out the hostilities of the locals. Both reduced to the status of village pariahs, the unwelcome duo find themselves confined to the tiny cottage where they are forced to burn their own furniture to stay warm, and literally shooting fish in order to survive.
Though the movie is a bit plodding and self-important at times; WITHNAIL & I is nonetheless an absorbing and well-acted low key cult item that is worth a look for curiosity's sake. (Not something I'll have to point out to those people have seen the movie more than a dozen times! I've only seen it once.) The highlight of the movie for me is the scene in which Withnail concocts a novel way to get let off a drink driving charge.
The movie was Produced by the late George Harrison, and Ringo Starr also appears in the credits as "Richard Starkey M.B.E". Sadly, the DVD I watched didn't have any bonus features.

GETINTHEBACKOFTHEVAN!!!
I dunno, folks - you just gotta love England, eh? LOL...

Great Drinking movie for Monty Python Fans
If you like dry English humor, as I do, you will LOVE this flick. Great movie to drink to you ponce. If you draw a Queen at Uncle Monty's you're doomed. See it, it's great. Also, it's produced by the Dark Horse himself! ... Read more

Reviews (49)

Almost too good to be true
This movie should have won an Oscar and Daniel Day-Lewis should have won one too (Both were nominated). He did a magnificent job as a petty crook in Northern Ireland, who gets in trouble, and moves to London, where he gets in much bigger trouble when he is falsely accused of blowing up a pub in Guildford, and thus becomes one of the "Guildford Four."

Although the other three have minor parts, this movie is about Gerry Conlan (Day-Lewis), and his father Giuseppe, expertly played by Pete Postlethwaite, who turns in an Oscar-type performance himself. The touching scenes between Gerry and his father, show how their relationship changes over the years.

Emma Thompson, as lawyer Gareth Pierce, is the one, however, who manages to unravel the government's reason for keeping these innocent prisoners locked up. Using a cunning devise, she manages to get the necessary details from official British documents, which allows her to prove the innocence of the prisoners. Thompson does a superb job, as she takes it on her own, without any coaxing by Gerry, to win this case.

Everyone should love the ending of this DVD, as justice is finally served, after 15 hard years in jail for the "Guildford Four."

heartbreaking and bittersweet
Gerry Conlon (Daniel Day Lewis) was a small-time petty thief in the early seventies and found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time when IRA terrorists bombed a pub in 1974 - killing 4 people.

Totally innocent,