Amazon.com

Granada Television's adaptation of The Forsyte Saga achieved the seemingly impossible in spring 2002, matching the BBC's 35-year-old black-and-white classic version with a richly cast and superbly directed take on John Galsworthy's first two novels. The success of these six 90-minute episodes proved that despite the current emphasis on miniseries and dramas developed around the hot actor of the moment, our appetite--and attention span--still craves ensemble pieces that are given space and time to develop. It also demonstrates that nothing generates television gold like a compelling family drama crammed with lust, rape, class conflict, and the insuperable power of money.

The Forsyte Saga is nothing if not superior soap opera. It could all have gone horribly wrong, haunted by the specter of its BBC predecessor--a television legend for anyone over 40. Instead, it succeeds entirely on its own merits with scarcely a weak link--from Stephen Mallatratt's taut and fluid script to David Moore's carefully measured, seamless direction. Risks were taken to banish the old ghosts, particularly in the casting. Damian Lewis's repressed Soames and Gina McKee as his ill-matched bride, the enigmatic Irene, are inspired choices delivering complex portraits of unhappy, damaged human beings who deserve our sympathy. In a sea of marvelous cameos and splendid acting, the top honors go to Corin Redgrave and Rupert Graves for their hauntingly sensitive interpretations of old and young Jolyon, as well as to Amanda Root for her increasingly exasperated Winifred and Gillian Kearney for her sharply intelligent and worldly June. --Piers Ford ... Read more

Reviews (55)

Upper-class, Victorian soap opera
I thoroughly enjoyed this new version of "The Forsyte Saga". The series is well-produced, well-cast, well-acted, with the storyline remaining faithful to the books. The series focuses on the lives of several branches of the Forsytes, an upper-class British family in London, beginning in the 1870s and ending in 1901. Primarily, the story highlights the havoc Irene, first as Soames' wife, then later as (young) Jolyon's wife, unintentionally wreaks upon the family. When viewers are first introduced to them, Winifred has just become engaged to the upper-class, ne'er-do-well Montague Dartie. Soames (Winifred's brother) first sees Irene as she is just beginning to go out in society again after the mourning period following her father's death. Young Jolyon (Soames' & Winifred's cousin), who is married and has a young daughter, June, falls in love with his daughter's French governess and causes a huge family scandal when he leaves his cold-hearted wife for the governess and his father disowns him. Although all of these cousins interact with eachother, though not always for anyone's benefit or support, the main focus of the series is upon Soames' and Irene's disastrous marriage. Soames, who is cold, obsessive, and controlling, falls in "love" with Irene at first sight. He exemplifies a Victorian gentleman in that he views women (and wives in particular) as property. In fact, Soames is often referred to as a "man of property" even by his own family. He never really bothers to get to know Irene, or even to take into account her interests, hopes, and dreams for the future. He does show that he can more than adequately provide for a wife, and viewers see that he is obsessed with her, but none of these things equal love. Soames is nothing if not persistent. He convinces Irene's stepmother to accept him as Irene's suitor, and watches the house, hangs about so often that other potential suitors are discouraged and/or driven away. Irene is young, poor, and clearly at a disadvantage--she clearly tells Soames no, that they would not suit, tells her stepmother the same, to no avail. The stepmother has ulterior motives--she wishes to remarry, and so long as Irene is on the scene, men are interested in Irene, so Soames provides a good way to eliminate a rival on the marriage market. Irene finally caves in to the pressure from both her stepmother and the prospect of poverty--she accepts Soames but only on the condition that he release her from her marital obligations should the marriage not be a success. Soames readily agrees, and they are married. Much of the rest of the series continues with the disintegration of their marriage, Soames' refusal to honor his pre-marital promise to her, and her subsequent attempts at escape from an increasingly jealous and possessive husband, including openly flouting her affair with architect Philip Bosinney (June's fiance), and an absolutely appalling marital rape committed by Soames. The stories of Winifred and her family and young Jolyon and his families are seamlessly interwoven with the central story of Irene and Soames. The series progresses with Irene finally leaving Soames for good, Soames' refusal to accept that his marriage is over (following her, pestering her, bullying her, demanding her return and that she give him a son), and Irene's friendships with both old Jolyon and young Jolyon, including her marriage to young Jolyon once Soames divorces her. The series wraps up with the births of Irene's & Jolyon's son and with Soames remarriage (also of convenience instead of love) to Annette and the birth of their daughter.
The series shows the usual attention to detail that viewers can expect from British period dramas, including beautiful costumes, and lovely sets.
I also like the casting, and, contrary to many previous viewers, find that Gina McKee does an excellent job as Irene! In the books, Irene is described as having blonde hair and brown eyes in some parts, and in more parts is described as having amber hair and brown eyes. To me, amber means a reddish-brown (like the fossils) not blonde. She also conveys how trapped and unhappy Irene is in her marriage to Soames. This is the story of a disastrously unhappy marriage, in which she is trapped, watched obsessively by a husband who has no idea how to treat a woman (to think of her as a human being was well beyond the scope of his intelligence and imagination), who wants out, and to suggest that she should be portrayed as anything but lifeless when Soames is around would go against the story and her character. The only times viewers see any life in Irene is when Soames is not around or when she thinks that he is not around.
The other actors, including Damian Lewis, Rupert Graves, Amanda Root, and Ioan Gruffudd round out the cast and give wonderful performances all around.
Viewers are also treated to wonderful social and political commentary (on the status of women as chattel or property, the cumbersome divorce laws in effect at the time, the British class system, the Boer War, etc.) Wonderful series all around. Highly recommended.

Well, two-thirds of the John Galsworthy literary saga
I have neither read John Galsworthy's novels nor seen the classic 1969 BBC version that was the first "Masterpiece Theater," so my perspective is based on recognizing Damian Lewis from "Band of Brothers," Gina McKee from "Notting Hill," Ioan Gruffudd from "Horatio Hornblower," and Amanda Root from "Persuasion." Actually, when I started watching this Granada Television production my immediate thought that this was going to be like "The Magnificent Ambersons," and that sooner or later (I assumed later) Soames Forsyte (Lewis) was going to get his comeuppance. By the end I was thinking more in line of "Rich Man, Poor Man," because Young Jolyon Forsyte (Rupert Graves) becomes the other pivotal Forsyte in the saga and his path and Soames do cross throughout. These comparisons are not meant to be gratuitous, because I think the mini-series at its best is as good as it gets (think "Shogun," "Lonesome Dove," "Pride & Prejudice," name your own--in your heart you know that I am right).

The short version of this saga is that it chronicles the lives of three generations of a monied, middle-class English family at the turn of the century. As our saga begins Winifred (Root) becomes engaged to the wastrel Montague Darties. Young Jolyon is disowned by his father (Corin Redgrave) after leaving his wife of this daughter June's governess. Soames is a solicitor who forces his marriage to the beautiful but penniless and therefore desperate Irene, who falls in love with Philip Bosinney, the French architect hired by Soames to build a home in the country. Those are the starting points for the major characters, but what becomes important is that the characters prove to be dynamic despite all the soap opera elements of the saga. The predictability of their behavior is tempered by some surprises. I also want to praise the adaptation by Stephen Mallatratt and Jan McVerry for its use of meaningful looks: there is a scene early on where Soames and his father have a discussion as to how much money to settle on Winifred after her marriage. Soames says nothing but provokes an entire series of propositions form his father just by minute facial manipulations.

I was rather surprised to learn after the fact that "The Forsyte Saga" on these three DVDs is not the entire Galsworthy epic. What we have hear is based on "The Man of Property" (1906), the short story interlude "Indian Summer of a Forsyte" (1918), and the novel "In Chancery" (1920). There is another interlude, "Awakening" (1920) and novel "To Let" (1921) which deals with the third generation of the Forsytes, particularly Fleur and Jon, who are born at the end of this series. However, I was actually pleasantly surprised by where and how the saga ended. I guess this is an "average" British mini-series, which certainly makes it above average by anyone's standards. I did not enjoy it so much that I want to go out and read Galsworthy's novels, but it is still a worthwhile viewing experience. However, I do want to check out the old BBC version.

absolutely wonderful!
brilliant acting performance of a wonderful story. I enjoyed every minute of it, and after watching more than eight hours, I couldn't believe it was over.

Do yourself a favour
Do yourself a favour and watch this series of DVDs also Series 2. If you love this era then dont miss this lavishly produced series with gorgous costumes and handsome heroes watch the series then read the books. They are great.

Far superior to the original
Having read the books and now having seen both the 69 version and the 2000 version I am somewhat mystified by some of the reviews. First let me say that I am generally a fan of "original" works rather than remakes. I love black and white and am not at all bothered by dated production values or styles. This said, the 2000 version is far and away superior to the 69 version. The performances here are vastly more nuanced and subtle, especially Damien Lewis as Soams. His predecessor was not only too old for the role but I find his performance very self-conciouse and one note. As for the huge uproar over the casting of Irene, I expected to be bowled over by the original, I was not. Here again a very stagey and also vacant performance. Gina McKee is an Irene who attracts not only with her grace and beauty. She is attractive because of her sensitvity her insight and her unwilingness to bow to Victorian social standards. The very things that attract Soams to Irene are the things that make it impossible for their marriage to work. The other characters are also, with rare exception, played better here than in the original especially June, Young Jolyon, Bossiney and Winifred. Do not let a bow to nostalgia cloud your judgement. This is by far a superior piece of work. ... Read more

Reviews (63)

A must for Python, Beatles fans
What's genius about the Rutles is this: Watch the Rutles, and then watch one of the Beatles documentaries (the Compleat Beatles, etc) - then note that the Rutles was made PRIOR to any of the decent Beatles documentaries, yet looks like a parody of the real deal.
This mockumentary pre-dates Spinal Tap, and takes a different approach - by chronicalling supposed "source" material - news reels, press conferences, etc. The approach works well for Eric Idle, and the music by Neil Innes is perfect - slightly silly, but more Beatles than Weird Al.
The knowledge of the Beatles - their personal history, their tv appearances, their scandals, etc - is so well known by Idle - makes this mockumentary spot-on accurate, and all the more funny.

The DVD is worth having. If you have this on VHS, you've got a pretty lousy transfer from the original 16mm film. The film was restored and retransfered for DVD, and it casts the movie in a whole new light of clarity.

The bonus material isn't much to write home (or Amazon) about, but it's nice to have the stuff added on such a low priced DVD.

terrific sendup of Beatlemania stands up well after 25 years
In 1978 it was easy to remember Beatlemania, and this sendup of the mass hysteria was spot-on and hilarious. Starting as a skit for Saturday Night Live, and popular enough to get built into a feature-length film, this Eric Idle project is layered with jokes, spoofs, terrific songs, and great cameos by George Harrison, Mick Jagger, Paul Simon and Idle's wife, and it is still very funny 25 years later.

DVD extras are quite good. Eric Idle's commentary is excellent -- informative and entertaining. There are also 4 deleted scenes that last about 18 minutes; a photo gallery with 29 pictures; a "Play Songs Only" option, where you ee only the film's songs (Goose Step Mama, Number One, Between Us, With a Girl Like You, Hold My Hand, I Must Be in Love, Living in Hope, and Ouch!).

The look and sensibility of the film are exactly right, the writing is VERY funny, and the songs are surprisingly Beatle-like and quite listenable. If you are a Beatles or Monty Python fan, or if you just love good comedy, you will probably get a real kick out of this.

Side Splitting Hilarious
The movie was made more than 20 years ago, but retains its relevance as the Beatles continue to be a cultural icon. While the Rutles was not originally intended to be a full length movie, the product is great.

The project was completed long before John Lennon's murder, so all four members could approve the project. The Beatles are spoofed by the characters in the unique personality traits possessed by each member of the fab four and their scandals. The one-liners and song parodies prove Eric Idle's value to Monty Python and strength as comedic writer. The parody on Yoko Ono being "... a Nazi who's father invented World War II" is hilarious. Look for a scene midway through the song "Ouch!" in which Idle can not even control his own laughter at the monsterous woman in a bikini. I bet it a was too hard to get through a take with a straight face. This is a must for Beatles fans and Monty Python fans.

Idle and Innes compliment each other perfectly
This little treasure is something that all Beatles fans, Python fans and early SNL fans should own. It's the one thing that Idle says he is most proud of, and for good reason. His little bits, which perfectly parody the Beatles that Idle so adored, fit seamlessly into Innes' fantastic songs. Idle comments that Innes' songs added another dimension to the Beatles songs they're based off of rather than becoming shameless parodies (are you listening Weird Al?) and he is quite right.

The film contains moments of comic genius, but mind you they're mostly subtle moments of comic genius. The people I've run into that didn't think this film is funny at all tend to like the blatant, loud, American-style humor. So be patient with the humor, enjoy the music and discover the true genius of the Rutles.

By the end of the film, I almost cared more about the fictional Rutles than I did about the actual Beatles. (And I'm a huge Beatles fanatic) It's just a fantastic, fun film for those who can appreciate the true, witty humor.

Attention All Beatle Fans: BUY THIS!
If you're a Beatle fan, and for some reason you've never heard of this film, immediatley purchase this DVD!
IT is the ultimate parody of Beatlemania. The Rutles was initially released as a made for NBC TV film in 1978. Created by the Saturday Night Live team and Eric Idle (Monty Python), it has a distinct British flavor and Pythonesque sense of humor. It is basically a "mockumentary". Here's an example: after "Nasty" (John Lennon) proclaims the Rutles are bigger than God, the public is outraged, and start burning Rutle records. Record sales soared, people were buying them just to burn them! It turns out that the journalist who interviewed Nasty was hard of hearing. Nasty said the Rutles were bigger than "Rod" (Stewart)!!
The mockumentary covers the entire Beatle phenomenon up to their break-up.
The film gained more fans on video, and is now a bonafide cult classic. The music by Neil Innes (who wrote songs for Python) is superb, and he is perfect as John Lennon. Eric Idle plays McCartney and directs. The songs parodies are also on cd. They are amazingly Beatle-like.
The film is never critical, but made as a tribute with large doses of humor. The harsh aspects of Beatlemania are lightened. For example, Brian Epstein does not die in Rutleland, he accepts a teaching post in Australia.
Even if you are not a Beatle fan, this film is still a lot of fun, although you may not get all of the references. ... Read more

Amazon.com

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

Reviews (10)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike

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

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

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

Amazon.com essential video

A biography of the first czar of Russia was the final movie project of the great Sergei Eisenstein's life. It would be his undoing, as Stalin was not pleased with part II of this epic. But Ivan the Terrible, Part I still stands as a magnificent, rich, and strange achievement. This is a "composed" film to make Hitchcock look slapdash; every frame is arranged with the eye of a painter or choreographer, the mise-en-scène so deliberately artificial that even the actors' bodies become elements of style. (They complained about contorting themselves to fit Eisenstein's designs.) If you don't believe movies can be art, this could be (and has been) dismissed as ludicrous. But Eisenstein's command of light and shadow becomes its own justification, as the fascinating court intrigue plays out in a series of dynamic, eye-filling scenes. This is not a political theorist, but a director drunk on pure cinema.

Part II continues with the struggle for power and the use of secret police, a controversial segment that caused the film to be banned by Stalin in 1946 (the film was not released until 1958). The predominantly black-and-white film features a banquet dance sequence in color. Obviously the two parts must be viewed as a whole to be fully appreciated. Many film historians consider this period in Eisenstein's career less interesting than his silent period because of a sentimental return to archaic forms (characteristic of Soviet society in the '30s and '40s). Perhaps it was just part of his maturity.

Alexander Nevsky (1939), Eisenstein's landmark tale of Russia thwarting the German invasion of the 13th century, was wildly popular and quite intentional, given the prevailing Nazi geopolitical advancement and destruction at the time. It can still be viewed as a masterful use of imagery and music, with the Battle on the Ice sequence as the obvious highlight. Unfortunately, the rest of the film pales in comparison. A great score by Prokofiev was effectively integrated by the Russian filmmaker, but stands on its own merit as well. ... Read more

Reviews (18)

Ivan The Terrible...a bizarre classic
Alexander Nevsky is a lively pro-Soviet propaganda piece partially intended as a warning to Hitler at the time not to invade Russia. The epic battle on the frozen lake is justly famous and the sheer scope of the logistics of filming are impressive. Some of the characters are somewhat cliche stock creations of the time including the two soldiers fighting for the love of one woman who must prove themselves in battle, but overall it's a modest success.

The real prize in this three film Criterion set however is of course Ivan the Terrible parts 1 and 2, a great masterpiece, Eisenstein's most "enjoyable" film(s) and indeed one of the oddest works to emerge from Soviet cinema of the time. Highly expressionistic visuals combine with a melodramatic (and slightly revisionist) take of Ivan's life to create one of the stranger filmic experiences one will see. Eisenstein clearly had a very highly developed visual style and the numerous extreme close-ups of faces are extraordinary as are the sets and costumes. Part 2 doesn't quite live up to the promise of part 1 but nevertheless brings the characters to an appropriate conclusion. Bizarrely humorous (perhaps unintentionally at times) Ivan is nevertheless a film more for afficionados than for the casual viewer looking for another classic in the mould of Casablanca.

Regarding the transfers, they are superb and anyone expecting better prints is simply not being realistic regarding the age of the material and the conditions in which they were kept. While not as pristine looking as other recent releases of 40's films on DVD such as Shadow of a Doubt or Monsieur Hulot's Holiday they are more than adequate considering given the circumstances.

Superb and unusual Eisenstein sound films
Alexander Nevsky:

For those familiar with this classic of the Russian cinema, little need be said. For others, here are the high points: the story is set in medieval Russia and it essentially is about a great warrior who is drawn out of seclusion to lead the fight to defend the homeland against invading barbarians, who are German; there is much bravura acting from the loyal patriots, who deal not only with a vicious enemy from without but also with insidious traitors from within; the hero-warrior who leads them is suitably understated and dignified, striking a memorable portrait of nobility and grandeur. All this is dramatically heightened by some of the best cinematography ever, climaxing in a final battle over the ice which is done entirely with striking visuals and music-only sound. The result is one that rises far beyond the level of a mere costume picture or any cartoon story of battling types. This is a rich treasure from cinematic history, with all talents (including Sergei Eisenstein, one of the greatest directors ever, seen at his best) in brilliant form. Don't miss it.

Ivan the Terrible, Parts I and II:

During World War II, with Russia in the grip of Stalin and with Hitler at its door, the greatest Russian director of his day, and perhaps ever, joined the greatest Russian actor of his day, to depict the dark and brooding story of the rise and fall of a ruthless Russian Tsar who tyrannized Russia during the 1500s. While the story hardly amounts to movie uplift, the joy and fascination here lies in the details. Straightaway, in episode one, there is perhaps the most amazing movie opening ever filmed, in the coronation of Ivan the Terrible. Those familiar with Theodor Dreyer's "Passion of Joan of Arc" in 1928 will appreciate what fascination can lie in watching the camera cut skillfully from one grotesque image to another in endlessly imaginative ways, almost as if the gargoyles themselves were about to speak. The fascinating imagery proceeds non-stop from there, in the hands of master craftsman and director Sergei Eisenstein, like a medieval masterpiece come to life, though part two does not quite rise to the exceptional quality of part one. A taste of the high production standards is gleaned from a musical score composed by the great classicist Sergei Prokofiev. A very, very Russian production -- dark and grim, but full of amazing levels of interest, just the kind of production spoofed by Woody Allen years later in "Love and Death." Not necessarily to everybody's taste, but a great treat for connoisseurs.

Excellent box set. Thank you Criterion!
This box set is one of the Criterion Collection's best releases yet. In this set are 3 films.

Alexander Nevsky and Ivan the Terrible (Ivan Grozny) parts 1 and 2.

Alexander Nevsky is based on the true story of 13th century Prince Alexander Nevsky who helped fend off Teutonic (German) soldiers out of what is now Russia.

The film has an excellent score composed for the film by Sergei Prokofiev. The acting in the film is also very good also. The film was very popular and was temporarily banned by Stalin after Germany signed a nonagression pact with the Soviet Union.

The film is on disc 1 and has the following special features.
Restoration demonstration, Production stills and storyboard drawings, a multimedia essay by Russel Merrit on Sergei Eisenstein's work with Sergei Prokofiev on the film's score, an feature length essay on the film by David Bordwell, who wrote a book on Eisenstein's films, and there is also stills and dialog from Eisentein's unfinished film, Bezhin Meadow with photos of the film's set.

Ivan the Terrible parts 1 and 2 are the first two parts of an unfinished trilogy. Several scenes of part 3 were filmed but only one scene is known to survive today.

The film follows the life of Tsar Ivan Vassilivich also known as Ivan the Terrible (Ivan Groznyy). He is credited with uniting the people of Russia into a single nation. The first film covers his coronation and a battle that was fought to reclaim lost territory. The film is also very famous and has music by Prokofiev.

The first part on disc 2 has the folloving special features:
The deleted prologue sequence covering part of Ivan's childhood where he witnesses the poisoning murder of his mother and also contains another deleted scene. It also has the surviving fragment of the unfinished part 3 There are also a slide show of production stills and drawings, and an essay on the history of the film.

Part 2 covers the time where Tsar Ivan roots out the traitors who helped poison his wife and executes them.

The film has an excellent Color sequence cofering much of the last 30 minutes of the film. The Agfacolor film stock was captured from the Germans during WWII and was used for this film. The cinematography is really gpood and there is a flashback sequence from the deleted prologue of part 1

Disc 3 also contains an audio essay by Yuri Tsivian on the stunning cinematography of the film.

The set is well worth the $79 if you are a fan of Russian Cinema like I am. This set remains one of my favorites and it is really worth looking into.

Nevsky DVD
I'm only telling you about the Nevsky DVD here - my local library has a copy of it, and that was all i got to see.

Terrific transfer - firstly. The film's look, like with Ivan, is its greatest attribute - and here it looks incredible. The images are just so clear, i couldn't believe it. You can fully appreciate the brilliance and purity of Eistenstein's cinema.

Sound quality was good.

Special features were particularly good (as usual). Audio commentary and tidbits from film historians and critics. Most interesting was a reconstruction from stills and titlecards of Eistenstein's unfinished/lost pastoral film Bezhin Meadows. This is the only place you'll get to see this. And i was quite impressed by it. There are some striking images in there, similar to some compositions from Nevsky.

Unlike Ivan (which i have seen Part I of, but not on this DVD) in my opinion, Nevsky does not suffer from a creaky plot, but has good unity and good progression to the climax of the battle of the ice. Part love triangle, part battle epic, Nevsky feels wearisome in places for how very much it is soviet propaganda. In both films, the performances are unusual, because they are more like silent performances, which would have been poetic in a silent, but definitely look quirky in a sound movie.

If i had any complaints it would be these:

one for Eisenstein, for his sound engineer, for the terrible job he did of constructing the sound for the battle on the ice. I could hear the foley artist literally clanking a whole lot of swords together rhythmically. Very distracting indeed.

one for Criterion: i would not have subtitled every line of the singing. Nevsky and Ivan are both part Eisenstein movie, part Prokofiev opera. But the lyrics of the songs the people/army are constantly singing in the background of Nevsky get very repetitive, because its the same verse over and over. Continually reinforcing this propagandising message of unity. And i'm sure its the same for Ivan, but the release i saw of Ivan didn't continue to subtitle every line of song, which is why i know this was a much better option.

Otherwise, a beautiful DVD edition (of Nevsky) with an incredible image and good special features.

A Review for Alexander Nevsky
This is a Russian film released in 1938, just before the start of World War II. Although the film features battle sequences between the Germans and Russians, it is not about World War II. It is set in the 13th century cities of Pskov and Novgorod. Alexander Nevsky is the prince and a famous war leader who previously defeated the Swedes when they tried to invade Russia. The film has very strong images (and songs) of Russian patriotism, and is probably one of the reasons it was so popular when it was released. Since the Russians were preparing to fight the Germans once again in WWII, this film was likely a morale-booster for the soldiers and the public alike.

The opening sequences of the film feature beautiful cinematography. Alexander Nevsky and his men are fishing on a lake when a band of Mongols crosses their path. The Russians have just fought a war with the Mongols and so some fighting ensues as the Mongols pass by the Russians. Alexander Nevsky, irritated with this commotion as it is scaring the fish away, breaks up the fight. Some of the Mongol leaders recognize him as the man who defeated the Swedes and invite him to become a general in their army. He replies with an old Russian saying that it is better to die than to leave your homeland, giving yet another shot in the arm to Russian patriotism.

After the Mongols depart, one of Alexander's men comes up to him and warns him that they may have to battle the Mongols yet again. However, Alexander brushes this warning aside and advises that the Germans will have to be defeated before the Mongols.

Next, we move on to the city of Pskov. The Germans have already taken over this city and are holding the surviving Russians captive. The men are tied up in the center of the city while the women and children look on. The site of the German army is actually rather amusing. The Germans are dressed up in sheets, somewhat reminiscent of the garb members of the Ku Klux Klan are famous for wearing. Regular German infantry soldiers have buckets on their heads with cross cutouts allowing for them to see out. The German nobility also have buckets on their heads but they get specials horns and other decorative regalia.

This is probably the most graphic and disturbing scene of the movie as the Germans then proceed to exterminate every surviving Russian, somewhat ominous as this is also what the Germans do in WWII. There are close-ups of a German soldier throwing children into a pit of fire as they are screaming out in fear. Everyone else is either burned to death or hanged. However, at least one man manages to escape Pskov and goes to warn Alexander that the Germans are advancing.

When the escapee relates his message to the famed prince, Alexander is deeply disturbed and begins planning how to seek revenge on the Germans. He forms a company of troops and even orders the peasants to join in. One exceptionally brave female also joins the army. They then march to the city of Novgorod to gather more troops. Although some at Novgorod initially refuse to fight, more patriotic speeches are made and everyone agrees the Germans must be stopped.

Once the battalion is formed, they begin marching towards Pskov and run into some German troops. Although the German troops appear to win this minor battle, Alexander regroups and forms a plan for attack set for the next morning. The attack is staged on an ice-covered lake and while some of the men are worried the ice may give way, Alexander advises them that if it does, the Germans are likely to go in first since their armor is heavier... so, all the better.

The lake battle is really quite spectacular for its time, although it would probably be considered cheesy by today's standards. Some of the more hilarious images involve the German soldiers getting conked on the top of the head with an axe and then their buckets crumple up, presumably squishing their heads. As it is mainly a sword battle, there are images of several soldiers getting played out from swinging their heavy swords and having to lean upon their teammates in order to remain standing. The Russians begin to chase the Germans away, seemingly towards areas of thin ice as the next scene is that of the remaining German troops falling through the ice into the piercing cold lake beneath them.

The rest of the film is rather anti-climatic as the Russians return to Pskov and prove their moral superiority over the Germans by releasing the captured foot soldiers and holding the captive nobility for ransom, rather than executing everyone as the Germans were notorious for doing. Then, some brave soldiers choose wives and Alexander declares that everyone should celebrate. All in all, this is a decent film worth watching. ... Read more

Reviews (108)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i give it ***

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

Reviews (49)

The Nazis come up with the "Final Solution" over lunch
"Conspiracy" is based on the original minutes of the Wannsee Conference held on January 20, 1942 in Berlin where the Nazi worked out "The Final Solution." The of this HBO production is something of a misdirection, because this hour long meeting that would result in the death of 6 million European Jews might have been secret, but it was not exactly clandestine. This is not a meeting where the participants made their plans in hushed whispers, but something that eerily smacks of a board meeting at a large company. These men were going to become mass murderers on a scale rarely seen in human history, but they seem more like bureaucrats than anything else, which is just another level of the horror involved here.

"Conspiracy" goes beyond the recreation of this infamous meeting for the 1984 documentary "The Wannsee Conference," both of which are based upon the lone surviving record of the gather of 15 Nazi officers head by General Reinhard Heydrich (Kenneth Branagh). Included in the group are Lt. Colonel Adolf Eichmann (Stanley Tucci) and Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart, Interior Ministry (Colin Firth), and within an hour they come up with their solution to the "Jewish question." However, this is a sense in "Conspiracy" that they are not so much debating what it to be done but being asked to sign on to the plan that Heydrich is revealing directly and indirectly throughout the meeting in his quest for "unanimity."

This time around the horror is in the details, as these men try to come up with the most efficient way of killing and disposing of that many people while one guy does the math. Given that we know what is going to happen what stands out are not those who cannot wait to start the killing as much as those who have "reservations." Stuckart, who wrote the Nuremberg codes, is aghast at what these new policies will mean for the rule of law in Nazi Germany, as the courts are filled with divorce cases separating Jewish and Aryan spouses. However, Struckart makes it clear he hates Jews as much as the next person at that table. Then there is Dr. Wilhelm Kritzinger (David Threlfall), Permanent Secretary of the Reich Chancellery, who obviously has misgivings on moral grounds, but ultimately can offer no more obstacle than a story, which serves as the final statement on the proceedings when related by Heydrich to Eichmann after the meeting.

The end of the film, where we are informed as to what happened to the participants, is particularly interesting. I was surprised how few of these 15 Nazis were actually executed for war crime. Several of them would die during the war while others would be imprisoned, but a surprising number were released for lack of evidence. I was also interested to find out exactly who failed to destroy their copy of the minutes, although there is nothing particularly insightful about the revalation beyond satisfying my curiosity. In terms of Holocaust films "Conspiracy" a footnote to the mass exterminations, but of interest for what it provide in terms of rare insights into what the Nazi bureaucracy was actually thinking as it launched the "Final Solution."

Stands up to its subject matter
An account of the Wannsee Conference, chaired by Reinhard Heydrich (Head of the Reich Security) on January 1942. This Conference was to be decisive in establishing the "Final Solution" - cause of the Holocaust. One copy of the proceedings was found by American investigators after WW2 and was made into two movies, "The Wannsee Conference" (a West German movie), and the American remake "Conspiracy".

Any movie where we watch people talking for 90 minutes stands or falls on acting quality. Kenneth Branagh, as Heydrich, is excellent - the texture of his role is slick and darkly pleasant. The other actors are efficient. The made-for-TV nature of the movie does become apparent in its low-budget production, but this kind of movie does not necessarily need a lot of fluff.

Watching nazi officers and officials discussing whenever half-Jews should be made infertile or killed is not an inherently desirable experience. But there are many things in life that are undesirable, but must be confronted.

Worth Watching
I had the opportunity of viewing Conspiracy during a Holocaust Education workshop for teachers. It is very accurate (from what I have read) and does show the inner-works of the Wansee Conference.

I believe that the film was either filmed on location or at a place that was very much similar to the Wannsee House. I had the opportunity to travel there this past summer with a group of teachers. I was struck by how much the movie prepared me to think about the house and it's importance in the creation and implementation of the "Final Solution". If you are thinking of showing it to students, you may need to explain to them how the conference was conducted and give them some background -- it has lots of dialogue and plenty of "under currents" that can be hard to follow if you are not familiar with the "power plays" that were going on at that table....lots of ego at that table. It is important to remember that many of these individuals were sent by the "major players" in the Nazi regime to attend the conference. By not attending the conference himself, Hitler and his administrative members could claim "plausable deniability" (so they thought) if anything were to go wrong with the plan. It is hard to believe that this beautiful house that is located on beautifully-decorated ground and of of a spectacular lake could have played such a major role in WWII. Chilling!

chilling and engaging
It is certainly true that this is not the most accurate of historical documents, but then any historian would tell you that all history is in the interpretation and so the movie is as useful as your interpretation. The performances are excellent, Branagh, in particular, is outstanding, he is every bit the portrayal of the chillingly pleasant monster. The message is powerful, the acting and direction cold, calm and calculated - within 1 hour the holocaust was decided upon; the moment where the topic of discussion is how many and how fast can they be culled? is particularly sickening.

From an historical perspective i found the following very interesting: Hitler based his party structure on a chaos theory in that he had simple overlapping functions, so that his subordinates would always be engaged in in-fighting, instead of challenging him. It worked remarkably well. Here, in motion, the director shows the in-fighting, but on this part of domestic policy (internal to the Reich, at any rate) the decision was swift and unanimous, Heydrich alone held the power. Utterly intriguing.

What may make this more interesting for anyone, might be to read Hannah Arendt's account of Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem, which is published by Penguin.

Haunting
The Holocaust is one of humanity's greatest tragedies, and its mention brings up images of swastikas, death camps, mass graves, and gas ovens. It's some thing you can't talk about easily, and can barely joke about unless you have no heart. This film is about the Holocaust, and while you may see a swastika arm-band and hear a few Heil Hitlers, you won't find any violence or harrowing images; this film is only rated R due to the use of the f bomb a few times. However, this film can be just as gut wrenching as any Holocaust movie you've seen, because it's all about the people who planned it...and the fact they were just as human as you and me.

The fate of eleven million European Jews was decided over a meal by several higher ups in the German government (although not Hitler). Led by Reinhard Heydrich (played brilliantly, as usual, by Kenneth Branagh) and his aide (play brilliantly, also as usual, by Stanley Tucci) as they explain the plan. They explain it so simply, as if they're building a house, and in a very intellegent manner. In fact, it has to be explained at some point in the conversation that "deportation" is just a fancy word for murder.

Many of those present do not agree with the methods, but not because they have sympathy for the Jews. One somber delegate thinks the Jews should be removed from common society, but that murder is too extreme. Another delegate objects to the plan...but only because he feels the procedures Heydrich draws up will contradict his already enforced anti-semite laws. In the end, it is revealed how it will be accomplished: by none other than the gas chambers of the concentration camps.

Like movies such as "My Dinner With Andre" or "12 Angry Men" this movie takes a storyline built entirely on dialogue and proves it can be fascinating. These are characters that joke about sterilizing a whole race as if the Jews were animals, and the lack of music through out the whole thing (except for the ending narration) adds a good level of realism. I found myself watching this movie three times after I had rented it to closely study how the different characters interacted and treated this serious issue.

If you are interested in World War II, German history, the Holocaust, or you just like drama, then you will enjoy this movie. Some may not be able to watch it because of the subject matter, but it is definately worth your time. These are not propoganda style Nazis, nor are they charicatures of Hitler, but they are just ordinary people. ... Read more

Amazon.com

No one uses color like Chinese director Zhang Yimou--movies like Raise the Red Lantern or Hero, though different in tone and subject matter, are drenched in rich, luscious shades of red, blue, yellow, and green. House of Flying Daggers is no exception; if they weren't choreographed with such vigorous imagination, the spectacular action sequences would seem little more than an excuse for vivid hues rippling across the screen. Government officers Leo and Jin (Asian superstars Andy Lau and Takeshi Kaneshiro) set out to destroy an underground rebellion called the House of Flying Daggers (named for their weapon of choice, a curved blade that swoops through the air like a boomerang). Their only chance to find the rebels is a blind women named Mei (Ziyi Zhang, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) who has some lethal kung fu moves of her own. In the guise of an aspiring rebel, Jin escorts Mei through gorgeous forests and fields that become bloody battlegrounds as soldiers try to kill them both. While arrows and spears of bamboo fly through the air, Mei, Jin, and Leo turn against each other in surprising ways, driven by passion and honor. Zhang's previous action/art film, Hero, sometimes sacrificed momentum for sheer visual beauty; House of Flying Daggers finds a more muscular balance of aesthetic splendor and dazzling swordplay. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (153)

DO NOT buy this crap!
OK! Who the hell gave this movie 4 stars??!! Poor story, poor dialog, poor EVERYTHING!!! This movie sucked. Get stabbed by a dagger and the girl stays alive until the unnecessary long fight between two bad actors is over??!! Come on! This movie is worse than the Hindi crap that comes out of Bollywood. Wish I could give it zero stars, but I can't. Amazon, will you please see that movies of this low quality get zero stars?

Technically breathtaking, but left this viewer a little cold
Zhang Yimou's HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS continues where the director's HERO left off: it is a film of immense visual beauty and amazing choreography, supporting a plot with melodramatic elements to it. But whereas HERO could conceivably, amidst the dazzling imagistic pageantry and big emotions, be interpreted as a political statement (the film ends with a ruler having to sacrifice a hero for what he considers the greater cause of unifying feudal China), HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS is content to be romantic melodrama, plain and simple.

Personally, I kinda prefer the extra intellectual and thematic stimulation offered by HERO. At the end of that film, you really had something to think about; at the end of HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS...well, the story is over (and a song sung in English by soprano Kathleen Battle plays over the closing credits). Nothing of great consequence, I felt, had really happened in this film; it is basically one ravishing image and one amazing fight sequence following another, interspersed with (admittedly well-acted) moments of intimacy or high drama. If Zhang Yimou was aiming for thematic subtlety in HERO, here he goes for operatic emotions and visual spectacle. And for all its technical brilliance, the whole thing ultimately left me a little cold---maybe a bit too melodramatic and soapy for my taste.

That is a very personal reaction, of course. The technical brilliance Zhang Yimou brings to HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS is not to be denied; these are some of the most breathtaking (and breathtakingly filmed) fight sequences seen since the last notable "wuxia" film, Ang Lee's CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON. And the actors bring as much conviction as possible to their basically two-dimensional characters: certainly, as House of Flying Daggers member Mei, Ziyi Zhang brings convincing passion to her role, as do Takeshi Kaneshiro and Andy Lau as, respectively Jin and Leo, two police deputies who rescue Mei from prison and try to trick her into bringing them to the House of Flying Daggers to stop their rebelliousness once and for all.

Perhaps the best way to appreciate HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS is to look at it as a cinematic opera. Zhang Yimou is clearly not afraid to work on a big canvas, and he brings all the big emotions and spectacular sights he can to tell his melodramatic story. Those who go into this film expecting to be dazzled will most likely be satisfied; it is a genuine technical marvel. For me, though, I was expecting more substance to the film than it delivered. HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS may be more purely enjoyable than HERO, but the latter, to me, is a much more interesting movie than this one.

Super Cool Movie!!!
The action and special effects sequences in this movie are incredibly fun to watch.Zhang Ziyi is flawless as usual, and her perfomance and beauty justifies buying this DVD in itself.

Great cinematography, weak story
Genre: Foreign, Martial Arts, Romance

Genre Grade: B+

Final Grade: A-

This was another great film from Chinese director Yimou Zhang. Although not even close to comparing to his last film, Hero, it still was a great movie. Zhang is an artist, it is as simple as that. His locations are perfect, the colors are vibrant, and the characters are passionate. This is much more a love story than anything. It offers some good surprises concerning the characters and keeps the mystery of the "House of Flying Daggers" a secret to even the viewers. Actress Ziyi Zhang should learn to speak English because she could be a huge star in the United States.

I recommend this film to anyone who enjoyed Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Hero. It is dubbed in English so you don't have to read subtitles if you don't want to.

stunning
Yimou is a true artist of cinema. Hero and House of Flying Daggers are beautiful and spiritual adventures in Asian cinema. Both films are remarkable acheivments that are lost on the reviewer who gave this film one star. True art is often missunderstood by the masses. ... Read more

Reviews (322)

It's been a long time...
This is truly a lovely movie, and it has been a long time since a romantic comedy has been this enjoyable. This movie may remind you of "When Harry Met Sally" or "Sleepless in Seattle", where the couples are clearly meant for each other, yet have obstacles they must overcome. The acting and dialogue are superb! Hugh Grant, a world-famous actor, is completely convincing as an average bloke, while Julia Roberts goes by Anna Scott and plays herself, a "heavenly" movie star.

One review of this movie called it "pure fairy tale." As long as you can believe that it is possible for an actress to truly be a "good person," that she may actually want to live a relatively "normal" life outside of her acting career and may want to start a family of her own, then this statement is false. One specific scene mentioned as difficult to believe was the initial kiss that takes place quite soon after they meet. However, there are two reasons why this scene is believable. First, it is quite obvious that she is impressed from the start with his wit, sensitivity, and honesty, especially compared to the other men who are falling over themselves when they meet her. Secondly, this kiss may be a sort of test. In a city filled with reporters trying to get a story and her pictures plastered everywhere, her life has to be secretive as much as possible. Perhaps she wanted to see if she would be reading about the incident in the next day's paper before she allowed herself to get too close. She gave him quite the opportunity to brag to his friends or family, but he does not.

This movie is quite entertaining to watch the first, second and even fifth time.

Quirky, funny and totally sentimental...what more is there?
This is a feel good movie for everyone who has ever loved or been loved. Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts are great as the mismatched couple who meet one day and strike up the most unlikeliest of friendships. Julia Roberts plays "the most famous film star in the world", whilst Hugh Grant is a bumbling bookstore owner with a failing business. Their love affair is a fairy tale come true, but like most fairy tales there are a few hurdles to overcome before true love and happiness can finally be theirs. Grant and Roberts are ably supported by an excellent cast, including the Emma Chambers better known as Alice Tinker from "The Vicar of Dibley", and Rhys Ifans who brilliantly portrays Grant's nutty Welsh flatmate. Notting Hill doesn't tax the brain cells. There are many hilarious moments, one of the funniest being the car scene when Grant tries to get to Robert's press evening, it's a laugh a minute and the same can be said for the rest of the film. So if you want a gentle love story, a surprisingly good comedy combined with witty dialogue and a cast of great actors then rent or buy this movie. You won't regret it.

zzzzzzzz Oh Okay I'm awake.......zzzzzzzzzzz Yeah Ok...zzz
I would like to say that I agree with some of the previous reviewers on this forum that Julia Roberts is not much of an actress. Just a pretty face. I rented this and went into it with a open mind. I haven't seen Julia Roberts in any other movies. This is the first. Julia Roberts did not add anything to the part. Hugh Grant was okay. I haven't seen him in any other movies either. So this was a first for me to see him. Now, as for the film. The story was pretty much bland and it was difficult to hold my interest. The film is very much a boy meets girl/ boy loses girl etc.... and you're basic light, fluff love story. The only humorous portion was Hugh Grant's slob/eccentric roommate and even that was only mildly funny. From what I understand, this is the formula film that Roberts generally is in and she does not change much from that formula. There is not any pretty scenery, vistas or even witty/clever dialogue. I think women would enjoy this film more than men. After watching it, you come away from it feeling like you haven't watched anything of substance. The film does touch on the difficulties that Roberts (who plays a famous movie star) has being famous and contending with the press and gossip in the London newspapers. I think most people would be satisfied to watch this film once and leave it at that. Others might really find it a waste of their time, while I know some people will turn it off after 15 minutes. It's not the worst film I have seen, but it is far, far below the standards of a really good film. I wouldn't recommend this as a film to keep in your DVD library. It is a toss away film. Not bad, just sub-standard all the way around. (I don't see what all the fuss is about regarding Julia Roberts as an actress. I see just a pretty face. There's a lot of prettier women out there in the real world). Two stars folks.

dissapointed
The movie is ok for watching once.. so rent if you want to see it first.. but not one i'd watch again. nothing really captivating in this movie. why julia in this movie was interested in grants character is beyond me... she barely knew the guy except for a few things... his apartment is a mess and he has some freaky roomate that would have scared me off.. i can sympathize with her situation and sort of see movie stars life in a new light.. but then again being rich and famous has a lot of other pleasures i'm sure! and this movie makes it seem like shes plain miserable. anyway, this movie was slightly boring. i like roberts and grant as actors.. i just didnt see the real attraction between them no matter how hard they tried... there was no moments in this movie that would have made them very close therefore not moving to me.. this one isnt a keeper in my opinion.

Well- at least this time she's in the right role
I've been waiting forever for a critic or reviewer to expose Julia Roberts for what she is- a talentless, over-estimated, freak of nature--- but the culture is so heady with celebrity buzz that it will never happen. So I'll have to take matters into my own hands:

Roberts has been getting away with simply playing variations of herself since the days of Mystic Pizza. Her same shrill laugh (it's actually a barking shout- look for it) can be heard in any one of those forgettable roles from Flatliners to the Pelican Brief, and the academy-award-winning Brokovich character was Roberts again, only this time dressed like a trailer park refugee and spouting a little more anger and sarcasm than she normally does. God help us- Pretty Woman was such a smash that we'll never be rid of her. Unfortunately, when not playing one of those personal variations, she's lost because she honestly can't act. Take a look at her poor attempt in Michael Collins and there you'll find someone out of their depth. The role was not difficult, just not a variation of herself (am I getting redundant?)

Now for the review of Nottinghill: The script is witty at points, and the story is at times charming with some entertaining moments. According to a professional reviewer, "True, Roberts doesn't really have to stretch very far to play a big-time actress who makes $15 million per movie . . ." Well, that nails it, doesn't it? For once, Roberts can be forgiven for being herself, because that's what the role calls for: a famous, over-paid, self-consumed, Hollywood celebrity. But as well-cast as Julia is here, even she can't resist going over the top on occasion, as in the scene where one of Grant's friends, who meets her for the first time, discovers she's an actress and comments that it's a tough occupation in which to make a living. Our girl enjoys her response entirely too much when he asks what she got paid for her last work. Then again--- I guess I can see her gloating in the same self-satisfied manner in real life, so it's probably appropriate. In contrast to this kind of affirmation, however, notice how Alec Baldwin's cameo portrayl of the male star counterpart later in the film is more tongue in cheek; Julia, on the other hand, is far too relaxed (and serious) playing the pompous, condescending star. Gee, by Jove, it's her!

As enjoyable as this film can be at times despite the romantic comedy formula which has been so overdone, the real killer is the fairy tale ending. It just wouldn't have happened this way, no matter what we want to believe. If by some strange quirk of fate, Roberts' character was somehow faintly drawn to this guy and married him, it would have been only as a passing diversion, and annulled 2 weeks later (any real life analogies?). Good performances by Grant and most of the supporting cast, and Roberts doing herself (there it is again), but it's not enough. Even though the film is not a disaster, it just doesn't work. Spend your money on the popcorn for another video.

By the way, will someone also please finally admit that Julia Roberts is not attractive? With that mouth, she looks like she could consume a '56 Buick whole in one bite. ... Read more

Description

Part poetry, part journalism, part philosophy, master filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard's Notre Musique is a witty and lyrical reflection on war through the ages. The film is structured into three Dantean Kingdoms: Hell, Purgatory and Heaven.The journey begins in Hell, represented by modern war and then moves to Purgatory, set in Sarajevo.Finally, Paradise is conceived as a small beach guarded by Marines from the United States.At the same time, the film also follows the parallel stories of two Israeli Jewish women, one drawn to the light and one drawn towards darkness. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

A visual poem of hope beyond horror
Godard has offered us perhaps his best work since "Le-Week-End"
(not cialis folks)in 1967. The arche post-modernist film-maker has given has a subjective charcter, Olga, the French-Jewish journalist/martyr is his first totally compelling female character since his ex-wife Anna Karina, who lit up his work from 1961-65.

JLG, himself, seems to have mellowed a bit, and like many septaganarians, his musings may be turning to the "invisible world" beyond the veil.

Loosely based on Dante's "Divine Comedy," "Notre Musique" gives usvisions of Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven. This redemptive movement gives us hope in the face of the wars that have virtually detroyed 20th century Europre, and of the tremendous horror modern man has inflicted on minorities he considers a nuisance (American Indians, victims of war, Palestinians, Women, Muslims,Jews, Bosnians, Blacks...). This isn't new for Godard, but the outrage is replaced by sorrow in the face of the eternal repetition of atrocities. inequalities. and injustice.

Godard mourns the "masculinization" of women with his film bit about film shot/reverse shot. And Sarjevo has become the new Auchiwitz- or Hiroshima. We see how much war, masculine child-like war, has traumatized our civilization, and how we still are helpless in the face of this primal instinct.

Some may see "French anti-semitism"in his his treatment of the fascinating interview with the very western looking Palestinian, who says, in effect, the only reason the plight of his people are known is because of their relationship with "The Jews", both victims of European Nationalism.

In Olga's ascension, in the short final section, to Paradise after her martyrdom in Israel(perhaps indicative of Godard seeing signs of impending fascism in the "Neo-Con" contrived"roadmap" of today's Israel- not original but dramitcally poignant.) we see a retun to nature, as in "The-Week-End." and our return to our origin
in "the garden" A hopeful sign that we all may begin, not necessarily be born, again.

Welcome back JLG, perhaps, like Luis Bunuel in his 70's, your bestwork may be yet to come. Sadly, this isn't for everyone,
but wouldn't it be wondeful if it could be.

Godard's new film is way beyond belief
Jean-Luc Godard's overpowering but insanely confusing new film "Notre Musique" is an astonishing symphony of garish colors, violent images and a jarring musical score. Godard, an icon of the French New Wave, uses every technique at his disposal to create a solemn reflection on the questions of war, evil and human nature. But the film's grave, weighty maxims don't really add up to any clear profundities. The film is a bizarre and ambitious experiment -- a mixture of narrative fiction film with documentary -- but it ultimately leaves its audience behind.

The structure of "Notre Musique," modeled on Dante's "Divine Comedy," is divided into three parts: Hell, Purgatory and Paradise. The homage to Dante is one of the most obvious references in a film filled with them, which tends to amount to allusion for allusion's sake. Godard is well known for his practice of quoting, paraphrasing and referring to past works of art, though his tastes are so obscure that it's nearly impossible to follow along.

The first segment, Hell, is a disturbing ten-minute collage of images of war. The short clips were culled from all sorts of sources; Nazis from the Holocaust documentary "Night and Fog" play alongside stereotyped Native Americans from Hollywood Westerns.

Godard's tremendous skill as an editor is evident throughout "Musique," especially during this first sequence. He weds violence and brutality to the powerful music of numerous classical composers, including Sibelius and Tchaikovsky. The effect of the perpetually pounding pianos is overwhelming, though numbing rather than emotional. The same is true for the section in its entirety; showing scene after scene of gruesome death, Godard does not so much affect his audience as alienate them.

The second part of the movie, Purgatory, is its bulk. Its loose narrative is centered on a real-life conference, European Literary Encounters, held in Sarajevo. Godard follows a cast of tangentially related fictional and real-life characters as they travel in Sarajevo during the conference. Among the people playing themselves are Godard, the Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwich, the Spanish author Juan Goytisolo and French authors Pierre Bergounioux and Jean-Paul Curnier. The internationality of this real-life artistic community is particularly interesting, especially in the way Godard uses it in order to universalize his messages.

The protagonist of the film is Judith Lerner (Sarah Adler), an Israeli journalist from Tel Aviv. She and Olga Brodsky (Nade Dieu), a French Jewish woman, wrestle with the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, which serves as Godard's microcosm for modern armed conflict. In one of the movie's most memorable scenes, Judith interviews Darwich about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The poet argues that even as they have suffered under the Israeli occupation, the Palestinians have benefited in publicity. "The world cares about you, not about us," Darwich says. "You've brought us defeat and renown." Judith's response rings all too true: "We are your propaganda ministry."

But identifying with this scene, as with the entire film, requires genuine knowledge on the subject, making "Notre Musique" something of an elitist work of art. The other obvious shortcoming is the rapidness and arbitrariness with which Godard moves from character to character and idea to idea, leaving the audience no time to absorb them. As a result, the film's many self-consciously profound insights into the world come off as glib and even shallow. (For example, one character randomly remarks, with a straight face, that Russians have no concept of evil because of Russian syntax.)

The scenes in Purgatory have little thematic connection or character development to speak of. Instead, where Godard envisions Hell as absurd and inexplicable war, he seems to regard Purgatory as a world of perpetually fruitless wrestling with morality. Though this idea sounds wonderful in concept, the film's open-ended nature quickly becomes tiresome.

Perhaps the most interesting part of Purgatory is its setting, Sarajevo, the city where World War I originated. The film shows it to be a damaged and wounded city, though one undergoing a healing process; the run-down bridge in the city that Judith visits during its reconstruction is an elegant symbol of this transition.

The centerpiece of the film is an address Godard gives at the conference. He speaks on the subject of "text and image," using a cinematic technique he refers to as "shot and counter-shot" as a metaphor for the duality of human nature. He shows a scene from the 1940 "His Girl Friday," arguing that Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell are two halves of one whole. It is infinitely confusing, but a wonderful moment nevertheless.

The title of the film translates to "Our Music," a phrase that seems to refer more to film than anything else. By mixing real-life and fictional characters, Godard challenges the boundary between movies and real life, suggesting that the first can help us come to terms with the second. But this abstract message is the closest the film gets to a concrete moral: it is often much more content to observe rather than comment. Detrimentally, "Notre Musique" observes the world at a mile per minute.

During the climactic lecture, one of his students asks the filmmaker, "Can the little digital cameras save cinema?" Godard does not respond. He doesn't seem to know about saving cinema, nor does he begin to contemplate saving the world. It seems, at times, that he doesn't even want to make sense of it.

(Originally published in the Yale Daily News, February 11, 2005.)

I've Heard That Song Before
I've never been much of a Jean-Luc Godard fan. Film after film he has disappointed me. Sure, there have been a small handful of films I've found meaningful including his last film "In Praise of Love", "Contempt" and "My Life To Live", but I've said some pretty mean spirited things about Godard in reviews written on amazon and in conversations with friends. I've called him pretenious, immature, and about as intellectually stimulating as a three year old.

I've found Godard to be childish in a philosophical sense. We just don't see eye to eye I think. What he finds thought provoking I don't. I think Ingmar Bergman, Andrei Tarkovosky and Akiria Kurosawa are far more mature and thought provoking.

I've also thought Godard has problems resolving his stories. He doesn't know how to come to a satisfying conclusion. In most of his films the characters die in the end. Watch "Breathless", "A Woman Is A Woman", "My Life To Live", "Pierrot le Fou", "Weekend" and "Contempt". In the grand scheme of things, yes, death is the ultimate ending, but, I feel it's a cop out. It showed his inability in handling his characters.

But now I've seen "Notre Musique", and my opinion of Godard has changed.

"Notre Musique" is one of if not Godard's best film. It is the film I have been waiting for Godard to make since I first saw "Breathless" about seven years ago.

Now either I'm slipping and have lowered my standards or Godard really has something here.

My guess is the latter. Now at 73 Jean-Luc Godard is not the same man anymore. He is not the radical leftist of films such as "Weekend" or "Two or Three Things I Know About Her" but instead has become more reflective. With age, wisdom and maturity have followed.

"Notre Musique" does not feel like a typical Godard film. Godard shows more restraint, more focus. There really is a great maturity here. It is here that Godard blends an intellectual capability and an emotional complexity in a masterful way. A way few films are able to achieve.

The film is divided in three chapters; Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven. Each is set to beautiful music. I said the film doesn't feel like a Godard film, and that's true, but Godard does his usual experimenting nonetheless. Music is cut in mid-scene, the screen fades to black while actors are still talking, and some characters do speak in the same way they have in Godard's past films and I've called it pretenious, but the difference here is Godard has found a perfect marriage of ideas and images.

We see the horror of war and its aftermath, the struggle here on Earth, and the paradise that can be found, as two women; one a journalist, the other a rebel searching for the truth. In one example of how Godard has matured, in the 60s the rebel would be the star, the symbol of power and what needs to be done in society, here though she is an almost tragic figure. Godard is injecting himself not only in a physical sense (he does star in the film as himself) but in an emotional way.

Despite the new year being only a month old, "Notre Musique" is the year's first "important" (whatever that may mean) film. A masterpiece.

Bottom-line: One of Godard's best if not his best. Displays an emotional maturity in his work. A perfect marriage of ideas and images.