Amazon.com

When asked to describe his work, Danish director Carl Theodor Dreyer said that film should present "truth filtered through an artist's mind, truth liberated from unnecessary detail." This collection of Dreyer's three major sound features demonstrates the director's rigorous commitment to that idea.

Day of Wrath (1943)--filmed during the Nazi occupation of Denmark--is set in a 17th-century village where the fear of witchcraft and the repression of human passions lead to tragedy. Ordet (1955) is considered by many to be Dreyer's masterpiece. This complex family drama is both moving and challenging, and the ending is one of cinema's greatest moments. Gertrud (1964) tells the story of a woman's search for fulfillment. Nina Pens Rode gives an extraordinary performance, heightened by Dreyer's peerless pacing and composition.

Accompanying the three films is a documentary by avant-garde filmmaker Torben Skjodt Jensen. Dreyer claimed to be surprised that anyone would want to make a film about him, but a greater understanding of the personality and the craft that went into the making of these films only enhances their impact. In spite of a career characterized by as many setbacks as successes, Dreyer's uncompromising commitment to his art (he once suspended filming because the clouds were moving in the wrong direction) resulted in work that continues to enthrall audiences and inspire filmmakers to this day.

Interviews with Dreyer's collaborators provide the backbone of MyMetier, but it is Jensen's visual approach--building layered images from photographs, manuscripts, and film clips--that explores and responds to Dreyer's movies in subtle but powerful ways. Instead of a succession of talking heads and illustrative excerpts, Jensen offers an impressionistic portrait of Dreyer in a documentary that is often as beautiful as its subject's own work. --Simon Leake ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Abstract yet personal
This great package contains films by one on the masters of modern cinema. Dreyer's work provides a marvellous antidote to what passes for cinema in today's world. Dreyer's films are in effect works of art.
Of this set, my two favorites are Ordet and Gertrud. All of Carl Dreyer's film manage to magically combine the physical and the metaphysical. It takes time to get into the pace of these films, but one into them, they are totally absorbing. The pace required is that of real time. These films restore real emotion and humanity to film, so very different from what passes for emotion and feeling in most of today's Hollywood productions.
To understand these films it is necessary to work from the inside out as it were. We are required to do the work for ourselves. We have to think and feel for ourselves as we watch these films. They are theraputic in the sense that the viewer has to slow down and pay attention. Everything counts in a Dreyer film.
These film are at one and the same time abstract and very personal. I can see how they have influenced fellow Dane Lars von rier.
For anyone is looking for action and external excitement in their films, I would suggest that they look elsewhere, but if they are want to see meditative works of art, this is the place to find them.

Necessary.
The only sad thing about this collection is that it doesn't include Dreyer's working of Jesus' life which, of course, is because he never filmed it or really completed the script. All other work represented is tops. From "Ordet", the classic play by fellow Dane Kaj Munk, to "Gertrud", this collection is a must have. The documentary shines light on his techniques, approach & brilliance. For some reason Dreyer's not as well known as another director great, Ingmar Bergman, but maybe this collection will help in that regard.

Known mostly for his wonderful interpretation of "Joan of Arc" & "Vampyr", Dreyer's later work is equally riveting (if not moreso). His understanding of the human condition shines through in each film.

If you have a penchant for Scandinavian film-making, this is a necessary buy. If you just love films, it's well worth your time to decide if it's your cup of tea.

Finally, as for Criterion's working- it's tops, as usual. Their attention to detail evident in each film they persue.

Great Box Set
It is fantastic that Criterion supervised this release. The biography disc is OK - too bad we didn't get 'Vampyr' instead - but the three Dreyer movies alone are worth far more than Criterion asks us to pay.

Worth Buying Just For One Film
The box set is unquestionably costly but in the set, there is one film that's absolutely worth buying for in its full cost. The film is ORDET - Carl Dreyer's crowning achievement. The photography is among the most beautiful you'd ever seen. I was an atheist for more than two decades and this film changed all that. It's that powerful. ORDET is a quilt of raw images and emotions that will burn into your soul eternally ... the dialogues between the folks are shockingly refreshing despite the film's age. Please do not read the notes that come with the DVD or otherwise your experience will be screwed up. I've been a happy owner of the box set for more than a year now even though I've seen only one film out of the set. ORDET is really that extraordinary.

Essential
This collection would be improved by inclusion of the early Dreyer comedy The Master of The House. I have seen Gertrud and The Day of Wrath in the cinema several times and Gertrud is on my list of all time top ten. The severity minimal means achieving maximum effects are the essence of what director/critic/screenwriter called "the transcendental style". The story of a woman's' love that was never requited by those who loved sounds simple enough but then, Dreyer would not be the master he is if he had not turned it into something beautiful that is intrinsically tied to the means of the film as medium itself. I thin that this film has only 57 shots. Yes 57! Long camera takes and static camera setups are what make this particular film and unforgettable experience. Definitely not for all tastes but once you see it you will probably be hooked. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Everything that was good about the 163-minute theatrical release of Bernardo Bertolucci's The Last Emperor in 1987 is even better in this new 218-minute director's cut. By contrast, much that was peculiarly distant and lifeless the first time around isn't really better or worse in this edition.Conclusion: the net gains are considerable if you invest time to appreciate Bertolucci's full feeling for the odd story of Pu Yi, China's final monarch.You remember the saga: taken from his mother at the age of three, Pu Yi is brought into the enclosed walls of the Forbidden City to replace the real emperor. There he becomes a pampered prisoner and hollow symbol of an older monarchy that has since given way to a ruthless, 20th century republic.With his pining loyalists beheaded or kept at bay by armed soldiers outside the City's walls, Pu Yi is tutored by an English gentleman (Peter O'Toole) and wed to a kindred spirit (Joan Chen). Eventually cast from his gated paradise, Pu Yi (wonderfully portrayed in adulthood by John Lone) becomes, by turns, a playboy, a dupe to the Japanese, and a victim of China's cultural reforms and re-education programs. This longer cut largely top-loads the film with greater reason to feel compassion for the emperor, with his often wordless sense-adventure in the mysteries that could only be known to one little boy plunged into indecipherable alien decorum, robbed of self-determination and common sense by his infinite privilege. Added scenes (including some in the political rehabilitation camp where Pu Yi is held for a decade) fill out not so much added facts as density of experience. This improved The Last Emperor is richer in soul and a pronounced sense of Bertolucci actually directing this film in the most personal and profound sense. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (103)

Masterpiece!
If you somehow missed this one, do yourself a favor and make time available in your schedule for viewing this masterpiece from director Bernardo Bertolucci! Nine academy awards, including Best Picture [1987], only gives partial credit to this magnificently epic and absolutely unforgettable true story. It is the story of Pu Yi, who at the age of 3 comes to the Imperial Dragon Throne to become the Last Emperor of China. His whole life is spanned in this film, from his childhood, to his ultimate fate as an unskilled gardener in the streets of Bejing. Throughout this film we are treated to a cinematic feast for the senses, so rich in detail and imagery, you will be compelled to see it again as soon as possible (I saw it again the very next night!). You will have felt the full range of emotions from having experienced this movie, and few others in recent memory have mesmerized me so totally in an almost 3 hour (164 min) time span. Truly one of the greatest films of all time! Masterpiece!

Bertolucci's Last Epic!
By that I mean with great respect! Bernardo Bertolucci is known for such cinematic extravaganzas as 1973's LAST TANGO IN PARIS and 1977's 1900; and to add to his credits, 1987's Best Picture winner THE LAST EMPEROR!

A film of major diversity. An Italian director (Bertolucci), a predominately Chinese cast including frequent costars John Lone and Joan Chen, British actor and seven-time Oscar nominee Peter O'Toole, an American producer named Jeremy Thomas, and distributed by an American studio, Columbia Pictures!

John Lone is the title character, Chinese emperor "Henry" Pu-Yi, who became the last Emperor of China at the age of 3, and would be the "Lord of Ten Thousand Years!" Nothing would prepare him for the change that would eventually occur when he is forced into abdication, forced into retaking his kingdom, and forcing him to attempt suicide after his arrest and capture by Chinese and Russian communist troops after World War II. Eventually, after serving his time for conspiracy, he released from prison and lives out the rest of his life in 1967 -- as a simple gardner.

Imagine. From Emperor to gardner, totally heartbreaking! Heartbreaking is the fact that it cost him EVERYTHING! His wife "Elizabeth" Wan Jung, played with grace by the gorgeous Joan Chen; his kingdom and his freedom. But, you can't simply hate the guy! He is, of course, a man who was spoiled by his servants and soldiers as a child.

The film has both an epic scope and an excellently-written character story. (Though most historians believed that the film embellished on certain facts, like Pu-Yi's homosexuality.) It is played competently by an Asian cast and a wonderfully witty Peter O'Toole, who should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor that year, as the Emperor's patient tutor Reginald "R.J." Johnston.

Needless to say, I cried at the very end of this film! I LOVED that scene between the elder Pu-Yi and a little boy who appears to be just like the Emperor as a child. And the symbolic message this film taught with the cricket in the jar, as the little boy opens the jar to reveal the insect (by then, Pu-Yi has magically disappeared). An epic film with a heart (like my PRISONER OF WAR)!

Winner of all 9 of its nominations including: Best Picture - Jeremy Thomas, producer; Best Director - Bernardo Bertolucci; Best Adapted Screenplay - Bertolucci and Mark Peploe; Best Cinematography; Best Art Direction/Set Decoration; Best Costume Design; Best Score; Best Sound; and Best Film Editing.

THIS FILM IS APPROXIMATELY: 2 HOURS AND 40 MINUTES.

But well worth it!

great film, awful dvd
I had the misfortune to buy this BEFORE I read the Amazon reviews and discovered that the DVD looked awful-a particular injustice for a film that won Best Picture. It's only 17 years old; there are films from the 30's that look great on DVD! I see though that in the U.K. they released a 2-disc version with commentary and both the original theatrical cut as well as the director's cut. I assume it's also restored and anamorphic and can only hope that we get an American version soon. The movie gets 5 stars, even at 219 minutes. The DVD gets 1 star, so that averages out to a generous 3.

Breathtakingly Beautiful, Decadent and Misconceived.
I revere every Bertoluccifs work tremendously, and this lavish film is no exception.
I was completely mesmerised by the view of the Forbidden City, beautiful period costumes of the Emperor and the Imperial family with which the director says he really cared about the historical accuracy to recreate as well as other things.
The historical accuracy is, however, not necessarily applied to the part of which Japan was involved. The foundation of Manshu-koku, (Manchukuo is the Chinese word) and the restoration of the Manchu Emperor Pfu Yi, and the alleged atrocities made to the Japanese Imperial Army, namely, gRape of Nankingh, etc. It is so because both Bernaldo Bertolucci and the producer Jeremy Thomas seem to have truly believed in the auto-biography of Pfu Yi, gFrom Emperor to Citizenh that written for propaganda purpose, and the Frank Caprafs U.S. propaganda film; gThe Battle of Chinah at their face values.
First thing is first, Chinese Communistfs gbrainwashingh undeniably exists. In the same year this film first came out, 1987, gFrom Emperor to Citizenh was re-published by Oxford University Press with new comprehensive general introduction and chapter introductions by W.J.F. Jenner, the translator of the original 1964 gdeliberately restricted editionh published by Foreign Language Press, BeiJing.
Jenner explains; gThe special consideration shown Pfu Yi and other high-ranking Manchukuo(sic), Japanese, and Nationalist officials cannot be regarded as typical of Chinese prison conditions. These were all people of potential value in winning over others in future, and political considerations saved them from the harsh justice that many lesser figures received.h And, Jenner continues, Pfu Yifs gsuccessful thought reformh which made him gusefulh and able body to work like other ordinary people, that Bertolucci praises vigorously, was, in fact, gsomething of ritualh. Pfu Yifs fourth wifefs account of his incapableness of looking after himself, even after his release of 1959, reveals some part of the truth.
His fifth and final marriage to a well qualified nurse was garranged by the Chinese Peoplefs Political Consultative Conference and the Communist Partyfs United Front Department. [cccc] He was even protected from the Cultural Revolution by Chou En-laifs intervention, and the local police kept Red Guards away. [cccc] Pfu Yifs presentation to foreigners as a living advertisement for the Peoplefs Government and the Communist Party began in 1956, while he was still in prison; and after his release he was often required to meet foreign visitors to China.h Those facts show that Pfu Yi was not successfully remolded@into an ordinary citizen after all, but made a perfect gmouthpieceh of the Communist Party Propaganda Department.

Bertolucci may never have read this revealing version of the Pfu Yifs gauto-biographyh. (In fact, the book was re-written before it was published in 1964 by Communist Propaganda Department writers based on the gconfessionsh Pfu Yi and Pfu Chieh had made in the prison as outcome of gbrainwashingh.)
But, in any case, the directorfs knowledge on the so-called gRape of Nankingh is awfully wrong.
He believes; gThe Japanese killed 300,000 Chinese people in *2 or 3 days* in Nanking.h (How did he think it was possible as the matter of reality?)
In fact, however, the *200,000* civilian refugee in Nanking were well protected by the Japanese Army and decrease of the number never recorded by the gobjectiveh foreigners of the International Committee of the Nanking Safety Zone, who, by the way, are assumed by many people including scholars as gthe witnesses of the Rape of Nankingh. They, on the contrary, recorded *increase* of the population to 250,000 within a few weeks after the capture of the city. No one saw such barbaric massacre except the Chinese propagandists and, actually, some members of the Committee who were hired by the Chinese Nationalist Party as international propaganda agents. Some ordinary Chinese people (genuine citizens of Nanking) even condemned the Chinese soldiers for the wrong-doing in Nanking.
Apart from gRape of Nankingh, the gnewsreelh in the film Pfu Yi and his co-inmates had watched is full of errors and, I dare to say, pernicious propaganda.
The planes that bombed Shanghai International Settlement and killed thousands of civilian was actually the Chinese. (Page 352 of The China Year Book 1938, edited by H.G.W. Woodhead, North China Daily News) And, the gexecutionh scene of the Chinese civilian is, I am sure, taken from the famous propaganda film by Frank Capra; gThe battle of Chinah that shows, in fact, the executioners are the Chinese Nationalist Party Army. Because of the fact the scene was gtrimmedh to ghideh the true identity of the executioners, I think Bertolucci did know they were using propaganda material.
What I do not know is their purpose. It may have been to get permission to make the film in Beijing under ghawk-eyeh of the Communist Party authorities they might have pretended to be pro-communist. In either way, this filmfs authenticity was sullied and that is very a shame.

Still, to me, this special edition is very interesting as a resource to understand the Cultural Revolution and the nature of brainwashing because it includes first-hand interviews of aging Pfu Chieh and the real life prison governor. Only one thing I would desire is subtitles, for the sake of clarification of the dialogues spoken by non-English speakers.

Good movie.... Awful DVD
Enough comments have been made on the movie so I'll just tell you my opinion on the DVD edition. It is one of the worst DVD transcription I have ever saw. I really had the impression to watch a DivX. Do I need to tell more about the resolution? Only the english soundtrack is available (I wish the movie had been shooted in Chinese or Mandarin but that's not the point) and no subtitles. The DVD presents the director's cut which makes the movie 3 and a half hour instead of 2 and a half. The theatrical version is not available on the DVD... Otherwise there is no additionnal material. ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Don't Miss This One!
This is an excellent video that accurately depicts the highlights of the Biblical story of King David! Although it is a wonderful pleasure just to sit and watch, we have also used it for Bible study classes and found it an extremely valuable tool in understanding the many events that surrounded the life this man "after God's own heart". ENJOY!

Forget the Negative Reviews! It really is 1000BC!
Fantastic Art Direction, High Production Values, and a Superb Cast and Crew make this film the most visually accurate Old Testament Story ever given the Big Screen Treatment. Whoever was the technical advisor for this film did an excellent job in recreating the period. Edward Woodward is Outstanding as Saul (most of the cast is British, which lends a certain archaic dignity to the dialogue). Richard Gere also does a great job as King David.
If you have a passion for Biblical or Historical Epics - this one delivers! The battle scenes (which are very well choreographed), chariot charges, and of course the duel between David and Goliath are all 'edge of the seat', 'toe curling action'
I really cannot praise this film too much!

"a lamp unto his people"
When this film was released in 1985, the critics were not kind, but I love this film, and think it's a good telling of the story of David, based on I and II Samuel, I Chronicles, and the Psalms. Though much of it has been compressed (David's relationship with Bathsheba is limited mostly to the consequences of it for instance) and some creative license used for plot continuity, it has a tremendous amount of Biblical accuracy.
Taking place from 1000 to 961 B.C., the costuming, sets, and artifacts are fabulous; filmed in Pinewood Studios, U.K., and on location in Italy, the cinematography by Donald McAlpine is wonderful. The score is also lovely, by Carl Davis.

The brief nudity in the wedding chamber sequence has in my tape, been darkened so as to be imperceptible; either this is a flaw in the tape, or an effort not to offend and capture a wider audience, which would be silly, as this is a very mature drama. It contains much brutal violence making it unsuitable for children, and the confrontation with Goliath for example (which is exceptionally well done), is one of four beheadings.
Richard Gere is a marvelous David, and stands up well against an excellent international cast. He was thirty-five when this was filmed, and is about as handsome as a human has a right to be. The actor who shines above all though is Edward Woodward as Saul. He is riveting, and it's a brilliant character study of courage mixed with jealousy, revenge, and madness.

This is far from being a "Big Bible Epic" with lots of well known stars, instead it's serious and beautifully acted, and perhaps arrived on the scene at the wrong time, that it was so unappreciated two decades ago. Total running time is 114 minutes.
"It is through the heart, the heart alone, that God speaks to man".

Excellent and accurate biblical portrayal!
This biblical story recount of the lives of King Saul and King David were very true to what I have read in the Old Testament stories in the books of "Samuel" and Kings". Having Richard Gere portray the adult King David didn't hurt either!!! This is one of the better "bible" story movies I have seen to date. Thoroughly enjoyed seeing this biblical story "come to life" and Richard Gere is terrific in it! Lot's of action and well done!

Sucked!
This movie sucked! Everything about it was terrible. Some may also find it offensive for straying far from the biblical narrative. Although this movie is called "King David", the story bares little resemblance to the story of King David found in the books of Samuel and Chronicles. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Russian master Alexander Sokurov has tapped into the very flow of history itself for this flabbergasting film. Thanks to the miracles of digital video, Sokurov (and cinematographer Tilman Buttner) uses a single, unbroken, 90-minute shot to wind his way through the Hermitage in St. Petersburg--the repository of Russian art and the former home to royalty. Gliding through time, we glimpse Catherine II, modern-day museumgoers, and the doomed family of Nicholas II. History collapses on itself, as the opulence of the past and the horrors of the 20th century collide, and each door that opens onto yet another breathtaking gallery is another century to be heard from. The movie climaxes with a grand ball and thousands of extras, prompting thoughts of just how crazy Sokurov had to be to try a technical challenge like this--and how far a distance we've traveled, both physically and spiritually, since the movie began. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (54)

Russian Ark
Russian Ark, which consists of a single uninterrupted shot that lasts 96 minutes, truly is an amazing technical feat. Other films have dealt with similar premise (the ill-conceived Timecode, for example, features 4 uncut shots simultaneously), but it's even more impressive here because the movie isn't in real-time. We follow our narrator as he roams through the Hermitage, interacting with various people and historical events that span several centuries. It's also a visually breathtaking film. The magnificent Hermitage alone is enough to cause visual sensory overload, but gorgeous costumes and perfectly executed and choreographed scenes were very impressive as well. The final dance sequence (followed by people exiting the room) can only be fully appreciated on the big screen.

What's the Russian Word for 'Magnificent' ?
Digitally shot by a single high-definition steadicam, 'Russian Ark' is a 96-minute journey through 300 years of Russian art and history filmed in one unedited take. One might call back Mike Figgis' 'Timecode' (2000) that made it with four cameras, each shooting one take/story in real time and simultaneously displaying all takes on a quadruple-split screen. The finale comprised the climatic moment of all stories circumstantially coming together. Figgis utilized a cast of dozens. 'Russian Ark,' in contrast, features a masterfully orchestrated cast of 2,000 actors, dancers, and musicians all geared up to the full. To boot, Sokurov had only one day to get his shooting job done. We find us/him/them (all or none) in the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, among dramatic historical figures acting out startling fits in the Tsarist Empire, aggrandized by phenomenal sets and costumes, all drawn up by camerawork and choreography of surpassing excellence, and a mysterious man (out of place and time) introducing the feature with an appetizing "Where am I? I don't remember much. But there was an accident." As the camera transports that man from one situation to another, the film's power point begins to break through. And what a point it is. 'Russian Ark' is not a visit to the Hermitage. Rather, it is a tap on time's door; an unbroken train of thought that only our creative consciousness can make sense of and appreciate.

I believe the film was a challenge on all imaginable levels. Director of 'Empire,' 'Elegy of a Voyage,' 'The Dialogues with Solzhenitsyn' and other resplendent documentaries and feature films, Alexander Sokurov gives rise this time to a defining moment in cinema history.

A Cinematic Wonder
A film shot straight in 90 minutes, in one un-interrupted sequence - no cuts- not more than one take for any of the scenes!

Not just that, Alexander Sokurov - the legendary Russian director who debuted in 1978 with his "The Lonely Voice of Man" has done so many firsts in the movie that this wonder just has to be taken seriously. Sokurov has generated his works at the cross-roads of two fundamental film genres: documentary and "fiction". After having made nearly forty films over a period of two decades he is still searching for the language of cinematography which, as he says, the now hundred-year-old child - Cinema, has as yet not been able to develop.

Shot in high definition digital format and then put on 35mm, this film used the latest in digital technology and was recorded, entirely, on a hard-disk. The movie is shot at The Hermitage in St. Petersburg and was the first feature to be allowed to be shot in the museum, or at least the first movie that wasn't about the Revolution. Hundreds of actors gathered at The Hermitage in 36 different rooms on the 23rd of December 2001 to shoot this movie. Shooting on the shortest day of the year, and balancing the light in that season in St. Petersburg for a one-take sequence of 90 minutes wouldn't have been an easy task mind you. The movie features live performances from 4 symphonic orchestras one of which is The Hermitage's own famous philharmonic orchestra. Void of modern cinematic luxuries, Alexander has, in truly a work of artistic genius, managed to add a touch of complete surrealism to the movie.

Set across four centuries in an extremely surreal time-travel fashion, the movie captures the life in and around The Hermitage and re-enacts moments of history and art in one of the most epic and elaborate fashion. Not for even a single second does the movie compromise on the theatrical details for the sake of the challenge of being shot in one take. Authentic costumes and the comments on the work of art on display at The Hermitage museum are immaculately detailed and accurate. The movie almost effortlessly takes the viewer through the history, like a story-teller talking about the ages in one breath. Not failing to capture the sentiments of the ages, you would find comments on the Russian dislike of the European, as well as the political bonds and resistances that existed between Persia and Russia.

Termed most often as one of the best post-soviet Russian movie, Russian Ark is more than just that. If it weren't a Russian Movie, or was set in centuries of Italian history, the world would have perhaps come to admire it more. Fully recommended to everyone for the storylines of the movie as well as for the flawless technical details. Surely goes down in the history of cinema as one of the most artistic works ever.

A Unique, Great Film
A 90-minute movie centered on St. Petersburg's Hermitage Museum, filmed in one unbroken take by a digital steadicam, didn't send a lot of Americans racing to buy tickets when it was shown here two or three years ago. The movie, however, is far more than just a technical stunt. It's a unique tour de force with emotional impact.

Russian Ark portrays the Hermitage as a kind of cultural and historical ark floating on centuries of Russian seas. The narrative device is a shadowy eighteenth century Frenchman who wanders the halls and time periods, commenting often with good-natured European condescension on what he sees. He is accompanied by a Russian who is never seen, and who questions him about his comments. The movie ranges through time with appearances of Peter the Great, Catherine II, Puskin, Nicholas II and his family, generals, maids, flunkies and diplomats. The Frenchman, played with great style by Russian actor Sergei Dreiden, takes us to painting and sculpture galleries, kitchens, ballrooms, storerooms, basements and living quarters as we observe things that happened in the Hermitage over the centuries.

At first, I was very aware of the technical feat of no cuts. Gradually, though, I think most people just relax and accept the skill of the director and photographer, and become immersed in what they are seeing. A kind of unreal imagery takes hold. The movie ends with the last dance held in the Great Ballroom before WWI. Hundreds of actors and dancers, in full costume, swirl around this ornate setting, and swirl around the camera as well, while the camera glides through the crowds. It's a terrific scene, and is followed by the end of the dance with all the hundreds of guests making their way through the halls and staircases to leave the building, with the camera facing them and moving along in front of them.

The DVD has several extras, but in my view the best is Film in One Breath. It is the documentary of the making of the movie. Enormous planning went into Russian Ark, and the actual filming required split second coordination with the actors, the lighting and the camerman. Any mistake, and they had to start over. There were two mistakes; they were successful on the third try. Tillman Buttner, the movie's director of photography who wore the steadicam, has excellent stories to tell.

This is a highly unusual film, probably a great one.

The DVD transfer is first rate.

Comparison with Real Time (Tiempo Real)
by Beth Accomando, KPBS Film Critic

Yet even Sokurov¹s careful staging and deft touch can¹t completely distract us from the novelty of his device. There are times when scenes seem staged just for us to marvel at the difficulty of their execution rather than for strict advancement of the story. So there are moments when we are pulled out of the story simply to gape in awe at the logistics and that¹s a flaw. In some ways the low budget Mexican film Tiempo Real (which is certificated by Guinness Book of World Records as the first film to be shot entirely in one shot from one camera) makes less self-conscious use of its one-shot formula precisely because it is gritty and low budget. The lack of funds combined with shooting on contemporary, real streets ends up distracting us from the gimmicky technique because we¹re less conscious of how everything¹s being staged. So in an odd sense, it is the very elaborateness of Sokoruv¹s film and its spectacular choreography of people and events that makes it more self-conscious in its technique. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

just short of being another great '70's erotic classic.....
I don't know what all the fuss is about Jean Rollin's films! This soft core 1970's Eurosex farce has plenty of nude women writhing around with each other, in one scene after another. However, it falls short of having "sexually tense" scenes that would seriously arouse its viewers. The women here are good looking enough...The "simulated" sex scenes are somewhat hot but many of them go on for too long to be credible. The dungeon sequence could have been filmed much hotter, especially if Rollin had showed the captive nude girl actually get whipped and beaten, the director opted for whpping sound effects and (lame) screaming in the background.

The only reason this film garners three stars from me is that it still has more sexual freedon than anything produced by Hollywood or Canal + today! Again...I would highly recommend the supreme '70's sex classic "The Image" or "The Story of O" to those fellows who want to screw their dripping wet dates either during, or shortly after she watches either of those two soft core sexy films! Women will say they don't like to watch those kinds of films....but check how wet [they are] and see if they have "spoken the truth"!!!

genius...a MASTERPIECE !!!!!
I collects over 50 euro sleaze dvd
this one is definetely one of the best !
plenty of NUDITY and the women are beautiful.
joelle couer she is gorgeous !!!!
A PERFECT EYE CANDY
for a pervert like me...

Don't Even Woof At This Dog!
This is the kind of film that gives soft porn a bad name. A juvenile "plot", poor dialog, and wooden "acting" - Ed Wood movies are better produced. Yes there's several naked women and a naked man, but except for "Valerie" they're not very attractive, and completely un-erotic. Don't waste your money: this French picnic needed more bread and wine and much less cheese!

A bad, bad, stupid dog...
If they had made it into a porn movie, it would have been as bad and boring as 99% of them. However, they went for erotism and they failed miserably. One almost misses the close-ups and other porn tricks.

The plot? What plot? Nothing makes sense. It is soporific, sophomoric and utterly senseless. Only one star because we do not have less than that.

Soft-core, maybe hard-core, sex as art film
This is a great DVD to have if you just want to relax, kickback, and watch a sex art film done tastefully. And definitely a great film to watch with a girlfriend.

From the amazing 70's, Jean Rollin's Bacchanales Sexuelles shows us how pure and natural a woman's naked body was back then when compared to today's siliconed breasts and shaved crotches. In the 70's, it was all natural: "We've got bush!"

Ah, the French women. The French women in this film are just delicious. There are plenty of sex and thankfully the soundtrack is mainly loud in the sex scenes--the moaning is drowned by the music. You can still watch this in loud (mono) stereo speakers without making your neighbors suspect that you are watching a porno flick or actually doing the wild thing.

A great collection to have if you like the 70's. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Star-crossed lovers, feuding family, royal plots, noble destinies,and salt-of-the-earth heroes. No wonder R.D. Blackmore's romantic classichas been a perennial favorite. Amelia Warner (Michael Caine's innocentchild bride in Quills) is Lorna, the beautiful young brunette"queen" of the feral Doone clan in this latest adaptation, a handsome 2.5-hourco-production between the BBC and A&E. Theonce noble line now lives out of a swamp fortress and preys off the localfarmers and tradesmen, but the family patriarch (Peter Vaughan) has hatched a plot to win back his title and his land. Handsome John Ridd (RichardCoyle) swears vengeance against the Doones when they murder his father, but he falls for Lorna, and the rakish, ruthless Doone scion (Aiden Gillen, whoswaggers through the drama with a perpetual sneer) refuses to give up hisclaim on the girl without a fight.

This is the kind of British romanticadventure that decries the tradition of nobility and privilege while rewardingits heroes with those very privileges, all within a grand framework ofmelodramatic twists, thrilling battles, and chivalrous heroics. Director MikeBarker creates an appropriately larger-than-life world at once pastoral andsavage for his little epic--shot in the verdant British countryside, where alush forest green permeates every outdoor scene, while the dusky interiors glowwith candlelight--giving in completely to the sweeping emotional melodrama atthe core of the story. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (22)

A Promise to Keep
Fortunately I was able to catch this originally when it ran on A&E and was so captivated I pre-ordered both the video and DVD. The video version differs only slightly from the DVD; the color is not as good. That's it. Overall it's a very good purchase at a reasonable price for such an excellent film.

Fans of A&E's lush romances like Pride & Prejudice, Victoria & Albert, and Emma will enjoy Lorna Doone. It's a blend of romance, adventure, mystery, and something of the sinister, with a Romeo & Julietish twist. The acting is stellar, particularly in the casting of Aidan Gillen as Carver Doone. He completely overpowers the screne whenever present and makes a loathable and yet empathetic villain. Richard Coyle is doubly good as the heroic John Ridd, and Amelia Warner proves she can play leads effortly as the spirited but puzzling Lorna.

It's a film my entire family enjoyed... there was enough romance for the girls, some action scenes for the guys, and enough lush English countryside and magnificent costuming for one and all. Rent it, buy it, borrow it -- see it.

Romantic Predictability...
A & E's production of R.D. Blackmore's novel of forbidden love between two hostile families is lushly filmed, action-filled, and surprisingly dull. Yes, there are a few surprises here and there; however, the story runs into predictable territory come the last hour and a half, and the characters become too melodramatic to be considered real.

The star-crossed lovers do play off each other well, embracing the invisible struggle surrounding their union. Amelia Warner (Lorna Doone) gives the right amount of innocence against ambition, creating a lovely, yearning picture of a woman finding her way into the world. Her love (John Ridd), played by the ravishing Richard Coyle, battles endlessly for her deliverance from a power-hungry family. Scenes of swordplay, gun fighting, and warring words dominate the film, along with the green and black tones of the Doone's aura. Their home and demeanor is cold and dark, in stark contrast to that of the Ridd's. Yet despite these dynamic action and aesthetic backdrops, I found myself jumping ahead at various points simply because I was already ahead of the film itself. The characters, though well played, were standard stock-acting fare. Aidan Gillen's performance of Lorna's rejected suitor was extremely cartoonish. Each time he was told he should give up his pursuit of Lorna, he would restate his devotion to her then stomp away like a child. I kept expecting him to grab a skateboard along the way, riding off to his pouting place.

I will say that the romantic standard of hero/villain/heroine is not an easy foundation upon which to build an unpredictable storyline, especially when given a rather caricature-esque setting. Yet director Mike Barker does his best with Adrian Hodges screenplay, and makes a film for inspired romantics. Although it is predictable at most points, the tale does give the audience the desire to rise in hopeful bliss for two souls so like their own. Lorna and John may be of a different time, yet love burns deep in all of us, no matter the age or circumstances. If it is to be, there is no death for love. Lorna and John teach us this, as we rise.

A Weak Link
I got this DVD as part of the A&E Literary Classics Romance Collection, and it's one of the few weak links in that otherwise superb box set (a must for lovers of period films and literary adaptations). Lorna Doone is a fun little romp through 17th-century England if you're willing to lower your standards for a few hours, but in all honesty it's really just a clumsy, formulaic Romeo and Juliet tale.

The main villain is a sneering cardboard cutout. The central romance is unbelievable: Lorna is never fleshed out (and is no great beauty, either, to be frank), so you never see why John falls in love with her--unless it's just simple infatuation because of the "forbidden fruit" factor. You just have to take the whole relationship on faith since it rarely feels real or compelling. On top of that, the clumsy direction makes a total mess of the fight scenes: there's no sense of focus, pacing, momentum, or drama. (There are little historical anachronisms, too, like John's sister wearing the kind of modern eyeglasses with side bows that hadn't been invented in the West at that time--no big problem, obviously, but sloppy and distracting nonetheless.)

On the bright side, this version of Lorna Doone (many have been filmed over the years) features a few memorable performances, like the droll Michael Kitchen as Judge Jeffreys. Plus, there aren't a whole lot of period pieces focusing on 17th-century England; most choose the Middle Ages or the 18th or 19th centuries. So, at least the time period is refreshing.

2.5 stars.

A disappointing departure from A&E's high standards.
We are fans of period films and have enjoyed many A&E and BBC productions. Instead of getting swept up in the drama of Lorna Doone, however, we spent our time mocking the film. I think that poor directing is to blame. Why were we forced to see the same cheesy "vertigo" shot of water in the canyon below every time a character walked on the narrow ledge by the waterfall? Why were all scenes shot in the Doone valley incredibly dark and hard to see, even when the action was taking place in the middle of the day? Why were the Doones and the people of the adjacent town so unfamiliar with one another when it seemed to take approximately 15 minutes to walk from one settlement to the other? Why was Lorna always clean and neatly-dressed, while every other resident of the Doone Valley appeared to have minimal acquaintance with bathing facilities? Why did John and Lorna fall madly in love after exactly two encounters twelve years apart?

The film tried valiantly to fit many of the book's plot points into a two hour movie, but the gaps in character development made for awkward leaps. The actors did a fairly good job with tough material, but even good actors can't overcome strange sequencing of events and cheesy, predictable dialogue.

Exciting the whole way through
John Ridd's father was killed by the Doones-a band of ruthless outlaws who had threatened and stolen from the townspeople. John (Richard Coyle) watched his father die, and vowed he would get revenge for their evil deeds. He falls in love with a sweet and beautiful maiden, only to learn that she's a Doone. Lorna (Amelia Warner) is a granddaughter of the Doone's leader, and she is expected to marry the future leader of the Doones-her cousin Carver Doone (Aiden Gillen). John finds himself in a difficult situation-he not only loves a girl that his family will hate, but he must fight Carver, who is just as determined to marry Lorna. The characters find themselves battling with issues of loyalty. This is a great story based off R.D. Blackmore's classic novel. I would highly recommend it. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

If you're not a connoisseur of graphic horror and gruesome gore, you'd better steer clear of this wicked 1992 horror-comedy from the demented mind and delirious camera of New Zealand-born writer-director Peter Jackson. However, if nonstop mayhem and extreme violence are your idea of great entertainment, you're sure to appreciate Jackson's gleefully inventive approach to a story that can judiciously be described as sick, twisted, and totally outrageous. The movie's central character is a poor schmuck named Lionel who's practically enslaved to his domineering mother. But when ol' Mum gets bitten by a rare and poisonous rat monkey from Skull Island and is turned into a flesh-eating zombie, Lionel has the unfortunate task of keeping Mama happy while fending off all the other zombies that result from her voracious feeding frenzies. If you've read this far, you'll either be crying out for censorship or eagerly awaiting your first viewing (or second, or third...) of this wildly clever and audaciously uninhibited movie. And while director Jackson would later achieve critical success with his fact-based drama Heavenly Creatures, his talent is readily evident in this earlier effort. If you find this kind of thing even remotely appealing, consider Dead Alive a must-see movie. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (283)

Dead Alive (1982) d: Jackson, Peter
Stop: If you haven't seen this movie yet, go to your local video dealer and get it right now, and please avoid the R-rated version. This film single-handedly created the Splat-Stick genre with more on-screen gore than the original Evil Dead (1982), and it has become a treasured favorite in my collection. Originally released as Brain Dead (1992) in New Zealand, the title was changed in North America by Vestron to avoid confusion with Adam Simon's (1990) horror / thriller by the same name. Peter Jackson spent most of his $3 million dollar budget on Pork Fat, Latex, Sisal, Polyfoam, Human Hair, Ultra Slime, Hundreds of gallons of maple syrup, and managed to create an amazing comical, gore feast, zombie flick which sent him on his road to stardom. It is great to finally see this classic released in it's original uncut version on DVD. While Lionel [Tmothy Balme] visits the zoo, a legendary 'rat monkey' bites his mother. As days go on the deadly bite turns Lionel's mum into a walking corpse, who zombifies anyone who crosses her path. He hides his secret from the town and his new love by keeping his mother and her recent victims sedated with animal tranquilzers in the basement. When his Uncle Les throws a wild house party, all the guest are turned into zombies. Realizing that things are now getting out of hand, Lionel straps a lawn mower to his body, in a climatic scene censored from most versions carried by the major video chains, he cuts the zombies into pieces with his lethal lawn care equipment. 300 liters of blood were used in this scene alone. A must for lovers of splatter and gore.

Gore Galore and Whole Lot More!
Peter Jackson's Dead Alive is an exuberant roller coaster ride of a movie. I have never, in my entire life of movie watching, ever seen so much gore so enthuasically shown in a film. This movie makes the Evil Dead series look like Disney movies in comparison. Dead Alive is an unbeleviable spectacle of wickedly over-the-top special effects and Peter Jackson's very dark sense of humor. This 1993 Austrailian film, begins as hilarious spoof of Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark and then turns into one heck of homage to Romero's Night of the Living Dead and Sam Raimi's Evil Dead. Once poor Lionel's mother is bitten by a very rare and ferocious rat monkey, she turns into a very one-track minded zombie, and the maddness just gets worse from there. Expect to be impressed by overflowing body parts, squirting ligaments, a holy warrior kicking a## for the lord, zombie sex, zombie babies, blended zombie heads, and one weird Oedipal relationship gone terriably terriably wrong. A must-see for any horror fan with strong stomachs. Dead Alive is unsurpassed in film disgust. The DVD doens't have very many options, but this gem of a cult film is a necessity for those addicted to biazarre, sick, and twisted movies. A horror milestone. P.S. Watch out for the gas emmiting entrails.

Hyperactive
This has got to be one of my all time favorite movies. Camp, blood, ass kicking priests (who turn into lecherous zombies) and hyperative monster babies. It's just awesome. My only complaint is that it's edited all to hell, compared to the original New Zealand release, titled "Braindead."

SWEET JESUS!!!!
First of all it angers me to read reviews that state how it is not at all clever when it comes to the lawn mower scene. Come on, what more would you want from this genre of movies, if you guys dont think this is the least bit scary, rent the Care Bears movie, that might suite your likings. It cant get much gorrier then this, and definately graphic I might add. I will admit that the blood did look like pudding with red dye but thats to be expected. I could not ask for more. Peter Jackson, you rule.

Peter Jackson's Career Is Tainted!
I cannot believe that there are people who love this movie. I cannot even believe that there are people who put it in the so-bad-it's-good category. This movie is just worthless. Yes, if you want to be repulsed, it will probably succeed -- for a while at lest. But for me, by the time the VERY bloody finale arrived, I was too bored by the gallons of fake blood and slimy mucous that resembled vanilla pudding. And no, I did not find the way that the lawnmower was put to use to be funny, either.

If some friend of yours tries to convince you to watch this movie, refuse. And be aware that your friend has no taste. If for some reason you are forced to watch this movie, fast forward to the kung fu priest part (slighltly funny) and the zombie baby part (actually funny). But other than those scenes, this movie has nothing to offer except for evidence of the pathetic state of Peter Jackson's career before Lord of the Rings. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

A Painless Art History Course - and mystery
UNCOVERED is a ten year old film, popular in its co-producing countries of the UK and Spain, and is finally available here for those who want to see 'early Kate Bekinsale'. The story weaves around an art restorer (Bekinsale) who finds bizarre clues in the underpainting of an old Flemish master painting that is being prepared for sale by a once rich/now destitute family. The art restorer has been raised by a fey gentleman who turns out to be part the current family requesting the restoration. As she carefully uncovers the surface of the painting and has it xrayed, she finds clues to a mystery of a murder, a murder that slowly is recreated around her. This is a good little mystery whose solution is tightly pigmented in a rather beautiful painting and a game of chess, which is the centerpiece of the painting. The cast, including Kate Bekinsale, is good if a bit campy: John Wood, Sinead Cusack, Paudge Behan, Art Malik, James Villiers, Michael Gough. But the real star of the film is the beauty of Barcelona, Spain - the setting for the story. Gaudi is everywhere! The lighting is gorgeous and the cinematography excellent. There are things with which one can quibble, not the least the techniques used by the art restoration advisors, but the one major fault with this film is the sound track. The music is abominable and the ambient sound is so loud that it sounds like a home movie instead of a professional production: you have to strain to hear the dialogue over the street sounds outside the rooms. Still in all, this is an entertaining movie, worth a watch.

Good movie
This movie has a good plot, good actors, plenty of mystery and the beauty of one of my favorite actresses: Kate Beckinsale. Maybe it's not one of those movies with plenty of violence, chases and a lot sex (...), but it's an interesting movie. And made in the best city of Spain: Barcelona.

A nice murder mystery
I must agree with the first two reviews. This is an interesting little murder mystery with the fetching Ms. Beckinsale as an art restorer caught up in a centuries old murder mystery based on a painting. Only problem is, someone in the here and now is using that same painting to do some murders of their own.

It's a light and breezy kind of amateur sleuth flick. You could do a lot worse, and if you're a fan of Kate Beckinsale, you'll enjoy this film. Except perhaps for Kate's unshaved armpits (the film is set in Europe). And yes, there are some scenes of Kate "uncovered".

A Very Clever Under the Radar Murder Mystery...
Released in 1994, Kate Beckinsale plays the main character in this convoluted murder mystery. She's living in Barcelona and has just graduated from College and is working at home restoring a painting that looks like it was created some time in the fifteenth century. She gets a knock at the door and a delivery man gives her an infrared overlay that she had taken of the entire painting and she looks at it closely and discovers that underneath a layer of paint there lies an inscription which mysteriously says in Latin "who took the knight?" Of course, looking at the painting which is of two noblemen playing a game of chess with a young woman sitting in the background, using that interpretation of the Latin inscription it looks like the painting is a playful scene where the younger man on the left has stolen the knight from the board and the older man is crouching over the board and in a crotchety way is saying "what happened to the knight?" while the younger man is making eyes at the young woman in the background. Kate's character takes the overlay to her friend, an art dealer to look at and interrupts her friend getting, ahem... serviced by the husband of the woman who is the neice of the man who owns the painting. Kate's character shows the overlay to her friend and convinces her friend to take her to see the owner of the painting to ask him if they can have it tested to see if that inscription underneath the layer of paint is an original one. They visit the owner and tell him about the inscription and the owner tells them that the inscription really should be translated as "who killed the knight?" instead of "who took the knight?" and from then on the entire meaning of the scene being played out in the painting takes a more ominous tone introducing the first murder victim in the story: a knight represented in the painting from five hundred years ago.

Based on the book "The Flanders Panel" by Arturo Perez-Reverte who wrote "The Club Dumas" which the movie "The Ninth Gate" was based on, it is no surprise that there are a myriad of nuances that are included inside this story that make references to or are based on the intricate artwork from the high Gothic period right before the Renaissance. The world in which the painting was supposedly made is a Machiavellian world of intrigue, doublecrossing, cutthroats and murder. After the commissioner of the painting realizes that his friend, the young man in the painting, has been killed and because of forces outside of his control he's not able to publically accuse the murderer, he asks the painter to alter the painting in such a way that it depicts who the murderer is, but in a secret code. The code of course is played out in miniature in the chess game the two men are playing and in it each piece represents different players in the plot and eventually by hiring a young man to play the game itself backwards Kate's character is able to figure out who actually did in the end kill the knight in the past. Pretty soon, pieces from a very fancy chess set start to pop up outside of her door and she soon finds herself in the middle of her own little murder mystery as people in her own life start to drop like flies mirroring both the pieces that pop up in front of her door and the pieces that are taken if the chess game in the painting were played out to its logical conclusion. The chess game itself is a microcosm of the intrigue that occurred back in the fifteenth century and of the intrigue that is going on in the present. By going backwards, the young man Kate's character hires is able to figure out what happened in the past and by going forwards with the game itself from where the painter left it off in the fifteenth century the young man is also able to predict who the likely candidates for murder are going to be in the near future. The plot itself mirrors the chess game to a tee to the amusement of the audience to the point where one ends up thinking about which characters in the movie are represented by which pieces in the game and also how would the drama of the chess game where one piece can viciously take hold of or slaughter another piece be played out in real life.

In my opinion, this is much better than the movies you'd see Kate Beckinsale play characters in today. From her choice of movie roles today compared to back when this movie was made one sort of has to wonder where her career priorities have turned to lie. If you disliked the blander, more commercialized and more static roles that she's played from more recently then you might not like this movie that much; but if enjoy a good thriller with a cleverly written thoroughly amusing plot then this is probably the movie for you!

Decent movie
Just watched this movie on DVD. The main attraction of this movie is obviously the beautiful Kate Beckinsale. If you don't like Kate Beckinsale (hard to imagine) then this movie will be a drag. Otherwise, this movie is a decent enough movie with a plot and cast that will keep you interested. I am giving it three stars since I like both Kate Beckinsale and Art Malik. ... Read more

Reviews (56)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grade: D ... Read more

Reviews (121)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (25)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (351)

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

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

The acting is also excellent. Especially Geoffrey Rush as the unscrupulous yet reliable Walsingham; Christopher Eccleston as the devious Duke