Reviews (39)

Intellectual Self-Defence
With the recent media frenzy surrounding Michael Moore's documentary, Fahrenheit 911, it is interesting to observe how the controversy currently swirling around it (Disney backed it financially but won't distribute it) has been documented in the press. It makes a film like Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media all the more relevant more than ten years after its release. Chomsky is a soft-spoken professor at MIT who has become quite a vocal political activist and critic of the American media. He believes that ordinary people can comprehend and act on the issues he raises, but this is not always an easy task because of the thick web of doublespeak that the government creates to blind us from what he calls the "elementary truths" that are right in front of us.

However, people are indoctrinated to be apathetic so that they don't want to make the effort that is needed to see what is really going on. And the media doesn't help either. In fact, one might say that they promote this sense of apathy by showing redundant, repetitive sitcoms and reality shows that turn us into mindless couch potatoes. Now, you might be thinking, this sounds like a lot of conspiracy theory garbage, but Chomsky does not look, act or speak like some crazed conspiracy nut. He is an intelligent man who talks to a BBC reporter the same way he would talk to an ordinary person. Chomsky is a clear and concise speaker who backs up everything he says with an ample supply of facts and unfaltering logic. He is a man dedicated to uncovering the deception and atrocities that are committed by governments all over the world and teaching others how to become aware of and act on these acts.

With funding from the National Film Board of Canada, Peter Wintonick and Mark Achbar followed Chomsky around the globe for five years. The result was a two hour and forty-five minute documentary that explored Chomsky's view of the media and his relationship with it. The film acts as a sort of "stepping stone" to Chomsky's books, which are filled with pretty heavy concepts and a lot of information to absorb. The film doesn't water down his ideas, but rather represents them on a visual level so that they are a bit easier to grasp.

In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky reveals that all major decisions over what happens in our society are controlled by a heavily concentrated network of corporations, conglomerates and investment firms. This network also has considerable influence over positions in the government. Just looking at the big Savings and Loans scandals that plagued the U.S. a few years ago reveals this link. Corporations also own the media and therefore decide what we watch and hear for the most part. They control the resources and as a result show only what is in their best interests. This is achieved by propaganda or the "manufacturing of consent," a term borrowed from political philosopher and journalist, Walter Lippmann. Manufacturing consent is a technique of control over the masses-in other words, propaganda or the creation of necessary illusions to marginalize the general public or reduce them to apathy in some form. The news media participates in this manufacture of consent by simplifying, selecting, and dramatizing events.

Wintonick and Achbar take a look at various forms of alternative media, from the successful independent publishers, South End Press to Alternative Radio that is dedicated to reporting events that the U.S. media conveniently ignores and giving people like Noam Chomsky more exposure. The film has certainly exposed Chomsky's ideas to a wider audience creating a sort of cult following in Canada and in Europe where he is more popular than in his native United States.

The film doesn't talk down to the viewer and brilliantly conveys Chomsky's ideas on a visual level utilizing all forms of media. The directors also dedicate time to show some of Chomsky's detractors like William F. Buckley, Jr. and Tom Wolfe who come across like pretentious bullies while Chomsky appears calm and rational in response to their vicious, snide attacks. They are ironic scenes that add more credibility to Chomsky's views.

Manufacturing Consent is a fascinating look Chomsky and his ideas that are guaranteed to provoke discussion. It also makes one want to check out some of his work and sparks a desire to wake up and realize what is going on in our society. The film is a real eye-opener to the behind the scenes mechanics of our government and the media and how little we realize what they are really up to. The film does not dip into tabloid or conspiracy depths, but presents a logical and intelligent analysis with a good sense of humour that is often missing from such material. Chomsky is a man who sincerely believes that we can identify and react to the problems in our government and media, but realizes that it cannot be done by just one man, it will take a massive grass-roots organization. First, people must be educated and this is hard because it is so easy to do nothing. Realizing that there is a problem is the first step, correcting it is the next.

A great tool for understanding
This film is a fantastic starting point for those interested in exploring the ideas of Noam Chomsky. It should function less as a typical biographical portrait and more as an overview of concepts--an overview which happens to include a bit of historical information about Mr. Chomsky's life. Those concepts, particularly those of the abolition of unwarranted power and authority should lead the viewer to take this film not as an authoritative documentary, but as a jumping block for a new means of analytical thinking. Taken as such and put into practice, I think this film's subject matter could help transform the narcotized western mind into a valuable, alert tool--a tool for healthy skepticism that could lead to a remarkable rethinking of power and domination in any guise, media or otherwise. It's length is not at all a disadvantage. The filmmakers manage to present a comprehensive body of ideas in as short a time as possible while maintaining an enjoyable pace. Well worth the time--insights like these are priceless.

A Great Introduction To Important Alternative Views
Chomsky is a man of fact, reason, and simplicity. This documentary highlights some of the basic ideas of his important books about the domination of the media by indoctrination, the elites who own them, and how this affects the average person's access to information about the world and thus his view of his community and its relationship to outsidce societies.
This is a great film if you're becoming disaffected with our current political situation and looking for a way out of the mess we're in.

Great Important Documentary on Noam Chomsky
Manufacturing Consent is the 1992 documentary directed by
Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick about the perennial dissident lecturer Noam Chomsky. The focus is on how the media deals with both Chomsky and the issues he raises: mainly by ignoring him. Here we get clips of everything from his discussion with William F. Buckley from the 1960s to interviews in Europe to his 10 second clip on McNeil-Lehrer.

Chomsky is shown as an important force that critiques both the destructive policies of power elites as well as the media that keeps the masses ignorant by spoon feeding them non-critical propaganda. The scenes are cleverly done with some humor, showing Chomsky speaking on Times Square screens and such.

And yet this isn't a quintessential Chomsky film as it does narrow the focus to the media, and spends a lot of time on a French Holocaust denier and Chomsky defending his right to speak (though not his views). This is a bit of a side track from his true significance as an Anarchist, Human Rights, and Peace activist. But when we hear his views on Vietnam, East Timor, Central America, and Iraq we start to see the bigger picture. Namely that everything the media tells us is half-truth if not outright false.

His message is important and it comes through in this film. Is he always right? I would say no, but he always sticks to his guns, never wavers, to the point where his views get predictable. But without him the peace movement would be much worse off intellectually (we'd be stuck with the likes of Michael Parenti wining at us). Chomsky is always low key, not in your face, and this film paints a sympathetic portrait while giving him some exposure the U.S. media usually denies him.

More Depth, Please!
Avram Noam Chomsky was born in 1928, the son of Jewish parents who worked as Hebrew language teachers. Young Noam showed promise in the brains department, devouring huge stacks of books and learning languages at an extremely young age. He went to the University of Pennsylvania after high school, where he eventually earned a doctoral degree in 1955 in the field of linguistics. Quickly snapped up by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chomsky went on to develop a larger theory of language that soon won him worldwide acclaim, leading some people to refer to him as the "Einstein of Linguistics." Still residing at MIT to this day, Chomsky is perhaps better known as one of the preeminent social critics of American foreign policy and the American corporate media systems. The author of literally dozens of books on linguistics and contemporary social problems, Chomsky continues to make his rounds on the lecture circuit in an effort to awaken citizens to the dangers present in the power structures of the United States.

"Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media" represents the efforts of three documentary filmmakers to condense Chomsky's ideas about the media and the structures of American power into a nearly three hour visual presentation. The title of the film, according to Chomsky, comes from a phrase coined by Walter Lippmann, an early twentieth century public intellectual who feared the American public to such an extent that he argued for the implementation of specific methods to control and shape public opinion. This, says Chomsky, leads us to our present predicament, a situation where elites in American society acquire control of media through corporate institutions in order to manage the flow of information to the public. In other words, propaganda supporting elite activities is the name of the game at the New York Times, ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, The Washington Post, and other primary forces in the news business. Secondary or tertiary news outlets simply take their cues from these trendsetters, often running stories only after the national elite media decide that they are stories.

Moreover, the media systems filter out dissident opinions through various techniques. One of these methods is "concision," or giving limited airtime or column space to a specific story in order to control the parameters of that story. Chomsky claims concision keeps people like him out of the news because only allowing a person to make comments within a two-minute period does not let new ideas get through. If a person should get on the air and claim that the government bears primary responsibility for the rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, for example, the audience would want to know a lot of facts about such an alien idea. According to Chomsky, this rarely happens. Instead, the short time allotted to guests on a news show serve only to reinforce already accepted propagandistic platitudes that ultimately support elite positions. "Concision" keeps new ideas out and stymies debate regarding accepted ideas. There are several more points to Chomsky's theory in the film, along with a test case concerning the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in the 1970s presented in an effort to prove the propaganda model. I am leaving a ton of stuff out here, but since I also believe that the media promotes elite interests, the whole thing ultimately boils down to what type of news system we should have.

The good professor supports alternative/small press media as a balance to the huge corporate news systems, and I agree with this conclusion too. For far too long, big East Coast interests have controlled what the majority of the population eats, thinks, wears, and discusses. There is simply no geographical balance. The recent blackout in New York City had absolutely no bearing on my life out here in the wilds of the Midwest, but there it was on every news channel on television and prominently displayed in my local newspaper. Chomsky argues that alternative media will lead to a greater, freer dialogue about important issues. The professor claims the alternative press might even lead to a complete overthrow of capitalism and its replacement with anarcho-syndicalism, a belief system that posits self-management, direct democracy, and working class solidarity. This political system sounds like communism, doesn't it? Well, I really don't think Chomsky is a communist, but I simply don't trust anarcho-syndicalism. At one point in the documentary, the professor avers that there are no perfect solutions to our problems and that we should all at least try his theory. One presumes that if we don't like it, all we need to do is say so, right? Wrong. Revolutions don't work that way. Replacing one political system with another tends to be quite messy, and telling the new masters that you just don't think you can go along with them always seems to lead to the behavior we saw in Stalinist Russia. Chomsky's promise that his new order will be open to different ideas doesn't satisfy this cynic. I am not ready for a cure that might be worse than the disease.

Overall, "Manufacturing Consent" left me unsatisfied. In an attempt to cover as much ground as possible, the filmmakers never provided as much depth to Chomsky's theories as I would have liked. Obviously, I could buy the book and see for myself exactly what the professor's arguments are, but you would think a nearly three hour documentary could provide a better presentation of this man's beliefs. As for the DVD, the picture and sound are good and there are several lengthy extras consisting of debates Chomsky had with Michel Foucault and William Buckley. Noam Chomsky comes across as an accessible, likeable guy who really cares about social problems, and I agree with most of what he is saying. I just disagree with his vision of a post-capitalist world. ... Read more

Description

Former FBI agent John Douglas, the inventor of criminal profiling, leads a journey into the minds of the 20th Century's most notorious killers, including Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

My thoughts...
This is a great documentary on the selected serial killers(Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy and Charles Manson) which also includes the origin of serial killer profiling. A must have for any true crime follower and a steal of a price as well. I've viewed the Dahmer and Gacy profiles numerous times and have been captivated and intrigued after each viewing, so this certainly isn't a "one and done" DVD. I have yet to replay the Manson profile because the man just creeps me out! His interviews are pretty amazing and i'm sure would be a treat to anyone interested in knowing about Manson. Only reason i give this DVD a 4 star rating was for the exclusion of Ted Bundy. He gets a very small cameo but it would have been cream of the crop w/ Bundy included.

Pretty Forgettable
I bought this for the Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy documentaries, like I imagine you might. I'm not disappointed really, I don't regret buying it in any sense, it's just that this DVD isn't very good at all. It doesn't attempt to make any insight, which isn't something I particularly care for anyway. What each documentary offers is a limited and quite dated view of the serial killers. I can't imagine anyone learning something they didn't already know from them. It's mostly told through pictures when it seems there's option to use video. The Dahmer documentary, made in 1993, doesn't feature anything of interest. There's no interview with his father or anything, just a voice telling a story over pictures we've all seen before, with occassional clips of victims' families in court. The Gacy one, made in '96, is the same. There's also a program, made in 1997,on criminal profiling. This look at three farely well known killers whose capture supports profiling. It's told often with video rather then photos, which is good, but still they're somewhat boring subjects. The Criminal Profiler, Dahmer, and Gacy are all episodes from the A&E series Investigative Reports, if you didn't realise. The last program is on Charles Manson. It's quite different from the others on the disc. Made in 1997, it originally aired on television as Biography: Charles Manson: Journey Into Evil. I don't with have any interest in Manson, but I guess it's ok. It features significant interviews with Manson and main female members of the Family. All programs run for about one hour or more. I wouldn't reccomend any of them, none are good at all. I might even describe them as terrible, considering what else is out there.

fascinating
My 2 favorites are the documentaries on profiling in general and on Charles Manson in particular. Very interesting. And as another reviewer here already stated, you do find yourself feeling sorry for the women of the "Manson family" serving life sentences. Given what the women did, however, my empathy was short-lived and forgotten about ten minutes after the DVD was over.

The other 2 documentaries, Dahmer & Gacy, were very well done and had more than a few little known facts included in them. To be honest, I found both of these documentaries so disturbing that I have a hard time saying I "liked" them, but they are most definitely well researched and eye-opening. They are [scary], will probably give you nightmares, but they are interesting.

All in all, this is a good collection. I gave it 4 stars instead of 5 only because I doubt this is something anyone will watch twice (which is kind of the point in regards to owning a DVD!) I have never seen this collection for rent at a video store so that probably leaves you with the choice of buying it or never seeing it unless they air reruns on A&E. I don't know what to recommend, but personally I don't regret spending the cash.

excellent dvd's!
These dvd's are pure gems. You start out with the extraordinary John Douglas and anyone interested in profiling will be entranced by anything he writes or says, he's the master.
Then you have extremely researched and detailed reports on some of the most well known cases. If you fear what you might have to see, especially on the Damher case, then don't. Everything is very well done and explained enough without having to show some gruesome images. If you're interested in profiling, or just want to have more informations on some of the cases, and take advantage of John Douglas' experience, then go for it and buy it.

chilling!
This is a 2-disc set from A&E featuring hour-long documentaries about Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, and Charles Manson, as well as a show about "profilers," the people who can find clues from serial killers' crime scenes and almost uncannily can tell you anything you want to know about the killer without knowing anything about them.

The Jeffrey Dahmer episode was the most disturbing as everyone has heard of his massacre in Milwaukee, but there were a lot of details in this episode that I had never heard before. Very scary stuff. Another thing I found interesting was the very mysterious similarities between Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy after watching those episodes back to back. Their methods and motives were strikingly similar which makes it terrifying to think that there are more people like that out there in the world.

The Charles Manson episode was kind of unique as it features interviews with Manson and his former "family members" from prison. The women that used to practically be his slave are now serving life sentences and it's sad to think that Manson's brainwashing turned these normal (at least they seemed very normal and apologetic in their interviews) women into brutal killers who ruined the rest of their young lives for pretty much no reason.

All in all, a very good purchase. There are no special features on the disc, but you are getting almost 4 hours of entertainment, so I think it's well worth it. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

For all those hostage negotiators out there
I got this for my Dad who is a hostage negotiator and a Sergeant in the police force. He loves it. He report that it's very realistic and it feeds his need for action and suspense in a very real life drama. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This unusual documentary consists mostly of criminals talking openly and apparently honestly about their crimes. The film begins by showing hapless smalltime miscreants, such as a dimwitted woman who talks about how she had enough experience "prostituting" not to have gotten picked up in a police sting operation. Most of the interview subjects are unapologetic, and things become disturbing as muggers talk about their violent rampages and how the feelings of their victims simply never entered their minds. The point is made that crime permeates society, and in a brief break from interviews, surveillance tapes are shown of church elders stealing thousands of dollars while counting money taken in collection plates, and airport baggage handlers rifling through luggage. As the interview material continues, the crimes being confessed become increasingly more serious, and the proceedings take on a much darker tone. A videotaped jailhouse interrogation with an obscenely defiant rapist is a startling and sickening look at someone who can only be described as pathological. In a later segment, the lack of emotion shown by a murderer is equally disturbing. As a relatively unfiltered look at how criminals see themselves, their victims, and their crimes, this is a fascinating, though often troubling piece of work. --Robert J. McNamara ... Read more

Reviews (1)

This DVD is Criminal
Vile, with no redeeming factors. The only good part of this movie was when a cop stated that one of the criminals should be a participant in a police shooting.

Imagine sitting in your living room with several ignorant, egocentric thieves, rapists, prostitutes and murderers. Imagine watching their poorly made home movies with them. Imagine listening to self absorbed, graphic descriptions and rationales for their crimes. Imagine total disgust at the stupid excuses and total lack of remorse in their statements. Interspersed among this is faintly liberal poetry and scenes that try to convince the viewer that the problem is society and not the criminal. That makes this film criminal.

This DVD might be Ok at a price of $10 or so, but at $22 it's a waste of money. It might be good for a kid to watch if he is starting to get involved in petty crime, or to convince you to carry a gun. The one thing that this film does is shatter any illusion that we live in a safe society. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Proving that a documentary can be both rigorous and stylish,Deadline delves into the hot-button topic of the death penalty,with particular focus on the 2002 investigation initiated by formerRepublican governor of Illinois, George H. Ryan, after an investigativejournalism class at Northwestern University proved that three men onIllinois' death row were innocent. The current debate focuses not on themoral right-or-wrong of capital punishment, but on whether the legalsystem can keep an innocent man from being condemned to death. The debateis by no means simple, and Deadline presents a balanced picture,interviewing lawyers, anti-death penalty advocates, politicians, and menwho've been released from death row, all of whom are lucid and articulate.But it's testimonies from victims that are the most emotionallywrenching--and you may be surprised by their statements. A superbdocumentary, directed by Katy Chevigny and Kisten Johnson. --BretFetzer ... Read more

Reviews (2)

An extremely well-crafted and thought provoking documentary
Deadline is a remarkably good documentary. It is thought provoking and emotionally wrenching. Early on, I found myself drawn in, torn, going back and forth with each new argument for or against the death penalty. That's the mark of a well constructed doc. It shakes you up, makes you think, and ultimately re-examine what it is that you believe. As we age and change, we can outgrow some of our values without fully realizing it. Works like Deadline stimulate introspection and the clarification of one's deepest values by asking questions like, "What is the function of the State? The Courts? The Legal System as a whole? As a community, how do we define such things as mercy, compassion, forgiveness? What is Justice? And what is the value we give to human life?"
There seems to be a resurgence in documentaries in the last few years and Deadline shows just how powerful this genre of film making can be. Thanks for keeping the bar set so high. Enjoy.

DEADLINE - a fascinating and exquisitely crafted film
I saw the documentary DEADLINE at the Somerville Theatre as part of the Independent Film Festival of Boston and I was riveted throughout this film. This is such a well-crafted documentary and such an engaging story, not to mention a highly important one. Even though the death penalty is a heavy subject, this film manages to keep the mood from being depressing and the film has high entertainment value. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Quite disappointed
Well, there are not so many DVDs out there showing these hot police chases. This is why I wanted to try this one.
Well, don't be fooled by the title. This video IS censored. Not by some Parental Association, but by the producers themselves.
Language is like the usuall "You son of a -beeeeeep- "! And there is a scene where a poor fellow kills himself which is blurred. But honestly, on that footage, the most shocking is not the gunshot to his head, but the reaction of the police who stood at a safe 150 feet away with guns ready and watched the guy get out of the car with his shotgun, open the trunk, load the shotgun and then shoot himself...
Also the comments on each videos are not good quality: "let's watch this part again" Sometimes, they start a pursuit and then jump straight to the end when the car is already on the roof.
And where is that tank they show in the preview? ... Read more

Reviews (4)

not the best
This is not the best of what you can see on cable, but yet, from the available DVDs, it is much better than road rage.

Why Buy it when you can see it on tv
Its a good video to watch but I dont recommend buying this for the sole purpose that if you watch the police videos on cable tv, well then you would see all of these police videos. the only thing i enjoy about this dvd is the quiz after the show. i would advise anyone not to buy it and save your money and buy a vcr tape and record off the tv.

Neat.
Good DVD I hope they make more and put cops on DVD.

Its alright
The video is just what it says, Cop Chases. All of the arrests are real of coarse, but the only thing thats not the best is alot of the situations take place in the 1980's. So if your looking for newer police chases and videos, this is not the way to go. Also you can hardly hear the police talk either, its mostly all music that gets old really fast. So I rate this about a 3, its alright, but not the best. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Nothing New or Revealing
What you do not get on this DVD is any new information based upon KGB investigations into the JFK assassination. Instead, here's what's actually on this DVD:

1. There's about 10 minutes of the history of why the KGB investigated JFK's death which is the only interesting part of the DVD, but which sheds absolutely no light on the whole matter.

2. There are about 10 minutes about Oswald's trip to the USSR which researchers have already known about for a long time. What the DVD completely fails to mention is such interesting evidence as, e.g., the training Oswald received from the Marines in speaking Russian prior to this trip, suggesting, albeitly inconclusively, that this trip may have been part of a military intelligence operation.

3. The rest of the video having anything to do with Russia (about another 10 minutes) merely shows that based upon information everyone else in the world already knew, the KGB concluded that JFK was killed as part of a conspiracy and not by a lone gunman, but they still debate amongst themselves just as much as anyone else who did it and for what motive.

Particularly fishy on this DVD is a scene, captured on "hidden camera", of someone supposedly purchasing secret KGB files from Russian blackmarketers. Several items calling this scene into doubt are: i) the buyer is originally quoted a sum of only $5000, which is extremely little for stealing any KGB files, let alone those regarding the JFK assassination, ii) the blackmarketers appear to have american accents (the sound quality isn't very good so I can't say with absolute certainty), iii) the blackmarketers have perfect american speech patterns, iv) the blackmarketers, now demanding an undisclosed extra amount of money, hand over the documents to the buyer to examine before getting the additional amount now required, v) the blackmarketers are unarmed and don't bother pursuing the buyer as he then "escapes" up the stairs and into an empty parking lot. If this really happened, Russian blackmarketers do not deserve their scary reputation.

And all that these secret files supposedly reveal is that the KGB suspected possible Vietnamese involvement in the assassination, which is completely inconsistent with a subsequent coverup by the US government. The US would blare such information everywhere in order to support their "police action".

4. The rest of the film, as noted by others, has nothing to do with KGB files, but instead reports evidence about the assassination in an extremely selective manner in order to avoid making Warren Commission apologists like Posner, whom they give a forum, look completely foolish. Posner suggests, against all evidence, that Oswald was a lone anarchist gunman who killed JFK and lied about being a Marxist in order to get on the news. Based upon evidence proven to be false (completely discounted forensic reports contradicting all physical and photographic evidence, and apparently the altered Zapruder film) a couple of Russian forensic experts conclude JFK was shot from behind with a magic bullet. A team of U.S. forensic experts, OPERATING UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT JFK WAS SHOT FROM BEHIND, set up a test to determine where the shot came from using lasers. Their first several tests show that if he was shot from behind, that it came from the second floor of the Bell-Tex building and not the 6th floor of the book depository, so the "experts" unscientifically keep altering the positioning of their dummies and the car until they get the result they want. These experts also ignore, e.g., the fact that a tree used to block the view from the depository. One guy proves he can, after repeated practice, while lying down at ground level and with no visual obstructions and without the need to adjust for aim, shoot accurately at three completely stationary ground level targets in only 6 seconds while using the same kind of rifle as Oswald supposedly used (without fully duplicating the wear and tear to the rifle found at the depository), thus proving absolutely nothing. All of these "tests" are reported uncritically by the filmmakers. In an attempt to show they're balanced, the filmmakers provide a few minor soundbites from people like Mark Lane.

Of course it's impossible to summarize all the evidence regarding JFK in 90 minutes, but this film manages to avoid reporting even any of the most important and uncontroversial evidence while giving a forum to people conducting experiments based upon unscientific assumptions contradicting such evidence. I don't pretend to know the answers to the JFK assassination, but this DVD is absolute nonsense.

More Posner Disinformation
This DVD has little to do with any "secret KGB files"; it is largely bombast constructed from stock footage. Although it seems to give equal time to respected critics of the Warren Report like Mark Lane and Robert Groden, it belongs on the shelf next to the Posner whitewash as it continues to support our greatest national public lie. A genuine waste of money. Anton Vodvarka, Hartly DE

Roger Moore is a wonderful host and narrator.
No other JFK assassination documentary has film footage like this DVD has. Gives a behind the sceens look into the KGB and the Soviet Union's investigation into the JFK assassination. This DVD gives the big picture of the crime of the century. It is a must for all historians and first time students.

Not recommanded to conspiracy buffs
The most interesting thing was the crime scene reconstruction using the expertises of reknowned crime investigation experts as Vincent DiMaio Chief-Examiner- Bexar County Tx, Anthony Larry Paul, ballistic expert and Ronald Signer, Crime Laboratory -Tarrant County, Tx... The only consultant that did not agree with the other was.... Bob Groden who was an "expert" with no expertise at all in criminal investigations...

Biggest waste of time ever.
I bought this DVD... thinking it had to have some use since it had Roger Moore and was on DVD. But it is not worth any amount of money or time wasted. I bought the DVD in hopes that it could give me some use with a documentary i am making on the JFK assassination. But instead it is of no use to me. Avoid this title at all cost. ... Read more

Description

This remake of Fritz Lang's 1932 classic (1962, 85 min.) has been masterfully updated for the Cold War and is one of the best films in the Dr. Mabuse series. Gert Frobe (Goldfinger), Wolfgang Preiss ("War and Remembrance") and pop star Senta Berger star in this heady blend of film noir, horror, and science-fiction. The super-criminal Dr. Mabuse is at it again, masterminding an international organization of thieves and murderers--all from within his cell in a Berlin insane asylum. Digitally restored from original studio negatives. Additional feature presentation: "The Crimes of Dr. Mabuse," the 90 minute English-dubbed alternate version of Fritz Lang's 1932 original. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Unexpected Pleasures
I bought THE TESTAMENT OF DR. MABUSE in the mistaken belief that I was getting a copy of Fritz Lang's 1933 film of the same name. I was at first disappointed to realize that the DVD provides the early 1960s remake. (The disc also includes a copy of the 1933 American cut of Lang's film, but I haven't watched it. The complications of the Mabuse series are way too convoluted to go into here, but let's just say that the 1933 American cut is not what I was expecting either.)

Since I had never seen the remake, I decided to give it a chance, and I'm glad I did. Smart, stylish, sardonic, THE TESTAMENT OF DR. MABUSE obviously owes a debt to Lang's original. In feel, though, it is closer to Michael Curtiz's early Warners horror films, like MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM or DOCTOR X, crossed with a glib episode of THE AVENGERS and the inventive energy of Hammer Studios at their best. I actually prefer it to Lang's version.

From the first shot, there are obvious bows to the Central European Expressionist tradition from which both Lang and Curtiz emerged: heavy, crazy shadows, canted camera angles, huge close-ups on the actors, an acrid, ironic score, more than a touch of sadism at the edges. If it stopped there, the film wouldn't be much more than an entertaining pastiche. What gives it distinction is its jaunty, fast-moving wit, embodied particularly in Charles Régnier's movie-stealing performance as Mortimer, head of Mabuse's gang. (After stopping and robbing a gold-laden security van, for example, Mortimer gives the guards bus fare back to town. "After all," he says walking away, "we aren't inhuman." Then when the police are calculating the extent of the haul, they remember to subtract the amount of the bus fare.)

The wit and pace only begin to flag in the concluding sequences, with too many people running around an insane asylum trying to bring the story to an end. Those were some of the weaker moments in Lang's film, too, so at most these people have failed to improve on the original. Lang enthusiasts will be able to enjoy the playful filigree these filmmakers have woven around his story. Low-budget film lovers will enjoy TESTAMENT's fast paced action. And anyone simply interested in a good hour and a half of smart fun will not be disappointed.

It ain't Fritz Lang, but still pretty good
The remake of Fritz Lang's 1932 masterpiece is not as good as the original as a work of art and a terryfying alegorical vison of the world we live in, but actually perhaps more enjoyable as an entertainment movie. Lang, from his other crime movie masterpiece M, started to avoid the spectacular in his films as much as possible, and prefered a cold observing eye almost without giving any chance to the audience to sentimrntaly identify him or herself in the movie chracter. This remake does not take such an approach, and conveys the story with excitment and surprises, and vulgarity in a good sense, instead of Lang's cold observing inteligence and classical poetry. An odd but interesting bonus to this DVD is the mutilated American release of Lang's 1932 original. Cutted down to a mere 75 minute length, the power of Lang's masterful control of the images, of every each frame of his film is still there, so is the strong alegorical point of view this film takes to pre-war Germany at the point of the rise in power of the real-life Mabuse Adolf Hitler. In a way, it is the condenced version, and quite fun to watch. But we also urge the studio to release the original TESTAMENT OF DR.MABUSE on DVD.

Testament of Dr. Mabuse
The DVD release of this film is highly recommended for both fans and those uninitiated to the world of Dr. Mabuse. If one could imagine some parallel universe where there were a series of films detailing the adventures of Blofeld and SPECTRE, and where James Bond was a mere supporting character, that would be the beginning of some of the flavor of the Dr. Mabuse films produced in the sixties. To add to the recipe, one would have to throw in expressionist black and white photography, convoluted plotting, double-and-triple identities, and a unique bravura style that was common in German commercial cinema at the time. If you recall watching these films on television as well as the many German adaptations of Edgar Wallace thrillers, you'll view this disc with fondness. Bond fans will find it amusing to watch Gert Frobe on the right side of the law in this and two other Mabuse films. The DVD has excellent production values, considering this film has only been available previously on duped copies from 16mm. The picture quality is very good, and the bonuses of trailers, stills, etc are plentiful. Of course, there is even a second feature as a bonus...the Americanized version of Fritz Lang's original 1932 version of this film. There is a very well-written essay in the accompanying booklet by David Kalat that goes a long way to explaining the peculiar pull these films have on viewers. All in all, an excellent package at an excellent price. Also highly recommended is the companion release "The 1000 Eyes of Dr. Mabuse". ... Read more

Reviews (1)

This is one great DVD!
Anyone who loves the crime or police videos need this one! Get it today! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Mumia: A Case for Reasonable Doubt joins the likes of The Thin Blue Line, Brother's Keeper, and Paradise Lost in its depiction of a justice system that is sometimes not conscientious about whom it convicts. Mumia Abu-Jamal had been on death row for 14 years at the time this film was made in 1996, following his conviction in the shooting death of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. Yet the film makes a persuasive case that events, as told by eyewitnesses whose original statements are claimed to have been either coerced by the police or concocted to please the prosecution, did not unfold the way the investigating officers say they did. A "confession" the police claim they got from Mumia in the hospital (both he and Faulkner were shot) never happened, according to the attending physician who was with Mumia the whole time. Forensic evidence suggests the murder weapon was not the one carried by Mumia, who worked nights as a cab driver, and in any case the weapon had no prints on it. The judge on the case was a member of the Fraternal Order of Police and had the largest murder conviction record of any judge in the country. On the other hand, Mumia, formerly a member of the Black Panthers, refuses to give a full account of what happened the night of December 9, 1981, when the murder occurred. The seeds of doubt sowed by this film should be enough to make anyone crave knowing what really happened. --Jim Gay ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Okay, sure
When one watches this video he is granted with something that is not obtained through reading a book or the trial transcripts--facial expressions and body language. It is humorous that all these scumbags, in their arrogance and god-like facades, who are trying to kill Mumia are very nervous on the tape, stuttering, getting lost for words, etc. It almost seemed as if they could not remember the lines they were told to read. I wish I could have rubbed their palms and felt the sweat drip off of them. The prosecuters seemed plastic, talking mannaquins. And those who were in defense of Mumia were calm and collected. I don't know what happened on the night in question; I am not that arrogant to assume so. What I do know is that this man deserves a new trial. If everyone thinks he is guilty and the evidence stacks up against him, then give him the trial he deserves and don't hide anything and justice will be served. That is if you are so certain that he is guilty. The fact that this man has been kept alive for so long and at the same time has not been granted a new trial makes me think that the system is hiding something. This case is something that goes deeper than race for all of you who claim that "Philadelphia has elected many black mayors, just look at Mayor Street." Seeing that it is not the mayor, but the FBI and COINTELPRO--people that have spread misinformation about other radicals such as Abbie Hoffman who exposed the Vietnam War as nothing more than a means of Wall Street to make more blood money--who want Mumia dead, that is a very weak statement that really holds no weight. Mayors are just puppets for those behind the curtains. Mumia deserves a new trial. Why not give it to him if the courts are so convinced he is guilty. What are they scared of? And I am not forgetting Faulkner either. I feel sympathy for his family. Now all of you who want to remember him and should realize that if an innocent man is in jail that means a killer is walking the streets and justice will never be served. Two innocent people would have died from this whole event, not just one. It is the FBI and COINTELPRO who insult Faulkner and his family, not Mumia's supporters. Give him a nre trial. One that is fair an just and has no holes. For similiar cases, study the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, and the Rosenbergs.

Lack of a "fair" trial does not equal innocence
As a hardcore progressive activist (involved in the peace movement, oppose the death penality, etc.), I've followed the Mumia situation for quite some time. However, I've been troubled, not by the pro-death penality advocates, but by the Pro-Mumia movement itself which has repeatedly relied upon lies and manipulation to make a case for Mumia.

There are claims made in this documentary that don't hold up to scrutiny.

The caliber of the gun "not matching" the murder weapon: This claim is based on a hand written note of the initial doctor who saw Faulkner's body who had very little training in ballistics. Afterwards this doctor retracted his statement and stated quite bluntly that he was just guessing. Those trained in ballistics have stated that the bullet that killed Faulker did indeed come from the gun owned by Mumia. It was in fact Mumia's gun which killed officer Faulkner. Did Mumia pull the trigger? We can't be 100 percent sure.

Mumia's brother has not testified on his behalf nor made ANY - EVER - public statement in defense of Mumia. And Mumia's brother was at the scene of the crime. Mumia activists state that the brother won't come forward because of fear of reprisals. This just doesn't make sense. Mumia has been on death row! Couldn't he make a video statement taped in another country which won't extradite him should there be any ramifications from his actions?

Mumia's confession: Pro-Mumia activists claim that the police officer who quotes Mumia confessing to the killing only came forward months after the fact. The argument is that a confession of this importance should have been reported immediately and that this kind of behavior indicates a possible fabrication given the delay. This seems to make sense on its face. However, there was another witness to this incident. A hospital security guard reported within a day or so that Mumia had confessed to the shooting. Pro-Mumia activists point out that the guard was a "friend" of Faulkner. OK, maybe that creates bias, but the fact of the matter is, the guard's statements destroys the attack on on the delayed police report - because there was no delay. This doesn't mean that no one is lying, of course.

The trial: There is in fact evidence to show that Mumia did not receive a fair trial. However, as pointed out by others, Mumia certainly didn't help his case by being disruptive. The man seemed almost intent upon angering the judge and doing everything possible to have himself removed from the court room.

Eyewitnesses: This is perhaps the most problematic portion of either side. Some say Mumia did it, some say he didn't. Some say there was a running man from the scene of the crime. Just about all the witnesses have ulterior motives and could be dismissed as lacking credibility.

Many people don't realize this, but Faulkner had on his body a driver's license which had not been called into the police department. The obvious conclusion is that this license belonged to a third suspect (Mumia, his brother, and someone else). Tracing this license, the police discovered that it belonged to a man with a solid alibi - but he had loaned it to another man who was a friend of Mumia's brother. Voila. Now you have the "running man." Unfortunately, this man has been dead for many years now, killed in an apparent gang shooting.

So did Mumia do it? And did he receive a fully fair trial? The evidence points straight to Mumia as the shooter. However, none of this means he got a fair trial or that the police didn't lie to make their case.

The problem is, Mumia has come to represent much more than a single event. Progressives of all stripes bring this case up as evidence of police lies and manipulation. This is unfortunate. Mumia's case is not as clear cut as activists make it out to be. Even worse, the constant arguing of his innocence damages the credibility of an entire movement which opposes the death penalty and the rampant racism within the US justice system. More than any other case, Mumia has come to represent to death penalty advocates the overall "lies" of the progressive left.

This documentary only contributes further to the damage.

Not accurate
...I covered the Mumia trial. He did everything he could to sabotage his own defense. Mumia insisted again and again to a weary Judge Sabo that John Africa, founder of MOVE, represent him in the murder trial...even though John Africa was not a lawyer. A shooting that takes place in the wee hours of the morning in a shady center city neighborhood will NOT have very savory or perfect witnesses. This one did not. But if Mumia was defending his brother from Officer Daniel Faulkner, why didn't Mumia's brother testify on Mumia's behalf? Why was Faulkner shot in the head with Mumia's gun at point blank range? This documentary is a one sided mess. Mumia and Officer Faulkner deserve better.

A very controversial video!
Why do people rate this video so low? What are they afraid of?

Throughout the world there are millions of people who have shown their support for granting Mumia a new trial. Amnesty International, European Parliments, Nelson Mandela, are among many groups and individuals who have submitted statements of support for Mumia or expressed concerns about the fairness of his original trial. Ossie Davis, Ruby Dee, Mike Farrell, Whoopi Goldberg, Rage Against the Machine, Beastie Boys, Ed Asner, support Mumia's cause.

If Mumia is guilty like some people say then no one will believe him....right. If he is guilty as they say then why are they opposed to a new trial (just to make sure justice was initially correct....especially with such irregularities in the first trial). If he is guilty then a new trial will only enforce that.

You'll see: Witnesses that were not allowed, others that were "credible" when bribed or coerced and then later, when they want to tell what really happens, they are now termed "incredible" and are arrested for warrants they never knew they had. Forensic tests that dont match. Evidence disappears. Cops all of a sudden remember a "confession" two weeks later after the death of Officer Faulkner. By all means check out the original transcripts at the late Officer Faulkner's website. You'll see Judge Sabo (the same judge who has presided over every court challenge Mumia has made to appeal his case and was even brought out of retirement for one of Mumias appeals) deny Mumia's constitutional right to represent himself in court (as he felt his state-appointed lawyer, who was inexperienced in capital murder cases, was not capable of representing him).

"The choice, as every choice is yours. To fight for freedom or encagement, liberty or slavery, life or death. Spread the word of life far and wide. Talk to friends, read and open their eyes - even to doorways of perception you feared to look into yesterday. Hold your heart open to the truth." -Mumia Abu-Jamal

Listen to him speak before you make up your mind. Dont pre-judge Mumia Abu-Jamal on some review on some website....

Well-meaning but woefully inaccurate
Before you click the "NO" button, read the following all the way through.

I have no doubt that supporters of Mumia Abu-Jamal's bid for clemency mean well. I myself have grave reservations about the death penalty's place in society. Yes, the criminal justice system is flawed, and the wrong people can be railroaded.

What I do not have reservations about are Mumia's guilt in this particular crime.

I am annoyed at the way people who analyze this incident factually are labeled as "racist." For that reason I am submitting this review anonymously. I do not consider myself a racist by any stretch of the imagination, but I do feel that someone who kills a policeman in cold blood is guilty of a crime, no matter who they are. No credible mitigating circumstances have ever been shown in this case. To that end, I submit that this documentary is only helping spread a lopsided, factually distorted view of the incident.

To wit:

1. "Mumia never received a fair trial." In fact, Mumia attempted to dismiss his own lawyer and represent himself, or failing that have a man appointed to the position who had no experience with law (MOVE leader John Africa). Mumia repeatedly disrupted the courtroom with his outbursts and refused to call two key material witnesses for the defense to the stand. If anyone is responsible for Mumia not getting a fair trial, it was Mumia himself, who sabotaged his own defense time and again.

2. "The bullet that killed Officer Faulkner was a .44, while Mumia's gun was a .38." This was based on a misreading of preliminary notes made during the officer's autopsy, which was never intended to be entered into evidence and was later corrected by ballistics. Why this particular piece of information keeps being repeated is puzzling; ballistics has since shown that the bullets that killed Faulkner matched Mumia's gun (which he owned and was registered to him) to a high degree of accuracy.

3. "Witnesses reported seeing another man kill Office Faulkner and flee the scene." None of these witnesses supplied evidence that directly contradicted the testimony of other, more substantiated witnesses (as well as the heavy weight of the physical evidence).

4. "The jury was stacked." Mumia and his lawyer had a free hand in choosing the jury, 33% of whom were black (an accurate reflection of the racial makeup of Philadelphia). They approved a great many white jurors to deliver a verdict of guilty.

5. "Mumia was coming to the aid of his brother who was a victim of police brutality." The brother, who was being pulled over by the officer in question, has never spoken in Mumia's defense. Four on-the-scene eyewitnesses show that the brother (who sustained only a cut behind the ear) assaulted the officer first. [The officer was shot in the back, in the chest, and then in the head at close range -- allegedly in "self-defense."]

And so on. Nothing in this documentary was derived from the public records of the trial, but has been taken directly from Mumia's supporters.

I understand how emotionally charged this case is, but that is no excuse for shoddy scholarship -- or total absence of same.

Get the facts, not the propaganda. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Its alright for awile
Its good at first but after you see it over and over again it starts to get boring I don't know if that is something that you want but thats what happend to me. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Very Interesting
This DVD compiles fifteen of the most notorious criminals of the twentieth century, adding additional infamous cases. While very interesting, I felt much was missing. For instance, there was much more to the Jonestown Massacre and the Charles Manson cases than was covered. If you are looking for detailed information about these cases, I suggest you read the books that are out there. What this DVD gives you is an approximate thirty minute synopsis of the stories behind these men. There are plenty of graphic scenes and photographs of murders. The most disturbing of them, I found, were the concentration camp footage and shots of the Jonestown Massacre. In the Jonestown segment, they show an aerial shot of the bodies crowding the compound. Then there was a shot of a man lying next to his baby.
I was sorely disappointed with the Additional "Infamous" Cases, each of them mere two-minute briefings of cases such as Mark David Chapman (killer of John Lennon), O.J. Simpson (okay, we saw enough of him), Sam Sheppard (Was he innocent of killing his wife?), John Gotti, John Wayne Gacy, and Ted Bundy.
Yes, gangsters like Al Capone made history but so have the above. There were others tha I felt that should have been included, such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Richard Alan Davis. This should have been a 2-CD set, as far as I'm concerned. Still, I would recommend this DVD because it gives the basics of how these men and one woman made headlines. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

False advertising
The totally uncensored description of the title and by Amazon.com is false advertising. Every part of this show has been edited, blacked out, and beeped out. Amazon.com should not sell this one or the campanion dvd Road rage. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This episode of Nova profiles the profilers, the FBI agents who track the most evasive killers, those who murder complete strangers. Members of the FBI's elite team who search for "behavioral clues" appear on camera to explain how they are able to study a crime scene and know the probable lifestyle and personality quirks of a serial killer. John Douglas, who pioneered such work at the bureau in the 1970s, talks about how he was able to overcome internal skepticism when his work contributed to solving the Atlanta child murders case in the early 1980s. The documentary takes a close look at a particular case, the murders of prostitutes in Rochester, New York. As the women's bodies were found and a pattern seemed to emerge, FBI experts were consulted. The experts came up with a profile for the murderer, and how the profile aided in the solving of the case is detailed. The killer was captured and confessed, and he fit the profile but for one detail, which turned out to have a logical explanation. This is a fascinating look at how some of law enforcement's sharpest minds do battle with society's most disturbed individuals. --Robert J. McNamara ... Read more