Amazon.com essential video

Saturday Night Fever is one of those movies that comes along and seems to change the cultural temperature in a flash. After the movie's release in 1977, disco ruled the dance floors, and a blow-dried member of a TV-sitcom ensemble became the hottest star in the U.S. For all that, the story is conventional: a 19-year-old Italian American from Brooklyn, Tony Manero (John Travolta), works in a humble paint store and lives with his family. After dark, he becomes the polyester-clad stallion of the local nightclub; Tony's brother, a priest, observes that when Tony hits the dance floor, the crowd parts like the Red Sea before Moses. Director John Badham captures the electric connection between music and dance, and also the desperation that lies beneath Tony's ambitions to break out of his limited world. The soundtrack, which spawned a massively successful album, is dominated by the disco classics of the Bee Gees, including "Staying Alive" (Travolta's theme during the strutting opening) and "Night Fever." The Oscar^®-nominated Travolta, plucked from the cast of Welcome Back, Kotter, for his first starring role, is incandescent and unbelievably confident, and his dancing is terrific. Oh, and the white suit rules. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (93)

The Disco Era Classic Film
In 1977 not everybody knew what the innovative disco music was, and to what extent night clubing was going on. This film depicts John Travolta as Brookyn's Tony Manero, hero to the dance floor. His dead end job at a paint store makes him live for The Saturday Night disco scene. Travolta meets Karen Gorney and enters a dance contest with her but she refuses his sexuall advances. Gorney sees herself going to Manhattan to move on with her life. Travolta sees her as a snob. One local girl played by Donna Pescow likes Travolta but is pushed away by him for Gorneys character since she's a better dancer and Pescow is considered boring. What underlies is Trvoltas often at odds relationship with his family. Racial gang wars and a friend you can't help but wonder about his sexuality. Not only did this movie imitate the era, it influenced the next seven years with it's record selling soundtrack and the great timing in which some of the best nightclubs in America remained open. The movies message is vague but lets you fill in the blanks as Travoltas (Manero) becomes fed up with his existing lifestyle. Moviegoers became so enthralled with it, it would continue into the mid 80's. A PG version was recut to feature the dancing and less social conciousness with virtually no explicit language. This movie had one of the biggest impacts of late 70's films!

More relevant after all these years
After reading all the reviews, the one by Gareth from Disco Mountain hits it right on the head. I loved it when it came out almost 25 years ago, I think it's a masterpiece now. There's no dead space in that movie. When you consider all the issues raised, it's astounding that more people don't see the authenticity and humanity within all the flaws of the characters. What Badham did was create a seamless integration of many contemporary themes, and they still hold today in some other neighborhood anywhere in the world. First, it has some of the most natural dialogue ever written. Gritty and powerful and sexy. When I first saw it, I reacted to it with passion. Today, I see the brilliant writing and directing, and those issues! feminism, racism, class consciousness, family dysfunction, religious uncertainty, teenage angst, the inevitable changes encroaching the neighborhood. And all these social commentaries to the beat of nonstop, exhilirating music. The apathy and despair in the family scenes alone go right to the gut. I know these people! Finally, blend that in with those great Brooklyn accents, the dancing, Travolta and company, and you've got one of the most authentic movies made in the last 25 years.

Admit it
You liked this movie when it came out. And John Travolta's dancing was possibly the coolest thing you'd ever seen. Then came the disco backlash and it suddenly was uncool. Which is unfair because this movie is a classic of time and place, despite it's technical flaws (the occasional visible boom mike, obvious reuse of 2nd unit dance footage, and conversations where lips aren't moving.) Not for nothing was this the late, great Gene Siskel's favorite movie instead of say, Roller Boogie or Can't Stop the Music.

I was going to write about some of the best scenes from this movie but who HASN'T seen it? Instead, let's just focus on this DVD. It does have some extras which are always nice but they are on the skimpy side. There are 3 deleted scenes that are largely throw-aways. I'm curious why they didn't include the extra footage they used for the PG version which includes more dance scenes. There is a decent VH1 Behind the Music episode about it. If you saw it when it was on, then there's no reason to see it again; although it does have some fabulous rehearsal footage of John that's definitely worth viewing. The best of the bunch is director John Badham's commentary which is very good and exactly what a director commentary should be-peppered with amusing trivia (e.g. the lady who played Travolta's grandmother kept presenting him with scenes she had written to beef up her part), technical details, and wry humor. And plus you have a true screen classic on DVD. Re-watch it after all these years and still discover something new to enjoy.

Any night fever
John Travolta makes his starring film debut in this film as Tony Manero,a paint store sales associate who during the day is at the store and is at the real non-existent 2001 Odyssey discotheque and nightclub at night. Karen Lynn Gorney is Stephanie Mangano,a girl Tony meets at a dance studio. They'd later go to 2001 Odyssey together. Tony still lives with his mom,dad and his little sister in Brooklyn and in the last scene,announces to Stephanie his plan to move to Manhattan where she lives. Tony's buddies went with him to the nightclub also. Tony loses his job at the paint store after he takes a day off against his boss's authority. Tony is later reinstated. John Travolta was the star of TV's "Welcome Back Kotter" when he made this film. It wouldn't be long after wrapping up this film that he'd do his next starring film "Grease" with singer Olivia Newton-John. The soundtrack album is the biggest-selling in pop music history thanks in part to 5 songs on the album by the Bee Gees. Their composition IF I CAN'T HAVE YOU,was recorded by Yvonne Elliman. The Bee Gees would later record the song themselves. However,there are 2 versions of MORE THAN A WOMAN on the album,recorded by the Bee Gees and Tavares. Get a load of,in one of the first scenes,Travolta strutting while simultaneously eating two slices of pizza! The Matrix in Bay Ridge,Brooklyn now stands where 2001 Odyssey did. In addition to the Bee Gees,we hear great songs by K.C. and the Sunshine Band,Kool & The Gang and even the Trampps' DISCO INFERNO(10 minutes and 52 seconds in length on the album). Director John Badham later directed Mel Gibson and Goldie Hawn in BIRD ON A WIRE. There's also in the film,Donna Pescow as Annette,who was Tony's girlfriend before Stephanie and Martin Shakar as Tony's minister brother,who quit the priesthood and returned home. After its theatrical release 26 years ago,SNF remains one of the most popular all-time films.

YOU SHOULD BE DANCIN' YEAH!!!!!
I LOVE JOHN TRAVOLTA WHAT A WONDERFUL MOVIE AND THE BEE GEES, TAVARES, AND OTHERS HAD REALLY CONTRIBUTED TO THIS SOUNDTRACK I LOVE THIS MOVIE IT SHOWS EVERYTHING THE UPS AND DOWNS OF LIFE, FAMILY LIFE, MEN, WOMEN, SEX, SUICIDE, SELF-ESTEEM , BUT MOST OF ALL DANCING AND HOW GOOD MUSIC IS AND HOW WELL WE ALL CAN DANCE THIS IS A GREAT MOVIE AND I WOULD DEFINITELY RECOMMEND ANYONE WHO LIKES THE BEE GEES, TAVARES, JOHN TRAVOLTA, DANCING, SINGING, AND DISCO, TO BUY THIS ALBUM AS WELL RIGHT ALONG WITH THE SOUNDTRACK I LOVE THIS MOVIE THIS MOVIE IS GREAT I LOVE ALL THE DANCING. I LIKE JOHN'S [appealing] STYLE AND HIS WALK AND THE WAY HE DANCES AND EVERYTHING IT IS A GOOD MOVIE. I SUGGEST ANY JOHN TRAVOLTA FAN TO BUY THIS MOVIE. ... Read more

Reviews (183)

Unique & Different - A Campy Cult Classic
This is a differen't movie, from any other movie that I've ever seen. You could definately tell that Paul Verhoeven had more creative freedom, because of the big-budget, and the NC-17 rating which allows you to do basically anything you want.

I LOVED the dance sequences. All of the bright, big, and fancy dances and the over-the-top props and desings. Verhoeven did a good & effective job with the dance sequences. Elizabeth Berkley can't act, but she can dance. The dance at the Cheetah Club, where she dances to a Prince song, is pretty good. Kyle MacLachlan was worse than Elizabeth Berkley; Kyle just can't act anymore, although he was very good in "Blue Velvet". Gina Gershon pulled off "Cristal" very well. She was mean and sneaky. Elizabeth Berkley looks beautiful though. She has a very exotic face, and the differen't color eyes, makes her more mysterious. As a person who likes "Valley of the Dolls", I enjoyed the campy acting, and dialogue. So few movies are afraid to go down that road, that it's refreshing to see something differen't once in a while.

Three of my favorite scenes, are when Nomi does the gospel-singing disco dance sequence, and when she finally gets to rise out of that volcano, and the announcer says "Ladies and gentlemen, the stardust proudly presents Miss Nomi Malone!". And my third favorite scene is when Nomi and Jeff drive past the billboard with her face on it, and they drive off to L.A. with the Siouxsie and the Banshees music playing.

This movie isn't BAD, it is just too raunchy. The nude scenes and the dialogue from Henrietta Bazoom, are real raunchy. There is only 1 sex scene. I can definately see where people would be offended by Showgirls, but being offended doesn't make a movie bad. NC-17, means that only MATURE people should watch Showgirls because they can handle it, and that means that people who can't handle nudity shouldn't watch it.

I was shocked to see Jessie from "Saved by the Bell" doing lap-dancing, and pole-dancing.

Brilliantly Bad, Terrifically Terrible
As an avid fan of the wonderfully worthless "Valley of the Dolls", I thought I had seen the ultimate in the "so bad it's great" filmmaking genre. Then along came "Showgirls", which showed me just how wrong I was. Glory hallelujah, I have seen the light! Yes, friends, this is the most delightfully deplorable motion picture of all time.

As if Joe Eszterhas and Paul Verhoven (who apperantly have some SERIOUS issues with women) hadn't squeezed enough gratuitous nudity and sex in their thoroughly unenjoyable "Basic Instinct", they have topped themselves in one of only two movies ever to get an NC-17 rating ("Crash" is the other one, and it's actually pretty good). This perfectly pathetic film follows the adventures of Nomi Malone, a hot-headed drifter who hitches a ride to Vegas and becomes the biggest thing to hit the sex industry since former president Bill Clinton. Along the way, she'll throw many a hissy fit, befriend an angelic stripper, lock horns with a self-absorbed rival, avenge a brutal rape, and utter some of the worst lines of dialogue ever written for the silver screen. Former "Saved by the Bell" star Elizabeth Berkely plays Nomi like John Travolta played Terl; she overacts to the brink of Spontaneous Human Combustion, shouting the horrid dialogue at the top of her lungs, which surprizes me because they are buried under twin Everests of silicone. The other actors don't fare much better, partially because they are acting to the worst script ever, worse even than the plotline to the Carrot Top movie.

So why five stars? Because you'll love every minute of it. The film is howlingly hilarious, from the actors to the script to the dialogue. You'll be awestruck by the film's monumental depravity from beginning to end, and because the movie is 131 minutes long, you'll have plenty to savor. So put the popcorn on the stove, invite your closest friends, and enjoy the most deliciously detestable movie ever made. It's a guarenteed good time, and remember, this flick cost United Artists 40 million bucks. Oy!

Hea, we all know why we love this film
Let's all be honest with ourselves. This film is about Elizabeth Berkley and how gorgeous she was in the nude.

Eye candy
Showgirls is one one of the most universally panned movies of the nineties. Everybody hates it, or laughs at it.

Frankly, I don't know why. Or rather, I do know why, and it is not because it is bad. OK, granted, it is pretty bad when you consider some of the acting, and most of the story. But how many movies is this not true for? Certainly it is no worse than most action flicks, and you don't see Jean-Claude van Damme being drop-kicked all over Hollywood.

The thing is that this film is obviously eye candy. And today you cannot be politically correct and not attack something like that. I notice that it moved straight to the third place nationally when it came out on video, and that it has an average rank of four out of fives stars with the audience at Amazon. Critics; can't live with them.

See it for the girls. What girls! They can even move. Elizabeth Berkley's moves are smoking sexy.

And that's all I have to say about that... (Lahf is lahk a box of chokolates.)

Paul Verhoeven's most daring film to date.
Paul Verhoeven's Showgirls is a great film. It's flawless, it's funny, erotic, realistic, intense, violent, etc. It was very well received in Europe. It has a lot of cool modern dancing in it, being very close to be a musical. "Showgirls" is the "Dirty Dancing" of the 90s. See it for yourself. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Adapted from the controversial novel by J.G. Ballard, Crash will either repel or amaze you, with little or no room for a neutral reaction. The film is perfectly matched to the artistic and intellectual proclivities of director David Cronenberg, who has used the inspiration of Ballard's novel to create what critic Roger Ebert has described as "a dissection of the mechanics of pornography." Filmed with a metallic color scheme and a dominant tone of emotional detachment, the story focuses on a close-knit group of people who have developed a sexual fetish around the collision of automobiles. They use cars as a tool of arousal, in which orgasm is directly connected to death-defying temptations of fate at high speeds. Ballard wrote his book to illustrate the connections between sex and technology--the ultimate postmodern melding of flesh and machine--and Cronenberg takes this theme to the final frontier of sexual expression. Holly Hunter, James Spader, and Deborah Unger are utterly fearless in roles that few actors would dare to play, and their surrender to Cronenberg's vision makes Crash an utterly unique and challenging film experience. It's rated NC-17, so don't say you weren't warned! --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (142)

This is SO wrong...
What 'Deliverance' did for kayaking down remote rivers out in the middle of nowhere, and 'Jaws' did for going to the beach, 'Crash' does for head-on automobile collisions! And just when I thought there were no more weird sexual fetishes to go 'round. People getting off to car crashes and accident scenes? Yeesh-it's definitely one of the most perverse concepts I've ever been exposed to. But then again, writer-producer-director David Cronenberg is infamous for making (or in some cases re-making) movies that contain surreal & disturbing elements ("Naked Lunch", "Scanners", the new version of "The Fly", "The Dead Zone", et. al.). Here, his realization of concepts from the book this flick is based on helped make 'Crash' into a disquieting, rather than erotic, movie experience. A sex-scene-filled NC-17- rated feature that's more a turn-off than anything else is definitely a rare cinematic find. And even though the 'crash' fetish was something that was imagined for this film (or, to be more precise, imagined for the book that was- well, you know...), I'll never look at those highway accident-scene rubberneckers in quite the same way ever again!

Of course, if you're too uptight to watch the extra-naughty version, you can select the somewhat-more-prudish R-rated rendition. Rounding out the bonus features are a restricted-audience trailer (never knew they made those!), text mini-bios & filmographies of the marquee cast & crew, and- well- that's about it. But it's not like you're gonna watch this for extra features anyway, now is it...?

'Late

Very good
This is a very unusual film. The basic plot involves a group of people who are turned on by car crashes thus allowing a series of sex scenes invovling scrapes, bruises, leg braces, scars, etc. If you are disgusted by the thought of that description, don't see this movie because you would probably (a) not understand the film or (b) be completely disgusted by its graphic sex, violence, and car crash related gore.

The film is very well made. Throughout most of the film, a dark atmosphere is kept giving the film a sort of surrealistic and noirish quality. The actors take the film very seriously and never play it for humor or take the film's subject matter lightly.

By taking a sexual fetish (car crashes) that nobody has, the director (David Cronenberg) has allowed himself the freedom to explore the realities of such a fetish. Had he chosen to direct a film about something that people actually are turned on by, he could have disappointed many by inaccurately portraying this.

This film is not for everyone. Some may consider this merely an excuse to show graphic sex scenes boardering on pornography (the reason why the film is rated NC-17 - the R rated version was created for Blockbuster since they do not carry NC-17 rated films). As realistic as the sex may appear in some scenes, it is soft core, just like any other R rated film.

If you can appreciate this film, you will see nearly flawless acting from James Spader, Holly Hunter, and Elias Koteas. The film is expertly directed by a master (Cronenberg, director of such masterpieces as "Naked Lunch" and "Dead Ringers"), and based on a novel that has become over time a cult/underground favorite by J. G. Ballard. If you have an open mind, see this film and appreciate it, otherwise seek out any of Cronenberg's other films (except "M. Butterfly").

Wow! Trully Unforgettable.
Soon after a head on car crash James Ballard (Spader) is introduced to a world of fetishists who find arousal in mixing raw sexuality, the mangling of human bodies, and the twisted steel of a fresh auto accident. Their fetish soon becomes a suicidal obsession with death and the ultimate pleasure.

Based on the novel by J. G. Ballard, Crash was one of most controversial movies of the 1990's. Exploring the psyche of those who extract pleasure through risk and eroticism through automobile accidents. James and Catherine Ballard are a married couple whose sex life has been reduced to recounting tales of mutual infidelity to turn each other on. James is eventually involved in a car accident that leaves one man dead. After his long rehab he meets the other survivor of the crash Helen (Hunter). They soon realize that the accident was the biggest turn on of their lives. Helen introduces James to a group, led by Vaughn (Koteas) who share in their fetish. To up the ante the group engage in more and more dangerous accidents to heighten their own arousal.  

Anyone familiar with director David Cronenberg's work should know what to expect from this movie, only here it seems that Cronenberg has license to go as far as possible with the message he was trying to get across about the human animal and our twisted psyche when it comes to what we find erotic. His experiment with Crash was met with much controversy at the time of it's initial release in 1996. While many will find the film repulsive and/or sick, I happen to find it a rather genius character study. A film that succeeds in challenging the viewer by showing them a different side of the human spirit and hopefully pointing out their own sick little perversions. One thing is for sure, whether or not you "like" the movie you have to admire the balls it took to make such an anti-Hollywood film that went against everything "politically correct." What's sad is that a challenging, though provoking film like Crash couldn't be made today and if it were the people making it would most likely be jailed. 
 
Cronenberg injects the film with a dreamy, trance-like quality that sucked me in from second one. That along with the low key score created a menacing atmosphere. The acting from the always brilliant James Spader is top-notch as always. Elias Koteas is one of the most underrated actors out there, he's brilliant here as well. Holly Hunter and the lovely Deborah Unger are also strong in supporting roles. This is what happens when a great script (written by Cronenberg), a great director, and great actors merge to create a truly original and daring film.

Much can be said about Crash, but the bottom line is: GO SEE IT! Rent the NC-17 version if your video store has it and explore this movie with an open mind. Whether you love it or hate it, Crash will challenge, make you think, and hopefully enlighten. Now days when crap films are recycled over and over like a commercially friendly PG-13 pop can, it was great to see a film that didn't treat the viewer like an idiot. Check it out! 

Pitiful; a major turn-off. What was Holly Hunter thinking?
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. No redeeming qualities whatsoever. What was Holly Hunter thinking? Trust me; leave this one behind. It's a pitiful excuse for a movie.

You either GET IT or YOU DON'T
No, there are no limits to human stupidity. I don't know where to begin...Crash opens up like an after-dark Cinemax movie (which made me cringe). However it foreshadows the promise of a strange sensuality between metal and skin, something that James Ballard and Remington slowly find it as a kindling to stir up actual emotions to their boring, orgasm-less sex lives. Ballard meets Vaughan (played by Koteas) and he descends into the strange, twisted and druggie like world of Crash. Koteas is the real star of the movie here...James Spader and Holly Hunter merely serve as vehicles of boredom and a sense of being lost, finally finding what's missing in the oddest of places, while Koteas really drives the point across, really gives you an idea of what this underworld is like. He's slimy, creepy and insane, yet plausible.

This movie is not for everyone. There are a heavy amount of explicit sex scenes--and I only use the word explicit when I mean explicit. These scenes aren't porn. You watch these scenes, and they add to the mood. They add to a creepy, dirty feeling that's set on you from the beginning of the movie. And that's where Crash takes place...in the underworld. These scenes are done to enforce the mood. It's eerie. If there's one bad thing to say about Crash is that you'll go through over an hour and a half without hardly cracking a smile...and if you do, it's probably because the movie feels so good at parts that you just can't help yourself. This movie is far, far, far away from being trash. Everyone has their own opinion. Some opinions are just plain wrong. ... Read more

Reviews (47)

Restored edition, fantastic!!!!!!
The movie Reefer Madness seen by itself is really nothing to brag about, but this special addition for this best-selling cult classic is fantastic. It's a must buy, because for how cheap it is, you really get your money's worth. For the first time ever, I can say that the colorized version (complete with multicolor smoke and over saturated psychedelic color schemes) is better and looks better than the original black and white, and both versions are available to watch which is considerate of the DVD producers to give us both, and it looks as good as we can ever expect. Extra features are fantastic highlighted by a hysterical commentary by Mike Nelson, formerly of Mystery Science Theater 3000, which is the sole reason why I bought this edition. The commentary by the people who colorized the film is also worth a look. I highly recommend this new edition.

Reefer Madness IN COLOR for the First Time - Fire UP!
Reefer Madness is the quintessential cult classic. Originally made as a 1930's propaganda film, it was meant to scare America's youth away from drugs, showing them that one puff of the "demon weed" turns teens into raving reefer addicts. Now, years later, this ham-fisted effort to warn you off weed has become the height of camp entertainment. A 'must watch' film among students, Reefer Madness continues to entertain today's youth with the edgy exploits of their high school predecessors. This movie is so beautifully bad, it's great!

Finally someone has released Reefer Madness the way it should be: Beautifully restored, in color for the first time, and in 5.1 surround sound. Both the color and black-and-white versions are on the disk. Plus this DVD has loads of fantastic bonus material. Mike Nelson of Mystery Science Theater 3000 does a hilarious commentary track, cracking wise from start to finish. Grandpa's Marijuana Handbook, A short film by Grandpa Ganja himself, graces this edition and tells us everything we need to know about dope.

No question this is the "FEEL GOOD" DVD of the year!

TELL YOUR CHILDREN!!!
After hearing about this movie for years I finally picked it up, and its better than I ever expected. This one dude smokes a reefer and appears to drive around the block 2 times then hits this old man and then he drives away. oh, yeah, this other guy named Ralph really loves his reefers, he smokes a few hits, then laughs, then he falls in love with Mary, he tries to win her heart by ripping her clothes off and groping her. It doesnt really work out for Ralph, because his fanciful advances cause Mary to get capped, and then Jimmy gets blammed for it because he's a total dork. In the end everything works out, because this stupid girl spills the beans to judge turtlehead, and Jimmy gets aquitted then the stupid girl jumps out of the window. all in all I loved this movie, it really opened my eyes to the evils of the demon weed. thanks for saving me from a life of crime and dispair Reefer Madness!

Re Urban Legend
To address xerxes59's question about the urban legend:

I never heard any evidence about Dupont funding Reefer Madness, but they would have a motive.

Dupont was facing enormous loses because their inventions rayon and nylon could not compete with natural hemp (in quality, cost effectiveness, not to mention environmental friendliness). Andrew Mellon, US Treasury Secretary and chairman of Mellon Bank, one of the major financers of Dupont, did appoint Harry Angslinger (who was also married to his niece) as Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. As seen in Ron Mann's documentary "Grass", Angslinger was an extremist zealot who managed to criminalize marijuana and create ridiculous sentences for smoking pot. One of Angslinger's methods was to demonize pot with completely false evidence throughout the various media (newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst, whose financial interests in paper mills was also being hurt by hemp, was a great ally). Of course this is a tenuous connection between Dupont and Reefer Madness, but Dupont clearly had a direct financial interest in demonizing reefer, just like the movie attempts to do.

Pointless
You mean they used to think pot was bad!!! Wow! Actually I saw this film and it was boring. It wasn't suprising, it had no point. It probably wasnt even that great back in '38. This movie is for children who just learned how to roll one and now they want to be cool. This movie SUCKS!!! ... Read more

Reviews (102)

"Helmut? Oh, I got a helmut..."
Easy Rider is a truly landmark film in the true sense of the meaning of the term. Produced on a very low budget and set in the late 60's it was, in my opinion, the first movie to really capture a particularly interesting moment in time. While many films sort of used the notion of the late 60's, drugs, sex, rebellion, idealism, as a means to make money, this seemed really the first film to accurately reflect a realistic image of the time period with an unflinching eye.

Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper play Wyatt, or Captain America, and Billy, two free type spirits who, after a making quite a bit of money through a sale of drugs, decide to hit the road and drive cross country to Mardi Gras. Along the way, they pick up George Hanson, a southern lawyer, played by Jack Nicholson.

While watching this movie, you may get a sense that it is sort of a western, with the western landscapes and the main characters riding 'iron' horses. This was the intention of the filmmakers, especially the director, Dennis Hopper. One of my favorite scenes was at the beginning, right before Wyatt and Billy are about to embark on their trip, Wyatt removes his watch and throws it on the ground. This symbolized a sense of throwing off the constraints of the old world and an effort to embrace true freedom, if there is such a thing.

Nicholson tends to steal the scenes he is in, and gives a particularly wonderful piece about what freedom is, and why people are so afraid of it. He sort of represented to me one who has been fed many misconceptions about the individuals and movement Wyatt and Billy represent, but once in their company, finds that much of what he has been told may not be true. A sort of individual caught between the generations.

The film is dated, but that didn't detract anything for me. The only scene I really didn't care for was when Wyatt, Billy, Mary (Toni Basil), and Karen (Karen Black) drop acid in a Louisiana cemetery and proceed to trip for an extended period of time.

Along with wonderful performances, much credit must go to the cinematographer, as the landscapes are beautiful, especially the wide shots of the western scenery. They are truly breathtaking. And the music used was exceptionally good, fitting each scene and helping to create the proper mood throughout the film.

The movie presented here looks excellent, in anamorphic wide screen, and includes a commentary by Dennis Hopper. Also included is a wonderful 'Making of' featurette called Easy Rider: Shaking the Cage which really helps to illustrate all that went into making this film. The production, at time, often reflected the turbulent times of when the film was made, and helps to give more flavor to the movie, really enhancing the overall effect. All in all, Easy Rider is a wonderful slice of outsider Hollywood that captured the true essence of an exceptionally turbulent time in America.

Wholly overrated
"Easy Rider" (1969)

"A classic...a great film for its day...everyone is sure to love it", those were the comments I had been hearing about Easy Rider before I rented it. I expected this movie to be great because it was called a counterculture classic and topped many people's lists of the best film of the 1960's. In my opinion, Easy Rider is a case of don't believe everything you read.

Sure, the movie has its good points. The music is fantastic. The songs are all very memorable and suit the road theme, styles of the film and the time in which it is set very well. Many of the songs of the movie have become classics since the films release. Easy Rider is also shot gorgeously, with heaps of great sunset shots and motorcycle journeys.

The performances in the movie are also very good. Jack Nicholson is the stand out as the innocent comic relief Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda meet when they go to jail. Nicholson deserved another Oscar for this role! Hopper clearly put a lot of effort into the film being a writer, director and lead actor, but his continuous "man's" and hippie references annoyed the heck out of me, as did his monologues about what he "sees" after he takes drugs. Peter Fonda was hailed as the leading actor of the movie but he really doesn't say that much and he has very little facial expression. His acting definitely got better.

There was also way too many drugs in this movie. In the film, this is basically the story: these 2 guys take drugs, encounter people, take drugs, make the people they encounter take drugs, take some drugs, sleep, take a couple more drugs, have sex, and then take drugs. And apparently this story is all about "freedom" according to Dennis Hopper. Yeah right. Also, Easy Rider doesn't present any ideas why or why not the characters should be doing this. Why are they doing it in the first place? Is taking drugs a way to make people free and express freedom? No. I found the use of drugs both pointless and excruciatingly unrealistic in this film.

So, the movie does have its good points - the cinematography, bikes and Jack Nicholson - but not enough to overcome the whole pointlessness of the entire production. This is one big disappointment for me, and I can't believe such a film that was hailed as a "classic" could be so banal and stupid.

MY GRADE: C-

The best portrait of a hopeless generation!
Dennis Hopper made a cathartic movie. I 've always recognized his talent as actor and film maker . He's an outsider artist , in all the sense of the expression.
This picture, is reflect of his own character. The tale about two renegades , every one of them trying of seeking his destiny, decide to make a journey (the mythical approach) to New Orleans Mardi Grass (evasion once more) , in his powerful motocycles .
This journey will allow Hopper to express the alienated existence of these guys and the people who surrounds in every point they decide to rest. The violence is free ; and you watch in the visual language of the people who simply don't accept their way of living , the way they dress ; they establish a spiritual rapport with that hippie community in the middle of the road, where the psichodelia images suggest you what's going on.
This film was a low budget . 394.000 bucks , but the script depicted as any other american film of its age the sense of going to nowhere abaout a generation tired of waiting for a change.
The increase dark shadows will cover the landscape and will carry to that magnificent and poetic ending.
I still have the original vynil soundtrack of this picture. If six was nine of Hendrix, Born to be wild and the Pusher of Steppenwolf , or the weight were emblemeatic songs of its age which reflected wise and sincerely , the expecatations of a generation just in the year in which the man reached a superb scientific and technological triumph in Jul 29 1969 .
In a certain way this outlaw couple behaves in similar terms that Butch Cassidy (Western) , Scarecrow (existential mood city) , Midnight cowboy (outsiders in New York).
May be the film age a bit but its descriptive script from its release became in a cult movie.!

Still an Important Film
Every reviewer who has commented on the dated-ness of this film is accurate. However, just because the film cannot be enjoyed in its original context does not mean that it cannot be enjoyed in another -- especially by people who did not live during or do not remember the late '60s. There are different battles to be fought, but the film is still pertinent in this current era of engaging the amorphous "war on terror" and its subsequent erosion of our civil rights, and the continued corporatization of America. Everybody who said that this film doesn't really have a plot is also accurate, but so what? The point isn't to give the viewer a story with a bunch of twists and turns, but to simply show the lives of two cultural rebels (who probably seem quite tame by contemporary standards) as they trek across the southwest to New Orleans for Mardi Gras. The cinematography is excellent, especially considering the age of the film and its budget. The acting is really good and Jack Nicholson gives one of the best performances of his long career. He would have completely stolen the show had his character's screen-time not been cut short.

Here's why the film is still important: despite there no longer being a widespread, vicious divide in the nation between people like Fonda and Hopper and mainstream America, the themes of the film (freedom, freedom of expression, and how some are more free than others) remain totally relevant and Fonda and Hopper's characters can be seen as even more iconic than they were in 1969, because now that they don't actually represent you or me (as they could in 1969) they achieve larger-than-life status.

The scenes at the commune may elicit confusion or even a giggle from younger members a contemporary audience, but hopefully these people will look a bit deeper than the long hair and the funny clothes to realize that these characters represented a very real subculture in the late '60s; a movement that not only decided that the ballooning consumer culture was eroding their freedoms, but who also decided to do something about it. How many people today would be brave enough leave behind most of their possessions and live off the land, to protect the values they hold dear? Virtually none.

"They're gonna make it," declares Fonda about the food-strapped commune, and in 1969 it was possible for this line to be legitimately optimistic and to have enough strength and resonance to encompass the entire countercultural movement. Today, we know that they didn't make it. What did America lose by Fonda, Hopper, Nicholson and the commune not making it? That is for the viewer to decide, and that is why the film remains very important. In its day, the tragedy that befalls Fonda and Hopper could have been intended as a rallying cry. Today, it is reason to pause for introspection on the larger issues: What is important to us? What has been taken away? How much have we willingly sold away? And, most importantly, what would we sacrifice to get it back?

Two for the road
Revolutionary in its time but appearing somewhat dated now, "Easy Rider" was the ultimate road trip: two bikers on a cross-country ride from the west coast to Mardi Gras in New Orleans after scoring big in a drug deal. Produced and directed by, and starring Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda, and almost stolen by a then-unknown named Jack Nicholson playing a hippie lawyer, "Easy Rider" follows its two heroes across some of the most stunning scenery in the Southwest as they head towards Louisiana in search of "freedom", whatever that means. "Easy Rider" not only brings us two (or three, counting Nicholson) of society's dropouts, we also meet a community of hippies, some narrow-minded small-town lawmen, and some rednecks in Louisiana who seem to have a more-than-passing relationship to Neanderthals. We wonder if the film's perhaps unwitting message is that the search for meaningless "freedom" results in meaningless and wanton death and destruction. More than any film of its time, "Easy Rider" caught the mood of the late 1960s in America and the fear of the "establishment" for society's rebels. It may be of its own time, but its timeless rejection of mindless conformity echoes down to us. ... Read more

Reviews (30)

wonderful.
This is a movie everyone should see. I know that everyone always writes that, but I really mean it. I've never seen another movie like it in my whole life. there's something hauntingly, charmingly true about it. The story is set in 1918, in a small french town that has been evacuated because there's a bomb hidden. A scottish soldier is sent in to disable it, but he doesn't know where it's hidden or when it's going to go off. Accidentally freeing all the inmates of the insane asylum who've been left (by the fleeing townspeople) in the town, the soldier finds himself stuck among them, trying to convince them to leave, but having no luck. the inmates are irresistibly lovable, carefree, full of wisdom and completely free of all societal restraints. it's impossible not to fall in love with the world they create in the evacuated town. I think the movie is only made better by being in another language: reading the subtitles, you can imagine the characters saying the lines in any way that you want. French is such a beautiful language: that, combined with the unobtrusive music, makes for a film strangely silent and beautiful. It makes me cry. Please go watch it. It's definitely one of my favorites.

Enchanting fantasy; topical allegory; classic movie
A fairy tale set in a French town caught between the opposing armies of the First World War, "King of Hearts" has lost none of its beguiling charm in the 35 years since its original release, nor has its message grown stale. Alan Bates shines as Charles Plumpick, a simple private in a Scottish regiment and perhaps the only sane man in the abandoned town. But is his world of war and brutality really any saner than the make-believe world conjured up by the escaped inmates of the town lunatic asylum, the only residents Private Plumpick encounters during his reconaissance? It is a point of view that depends entirely on one's perspective. This whimsical, gentle tale challenges the watcher to reexamine what constitutes true madness, just as the asylum characters force Pvt. Plumpick, having been to his initial discomfort acclaimed as the King of Hearts, to choose which role he prefers: king of the fools or fool for King George V? Broca directs his own screenplay with a deft touch and using a stellar cast of mostly French actors. A very young Genevieve Bujold makes one of her earliest appearances in a major picture. The English subtitles aren't the best I've seen (and unlike the VHS version, are distractingly present even during English dialogue), but far better than the awful English-dubbed version of "King of Hearts" that is sometimes broadcast or sold. (The best subtitles I have ever seen were on a print that circulated around theatres during the 1970s and 1980s, but I've never seen this version used for home video.) The score by Georges Delerue is one of his best.

Quelle Surprise! This DVD version has, without fanfare, at least two entirely new scenes in the film that I have never seen before (and I first saw this in 1977). The first is a lengthier "homily" by Monseigneur Marguerite (aka Bishop Daisy) in the church before Charles' coronation. But the real grabber is an added scene at the very end of the movie that offers a parting glance at the primary players and a final bittersweet twist. Where on earth did this footage come from, and why has it been missing from this film for so long? Does this DVD version offer a "better" ending than the familiar one? It's debateable. But it's certainly intriguing.

Best Ending Ever!
This movie has the very best ending ever. I'd like to see someone try and find a more surprising, happier, funnier ending than this one. The loonies are in town and they've found their king and my heart. This movie takes the bag. It's my father's very favorite movie and one of mine. I definitely recommend this movie.

A buck-naked skip with birdcage!
This gem should hit many different emotions for the avid viewer. A true parade of carnival characters set in an antiwar theme -- this bit of royalty of the heart brings up aTHE enigma: Is the difference between psychosis and psychic just a paper-thin line of cultural subjectivism? Is the lunacy of blowing up yet another vacant city on the path to glory any different that skipping naked down a path with a birdcage in one's hand?

This film started the boomers reading subtitles and (hopefully) brought them out of their fears of foreign film. (Don't get the dubbed version, it lacks so much charm.) Its popularity had a great deal to do with the country's mass-consciousness about the Viet Nam war; but I hope it would have found the same audience without such a catalyst.

One feels like dancing in a fountain and blowing bubbles on the back of a bus after seeing this great flick. Keep a kazoo handy; you'll want to have something to toot after the film is over and you are left to your organized sanity!

Better yet, follow it up with the 1972 release of "The Ruling Class" and have yourself a truly insane evening of jocularity.

Is there something extra on this DVD?
King of Hearts was, in my younger and more vulnerable years, one of my favorite movies, but I had not seen it in many years. In fact, I'd rather forgotten about it. Then I came across the DVD and bought it and watched it again. Still a great movie, but I was puzzled. My recollection was the final scene of the movie is Plumpick (Alan Bates) appearing at the gate of the asylum naked. Then the credits began (rather abruptly as I recollect). In the DVD, however, there is a short scene after this where Bates has joined the inmates and there is a brief exchange of dialog. I don't recall ever seeing this before, but maybe my memory is foggy. No one else seems to have mentioned this either in ... of IMDB, nor does the DVD tout a restored scene. Can anyone tell me if they recall this scene? ... Read more

Amazon.com

Peter Greenaway (The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover, Drowning by Numbers) continues to delight and disturb us with his talent for combining storytelling with optic artistry. The Pillow Book is divided into 10 chapters (consistent with Greenaway's love of numbers and lists) and is shot to be viewed like a book, complete with tantalizing illustrations and footnotes (subtitles) and using television's "screen-in-screen" technology. As a child in Japan, Nagiko's father celebrates her birthday retelling the Japanese creation myth and writing on her flesh in beautiful calligraphy, while her aunt reads a list of "beautiful things" from a 10th-century pillow book. As she gets older, Nagiko (Vivian Wu) looks for a lover with calligraphy skills to continue the annual ritual. She is initially thrilled when she encounters Jerome (Ewan McGregor), a bisexual translator who can speak and write several languages, but soon realizes that although he is a magnificent lover, his penmanship is less than acceptable. When Nagiko dismisses the enamored Jerome, he suggests she use his flesh as the pages which to present her own pillow book. The film, complete with a musical score as international as the languages used in the narration, is visually hypnotic and truly an immense "work of art." --Michele Goodson ... Read more

Reviews (106)

The Word Made Flesh
The Pillow Book is a rare film that transcends limitations of film and text in a unique handling by auteur Peter Greenaway. Based loosely on the tenth century writings of Sei Shonagon, Greenaway brings to the screen a rich visual amalgam that relies on stunning settings, the physical beauty of actors Vivian Wu and Ewan McGregor, and the joy of ancient and modern systems of writing that is calligraphy. Greenaway's penchant for incorporating art, numbers, books, and architecture in a filmic medium ensure those who enjoy his style will not be disappointed. As a young child, Wu's character has celebrated her birthday's by having her father write the story of creation on her face in a family ritual celebration. However, with adulthood and marriage, her spouse is neither interested nor willing to continue her tradition. Frustrated at her inability to find a lover who is a good calligrapher, or a calligrapher who is a good lover, Wu finally meets a bi-sexual translator, Jerome (McGregor) who offers himself to Wu as a living surface for her erotic creativity. Inspired by the opportunity to obtain revenge on the publisher who blackmailed her father and is Jerome's lover, Wu's character, Nagiko creates the ultimate love poem illuminated in red, gold and black characters and delivered to the publisher on the naked body of Jerome. The Pillow Book is adult eroticism at it's most sensuous and visual best. It is a story that revels in binaries of profane and grotesque, yet delights the eye with Greenaway's ability to translate a vision of love and horror into a singular statement of lush physical beauty and sexuality.

A Finely Created Work of Art
I happen to be a great admirer of the controversial Mr Greenaway. I think his direction in film is bold and produces powerful results. The Pillow Book is a great example of this talent. It is an amazing combination of his narrative technique, experimental explorations and talent for finding compelling stories. The images are beautiful, especially the shot of Vivian Wu standing in the rain covered with writing on her flesh which slowly melts away. Her character is not that complex, but the action of the story is sufficient to carry her along throughout the tale as she fights for independence and a suitable form of artistic expression. Essentially the story is about the fetishisation of books and sex. These things are enough to make a great movie in my mind. Nagiko is a girl who goes through a ritual where her father writes on her back on her birthday as he tells her of a myth. After burning her way out of a suffocating marriage, she grows up to become a radical artist writing on bodies and searching for a man who can replace her father in the birthday tradition. She meets a talented man named Jerome who she falls in love with, but is eventually sacrificed to her father's old enemy. In the course of the narrative she writes her own Pillow Book on a series of men. It culminates in a gruesome act of jealousy and revenge (a notion not foreign to Greenaway's narratives).

The scene of Jerome's suicide is particularly powerful and works well with the screen-in-screen shots because it shows in one shot the sequence between thought and action, self-perception and actual action. This is a new style for Greenaway that works tremendously well in this movie because it fits so well with the egotism and self-obsession of the characters involved. The movie as a whole is a powerful evocation of a great Japanese classic. I highly recommend this movie who is in the mood to watch something eccentric, visually moving and stunningly beautiful.

A porn movie but 'Artistic'
Highly over-rated. It's like when an artist pisses and ejaculates over a picture and calls it 'nature', then people go 'ooooh aaaaaah!such genius!'. That pretty much summarises it.

Beauty and obsession
Two of the most beautiful things in the world are the written word and the human figure. Even the ones that are not special in themselves embody meaning and subtlety. When Greenaway uses the figure to carry words, he creates imagery that can not be forgotten.

There is so much in this movie that I hardly know where to begin. It starts with a child. Her father's birthday ritual is to tell her a story, always the same one, and to paint calligraphy on her face. Maybe it's a little silly, but it's sweet and loving.

Over time, the girl loses her innocence but gains the strength of adulthood. Her memory of that charming ritual develops, too. First, it loses its childhood innocence; it becomes a passion for her, and the standard by which she measures her lovers. In the end, the ritual gains even more strength and becomes the vehicle for a deadly obsession.

I must warn the potential viewer that the movie's second half goes places far beyond where sanity stops. It is not for people with tender sensibilities.

I'll come back to this movie for it sensual beauty. I won't come back too often, though. The raw rage at the end is just too hard.

Ridiculously overrated
A director tosses in some "artful" shots and full nudity for most of the movie and suddenly it's a "beautiful film"???
I kept expecting to see Marilyn Chambers pop up in scenes. I'm not against T&A flicks, but this is trying to be something it isn't, which is sad and pathetic. It's a cheap trashy film that gets a good reputation b/c of who directed it. ... Read more

Description

Tully High School seniors Richie, Joey and Perry run with a gang called the Wanderers in the Bronx. The time is fall 1963 but their experiences are universal: falling in love, surviving in school and defending turf against rivals like the Fordham Baldies, the Del Bombers and the Ducky Boys. ... Read more

Reviews (26)

The original Boys from the Bronx........
"The Wanderers" is a class act and a stylish movie that has a brassy toughness to it that is both infectious and moving. It was probably overshadowed on it's release by the other gang movie of 1979 "The Warriors", but "The Wanderers" easily holds an equal footing as an excellent period piece of working class lives in 1963. The film centres around the lives of a gang of young boys in the Bronx in mid 1963 coming to terms with friendships, school, girls and other gangs. Ken Wahl ( a promising actor who for some reason never quite made it to the big time !! ) plays a great lead as the smooth talking and charismatic, Richie, the leader of the Wanderers. Richie is struggling to maintain his gangs strength and position in the local neighbourhood as well as juggling his many relationships with different girlfriends. He meets a young and attractive Karen Allen whilst out on the streets with his buddies, and from there another relationship develops. Allen plays her role with style, and even though Allen is not a great beauty, she has that unmistakable feminine charm, especially when that wonderful smile lights up her face.

What makes the movie all the more interesting is the way it goes behind the scenes into the home lives and the hopes, fears and dreams of some of the gang members. We see Joey's artistic talents put down by his fearsome, aggressive father...we see Turkey struggle with his own identity within the different gangs...and we see Richie forced to take responsibility for his actions near the film's conclusion. Backing the movie up, is a dynamite soundtrack containing some top numbers including "Stand by Me", "Runaraound Sue", "Soldier Boy" & of course "The Wanderer" !!

A movie that has charm & talent, and stands up to repeated viewings with ease...if you haven't seen it already....catch up with "The Wanderers" soon !!

LEAVE THE KID ALONE....and let him watch this movie!
These were the OLDEST''TEENAGERS''since the Sweathogs!I mean,not one looked at least 18.That said,this is a wanderfull movie.The music,the acting,the chemistry,the atmosphere,everything worked.it had drama,comedy,horror(enter Ducky's Boys),action,and a love story(even though Terror's a lil too old for her!)The plot is basic gang rivalry set in the age of the do wop.We are introduced to the core members of a local gang,the Wanderers.Not a drug dealing,neighborhood wrecking gang.But the loveable,wiseguys you find bowling and hanging out.Tension mounts between rival gang the Del Bombers and the battle is set.Calmer heads prevail and the fight turns into a football game,which turns into a bonding inspired fight.There are subplots;1 Wanderer stealing anothers girlfriend,1 Wanderer becoming a traitor,the home lives of 2 Wanderers,to keep the pacing just right.I am glad to see this on DVD.Too bad theres no extras.Anyway,theres no question youll enjoy this movie,but would you ever mess with the Wongs?

a era we all wanted to live
I seen this movie at the theatre when it was released,
because it starred a guy i went to high school with
ken wahl.

this historical aspect on what gang life may have been like
in 1963, sorta a serious west side storey.

i also boight the soundtrack album and now have it
on cd as well.

good movie for a saturday afternoon

A VERY ENJOYABLE FILM.
"The Wanderers" is the kind of movie that you don't expect a lot from it before you watch it, but after the movie is over, you feel that seeing this film was the right choice, because it's incredibly amusing. In fact, "The Wanderers" is one of the few films that can make that the audience cares and feels interested for the life of the teenagers portrayed in the movie, "The Warriors", "West Side Story" and "American Graffiti" are some films that have that quality too.

All the characters in "The Wanderers" are very human and believable, some performances are slightly better than others, but overall all the cast is uniformly well in their roles. Definitely "The Wanderers" is a very recommendable movie, the characters, the situations and the script (based in a Richard Price's book) are very good. This is an enjoyable movie from beginning to end.

THOSE GUYS LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF PRICKS WITH EARS
this has got to be one of the greatest gang movies ever made along with The Warriors. the best part of the movie is the big fight at the end in the football field. Joey's dad was kickin some major A** ! I like how all the gangs got together in the end to help each other out. Goes to show that in the end besides our differences, were all just a bunch of squirrels trying to get a nut. the soundtrack for this movie is off the hook too ! ... Read more

Reviews (161)

Smart, scary, and unforgettable.
SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE is an amazing film. It operates on three separate levels. On one level it is a story of a filmmaker, F.W. Murnau (John Malkovich), obsessed with his own ambition and vision. He is remaking the Dracula legend, changing the name of the vampire to Count Orlock. His film will be called 'Nosferatu'. He has hired the 'ultimate method actor' named Max Schreck to play his vampire. Schreck is said to get into character and stay there, only wanting to be filmed at night and only responding to the name 'Count Orlock'. But as filming progresses, the truth becomes clearer and clearer... Schreck really IS a vampire, agreeing to star in Murnau's film in exchange for the chance to dine on the leading lady. It's a delicious concept, even more so after you've seen the classic, silent original. It's easier to believe that Schreck was some kind of monster then it was to believe he was simply an actor in makeup. That's how effective Schreck's performance in the 1922 German film is. The second level of the film is more familiar. It is a horror film. It has all the elements of a vampire film and it acts on all of them, actually reaching a degree of creepiness that you wouldn't expect from a film this (excuse the phrase) 'artsy'. And finally, SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE is a seething satire, one where the lead actor cannabalizes the cast and crew to get what he wants and the director is so focused on his vision that he ignores the fact that the people around him are falling ill, they are merely meat puppets (Hitchcock and Kubrick would have been proud). This is a fun little film, with aspirations towards greatness that it all but reaches. The production design and brilliant cinematography allow for an accurate reproduction of the settings of the 1922 film. So dead-on, in fact, that when actual footage of the silent film is inserted into the film, we can't tell the difference. Director E. Elias Merhige work beautifully with an amazing casy which includes Malkovich, Udo Kier (of 'Andy Warhol's Dracula' fame). Eddie Izzard, Catherine McCormack, Cary Elwes, and Aden Gillett. But the real star here is Willem Dafoe, whose performance of Max Schreck as long suffering and desperate monster is so accutely creepy and inventive that it'll make your skin crawl.

Not as good as it should have been but not bad either
As a couple of others have bravely stated, this movie is just not as good as it should have been. Somewhere during the film, the story gets lost in a big way. I understand what they were trying to say with the ending but the film should have built up to it. As it stands, the ending feels very tacked on and is, therefore, unenjoyable for me.

Having said that, there *are* plenty of enjoyable moments in this film. Willem Dafoe is exquisite. His portrayal of Max Shrek is both comic and very moving. It makes me think of a photograph of the real Max (taken during shooting of "Nosferatu") sitting on a hillside, looking very alone. If you're at all familiar with comedian Eddie Izzard, you'll love his performance as well. He had me in giggling fits (more often than I should have been, I warrant). John Malkovich is John Malkovich, as always. He's very charismatic so I can't say if I was entranced by his performance or by the man himself. I don't think he can be anything other than brillliant, even though I don't think his role was very well written. I don't feel Murnau's character was properly built up. You're left making too many assumptions. There were several times when I couldn't stop wondering what had been left on the editing room floor, and why? I felt that way quite often actually, and not just in regards to Murnau.

The best parts, for me, came when the crew was filming "Nosferatu." Malkovich was most amusing when giving directions to his actors. And it was interesting to watch the actors improvise those moments. But my favourite scene is the one in which Max (Willem) explains to Albin (Udo Kier) & Heinrick (Aden Gillett) why the book "Dracula" made him sad. It starts out very funny but quickly becomes very moving. There's quite a bit of that in the film: comedy to tragedy. Those moments kept me interested but left me desperately wanting a much better written/edited film. I can't help but wonder what got left out due to the project running out of filming time. If more attention had been paid, this could have been a masterpiece.

A film you can't miss.
Before we start, let's talk about the film's plot. This film takes place in 1929, were there filming the classic film, Notferatu(I think that's spelled wrong). The gut has hired a REAL vampire to play the part. What he doesn't know is that the Vampire is really evil and planning to kill the entire cast. I thought this was a great film because it makes you think that this actully happend. Yep not joking, you forget this is just a film some times. I thought Notrferatu was cool in this film. If you liked the classic film Notferatu, you'll like this film!

Why?
Willem Dafoe was great in this film, but that's as far as this good review goes. Maybe, I just didn't "get" what they were trying to do with this film. The story seemed extremely underdeveloped and was very rushed toward the end. Like the entire film crew suddenly realized that they had drug their feet during filming and had 10 minutes to tie it all up. Nosferatu was brilliant, and this almost downplays it's brilliance.

Definitely my Favorite vampire movie!
First of all I must admit I don't much care for most vampire movies -- different reasons for different ones. But this one I just loved! Willem Dafoe was SO camp as the very creepy looking vamp, and you could tell he was enjoying the heck out of his role. That makes it really good, when the actor is really enjoying playing a Creep. Also, the whole storyline and cinematography, other actors, screenplay, everything was just Excellent. I don't give many movies (of any genre) 5 stars, but this one I do. Awesome!! ... Read more

Amazon.com

For those who like their love stories dipped in decadence, LilianaCavani's dark and disturbing 1974 drama--about a concentration camp survivorwho fatefully comes face to face with her ex-Nazi captor and lover--has held up quite well over the years despite its sensationalistic tone. It helps that the mysterious,cobra-eyed Charlotte Rampling plays the survivor, Lucia, and that theunctuous and languid British actor, Dirk Bogarde, is former SS officerMax, a now-benign night porter at the Vienna hotel where the paircoincidentally collides. There is a haunted hollowness to these charactersthat resigns them to relive the sordid past that tragically binds them.Criterion's DVD offers the film in its best available condition, and thecolor has been restored to enhance its symbolic significance. The Night Porter uses landscape as character, and its desaturated tones evoke memory of theHolocaust and a shady 1950s Vienna plagued by post-World War IIguilt. In fact, this is a film full of shadows and shame, and Max and Lucia arevictims of this frightening world in which nothing can be trusted and aroundevery corner lurk spies in their house of forbidden love. --Paula Nechak ... Read more

Reviews (35)

Not likely to pop up late night on TBS.
Despite the misleading cover photo, this is not another stab at exploitive and kitschy WW2 sick humor a la "Ilsa:She-Wolf of the SS", but a far more ambitious and artful work of cinema. Disturbing and repulsive, yet quite compelling, "The Night Porter" brilliantly uses a depiction of sado-masochism and pycho-sexual politics as an effective allusion to the horror of Hitler's Germany. Dirk Bogarde and Charlotte Rampling are both broodingly decadent as a former SS officer and concentration camp survivor, respectively, who end up in a twisted, doomed relationship years after the war. You would have to search high and low to find two braver performances than Bogarde and Rampling give in this complex story (Harvey Keitel and Holly Hunter in "The Piano" comes the closest). Like the film "Seven Beauties", the "sex" you think you're watching is really a subliminal lesson on the ugly politics of facism and oppression. Obviously, this is not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but recommended for any cinema buff up for a challenge.

Mediocre at Best
I just received my copy of the Criterion Collection edition of Liliana Cavani's 1974 drama The Night Porter. Upon reflection, I cannot even imagine myself sitting through this film one more time. The premises are so interesting and the story has SO much potential. The synopses I read online for this movie made it seem so incredibly interesting.

At the beginning, when the story is beginning to be established, there are some extraordinary moments that, with amazing subtlety captivate one's imagination and disturb one at the same time. However, once these premises are established the film stagnates. It is extremely slow paced (something I have NO problem with), but once I understood the film, the last hour of it seemed excuciatingly boring. The underlying message is that people never change, or at least, a terrible event like the Holocaust keeps all those involved in it--both victim and victimizer--forever captive. Neither Max, his lover/victim, nor his ex-Nazi comrades can get away from the Holocaust. Cavani takes too long trying to visualize this.

Another detraction from the movie is that it is an English-language movie written by a non-English speaker. The acting by some of the secondary actors is just plain bad.

Though packed with potential for greatness and some superb moments, The Night Porter is ultimately disappointing.

Doesn't it sound exciting?
It's really not. Who'd a-thunk a film with subject matter as sensational as this could be so dull? And not even a respectable, important dull. This is BORING. You WILL be disappointed. Not that I expect you to move along and pick something else, but when you come back to this page to add your own "0 STARS" review, just remember I told you so.

a distubing film
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.

13 years after the end or WWII, a concentration camp survivor, meets her former captor/lover working as a porter at a hotel in Vienna. They then resume their odd, sadomasochistic relationship.

The film had much less [adult content] in it than I would expect from a film with relationships described that way. It also has several flashback scenes. The film still has nudity and [adult content] but less than many R rated films that are around today. There are several former SS officers living in Vienna who are hiding from the international community trying to jail them for their crimes.

The DVD has no special features which is not common for Criterion Collection releases, but as always had the liner noted and the film is presented in it's original theactrical aspect ratio.

Ehhhhhh. It was Alright...Nothing great.
I keep reading all these reviews (the ones that made me buy the flick in the first place) talk about how great this movie is.....It's ok. I wouldn't tell anyone to go out and rent it, alone buy it. I love Criterion dvds and collect them, this one is definitely on my watch a couple times list. It's not that I'm offended or anything, it's just kind of average. I watched it twice and I don't hate it but I wouldn't buy it for over $15. Criterion has no extras and the transfer is grainy. There is a hair in the lens for awhile too. ... Read more

Reviews (30)

irritatable
after reading the reviews of other viewers i had to respond. both marlon brando and lee marvin were great but to cut into it saying it came short of reality or truly portraying it, think when this film was made. im sure in the twenty first century the movie would be very different. anyone thats read hunter thompsons 'hells angels' or has other knowledge of bike gangs knows too well of its truth-inspired influences of hollister. but in 1953 film makers as well as anyone else including the literary crowd had its limits even if limitary. i think alot of those who reviewed it did so forgetting this fact. no its not the best film made but for what its worth it was a great performance by both marvin and brando and served as a pretty entertaining picture on all fronts. i believe this was the intention of the director. it doesnt claim anywhere to be a documentary or anything close so dont interpret it as so. i got the feeling from reading the reviews that the viewers were taking this picture into comparison with contemporary films which it is certainly not one nor is it as one review suggested a film to be viewed for those in a "classic film phase". its beyond that. perhaps im out of line but these are my thoughts at the moment.

The classic Hollywood biker film
Marlon Brando and Lee Marvin depict bikers as only Hollywood can in a film inspired by actual events that took place in a town called Hollister during the late '40s. The movie along with the rebel biker image was sparked by a Time magazine cover showing a drunken shirtless biker lounging on his Harley-Davidson with a beer in both hands. It was a bit of bad press, reading something like the "downfall of society" or "outlaw bikers take over town" that originated the rebel H-D image and gave Hollywood the inspiration to create this timeless cult classic.

brando before he got fat and untalented.
The entire time length that takes place in this movie is like less than one day. Brando and his Black Rebel Motorcycle Club cronies spend the day being retarded in some bar in some town. The only reason I could think to watch this movie is so you could see that at one point, in a galaxy far far away, Marlon Brando was a cool dude. Before arrogance seeped out of his body like sweat, he was a guy you'd want to see in a movie. Now, obviously, he's dead and like most actors who were in old movies, has been elevated to 'legend' status, despite only being in a handful of good movies. This movie was released in 1954, and I know I've become a bit jaded by Pulp Fiction and anime, but as far as I'm concerned, 1950's B&W movie or not, its not very good. The begining, end, acting, story, etc., just isn't that great, and it's really nothing more than a cult film about motorcycles.

I AIN'T JIVIN. . . BRANDO DOES ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would have to agree with other reviewers that this film is rather corny, but for its time it was revolutionary. Throughout the film I must admit I had several laughs with lines such as, "You're too square" and "Anybody thinks their too good for me, I knock 'em over sometime". And phraseology such as "that's corn ball style". And Brando's faux black accent put me in mind of a 1970's blaxploitation movie, especially with the continual use of the word "jive". Nevertheless, Brando's deliverance is awesome, everything from his facial expressions and gestures to his timing is perfect. The man is stunning in this film. It's hard to take your eyes off of him, but then again, why would you want to?!! Highly recommended!

Cheesy plot but Brando rocks
Being a huge Godfather fan, I have been curious since Brando passed away to see more of his films. Caught this one tonight on TMC. My dad warned me to remember when it was made before I watched it. I am glad he did because I probably would have thought that it was horrible and instead I came to realize that Brando was a brilliant actor! Yes, I have to agree that there is a lot of 50's cornball BS but Brando was so good in this film that it makes me truly sad to think of the crap that is made in Hollywood nowadays. Oh she has a hit single let's put her in a movie! Yeah that almost works! Looking forward to checking out more of Brando's work! ... Read more

Reviews (106)

Better Than "Silence of the Lambs" or "Natural Born Killers"
Yes...this is another movie review by PR...but please don't delete and move on until you've read this.

I just finished watching a film I never knew existed until my demented camera film processor guy once again suggested I see a film that would knock my socks off.

He's done it again!

This one, entitled "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer", makes "Natural Born Killers" look like a baby. This thriller has it all...and the title tells all.

Hannibal Lechter was frightening and sometimes unreal...HENRY IS REAL!!!!! AND SO FRIGHTENING you may not survive the first 5 minutes. If you do, then fasten those seat belts and get ready for one of the most chilling crime thrillers you have ever seen.

And figure this. Most chillers, thrillers and killers involve the cops. Not once during this 2-hour film do you see a cop trying to find this maniac. This is, definitely, a "portrait" of a maniacal killer...and there are scenes that are so real, you may wanna add an extra bolt to your door, look more often into your rear view mirror, and never see another chiller again.

Henry is portrayed by little known Michael Rooker. He is the spitten image of Woody Harrelson in "Natural Born Killers", but much more believable. This guy is totally in tune with being insane...and he's great in this insane role.

Then there's Tom Towles as "Otis", just as deranged, and even more so a total pervert. He is the brother of love interest "Becky", played by Tracy Arnold.

This one is a solid "10" for crime buffs. If you loved "Silence of the Lambs" and "Natural Born Killers", ya gotta see "Henry".

Each of you needs to have a buddy like I have at the local camera shop. This guy is even more deranged than me. He loves the same flicks that I do...and he has been an invaluable resource.

In the crime thriller...deranged serial killer...totally insane murder flick genre', "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" is a top notch TEN....10...10...10. Don't miss this one!

AN OVERRATED MOVIE
I'm sure you've kown that situation in your movie lover life : - all your friends have seen a movie you haven't seen yet and they keep telling you it's the best movie of the year and they can't understand why you're the last one of the whole wide world who is still resisting. And you feel a little bit ashamed. Oh, just a little bit but painfully ashamed ! That has happened to me with HENRY. So, eight years later, spread the news, folks, I have bought the DVD ! Yesterday, I sat in my sofa, put the DVD in the player and watched. ... 90 minutes later, I have watched it, I was still in my sofa and I felt terrible. How TIME Magazine could put that movie in its list of the ten best of 1990 ? HENRY is a kind of clinical film ; it depicts the life of a serial killer living with an ex-con and his sister. John McNaughton chose to show us the pure facts without any critical point of view and, in fact, without any linear story. So, we see Henry kill, eat, laugh and drive and we don't know, at the end of the movie, the motivations which lead him to kill. Because Henry always lies even when he seems to make a confidence. It's OK for me if the director had the purpose to present a documentary but if he wanted to present a movie, he failed. For me, I have another word to qualify this kind of stuff : A BOOK. Without pictures. A DVD for the butchers, a corporation I admire very much.

Brutally Candid Horror..
Body after body is depicted together with murdering agonizing screams as a background sound. This is the beginning of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, which instills a nightmarish vision of the mind of a serial killer. The film is loosely based on Henry Lee Lucas who was emotionally, physically, and sexually abused as child by his mother while living with his handicapped father who had lost his legs in an train accident. Henry had been forced to wear dresses and watch his mother having sex with strangers, which has created internal enraged emotions toward women. In addition, Henry shows an emotional numbness whenever he has killed someone as if he had just finished the last of his coffee.

The story takes place in the Chicago area where Henry lives with Otis and Becky. Otis spent time in jail with Henry where the two became friends. His sister Becky has recently escaped an abusive relationship while Henry goes about trying to find odd jobs and killing women in random ways as it will not leave a trail back to him. However, when living in close quarters with others it is does not take long before Otis finds out about Henry's secret, but instead of going to the police they partner up. Henry teaches him the secret of killing for pleasure and together they begin to find ways of sharing these grotesque moments with each other.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer has some interesting cinematic moments where a camera is use for the main point-of-view, which later is transferred into the living room. This brings a morbidly surreal experience to the audience as the fetish of the disturbed characters is brought to the eyes of the aud