text string | label int64 |
|---|---|
I've seen this movie on several different occasions. I find one of the funniest things to do is to just watch the reactions of the different types of people who go to see it.<br /><br />Type 1: OLD PEOPLE. A lot of old Japanese men and women go to this movie because they think it will be a honest-to-goodness samurai movie with lots of swordplay and medieval Japanese dialogue. As soon the two protagonists begin debating horror movies while inserting expletives almost randomly throughout their sentences, the old people walk out, usually disgusted.<br /><br />Type 2: FILM SNOBS. These people think that just because a movie bears the label of "Independent" that it will automatically be a load of hard-to-follow, overemotional crap that may or may not be in English. Yet they see it anyway just to sing praises about it later so that people will think they are intelligent and cultured. They are really in for a surprise when they see this film. As soon as the blood begins to squirt exaggeratedly from anime-inspired sword battles or the over-the-top villain nonchalantly pegs a dog with his crossbow during a phone conversation, these people will be so dismayed, they will walk out. A few will stay just to see "how bad it will get" and later they'll rave about what a horrible film it was to their friends.<br /><br />Type 3: PEOPLE EXPECTING TO SEE LIVE-ACTION ANIME OR MATRIX-LIKE SPECIAL EFFECTS. Sorry folks, the martial arts are pretty solid in the film, but director Yamasato really doesn't have the budget for that kind of thing.<br /><br />Type 4: PEOPLE WITH NO EXPECTATIONS. These are the people who really enjoy the film. Whether they had only heard of Blood of the Samurai, picked it at random, or stumbled into the wrong theater in an alcoholic haze, these are the people who will laugh at all the jokes and appreciate the movie for what it ultimately is: ENTERTAINMENT. This movie was not made to enlighten or to provoke deep spiritual thought, it was meant (if I may borrow a line of dialogue from the film) to "really kick some ass." And that's what it does.<br /><br />So depending on what type of person you are, you may or may not enjoy this film; however, if you appreciate the movie for what it is and can enjoy an excess of blood and acting, then go see this movie and make sure to bring your friends. | 1 |
A documentary about two rocks bands, spanning a number of years. Brian Jonestown Massacre and the Dandy Warhols. What makes it special is the examination of the complex contrasting personalities and the ironies of success and failure.<br /><br />Anton Newcombe, the main man of Brian Jonestown Massacre, is widely recognised as a musical genius not only by his colleagues, his friends and rivals the Dandy Warhols, but also by record producers and most people who have worked with him. Sadly he and his band members are also incapable of integrating with the real world. Newcombe picks fights with band members on stage or with members of the audience (getting arrested at one point for literally kicking in the head of a fan). Newcombe knows no limits he plays between 40 and 100 different instruments, writes and produces all BJM's music, can produce enough songs to fill a whole album in a single day, has a prophet-like obsessiveness with his own musical genius, but is also a heavy drugs user, flies into rages at the slightest compromise of his own artistic integrity, orders his band members about as if they are lower forms of life, and can blow deals as fast as he makes them. BJM go through a large number of record labels in fast succession they sign them up as soon as they realise Newcombe's talents and let them go as soon as they realise he is totally uncontrollable.<br /><br />The Warhols acknowledge their debt to Newcombe's creativity and don't even put themselves in the same exalted sphere of greatness but the Warhols have something that BJM don't the ability to integrate their talents with common sense, the real world, and their market as a mixing pot of talent (even if much of it is distilled from guru Newcombe) and accessibility, they are the very definition of 'cool.' DiG! follows the parallel careers of the two bands with increasing poignancy. At one point, Newcombe pulls stunts designed to generate publicity by sending apparent death threats and hate messages to the Warhols (in a box containing live ammunition and insults like a bar of soap 'to clean up their act') only he forgets to tell them it's a stunt and they get so paranoid they take out a restraining order against Newcombe. By the time the Dandy Warhols take off in Europe with hits like 'Every Day Should Be A Holiday' and 'Bohemian Like You', Newcombe is becoming increasingly isolated. BJM are stopped and the band breaks up when they are arrested for possession of marijuana the Warhols get busted for drugs around the same time, let off with a warning, and even allowed to keep the grass.<br /><br />The wider appeal of DiG! is that the lessons of genius versus accessibility go way beyond two bands or even rock music. The downside is that it is still a documentary, however intimate, and it will mostly only appeal to dedicated film fans or people who are already interested in the music of one or both of the featured bands. Newcombe may well be a largely unrecognised genius, and there are feint glimpses of this in the film, but to the unattuned ear there is little more than the assertions of the people interviewed to attest to this. In the words of one of the band members: "In every spiritual tradition, you burn in hell for pretending to be God and not being able to back it up." Newcombe isn't pretending but numerically there are maybe still insufficient people to appreciate him in his own lifetime, and DiG! has an uphill struggle to rectify the balance in favour of a tortured but largely unrecognised genius. | 1 |
I couldn't find anyone to watch DiG! with me because no one I knew was a fan of either of the bands. Naturally everyone assumed you can only enjoy this film if you like the music of either The Dandy Warhols or the Brian Jonestown Massacre, but this is so far from the truth. The only requirement is that you have an interest in music and/or pop culture in general. The way in which the careers of the two groups are paralleled is a perfect representation of the paths a band can take, and watching the public eat up and spit out the Dandy Warhols is fascinating. I agree with other reviews that mention it would be nice to get a final word from Anton himself, since he's clearly depicted as his own worst enemy and the bulwark to the band's ability to just remain.<br /><br />Most interesting to me is the Dandys' respect for the BJM (despite their lack or reciprocation) and for Anton (despite his erratic behavior). The Dandy Warhols respect the art the group produces even if the group hates everything the Dandy Warhols now stand for (although that's disputable). The best line is when the drummer for the Dandy's says "I won't have them anywhere new me again" and the guitarist unconsciously blurts out "I'll still buy their records though." To me, this just shows how powerful good music can be.<br /><br />Definitely see this movie, even if you know nothing of either band. It's more about the themes of rock music and how they develop that makes this film so interesting. It's rare to follow a group so closely for so long. | 1 |
Excellent documentary, ostensibly about the friendship and subsequent rivalry between two West Coast retro rock'n'roll bands: The Dandy Warhols and the Brian Jonestown Massacre. What it actually turns out to be is a portrait of a borderline psychopath - Anton Newcomb - and his tortured relationship with the rest of the world. Interestingly, for a music documentary, there is hardly any music. What there is - snatches of songs, more often than not aborted by the performers - is incidental rather than central. Although the protagonists are musicians, the story is not about music but rather about a particularly American version of a British myth of a cartoon lifestyle, ie, one where nobody has to take responsibility for behaving like spoiled adolescents on a full-time basis. Tantrums, drugs, violence, grossly dysfunctional attitudes, egomania on a truly epic scale - all of this is excused or positively encouraged because it conforms to some collectively held idea about what rock'n'roll is about. As a film this is a first-class documentary but it raises more questions than it answers. For example, why is Anton's music so conservative? For someone so wild and outrageous (and he IS wild and outrageous) his music never seems to have progressed beyond the most obvious derivations of his 60s idols (The Stones, Velvets etc.) For someone who claims to be able to play 80 instruments he has never bothered to learn to play any one of them beyond the most rudimentary level. Similarly, the Dandy Warhols burning ambition is based on a vision of rock'n'roll which is astonishingly fossilised in 1969. Nothing wrong with pastiches, of course, but surely there's more to musical life than perpetually acting out a cartoon from the late 60s. Why don't they take some risks with their music - in the way that their role models did? Because, one suspects, this is not about music. Music is just an accessory, a prop, or an excuse, to lead completely dysfunctional and irresponsible lives. But why? In the Dandy Warhols case, the answer is obvious: to make lots of money and be famous. Big deal. Anton Newcomb's case is more interesting. He is obviously very talented, but every time he is given an opportunity to reach a wider audience he sabotages it, usually in the most dramatic way possible. He is terrified of success, and at the same time, deeply resents anyone else who has it - especially his former friends the Dandy Warhols. Fascinating movie. Highly recommended. | 1 |
Rock n' roll is a messy business and DiG! demonstrates this masterfully. A project of serious ambition, and perhaps foolhardiness, the filmmaker is able to mend together seven tumultuous years of following around two unwieldy rock groups. With that said, the abundance of quality material ensures the film's ability to captivate the audience. If you've ever been interested in any realm of the music industry, this movie will undoubtedly be an arresting viewing. the music in the film, although it suffers minimally from requisite cutting and pasting, is worth the price of admission alone. the morning after i saw DiG! i went straight to the record store to pick up a Brian Jonestown Massacre album (i was already initiated to the Dandy Warhols' sounds). Primarily defined by its exploration of rock music, the film succeeds at other profound levels. DiG! is a sincere, and sufficiently objective, glance into the destructive and volatile nature of the creative process and the people that try to wrangle those forces. | 1 |
A really cool flick. A must for any music snob. You don't really have to know about the bands to enjoy the movie. Before the movie, I only heard only two songs from the Dandy Warhols. The only thing is required is an open mind. <br /><br />The movie centers around the Brian Jonestown Massacre. The Dandy Warhols have a role in the film, as the 'rival band,' but they are second fiddle to the BJM. The Dandy Warhols don't play as big of a role in the film as I originally guessed, but then again, they didn't have the element of excitement and unpredictability of the BJM.You can't help but be fascinated by the band and its very charismatic front man, Anton Newcombe. By itself, it's an insightful film and study on the music industry. Just watch this film and enjoy. | 1 |
DIG! is funny, fun, amusing, interesting, stylish, and very well done. Knowing that it was made on such a shoestring budget over 7 years it is amazing that such a story can be told, especially with such style and substance. If you are a music fan or documentary fan this is a must see.<br /><br />Focusing on The Brian Jonestown Masssacre and The Dandy Warhols over the years is a brilliant way to show the contrast between a decent band who meets with moderate success through perseverance and the ability to compromise and a genius megalomaniacal lead singer backed up by a varied cast of characters who sabotage their own success through drugs, alcohol, and insanity. If I did not know that this is footage of real people, I would swear it was an incredibly well written and imaginative scripted piece. The story is compelling, concise, and simply amazing. | 1 |
The movie is about Anton Newcombe. The music and careers of the two bands are simply backdrop. It's only fair that Newcombe have the last word about the film, which at this writing you can find in the "news" section at the brianjonestownmassacre website. I'd link it here but IMDb won't permit it.<br /><br />Documentarians are limited by what the camera captures, as well as by the need to assemble a cohesive narrative from the somewhat-random occasions when chance has put the camera lens on a sight-line with relevant happenstance. In Dig!, fortune smiled on the Dandy Warhols, capturing their rise to the status of pop-idol candidates, as they formed slickly-produced pop confections for mass consumption, most notably "Bohemian Like You," a song that made them global darlings thanks to a Euro cell phone ad. <br /><br />No such luck for Brian Jonestown Massacre. The film captures little of what made the original BJM lineup great, with the sole exception of a single montage, lasting a minute or so, showing Newcombe creating/recording a number of brief instrumental parts, unremarkable in themselves, and concluding the sequence with a playback of the lush, shimmering sounds that had to have been in Newcombe's mind and soul before they could enter the world.<br /><br />Three commentaries accompany the film; one by the filmmakers, and two by the members of the bands (the BJM track is solely former members, and without Newcombe). Both the Warhols and BJM alumni point up this montage sequence as the "best" bit in the film, and I'd agree that, given the film's focus on Anton Newcombe, it is the only part of the film that sheds proper light on his gift, and seems too brief to lend proper balance to this attempted portrait of the "tortured artist."<br /><br />Interesting thing about commentaries is that, unlike film, they are recorded in real time -- one long take -- which can be more honestly revelatory than a documentary that takes shape primarily through editing.<br /><br />The Dandies do not come off well in their comments. If the rock and roll world extends the experience of high school life for its denizens -- as I believe it does -- the Dandies are the popularity-obsessed preppy types, the ones who listen to rock because it's what their peers do, while the BJM crew come off as the half-rejected, half-self-exiled outsiders (to insiders like the Dandies, "losers") that are the real rock spirit. BJM's Joel Gion, who talks a LOT, nails the film's message for me when he says (paraphrasing): "You can't forget that Anton has been able to do the only thing he ever said he wanted to do. Make a lot of great music."<br /><br />The Dandies, meanwhile, laugh too easily at every outrageous display in the course of Newcombe's meltdown (all the BJM footage here ends at 1997, before Newcombe quit heroin). Courtney Taylor-Taylor's discounting of Newcombe's commitment to his vision is summed up as follows: "He's 37 and still living in his car. You can download all his work at his website. He was so tired of being ripped off by everyone else, he's giving it all away. He could be making a mint." You can practically hear him shaking his head in disbelief.<br /><br />The film's shortcomings can't be blamed on the filmmakers; rather it's the difficulties of the documentary form, and the loss of cooperation by the film's subject, that makes this portrait of Newcombe so fragmentary. But it's likely the best we will get, outside of his music.<br /><br />I only rented disc one, which has the feature. Most of the extras are on disc two. Not renting that, as I've put in my order to buy the set. | 1 |
Anton Newcombe and Courtney Taylor are friends, they both are the leads in their own respective bands; Anton with The Brian Jonestown Massacre and Courtney with The Dandy Warhols. What's interesting about their friendship is that they are rivals; its a love hate relationship. At times you both hear them praising one another, but the next second they are complaining at how stupid and self absorbed they are. While the Dandy Warhols went on the reach commercial success, BJM still was stuck in the underground scene; and for good reason why.<br /><br />The focus of Dig! is more towards Anton and the BJM, as they have a lot more substance. They are the most dysfunctional band. During gigs they will fight and bash each other. Anton will hit other members if he feels they aren't performing correctly. With the amount of drugs an alcohol they consume, fight was always waiting to happen. You know how people go to car races just to see if a huge car crash happens; that's why people would go to their gigs, for the fights. <br /><br />Anton is very unstable. Always thinking himself as a music messiah, he wants to change music and create a revolution, but he could never get out of the underground. He is a very talented musician, its amazing how many instruments he can play and with such skill. But his draw back is he cant escape the world he created; a prolific musician stuck in a black hole drugs, alcohol and depression. On the other side, the Dandy Warhols were having their own troubles. They didn't find much success with their first album and were constantly fighting with their record label. But they found huge success in Europe. But Courtney keeps being sucked back into the world of Anton. Its interesting that both Anton and Courtney both had what the other needed. Courtney always wanted to be musically talented as Anton, though Anton wouldn't say it, he needed the commercial success that the Dandy's had, to make his revolution.<br /><br />Over the seven year course the film crew followed these two bands, there is a lot of footage. There is never a dull moment in Dig!. It is constantly moving along as it doesn't have time to slow down as it has to much to say, seven years of story telling in the 1h 45mins is a hard job. Ondi Timoner has done a great job of piecing together one of the best music documentaries that makes you always wanting more. Even if you don't like the bands it still deserves viewing; it transcends the music to reveal a great story of a successful failure.<br /><br />You wont be disappointed. | 1 |
To suggest Anton Newcombe of the Brian Jonestown Massacre could also use some therapy is putting it mildly. In Dig! which won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance, we watch him and his band self-sabotage over seven years, while ex-friends and contemporaries The Dandy Warhols rise to comparative greatness (a mobile phone advert, anyway).<br /><br />What elevates Dig! above its contemporaries is the immense, near-biblical comic-tragedy being played out: a depressingly honest treatise on art versus commerce and compromise. For all his "look at me, I'm a bloody genius" posturing, Newcombe is in fact revealed to be a singularly gifted, if immensely troubled, musician - far more talented than his rival, the Dandy's Courtney Taylor who narrates the picture. If Newcombe is Dennis Hopper, Taylor's Peter Fonda.<br /><br />Even sadder, Taylor appears to realise this, evinced by his weary, self-loathing voice-over: he knows his band won the battle - but at what cost? In truth, they sold out, made Indie-Lite records, kept their teeth nice and clean, and probably brushed their hair twice before bedtime - thus winning record contracts and a large tour bus. And jettisoning all credibility in the process. Newcombe, on the other hand, lives in filth, is continually busted, beats up fellow band members on stage, kicks hecklers in the head - and is last glimpsed in Dig! being ferried away by police, having lost the right to see his child.<br /><br />Two of the best films about rock's subculture have been directed by women: Penelope Spheeris's The Decline Of Western Civilization and this one an instant classic the moment it was released. | 1 |
I recently rented this doc, having remembered hearing about it from IMDb.com and being intrigued by the premise. I knew very little about either of these bands, but I do remember hearing "Not If You Were The Last Junkie On Earth" by The Dandy Warhols ages ago and enjoying it. That being said, this is my perspective on the doc:<br /><br />One thing I found incredible about this film is there is no need to have any prior knowledge of either of these bands. The director (Ondi Timoner) wastes no time in engaging the audience and familiarizing them with the people in this film. I quickly became grooved to the lives both Anton and Courtney as well as their respective bands, The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols. I think that is part of what makes this doc so good, and what makes Ondi Timoner such a master documentarian.<br /><br />I also loved how the "story" of these bands was told. Most of what you see is of the bands on tour. Both bands start out playing small venues and struggling to make it in the recording industry. Throughout the film, each band strives to remain unique and uncontrolled by the norm. However it is this that makes the two bands similar, and thus the brilliant perspective on how two bands of a feather can go in such different directions.<br /><br />I would basically recommend this for ANYONE who likes film in general. You do not need to have a particular love for documentaries, or either of the bands. An appreciation for music helps, but the music itself takes a backseat to the love/hate relationship between The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols. | 1 |
Anton Newcombe makes the film and he is the main subject. Watching him knock up a song if not a whole album quickly showed the guy to be a real talent. He thinks he is god but is so prollific and interesting. The DW are not really that interesting in comparison musicly or otherwise. "Hey, do you haver a drivers license?" ,Anton says to the cameraman, "Well lets go pawn this guitar!". Great use of archive/ home video material. Great to see rock docs still being made. A cool doc about the creative process. If you like this go see Nirvana Live! Tonight! Sold Out! on DVD. A good experience Anton is this film. 8 out of 10 | 1 |
Although DiG! was being hailed as being closest to what the music industry is like it is highly fabricated. The director has misled the audience into believing the Brian Jonestown Massacre disappeared off the face of the earth post-'98. And the rivalry between the Dandy Warhols and Jonestown has been milked. The truth of the matter is not really exposed in this film.<br /><br />That said this film is endlessly quotable and is an interesting watch as we get a look at two groups of very talented musicians creating their art. One of the best things this film has going for it is a unique perspective between the indie music scene and the larger corporate scene.<br /><br />Recommended mostly for the music and the two fantastic bands. | 1 |
I first saw this film when I was flipping through the movie channels on my parents DirecTV. It was on the Sundance channel and was just starting. I love music, especially late 60s and this is what the BJM sounded like (The Dandys are alright). Everything about the Brian Jonestown Massacre intrigued me from the music, to Anton and Joel's personalities, to the illicit drug use. It was funny because as I was watching the first party scene when everyone is doing lines my parents walked by and decided to watch (The look on their faces were priceless). Anyways this is definitely one of my favorite movies because it introduced me to The Brian Jonestown Massacre who is now my favorite band of all time.<br /><br />just watch it... seriously | 1 |
Shot into car from through the windscreen, someone is playing someone else their latest song, someone else didn't react, according to the voice-over. I just wonder how that came to be made. There were too many scenes in this movie that I wondered about how come a camera was there. If the scenes shot where the Warhols descended on a BJM post-party are true then that was inexcusable exploitation to the max, if not, then it was a total fabrication, either way it made me uncomfortable, if that was the purpose? All the way thru this movie I kept wondering how the footage came about. Taken at face value, a nice portrait of the (tortured) genius we all believe ourselves to be. | 1 |
Damn, was that a lot to take in. I was pretty much mesmerised throughout. It was pretty perfect, though I would say the editing had a lot to do with that. I can't believe this guy stayed on good terms with the lot of them (Anton especially) to get all of this footage without any serious... beef. The Dandy's did come off well-together, middle-class kids who took advantage of their situation (and rightly so!). I felt bad for Jonestown and especially for Anton, which maybe wasn't what a lot of other people felt. Great piece of film-making and great choice of subject(s). I recommend this to any music/film fan. You'll probably learn something about film-making. | 1 |
Dig! I would say to anyone even if you don't like Metallica to see 'some kind of monster' it is a spinal tap type documentary about one of the biggest bands in the world acting like mental kids during a breakdown of sorts. It's fun and fascinating. Along the same lines comes dig! A film about 'the Dandy Warhol's' and 'the Brian Jonestown massacre' two Portland bands who start off a kind of music scene in there home town only for one of the bands to become huge and one to fall by the wayside into the musical history books. Right from the start the two bands pull in opposite directions just on their ability to make decisions whether good or bad. Filmed over seven years and at times painful to watch we see the dandy's meteoric rise to fame (thanks to that vodaphone ad!) and the Jonestown seminal fall from scene instigators to bickering wannabes. As the bands become more disjointed the friendships are stretched tension tight and at several points snap into arguments and even on stage fights. All of this is half funny and half tragic and believe it or not is perversely watch able. Like I said at the beginning you can watch the Metallica film even if you have no interest in the band. Dig! on the other hand is slightly different and is more enjoyable and a whole lot easier to watch if you have a passing interest in either band. Still a good film and more a testament to not be in a band than encouraging that as a career path. Dig! Is a mad ride on rock and roll's coat tails and a fine example of the pitfalls and pleasures of being or wanting to be famous. | 1 |
I should admit first I am a huge fan of The Dandy Warhols, and that is the reason I came watching this film.<br /><br />The uniqueness of this film, compared to other modern rockumentaries, is that it's not just about one page of a band's history (like "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart", about Wilco), but rather covers long period of the band's history. In this movie, director/producer Ondi Timoner closely followed friends/rivals The Brian Jonestown Massacre (BJM) and The Dandy Warhols (DW) for more than 8 years (1995 - 2003) and shoot tremendous 1500 hours of raw video, cut than to 1:45 hours (the future DVD release will contain much more material than the original film). The result is astonishing - there are no fillers - the film is 100% pure and genuine archive footage, which gives you feeling as film progresses that you live with the bands, through all these years.<br /><br />Both bands in the start of their careers promised to "make a revolution" in the music making, and not to sell their souls to the devil of "record industry". However, their paths quickly diverged - The Dandy Warhols signed a contract with Capitol Records and became relatively popular (especially in Europe) after only one album, while The Brian Jonestown Massacre (with its self-destruction-bound leader Anton Newcombe) dissolved into oblivion (at least how it is portrayed in the film). And the movie follows the descent of The Brian Jonestown Massacre, contrasted by the ascent of The Dandy Warhols.<br /><br />First, I was delighted by the movie and its approach of telling the story of Anton Newcombe (for example, Courtney Taylor - the leader of The Dandy Warhols - narrates), but after some thinking I realized that something is wrong with this film.<br /><br />First, it treats Anton Newcombe as a disappeared person. The project started in 1995 as a documentary about several promising emerging groups, in which Anton Newcombe and Ondi Timoner were equal partners (that was the reason why all these years Ondi Timoner had unmediated access to the both bands). It was Anton Newcombe who brought The Dandy Warhols into the project. In the end he was ignored completely, as if he was kicked out of the project. Everybody talk about BJM, but he does not take part in the discussion. I guess he wasn't even informed when the group started the final editing process. There are always both sides of the story, and here we have only one... Of course, as one would expect, Anton does not approve the final result and sees this movie as a betrayal of his former friends.<br /><br />Second, the film is very Dandy Warhols-biased. Sure, the winner takes it all, but the fact that Courtney Taylor (leader of DW) narrates (even though it seems a good choice - it provides a feeling of seemingly closer involvement) and that bands' late history is represented nonproportionally (BJM is covered till 1997, and DW - till 2003), does not add objectivity to the film.<br /><br />Third, the movie is (somewhat) shallow. What does it want to teach us? As one critic said: "... movie examines old questions: where does genius fit into a commodified world? Can it thrive and get its due, or does it need to self-destruct to preserve its integrity?" No, IT DOES NOT EXAMINE these questions! It just depicts a story of a brilliant, but unsuccessful musician, narrated by a less brilliant, but successful one, who indulges in self-assurance and eternal coolness of an ego greater than mountain.<br /><br />Anyway, the movie was fun - it's raw, it's fresh, it's stylish, it's ... just god damn interesting, at least for the DW or BJM fans. For the rest of the crowd - I don't know... | 1 |
I loved this film, at first the slick graphics seemed odd with the grainy footage but I quickly got into it. There must have been thousands of hours of footage shot and I really admire the work done in cutting it down. If you're easily shocked by drugs or violence it might not be the film for you but there are some great characters here, (and some real tossers). Technically I liked it a lot too, they must have used a new de-interlacing algorithm or maybe it was just that the footage looked so dark anyway but I wasn't annoyed by the usual artifacts seen in video to film transfers. (Open Water drove me nuts, mostly because there are cheap, progressive cameras available now and I see no excuse in not shelling for one if you intend to screen in the cinema). Sorry that's my own little rant. I definitely recommend this film if you've ever been involved with the music scene, it has some tragic moments but most of it is hilarious, I might be accused of laughing at others misfortune but it's a classic piece. | 1 |
At first I didn't like the movie cause of it being a Nazi swastika drama.But after buying it and seeing it, it wasn't that bad. I heard so many complaints about the numbers being short and Ilse Werner not singing. Now I understand. The radio show was a super propaganda radio program. Ilse , Johanne and Zara plus Rudy Shruki and band like Kurt Widman and his Orchestra and Fud Cantics ex cetera never appeared in the radio show cause the singers and the bands were of the pop jazz and swing categories. The Club Foot had that regulated that for touring occupied areas for the soldiers to short wave radios for the soldiers also night clubs and hotels,in Berlin and Hamburg, and record sales only. This is why Ilse wasn't allowed to sing in this picture. This would be made up by medium budget musical ,Were making music, 1942, in which she would demonstrate her whistling.But this is an excellent example propaganda.Inge and her aunt Eichhorn,played by Ida Wust, goes to the 1936 Olympics. The aunt forgets her tickets so Inge has to wait till her aunt comes back with the tickets. She meets Carle Radditz, who plays Herbert, who has an extra ticket. She goes with him and it's love at first sight. they plan to marry but the Spanish war get in the way so he has to go on an assignment against the right side.Carl Raddatz as so many people complained about him was really handsome and not plain. When he did Opfergang and they put a mustache on him plus his own suntan that made him plain looking.You see the Nazi soldiers acting normal,like a scene in which a ex butcher and his troops are in France and they steal pigs from a farm and they are about to make lunch until their leader suggest to save the pigs. This reflect Adolphs animal rights extremism. The character was a butcher now soldier . This was a subtle put down against meat eating.Late on in world war 11, Herbert is flying in a German airplane. We shoot one of the pilots so Herbert takes over. We shoot his plane. They crash. Unfortunately for us they survive.Another seen the Nazis soldiers go in a bomb Catholic church ,now it's putting the catholics down, and Hubert's best friend Helmet,played by Joachim Brennecke starts to play the organ, Beethtoven, .More bombs come in from us. The church is bomb more the soldier continues to stay and play the organ he's being told to leave. We end up injuring him. Propaganda message? The catholic church organ cause him to become addicted to it.It injured him. See? By this time Inge is with her either mother or grandma, played Hedwig Bleibteu, the same German Grandame actress who played Maria Holst's Aunt in Weiner Blut.Well ,later it comes to the short view of the radio show. This was not intended to be a musical revue, such as Kora Terry released that same year were as well As Rosen in Tirol, The music as well as their side of the war was so supposed to be only the back drop. It was mainly a war romantic movie.It's easy to take a pot shot at those soldier in the movie but in real life many of those soldiers were being forced to fight the Nazi cause, cause of the job and the monthly pay that they would receive. After the war many of them who survive would regret it. This is a good swastika classic. The only problem is that today you have Neo Nazi and Nazi skin heads, who watched the same movies to reflect their Hitler worship and their. They have disturbing websites who exploit these film classics to raise money for their insanity . Be careful most of the time it's the direct hate only classics. If their scenario looks like they are glorifying it ,then its a Nazi website skip it .Go to IHF or German wartime films dot com, Amazon dot Dee or German video dot net. They are legitimate. 01/23/10 Mada a mistake it wasn't Herbert's friend that got killed at the church . It was Malte Yager's character's friend Schartzscop. | 1 |
As a movie this barely rates a 4 but for movie fans of the 1940s period, it's almost a must-see and rates a 9 as a variety show! I was drawn to watch this by the presence of Richard (Captain Midnight) Webb who plays the Colonel in charge of the event. What surprised me was the stunning performance of Doris Day. Outside of 'Calamity Jane', I've never seen her put over a song better than she does here. Randolph Scott is memorable as well, even if he doesn't see much screen time. It's been a while since I saw the movie but I was almost sure Humphrey Bogart put in an appearance. With so many familiar faces, it's hard to keep track. If it ever turns up on a TV station near you, be sure to catch the Doris Day sequence, if nothing else!<br /><br /> | 1 |
Starlift is a pleasant and interesting throwback to those all star musical pictures that every studio was putting out during the World War II years. When you've got such stars as Gary Cooper, James Cagney, Doris Day, Gordon MacRae, and Randolph Scott, etc., in the film and with such people as the Gershwin Brothers, Cole Porter, Jule Styne and Sammy Cahn supplying the music, it's an easy to take film. And the plot isn't even in the way.<br /><br />What plot there is involves two Air Force enlisted men, Dick Wesson and Ron Hagerthy, trying to meet Warner Brothers starlet Janice Rule using as a gimmick the fact that both come from Youngstown, Ohio and Hagerthy's father was Rule's dentist as well as half of the town's. The scheme works too well as Louella Parsons is soon putting them as an item in her column. Yes, Louella's in the film as well. She must have liked Warner Brothers or Jack Warner catered to her more than the other studio bosses because she also used this studio to publicize her Hollywood Hotel radio program back in the day.<br /><br />But the rest of the plot also touched on the real life efforts of Ruth Roman also playing herself to get her studio and others to do shows at the Air Force bases for the servicemen and women going to Korea. Some of the names I've mentioned and others sing and perform in a show at Travis Air Force Base where a lot of this film was shot.<br /><br />One specialty number was shot for the talents of Phil Harris who sing/narrates a ballad Look Out Stranger, I'm A Texas Ranger aided and assisted by Virginia Gibson, Frank Lovejoy and Gary Cooper. Yup, Cooper looked like he was having a great old time kidding his image.<br /><br />This is the oldest of clichés when you say they don't make them like this any more, but they really don't because you don't have a studio system that has all this talent under contract. That's one thing about the demise of the old studio system we can mourn. | 1 |
An absolutely brilliant film! Jiri Trnka, the master of puppet animation, confronts totalitarianism in this, his final, film. It would be banned by the Communist Czechoslovakian government (at the time), despite taking the country's highest animation award.<br /><br />In this dark and entertaining short film, an artist attempts to create a new pot for his favourite plant. He happily makes his creations while dreaming that his plant will grow to be a beautiful rose. All of a sudden, he here's a knock at the door, and in comes this giant omnipotent hand, that tries to force the artist to make statues in it's likeness. The artist resists as best he can, but he eventually becomes overwhelmed by the constant attempts, by the hand, to force him to conform. He becomes brainwashed; an intellectual zombie. At this point the hand attaches strings to the artist, puts him in a cage, and uses him to make hand statues. All the while glorifying the artist's work and awarding him with medals and honours.<br /><br />The artist's inner lust to be able to express himself freely is what helps him prevail over his indoctrination, and enables him escape his prison, whether it be literal or in his mind, and return to his home where he now must live in constant fear of the wrath of the omnipotent hand. He shuts himself in, thinking he is out of the reach of the almighty hand, but in the process he puts his plant and pot up high, hoping it is out of the reach of the hand, and it ends up falling on his head, killing him. The artist is inevitabally destroyed by his own creation. All because of the constant fear he had to live with once he escaped the hand's strings. Once dead, the hand paints the artist as a great person, a national hero. Unfortunately not in the circumstances or for the reasons that the artist would like to be remembered.<br /><br />Trnka's condemnation of Totalitarian society, and their lack of right for free expression is dark, damning and an amazingly animated. It is no wonder the government banned it as this is the sort of media that people admire, and would perhaps even listen to. That was obviously not acceptable. An amazing example of an artists civil disobedience and the impact it can have. And still quite relevant today for many parts of the world, from the US to the middle east. A must see and definite 10 out of 10! Talk about going out with a bang! | 1 |
Jiøí Trnka made his last animated short an indictment of totalitarism, which caused him trouble in his native Czechoslovakia. The elements are few, the symbolisms simple, and his trademark ornaments almost absent here, allowing the viewer to concentrate on the fable. A man in his room dedicates to pottery and to take care of his only plant. But suddenly a huge hand enters the room and orders him to make a statue of itself. The man refuses and he's persecuted by the ominous gloved hand. In these days, where the impression of reality factor seems to be erased from most animations that try to replace the real world, it is refreshing to watch a film, which makes its technique part of the enjoyment. | 1 |
I saw this film when I was a young child on television (thank-you Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and had nightmares about it for years afterwards.<br /><br />Trnka was one of the mentors for Bratislav Pojar, one of Canada's National Film Board's best animators. Pojar was, in turn a mentor and collaborator for the great Drouin. If you like Trnka you should see "Night Angel".<br /><br />The symbolism is obvious, but deftly used. The oppositions of beauty and life (the plant) are placed in opposition with the anonymity of the gloved hand. The poor puppet hero is condemned despite a lack of political agenda.<br /><br />What I most remembered was the feeling of oppression in the decor. The small room where the action takes place is the character's entire world. The invasion by the hand is a complete violation of that world.<br /><br />Beautiful and haunting film. I found a copy of this and other wonderful shorts by Trnka at the public library and showed it to my own kids. A must see. | 1 |
My discovery of the cinema of Jan Svankmajer opened My eyes to a whole tradition of Czech animation, of which Jirí Trnka was a pioneer. His Ruka is one of the finest, most technically-impressive animated movies I've ever seen.<br /><br />A potter wakes up and waters his plant. Then he goes about making a pot. But in comes the huge hand which crashes the pot and demands that the potter make a statue of itself. He casts the hand out, but soon it returns and imprisons him in a bird cage where he's forced to sculpt a stone hand. He sets about it, fainting from exhaustion, but eventually completes the task.<br /><br />In a marvellous sequence of metacinema, the potter uses a candle to burn his visible puppet strings, which keep him in thrall, and he escapes back home. He shuts himself in and is accidentally killed by his own beloved plant when it falls on his head.<br /><br />This movie doesn't hide the fact it's pure animation, unlike modern movies that strive to be realistic (why?). The hand, for instance, is clearly someone's hand in a glove. Everything else is clay. Strings are visible and are part of the narrative, making it a precursor of the movie Strings. The atmosphere is eerie: that hand going after the little potter managed to instill more dread in me than many horror movies combined.<br /><br />The movie is obvious but it avoids being totally manipulative for its simplicity. it's a fable about artistic freedom and tyranny which can't help winning the heart and mind of anyone who holds freedom as a natural right. | 1 |
Generally, I am not a huge fan of stop-motion films and at first RUKA didn't capture my attention. However, knowing that this film was made in the repressive Czechoslovakia during the Soviet-domination era, the more I watched the film, the more I realized just how subversive this innocent looking little film was. This subtext really made the film come to life and gives it real staying power as both a work of art and a political statement.<br /><br />The sad little film is done without any dialog, but it's pretty clear what is happening. A cute little wooden man is making a clay pot and having a lovely time when suddenly a meddling animated hand appears and destroys the pot--making it into a sculpture of a hand instead. Well, the wooden man tries again and again to chase away the hand and do his own thing. However, over time the hand becomes more and more insistent and eventually cages the man. And, by the end, the man is dead thanks to the meddling hand and the hand, in a sign of real hypocrisy, gives the man a hero's funeral! <br /><br />As I said, this film is an obvious attempt by the brave Jirí Trnka to criticize his domineering government. Not surprisingly, though Czechs loved the film and gave it critical praise, the state (i.e., the hand) banned this little parable. Sadly, Trnka did not live to see his nation liberated a little more than two decades later during the co-called "Velvet Revolution". | 1 |
I researched this film a little and discovered a web site that claims it was actually an inside joke about the Post WWII Greenwich Village world of gays and lesbians. With the exception of Stewart and Novak, the warlocks and witches represented that alternative lifestyle. John Van Druten who wrote the stage play was apparently gay and very familiar with this Greenwich Village. I thought this was ironic because I first saw Bell, Book and Candle in the theater when I was in 5th or 6th grade just because my parents took me. It was hard to get me to a movie that didn't include horses, machine guns, or alien monsters and I planned on being bored. But, I remember the moment when Jimmy Stewart embraced Kim Novak on the top of the Flatiron building and flung his hat away while the camera followed it fluttering to the ground. As the glorious George Duning love theme soared, I suddenly got a sense of what it felt like to fall in love. The first stirrings of romantic/sexual love left me dazed as I left the theater. I am sure I'm not the only pre-adolescent boy who was seduced by Kim Novak's startling, direct gaze. It's ironic that a gay parable was able to jump-start heterosexual puberty in so many of us. I am in my late 50's now and re-watched the film yesterday evening and those same feelings stirred as I watched that hat touch down fifty years later . . . | 1 |
Stewart is a distinguished bachelor and a successful executive who is about to marry his fiancée Janice Rule but instead gets involved with a capricious, sensual art dealer (Kim Novak) who turns out to be a Greenwich Village witch
Novak desires earnestly and intensely to love, but is unable to feel it...<br /><br />Stewart slowly falls in love with her, and looks for a way to free her from her witch-spell... Novak resents his well-intentioned concern, as does her Siamese cat, Pyewacket... Still, Stewart continues in his attempts to change her into a loving, feeling woman as he aspires to marry her...<br /><br />Also blocking his way are such talented supporting actors as Novak's brother (Jack Lemmon), a silly, charming sorcerer who can walk nonchalantly through walls; a terrible author who is writing a book about witchcraft; and the Head of the Association of Manhattan Witches, none other than the incredible Hermione Gingold...<br /><br />Novak's Aunt Queenie (Elsa Lanchester), unlike her other relatives, is a tender witch who accepts that nothing should prevent the course of true love... She aids and stimulates them in turning Novak into the woman of Stewart's dreams, for a happy ending...<br /><br />If you like to see a lightweight comedy about magic, fantasy and love; beautiful cinematography; stunning use of color; and with an exceptional cast; don't miss this enjoyable and amusing movie
| 1 |
This movie was like any Jimmy Stewart film,witty,charming and very enjoyable.Kim Novak's performance as Gillian,the beautiful witch who longs to be human,is splendid,her subtle facial expressions,her every move and gesture all create Gillian's unique and somewhat haunting character,she left us hanging on her every word.I should not fail to mention Ernie Kovacs' and Elsa Lanchester's highly commendable performances as the scotch loving writer obsessed with the world of magic(Kovacs) and the latter as the lovable aunt who can't seem to stop using magic even when forbidden to.The romantic scenes between Stewart and Novak are beautifully done and the chemistry between them is great,but then again when is the chemistry between Jimmy Stewart and any leading lady bad! | 1 |
The play Bell, Book, and Candle was a favorite of mature actresses to do in summer stock and take on the road. One famous story, told by director Harold J. Kennedy, has Ginger Rogers insisting that her then husband, William Marshall, who was not an actor, costar with her. Marshall wore a toupee, and when he walked through a doorway, his toupee caught on a nail and stayed behind, dangling in the doorway as he walked on stage.<br /><br />The play was adapted successfully into a beautiful color film starring Kim Novak, James Stewart, Jack Lemmon, Elsa Lanchester, Hermoine Gingold, Ernie Kovacs, and Janice Rule. It's light entertainment, about a normal-appearing family of witches (Novak, Lemmon, and Lanchester) and the publisher (Stewart) who lives in their building. The most expert of them is the sultry, soft-voiced Gillian, who would love to be normal. One night, with Stewart in her apartment, she puts a spell on him using her Siamese cat, Pyewacket, and he falls in love with her.<br /><br />"Bell Book and Candle" was filmed on a charming set that replicates New York. The movie is loads of fun. Jack Lemmon is very funny in a supporting role as Gillian's brother, a musician in the witch and warlock-laden Zodiac Club. He uses his powers to turn streetlights on and off and to turn on the occasional woman. Janice Rule is perfect as the snobby ex-college rival of Gillian, now dating Stewart, and Ernie Kovacs has a great turn as an eccentric who is writing the definitive book on witches. Lanchester and Gingold, of course, are always wonderful, Lanchester Gillian's daft aunt and Gingold as a sort of queen of witchcraft.<br /><br />Kim Novak is a good fit for Gillian, giving the character a detachment befitting a witch, showing emotion when it becomes appropriate, and with that voice, fabulous face, and magnificent wardrobe, she certainly is magical. Stewart, in his last foray as a romantic lead, costars with Novak as he did in Vertigo, and they make an effective team. He supplies the warmth, she supplies the coolness, and somehow, together they spark. In this, of course, he's much more elegant than in "Vertigo." A charming film, good for a Sunday afternoon, good around Christmas (as part of it takes place at Christmastime), and great if you feel like smiling. | 1 |
this is a wonderful film, makes the 1950'S look beautifully stylish. Kim Novak is intriguing and compelling as a modern-day witch with one foot in Manhattan and another in infinity. All the supporting performances are terrific, from Jack Lemmon as her bother Nicky to Ernie Kovacs as the author of Magic in Mexico who is working on Magic in Manghattan, to Elsa Lanchester as the slightly batty as well as witchy Aunt Queenie. And then there is the cat- I have no idea how many witches (besides me) have named a cat Pyewacket but suggest a zillion. Jmes Stewart looks out of place, but only just as much as his character is out of p;ace in this weird sub-world of magic and witchcraft. Perfect. And it has the perfect romantic happy ending, which we believe in because movies of this vintage do have those happy endings. Gillian and Shep certainly have as much chance to be happy ever after as Rose and Charlie Allnut in The African Queen (another great film) | 1 |
Made in the same year as "Vertigo," this is an equally bewitching movie, though in a much lighter vein. It's set in an enchanted New York during the winter: Kim Novak is a witch who casts a spell over James Stewart, but gets caught in it instead. The interesting sidelight is that Novak's rival is played by Janice Rule, who originated the part of Madge in "Picnic" on Broadway (the part that Novak would make famous on film). | 1 |
By some happy coincidence the same year that Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak made Alfred Hitchcock's haunting masterpiece "Vertigo", they also made this light comedy. Perhaps the two actors needed to do it after undergoing the heaviness of the Hitchcock film . At any rate this a great companion piece to "Vertigo" as it again explores a very un-likely but powerful romance. In fact the film can be seen as the flip side of "Vertigo" with it's happy ending. Here again Novak undergoes a transformation, in Vertigo she essentially plays two women and here she 'transforms' from witch to mortal. Stewart is again bewitched and for awhile tormented by his love for her. Unlike Vertigo the two come together in "Bell Book and Candle" , a perfect antidote for the Hitcock movie. Again the dynamics of love and attraction are examined but in an altogether different vein. The cast is terrific. Lemmon hilarious as Novak's warlock brother and Elsa Lancaster giving a classic performance as the Aunt. Ernie Kovacs as the alcoholic cult writer and of course Hermoine Gingold playing Novak's competitor are all great. The scene with Stewart drinking the potion is comedy at it's best. Anyone who has seen Vertigo or even if you haven't should see this memorable light comedy. | 1 |
The John Van Druten Broadway hit is brought to the screen with a maximum of star power in this romantic fantasy about a modern-day witch who beguiles a successful Manhattan publisher. James Stewart may get top billing, but it is Kim Novak who steals the show as one of the most alluring witches ever to cast a spell on the movie screen. The lead pairing is, in fact, one of the movie's few weaknesses: the gray-haired Stewart seems a bit old for the role, and while it is easy to see why he falls hard for Novak, it's a little harder to understand what she finds attractive about him, as they seem mismatched in temperment and outlook. (It is one of the story's amusing conceits that witches and warlocks are portrayed as Greenwich Village beatniks and bohemians.) Curiously, the Stewart-Novak pairing would generate a lot more heat in "Vertigo", released the same year as this film, but then "Vertigo" had a compelling suspense story, and the benefit of Alfred Hitchcock's direction.<br /><br />The film's comic moments are mostly provided by the stellar supporting cast, including a young Jack Lemmon (as Kim's warlock brother), Elsa Lanchester (their ditzy aunt), and Ernie Kovacs (!) as a befuddled writer. Hermione Gingold even shows up in a hilarious cameo as a sort of Grand Witch. There's lots to like in this movie--wit, romance, and a great cast--that is, if you can possibly take your eyes off the enchanting Miss Novak. I have seen the movie a half a dozen times, and I never can. | 1 |
As a Pagan, I must say this movie has little if any Magickal significance. It's a "fun" witchcraft movie and not meant to teach us anything except that love is the strongest Magick of all, and never to use it in a controlling or vengeful way. That's a lesson everyone needs to learn, not just Pagans.<br /><br />That having been said, this movie is wonderfully written and sweetly executed by Kim Novak and the venerable Jimmy Stewart.<br /><br />Hermione Gingold delivers a stellar performance as Bianca, Elsa Lanchester (with too many movie credits to mention except as Ms. Jane Marbles of "Murder By Death") was wonderful as Ms. Novak's absent-minded-yet-capable upstairs neighbor Queenie. Also starring Jack Lemmon (wonderful performance) and Jim Kovacs (brilliantly witty).<br /><br />"Witches can't cry. Why, they can't shed a single tear because their heart is full of Magick. They don't have time for silly things such as love." Queenie.<br /><br />Gillian Holroyd (Novak) and her brother Nicky (Jack Lemmon) are Manhattan witches. Cloaked deeply within the secret underworld of those of the Craft, they live among other New Yorkers as one of them, without so much as causing a raised eyebrow. <br /><br />But then, along comes Shepherd "Shep" Henderson (Stewart), a steadfast, no-nonsense, dedicated businessman who is engaged to be married to Gillian's old college rival. <br /><br />By a quirky mishap of chance, he finds himself moving into Gillian's building and is instantly "bewitched" by her charm and grace. By the use of Magick, with a little help from Pyewacket (Gillian's familiar, trained by Robert E. Blair) and Queenie, Gillian begins to work on this handsome new dream man to get back at her old enemy.<br /><br />But Magick should never be used to control, nor to hurt, and Gillian learns that the hard way in the most bittersweet way. Not only does she have to face what she's done, but she has to face Shep in her guilt. <br /><br />From the critical perspective; however, the movie takes a serious turn: The effects are very dated to the point of being pure camp. Some of the scenery was seemingly shot in the basement of someone's small home, but at least the characters were quirky and fun.<br /><br />On a personal note, Pyewacket steals the show. Great cat! Great training by Robert E. Blair. <br /><br />As a Note of Trivia, this is the roots for the beloved Bewitched television sitcom. This introduces the original Samantha and Darrin. All the characters of note are present and accounted for. You have but to look, to see it for yourself.<br /><br />This is one of my favorites, and I watch it often.<br /><br />This movie gets a 9.1/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :. | 1 |
Bell, Book and Candle was one of the great pop culture phenomena of the mid-twentieth century, very similar to the phenoms we see today (back in the 70's - more than ten years later - there were still endless references to this film). It made Novak a huge star, put a nice item on Jack Lemon's resume, cast new light on Jimmy Stewart, and gave Lancaster and Gingold new avenues to explore in their careers (both went on to continue to play witches and other curious "old bats", in film and television).<br /><br />Along with the 40s movie I Married a Witch (which helped to make Veronica Lake an icon), Bell, Book and Candle inspired the grand film and TV fascination with all things witchy that began with Bewitched and has continued through Practical Magic, Worst Witch and Harry Potter.<br /><br />What I rarely see noted is that the movie is also a rather interesting alternative Xmas movie. The story takes place over the Christmas holidays, and, despite the fact that it is superficially about witchcraft, actually embodies a great deal of Xmas spirit (giving, love, family, self-sacrifice, etc).<br /><br />I will always watch this movie (have seen it several times since my first viewing in the early 90's) particularly if it is shown around or just after the holiday season. It has style, substance, a great cast, and terrific production values. And like Adam's Rib, it casually expresses ideas that were rather radical for its time, are radical even now (in both movies the female character is guileless and powerful), and so always seems ahead of the times. | 1 |
this may not be War & Peace, but the two Academy noms wouldn't have been forthcoming if it weren't for the genius of James Wong Howe...<br /><br />this is one of the few films I've fallen in love with as a child and gone back to without dissatisfaction. whether you have any interest in what it offers fictively or not, BB&C is a visual feast.<br /><br />I'm not saying it's his best work, I'm no expert there for sure. but the look of this movie is amazing. I love everything about it; Elsa Lanchester, the cat, the crazy hoo-doo, the retro-downtown-ness; but the way it was put on film is breathtaking.<br /><br />I even like the inconsistencies pointed out on this page above, and the "special effects" that seem backward now. it all creates a really consistent world. | 1 |
What does the Marquis de Sade have to do with Egyptian archaeology and mermaid worshipping cults? Tobe Hooper tries to answer that question in one weird little film.<br /><br />Genie is a young cutie who visits her nerdy archaeology father in Alexandria, Egypt. Genie gets caught up with a mysterious hooker (and blatant lesbian) who services daddy on the side. Daddy gets sent back to the site, where he uncovers a tomb with what appears to be a mermaid on it. Genie meets a descendant of the Marquis de Sade, and falls for a hunky Egyptian (providing the film's hottest scenes). Eventually, Genie finds out she is to be a sacrifice and the protracted and bloody climax gets going. Wrapped around this story is footage of the Marquis de Sade in prison, talking to a portrait of what looks like Genie.<br /><br />Robert Englund is terrific as both the Marquis and his descendant. His acting abilities have always been sideswiped by his makeup requirements, so he is allowed to shine here. His best performance is still in "Killer Tongue," if you have not seen that yet.<br /><br />The rest of the cast, including young Genie, are pretty and average. The script, however, is problematic. You will quickly learn that the Marquis scenes are completely unnecessary, except maybe the film makers had access to the cool set. The mermaid cult that eventually saves Genie makes no sense whatsoever. Who the mermaid is is never explained, and its link to Christianity (which is hyped throughout the film) is nothing. The film is very anti-Christian, as the archaeologist is a Bible spouting father, but likes to be tied up by the local prostitute. There are plenty of scenes of depravity and violence, but Hooper probably had little idea of what the screenwriters were trying to say. I know I have no idea.<br /><br />So why am I recommending this film? It is weird. There is an extended sex scene. For the ladies, hunky Egyptian rides a horse completely nude. Englund is marvelous. Do you like snakes? This film is full of them. This is like Roger Corman with a bigger budget. Knowing Hooper somehow came up with "Crocodile" after this is rather sad. "Night Terrors" is not perfect, but definitely worth a winking, unserious look.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for physical violence, some sexual violence, gore, profanity, female nudity, male nudity, sexual content, sexual references, and drug abuse.<br /><br /> | 1 |
In what appears an attempt to mix drama and comedy, Manuel Gomez Pereira made this film, 'Things that make life worthwhile. "It is not an original discovery, by many voice you have (quite off the pitch, by the way), but it departs somewhat from the norm in the Spanish cinema. The downside is that the elements forming the film are poorly combined, and while some points are not well developed, others are out of place. A day in the lives of two people close to the median age. It's basically what the movie Gómez Pereira. Jorge (Eduard Fernandez) is a stationary (parado) one which, despite load on your back with a drama major, seems willing to see things change. Only this explains his commitment to a minor could mean a turning point in its existence. In line with Audrey Tautou of 'Long dating' (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 2004), Jorge says things like this to herself: "if I find a coin before the corner that is now going to change my luck. " Of course it finds it, begins to play 'Today could be a great day' (Hoy puede ser un gran dia)by Joan Manuel Serrat and in a few crosses on its way Hortensia (Ana Belen).She is another woman entry age, divorced and a little lonely. Take valeriana for sleeping, organizes birthday parties as an exemplary mother, said her belief in God and leads to a speed of homicidal mother. Hortensia is a woman of many contradictions in his behavior, life was going in his head driving data as "70% of people fall in love only once in a lifetime" and said although it is short of Jorge and unemployed and does not preclude the possibility that it is a "sadistic" sleeping in his shoulder in the cinema at the earliest opportunity. Later came a communion, a dance in the luxurious wedding banquet, the back of a car and other things that players seem to live unique experiences like that but end up doing quite heavy for the viewer. 'Things that make life worthwhile' debate between us is the drama of two adult persons who have no other that leads them to see where their strange relationship and, conversely, make us take the case as a comedy, focusing on things like a Chinese singing at a wedding (which seem to be amusing in itself) or the gait of a drunk person. The problem is that it does not leave us time to connect with the players, therefore we can not identify with the dramatic, and not give us a solid base comic too, leaving everything except pure joke. In the end, all mixed in a way that the viewer no longer know very well whether to laugh or mourn, and ends up not doing either. And it is true that something is not seen a thousand times, is not the kind of film that we find to bend every corner, but it is not sufficiently different or special as we want to do. Ana Belén (which apparently far less than the 53 years that has in this film) and Eduard Fernandez are two actors who are very enjoyable to see working, but this time it seems ready or comfortable enough in scenes that require him to break the calm that prevails in the film, so in moments like the "accident" with the children of the bar thing seems to be slipping from their hands. Perhaps a very dramatic change that has to do, but that is no excuse to lower our guard. In any case, both interpreters are erected easily the highlight of the function. 'Things that make life worthwhile' work only up to the modest level of entertainment. Any claim that is beyond that point has not been fulfilled, as a romantic comedy or dramatic as that, we presume, they wanted to do, can not afford to have little moments finished successful (beyond bad) as that in which one of the characters talk and laugh, lost drunk, compared to a boy who remains in a coma in part because of him. Neither do much for people like Rosario Pardo, making the typical friend launched whose biggest contribution to the film is the phrase "must be screwed over," and songs from the soundtrack, though significant, not just fit. It is true that the film by Manuel Gomez Pereira has its hits (some of the moments involving Jose Sacristan), but the whole is a anodyne Story, a film with good intentions and a nice result when the better. | 1 |
Gómez Pereira is the responsible for some of the most despicable comedies of latest Spanish cinema (just take a look at his curriculum vitae), so I didn't expect that much of "Cosas Que Hacen..."... In fact I don't know why in the world did I decide to watch it. Anyway, I just did... And what a surprise. It looks that Gómez Pereira has finally matured and now he's capable of making a good movie. He's last work deals with the midlife crisis, the disappointing, and the seeking for a second chance after you've ruined it all. The last half hour of the movie (the more dramatic) is the best part, and it just makes worth watching the film. Also we have Eduard Fernandez playing the main role, and I keep on thinking he's the best actor of his generation (by far).<br /><br />*My rate: 7/10 | 1 |
Yesterday, I went alone to the cinema, because here in Mexico, most of the times movies from other countries are part of the so called "camára alternativa" (alternative camera). But after I saw this movie, I realized that not all the foreign movies are alternative. Afortunately, this is a good a example. But I have to said that I enjoyed so much this movie.. that at the end I was happy.. this movie is a little spoon of hope in these days. And the main lesson for me.. is that at the end of the day...the love is main force behind us. This is a good option to see a good movie in Spanish...and I have to mention the good music.. specially the main song of the movie.. Cosas que hacen que la vida valga la pena.... Excellent song!!! | 1 |
Action, horror, sci-fi, exploitation director Fred Olen Ray shows he has some talent as a director. Character actor William Smith is one of the best tough/bad guys in the industry. He treats the viewer with the best acting performance of his career. As for Randy Travis he gives his best Lee Van Cleef impression. He's not bad in the film. Smith and Travis make the movie. As for the rest of the cast none of them really stand out. Ray did a great job directing this flick, Smith and Travis were good, I'd give this B western on a scale of one to ten(ten being the best) a seven. | 1 |
I feel this is one of the best movies I've seen,I'm an older male and love most westerns. I love movies based in part at least on facts,If I am not mistaken this is such a movie. I also like revenge type movies,This qualifies there as well in my opinion.Some of my favorite parts of the movie were the opening scene with the whipping and the barn shooting scene. I felt the corral beating scene was a little overkill but did not affect how I feel about the complete movie. I saw what I think is a continuation of this movie in a gun smoke episode. I also enjoyed that.I recommend taking the time to watch this movie ,I will watch it again. I also felt the romance parts of this movie were well played. I thought it was so out of character for Randy Travis to play a villain type ,but I always enjoy his acting. | 1 |
STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits <br /><br />Mike Atherton (Dudikoff) is peacefully making his way in the Wild West when he spots a group of men mistreating a lady. Being a gentleman, he naturally steps in and puts a stop to this and in doing so kills the son of a nasty enforcer. This is just the beginning of a all guns blazing battle to the finish from which there will be only one winner.<br /><br />M Dudikoff is an action star who's never truly managed to take off with me. Maybe I discovered him too late and after the other film I saw with him in it last Monday, The Human Shield, it was just another Dud (ha ha) added to the list. But I have a thing for westerns, being films that just sort of transport me to a different time and place and provide real escapist entertainment and with this Dudikoff has picked one of his better scripts, as his films go anyway.<br /><br />The film hits a few low points in the shape of a naff central villain, sounding like a blank Marlon Brando and some generally ropey acting from some of the cast, along with the obligatory cheap looking sets. But if, for some strange reason, your life ever depended on watching a Dudikoff film, this would be one of your best choices. *** | 1 |
"The Shooter" was a different type of film for Michael Dudikoff. Although normally associated with action flicks that incorporate martial arts, this film , because it was a western, enabled him to display that he is a far more capable actor than certain formula story lines have allowed.<br /><br />The major problem, of course, is that the film does not allow any solid character development. The fleshing in is really left to the viewer . We can only guess at the sadness that has made the Shooter, whose real name is Michael Atherton, the killer that he is- a killer, mind you, that a little town, terrorized by a local bully, welcomes as a hero who can release it from its misery. | 1 |
Hare Rama Hare Krishna was the biggest hit movie of 1971. Filmed almost entirely in Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal, the movie depicts not only with the theme of a broken family, but also a relationship between a brother and a sister, as well as drugs and the hippie movement, which made many people think that it involved the ISKON - the movement for Krishna consciousness.<br /><br />The movie begins with scenes of drugs and being informed that the woman dancing in front is the narrator's sister. Going back to the past the brother and sister are happily playing around the house only to hear their parents arguing. This soon leads to a split in the family. The brother goes with the mother and the sister with the father.<br /><br />As years pass, the brother goes in search of his sister and is informed that she no longer lives with the father and that she has moved to Nepal. Here, Prashant, the brother not only finds love, but he also finds his sister, Janice. But he finds out that she is not only in the wrong company of friends but is also on drugs as she wants to block all memory of her past. With help of Shanti, his love, the brother tries to get his sister away from all this but has to overcome many obstacles, including people who stoop to all sorts of levels to stop him This is a multi cast movie and is led by the director and producer himself, Dev Anand and also stars Zeenat Aman (her first movie), Mumtaz, Rajendranath, Prem Chopra, Jnr Mehmood, A.K. Hangal and Achala Sachdev. The music is superbly provided by the late R.D. Burman, whose last score was "1942 - A Love Story." During the filming, Dev Anand asked Panchamda (R.D. Burman) to compose something special for this film. Days later Panchamda came back with the composition of "Dum Maro Dum." The song was an instant hit. | 1 |
We do not come across movies on brother-sister relationship in Indian cinema, or any other language or medium. This relationship has several aspects which have not been exploited in movies or novels. Typically, a sister is depicted as a pile-on who can be used for ransom in the climax. This movie treats the subject in an entirely different light.<br /><br />It is inspired by George Eliot's novel "The Mill on the Floss". The brother is very prosaic, all-good, the blue-eyed boy who is a conventionally good son and a favorite with his mother. The sister is romantic, wild and defiant of the unwritten rules of the society. In spite of this, the love of the brother-sister is the winner.<br /><br />This movie is about the love of the two siblings who are separated in childhood and revival of the same feeling when they meet years later. It is also the quest of the subdued brother to reunite with his sister who has chosen to be wild to defy the world.<br /><br />Although the movie and the novel are set about 3 centuries apart in two distant countries, yet the sentiments are the same and still hold true. | 1 |
This one grew on me. I love the R.D. Burman music and in spite of the cruder elements of the story I found much to be moved by as I kept re-watching the movie. The brother-sister plot line is powerful, I thought; there's also more probably obligatory stuff, like bar fights, a loony crime story, etc. that are just distracting. (Though not unfunny from a certain point of view.) Also the English translation is definitely by someone for whom it was a bit of a stretch, and as loony as it is I am grateful to him for doing it.<br /><br />Like many of the Bollywood movies I've seen, this one is melodramatic and opera-like, including here notably a song sung first by a little boy to cheer up his abused and unhappy sister, and then the same song sung 12 or so years later by the man who has travelled to Kathmandu seeking to re-connect with this girl, grown up and troubled (she had been told her brother and mother were dead), numbing her pain with drugs.<br /><br />A super thing about this 1971 movie is that it is about the hippie movement, which brought hordes of seekers to India, from an Indian point of view, that sees them as people driven to India by a spiritual hunger aroused by the failings of their own societies, but nonetheless, in India, living only for the pleasures of the moment. The hippie singing-dancing-drugging scenes are truly wonderful, and accurate in their tone (I'm old enough to remember), and I feel pretty sure that the masses of young white zoned-out kids are actual hippie extras, as I remember hearing about kids on the caravan to the East getting this kind of work in Bollywood.<br /><br />(It is not about the actual Hare Krishna movement, though the movie hippies sing a Krishna/Rama chant, as do a group of actual Indian devotees, unrelated to the hippies, in the opening scene of the movie.)<br /><br />~Virginia | 1 |
The story for Hare Rama Hare Krishna actually came to Dev Anand's mind when he saw hippies and their fallen values in Kathmandu where he was on a visit after the protests against his previous Prem Pujari in Calcutta. He was low in spirits because his film had been opposed and some had burnt Prem Pujari's posters. But the life of hippies re ignited a story in Dev's mind to be made into a film.<br /><br />This was Dev Anand's perhaps best directorial effort. The film was a blockbuster super hit at the box office and Zeenat Aman as Dev's sister made a tremendous impact.<br /><br />This film was Dev Anand's call to the nation to keep up their moral values.<br /><br />It is about a Montereal based Indian family and the brother's role is a very affectionate one for his sister. But the parents quarrel and separate leaving Prashant(Dev) with mother and Jasbir(Zeenat) with father. She is repeatedly told that her mother and brother are dead and she eventually believes that she will never see Prashant again.<br /><br />She is ill treated by her step mother and she runs away from home. Dev grows up to be a pilot and he learns that Jasbir is in Kathmandu with certain hippies.<br /><br />To reunite with his sister, Dev travels to Kathmandu and meets Shanti(Mumtaz) who was to later marry him and also Janice who in reality is Jasbir with a new name and new identity. She has forgotten her childhood and Dev too.<br /><br />Dev has to get his sister back amongst all other happenings which include his being suspected as a thief in Kathmandu and the people are after his life.<br /><br />This was a story well directed and acted-both by Dev Anand. We see more of Zeenat Aman than of Mumtaz. But the music by Rahul Dev Burman was well composed. Dev had first offered the music to be composed by Sachin Dev Burman but Burman Da did not want Dev to do the film. He was very close to Dev and his earlier film Prem Pujari, though was good, but had been opposed in Calcutta. Burman Da wanted Dev to try a lighter subject as he thought hippie cultist film might reignite people's anger against Dev. But Dev continued with the film reassuring Burman Da and the film was indeed a success.<br /><br />R D Burman had Asha Bhosle sing the award winning Dum Maro Dum. Kanchi re Kanchi re was another good number.<br /><br />Overall it is a good film. | 1 |
This is one of the movies of Dev Anand who gave great yet distinct movies to Hindi movie industries such as Jewel thief and guide. The story is short (if you ask me what is the story), plot is simple- a brother seeks for his lost sister. Sister has joined the hippies who smoke from pot and chant Hare Rama hare Krishna. Yet the movie portrays few of the significant events that the world experienced in 70's.Hippie culture, their submission to drugs, freedom ,escaping duty, family, and adopting anything new such as eastern (which was new for whites) religion. They have been handled perfectly. Zeenat gave her best and Dev as usual was remarkable. Songs are the best used (unlike they are abused for the sake of having songs) in this movie. They have not been spoiled.One perfect example is 'Dekho o deewano...Ram ka naam badnam na karo'. Each word in the song is very philosophical and meaningful. The end is tragic but that is not the essence of the movie. Overall Devji who does believe in making different movies has been successful in showing what he wanted to show here. A must see to experience hippie culture and beautiful Nepal of 70's. | 1 |
One must admit, that Dev has an eye for beauty and talent. He gave a break to Zeenat Aman, a successful model, and also former winner of beauty pageant's title, by casting her in a role, which was tailor-made for her debut. Her bespectacled , stoned look, and her swaying at the hypnotizing music, made her an instant darling of the viewers. This movie is a treat to the eyes, with it's scenic locales, ethnic people, those Buddha temples, and chirpy, naughty Mumtaz, who looks quite attractive, in her ethnic wear, and dancing skills. Dev is of course, adorable, and this is one of his commercially successful performance. Hare Rama manages to keep the interest going, with it's carefully written script, editing, and captivating music. Like Des Pardes, his another movie, Anand has handled the topic of youngsters falling in the habit of drug addiction, and the theory of them coming from disturbed families, and troubled childhood, is quite plausible. A good entertainer, this movie retains it's freshness till date ! | 1 |
Dev Anand (or Prashant) and Zeenat Aman ( Jasbir/Janice) are siblings brought up in single parent families. Jasbir (the sister) grows up in an affluent environment but this is not enough to lead her to reject her life and ultimately join a hippie movement that eventually leads her to drugs. Prashant (the brother) on the other hand grows up in a less affluent environment but grows up to be a matured gentleman. The story marks Prashant making efforts to save his little sister (who is perpetually in a trance) from a hostile hippie environment. This movie stands the test of time, commenting that cults and hippie groups are a place for those who give up on their lives when they should instead stand up and be counted in the face of adversity. Great music compositions in this movie that mean different things in different situations and to different people, and the director brings forth an eerie feeling to it. | 1 |
I've read countless of posts about this game being so similar to Max Payne, when i played it the first time i thought it was a bit weird arcade-like game with a desire to rip-off the Max Payne style (not just bullet-time). So when i played it for a couple of hours i realized how much fun it is! and how different from "Max Payne", yeah the bullet time is a bit similar but i think it fits differently to the game-style. This game is non-stop action - a mix between a shoot'em up and a fight'em up, so much fun, as a big fan of Max Payne i must say that the storyline of DTR is not near to the greatness of Max Payne, the graphics are a bit average and some of the levels look the same, but if you want a bit more of that "bullet-time" you should definitely own this game. | 1 |
Dead To Rights is about a Police Officer named Jack Slate who finds his murdered father and goes after the man that he thinks killed him.Jack is later shot and framed for the murder of the man he suspected of killing his father.<br /><br />Several months later on the day Jack is going to be executed he escapes from prison and searches the city for the man who framed him for murder.Jack's search leads him through a trail of *beep* that doesn't end until everyone is dead.<br /><br />Through out the game Jack uses weapons from M4 Carbines to his dog Shadow to kill endless streams of people in 15 levels.The game play is basically "kill 30 people,find switch to open door.kill 50 people,find switch to open door" over and over until the level is done.There are fun mini games too like playing as a stripper to distract bouncers at a Night Club so Jack can get to another area in the club,or bomb disarming.<br /><br />Dead To Rights is also a hard game.You will be put in an area swarming with bad guys armed with Sub Machine Guns while you only have a pistol.Near the end of the game skill turns to dust and you have to rely on luck.<br /><br />Dead To Rights is as gory as it is hard.If you shoot a guy in the face with a shot gun blood will splatter on the walls,ceiling and floor.And since there are several guys in each area the walls will be painted in blood.<br /><br />Family fun for everyone. | 1 |
B Movie? Yes. DIY? Yes. First Movie? Yes. But Aestheically A+. This movie definitely had some bad sound/editing/lighting/acting/etc. etc. problems. However, this movie has many positive things about it. First off, the most annoying character dies first! Second, its made to be a parody/funny B Rated Horror movie. The comments our killer makes to his victims left me and my friends rolling around on the floor laughing.<br /><br />The problem is a lot of people try to take every independent movie and expect it to be a masterpiece. Take it for what it is, a bunch of kids right out of high school made their first movie. For what it is, just that, it is really good. | 1 |
This is actually a groovy-neat little flick, made on absolutely no discernible budget with shot on video crinkliness . It takes a little while to warm up to it. The acting is so bad that it soon acquires a zen-like charm. After a few scenes, you stop noticing the awkward lines or rehearsed sound of some deliveries. The characters all develop a quirky charm, especially "Richard". Forget Anthony Hopkins, Maidens is the guy I'd hire to play a raving psychopath. He just seems to enjoy it so very much! Mixed in with the scenes of mad-slasher gore and zombie infestation are some truly visually effective shots of the title character, "The Midnight Skater" zooming through the campus in a black hoodie, looking for all the world like a cross between the Grim Reaper and, say, The Silver Surfer. These shots make the sometimes ludicrous things the characters say about the Skater seem almost ominous. The soundtrack features some very fun Garage-Punk tunes and the raspy, raucous meanness of it meshes well with the film's mood. Thumbs upish, I say. | 1 |
Kimi wa petto is a cute story about a girl who one day finds a boy inside a box that is outside her apartment one day. She decides to bring him in and fix his cuts. She then leaves a note for him to eats some food she made then go home because she had to go to work. When she gets home however she finds that he is still there. He tells her that he wants to live there with her like a brother or cousin. In desperation to get him to leave she tells him that if he became her pet then he could stay. And as a pet she says that he would have no rights and do whatever she told him. (not in that perverted way!) To her surprise he agrees and from then on he is known as Momo, her pet. | 1 |
I don't give a movie or a show ten very often but this show touched a nerve in a way no other show has. I found the entire series on mysoju.com and thought the premise looked interesting so I took a look see. I wasn't disappointed in what I saw; I was moved. This story stays on the tender side as the main characters move us through the scenes. Sumire Iwaya, played thoughtfully by Koyuki, shows us human nature as she wants to keep troubles from being shown. No one really wants to lay their soul out in front of a perspective mate. So instead she substitutes a human, played by an adorable Matsumoto Jun, as a pet. This pet is like any other creature we would consider a pet. The difference; he can retaliate in the same way, after all Momo is a man, not a dog. As he is treated like a pet, he reacts to situations how a dog might react. She spends time with the new boyfriend, Momo gets jealous. It's when she realizes that her pet isn't just a pet that the sexual tension between the two starts to become thick - Momo is a dance prodigy. Her thinking slowly changes as we start to get a glance at his own thoughts. Matsumoto takes us from seeing a character who is very one dimensional in the beginning, to two dimensional when we see he's a dancer, to a three dimensional character when we see him start to fall for his master as a man, not as a dog. In my opinion, it's worth watching this story just to see this character develop. Plus Matsumoto plays Momo with such tenderness you almost start to wish you had one too. Neither wants to think about the future and how their relationship will change, but as Momo (the name she gives him as one would name their new puppy) states we both knew this wasn't going to be able to last. Watch this show with a open mind, it's worth it. | 1 |
I first encountered this show when I was staying in Japan for six months last year. I found it in the internet when I was looking for sub-titled dramas to help me with my Japanese. My host mother warned me to stay away from it because she thought it was weird, but I found it delightful! Koyuki showed such conflicting character traits and Matsujun's spirit made my day every time I tuned in! I first saw him on "Hana Yori Dango", but I liked him much better in this!<br /><br />Although the characters are interesting and well-developed, I was disappointed to find that they didn't change very much throughout the show. Their relationship grew, but they didn't really. Still, a fun time had by all (Even for Fukushima!). | 1 |
It holds very true to the original manga of the same name, aka (Tramps Like Us in the U.S) but it can still be enjoyed even if you haven't read the manga. It's a different kind of tail, showing a strong and independent woman who hurts just like everyone else. However, because of her outward strength, she fears showing her inner feelings and thus let's those around her hurt her with their blunt comments. The only one who truly figures her out and who she can be at ease with is her new pet...human...Momo. If you want something different than the normal boring stuff with some wonderful J-Dorama (Japanese Drama) actors/resses then this is definitely the series to watch...and read! | 1 |
Let's start this review out on a positive note -- I am very glad they didn't decide to wimp out with Tony being shot and do a retrospective season like some people were rumoring. Actually, creator and writer of this episode David Chase did quite the opposite. We don't actually know if Tony will live or die. He's in a coma and his chances of recovering are very slim to none. This episode seemed to move very slow, and the coma induced dream Tony was in involving mistaken identity and robed Asian monks slapping the sh*t out of him was absolutely, flat-out weird. After 45-minutes I got a little sick of everyone grieving, but that shouldn' t be a reason to slam this episode. It was a weird and unpredictable episode, but it was still well-written and intense. Edie Falco gave an astounding career-defining performance in this episode as the conflicted wife having to face with her husband's could-be demise. I also found it interesting AJ dropped out of school and swore a vendetta against Junior, which AJ most likely won't have the balls to pull off. Silvio is now acting-boss which opens numerous doors to problems in later episodes. There were a lot of great quips in this episode, also, and I think Vito 'Pole-Smoker' Spadafore may meet his demise if he keeps being a greedy S.O.B.<br /><br />This wasn't a great episode and disappointed only because even though Tony kills people, we as an audience adore him and feel he is our hero of the show. This was a necessary episode for the series, even though it was a little snore inducing towards the conclusion. Kudos to Edie Falco's performance, and David Chase and the writers for creating this wholly original and unpredictable plot twist. This is the only season of 'The Sopranos' where I haven't a f*cking clue where it is going to go. I can't wait for next week's episode. My Rating: 7.5/10 <br /><br />Best Line of the Episode: (Paulie to AJ): "Let's go, Van Helsing!" | 1 |
Okay, I didn't get the Purgatory thing the first time I watched this episode. It seemed like something significant was going on that I couldn't put my finger on. This time those Costa Mesa fires on TV really caught my attention- and it helped that I was just writing an essay on Inferno! But let me see what HASN'T been discussed yet...<br /><br />A TWOP review mentioned that Tony had 7 flights of stairs to go down because of the broken elevator. Yeah, 7 is a significant number for lots of reasons, especially religious, but here's one more for ya. On a hunch I consulted wikipedia, and guess what Dante divided into 7 levels? Purgatorio. Excluding ante-Purgatory and Paradise. (The stuff at the bottom of the stairs and... what Tony can't get to.) <br /><br />On to the allegedly "random" monk-slap scene. As soon as the monks appeared, it fit perfectly in place with Tony trying to get out of Purgatory. You can tell he got worried when that Christian commercial (death, disease, and sin) came on, and he's getting more and more desperate because Christian heaven is looking kinda iffy for him. By the time he meets the monks he's thinking "hey maybe these guys can help me?" which sounds like contemplating other religions (e.g. Buddhism) and wondering if some other path could take him to "salvation". Not that Tony is necessarily literally thinking about becoming a Buddhist, but it appears Finnerty tried that (and messed up). That slap in the face basically tells Tony there's no quick fix- as in, no, you can't suddenly embrace Buddhism and get out of here. <br /><br />Tony was initially not too concerned about getting to heaven. But at the "conference entrance", he realizes that's not going to be so easy for him. At first I saw the name vs. driver's license problem as Tony having led sort of a double life, what with the killing people and sleeping around that he kept secret from most people. He feels free to have an affair with quasi-Melfi because "he's Kevin Finnerty". He figures out that he CAN fool some people with KF's cards, like hotel receptionists, but it won't get him out of Purgatory. Those helicopters- the helicopters of Heaven?- are keeping track of him and everything he does.<br /><br />After reading all the theories on "inFinnerty", though, it seems like KF's identity is a reminder of the infinite different paths Tony could've taken in his life. Possibly along with the car joke involving Infiniti's that made no sense to me otherwise. Aaaand at that point my brain fizzles out. | 1 |
With the badly injured Tony in an induced coma, two things happen: Tony imagines himself leading the life of a salesman attending a business convention, while his family and friends go through hell trying to cope with the possible loss of the big man. The dream sequences are right out of an old TWILIGHT ZONE episode, as Tony finds himself transformed into an Average Joe trying to deal with a missing wallet and mixed-up identities while on a cross-country business trip. His intonation as a blazer- and khaki-wearing schnook is more mid-American and less that of an Italian thug from Noo Joisey. A nice touch. The shockingly long-haired, hippy-dippy AJ (whom Paulie calls "Van Helsing" at one point) has a nice scene with his comatose old man. The best moment has the big boys trying to talk about life without Tony, which immediately breaks down into a territorial dispute. Vito gets off a line about the new-dead Gene possibly having been a closet case, which is interesting in light of what we are about to learn about Vito. | 1 |
Let me start off by saying that after watching this episode for the first time on DVD at 10 o'clock P.M. one night, I could not fall asleep until about 3:00 A.M.<br /><br />This brief review may contain spoilers.<br /><br />I'm a long-time fan of The Sopranos and I can safely say this is the best episode I've seen. I'm not saying everyone should feel this way, but I do. This episode is identical to the weekend I spent with my family, watching over my own father, comatose in the ICU before he passed.<br /><br />The episode begins with Tony in an alternate reality: he is a salesman who's identity has been mistaken for that of a man named Kevin Finnerty.<br /><br />By the time ten minutes had gone by, I knew either Tony was dreaming, or I was watching some other show. It wasn't like the normal Sopranos and I loved it.<br /><br />Option 1 is confirmed when Anthony (or "Kevin") looks into the sky at a "helicopter spotlight" and we see prodding through it, a doctor with a flashlight. We see this only for a moment and the sequence plays out until we go back to real life in a situation similar to the one I just stated.<br /><br />Tony has come out of the coma for only a moment. His boys take A.J. home and Carmella, overcome by stress, breaks down in the hallway: a signature moment in the episode.<br /><br />For the remainder of the episode, we cut in between the real world: the family dealing with the potential negative outcome of this coma, and Tony's alternate reality, which parallels what's going on both in his mind and in the real world around him.<br /><br />Then comes the stellar point in the episode: after A.J. finishes telling his mother he's flunked school, she walks in to see Meadow sitting at Anthony's side.<br /><br />She approaches Tony, and utters the best line of the episode: "Anthony, can you hear us?" In Tony's world, he enters a dark hotel room and turns on a light. He takes off his shoes and goes to the phone. He tries to dial, but he cannot--as if he were trying to say something back to Carmella, but couldn't physically bring himself to do so. Not yet.<br /><br />He sits down and looks out his window. A shimmering light that has reoccurred throughout the episode now seems to call to him from the other side of the city.<br /><br />"When It's Cold I'd Like To Die" by Moby marries perfectly with these last images and helps in creating an emotional roller-coaster of an episode.<br /><br />10 out of 10.<br /><br />P.S.: Watch the next episode. You find out what the light is. It's wonderful. | 1 |
Its too bad a lot of people didn't understand this and the next episode.<br /><br />But don't worry! ill explain it too you :)<br /><br />This episode is split in 2 parts.<br /><br />first part is Tony's "Dream" in his coma. Second part is what happens in real life.<br /><br />now what people didn't understand is that Tony's dream is more then just a dream. in this episode its about his preparation for his Death. He loses his own identity and eventually even forgets himself, thus he disconnects all his bindings with this world. You will notice what I'm saying at the doctor scene, where tony says he has lost his briefcase which contains "his life". They makers really did a superb job of interpreting they're own thoughts of what happens when you die. <br /><br />If you understand the whole plot you will find this and the next episode an unique thing, with great spiritual meanings.<br /><br />Like every sopranos episode the acting and filming is superb. <br /><br />Only thing i didn't understand was what the role where of the monks. gonna re watch it till i get this.<br /><br />anyways this episode really touched me, and i don't think anyone else can make a better view of what happens in a almost death experience.<br /><br />10/10 no doubt. | 1 |
To call this episode brilliant feels like too little. To say it keeps up the excellent work of the season premiere is reductive too, 'cause there's never been a far-from-great Sopranos episode so far. In fact, the title might be a smug invitation for those who aren't real fans yet: Join the Club...<br /><br />Picking up where Junior left off (putting a bullet in his nephew's gut after mistaking him for a crook he killed in the first season), the story begins with Tony being absolutely fine. With no recollection whatsoever of what happened to him, he's attending some kind of convention. Only he's not speaking with his normal accent, and there seems to be something wrong with his papers: apparently, he is not Tony Soprano but Kevin Finnerty, or at least that's what a group of people think, and until the mess is sorted out he can't leave his hotel.<br /><br />Naturally, in pure Sopranos tradition, that turns out to be nothing but a dream: Tony is actually in a coma, with the doctors uncertain regarding his fate, his family and friends worried sick and Junior refusing to believe the whole thing actually happened. Unfortunately it did, and Anthony Jr. looks willing to avenge the attempt on his father's life.<br /><br />Dreams have popped up rather frequently in the series, often as some kind of spiritual trial for the protagonists (most notably in the Season Five show The Test Dream). Join the Club, however, takes the metaphysical qualities of the program, already hinted at by the previous episode's use of a William S. Burroughs poem, and pushes the envelope in the most audacious way: Tony hallucinating about his dead friends (the first occurrence of the sort was caused by food poisoning, four seasons ago) is one thing, him actually being in what would appear to be Purgatory is radically different. The "heavenly" section of the story is crammed with allegorical significances, not least the name Tony is given (as one character points out, spelling it in a certain way will give you the word "infinity"), and none of it comes off as overblown or far-fetched: David Chase has created a piece of work that is far too intelligent to use weird set-ups just for their own sake; it all helps the narrative. Talking about "help from above" in the case of Tony Soprano might be stretching it a tad, though. | 1 |
Troubled men's magazine photographer Adrien Wilde (well played with considerable intensity by Michael Callan) has horrific nightmares in which he brutally murders his models. When the lovely ladies start turning up dead for real, Adrien worries that he might be the killer. Writer/director William Byron Hillman relates the engrossing story at a steady pace, builds a reasonable amount of tension, delivers a few gruesomely effective moments of savage misogynistic violence (one woman who has a plastic garbage bag with a rattlesnake in it placed over her head rates as the definite squirm-inducing highlight), puts a refreshing emphasis on the nicely drawn and engaging true-to-life characters, further grounds everything in a plausible everyday world, and tops things off with a nice smattering of tasty female nudity. The fine acting from an excellent cast helps matters a whole lot: Joanna Pettet as sunny, charming love interest Mindy Jordache, James Stacy as Adrien's macho double amputee brother B.J., Seymour Cassel as Adrien's concerned psychiatrist Dr. Frank Curtis, Don Potter as Adrien's feisty gay assistant Louis, Pamela Hensley as gutsy homicide detective Sergeant Fountain, Cleavon Little as a hard-nosed police chief, and Misty Rowe as sweet, bubbly model Bambi. R. Michael Stringer's polished cinematography makes impressive occasional use of breathtaking panoramic aerial shots. Jack Goga's ominous rattling score likewise does the trick. Popping up in cool bit parts are Robert Tessier as a gruff bartender, Sally Kirkland as a saucy hooker, Kathy Shower as a fierce female wrestler B.J. grapples with in the ring, and Frances Bay in one of her standard old woman roles. A solid and enjoyable picture. | 1 |
DOUBLE EXPOSURE was a tremendous surprise. It contains outstanding acting (particularly from the underrated Callan), fine cinematography and a compelling storyline. In other words, it's one of the finest horror efforts to emerge from the 1980s.<br /><br />Callan plays a fashion photographer who experiences dreams of murdering his models, at a time when he is reunited with his psychologically volatile brother (who happens to be missing an arm and a leg). When the models Callan dreams about killing actually turn up dead, the photographer begins to doubt his own sanity... but there is more to the picture than he is seeing.<br /><br />This film never received the praise it deserves. Most critics and filmgoers lump it in with the horde of slasher films released at the same time, but it stands high above the bulk of that sorry lot. It's clever and unique, which isn't something one can comfortably say about most films of this genre, but it's also passionately crafted and performed. DOUBLE EXPOSURE is a gem of its kind. | 1 |
Yes, this production is long (good news for Bronte fans!) and it has a somewhat dated feel, but both the casting and acting are so brilliant that you won't want to watch any other versions!<br /><br />Timothy Dalton IS Edward Rochester... it's that simple. I don't care that other reviewers claim he's too handsome. Dalton is attractive, certainly, but no pretty-boy. In fact he possesses a craggy, angular dark charm that, in my mind, is quite in keeping with the mysterious, very masculine Mr R. And he takes on Rochester's sad, tortured persona so poignantly. He portrays ferocity when the scene calls for it, but also displays Rochester's tender, passionate, emotional side as well. (IMO the newer A&E production suffers in that Ciaran Hinds - whom I normally adore - seems to bluster and bully his way throughout. I've read the book many times and I never felt that Rochester was meant to be perceived as a nonstop snarling beast.)<br /><br />When I reread the novel, I always see Zelah Clarke as Jane. Ms. Clarke, to me, resembles Jane as she describes herself (and is described by others). Small, childlike, fairy... though it's true the actress doesn't look 18, she portrays Jane's attributes so well. While other reviews have claimed that her acting is wooden or unemotional, one must remember that the character spent 8 years at Lowood being trained to hold her emotions and "passionate nature" in check. Her main inspiration was her childhood friend Helen, who was the picture of demure submission. Although her true nature was dissimilar, Jane learned to master her temper and appear docile, in keeping with the school's aims for its charity students who would go into 'service'. Jane becomes a governess in the household of the rich Mr. Rochester. She would certainly *not* speak to him as an equal. Even later on when she gave as well as she got, she would always be sure to remember that her station was well below that of her employer. Nevertheless, if you read the book - to which this production stays amazingly close - you can clearly see the small struggles Zelah-as-Jane endures as she subdues her emotions in order to remain mild and even-tempered.<br /><br />The chemistry between Dalton and Clarke is just right, I think. No, it does not in the least resemble Hollywood (thank God! It's not a Hollywood sort of book) but theirs is a romance which is true, devoted and loyal. And for a woman like Jane, who never presumed to have *any* love come her way, it is a minor miracle.<br /><br />The rest of the casting is terrific, and I love the fact that nearly every character from the book is present here. So, too, is much of the rich, poetic original dialogue. This version is the only one that I know of to include the lovely, infamous 'gypsy scene' and in general, features more humor than other versions I've seen. In particular, the mutual teasing between the lead characters comes straight from the book and is so delightful!<br /><br />Jane Eyre was, in many ways, one of the first novelized feminists. She finally accepted love on her own terms and independently, and, at last, as Rochester's true equal. Just beautiful! | 1 |
This wonderful 1983 BBC television production (not a movie, as others have written here) of the classic love story "Jane Eyre", starring Timothy Dalton as Rochester, and Zelah Clarke as Jane, is the finest version that has been made to date, since it is the most faithful to the novel by Charlotte Bronte in both concept and dialogue. <br /><br />A classic becomes a classic for very specific reasons; when film producers start to meddle with a classic's very lifeblood then that classic is destroyed. Thankfully the producers of THIS "Jane Eyre" approached the story with respect and faithfulness towards the original, which results in a spectacularly addictive concoction that is worth viewing multiple times, to enjoy its multi-layers of sweetness and delight and suspense. The performances are delightful, the music is just right, even the Gothic design of the house and outdoor shots are beautiful, and set the right tone for the production. <br /><br />My only criticism, though slight, is that this version, like every other version ever made of Jane Eyre, ignores the Christian influences that built Jane's character and influenced her moral choices. In today's modern world a woman in Jane's situation wouldn't think twice but to stay with Rochester after finding out he had an insane wife and was still married to her. "Oh, just get a divorce", she would say to her man, or she would live in sin with him. But Jane Eyre knew she couldn't settle for this course in life and respect herself. Why? This decision was based on the foundations of the Christian faith she had been taught since childhood, not from the brutal Calvinist Lowood Institution, but from the Christian example of a true friend, Helen Burns, who was martyred rather than not turn the other cheek. Someday I would like to see some version depict these influences a little more fully in an adaptation. A classic novel that ends with the heroine writing "Even so, come Lord Jesus!" should not have the foundations of that faith stripped out of it. | 1 |
Those who love the book Jane Eyre as I do (it's my all time favorite, and I re read it at least once a year) will love this version. Timothy Dalton is just a tad too good looking to be Mr. Rochester, but other than that, he does a marvelous job portraying the brooding master of Thornfield. Zelah Clarke may have been just a little too old to play the 18 year old Jane, but when I watch this movie, I don't think about the ages of the characters. The dialog from the film is taken almost verbatim from the book, which was very smart. Sure, this film might seem a little long, but it's the only version I've seen that includes part 3 of the story.<br /><br />I wish the people who made this film had been involved in the newer Zeferelli version, as it would have helped that mess of a film.<br /><br />I also realized the last time I watched this video that Judy Cornwell plays "Aunt Reed"! She is so versatile that I didn't recognize her. She plays Daisy in Keeping up Appearances, and also played Mrs. Musgrove in 1995's Persuasion (another wonderful adaption).<br /><br />UPDATE: Got the DVD this week, and it's marvelous to see the original unedited version. There's lots more at the beginning (Young Jane at Gateshead and at Lowood.) And at the end, they've restored lots of things, (I always wondered why St. John had a slip of paper when he reveals that he knows who Jane is-- because the part where he tears it from her painting was edited out of the US VHS version!). Rosamund Oliver is in it...she was completely cut out of the VHS. As far as I could tell, they hadn't edited out any of Timothy Dalton's parts, so nothing new there, but it is great to see the whole miniseries in its entirety after all these years of enjoying the VHS. Thanks, BBC (PS...I would have paid more for a special edition DVD...with maybe some interviews with the stars...or a making of show) | 1 |
I had no idea what Jane Eyre was before I saw this miniseries. I had read and watched many classics before, and I believed that most classics were boring, over-worded, and overrated stories with moderately interesting plots at best. This Jane Eyre miniseries completely changed my conceptions.<br /><br />Zelah Clarke is a fabulous actress, and she gives a wonderful portrayal of Jane Eyre. Her accent is delightful and her quiet, yet firm nature matches the young governess' character exactly. Timothy Dalton is an amazing Rochester. His passion and energy in the film makes me believe that he was born to play the brooding master of Thornfield Hall. I couldn't sleep at all the night after I had watched this miniseries. The plot is both haunting and inspiring. The characters are masterfully performed, and the story is incredible. This is the best version of Jane Eyre to ever appear on film.<br /><br />I read the book later and was amazed at how closely this miniseries followed Charolette Bronte's writing. Jane Eyre is now my favorite film and book. If you want to see a masterpiece that will change your life, watch the 1983 BBC version of Jane Eyre. | 1 |
I felt duty bound to watch the 1983 Timothy Dalton / Zelah Clarke adaptation of "Jane Eyre," because I'd just written an article about the 2006 BBC "Jane Eyre" for TheScreamOnline.<br /><br />So, I approached watching this the way I'd approach doing homework.<br /><br />I was irritated at first. The lighting in this version is bad. Everyone / everything is washed out in a bright white klieg light that, in some scenes, casts shadows on the wall behind the characters.<br /><br />And the sound is poorly recorded. I felt like I was listening to a high school play.<br /><br />And the pancake make-up is way too heavy.<br /><br />And the sets don't fully convey the Gothic mood of the novel. They are too fussy, too Martha Stewart. I just can't see Bronte's Rochester abiding such Martha Stewart domestic arrangements. Orson Welles' Rochester lived in cave-like gloom, very appropriate to the novel's Gothic mood.<br /><br />And yet ... with all those objections ... not only is this the best "Jane Eyre" I've seen, it may be the best adaptation of any novel I've ever seen.<br /><br />This "Jane Eyre," in spite of its technical flaws, brought the feeling back to me of reading "Jane Eyre" for the first time.<br /><br />The critics of this production say it is too close to the book. For me, someone who valued the book and didn't need it to be any less "wordy" or any less "Christian" or any more sexed up, this version's faithfulness to the novel Bronte actually wrote is its finest asset.<br /><br />Bronte wrote a darn good book. There's a reason it has lasted 150 years plus, while other, slicker, sexier and easier texts, have disappeared.<br /><br />As a long time "Jane Eyre" fan, I was prejudiced against Timothy Dalton as Rochester. Rochester is, famously, not handsome; Jane and Rochester are literature's famous ugly couple. And Timothy Dalton is nothing if not stunningly handsome.<br /><br />But Dalton gives a mesmerizing performance as Rochester. He just blew me away. I've never seen anything like his utter devotion to the role, the text, the dialogue, and Rochester's love for Jane. Dalton brings the page's Rochester to quivering life on screen.<br /><br />Rochester is meant to be a bit scary. Dalton is scary. Welles got the scary streak down, too, for example, when he shouts "Enough!" after Fontaine plays a short piano piece. But Dalton is scary more than once, here. You really can't tell if he's going to hurt Jane, or himself, in his desperation.<br /><br />Rochester's imperiousness, his humor, his rage, his vulnerability: Dalton conveys all, sometimes seconds apart. It's stunning.<br /><br />And here's the key thing -- the actor performing Rochester has to convey that he has spent over a decade of his life in utter despair, lonely, living with an ugly, life-destroying secret.<br /><br />No other actor I've seen attempt this part conveys that black hole of despair as Timothy Dalton does. Current fan favorite Toby Stephens doesn't even try. Dalton hits it out of the park. If I saw Timothy Dalton performing Rochester in a singles bar, i would say, "That guy is trouble. Don't even look at him." He's that radioactive with tamped down agony.<br /><br />Zelah Clarke is not only, overall, the best Jane I've seen, she's one of the very few Janes whom producers were willing to cast as the book casts Jane. No, folks who know "Jane Eyre" only from the 2006 version, Bronte did *not* describe a statuesque, robust Jane with finely arched eyebrows and pouty lips. Rather, Charlotte Bronte's Jane is, indeed, poor, plain, obscure, and little, and NOT pretty.<br /><br />Zelah has a small mouth, close-set eyes, and a bit of a nose. She's truly "little." She is no fashion model. And she is the best Jane, the truest to the book.<br /><br />Some described her a cold or boring. No, she's true to the book. Bronte's Jane is not a red hot mama, she's a sheltered, deprived teen whose inner passions come out only at key moments, as Zelah's do here. The book's Jane is someone you have to watch slowly, carefully, patiently, observantly, if you want to truly plumb her depths. You have to watch Zelah, here, to get to know who she really is.<br /><br />I would have liked to have seen more fire in Zelah in one key scene, but that's one scene out of five hours in which she is, otherwise, very good.<br /><br />In spite of its closeness to the text, this version, like every other version I've seen, shys away from fully explicating the overtly Christian themes in "Jane Eyre." Christianity is not incidental subtext in "Jane Eyre," it is central.<br /><br />Helen Burns instructs Jane in Christianity, thus giving her a subversive, counter cultural way to read, and live, her apparently doomed, pinched life. It is Christianity, and a Christian God, who convinces poor, plain, obscure Jane of her equal worth, her need to live up to her ideals, and her rejection of a key marriage proposal. That isn't made fully clear here.<br /><br />In any case, Charlotte Bronte wrote an excellent, complex, rich novel, and this adaptation of it, of all the ones I've seen, mines and honors the novel best of any adaptation I've seen, and that says a lot.<br /><br />Other versions, that don't fully honor the book, end up being a chore to watch in many places. If you don't care about what Charlotte Bronte has to say about child abuse, or the hypocrisy of a culture built on looks and money, your adaptation of much of the book will be something people fast forward through to get to the kissing scenes between Jane and Rochester.<br /><br />This version, like Bronte's novel, realizes that everything Bronte wrote -- about Jane's experiences at Lowood, and her relationship to St. John -- are part of what makes Jane's relationship to Rochester as explosive and unforgettable as it is. | 1 |
This is the best version (so far) that you will see and the most true to the Bronte work. Dalton is a little tough to imagine as Rochester who Jane Eyre declared "not handsome". But his acting overcomes this and Zelah Clark, pretty as she is, is also a complete and believable Jane Eyre. This production is a lengthy watch but well worth it. Nearly direct quotes from the book are in the script and if you want the very first true 'romance' in literature, this is the way to see it. I own every copy of this movie and have read and re-read the original. The filming may seem a little dated now but there will never be another like this. | 1 |
I really have to say, this was always a favorite of mine when I went to see my grandma. And it still is. It is very, very close to the book. The way it is filmed, and the players were just all excellent! I have to recommend this movie to everyone who hasn't seen it. Almost everyone I talk to hates TV movies, but this was really great! I gave it 10/10. | 1 |
I have to say that this miniseries was the best interpretation of the beloved novel "Jane Eyre". Both Dalton and Clarke are very believable as Rochester and Jane. I've seen other versions, but none compare to this one. The best one for me. I could never imagine anyone else playing these characters ever again. The last time I saw this one was in 1984 when I was only 13. At that time, I was a bookworm and I had just read Charlotte Bronte's novel. I was completely enchanted by this miniseries and I remember not missing any of the episodes. I'd like to see it again because it's so good. :-) | 1 |
This review comes nearly 30 years late. Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that I chanced by a copy of this movie sometime in early 2008 and watched it repeatedly for 4 months straight! I just had to write about it! I got smitten and forgot anything else existed once I saw this movie. How ironic it is to see Literature's ugliest male protagonist portrayed by the handsomest man! yet, what a welcome irony! It suited me perfectly and more so because Timothy Dalton did full justice to his role. He delivered an astounding and triumphant performance! I have never seen anything like it! All the other actors are very good too. The whole movie was put together beautifully. I don't care what anyone says about this movie. I just love it and love it! It made me happy and satisfied. It crushes me a bit to say this but I prefer Jane Eyre 1983 to A&E's P&J, which I believe is the ultimate mini-series. <br /><br />The excerpts from Jane Eyre spooked me a little back in school. I never got around to reading the book seriously knowing the story line so well. Seeing this particular production made the story come to life for me and drove me to a near frenzy. The scenes and Mr. Dalton's voice haunted me endlessly and finally led me to read the book seriously, which, of course is a masterpiece. Bravo to the whole team and especially to Mr.Dalton!! This movie is now a part of me.<br /><br />I give it 10/10 rating. | 1 |
There are many adaptations of Charlotte Brontë's classic novel "Jane Eyre", and taking into consideration the numerous reviews written about them there is also a lively discussion on which of them is the best. The short film adaptations all suffer from the fact that it is simply not possible to cram the whole plot of the novel into a movie of about a 100 min. length, consequently these movies only show few parts of the novel. The TV series have proved to be a more suitable format to render all the different episodes of the heroine's life.<br /><br />There are three TV mini series, released in '73, '83 and 2006. The 2006 version is not only the worst of these three, but the worst of all Jane Eyre adaptations and a striking example of a completely overrated film. The novel's beautiful lines are substituted by insipid and trivial ones, and crucial scenes are either deleted or replaced by scenes which have nothing whatever to do with the novel. What it all leads to then is that the characters portrayed have not only nothing in common with the Rochester and Jane of the novel and behave in exactly the opposite way as described in the book, but that also their behaviour and language is absolutely not consistent with the behaviour of the period in which the novel is set. It is a silly soap opera, in which the actors look and act as if they had been put in the costumes of the 1850ies by mistake. This "Jane Eyre" (as it dares to call itself) is indeed a slap in the face of Charlotte Brontë.<br /><br />The 1973 version is very faithful to the novel in that the long dialogues between Mr. Rochester and Jane are rendered in nearly their full length. But what works beautifully in the novel does not necessarily work beautifully on the screen. At times the language of the novel is too complex and convoluted as to appear natural when spoken on screen, and the constant interruptions of the dialogues by Jane's voice-overs add to the impression of artificiality and staginess. And despite the faithfulness to the novel the essence of the scenes is not captured. Another problem is the casting of the main characters. Sorcha Cusack's portrayal of Jane as a bold, self-confident, worldly-wise young woman is totally at odds with the literary model, and Michael Jayston, although a good actor, does simply not possess the commanding physical presence nor the charisma necessary to play Rochester. Although a decent adaptation it simply fails to convey the passion and intensity of the novel and never really captivates the audience.<br /><br />All the faults of the '73 version stand corrected in the TV mini series of '83 with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. Although from a purist's point of view Timothy Dalton is too handsome, tall and lean to be Rochester, he possesses the essential qualities for the role: He has an imposing physical presence, great magnetism and an air of self-assurance and authority. And despite his undeniable handsomeness he looks grim and stern enough to play the gloomy master of Thornfield convincingly. But the excellence of his performance lies in the way he renders all the facets of Rochester's character. Of all the actors who have played Rochester he is the only one to capture them all: Rochester's harshness, nearly insolence, his moodiness and abruptness, as well as his humorous side, his tenderness, his solicitude and deep, frantic love. Dalton's handling of Charlotte Brontë's language is equally superb. Even Rochester's most far-fetched and complicated thoughts ring absolutely true and natural when Dalton delivers them. He is the definitive Rochester, unsurpassed and unsurpassable, and after watching him in this role it is impossible to imagine Rochester to be played in any other way or by any other actor.<br /><br />Zelah Clarke delivers an equally excellent performance in a role that is possibly even more difficult to play well than the one of Rochester. She portrays exactly the Jane of the novel, an outwardly shy, reserved and guarded young woman, but who possesses a great depth of feeling and an equally great strength of will. She catches beautifully the duality in Jane's character: her modesty and respectfulness on the one hand, and her fire and passion on the other, her seeming frailty and her indomitable sense of right and wrong. She and Dalton have wonderful chemistry and their scenes together are pure delight.<br /><br />As regards faithfulness to the literary model this version also quotes verbatim from the novel as does the '73 version, but with one important difference: The dialogues are shortened in this version, but the core lines which are essential for the characterisation of the protagonists and the development of the plot are rendered unchanged. Thus the scriptwriter avoided any artificiality of speech, while still fully preserving the beauty and originality of Charlotte Brontë's language. And in contrast to the earlier BBC version the essence of each scene is perfectly captured.<br /><br />The plot of the novel is followed with even greater accuracy than in the '73 series. It is nearly a scene for scene enactment of the novel, where equal time and emphasis is given to each episode of Jane's life. It is the only Jane Eyre adaptation that has a gypsy scene worthy of the novel, and the only one which does full justice to the novel's pivotal and most heartrending scene when Jane and Rochester meet after the aborted wedding. Timothy Dalton in particular plays that scene with superb skill. He renders with almost painful intensity Rochester's anguish as he realizes Jane's resolution to leave him, his frantic attempts to make her stay and his final despair as she indeed leaves him. It is a heartbreaking, almost devastating, scene, which will stay with the viewer for a long time.<br /><br />With even the smaller roles perfectly cast, an excellent script and two ideal leading actors this is the definitive and only true "Jane Eyre". | 1 |
There have been many film and TV productions of Jane Eyre each with aspects to recommend them, but I suspect this is the one that people will still be discovering and falling in love with decades from now. It's just a classic (and offers much more of the story than others do). Timothy Dalton is utterly in his element as Rochester, rarely missing the mark; his performance is astonishingly nimble and many-colored, while never straying too far from the dark complexities of the character. Zelah Clarke's Jane is more cerebral than otherworldly, but she makes a perfect foil for Dalton (who, appropriately, towers over her!) The nuances of her performance come through better on a second viewing (once you've absorbed the shock of Dalton's charisma). There are some technical faults and a couple of moments where the production values could have been better; though this pretty much was a top-of-the-line production by the BBC's standards of that time. But, it's the performances that are the real pleasure. Don't miss this one! | 1 |
I think this is a great version, I came on here before, to help me find which version I should use and I went to Jane Eyre 1983 and read a comment from users comment and then helped me to get this version. I do not regret picking this version and neither will you. I tried watching all the other versions and none matched up to it,There is nothing like the book,and TRUST ME if you are reading the book you want something that is going to match up with it. When you are looking for something real and moving after you have read the book it is hard because you want something that is going to match up with that. I would say God personally led me to this version. It points to true love for a humans. I would say God's love is greater.if there is anything better, I would like to see it. but so far there is none like it! | 1 |
I studied Charlotte Bronte's novel in high school, and it left me with a stunning impression. Here was a beautiful novel about a young woman's struggle to find love and acceptance in the dark times of Victorian England. This young woman was Jane Eyre, a poor and plain character with a strong mind and will of her own. Her story, which Bronte told through Jane's own eyes, was both sad and inspiring. <br /><br />As part of our study, we watched the 1983 adaptation of the story, and it blew me away. The mini-series not only made the effort to stay true to Bronte's original text and the essence of the story, but the actors who portrayed the characters were just great. Both Zelah Clarke (Jane Eyre) and Timothy Dalton (Jane's lover, by the name of Rochester) captured brilliantly the essence of their characters. I cannot imagine anyone else in their roles. (The other performances of Rochester in other versions such as the 2006 version lack the passion, energy, and tenderness needed to portray Rochester accurately. I say that Timothy Dalton comes out on top because he possesses all these characteristics in his portrayal of Rochester. Zelah Clarke not only looks like Jane Eyre, but she captures Jane's quiet, but firm and passionate nature brilliantly. She holds in her emotions, like the Jane of the book, at the appropriate moments in the story but allows her fire to come out in Jane's passionate scenes. The chemistry that Clarke and Dalton portray in their scenes together is also credible and true to Jane and Rochester's devoted relationship.) As well, the supporting actors also fit their roles perfectly, and the sets fit the Gothic nature of the story. <br /><br />I strongly recommend this version of the classic Bronte tale. If you have not read the book before, then you can watch this production as a faithful introduction to this beautiful story. | 1 |
I am a Jane Eyre lover and a purist, and this version includes almost all of the important details of the book, and the characters are portrayed as I imagined them. Jane Eyre is a complex story of great richness and can't be delivered properly in a feature-length format, so it needs a TV mini-series. Timothy Dalton's Rochester is probably the best ever. There has been a lot of discussion about how attractive he is and his age. In the book, Jane (the narrator) describes him as "about 35" and not young, but not yet middle aged. I think Timothy Dalton was about 38 when he made this, so that is about right. Also, we only have Jane's opinion of whether Rochester is handsome. She only just met him and he asks her bluntly what she thinks. As an inexperienced and humble girl, I can't imagine her saying she did think him handsome. The actor playing Rochester needs to show us the character of the man, and this is fulfilled to perfection. I love the relationship between the two leads, which is the crucial thing about this story, and the humour of their encounters. Other versions have blown it, but this gets it right. The 2006 version with Toby Stephens (aged 37 years) is in progress on BBC1 and is very good indeed, so I will decide whether that is my favourite when it is completed.<br /><br />On viewing this series again, after watching the 2006 version, I have decided that this version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clark is the best! Charlotte Bronte's dialogue is preserved and this is essential to the power of the story. Modernisation just doesn't work - it's a Victorian story and having archaic poetic speech suits the characters. This version has an excellent cast - Zelah Clark is tiny and the difference in height between her and Rochester is important; Timothy Dalton has real presence and is an amazing actor. There are no extra scenes to divert from the plot and the screenplay includes all the essential scenes, but leaves out unnecessary details, making it to the point and gripping. I recommend it to all true Jane Eyre fans. | 1 |
*SPOILER ALERT: I wish I could discuss this without revealing specific plot points, but I can't. Sorry.*<br /><br />I was looking for an IMDb review of the George C. Scott movie when I stumbled across the summary and reviews for this version. It had so many positive reviews that I decided to order it even though: (a)while truncated and rushed, I thought George C. Scott embodied the tortured nature (and physical appearance) of the book's Rochester to a T; and (b)even while looking at the DVD's cover, I was thinking "Isn't Timothy Dalton too good-looking for the role?" The latter concern was reinforced by the fact that I decided to re-read the book while the DVD was on backorder. That said, the minute I started watching this, I was captivated. At first it was disconcerting to hear 1840's dialog spoken as written--with little or no attempts at modernization--but Dalton and Clarke threw themselves into it so thoroughly, that I actually enjoyed the fact that the adapters trusted the audience to follow archaic speech. To have so much of the book up on the screen was an extra bonus. I know someone who won't watch any versions of Jane Eyre because "who wants to see a film about a man who keeps a poor crazy woman in the attic?" Frankly, if someone who hadn't read the book stumbled across the hour and a half or two hour versions, they would think that's pretty much all the story entails--Rochester's secret and its affect on everyone around him. Luckily, this version is actually about Jane Eyre's whole life.<br /><br />Some people have criticized the casting. Dalton is too dashing; Clarke is too reserved. I can't argue against the first point, but he is so "in the moment" that I believe he IS Rochester. To me, Clarke's performance is on the mark. Jane Eyre is quiet, guarded. If one remembers the book, so much of the adult Jane's fieriness and passion occurs during her private struggles. Some of the criticisms baffle me. Reviewers say Clarke is too short or isn't pretty enough. The book goes on ad infinitum about how small and plain Jane is. Ms. Clarke shouldn't be tall and the filmmakers toned down her looks to make Jane's declarations of her lack of beauty credible. She can scarcely help it if Dalton is tall. Some say there is no chemistry between the leads. What?!! The scene when Jane finally comes out of her room after the wedding fiasco fairly vibrates with passion and longing and sadness and regret--and that's just the first example that comes to mind.<br /><br />I do agree with some of the other criticisms. I too missed more scenes with Helen Burns and the Rivers siblings. Some of the dialog was oddly truncated. When Rochester declares, "Jane, you misjudge me. I do not hate her because she is mad," I waited for the rest of the exchange when Rochester explains how if Jane were to go mad, he would still love and care for her. It's a powerful moment in the book, and I wish it had been included. I think it was a mistake to bring a scene with Rochester into the part of the story where Jane is on her own. It might have been done for clarity's sake, but I found it jarring. I wanted the sly humor of the scene where Jane opines that Rochester's ardor will cool and he'll become gruff again, but he may "like" her again by and by. Dalton's performance is so good that the rare misstep is glaring--when Rochester weeps in the library, I saw him as an actor doing a crying scene, not as Rochester. As for the sets, if anyone has ever caught an episode of the 1960's show "Dark Shadows," one knows what to expect--very stark and sometimes rickety looking interiors. Others have commented thoroughly and succinctly about the make-up job Rochester sports at the end. Yikes! It IS bad. The conclusion is too abrupt. After all that anguish and suspense, I wanted a more rounded off ending. And, on my copy of the DVD, having credits at the beginning and end of all eleven 25-30 minute episodes gets to be a bit much. That said, I am so glad I have this film and will watch it again and again. | 1 |
I liked Timothy Dalton very much even though he was a bit young and too handsome for Mr R. but I thought Zelah Clarke too plump and short. This version however was very true to the novel and very well filmed. I have seen 4 versions, Orson Welles is still my favorite Mr R , though George C Scott did very well and it's a toss up between Joan Fontaine and Sussanah York, although they were both a bit too old for the role. I recently saw a brilliant TV version of Rebecca with Charles Dance and Emilia Fox. I would love to see those two do Jane Eyre.By the time I got to watching the Ciarin Hinds version, I think I was Jane Eyred out, but I will never tire of those first few minutes of hearing Joan Fontaine's voice narrate the opening of the first version I ever saw. I always want to go back and read the book again. | 1 |
this was a fabulous adaptation of Jane Eyre. the only problem i had with it was that i didn't like Zelah Clarke. i thought she was too old and made Jane seem much to timid. in the book Jane seemed like a much stronger character. i was really annoyed by this portrayal of her. the part where it's the morning after Rochester asks her to marry him and she runs up to him and hugs him always makes me laugh. i think they made a bad choice in casting her. but Dalton was absolutely wonderful as Rochester. he makes this version of Jane Eyre worth seeing. another thing that made this version not quite 100% was the quality of film. i know it was made in the eighties for TV. if it had been a feature film, and better quality, it would have been perfect. my main complaint however, is that Zelah Clarke was definitely too old. | 1 |
This is, in my opinion, much better than either of the 2 1990's versions, but is still not all that good. It feels dated, probably because it is, but it does stand up well compared to other BBC 1980's period pieces such as Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey.<br /><br />The length of this adaptation allows for a much better adaptation of the book than either of the 2 90's versions, and St John Rivers is at least covered, although not very well. Timothy Dalton is very good as Rochester, but the actress playing Jane is much too old. There is definitely scope for a TV adaptation of this length that has more than a tenner spent on it. | 1 |
If a more masterful adaptation than this one even existed, you need not look for it; you will find all and more in this near-perfect presentation of Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece.<br /><br />Rarely have I seen a film that would urge me to read the novel on which it was based, but I admit to that here. Although I have not read Jane Eyre, I am convinced that I have missed very little in the way of dialogue and plot or of intensity and emotion. I only wish to explore the novel due to the immense curiosity and emotion that this masterpiece has stirred within me.<br /><br />I need not divulge anything in the way of plot here. Let me just say this: if you are perhaps unsure as to whether you should watch or read the beautiful story that is Jane Eyre, I implore you to doubt no more! Every atom of might and magic that has reared Jane Eyre as a popular classic of English literature has successfully been captured in this film.<br /><br />What Brontë did not bring herself, Clarke and Dalton managed to translate in the limelight with stupendous intensity. The movie's success is, no doubt, due in no small part to their acting prowess.<br /><br />Love Jane Eyre or hate her, but appreciate the richness, the vitality, the truth of the story; love the characters; love the actors; all just as you would love what is great in cinema. | 1 |
This has to be the best adaptation I have seen it's my favourite and I think it stays very close to the book.What really makes this a must see though is the casting of the two lead actors.The wonderful Timothy Dalton is the best Rochester I have seen on screen brooding and tragic,while Zelah Clarke is the perfect combination of strength,courage,shyness and gentleness as Jane. The story(as i'm sure most people know)is this,the young and plain Jane Eyre is a teacher at a charity school for girls in the 1800's who advertises her services as a governess in the newspapers.She is offered the post of governess at the big mansion Thornfield Hall to tutor Adele the young ward of the halls mysterious and respected owner Mr Rochester. As the months go on he falls in love with Jane and puts into effect a few situations to try and see if Jane is as madly in love with him as he is with her.However there is a secret still waiting to be discovered at Thornfield Hall and when it is it's effects are devastating.This is a moving and well acted drama with nice locations and gorgeous costumes plus as I said earlier excellent acting especially from Zelah and Timothy. | 1 |
I have recently seen this production on DVD. It is the first time I have seen it since it was originally broadcast in 1983 and it was just as good as I remembered. At first as was worried it would seem old fashioned and I suppose it is a little dated and very wordy as the BBC serials were back then. (I miss those wonderful costume dramas that seemed to be always on Sunday afternoons back then) But that aside it is as near perfect as it could have been. I am a bit of a "Jane Eyre" purist as it is my favourite book and have never seen another production that is a faithful to the book as this one. I have recently re-read the book as well and some of the dialogue is just spot on. Reading the scene near the end where Rochester questions Jane about what St John was like I noticed their words were exactly reproduced on screen by Dalton and Clarke and done perfectly. <br /><br />All the other productions that have been done all seem lacking in some way, some even leave out the "Rivers" family and their connection to Jane altogether. I also think this is the only production to include the "Gypsy" scene done correctly.<br /><br />The casting is perfect, Zelah Clarke is like Jane is described in the book "small plain and dark" and I disagree that she looked too old. Timothy Dalton may be a little too handsome but he is absolutely perfect as Rochester, portraying every aspect of his character just right and acting his socks off! I agree with other comment that he even appears quite scary at time, like in the scene when he turns around slowly at the church when the wedding is interrupted, his expression is fantastically frightening. But then in another favourite scene his joy is wonderful to see when Jane runs down the stairs and into his arms the morning after they declare their love for one another. A love that is wonderfully portrayed and totally believable. Oh to be loved by a man like that! There were a couple of scenes that were strangely missing however, like when Jane climbs in to bed with the dying Helen and also when Rochester takes Jane shopping for her wedding things (I thought that one was in it but maybe my memory is playing tricks).<br /><br />Finally if you never see another production of Jane Eyre - you simply most see this one it is simply perfection! | 1 |
When my now college age daughter was in preschool, this miniseries appeared on A&E from 8-9 each morning. My neighbor and I made a pact that we wouldn't miss a minute of Jane Eyre and our kids were late for preschool every morning for the whole week. Good choice.<br /><br />I'd forgotten how much I loved this movie until I got out my old VHS copy recently. Timothy Dalton is very handsome, but still perfect as Rochester. The dark, craggy face, the imperious demeanor tempered with humor and tenderness were straight from the pages of the book. Although Dalton eats a little scenery, I couldn't sit through an adaptation starring wimpy William Hurt or grumpy Ciaran Hinds. The magic here is that women love Dalton and get caught up in the romance.<br /><br />I would love to know what's become of Zelah Clarke. She is dead on as Jane, quiet, formal, saying volumes with but a look. The sparkle in her eyes gives viewers a glimpse of the strength and spirited nature that helped Jane survive the mistreatment she endured in youth. Criticism of her performance as "wooden" is misplaced. A servant in a proper English household would have maintained just such a demeanor, but she speaks passionately when overcome with emotion. Unlike many other screen Janes, she appears plain enough to be Jane yet pretty enough to allow the audience to buy Rochester's attraction to her.<br /><br />Bronte's dialog is a large part of why the book endures the script keeps much of it intact. Dalton and Clarke capture the interplay between Jane and Rochester with wit and quiet intensity. Although Jane appears as plain and sweet as vanilla custard, she refuses to be cowed by the dark, blustery Rochester. The two leads play off each other beautifully. <br /><br />This is the most perfect adaptation of the best romance novel ever. | 1 |
Though I did not begin to read the "Classics" in literature until I was 47, it's never too late. Jane Eyre is a favorite for many reasons, mainly because there isn't a part of the book I liked less, only parts I enjoyed more. The 1983 TV mini-series with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton was everything I hoped it would be. I saw it as a full length movie in 2006. Dalton's 'Mr. Rochester' was very good but I absolutely loved Zelah's 'Jane Eyre'. Relecting on another 'Classics' movie I saw recently, I was disappointed in the production, direction and dialogue. It was only faithful to the avarice and arrogance of Hollywood. Artistic license to the great works in literature is nothing short of plagiarism. Using the title after such license is fraud. Leave it to the Brits to get this one right (among others). You won't be able to reread the book without reliving the movie with it's proper context and spirit. Well done BBC. | 1 |
The 1983 BBC production of "Jane Eyre" starring Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton (LOVE HIM) has always been and will always be my favorite Jane Eyre. If you watch any other version of Jane Eyre without reading the book, it will be like watching some regular movie which you will forget the next day. But watching this one almost equals to reading the book. I used to watch these miniseries a lot when I was little, and they inspired me to read the book. At the time I didn't pay attention to how close this television production was to the book. Recently, I watched the 1996 version of Jane Eyre and was very disappointed. It was only 2 hours long and didn't have many important scenes from the book (such as my favorite gypsy scene). After that I fell in love with This "Jane Eyre" even more because it includes all the important scenes of the book and it just tells the whole story( the other versions don't, if you haven't read the book). <br /><br />The cast of 1983 Jane Eyre is excellent. It's true that Timothy Dalton is a very handsome actor (handsome enough to play Butler in "Scarlet", and Julius Caesar), but he is so great as Rochester that I can't imagine anybody else playing this role. And Zelah Clarke is, without a doubt, the only Jane that follows the description of the book. The other thing that makes this film so great is the clothes and the makeup of the actors. Jane looks so modest and naive, just as Bronte describes her (although she doesn't look 18, but do you actually pay attention to that?...) <br /><br />Some people say that this "Jane Eyre" is too long, but I would rather spend my whole day watching it than spend 2 hours watching some other version. Some say the movie is dull and boring because Jane is not passionate enough, or because there are not enough "kissing scenes". I hate when they make Jane Eyre some "Hollywood movie" with inappropriate kissing scenes. You don't have to include "crazy, madly in love" scenes to show the love between Jane and Rochester. And both Zelah and Timothy express this love so perfectly that there are no other scenes needed!! I am 19 years old, and many girls of my age refer to this film as "boring and old-fashioned". But I can only feel sorry for them because they don't appreciate the purity and beauty of it. After all, the novel is set in 19th century, and that old-fashioned look makes it more attractive and more like the book. <br /><br />I don't think there will ever be any other version of Jane Ayre that will have the popularity and love of this one. No matter who plays Jane and Rochester in other movies, the real Jane and Rochester (for me at least) will always be Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton! | 1 |
In all the comments praising or damning Dalton's performance, I thought he was excellent. He does not play Rochester as a spoiled pretty rich boy, but as a roguish, powerful man. I liked this version, although the shot on video aspect was sometimes distracting, and the scenes with Jane and St. John never quite gelled. I give this an 8. | 1 |
Playing a character from a literary classic can be a bit of a poisoned chalice for an actor, paying for the pleasure of a meaty character by competing with the fantasies of generations of readers not to mention the numerous other actors who've besieged the castle before. Fortunately for the fantasists, this version with the nicely cast Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton stands head and shoulders above versions that have come after it. It's the right length to do the story full justice, and makes considerable use of Bronte's cracking dialogue; none of that modern meddling away, cutting text and adding new and inferior scenes.<br /><br />The magic of the original story lies in the tensions created between the central characters, and the lives circumstances create for them to lead. Jane "poor, plain and little" grows up on the stinting charity of a cold aunt, her nature and independence shaped by a long spell in a very harsh school. She arrives as a governess in the household of Mr Rochester, utterly friendless and alone. She represses herself habitually out of duty and hard experience, but her passionate nature soon finds its touch-paper in her stern, keenly intelligent, enigmatic master, to whom she is drawn, as he is to her, by forces beyond their control. Rochester is the caged tiger, busy "paving hell with energy"; potentially dangerous to all who come into contact with him but "pervious, through a chink or two". His character is extraordinary: he takes extraordinary liberties with a paid subordinate; but then Jane is no ordinary employee, as he sees. But a dark secret, and severe trials, lie before them both.<br /><br />It's a pleasure to hear Bronte's remarkable dialogue spoken by such accomplished actors Dalton in particular seems formed for passion on a Brontean scale. If you've only ever seen him as a not-so-memorable Bond, you've missed the thing he's best at. Those who've commented that his Rochester is too handsome, miss the point of these dramatisations: his character has simply too much screen time for a really ugly man to retain the viewer's attention. Timothy Dalton is just right, not always or consistently handsome, but often glancingly, strikingly so, just as it should be. And Zelah Clarke's Jane is no wallflower; she conveys the emotions of a woman who habitually represses her sense of humour and her passionate nature very successfully, allowing her rare outbursts to show to more dramatic effect.<br /><br />Not so long ago the BBC aired an excellent dramatisation of Jean Rhys' enlightened and most unsettling riposte to Bronte, "Wide Sargasso Sea", imagining the back-story of the first Mrs Rochester. Do check it out you'll never see the 'hero' of "Jane Eyre" in quite the same way again. | 1 |
Last night I finished re-watching "Jane Eyre" (1983), the BBC mini-series adapted from Charlotte Bronte's Gothic romance novel which is deservingly a classic of English literature with Timothy Dalton (my favorite James Bond) as Mr. Edward Rochester and Zelah Clarke, as Jane Eyre, a poor orphaned 18-year-old girl, a governess at Mr. Rochester's estate, Thornfield. "Jane Eyre" has been one of my most beloved books since I was an 11-years-old girl and the friend of mine gave it to me with the words, "This book is amazing" and so it was and I have read it dozens of times and I am still not tired of it. Its beautiful language, refined, fragrant, and surprisingly fresh, the dialogs, and above all, two main characters, and the story of their impossible love have attracted many filmmakers. "Jane Eyre" has been adapted to TV and big screen many times, 18 according to IMDb. The actors as famous and marvelous as Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles, William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg, George C. Scott and Susannah York, Ciarán Hinds and Samantha Morton have played the couple that had overcome hundreds of obstacles made by society, laws, religion, by the differences in age, backgrounds, experiences, and by the fateful mistakes that would hunt one for many years. Of all these films I've only seen one, 300 minutes long BBC version from 1983 that follows the novel closely and where Timothy Dalton who frequently plays dark, brooding characters did not just play Edward Rochester brilliantly and with class, he WAS Mr. Rochester - sardonic, vibrant, the force of nature, powerful, passionate, sexy, and tormented master of Thornfield. Zelah Clarke was also convincing as sweet, gentle, intelligent and strong Jane who feels deeply and is full of passion mixed with clear reasoning, and quiet but firm willpower.<br /><br />Added on September 17, 2007: During the last two weeks, I've seen five "Jane Eyre" movies and it was a wonderful experience. There is something to admire in every adaptation of "Jane Eyre" even if not all of them are completely successful. This version is still my favorite "Jane Eyre" film. | 1 |
Jane Eyre has always been my favorite novel! When I stumbled upon this movie version in the late 90's I was ecstatic! This is the best and most complete version of the book on film! This version is a little long to sit through in one sitting but well worth it. Timothy Dalton is amazing as Rochester. I was glad that they cast a normal looking actress (Zelah Clark) as Jane and not a glamorous person. I love the sets and the location. For anyone who is a true Jane Eyre fan, this is the version to watch!!! For those of you who are interested, I just found this version on DVD. I have watched my VHS copy almost to breaking so I was thrilled to find it on DVD. | 1 |
I think this movie had to be fun to make it, for us it was fun to watch it. The actors look like they have a fun time. My girlfriends like the boy actors and my boyfriends like the girl actors. Not very much do we get to have crazy fun with a movie that is horror make. I see a lot of scary movies and i would watch this one all together once more, or more because we laugh together. If this actors make other scary movies i will watch them. The grander mad man thats chase to kill the actors is very much a good bad man. He make us laugh together the most. i would give this movie a high score if you ask me.<br /><br />I don't know if the market has any more of the movies with the actors, but the main boy is cute. the actor with the grand chest has to be not real. they doesn't look to real. | 1 |
Who ever came up with story is one sick person. I rented it for our slumber party sleepover and all six of us got freaked out cause we're all in an acting class together, and we know a couple of the actors from class. Besides everybody screaming the whole freaky night, I had freaky nightmares. I kept thinking oh my God, if I get up to go to the bathroom to pee I'm going to be stabbed in the middle of wiping or something. I couldn't even go to the bathroom because we watched this gruesome horror movie. I also thought why are all the girls topless in this movie but we don't any of the boys units? You should make a horror film where the killer is a girl and chopping off units. I would watch that over and over. Call it hard or soft or something stupid like that. I'm only giving this movie a 9 because you FREAKED ME OUT FREAKS. | 1 |
Very good except for the ending which was a huge disappointment.<br /><br />The script was very good as was the acting. The visuals were often very grainy but this in a way added to the film as the snowy features were in good places that helped create a mood towards the film. This affect was ruined by the extremely unbelievable ending. <br /><br />I was going to give this film an 8 out of ten but the ending knocked it down a point to 7 because it seemed to depart radically from the first 75 minutes of the movie and seemed quite forced at the end to make the film makers look clever. <br /><br />This movie though was much better than films with quite a lot larger budgets and seemed to be filmed like a home movie with some extra equipment. Not much in the way of special effects as these go but for suspense it was very good. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.