Reviews

There have been many excellent comments about this movie and I want to add my voice to the praise. Yul Brynner has never been more powerfully attractive. His Major Surov was riveting. Your eyes just cannot leave the screen when he's on it. This is his movie. This is not to slight the rest of the cast which was also exemplary, especially Deborah Kerr and Anne Jackson. As they were mostly stage actors, they brought many nuances to their performances. For example, I have seen this movie at least 4 times, but this is the first time I noticed the reaction of the German girl when she came face-to-face with a Russian soldier. Even though he was not threatening, her absolutely hysterical reaction made me realize that she must have been in Germany after WWII and was most likely gang-raped by the Red Army. The possibility of discovering deeper layers of story that may lie just beneath the surface makes me want to see this fascinating film again and again. Please put it on DVD.

Would it have killed them to take a little bit of the money they set aside for computer generated images to pay a writer or two for a decent script? With a magnificent country like Australia there must be an almost endless supply of great plot ideas. Instead, they created an inedible soup of clichés that proved to be a very unsatisfying meal. How about a little character development? For example, why was Fletcher such a one-dimensional bastard and why would the cattle baron's daughter, who seemed to be a decent human being (although if you blinked, you missed this entire plot point), ever marry him? The movie had no flow and seemed to be edited using a meat ax, and the less said about the acting the better, although I blame the director more than the actors. Australia certainly looked nice, but if you're going to name a film after an entire continent, you should try a little harder to make it a better movie.

With the addition of In Plain Sight, it's official...the summer cable shows like The Closer, Saving Grace, Burn Notice and Damages are so much better than anything the major networks have to offer during the "regular" season. Love the chemistry between Mary and Marshall. Love the quick quips and the realistic dialog. And the addition of a fine looking black detective with the unlikely name of Dershowitz for Mary to butt heads and crack wise with is pure gold.

I do agree that the mother and sister are best in small doses, but they do provide a nice slightly off-balance counterpoint to the thoroughly professional handle Mary has on her work life. One line describes the relationship beautifully: in replying to her n'er-do-well sister's question about why Mary won't just get rid of her defective car, she says "because, like my family, I love it a little more than I want to kill it." The people she's protecting have been getting better and better with each successive show. The most recent, David Foley, was a real hoot as an assassin's middleman.

All in all, I don't care if it's not exactly as law enforcement would do it. I'm not looking for authenticity in a summer show. I'm looking for fun, and In Plain Sight has it in spades.

I must say, I was reluctant to view this film. I have been a big fan of Kate Winslet's work, but Jim Carrey...not so much. All right, I hate his movies, but not anymore. To me he's a revelation in this movie. Sensitive, complex, emotive and a true match to Kate Winslet's considerable talent. This film is basically a romance, but with an intellectual twist so rare in this era of throw-away relationships. This film dares to suppose that some relationships aren't and shouldn't be so easily discarded. The idea is wonderful, the script intelligent and romantic (with a nice little subplot involving the technicians) and the execution picture perfect. I urge anyone out there like me who has been purposely avoiding Jim Carrey's work to try this one. It's so good, you can almost forget Ace Ventura...almost.

I went into this movie expecting a laugh riot or at the very least, a few naughty chuckles. Billed as a raunchy comedy made for adults, what I got was mostly mildly amusing and sometimes downright boring. So many of the jokes went nowhere (see the "call me Kitty-cat" bit...too bad because it had potential). And what a waste of Jane Seymour. If you are going to cast a "straight" actress in a comedy role, take a page from "Airplane" and give her something hilariously over the top. As for Christopher Walken, again, if you're going to cast him, use him properly by taking advantage of his "just-this-side-of-a-psycho" persona. I don't blame the leads, Vince Vaughan and Owen Wilson have a nice chemistry but they need to showcase it in a movie with a better script.

I find it difficult to believe that some reviewers' negative reactions to this film are based on their (misguided) beliefs that none of this could possibly have happened. Comments like these make it crystal clear that what some people don't know about history is appalling. If you are going to judge a film based on historical fact, it helps if you know what it is.

It is well-documented what amazing technical feats the POW's were able to accomplish in the stalags. There was even an entire section of the British Secret Service dedicated to coming up with all sorts of clever ways to send these captured men the tools they needed to facilitate their escape attempts, i.e., sandwiching maps between the split sides of a record album (yes, the Germans allowed the prisoners to have records in the camps) or compasses in pens. At Colditz Castle, one of the more forbidding stalags, (actually an offlag since is was for officers only), many, many tunnels were dug and disguises created. One man actually created a German sergeant's uniform totally from scratch, donned a moustache and created an overall impersonation so realistic, it fooled two out of three sets of sentries. Some of the POW's built and concealed an entire glider that would have carried two men off the roof and over the wall! The only reason it didn't fly was because the prison was liberated before they got the chance! The Colditz experience is well documented. There are many books written about that particular prison complete with photographs, including one by a German officer confirming these amazing escapes and attempts. The reviewers who doubt what can be done when necessity is truly the mother of invention should look for them and learn something.

As for the prisoners not being in jumpsuits, as suggested by one reviewer as one reason to question the authenticity of the film? Ludicrous, POW's wore what they were captured in. The German military (different from the Gestapo and the SS) considered them soldiers and allowed them to keep their badges of rank.

As for the film itself, it is long, but absorbing. There are historical flaws (as there are in all movies), but several of the former POW's participated in the filming process, keeping it, for the most part, very authentic. As for the emphasis on Americans, it's true they were not among the escapees per se, but several did assist in the effort before they were transferred out, as mentioned by a previous reviewer. However, you must remember that the movie was made for an American audience in 1963, long before international distribution revenue became so important to a studio's bottom line. They needed American stars who would appeal to an American audience. Who knows, perhaps if they were to remake it today, the cast would be all British and German, but I doubt it (see "Hart's War" where not only the plot, but all the British and Canadian characters that were in the book, disappeared).

All in all, "The Great Escape" is an entertaining movie telling a fascinating story of what ordinary men can achieve in adverse circumstances. It's well worth the time.

Oh boo-hoo. Vivi's boyfriend was killed in the war so she married some poor sap that she could push around, crawled into a bottle (booze, then pills, then back to booze when the pills didn't work out) all the while blaming her children and The Sap for her unfilled life. Then she had the nerve to be upset when her emotionally scarred daughter told the world that she remembered Mama and that it wasn't fondly. Mama's ticked so her little band of acolytes/enablers (all alcoholics to a woman), kidnaps Sidda to prove to her that Mama's not so bad. Yeah, maybe if you're viewing her through the bottom of a glass she's not. The worst part of this movie is that Mama gets away with it! She wraps her daughter in Southern charm and eccentricity and all is forgiven. Fade to black.

This is the first movie I ever wanted to walk out of, and almost did during the scene where she was beating her children bloody with a leather belt. The movie hints that Vivi's mother made her life a living hell when she was a child. Too bad she didn't remember any of those feelings before she started inflicting similar pain on her own children. But then again, it's obvious that Vivi's are the only feelings that matter to Vivi. Did anyone else notice that none of her three children lived anywhere near her in her golden years?

The cast is loaded with great actresses, all who have been fine in other work, and James Garner makes a nice doormat. I confess I didn't read the book(s) nor do I want to after this. The director does try to take some of the edge off by inserting little manipulative bits of warmth and caring into the movie at various points so that the audience won't think Vivi's a total monster, but it's way too little too late. The movie ends up being too bitter a pill for the intelligent viewer to swallow.

And a note to Maggie Smith, recently so good in Gosford Park: add American Southerner to your "never-again" list. Vivien Leigh could handle the accent, you can't. What were you thinking? And along those lines, what was the studio advertising department thinking when they promoted this as a comedy???

A breezy, light-hearted and, dare I say, humorous World War II movie very much reflecting the sensibilities of the late 60's. Oliver Reed is Lance Corporal Brooks, the perfect antihero with very little respect for authority, even when the authority is SS Colonel von Haller played with a certain roguish charm by Wolfgang Preiss. As a captured British soldier, Brooks willingly volunteers to work in the Munich Zoo where he becomes the caretaker for an elephant named Lucy. The zoo is bombed and he is charged with taking Lucy to safety. Thwarted by von Haller in his attempt to get her there by rail, Brooks and his escort (two guards and a female cook) undertake the journey on foot. Circumstances arise that lead to the decision to attempt an escape over the Alps to Switzerland, and because Brooks has grown so attached to her, leaving Lucy behind is not an option. As you can imagine, trying to escape Nazi Germany with an elephant in tow makes for some interesting situations.

This is not high art, but the story is good, and there's a nice little twist, too. The cast is universally good and you can tell the actors are having a good time. Joining Reed and Preiss is an elfin Michael J. Pollard as a fellow POW turned goofy guerilla. Peter Carsten and Helmut Lohner are Brooks' German guards and Karin Baal is the cook who, with a very 60's sensibility, explains to Brooks why she made what might not have been such an obvious choice in the 1940's.

All in all Hannibal Brooks is a highly entertaining film. If only this movie were on DVD, or even video for that matter.

As a teenager, occasionally I read books which were set in India (i.e., the Far Pavilions). I watched "The Jewel in the Crown" from beginning to end, and after that "A Passage to India", "Heat and Dust" and others. All different films but with one thing in common; all from the British/Colonial/white point of view.

Expanding my horizons to the Indian experience outside of India, I sought out films like "My Beautiful Launderette" and "Mississippi Masala". I had also seen a couple of Indian independent films, like "Salaam Bombay" and "Kama Sutra", but I had never seen a full-out Bollywood production before. I added "Lagaan" to my Netflix queue based, in part, on an Oscar nomination and on a favorable essay about the film on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered".

In the time between placing it in the queue and actually getting the film, I saw "Ghost World" where, in one scene, Enid was watching a clip from a Hindi musical, which to my WASP ears, sounded like Chinese opera on speed. And then on top of that, I found out that "Lagaan" was over 3 ½ hours long! The DVD arrived and I thought seriously about returning it unviewed, but I didn't, and I'm glad I didn't. IT WAS WONDERFUL. Engaging, uplifting and best of all, entertaining, and it passed the "butt" test (I didn't feel the need to squirm not once during the entire running time). And it didn't hurt that the star, Aamir Khan is a major babe.

All in all, a great film for the whole family with valuable lessons in tolerance, integrity and cooperation surrounded by an entertaining movie.

Totally engrossing. As someone who is way beyond MTV's prime demographic (being firmly ensconced in the 35+ demo), I should be ashamed of myself for loving this show so much. It's one of the best 1/2 hours on TV. Ozzy is a total burnout who just also happens to have enough brain cells left be a loving husband and father. Sharon has enough brains for the both of them and you can see that she and Ozzy truly love each other and their kids. The kids are teenagers, albeit ones who grew up on a tour bus and take the occasional private jet now and again. All in all a typical family of four...four-letters that it. And that's part of the beauty of it. They deal with real family life in surreal circumstances. These are good people who happen to be "f**king mad" and the result is total entertainment. I wouldn't want to be a member of the family, but I'd certainly like to be one of the neighbors, and I promise I'll keep the music down.

All of the elements essential to a great film are here: an engrossing plot fully realized in a well-written script, a fine cast chosen for their acting abilities instead of their star power (although as it happened, Burt Lancaster had both), and exceptional direction by John Frankenheimer who knew exactly what he wanted to achieve and did it beautifully. It's a WWII action film (spectacular train wrecks using real trains, bombs, bullets etc.) that raises some interesting questions. Questions like, just what is it that defines a country's national heritage? Is it the art hanging in its museums or is it the spirit and determination of the people who will be asked to sacrifice their lives to protect it? For Labiche (Burt Lancaster), the railroad yard master and weary leader of the ever dwindling Resistance cell that is asked to prevent the train from reaching Germany, the choice is easy at first. A trainload of Renoirs, Cezannes, Lautrecs, Monets and other "degenerate" artworks isn't worth sacrificing even one life for especially when, after fighting for so many years, the Allies are just days away from liberating Paris. Then, it becomes personal, and what ensues is a life-and-death struggle between two equally matched opponents, each determined to prevail. Labiche's adversary is Col. von Waldheim (Paul Scofield) who at first seems to be a cultured man with a deep appreciation for fine art, but who is quickly revealed as someone obsessed by it and who is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to possess it. This brings him into direct conflict with Labiche, and over time, the depth of the enmity he feels for Labiche so begins to overtake his reason that at one point a fellow German officer confronts him with a choice that proves somewhat difficult for him to make, "Labiche or the train, which do you want?". The acting is first rate. Burt Lancaster at 50 exhibits his physical grace as well as his considerable acting skills and Paul Scofield's white-hot intensity leaps off the screen. The other cast members were equally outstanding: Jeanne Moreau, strong in a small role as a pragmatic hotel proprietress, a widow who has had to comfort too many other widows; Wolfgang Preiss, another excellent performance by this fine character actor, as Maj. Herren, who recognizes and objects to the foolishness of von Waldheim's obsession but as a "good officer" is dutiful right up to the point where he can obey no longer, and Michel Simon in a pivotal role as Papa Boule, the old engineer, who decides that he is going to save the "glory of France", not because he's ever seen it, and not because he ever will, but because he has fond memories of once dating a girl who modeled for Renoir. Viewers should also take note of the first-rate technical aspects of this film; of Frankenheimer's camera angles and focusing techniques, the gritty feel of the settings and how the people are dwarfed by the enormous engines. This movie is for everyone who really loves all aspects of a good movie. See it on DVD if you can. The striking black and white photography is vibrant. And don't miss John Frankenheimer's commentary track. All in all a truly enjoyable experience, even if you think you don't like WWII movies.

There is not much that I can add to the praise that has been heaped upon this film by other reviewers. A wonderfully literate script acted to the hilt by real actors. It's a film that, anyone viewing "The Monster that Ate Hollywood" on PBS's Frontline (November 22, 2001) would sadly realize, would never be made today.

I would like to comment regarding Katherine Hepburn's age for the part. In reality, when Henry II was 50 (as is mentioned often in the film), Eleanor of Aquitaine would have been 61, which was exactly how old Katherine Hepburn was when she played the role. She was perfect. It was Peter O'Toole, at 36, who wasn't age appropriate, but then who cares, he was magnificent and together they were perfection.

I first saw this many years ago as a child and was so engrossed in the time period that it began a lifelong interest in the history and personalities of WWII. I'm so glad AMC has brought it back so that other people can discover that there were some really fine movies made in the '60s. Would love to have this one on DVD. Great story, superb acting, not just from William Holden and Lili Palmer, but also the entire supporting European cast. Once again a great, albeit small, performance from Wolfgang Preiss (Colonel Nordoff) who has never given a bad performance that I've seen (although some of his movies have been questionable, he never is). The script is a standout, especially the thoughtful treatment of how a person of conscience lives with the knowledge that her actions cause the death of innocents as well as the evil. Nothing is black and white in this movie. And for once, the Germans are not all monsters. A truly absorbing tale, one that can be enjoyed more than once. Some of today's screenwriters should take notes. And producers today should have the courage to spend less on special effects and more on a special story. The recent "Enemy at the Gates" is a movie that could have been so much better with a better script.

People who like gripping stories and great acting in a WWII setting should definitely see John Frankenheimer's "The Train" with Burt Lancaster and Paul Scofield...another outstanding and thought-provoking movie. We need more like these.