Collecting Movie Reviews

Making my comparison to Milan Kundera's book, I have to rate this movie fairly low. I don't believe Kaufman was able to capture the essence of Kundera's writing with this film representation. So much of Kundera's writing is internal to the characters, which is difficult (at best) to communicate on screen. Unfortunately, this is the richest part of the experience; I recommend the book, but found the movie decidedly unsatisfying.

"The movie is never as good as the book"- how many times have we read or heard this phrase? True, it is almost impossible to find a movie that resembles so much to the book in every detail and in addition is able to promote and bring the same feelings, ideas and messages. However, in this case the movie follows the greatness of the book and I am finally able to say that. The lines that are drawn in the book which captures different angles of the character's life, are very well interpreted and portrayed in the movie. It is a very long movie, but there is always a reason behind it. It is impossible to understand the message of the book, without capturing every story, analyzing it and break it down into details. I don't know much of Philip Kauffman's career, but I have read the book and I have seen the movie many times, and I can assure you that the movie has achieved it's goal. Daniel Day-Louis is superb because he has portrayed its character-Tomaz so unbelievebly well. Tomaz, the famous and respected neurosurgeoun which is part of the high intellectual class in Prague, ends up becoming a janitor cleaning windows and later on a farmer. This is how light life is, our exsitence as human beings. Is it for love, due to political circumstances at the time or just living reality to the fullest? And realizing how light our life is, we try in any way to make it more meaningful without realizing that it can be so, only if we want it to be so. Juliette Binoche(French) and Lena Olin(Swedish) are incredible and amazing. The characters are terribly hard to interpret, yet they reached the character's uniqueness and gave a great performance. It is a movie on life and how we live it. A great movie with a special European Cinema touch. If you have never seen the movie, please do watch it because you are missing a good lesson on life understanding. I assure you that you will be fulfilled and maybe ready to start reading the book right after watching the movie.

This movie adaptation of Miles Kundera's book, which I haven't read yet, is a lengthy and illuminating study on freedom versus captivity, strength versus weakness as seen in the interractions between a handsome womanizing surgeon, Tomas, his lover and the woman who understands him most, the artist Sabena, and a Tereza, bright young waitress Tomas meets after performing an operation at a spa-town. Tereza shows up in Prague and unlike his character, they get married, complete with a piglet wearing a necktie whose squeals cause them to giggle uncontrollably at the ceremony

The movie is set during the Prague Spring, that brief shining moment when a liberal communism under Alexander Dubcek's socialism with a human face, seems possible. To which Tomas mentions the ill-fated uprising in Hungary (1956). Tomas himself contrasts King Oedipus to the Soviet leaders. Oedipus couldn't bear the sight of what he had done to bring about the plagues in Thebes, so he plucked his own eyes out and left. The Soviet leaders though, were unlike Oedipus. Their defense at Stalin's crimes after his death was "We didn't know." Morality also changed since Oedipus. Tomas then says that the Soviet hardliners stayed in power when they should have plucked their eyes out. He writes an article to that effect, something that will cost him dearly later.

At one point, the table and glasses rumble as Tomas and Tereza are arguing. An earthquake? Tomas follows Tereza outside. The source of the tremor is then seen. Pushing its way aggressively down the alley towards them is the menacing shadow of a Soviet tank. Yes, it's 20 August 1968.

A great highlight is when the picture turns to b&w portion during the demonstration in Wencesclas Square, soldiers atop tanks, people climbing on top of them, chants of "Dubcek" and "svoboda", the fire of machine guns and people fleeing, bodies covered with Czech flags, with Tomas and Tereza in the thick of the action, marching, fleeing, or in Tereza's case, snapping pictures like mad. The scene ends dramatically with a Soviet soldier warning her, pointing his pistol at her through the lens.

Sabena, and later Tomas and Tereza flee for Geneva, but things don't work out. All three journey again, the latter two back to Czechoslovakia, where under the reinforced hardliners under the thumb of Leonid Brezhnev and Gustav Husak, their part in the uprising becomes a liability.

Sabena is compatible with Tomas's sex opposed to love. She asks him, "Are you only searching for pleasure or is every a woman a new hat whose secrets you want to discover?" She is sexually independent, strong-minded, and the mistress of her destiny. This is demonstrated when she meets Franz, a married lawyer, in Geneva. At a cafe, she comments on how music becomes noise, that even the plastic flowers are in a filled vase, and points to the building behind her as the "uglification of the world. The only place we can find beauty is where its persecutors have overlooked it. It's a planetary process, and I can't stand it." She becomes Franz's lover, but when he leaves his wife to be with her, she fears for her freedom, realizes she has left one cage behind only to become prey to a different one. But ultimately, freedom leads to another cage, that of loneliness, and the lack of happiness.

Tereza wants a monogamous relationship with Tomas, but finds esteem in doing something fulfilling, being a faithful wife who does her part. She can't adapt to Geneva so returns. In doing so, though, it's back to political captivity, back to a totalitarian regime, but at a lower status. If freedom/loneliness doesn't yield happiness, does that mean captivity and community yields it?

Yes, there is quite a bit of sex and nudity here, but nothing gratuitous or pornographic. It's more a tasteful erotica, i.e. the much ballyhooed scenes of Sabena and Tereza photographing each other. Sabena comes off as haunted, serene, grave, at times a twinkle of mischief in the photos.

Lena Olin gives the strongest performance here, exuding a strong, enigmatic, sensuous aura as the sexually independent Sabena. She would've been a strong candidate as an Oscar nominee. Praiase also to Juliette Binoche's sweet, shy, sensitive, loving Tereza, the role that boosted her to the spotlight. Daniel Day-Lewis's Tomas becomes more developed and human in the film's second half. One of those memorable movies that makes one think in depth.

If it is hard for you to picture the 1970s with 21st century hindsight, watch this movie. An Australian white teenage girl and her younger brother who find themselves lost in the desert are eventually saved by an Aboriginal youth who is journeying through the outback as part of his ritualistic passage to manhood. The film abounds with simplistic clichés of gender roles, primitive innocence, the clash of modern urban civilization with so-called traditional cultures, and pseudo nostalgic yearnings for a simpler existence. In the end, the trek through the harsh outback becomes reduced to little more than a vigorous summer vacation. None of this undermines this movie as a worthwhile period piece, but if you have not seen it before, it might strike you as quaintly dated. We meet David Gulpilil in his youth - he is the same aboriginal actor who stars as an aging Aboriginal tracker in the more recent 2003 Australian movie Rabbit Proof Fence (another movie I have also reviewed on this website).

My life has been unusual. I recommend this film for anyone who has been through an experience that they cannot fully (even if they want to) share with other people.
I thought that the last scene of the girl now grown up and washing dishes, was a perfect contrast to her life on the walkabout. Obviously, it struck a chord.

Wow- What a movie! After having viewed this film several times, I have come to the conclusion that it's probably one of the best films ever- I am a bit biased, though, because I'm a certifiable sucker for art that deals with the limitations of civilization when confronted with something more powerful (i.e. nature)- At any rate, I decided this was such a great movie when, five days after first seeing the movie, I was still thinking about some of the scenes, specifically the scene near the end w/ Agutter and the aborigine- Unlike some people I know, I don't find the film to be overwhelmingly pessimistic- I think the scenes in the middle, with the three of them swimming and whatnot, are really what the film is about: finding transcendence, and that the possibility of that still exists- One of my favorite aspects of "Walkabout" is that, in my opinion, it doesn't pander or overexplain, although it goes a little heavy on the ferocious greatness of nature shots, almost to the point of being didactic- But, thankfully, after finishing the film, I did not feel like I had been preached to for an hour and a half, as I did with some other supposedly "great" movies I've watched

On the surface, the prospect of listening to a live performance of Pygmalion, one which could be shared with my students, should be exciting. Absolutely not the case here. Shaw's script, unfortunately, is brutalized by the flagrant omission of many of his lines. Listening to the play, with a recent copy of the play in hand, I was mortified when I realized I would not be able to use this performance. Too many lines cut. Be forewarned: this is an "abridged" version of the play.

Cockney flower girl Eliza Doolittle's life changes the night she meets arrogant professor of linguistics, Henry Higgins. Eliza wants Henry to teach her to speak more like a lady so she can get a nice job. Henry only decides to teach her after making a bet with his pal, Col. Pickering, that in six months he'll be able to pass Eliza off as a duchess.

If that plot seems familiar to you then you've seen the movie "My fair Lady" which is based on this book. I think it's pretty safe to say that if you liked that movie you'll like this book. This book's witty dialogue and cracks at England's social structure had me giggling out loud on more than a few occasions. Actually the whole book is a quick, fun read that I'd recommend to pretty much everyone.

Windy Hiller [Major Barbara (1941) ASIN: 6302969840] Plays a Cockney flower seller. Seeking a better position sees professor of linguistics about improving her speech. Professor Henry Higgins (Leslie Howard) bets that he can pass her off as a duchess in six months by adjusting her speech pattern. The Film is good however I am used to the later version "My Fair Lady" and I miss the music. This is a screen adaptation of a George Bernard Shaw play based on Greek mythology. This is a must for your collection.

I've read alot about this movie. In fact, I believe I read in Entertainment Weekly that it was one of the 10 scariest movies of all time. Plus, I'm a Cronenberg fan, so I decided to rent it and see what all the hype is about. Well, I'm still not sure what all the hype is about. #1)It's most certainly not a horror movie. #2)It makes NO sense at all. #3)It's not scary even in the slightest. I guess if I hadn't expected so much of it, I may have enjoyed it a bit better, but as it is, I can't say I'm too impressed.

When I first saw "Dead Ringers", I was about twelve years old. All I can say about that first viewing is that it really gave me shivers...years later (five days ago), I got the Criterion DVD by mail, which I ordered from Ebay. I watched it and was really disturbed. Then, I listened to the audio commentary by the director, David Cronenberg, which also directed pretty great films such as "Crash", "Naked Lunch", and "eXistenZ". The commentary itself is worth the DVD's price (even though it can be hard to find because it is out of print). It really helps understanding Cronenberg's vision of every scene, and believe me, he brings many nuances and psychological details, even though Jeremy Irons' acting is awesome and really eloquent and meaningful.

The film is about two twins, Elliott and Beverly (both played by the fantastic Jeremy Irons) who are gynecologists and discover that some women suffer from mutations in their uterus. Besides their work, these two twins are pretty much the same person...at least, on the outside (they live in the same apartment, they have the same job, they even share the same women!)...on the inside, it's different, and that's what we discover when the disturbing mind of Beverly unfolds before our eyes and hearts.

Cronenberg is ambitious. Like he said, most of the films that feature twins are comedies or thrillers in which one of the twins is good and fights his evil brother. He takes a very different approach and focuses on the complexes and psychological flaws that having a twin could create. Personally, if I had a twin and saw this film, it would completely change my life. This film goes deep. From the introduction where you see them when they're just young boys to the heartbreaking and disturbing ending, you see Elliott, the one that gets the honors, the one that had a lot of women in his life, the one that manipulates people, the one that is strong, briefly said. In the other hand, you've got Beverly, the drug addict, the one that gets his first real relationship, the one that somehow follows his brother, without ever being "number one". Cronenberg exploits this complex trouble and analyzes the competition that can occur between twins, the incredibly fundamental union between the two brothers. Also, Cronenberg shows us Beverly turning completely insane, and explores the very deep faces of his deranged mind.

Cronenberg is a good director, saying the opposite would be a lie. This film probably isn't considered his best, but in my opinion, it is, or at least, it is equal to his best films. His directing is creepy and moody, while not very slow-paced. He really delivers a disturbing and terrifying film, with such a deep exploration of the mind.

The acting is exceptional, especially from Jeremy Irons. I mean, these roles were not easy at all, and he plays two at the same time...in many scenes he has to talk to himself, and he uses completely different and appropriate facial expressions and tones for every line one of the twins says, without ever exaggerating. When I was twelve, I didn't know this actor, and I would have never been able to tell you there was only one actor playing these two. Genevieve Bujold is good, not perfect, but good enough. But Irons is really a great actor.

Many sequences of this film are haunting, especially the dream sequence, which is obviously very symbolic, but also very intense. The whole scenes in which Beverly falls into insanity are handled with genius by Cronenberg and Irons. Also, the scene where Elliott dances with his girlfriend and invites his brother to dance with them. It shows how influential and "seductive" Elliott is to his twin. The music is haunting too. It is beautiful and scary and really fits with the atmosphere of the film.

Overall, Cronenberg made a beautiful yet extremely disturbing study of the twins phenomenon and the psychological impact on them. Also, he put in images the idea he has about the link between them. With Irons as the twins, he made a very good film, that I would describe as touching, disturbing, haunting, beautiful, complex, deep, psychological, and finally, great.

(Note: The last image of this film is the one that stunned me the most in my whole life, it really is POWERFUL!!!)

I just seen this film and am very impressed with dark and perverted look it has. As someone else once said about the film's plot that Croneneberg is sort of fooling with the viewer making them think they are watching a horror but instead just a straight but wierd drama. There is the stomach eating scene and the scene in the end which I will not mention but that is it in the blood and guts area. The one scene that fooled me for days was the ending. If you ever get to watch this film you will truly be guessing at the end result. Again, the result of the trick that Cronenberg gives to the viewer. I found out what happens though but since it is the ending I cannot mention it at all. One more thing to mention is the acting of Jeremy Irons. After I watched this film I truly respect the man for he has opened my eyes to something I really never see much of and that is really, really, really good acting. If your looking for a dark movie with a perverted Cronenberg style and a absolutely amazing acting performance(s) than this is a DEFINITE and ESSENTIAL view for you!

Yes, it's a good film but why release it in a Superbit version? It is filmed in full sceen (4x3), in black & white, and with a mono (DTS yet) soundtrack. This film certainly rates a dvd release with extras and all but to do a Superbit version? It's a total waste of the technology.

This movie is mostly about soldiers stationed at an army base in Honolulu before World War II. Above all the film features superb acting performances and an absorbing screenplay.

FROM HERE TO ETERNITY won Academy Awards for Best Picture, Director (Fred Zimmerman), Screenplay, Supporting Actor (Frank Sinatra) and Supporting Actress (Donna Reed). In addition Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift and Deborah Kerr all received Oscar nominations for their acting in the movie.

Fred Zimmerman is known for his direction of many other fine films including A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, THE DAY OF THE JACKAL and OKLAHOMA.

First of all let me say that Montgomery Clift was phenominal in the role of Robert Prewitt, he was so good that it earned him an academy award nomination.
And this film is also superb for this time (as it seems that today some people don't even know how to make movies). There are so many classic moments such as Burt Lancasters and Debera Currs run through the beach (that's an obvious one), Montgomery Clifts bowing moment and his musical number in playing "Reenlistment Blues," as well as his knife fight with Fatso (making way for "Blackboard Jungle," "Rebel Without a Cause," and perhaps even "West Side Story").
You can see that the film is about walking the line or pay the price, and drama before Pearl Harbor. If you like love drama and action then don't miss the top 100 movies flick. (#52)

This collection is an uneven offering, meant only for the SUPERMAN completist. While it is common knowledge that the films themselves are of varying quality, you might wrongly assume that the mediocre sequels might at least be redeemed in this collection by tons of extra features.

They are not.

Indeed, SUPERMAN II-IV are little more than VHS transfers to DVD. It's bad enough that SUPERMAN III and IV offended the sensibilities of even the most casual SUPERMAN fan when they were released theatrically. Here, Warner Brothers only deepens the insult. It's not just that there are no extra features on II-IV; it's that the transfer itself is of a much inferior quality on the three sequels. Where SUPERMAN is a gloriously enhanced, remastered gem, SUPERMAN II-IV show their age to the point that you'll blieve SUPERMAN I was made AFTER its sequels.

Unless you really need the convenience of being able to surf to a specific scene in Superman IV, save yourself some money. Get only the Special Edition of SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE. Leave the other sequels to a nostalgic trip through your VHS collection.

This is the greatest thing to have if you're a Superman fan.
These Four Movies:
Superman-The Movie
Superman II (2)
Superman III (3)
and
Superman IV- (4) The Quest For Peace

star the most talented actors and actresses I know.
From Superman/Clark Kent played by Christopher Reeve to Lois Lane played by Margot Kidder these are unforgettable performences.

I would recommend them in this order.(stars in {})

Superman-The Movie {5}
Superman II {4}
Superman IV-The Quest For Peace {4}
Superman III (2)

Enjoy!

If you are looking for the appeal of owning the box set of Superman, then please go to a store to buy it. The box I got came all beat up even though the packing for the shipping was in perfect condition. So now my silver box has wrinkles and crush marks on the corners. If I had bought this in the store I would have been able to pick a box without any scratches or crush areas. That's my only regret.

Dustin Hoffman is a living legend. You can read any of the other excellent reviews here to get a good idea of what the movie is about, so instead I'm going to give you 'the truth as I see it' about why you should see this movie.
Obviously, Dustin Hoffman plays the role of David wonderfully. Susan George does a good job, although it would have been nice for this intended town hottie to have a pretty smile along with her pretty physique. But I guess that's the catch 22 in selecting a British cast, especially from that day and age.
The controversial rape scene in this movie, is almost paralyzingly disturbing. (Yes, paralyzingly...I don't care if it's not a word.) It's disgusting really. It was also very confusing for me, because of the fact that she was saying no, but the viewer actually does get the impression that she doesn't mean no. She kisses her 'rapist' and pulls him closer, and she invites him in in the first place, and then tells him not to leave. A very awkward occurrence. When the second guy rapes her, we understand clearly that she does not want him, but still she seems to have some strange bond with the first guy (apparently and ex-boyfriend or something) as they have a sort of strangely mutually understanding chemistry throughout the movie. This was one of the most disturbing scenes in any movie I've seen recently. It doesn't help that all the while we get up close facial expressions from her, showing a sense of horror and disgust, but at the same time thrilling satisfaction.
Basically, she gives in very easily when there is any sense of punishment as a consequence of resistance. She is trapped in a kind of school-girl mentality, playing childish pranks and teasing the men by showing her breasts and underwear to them. I'm guessing this is related to the way she was treated when she was that age. David, on the other hand, is a controlled, maturing man, trying to focus on his work. He doesn't give in so easily, and although some have said that he plays the role of mouse time and time again until he finally emerges as a 'real man' in the end of the movie, I personally feel that he is not the timid guy everyone thinks him to be, but rather that circumstance does not allow him to show his manliness (for example, when his wife brings in the bowl of milk with the beers). He is more confused than anything because he doesn't believe there is any real reason to confront the hooligans, until the execution of Kitty.
Anyway, like a lot of other people I was very confused by the ending. The implications of David defending his house, his wife, his honor, and his sense of manhood by protecting a man that actually was guilty of murder (albeit accidental), raise a whole other topic of discussion.
The violence, with the exception of the rape scene, is pretty tame according to today's standards, but the psychological horror is in full throttle here. This is a thinker's horror/suspense (not horror in the conventional sense of the word) movie.
The laughter of the crazy hooligan was really annoying to me. I'm sure many people will disagree with my views on the movie, but I think it's important to look at the movie for what it IS, as well as what it means.
I'm definitely glad to have seen this movie, and would highly recommend it, but I don't believe I'll be adding it to my collection. I might see it again one day, but movies this disturbing and confusing aren't usually on my list of favorite flicks to cuddle up to late at night.

I really enjoyed this film. It was rich with symbolism (maturity, violence, sexual tension) and philosophy (the nature of aggression)... It's distant and powerful, a loud yet introspective film, like a drunk sitting at a bar, screaming about his problems. Watch for children (they're important), the looks on people's faces, animal references, and of course... his wife eventually wears a bra. This film is a western... set in a small UK town... try and look beyond it's obviously misogynistic shading and see it as the valuable cinematic achievement it is. Not a film to watch if you're looking to invest in characters personally though.

Straw Dogs is very loosely based on the book "Siege at Trenchors Farm". It is directed by Sam Pekinpah and it would be an understatement to say that this director is never shy to show a little blood in his movies. When this movie was released in 1971it is was critically acclaimed but also had its fair share of censorship problems. The movie was banned in the UK for almost 30 years afterwards and countless other countries cut it to ribbons before it could be shown on the screen or television.

Basically the story revolves around a quiet, shy, mathematician, David Summers played by Dustin Hoffman and his wife Amy played by Susan George, who move to the English countryside for some rest and relaxation in a house that belonged to her parents. They hire some men from the local village to help restore the house and some of these men have a past connection with Amy. They also display a talent for xenophobia and start to tease David and his wife. Back in the village Major John Scott a local policeman is having problems keeping some of the more rowdy villagers in their place. A simple man called Henry Niles, played by David Warner, is also taking an unhealthy interest in one of the village girls.

Basically the film is one big buildup to a siege at Davids home where he harbors a man who may have murdered someone in the town. He wants to turn him over to the justice officials but some of the town just want a lynch mob instead. David tries to overcome his cowardlines by making a final stand in his own home. The climax which lasts some twenty to thirty minutes is violent, graphic, bloody and shocking.

It is controversial because it contained a very realistic rape scene sequence for its time (1971), but this is not all that makes this film controversial. It also has scenes of child abuse, a few scenes with animal abuse (watch Hoffman smash an apple off the family cat), a blasphemous statement or two and an authority figure who gets the long end of a shotgun barrel. It is also very dogmatic showing a very brutal dumb countryside folk in stark contrast to David intelligent American. Even the local priest is treated as nothing more than a money grabber. All in all, this was enough for most censorship boards to be worried that the film may offend people and make no mistake about it - this is a very offensive film in very many ways.

Pekinpah wants us to be offended. He wants David to be offended. He wants to see how much we and our main protagonist can take before we finally break. Straw Dogs is one big boiling pot of hate and sooner or later it is going to exploded.... and it does.

Straw Dogs is a very original movie that makes a psychological impact. You have never seen anything like it before and you will probably never see anything like it again. Just do not buy into all the prejudice that is on display here. It is only just movie even though it seems all too real at times.

Powerful filmmaking.

I have mixed feelings about the three Bond DVD sets. I love all the Bond films and own them all on DVD but these sets are so expensive it seems a bit perposterous. In every other country in the world that sells DVDs you can buy the entire Bond 20 DVD series in one big bundle. In fact some bundles even include Never Say Never Again which isn't even an official Bond film. These 20 DVD sets are routnely sold for anywhere from $100 dollars to $180. I bought mine for around $100 with a little extra for shipping. So naturally if you can get your hands on the whole 20 DVD set you will still get the same great quality DVD films for a lot less money.

These are all great. But the only thing I do not understand, is why are they not in chronological order? ie: the first seven films in the Set #1, and so on. It makes no sense!

I am a die-hard Bond fan so of course I like every movie in this set! I'll tell you what I think of each individual film:

1. Dr. No (1962) Starring: Sean Connery, Ursula Andress, Joseph Wiseman. This is the film that started it all and even though it's not as fast-paced as the other Bond flicks, the storyline is great, taking directly from Ian Fleming's original novel!: ***1/2

2. Goldfinger (1964) Starring: Sean Connery, Honor Blackman, Gert Frobe. This is the most critically-acclaimed Bond film and is the one that most people have seen. I enjoy this film just as much as I did the first time every time I watch it!: ****1/2

3. The Man With the Golden Gun (1974) Starring: Roger Moore, Christopher Lee, Britt Ekland. This is the most underrated Bond film in my opinion. Scaramanga is by far the greatest villain in the series and the cat and mouse game between him and Bond is just superb!: ****1/2

4. The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) Starring: Roger Moore, Barbara Bach, Curt Jurgens. This is by far my favorite Bond film! The characters and plot are both amazing! Everytime I see this film I get this emotion that I don't get from any other Bond film; it's just that good!: *****

5. Licence to Kill (1989) Starring: Timothy Dalton, Carey Lowell, Robert Davi. Not too many people like Dalton's approach to Bond, but as a big fan of Ian Fleming's novels, I think he plays the part of Bond the closest to the way the character was originally intended. This is probably the most unique film in the series, since Bond is not working for England in this one!: ***

6. Goldeneye (1995) Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Sean Bean, Isabella Scorupco. By far Brosnan's best! When I first saw this movie, I was in awe, since I couldn't believe how great this film was! Brosnan is in top form as Bond and Trevelyan is one of the greatest Bond villains, since he was once one of his closest allies!: *****

7. Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Jonathon Pryce, Michelle Yeoh. This is the first Bond film I saw back on New Year's Day 1998, and after watching this incredible film,I became into the world of Bond! A great movie for first time Bond viewers to watch!: ***1/2

There are a lot of people who consider the late 1960s and early 1970s to be a great era in movie making, with such ground-breaking films as Bonnie and Clyde, the Godfather and Easy Rider leading the way. Billy Jack is proof that even during this era there were still lousy movies being made.

Esssentially, a counter-culture modern day western, the movie deals with the title character, a stoic war veteran who is half-Indian and lives a solitary life on a reservation, occasionally appearing to help the people of the Freedom School, an alternative sort of campus run by a teacher who Billy secretly loves. The local townspeople, led by the corrupt man who owns most of the town, are generally intolerant and fearful of these strange students, occasionally resorting to violence, at which time Billy Jack intervenes.

Even taking into consideration that this film is extremely dated, it has little to recommend it. The acting and writing are poor, the villains are one-dimensional (the remaining characters are hardly less so) and the fight scenes are infrequent and not all that exciting. There are long, boring scenes glorifying either the hippie or Indian lifestyle, which are not only tedious, but smugly self-righteous.

There are a couple minor good features in the film. The sheriff is the only character who is not a pure stereotype, so he is mildly interesting. Also, Howard Hesseman, uncredited in an early role does a decent enough job; it is little surprise that he's the only person to emerge from this film with any sort of successful acting career. I have a lot of praise for the ending, too: while it is ludicrous that the climatic scene would turn out the way it does, I still liked the ending, merely because it meant that this awful movie was over and I could go on to better things in my life.

I remember seeing this film three times (in an 800-seat theater, the sort that barely exist anymore) when it was re-released around 1973. It fired my 14-year-old imagination, notwithstanding the fact that I was never of a particularly liberal bent, and thus I couldn't resist buying the DVD recently when I found it ... It's an especially clunky piece of filmmaking, even by early-70s exploitation-film standards. Much as Francis Ford Coppola did with his daughter in The Godfather Part III, Tom Laughlin used this film as an excuse to get his wife and daughter on the big screen, and the production suffers mightily for it. I also have to laugh at the quaint notion of having a "school" for troubled young people, in which nary an academic subject is broached, but all are encouraged to "create" something, as if that were going to fit them for doing something useful with their adult lives.

However, the film retains just enough of an edge to remind me of the naively idealistic teenager I once was. Billy Jack was as much a superhero to my generation as was Superman and Batman, wiping out hordes of evil rednecks with a single roundhouse kick. The movie hasn't aged gracefully, but the feelings it evoked in me have mellowed nicely in my memory.

My husband is 10 years older than I, and saw the movie in elementary school with his mom. I had never heard of Billy Jack or Tom Laughlin before. I appreciate all the comments here for breaking open and examining each piece of the film's method and message. The woman who wrote about the racist depiction of Native American activism and spirituality had a good point. The person who said, hey, people loved it for the action and not the message (hence the bombing of the second movie) also had a good point. Although I found Laughlin worth watching, my own fondness was more about the message of the school and its teacher. Sure, it was wrapped in some overly sappy lines and placed in a school of overwhelming (read "nauseating") peace and love. However, the core message of refusing to toss out "bad kids," creating opportunities for learning through tapping into one's previously undiscovered creative interests, standing up to those who abuse their power and authority, and reexamining and discarding the race-rules about who we are supposed to hang out with---well, those messages are still worth listening to today.

Psychoanalysis is the framework of this thriller by the Master of Suspense. At Green Manors psychiatric clinic, Dr. Constance Petersen tries to help a man suffering from amnesia who claims he has killed Dr. Edwardes, the intended new director of the clinic. Petersen is charmed by this handsome man, whose initials might be J.B., and believing his innocence, even follows him to the Empire State Hotel in NY.

This is quite a change from how a colleague, Dr. Fleurot describes her. He says she's brilliant but lifeless, approaching her problems "with an icepack on your head." However, he does have a very astute line on kissing her, "it's rather like kissing a textbook." Indeed, Petersen's initial view on love is cold and clinical, typical of a scientist. She says love is a "response to hair colouring or vocal tones, or mannerisms that remind us of parents." And "people read about love as one thing and experience it as another." Hence they get psychoanalyzed.

Amnesia is described by JB as "a trick of the mind for remaining sane. You remain sane by forgetting something too horrible to remember and put a horrible thing behind a closed door." Indeed, JB becomes agitated at seeing bright white and also rows of straight lines, something repeated throughout the movie.

Apart from Casablanca, this features one of Ingrid Bergman's best performances, and this is the first of two Hitchcock films she did, the other being Notorious. And Gregory Peck gives a standout performance as someone suffering from amnesia, haunted by something traumatic in his childhood, and someone who could be a killer.

Michael Chekov does wonders as Dr. Brulov, a delightful old man and Petersen's mentor, described as someone in a complete dream state, socially. His eyeglasses and goatee make him a stereotypical Freud-like figure.

The dream sequence, based on a design by Salvador Dali, is best seen without me giving it away, and the incidental music adds to the suspense after each discovery.

Along with Vertigo, Rear Window, The Birds, and Dial M For Murder, one of my favourite Hitchcock movies.

"Spellbound" is Hitchcock's classic "bone-chilling", psychological thriller. Starring Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck, it is full of suspense and mystery. All Hitchcock fans and those who like suspense and mystery will enjoy this film.

Perhaps it's understandable that Hitchcock had reservations about this film-- "Notorious" is more truly dreamlike in its sheeny darkness and ruthless forward momentum. And the splendid aesthetic elements in "Spellbound", including Miklos Rozsa's unforgettable score, the famed Dali designs, and the George Barnes/Rex Wimpy cinematography, don't congeal into as splendidly gothic an artifice as "Rebecca". But "Spellbound" is still a terrifically entertaining, and subtly intelligent, film. That intelligence manifests itself best in the subversive ridicule that Hitchcock and Ben Hecht deal out to the chauvinist swine who Ingrid Bergman's Dr. Constance Peterson encounters casually and professionally-- including her harumphing mentor (played with defining neurotic zeal by Michael Chekhov) and even her ornery patient and lover (played by the young Gregory Peck). The opening sequences are the film's most delirious, culminating in Dr. Petersen's yielding to the compulsion to open "Dr. Edwardes"s door, an act which climaxes with the opening of several other doors-- here Hitchcock's use of pure cinema is more spectacularly surreal than anything on loan from Salvador Dali. While the rest of "Spellbound" may fall a little too clumpily into long scenes where pseudo-pop-Freudian psychology is used to decode Peck's predictably strange recollections, it is certainly a very watchable, and rewatchable film. Though not a masterpiece, "Spellbound" is a Hitchcock classic, an evocative and lasting triumph among his immortal series of romantic thrillers.