Datasets:

poison-texts

/

imdb-clean-bddr-word-deletion-defense

like 0

Follow

Poison Texts 2

I can get very tired of murder mysteries with the exception of a few really excellent TV series. Otherwise, there are just too many of these murder plot themes. I don't like the theme of the two over-clever, selfish youths killing as an intellectual exercise, I've no interest whatsoever in Hitchcock who appears to have been associated with this in some way I don't intend to find out about. But don't misunderstand me, the theme is in itself excellent, the whole movie is so well done, and of course Sandra Bullock is superlative as always. <br /><br />Sandra's character is (as in Miss Congeniality) not rated by the male team she works with in spite of her obvious skills, and the boss mostly ignores her ideas, eventually forcing her aside and giving the case to her male partner. Of course Sandra works out what's going on and nearly gets killed in a very dramatic denouement. It's intriguing how the boy who worked out the murder plot can't allow her to be killed by his colleague - he has a conscience of some sort and perhaps could be "saved, while the other is a true psychopath.<br /><br />Sandra's hard shell is caused by misery in her past that's tied in poignantly with the murder case. Her colleague, realising that Sandra's solving this case in spite of being balked by the dense superior, finally discovers what happened to Sandra herself in her teens, that she must now face up to and exorcise and the last scene shows her starting - we hope anyway - to do just that. <br /><br />I can see from the few other reviews I've had time to read that this movie would attract a broadish group - those interested in the two spoilt boys whiling away their time with their grisly philosophical determination to trick the police and get away with the perfect murder, the relationship between them that's so cleverly depicted, the ghastly links to the heroine's past, a police theme, and some smokes and mirrors - as well as for Hitchcock fans.<br /><br />For those who've queried why Bullock's character has to have a problematic past, really I think this would be a far less interesting movie if she had been just a detective trying to fathom what was going on, with a willing sidekick helping out and a male-chauvinist boss. The link between the murder victim and the detective is necessary to show the detective becoming too involved or otherwise how would she lose her arrogant boss's confidence and thereby nearly lose her life? That's hardly an original theme, in fact it's usually an extremely irritating theme as this male chauvinist boss brutally tells his frustrated but obviously inspired operative to get off the case and leave it to someone who clearly doesn't have quite the skills to solve it nice though the sidekick is. I was getting very worried towards the end re what might happen to Sandra's character as her emotional involvement in the case and special sympathy for the unfortunate victim of the crime dangerously drove her on with this case by herself.<br /><br />I wasn't disappointed re the relationship between Bullock's character and her sidekick. That goes along interestingly and at times very poignantly.<br /><br />The relationship between the two boys is definitely intriguing, if that's what you were interested in watching. I felt it was kept low key in some ways either because the movie-makers didn't want to get into boy-boy friendships too much, or because we weren't supposed to think emotion ruled their relationship. The movie cleverly makes you wonder which boy's in charge of the situation and there are some twists and turns and the boys show their underlying immaturity at various stages.<br /><br />There one thing I wish had been clarified and that's what happens "after the movie ends" when Sandra's character arrives at the Court.... you need to see to movie to know why she's there.<br /><br />Very well acted by all. I certainly can't agree with those who complained against Bullock's acting - she was superb. The part suited her very well indeed. The story is gripping even if murder mysteries aren't your thing and they aren't that often mine.

A delight from start to finish.<br /><br />If you don't like the Muppets, then I just have to feel sorry for you. This terrific film doesn't simply cash in on the Muppets' popularity -- it's a well-conceived and well-written film in its own right. It's got great songs, and it has that thread of wistful melancholy that was always present in Jim Henson's creations and which is most personified in the character of Kermit the Frog. I always responded to this as a kid, and it's what makes the Muppets still enjoyable to me as an adult when other material aimed at children drives me crazy.<br /><br />A huge cast of big names appearing in cameos makes this film feel like a kiddie-sized version of "Around the World in 80 Days," except that it's about 80 times better.<br /><br />Grade: A

this one is about a homicide detective who battles a couple of young rich kids who have nothing better to do than plan an intricate murder and cover it up, they seem to outwit the police force seemingly at will. they taunt the detective by planting clues and leading them off on a wild goose chase. this one has a decent plot with a few good twists at the end of the movie, Sandra Bullock does a fine job in this one as a woman on the edge, not sure of herself and battling her inner demons, she can't seem to keep a man in her life, especially partners, they seem to keep leaving her for some reason. Altogether this isn't a bad film, it keeps you guessing all the way the very shocking ending.

"Murder by Numbers" stars Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt as two rebellious high schoolers who are content on the perfect murder for the sake of overcoming their shattered self-esteem. Sandra Bullock plays the heroic thorn in the way of their plans as Det. Cassie Mayweather. This is nowhere near the traditional finger-pointing murder mystery as the film graciously reveals the killers to us (Gosling and Pitt). What the film does instead is concentrate on the purposes of their killings and if they have what it takes to commit the perfect murder. <br /><br />The title itself is a rightfully chosen one for various reasons mainly being that the "Numbers" in the title is the most vocal. The angle focusing on the reasons behind the heinous killings, although will haunt you with its chilling dialogue (especially from the callous boys), it doesn't fully live up exploring the origins of what lead them to their killing frenzy. The characters are riveting you have the good-looking rich kid Richard (Ryan Gosling) and the intelligent but socially awkward Justin (Michael Pitt). In school, they pretend that they despise one another, and even share a liking towards the a classmate name Lisa (Agnes Bruckner), but off-school they are allies and collaborate in a ritual in which murder is an escape to free the mind. <br /><br />Sure the story involving the boys seems exciting, but it's pushed in the background to a more mundane subplot involving Det. Mayweather (Bullock) who assumes their murders was because of discrimination (hence the arrogant looks of Gosling) and unexplained characteristics but manages to get it right. At first, the audience may despise Cassie's character due to the fact she's very headstrong and not very supportive. She displays dominance and control over her junior partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin). Even as he tries to reason with her, he knows it's a battle he surely won't likely win.<br /><br />The reason behind her tyrant behavior stems back in which Cassie was the sad victim of a crime that has left a permanent mental scar on her. This side-story does not have much of a place in this movie partially because it doesn't offer anything riveting with the main plot (the boys' murder spree). It also offers some development to Bullock's character in the movie but it's only a half-assed job and not very fulfilling. I would've liked it if they the diabolical students had a side-story. The resources were right there in front of them for the perfect crime foil, the creative schemes for the boys to manipulate the cops with their phony evidence and lies just to get out of a potential life-sentence in jail.<br /><br />Despite the lopsided sub-plots and the pointless "real killer" ending, "Murder By Numbers" sports a strong performance by a great cast. Sandra Bullock was convincing as the tough verbally remorseless cop who tries to shift her inner pain to a more positive light. Ben Chaplin shows his strength as the young detective who tries every way to understand his partner and is able to fend off her occasional tyrannical put-downs. But the scene stealer's are the devilish duo of Michael Pitt and Ryan Gosling as they keep you glued to their seat waiting for what they're going to do next. The chemistry of the boys is reminiscent to Matt Damon-Jude Law in "The Talented Mr. Ripley".

Barbet Schroeder's "Murder by Numbers" starring Sandra Bullock is solid work, though not particularly compelling. I am a big Sandra Bullock fan, and she is effective here as forensic detective Cassie Mayweather, who is not very likable and a broken person too. However, there is a sense of detachment inherent in the story structure. It's about the perfect murder executed by two spoiled sociopath teenagers, Richard (Ryan Gusling) who is the cool one, and Justin ( Michael Pitt) who is the sympathetic geek. Basically, Richard and Justin kill a young woman, because they have nothing better to do on a school night. They are very smart and very arrogant which is normally not a bad thing, but it just doesn't work here. Tony Gayton's script does a great job of detailing the investigation of a puzzling murder, and it is truly by the numbers. We have these two punk kids flaunting their superiority, and we just want them to take a fall. <br /><br />This is not a great exploration into the dark side, like Schroeder's "Reversal of Fortune" about Claus von Bulow. There are interesting turns in "Numbers". The movie is not so much a thriller, but rather a character study of Cassie. Sandra Bullock balances the bravado of Cassie, her fear of letting people get in with her, and her secret past. Bullock brings courage and strength to a suffering character. Her partner and sort of love interest, Sam (played by Ben Chaplin), is more a plot unconcealing than a real character. Though Chaplin does the bewilderment thing very admirably. The other nice touch is having Richard and Justin involved a strange sexual attraction. The most interesting thing about "Numbers" are Pitt and Gusling. <br /><br />There are many entertaining twists and turns throughout the movie. Everything is done very competently. I saw the movie about a week ago, and in retrospect I like it a little more than I did when I saw it. However, it is just not inspired work. Sandra Bullock and Barbet Schroeder deserve a lot better, and so do we.

This movie is possibly one of the most creative works of horror ever. It has everything you could want... suspense, drama, comedy, confusing subplots, native americans, brain eating... If you're looking for the be-all, end-all of brainsucking movies, look no further. The story of a man, bent on revenge. And how better to get it? "I know, I'll suck out their brains!" With great sound effects, and impressive special effects, I can't recommend this movie enough.

I remember this film as the other person that commented said. I recorded over it but wish I had it now just because it had to be one of the worst movies ever. Funny, in a real bad way. I remember the tag line on the box was "The ultimate frontal lobotomy". I got it from my mom, who got it from a friend at work who said it was the worst / cheesiest movie she had ever seen, so my mom said "My son will probably love it." and the woman gave it to her just to get it out of her possession. I then later taped over it, which I regret. I also remember the "corck screw" thing was one of those ball catcher things.... the yellow cone shaped things, with a red "button" at the end, and when you hit the red thing, it sends a ball flying. Well, they used that with a crank on one end, and a corkscrew in the funnel. When the killer killed they would show him coming forward with the "weapon" and then cut to a close up of what appeared to be raw chicken and fake blood on the victims head. I don't know what else to say about this "gem" except that if you like bad films, it doesn't get any worse than this.

I went through the highs. I went through the lows...cried, laughed, puked my ever-loving guts out. But through it all, I was made whole. I became a better person for having sat through this experience in self-imposed degradation. It's not every day we can say that we have lived through the worst, and come out the other side with something closely resembling our sanity whole and intact. Friends...neighbors-unite and be as one now. Go out and find this film and languish in its extravagancies. Place it high on the mantel and kiss its polystyrene box. Take it to bed. Take it out with you when you go shopping, or have blind dates with strange people. They will appreciate you all the better for your sublime and uniquely schizophrenic slant on cinema. And then they will throw their beverage of choice in your face (but you will have the last laugh). I ran for Governor with this little beauty under my belt (and you can too!). It is a treat worth having again and again.

There is only one racist joke in this Daffy Duck short, which is basically, when Daffy rides Black Beauty, it is a black woman. I can understand partly why this joke was included, as at the time few people did not know how rude it was to be racist and it wasn't even illegal to discriminate black people yet.<br /><br />Aside from this point, "A Coy Decoy" is basically a fun, interesting short where Daffy meets characters in books and does things in books. I liked this short quite a lot (despite the other reviewers on here). The way Daffy is so in love with the clockwork duck is vaguely disturbing, yet highly amusing at the same time. Porky is a nice edition to the episode, though it was not vital for him to be there. The wolf is an example of how people thought of wolves in those days as well, blood-thirsty, terrible animals, which of course they never really have been (unless they are very hungry). I also liked the style of animation used - and the theme of the episode.<br /><br />For people who are totally into Daffy Duck and for people who do not mind the occasional racist joke in cartoons, enjoy "A Coy Decoy"!<br /><br />Available on YouTube.

When I was very young, my mother had a series of four Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies shorts on tape and I watched them all several times. A Coy Decoy was one of these shorts, and I was truly shocked to read in another comment that it had been banned. When I was young I probably did not even understand the Black Beauty gag to begin with. Still this is probably why it was banned, though until I watched this on a video site, I did not even remember the gag. Upon viewing the video I did remember certain shots - in particular the shrinking of Daffy's hat and Daffy's eyes becoming clockworkish as the decoy circled him in The Lake. I was not bothered by the gag that was most likely the reason the gag was banned. Instead I was flooded with childhood memories of watching this short. Because of how much I liked this short as a child, I rate it 7 out of 10.

Having been familiar with Hartley's "The Go-Between" for a good while, both in its original book form and in its disappointing Pinter-Losey film adaptation, this was interesting stuff. "The Hireling" proves almost a mirror image at times; set in a slightly less distant period for the main part, featuring exposure of the British Class System, and containing a set piece sports match (boxing takes the place of cricket) that reveals rather a lot about .<br /><br />This refreshes in its small-scale, character focus. You do not exactly get to 'know' Lady Franklin and Leadbitter in the novelistic sense, but this distance is appropriately played out in telling body language and inflection from the actors. Your distance from ever fully sympathizing with any one true character mirrors the dormant 'difference' that so dooms the central relationship. Miles and Shaw are wonderfully subtle, and we see more in their 'less'; never once are these actorly, showy performances. They are fittingly Stanislavskian interpretations that create the impression of these characters having life outsides the confines of the film. All other parts are very satisfactorily handled, though they are far smaller in this film than I presume in the novel and compared indeed to "The Go-Between", a stunning work about disillusionment. <br /><br />The disillusion at the centre of this film is so sadly and movingly conveyed in the late scenes where Shaw kisses Miles and is rejected, and then where a drunken Leadbitter confronts Cantrip and Lady Franklin. It's a howling shame that what would have been an incredibly poignant ending of spoiled, desolate lives at either side of the screen, is 'embellished' with a decidedly odd little coda. One is entirely bemused by the jump in tone, as Shaw's Leadbitter goes beserk and ironically sings "Rule Britannia" and "God Save the Queen" as he crashes his car into things. The political point is heavily over-egged by this bombastic, rather dingily operatic ending. All sense of subtlety, so effectively conveyed hitherto, is lost, as the implicit point is heavily and noisily made. Agit-prop surely has no place in this sort of delicate period drama.<br /><br />Overall, however, one cannot be too harsh. While this absurd end-piece is a major flaw, the rest of the film must be praised as a sensitive, evocative film, of sadness and detailed observation about the way British society was in the past. Hartley's languid but crystal-clear touch is very much in evidence throughout. It's just a shame that we don't end on the shattering conclusion to Shaw's drunk scene. The tragic, deluded figure of Sarah Miles' Lady Franklin is abruptly denied her place at the epicenter of the film, as the excellent human drama bizarrely slips into the realms of political point scoring. Shaw also - that most dry and yet deeply feeling of actors - is betrayed by the out-of-character excess that closes the film. Thus; a fine, small-scale triumph is sabotaged; but we ought to remember the many good points.<br /><br />Rating:- *** 1/2/*****

I was recently given this film on DVD as a gift, and was unsure at first if it would appeal (although one of my favourite actors has a leading role). In fact, it's on its way to becoming a favourite.<br /><br />First of all: thankfully, it's *not* the same as the book, the ending of which I think is excessively melodramatic. Secondly: it's one of the best films I've seen about the First World War. "What?" you may ask. "It's not a war film!" True: we see no battles or bombardments, no trenches, no gas. But it shows the cost of war, the damage done to the lives of the men who fought in it, and the impact this had on those close to them.<br /><br />We first see Helen (Sarah Miles), a baronet's widow, awaiting her release from a mental hospital. All the women in the film appear to be widows: some from the war, but Helen's much-older husband, Sir Thomas (we see him later in a photograph) was taken ill and died while she was at a party, hence her guilt-stricken breakdown. She is lost and lonely. The wire around the hospital grounds evokes POW camps and the trenches: like many of the men in the outside world, Helen is suffering from a kind of shell-shock.<br /><br />Out of hospital, she has to find her feet in the outside world again: a world we experience through her eyes as bleak, desolate and unfriendly. Her mother is unable to provide her with any real support. Herself a widow, she has put up her own emotional defences, behind which she hides to avoid dealing with her daughter's distress. (Like many people, especially in that time, she seems to find mental illness embarrassing.)<br /><br />Ledbetter, the hired driver, becomes a supportive presence, and helps Helen begin to adjust to life again, but she does not realise that he is becoming dangerously obsessed with her. This is a superb performance by Robert Shaw. Ledbetter is a former regular soldier, an ex-sergeant-major who runs a boxing club and has set up his own car-hire business. Superficially, he seems tough and strong, dependable, but there are cracks beneath the surface: he has not really adjusted to civilian life. He invents (for reasons he later explains) a family and home life he does not have; he has brutal outbursts with colleagues, and affection-less sex. Getting close to Helen – a woman whom, even with the greater post-war social freedom, he could not realistically have hoped to marry – exposes psychological fault-lines that tear him apart. These days, one might diagnose PTSD.<br /><br />The same is true of the other man in Helen's life, aspiring politician Captain Hugh Cantrip (Peter Egan). He is ambitious, handsome, but also very young. Tellingly, his girlfriend, Connie (Caroline Mortimer), mothers him, combing his hair and making sure he has a clean handkerchief before he goes out. He is known to both Ledbetter and Helen: the former had served under him during the war, and Helen had met him in political circles and had thought him a "popinjay". However, he and Helen now begin a relationship, with Helen intending to support his political career, financially and emotionally. Peter Egan, fresh from his stage success as Stanhope in R C Sheriff's 'Journey's End', makes Hugh more than an immature cad. There is a revealing, understated scene in the back of the car between Helen and Hugh, in which they quote Brooke's 'The Old Vicarage at Grantchester'. She asks, of his war experience, "Was it very bad?" He cannot answer. She says: "Well, you're back now." But his softly-spoken reply – "Am I? Sometimes I wonder…" – is the key to his character. As light and shadow flicker across his face, we know that there are some horrors that cannot be put into words. The disproportionate casualties suffered by junior officers of his sort – straight out of school or university and expected to lead from the front – are well-known. In a nervous speech (during which Helen reassures him) to local political folk at a dinner-party, he reveals that he will stand as an Independent, no longer as a Liberal (the party which had taken the country into the war). His emotional life is as damaged as Ledbetter's. He cannot easily extricate himself from Connie, who depends on him emotionally and financially: reading between the lines, she is probably a war-widow (perhaps of a former comrade?) with a child, whose drawings we see on the wall of her home.<br /><br />***SPOILERS***<br /><br />The crisis between the trio builds slowly, with a frightening scene between Helen and Ledbetter in the car, and Ledbetter listening in to Hugh and Connie when he is driving them, as Hugh tries to persuade Connie that, even as his relationship with Helen develops, they can continue theirs; that he will, at least, continue to support her. Jealousy, obsession and his belief that he must protect Helen from a duplicitous gold-digger lead Ledbetter to confront her and Hugh violently in her home.<br /><br />The ending is entirely different from that of the novel, and is better for it: it is dramatic, but less melodramatic, and maintains an unsentimental tone. We began with one character recovering from a mental breakdown; we end with another suffering one. Helen, one senses, is now wiser and stronger than both the men, who have been unable fully to adapt to the so-called 'land fit for heroes' to which they returned from the nightmare of total war. The new ending is open: one feels that she, at least, will cope with whatever lies ahead, without illusions. In this, it reflects well the reality of the time, in which women (Helen, Connie, and so many others) had to pick up the pieces of a world in which too many men had died or had come home with varying degrees of mental and physical damage. <br /><br />"Well, you're back now." – "Am I? Sometimes I wonder…"

I enjoyed THE MUPPET MOVIE very much. It was the first of the Muppet movies and is by far the best because it's so creative and fresh. With later films, the ideas just didn't seem quite so original. But here, we get to see Kermit and Miss Piggy riding bikes (an incredibly difficult scene), an excellent ensemble cast and just a lot of fun. I loved every minute the Muppets were performing and I would have rated the film a lot higher except for one serious problem. In this and most subsequent Muppet films, some powers that be felt there was a need to include lots of non-Muppets--in particular, many, many cameos by stars. Some worked fine (such as Charles Durning's) but many just seemed irrelevant and slowed the picture to a grinding halt. Probably the worst of them was with Edgar Bergan. Yes, he was an amazing man who inspired Jim Henson and the rest of his crew, but the tiny scene he's in just wasn't needed nor were most of the cameos. Still, despite this big complaint, it's a great film for the entire family--from the kids to even the most demanding adults.

This is a thoughtful film that lays bare the inequities of the so-called upper class and those who work for them, the haves and have-nots. Robert Shaw does a creditable job in his role as the obliging, correct chauffeur, Steven Ledbetter, who helps Lady Franklin (Sarah Miles) overcome her mental depression at the outset. However, Steven has many mixed feelings regarding this lady of the upper class. He inevitably falls in love with her, which of course is overstepping the societal boundaries that separate them.<br /><br />I have not read anything prior to this and only judge the movie as I have seen it. I consider it a very honest story about the realities of daily living and the conflict of what we might wish or expect from life and what we get. It's a fine drama worth seeing again.

This is one of the great ones. It works so beautifully that you hardly notice the miscasting of then 37 year old Dana Andrews as the drugstore soda jerk who goes to war and comes back four years later, when he would have been, at most, 25. But then, who else should have played him?

I first saw this film as a teenager (I'm now in my 40's), and have long considered it to be my favorite movie. The story is enormously moving, without being sentimental. The acting, especially by March and Loy, is dead-on. And the fact that Dana Andrews is too old for his role doesn't take away from the believability of his romance with Theresa Wright (whom I believe is the only major character in the film still living). This could have turned out to be another post-war melodrama, but the script and cast are simply too good for that to happen.

The brilliance of this film lies not in the filmmaking process, which is a conventional, but executed, intertwining tale of the lies of three servicemen post WWII, but in the fact that this story was told at all. Samuel Goldwyn deserves credit for having the chutzpah to push through a film who has for its leads a disabled vet with pincers for hands, an alcoholic, and an underachiever.

What can one say about any Wilder film other than they are the most human and real stories about people and what drives them, bugs them,haunts them. Billy created pictures like paintings that stand forever reflecting the human condition. He paints the good and the bad in all of us. He also paints with love. I can't imagine anyone having a list of greatest films without a Wilder film on it. They will last because they are true. I first saw this movie on TV in the 60s when I was a kid and I had to leave the room because I felt tears welling up in me and was embarrassed. Now I'm an old man and I still feel the tears welling but don't leave the room. I knew these people and loved them and grew up around them. Billy preserved them in this film and not in a 'greatest generation' way but in a most realistic way that preserved the power of the human spirit.

This film has gone in and out of fashion more often than the miniskirt. A triumph in the post-war period, it was virtually forgotten by the 1970s except by students of cinema. Recently, it has begun to get recognition as perhaps the most even-handed representation of soldiers' integration into post-war life ever made (and that most definitely includes films such as "The Deer Hunter.") I like it, but my overall evaluation is somewhere between those extremes.<br /><br />The tale is a simple one. Three very different servicemen who have mustered out after World War II (The Big One!) fly home to their Midwest town and try to resume, or create, civilian lives. One has a disability, one has a cushy job waiting for him, and the other has nothing to go on but determination.<br /><br />There are some good but unfortunately uneven performances. Fredric March won the Best Actor Oscar for playing an old Sergeant who returns to his job at the local bank. Personally, I think Jimmy Stewart deserved it for "It's a Wonderful Life," which also deserved the Best Picture Award, but clearly this film touched a nerve with the post-war audience. As I said, it was fashionable. March has one fantastic scene, a humorous speech that brought to mind somewhat similar incident involving real WWII hero Pappy Boyington, and otherwise is solid but unspectacular.<br /><br />I am going against the grain here, but I thought that Myrna Loy, who played March's wife, was justly ignored by the Academy. I detected barely a hint of warmth from her. In fact, I kept thinking she was going to slap Frederic March for annoying her. She practically grimaced every time they were together. Something was definitely missing there, in her forced smiles and her air of tolerance rather than joyfulness. I think all this nonsense about her being "the perfect wife" is correct only if you think a passionless 1950s homemaker is your ideal. You may disagree with that, but the Academy voters apparently did not. She is a major problem with this film, terribly miscast.<br /><br />Dana Andrews as a former soda jerk who became a war hero, then winds up behind the counter again, is amazing. He is saddled with a wife who evidently married him right before he left for the war for all the wrong reasons, and his future looks bleak. But then he chances upon March's daughter Peggy (Teresa Wright, in a fantastic turn), and fireworks explode. Both are great, but then comes that unevenness again that pervades this film. Some moments of pure soap opera intrude, punctuated by the all-time classic line, "I'm going to bust that marriage up!" The romance is uplifting and does mirror a common condition after the war, that of returning servicemen finding love upon their return.<br /><br />Speaking of uplifting, now we come to Harold Russell. He has a naturalistic quality to his acting, or is it non-acting, that rings just as true today as it no doubt did then. Taking a no-nonsense approach to his situation, he is an inspiration. His best scene, one of the best in all cinema, is when he brings the girl who likes him up to his bedroom to show her the truth of his condition. "I'm lucky, I still have my elbows unlike some of the boys." Truly great stuff.<br /><br />The film has some moments that soar. It also has some moments that belong in the afternoon soaps. Take the good with the bad and see this one for the high points.

Since there have been so many reviews of this fine film I will write in a list form and attempt to address issues that have not been discussed.<br /><br />1. Dana Andrews was 38 during the filming of this movie. His character according to the screenplay was in his mid 20s. Andrews, a highly underrated actor, did brilliantly play a character who was supposed to be much younger. <br /><br />2. Fredric March like all GREAT actors needs at times to be restrained by the director to avoid over-the-top acting. He was mugging for the cameras when he was drunk on the night after his arrival and also the next morning when he was checking out his hang over in his mirror. <br /><br />3. Dana Andrews was superb as he was in "Laura," "The Ox-Bowl Incident," "A Walk in the Sun," "The Purple Heart" and many other films. Why did Fredric March win the Academy Award and why was Dana Andrews not even nominated for his outstanding performance? <br /><br />4. Harold Russell gave the best performance I have ever seen by a non actor. <br /><br />5. I realize this was the 1940s but Dana Andrews seemed to have no romantic interest in his exceptionally attractive wife (Virginia Mayo).<br /><br />6. Ray Teal, who played the right wing bigot, years later became famous for portraying the sheriff on "Bonanza."<br /><br />7. The professor from the south wrote that the film was slow moving, boring and poorly acted. The professor more than likely is uninformed about classic films. The beauty and significance of these ageless classics is that they are slow moving character studies that avoid profanity, excessive violence and gratuitous sex.<br /><br />***I was surprised that zero out of 3 people found my review useful.

This superb 40's post war classic, tends to be overlooked these<br /><br />days. When it was released in 1945, it cleaned up at the 1946<br /><br />Oscars, mostly at the expense of `It's A Wonderful Life.' Both films were up for best film , best<br /><br />director, and best actor, all won by ‘Best Years'. Frederic March ,<br /><br />and Dana Andrews along with an amateur actor Harold Russell ( a<br /><br />real life soldier,who lost both hands in an explosion,) play the<br /><br />returning soldiers, finding life is very different , from what they<br /><br />remember. Myrna Loy is superb as March's wife, who has to keep<br /><br />the family together while he has been away.The tear jerking <br /><br />scene where March and Loy are reunited is magnificent. All three<br /><br />men find that they have problems readjusting to post war life, not<br /><br />least Russell coming to terms with artificial hands, and his finance<br /><br />(Cathy O'Donnell ) trying to be too helpful. Sam Goldywn is quoted that he doesn't care if the film makes no<br /><br />money at all, as long as everyone in America sees the film ,so they<br /><br />will appreciate what these men went through. If any film is worth 10 out of 10, it is this one.

While watching a mundane modern movie (The Runaway Bride) with my granddaughter (age 22) she asked me "Since you've been watching movies since 1938, what is the greatest movie of your lifetime?" Boy! What a choice that is! It took me all summer of thought and relooking a some flicks before I made my decision. It is "THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES". This movie has no flaws. It is one movie in which each one of the minor characters part and dialog is essential to the whole story. There is not a single part in the film which could be left out. The young girl's fixation with her brothers lack of hands, the man coming home to young adult children who have grown up without him and with different ideas, the portrayal of a young man whose only responsiblity was as a soda jerk who became the leader of a group of men, and was awarded medals for his action. A women who must now adjust to the husband who's life has been away from her for years. The realization of the folks who were in the safety of there secure homes of the sacrifices these ordinary men made in their behalf. The look into the life of loving and living with a man without hands. A parents first look and reaction to their son's new deformities. A man used to making life and death decision in a instant, having to return to the way of plodding though a conservative bank's loan structure. This is no sympathetic, tear jerking, heart strumming act. THIS WAS REAL LIFE! It could not have been portrayed any different. This, my friends, is HOW IT WAS!! This could easily be considered a documentary. In this day of color film, please do not be turned off by the black and white because it is one of the finest B/W filming, editing and directing you will ever see. The casting was perfect. If I could, I would make it compulsory for anyone taking history, film making, creative writing, sociology, family counciling or psychology to view and report on this magnificent example of the film makers art.

I was blown away when I saw "The Best Years of Our Lives". The acting, script, and Master William Wyler's Direction(winner of Best Director in 1946)is Brilliant.<br /><br />The film is about Three World War II veteran's who come home together on a plane and all by chance live in the same town. They all are reunited with their families.<br /><br />The first man Al Stephenson(Played by Fredric March in his Oscar winning role) has to adapt to his wife Millie(played by Myrna Loy) and Children Peggy and Rob(played by Teresa Wright and Michael Hall) being different than before he left for the war.<br /><br />The second man Fred Derry(played by Dana Andrews in an excellant role) has to find a good job and adapt to a wife he had only been married to 20 days before he left for the war. He begins to find out that she is not the same.<br /><br />The third man Has a much more harder adaptation to make. Homer Parish(played by Harold Russell in his excellant oscar role)He has lost his hands in the war and must deal with his family's and fiance' Wilma's(played by Cathy O'Donnell) reactions to the hooks he has instead of his hands. All of these men and their families are reunited in the film in different scences. The stories of these men are all interwoven beautifully together.<br /><br />This film truly defines the meaning of a "Classic". This unforgettable drama(winner of best picture in 1946) is a film that everyone should see.<br /><br />If I was asked to pick a favorite film I would pick this one.<br /><br />Out of 10 I would give "The Best Years of Our Lives" An 11.<br /><br />So the next time you rent a movie rent this one you won't regret it.

The first feature-length adventure of Jim Henson's beloved muppet characters is a very competent musical comedy vehicle as Kermit The Frog leaves his carefree, swampy surroundings for the bright lights (egged on by stranded Hollywood agent Dom DeLuise who overheard him singing); on the way, he meets Fozzie Bear (a pitiful stand-up comedian at James Coburn's El Sleazo Café who has Telly Savalas for a bouncer and Madeline Kahn a patron!), the piano-playing dog Rowlf, bestial drummer Animal and his laid-back, funky band, egomaniacal beauty queen Miss Piggy (in a ceremony presided over by Elliott Gould and Edgar Bergen), etc. All the while, Kermit et al are pursued by frogleg burger magnate Charles Durning and reluctant acolyte Austin Pendleton, sold cars, ice cream and balloons to by, respectively, Milton Berle, Bob Hope and Richard Pryor, served food by insolent waiter Steve Martin, nearly brainwashed by mad German scientist Mel Brooks and, finally, land an audition in the offices of movie mogul Orson Welles (who has Cloris Leachman for a secretary)! The pleasant song score comes courtesy of Paul Williams who also makes an appearance as the resident pianist at El Sleazo's. For the record, I have recently acquired four of the subsequent Muppet movies and should be watching them in the weeks to come when their turn falls due.

I was blown away when I saw "The Best Years of Our Lives". The acting, script, and Master William Wyler's Direction(winner of Best Director in 1946)is Brilliant.<br /><br />This film is about three WWII veterans who come home from the war and are reunited with their loved ones, but have to deal with the hardships of coming home from the war.<br /><br />The first man Al Stephenson(Played by Fredric March in his Oscar winning role) comes home to find his wife Millie(played by Myrna Loy) and children Peggy and Rob(played by Teresa Wright and Michael Hall) are more grown up and different than before he left for the war.<br /><br />The second man Fred Derry(played by Dana Andrews) has to find a good job and come home to a wife he had only been married to 20 days before he left for the war. He begins to find out that she is not the same.<br /><br />Homer Parish(played by Harold Russell in his Oscar winning role)has lost his hands in the war and must deal with his family's and fiance' Wilma's(played by Cathy O'Donnell) reactions to the hooks he has instead of his hands.<br /><br />All of these men and their families are reunited in the film in different scenes. The stories of these men are all interwoven beautifully together.<br /><br />This film truly defines the meaning of a "Classic". This unforgettable drama(winner of best picture in 1946) is a film that everyone should see.<br /><br />If I was asked to pick a favorite film this would be it!<br /><br />Out of 10 I would give "The Best Years of Our Lives" An 10.<br /><br />So next time you go to your local video store rent this movie you won't regret it!<br /><br />NO objectionable material a good family film.

This is one of the great movies of all time. The story is fascinating and the actors are convincing. Your really identify with the characters. William Wyler proofs with this movie that he is a great director. His craftsmanship is unsurpassed.

Although the wonderful soda counter in the local drugstore no<br /><br />longer exists, and the clothes are definitely l946 immediate<br /><br />post-war vintage, and good and evil are easy to understand, and<br /><br />those old planes are really dated, this movie will never be dated. <br /><br />The human adjustments and problems post-war, the beautiful<br /><br />love stories, the wonderful acting (especially Harold Russell and<br /><br />Dana Andrews) are as moving today in 2002 as they were in l946. <br /><br />I was one of the young women who welcomed our marvelous<br /><br />veterans home from World War II. Like so many, my memories of<br /><br />the war years and the homecomings are as fresh today as if they<br /><br />took place yesterday - this movie is very relevant for our times.

This film tells the stories of several couples coping with Post-WWII life. Through many moving accounts the audience learns how the War has changed people, while their human spirit went on to triumph.<br /><br />My favorite scene is where a young service man, who returned home as a double amputee (after losing both arms up to the elbow) is sure that he would be no good to his sweetheart, who still wants to marry him. His girl simply said that she would help him with the things he wouldn't be able to do, but that they would be fine together. Moved by this true demonstration of love, the man embraces his fiancée in tears.<br /><br />The scene where a service man asked for a bank loan is also a highlight. When he is initially refused as a "high risk", a higher ranking bank official takes over saying "You fought for our country and kept us safe--that's good enough for me. Your loan is approved!" "The Best Years of Our Lives" won 6 Oscars, including a special statuette for the disabled actor who showed us all that life goes on and will continue to be worth living, even with a severe handicap. This film is a joy to watch over and over again. A true classic! Highly recommended!

So many great talents were utilized in "The Best Years of Out Lives", the result has to be somewhat miraculous. Think of what its director, William Wyler, faced; in the aftermath of a military victory over statist powers who had committed abominable crimes and engulfed the world if battles, he was making a film that argued that the US's leaders were themselves profoundly anti-individual--that they had "wasted the best years of the lives of those drafted or misled into fighting the war--which since it ignored the rights of individuals had been for nothing except argument over the degree of slavery men were to exist under." There are beautiful sets by Julia Heron, Gregg Toland's cinematography and a script by Robert E. Sherwood, author of "The Road to Rome" and other defenses of individuals against tyrannical ideas. The ironic title was used to draw the talents of actors such as Frederic March, Myrna Loy, Teresa Wright, Dana Andrews, Virginia Mayo, Cathy O'Donnell and Hoagy Carmichael into a large-scale but thematic drama. The clever plot line was the experiences of thee "couples" after the soldiers (three being spotlighted) tried to return home to a 'victory culture". Their bitter experiences and their realization of their own need to fight again against what was happening on the homefront poses a strong and sobering counterpoint to the conventional notion being sold that "all was well with "America"". March and his wife have a terrible time adjusting, and he is drinking; O'Donnell's young man, Harold Russell,, has hooks instead of hands and wonders if life can even be worth living; and worst of all Andrews' wife throws him over for a guy with dough and he has lost years, causing employers to ignore or deny his rights to a job, to consideration on his individual merits, to have even what he had before he had been ripped from his life and thrust into the arena of risk--for nothing, and loss of everything he had ever had. The shattering climax of the film comes when each of the three has to confront the need to do battle again,each for his own happiness; and all three succeed in finding the courage to go on fighting--each for his own happiness, which is now being threatened by a curiously anti-self, anti-reality indifferent an un-American United States. Wyler's direction, especially of the scene where Andrews sits in the cockpit of a mothballed B-17, alone and the scene of Russell's wedding is wonderful indeed. This is a most powerful film and a great one on its own terms, one women and men can agree on for once. Music by Hugo Friedhofer and costumes by Irene Sharaff add to its luster. One of the best and most unexpected films of all time, in stunning B/W.

The movie features another exceptional collaboration between director William Wyler and cinematographer Gregg Toland, the first after Toland worked on Citizen Kane. But the talent of both these men was focused on achieving a perfectly crafted movie, understood in the good old American sense as a great story. The technical aspects of the movie are covered so as the viewer gets absorbed into the action that takes place on the screen without submitting to the power of the image. Technique is seen as a vehicle of representation unlike in Citizen Kane where Welles' baroque style almost drew the attention from the story to the way the story was told. One of my favorite moves with deep focus in this film is the drama conveyed by the returning home welcoming of Homer and Al. If Homer's girl, Wilma comes towards him perfectly in focus, Al goes over to his wife also perfectly in focus. This is a brilliant move because it shows only through the use of the image the nature of these relationships as we will see them throughout the movie: Wilma loves Homer and she accepts him as he is, Al's wife loves him also but she feels unprepared to fully welcome him home. Also later in the film we find out that their marriage has not always been a bed of roses.<br /><br />Wyler is a director whose force lies in being true to his work without feeling the need to boast. He wanted to show his audience how hard it was for the American soldiers returning from the war to fit into a society that either didn't understand them or treated them with contempt. With a perfect cast and great dialogue Goldwin and Wyler produced a movie that will forever be the template for any other returning home movie. The three hours which coincide with the "rough cut" because the test audience back then never felt for a moment that the action was slow and indeed every scene from the film seems perfectly justified. The whole thing is constructed beautifully, every character gets a fair amount of exposure, nothing is left to chance and it is quite pitiful that Hollywood nowadays never manages to bring so much character conflict to the screen. TBYOOL explores the depth of the American way of life, of the American family and society to an extent that makes other movies look like "the children's hour".

With WWII over, movie studios quickly rushed to focus on vets returning home. "The Best Years of Our Lives" was probably the best example. It portrays various people returning home and how they have to readjust not only to their pre-war lives, but to the overall changing world. Probably the most interesting cast member is non-actor Harold Russell. Having lost his hands in the war, he plays a man with hooks where his hands used to be, and reminds people that he wants to be treated just like everyone else; he went on to win Best Supporting Actor and a special Oscar for the role, making him the only person ever to win two Oscars for the same role. There will probably always be debate over whether this deserved Best Picture more than "It's a Wonderful Life", but I certainly think that they did a good job with it. Very well done.

As a "cusp-pre-baby-boomer"...born in 1944, IN Los Angeles; thereby having the dubious distinction of having been alive while Hitler was still actively involved in his "Last Great Offensive; but also with our President Roosevelt still actively fighting the offensive...this was one of the most important "first films" of my young life. Having the opportunity to see it in "re-release," several years after the 1946 opening (a common studio custom in those years), answered (even to my very young mind)oh-so many questions I had...being surrounded by our returning Vet heroes. Ensconced in all the many of William Wyler's equanimity of subtle "multi-plots"...intentionally NOT "surrounding," "mini" or "sub" plots...in all their "colors and shades of intensity"...did more, than anything else I can recall, to provide to me some semblance of "reason" and "rational explanation" of what had been going on all around me...in REAL life. (My personal experience perchance being a "new" and "different" angle when looking at this classic film.)

In a film as successful as this, it is difficult to single out any one factor. All departments work in perfect union to create on of the most moving human dramas ever put on film. <br /><br />The production is a tribute to the ensemble efforts of the writers, producer, cast and crew. To name but a few, the magnificent score of Hugo Friedhofer is a subliminal marvel, the subtle yet striking photography of Greg Toland, and the unbelievably effective direction by William Wyler all combine with an ideal cast to create an American classic.<br /><br />The DVD format version is a special treat to view. What a pleasure to see "The Best Years of Our Lives" so beautifully preserved for generations to come to enjoy.

The Best Years of Our Life is often compared to It's a Wonderful Life. They never should be. Their only commonality is the desire to make a serious comment about a war that took millions of lives. It is hard to know what value individual life may have. (How many people know that 1 in 22 people lost their lives violently in the last century? What a statistic we have to live with.) Also our feelings about war have changed in 60 years. We have progressively moved from thinking that war is just if the enemy is the right one to believing that no war is totally just, especially the ones that have been fought recently.<br /><br />I have been a life long pacifist. I oppose all war. Not long ago I had that position tested. It occurred while I was on the USS Lexington, which is permanently anchored in Corpus Christi, Texas. The ship required a crew that is 3 or 4times the community in which I live. It is a powerful experience, moving around on her decks. She had seen a great deal of action. Someone granted me the right to be a pacifist and it was not cheaply bought.<br /><br />I cannot watch The Best Years of Our Life without thinking about things like the Lexington.<br /><br />Each of the three veterans paid their dues. And they paid mine as well.<br /><br />No one of them got off any easier than any other. The Navy, Air Force and Army paid equally although in different ways. Each had problems directly related to the war. And each had to work terribly hard to overcome those difficulties. It took more courage to face their civilian surroundings than it did to deal with war, because each had to do it on his own. Each could understand and sympathize with the problem of the others: ultimately no one could help.<br /><br />The moving part of the film (this could be the beginning part of the spoiler) is what follows when one of the male leads found someone who knew enough to give advice. The obvious case is when Derry told Herald to marry the girl. Don't hesitate, do it tomorrow. It is hard for Harold to believe that anyone could love him when he had been a football hero and athletic star before the war. But to his credit, Harold listens.<br /><br />The other is when Al tells Derry to stay away from his daughter. The meaning was clear. Mend your relationship with your wife – standard fair for 30's/40's films. Derry did not debate the point: he felt he was not fit for Al's daughter. So he agreed. The truth of the film comes out when we consider the daughter feels the same way about Derry. Real emotions from real people. I think our era has deep problems with feelings and sentiment and honor. I sometimes think we believe these values do not exist. That's perhaps why people looking at this film have problems.<br /><br />Al is not free of advice he does not totally want. Any time his boss talks to him, Al gets tied in knots. And rightly so. There are some things that cannot be judged by the standards of occupation: they must be judged by huge general intangibles and only someone tested by the severities of life would understand what those intangibles are.<br /><br />All of this leads up to a scene near the end where all the planes that fought so valiantly are stripped, stacked, stored, discarded and soon to be recycled: their function, worth and pride as translucent as Derry himself. He can overcome that translucency which he does, making him fit, in his mind, for the woman he loves.<br /><br />I gave The Best Years of Our Lives a 10 and there are few films I feel that way about. This is not a film for popcorn. It deserves our attention. We are very privileged to eves drop on something so private as the lives of these wonderful people. We ought to be careful that we don't abuse that privilege.

I've Seen The Beginning Of The Muppet Movie, But Just The Half. Because I Only Watched It At Mrs Kelly's Friend's House. The Songs Were The Best And The Muppets Were So Hilarious. They Learn That If They Believe In The End Of The Rainbow, Anyone Can Make It, No Matter How Small, No Matter How Green(Which Was Included In The Trailer).<br /><br />Kermit Is My Favorite Protagonist(Which Means It Describes The Main Character) And So Are The Other Muppets. Mel Brooks Was Amazing When He Played Professor Max Krassman. The Scene Where Miss Piggy Saves Kermit By Doing Kung Fu On Those Guys. It Was So Cool.<br /><br />The Muppet Movie Is The Best Jim Henson Film With The Most Hilarious Characters And People Will Cherish For His Successful Film.

WWII veterans return home and find it hard to adjust to civilian life. This superb drama is expertly directed by Wyler and beautifully filmed by famed cinematographer Toland. Despite its near three-hour length, it does not drag for a minute. The script by Sherwood features very human characters and great dialog. Andrews has perhaps his best role as a man struggling to make ends meet. Also good are Wright as a love-sick young woman, Mayo as Andrews' trampy wife, and real-life veteran Russell as a man who lost both his hands. However, top honors go to March and Loy as a long-married couple facing challenges while getting reacquainted with each other.

Best Years of Our Lives perfectly captures the era of my youth, and the feelings of that time. The cast was uniformly wonderful. This was possibly Dana Andrews best role of his career and he should also have been nominated for an Academy Award. There are so many wonderful scenes in this movie it is almost impossible to list them all. The cinematography is among the best of any film. This movie is a time capsule of what is was like in the 1940's. A must see movie for any true movie fan. Some critics have said this movie has aged. I disagree. The theme of human desires is timeless. And the obstacles faced by veterans returning from war will always be with us. This is just a great movie - one that can be watched over and over again.

Best Years of Our Lives is a film that slipped under my radar for years--I had heard about it, but never had the opportunity to watch it. Thanks to TCM On Demand, I was able to watch it uncut and commercial free.<br /><br />What surprised me about this film was how quickly it was made after the war. The film frankly deals with the people who were wounded in the war, both physically and mentally. It manages neatly to encompass nearly all the varieties of war experience within three characters.<br /><br />We have the Air Force officer, who was a veteran of the early European bombing campaign. Because of the horrific attrition rate amongst the crews of the bombers, the Air Force at that time had a reputation for cranking out officers who quickly rose through the ranks. Such was case with this fellow who went from a lowly soda jerk in civilian life to a Captain and bombardier of his B-17. He also suffers from PTSD, called "battle fatigue" at the time.<br /><br />We have the Army non-com who served in the Pacific, and suffered through the horrors of that campaign. His story is opposite that of the Air Force fellow in that he goes from a prestigious job as a banker to a lowly grunt in the Army and rises to the rank of Sergeant. From the stripes on his sleeve it is clear that he is the highest level of Sergeant, yet he is still on the front line.<br /><br />Finally we have the Navy Seaman, who is part of the faceless support staff, commonly referred to as REMFs (Rear Echelon MFers)by the fellows on the line. Ironically, he suffers the worst physical wounds when working as a mechanic below decks on a Navy ship, his ship is struck, presumably by a kamikaze and is sunk with loss of 400 lives. He is pulled from the water but his badly burned hands are amputated and replaced with prosthetic hooks.<br /><br />BYOOL tells the story of how these three meet on a transport plane they have boarded for home, and how they readjust into civilian society.<br /><br />What impressed me most about this film is that despite the obvious issues that face the three protagonists, it never descends into melodrama. The Navy kid, played by an actual amputee, is placed into situations where we might feel sorry for him, yet the script never lets us feel that emotion. The Army sergeant is clearly an alcoholic, and the story points that out, but never dwells on it. The Air Force captain struggles with the loss of status when he is forced to return to the drug store he soda jerked in (now bought out by a large chain) and take a demeaning job to support his ungrateful and disloyal wife.<br /><br />The script allows plenty of opportunities for all these characters to come to some dramatic climax regarding their plights, but it neatly avoids that. But for the overly dramatic score, the director has tread around exploiting the obvious.<br /><br />In one scene that well represents the entire movie, the daughter of the Army sergeant (Frederic March) is having a discussion with her father and mother regarding the Air Force captain. Despite his marriage, they have fallen in love, and she is determined to break up the marriage which is obviously troubled. Now we've seen thousands of scenes typical of this where the father blusters angrily and the daughter ends up running away to her room in tears, slamming the door and falling on the bed. Later, Mom shows up, consoles daughter and offers words of motherly wisdom, and everybody lives happily ever after.<br /><br />In BYOOL, this scene plays out completely differently than the cliché I have described above. Sure the conversation gets heated, but all parties are reasonable, and there is a serious and timeless discussion of the nature of relationships that has some of the best dialog I have seen.<br /><br />Ultimately, BYOOL is a highly satisfying film, with honest performances from the entire cast. Technically, it is well shot, the editing and cinematography frame, but never overshadow the gripping narrative. Despite the score, which is cliché and over-dramatic, I give this film the highest rating that it clearly deserves

Sometimes, but very rarely, a movie tells a story so well that it almost becomes difficult. This movie tells several stories so well simultaneously that it was the first few times a movie I could not watch to completion. It was too real....and the characters SO STRONG that watching it became a personal struggle. Seeing these three men and their families deal with their hardships, one in particular, often hit me too hard. Now, I have watched in its entirety without interruption several times, and I realize what I always suspected. This movie is a masterpiece. The writing, the acting, the blending of several stories without being even the least bit choppy, everything about this movie is exceptional. Seven Academy Awards? No wonder, it certainly must have deserved them.

Blue ribbon banners, stars and stripes forever, decorated generals, and unconditional surrender from the enemies which required tons and tons of radiation, this was the summon substance of the United States victory in World War II!! The celebration on Times Square as well as everywhere else in the United States suggests a national zenith!!! America is on top right!! one thing, one agonizing and painstakingly perverse thing..The period of adjustment!!..The actual celebration ended when the bottle of champagne was finished..Now everyone needs to get on with their lives...only one problem though...they have to get new lives...the old lives are gone forever...Polite and pleasant smiles had a fragile facade with a longevity of ice cubes in boiling water!! Everyone of the characters in the movie is paraded by primal doubts, and unable to masquerade a pretense about how nothing was seriously wrong, for the simple reason that it was not true!!! Once sergeants, and generals, and their wives, and daughters, and sons and virtually all other Americans touched by World War II, were exposed to disabilities, nightmares and recriminations of World War II and what it really accomplished as well as negated, nobody was the same!! For now, social and moral issues had a self serving interest...Frederick March and Myrna Loy had to start over!! Dana Andrews realized that he should never have been married to Virginia Mayo in the first place!!! Theresa Wright has become painfully aware of the fact that she is constructively selfish!! Las but not least, the character, Homer, is about to get married and he thinks that everyone around him is as devastated by his injury as he is, basically in the sense that they are unable or unwilling to cope!!<br /><br />The reason this film is so fabulous is because a happy ending was attained the hard way, once everybody recognized the new beginning of the new United States and the new world overall, tragedy from WWII was recognized, and things that were emotionally torn asunder were taken in stride, and dealt with accordingly!! Frederick March and Myrna Loy need to go back to chapter one in their marriage, Homer has apprised his new bride as to what it takes to be married to him (i.e. half the times, she will feel like a nurse) and Thresa Wright's involvement with Dana Andrews means that her entrance into adulthood has resulted in partial responsibility for breaking up a marriage...This is tantamount to learning how to drive a car to get your driver's license at the Indianapolis 500...The characters in the movie are the typical post WWII Americans in that they are stalemated by the rude awakening of coercive changes to their lives...Happiness no longer is afforded the luxury of the adjective cop-aesthetic...it is now about formidable conditions, and good winning out over evil by way of the less ugly choice!!...World War II did not just happen!! It will henceforth dominate the social patterns of American living!!!<br /><br />The aggregate catastrophe of World War II has mirrored most Americans' feelings of personal human inadequacy as well!!I loved this film and so did AFI, probably for the reason that it brought out issues that were at one time unjustifiably taboo!!..Bottom line, see this movie!! Nightmares about combat, dilemmas about marital unhappiness and/or readjustment, coping with your life when stricken-ed by a disability and just basically acting human are portrayed constantly in movies and television today, HOWEVER!! this is 1946!! Very new to Americans then....REMEMBER THAT!! Director William Wyler has illustrated how Americans feel about the aftermath of WWII in the days when the movie industry has left him with one hand tied behind his back!!! Take that into account and you will probably realize just how sensational this movie really was!!

Thirty years prior to THE DEER HUNTER came this movie, an excellent meditation on the effects of war inflicted on the American family as seen from both the war heroes and their wives. A truly ironic title, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES is anything but since those times have vanished into still images and all that is left is an uncertain future for those involved.<br /><br />Truly an ensemble cast despite the top-billing of Myrna Loy, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES focuses more on the stories of the men. Al Stephenson (Fredric March) comes back to a household that has irrevocably changed as his sons have grown although he finds support from his doting wife Milly (Myrna Loy). Fred Derry, upon returning, cannot find a decent job despite being a war veteran and is trapped in a marriage that he does not want to Marie, a happy-go-lucky girl who wants more out of life and who increasingly comes to hate him. Homer Parrish, on the other hand, has greater problems due to his loss of hands at war and feels the entire world -- including the girl he loves and her family -- thinks he is a freak of nature.<br /><br />At almost three hours of length, the film never seems long and drawn out. There is so much emotions happening even in small moments that the plot breezes by; nothing seems wasted or placed on screen due to a lack of editing. Not a performance rings false, though the standouts are those of Dana Andrews as Fred Derry, Harold Russell as Homer Parrish and Virginia Mayo as Marie Derry. Even then every character has his or her moment on film, and the time was right to talk about all the pain and suffering that until then had not been seen in American films (including the ones made around World War One, which did not dabble in such topics). While there is never any overt violence, it's all there, in the haunted expressions of the three male leads' faces, in the lot where the planes now reside, ready to be turned into junk (and therefore, forgetfulness), in the cynicism of the store owners who couldn't be bothered to employ these shell-shocked men who had seen battle or even worse, to goad them into wondering what was it all worth for. This is the film in which COMING HOME and BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY are indebted to. At a time when America fled from war films, to come up with this when the end of the Second World War was still fresh was a necessity in order to make a more honest film-making.

One of the great things about The Best Years of Our Lives that even though it dates itself rather firmly in the post World War II era, the issues it talks about are as real today as they were on V-E or V-J day of 1945. The problem of how to assimilate returning war veterans is as old as the written history of our planet.<br /><br />And while we don't often learn from history, we can be thankful that for once the United States of America did learn from what happened with its veterans after the previous World War. The GI Bill of Rights is mentioned in passing in The Best Years of Our Lives was possibly the greatest piece of social legislation from the last century. So many veterans did take advantage of it as do the veterans like Fredric March, Dana Andrews, and Harold Russell who you see here.<br /><br />All three of those actors played archetypal veterans, characters that every corner of the USA could identify with. They all meet on an army transport plane flying to the home town of all of them, Boone City, Iowa.<br /><br />War is a great leveler of class and distinction. Bank employee March, soda jerk Andrews, and high school football star Russell probably would never meet in real life even in a small town like Boone City. But they do meet and war forges indestructible bonds that can never be broken.<br /><br />March is the oldest, a man with two children and Hollywood's perfect wife Myrna Loy. He settles in the first and the best. He has some wonderful scenes, getting cockeyed drunk on his return and later with a little bit of liquor in him, tells the bank officials at a banquet off in no uncertain terms.<br /><br />I also love his scene where another returning veteran, a sharecropper wants to get a bank loan for his own piece of land. Watch March's expressions as he listens to the man's pitch for money. You can feel him read the man's soul. It's what got him his Second Best Actor Oscar for this film.<br /><br />Harold Russell was a real veteran who lost both his hands during service in the Pacific. He got a special recognition Oscar for his performance. Because of that it was probably unfair to nominate him in the Supporting Actor category which he also won in. His performance, especially his scenes with Cathy O'Donnell as his sweetheart who loves him with or without his hands, is beyond anything that could be described as acting.<br /><br />Dana Andrews is the only officer of the three, a bombardier in the Army Air Corps. Of the group of them, maybe he should have stayed in. He also comes from the poorest background of the group and he was an officer and a gentleman in that uniform. That uniform and those monthly allotment checks are what got Virginia Mayo interested enough to marry him. The problem is that he's considerably less in her eyes as a civilian.<br /><br />While Mayo is fooling around with Steve Cochran, Andrews has the great good fortune to have March's daughter Teresa Wright take an interest in him. They're the main story of the film, Andrews adjustment to civilian life and adjusting to the fact he married the wrong woman. Not all veteran's problems were solved with GI Bill.<br /><br />Myrna Loy gets little recognition for The Best Years of Our Lives. My guess is that it's because her role as wife was too much like the stereotypical wife roles she had patented over at MGM. Still as wife to March and mother to Wright she really is the glue that holds that family together.<br /><br />The Best Years of Our Lives won for Best Picture for Sam Goldwyn, Best Director for William Wyler and a few others besides the two acting Oscars it got. It was a critical and popular success, possibly the best film Sam Goldwyn ever produced. It remains to this day an endearing and enduring classic and will be so for centuries. It's almost three hours in length, but never once will your interest wane.<br /><br />The best tribute this film received came from Frank Capra who had a film of his own in the Oscar sweepstakes that year in several categories. In his memoirs he said that he was disappointed to be skunked at the Oscars that year, but that his friend and colleague William Wyler had created such a masterpiece he deserved every award he could get for it.<br /><br />By the way, the film Capra had hopes for was It's A Wonderful Life. The Beat Years of Our Lives can't get better praise than that.

Very glad to see that this excellent film gets such high marks from the users of IMDB. The Best Years of Their Lives remains the finest cinematic statement about veterans returning from war that I have come across. Easily the finest performance by the often overlooked Frederick March. In fact the entire cast shines, including music legend Hoagy Carmichael who treats us all with a subtle version of his classic Lazy River. I would recommend this excellent film to anyone who loves movies.

This American masterpiece came as near perfection as popular art contrives to be, from its beautifully equivocal and suggestive title to the magnificent performance elicited by William Wyler from the nonprofessional amputee Harold Russell… <br /><br />The film epitomized both the dream and the reality of the postwar world… This intimate engagement with the psychological facts of American life gave it an almost universal audience… But, unlike contemporary and preceding "message" pictures, it was not a preachment… It showed Americans as they are, presented their problems as they themselves see them, and provided only such solutions—partial, temporary, personal—as they themselves would accept… The picture's values are the values of the people in it…<br /><br />William Wyler, an outstanding director, triple winner of the best picture Oscar, adds an air of distinction to melodrama, epic and Westerns... With his distinguishing visual style and his taste for solemn material, he gained a reputation as a meticulous, serious artist... Wyler's most adept use of deep-focus reveals the real commitment to emotional content...<br /><br />The film tells the story of three men coming home from war to a small middle-American community, and find it variously difficult to pick up where they left off... The three heroes are: a middle-aged sergeant (Fredric March), magnificent as the devoted family man who succeeds in breaking the ice with his family; an incisive Air Force captain (Dana Andrews) returning to an unfaithful wife; and a tormented sailor (Harold Russell) who has lost both hands in service, replaced by hooks in real life...<br /><br />Winner of 7 Academy Awards including Best Picture, "The Best Years of Our Lives" is eloquent and compassionate, a deeply personal motion picture with touching wordless homecoming scenes: <br /><br />- The first words of the sergeant's loving wife when he arrives home unexpectedly: "I look terrible! It isn't fair of you to burst in on us like this."<br /><br />- The involuntarily sob of the sailor's mother when she first sees her son's mechanical hands... She blurts out: "It's nothing!"<br /><br />With her dry-martini voice, Myrna Loy combines charmingly her wifely qualities with motherly ones; Teresa Wright is lovely as the sergeant's nice daughter who falls in love with the pilot; Virginia Mayo is harsh as the disloyal flashy blonde wife whose first loves are money and high life; and Cathy O'Donnell is wonderful and sensitive as the sailor's fiancée...<br /><br />The situations and even some of the characters seem a little obvious, but this is a superb example of high-quality film-making in the forties, with smiles and tears cunningly spaced and a film which says what is needed on a vital subject...

I watch this movie every time it plays on TV. A simply brilliant film. Three men return home from war and try to return to civilian life with great difficulty. All three led opposite lives during the war (Executive Banker became an army corporal, a soda jerk became an Air Force Captain and the High School Football hero loses both his arms in battle)and now each must reconstruct his life and connect with a new reality. The homes they return to, with grown children and independent, working women along with a depressed economy, only add to the strife. It's the scenes just off camera and the unspoken dialog which resonates the most loudly, however. The awkward intimacy of Frederich March and Myrna Loy and his struggle to return to his place as leader (both at home and at work) are heartbreaking.<br /><br />Dana Andrews is riveting as the handsome, decorated Captain who struggles to keep his life together without the uniform.<br /><br />The film is filled with honest characters and each is portrayed by a gifted actor.<br /><br />This film, however, took on a whole other level after seeing, "Saving Private Ryan." The reality and magnitude of what these men lived through for love and country......and obviously it didn't end on the battlefield.<br /><br />This is an essential for any collection.<br /><br />

I always felt that Ms. Merkerson had never gotten a role fitting her skills. Familiar to millions as the Lt. on Law and Order, she has been seen in a number of theatrical releases, always in a supporting role. HBO's Lackawanna Blues changes that and allows this talented actress to shine as Nanny, successful entrepreneur in a world changing from segregation to integration. But the story is really about the colorful array of characters that she and her adopted son meet in a boarding house in Lackawanna, New York, a suburb of Buffalo.<br /><br />The story could be set in any major African-American community of the 50's and 60's from Atlanta's Sweet Auburn to New York's Harlem. But the segregation-integration angle is only a subtle undercurrent in the colorful lives of the folks at Nanny's boarding house. The story revolves around Nanny's relationships with all kinds of people, played by some of the best actors in the business (I purposely did not say black actors--this ensemble is a stunning array of talent who happen to be black, except for Jimmy Smits, of course) I recommend this film as a fun and colorful look at a bygone day.

If I rate the film maybe a bit high, you can blame it on sentiment. This is one of the first movies that I remember seeing and totally loving. I saw it at the drive-ins here in California in the late 70s. I was already a big fan of "The Muppet Show" on TV so I was primed for the movie, and the movie did not disappoint. Basically it takes the whole absurdist ethos of the Muppet show and transports it from vaudeville into a road movie. Kermit the Frog is on a quest to become famous; not because he wants to take champagne baths and ride in a private jet, but because he wants to "make millions of people happy." Of course.<br /><br />Along the way he picks up all his beloved muppet friends, most endearingly Fonzie Bear who he meets at a seedy bar doing stand-up. They sing "Movin' Right Along", a song that has always charmed me with its upbeat melody and its theme of friendship and shared discovery. He also encounters enough Hollywood movie stars to fill a Stanley Kramer movie, including comedy luminaries like Richard Pryor, Steve Martin, Edgar Bergen, Milton Berle, and Mel Brooks. Brooks in particular has a rather dull bit, and you are left feeling that Henson could have cut a few of these cameos out if he wasn't afraid of offending the stars. Anyway, as befits a road trip movie like this the very first person he meets is Dom DeLuise.<br /><br />The ending is one of the more odd examples of literally breaking down the 4th wall that you will find in any "children's" movie. The Hollywood dream seems to be crumbling all about them, when a real rainbow pierces the Hollywood set with its authentic joy and mystery. I'm sure this was meant to relate to some of Jim Henson's own personal or spiritual experiences.<br /><br />This is the best movie with Muppets by a long shot. If you or anyone else was wondering why the Muppets were so popular back in the 70s, considering how poor the movies have been for the last few decades, I think this film has at least aged well enough to provide a clue.

In 2004, I wrote the following statements on an IMDb message board when a user wondered if The Best Years of Our Lives was a forgotten movie: <br /><br />***** To me watching this movie is like opening up a time capsule. I think in many ways "The Best Years of Our Lives" is probably one of the more fascinating character studies and it holds up extremely well as a look at life in the US in the mid-1940s after WWII. I believe "Coming Home" and "The Deer Hunter", both released in 1978, were the most recent films that were closest in capturing the numerous issues of military men returning from war that were brought up in "The Best Years of Our Lives".<br /><br />What really impressed me was watching the movie in its entirety when I was in college around 1980-81 and many if not all of the college students applauded at the end of the movie.<br /><br />This movie still packs a wallop and I'm very happy to read in other posts other users feeling of a movie that will definitely stand the test of time. *****<br /><br />I'm very happy to see the movie ranked near the top 100 movies on IMDb and AFI. Also, though it was in competition with what eventually became a Christmas classic, It's a Wonderful Life, arguably, The Best Years of Our Lives' Oscar wins, including Best Picture, were very well-deserved. <br /><br />I've just seen the film again in 2005 and after almost 60 years, The Best Years of Our Lives is still a powerful, beautifully acted and well-crafted motion picture.

Everyone agrees about the technical excellence of this film by Jutra (whose life ended short so tragically). As for the content, of course it makes a difference if you're a Quebecker, and this explains some of the divergence of opinions. For me, it is to cinema what Vignault's "Mon pays, ce n'est pas un pays" is to song. In addition, Jean Duceppe was himself a part of legendary Quebec.<br /><br />This film can be contrasted with "CRAZY", a current Quebec release that is successful enough to be showing here in Spain and is also about the 1960s. Urban Quebec (Crazy) vs. rural Quebec (Antoine). But also a film that must be something very different for foreigners and for people who know Quebec from the inside.

This isn't quite the best Canadian film ever, IMO. I won't get off track and name 3 or 4 better. Just a couple of nights before I'd seen "The Bicycle Thief", the highly rated Italian classic, and there are some parallels. Both filmmakers shot their film in a specific time and specific place, with minimal resources in terms of sets and cast. And the result in both cases is fascinating and a joy to watch for the realistic setting and characters alone. The lingering shots over faces and landscape almost make this worth watching on its own. That being said, this one isn't quite in the same league as the Italian classic. The movie is shot in a frigid, barren Quebec asbestos mining town. That frigidity is contrasted with the warmth of the people and the eye of the filmmaker Claude Jutra. Basically, what you get is a series of vignettes that are likely nostalgic recollections of Jutra - not ha, ha funny - but poignant, and probably sometimes difficult at the time, but now warmed over with the patine of nostalgia. The movie meanders; there is little tension. Somewhere around half to two thirds way through the story begins. Everyone you've met to this point is involved, and you've gotten to know these characters rather well; so have a little patience at the outset. The story is a good one; it will leave you thinking, and it involves sex, love and death, all the basic elements. If you like Bergman, Godard, Truffaut, all that kind of stuff, you won't be disappointed by this.

I saw this film when it first came out and have never forgotten it. My Uncle Antoine is much, much greater than the sum of it's parts. The movie, loosely, is about a pre-adolescent who is sent to live with a relative in a small town in Canada. There are adventures that seem more or less typical but underneath there is a current building. MUA has a leisurely pace but have patience, the reward is coming. I believe the film was sub-titled and as with all non-English speaking movies I've seen it is well worth avoiding any dubbed version. Inevitably dubbed movies reflect the attitudes of a new director and actors, with the additional necessity of lip-synching lines that don't quite fit. The English speaking Amarcord is a travesty, for example, while the sub-titled version sings. My Uncle Antoine is well worth the time to find and watch it in French.

Mon Oncle Antoine observes the craggy face of a homespun community from various angles, slowly, taking its time through the beginning, as it should, until we emerge from shattered (but banal) hopes and expectations, into swirling ecstasies of dreams and a heart-stopping revelation about the terrible enigma of mortality.<br /><br />Aimless pans and zooms across the snowy mountainside comfort the mind and hypnotize the viewer. This restless camera work is personified in a fringe character who is equally the drifter, quitting his job at the coal mine and leaving his family to cut lumber, then quitting again and returning to the stark humanity of his boy dead. <br /><br />A fetching old woman cheats on her husband and a young boy dies. Old things become new and new things die. Throughout is the snowy whiteness, as wonder-stricken as the history of cinema.

Don't be fooled by the nostalgic aura that surrounds "Mon oncle Antoine," because like the best of Canadian films darkness lurks just below the surface. <br /><br />Set presumably in 1940s rural Quebec, the story explores the developing consciousness of young Benoit as he learns to deal with both sexuality and death. <br /><br />The look of the film is astonishing, especially seeing as a high proportion of criticism towards Canadian cinema by the general public surrounds aesthetics. Beyond this, the unassuming Benoit is a seductive protagonist for the audience, looking at his corrupting community with fresh an innocent eyes. <br /><br />I recommend reading Jim Leach's critical essay on the film in Canada's Best Features for anyone looking to place the film into a historical context while also dissecting the form of the film. Definitely check this one out.

In a genre by itself, this film has a limited audience and narrow appeal coupled with a subtle undertone which permeates the entire production. Nevertheless, it is a remarkable piece of cinema which is as timeless as a rare work of art. Capturing a time in Québec rarely seen in movies, Mon Oncle Antoine's strength lies in the depth of its characters and the richness of the settings. Duplessis' Québec, parochial and feudal, is brilliantly cast as the backdrop which could not possibly be achieved by anyone other than a pure laine Québecois.<br /><br />It would be far too easy to resort to stereotypes, clichés and single-minded myopic statements in this story. Yet the director chose to skip the forced imagery and instead, focused on the essence of life in rural Québec of the time. That makes this film exceptional in its authenticity while not being pretentious in its presentation. If only more contemporary cinematic endeavors would do the same, the viewing public might not be forced to choose between the over-hyped Hollywood Pablum that passes for 'Must See' viewing.<br /><br />Mon Oncle Antoine is - in every sense of the word - unforgettable. It will leave a lasting impression on anyone who has ever lived in - or visited - Québec. A classic. **********************************************<br /><br />Follow-up: 10 May 2008<br /><br />After reviewing some of the comments, it's worth noting Mon oncle Antoine is NOT - and probably wasn't MEANT to serve as standard Hollywood/American cinema for mass market sales. A coming of age story, yes, but far more than simple memoirs of adolescence in 1940's Québec. Viewers who're looking for sheer entertainment at the expense of complex development of the characters will be sorely disappointed. Go watch action/adventure/romance/comedies to be amused. Watch Mon oncle Antoine to be drawn into a seldom seen, but absolutely remarkable society that has been overlooked and ignored for far too long.<br /><br />The Grapes of Wrath is hardly an edge-of-the-seat thriller, yet the story and characters are what makes this American classic an enduring film. Mon oncle Antoine is in the same genre.

I've seen Jimmy Stewart in all the regular roles, but the "Spirit of St. Louis" was reported to be one of his favorites. A poor box-office performer when released, this film has been largely forgotten today. Telling the well-known story of Lindberg's famous flight in 1927, Stewart seems to be badly miss-cast at first, and his well known voice never lets you forget who you're watching; it feels like George Baily all over again. But Stewart obviously worked hard on the role and he does everything right, so before long you don't care anymore that Stewart was 20 years older than the man he's portraying. Stewart's Lindberg is so gosh-darn, all-American, apple-pie likable that you get caught up in the story, and you realize that Stewart intended to portray Lindberg with all of the aw-shucks, Yankee-know-how he could muster up. Lindberg was an almost mythical hero in the U.S., and Stewart seems determined to keep up appearances.<br /><br />Flash backs are cleverly used to keep what is really a rather story moving along, and I was struck by the subtle references to Faith that were scattered through the film; Lindberg trying to teach a hopeless priest how to fly, only to be confronted by the priest on his beliefs, or Lindberg refusing to carry a proffered St. Christopher medal to save weight on the plane, only to find the medal hidden in his lunch bag after he'd crossed the Atlantic. For me, this is a film not about a man's epic journey into the unknown, but his realization that this life is much bigger than the things we can see and feel.

dull

Jimmy Stewart brings the story of Charles Lindbergh to life as he almost narrates the entire film while he crosses the Atlantic. It well edited with flashbacks over Lindeberghs life. Franz Waxman score is shear brilliant and truly gives the picture a heroic feel. One of Stewarts finest roles and this film can deliver time after time. Look for appearances by Murray Hamilton ( The Mayor in the JAWS Movie) as Bud Gurney.Comes out on DVD 8-15-06 with the release of a few more of Stewarts classic films. I consider Jimmy Stewart to be Americas greatest Actor and never tire of seeing him in any film I see, watch this picture and you'll agree.

Billy Wilder created a somewhat conventional biopic about the Charles Lindberg flight. He structures the film using flashbacks extensively to tell the Lindberg story leading up to the famous flight across the Atlantic, which happens in present time in the film. Flying an airplane for hour after hour is not the stuff of excitement, and Wilder is not going to deviate from his theme of Lindberg as hero of the common man, so things are predictable. However, James Stewart is well cast and quite believable as Lindberg, and the many obstacles he has to overcome just to get his plane in the air keep one watching. <br /><br />The film comes through most successfully as Wilder weaves the parts of the story together in a way that create tension, then relief, then tension again. The cinematography is quite good, score by Franz Waxman enhances the scenes, and Stewart really seems to make Lindberg come alive, makes one believe he could be Lindberg. There is a bit of 1950's religious schmaltz at the end, but overall the direction, acting, and high production values overcome the predictability of the story (would anybody REALLY see this picture and NOT know that Lindberg made it across the Atlantic?) to make an enjoyable film that has aged better than most films from that time. Billy Wilder made films of a wide variety of types, and this is one that is representative of his craftsman-like best.

The Muppet Movie <br /><br />directed by <br /><br />James Frawley<br /><br />Kermit the Frog and friends relive the tales and stories of how they all came together.<br /><br />The Muppets star in their first feature film, bringing the magic they are known for to a bigger picture. The story is not too complex and is written as a prequel of sorts. The well written jokes appear as each character gets a worthy introduction. The cameos aren't just thrown in either, but written in as interesting characters, making one of the many peaks for our furry friends.

Everyone knows that Lindburgh succeeded in the first transatlantic flight. So how can there be any suspense or intrigue in this film? Well, there is. Don't ask me how, but there is. Partly due to the director's expert telling of the tale but mostly due to Jimmy Stewart's thoroughly engaging performance, we are drawn into the story as if it were unfolding for the first time right before our eyes. Despite the fact that half the movie is filmed in a cramped cockpit, it is as dynamic as any action flick out there. So if you are apprehensive about seeing this movie because you think you know the story already, give it a shot. I think you'll be impressed.

Stewart's age didn't bother me at all in this movie, although he was portraying a much younger person. I still recall my fascination with Lindbergh's story and while I was thoroughly adult by the time this biopic was made, I had to see it.<br /><br />Not only does this boast a great performance by Stewart,it also gives a lot of fascinating technical data,making it understandable to those technically challenged such as myself. And the look of the plane itself was great.<br /><br />I quite loved this depiction of a period before my birth and reawakens the childhood love I had for airplanes and for the idea of air travel.

Others have harped here about James Stewart's age when playing Lindburg (he was 47 Linburg was twenty five.) But Stewart does not look his age and the film, for him was a dream come true. An actual pilot and a retired Air Force Reserve General at the end of his life, Stewart had the feel for the character and understanding of his passion, which other actors could not bring to the role. Added to the cast was co-star Murray Hamilton, who was also to be featured in "The F.B.I. story with Stewart) and such other well known character actors as Richard Deacon, of the later "Dick Van Dike Show" and Robert Cornthwaite of "The Thing from Another World" the 1951 Sci-Fi classic.<br /><br />Billy Wilder captures the flavor of the Lindburg Autobiography and the telling of what was to become a major event in the history of aviation. This story and film are a testament to the soul of determination and perseverance to realize a dream. A box office failure at the time of it's release, it has since become one of the great classics of American Film and another in a long line of outstanding performances by an actor that has been called America's Everyman. No student of film history should miss seeing this one. There have been over 500,000 films since the beginning of motion pictures, and this one belongs among the top 500.

This is one of those movies that showcases a great actor's talent and also conveys a great story. It is one of Stewart's greatest movies. Barring a few historic errors it also does an excellent job of telling the story of the "Spirit of St. Louis".

Jimmy Stewart was a real life pilot, WWII flier and a one-star general in the Air Force and therefore a natural for how real pilots react when they fly. When you see the faithful recreation of the actual plane, you begin to understand the real-life bravery and courage of Lucky Lindy when he flew the Atlantic solo in 1927!

What you bring to the movie influences your view of it. I brought 30 years in the Air Force to this, and every time I see it I am moved by the ending. Would a youngster of 15 who's spent their life flying in jets feel the same way? Yet, I can only just its impact on me. <br /><br />Jimmy Stewart gives a wonderful turn as--Jimmy Stewart. Considering he was a pilot, and an Air Force Reserve General, he probably comes as close to being an expert on how a pilot would act as any man alive. One can't fault his delivery, or his acting. He IS a pilot BEING a pilot, that's enough.<br /><br />---Spoilers---<br /><br />It's the final minutes of the film that continue to grip my heart. Lindbergh has been flying without radio communication and has no idea if anyone is even expecting him. When he flies into the Paris airport, the uncertainty of the landing field draws you in. What is it below? Those shifting circles that look like cobblestones or a field of corn, must make you wonder, is he in the right place? They go on and on, streaming past his vision until he gets low enough and see that in the Paris night, what he was seeing was the light of the city reflecting off the upturned faces of the THOUSANDS of people waiting for him to land.

From director Billy Wilder (Double Indemnity, The Seven Year Itch, Some Like It Hot), I can see that this is a bit of an under-shown and underrated film, one to be seen. This is the biographical story of Charles Augustus 'Slim' Lindbergh (James Stewart), who in 1927 wanted to be the first man to cross travel solo flight from New York, crossing the Atlantic ocean, to reach Paris, in a small cockpit. The first half hour or whatever is seeing Lindbergh getting permission to do it, and the construction of the plane, named "The Spirit of St. Louis", and making all necessary preparations. Then of course the rest sees his perilous journey crossing the journey, overcoming tiredness, near fuel loss, and moments of losing sense of direction, but he was successful. Also starring Murray Hamilton as Bud Gurney, Patricia Smith as Mirror Girl, Bartlett Robinson as Benjamin Frank Mahoney, Robert Cornthwaite as Harry Knight, Sheila Bond as Model/Dancer, Marc Connelly as Father Hussman, Arthur Space as Donald Hall, Harlan Warde as Boedecker and Dabbs Greer as Goldsborough. Apparently Lindbergh was a bit younger, so Stewart was a shade too old to play him, but then again, you can't think of anyone else that could do better. It is a witty and emotional drama, with Stewart (as always) being fantastic, great music score by Frank Waxman, and good direction from Wilder, a good little known gem. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Special Effects (the only award it was ever nominated). James Stewart was number 12 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 3 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, and he was number 13 on The World's Greatest Actor. Very good!

It's a thoroughly successful example of a 1950s biopic. It has the stalwart and handsome young hero -- well, not so young anymore on screen; superb, if unlikely, direction by Billy Wilder; a stirring fully orchestrated musical score of uplifting scales and, when required, heavenly strings by Franz Waxman; strong supporting players; a gripping story; stunning photography by Hitchcock favorite Robert Burks; and a narrative about a singular historical event.<br /><br />The film begins with Jimmy Stewart as Charles Lindbergh trying to get some sleep in a Long Island hotel before his epic solo flight across the Atlantic, from New York to Paris. And he can't sleep.<br /><br />The flight itself is filled with flashbacks to Lindbergh's personal history and the purchase and construction of his unique high-wing monoplane, The Spirit of St. Louis. St. Louis, Missouri, is the home of the partnership that sponsored the flight. (Even in 1927, money talked.) Anyway, the movie HAD to have multiple flashbacks and Stewart's narration. What's the alternative. Observing the unities? Thirty-three hours of watching Jimmy Stewart sitting silently at the controls of his noisy airplane while days and nights come and go? I found the script and the direction impressive for their time. Unpleasant things are of course left out, so as not to introduce more ambiguity than the contemporary audience might manage.<br /><br />My bet is that the howling mob that surrounds Lindbergh at Le Bourget ripped the airplane to pieces for souvenirs. And of course nothing about the pilot's relief tube, though it would have added more opportunities for humor. Some of today's viewers will find some incidents corny if they think too much about them. Aloft, Stewart chats with a friendly hitch-hiking fly that, in its own quietly concerned way, wakes him up by landing on his cheek at a critical moment. Later, the St. Christopher's medal that Father Hussman gave him taps gently against the glass crystal of one of the instruments just as Stewart is desperately trying to land. The atheist Stewart is saved twice -- once by a fly and once by God.<br /><br />But never mind that. It's an impressive film. That landing at Le Bourget, with an exhausted Stewart behind the joy stick, confused by searchlights, sweaty with fear and collapsing with fatigue, is really convincing. "I'm going to tear this airplane up," he tells himself, and we can believe him.<br /><br />Flying a light plane is not at all like driving a car. There is no smoothly curving highway to tell you where to go, no lanes to provide guidance. You're busy every second. You must watch the instruments, check each wingtip to see that they touch the horizon, ditto the airplane's nose, and constantly watch up, down, and sideways for other traffic, although that last wouldn't have been much of a problem for Lindbergh. He was all alone over the ocean.<br /><br />Why? In one of the movie's folksier moment, Stewart and Murray Hamilton, two gypsy barnstormers of the 1920s, are lounging near their airplanes in a Midwestern field. "What is it? What makes us love flying so much?", asks Hamilton. (No answer.) Later, his financial backers try to talk him out of the flight. Five other aviators have already died trying it. "But don't you understand? It HAS to be done," says an impassioned Stewart.<br /><br />Well, that's not much of an answer either. Why does it have to be done now, and why by Lindbergh? Why NOT wait ten years and stop wasting lives in the meantime? The answer, dear Socrates, lies partly in our glands. Pilots are a placid and confident lot, given to occasional arousal jags. Their chief problem may be an addiction to an internal rush of adrenalin. Just kidding. Some of my best friends are pilots. Still, Lindbergh must have been quite a guy. He deserved to be treated as a hero. Not just because of the flight itself but because of his later demeanor -- quiet, modest, a family man. We can easily forget his admiration for Hitler, since he more than made up for it by testing Corsair fighters in the Pacific and advising the Navy on how to tweak the airplanes and get the best performance out of them.<br /><br />See it if you have the chance. If nothing else, it's a history lesson told with visual splendor.

Biographical tale of the life of Charles Lindbergh, the first man to fly solo non-stop across the Atlantic in 1927, aboard his plane the Spirit of St Louis.<br /><br />While not amongst Director Billy Wilder's best films it does boast some very impressive production values especially for a film made 50 years ago. The story is well told and the performances are also good though not outstanding.<br /><br />One definite limiting factor upon the storytelling is that Lindbergh flew alone and without a radio, which meant he has no one to speak with. This necessitated a few different story telling techniques such as internal monologues, speaking with a housefly, and the occasional bouts of talking to himself especially once the exhaustion sets in. Also in order to avoid an extended sequence of the famous flight, it is interspersed with flashbacks from his life and the methodical preparations for the flight.<br /><br />Charles Lindbergh was a huge hero of his era but his controversial beliefs would taint his legacy somewhat. Despite this he would continue to contribute to the aviation field and assisted as a civilian aircraft consultant to the US effort in WWII.<br /><br />Jimmy Stewart certainly had the flying background to back his portrayal of Lindbergh. He rose to the rank of Colonel in US Air Force during WWII and while in the reserves following the War would reach the rank of Brigadier General.

This film recreates Lindbergh's historic flight across the Atlantic while touching on episodes in his aviation career through flashbacks. Stewart was about 20 years too old to be playing the young flier, but his fine performance, particularly in the solo flight sequences, makes this a minor quibble. Waxman's rousing score is a big plus. Despite the long running time, Wilder manages to make it quite exciting and is able to sustain the drama even though the outcome is known. What a year 1957 was for Wilder: besides this, he also wrote and directed "Love in the Afternoon" and "Witness for the Prosecution." And his next two were "Some Like it Hot" and "The Apartment." What a run!

I am 17, and a biased Muppet fan, and while I love Treasure Island, Christmas Carol and Great Muppet Caper, The Muppet Movie absolutely deserves to be up there with the best of them. It is enormously entertaining, thanks to the snappy script by Jerry Juhl, and the film looks lovely, with some beautifully staged musical numbers. Speaking of the songs, I really liked them, sure they aren't the best song score out of the Muppet franchise, but they were very nice to listen to, especially Never Before. Never Before is now one of my favourite Muppet songs along with First Time It Happens and Professional Pirate. The Muppets as usual were fantastic, particularly the always delightful Miss Piggy, and the chemistry between Kermit and Fozzie was great. And what a brilliant human cast- from Bob Hope to Orson Welles, from Madeleine Kahn(the same wonderful actress who brought us hilarious movies like What's Up Doc?, Blazing Saddles and Clue) to Cloris Leachman, from Steve Martin to Richard Pryor, all of whom made memorable guest appearances, if careful not to overshadow the Muppets in a fantastic film. 10/10 Bethany Cox

"In 1927 a young man, alone in a single engine aeroplane, flew non-stop from Roosevelt Field in New York across the entire North Atlantic Ocean to Le Bourget Field in Paris, a distance of three thousand six hundred and ten miles. In this triumph of mind, body and spirit, Charles A. Lindbergh influenced the lives of everyone on earth--for in the 33 hours and thirty minutes of his flight the air age became a reality. This is the story of that flight".<br /><br />Billy Wilder adapts from Charles A. Lindbergh's Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the same name, in what is re-creation of Lindbergh's historical 1927 solo flight. Boosted by a considerably strong lead performance from James Stewart {himself a pilot} as Lindberg, and containing an intelligent screenplay from Wilder and Wendell Mayes, Spirit Of St. Louis is a sincerely well told story.<br /><br />In what at times threatens to become a monotonous film, Wilder keeps it ticking over by using flashbacks to Lindbergh's life. After the nicely told build up to the event, such as the peril being realised as Nungesser and Coli go missing {never to be found} whilst attempting the same trip in reverse, we learn stuff like how he come to buy his first plane and his work with the flying circus. This is all relative to understanding the man and his obvious passion for flying. This also helps to give us a complete picture of Lindbergh, thus putting us with him in his isolated cockpit as he undertakes this dangerous journey. Battling isolation {his only company is a fly} and chronic tiredness, it's here where Stewart perfectly portrays Lindbergh's devotion to the task. Aided by a terrific score from Franz Waxman and Academy Award nominated effects by Louis Lichtenfield, Wilder's movie turns out to be an engaging human interest story that got a thoroughly professional production. 7/10

This is a great story. Although there are some Jimmy Stewart cornball parts, for the most part it is a compelling tale about an individual with a compelling drive, vision and sense of adventure - to say the least. The bottom line is it is one of my favorites to watch and I've done so probably dozens to times -- that is until someone stole it our of a bag I brefly left on a plane on a flight to California!<br /><br />Some have commented about too many flashbacks but I don't know a better way to keep a long flight interesting. For those of us who actually fly, flight can be hours of boredom punctuated by moments of terror. I wouldn't have wanted to see the flight shortened at all. The oppressive need for sleep and the drone and surrounding loneliness is part of the story.<br /><br />There are many parts that I particularly like including the takeoff from Long Island and landing at night in Paris (Wow, things have really changed with us and the French since then!). The airplane building scenes and the record-breaking flight from San Diego are interesting as is the incident over the Atlantic in ice (which I understand is not completely true but did happen on the San Diego flight).<br /><br />One gets the sense that one of Lindbergh's biggest assets are his enlightened supporters as well as his persistence.<br /><br />Some of the lines that ring in my head now and then include "Pull the chocks!" on the takeoff scene and "I hope I don't have to use it that way" when describing the submarine-like "periscope" to the lady who lent him a mirror so he could better see his overhead instruments.<br /><br />This movie is not for everybody but it certainly is for me. I hope they make it on DVD soon so I can replace my stolen version!

Billy Wilder continues his strong run of films during the 1950s with a biopic of Charles Lindbergh, the young American pilot who became the first man to fly solo across the Atlantic in 1927. Jimmy Stewart plays Lindbergh, and while he might be a bit too old for the part, he still brings the sincere warmth and confidence needed as well as his trademark down-to-earth goodness that makes him an iconic film star. Wilder directs solidly, balancing the background story with humor and drama to give us a clear description of what Lindbergh was up against when he decided to take this challenge. It certainly isn't his nor Stewart's best work, but it is a gem of a movie. It lifts your spirits with the plane and makes you proud to be an American. Overall, it is just plain good.

A great movie about triumph over all the nay-sayers who try to kill your spirit, achieving the impossible. I won't go on about it, other than to say that I liked to reflect on the this film when I'm facing something particularly daunting, and realize that if Lindberg could do what he did, I can certainly face the task before me. Definitely a "feel good" movie.<br /><br />See it. You won't be disappointed.

1st watched 10/10/2009 - 8 out of 10 (Dir - Billy Wilder): Spectacular rendering of Lindbergh's famous flight by James Stewart as Lindbergh and Director Billy Wilder. There isn't really a whole lot of background built into this story but that's OK because Wilder makes the event really remarkable as it comes directly from Lindbergh's perspective since he used his book as the basis of the movie. This early movie about flying has to be one of the best about the act itself as well. Stewart talking and thinking to himself during the flight gives you so much insight into what Lindbergh went thru in this 33 hour solo flight across the Atlantic. And he did the whole flight without sleeping the night before -- which is amazing!! There is a little backstory about how he purchased the plane and got the financing, and some flashbacks about his life during the flight but the movie is mostly about the flight. The story is also beautifully made and photographed and is a joy to watch despite it's age. I appreciate the fact that they didn't throw in a lot of fluff and just let the story tell itself. Well done throughout. This is a classic movie that should be viewed by all.

Every year there's one can't-miss much-anticipated red-hot big-budget title with the right combination of star, director and subject matter that fails miserably at the box-office. This year it was Superman Returns. In 1982 it was Blade Runner. In 1957 it was Billy Wilder's The Spirit of St Louis, a film that had everything - top director, huge star, best-selling true story about an American hero - except enough of an audience to cover its costs. Maybe the public still remembered Lucky Lindy's anti-Semitism and his loud admiration for Nazi Germany's achievements before the war (neither covered in the film, which ends with his arrival in Paris before the legend got too tarnished). Maybe because they thought they knew the story or that it was just going to be one guy stuck in a cockpit for two hours. Certainly Wilder and co-writer Wendell Mayes are aware of the dramatic pitfalls of Lindbergh's relatively uneventful flight, alternating between a well-executed flashback structure to key points in his life and the build-up to the flight itself. Once the film is airborne, it's both surprising and suspenseful, finding genuine drama in his attempts to stay awake and to navigate without proper instruments.<br /><br />It also builds up a quite remarkable sense of dread that's unlike anything else in Wilder's filmography, allied to a real sense of the epic: shots like the ominous storm clouds over the hanger the dark dawn before the flight carry a real chill of foreboding to them. Even the typically muted and problematic WarnerColor adds to the film rather than detracts from it. Along with the superb use of CinemaScope, there's a remarkable score from Franz Waxman: majestic, soaring but filled with understated menace, and cleverly used as part of the fabric of the film rather than mere musical accompaniment. The film does lose points for implying, though never actually saying outright, that this was a race to be the first to fly the Atlantic - in fact, Lindbergh was the third man to fly across the Atlantic after almost completely forgotten Brits Alcock and Brown's astonishing flight eight years earlier - but it's still a remarkably tense and engrossing adventure story that deserved the success it never found.

The word impossible has led many to select a particular view concerning any incredible task. In 1927, it was believed no man could fly the breath of the Atlantic Ocean. Many had tried but failed and some even gave their lives to the effort. Nevertheless, it had to be done as every challenge needs to be met with equal determination. Such then is the heart of this movie called "The Spirit of St. Louis." The actor chosen for this historic film is none other than America's own James Stewart who convincingly plays Charles Lindbergh. Although there are many facets of Lindbergh's life, the segment featured here is his efforts to be the First Man to fly across the Atlantic. The story is an interesting one and for Stewards' fans compelling to say the least. Seeking enough funds to build a special aircraft, to the fateful decision to began the journey on a gloomy day in May 1927, 'Luck Lindy' as he was christened, endured enormous risks, which are featured in this superb film. Other notables which helped make this film believable are Murray Hamilton who plays Bud Gurney, Bartlett Robinson as Ben Mahoney, Arthur Space and Charles Watts as O.W. Schultz. The sum total of this now famous movie is that despite poor endorsement on its debut, it has since become a Classic in it's own right. Well done! ****

I have watched this film several times over the years and always find it an entertaining experience. As a retired airline pilot, I am interested in most aviation movies and this is one of the better ones. I know that Lindbergh was only 25 years old at the time of his historic solo flight to Paris and that James Stewart was almost 50 when making this movie but I can overlook that fact because Stewart has always been one of my all-time favorite actors and does one of his usual outstanding performances as the "lone eagle".<br /><br />There is a good mixture of comedy and drama throughout the film and a good use of flashbacks. It also helps that James Stewart was a pilot in real life both in the military and civilian life.

"The Spirit of St. Louis" is Billy Wilder's film tribute to one of the best figures in aeronautical history, remembered for the first nonstop solo flight across the Atlantic Ocean in May 1927 with James Stewart (a little too old for the part) playing Charles Lindbergh...<br /><br />As a tribute it is eloquent enough and, although a few nice liberties may have been taken with historical fact, the motion picture describing the detailed odyssey before and after the Paris flight on May 20-21 in the monoplane "Spirit of St. Louis."<br /><br />Although the lengthy internal monologue employed during the journey may be disappointing to an audience, the truth is that it helps keep the picture focused tightly on its essential point... Stewart dignified the portrait of one of the greatest adventurers in the air the world has ever know, departing, in a highly modified single engine monoplane, from Long Island, New York to Paris, France...<br /><br />No action is depicted in the trip, only some flashbacks to break up the monotony of the long flight... But there is superb determination of the ordeal of a brave and talented pilot decided to fly alone... His equation is simple: less weight (one engine, one pilot) would increase fuel efficiency and allow for a longer flying range, but with so much risk... Lindbergh's claim to fame was doing something that many had tried and failed...<br /><br />Even though Wilder has bravely put it upon the screen in a calm, unhurried fashion, it comes out as biography of intense restraint and power... But it is James Stewart's performance (controlled to the last detail) that gives life and strong, heroic stature to the principal figure in the film...<br /><br />From it there, emerges an awareness of a clever, firm but truly humble man who tackles a task with resolution, plans as much about it as he can, makes his decisions with courageous finality and then awaits with only one thought in mind, to get to Paris... In his efforts to cut off the plane's weight, any item considered too heavy or unnecessary was left behind...<br /><br />The record-setting flight proved not only to be a fight with the elements and a test of navigation, but also a long battle against fatigue... A busy schedule and an active mind kept Lindbergh up all of the previous night... Still, he managed to stay conscious enough to keep the monoplane from crashing and landed at Le Bourget Aerodrome, near Paris, 33 hours and 30 minutes after leaving New York...<br /><br />Stewart gives an able portrait of a brave pilot who attains legendary status, emphasizing the intention and dominant resolution to fly nonstop 5,810 kilometers (3,610 miles) across the Atlantic...<br /><br />Photographed in CinemaScope and WarnerColor and backed by Franz Waxman's beautiful music, the film effectively captures the pioneering spirit of the era and the hero's ultimate achievement since he takes off, that day, from Roosevelt wet field, and clears telephone wires at the end of the runway...

If you are looking for King Kong, you mispelled your search! This is a low-low budget movie that was soley >ment to entertain people in a comic sense. Here is the >most ordinary human who is the only 1 who can save the >world from a 185' 300 ton behmouth. Surely you can see the humor in that.

Who doesn't remember The Muppet Movie???<br /><br />Kermit the Frog is now an American culture icon. What child doesn't appeal to this character?<br /><br />As the first actual Muppet film, the movie simply called, The Muppet Movie did very well. Kermit takes a Hollywood agent's advice and goes out of his home swamp to respond to the ad. Along the way he meets up with a pig, a bear, chickens a rock band and a few other quality puppets. Watch for dozens of cameo appearances like Madaline Kahn, Steve Martian, Richard Pryor, Mel Brooks and several more. I grew up watching this movie and I loved it.

This year's Royal Rumble wasn't really bad, but last year's was definitely way better.<br /><br />FIRST MATCH- SHAWN MICHAELS VS. EDGE Even though this match did take a little too long, it was still alright. Edge wins after using the ropes to pin Shawn Michaels. 4/10<br /><br />SECOND MATCH- UNDERTAKER VS. HEIDENREICH IN A CASKET MATCH Now I don't really like Casket matches, this match was boring & sloppy but in the end it picked up it's pace as Undertaker nailed the Tombstone then rolled Heidenreich in the casket for the victory. 4/10<br /><br />THIRD MATCH- JBL VS. KURT ANGLE VS. BIG SHOW IN A TRIPLE-THREAT MATCH FOR THE WWE WOMEN'S CHAMPIONSHIP Not a bad triple-threat match. Too bad JBL wins again to retain his title after nailing a Clothesline From Hell on Angle for the win. 5/10<br /><br />FOURTH MATCH- RANDY ORTON VS. TRIPLE H FOR THE WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP Great match by these two men, the match was a bit sloppy but it was still good & it picked up pretty towards the end. Even though Orton lost the match was fast paced & great towards the end. HHH nails the Pedigree on Orton for the win to retain his World Title. 5/10<br /><br />FIFTH MATCH- ROYAL RUMBLE This was a cool Royal Rumble {Every Royal Rumble is good}. After all 30 men entered, the last four remaining superstars in the Rumble were Cena, Edge, Mysterio & Batista. Edge was able to spear Mysterio out, later Batista & Cena clotheslined Edge out together. It was now up to Cena & Batista. First after reversing an F-U, Batista went for the Batista Bomb but suddenly both men crumbled on the outside at the same time. After a controversial decision & Mr. McMahon making his way to the ring to settle the matter. The match was restarted again as Batista & Cena battled it out, but Batista got the better out of Cena, nailed a spine-buster & threw Cena out to win the 2005 Royal Rumble & go on to Wrestlemania 21 to face the Champion in the mainevent. 10/10 This was a very good Royal Rumble, but last year's would always top every Royal Rumble in history.<br /><br />Overall: I'll give it 8/10 & B+

Probably the best Royal Rumble in years.<br /><br />Match 1 sees Edge battle Shawn Michaels in a good but very long match. Next up one of the worst wrestlers on the roster - Heidenreich takes on The Undertaker in a boring casket match. Match number 3 sees Bradshaw defend his WWE title against Big Show and Kurt Angle in a surprisingly good contest. The next match up sees Triple H defending his 10th heavyweight title reign against Randy Orton in a great match up.<br /><br />Next up the Royal Rumble takes place in which 15 Raw superstars and 15 Smackdown! superstars hit the ring to try and win the rumble and face the champion whoever that may be at Wrestlemania 21. Highlights included Tough Enough 3 winner Daniel Puder getting his ass kicked by Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero and Hardcore Holly! All of the superstars beating the crap out of Muhammad Hassan, and Raw superstars vs Smackdown! superstars!<br /><br />Not a bad PPV at all.<br /><br />Edge vs HBK - 8/10 Taker vs Heidenreich - 4/10 JBL vs Angle vs Big Show - 7.5/10 Triple H vs Orton - 8.5/10 The Royal Rumble match - 9/10

This Royal Rumble basically had the message of wrestling these days. Gimmick and image are more popular then wrestling ability.<br /><br />HBK vs Edge. Pretty good match. A lot of heat for Edge who was just starting out as a heel again and what better way to go into a match with HBK. It kind of got a little slower at the end then usual. Overall this match gets a 6/10. Undertaker vs Hedinreich. Not a good match. Undertaker had to carry Hedinreich through this match who seemed to be really lost and screwed up his moves. It did get interesting to see Raws Gene Snitsky and a bit later Kane come into this match. Overall the fans seemed more interested when this match ended. 2/10 Kurt Angle vs JBL vs Big Show. This match was slow at first but got pretty good at the end when Angle managed to speed up the match.Kurt Angle did some really good wrestling moves and proves he is the best wrestler out of the match. JBL and Big Show put on a slow match. The ending to this match was bad. Over all this match was a 5/10 mainlly because of Kurt Angle. Randy Orton vs HHH. Good match,surprising heat for Randy Orton who was the face in this match. Randy proved he can go the limit with any top star. This match also marked the first match HHH has wrestled where someone dosn't run down and save him from a loss. Over all this match was about a 6/10.<br /><br />Royal Rumble match was OK. Some surprises. Some not so good surprises. I was kind of upset that Kurt Angle wasn't given enough time in this match. But over all this match had a guy who I never thought would be pushed so soon. I won't tell ya who wins. I give this match a 8/10

The Royal Rumble has traditionally been one of my favourite events, and i've been a wrestling fan for a good few years now. The other shows may have better matches, but i've always found the actual rumble match to be full of excitement.<br /><br />I'm not going to reveal the winners of any match as i don't see it as fair to ruin the results on a review. I will comment on the quality of them though.<br /><br />We have the standard 4 matches, and then the big rumble event. Two from Smackdown and two from Raw.<br /><br />Shawn Michaels and Edge open up for Raw. This proves to be a good match from two talented guys. This is a match i'd recommend watching. It's hard to sum up without giving away the winner.<br /><br />Next we have the usual Undertaker against some big nasty monster, be whoever it is. Giant Gonzales, Yokozuna, Kamala... well this time it's Heidenreich. Its also a casket match. Typical Undertaker fare. Watch if you're a fan. I have to admit i am, purely for the entertainment factor. It can hardly be regarded as a classic wrestling match.<br /><br />The next two matches are the title matches. For once Smackdown manages to upstage Raw. Their title match is pretty thrilling and enjoyable, but with a anti-climax and let down to end it. Raw's match is a pretty dull and boring affair, which is a pity as i'm a fan of both guys involved.<br /><br />Now to the main reason i love the event, the rumble. It's a pretty good one this year. Coming up to the event we all had a pretty good idea of who might win, and it may not prove a big surprise, but hey, its very enjoyable. There are the usual diverse ways of people being eliminated. There is the token guy who doesn't make it to the ring, the entrant who is ridiculous and we all want to see vanquished, and someone gets eliminated by a previously eliminated combatant. It has its usual highs and lows, and i loved the ending, in particular the Vince McMahon entrance.<br /><br />I'd recommend this show. Not the WWE on top form, but its still good. Add it to your collection.

Shawn Michaels vs. Edge-8- Kind of hard to believe Shawn Michaels is in the opening match but still a great match by both men, Edge, whether you like or not is a great performer in the ring, and Shawn Michaels is just ageless when it comes to his performance The Undertaker vs. Heidenreich. Casket Match-2- OK, after a good opening match, now this, what a crappy match. Undertaker has given some great matches at the Royal Rumble, and 1998's Royal Rumble against Shawn Michaels was the same type of match, but this is way worse then that match.<br /><br />Kurt Angle vs. Big Show vs. Bradshaw. Triple Threat WWE Championship-6- It's alright, i feel all three men could of given a better performance, this just really didn't show them at their best.<br /><br />Randy Orton vs. Triple H. World Heavyweight Championship-9- Triple H gets a clean win, can you believe it, sure he takes out the Sledgehammer but doesn't use it. Randy Orton did great when acting like he got a concussion, but how he got the concussion is really ridiculous. I really liked this match, this was the best performance i've seen from HHH in forever.<br /><br />The Royal Rumble Match-7- This was highly entertaining and i usually don't score the royal rumble match this high. The winner is again, very predictable, but just this had a lot of moments that were very entertaining to watch The segments with Flair and Guerrero are hilarious the best segments i've seen in a while.<br /><br />Overall, this is a great PPV and a must own for wrestling fans.

A respectable royal rumble event<br /><br />1. Edge Vs Shawn Michaels<br /><br />7.5/10 A very strong opener...edge's heel performance was sublime as it was during the rumble event ..overall id say EDGES NIGHT....<br /><br />2. Undertaker Vs Heidenreich CASKET MATCH<br /><br />7/10 a lot of people hated this rivalry though i liked it, i thought heidenreich really played his character well. the match wasn't amazing in excitement that was until kane and snitcky get involved .it gets better as it goes on.<br /><br />3. Kurt Angle Vs Big Show Vs JBL(WWE CHAMP) WWE TITLE MATCH<br /><br />7.5/10 a surprisingly good match , as there was only 1 really exciting in ringer in it ..angle of course......very good title match ..good pace.. though a predictable end .but aren't all royal rumble title matches predictable.<br /><br />4. Triple H (WORLD TITLE) Vs Randy Orton WORLD TITLE MATCH<br /><br />6.5/10 actually not that good for the guys involved, went on too many dry patches, orton sold his concussion amazingly, ending though was some what of an anti climax.<br /><br />5. ROYAL RUMBLE EVENT... btw during the other matches there were a few segments...two which were really cool ...cena rapping on Christian and guerrero stealing flairs number 30 entry ticket. the event was good 7/10 would have got a 9 if cena won but unfortunately my biggest enemy batista wins(THOUGH I UNDERSTooD WHY) ..vince comes down and takes a drop and the whole arena crack up in laughter.

The 2005 edition of the Royal Rumble came live from the Save Mart Centre in Fresno, California. The two top Championships of the WWE were being defended, The Undertaker was battling Heidenreich in a Casket match, Shawn Michaels was taking on Edge in a grudge match that had been building up since last October and of course the every man for himself over the top rope Royal Rumble match itself. Who was going to take the price this year? Chris Benoit? Edge? Eddie Guerrero? Edge? John Cena? Batista? Edge? Shawn Michaels? There was no shortage of contenders.<br /><br />It was Batista that picked up the popular victory in the main event battle but not without controversy, or should I say, a botched finish. Batista and John Cena were the final two men in the ring. Batista was supposed to dump the young Smackdown! star over the top rope but it all went wrong and they both went toppling to the floor. The referees acted on their feet as we had an arm-raising contest similar to that of Bret hart and Lex Luger back in 1994. This brought out the chairman of the board. Vinnie Mac walked down to the ring the way only he can but injured himself badly getting into the ring. It was unusual to see Vince McMahon sitting, legs out, telling the two men to restart the match. Batista then did was he was supposed to do first time round and dumped Cena to the floor sealing his own future with a Championship match at WrestleMania 21.<br /><br />The undercard for this years Royal Rumble had a very solid line up, with many of WWE's biggest stars competing in matches. Each brand had two big matches each.<br /><br />Raw opened the night with the match between Shawn Michaels and Edge. This was a good technical contest. Back and fourth all the way until Edge got the pinfall. This was a smart booking decision and kept Edge as a contender to the World Heavyweight Championship.<br /><br />The second match of the night was the feud ending Casket match between The Undertaker and Heidenreich. The match was not a classic, but then again have their been any classic Casket matches? It was entertaining. Especially when Snitsky got involved and then Kane popped out the casket to a great pop. The Undertaker surprised no one when he got the win, slamming the lid on Heidenreich and this mediocre feud.<br /><br />The first of the two Championship matches of the night was John Bradshaw Layfields defence of the WWE Championship in a triple Threat match against both Kurt Angle and the Big Show. This match was very good. Again, not a classic but entertaining none the less. JBL took the win after pinning Kurt Angle. His celebration was short lived however when backstage teddy Long informed him at No Way Out he would defend the WWE Championship in a Barbed Wire Steel cage match against Big Show. Not a very nice way to spend a Sunday night.<br /><br />And of course there is no show without Punch. Punch of course being reigning World Heavyweight Champion Triple H. His rematch from Unforgiven 2004 with Randy Orton was lot better than the original encounter. It's a pity because they just don't seem to click to well in the ring and this would be an excellent feud if they did. Orton played the concussion role very well and went down in defeat to The Game.<br /><br />So the first big one of 2005 was a good one. It achieved its goals. Feuds ended and new ones began. We were now officially on the road to WrestleMania 21.

I have enjoyed both of the Van Dykes over the years and was glad to watch them again.<br /><br />Just as cute and funny and easy to watch and enjoy.<br /><br />Dick was good when he was younger but I enjoyed him more as he got older.<br /><br />Son Berry has been a great one to follow in his fathers footsteps.<br /><br />Together they make a great team and work well together.<br /><br />I am disappointed that I have not found another Murder 101 listed anywhere.<br /><br />I have seen both of the ones that have been shown. I am hoping for more as it is really an enjoyable duo to watch.<br /><br />You can sure tell Berry follows in his dad footsteps, they talk alike and have the same mannerisms.<br /><br />Would enjoy anything they do separately.<br /><br />Will be sure to watch anything they do alone and together.

If you enjoyed the TV Series, Diagnosis Murder, you'll love Murder 101. It's great to see Dick Van Dyke in a murder mystery again. If we're lucky, this one will be a start of a TV series or at least series of movies.<br /><br />This movie definitely had some great and notable actors filling the roles. But, it didn't feel like a "face" movie. It was really a story that drew you in making you forget about the fame of those on the screen.<br /><br />I made a guess as to the ending and was so pleasantly surprised at the end that I had to watch it again! This is a must see for any mystery buff or Dick Van Dyke lover!

This was essentially a remake of "Diagnosis Murder" minus Victoria Rowell, Scott Baio & Charlie Schlatter. Dick is playing a college professor who teaches Criminology 101 and can't even find his own classroom. Barry is now a private eye, not related to Dick. This lets Barry shoot at guys speeding away from him, which a cop can not do. Barry still gets the girl in the end. Tracey Needham portrays the girl. She is the prime suspect and Dick and Barry believe she's innocent and prove it. That's all the spoiler you get. The ending is sufficiently unexpected that you don't already know it half way through the movie.<br /><br />Don't take it seriously. Don't critique it. Just sit back and Dick and Barry Van Dyke.

enjoy

A bunch of full-length movies featuring the Muppets, created by Jim Henson & Co, have been made, but "The Muppet Movie" was the first one of them all, and the first in the original trilogy, which also features "The Great Muppet Caper" and "The Muppets Take Manhattan". It was released seven years before I was born, so I obviously didn't get to see it at the time (nor did I get to see its two successors when they were first released). However, I saw a lot of the Muppets during my childhood, mostly after Henson's premature death in 1990. I finally got around to seeing this movie for the first time around the mid-nineties, after hearing the soundtrack. Unsurprisingly, I liked it at the time, and revisiting it in recent years hasn't exactly been disappointing.<br /><br />One day, while Kermit the Frog sits in a swamp with his banjo after singing "Rainbow Connection", a Hollywood agent named Bernie comes by in a boat and urges him to pursue a career in Tinseltown. Kermit takes his advice and goes west. He soon meets Fozzie Bear, an unsuccessful stand-up comedian in a restaurant, and convinces him to come along. The frog is also noticed by Doc Hopper, the owner of a frog leg restaurant chain who wants Kermit to be his mascot. As a frog, Kermit is disgusted by this, so he refuses and leaves with Fozzie. On their road trip across the country, Kermit and Fozzie meet other Muppets who join them, including Miss Piggy (who soon becomes Kermit's love interest) and Gonzo. Unfortunately, as they all try to make their way to Hollywood, Doc Hopper, assisted by Max, is willing to do anything to force Kermit to become his restaurant chain's mascot, so Kermit finds himself in increasing danger! <br /><br />One thing many people praise this film for is the songs, and I can understand why. There is, of course, the Oscar-nominated "Rainbow Connection" at the beginning, and more good tunes follow, such as Kermit and Fozzie's catchy road song, "Movin' Right Along", and "I'm Going to Go Back There Someday", a poignant ballad sung by Gonzo. "Never Before, Never Again", the song Miss Piggy sings when she first sees Kermit, is the only one I would consider rather weak, and their romance seems awfully sudden. The Muppets in this movie are generally lovable, just like they are on TV, and some of them provide a lot of the humour, including Fozzie, making his first appearance in the film hopelessly trying to entertain people in a restaurant with his stand-up, and, well, if you're familiar with these famous Muppets, you should know what to expect from each of them. Some of the live actors who appear briefly in the film can also be funny, such as Dom DeLuise as Bernie the Agent and Steve Martin as the "Insolent Waiter." Also, it's not 100% comedy. There are serious parts of the film which they also did well.<br /><br />Watching this original Muppet movie again this year was my first time watching any of them since seeing "Muppets from Space" (one of the Muppet movies made after Henson's death, released in 1999) for the first time last year. I was very disappointed when I saw that film, which had never happened before when I watched any film or TV show featuring the popular puppet characters! Not only is that movie not very funny, I also think it's a tad too dark and cruel for the Muppets, as I stated in my review of it! However, I can't say I think the same of any of that movie's predecessors, including this one, released twenty years earlier. "The Muppet Movie" seems to be the most popular of the bunch, and since it has so much to like, not just for kids, that's understandable. I highly doubt there's much left to say about "The Muppet Movie" that hasn't been said at some point in the past thirty years, but today, it remains good family entertainment.

Psycho criminal pure by Carl Schenkel, who is active in Hollywood, like Mrs Soutendijk. Goetz George and Hannes Jaenicke are stealing the spectator's last peace of snugness. They are too able, how can I get calm into a lift next time ?

Admittedly, there are some scenes in this movie that seem a little unrealistic. The ravishing woman first panics and then, only a few minutes later, she starts kissing the young lad while the old guy is right next to her. But as the film goes along we learn that she is a little volatile girl (or slut) and that partly explains her behavior. The cinematography of this movie is well done. We get to see the elevator from almost every angle and perspective, and some of those images and scenes really raise the tension. Götz George plays his character well, a wannabe hot-shot getting old and being overpowered by young men like the Jaennicke character. Wolfgang Kieling who I admired in Hitchcock's THE TORN CURTAIN delivers a great performance that, although he doesn't say much, he is by far the best actor in this play. One critic complained about how unrealistic the film was and that in a real case of emergency nothing would really happen. But then again, how realistic are films such as Mission impossible or Phone Booth. Given the fact that we are talking about a movie here, and that in a movie you always have to deal with some scenes that aren't very likely to occur in real life, you can still enjoy this movie. It's a lot better than many things that I see on German TV these days and I think that the vintage 80's style added something to this film.

I must I was a little skeptical when I entered the cinema to watch OSS117 : french comedies tend to be so self-satisfied nowadays that only the most stupid ones score high at the national box-office. But I was surprised that though the humor does not always reach the level of the Monthy Pythons, the many references to the French's vision of the world in the 1950, which OSS117 represents, are hilarious et the director managed to recreate film-making style of that time with an astonishing fidelity. To put it short, a bit of a good surprise, not to mention the excellent performances from various secondary actors. And at least for once, Jean Dujardin's style (which can get on many people's nerves) complies perfectly with the character he plays.

What a pleasure. This is really a parody. Only french people can do that kind of thing without being coarse. And as a result, you spend a really good time watching Jean Dujardin playing the dumb. Most of the movie stands on his shoulders, and he has them wide enough to make this movie a good one. He has the perfect way of overdoing the James Bond kind of guy that he is no match for Mike Meyers in Austin Powers for example. The dialogs are also good enough to keep up the attention of the spectator, with a lot of stupid jokes, that's really perfect. Both of the women having the main parts in the movie bear the comparison with the main character, and that was a challenge. There is no really plot in this movie, but that's not what is expected in this kind of movie. You just wish to laugh one hour 40 minutes, and that's precisely what the movie manage to do. It deserves the success it has in France

If you're going to spoof James Bond it's a brilliant idea to find a leading man who resembles BOTH Sean Connery and Leonard Rossiter so step forward Jean Dujardin who perfectly the Connery sneer that masquerades as a smile plus the self-delusion of Rossiter thinking he is suave. Dujardin plays it like a Clouseau who can hold his own at karate. The plot has him looking for Our Man In Schtook who has disappeared mysteriously and includes such improbabilities as a Nazi cell concealed inside a pyramid. If there is a jarring note it is the leading lady, Berenice Bejo who has all the sensuality of a suet pudding and is eclipsed - but only just - by Aure Atika. It's good for one viewing but that's about it.

captures

It's a deeply stupid humor... but I loved it. Jean Dujardin is a great actor in this movie. Bérénice Béjo is cute. It makes fun of all the secret agents like James Bond: refreshing!!! It's probably the most hilarious movie I've ever seen. I already saw it three times and I still want to see it again. Buy the DVD as soon as you can. You won't regret it. It's the kind of movie in which you don't need to have a great scenario because it's a parody. The only defect is that OSS 117 is too short. It's a jewel. It's not really frequent to see a french movie get success in the USA but I think that this one has everything to succeed. Trust me!!!

Pretty amusing with great attention to detail re: the look of the 1960s spy films and the way the action was staged back then. The fight sequence in the hotel room was a hoot and the casting was perfect with a Peter Lorre lookalike added to the mix of villains. A big plus: Jean Dujardin is hot and the scene in which he is tied up without a shirt was a highlight. Plus his eyebrows deserve some sort of recognition for doing a great job. <br /><br />Funny aside: the people behind me in the theater kept gasping after every plot twist as if they were watching a 'real' spy thriller.<br /><br />Before the movie started, a trailer for "Get Smart" was screened. The preview made the movie look embarrassingly bad with lame attempts to incorporate the jokes and gags from the TV series. Looks like a bomb and quite a contrast to the comparatively sublime jokes and gags of OSS 117, though, of course, OSS had its share of misfires. The overall tone of OSS, however, was not an insult to the audience's intelligence, and the material didn't feel as it had been 'dumbed down.' I did get the distinct impression that if I understood the language, I would have caught more of the jokes, and one in particular (the pistol gag) was mishandled in the interpretation for the subtitles.

spoof

Fans of the Pink Panther, Naked Gun, or Get Smart will certainly enjoy this farce that won one César and was nominated for four more.<br /><br />Jean Dujardin is Agent OSS 117, a man who wouldn't know a clue if it hit him upside the head. He is also a reflection of the colonialist attitude indicative of the West.<br /><br />All of the Russian spies, Nazis, and Muslim radicals around him are just as stupid, but there is Larmina (Bérénice Bejo) and the Princess (Aure Atika) to keep things interesting.<br /><br />OSS 117's uncanny ability to pick up languages, play musical instruments the first time he picks them up, and sing like a native are all more impressive than Bond's tricks, but he is still stupid.

The two new OSS 117 movies has a kind of humor which is both intelligent and dumbed-down at the same time, which I find extremely amusing. It really reminds me of the classic Pink Panther movies with an almost as good leading man as Peter Sellers in Jean Dujardin. And unlike Steve Martin completely ruining Clouseau, Dujardin is quite brilliant.<br /><br />The comments regarding the movies' being anti-semitic, are obviously a case of a complete lack of humor and therefor understanding.<br /><br />Whether you will enjoy or hate this movie really comes down to what kind of humor you have. I can't wait for the sequel!