Datasets:

denis1203

/

imdb3000examples

like 0

Visually stunning and full of Eastern Philosophy, this amazing martial arts fantasy is brought to you by master director Tsui Hark, the man behind some of the best films Hong Kong cinema has produced. The special effects are beautiful and imaginative. The plot is a bit on the cerebral side, but is a refreshing change from films that treat their audience as if they were morons. If thinking is not your forte, however, this may not be your movie. Maybe you should go see the latest from the Hollywood studio's no brain club, but if you are looking for something more, he's where you will find it.

This is an incredible comeback from movie director mastermind, Tsui Hark. It is one of a few movies that deserves to come a face to face match to Steven Chow's Shaolin Soccer. From the moment the movie started,there was astronishing backdrops at every edge which were<br /><br />deplicted with superb style. If you are a science fiction or chinese martial arts "geek", you'll love the excessive amounts of many 3D effects and realistic computer generated weapons. There, comes a fine performance(as always) from Ekin Cheung who plays "Sky King". He teams up with Louis Koo(Red) who i was very impressed by his flexible "wing" which deflected incoming attacks. The fighting movements of these actors were proficient in every way. Not only is the action superb but the has a somewhat complex storyline. Many Criticisers of this movie complain of the lack of story/theme or just "shoved in random bits of debrise" and even describe as "The Legend of Poo". However, the viewer cannot rely on watching Dragon Ballz and other similar Manga Cartoons to understand this movie. Others who are famarialy with "Wu Xia" movies will have a better appoach. In due respect. there can be one weakness that could be foreseen. The blow that was deliveried to the enemy at the very last fight scene could of been more substantially and devastiingly made.In spite of all this, its a must see.

for those of you who love lord of the rings and love special effects, watch this movie! this will be sure to keep you glued to the screen. you will probably even like it if you like watching people fight with magical stuff.

The Legend of Zu, as I saw it, was a very interesting story. I think many of the people who didn't like it were not seeing the underlying mythology behind the film. They were expecting something akin to Star Wars, and it was not that. Joseph Campbell, I believe, would have liked this film. There were a number of metaphors and hidden meanings that an average viewer might have overlooked. We all have a mountain of swords within us. We all have to go into our own cave of blood sometime in our lives. We all have to face our own insomnia someday. Granted some of the narration was a bit confusing, and some of the action got a little hokey at times, but I think other points of the film easily made up for it. I'd watch it again. <br /><br />I don't know if there's a difference between The Legend of Zu (which I saw in Mandarin with English subtitles) and Zu Warriors (The dubbed USA version.) It might have been dumbed down for American audiences, which really would have detracted from this film.

"Zu:The warriors from magic mountain" was and is an impressive classic! You never would have guessed it was made in 1983. Tsui Hark's use of special effects was very creative and inventive. (He continued doing this in the Chinese Ghost Story trilogy and later productions.) Even now it can measure up to other movies in this genre. "Legend of Zu" is connected to "Zu"warriors from magic mountain"! It is not necessary to have seen this movie to understand the plot of this one. The plot is a bit hard to follow. But to be honest it doesn't matter. It is all about the action and adventure! I always was wondering what Tsui Hark would do if he got his hands on CGI. Now we know,he made this movie. Maybe it sometimes is too much but the overall result is so beautiful that I am not going to be critical about that. There is so much happening on the screen,you simply won't believe! I think it is a big shame that this movie wasn't shown in theaters here in Holland. Because this movie is screaming for screen time in cinemas! This movie easily can beat big budget Hollywood productions like "Superman Returns" or Xmen 3. The only thing I do have to mention is the lack of humor! In most of Tsui Harks's movies he combines drama,fantasy,martial arts and humor. Somehow it is missing in this movie. Again I am not going to be picky about these small matters. "Legend of Zu" delivers on the action front with the most beautiful special effects you will see. A true classic!

The first thing I thought when I saw this films was: It is not really a film, at least it is not what we imagine spontaneously when we hear the word "film". it is entirely symbolic, everything in it has a figurative meaning. So if you are not used to express thing in a symbolic way, you will find it strange, if you are not acquainted with philosophy, religion, spiritual life, you will think it's just a fairy-tale... and even a weird one, chaotic. For me "The legend of Zu" is perfectly transparent. And I do like it. It tells us in images the story about the fight between light and darkness, the fight that is as old as humanity, and every one who is in search of the sens in this life is confronted with it. The film is obviously made by Buddhists. I am not a Buddhist. My religion and the vision of the world and human is different. But as far as we are all humans and have the same human nature we necessarily have common experiences and can understand each other. It is a really beautiful film! And I which we had more films like this - films that have a meaning. There are too many empty stories which are good only to make time pass more quickly.

yeah right. Sammo Hung already acted in the main role in 1983's "Zu Warrios from the Magic Mountain". Now, 2001, he does it again with "Zu Warriors". But this time, he finally does it right. You seldom see him in wuxia, more often in classic eastern or crime slapstick. But this role simply does fit him! The ancient Chinese legend about zu mountain is not often represented in movies (as far as I know about movies translated for the west). Although, the legend contains a vast of interesting stories and possibilities. Straight said: you haven't seen a story alike yet in a modern movie! And that makes it so great! And wow: all the colors plus the enormously deep, right-into-the-heart going story makes you fall for this movie in an instant. The first time I watched it, I had to watch it again instantly, and I did. OK true, I didn't understand all of it the first time. But that makes it only better! You know, you didn't understand all of it, because there is so much spice in it! Therefor it is a pleasure for one self to watch it over and over again. And yeah, it grows deeper in your heart, the more often you watch it.<br /><br />Summary: A story to love, characters you cry with, and truly: a movie you never forget! -- Editors note: well, I think I must watch it right now again :D

...and I love it. Lots of special effects, and for a movie that's not made on mega budget, this movie really does great job of creating a fantasy masterpiece. I'm one of the guys who didn't understand the story at all, but this was still a great flick to watch. It's definitely up there in standards surpassing Bored of the Rings, and on par with movies like Harry Potter. Which is saying a lot for a movie again, made on a fraction of the budget of these international hits.<br /><br />One thing I really love about this movie is that it so stretches the envelope of adventure movie to come out of Hong Kong. The topic is exotic and original. Production quality is unlike anything seen coming out of HK for fantasy action movie, and acting is great.<br /><br />One of the best movies to come out of Hong Kong, this is the Infernal Affairs of Hong Kong fantasy movie, and I hope they'll continue working in this area, until they surpass Hollywood adventure movies.<br /><br />Just fantastic.

This movie is good. It's not the best of the great CG kung fu flicks but its pretty good. First thing first, the story is actually good. The whole idea of gods vs fallen gods type deal with super powers is pretty cool. My problem is theres too many characters! It got very confusing when they switched scenes! The special effects were INCREDIBLE! The fighting scenes were very fast paced and complex. This movie practically all computer generated. The acting is superb, as always expected from such high profile players. Ekin Cheng makes an excellent protagonist, loner character. Zhang Ziyi did nothing for me in this movie. I thought she would have a bigger part but she did one fight scene and a whole lot of yapping. The bad guy, the whole skull army and the whole blood cloud thing is very frightening. The music is also excellent. To me this story deserve at least a mini-series and not just ONE movie. Theres too much story to cram in 2 hours. Maybe if there was a book or something, I would be able to keep up with all the characters and the details. This movie sacrifices story integrity for action. I reccomend Storm Riders over this any day.

Tsui Hark's visual artistry is at its peek in this movie. Unfortunately the terrible acting by Ekin Cheng and especially Cecilia Cheung (I felt the urge to strangle her while watching this, it's that bad :) made it difficult to watch at times.<br /><br />This movie is a real breakthrough in the visual department. When I first saw this, my jaw dropped repeatedly and I thought to myself that I've never seen anything remotely like it but this is how it should be done in order to do full justice to the mythical world of Chinese historical kung-fu novels! Without a doubt this is one of the best-looking Chinese historical kung-fu epic ever made.<br /><br />But alas, Tsui Hark hasn't improved much in the writing department, and the story and dialog are rather juvenile (his apparent obsession with the silly and overly-long depiction of the evil guys didn't help either). To make it worse, this movie is very badly cast. They decided to use the "hot" popular Hong Kong idols as lead characters, but unfortunately both Ekin Cheng and especially Cecilia Cheung are totally unsuited for historical kung-fu dramas because they lack the nobility and mystique that such characters are supposed to embody. Adam Cheng Siu-Chow and Brigitte Lin in the 1983 version are infinitely better.<br /><br />I wish that someday Zhang Yi-Mou and Tsui Hark can join forces and produce a movie that has the visual artistry of Tsui but with the maturity and story-telling poetry of Zhang...

A film that can make you shed tears of sadness and tears of joy would be considered quite a step in the career of a common filmmaker. The fact is, Steven Spielberg, probably our greatest story-teller, has been doing this in various movie formats for years. THE COLOR PURPLE, at the time, was considered risky, especially after action classics like JAWS and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. In hindsight, this film should have come as no surprise, for Spielberg had made us cry tears of joy and sadness in E.T. Critics called COLOR PURPLE his entrance into intellectual fare. It is quite an entrance. No special effects, no swashbuckling, just brilliant story-telling based on a literary classic by Alice Walker. One surprise is how Spielberg could present such a moving film about African-Americans in the deep south. Slavery is gone, but in the south depicted here, it seems as though blacks are using other blacks as slaves. <br /><br />Spielberg is always put down for sentimentalizing his pictures or adding an element of childishness to please the audience. This is really the first of overlooked films from his career that you cannot make these observations. It is the first in a line of films people either didn't see or wouldn't see because there are no aliens. EMPIRE OF THE SUN, ALWAYS, SCHINDLER'S LIST, etc.. His awesome talent is obvious with this specific picture because A) he uses mostly untrained, first-time actors, B) he tackles a subject most felt was unadaptable to the screen, and C) it is pure drama with no strings pulled where characters grow and change over the passage of roughly 30 years. It is almost epic-like in look and scope and the fact that it did not garner a single Academy Award from 11 nominations is a travesty and an insult.<br /><br />Whoopi Goldberg is fabulous as the tortured Celie, an unattractive woman given away by her incestuous father to an abusive Danny Glover, who she only knows as "Mister". The film follows a path of occasional beatings and mental torture she goes through while with "Mister". The PG-13 rated film is pretty open to the sexual issues raised by the Walker novel. This is not "The Burning Bed" in Georgia by any means. There is no blatant revenge taken as might be expected. It happens gracefully. Goldberg perfectly plays a human being, someone in need of love and someone who deserves it. The films' most poignant and heartbreaking moment comes when Goldberg and her sister, Nettie (played by Akosua Busia) are separated, maybe forever. (Possibly foreshadowing Holocaust separation of child and parent?) You may have to check for a pulse if you are not moved by this sequence.<br /><br />The color purple stands for the beauty of the fields and flowers surrounding these poor people. There really is something to live for, but love triumphs over all. Spielberg bashers take note: the guy can make an unforgettable classic without any cute aliens.<br /><br />RATING: 10 of 10

The film version of Alice Walker's hugely emotive and influential 1983 novel (written largely as letters from the central character Celie to God) was a massive Oscar success, and rightly so.<br /><br />In the role of the abused and awakened Celie, Whoopi Goldberg gave her best screen performance by miles. Not far behind her was Oprah Winfrey as Sofia, the fiery woman tamed by fate. Others in the cast fleshed out the characters Walker had introduced so clearly on the page - Danny Glover as Albert, Celie's abusive husband; Margaret Avery as Shug, a force of change for the good; Willard Pugh and Rae Dawn Chong as Harpo and Squeak; Susan Beaubian as Corrine, the preacher's wife; and the much-missed Carl Anderson (otherwise best known as Judas in the 1973 film of Jesus Christ Superstar) as preacher Samuel.<br /><br />Beautifully paced and sensitively written, 'The Color Purple' does justice to its source while opening out the story to involve viewers of a feature-length drama.

This is a good family show with a great cast of actors. It's a nice break from the reality show blitz of late. There is nothing else quite like it on television right now either, unless you count Joan of Arcadia as being similar because it has a teen lead character too. Anyway, Clubhouse is worth a look because Jeremy Sumpter gives the main character (Pete Young) a kind of likability and naiveté that is appealing without being overly sweet and cuddly. Dean Cain, Christopher Lloyd, Mare Winningham and Kirsten Storms round out the rest of the main cast members, and each is terrific in their role. I really like Kirsten Storms as Pete's sister Betsy; she is quite a pill, but she still cares about her mom and brother, even though she hates to show it. It may take a few episodes to really find it's legs, but Clubhouse is easily one of the best shows to come along in a good long while, so check it out people--you'll be glad you did!

To anyone who might think this show isn't for them, please give it a try. Network television has degenerated into shows that are clones of clones or are reality based shows featuring some often unreal people. This show is a return to family oriented TV where the emphasis is on learning some life lessons, learning what real friends and family are about, and maybe even learning a little bit about our national pastime. Jeremy Sumpter is one of the most appealing young actors in show business today, and he is perfectly cast as the young, slightly naive new batboy for the fictional New York Empires (great name!). Dean Cain, Christopher Lloyd, Mare Winningham, and Kirsten Storms round out the main cast, and they are all exceptional. This show deserves a chance to catch on and be seen. Hopefully it will stick around for a few seasons and we can watch Pete Young (Sumpter's character) learn and grow.

Okay, this show is nothing but AWESOME! It has a great story line and plot and great actors and actresses. Jeremy Sumpter is so hott and he is perfect for the role! He is gunna be big in Hollywood. He has a bright future ahead! This show better last a long time because I really love this show, and I hope that it has a lot of success! It is so interesting. I have been waiting for it to come out for about 6 or 7 months and it's finally here, and it's great! I tape it, too. I can watch it whenever I want now! Too bad its only on once a week though. I wish it was on at least twice a week because now I wish that it was Tuesday every day! Hope you all like this show!<br /><br />~Ashley~

Why are the previews so blah for a movie that is so awesome!! Everyone should know what an excellent movie this is. It is engaging and funny from moment one, original, and well-acted. I wish the movie was doing itself as good press as it deserves!<br /><br />For anyone that loved The Princess Bride, Labyrinth, and other truly funny and original fantasy adventure, this is one of the great ones. Robert DeNiro is hysterical. Relative newcomer Charlie Cox is an incredible leading man. Claire Danes is fantastic as always. Michelle Pfiefer is making quite a splash with her recent returns to the screen. There are also a lot of wonderful moments from minor characters...even down to facial expressions.

I went to a small advance screening of this movie on July 19th, knowing no more than the names of a few of the actors and that it was a fantasy/adventure quest of some sort.<br /><br />The plot line really is nothing like I have seen, and a unique story is certainly appreciated with everything else that is currently in or coming soon to theaters. In spite of what first impressions may give, it isn't cheesy, corny, tacky, or ridiculous, and is actually highly entertaining and funny. The flow is quite well done, nothing seems rushed or dragged out. The soundtrack, for lack of better words, is magical and adds much to the film, as opposed to simply filling the silence as often happens in movies or TV. And even though I might have known what was coming at points, I still couldn't bear to stop watching the screen; to my knowledge, not a single person left the theater during the entire movie.<br /><br />My one gripe is that there seems to be almost no marketing for this film, and as brilliant as it is I can't figure out why.

I was one of about 200 people that was lucky enough to see an early sneak of this film.<br /><br />Stardust follows Tristan a young man on a quest to find a fallen star and bring it back to the woman he loves in order to prove his love for her. The only catch is that the star has fallen on the other side of the wall, a doorway between England and a magical kingdom known as Stormhold.<br /><br />This film was just a joy to watch, it has something in it for everyone, all of the action scenes are played out beautifully and the comedy is spread out through the film making it funny without being corny. If I had to compare the likes to another film it would probably have to be The Princess Bride, a classic.<br /><br />All the performances are outstanding, the beautiful Claire Danes makes you love her in her portrayal of Yvaine the trusting naive star and under rated Michelle Pfeiffer delivers a stellar over the top performance as Larnia...but the performance to talk about is Robert De Niro...In every scene that he is in hands down he steals the show...<br /><br />If you are in the mood for a funny fantasy love story this is the film. Guys don't get turned off by the description there is enough action comedy and not to mention lots of eye candy with Claire Danes and Michelle Pfeiffer to keep you entertained throughout. The cinematography is dead on and keeps with the feel of the film...nothing about the film seems forced.

Stardust Another Guarded Review (originally written June 15, 2007)<br /><br />The marketing machine has only just begun for this one (no site yet? wth?), so I doubt most of you have heard about it. In truth, I hadn't either (sort of). When I got the posting, I thought it was another code name and was actually worried it was Transformers, one of the movies I want to see when not working so I an enjoy it 100% as a mere mortal movie-goer. Turns out, it wasn't Transformers and I had been aware of it way back when as 'that Neil Gaiman movie'. What is it about? Well, in short, it's a Gaiman fairy tale about a boy and a fallen star. Any more than that and I'd be giving away plot info which is (a) a breach of contract, and (b) spoiling your fun. If you really want to know what it's about, go buy the book. Rumour has it, Gaiman might be something of a writer.<br /><br />Not knowing what to expect in a movie can be so pleasant if the surprise is worthwhile. And for this one, it certainly was. This screening was 'special' in that it included not just film critics, but also exhibitors (they rarely have a mixed screening) and local sci-fi/fantasy folks. So, you know the expected audience, right? I mean, with this crowd and the title of Stardust, I knew what to expect.<br /><br />Oh how sweetly wrong I was.<br /><br />Yes, it is a fairy tale written by an author famed in comic bookdom. But it was not Lord of Rings. It was not even another Lord of the Rings wannabe (ahem, Eragon). It was much more intimate than all that.<br /><br />But, like Lord of the Rings, it was the, well, humanism of the film which sells the fantastical qualities. It's surely a romantic tale, but with generous splashes of humour. And that humour is of the sort which is not slapstick Shrekism. It's more along the lines of dramedy than comedy. Before I go on, let's do this movie review thing.<br /><br />Acting is, in the very least, good. It's always hard to say more than that for fantasy films but I do believe there were significant superbly acted roles. Michelle Pfieffer is not, sadly, one of those. She plays a villain, and she does the job. Nothing special. Rupert Everett, though, he was a real jerk. That is, a great villain. Peter O'Toole is, well, Peter frickin' O'Toole -- which is marvelous. Ricky Gervais is perfectly cast and shows why. Robert De Niro seemed to be having too much fun for the most part. When he wanted to deliver the goods, though, he did. And Charlie Cox (who?) as the lead character was fine surprise from a guy I ain't never heard of.<br /><br />Claire Danes. Claire Danes. Claire Danes. I've always been of mixed opinion with her. She can be great, and then she can seem to miss the mark. In this, she's the former. And she is, quite literally, the star of this film. Sure, her accent stumbles here and there. And, yes, she's not as good as she can be when Cox isn't in the scene. However ... well, see for yourself.<br /><br />Special effects are muted yet accomplished, and only significant where they should be. Best flying ship yet -- sorry Potter. Direction is light-hearted and flows nicely. Cinematography could have been better but not everyone films in New Zealand. All else is top bracket.<br /><br />And now that that's done...<br /><br />...the writing. Oh, the writing! Neil, you devil. It's hard in today's climate to do anything original and, at first, you begin to wonder. A kingdom, a dying King, a boy out to prove his own worth, witches, ghosts, a quest (or three) -- what's new? But Gaiman's story draws you in with its surface familiarity only to subvert it all into a sweetly original tale of a boy and his heart. And, though you suspect how it's all going to turn out, you begin to wonder in the third act and -- if you're me -- find yourself pulled into the rousing climactic confrontation and hoping for the best. In the end, you'll find this story, this movie, is what all fairy tales should be but all too often are not. Fantastical and real.<br /><br />(I wish I could talk about Septimus vs Tristan but I won't ruin it for you. For those who read the book, rest assured, it's done properly.)<br /><br />Those I spoke to afterward had the same impression I did. A great film for all ages to enjoy, and the new {WITHHELD} for this generation. The blank gets filled-in only after the movie is in wide release because, well, you might be expecting it. You'll know when you walk out, anyway. I sincerely hope Stardust doesn't get lost among the tentpoles. Even if it does, it'll be my pleasure to push into the hands of everyone I know.<br /><br />---<br /><br />Forgot to add the {WITHHELD} reveal. I'm a few years late, but ... "A great film for all ages to enjoy, and the new THE PRINCESS BRIDE for this generation." <br /><br />Perhaps a bit lofty an assessment but I'm still confident that years form now, there will be the same "Oh, I love that movie," response to this as there is now for The Princess Bride.

OK here is how I do this. I grade movies on 10 components. Each component will inherently start with 5 points. It can then lose or gain 5 points for a possible 10 or 0.<br /><br />Mood: Action, Romance, Comedy, Drama, Suspense - I give this component 10 points. It had a perfect balance of all five aspects. The Action was fun and exiting. The Romance was not overdone, but still very emotional and moving. I laughed hard and long throughout the movie and still I was captivated by the fantastic drama, and riveting suspense.<br /><br />Plot - I give this component 10 points. I thought all the good fairy tales had already been told. I found my self, sitting in the theatre, returned to my childhood, and in that instant I again believed in unicorns, wicked witches, and falling stars that make dreams come true.<br /><br />Cinema Photography - I give this component 8 points. While the movie captured the story very well in the majority of the angles, I found my self more than once trying to figure out what happened just off camera.<br /><br />FX - I give this component 10 points. I love that they used C.G.I. sparingly. The epic scenes were believable. The magical powers were frighteningly realistic. All in all less is more, and this had it ALL! Cast - I give this component 10 points. No names and seasoned actors alike, the cast was amazing! Michelle Pfeiffer was wonderfully wicked, Charlie Cox made Tristan come to life, Claire Danes gave emotion to the stars, and I will never look and Robert De Niro the same again.<br /><br />Acting - I give this component 10 points. Even the newbie actors played their rolls to perfection. Once again, I will NEVER look and Robert De Niro the same again.<br /><br />Character development - I give this component 9 points. This felt a little rushed and I think if the movie had been a bit longer they could have done the characters a little better justice.<br /><br />Dialogue - I give this component 10 points. The dialogue was smart, witty, fun… even the mush had good dialogue.<br /><br />Score - I give this component 7 points. I can honestly remember only one small piece of music from the entire movie. I am not complaining beyond the fact that the music could be more memorable.<br /><br />Ending - I give this component 9 points. Almost perfect ending! I feel that certain aspects of the ending should have been more pronounced, while others could have been more subdued, but no threads were left untied.<br /><br />Total: 93% Buy the DVD? HEL YES! See it in the Theatre? Most definitely! Bottom Line: Excellent movie for everyone! EPIC! I strongly recommend seeing it in the theatre, I know I'll be going back for seconds!

This movie has everything a fantasy movie should have, romance, clever witticisms, great acting and a fair dose of magic. <br /><br />I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and was drawn to its original plot (based on the Neil Gaiman novel which I am now looking to read) and colorful characters.<br /><br />One of the most striking things to me actually was how self contained the story is. Unlike so many sci-fi fantasy movies out there right now which leave open-endings and such this was a pure fairy-tale, satisfying in and of itself with no need for a sequel.<br /><br />Original. Fun. Feel-good Fantasy.

I was not expecting much from this movie. I was given a ticket for an advanced screening. I had just gotten off of work. It was hot and I was tired. I had to wait in the movie line for 40 minutes and there seemed not to be any cool air flowing through the hallways of the theater complex.<br /><br />Once seated in the theater, tired and frustrated, the movie started, I did not recognize any of the actors in the beginning, but the flow of the movie was perfect. Right from the beginning I became consumed with the movie, getting more and more excited with each minute passing. I think this movie is destined to be a fantasy/fairytale classic. The actors were fabulous, the pace was perfect, and the ending was magical.

The 14 year-old in me is immensely happy that they're now able to make really good looking fantasy movies, and that they're all the rage, what with Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia making loads of cash at the box office. This year will see (and already has seen) several more, most notably The Golden Compass, which has the most exciting trailer I've seen this year. Stardust, based on a novel by Neil Gaiman, showed up in theaters this week with little more than a peep. I saw no previews for it, only a couple of commercials. The critical reaction is kind of blah. I wouldn't even have seen it if not for the fact that I have to wait on a friend to see The Bourne Ultimatum, and that nothing else interesting opened this weekend. Well, if you'll forgive the horrible pun, the stars must have been rightly aligned, because I went to see Stardust, and I loved it. It's not a huge movie like Lord of the Rings. The plot line is your very basic fantasy quest (the hero sets out to look for a fallen star) filled with obstacles. But within that basic outline, the story is lively and imaginative. It's simply aiming to be a lot of fun, and a charming little romance. And it succeeds wonderfully. There were a lot of big films this summer, but none of them were nearly as fun as this one. There's a lot going on, but the story is told well and is almost entirely coherent. It isn't a masterpiece, but it definitely can occupy the same kind of ground that something like The Princess Bride has (though I don't like it quite as much as the earlier film). A lot of fun to be had here if you're a fan of the genre.

This movie is a lot of fun. The actors really make the movie go the distance though. Without giving away the plot, I would describe it as a new Princess Bride cult favorite that should stand the test of time. You get to see a whole different side to Robert DeNiro in this movie! (Worth the price of admission just for that!) All the elements are there from adventure to romance, and well placed comedy.<br /><br />People of all ages will enjoy it. (My parents even did!) Good special effects, may be scary for the little ones. Good date movie. Great for some escapism.<br /><br />Deserves an A. (Hope it does well at the box office)

Except for an awkward scene, this refreshing fairy tale fantasy has a fun and delightful undercurrent of adult cynical wit that charms its way into the audience as well as a soundtrack that powerfully moves this fairy epic along. Except for one of the Robert DeNiro scenes that doesn't come across smooth and appears out of sync with the tone of the rest of the movie, this luscious romantic fairy tail has a great storytelling feel and the strong magic and the fine balance between serious adventure scenes and the lighter spiritual humor is well done. In the updated tradition of THE PRINCESS BRIDE this contemporary presentation of magic and love is captivating. Eight out of Ten Stars.

The power to dream is a wonderful thing. There's a saying, "Not all dreamers achieve, but all achievers dream." By exploring our imagination we shape our own futures. Or build empires. Perhaps overcome our fears, limitations and obstacles. Gain wisdom and benefit mankind. Or (put simply) just find our way to true love and happiness. Freud might express such things in symbols. The language of fantasy.<br /><br />Tristan ventures out of a rather twee English village called Wall. He goes through a break in the wall. A portal. In search of something that will prove his love to Victoria (Sienna Miller). Victoria doesn't take him very seriously. So he pledges to bring back a falling star.<br /><br />Stormhold is the world outside the wall. He discovers the fallen star has taken the form of a beautiful girl, Yvaine (Claire Danes). To complicate matters, three evil witches want to get hold of Yvaine. If they can eat her heart, it will replenish their youth. (One of the witches is played by Michelle Pfeiffer, who does fabulous young-old transformations of looks and manner.) The 'good guy' they meet on their way is Captain Shakespeare (Robert de Niro). He has a fierce, swashbuckling pirate exterior but is a sweetie closet queen underneath. Heirs of Stormhold meanwhile are engaged in a pitched battle over inheriting the Kingdom. Ricky Gervais is an added extras. A buffoon trader throwing in standard Gervais-type gags well. Tristan's purity of spirit arouses the love of Yvaine, so there is a nice little triangle going. Till he achieves the maturity to discern pedestal divas from real women.<br /><br />Stardust is a full-on, large scale fantasy that does credit to its myriad stars. Wholly positive, and written with a clarity that makes it more worthy of psychoanalysis that a coven full of Harry Potter romps. Production values rival Hollywood, and the storyline is free of the racial stereotyping, misogyny, religious or class agendas than shape and pervert so many large scale fantasies.<br /><br />That is not to say that Stardust is without its faults. Plot and dialogue have many predictable elements, and the fairytale quality may be too saccharine for some audiences. But if you want an excuse to let your heart fly, this film may well provide it.<br /><br />As a boy, I remember listening in wonder to albums by the Moody Blues (who practiced in a house not far from where I lived). They made records with names like "In Search of the Lost Chord," and wrote lyrics like, "Thinking is the best way to travel." I would fill my head with books on magic and mystery, from Timothy Leary to Aleister Crowley. Shaping dreams. Learning to make them real. Nowadays people might talk of NLP or positive thinking. Adults that remember how to dream with the force of youth but with the vision and application of maturity. Do you still enjoy that feeling?<br /><br />You are advised not to wait for Stardust on DVD. See it on the biggest cinema screen you can find. And Dolby Digital Surround Sound if you can get it. The actors look like they had a ball. Maybe you will too.

This afternoon we took the kids to the movies and saw Neil Gaimans Stardust and all I can say is Wow.<br /><br />It is rare that I am completely taken aback by anything but this is quite possibly the greatest fantasy movie I have ever seen, maybe even the best movie of any kind and it is all Neil Gaiman's fault.<br /><br />Sure, I could have been sucked in by the wonderful dialog which was smart, flowed smoothly,and made the characters completely believable.<br /><br />I could go on for days about the spectacular acting, Charlie Cox is perfect as Tristan, Claire Daines is Brilliant as Yvaine, and Robert Di Nero almost steals the movie as the Deeply in the Closet Pirate Captian Shakespeare.<br /><br />The pure joy brought about by the humor which managed to be Laugh our Loud funny, Intelligent enough to make the first Shrek look like an 80's Sitcom, and blend in perfectly with the rest of the movie alone would have made this a great movie.<br /><br />Special Effects were near perfect, true this was no LOTR or Star Wars SF Extravaganza but where they were use they were exactly what was called for, not too much to distract you from the movie itself and blended into the story perfectly.<br /><br />Then there is the story? What can I say. How often do you come across a story containing all of the classic fairytale formula components that doesn't just come off as another cheap Princess Bride knockoff. It manages to be Familiar and comfortable and yet completely new and refreshing at the same time.<br /><br />Any one of those things would have made this a good movie, all of them combined make it a great movie but they pale in comparison to the rich enchanting world that those elements combine to bring to life well. Once again Neil Gaiman has done it, he has driven another dagger into my heart by creating a world of fantasy that is so beautiful and enchanting that I would do almost anything to live in it and only given me a short glimpse into it. I didn't want it to end, I wanted to be sucked through a vortex to the land of Stormhold and get to meet Tristan and Yvaine in person, to travel it's fields and valleys, Stroll through it's marketplaces and meet it's residents both dangerous and friendly and stay there forever. It is a feeling that I have noticed whenever I have read anything by Gaiman, The Sandman, American Gods, Coraline all left me with a deep sense of sadness when I finished reading them because it was over, I could not see anything more into the worlds he had created which seemed to be so much more vibrant and alive than the one I am forced to live in and watching Stardust was no different.<br /><br />In the end I'm sure that Neil's writing and this movie won't have the same effect on everyone but trust me when I say you will not regret the time or money spent watching this movie, it is easily one of the top 5 movies I have ever seen and I can guarantee that anyone at all with a soul will at least like it.

The summer has been so full of Blockbusters and comebacks of films, and not to mention some of the disappointments of those comebacks, that I was woe to find a film I could just sit down and enjoy. <br /><br />In case you don't want to read further down the page (there aren't any spoilers), I'll sum it up here: It's more mature than Ella Enchanted (there are some questionably violent parts, plenty of death, and a handful of scenes with a little blood, not for small children), but doesn't try to be overly corny or overstep its bounds. Think of it as a bit more serious, bit more magical Princess Bride, and you'll be close. <br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />I am, perhaps, not as prodigious a movie goer as others... Maybe once or twice a month, if I feel active. I'm also a huge Sci-Fi/Fantasy fan. I get bored of remade repetitive story lines and films with more flash than filling faster than you can count to 10, and this film is the diamond in the rough.<br /><br />By the end here (August), I was tired enough of fractured expectations from the big hits that I averted seeing Bourne Ultimatum in favor of Stardust. Having had my hopes thoroughly muddied by Transformers for my Fiction addiction, the previews of Stardust seemed appealing, but I was certainly wary.<br /><br />As many others here, I was utterly surprised. I had gone in thinking to see another generic fantasy movie clichéd from here to breakfast. Don't be fooled, it is most definitely a fairy-tale, and it does indeed have witches, magic, and utterly requires suspension of disbelief... But the most refreshing thing I found, is that it's NOT based on anything I've seen or read in the past 15 years, and it's actually a really good movie.<br /><br />((Unlike 90% of the other movies which seem to persistently re-appear like thorns in a side, perhaps a sign that Hollywood is running out of ideas? I could read a book this year, and in two years the movie would be out as another "Epic fantasy tale, the likes of LotR and the rest" so says the NYT and such and such no doubt.))<br /><br />Stardust didn't have me bolted to my seat because of jam-packed action at every turn, nor was I sweating bullets because of plot-hook after plot-hook threatening to tear the dramatic tension apart and echo throughout the theater in a loud boom. It didn't even use enormous blasts of sound to grab my attention to what's happening on screen (Transformers, I'm looking at you). It's not trying to show off the latest CGI techniques, nor did it offend my intelligence with dimwitted dialogs and story lines that are simple enough I could've figured them out in 3rd grade (boy I hate those). <br /><br />I just... watched. Watched, and enjoyed a refreshingly CREATIVE storyline unfold before my eyes. Sure, I may have known what was going to happen throughout most of the film, but it makes you forget that. It even made my heart twinge at some parts, but the most important aspect I noticed is that I left the theater feeling better than when I'd gone in.<br /><br />It truly is a gem. After so much slush this summer with so many remakes and films that fell short of my expectations, this was like a cold sweet cup of tea to cap off all the hard work I'd done sitting through the others trying to come out of them with my money's worth.<br /><br />It's probably not for everyone, but do yourself a favor; If you enjoy fantasy films that stand the test of time alone (Princess Bride, Black Cauldron, The Dark Crystal, etc.) then you should really see this movie. This little diamond is finding its way into my DVD collection the moment it hits stores, you can trust me on this.<br /><br />Simply wonderful.

There are not many movies around that have given me a feeling like Stardust did all throughout the course of the film. As magically fairy-tale-like as The Princess Bride, Stardust is most definitely the most wonderful fantasy spectacle of the 2000's as well as the 1990's. Exciting, hilarious and equipped with wonderful imagery as well as unforgettable characters, Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert DeNiro's especially, I challenge anyone to watch this movie without a smile. From the first ten minutes of the film you know perfectly well how it will end, but it is the journey and not the destination that enthralls the viewer from start to finish.<br /><br />Ten stars, and not a decimal less.

While I don't consider myself a big fan of fairy tale movies, Stardust intrigued me based on seeing Michelle Pfeiffer in the trailers as a villain (especially since I was about to see her as the bossy Velma Von Tussle in Hairspray). Boy, is she so convincingly evil here as a witch, especially with her age-ugly makeup in the beginning and end! Robert De Niro is also great as the pirate captain who's forced to hide "in the closet" to protect his "reputation"! Just about all the actors like Claire Danes, Rupert Everett, Ricky Gervais, Peter O'Toole and many others do fine work here. While Danes and Pfeiffer are classic beauties, there's also stunning faces of Sienna Miller, Olivia Grant (as Girl Bernard), and Kate Magowan especially when we first meet her. Newcomer Charlie Cox is fine as the lead Tristan and he looked so much like his father Dunstan as a young man that I thought that was him in early scenes with Magowan (actually Ben Barnes). Many comments have compared this to The Princess Bride and while I can see some resemblances, the main difference was that with PB, you always knew it was just an imaginary tale as told by an old man to his grandson. Stardust makes you believe, for the most part, that what you're seeing and hearing could have actually happened even with all the hilarity that happens throughout. So on that note, I highly recommended Stardust.

As a massive fan of fantasy in general, and of the works of Neil Gaiman *in particular*, I've been looking forward to this film so avidly, so hungrily and with such a bittersweet mixture of anticipation and fear of disappointment that I can scarcely believe it's finally here. And you know what? I needn't have feared, the film version is bl**dy awesome. Different from the book, but in a good way - less whimsical, more comical, still deeply sweet and enchanting.<br /><br />The special effects are absolutely spot-on, and make magic feel a natural and proper part of the world of Wall without being overtly spectacular and intrusive.<br /><br />Proper attention has been paid to storytelling and pacing, and the casting in the main is a triumph, with the ghostly Princes (whose roll-call read almost as a "Who's Who" of currently cool British comedy - Rupert Everett, David Walliams of Little Britain fame, two of the blokes from Green Wing etc) stealing most of the best lines and pretty much all of the films' funniest moments, which exist in abundance. <br /><br />In fact, the one minor criticism I have at all of the film is that sometimes the comedy elements become a little OTT, subtlety goes out of the window to the detraction of the main story.... Ricky Gervais' cameo, for example, was far too much just "Ricky Gervais doing his usual David Brent from the Office comedy persona" for my liking, and in my opinion, created an unwelcome and jolting break from the magical spell of the progressing story (though in fairness, from memory I believe the Ferdy character in the original book WAS pretty "Ricky Gervais"-esquire when I think back on it)....<br /><br />But this is a minor quibble in an otherwise immaculately cast and scripted fairytale with a good mixture of action and romance. Charlie Cox, as the protagonist Tristan, captures the correct mixture of naivety, subtle comedy and self-realisation required for a story like this where a "humble young boy embarks on life-changing quest"; Claire Danes as Yvaine is beautiful, feisty and just ever so slightly alien or ethereal, a perfect interpretation of her stellar role; Robert De Niro, in the cameo every reviewer is talking about, is indeed deserving of praise, rollicking good fun (looks like he's having a ball, too)... and Michelle Pfeiffer is triumphantly cool and nasty as wicked witch Lamia, my favourite performance of the film overall. If you enjoyed her deliciously b!tchy performance in the recent "Hairspray" then you will thoroughly enjoy her in this, too.<br /><br />So to round off this review: you will laugh, for sure, you will smile, and you may even cry - Stardust is a beautiful, heart-warming fairytale for all the family, with a heart of gold and more sass 'n smarts than is immediately apparent. One of my all-time favourite films is the absolutely fantastic Princess Bride, and Stardust is being readily likened to this with good reason as it is a very similar type of film exploring similar themes and territory.... and just as The Princess Bride remains fresh, smart and funny twenty years after its initial release, I believe that the delicious tongue-in-cheek sweetness of Stardust will be showing up as a family favourite on our televisions (or equivalent future device!) for many years to come.

The beautiful story of Stardust is written by by Neil Gaiman (writer of MirrorMask) and it's really a good story. I think it would appeal to any Labyrinth, Princess Bride or 10th Kingdom fan and yet it's totally unique and stands up on it's own. And I feel the film adaptation of this story has a far better ending than what was presented in the original novel by Neil Gaiman. I won't spoil it for you.<br /><br />The main character, Tristan (Tristran in the novel), is the son of a mortal and a faerie slave kept by a witch in the realm of faerie. The story begins in a town near a wall that separates the magical world from the human world. When there is a falling star Tristan promises to retrieve it for a girl he is infatuated with. He is unaware that the star has taken the form of a girl in the fairy world and that there are others after her too. Three elderly witches who want to use her heart to become young again, and some bickering princes.<br /><br />It's a really good story. It has humor and magic and beautiful, surreal scenes and visuals. It's charming and I feel it can be watched by children and adults of all ages. It's simply magical. It's a true classic fairy tale, the likes of which I haven't seen in cinema since the 1980s.

I anticipated this movie to be decent and possibly cliché, but I was completely wrong! Charlie Cox (I had never heard of him until now) played an incredibly good leading man; he was so earnest and romantic, me and my friend that saw the movie with me totally fell in love with him.<br /><br />Claire Danes, who I did like before (LOVED her in Romeo and Juliet), made me enjoy her even more. Her acting was fantastic, I couldn't even tell that she was American. The chemistry between her and Charlie Cox was extremely good, the casting was quite perfect.<br /><br />Robert DeNiro and Michelle Pfeiffer were equally well-casted; DeNiro as that gay pirate...priceless, priceless. I laughed so hard at that one scene where Septimus comes on the ship...oh my god, wow. Pfeiffer played a decent villain, I liked her as the snippy mother in Hairspray. But she had the right amount of melodrama and snide comments throughout the movie. <br /><br />Overall, it was funny (but not slap-stick at all!), romantic, the special effects weren't totally frequent but when they were, they were great; the cameos from Ricky Gervais and Peter O'Toole were also well-placed. <br /><br />I totally recommend this movie to anyone who likes fantasy movies like the Princess Bride or even Lord of the Rings. It kept my interest the entire time and I will be buying the DVD when it comes out!

This movie is wonderful.<br /><br />I was 'enchanted', i should say, and surprised because of how uniquely it was done. The cast, the sequencing, the effects...everything! Magnificent! I mean, it was a love story, yes, but what made it outstanding from the rest was that it was told in an entertaining, wholesome manner.<br /><br />For me, it is the representation of modern fairy tale. It's like the modern peter pan...simply amazing<br /><br />i surely would buy a copy of this the moment it hit the market.<br /><br />This movie is really a double MUST SEE one...!!!! 10 stars for that!

Greetings again from the darkness. This one will be compared to "The Princess Bride" and although it doesn't measure up to that classic, it is extremely entertaining and well made in its own right. The story line is a bit odd and the whole wall thing is never really explained, but the execution is fine, even building up strong suspense.<br /><br />Charlie Cox plays Tristan, who falls for the wrong girl (Sienna Miller), and agrees to fetch her a fallen star ... who happens to be played by the stunning Claire Danes. Not much suspense on what happens with these two, but the suspenseful part comes in with the wicked witch played by Michelle Pfeiffer and the prince son of King Peter O'Toole looking to reclaim the ruby necklace our "star" is wearing. Lots of bad chasing the good.<br /><br />Along the way, an encounter with the strangest pirate you will see (including any from the Carribbean). Robert Deniro plays Captain Shakespeare - tough on the inside, and shall we say in touch with his feminine side. Another encounter involves the brilliant Ricky Gervais as a fast talking trader and that is good for a couple of laughs.<br /><br />Not your typical chase, coming of age, or fantasy film, but director Matthew Vaughn's ("Layer Cake") effort deserves an audience. Sadly the poor marketing campaign will probably prevent it from making any money. My guess it will find big success on video.

If any style of film could be called my "guilty pleasure", it'd be this generic fantasy type. Guilty is the wrong word for it, though, as I'm pretty pleased to be an escapist from time to time. "Stardust" is good stock fantasy, the likes of which one should expect from Neil Gaiman (or Gaiman adaptation, as it were). It isn't the visual dream-scape of Mirrormask, it isn't the adult pretension of Pan's Labyrinth, and it isn't the fun-loving classic The Princess Bride, but it contains just what the fantasy-lover is familiarized enough with to be completely comfortable during the entire viewing. Fantasy lovers should rejoice--special effects work has finally become good enough and cheap enough that this stuff is in regular production now.<br /><br />The story of Stardust involves a young man named Tristan who, in order to gain the love and approval of the most beautiful girl in their small town of Wall, goes on an adventure to retrieve a fallen star. To make things difficult, however, Tristan's fallen star is actually a woman named Yvaine, and he's not the only one looking for her... some witches have their greedy eyes on the immortality the star's heart can give, and a brother's feud over the magic kingdom leads murderous princes in her direction.<br /><br />From there it's all pretty predictable, but it involves some attractive fantasy elements, some warm-hearted commentary on the nature of love, and the best part, Robert DeNiro as a gay pirate. On that note, DeNiro's performance is spot-on... it's not the excessive lisp that most actors use to portray gay people, but a surprisingly effective one from someone used to being seen as a rough-and-gruff typecast character (thus the ongoing joke surrounding his character matching DeNiro's own opening up into alternate forms of acting). DeNiro hasn't been so unique to his own image since Brazil, and that's saying something.<br /><br />Stardust is the type of movie, perhaps, that will subsist on children's and fantasy-lover's shelves for a long time. I can't say it offers anything new, but it's not really there to. It's actually those most familiar with it's tropes that will enjoy it the most.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB

This is the epitome of fairytale! The villains are completely wicked and the heroes are refreshingly pure. Danes, Deniro,and Pfieffer are wonderful as well as the new actor who plays the role of Tristan. Outstanding performances, delightful magic, funny and dramatic, and a perfect fairytale ending make this film absolutely fabulous! I'm not so sure all content is appropriate for younger children but for an older audience, there are plenty of hilarious subtleties! The previews do not do this movie justice! My fiancé and I were quite skeptical but were so thrilled we had taken a chance on this movie that I can only hope to assure anyone on the fence about this movie to give it a try!

What a wonderful, fanciful movie "Stardust" is.<br /><br />I could easily end it with that one statement and suffice to say, one could take it as a very strong recommendation to go see it.<br /><br />At a time when Hollywood seems bent on forcing remakes and sequels down our throats, "Stardust" makes us remember why we go to the movies in the first place - to escape reality for a couple of hours and explore other lives, other times, or other planets. Ironically, "Stardust" takes us to all three places effortlessly and with a childlike glee we all long for.<br /><br />"Stardust" is full of all the characters we remember as children: princes, witches, pirates, ghosts and scoundrels. It has the damsel in distress, the hero, the rogues, the obstacles, spells, antidotes, charms, and even a touch of light-speed to make it quasi modern.<br /><br />"Stardust" is about a man from the town of Wall, which is conveniently situated next to a wall that separates their town from a magical kingdom. The only way past the wall is through a breech that is diligently guarded by a scruffy old codger (played wonderfully by David Kelly). One day a young man from Wall named Ben Barnes out maneuvers the old guard and escapes through the breech. He happens upon an enchanted kingdom called Stormhold where he meets a chained (and very sexy) young lady named Una. She is held captive by a witch and leashed by an unbreakable chain. While the witch is away, Una seduces Ben and sends him on his way. Ben returns to Wall without incident and continues his life. But nine months later he is summoned to the wall breech where the old guard hands him what you might expect - a baby boy.<br /><br />The boy, named Tristan grows up to be a rather hapless young man (Charlie Cox) who is smitten with a girl way out of his league and also betrothed to another. Nevertheless, the young lady (named Victoria and played Sienna Miller) goes out once with Tristain and he confesses his love to her. After they espy a falling star, she tells him he can have her if he retrieves the star and brings it back to her. He agrees and sets out on his quest, which will take him to the other side of the wall.<br /><br />Meanwhile in the kingdom of Stormhold, the old king (perfectly played by Peter O'Toole) is dying. He calls his remaining living sons to tell them who shall succeed him to the throne. His sons' names are Primus, Secondus, Sextmus, and Septimus. The other sons where killed by the other brothers in a humorous competition to see who lives to get the throne.<br /><br />Anyway, he tosses his ruby charm to the sky and Voila, that what brings the star to earth.<br /><br />The star crashes in the form of a beautiful woman named Yvaine (Clare Danes) and she, of course, is wearing the charm. But little does she know she is now being persuaded by Tristain, the Princes, and also an aging witch named Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer) who wants to cut out the stars heart to regain her own youth.<br /><br />Complicated? Yes. But it all comes together as the adventure unfolds.<br /><br />Tristain is the first to find Yvaine but is so blinded by his devotion to Victoria he doesn't recognize the growing bond between he and Yvaine. His initial interest lie only in returning Yvaine to Victoria as proof of his love. But he must get past the princes and Lamia first. The princes aren't that big an issue as they are constantly trying to kill each other - and just as in "Pirates of the Caribbean" - never has death been so funny. <br /><br />But Tristain also encounters the witch who enslaved his mother (though he doesn't know it's his mother) and a band of flying pirates led by Robert DeNiro.<br /><br />His is the most important character in the movie and DeNiro plays it to a tee. He steals the movie with his toughness and soon we learn an undercover secret that will leave audiences on the floor with laughter. Though his role is small in length, DeNiro is extraordinary!<br /><br />Michelle Pfeiffer is wonderful as Lamia - a sexy evil witch. Claire Danes is most appropriate as the confused and distressed Yvaine. She makes a perfect damsel. Jason Flemyng, Adam Buston, Rupert Everett, and Mark Strong add the perfect dose of levity as the fighting princes whom, as they die return as ghosts ala "Blithe Spirit" and "High Spirits".<br /><br />Moreover director Matthew Vaughn, whose only other directing experience was "Layer Cake", weaves an enchanting tale that everyone will enjoy.<br /><br />"Stardust" may be too complex for young children, but anyone over the age of 13 will want to see this movie multiple times. It's that good. "Stardust" is what movies are supposed to be. Perfectly written, perfectly cast, perfectly directed, and perfectly acted. In other words...perfect.

please, future writers, producers, directors - learn from this movie!<br /><br />never before have i seen such a bold and original tale created for the big movie screen. bold, because the script constantly made a step so many fantasy movies safely avoided - a step to something new, creative and daring. just when you think 'oh, i've seen this before' or 'i am sure this is what will happen now' - StarDust would make an unexpected twist and involve you more and more into the story.<br /><br />the actors are great - even the smallest part is performed with such talent it fills me with awe for the creators of this movie. Robert De Niro is gorgeous and performs with such energy that he simply steals the show in each scene he's in. Michelle Pfeiffer is the perfect witch, and Claire Danes a wonderful choice for the innocent and loving 'star', Yvaine. Other big names make outstanding roles. I had the filling everyone is trying to give his best for this movie. But once again, the story by Neil Gaiman, all the little things he 'invented' for this universe - simply outstanding.<br /><br />I watched this movie at a pre-screening today, a day before the official release, and do hope it will have huge success. There is so much humor, but also tense moments as well as lovely tender scenes. The look in the eyes of Yvaine, the 'frivolities' of Captain Shakespeare, the passion of Lamia the witch - impressive, unforgettable<br /><br />For me this is the number one entertaining movie of 2007, watch it and enjoy it<br /><br />11/10 - Outstanding<br /><br />peace and love

This remarkable film can be summed up very easily. First of all, while the comparisons to "Princess Bride" are inevitable, it's almost futile to do so. While both films combine adult wit and humor with a fairy tale backdrop, "Stardust" is so much different than any other fantasy/sci-fi film I've ever seen. It's such a hybrid of those genres, but its plot and script are so unique that--along with the performances, special effects, cinematography, and score--the finished product is simply not all that comparable to anything that has ever appeared on the silver screen. Secondly, the score is very effective at simultaneously pulling us into the story and the fantasy world in which it takes place and pushing the story along, while creating just the right amount of awe and excitement necessary to make the magic believable within the realm where the characters exist. Thirdly, I did not find the film to be even remotely difficult to follow or confusing in any way. In fact, the interesting interplay between the three main subplots actually made it even that much more compelling to watch. Wonderfully casted, and superbly acted across the board. This fantasy adventure (with sci-fi elements) was the best one I've seen since "Return of the King" (not that I am comparing the two at all). OK, so its not that easy to sum up, but don't let any crude and/or heartless and cynical review nor the film's pathetic PR prevent you from partaking in the best time you could have at the movies this summer (or even possibly in a long time)!

I contend that whoever is ultimately responsible for creating/approving the trailer for this movie has completely blundered. NO ONE I know wanted to see this movie based on the previews, and EVERYONE who actually saw it (that I know) absolutely loved it... The advertising campaign is disgrace/disaster/blunder.<br /><br />Opened at #4 behind...<br /><br />#1-Rush Hour, which I have not seen, average IMDb score of 7.4.<br /><br />#2-The Bourn Ultimatum, which I have seen, awesome movie but 3rd week out, average IMDb score of 8.7 (deserving I would say).<br /><br />#3-The Simpsons Movie, which I have seen, okay movie but 4th week out, average IMDb score of 8.1 (a bit high in my opinion).<br /><br />#4-Stardust, average IMDb score of 8.4 (lower then Bourn, but that's been our for 3 weeks).<br /><br />Whether it was poor scheduling or poor advertising I think that the powers that be behind this movie screwed up big time! This should have been advertised as an amazing movie that happens to be a fantasy/fairytale and not advertised as just another fairytale… Too bad :( Anyway- Now that I have very pointlessly ranted on-and-on... Awesome movie, go see it!

Although Stardust seems to be a fantasy film with predictable ending and average performances, it is certainly not. When i saw the movie, i knew it was going to be one of my favorite movies. And i was right. <br /><br />Stardust is more of a fairytale than an adventure film. It has this magical 'aura' from the beginning to the very end of the movie. The storyline is well written , and it keeps you on the edge of your seat. Like every tale , it has some short of morality. Therefore we know in our hearts that the evil brothers won't take the throne but the innocent boy who manages to overcome every obstacle and difficulty he encounters during his journey. We also know that the true love is Yvaine and not Victoria , the material girl who is shallow and manipulative. <br /><br />I have to give extra credits to Claire Danes. She literally shines in this movie. Her eyes have this sparkle that fit totally in her character. Moreover, she and Cox do have chemistry which makes the romance in the film even more notable. The rest of the cast are well known actors and actresses which of course make Stardust an interesting and ''high classed'' movie<br /><br />Overall , the movie is FANTASTIC, the locations magical and the plot interesting.I was very disappointed that the film didn't get nominated for more awards. I have to give at least 9/10 stars for this.

Highly enjoyable, very imaginative, and filmic fairytale all rolled into one, Stardust tells the story of a young man living outside a fantasy world going inside it to retrieve a bit of a fallen star only to find the star is alive, young, and beautiful. A kingdom whose king is about to die has said king unleash a competition on his several sons to see who can retrieve a ruby first to be king whilst a trio of witches want the star to carve up and use to keep them young. These three plot threads weave intricately together throughout the entire picture blended with good acting, dazzling special effects, and some solid sentiment and humour as well. Stardust is a fun film and has some fun performances from the likes of Claire Danes as the star(I could gaze at her for quite some time) to Michelle Pfeiffer(I could gaze at her at full magical powers even longer) playing the horrible witch to Robert Deniro playing a nancy-boy air pirate to perfection. Charlie Cox as the lead Tristan is affable and credible and we get some very good work from a group of guys playing the sons out to be king who are constantly and consistently trying to kill off each other. Mark Strong, Jason Flemyng, and Ruppert Everett plays their roles well in both life and death(loved this whole thread as well). Peter O'Toole plays the dying killer daddy and watch for funny man Ricky Gervais who made me laugh more than anything in the entire film in his brief five minutes(nice feet). But the real power in the film is the novel by Neil Gaiman and the script made from his creative and fertile mind. Stardust creates its own mythology and its own world and it works.

Going into seeing this movie I was a bit skeptical because fantasy movies are not always my cup of tea. Especially a romantic fantasy.<br /><br />Little did I know that I was in for a ride through cinematic magic. Everything in the movie from plot to dialogue to effects was very near perfection.<br /><br />Claire Danes shines like the star she is in this movie. From beginning to end you fall more and more in love with this character.<br /><br />Michelle Pfeiffer is menacing as an evil witch bent on capturing the star for eternal youth and beauty.<br /><br />Robert De Niro is a lovable character who gives the audience the greatest bit of comic relief as the movie is gaining momentum towards the climax.<br /><br />Overall this was a movie that surprised and delighted me as a movie fan. If you are looking for a fun and enjoyable movie that will be fun for the kids and adults alike, Stardust is the way to go.

Maybe I loved this movie so much in part because I've been feeling down in the dumps and it's such a lovely little fairytale. Whatever the reason, I thought it was pitch perfect. Great, intelligent story, beautiful effects, excellent acting (especially De Niro, who is awesome). This movie made me happier than I've been for a while.<br /><br />It is a very funny and clever movie. The running joke of the kingdom's history of prince savagery and the aftermath, the way indulging in magic effects the witch and dozens of smart little touches all kept me enthralled. That's much of what makes it so good; it's an elaborate, special-effects-laden movie with more story than most fairytale movies, yet there is an incredible attention to small things.<br /><br />I feel like just going ahead and watching it all over again.

I have seen a lot of Saura films and always found amazing the way he assembles music, dance, drama and great cinema in his movies. Ibéria shows an even better Saura, dealing with multimedia concepts and a more contemporary concept of dance and music. Another thing that called my attention is the fact that, in this movie, dancers and musicians, dance and music, are equally important: the camera shows various aspects of music interpretation, examining not only technical issues but also the emotional experience of playing. The interest of Saura on the bridge between classical and contemporary music and dance is one more ingredient in turning this movie maybe the most aesthetically exciting among his other works. That's why I recommend it strongly to those who love good cinema, good music, good dance, great art.

If Saura hadn't done anything like this before, Iberia would be a milestone. Now it still deserves inclusion to honor a great director and a great cinematic conservator of Spanish culture, but he has done a lot like this before, and though we can applaud the riches he has given us, we have to pick and choose favorites and high points among similar films which include Blood Wedding (1981), Carmen (1983), El Amore Brujo (1986), Sevillanas (1992), Salomé (2002) and Tango (1998). I would choose Saura's 1995 Flamenco as his most unique and potent cultural document, next to which Iberia pales.<br /><br />Iberia is conceived as a series of interpretations of the music of Isaac Manuel Francisco Albéniz (1860-1909) and in particular his "Iberia" suite for piano. Isaac Albéniz was a great contributor to the externalization of Spanish musical culture -- its re-formatting for a non-Spanish audience. He moved to France in his early thirties and was influenced by French composers. His "Iberia" suite is an imaginative synthesis of Spanish folk music with the styles of Liszt, Dukas and d'Indy. He traveled around performing his compositions, which are a kind of beautiful standardization of Spanish rhythms and melodies, not as homogenized as Ravel's Bolero but moving in that direction. Naturally, the Spanish have repossessed Albéniz, and in Iberia, the performers reinterpret his compositions in terms of various more ethnic and regional dances and styles. But the source is a tamed and diluted form of Spanish musical and dance culture compared to the echt Spanishness of pure flamenco. Flamenco, coming out of the region of Andalusia, is a deeply felt amalgam of gitane, Hispano-Arabic, and Jewish cultures. Iberia simply is the peninsula comprising Spain, Portugal, Andorra and Gibraltar; the very concept is more diluted. <br /><br />Saura's Flamenco is an unstoppably intense ethnic mix of music, singing, dancing and that peacock manner of noble preening that is the essence of Spanish style, the way a man and a woman carries himself or herself with pride verging on arrogance and elegance and panache -- even bullfights and the moves of the torero are full of it -- in a series of electric sequences without introduction or conclusion; they just are. Saura always emphasized the staginess of his collaborations with choreographer Antonio Gades and other artists. In his 1995 Flamenco he dropped any pretense of a story and simply has singers, musicians, and dancers move on and off a big sound stage with nice lighting and screens, flats, and mirrors arranged by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, another of the Spanish filmmaker's important collaborators. The beginnings and endings of sequences in Flamenco are often rough, but atmospheric, marked only by the rumble and rustle of shuffling feet and a mixture of voices. Sometimes the film keeps feeding when a performance is over and you see the dancer bend over, sigh, or laugh; or somebody just unexpectedly says something. In Flamenco more than any of Saura's other musical films it's the rapt, intense interaction of singers and dancers and rhythmically clapping participant observers shouting impulsive olé's that is the "story" and creates the magic. Because Saura has truly made magic, and perhaps best so when he dropped any sort of conventional story.<br /><br />Iberia is in a similar style to some of Saura's purest musical films: no narration, no dialogue, only brief titles to indicate the type of song or the region, beginning with a pianist playing Albeniz's music and gradually moving to a series of dance sequences and a little singing. In flamenco music, the fundamental element is the unaccompanied voice, and that voice is the most unmistakable and unique contribution to world music. It relates to other songs in other ethnicities, but nothing quite equals its raw raucous unique ugly-beautiful cry that defies you to do anything but listen to it with the closest attention. Then comes the clapping and the foot stomping, and then the dancing, combined with the other elements. There is only one flamenco song in Iberia. If you love Saura's Flamenco, you'll want to see Iberia, but you'll be a bit disappointed. The style is there; some of the great voices and dancing and music are there. But Iberia's source and conception doom it to a lesser degree of power and make it a less rich and intense cultural experience.

Saturday June 3, 6:30pm The Neptune<br /><br />Monday June 5, 4:30pm The Neptune<br /><br />Few celebrations of ethnic and cultural identity succeed as mightily as Carlos Saura's brilliant interpretation of Isaac Albeniz' masterpiece Iberia Suite. At the approach of its centennial, Saura drew together an unprecedented wealth of talent from the Spanish performing arts community to create this quintessential love song to their homeland. The twelve "impressions" of the suite are presented without narrative in stark surroundings, allowing the power of each performance to explode before Saura's camera. Creative use of large flats and mirrors, moved throughout the set, combined with screens, shadows, fire, rain and rear projection add glorious dramatic effects to the varied selections of song, dance and instrumental performance. Photographs of Albeniz reappear throughout the program, connecting the passion of the music to its great creator. Saura encompasses all Spaniards on his stage from the beautiful elegance of elderly flamenco dancers in traditional costume to children joyously dancing with their instructors.

The music of Albeniz pervades this film. Once and a while it is played with original instrumentation (e.g. piano, but never full orchestra), but often it is re-worked with various contemporary ensembles (e.g.guitar) and treatments (e.g. jazz piano). Only occasionally is the music the sole focus of the film: the vast majority of the time the music is set to various dances, often flamenco, but not always. I would guess that there are 12–14 scenes, which are not united by a plot. Not all scenes will reach the heights for an individual viewer. In my case about half reached the pinnacle, though all the rest were in their own way very fine. Those that worked for me moved me to goose-flesh aesthetic delight; indeed, the final scene left me weepy with joy. And in some very magical way it brings you deep into Spanish culture. If you don't like subtitles, don't worry. The film is virtually wordless, though each scene carries a title of an Albeniz piece. Seeing this very beautiful film sharpens my complaint that virtually none of the films of Saura are available on DVD in the USA. I am thinking here particularly of his flamenco version of "Carmen," a spectacular work of art that is available in Europe but not here (European DVD's won't play on American DVD players). This is a scandal.

I have never danced flamenco before, but somehow I feel like this movie was perfect. The colors, how blatant the dances were, the gypsies, and the rivals all put together made a movie that seemed to have ended too soon. I have seen other Carlos Saura movies and I agree that this film may be his best production. I feel that the best characteristics of his past films were put together and aligned to make Iberia. I appreciate the use of mirrors in revealing the activity going on behind the cameras. While watching this movie I felt like I was sitting in a small restaurant in Madrid, comfortably watching the dancers bang on a wooden plank over a delicious fruit cocktail. For me, this movie fit like a glove. I don't know how I will be able to get a copy of this film in the US in the next few years. I recommend this movie to anyone who is attracted to the livelihood of other cultures. It is safe to say that this movie is certainly on my favorites list.

I was surprised at the low rating this film got from viewers. I saw it one late night on TV and it hit the spot - I actually think it was back in 1989 when it first appeared. Yet I remember it pretty well, with a nice twist or two, and an interesting ambiance on a windmill farm. Michael Pollard looks suitably seedy for his role which pretty much sums up the unfulfilled early promise of his career, and everyone else plays it pretty straight ahead. I definitely recommend it as a rental, although some of the themes, which might have seemed a bit edgy in 1989, now may seem tame, which is a shame, considering that contemporary "edginess" is often just used as a necessary marketing tool, sort of like clamoring just to get noticed.

Michael Bowen plays an innocentish young man who hitchhikes a thousand miles to visit his absentee millionaire father (the creepy Ray Wise) at a sprawling, windmill-powered ranch and ends up tangled in the dangerous web of his young, scheming and seductive stepmother from hell (the yummy Clare Wren), thus causing trouble for the already dysfunctional family. An edgy, stylish and exciting drama that received no promotion and was sent straight to VHS and cable TV--where I first saw it. It is beautifully written, smartly acted, and tightly directed from a script that keeps you biting your nails. I cannot believe the reviewers who disliked it ever actually saw it. It is an undiscovered classic.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie because there was a genuine sincerity in the acting. The writing was top-notch. James Arness is a great actor and he showed it here. Brian Keith was too old to be Davy Crockett, and can anyone really play Davy but Fess Parker?<br /><br />Another great actor in this move was Raul Julia, who gave depth to Santa Anna, a vain and complex person who led Mexico through turbulent times.<br /><br />While some may think the movie was slow-paced, it captured the battle as it unfolded, lots of tedium followed by a couple hours of horrific terror.<br /><br />What impressed me most about this movie is that it made you think about a cause and how some people are willing to die for what they believe in. In this day and age when nobody stands for anything, I found it refreshing to think that there was a time when people died for freedom, no matter how you may feel about the politics of the time.

heres a fun fact, I was the baby in the movie, the one in the crib. :) I am 19 years old now. my parents took me to try out for the part, we lived in Texas at the time.I think I only made like 80 bucks for it, but i wasn't in it very long. My parents said i would cry when i was supposed to be happy and would be happy when i was supposed to cry. I was all mixed up. Strange and funny fact i suppose.. and no I am not a child actress. I am livin' in San Antonio, workin' at a walgreens. I graduated here in Texas but I lived in Maryland most my life. This Movie is a great movie, though, good concept. I have seen it several times in my short 19 years.

The best film on the battle of San Antonio, Texas in March 1836, was John Wayne's 1960 epic THE ALAMO. In a one shot job as director producer, that temporarily financially strapped him, Wayne demonstrated that he was talented in movie making outside of his icon-like acting ability personifying the West.<br /><br />I have commented on that film in a review the other night, and I pointed out that Wayne and James Edward Grant (the screenwriter) tackled some points that were barely mentioned in earlier films about the battle. They did bring in the issue of slavery. They also finally discussed the contribution of local Mexican land owner Juan Seguin as an important leader in the War for Independence on par with Crockett, Bowie, Travis, Austin, and Houston. <br /><br />But there was one weakness (though well hidden) in the film. Wayne worked hard to cast it properly, thinking of many people for lead roles in it. But, he did not properly handle the leader of the enemy forces, General Antonio De Santa Anna. The role was played by an obscure actor, Ruben Padilla (on this board, his thread shows only three credits listed). Padilla did not have any spoken dialog (even in Spanish). And while he does have one of the last shots in the film, he just is shown as a silent tyrant, observing the burning of the bodies of the Americans and their allies.<br /><br />Despite several poor choices in the casting of this television movie (THE ALAMO: THIRTEEN DAYS TO CLORY), it is the best film in showing the man who was (from 1836 to 1854) a leading bogeyman to American policy makers. Raul Julia was a wonderful stage actor. I was fortunate to see him in a production (in the late 1980s) of ARMS AND THE MAN in Manhattan, as Sergius. He was never boring, and usually first rate in his acting.<br /><br />Here we see the egotistical monster at his worst. Nothing is acceptable that does not fit Santa Anna's wishes or activities. It can be the failure of an orderly in the army to bring some item he requested fast enough, or it can be the temerity of these "foreign brigands" (as he saw the Americans) in not knuckling down to himself, "the Napoleon of the West".<br /><br />Santa Anna was President of Mexico five or six times between 1830 and 1855. He claimed that he first got involved in overthrowing a President because that President did not live up to the country's constitution, but it was the power that kept him going year after year. It is a sad commentary that he was the leading Mexican historical figure in those two decades. No political figure or military figure would rise to override him until Benito Juarez did in the late 1850s. Initially he claimed great liberal ideals, but he once admitted that the people of Mexico were children who needed guidance for one hundred years before they could rule themselves (and thus he sounds like Gilbert Roland in CRISIS talking about the people he has helped lead against Jose Ferrer). The amazing thing about him was he managed to keep coming back. His policies were disasters. While we know about his attack on Texas (to put down a revolt there), he also tried to expand into Guatamala (and probably saw himself controlling much of Central America). He did win at the Alamo, but at great cost of lives. His massacre of Col. Fannin's men at Goliad was inexcusable (one might make a case for the destruction of the defenders of the Alamo who were fighting to the last, but Fannin had surrendered). Then came the disaster of San Jacinto, where his army was wiped out (he failed to take adequate precautions to watch for the American troops). He was captured, and humiliated, and forced to sign a surrender of Texas. Houston was kind to him: the troops wanted to string him up.<br /><br />Except for losing a leg in a battle against the French in 1838, he managed not to get wounded in most of his wars. He repudiated the forced surrender of Texas, but could not militarily undue it. Instead, he would lead Mexico into defeat in the war of 1846 - 48 against the Americans, leading to the Mexican Session. The U.S. was "decent" enough to pay Mexico $15,000,000 for the Southwest, but Mexico lost half of it's territory. He would be President for the last time in 1853, in time to give Franklin Pierce's horrendously bad administration it's one moment of glory - Santa Anna sold the border of Arizona and New Mexico (the "Gadsden Purchase") to the U.S. No other Mexican President (not even Porfirio Diaz) ever cost his country so much (Diaz did sell out to foreign business interests, but he built up Mexico's economic muscles doing so). He was exiled in 1855, and settled in Staten Island. There he managed to do his most creative work: he introduced chicle to the U.S., and it became chewing gum. Some achievement! <br /><br />Julia's Santa Anna is younger than the practiced cynic and schemer who became America's best land purchase agent. He is not going to stand for opposition and he jumps into furious tantrums at a moment's notice. Most of the time his chief aide, Col. Black (David Ogden Stiers, here a British born officer) holds his tongue - he does not wish to be in front of a firing squad as he could be. But Stiers is secretly less than enchanted by his boss. At the end, when alone with the newly widowed wives of the dead Alamo defenders, Stiers suggests that they tell the world what Santa Anna is really like. And they did!

This made for television version of the legendary stand against hopeless odds is more objective, more realistic than earlier filmed versions of the events, though the one movie made after this went perhaps too far in humanizing the figures of Sam Houston, Bowie, Travis and Crockett.<br /><br />The focus here is on Jim Bowie, played with sharp, cynical detachment by James Arness who is apparently still alive at age 85. Then 65, he made a comeback to acting after years away from the screen to do this part.<br /><br />Puerto Rican-born Raul Julia humanizes Gen. Santa Ana as no one since J. Carol Naish back in '54 had done. However, the Mexican dictator is portrayed as a lecherous, vainglorious popinjay--gaudier uniforms have never been seen before or since. He receives excellent advice from the European officers he has hired but, convinced of his own infallibility, he does not heed it.<br /><br />Alec Baldwin is the one actor whose age is appropriate to the character he plays: Col. William Travis. His portrayal is earnest. He is almost in awe of the older men who share command with him.<br /><br />The one jarring note was Brian Keith as Crockett. In a coonskin cap and carrying Ol' Betsy, he stumbles about as if he had wandered in from another movie. With no conviction in the portrayal, the character is reduced to a few stage conventions. <br /><br />The script reveals some historical facts overlooked or suppressed in earlier film versions. We learn that Jim Bowie was, in the person of Santa Ana, fighting his own brother-in-law. The Mexican soldiers performed poorly in part because they were armed with rifles left over from the Napoleonic Wars a generation earlier. "Santa Ana likes a bargain." Bowie wryly explains. The whole project of defending the former Spanish mission as a fort was militarily ill- advised--a fact explored in greater depth in the 2004 film "The Alamo".

When John Wayne filmed his Alamo story he had built a complete Alamo set in the town of Brackettsville, Texas which is still there and quite the tourist attraction. As long as that stands, we will have a set for future Alamo interpretations for the screen. One such with Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton was done in this century.<br /><br />But I would say The Alamo: Thirteen Days To Glory is the best Alamo story filmed I've seen. John Wayne's film is a good one if over-hyped, but it's a John Wayne film with the story redone to fill parameters of screen character of John Wayne. Brian Keith plays Davy Crockett here and gives a fine interpretation of the rollicking frontier character he was.<br /><br />It's a lot closer to Professor Lon Tinkle's book on The Alamo than the Wayne film was and having read the book years ago I can attest to that. Tinkle's book is listed as the source in both films, but Tinkle who was alive back then when the Wayne film was done and he was not pleased with the result.<br /><br />Alec Baldwin was around the right age for young William Barrett Travis, the idealistic freedom fighter who incidentally was a slave owner. Back in the day no one saw the ironic contradiction in that. One thing that was not explored and hasn't been was Travis's hyperactive sex drive. He was the Casanova of the Southwest, he even kept a salacious diary of his libidinal conquests.<br /><br />But the man who always gets the whitewash is Jim Bowie, played here by James Arness. He was a hero at the Alamo to be sure, but his career before the Alamo was that of a scoundrel. He was a smuggler, a slave trader, an all around con man selling land he had questionable title to. But his heroic death certainly redeemed him. No hint of that is in Arness's portrayal nor any others I've seen of Bowie on the screen. And of course he did design the Bowie knife, done to his specifications. That man needed such a weapon.<br /><br />However the main asset that The Alamo: Thirteen Days To Glory has is a full blown portrayal of Antonio De Lopez De Santa Anna, the president of Mexico who comes up personally to put down the rebellion stirred up by the North Americans who've come to settle in Texas at Mexican invitation. Unfortunately those Americans came with some pre-conceived notions about liberty that just hadn't made it that far south, at least liberty for white people. Raul Julia plays Santa Anna who remains an even more controversial figure in Mexican history. He was also quite the scoundrel, but he was the best Mexico produced until a genuine reformer named Benito Juarez came along.<br /><br />This film was the farewell performance of Lorne Greene who appears briefly as General Sam Houston. Greene's not quite my conception of Houston, he really was way too old for the part, Houston was in his early forties in 1836, he was not yet the patriarch of Texas. But within the limits imposed on him, Greene does a fine job.<br /><br />For a romantic telling of The Alamo tale by all means see John Wayne's version, but for historical content I recommend this film highly.

13 days to Glory tells the traditional tale with sympathy toward the Mexican viewpoint. The major problem in this movie was that while cowboy actor James Arness played the part of Jim Bowie persuasively, the rest of the name actors in the cast Brian Keith (Davy Crocket) and Lorne Greene (Sam Houston) were too old.<br /><br />Raul Julia played General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna with grace and dignity owed to the professional soldier who after all won the battle. The scene where he upbraids his officers for failing to mount a guard and prevent a sortee is one the scriptwriters did not understand. Failing to keep watch is a major remiss in the military. Santa Anna was within his prerogatives to be angry. Raul Julia magnificently carried poor writing through the scene.<br /><br />Kathleen York was an impressive Susannah Dickinson, a woman who deserves to be remembered for her courage. However, Kathleen York might have been reminded that as Dickinsons hailed from Pennsylvania they probable dis not sound very Southron.

This game show lasted just one season, but was intriguing to audiences because it required visual aptitude and a steady hand. One false move would disqualify the contestant from winning the prize, even though it was clear the contestant knew the correct answer. It was always exciting as the contestant began drawing, wondering if they would complete the drawing or be buzzed out; allowing the other contestant to easily win the contest. It was a light-hearted show, but it was clear that the contestants were often times embarrassed from a silly mistake made unintentionally. Rarely seen, the game show did not survive past one single season. Only a seasoned game show addict will remember this show, as it proved to be quite unpopular, even though game shows were making a big return to the TV screen after the scandals of the 1950's game shows. But it was a unique concept for a game show, and one that has as yet never been seen again.

In Arlington Heights, IL we never had a cafeteria in any of the elementary schools (1961) so I rode my bike home from school for lunch and always watched this game. True, I was 11, but I thought it was the greatest thing on! I'd draw hidden pictures on my blackboard and see if my family or friends could find it. I also remember winning wonderful cars (Pontiac or Oldsmobile) if the contestant got the final hidden picture game. I even had the home version!<br /><br />I wonder why this game lasted so briefly. I enjoyed the music and the hidden pictures - the only one I could ever get was the lemon hidden as part of a bridge over a garden stream.<br /><br />Really good memories are connected with Camouflage.

A stunning realization occurs when some sort of phenomenon takes place!! Be it, firecrackers going off, witnessing a robbery, a hurricane nonchalantly devastating everything in it's path, or, for that matter, any other spectacular occurrence !! In the case of the Maclean Family, however, reveille was something which was no more complex than their day to day lives..Montana in the early twentieth century was an environment which was rough and tumble...The Maclean family was comprised of four people, the father, a minister, who was ideologically driven to raise his family properly. His wife was God fearing, and dutiful. The two boys were, well...BOYS!!.. What else can you say?...Brad Pitt starred in this film before he was really THE!! Brad Pitt, and his acting performance in this film was, to say the least, remarkable!!!.. His brother, Norman, was the cerebral type, he was touched by emotions that were genuine, and motivated by a set of values that Missoula, Montana concurred with!! Paul (Brad Pitt) was a misfit from the offset, and lived on the edge...You would think that Montana in the 1920's had no such thing, yet somehow, gambling, drinking, and violent confrontations, were as much a part of Paul, as was his fly fishing rod!! Fly fishing!! Did I say that? Parenthetically, this was the core of this movie's theme!! The recreation of fly fishing served as the cohesive bond which homogenized the kindred spirits of the Maclean brothers, and to a lesser degree, the father!! I would describe the acting in this film as incredibly believable, and the cinematography went beyond sensational.. Put it this way, anyone who sees this film will want to live in Montana.. Breathtaking filmography of bluer than blue mountains and streams captured the youth and effervescence that the Maclean brothers had for life...Seldom in a film do you witness whereby feelings immediately invoke a dogged tenacity to accomplish whatever it may be that someone wishes to accomplish..The Maclean brothers lived life to the fullest, and for better or worse, the father knew that this was going to be the only way the two of them could become men!!...Robert Redford directs this film, and tells the story of the Maclean's through the perspective of the older brother, Norman...Norman gets offered a position at the University of Chicago at age 26, and marries the woman he will always be in love with...What this film also points out, is that the younger brother, Paul, has attained an accomplishment of his own by being the epitome of a remarkable fly fisherman!! The seedier side of life prevails in the younger brother's existence, and exerts an insidious form of consternation for the Maclean family!! As most human shortcomings go, the Maclean family made light of turbulent waters, (literally) and thus, established unity as a family, by putting necessary blinders on!!!<br /><br />The end of the movie "River Runs Through It" presents an epigram of life through the eyes of the older brother.. For Norman Maclean, stoicism is a prerequisite to perseverance in his emeritus years!! Such a fate is largely due to the fact that reflecting on his life is tantamount to yearning for people who have passed away! The fond memories of his brother, his wife, his mother, and his father, must now be viewed philosophically!! For Norman, his life has been relegated to stubborn facts that have determined his dubious outlook, and precarious resolve! Something as simple as the statement "This was your life, and that is how you lived it" is a somber recollection of the joy, the sorrow, the regrets, and the love, he gave, as well as was the recipient of!! Best put in the last sermon he heard his father give, his father said "We can completely love someone without completely understanding them".. Whether you agree with what has happened in your life or not, it happened nonetheless! Norman Maclean must come to grips with the fact that his life has been fragmented by misunderstandings! Norman Maclean has become a decrepit octogenarian who is polarized by virtual conclusions to his life!! The murky waters of Montana's picturesque rivers serve as a vicious and desultory finalization to his years on earth!! Without question, the very prolific statement of "what seems complicated is really very simple" purveys a very acrimonious message in this movie...More simply put...The people and places which were important in Norman's life, are now only a bittersweet memory....merely a painfully intellectual rumination of events which are aggravated by the haunted waters of Montana's beautiful streams and rivers...To which, for the entire Maclean family, "all things merge into one and a river runs through it"

I have read the short story by Norman Maclean, and the movie did justice to Norman Maclean's writing. My husband tends to reread it occasionally, and I myself have read it over and scenes of the movie keeps coming to mind. We have videos of many of Redford ‘s movies and we have watched "A River runs through it" many times. Redford is part of the "famdamily" as he is always around. We never get tired of Redford's perception of Norman Maclean writings, and the beauty of Montana. The script reminds me very much of my own upbringing as my father had the same calling as Mr. Maclean's father. According to "A River Runs Through It," "Methodists are Baptists who can read," a line which by the way is not in the short story, but I think that is a funny line! My husband and I are well-read Baptists!<br /><br />I have heard a movie critic state that the pace of this movie is too slow. I disagree. As one search for inner peace, this is the type of movie that will make you contemplate the beauty of nature in three/four rhythm of the metronome. The photography is outstanding! The acting is great. I love the scene where Norman and Paul as boys talked and wondered whether one could be a fly fisher or a boxer! Then as adult Paul played by Brad Pitt (Se7ven) is the "perfect guy" who needs help with his alcoholism but will not accept it. The same applies to Neal Burns, who uses worms as bait, he also needed help but would not accept the fact that he needed help. The scene where Paul refuses to eat oatmeal and the entire family has to wait an eternity to say grace! Finally after hours, they all kneel around the table to say: "Grace!" and they all leave. But the oatmeal stayed on the plate! That scene where the two love birds and their tattoos on their posteriors! That is funny! The sunburn! The drive back home where Jessie Burns (Emily Lloyd) decides to go via the train line! Beautiful dialogue when Norman proposes to Jessie because he wants her to come to Chicago with him!<br /><br />Redford himself does a superb job as a narrator. I could not stop myself from comparing Brad to the young Redford (Barefoot in the Park). The nominated Director, Producer, Actor, is a visionary who deserves to be praised for his advancement not only in the cinema in the US but around the world. I am glad to live in nineteen hundred because I have seen the beginning of the black and white television, the movies and all the technology and special effects, to be able to watch videos at home and to live in the same century as Redford because I have had the chance to see his works. Redford needs no special effects to show us the beauty of Montana in this masterpiece. The river to me means that line that separates life from death, memories and realities. Redford shows the hands of the Creator so magnificently and a river runs through it.

Have you seen The Graduate? It was hailed as the movie of its generation. But A River Runs Through It is the story about all generations. Long before Dustin Hoffman's character got all wrapped up in the traps of modern suburbia, Norman Maclean and his brother Paul were facing the same crushing pressures of growing up as they tried to find their place in the world. But how could a place like post WW1 Montana be a showcase for the American family, at a time when the Wild West still was not completely gone? Just what has Maclean tapped into that strikes so deeply at who we all are and what we have to go through to find ourselves? As the movie opens, Norman is an old man, flyfishing beside a rushing river, trying to understand the course his own life has taken. The movie is literally a journey up through his own stream of consciousness, against time's current and back to when he was a boy. He and his younger brother Paul were the sons of a Presbyterian minister and devoted mother. The parents fit snugly into their roles. Mom takes care of house and home. Dad does the work of the Lord. The boys ponder what they will be when they grow up. Norm has it narrowed down to a boxer or a minister like his dad. Given the choice, little Paul would be the boxer, since he's told his first choice of pro flyfisherman doesn't even exist. The boys grow up and get into trouble with their pranks, fight to see who is tougher and do the things brothers do, all the while attending church and taking part in all other spiritual matters like flyfishing. They are at similar points in their lives before college. But when Norm returns from his six years at Dartmouth, things are very different. Paul is at the top of his game. Master flyfisherman. Grad of a nearby college and newspaper reporter who knows every cop on the beat and every judge on the bench. Norman is stunningly well educated for his day but has little idea what to do with his life, even as his father grills him about what he intends to do. You're left feeling that at least to Pops, God will call you to your life's work. But you have to stay open and ready to receive it -- all your life. Father has always taken his boys to reflect by the side of the river and contemplate God's eternal words. "Listen," their father urges. It's both Zen and Quakerly. Pretty radical for a stoic clergyman. But with all the beauty and contemplation, and even though the Macleans are truly a God-fearing, scripture-heeding household, how is it that Rev. Maclean's family is unraveling? Paul is true perfection as he fishes the river, but he's feeling the pull of gambling and boozing, while his family doesn't know how to keep him from winding up where he seems to be headed. Mom, Dad and Brother all seem to have the same quiet desperation of not knowing what they should be doing and why they can't seem to help. Pauly just waves it all off with a grin and his irresistible charm. But the junior brother is losing his grip. Norman starts getting his life on track, finding love and career, but Paul continues to slide. The family that loves him watches helplessly. Mother, Father, Brother flounder in their own ways trying to help, but none very effectively. How can a family that loves each other so much be so ill-equipped to handle this? How can someone be so artful and full of grace when out in God's nature, yet be somehow unfit or unwilling to fit into the constructs of society that God's peoples have made for themselves? These are all questions Norman will ponder his entire life. The eternal words beneath the smooth stones of the river forever haunt him, yet keep their secrets. The movie is beautiful to watch. This is certainly God's country, and filming it won an Oscar. Director Robert Redford plays with the story from the book and teases the narration a bit to follow the emotional pattern he's presenting, and it works well. But do go back and read the book, too. You'll see Norman made connections with his old man even deeper than the movie can suggest -- and you'll see the places where the storyteller's very words gurgle and sing right off the page with an exuberance of a river running through it, leading into the unknown.

I have seen all the films directed by Robert Redford and appreciated his love of the American people and the land. In A River Runs Through It, Redford displays the lyric romanticism and visual splendor of the high Rocky Mountains of Montana as if he were a 19th century landscape painter of the ilk of Thomas Moran or Albert Bierstadt. This film makes love to the visual and the word with text by author Norman Maclean, and stunning camera work by Phillippe Rousselot (Serpent's Kiss, Reigne Margot).<br /><br />Redford's cast is perfect. Tom Skerritt is the Rev. MacLean, a man whose methods of education include fly fishing as well as the Bible, Brenda Blythen, the mother, and his sons, Craig Schaffer and Brad Pitt create a family whose interactions reflect the same problems all encounter with growing teenage sons, and later, complex young men. Both Schaffer and Pitt are totally believable as the brothers whose love of fly fishing and each other will tie them together forever. It is the relationships between men, father and sons, brothers, and their women to the outside world that grounds A River Runs Through It to a vein of storytelling that is missing in so many of Hollywood films produced in recent years.<br /><br />What makes these relationships special however, is the attention Redford gives to the language as spoken in dialogue. This is a literate script, beautiful to hear and unforgettable when coupled with the stunning Montana rivers and mountains. The words and setting are equal to performances by a cast that rises to their material. While the idea of fly fishing may seem an odd device to center a story, it is not so implausible in Redford's directorial hands. Given the material, Redford's ode to a simpler time and life is worth revisiting again and again.

One of the things about the film that warmed my heart strings was that dry fly fishing was a major part of the scene. I have occasionally carried out my times of dry fly fishing, having tied my own flies, and being accompanied by my brother and my father we spend a day on one river or another seeking to tempt the ever elusive Brown Trout to rise and take the fly that has been offered to them.<br /><br />When we had occasions like this any differences between us disappeared and any of the pressures of the world melted away to be replaced by the glory of being absorbed in the activity and the surroundings of the place we were in.<br /><br />This was one of the amazing things that was portrayed to me in the film as the minister and his two sons, Norman and Pauly carried out the ritual. For there is something ritualistic about fly fishing as there is something ritualistic about so many pastimes. You can't just start casting your fishing line and hope for the best. You have to attune yourself to the place you are in, you have to scan the surface of the water considering how it is flowing and where the best point might be to place your fly and, depending on your skill level, you might even get your fly to land there long enough for a fish to take note of it and strike. The 'Art of Fly-fishing' was directed and represented so well that they themselves can be classified as artists.<br /><br />The title for the film could not be more aptly chosen, for the river did in fact run through the life of father and two sons. This film however spreads itself broader than the family and community in Montana, by the the Blackfoot river, where the film is played out. It has the capacity to draw you in, to enthrall you, to capture you, as the history of the family, community and period is unfolded. The Story told is not just a family history, but a history of Life. What may be classified as a 'River of Life'

The combination of reading the Novella and viewing this film has inspired my wife and I to new levels. Recently I was pondering a statement made by the artist Thomas Kinkade in one of his inspirational books; He states: "You and I were not designed to breathe the fetid air of five o'clock traffic. Nor do I think God had banal television programs, media hype, worthless purchases, and soul pollution in mind when he created the universe..." I hadn't seen "A river runs through it" in a couple of years, but after pondering Kinkade's statement something drew me to watch the film with a spiritual eye. I watched it and saw a whole new world to the film and it inspired me to read the book (a must read). I have always been frustrated in Southern California but somehow got caught up in its materialistic society. The film really puts into perspective of how we should really experience God's creations. A combination of Macleans story and my desire to move back to the Northwest has driven me to move to Montana. I want my future kids to be able to rome the landscape, go fly-fishing with me, ride horses into nothing but open land and serene lakes set in the mountainside. A place where you seldom worry about crime. I look around SoCal and all I see is shopping malls, rude snarling people in their Mercedez Bens, miles of vehicles on congested freeways, gangs, racial turmoil on the verge of violent eruption, and everyone skeptical of each others intentions.<br /><br />Anyway the movie is very inspiring with brilliant acting and a deep story about the fragile connections of loved ones. There is a lot of deep thinking in this film. The scenery is worth seeing alone and actually helps relieve tension. You should finish this film relaxed yet full of insights to your own life. It takes a compassionate, intelligent, and spiritual person to really grasp the meaning. If you don't understand the art of cinema and how a director achieves his goals through dialogue, tone, light, colour, scenery, camera angles/movement, etc. Then this film is probably not for the crowd that thinks "The Fast and the Furious" is the greatest film. Granted it was entertaining but shallow.<br /><br />The bottom line: This film helps to realize that life is not about how much money you have or what things you posses. Rather it is about your relationships with family and friends and the experiences you share together. QUALITY NOT QAUNTITY

Upon seeing this film once again it appeared infinitely superior to me this time than the previous times I have viewed it. The acting is stunningly wonderful. The characters are very clearly drawn. Brad Pitt is simply superb as the errant son who rebels. The other actors and actresses are equally fine in every respect. Robert Redford creates a wonderful period piece from the days of speakeasies of the 1920s. The scenery is incredibly beautiful of the mountains and streams of western Montana. All in all, this is one of the finest films made in the 1990s.<br /><br />You must see this movie!<br /><br />

Excellent film dealing with the life of an old man as he looks back over the years. Starting around 1910, he reminisces about his boy and young adulthood; his family, friends, romances, etc. Very nostalgic piece with a bittersweet finale...."all things in life come together as one, and a river runs through it. And that river haunts me." Worth seeing.

In a little town in Montana two brothers grow up. One of them is Norman (Craig Sheffer), the other is Paul (Brad Pitt). Their father is Reverend Maclean and they grow up with his lessons that has to do with religion, and the lessons of fly-fishing. In this movie fly-fishing represents life, a little.<br /><br />The story is good and keeps your attention although there are some moments you need a little action. Probably the movie has this moments because it is not really about the events that happen, but about the message. Some things do happen though. Norman goes to Dartmouth to study. After six years he returns and gets involved with a nice girl named Jessie (Emily Lloyd) and he is invited to teach in Chicago. Paul has become a reporter and is known as the "fishing reporter". He is famous and it seems he has a nice life, but he drinks a little too much and gambles too much.<br /><br />The movie is very well directed, it has a nice score and all of the actors are good. The most beautiful thing in this movie is the cinematography. The mountains, the woods and the river all look very beautiful. If the movie was only made for these things it was good enough to watch. Fortunately there is more.

as a habit i always like to read through the 'hated it' reviews of any given movie. especially one that i'd want to comment on. and it's not so much a point-counterpoint sorta deal; i just like to see what people say on the flipside.<br /><br />however, i do want to address one thing. many people that hated it called it, to paraphrase, 'beautiful, but shallow,' some even going so far as to say that norm's desire yet inability to help his brother was a mundane plot, at best.<br /><br />i'd like to disagree.<br /><br />as a brother of a sibling who has a similar dysfunction, i can relate. daily, you see them abuse themselves, knowing only that their current path will inevitably lead them to self-destruction. and it's not about the specifics of what they did when; how or why paul decided to take up gambling and associating with questionable folks; it's really more how they are wired. on one hand, they are veritable geniuses, and on the other, painfully self-destructive (it's a lot like people like howard hughes — the same forces which drive them are the same forces which tear them apart) and all the while you see this, you know this, and what's worse, you realize you can't do a damn thing about it.<br /><br />for norman maclean, a river runs through it was probably a way to find an answer to why the tragedy had to occur, and who was to blame. in the end, no one is, and often, there is no why. but it takes a great deal of personal anguish to truly come to this realization. sometimes it takes a lifetime. and sometimes it never comes at all.

A River Runs Through It is one of those movies that deserves to be seen in the theater so that the majesty of its cinematography can be truly appreciated. The acting is wonderful and understated, with every gesture and smile and nod carrying meaning. Brad Pitt gives a radiant performance and Tom Skerrit is powerful as the preacher father. The movie moves like a river, you have to be willing to follow it through ebbs and flows, but it is well worth it in the end.

When I first saw this movie I was with my dad. He encouraged me to watch this movie because it was one of his favorites. After watching the movie it instantly became one of my favorites. <br /><br />A River Runs Through It is about two brothers who each take a different path in life. Norman Maclean (Craig Sheffer) is the older of the two brothers and he is set on the path of education. Paul Maclean (Brad Pitt) is the rebellious younger brother who travels on a path full of obstacles. The movie follows these characters as the each follow their own path.<br /><br />There is no downside to this movie. You will be entertained the whole way through. The acting, directing, and script is all perfect. The two things that are exceptional are the cinematography and the score. Both of which entrap you in the world Robert Redford creates for you. <br /><br />This is an all around great movie that is destined to be a classic. It sure is in my book. If you haven't seen this movie definitely watch it as soon as you can because it will stay with you forever.

In my humble opinion, this movie did not receive the recognition it deserved. Robert Redford lives near me here in Provo, Utah, at Sundance. I enjoy most of his work, and this was my favorite. I'm sorry that more people didn't appreciate it. My grandmother was an avid reader and read the book years before it came out on the big screen. She gave it to me to read after we had seen the movie together. The movie and book hit an emotional spot within my heart, and I was weepy for several days after seeing the movie. Sometimes love isn't enough to keep our loved ones from hurting themselves. We see this in our own family relationships, yet our love and our families and their stories endure throughout generations of time. The cinematography was perfect and breathtaking -- I was awed by its beauty and how well it brought to life the words of the author of the book, Norman Maclean, "But when I am alone in the half light of the canyon, all existence seems to fade to a being with my soul, and memories. And the sounds of the Big Black Foot River, and a four count rhythm, and the hope that a fish will rise. Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters." These words, taken from the book and spoken at the end of the movie (by Robert Redford who is narrating as Norman Maclean), are basically scripture, in my opinion. Any possible flaws the movie may have are overshadowed by the beauty and grace of the story and the cinematography. It was beautiful!

There is not much more I can say about this movie than all of the commentaries on page one, except - as Jesse says - "it's the berries". All of page one's commentators wrote eloquently - as almost so as the dialog is in this movie. This just may be one of those illusive things we hear so much about, but usually are made so by the actors who deliver the lines: a beautiful script. Maybe Robert Redford did hold strict sway onto the actors/actresses during the filming of this movie, so that the beauty of the story would not get lost.<br /><br />I, too, attended church when I was very young and into my late teens. The church's pastor spoke very eloquently and quietly as the Rev. Maclean did in his church. That, in itself, is a totally different picture that is portrayed of Southern Baptist churches - no holy-rollering in my church. It was a big church, with many different programs to keep its congregation busy - the most inspiring perhaps was the music-department with its huge choir and almost classical anthems. Too, the Sunday evening-congregation was almost entirely younger people. Are you even aware it was once safe to go to church on Sunday night? How I wish it still was ! Watching "A River Runs through It" is very much like going to hear a beautiful sermon in a church whose members are fully involved in life. As has already been so beautifully written, the sermon for this movie is the open-space beauties of Montana - yet, aren't there also missile-silos there, too? Fly-fishing or any other activity which draws family-members closer together for a happy life - and deep understanding of one another - becomes a blessing. Although you see some of the shadier aspects of life then, too, the simplicity of the story paints a lasting impression on your heart, if you let it. Speakeasies and prostitutes are counter-balanced by the simple gatherings of old-fashioned, community picnics as this movie contains - in heavy contrasts to modern families taking their kids to Disney Land for screeching joyrides and calling it "a day together". There is noting wrong with that, but as "River" demonstrates, some of its taciturn beauty could do nothing but make life richer. This is the third film I've seen in which Tom Skeritt (?) plays a father, all different styles and brilliantly acted.<br /><br />Brad Pitt, mostly an undiscovered talent except for "Thelma and Louise" and "Meet Joe Black", and all of the cast-members deserved many awards. Little stories superbly told will get 10-of-10 from me over any movie with violence, foul language, ugliness and "action". I am thinking particularly of "Crash" and most of "Arnold's" movies. What a savior for peace this movie is.

This is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. The Footage is extraordinary, mesmerizing at times. It also received an Oscar for best photography, and deservedly so. I have many movies in my film collection and several more I've seen besides them, and not many of them are more beautifully or even equally as beautifully shot as this one.<br /><br />It's unique and an overall great movie. The cast is terrific and do a great job in portraying their characters. We follow their destinies with devotion, and get very emotionally attached to them. Along the way, we also learn things about ourselves and our lives. I think much of this film for what it represent, and how it present it. I warmly recommend it

this film was just brilliant,casting,location scenery,story,direction,everyone's really suited the part they played,and you could just imagine being there,Robert Redford's is an amazing actor and now the same being director,Norman's father came from the same Scottish island as myself,so i loved the fact there was a real connection with this film,the witty remarks throughout the film were great,it was just brilliant,so much that i bought the film as soon as it was released for retail and would recommend it to everyone to watch,and the fly-fishing was amazing,really cried at the end it was so sad,and you know what they say if you cry at a film it must have been good,and this definitely was, also congratulations to the two little boy's that played the part's of Norman and Paul they were just brilliant,children are often left out of the praising list i think, because the stars that play them all grown up are such a big profile for the whole film,but these children are amazing and should be praised for what they have done, don't you think? the whole story was so lovely because it was true and was someone's life after all that was shared with us all.

Great drama with all the areas covered EXCEPT for screenlay which was too slow and should have shown more relevant scenes like Pitt's character interviewing the President,or Pitt getting murdered instead of just having it described to us.Scenes like those would have kept the audience awake.Cutting away some useless minutes could have made more room for more heartpounding scenes like those.The dragging of the film kept this one from all time greatness although to see Pitt here makes the film so worth watching.Also,big fans of fising,early 20th century styles and Montana will really like this as well........

Academy Award winner Robert Redford (Best Director. Ordinary People 1980) captures the majesty of the Montana wilderness and the strength of the American family in this acclaimed adaptation of Norman Macleans classic memoir.<br /><br />Craig Sheffer stars as the young Norman, and Brad Pitt stars as his brother Paul, an irresistible daredevil driven to challenge the world.<br /><br />Growing up, both boys rebel against their stern Minister father (Tom Skerritt).<br /><br />While Norman channels his rebellion into writing, Paul descends a slippery path to self-destruction.<br /><br />Also starring Emily LLoyd as wild-hearted Jessie Burns.<br /><br />The film won an Academy Award for Best Cinematopghaphy in 1993.

I've always enjoyed films that depict life as it is. Life sometimes has boring patches, no real plot, and not necessarily a happy ending. "A River Runs Through It" is the perfect name for this film (and Norman Maclean's novel). Life ebbs and flows like a river, and it has it's rough spots, but it is a wonderful trip.<br /><br />Robert Redford brings a lot to the film. His narration has a friendly feel that fits the picture perfectly. As a director, he is restrained and calm, and captures some incredibly beautiful scenes. As for the acting, Craig Sheffer and Brad Pitt work surprising well as brothers. I don't know quite how to describe Tom Skerritt and Brenda Blethyn's performances, except that they truly feel real. "A River Runs Through It" is a wonderful film.<br /><br />8.6 out of 10

In answer to the person who made the comment about how the film drags on and who believed there was no purpose to the role of Jess's brother here is my response:<br /><br />The role of Jess's brother is to provide a form of dramatic irony in the story. Craig Sheffer/Norman could have foreseen the troubles associated with living life to the full by looking at how Jess's brother turned out. There are various instances where Brad Pitt and his lives run in parallel, for example, when Jess's brother takes Craig Sheffer to a disjointed bar and subsequently he finds Brad Pitt there a few days later. The dramatic irony was there so Craig Sheffer's character would have a bigger emotional turmoil at his brothers death, knowing he could have done more to prevent it and subsequently creates a more compelling mood in the film.

In watching how the two brothers interact and feed off of each other through the whole movie makes me personally happy to live in the rural area much like they did in the movie. I have watched this movie countless times and have the book right beside my Bible. After watching the movie I agree that this is one of the few movies that does a book justice. I strongly recommend anyone that has the chance to go to Montana to fish or be outdoors to do so. It is amazing. I can not think of anyone else that could play the role better than Brad Pitt. Do yourself justice and watch one of the better movies in the modern movie era. STRONGLY Recommend And as a guide for fishing trips in both Montana and Wyoming, do not try to learn how to fly fish from the scenes of the movie because although it looks great on the film you have no idea how much practice and skill fishing like that actually takes. Thank you for listening Watch this movie please if you would like a long sad movie.

Embarrassingly, I just watched this movie for the first time, 13 years after its release. It's a story that any father or brother can relate to... one brother is a bit 'wild,' the other brother is the typical older child. Craig Sheffer is a little too unemotional as the oldest brother, but Pitt is amazing, and Skerritt is perfectly cast as the father. The fishing scenes that were filmed in Montana are absolutely breathtaking... I had no idea that fly fishing could be so attractive. The movie closely follows the book, with only a few modifications to make it more appropriate for a movie format. Unlike most book to movie stories, this one measures up. It's a perfect movie for anyone who wants a quiet night with a powerful and somewhat emotional movie.

A River Runs Through It is based on the true story of two fly fishing brothers, Norman and Paul, (Brad Pitt and Craig Sheffer) whose Reverend father (Tom Skerritt) is a strict man whose two passions are his faith and fly fishing, - and, for him and his sons, there is a fine line between the two. This story describes the slow progression of the brothers' lives and how their lives separate on two different paths. It is a touching movie narrated by the director, Robert Redford, playing the elderly Norman and reflecting on times long gone and people long dead.<br /><br />Certain themes recur in the movie, such as memory, death, eternity, and dreams. Most of these themes revolve around the almost tragic hero of Paul. He is a capable, charming, and brave man, but has his fatal flaws.<br /><br />The closing lines sum up the "point" of the movie: "Then in the Arctic half-light of the canyon, all existence fades to a being with my soul and memories and the sounds of the Big Blackfoot River and a four-count rhythm and the hope that a fish will rise. Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of those rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters."

Stewart is a Wyoming cattleman who dreams to make enough money to buy a small ranch in Utah ranch… His only real companion is his sidekick Ben Tatum, the great Walter Brennan… To accomplish that, they drive the cattle clear to Alaska and on to Dawson, in Canadian territory, where they sell them...<br /><br />Along the way they meet the man who runs the gold-crazy town behind a dishonest lawman John McIntire... He attempts to steal them the herd... Later, in Dawson, McIntire and his gang reappear, this time interfering with Stewart's gold claim... <br /><br />Captured by Mann's camera in the wonderful scenery of the Canadian Rockies, Stewart is a thoughtful loner forced into violence by his need to get rid of the treacherous actions of a corrupt entrepreneur robbing local miners of their claims…<br /><br />In this entertaining, beautiful Western, Stewart has two leading ladies to struggle with: Ruth Roman, a bit too valuable to describe as a sexy woman resisting the worst vicissitudes of the territory and the more docile, the French Canadian girl Corinne Calvet who does create a nice portrait of a likable girl with the ability to form a judgment... In spontaneous manner, Stewart is lost between the ostentatious saloon owner and the wife-candidate...

Jimmy Stewart and Anthony Mann teamed to do some of the best westerns ever made and this is one of the best.<br /><br />The real star of the film however is the spectacular Canadian Rockies that serve as a backdrop for the story. Some of the best cinematography ever done in the history of film.<br /><br />In all five of the westerns that Stewart and Mann did together the supporting roles were perfectly cast. No exception here, right down to parts that might only have a few lines, the characters are firmly etched with those lines.<br /><br />Stewart is a cynical hard-bitten loner in this film whose only real friend is his sidekick Walter Brennan. It's Brennan's death at the hands of the villains that makes him want to finally free the gold settlement from the bad guys and incidentally redeem himself in the process.<br /><br />John McIntire is the head villain of the piece and he was an under-appreciated actor with a vast range. He could play delightful old codgers, authority figures and in this case a particularly nasty and crafty villain. <br /><br />One of the best westerns ever.

Cunningly interesting Western from a director who had few peers in the genre. Much like other Anthony Mann pictures, The Far Country blends a potent pot boiling story with an adroit knowing of impacting scenery. Both of which play out amongst some of Mann's peccadilloes like honour, integrity, betrayal and of course, death! The story sees fortune hunting partners Jeff Webster {James Stewart} and Ben Tatum {Walter Brennan} travel to Oregon Territory with a herd of cattle. Aware of the blossoming gold-boom, they plan to make a tidy profit selling the cattle in a Klondike town. Arriving in Skagway they find self-appointed judge Mr. Gannon {John McIntire} ready to meet out justice to Webster on account of Webster having fractured the law, all be it with honest cause, along the way. In punishment Gannon takes the partners herd from them, but they steal them back and head across the Canadian border to Dawson-with Gannon and his men in hot pursuit. Here beautiful women and a meek and lawless town will fill out the destinies of all involved.<br /><br />Interesting from start to finish, The Far Country benefits greatly from James Stewart's bubbling {anti} hero in waiting portrayal and Mann's slick direction of the tight Borden Chase script. The cinematography from William H. Daniels is superlative, tho not done any favours by current DVD prints, and the film has a few surprises and a "will he wont he?" core reeling the viewers in. Paying dividends on re-watches for hardened genre fans, it still remains something of an essential viewing for first timers venturing into the wonderful, yet dark, Western world of Anthony Mann and James Stewart. 8/10

This first-rate western tale of the gold rush brings great excitement, romance, and James Stewart to the screen. "The Far Country" is the only one out of all five Stewart-Mann westerns that is often overlooked. Stewart, yet again, puts a new look on the ever-present personalities he had in the five Stewart-Mann westerns. Jeff Webster (Stewart) is uncaring, always looking out for himself, which is why he is so surprised when people are nice and kindly to him. Ironically, he does wear a bell on his saddle that he will not ride without. This displays that he might just care for one person- his sidekick, Ben Tatum, played by Walter Brennan, since Tatum is the one that gave it to him. Mann, yet again, puts a new look on the ever present personalities he put into the five Stewart-Mann westerns. He displays violence, excitement, plot twists, romance, and corruption. The story is that Jeff and Ben, through a series of events, wind up in the get rich quick town of Dawson, along with gold partners Calvet and Flippen, and no-good but beautiful Roman and her hired men. They are unable to leave, because crooked sheriff Mr. Gannon (McIntire) and his "deputies" will hang them, since the only way out is through Skagway, which is Gannon's town. But, eventually, McIntire comes to them, but not to collect Stewart and/or his fine that he supposedly owes to the government. What is McIntire there for? He is there to cheat miners out of their claims and money. People are killed. A sheriff for Dawson is considered needed, and Calvet elects Stewart because he is good with a gun. Stewart, however, refuses the job, because he plans to get all the gold he can, and then pull out. He also refuses it because he does not like to help people, since law and order always gets somebody killed. So, Flippen is elected instead. A miner is killed because he tries to stand up to one of Gannon's men, a purely evil, mustachioed fancy gunman named Madden, who carries two guns, played by Wilke. Flippen attempts to arrest Madden and see that justice be done, but he cannot stand up to him, so he becomes the town drunk. A man named Yukon replaces Flippen. Stewart and Tatum start to pull out, but are ambushed by Gannon's men. Tatum is killed, and Stewart is wounded. Stewart finally realizes that he must do something, or Gannon will take over Dawson, set up his own rules, and it will become his town, just like Skagway. The audience also realizes what Stewart must do. Another thing that the audience realizes is that Stewart is the only thing that stands between the townspeople and Gannon. If Stewart leaves, Gannon would take over the town. If Stewart stays and keeps on not doing anything about it, the townspeople will be killed one by one mercilessly and uselessly. This is where a great scene occurs. Stewart walks into his cabin. He has a sling on his arm. For a few seconds, his gun, in the gunbelt, is hanging on a post beside his bed, the gun is close up, Stewart is in the background, just inside the door. He stares at it for a few seconds. He tosses the sling away. The sling lands on the back of a chair, and falls to the floor. This is symbolic, because he is throwing away his old life, which consisted of not caring about anybody but himself. He comes into his new life, of helping people when they need help. What ends the film is a guns-blazing, furious show of good against evil, and a genuinely feel-good feeling that everything will be alright.

Colorful western.<br /><br />Wyoming cowboy James Stewart moseys on up to the Yukon Territory to dig for gold, sell his steers, and try to get a date with pretty saloon-owner Ruth Roman if he can shake the tail of crooked sheriff John McIntire who wants Stewart's cattle. Beautiful cinematography in a collaborative effort by William Fritzsche and Bill Daniels. Good Technicolor adventure from Universal-International, directed by Anthony Mann.<br /><br />Also starring Corinne Calvet, Connie Gilchrist, and Walter Brennan as Stewart's sidekick.

The penultimate collaboration between director Anthony Mann and star James Stewart (excluding the few days Mann worked on Night Passage before parting company with the star under less than amicable circumstances), The Far Country belies its mainstream look to offer another portrait of an embittered man dragged unwillingly to his own redemption, fighting it every step of the way. This time he's a cattle driver whose response to labour problems - challenging troublesome cowhands to a gunfight at the end of the trail - results in his cattle being confiscated by John McIntire's larcenous judge of the Roy Bean school of law and order. Stealing them back and taking them across the Canadian border, he soon finds himself unwillingly drawn into the growing conflict between prospectors and the judge as he cheats or kills them out of their claims...<br /><br />While it's no great surprise which way Stewart turns at the end, he's a surprisingly callous critter along the way, even using his desire to just be left alone to excuse not warning a group of prospectors of an impending avalanche when he has the chance because it's not his problem. For most of the film there's really only a hair's breadth between him and McIntire, something the judge recognises immediately, revelling in the company of a kindred spirit even as he's genially planning to lynch him. In many ways the townspeople who put their faith in him probably recognise it too - despite their appeals to his dead-and-buried better nature, there's an unspoken acknowledgement that the only person who can stand up to the judge is someone almost as bad as he is.<br /><br />As usual with Mann there's an exceptional use of high country locations, though for once the final showdown takes place on level ground, and the film is almost perfectly cast with strong support from Walter Brennan, Harry Morgan and Ruth Roman (though Corinne Calvert's young romantic interest veers to the irritating). Sadly the great cinematography of the Canadian Rockies is done few favours by a distinctly average DVD transfer, with only the theatrical trailer as an extra.

This is mostly a story about the growing relationship between Jeff Webster(Jimmy Stewart) and Ronda Castle(Ruth Roman). She takes an instant liking to Jeff in a brief encounter on the deck of the steamer to Skagway, and a longer look when he hides in her cabin while authorities seek him on a charge of murder. They find out they have some things in common besides an animal attraction. Neither trusts a member of the opposite sex, apparently because both have been married to spouses who cheated on them. Gradually, they learn to trust each other, as they journey from Skagway to Dawson. But Ronda clearly has close dealings with corrupt sheriff Gannon and engages in some shady practices in her Castle saloon in Skagway. She eventually has to decide between Gannon and Jeff. Meanwhile, Rene, a young naive French woman also takes an immediate liking to Jeff, but only gets insulting brush offs in return. Yet, she sticks with him in his travels from Skagway to Dawson and his activities around Dawson. Along with Ronda, she nurses him back to health after Jeff is left for dead by Gannon's gunslingers at his gold claim. Walter Brennan, as Ben, serves as Jeff's long time sidekick. He doesn't have a meaty role, but serves to soften Jeff's hard edges. His demise symbolically opens the door for a woman companion replacement for Jeff.<br /><br />John McIntire(as Sheriff Gannon) makes probably the most charismatic evil town boss you will ever see on film, oozing charm and humor to go along with his bullying. Evidently, he sees something of himself in Jeff, repeatedly declaring that he's going to like him. He makes a believable incarnation of the infamous Soapy Smith, who spent his last years in Skagway, as one of the premier con men of his times.<br /><br />Jeff is the quintessential antihero, a loner(except for companion Ben), who doesn't want to stick his neck out for others, even when he knows he is the one right man for the job. In this respect, he closely resemble's Burt Lancaster's character in "Vera Cruz", for example. Thus, Jeff not only turns down the job of marshall of Dawson, he is convinced to leave Dawson after Gannon's gang move in with clear intentions of taking over everyone's insufficiently legal gold claims, while disposing of some miners and suggesting that the rest make a hurried exit from Dawson. Even Ronda suggests that she and Jeff make a hurried exit from Dawson while they are still alive. Then, Jeff has a sudden change of heart, apparently still nursing desire for revenge for the shooting of Ben and himself. He changes from anti-hero to hero in leading the expulsion of Gannon's gang from Dawson. In this respect, he differs from Lancaster's character, who never reforms(But is Jeff truly changed, or just handing out revenge for wrongs committed against his own interests?)<br /><br />The main problem I see with the plot is the 2 principle women. Clearly, Ronda is groomed as the right woman to tame Jeff. Although she is clearly characterized as a "bad" girl, Jeff has a checkered recent past himself, having shot at least 5 men in the US or Yukon, and having stolen his cattle back from Gannon. Ironically, soon after Jeff changes from anti-hero to hero, Rhonda makes a similar change in running into the street to warn Jeff of Gannon's impending ambush. She dies as a result and Jeff asks her why she didn't just look out for herself(his supposedly just abandoned creed!).<br /><br />It's clear that Corine Calvert, as Renee, just doesn't make a credible substitute for the dead Ronda, in Jeff's mind. Yet, the apparent implication of the parting scene is that they get together, even though Jeff never visibly gives her a kiss or hug. Her image as a good, if naive, young woman is somewhat compromised by her job in Rhonda's saloon of bumping miners weighting their gold dust, pushing the spilled dust on the floor and recovering it later. I'm also very unclear about her relationship with Rube Morris, a middle aged miner who followers her around and works a claim with her.(He's not her father).<br /><br />Another problem is the amateurish handling of the gun fight between Jeff and Gannon's gang. If Gannon had any skill at all with a pistol, he should have killed or seriously wounded Jeff under that boardwalk, before Jeff did the same to him. And how did Jeff's badly shot up right hand suddenly become well enough to shoot a pistol with apparent ease? I also wonder what Jeff and friends did to help save the avalanche victims. They were much too far away to pull them out alive from under the snow. And why weren't most of Ronda's pack horses and mules also buried by the avalanche?<br /><br />You will see a host of probably nameless but familiar faces among the miners and Gannon's gang. The sequences shot in the Canadian Rockies provide a breathtaking backdrop to the action. All-in-all, a very entertaining western, with most of the major flaws concentrated at the end. No doubt, this film takes some great liberties with history and geography, especially, the part taking place in the Canadian Yukon, which was in fact much tamer than the US Skagway.

Anthony Mann's westerns with Jimmy Stewart are slowly gaining for that director a position with John Ford and Howard Hawks as the best film director in that genre. He certainly knows how to give dimension to nice guy Stewart - in Mann's films there is an edge to Jimmy that is slowly demonstrated to the audience. In WINCHESTER '73 it was the relationship of Stewart to his brother and how it twists him into a figure of vengeance. Here it is a "I trust only myself" attitude, which leads to one complication after another. Even before the film properly begins he (as Jeff Webster) kills two of his hired cowboys who were helping on a cattle drive to Seattle because of some dispute (we never are clear about it - either they wanted to leave the cattle drive, or they tried to steal the cattle). <br /><br />He meets his match in Skagway, the port he has to get to in order to take his herd to Dawson. Skagway's boss is a so-called law man named Gannon (John McIntyre) who reminds one of the real boss of Skagway in the "Gold Rush" Jefferson "Soapy" Smith and Judge Roy Bean. The problem is that neither Smith nor Bean would have gotten quite as sleazy as Gannon in turning every opportunity into a chance to make some money. Stewart's herd interrupted a public hanging - so (as a penalty fine) the herd is confiscated (to be sold later for Gannon's profit). <br /><br />Stewart is partner with Ben (Walter Brennan - who oddly enough won his last Oscar playing Judge Roy Bean). They are also joined by Rube Morris (Jay C. Flippen) and also meet two women, the sophisticated Rhonda Castle (Ruth Roman) and the friendly and helpful Renee Vallon (Corinne Calvert). Rhonda works closely with Gannon, but had helped Jeff earlier in fleeing the authorities in Seattle. However, she has a similar "I only trust myself" attitude to Jeff. She does offer him employment to get supplies for herself to Dawson. He, Ben, and Rube go but at night (while the others are asleep) they go back and steal back their cattle. Renee follows and warns them that Gannon and his associates are following. Jeff holds off Gannon long enough for the cattle herd to be brought over the Canadian border, although Gannon points out that since Jeff has to return by way of Skagway Gannon can wait until he does to hang him.<br /><br />The reunited party of Rhonda and Jeff split over the trail to take to Dawson, Jeff opting for a longer and safer route. After he is proved right, they go by his route and reach Dawson only to find there is a lawless element threatening the community due to the gold fields. The herd is sold to Rhonda, and Jeff, Ben, Rube, and Renee start prospecting. There is soon two groups in the town of Dawson. One led by Connie Gilchrist and Chubby Johnson want to build a decent town. But the Mounties won't be setting up a station in Dawson for months. The other, centering around the "dancehall" run by Rhonda, are in cahoots with Gannon who has a vast claim jumping scheme using his gang of gunslingers (Robert J. Wilke - really scary in one sequence with Chubby Johnson and Jay C. Flippen, Jack Elam, and Harry Morgan). Jeff wishes to steer clear of both, and head with his new wealth and Ben for a ranch they want in Utah. But will they get there? And will Jeff remain neutral?<br /><br />The performances are dandy here, including Stewart as a man who is willing to face all comers, but would otherwise be peaceful enough. Brennan is playing one of his patented old codgers, whose love of good coffee has unexpectedly bad results. Flippen is a drunk at first, but tragedy and responsibility shake him into a better frame of mind - and one who has a chance to verbally stab Stewart in the heart using Stewart's own words against him. McIntyre would achieve stardom on television in WAGON TRAIN replacing Ward Bond, but his work in Mann's films show his abilities as a villain (such as his trade post opportunist who outsmarts himself in WINCHESTER '73). He is, as is said elsewhere on this thread, really sleazy - but he has a sense of humor. Roman is an interesting blend of opportunist and human being, whose fate is determined by her better feelings. And Calvert is both a voice of conscience and a frontier "Gigi" aware that she is more than a young girl but a budding woman.<br /><br />Best of all is the Canadian Rockies background - as wonderful in its way as the use of Monument Valley by John Ford. Mann certainly did a first rate job directing this film, and the viewer will appreciate the results.

Another very good Mann flick thanks to the father/son combination of Walter Brennan and Jimmy Stewart. Brennan (Ben Tatum) is often the comedic conscience of either Stewart or Wayne (Red River/ Rio Bravo). He's there to see that the younger man takes the ride fork or bend. "You're wrong Mr. Dunston". Jeff Webster(Stewart) gives off the impression he cares only for himself but it is clear he cannot desert Brennan. John McIntire is excellent as the law of Skagway with due respect for the trappings of justice over the reality of it. Another key theme is helping people and in turn being helped by people. The loner can do neither and suffers for it.<br /><br />The caption above plays on Tatum's assertion that he can't live without his coffee. This nicotine addiction proves fatal. Probably the first and last time on the screen.<br /><br />I recommend this film and now own the DVD.

A good film with--for its time--an intense, sprawling, rather dark story somewhat reminiscent of John Ford's "The Searchers" though not so brutal. The story starts fast and doesn't let up, with several scenes of really good dialog between (Stewart's) Jeff Webster, Ronda Castle and Sheriff Gannon. This film is in some ways reminiscent of "Bend of the River" (1952), also a Mann-Stewart work, but I found it far less sentimental and more interesting. There are a few caveats: a too-quickly wrapped up (and rather sentimental) ending; 24-year-old Corrine Calvert is not very convincing as a naive French teenager, and of course the film takes place in the Mythic West, a land of fable where the real laws of nations and physics don't apply. But these are trivial concerns. James Stewart is surprisingly good as a dark, disengaged man who thinks he cares for no one but himself, and the mountain scenery can't be beat. A fine Western costume drama.

Classic drama/action western with incredible cinematography that is well ahead of it's time(1954). The production is very good and you can tell that it was done with pride and love.Unique peek into the American NORTHT WEST pioneers is very educational and entertaining.This movie is very under rated because most people do not like to see the reality that many "lawmen" during this particular time and place were very crooked/corrupt much like most developing countries today.The action sequences could have been more realistic though but still,this movie really covers most of the essentials.Not for an audience who wants only pure testoterone type westerns for this movie is more for those who have a sense of history and philosophy.......

As I drove from Skagway, Alaska to Dawson City,Yukon a couple of years ago and was impressed with the scenery, I cannot help but wish that this film even though it has beautiful color and scenic views would have been shot in the actual location. Jasper in the Canadian Rockies is a magnificent place, but still not the real place where the film takes place. When the story moves to Dawson, that is when I feel Anthony Mann, who used the outdoor locations so well, could have made the most if he filmed in the actual place. James Stewart here is again a man fighting within himself, one side of him does not want to get involved and help people who stand in the way of him making money, and the other side just is not able to look away from people being murdered. Ruth Roman is the ambitious woman who does not care on whom she steps, Corinne Calvet is the nice girl. Mann is excellent directing the shootouts, but the high point of the film is how well he does in the outdoor scenes. He uses the outdoors as much as he can and he is helped by the winter scenery, the predominating white, like it was with the greens in "The Naked Spur" and the browns in "The Man From Laramie". Like all of the Mann-Stewarts, this is a traditional western, with a difference in the elaboration of Stewart's character which is more complex.

Cowboys James Stewart and Walter Brennan take their herd from Seattle to Alaska and on into Canada to stake a claim. Once there, they have to contend with seductive, shifty businesswoman Ruth Roman and ice-cold, happy-go-lucky villain James McIntire.<br /><br />John Wayne may get talked about more, but his good pal Stewart made some excellent, hard-edged westerns too, some with the great director Anthony Mann. Frankly, I'd take this, with it's sturdy action sequences and fine melodrama, over North To Alaska any day!<br /><br />The Far Country features some breathtaking scenery and cinematography that should definitely have been shot in widescreen.<br /><br />Also, there's some strong support by the always reliable Brennan, Roman (who's great), the incredibly cute Corrine Calvet, and James McIntire, who plays one of my favorite types of bad guy, the kind that doesn't take himself too seriously.<br /><br />This would make a great double-bill with another highly recommended Mann/Stewart northwest-set western, Bend Of The River.

My comment would have been added to the RELEASE DATE section, but I couldn't find a place for it. I was really surprised to see that this movie was released in the U.S. in Feb., 1955. I saw it in a "first run" theater in Washington, D.C. in March, 1958. Wonder if it was re-released, or some problem? In my opinion, this movie is very light entertainment, but has some classic characters. John McIntyre does a bang-up job as a corrupt judge/entrepreneur/thief. Walter Brennan does basically the same role he did in Red River years earlier. And, in my opinion, James Stewart gives as fine a performance as he ever did. I have seen this movie a half dozen times or more, and never tire of seeing parts of it again. The photography and scenery are splendid, and it offers a remarkable amount of entertainment in one hour and thirty-six minutes.

(contains slight spoilers)<br /><br />It's interesting how Anthony Mann uses James Stewart here. Stewart is, of course, remembered by many as George Bailey from Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life", so it's easy to find parallels between the two films. In "It's a Wonderful Life", Bailey gets to see the world as it would have been if he had never been born. In "The Far Country", Stewart's Jeff Webster, by not getting involved to help anyone else (except himself), gets to see essentially the same thing: A world in which he (for all practical matters) doesn't exist.<br /><br />By not getting involved (and by attempting not to care about anyone), Webster is forced to see those for whom he can't help but care get hurt, pushed around, and even killed while he stands by and does nothing. This reminds the viewer of George Bailey watching a world that has turned upside-down because he has also decided not to get involved by not ever having been born. <br /><br />Both movies end with the same image - a close-up of a ringing bell. Stewart, by turning around his philosophy of non-involvement, has, it would seem, earned his "wings".

After losing his cattle herd to a dishonest lawman, a trail boss winds up in the Yukon gold fields with a bad reputation and small chances of being able to return to the states. While there his fortunes take a turn for the best until a bad luck specter from the past comes calling. Good western with many favorite old faces in the lineup.

Now, admittedly, I'm no ardent student of the genre. As a matter of fact, I've tended always to shy away from Westerns because, in spite of all their critical cachet as America's primal stories (or whatever), they seem to me to forever devolve into tiresome retreads of either "shoot up the Injuns," "the big gunfight," or "Hey, let's form a posse!" In other words, it always seemed to me a genre so rooted in and tied to convention, that it left precious little room for surprise or originality. (And yes, I HAVE seen at least some of the so-called "greats", and unapologetically lump them into this negative assessment - including Stagecoach, Rio Bravo, My Darling Clementine, and of course the infamous [but profoundly dull] Clint Eastwood-Sergio Leone teamups in the '60s.)<br /><br />But when I saw this movie on TV - as part of a commemorative Jimmy Stewart weekend upon his death - I finally GOT IT: I understood, at least in theory, what the Western mythos has to offer as a serious thematic preoccupation (aside from just action and thrills). It is the push-pull between lawlessness and order; the American West represented freedom, but also the prospect of the wild, the untamed. Respectable folk could get hurt out there. Which, of course, meant that perhaps - just perhaps - it wasn't meant for respectable folk, and that the only residents should be the amoral and the shifty, those who dispensed justice strictly from the barrel of their revolvers, and where kill or be killed would ever be the law of the land. In such an environment, of course, the true heroes are the ones who are ornery and free-spirited enough to be out there in the first place (and so reject "society," at least as it manifested itself on the Eastern seaboard), and yet have enough sense of justice to believe that a society based on chaos and fear just IS NOT RIGHT. Catching and examining that disparity between law and disorder IN THE MAIN CHARACTER HIMSELF is, I believe (after seeing this movie), the highest and truest goal of any Western. Sadly, it is so often not the case, as the white hats are completely white, the black ones completely black (and let's not even get started talking about the Indians, ok) and there is precious little shades of gray in between.<br /><br />Not in this one. Jimmy Stewart plays a blatant fortune hunter who follows the trail of miners before him into the Alaskan wilderness to prospect for gold. He is joined in this by his lifelong buddy, played by Walter Brennan (perhaps the Western cliché character to end them all - but nevertheless enjoyable here, as always) - and no one else. Pointedly, they are out for themselves, and while Stewart displays his patented charm (come on, we could never really dislike the guy, now could we?), we are left with little doubt that his is basically a self-centered, self-interested character: none of his "Gosh" or "Oh golly gee" humanism is allowed to come through. Or, rather, it has to be EARNED, by the end of the picture, in the way I described above. He must confront the lawlessness in himself, and weigh it against the need for order and justice which are so blatantly lacking in the border town which serves as the miners' starting point on their gold dust trail. This town is ruled tightly by its wicked sheriff, Mr. Gannon, played by John McIntire in one of the best "bad guy" performances I've ever seen. He comes on with so much charm and humor, and has such a relaxed and interesting rapport with Stewart, that it actually takes awhile to recognize that he *is* the bad guy - so that when it finally sinks in, it does so with double force. Further, by establishing a type of breezy (if necessarily guarded) camaraderie between McIntire and Stewart, the film plays up the notion of how close in temperament they really are - and so how far a moral distance Stewart must walk by the end of the film.<br /><br />I won't go through all the twists and turns the plot takes - see those for yourself (as well as the rugged and gorgeous Alaskan scenery - filmed on location, mind you, not cheap painted stills that the studio made up). What's key here is how much this story focuses upon character, with great dialogue and character interaction substituting for gunplay much of the time - although the film has just enough action and adventure to prevent it from ever being static (read: "talky"). Definitely one of the greatest performances I've seen from Stewart, showing he could play the renegade, the "man's man" just as convincingly as the decent and upright guy next door. If anything, in fact, his "everyman" qualities lend greater strength to his characterization, making him seem less mythic or overblown - -like, say, Eastwood or John Wayne - and more a three-dimensional personage. His relationship with Brennan is well-played: understated, but nevertheless touching (with a faint suggestion of George and Lenny from "Of Mice and Men" - an altogether different type of "western").<br /><br />I certainly have more Westerns to see, but this is for now my favorite, and the yardstick by which I will necessarily judge all the others. It deserves to be much better known and appreciated than it is.