Reviews

I've just watched this movie for the first time, and enjoyed it. Sure, a bit wooden and pared down, but the story is basically sound and the feel of the film is both inviting and mysterious. Good grown-up actors - the great Donald Pleasance in particular, of course - and the two kids in the leading parts are likable and convincing. A short question, though: Could any Californian help me with some specifics regarding the film's locations? Especially the rocky coastal landscape seen in the middle part of the film. Exactly where were those scenes shot? Is that area all uninhabited? National/State park? Any small towns overlooking the ocean? Just curious :-)

I bought this DVD mainly for the beautiful title, which I've loved since first hearing it in the mists of childhood. I knew they sang, I knew Catherine Deneuve was in it, I'd heard the theme song. When I watched it, however, I was still pleasantly surprised. This movie is truly original - I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it. It's a Musical/operetta (and they sing ALL the time) but with a very realistic and quite dark storyline. The story could very well have been told as a regular drama, totally without music, and would probably have worked very well. This does not, however, mean that the operetta treatment is superfluous. Rather it adds a dimension, something eternal and bittersweet, which only enhances the poignancy of Guy and Genevieve's bleak story. This would probably be a good starting point for everyone out there who claims not to like Musicals. First, there are no transitions (people bursting out into song) since every line is sung. Second, the music never causes you to lose track of the story or the feelings it conveys. Technically, I can wholeheartedly recommend the Tartan edition from 2001. ( ASIN: B00005B5YE, Catalogue Number: TVD3326). It's letterbox, the colors and picture quality are great for a forty-year-old movie, as is the sound (quite important). Not much in the way of extras, but some interesting notes on director Jaques Remy and the actors.

It's quite interesting that Oliver & Company was Disney's animated feature in 1988, just one year before The Little Mermaid signalled the studio's renaissance. The difference in quality and appeal between these two movies could hardly have been greater. Oliver & Company is based on Charles Dickens' 19th century novel Oliver Twist, and Dickens' plot is actually quite cleverly translated to Manhattan in the 1980's, with the characters reinterpreted as cartoon animals. But even though you might recognize a lot of the story elements from the book, the movie lacks the magic and drama of Dickens' story - and of any truly classic Disney feature, for that matter. The kitten Oliver is a whining, two- dimensional imitation of the enchanting kitties from Aristocats. He is totally devoid of personality and, quite frankly, you don't really care what happens to him. The same could be said of all the other characters, with the possible exception of Bette Midler's poodle-diva Georgette. The songs (written and sung by Billy Joel) are also

uncharacteristically weak for a Disney feature. Oliver & Company is quite possibly Disneys least interesting animated feature to date, albeit with tough competition from Winnie The Pooh and The Fox And The Hound.

I just finished watching the DVD of this first-class, semi-Screwball comedy in Columbia Classics beautiful transfer, and it absolutely made my day! What a movie! What a screenplay! The dialogue is better - more modern - in fact, than a in lot of contemporary movies. It's incredibly funny, too, and my teenage sons kept laughing right along with me at the smart come-backs. Cary Grant is, of course, as good (if not better) than ever, and I've never seen Rosalind Russel in a role that suited her more perfectly. And that's just for starters: The timing of the thing is still awe- inspiring after sixty-odd years; the supporting actors, down to the bit-players, are all memorable, convincing and hilarious; the camera work (this IS the forties, though) is inventive and the editing superb. I can safely confess now that I hadn't ever seen it before, but that's no reason for you to make the same mistake: Go buy/rent it NOW! Hats off to the great Howard Hawks, his cast and crew for pulling this comedy masterpiece off. And thank you, thank you, thank you Columbia Pictures, for

making it possible for me to watch it in such pristine condition! (I've got the 2002 edition, and from what I've heard you should beware of earlier DVD issues).

Very good movie, all in all. Bruce Willis gives a strong performance, and the script must be one of the most well written to make onto the screen in the last decade.

I've often heard people express disappointment that Mazursky's "Tempest" has little to do with Shakespeare's original. In my opinion, that is both true and false, but most of all, it's a bad starting point for offering critique. A work of art should never be criticised for what it isn't, but for what it is. The movie "Tempest" is nothing like a faithful rendition of the play, but to my mind, it is faithful to Shakespeare's work in spirit. What "Tempest" is, then, is perhaps one of the most successful experimental films of all time. No, not experimental as in hand- held camera and mumbled dialogue, but experimental as in exploring the convolutions of a story without undue regard for box office earnings. Mazursky's Tempest is epic, sad, realistic, joyous, full of life, but most of all, it is imaginative. Cassavetes portrayal of Philip/Prospero is in itself worth a 10/10 rating, and when you add Gena Rowlands, Susan Sarandon, a wonderfully deep Molly Ringwald, Raul Julia, the dialogue, the music and the exquisitely suggestive little tableaux scattered throughout the picture... I rest my case. One of the best movies of the 80's. Don't miss it.