Tobacco Collecting

Reviews

This was a wonderful album, especially for those interested in romantic music. It made an excellent anniversary gift.

I am especially fond of the Good Humored Ladies track on this CD. That particular track is worth the entire CD since it came from an LP published in the 1970s. It has been distributed through this series of music. I personally love the other pieces simply because they have a great full orchestral high quality sound. This CD is a very relaxing set of music.

Elegant, soothing and graceful. I recently moved into a work-at-home situation and had to get away from my rock-and-roll standards if I were to get any work done. I find the rich sounds of this album perfect for me. It isn't distracting and seems to steer my creative energies effortlessly. I love it.

I place a high priority to the selections made for my dinner party, and although this is still a good CD, it did not meet my expectations to play for dinner guests. I was disappointed. It is marketed as "Dinner Classics", but not a good mix in my opinion.

I heard this album for the first time at a restuarant in Florence during my trip to Italy. I was surprised it was from the US beacause it has captured the very soul of Italy. After 7 years it has remained my favorite of all Puccini cds I own. I especially like the fact that it is instumental and can be played for many occassions. It never fails to stir the wanderlust for a trip back to Italy! A must for every romantic!

Reviews

As soon as I bought this album, I created a version that intermixed this one with the Broadway Cast and the 10th Anniversary. Which is to say that there is a lot that is good in this version, but a lot that's better in other versions. THE GOOD 1. Of course having the entire album available is great, which means getting to listen to parts that I hadn't heard in years. The sound quality is excellent, and the overall sound is very lush. I was especially happy to hear (1) the full version of the "Look Down" reprise, (2) Gavroche's death scene, (3) Valjean's confession, and (4) Marius's wedding confrontation with the Thenardiers. 2. There were some very good performances, especially Michael Ball as Marius, Philip Quast as Javert, and the young actor who played Gavroche. Philip Quast was not as pointed and visceral as he was in the 10th Anniversary version (when he was paired with the excellent Colm Wilkinson), but was still one of the best. I am one of the few people not overly enamored of Michael Ball, whose vocal performances have a harsh, whiny tinge and frequently lack subtlety. However, in this version, he gives his most restrained performance, and in some scenes, such as the wedding confrontation, he is very effective. I agree that Andy Warlowe has a good voice, but count me as a Michael Maguire fan. Fans of Warlowe like to cite his more powerful range, but I think that both ignores the very different setting in which he and Maguire performed and the fact that Maguire is a superior vocal actor. When Maguire sings, he just sounds powerful and in control. By contrast, Warlowe must scream to sound authoritative ("Where are the SWELLS who run this show?!"). Also compare the two during the "Lamarque is dead" sequence: Maquire sings fast and sounds genuinely excited, while Warlowe sings slowly and mechanically. Yes, by singing slower, Warlowe sounds smoother, but I would be moved by Maguire's Enjolras; not so much by Warlowe's. Finally, the complaints about Maguire's singing largely stem from his live performance in the 10th Anniversary edition versus the studio-recorded Complete Symphonic version, where Warlowe could presumably have sung many takes until the best was chosen. THE BAD 1. The overacting, which I went into a bit above. Warlowe, Gary Morris, and especially the Thenardiers are all guilty. I actually think that Gary Morris's voice is fine, though in songs like "One Day More," his inability to hold long notes is very noticeable. However, it is his acting that really detracts from his performance. "My GOD, Cosette! I heard a CRY in the dark!" I wonder if a poor director was presiding over this version, telling the performers that they must scream in order to make themselves heard? This version's Thenardier, meanwhile, is the first that struck me as repulsive, while Madame Thenardier screeches like a debauched Smurfette. 2. This version's Eponine, who has an uneven vocal performance. While it was admirable that the singer could sing the part without knowing English, in several places, her poor diction is noticeable and takes you out of the scene. Dozens of people had played Eponine by the time of the Complete Symphonic Recording -- why not go with someone who could sing the part clearly? So all in all, this recording is worth the money, as long as you buy it for its parts rather than the whole.

I like this recording because it features many sequences that can't be found on any other recordings, such as Eponine's Errand and the dialogue part of In My Life. I only have complaints about the voices of Cosette, Mme. Thenardier (so irritating to listen to), and Eponine. Cosette's voice is nice, but annoying, it doesn't seem to have enough depth. I guess it sounds all "head voice", I think that's the term. Judy Kuhn's Cosette is much more pleasant sounding. Eponine, her voice is alright, but it's too bad her English pronunciation wasn't better. I mean, it's great at some parts, but worse at others and makes her a less convincing Eponine. Gary Morris is a great Valjean; I was surprised to read that he is actually a country singer!

Everyone has their own favorite version of Les Miserables so comment on that aspect is not particularily helpful. However, as usual Amazon's service (availabilty, speed of delivery and keeping the customer informed) was top notch. You might ask why the rating is not a 5 but 5's only come when I get more than I expect.

The most obvious reason to get the Symphonic Recording is to have the entire show on CD. This album is really for the most devoted Les Mis junkies. I particularly like Javert's Intervention, which acts as an introduction to my favorite song, Stars. Aside from the completeness of the album, there are two other highlights for me. One is Anthony Warlow, who is the best singer to play Enjolras. Maguire's Enjolras is also stirring, but Warlow is more talented. The second highlight is the Orchestra. It probably has the best orchestra out of all four recordings, although the tenth anniversary concert comes close. Now onto the rest of the cast. This is Philip Quast's first recording, and he is superior to Terrence Mann and Roger Allam. He would only get better on the Tenth Anniversary Concert. Michael Ball gives another respectable performance as Marius. Then why am I only giving this three stars? Aside from the cast members just mentioned, the rest of the cast is inferior to their counterparts on the other three albums. Gary Morris isn't a very good Jean Valjean, and Kaho Shimada is the worst Eponine. As others have pointed out, she is not singing in her native language so her performance is nothing special. She memorized her lines phonetically. I would like to hear her sing in Japanese. But Gay Soper as Madam Thenardier is truly terrible. I can't stand her. Her one line in Javert's intervention makes me cringe. Thenardier over does it sometimes but he's more tolerable than his wife. I don't particularly care for Debbie Byrne on this album, she sounds like she has a frog in her throat at times. Tracy Shayne's Cosette is OK, but nothing compared to Judy Khun or Rebecca Caine. Overall I consider this album to be a good supplement to the Tenth Anniversary Concert, to fill in the gaps so to speak. This is not the quintessential Les Miserables album by any means though.

The Complete Symphonic Recording of Les Miserables is simply the best version of the musical you can get. It contains many songs that are not on any of the other albums -- yes, including the concert album -- not to mention extended versions of the songs that include the instrumental parts of the musical. Nothing can quite move you more than hearing that oboe solo during "The Sewers" where the barricade is panned around to show Enjolras splayed across the flag. Breathtaking! Gary Morris is an acceptable replacement for Colm Wilkinson. He truly shines in many of the songs, particularly "Bring Him Home". Philip Quast is arguably the best Javert there is. He leaves such a chilly afterfeeling in "Javert's Suicide" that the listener is simply left in awe. Michael Ball, as always, IS Marius and will always be him. Barry James, some will notice, plays Thenardier on a much more sinister level than Alun Armstrong; but he and Gay Soper are great as the wicked couple. Last but not least, Anthony Warlow is no short than AMAZING as Enjolras; the part is simply perfect for him as Enjolras requires a very powerful voice and Warlow delivers. It is worth noting the ones who aren't quite up to snuff with some other versions out there. Kaho Shimada, who played Eponine, seems to be a poor choice, indeed. She sings much too soft for Eponine and "On My Own" is definitely lacking emotion and power in her rendition. Similarly, Debra Byrne, compared to greats like Patti LuPone and Ruthie Henshall, falls very short in "I Dreamed a Dream". She is much too operatic. Tracy Shayne, as Cosette, lacks the graceful, "lark"-like voice most identify with Cosette, and is much too modern a choice, for my tastes. Overall, however, this is the most complete version of an amazing musical that you will find and I highly recommend you buy it! Many of the songs are updated. "Little People" is MUCH shorter, like it should be, while "Stars" is now a wonderful showstopper as the music builds up in the end. The only other way one could collect all the songs is by purchasing every Les Miserable recording out there and compiling them all onto one CD. The Complete Symphonic Recording does that for you.

Reviews

I really like the Director's Cut version. On the "Big Generator" tour stop in Denver, the clean stage set up was similar. Again, it was a great concert. The group I was with met Chris Squire and Tony Kaye at their hotel and Chris invited us to the band party at the hotel. One concert and party I'll never forget!

Love Yes. Love Soderbergh. Hate this. In fact, I like all the Yes line-ups, including the Buggles, but not this show. If you go to "Bonus Materials" and choose "Director's Cut", that eliminates the extremely annoying 50's graphics that fly over the concert footage you'd like to be watching, but there's still the "Mr. Rabin and His Incredible Back-up Band" factor (Jon is relagated to back-up singer many times, and doesn't look thrilled about it). Some of the instrumentation and vocals also seem pre-recorded. Mr. Rabin is a great guitar player and singer/song writer, but "finger-tapping" in a Yessong? This just isn't a classic Yesshow - it's Yes with Eddie Van Halen. Recommend: ANY OTHER Yes DVD, and "Jon Anderson - Tour of the Universe", they're all very good. Solaris Yes - Yessongs Bubble Tour of the Universe The Good German Yes: Live at Montreux 2003

It goes without saying that this is a virtually priceless treasure for any true Yes fan as it is, to my knowledge, the only professional grade video/audio recording from this tour available. The inclusion of the documentary and interview footage makes this all the more valuable. Not to be overlooked is the companion CD "9012Live The Solos" (sold separately), which includes solo segments from this tour not included in this video, as well as better-quality reproductions of the same performances of "Hold On" and "Changes". The following technical complaints about the audio may seem redundant with other reviews, but I have endeavored to provide a little bit more detail and context to try to explain the nature of the problem, and speculate as to how it came to be this way. Just to clear up some possible misunderstanding: the "5.1 mix" or "5.1 upmix" is simply a stereo mix encoded as 5.1 with audio existing only in the front left and right channels, the four remaining channels containing only silence. The other audio option is a mono mix encoded as dual stereo, with the same mix in both L and R channels. The "5.1" mix doesn't even split off the low end to the subwoofer channel, which would have been an easy thing to do in the reportedly "careful" remastering. As a result, on some home theater systems which have poor low end response in the front mains, this may sound a bit lacking in bass, unless there is some feature in the system to split it off to the subwoofer for you. To make matters worse, the stereo mix is mastered at an extremely low volume level (unbalanced, with L channel peaks below -21db and R channel peaks below -24db), and since ac3 5.1 uses a "lossy" compression algorithm you are effectively getting only a fraction of the fidelity possible. Cranking this up loud enough for enjoyable listening will amplify the inherent noise in every stage of your home theater system, as well as quantization noise and artifacts of the lossy compression inherent to the source encoding. Presumably, the low volume levels found here, as on many multi-channel encoded DVDs, is a hedge against possible clipping in playback situations where the equipment at hand performs a very simple summing of multiple channels when downmixing to stereo or mono. Clearly, this was not as valid a concern when 4 out of 6 channels contain silence. This leaves me to suspect that the engineer performing the "upmix" and mastering from the available stereo source was lacking in either tools or knowledge, or just didn't care enough to adjust anything from preset defaults. The dual mono ac3 audio track has the lone redeeming characteristic of being mastered at a higher volume level, making better use of the available headroom/resolution of the medium. Too bad it's mono. I understand the limitations of working from the 2nd generation video master, but little ingenuity or care was expended on giving the available source the best possible presentation on this format. By far, the best solution would have been to encode this as uncompressed linear stereo PCM, utilizing the full headroom available. There would probably be ample space on a double-layer disc to include this audio format if the other two formats were excluded, as well as the completely unnecessary 2nd complete copy of the "Charlex" version which is inexplicably included on this disc (which I found using "mplayer", for a total of three complete copies of the concert on this one disc). As it is, the sound on my original VHS HiFi release (which is FM encoded stereo) is superior to this DVD. Presumably, the original LD release had even better sound, but this is a very hard item to find. Even with all of these audio complaints, I am thankful that there was no attempt made to fake a full 5.1 mix from the stereo source. Nonetheless, this is a worthwhile purchase for the documentary and interview material alone, as well as the alternate cut, especially if you do not have an older copy on another format with better sound in good condition. Musically, this lineup was best when playing their own material, of course. If only they had enough of their own material on this tour to fill out the set, as their renditions of "classic" yes songs are interesting curiosities, but come off as sub-standard "cover" versions, rather than authentic performances of the band. I wish there were a widely commercially available recording of the "Union" tour, as this was the only time when music from both major lineups were given true justice, and new life, in a single concert. Even then, you would still treasure 9012Live for the great Rabin-era songs which were not performed on the Union tour.

I still have this on VHS and the audio is much better on VHS. I'm not a fan of watching DVD concerts in 5.1 since concerts are not 5.1 when you're there live. They could've done better on the audio. Aside from that, I am still happy they finally released this on DVD as my VHS is getn thin. I sill like the Trvor Rabin era of yes better as it is so much more progressive.

I've been a Yes fan for many years now. I have studied Yes' music for years as a professional musician and fully hail them as one of the greatest and most amazing bands in music today. Yes has always been at the forefront of pushing technology in music and video production, however this one seems to have slipped through the cracks. The video track is barely improved from the original VHS release. The only improvement in the video that was made was removing that CGI crap that took away from some great moments of seeing the band, but hey thats production, what can I say? I'm a television producer myself, sometimes people like all that fluff and nonsense. Since film is generally almost always 16:9, if the film was shot in 16:9 then it should be released as such. That alone preserves a lot of resolution and integrity. For all that Yes has given us over the years this should be a next project for a blu-ray re-master/transfer. There are a lot of adjustments needed for the video track. As for the sound, I have been doing surround mixes for years now. This is one of the poorest excuses for a 5.1 soundtrack ever. Its really a phantom 5.1 mix. If you listen closely on a good home theater system you will notice that nothing is virtually discreet or assigned to a specific channel. The levels are just panned and alternate-level mixed into 6 channels. If you listen to the release of 35th Anniversary Concert or Live at Montreux you will hear a drastic difference. The way a typical 5.1 Dolby Digital or DTS mix is this: Center: Lead Vocals, Misc Instrument Pans Left Front, Right Front: Percussion, Back Vocals, Keyboards, Audience LFE: All low frequency bass and effects Left Surround/Right Surround; For Effect Pans and Audience None of this is evident in the 9012Live dvd. As great of a band as Yes is and as great a video as that was it should have not been released and thrown together so quick just to suit demands. Take this back to the studio, re-master it to high definition and completely re-master the soundtrack. If no one wants to do this, then I will lol. YES DESERVES THE BEST IN MY EYES! I THINK THATS WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE!

Reviews

Frank is hitchhiking from San Francisco; he doesn't worry about his future. He knows how to fix cars. The restaurant owner hires him, and Frank sees Cora in her sun bathing outfit. Cora wants to make something of the restaurant. Frank admires her. The hot Santa Anna wind is blowing in from the desert [this affects people's emotions]. Frank and Cora dance to the music in the jukebox. [What was Nick thinking?] Frank and Cora go swimming in the ocean, they become friendlier. Nick is worried about being cheated by the laundry service, the butcher, and what else? Frank and Cora try to run away, but Cora has second thoughts. She wants something more. Nick's driving causes a near accident. [This tells about their traffic laws.] What if something really bad happened? There is a near miss when Nick returns and finds the suitcases. Cora explains how things would be much better for them if Nick wasn't around. Cora gets an idea from a magazine, but fate throws a detour into their plans. [How many others read that same article?] Curiosity kills another cat. Frank leaves for Los Angeles, but later Nick finds him and brings him back, a surprise for Cora. [Note the old two-button light switches.] Nick will sell "Twin Oaks" and retire to his sister's place so Cora can nurse his sister. This is a great shock to Cora, she does not want to retire. So now they will take steps to plan their future. But the best-laid plans of mice and men still go awry. Accidents are always investigated. The police know what to look for, like Cora's handbag. Frank is surprised to hear about the insurance policy on Nick. District Attorney Sackett tries to turn Frank against Cora. Now the courts will decide. There is a shocking surprise at the arraignment, and again when Cora meets Frank. [This is the high point of the film.] Cora's lawyer, Arthur Keats, shows his skills, and we see how a plea bargain works. Keats explains his strategy; it works. Could a restaurant get a lot of business because of the notoriety of the owner? There is a new twist in this story for Cora and Frank. [But they don't want us to tell the ironic ending.] "What's the use?"

This spellbinding 1946 B&W flick, set in California, pits sultry Lana Turner against John Garfield in a neverending love-hate relationship, which ironically parallels the lives of its 2 stars. Turner, 7 times married & dead in 1995 at 74, is electrified at first glance by Garfield, in real life, a tough Jewish bad boy who was later blacklisted during the McCarthy era, and died in 1952 at 39. Classic scenes in this all-American classic include: shots in the Twin Oaks Diner,(owned by the husband Lana didn't love), including donuts and a steaming mug of coffee - full-body shots of Lana in shorts & halter top (one helluva beautiful dame) - and a wonderful "love me or leave me" scene in the Pacific Ocean, where Lana tests the love of the only man she has ever loved. According to legend, the title of this short James M. Cain novella had no relevance in the book. Not so in the movie. Find out for yourself why the postman always rings twice and why this is one of the greatest movies ever made.

Lana Turner and John Garfield hunger for something more in Tay Garnett's glossy soap opera noir, "The Postman Always Rings Twice." Based on James M. Cain's lusty potboiler, Turner is fantastic as the manipulative yet vulnerable Cora Smith and Garfield excellent as the drifter who can't get Cora or her dreams out of his blood. Turner is like a white creme, icy cold on the surface but burning hot and deep with desire underneath. Cora is a girl aware of her looks and effect on men. Since she was 14 she's had to argue with men about it. But she didn't have to argue with Nick Smith (Cecil Kellaway), a much older man Cora marries for security, not love. When drifter Frank Chambers (Grafield) shows up to fill the help wanted sign at the Twin Oaks Diner Nick and Cora run, she discovers she can't live without love or passion. Cora is a smouldering vision in white when Frank first sees her, a room full of gas that only needs a spark to ignite. Frank knows he can sell anything to anybody and begins to fan the flames when he talks Nick into getting a neon sign for the diner Cora wants. Cora has big dreams for the diner and wants to be somebody. She tries in her own way to resist what is going to happen between she and Frank but deep down knows that all the things she married Nick for and clings to are the things she really wants with Frank. Cora lets him kiss her once then stays away, working Frank into an internal frenzy of desire. After a midnight swim in the ocean they get a week alone and their fate is sealed, the gas ignited and burning out of control. It is Cora who lets Frank's lust simmer until he loves her and wants her so much nothing matters, not even what stands in the way of them and Cora's dreams. Garfield is excellent as a guy who knows he's signed on for a one way ride to nowhere but can't help himself, because the mere thought of sharing the ride with Cora tips the scales. There is a tricky D.A. (Leon Ames) onto them after a botched first attempt to live out Cora's dreams fails and only a crafty defense attorney, portrayed with zeal by Hume Cronyn, gets Cora off when they finally succeed. But an insurance policy Frank didn't know about causes distrust and the results are Cora and Frank on the outs again. But they are chained to each other. Jealousy and a blackmail attempt gone awry bring them back to the beach where they were happy. A dangerous swim to prove their trust in each other restores their love and they are happy and dreaming once again. They may be able to atone for their sins even, unless fate has other plans.... Turner gives an icy hot performance here, with many long takes between she and Garfield as they are drawn to each other like moths to a flame. Much is made of director Tay Garnett framing Turner in sexy white outfits throughout the film. Her best scene, however, and the one in which she is the most strikinginly beautiful, she is dressed in a black bathrobe. Cora is in the kitchen caressing a knife and agonizing over her dreams and what needs to be done to make them come true. When Frank walks in on her, her voice catches, her reluctance to follow through real. She tells Garfield in a quivering voice, "If you really loved me." Whereas Wilder's Double Indemnity was a dark noir of twisted passion and greed set in Claifornia, Garnett's The Postman Always Rings Twice uses the bright sunshine and beaches of L.A. County in the 1940's to create a soap opera noir, a shining blonde Turner and a reluctant drifter Garfield at its center. A must for Turner fans and good pick for fans of this genre who want to watch a glossy noir.

Drifter Frank Chambers played by John Garfield is hired to work at a California roadside diner by owner Nick Smith played by a plain looking Cecil Kellaway. Kellaway is married to the sultry blonde Cora played by a bleached Lana Turner. Garfield takes one look at Turner and the sparks begin to fly. They gradually fall in love carrying on a steamy affair unbeknown to Nick. Together they conspire to do away with Nick in a household accident. Nick survives without suspecting the plot. Garfield, in frustration packs his bags and leaves heading for Los Angeles. He ultimately can't stay away and gets lured back by Turner's charms. Upon his arrival, Nick drops a bombshell telling both Garfield and Turner that he's decided to sell the diner. Nick and Cora are to move to Canada to care for his invalid sister. Turner feels trapped by this decision and again they plot to do away with Nick. They arrange an automobile accident on a treacherous stretch of road as they all are driving to Santa Barbara to consumate the deal for the diner. The car is pushed down the side of a cliff after bludgeoning NIck with a liquor bottle, but Garfield is unable to get out of the car and is severely injured. Unfortunately the suspicious local D.A. Kyle Sackett played by Leon Ames has been tailing them. He observes Turner climbing up the cliff while clutching her white handbag, making it obvious that the accident was bogus. Sackett coerces a hospitalized Garfield into signing out a complaint against Turner for murder of Nick and attempted murder of himself. Turner, with the help of slick shyster lawyer Arthur Keats, excellently portrayed by Hume Cronyn, gets off with only a manslaughter charge and no jail time. Garfield and Turner resume a guarded relationship working at the diner which has been fixed up. They're relationship is filled with mistrust. After a few serious bumps in the road they reconcile when fate intercedes and they both get deserved retribution. "The Postman Always Rings Twice" released in 1946 pushed the envelope with it's lurid sexuality in a time of heavy Hollywood censureship. The code established where bad deeds do not go unpunished was quite apparent in this excellent flick

Pay attention while you watch this - and you will catch all the significance, the depth, maybe even figure out the title during your first viewing.It took me to watch this gem a second time before fully grasping how FIT the title is to this movie. I won't deprive you of the joy of finding out for yourself so I'll stop about that.This is one of the most romantic, dramatic, and endearing movies of all time. YOU JUST HAVE TO WATCH THIS ORIGINAL VERSION and forget the KNOCK-OFF attempted by Lang/Nicholsen. Flick it away and get the ORIGINAL. I can't imagine anyone else portray the characters so fully, or the message so vividly (as opposed to talking in this modern-day language of today).This is got to be among my top 10 faves. I just love movies where Every line counts.

Reviews

There are a lot of movies based on Charles Dickens classic novel Oliver Twist and I remember watching this version on TV I liked it and thought that George C. Scott and Tim Curry were really good and I would like to see this movie put on DVD! Tim Curry was good as Bill Sykes and the scene in which he attacked Nancy was scary!

I was a little surprised that I actually liked this version of O.T. The costuming was good, in fact much better than I expected. George C. Scott was a bit too likeable as Fagan, and I agree, the rage simply wasn't there.It's a shame since Scott was/is a fine actor. The Jewish sterotyping wasn't as bad as in other films, although the words "dirty Jew" does crop up from time to time. Dickens would later remove a lot of the more offensive slurs in later editions of the book. Tim Curry sleep walked through the whole film. I'm wondering if he really WAS drunk during the taping. His ragged costume and yellowed teeth did little to help. Others have done a much more menacing "Bill Sikes" and it shows. Robert Newton of "Treasure Island" fame and Oliver Reed are among the better performances. For the purist, the basic storyline is intact, but like any true Dickens fan, you find yourself asking, "please sir, I want some more"

This 1982 British TVM of the Charles Dickens classic directed by Clive Donner has a teleplay by James Goldman, unsubtle class distinction between the rich and the poor where the poor are comic grotesques, but also a gentle performance by George C Scott as Fagin. Jewish groups took offence at the performance of Alec Guiness' Fagin in the David Lean 1948 version, forcing Lean to cut footage in order for his film to be released in America. Scott's own nose probably helps him pass for Jewish, and here he shows sexual interest in Nancy to counterbalance the subtext of a man who enjoys the company of young boys. However Scott's infamous rage is in check, perhaps because he shares some much tube time with children. If purists may find this Fagin is more likeable than Guinness' that seems hardly important to those interested in witnessing great acting. It's only a pity that Scott is a relatively minor player in the narrative, but even the title boy becomes a relatively minor player in this adaptation! As Bill Sikes, Tim Curry is rather non-threatening and his dog seems dubbed, but Eileen Atkins as Mrs Mann, the head of the orphanage, gets some laughs from her duplicitous agenda. With Oliver being an Alice in Wonderland blonde and one half expecting the performers to burst into the songs from the musical Oliver! at any moment, the treatment doesn't achieve a semblence of reality until Scott appears, and after that rises and falls. This Oliver is never really in any serious peril, notably not from Bill Sikes, but at least Fagin retains his dignity.

This 1982 British TVM of the Charles Dickens classic directed by Clive Donner has a teleplay by James Goldman, unsubtle class distinction between the rich and the poor where the poor are comic grotesques, but also a gentle performance by George C Scott as Fagin. The David Lean 1948 version presented Alec Guinness' Fagin as both lowlife Jew and malignant old homosexual, with protests by Jewish groups forcing Lean to cut footage in order for his film to be released in America. Scott's own nose probably helps him pass for Jewish, and here he shows sexual interest in Nancy to counterbalance the homosexual subtext of a man who enjoys the company of young boys. However Scott's infamous rage is in check, perhaps because he shares some much tube time with children. If purists may find this Fagin is more likeable than Guinness' that seems hardly important to those interested in witnessing great acting. It's only a pity that Scott is a relatively minor player in the narrative, but even the title boy becomes a relatively minor player in this adaptation! As Bill Sikes, Tim Curry is rather non-threatening and his dog seems dubbed, but Eileen Atkins as Mrs Mann, the head of the orphanage, gets some laughs from her duplicitous agenda. With Oliver being an Alice in Wonderland blonde and one half expecting the performers to burst into the songs from the musical Oliver! at any moment, the treatment doesn't achieve a semblence of reality until Scott appears, and after that rises and falls. This Oliver is never really in any serious peril, notably not from Bill Sikes, but at least Fagin retains his dignity.

Reviews

I would have to say this dvd is great. Very enjoyable. Singing is great. I think I like this format better than the movie version because it's like a stage show on television. It's not the traditional way to tell the story but the story is still there and should not turn people off because of that.

I am such a big fan of the 1973 version of Jesus Christ Superstar Jesus Christ Superstar (Special Edition)that I was afraid to even watch this one. I have watched the 73 version a minimum of 100 times. I'm not a religious person, but rather a fan of the modern musicals. Well, as I'm typing this review I am about half way through this version. I must say can not compare the two. Not only are the sets and the period it is set in different but the actors have totally reinvented the film. Every word and note is the same in both versions they are two completely different films. The actors but a whole new emphasis on the way you feel. Glen Carter IS NOT Ted Neely and I am glad for it. I can honestly say that liking one version will not take away from the other. In all the remakes of films I have seen over the years I am immensely impressed at these two films. Now my biggest problem will be which one will I watch when I feel the mood to see this tale again next time. One point of comparison though if I may.... 1) the vocal performance of Ted Neely in Gethsemane cannot be matched but Glen Carter does a close job of it. In the 73 version there was a controversy by casting a black man as Judas but now as it really was then race was not part of the casting but rather the talent was. Well, after YEARS of putting off watching this film I am glad I finally did.

As a lifetime fan of Jesus Christ Superstar who has opened his mind to many interpretations of this story, and of the music, I must say that Jesus Christ Superstar 2000 is perhaps my least favorite "professional" production of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's classic rock-opera. Perhaps I am biased from being raised on the 70s film starring Ted Neely in the role of Christ, and Carl Anderson as Judas, but I honestly don't think that I am biased, even having heard Neely live, for I have accepted many other recordings. The cast of 2000 is just not right! It is flawed in many, many ways. For starters I'm going to do presentation. The entire film is set in essential the same sets, which I have no problem with, seeing as I'm a proud fan of theater. My problem is not the sets, but the entire art design of this production. What I do have a problem with is that this production destroys what the best productions had aimed for, which was finding common ground for ALL audiences. One major appeal of the 1970s film was that they tried to not discriminate against the Romans, or the Jewish leaders; it was very open, and fair in its portrayals, even adding a song to Caiaphas and Annas to show that their reaction to Jesus' popularity wasn't of spite, but of fear (which, given the time, is COMPLETELY understandable). In this production the Jewish leaders are portrayed as evil, and I'm not Jewish, but this just is low, because anyone who has studied history should know that the reaction to Jesus was completely natural; no one wanted a rabble rouser to start a problem...because that would mean the Roman army would come back. Also, every character in this production - even the lepers - all look GREAT, as in fine specimens of the human race. Getting around to the performers; Glen Carter leads the cast and as Jesus falls short in every regard. He seems to have come for a church choir audition oblivious to the fact that this is a ROCK (key word being ROCK) opera. His soft, mellow voice is not fit for the role in the slightest. Even worse is the fact that he just isn't at all convincing in the role. Take away Ted Neely's beard and long hair in the original film and he STILL gave a convincing performance in the role; the intensity in his eyes as if he knew something was great and he radiated a strong presence. Glen Carter has no such aura. Jérôme Pradon is the real problem with this production. His scratchy voice is not at all fitting for the role of Judas, who is actually SUPPOSED to be the real star of this musical. This musical is mainly from Judas' perspective, and he is supposed to be a sympathetic character whose path has been set by God and he can't change it. 2000's portrayal returns the nihilistic interpretation where Judas is shown as nothing more that a schemer, and given the way Pradon sings the part it's obvious they wanted the most snake-like voice they could find when casting. Whoever lead the production seems oblivious the fact that this musical's point was to show Judas in a human light. In all there are a few good numbers in here, but nothing that really stands out. What I remember most is just how dumbed down they've made the story. For the flogging here there is more blood than the original film, but no where near as brutal (they have people SLAP him in this one...SLAPPING!). They've turned a musical that shows the complex, human aspects of these historic figures and turned it into a simple "Good and Evil" story. In one line they even have Annas say "Is that it for the Jewish dream?" in a maniacal tone while Jesus is taken to trial...isn't' Annas SUPPOSED TO BE JEWISH?! The logic of this lyric particularly has me baffled because people into history should know that the Jewish leaders acted on what they believed to be their best interest, not to destroy their own dreams. So its little things like this that make an otherwise stylish production lose all value with me as a fan of the musical. I guess this version is meant for the more traditional Christians than the original, but at that price it totally ostracizes anyone outside the Christian faith. As a Christian, and a fan of this musical, I was not at all impressed by this production. Numbers that should have rocked the house such as Heaven On Their Minds, Gethsemane, and Superstar fall horribly flat while the only good numbers are small ones such as Pilate And Christ, Jesus Must Die, Simon Zealotes, and Peter's Denial. This is the most forgettable version of the musical I have ever seen and I recommend you sticking with the original which is a thought provoking, timeless classic with rocking tunes and performers with sheer talent. P.S. Pretty arrogant of Andrew Lloyd Webber to have them title it "Andrew Lloyd Webber's Jesus Christ Superstar 2000" when fans should know that the story concept, and lyrics were written and conceived by Tim Rice.

I always enjoy the chance to see a broadway production, especially when they usually don't come to my little small town very often, so I found this film of the broadway production of Jesus Christ Superstar very cool. I thought the music was great, as was the acting, and I thought this was better than the old movie version.

I have read so many reviews saying that this version sucked and that this version cannot hold a candle to anything. I cannot disagree more this version has great singers ranging in thier styles and ranges that go together perfectly! jerome pradon as an example is a wonderful singer using his voice to tell a story it was because of his rock like lisp that i listened more intently to the lyrics and began to sympathise with Judas which i had never done befor. This movie uses the long flowing look of jesus to copare to the punk ruggad judas and thier voices are as different as thier looks! as to people saying that this version sucked they are wrong. this version was filmed entirley indoors which makes the story so much easier to understand the simplicity is genius!! so kudos to jerome pradon and he enitre cast for a superb version.

Reviews

I enjoyed the last season of Murder She Wrote. I have enjoyed the series immensely. It is one of my favorite series.

Murder, She Wrote is one of the greatest shows of all time. I've been collecting the DVD's since season one came out on DVD. I couldn't wait to get season 11 its a great season. Angela Lansbury is one of the greatest actresses of all time and she shines in the role of Jessica Fletcher. I can watch this show over and over and never get tired it. I can't wait to get season 12!

Great TV series. Looking forwarded to the next seasons release.Murder, She Wrote: The Complete Eleventh Season

This is a delightful season full of surprises! Angela Lansbury shines again. We will be enjoying this season again and again! There are excellent guest stars which only add to the fun. She has maintained her usual level of excellence!

I just love all these shows and this one is no different. Jessica keeps you guessing until the end!

Reviews

I owned the VHS for many years, bought a dvd player, needed the dsik. It's always been a favorite.

Loosely based on an earlier English musical titled CHRYSANTHEMUM, the 1967 THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE was originally envisioned as a star-making comedy vehicle for Mary Tyler Moore, who was then fresh from television success via THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW; by the time the cameras rolled, however, it had evolved into a big-budget musical with Julie Andrews as star and Moore in a strong but less showy supporting role. Featuring a handful of new songs, a handful of old songs, and considerable production razzle-dazzle, it was a popular movie ticket--although not really the great hit everyone connected with the project hoped it would be. The film is a spoof of 1920s silent movie melodrama. Anxious to be entirely up-to-date, Millie (Julie Andrews) has come to New York with the express purpose of wearing short skirts, finding a job, and marrying the boss. She soon meets Miss Dorothy (Mary Tyler Moore), who is very much an old fashioned girl in curls, and the two take rooms in a hotel for young women run by Mrs. Meers (the legendary Beatrice Lillie)--a strangely occidental asian "Dragon Lady" who is involved in "white slavery" and sets sights on Miss Dorothy as her next victim. Along the way Millie also meets charming salesboy Jimmy (James Fox), who she won't marry because because he is poor; lands a job for rich and handsome Trevor (John Gavin), who won't marry her because he prefers the old fashioned style of Miss Dorothy; and truly peculiar widowed socialite Muzzy (Carol Channing) who seems to turn up in the oddest places at the oddest times. Needless to say, all the characters collide in musical numbers and comic set pieces and, true to its silent movie style, the wicked are punished and the good rewarded when the final credits unreel. The film has several flaws, and chief among them is its length: three hours is simply too much time for the sprightly story to carry, and it is easy to pick out scenes which, although well-done, lengthen the film to no particular point. The score is also rather weak: although the title song is a pleaser, and such 1920s pieces as "Poor Butterfly" and "Jazz Baby" are well performed, few of the musical numbers seem to have much to do with anything in particular. Fortunately, though, the cast carries everything off. Julie Andrews turns in a truly great comic performance as the determinedly brash Millie with Mary Tyler Moore equally memorable as the goody-goody Miss Dorothy--and while both Fox and Gavin are more solid than sharp, both Carol Channing and Beatrice Lillie (who was beginning to show warning signs of Alzheimer's disease during the shoot) are drop-dead spectacular in their supporting roles. The costumes, choreography, set pieces are tremendous fun, and comic set pieces (such as the "musical" elevator) abound. In recent years MILLIE has been accused of racism in its portrayal of Asian stereotypes: the wicked Mrs. Meers and her henchmen, kidnapping beautiful white virgins into white slavery to satisfy the inhuman lusts of those nasty Chinese! But those who make the accusation have missed the point by a mile; such stereotypes were commonplace in the 1920s silent movie melodramas MILLIE spoofs, and the script is actually poking fun at such old-fashioned movie notions by playing them as silly nonsense. Indeed, "silly nonsense" is a good way to describe THOROUGH MODERN MILLIE: it is indeed silly nonsense that is extremely well performed and, in spite of several glaring flaws, remarkably entertaining. Recommended. GFT, Amazon Reviewer

This is a great movie. Having Mary Tyler Moore, Julie Andrews, and Carol Channing ought to tell you how good it is. I love the cooky music and dances. This is either something you love or hate though. I tried to get my friend to watch it and she hated it. It is so silly and stupid that I found it hilarious. My friend just thought it was stupid and annoying.

When I ordered the DVD from an american company I didn't realize that it only played in the UK.

Love this movie, everytime I hear the opening number it makes me want to toss my curls and cares away!