The Garden of the Finzi-Continis is simply an experience not to be missed for any serious foreign film lover. It has a beautiful innocence to it in this tale of the early days of the Finzi-Continis family before WWII. It shows their personal lives and their dreams for love and success, never guessing their future. Then it shows the tragedy and sadness in time lost and how really horrible and wrong war is.

It is beautiful, yet somehow a very haunting film with a wistful score, that seems to be longing for things unattainable. It makes you feel like you're watching an era or time gone by that can never be again. And maybe it's not good to be so naive. Because war comes and life never really recovers from it. But we can remember love...

This is a masterpiece to watch and remember.


The film, to me, is about survival of one's identity. Micol identifies with her childhood and could not let go of it in relation to her childhood sweetheart, Georgio, even while her physical desires develop and intrude. The conflict in her mind is exposed by her enticing Georgio but turning cold when he makes the moves on her. She said she could not breath.

Similar to what happened to the Jews of Italy, they were drawn in by their identity. For the Italian Jews, they identified with the Italian civilization, thinking they were a part of it. Georgio identifies with Micol. As the Jews were slowly extracted from theirs, they kept on with those early ideas. Same with Georgio, he kept on with pursuing her. Then finally when he saw she had sex with someone completely different from him and her---and she even turns the light on to show him---he snaps out of it. He finally grasps the physial reality of the situation. The process is just as his father says: better you die (your relationship with Micol, your identity as being part of her world and visa versa) young and hence you have more time to start from zero. And for the Jews: better your notions of being part of the civility of Italian society die early so you have time to rebuild elsewhere.

The others in the garden didn't die in time and so became unwilling prisoners, in contrast to their voluntary enprisonment behind the walls of their own estate. Once in prison, Micol finally behaves as a responsible, caring adult, but alas, too late.

Prior to that, while in France, Georgio was told of the Nazi horrors and how one man escapes by shedding his identity and saying he has converted to Nazism. Georgio says he won't escape because he had too many ties back in Italy. His identity then was bound to the fantasy of the Jews in the garden, even though his realistic father says they are not his type.

Survival of one's identity has been the cause of much suffering when outside, physical, uncontrollable reality intrudes. Unfortunately, the identity we construct in order to feel a sense of belonging which gives us a sense of power, often subtracts from a balanced, caring, and even civilized way. As a result, religious, nationalist conflicts have caused too much suffering to justify the gains offered by these simple-minded (childish?) views.


Director Vittorio De Sica eschews the neo-realism that defined his earliest work and takes a more poetic approach with this story about a wealthy, privileged family who shut themselves away from the encroaching threat of fascism in the early days of WWII Italy. They ultimately find that their elite status does not protect them from the fascist threat, and the quietly devastating ending shows the family being separated, perhaps forever, as they are rounded up and herded into lines like so much cattle.

The ending makes this film memorable, but everything proceeding it struck me as rather lightweight, given the subject matter. This isn't a movie I think back on as a masterpiece, and I think its reputation rests somewhat on the fact that De Sica, a respected master, directed it.

Grade: B+


I liked this film as it approached the holocaust from a completely DIFFERENT direction. Most outside of Italy have no idea about this country's part in the holocaust, but it was quite different from what occurred in Germany. In Italy, Mussolini was supported by Jews and gentiles alike and it was only AFTER the war began that Mussolini began to implement antisemitic laws in order to please Hitler. How he and the people of Italy adopted this was amazing and rather sudden.

The movie begins in 1938 and all seems well for the Jewish families portrayed in the movie. Much of the beginning and middle of the movie concerns Giorgio's unrequited infatuation with Micòl Finzi Contini. Although this makes up the bulk of the movie, it is only the background for the more sinister goings on in the country. You see, as the years unfold, more and more restrictions are placed on the Jews and more and more of their rights are eroded. When this first began, the faith of Giorgio's father in their fascist government is unwavering--Mussolini is STILL his hero. However, as the movie continues, his optimism turns to pessimism until he and the Finzi Contini family are rounded up for deportation to the extermination camps by the film's end. Giorgio, it seems has escaped as have other members of his family. However, the exact fate of EVERYONE in the movie (except for Micol's brother) is left uncertain at the conclusion. I liked this, as life, particularly in the case of the holocaust, is far from certain and it seems to work well.


SPOILERS AHEAD:

There are many, many movies about WWII, both about the battles and about the condition of life for the people involved, especially the situation of the Jews in Europe. When someone makes a movie on this latter subject, it is very difficult for anyone to criticize it. 1998's _Life is Beautiful_ received some criticism, but mainly because it contained comic elements where people felt there should be only tragedy. But if the film is a drama, then it is basically untouchable by critics and viewers. And as for this film itself, it was directed by an old master who had been out of it for a while. Even if the film was terrible, there was no way, when it came out in the early 70s, that anyone was going to call it less than a masterpiece, an instant classic, if you will.

Well, this film is in no way terrible. In fact, it is very good. It affected me enough where I did tear up a bit. I was touched at certain points. But I also was acutely aware of some of the film's shortcomings as I watched.

First off, the reason why I teared up, i.e., what I did like about the film especially: the relationship between Georgio and Micol. I connected with it instantly because I have been through similar circumstances. It is rather painful, let me tell you. I longed for Micol right along side with Georgio, and felt utterly rejected simultaneously with him. This is the way one should experience a great film. There were two more relationships that were really well developed and deeply felt by me, both involving Georgio: Georgio and his father, a very good character played by a marvelous actor, and Georgio and Malnate.

The rest of the characters were very sloppily made. Did Alberto Finzi-Contini exist for any other reason than to create that great funeral procession scene? He was barely in the movie at all. I had thought they had forgotten him for a long time, then they finally came back to him, and he was next to death. The Finzi-Contini family was hardly existent. I thought the father was a butler until very near the end of the film. A cheap joke is made about the centegenarian grandmother's inability to hear well (although this character had a very poignant scene at the very end of the film).

Possibly the biggest problem of the film is that the scenes dealing with anti-Semitism and the onset of war never really coalesced with the problems surrounding Micol's and Georgio's relationship. The latter theme dominated the film, while the former only appeared in the background. This structure would have been fine, but the background section of the film never seemed to influence much the foreground. Georgio could have just as easily have fallen in love with Micol without the war going on. This is not what puts stress on their relationship. Possibly the main theme that de Sica was trying to get through in the film was that our personal lives do not naturally care about what is happening in society, but society keeps trying to push its way into our personal lives. Unfortunately, it only works to a certain extent. The film was too short for its subject matter. It is only 94 minutes long. If it had been two hours or even two and a half, the two parts would have fit together better and the main theme would have been a lot more potent. One of my very favorite films has the exact same theme: _The Unbearable Lightness of Being_, where people attempt to love each other in Czechoslovakia while the Soviets oppress them. It is three hours long, and it works on every level. In _The Garden of the Finzi-Contini_, there is not even time for a proper conclusion. Micol's story is finished, or at least as finished as it needs to be, but what happened to Georgio? His father just informs us that he left. Why can't we see him leave? We don't need an enormous explanation from him, but just a subtle scene, as is the film's style, where he packs and talks to his mother maybe. Surely he hasn't gotten Micol out of his mind that quickly. I realize it was in his best interests to get the heck out of Italy right away, but I can't believe he doesn't at least think for a moment whether or not he should do something on Micol's behalf. I'm fine that he doesn't. I would bet that in the novel, this sort of scene appears. It should have also been in the film. I give the film an 8/10, mostly for the true-to-life pain it caused me concerning the one-sided love.


This has been the worst movie that I have seen in quite a while! The acting was horrible, so was the editing, the script and everything else about this movie. It was as if whoever filmed this movie walked into a taqueria with a home video recorder and told the employees to"pretend" that they were in a movie.Watch "Doce Horas" if you truly want to want to watch a funny movie with great actors!


As a movie viewer that loves strange and offbeat movies this is definitely that type of film. I never really got into the movie until the red neck, and then it seemed to perk up the flow of the film. From the cast list I'd guess Buddy Howard is fun character to place in an below average film. Kudos to the writer and director for a clever character and great placement, does anyone know any other films Buddy Howard has done I'd like to know

Thanks Bill


This makes reality TV funnier. I like the redneck man, he made me want to spit in his taco too. Good movie, simple but powerful ideas and arguments. Not for everyone, my wife hated it. She does not like the homo, it is not a common Latino thing. But I will rent it again someday to laugh.


This film is a waste of digital imagery! Imagine, the hero ventures up K2 in a K-Mart parka with a fur edged hood no less. In one scene one "climber" (I say that oh so tongue in cheek) belays another by just standing there (he is tied onto the rope though)while his buddy holds a hundred feet or so of loosely coiled rope in his hands between the "belay" and the prospective climber.

Oh man, this flick is sooooo bad, I almost wept. Oh, the aforementioned climber falls down a crevasse, is hanging there wearing his crampons, then is hauled out without them. I mean, these things are strapped to your ankles so you can't loose them. The ice axe technique and cramponning (no front pointing at all) is pathetic, and crawling up, no, along snow slopes reminded me of a drunk in the gutter finding his way home. Speaking of axe technique, when a guy fell down a slope, instead of using the appropriate technique of rolling over and gently applying the point as a brake by applying ones weight, he lies on his back flailing helplessly at the snow. If that axe had gripped, it would have ripped his arm off.

All those really great mountaineers now sadly perished, will be rolling over in their graves (if lucky enough to have one).

'Nuff said, this film should be burnt! It's a disgrace!


The picture of a climber on the DVD box is what made me rent the movie. I was expecting something no worse than Cliff Hanger or Vertical Limits (both of which were ludicrous). But I knew within the first 2 minutes that this was oh-so-much-worse... The special effects are bad, the acting is bad, the script is pathetic, and the climbing... beyond laughable. Another reviewer already commented on the "crawling along the snow", the missing crampons in the crevasse, and the poor ice axe technique of the "climbers".

I'll add to that: 1) the fact that the climbers go from D.C. to K2 base camp at about 20,000ft with no acclimatization (close to instant death...); 2) they carry big, heavy non-expedition tents to Camp 1; 3) there are tire tracks all around Camp 1 (!!!); 4) they never rope up properly, and walk too close together; 5) it's windy outside, but quiet and calm inside the tent (no wind); 6) they carry Coleman gas lanterns to Camp 1 and no one has a headlamp (what real climbers use); 7) their packs and equipment are all new, and yet, all these climbers are "the world's best" with loads of experience; 8) they're not dressed like climbers (furry hood); 9) they keep referring to the fact that it's suicide to climb K2 "in this season" (winter?), yet, it's mostly sunny and apparently not very cold on the mountain (no visible "breath").

And no one - I don't care how good they are - would ever sign up to reach 23,000ft on the north face of K2, within 72 hours of sitting in an office in Washington, D.C. Not even for large sums of money.

If you're going to write a movie about climbing, wouldn't you learn SOMETHING about the sport first?

For good climbing movies, Everest (IMAX) by David Brashears, and Touching the Void (the Joe Simpson story) --- much, much, much better, even without the fake Russians and glowing Rubik's cubes...


Charles Schulz requested (though since he did not hold the copyright to Peanuts he could not demand) that no one create any new Peanuts stories after his death. United Media, on the other hand, did not want to let a cash cow like Peanuts fade into the night. So they compromised with Schulz's family, making the latest Peanuts special, "A Charlie Brown Valentine", from a conglomeration of numerous loosely connected comic strips penned by Schulz. Unfortunately, the special feels like a conglomeration of numerous loosely connected comic strips.

Unlike previous Peanuts features, which almost always contained a coherent (although occasionally bad) plot, the only prevailing theme here is that it is Valentine's Day. Actually, it's several Valentine's Days. The time frame jumps around *so* much that we can't keep any supposed story line straight. Early on, we get the impression the special takes place on February 14. Then Lucy announces that Valentine's Day is a week away. Then Charlie Brown tries to work up the courage to give the little red-haired girl a Valentine. Then we learn that V-Day is still a few days away, then Charlie Brown goes to a school dance.

While some of the jokes are funny, the special could hardly be called hysterical, and its choppy style is more dizzying that enjoyable. All in all, "A Charlie Brown Valentine" plays more like a love-themed episode of _The Charlie Brown and Snoopy Show_ than a legitimate television special. While such a variety show could get away with some unfunny sketches (_Saturday Night Live_ has been getting away with it for decades), a full-blown special has to pull its weight all the way through. Sadly, this one does not.

If Peanuts is to survive beyond one more TV special, a new compromise must be reached. We must allow the producers the opportunity to forge existing strips into a workable script--one with a story line--and the possibility of adding some new jokes. Otherwise, the next special may be, "It's the Last Hoorah, Charlie Brown."


No spoilers in this review. But there is nothing to really spoil.

It is Valentine's Day, a day I always hate living through, and I just finished watching the newest Charlie Brown TV special. It is the first Peanuts television special since 1993, and I was interested to see if it would be any good. The nineties weren't too kind to anyone that liked or used to like Peanuts. The big TV stations started to crack down on its cartoon specials like Peanuts and Garfield, and the success that the sixties, seventies, and eighties brought it were stopped cold, with only the traditional Christmas special being shown (which I don't think is as good as people claim when compared to some of the other specials). The last special for television, `You're in the Super Bowl, Charlie Brown,' was absolutely the most wretched special ever made. The strip itself was also going South. Charles Schultz, I believe, should have quit ten years ago. I would read the strip in the paper and wonder where all the funny stuff went. Now, two years and two days after Schultz's death, a new cartoon is made. I found it odd that they made a Valentine's Day special, since there already was one, a good one, back in 1975. But I decided to watch with an open mind.

But I couldn't believe how bad this turned out to be, and it is with a heavy heart that I type this review. What it all really turns out to be is a whole bunch of short sketches with various members of the Peanuts gang doing different things leading up to Valentine's Day. Scene after scene, joke after joke, flops like a dead fish. You don't have to be a kid to like a Peanuts cartoon, so I don't think I am being unfair calling this horribly unfunny. I did not find any of this amusing. Part of the problem is that there is so much going on at once that you have trouble following it all. Characters are off doing their own thing, and Bill Melendez switches scenes every twenty seconds, and very few of the `subplots' are resolved. The main story involves the tired old plot of Charlie Brown having difficulty asking the Little Red-Haired Girl out. Most of the scenes involve Charlie Brown complaining to himself or Linus how he can't do it, how he is not tough, how she doesn't know he exists, etc. He's doing something different in each segment, so there is no real plot movement and no story structure at all, which completely kills the experience of enjoyment. What was the point of the Marcie and Peppermint Patty segments? Or the Lucy and Schroeder scenes? Or any of the scenes, for that matter? When they finally get to the scene involving the Valentine's Day dance, nothing happens and it is cut off after less than three minutes there. The final scene also doesn't explain itself. I am not sure what it was implying, really, but it looks like a desperate attempt to throw in a happy ending when the script has painted them into a corner Melendez couldn't get out of. There were other aspects I wasn't impressed with, too. The usually reliable Bill Melendez was really sleeping on the job here. There is a scene early on where Charlie Brown and Lucy are sitting and leaning against a tree, but their heads overlap the tree trunk. This might be excusable had the special been funny. The same cannot be said for a goof up at the dance, when you see Franklin in the background, but he has dirt marks all over his head like Pigpen, who makes his own cameo a few moments later. How did that slip by? Worst of all, I think, is the voice cast. It isn't that they were poor choices, though voices in past specials easily top them, it is just that they don't say things right. Many times the cast shouts their lines out when a character should be talking normally; other times a character plainly talks when the animated body movements suggest they should be shouting. And many of the voices are stiff, like the vocal actors didn't even get a practice take.

I was shocked that this was as poor as it was, particularly the lack of structure. If they make another Peanuts special, I sure hope it comes out better than this. I wouldn't call this the worst, as nothing could be worse than the Super Bowl special, but it ranks up there with the worst. Even `Flashbeagle' could be forgiven. This cannot. I would suggest that you skip this one and look for another. There are over thirty Peanuts specials in existence....so why can't the big stations just show some of the old, rare ones again so we can remember what it was like when the Peanuts were terrific? Zantara's score: 2.


Its a must own!! When you own it, it adds four minutes of footage that did not air when it aired back in 2002. It's one of my favorites from the Peanuts gang! It's right up there with, a CB christmas, first kiss, short summer and Why CB why? Great special!!!


This is my favorite of the "new" Charlie Brown specials. I liked it better than the Christmas tales and Lucy must be traded. It's also one of all time Charlie Brown specials-I'd say in the top 5 somewhere. I loved the dance part! I think the main reason that I loved it is because I could relate to about 90% of it! (Especially the dance part) Worth watching and even worth owning. It's suppose to come out in Jan, 2004. (PeanutsAnimation website)


It's the worst movie I've ever seen!!! What a stupid and sexist story! I mean, men can xxx with whom and whenever they like, and women doing the same have to be killed??? Oh please...grow up!!!!!!!!! What about the male in that story, who's in bed with the girl who betrays the twin-brother: he excuses him with the words: "well, you're a man, it's not you're fault! She offered herself to you!" WELL SIMBHU, IT'S NOT YOU'RE FAULT! YOU SURE HAD A STUPID EDUCATION!!!!!!!!! Next time, just keep the crazy thoughts in you're brain, don't let it come out in form of such awful movies!!! Or just open your eyes and see the world as it is: men are xxx as well.


one of the best movies i seen. a different angle of love and and the effects of lack of trust and not being honest are portrayed very well. Simbhu is at his best in this movie.

Wonderful music, all melodies, modern and folk are really good.

i read few comments above which sounded like written by Simbhu haters. but i believe this movie is definitely watchable and worth spending money or time on it. after all, it is a Hit and most of the Tamil people like it.

this movie made Simbhu really famous. He proved that he got skills. very nice direction. proper utilization of characters. no extras like unnecessary fights or unnecessary songs.


Why was this movie made? That was what I was asking myself after painfully having to go through the entirety of the utter crap that was Manmadhan. The simple answer is: money. This movie has nothing going for it whatsoever.

But seeing as I hated it, let's take a look at the positive aspects of this movie first: - It's excellent for aspiring filmmakers to watch, so they can learn what NOT to do.

And that's pretty much it. On the other hand, I can go on forever about the negative aspects. This movie had no direction, one of the worst scripts ever written, horrible acting, and no sense of pacing whatsoever. The thing Tamil movies are (well, were, at least) known for is style. Any style in Manmadhan? No - none at all. In fact, most Tamil movies no longer have any style, but that's a whole other story.

Moving back to Manmadhan, let's talk about the plot. The plot had the potential to make this a C-movie. As I understand it, it was ripped off of an old Kamalhassan film called "Sigappu Rojakkal". I have yet to see that film, but I can guarantee it is at least twenty times better than this worthless video (I can't bear to call it a film anymore).

The acting in this movie was non-existent. Based on this movie, I hold a strong belief Silambarasan has no acting talent whatsoever. Jyothika's small talents totally miss this... this... I don't know what to call it anymore!

The worst part is, after going through three hours of intense pain and suffering, the films ends with "To be continued".

All in all, Manmadhan is a film you should never see in your life. I had to suffer it, and I dearly hope no one else will have to do the same. In fact, you shouldn't even be on this page! Leave, now!


This is Simbu's take after newly emerging heroes donning psychotic roles. However, Simbu is the first to have penned the story on himself! A very disturbing show that you cannot stop thinking about for at least weeks after watching it! This is because of the storyline of a serial killing casanova with a haunting past that makes him go pychotic till he falls for the lead heroine. CD is also worth every cent of your money with great songs, few sung by Simbu himself. Despite the fact that heroine jyothika is older than Simbu, they make a lovable pair. A great show worth your money and the CD is guaranteed to blow your mind. There might be a sequel to this show too, titled "Vallavan" that is coming out in theatres this year.


this is the first Simbhu movie i've seen and wow!i just keep watching this movie over and over again.is it because of Simbhu himself?is it the songs?is it cuz Simbhu wrote it?or is it because of the twist? i must say the twist at the end had me shocked.i didn't expect it.i believed the whole thing to the twist.amazing.i loved Simbhu in both characters.more so Manmadhan than the twin.i loved Simbhu as a psycho.can't wait for Vallavan (the sequel).this movie is highly recommended.Simbhu is too good in this one.Jyothika is awesome.everyone else is perfectly casted.songs are amazing.i love En Asai Mythiliye and Thathai Thathai the most.the most amazing movie i've seen in a while.


manmadhan is a must-watch flick for all movie-lovers,youngsters and particularly the NEW GENERATION GIRLS.the theme of the movie was very apt to modern times and the taking of the film was good.specifically the screenplay of the movie was too good,very appreciative on simbhu's part.in other movies they really do not show to the viewers,on the screen,something which turns out to be......-i just don't wanna reveal.simbhu is too young to make someone like me to expect such amazing work from him.becoz i always thought simbhu lacks smart looks.but only after watching manmadhan did i realise that for an actor -his/her looks count nothing at all-all that matters is the FINE SKILL OF ACTING that lies within him/her.simbhu's performance as a "pretending to be a psycho" in the beginning of the movie was really cool.Oh no...!!!!!!i just forgot to mention about sindhu tolani who played the sweet,cute but.......in this flick.her performance was just beyond accolades and appreciation acc. to me.all the hot models in the movie-who played the MODERN GIRLS-added a bit more charm to manmadhan.finally jo(jyotika) was nice and good as usual.this movie once again makes all south indians spellbound by the genius of tamil film-making.


As a Scotsman raised on football and rugby American sports have often left me cold and were a subject of derision in my household as a child. This film ,brilliantly directed by Billy Crystal, changed all that for me. I bought this film through a region 1 DVD supplier as it is unavailable in the UK and was moved to tears by its moving and heartfelt depiction of the late great Roger Maris who in one season became the most misunderstood and hated figure in baseball history. His crime- he dared to challenge a thirty four year old record set by Babe Ruth for the most home runs scored in a single season and even worse he was in competition with teammate Mickey Mantle for the record. Mantle at the time was the darling of NY Yankee fans and was probably the greatest player of his day, Maris was a small town boy who played the game only as a means to an end, to provide for his family, and cared little for public opinion or the press. The venom to which he is subjected to by the press and fans, brought on by immoral reporters, will make any sports fan angry. This film was a work of joy for director Billy Crystal and his love for the project shows in every shot and especially in the directors commentary. Barry Pepper is an uncanny Roger Maris and his amazing performance pulls us into the suffering the player must have felt. Thomas Jane is a brilliant Mickey Mantle playing the role of American legend with biblical sincerity. The whole project feels classy at all times, despite being made for T.V, and is a monument to both players and the era in which they lived. The film is rounded of by an appearance during the credits by Mickey Mantle's son and grandson, pure class and a tribute to the boyhood idol of Billy Crystal All in all well done to Billy Crystal and cast. Thank you for a wonderful 2hrs and 9mins. I am only sad it wasn't longer. But it has introduced me to the sport of baseball and has compelled me to learn more of both Maris and Mantle. So it has placed me on a journey of discovery. What higher compliment can I pay?


Being 33 years old as of this writing, I knew little about the Roger Maris-Mickey Mantle home run chase of 1961 until the Mark McGwire-Sammy Sosa home run chase of 1998. I didn't learn a whole lot about the '61 chase in '98 but I learned enough to develop a solid interest in it.

Still, I didn't have very high hopes for "61*." Most of the made for TV movies that I've seen haven't made a strong impression on me, including those made for cable TV, as this was (for HBO). Furthermore, I've never been a big Billy Crystal fan. Though I love comedy, I've never found him to be that funny. And I didn't have a lot of confidence in him to make a good drama, either.

And on top of all that, I often find sports biography movies to be disappointing, often leaving out important details while at the same time over-Hollywoodizing. "Rudy," for example. But when I saw the DVD of "61*" at a Family Dollar store, priced at just $6, I took a chance and bought it. And I'm glad I did!

Crystal won tremendous respect from me with this movie. Almost flawlessly, he tells one of the most interesting single season sports stories that I know of. And I know of more than probably 99% of the American population!

From the start, the 1961 Major League Baseball season was ripe to be a classic. Babe Ruth's single season home run record of 60, set in 1927, was more vulnerable than ever because of two major changes. The Los Angeles (later California and now Anaheim) Angels and Washington Senators (now Texas Rangers) began play, thus spreading the pitching talent more thinly. And the regular season increased in length from 154 games - which had also been the season length in 1927 - to 162, as it remains today.

The biggest reason why I find the '61 chase more interesting than the '98 chase is that in '61, the top two contenders were teammates. Both played for - who else - the New York Yankees. One was Mickey Mantle (played by Thomas Jane), who had already spent a decade with the Yankees and was unquestionably the biggest star of the day. The other was Roger Maris (Barry Pepper), who was much less heralded. Maris had just emerged as a star the year before, winning the American League Most Valuable Player award in his Yankees debut, which followed three solid but unspectacular years with other Major League teams.

Both Mantle and Maris hailed from rural states - Oklahoma and North Dakota, respectively - but were very different people. Mantle epitomized the word "superstar." Besides excelling at every area of the game, he was a charismatic, care free party animal and a fan favorite, the natural heir to Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio and other legends. In sharp contrast, Maris was an introvert who largely shunned the spotlight. He loved the game but never attempted to be what the media and fans wanted him to be.

(On a side note, I'm a Maris sympathizer because I can relate to being rejected by people who I don't bother simply because I don't follow the crowd and I believe in judging people based on substance more than anything else. Yankees fans should have loved Maris and embraced his phenomenal achievement that year.)

As the season progressed and both Mantle and Maris stayed near the pace to break Ruth's record, it was obvious that the fans favored Mantle by far. And when Mantle was slowed by injuries, the fans generally ranged from lukewarm to hostile in their treatment of Maris as he neared the record. For example, the Yankees' last game of the regular season, which they hosted, drew a crowd of just 22,000 even though Maris entered the game tied with Ruth and even though the Yankees went on to win the World Series that year.

This is a sharp contrast to 1998, when McGwire regularly filled stadiums in pursuit of Maris' record even though McGwire's team didn't even make the playoffs that season. And in sharp contrast to McGwire's enthusiasm for breaking the record, Maris did not seem to get a lot of joy out of it. He had a difficult time dealing with negativity from the media and fans and also missed the birth of a son during the season.

There are so many things to love about "61*" that it's hard to list them all. The movie does a great job recreating 1961 in every way. Crystal even managed to find actors to play not only most of the significant Yankees of the season but also many of their opponents. That is not the case with most sports biography movies.

Pepper and Jane both give excellent performances and strongly resemble the men who they play. And the movie is very fair and balanced. It presents the perspectives of both Mantle and Maris and gives us an up close look at their relationship behind the scenes, which was fairly good, all things considered. Mantle even moved in with Maris during the season.

The movie doesn't white wash either man, neither of whom was squeaky clean, but it doesn't resort to sensationalism, either. For example, it shows Mantle drink alcohol enough in the movie that we realize he drank too much alcohol, but it doesn't dwell on that fact. In addition, the movie gives us insight into Mantle's philosophy. The men in his family all died by the age of 45 so he figured he wasn't going to live a long life and therefore didn't see a need to take good care of himself.

(Shortly before his death from cancer in 1995 at the age of 63, he acknowledged that he would have taken care of himself had he known that he was going to live so long. And in response to witnessing by former Yankees teammate Bobby Richardson, who became a minister after retiring from baseball, Mantle repented and became a Christian.)

I've found little to criticize about this movie. I've discovered only a few inaccuracies in it - far less than other sports biography movies - and most are minor. The main thing that I wish Crystal had done differently was to give some information about what ended up happening to Mantle and Maris.

Both largely went downhill from there. After a 1962 season that was very good, but far below his '61 magic, Maris fell into mediocrity and injuries. He never made the Hall of Fame and died of lymphoma on Dec. 14, 1985 (my 15th birthday) at the age of 15.

Mantle had a few more good seasons, but soon his hard living caught up with him, as mentioned above.

In addition to the movie, the DVD of "61*" contains an excellent 51 minute documentary about the movie, the Yankees and the '61 season, hosted by Crystal. The documentary contains extensive information about the making of the movie and lots of great stories from Crystal, whose love for and vast knowledge of both the game and the Yankees is absolutely infectious.

However, because this movie is unrated, I caution you that this is not a family movie. There is enough profanity and crude sexual humor to get it at least an easy PG-13 rating.

In conclusion, the movie and the documentary combine to make "61*" a great buy, especially if you find it at as low a price as I did! 9/10.


So superb was the job Billy Crystal did on this movie that it is the best baseball (even sports) film I have ever seen. Every detail is meticulously worked out, even more accurately, I believe, than in The Titanic (which, contrary to popular belief, had a few inaccuracies). And while a strong effort in getting look alikes can never completely pay off with so many people involved, how about Barry Pepper as Maris? (Of course, the most important person.)

Mickey Mantle's faults are brought out unrestrainedly by perhaps his No. 1 fan, and yet he still comes across in a positive light, as he should. Maris's problems with the press are also portrayed sympathetically, and yet so are members of the press, who are personalized and humanized and have their side also fairly presented. Particularly moving was the scene at the end where a press person who had been at odds with Maris is cheering him on to break the record. An ornamental portrayal of Pat Maris would of course not be tolerated, but Crystal makes an extra, very successful effort at making her an important part of the film with great character development and a thoughtful inclusion of her problems. In fact, I find it hard to think of another movie in which there is such an absence of plastic people. And in spite of the post-Ball Four attitudes about how athletes really are, this movie appears to be accurate in presenting Maris as a good Catholic (and relatively nonboozing) family man.

Yankee haters may not be into this film as much as Yankee lovers, but in any event it brilliantly captures the Yankee mystique (and dominance in this particular season) in the early 60s. Were they the apotheosis of the pre-Vietnam, All-American ideal? If you are one of those people whose main complaint about movies these days is more than specific factors, but the general lack of anything uplifting, see this movie. More in the modern vein than, say, Pride of the Yankees, but no less uplifting.


Billy Crystal hits it out of the park with 61*. Brilliantly cast, beautifully shot and at times brutally honest in its storytelling, 61* is an absolute gem.

Any baseball fan well knows the story of the great home run chase of 1961. Here, Crystal peels back the curtain and brings us up close and personal with the men who made that season so memorable. In Barry Pepper, who plays Roger Maris, and Thomas Jane, as Mickey Mantle, Crystal found two actors absolutely perfect for their respective roles. The way Pepper and Jane perfectly captured the essence of these real-life heroes goes far beyond the eerie physical resemblances the actors have to the men they portray. Maris was a quiet, serious, introspective family man. And during this particular season it could be said he was a downright tortured man as well. Pepper captures all of this wonderfully. Mantle on he other hand was an outgoing, energetic, fun-loving superstar who took full advantage of all the perks his stardom brought him. And Jane does a fine job bringing this out and really lets you see the wear and tear Mantle's lifestyle had on him as his body began to break down. It would have been easy to gloss over some of the less appealing aspects of Mantle's personality. It also would have been dishonest and Crystal is to be applauded for showing it how it really was. Mantle was a larger than life hero but he certainly had his faults and this film brings them out. Some may find the pervasive profanity and crude sexual humor in the film to be a bit over the top but an honest retelling of the story requires acknowledging the way these ballplayers really were.

61* is not just a movie about baseball, it is at its heart a movie about Roger Maris and the key relationships in his life. Maris and Mantle, Maris and his wife, Maris and the oppressive press...these relationships are all explored as we learn much more about Roger Maris the man than Roger Maris the baseball player. Maris had to overcome a great deal to accomplish what he did and this film does a brilliant job of bringing us along on his magical ride.


I could spend hours trying to come up with the perfect words to describe "61*" Simply put, its one of the best baseball movies I have ever seen. Barry Pepper and Thomas Jane ARE Maris and Mantle. Billy Crystal did an exceptional job directing this picture. The acting is excellent. A great part of the movie is seeing all the old ballparks that have been refaced and digitally made to look like the parks did in 1961. Turning Tiger Stadium into Yankee Stadium is quite a feat! I would recommend this movie to the die-hards, the casuals, and those who don't know anything about baseball. Billy Crystal -- Thank you for another great movie!


This is a wonderful piece of work from director and executive producer Billy Crystal. A powerful and personal story of the little known amiable relationship between Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle during that dramatic home run race of 1961. The two sluggers were always pictured as being bitter rivals. This is a whole different tale.

Mantle(Thomas Jane)being the Yankees 'golden boy' and Maris(Barry Pepper)the ridiculed interloper learned to coexist and become the M & M Boys. Mantle being jaded by the press offered his best advice to the often stoic and sullen Maris on matters of surviving publicity. Most of the home run chase was like a masterpiece on canvas. Maris never seemed to get the respect he deserved, but his fortitude garnered him a place in baseball history. 61* would of course become 61 and then later shattered and surpassed by another home run chase.

This movie deserves being ranked among the elite of sports movies and one of the best baseball flicks ever. Pepper is outstanding as Maris. Jane takes a little warming up to as the Mick. A very talented supporting cast includes: Richard Masur, Bruce McGill & Christopher Bauer. Plus most impressive is Billy Crystal's daughter, Jennifer, playing Pat Maris.

This is a must see for every sports fan!


Produced obviously as a response to the assault by Mark McGwire (and Sammy Sosa) on baseball's single season home run record, this is a generally entertaining and well-acted story of the friendly battle waged between Yankee teammates Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris to beat Babe Ruth's home run record of 60, back in the year 1961.

Billy Crystal (who also produced) showed a surprisingly deft touch as a director, giving viewers a very realistic glimpse of life inside the pressure cooker of Yankee Stadium and major league baseball in general. Maris (Barry Pepper) comes across as an all around good guy who would really rather not be in the spotlight, who nevertheless has to deal with a hostile media and less than supportive home fans, neither of whom really want to see Ruth's record broken and who, if it is to be broken, would rather see Mantle ("the real Yankee") do it. Pepper was extremely good in this role. Thomas Jane put on an equally good performance as the wilder Mantle, who actually becomes Maris's roommate partway through the season, mainly to keep himself out of trouble.

This is an enjoyable enough baseball movie. Suspense is lacking, because we already know how the thing is going to turn out, but it's worth watching if only to see the dressing room tension building and the effect on the team as a whole. It's also an interesting look at how the media creates and destroys heroes. It's a little bit long (slightly over two hours) but very enjoyable.

7/10


Even for the only occasional baseball fan in Europe (i.e. myself) this film gives you excitement about the game the game of baseball, feeling for some of its greatest stars and hits home just how big the sport is across the pond. And it really brings home how much director/producer Billy Crystal loves the game.

The strength, however, really rest in the performance of Billy Pepper and Thomas Jane who portray the friendship, rivalry and respect between two great players.

I was glued to the screen from moment one would suggest that this is one of the strongest sports films ever made.


I was 14 and living in Brooklyn during the baseball season of 1961. We were still a borough in mourning at the loss of our beloved Dodgers in 1958 and even their rivals the Giants from Manhattan. For four seasons and 1961 was to be the last of them the Yankees had the exclusive attention of the New York baseball fans.

Another of those fans at the time was Billy Crystal who grew up to be a comedian of some note and on the 40th anniversary of that season and the home run chase for Babe Ruth's seasonal record of 60 home runs, sought to bring back that season and what it meant to be a Yankee and a Yankee fan that year.

Barry Pepper and Thomas Jayne play Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle who went on a dual chase that year for that most sacred of all records. Sacred because it had been set by a man who revolutionized the game itself and was one of the most colorful sports personalities that America ever produced. It was so held sacred that former sportswriter Ford Frick who was baseball commissioner at the time and former Babe Ruth ghostwriter decreed that it could only be broken in the first 154 games, that if it was broken in the new 162 game schedule, separate records noted with the asterisk would be in the books.

The Yankees themselves were on fire that season. They were not just about Mantle and Maris. The middle infield combination of Bobby Richardson and Tony Kubek seemed to be turning double-plays on an almost alarming routine basis, becoming the best at what they did. Elston Howard in his first year as the regular catcher hit for the highest average on the team, .348 and contended for the batting title. Whitey Ford who previous manager Casey Stengel would not give rotation starts to, was put in a set pitching rotation by Ralph Houk and responded with his career season of 25 and 4. He also did his assault on Babe Ruth by breaking his pitching record of 29 2/3 scoreless innings in the World Series against Cincinnati that year.

As for home-runs, the team itself set a record of 240 season home-runs for a team. Everybody pitched in that year to win the pennant and blow Cincinnati out in five games in the World Series.

But the story was Mantle and Maris who despite rumors fueled by sportswriters looking for or to create a good story, Mickey and Roger actually shared living quarters in Queens with teammate Bob Cerv. By the way if there are villains in this film it's the writers. They are really shown as one scurvy lot. I think that if Mickey and Roger saw the film, they'd just groove on the way they were portrayed.

Although both guys were from red state Middle America, they were as opposite as you can get. Mantle was quite the hedonist back in the day and Crystal doesn't flinch in showing him that way. Maris on the other hand was a family man first and foremost. He was also very conscious of the fact that Mantle was there in New York first and fans wanted him to be the record breaker.

Watching 61* was certainly reliving a lot of my 14th year over again. The Yankees were awesome that year, like I've never seen them before or since, not even the recent teams with Joe Torre as manager. 61* now ranks as one of the great baseball films ever.

No summer like that summer of 61*.


In the pantheon of baseball movies, this one, 61*, is in my personal top five, and perhaps the top three. Billy Crystal, better known as a comedian or as host of the Academy Awards, took the director's chair for this film, and produced a story that was a grand insight into the personal and professional world of baseball during the era of Mantle and Maris. Produced very shortly after Mark McGwire broke the Maris record, Crystal framed the 1961 story with scenes from the McGwire run.

Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs in the 1927 season, and Yankee stadium was still known, a generation later, as the house that Ruth built. In 1961, Ruth's longstanding record seemed secure. Mickey Mantle had inherited the status of 'Yankee favourite' from predecessors Joe DiMaggio, Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth, but Roger Maris had narrowly beat him in the poll for MVP the previous year, all the more remarkable because Maris was a newcomer from the midwest. The sportwriters were divided in how they reported about the team, but almost all were more focused upon Mantle until the runs began to stack up. However, the press (and often, it seemed, the fans) were still favouring Mantle, and sometimes booed Maris when he would hit a home run.

Crystal did a good job at showing the kind of personal stresses, both family and professional, that Mantle and Maris had to endure going through what should have been one of the most glorious seasons in baseball history. There was a kind of institutional resistance to anyone breaking Ruth's record, but even more resistance to Maris than to Mantle. This is embodied in the asterisk that followed the number 61 in record books (and the title of this film) - Ruth's season was several games shorter, and it was deemed 'unfair' for Maris to take the record, having not hit the same number of runs in the same number of games. Eventually the asterisk would be removed, but not before Maris' death some time later.

Good little touches like Maris' special eggs (which Mantle began to eat with reluctance, but came around when Maris said he hit home runs after eating them), scrap book collections shown periodically throughout the film, the song 'I love Mickey', and other audio-visual pieces of baseball memorabilia make this a baseball trivia-buff treat. The personal stories of the family lives, increasingly under stress as both players come within striking distance of the record, show details most likely fictional, but certainly understandable.

Barry Pepper and Thomas Jane star as Maris and Mantle, respectively, and both turn in great performances as the athletes. They both look like naturals on the field and in the locker room, and do a good job with the personal angle as well, Pepper playing the low-key Maris and Jane playing the hard-living Mantle. They both bear striking resemblance to the men they portray, Pepper especially so. Other performers include Anthony Michael Hall, Richard Masur, and Christopher McDonald in memorable supporting roles. Donald Moffat as the commissioner Frick is especially good. Jennifer Foley (actually, Jennifer Crystal Foley, Billy Crystal's daughter) turns in a good performance as Pat Maris, the long-suffering and supportive wife, struggling from half a country away to be strong for her husband as he faces the stress of success.

Any baseball fan will love this film. Those who aren't necessarily fans of baseball may find a new-found passion for the game.

The Yankee's retired Maris' number 9 in 1984. Maris' bat is in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Perhaps some day, Maris will be, too.


I enjoyed every aspect of 61* from the wonderful character studies and contrasts to the game recreations to how well old Tiger Stadium was made to pinch hit for Yankee Stadium. I didn't know this ahead but it was done so credibly that when the end credits said Yankee Stadium had been played by Tiger Stadium I thought "What? How'd they ever manage that?" The "Making of" explained--it's almost as much a must-see as the film itself.

It took a huge fan like Billy Crystal to make this film and I'm very glad he did. Barry Pepper as Maris and Thomas Jane as Mantle both did great work and even bore close resemblances.

If you like baseball you'll love this film, and the "Making Of" DVD feature later.


Billy Crystal can be accused of presenting a heavily biased view of the Yankee summer of 1961, and his accusers would be right. Biased on the side of the truth, biased on the side of fairness to the characters, and biased on the side of historical integrity, "61" tells the story of one of the greatest seasons of all time for the New York Yankees--with admiration, with respect, and, above all, with a keen eye for how it really came down.

If you didn't witness first-hand the character assassination that plagued Roger Maris in his pursuit of Babe Ruth's home run record, "61" holds no resonance for you. You can't possibly understand what Maris went through that year just because his prowess for hitting home runs blossomed at record-breaking speed. You can't sympathize with him or the way he acted either. The more homers he hit, the more he was pursued, and the more he retreated. When Mickey Mantle tells Roger that he's the one making it hard on himself in his dealings with reporters--"I told you how to handle those guys. You don't want to listen."--it reveals the core of Maris' struggle with the press. Roger Maris was not a media darling--he shied away from the spotlight and he tried to protect himself and his family from the media circus that the 1961 season became for him. It was no contest, but he continued to fight for his privacy. He was just a guy doing his job and he wanted his privacy respected. It didn't help that he was threatening the greatest sports record of all time achieved by one of the most beloved sports figures in New York or anywhere. It didn't help that he was competing against another beloved and accomplished New York hero to break that record. This hick from North Dakota. What nerve. "Mickey should be the one to do it. He's a real Yankee." Many Yankee fans and baseball fanatics everywhere felt that way in the summer of 1961. Maris didn't deserve to be vilified because he wasn't the "proper" Yankee to break this record.

By now you must have surmised that I rooted for Roger Maris in the summer of 1961. That notwithstanding, all of what you see in "61" is true. There's no poetic license taken, no stretching of the truth for dramatic effect, no embellishments to make it a more interesting story (see "It Could Happen to You" and "Under the Tuscan Sun" for that). We can never know how close the relationship was between Mantle and Maris, but I trust Billy Crystal to have done his homework in his depiction of them as very good friends, not bitter rivals, as fabricated by the press. I trust Billy Crystal to have done his homework about every situation, every relationship, every line, and every detail in this movie. You can see that it was a labor of love for him. I thank him for setting the record straight where Roger Maris is concerned because it was about time.

If this movie doesn't pull at your heartstrings for any reason, then consider the irony of having gone through all that Maris did to break this record and have it noted in the record book that he did it in a longer season and the final irony of having that decision reversed after his death. "Roger Maris died 6 years earlier, never knowing that the record belonged to him." Maris died of cancer at the very young age of 51. He didn't deserve that either.


An exceptional story. Brilliantly acted (excellent casting), perfect direction... Why can't films at the box office be scripted like this? Baseball films are usually well done and 61* is no exception. The story of Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle coming to odds with breaking a legend's record has never been told better. They even look like the players! Great job by Billy Crystal, Thomas Jane and Barry Pepper for a great film. 61* does a good job trying to explain its very tagline: Why did America have room in its heart for only one hero? Did Yankees fans really feel that Maris was not one of the team? Did the media truly want to make his life miserable for chasing the Babe's record? The subplot is as good as the main story itself. Thumbs up.


I imagine the creators knew they were going to have to make some people unhappy when 61 was made. Any movie taking on what has become a personal subject to many is going to unavoidably disappoint a certain portion of its viewers. Even a flat rendering intending to take no sides, point of view, etc., will anger some whose point of view was not given prominence.

If not particularly daring, this film offers a nice throwback to melodramatic, episodic films of yesteryear; e.g., THE LOU GEHRIG STORY, the film about Dizzy Dean, etc. Nice touch to bookend 61 with Mark Maguire's breaking of Maris' record. The main emphasis on the overbearing, unfair media coverage was a little overdone. On the other hand, the special effects to create the older ballparks was terrific.

Never seen such a great job of matching actors to characters. James bears a strong resemblance to Mantle and Pepper is a dead ringer for Maris! Fun to watch if you've a son who know nothing of the 1961 chase when this viewer, indeed, remembers being told by adults that Mantle, not Maris, should break the record.


As others who have posted comments about "61*", I too am not a Yankee fan. I read a book several years ago called "Dynasty - When Rooting For The Yankess Was Like Rooting for US Steel". It was a great book, but didn't exactly leave you with a warm and fuzzy feeling about the team from the Bronx. Billy Crystal's movie, however, left me blinking back tears. It is nothing less than a love story to two men and a team that is truly legendary in a sport where the term "legend" is too easily used. And he showed Maris and Mantle as real people, warts and all. Barry Pepper and Thomas Jane were brilliant as the M&M Boys and Billy Crystal takes us back in time by giving attention to the tiniest detail. An aging Tiger Stadium was magically transformed into "The House That Ruth Built", monuments and all.

I grew up rooting for the Cleveland Indians, not an easy task. Back then, as now, the Yankees were our hated rivals, but even so there wasn't a kid I knew who wouldn't have given everything to be Micky Mantle. Despite his greatness playing for a team that could beat my local heroes more often than not, The Mick was one of those greats that just transcended partisan sports. It was easy to see why nearly everyone was rooting for him to break the Babe's record, and not Roger Maris. Billy Crystal, truly one who worshiped Mantle, makes Maris's ordeal seem almost mythic, but from all I have read, he exaggerated very little.

"61*" is possibly the greatest baseball movie ever made, and that's saying something. Watch it and relive what may be baseball's greatest season.


this is a great movie and i think it will be considered a classic the thing that pisses me off is that Marris isn't in the Hall of fame most people who don't know much about him think he only had that one good year when he broke the record but he was the MVP of the 1960 season and he played well throughout most of his career he should be in the hall of fame without a doubt there's four people that aren't in the hall of fame that should be shoeless Joe Jackson isn't there because he threw the world series even though he played excellent and Pete rose should be in there to it doesn't matter what he did off the field its what he did on the field that counts Marris is the next person not in i already explained why but the most shocking person not to be in the hall of fame is frank Robinson what the hell happened there


From the getgo, this movie seemed to recieve a lot of bashing, simply for the fact that it was a bout the Yankees. Whoever isn't a die hard Yankee fan, hates them more than anything. This leaves no room to be open to what a truly wonderful and moving piece of work this is.

There are really many things that are all put together to make this such a great film. The acting all around is first class, with great performances by young actors barry pepper and thomas jane. In addition Bruce MgIlls and Christopher McDonald do a wonderful job. However, what makes their acting come to life and so engrossing is the story they tell. Billy Crystal takes baseball back to its more glorious roots, the only two true home run races in baseball's history. What made Marri's and Mantle's chase of the mighty Ruth's record such a brilliant story to tell is because Babe Ruth is a baseball god, and seemed to have an ever present feeling in Yankee stadium. When Maris surpasses Ruth's record in 61' it was the fall of baseballs mightiest record, and the beginning of a new one. Crystal captures what it seems like every feeling and emotion of the magic in that year, and what was ultimantly the triumph of one baseball player over all odds.

The other, smaller potion of this film that is almost soul stirring is the brilliant editing of MgWire's 61 and 62 home runs to open and close the movie. Even years after, hearing Joe Buck call the short shot to the left field corner still sends chills up and down my back. That is a truly emotional moment in baseball and Crystal uses that in the most effective way, closing out his movie with the new home run champion acknowledging and respecting the former, which pays tribute to both the past and present.

No, there will never be another movie made about Barry Bond's breaking MgWire's record because he, in truth never did. He never earned anything, and i would rather be dragged out and shot than watch a two hour movie on how someone jams a needle into their ass every day to hit the ball 500 feet. That isn't baseball. This movie is baseball. It's what baseball was and what baseball is really all about.


As a rule, I am not a baseball fan. I don't loathe the sport, I just don't seek it out. I was interested enough to watch 61* based on the promos that HBO has been running.

I'm glad I did.

The story of the great M&M boys touches a nerve, whether you are a baseball fan or not. It's about the underdog, the little guy, the one that's easy to forget when blinded by the limelight. Mickey Mantle was the hero. Roger Maris was humanity. And that's exactly what this film displays. Rooting for the little guy, and that common thread that links humanity together.

Suddenly, Mark Mcguire's record breaking season took on a whole new meaning to me, and I understood the poignancy of the Maris children giving Mr. McGuire the bat.

Watch 61*. It might surprise you just as it did me.


i just watched this movie, and it was awesome. i thought it was very realistic, especially how the characters were portrayed. i think it would have sucked to have been in Roger Maris' shoes at times. he really had it bad that season from the fans and the press. this movie was really cool. i don't know if i am the only one, but i started to cry at the end, seeing mark mcgwire get choked up talking to the press about number 62. great movie, please check it out.


Barry Pepper and Thomas Jane portray two legendary baseball heroes like they grew up watching them play and play. The supporting cast adds to this film as Jennifer Crystal Foley (Pat Maris), Chris Bauer (Bob Cerv), Anthony Michael Hall (Whitey Ford), and Bruce McGill (Ralph Houk) brilliantly display the up and down emotions of dealing with two players thrust into the limelight of trying to break one of baseball's all time records. Billy Crystal does a masterful job directing this cast to recreate childhood memories of HIS hero (Mantle) and the battle he faces from Maris and his own demons.


There's not that much more I can say that hasn't already been said, but that said, I have to say this is one of the best sports movies ever! Even beyond that, it's a great movie even if you don't like sports or baseball. (But you may after you watch this movie.) Of course, 1st kudo's go to Billy Crystal for his brilliant and loving direction of a very accurate story of the 1961 home run race. It's obvious to anyone that he very carefully made this movie to reflect his love of the Yankess, Mantle & Maris and above all, baseball.

Next "award" would have to go to the screenwriter, Hank Steinberg. He does an OUTSTANDING job of keeping the story line moving, of telling an accurate story- being able to include details that lend authenticity to the movie. (Like how Mickey injured his knee & his father dying and his feeling that he wouldn't live long enough to regret how he treated his body.) He keeps us laughing, despite the seriousness of Maris' difficulties with the public and press during that year. Even people sending death threats in the "fan mail!" In a scene that makes me laugh every time, Maris makes his famous (or infamous) "eggs." I say "eggs" because they are green. He dumps a pile on Mantle's plate who looks at them & says, "What the hell's that?!" to which roommate Bob says, "Roger's special eggs" and Mickey says, "that's disgusting!" Roger tells Mick, last few times he ate them, he got home runs. Mickey tries them & says even though they're sh*t, he's in a slump & will try anything. There's another scene where someone threatens to kidnap one of Maris' kids while Mickey is over there for a barbecue. After he leaves, we see a late nite Mickey apparently with a few drinks in him, calling home to check on his own children at 2:30am. My point to all this is, whether these little side scenes are true or not, they are totally in keeping with the characters, the story line and the personality of the real people. AND he manages to get many of the facts in without seeming like a documentary. Hank's screenplay shows both men & their flaws, but doesn't dwell on them, because the story isn't about Mickey's drinking or Roger's homelife as much as it is about the 1961 race. He includes these things, not shying away or sugar-coating them, but he just makes them part of the people in the story--- not the story itself. This screen play is truly outstanding in everyway. The music by Marc Shaiman is very well done & appropriately moving as well.

And the performances by everyone are great! Thomas Jane as Mickey and Barry Pepper as Maris are not only similar-looking to the real people, they have both managed to emulate them without resorting to cheaply imitating them. (For another example, see Cate Blanchett in The Aviator as Kate Kepburn- it's difficult to play a famous person so well known without seeming to just do an impersonation.) The supporting cast is truly supporting. Bruce Gill as the Yankee's manager, Jennifer Crystal Foley as Maris' wife (yes, she's Billy's daughter, but her performance stands on its own. Interestingly to me, she looks a bit like Mantle's real life wife.) Richard Masur as the one reporter who isn't an ass. This movie does make you feel- you feel involved and care about the people in it. In one of the final scenes when Maris finally seems to get the support from the fans he deserves, you can almost feel yourself sigh in relief.

In the end this movie is about friendship, loyalty, respect and yes, baseball. One reviewer said this isn't a family movie because there is some language & innuendo. I'd agree it's PG-13, but hey, if you kid is in the room during the evening news, there's sensational violence and no morality- this movie has honor. Don't be afraid to watch it with any kid that is smart enough to get it. I'd like to end with a quote from the movie towards the end, when one of the reporters asks Maris, "do you think you earned their (the fans) respect holding up under all this pressure?" Maris says, "Oh gosh, I really don't think that's something you earn on a ball field." Too true. And both Roger & Mickey knew that. So did this films creative father, Billy Crystal. 5 out of 5 stars. GREAT FILM!!


As a fan of baseball and movies this has to be one of my favorites in both categories. Barry Pepper and Thomas Jane do a fantastic job in their roles as Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle. Billy Crystal(not to my surprise)knew exactly what he was doing for the movie and made it to be the best baseball movie I've seen since Field of Dreams(no offense to Rookie of the Year,Little Big League or the first two Major League movies). This movie made me like the Yankees for the first time in my life. Now if only someone could make a movie about the Pirates, aside from the original Angels in the Outfield. I'm sure there are movies, but let's get the biggest Pirates fan in Hollywood and have him make the Roberto Clemente movie...


61 is about two professional baseball players who are running to beat Babe Ruth's record. This is the best baseball movie or television series I have ever seen, clearly! The acting by Barry Pepper as Roger Maris and Thomas Jane as Micky Mantle were terrific. Their excellent duos. I don't know about you, but the series was a very realistic baseball movie. I remember watching this series on HBO because it was always on and all I was thinking was that this movie is just great. I mean there were a couple of flaws but other than that I really did like this series and the acting was amazing. I highly recommend.

Hedeen's outlook: 9/10 ***+ A-


Excellent, excellent work of Billy Crystal as the director of this TV film, which brought me back to the 50-60s when I was still a child. NY Yankees have always been one of the best and most persistent team in any sport during the 20th Century and the present 21st one. This film gave you the story of the feat done by the outfielder Roger Maris when in 1961 he broke the former record of 60 homers done by Babe Ruth in 1927. It is true that when Ruth played each team played 154 games while in 1961 there were already 162, but the fact is that in any league or championship it is a real feat to bat 61 homers, and this is what Maris did. The film was able to draw well the figures of Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris. The first one was the most beloved Yankee player at that time while Maris came to the team just in 1960, so he was not so admired as Mickey. It certainly gave an idea of modesty by Rogers and chaotic life by Mickey at night, the friendship between them, and the way they played. The story is nearly exact, still in Baltimore, Maris had to face powerful pitcher Hoyt Wilhelm, whom he could not bat properly, so he failed to tie the Ruth's record in his 154th game. The pressure during the last games was against his will to break the record, something that he achieved in his last game against the Red Sox. Fans in New York look to be as fans from Rome in soccer, nearly always senseless, without given the appropriate recognition to whom deserves it.


Baseball is a great sport, but an horrible subject for movies. Except perhaps for EIGHT MEN OUT, or films where the sport is not the principal subject, like COBB, FIELDS OF DREAM, FEAR STRIKES OUT or BULL DURHAM, a comedy. Every time someone tries to make a serious film about baseball, it always fail. Billy Crystal offers us nothing original. His film is full of clichés : abusive slow motions (on the crucial moments, of course) stupid special effect when we see the ball coming right to us, horrible heavy orchestral muzak (on the crucial moments, of course). But the two young actors, Pepper & Jane, are doin' a very fine job. Also, Crystal offers us a good early sixties set. Hey! How about a movie about Barry Bonds breaking McGwire record ? And, in a few years, how about a film about Vladimir Guerrero breaking Bonds record ? I hope that some day Spike Lee will make his movie about Jackie Robinson. That will be the best serious baseball movie of all time.


Billy Crystal has copied all of the worst features of movies, such as "A League of Their Own," that let sentimentality overwhelm what might have been an interesting story in someone else's hands. The gloppy music, the flashbacks, the cardboard characters all make this movie a waste of two hours and ten minutes. The use of slow motion at the end was painful and those closing notes were trite.

Has there ever been a good baseball movie? "A League of Their Own" was entertaining, but sticky sweet. "Bang The Drum Slowly" didn't quite measure up to the book. "Field of Dreams" was manipulative and corny [no pun intended]. And that's not even counting monstrosities like "The Babe Ruth Story" or Ronald Reagan as Grover Cleveland Alexander. I haven't seen the Hank Greenberg documentary, but it appears to me that there simply is not enough in the game to make a decent drama out of. Ken Burns' nine-part documentary proves the point.


Like a children's history lesson. Nothing worse than redundant dialogue that has to set the scene to save time. Two Yogi-isms in the first scene and then we don't hear from him again. Sort of like name dropping. Never been a Yankee fan and the depiction of the boorish Yankee fans and team have sealed their fate.


blah....sorry but I can't jump on the Billy Crystal Bandwagon and tell

everyone how great this movie was, because it wasn't really that

good.

Please someone find actors who can throw baseballs...I am sick

and tired of watching these types of baseball movies. At least

when Kevin Costner throws a baseball he looks like a ball player.

But oh well maybe my expectations were too high from seeing all

these great reviews.

City Slickers 3* anyone...anyone...anyone?


Don't tamper with my heroes. Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris were two of the greatest baseball players of the early 1960s whose accomplishments on the baseball field is now legend and to portray these two great athletes, these two great baseball players, these two great men who became legends in their own time, these icons of American sports history, as little more than spoiled, temperamental substance-abusers is outrageous. Mantle and Maris had personal weaknesses? So what? Who cares? What counts is what they did ON THE FIELD, in front of the ENTIRE WORLD!!! The year 1961 was one of the greatest years in the history of baseball. The Detroit Tigers won 103 games that year yet failed to win the American League pennant by SIX games because the Yankees won 109 games that year. Nary a mention is made of that important fact in the movie. What the Yankees accomplished that year was legendary and is talked about to this day and cannot be ignored when considering what Mantle and Maris did that year. This movie completely fails to capture the excitement and intense public interest in Mantle and Maris's chase of one of sport's most sacred records and further fails to place it within the context of the what was one of the greatest seasons in the history of the American league. No mention is made of the incredible pennant race between the Detroit Tigers and the The New York Yankees, a critical piece of information that is essential to better appreciating the circumstances surrounding the quest to break Ruth's record. Breaking Babe Ruth's single season record of 60 home runs was like breaking the sound barrier but this movie reduces the event to a hokey, schmaltzy mess and strangely attempts to portray Maris as a surly chain-smoking malcontent and Mantle as a temperamental, philandering alcoholic. I don't need Hollywood to show me that Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle were human beings with human frailties. I don't need Hollywood cutting down my heroes. What Maris and Mantle accomplished in 1961 speaks for itself. Breaking Babe Ruth's home run record is something that happened on the field, for the whole world to witness. How Maris and Mantle handled it is best left to the audience's imagination.

Any treatment of the subject of Mantle and Maris must include a more than just passing mention of the entire 1961 baseball season. The competition to break Ruth's single season home run record was brisk. That year SIX players in the American League and two in the National League hit more than 40 home runs. Also a relief pitcher, Luis Arroyo of the New York Yankees, had 15 WINS in addition to 29 saves, an incredible performance that is all but forgotten yet actually happened. Any relief pitchers winning 15 games nowadays?


Billy Crystal promised to make a tribute to the golden age of sport. A time when the games were played by athletes, not corporations. A time when the game was more important than the money. His movie concentrates on all the wrong things. He sees only the media, not the men. He should be ashamed to have disgraced the memory he purpots to hold so dear.


I just caught this made for TV film on Lifetime Movie Network. Mary Tyler Moore gives one of the most over the top performances of.....an over the top woman. For this script and portrayal, she was perfect.

The story is about an old, aging woman who thought she was a 'diva', but a bad grifter who wanted money and her way and would do anything to get it, and used anyone to get it - even murder.

This part of the story of Sante Kimes focuses on the disappearance of a wealthy New York socialite woman Irene Silverman, also played well by Jean Stapleton. According to this teleplay and the facts, Kenny - the son and Sante set up an elaborate scheme to take the 7 million dollar property from Ms. Silverman. Sante was preparing to assume the identity of Ms. Silverman and sell the property and keep the money. They were caught, but Ms. Silverman's body is still not found.

This teleplay focused primarily on the sociopath and psychotic nature of Sante and her interaction with her sons - Kenny and Kent. Kent left her grips early enough to have a somewhat normal existence, but Kenny was pulled in hook line and sinker to his mother's criminalistic demands. What you see in this portrayal of the story is Sante's manipulation to get whatever she wanted - and she got a rush from all of it. Even down to sexually seducing her own son for her personal gain, grifting and murder. You also see early on that Sante needed a man, some kind of man in her life to use as her foundation for whatever she did. While the performance may seem over the top, the real facts are about as unbelievable as the performances which is why this works for me.

Sante Kimes is an over the top and unstable human being. She thought she was "Miss It" ... as old as she was and tended to portray herself as much younger than she was (could have been due to her trying to keep up the sexual seduction with her son!) - and Mary Tyler Moore played her right on spot. Later, you'll find that Sante and Kenny Kimes have done more gifting and murder across the United States than of this Irene Silverman episode and that is what makes the thought of them more chilling than portrayed.

This is an over the top TV performance of an over the top criminal and her son. Not bad for a TV teleplay that went over the top to present an unbelievably true tale.


And Mary Tyler Moore as the sociopath Sante Kimes. Her history is very interesting, and frightening at the same time. Moore gives an excellent performance here, she is not over the top and quite believable as Sante.

Robert Foster delivers a good performance as Ken 'Pappa' Kimes- Sante married this man for his money, enjoyed the high life in Los Angeles, Nevada, the Bahamas and Hawaii. Apparently Sante was capable of anything. She got her husband into a political affair for Jimmy Carter's election (similar in personality to John Wayne Gacy, who worked volunteered for Rosalynn Carter, and Ted Bundy, who volunteered for the Republican Governor in the state of Washington).

Basically Sante flips when her husband does not leave her any money in his will- he leaves it to his children. This kicks in her major criminal behavior, which leads her and her son (who is her devoted slave) to New York City. She manages to get her attractive son to rent an upscale apartment owned by wealthy NYC socialite Irene Silverman, (well- portrayed by Jean Stapleton). The scenes with Stapleton and her boxer, Sophie, are truly upsetting. Silverman was murdered on 4th of July weekend, when her house-man and maid were off for vacation. I believe there was also a scene where they drove from NYC to Manalapan, Florida (The wealthiest city, near Palm Beach ).

In court, Sante stands up and screams to the judge ..."there is no body...so there is no case...I am innocent".... A truly frightening movie, as it is all true. Sante and Kenny were sentenced to 220 years in prison, and presently the state of California is attempting to extradite them for their crimes in California. Highly recommended.9/10


"Like Mother, Like Son" is a study in the degeneration of the potential of a child due to the influence of a narcissistic and soul sick parent. We have to believe that even if the son Kenny had exhibited some personality problems at an early age (I believe that initially he was as normal as any other kid), they need not be cemented into his character as they would eventually be under the misguidance of the psychopathic Sante. Sante is a master at manipulation, which to quote the Bible: "....is as the Sin of Witchcraft",bending husbands too, to her will. You wish that one of her unlucky lovers could have really cared enough about the sons to try to free them from her grasp. The elder son does eventually break free; it comes at a point where he is mature enough to discern that Sante's endless scheming guarantees that a productive life is impossible for anyone connected with her. Mary Tyler Moore has clearly shown us her true range as an actress here because in this film SHE IS Sante Kimes in all her ugly glory. Good acting all around in this disturbing film based on the real like Kimes and her unlucky, lost son.


The story is so bizarre but it is all true. Mary Tyler Moore deserves an Emmy nomination for her performance as the criminal mastermind, Sante Kimes. She really makes you forget her days on the Mary Tyler Moore and Dick Van Dyke shows altogether playing this incestuous control freak. She was true to her character as awful as she was. The real story behind it is such a tragedy. Poor Irene Silverman and other victims who was so suspicious and caught on to their act only to get murdered and discarded like garbage. It is such a shame that they never found her body and probably never will at this point. But what gall is that they filmed this in Australia. Come on, US can't be that expensive. The film is awful but true to the story. I have read several books on the case so you can't say it wasn't made up when it indeed happened.


Time of your life a series that stopped airing on the Fox network in 2000 was a show I really enjoyed and thought that it was going to run for at least one more season, but I guess the network thought otherwise, maybe its ratings wasn't high enough I am no sure. I was just a fan of it and watched it every Wednesday on fox for that whole year until they cut it. There were 19 episodes that were done, and was a unique series. I sure do hope they put it on DVD if there is high demand for it. Not that Jennifer Love would go back into it anyways, I mean she is a big movie star now. I am sure if she was interviewed about the show she would say that it was a good show and she enjoyed working on it and what party of five was the time of her life. This show was awesome.


I first wrote a review of this film here on IMDb back in June 2000. At the time I was totally in awe of the film, the script, the acting, the cinematography, the musical score and above all the direction from Tekashi "Beat" Kitano.

Some 18 months on and I still love the film and is certainly one of my top five international films. I have seen Kitano's latter films, Hana-bi, Brother, Tokyo Eyes & Gonin, and even though production values have improved, especially with Brother and Hana-Bi, I personally feel that Sonatine still remains Beat's best film to date.

In retrospect one can see within the film a vision of Beat's state of mind at the time. It is no secret that he tried to commit suicide in real life shortly after the completion of Sonatine. With this in mind it is easy to understand the motive within film and how it is structured within Kitano's head.

Even though it is a film about Yakuza and gangland killings Kitano doesn't fill every scene with a running commentary or 100mph action-fests. Instead Sonatine is very much an avante-garde kind of film with the "action" taking a backseat to the humdrum lives of the gangsters themselves.

Kitano is the boss of a successful Yakuza mob in central Tokyo at the expense of its poorer rivals. As a consequence a plot is hatched to get him and his members on a meaningless trip to Okinawa to sort out a peace-deal between waring factions and thus leaving his "patch" vulnerable to a take-over.

So Kitano's gang arrive in Okinawa only to find that there is no such "deal" but instead his gang are steadily killed off leaving only himself and 3 other gang members and an abandoned young woman, whom he saves from a rape ordeal by her husband

They move to the coast well away from central Okinawa and wait for the troubles to calm down before considering returning to Tokyo. During that time they have very little to do other than play beach games, sing songs or play Russian Roulette in order to pass the time.

But eventually even the beach hut where they live is no longer safe from the assassin's bullet and so Kitano has no other choice but to face his rivals once and for all in a bloody gun battle finale.

And so ends the film. It is not a happy film with no satisfying "Hollywoodesque" ending. Far from it, the ending only illustrates the working mind of Kitano at the time. In fact there are many examples within the film that underlines the bleak suicidal tendencies of his mind for real, especially the Russian Roulette scene.

It is also interesting that these gangsters think nothing of their own lives or safety: they accept their fate as a death-wish. They have witnessed so much death in their lives that they have lost their morality & humanity in themselves and to other people. So it is no surprise that during the various gun battles between rival groups neither Kitano or his men hide behind furniture in order to avoid the bullets. Instead they stand erect like statues firing their guns, hoping for the best waiting to be killed by their enemy in full view.

The life of the Yakuza in the context of this film, therefore, counts for little. They have no life, only a limited existence. There are few highlights - such as the Sumo scene, the firework fight and even the scene where Aya Kokumai removes her t-shirt in front of Kitano so that she is semi-nude before him. And yet not even this makes an impression on him. He is has become such an empty shell that even his sensual nature has long since gone, such is the life of a Yakuza warlord.

Critics would argue that this film is too anal for its own good, that nothing much happens and that the film is punctuated with "to camera" shots of the main protagonists looking vacant at the audience waiting for something to happen.

In my opinion these critics miss the point. There is a reason why they stare back at the camera/audience. There is no sparkle in their eyes, no smile playing on their lips, no supple skin tone, no positive body language to tell us that these people are really happy. Instead, we see nothing but ghosts, empty husks of humanity awaiting their fate with the silver bullet; they look at us as if they are pleading with us to put them out of their sad existence. They may have guns, the money, the power but they are not happy, they are not content, they are not you and me!

Sonatine remains one of the most influential films ever to come out of Japan. So impressed was I with this film that I created this IMDb login in honour of its majesty. Yes, it maybe seen as a sad act to name a login after a film but for me Tekeshi Kitano has yet to direct a better film and Sonatine will haunt me for all sorts of reasons for years to come, especially the excellent score from Joe Hisaishi.

*****/*****


I have always wondered why Americans always label everything they can lay their hands on; that's how Sonatine became "an action movie", Arizona Dream became "a comedy", etc. Maybe their viewers need to be told what is what because it's hard for them to think for themselves. Sonatine is NOT a typical action movie. Though the characters are gangsters and they DO kill people occasionally it's not the killings that are important. The director and the cast show that those gangsters are also human, with their likes and dislikes, their games and pranks, their love and loyalty.It's a very Japanese film showing the beauty of the fleeting moments of life, fragility of life, beauty of nature and of human soul which is capable of self-sacrifice and devotion. I particularly loved the game of cardboard wrestlers they palyed on the beach and the fireworks. It's fresh, genuine and filmed in a non-American way (thanks god!)mostly as far as its framing and editing are concerned. Calm and life-like sequences of frames make it look NORMAL, not "movie-like". Thanks god there's nothing like Unreal Tournament gun-happiness and no heroes walking away in a most manly way against the background of flames and nuclear explosions, which are omnipresent in American productions. Takeshi, go, go! We are on your side!


Sonatine is the last film in Takeshi Kitano's yakuza related trilogy. The first two films are Violent Cop and Boiling Point. Sonatine is, in a way, a combination of these two films, and it is the greatest in this outstanding trilogy, and Sonatine ranks also to the top in Kitano's filmography with Hana-Bi. Sonatine tells the story of middle aged yakuza boss Murakawa (played by Kitano) and his gang's trip to Okinawa to settle some yakuza wars and return the peace to the criminal underworld of Japan. However, they are assaulted many times there and they are forced to go to beautiful beach location and spend some days there and wait for orders from Tokyo, from the higher yakuza authorities. What follows is all the unique elements from both Violent Cop and Boiling Point and totally stunning and breath takingly beautiful piece of art.

There are all the Kitano elements as beautifully present as possible. The scenes are often without too much dialogue, and the film is very symbolical and calm. The faces are among the most important elements in Kitano's films, as there are so many things to be read from characters' faces. Kitano has created this very personal element and it is always there in his films. The setting at the naturally beautiful and uncorrupted seaside has been captured with the camera as brilliantly as we can expect from Kitano; this film is a result that would be born if Kitano had script in which read only one word: Beauty. Similarly beautiful film is his Hana-Bi and Boiling Point has also these elements.

The elements of beauty among others are flowers, firecrackers and colors in general. The scenes at the beach as the gangsters play and have fun are so full of life and certain positivism, it is easy to feel a need for crying during those scenes, and I must say that at least equally powerful experience is the mentioned Hana-Bi, translated to Fireworks in English. The theme of Sonatine is that those brutal and violent humans return to the time when they were still innocent and free of all the wickedness of the world. They play so emotionally and devotedly that it is clear they know there is a better place to be than this world. The girl that is raped is perhaps only person in the film who would not hurt anyone and is like angel here. She knows and has learnt many things about life by the end scene, and make sure you watch the film thoroughly and the end credits, too, as there is more imagery after the credits.

The music in Sonatine is outstandingly beautiful and sad, and is among the greatest musical experiences I've had the pleasure of hearing. The composer is the same as in Brother and Hana-Bi, and the work is as masterful in those more recent films, too. Violence in Sonatine is as sudden and irrevocable as in other Kitano films, and his films really show the real results and face of violence as a weak souls' tool of communicating. If someone considers Kitano's films gratuitously violent, they miss the whole point of the films; these film analyze and tell more about violence than most Hollywood films have ever done, but to admit this, one has to be able to interpret movies and really understand the abilities and power of Cinema. Kitano's films are far too difficult for many to understand, so it is no use trying to show his films to mainstream audience and people who see (if see!) in films only what is explained and said with easy means. If someone says without arguments or understanding to this art form some Kitano film is bad, stupid, gratuitously and excessively violent, unexplained or something else of the usual statements, it is no use taking those "opinions" seriously or consider them noteworthy because people who say so see exactly things that are NOT there.

Sonatine is one of Kitano's most masterful pieces of cinema, and is among the reasons why Japanese (and Orient) cinema is so unique. Sonatine gets 10 out of 10 rating from me, and makes Takeshi Kitano one of the most sensitive, symbolic, stylish in every sense and remarkable film makers of our time, and his films will live as important pieces of history of Japanese and world cinema.


I think the people who criticize this film do so because they've been trained to watch movies the way Hollywood makes them. This is as far from Hollywood as a gangster film can get. The quiet (or as some might say, boring) moments are there because the characters exist in a realistic world where sometimes they can do nothing but sit and think. Sonatine isn't perfect, but it can certainly be appreciated if the viewer will approach it with an open mind. Also, the sumo scene is very fun and beautiful.


This is exactly what I'd do if my gang's territory was being threatened by conspiracy and rivalry in the criminal underworld - hide out on a nice beach playing fantastic-looking firework and sumo games with me mates and some random passing woman, listening to crazy old men singing in incredible voices, watching out for assassins in fishing gear and generally building myself up for a massive showdown. Beat Takeshi is a genius with this kind of stuff, he makes his gangster a real man in full 3D, hardened by a hard life but still full of uncertainty and needs, and who in the world could have outdone his deadpan but humourous face, especially in those bleak final scenes. Shame about his appalling TV "comedy" though.


I'm not entirely sure what to make of this film--I suspect I need to view it at least once, and probably several more times before I can get a good hold on it. However, my inability to fully comprehend what "Sonatine" is about doesn't strike me as a flaw. Rather, the film is much more complicated than the usual gangster film.

It begins with very unsentimentalized and nonglorified violence. People hit and kill each other and it isn't much different than toast popping out of the toaster. It is fast, moderately bloody, and there. Kitano doesn't seem to be interested in thrilling us with either the danger, grotesqueness, or thrill of violence--another, not clearly defined agenda is at work here.

At perhaps a third of the way into the film, it makes a sudden transition from this gangster life to a period of forced inactivity. I suspect this section, which is delightfully playful, is at the heart of this film.


Having finally experience Sonatine, I can't say enough for this poignant and moving film. Beat Takeshi may face death with that same disconnected look on his face, but it is the inaction, the time between the killings, that carry all the meaning. Even when in gunbattles, nobody moves, nobody tries to dodge, it is as if everyone simply feels chained to their fate. This is jarring to Asian cinema lovers used to side-jumping, dual-gun gymnastics and amazing set pieces.

I love how the only emotions Murakawa expresses are humor and nihilist apathy. The "sumo scene" is so delightfully out-of-place, while the ending simply leaves your mouth open. The warmth the characters show just makes it more hurtful when they meet such pathetic, low-key ends. I'm not an expert on Japanese society, but I see this film as a comment on the emptiness of a fear-filled culture of reservation, where it is more important to show restraint and respect than it is to continue living.

I'll still enjoy good ol' HK pistol operas, but I'll never see them quite the same again.


This film is one of my all time favourites for chilling out to at night. The cinematography is beautiful, making full use of the lovely beaches of Okinawa, and the shots tend to linger on a face or a car driving off into the distance, which creates a sort of hypnotic effect on the viewer. The score is beautifully composed by Joe Hisaishi, who also gave you the music for Spirited Away. Personally, I think that the film wouldn't be half as good if it wasn't for the music.

Plot wise, it's quite basic. A group of Yakuza are assigned to Okinawa to make peace with a rival clan. Things go horribly wrong and they take shelter in a disused beach hut. I think the main subject the film deals with is what guys do to make the most of a bad situation. There is an underlying theme of helplessness and pessimism......Maybe self realisation. Although there is never any feeling shown by the main character, you get a perfect picture of the characters state through Kitano's relaxed acting style. He reminds me of an oriental mix of DeNiro and Keitel.

All in all, a classic film that speaks in whispers.

Andy


Like most of Beat Takeshi's movies, you have to really observe it, rather than watch it, to really appreciate his movies. His style is almost Zen-like in its lingering shots of people and scenery. You have to be very attentive to everything he presents to you, or you are just not going to "get it." People here in the US are used to being spoon fed their information and it's no different in US-made movies. They need to be told if the character is angry, sad, tired, etc... and movies like Sonatine tells you "hey, you're on your own, use your brain for once." In most Asian cultures, males tend not to verbally express their emotions, but they will show in their eyes and body language, which is why Westerners have such a hard time understanding our culture. I'm Chinese, born and raised in the US, and I found this movie to be a wonderfully complex and beautifully shot.


I've seen and admired his later movies, including Hana Bi and Dolls, but i wasn't quite sure what to expect when i got the DVD version of this. As you expect with Takeshi Kitano, its both mesmerizing and infuriating, always teetering on a tightrope with brilliance on one side and hopeless pretentiousness on the other.

Its so difficult to penetrate a movie like this - it is slow, but carefully paced, with a peculiar editing pattern. Scenes are held for a few seconds more than most directors would hold, catching characters staring blankly at the aftermath of an action. Events occur with little or no warning or apparent reason. Characters are mostly blanks - either husks of men, or just empty psychopaths, its hard to say. The climax is shown obliquely, from a distance, we can only infer what is happening later.

So, to put it mildly, this is not your average gangster movie. In some ways, it has suffered with the passage of time - we are now spoiled with such complex portrayals of gangsters such as in the Sopranos, we find it hard to accept Kitano's almost noble portrayal of what are in reality brutal, selfish sociopaths. Perhaps its the Japanese concept of people being pulled along by the tides of life, rather than actors in our own destinies that is the real theme of this and his other movies. But is this the excuse for the hero being a callous killer? We find ourselves sympathizing with his increasingly rotten soul, rather than empathizing with his victims.

Love him or hate him, Kitano is one of the most interesting film makers in the world today, and Sonatine is one of his best - just expect to be scratching your head in puzzlement at the end.