UNOwen

YES to all 3 of the reviews (right). ToH IS gorgeous, IS opera comes to life, and IS an 'acquired taste' - BUT is something to behold if you're simply a lover of originality, beauty. So much of what we see and hear are copies of copies. There are TRULY a few originals. A true work is someone who takes what went before and makes NOT just something new and different, ut, it MUST have a 'logic' it follows rigorously. In film making, the one person I can name who most people would be familiar with, to whom this applies would be Mr Stanley Kubrick. His work undoubtedly took from others, but, the end result was something unique. In (pop) music, the title would have to go to Mr Phil Spector, who, likewise, did the exact same thing with the music that had gone before. Both of these artists' imprint STILL plays a massive role in the work of ALL those who came after. This film - The Tales of Hoffman is by someone (Mr Michael Powell) who's known for 2 radically different films; this one of incredible beauty, and Peeping Tom (a film, which was banned, upon its initial release, and is now considered one of THE first - (if not THE first - films which took 'shock' and 'horror', and went FAR beyond what had gone before. Think Saw and that ilk's progenitor). A film which I can only say is to that oeuvre, as this is to the classic arts. If you've never seen Tales of Hoffman, and fit in as a film buff, this is definitely one you should see - simply for the cinematography, the incredible colours and such. Films like this are to be treasured and learned from. This doesn't mean it has to be one of those films (we all have) which we watch over-and-over. It IS a film which should be seen to help broaden a person's understanding of what can be done (and done beautifully).

Another thing, you dope; 'potpourri'? You've no clue WTD 'potpourri' is (though you CAN spell it); all - ALL - it is is a 'mixture of dried petals and spices'. OR a 'miscellaneous collection' -EITHER way, your grammar is PATHETIC.

You're not ver bright, 'smallens' - it's the SAME film. You ever hear of the Darwin Awards? You should enter. Dummy.

It's Die Hard...only with a black lead actor (I do like Mr Snipes).

They're the SAME film, 'genius'.

dg1956, you're absolutely IN-correct. As many people know, it's short for 3rd dimension'. I'm appalled at the phenomenal number of stupid idiots who have ATROCIOUS grammar - not knowing that ONLY proper names, the FIRST letter of a sentence - and only a few other criteria 0 are words which are capped, and, instead - capitalise any word they 'feel' should be (and don’t take advantage of what technology can offer to help - but, are quick as diarrhoea to play a video game, or some other b.s.), I'm the FIRST to tell someone to take remedial grammar, and lay off the ridiculous capitalising, but you're W-R-O-N-G. The OED vouches what I'm saying (they have it as '3-D'), as do a majority of (English language) dictionaries- so, while you're (technically) correct it's an abbreviation, this spelling is in the (VERY small) minority. In fact, both '3D', and 3-D' are found in much higher numbers than 3d and 3-d are..