Reviews (231)

So, what's your diag-nonsense?
The movie is based on the real life story of Susanna Kaysen (Winona Ryder), who was admitted to Claymoore, a mental institution, in the late 60's after drowning a bottle of aspirin with a bottle of vodka. She insists this wasn't a suicide attempt, but her parents and psychiatrist don't agree. While at Claymoore, Susanna meets the ohter inmates, Georgina (Clea Duvall), her roommate, who's a pathological liar, Polly (Elisabeth Moss), who everyone calls Torch and has been badly scarred by fire, Daisy (Britanny Murphy), who won't eat in front of anyone, Janet (Angela Bettis), who won't eat at all, and most importantly, Lisa (Angelina Jolie). Lisa is a sociopath. She constantly escapes Claymoore, only to return after having a crisis (or running out of money). She "runs" the place and is a major pain in the ass for Nurse Valerie (Whoopi Goldberg).

Soon after, Susanna starts to wonder if she's indeed crazy or if she's turning crazy by being there. The doctors at Claymoore, Melvin (Jeffrey Tambor) and Dr. Wick (Vanessa Grave) seem to think she's mentally ill, while her boyfriend Toby (Jared Leto) disagrees.

Susanna has to deal with the situation, trying not to spiral into insanity, but at the same time finding a substitute for a home amongst this group of rejects.

As for the acting, it is solid all across the board. Ryder does a convincing job as the lead character and all of the other actresses shine in their roles, especially Murphy, but this is Jolie's film. She steals almost every scene she's in, from the distressed crying on one of her downs, to frighteningly mad outbursts, to maniac lunacy. She earned a well deserve Oscar for her supporting role.

The director, James Mangold, has also helmed films like Cop Land (1997, with Sylvester Stallone, Robert DeNiro and Harvey Keitel), Kate & Leopold (2001, with Hugh Jackman and Meg Ryan) and Identity (2003, with John Cusack, Ray Liotta and Amanda Peet).

"I didn't try to kill myself...I had a headache"
"Girl, Interrupted" is the true story of Susanna Kaysen (Winona Ryder), a young woman who was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder during the 1960s. My favorite parts of the film were the transitions between scenes; the movie flowed beautifully. Susanna signs herself into Claymoore, a mental institution, after a failed attempt at suicide. At Claymoore, she meets a wide variety of different girls, each with different problems. There is Lisa the sociopath, played by Angelina Jolie and Daisy, a loner, played by "Clueless's" Brittany Murphy. Whoopi Goldberg rounds out the cast as Valerie, the head nurse on Susanna's floor. A bit reminiscent of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," "Girl, Interrupted" is one of the finest films I have ever seen. Winona Ryder is brilliant, I have never seen her portray a character better.

One Flew over the Girl
Of course any movie made about people in a psychiatric ward will resemble the classic 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest'. This we also do not know for sure if the leading character is sane or not.

Winona Ryder is great in this movie, though a little too pretty. The best perfomance comes from Angelina Jolie, who is just amazing. The movie is sometimes a little sad, frightening, scary but also moving. The ending is a little sweet but not too sweet. A happy ending with a twist.

The music is great since it plays in 1968, although the theme of the sixties is a little underplayed. It is still a great movie though.

It gives you a new look on how normal some people are.
This is one of the most brilliant movies. The acting is superb, and the story grabs you. Angelina Jolie and Wynona Ryder do really good performances. The movies makes you think about how different people are and not to judge and be more aware of people's feelings. The movie is awesome. I highly reccomend it.

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER
Girl Interrupted was on last tonight. You know when the shoplifter reads about BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER? What a revelation! That's me - well, except for the CASUAL SEX - but the DIRECTIONLESSNESS and the SELF-DESTRUCTIVE ACTS (I quit my job the other day).

All this time I thought I was an existentialist. I was wasting my evenings on Camus and Kierkegaard (my back is like a tightrope dancer's, twisted in my childhood, and therefore it is easy for me. One, two, three - I can walk upside in existence). What comfort: the condition is medical not metaphysical.

All I needs do is clear up my skin. Then I aim to complete those symptoms ... and I'd like to begin with Anjelina Jolie ... and even if she got all serious on me, that would be okay: I'd explain to her: the disorder was what was casual (- it was part of my directionlessness). Not you. My aim is true - I'm an existentialist. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

the standard setter
there have been 4 movies that blew all other sci fi movies away and set the standard for new omes.this one was the second one to do so.the story here is that the rebel alliance had a message transmission going out.the empire picked up on it and overtook the ship it came from.before they could be found out,they jettisoned 2 droids out in hopes of survival.some desert people sold the droids to lukes uncle.luke accidentaly found the message.it was a chick trying to find o.b.won ken o.b.[i know i know]he found him and ben took him along to adventure.luke ends up in the rebel alliance flying a starship.the kids will enjoy it as it is full of giant teddy bears,fantastic laser light demonstrations and exitement.george lucas made this film.it rules!did he ever do a non-star wars related movie?this is the 1st of a big set.the best set anywhere with 6 soon to be 7 awesome episodes.this movie is for everybody.theres one slimy part where theyre trapped in a garbage disposal.leia is the only chick about and she kisses her brother!thats some sick sh........stuff.of course she didnt know but still.oooohhh!the special effects were top of the line in 77.theyre still cool now.this movie is one the all time greatest contributions to film ever!

Everything I need 2 know about life I learned from Star Wars
Title of the review says it all. Move on with life:)

Great 1977 Original
Star Wars (1977)

This is the great original Star Wars, the 1977 movie in which the world first discovered the allure of The Force and the Jedi Knights. Young Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) teams up with Jedi veteran Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness) and the mercenary Han Solo (Harrison Ford) to rescue the gorgeous Princess Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) from the sinister clutches of Darth Vader and the evil empire.
High space adventure, with creatures like Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew) and the delightful R2-D2 (Kenny Baker).
With the final Star Wars (but will it be the final?) set for release later this year , the original trilogy is a great buy to refresh your memory.

A momentous battle between good and evil. With the empire perhaps at the time representing the evil Soviet Empire, which the free world was then fighting against for freedom in 1977. It has that wonderful 1970's feel, and who would not want to rescue the sexy huggable Princess Leia, even if it means battling the goons of the empire and the horrific Darth Vader?
In my opinion this great original one is the best of the lot.

Great 1977 Original
This is the great original Star Wars, the 1977 movie in which the world first discovered the allure of The Force and the Jedi Knights. Young Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) teams up with Jedi veteran Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness) and the mercenary Han Solo (Harrison Ford) to rescue the gorgeous Princess Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) from the sinister clutches of Darth Vader and the evil empire.
High space adventure, with creatures like Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew) and the delightful R2-D2 (Kenny Baker).
With the final Star Wars (but will it be the final?) set for release later this year , the original trilogy is a great buy to refresh your memory.

A momentous battle between good and evil. With the empire perhaps at the time representing the evil Soviet Empire, which the free world was then fighting against for freedom in 1977. It has that wonderful 1970's feel, and who would not want to rescue the sexy huggable Princess Leia.
In my opinion this great original one is the best of the lot. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This live-action version of E.B. White's novel doesn't have quite the magic of, say, Toy Story. Instead of entertainment the whole family can be enthralled with, Stuart Little is squarely aimed, and successfully so, at the 4- to 10-year-old watcher. Does this make it a bad family film? Not in the slightest. The gee-whiz visual effects (created by original Star Wars wizard John Dykstra) and the film's ebullient wholesomeness make this a welcome addition to the home library.

In E.B. White's world, it's hardly surprising that human parents would adopt "outside their species." The smooth-talking mouse Stuart (voiced by Michael J. Fox) seems the perfect new child for parents Geena Davis and Hugh Laurie, especially with an adorable wardrobe of very small sweaters and pants. Harder is fitting in with the Little's family cat, Snowbell (voiced by Nathan Lane, who also deftly voiced Timon in director Rob Minkoff's last feature, The Lion King). The simple story deals with Stuart trying to fit in with his new life, including big brother George (Jerry Maguire's scene-stealing Jonathan Lipnicki). And of course there's an adventure when Snowbell's schemes lead Stuart into true danger, in the form of the devious plans of an alley cat named Smokey (voiced by Chazz Palminteri). Brisk--85 minutes--amusing, and tolerably cute, Stuart Little stands tall. Two curios: The effects are so cleanly done that we could call Stuart the first successfully computer-animated actor, and the screenplay was cowritten by M. Night Shyamalan, who made bigger waves in 1999 writing and directing The Sixth Sense. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (162)

Fun entertainment that suffers from an overly-mawkish tone
Stuart Little

Score: 64/100

He's clever. He's enthusiastic. He's a can-do little guy with an attitude. And he's a mouse. From the co-director of The Lion King and the writer of The Sixth Sense comes an entertaining family film from classic American author E.B. White. It's surely a star-studded crew there, and there's not much a family of four could white other than a couple of talking mouse's and many exciting scenes. Even though Stuart Little falls flat from a few flaws, it's still a fun children's comedy, that will be worth your time, depending on your feelings towards movies like this.

In a cosy house near New York City's Central Park, Mr. and Mrs. Little (Hugh Laurie and Geena Davis) bring home a surprising addition to the family...Stuart (voiced by Michael J. Fox), and he's a er...mouse. Despite the urgings of Mrs. Keeper at the orphanage to adopt within their own species, the Littles beam with the pride of new parents. At home the little guy with a big heart (not to mention whiskers, a little pink nose and a really dapper wardrobe), searches for a sense of belonging and a place to call home in the decidedly supersized world. When Stuart is adopted by the Littles he embarks on an adventure with a variety of characters - including his nemesis, the cat Snowball (voiced by Nathan Lane) - and learns the true meaning of family, loyalty and friendship. The Littles, in the meantime, each discover there is a Stuart in all of us - the spunk, spirit and courage to be true to ourselves and follow our dreams despite the odds.

Stuart Little is a good movie, but it suffers majorly from an over-corny note. It's big smiles and drowning frowns all the time, none of the characters ever look normal. Their expressions are practically drawn in, and none of them have much originality about them apart from Stuart, of course. Still, the film provides plenty of entertaining scenes, including an exhilarating cat chase and a superb boat race. It may have a sense of bore in some parts of the film, but overall, it's a very bearable movie that will silent children and, surprisingly, adults for a rainy day. It's a film that combines live action with some groundbreaking visual effects by artists and innovators who have taken digital character creation to a bold new level with the birth of Stuart. The visual effects are the most plausible thing about the film, they are truly memorable, it's some of the most amazingly done animal-talking done since Babe.

Not as good as it could've been, Stuart Little is still watchable fun, a film where you can really expect the whole family to enjoy it.

Pleasantly surprised
I rented this DVD because I am a huge fan of British actor (and musician, comedian, novelist...) Hugh Laurie, and was very pleasantly surprised.

The animation is outstanding, so much that you don't even notice it, and Michael J. Fox is absolutely perfect as the voice of Stuart. The very colorful, almost-realistic-but-not-quite setting was quite well done, and the group of acting cats must have been a monumental accomplishment. Jonathan Lipnicki is cute as a bug, and Hugh Laurie (great fake accent!) and Geena Davis are perfect storybook parents who finish each other's sentences and eat a lot of meatloaf. Rounding out the talent is Nathan Lane as the voice of Snowbell, the cat who is mortified at having a mouse in the family.

It is fascinating to watch the extra features and to see just how much work went into making Stuart so real. Excellent work! A clean, fun, enjoyable movie.

Stuart Little brought to life
This is a marvelous adaptation of E.B. White's tale of the little mouse who found himself a place by the hearth in an all too human family. It is such a wonderful story and the animation brings Stuart Little to life. Hugh Laurie and Geena Davis play the adoptive parents to a tee, and the other members of the family provide excellent support. Jonathan Lipnicki turns in a first class performance as the reluctant brother.

The story plays out effortlessly, with wonderful scenes moving back and forth between mad-cap adventure and family bonding. The animation team really outdid themselves with Stuart and his fake mouse parents, who make a fantastic entrance midway through the movie. The conspiracy of cats is mostly humorous, and not overly frightening for little ones. Every scene appears to have been meticulously created. The toy boat race is riveting. The kids will love every minute of it, as will adults as this movie avoids the typical pratfalls of family entertainment. The DVD also provides some nice add-ons, such as storyboard sequences for some of the scenes and mouse trivia games for the kids.

Mickey Mouse
Magical, heartwarming family film based on E.B. White's children's book. A couple's adoption of a second son, oblivious to the fact that he's a mouse, leads to problems with their human son which plae in comparision to the family cat's resentment. High-quality computer-generated detail allows the mouse to appear real and permits the many featured cats to talk freely. Jonathan Lipnicki is adorable as the human son and the voices of Michael J. Fox as Stuart and Nathan Lane as his nemisis Snowbell perfectly fit the roles.

Animals steal the show
There are few kids movies I can sit through more than once--this one I've already seen 7 times! My son is now over 3 and he can load the DVD player himself and turn on the TV. Guess what gets put on now?! I must say that I love that the movie doesn't patronize my son. There are heavy issues here: fear of being alone; fear of violence; fear of failure--but the characters aren't obsessed or broken by their fears, they confront them and work through them. For example, when Stuart is trying to make friends with the family pet cat Snowball, Stuart says rather naively, "Can't we just be friends? Do you want me to scratch your ear? Can I pat your tummy?" to which Snowball answers, "How'd you like to pat it from the inside mouse-boy!?" Direct, without wishy-washy handwringing, or moralizing. My son says that he "loves Stuart." I too love Stuart. ... Read more

Reviews (70)

Well animated but not true to the strip
Garfield: The Movie is a fairly straightforward story with no secondary tales or other touches that could take this film out of kidvid. The interaction between the animated Garfield and the real actors and sets is subtle, rather than the eye-popping wow! of Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Unlike better family films such as Shrek or Finding Nemo, this one is strictly for kids as there is little to keep an adult's interest.

The movie starts out with a few scene-setting vignettes, brief unconnected tales much like the Jim Davis comic strip the movie was lifted from. But right away something is amiss. Jon, Garfield's human, isn't presented as a complete loser. He lives in a very nice house in an unspecified part of the midwest that looks suspiciously like Oak Park or a similar John Hughes location. The furnishings are tasteful and reasonable quality. And Jon isn't completly incompetent in his day to day actions.

And what's worse, Jon's unrequited feelings for Garfield's veterinarian, Liz, are not thrown in his face (as per the strip) but returned within the first 20 minutes. The vet character is just as wrong as Jon; both are cute, thin, and dress well. Jon should be a zhlub, Liz should be strictly business. Here, Jon's a heartthrob and Liz dresses like she's on her way to a disco. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

The major plot point is okay (evil cable-TV animal show host kidnaps Odie after dog wins a blue ribbon, Garfield rescues him), the animated Garfield is done well, and the status quo is preserved. My kid liked it okay. But I would not advise anyone over 12 to watch this unless accompanied by an interested elementary schooler. 14 June 2004 by mad-haus

Garfield the movie.
I saw this movie. I like it. It's funny, cute. Good movie.

Why listen to the critics? This movie's great!
Entertainment Weekly said Garfield was a cloddish, unfunny dud.

For all I care, they can wear dunce caps on their heads (ha ha.)
I personally like Garfield, especially the part I like to call, "cat meets gravity, cat hits truck window." Garfield has tyke-friendly jokes, but, WHO CARES? Garfield is a fun movie that I would recommend to all fans. So, Garfield fans should just push the critics aside, and enjoy Garfield.

Bill Murray+Garfield=THE BIGGEST LAUGH YOU'LL EVER HAVE!!
When I heard about the Garfield movie, I thought, (Hey, I love the Garfield comic, and I LOVE Bill Murray, I'd love to see it!) So I went to see it with my parents and my friends, Laura and Andrew. I laughed my head off! Bill was AWSOME and Garfield looked like a real cat! The funniest part was when Garfield accidently destroyed the owner's living room!! (I forgot the owner's name.) The people that didn't care for it were; my Mom and Andrew. Tho everyone thought Garfield looked like a real cat! I wanna see it again, tho my Mom said no. I'm buying the DVD when it comes out. I recommend this movie to anyone who likes, Bill Murray, Garfield the comic, and/or silly humor. Fortunely, I like all three! ME-ow 4 now!

Out of character from start to finish
So, I just saw this recently ("That's your own darn fault", I can almost hear you say) and it is indeed everything the more reputable reviewers have called it, plus a side of fries. From the very first scene on, this Garfield is the polar opposite of his comic book equivalent, talking incessantly, recklessly jumping around, waking Jon so he can make it to work in time (and though he is never seen working, Jon must indubitably have a very cushy job, judging from his at least one million dollar home). Hmmm, I always thought Garfield conserved energy as much as possible.

If this film resembles anything, it's one of those bad Disney talking animal movies from the '60s. Plot modus operandi: Animal with extraordinary abilities is abducted and exploited by evil, greedy big city person, other animals and/or animal owners must come to the rescue. Yawn. I wouldn't even mind the uber-generic plot contrivances if they were spruced up with some decent gags, but you could count this film's laughs on one finger. What Garfield really needed was a punch-up by a bunch of Simpsons writers.

I wouldn't mind buying Chris Beck's (Buffy) fun but rather standard score if I came across it in a bargain bin somewhere, but barring that unlikely scenario I'm likely not going to go out of my way to track down a promo. Even his work here remains more of a "Meh" than a "Hmmm... neat." ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

When this popular prison drama was released in 1994, some critics complained that the movie was too long (142 minutes) to sustain its story. Those complaints miss the point, because the passage of time is crucial to this story about patience, the squeaky wheels of justice, and the growth of a life-long friendship. Only when the film reaches its final, emotionally satisfying scene do you fully understand why writer-director Frank Darabont (adapting a novella by Stephen King) allows the story to unfold at its necessary pace, and the effect is dramatically rewarding. Tim Robbins plays a banker named Andy who's sent to Shawshank Prison on a murder charge, but as he gets to know a life-term prisoner named Red (Morgan Freeman), we realize there's reason to believe the banker's crime was justifiable. We also realize that Andy's calm, quiet exterior hides a great reserve of patience and fortitude, and Red comes to admire this mild-mannered man who first struck him as weak and unfit for prison life. So it is that The Shawshank Redemption builds considerable impact as a prison drama that defies the conventions of the genre (violence, brutality, riots) to illustrate its theme of faith, friendship, and survival. Nominated for seven Academy Awards including Best Picture, Actor, and Screenplay, it's a remarkable film that signaled the arrival of a promising new filmmaker--a film that many movie lovers count among their all-time favorites. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (692)

Triumphant celebration of the human spirit
First off, this reviewer regularly rates this movie as his personal favourite of all time. Why only four stars then? Because we are asked to rate the DVD, not the movie, and the criminal lack of DVD extras for one of the best films ever made is shameful. So, film five stars, DVD three - averaging out at 4. Maths lesson over, on with the review.

Based on the Stephen King novella ' Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption ' this really has become a modern day classic. Other films have grossed more, and may have a more immediate following, but Shawshank will endure for years, and become another 'Casablanca ' loved by generations to come.

The film tells the story of Andy Dufresne, sent to the maximum security prison of Shawshank for the murder of his wife and her lover. Played with an under-stated intelligence by Tim Robbins in a career defining turn, and supported by sterling performances from Morgan Freeman, Bob Gunton, William Sadler, Clancy Brown, and veteran James Whitmore. Morgan Freeman's work is particularly notable, not just for his performance ( let's face it, the man doesn't know how to give a bad one! ) but also for the fact that his is the voice of the film. His chocolate-rich tones were director Frank Darabont's choice for the voice-over of the film, as if his character Red is talking to us, and explaining the sub-text of the film. Voice overs often dont work ( Blade Runner being a prime example ) but this one does, perfectly.

Beginning at a slow pace, the film begins with the brutal de-humanising regime meted out to the 'Fresh Fish' as they begin their incarcaration in Shawshank. I remember suggesting my wife watch the film after I'd seen it, and she, being of a considerably more sensitive nature than me, found the early scenes difficult. If you too find the opening 45 minutes a tad heavy going, stick with it - the reward is worth it.

Eventually as we progress through the film, we see how Red's initial suspicion of Andy becomes a deep respect, and eventually a deep friendship, indeed it would be true to say that these two men love each other like brothers by the end. There are a few key scenes that really stick in the memory - the rooftop scene, the opera aria scene, the exam result scene - all of which enable us to begin to like these men, men we probably wouldn't have wanted in our homes before the film, but who we'd happily sit down to dinner with after.

The film's true emotional impact of course comes in the final third as we learn the truth about Andy's guilt or otherwise. True to many of King's works, there is a twist in the end which leaves us all stunned, and with a big stupid grin on our faces. The total and utter defeat of the dark forces in the film is accomplished with such applomb that you find yourself rooting for the bad guys - the prisoners, a bunch of murderers and misfits that two hours earlier you were deeply suspicious of. Indeed the last section of the film plays almost totally without our hero, and remains almost my favourite portion of it. By this time we are crying out for the final fulfilment of our hopes for the characters. It is to Frank Darabont's eternal credit that he accomplishes this in a scene without dialogue, and a sweeping panoramic withdrawl from the characters, leaving us with not a dry eye in the house, and a feel-good glow that lasts for days.

... while in [a local store] I noticed this man and wife trying to decide which DVD they would buy to view that evening. I pointed to Shawshank. "Ever seen this one?"
"No"
"Trust me" I said, "It's the best movie you've never seen." He bought it, and I like to think I made that man and wife cry, laugh and smile that evening.

To conclude, Warner Bros and Castle Rock - SHAME ON YOU! This movie deserves better. The Region 2 version rocks, so get busy, re-package, and give us fans the extras this classic deserves!

One true consensus !
To be honest, sometimes it seems odd that so much people write similar things about this magnificient film, but then again, everybody ,including myself ,wish to express and convey his thoughts and emotions in his/her special unique way.

Hence, I decided to take my time to write a few words . I hope you'll like them (The immediate reason for this is that I'm currently reading the novel,four years after seeing the movie for the first time).

Andy Dufresne. The name evokes nobel feelings in me whenever I hear it.Portrayed so wonderfully by Tim Robbins,it represents so much ; A man who had had everything,lost everthing and,finally, gained everything back.

His character is one of the most inspiring I've ever known. What a man ! An example of the strength of the human spirit, and one basic rule : diligence and patience with a little bit of luck and wisdom can get you anywhere . . . Even outside the walls of Shawshank state penitentiary...

If you've seen it once - see it again ! It never loses it's impact. Watch it whenever you're down and feeling like everything is going wrong .I bet it shall lift your spirit just a little bit higher ,and help you through the crisis .

Review of a review
Whoever wrote the following review, I've got to hand it to you for almost pulling my leg. This is funny stuff, I actually thought you were serious at first. I'm sure they're many ninnies who will put their DVD copy in now and think there's something wrong. Keep it up.

Anyhoo, The Shawshank Redemption is a great piece of work. Better on DVD than in the theaters (unless you get to take that special someone to the last row . Buy it if your internet connection just happens to be down. Of course that last statement was a joke.

---
My third submission on this, if you are doubtful, check for yourself. I own the VHS of Shawshank. I recently purchased a DVD player and Shawshank was one of my first disks. I set both the disk and the tape up to play simultaneously, and flipped back and forth to compare the superb quality improvement of DVD. I was in for a surprise. The picture DOES NOT get wider-AS IT SHOULD-and the top and bottom of the picture of the DVD version are ERASED and replaced by the black bars. The other movie I found with this flaw is Jackie Brown. Check out the point where Bridget Fonda "services" Robert DeNiro. On the VHS widescreen version , her "buns" disappear. They are fully visable on the fullscreen version! The top and bottom have been erased on the widescreen version and the picture does not get any wider. I suspect more movies have this flaw. Now that we know what to look for, let's look!
---

Great story, wondrously told and acted
At the heart of this extraordinary movie is a brilliant and indelible performance by Morgan Freeman as Red, the man who knows how to get things, the "only" guilty man at Shawshank prison. He was nominated by the Academy for Best Actor in 1995 but didn't win. (Tom Hanks won for Forrest Gump.) What Freeman does so beautifully is to slightly underplay the part so that the eternal boredom and cynicism of the lifer comes through, and yet we can see how very much alive with the warmth of life the man is despite his confinement. Someday Morgan Freeman is going to win an Academy Award and it will be in belated recognition for this performance, which I think was a little too subtle for some Academy members to fully appreciate at the time.

But Freeman is not alone. Tim Robbins plays the hero of the story, banker Andy Dufresne, who has been falsely convicted of murdering his wife and her lover. Robbins has a unique quality as an actor in that he lends ever so slightly a bemused irony to the characters he plays. It is as though part of him is amused at what he is doing. I believe this is the best performance of his career, but it might be compared with his work in The Player (1992), another excellent movie, and in Mystic River (2003) for which he won an Oscar as Best Supporting Actor.

It is said that every good story needs a villain, and in the Bible-quoting, Bible-thumping, massively hypocritical, sadistic Warden Samuel Norton, played perfectly by Bob Gunton, we have a doozy. I want to tell you that Norton is so evil that fundamentalist Christians actually hate this movie because of how precisely his vile character is revealed. They also hate the movie because of its depiction of violent, predatory homosexual behavior (which is the reason the movie is rated R). On the wall of his office (hiding his safe with its ill-gotten contents and duplicitous accounts) is a framed plaque of the words "His judgment cometh and that right soon." The irony of these words as they apply to the men in the prison and ultimately to the warden himself is just perfect. You will take delight, I promise.

Here is some other information about the movie that may interest you. As most people know, it was adapted from a novella by Stephen King entitled "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption." Rita Hayworth figures in the story because Red procures a poster of her for Andy that he pins up on the wall of his cell. The poster is a still from the film Gilda (1946) starring her and Glenn Ford. We see a clip from the black and white film as the prisoners watch, cheering and hollering when Rita Hayworth appears. If you haven't seen her, check out that old movie. She really is gorgeous and a forerunner of Marilyn Monroe, who next appears on Andy's wall in a still from The Seven Year Itch (1955). It's the famous shot of her in which her skirt is blown up to reveal her shapely legs. Following her on Andy's wall (and, by the way, these pinups figure prominently in the plot) is Rachel Welsh from One Million Years B.C. (1966). In a simple and effective device these pinups show us graphically how long Andy and Red have been pining away.

Frank Darabont's direction is full of similar devices that clearly and naturally tell the story. There is Brooks (James Whitmore) who gets out after fifty years but is so institutionalized that he can't cope with life on the outside and hangs himself. Playing off of this is Red's periodic appearance before the parole board where his parole is summarily REJECTED. Watch how this plays out at the end.

The cinematography by Roger Deakins is excellent. The editing superb: there's not a single dead spot in the whole movie. The difference between the good guys (Red, Andy, Brooks, etc.) and the bad guys (the warden, the guards, the "sisters," etc.) is perhaps too starkly drawn, and perhaps Andy is a bit too heroic and determined beyond what might be realistic, and perhaps the "redemption" is a bit too miraculous in how beautifully it works out. But never mind. We love it.

All in all this is a great story vividly told that will leave you with a true sense of redemption in your soul. It is not a chick flick, and that is an understatement. It is a male bonding movie about friendship and the strength of character, about going up against what is wrong and unfair and coming out on top through pure true grit and a little luck.

#2 RATED MOVIE ON THE IMDB (AND FOR A REASON !)
Great film with classic and quotable lines. The narration by Morgan Freeman is also superb. Many touching moments which is specially odd in a prsion movie.
Highly recommended. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

A great comedic discovery.....
Not too many people have heard of the 1967 film "The Flim Flam Man," and that's too bad for them. I have owned this lovely valentine of a movie for several years, and have always appreciated its comedic/dramatic allure. Everything clicks perfectly in this old fashioned film, from its authentic locations (this movie was filmed in small town Kentucky) to a wonderful musical score by Jerry Goldsmith.

I love George C. Scott's rip-snorting performance as a train-hopping con-man whose legend precedes him. He literally stumbles upon a military AWOL drifter in Michael Sarrazin, and the unlikely pair join forces to make a little cash. Camping in abandoned railroad cars, hiking cross country and stealing a car or two, this colorful pair eventually has the county police hot on their tails. Along the way, Sarrazin falls in love with the mayor's daughter, Slim Pickens loses his paycheck (great scene) and Scott samples a bit of the local moonshine.

"The Flim Flam Man" is aided by a cast of extraordinary character actors, including Harry Morgan, Jack Albertson, Strother Martin, Albert Salmi and Pickens. Morgan, as the local sheriff, is especially funny in a grand slapstick role. But director Irvin Kershner has done an excellent job in balancing comedy, drama and romance with skilled ease. It's the quieter moments in "The Flim Flam Man" that I truly admire, such as the scene when Scott reminisces about the purple-eyed girl he once loved in Missouri, or when Sarrazin discusses his dreams of the future with Sue Lyon.

This is such a charming movie, that each time I watch it I'm sad to see it end. "The Film Flam Man" transports us to a dreamy Southern land, colorful and optimistic, train whistles in the background, vibrant town squares, campfires beneath railroad bridges, bustling general stores. While this film was made in 1967, the small town ambiance of "The Flim Flam Man" harkens back to a time 30-40 years prior. It's a romantic recreation, in some ways a tender tribute to a past way of life. I always find the final image, of the abandoned bicycle resting at the railroad crossing, to be haunting, with Scott's character having disappeared to rustic parts unknown. I would love to join him on his journey.

For those anacquainted, "The Flim Flam Man" is a great discovery.

Forget Patton - give me Mordecai!
As loveable rogue Mordecai Jones, George C. Scott endures bad community theatre make-up and inhales acres of gorgeous Southern scenery in this picaresque crowd-pleaser about a veteran con-man and his reluctant apprentice (Michael Sarrazin). Three years shy of the career-defining "Patton," Scott clearly relished the chance to let his hair down amid "Flim-Flam Man's" feel-good flood of chicanery, slapstick and car chases (this one has a couple of beauts). Sarrazin, a good actor who unfortunately never found his big break-out role, is fine as Curley, an Army deserter whose talent for larceny is undermined by a stubborn streak of honesty. Flaxen-haired beauty Sue Lyon, who epitomized, in the Sixties, the image of the girl you wished lived next door, is wholesomely alluring as Sarazzin's love interest. Rounding out the cast is a dizzying assemblage of fun character actors - Harry Morgan, Strother Martin, Alice Ghostley, Slim Pickens, Jack Albertson, Albert Salmi - whose presence makes for a lively game of "Name That Second Banana."

An unassuming curio from the same year (1967) as the iconoclastic "Bonnie and Clyde," "The Flim-Flam Man" is good-looking, well-acted, imaginatively directed (by Irvin Kershner, who later skippered "The Empire Strikes Back"), and wildly successful at its sole purpose: to entertain. Hollywood used to excel at this brand of lightsome fare. Today, hopelessly vulgarized and dumbed-down, and hell-bent on dragging the audience down to its level, Tinseltown wouldn't know where to begin to make a flick like this. That's everybody's loss.

DVD Please
This movie is truly a classic. Very touching and funny is George C. Scott as Mordecai "the flim flam man". This could be classified as a road picture as Scott and Michael Sarrison an army deserter during the Vietnam War, go from town to town pulling scams on hicks who are also trying to get something for nothing. Henry Morgan is very funny as the sheriff chasing them. Where is the DVD for this movie. Sue Lyon who was a hottie in the 1960's plays the love interest of Sarrison, and daughter of Henry Morgan. Morgan starts out chasing a moonshiner named Dootle whom he thinks made his last escape by using an "anphobibias" vehicle. To not like this movie means you are humorless, there is a great car chase even by todays standards.

George C.'s favorite
A light comedy with some meaningful undertones. It was also one of George C. Scott's favorite roles. Filmed in beautiful central Kentucky in the early fall of 1966, this movie is somewhat dated in it's meanderings, but its value focus is as pertinent today as then. A can't miss for any George C. Scott fan.

A Serious Actor Does Comedy--Very Well, Thank You!
Most of us probably think of George C. Scott and think "Patton." In this movie he plays a character about as far removed from General George as you can get. Mordecai Jones is a con artist with a mission: to teach people (by "flim-flamming" them) not to give in to "greed and fourteen-karat ignorance." Jason "Curly" Treadaway, a farmboy who has deserted the Army after breaking the jaw of a mouthy Yankee sergeant, comes to his aid when he's thrown off a train. Since both are broke, Mordecai suggests that Curly shill for him long enough to accumulate a small stake. From this springs a partnership in which Curly, to his dismay, discovers he has a real gift for dishonest dealings. Tormented by conscience and shattered illusions, he still originates a plan to escape when the pair are finally run down and arrested--and then comes up with an even more audacious one to get Jones out, because, as he tells the girl he's fallen in love with, "he's my *partner*, and that means somethin'."

This movie lacks the slapstick that often characterizes comedy; there's a wild car chase (Jones and Curly in a convertible Mordecai has "borrowed," pursued by the local sheriff, turning their chariot into a "ramblin' wreck" and destroying a considerable portion of the town of Clayton in the process), but most of the film concentrates on Mordecai's schemes--everything from three-card monte and punchboards through the Pigeon Drop to an elaborate masquerade in which he manages to swap a truckload of moonshine for a mound of assorted merchandise. The supporting cast is especially good, with Harry Morgan shining as Sheriff Slade and Albert Salmi delightful as his young chief deputy, Meshaw. And while not for the morally ambivalent, it manages to bring up some important ethical issues. As Mordecai tells Curly, "You can't cheat a honest man!" With no sex or profanity to speak of, it could well serve as the launching point for some telling discussions with your kids about right and wrong, loyalty, and what honesty really is. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Garry Marshall's 1988 drama about a 30-year friendship between two women, one wealthy (Barbara Hershey) and the other (Bette Midler) seeking her fortune in show business, is well written (based on the novel by Iris Rainer Dart) and nicely textured in its contrast between the characters' separate destinies. When Hershey becomes ill with cancer, the film takes a predictably sentimental course, yet Marshall brings out the best in both actresses and catches some very fine drama. The film is a little too long, perhaps, but overall it is a fine experience.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (100)

ENTERTAINING SUDS
Barbara Hershey and Bette Midler form an unlikely alliance in this contemporary/traditional "woman's picture". Well-produced musical numbers, charting CeCe's (Bette) singing/performing career, add zest and emotion, though the central relationship is exceptionally well-played by both the young and older versions of the characters. I particularly loved the way this movie grows with the characters; the story evolves over much time, and, unfortunately, spends too much time, and the film's most overrated song (Wind Beneath My Wings, which has a bizarrely self-involved lyric) in its final half hour wallowing in suds. However, the actresses retain a power throughout, and the tears this movie works to summon forth do not feel shameless -- an age-old friendship will likely always suffer its highs and lows, though perhaps not with this many strings playing in the background.

Friendship that never dies.....
I fell in love with the movie the first time that I saw it and still love it. One of the most brilliant performances by both Bette Midler and Barbara Hershey I have ever seen.I enjoyed very much seeing Bette showcase her voice in the movie because she has such a strong and beautiful voice, not to mention she is so hilarious. The scenes in this movie are emotional, uplifting, comedic and poignant. This film reminds of a special friendship that I have, and just watching the movie reminds me a lot of my relationship with my friend. It depicts that all friendships aren't perfect, everyone has their differences but that in the end that one special friend will always be there for you. In this world today, it is hard to find a friend like that. There were also some stellar performances by John Heard as the love interest of Bette Midler, Laine Kazane as Bette's mother Leona. What a wonderful movie, a real tearjearker and call it a chick flick if you want but this is a movie that was made for both men and women.

I love this movie
Bette Midler is wonderful in this movie. Barbara Hershey gives an outstanding performance. I love their friendship and how it goes through the different phases, and yet at the end they are there for one another, to support one another. This movie is definitely a tear-jerker, yet a classic.

Made me feel dirty
Watching this movie was a very unpleasant experience for me and left me feeling like an emotional voyeur. It was just too harrowingly weepy. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with a movie that appeals primarily to the emotions, but I felt that Beaches went way past the saturation point. By the end I was simply tired of feeling!
I have, however, given Beaches three stars because the fact that it is so well loved by so many suggests that it must successfully fulfill some sort of need for many viewers. Just be warned that, depending on your tastes, you may want to fulfill that need elsewhere.

Sad but Good!
I never read the book this movie is based on but we rented Beaches and I thought it was a good movie. It is a tearjerker that is really sad and I don't always like sad movies because sometimes they can be too melodramatic and real downers but I liked this movie and I think Bette Midler and Barbara Hershey gave good acting perfomances and I was also impressed with Mayim Bialik (Blossom) who played Bette Midler's character C.C. when the character was 11 years old. I recommend this movie! ... Read more

Reviews (79)

Good film, great extras
The breezy rehab story of Gwen Cummings(Sandra Bullock) and her 28 days towards the road to recovery isn't a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination, but it's definitely enjoyable.The key points to the DVD that may warrant you buying it are Betty Thomas's directors commentary, three character testimonials that were cut from the final film, instructions on how to make a gum wrapper chain like the fiesty heroine,theatrical trailers,and talent files. But the best thing, and possibly worth the price of the rest of the disc, is the hilarious 26 minutes of "lost episodes" of the fictional soap "Santa Cruz" that everyone at the rehab center watches.That alone is almost as funny as the movie, with the actors playing their scenes with intense seriousness amid ridiculous plot situations even more far fetched than the average soap.

Here's Looking at You, Sandra Bullock
Director Betty Thomas has achieved something rare: A modern movie that tackles a serious issue and emerges with it's tastefulness intact. "28 Days" has the plot of a drama, the soul of a comedy, the feel of a documentary and a fabulous performance by Sandra Bullock that gives each genre a place in the delicate mix of this wonderful movie.

Bullock is Gwen Cummings, an alcoholic, pill popping journalist who is sentenced to spend 28 days in a rehab center she drunkenly steals a limo and crashes it into a house. Leaving behind her boozy British boyfriend Jasper (superbly played by Domonic West), Gwen soon finds the support and understanding of her eccentric and often hilarious new neighbors. There's Eddie (Viggo Mortensen), the washed up baseball player who'll sleep with anyone; Oliver (Mike O'Malley), the wisecracking Park Avenue pot addict; Andrea (Azura Skye), a young woman addicted to drugs and a preposterous soap opera called "Santa Cruz," which she eventually turns everyone on to; and Gerhardt (Alan Tudyk), the wacky German. "28 Days," unlike an "Erin Brokovich" where one star dominates, is an ensemble film that allows a variety of talents to shine. And with a cast of this caliber, sometimes that shine rivals the stars themselves in brightness.

Despite many humorous moments, it's the dramatic aspects of "28 Days" that make it great. When Gwen becomes so desperate for her pills that she jumps out the window to get some she threw away earlier, the obsessiveness and despair of dependency are captured at their most vivid. Then there's her troubled relationship with her sister Lily (sensitively portrayed by Elizabeth Perkins), who can't decide whether she wants to give up on the woman who has never been there for her, or stand by her in the hope that she will reform, risking having her heart broken yet again.

It's because Bullock and screenwriter Susannah Grant have made Gwen such a likable character that these situations have real bite. Sine we can't decide whether we love her or hate her, we keep watching the movie on the edge of our seats, searching for something that will proove to us once and for all what Gwen Cummings is. The movie wisely avoids giving us a straight answer to that and many other questions, allowing the viewer instead to make their own decisions and create their own relationaships with the characters and the things they encounter.

"28 Days" is a triumph for all involved. There's nothing better for a cynical critic like me then proof on the screen that films moving stories with engaging characters are still being made. Perhaps the best news of all is the resurrection of Sandra Bullock's career after three flops in a row. If she continues to show such wise judgement in choosing her projects, this poor man's Julia Roberts may be topping the A-list once again.

drunks on parade......
While the film was entertaining, I do not find anything in the least entertaining about the subject matter of drug addiction. In Gwen's book it was booze and Vicodin......a killer combo.....Alcoholics are often seen as hilarious, but in reality most of the time they leave a trail of tragedy not only for those who are closest to them, ie families and their friends, but they create pain in the lives of total strangers.....witness Gwen's destruction of a limo and a residence when she left her sister's wedding reception. I suppose we should be happy she did not end up on the freeway with the limo.
I found the characters in this film just too cute.....From what I have seen on COPS, they don't appear to be that cute in reality, or maybe if you have the 50K, which rehabs centers like Gwen was staying at cost, perhaps you see a different bunch of addicts.

Good movie with some strong performances
I liked this one- am finally adding it to my video collection.
Sandra Bullock is a believable drunk who has a very tough time relating to anyone and everyone. Was nice seeing someone who is not overly likeable in movie like this.
Nice performance by a clean cut and hunky Viggo Mortenson livens this up.
For a double downer line up of sobering drama
see Meg Ryan and Andy Garcia in When a Man Loves a Woman.

Santa Cruz & Gum Wrapper Chains
Sandra Bullock's character goes to rehab. She hates it at first then sees she should be sober. Its a funny movie thats not very preachy and it has good characters. The dvd has cool features like how to make that gum wrapper chain thing, and actual scenes from Santa Cruz. ... Read more

Reviews (265)

Wonderful, gentle romance.
Ever wish you could find a romantic movie not filled with cynicism and sex? Well, this is the one. Grace (Minnie Driver) is dying of a heart ailment and needs a transplant. Bob (David Duchovny) and his wife are blissfully happy... until a tragic accident takes her life. Bob agrees to donate his wife's organs. In one night two families are changed and united forever.

One year later Grace is fully recovered physically, but is still emotionally tired and lonely. She yearns for love, but fears being treated differently. Bob is angry and pained as he slowly lets his wife go. Then he meets Grace. The two soon realize they are perfectly matched and begin a sweet relationship.

However, Grace still needs to tell Bob the truth, that she had a heart transplant. When she realizes that it was his wife whose heart she received, she is devestated. Will the love they've created be enough to help them through this trial?

The supporting cast in this film is absolutely perfect. From womanizing David Allen Grier to best-friends Bonnie Hunt and Jim Belushi to old men Carol O'Conner and Robert Losiar... all of them will make you laugh out loud as they root for and meddle with Grace and Bob. The ending will make you tear up and you will come away believing in true love.

Highly recommended!!

What A Pleasant Surprise
I wasn't expecting Return To Me to be bad, but I originally thought the premise sounded a little sappy and the cast sounded a bit odd. I wasn't sure about how the on-screen chemistry btw DD & Minnie Driver would work, and what plot could have David Allen Grier, James Belushi and Carrol O'Conner in the same movie? So, I didn't go in expecting too much.

I was really happy with the movie, though. It tugs at the heartstrings and it also makes you laugh a lot. The entire crowd at the screening I attended seemed to enjoy the movie.

I highly recommend it as a great date movie. As DD has said in interviews, RTM is wonderful because it's an old-fashioned love story. The soundtrack is wonderful too -- lots of big band music which adds to the old-fashioned feel.

It was also really nice to see David Duchovny in a much more light-hearted role. He had some great comedic moments and some great romantic moments.

Carrol O'Conner, Robert Loggia and co. almost steal the movie with their hilarious banter. I can't wait to see Return To Me on the big screen when it opens, and I will definitely be adding it to my video collection.

Absolutely wonderful! And finally, nothing offensive!
This film is the first romantic comedy in a LONG time that has been worth two hours of my time. It is absolutely fabulous, and is not filled with offensive language, sex-scenes, or adultery. I LOVED it, and I do not typically enjoy romantic comedies.

Unapologetically, unabashedly sentimental
Check your cynicism at the door, please. This film is somewhat courageous in the way it wears its heart on its sleeve in these days when any spark of sentiment is usually couched in irony. Bob Rueland (David Duchovny) has lost his beloved wife (Joely Richardson) in a traffic accident; Grace Briggs (Minnie Driver) has received her heart in a transplant operation. It's not giving anything away to let you that fate brings them together in the end. As soon as the film opens, you know that it couldn't go any other way.

It must be difficult to make such an innocent story work for today's audiences, but writer/director Bonnie Hunt (with co-screenwriter Don Lake) pulls it off. The cast is warm and likeable, the dialogue is sharp, and the music is romantic. Hunt and James Belushi are wonderful as a couple whose affection for each other shines through their constant bickering.

Cute
This movie is one of my favorites. It has a great story, puppy love, a doting grandfather, and offers lots of laughs! What else could you want? It does drag a bit at the end.... but I could watch it a million times without tiring. ... Read more

Amazon.com

"I have a bad feeling about this," says the young Obi-Wan Kenobi(played by Ewan McGregor) in Star Wars: Episode I, The PhantomMenace as he steps off a spaceship and into the most anticipated cinematic event... well, ever. He might as well be speaking for thelegions of fans of the original episodes in the Star Wars sagawho can't help but secretly ask themselves: Sure, this is StarWars, but is it my Star Wars? The original elevatedmoviegoers' expectations so high that it would have been impossible forany subsequent film to meet them. And as with all the Star Warsmovies, The Phantom Menace features inexplicable plot twists, afistful of loose threads, and some cheek-chewing dialogue. Han Solo'sswagger is sorely missed, as is the pervading menace of heavy-breathingDarth Vader. There is still way too much quasi-mystical mumbo jumbo,and some of what was fresh about Star Wars 22 years earlierfeels formulaic. Yet there's much to admire. The special effects arestupendous; three worlds are populated with a mélange of creatures, flora, and horizons rendered in absolutedetail. The action and battle scenes are breathtaking in theircomplexity. And one particular sequence of the film--theadrenaline-infused pod race through the Tatooine desert--makes the chariot race inBen-Hur look like a Sunday stroll through the park.

Among the host of new characters, there are a few familiar walk-ons. Wewitness the first meeting between R2-D2 and C-3PO, Jabba the Hutt looksyounger and slimmer (but not young and slim), and Yoda is as crabby asever. Natalie Portman's stately Queen Amidala sports hairdos that makePrincess Leia look dowdy and wields a mean laser. We never bond withJedi Knight Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson), and Obi-Wan's day is yet to come. Jar Jar Binks, a crossbetween a Muppet, a frog, and a hippie, provides many of the movie's lighter moments, while Sith Lord DarthMaul is a formidable force. Baby-faced Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd) looks too youngand innocent to command the powers of the Force or wield a lightsaber (much less transmute into the future Darth Vader), but hisboyish exuberance wins over skeptics.

Near the end of the movie, Palpatine, the new leader of the Republic,may be speaking for fans eagerly awaiting Episode II when hepats young Anakin on the head and says, "We will watch your career withgreat interest." Indeed! --Tod Nelson ... Read more

Reviews (2449)

5 stars for DVD quality, 3 stars for the movie
I'm reviewing only the DVD, and not the movie itself, which was a bit of a stinker, in my opinion. Well produced, beautifully filmed, but very poorly written.

Anyway - this is an awesome and incredibly well done DVD. Lots and lots of extras. Great commentary by Lucas, the producer, the sound man, etc. Interview with the composer. Lots and lots and LOTS of background materials on the making of the film, and the entire process of putting it together from initial writing to final production, and the making of the DVD itself.

The image of the movie is *very* crisp and clean. The deleted scenes are a nice addition to the movie. I am very impressed (and surprised, to be cynical about it) that Lucas has given us the full-featured DVD the first time out, and not offered us one scaled down DVD version, only to offer us a better version in a year, and then the full-scale one a year after that, like he's constantly done with the VHS versions of his movies. Thank you, Lucas, for taking care of your fans this time, and not trying to pad your pockets a few times before giving the fans what they *really* want.

Quality-wise, this is absolutely one of the most loaded, best-featured DVDs I have in my collection.

(as a p.s. - after hearing Lucas' commentary, and talking about some things coming up in the next movies, I have realized that a few things I criticized about this movie actually make sense oin terms of the upcoming story-line. However, I still think that, overall, the writing for this movie was only a cut above old b-movies)

OK Movie, Great DVD
The Phantom Menace was probably the most heavily anticipated movie in history. It was the prequel to the original Star Wars series and George Lucas was taking the helm as director for the first time since Star Wars in 1977. The film was hyped incessantly and, of course, the final product failed to live up to the expectations. The Phantom Menace is not a bad film. It actually is absolutely amazing to look at and the special effects are incredible. The problem with the film is the plot. It seems disjointed as it bounces around from scene to scene. It seems that Mr. Lucas was to preoccupied with getting the film to look right than the actual story (which is what made the first Star Wars so great). Many people weren't happy with the casting of several roles, especially Ewan MacGregor as Obi Won Kenobi, but he does a decent job in an undeveloped role. Liam Neeson is commanding as Qui Gon Jin and Natalie Portman is quite good as Queen Amadala. The biggest complaint that most people had with the film was with the character of Jar Jar Binks and I won't disagree with most of what's been said about the annoying character. Mr. Lucas has previously shunned the DVD arena (American Graffiti is the only one of his films to appear in the format), but he goes about this release with a vengeance. The extras, including seven deleted scenes, are worth buying this DVD alone. Mr. Lucas spent an additional four million dollars on them and the money is well spent.

prequel?
in this one,there is a council of jedis who rule everything and keep the peace.yoda,ben,some black dude and on like that.a younger ben finds a little kid-who is called anakan and later vadar.that kid wins his freedom with bens help in a very cool pod race.ben recognizes the force in the little one and decides to train him as a jedi.the bad guy is darth maul who has a double bladed light saber-very cool.hes the coolest looking character yet.i think peple came down too hard on jar-jar.hes a dork but there have been a lot worse.the kids will like it.it is the 4th part but the first episode.everybody should go see this one because just anybody will like it.anakans mom was pretty nice if she cleaned herself up.this movie isnt as good as the tv says but they blow everything all out of proportion anyway.this movie is abselutely incredible though.i think the black dude may be in the matrix too.its good too.the special effects are good.after this there is one more.then there is an animated short film.there is also another one on the way next summer.

To Lucas: Eye of the Tiger, Man!!
To quote the famous lines by Apollo Creed from Rocky III, "You lost for all the wrong reasons, you lost your edge. Eye of the tiger, man!"
A good analogy when you think of it...

When Lucas made the first trilogy he was a relativly unknown up-and-comming writer/director full of desire and well, "hunger" to make his mark. That drive lead to the masterpieces of pop culture we know as ANH and ESB. By ROTJ his edge was already waning but thankfully it was the last one... or so we thought.

By the time TPM came out he lost it completely and produced a quite mediocre if at best ordinary film. Living like a king for the past 20+ years made him not "hungry and full of desire" but fat and content. He lost his edge.

Peter Jackson's LOTR Trilogy is so much better than Lucas' last 2 efforts for this same reason. Jackson has the "eye of the tiger"!

Lucas HAS to get his edge back. Most agree AOTC is better than TPM but not by much. Will episode 3 prove that Lucas got it back??

If only reality played out like the fantasy of Rocky III and Lucas brings home a REAL winner....

What drug was George Lucas on?
I love Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. I think that George Lucas should have stopped there. The two movies: The Phantom Menace and the Attack of the Clones....SUCK! What was George Lucas thinking? Jar Jar Binks needs to tossed off the face of the earth, and Hayden Christansen (while hot), needs to take some acting lessons. Not enough special effects in the world could make me want to see the third release. Poor acting and writing have made me want to run for cover! Where's the FORCE when you need it? ... Read more

Description

Jane Austen's classic novel about the prejudice that occurred between the 19th century classes and the pride which would keep lovers apart. ... Read more

Reviews (84)

Miscast Elizabeth
Greer Garson stars as Elizabeth Bennet in this 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice. She plays the clever and witty eldest of five daughters, who are all looking for rich husbands. Lawrence Olivier plays Mr. Darcy, a suitably wealthy prospect, however he is too arrogant for Elizabeth's liking. The story follows the two as they tease and rebuff, only to end happily with their engagement, as we always knew it would.

Being such an old film, the quality of the picture and sound were poor. Even so, they were better than the outrageous casting of Greer Garson as the lead. She was much too old to play Elizabeth, and was utterly unconvincing. Two of her sisters were played by Anne Rutherford and Maureen Sullivan. They were both excellent and would have done better in the lead. Olivier was wonderfully snooty as the aristocratic Mr. Darcy.

The other major weakness with the film was the costume design. The ladies' gowns and men's suits looked like they were borrowed from the set of Gone With the Wind. The dresses were full and puffy, not at all like the delicate and low-cut gowns of the early 1800s in England.

There were no exterior shots of the grand houses; rather we saw only small rooms with very ordinary furnishings. The photography was drab, even considering the age of the film.

The screenplay was co-written by the famous Aldous Huxley, who, it seems, had no knack for reproducing Austen's glorious dialogue. All in all, I found this film an acceptable introduction to Jane Austen's classic book, but not deeply satisfying or beautiful.

Wonderful movie of a timeless novel
This version of Pride and Prejudice first got me interested in Jane Austen. Though it may not be the most acurate version of the famous novel, it is very funny and all of the characters are played well. Lawrence Olivier IS Mr. Darcy, and Greer Garson shines as Lizzy, despite her age difference to the character.

An inferior adaptation of a great book
There are three film versions of Jane Austen's immortal "Pride and Prejudice" extant, and this one, the first, is by far the weakest. It would be hard to tamper with the great story, which is so well known as to need no rehashing here; but although the film tries to follow the story, Aldous Huxley proved incapable of incorporating Austen's incomparable dialogue into the film script, as the two later versions were able to do with remarkable success. There are other, more egregious shortcomings, in this film, which are:

1) Casting Greer Garson as Elizabeth Bennet. Whoever had this idea should have been put in the stocks and pelted with water balloons. Elizabeth Bennet is 20 years old in the book, and Greer Garson, on the wrong side of 35, looks absolutely ridiculous trying to play a young ingenue. Who was she kidding? She doesn't even look like Austen's description of Elizabeth. Vivien Leigh might have made a great Elizabeth, if she wasn't already fixed in the public mind as Scarlett O'Hara. Which brings us to:

2) The 1860-ish costumes. Were they trying to move the timeline up? Somebody should have told the costume department that Longbourn and Tara were six thousand miles and sixty years apart. "Pride and Prejudice" was set sometime between 1790 and 1810 (Austen's biographers are in disagreement as to the exact date), but the costumes in this first version of "Pride and Prejudice looked like leftovers from the set of "Gone With the Wind". A big no-no.

3) The casting of Lawrence Olivier as Darcy was a mistake. Austen describes Darcy as being tall and handsome. Olivier was handsome but he didn't look much taller than Garson. Or maybe Garson was too tall. Whatever... it was a total mismatch.

4) The whole scene at Pemberley, which is central to the book, was eliminated. So how did Elizabeth's one-eighty from loathing to love take place? The movie doesn't say and we're left totally unconvinced.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that "Pride and Prejudice" is one of the best-loved books in English literature. It certainly deserved a better film adaptation than this one. Fortunately it has not one, but two: the BBC version of 1985 starring Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul (my personal favorite), and the A&E film of 1995 starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. Watch either or both of these after seeing the Garson/Olivier movie, to see what a good film adaptation of a great book really is.

Worst Adaptation!
This film was the worst adaptation of Jane Austen's famous novel that I have ever seen in my life. It is not really true to the novel, the costumes are ridiculous looking, not to mention that they do not match the kind of clothing that was worn in Austen's time. They hardly ever use the famous words and/or phrases from the book, only once or twice but they are somewhat changed. Granted I think Laurence Olivier made a great Darcy if he was more like Darcy is suppose to be, instead his version of him was more perky and uppity than nonchalant and melancholy and a little arrogant, which to me is what Darcy is actually like. If you want to see the greatest adaptation of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" ever made then check out the BBC and A&E production starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, I guarantee you'll watch it all the way through with a satisfied and happy smile on your face.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that this movie is
Misleading, to say the least.

I saw this movie last week on Turner Classic Movie channel, expecting to see a nice little 40's style rendition of that book we oh-so dearly enjoy.

What a silly movie.

Granted, I'm sure making a two hour movie out of the novel is difficult, but if you were to take a high school test on Pride and Prejudice after seeing this movie instead of reading the book, you would fail miserably.

The dresses were too elaborate. Mary is way too pretty. Greer is too blonde to play Elizabeth, where are those dark "fine eyes"? Darcy grossed me out. I don't even remember Bingley or Jane, and Elizabeth's transition from hating to loving Darcy goes a little something like this (paraphrased, of course):

Elizabeth: "Oh, how I miss Mr. Darcy"
Jane: "What? I thought you hated him?"
Elizabeth : "Well now, quite suddenly I love him!"

This is without the reunion at Pemberly. Its rushed, to say the least.

I did like Lydia, and there is a lovely, albeit irrelevant scene where Mrs. Bennet and the girls Mrs. Lucas and Charlotte (who is much too pretty in this adaptation) are racing neck and neck via carriage to get to Netherfield to meet the eligible men.

And the slightly amusing part where Mr. Bingley is talking about what's wrong with Jane when she's sick. That was just weird. Trés 40's, no?

Mr and Mrs Bennet are enjoyable characters, but I imagine that it would be difficult to screw up those well-written characters in any cinematic endeavor.

And the part with Lady Catherine acting as a "secret agent" for Darcy. What the hell.

Ugh. This movie is slightly amusing, if it was 5 hours of nonsense I would give it one star, but since its only 2 hours you might as well watch it if you feel so inclined.

But read the book and check out the 1995 BBC production one, too. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Gérard Depardieu plays a court composer at Versailles whose sense of artistic emptiness causes him to reflect upon his old music teacher (Jean-Pierre Marielle), a man who taught him more than music but whom he ultimately betrayed. (The younger version of Depardieu's character is portrayed by the actor's son, Guillaume.) Alain Corneau's gorgeous 1991 film has a slow, deliberative air about it, with little dialogue and a painterly look (shot by cinematographer-director Yves Angelo, maker of Colonel Chabert) that paradoxically inspires both excitement and meditation. A period costume piece that chooses to understate pageantry for ideas and emotions, this film is quite special. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (19)

A deep, poetic and philosophic masterpiece
A must own masterpiece for every art lover.

It seems like that Pasqal Quignard, the writer, have been involved in Eastern Philosophy very deeply. If not, then once upon a time the Western music had been a meditative tool to escalate human soul, similar to Eastern music which is still so.

The similar guru-disciple dialogs and relationship as it is still in Eastern art.

The same search for the truth, as it is in Zen in Japan, Sufism in Middle East,.... You always search the truth, but never discover "what it is", you only discover "what it is not" just like a sculpture who cuts the stone.

I am not sure whether the existence of the French Film Industry is a benefit to humankind or not : They have created a masterpiece but they dont bother providing English subtitles in the DVD :
http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00004VYCO
(seems to be "Out of stock" as of the date of this review)

Some reviewers have compared this movie to Amedeus. Amadeus is a masterpiece itself, but its main concept is not music, it focuses on tragedy of human beings. ( "Eternal Love" and "Farinelli" are not in this leage, so comparison is irrevelant ) However this movie questions the art itself.

French counterpart to a 1670s Zen meditation on sound
After seeing ALL THE MORNINGS OF THE WORLD / EACH DAY DAWNS BUT ONCE a number of times, I discovered its unexpected message: "Listen!" Freed by repetition from concern with a complex plot, I was able to witness key scenes I'd hardly noticed before and to find they carry central meaning for this subtly powerful art work. I had noticed the first time I saw TOUS LE MATINS DU MOND that for the master musician his music was a rigorously pursued meditative practice...ruthless to the exclusion of all else. But it's all there, spelled out as methodically as a "Shin-mondo": a zen teaching story. As in the scene where the master takes his pupil to the studio-home of his [only?] friend, the painter. They sit, silent except for the touch of wine to cup, as across the spacious room the painter paints. The master gropes for words to convey his wordless knowing. He says, "Listen to the sound of the brush." 'Painter stops and [irritably]: "What are you mumbling about?" Master: "I was telling him that your brush is to you as my bow is to me." Painter: "WORDS! Only words!" It's in scene after scene [they take several walks where the student is probed to listen to sounds...wind, night, ...to hear the sound itself.] And this life of searching and communion is juxtaposed--as it would have been in Japan of the same period-- against the opulent distractions of an imperial court. Sound...sumptuous or subtle...permeates all levels of this masterpiece, and is wonderfully augmented by Vermeer-like cinematography. This is one to own.

A Very Pretty Picture
All the Mornings of the World, I really didn't get what the title had to do with the movie, but the movie itself is really beautiful.
This is the story of the 17th century composer St. Columbe, who was a master of the viola de gamba (or what I would identify as the viola di gamba), ancient cousin of the cello. Very little is known of the real St. Columbe, so the movie takes poetic license with the man, based on his music.
Ste Columbe is an interesting study. He is presented as no-frills type of guy. This plays in stark contrast to the gaudiness of the Courtiers who visit him, and want him to come to play for the King. Ste. Coloumbe cannot be persuaded to come to court, earthly riches, fame and fortune mean nothing to him. He is a man who suffered a great tradgedy with the death of his wife, who was in addition to his music,his greatest passion. Without her, he is half a man. Nothing illustrates this better than his relationship with his unfortunate daughters, who suffer this half life with this thoroughly uninvolved father.
Because St. Columbe is miserable & disappointed in love, his daughters live like nuns, without any of the fun.
Entering this happy scene is the eager young student, played with a total lack of conviction by the pretty but wooden Giulliame
Depardieu. Ste Columbe reluctantly takes on this student, but it's trouble from the get go, including an affair with the eldest daughter that results in her pregnancy. The young man is kicked out, but goes on to great fame & fortune by joining the musicians at the Royal Court, ultimatly becomming the head man.
Meanwhile, back at the Ste. Columbe residence, the eldest daughter loses the baby, and starts a descent into madness that begins with anorexia and ends with suicide. The younger. less sensitive daughter goes on to lead a normal life.
All the while, Ste Columbe indulges in his fantasies involving his dead wife, they meet very regularly. I have wondered why this woman doesn't take her husband to task for his rough treatment of their children, but she is always sweetness & light, nattering on about thier love life & his love for crushed peaches.
It might seem like I don't like this movie, au contraire! Its a joy to watch. It's a tragic but interesting story, very sad. The performances by all are excellent, with the exception of Depardieu the younger.
The filmmakers use of natural light, including candelight is stunning, and the locations have a great feel of authenticity. It might not be every ones cup of tea, but if you enjoy foregin films of this genre, it's definitley worth a watch.

A Masterpiece of French Filmmaking
Whenever I think of the highlight of French filmmaking, I think of this film. Absolutely gorgeous in every way: camerawork, art and design, audio and soundtrack, acting and direction and story - everything came together to create a truly beautiful piece of work. One of my all time favorites despite a more than occasionally hollow performance by the younger Depardieu who proves that talent isn't always genetically transfered from father to son. But despite the disappointment of Alain, the soundtrack and filmmaking are enough to make you forget any flaws. Find the best television you can - hook up the highest quality VHS player you have - and enjoy. Hopefully sometime in the near future we will see a Region DVD of this outstanding example of the French film cannon.

beautiful music, awful movie
The music is superb in this movie. I give you that. But the movie is simply downright awful. To me this movie is about a man who becomes obsessed with the viola da gamba to escape the pains caused by the death of his wife. His obsession not surprisingly drives hime to be utterly self-centered and bizarre. He is a monster who abuses and neglects his whole family to focus only on himself. He wasn't making music for us or for the world ... he was making music for himself but by luck his music making is also enjoyable to our ears. Otherwise most of us would recommend that he be locked up in an insane asylum.

If one were asked what makes a French film a stereotypical bad French film, one feature pops into my mind: pretentious philosophical babbling. And this film delivers a bucket full of it. Ugh.

Get the soundtrack. Forget about this movie. This is my honest opinion. ...