Reviews (259)

Who Ever THought of This Film was an Insane Genius
Whomever came up with the concept for this film needs very serious mental evaluation; A love story about a guy with scissors for hands? But perhaps we will put that aside for now becasue the movie is simply stupendous. Edward ScissorHands is one of my all time favorite movies, I assume this goes for many others as well, becasue i have never found someone who didnt like this movie. It appeals to the strange geek inside us all who just wants to be accepted for what he is. For an overview of the movie read the summary amazon has provided, i will talk only about the dvd. THe extras are quite neat with commentary tracks, production art, and best of all some old Burton shorts. Vincent is a great clayamtion thing about a kid trying to be vincent price, it reminded me of beetlejuice, visually. Frankenweenie is kinda dumb and boring, but its about a kid who brings his dog back to life. THe image clarity is fantastic, as is the sound on this disc. It has some really cool animated menus too. So go buy it. You might wanna see it first though becasue it is pretty strange. Bottom line is if you like Burton films, you will love this one. (I still have a little trouble seeing that kid from the breakfast club as a bad guy, but whatta gonna do?)

fantastic DVD, even better movie
Edward Scissorhands is quite simply the best fairy tale never told. This is Tim Burton in his eccentric prime, and his presence is palpable in every arena of this beautiful and personal film. The inventive art direction is perhaps the most memorable aspect of that presence, most notably in the pastel palette that covers everything from the ingenius solid-color costumes to the quaint neighborhood/town our characters inhabit.

The genius of this movie is more far-reaching than that. Everything fits seamlessly together--from Danny Elfman's quirky score to Stefan Czapsky's meticulous camera work to an entire cast full of nuanced performances... the list goes on and on. While this film's acting gem is Diane Weist in the role of the sweet and overly altruistic mother, Johnny Depp plays the titular role in a beautifully understated performance. Similarly, Winona Ryder wonderfully (and blondly) embodies young beauty and Alan Arkin turns in a comedic yet touching performance as the sometimes-overbearing father. The ensemble cast is flawless, complementing the quirky but ultimately realistic tone.

Perhaps the best aspect of this movie is that it achieves its goals with amazing subtlety--the overt themes of "being different", family, and (let's not forget) love are constantly driven into cliché these days, but Edward Scissorhands accomplishes it all with a snip, not a stab.

This 10th Anniversary Edition DVD is everything this movie deserves--insightful commentaries from Tim Burton AND Danny Elfman and an interesting featurette, along with the concept art, trailers, TV Spots, and scene selection we've all come to expect. (The Interactive 3-D Menus are priceless!)

This is just one of those positively timeless, life-affirming movies that belongs in everyone's collection.

A true work of art!
This has certainly got to be one of Burton's most imaginative creations. I can't remember a movie be that puzzlling, and yet so interesting and fun. Only Jonny Depp could prouduce such a voice, and performance. And that hair! Well, that was just the final icing on the cake. Let's face it. It's not easy to act the part of a lonly anodroid,and especially one that looked on with curiosity one moment and hated the next. Horror king, Vincint Price does a good job too as Edward's maker. Who is despreat for companionship. I laughed, I cried, then I laughed some more. All in all, this is not that bad of a movie.

A Beautiful Movie
I first saw this movie not so long ago and I fell in love with it. It is a beautiful story with very sad moments as well as exciting ones. Burton and Depp make a great team. This is one of the most moving movies I have ever seen. It tells the story of Edward (Depp), a person created by an inventor (Vincent Price)who passed on just before he had a chance to amputate Edward's scissorhands. Edward lived alone in a castle until sweet-hearted Avon lady Peg Boggs(Dianne Wiest)comes and takes him to her home to live with her family. A must see for Tim Burton fans and anyone who enjoys a magical time watching a movie. I have recently bought this DVD and I love it. I give Edward Scissorhands two big thumbs way up and 100 stars. I hope my review has helped you.

masterpiece
i just realised that "Edward Scissorhands" is one of my favourite films. it has so much power. Tim Burton's storytelling, it is magnificent. his imagination is so great. the way he portrays his characters is so unique. every character is very distinct. like characters in his other works: Jack Skellingon, Ichbod Crane, Edward Bloom, Betelgeuse. now let's talk about the acting. johnny depp was magnificent. you could sense his emotion, even though he barely talks, as he portrays a lost, innocent, confused child. his make-up is excellent too. yes, he does look like a freak. but he looks good. and Winona Ryder. she's such a good actress. and can you say "pretty?" and oh! the set design and cinematography. the use of colour to expose the contrast between the two worlds. the pastel versus the dark castle. and the town! oh my. it is a dreamland. did you know that it is an actual neighborhood in Florida? one more thing. Danny Elfman's score is superb! ... Read more

Description

Based on a true-life story, TUESDAYS WITH MORRIE is a loving memoir to a man whose lessons on life have much to teach us about ourselves. Academy Award(R)-winner Jack Lemmon (Best Actor, 1974, SAVE THE TIGER) delivers an outstanding performance as Morrie Schwartz, the Brandeis University professor upon whom the best-selling book is based. Hank Azaria (GODZILLA) plays Mitch, an accomplished journalist so driven by his job, he has little time or energy left for anything else. One night, Mitch happens to catch Morrie's appearance on a national news program and learns his old professor is battling Lou Gehrig's disease. After the telecast, Mitch contacts Morrie, and what starts as a visit turns into a pilgrimage as Mitch opens his heart to the lessons Morrie has to teach him. As the bond grows between these two men, Mitch learns that professional commitments don't mean anything without the love of family and friends. Sure to inspire, TUESDAYS WITH MORRIE may just change your views on the meaning of life ... forever. ... Read more

Reviews (27)

Great Movie
In the movie Tuesdays With Morrie, Mitch (Hank Azaria) is a successful sportswriter who suddenly learns that one of his old professors, Morrie (Jack Lemmon) is ill. Mitch visits Morrie and the two form an emotional bond, allowing Mitch to see what is really important in life. Tuesdays With Morrie is categorized as a drama but it does contain some funny parts and some sports. Some things that Morrie said made me laugh. They show Mitch at sporting events and press conferences. Mitch ends up flying 700 miles to Boston from Detroit every Tuesday to visit his dying professor. Mitch feels bad the first time he goes to visit Morrie because he had not talked to Morrie for 16 years after he said that he would keep in touch at his graduation at Brandeis University. At the end of the movie, Morrie finally got Mitch to open up and cry. He also got Mitch to talk about what he was afraid of in life. He taught Mitch a lot about living and about dying. Tuesdays With Morrie is an easy flowing movie and it is very simple to understand. It is a movie for people of all ages. The actors, especially Jack Lemmon, do an exceptional job playing their roles in the movie. The book and the movie are almost identical. There are not really any major differences between the book and the movie. One of the differences is that in the book Janine is Mitch's wife and in the movie Janine is Mitch's girlfriend. I think that Tuesdays With Morrie was a very good movie. It made me think of what is important in life, including friends and family. This movie changed my outlook on life. It made me realize what is most important in life and how I need to treat people, especially my elders. I think the theme of this movie was to get people to treat people better, with dignity and respect. I think that anybody that watches this movie will leave happier and with a better understanding about life and how to treat others.

Genuine.
A genuinely touching movie is a rare thing. Attempting to pull at our heart-strings often results in a lot of sap and drama, without much substance.

However, Tuesdays with Morrie is heartfelt, somber, funny, and sad.

The movie details a relationship (The film is adapted from a best selling nonfiction book) between a sports columnist, and his beloved professor which he learns is dying of Lou Gehrigs disease. What follows is a look at the short, poingant relationship they shared. You see, Morrie was a man of the world. He often showed a keen insight into the nature of man. He did much to teach his former student about life, often quoting W.H. Auden's poem "September 1st, 1939"

The movie, as the book, is filled with philisophical, as well as practical insights. Deeply moving, even while not being cinematically brilliant.

Excellent movie ---really worth your time and tears!!!!
This movie has touched my heart and enriched my mind so much! (I cried the entire 2 hours.) Yes, we already know a lot of the things that it tries to convey, but this movie has encouraged me to act now and address many of my own personal issues---family, career, friendships, health, etc. and what's really important in life. Jack Lemmon is so good here, and made me think about the importance of caring for my own sick parents. I love him in this movie and God bless his soul for his contribution to humanity--good acting!!!. --of course, kudos to the author Mitch Albom for sharing Morries' wisdom . I will make sure that my daughter gets to watch this movie and read the book and so as all my siblings and dear friends. The book and the DVD are great 40th b-day gifts that I will also make sure I get.=:) AAAAAAA++++++++++++++

The Best Farewell
Wasn't this Jack Lemmon's last film before his death?? Anyway, I found it deeply stirring and enjoyable to watch. The first time I saw it I vowed that anyone whose life I care about should have this... I truly loved it. If this was Jack's last, what a gift to be able to make this movie while making his own transition... Wow!

Some get it & some don't
I've read the book & watched the movie. I've read the reviews on this movie as well. Most get it & a few wasted their precious time watching it, then wasted my time with their childish & foolish comments. They probably loved Lost In Translation .. now that was a major yawn for me!

Jack Lemmon was at his best in my opinion.

Unless you've confronted death up close & personal and who hasn't by now or truly have a sensitive side, this movie will likley only distract you. Probably because you're too busy not being in the NOW! Slow down, watch it again, without phones or kids or talking .. just take it in and if it still doesn't touch you in some way then you're probably already dead! ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Film's Heavy-Handedness Loses Graces of Stage Versions
A viewer unfamiliar with the original stage production won't realize how much was lost in transitioning this story to the (small) screen, but playgoers will be intensely disappointed with the script revisions to Tom Griffin's original story, which equally emphasized the joys as well as the sorrows of these four men. This film version is a surprisingly humorless tale, made unnecessarily darker by the screenwriters' need to snow-shovel "substance" and "meaning" into every scene. In the play, for example, the visit by next door neighbor, Mrs. Warren, is played strictly for laughs, but in the film the humor of the situation is de-emphasized in favor of stressing, as it does ad nausium, both the barriers "the boys" face and the mounting pressures placed on their caregiver, Jack.

In fact, all we see in this telling are barriers: Arnold's inability to keep from being exploited, Barry's inability to keep from being abused by his father, Norman's and Sheila's inability to express affection for each other, Lucian's inability to express himself at all. It's telling that the only positive outcome in the film is that Jack's marriage is repaired in the last reel which, in typical Hollywood "happy ending" style, was grafted onto the story. In the original, Jack was divorced at curtain's rise and his not-so-subtle bitterness at this was an added facet to his increasing burn-out, not a full-blown sub-plot.

That the producers of the film chose to focus more on Jack's marriage than on "The Boys" betrays the discomfort they had with the humorous aspects of the material. This impression is amplified by the way Barry is portrayed. There's a far greater emphasis on Barry in the film, and the film Barry is a far more menacing character than the stage version. It's not enough to have Barry's dad drag him out to a driving range to traumatize him (a sequence far longer than in the stage version), but we have yet another Barry-centered "crisis" near the end of the film as well.

The producers unceasingly emphasis the darker aspects of the story, and both the characters and the story itself suffer as a result. In the stage production, Arnold's run-in with the corner grocer comes and is dealt with in the first part of the first act. The point that he is exploited, as many mentally disabled are, is made through Arnold's soliloquizing his troubles with a bully named Melvin. What is completely lost in the film is that Arnold is completely oblivious to the fact that he is being exploited (a point that perhaps network executives might not want made on commercial television).

To their credit, the screenwriters did try to replicate the two most effective stage effects of the original productions, the "dance scene" and Lucian's speech. Irritatingly, they undercut the meaning of both sequences with the cheap cinematic effect of showing us Jack's face in close-up before both of them, so we get the message, "this is how Jack sees them," rather than "this is how they really are!" Given that the screenwriters were more interested in showing "the boys" as problems rather than people, it's not surprising that they were allowed to shine only in Jack's eyes, not in theirs, or ours.

That's not to say there aren't any redeeming qualities to the film production. The relationship between Arnold and Mrs. Fremus, which begs the question, "which of these two people is saner?" is a nice addition. But here, again, what's emphasized is the negative aspect of the relationship (Arnold is again exploited, this time for the cost of a magazine subscription). Always, it's the negative aspects of their lives that we're forced to see, again and again.

Most heartbreaking was the portrayals of Norman and Sheila. Both Nathan Lane and Mare Winningham are both truly gifted actors, but to say I was disappointed by their interpretations would be a gross understatement. Mr. Lane chooses to play Norman as a caricature, offering us little more than a Lou Costello impersonation. And Ms. Winningham plays Sheila as sullen and aloof, in complete contradiction to the lines she was given. The most joyful and uplifting scene in the entire show, the scene where Norman gives Sheila her keys (can the analogy be any less obvious?!?) is played in the film as yet another excuse to show how incomplete and imperfect their lives are. In the play, we see how much Norman and Sheila make each other happy. Their love for each other sustains them as does any other two people deeply in love. But in the film, all we see is what they're not.

And that's the chief difference between the stage and film versions of "The Boys Next Door." In the play, we see the problems, yes, and the limitations, but we're also allowed to laugh with them and share their joys. In the film version, all we get are the sorrows. In the stage production, we get to spend two hours with people we get to know and love and will truly miss when it's time to go. In the film version, we're told a sad story about sad people who we end up feeling sorry for.

I felt sorry for film Norman, but I fell in love with stage Norman. The film is okay for what it is, but you'll only get the chance to really fall in love with "The Boys Next Door" if you experience it on the stage. For it's there, and only there, that they truly do shine.

Nathan Lane At His Best
This movie shows the versatility of Nathan Lane as an actor. He is tremendous in this role; both funny and touching. Michael Jetter is also wonderful. In fact, all of the actors did a great job providing insight into the life of some remarkable people. Worth purchasing for the storyline-a must see if you are a Nathan Lane fan, as I am.

Beautiful, simply beautiful.
Perfectly cast and well-acted. This a very touching movie without being sappy.

Excellent Potrayal of the Plight of Disability Services
This movie was incredibly accurate. Not only in relation to the limits of Holywood distortions, but it was true to the experiences, values, and attitudes of those involved. It captured the current crisis in Direct Support Services so well. It gave a face to the sad truth of what our nation values and does not value; and our nation clearly does not value its disabled brothers and sisters. The only problem is that hardly anyone will ever see this film, I wish it was on PBS or CBS, etc.

Excellent!
I loved this movie----Nathan Lane really is great in this! A MUST SEE! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Woody Allen roared back at his detractors with Deconstructing Harry, a bitterly funny treatise about the creative process. Known to mine his often tumultuous personal life for his movies, the embattled writer-director-star didn't bother to make his alter ego likable in this movie: Harry Block (Allen) pops pills, frequents prostitutes, and cheats on the women in his life, then writes about their foibles in thinly disguised fiction. No wonder they're all furious with him. As Harry journeys to his alma mater with a hooker, ill pal, and kidnapped son, a series of flashbacks unravel, juxtaposing Harry's relationships with their "slightly exaggerated" fictional counterparts. There are amusing cameos throughout, including a humorous turn by Demi Moore as a fictitious ex-wife who "became Jewish with a vengeance," and Billy Crystal as the devil who found Hollywood too nasty for his liking. The humor is dark and caustic, but well worth it; Deconstructing Harry is a near-brilliant mediation on the sometimes queasy relationship between art, creator, and critic. On DVD, the film is presented in both widescreen and pan and scan; the disc includes cast bios. --Diane Garrett ... Read more

Reviews (81)

REPROBATE ALLEN WINS ME BACK, THIS TIME
When it was first released, I avoided seeing DECONSTRUCTING HARRY (a.k.a., Woody) because I couldn't bring myself to face yet another self-deprecating, neurotic, self-indulgent, self-centered Woody Allen on screen (who the newspapers had just confirmed is that way off screen too!). Having first laughed at and then endured Allen since the 1960s, I'd had enough. Nevertheless, to this day Allen's THE FRONT remains one of my all time favorite movies ... mainly because of its truthfulness, honesty and courage. Unintentionally, one night I saw part of DECONSTRUCTING HARRY on cable TV (and then HAD to buy it here in DVD) ... because I couldn't stop howling. I'd only seen perhaps the middle half hour of it, but that was enough. Mercifully, THIS movie was not ALL about Allen. Rather Harry Block-Woody Allen was "exploited" as a vehicle for a higher form of humor. Then there were a parade of actors who I never imagined had it in them: Richard Benjamin, Kirstie Alley, Amy Irving ... of all people ..., Mariel Hemingway ... yet! ALL were great in this comedy ... they were terrific. Equally terrific were Hazelle Goodman as Harry's motherly hooker Cookie (wonderful), Billy Crystal and Robin Williams ... who you'd expect to be funny, were indeed that.

I must admit, Allen pulled one out as writer, director and star. But not merely because of the brilliant writing and directing (oh, O.K., and the acting) but because for ONCE Harry-Woody was not the center of the neurotic universe. He was in the middle of the action .... but he tied it all together in DECONSTRUCTING HARRY. Many modern interpersonal issues, stereotypes and clichés are brought into scrutiny under this microscope. It is the very absurdity of it all, making the movie hysterically funny.

Clearly, this is a movie for mature audiences. It is definitely not a movie for children and adolescents. Probably they would find it boring and confusing. The language and situations are graphic, raw and irreligious. But in this movie these are necessary "paints" for painting this picture. Grownups will enjoy this movies thoroughly.

Allen's self-exploration vignettes
Weaving between fiction and reality, Woody Allen's Deconstructing Harry tells the tale of a writer's sexual exploits, romantic failings, and dealings with depression. Allen's character Harry transfers his life's problems into his books, which causes much strife between the real-life counterparts in his world.

Once again Allen has leveraged his considerable fame to draw in Hollywood's elite. Throughout the film, every face is a familiar one. Billy Crystal is portrayed as the devil who steals Woody's romantic lead, Robin Williams as a blurry actor who can't get his focus, Kirstie Alley as a ex-wife who discovers Harry has cheated with a patient, and countless more celebrity cameos.

The joy in partaking in this film is evident in the celebrity actors who appear. There's a certain prestige in such an endeavor, and we, the film audience, can identify just about everyone in the film. At the same time, each character that appears has so much baggage in our minds. For instance, Demi Moore appears as an ex-wife. How many of us can honestly think of her in any way other that her celebrity profile. While this isn't a major problem, identifying with some of the celebrities proves difficult at times.

Deconstructing Harry catalogs Woody's struggle with sexual desire and his inability to love. Early on we discover that he has finally found true love in a pupil, Elizabeth Shue, but she has fallen in love with his friend.

The plot is shaped around Harry's self-identity questions, and the character's goal is to go to an honorary ceremony at his alum. He has nobody to take. His ex-wife won't let him take his son, his girlfriend has left him, and a hooker is the only one around that will take him up on his need for companionship.

The play between Allen's semi-autobiographical stories, which flash to and from reality, illuminate the film and shows how Allen's writing channels his depression and gives him a release from an otherwise ugly life.

After viewing Deconstructing Harry, I wonder how autobiographical it really is.

Witty, perhaps, but heartless
There is no doubting the genius of Woody Allen. The clever ideas and witty dialogue flow thick and fast here, but there is just one problem: The film is totally and utterly heartless.

Woody Allen's humour here is just downright cynical. Cruel, even. The film has a narcissistic feel to it, where everyone is mocked and ripped apart mercilessly apart from Woody's alter-ego, Harry. Though I saw this a few years ago and loved it, on rewatching it recently, I just couldn't enjoy it. His cynicism here is left untempered by optimism and faith, something that marked out his earlier work. Sorry, but this just left a bitter taste in my mouth.

One of Woody's best!
This belongs on the shelf along with the other Woody greats such as Hannah, Manhattan, Stardust Memories & Crimes and Misdemeanors. I can't imagine any objection to this movie unless you're the type that gets excited whenever you see a Tom Cruise type up on the screen. About as close to art as a movie can get and in the same league as Bergman, Wenders, Godard or any of the other greats.
Enough said.

incredible
This is by far my favorite woody allen film . most people who discredit the movie do so because of course language and/or typical woody allen roles and situations. well, if you can't take a little vulgarity, f__k off this movie's not for you. It's not potty humor, it's unfiltered dialogue fitted to the characters and the situations they find themselves in. As for the typical allen scenerios of love triangles and even squares, that's what has made him. Would you expect a woody allen film where he is not nuerotic, or tense, or in constant insecurity? Then don't expect one in which all the angles of relationships are dissected and exploited. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Along with Deconstructing Harry which would follow seven years later, this is Woody Allen's most somber comedy-drama, as well as his most ambitious film of the 1980s. Allen weaves together two central stories about very different groups of Manhattanites, linking them through a mutual friend, a rabbi (Sam Waterston) who's going blind. This image is key to the sometimes ponderous, often clever musings on faith, morals, and vision (or lack thereof) that obsess his deeply troubled and unhappy characters. At its center, the film explores people who, through lack of religious conviction or arrogance, rationalize their awful, selfish acts by presuming that God couldn't possibly be watching.

The central story--a neo-noir of sorts--follows a fortuitous ophthalmologist (Martin Landau, all sweat and grimaces) who faces the prospect of his obsessed mistress (Anjelica Huston) ruining his life by telling his family of their affair. Desperate, the doctor hires his slimy criminal brother (Jerry Orbach) to eliminate the situation, and then suffers overwhelming regret afterwards. The flip tale is more typical Allen. Funnier and lighter, it focuses on an impossible romance between Allen's character and Halley Reed, a film producer played by Mia Farrow. Between Allen and his Hollywood fantasy stands his brother-in-law (Alan Alda, perfectly cast as an obnoxious, successful sitcom producer), who also desires Halley. Allen is Landau's opposite: an honest, struggling documentarian who cares nothing about fortune, suffers in a loveless marriage, and is surrounded by triumphant phonies. The nice-guys-finish-last moral may be as contrived as it is devastating. Yet, when Landau and Allen finally share a final scene during a wedding, their faces, subtle body movements, and contrasting fortunes somehow suggest that indeed God may be blind, and if not, the deity has a very sick sense of humor. --Dave McCoy ... Read more

Reviews (47)

Undisputedly, Allen's most brilliant and mature movie.
What can I say about this movie, except that I have seen it more times than I can count. Each time I watch it, something more is revealed and to me that is the sign of truly excellent writing. The characters are three-dimensional, each with their own idiosyncracies and contradictions. The separate plots compliment each other and stay distinct till the very end, yet they both deal with fundamental human issues and dilemmas. The cast is first-rate. Much of the movie is seen through Allen's character; as always, a cynical and unhappy man, yet you leave the film feeling a certain satisfaction and a greater insight into human behavior. The philosopher is a second narrator, in a sense, and his points of view are pertinent to both of the parallel plots. His suicide adds a twist to the story, where the viewer is suddenly left unsure on how to feel about his poignant words which we once trusted and valued. Overall, the movie is a gem and should be seen by every serious Woody Allen fan as well as those who can't stand him.

The eyes of God are on us always
Two stories run parallel to each other, destined to meet in the denouement. Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau), a successful opthamologist, contemplates murdering his hysterical mistress (Angelica Huston). On the flipside, Clifford Stern (Woody Allen) falls for Halley Reed (Mia Farrow), the woman producing a documentary he’s directing on his loathsome brother-in-law, a successful television producer (Alan Alda). One narrative carries its inherent weight well. Landau’s torment after the deed is done is palpable and painful. The other narrative seems flighty by comparison. Titular bad guy Alda shields himself from the daggers shot from Woody’s rolling eyes. However, his only real sin is lechery.

That being said, the two most heartbreaking moments in the film -- moments that rival in visceral emotion anything I’ve seen at the movies in some time -- come from the “flighty” narrative. I wish I could tell you what they were, but that would spoil the surprise. Just know that they are probably the most dramatic moments Woody Allen has ever put on film, as either director or -- and here’s the surprising part -- dramatic actor. His work is low-key and subdued here, more so than I’ve ever seen it before.

The rest of the cast is spotty at best. Landau, who I rarely believe in his roles, comes close to completely pulling off his Judah, only he misses by a few steps. One scene, where Judah exhibits poor judgement, had me astonished in my seat with disbelief. Still, more commitment from Landau would have sold the scene better. Mia Farrow gets some snappy one-liners as well as some tragic moments, but it feels like she’s forcing the issue in both respects. Also, she has little to no chemistry with Woody (at least none that I saw on screen). The best work is done by Alan Alda. His role could have been an over-the-top parody (it nearly is), but Alda pulls the reigns back just enough. His Lester isn’t really the bad man Cliff sees; he’s just a materialistic blowhard. Nothing criminal about that. Kudos to Alda for showing restraint, while sketching a living and breathing character.

There are some truly funny moments that serve as comic relief to break up the tense drama. Woody gets most of these, natch. One memorable scene involves Cliff and Lester, in which Lester pauses from a conversation about Cliff filming his documentary. He recites into a mini-taperecorder ideas about a TV farce in which a “loser” films a documentary on a successful man, and learns something in the process. Cliff, standing right there the whole time, rolls his eyes in disbelief. On paper, it may not come across how hearty a laugh this moment gets.

The most fascinating aspect of the film was probably the discussions of morality and ethics. God enters the picture once or twice (in discussion only), and man’s deeds are raked over the coals. And even though it doesn’t provide the typical Hollywood movie answers, the answers the film does provide are realistic and true and, most importantly, tragic. While the situations portrayed may be fantastic, the reactions by the characters within them were real.

Probably the darkest of Woody’s movies, “Crimes and Misdemeanors” will most assuredly be amongst the ones remembered a hundred years in the future. It balances its comedy, drama, and tragedy sublimely, creating a document of life that’s sure to provoke and entertain.

Crime but no time
I think what Allen meant to call this film was "Felonies and Misdemeanors" since a misdemeanor is a crime and the title a little redundant. That aside I think it's his best film, hands down. He managed to pull together his comic and tragic instincts into what is an entertaining and occasionally harrowing declaration of atheism. Not a philosophy everyone agrees with but he doesn't soft-pedal it. The staging of the murder that parallels Allen's romantic misadventures with a TV producer gives Martin Landau the role of a lifetime as a well-meaning physician who profits from an evil act. Great performances all around, especially Jerry Ohrbach as Landau's hoody brother and Allan Alda as a TV impressario who divests Woody of Mia Farrow (something the director probably wishes had happened in real life).

God Is Not An Idiot
Examining theodicy, the enigma of reconciling a benevolent God with capricious fate and suffering, Woody Allen fails to get much beyond a dark comic-dramatization of a freshman philosophy bull session, attempting to prove heroic enlightenment by forming agnostic conclusions.

Martin Landau plays an ophthalmologist having an affair with a frantic, aging stewardess threatening to disrupt his affluent contentment by confronting his wife. Not deriving solace from a kindly Rabbi patient and friend who is facing blindness and recommends honesty, Landau solicits help from his criminal brother to solve the problem with a hired killer. His bouts of conscience include reminiscing moral debates at a family Seder during his adolescence. His father, favoring a morally sensible existence, argues with a nihilistic aunt who trivializes the bible, believes God's non-existence is proven by The Holocaust, and views morality as a social contrivance.

Allen plays an uncompromising documentarian falling in love with an assistant (Farrow), also pursued by his boorish brother-in-law (Alda) who produces sitcoms and relishes being perceived as a creative genius. Alda's deep thoughts include the idea that with enough passage of time, tragedy becomes laughable, believing the Lincoln assassination to be an example. Alda throws his in-law a bone by allowing him to film him at work when Allen would rather work on a portrayal of a humanistic philosopher pondering serious questions. Unlike Landau's cynical aunt, the philosopher believes an empty universe is given meaning when human beings define values for themselves.

Allen's likable character turns the documentary of Alda into a satire of the man's vanity, and we gain sympathy for his protectiveness towards a favorite niece. Shielding her proves futile as Allen learns of the philosopher's suicide while on an outing with her. At a wedding reception, Allen discovers he has lost his battle for Farrow's affections to the egotist and then engages in a chance colloquy with Landau, wistful over the fading of his conscience. Allen's sadness invites us to share a resignation over the capriciousness of fate, the success of obnoxious people, the joyless end of an unmourned mistress, the unrequited love of a sensitive man, a sweet woman taken in by a cad, the blindness of a benevolent Rabbi, the despair of a man of apparent wisdom, and the return to comfort by a philanderer and murderer all serving to portray God as incompetent because life is unpredictable and joy and suffering are not proportionate to decency or malice. The answers of religion must be contrivances.

However, it requires contrivances to view God as a fool. Extreme skepticism often ignores contrary evidence to its cosmic-accident interpretation of existence. If we are just "a pack of neurons" and our mental life nothing but electrical impulses, then we cannot explain the realm of abstract concepts, including those of science. Nor can we explain the human mind's openness to truth, the foundation of all thought. Atheists cannot explain why anything should go right, even observation and deduction, why good logic should not be as misleading as bad logic, if they are both chance movements in the brain of a bewildered ape. Atheists exalt reason, but they cannot account for reason. Neither can materialism account for consciousness, free will, value judgments, and the existence of a unitary self. In a material world such things cannot exist. Matter cannot be free or have a self. Neither could free will exist if joy and suffering existed in perfect proportion with virtue and malice reducing our functionality to stimulus-response reward-punishment contingencies like that of lab rats pursuing a piece of cheese. Love and courage could not exist.

Similarly, no matter how we claim to be nonjudgmental and deny innate moral truth, we can not ignore the countering evidence of our own anger, which reminds us that there are natural expectations we have, should have, and can not avoid having of each other. Anger is the existential expression of moral outrage even when we exercise moral outrage at the very concept of moral outrage, reflexively calling anyone presenting a moral vision a hypocrite. In our sober moments, we know the life of the desperate woman is as sacred as the successful doctor. Nonetheless, we often live with the temptation to defer to "important people," hoping the identification of an imaginary human genius will confer a sense of superiority on ourselves by our presumed courage in recognizing theirs. We are quick to excuse the transgressions of genius. Morality can not be enough for great minds if they represent insights that anyone can have. Allen is a brilliant satirist of human pretense, often portraying trendy sophisticates as fools, but just as often sides with their elitist conventions that view metaphysical and moral questions as hopelessly complex needing great minds to sort it out for the rest of us. The last advice from Allen's philosopher is to hope for some genius of the future to give us life's meaning, although in the interim loving our families provides meaningful hope.

But since a benevolent creator implies the universal nature of important truth, the fading of conscience does not really occur so easily, and an ethical sense is innate to human decency. The killing of a man of noble purpose is still a tragedy 140 years later. So is the killing of a lonely mistress. A God with the wisdom to be subtle also invites us to find meaning in loving our families, which is precisely what we don't do when we exercise a blind faith in our self-definition. Self-worship is closer to the definition of evil. It may be that we prefer to ignore evidence that God is not idiotic because it helps us to avoid realizing that we often are. Why impeach our failures of decency if God is in no position to judge us negatively if we don't? Fortunately, as our better, God is merciful in judging our mendacity, our failures, and our acts of desperation. There is a vast body of literature examining theodicy, unfortunately most written by humble people whom intellectuals never notice.

Powerfully intelligent film
This is not a typical Woody Allen film in that it has an overall seriously philosophical quality. The performance of Martin Landau as a successful opthamolgist who is morally conflicted is one of the most moving and grounded Film performances I have ever seen. He is just magnificent in this movie. Allen deftly weaves Landau's story together with another thread featuring Allen as a documentary film maker who is unhappily married. His brother-in - law is an obnoxious televison producer played to great effect by Alan Alda. This film raises questions of morality , faithfulness and does so in a way that leaves the viewer to think through these issues as the characters go trough their respective moral crises. There are some laughs included but for the most part this is serious filmmaking at it's best. ... Read more

Reviews (80)

Not too bad, a fun romantic comedy
Along Came Polly is a romantic comedy written by John Hamburg (Meet the Parents, Zoolander). Ben Stiller plays Reuben Feffers (another odd name for Stiller), an insurance risk analyst who lives life cautiously and safely, often calculating risks and odds associated with relationships and activities. After deciding he has found the woman of his dreams, he marries a girl and they go on their honeymoon. Within the first day, however, events go awry when his wife cheats on him, having an affair with a French scuba instructor (who happens to be a nudist as well). Disillusioned, Feffers begins life anew trying to find a perfect soul mate.

He eventually meets Polly (Jennifer Aniston), who is epitomizes the exact opposite personality as Feffers. She is a free-spirit, doesn't make or keep appointments, lives life spontaneously and in the moment, and doesn't overanalyze anything. Here lies Feffers' dilemma: he wants to live a "risk-free" relationship, but Polly, who has gained his interest, jeopardizes this ideal lifestyle.

Another problem manifests itself when Feffers' cheating wife (I guess they didn't get a divorce) comes back to him pleading for a second chance. From here Stiller wavers back and forth, and most of the plot includes him going out with each and deciding who is best for him.

This could have been less of a movie, but Stiller has an ability to add quirkiness to his characters, humor to moments that may not be otherwise very funny. He personifies the bad-luck individual guy looking for love, and becomes a sympathetic character as a result. His character takes the advice others give him in stride, but ultimately makes his own decisions on love.

Plenty of slapstick humor is in the film; some scenes work, others do not. The "potty" humor was taken a little too far, and the movie could have done fine without much of it. Aniston and Stiller make an otherwise mediocre dialogue funny.

Although this comedy is certainly "far-fetched", it works as a fun romantic comedy. This movie deals with the issue of compatibility and what it takes to find "the one." However, it is light hearted, and doesn't take itself too seriously, which makes it more effective.

3 1/2 stars

Disappointing.
This movie pretty much follows the same pattern as "There Is Something about Mary". We've seen it before and we've seen it much better. The attempt to keep it within PG-13 bounds probably hurt, as well. Once you get into R territory, all bets are off, and perhaps then this movie could have gone all out.

The supporting cast is the best thing about the movie. Alec Baldwin and Phillip Seymour Hoffman bring the best parts for this movie. This movie isn't as good as "There Is Something about Mary", not even close. I'd almost put this film into the "chick flick" genre, but it's not bad enough to do this. Although it follows the usual pattern (guy meets girl, they get into a fight, they make up again, the end).

Anyway, if your a fan of Jennifer Aniston, you will appreciate this movie (i guarantee). If you want some good laughs without too much thinking, get this, or better, "There is Something about Mary".

This movie sharted!
This movie was a complete waste of my time. There were some funny scenes but I never bought Polly being attracted to Reuben. The funniest scene was the basketball pickup game, with the hairy guy sweating all over Reuben's face, and Philip Seymour Hoffman saying "I sharted" and then walked away funny. I liked Jennifer Aniston, too. I agree with my other half that she reminded me very much of Ellen in her early days. Hank Azaria looks great & has a great rear end, but Along Came Polly is just too stupid most of the time. Skip it.

hilarious
Along came Polly is a classic funny film 2 B seen over and over again I laughed about the whole way through my favorite line had to be his friend's "I sharted"

HORRIBLE.
This is one of the worst films I've seen recently. It was a complete waste for me to buy the DVD. Sometimes you win, sometimes not. I bought some other DVD's this year because people told me the movies were winners. Kill Bill was a winner, Welcome to Mooseport was a winner...this was a loser and a flop.

Along Came Polly bored me half to death before it was halfway through. The story was dry and predictable, with only one good joke through the whole thing; and that one joke was crude. Unfortunately the person who recommended this to me has a much different taste in movies than I do, and the rest of my audience seemed to agree with me. It was a disappointment and one of those movies you see once, and don't plan on ever seeing again. ... Read more

Reviews (67)

Sarandon and Portman shines!!!
Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman are two very talented actress. They are the reason that makes me buy this DVD. And their performances are superb. However, the script is a little loose.
It is about a Mom Adele who is a little bit wild and crazy, who loves so much about her daughter and thinks her planning on her will simply be the best for her. While the daughter Ann has her own preferences, which makes her always wants to escape from her mom. What makes this simple story even more flat (unfortunate) is the script does not provide any chemistry and dynamics between these 2 characters. We know their conflicts, but sometimes, we see the daughter hates her mom, and suddenly, she is be-friending with her. Even both actress tries hard to make them 2 believable characters, still the story lacks certain sparkle to make this a 'real good' movie. Fortunately, the performance of Sarandon and Portman never disappoints you throughout the whole movie.
The ending concludes the movie very well:
Ann: "Even if you can't stand her (the Mom). Even if you hate her. Even if she's ruining your life. There's something about my mother. Some romance, some power. And when she dies, the world will be flat. Too simple, too fair... Too reasonable."

Sarandon in Fine Form Per Usual!
I was a bit leery of this movie when I ordered it because, frankly, I had never heard of it, but was not disappointed when it arrived and I watched it. I love Sarandon and would probably buy anything she was in, and I guess one of these days I will be disappointed in one of her movies. But it didn't happen with this one. The relationship between the mother and daughter is right on! Have you ever known of a teenage daughter who doesn't get irritated with her mother, and yes, even sometimes embarassed by her? And Susan's character does do a lot to try her staid daughter's patience! The beautiful Natalie Portman shows so much sensitivity in this role, as well. Coming of age and coping with all the teenage problems is hard enough but add a mother who is a bit flaky, and you have a big problem! Ann copes and does a fine job of handling things, although a few of life's problems almost get her down. This is the perfect film for mothers and teenage daughters to watch together. A mother's love never fails when push comes to shove, as Ann finds out.

Unlikeable
Unmemorable except for the fact that I remember it was depressing without being introspective, very meaningful, or even likeable.

best movie ever!!!!!
i loved this movie, it is my favorite movie and always will be. The only film i've ver cried in, and never forgot about from when i first saw it in theaters when i was 8. The plot in this movie is inspiring and unforgetable. The cast (sarandan,portman) were truly amazing and once again bringing mothers and daughters close. I would have to say portmans best performance ever with the lines she was given: "even if you hate her, you can't stand her,there's something about my mother, because when she dies the world will be flat".

JUST PLAIN OL' GOOD MOVIE
I like this movie a lot. However, I just don't get the point of the Mothers character. Yeah, she's a free-spirit with quirky tendencies, but they never really get to any point with why she acts like that, or if anything exciting will happen to her. For a moment I thought she was suffering depression in the scene where she just decides to vacuum rather than join her daughter (Portman) to a Christmas party. Besides that its a good movie. Lots of different scenes, which I like in all movies. Natalie Portman is a terrific actress and I will continue to collect all her great films like Beautiful Girls and Where The Heart Is. ... Read more

Description

What would happen if all the Mexicans in the state of California disappeared?This is the fascinating premise of this heartwarming comedy.Spurred on by the provocative ad campaign, the film attracted extensive coverage from the news media including CNN, the CBS Evening News and the Fox Network.English- and Spanish- speaking audiences alike flocked to see this hilarious mockumentary, which garnered an impressive $3.4 million in its first limited domestic release, and continues to break box office records since it's opening in Mexico. ... Read more

Reviews (85)

Black Comedy Better Left Gray
At times, PUMPKIN features a wonderfully, whimsical, fanciful sense of humor. The film pokes fun at possibly every popular convention associated to sorority life and classism ... even classism within classism, if that makes any sense. Arguably, it might be the best satire of the college campus Greek system ever made, not a pure comedy like ANIMAL HOUSE but true satire much in the vein of Woody Allen's earlier works ... but, sadly, that's not what the story is about.

Occasionally bold in its risks and probably prone to offend quite a few viewers, PUMPKIN is horribly uneven in its story, pacing, and, unfortunately, acting.

Christina Ricci as "the sexy Carolyn McDuffy" (product packaging's words, not mine) does her best to elevate a rather standard fare about the perfect wealthy sorority girl inadvertantly finding her soulmate with the physically challenged 'Pumpkin' (of the film's title), but hackneyed seriousness thrown smack dab in the middle of obvious farce weighs this film down consistently in keeping it from becoming a "message film" ... that is, unless you want to agree that "sorority girls" are bad influences on society.

Even the most purile viewer won't accept so elementary a message in so obtuse a package.

The story veers all over the map. Ricci falls in and out of love with Pumpkin, her hunk fraternity tennis pro, her sorority life, her social life, etc. At times, she oozes elegance while balancing bubbleheadedness. Finally, she teeters on the brink of self-discovery, leading herself to a scene where she apparently attempts suicide ... but only ends up looking tired and unkempt. The interesting subplots (an absolutely hysterical foul-mouthed poetry teacher and her mismatched friendship with the overly plump) are left on the roadsides. Did the writer and/or director have any intention by introducing them into the script, or were they forever destined to be dangling, unanswered questions?

The viewer will never know, as the film certainly won't warrant a "Director's Cut."

Had more time been spent on the cohesiveness of the story and less on the stand-alone segments that actually work, PUMPKIN might've had the chance to be much more than what it ends up ... and perhaps that's a larger metaphor that first-time writer/directors Broder and Abrams were postulating. Several more hours drafts out of the PC might've spruced this film so that it would've minimally surfaced as an underground favorite -- a cult film, of an odd sort -- because their hearts were in the right place. A farcical feel-good movie would find a spot on any cinema buff's shelf.

However, this PUMPKIN is better left in the patch.

What a great film!
This film is a biting satire that casts an irreverant look at the "kind" way society treats the disabled, or the "challenged". At the same time it is warm, human - and just plain funny.

All is well with the world - just as long as everyone keeps their assigned place in the social order : the gracious givers of charity, the grateful recipients. The Helpers and the Helped. What would happen if people would dare to step out of their roles?

Ricci plays a naive blonde sorority girl whose life up to now has been "perfect". Now she is faced with the task of coaching a disabled young man for the special olympics. Ricci is horrified. She wants nothing to do with such unpleasantness. But she has no choice. After a remarkably unsuccesful start to her coaching carreer, Ricci begins to see her young trainee in a different light - and this experience turns her whole picture perfect world on it's head.

The film is full of wonderful characters - Ricci with her incredible naivite, Pumpkin - the young disabled man struggling to find his own voice, Ricci's boyfriend - a dashing college tennis star and heartbreaker who is also a very decent person. The characters are rich and multilayered - even those portrayed in a mostly negative light have moments where their humanity shines clearly through. I suspect that viewers who are parents of disabled will find the depiction of Pumpkin's mother unpleasant, to say the least. But look beyond the first layer, and you will see a woman who defends herself from her own sorrow by shielding her son from life - unfortunately, beyond what he needs or wants.

Sharp barbs are tossed at everyone - except at Pumpkin. Never.

As sharp as the satire is, the overall tone is warm and uplifting. Many hilarious moments abound, including a brief and hysterically funny counseling session.

Two films that came to mind when watching this were "the House of Yes", with a somewhat similar humor, and "Harold and Maude" with a theme not unlike "Pumpkin"'s. I think viewers who liked these would like Pumpkin very much.

More stars than are alotted.
The first thing I noticed watching this movie was that Christina Ricci's nipples were seemingly always erect. The second thing was that this was the best movie I've seen in a while. I suppose it was a bit over the top sardonically in nature, but taken as an intentional mawkish view of college life through the eyes of a superficial sorority sister, it came across as the writers/director intended and well-done at that I might add. I mean it featured Emiliana Torrini singing a beautiful rendition of an old Rod McKuen poem(what could be more ridiculous than him?!?!) in a haunting and Bjorkesque old scratched up record sort of way, what else would one expect from Pumpkin? Gone with the Wind it isn't. Thank God. But a pleasant surprise it is.

A monstruous and contrived, almost outwardly-mocking relationship between a rich, prep-school college sorority girl and a handicapped man turns into a love story gone wrong, err...right. It starts as a sisterhood pledge to win some coveted trophy by helping challenged athletes, but Ricci's shallow character soon falls for Pumpkin who is the antipode of her jam-it-in-and-kiss-later stud-jock-boyfriend.

The love story is very sweet, despite it being "improper" and to everyone's disdain, but finally leads to her loss of social standing and subsequently a once-promising life tailspinning into oblivion and hopeless loss. 6 stars out of 5.

Dissapointing
I am a huge Christina Ricci fan, however this film dissapointed me. The attempts at comedy seemed awkward and seemed to come at the most dramatic times of the movie. It just didn't *flow*. Oh, and while we're on the topic of comedy, the only funny parts of the whole movie were those shown in the trailer.

Christina wasn't beleivable as a sorority girl. The personalities of the characters were inconsistant -- one moment they were snobby and shallow the next caring, and then shallow again. She seems to have fallen in love with Pumpkin after one day of frisbee tossing.

I was confused also with the time period of the movie. I'm assuming it was meant to be modern day (it says "not long ago" in the very begining and she drives a Wolkswagen that wasn't too old) yet thats about all that suggests that. The hair and clothes are dated and so is the music they listen to. The movie seemed to portray a sorority in the 60's.

On a positive note, although Pumpkin had very few lines, the camera really captured his soul. That's a good thing since the script and overall flow of the story didn't. I feel his character could have really been developed better, however it seems they were too busy at desperate attempts for a laugh. Another plus was the fact that the film was very colorful and beautiful to watch. That's about the only thing that kept me watching.

The end was dissapointing and confusing. The entire movie shows how a "normal" person and a mentally handicapped person can fall in love and connect on a deep emotional level. However, at the very end, one becomes disturbed when Carolyn asks pumkin grade-school question about metaphors and he obviously doesn't understand. She gives this, "what am i getting myself into" look to the camera as the walk off into the sunset. This seems to go against everything the movie was trying to say about two people in love and made me uncomfortable. It seemed to hint that Carolyn will spend her life being Pumpkin's mother rather than lover.

You can tell that this movie was meant to make some sort of an impact, but seemed to take a wrong turn after the first ten minutes.

Who needs character develpoment? Look Deeper.
Despite the obvious lack of character development, which it hardly needed, this movie was very touching, and at times funny, but not from the "American Pie" point of view that it seemed to be billed as in the previews. In truth the movie was not at all what it seemed, a shallow attempt at risky comedy, in fact I found it quite profound, and at times a bit deep. One of the points that reviewers have stated is that the movie needed more character development, and to that I ask where? With the exception of Pumpkin and at times Carolyn, all the characters where shallow, ignorant, and very stereotypical Southern California rich yuppies who care more about appearances and judge people by them rather than what is inside. And, in reality, that is all the story is about. Pumpkin, who is slightly mentally challenged, is really more introverted than retarded, this from years of repression from his shallow mother. Enter Carolyn, who despite being extremely intelligent, finds herself fitting in with the shallow crowd, being popular, vice being herself, but this separates her from the rest of the characters who, though popular, really have no moral standing and are too quick to judge the new romance between Carolyn and Pumpkin. In the end, though, we find that she has been the inspiration to all of the characters and amazingly, and painfully, they all learn a little something from her and finally begin to see though the shallowness of their past.
On a stranger note, there was one particular quirk in the movie I must address, because, from a humor stand point it is pretty funny, but from a drama/realistic stand point, not so much. After Carolyn's ex is humiliated by Pumpkin at the dance, he, the ex, runs off to his car. His car appears to be a charger or some other car of a similar make. He swerves, and next thing you see is supposed to be his car flying off the cliff, however it's a limo now, which after a few seconds bursts into flames and crashes on the rocks below. The next day he is in the hospital, not a scratch, bruise or burn on his body. So, was this a metaphor? a dream? a bit of "Hollywood" joking? or jus bad film making? I also found a bit of interest in the look of the film, how the characters all looked to be from the late 50's or 60's and a line that Carolyn says at the dance "Pumpkin's not riding on the back of the bus any more", seems to point that the movie may have originally been written as a interracial work, but as that is not the hot topic it once was, it was rewritten to be a bit racier by today's standards. But maybe it's just me. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Based on the novel by Anonymous (a.k.a. political reporter Joe Klein) and released when the Monica Lewinsky scandal was in full swing, Primary Colors may have been a case of too much, too soon for many moviegoers, who preferred the real-life Clinton crisis over the movie's thinly disguised "Clintonesque" comedy. The general public felt that the film was exploiting the president's indiscretions, and as a result one of the most critically acclaimed movies of 1998 was a box-office disappointment. But when considered apart from the Clinton scandals and judged on its own considerable merits, this superb comedy-drama provides an illuminating, insightful, and frequently hilarious look at the harsh realities of presidential politics. John Travolta stars as Jack Stanton, a presidential hopeful whose campaign is challenged by dual dilemmas: how to squelch a scandal involving the candidate's alleged sex with an underage girl, and how to handle information that could potentially ruin Stanton's opponent (superbly played by Larry Hagman). Stanton's wife (Emma Thompson) stands by her man despite awareness of his infidelities, but his loyal campaign planners (played by Billy Bob Thornton, Maura Tierney, and promising newcomer Adrian Lester) experience a crisis of conscience. So does one of the Stantons' oldest friends (Kathy Bates, in an Oscar-nominated role), whose sense of betrayal and lost idealism proves too much to bear. Masterfully adapted by director Mike Nichols and his former-comedy-partner-turned-screenwriter, Elaine May, Primary Colors plays like a sophisticated comedy with loads of memorable scenes and dialogue, but it sneaks up on you with devastating dramatic impact. Anchored by Travolta's superb performance (which is reminiscent of Clinton without being a cheap impersonation), the movie presents a story of great moral complexity and leaves viewers to contemplate their own reactions to the volatile and ethically complicated game of modern politics. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (62)

Be Not Deceived- This is a GREAT Film
Forget Bush and Gore! The more interesting race for the presidency took place in "Primary Colors," an all-around outstanding movie which sank into obscurity, unfortunately, thanks to the Lewinsky scandal. Yes, it's loosely based on the Clintons, but if you put that aside and just focus on the movie in its own right, it's not as hard of a pill to swallow.

To start, seasoned vets Nichols and May provide sharp direction and writing, respectively. Even though this movie is about politics (which, as all of us now know, can get pretty gruesome), they make it interesting and intriguing by going behind the scenes, showing the feelings and emotions of the people involved in a presidential campaign, feelings and emotions that don't come through in press conferences and interviews.

The vision of Nichols and May is turned into fine art by a superb cast. Travolta is surprisingly charismatic, and Emma Thompson deserves much more praise than she has received as his patient but driven wife. Billy Bob Thornton gives a hilarious supporting performance, and Larry Hagman also does a great job as Travolta's opponent who's unwillingly thrust into the spotlight (Rob Reiner also has a humerous cameo as the host of ... call-in radio show in Florida).

But the two stars that outshine the rest are Adrian Lester and Kathy Bates. Lester is absolute dynamite as the campaign manager who yearns for "the real thing," a candidate who actually practices what he preaches. His performance is dramatic and heartfelt. As great as his performance is, Bates is the unsung hero of the movie, and without question, deserved to win Best Supporting Actress (she was robbed by Judi Dench and her 5-minutes-of-fame in "Shakespeare in Love"). She is outrageously funny at times and humble and vulnerable at others, but always comes through with an endearing sincerity.

So, if you want to see an all-around great movie or, more specifically, if you've become disillusioned by the political process and the (so-called) leaders it has produced, there has never been a better time to watch "Primary Colors."

BITTERSWEET ENTERTAINMENT
The machinations of a presidential campaign in "Primary Colors" is presented through the eyes of Henry Burton (British actor Adrian Lester). Henry is a privileged young African American feldgling politician whose grandfather was a civil rights legend. While trying to find out who the candidate is, Henry is virtually kidnapped by the presidential campaign of an obscure Southern governor, Jack Stanton (played flawlessly by John Travolta). Stanton's politically savy, smart lawyer wife Susan (amazingly played by Emma Thompson) is often the brains of the campaign. The parody on Bill and Hillary Clinton is obvious.

Of course, the idealistic Henry and aging Stanton loyalist, Libby Holden (Kathy Bates who possibly hands in the film's best supporting performance) keep hoping that Jack and Susan are as good as they seem. Inevitably, the Stantons compromise everything to win the campaign and power, leaving without much integrity as the campaign progresses.

The movie is very funny and works as a Clinton parody without being offensive. Indeed, the magical collaboration between director Mike Nichols and screenwriter Elaine May produces a very clever and entertaining political melodrama. After three viewings, I'm not tired of this movie. At the end, I gained even more respect for the talents of Travolta, Thompson, Bates, Billy Bob Thornton et al.

This is a must see film.

the story of Bill
basically the story of the evilness of Bill Clinton America's worst president/murderer/rapist/womanizer/drug user/drug dealer/basically you name something that's a crime and he did it

a very good representation of the Clinton's evilness

Is It Real or Just Fiction?
I watched this film recently while reading Bill Clinton's book, "My Life," and after watching another DVD, "The War Room," and I have to say it's hard to tell if this "story" is fiction or a factual summary of Clinton's original run for the Presidency.

Regardless of the story behind the story this movie stands on its own as an excellent political film. John Travolta is fantastic (amazingly close to the real Clinton!) as Stanton the Southern candidate running for office. He leaves behind all hints of his normal sexiness and turns himself into a slick, conniving out of shape politican beant on winning his campaign. He pulls off this role with amazing ability as an actor, tearing up when necessary and showing anger without any brutality, he held it all in his eyes.

Kathy Bates plays a crazy campaign manager who tries to keep Stanton out of the dog house one too many times. She is brilliant in this role as a tough lesiban who succumbs to the reality of politics. She rants, she raves and she delivers great ethical speeches as her character attempts to right all of Stanton's wrongs (which are amazingly similar to Clinton's!).

I believe this film will open up a new level of awareness as to what actually occurs during a presidential campaign. An interesting film with a slow growing message and quite appropriate for political followers. I just wish Stanton/Clinton would finally show his TRUE colors!

"Wow" is the only phrase that comes to mind
When I first stumbled across a very very late night airing of Primary Colors on television, I was hesitant to sit back and enjoy the show. Political films just don't float my boat, since I find the actual politics somewhat uninteresting. However, within about forty-five seconds, I was hooked on this compelling comedy-drama. The story is superb, even though it isn't anything we haven't heard or joked about before. The acting is beyond superb, with every character given a voice and a story, so that you feel that nothing that is said or done is out of place. Although the comedic moments are great, what is really surprising is how, by the end of the film, you are deeply affected by the outcome of each character's story. And although the film is about politics, it is completely non-partisan and leaves the viewer to draw his or her own conclusions.

I feel that I cannot say enough good about Primary Colors. It is a surprisingly wonderful film that I would recommend to everyone. ... Read more

Reviews (81)

Romance without the Cliches
In Mirimax Picture's 'Bounce,' an admittedly extraordinary circumstance becomes the catalyst for a story about ordinary people living ordinary lives and being all the more extraordinary for that. Far from being yet another 'chick-flick' romance, 'Bounce' is a movie that explores how guilt and love and friendship and kindness and dishonesty and fear can all intertwine and how average people respond to the randomness of life and chance. It is, in short, an outstanding movie that is refreshingly free of the cliches that normally burden romances of this type.

The story revolves around Buddy Amaral (Ben Affleck), a jet setting ad executive who, in order to get a one night stand with fellow passenger Mimi Praeger (Natasha Henstridge), gives his airplane ticket to Greg Janello, a TV writer and failed playwrite who is anxious to get home to his wife, Abby (Gweneth Paltro) and sons Joey and Scott, played by David Dorfmann and Alex Linz. When the plane on which Buddy was supposed to fly subsequently crashes, killing all including Greg, Buddy is overwhelmed with guilt and descends into alcoholism. After spending time in rehab, Buddy decides that he must make amends to Greg's family and arranges for Abby, now working as a struggling real estate agent, to sell Buddy's advertising agency new offices. Buddy and Abby fall in love, but he cannot bring himself to tell her the truth. At that point, Mimi has a chance meeting with Abby who discovers Buddy's secret.

Notwithstanding a somewhat contrived situation, 'Bounce' succeeds because its characters are multidimensional and very human. Buddy and Abby are attractive people because they are real people that the audience wants to get to know. Buddy is a hot shot at the start of the movie, but he is also vulnerable and lonely and desperate to be liked. Abbey is the grieving widow, but she is also an attentive mother, a suburban housewife and a working woman who has to support two young children but is not sure, even a year after her husband's death, that she can do it. What is more, both are wracked by guilt caused by a situation that they could not predict or control, but that has radically changed their lives.

Make no mistake, Abby and Buddy are not the traditional Hollywood romantic movie heroes. These are not characters who start out flawed and whose romance redeems them from their sins. Rather, both of these characters are striving to overcome their flaws. Not in the typical 'run away to find yourself' soul searching Hollywood way, but rather in the little every day ways of their growing love.

This is powerful stuff because screenwriter/director Don Roos has avoided the snappy dialogue and corny speeches that make most Hollywood romantic characters seem inauthentic. Rather, Roos makes them human and therefore sympathetic. When Abby fails to understand a joke that Buddy makes, the audience can laugh with her because they've been the ones who have missed the joke. When Buddy struggles to tell his secret, the audience can sympathize with his struggle because they have sometimes had trouble telling the truth.

As for the acting, Paltrow puts in an absolutely riveting performance. She deftly avoids the cliche of the happy widow or the tough mom. She makes Abby a totally believable character whose pain is real to the audience, but whose understated courage calls for admiration. In this movie, Paltrow masters a character that could easily have become a one dimensional caricature, but instead takes on real flesh and blood characteristics.

Typically, Ben Affleck's performance does not get quite the rave reviews that his co-star and former real life girlfriend gets. However, this is unfair. For while Paltrow avoids the pitfall of making her character into a cliche, Affleck has the harder job because his character's motivations are less straightforward. Buddy vulnerabilities are harder to define, harder to see and his guilt is more complex than Abby's. For where she feels guilty because her last words to her husband were made in hasty argument, Buddy's guilt is strictly speaking unwarranted. He did a man a favor and random chance saved Buddy's life. Yet Buddy's guilt is real, and is perhaps more rooted in the emptiness he feels in his life and in his sense that the frivolousness of his actions were repaid in tragedy for another.

Affleck conveys this brilliantly and in subtle ways. When a flight attendant spurns Buddy's advances, he looks both amused and baffled and genuinely hurt. When Abby mentions Greg's name after having just clinched the real estate deal that Buddy threw her way, Buddy looks hurt and disappointed in spite of himself. When Abby finally confronts Buddy about his secret, the pain is palpable but restrained. He tears up, his voice cracks as he says good bye and asks for forgiveness, but he does not gush or create the emotional scene that is normally requisite in a Hollywood romance. This is emotionally complex stuff and Affleck deserves credit for what is surely the best performance of his entire career.

As to the rest of the cast, their work is stupendous. Johnny Galecki as Seth, Buddy's gay assistant, is brilliant, more than compensating for the fact that his character is a sort of glorified Jimminy Cricket. Tony Goldwyn is instantly likeable as Greg, as is Natasha Henstridge as Mimi. David Dorfman and Alex Linz are also quite good as Abby's sons. One only wishes that there had been more time to develop the relationship between Buddy and the boys. Fortunately, what the audience does see is both believable and touching.

'Bounce' is emotionally compelling without bludgeoning its audience. Although there are a few plot contrivances that do not quite ring true, this is more than compensated for by characters that are real, sympathetic and engaging. At the start of the film Buddy asks, 'Am I that much of a cliche?' No he is not, and that is what makes 'Bounce' such a moving and human story.

Failed Chick Flick
There's not much to recommend this movie. There's no real chemistry between Ben Affleck and Gwyneth Paltrow, which is a shame because they're both talented actors, and they've both proven they can do romance. They just don't do it here. In fact, there's so little connection it's obvious they're just reading scripted lines. In the end, it's neither their fault, nor the writers: the lines are all right, and they're read well, but there's just no chemistry.

There are only two major failures with this movie, but they're doozies: the characters and the plot concept. The characters fail to grow on viewers despite all the standard awkward situations they're put into to create sympathy. Affleck's guilt over Paltrow's husband seems contrived, rather than genuine or understandable. He is a sterotypical villain, ready, even eager, to prey on others. Even his career is sterotypical: he an ad exec; of course he's a horrible human being. His character fails: a flat-character bad guy that almost, but not quite, becomes a likeable guy. His guilt and self-loathing seem contrived. Paltrow's character fails as well: you sometimes feel sorry for her, but never really sympathize.

The other major failure is the plot twist. The only redeeming factor is the that-could-have-been-me factor, which is given away in the trailers and not developed in the movie. If they had spent more time developing his character around that, and not forcing him to persue Paltrow's character, this movie might have been saved. Instead, they use it as a cheap plot device, and throw it away.

There's not even anything to qualify it as a decent chick-flick- there's nothing to sigh about at the end, you never say "just say yes, you twit! Can't you see he loves you?". It's a little too much like watching a very boring episode of Springer, minus any redeeming drama.

Chick Flick Hell
Prepare yourself and sharpen the razor blades if your woman brings this home to watch with you one evening. This is a romantic comedy without romance or comedy. Ben Affleck is his usual shallow character we see time and time again. Gwyneth Paltrow does her best, but doesn't have much to work with. If you've read enough reviews, you know by now Ben visits and ends up courting a widow whose husband's death he is indirectly responsible for. After about an hour of this yawnfest you'll wish you had a night out with the boys instead of cuddling on the couch. The things us men have to endure for the sake of our women is tedious and sad, but this movie is brutal torture. When she brings this home, do anything you can to get out of the house or pour water on the DVD player.

Good cast, BAD movie
I was appalled by how poor this movie was. I love both Ben Affleck and Gwyneth Paltrow and it's a shame that a movie with reasonable potential could be so bad. The characters are un-interesting and the plot is overly predictable to the point of annoying. This movie was a waste of a perfectly good 106 minutes of my evening.

Sweet & Romantic
This is a sweet and romantic movie, and I suggest it to any romantic-movie-lovers. I don't exactly suggest this movie for teen boys, they may find it too "mushy." ... Read more

Amazon.com

Writer-director Nora Ephron hit a low point with this disappointingly dreary comedy set in a suicide clinic on Christmas Eve. The joke is supposed to be that all of the crisis counselors are themselves a pack of lovable losers, led by a badly toupeed Steve Martin. But it's a short step from lovable loser to annoying dweeb and most of the people in this movie cross that line very quickly. It's too bad, because the cast includes Madeline Kahn, Robert Klein, Rob Reiner, Garry Shandling, and Adam Sandler. Somehow, Ephron manages to restrain this lineup from doing anything funny. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (46)

Nothing gets me more in the XMas Spirit than this movie !!
This is my favorite Holiday movie. From the first time I saw this dark comedy six years ago, I have enjoyed it year after year. Nora Ephron did a wonderful job taking something as tragic as a Suicide Hotline on Christmas Eve and turning it into something funny. Of course the subject of suicide itself is far from funny, and if you cant get past that, then you probably wont like this movie (although the movie doesnt dwell on that subject too much).

But this film keeps it light with lots of subplots, an outrageous cast including Steve Martin, Madeline Khan (who is hysterically convincing as the uptight Mrs. Munchnick), Adam Sandler, Rita Wilson (in her best performance to date), Tony LaPaglia, Liev Schreiber (very funny in drag), and others.

The music is very upbeat, the plot is fast-paced and there is a great blend of subtle humor (Khan insisting on increasing the suicide