Amazon.com

In The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, director Wes Anderson takes his familiar stable of actors on a field trip to a fantasy aquarium, complete with stop-motion, candy-striped crabs and rainbow seahorses.And though Anderson does expand his horizons in terms of retro-special effects and a whimsical use of color, fans will otherwise find themselves in well-charted waters. As The Life Aquatic opens, Zissou (Bill Murray), a self-involved, Jacques Cousteau-like filmmaker, has just released a documentary depicting the death of his best friend Esteban, who was eaten by some sort of sea creature--possibly a jaguar shark. Zissou’s troubles also include his waning popularity with the public, and a nemesis (Jeff Goldblum) who hogs up all the grant money. Hope arrives in the form of Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson), an amiable Kentuckian who may be Zissou’s son. Despite his lack of enthusiasm for fatherhood, Zissou welcomes Ned--and Ned in turn saves Zissou’s new documentary (in which he seeks revenge on the jaguar shark) in more ways than one.

One of Wes Anderson’s greatest achievements as a director to date has been launching the autumnal melancholy phase of Bill Murray’s career, starting with Rushmore in 1998, and Murray delivers a similarly comedic yet low-key performance here. Unfortunately, Zissou is one of the few characters in this ensemble to achieve multi-dimensionality. Even co-star Wilson doesn’t get to develop Ned much beyond Noble Southerner, and he ends up seeming more like a prop for illustrating Zissou’s emotional development rather than his own man. The Life Aquatic probably won’t be remembered as a great film, but it is still one that no Anderson (or Murray) fan can afford to miss.--Leah Weathersby ... Read more

Reviews (153)

A Wes Anderson Film I Can Stand
I've always had a hard time stomaching Wes Anderson's odd-ball, eccentric artsy-fartsy style, especially after the release of The Royal Tenenbaums, which I hated because of its flat humor, completely uninteresting story line and extremely unlikeable characters. Rushmore was decent, but nothing I found exceptional. But with the release of The Life Aquatic, Wes Anderson has concocted a film that is both visually and stylistically appealing, and is filled with memorable and interesting characters surrounded by a sea faring revenge documentary adventure. And it's actually funny.
What really drove this movie was Bill Murray's performance as the insincere famous oceanographer/filmmaker Steve Zissou. This kind of character is so Bill Murray's style and it's hard to picture anyone else playing Steve Zissou, it almost makes you wonder is Wes Anderson had Bill Murray in mind for the character when writing the story.
And not just Bill Murray, but Owen Wilson, Jeff Goldblum, Cate Blanchett and Angelica Houston all perform nicely. Even Willem Dafoe's small part is done very well, and quite hilariously I might add.
Besides the acting, I really liked the overall story line that never lacked in having a hilarious sense of adventure and danger as Steve Zissou's crew goes an on a crazy and irrational sea quest to document Zissou's revenge on the infamous Jaguar Shark that supposedly ate his best friend Esteben. More importantly, its actually about Steve's relations with Ned, a man that's probably his son that he never knew.
So where The Royal Tenebaums failed at producing interesting characters and story line, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou is completely the opposite and it's without that "I'm-sorry-if-you-can't-follow-my-artsy-sophisticated-style" feel to it, thank God.

Stinks
worst movie of the year. This movie has alot of great actors but the story is lame and the jokes are not funny. In short stay away from this bomb.........

A beautiful, intelligent, and fun film
I loved this film from start to finish and it only got better the second and third times I watched it.There is a very nice feel to it: mellow, easy and cool, even when the action is on.This feel is perhaps captured best in the remarkably enjoyable Brazilian covers of classic David Bowie songs.

One thing worth noting about this film, beyond the "quirky" stylings that you expect from Wes Anderson (and that don't always come off, to my mind, as I just couldn't get in to The Royal Tenenbaums much as I wanted), is the way the film plays with and responds to the popularity of the "nature documentary," especially those of Jacques Cousteau.In the nature documentary, we feel as though we are getting "closer" to nature.We believe that we are getting at something real.What we tend to forget or be unaware of, is how much mediation is involved in the presentation of nature.The nature we see on film is never nature "as it is" but nature as it has been framed and captured in accordance with certain expectations of what will sell, what values will play to a wide audience.

It should also be remembered that this is a Disney film, and Wes Anderson appears tobe very self-conscious of the fact that a large part of Disney's name and popularity was established through Disney wildlife films.Walt Disney himself once remarked that he saw his live action wildlife films to be merely an extension of his animations -- because he knew how much the editor and filmmaker are involved in showing what you want to show.What they did show was not Darwin's "nature red tooth and claw" but a sanitized nature, where danger was always contained, and family values were reinforced by the behaviors of animals: a mother and her pups, for example.

That, it seems to me, helps explain the fact that Wes Anderson chose not to employ "real" underwater animals but chose stop motion animation as his medium.It reminds us that nature appears on screen always mediated, through a "nature hero" (as Zissou once was) and through a set of decisions about what to include, how to edit it, what to value.

Anyhow, I could go on and on about what I liked and thought about this film, but I can say that I didn't expect to like this film but found myself surprised feeling very nice (and a bit odd, not sure what to think) about half way through and leaving with a smile and a hint of sadness as I walked the theater.Any film that can do that to someone as jaded as I am has something going for it.

ZZZZZ....Is This A Movie?!
Holy cow! I tried staying awake long enough to see if this movie would develop a plot, have some intersting special effects, but nothing even remotely resembling a movie ever took place. I barely was able to keep my eyes open. I thought maybe it was an artsy attempt at being clever, but this was absolutely the lamest, low budget, poor plot-movie I had ever seen. Even the usually likeable and clever Bill Murray fell FLAT in this movie. I watched it wih my brother and wife. She only made it through the first 20 minutes. My brother and I are more optomistic and somehow made it through the first 70 min., fast forwaded to the end, and didn't even carre that Owen Wilson's character had died!! If you want a movie that will put you to sleep, this is it!

Call me weird...
...but I really enjoyed watching this film. Willem Dafoe carried a manic comic energy throughout that was the perfect foil to Bill Murray's well developed drollery. I thought the take off on the Jacques Cousteau TV specials was spot on and truly humorous. I did not laugh out loud all the way through this film mind you, it is chock full of dull stretches and things that just make you want to scratch your head in puzzlement. I do that all the time with Wes Anderson movies, so I guess this one should be no surprise. I found this film to be clever, smart, profoundly silly, and usually just plain fun. The views of the fanciful sea critters encountered by the crew were very well done and showed a great deal of imagination and wonder at work. The fellow who kept popping up singing David Bowie songs in Portuguese somehow stole my soul and I couldn't get the sounds out of my head. Lovely idea squeezed into a wonderfully odd little film. C'mon, since when does everything have to make sense to be fun? ... Read more

Description

The timeless story of the hero of the Israelites and the beautiful Philistine who tested his faith ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Not your usual Bible-epic
This Italian production is not your usual Bible-epic. With striking set design, beautiful art direction and oftentimes alarming attention to period detail, this is pretty realistic stuff. And pretty brutal. A lot of this can be attributed to British art-house director Nicolas Roeg, who has made "Samson and Delilah" perhaps his most ambitious film to date. At 180 minutes there is nary a dull moment. Roeg afficianados will appreciate the customary Roeg flourishes: shocking edits, liberal use of the zoom lens, intentional placement of humor and a general atmosphere of mysticism and otherworldliness. The performances are all around solid. Dennis Hopper turns in a clever and decidedly Hopper-esque performance as a reluctant Philistine general. Eric Thall, as Samson, comes across as vulnerable and humane yet entirely believable when coerced to flights of rage. His long hair doesn't look fake, chalking up another high mark for this film's realism. And Elizabeth Hurley as Delilah? Well, what more needs to be said? She really delivers with her greedy seduction of Samson and subsequent guilt. Not to mention, that in her Delilah garb, she is absolutely gorgeous. All in all a surprising and entertaining movie for Nicolas Roeg and all involved. Be sure to keep rolling for the credits as not to miss the Ennio Morricone-scored end titles. A short and haunting piece that is very appropriate.

The Weakest of the Bible Collection
I was gravely disappointed with Samson & Delilah. I found the story lagging (one tape would have sufficed) with many biblical inaccuracies including odd characters of no biblical origin. Additionally, I thought Dennis Hopper was horribly miscast. His dry way of speaking seemed too distracting.

Although Eric Thal protrays a pensive Samson, the war between Samson's lust and his passion for God was not at all believable. His period of serving as a judge seemed more like a trist. Admittedly, I enjoyed Elizabeth Hurley as Delilah (I think this is some of her best work anywhere). In my opinion, you'd do best to pass on this video.

Good but doesn't follow scripture very closely
Although worth watching, it is the worst of the Bible series pertaining to following scripture. The biggest problem is that they leave out key event and/or totally get them out of order. All in all it 'is' entertaining a pretty clean considering the story.

Inaccurate
I am a big fan of the Bible Series, Moses, Jacob and David are great movies, a little inaccurate at times but nothing mayor, however Samson and Delilah it's very inaccurate, for instance it completely forgot the part in which Samson offers honey to his parents (to show disobedience) or when Samson asks permission to his parents to marry a Philistian woman. This movie in relation to all others doesn't contain a message but rather its an attempt to make a biblical story a commercial one.

"every gift is also a burden"
This film includes a lot of embelishment as well as fictional characters to fill out the story of Samson, taken from Judges Ch. 13 through 16, but the essence of the story is intact. A man who loved the God of his fathers, but also the women of his enemies, the Philistines, and finds his real strength only after he has lost everything.
Samson is portrayed as man who never cries, not even as a baby at his bris (circumcision), or his father's death, but the feelings of lust and revenge weave continually through his story, and there are many brutal scenes, making this film not recommended for children.

As Samson's mother Mara, Diana Rigg is superb; she is a "type", like Sarah/Isaac, Rachel/Jacob, Hannah/Samuel, and Elisabeth/John the Baptist, all barren women who miraculously give birth to a son that becomes a leader/savior of his people.
Eric Thal is effective as Samson, very big and brawny, and he looks great on horseback. He also carries off the end parts too, which could easily have become cartoonish.
Michael Gambon is terrific as the wily old King Hamun of the Philistines, and in the most bizarre casting, Dennis Hopper as a laid back general. Elizabeth Hurley's Delilah is a cool, calculating vixen, and beautiful enough to make the most of Samson's weakness. Max Von Sydow does the narration throughout the film.

The Philistine interiors are very imaginitive, with their grotesque gods and massive columns, and the devastation of them well filmed. The fight with the lion is cleverly done also, with lots of grunts and roars from man and beast.
Filmed on location in Quarzazate, Morocco, it has a marvelous score by Marco Frisina, the excellent cinematography of Raffaele Mertes, and well paced direction by Nicolas Roeg.
"David", "Solomon", "Jeremiah" and "Abraham", are my favorites of these above average made for TV Bible stories, and this film, though not one of the best, is highly entertaining with some good acting. Total running time: 182 minutes. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Re: Very very good
Its always fascinating when a movie comes out that shows the inner workings of Government and/or the White House....to get a sense of how our elected officials tick. To be honest I was not all that familiar with the Vietnam War so this movie provided me with some fascinating insight. All the performances are terrific,
very highly recommended.

Great Movie
We could not stop watching, a great movie.

The Forgotten Society
I highly recommend this movie for two very good reasons.

First, the acting and the dialogue involved with this project are great. I can still hear Lady Bird Johnson telling a frightened and fatigued LBJ "When eloquence of words are no longer effective, then perhaps it is time for eloquence of action..." And with these words, LBJ decides to retire the presidency and public life.

Second, I recommend "Path to War" because of the subject of this impressive movie is Lyndon Baines Johnson. Arguably one of the most controversial figures of American history, it is easy to forget all the good he has done for our country in the hell of Vietnam. This movie finally reminds the viewer that although President Kennedy had such wonderful dreams and ideas for our society, it was President Johnson who made those dreams a reality by maneuvering the congress to enact the "Great Society" laws. The audience can feel his joy and elation as he sees his vision of an America that has beaten poverty, racial discrimination, and the host of other social ills present in America during the 1960s. Then, we see his dreams transformed into nightmares as the American public become increasingly angry and hostile with his policy towards Vietnam. The audience is shown the private torture inflicted by decisions president Johnson makes in regards to Vietnam and the anger he knew they would generate...In conclusion, "Path to War" reminds me of a Greek tragety; riveting and enjoyable to watch and experience in the comfort of ones own home.

The last great film of John Frankenheimer
Being a huge John Frankenheimer fan, this movie was on my list to see for some time since I don't have HBO. Overall, I wasn't expecting too much from this movie, somehow I have that perception with all made-for-tv movies. The movie certainly has that feel in the first few minutes, with acting that seems a bit forced and wooden. But as the story progressed, I slowly got pulled into the situation and characters of all involved. By the time the movie was over, I was impressed with the portrait provided of LBJ as a troubled man who wanted to do so much for the country, but was held back with a stalemate war. It's expertly directed by Frankenheimer, with his classic visual style that exudes tension with facial close-ups. Gambon does a pretty good job too, although most of his acting in this movie falls into the 'concerned man' and the 'screaming and yelling man' episodes; it still shows the bi-polar sources pulling at him.

It resonates a bit with the current tensions and war in Iraq (some of this is mentioned in the bonus features), but it still carves out its own identity; when was the last time a President talked about a Great Society? It makes me wonder how significant of a President Johnson could have been (many books defer to this position as well, almost worthy of a place on Mt. Rushmore). But as a youngster, most of the Presidents I've been alive to experience are focused more on cautious outlooks than on civil progression and visionary goals. Of course its all easier said than done, but it seems to me the era visionaries has ceased with Johnson's statement not run for a second term in office.

I know very little of the historic values of past Presidents, but it's a genre I enjoy experiencing in the movies and television. If you watch the West Wing on a regular basis, or just enjoy movies with historical facts and situations (13 days, JFK, All the Presidents Men), then you'll enjoy this movie. I expected little, and I got a home run in return. I think it's a great movie that concludes Frankenheimer's career. I like his work a lot, and he will be missed.

It should be noted that the movie is not 4x3 full frame format. Instead it's in 16x9, anamorphic format; and the transfer I would rate as 'good' but not exceptional.

Path to War
Path to War is a great movie for several reasons. For one, it is a movie about LBJ, which is rare. In most movies he is a background figure, perhaps because it is hard for an actor to capture his personality. Secondly, it is a Vietnam movie that shows a different side of the war: the political side. Movies like Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, and The Deer Hunter have done a superb job of showing the side of the common soldier in Vietnam, but what went on in the corridors of power in Washington is rarely shown. And, finally, the filmmakers have assembled a great team of actors and historians to bring this film to life. Michael Gambon, who portrays LBJ, does a commendable job, as does Alec Baldwin as Robert McNamara, but the best is Donald Sutherland as Washington insider Clark Clifford. As an added bonus, the DVD version of the film is loaded with extras including cast interviews and commentary by historian Michael Beschloss. Despite its length, it goes by fairly fast, and it is easy to get caught up in the tension and paranoia that plagued LBJ during his presidency. ... Read more

Reviews (343)

Not for 14 year old boys?
While taking all those guided tours through cavernous estate houses in England and Ireland (and even a few on the north shore of Long Island), I always wondered what it was like to live that lifestyle. But of course, walking around those still houses doesn't really tell you about the people who lived there anymore than a stage tells you about its actors. However, Gosford Park was a great way to fill in those blanks. The way it pulls you into the world of 1930's English high society and all its pretense and hypocrisy is great. This movie definitely enlivened my understanding of class in old European societies.

The reason Gosford Park has such great insight is the film's screenwriter, Julian Fellows who himself grew up as part of the English aristocracy. Much of what makes this film fun is the idiosyncrasies of its characters and their world that Fellows has personal experience with. A maid and driver stand in the pouring rain until their mistress gets in the car. Servants only refer to each other by their master's name, and they maintain the same hierarchy as their masters so that a duke's servant is treated better by other servants than a baron's. Only married women are allowed to have breakfast in bed; unmarried women must go to the dining room. What a strange world they lived in, especially to someone like me who grew up in a middle class New York neighborhood.

The spine of Gosford Park is, without question, NOT the murder mystery. In fact, the murder mystery plot is about 5% of the movie-if that. It's what's known in film lingo as a McGuffin, a device that helps propel the plot in a story but is of little importance in itself. If a viewer turns to the murder mystery plot for what this movie is all about, they will most likely be sorely disappointed, seemingly like many of the negative reviewers here were.

The key to enjoying this movie is to think about what it's like to live in a society that is extremely oriented by class. What must it take to keep it going? As I alluded earlier, pretense and hypocrisy grease the gears of high society. From scene to scene, we peep around corners and into bedrooms to see characters trying to hide one secret or another. And in the end, we see the unpleasant consequences of this duplicity.

This is definitely not a film that lays out its purpose before the audience. Since the almost 60 characters (for a chuckle, look under product details above for the colossal cast list) each add something unique to the larger picture, and since the audience is usually only told something once, you definitely have to be your own detective. However, Julian Fellows does a brilliant job interweaving these characters into a solid whole, and he definitely deserves the Oscar he received for the screenplay.

Since this is a complex and subtle film, multiple viewings are helpful, but unlike some other reviewers, this is something I really enjoyed. Like a good album, each time with it reveals another layer and increases your appreciation. Robert Altman, the director, says in his DVD commentary (which was boring except for a few insights, but Julian Fellow's commentary was excellent) that the film is "like looking in through the windows of a house, you only get part of the picture at a time." I think this analogy fits nicely, especially since the film is set in a house. Altman also acknowledges what some of the negative reviewers complain about, saying he meant the audience to be left wondering after the first viewing. He didn't intend this movie for the "wham, bam, thank you ma'am" set. In fact, Altman went out of his way to insert curse words, guaranteeing an R rating so that "14 year old boys couldn't walk off the street and watch it."

And of course, last but not least, the acting was great. Gosford Park has an excellent ensemble cast with not a single weak link. Maggie Smith as the snobbish Aunt makes you smile; Kelly MacDonald as the Aunt's young, innocent maid makes you want to give her a big wet kiss (maybe that's just me); and Clive Owen's cool restraint as a mysterious footman keeps you following him around the screen.

All through, Gosford Park is a movie very well done.

Buy this DVD and watch it again and again....
because you miss most of the film the first time around!

On the surface this appears to be a very formulistic murder mystery. It has the classic setting, 1930's period, an isolated English manor house filled with guests for a weekend shooting party, and all of the servants both resident and visiting. Everybody has secrets, the tension is so thick it could be cut with a knife and there is conveniently one missing from the kitchen. For more than half the film we see motives offered and wait for the murder and yet after it occurs it becomes evident that this is NOT a murder mystery at all!

The film has been compared to Upstairs Downstairs and it does involve the lives of those both above and below stairs, but it is much more than that. The various stories are added layer by layer some, such as the imposter in the servants' hall are obvious while others like the secret abortion are only alluded in a couple of lines. The various stories are, while interesting, not really the point of the film either. This is a beautifully drawn portrait of a way of life that is long gone and will probably never return. Almost everyone has read about or seen depictions of English Country Life in the '20's and '30's. It is a setting that has been used in drama, comedy, romance and of course mystery genres for years but Gosford Park makes it clear that we have only the faintest ideas of what that life was really like. The genius of this film is that it takes all the information that could have been spread out in a PBS documentary series and used fiction to illustrate the same points in a much more effective and enjoyable way.

The cast is huge and filled with actors, both well known and soon to be well known. No one is given such a large role that it becomes their film and yet each performer manages to turn their scenes into a polished little gem.

The extras included in the DVD are wonderful. They include deleted scenes (with commentary), features on the making of, and authenticity of the movies as well as Q & A with cast and filmakers. The best of the extras by far are the commentaries with the director, Robert Altman and screenwriter, Julian Oscar.

I highly recommend the purchase (as opposed to the renting) of this film. It is so packed with detail that it would be impossible to absorb it all in just one or two viewings.

"Nothing's more exhausting than breaking in a lady's maid."
The upperclass friends and relations of Sir William McCordle (Michael Gambon) arrive at his country house for a weekend of shooting, accompanied by maids, footmen, and valets, all of whom will be staying under one roof. Sir William is a mean-spirited and self-centered old man, married to a much younger, emotionally distant wife (Kristin Scott Thomas), with many family members dependent upon his continuing largesse. The hilariously waspish Countess of Trentham (Maggie Smith), who believes she has a lifetime stipend, arrives with young Mary Maceachran (Kelly MacDonald), who is trying valiantly to become a good lady's maid. Ivor Novello (Jeremy Northam), a Hollywood star, and Morris Weissman (Bob Balaban), a producer of Charlie Chan movies, are the only guests without aristocratic backgrounds and inherited privilege. The atmosphere of the house, filled with venomous "friends" and relations, soon becomes even more poisonous.

The "below stairs" lives of the servants are also fully revealed, as they share living quarters, eat meals together, tend to the laundry and cooking, and gossip about their employers. The butler Jennings (Alan Bates) and the head housekeeper (Helen Mirren) run the household and try to guarantee that no real-world cares will intrude upon the lives of their employers. Since "upstairs" and "downstairs" occasionally meet very privately at night, secrets abound, many of them secrets of long standing. When Sir William is poisoned and stabbed ("Trust Sir William to be murdered twice"), nearly everyone has a motive for wanting him dead.

For director Robert Altman, the primary focus of the film is on the characters, their way of life, and their values, with the murder mystery secondary. Set in late November, the end of the year 1932, the action takes place when this secure aristocratic lifestyle is also nearing its end, something that the arrival of the newly rich Hollywood characters, Novello and Weissman, illustrates. Dramatic cinematography (by Andrew Dunn) emphasizes the cold and rainy dreariness of the weekend, and suggests parallels with the coldness of the dying aristocracy.

Interior shots reveal the contrasts between the elegant and mannered lives of the "upstairs" characters and the hardworking daily lives of the "downstairs" characters, who adhere to their own rigid social codes. Every detail rings true, and as the characters' lives and interrelationships are revealed obliquely in brief snippets of seemingly unrelated conversations, a broad picture of the upstairs and downstairs lifestyles gradually emerges. Fully developed, many-leveled, wonderfully acted, often funny, and impeccably directed and filmed, this is a film one can watch again and again with delight. Mary Whipple

The Triumph of the Tried and True... a la Robert Altman!
GOSFORD PARK is an enchanting movie on every level and should please even the most discerning audience. Quite unexpectedly, Robert Altman has thoroughly researched the Agatha Christie murder mystery-type stories, the archetypical British mystery/drawing room genre, and (more important) the stuffy and unbelievable class disparities of olde England and has produced a stylish, smart, lushly beautiful recreation of England in the 1930s. The settings are elegant - a mansion/castle where the 'haves' and their lowly servants carry on their lives as though 'to the manner born'. Blessed with a dream cast that includes nearly all of the greats of the British acting school, Altman has given plumb roles to Maggie Smith, Helen Mirren, Eileen Atkins, Emily Watson, Kristin Scott Thomas, Stephen Fry, Michael Gambon, Jeremy Northam, James Wilby, Alan Bates, and Derek Jacobi. The story is an interesting murder mystery but it merely serves as the matrix upon which these fine actors, writer, cinematographer and director capably flaunt their skills. This movie is Delicious! It is so fine that it bears repeated viewings just to make sure you catch all the innuendoes and rapid, superb double entendres encased in this bit of magic. Altman devotees will not be disappointed and those who are not fond of the eccentric director's previous films are bound to be won over to the genius of Robert Altman.

Upstairs, downstairs, cold stares
No matter how many actors, including bankable stars, appear in a Robert Altman movie, it seems to be about Altman. He has an individual, if by now familiar, style of filmmaking that is always calling attention to itself. That style includes very fluid camera movement, quick-cut editing, and a good deal of dialogue that is covered by other dialogue or sounds distant. We are meant to be awed by the spontaneity and naturalism of it all.

Apparently many people are impressed by this mannerism and consider it a sign of artistry. On the whole, I find it pretentious and irritating. In one of the supplementary features on the DVD, Altman, his screenwriter and a handful of the actors from Gosford Park are interviewed in front of a studio audience. Altman and the writer rattle on about how every scene is shot by two cameras that are always in motion, so that the actors are never sure whether they are going to be foreground or atmosphere, or what angle they'll be seen from. Does Altman really think he invented the idea of shooting a scene from multiple angles, and choosing one during editing? And why is a camera that's gliding and panning constantly somehow more "truthful" than one that's framing the character or group that the director believes is most essential to telling the story at that moment?

It can be said in Altman's favor, though, that he never makes a merely conventional or routine film; they are all a bit eccentric (a compliment in my book) and, despite my reservations about the camera and sound-recording style, usually offer a fresh view of the theme or its environment. Gosford Park is your standard Agatha Christie-style murder mystery set among a dinner-jacketed, evening-gowned crowd in an English manor house in 1932 -- except, in this case, the doings of the upper crust are set against the army of servants below stairs who work their tails off to make everything straight, gleaming and smooth for their social betters.

Altman and his screenwriter Julian Fellows do a very creditable and humane job of conveying the personalities and individuality of the servants; they aren't just symbols of The Oppressed. The characters of the gentry, though, while ably portrayed (the acting talent makes sure of that), are almost universally so sour, rude and calculating that it's hard not to feel that there's a touch of old-fashioned, left-wing agit-prop involved. (The one exception is Jeremy Northam, who plays Ivor Novello -- a real singer and film star of the period -- with considerable charm.) I can believe that an assembly of English bluebloods in that era might have carried within themselves much wickedness, but they would have been far too polished to display it as openly and crudely as they do in Gosford Park.

Altman recruited a clutch of A-list British stage and film actors, and they don't fail him. Altman's casual attitude toward the basics of craftsmanship (as opposed to displaying his self-assumed creative genius) ensures that you will be lucky to figure out who half the characters are and their relationships with one another by the time of the denouement, but their cultivated swinishness holds the attention anyway. I think actors love playing obnoxious and unlikeable characters; these seem to be enjoying their roles, and you will, too.

The English have a term, "curate's egg." The meaning is, "parts of it are very good." ... Read more

Reviews (251)

Robert Duvall is at his best in Open Range.
Kevin Costner needed to tighten up the script and his direction of Open Range, a good Western that could have been much better if it were a half-hour shorter. The best comparison I can think of for this film is Shane, one of the greatest Westerns ever made. Open Range has the same breathtakiing scenery, classic confrontation between good and evil, fine acting by all the players, realistic action sequences, and excellent supporting music. These merits are enough for me to recommend the film.

Robert Duvall as Boss Spearman, a free-range cattleman who is moving his herd over territory claimed by a local land baron who wants to rid the land of these itinerant cowboys, was wonderful, as usual. Michael Jeter, who died soon after the film was made, is at his best as the owner of the local livery stable. Both these actors may well be nominated for an academy award for their performances. Kevin Costner returns to form as Boss Spearman's hired hand Charley Waite. Like Alan Ladd in Shane, Costner was a gun for hire before signing on with Spearman. When it comes time for the showdown, Costner, like Ladd, is at his very best. Annette Bening is given a supporting role as the sister of a local doctor. She isn't given much to work with, but makes the best of it nonetheless.

Unfortunately, Open Range wanders from one scene to the next and is particularly slow going as Costner and Bening develop their relationship. Costner needed help in the editing room, not only to make sense of the growing love interest between his character and Bening's, but also to add a sense of urgency to the plot development. When two of Boss Spearman's hired hands are attacked and killed or wounded, we know that Boss and Charley are going to take the law into their own hands and bring old fashioned western justice to the guilty land baron and his men. We wait too long for the final showdown. When it comes, it is as good as it gets, and some might say, well worth waiting for.

If it is not Academy Award material, Open Range is still good enough to recommend with the noted reservations.

Not since Dances w/wolves has Costner film looked this good!
This Movie review is predominantly about this 2-Disc DVD Collection Edition with a few editorial (personal observations) comments.

Kevin Costner's passion is truly in the American Western. He has proved it with one of the greatest Western films "Dances With Wolves" (Top 100 AFI (American Film Institute) American film of last 100 years (circa 1998).

Now with "OPEN RANGE" Kevin Costner has again returned to his great film making with another soon to be Western Classic. I loved this movie!!!! A great story, fantastic breath taking panoramic cinematography (Alberta, Canada), an outstanding supporting cast with Robert Duvall as "Boss", Annette Bening as "Sue", Michael Jetter as "Percy" and Costner as "Charlie", with plenty of drama, action and true romance. (My wife loved it too!!)

Summary of this DVD set; Disc-1 - Open Range Feature film in 2.35:1 Ratio Widescreen Anamorphic (automatically adjusts to any television size) Format. And Enhanced for 16:9 Home Theatre HDTV's. (what a magnificent Picture & dynamic DTS 5.1 Digital Surround Sound). Audio Commentary w/Kevin Costner (very informative). Disc-2 - Special Features; "America's Open Range" a 60 min historical journey back in time to the open range of the 1800's narrated by Kevin Costner (very enlightening/informative), "Beyond the Range" Directors Journal about the making of Open Range, 10 Deleted Scenes w/optional Kevin Costner commentary, StoryBoarding: Open Range and Music Video Montage.

This is a must see Classic Western especially the 20 minute climatic gun fight (better than the gun fight at the OK Corral). Rent it, Buy it, I guarrantee you'll be watching this movie again and again. The Direction, Cinematography the Storyline the Cast are the best!!! To bad the general public missed this movie the first time around. Here's your chance to watch/own this Classic Western DVD set !!! Don't miss it. Enjoy.

Horrible!!
Words cannot describe how bad this movie is. Harlequin romance novels have better dialogue, plot, and character development. The only way to watch this movie is on "MUTE". The scenery is beautiful. The costumes look great.

Open Up To A Modern Western
Kevin Costner has brought the simplicity of an old western movie into a new age and done a fantastic job, both as an actor and as director.

The storyline for this film is a bit bland and basic but the intensity of acting and the scenery make up for the lack of substance in the story. "Open Range" takes you into a real western setting where one could see for miles and miles only what God made and be humbled by it. The gunfight is fantastic and so much more than any found in the good old western movies.

Robert Duvall is perfect as Boss, an old grubby cowboy with heart. Opposite Duvall you would think Costner would pale in comparision but he fits in almost as perfectly as a man with a mystery past. Annette Bening is subtle in her role, as a doctor's sister, but no less important to the film as Costner and Duvall. But the most impressive character in this film is by far the western scenery and the reality of nature's wrath out in the open range of 1882.

Classically constructed western
Two veteran free-range cattlemen (Kevin Costner and the incomparable Robert Duvall) must enter hostile territory to get medical attention for the wounded boy who works for them (Diego Luna). The town is under the thumb of an unscrupulous cattle baron who despises free-rangers and has no compunctions about killing them (Michael Gambon). This is a classic Western in which the two protagonists are compelled by their moral code to face danger instead of retreating from it. Costner and Duvall have magnificent chemistry in this film--Duvall as the moral conscience of the pair, and Costner as the former killer who is haunted by his past and longs to be able to see himself as a good man. Although director Costner has had a somewhat checkered career, he demonstrates here that he is a man with true talent. The final gunfight is a real highlight and not to be missed. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Annette Bening's outstanding performance is the best reason to see Being Julia, a highly melodramatic adaptation of the 1937 novel Theatre by W. Somerset Maugham. With a prestigious pedigree (director Istvan Szabo and screenwriter Ronald Harwood share impressive theatrical backgrounds) and a stellar cast including Jeremy Irons, Bruce Greenwood, and Juliet Stevenson, the film's backstage and onstage theatrics take place in pre-World War II London, when the venerable actress Julia (Bening) fends off middle-age by romancing a stage-struck young American (Shaun Evans) in a calculated attempt to retain some youthful vitality while airing her own dirty laundry onstage in a glorious act of divine diva behavior. Treating life and theater as one big play in which she's the perpetual star, Julia's nothing if not a master thespian, and Bening's got all the chops to keep her in the spotlight. If the film isn't quite worthy of Bening's excellence, at least it gives her performance the showcase it deserves. -- Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (40)

Theatre on screen
Genre: Drama, Dark Comedy

Genre Grade: B

Final Grade: A-

This was a great movie that was all about the performance of Annette Bening. Seriously, it must have been a tough choice to choose between her and Hilary Swank for the Oscar. I still think Swank deserved it, but it was a close one. Bening is absolutely hilarious in this movie. By far the best performance I've seen her give. The ending of this movie (or at least what Julia does) is one that will stick in your mind. You probably noticed I gave it a lower "Genre Grade." That's because most audiences won't appreciate this movie, I don't think. Mostly because it's British humor, but also because it is an artistic film that focuses on the acting and is not all about happy endings or traditional Hollywood storylines. The "A-" was because of poor supporting performances from most of the rest of the cast. Anyway, it was a good movie that I recommend, especially if you like theatre.

Being Manic
I wasn't to thrilled about this one.Benning's character is so unlikeable and not in a Bette Davis All About Eve kind of way.Although the film does have some of the same diva theatrics.

Benning's perfomance is best described as manic (and she does do a good job at it) but again, she really is not a likeable or sympathetic character.The others turn in decent perfomances, particularly Juliet Stevenson, but it still isn't enough to keep this one really entertaining.

La Diva
Sometimes, someone comes to his mind and realize that an actress does not need to be young and blonde and less than thirty. Fortunately Mr Szabo is one of those directors. Like the character she plays Ms Benning is a competent, experienced actress and she carry on her shoulders this great and charming film. One of those films where you realize what is performing about, just like her Julia, Ms Benning shows that not only a pretty face can make an actress but how she deals with all the diferent shades she is able to show us in this film.
The story seems simple, a spoiled actress who falls for a younger man and after his betrayal swears for revenge. But between the thrilling of her affair with T-O-M and her revenge the director shows us a wonderful tapestry of a world walking slowly to an abrupt end. The glamour and fake of a theatrical London before the war. And also all the little miseries of everyday's life. Ms Benning is superb, as usual, and she gives us the right dosis of histrionism and countenance just like a good actress should do. In her way she is surrounded by a wonderful cast. Not only Jeremy Irons plays a dazzling gentlemanlike husband. With just the right stuff of irony. But also Ms Margolyes, one of the best supporting actress right now. Michael Gambon like Julia's ghostly mentor, and funny and cocky Juliet Stevens. All of them create a wonderful tapestry where we see how this woman in a very dificult time in her life decides that after all she is still the star in her own life.

Annette Benning Dazzles As The Drama Queen!
Annette Benning plays THE Julia Lambert, the glorious, dazzling 45 year-old diva of the pre-war London stage. She is the toast of the theater world and at the peak of her career in 1938. Ms. Lambert plays to a full-house nightly and fans enthusiastically acclaim her performances. Admirers applaud when she enters restaurants. She, however, is bored. Life lacks verve. Julia complains to longtime husband, ex-actor Michael Gosselyn, (Jeremy Irons), who is also her business manager and director, "Everything's so tedious. I want something to happen." Underneath it all, Julia realizes she will soon be over-the-hill and the prime roles will dwindle.

Then she meets Tom Fennel, (Shaun Evans), a young American accountant only a few years older than her son, who is wild about her. He manages to wangle an introduction and then seduces her over tea at his tiny flat. The verve is back. Bigtime! Julia blooms with all the attention, flattery and, yes, passionate sex. She and hubby Michael have had a platonic, but loving relationship for years, and an "open marriage." The two are a devoted couple, however, as Michael says, they are not "possessive." He understands his wife very well, and realizes she is in the midst of an affair. He also knows that her burgeoning love-life is enhancing her acting performance, which is good for business. And business comes first!

Julia's life has been about acting, performing, seemingly forever. And she is always on - always acting, onstage and off. Her mentor, Jimmie Langton, (Michael Gambon), taught her that "real life does not exist." Langton, long dead, is terrific with his ghostly appearances, giving Julia hell for overacting, and signaling a thumbs-up when she succeeds. Roger, (Tom Sturridge), her teenage son tells her, "You've got a performance for everyone. I don't think you really exist. Once you said something to me, and then you said the same thing on stage that night. Even the things you say are second hand." I found myself trying to discover who the real Julia was, and wondering if a real Julia existed.

Meanwhile, Tom, cannot afford to keep wining and dining Julia, so she picks up the bills. Increasingly more enamored of him, she begins to buy him expensive presents. Ahhh, the callow youth is a cad....he also turns out to be...no, no spoilers here. There's also an ambitious young actress, quite lovely, talented and ruthless, (Lucy Punch), who would just love to step into Julia's shoes. The payback, at the conclusion, is really amazing - a terrific finale worthy of a standing ovation!

Ms. Benning is luminous and truly charismatic as Julia. The film is her vehicle and all other characters take a back seat. Which is not a bad thing. Annette Benning more than carries her own weight and seems to adore every minute, every line and every close-up. The supporting cast is excellent, even with their much smaller roles. Juliet Stevenson is fantastic as Julia's dresser, and the extraordinary Rita Tushingham has a bit part as the aunt who lives on the Isle of Jersey. I loved the period soundtrack.

Ronald Harwood, wrote the screenplay, based on the novella "Theatre" by W. Somerset Maugham. Kudos to director Istvan Szabo - this is terrific entertainment.
JANA

Ways To Get Even
A middle-aged diva (Bening)is tired of her life and work.She settles on a young American interested in her and the theater and takes him under her wing.Her life suddenly blossoms and then, all of a sudden, her young man falls for someone his own age. And then, she gets even...

This story, taking place in London in 1938, is entertaining and easy to follow.Bening plays the character to perfection, showing how Julia can be painfully honest in one moment, a raging diva the next, and smug about her actions the next.This is a movie to watch again and again, especially to learn the subtle way of getting even! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Queen of the costume drama Helena Bonham Carter finally got a chance to loosen her corset a bit with this exquisitely mounted (Sandy Powell's costumes were nominated for an Academy Award) romantic drama based on Henry James's classic novel. Set in turn-of-the-century London and Venice, Wings of the Dove is a statelydeparture--more PBS than MTV--for Iain Softley, director of Hackers and thebirth-of-the-Beatles biopic Backbeat. But there's enough romantic intrigueto perhaps fuel a week's worth of daytime TV talk shows: My Lover Seduced a Dying Heiress for Her Money.

Bonham Carter, who won several critics association honors for her performance (she was nominated for a Golden Globe and Oscar as well) stars as Kate, who isengaged in a secret affair with Merton (Linus Roache), a journalist whosepoor financial standing makes marriage impossible. Kate's manipulative aunt (Charlotte Rampling) threatens to disown her unless she marries the moresuitable Lord Mark (Alex Jennings).Opportunity--admittedly sordid--arrives in the form of Millie (Alison Elliott), an American heiress whom Kate befriends. When Kate learns that Millie is dying, she suggests to Merton that he seduce her to make her last days happy, and ensuring that Millie will leave Merton her money when she dies. Merton reluctantly agrees, just as Kate begins to have second thoughts that threaten to sabotage the scheme.

One of the most rapturously reviewed films in recent years, Wings of the Doveis a must-own film for the Merchant-Ivory crowd. But guys: don't dismiss this as a "chick flick." Beneath its Masterpiece Theatre exterior beats the wild and untamed heart of Dawson's Creek. --Donald Liebenson ... Read more

Reviews (45)

A Movie for both Guys and Girls!
I first saw this movie when it was in the theaters. After much resistance, my girlfriend got me to go. And to my surprise this was an excellent film. Helena Bonham Carter is superb! The story takes place in turn of the century London. But don't be fooled by that this movie is something right out of a 90's soap opera (that's why the girls will love it). Helena and her boyfriend try to swindle a dying woman out of her fortune. Not to give too much away, but the boyfriend begins to fall in love with the dying woman which creates the conflict.......but wait a minute guys....this is for us also. You have a gigilo who is playing with two women. Big money is at stake....and to top it all off the beautiful Helena Bonham Carter gets buck naked at the end. Not only that but she crawls around that way for at least five minutes with tons of close up shots. So to conclude, guys pick this one up and watch it with your girlfriend or wife.

Helena Bonham Carter excels in despairing period tale
Adapted from Henry James' book and pushed forward into the 20th century, this is one of those rare period dramas that lulls you into thinking that you know what's coming and then pulls the rug from under you. The story has Kate (Bonham Carter) carrying out a love affair with Merton (Roache), although her aunt and benefactor thinks that marrying him would be below her. So it's a case of what does Kate want more - love or money? Pursued by sleazy Lord Mark she uses her friendship with millionaire Millie to fly off to Venice. And it's here that the plot takes a turn that few will see coming, as Kate's plots to have the best of both worlds become gradually darker as she forces Merton and Millie together.

What stays with you though is the bleakness of the movie, as Kate's corrupt plans corrupt any hope of future happiness, and it's a brave film that offers up a dark ending with no redemption in sight. The performances from all concerned are so perfectly judged that it will, in its last half, destroy your faith in basic human goodness and the truth in love. Bonham Carter and Roache are particularly impressive, playing the conflict between wanting to do what's right and doing what benefits them astutely. Moreover, there's a sex scene that is completely necessary to the story, tasteful and beautifully full of desperation, due in no small part to the acting. Surely there are few movies out there that can say that.

In a lot of ways this reminded me of the later 'House Of Mirth', so if intelligent period dramas are what you like then this is a fine example.

Miramax: ever hear of anamorphic?
I'd like to review this film, but Miramax (and others) are still polluting the market with non-anamorphic transfers. The single star is for that bone-headedness. The film may deserve 5 stars for all I know.

magnificent little drama
I love the premise of this story, very intriguing: a rich young woman named Milly is dying and her best friend Kate senses that Milly is in love with her boyfriend, Martin, so out of compassion (and hopes that she will leave Martin all her money when she dies), Kate works out a calculating plan to get Martin and Milly together. One problem, they start falling for each other, and Kate starts getting jealous, afraid that she will lose Martin's love. The last sequence of the film was riveting, and the final scene was simply heart-stopping. It'll make you gulp and sigh.

David Rehak
author of "Love and Madness"

Best and deepest of it's genre
Merchant Ivory produced ten movies from 1986 to the mid 90's, making up a distinct british subspecies of uptight-victorian melodrama, the kind that have brought Helena Bonham Carter and Emma Thompson to world fame.

This isn't one of their most famous works, but I like it very much. One reason is Alison Elliot, whom I fell for immediately. Julian Sands is also a talented actor when he's not playing a warlock or wizard.

Basically, this movie had punch. I could feel Sands' greed, and his shame at his base motivations. And I also felt Ms. Elliot's despair and resignation as her ilness progressed. She knew she was being doublecrossed, but still went forward and gave the money in an act of forgiveness and grace. The effect was sublime, and deeper than I expect from cinema these days. The production and cinematography were also quite beautiful.

Merchant Ivory haven't done very much lately. I do miss them. ... Read more

Reviews (519)

The most fun movie ever made about serial decapitation.
Visually stunning, deliciously creepy and loads of fun, Tim Burton and Andrew Kevin Walker's adaptation of "Sleepy Hollow" is a spooky treat. Squeamish detective Ichabod Crane is sent to Sleepy Hollow to investigate a strange, gruesome series of murders. There, he must pit his scientific methods and cool rationalism against a foe who may not be of this earth.

Burton seems to be having the time of his life amid the gloomy, fog-shrouded forests of Sleepy Hollow; his trademark giddy weirdness is benefitted here by absolutely breathtaking cinematography and production design. Christina Ricci, usually a spirited actress, seems a little out of it as Katrina Von Tassel (perhaps her corset was too tight?) Johnny Depp delightfully plays against type as a sissy-boy hero who faints at spiders, backed up well by Marc Pickering as his plucky sidekick. The Horseman is also great fun as a villain. Headless, he's played by Ray Park with the same vicious swagger Park gave Darth Maul. Christopher Walken, playing the headed version, sports a white fright wig and teeth you've got to see to believe. Watch also for great cameos by the likes of Martin Landau and ex-Dracula Christopher Lee.

The action is spirited, the atmosphere creepy and absorbing. The graphic gore is mostly over-the-top silly, but is also treated with sensitivity and restraint when it needs to be. If you're looking for a fun action movie with atmosphere and eye candy to spare, "Sleepy Hollow" should be your destination.

Tim Burton's finest
It's been a long time since Tim Burton has actually directed a film that was successful, with disasterous hits like Mars Attacks! and Ed Wood, I was suprised that Paramount would let him make a production with such a huge budget. Sleepy Hollow is an extremely well made film, the set pieces are hauntingly beautiful, good special effects, a film score by Danny Elfman, and a long list of first rate actors. It's one of those movies that takes you on an adventure(something that I havent experienced in a while, going to the movies)This is a very uncommon film; Extremely inventive, a work of art, and also has a good story. Johnny Depp plays a variation on Ichabod Crane, Christina Ricci plays young Katrina Van Tassel, along with Christopher Walken, Christopher Lee, Miranda Richardson, Ian McDiarmid, and Casper Van Dein. It has splashes of violence, dark humour, gore, drama, and suspence. What more can you ask in a film? Buy this movie and you wont be dissapointed. It's rated R for gore and a scene of sexuality, but nothing that should frighten the kids, I personally think it should have received a PG-13 rating due to the absence of profanity, nudity, or drug content. Besides it is a classic novel by Irving Washington this is an American Folk Tale that I think shouldn't of been taped with an R rating (such a harsh rating for a movie based on a fairy tale). It is rated PG-14 in canada though so dont let your teenagers miss out on this one.

another good film by tim burton.but it has NO child like sid
you know the drill on this one i hope.the story is way off,but the movie is quite good anyway.johnny depp is the star,ichabod crane.this is his best movie.the kids will get scared.this is timburtons only horror film and all others are kid-friendly.i think it is the best of many,many versions of this story including one by disney.a lot of people say they dont like it due to its inconsistencies with the book and that they just werent scared.i say ive never seen a film a hundred percent like the book and why would you want to be scared?entertainment is the idea not fright.if you go to church,youll want to skip this one also.demons,murder,witch craft etc.if the lights are off and your surround sound is blasting,this sounds incredible.a witch and a preacher type get busy but no nudity.johnny depp doesnt deserve any awards but this is the best movie he happens to be in.people give this movie a bad rap for a lot of stupid reasons.the real deal is its good.ive never seen a bad tim burton film yet and ive seen almost all of them.

A Classic Take On a Classic Tale
In the trend of other Tim Burton films, the complextion of the film is creamy, and satisfying. It tells the common veiwer about Sleepy Hollow, yet puts new tantalizing details in the middle of well known scenes. It finally answers the reader of Washington Irving's book where this terror came from, and why it hunts and why it is indeed "headless". The cast is believable, yet the only weak point is Christina Ricci, who seems to be trying to hard to pull off her role. The cinematography is brilliant, something only Tim could do. It becomes dark at the right moments, and is bright and sugar-sweet when it tells the back story of Johnny Depp's mother, and once again is dark as it learns her fate. This film is not only wonderfully thrilling, but comedic in points where you would think it couldn't. Shall I say, they involve blood squirting, staining, spraying and squirting some more. Johnny Depp is a wonderful pick for this movie, as he gives us exactly what we want from anyone playing Ichabod Crane, plus a little bit more. Have fun, yet do not laugh for too long, or it will surprise with it's random and scary turns.

Sleepy Hollow Is a Genuine Fright-Fest
Tim Burton's films, often praised for the intensity of their mood, bring with them a glimpse of the darker side of the human psyche. His characters are often dis-jointed, dark, but at their core, always human. Often, his films are as centrally located around an individual, quite often the title role of the story....such examples include the title characters of films like "Edward Scissorhands, Jack Skellington of "A Nightmare Before Christmas", and Bruce Wayne in "Batman". It is his central character that the story seems to evolve around, and it is often seen from that perspective, providing the audience a narrative thread that they can relate to throughout the film. The same is true of "Sleepy Hollow".

Loosely based on "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" by Washington Irving, Burton's "Hollow" is seen from the perspective of Ichabod Crane (Johnny Depp (formerly seen in Burton's "Edward Scissorhands")), a New York detective/criminal investigator who is sent to the farming community of Sleepy Hollow to investigate the decapitations of several of the local townsfolk.

Burton weaves elements of the original "Legend of Sleepy Hollow" into his story, while creating backstory to further develop all the characters, from the families in Sleepy Hollow, to Ichabod Crane, even to the Horseman himself, centralizing the narrative of this story around Crane's investigation into the murders. While in Sleepy Hollow, Crane quickly learns of a conspiracy that seems to exist amongst the principals of the townfolk. With the aid of Young Masbeth (Marc Pickering), whose father was murdered by the Horseman, and Katrina Anne Van Tassel (Christina Ricci), Depp's love interest and daughter of the town's acting governor, Crane's investigation quickly leads him on a hunt that will take them to the very heart of evil, as they learn the fate of the Horseman, a Hessian Mercenary sent to fight in the American Revolution before falling to the sword when betrayed by two mysterious little girls many years before.

Filled with rich imagery, lavishly created special effects, and plenty of genuine frights, "Sleepy Hollow" promises to bring thrills, chills, and plenty of scares. Moreover, though, the story uses horror to aid the story, not replace it. Unlike so many horror movies released in the past ten years, Hollow does not rely on gore to create thrills, but instead, (as with most of Burton's work), it uses subtle mood, growing tension and human vulnerability to really bring the story home in a way that is both terrifying and immensely engaging.

Rated R for violence, gore and brief sexuality, this is not a film for the young. However, for anyone looking for a good scare with a great story, this is the film for you. (NOTE: This film is a departure from the original story by Irving.) ... Read more

Reviews (31)

The life and death of Slyvia Plath, but without the poetry
There was a point early on when I was struck by the thought of the degree to which the 2003 film "Sylvia" is burdened with our knowledge that in the end Sylvia Plath is going to stick her head in an oven in one of the most famous suicides of the 20th century. The next thing I know Ted Hughes (Daniel Craig) is telling Sylvia (Gwyneth Paltrow) that to write poetry she just needs to pick a subject "and stick her head in it." Ouch.

Of course the great irony is that Ted Hughes' infidelity inspired Plath's best work and her suicide made her immortal. However, I would be inclined to think the admirers of Plath's poetry are going to be disappointed for two major reasons. First, the screenplay by John Brownlow establishes from the beginning of the film the idea that Plath was a suicide waiting to happen. A suicide attempt that almost succeeded before she went to college in England becomes the key to everything that happens follows and for those who have blame Hughes for Plath's death there is considerably less support for that idea than they might expect to see. The precipitous event, if you would put your finger on one thing in the film, ends up being the pregnancy of the woman with whom he was having an affair. The argument been that Plath killed herself because her husband had left her for another woman (a fellow poet named Assia Wevill, who was also married), but there is a certain ambiguity to the scene where Hughes speaks more of not being able to return. You can see that in the film if you want to find it, but objectively the film puts most of the responsibility on Plath. Nor does it point out that Wevill would eventually kill herself and the daughter she had by Hughes, using gas, just as Plath did, which certainly strike you as an additional condemnation as well.

Second, and this point applies more to those of us who are not really familiar with the poetry of either Plath or Hughes, the film is pretty much devoid of their work. Frieda Hughes, Plath's daughter and literary executor, refused to cooperate with the producers of this film, specifically refusing to allow them access to her mother's poetry, and also publicly denounced the film in a published poem of her own: "They think/ I should give them my mother's words/ To fill the mouth of their monster/ Their Sylvia suicide doll." Granted, it is difficult to make a film that captures the literary experience of writing, but it is certainly easier if you are dealing with poetry or drama (i.e., "Shakespeare in Love") than a novel. I have to believe that this would have been a powerful film that celebrated Plath's creativity at the same time it depicts her hurtling towards death.

Plath's poems were passionate about death and I can well imagine those who have committed some of her poems to memory inserting them at the right points in the film. Despite solid performances by Paltrow and Craig the end result is that "Slyvia" is an incomplete performance, smacking of voyeurism rather than an attempt at understanding. This would be akin to watching "Amadeus" without the music of "Girl With a Pearl Earring" without the paintings.

A bit too circumspect
I have to give the folks behind this movie credit for not dwelling too much on the melodramatic aspects of Sylvia Plath's short life. But the fact is that her story really was very melodramatic throughout, and "Sylvia" tries too hard to look past that.

Too bad, because it's otherwise a great movie. All the essentials of Plath's relationship with Ted Hughes are presented, with just enough details of her early life filled in through dialogue to give even unfamiliar viewers an understanding of the troubled poet's story. The cinematography is great throughout, and the writers were surprisingly careful to avoid taking sides in the still ongoing did-Ted-drive-her-to-suicide debate. (Both are portrayed as passionate lovers but terrible spouses, which is probably the truth.) And yes, the producers were legally barred from using all but a few random lines of Plath's poetry in the script, but I didn't find that very harmful - anybody can recite poetry, and having Gwyneth Paltrow do so won't necessarily give you a better appreciation for its meaning anyway.

What is more troubling is the lack of any effort to illustrate what inspired Plath or how her work impacted the last few years of her life. Even "The Bell Jar" warrants only one mention, and that almost in passing. This is acceptable in the context of a story that seems far more focused on her relationship with her husband than anything else, but at the very least the movie's title probably should have reflected that.

Still, it's an interesting, if appropriately bleak, look at one of the more tragic marriages in literary history.

Worth seeing for Gwyneth's performance
SYLVIA hasn't done well at box offices around the world. I think the reason is that the movie focusses far too much on Sylvia's private life than her poetry. However, that is the angle the scriptwriters decided to take. Keeping that in mind, I give the film credit because Gwyneth Paltrow delivers a stunning performance as the depression-riddled Sylvia Path. I found the movie totally engaging for that reason alone.

The film does seem to move at a fast pace, but I think this helps grab the viewer's attention.

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised at Sylvia, after tossing the DVD aside for month's in favour of other titles.

It's A Gas!
"Sylvia" is the kind of film that can only work with fantastic actors. Fortunately, the cast is superb. Sylvia Plath was an enormously talented poet who soared to great heights in her early years. Her bouts with depression are well chronicled and to portray her life in a balanced way is difficult at best. Director Christine Jeffs (Rain) knows just when to bring in the subtle (mostly dark) humor and when to dive into the seriousness of Sylvia's disease. Paltrow does an amazing job balancing both sides of Plath's personality, and the film can be exhausting. Thank God for a great cast, wonderful cinematography and well crafted editing. It's not an upbeat film, but if you've never read, "The Bell Jar", you might just end up picking up a copy.

Suffers from "this would make a good movie" syndrome
I have a theory, one which largely influences this review. I have found that true stories which make you say, "That would make a great movie" are the hardest to make a good movie of, and they often end up looking a lot like cliche television movies-of-the-week. This is probably due to the fact that the director and writer are locked into playing out the story elements. The problem is compounded when the true story is a biography: we inevitably get each of the most famous moments of the person's life dramatized in order.

On the other hand, true stories which seem too simple to make good movies of, often become brilliant movies because there's so much room for the director to add subtety and humor. Thus, two simple true stories produced the two best movies I've seen this year: "In America" and "Moonlight Mile."

"Sylvia" is a perfect example of the former. Reading through a book biography of Plath, or the lengthy Vanity Fair article biography, one can't help thinking, "This would be a great movie! I can just see this brash American girl in her scarlet dress nail handsome poet Hughes at a party. I can just see him jumping up at a pub and reciting brilliant poetry. I can just see her manic episodes come to life as these two great personalities clash. And oh her famous ending dramatized!" But if you know her story at all, the movie lacks any creativity, and seems to just to dramatize each favorite moment scene by scene. Do the actors or script provide some intimate interpretation of the story, one which makes us wonder? Not really. Paltrow is a beautiful and talented actress, but her casting was far too safe for the role, and she plays it by the book, while not capturing enough of Plath's Americaness. It would have been interesting to see Scarlett Johannsen in that role --a woman I think looks more like Plath, and one who might fit the dresses and the settings of the era in a typically American way (i.e. less thin and pseudo-British than Paltrow). It was hard for me to get past Paltrow as "an actress playing Plath," especially when the script and direction provided no added subtlety to the story. The director only seems interested in making the sets and locations truthful: a common pitfall of directing biographies of famous people.

If you know Plath's story, I think you'll be disappointed by the film. If you don't know her story, I think the movie may be a treat, despite its faults. ... Read more

Reviews (41)

Fantastic film but not for Julia.
Another remake of classic Jeckyl & Hyde story. Now from the point of view of the maid, Mary Reilly. This is well made movie but it performed badly in the box office. I believe this is the worst performing (box office wise) in Julia Roberts career. I really don't think this is the right part for her. The rest of the casts are wonderful. John Malkovich is excellent as both Jecky & Hyde. Glenn Close has supporting role. The DVD is quite good. Picture is sharp & clear despite a lot of the movie took place in the dark. The Dolby 5.0 is OK, why they don't add the .1 for the subwoofer channel is beyond me. But if you like the Jeckyl Hyde story, this DVD will not disappoint you.

Grossly underrated, brilliant film!
Mary Reilly is one of my favorite movies. It has to be one of the most disturbing films ever made, but the underlying messages that you perceive can be almost self revealing. The bizarre sensuality of both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, portrayed most believingly by John Malkovich(who, despite his age is very HOT!), is one of the most difficult, yet easy characters to understand. If you allow yourself to get lost in the film and not think of anything but, you feel as if you are there with Mary, who is portrayed by Julia Roberts. I honestly must say that I have seen many of Julia's films, but I have never liked and appreciated any of her roles as much as Mary Reilly. She is so uncharacteristically morose that you almost feel as if she is not the Julia from Erin Brockovich, but a Julia that is hidden inside and that may never be seen again. The entire movie is a metaphor in my eyes, for the freedom that every human longs for. To not care what anyone thinks, to be as reckless as possible with no consequences. This is a brilliant film and I recommend it to anyone who likes to get lost in another, more frightening and unreal world. More dangerous and just plain passionate than anything that is truly possible. The chemistry between Roberts and Malkovich, as one and at the same time, two characters, is one of those that makes me shout in my head, "You should be together!" The ending is one of the most powerful I have ever seen. People that say that this is a boring movie have a right to , this is not for everyone. You have to be very open to anything when you wantch the movie. But, if you are thinking that this sounds intriguing, you will not be disappointed. As long as you keep an open mind that anything is possible in this movie, you will love it.

Interesting Film!
I don't really understand what everyone is talking about when referring to Ms. Robert's performance. I thought it was exceptional. It was nice to see her stretch. Anyway Malkovich was fantastic! This story was great and I thought it was well executed on film. Close had an interesting role also and I loved hearing her accent. See this one.

Disappointing...
This movie should have been a LOT better than it turned out to be! One can imagine the meeting at the producer's office at which it was pitched: "OK! We're going to retell the story of
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde... only from the point of view of Dr. Jeckyll's maid, Mary Reilly! Let's get Julia Roberts in the title role and John Malkovich to play Jekyll and Hyde!" Sounds like a winner, no?

No!

One is never quite sure who is to blame for all the missed opportunities here; whether the studio wanted to make one film and the director another, or whether director Stephen Frears just made bad choices, but this movie never quite jells. Indecision seems to plague it at almost every turn. When it should be scarey, it settles for being merely creepy. When it should be creepy, it is merely weird. When it should be suspenseful, it goes conventional.
Julia Roberts seems more constrained in this picture than Winnona Rider and Sadie Frost do in their corsets in "Bram Stoker's Dracula." She stays in her "wounded bird" persona throughout the entire film. The trouble is we are given no preamble to explain why should be that way, and no development to explain why she should stay that way.
John Malkovich, ever the unconventional actor, makes an astounding choice with his character, choosing to play Dr. Jekyll
not as the obsessed mad scientist we're so familiar with, but as a doomed Byronic romantic. His Mr. Hyde is just the flip side of that doomed romanticism, blatently sexual, full of spontaneous, unrestrained libido. It's a brilliant choice. If
Frears had picked up this cue and run with it, we would have had an interesting film about the "fallen angel syndrome" which has been the bane of the dating scene for the last 50 years. Some of the single women in the audience might have actually stopped asking: "Where are all the good men?" long enough to ask themselves: "Why am I always so attracted to bad boys?" Alas!

Hollywood today is either incapable or unwilling to make a movie that asks its audience to think!
So, instead we get a film which can never make up its mind whether it wants to be a horror movie, a "doomed love" story or a "Julia Roberts vehicle." By trying to be all three at once, it fails to be any of the above.
How disappointing!

HEARTILY DAAAAAARK!
ONE of the BLEAKEST films ever made about this subject - practically in black and white [nice touch] hi-lighting the splashes of vermillion - and bright red blood! [Especially the lipgloss used by Glen Close as the 'madam' with a scar instead of lips ..... nasty and memorable piece of work .... uses them like switchblades ...]

HOWEVER, considering a triple bill - this one fits snugly into the 'OTHERS' and 'FROM HELL' - with a gentle bow in the direction of 'The Innocents'.

JULIA ROBERTS shines as the maid - much maligned and mistreated - only to end up in this house of horror - emotional horror that is shown in vivid flashback [Mary's childhood], etc - our dear Charles Dickens was never this explicit about the chauvinistic society of the Victorian ear .... especially the mistreatment of women and children .... chattel?

THE TALE weaves itself around the going on of the dear Doctor and his depraved ['what literally lies beneath'] alter ego - and this rather odd somewhat sado-masochistic [perhaps ala 'Nightcomers'] evolves around Mary, The Doctor and Mr. Hyde ....

VERY CREEPY STUFF - especially the swinging gangways between the lab. and the house ... excellent art direction and costuming ... but incredibly creepy stuff .....

Similar to DANGEROUS LIASONS - this movie literally becomes darker, and darker as it progresses .... a hidden JULIA ROBERTS/JOHN MALKOVICH treasure - wprth visiting! ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Use the english subtitles!
The film making me curious about the book it's based on is for me the film's only enduring value. Though important subject matter and a seemingly passionate ethic in making it, it just isn't enough. In trying so hard to do a character study, the movie fails to allow the forces causing it to be the characters' last September to really take hold. And, without that it's just a movie about a bunch of priviliged people talking about not much at all, which when taking in an accent spells movie-watching doom. Cabaret it's not. Maybe if I had activated the english subtitles...
Actually, the "special features" on the dvd are interesting because interviews with the actors and director have you wondering if they worked on the same movie you just watched. Maybe I should have watched them first because they seemed to have honest intentions.
There's also a dramatic reading from the book on the dvd that underscores how in this case, a book is the only way to tell this story. The story is that of a revolution virtually causing a race of people to disappear. The movie does nothing to make us want to remember them.

An emotional clash between the Irish, Anglo-Irish &British
This was a very moving movie showing how the Irish, and the British and how families like uncle Richard and aunt Myra (Maggie Smith) Anglo Irish buisness people who no longer support the British yet fear the Irish rebels are caught in between a confict. Fiona Shaw does an wonderful job playing the part of a vamp, Marta who is to marry a wealthy English business man but enjoys fooling around and tempting Hughie who is regreatfuly married to a much older woman while they are staying at Richard and Myra's house. In the mean time Lois ( Uncle Richard's niece) is playfuly leading on a very attractive young British officer and yet sneaking to meet the young Irish rebel and allowing herself to be seduced by him. The British Officer wishes to marry her but Aunt Myra (Maggie Smith does a really good job playing a polite snob) slams the poor officer with the fact that he is not of money and that it would be impossible to marry Lois, yet uncle Richard, who really hates the British, is encouraging the young officer to continue in his relationship with Lois. This is a movie that anyone who enjoys the English movie format, should see.

Boring and Murky
I found this movie to be a crashing bore and a great disappointment. I usually like this sort of British/Irish film and I'm extremely interested in the period of Irish history involved here,, from the 1916 Rebellion through the War of Independence to the Treaty setting up the Irish Free State. However, this story was so slow moving and the characters so one dimensional and incredibly clueless that it was hard to keep up any real interest in their pathetic lives. The cast is a striking one and deserves better but every character, with the possible exception of Maggie Smith's, seemed shallow and only partly realized. The photography was probably the best part of this disaster but even it seemed murky and given to dwelling much too long on inanimate objects, flora and fauna. The only part of the interminable proceedings with any spark was that involving the brief interlude with Lois (as blank a cartridge as I've encountered in many a moon) and the IRA gunman, who himself seemed almost a caricature. Over all it managed to make a critical and fascinating period of history dull and uninvolving.

Searching for Love
This story is based on Elizabeth Bowen's cleverly crafted novel in which a young woman comes of age in a brutal time. It is a story about seeking love in all the wrong places. Love is not a simple affair. It is a complex journey, filled with many decisions along the way.

As Lois (Keeley Hawes) and Army Captain Gerald (David Tennant) dance through a forest there is an unmistaken sense of innocence clouded by a forboding evil clinging to each step. The deeper they go into the forest, the more aware you become that a ghost-like melancholy seems to consume Lois. She is amused by Gerald, but has a penchant for rebels. Even in her innocence, she longs for exc