Amazon.com essential video

Not an ideal choice for younger kids, this hip and violent animated feature from Disney was nevertheless a huge smash in theaters and on video, and it continues to enjoy life in an acclaimed Broadway production. The story finds a lion cub, son of a king, sent into exile after his father is sabotaged by a rivalrous uncle. The little hero finds his way into the "circle of life" with some new friends and eventually comes back to reclaim his proper place. Characters are very strong, vocal performances by the likes of Jeremy Irons, Nathan Lane, and Whoopi Goldberg are terrific, the jokes are aimed as much (if not more) at adults than kids, the animation is sometimes breathtaking, and the music is more palatable than in many Disney features. But be cautious: this is too intense for the Rugrat crowd. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (339)

Well worth your hard earned money
This new two disc set for the Lion King is yet another masterful DVD production job by the Disney folks. The video and audio quality are top notch, with plenty of choices how to see the film (both original and extended). There are an amazing amount of extras included on disc two, it will take some hunting to find them all, and quite a bit of extra time to view the entire contents. A few are overly self promotional, but there is so much stuff here, just skip to the next item if that bothers you. Some of the games are actually fun too.

With both Lion King and Sleeping Beauty being newly released on DVD right now, if you can only get one of them, there is no question this is by far the better choice. The impressive animation, the story, the fantastic sound, the extras are all superior in this Lion King package. This still isn't my favorite Disney release (Roger Rabbit will always have that honor), but maybe top 5--certainly top 8.

Lion King Platinum is well worth the investment for your DVD collection. Your family will get many years of enjoyment from it.

The Lion King
The first time I ever saw "The Lion King" was on September 14th 1995, the day it came out on video. Strangely, I went to all of Disney's releases from "The Little Mermaid" to "Aladdin" (including rereleases of their older classics) but missed out on "The Lion King". Silly me. "The Lion King" is a masterpiece. The film is visually amazing. Some scenes stand out in particular; such as the wild-beast stampede and the opening sequence. The movie wouldn't be completed without the powerful score and songs, composed by Hans Zimmer and Elton John, respectively. The Oscar-winning "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" and the ever-popular "Circle Of Life" are all here. The characters in this movie have also become wildly popular, especially Timon and Pumbaa. The villain, Scar, is the ultimate villian: evil and deceitful, yet wit and sarcastic. In this 2-disc special edition, the film looks like a video-game, in terms of sharpness and clearity. You won't believe of how smooth the image can be. "The Lion King" is a movie that deserves all the praise and success that it had gotten.

Earns its place among the old Disney classics
Animation films are incredibly tricky. Adults(or just mainly uptight people view animated films as kids only. However kids see them as great pieces of film that they "get". For once, Disney gets it right. This was really a powerhouse film when it came out and held the record for the biggest animated film of all time(until recently when a so-so film about finding a fish called Nemo came out).

Simba is a young lion in the Serengeti(they call it the Pride Lands though) who just can't wait to be king. However, he's a mischievous little cub who gets into trouble a bit easy. When a terrible tragedy strikes, Simba exiles himself where he meets a warthog and meerkat and develops a carefree lifestyle. Now an adult, he returns to the Pride Lands to reclaim the throne from his evil uncle, Scar.

Sounds a bit like Hamlet huh? But you won't care. Many impossibly catchy songs, funny moments and jokes and words that even appeal to adults(do you really think a kid would understand "illustrating the differences in your royal mangerial approaches"? Exactly.)

Voice acting is top notch, animation is absolutely gorgeous, and it's done by hand by the way, none of that Finding Nemo/Toy Story/A Bug's Life CGI stuff. There's a reason why this is considered the best Disney film but you owe it to yourself to find out why.

This is NOT a violent movie for kids
I'm sorry, but if you found this movie to be too violent for kids over the age of five, then you're robbing your children of a valuable experience. Yes, there is death. Yes, it is not a safe and simple death. But kids CAN handle it. An evil man killed a great man. It's not a theme that kids should enjoy, but it's one that is of particular resonance to us as Americans. This movie is simple, beautiful and moving- seemingly one of Disney's last treasures. While the Broadway show may be even more moving, this movie has the power to move us. I hope you'll see it if you haven't. I hope you'll let your kids watch it if you haven't. And I hope you'll enjoy it as much as I have. Humbly submitted, -Matt Calcara, Overland Park, KS

Best movie of all times
I really love this movie it was so cute and the songs were great I gave my neice this movie when she was born and she watches it all the time and she is 7 years old now Thanks to everyone who created it your the best ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Not an ideal choice for younger kids, this hip and violent animated feature from Disney was nevertheless a huge smash in theaters and on video, and it continues to enjoy life in an acclaimed Broadway production. The story finds a lion cub, son of a king, sent into exile after his father is sabotaged by a rivalrous uncle. The little hero finds his way into the "circle of life" with some new friends and eventually comes back to reclaim his proper place. Characters are very strong, vocal performances by the likes of Jeremy Irons, Nathan Lane, and Whoopi Goldberg are terrific, the jokes are aimed as much (if not more) at adults than kids, the animation is sometimes breathtaking, and the music is more palatable than in many Disney features. But be cautious: this is too intense for the Rugrat crowd. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (339)

Well worth your hard earned money
This new two disc set for the Lion King is yet another masterful DVD production job by the Disney folks. The video and audio quality are top notch, with plenty of choices how to see the film (both original and extended). There are an amazing amount of extras included on disc two, it will take some hunting to find them all, and quite a bit of extra time to view the entire contents. A few are overly self promotional, but there is so much stuff here, just skip to the next item if that bothers you. Some of the games are actually fun too.

With both Lion King and Sleeping Beauty being newly released on DVD right now, if you can only get one of them, there is no question this is by far the better choice. The impressive animation, the story, the fantastic sound, the extras are all superior in this Lion King package. This still isn't my favorite Disney release (Roger Rabbit will always have that honor), but maybe top 5--certainly top 8.

Lion King Platinum is well worth the investment for your DVD collection. Your family will get many years of enjoyment from it.

The Lion King
The first time I ever saw "The Lion King" was on September 14th 1995, the day it came out on video. Strangely, I went to all of Disney's releases from "The Little Mermaid" to "Aladdin" (including rereleases of their older classics) but missed out on "The Lion King". Silly me. "The Lion King" is a masterpiece. The film is visually amazing. Some scenes stand out in particular; such as the wild-beast stampede and the opening sequence. The movie wouldn't be completed without the powerful score and songs, composed by Hans Zimmer and Elton John, respectively. The Oscar-winning "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" and the ever-popular "Circle Of Life" are all here. The characters in this movie have also become wildly popular, especially Timon and Pumbaa. The villain, Scar, is the ultimate villian: evil and deceitful, yet wit and sarcastic. In this 2-disc special edition, the film looks like a video-game, in terms of sharpness and clearity. You won't believe of how smooth the image can be. "The Lion King" is a movie that deserves all the praise and success that it had gotten.

Earns its place among the old Disney classics
Animation films are incredibly tricky. Adults(or just mainly uptight people view animated films as kids only. However kids see them as great pieces of film that they "get". For once, Disney gets it right. This was really a powerhouse film when it came out and held the record for the biggest animated film of all time(until recently when a so-so film about finding a fish called Nemo came out).

Simba is a young lion in the Serengeti(they call it the Pride Lands though) who just can't wait to be king. However, he's a mischievous little cub who gets into trouble a bit easy. When a terrible tragedy strikes, Simba exiles himself where he meets a warthog and meerkat and develops a carefree lifestyle. Now an adult, he returns to the Pride Lands to reclaim the throne from his evil uncle, Scar.

Sounds a bit like Hamlet huh? But you won't care. Many impossibly catchy songs, funny moments and jokes and words that even appeal to adults(do you really think a kid would understand "illustrating the differences in your royal mangerial approaches"? Exactly.)

Voice acting is top notch, animation is absolutely gorgeous, and it's done by hand by the way, none of that Finding Nemo/Toy Story/A Bug's Life CGI stuff. There's a reason why this is considered the best Disney film but you owe it to yourself to find out why.

This is NOT a violent movie for kids
I'm sorry, but if you found this movie to be too violent for kids over the age of five, then you're robbing your children of a valuable experience. Yes, there is death. Yes, it is not a safe and simple death. But kids CAN handle it. An evil man killed a great man. It's not a theme that kids should enjoy, but it's one that is of particular resonance to us as Americans. This movie is simple, beautiful and moving- seemingly one of Disney's last treasures. While the Broadway show may be even more moving, this movie has the power to move us. I hope you'll see it if you haven't. I hope you'll let your kids watch it if you haven't. And I hope you'll enjoy it as much as I have. Humbly submitted, -Matt Calcara, Overland Park, KS

Best movie of all times
I really love this movie it was so cute and the songs were great I gave my neice this movie when she was born and she watches it all the time and she is 7 years old now Thanks to everyone who created it your the best ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Jeremy Irons gives another superb and underrated performance in M Butterfly, an elegant adaptation of the Broadway hit by playwrightDavid Henry Hwang. Irons plays a French diplomat in China in 1964 whofalls in love with a star of the Beijing Opera, not realizing that theentrancing performer holds secrets that will ruin his life--that thesinger is a spy for the Communist government is only the beginning of thediplomat's troubles. Though M Butterfly may seem like a departurefor director David Cronenberg (best known for horror and science fictionflicks like The Fly and Scanners), the themes of desireand self-deception fit comfortably into his oeuvre, alongside hisadaptations of difficult novels like Naked Lunch and Crash.M Butterfly, like the more popular movie The Crying Game, isa cunning examination of love and denial. Also featuring John Lone (TheLast Emperor). --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Tragic and sympathetic characters caught up in history
This 1993 film is based on the true story of French diplomat, Rene Gallimard, who carried on an affair for 18 years with Chinese opera singer Song Liling. Later, he was arrested when it was discovered he was passing diplomatic secrets to the Chinese government through his lover. However, there is a twist. Song Liling was actually a man, not a woman, and supposedly kept this fact from Gallimard through all this time.

Jeremy Irons is cast as Rene Gallimard. John Lone, who was actually trained in the Beijing opera and who played the title role in The Last Emperor, is cast as Song Liling. He is not a convincing female but I feel this was the director's intent. The story is, after all, about Gallimard's blind obsession in his desire for the perfect woman. Both Irons' and Lone's performances are magnificent. Both are tragic and sympathetic characters caught up in history.

The theme is also about the role of men and women as well as Communist China and the cultural revolution. Great cinematography and setting brings us to the heart of China which is going through its growing pains. Deception and betrayal are everywhere, not just between the two leading characters involved in the romance.

I was unprepared to like the video as much as I did. It did not do well at the box office, I knew the theme in advance and felt it would strain my belief system. However, I was swept away in the story and the excellent performances and had no trouble overlooking its flaws. Of course the author took dramatic license and created a ending that played like an opera, but who is to blame him; the story itself just cried out for theatrics.

Recommended as an interesting departure from the ordinary.

Cronenberg and Irons: Masterful
A bit of a departure for horror/sci-fi director David Cronenberg, but nonetheless one of his best films. Jeremy Irons plays Rene Gallimard, an accountant for the French Embassy in Beijing, who becomes infatuated with a Chinese diva (Song Liling), played by John Lone. After a passionate and scandalous affair, Song leaves Beijing, supposedly pregnant with Gallimard's child. Years later when he is arrested for espionage, Gallimard is forced to confront the fact that not only was his lover a spy for the Chinese ministry, but a man. Some people find John Lone's inability to completely pass as a woman problematic, but as Cronenberg explains: "I didn't want an unknown who was incredibly female and almost undetectable. I wanted a man. When Gallimard and Song are kissing I wanted it to be two men. I wanted the audience to feel that... M. Butterfly for me is about transformation.." For me, it's a brilliant exploration of the nature of curiousity and desire that necessarily ends tragically. The devastating notion that you can give up your entire life for something that is not true, that it's possible to fall in love with an idea, an image, a masquerade. Cronenberg abounds in his insights to imperialism, gender performance and the human capcity for transformation. Still, above all is the emotional intensity of this film, his best (in that regard) to date. Beautiful cinematography and exquisite acting, earns five stars for the closing scene alone. Highly recommended.

Breathtaking
I don't think anyone could have done justice to writing the screenplay to M Butterfly (based on David Henry Hwang's stage play) than Hwang himself. While it is a bit of a departure from the 1988 play based on the true story of a French diplomat who falls in love with a Chinese opera singer and the disastrous outcome of their affair, as a film it could not have been done otherwise.

Jeremy Irons, a wonderful actor no matter what role he plays, makes for an astounding Rene Gallimard. Less sarcastic than John Lithgow, who created the role on Broadway, Irons gives new depth and intensity to the frustrated, naive accountant. The dramatic depth to John Lone's Song Liling is equal to Irons and equal in departure from BD Wong's somewhat giggly Broadway portrayal of the Chinese diva.

A great deal of "s" words can be used to describe David Cronenberg's film, the top of that list including subtle and sexy. The tone is set, mostly, by the score--which includes traditional-sounding Chinese music and variations of Puccini's Madame Butterfly (especially the recurring theme of "Un Bel Di")--and the scenery (shot in the Far East and Budapest). The ubiquitous soft red and gold tones add to the seductive, nearly erotic edge of the film, all of which culminate at the end.

I don't want to give any of it away, mainly because when I saw the movie I had already read and seen the play, and there is so much more meaning to realize the end with Rene, but I will say that it is moving to the point of tears. Not necessarily because of the outcome, but more in how the actors play it and how the director has realized it. If you have ANY interest in purchasing this film (especially if you have any experience with Hwang's stage play), by all means buy it. It won't disappoint.

Who's French??
Yet another spectacular tale of love and maddness with a Freudian twist by the great David Cronenberg. There are some slight flaws with the film such as a cast portraying French people, none of which sporting French accents. But I suppose thats better than trying to do a French accent and it being inconsistant. All-in-all though, a really great, really strange (though not as strange as some of his other work) surprisingly poetic movie. Definately a must see for fans of Cronenberg and Jeremy Irons alike.

Moving
Considering that it was a Cronenberg movie, I found it surprisingly normal and accessible. I also found it thoroughly engrossing and much more emotionally satisfying than I's expected, given some of the reviews. Jeremy Irons gave his usual pitch-perfect performance; perhaps this film was something of a warm-up for his playing Humbert Humbert in the similarly themed Lolita. However, I was blown away even more by John Lone. He wasn't as convincing as a woman as he might have been, but that really wasn't the point, and when you see his transformation to his true persona at the end of the film, the sheer contrast, and the conviction to both the performances, should prove just how talented he is.
Overall, I found an unexpected treasure here; what from the box could have been a overwraught weepy sex-drama was actually intelligent, emotionally truthful, and well made. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Footnotes in movie books are likely to reduce this swashbuckling adventure down to a simple description: it was the first movie to star Leonardo DiCaprio after the phenomenal success of Titanic. As such it automatically attracted a box-office stampede of Leo's young female fans, but critical reaction was deservedly mixed. Having earned his directorial debut after writing the Oscar-winning script for Mel Gibson's Braveheart, Randall Wallace wrote and directed this ambitious version of the often-filmed classic novel by Alexandre Dumas. DiCaprio plays dual roles as the despotic King Louis XIV, who rules France with an iron fist, and the king's twin brother, Philippe, who languishes in prison under an iron mask, his identity concealed to prevent an overthrow of Louis' throne. But Louis' abuse of power ultimately enrages Athos (John Malkovich), one of the original Four Musketeers, who recruits his former partners (Gabriel Byrne, Gérard Depardieu, and Jeremy Irons) in a plot to liberate Philippe and install him as the king's identical replacement. Once this plot is set in motion and the Musketeers are each given moments in the spotlight, the film kicks into gear and offers plenty of entertainment in the grand style of vintage swashbucklers. But it's also sidetracked by excessive length and disposable subplots, and for all his post-Titanic star power, the boyish DiCaprio just isn't yet "man" enough to be fully convincing in his title role. Still, this is an entertaining movie, no less enjoyable for falling short of the greatness to which it aspired. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (168)

As much fun as the book...
Movie adaptations of books are prone to disappointment - But not so with this film adaptation of "The Man in the Iron Mask," the third book in the Musketeer trilogy by master Alexandre Dumas.

Unlike the earlier "Three Musketeers" released by Disney (featuring Oliver Platt, Charlie Sheen, Chris O'Donnel and Kiefer Sutherland), which was aimed at a younger audience, "Iron Mask" is aimed at a more sophisticated adult audience. It aims past the raucus swashbuckling (although there is plenty of action to satisfy) and strives toward deeper character development in an almost introspective manner. From d'Artagnan's severe sense of duty to Aramis' penitence to Athos' alternating joie de vivre and ennui to Portos' fatherly love, with an underlying religous tone, the "Iron Mask" underscores the human struggle toward virtue and a supernatural code of morality.

The cast, including Jeremy Irons, Gabriel Byrne, Gerard Depardieu, John Malkovich and DiCaprio) is superb - with the exception that Malkovich's characteristic American accent seems out of place juxtaposed to the more British and French tinge of his fellow musketeers; and, more importantly, that the young DiCaprio (who has since matured) has yet to 'come of age' as an actor in this movie. The direction by "Braveheart"'s Randall Wallace is outstanding, with good cinematography and composition, well-planned pacing and a well-written and edited screenplay adaptation of the work.

Of course, the credit to the success of this movie is that the original work by Dumas is a page-turner literary classic! I highly recommend reading the complete trilogy: "The Three Musketeers," "Twenty Years After" and "The Man in the Iron Mask."

For hands-down the best translation of a Dumas work to film, I highly recommend "The Count of Monte Cristo," featuring the excellent Jim Caviezel.

Not Perfect, but Interesting
This movie is not unlike its central character(s) -- twins separated at birth, developing in two different directions. There's the movie for the squealing teens -- basically Leo DiCaprio, in all kinds of costumes, doing his cute-as-a-button routine as both hero and villain. Then there's the movie for everybody else -- a somber, complex story full of superb middle-aged actors who finally find honor and redemption at too high a cost. The two sides of the movie do fit together -- DiCaprio is a surprisingly good actor when he has the likes of Malkovich and Gabriel Byrne feeding him his cues -- but the fit is never perfect. The old guard side of the story is slow-paced at times, because it develops a personal plot line for every single Musketeer, but it gets there in the end. If you like the movie the first time, a re-watching will bring up new and interesting nuances. The best thing in the film (if you're not female and 17) is John Malkovich, whose version of Athos jumps believably from homicidal obsessive to loving father figure without ever touching middle ground. The movie is too flawed to be called 'great,' but what it does well it does very, very well.

True to Dumas
I have read the entire Musketeer series. This version closely tracks its written counterpart. It was well acted and involved the viewer in both the comedy and pathos Dumas was expert at entertaining his readers with. I was actually surprised by diCaprio's performance. I thought he showed great versatility in playing the dual roles. I loved Jeremy Irons in the role of d'Artagnan and I really liked Depardieu too in the role of Porthos. I have played my copy several times for guests in my home. It is a movie that engenders thought about good and evil and shows that, sometimes, it is important to do the right thing --- just because it is right to do.

Starry show for "Man in the Iron Mask"
"THe man in the iron mask" is probably best known for being DiCaprios first film after Titanic, and probably all that itll be remembered, or thanked for. The plot is twisted like much of Dumas' novels in recent film adaptions (such as "The Count of MOnte Cristo")but is still a good film to watch, once you can look over some imperfections in the various actors accents and very television-like twist at the end, that does pose as a suprise to a viewer, whether s/he has read the Musketeer novels or not.
The costumes and scenery are georgous. The huge budget shows not only in the starry cast on show, but in the quality of the interiors of Marseilles and the country side exteriors for Philippes transformation and training. The acting is spontaneous although it plays like a pantomine at times (such as Depardieu's consistent farting and incompetence with three women at one time. Malcovich mid-west accent and Iron's noble countenance somehow match (similar to "Dangerous Liasons" with Close and Malkovich)and Byrnes tragic/romantic/hero passes not exactly for the D'Artanian of the popular screen, his Irish accent also is another mix in the bake.
The directing makes the most of all that is on offer (such as the musketeers charging into musket fire, elaborate chase scenes on the kidnapping of the king and the squalor of the Bastille) and the music complements each scene beautifully that it stands out.
"Man in the Iron Mask" is overall a good film, not a landmark adaptation, but good entertainment of a better quality.

Really fine movie
I bought this movie only recently and really liked it.
I thought EVERYONE was utterly convincing and excellent especially Leo who plays both evil and innocent equally well.
However does anybody note here that something is brought in that was in no other version and not the book : Dartagnan is the father of the king and his brother?
Hmmmm.
But EXCELLENT FILM and I recomment it. ... Read more

Reviews (122)

O lente currite noctis equi! O softly run, nightmares!
It is impossible to make a faithful (legal) movie of Nabokov's novel. However, this is very good approximation of it.

Jeremy Irons is perfectly cast as Humbert, and captures the kind of clueless social fumbling and bumbling which is a large part of the character in the novel. Humbert is not comfortable around people of any age. Domenique Swain, in her first role, pulls off an acceptable version of the title character, both vulnerable and crafty. Although Frank Langella is no Peter Sellers, his rendition of Clare Quilty is much more realistic and true to the novel - even the over-the-top death scene with the ballet-like movements and red spit-bubble is almost straight from the book. A real problem was casting Melanie Griffith as Charlotte - unfortunately she was completely wrong for the part - being too shrill and light.

The cinematography was excellent. The feeling of travel - 27,000 miles in the course of a couple years, and geography plays a substantial part in the book, and was well represented in the movie.

Beautiful score by Morricone, who also did the well-regarded "The Mission" score.

For all the good things in the movie, the same three things in both the Lyne and Kubrick versions bother me, as I feel it robs Humbert of some nuance to his character:
1. No mention of first wife. He was not always just into nymphets.
2. No mention of second wife, Rita, (and taping the goodbye note to her navel so she would find it).
3. The last page and a half from the book was left out. This is possibly the most moving passage of the novel - when Hubert offers his apology for all his nastiness, and his admonition to Lolita, and the revelation that neither Lolita nor Humbert are alive as we read the book, and his pathetic summation..."I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita."

The title cards at the end detailing the demise of the characters was a cheap out in both versions of the movie. Had there been a narration of the last page over, say, a scene of Humbert writing in jail (which in the novel is where the book is written in 56 days of captivity), I'd give this movie 5 stars.

The DVD has a lot of extras including a commentary, rehearsal footage and 8 deleted scenes.

Nothing replaces the book, and I suggest the "Annotated Lolita" version which has 140 pages of notes, helping with the nuances in the complex, convoluted novel.

Lolita 1998
Although Adrian Lyne's Lolita is a good film adaption of Vladimir Nabokov's superb novel, it contains fatal flaws. First I will say that the cinematography is glorious and the score by Ennio Morriconne lush and romantic. I expected Jeremy Irons as the obsessed Humbert Humbert to turn in a mind blowing performance. Unfortunately, he stands around looking glum most of the time. Dominique Swain as the nymphet Lolita does have several impressive moments, but ultimately is unconvincing as she comes across as nothing more than a 90s brat. I will say though that the relationship between Humbert and Lolita does have its very powerful moments, just not enough of them.

I don't hold these faults to the actors. I think Adrian Lyne, the director is responsible for the films flaws. For one thing, he seems to want to make Lolita look as unattractive as possible every chance he gets. She takes out her retainer before performing oral sex on Humbert, and is frequently seen munching on bananas and getting milk mustaches. Also in one scene, we see Lolita sitting diown, laughing as she reads a comic book. The camera moves away to reveal that Humbert is making love to her. This and other scenes make the relationship between Humbert and Lolita repulsive, and if you're going to make a film based on Lolita, their relationship can't be portrayed as disgusting. The audience must be made to feel the love that Humbert has for this girl. It only partially succeeds. Irons also fails most in the ending scene where Lolita tells Humbert that she never loved him. Irons merely cries for two seconds and leaves. James Mason in Kubrick's version is much more moving. I also have a problem with the fact that Lyne seems to have duplicated the Kubrick film shot by shot in that scene.

My last qualm is that this adaption is nearly completely devoid of humor, which is an essential aspect of Nabokov's story. Melanie Griffiths gives a fine performance as Charlotte Haze, but she is given far too little screen time. Frank Langella as Quilty is also quite amusing, too bad he only gets ten minutes to show it. Thus, when a 17 year old Lolita reveals to Humbert that it was Quilty who put her away, we don't care. It should be a revelation, but it is not. Quilty's death scene offers an infusion of black humor, but it is too little, too late. Jeremy Irons last few scenes as an emotionally broken Humbert are very moving though.

I give this movie three stars because for all of its faults, it is involving and does deserve to be seen and compared with Stanley Kubrick's 1962 adaption. Even though it falls short when compared to it.

Adrian Lyne, you do not compare to Stanley Kubrick
The original 1962 Kubrick version of this movie is so much better, he actually captured the essence of this film. The remake is completely cheesy; it pales in comparison. Shame on those who think this wannabe movie is better or even compares to the original.

A FASCINATING STORY OF OBSESSION
It is interesting to compare this movie and its predecessor, to "Pretty Baby."

Some critics claim "Lolita" is a true love story. I disagree.

Dominique Swain is beautiful and incredibly sexy; and Irons wants to possess her. Realistically, this can not be, so conflict, and ultimately death, ensue.

In "Pretty Baby," Brooke Shields is stunningly beautiful, adorably so, but not sexy, although she becomes a child prostitute.

While Swain obviously knows exactly what is on men's minds, Shields portrays a child playing at the sex trade.

Ultimately, her photographer-lover lets her go on to a normal childhood, just as earlier he freed the bird trapped in the whore-house. This is love.

Athough both films are visually beautiful, in "Pretty Baby," Sven Nyquist's cimematography is transcendentally so. His shots of Brooke Shields posing for her photographer-lover are like peering into the tender, throbbing core of life itself.

As vexing as ever
Certainly the most compelling screen version of Lolita, Adrian Lyne has a much better feel for the story than did Stanley Kubrick, and Dominique Swain is much better cast as the young femme fatale than was Sue Lyon. But, the most striking feature of this film is the cinematography which gives the story a much more evocative feel. While it is through Humbert Humbert that we see Lolita, Lyne finds more subtle ways to probe Lolita than did Kubrick, who treated her very much as an object. I suppose in that sense it may have been a little closer to Nabokov's original telling, but Lyne has a more sensitive eye to detail and the devastating relationship that forms between Humbert and Lolita. The script stays close to the novel. Lyne lavishes much attention on the cross-country trip and the rain-soaked stay in New Orleans. I felt Jeremy Irons did a better job than James Mason in capturing Humbert's psyche, better able to convey the emotions that led to his ill-fated obsession in Lolita. The film also evocatively recalls the genesis for Humbert's obsession. It was a bold move by Adrian Lyne, demonstrating a thoughtful understanding of the novel and not trying to add any form of moral judgement on it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Roland Joffé (The Killing Fields) directs this fuzzy effort at a David Lean-like epic without David Lean's sense of emotional proportion. Lean's most important screenwriting collaborator, Robert Bolt, in fact wrote The Mission, which concerns a Jesuit missionary (Jeremy Irons) who establishes a church in the hostile jungles of Brazil and then finds his work threatened by greed and political forces among his superiors. Robert De Niro is briefly effective as a callous soldier who kills his own brother and then turns to Irons's character to oversee his penance and conversion to the clergy. The narrative and dramatic forces at work in this movie should be more stirring and powerful than they are--the problem being that Joffé is too removed from them to allow us in. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (158)

Theodicy or Corrupt Politics
The Mission

The Mission directed by Roland Joffe is the story of the struggle between theocracy and theodicy. Ironically the church has the mission to bring theodicy to the world and it does this through the message of God's Love and Forgiveness. It tries to accomplish this through the sending out of missionaries, in this case the Jesuit priests, to tell the story and bring others to the knowledge of God's Love and Forgiveness. Tragically politics and greed for power in the hierarchy of the church (in this case the Roman Catholic Church) brings about a situation where the people of God are killed supposedly in the name of God. This story opens and ends with Cardinal Altamirano (Ray McAnally) dictating a letter to the Pope informing him of the events that had transpired after giving church missions in South America over to the Spaniards and Portuguese. The nature of the setting is beautiful. Views of the waterfalls are breath-taking and spectacular.

The message of theodicy is played out in the story involving two main characters Father Gabriel (Jeremy Irons) and Rodrigo Mendoza (Robert De Niro). Father Gabriel brings theocracy to the Natives of South America. At the beginning of our story Rodrigo is a slave trader who undergoes a traumatic conversion experience and serves those whom he had sold into slavery before. His story of transformation is one of heartache, murder, repentance and extreme penance which he imposes upon himself. It is the forgiveness and acceptance of those who he former hunted that sets him feel to serve both God and the Natives. Another film that shows a similar vein of acceptance after tragedy is the classic movie Hawaii (1966) based on James Michener. Rev. Hale accepts the Native Hawaiians as he begins to mellow in the aftermath of his losses. In Rodrigo's case is his acceptance by the tribe that helps them to fight against the imposed theocracy of the Cardinal later on.

At issue here, in spite of the beautifully portrayal of conversion to Christianity of the Native people of South America, is the imposed will of governing forces of politics around greed ownership of land. Yet this was done under the auspices of the Church as God's Will, which is called theocracy. The people of the land had no say, they were the conquered, to be exploited and were considered as chattel, for them there was not theodicy. Their willingness to share and work for the common good of all, even though a principle of Christianity was considered a threat to the economy of others with political clout. Because they would not give up that which they had worked for, they were condemned to death. When Cardinal Atlamirno orders them to leave the Mission; they wanted to know why? His answer was that they had to submit to the will of God. Their answer was had God changed his mind? They were doing what they had been taught was God's will for them. Theodicy was not served as there was no justification in this case.

The Mission portrays the mission of Christ
The Mission is a powerful movie with a powerful message about sin, redemption, and love. It probes deep into the evils of the Catholic Church in Spain and Portugal in teh mid 18th century. Robert De Niro brilliantly portrays Rodrigo Mendoza, a dynamic character who transforms his life to a murderer who trades slaves to a Jesuit priest who fights for those seemingly 'enslaved' natives - the Guaranese. Jeremy Irons ixquisitley plays the role of a truly Christ-like figure. Father Gabriel is the epitomy of compassion, lvove, and understanding. With an incredibly written screenplay by Robert Bolt (who also wrote A Man For All Seasons), the Mission is an incredible film which explores the depths and beauty of morality and life ont he path to Jesus Christ.

the beauty and the horror of the catholic church
i think tom keogh's a bit 'off' kilter and it echoes the reviews that came out when the film was released.
the charge of emotional vacancy has since been rendered somewhat mute by the films growing status.
now admittedly, the overriding emotional sense that most people seem to experience when seeing this is one of anger, rather than one of tragedy and ,yes, that is partly due to our never really getting to know the indians who are, predictably, massacred.
we are emotionally more jolted upon seeing the murder of the priests who we have gotten to know.
that aside, i think joffes direction works because what he is attempting to show, and succesfully does so, is both the beauty and the horror of catholicism.
there is a touching beauty upon seeing deniros character finally reaching his muddy penneance,and in the scene where he cooks a steaming stew for his fellow priests.
perhaps one of the most beautiful, simplistically effective moments is when deniro narrates first corinthians 'love is not puffed up'.
yes, the conclusion is all too predictable. not just because we know the history, but because as much as we all can see the beauty in the church, everyone is also well aware of its ugliness.
i am suprised that the catholic church showed its support of this non flattering film, which shows, perhaps, a certain amount of theoretical penance on its part.
one of the last scenes which shows two naked indian children aloft in a boat after the massacre is an example of a picture telling a thousand words.
in one sense mr keogh is correct in recognizing an inherent coldness in the film but i think that is a realization of the harrowing cold heartedness that catholic church has shown in its history, which paradoxically is unified with its undeniable beauty.

This Sucks!!!!!! Very Very Sucky and Boring
I just watched this movie in Morality class and it is a really boring movie that just drags on and on. How does end by every one including De Nero and Irons (major characters) along with everyone else. There is only one movie that pulled off having all the characters die in it and that was Glory. I don't under any circumstances think anyone should see this movie unless you have a boring life or just sad than see it otherwise see Glory a much much better movie except different plots.

Emotionally Wrenching, Enchanting Film
Not for the squeamish, "The Mission" explores the duality of Europe's presence in South America -- the salvation brought by the Jesuits and the condemnation brought by "civilization."

Roland Joffe, the director, pulls few punches. The film opens with the dictation of a letter to the Pope by a prominent religious figure, Altamirano, who has just undergone the events that will transpire in the film, and we learn that these events are not pleasant: "the local savages are now free to be enslaved by his Holiness . . ."

These events "were brought about" by the horrifying martyrdom of a Jesuit priest, who had journeyed to the "uncivilized" lands of the Indians above the falls (and what falls!). The local Indians, apparently rejecting his Christian teachings, crucify him and toss him into a river . . . a river that soon flows to the falls, and the descending cross is one of the most haunting images you will ever see on film.

In response, another Jesuit priest, Gabriel (Jeremy Irons) heads above the falls, and uses his music (score by Ennio Morricone of "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" fame) to win the trust of the locals. Soon he is preaching the Word of God among them.

Unfortunately, the slaver/mercenary Rodrigo Mendoza (Robert De Niro) is hunting the Indians for slavers. He ominously warns Gabriel about the futility of building a mission among the Indians, and he seizes several.

On his return to "civilization" below the falls (the dusty town stands in marked contrast to the lush greenery above the falls), Rodrigo learns that his beloved Carlotta does not love Rodrigo, but has fallen for Rodrigo's younger brother, Felipe (Aiden Quinn). Rodrigo, far from a reasonable sort, kills his brother shortly thereafter in a trumped-up quarrel. Distraught, Rodrigo eventually agrees to do his penance above the falls with Gabriel and his fellow Jesuits (including a young Liam Neeson).

Following a tortuous climb above the falls with his lodestone of arms and armor, Rodrigo finds salvation and seeks to become a Jesuit. The mission above the falls takes shape, and all seems to be right with the world.

Of course, this is not to be. The slavers need their slaves, and they exert enormous pressure against the church -- the Catholic Church is not as strong as it once was, and the militant Jesuits are becoming a nuisance by sapping the supply of slaves (apparently it is too inconvenient to enslave Christians, so the slavers argue that the Indians are monkeys without souls -- nice).

Altamirano agrees to visit both the local mission (a gorgeous, mammoth structure complete with farm and Indian priests) as well as the more primitive mission above the falls . . . which is even more impressive despite (and perhaps because of) it's remoteness.

But, politics being politics, the missions are doomed and the Indians will be enslaved. Rodrigo and the younger priests decide to fight, leading to one of the more disturbing battles you will see on-screen. It's not "Saving Private Ryan" in its horrors, but it is emotionally wrenching to see the Jesuits and the Indians fight such in such a foregone conclusion.

Even more gut-wrenching is Gabriel, who chooses a non-violent response. In a pitch-perfect performance, Irons emobodies the Jesuit commitment to the simple words of Christ . . . not that it does him or the Indians much good in this world.

A haunting spectacle and far from a feel-good movie, "The Mission" deserves full marks for its depiction of a common conflict (Europe versus the New World) in a different setting. A top-notch cast and a wonderfully shot film make this one for the video library. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The sophomore effort by Steven Soderbergh (sex, lies, and videotape) is an audacious and stylistically impressive experiment in a completely different direction from his debut. Working from a script by Lem Dobbs, Soderbergh follows the miserable day-to-day existence of Franz Kafka (Jeremy Irons), an insurance clerk in a large, impersonal company.Hiding out in his garret at night, he writes material he assumes no one will ever read. But then he happens upon clues that make him believe there is some plot afoot to suppress thought and he follows the trail into a hidden sanctuary, at which point the film abruptly shifts from shadowy black and white to jarring color. It doesn't all work, but it is never less than intriguing, with a cast that includes Alec Guinness, Ian Holm, and Joel Grey. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Great Art House Film
I was fortunate enough to have seen this movie when it was first released in a theater here in Los Angeles. How wonderful it was on the big screen! It is visually stunning, with superb direction by Steven Soderberg and of course excellent acting by Jeremy Irons. KAFKA blends themes from the actual life and work of writer Franz Kafka. In addition to a brief portrait of Kafka's complex relationshiop with his father, the film includes the theme of the police-state from THE TRIAL and the unreachable castle from THE CASTLE. Therefore, I recommend reading at least these two novels before seeing the movie. Even without reading these novels, though, the movie is still very enjoyable. By the way, you can pick up an excellent new translation of THE CASTLE here on Amazon. Enjoy the movie (and the books)!

An ominous, philosophical thriller.
I am not a Jeremy Irons fan. In this film, however, his ability to convey a Kafkaesque bewilderment, curiosity and allegiance to individualism before anonymous forces that crush the human spirit is admirable and convincing. The film is set and filmed in Prague. It begins with a grotesque murder then jumps to an oppressive business office that is just as grotesque and murderous in its own way...the way of banality and offciousness (incarnated marvelously by PC "commissar" Joel McCrey). The machinations of a secret society of revolutionaries (led seductively and insolently by Rosaline Russell) are pitted against the omnipresent forces of fascism led by Ian Holmes and enforced by a menacing Armin Mueller-Stahl as Police Inspector Gruber. If you are familiar with the nightmare literature of Kafka (particularly, THE TRIAL)you will appreciate how astute Steven Soderburgh has been in evoking the terror latent in a police state. Jeremy Iron's role is that of the bureaucrat who refuses to be petty. He does care about his friends and he refuses to totally bow before the State's stale bread and "Something Wicked This Way Comes" carnival-circus. Or at least he tries. Perhaps he is not a hero, but his silence is that of defiance...not acquiescence. The film portrays this kind of definace as the kind of "candle" in the darkness that is worth more than 1000 curses in the battle for the human spirit's survival. It is a philosophical film that does not "view" like one. You can watch it and enjoy getting the hell scared out of you. Watch it!!!

"A" for ATMOSPHERE
If understanding a writer's mind means that you want to go be in his world, this is your movie. While I am defeated by the impossibility of 'making sense' of what happens here in any real way that involves logical explanation, I believe the film well-represents the scary furnishings inside Franz Kafka's mind. It doesn't move back and forth between dream and reality. Instead, it combines the two seamlessly. Only in one scene, a 'pure' dream, does the film move into color. The rest of the time it is a beautiful, grainy-foggy-textured black and white. Prague is gorgeously captured in the b/w universe. The zither score reminds one of The Third Man, another film about the ruin and corruption of Europe. I especially like that the nightmare localities, particularly the Castle interior, are imagined and furnished as 1919 phenomena. As a tour de force of reliving the interior imaginations that might have haunted a writer like Kafka, it's pretty impressive. But as a connected plot or statement, it's not much account. I'd call it intensely and sensitively atmosphere-of-Kafka, but to murky and nebulous to rise too far above that.

where is the DVD??
'Kafka' is one of the best Sonderbergh films, and i don't really understand why it has been so underrated. This movies manages brilliantly to convey the menacing atmosphere that we sense in Franz Kafka's books, introduncing elements from 'The Trial' and 'The Castle', mostly, in an original fiction work; the actors are fabulous, the cinematographie is faultless, Jeremy Irons is perfect. A wonderful film, and i'm waiting for years for the DVD. Is there any information about the release date?

Overthrow the Castle
"Kafka" is uber-director Steven Soderbergh's finest hour, a mesmerizing, frequently terrifying, always splinteringly beautiful distillation of the paranoid works of Franz Kafka into a two-hour descent into duplicity, delusion, madness, and conspiracy.

Franz Kafka (played precisely and with aplomb by Jeremy Irons, in one of his best roles) is an anonymous, numberless bureaucrat laboring in the stifling confines of his office in a shadow-haunted city somewhere in Eastern Europe (the city Soderbergh uses is Prague, which, with its winding cobbled streets and menacing feudal castle, which Soderbergh develops into a major character in its own right).

Kafka is intellectually curious, though, and through his writing seeks escape from his wearying job as a clerk and the looming, austere tyranny of his lordly superior, the Chief Clerk (played with leonine reserve and typical brilliance by Sir Alec Guiness).

Kafka's work is the stuff of dark conspiratorial nightmare, plots within plots, revolutions brewing and quelled by ranks of faceless secret police, but after he befriends a group of anarchists and revolutionaries led by the mysterious Gabriela (played subtly by Theresa Russell), his life takes a turn for the bizarre, eerily paralleling his literary work, replete with disappearances, mysterious horrible deaths, shadowy night-time pursuits through the streets, and terrible rumors of malign plots hatched in the inaccessible Castle that hulks above the city.

"Kafka" is subversive, insidious, breathtakingly beautiful and deliciously creepy work. It is also Soderbergh's best film, slipping as effortlessly between the real and surreal as it does between its black-and-white and color palettes. Soderbergh assembled a team that worked brilliantly together, including cinematographer Walt Lloyd, Set designer Joanne Woollard, and costume designer Michael Jeffery, to work a feat of cinematic magic.

The acting here is also uniformly seamless, with Irons alternately purringly subservient and winsomely brave; Irons delivers the goods as a man pushed up against the limitations of his courage. Russell shines in her brief but crucial role, Sir Alec Guinness brings a nice touch of Dickensian gloom to the picture, Armin Mueller-Stahl is note perfect as the sinister but befuddled Police Inspector Grubach, Ian Holm calmly psychotic as the evil Doctor Murnau (Holm uses the same line---"you don't belong here, do you?"---in three films: "From Hell", "Brazil", and this movie) and the great Brian Glover psychotically calm as his beetling, murderous hench-thug.

But the standout in "Kafka" is the atmosphere itself, thick with paranoid, horror, and intrigue. This is a movie fraught with secret passages, nitreous oubliettes, forgotten cemeteries, cobbled streets, fog-shrouded squares. All of this is nicely underscored by a haunting soundtrack by Cliff Martinez.

"Kafka" is above all a movie where terror stalks the alleys and haunts of the City, terror as Beautiful as it is horrific, because in life the Nightmarish can also be Beautiful. And be warned: this is a truly frightening, grisly film that does its level best to give you nightmares. Kafka's wild flight from a hideous Laughing Man is the scariest sequence I have ever sweated through.

Not a biography but a stark and luminous journey into the mind of Franz Kafka, the movie is rich and layered with echoes of "Metamorphosis", "In the Penal Colony", "The Castle" and "The Trial". Take a steadying drink, and slip into its dark streets and deep paranoia. ... 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

A holiday at Faeryoak Farm introduces Gordon and his sister, Nellie, to an enigmatic raven, and finds the pair unwittingly bound for the mystical world of Faeryland. Getting into Faeryland is easy, but returning to the farm entails a trip to see the Prince. The Prince asks the pair to perform three tasks as payment for their release. When the children are summoned for their first task, Brigid, a helper at Faeryoak Farm, follows them to the entrance of Faeryland, where the Prince falls instantly in love with her. Recalling a prophecy about his betrothal to "a beauteous Princess named Brigid, astoundingly bred," he bids the children to bring her inside Faeryland so he can propose marriage to her. All goes according to plan until Shapeshifter, the Prince's exiled brother and the aforementioned raven, stirs up trouble and seeks to fulfill a dark prophecy of his own. Will human resourcefulness and a little help from a resident hobgoblin be enough to save Faeryland and return the children to their own world?

This beautifully animated 75-minute production, which premiered on the Bravo Channel, features bright, bold colors and a picture that's amazingly sharp and clear. Add the voice talents of well-known stars such as Kate Winslet, Jeremy Irons, and Dougray Scott (Mission: Impossible 2), and you've got a video with widespread appeal. So what are you waiting for? Flitter on in to Faeryland! (Ages 3 and older) --Tami Horiuchi ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Great Entertainment For Kids of All Ages!
I watched this (and bought it) movie recently. It's very cute indeed. I must confess the reason I even watched was because the WONDERFUL Kate Winslet lent her beautiful voice for this film. Though I am glad I checked it out! If you have young kids, you may want to check it out! It's brilliant!

Enthralling and refreshing
This is definitely a great show for children and people who enjoy a good fairy story. If you liked "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," you'll probably like this one as well. The plot is simple, and geared toward a child's pace and grasp of conflict. But it has an ample supply of magical and unexpected twists that keep the story enthralling, even for some adult viewers like me.

The animation is different from what you might expect. It's nothing like the mega-budget eye candy typically put out by Disney, Dreamworks, and other media giants. (Some of us actually consider that a plus.) "Faeries" uses a combination of 2-D hand-drawn animation and very simple 3-D, flying-toaster-like computer animation. The result, as I said, is quite different. But it's not unpleasant, and I found myself getting quite used to it after only a few minutes. So while the animation technique is unusual and more economical than some, the artists use it well, and the result is a beautiful and effective piece of visual story-telling.

The voice acting is also very good, with excellent performances all around. And it's fun to recognize the voices of the three adult stars (Kate Winslet as Brigid, Jeremy Irons as Shapeshifter, and Dougray Scott as the Prince).

All-in-all, it's a fine piece of work. But since not all people enjoy this sort of thing, I'll just say this: If you don't get it... don't get it. The rest of us will enjoy a great show!

Enchanting -- And good for kids
About the animation: Whatever you're expecting, this film isn't like that. "Faeries" in no way resembles the mega-budget masterpieces you might expect from Disney, Dreamworks, or other media giants specializing in state-of-the-art, rapid-fire eye candy (though departure from that can sometimes be a good thing). It's definitely a lower-budget production, utilizing a rather conspicuous blend of hand-drawn animation and very simple, flying-toaster-like computer animation. To the artists' credit, they've managed to do a very credible job within the obvious limitations of their technique. And younger children (the audience to whom the film is targeted) probably won't mind the animation style. Some adults might not either. I found myself getting quite used to it after only a few minutes, and was rewarded with a very charming and enjoyable experience. However, if you're a person who tends to be distracted by film styles that fall outside the popular media norm, then maybe "Faeries" isn't for you. It might be kind of like having to watch PBS when you're really in the mood for a big-budget hit.

The voice acting is very good, with fine performances all around, and it's fun to recognize the voices of the three adult stars (Kate Winslet, Jeremy Irons, and Dougray Scott). The story itself I found engrossing, despite its very simple plot which is geared toward a child's pace and grasp of conflict. It is magical and has an ample number of twists, not unlike "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," which also takes place in England in roughly the same time period. And importaly, this particular fairy story enjoys the distinct advantage of NOT being two-hundred years old.

So for younger children (and for the young at heart), I definitely recommend "Faeries." For people not so easly enchanted, perhaps you'll want to think it over more carefully before buying it.

Enchanting animation and a noble prince!
This film, with its wonderfully done animation, captivated my forty-year old heart as well as my childrens'. The animators did a remarkable job of utilizing 2D and 3D-effects. The combination of the two help to make this picture a refreshing departure from the likes of Disney & Co. This film is creative, cheerful, and bright. Great family fun. Not recommended for adults who cherish the sport of Wrestling.

The animation is bad and the prince is a jerk! pretty good
A pleasent little picture for the little kids. The animation is good, but, it's slapped together, drawn-computerised, 2d-3d, you know.

the main characters are air heads, all except the red haired female lead who does all the work, (she saves her brother and endes up with an ulcer at the end of the film) the story line is simple enough to entertain 7- down, the bright colours are atractive as are the fairies.

Not family fun !Interesting for little kids only! ... Read more

Amazon.com

The House of the Spirits is a generational tale of life among the ruling class in a South American country, as adapted from the Isabel Allende novel, but thepolitical realities coexist very uneasily with the magical realism in this Bille August film. The star power alone (Jeremy Irons, Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Winona Ryder, Antonio Banderas, Vanessa Redgrave, and Armin Mueller-Stahl) should have cranked it up a few notches, but that's not the case. Irons is appropriately cruel as the ambitious man who achieves wealth and makes everyone around him miserable and Streep is luminous, but it's slow and ponderous all the way. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (26)

Disappointing
I confess - I watched this video without having read the book first, so I did not know what it was going to be about. However, I had just finished another Allende book "Daughter of Fortune" and really loved her writing style and the way in which she brings her characters to life and enlightens you about various time periods and cultures. So I had great hopes that "House of the Spirits" with its outstanding cast would do the book justice and be a worthy interpretation . I was wrong. At no time during the entire movie did I ever feel any of the emotions that the characters were trying to evoke - it just didn't come across at all. I liked Glenn Close in her portrayal of Esteban's spinster sister, and some of the minor characters such as the illegitimate son gave good performances, but I thought Jeremy Irons to be totally miscast in his role and did not care for his performance - it was stiff and rehearsed - I guess that's what I felt about the movie as a whole - it wasn't alive - the actors just learned their lines and spoke them without immersing themselves into their characters. Yes, that goes for Meryl Streep as well, I'm sorry to say - I am a big fan of hers! So, I'm off to the bookstore!

AN OUSTANDING MULTI-GENERATIONAL FAMILY SAGA...
I love this movie! It has a stellar cast, who give top notch performances. How can you go wrong with Jeremy Irons, Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Antonio Banderas, Winona Ryder, Vanessa Redgrave, and Armin Muehler-Stahl? The answer is that you can't. It is a riveting piece of film making, based loosely upon Isabelle Allende's wonderful book of the same name.

The film delicately captures the mysticism of the book, rendering those scenes in which such is the focal point highly believable. This is no mean feat given the subject matter. The story takes place in South America. The saga begins in the nineteen thirties.

Vanessa Redgrave and Armin Muehler-Stahl play the wealthy and liberal parents of two daughters, Rosa and Clara Del Valle. Rosa is the beautiful, older daughter. Clara, played by Meryl Streep's real life daughter, is a lovely child with exceptional, psychic gifts. Jeremy Irons plays the part of Esteban Trueba, an impoverished young man in love with Rosa. Vowing to make his fortune in order to marry her and provide her with the comforts to which she is accustomed, he succeeds in making his fortune. He loses Rosa, however, before being able to marry her, when she drinks poisoned wine intended for her liberal party father.

Esteban, broken hearted, leaves with his fortune and buys an estancia, where he sternly rules with an iron fist over the peasants who work the land for him. They obsequiously refer to him as "Patron". He takes what he wants, even the women, with the expected result. He has a bastard son whom he does not acknowledge.

Esteban has a spinster sister, Ferla, well acted by Glenn Close, who, for the past twenty years, has lived a grim existence in the city with their ailing mother, whom she has taken care of. When their mother dies, Esteban, now a bitter and lonely man, returns to the city from his estancia to attend his mother's funeral. In doing so, he spots Clara, who is now all grown up and ethereally portrayed by the very talented Meryl Streep. Not wasting a moment, he goes to her home. She, luminous, and mystical, already knows that he is there to ask for her hand in marriage and happily accepts. After all, she has loved him ever since she first saw him all those years ago.

Clara lovingly embraces his sister, Ferla, into the bosom of her househould, when they move to her Esteban's estancia. Ferla blossoms from a bitter old maid into a companionable and pleasant woman, under Clara's warmth. Esteban and Clara eventually have a child, Blanca, who grows up playing with Pedro, the son of the estancia's indigenous indian foreperson. When Esteban discovers this, he sends Blanca away to boarding school. He does not want his daughter fraternizing with the peasants.

Clara, loving and pure of heart, is his exact opposite. When their daughter finally grows up and returns home from school, she knows that the independent Blanca, well played by Winona Ryder, has fallen in love with her childhood playmate, Pedro, passionately portrayed by Antonio Banderas. Esteban hates Pedro, as Pedro is a liberal inciting the peasants to unionize and demand their rights, whipping them into a frenzy against the "Patron", or so Esteban sees it. He drives Pedro off his land. He also drives Ferla off, as he believes her to have unatural feelings for his wife, Clara. Possessive to a fault, he is consumed by jealousy. Clara and Esteban have a fight over his cruelties, and she finally leaves him, taking Blanca with her to the Del Valle family home in the city.

Meanwhile, life goes on. Blanca, pregnant by Pedro, has his child, believing that Pedro has been killed by her father. Esteban, representing the wealthy, becomes senator. He reigns for years, until the liberals win power. When they do, however, their tenure is short lived, as a militairy coup sets up a reign of terror and his old sins come home to roost. Meanwhile, Blanca discovers that Pedro is alive, and they joyously hook up again. When Blanca is picked up as a political dissident and tortured for her political views, Esteban, old and broken, is now just a bit player in a larger arena. Too late, he tries to right some wrongs. Some of the wrongs, however, can never be righted.

This is a magnificent, multi-generational family epic, that holds the viewer in its thrall. While it only loosely follows Isabelle Allende's wonderful book of the same name, it is a winner in its own right. It has something for everyone, as it deals with human nature, as well as the complex emotions, forces, and events that shape one. The film is about a family struggling to find its place in our ever changing world, and the relationships that each member of that family forges. It is a rich and vibrant tapestry, which succeeds in capturing the viewer.

Dishwater
Ponderous, pandering and dull, THE HOUSE OF THE SPIRITS wastes an amazing cast of great actors on what can only be called a bad couple of hours.

The very thought of Jeremy Irons, Vanessa Redgrave and Meryl Streep wasting six months of their lives only to produce this meandering flop is beyond me. The performances are fine, but the script their given to work with is lifeless.

It is, I think, a film which takes itself way too seriously; at no point is there substance to back up the self-reverence.

Book is great, Movie [is bad].
Having some truly talented actors, and a wonderful story could not save the horrid movie that is The House of the Spirts. This adaptation does not even closely do justice to the book. The book, first of all, focuses on the lives of three Trueba women. It shows the hardships and turmoil they faced in an enthralling way. The movie, I'm afraid, is too over the top, and chooses not to follow the overall plot of the novel. PLEASE if anyone suggests this film to you, DO NOT LISTEN. But do yourself a favor and read the book, it is an excellent piece of litterature.

One of the worst adaptaitions I have ever seen!
I have not seen a film quite as appaling as this one in a long time, I am Chilean and a huge fan of the book "La casa de los espiritos" (The house of the spirits), which is beautifly written, with some of the most truthfull and thoughtfull characters I have come across.
The film however is very different. To start with the characters are meant to be Chliean not British, and fair enough If they were unable to use an accent (or perhaps latin american actors) they could have at least made a respectable attempt at the names, hearing them all pronounce "Alba", "Olba" was infurriating. To keep with the cast problem the charaters of "Nivea" and "Severo Del Valle" were the two most stereotypical middle class white american parents, with a hint of the brady bunch, Nivea was more like the Mmother in "American Beauty" than a revolutionary socialist and women's rights activist, and such a passionate lover that she has given birth 15 times!
The characters were also changed and blended together changing them entirly and destrying their originality and thought making them into something dull and annoying.
The horrifying coup of 73 was perfectly covered in the book no romantic notions, just the horrendos reality, the film attempts to show a supposed torture scene with Winona Ryder, though there is nothing wrong with her acting the pitiful display of screams and a few blows soon followed by her release was just the slightest bit unrealistic, as the chance of release was about 5 to 1, and the torture sessions consited on slightly more than a few blows.
In short the film was an overly romantic, corny and pathetic attempt to sum up the book, to be honest the entire thing was greatly amusing.
Very disapointing ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Writer Harold Pinter (Betrayal) and director Karel Reisz (Isadora) take an experimental spin with John Fowles's magnificent novel set in Victorian England, and come up with something puzzling. Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep play the forbidden lovers in Fowles's story, but in a parallel story line they also play contemporary actors performing those characters in a movie production and having an affair of their own during off-hours. Got that? Considering that Fowles himself presents alternative endings in his novel, something equally eccentric is called for here. But little is accomplished by this intertwining of a fictional past and present, and the opportunity to do justice to a great story is lost. On the plus side, Irons and Streep are instantly striking as a natural couple on screen, and their presence makes watching this film easy enough despite the larger problems. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (14)

INTRIGUING CINEMATIC EXPERIENCE...
Having read John Fowles' book upon which the film is based, I have to say that I enjoyed the book more. Still, I must give plaudits to the screenplay by Harold Pinter, as the book with its alternative endings is a little difficult to capture on film. Still, that is just what Pinter did here in a symbolic and ingenious sort of way, with two parallel stories, one contemporary, one victorian. Coupled with deft direction by Karel Reisz and stunning cinematography, the film fully engages the viewer.

The film is beautifully acted by Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons. Steep is possitively luminous in the role of the enigmatic Sarah Woodruff, a Victorian woman who is wrongfully castigated by her neighbors for being a scarlet woman. Jeremy Edwards is excellent as Charles, the gentleman who becomes obsessed with her and loses his reputation in order to remain free to pursue her.

Streep is also excellent in the role of the married Anne, the contemporary actress with whom Mike (Jeremy Irons), her costar in a film, is having an affair. He is, however, disatisfied with Anne's casual attentions and wants more. Anne and Mike became lovers while filming "The French Lieutenant's Woman" with Anne playing the role of Sarah Woodruff and Mike in the role of Charles.

Pinter skilfully weaves these two stories together, making for an unusual cinematic experience, which, while not faithful to the book, is compelling, nonetheless. This is an audaciously imaginative and visually lush film, a story within a story that, while thought provoking, is just a tad off the mark.

Victorian Love Story by the Sea
"You cannot imagine my suffering. My only happiness is when I sleep. When I awake, the nightmare begins." ~Sarah Woodruff

The first few scenes in this movie are so terribly sad if you have seen the movie at least once before. In the first few scenes all you see is a lone figure walking along the projecting sea wall (Cobb). Sarah Woodruff is looking out to sea for her lover's return. It is all so tragic. This story is set in the coastal town of Lyme Regis, famous for its fossils and now also famous for this movie.

For some reason, the first scenes are so symbolic of the entire loneliness both the fictional and real character play in the movie. This is a film-within-the-film and the stories follow similar themes. You could almost compare the style of this movie to the more recent "Possession 2002."

The French Lieutenant's Woman was adapted from John Fowles' novel and is a parallel love story. One between forbidden lovers Sarah Woodruff (Meryl Streep) and Charles (Jeremy Irons) in the 19th century, and then a romance between Anna and Mike who play Sarah and Charles when the Victorian romance is not being filmed. It is confusing at first, but soon you are watching this movie five times and have no idea why. It is rather romantic!

There are of course two endings, one for each story. I can't decide which I loved best. They are just both so overwhelming.

If you watch closely, you will see a scene where Sarah shows Charles a bit of her slip as she walks away. I always heard that meant a woman was looking for a husband. I didn?t notice it until the fourth time I was watching the movie. Sarah is technically an unfulfilled romantic. She is quite dramatic and very amusing at times. When she is going into a very serious speech, it can at times become dramatic to the point of hilarity. You know she is completely in love with being a victim of fate. She also knows how to attract romance into her life with her various schemes. One is rather dangerous when she slips a note to Charles during tea.

Charles is a curious soul. He finds Sarah to be a bit of a mystery and unlike other women he has met and courted. He literally hunts her down and watches this mystery as she glides through the misty forest by the sea. All Sarah wants to do is look out to sea and dream of a man saving her from her fantasy life as a scarlet woman. Charles loses all interest in his ammonite research and is also lost from the moment he sees Sarah. We feel mildly sorry for Ernestina Freeman (Lynsey Baxter) as she is so sweet and innocent and so deserving of love. Still, the girl can throw a pretty good tantrum! She is of course engaged to Charles.

The French Lieutenant's Woman will haunt you long after you have watched it at least five times in two days. ;) I loved this movie so much more than Sophie's Choice. It has to be the violin music slowly drifting through the misty forests. It is all so mysterious. Meryl Streep also has such a fresh radiance in this movie. Her acting is simply fascinating in so many scenes.

Dreamy Victorian Romance.

~The Rebecca Review.com

Omigod what an awful movie......
When I was in college, I LOVED the book, French Lieutenant's Woman! It was one of my favorite books of all time. Sarah, the symbol of all that was feminine, mysterious, alluring, and perhaps dangerous - was she really a whore, a goddess, or just a simple woman caught in a struggle for survival in the harsh Victorian age?

I could just go on and on about how fabulous the book was. But this isn't a review for the book.

When the movie came out, I rushed out to see it in the first weekend. Oh, geez, to say that I was let down, just doesn't quite get it right.

The two big downers were
1. Meryl Streep
2. The changed plot device of a play within a play of modern actors acting out the movie.

Meryl Streep was just horribly miscast in the role of Sarah Woodruff. She had absolutely no qualities of mystery, danger, or sex appeal to take on this role. At the time, Charlotte Rampling had been rumored to have been one of the potential actresses considered to play the role of Sarah, and she would have been great in this role. A decade or so later, and Michelle Pfeiffer would have been perfect for the role. But Meryl Streep? Oh my.... groan.....

And the play within a play plot device, what an idiotic thing to do to completely change a masterwork like John Fowles's novel. How completely artificial and unnecessary.

After this movie came out, I absolutely couldn't stand to watch Meryl Streep in any other movies. One of my favorite books, in its one shot at being made into a movie, ruined.

When I think of movies like The Stepford Wives or La Femme Nikita or King Kong getting re-made, I think, wow, wake up Hollywood, it's TIME FOR A REMAKE of this classic novel! And next time, please get it right.....

Book vs. Movie
Alternate endings, authorial interjections, primary source documents, epigraphs; just a few techniques John Fowles uses to turn his Darwinian novel, The French Lieutenant's Woman, into a unique resurrection of classic Victorian literature. With all of the literary devices that Fowles employs in his novel to make it-according to one reviewer-"so utterly compelling," it comes as no surprise that this novel does not adapt easily to the screen. In fact, the screenwriter, Harold Pinter, completely disregards the true intended nature of the aforementioned rhetorical strategies in his adaptation of the novel.
Instead of portraying these essential elements as Fowles wrote them, Pinter creates a "movie within a movie" by constructing a passionate affair that the actors portraying Sarah and Charles involve themselves in while filming the screen version of Fowles' novel. He then cleverly weaves the two stories-one taking place in the 1860s and '70s, the other in the late-1970s/early-1980s-in and out of each other. He does so in order to give the audience a sense of the comparing of times that Fowles produces by interjecting 1960s views-on subjects including politics, religion, and social customs-in the classic style of the Victorian novel. Pinter sees this as an opportunity to use both of the novels endings, as well-the "happy" ending for the screen lovers, and the more realistic for the "real" lovers. Despite the deliberate effort to make the endings seem as genuine as possible, the do not invoke in the audience the "Mystery of the True Ending" that the novel does. And by utilizing the double-romance technique, Pinter falls prey to time constraints.
Pinter realizes that he must sacrifice plot developments and some of the other devices that make this Fowles novel unique. For example, Pinter discards of Fowles' use of the epigraphs and primary documents (including case reports) that give The French Lieutenant's Woman its Darwinian flair. Again, Pinter hopes to achieve this sense of evolution and historicism by comparing the Victorian love story with the modern one, but for anyone that has read the novel, the film just seems to lack that "something." Pinter also cuts what many readers consider key plot points from the story. This makes grasping character motivations very difficult, despite the obvious attention to detail given to keeping the dialogue consistent with that in the novel. For example, not a single frame of the film mentions Charles' uncle and the fact that Charles will no longer inherit his uncle's estate. Nor does the film address the lengths to which Sam goes to try to ensure his and his soon-to-be-bride's financial security. Without Fowles' rhetorical ingenuity and sub-plots that reveal characters' drive, the film slips further into the pattern of slaughtering the makeup of the author's creative skill.
Surely anyone who's read the book will most likely concede that they would rather adapt virtually any other book for the silver screen than The French Lieutenant's Woman. John Fowles' narration technique, designed to involve the audience in the story by speaking directly to them, and the infamous alternate endings present the most difficult aspects of the novel to overcome in the rewriting process. Surely there must exist a better way to show these aspects of the novel than the way that Pinter ultimately released it. Perhaps a narrator or even Shakespearian-inspired, one-man chorus could narrate the film in a truly Darwinian fashion, making it almost seem like a romantic documentary. Therefore, it would not seem absurd to include some of Fowles' side comments, and the narrator could then even plug in a few epigraphs or primary document excerpts. The problem of the alternate endings would then also be solved: the narrator would present them as John Fowles does in the novel. Obviously this version of the film would last longer than the two hours that Pinter's version fills, but without the second, parallel love story, the new version would occupy less time than one might think. Even so, this new longer, documentary-like version would probably not reap the same fiscal benefits that the 1981 blockbuster did, but at least the film would uphold the integrity of Fowles' novel.
Despite paltry attempts to portray Fowles' literary flair on screen, the film version of The French Lieutenant's Woman comes off as nothing more than a summary of the dominant plotline with a few glimpses into the lives of people that readers of the book have no acquaintance with. Do not misconceive this, however, as a complete bashing of the film. In deed, the film portrays Lyme Regis in an extremely visually stimulating manner, having been shot on location. And the cast, including Jeremy Irons and Meryl Streep, did an outstanding job playing the well-dialogued characters that, due to unfortunate adaptation circumstances, had very little motivation to guide them. But what does exemplary acting and an aesthetically pleasing setting matter if no one makes an effort to uphold the artistic integrity of the piece that inspired the film? The novel's authorial interjections, alternate ending, epigraphs and primary source documents give the novel its reverence in the literary world. Without them, the film completely fails to capture the essence of the novel, no matter how well it portrays the dialogue and visual aesthetics of the book

"I have a freedom they cannot understand."
"Outside of marriage, your Victorian gentleman could look forward to 2.4 f*cks a week," Mike (Jeremy Irons) coolly calculates after Anna (Meryl Streep) has read to him the statistics according to which, while London's male population in 1857 was 1 1/4 million, the city's estimated 80,000 prostitutes were receiving a total of 2 million clients per week. And frequently, Anna adds, the women thus forced to earn their living came from respectable positions like that of a governess, simply having fallen into bad luck, e.g. by being discharged after a dispute with their employer and their resulting inability to find another position.

This brief dialogue towards the beginning of this movie based on John Fowles's 1969 novel succinctly illustrates both the fate that would most likely have been in store for title character Sarah (Meryl Streep in her "movie within the movie" role), had she left provincial Lyme Regis on Dorset's Channel coast and gone to London, and the Victorian society's moral duplicity: For while no virtues were regarded as highly as honor, chastity and integrity; while no woman intent on keeping her good name could even be seen talking to a man alone (let alone go beyond that); and while marriage - like any contract - was considered sacrosanct, rendering the partner who deigned to breach it an immediate social outcast, all these rules were suspended with regard to prostitutes; women who, for whatever reasons, had sunk so low they were regarded as nonpersons and thus, inherently unable to stain anybody's reputation but their own.

Appearances would have it that Sarah, too, is just such a woman - however, appearances can be deceptive; and herein lies the starting point of the story's social criticism: Realizing that once society has unjustifiedly placed her in that position, nothing she does will ever wipe away the mark of disgrace she wears as "the scarlet woman of Lyme," Sarah seeks strength in her very role as a pariah; trying to find a liberty not allowed to women of "good" society who are bound by the era's moral prerogatives; and to create a space for herself where she is untouchable because it is too far beyond the accepted social boundaries. In this, she resembles Nathaniel Hawthorne's Hester Prynne (who however, unlike Sarah, actually had committed the adultery she was accused of). But Sarah's attempt to salvage at least a fraction of her sense of self dramatically fails when she is discharged by conservative old Mrs. Poulteney (Patience Collier) for "exhibiting her shame" by having been seen - against her employer's express prohibition - on an undercliff overlooking the sea across which her supposed suitor, the French lieutenant to whom she owes her less-than-charitable epithet and reputation, disappeared, never to return. Desperate, she literally throws herself at the feet of Charles Smithson (Jeremy Irons), who although recently engaged to local merchant Freeman's daughter Ernestina (Lynsey Baxter) has taken more than just a slight interest in her, and who to her has thus become the proverbial white knight in shining armor. Charles in turn, unable to contain his infatuation with Sarah, casts aside the well-meaning counsel of physician Dr. Grogan (Leo McKern) (who considers Sarah's condition a classic case of "obscure melancholia" and would like to see her committed to an asylum) and breaks his engagement with Ernestina, thus incurring social shame himself, to be free for Sarah ... only to find her gone when he returns to take her home.

Faced with the impossibility of creating a screenplay from a novel set in the Victorian Age but told from a 20th century perspective, interspersed with the author's frequent modern-day commentary, in order to maintain that duality, acclaimed playwright Harold Pinter opted for a "movie within a movie" scenario, allowing modern-day actors Mike and Anna to give the commentary provided by Fowles himself in the book. But more than that, Anna and Mike are also a foil for Sarah and Charles in that they are engaged in an extramarital affair; and while late 20th century morality is obviously different from that of the Victorian Age, they, too, must decide what is to become of their romance. And in both cases, it is Sarah/Anna who ultimately makes the decision: In Fowles's novel, one that invites Charles to respond and whose outcome will lastly depend on his response (the author provides two different conclusions, leaving it up to his readers to determine the one most convincing to them); but in the the two actors's case, Anna presents Mike with a fait-accompli, contrasting with the end of Sarah's and Charles's story in the movie.

Sublimely capturing the story's gothic atmosphere with its candlelit rooms, stormy nights and a haunted woman who - particularly when first seen standing at the edge of a quay, oblivious to the winds and raging waves around her - appears more like a ghost than a human being, "The French Lieutenant's Woman" is perfectly cast with Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons in the dual roles of Sarah/Anna and Charles/Mike: While outwardly quite different (Anna is upbeat but rational, Sarah passionate and vulnerable), both women ultimately find strength within themselves, whereas both men are sensitive and generally quieter, although Charles especially is Sarah's passionate equal once his feelings are stirred. Scored by Carl Davis and also boasting a strong supporting cast - including appearances by Hilton McRae (Charles's manservant Sam), Emily Morgan (Ernestina's maid Mary), Colin Jeavons (the vicar who, attempting to help Sarah, introduces her to Mrs. Poulteney), Gerard Falconetti (Anna's husband Davide) and Penelope Wilton (Mike's wife Sonia) - "The French Lieutenant's Woman" won a Golden Globe for Meryl Streep (Best Actress) and several British awards, but none of its five Oscar nominations (Best Actress, Screenplay, Art Direction, Costume Design and Editing - Jeremy Irons unfairly didn't even earn a "Best Actor" nomination). Yet, this is a compelling production, bringing to life Fowles's complex characters in a thoroughly convincing, poignant fashion; and sure to leave a lasting impression. ... Read more

Reviews (352)

A LOT better than the original
Ok, I'm really getting sick of hearing people flog this movie. The fact of the matter is that it's a lot better than the original in every way. Let's start with the beginning. The original film's first act, yes, the first HALF HOUR is set in a sitting room...with a bunch of people talking. Be careful not to doze off here. Also there is a flashback here, put in for apparently no reason. The scientist, who is never given a name, just wants to see if time travel is possible, that's his only real motivation. Then we are treated to some REALLY godzilla-like special effects and hokey Star Trek: The Original Series sets. When he finds the girl, she has 50s styled hair, speaks perfect english with no explanation whatsoever, and is dumb as a stump. The plot hole here are numerous. Check this out "You mean you have no government?" "No". "You don't work?" "No". If they don't do these things, how the heck do they know what he's talking about? Then the morlocks come bounding out. Remember that old bad monster flick with the guy in the gorilla suit and the deep sea helmet? These aren't far off. Now let's talk about the new movie. Aside from the really annoying "quirk" Guy Pierce comes up with, hanging his mouth open for the entire first act, I liked it. He now has an impotace to change the past, then a motivation to go forth into the future. I loved the broken moon thing, much more interesting than a nuclear attack that sets off a volcano in New York. The Eloi are no longer Star Trek extras, but a real culture. They don't just meander around like zombies but have real tasks to do. When the Morlocks show up, It gets pretty intense. The notion of 3 different kinds was cool. I also liked that Jeremy Irons justifies their behavior. The ending was much better, more fun, and wasn't just some geek professor turning into Rambo and punching out white gorillas.

There Was Potential...
At best, Time Machine was a worthwhile Saturday watch. The effects were top rate and very convincing worthy of even George Lucas' ILM stamp of approval (althought the f/x were done by another company).As a previous viewer commented, it was painful to watch Guy Pearce's performance in some scenes. He either displayed "wooden emotions" or he tried a bit too hard. Also, his appearance looked gaunt and very tired in the first 30 to 40 minutes of the film. The ending or fading out of the film had a sort of Titanic feel with overlapping the past and future together in one particular melancholy scene. Despite the advances in special effects over the past 40 years since the original, the 1960 version will always be the best and is definitely a classic. In addition, the 1960 release produced some very grotesque and terrifying images with regards to the underground dwellers (the Morlocks; who can forget their yellow glowing eyes and savage growls)! However, what was admirable in the new version was the introduction of actor Jeremy Irons' intellectually sinister character role ! To hear him say his lines was like hearing his voice all over again from The Lion King playing the evil Scar. Showing that although the human future race was near extinction the existence of a multi-ethnic population was still possible (unlike the original). What I kept yearning for was more adventuresome exploring by the time traveller before he would finally advance to 800,000 years into the future. Also, it would have been fascinating if the writers or director would have gone the H.G. Wells route where supposedly the time traveller goes so far into the future that the entire planet is near total destruction (possibly leaving the traveler lingering in outerspace). This was the room for potential I was talking about!

better than harry potter and the chamber of secrets
yup this movie is better than harry potter and the chambers of secrets. since that movie didn't have great acting the quiddich game was not appealing.

unbelivable
this movie was unbelivable. since this movie never gets boring.

stunning
this movie i would say is stunning. since this movie has phenomenal action and special effects. ... Read more

Reviews (37)

Who is most damaged?
"Damaged people are the worst because they know they can survive." Dangerous is a good film that examines the dark side of obsessions. Jeremy Irons portrays a british government official who becomes obsessed with his son's fiance played by Juliette Binoche. The result is a film that only partially succeeds.

I had several problems with the film one being Irons motivation to become involved with this woman in the first place. A look and phone-call and then BAM! OK... but why was he so willing to jump into the dark waters? Power? Lust? Carelessness? Boredom? And herein lies the major weakness of the film. The film deals almost exclusively with the obsesson of Iron's character with Binoche but does not deal with the obsession of the mother (Iron's wife) with her son. Her relationship is clearly destructive and unhealthy but all the damage she inflicts under the guise of her love for her son never finds a voice. No fault falls on the mother when her obsession might well explain both the son's and father's weaknesses. At one part the son is talking about his family life saying that although it was good it lacked passion. His mother then replies that it is probably her fault and he replies that he rather thinks it's his father's. It's a careless and misdirecting remark and a sadly missed plot point.

As you may expect there are many sex scenes. I don't know what I was expecting but many made me laugh. They seemed so ridiculous and absurdly physical. I rather think Binoche must have suffered some bruising as a result of Iron's flailing.

While this film is meant to portray the damage that a traditional obsession (i.e. an affair) can have, it also begs to be seen from the the alternate perspective of a mother's obsession for her son. I am disappointed that Malle didn't have the courage to pursue this theme more vigorously.

Fascinating Study of Obsession
Stellar cast and thoughtful direction make this a completely fascinating film. There are some moments where you must definitely suspend your disbelief, but even so this is a thoroughly engaging character study into sexual compulsions and obsessions.

Nice to have the two different versions available, along with a short director commentary. 'Would have been nice to have a complete commentary track with one or more of the stars.

Why isn't Leslie Caron working all the time?

Uncontrollably Obsessed MP escapes unpunished
The story is seen entirely from Fleming's viewpoint. (If there is any guilt on the fiancee's part, she doesn't show it.) Fleming is a leading Conservative MP, likely to take over a Cabinet post as minister of health in the next re-shuffle. I feel the author, Josephine Hart, decided to give him that job, in order to maximise the fall that confronted him when his errors are discovered. It was as senior an establishment role that the protagonist could have without fearing he would be recognised at every street corner. Politics don't play a large part in the story, but the film will have played some small part in the image of sleaze that the Conservative party acquired in the early 1990s.

Binoche is utterly beautiful, and totally passive during the sex scenes, but her accent (cleverly excused by scriptwriter Hare as the result of her travelling the world) is all over the place. Irons is convincing in the role, and Miranda Richardson puts in another perfect performance. Their son, the victim, is almost too good-natured to be true, but this helps to highlight the contrast with his father's uncontrollable lust.

As with 'Day of the Jackal', the motion is very occasionally jerky -- one or two frames seem to be missing from the transfer from film reel to DVD, but not enough to harm one's enjoyment.

This is not far from being a truly great film, but I think it would have needed one extra dimension -- don't ask me what -- to achieve that.

Pure Animal Lust & Sexual Attraction Abound!
Louis Malle's film with a young fiancee, Juliette Binoche & the father of her soon to be husband-an elder, mid-life crisis bound, government official in Jeremy Irons. The second they gaze upon each other, you just KNOW that there is going to be some trouble ahead. Miranda Richardson as Iron's wife, plays a pivotal role in the movie also. Very erotic & base sex scenes with a twist of an ending that you will never forget. Hence, the title - DAMAGE! Highly recommended and truly great ensemble performances by all...

Damage
Love at a first sight exists, at least in this movie.
A honourable member of English Parliament falls in love with a woman who introduces herself to him unexpectadly during one party. Soon, this woman appears in his life again, this time as his son's fiance but that doesn't mean that he can not start a
very romantic affair with her. So two people who are prisoners of the happiness of the moment change so many lives forever.

I was sick to death to watch a movie where a father of an old child has sex with his fiance but I had to keep watching it only to find out how it will end. Luckily it ended perfectly making it crystal clear that prisoners of passions and killers of harmony always get what they always asked for which is = HELL on EARTH.

I would recommend this movie to people who have to learn something new each day even though it may be very disturbing to watch something like this. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Everybody talks about reading Proust's Remembrance of Things Past, but do you know anyone who actually has? Here's a way to fake it: this film from Volker Schlöndorff dramatizes one section of the ponderous novel, casting Jeremy Irons as a French aristocrat who makes himself something of a laughingstock with his obsessive pursuit of a faithless courtesan (or is that redundant) played by Ornella Muti. Some may find it slow going, but the film moves a lot faster than the book. And there is a certain hypnotic appeal to it, enhanced by Sven Nykvist's lush cinematography. Besides, is there an actor in movies today who can convey more emotional agony in a single longing look than Irons? --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (6)

For Proust fans
It seems Marcel spent a great deal of time writing "Remembrance..." and I spent almost as much time reading it-but it was worth it. As difficult as the novel is to read, one doesn't have to get too far into it to realize that the author was a genius with words. I think to have any appreciation for the movie and for Jeremy Irons performance, it's best to have read the book. Otherwise you might find Charles Swann completely insufferable and the movie boring. But for those who have read it, I think you will find Irons performance maddeningly perfect. Ornella was beautiful,and I agree with the reviewer that the movie, at the very least, gives one an idea of the fashion and style that made up the early years in young Marcel's social life.

an erotic sensual classic
This is one of my favorite films. I prefer period films in a beautiful setting, with a sophisticated sexuality & sensuality dripping in every scene! It is full of erotic beautiful scenes which are unforgettable. Jeremy Irons, who seems to always play this type of character (I don't want to give any of the plot away) does an awesome job & Ornella Muti is perfect as his gorgeous temptress, one of the most beautiful women ever filmed!

Boring only iluminated by Muti's eyes
It's a slow boring film, where nobody shines. Not even the beautiful Ornella Muti, who barely shows a little of her beauty in this film. Wouldn' watch it again.

Surprisingly thought-provoking, though deeply flawed
I rented this video because I had discovered Ornella Muti in the small role of Mercedes in the recent French miniseries of The Count of Monte Cristo and wanted to see more of her. The movie is well-worth seeing for her alone. She is amazingly beautiful, although in playing Odette de Crecy she combines powerful sensuality with a slight vulgarity that seems appropriate to the character she is playing, even though it detracts a little from her beauty.

One of the reviews jokingly suggested that seeing this movie would allow you to pretend that you had read the novel. I strongly disagree. I suspect that anybody who has not read the novel would find this movie pretty hard to follow and even harder to like. It's probably true that Proust is an essentially unfilmable writer. But, having conceded that, it is surprising how much subtlety and insightful reading is displayed in this movie. I am generally a pretty careful reader, but in watching this movie I had the experience several times of seeing things that I thought were changes from the novel and then, when I went back to the text I found that they were there all along and I had simply missed them.

This is mostly true in Muti's portrayal of Odette, which is not only much more sympathetic, but also much more complex than the view of her I remembered from reading the book. In fact, for me, the subtlety of Muti's performance has opened up a whole new possibility of interpretation of the role in the Proust novel of a character who is normally treated by readers with the same kind of contempt with which she is regarded by many of the novel's characters, including (most of the time) Swann himself.

Now, on the negative side: I found the portrayal of Swann much less successful. The problem is not so much with Jeremy Irons' performance, which more than adequate, but what the screenplay leaves out in his case. Apart from Swann's jealosy and longing, which are fully in evidence here, Swann's character in the novel is presented mainly through his interest in art -- his unfinished writing on Vermeer and, most of all, his very complex responses to music.

Therefore, the treatment -- or, rather, mistreatment -- of music is the most serious failing in this movie. One Amazon.com reviewer said that the music in the movie was by Cesar Franck. I only wish it were so. If that is what he heard, he must have listened to a completely different sound track from the one that I heard. According to the credits, Hans Werner Henze was responsible for the music, and three other contemporary composers are also credited, but Cesar Franck is not mentioned, and the music I heard sounded like a bad imitation of Debussy. But, in addition to the poor quality of the music, the movie is completely unsuccessful in conveying the central importance it has in the novel. And, to make matters worse, when the music is for piano, it is played on pianos that are grotesquely out of tune, as if the director thought that having the pianos out of tune added to the period authenticity of the movie!

Notwithstanding all of that, this is a movie I would gladly watch again. It is thought-provoking and it has one truly great performance -- that of Ornella Muti.

"I'm not a museum piece"
A reasonable effort by Volker Schlondorff to film the unfilmable. It's valuable mainly for giving a reader of Proust some idea of the costumes, houses, and mannerisms of late 19th-century Paris. Ornella Muti fits Odette's character perfectly, and the dapper Alain Delon gives a face and figure to Baron Charlus. Helpful extended criticism of the film can be found in Roger Shattuck's "Proust's Way: A Field Guide to 'In Search of Lost Time'". He provides some insights into Jeremy Iron's performance that those who don't speak French will find illuminating. I enjoyed the movie before I read the novel although it was a bit confusing, but the confusion impelled me to attempt Proust if only to find out what was going on. I hope it's reissued on DVD soon. ... Read more

Description

A middle-aged high-school history teacher uses his family's traumatic history to illustrate lessons for his students. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

A story well told, a novel well adapted...
It is one of those rare moments in life, when you go to a movie theatre, and just purchase a ticket for the next-best movie, not knowing (or caring) what it is about. In one particular case, this was "Waterland", and the money felt well-spent. The original novel the film is based on is set in England. Incomprehensible as it may seem to some to change the setting to a place in the USA for those parts that describe the adult life of that frustrated and unhappy history teacher, it gives the story added depth. The angle from which the movie develops the plot (a teacher, exiled in the US if you will, is challenged from all sides to defend the value of history) is compelling since it unravels most beautifully and emotionally the teacher's own involvement with it. I do not want to give away what the story twists are, go into the film as I did. But the way the movie uses two different time lines to tell the whole story, and interweaves them artfully, is brillant. Jeremy Irons (I actually did not know him at the time, believe it or not) is most fitting as the main character. Ethan Hawke, well I guess they had to pick somebode to play a rebellious pupil, is not bad, but his performance does not contol the movie. Sinead Cusack, on the other hand, plays so convincingly the part of the teacher's wife, still hunted by the common past, that this role is sort of stuck to her in my view.

Depressing and disappointing
What's the point of studying history?, a high school student here asks. A wise man once said if we forget the mistakes of the past we are doomed to repeat them. And perhaps that is the point of this picturesque tale. The scenery is beautiful, but the advancing of the plot is contrived (throwing characters into the past as observers), and the whole exercise concludes -- unresolved -- as a smarmy, sordid little soap opera. Certainly, the sins of these characters' pasts come back to haunt them. But what do learn from that? In what directions do these characters grow? Little here worth sitting through except a fine performance by Irons and too little screen time from Ethan Hawke.

a beautiful underrated film
i wonder why this movie hasn't had the appreciation i think it deserves. it is beautifully shot and has a devastating story of guilt, love, redemption and a couple other underlying themes that i'm sure i forgot. oh my god, and i'm telling you the ending will send your eyes to niagra falls. totally satisfies my depressed movie jones. love this!

Better than I Thought
As one who considers the novel one of the great books of the Twentieth Century, I was leery of and initially disappointed by the film. On second and third viewing it seems better and better--closer to the spirit (if never the style) of the novel than at first viewing. READ THE BOOK but don't be afraid of the film... much of Graham Swift's original conception survives, and nothing with Jeremy Irons in it should be overlooked.

A Darkly Beautiful Movie
I believe this underrated movie is one of the best of this decade. Irons could not be any better--not that I've ever seen him in a bad performance. The movie follows its own unconventional path. It journeys back in time into the lives of the protagonists and Irons' character's family. The cinemaphotography is quite good and the physical settings in the "moors" are very beautiful. Lena Headey plays her character quite well--in addition to being gorgeous. All of the actors in the movie are very good.

The movie covers the whole gamut of the dark side of life: murder, incest, lust, jealousy, abortion, etc. It's not a smiley, feel good piece of Hollywood fluff. You will not like this movie if that's what you're looking for. But if you're looking for a movie that has something to say about the human condition in an honest and moving way--this is a good bet. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

The second sequel to the mold-making action film Die Hard brings Detective John McClane (Bruce Willis) to New York City to face a better villain than in Die Hard 2. Played by Jeremy Irons, he's the brother of the Germanic terrorist-thief Alan Rickman played in the original film. But this bad guy has his sights set higher: on the Federal Reserve's cache of gold. As a distraction, he sets McClane running fool's errands all over New York--and eventually, McClane attracts an unintentional partner, a Harlem dry cleaner (Samuel L. Jackson) with a chip on his shoulder. Some great action sequences, though they can't obscure the rather large plot holes in the film's final 45 minutes. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (84)

Bruce does the sweaty-vested hero thing again...
Director John McTiernan returned to helm the 3rd part to the Die Hard trilogy, which regains much of the fun action that was missing in Renny Harlin's Die Hard 2. Bruce Willis does the sweaty-vested action hero thing again as John McClane, and to good effect. The main villain, played by Jeremy Irons, is much better than the weak bad guys in DH2, and the inclusion of Samuel L. Jackson makes it even better. Great stunts, action, one-liners, explosions and music. Fine extras too, with a featurette and trailers.

Die Hard With a Vengeance
The heat is on again as Bruce Willis plays Detective John McClane battling a very intelligent mastermind through out the streets of New York city. In NY, there has been a bomb explosion and the man responsible wants John McClane in this case for some reason. It seems that the main villain in this movie is known as "Simon" (Jeremy Irons)but is really the brother of Hans Gruber, the villain in the first Die Hard, who seeks revenge on McClane. Although that is what it seems, Simon's main goal is to steal truck loads of gold bars from the NY Federal Reserve Building. Simon admits hiding a very large bomb in NY. John and a Harlem dry cleaner, Zues (Samuel)L. Jackson go through wierd obstacles in order to find this bomb. All die hard fans will love all the bomb explosions, fast car drivings, and gunshootings throughout this movie. This is the best Die Hard throughout and I think anyone else would to if they get this.

Decent action scenes can't save middling DIE HARD III
John McTiernan returned to direct this second follow-up to McTiernan's original DIE HARD from 1988, but unfortunately all his considerable skill and energy can't rise above screenwriter Jonathan Hensleigh's generic script. DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE could easily have been LETHAL WEAPON 4 (maybe it almost was), and the script does little to make it stand out from other buddy action-movies (although Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson undoubtedly do work well together). As for the action scenes, they're certainly well-executed, but there's just no real momentum connecting the action scenes the way there was in the second half of DIE HARD 2. In VENGEANCE, there's just one action scene piled upon another, and the whole thing simply feels like an incoherent mess, which certainly was not the case in the first two films of the series.

DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE will certainly entertain action fans, since the action scenes are undeniably creative and well-mounted. Compare VENGEANCE to the first two DIE HARDs, though, and there's no contest. DIE HARD will forever be an action classic, and DIE HARD 2 was a generally worthy sequel. In that company, DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE is merely average.

Hard Not to Like
DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE does not have the emotion and consistency of the first two movies. It doesn't happen on Christmas Eve like the other two. John Mclane's wife, Holly (Bonnie Bedelia) isn't in it. Finally as in the first two films, the terrorism happens in the confines of one specific area (i.e. Die Hard: in a high rise building, Die Hard II: at an airport). This adventure is all over the map in New York City. However, it is one of those movies that grows better with repeated viewings, somehow works better on the small screen, and also helped by the chemistry of Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson. Jeremy Irons is decent as the villian and overall an above average action thriller.

A Sign of the Times
The most flattering appraisal one could give of "Die Hard With a Vengeance" is "moronic". What else is one to remark of a movie in which people are manifestly killed for the pleasure of the audience watching it? It is a sign of our profoundly debased and witless times that the same rating of 3.5 stars should have been given by a pundit to this brutal, vainglorious, and puerile film as he had elsewhere deigned to give to a very different film, "Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet" (1940; director William Dieterle; starring Edward G. Robinson, in a magnificent performance), which concerns the historical career of a famous medical scientist and his brilliant and heroic accomplishments, which quite literally saved countless millions of human lives. ... Read more

Reviews (41)

Great TV drama
This is a beautiful television production. Nothing I have seen captures so well the manners, dress, language and attitudes of upper and upper-middle class Britain in the twenties and thirties.

The acting is superb, the script even better. Based on the novel by Evelyn Waugh, John Mortimer's dialogue wastes not a word and uses pauses and silences to extraordinary effect.

As a portrayal of a family and its entourage this 11-part series bears comparison with the very best, even perhaps the Godfathers I and II, and with top notch photography to portray the stunning sets - on an art deco-drenched QEII, at Oxford, Castle Howard and at a Venice Palazzo - this could be the ultimate TV production of all time.

But perfect as it is technically, Brideshead has, for me at least, a couple of problems. The first is, the sheer improbability of the main plot. Essentially, the central figure and narrator, initially rather boring Charles, makes friends with dashing Lord Sebastien Flyte at Oxford (after the latter vomits through Charles' window), and finds himself immediately taken into the bosum of Flyte's highly aristocratic family; ultimately Sebastien's ravishing sister Julia falls in love with him and he comes very near to inheriting the family estate. The Flyte/Marchmain family is portrayed as charming, but also deeply and somewhat offensively dismissive of anyone they consider beneath them: Julia becomes quite vicious about her husband Rex, once she has tired of him. Lord Marchmain, a rather feckless former alcoholic and wife-hater, at one point muses on Neville Chamberlain who at that moment was doing his best to avoid world war "knew him. Mediocre fellow". I just can't believe that this family would have given tuppence for Charles, a mere middle-class architectural painter, far less virtually adopted him.

The second problem is that Charles is not even very likeable. He drifts through the film looking bored or worried and acting self-righteously. He cheats on his wife and generally bad mouths her, prefers to consort with his lover than go see his two year-old child who he's never actually seen due to a long trip abroad, and does little to actually help his dear friend Sebastien (who has descended into alcoholism) except frequently tell us morosely and self-indulgently how much he loved him and what a sacred love it was.

The cause of these problems surely goes back to Waugh himself and the original novel, which was part autobiography, part wish-fulfilment. Waugh was partly Charles, and like Charles, Waugh wasn't always lovable. The upper classes were Waugh's favorite subject, his bread and butter, and his vice. He was irresistibly drawn to them and wanted them to love him and confide in him too. Sometimes they did, because he was a brilliant society novelist, not just a good architectural painter. But not quite as much as everybody, from servants to Lord and Lady Marchmain, appears to love Charles.

However, I think this only makes the whole production more interesting. And such is the charm of the brilliant cast, which includes Jeremy Irons in the lead along with Olivier and Gielgud in majestic supporting roles, I suspect many people will consider my low opinion of the characters quite misplaced.

Well, it's about time!
Well, it's about time. One of the best (in my opinion, the best) of the British mini-series has finally made it to DVD. Although not perfect, the transfer is very good indeed, and a vast improvement over my ancient tapes.

My only (minor) complaints involve the sound, which is occasionally a little muddy; and now and again the dialogue seems ever so slightly out of sync with the actors. Also, there is no close captioning or English subtitles.

But forget that and think of what we're getting: an excellent adaptation of Waugh's fine novel; first-rate performances (keep a special eye out for John Gielgud, who gives what must be one of the funniest performances ever put on screen); glorious location sets and period costumes which can be appreciated fully now that their colors can be seen.

There are a few extras on the disc, and a small booklet with some interesting information. But it's the show that's the thing here, and it gets the treatment it deserves. Highly recommended.

British drama at its best
This must be one of the alltime classics of British drama. Saw it on TV when it was aired, bought the VHS and when released on DVD, bought it on DVD. Well, that must be saying something. It is one of my favourites. I think this must be one of those productions where you can say in hindsight that you would have done it in exactly the same way. I do not have higher praise to give. Shame the DVD release does not give extras and is really badly done. One would have thought that a high profile production like this deserved a better fate.

Et In Arcadia Ego
Brideshead revisited, Evelyn Waugh's portrait of a world trying to come to terms with the obliteration of what for its inhabitants were absolute certainties, by war and its aftermath represents a mountain of almost Himalayan proportions for any would-be adaptor, so much so that it's surprising that anyone was ever mad enough to try. Luckily for us though John Mortimer (more widely celebrated for "Rumpole of the Bailey") was indeed mad enough to give it a go. What he came up with has over the intervening years come to be seen as one of the finest adapted screen plays ever set before the viewing public.

Remaining remarkably faithful to the spirit of the book, Brideshead Revisited is told from the prospective of the painter Charles Ryder (Jeremy Irons). From a decidedly upper middle class background, when we first meet our narrator, Charles is an officer in the British army at the outbreak of World War 2 whose general disillusionment is exceeded only by his distaste for army life. From this present we are taken back twenty years by Charles' reminisces to his first term at Oxford University at the beginning of the 1920's and to his developing relationship with the aristocratic and charmingly dissolute Sebastian Flyte (Anthony Andrews). Supported by a truly superb cast of characters including, Jane Asher, Diana Quick, Clair Bloom, Nikolas Grace, Sir John Gielgud and in what was to be his final performance Sir Laurence Olivier. The acting is just what you would expect from such an accomplished bunch, as close to perfection as can ever be obtained.

As absorbing as the story is, it is almost overshadowed by other aspects of this production. Shot on location at Castle Howard, Yorkshire (the home of the then chairman of the BBC George Howard, even though this production was made by the BBC's rival Granada Television), Oxford, Venice and aboard the cruise ship the Queen Elizabeth II. The location filming has a beauty that at times can be truly breathtaking, with a lushness and sensuality that is a perfect foil for the decadence of the Sebastian and his circle.

Just as in Waugh's original text, the whole atmosphere of the piece is redolent with nostalgia. This takes two forms, the most prominent from the beginning is Charles' nostalgia for his youth and idealism, his feeling that his life could be what he wanted it to be, the friends he knew, his time with the Flyte family and his love for Lady Julia. Secondly and perhaps most importantly is nostalgia for the world of the Victorian and Edwardian upper classes with its certainties and its view of Britain as the centre of the greatest Empire that the world had ever known. Post World War 1, it was rare to find an aristocratic British family who had not suffered the loss of a Father, Son or Brother in the trenches and this longing for a world which was as "irrecoverable as Lyonnesse" was all too real for many people of all classes and backgrounds.

In this story of the rise and to a certain extent destruction of a single man, Waugh has given us a metaphor not only for the British aristocracy, but for the wealthy and socially mobile wherever and whenever they may be. I remember once discussing the novel with my Father and he expressed the opinion that while Waugh may not have loved the aristocracy as such, he certainly loved the life of an aristocrat. In many way's Brideshead Revisited reminds me of Edward Elgars' Cello Concerto, possessing the same kind of painful beauty combined with the most agonising sense of grief and heartache, but in the final analysis it is this love that colours both the book and this adaptation, rendering it as sublime as the memory of a summers afternoon and just as unattainable.

An intriguing mini-series
I came across this mini-series completely by accident. The episode descriptions sounded interesting, and I am a fan of British period drama, so I decided to give it a try. I was really suprised at how much effort went into it--after taking a peek at a few chapters of the novel, I found that it's an almost word for word adaptation. The characters are all well developed and fascinating, but none is more intriguing than the tragic Sebastian. In addition to the story, the scenery and the performances given by all involved make this mini-series one to remember. ... Read more

Description

Evelyn Waugh's classic novel of romantic yearning and loss became the universally acclaimed television serios that viewers on both sides of the Atlantic wished would never end. Set between the wars amid the fading glory of British Empire and great family fortunes, Brideshead is a story of youthful illusions, of exquisite earthly beauty and of divine grace. Starring Jeremy Irons and Anthony Andrews and featuring Diana Quick, Sir John Gielgud, Claire Bloom and the incomparable Laurence Olivier in an Emmy Award-winning performance. ... Read more

Reviews (41)

Great TV drama
This is a beautiful television production. Nothing I have seen captures so well the manners, dress, language and attitudes of upper and upper-middle class Britain in the twenties and thirties.

The acting is superb, the script even better. Based on the novel by Evelyn Waugh, John Mortimer's dialogue wastes not a word and uses pauses and silences to extraordinary effect.

As a portrayal of a family and its entourage this 11-part series bears comparison with the very best, even perhaps the Godfathers I and II, and with top notch photography to portray the stunning sets - on an art deco-drenched QEII, at Oxford, Castle Howard and at a Venice Palazzo - this could be the ultimate TV production of all time.

But perfect as it is technically, Brideshead has, for me at least, a couple of problems. The first is, the sheer improbability of the main plot. Essentially, the central figure and narrator, initially rather boring Charles, makes friends with dashing Lord Sebastien Flyte at Oxford (after the latter vomits through Charles' window), and finds himself immediately taken into the bosum of Flyte's highly aristocratic family; ultimately Sebastien's ravishing sister Julia falls in love with him and he comes very near to inheriting the family estate. The Flyte/Marchmain family is portrayed as charming, but also deeply and somewhat offensively dismissive of anyone they consider beneath them: Julia becomes quite vicious about her husband Rex, once she has tired of him. Lord Marchmain, a rather feckless former alcoholic and wife-hater, at one point muses on Neville Chamberlain who at that moment was doing his best to avoid world war "knew him. Mediocre fellow". I just can't believe that this family would have given tuppence for Charles, a mere middle-class architectural painter, far less virtually adopted him.

The second problem is that Charles is not even very likeable. He drifts through the film looking bored or worried and acting self-righteously. He cheats on his wife and generally bad mouths her, prefers to consort with his lover than go see his two year-old child who he's never actually seen due to a long trip abroad, and does little to actually help his dear friend Sebastien (who has descended into alcoholism) except frequently tell us morosely and self-indulgently how much he loved him and what a sacred love it was.

The cause of these problems surely goes back to Waugh himself and the original novel, which was part autobiography, part wish-fulfilment. Waugh was partly Charles, and like Charles, Waugh wasn't always lovable. The upper classes were Waugh's favorite subject, his bread and butter, and his vice. He was irresistibly drawn to them and wanted them to love him and confide in him too. Sometimes they did, because he was a brilliant society novelist, not just a good architectural painter. But not quite as much as everybody, from servants to Lord and Lady Marchmain, appears to love Charles.

However, I think this only makes the whole production more interesting. And such is the charm of the brilliant cast, which includes Jeremy Irons in the lead along with Olivier and Gielgud in majestic supporting roles, I suspect many people will consider my low opinion of the characters quite misplaced.

Well, it's about time!
Well, it's about time. One of the best (in my opinion, the best) of the British mini-series has finally made it to DVD. Although not perfect, the transfer is very good indeed, and a vast improvement over my ancient tapes.

My only (minor) complaints involve the sound, which is occasionally a little muddy; and now and again the dialogue seems ever so slightly out of sync with the actors. Also, there is no close captioning or English subtitles.

But forget that and think of what we're getting: an excellent adaptation of Waugh's fine novel; first-rate performances (keep a special eye out for John Gielgud, who gives what must be one of the funniest performances ever put on screen); glorious location sets and period costumes which can be appreciated fully now that their colors can be seen.

There are a few extras on the disc, and a small booklet with some interesting information. But it's the show that's the thing here, and it gets the treatment it deserves. Highly recommended.

British drama at its best
This must be one of the alltime classics of British drama. Saw it on TV when it was aired, bought the VHS and when released on DVD, bought it on DVD. Well, that must be saying something. It is one of my favourites. I think this must be one of those productions where you can say in hindsight that you would have done it in exactly the same way. I do not have higher praise to give. Shame the DVD release does not give extras and is really badly done. One would have thought that a high profile production like this deserved a better fate.

Et In Arcadia Ego
Brideshead revisited, Evelyn Waugh's portrait of a world trying to come to terms with the obliteration of what for its inhabitants were absolute certainties, by war and its aftermath represents a mountain of almost Himalayan proportions for any would-be adaptor, so much so that it's surprising that anyone was ever mad enough to try. Luckily for us though John Mortimer (more widely celebrated for "Rumpole of the Bailey") was indeed mad enough to give it a go. What he came up with has over the intervening years come to be seen as one of the finest adapted screen plays ever set before the viewing public.

Remaining remarkably faithful to the spirit of the book, Brideshead Revisited is told from the prospective of the painter Charles Ryder (Jeremy Irons). From a decidedly upper middle class background, when we first meet our narrator, Charles is an officer in the British army at the outbreak of World War 2 whose general disillusionment is exceeded only by his distaste for army life. From this present we are taken back twenty years by Charles' reminisces to his first term at Oxford University at the beginning of the 1920's and to his developing relationship with the aristocratic and charmingly dissolute Sebastian Flyte (Anthony Andrews). Supported by a truly superb cast of characters including, Jane Asher, Diana Quick, Clair Bloom, Nikolas Grace, Sir John Gielgud and in what was to be his final performance Sir Laurence Olivier. The acting is just what you would expect from such an accomplished bunch, as close to perfection as can ever be obtained.

As absorbing as the story is, it is almost overshadowed by other aspects of this production. Shot on location at Castle Howard, Yorkshire (the home of the then chairman of the BBC George Howard, even though this production was made by the BBC's rival Granada Television), Oxford, Venice and aboard the cruise ship the Queen Elizabeth II. The location filming has a beauty that at times can be truly breathtaking, with a lushness and sensuality that is a perfect foil for the decadence of the Sebastian and his circle.

Just as in Waugh's original text, the whole atmosphere of the piece is redolent with nostalgia. This takes two forms, the most prominent from the beginning is Charles' nostalgia for his youth and idealism, his feeling that his life could be what he wanted it to be, the friends he knew, his time with the Flyte family and his love for Lady Julia. Secondly and perhaps most importantly is nostalgia for the world of the Victorian and Edwardian upper classes with its certainties and its view of Britain as the centre of the greatest Empire that the world had ever known. Post World War 1, it was rare to find an aristocratic British family who had not suffered the loss of a Father, Son or Brother in the trenches and this longing for a world which was as "irrecoverable as Lyonnesse" was all too real for many people of all classes and backgrounds.

In this story of the rise and to a certain extent destruction of a single man, Waugh has given us a metaphor not only for the British aristocracy, but for the wealthy and socially mobile wherever and whenever they may be. I remember once discussing the novel with my Father and he expressed the opinion that while Waugh may not have loved the aristocracy as such, he certainly loved the life of an aristocrat. In many way's Brideshead Revisited reminds me of Edward Elgars' Cello Concerto, possessing the same kind of painful beauty combined with the most agonising sense of grief and heartache, but in the final analysis it is this love that colours both the book and this adaptation, rendering it as sublime as the memory of a summers afternoon and just as unattainable.

An intriguing mini-series
I came across this mini-series completely by accident. The episode descriptions sounded interesting, and I am a fan of British period drama, so I decided to give it a try. I was really suprised at how much effort went into it--after taking a peek at a few chapters of the novel, I found that it's an almost word for word adaptation. The characters are all well developed and fascinating, but none is more intriguing than the tragic Sebastian. In addition to the story, the scenery and the performances given by all involved make this mini-series one to remember. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Too Beautiful, So Fragile- And A Visual Feast For The Eyes
I'm not going to write too much about this exceptional film- The reviewer before me has already done a superb job. I will say this: I saw Nijinsky upon its first release in 1980, and I was impressed enough to return to the theatre again, to see if my original impressions were accurate. I was both enchanted and more than pleased by the entire production. I've read the definitive 1970 biography Nijinsky by Richard Buckle (in fact I still own it), and this film is as close as you will ever get to seeing a portrait of his time. Not only the man, but his peers, and events that shaped and inspired his turbulent vision are portrayed with great care and thought. The colors of the film are vibrant and rich, and true to the art of Leon Bakst, principal designer to the ballet troupe. I felt like I was transported to this marvellous age, when electricity was still a wonder, great luxury liners rode the waves, and the airplane was discovering the sky while the automobile and railroads crossed the land. It was the age of Empires, yet the world still held unexplored places waiting to be mapped. The Arts really could present The Shock Of The New, while the working classes discovered their strength in strikes and unions and the wealthy lived in opulence. For me, this film worked on every level. A mirror in time, and the breakdown of an artist's mind. A distant era, a beautiful film, a sad ending... Yet we are left knowing that Nijinsky, with all his visions of light and shadow, was never left alone, never forgotten. This broken man was cared for, and still loved. We should all be so fortunate. If I have any regret about this film, it is that it has yet to be released on dvd. I sincerely hope that oversight will one day be corrected.

Well Worth A Viewing
Hard to believe that "Nijinsky" is now a twenty-two-year-old film; its look and performances are so fresh that it could be the latest from Ivory-Merchant.

The film focuses on the period 1912-1913, when Vaslav Nijinsky was both at his height as a choreographer, and at his lowest point personally. He was under the guidance and domination of impresario Sergei Diaghilev in his work and his love life, and he was also being pursued by ballet groupie Romola de Pulzsky, who eventually met and indeed married him.

The film is based on actual events, but viewers should be aware that the script takes minor liberties with historical time frames, character motivations, and events to advance its story. The production is mounted most handsomely, with the London Festival Ballet helping to recreate Nijinsky's most famous works. The ballet sequences are beautifully filmed, but many suffer from being cut very short. However, "L'Apres-midi d'un Faune" is presented at decent length, and there is an amazing, if too-brief, re-creation of the lost Nijinsky ballet "Jeux", done entirely from old photos and Valentine Gross's drawings of the original production.

The major performances are beautifully detailled; George de la Pena's Nijinsky is as winning and as troubled as we believe the actual man to have been. Alan Bates' Sergei Diaghilev is charming, ruthless, and ultimately defeated. Italian ballerina Carla Fracci plays Nijinsky's dancing partner Tamara Karsavina as tender, elegant, and nobody's fool- which is, according to Fracci enthusiasts, type-casting at its best. The one performance that is somewhat vague and unformed is Leslie Browne's as Romola; it may be that she or director Herbert Ross was trying to suggest that Romola was too immature to manage the torrents of emotion she unleashed between herself, Nijinsky, and Diaghilev. Alan Badel gives his final screen performance as Diaghilev's financial backer Baron de Guinzbourg; his plummy portrayal is one of the film's chief delights.

I've heard this movie described as disappointing by others, but I think the trouble stems from the history it portrays. The love triangle ends badly, with Nijinsky leaving lover Diaghilev to marry Romola, and subsequently descending into madness. This obviously is not satisfactory dramatic structure, but that's the way it happened, folks, and the movie begs, as it must, the unanswerable question of whether Nijinsky's marriage had anything to do with his illness.

For those who want to know what happened after this film's story ends, Romola stood by Nijinsky for the three decades of his schizophrenia, making certain that he had the funds and the care he needed. Shepherding someone through such an illness in Central Europe over the course of two world wars was certainly an act of the most extreme devotion. As Alan Bates' Diaghilev says to Romola at the end of the movie, "I suspect you are the best thing that could have happened to him."

Whether you agree or not, you won't regret the time spent watching this one.

Great dancing in an otherwise overblown soap opera
Considering the star power in this movie (Bates, DeLaPena, Irons, Badel, and directed by Herbert Ross) it misfires at just about every point. The life story of the great dancer Nijinsky has been put into a box of soapflakes and churned with a lot of soft water to produce an awful lot of suds, but nothing much actually comes out clean and bright and we are left with annoying residue. Ross seems to have fixated on the sexual relationship between Diaghilev and Nijinsky so much so that a much more balanced and fair story was abandoned to tittilating sensationalism. The film also gives us the impression that Nijinsky went crazy because of his inability to come to terms with his sexuality as well as his break with Diaghilev which are, psychologically, simply not true at all. Perhaps in today's world Nijinsky could be treated with Lithium or other potent drugs for bipolar abnormalities or schizophrenia, but to suggest that he went crazy because of a broken love affair is just plain silly. Unfortunately, all this whipped cream and soap flakes melodrama leaves the dancing very much in the lurch. What there is of it (the dancing) is wonderful and the film would have been MUCH better had Ross and company focused on that aspect rather than the bedroom nonsense we are for the most part already aware of (and so what?). George DeLaPena is a wonderful dancer and actor, or should I say a "dancing actor" and he is much underused in this movie in which he has the title role. Even Nijinsky's extraordinarily controversial ending of "The Afternoon of a Faun" is, by all historical reports, grossly overdone in this movie. The other ballets are given slight notice, even the brillant "Scherazade" with the beautiful original costumes and sets by Leon Bakst is given short shrift. On the plus side, Alan Bates gives a fine performance as Diaghilev (although he is working with a very poor script), and as I've said, George DeLaPena is wonderful as Nijinsky (again, crippled by a bad script). Perhaps one day someone will make a really good movie of these fascinating people. They deserve it, as all truly great theatrical geniuses do. As an aside, I've long thought that the impressario in the movie "The Red Shoes" (Lermontov, played by the brillant Anton Walbrook) was meant to be Diaghilev. Now, if you want to see a really GOOD movie about ballet and ballet dancers, check that one out ("The Red Shoes"), and Ross's "The Turning Point" is also a winner. Too bad "Nijinsky" is a turkey. ... Read more

Reviews (55)

Definitely worth the wait!
I placed the order for this DVD at the beginning of April. I received it at the end of August. But boy, was it worth the wait!!

I remember seeing this film a while back on television and loving it. Jeremy Irons is one of the world's finest actors, and he sure shows it in this film.

As usual, Criterion- the creme de la creme of DVDs presents an amazing DVD. And with a combination of Irons and Cronenberg, how can you go wrong?

I must warn, that people may find this film disturbing, to say the least- especially women. If you can get past that factor, this is a must-see film

Jeremy Irons plays both Elliot- the playboy- and Beverly- the more work obsessed of the two- identical twin gynecologists, and things start to fall apart when a soap star(played brilliantly by Geneviève Bujold) enters the boys' lives- in particular, Beverly(For Elliot, It's just another fling)

As usual, Criterion spare nothing when it comes to extras. DEAD RINGERS has to have one of the best commentary tracks I have ever heard. I don't think there is ever a moment where no one is not talking!

There's Director-David Cronenberg; Actor-Jeremy Irons; Editor-Ron Sanders; Production Designer-Carol Spier; and Director of Photography-Peter Suschitzky

Other cool features include "Mathematics in Metal" and "Instruments for Operating on Mutant Women"- a gallery of photos and designs that were made for the film; The designs for the opening sequence(I just adore that music!!!!)

A good featurette that is quite lengthy compared to others, and a trailer. And one of my favorite features- how the twinning effects were done.

A brilliant, but at the same time, disturbing film!

OH, DOCTOR! AM I IN TROUBLE?
'House Calls' were never quite like this.

David Cronenberg takes us deep into the ever-festering and drug-distorted world of Identical Twin Insanity - this time based on fact! JEREMY IRONS provides the disturbing double-trouble with appropriate brilliance as Doctors Beverly and Elliot Mantle - the dead-ringer gynecologists. [You know the story - # 1 would start the exam, leave - # 2 would enter, continue the exam - and the patient? Totally oblivious of the switch! Nasty, very nasty ...]

GENEVIEVE BUJOLD as the Caustic Star, provides the catalist. A superb performance as the woman who eventually unhinges the twins.

It's a cool, disturbing movie, especially considering the trust one has to place in physicians, as They say "We practise medicine". "Practise???"

Nasty moment? Those 'specially designed' instruments - for 'the mutated'. It's close to Kafka - leaving metamorphosis to the imagination.

A superlative performance by Mr. Irons - who went on to "Reversal Of Fortune" [Award Winnner], another chill!

More 'punishment'? Try "Requiem for a Dream"

welcome to cronenbergs brutal beautiful world
the criterion collection is a superb presentation of david cronenbergs masterwork; dead ringers.
this film stands with crash, rabid, the brood, and spider as essential cronenberg.
his whole body of work has been impressive and one is hard pressed to come up with a more individualistic auteur in cinema today.
dead ringers contains two of the most incredibly acted performances in recent memory. irons, of course , and bujold.
much has rightly been made of irons' dual performance and he deservedly (and surprisingly)won an oscar nomination for that performance.
but as much as irons performance was celebrated, bujolds was somewhat ignored. her character is smoldering in tormented sexuality and she balances coolness, vulnerability and agressive sexuality in a truly jarring performance. bujold, with barbara hershey,remains one of the most underrated actresses of her generation and she (unlike actresses such as nicole kidman) is an actress we need have no fear of ever going 'merchant ivory'
the visuals in this film are numbing and one walks away with various shades of horrific red seared into your brain (and of course we know red equals both sex and death, an understandably favorite obsession with cronenberg).
the images of gynological instruments transformed into sculpural torture devices is one of the most horrific ever shown on celluloid and this takes that whole sex and death theme to the nth degree.predictably enough, it is one of the most squirm inducing moments of the entire film.
by the time this film is finished you are mentally drained and i remember walking out of the theatre mumbling (probably incoherently) to myslef.
there are not many films that can make me feel like ive just been run over by a freight train.

Jeremy Irons' Best Work
Maybe it's the combined effect of having two Jeremy Irons for the price of one, but I believe -and Irons has been quoted to the same effect- that this is the finest work this fine actor has commited to the screen. Much more deserving of the oscar than his recessive Claus Von Bulow in 'Reversal of Fortune.'
The way he plays the weak twin off the stronger one, whose influence fades when a woman comes between them, is extraordinary. If you don't mind the pervasive grimness of the story in general, than do yourself a favor (God, starting to sound like that pretentious guy from the Actors Studio on Bravo), and get 'Dead Ringers.'

Cronenberg-Irons tour de force.
'Dead Ringers' may indeed be David Cronenberg's best film. Jeremy Irons performance is truly extraordinary. As for not being able to tell the difference between the two brothers, I could sense immediately which brother was which by simple body language and how each brother carried himself. Which is a testiment to the subtlties of Iron's acting, that he could make you believe he was two different people at the same time on screen. This belief was also helped by the amazing motion control camera sequences which allowed Irons to "act with himself" in the same frame. The clean perpendicular lines of the twins' appartment was especially chosen to make it easier to cut the film together.

Viewers should be warned beforehand that 'Dead Ringers' is not a horror movie, it's more of a psychological character study. The twin brothers have an unusual gendered relationship. Elliot as the suave unfeeling male who's "no good with the serious ones" and Beverly, with the girl's name, as the the sensitive, caring female. Soon they come to realize that they are one physical entity, forever separated as two physical beings.

In talking about the film Cronenberg has said that men have proven to be much more squeamish about this film than women as lying on the gynecological chair is an experience that many women have gone through. Yet many men have no idea what it's like. Cronenberg was fascinated by these doctors who knew more abaout their patients than their husbands did.

The only drawback about this whole project is that the marvellous soundtrack is not available anywhere! ... Read more