Description

Jan Schlichtmann is a cynical, high-priced personal injury attorney who only takes big-money cases he can safely settle out of court. Though his latest case at first appears straightforward, Schlichtmann soon becomes entangled in an epic legal battle ... one where he's willing to put his career, reputation, and all that he owns on the line for the rights of his clients! Also featuring Robert Duvall, William H. Macy, and John Lithgow -- this gripping, widely acclaimed hit delivers edge-of-your-seat entertainment! ... Read more

Reviews (58)

Riveting and Powerful Cinema - An Eye-Opener for All
This is the most incredible movie ever made about trying a wrongful death case and the accompanying emotional roller coaster the process generates for attorneys. The opening scene will plant you firmly in your chair as Jan Schlichtmann (played by John Travolta) explains the financial calculus behind accepting and declining potential clients with personal injury claims. Jerome Facher (played by Robert Duvall) is infuriating with his unending legal maneuverings designed to extract his corporate client from an untenable legal position permeated with liability. The traitorous conduct of Schlichtmann's partners will make you wretch with disgust as they scramble to save themselves at the expense of righting a terrible wrong evidenced by a dozen dead children. Engrossing, to say the least.

Yes, the movie isn't perfect. Travolta's portrayal of Jan Schlichtmann doesn't completely mesh with the character in the book, there isn't a practicing attorney alive who doesn't know Rule 11 (court-imposed sanctions for unethical conduct), and the legal proceedings aren't quite right. Who cares? If the director had included the day-to-day minutiae involved in getting a case to trial, the film would have been three years long! My fellow reviewers are unreasonable in their unrelenting critiques.

If you're involved in the legal profession, this film will make you step back and reassess your brand of client representation. Are you taking the right cases? Are you serving the needs of you clients - or yourself? Are you willing to give your all to the law? Interesting, and always stimulating, food for thought.

If you're a lay person, hold on - you're in for the ride of your life.

Well-adapted story with terrific acting
After recently reading Jonathan Harr's book A Civil Action, I eagerly awaited seeing the movie version of this sad and absorbing story. The film version condenses the story and leaves out several interesting portions of the book, but is fine nevertheless. John Travolta is a perfect choice to play Jan Schlichtmann, the egotistical, free-spending attorney who dives headfirst into a damages case against the corporate giants Beatrice and W.R. Grace, who are accused of poisoning the drinking water of Woburn, Massachusetts and causing a leukemia outbreak. William H. Macy, Tony Shalhoub, and Zeljko Ivanek co-star as Schlichtmann's partners in the firm, and one only wishes that they would have protested his actions, which led to the financial ruin of him and his firm.

Robert Duvall gives another terrific performance as Jerome Facher, Beatrice's attorney, who is the complete opposite of Schlichtmann. In a scene at a fancy hotel conference room, the frugal Facher is not impressed by any of the lawyers or their arguments, but the free pen that he can take home. It's a subtly funny scene that illustrates Facher perfectly. John Lithgow does a terrific job as Judge Walter Skinner, who Schlichtmann believes is siding with the enemy.

A Civil Action is a story where the winners and losers are unclear, and it must have been difficult for writer-director Steven Zaillian to condense Harr's technical-laden novel. The result is a solid drama with powerhouse acting. Highly recommended.

Intelligent and Compelling Courtroom Drama
Jan Schlichtmann (Travolta) is a Boston tort lawyer and something of an ambulance chaser who is initially reluctant to take on an industrial pollution case involving some children dead of leukaemia in rural New England. He changes his mind when he realizes the likely defendants are a couple of big companies with particularly deep pockets and smells the possibility of serious money. Over time, however his interest in the case becomes a moral obsession. The cynical becomes a crusader, refusing offers to settle as his company's finances spiral downwards towards bankruptcy.

If you like courtroom dramas, this is highly recommended. It's one of the best specimens of the genre to come out of America since 'The Verdict'. It's interesting to compare it to 'Erin Brockovich' released a couple of years later. EB is about how a heroic small timer takes on the big boys of corporate America and how her pluck and determination triumphs over all obstacles, something of a legal feelgood movie in other words. Which this, to its great credit, is not. Its central character, for starters, is far more amibivalently likeable: initially just out for a fast buck, moral seriousness has to creep up on him and take him by surprise (perhaps reminding writer/director Zaillian of Oskar Schindler whose story he scripted for Spielberg a few years earlier) and the story's development paints a significantly more ambivalent picture of what pluck and determination can accomplish. It's a highpoint of Travolta's acting career even if he is comprehensively upstaged by Robert Duvall, on brilliant form as his quietly cynical adversary, bigshot lawyer Jerome Facher who knows far better than to look for the truth in a courtroom...

The book is SO MUCH BETTER
The movie is fine... but the book is an amazing read. There is so much detail and nuance lost in the adaption to a visual medium.

A Civil Travolta
This is a really good film that didn't get near the attention it should have. A great story, a terrific premise and plot. And Travolta nails his performance as a man faced with the dilemna of doing the "right thing" at great personal expense, or walking away with what he has left. This is a morality play of sorts and Travolta is the conscience of us all. We're thrilled when he triumphs; we breathe a sigh of relief and unclench our fists. Yet, we probably wouldn't have blamed him if he had walked. A nice film. ... Read more

Reviews (882)

Scott gets the look, as usual
[This review speaks mainly to the film, not the 3-disc special edition release]

Black Hawk Down is a tough movie to qualify. It's visually amazing--this is some of the best combat I've seen in a movie. It's thrilling, it's realistic, it's exciting. I wouldn't exactly call this an anti-war film because it depicts war as the ultimate thrill, a real game of real bullets and blood. Yes, it's hell, but with Ridley Scott directing it looks like a very, very good video game.

I don't know why this movie was made. There is no political leaning, there is very little context. It's a blow by blow account of what happened when over 100 Army Ranger and Delta Force soldiers were stuck in a hostile part of Mogadishu, Somalia in late 1993. The enemy, as to be expected from a Jerry Bruckheimer film, is given no identity. They are throngs of Africans, many of them kids, firing round after round and coming like swarms of bees even as they get cut down by the superior US firepower.

The problem is that the movie goes to very impressive lengths to play out this story. The production is huge--the battle scenes, the city scenes (filmed in some bombed-out-looking part of Morocco apparently), the gunplay, etc. This is an expensive film, and I have to wonder why the money and resources go into something like this if there is nothing to say. Then it becomes pure entertainment, which is all the film turns out to be. That's fine, but again, once in a while it would be nice to inject some intelligence into a project that obviously commanded so many other resources and considerations.

Why was America in Somalia? Granted, that is not the concern of the film, but some kind of context for the war, the rebels, the aims of the mission, the pov of Somalis who were killing to negotiate, as one Somali says in the only behind-the-scenes bit in the film, would have put the film over the edge and actually made the audience ::gasp:: think about why America fights where it does.

There's also the obligatory war film clichés that are just hard to stomach when we know that these are real soldiers being trivialized for the popcorn crowd. Tom Sizemore, as a veteran and tough-as-nails McKnight, goes back into the fray to rescue more men and walks calmly through the street as bullets ricochet around him, like Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now. Modern movie special effects can simulate rockets blowing people apart, literally, and leg wounds being operated on with someone's bare hands, muscle and sinew and all. It is typical of Hollywood today: they have limitless resources, but those resources (being able to shoot a film as visually and technically impressive as this) serve a story that could use a bit more tweaking and humanization. But the filmmakers are
not interested in that angle.

It would be nice to know why Mogadishu is hell on earth, with hordes of enemies tearing people out of helicopters and raining rockets on American soldiers. Yes, the soldiers were brave, they were highly trained, but the mission was a disaster, and it does the real story a disservice to portray it as just another chapter in American gung ho-ism. Also, the single most memorable bit of that real story was the body of an Army Ranger being dragged through the streets by an angry mob that spit on him, and much worse. That was a disturbing bit of footage for Americans to watch. Would that have been more tasteless than showing an RPG rocket stuck in someone's side? Massive, gaping wounds? Missing legs? Why clean up real events and their aftermath for the sake of a night out at the movies? Maybe they should put their mouths where the money is.

Make no mistake--I couldn't turn this film off. It's exciting; it made me want to play Ghost Recon or one of those games. It also made me want to find out more about this grim chapter in President Clinton's tenure as Commander in Chief, even though it was his predecessor who landed troops there when he was a lame duck. Somalia was an embarrassment, an event that told America we were no longer willing to sacrifice men--18 as compared to over 1,000 Somalis killed in battle--in some foreign wasteland. The film is not enlightening in that regard. It's exciting, it's Jerry Bruckheimer, folks. Watch it and decide for yourself.

It looks like they went to very impressive lengths to put this out on DVD, as expected with a production like this. Definitely worthwhile to pick up, as multiple commentaries, deleted scenes, and other goodies sweeten the deal.

A Special Operation
It's about time! Sony Pictures finally got around to releasing a deluxe edition DVD of director Ridley Scott's magnificent fact-based war thriller "Black Hawk Down". Fortunately, it's well worth the wait; sporting three discs with every concievable extra feature, it could well be the best DVD package I've ever seen.

Possibly the finest of all pure war pictures and unquestionably the best movie ever made about the Special Forces, "Black Hawk Down" recounts the fierce battle that ensued in Somalia on October 3, 1993 during a mission by the Army's Rangers and elite Delta Force operators to capture two lieutenants of a repulsive warlord.

The film presents a raw, vivid dramatization of the fight, with graphic depictions of violent death on both sides. The difference is that Scott, unlike many of his contemporaries, mostly manages to steer clear of sentimentality, preachiness and jingoism (no small feat when you're making a war movie). Understanding the need for occasional breaks in what is essentially a two-hour-long battle scene, Scott also injects a little comic relief in the form of three lost Rangers and some other great little moments (my favorite is the part where Sgt. Eversmann, played with surprising vigor by Josh Hartnett, has to pause in the middle of battle to pull a scalding-hot spent shell casing from inside his uniform; little details like that are cinematic gold).

The first disc has the film along with three outstanding audio commentaries: one from Scott and producer Jerry Bruckheimer; one from screenwriter Ken Nolan and Mark Bowden, author of the original book; and, most interestingly, another by four actual veterans of the battle, who expand on true elements of the story and comment on some of the film's technical innacuracies ("This scene is really cool - too bad it never really happened").

Disc two features a 150-minute "making of" featurette that explores just about every facett of the production, including technical accuracy, CGI effects and footage of the actors at Ranger boot camp.

Disc three has two absorbing documentaries about the battle from the History Channel and PBS's "Frontline". There's also a feature that allows you to watch the fast-roping insertion scene from multiple camera angles and some Q & A sessions with the filmmakers and actors. There's a nice moment in one of these sessions in which Jason Issacs, who plays the aptly named Capt. Steele, comments on how "BHD" actually made him a better person: "After knowing what these soldiers went through, you feel a bit embarrassed complaining about the size of your trailer."

"Black Hawk Down", simply by virtue of its adherence to telling the story as it happened (as much as is possible, at least, within the confines of a 2 1/2 hour movie), is much more military-friendly than many of the artsy war pictures that depict soldiers as victims or, even worse, as psychopaths. It's also a far cry from the simplistic "super soldier" flicks of the 1980s that stressed a comic book mentality over respect for what real American warriors have endured over the centuries. "Black Hawk Down" is a profoundly patriotic movie, but its patriotism is more subtle, mature and real. The only American flags you really see are patches sewn onto the right shoulder of the troops' uniforms. The flag is backwards, so that the stars are closer to the soldier's heart.

A True Horror Film
It just doesn't get any better than this. I've seen this film 4 times & it never ceases to astound me. The acting is exceptional, Ridley Scott is directing here at the peak of his powers & Pietro Scalia should have received an Oscar for the outstanding editing job. The film itself functions more like a rocket ride than just a war film. The word visceral comes to mind. Violent? Frightening? Absolutely! But to demonstrate the true impact of war, for the soldiers & for us, there is no alternative. I noticed a fellow customer said this film is better than SAVING PRIVATE RYAN; am I the only one who noticed the huge hole in that film's storyline? Move over THREE KINGS, FULL METAL JACKET, THE THIN RED LINE...BLACK HAWK DOWN may just be the greatest war film ever made. Why? Because a war film isn't just bullets & the terrible death of comrades. Ridley Scott has shown us the true horror. I know it will haunt my dreams......

Great War Movie
I recently bought the DVD for this movie and I have to say that I'm blown away by the movie about the operation to capture Adid in Mogadishu, Somalia in October '93. This movie is very accurate in showing the realities of combat and I think that this is a movie that will really convey to people what it's like to fight and die not only for their country, but for each other.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to know about what it's like in the heat of combat and the courage and fortitude of our soliders.

Best Film of Post-WW2 Combat
Prior to "Black Hawk Down", "Apocalypse Down" was hands down my favorite non-World War II war movie. Time and distance works wonders, and Ridley Scott proves he can film modern combat, like sci-fi ("Alien") with the best of them.

This is a post Private Ryan film, which means that the street combat scenes are jumpy, erratic, and extremely violent. But like Spielberg, Scott does not lose sight of character development, particularly Harnett's character who becomes marooned with his "stick" of Rangers overnight in the centre of Mogadishu surrounded by thousands of screeming, RPG-toting Somalis who can use cell phones to mobilize and direct their forces. The movie builds like "Alien", to the point where it becomes incomprehensible that anyone is going to get out alive. The movie does not take sides when commanders sacrifice four or five soldiers to save one - it just happens.

Some reviewers have referred to the book as a "novel" - it is not. This battle really happened, but once we left Somalia (or were pushed out, depending on your point of view) it got quietly shunted aside as a bad sideshow until Mark Bowden wrote his book of the same title, which is a MUST read for people who loved the movie (it goes into greater detail of the Ranger culture and background politics). Lots of lessons abound for our current escapade into Mesopotamia.

Sizemore, who is also in "Private Ryan", is by leaps and bounds the best hard-nosed NCO anywhere. Ewan McGregor, who has had to suffer through Lucas' recent disasters, gets to demonstrate his versatility. Harnett is terrific.

No review should pass up the incredible sound, which demands a 5.1 system and heavy on the subwoofer. The soundtrack (with the exception of the vaguely Celtic ooh-ahhs at the end) is the best I recall of any war movie. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Apropos
What better movie for a priest to review than 'Mass Appeal'? Directed by Glenn Jackson, and co-starring veteran actors Jack Lemmon and Charles Durning with relative newcomer Zeljko Ivanek, this story has influenced me in interesting ways.

Lemmon plays Father Farley, a jaded, settled Roman Catholic rector of a prominent parish, ultimately dis-satisfied with his lot in life but terrified nonetheless of losing it. Into this comfortable world steps an upstart seminarian Dolson (played by Ivanek), who has more principle than tact, and more passion than people skills.

The rector and the seminarian end up being placed together in a mentoring situation by the seminary dean, Mons. Burke (Durning), an autocratic moralist with strict rules on priestly formation. Various issues resound in the relationships of each of these characters with each other, the seminary, the congregation, and ultimately with their own destinies. Farley's issues with past abuse, Dolson's life on the wild side prior to seminary, and Burke's paranoia all enter the interplay of church politics and the discernment of a spiritual calling.

Farley is both irritated by and inspired by the seminarian. The seminarian takes a stand for honesty which costs him his appointment. The dean refuses to listen to anyone, including his friend Farley, and begins to question Farley's integrity as a priest as well.

Farley learns that it is never to late to hear a call, and that what he thought was his call in fact was a facade. Dolson finally realises that the in-your-face approach to public relations is not very pastoral, but his listening skills far exceed those around him, and he becomes trusted by Farley. Alas, the dean--what becomes of him? We never know.

Where God leads is a difficult question, with no easy answers, and we can spend much of our time following our version of that vocation without really ever touching the substance of it (as did Father Farley). We can be so overzealous for it that we might burn it out before it comes into being, rather like a forced hot-house flower that blooms prematurely and then dies too soon (similar to Dolson's experience).

This is an interesting film which brings up issues of polity, morality, reconciliation and redemption, themes that are far more prevalent in life than we would ordinarily think. This movie may not have mass appeal but can be enjoyed and, perhaps, give insight to all viewers, be they Roman Catholic, other denominations of Christian, of other religions, or even no religion at all.

Lemmon at his sourly best.
Humphrey Bogart, Bing Crosby, Spencer Tracy, Montgomery Clift, Jack Lemmon--what do they have in common? All played priests, but no one more convincingly than Lemmon in this story about a popular, "bourgeois," crowd-pleasing conservative priest who is suddenly challenged by a young liberal seminarian representing honesty, forthrightness, and social change. The "message" primarily concerns the old dog, popular priest learning to change his ways, while the radical young seminarian also absorbs lessons about the real world and dealing with people. But forget about the story and its themes. As a movie, "Mass Appeal" is 3 stars; as a script 4; as a vehicle for one of the screen's most colorful, personable, irresistibly charismatic actors, it's 5 all the way. Here's proof positive: though the story calls for Lemmon to play the part of the rather "bad" guy--someone who lies and schmoozes and sugar-coats the Gospel in order to fill the offering plates each Sunday--it's his character and not the seminarian's who rivets our attention, maintains our interest, and inhabits our memories long after the film is over. The truth-telling, liberal, activist seminarian, on the other hand, is little more than a "generic" character cast from a late 1960s mold. The point is that neither of the parts is especially distinguished on the basis of the writing alone; rather, it's Lemmon's unique ability to give a "face" to his role that makes both his character as well as the film work.

Simply Amazing!
This is one of the finest films I've ever seen. As a seminarian myself, I am convinced this film should be required viewing for all seminarians, priests, and all formators in the pre-seminary and seminary systems. Jack Lemmon and Zeljko Ivanek give poweful performances as Father Tim Farley and Deacon Mark Dolson; Lemmon's character is a wildly popular but complacent parish priest. Ivanek, in the role of a newly ordained transitional deacon, plays the idealistic and brash seminarian who conflicts with Fr. Farley's "song and dance" theology. As the two interact, a friendship is forged and the aging priest rediscovers his priestly vocation from the prodding of the young deacon. Ultimately, Fr. Farley finds himself in the position of defending young Dolson against the homophobic attack of the seminary rector.
While the theology of this film is not 100% sound, the overall theme is absolutely solid and gives you a lot of truth to think about. Whether it be Deacon Dolson's sordid past or the laziness of Father Farley's priestly ministry, the issues addressed are poignant and powerful. You simply must see this film!

Mass Appeal? Massive Lawsuits!
Unfortunately too many Catholic dioceses took the advice of this movie. Now they're being sued by the victims of homosexual priests,who seduced them when they were teenagers.

Splendid Comedy About Church & Homosexuality
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***

Father Farley (Jack Lemmon) is certainly the most popular clergyman around. His congregation adores him and his dialogue sermons are well attended. So he is not exactly thrilled when young seminarian Mark Dolson (Zeljko Ivanek) takes the word "dialogue" literally (Should women become priests?) and transforms his church into a political platform.

Mark is something of a problem, for himself and others. He would give anything to become a priest, but his moral is sometimes selective: He is filled with indignation that his sister is in love with a married man, yet his own past is not immaculate...

Being popular, providing "mass appeal", father Farley can permit himself an occasional slip of tongue and little weaknesses ("It's only wine. Making wine was Jesus's first miracle"). Yet, he owes much of his comfortable life-style (playing golf, driving a mercedes) to his unique ability to crawl, especially before Monsignor Burke (Charles Durning). And it's so easy to find excuses: a broken marriage or a potential abortion are always at hand when he isn't in the mood to spend an evening with his superior. Harmless little lies...

But now Monsignor Burke is concerned about two seminarians who apparently maintain homosexual relations, and instructs Farley to , well, spy ont them. Farley is furious at the thought of having to do this dirty work, but his fear to be pushed off to Iowa or some other province is a stronger driving force.

Just watch the following sequence to understand why Lemmon is considered by so many people (including me) as the greatest actor who ever lived. While Mark reproaches Burke with homophoby ("St. John always referred to himself as the one whom Jesus loved. Jesus was also a man! And he asked for love!"), Farley tries at once to be in and out of the room, to mediate and to be invisible, to help the boy, but without falling into disgrace himself.

The only consequence of Marks outburst of fury is, that Monsignor Burke now suspects him of being gay himself. Still, he is willing to postpone his exclusion from the seminary for a month, under the condition that father Farley takes him under his wings. In Farleys opinion, Mark is sincere but needs guidance. But Mark is not enthusiastic: "You're popular. That doesn't mean you can teach me what I have to learn."

Before Farley allows Mark to give a sermon to his congregation, he has to learn "charm" and "technique". What if he doesn't please the audience? As a precaution, Farley introduces him as a "new James Dean", an appropriate comparison, since Mark manages to scandalize many church-goers ("I come here because of you. I don't want to be preached to" says a lady to Farley).

Farley's lessons about what a priest has to learn (How to console mourning relatives?) glide imperceptibly into a confession. The moment when Farley reveals that he was a beaten child is a shock for the viewer ("My mother remarried. I hate her new husband. I cry myself to sleep because I think that she will go to hell"). But now his lonely life as a young priest ("Men ignored me. Women were painfully polite to me") is over! Never will he sacrifice his comfortable home, HIS people. Not for Mark, not for anyone!

One evening, during dinner, he draws Mark out about his sexual past ("Have you ever seen Paris?"). Mark cannot lie to Farley, and he cannot lie to Monsgnor Burke (although Farley implores him to). Burkes reaction is what was to be expected: He throws Mark out. Father Farley has now to make the decision of a lifetime. Can he rise above himself?

The screenplay (Bill C. Davis, from his play) is nothing short of brilliant. Funny, yet touching, filled with humor, but not for the dumb and dumber but for smart and discriminating viewers. The beautiful music is by Bill Conti.

The performances are impeccable, all actors shine, but it's really the star who makes this film. I have been exposed to method-acting during my whole life now. I hear them mumble. I see them stare. The most famous exponent of this species has just two facial expressions: either teeth clenched or mugging, but this with great self-assurance. So, if I want to see REALLY great acting from time to time I have to rely on Lemmon. Just watch the expression in his eyes, when, at some point, he is driven to slap the boy in the face: this moment he is overwhelmed by his own, sad childhood memories. Or, when his "dutch courage" (from wine) enables him to confront Monsignor Burke with the words: "Celibacy is celibacy. Even if your thing is goats!". It's such a finely tuned and precise performance, so colourful, dazzling and full of verve, that I still cannot understand why this film was so overlooked, by audiences and academy-members alike.

I can recommand this film to everyone. It's a masterpiece. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

one of a kind
I found the movie both enlighting and puzzling. First of all we will never truely know what kind of love Sally and thomas really shared. Things that are written could have been fiction yet some may be true but we will never know the truth. I like the way the movie portrays thomas jefferson as a true mans, man and also showed the love that he had for his children.

A Great Movie
This movie dares to suggest that Thomas Jefferson might have loved his slave Sally Hemings. No one will ever know for sure if he loved her but if they had a relationship it would have lasted close to forty years. Can a man have a relationship with a woman for forty years and feel nothing for her, even if she was his slave and a black woman? Some people would suggest that but not this movie. Jefferson himself was a contradiction. He said slavery was wrong, yet he owned slaves. This movie focuses on the kind of relationship they may have had and the people they were. Sally is portrayed as a strong and educated woman. We know she went to France and she could have been educated while she was there. She is also the half sister of Jefferson's dead wife and she could have quite possibly looked like her. If Sally did look like Jefferson's dead wife, whom he loved dearly, could he have been attracted to her. Sally is shown as a woman that Jefferson could have loved. Jefferson is shown as a man wrestling inside with his public life and his private life. The relationship they have is tested many times but remains strong even after his death. It may be hard for some to believe that these two people loved each other but this movie suggests that they just didn't love each other but that they were devoted to each other. I like how it focuses on Sally's life because she is the one people know little about. It goes into detail about the kind of life she might have lived with her children and the joy and sadness she might have felt, living during this time. This movie offers a refreshing description of Sally Hemings and her life. If you are interested in history, Sally Hemings or Thomas Jefferson I recommend that you watch this movie. It might change everything you know about these two people. This is a great movie and I highly recommend it to everyone.

Historical and Fictional
This was a very good movie as long as you forget who the main characters are supposed to be. Jefferson was not really as weak as he was portrayed nor could Ms. Hemings be as forthright. The love affair portrayed could not have happened. Jefferson was still a racist and could only allow himself so much sentiment where a woman of color was involved...and love was too much. I thought, however, that it did a very good job in outlining the hypocrisy of the south and miscengenation laws--laws that Jefferson himself wrote and apparently broke. I also thought it did a great job of outlining what the Hemings family was known for and came to be known for: artistry, intelligence, courage, and their aid in the underground railroad. (no Sally was never captured and beaten as far as we know). Being a mini-series, it unfortunately could not go into detail about the lives of Eston and Madison Hemings, the children we actually know the most about, nor about the matriarch of the family, Betty Hemings. For more historical fiction on this family, try Barbara Chase-Riboud's "Sally Hemings" and "The President's Daughter" or Fawn Brodie's biography of Thomas Jefferson. The screenplay was written with much of Ms. Riboud's psychology in mind...and her Sally Hemings was more believable for the times.

Tale that tells everything but the truth. So What ?
Sure I like historical movies. But I really dislike haveing to re-learn all my history each time a new one comes out.

Ahh but what can you expect ? All the information in the world abot Sally Hemmings as a person could probably fit on a 3x5 index card. Sally Hemmings the DNA profile is a good bit longer than anything else we know about her.

That said -- I liked the Sally they invented for this movie. I wanted her to be smart and well educated and full of poise and grace. Why not assume the best ? And so the movie-makers have done just what we all have wanted. They have turned what was scandelous history into starcrossed lovers.

Sally is reputed to have been quite light skinned. This was a growing problem in the south after the importation of salvery ceased in the early 1800's. While in our day and age we think it foolish to judge a man by the color of his skin - it is shown to be even more foolish in this film. Many of Jefferson's children by Hemmings are portrayed by actors that we would call "White". How nicely this points up the fallacy of judging a many by his skin color.

Go ahead watch it. Just because you want to. Just don't use it for a history report at school.

Melodramatic Soap Opera
This movie is 10% history and 90% Hollywood. There are numerous historical inaccuracies and implausible speculations. The movie is basically a soap opera. It is significantly inferior to Jefferson in Paris, itself a mediocre movie, because there is little effort to make the movie accurate or plausible.

Very little is known about Sally Hemings or her relationship with Jefferson. The movie takes the position that they truly loved each other. This is at least plausible, given that Jefferson may have had six children by her, she was his dead wife's half-sister, and they apparently had a monogamous relationship that lasted around 40 years.

The movie portrays Sally as a woman with modern sensibilities--smart, independent, strong, outspoken. It is very likely that the real Sally was none of these--what are the chances that a black slave woman in the 18th century would be? And if she were anything like this, Jefferson would not have had a relationship with her--he liked his women to be docile and submissive. The real Sally was no doubt his ideal woman.

One of the many melodramatic events that stems entirely from the writer's imagination is that Sally helped slaves flee to the North and that she was captured by Southern slaveholders, who took her captive and whipped her. There is no evidence that anything like this happened, and it is unlikely in the extreme.

The movie was made obviously to capitalize on the recent DNA evidence that Hemings and Jefferson had a sexual relationship. As a Hollywood melodrama, it is mildly entertaining. But it is insulting to anyone with any interest in truth. ... Read more

Reviews (39)

Anti-human allegory
Not everybody will be able to understand and enjoy Lars Von Trier's first film in his "Land of oportunities" trilogy, "Dogville". It is long, unusual, intelligent, sarcastic, strong, tense and even violent, among other things. I'll try to explain these adjectives in the following paragraphs.

"Dogville" is long. Very long. Almost three hours in length, divided in more than ten chapters, showing a young lady, Grace (Nicole Kidman, good as ever) reaching a small and self-centered mountain town, named Dogville. Grace, at first, stirs the sameness in Dogville's citizens' lives, trading shelter and food for a job as a housemaid in the many houses of the village; then, as time goes on, Grace will be the cause of great troubles and disagreement. The viewer must have patience, because the movie is long; it is not, however, boring. Von Trier takes his time and explores all the features he wanted to portrait in his film.

"Dogville" is unusual and intelligent. I'ts unusual because of the setting. The little town of Dogville is nothing but a stage. The many buildings (the houses, the church, the mine, and such) are marked by white paint in the floor of the stage, like a blueprint that we may open atop a table. And that's why the movie is also intelligent; as the buildings have no walls, the viewer is able to see everything that goes "on stage", even if the scene is focused only in one or two characters (but the characters act as if Dogville was a common town, with walls on their houses). This way, the viewer feels almost like in a theater. The viewers are part of the play: they have, somehow, in a distant manner, to interact with the characters on screen. The viewers themselves become citizens of Dogville.

"Dogville" is sarcastic, strong, tense and violent. For sarcasm, the title Von Trier self-imposed to his trilogy: America, land of oportunities. In fact, what happens on Dogville could happen anywhere in the world, for the story deals with selfishness, intollerance, distrust and prejudice, emotions prone to every human being. Von Trier shows that, if the United States want to be the new "center of the world", they will have to deal with their own "ghosts in the closet", before attempting to judge other societies. That's why this is a strong movie: it deals with things that most people are not ready to consider being part of their own self behaviour. It's easy to judge others, but it's hard to accept others judging us, or for us to judge ourselves. "Dogville" is tense and violent (and even ugly) because of how the characters act, and because, while watching the movie, we consider that we may not be so different from the characters at all.

"Dogville" is a very well constructed movie, with an excellent script, great (stereothyped) characters played by effective not-mainstream actors (Paul Bettany, Patricia Clarkson, Stellan Skarsgard, among others) and a provocative direction. One of the great movies of 2003.

Grade 9.4/10

A lot of bite to this movie
I'm glad to see this movie has finally made it on DVD and VHS in the States. It took a long time to do so. Lars von Trier follows up Dancer in the Dark, with an even darker view of small town life in America. In this case, we find a town quite literally at the end of the road, buried in a hollow somewhere in West Virginia, where the denizens are reduced to having to pick up the scraps left behind by others and live out a marginal existence. But, in its midst there is a dreamer, Tom, who at first appears to be the moral bellwether of the community. He tries to convince the community to take in a fugitive, evocatively played by Nicole Kidman, and finds that he has to make certain concessions in order to do so.

This film unfolds on stage in a highly theatrical telling, lending to the story the strong sense of a parable. Von Trier has assembled an impressive cast including old favorites Lauren Bacall and Ben Gazzara. The story builds slowly, with some fascinating twists and turns before reaching its shattering climax. It reminded me a lot of Shirley Jackson's classic story, The Lottery, but seems to owe more to the small town vision of Sinclair Lewis and Thornton Wilder.

I suppose some will be turned off by von Trier's disturbing view of small town life, but this film is masterfully handled, and shows what an accomplished director he is, drawing the most from his actors, in particular Nicole Kidman.

"Are you for us or against us?"
Every so often, a director appears who seems determined to antagonize and challenge his or her audiences. One such filmmaker would be Lars von Trier, the creator of such uncomfortable viewing experiences as "Breaking the Waves" (in which Emily Watson's character had conversations with God and played both roles) and "Dancer in the Dark" (featuring Bjork as a guileless, nearly blind factory worker who winds up on death row, thanks to bad luck and poor communication).

His "Dogville," a parable about how community spirit can either elevate or destroy people, is lengthy chronicle of Depression-era America that's played out entirely on a large, sparsely furnished soundstage. Nicole Kidman, Paul Bettany, Lauren Bacall and others play their scenes not on actual sets, but inside chalk-drawn rectangles meant to symbolize various locations. While Kidman's character Grace Margaret Mulligan talks about finding herself in "a beautiful little town in the midst of magnificent mountains," all the viewer can see is a bunch of scattered chairs, a few wooden arches and a blank white scrim that serves as the backdrop. Locations with such picturesque names as Raccoon Road and Elm Street have no raccoons and no elms to offer.

This is, obviously, at heart a theatrical piece that's heavily dependent on lighting, sound effects and, more than anything else, the passion of the performers to put it over. For many viewers, "Dogville" will be nothing more than a curiosity piece that quickly exhausts the patience; for others, it may be a mind-bending experiment in determining exactly where stagecraft and the art of film can intersect.

It could all have been insufferably pretentious -- and at times, it comes perilously close to being exactly that -- yet the movie does have its own bitter humor, a few vividly etched characters and a kind of offbeat flavor that's admittedly an acquired taste.

Unfolding in nine chapters (plus a prologue), "Dogville" is the story of Grace, a pale young woman who hides behind her dishwater-blonde hair and tries exceedingly hard to please everyone around her, often to her own disadvantage. She stumbles into Dogville (population: approximately 15) after escaping some gangsters and she hopes to find shelter in the backwoodsy hamlet, even though the inhabitants don't seem to have much of anything to spare.

Local philosopher and would-be intellectual Tom Edison (Bettany) takes an immediate interest in the soft-spoken stranger, but most of his fellow Dogvillians (including Patricia Clarkson as a prissy sort, Phillip Baker Hall as a sickly physician, Jeremy Davies as Tom's dopey buddy and Chloe Sevigny as a curly-haired cutie) cast a wary eye in Grace's direction, at least until she volunteers to help out around the place. Suddenly, everyone is quite fond of her -- and why not, when she's willing to work for free? -- and Grace finds herself laboring day and night for mostly thankless bosses. "There's an awful lot to do here in Dogville, considering no one needs help," Grace muses, as she scurries from task to task.

In von Trier's eyes, the residents of Dogville represent not just the stereotypical "ugly Americans," but the very ugliest America has to offer: On the average day, they're merely suspicious, hostile and greedy, but when something really gets them worked up, they're capable of every kind of abhorrent behavior, including the enslavement of the weak and sexual humiliation.

Despite the vaguely 1930s setting, "Dogville" is very clearly designed as a skewering of the jingoistic, anti-foreigner sentiments that swept certain corners of the U.S. in the months following the 9/11 attacks. In the story, the community's happiest times come, not coincidentally, around July 4; not long afterward, circumstances cause most of Grace's new "friends" to turn on her. Even the children Grace has taken care of resort to blackmail to get what they want, as the adults begin barking slogans like, "Are you for us, or against us?"

Kidman, in a performance as emotionally stark as any she's ever given, makes Grace's journey achingly real, even though everything around her is deliberately artificial. Initially, Kidman and von Trier had planned to collaborate on a trilogy of stories following Grace's misadventures, but Kidman has since pulled out of that project. Considering what the director puts her through in "Dogville," it's not hard to guess why she didn't sign up for more.

Priceless lesson.
All angles of Von Trier's genius bursting in this movie have been more or less thoroughly explained in the previous posts. I'd just like to add one thing that wasn't much talked about, yet I thing it was the crown jewel of this movie.

Yes, the movie is a brilliant study of characters and (dark) human nature, but more importantly it gives viewer a priceless lifetime lesson. It displays a battle between moral purity, youthful idealism and unaware-of intellectual arrogance on one hand and pure-and-simple concept of responsibility on the other. It is in fact this battle that squeezes and twists our stomach throughout the whole movie; it is this opposition which, in all its clarity, finally unveils itself in the final dialogue. Intellectual exchange of argument defines the "winner". And leaves the viewer contemplating, speechless in awe.

A masterpiece that raised the bar of cinematographic creativity on a brand new level.

Flawed Masterpiece from Von Trier
I don't want to repeat what a lot of the reviews have said. Yes, Von Trier has done an excellent job, the set was a brilliant choice to film on, and the acting is all excellent. I just wanted to point out a few flaws I felt the film had.

First, it did not have to be 180 minutes long. I understand the long time Von Trier took to introduce us to the town of Dogville, because it made everything that followed in the story more powerful because of the understanding we had for the village and it's characters. However, Von Trier proved his point again, and again, and again. I felt between the two and a half hour point and three hour point that a lot could have been cut. The story lost its fury and steam through that half hour. It felt like rambling, and it could have been condensed in the screenplay to still showcase everything the filmaker wanted to.

Next, one of the reviewers said that critics "pounced" on this film for being anti American and gave it bad reviews. They didn't. Most reivews of Dogville are positive, and those that aren't clearly state problems with the film, and not the anti Americanism in it.

Finally, I felt like Von Trier took all this time, three hours to be exact, to construct this pretty darn good cry out against humanity, and not America, and then after the powerful ending the credits just let me down. I felt like Von Trier took all that time creating this masterpiece, only to side swipe it with a cheap jab at America. Those who say it's not anti American need to review it again. The end credits play over homeless people to the tune of David Bowie's I'm Afraid of AMERICANS. HELLO, thats a big clue people! The film itself is not anit American I believe, but the end credits really let you know what Von Trier thinks. The end creidts also felt like they had no relation to the film. After watching the bare bones scenery, set to classical music, the glam rock Bowie tune did not fit at all. It was cheap, sloppy, and unfortunate that it degraded such a fine piece of cinema. Bad choice Von Trier. It quickly numbed the sting I felt after the actual film ended, instead of letting it stay.

Overall, see this film if you are curious about it. It is a mini masterpiece from Von Trier, but a flawed one at that. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Extraordinary performances in sterling production
This is the performance of All My Sons to own since the play is done in its entirety, unlike the watered down 1948 film version where the role of Kate Keller is reduced to tatters. Here the play takes on full dimensions buoyed no doubt by the extraordinary performances of a cast consumed by their work. Special note must be given to Michael Learned who brings such power and intensity to the mother, she transcends her own mastery. And as the son of Steve Deever, the former partner of Joe Keller who is still serving prison time, Zselko Ivanek's George is a small gem. The vhs may be pricey but worth every penny. This is a production Arthur Miller would have cheered for.

A wonderfully performed play with a surprise ending
When I saw the name 'Aidan Quinn' on the cover of this movie, I rented it instantly. However, by the end of the film I was so taken aback by the shocking ending that I would recommend "All My Sons" to even people that are not familiar with Mr. Quinn. James Whitmore is outstanding as the WW II father who finally realizes how much his mistakes cost his family. Aidan Quinn and Michael Learned are memorable as the son and wife who remain in-the-dark to Whitmore's deeds up until the end when Whitmore's conscience begins to overwhelm him. The ending blew me away, and I am sure it will do the same to anyone who sees the film.

Miller's finest work
I haven't seen this work since it first came out, yet its impression has been burned into my memory. I will disagree with the other review only that individual performances CAN indeed be singled out. James Whitmore brings all of his charisma to the father's exterior. It is his performance that is the most demanding of all, yet the most sensitively underplayed. Michael Learned was astounding and electric with energy and neurosis... And very, very young, just out of diapers performances by Aidan Quinn and Joan Allen show just how much talent they had right from the start. This is a definitive production of Miller's most visceral work. Worth every penny of the (sadly) inflated price!

Wow
I rented this movie basically on a whim, and I was schocked by how good it was in all aspects. The play, Miller's first hit, is not just the sign of a young playwright's beginning as a true artist, it is a typical example of his psychologically probing work. This would be the crowning acheivement of many lesser playwrights careers. This is a play about comming to terms with the past, and how difficult that becomes as time passes. It is also a play about the role of the family and one's responsability to it. (Sounds like Death of a Salesman, but it ain't.) The performances are strong in all accounts, illustrating the many facits and layers of Miller's play. No one performer can really be singled out because they were all amazing. The direction and technical aspects or the production are up to par with the rest of the "movie." This is a gem of American theatre, and should the genre. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This unassuming little coming-of-age drama features Matt Dillon in the title role as a sweet, slightly dim teenager living with his older brother Mason (Jim Metzler) in a rural Oklahoma town.With an absentee father and a deceased mom, the two eke out a marginal existence; things get desperate enough for Mason to sell his and Tex's horses to have enough money for groceries.Mason is ready to graduate high school and has his sights set on Indiana University and a basketball scholarship; he has little patience for his younger brother and his antics, feeling like he has to babysit him to keep him out of trouble.Tex's partner-in-mischief is Johnny (Emilio Estevez), while Johnny's sister Jamie (Meg Tilly) is the object of Tex's crush. The two live under the stern eye of their authoritarian dad (Ben Johnson), foiling any ideas Tex may have about Jamie.If this film seems reminiscent of The Outsiders, it's because it's similarly based on an S.E. Hinton novel; its tone and mood also calls to mind early-'80s kid dramas such as Breaking Away and My Bodyguard.It's a quiet little movie, capturing the boredom and tedium of small-town life nicely, with good characterizations and early roles by the Brat Pack.Dillon helped define himself early on with troubled-teen roles, and this is a fine example.Tex is also notable because it was one of the first adult dramas to come from Disney Studios. --Jerry Renshaw ... Read more

Reviews (9)

I have seen better
I bought this DVD because of the 5 star rating. It was soooo bad I gave it away. This is the first DVD I have every given away because it was not worth watching.

Blast From the Past
I recently purchased this movie after rereading my copy of TEX for probably the millionth time or so. The movie is an excellent version of the story...great for children for the most part. I recommend highly.

An excellent adaptation of S.E. Hinton¿s novel
What a great film this was- there was good acting, a good script, unexpected moments of hilarity- and best of all this film stayed close to the book. Many of the characters' lines in the movie are directly from the book. If you are fan of S.E. Hinton and her writings, you won't be disappointed by it. In my mind, "Tex" was even better than "The Outsiders," at least in terms of the movies.
Matt Dillon is superb as Texas McCormick, a quiet, somewhat immature teenager living in Oklahoma, the usual setting for Hinton's books. There are few moments in the film (don't worry, I won't give them away) that were extremely funny. However, not only is the humor entertaining in the movie, but the drama is well done too. Tex faces changes at home, with his friends Johnny and Jamie, and at school, and the result makes for a captivating story line.
The selection for the supporting cast is right on in almost every case- Jim Metzler plays Tex's brother Mason, who has to tend for his younger brother while also looking ahead to college and his own future. Emilio Estevez is Tex's spunky friend Johnny and Meg Tilly is Johnny's independent-minded sister Jamie, the object of Tex's affections.
Even the filming and quality of the movie is not bad, considering that it was made two decades ago. The music is usually fitting in each scene, and the script came off sounding realistic and genuine. All in all, this is a movie well worth checking out. I think the only thing wrong with this movie is the rating it received; there's probably enough swearing in this movie to have earned it a PG-13 rating. Highly recommended.

An excellent adaptation of S.E. Hinton's novel
What a great film this was- there was good acting, a good script, unexpected moments of hilarity- and best of all this film stayed close to the book. Many of the characters' lines in the movie are directly from the book. If you are a fan of S.E. Hinton and her writings, you won't be disappointed by it. In my mind, "Tex" was even better than "The Outsiders," at least in terms of the movies.
Matt Dillon is superb as Texas McCormick, a quiet, somewhat immature teenager living in Oklahoma, the usual setting for Hinton's books. There are few moments in the film (don't worry, I won't give them away) that were extremely funny. However, not only is the humor entertaining in the movie, but the drama is well done too. Tex faces changes at home, with his friends Johnny and Jamie, and at school, and the result makes for a captivating story line.
The selection for the supporting cast is right on in almost every case- Jim Metzler plays Tex's brother Mason, who has to tend for his younger brother while also looking ahead to college and his own future. Emilio Estevez is Tex's spunky friend Johnny and Meg Tilly is Johnny's independent-minded sister Jamie, the object of Tex's affections.
Even the filming and quality of the movie is not bad, considering that it was made two decades ago. The music is usually fitting in each scene, and the script came off sounding realistic and genuine. All in all, this is a movie well worth checking out. I think the only thing wrong with this movie is the rating it received; there's probably enough swearing in this movie to have earned it a PG-13 rating. Highly recommended.

Great
I personal loved the book and i have never actually seen the DVD or Vhs but i bet it is really good. I also read the outsiders and saw the movie the book was excellent. The movie was very good and all but i would have to had these certain in that were not in the movie, which i would have like to seen. i loved the book so much thats how i decided to read Tex. i had fun reading both and they were both well worth it. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

Jena Malone spectacular!
Little Jena Malone was superb in her role as Ellen Foster. I've seen the movie twice on the television, and will soon be adding this video to my home library.

It opens up where she claims she lays in bed and thinks up ways to kill her daddy. He is such a mean person, especially when he's drunk. Ellen's mother is very sick, but he insists she have a clean house and supper cooked by the time he gets home from work. Ellen does the best she can to help her mother, whom she loves dearly, so her dad won't be so mad. But it doesn't matter, the poor woman works so hard that she dies and leaves Ellen alone with nowhere to go. Sometimes her dad goes off for days at a time and leaves the little girl by herself.

Ellen's grandmother doesn't want her because the grandmother hated the daddy and thought Ellen would be like him. Same with Ellen's aunt. And Ellen's girl cousin was a jealous little girl and a mama's girl. She did everything she could to get Ellen in trouble until Ellen finally ran away to find her own family.

This movie ended good, just the way I would have ended it, with Ellen finding a home. But don't take my word for it. Get the video Ellen Foster and see for yourself what a wonderful movie it is.

Powerful
Ellen Foster based on the novel by Kaye Gibbons, is a story about a girl who just wants a place to call home. It's emotional and has you crying several times througout. It's not one of the best movies I've seen but it is a good movie that leaves a powerful impact. I as a viewer would be more inclined to rent it or get it out of the library than purchase it. It's really not a movie that you can watch over and over.

Five Stars for Jena Malone
For such a young performer, Jena Malone gives an unforgettable performance as an unwanted child. She practically carries the whole movie. The rest of the characters are basically caricatures of the evil grandmother, the drunk father, noble mother, do-gooder art teacher, and insensitive aunts. She herself is a caricature of a long-suffering child but Jena more than competently erases the caricature and becomes Ellen Foster.

Jena Malone conveyed a child's depression from her situation and rising beyond the hopelessness by doing something about it. Her subtle gestures and myriad facial expressions equals the performance of an Academy Award winner.

The best part of the movie is the way her face shows sudden shifts in her emotions, the inner conflicts, the fear of rejection and a child's hope, all this in one scene near the end (a rather lame ending, too pat, but then, don't we all need endings like this after such a heart-wrenching movie?) as she talks to Mrs. Montrose.

I hope she is able to get work like this in her future, work that will show her mastery of her craft and her range. So far, I've seen her in supporting roles in big budget movies, but when she gets the starring role and an equally good script, the movie world better watch out!

Lit teachers! This is a good find!
I taught this novel to a class of high school seniors, and then they watched the movie. It was a short, yet suitable video. Although it did deviate from the book at times, the characters are very well chosen and portrayed accuratly from the novel.

Mediocre family film, but a complete disgrace to the book!
The movie was much less impactful, much less meaningful, and generally much less compelling than the book. Ellen's various guardians in the film deserve Nobel Peace Prizes in comparison to their characters in the book. Jena Malone as Ellen Foster did well for a TV-film actress, otherwise the acting was mediocre. The only people I would recommend this film to are those with kids (8-12) who can't bear the thought of reading and aren't likely to change their minds once they reach ages 13 and up; the book is a bit explicit for children under 13. Basically, you're comparing the book Oliver Twist to your typical small-screen/straight-to-video cheesy drama. Angels in the Endzone is what pops into my head, but that's just my opinion on a different film. ... Read more

Reviews (601)

Seriously underrated horror film.
Watch this movie back-to-back with Brett Ratner's "Red Dragon" and you'll understand what separates a great director from a pedestrian one. Ridley Scott has crafted a classic horror film. A film that, despite justifiable complaints about the "easy way out" ending, leaves a surprising amount of the novel's surreal mayhem intact.

Dark cinema fans should embrace this one. It's not often you get a true horror film with a dazzling cast (Hopkins, Giancarlo Giannini are incredible, and Julianne Moore doesn't make us forget about Jodie, but makes the best out of a tough situation).

Oldman's portrayal of Mason Verger makes the film, however. Pathetically evil, obsessed with revenge -- it's impossible to take your eyes off him. The opening sequence of the movie (where Verger purchases Hannibal memorabilia) is a delightful intro. Verger's self-mutilation flashback is jarring and surreal.

The Grand Guignol gore style of the movie has been seen by some as laughable. I thought it was quite disturbing, the absurdity adding another dimension of terror to the film. Like all great horror films, as a viewer, you're not sure just how far into nightmare territory this one will go (particularly if you haven't read the book).

If only DeLaurentis had chosen a worthy successor to direct Red Dragon, the Lecter trilogy would've easily been the best horror cinema series ever.

While "Silence" is clearly the biggest crowd pleaser of the bunch, and a very sophisticated thriller, my heart is with Hannibal. It's absolutely beautiful to look at, holds up amazingly well under repeated viewings, and never shies away (until the very end) from the novel's most appalling elements.

Good horror flick. Bad Hannibal Lecter movie.
Hannibal is one of those sequels that continues from the original, but completely changes the story line. The Silence Of The Lambs was a drama about entering the mind of a serial killer with the help of a past one. Hannibal is just about tracking down a serial killer. This was definatly made to be a horror movie, not a suspense drama.

Hannibal picks up awhile after The Silence Of The Lambs. In the first film, Hannibal breaks out of prison torwards the end of the film not to kill again, but to retire and live a normal life. But now Dr. Hannibal Lecter(returning Anthony Hopkins), is about to come out of retirement to hunt again. But only Clarice Starling(Juliane Moore replacing Jodie Foster) knows enough about him to track him down and catch him.

The plot is simple, nothing near the plot of Silence Of The Lambs, the acting is not bad but definatly not at its best(Anthony Hopkins still plays his role rather well, but could have done better). The only thing I could say was rather good was the directing from Ridley Scott(Alien, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down). But other than that, fans of horror movies will probably enjoy this much much more than fans of The Silence Of The Lambs, like myself.

"Hannibal" runs for a little over 2 hours. It is rated R for very strong gore and gruesome violence(some may not even be able to handle the some of the extreme gore), some strong language, and disturbing images.

Disappointing, floundering follow up
When Thomas Harris wrote Hannibal, it was a safe bet that a film wouldn't be far along. Silence of the Lambs director Jonathan Demme and star Jodie Foster declined to take part in Hannibal claiming they found the story distasteful; so director Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, Alien) and actress Julianne Moore (replacing Foster as FBI Agent Clarice Starling) were brought into this disappointing follow up. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins reprising his Oscar winning role), now living the life of luxury in Italy, finds himself on the run from Mason Verger (an unrecognizeable and uncredited Gary Oldman), a former patient who at Hannibal's advice peeled off part of his face. Meanwhile, Clarice finds her career on the downward spiral as she as used as bait by Verger to lure Lecter out of hiding. The suspense can't hold up to that of Silence of the Lambs (movie or book that is) and Scott's direction, even though he gives it his own slick look, is disappointing. Moore, as good an actress as she is, can't hold a candle to Jodie Foster as we find the once strong willed but vulnerable Clarice be more of a victim here than anything else. Finally, Hopkins just isn't scary anymore as Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter. That alone is probably the worst part of the film, and while Hannibal isn't necessarily bad, it's one of the most disappointing films to be released over the past few years. The cast also includes Francesca Neri, Frankie Faison, and Ray Liotta in the film's most infamous scene.

Great, not completely accurate, but very good.
The film is based on Thomas Harris' third installment in the "Hannibal Lecter Series" (Although, Hannibal Lecter is only a major character in one book.) The movie's ending was completely different than that of the book. WARNING: IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK, AND WANT TO, DO NOT READ THE NEXT SENTENCE! In the book, Lecter basically brainwashes Starling and takes her as his wife and moves to South America. WARNING OVER

Hopkins' acting was not as good as it was in "Silence of the Lambs," but it's very good. Julianne Moore's performance was not as good as Jodie Foster's.

The movie excluded the character Margot, Mason Verger's lesbian sister. I think she greatly enhanced the story's progress. In the movie, anything Margot did that was pivotal to the story (basically, just pushing Verger into the pigpen) Verger's personal doctor did.

Basically, if you're just looking for an amazing movie, DON'T pick this up, if you're looking for a gory movie, pick it up. If you're looking for a good sequel to an amazing movie (Silence of the Lambs.)

Mediocre yet oddly satisfying
Let's face it: "Hannibal" is nowhere near as good as "Silence of the Lambs" (I'm talking movies, not books). To quote Charter, "Far-fetched and gory." Plus it fails to capture Lecter's true intentions toward Starling (as brotherly or fatherly, not romantic). Yet, somehow, the film is oddly satisfying, and I find myself draw to it whenever it's on. The mix of operatic score during chaotic scenes is strangely effective (similar to the ethereal tracks during intense scenes in the LOTR series of films). So, no, it's not a great movie, and Lecter's behavior is sometimes "out of character," but the movie is satisfying nonetheless. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A powerful coda to what many considered the best show on TV recalls Homicide at its best: prickly character tensions, sour office politics, raging emotions, and the camaraderie of the squad room. In Homicide, the Movie that squad room becomes unusually crowded when the entire cast, past and present, converges to hunt for the gunman who shot beloved former shift commander Al Giordello (Yaphet Kotto), now a controversial Baltimore mayoral candidate.

The class reunion could have easily turned into a gimmicky series of cameos, and with such a sprawling cast many familiar faces are indeed little more than walk-ons, but the fiercely intelligent script anchors the investigation in the even more anticipated reunion of the tetchy, intense retired detective Frank Pembleton (Andre Braugher) and his former partner, Tim Bayliss (Kyle Secor). Never quite friends yet intimately trusted partners, the relationship of the most compelling duo in the show's history is pushed to the brink as the morally sure Pembleton digs around the guilt that haunts Bayliss in a devastating climax. All the hallmarks of the show are here--the vivid location shooting, the nervous you-are-there camerawork, the effective use of popular music--and the episode comes full circle in a lovely coda in which even the deceased make their appearances. It's an uncompromising piece of American television and a moving end to a great series. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Life Everlasting
Whilst the final episode of the seventh season of Homicide: Life on the Street bookended the show - starting and ending in the same place - loose ends, or rather one very long loose end, was left dangling.

Homicide: The Movie picks up some months after the show ended and it's all change. Al Giadello want to be the Mayor of Baltimore, Gharty is the new shift commander, Bayliss uncertain of his future, is on a sabbatical. It's not giving away much to say that Gee gets shot and squad members past and present return to catch the shooter.

After the disaster of Season 7, the prospect of former cast members of the calibre of Andre Braugher, Ned Beatty and Melissa Leo was more than welcome. Sadly squeezing in so many past characters leaves many with little to do, whilst the main (and rather thin) plotline of Gee's shooting is just an excuse to get Braugher and the excellent Kyle Secor back on screen together. Not that that's a bad thing.

Watching familiar faces and listening to the long missed banter of the detectives reinforced the view that Homicide was strangely overshadowed by inferior, and less intelligent shows like NYPD Blue, and that it never quite got the credit it deserved.

Homicide: Life Everlasting
Homicide: Life Everlasting was the perfect way to wrap-up the show which lasted for 7 seasons on NBC. This two-hour movie originally aired during the month of February of 2000, reunites new and old member of the cast...some more than others in a very clever and subtle way.

The basic plot of the movie goes like this: Former Lt. Al Giardello of the Homicide Unit is running as a mayoral candidate for the city of Baltimore(or as pronounced in the actual city Bawlmer). Gee is shot while giving a speech at the Inner Harbor. He is rushed to the hospital and enroute to the hospital scenes are cut back and forth between each former or current Detective of the Homicide Unit who are informed of the incident including Andre Braugher(Det. Frank Pembleton)who has given up being a cop to teach and Kyle Secor(Det. Tim Bayliss)who had taken a leave-of-absence from the unit at the end of the series.

Other former members of the squad making appearances in the movie are Reed Diamond(Det. Mike Kellerman - now a P.I.),Melissa Leo(Sgt. Kay Howard), Richard Belzer(Det. John Munch), Clark Johnson(Det. Meldrick Lewis), Isabella Hoffman(Megan Russert), and Max Perlich(J.H. Brodie). Gee's son Mike Giardello also appears in the movie as a beat(street)cop after he left the FBI at the close of the series.

This movie is a must see for die-hard fans of the show longing to see former cast members that actually made the show great. And to leave you on an intriguing and interesting note: The ending is a complete SHOCKER!!! Don't miss out on getting this movie for anything in the world. It's the perfect thing for any die-hard Homicide fan and a movie no Homicide fan should be without.

Urban Tradgedy
This proved to be a worthy, if not tragic, ending for what diehard fans called "The Best D**n Show on Television." Being one of those fans, I was torn. On the one hand, I honestly felt "Homicide" didn't need a wrap-up movie. The ending of the televsion series, I thought, was about as satisfying as we fans were going to get under the circumstances.

On the other hand, well, it was my favorite show, for cryin' out loud! I wanted to see how the creators would put it to rest.

BTW, for those of you who didn't keep up with the televion series, this is NOT the DVD to start with! Start with "Seasons I and II" and work your way up!

Back to the review: The storyline is as follows: Al Giardello, former Homicide Unit L-T, is now running for Mayor of Charm City (On, if you can believe it, a drug legalization platform) and has a very impressive lead, that is until he's gunned down while giving a speech. All cast members are reunited as they struggle to investigate the shooting of their beloved "Gee" as he lies in intensive care.

At times, the writing is only mediocre and there are moments when the movie seemed preoccupied with giving every single reunited cast member a line or a scene. Nonetheless, the shocking and sad ending was worth every minute and has some incredible acting from Kyle Secor and Andre Braugher.

I wouldn't want to give anything away save this: the writers don't take the usual route and certainly do not wrap everything up with a "happily ever after" ending. And, looking back on the series, it makes all the sense in the world.

HOMICIDE
This is quite a good made for tv movie unlike the law and order movie (Exiled) WHICH SUCKED! i watched this show because it was a 2 part with law and order and i became as obsessed if not more than with law and order, there are NO bad not a 1, at least not the main characters. I wish this show hadn't been cancelled, i guess it was just to real and profit lacking, and not enough violence...i like how this show wasn't the solve the crime in an hr formula, and there is more than 1 set of detectives, with enough time for all, and still just enough time for sub-plots unlike NYPD which is 100% sub-plots...i cannot wait for the rest of the seasons!!
my favorite episodes (that i have seen)
Fire (1 and 2)
sniper (1 and 2)
Subway
the white glove murders (1-3)
justice (1-2)
three men and Adena
crosetti
the last of the watermen
happy to be here
gone for goode

P.S. Bring this mother****er back! lol dont we wish...

"Who's the fourth chair for?"
Returning on occasion to the job I left almost three years ago, and which I held for over four years, I am constantly reminded of how much things change. And the feeling of awkwardness and unease still permeates throughout each and every one of my visits. The place looks different. Many, if not most, of the faces have changed. Life has moved on without me there. Watching "Homicide: The Movie" evokes much the same feeling within me. The TV movie was produced only a short half-year after the series ended production, yet so much was different. The result is somewhat jarring, yet still acceptable. Life does, indeed, move on. Why should "Homicide" be any different?

The major driving force behind "Homicide: The Movie" was to reunite as many of "Homicide: Life on the Street's" cast members as possible. How does one accomplish this? The answer comes in the form of having a man that many of the characters liked (or at least respected) get shot down. Former Lt. Al Giardello (Yaphet Kotto) is running for mayor of Baltimore, when he is gunned down at a rally. He is rushed to the hospital, and news of his brush with death spreads quickly throughout the area. Soon, every single one of the living detectives who had worked in the Homicide unit during the series' run have returned to the squad room. Much has changed since the time that they were there. Only one of the show's original characters, Meldrick Lewis, is still an active detective in the unit. Stu Gharty, a man many people did not respect, is now the shift lieutenant. The squad room is painted blue. And Jason Priestley (of 90210 fame) has joined the cast as a brash, new detective.

The detectives (old and new) begin to investigate the shooting of Al Giardello. John Munch & Stanley Bolander (Richard Belzer & Ned Beatty) re-unite and work together, as do the popular Frank Pembleton & Tim Bayliss (Andre Braugher & Kyle Secor). If there is a problem with "Homicide: The Movie", it is that in its quest to bring together the over 20 regular and semi-regular (as well as guest-starring) members of the cast of the original show, the usage of that cast is spread very thin. In fact, as it was when the series was on the air, the plot basically revolves around Pembleton & Bayliss. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as they are two of the show's strongest characters. It is simply a matter of time allowance. It had been years since Ned Beatty had been on the show, and perhaps a bit more time devoted to his character wouldn't have been such a bad thing. Or that of Melissa Leo's strong role as Sgt. Kay Howard (another favorite). At any rate, it was interesting to see everyone come back together again, one last time -- even the "dead" characters.

There are some twists and turns in "Homicide: The Movie", as well as a couple of surprises. One of them is semi-predictable, if you'd followed the series up to its final episode. Still, it is devastating. The plot line of investigating Giardello's shooting progresses well enough, although sometimes it feels haphazard, as certain scenes are thrown in, simply for sake of providing something for each of the cast members to do. The last few scenes, once the shooting is solved, provide both a nice, and a not-so-nice coda for the characters that fans of the show grew to know and identify with over the series' seven season run.

In the end, "Homicide: The Movie" seems concerned with wrapping things up, and with tidying loose ends left over from the final episode. I'm not sure whether or not I like this. In many ways, the last episode left things in a way which seemed more natural. Not every answer was solved, not every character's destination was known. Now, with "The Movie", we have almost more answers and finality than I find desirable. It made me pine for the show's early years, when it was simply a deep, gritty, and heartfelt cop show. Ah, those were the days. ... Read more

Description

Gary Sinise is "Give 'em Hell" Harry, a simple man of the people who became one of America's greatest presidents.Through victory in the second World War and the beginning of the Cold War, through the birth of the United Nations and his decision to drop the first atomic bomb, Harry Truman lived by the premise that "the buck stops here." ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Sinise is Brillant!
I have watched this movie many times and have always felt better for it. I have always had a great respect for President Truman. Mr.Sinise's performance was heart-warming & captivating. He brought the essence of the character to life. The movie transports the viewer to his time and does not let go until the end (which, I found myself wanting to know more of the Trumans, post-White House). Diana Scarwid's portrayal of Bess Truman conveyed that the man who made some very tough calls in a nation's darkest hours had a woman of steel behind him. He made decisions that were unpopular and yet necessary. "War is Hell". Our 33rd President did what he felt was right at the time. He is in my estimation one of the most under-appreciated US Presidents and important historical figures of the 20th Century.

WHO SAYS HISTORY ISN'T INTERESTING!
Film biography is very ticky business. Directors are often tempted to to make their subjects out to be over the top martyrs, or self- importent gods. Frank Pierson avoids that trap in this wonderful look at our 33rd president, Harry S. Truman. The Truman we see here, as brought to us by the always wonderful Gary Sinise, is a very flawed human being. He's not sure of everything, and he makes his share of mistakes. However, he is also an honest, inteligent man, who works hard to help our country, and becomes one of our greatest presidents.Pierson's attempt to make such an honest movie is commendable, as is his wonderful recreation of America in the first half of this century. Rural Missouri in the 1920's and Washington D.C. in the 1940's are brought to us effortlessly. It is a delight to see such informative and interesting portrayals of great men like Harry Truman coming out in recent years. It is importent that we as Americans know about the great men who have served our country, and what better a way then through the movies?

Gary Sinise does it again!
This DVD stars Gary Sinise as Harry S. Truman and covers his life from when he is a farmer, through marrying Bess, up until the time he leaves the White House. Gary is terrific as usual and when he gets going as the older Truman on the campaign trail, he is dynamic. Also stars Diana Scarwid as Bess, who is usually in campy movies such as playing Christina Crawford in Mommie Dearest, but she is also very endearing as Mrs. Truman. There are some very cute points, especially when the Truman's move into the White House, the "first house they have ever had alone" and Mrs. Truman comments about how dirty it is! Not to be missed! One minor flaw - there are NO special features on this DVD.

One Small Complaint...
The wardrobe researchers should have paid more attention to the military uniforms worn by the real-life personages herein portrayed, particularly Gens. Marshall and MacArthur. Aside from that, this is an interesting movie condensation that should prompt viewers into reading more biographical information about Harry Truman. He and Sam Rayburn appear to have been the last two honest and honor