Reviews (48)

Amusing Story. Bland Movie.
"Calendar Girls" is a fictionalized account of the events surrounding the publication, in 1999, of a nude calendar featuring the ladies of the Rylstone Women's Institute of North Yorkshire, England. The calendar caused a media sensation in Great Britain and the United States on account of its photographs of women of a certain age performing quaint everyday tasks in the buff. In the film, Chris (Helen Mirren) organizes the calendar to raise money on behalf of her best friend Annie's (Julie Waters) husband, who is dying of leukemia. "Calendar Girls" dramatizes the challenges of convincing a group of middle-aged and older women to pose nude, garnering support for the project, and coping with the resulting flood of international publicity.

The cast is well-suited to their roles. The characters are all appealing. But "Calendar Girls" takes too much time to get off the ground and moves very slowly once it does. This "dramedy" isn't nearly as funny as it should be. It's just bland. The story of the WI calendar is really more interesting than this film.

As for "Calendar Girls" accuracy, this really is a fictionalized account. The characters do not represent real people specifically, except for Chris and Annie, who are based loosely on real women. Any strife between characters in the film is dramatic license. The calendar's photographer was not a stranger, but one of the ladies' husbands. The calendar was indeed intended to raise money for a local hospital's cancer ward on behalf of Angela Baker's husband, John Baker, to whose memory "Calendar Girls" is dedicated. And a similar 2004 calendar featuring the actresses in this film has been released as a further fund-raiser for charity.

The DVD: Bonus features include two mini-documentaries and four deleted scenes. "The Naked Truth" is a 15-minute documentary about the real story behind the infamous calendar. It features interviews with the women who organized and graced the pages of the calendar and its photographer, following the calendar's story from its genesis to this film's premiere. "Creating the Calendar" is a 6-minute short about filming the nude scenes and photographing the calendar for the movie. Captions are available in English, subtitles in Spanish. And dubbing is available in French.

Quiet and Likeable! Also (gasp) kinda sexy!
I went into watching CALENDAR GIRLS dreading it might be a female rip-off of THE FULL MONTY. No need to fear, because the movie is about a lot more than aping a successful indie formula. The movie centers on a group of women of Rylstone Women's Institute in North Yorkshire, England who through a tragedy decide to raise money for a hospital with their annual calendar. The only catch? These well-aged women are going to pose in the buff with strategically placed items of household drudgery hiding the naughty bits and pieces. And when the calendar comes out? They all have to deal with the infamy that comes along with posing nude. And deal with success as well! Or new found confidence.

It is a story rich dramatically and still just plain funny. The nudity is tasteful, and not all that revealing. Think Dianne Keaton's SOMETHINGS GOT TO GIVE flash, and you get the idea. And Helen Mirren and a STRONG cast give it all a dignified English air that plays well. I really loved this movie. It made me smile widely! And hammered home the message that beauty is in ALL forms. Everybody has a shine to them, and the 50 MOST BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE are the ones with the courage to make fun of themselves and smile all the while. No body doubles here either! Yea for them! Brave women with "bigger buns!".

The DVD is a special treat. You get a documentary on the real life CALENDAR GIRLS who look a lot like their film counterparts. You also get to see the movie cast MAKING the calendar! Okay, maybe just TALKING about making it. Also you get some deleted scenes, and assorted trailers.

I'm getting sunflowers for my house just to remind me of people that always reach for the sun! Very nice image. We need more movies like this -- celebrating wisdom and friendship. And hey - it's just simple fun.

a smart, lovely comedy!!
This movie is inspired by a true story where these middle aged women go in the nude posing for their calendar which becomes a huge success! I really loved this movie for its wonderful acting and it was hilarious!! The whole way I felt like cheering the women on! This movie made me laugh out loud and its a great change from some other funny movies that all they offer is bathroom jokes and other stupid humor. This is a one of a kind smart hilarious movie!!

Marginal, at best
This is one of those small budget Britcoms that is supposed to be hilarious and all the trailer clips suggest that. Problem is it's not very funny, well-acted, or even mildly engaging. It's flat out boring. It is not a female "The Full Monty," as the ad campaign leads you to think. If that were the case I would have loved it. Others can re-tell the plot, but there isn't really much beyond these ordinary women in a small English town do a nude calendar to raise money and all the hinjinx prevail. Except there really are no hijinx. Just the usual stereotypical disapproving neighbors and officials, combined with the always surprising support from the most unlikely (wink-wink) circles. Been there--seen that over and over. It's as if every cliche in these types of movies were rehashed over and over.

Save your money. Frankly, I think the positive reviews on this are the true comedy.

a joyous comedy
One of the most delightful films of recent years, "Calendar Girls," a distaff version of "The Full Monty," is the true story of a group of middle-aged English women who became international celebrities when they designed and posed for a nude fundraising calendar that sold millions of copies worldwide. Julie Walters and Helen Mirren head a wonderful cast, with Walters as a woman whose husband dies of leukemia and Mirren as her best friend who comes up with the idea of the calendar as a way of both honoring his memory and raising money for the local hospital.

The risk for any "feel good" comedy is that it will become cloying, coy or cutesy. Luckily, "Calendar Girls" boasts an enormously witty screenplay and first-rate performances by its highly gifted cast. Each of the "girls" is given her own unique personality so that we see them not just as a group, united in this inspiring endeavor, but as individuals working through their own personal demons on the rode to the project's completion. The women face the expected roadblocks and snafus in the form of "shocked," disapproving voices in the community, but their belief in the rightness of their cause brushes all such problems aside.

This charming film provides more genuine, out-and-out laughs than almost any comedy of recent times. "Calendar Girls" is heartwarming, touching and inspiring - and what more could one ask from a "feel-good" film than that? ... Read more

Amazon.com

Sir Richard Attenborough's 1982 multiple-Oscar winner (including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor for Ben Kingsley) is an engrossing, reverential look at the life of Mohandas K. Gandhi, who introduced the doctrine of nonviolent resistance to the colonized people of India and who ultimately gained the nation its independence. Kingsley is magnificent as Gandhi as he changes over the course of the three-hour film from an insignificant lawyer to an international leader and symbol. Strong on history (the historic division between India and Pakistan, still a huge problem today, can be seen in its formative stages here) as well as character and ideas, this is a fine film. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (108)

BEN KINGSLEY'S FINEST HOUR ON DVD
Richard Attenborough's "Gandhi" is a masterfully told, massively mounted epic motion picture, depicting the life and times of Gandhi, a benevolant crusader for peace, whose shocking assassination rocked the world. Ben Kingsley rightfully took home the Oscar for his subtle but stunning transformation into the title role. WARNING: This is a slow paced movie but well worth the three hour plus investment of your time.
Columbia Tristar has given us a very beautiful print of the film. Colors are rich, bold and vibrant. Contrast levels are good. Although black levels are not always at their darkest, this is relatively forgivable, since most of the film takes place during the day. Shimmering, aliasing and edge enhancement are all present but in extremely minute amounts, leaving one with nothing to do but admire the visual presentation in all of its breathtaking cinematography. The soundtrack is 2.0 surround but well represented. Some of the audio has a tendancy to appear thin or strident but, again, considering its dated fidelity and the source material, it is remarkably well represented. No extras - disappointing for a big time Oscar winner like this. Perhaps we'll get a special edition eventually.

Excellent movie about a 'mover' in this world
Every once in a while this world produces an exceptional human being whose presence makes it a much better place to live in. Such a person was Mahatma Gandhi; the Indian 'radical' whose teachings about non-violent resistance lead to the eventual independence of India from British colonial rule. His teachings have inspired other such movements in the world and his life has been looked up to as a standard which others have tried to emulate.

Every once in a while those responsible for the academy awards have chosen deserving films. This is one of them. Ben Kingsley gives a grand performance as Gandhi, from his youth to his death. The impersonation is spot on; everything from the accent to the gait is so convincing that one could swear Kingsley was Gandhi.

If you are looking for a biography of this man on film, this movie is an excellent source. Condensing Gandhi's life into a few hours is such a great feat, especially when there is so much of this man that could be explored. The movie was filmed in India, with 300,000 extras, so if you like epic films you will definitely enjoy this one. The scenery is authentic and the characters have a reality about them so often lacking in 'hollywood' films. No 'eye-candy' version of a historical event, this is a real movie about a real person.

The DVD extras were ok for a film this old. There is some original newsreel footage which is quite short but still worth watching to see the real Gandhi as he was. Kingsley also gives a talk about how it was being Gandhi, there is also some of the sayings of Gandhi; great candidates for those memorable sayings we all try to memorize to motivate ourselves. All in all a great DVD, the movie is a timeless classic about a great man of the modern world.

Movie does not do justice to the person
Richard Attenborough's movie "Gandhi" was a movie of epic proportion. Mohandas Gandhi was probably the most influential person of modern day India. If one reads any of his biographies or his autobiography, one would find that he was a very complex person. The movie was well directed and showed some of the important parts of the freedom struggle starting from his initiation in South Africa. However, for the sake of marketing, the movie concentrates largely on the european angle and sidetrakes the Indian angle completely.

Gandhi was a person who started a new line of thinking that inspired people like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and Dalai Lama. He was a complex person who right from childhood was afraid of ghosts and speaking in public. He was a disaster as a lawyer initially. The transformation happened when he saw the injustice happen to him in Pietermaritzburg in South Africa. I wish that the movie had shown the transformation in the person. This was an important catalysis. Most of the people shown in the movie were not important in Gandhi's life, though they were decent actors, such as Candice Bergan and so on. The Indians who associated with him such as Patel, Nehru, Azad and so on are given minor importance.

Some of his important speeches were left out, which are thought provoking. Recently Time magazine had Salman Rushdie write a piece about Gandhi. Granted there is freedom of speech, but I had never seen a more badly written piece about Gandhi than that. Rushdie should stick to fiction - well he is losing his touch in that too. Gandhi had his faults like any human, some of his ideas may not apply in the present day world. But his positives far outweigh his negatives. The sad part is that he is largely forgotten in India itself. Most people in India do not take the trouble to read and know about the real person, what he stood for, his ideals. In fact, I am ashamed to say that South Africa remembers him more than India, even though his is the father of India. Even in the last elections in South Africa, he was used as an icon. However, in India, he is slowly ebbing away.

A soul-conquering fine work of art
Never before have I seen such a powerful work of art. It made me forget the finesse of the technological masterpiece, an advanced Macintosh computer running MacOsX, which delivered the breath-taking scenes in vibrant colors with soul-stirring sound effects. Instead all that stood in my mind was the movie and movie alone. This was a radical change in thought for a person like me who is a avid technology enthusiast. Never before have I been so involved in the scenes of a movie. Every scene and every peice of sound hits the nail right on its head with a powerful strike of the hammer. I must appreciate the dedication of the team and their quest for perfection. Years of their work has produced this masterpiece which mankind can cherish for the eons to come. This certainly is one of the best creations of collective human intellect of superlative degree. The story of the life of a great soul in a soul-conquering work of art.

gandhi-whats the point?
i mean he wasnt that great was he? there are plenty of annorexic people out there. plus its not healthy. throughout that whole movie i was yelling, " GIVE THAT MAN A SANDWICH!" he needs to eat something. I cant tell the difference between mahatma gandhi and paris hilton. in closing WHO LET THE DOGS OUT
WHO WHO WHO WHO.
who let the dogs out-good tune
gandhi-OK flick

i give it ***

GO GANDHI! he is my favorite linebacker in san diego chargers history ... Read more

Description

In a case of mistaken identity, a young man from Detroit becomes entangled in a web of European espionage, adventure and romance. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

James Bond parody
I've seen this movie many times before, it's always enjoyable. I think the first time I had actually seen this thing was when I was five or six. Anyway, I'd recommend this film to anyone, except of course, to little children, due to the sexual suggestiveness of the film, which occurs in a paticular scene more-so than others where the hero of the movie is thrust apon the bed and the woman in the blue dress straddles him. What's more is that when the scorpion that she pulls out to kill him with ends up on her back, she begins to run around the hotel room, making it seem as if she's purposely trying to bounce her cleavage. Oh yeah, and one more thing . . . Didn't seem a little dumb to try and kill a guy with a very dangerous bug like a scorpion? Well, I guess that's why I love the movie so much; lots of silly and bizarre things like that through the whole 89 minutes

Good film for persons of all ages.
This movie may not be cast with big stars, but it is a movie I have watched at least once a year. This movie is also great for teacher's (language) to see with their class on, perhaps, the last day of school. It's cute, has some great action scenes and is loaded with suspense. Even my teen liked it. It may be considered a B movie, but it's great entertainment.

Michael Corben ---deep cover agent for the CIA
The unlikely has happened; it appears there is more than one Michael Corben. One an agent for the CIA the other a French student on class assignment to France. Is it possible that they can get their personalities crossed? And when offered a fancy car to drive do you expect the confusion to be cleared?
All is going well, a 007 life with money cars girls. Then reality sets in Michael and the French Teacher must team up to save Europe form a dastardly plan of the evil Steranko.
Will he succeed or is Europe doomed?

great entertainment
Great entertainment with funny ideas and a young Richard Grieco. Gabrielle Anwar plays his girlfriend. Grieco's role is mistaken for an agent and he goes through all kind of amusing adventures

Great secret agent parody
Ok, this is a B-rated movie. It was panned in the reviews when it came out.

Still, it is one of my favorites. I even bought it after renting it. The class clown flunks French class, and ends up flying to Paris to salvage his grades, accompanied by the French-teacher-from-Hell. Once there, he is mistaken for a secret agent and ends up in a slapstick adventure. Next thing you know, he is soon sitting behind a Lamborgini complete with guns, parachute, and missiles, chasing a hot blonde babe.

It is a parody of the James Bond movies, that most will find mildly amusing. Most of my friends roll their eyes when I pull it off the shelf. Still, I think it is one of the greatest flicks ever made. ... Read more

Reviews (108)

BEN KINGSLEY'S FINEST HOUR ON DVD
Richard Attenborough's "Gandhi" is a masterfully told, massively mounted epic motion picture, depicting the life and times of Gandhi, a benevolant crusader for peace, whose shocking assassination rocked the world. Ben Kingsley rightfully took home the Oscar for his subtle but stunning transformation into the title role. WARNING: This is a slow paced movie but well worth the three hour plus investment of your time.
Columbia Tristar has given us a very beautiful print of the film. Colors are rich, bold and vibrant. Contrast levels are good. Although black levels are not always at their darkest, this is relatively forgivable, since most of the film takes place during the day. Shimmering, aliasing and edge enhancement are all present but in extremely minute amounts, leaving one with nothing to do but admire the visual presentation in all of its breathtaking cinematography. The soundtrack is 2.0 surround but well represented. Some of the audio has a tendancy to appear thin or strident but, again, considering its dated fidelity and the source material, it is remarkably well represented. No extras - disappointing for a big time Oscar winner like this. Perhaps we'll get a special edition eventually.

Excellent movie about a 'mover' in this world
Every once in a while this world produces an exceptional human being whose presence makes it a much better place to live in. Such a person was Mahatma Gandhi; the Indian 'radical' whose teachings about non-violent resistance lead to the eventual independence of India from British colonial rule. His teachings have inspired other such movements in the world and his life has been looked up to as a standard which others have tried to emulate.

Every once in a while those responsible for the academy awards have chosen deserving films. This is one of them. Ben Kingsley gives a grand performance as Gandhi, from his youth to his death. The impersonation is spot on; everything from the accent to the gait is so convincing that one could swear Kingsley was Gandhi.

If you are looking for a biography of this man on film, this movie is an excellent source. Condensing Gandhi's life into a few hours is such a great feat, especially when there is so much of this man that could be explored. The movie was filmed in India, with 300,000 extras, so if you like epic films you will definitely enjoy this one. The scenery is authentic and the characters have a reality about them so often lacking in 'hollywood' films. No 'eye-candy' version of a historical event, this is a real movie about a real person.

The DVD extras were ok for a film this old. There is some original newsreel footage which is quite short but still worth watching to see the real Gandhi as he was. Kingsley also gives a talk about how it was being Gandhi, there is also some of the sayings of Gandhi; great candidates for those memorable sayings we all try to memorize to motivate ourselves. All in all a great DVD, the movie is a timeless classic about a great man of the modern world.

Movie does not do justice to the person
Richard Attenborough's movie "Gandhi" was a movie of epic proportion. Mohandas Gandhi was probably the most influential person of modern day India. If one reads any of his biographies or his autobiography, one would find that he was a very complex person. The movie was well directed and showed some of the important parts of the freedom struggle starting from his initiation in South Africa. However, for the sake of marketing, the movie concentrates largely on the european angle and sidetrakes the Indian angle completely.

Gandhi was a person who started a new line of thinking that inspired people like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and Dalai Lama. He was a complex person who right from childhood was afraid of ghosts and speaking in public. He was a disaster as a lawyer initially. The transformation happened when he saw the injustice happen to him in Pietermaritzburg in South Africa. I wish that the movie had shown the transformation in the person. This was an important catalysis. Most of the people shown in the movie were not important in Gandhi's life, though they were decent actors, such as Candice Bergan and so on. The Indians who associated with him such as Patel, Nehru, Azad and so on are given minor importance.

Some of his important speeches were left out, which are thought provoking. Recently Time magazine had Salman Rushdie write a piece about Gandhi. Granted there is freedom of speech, but I had never seen a more badly written piece about Gandhi than that. Rushdie should stick to fiction - well he is losing his touch in that too. Gandhi had his faults like any human, some of his ideas may not apply in the present day world. But his positives far outweigh his negatives. The sad part is that he is largely forgotten in India itself. Most people in India do not take the trouble to read and know about the real person, what he stood for, his ideals. In fact, I am ashamed to say that South Africa remembers him more than India, even though his is the father of India. Even in the last elections in South Africa, he was used as an icon. However, in India, he is slowly ebbing away.

A soul-conquering fine work of art
Never before have I seen such a powerful work of art. It made me forget the finesse of the technological masterpiece, an advanced Macintosh computer running MacOsX, which delivered the breath-taking scenes in vibrant colors with soul-stirring sound effects. Instead all that stood in my mind was the movie and movie alone. This was a radical change in thought for a person like me who is a avid technology enthusiast. Never before have I been so involved in the scenes of a movie. Every scene and every peice of sound hits the nail right on its head with a powerful strike of the hammer. I must appreciate the dedication of the team and their quest for perfection. Years of their work has produced this masterpiece which mankind can cherish for the eons to come. This certainly is one of the best creations of collective human intellect of superlative degree. The story of the life of a great soul in a soul-conquering work of art.

gandhi-whats the point?
i mean he wasnt that great was he? there are plenty of annorexic people out there. plus its not healthy. throughout that whole movie i was yelling, " GIVE THAT MAN A SANDWICH!" he needs to eat something. I cant tell the difference between mahatma gandhi and paris hilton. in closing WHO LET THE DOGS OUT
WHO WHO WHO WHO.
who let the dogs out-good tune
gandhi-OK flick

i give it ***

GO GANDHI! he is my favorite linebacker in san diego chargers history ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Chess and Nabokov Make for A Niche Film
Obsession, love, tragedy are the always fertile, though familiar, subtexts of The Luzhin Defense, a Nabokov novel adapted into a visually gorgeous film. Unfortunately, for all Luzhin's passion for chess, for all the beauty of the lakefront location where it takes place, the film itself unfolds almost clinically and predictably. John Turturro looks throughout like an actor playing the part of a driven, socially inept genius. That of course is the problem --for me, at least, he never transcended his actor self to inhabit the part. Some of the plot devices are wooden, particularly one in which Luzhin's Svengali and former master teacher, Valentinov, somehow manages -- we are to believe -- to bribe the post-match limousine driver to lose Luzhin deep in the country, triggering his insanity.

This is not a movie for mass audiences. In fact, it passed virtually unnoticed in theater release. Its best selling point is the pleasure of watching the superb Emily Watson as Natalia Katkov. Leave aside the fact that she looks about as Russian as, say, Derek Jeter. Instead, watch the subtle and many ways she conveys by expression, body movement, and spare words the astonishment and joy of having a simple vacation with her pushy mother turn into a love affair she herself, and all around her, would never in her strangest reveries have considered possible.

One final note: The Luzhin Defense would probably have annoyed me no end if I knew more about chess. Knowing the little I do, two flaws are immediately apparent. First, in the scene when Luzhin's (John Turturro)clock falls, he is allowed to seal his next move, rather than losing, as is the case in chess competitions. Second, in the championship, one game is played for all the marbles (to mix metaphors as well as games). This is of course a huge disadvantage to the person playing black.

Bottom line: it's never going to make your all-time top ten list, but it is worth a watch.

Brilliant but confusing story of a mentally ill chess genius
Adapted from a novella by Vladimir Nabokov, this 2000 film is about the world of chess, genius, mental illness and romance. Set in the early 1920s in Italy, it stars John Turturro, cast as Aleksandr Ivanovich Luzhin, an unkempt, awkward and disturbed chess master who is about to compete in a world chess tournament in a upscale resort. Emily Watson is cast as Natalia, a wealthy socialite who is bored with her mother's matchmaking and is, instead, attracted to the lonely and weird chess genius.

We see flashbacks about Luzhin's life which tries to explain his madness. The relationship between the two lead characters deepen. The tournament begins. We're all rooting for Luzhin. And then, his former chess mentor, played by Stuart Wilson, appears out of the blue. Wilson wants to destroy his former protégé and plots with Luzhin's opponent to do this. I was confused by this character because I didn't think the background had set him up enough.

It all plays out with a sense of drama. The story was intriguing and held my interest. And, at the conclusion, Emily Watson is called upon to do something courageous. But in spite of excellent acting, fine lush settings and good direction by Marleen Gorris, the whole film just didn't jell for me. It was a good try, but there were too many parts that left me confused and it didn't add up to compelling drama. I therefore find it difficult to give this film more than a modest recommendation.

"Loose adaptation" : Nabokov :: Chess : Love
While excellent as a period-piece romance, this movie bears little semblance in substance or form to Nabokov's great novel of the same name. Of all Nabokov's novels, "The Luzhin Defence" is without doubt one of the worst candidates for adaptation to play or screen, because it deals so intimately-and so bravely-with the private obsessions of its protagonist, obsessions that are unconveyable on film by virtue of the medium. Movie characters cannot be seen to think; they may only speak.

The illustration, foremost in my mind, of where the book succeeds and the movie fails, is the penultimate scene, where Luzhin plummets to his death. In the movie, Luzhin's leap is only tenuously accounted for by his actions and thoughts. The idea in the movie is that Luzhin is so distraught that the business of life must supplant the business of chess, because playing chess makes him ill, that he kills himself. He has lost so much of his life to an immersion in chess that at this stage there is no turning back; no readmission into society, no retracing of the lost years into a normal existence is possible. He cannot re-learn his lifestyle and mode of existence, an understanding that rocks him to the very core. He cannot be happy without chess and he cannot be healthy with it, so the only way for him is an end to it all in suicide.

Nabokov's brings his character to somewhat similar conclusions, but in a much more vivid way. Where in the movie Luzhin's silent motives can only be guessed at through inference, in the novel the solipsistic universe of the fat chess genius (yes, he is fat in the novel) is laid bare, with all its crevasses and mountaintops intact. This, in fact, is the virtue and purpose of the novel as a form. It is limited in that it cannot show actual, physical things to the reader, but in exchange the author has supreme control over his characters' actions and thoughts. Nabokov is a novelist, and exploits the novel's virtues and possibilities like a master. His novels are not prose dramas. They are novels, whole novels, and nothing but novels. Because Nabokov is so on the side of the novel, and not the drama (although he wrote a few plays in his life, including a script for "Lolita"), a metamorphosis into spoken lines is very likely to be suspect.

As a result, the movie, in comparison with the book, comes off as shallow and unworthy of its title, especially given the director's own admission in the commentary included on the DVD that the script is a "loose" adaptation of the novel. Absent are the flares of Nabokov's bewildering inspiration and, notably, his consciousness of the kalidescope of hidden combinations, feints, bluffs, and traps that characterize chess and inform the very construction of the novel.

Yet as a "loose" adaptation, "The Luzhin Defence" is better than decent. Though the stock character of the evil former chess teacher is an obvious lowlight, Emily Watson and John Turturro are excellent, as is the cinematography. It just would have made more sense if the movie's title were something other than "The Luzhin Defence," because Nabokov's novel it is not.

Stereotypes, not archetypes
I watched "The Luzhin Defense" last night for the first time. I have a passing familiarity with Nabokov having read the first hundred pages or so of "Lolita." Yet I suppose this is another way of saying that I am not at all familiar with his work (and I abandoned "Lolita" when its style, while impressive, wasn't what I was looking for at the time. The recent film adaptation, however, with Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain, was stunning.)

I planned to wait until I was older, perhaps having more time, to plumb the depths of Nabokov, particularly his novella "The Defense" upon which director Marlene Gorris's adaptation is based. I like chess, though am terrible at it, know that Nabokov played (it is called the other form of Russian alcoholism), and wanted the time to fully appreciate the writer at the height of his powers.

Considering the state of television in general, getting a chance to watch anything else is opportunity indeed. So I was keen, in this respect, to see the film. Gorris had written and directed "Antonia's Line;" Emily Watson, I admitted later to my girlfriend, I am in love with due either to her immense talent or beauty; and John Turturro continues to add to his important contributions to independent film.

But "The Luzhin Defense" is more disaster than disappointment. It can't seem to decide what it wants to be while falling into the trap, I assume, of attempting to be true to the novel by copying it chapter for chapter. The result is linearity, the chance for real character development and explosive dramatic tension all but squandered.

The actors, scene by scene, seem to know what to do, know their respective characters, and know well the mood or atmosphere of each scene as it relates to the overall story. Thus, this ultimately is a failure of direction.

With such intelligent individual performances to come off as well-worn stereotypes -- eccentric genius; gorgeous debutante quickly entranced by him; dismissive, wealthy mother opposed to the match; arch-chess enemy threatening to beat genius yet again; and jealous former teacher looking to undermine genius -- the film is something on par with an all-star sports team looking silly as it is trounced by a less than spirited pick-up squad.

I searched around for other reviews online and found this by Alan Stone of the Boston Review:

"I can think of none that is more disrespectful to the spirit of its author than The Luzhin Defence. Gorris, who started her career as a fiercely independent feminist, has made a cinematographically beautiful film empty of Nabokov's ecstatic genius, his prescient psychology, and her own original talent."

Love, Life, Chess...and......Obsession!
This review refers to the Columbia/TriStar DVD edition of "The Luzhin Defence"......

I'm not sure how I missed this little gem the last few years, but I'm glad I finally found it. I was browsing through the mark downs at my local video store and this one practically had flashing red lights. It is directed by Marleen Gorris, who I knew had directed another of my favorites("Antonia's Line") and to boot it starred two brillant actors...John Turturro and Emily Watson. It had to be worth a try....and well worth it, it was!

It's a deep and complex story, with characters that will draw you in with their every word and action. John Turturro is Alexander Luzhin. An eccentric but brillant chess player, who life consists of nothing else. He is called "The Maestro", by others in his circle, admired for his genius and expert abilities. He lives, thinks, breathes, even sleeps, nothing else. Basically he has been obsessed, since the age of ten.That is until the wonderful Natalia(Watson), turns his thoughts to love and marriage.In a very short time, she seems to be the one who understands him, and cares deeply and is able to introduce him to the wonders of life outside of the chess world.

They will be married as soon as he wins the most prestigious match in Italy. But life takes another turn for Luzhin, when a mysterious man from his past turns up and is out to destroy him. The storyline becomes one of intrigue as this real life chess match becomes more serious with each move.

Miss Gorris engages us from start to finish.The love scenes are beautiful and touching, the mystery captivating, and the characters are very real. The ending was totally unexpected and took my breath away. Turturro is nothing less than brillant in his portrayal of this eccentirc, complex being. Emily Watson shines as the woman he finds solace with. Together they have a magnificent chemstry.Two others I must mention are Alexander Hunting, who's performance as the young Luzhin was remarkable and Alexandre Desplat who adds beautiful music to go along with this beautiful story.

The DVD is very nice. Excellent pictue in Widescreen(1.85:1), rich colors and fabulous sound in DD5.1(you also have the choice of 2-channel Dolby surround)..follow the chess pieces through the menu to choose. Features include Dircetors commentary, a making of featurette(there wasn't much to this), some theatrical trailers and has subtitles in French, English and Spanish for those needing them.

This is a definate keeper. One I will probably view often, maybe even to the point of obsession!...enjoy....Laurie ... Read more

Description

In this energetic and bold adaptation, Conan Doyle?s legendary characters are portrayed with a pace and vigor that capture the spirit of the original story. Sir Charles of Baskerville lies dead on the moors of his family estate. The look of abject fear on his face and the presence of animal footprints around his corpse suggest the impossible; that the ghost of a fearsome hound, long feared by the Baskerville family, is responsible for his death. As the new heir, Sir Henry Baskerville takes up residence at the estate, legendary detective Sherlock Holmes and his trusted associate Dr. Watson arrive to investigate the mystery. ... Read more

Reviews (43)

Superb
I have enjoyed all the film versions of this great novella that I've seen (e.g., Rathbone/Bruce, Cushing/Lee, Brett/Hardwicke), and before I saw this one I felt the Cushing/Lee adaptation closest to the story's spirit. I am convinced that Conan Doyle would approve this new adaptation for it meticulously depicts: (1) the evil of Jack Stapleton (played to perfection by Richard E. Grant) manifest through the atmosphere he creates (i.e., rational fear of the natural dangers of the moors and the fear of the supernatural (the Baskerville curse and the mythic hound) as he works towards the end of murdering Sir Henry Baskerville; and (2) the true character of Dr. John H. Watson and the mutual respect between him and Holmes. Those familiar with the Sherlock Holmes canon will applaud this version's depiction of Dr. Watson as the brave, intelligent, discerning, and strong-willed companion Conan Doyle created.

The sole shortcoming of this version was that while it depicts Holmes as the sleuth-hound, it does not show either Holmes' deep concern for justice or his compassion for human suffering. (Viewers who want to see these traits should see either Rathbone's or Jeremy Brett's performances.) Richard Roxborough's depiction of Holmes is one-dimensional but -- incredibly -- that does not diminish this superb adaptation.

Purists, stop complaining and let go of this one; it gives too much pleasure.

FYI
DO NOT buy this DVD, "Hound of the Baskervilles" from Amazon.com, it is not a Region 1 -- I don't appreciate paying for a DVD then finding out that it is not Region 1 and therefore will not play on a North American DVD player. If a website wishes to sell Region 2 DVD's it should be honest and state the truth.

Vile Baskerhound Tosh
Yes - very difficult to revisit such a well-known story - but best advised not to try.

Why?

Roxburgh - plank. Hart - juvenile with weird head and lounge lizard tash.

Here in the UK the supporting cast are all better known than the leads - thus, you don't know who you're supposed to be watching. Much "Oh look, it's whats'ername..." slows matters to a crawl.

Excisions and additions - exiguous. Depiction of cocaine usage in toilet stall - presumably derived from hilarity-filled production lunches?

Dialogue not bad; moorland photogenically wet, much like entire production.

Avoid.

well done
This version of the Hound is very well done. Matt Frewer was the best Holmes of recent years, but Richard Roxburgh gives a fine performance and Ian Hart is good as Watson. Lots of atmosphere and some re-toolong make this an interesting take on the oft told tale.

Hounded by re-makes with a TWIST
There are two very good aspects to this new Holmeswork presenting the Baskerville legend. #1 The musical score is excellent. #2 The scenery is atmospheric and well suited to the purpose of the plot. But in looking at certain sections of film,can we seriously believe that our rather heavy set escaping prisoner outruns those guards? Oh, they fell into the bog...well that explains it! Watson as a rather quarrelsome character? (Very far from the Nigel Bruce edition) This updated version of the Hound twists the traditions of previous work to gain more drama to cover the lack of budget which pervades every update of films today. One need only compare this film with previous attempts or compare the Old Moby Dick with the recent debacle. In support of this version I will say that the actor playing Sir Henry Baskerville gave new vitality to the role and is perhaps the best performance to date. But against it finds Stapleton is really the Scarlet Pimpernel. Or shall I say the Scarlet Pimpernel was hired to play Stapleton but ended up revealing that he is really the Scarlet Pimpernel? There is no recount of the Baskerville legend in the traditions of previous films, you won't see the dramatic "Hell-fire Club" that was in the Hammer edition from 1959. No, we have humanized Holmes & Watson down to just two guys renting the same apartment receiving a doctor's call over his codified responses to an coroner's inquest. Also you might note the strong resemblence of Inspector Lestrade to an aging Lawrence Olivier (was this an intentional joke?) All in all it is time to stop updating the classics and place the classics on DVD. Let's face it, they just don't have the money anymore to do what should be done. I am giving this a higher rating than others due to effort in writing and some aspects of the work that are memorable but old Doyle deserved better. ... Read more

Description

Romance, suspense and wrenching jealousy abound in this adaptation of theDaphne du Maurier novel. Charles Dance stars as Maxim de Winter, a brooding English nobleman who marries a much younger woman is forced to live in the shadow of de Winter's first wife, Rebecca, whose memory is tenaciously preserved by a sinister housekeeper. ... Read more

Reviews (25)

Not Du Maurier and Not On Par With Hitchcock
When I first heard of this production on PBS's Masterpiece Theatre, I was thrilled with anticipation regarding how it would be played. Would it rival Hitchcock's masterpiece? Would it be marketed as a romantic escape?

Unfortunately, althought this version of Du Maurier's classic follows the book very closely and is over 2 hours longer than the original 1940s film, it just doesn't measure up to either Hitchcock or the book. Hitchcock downplays Du Maurier's portrayal of the strange relationship between men and women. Men are omnipotent---women, merely serve. Rebecca, too strong must go. Hitchcock plays up the Gothic touches with fog, music and a weakly played Max De Winter. The nameless heroine gathers strength as Rebecca is revealed to be intrinsically evil. But this is not Du Maurier's 'Rebecca'. In the book there is no win in the ending---the heroine simply remains a caretaker as she was in the beginning of the novel; her charge has changed from Mrs. Van Hopper to Maxim. The couple drifts like sad wanderers from place to place; as Du Maurier puts it, "There is no resurrection." In this adaptation and in Hitchcock, love seems to conquer all---an idea completely alien and misunderstood by most readers of Du Maurier.

First and foremost, the girl playing the narrator is not gauche or dependent enough--she has too much spunk and sparkle lurking behind the lank hair and the school girl dresses. Fontaine was ever so much more desperate to please as I think Du Maurier's heroine was meant to be. Du Maurier doesn't even give her a name. Dame Diana Rigg is an equally austere Mrs Danvers, but her portrayal is much too sad, not malicious enough and definitely suggests a [physical] attraction to her former mistress which seems mournful rather than simply obsessive like DuMaurier's character in the novel or Dame Anderson's character in Hitchcock's film. Charles Dance is not as taut nerved as Olivier, but he passes as an okay Max DeWinter with perhaps a third of Olivier's charm. Still, he comes off as weak as does Olivier in Hitchcock's version---neither fully portraying the strong silent brooding character of Maxim in the book. Lastly, giving Rebecca a voice and a body, is a mistake. Du Maurier's book is so compelling simply because we don't know anything about Rebecca and hence can envision whatever femme fatale we choose--the real Rebecca is a ghost; she remains a mystery to the very end--we don't know if she is really malevolent---we only have Maxim's word--or excuse for his own violent actions. We don't even understand her motives fully even after the production moves to the final scene at Manderley.

Nevertheless, if you simply love everything 'Rebecca', you will at least like this version, but, I guarantee it will provoke you to find a copy of the Hitchcock version at your local rental store or better yet a worn copy of the book at your library!

Certainly awesome
I watched this movie only after I read the book by Daphe Du Maurier several times at different ages. I am glad to say that it was very close to what I had imagined while I read the book. I certainly feel 3 hours are required for doing justice to the book. Though, it would have been much better had they spent more time showing how Maxim de Winter and the narrator fall in love in Monte Carlo. I feel that was too hurried and several details were left out. The last part where Max de Winter tries to save Danvers from the burning Manderley ought to have been avoided as it wasn't part of the story and only added melodrama.

The cast for this second version with Charles Dance, Emilia Fox and Diana Rigg couldn't have been better. The perfect English looking Charles Dance is the only one who could portray the reserved, austre and noble Max de Winter. I feel the difference in age between Max De Winter and the narrator was very accurately portrayed in the film. An older, more mature looking man was very vital for this role. Though the book says that Maxim was about twice the age of the young narrator, around 40, I always imagined Maxim to look older than that with all the fear and suffering he had undergone. Olivier certainly was not cut for this role in Hitchcock's version. I think Emilia Fox was also great with her lost, shy look.

I feel this version is probably the closest it can get to the book and the characters. The cast chosen was the best by far.

great !
A film highly recommended for Diana Rigg friends and fans. I like most. Terrific and great play Dame Diana !!

Love this movie but I too wish Hollywood would do a version
I liked this version of the movie much better than the original 1940's version; and it certainly does justice to the book. But I would love it if Hollywood did a version with Ralph Fiennes as Maxim, Jillian Anderson as Mrs. DeWinter (because she has those big doe eyes), Maggie Smith as Mrs. Danvers, and shown as the ghost of Rebecca, Madoline Stowe. The Rebecca in the current version is not mean and brooding enough.

I wish...
if only holleywood would undertake a newer modern version of this film. I've read the novel, and I like that this movie shows us a bit about rebecca. When reading the book I pictured Hugh Jackman as a wonderful Maximilian and Julie Benz as the ghostlike Rebecca with flashbacks to this mystery woman. I know it sounds strange, but I really feel they should remake this film. Maybe get Tim Burton to do it or something? :)
It was overall dissapointing. I hope they shall redo this someday. My friends agree with me on the casting though if it should ever be made. ... Read more

Reviews (25)

Not Du Maurier and Not On Par With Hitchcock
When I first heard of this production on PBS's Masterpiece Theatre, I was thrilled with anticipation regarding how it would be played. Would it rival Hitchcock's masterpiece? Would it be marketed as a romantic escape?

Unfortunately, althought this version of Du Maurier's classic follows the book very closely and is over 2 hours longer than the original 1940s film, it just doesn't measure up to either Hitchcock or the book. Hitchcock downplays Du Maurier's portrayal of the strange relationship between men and women. Men are omnipotent---women, merely serve. Rebecca, too strong must go. Hitchcock plays up the Gothic touches with fog, music and a weakly played Max De Winter. The nameless heroine gathers strength as Rebecca is revealed to be intrinsically evil. But this is not Du Maurier's 'Rebecca'. In the book there is no win in the ending---the heroine simply remains a caretaker as she was in the beginning of the novel; her charge has changed from Mrs. Van Hopper to Maxim. The couple drifts like sad wanderers from place to place; as Du Maurier puts it, "There is no resurrection." In this adaptation and in Hitchcock, love seems to conquer all---an idea completely alien and misunderstood by most readers of Du Maurier.

First and foremost, the girl playing the narrator is not gauche or dependent enough--she has too much spunk and sparkle lurking behind the lank hair and the school girl dresses. Fontaine was ever so much more desperate to please as I think Du Maurier's heroine was meant to be. Du Maurier doesn't even give her a name. Dame Diana Rigg is an equally austere Mrs Danvers, but her portrayal is much too sad, not malicious enough and definitely suggests a [physical] attraction to her former mistress which seems mournful rather than simply obsessive like DuMaurier's character in the novel or Dame Anderson's character in Hitchcock's film. Charles Dance is not as taut nerved as Olivier, but he passes as an okay Max DeWinter with perhaps a third of Olivier's charm. Still, he comes off as weak as does Olivier in Hitchcock's version---neither fully portraying the strong silent brooding character of Maxim in the book. Lastly, giving Rebecca a voice and a body, is a mistake. Du Maurier's book is so compelling simply because we don't know anything about Rebecca and hence can envision whatever femme fatale we choose--the real Rebecca is a ghost; she remains a mystery to the very end--we don't know if she is really malevolent---we only have Maxim's word--or excuse for his own violent actions. We don't even understand her motives fully even after the production moves to the final scene at Manderley.

Nevertheless, if you simply love everything 'Rebecca', you will at least like this version, but, I guarantee it will provoke you to find a copy of the Hitchcock version at your local rental store or better yet a worn copy of the book at your library!

Certainly awesome
I watched this movie only after I read the book by Daphe Du Maurier several times at different ages. I am glad to say that it was very close to what I had imagined while I read the book. I certainly feel 3 hours are required for doing justice to the book. Though, it would have been much better had they spent more time showing how Maxim de Winter and the narrator fall in love in Monte Carlo. I feel that was too hurried and several details were left out. The last part where Max de Winter tries to save Danvers from the burning Manderley ought to have been avoided as it wasn't part of the story and only added melodrama.

The cast for this second version with Charles Dance, Emilia Fox and Diana Rigg couldn't have been better. The perfect English looking Charles Dance is the only one who could portray the reserved, austre and noble Max de Winter. I feel the difference in age between Max De Winter and the narrator was very accurately portrayed in the film. An older, more mature looking man was very vital for this role. Though the book says that Maxim was about twice the age of the young narrator, around 40, I always imagined Maxim to look older than that with all the fear and suffering he had undergone. Olivier certainly was not cut for this role in Hitchcock's version. I think Emilia Fox was also great with her lost, shy look.

I feel this version is probably the closest it can get to the book and the characters. The cast chosen was the best by far.

great !
A film highly recommended for Diana Rigg friends and fans. I like most. Terrific and great play Dame Diana !!

Love this movie but I too wish Hollywood would do a version
I liked this version of the movie much better than the original 1940's version; and it certainly does justice to the book. But I would love it if Hollywood did a version with Ralph Fiennes as Maxim, Jillian Anderson as Mrs. DeWinter (because she has those big doe eyes), Maggie Smith as Mrs. Danvers, and shown as the ghost of Rebecca, Madoline Stowe. The Rebecca in the current version is not mean and brooding enough.

I wish...
if only holleywood would undertake a newer modern version of this film. I've read the novel, and I like that this movie shows us a bit about rebecca. When reading the book I pictured Hugh Jackman as a wonderful Maximilian and Julie Benz as the ghostlike Rebecca with flashbacks to this mystery woman. I know it sounds strange, but I really feel they should remake this film. Maybe get Tim Burton to do it or something? :)
It was overall dissapointing. I hope they shall redo this someday. My friends agree with me on the casting though if it should ever be made. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Only die-hard Bill Murray fans will likely consider this movie for their home-video library, but it's not without its rewards. You can see why someone as comically astute as Murray would agree to play a dimwitted American who can't tell the difference between improvised theater and a real-life espionage plot. There's certainly plenty of potential for belly laughs, and Murray milks the opportunities like the old pro that he is.Here he plays an American tourist in London who thinks he's been recruited into a street-theater act called "Theater of Life"; actually, he's stepped into a complicated spy scheme that plays like a cross between Hitchcock and the Marx Brothers. Joanne Whalley costars as the femme fatale who may or may not be a double agent, and along the way there's enough comical confusion to foil any number of idiotic villains. The movie stretches its one-joke premise to desperate extremes (Murray thinks he's in a play, so he's oblivious to genuine danger), and 95 minutes is more than enough time to exhaust the comedic possibilities. But, as always, Murray finds a way to mine gold from a few clever bits, and he cuts loose with some inspired lunacy during a climactic scene involving a hidden bomb and a troupe of dancing Cossacks. It's not Murray's finest hour, but give him credit for making the best out of a challenging situation. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Well written story, entertaining
A very clever script with some very well written situation comedy. I tried getting my teenage daughter to watch this, she thought it was extremely stupid, so the audience has to be right. I thought she'd enjoy it. I've watched it a couple of times and still found it entertaining and funny.
Murray plays a hapless American caught up in a ring of international espionage while thinking that he is just playing the part in an audience participation stage play in London. A lessor actor in this film and it would have a a complete dud, but Murray's talent shines and there aren't any dull moments. A scene near the end has him dancing with Russians while unknowingly stopping a time bomb, it is very well choreographed and lots of fun to watch. This movie is a strong recommendation to any that like Murray and his talent of being funny while seemingly not trying to be. It is a good recommendation to any that enjoy clever situation comedy and aren't expecting "What about Bob?" or "Groundhog Day" which this film is not.

A laugh out loud video!!
The first time i saw this movie i was in a movie theater and i couldn't stop laughing! I knew that i had to get the tape so i did. It is a little confusing in the very begining but once you see it a second time it makes a lot more sense. It's about Bill Murray's character who is brother's with Peter Gallagher's character. Bill goes to England(where his brother lives)for Bill's birthday. Peter gives him a ticket to "the theater of life"- a performance you play as the main character. In the performance, it takes you around town acting as if it were real life only there are actors everywhere to help you along the way. It sounds confusing but you'll understand when you see it. Anyway, Bill loves the present but somethng goes wrong. Bill get's mixed up with the wrong people who think he's a killer but Bill thinks it's all part of "the theater of life". but it's not the performance, it's real life! Bill get's close to dying so many times but he doesn't even realize how much danger he's in. All throughout the movie Bill thinks it's just a performance. In the end everything turns out fine and he even get's the girl! The only thing i didn't like was that Peter Gallagher was Bill Murray's brother, they don't look anything alike and Peter's really ugly! But other than that it was a hilarious movie and you're really missing out if you haven't seen it! go see it now before it's too late!

What a hoot!! Too many great scenes to list them all..
Confusion is often funny, but sometimes it can lead to danger. In this film, confusion and danger, coupled with a marvelous cast and excellent comedic script, take us on a heckuva fun trip to London. The whole of the underbelly of the world of duplicitous spies and sneaky secret agents is cut to shreds by a simple, unsuspecting video store clerk from Iowa. Absolutely hilarious, and Bill Murray is his zany best. Joanne Whalley is the cat's meow, and is perfect as Murray's cohort. Just the mix-up of the real and pretend torture doctors is worth the purchase. You will laugh until you can't cry any more tears.

Lori Wants Her Letters........
This movie was a real surprise for me and my wife. We rent a lot of comedy movies and have passed this one up a couple of times thankfully having picked it out just recently and now intending to buy it.

Murray plays a very funny underachiever who just so happens to get involved with international intrigue, yet he thinks he is involved in a one night reality TV program. His straight side kick in the movie is Joanne Whalley playing Lori.

Murray is a crack up throughout the film thinking he is in a movie and thinking that all of the spies and diplomats are actors staying in character.....he is the funniest since Groundhog Day in this. I feel he is better than 'What About Bob.'

Peter Gallagher plays his brother and the funniest interaction he has is with an actual police officer where Gallagher, who funded Murray's intended movie romp, thinks he is talking with an actor and as he gets angrier he just gets funnier.

The movie has a lot of funny scenes that I laughed throughout. I thought the first part of the movie was little slow in developing but as soon as he got the call for what he thought was the reality show, things really took off.

I laughed and laughed as he got chased, shot at, tortured and then all through it he thinks he is in a show.

If there is a movie you want to share with friends for a nice fun evening this it.

Delicious Desert for Bill Murray Fans
This is an enjoyable, lightweight Blake Edwards-style farce that gave me plenty of belly laughs. Bill Murray is such a good comic actor that he takes what ought to be a one-joke pastiche and milks it for every last drop of comedy. I've seen bumbling detectives and secret agent spoofs before, but Murray turns this into something special. I wouldn't rate it as highly as "Ghostbusters" or "Groundhog Day" but "The Man Who Knew Too Little" is enough of an overlooked gem for me to recommend it. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Too Superficial Adaptaion of Turgenev's Classic Novella
This film credits as its source two Russian stories -- Ivan Turgenev's "First Love" and Anton Chekhov's "The Peasant Women" -- but the basic plot is based on the first one, a classic novella about a young boy Vladimir, who suffers growing pains during the short summer vacation in Russian countryside. The second story by Chekhov is used as a sub-plot about a man and woman and their illicit love.

Nick Stahl is Vladimir Petrovich, taking summer vacation with his parents in sunny Russian countryhouse, and to their neighborhood comes a girl Zinaida "Princess" Zasyekin and her mother. Vladimir instantly falls in love with this capricious girl, much elder than him, and starts to haunt the house where her mother, apparently down-at-heel, lives. The girl's innocent, comical flirt with other suitors, including Count and Doctor. continues until the day when Zinaida, Vladimir finds out, really falls in love with someone he doesn't know. But who is he? And what should he do?

The book's story about tormented love, which poisons the young heart, is barely visible in the film, but the result is simply deplorable, because of its too superficial treatment of the subject. The identity of the lover looks too abruptly revealed, that is one problem, but more annoying is that we are not convinced of the relations between these people. The book tells us about the tacit understanding and compassion between Vladimir and his father, but as the film fails to deliver that part, some of the viewers would not understand the painful experience of Vladimir at the end of the story.

As to actors, Nick Stahl cannot hold the center of our attention, lacking the emotional power those young boys of 16 yeads old should have, and Kirsten Dunst, despite her best efforts, is miscast as a Russian beauty who changes the life of males surrounding her. And when Julie Walters ("Billy Elliot" "Educating Rita" and Harry Potter series as Ron's mother) looks very irritating as old Princess, being too vulgar and noisy for the part, you can tell there is something wrong with the picture.

I think that the mishmash cast should be blamed -- some American, some British, all cast as Russian -- but more unaccountable decision is inclusion of Chekhov story. Well, the point may be that the sub-plot should introduce a broader scope of viewpoint into this rather simple story of Turgenev. One about aristocratic people, one working class people, both about doomed love. The idea is all right, but as other reviewers rightly say, the second story looks too ineffective and too short (it consists of only about 20 minutes), lacking the sense of closure. The original Chekhov story offers more to tell, but what is more important is that it looks too banal, stripped of the original's atomospheric descriptions.

I tried to like this, and there are some merits, I can say. The photography is beautiful, and costumes and production designs are done decently. But the film shows no finesse for conveying the subtle touch of the book about the lost dreams and youth, and the film's changed ending is too awful. Zinaida would not say that.

movie fan in denver
Lets be a little more objective than some of the other so called "reviews". If you don't like PBS Masterpiece Theater type stories you won't like this one. The cinematography is excellent (especially with widescreen), the soundtrack is good, the costumes are pretty, Nick Stahl is boyish and handsome, and Kirsten Dunst is ravishing as always. If your're looking for a major block buster movie this it is not. Granted the plot is a bit week and confusing but much more entertaining than the average kill, rape, pillage type of action films so prevelent these days. So mindless viewers in search of action stay away. Anyone interested good film technique and a more thoughtful and slower paced story should be reasonably satisfied.

confusing movie
This movie was confusing
...

It's also hardly believable that grown men would sit around for hours playing kiddie games and squabbling like nursery school children over who got to "kiss her hand." Especially considering how concieted, rude and bossy she was.

The "peasant plot" ended abruptly in the middle of the movie, and was poorly done all along. Denis seemed unconvincing as a man in love, he seemed like a sneak, always spying on this woman. I swear I thought he was going to murder her when he was lurking around in the shadows. When he proclaims his love for her nobody cares, because we hardly know either one of them nor saw them interact previously. We never knew what happened to the woman, her poor husband, and Denis. Does the heartbroken husband leave? Does Denis kill him? Does the woman run away and leave them to duke it out? Who knows.

Sometimes the dialouge seems too modern and out of place for a period piece.

The ending is also horribly disturbing, ...

...................
This movie is worthless because it lacks a clear plot. The ending makes no sense at all. Close to the end of the movie the boy discovers that his father was the lover of Zinaida. But what of it? Why was he? It is not explained. It is unclear what the point of the movie is supposed to be. It looks like there is not any point.

Read the books, otherwise, this movie will be confusing
The previous reviewers expressed confusion over the plot. If you've never read the books on which the film was based, you'd definitely be confused. I've read both and, still, there were parts that were confusing--like the part the previous reviewer mentioned concerning what Zinaida was doing with the steaming pot when he saw her and his father through the window. Very odd! This was NOT in either of the books!

Despite the confusion, the movie was okay enough. Certainly not the best movie ever made, and they DID abandon the "peasant" plot midway through, which, was indeed bizzare as well. I saw the movie on TV for free. Probably wouldn't buy it. ... Read more

Reviews (29)

it's the movie, not the book that's being reviewed...
I have never read the novel of Moll Flanders, and besides, that's not what we're reviewing anyway. We're reviewing the movie itself. From my unbiased opinion, I think it was a great movie, well executed from the cast members. The little girl was an astounding actress for her age, and I'm quiet surprised that I haven't seen her in any other movies. Robin Wright did very well, because, I take it, Moll is a very challenging part. Moll is a multi-faceted character and I think any actress would have a very hard time pulling off. So congradulations to Wright. And, as usual, Morgan Freeman pulls off a wonderful performance. Stockard Channing is also very good at being evil, so the part suited her well. All in all, it's a good film to rent when all of the modern stuff seems like trash.

Where's Defoe's version?
I liked the movie. Don't get me wrong. However, this version of Moll Flander's tale deviants so dramatically from the version written by Defoe in the 18th century. Instead of our heroine, his the early version being the victim of money's intense seduction, of trading her morality for money and compassion for commodification, Densham's version of Moll Flanders is a frosting-type Cinderella whose beauty and innocence give her her just reward, money. I'm not exactly sure what the director, screen writer is trying to say here. That virtue isn't it's own reward, but that with luck and good looks, eventually you'll get the cash you need to own a estate in the Bahamas?
Either way, the movie's romance hooked me. I love to see true love conquer all.
It was a good movie.
I just wouldn't try to watch it and compare it to Defoe's version.

Not Moll Flanders at all
If you are a fan of period piece movies and only care about the movie, not the book, this is a nicely done period piece movie. It is nothing like the version of Moll Flanders starring Alex Kingston which I also liked very much. I have a huge collection of period piece movies and am glad I added both versions to my collection.

Read the book, but don't cast this movie aside!
I first read the *book* Moll Flanders when I was in eighth grade, and I loved it. Then I saw the Masterpiece Theatre adaptation of the novel, and loved that. When I saw this title at the video store, I thought I'd give it a try.

First off, as other reviewers have stated, it is nothing like the novel save the name of the main character and some of the "adventures" she has. HOWEVER, as a story it is not bad. Take a movie adaptation like "The Scarlet Letter" (with Demi Moore) or "Queen of the Damned" (with Aaliyah)--those are horrible adaptations of great books. This movie, however, is a good story in its own right, and not really an adaptation at all. The acting is good, the sets and costumes are pretty, and the plot, while not life changing, is moving and interesting.

My advice: 1)Read the book. 2)Watch the Masterpiece Theatre adaptation. 3)Watch this version, but keep an open mind and don't expect to see the same story that you read in the novel.

An enjoyable film
Personally I prefer the masterpiece theater version to the Moll Flanders story, but I don't believe that this one should be cast aside. Yes it doesn't follow the book, but for what it was written to be, it was excellent. The acting, costumes, and sets were wonderful. I just watched it last night as a matter of fact. Stockard Channing brings radiance to the screen as always. There is much to be appreciated. If you want better accuracy to the story, buy the masterpiece theater version. If you have an appreciation for great acting and art direction, buy both. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This inspirational coming-of-age tale set in 1950s Ireland is a disarmingly bittersweet adaptation from the bestselling novel by Maeve Binchy (author of Circle of Friends). The strong-willed protagonist--a shopkeeper's daughter from windswept Castlebay--takes on the world, escaping her small class-conscious seaside town for the challenges of university life in Dublin. What she finds is a world more complicated than she'd imagined. Like Circle of Friends, Echoes translates beautifully to the screen. The result is a profound affirmation of the risk taking, commitment, and everyday epiphanies involved in becoming an adult. --Tara Chace ... Read more

Reviews (3)

A haunting story of love and friendship
This was in Ireland in the 1950's. The houses near the sea in the town of Castlebay, hear the sweet rustle of wind. Claire who has poor parents excels in school under the tutelage of well I forget her name. They form a friendship that lasts over the years. I think her teacher sees a kindred spirit in Claire and vice versa. They both have had troubles in love and they both have come from poor families and are extremely smart. Not fitting into the poor end, yet not fitting into the rich end. Outsiders in a way. I think the teacher's brother has brought her some respectability other than the teaching because he is a priest, yet all is not right here and another side story develops. Clair falls in love with David, who is of the rich side. She gets, well I won't tell, but the ending is different and sort of sad, just the same feeling you kind of get when you hear the rustle of wind in Castlebay, a sort of sorrow or grief, but also a whole lot of breathtaking beauty.

Lisa Nary

brilliant
This video is an excellent adaptation of Maeve Binchy's novel.
The story is set in the Irish town of CastleBay. Clare O'Brien the grocers daughter dreams of an academic career in Dublin, Gerry the local photographer wants fame and wealth, David Power the doctor's son was t to be a cosultant in Dublin. Angela O'Hara the local teacher who helps Clare to gain scholarships to both secondary school and university , has her own secret, her brother a priest has a japanese wife, and he wants to bring her home to meet the locals!Not quite the thing to do in 1950s Ireland. Clare, Gerry and Davids' lives are linked in way that has tragic consequences, as none of their lives turns out the way they wanted. If you enjoyed the book then this video will not dissappoint.

Interesting....
I did not even know that another Maeve Binchy book had been adapted for the screen until very recently, so I was very excited when I came across this version. However, I must say that I was a bit disappointed. First, let me say that "Echoes" was beautifully and very faithfully adapted, but it did not grab my attention the way "Circle of Friends" did. I believe that "Echoes" was originally intended for Britosh television, as a four part series. Perhaps this was part of the problem. Had I been viewing it as a BBC or PBS special, my expectations might have been different, but I was expecting an actual big-screen or made-for-tv type movie.

As I mentioned, the series is very faithful to the book and I think the actors did a fine job, I just felt like it was a bit slow for movie, no big dramatic sequences, I kind of felt like it just went on and on and on...

Also, and I don't think this will spoil anything, the ending was a disappointment, whether you have read the book or not.

Overall, Maeve Binchy fan or not, I would give this video a try for curiosity more than anything. ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Well written story, entertaining
A very clever script with some very well written situation comedy. I tried getting my teenage daughter to watch this, she thought it was extremely stupid, so the audience has to be right. I thought she'd enjoy it. I've watched it a couple of times and still found it entertaining and funny.
Murray plays a hapless American caught up in a ring of international espionage while thinking that he is just playing the part in an audience participation stage play in London. A lessor actor in this film and it would have a a complete dud, but Murray's talent shines and there aren't any dull moments. A scene near the end has him dancing with Russians while unknowingly stopping a time bomb, it is very well choreographed and lots of fun to watch. This movie is a strong recommendation to any that like Murray and his talent of being funny while seemingly not trying to be. It is a good recommendation to any that enjoy clever situation comedy and aren't expecting "What about Bob?" or "Groundhog Day" which this film is not.

A laugh out loud video!!
The first time i saw this movie i was in a movie theater and i couldn't stop laughing! I knew that i had to get the tape so i did. It is a little confusing in the very begining but once you see it a second time it makes a lot more sense. It's about Bill Murray's character who is brother's with Peter Gallagher's character. Bill goes to England(where his brother lives)for Bill's birthday. Peter gives him a ticket to "the theater of life"- a performance you play as the main character. In the performance, it takes you around town acting as if it were real life only there are actors everywhere to help you along the way. It sounds confusing but you'll understand when you see it. Anyway, Bill loves the present but somethng goes wrong. Bill get's mixed up with the wrong people who think he's a killer but Bill thinks it's all part of "the theater of life". but it's not the performance, it's real life! Bill get's close to dying so many times but he doesn't even realize how much danger he's in. All throughout the movie Bill thinks it's just a performance. In the end everything turns out fine and he even get's the girl! The only thing i didn't like was that Peter Gallagher was Bill Murray's brother, they don't look anything alike and Peter's really ugly! But other than that it was a hilarious movie and you're really missing out if you haven't seen it! go see it now before it's too late!

What a hoot!! Too many great scenes to list them all..
Confusion is often funny, but sometimes it can lead to danger. In this film, confusion and danger, coupled with a marvelous cast and excellent comedic script, take us on a heckuva fun trip to London. The whole of the underbelly of the world of duplicitous spies and sneaky secret agents is cut to shreds by a simple, unsuspecting video store clerk from Iowa. Absolutely hilarious, and Bill Murray is his zany best. Joanne Whalley is the cat's meow, and is perfect as Murray's cohort. Just the mix-up of the real and pretend torture doctors is worth the purchase. You will laugh until you can't cry any more tears.

Lori Wants Her Letters........
This movie was a real surprise for me and my wife. We rent a lot of comedy movies and have passed this one up a couple of times thankfully having picked it out just recently and now intending to buy it.