Amazon.com

One of the most endearing and intelligent romantic comedies of the '90s, the Oscar-winning Shakespeare in Love is filled with such good will, sunny romance, snappy one-liners, and devilish cleverness that it's absolutely irresistible. With tongue placed firmly in cheek, at its outset the film tracks young Will Shakespeare's overwrought battle with writer's block and the efforts of theater owner Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush, in rare form) to stage Will's latest comedy, Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter. Jokey comedy, though, soon takes a backseat to ravishing romance when the beautiful Viola De Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow) disguises herself as a young man to wangle herself an audition in the all-male cast, and wins both the part of Romeo and, after much misunderstanding, the playwright's heart. Soon enough, Will's pirate comedy becomes the beautiful, tragic Romeo and Juliet, reflecting the agony and ecstasy of Will and Viola's romance--he's married and she's set to marry the slimy Lord Wessex (Colin Firth) in the near future.

The way that Oscar-winning screenwriters Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard enfold their story within the parameters of Romeo and Juliet (and even Twelfth Night) is nothing short of brilliant--it would take a Shakespearean scholar to dissect the innumerable parallels, oft-quoted lines, plot developments, and thematic borrowings. And most amazingly, Norman and Stoppard haven't forgotten to entertain their audience in addition to riding a Shakespearean roller coaster, with director John Madden (Mrs. Brown) reigning in his huge ensemble with rollicking energy. Along the way there are small gems to be found, including Judi Dench's eight-minute, Oscar-winning turn as a truly regal Queen Elizabeth, but the key element of Shakespeare in Love's success rests on the milky-white shoulders of its two stars. Fiennes, inexplicably overlooked at Oscar time, is a dashing, heartfelt Will, and as for Best Actress winner Paltrow, well, nothing she'd done before could have prepared viewers for how amazing she is here. Breathtakingly beautiful, fiercely intelligent, strong-willed, and lovestruck--it's a performance worthy of Shakespeare in more ways than one. By the film's end, you'll be thoroughly won over--and brushing up your Shakespeare with newfound ardor. --Mark Englehart ... Read more

Reviews (456)

Not of an age, but for all time. And better on DVD
Purists who turn up their noses at Shakespeare in Love don't know what they're talking about - or rather, don't know what they're missing. This was, after all, written by Tom Stoppard, author of some of the very best plays of modern times (Arcadia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead - the latter filmed with Gary Oldman and Tim Roth). He's done a splendid job of balancing accessibility with genuine wit. The screenplay is littered with allusions to the bard's works, and gives some great - albeit hypothetical - insights into how and why he wrote.

Beyond that, in true Shakespearean style, we are offered the "play within the play" - in this case Romeo and Juliet. Excellent editing gives us just enough to convey the mood of an Elizabethan performance, leaving us wanting more. This film does a great job of broadening the appeal of the most popular writer.

And don't miss the topical in-jokes - the "cabby" rowing the boat, and especially Glenda Jackson saying she knows what it's like to do a man's job (she plays "M" in the Bond movies). Bill S. would have approved. High praise indeed.

Top-Ten Romance, and One of the Most Clever Screenplays!
"Shakespeare in Love" is a triumph, pure and simple. With screenwriters Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman at the top of their game and feeding immortal lines to a top-notch cast, "Shakespeare in Love" could not fail to succeed.

The film opens with young Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) struggling with writer's block . . . he is clearly not yet the magnificent WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE (insert trumpets here), the world's most famous writer. Indeed, the top playwright of the age is Kit Marlowe (Rupert Everett), as Shakespeare is reminded several times. And young Will is also hopelessly infatuated with Rosaline, a woman completely unworthy of his affections.

After some psychotherapy that anticipates Freud, Will is no better. Still, heavily in debt, Will attempts to stage his next opus, "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter." Working with Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush, who would have stolen a lesser film with his perfect performance), who's also heavily in debt, Will seems headed for disaster.

That is, until he sees his muse, young Viola de Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow, never better). Smitten, young Will begins to write the romantic poetry that becomes "Romeo and Juliet." Viola, who recognizes Will's genius, meets Will through some classic Shakespearean disguises and mistaken identities. Of course, Viola is betrothed to a true slug, Lord Wessex (a plump Colin Firth), who plans to take her to Virginia in seek his fortune across the sea -- essentially sending her into exile.

Despite the roadblocks, Will and Viola are soon hopelessly in love. Viola, daring to breach the silly rule that only men can play parts on stage, has taken the role of Romeo by day. By night, Will and Viola write Will's most romantic play together.

"SIL" keeps the wheels turning mighty fast, and one of the joys of watching this movie over and over is catching a quick joke that you didn't get the first time around.

It's also a pleasure to watch this stellar cast go through its paces. While Judi Dench won her Oscar for her surprisingly brief performance as Queen Elizabeth, other actors turn in equally entertaining performances. Tom Wilkinson, Simon Callow, Martin Clunes, and Imelda Staunton each bring amazing proficiency to the supporting cast, and even the much-maligned appearance of Ben Affleck elevates the movie -- he is perfectly cast as a self-absorbed theater star (first line -- "What is the play, and what is my part?"). Affleck's comeuppance, when he realizes that he, as Mercutio, doesn't have the title role, is handled wonderfully well.

This is simply a movie that doesn't miss a trick. The film is shot beautifully, the extravagent costuming gets at the ridiculous conformity that we associate with jolly old England (and makes the torrid romance of Will and Viola that much more intimate), and the music is uplifting.

The film's final shot, as Viola walks along the beach and we realize that we've just seen the birth of arguably Shakespeare's greatest heroine, Viola of "Twelfth Night," is a masterpiece of powerful understatement.

This movie is simply a must for the film library!

A GOOFY YET DELICIOUSLY SEDUCTIVE ROMANTIC COMEDY!
The DVD casing claimed in big bold letters "Best Screenplay" Academy Award winner. I can surely see why! Must have been some deviously creative team that crafted this crisp comic period-piece.

The film is really two love stories: one a bawdy romance between two smitten humans, and the other an ode to the art of theatre. The writers'/director's love for showmanship is loud and evident throughout the brilliant screenplay, and if you're a fan of wordplay in any way, well then this is a surefire delight.

Both Paltrow and Fienners turn in lusciously romantic performances in their respective roles -- she pulls off the formidable order of gender-switching without a hitch, and he has just the right pitches and patterns for a young, struggling Shakespeare. Geoffrey Rush is magnetic as usual.

Don't be fooled by the Elizabethan accoutrements, this film and its arsenal of laconic quips could easily shoot several contemporary romances to dust. Buy this one in fact, don't just rent, it quite comfortably stands the test of more than one viewing..

Rush in an unforgettable role
Although Geoffrey Rush is not the star of the film, he delivers a memorable performance, as usual. Fiennes does, also. The costuming is very beautiful, and the humour is delightful. Highly reccommended.

Emotionally Fraudulent and Morally Offensive NON-Love Story
Before I start out, I should say that I am NOT one of those people who think they have to deride "Shakespeare in Love" because it's a "chick flick" and therefore unworthy(?!) of Oscars. Nor do I feel the need to condemn it for winning Best Picture over "Saving Private Ryan," as so many have done. I certainly do have a beef in that regard -- and it's that my own favorite film of 1998, "The Truman Show," wasn't even nominated for Best Picture! But none of these things have anything to do with my loathing for "Shakespeare in Love." My beef is solely with the offensive nature of the film itself. It's advertised as a love story, but is emotionally and morally empty when it comes to any notion of love.

You could see the writers straining to convince us that those two awesomely idiotic characters, Will and Viola, were really deserving to be the inspiration for "Romeo and Juliet." The film wanted to show that "the truth and nature of love" so magnificently expressed in Shakespeare's play resulted from this casual (and to my mind very unromantic) affair between a lying weasel of a married man, and an apparently dimwitted girl who can't be bothered to decide whether she wants to marry him or not, though she's being forced into marriage with a man she hates.

Starting out by having a man needing to fall in love for a mercenary reason -- so he can finish his play -- and then conveniently having him decide that the first pretty girl who comes along is the love of his life, doesn't strike me as a convincing way to start a love story. Did writers Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard really stop to think this out? From the beginning we know he's using this girl, and they never find a convincing way to show us that this ever changes.

The worst line in the film, to my mind, comes right after their first soft-core sex scene. Viola murmurs: "I never would have believed that there could be something better than a play -- even your play!" Will: "Huh?" Well, there goes any possible higher emotional or spiritual aspect to their relationship.

This is the deepest flaw in the movie (which was otherwise well acted, gorgeously shot and beautifully costumed). I could not enjoy it or buy into it in the slightest because the fundamental conception of the filmmakers was based on modern notions of love that don't go beyond the purely physical. Descriptions of love in Western literature have at least on occasion gone much deeper than that. The Will in "Shakespeare in Love" not only couldn't have written "Romeo and Juliet"'s dramatic sonnet "If I profane with my unworthiest hand this holy shrine. . ." he wouldn't even have been able to understand it.

Not to mention the glamorization of a man's adultery, and the strenuous attempts to avoid all the real-life emotional ramifications of such an action, in favor of a feel-good justification of it, in spite of the obvious harm to the young virginal woman who was used by a cad. But it's excused and made to seem no real harm, by having her anger abated by thinking Will is dead, then readily going back to him when she discovers he's alive (a cheap dramatic trick if I ever saw one). Above all, no matter what a real Elizabethan girl's attitude miught have been, Viola is made to adopt the "modern" attitude (love is just a "stolen season").

I think there actually could have been a believable story in the idea of Shakespeare falling in love while writing "Romeo and Juliet." Why not start with the historical fact that Shakespeare didn't even make up the plot of the play at all, much less make it up out of his own love life? In fact, "Romeo and Juliet" was an Italian novella that had gone the rounds of Europe, had been turned into a French play, an English poem and at least one preceding English play. What if Shakespeare finds himself adapting this love story, not believing in love, then actually falls in love in a way that resembles the plot of "Romeo and Juliet"? I think it would have been nice if he had fallen in love with a virgin like Viola, realized in all conscience he couldn't take advantage of her, and wrote his play out of his frustrated love, which he turns into art. I think it would have been more convincing. But of course then it wouldn't have been a Miramax film . . . ... Read more

Amazon.com

The press kit's historical notes should be standard issue for anyone who sees Alan Rudolph's (The Moderns, Choose Me) look at the famous intellectuals who dotted New York's finest hour in the 1920s. If you only know the names of Dorothy Parker, Robert Benchley, et al. in passing, this movie will hardly generate more study. These writers and thinkers, most famous for having lunch daily at the Algonquin Hotel, seem as weightless and thin as the fictional ones in The Moderns. Most luminous is Mrs. Parker (Jennifer Jason Leigh), whose passion for unhappiness is rarely interrupted. Leigh, in a performance that viewers seem to love or loathe, swirls "witty" dialogue with pure force and must be praised for keeping your interest in a life that was so dreary. The chief problem is not the performances (Campbell Scott is quite fun in a change-of-pace role); it's that the movie comes off as a taped show on stage: the characters are not real andit's all dress-up. Rudolph illustrates his main character's writing (donefar too seldom in writers' bios) by having Leigh speak Parker's poetrydirectly into the camera. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (21)

If One Has To Be A Voyeur, This Is The Way To Go
I won't argue with the reviewer who maintained that this film portrayed the players of the Algonquin circle in a stagy and unrealistic manner. It gives me smug satisfaction knowing the obvious hole in this criticism is that these ingredients can make a film great if done right. And done right it was in Mrs. Parker and The Vicious Circle. Each time I see this film, I experience the joy of watching the lives of luminous people through a peephole, a delicious voyeuristic journey into the unknowable literary past.

The thing about Jennifer Jason Leigh and her interpretation of Dorothy Parker's manner of speech? Did you ever sit through hours of Julia Child's famous cooking show and take note of the distinctive speech of this remarkable lady, also from New England? If Jennifer Jason Leigh were ever to star in a biography of Julia Child, she would either have to learn the idiosyncracies of Ms. Child's speech or not play the part.

Jennifer Jason Leigh is brilliant and almost became Dorothy Parker in the black and white scene where she recites a poem about all the things she shouldn't do and how she doesn't, after all, give a damn. That short scene was acting at the highest possible level achievement. Ms. Leigh recited the poem in characteristic Dorothy Parker style and conveyed the essence of the poem and the poet exclusively with her eyes.

I am proud that this pinnacle of dramatic performance was given by an American actor. So often, with all of the puerile bilge that pumps out of the filmmaking industry in this country, we forget that we have stunning talent to show the world.

Alan Rudollph temporarily back in form!
During the mid-eighties, Alan Rudolph was one of the enfants-terrible of filmmaking, along with John Hughes, Barry Levinson, Lucas and Spielberg. Then, for some reason, we lost him. After finishing off a trilogy that featured Keith Carradine and Genevieve Bujold, Rudolph proceeded to make ill-advised movies like "Made In Heaven", losing MY interest almost immediately. You'll remember, if you saw it, that this film featured Timothy Hutton and his then-wife, Debra Winger. Winger played God, if you can believe that.

Anyway, with "Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle", Herr Rudolph is back in form, going back to his "The Moderns" era, the 20s, but this time, taking a bead on the PSEUDO-bohemian life in flapper era New York, specifically the goings-on amongst the habitués of the Algonquin Round Table and various Condé Nast and New Yorker Magazine writers and editors.

Jennifer Jason Leigh is good as the acerbic Ms. Parker, but I can't help thinking that the somewhat well-known standup comic, Margaret Smith, would not have been a better choice. She has the mien, NATURAL speech pattern and delivery you would expect Dorothy Parker to have had, and her act consists of just the type of bromides and anecdotes you'd expect to come out of that droll lady's mouth. Leigh is just too cute and cuddly to portray such an acid-tongued, distaff reprobate!

However, some of the other actors portraying Algonquin luminaries were picked MUCH more carefully, specifically the two doing Alexander Wolcott and George S. Kauffmann. It is, however, almost disturbing that Campbell Scott, parlaying the famous Robert Benchley, bares not a WHIT of resemblance to HIS target, either in manner or appearance!

However, true to Rudolph form, the era is reproduced flawlessly, from the costuming to the set design and art direction. The writing is witty, esp. for the background male members of the Round Table. However, as good as Leigh is, you get the feeling that she is either trying to hard in the role of Parker, or is just about to nod off, her reading is so lethargic.

Don't get me wrong, I LIKE Jennifer Jason Leigh, I just think that the inimitable Ms. Margaret Smith would have been a much better choice.

Nonetheless, this is Rudolph again at his best....putting the microscope to an artistic microcosm and recreating the setting faithfully. Unlike any other director...Alan Rudolph is the undeniable KING of mood!

You could do much worse than rent or buy this highly atmospheric movie about a woman who is too often ignored in the world of cinema.

Mrs Parker vicious wit rules, okay!
The biting and caustic wit of Mrs Parker is bought superbly to life by the versatile actress Jennifer Jason Leigh who plays the brittle writer, critic and sometimes playwright to vulnerable perfection.

This is not an easy film to watch and I can understand why some people found it hard to get into. I mean the 1920s were supposedly a time of fun, jazz, speak easy booze and laughter all around, the Great War was over and life was back to normal.

However watching the desperation of Mrs Parker's generation, the bright young things drink themselves silly, take drugs and lash out at each other in a perpetual game of verbal cat-o-nine-tails makes you realise that perhaps everything was not as "normal" as most people hoped.

The film jumps back and forth through Mrs Parker's life, some of the best scenes are in black and white, and we are treated to subtle barbs, cruel wit and tasty treats in the guise of a crackingly good cast, with Mathew Broderick doing himself proud as the sweet talking but brutal rouge who abandons his pregnant lover (Mrs Parker), Andrew McCarthy as Mrs Parker's husband Eddie, fresh from war and addicted to morphine.

All in all this is a deliciously complex film that will you need to see more than once, well worth an evening in with a box of pop-corn and a friend to share the sarcasm, and the very satirical humour that runs through the film from beginning to end.

Could have been a great movie
I love the subject, I love Dorothy Parker, I adore Robert Benchley, I am really into the Algonquins at present. I've watched this film several times, but to no avail. If only I were not hearing-impaired, I might have understood more of what JJ Leigh is saying. As it is, I haven't a clue 93.7% of the time. I suppose closed-captioning would help, but for that I will need a newer television set. Did she have to be quite that slurry? The Benchley is well portrayed, but a bit too ideally. One is not prepared, from Campbell Scott's wholesome portrayal, for his cerebral hemorrhage from alcoholism as I was just turning one month old not far away. The sad fact is, Benchely was a teetotaler and pressed into drinking by his social set and film role stereotype. Anyone who has seen the real Benchley of the late thirties and early forties can see what it did to him.

Three stars, mostly for the other Algonquins.

this movie disrespects parker but still survives
Jennifer Jason Leigh is not the reason to watch this film. She shows no range in it what so ever. If you watch the black and white parts in the movie and the color parts of the movie, you'll see no change in Jennifer Jason Leigh's way of portraying Dorothy Parker. She's a depressed woman all the way threw, never light or happy. I thought the color sequence was supposed to be about Dorothy being a funny and witty writer with a personality that overshadowed her writing. At the table with her friends, she says nothing. As usual, Jennifer Jason Leigh slurs her words all the way threw the film. I think Jennifer Jason Leigh goes to work drunk because she did the same voice in "Dolores Claiborn" and "Hudsucker Proxy". She slurs her words in every movie except perhaps "Fast times at Ridgemount High" so don't say that the way she talked was a way of her trying to become Dorothy Parker. It wasn't, it was probably just a bad effect for all the boozing and pill popping Leigh has done in real life. Sorry to disappoint. What saves the film is Campbell Scott, who shows depth. He loves Dorothy and it shows but he respects her friendship too much to change it to romantic one because he perhaps he wants to look after her like a father does or perhaps because he's afraid of losing her friendship. He's the only person on this film who is amusing and brightens the entire film whenever he is in the scene. He outshines Dorothy and runs circles around her, she is certainly not the life of any party as she mopes around, slurring her words, acting like a old bag lady when she was supposed to be a engaging young woman with talent. The only time Dorothy is semi worth watching is when she is with Benchley. It is really sickening that Dorothy Parker was slandered by this film like this. The way they portray her husband, Alan in a black and white sequence is also sickening. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Most people didn't mind Gwyneth Paltrow's English accent in this charming, 1996 adaptation ofJane Austen's novel (which also inspiredClueless). But even if it doesn't sound quite right to you, there are plenty of authentic and wonderful Brit thespians in this film by screenwriter-turned-director Douglas McGrath (co-author of Woody Allen's Bullets Over Broadway), including Juliet Stevenson(Truly Madly Deeply), Alan Cumming(Buddy), Phyllida Law (Much Ado About Nothing), Ewan McGregor (the Scots star ofTrainspotting), and Sophie Thompson, outstanding and finally heartbreaking as the chattering Miss Bates. Paltrow plays Austen's benign busybody, Emma Woodhouse--so busy trying to arrange the lives of others that she is sidestepping her own. McGrath brings a kind of pretty and light touch to the production, his best move the wise delegation of creative authority to the actors themselves.--Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (195)

An all-around superb film
For some reason, people who see this movie either completely adore it or completely despise it. I will never understand those who despise it, because Emma is one of the most well-made movies I have seen. The entire cast is wonderful, with almost all of the actors accurately portraying the characters from Jane Austen's novel (which I believe everyone must read before they can fairly judge this movie). The score was excellent (apparently the Academy agreed) and the costumes were beautiful. Considering that Austen's novel is more than 400 pages long, I would have to say that the director did a fabulous job of turning it into a two hour movie. Gwyneth Paltrow is the exact Emma I envisioned when I read the novel for the first time, and Jeremy Northam is absolutely adorable as Mr. Knightley. The humor is subtle, but that is characteristic of most of Austen's novels. Despite the quality of this film, it's probably not for everyone. The language may be hard for some to take for two hours, and it is a period piece, which not everyone enjoys. However, I would still recommend this movie to anyone.

Brilliant in so many ways
Being a die-hard Austen fan, I couldn't resist watching this movie. Emma Woodhouse's story has always been my favorite of
Austen's efforts, and I am always glad to see her work brought to the screen. I was VERY pleased with this film.

Casting was well done. Northam provides a sturdy, but not overly-stern, Knightley, and Paltrow does an amazing job of convincing us that she is, indeed, British in her portrayal of Emma. Her accent is nearly flawless, and I felt that she truly captured the personality of Austen's most spoiled heroine. The sets and lighting are bright, airy, and perfectly suited to the comedic approach taken by this particular director. The scenes are edited just brilliantly. Each scene flows seamlessly from one to another, and the pace of the plot runs along just perfectly. It moves fast enough to keep everyone interested and slowly enough to make sure that everyone has enough time to absorb what's going on.

The criticism I've heard most often is that the film really only touches on the Jane Fairfax/Frank Churchill subplot for the briefest of moments. I did not find that to be injurious to the film. It's plain, while watching this version, that the director wanted to keep the story light and funny. Adding Jane and Frank's saga would have done two things: First, it would have seriously darkened and dramatized the bouncy and bright atmosphere of the entire film. Second, it would have taken the spotlight off of Emma Woodhouse as the focus of the story. I felt that, given the abbreviated length of time that a movie has in which to communicate a story...the omission of Frank & Jane's affair was a wise choice.

The second criticism I've heard of the film is that it's just too clean and "pretty" to be accurately representative of Regency England. Again...this didn't bother me. The focus of this film is NOT to be true to history. It is not a Regency documentary. It is a fun and aesthetically pleasing depiction of Emma Woodhouse and her friends. It's romantic, funny, charming, and very very pretty to look at.

I loved it.

Misguided, but somehow pleasing.
There's no reason this should work as well as it does. This is a very broad adaptation and the performances in general are unsubtle and broad as well. Ms. Paltrow's accent is heinous, and Ms. Collette's work is frankly annoying (though that is in part as written.) As the movie moves from set piece to set piece, lingering endlessly on the beautiful design, one can't help but think that if Ms. Austen's Emma had actually had so much to do, she'd have been little bored enough to spend so much time meddling in her friends' affairs. But in the end, the good will evinced by all involved somehow makes a film that charms very much in spite of several and severe flaws. The BBC version of Emma is much superior in adherence to the Austen story, and Clueless certainly has the edge for humor, but this is a fair adaptation that ultimately is more success than failure.

Love this movie!
Beautiful people, clothes, quirky characters and a flawed Emma make this movie enjoyable time after time. There aren't a lot of movies I can watch multiple times, but this is one I always enjoy!

Paltrow and Northam light up the screen!
Whether you've read the novel or not, this movie adaptation is enjoyable to watch. The characters are so vividly brought to life that it's impossible not to feel their joys and their sorrows. Paltrow is adorable as the young Emma and her scenes with Mr. Knightly (Jeremy Northam) spark with romantic chemistry. Mr. Knightly comes off as charming and very handsome thanks to Northam's own charm and classy good looks. Miss Bates makes you laugh but at the same time, she breaks your heart. Great sets, scenery, and acting by entire cast. Highly recommended! ... Read more

Reviews (194)

It makes you laugh, cry...and wonder
I truly enjoyed this sweet and unique film from Britain.It is a charming and thoughtful portrayal of a young woman named Helen (Gwyneth Paltrow)who is fired from her job, and finds parallel destiny in the doors of a subway train. It is a story of destiny, and how we can never truly escape what we are meant to do, even if we are going in completely opposite directions.

In one version, Helen misses the train, is mugged, goes home to her boyfriend Gerry (John Lynch) who has just finished an afternoon delight with his ex-girlfriend Lydia (Jeanne Tripplehorn). She then begins a series of menial jobs, unaware that her boyfriend is cheating on her. In the version where she makes the train, she meets the charming James (John Hannah) and returns home to find her boyfriend in the throes of passion with Lydia. She leaves him, moves in with her best friend, starts her own business, and begins a loving relationship with James. We see these two versions, and think we know which direction they are going...but it's destiny, after all, and nothing is quite that simple.

Gwyneth Paltrow is wonderful as usual, doing her British accent in between 'Emma' and "Viola". Her eyes become big as saucers when she is hurt, and she can express more emotion in a twitch of her face than many actresses can with their whole bodies. John Hannah is wonderful as James, the charming, kind, sweet man of most women's dreams, but still with his faults. I wish John Hannah, and this film for that matter, were more successful. I had never watched the film before, I had neglected to rent it many times, because I wasn't completely "aware" of the film. I regret not seeing it sooner. I cried my eyes out at the end, although I am a bit emotional. It is life seen from a different eye, and I highly recommend it.

A real gem full of surprises !
What can say ? I've seen this extremely funny and intelligently romantic movie about a dozen times after seeing it in the theater (and that's for lack of time) and I'm still not bored with it. I've shown it to people of all ages and both sexes and they all loved it. The "What if she had caught the rain?" becoming reality principle is not plausible of course but the rest of the movie is extremelly realistic.

Gwyneth is absolutely perfect, John Hannah delivers more one-liners than you could think of and yet never sounds contrived, his total lovability and his accent turn him into this so obvious babe. Jeanne Tripplehorn is cast in this very unrewarding role, yet -in one very memorable monologue especially- she manages to give it more than one "evil" dimension. In fact, all supporting roles are extremelly well-crafted and allow the movie never to see its pace slow down.

I should add that the first time I saw it I was wondering how the story would fall back on its feet in the end and I was so pleased to see how they had dealt with it. Thumbs up ! and thank you for this little gem.

Good, Bad, Good, Bad, Good Bad ending
The concept of the movie alone is worth watching the movie. How do lives change when you just miss those sliding doors of the subway?
In this movie both options are followed in the life of an excellent Gwyneth Paltrow. The first one she stays with her cheating boyfriend, in the other she doesn't.

This goes on for most of the movie. In the end there are some interesting twists.

The concept and acting are great, but maybe it could have been a little better worked out. It also looks more like a tv-movie instead of a feature movie, which can be seen in the lighting.

If I only caught that damn train....????
We've all had those moments where we wonder how different things would have turned out if we had just...fill in the blank here... This film takes that question and runs with it. This was a great movie and pretty unique. It begins as one story and then breaks into two based upon what happens if Gwyneth Paltrow's character catches a train or misses it. The filmakers did a wonderful job of distinguishing the two story lines to avoid confusion. If you love British movies this is a MUST. Its also more than just a "chick-flick". Paltrow did an amazing job on this film!

Double the Fun
I adore this charming little gem of a movie in so many ways that I can't even begin to count all the ways. I liked this movie so much that I didn't even mind Gwyneth Paltrow's sometimes annoying faux-British accent.

I have a "thang" for parallel universes, multi-dimensions, doppelgangers, and all that meta and non-meta physics stuff that my wee brain finds too complex to grasp yet I understood it just fine in this flick. It did help that the filmmakers created a different look for both Gwyneths - so much easier to tell them apart and keep up with the story line.

Gwyneth the Dark doesn't realize that her lazy scoundrel of a boyfriend is fooling around on her, so she slaves away trying to keep him in comfort so he can write his great imaginary novel. Gwyneth the Fair, on the other hand, discovers the rat in the pudding earlier on so she starts a new life, finds Mr. Right, a fabulous career, and a stylish new 'do to boot. Well, I won't tell you the ultimate fates of this two ladies except to say one is happy and one is sad. Surprise, surprise!

I highly recommend this to anyone who favors a bit of a twist in their movie romances and for those who do not like being confused. ... Read more

Reviews (20)

See It Once For The Story, And Again For The Acting
MALICE is one of those movies that you simply MUST see more than once to believe. The first time through, MALICE is a great psychological thriller, with twists and turns through a plot that contains rape, murder, life-and-death trauma, and a fight to the death...all within the first 45 minutes. The second time through, though, provides a look at all the things you might have missed the first time around...and a chance to savor an outstanding performance from perhaps the most underrated actor in Hollywood, Alec Baldwin.

Bill Pullman plays Andy Safian, an associate dean at a small New England college outside of Boston that's currently under siege by a serial rapist who claims his latest victim as the film opens. Nicole Kidman plays his wife Tracy, a volunteer in the pediatrics ward of St. Agnes Hospital. They're renovating a Victorian house and need $14,000 for the plumbing. Enter Alec Baldwin as Dr. Jed Hill, a former high school classmate of Andy's, who's brand new in town and needs a place to stay. Andy needs the money, Jed needs a room, so the two hook up and soon Jed is sleeping upstairs in the Safiens' home...usually not alone, and his sexual escapades are grating on Tracy's nerves. The rapes continue, Andy is fingered as a suspect, and in the midst of it all, Tracy collapses with a ruptured ovarian cyst. Jed operates to save her life (after a night of drinking and wild partying), but renders her unable to bear children...leading to a malpractice suit from Tracy and an incredible soliloquy on surgeons with a God complex from Jed during the deposition.

But once the first half of the film is over, things really start to roll. Without revealing the rest of the plot, suffice it to say that as Andy, Tracy, and Jed all try to start their lives over again, their fates become inextricably entangled.

The movie is worth seeing once as a thriller. But the second time around, Baldwin's mesmerizing performance is what stands out. Jed is charismatic, seductive, and as charming as a cobra as he weaves his spell over the Safiens. Baldwin's ability to jump from utterly charming to incredibly chilling in the blink of an eye is on full display here; it is truly the performance of a lifetime.

See it once for the suspense, and again for the acting.

More twists and turns than Spaghetti Junction
It starts out with the appearance of one type of movie, but before long the true plot begins to take shape. There are so many twists that it can get a little confusing, and may take a second viewing just to clear up those loose ends. On the whole, an excellent movie, with some great acting from Alec Baldwin, Nicole Kidman and Bill Pullman. To go into too much detail about the film runs the risk of spoiling the ending, but if you enjoy Hitchcock thrillers, then you would do well to watch this. Stephen Buxton

Twisting and Entertaining
Proper enjoyment of this diverting little feature requires not knowing the plot twists, so I'll try to not spoil that enjoyment in praising this film.

I join Roger Ebert in not being able to think of another film that throws in a serial killer as just atmosphere - I watched this movie when it first came out a decade ago, then again on DVD yesterday, and I had completely forgotten the part about the serial killer.

Aside from the fact that George C. Scott has left us, it would be difficult to assemble a cast like this wouldn't it? Alec Baldwin, Nicole Kidman, Bill Pullman, Anne Bancroft, Gwyneth Paltrow, George C. Scott, Bebe Newirth, Peter Gallagher all contribute to this film.

I love to watch films of any genre and any country and the sensation I like to have at the end of the viewing experience is "satisfied" - in the same way that I'd like my palate and belly "satisfied" by a good meal. This screenplay twists and turns, but rather than in a Charlie Kaufman "hey-look-at-how-many-unexpected-twists-and-turns-I-can-put-in" kind of way this story moves in a way that wraps up loose ends in a "satisfied" kind of way.

Especially used, this DVD can be had for a song also. It's a satisfactory way to pass a couple of hours.

Key Point Missed on Serial Rapist Subplot
The serial rapist subplot is not unneccessary....it involved Andy (Pullman) being a suspect and the police taking a sperm sample to prove his innocence. Turns out he's sterile....which sets the storyline for Kidman's preganancy and the whole story line with Jed (Baldwin)....this movie was excellently done and some of the quotes (even beyond "I am God")are super memorable

Great All star Cast!
Star studded cast includes Bill Pullman, Nicole Kidman, Alec Baldwin, Anne Bancroft, and Gwyneth Paltrow all gave a Great performance. Excellent Storyline and beautiful scenery. A must-see on your next available weekend! ... Read more

Reviews (335)

No sense of pace whatsoever
THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is really a shame. Here are all the elements of an engaging, literate thriller--decent performances, a remarkably disturbing and insightful story (thanks largely to Patricia Highsmith's novel), a chillingly atmospheric score, and a well-realized sense of time and place. The trouble is, I didn't give a damn. This movie is so poorly paced, so slow and uninvolving, that watching it is like trying to slog through a pond of molasses.

It doesn't help that Matt Damon is the wrong choice for the elusive psychopath, Tom Ripley. Damon isn't a bad actor, just a miscast one, and while he nails the various impersonations Ripley must perform and seamlessly switches between identities, he never really fascinates or enthralls on-screen. It also doesn't help that Jude Law, as Dickie Greenleaf, completely upstages Damon in an Oscar-nominated performance that's equal parts fire and ice. The only character less interesting than Ripley is Dickie's long-suffering fiancee, Marge, played by a terribly dull Gwyneth Paltrow, who looks almost as bored by the story as I was.

There are a few great, nail-biting scenes that expertly raise the tension, including the murder sequences and a climactic confrontation between Ripley and Marge. If only the rest of this movie were as rivetingly suspenseful. The denouement takes about half an hour to unravel--I soon lost count of the number of times I thought, "Oh, good, this is finally wrapping up" before the script dashed my expectations by plunging ahead with some new plot contrivance that would require an extra ten minutes to play out. Even at under two and a half hours, this movie feels eons longer than an equally self-indulgent project like...oh, say, TITANIC. The truth is, RIPLEY is smarter, craftier, and more psychologically plausible than TITANIC ever was. It's not a better film, though. How sad is that?

CLASSY & INTELLIGENT THRILLER
Mistaken for a Princeton graduate whilst wearing a borrowed blazer, the low born New York charmer, Tom Ripley (Matt Damon), is dispatched by rich businessman Herbert Greenleaf (James Rebhorn), to travel first class on an all-expenses-paid mission, to bring his errant young playboy son, Dickie (Jude Law), back to New York from his champagne and party filled life on the Mediterranean. However, on meeting the handsome and charismatic Dickie (and his equally attractive girlfriend), the awestruck Tom falls for his charms and an ambiguous relationship begins. Tom, the social chameleon who has talents for forgery and impersonation, feeling that he cannot enter this world as himself begins to transform his identity, by learning new skills, studying jazz, art, geography and foreign languages. He not only changes his clothes he also changes his character. Meanwhile the innocent and trusting Meredith (Cate Blanchett) who met Tom on his arrival in Europe accepts Tom as an equal because she thinks he is Dickie Greenleaf. But all is not well in the playground of the rich, for Dickie is in turns as unpleasant and rude as he is debonair and charming, and soon he and his rich friends begin to tire of the financially inferior and all too clingy Tom, who has no intention of being cast adrift, for it is his belief that "its better to be a fake somebody than a real nobody"...

The Talented Mr Ripley subtly portrays the hedonistic lifestyle of rich, young Americans in the 1950's. In the movie, Tom is less the casebook amoral psychopath of the novel and more a victim of class in his desire to be like the rich but cruel Dickie and Freddie. The film is, however, anything but simple and only about an hour in does the film become anything approaching an orthodox thriller. You are kept hooked throughout as we guess at Tom's motives..., which is at best ambiguous. We observe the mercurial Dickie toy with his affections, whilst Dickie's girlfriend Marge (Gwyneth Paltrow), aware of Dickie's weaknesses, looks on.

Although fans of the novel may be unhappy with the liberties taken with both the plot and the characters from Patricia Highsmiths novel, most people will agree that Anthony Minghella has done an excellent job in imaginatively and successfully bringing The Talented Mr Ripley to the big screen. Not only does he direct this excellent and very intelligent thriller with a sure and subtle touch but he perfectly captures the beauty of the mediteranean, as the movie moves from one spectacular venue to another; from San Remo to Naples, Rome, and Venice. It also stars a top notch and perfectly cast array of the worlds finest young actors, including Matt Damon (Good Will Hunting), Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare In Love), Jude Law (A.I.), as well as Philip Seymour Hoffman (Happiness) and Cate Blanchette (Elizabeth), all on top form. Damon's Ripley is an odd figure, his cumbersome awkwardness contrasting perfectly with Jude Law's cool and casual arrogance as Dickie Greenleaf, lolling around on his Riviera deck-chair as if the world owes him a living. And, although Matt Damon is truly outstanding, it is Jude Law's Oscar-nominated turn and Hoffman's brilliantly obnoxious performance as an ugly-rich American that come close to stealing the movie.

There are many unforgettable moments, in this beautifully crafted movie that Hitchcock would be proud of, as Tom struggles to maintain his dual identity. More dramatically satisfying than The English Patient, The Talented Mr Ripley is an intelligent film, carefully cast and immaculately performed. Highly recommended this for people who love suspense and prefer to watch movies that come with an IQ!!!

Horrible
I must say that this is one of the worst films that I've ever watched. It was very long, and very boring. I didn't care about what happened to any of the characters, as a matter of fact I didn't like any of the them. The story didn't unfold effortlessly but instead seemed to move slowly and with difficulty.

Beautiful Film With Dark Anti-Hero
"The Talented Mr. Ripley" is one of the most unsettling, vivid thrillers made since Hitchcock. Matt Damon leads an All-Hollywood Under-40 cast, including Jude Law, Ms. Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, and Phillip Seymore Hoffman (reprising his obnoxious spoiled brat from "Scent of a Woman," with his arrogance on steroids) in one of his most convincing performances to date.

Set in the 1950's, "Ripley" perfectly captures the look and feel of the period through rich costumes and fabulous sets -- director Anthony Minghella uses the same voluptuous direction that he used to such great effect in "The English Patient." But there are elements of subversion in the movie that match Ripley's subversive, evil soul -- the rise of jazz ("noise," as one character derisively calls it), characters who do nothing but spend their parents' fortunes, and homosexuality and adultery tearing at the rigid social fabric of the times all mirror Thomas Ripley's unnerving ability to manipulate the truth to his own ends.

Ripley is not content to be the best person he can be -- Ripley wants to be the best person that someone else could be. In this case, it's Dickie Greenleaf (Law -- fiendishly handsome), heir to a shipping fortune and ladies' man extraordinaire. Ripley is sent to Italy by the elder Greenleaf to retrieve his son, idling away on the beach with his girlfriend Marge (Paltrow). Teaching himself jazz and inventing stories of schooldays at Princeton, Ripley soon charms his way into Dickie's house.

Ripley knows that the key to being a great liar is to tell the truth as much as possible and allow others to draw their own conclusions. This takes great wit and timing, and Ripley pulls it off fabulously. For a while, things could not be better, but soon the impulsive Dickie tires of the ever-present Ripley, whose attachment to Dickie goes beyond mere friendship into unsettling territories. This leads to a horrifying boat trip where the two Ripley-proclaimed "brothers" speak truths that probably should have gone unsaid.

Ripley finds himself caught up in the world of his own making, and the lies he has spun threaten to ensnare him even as he uses them to break free from his former anonymous life. Delicately balancing new lies and capitalizing on what is, to our modern eyes, a quaintly obsolete communications system (my God, they actually write letters!), Ripley eventually finds himself living the good life in a wonderfully decorated Roman penthouse.

As good a liar as Ripley is, he can't prevent some from figuring out his various lies and secrets. And this is where the movie really gets dark -- Ripley is a man filled with rage, and that rage can lead to gruesome results.

Ripley is a man of considerable talents and appetites. His hunger for acceptance and for love -- there is virtually nobody in the film whom Ripley does not seduce -- is exceeded only by his instinct for self-preservation. Even Ripley is horrified by what he is capable of, and the climactic scene leaves no doubt that for all his talents, Ripley is not someone you ever want to meet.

"Ripley" achieves a lot of its effect through implication, and the films most charged scenes, whether violent or sexual, are actually quite restrained in what is actually shown on-screen. But like "Pulp Fiction," the scenes are perhaps even more powerful for not showing exactly what happens, but by their implications. In that sense, the entire movie is an implication, a set-up for future stories (there are other "Ripley" stories) involving our favorite murderous impersonator. I hope that Hollywood can pull it together to make another installment with Damon as the lead -- he nails it.

VERY GOOD STUFF
The Ripley charector is great to watch he is like a child trying to fit in, he knows something about himself is diffrent but he cannot describe it. Because you have to have a conscience to know the answer. I remember seeing the talented mr. ripley in the theatre and how pleased I was with the ripley charector. His charector was created some time ago and most people do not know it but he inspired most of hollywood's classic villians particuarly the hitchcock ones. Also see RIPLEY'S GAME. I think John Malkovich is even better in the sequel. ... Read more

Reviews (31)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (8)

ONE OF THE BEST documentaries to parallel historical events!
I was absolutely amazed at the filmmaker for their genius in telling some of stories of the most important lesbian and gay historical figures with that of current issues. A truly rich documentary without overloading you with too many facts.

The documentary follows the struggle of Kelli Peterson, the teenager that challenged her high school to register her Gay Straight Alliance. The film does a wonderful job in comparing her current struggle with those of the past in lesbian and gay history.

One of the most powerful segments in the film is about hte gay man who was behind Martin Luther King's civil rights demonstrations.

This is a very important film for all persons to see. Perfect for the classroom and for any other situation that will inspire people to be active and become activists!

Great historical record
This is a great documentary told in a manner to parallel the struggles of a high school student trying to organize a gay student union at her school. This documentary is not heavy-laden with tons of facts but is a highlight of many historical events showing the contributions of lesbians and gays in America's history.

Teachers may use this video to teach their students about tolerance and acceptance. This is a great resource for any person to keep in their personal libraries.

eye-opening
This film is a eye opening documentary focusing on a part of history denied by standard historical documents. A motivating force for gay activists and a great dose of reality for those of us in the "straight community"

A MUST SEE - FOR EVERYONE!
This outstanding video is centered on a modern day fight for equality as it engagingly weaves the reality of our history into today. This inter-twining allows the viewer to grasp how history impacts the lives of everyone, hundreds of years later. It's excellent in its story telling and point-making. I, too, believe this should be required viewing in all Jr. High, High School and College level cirriculum. It's invaluable because of how it invites the viewer to challenge stereotypes and question the false history they're being taught in some many books. THANK YOU!

A wonderful combination of history and activism.
This film draws from the personal experience of Kelli Peterson's attempt in 1996 to start a high school social club, and the obstacles she and her allies faced as a result. The film is worth seeing for her experience alone. But it is more than your average documentary. By interweaving vignettes of other gay people's lives and activism, (from Sarah Orne Jewitt to Barbara Gittings), the directors offer the viewer a complex look into what it means to be identified by society based on who you love. ... Read more

Description

Royal Tenenbaum (Gene Hackman) and his wife, Etheline (Anjelica Huston), had three children -- Chas, Margot, and Richie -- and then they separated. Chas (Ben Stiller) started buying real estate in his early teens and seemed to have an almost preternatural understanding of international finance. Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow) was a playwright and received a Braverman Grant of $50,000 in the ninth grade. Richie (Luke Wilson) was a junior champion tennis player and won the U.S. Nationals three years in a row. Virtually all memory of the brilliance of the young Tenenbaums was subsequently erased by two decades of betrayal, failure, and disaster. Touchstone Home Entertainment is proud to present Wes Anderson's hilarious, touching, and brilliantly stylized study of melancholy and redemption. ... Read more

Reviews (601)

A cast fit for a king.
Three words come to mind when trying to describe Wes Anderson's "The Royal Tenenbaums" in a positive manner: quirky, witty, and delightful. I also have three words for the film: long, laborious, and quirky (I say quirky twice because it works for and against the movie). As an exercise in subtle humor and acting zeal, Anderson's much-anticipated follow-up to his acclaimed "Rushmore" hits all the rights notes, but his style and storytelling are hit-and-miss, and the slight moments of comedic brilliance are few and far between.

If for nothing else, you must see "Tenenbaums" for its terrific cast, led by Gene Hackman as Royal Tenenbaum, the matriarch of a family destined for dysfunction from the minute he said "I do." The movie begins with his divorce from his wife, Etheline (Anjelica Houston), which has some serious effects on his already-otherworldly children, Chas, Richie, and Margot, the adopted daughter whom Royal sees fit to disclude from major family events. As the children grow in the education-oriented household of their mother, they go on to become great successes in their time, eventually going their separate ways into adulthood.

Picking up many years later, everyone is much older, and things have changed. Margot has lost touch with her play-writing ability and confines herself in the bathroom endless hours of the day. Chas sees it fit to hold emergency fire drills for his two children as a result of the death of his wife. Richie has been sailing around the world, all the while thinking of Margot and falling in love with her. Ethel is on the brink of marriage to her business partner, Henry Sherman (Danny Glover), and Royal is flat broke and in need of a place to stay.

I must say, I think this is probably the best ensemble cast for a movie since Paul Thomas Anderson's "Magnolia." Hackman is anything but lacking in his performance as a man who knows exactly how his family and friends feel about him, and doesn't give a second thought to it. He has a delightful way with words that makes Royal a real treat to watch, adding small touches of comedy to scenes that would otherwise be melodramatic. His scenes with the equally brilliant Houston are funny and engaging; Houston, after a somewhat lengthy absence from the screen, manages to employ a real sense of motherhood in her character, the kind of warmth and quirkiness that one easily warms to.

As adults, the Tenenbaum children are played by Ben Stiller, Luke Wilson, and Gwyneth Paltrow. Stiller, as Chas, exacts a frantic sense of paranoia that will later become the tie that binds him with his father, and carries it off with humor and zeal intact. Wilson, as Richie, is kind and caring, seeing people for their good rather than their bad; as Royal's sole companion throughout much of the film, he will try to use this to keep his family together. As Margot, Paltrow almost steals the show all for herself, playing her character's depression and restrained angst in a manner that brings to mind Thora Birch's character in "Ghost World."

The story hook comes when Royal announces his impending death, which gives him cause to seek out his family and reconcile with them within the six weeks he has been given to live. Of course, we soon know he is not really dying, but the change in him as a result of being surrounded by his family is quite evident, and his quest takes on a greater meaning. All the while, each of the characters is subjected to some part of their past, or their present fears and inhibitions, and must learn to realize them, face them, and overcome them. This allows the cast to really show audiences what they are made of, accepting the challenge of portraying each Tenenbaum's personal struggle realistically; of course, they succeed in doing so.

This is all done in an absolutely off-the-wall approach by director Wes Anderson, who employs such an offbeat feel that it almost becomes unbearable. I was tickled by the fact that no one hardly ever changes clothes throughout the movie... Paltrow with her single red hair clip, Luke Wilson with his headband and sunglasses. The opening credits and title sequences, the music (including the classic Peanuts' theme "Christmastime Is Here"), all strive to elevate the movie to a magical level, but the heavy reliance on quirkiness, as well as a stark absence of continuous comedy, all seems to overpower the potential that it has. It uses the wit of its cast to its advantage, but there is nothing within the story that will provoke a guffaw instead of a mere grin or a chuckle here and there.

Looking back on "The Royal Tenenbaums," I realize that my reservations about the movie are my own fault: I expected too much in terms of outright humor. The laughs here is subtle, which is a tough pill to swallow at times, especially when the material shows great comedic potential. Overall, I enjoyed the movie for much of its dry humor, its strong characterization, and its wonderful use of such a brilliant cast.

The Funniest in Years
Some said Wes Anderson got cocky. He had just directed two wildly popular indie films ('Bottle Rocket' and 'Rushmore') and wanted to do something big. With a big ensemble cast and a better budget, Anderson and co-writer Owen Wilson have delivered the funniest movie in years, and one that will definately be remembered.
Royal Tenenbaum (played with pinache by Gene Hackman) has spent the last 22 years of his life in a hotel after an ugly seperation from his wife, Etheline (Anjelica Huston). Etheline raised their kids in the house at 111 Archer Avenue with strange results; the children are brilliant, if not a bit eccentric. Chas was buying and selling real estate in his early teens, Margot (the adopted one) wrote successful plays and got a $50,000 grant in the 9th grade, and Richie was a tennis pro at a very young age.
Years later, after Chas' (Ben Stiller) wife dies in a plane crash that he survived, he moves back to the house at 111 Archer with his mother. When Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow) hears of this, she moves back as well, as she's unhappy with her marriage to the neurologist Raleigh St. Clair (Bill Murray). Richie (Luke Wilson), who has been traveling abroad on a cruise ship for many years, returns home also. Even childhood friend Eli Cash (Owen Wilson) comes back.
When Royal hears that everyone is back together, he wants to get to know them and make amends for his past inadequacies. This is not an easy thing, because the whole family (with the exception of Richie) distrusts him. So, he lies to Etheline and tells her that he is dying, and wants to spend the last 6 weeks of his life with the children. Chaos (and subsequent hilarity) ensues when Etheline's latest suitor, accountant Henry Sherman (Danny Glover), exposes Royal as a fraud.
This is in all actuality a dark comedy. There are several references to death and even a graphic suicide attempt. You're asking yourself, 'how can this be funny?'. To tell you the truth, you have to see it for yourself. Like TV's 'Everybody Loves Raymond', much of 'The Royal Tenenbaums' is predicated on reaction and subtlety. The quirky characters are endearing and the relationships between those characters are even juicier. for example, Margot is married to Raleigh, but is having an affair with Eli. Eli's best friend Richie has loved his adopted sister Margot "since forever". See what I mean?
If you enjoyed Wes Anderson's last two films, you'll definately like this one. Fans of Gene Hackman, Ben Stiller, or the Wilson brothers must own this movie. The acting is great, the story is brisk, and the comedy is off the charts. Add this to your collection today. You will NOT be disappointed.

sooooooooo freakin good
this is a great great movie. It's funny, touching yet stylish in the most stunningly odd way. Wes Anderson is a genius and the entire cast does an A+ job. I just love this movie soooo much!

A genuinely wonderful movie..
I usually prefer older movies, but this could possibly be my favorite movie of all time. The script it brilliant, it's hilarious and touching. There's sorrow in the humor that makes it seem very real. The movie is very observant of human nature, and very insightful. It's also accompanied by a wonderful soundtrack, that compliments the dialogue and camerawork beautifully.

the best benn stiller movie ever
I am a skeptic on some prticular actors and actresses, and it so happens that two of them were in the royal tenembaums. Of course I'm referring to Luke wilson, and ben stiller.

Stiller has done nothing for me since appearing in theres something about Mary. He falls into this habit of playing the same two characters in every movie. The nice quiet innocent character who alway seems to be thrown to the wolves. nut stuck in zipper, crap on your dates especially favorite loofa, etc, etc. And of course there's the Ben stiller who is just a total jerk. In tenenbaums, Stiller actually flexes his acting muscles creating a new image of him and lodging it in my brain. Wow!! i guess he can act.

As for Wilson i didn't favor him simply because of the god awful shanghai movies. I admit now that was unfair Luke Wilson has my respect now. Not that he cares, but hey.

Ok well enogh rambling the movie was excellent and the charcters were very well thought out, particularly Margot. I will agree with a former reviewer in that the film was a bit tedious, but you win some and you lose some. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The key ingredient in this modern-day version of Charles Dickens's classic is director Alfonso Cuarón, who made the glowing, estimable A Little Princess. If you saw that (and you should), understand that Expectations has those ingredients (great sense of time, place, and timing) but adds modern music and sex appeal; the latter personified by the long-legged Gwyneth Paltrow.

Finnegan Bell (Ethan Hawke as an adult, Jeremy James Kissner at age 10) is the new version of Dickens's Pip. He's a child wise beyond his years, befriending an escaped convict (Robert De Niro) in the warm waters of Florida's Gulf Coast. Finn is also the plaything for Estella (Paltrow as an adult, Raquel Beaudene at age 10), the niece of the coast's richest and most eccentric lady, Ms. Dinsmoor (a fun and flamboyant Anne Bancroft). The prudish Estella likes Finn (catch the best first kiss scene in many a moon) but has been brought up to disdain men; she'll break hearts. As the object of Finn's desires, Estella unfortunately is a one-dimensional character, yet what a dimension! Clad in Donna Karan dresses and her long, sun-kissed hair, Paltrow is luminous. She and Hawke make a very sexy couple.

Mitch Glazer's script does better by Finn. He's a blue-collar worker with a gift for drawing (artwork by Francesco Clemente). Following his Uncle Joe's (Chris Cooper) honest ways, Finn grows up as a fisherman, thoughts of Estella and art drifting away in the hard work. When a mysterious benefactor allows him to follow his dream, Finn finds himself in New York, preparing for a once-in-a-lifetime art exhibit--and in the arms of the engaged Estella.

Filled with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki's golden-drenched light, the film has an irresistible, wildly romantic look. Dinsmoor's place is certainly gothic, Estella and Finn's longing encounters glamorous. Cuarón uses an MTV-friendly soundtrack with a confident touch. Songs by Tori Amos and the band Pulp--along with Patrick Doyle's silky score--create passionate scenes. It all ends far too swiftly with a seemingly tacked-on ending (reflecting the book, as it happens) but the film is splendid storytelling. It's a stylish, sweet valentine. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (141)

a heartfelt update
This cleverly takes Dickens' classic Great Expectations, renames Pip as Finnegan Bell, and has him growing up on the lush tropical Florida coast. He is still raised by his sister and her husband Joe (Chris Cooper in a small but touching role.) Finn encounters an escaped convict, helps him out, and gets to keep his life. He also meets the celebrated eccentric Ms. Dinsmoor and her neice Estella --Ms. Dinsmoor was jilted on her wedding day and is raising Estella to break men's hearts, namely Finn's when she is old enough.

As adults, Finn is a blue-collar adult with a gift for art -- he has an anonymous patron who sends him to New York. As a 1990s yuppie, Finn can at last attract and keep Estella, who is also in New York, dressed in apple-green designer clothes. (There is a lot of green in this movie! It is probably a reminder of the tropical Florida in concrete-grey New York.)

Gwyneth Paltrow is great as Estella but so so skinny it is painful. In one scene, she is wearing a backless dress and her spine juts out. Ironically, she is at a dinner table, eating a meal.

Ethan Hawke and Robert De Niro are the true stand-outs here, and prove that they have what it takes to portray Dickens' tale in any time and place and have all of the lessons ring clear and true.

Raising the Dickens
Remakes are risky business. Director Alfonso Cuaron's modernized Great Expectations proves the point. Charles Dickens' engaging, heart-warming, and admittedly plot-manipulated classic fares less well in this glitzy adaptation. Ethan Hawke plays Finn (Dickens' Pip) in his rags to riches rise from Florida fisherman to New York artist. But his character lacks depth. The same is true for Gwnyeth Paltrow's hard-hearted but bewitching Estella. The "minor" but veteran players eclipse both in the film. Ann Bancroft plays a convincing Miss Dinsmoor (Miss Havisham), Estella's jilted guardian. But Robert de Niro steals the show, just as does the money, as Arthur (Magwitch) the escaped convict. The novel's involved and coincidental story line is perhaps to blame, since the script allows for little character development in the lead roles. Still, director Cuaron finds time for some gratuitous sex scenes, hoping to grab a risky enough rating (R), to seduce young viewers into the theater. (Dickens would have raised the dickens about that!) The cinematography, at times an excessive eye candy, does please, however. And the film does entertain in a syrupy way. That said, Great Expectations suffers from (what else?) great expectations - arising from headline actors cast in a predictable film. It is, nonetheless, better than the average bore.

AMERICAN EXPECTATIONS
I went into this not expecting a lot. But from the very first few frames I was drawn into the story. Yes, I have read the Dickens novel in High School. Contrary to some, I kinda liked the book. But you could totally ignore the Dickens angle and enjoy this film. That being said, I was highly amused that the director chose Florida as Pip/Finn's boyhood home. The setting and the further choice of the Florida fishing culture brought a depth to the story I did not catch in the novel. New York City as the "big city" may have been a cliché; but then New York City is the center of the art world as far as America is concerned.

Mr. Hawke may have the misfortune of being paired with great actors in almost every scene in this film. Because of this, I believe the talent and ability he brings to the film may be overlooked. For the most part, Hawke is on screen with either Anne Bancroft, Robert De Niro, Hank Azaria, or Gwyneth Paltrow. Although the story is supposed to be about Pip/Finn, our focus flows away from Hawke to any one of these actors.

Gwyneth Paltrow is a pretty woman but she is not fantastically beautiful as others would have her. I think this actually works to her advantage in that her beauty does not overshadow her personal charm. This allows her magic to actually work on the audience. Much is made of the nude scenes in this film; but the truth is that very little is actually shown. It is more suggested than revealed. But their effect is very electric. More effective are the surprised kisses of Hawke and Paltrow over drinking fountains. Simply the "best" kisses I have seen on film in a long time,

Most of us lose patience with great works of art dressed up in modern garb. For the most part, Shakespeare in space suit costumes is not nearly as interesting as many in the "creative community" seem to believe. But this version of Great Expectations really works in unexpected ways. Not a great film-but an absorbing one nonetheless.

Love Story
This adaptation of Charles Dickens` novel is an interesting watch, but the final result isn`t too engaging or surprising. Another variation on the old poor boy (Ethan Hawke, in another of his dreamer, innocent, young artist roles) that falls for the rich girl (Gwyneth Patrow, with a too wooden and bland performance). Director Alfonso Cuarón presents some stylish and gourgeous sceneries, locations, people and music, yet the plot is still by-the-numbers, failing to convince despite some pretty and well-crafted moments. Not a bad movie, but not a memmorable one either.
Passable entertainment.

Great Expectations Revisited
Ethan Hawke and Gwyneth Paltrow star as Finn/Pip and Estella in this modern day version of the Dickens' classic. Director Alfonso Cuarón and 20th Century Fox do a wonderful job in this updated color version. Cuarón's modern day adaptation to "be careful for what you wish for" begins in a lower economic 70's Florida Gulf Coast fishing town. Here we meet a young Finn, a child artist who meets an eccentric elderly woman and her niece. Anne Bancroft does an excellent job playing the eccentric, jilted, Miss Dinsmoore/Miss Havisham. Because she has been left at the altar, Miss Dinsmoore poisons the mind of her niece Estella such that her niece will never feel the pain of a broken heart. Moreover, Miss Dinsmoore encourages Estella to go out into the world and toy with men's affections, rejecting them before they have a chance to hurt her. Thus, the stage is set for Finn to fall in love with the enchanting Estella and to be rejected by her.
Oddly enough, a strange and mysterious benefactor allows for an older Finn to go off to New York to pursue his dream of becoming a rich and famous artist. Finn believes that with enough money and fame he will be able to win Estella's love. Alas, Finn falls victim to all of the trappings of life in the big city and loses sight of who he was and the humble fishing town where he came from.
While the film is modernized from the original version including a soundtrack that is used artistically to reflect the moods and characters within the movie, the movie stays true to Dickens' original story ending, as it ends with Finn and Estella holding hands while gazing out upon the ocean.
The movie has a great deal of emotional depth. Many directors rely on a great deal of explicit imagery (fluff - sex and explosions) to bring the film to a wider audience. Great Expectations delivers a great story without including fluff. The two scenes that gave this movie its "R" rating were very short and necessary to complete the plot and necessary in order to modernize the original Victorian tale. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Good movie.
I saw this when it first aired, and then again as a repeat on Lifetime or something. It's really quite good I thought. The actors for Chris Pritchard and James Upchurch were very intense I thought and did really well. Ed Asner is always fun to watch too... anyway its a great movie. And for some clarification because none of the other reviews mentioned it... yes this is the one where the kids get all whacked out on drugs, alcohol, and D&D to go off one of the kids parents. It's portrayed well in this film... its just sad that its true.

great
I saw the movie first, then read the book, they were both good.
The acting by Blythe Danner was fantastic as Bonnie Von Stein.

The other reviewer who said it was disappointing, learn how to spell before you submit a review.

"Cruel Doubt" engrossing for true crime buffs
The novel by Joe McGinness kept me up all night, and the miniseries kept me just as involved. A North Carolina woman is attacked in her sleep and her second husband is fatally wounded by an unknown assailant. She recovers and is released from the hospital, but her nineteen year old son is acting awfully strange. Gripping and intense, and sure to put a lump in your throat. Another book about this case is "Blood Games" by Jerry Bledsoe. Look for a young David Arquette, and real life mother and daughter Blythe Danner and Gwyneth Paltrow play mother and daughter here.