Reviews (14)

The Best Version of Cinderella w/ some good butt kicking
Drew Barrymore plays Cinderella as never seen before. With a quick wit,brains,looks, and the willingness to kick alittle "step-sisterly bootie" , she wins over the heart of a handsome prince, played by Dougrey Scott. The story alters more with the help of a step-sister who in the end makes you love her as much as Cinderella. Also, you have a wonderful cast who brings this to life, altering a "fairy-godmother" to a "fairy-godfather" with the help of famous artist Leonardo. You will laugh and cheer as you let yourself be pulled into this wonderful story of love, comedy, and "just rewards".

A realistic version of the timeless fairy tale
In this more realistic version of Cinderella, Drew Barrymore plays Gabrielle, a pretty farm girl who's strength and courage(not prince charming) save her from a bleak future. In order to save one of the house servants, Gabrielle passes herself off as a courtier and confronts one of the King's men. Amidst this confrontation, Prince Henry shows up and is impressed by Gabrielle's guts, intelligence, and beauty. Smitten by the Prince herself, Gabrielle lies to him about who she really is.
But Gabrielle's stepmother (Angelica Huston) is determined to have the prince marry one of her daughters and she'll do whatever it takes to get Gabrielle out of the way. Highly recommended for its romance, humor, and suspense.

great family viewing
Drew Barrymore has this charm about her on screen, whether it's in ET as a pretty little girl, or as a beautiful young woman in this Cinderella story that will captivate your heart and senses. This is fairytale but believable because human nature is always the same whether it's fantasy or reality; and it's romantic but very tasteful. And I'm sure many will be pleased with the happy ending :)

David Rehak
author of "A Young Girl's Crimes"

Excellent movie!!!!
This is one of my favorite movies of all time! Of course, as its known by the title the story is based on the Cinderella fairy tale, but in this movie the heroine is smart and strong, yet vunerable at the same time. Drew Barrymore is great and Angelica Houston is just wondrously wicked as the evil step- mother. This movie is recomended to every woman!!!

Going back to the olden times. 15th april 2004.
Danielle de barbarac is a servant, thats the job she does, her cruel mother is like an enemy to her, she can never anything right. [The posh dresses, just like the olden days]. ... Read more

Reviews (101)

A Visual Masterpiece & An Extraordinary Film!
Watching "Girl With A Pearl Earring" is like walking into one of Johannes Vermeer's exquisite paintings. Eduardo Serra's cinematography is brilliant and captures, remarkably, the luminescent quality of light in Delft - the same light which Vermeer so skillfully put to use in his masterpieces. Serra's visuals give us a glimpse of what Holland must have been like in 1665. Through Director Peter Webber's camera we view scenes as if they are painted on canvas - the shimmer of silk cloth, of water in the canals, of the sun on snow; the haze of sunlight through clouds, light through a window; the brilliance of color contrasted with dark shadows; scenes as beautifully composed as a great painting. Daylight, candle and shadow are used dramatically. The atmosphere is as rich as an artist's palette.

Not much is known about the Dutch master, who lived and worked in 17th century Delft. Only 35 of his paintings survive. Among these works, perhaps his greatest, is the portrait, "Girl With A Pearl Earring." Director Webber has transformed Tracy Chevalier's novel, of the same name, into this extraordinary movie for the big screen.

Scarlett Johansson is superb as the young servant girl, Griet, who is sent to the Vermeer household to work after her father has an incapacitating accident. The labor is pure drudgery and seemingly endless, with little pay and fewer thanks. Since the Vermeers are dependent on wealthy patrons to commission paintings, money is tight and Vermeer's young wife is pregnant almost every year. Griet's work is made more difficult by jealous coworkers, the brood of spoiled Vermeer children, the suspicious wife and her manipulating mother, (Essie Davis), who holds the purse strings tightly.

Griet's unusual intelligence begins to show, as does her curiosity and sensitivity. She is fascinated by Vermeer's work and the world of light and color. She wonders, at one point, whether to wash the murky studio windows and risk losing the precious quality of muted light. This is not just an ordinary maid. She has a quality of stillness and purity about her which attracts Vermeer, (Colin Firth is wonderful as the brooding artist), as well as his super rich, lecherous patron, (Tom Wilkinson). Eventually, Griet is pressured to sit for a portrait, which will, centuries later, be marveled at.

The production design and period settings are award-worthy. Olivia Hetreed's screenplay is excellent. She places as much emphasis on silence as she does on dialogue and the result is extremely effective. And the cast is exceptional. Johansson's and Firth's performances are nuanced and subtle.

Vermeer is one of my favorite artists and I have traveled far to see his available work. I watched "Girl With A Pearl Earring" twice in as many days. It is a wonderful movie and an extraordinary visual experience. A must see!
JANA

Repressed love perfected by Firth & Johansson...
Before seeing it, the film seems straightforward. Just about a girl with pearl earring in her ear lobe, right? No. The film tries to look deeper into Vermeer's stunning painting by offering Chevalier's interpretation of who the young girl was. However, where the film succeeds is flexibly creating a tentative but emotionally explosive relationship between master and servant - Firth and Johansson.

Set in 17th century in the Netherlands, the film begins calmly, carefully unravelling itself to the viewer so that one can absorb it visually and mentally. The pace can be seen as slow but this type of film needs that type of pace to make it work because if it was fast, how could we as the viewers enjoy the tentative, innocent and beautiful love that Griet and Vermeer share?

Scarlett Johansson plays Griet, the quiet and demure Dutch maid that invokes anger, jealousy and confusion in Catherina's heart (Essie Davis) while indirectly capturing Johannes Vermeer's attention (Colin Firth) and Master van Ruijven sleazy eye (acted with pure sinisterness by Tom Wilkinson). In one aspect, what ensues makes the film very good in my eyes because it portrays the issues of the impressive supporting cast such as Cornelia's blatant antagonism towards Griet, Catherina's undeniable envy and Pieter's unrequited interest in Griet while simultaneously using them as a platform to present the perfect example of repressed love between two people who know that they are worlds apart.

Johansson was simply magnificent in this film. I will be surprised and annoyed if she does not get an Oscar nomination because she played this part with such precision, it is hard to see another woman who could match her emotive performance.

Firth always delivers but this time, he was sublime. Like Johansson in terms of intensity, Firth was outstanding as the pensive but caring painter who appeared as if he was preoccupied with a certain someone.

The brilliance of this film does not only stem from the actors, the cinematography is a visual feast for the eyes and the soundtrack fits the shy mood of the film.

Slight apprehension before walking into the cinema. Delight after enjoying it, Frustration that Firth & Johansson are meant to be but as fate wants, do not find their way to each other.

Superb
This was one of the best movies that I've seen in years. A magnificent, sensuous, and yet amazingly subtle film.

So Beautiful!
Colin Firth and Scarlett Johansson star in Girl With a Pearl Earring which both of these people gradually become attracted to one another. First off I just loved how the movie was filmed. It made me really sucked into a big glimpse how the 1600's was like. The art direction, cinematography, and the costume designs were marvelous and deserved to be nominated for the Oscars in those categories. The music was enchanting which made the movie even more beautiful. Last but certainly not least I loved the acting too. Scarlett Johansson played a very polished performance and Colin Firth did a wonderful job as the mysterious painter. Love it! Love it! The only thing I will criticize with the DVD is the bonus materials. There isn't enough there. Only two things! But otherwise, this was an EXCELLENT movie. Watch it!

Just like the painting
This film was nominated for three academy awards: Art Direction, Costume Design, and Cinematography. Unfortunately for it, The Return of the King, and Master & Commander, were also nominated for those categories. Stiff competition.

Mind you, this film was a marvelous evocation of its period and of Delft (they actually filmed there, amongst other places), from the cutting of the vegetables in the opening scene to the vividly and beautifully painted interior lid of the harpsichord played by Vermeer's mostly unhappy wife. We even have a powerful sense of smell, from Griet's rejection of the meat for not being fresh, to the dumping of garbage into the river (street) outside their home. This is where the movie succeeded brilliantly - in sensory images. And that's appropriate, as the movie is about one of the greatest works of art by one of the world's greatest artists.

Scarlet Johansson once again plays the role of a younger woman whose fate is entwined with an older man, but - and sorry to all of you fans of Lost in Translation - this is simply a better, more believable film. Her character, Griet, is a poor girl sent to work in the home of Vermeer, and from the moment she sets foot into Vermeer's studio (to clean it, of course) you can sense her relation to his work. The very first indication we get of this is when she asks Vermeer's wife if she should clean the windows. The wife has no idea why this should be important, but when Griet informs her that it would affect the lighting, Vermeer's wife says yes, of course. We see that Vermeer has a wife and mother-in-law who care nothing for his art, who see him as a meal ticket. Here he is seen as almost maddeningly misunderstood, and although allusions are drawn to perhaps a previous indiscretion with a serving girl, it is Griet's character who understands him. Indeed, she took it upon herself to move a chair away from the set of one of his paintings, and explained later that it appeared to be blocking her (ostensibly, Griet, for the painting was inspired by her cleaning of the studio windows) in. We see that immediately after this, Vermeer paints the chair out of the picture.

However, there were flaws. Griet's "love interest", Pieter, has at most ten minutes of screen time. I was perplexed at his inclusion, and could only guess that he existed for one reason: that when Griet felt sexual tension occurring between her and Vermeer, she instead ran to Pieter. Whatever her reasons for that were, she kept them quiet. Her dialogue was limited to very few lines, and she communicated mostly through her eyes. Perhaps this was done on purpose, to call to mind the painting that gives the film its name. Unfortunately, in a film, more communication is necessary than in a painting. I would have liked to see her character more interactive. But that's just my tiny, humble opinion.

As a side note, for anyone interested in young adult books, an excellent book was just released, Chasing Vermeer, which is available here on amazon.com. It's kind of a Da Vinci Code for kids, and although it's for young adults, the scholarship on Vermeer is top notch. ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Oscars for Wilde
There can only be one explanation for why this movie wasn't revered and esteemed world over. Society really hasn't changed that much since the times portrayed in 'Wilde.' But this isn't supposed to be a social commentary, but a grand ovation for what is, in my opinion, one of the best movies ever. To begin with, the performances of Stephen Fry and Jude Law are really quite extrordinary. Stephen Fry, in particular, manages not only to look unnervingly like Oscar Wilde, but to embody the wonderful (and complicated) character to an uncanny extent. I applaud Jude Law as well for choosing movies like this instead of (or perhaps as well as ^_^) the normal Hollywood teen fare. He really does give a frighteningly good performance, manic depressive to the core. Jennifer Ehle is also very good in the understated but understanding role of Wilde's wife. All in all, I was really blown away by this movie. Not only is it an incredible tribute to Wilde's wit, but also to his life, to the "love that dare not speak its name" and how it is as true and wonderful a love as any other. Sometimes painful, always powerful, Wilde is a rare gem.

Beautiful, you will want to visit Paris...
In WILDE, Stephen Fry (Jeeves in "Jeeves and Wooster") is the consummate Wilde. Jude Law plays his lover Bosie Douglas. Jennifer Ehle (Elizabeth Bennett in "Pride and Predjudice") plays Wilde's long suffering wife. Vanessa Redgrave and Tom Wilkinson also have important roles. What a cast.

The Belle Epoch is beautifully recreated as Wilde travels between England and France--clothes, interiors, architecture, grounds. You don't even have to understand the story to enjoy "being there" in the parks, homes, carrriages.

Oscar Wilde was a writer, best remembered perhaps for "The Portrait of Dorian Grey" although modern audiences may be more familiar with his stage play "The Ideal Husband" (recently made into a film with Jeremy Northern and Cate Blanchett) or "The Importance of Being Earnest."

Wilde was a homosexual in England in an age when one could and did go to prison for acting on instinct. (Nowadays in Saudia Arabia they take off your head.) Although the public became aware of his proclivities, Wilde remained one of Europe's most admired writers. Unfortunately, his term in prison for his sexual preferences may be remembered longer than his works which contain a wonderful drawing room humor many folks fail to grasp. This is a great film, and if you're an Anglophile you must add it to your collection. -- And Paris?? That's where Oscar is buried.

A well-made depiction of Wilde's life
Wilde is a beautifully made film, and I agree with the other customer reviews that found it an impressive portrait of the writer's life. As an expert on Wilde myself (I am writing my master's thesis on him) I would like to comment on some of the objections raised to its handling of his life by scholars and critics. Several scholars whose comments on the film I have read (they know who they are) have pointed out its factual inaccuracies, and have complained about its emphasis on Wilde's love life rather than his literary career. Admittedly, if the viewer wants a more scrupulous account of Wilde's life than is given by this film, she/he would be better off reading Ellmann's biography, on which the film is rather loosely based. Artistic liberties aside, I think we would all agree that the sight of a man making love is more dramatically interesting than the sight of him writing; the film's depiction of Wilde's intimate experiences, speculative as they are, serve to give us additional insight into who he was and the emotions that drove him. The film's greatest strength is its depiction of the neurotic relationship between Wilde and Douglas, which helps the viewer to understand how Wilde got into the jam he did.
I'm sure nobody can complain about the performances in the film, which are dead on, especially that of Stephen Fry in the title role; unlike many actors portraying famous people he not only acts as Wilde must have acted but looks quite like him, which adds to the film's feeling of verisimilitude. Unfortunately, since we don't have a DVD player yet, this review is based on my copy of the video. Hopefully, I'll be able to get the DVD later to examine the extras.

Stephen Fry's memorable performance as the tragic Oscar
My introduction to Oscar Wilde consisted of three disparate sources. First, I read "The Importance of Being Earnest," the wittiest play ever written in the English language. Second, there was Monty Python's Oscar Wilde sketch, where Wilde, James McNeil Whistler and George Bernard Shaw force each other to turn insults into compliments for the Prince of Wales. Third, there was the "Masterpiece Theater" mini-series "Lillie," in which Peter Egan played Wilde and where for the first time I heard the speech from Wilde's court case where he explains "the love that dare not speak its name." It is one of the most unforgettable declarations from the docket in human history and I think I just about have it memorized because it was really burned into my mind the first time I heard it.

When I watched "Wilde," my knowledge and understanding of Oscar Wilde was extended in several key ways. In playing the title role actor Stephen Fry makes Wilde seem less the dandy and more the kindly man he must have been to be put in the situation that caused his down fall. In contrast, Lord Alfred Douglas (Jude Law), known as "Bosie," might be beautiful of face but it is most decidedly skin deep. He is an ugly human being and when Wilde does what he does out of the goodness of his heart, the tragedy that it is for somebody who does not deserve it. I had not really thought much of Bosie before, but after watching "Wilde" I consider him a most despicable figure. Wilde was in prison within three months after the opening of "The Importance of Being Earnest," and the thought of what has been lost to literature and drama is rather sickening. It is only in the film's final scene that for the first time I found myself thinking of Oscar Wilde as a pathetic figure, and again it was because of Bosie.

I had long appreciated the irony that despite his homosexuality Wilde truly loved his wife Constance (Jennifer Ehle), but in Julian Mitchell's screenplay, based on Richard Ellmann's noted biography, I learn an even greater irony with regards to Wilde's downfall, namely that his physical relationship with Bosie had been of short duration and that they were not lovers at the time of the libel suit involving the Marquess of Queensberry (Tom Wilkinson). In that regard this 1997 film enhances the tragic aspects of the story. Of course, the essence of the tragedy is articulated by Wilde himself, who declares: "In this life there are only two tragedies. One is not getting what one wants. The other is getting it."

Beautiful looking and sounding, and heartbreaking as well
This movie is everything about why I love the courageous, crisp, brainy and brilliant British media. Stephen Fry is a gem who could recite the phone book and turn it into a soliloquy on the cruelty of human history. His voice is marvelous, and he rolls his consonants around in his mouth like Jordan almonds -- all without affectation, somehow. Wilde's many quips and epigrams drop out of his mouth without the slightest artificiality, natural and thoughtless as dew rolling off a leaf. Jude Law's Bosie is terrifyingly unstable, and his beauty serves only to throw his instability into high relief. You can't take your eyes off of him while he's on screen at the same time you want to turn away and skitter under the cabinets to stop watching.

The rest of the supporting cast is magnificent (if only the American film industry permitted its great actresses to work past the age of 40, we might boast such luminaries as Vanessa Redgrave and Zoe Wanamaker someday as well as Helen Mirren and Judi Dench!), the directing is flawless, the costumes and set design stunning but never overstated. All of it is used only to support the story, and as beautiful as it all is, it never pulls you out of the story or distracts you, only providing a seamless and textured foundation for the action.

I admit, I'm somewhat amused at the reviewers who imagine that this film shouldn't have concentrated so much on Wilde's sexuality. This is the story of him as much his work -- and his work at any rate was quite informed by his sexuality, nebulous at best during a time when anything but rigid adherence to a particularly joyless version of heterosexuality was a sin and a crime. Beautiful as this film is (and delicious as it is to see so many gorgeous young British men running around au naturel), it breaks your heart with the realization that happiness and fulfillment in life, as well as success and self-respect, can be so profoundly influenced by nothing more significant than the year in which one was born. In a hundred years, what will people be saying about the great women, gays and lesbians, and other minorities who lived in our time? ... Read more

Reviews (8)

A Different Hamlet
This video is an adaptation of the stage production that was produced in London's Roundhouse (a former train roundhouse converted into a theatre). The film makes use of the entire theatre, not just the stage. It makes for a very claustrophobic, but effective setting.

I have mixed feelings about this film. I am glad someone tried something different with Hamlet. I was glad to see a 30 year old Hamlet for a change. Hamlet is not the young undergrad college student we always picture him to be, but a 30 year old grad student. Shakespeare's play tells us that Yorick's skull has been in the ground for 24 years and Hamlet tells us how he knew Yorick as a childhood friend. Nicol Williamson (while not the common image of Hamlet)was a 30 year old actor playing a 30 year old character.

stuck in its time
they don't show the ghost, for one, but rather there's this sort of trippyish light, as if they're at a psychedelic rock concert. Ophelia is the most gorgeous Ophelia I've seen, and she acts well, too. While Anthony Hopkins looks spectacular as Claudius, he's not as good as Derek Jacobi in the Branagh version. But he is quite good.
Overall, kind of weak. The costumes are lame. The player king is good.

flawed
Nicol Williamson is a great actor but he's too darn old to play young Hamlet. He looks older than his Uncle Claudius played by Anthony Hopkins.

BRAVO! An Actor's Hamlet!
Tony Richardson's production of Hamlet is perhaps too subtle for those used to more ostentatious renderings of the play, but do not let that discourage you from enjoying the depth and clarity of this fine stage/film version, which reads very well on the television screen. Celebrated Nicol Williamson plays an infinitely human and palpable Hamlet. There is no bombast nor bloat to the intelligent tone and pithy rhythm of his soliloquies. Williamson is one of a handful of actors who can phrase the complex *long bow* of Shakespeare's verse into the meaningful and memorable images that the author so skillfully aimed. With Williamson (as with Branaugh 25+ years later), this Hamlet's increasingly cynical dispair fuels his rage--not the simpering *moral confusion* of more formalized drama school portrayals. Gordon Jackson, best known to American film buffs as THE GREAT ESCAPE's MacDonald (*Intelligence*), plays a wonderfully intimate and faithful Horatio--indeed, here IS a friend! Marianne Faithful is in her element as Ophelia. And one can only wonder how Anthony Hopkins would play Claudius today? He seems to overdraw his character in this 1969 stage to film version--but then again, why wouldn't a King breakfast on baked fowl in the comfort of his own bed while tenderizing fair Rosencrantz and good Guilenstern for their fouled English mission? Let others scoff at the humanity and subtlety of this performance. This lovely version is shown frequently on the BRAVO channel (*The Actor's Channel*) for good reason. *Ah, the point and the venom, too....*

the worst interpretation of Hamlet ever
it sucked! the close ups were aweful, it had to be either a really horrible artistic director or a lowbudget on camara film. the acting was hard to watch it had horrible caracture choices and they all were vulger...not to sound too harsh or anything ... Read more

Reviews (37)

Delightful, truer to the novel, but terrible ending.
I first saw the film about 20 years ago, and after having enjoyed -very much- the A&E version decided to buy this one and compare. Each one is good in its own way. In general I like the actors better in this version, Elizabeth Garvie is my Miss Bennet, although I wished she showed a bit more rage in the first proposal version. All the "negative" characters -Mr Collins, the Bingley sisters, Mrs Bennet and Lady Catherine- are more natural here and truer to the book. Mrs Bennet is equally silly, but you do not wish to beat her to death every time she appears. The only one I didn't like at all is Mr Darcy. Good looking, but too stiff. OK, I know the character is haughty, but he lacks sparkle. Except for the last 5 minutes he is completely expresionless. The A&E version actor is far better.
As for the script, the story is more static in this version, but the dialogues are delightful and truer to the novel. The zinging between Mr. and Mrs Bennet and Between Mrs Bennet and Lady Lucas is priceless. The only think I don't agree with is the ending. Just terrible. The first time I saw it I thought it was a defect of my video version but no. Thet's why I haven't given them an extra star.

No one has mentioned the music!
In this production the music is brilliant. Watch the film again and listen to the "conversation" between Mary and the carter who is going along the road outside Longbourne at the very beginning. Mary's voice is represented by a staccato violin and the carter's replies are deep cello notes. Mary comes rushing back into the house and announces, "I know who is moving into Netherfield Hall!" Then the oboe (I think it's an oboe, anyway) that accompanies our first sight of Mr Collins. Wonderful.
The production values aren't what we're used to these days (it's probably not a budget problem as some have assumed), but the script, the actors, everything is just so right. My special favourite is Mr Darcy. His stiffness isn't wooden, in my opinion, it's the pride he wears until Lizzie knocks some of it out of him. At the end, when they're now engaged and are reviewing the previous mishaps in their relationship, he unbends to the point where he can't stop smiling. It's a smile worth waiting for!

Preferred version
Maybe because I saw this version first (before the 1996 version), but I prefer this one. The actress that plays Elizabeth is excellent. I like her Elizabeth much better than the 1996 Elizabeth. Although I love Colin Firth (he's a hottie), I like the way that David Rintoul plays Mr. Darcy. He comes off cold at the right times and warms up when he wants to - just as I imagine that Mr. Darcy would. The production isn't as impressive, but if you like P&P, give this version a look.

When will they put this on DVD?

I liked the characters but...
The thing that really annoyed me was that the dialogues had been switched around. For example, in the book, if Elizabeth says something to Jane, in this adaptation she says it instead to Wickham. Other than that, it was better than the 1996 adaptation because the characters seemed to fit in more. Elizabeth is not supposed to be more beautiful than Jane and surely she is not. David Rintoul was excellent, he is supposed to be slightly wooden so I am not sure I agree with all the criqitues of his performance. The two miscasts in my opinion were Wickham (I thought he was supposed be very handsome in looks, much more so than Darcy) and Kitty (why on earth was she so old?)
Overall, if you are a Jane Austen fan, you must see both adaptations but if you only want a romantic love story, get the A&E version.

Better Elizabeth & Darcy than 96, not such a good production
This production is not so lavish and the 96 version, and does not have quite the same drive. However Elizabeth Garvie as Lizzie, and David Rintoul as Darcy are far better than their 1996 counterparts (Colin Firth attempting to look moody looks like Colin Firth looking constipated). Incidentally both this version and the '96 version were BBC versions, the latter with production money contributed by A&E. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Take away the Fairy Godmother, and what have you got left from the Cinderella fable? The story of a girl for whom a bad stroke of luck is no match for her internal strength and purity of heart. Drew Barrymore plays Cinderella's alleged inspiration, Danielle, in this romantic drama that purports to tell the "facts" behind the Grimm brothers' story. One of three daughters of a man (Jeroen Krabbé) who dies and leaves her fate in the hands of a conniving stepmother (Anjelica Huston), Danielle is cast into the lowly role of a servant. Meanwhile, her sisters are evaluated as possible mates for a French prince (Dougray Scott), but he's far more intrigued with Danielle's intelligence and beauty--not to mention her way with a sword and fist. Directed by Andy Tennant (who directed Barrymore in TV's The Amy Fisher Story), Ever After has that rare ability to win the heart and mind of a viewer simply by being committed to its own innocence, particularly where Barrymore's luminous performance is concerned. A contemporary take on an old, virtually forgotten Hollywood convention--the costume adventure with middling artistic ambition but real audience appeal--Ever After is a surprisingly delightful film. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (779)

Absolutely Brilliant
I have never really liked Drew Barrymore but after this movie I fell in love. I can't think of anyone else better to play Danielle,(cinderella). I had never heard of Dougray Scott before but he was a totally awesome Prince Henry,(prince charming). He was extremely handsome, witty and he always knew what to say, a very smooth talker. Angelica Houston was the most perfect Step-mother. She brings her character to life so well. All of the characters were so believable that you couldn't help but feel what they were feeling. I cannot think of another movie that kept me smiling through the whole entire time. There are a few scenes where I wanted to cry but other than that I was smiling. I especially loved the scenery and costumes. They were so real and I felt like I was there with them. I often wish I lived in the 16th century just so I could wear those clothes. From the moment I turned the movie on I was enraptured in the story. There wasn't a minute where I was bored or lost. I loved every minute of it. I like how they had one mean step-sister and one nice step-sister. They both played their parts extremely well. I loved how Leonardo DiVinchi was kind of like the "fairy god-mother". Drew and Dougary had such a great chemistry it was hard not to fall in love with them too. My favorite part was when Leonardo DiVinchi was walking on the water and saw Danielle and said "looks like rain". That was so funny. There is something for almost everyone in this movie. There is romance, action, drama, comedy and lots more. It was wonderful that Drew was a very strong willed, hopeful, passionate young woman. She never gave up and always looked for the best in things, even her family. She really wasn't the one who needed to be rescued. Dougray was so hansome you couldn't help being drawn to him. I think it was fantastic how Prince Henry rejected Danielle when he found out who she really was and then came to his senses and realized that he couldn' live without her. It was definitely a romantic movie. I have seen it over 10 times and never tire of it.. I learn something new every time. I think we all want a love like this, a true love which nothing can break. If you watch this movie I am positive that you will fall in love with everything about it, especially characters, just as I have.

Deconstructýon of a Fairy Tale
Ever after is an impressive attempt at historicising and deconstructing a fairy tale. The novel, unlike the fairy tale, placed events in a historical context. It is France in the Sixteenth Century. More over, the Cinderella of the fairy tale is beautiful, fragile, dependant on the supernatural (magic), and a highly sentimental female; whereas the new Cinderella is every thing feminists want to see in a woman: she is smart, hardworking, has guts, and independent. I loved the scene when Prince Henry towards the end comes dashing to save her from her captor to be faced by a defiant disarrayed woman with dirty nails and dirt smeared face saying "I saved myself" thus rescinding the conventional tale and emptying it of all its male-superiority claims. The part where she rescues the Prince from the king of Gipsies and carries him on her shoulder says it all. Ever after is a film I would love to show to my students.

The Most Amazing Cinderella Story Ever!
Cinderella always has been my favourite fairytale. But this movie is classy and features an incredible cast. Drew Barrymore couldn't be more perfect for her role as Danielle. Anjelica Huston is FANtastic as the evil-stepmother. Dougray Scott is somewhat of a hottie, and he and Drew make the sweetest on-screen couple! Leonardo Da Vinci is the funny, witty, 'fairy godfather' inventor, who also turns out to be a matchmaker. The two stepsisters are a necessity, one kind-hearted but gut-less, the other as evil as her mother.
The story is beautifully written. Danielle is forced to sleep with the pigs, but her character is beautiful. Independent, intelligent, spirited, beautiful (inside and out), and kind, her will to overcome her scheming step-mother and stepsister Margheurite is mind-blowing.
This movie is an incredible experience, one movie I will never forget as the perfect, classy Cinderella story!
The version with Whoopie Goldberg and Brandy is ugh!

no fairy tales or pixie dust
At first when I saw they were making this movie I was intrigued, but also skeptical, about this new twist on Perrault's Cinderella, this time starring Drew Barrymore. Well, Cinderella is my second favourite fairy tale, so I should probably force myself to sit through it for that reason alone. Barrymore's also not that bad of an actress, not the best, but hey not the worst. Then I notice Anjelica Huston is in it also, and hey I really like her so why not go and see it?

Well eventually I completely forgot about the movie, never did get around to seeing it in theatres. Then while surfing through the channels on my TV I see a commercial for the movie being shown on some station and I'm intrigued all over again. So I tune in to see the movie, and wow, I was not expecting this movie to be as great as it was.

This is not Disney's version of Cinderella, not by a long shot, so if that's what you're looking for in your tale of Cinderella I suggest you search elsewhere. Instead of the pixie dust and fairy tails you get the legend of Cinderella, the supposedly true story which the fairy tales were later based off of. The movie opens with the brothers Grimm arriving at a castle in France invited there by an again woman who wishes to tell them the true story of Cinderella without the magical pumpkins or a faery godmother. I'll spare you all the details of the film which every other reviewer has already gone through. I will however tell you that the performance is average from Drew Barrymore, no fireworks with her acting here, just the way she usually is, which isn't that bad but she's not going to be winning an Oscar anytime soon I promise you that. Anjelica Huston was amazing and easily stole the movie away from Barrymore, she was simply delicious as an Evil Stepmother, the role fit her like a glove. Perhaps my favourite role in the film was of Pierre le Pieu played by Richard O'Brien more widely known as Riff Raff in The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I nearly fell off of my seat the first time I saw this movie and he first appeared!

You'll not be disappointed at all by this movie if you decide to take the time to sit and watch this movie. It is however a "chick-flick" if you haven't already noticed so considered yourself warned. It's not quite as bad as most of them, but it has the makings to make most men wish to rip their hair out at having to even think about watching this movie.

Cinerella in a New Light
This past weekend I had the pleasure of seeing one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. I am speaking of Ever After starring Drew Barrymore and Angelica Huston. This is a Cinderella story with a bit of a twist.

The film opens with an ageing Princess being visited by to two gentlemen who turn out to be the Brothers Grimm. She compliments them on their work and mentions her fascination with the tale of the little cinder girl. While the brothers joke about pumpkins and fairy godmothers the princess reveals the glass slipper and offers to tell them the true tale.

Danielle gains a step-mother and two step-sisters when her father marries a Countess. Soon she runs into the Prince. She thinks he is a thief and pelts him with apples. When she realizes her mistake she offers up her life. But the Prince in on the run so he rewards her with gold. Danielle uses the gold to buy back the husband of one of the servants. But to do so she must impersonate a courtier and runs into the Prince again. She manages to sneak away but only after giving her mother's name as her own.

The stage is now set. The Prince does not want to marry the Spanish Princess his father has arranged for and seeks out Danielle. Under the pretense that she is a courtier they spend time together and a romance blossoms. The Prince is all set to announce his engagement (made at midnight at a ball) to Danielle but her step-mother reveals her base heritage and the Prince becomes angry. But in the end everything works out and the scene returns to the Brothers Grimm and Danielle's great-granddaughter.

There are no elements of the fantastic in this tale. No magic of fairies. Instead an attempt is made to place the tale firmly into history. The story is set in France in the Sixteenth century with the Prince being the Crown Prince of France. A little more cement is added in the form of Leonardo Da.. Vinci who has arrived to be the Royal Artist. Could this be during the two-year gap in Leonardo's history? I don't know. I do know that the movie is filled with humor, adventure and romance and stars a Cinderella who is a bit more competent than other renditions.

Angelica Huston is perfect as the step-mother. She really has the knack of being totally evil and proper at the same time. My only problem with the film was that the younger step-sister resembled Drew Barrymore a little too much. But that is a very minor point and hardly detracts from the film. I whole-heartedly recommend this film to anyone who likes a bit of fun, adventure, romance or any combination of the three. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Dark secrets, family torments, and two murders swirl around the stoic, hardened figure of Dolores Claiborne (Kathy Bates), a housekeeper accused of murdering her employer of 22 years. Then there was that timely accident that took Dolores's husband (David Strathairn) during the solar eclipse of 1975. Yet with all the somber suffering that follows Dolores like a miasma of pain, none of it compares with the heartache of a relationship she has with her grown daughter (Jennifer Jason Leigh). Although this flick is rife with horror, it is not of the supernatural kind, but rather of the torment only real people can impose on one another. The script is full of colorful language, and director Taylor Hackford successfully weaves several plot threads and psychological dilemmas throughout this engrossing tale without diminishing any of them. He not only culls intense performances from his cast, but he also brings to life the landscape around them. When the film's best-kept secret is finally given up, it occurs under the surreal backdrop of a solar eclipse that is a truly sensational bit of cinematography. --Rochelle O'Gorman ... Read more

Reviews (69)

STUNNING -- SHOULD HAVE WON OSCARS!
WOW...I won't go into any more detail than the previous reviewers did, as they have summed up my feelings too on this remarkable, underappreciated and underrated movie. Oscars should have gone to director Taylor Hackford, the cinematographer, Danny Elfman's haunting score, and the acting, oh my. Of course, Kathy Bates is overwhelming; Jennifer Jason Leigh has never been better; Christopher Plummer certainly sheds his "Sound of Music" persona; Judy Parfit is unbelievably effective as bitchy Vera, but her portrayal is so dimensional that we come to care for her; Ms. Parfit's scene with the pig musicbox playing "Happy Days Are Here Again" is brilliant. Also superb is Ellen Muth, who plays the young Selena, and John Reilly as the sheriff, who stands up to Plummer's state detective. Of course, one can't overlook David Straitharn as Dolores' cruel and abusive husband. His performance is so convincing that I don't think I'll like him in anything! My only regret is I didn't see this one earlier. Can we go back and do the 1995 Oscars over??
I loved this movie!!!! Stephen King should rank this and "The Green Mile" as his crowning adapted movies!

Sometimes Being A Witch Is All A Woman Has To Hang On To...
Stephen King's 1992 novel comes to life with a truly great perfomance by Kathy Bates as
the title character, Dolores Claiborne, David Straitharn as her deceased husband Joe St.
George and Jennifer Jason Leigh as their prescription pill popping progeny, Selena St.
George.

This film and novel are from King's writing period of evil, not examined through supernatural
forces, but like "Gerald's Game" and "Misery", the evil that human beings do to other human
beings. Even their own flesh and blood...

The film opens with a fall down the stairs by Vera Donovan (Judy Parfitt, Dolores' employer
and wench of a woman, a marble rolling pin a dead body and a mailman who reports the
"goings on" to the local police detective, John Mackey, played by Christopher Plummer.

Dolores is hauled in for the murder of her employer but we soon find out that this isn't the
first time Dolores has been in trouble with the law! Her husband died of unknown causes
during the solar eclipse of 1975 and many islanders think that Dolores had something to do
with the death of her abusive husband.

The movie succession is filmed in many flashback sequences through the mind's eye of
Dolores that are just quite mesmerizing! Great cinematography and direction in this film, no
doubt!

Did Dolores kill her husband twenty years ago? Did she also murder her badgering witch of
a boss, Vera Donovan? What family secrets are hidden and what will be the outcome of
Dolores and her daughter, Selena?

Watch the film and find out for yourself!

Happy Watching!

Sometimes Being A B!tch Is All A Woman Has To Hang On To...
Stephen King's 1992 novel comes to life with a truly great perfomance by Kathy Bates as the title character, Dolores Claiborne, David Straitharn as her deceased husband Joe St. George and Jennifer Jason Leigh as their prescription pill popping progeny, Selena St. George.

This film and novel are from King's writing period of evil, not examined through supernatural forces, but like "Gerald's Game" and "Misery", the evil that human beings do to other human beings. Even their own flesh and blood...

The film opens with a fall down the stairs by Vera Donovan (Judy Parfitt, Dolores' employer and wench of a woman, a marble rolling pin a dead body and a mailman who reports the "goings on" to the local police detective, John Mackey, played by Christopher Plummer.

Dolores is hauled in for the murder of her employer but we soon find out that this isn't the first time Dolores has been in trouble with the law! Her husband died of unknown causes during the solar eclipse of 1975 and many islanders think that Dolores had something to do with the death of her abusive husband.

The movie succession is filmed in many flashback sequences through the mind's eye of Dolores that are just quite mesmerizing! Great cinematography and direction in this film, no doubt!

Did Dolores kill her husband twenty years ago? Did she also murder her badgering b!tch of a boss, Vera Donovan? What family secrets are hidden and what will be the outcome of Dolores and her daughter, Selena?

Watch the film and find out for yourself!

Happy Watching!

two murders told in flashback
The movie opens with what sounds like a fight and an elderly woman falling violently down the stairs. Dolores Claiborne (Kathy Bates) races down the steps, ransacks the kitchen and returns with a rolling pin. Poised to strike, she is caught by the mailman who has entered the house to deliver packages.

Dolores' estranged daughter Selena is summoned from NYC -- she has not visited in 15 years, ever since her own father died "in misadventure" although she suspects the killer was Dolores.

From here, the story of Dolores' relationships with both of her "victims" (her husband and her former employer, for whom she worked as a maid) is told in flashbacks. Particularly bad is her relationship with her husband, but how and why she finally decides to get rid of him is far more complicated than "why didn't she just leave"?

Christopher Plummer has a great role as the detective who is convinced Dolores got off too easy for her husband's death in 1975 and is determined that she pat double now. It's a far cry from when he was a captain with 7 children in "The Sound of Music"!

One of my favorite movies.
I never get tired of this drama. Kathy Bates, as a wisecracking maid, and Jennifer Jason Leigh, as her depressed and anxiety-prone daughter, are superb. A wonderful mix of comedy, tension, and suspense--masterfully directed.

VERY highly recommended. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The second of the three Merchant/Ivory films adapting E.M. Forster novels (between A Room with a View andHoward's End), Maurice deals with a theme few period pieces dare mention--a young man's struggle with his homosexuality. It's not just a gay coming-of-age story, however. The hero wrestles with British class society as much as his personal and sexual identity.

The film opens on a stormy, windswept beach, as an older man awkwardly instructs young, fatherless Maurice Hall (James Wilby) in the "sacred mysteries"of sex. The same turbulent, wordless struggle with passion lasts throughout this slowly evolving, beautifully filmed story. Novelist E.M. Forster's brainy, British melodrama hinges onchoice and compulsion, as the pensive hero falls for two completely different men.First comes frail, suppressed Clive (Hugh Grant), who wants nothing more than classical Platonic harmony... and a straight lifestyle. (Grant's performance is so convincing, one wonders how he ever became a heterosexual sex symbol.) After Clive's wedding, Maurice turns to hypnosis to curehis unspeakable longings. Unfortunately, his "cure" is interrupted by Clive's lustful, brooding, barely literate gamekeeper Scudder (Rupert Graves), aworker more at home gutting rabbits than discussing the classics. Maurice's love for a "social inferior" forces him to confront his illicit desire and his ingrained class snobbery. --Grant Balfour ... Read more

Reviews (69)

Haunting, Transcendent
Merchant-Ivory have often been made fun of for being stuffy and repressed. I don't agree but I understand why they've been parodied. In Maurice, however, the team created something very special--an incredibly lyrical, heartfelt love story. This movie haunted me long after I saw it when it was released, and it's just as haunting now. The performances are simply grand. I wish Hugh Grant would do a dramatic role again to get rid of his mannerisms. Wilby is particularly fine, when you consider this was his first film. I've never seen Graves give a bad performance. I'm so glad to see this on DVD. Would this film be a bigger hit in the theaters if it were released now? I think so.

Forster would have approved!
This is the one of the most faithful novel-to-film adaptations that I have seen. American director James Ivory has a wonderfully British sensibility, and the movie vividly recreates late Edwardian England in muted autumnal colours. In particular, it gives the 21st century viewer a very real appreciation of what it must have been like to be gay in such a society.

The cast is uniformly excellent. James Wilby was not Ivory's first choice for the central role of upper-class Maurice (Daniel Day Lewis and Julian Sands were earlier contenders), but he gives an outstanding and totally plausible portrayal. Equally good is Hugh Grant, years before he found fame as the archetypal British twit. Grant's role is a difficult one; he must at first engage our sympathy and fondness, then gradually lose our respect as he seeks to enter "respectable" society. Ultimately, we come to despise his cowardice. Grant achieves all of this without descending into caricature - a considerable feat.

Rupert Graves makes a fine Alex Scudder, the lusty undergamekeeper who seduces and transforms Maurice. Apart from a slightly inconsistent accent, he, too. seems entirely plausible and fans of DH Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover should note that this full-blooded lad pre-dates Lawrence's own gamekeeper by many years!

An outstanding supporting cast of seasoned pros includes the late, great Denholm Elliot and Ben Kingsley in small, but pivotal roles as, respectively, a bullying doctor and a hypnotist, both of whom Maurice unsuccessfully seeks help from.

This movie has a superb period atmosphere, a leisurely but rewarding pace, plenty of understated passion, memorable music and great script-writing. Kudos to the scenarists for being so faithful to the spirit of Forster, while at the same time adding scenes to remind viewers of the real dangers for gay men in Edwardian England.

Outstanding.

Obsessed!
I mean ME - I am truly obsessed with this film! I have fallen in love with beautiful Cambridge (so masculine and steeped in tradition), with the romantic Edwardian era, with the beauty of the story and especially with Maurice, the title character. Beware... if you're "susceptible" to romantic movies and is a highly sensitive person, chances are this movie will "get" to you in ways I can't fully describe. It doesn't matter if you are gay or straight - against your will, scenes and images from the film will replay in you mind, stay in your heart and affect your mood and feelings (for days, in my case - which is not a good thing because I have a major examination coming up and half my mind is still on "Maurice"!). At times, I wished I was born male like the characters, and have the privilege of a Cambridge education... wishful thinking really (though I've a girlfriend who went to Cambridge on a scholarship, to my eternal envy really).

This film is a faithful adaptation of Forster's novel and brilliantly brought to life by the winning team of Merchant Ivory. The stellar cast comprises James Wilby, Hugh Grant and Rupert Graves; all 3 share great screen chemistry and there is no doubt that the actors gave it their "all" for this film.

This is the story about one man's journey of self discovery about his sexuality and having to live with the prejudices of the times including class distinction (which balks at intimacy with a social inferior, in this case Maurice's desire for Alec). Many reviews have already been written about the story so I would just like to share some of my thoughts and observations of the film:

1) the DVD (R1, released Feb 2004) is beautifully packaged and is chockful of special features including more than 10 deleted scenes, one of which is a most sensual scene involving Maurice and Alec (an "extended" scene of their first night together). The production notes/booklet also provides a treasure of information on the film.

2) James Wilby plays "Maurice" most beautifully and sensitively. He is imperfectly handsome but is still very attractive-looking. The thing that strikes me most about Wilby's "Maurice" is that he has the MOST beautiful hair color - it's practically "golden" - not the usual blond. The color contracts nicely with the black suit he usually wears. In the novel, Maurice has dark hair, but I think a golden-haired Maurice is just perfect - a great contrast too to Clive's and Alec's dark locks!!

3) Clive (Hugh Grant) is older than Maurice by a year. When they get together, Maurice is around 21 years of age. By the time they break off, Maurice is nearing 24. Nothing is mentioned in the book/movie about Alec (Rupert Graves)'s age - but I gather he is the youngest of the three (although most certainly the lustiest!!).

4) Maurice's character is passionate, loving, vulnerable and super-loyal. If Clive had not rejected him, Maurice would have been "his for life". What's with Clive anyway? He's got this idea that a relationship between 2 men should be strictly platonic (no kisses or caresses, even). Thank goodness for the appearance of Alec later on, who is Clive's very opposite!

5) In the novel, Maurice is horrified by his lust for and intimacy with Alec, who is only a servant. But one reason they are perfect for each other is because (in Forster's words): "chance had mated it (i.e. Maurice's body) too perfectly". The 2 characters' growing feelings for each other are a joy to watch.

6) For those who question the ending i.e. whether it is even possible for Maurice and Alec to stay together what with all the difficulties surrounding them, well, let me write that Forster intended the ending to be a happy one (and who would know better than the author himself?). In the "Terminal Note" at the end of his novel, Forster wrote: "A happy ending is imperative. I shouldn't have bothered to write otherwise. I was determined that in fiction anyway two men should fall in love and remain in it for the ever and ever that fiction allows, and in this sense Maurice and Alce still roam the greenwood..." Super, isn't it?

7) The final scene ("In the Boathouse") is wonderfully romantic and is alone worth the price of the whole DVD, so to speak.

I don't want to forget this beautiful movie, and I can't forget it anyway. It is quite simply the most touching film I've ever seen. It deserved an armful of Oscar awards (although in reality it didn't do that well, receiving only Art Direction and Best Costume nominations). I've seen most of Merchant Ivory productions and "Maurice" is hands-down, the BEST. Don't miss it!

"May I Ask Your Name?"--An 'Easter Egg' for MAURICE
There is no need to repeat the praise others here have heaped upon MAURICE and the DVD package. This is the way any film of quality should be treated.

For those who will surely find it entertaining, there's a very nice EASTER EGG on this DVD:

Go to Disc Two--select Deleted Scenes, page 2--select "May I ask you name?" and then right-arrow. A small icon will appear in the lower right hand corner of your screen. Click on that and enjoy a hidden deleted scene.

Exquisite Masterpiece
One common complaint of the critics of this film is that the ending is rather unrealistic - that two homosexual men in English Edwardian society wouldn't *in reality* be able to fall in love and continue their romance as depicted in this mesmerizing film because of the unfortunate obstacles of being from different social classes and being completely different in their interests and unbringing. Although I feel that these critics are correct, I overlook that detail because I recognize that this film was obviously made with love by director James Ivory, producer Ismail Merchant and the cast. Another case in point: my favorite film is Alfred Hitchcock's 1958 masterpiece, "Vertigo," which depicts a retired police detective falling in love for the first time in his life and becoming obsessed with a woman whom he only meets only because of a murder plot she had agreed to take part in. Is that plot so realistic? Not particularly, although it *could* happen, just as this romance *could* have happened. Just because the plot does not immediately strike one as "realistic" does not mean that the beauty or the power of a film like "Vertigo" or "Maurice" is diminished. The film is very well cast with the two best performances coming from James Wilby as Maurice Hall and Rupert Graves as Alec Scudder. In reality, as shown on the second disc containing lengthy interviews with the filmmakers and the lead actors of this film, the three lead actors playing the homosexual characters, James Wilby, Rupert Graves and Hugh Grant, are heterosexual. Consequently, it is admirable that they are so convincing and uninhibited in their roles. In addition, the score by Richard Robbins is very memorable: it is indeed one of the two most beautiful I have ever heard, the other score being composer Bernard Herrmann's work of art - his score for "Vertigo." 10/10. A. ... Read more

Reviews (65)

BBC Vs A&E Pride and Prejudice
I enjoyed both the A&E and this the BBC version. I feel they both had their strong points and weak points. Elizabeth Garvie as Lizzie in this version could not be bested in my opinion. She was excellent. Although, I did not see anything really wrong with Jennifer Ehle's portrayal I liked Elizabeth's better. There was some license taken with the dialogue and specific scenes and this certainly effects understanding the relationship between Lizzy & Mr. Darcy. His admiration of Lizzy is more apparent in the A&E version, the scene where she is playing the piano at Pemberley. This scene is not the same in the BBC version. Darcy's gaze upon Lizzy says it all, is very revealing, and why Colin Firth's Darcy was just a little more human. David Rintoul was good, but I could not see open admiration in his face as you could Colin Firth. I thought Jane was too plain in the A&E version. She did not strike me as a beauty! And poor Mary was too plain. All in all they were both well done and entertaining. This one is very close to the book!

A Lukewarm Version of a Great Novel
I vastly prefer the A&E version of Austen's wonderful novel. The BBC version is quite amateurish, with stagy settings and some wooden performances and doesn't do justice to the main characters. Austen writes that Elizabeth had (forgive me, this is from memory) a lively, sportive playfulness that made it difficult for her to offend anybody. The BBC version shows rancorous verbal exchanges between Elizabeth and Darcy that belie the delicacy of the social maneuvers leading up to his mistaken belief that she is hoping to marry him. David Rintoul plays Darcy like an insensate block. Lady Catherine de Bourgh and Mr. Wickham are portrayed very well in both versions, but all the characters in the A&E version are better written.
The fact is that several of the reviewers object to features in the A&E version that are actually in the book! For instance, A&E's Mrs. Bennett makes you squirm with embarrassment just as Jane Austen intended. The BBC's Mrs. Bennett is scrubbed up and toned down. And Elizabeth does joke that she first fell in love with Darcy when she saw his beautiful grounds at Pemberley.
The A&E version's view is that many aspects of life in Jane Austen's time are applicable to contemporary life--attitudes toward wealth, socioeconomics, morality (including ruthless seduction and reckless premarital sex). The fact that Jane Austen expressed these ideas with delicacy and understatement may make them less obvious to a modern sensibility. How do you portray a vulgar, ill-mannered or unscrupulous character from the 19th century to people raised on Roseanne, Martin Lawrence, Tony Soprano and The Fear Factor? I think the A&E version accomplishes this beautifully without compromising the story. The BBC version feels constricted and lifeless at times. It's worth watching but it's neither brilliant nor the best representation of this wonderful book.

true to novel, but slack in imagination and emotional spark
I rented this mini some time ago, and although it was true to the text, it has some obvious flaws. The pacing is entirely off. There are some downplayed moments that should be poignant, which instead just feel like dead air. Most importantly, the performances leave much to be desired, as the two main characters, Lizzy and Darcy, are barely brought to life by the respective actors. I have to admit, my favorite parts of the adaptation were those with Darcy, not because of his character, but because the actor had the uncanny ability to barely open his mouth when brusquely and dully dead-panning his lines. His mouth remains a thin harsh line throughout the entre film, keep watch, you'll see!

Excellent Adaptation!
I must agree with the reviewers that find the BBC version truer to the book. The actors better protrayed their characters in line with the manners of that time. The pacing of the story is slow and the setting is not visually striking as in the A&E version. The costumes are very good though.

The A&E version is a visual feast. The story is paced well and the set and costumes are beautiful. However, there is a more modern spin on the story. The actors did a wonderful job but their portrayal of their characters was not quite in line with society of that period. Their was not enough reserve of emotions that was displayed in the book.

I can't say that I liked one version over the other. If you want a truer version of the book, you will be most impressed with the BBC version. If you want a feast for the eyes, the A&E version would be your preference. I own both.

The Greatest Version
This is my favorite version of P & P ever. I really feel that it stays more true to the message of the book than any other. So many versions forget that this isn't a love story, but a class story. It's purpose was to illustrate the classism present in GB at this time. The script varies only mildly from the book. Elizabeth, Jane, and Mr. and Mrs. Bennett are all superb! The note the movie ends on is just delicious. I could be biased by having watched this version throughout my formative years, but I think it's a must-see. ... Read more

Amazon.com

David Ward made his reputation on his original screenplay toThe Sting, but his career as a director has been built on lightweight comedies filled with generous spirit and slight aspirations. King Ralph delivers on that level. After a freak accident kills every immediate member of the British royal family, a search of the royal bloodline uncovers anunlikely candidate: portly Vegas lounge singer John Goodman. How will thisgauche, exuberant, red-blooded American mix with the haughty aristocraticbluebloods? Blustery, big-hearted Goodman brings the common touch to the palacewith the enthusiastic spirit of a beer-guzzling, burger-eating American everymanwho hammers out a mean rock & roll piano--even at official functions. John Hurt plays his conniving rival, an overlooked lord who plots hisdemise, while Peter O'Toole brings quiet dignity to his role as the King'sprivate secretary and unofficial guide through the maze of etiquette anddiplomacy. Ward brings a distinctly American sensibility to the British setting-- this is definitely slapstick over satire and Goodman is a veritable bull inthe royal china shop. It's a modest underdog comedy in which white hats andblack hats are pretty rigidly defined, but Goodman brings a working-classdignity to the role. Watch for Joely Richardson in a hilarious turn as athroaty foreign princess who puts the moves on Goodman. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Goodman Sells A Spectacular Performance!
HM King Ralph is an exceptionally well done film, and is hilarious footage for the whole family. The movie King Ralph begins with the recent deaths of the entire British Royal Family. Britains then trace back Royal liniage to find that a Casino gambling American (Goodman) is next in line to the British Throne of Whindom. John Goodman brings laughs and spunk into the walls of Buckingham Palace, and an emotional ending leaves you ready to watch it again!

Very Funny!!
This is a great movie - it was made in 1991 but is still hilarious! John Goodman plays an American who inherits the throne in England and has to deal with the culture shock and his new-found royal obligations. If you liked him in the role of Dan Conner on Roseanne, you will enjoy him in this movie. Peter O'Toole plays his loyal assistant who has to teach him how to act like a king and steals many of the scenes much the way Hobson did in the movie Arthur. I highly recommend this movie! It is very funny and one of those movies you can watch over and over and still crack up every time - and the great thing about DVD is you can skip to the highlights!

John Goodman's best role!!
Synopsis : A freak accident occurs that wipes out the entire royal family, and England is forced to find a new king. After doing an extensive search of the bloodline, a distant heir is revealed. That heir is Ralph Jones - a good-natured Las Vegas lounge singer. The original king's private secretary ( Peter O' Toole) is forced to give Ralph a crash course in what it takes to be a king. Unfortunately, Ralph's unconventional behavior provides fuel for a plot to take over the throan by the evil Lord Graves ( John Hurt). To make things even worse, Ralph falls for a stripper( Camille Coduri)which threatens to tarnish Ralph's royal image beyond repair. Now it is up to the former Las Vegas entertainer, to redeem himself, and show that he has what it takes to become England's very own "King Ralph"...

My Thoughts : "King Ralph" is one of the funniest films I have ever seen, and it is John Goodman's best role without a doubt. He was absolutely perfect for the role, simply because he got to play a character that was so much like himself. All of his "unconventional" methods of being king, will have you laughing for the entire film. Peter O' Toole was also oustanding as Goodman's private secretary. He tries his hardest to teach Ralph the "propper" way of being king, and must fight Ralph every step of the way. The fact that Goodman and O' Toole are such opposites, is what makes them play so well off of each other. John Hurt and Camille Coduri give nice supporting performances as well.

Overall : "King Ralph" offers outstanding performances, and non-stop laughs. I highly recommend this film to anyone who is a fan of John Goodman, or comedies in general. You will not be dissapointed!!

Grade : A

HIGHLY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

- Ryan Deffley

...
...That isn't anything like bumping into this monstrosity on late-night cable and finding yourself transfixed...you can't stop watching! It's like a train wreck, a predictable dated 'fish out of water' comedy that isn't the least bit funny. Even John Goodman trashed the film on one of his SNL appearances. It was probably a low-point in Finno-American relations as well. King of Finland? It appears the films fact consultant was also its script-writer. John Goodman proves beyond a doubt that fat people are not necessarily funny.

Corny but Fun
Probably the best Jon Goodman movie I have ever seen. The premise is implauable to say the least, but you still manage some pretty descent laughs. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Directed by documentary filmmaker Nick Broomfield (Kurt & Courtney), this intense 1989 film seeks to challenge notions of morality and sexual obsession. This highly stylized investigation of amorality among the upper crust features Gabriel Byrne (Miller's Crossing) as an aristocrat in the throes of jealous paranoia about the goings-on of his wife, played by Amanda Donohoe (Lair of the White Worm). Believing that she is having an affair, he becomes increasingly unglued until one night, having had too much to drink with friends, he deliberately runs down a woman with his car, thinking she is his wife.When she turns out to be one of his staff, Byrne and his cronies pledge to cover up the murder, until one of the bunch begins to wrestle with feelings of guilt, jeopardizing the rest. Meanwhile, Byrne struggles to contend with his so-called normal life, complete with all its callous decadence, hoping not to be discovered as a murderer as he contends with his rabid jealousy. Lurid and uncompromising, the adult-themed Dark Obsession offers a disturbing and compelling view of the dark side of human sexuality. --Robert Lane ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Thoughtful thriller
Dark Obsession was hard to watch because it is not a movie that leaves you with a sense of satisfaction. We watch many movies with loathsome characters, but most get their just desserts, or at least some measure of retribution. That's not the case with the central character here, a philandering and bullying British aristocrat played by Gabriel Byrne. Granted, he is a good actor, but boy did I hate him!
Consumed by jealous lust for his wife and suspecting her of infidelity, he runs her over with his car, or so he thinks. Turns out he killed someone else. Byrne's friends become complicit in his crime by covering it up for him. One of them has a conscience that eventually gets the better of him, but will justice be done?
Amanda Donohoe is good as Byrne's longsuffering wife. This must have been in the middle of her LA Law days. She is adept at playing both innocent beauties and scheming she-devils (a la Lair of the White Worm).
Also look out for a young Sadie Frost as Byrne's sister. She looks much curvier here than she did in Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Dumb/NC-17?
This film was just plain dumb. I see very few have bothered to even write a review. That says a lot. There is little plot, no character development, and the NC-17 rating isn't appropriate. Maybe because this movie is kind of old...The sex scenes are mild. Anyway, Gabriel Byrne has very few lines and just avoid this...

Aka Diamond Skulls
This first feature by Nick Broomfield based on an idea he conceived with Tim Rose Price is only interesting in light of the later documentaries Broomfield would make about serial killer Aileen Wournos, Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss, and the controversy surrounding the extent of Courtney Love's involvement in the death of her husband Kurt Kobain. All these subjects have class in common, whether it's Wournos' killing of truckers in self defence, Fleiss' knowledge of the dirty tricks of Hollywood, or Love's own searing ambition. This film however never decides what it wants to explore, be it the hit and run of a disposable person - the chef of the Yorkshire estate that Gabriel Byrne's parents own, or Byrne's jealousy of his wife, played by Amanda Donohoe. There is the suggestion that the driver believed the victim was Donohoe, which combines both ideas, but this is soon dismissed. While it's hardly a relevation that the rich can behave as beastly as those less rich, and also seem to enjoy patronising activites that are defined as working class, like sex, (the killing is dubbed "meals on wheels"), Broomfield and Rose Price aren't above presenting the police as ineffectual or tourists to the estate as swine who peak through the windows. Broomfield redeems this wispy inchoate tale with his camera, showing us twin beefeaters, Byrne's repeated smothering sex scene with Donohoe, or using odd camera subjective angles, where a ridden horse, a leashed dog and finally Donohoe are seen from the one pursuing them. Although Byrne's brooding uncommunicative obsessional has been the disappointment of other titles, the real waste here is Donohoe who it seems is keyed to give a performance. ... Read more

Reviews (69)

STUNNING -- SHOULD HAVE WON OSCARS!
WOW...I won't go into any more detail than the previous reviewers did, as they have summed up my feelings too on this remarkable, underappreciated and underrated movie. Oscars should have gone to director Taylor Hackford, the cinematographer, Danny Elfman's haunting score, and the acting, oh my. Of course, Kathy Bates is overwhelming; Jennifer Jason Leigh has never been better; Christopher Plummer certainly sheds his "Sound of Music" persona; Judy Parfit is unbelievably effective as bitchy Vera, but her portrayal is so dimensional that we come to care for her; Ms. Parfit's scene with the pig musicbox playing "Happy Days Are Here Again" is brilliant. Also superb is Ellen Muth, who plays the young Selena, and John Reilly as the sheriff, who stands up to Plummer's state detective. Of course, one can't overlook David Straitharn as Dolores' cruel and abusive husband. His performance is so convincing that I don't think I'll like him in anything! My only regret is I didn't see this one earlier. Can we go back and do the 1995 Oscars over??
I loved this movie!!!! Stephen King should rank this and "The Green Mile" as his crowning adapted movies!

Sometimes Being A Witch Is All A Woman Has To Hang On To...
Stephen King's 1992 novel comes to life with a truly great perfomance by Kathy Bates as
the title character, Dolores Claiborne, David Straitharn as her deceased husband Joe St.
George and Jennifer Jason Leigh as their prescription pill popping progeny, Selena St.
George.

This film and novel are from King's writing period of evil, not examined through supernatural
forces, but like "Gerald's Game" and "Misery", the evil that human beings do to other human
beings. Even their own flesh and blood...

The film opens with a fall down the stairs by Vera Donovan (Judy Parfitt, Dolores' employer
and wench of a woman, a marble rolling pin a dead body and a mailman who reports the
"goings on" to the local police detective, John Mackey, played by Christopher Plummer.

Dolores is hauled in for the murder of her employer but we soon find out that this isn't the
first time Dolores has been in trouble with the law! Her husband died of unknown causes
during the solar eclipse of 1975 and many islanders think that Dolores had something to do
with the death of her abusive husband.

The movie succession is filmed in many flashback sequences through the mind's eye of
Dolores that are just quite mesmerizing! Great cinematography and direction in this film, no
doubt!

Did Dolores kill her husband twenty years ago? Did she also murder her badgering witch of
a boss, Vera Donovan? What family secrets are hidden and what will be the outcome of
Dolores and her daughter, Selena?

Watch the film and find out for yourself!

Happy Watching!

Sometimes Being A B!tch Is All A Woman Has To Hang On To...
Stephen King's 1992 novel comes to life with a truly great perfomance by Kathy Bates as the title character, Dolores Claiborne, David Straitharn as her deceased husband Joe St. George and Jennifer Jason Leigh as their prescription pill popping progeny, Selena St. George.

This film and novel are from King's writing period of evil, not examined through supernatural forces, but like "Gerald's Game" and "Misery", the evil that human beings do to other human beings. Even their own flesh and blood...

The film opens with a fall down the stairs by Vera Donovan (Judy Parfitt, Dolores' employer and wench of a woman, a marble rolling pin a dead body and a mailman who reports the "goings on" to the local police detective, John Mackey, played by Christopher Plummer.

Dolores is hauled in for the murder of her employer but we soon find out that this isn't the first time Dolores has been in trouble with the law! Her husband died of unknown causes during the solar eclipse of 1975 and many islanders think that Dolores had something to do with the death of her abusive husband.

The movie succession is filmed in many flashback sequences through the mind's eye of Dolores that are just quite mesmerizing! Great cinematography and direction in this film, no doubt!

Did Dolores kill her husband twenty years ago? Did she also murder her badgering b!tch of a boss, Vera Donovan? What family secrets are hidden and what will be the outcome of Dolores and her daughter, Selena?

Watch the film and find out for yourself!

Happy Watching!

two murders told in flashback
The movie opens with what sounds like a fight and an elderly woman falling violently down the stairs. Dolores Claiborne (Kathy Bates) races down the steps, ransacks the kitchen and returns with a rolling pin. Poised to strike, she is caught by the mailman who has entered the house to deliver packages.

Dolores' estranged daughter Selena is summoned from NYC -- she has not visited in 15 years, ever since her own father died "in misadventure" although she suspects the killer was Dolores.

From here, the story of Dolores' relationships with both of her "victims" (her husband and her former employer, for whom she worked as a maid) is told in flashbacks. Particularly bad is her relationship with her husband, but how and why she finally decides to get rid of him is far more complicated than "why didn't she just leave"?

Christopher Plummer has a great role as the detective who is convinced Dolores got off too easy for her husband's death in 1975 and is determined that she pat double now. It's a far cry from when he was a captain with 7 children in "The Sound of Music"!

One of my favorite movies.
I never get tired of this drama. Kathy Bates, as a wisecracking maid, and Jennifer Jason Leigh, as her depressed and anxiety-prone daughter, are superb. A wonderful mix of comedy, tension, and suspense--masterfully directed.

VERY highly recommended. ... Read more