Amazon.com

Set in a time when a buildup of toxic chemicals has made most people sterile, Volker Schlondorff's film offers a disturbing view of a society under martial law in which fertile women are captured and made into handmaids to bear children for rich and infertile matrons. The film unfolds from the eyes of newly converted handmaid Kate (Natasha Richardson). She is trapped in this mysogynistic society which both deifies these fertile women as prized possessions and condemns them as whores. Throughout the story Kate has to cope with the jealousy of the woman she serves (Faye Dunaway), the advances of her sleazy military husband (the Commander, played by Robert Duvall), and the loss of her daughter, who has been shuttled off to a similarly aristocratic setting. She also falls in love with one of the Commander's security guards (Aidan Quinn), who sympathizes with her plight and potentially offers her a way out. Throughout The Handmaid's Tale, issues of feminism, abortion rights, male dominance, and conservative religious politics all come under fire. Some may view the film itself as antifemale considering its concepts, but it is quite the opposite.Instead it shows how only through solidarity can women bring down an overriding patriarchical mindset.The film, which works from Harold Pinter's screenplay adaption of Margaret Atwood's novel, features strong performances from those mentioned as well as Elizabeth McGovern and Victoria Tennant. --Bryan Reesman ... Read more

Reviews (38)

thought provoking reading and viewing
I taught this particular novel and showed the movie in my AP senior lit and comp class several years ago. After I made the decision to teach the book, I read a review in The English Journal by another teacher who had taught it. She raved about it. My students said the same things hers did..."Why did you save the best until last?" I lent my video to a student who lent it to a friend. I never got it back. The book and the movie force us all to examine how we view women...how we view women in the church...how we view women in society. They force us to examine the separation of church and state. The book is not the product of a bored, sick mind, but rather the product of a contemporary feminist author whose work routinely asks us to reexamine ourselves. The video is a good representation of the book, bringing to life events portrayed. The book is better, but the video is certainly worth watching. And for the love of God, let's not let the USA become Gilead.

a decent film of a better book
the environment--these are the facets of a bleak existence and the movie holds true to that. There are flashes of joy, mostly in the well-played interaction of the main character and her best friend, but these are few and far-between. This isn't a complaint, but fair warning.
A worse flaw, for me, were the changes made to the main character, who moves from a more honest passive character in the novel to an active, at times brave/heroic character in the film. Perhaps they thought it would have been too dark, perhaps they thought the audience wouldn't react well to a passive main character. But it robs the story of much of its truth. As does the ending, which without giving any details, is much less ambiguous than in the story.
If you've read the book it's worth seeing but be prepared for some disappointment. If you haven't read it, it's even more worth seeing, especially today when aspects of our lives like the Taliban and the Patriot Act make the story reverberate more, but don't expect to have a bunch of friends over for a laugh-fest.

An absolute insult to such a thorough and compelling book
I have recently studied this book in my AS year at college and thoroughly enjoyed it. I have so much admiration for Margaret Atwood in writing such an imaginative, yet horrifying, book. The film version does the novel no justice at all, even my lecturer said it was 'absolute bobbins.' We gain no insight into the atrocities of the Republic of Gilead and the mental/physical effects it has on the women. I would admire anyone who successfully films a version of the novel!

An Insult to Margaret Atwood.
A cheesy, thoughtless rendition of one of my favorite books. The book contains some of the most beautiful narrative told in Atwood's unmistakable prose... the movie replaces ALL of her work with this with some talentless hollywood hack's shallow after-school-special dialog... and that's just the tip of the iceberg. I'd recommend "Volcano" before I'd recommend this trash.

Very poor adaptation of an excellent novel...
I first read Margaret Atwood's book The Handmaid's Tale for a women's studies course at my local community college and I enjoyed it very much. It is a very important work, much in the same vein as Orwell's "1984," but more hopeful, and told from the perspective of a woman. However, the movie was a huge disappointment and loses much of Atwood's message.

A quick overview of the story: Offred is a Handmaid in a futuristic, dystopian society known as Gilead. The birthrate in Gilead is very low due to severe toxic pollution, and so the remaining fertile women are selected to be Handmaids whose sole purpose is to become pregnant by the upper class men (called Commanders). As soon as they provide their Commander with a child, they are packed off to another household to do it all again. If they are ever unable to bear more children, they will more than likely be labeled "Unwomen" and shipped away to a work colony to die. Handmaids are not allowed to read, and can only leave the house with permission. The book consists mostly of Offred's thoughts about her former life and her current position. There are hints of a resistance movement, but no one in this world can ever be sure that anyone else is trustworthy. Offred does not know what is real, or what is safe, and lives in constant fear. The regime has made it illegal for a man to be termed infertile, so if a Handmaid has no children, it is blamed on her without question. Offred's Commander is obviously incapable of fathering children, and she faces relocation to the colonies if she does not conceive. As her time runs out, the suspense builds to a crescendo of urgency and terror.

The film does not capture the full horror of the world Offred, the story's main character, lives in. In the movie she appears to have almost unrestricted freedom of movement, able to wander about the house and even leave it without permission (for example, she just trots off to the Red Center one day and spends the night - this never happened in the original story), whereas in the book she was monitored constantly. There is also absolutely no reference to the Handmaids not being allowed to read, so a viewer that has not read the book would likely wonder at the significance of the scene where the Commander presents Offred with a magazine as a gift. Offred also smiles quite often in the movie, and there are no allusions to her frequent thoughts of suicide, which are readily apparent in the novel.

My biggest disappointment with the movie, however, was the altered ending. Atwood's book leaves us wondering, and actually gives the reader the task of creating the end of the story themself through the way they choose to live their life. The movie, however, provides us with a very neat, tidy, pretty little ending that allows the viewer to forget all about the characters without a twinge of conscience - they're obviously ok, right? So what's that got to do with my life? The movie ending does nothing to make the viewer think or realize that if we aren't careful right here and now in our own lives, everything might not turn out so prettily. There is no lesson, or moral to the story, when Atwood very plainly intended for her work to pack a real punch.

I really don't think the novel is even a good candidate for adaptation into a movie, because the book is very slow, centering mostly around Offred's thoughts. She cannot do much, so most of the time she just sits in her room, and it is her contemplations during this time that make up the bulk of the writing. It would be very hard to accurately represent the novel in film without making the movie boring. The director of this film obviously realized this and so he spiced it up and tried to make it into an action movie. It just doesn't work.

To make matters worse, the acting in the film is very wooden. Natasha Richardson, who plays the main character, is particularly unconvincing. It is hard to feel for the characters because they just don't seem real. The whole atmosphere of the film is stiff and unnatural.

Nevertheless, before I close, I would like to point out the few things I actually did like about the movie (and hence why I'm giving it two stars rather than just one):

The scene depicting the monthly "ceremony" is particularly moving. It is rather hard to watch, but I believe it really captures the event as described in the novel. I particularly liked the fact that the camera focuses for a moment on Serena Joy at the end of the scene, showing her emotions as the Wife - something we don't get so much of in the novel.

The movie also does a good job of showing the relationship between Offred and the Commander. The viewer can easily see that the Commander sees Offred as a pet - something fun to play with and indulge, but nothing he really cares about. She is like a toy for him, and one that can easily be replaced, just as Offred has replaced the Handmaid before her.

Overall, though, I would not recommend this movie to anyone. It just doesn't convey the message that Atwood intended, and it's not even very entertaining in and of itself. Read the book instead. You'll get so much more out of it. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Missionaries travel to the Brazilian rain forest and make a mess of everything. What else is new? Actually, plenty in this dark but beautifully realized adaptation of Peter Matthiessen's well-regarded novel, directed by Hector Babenco. Aidan Quinn, Daryl Hannah, Kathy Bates, and John Lithgow play the Americans who travel to the Brazilian interior in an effort to do some good. But their definitions of good vary wildly; Bates and Lithgow are old-fashioned puritans who want to convert the heathens to Christianity and remove all traces of their own culture. Quinn and Hannah are more spiritually minded, hoping to make a connection and a cultural exchange with the Indians they encounter. In the end, they're all delusional, trapped in their own preconceptions. Downbeat but magical in its way, with sterling performances all around and amazing scenery, to say the least. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (31)

Finally!! A Movie For Adults!!
I have probably watched this movie 10 times and each time I see something I missed before. In this age of comic-book character drek movies,here's a story with characters and plot that makes you think. A movie for ADULTS!

The story concerns a group of missionaries en route to the jungle to ram their religion down the throats of the poor indians (Lithgow, Hanna, Quinn and Bates). Tom Berenger is an American half Indian who is hired to bomb the people he discovers is of his own race. He decides instead to parachute himself into the tribe, thereby being considered their God.

From here everything goes downhill. Bates and Quinn's son dies of a fever, Bates goes mad; Berenger's character has a sexual fling with Hanna who is unknown to everyone, carrying a virus
which would not kill anyone in a first world, but is catastrophic to the Indians when Berenger returns to infect everyone.

The aerial photography at the beginning was some of the most beautiful you'll ever see in any movie. The South American topography looks like the Grand Canyon, only covered in green, green, GREEN!! The characters are very fleshed out and deep. This is a movie that leaves you wondering what happened to them after the movie ends. Too bad garbage like "X-men", "Spiderman, "Incredible Hulk", ad nauseum get all the big box office. I'm sorry this one did not do well either. But, then, considering the mentality of humanity these days, I'm not surprised.

Berenger and Quinn make this film worth viewing
Ofcourse, Tom Berenger and Aidan Quinn have the only two fully developed characters in this script and they both did a tremendous job. Darryl Hannah's performance was also good, but would have been better had her character been explored more deeply. I was not impressed with the performances of Bates and Lithgow, however, despite being a fan of their other work. There were moments when I laughed because the acting was so over the top.
What is so sad about this film overall is that it really could have been great. It's a great story that needs to be told, but even the best actors can only do so much with a poor script.
I've read comments from others about the nudity being an issue in the film. That's just ridiculous and I had to comment on it because when I finally viewed the film, I didn't even notice the nudity. Naked body? We've all got one under our clothes. Get over it.
Two of the three stars are for Berenger and Quinn for doing such a great job. Without those two performances, this is a one star film.

Good.
'At Play in the Fields of the Lord' is a excellent movie about a failed attempt to "civilize" a group of native americans living in the Amazon. Check it out.

Fantastic missionary movie
At Play in the Fields of the Lord is a movie to have in your personal collection. It has stayed in my memory since my first viewing many years ago, and remains to date one of the best missionary movies ever made. Based on the book by the same name by Peter Mathiessen, author of In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, the film masterfully weaves the clash between Native peoples and the well meaning Christians who aim to convert them. Featuring stunning scenery, filmed entirely on location in Amazonia, and with an all-star cast, I can't recommend it highly enough. I also recommend Black Robe if you enjoy this movie.

Culture clash...
Here's a big book reduced to a three-hour film. I don't have a problem with that. The parts left out could make a whole 'nother film. The resulting film is quite profound and fascinating; Babenco got a big budget after his success with "Kiss of the Spider Woman", and made an epic which is unusually intimate. I appreciated the acting, all of it. Kathy Bates in particular was solid in her relatively small role, and one of these days Daryl Hannah will be taken seriously. Berenger and Quinn have the moxy to carry this film well. The photography is exquisite, especially some of the aerial shots, but also crystal clear close-ups that show every bead of sweat, etc. Stunning! I've read most of the other reviews before making my comments. This film had me from the beginning, and I'm sorry for those who didn't "get it". Films about trying to change the beliefs of natives are interesting (and upsettingly frustrating) for me. Another riveting film (for me) was 1966's "Hawaii", based on Michener, which told a similar story. "Windwalker"? "Roots"? The religious thing, to me, is merely a matter of interpretation. Who's to say that these natives aren't praying to the same God? Idols? Well, the Christian churches have plenty of their own, patron saints to various things; St. Christopher medals, cricifixes... Those movies about Columbus, or the Pilgrims, also told of similar situations. Imagine the confusion of those innocent people, who only died of age until the "Christians" came along. Nudity? Who cares. It's what they did. How dare I criticize another's culture, when my own is so screwed up. Babenco used authentic Amazonians, and I applaud him for it. This film pretty much put the kabosh on Babenco's legitimacy in Hollywood; alas, the film was a failure. I eagerly await the emergence of a DVD version of this film, as well as "Hawaii". A wide letterbox could show off some breath-taking panoramas and brilliant photography. Sorry if you don't like my opinions. I'm still an American and believe in the First Amendment; I'm also a Christian who is never ashamed, often embarrassed. ... Read more

Description

Two-time Academy Award(R)-winner Meryl Streep (ONE TRUE THING) stars with Angela Bassett (HOW STELLA GOT HER GROOVE BACK) in a heartwarming, acclaimed true story of how one woman's musical gift affected those who least expected it! A single mother with little more than talent and the determination to make a difference, Roberta Guaspari (Streep) overcame the skepticism of everyone who didn't think she should be teaching violin to students in a tough inner-city neighborhood. But even after a decade of ever-growing popularity and countless success stories, Roberta and her kids must rise to meet an even greater challenge: budget cuts aimed at shutting down her valuable program for good! Also starring Aidan Quinn (PRACTICAL MAGIC) and Grammy-winner Gloria Estefan in a stellar cast, this extraordinary story will inspire anyone who's ever thought their dreams were too far out of reach! ... Read more

Reviews (58)

Fascinating true story gets lackluster film treatment
Meryl Streep got her twelfth Oscar nomination for her portrayal of Roberta Guaspari in Places in the Heart. Her performance is excellent [when has she been anything but?], yet it is not enough to bring the movie completely to life. This true story, which has been filmed before as a documentary called Small Wonders, is about a teacher who created a music program in the schools of the impoverished East Harlem area of New York. A single mother of two boys, Guaspari, who was trained as a classical violinist but who had little teaching experience, was given a job as a teacher in the 1980s by Janet Williams, a principal at one of the schools. There was no real budget for a classical music program, so she was hired as a substitute. Guaspari herself supplied the first violins. Ten years later, she had taught 1,400 youngsters. When the program was in danger of being axed due to a school budget crisis, Guaspari enlisted the aid of some friends, who arranged for her to give a benefit concert with her best students at Carnegie Hall. Famous violinist like Isaac Stern participated, and the Program was saved. In 1999, money was found by the city to assure its continuation.

I don't know who was responsible for Music of the Heart's rather uninspired telling of the story. It certainly wasn't Ms. Streep. It may have been director Wes Craven, who until now has made his mark in the horror genre, with creepy teen fare such as Nightmare on Elm Street and the Scream trilogy. His choice to make a straight drama raised a few eyebrows, and perhaps he was overly cautious with the material. Some of the problem lies within the screenplay. Writer Pamela Gray concentrates on the main character almost exclusively. Ms. Streep is in nearly every scene. Except for some fairly good interaction between Roberta and her boys, most of the characters float in and out, acting almost as stage props. There is little that is memorable about them, and, as a result, we wind up not understanding Roberta Guaspari very well. We see what she does, and we understand that her work is noteworthy and inspirational. Yet the picture does not fill us with inspiration. It's not that it's a bad move, it's that it never soars, as movies about noble, dedicated people can when well done. While it is not a given, what usually provides the drama for such true tales is understanding what personal sacrifices an individual must make to fulfill a difficult goal. I feel certain that this happened to Ms. Guaspari in real life, but we see almost none of it in this movie. It is strongly hinted at a couple of times, but then the film simply glosses everything over and moves on the something else.

Music of the Heart is certainly worth watching for Ms. Streep's performance. The story is a fascinating one, but much of what makes a good story is the way in which it is told. Music of the Heart is not that much of a story teller.

Inspiring story and bravura performance by Meryl Streep
This is a powerful, moving and triumphant true story, which springs from a documentary about a music teacher and her students. This is the story of Roberta Guaspari-Tzavaras (Meryl Streep), a violin teacher who single-handedly created a program to teach violin to inner city kids in East Harlem, New York. The film follows her from the dubious inception of the program, which started as a substitute teaching job, through the ensuing 10 years where so many children wanted to be in the program that it had spread to three schools in the district and a lottery had to be held each year to limit the number of students. The last part of the film is devoted to her fight to continue the program after the board of education killed its funding. It culminates in a triumphant benefit concert supported by some of the greatest violinists in the world to raise private funds to save the program.

This film celebrates the dogged determination and courage of one woman who proved that a single individual can make a difference. Her life was not a pretty picture. Her husband left her for one of her friends, turning her into an emotional basket case. Music was her only solace and teaching was her gift. Unfortunately, her lack of experience in the education system made her unqualified to get a position. So on the recommendation of a friend she convinces an East Harlem principal to give her a chance as a substitute violin teacher. She even supplies the violins.

The story from there is an example of life often being more remarkable than fiction. The results she achieved with these children were astounding. My only criticism of the story was that it contained a little too much treatment of her personal life. Almost her entire relationship with Brian (Aiden Quinn) could have been eliminated without hurting the story. I know that director Wes Craven was trying to give us some character development on how tough her life was and how difficult a person she was, but it was superfluous and the digression only bogged the story down. The real story here was about her and the kids. He should have stuck to that. Otherwise, Craven did a fabulous job of directing, delivering an emotional story with great power and effect. I was quite impressed, especially given the fact that prior to this film, he was almost exclusively a one genre director (Horror. Think 'Scream').

The acting by Meryl Streep was nothing short of brilliant. I have read criticism of Streep's performance as too harsh, it seeming as if she didn't really LIKE the children. In actuality her performance was dead solid perfect. I was lucky enough to rent the Collector's Series DVD of this film which included a separate disk of the original documentary about the real Roberta Guaspari-Tzavaras and her students, including the actual concert at Carnegie Hall. If you watch that documentary you will be in awe of how well Streep utterly nails her character. We get to see the real Roberta teaching her students and she is like a drill sergeant barking orders, throwing kids out of practice for not having their violins, reproaching them angrily about plucking their strings while she is speaking, and generally tolerating no nonsense. She is impatient with them and completely intolerant of anything but their best.

The children who made comments about the real Roberta said things like, 'I wouldn't have the discipline I have if it weren't for Roberta. That discipline not only helps me with the violin, but with everything else.' Another child said, 'I have to pay attention to what I'm doing or Roberta will get mean. But if I do good, she is pleased and that make me feel good.' Yet another, 'I want to work really hard so Roberta will be proud of me.' Clearly, these are not the comments of children who were being negatively affected by Roberta's no nonsense style.

Streep said in the featurette included in the DVD that it is very difficult playing a real person because there is no leeway for artistic interpretation. Translation: If she was to play Roberta Guaspari-Tzavaras, she had to become Roberta. This she accomplished with stunning accuracy. Streep captures not only Roberta's irascible demeanor, but the essence of her drive and passion for drawing the students very best. Roberta is a complex and difficult character to play and Streep throws herself into the role, delivering a tour de force performance that very few actors have the range and depth to accomplish.

This film is a must see for anyone who loves the arts and anyone who can appreciate a great actress giving a career performance. I rated it a 9/10, subtracting a point for Craven's unnecessary digression into Roberta's private life. That is, however, hardly a reason to miss this bravura performance and an inspiring story.

Most unrealistic portrayal of a classroom ever on film...
Whoever wrote this screenplay had NO idea what the inside of a classroom looks like.
My goodness. I've seen more realistic depictions of school life in a few B-movies.
It's like the makers of this particular movie were SO interested in making a movie about MUSIC that they paid very little attention to making a movie about SCHOOL.
I could go on and on and on about how this movie falls flat on its face in the depiction of a contemporary classroom, particularly an inner city classroom, but let me just demonstrate but ONE ridiculous unreality this movie commits: In this movie, the school children all pretty much speak proper English. What?!!??? In the inner city???? School children not using barbaric slang in the inner city but instead speaking proper English and doing so naturally, like that's what they do all the time???
Yikes. You've got to be kidding me.
The 5 star reviewers on here ought to be ashamed of themselves for settling for such cartoony realism; better yet, they and the these out-of-touch moviemakers ought to actually go spend some time studying their subject matter, the actual daily war zone that is the contemporary American inner city classroom.

Wes Craven Shines!
Can you believe this film was directed by Wes Craven? What a moving story! Everyone should see this movie. One thing-why is Gloria Estefan on the cover???!! Don't get me wrong I love her music, but she hardly had any part AT ALL! Maybe she had 7 lines in all, so it kind of doesn't make sense. Anyway, this movie is great-so watch it, NOW! :-)

Outstanding.
Streep and Bassett are wonderful in this heart-felt drama about a music teacher who "belives" and makes a tremendous difference in the lives of young inner-city children. Funny and poignant.

Very highly recommended. ... Read more

Reviews (78)

A Must for the Study of Southern Culture.
To preserve Southern culture is to preserve a culture with strong roots for many Americans. Just as this film depicts an attempt to preserve old English ballads that have survived nearly intact because of the isolation of the mountain people, the film itself is important because it, itself, is an attempt at cultural preservation. The mountain setting of the film is extraordinarily rich, the characters are thankfully more real than stereotypical, and the story is rich and fullfilling. Pat Carroll's performance is exceptional.

One of the major plusses of this movie is the way the set design and cinematography contributes to the story. In one key scene shot inside a cabin, the crude conditions are clearly shown by the daylight winking through the walls. The plight of the characters' living conditions is certainly obvious in the story, but that cabin told the rest of the story. In another scene, several people are dancing outdoors and the camera is positioned so that the viewer seems to be standing in the crowd. The scene develops as all but two of the characters dance and the movement of the camera around the dancers to a high angle shot from the trees stretches and isolates the scene so that the dancers are shown to be some distance from the two non-dancers. This shot establishes not so much a rift between the characters, but a separation.

This film is very similar to Donald Davidson's novel, The Big Ballad Jamboree (University Press of Mississippi), and I strongly recommend both the movie and the book to everyone wanting to enjoy the richness of true "hillbilly" life and music.

A FILM TO BE TREASURED...
This is a beautiful and unusual film, made even more so by its joyous celebration of folk music. Beautifully nuanced, well paced, and highly absorbing, this haunting film is an absolute gem. It is no wonder that it won the 2000 Sundance Film Festival Special Jury Award for Outstanding Ensemble Performance. The performances in this film are simply stellar and worthy of recognition.

The year is 1907, and the highly independent and intelligent Dr. Lily Penleric (Janet McTeer), a noted musicologist, has once again been passed over for promotion by the college at which she teaches. Angry, she decides to pull up stakes and go and visit her sister, Elna (Jane Adams), who is one of two women teaching at a settlement school in the Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina.

When Janet arrives, she hears one of her sister's helpers. Deladis (Emma Rossum), singing an old folk song that she recognizes. It is being sung in a way that she has never before heard it sung. Upon discovering that the song was handed down generationally in this insular community, she realizes that she may actually be hearing the song as it may originally have been intended to be sung. Excited by her discovery, she sets about capturing as many songs as she can from these fiercely proud, mountain people. In effect, she is memorializing a rich, oral, musical history.

Her project takes Janet on a voyage of self-discovery, both personal and professional. Along the way, she becomes immersed in the the lives and traditions of these mountain people, realizing what an integral part music plays in their lives. While poor in terms of creature comforts and leading a harsh, hardscrabble sort of life, these mountain folks have a culturally rich, oral tradition and are a veritable treasure trove of old songs.

While catching the music and lyrics of these old songs for posterity and wider appreciation, notating her discovery of these songs for a book that she hopes to write, Dr. Penleric makes the acquaintance of a number of mountain men and women, including a tough old bird, Viney Butler (Pat Carroll). This leads to meeting with her suspicious but intelligent, talented, and good looking grandson, Tom Bledsoe (Aidan Quinn), with whom she ultimately developes a passionate relationship that correlates nicely to her passion for music.

A number of other subplots are woven throughout this film. One involves her sister, Elna, who becomes involved with a love that dare not speak its name. There is also a love triangle between two of the mountain woman and the husband of one of them. Young love and coming of age is also a theme touched upon. Meanwhile, a mining company seeks to buy out the land from under these people for a mere pittance. All of these subplots serve to illustrate the often harsh reality of life in the mountains. The only problem that I found was with the subplot involving Elna and her lover, Harriet, in terms of the complacency that surrounds what ultimately happens to Harriet. It was a most disturbing resolution that did not ring altogether true. Still, the overall strength of the film is such that it overcomes this, overall.

Janet McTeer gives a no nonsense performance, and the way that the music seems to transfix and transform her is a joy to behold. Jane Adams, as the sister who is having a same sex love affair, gives an exquisitely beautiful and sensitive performance, as does E. Katherine Kerr in the role of Harriet, the settlement school teacher with whom she is involved. Aidan Quinn gives an intelligent and thoughtful performance as a mountain man who has been to the outside world and found it wanting. Pat Carroll is sensational as Viney Butler, the mountain woman who takes the vicissitudes of life in stride and wears many hats: mother, grandmother, midwife, musician, singer, and oral historian. Emma Rossum, however, is positively radiant as the young, fresh faced, mountain lass with a smile and voice that will tear your heart apart. She is a wonderful, young performer with operatic training and the ability to sing like Dolly Parton. What a find!

Cameo appearances by Taj Mahal, Iris Dement, and others serve to further enrich this film. The music and songs are played and sung live, which makes them resonate with authenticity and adds a vibrancy that might otherwise be lost. The folk dancing is a joy to watch, as the mountain people gather aound for a jamboree. The film, shot on location, captures all the physical beauty of the terrain, as well as the rusticity and harshness of life in the mountains. This is simply a great film that is well worth having in one's personal collection.

All in all, it is a must have film for music lovers, as well as for those who simply enjoy a well made and beautifully acted film. Bravo!

A confusing piece
Quite often while watching this film I was left wondering what the director was really trying to convey. A interesting look into the lost songs carried to America? A woman coming to terms about her life and purpose? A look into the lives of lesbians at the turn of the century? Loss of Appalachian culture to the coal industry and modern society? A social commentary on culture exploitation? There are so many doors this film opens, yet refuses to step inside one and explore anything deeper than it's emotional surface. The storytelling in this movie feels like it took a second place to the "gimick" of the actual songs.

...and music is the real star of this film and would be better served with a good soundtrack, a book about these folk songs and people, and a good documentary.

What's left is a mediocre and only mildly passionate love story between two people, surrounded by events that don't lead to anything specific or profound. The "climax" of the story does not have any lasting resonance in the main character's lives and feels random.

The acting, mostly by Janet McTeer is acceptible, given the whirlwind she's been thrown into. The supporting cast are also great/charming, especially those who give performances of the more musical sort.

Hopefully someone will revisit this topic with a more serious statement and explore it a little more deeply than what has been done here. Somewhere in this mess is a great historical biopic or even a small quite film/documentary here that got muddled by late 20th century political ideals concerning religion, homosexuality and stereotyping that really do this topic, the music, and all the characters involved a disservice.

Pleasantly surprised!
I wasn't really expecting much when I first rented this movie because I had never even heard of it, but boy! was I surprised! I absolutely loved it! Bluegrass music doesn't really do much for me, but I wouldn't really call this bluegrass. The songs and music are more earthy and emotional. The characters are so down to earth and real. I loved these people--I wanted to go to the mountains and find people and music like this. I got on the internet and bought a copy of the movie and the soundtrack. I have watched this movie more than any other movie that I own.

Dr. Quinn, Music Woman
OK, so maybe it's not THAT bad. Still, I was so disappointed by the second half of this film that I can't find a four-star rating in me.

It's a gorgeous film set in the Appalachian Mountains, an early 20th century story of a highly intelligent lady musicologist who is obsessed with capturing the history of the folk music of the British Isles. When she hits the glass ceiling of her day, her college passing her over yet again for a man in spite of her extreme qualification, she heads for the hills. Literally.

Her younger sister runs a school in the mountains among that most derided minority, the hillbillies (or, more properly, "mountain folk"). Big kudos to this film for playing more or less fair with the poor people of the mountains, with few caricatures and mostly just good-hearted people who distrust "the world beyond." Here the good doctor finds a wealth of old British folk music that has been handed down from generation to generation, as the ancestors of these folk came from the islands themselves.

"Songcatcher" is well worth seeing, due to its brilliant handling of its unique subject matter. It is also a cautionary tale for filmmakers who think they have to throw too much into their story. It could be said that the multiple tragedies in this film are a way of thematically representing the repetitive theme of tragedies in the old folk music the doctor is collecting, but it's overkill, pure and simple, and further ruins such effect with a silly ending. I'm glad I saw it, but would prefer to have an edited version featuring only the musical performances, which are stunning.

There is a lot to love about "Songcatcher." It's a treasure trove for an education in how music was developed in those pre-commercial days, and the lengths to which its devotees had to go for its preservation. If you love any kind of music, you owe a big debt of gratitude to people like this. It is mesmerizing to see the mountain people performing the music of their heritage in its natural setting.

Beyond that, it's a typical formula story, and that's what leaves me cold about this confused film. Formula element 1: The Outsider who learns to communicate with and appreciate a society in which she is initially very uncomfortable, while said society learns to deal with her as well. Some will not accept her, but she wins most of them over. Formula element 2: A forbidden romance causes serious unrest and, ultimately, tragedy. There are actually two such story lines in this film. Formula element 3: An ambitious woman, living in less rational times, deals with the frustration of being thwarted in her dreams. Formula element 4: The happy ending you could see coming a mile off.

I really hate that the filmmakers felt they had to throw so many elements into what could have been an excellent little film. Most unsettling is that they set up several confrontations that all reach a climax within a minute or two of each other, completely fouling up the otherwise nice pace they had set to that point in the film's final half-hour. ... Read more

Reviews (231)

I loved this movie.
No matter what religion you are or how you feel about witchcraft, if you enjoy good acting & a great storyline, you'll like this film. Both Bullock & Kidman are excellent & their characters are well-drawn, likable & familiar. Most women will relate to the loves & losses, trials & errors of these independent young women.

They are, of course, different in some ways. Born into a legacy of witches & dark history, the Owens females live under a curse that destroys any man who gets too close to them. (Then again, some of us may have felt 'cursed' more than once in our love lives...)

Bullock plays Sally, the levelheaded one who is determined to have a "normal" life. She falls in love early (w/a little crafty help from the aunts -Stockard Channing & Dianne Wiest), then marries & has two daughters who look exactly like she & 'Gillie' (Kidman). For a few years, Sally is blissfully happy until the day she hears the cricket chirp - a sign of impending death. After her husband is killed, Sally falls into a depression so deep that only her sister can pull her out.

They have an unbreakable bond - not only of blood & love, but of spirit. The strength of this bond actually saves Gillie's life, when she manages to hook-up with an evil madman who 'comes back' from death. The ending is quite well done.

This was a movie about belief, trust, family & a very old fight - good vs. evil. It was also about a love strong & pure enough to break a centuries-old curse, true enough to save a woman pulled in the depths of true evil. It is touching, satisfying & emotionally uplifting. Rent it! Then rent it again for the soundtrack alone!

Powerful Performance by Kidman
While many reviews are positive and a few of them negative in this section, I found it to be a fantastic tale about women and the Craft. Yes, Bullock could give a better performance, but I don't think it is about her or Kidman. Instead, I challenge all of the people who have written negative reviews to examine EVERY DAY LIFE and then watch the movie. I found this a heart-warming tale about the "magical" instances in our childhood. As a child, I was told of curses, boogey stories, voodoo, magic and it was left for me to decide what to believe. Depending on the viewer's BELIEFS, the story could or could not happen. The thing that I ultimately think made the movie was the special effects and the composition of the scenes. The director (Dunne) utilized them in a way that they did not stand out. Rather, the effects were blended seemlessly into the film. To those doubters, watch it first, then again, noting the effects. Only after the second time, decide wheather you like it or not. Overall, I found the movie (DVD) captivating. I will be buying this on DVD very soon.

To live and to die in strange circumstances.
This was a fun movie, a romp through a fantasy life of three generations of witches. The house was set somewhere in Maine but the action took place in some strange places. It almost makes one belief that witchcraft is alive and well in the modern age.

The two older witches were especially good. Sandra Bullock, on the other hand, was playing a continuation of her character in HOPE FLOATS, same funky outfits and the acting just the same.

These beautiful witches had the bad luck to always kill the men they love. No matter how many potions they tried to concoct, nothing ever came out right. The little ones had no special magic, and yet their peers called them witches just the same.

The living dead had eyes like Riddick. Now, I understand where he got his strength; he was already dead. What'd he have to lose?

I enjoyed this romp, but I have always been interested in how the women in Salem and along the Eastern coast were burned as witches. Even Guinevere in Richard Harris' version of CAMELOT was 'almost' killed as a witch. Thank God, she was rescued by her Sir Lancelot to waste away in a nunnery. What a price women have to pay when they love the wrong men!

Can love travel back in time and heal a broken heart? I like to think so.

Great! Two Thumbs to the sky!
It was great! According to real witchcraft, it was pretty accurate!

Fantastic!
The story line is fantastic--that of friendship, sisterhood, attaining dreams, and love. This movie shows witches in a more realistic light incomparison to the ole tale of green skin and bubbling eyes of newt. It, also, shows the politics that they face due to these deeply rooted tales and lends hope that the general populus will become more embracing/accepting of others' beliefs--particularly that of earth-based religions. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Let's be honest: this should be titled Wretched Excess' Frankenstein. Swooping, wild, bloody, and energetic, this is bad moviemaking from the best, which makes it all the more lovable. Kenneth Branagh plays Victor Frankenstein, a man so obsessed with conquering death that he decides to create life. What he gets, after a protoplasmic mud wrestle, is a Mean Streets monster (Robert De Niro) that isn't particularly happy to be back from the dead or thrilled about all the stitches. Helena Bonham Carter may, at several points in this film, actually be channeling Ramtha. The supporting cast couldn't be peopled with better performers (Tom Hulce, John Cleese, Ian Holm) but they all look like they're ringside at some Ultimate Fighting competition. A must for any midnight movie collector for the shock factor alone. A hoot. --Keith Simanton ... Read more

Reviews (90)

not too scary, more sad
This was a good movie with a good point about the way society doesn't always accept people who are different. But, I was really disappointed. When I read that Robert De Niro was in this movie playing Frankenstein's monster, and that it was a horror movie, I was expecting an entertaining, wild, bloody, eerie, and terrifying horror about a mad monster. But, instead, it was a very sad film. I almost wanted to cry. Just thinking about the scene in which Frankenstein's monster kills a good-hearted woman makes me sad. And, what's so sad is that the monster wasn't truly a monster at heart. He had love inside him, but nobody understood him, so he reacted with violence. The sadness of the film makes it less enjoyable to watch. Overall, it is a good movie though. But, don't watch this film if you are prone to weeping about sad scenes in movies. And, I wouldn't recommend watching this movie if you're looking for a scary movie, because it's not all that scary. If you like science, and you enjoy creating strange experiments, and science fiction, and watching tragedies befall upon good people, I recommend this movie.

A worth-while version
As film adaptions of Frankenstein go, this is more accurate than most. It's good to see the Arctic climax restored, as it is so often omitted. Kenneth Branagh has made a satisfying, staightforward version of the story, thankfully containing little of the wayward characterisation and tricksy camera work which combine to sink Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. The horror element has been toned down a bit, although the section where Frankenstein ressurects Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) is quite disturbing.

Just a word about the creation scene, which is somewhat different to the 'thunder and lightning' scenario we have become used to. The monster floats in a tank full of amniotic fluid, which Frankenstein moves about the laboratory by means of chains and pulleys. The spark of life is provided by power generated from electric eels. Frankenstein, stripped to the waist, slips and slides on the fluid that has now poured onto the floor, and strikes the monster on the back, in the manner of a doctor slapping a new-born baby. It certainly gives a novel slant to a familiar situation.

Branagh directs and also plays the part of Frankenstein with energy and gusto. Robert DeNiro makes a formidable monster, but also manages to elicit our sympathy for his plight, which is just how it should be. The supporting performances from a host of well known British actors are generally good, perhaps the most interesting being John Cleese. He does well in a straight role as Dr. Waldemann, who takes Frankenstein under his wing at medical school. The comic relief is provided by Tom Hulce as Frankenstein's friend, Henry Clerval.

This is a good and entertaining version of Frankenstein, and well worth a look.

Not an authentic adaptation of the book, but still fun.
"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" is an incredibly melodramatic adaptation of the book that takes huge liberties with the plot, but I still find it thoroughly entertaining. The movie is perfectly cast, and I think that the embellishments that Kenneth Branagh takes with the story only make the film more enjoyable. Even though I doubt that Dr. Frankenstein ran around without a shirt on as much as Branagh does in the film, most women will probably find it quite enjoyable. Robert DeNiro is amaing in his role of "the creature," and Helena Bonham Carter gives a great performance as Elizabeth. If you're the type of person who detests it when filmmakers stray too far from the text of the book they're adapting, then this film probably isn't for you. If you're a bit more open-minded and are just looking for an entertaining movie to watch, this is a perfect film to add to your collection.

Ingolstadt,?
The scene with the crowd was gathered during the lynching,
did'nt the caption say Ingolstadt and is'nt Ingolstadt in
Germany?

I am wondering why De Niro was talking like an englishman
and the crowd sounded like english too?

Maybe I missing something; should'nt the people so german?
I remember like thirty years ago about you should be true
to your heritage.

Excellnt film!
This is bye far, the best remake of Frankenstein ever. This is better than the Frankenstein sequel's to, well MOST of the Frankenstein sequel's at lest. Comes very close to the perfect book written by Mary Shelley. Some people said this was bad because there was to much drama. Will people stop being Nerd's! ... Read more

Reviews (17)

One of the most Underrated films of the 1980s!
RECKLESS is an overlooked classic, and quality wise, it is far superior to most of the better known teen angst classics of the eighties.

Aidan Quinn gives a fantastic early performance as Johnny Rourke, who he plays as a pensive combination of James Dean and Steve McQueen. Daryl Hannah gives her second-most-memorable performances (after Pris in Blade Runner) as the popular but unsatisfied girl who is attracted to Johnny's rebelliousness. There are several other young actors who would go on to fame (including Adam Baldwin and Jennifer Grey).

But the film's biggest draw is it's amazing soundtrack (ironically enough, there never was an "official" release of it)...

When I first saw the film, I was a big fan of INXS' current (at that time) release, Shabooh Shoobah, and I was thrilled by its extensive use in the soundtrack to this film. "The One Thing" and "Soul Mistake" play during opening scenes, and later in the film, director James Foley transcends the usual bubbleheaded attempts to copy MTV editing in films (most notable in megahits like FLASHDANCE and FOOTLOOSE) with a truly BRILLIANT use of the song "To Look at You" that actually manages to further the plot stricly through visual + aural means.

Also brilliant is the prom sequence, when Quinn turns off the wimpy music and cranks up some Romeo Void in its place, then pulls Hannah into an uninhibited dance while the camera circles them at an increasing speed.. it's a truly exhilarating moment that ranks (in terms of cinematic choreography) with the famous "Do You Love Me" scene in DIRTY DANCING, and the classic moments of SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER.

I love this film, and I still watch it often. It's like an old friend that I like to revisit now and then. It gets my highest recommendation!

An intense and sexy film!
This is a very early Aidan Quinn film. And I have to say, he is very good in it. The film is not that original, plot-wise: poor boy from the 'wrong side' who rides a motorcycle falls for rich girl who has a lot of friends and is very popular. In this film, however, the love story is one of the most intense and explosive to ever be placed on screen. As Johnny, Quinn delivers a smart and sexy performance. He is full of equal parts pain and love, which is fueled when he secretly hooks up with Daryl Hannah's character. Hannah is a cheerleader who can't stand living on the "right side of the tracks," and Quinn offers a perfect escape for her inner rebellion. However, when she falls for him, she is painfully stuck between the world she's always known and the world that Johnny offers her. Which one will she choose in the end? This question is answered in a very climactic scene in their high school, when both factions come together in a tense moment. It is a great film, one that I have watched over again and have loved every time.

This film is extremely underrated.
Reckless has been underrated by the film industry due to it has not yet been released on DVD as of 7/5/04. Of all the coming of age films ever made this one is my favorite. This film is more dangerous than any of the other films of this genre and it captures what many people have felt growing up, but most have never acted upon(which the actors in this film do act upon). It really is a very modern and updated version of 'Rebel Without a Cause'. Hopefully this film will get the recognition it deserves and be released on DVD. I never hear any film critic's talk about this particular film and it may remain sort of a cult/under ground film which might not ever be released on DVD. Too bad because this film is a gem.

Picture of a generation
That movie shows a generation that still lives and in the new future some scenes on it can explain a lot of atitudes of the future parents, and after then, older grandparents....

This is one of the best movie i ever saw and, as explained before about the music, they stil bring me enjoyable moments to hear then.

Great Ones
Yes, Quinn and Hannah were both early in there careers when this was shot...and yes, it is the princess/roughboy donetodeath premise, but...the brilliant, raw sensuality of that one dance scene (RomeoVoid)...all of a sudden, that black carnation fits her, and acts as an allegory for Tracy's acceptance of Johnny Rourke.
The supporting cast of McMillan (Dune), DeYoung (Flashback), Havilland Morris (16 Candles), Lois Smith (Twister), a VERY young Jennifer Gray (Red Dawn), Hedaya, Baldwin, and Springsteen(whatever happened to her?) turn in somewhat superficial performances...except Ken McMillan, who was brilliant in everything he did.
Disregarding the glaring fact that this film is better suited to the midnite show at the drive-in, this one attracts me back every couple of months or so, which is why I've gone thru 3 copies in 20 years. Hannah and Quinn create fire on the screen, and show exactly what the director intended...the mutual exploration of that first true passion for a lover. As Stephen King wrote, "...it's the one thrill ride they let you take only once." ... Read more

Reviews (87)

Whimsical Romantic Comedy
This movie was filmed in my hometown in Washington state. I got to see part of it being filmed. The diner in the film, where Julianne Moore works, is my brother in law's. So, needless to say, this interesting film hits close to our hearts. In the film, Johnny Depp stars as an eccentric character who goes to live with Benny(Aidan Quinn), and his mentally unstable sister Joon(Mary Stuart Masterson). You see, Benny lost a poker game and had to take Sam(Depp)in. That part is a little hokey. The two eccentric characters of Sam and Joon click and start a secretive relationship. They don't want big brother Benny to find out. There are a few delightful moments of whimsical silliness that makes this movie quite charming. Depp showcases his brilliant talent for physical comedy. His Buster Keaton routine is priceless. His Chaplin shtick in the diner is a classic. By the way, the jukebox in the diner was a prop. It's not ours. Masterson is quite effective as Joon. They are both very believeable. Aidan Quinn is solid as the overprotective brother Benny. A good performance. Dan Hedaya and CCH Pounder also star. The movie was directed by Jeremiah Chechick, who also did "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation". This is a sweet little movie with a sweet little story. Might want to check it out.

LOVE CONQUERS ALL...
This is a quirky romantic comedy about two people who, deemed as misfits by society, fall in love with each other. Featuring outstanding performances by the entire cast, this is a film that lets the viewer know that there is, indeed, someone for everyone.

When eccentric Sam (Johnny Depp) enters the lives of a brother and sister, Benny (Aidan Quinn) and Joon (Mary Stuart Masterson), he changes their lives forever. Benny, it seems, is always worried about his sister who seems to be autistic. He treats her like a baby, making sure that she is never left alone. Highly intelligent, creative, and articulate, Joon, however, chafes a bit under the thumb of her protective older brother, but she does have some issues, as there are certain things that act as triggers for some odd behavior on her part.

When Sam begins living with Benny and Joon, acting as a housekeeper-babysitter, Sam treats Joon like a regular person, and before you know it they are falling in love, each accepting the quirks of the other with complete equanimity. Meanwhile, Benny is attracted to Ruthie (Julianne Moore), who owns the local diner. The only thing is that he cannot seem to concentrate on romance, as he is so worried about what the future holds for his sister.

There are some twists and turns in the romances between Sam and Joon, as well as in that of Benny and Ruthie. There are some very funny moments, as well as those filled with genuine pathos. There is also a certain amount of physical comedy reminiscent of that of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. In the hands of the adept Johnny Depp, it works.

This is a film that will be enjoyed by those who love off-beat, beautifully acted films. Bravo!

He's On A Roll!
The scene with Benny, June and Sam in the diner makes it worth buying this movie! The roll-and-fork scene and plate juggling, shows that Depp is SO much more than a handsomely pretty face.

Beautifully acted love story.
This film features Johnny Depp as Sam a quirky off beat character who moves in with brother and sister, Benny and Joon (played by Aiden Quinn and Mary Stuart Masterson) after Benny loses at a card game.
Benny takes care of his ill, troubled sister and initially is grateful to have Sam there to help care for her, especially as Sam seems to understand Joon and brings laughter into their home. As Sam and Joon's relationship starts to deepen into love however Benny protective instincts kick in and he becomes hostile and angry.
Very strong acting from all the leads stop this film from becoming too schmaltzy. The result is a beautiful film, which has a perfect balance of humour and pathos. Highly recommended

Johnny Depp is excellent
But what else is old? "Benny and Joon" tells the unlikely love story of a mentally ill woman, Joon (Mary Stuart Masterson) and an odd man who walks around doing Buster Keaton impressions, Sam (Johnny Depp). Sam comes to live with Joon and her brother, Benny (Aidan Quinn) after Joon loses a card game in which Sam was part of the stakes (he had previously been living with his cousin, who could not stand him). Sam and Joon fall in love, leaving Benny in the dark as he tries to sort out his own romantic life involving a waitress (Julianne Moore).

The movie is charming, funny, and not as by-the-book as one might think. All of the actors give great performances, but the standout is Johnny Depp, as usual. He obviously put a great deal of time into preparing for this role, studying the old silent film stars. It pays off greatly. It's hard to rank Johnny Depp's performances, but I would put this one up towards the top.

All in all, if you want to see an original romantic comedy, rent this movie. It's extremely entertaining. I just cannot recommend it enough -- see it as soon as possible. I give it four stars because it's by far not the best movie I've ever seen, but nonetheless it's very good. ... Read more

Amazon.com

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

Reviews (158)

Theodicy or Corrupt Politics
The Mission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (4)

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

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

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

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

Reviews (16)

A Wonderful Movie Filled with Heart (4.5 stars)
This was the script that won the "Project Greenlight" contest. First-time writer/director Pete Jones was given the opportunity to give us a tale about family and faith. And it all takes place in Chicago. I admit, I was a little worried at first, and was even a little doubtful of the movie being any good. There were a lot of things that went wrong for Pete and the crew during the filming of this movie. I guess they only showed us what went wrong because there must've been a lot of things that went right that we didn't get to see. Because "Stolen Summer" is a wonderful film that's filled with humor and heart.

The movie is about Pete O'Malley, a young boy in an Irish-Catholic family. He's worried that he isn't going to Heaven and wants to find a way to assure God that he's worthy. He gets the idea of converting the Jewish so they can go to Heaven. He meets Rabbi Jacobson, who finds Pete's Quest to be creative and caring, despite his religious beliefs. That is when Pete meets and befriends Rabbi Jacobson's son, Danny. Pete wants to convert Danny in hopes that they will both make it to heaven. It is a very emotional and sincere movie that plays on all of your emotions.

I'm not a very religious person, I admit, but I found the movie to be very creative and entertaining. The script does take risks, but the overall product is presented to us in a way that we can't help but smile and even laugh at times. As the movie progresses, we learn it isn't just about religious differences, it's about the friendship of two boys trying to make sense of the world around them.

The acting was really superb, especially from the two boys. They did a really great job in the film. The cast also includes Aidan Quinn, Bonnie Hunt, Kevin Pollak, Eddie Kaye Thomas, and Brian Dennehy. Aidan does an awesome job playing Pete's father, who can be quite humorous in his ignorance at times. He can be forceful, but caring at the same time. Bonnie Hunt also fills the film with light as the mother. Kevin Pollak is great as the Rabbi, who can show us his humorous and serious side. Everybody did their roles justice.

Pete Jones does a really great job, being that this is his first film. Remember, this is a man who has never had any prior experience in film, or at least none that I have heard of. Sure, there were some mistakes, but then again, what film DOESN'T have mistakes?

I really enjoyed listening to the commentary, which was done by the director, co-producer and producer Chris Moore. It was funny and informative. They even point out some of the mistakes that happen during the film. (If they had kept their mouths shut, I probably would've never noticed any of them!) I usually don't listen to commentary, but after seeing the "Project Greenlight" series, it was almost like I had to listen to it. I'm glad I did.

Overall, "Stolen Summer" is a terrific film. Pete Jones and the rest of the crew should be proud of themselves. You don't have to be very religious to enjoy this movie, so don't let make you think you will not like it. DO NOT BUY THE MOVIE ITSELF IF YOU PLAN TO GET THE SERIES! The series already includes the full length movie with all of the special features that are included on this DVD. One of the better movies to come out of 2002, if you ask me. It may not be perfect, but it's still a heart-warming gem. A great film for the whole family.

Well acted, well directed, heart warming heresy.
Read the other reviews for plot synopsis and film description. I will say that the script is a bit lacking, but with the skillful acting and direction, the script serves to show the characters as more genuine people (except Daniel, who is far too dramatically cute). Most of us are not typically well-scripted and most of our characters are not well-educated, making their dialogue all the more believable. Adiel Stein (Pete O'Malley) is the real gem of this film. His sincerity, playfulness and inquisitiveness just roll off the screen. He is a joy to watch and listen to.

The problem is that this movie is based on the false ideas of insincere, works-based, self-gratifying religiosity. It is typical, and with cause, that Roman Catholicism is used for the framework of such heretical portrayal of Christianity and the relationship of God and man. Although this is a heart-warming story of a young boy trying to do good and the friendships he develops, the genuine fact is that it is a typical contemporary perversion of biblical Christianity. Religion is portrayed as subjective, relative, and the construct that people have created and use to deal with tragedy or organize their lives. In that way it is right in step with Freudian postmodern culture. The most blasphemous statement comes at the end when Peter O'Malley says to Rabbi Jacobsen, "Jesus is just a symbol." No, Pete, you may have been taught that or inferred it from the vague religion you've been raised with, but Jesus is not a symbol. He is the perfect son of God, who died on a cross for the sins of humanity, and is the only way to salvation. Read your bible, don't just let someone tell you about it. The reinforcement of working for your salvation, that doing good means being good and that that somehow obligates God to ignore your sin, is what biblical doctrine strictly refutes. Read Paul's letter to the Galatians and it should be much clearer.

Watch the movie, enjoy it, just don't believe in anything it says about salvation or the nature of our relationship to God.

Absolutely terrible
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The film has no rhythm and nothing to keep the viewer riveted, not to mention the story is just plain horrible. A young Catholic boy attempts to convert the people around him, and his efforts focus on a Jewish family and especially a Jewish boy because he thinks that if he converts them, everyone will go to heaven. He tells the Jewish boy - who has cancer - that he can become Catholic and go to heaven if he completes ten tasks. The movie then proceeds to take another predictable turn when the boy dies before he completes his tasks and the Catholic boy learns his lessons about Jewish people going to heaven.

The characters are dull, the story is dull, no one really comes away with learning anything they didn't already know. The only thing that credits this movie with two stars is the fact that it's a first-timer.

This is not a commercial film
My pre-teen daughter loves Romeo and Juliet (she has gone through it a number of times) and even Hamlet but unsurprsingly ( even though much to my dismay ) she couldn't finish this movie: she didn't even want to start watching it in the first place.

Not much actions here not to say drama, and the main subject hinges more on talks or words than action, more from the kids words than any body else. There is no poignancy nor humour, nor wits as far as the script is concerned, not for the grown up nor for the kids. Not much imagery to start with. The message is clear but it doesn't impress... simply not convincing enough.

So, if your are looking for excitement, you might very well be disappointed; and if you're looking for entertainment, well, it depends. But do make sure if your kids would like it.

GENTLE, WELL-MEANING TALE WITH A LAID BACK PACE.
I chanced upon this movie on cable, but Stolen Summer isn't the kind of film that gets made too often nowadays -- light and cute, but balanced with a touching serious side that carries universal messages about religion, God, love, family, growing up.

The director's style is of the point-and-shoot variety, which isn't necessarily a bad thing as over-the-top visual flourishes likely would've taken our attention away from the ample dialogue. The script contains a good amount of surprises, and the character development is quite caringly done.

A word for the acting. Though the characters get gritty on occasion, the film is paced very well. Some protagonists are young (kids) but their work is impressively natural. Bonnie Hunt in particular should have merited more screen time, she works a taut but tender magic as a straight-talking mother.

If you care for meaningful cinema, I think this would make for a very worthwhile rental. ... Read more