Reviews (453)

An OK movie for my favorite book
POA was my favorite book of the sieries. but in the movie, i have MANY complaints.

Things that were left out

-cho chang
-how sirius got out of azkaban
-how sirius betrayed lily and james (no mention of fidelius)
-no mention of word secret keeper
-who moony wormtail padfoot and prongs are
-why sirius hates lupin, james, sirius
-why crookshanks was attacking scabbers
-why all of a sudden sirius isn't the bad guy
-why sirius tried to attack ron (oh wait, that never happened)
-that ron and peter pettigrew were in the paper is why sirius broke out of azkaban
-what hogsmeade is
-why there is a tunnel from the whomping willow to the shrieking shack
-connection between the stag patronus and "prongs"
-draco malfoy is the slytherin seeker

things that were changed
-hermione shows up late to everyclass. come on it's HERMIONE.
-the firebolt comes later
-much more interaction between past selves and future selves in time turner sequence. (made harry being his father predictable instead of shocking)
-the patronus was just lame (looked like an atomic bomb or those superballs on dragonballZ)

basically i think the movie was really good as long as i don't think about it being the same as the book.

parts of it were really good. i'm just kind of annoyed that i knew the book too well to really enjoy it. i sppent most of my time going "that never happened" (harry serching for peter pettigrew)

Marvelous Mischief!
I have not read the books yet because I like to be surprised. So I only view the movie on it's own merits.

The third installment was indeed a pleasant one. A new director,Alfonso Cuarón, handled the performances perfectly. Daniel Radcliffe ...Harry Potter is becoming a fine actor and he is great in this movie. He loses his temper with his Aunt and he plays the scene brilliantly.
Gary Oldman ...Sirius Black is always so great that you don't know it is him until the credits.
Rupert Grint ...Ron Weasley is very funny.
Emma Watson ...Hermione Granger has become a fantastic young actress and her character is strong and confident and also caring which makes her a great role model.
Alan Rickman ...Professor Severus Snape, Robbie Coltrane ...Rubeus Hagrid, and the new Dumbledore were superb as well. (I was sad to learn that the original Dumbledore, who was wonderful, has died.)

The visuals of Hogwarts and it's grounds were beautiful and for me the high point was flight of the Hippogriff with Harry. The Hippogriff was an amazing creation.

I reccomend the movie even if you are a total muggle.

Well Done!
I am an avid Harry Potter fan and I have read all the books at least four times each. I think that the "Prisoner" movie was done much better than the first two. To start, it shows how the magic world is changing for Harry and how it will continue to change as the story unfolds throughout the future novels. It's important to point out that the new director has been known in the past to put a dark spin on his interpretations in movies. But I thought that this dark point of view is what is needed at this point in order to show that Harry and co. are no longer children and are entering into more dangerous territory. Although the director did edit some parts of the book that I would have like to see, I think the movie overall does a great job in showcasing the future of the series. I think the actors are really starting to come into their own and showing more depth in their interpretations of the characters. I love to see how comfortable they are with each other in this film and to see how they are growing with these characters. Overall, I think this movie is great and I can't wait to see "Goblet". Although I do agree that "Goblet" should be longer or made into a two part movie because to edit book four too much will ruin the movie and movie goers that don't read the books will be completely lost then.

Some people just don't get it...
One of the joys about the Harry Potter series is that the style of the books matures with the characters. This is finally true with the movies as well. Yes, this is a much darker film than the first 2...so is the book. Yes, Harry, Ron and Hermione act more like real teenagers and less like 1950's television children. There were choices made in this film that were risky, but in my opinion the risk paid off! This is the perfect progression in the films of Harry Potter!

new look to a changing story
I thought the newest Harry Potter movie was VERY WELL DONE. A new look for an ever changing story line. Why would anyone want to watch a movie thats done exactly like the first two? Change it up a bit and keep the audiance wondering how their favorite books are going to be brought to screen. It doesnt hurt to have many peoples different views bring a great book to screen in another way then the first two. As long as the story gets told, isnt that all that matters? ... Read more

Reviews (120)

Harsh/Graceful Modern Retelling of Orpheus, Joan of Arch, ..
Try at a short(ish) review: Breaking the Waves reminds me of Ingmar BergmanÕs work and other great auteurs who not only play with our emotions but reach into our gray matter and belief systems, stirring them all up. After 6 years, I finally felt prepared to view this passion play. It went from being a movie I should see to one that I am grateful I saw and will see again (when I am ready).

Emily Watson is stellar and accompanied by a cast that almost seamlessly makes the strange premise of a wife trying to save her husband by sexual encounters with other men believable. Even the chapter breaks connote a sense of the story looking real but also not looking real. To keep this telling from being too stark and unyielding, Lars von Tier presents an unexpected sensuality and sense of humor in the first half. Otherwise, I donÕt think we could care about these extremely religious and/or secular people for 2 1/2 hours. On the other hand, it takes its cameras, not filtering the sound of the film running through the camera spokes, into the scenes of BessieÕs search for men. It is a very painful adventure into Hades for such a simple woman child.

Ultimately, it is a story about attaining love but goes beyond to finding grace. It is a marvelous work to be in the collective consciousness and definitely not meant to be a popcorn movie. The film has an Achilles heel or two but so superficial that I hardly feel they need be noted. Make sure you have the stomach and compassion. It rang the church bells in my heart and mind.

Try pairing this movie with EgoyemÕs ÔExotica,Õ any of BergmanÕs films, Marcel CamusÕ ÔBlack Orpheus,Ô Allen's 'Crimes & Misdemeanors' or DreyerÕs ÔPassion of Joan of Arc.Õ Then go out and get some sunshine, have a good walk and dinner with loved ones.

Not your average God-obsessed-nympho movie...
A fascinating but not entirely successful fantasia that owes just about all of its power to Emily Watson, making a stunning film debut. Watson is the mentally unstable Bess, who talks to God (God seems to talk back in her voice). Bess, a virgin, marries the burly but sensitive oil-rig worker Jan (Stellan Skarsgard). Once she tastes the joys of sex, Bess becomes delirious with love for Jan. But soon he must return to the oil rig, where he has an accident that paralyzes him. The erratic and heavily medicated Jan takes it into his head to ask Bess a favor: she must sleep with other men, and tell him about the encounters, to keep him alive. Both Jan and God seem to want Bess to go through with it.

It's a mistake to take this sort of fable literally, but director Lars von Trier makes everything seem realistic with artsy touches like handheld camerawork, jump cuts, and saturated photography (by Robby Muller). He also, for whatever reason, divides the movie into chapters, and the chapter headings are surreal landscapes with sometimes grating '70s rock songs played over them. You nod and understand all the points von Trier is making, but everything is so symbolic and predetermined that it seldom truly reaches you. The film is haunting but mechanistic and, in its last third, borderline ludicrous -- the meaningful masochism gets to be more than a little much. Yet Emily Watson, who's in almost every frame, very nearly puts the entire gigantic daft movie across all by herself. Her elastic face is a playhouse for violently conflicting emotions, and she's never less than touching. With anyone else in the role (like Helena Bonham-Carter, who was going to do it but dropped out), the movie would probably collapse.

Note: Nothing on the featured cover artwork or in Amazon.com's description indicates whether this DVD is letterboxed. I'd have a look at the back cover or rent it first to make sure, as this is a widescreen, 2.35 movie that needs to be seen letterboxed, though since there is an existing widescreen VHS edition, I see no reason why Artisan wouldn't have letterboxed the DVD.

Beautiful...
This film does NOT endorse what it depicts. Obviously, the memebers of the church are misguided, in fact a great deal of the film points that out. But the film is not about them, it is about Bess, and about her love for God and God's love for her. What happens to her in the movie is not God's torture of her, it is human free will being exercised on a pure spirit, and the beauty is how her spirit always remains pure. That is why God loves Bess. God does not sugarcoat the world, and all who wish to follow him go through trials. Bess made it through those trials, and this is, as such, a TRUE CHRISTIAN FILM.

Not to mention it is cinematically the best film I have ever seen, as Heilman says, it is transcends words and descriptions. Do not let any review scare you away, if you don't like graphic sex turn it off, but this is a film about the love God has for all the how beautiful a pure spirit is.

ALERT TO CHRISTIANS
I loved dancer in the dark. I found it to be one of the saddest, most beautiful films that i have ever seen. This led me to search out other films by Lars Von Treir. This one was said to be the most comparable to it. This couldn't be further from the truth.

If there are any true christians out there, i can't tell you how strongly I advise you to stay away from this film. Maybe, like me, you saw dancer in the dark and are looking for something similar or just as good. THIS MOVIE WAS ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE.

There are graphic sex scenes in this movie, which if alone wouldve been reason alone to not see this film. The way they depicted God in this film was what was most offensive to me. Throughout the movie there are constant scenes depicting a church involved in mass ritualism, who have no love for God or his people. They enjoy seeing people in sin and have no problem seeing them go to hell. They are constantly showing hatred towards others and fail to reveal one ounce of compassion. Another problem with how they depicted God was that he was a cruel and evil person that likes to play little games with the world. They made him out to be someone who hates his creation and wants to hurt them in the form of teaching them a lesson. They even stated that God told the main character to become a prostitute. The God of this movie shows absolutely no love.

There are many churches and people like the ones depicted in this movie. People like this do not accurately depict anyone who truely knows and loves God.

God is not someone who sits up in heaven, bitter and scolding everyone, and taking pleasure in seeing people suffer. He did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through him the world might be saved. He loves us more than everything we could ever know. God loved us so much that he became a man, was beaten to near death and then crucified for all of us.

He loves everyone and wants to have a loving relationship with anyone who will ask him. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever (anyone) believes in him would not parish, but have everlasting life, John 3:16.

If you are a christian, listen to this review from someone who loves God, and stay away from this film. If you are not a christian, God loves you more than you could ever comprehend. All he wants is for you to love him in return. Jesus Christ is God, believe and recieve.

So disappointing...
A long, slow study of life in a small northern Scottish town, ruled by the old men of the village's Calvinist kirk, as seen through the eyes of a village lass who appears to be able to hold conversations with God. And I mean sloooooow. At times fascinating and at times just frustrating, the story moves along at its own pace, broken into sections that are annoyingly introduced with still frame shots and titles.

The movie is at times beautiful and at times clearly an exercise in self-indulgence on the part of the director, Lars von Trier. What I found absolutely inexcuseable was the final, very final shot. Without giving the ending away, hearing the bells was beautiful. It was transcendant. It made up for the length and leisurely pace of the whole movie. But then von Trier spoiled all the goodwill he had just created with me by showing me the bells. Why? Oh, why? The ending ruined the movie. What, we're too dense to put two and two together and figure out for ourselves where the peels were coming from? ... Read more

Reviews (113)

A compelling ghost story
I liked this movie a lot. The atmosphere, the woman in black, the story, but it didn't scare me at all. I think I've been ruined when it comes to ghost stories. I can't find anything that scares me anymore. When I was a kid I had the daylights scared out of me by the Exorcist. Now when I watch it I don't even flinch. Strange how things change. I love ghost stories and this one delivers quite well for being a made-for-TV movie. I especially liked how the movie immerses you in the period and the house is so interesting I wish I could have walked through the set. Maybe it's just England, but the creepy atmosphere really adds to the movie. I agree with other reviews: They could have used more of the house to further the story and they could have gotten more in-depth with the story of the woman in black. This movie would have been a lot better if there had been more story and more scary scenes. As it is, it's an excellent film, but it just didn't scare me like I wanted. Maybe that's not saying much. 4 stars for atmosphere, minus 1 because I wasn't scared at all. Just because it didn't scare me doesn't mean it won't scare you. It's definitely worthy of any horror collection.

A vengeful ghost story that defines the genre!
Oh how I wish they would re-release this movie on video. With the current success of THE RING as well as the classic selections from the British 1960's (THE HAUNTING, THE INNOCENTS, THE UNINVITED, et al)...THE WOMAN IN BLACK is the perfect tale of a ghost hell-bent on revenge and mayhem.
This movie is very subtle in it's portrayal of horror because it has the viewer experience the ghost in little bits and off kilter glances, slowly building up to the inevitable confrontation. Imagine a black silouette void of all color...begging to be seen (in order to scare you to death) but always thwarted by the victim's doubt of the experience. However, the victims resistance breaks down eventually(with the viewer) while the observations become closer,and closer...clearer and clearer, UNTIL... .
There is one specific scene that literally caused my wife and I to scream(no joke)where we get an up close in-your-face look at the woman in black's body and maniacal face!! My wife refuses to watch this movie again. I'd love to buy this film for my collection. It's a must have. A classic if there ever was one.
Please re-release this!

Dont expect.....
...blood, gore, monsters, jumping out of your seat nonsense. Just expect a slow, creeping sense of dread and you'll love this film. One of the few films that really scared me.

Fabulous.

Atmopheric and menacing
Lovers of the splatter-type horror flick will be left cold by this film. Of course, they miss the point: they don't really like HORROR, they like GORE. Some few films can deliver both gore and atmosphere, but they are genre-hybrids. The essence of classic horror is atmosphere: the creation of a sense of dread, of looming evil, of lurking malevolence-- and inexorably increasing it to a point of crisis. By nature, this cannot be accomplished at a pace more proper to an action flick. Hence the negative reviews of this film and other classics of the horror genre (such as The Haunting and the even greater book that is its source, The Haunting of Hill House, for example.) Gore films -- Friday the 13th and Evil Dead and that ilk-- are about as subtle as a bludgeon, and subtlety is indispensible in creating atmosphere. The Woman in Black succeeds admirably in creating an oppressive atmosphere of dread and immanent malevolence that few films have ever matched, let alone surpassed. The sense of looming evil is almost palpable. But it requires active watching, and if one wants a film to leap out and club them over the head, they should stick with Freddie Kruger. For lovers of intelligent and chilling, classic horror, this will be quite a find. If you love Shirley Jackson or Algernon Blackwood, you'll be impressed. If you prefer Friday the 13th, wait for the next (and seemingly inevitable) sequel.

Not even worth one star
I love scary movies so one day while searching for a good scary movie I came across The Woman in Black. After reading the reviews about how awesome this movie is I got is as a gift. Words cannot express how dissapointing this movie is. It starts off incredibly slow and does not pick up for the whole entire hour and a half that it is on. There is no real suspense in the movie and the ending was stupid. I do like
British horror movies but trust me this is not one of the good ones. It's not worth the money you spend on it. The only scary thing about this movie is that I'll never get the hour and a half back that I spent watching this garbage. ... Read more

Reviews (453)

An OK movie for my favorite book
POA was my favorite book of the sieries. but in the movie, i have MANY complaints.

Things that were left out

-cho chang
-how sirius got out of azkaban
-how sirius betrayed lily and james (no mention of fidelius)
-no mention of word secret keeper
-who moony wormtail padfoot and prongs are
-why sirius hates lupin, james, sirius
-why crookshanks was attacking scabbers
-why all of a sudden sirius isn't the bad guy
-why sirius tried to attack ron (oh wait, that never happened)
-that ron and peter pettigrew were in the paper is why sirius broke out of azkaban
-what hogsmeade is
-why there is a tunnel from the whomping willow to the shrieking shack
-connection between the stag patronus and "prongs"
-draco malfoy is the slytherin seeker

things that were changed
-hermione shows up late to everyclass. come on it's HERMIONE.
-the firebolt comes later
-much more interaction between past selves and future selves in time turner sequence. (made harry being his father predictable instead of shocking)
-the patronus was just lame (looked like an atomic bomb or those superballs on dragonballZ)

basically i think the movie was really good as long as i don't think about it being the same as the book.

parts of it were really good. i'm just kind of annoyed that i knew the book too well to really enjoy it. i sppent most of my time going "that never happened" (harry serching for peter pettigrew)

Marvelous Mischief!
I have not read the books yet because I like to be surprised. So I only view the movie on it's own merits.

The third installment was indeed a pleasant one. A new director,Alfonso Cuarón, handled the performances perfectly. Daniel Radcliffe ...Harry Potter is becoming a fine actor and he is great in this movie. He loses his temper with his Aunt and he plays the scene brilliantly.
Gary Oldman ...Sirius Black is always so great that you don't know it is him until the credits.
Rupert Grint ...Ron Weasley is very funny.
Emma Watson ...Hermione Granger has become a fantastic young actress and her character is strong and confident and also caring which makes her a great role model.
Alan Rickman ...Professor Severus Snape, Robbie Coltrane ...Rubeus Hagrid, and the new Dumbledore were superb as well. (I was sad to learn that the original Dumbledore, who was wonderful, has died.)

The visuals of Hogwarts and it's grounds were beautiful and for me the high point was flight of the Hippogriff with Harry. The Hippogriff was an amazing creation.

I reccomend the movie even if you are a total muggle.

Well Done!
I am an avid Harry Potter fan and I have read all the books at least four times each. I think that the "Prisoner" movie was done much better than the first two. To start, it shows how the magic world is changing for Harry and how it will continue to change as the story unfolds throughout the future novels. It's important to point out that the new director has been known in the past to put a dark spin on his interpretations in movies. But I thought that this dark point of view is what is needed at this point in order to show that Harry and co. are no longer children and are entering into more dangerous territory. Although the director did edit some parts of the book that I would have like to see, I think the movie overall does a great job in showcasing the future of the series. I think the actors are really starting to come into their own and showing more depth in their interpretations of the characters. I love to see how comfortable they are with each other in this film and to see how they are growing with these characters. Overall, I think this movie is great and I can't wait to see "Goblet". Although I do agree that "Goblet" should be longer or made into a two part movie because to edit book four too much will ruin the movie and movie goers that don't read the books will be completely lost then.

Some people just don't get it...
One of the joys about the Harry Potter series is that the style of the books matures with the characters. This is finally true with the movies as well. Yes, this is a much darker film than the first 2...so is the book. Yes, Harry, Ron and Hermione act more like real teenagers and less like 1950's television children. There were choices made in this film that were risky, but in my opinion the risk paid off! This is the perfect progression in the films of Harry Potter!

new look to a changing story
I thought the newest Harry Potter movie was VERY WELL DONE. A new look for an ever changing story line. Why would anyone want to watch a movie thats done exactly like the first two? Change it up a bit and keep the audiance wondering how their favorite books are going to be brought to screen. It doesnt hurt to have many peoples different views bring a great book to screen in another way then the first two. As long as the story gets told, isnt that all that matters? ... Read more

Description

This uniquely poignant and funny film focuses on the rekindling of a school relationship that has taken on a new twist. ... Read more

Reviews (26)

Different For ... Just About Everything
What a brave and unusual romantic comedy. Thank God the BBC is still open-minded enough for such projects, which are not only important, but ultimately wonderfully entertaining.

At the core of the boy-meets-girl, who used to be one of his mates at school, now transsexual, love story is Steven Mackintosh, who portrays Karl-now-Kim with such dignity and style that this film never feels sticky or cumbersome, as one might fear going into it.

Rupert Graves plays the bad-boy "Prentice" with such charm that one thoroughly understands why Kim allows her new-found, quiet life to be turned upside down. He shows Kim that finding the right gender doesn't necessarily make you a whole person...That comes from conviction and caring. It requires passion - something he's full of and is able to rekindle in his old schoolmate. And who knows...maybe she'll get him to change his socks daily!

Thoroughly charming!

Accurate and empowering
Wow. Steven Mackintosh does a *great* job of portraying a transsexual woman on her journey from fear and stealth to love and empowerment. I'm not sure exactly what it is that Kim is supposed to see in Prentiss (although I do understand about love for one's high school sweetheart being pretty blind), but still, they don't seem to have all that much in common. But that's the way that romantic comedies work, isn't it?

Nits to pick: 1) They had sex with no lube?! Ouch! (Transsexual women aren't usually able to self- lubricate.) 2) Provera is a progestin, not an estrogen, and wouldn't be Kim's primary hormone after surgery. (It's also nasty stuff better avoided in favor of micronized progesterone.) 3) The film editor picked absolutely the *worst* possible angle for Kim in the "afterglow" scene -- she looks like a guy.

Other than that, though, the film was remarkably accurate (right down to the dilating stent in Kim's medicine cabinet), and strongly empowering. It left me with a warm fuzzy feeling.

Good acting, decent script, just not my cup of tea
Different for Girls is an interesting film. It is well acted and well directed. However, I don't know that it is a film for everyone. It deals with the subject of post "change" of a transgendered person and how they try to fit in to society. It is quite touching and sensitive. Steven Mackintosh is quite good as the transgendered person and Rupert Graves is dynamite as he is in everything he does.

If there is a problem with this film, it's that it seems to be preaching a bit more than I think it should. I'd rather see it less a drama and more "a day in the life of" sort of film.

An *Awesome* - BUT - "True* Movie
I throughly enjoyed this movie from beginning to end! When I first saw it, I cried because I am a Transsexual (a label given by the Psychiatric profession to people "Born" with this medical condition). I watch this movie at least once a week because I "Totally" relate to what Kim went through during her Transition as well as her life afterward especially in dealing with her family, friends, co-workers, law enforcement, etc. The actor who portrayed Kim did an "AWESOME" performance in his portrayal of a woman -- in her walk, talk, mannerisms, reactions to every situation that she found herself in, and her quiet moments by herself.

The actor who played her friend "Printice" did a wonderful job in portraying her close friend from earlier in life even if he still exhibited immaturity in different situations. His reactions to Kim, what she looked like as a woman, her attitude towards him, his reactions to her, and the situations he found himself in were wonderful because they depicted the reactions that most people would find themselves in if they experienced the same things that Printess did. I HIGHLY recommend this film to everyone!

The Brits do it again.
If your sole point of transsexual movie refrences is "The Crying Game", you *have* to check this movie out.
Far from the contreversy of "The Big Secret", this movie paints a more realistic portrait of the actual, day-to-day life typical of a modern woman, (who happens to be transsexual), trying to make it through the relentless grind of society and relationships.
It is sweet in watching the re-kindled relationship between Kim and Prentice, old school mates, and the mind-wrapping required to adjust to the reality that is.

A sample quote from the movie that illustrates this:

Prentice: (Slightly stand-offish) "I'm not gay, you know.."
Kim:(with a resigned sigh) "Neither am I"

Although it doesnt tap into some of the darker aspects endured by Transpersons, it certainly tells a story not entirely like our own..with a twist. ... Read more

Amazon.com

How did Bob Rafelson, the director of small-scale American studies such as Five Easy Pieces and The King of Marvin Gardens, find himself helming an old-fashioned adventure story such as Mountains of the Moon? Whatever the reasons, Rafelson invested this 1990 epic with passion and professionalism. The hero is one of the greatest British explorers of the 19th century, Sir Richard Burton (played by Patrick Bergin), a fascinating figure and a man out of time: a modern in the Victorian era. Mountains of the Moon is primarily concerned with Burton's trek into East Africa to discover the source of the Nile, accompanied by fellow adventurer John Hanning Speke (Iain Glen). Rafelson is at least as interested in the tricky psychological jockeying between the two men, as he is in the grueling conventions of the adventure movie, but he delivers well on both counts. The brawny Bergin is sensational in a role that should have made him a star, but didn't (though he had a shot, menacing Julia Roberts in Sleeping with the Enemy); the film disappeared quickly. Perhaps audiences were put off by the lack of marquee names and confused by the title, which refers to a piece of African landscape. Providing solid support are Fiona Shaw (another should-have-been star), Richard E. Grant, and Delroy Lindo, as an African warrior. A very satisfying excursion into the National Geographic pith-helmet genre. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (15)

European quest for source of Nile
It is interesting to consider that just a century (give or take a decade) before people in airplanes and spaceships were looking down on East Africa, the source of the Nile was as unknown as it had been in Caesar's lifetime. The discovery of the source of the Nile was one of the last prizes for European explorers during the 19th century, and that is the starting point for this film, which chronicles the expeditions of Richard Burton and John Speke, their friendship and eventual falling-out over the debate as to whether the source had been discovered.

I very much enjoyed "Mountains of the Moon", and could have happily watched a longer version, but I also have to admit that this movie doesn't succeed as much as I hoped it would. It is a well made movie, beautifully filmed on location in Africa. The script is intelligent and seems (to me) to be historically accurate to the extent that is possible in a two-hour film. The acting and music are fine. But somehow all of the ingredients don't come together into a fully successful film. I had the idea that I enjoyed the film because I already knew a lot about the subject, but someone without that knowledge might have a more difficult time with it. Overall this is a very good effort, and much credit has to be given for making a film about an African historical subject. Recommended, but especially for anyone who has already read a book or two about Burton, Speke, and East Africa.

An enlightening work of biography and the lure of Africa
"Mountains of the Moon" starts out on the Indian Ocean coast of either Kenya or Tanzania. Later expedition scenes take place around Lake Turkana in Kenya's remote "Northern Frontier District." While on a three-month "camel safari" in 1988, I met the location scouting crew near the lake. The movie touches on the vastness of Africa, and features Samburu, Masai and Turkanan tribesmen. Bergin developes his character in Burton as a tough adventurer with a sensitive humanity for non-European peoples in this film. Bergin places Burton's intentions as explorer and geographer into the motives of a modern "comparative" cultural anthropologist. His companion, John Spekes, represents our modern dullness to the rich communal values of African tribesmen that exist even now in the 20th Century. Both actors compliment the relationship between Burton and Spekes who operate under continual duress while on safari. Burton, as naturalist, desires to leave only footprints; Spekes is preoccupied with shooting all that moves. The love relationship for Bergin's character by Shaw portrays a believable admiration that is truly virtuous. The romance in this film survives the real strains of separation and intrigue. Anyone who has been "on safari" somewhere in the world will identify with this relationship. The action is believable and balanced for the whole story to emerge on its own.

How dare a white man say he discovered Africa?
Is what Sir Richard Francis Burton (Patric Begin) tells his wife Isabell (Fiona Shaw ) after she rushes in to their London home exclaiming: " Newspapers! Mr. Speke again! "

At which point one of the most intelligent and best written love scenes ensues---in one of the most intelligent and best written films of all time---as Isabell demands that the hitherto heroic Burton--who has given in to drink and despair, publically confront his former friend, John Speke (Ian Glen) who is damning him in the press, and fight to vindicate his good name.

Irony of Ironies! In the Victorian age, Burton, for all his dashing bravery was considered less 'respectable' than Speke. Burton had been the first European to enter Mecca, disguised as an Arab (he was fluent in 23 languages), a swordsman who published manuals on the use of the saber in combat, and translated The Kama Sutra and The Arabian Nights into English. He had a reputation for wildness in an age of conformity.

Speke, of the other hand, was a British officer, a member of a prominent family, and a discreet homosexual.

The irony continues. This is perhaps the best foreign film that ever bombed at the American box office. Why?

1. The heterosexual ends happily, the homosexual does not. Furthermore another homosexual, Larry (Richard Grant) plays the part of 'Iago' lying and separating the two friends into bitter rivals. Worse still, unlike, say, "Kiss of the Spider Woman " Speke, does not get his sexual fantasies fulfilled. That part of his love for Burton goes unrequited.

2. Africans in the 19th century are not represented as 'Noble Savages ' living in egalitarian harmony with each other. Rousseau would have been disappointed.

3. Outside the aforementioned outburst "How dare a white man.say he discovered Africa! Africans discovered Africa! " There is no apology for British colonialism. In fact, it's rather unimportant to the main focus of the film.

4. There were no STARS, that brought in an audience, only great actors.

( One shudders at the thought of a Hollywood remake with Tom Hanks and Tim Burton in the leads and Whoopi Goldberg delivering an impassioned speech at The Royal Geographical Society. )

This film is a glorious, true life, adventure story about the discovery of the source of the Nile. Yes, it is an "epic" , wonderfully photographed. David Lean would have loved it.

Especially since the plot is driven by the characters, not the outside world, exotic as the surroundings may be. There is a tone of melancholia, a bittersweetness that prevails throughout. It is a tragedy about the friendship of Speke and Burton. The first gay as a breeze, the second a raving heterosexual but both, (without any excuses to audiences trained to expect that only 'ordinary folks' are believable ) presented for what they were: Heroes.

Indeed if the word 'hero' did not apply to Speke and Burton, it would have no meaning. I lost track of how many time they saved each other's lives. A brilliant, subtle and touching film.

Wasn't worth the hype
A great movie if you like to see grime and only grime. For me, it is a disjointed movie. The story wasn't melded enough. The characters did not connect with each other enough to create the drama. The sex scenes are so bad that they look like afterthoughts. Poor editing. I see why ordinary mortals like me would not go ga-ga over this.

Patience well rewarded
I came to this film knowing almost nothing about Burton, Speke, or the search for the Nile; in fact I only picked it up because I heard Roger Rees was in it (he's great as always, by the way, but he only has a two-minute part at the end). However, I came away entranced and fascinated by the subject, and more especially, by the characters. Although the film is a little slow moving for ignorant types like myself, it merely requires patience for the first 20 minutes or so, before the powerful storytelling and acting overcomes any pacing problems. Patrick Bergin creates a truly memorable character, and Fiona Shaw is wonderfully...Victorian, only not. A character of true intelligence and humour, yet undeniably a product of her time. My favourite though, is Iain Glen as John Hanning Speke, who did the whole tortured/ambitious/second-fiddle-and-hating-it/sexually frustrated part very convincingly. His relationship with Burton is intense enough to unify the film as it sprawls accross two completely different continents (how civilized Africa seems next to London) and keep us caring right up to the final frames (and the belated but welcome appearance of R. Rees)! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Set in an unmercifully rugged, coastal village in Scotland in the 1970s, this extraordinary film by Lars von Trier stars British actress Emily Watson as a barely contained naive named Bess, who holds regular conversations with God and whose pure and intensely personal faith is hardly tolerated by the gruesome Calvinist elders of her church. Bess marries an oil-rig worker (Stellan Skarsgard) and comes to believe that erotic discovery is a part of God's grand plan. But after her spouse is hurt in an accident, she decides that divine instruction is leading her toward the life of a prostitute--with disastrous but somehow beautiful results. Von Trier (The Kingdom) has made a wonderful, entirely unexpected, and rigorous work of discovery in this film, with a formal visual design that recalls classic films by Carl Theodor Dreyer and Robert Bresson. Watson is a phenomenon, her wide-eyed wonder at the world as God's handiwork a breathtaking portrayal of conviction. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (120)

Harsh/Graceful Modern Retelling of Orpheus, Joan of Arch, ..
Try at a short(ish) review: Breaking the Waves reminds me of Ingmar BergmanÕs work and other great auteurs who not only play with our emotions but reach into our gray matter and belief systems, stirring them all up. After 6 years, I finally felt prepared to view this passion play. It went from being a movie I should see to one that I am grateful I saw and will see again (when I am ready).

Emily Watson is stellar and accompanied by a cast that almost seamlessly makes the strange premise of a wife trying to save her husband by sexual encounters with other men believable. Even the chapter breaks connote a sense of the story looking real but also not looking real. To keep this telling from being too stark and unyielding, Lars von Tier presents an unexpected sensuality and sense of humor in the first half. Otherwise, I donÕt think we could care about these extremely religious and/or secular people for 2 1/2 hours. On the other hand, it takes its cameras, not filtering the sound of the film running through the camera spokes, into the scenes of BessieÕs search for men. It is a very painful adventure into Hades for such a simple woman child.

Ultimately, it is a story about attaining love but goes beyond to finding grace. It is a marvelous work to be in the collective consciousness and definitely not meant to be a popcorn movie. The film has an Achilles heel or two but so superficial that I hardly feel they need be noted. Make sure you have the stomach and compassion. It rang the church bells in my heart and mind.

Try pairing this movie with EgoyemÕs ÔExotica,Õ any of BergmanÕs films, Marcel CamusÕ ÔBlack Orpheus,Ô Allen's 'Crimes & Misdemeanors' or DreyerÕs ÔPassion of Joan of Arc.Õ Then go out and get some sunshine, have a good walk and dinner with loved ones.

Not your average God-obsessed-nympho movie...
A fascinating but not entirely successful fantasia that owes just about all of its power to Emily Watson, making a stunning film debut. Watson is the mentally unstable Bess, who talks to God (God seems to talk back in her voice). Bess, a virgin, marries the burly but sensitive oil-rig worker Jan (Stellan Skarsgard). Once she tastes the joys of sex, Bess becomes delirious with love for Jan. But soon he must return to the oil rig, where he has an accident that paralyzes him. The erratic and heavily medicated Jan takes it into his head to ask Bess a favor: she must sleep with other men, and tell him about the encounters, to keep him alive. Both Jan and God seem to want Bess to go through with it.

It's a mistake to take this sort of fable literally, but director Lars von Trier makes everything seem realistic with artsy touches like handheld camerawork, jump cuts, and saturated photography (by Robby Muller). He also, for whatever reason, divides the movie into chapters, and the chapter headings are surreal landscapes with sometimes grating '70s rock songs played over them. You nod and understand all the points von Trier is making, but everything is so symbolic and predetermined that it seldom truly reaches you. The film is haunting but mechanistic and, in its last third, borderline ludicrous -- the meaningful masochism gets to be more than a little much. Yet Emily Watson, who's in almost every frame, very nearly puts the entire gigantic daft movie across all by herself. Her elastic face is a playhouse for violently conflicting emotions, and she's never less than touching. With anyone else in the role (like Helena Bonham-Carter, who was going to do it but dropped out), the movie would probably collapse.

Note: Nothing on the featured cover artwork or in Amazon.com's description indicates whether this DVD is letterboxed. I'd have a look at the back cover or rent it first to make sure, as this is a widescreen, 2.35 movie that needs to be seen letterboxed, though since there is an existing widescreen VHS edition, I see no reason why Artisan wouldn't have letterboxed the DVD.

Beautiful...
This film does NOT endorse what it depicts. Obviously, the memebers of the church are misguided, in fact a great deal of the film points that out. But the film is not about them, it is about Bess, and about her love for God and God's love for her. What happens to her in the movie is not God's torture of her, it is human free will being exercised on a pure spirit, and the beauty is how her spirit always remains pure. That is why God loves Bess. God does not sugarcoat the world, and all who wish to follow him go through trials. Bess made it through those trials, and this is, as such, a TRUE CHRISTIAN FILM.

Not to mention it is cinematically the best film I have ever seen, as Heilman says, it is transcends words and descriptions. Do not let any review scare you away, if you don't like graphic sex turn it off, but this is a film about the love God has for all the how beautiful a pure spirit is.

ALERT TO CHRISTIANS
I loved dancer in the dark. I found it to be one of the saddest, most beautiful films that i have ever seen. This led me to search out other films by Lars Von Treir. This one was said to be the most comparable to it. This couldn't be further from the truth.

If there are any true christians out there, i can't tell you how strongly I advise you to stay away from this film. Maybe, like me, you saw dancer in the dark and are looking for something similar or just as good. THIS MOVIE WAS ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE.

There are graphic sex scenes in this movie, which if alone wouldve been reason alone to not see this film. The way they depicted God in this film was what was most offensive to me. Throughout the movie there are constant scenes depicting a church involved in mass ritualism, who have no love for God or his people. They enjoy seeing people in sin and have no problem seeing them go to hell. They are constantly showing hatred towards others and fail to reveal one ounce of compassion. Another problem with how they depicted God was that he was a cruel and evil person that likes to play little games with the world. They made him out to be someone who hates his creation and wants to hurt them in the form of teaching them a lesson. They even stated that God told the main character to become a prostitute. The God of this movie shows absolutely no love.

There are many churches and people like the ones depicted in this movie. People like this do not accurately depict anyone who truely knows and loves God.

God is not someone who sits up in heaven, bitter and scolding everyone, and taking pleasure in seeing people suffer. He did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through him the world might be saved. He loves us more than everything we could ever know. God loved us so much that he became a man, was beaten to near death and then crucified for all of us.

He loves everyone and wants to have a loving relationship with anyone who will ask him. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever (anyone) believes in him would not parish, but have everlasting life, John 3:16.

If you are a christian, listen to this review from someone who loves God, and stay away from this film. If you are not a christian, God loves you more than you could ever comprehend. All he wants is for you to love him in return. Jesus Christ is God, believe and recieve.

So disappointing...
A long, slow study of life in a small northern Scottish town, ruled by the old men of the village's Calvinist kirk, as seen through the eyes of a village lass who appears to be able to hold conversations with God. And I mean sloooooow. At times fascinating and at times just frustrating, the story moves along at its own pace, broken into sections that are annoyingly introduced with still frame shots and titles.

The movie is at times beautiful and at times clearly an exercise in self-indulgence on the part of the director, Lars von Trier. What I found absolutely inexcuseable was the final, very final shot. Without giving the ending away, hearing the bells was beautiful. It was transcendant. It made up for the length and leisurely pace of the whole movie. But then von Trier spoiled all the goodwill he had just created with me by showing me the bells. Why? Oh, why? The ending ruined the movie. What, we're too dense to put two and two together and figure out for ourselves where the peels were coming from? ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Unforgotten? Unforgettable!
Going through some Paul McGann movies online, I ran across this little gem. Rarely do I buy dvds that I'm not familiar with, but this one grabbed me and wouldn't let go. I sat through the whole thing, not knowing where it was leading me. Rarely do you see in a mystery how a crime affects each member of the community and the relationships. This one has it all. Highly recommended!
.

Chilling psychological drama
With the possible exception of Hetty Wainthrop, Forgotten is probably the most unusual production I've seen on PBS's popular Mystery! series. It is certainly not a cozy little mystery with brilliant detectives and happy endings, like Poirot or Cadfael (both of which I love, by the way); it is more deeply personal, steeped in realism, and will haunt you for many nights to come.

Several things strike me about this miniseries (movie, tv show? I'm not sure what to call it!). First of all, it is not typical Hollywoodized fare - the characters are all painfully real, down to the DCI who suffers from hay fever to the bookstore employee who walks with crutches. The relationships are scripted and acted so well that you feel like you're watching a slice out of their lives, not actors performing roles. And the acting is absolutely superb. Amanda Burton is both chilling and sympathetic (a hard balance to acheive) and utterly believable. The extremely likeable Paul McGann (Dr. Who, Horatio Hornblower) is such a perfectly bemused Ben Turner that you are left believing that this is what Paul McGann must be truly like. However, the show is stolen (at least in my opinion) by the very handsome Christopher Villiars as the tortured DI Andrew Cannon, whose role, like everyone's, is fleshed out extremely well. Also very notable is the fetching young Karis Copp, who gives an outstanding and surprisingly sensitive performance as 7-year-old Emmy.

Against the picturesque backdrop of a charming little Cotswolds village (a wonderful contrast to the ultimate evil of a murdered child) the story plays itself out at an unhurried pace, letting you savor the characters and live their lives alongside them as events unfold. With each new revelation the plot twists and turns, culminating in a conclusion so disturbing that it kept me awake half the night pondering it.

My only complaints are the COMPLETE lack of any kind of extra features on the DVD, and the full-screen presentation (it was broadcast on PBS in widescreen). But the story itself is without flaw, and these minor complaints do not take away from its impact.

Absolutely one of the most memorable and gripping stories you will ever watch.

Unusual, unforgettable mystery
This is an unusual murder mystery in the sense that it focuses on 2 eerily similar murders 20 years apart and emphasizes the families involved and how these crimes affected them. Most murder mysteries portray the detectives and the resulting quest to find the killer, with little attention given to the victims' families and friends and how the murder affects them. That is what makes this story different--yes, you do see the police questioning the suspects, but the sense is more peripherial than usual. What is depicted is the sadness of the parents who learn that their child has been murdered, how they cope with it, and how it changes the family and the relationship between the husband and wife, and the relationship between the parents and (surviving) children.
There are several twists and turns in the plot. Many of the characters in this drama are not what nor who they appear to be at first. This only adds to the overall uneasiness of the story. Is Ben Turner really who he says he is? Is Rachel Munro simply a grieving mother, unable to move on with her life after her daughter was killed 20 years ago, or is she more unstable--unable to accept that perhaps Ben did not murder her child. Her anger and horror when she learns how the police "helped" convict Ben turns to anguish--not only has she lost 20 years of her life hating the wrong person, but the real killer is still free.
There is also an interesting unlying theme of redemption and rehabilitation running throughout the story. If Ben did kill Rachel's child, he certainly does not appear to be the same person that he was 20 years ago. He now has a wife, a daughter, and a child on the way of his own. He and his wife seem to have a good marriage. It does not seem likely that he killed the little girl in his daughter's class. Yet, once his friends and neighbors learn that he is a suspect (and has been convicted of a similar crime in the past), those friendships are altered. The trust is no longer there. Rachel's role in this is also interesting--is she so set upon revenge for her daughter's death that she no longer cares whether she is persecuting the wrong person? Or is she just unstable?
The story does not neatly tie up loose ends. The revelation of the killers of both girls leaves more questions about the characters and the family relationships. You will not forget this mystery. Highly recommended.

Solid mystery drama
What makes this British television film so strong is a combination of the acting and the emphasis on family. Especially noteworthy is Amanda Burton as Rachel Monro, the woman who enters the family life of Ben and Nattie Turner to show both of them that the past cannot be escaped.

While the preservation in DVD format of the original film's three parts is a bit annoying--rather than following the entire story straight through--the strength of the film makes up for this quite a bit. So even though you have to view Part I, then go back to the menu and view Part II, then Part III, it's worth it. The plotting is strong, the pacing is well thought out, and, as mentioned, the acting does quite a bit to carry the tale.

A little girl is missing, and finally found dead. A young couple, with a 7-year old daughter, becomes involved, thanks to the attentions of the mysterious Rachel Monro. Soon the entire small village is aware of the supposed guilt of the husband, played well by Paul McGann. But things are not as straightforward as they may seem: complicating the picture are a corrupt retired cop; another policeman, bitter due to a failing marriage; and Rachel Monro herself.

The revelation of the killer is not completely surprising, if you pay close attention. What is surprising is that over the course of 2 1/2 hours, this holds up so well. Most of the lead and primary supporting characters have families--their family bonds are critical to them, and to the tone and context of the film.

This is a good movie to see on a rainy Sunday afternoon, or on a long cold night when the nearby fire is warm enough to keep you where you are for a while.

Well done.

NOT TO BE FORGOTTEN!
American fans of PBS's MYSTERY or A&E's MYSTERIES (both of which air British thrillers), won't be disappointed in this superbly crafted and richly atmospheric mystery/thriller.

The enigmatic and elegent Amanda Burton (known to mystery fans as Dr. Sam Ryan in the SILENT WITNESS series -- and who is not the child of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in spite of the fact that she bears the Burton name and looks very much like Taylor), stars as a woman of mystery who returns to a small village with ulterior motives.

I won't say any more about the story or plot, as Amazon's descrpition sums it up about as well as can be done without revealing too much. The film is presented in three complete 50-minute (approx) episodes.

My only (very minor) complaint was the screenwriter's choice of the person who turns out to be the "villian", who only had what I would call peripheral involvement in the storyline. This seemed to me to be a slight cheat on the part of the screenwriter, but I guess it goes to show us to always suspect everyone.

But the story is told so well, and the atmosphere is so evocative, that this is only a minor complaint. And there is a nice slew of suspects with which to contend, and several characterizations that are nicely unusual and out of the ordinary (notably, a lady police investigator very much unlike the stereotypical inspector). Although not gory or overly violent, it is presented in a tone of realism, not in the tone of a "for-fun" who-dun-it like, say, MISS MARPLE or MURDER, SHE WROTE. As to movie rating, I would rate it PG-13, or soft R, not for children.

The film is beautifully photographed in a picturesque little English villiage (I'd love to know where!), giving a rich "atmosphere" and sense of place to the story. And it ends with an ambiguous yet satisfying "question mark" ending that will leave you thinking further about the story and characters.

This beautifully filmed thriller will remove you from your surroundings and take you into another world of mystery and intrigue. I was thrilled with this purchase (no pun intended!). Highly recommended for fans of the genre. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

The rich and the richer
An inside look at the wealth in Palm Beach,Fla. This is the real world of the rich. The sheer opulence of the cream of our society (old money and new money). It's the affluent and their lifestyles. The lifestyle the average person only sees in the movies and more. It's all about the Benjamins (money) and what would seem unreal to most is easily attainable if you are abundantly wealthy. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Some movie-loving wizards must have cast a magic spell on Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, because it's another grand slam for the Harry Potter franchise. Demonstrating remarkable versatility after the arthouse success of Y Tu Mamá También, director Alfonso Cuarón proves a perfect choice to guide Harry, Hermione, and Ron into treacherous puberty as the now 13-year-old students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry face a new and daunting challenge: Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) has escaped from Azkaban prison, and for reasons yet unknown (unless, of course, you've read J.K. Rowling's book, considered by many to be the best in the series), he's after Harry in a bid for revenge. This dark and dangerous mystery drives the action while Harry (the fast-growing Daniel Radcliffe) and his third-year Hogwarts classmates discover the flying hippogriff Buckbeak (a marvelous CGI creature), the benevolent but enigmatic Professor Lupin (David Thewlis), horrifying black-robed Dementors, sneaky Peter Pettigrew (Timothy Spall), and the wonderful advantage of having a Time-Turner just when you need one. The familiar Hogwarts staff returns in fine form (including the delightful Michael Gambon, replacing the late Richard Harris as Dumbledore, and Emma Thompson as the goggle-eyed Sybil Trelawney), and even Julie Christie joins this prestigious production for a brief but welcome cameo. Technically dazzling, fast-paced, and chock-full of Rowling's boundless imagination (loyally adapted by ace screenwriter Steve Kloves), The Prisoner of Azkaban is a Potter-movie classic. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (453)

An OK movie for my favorite book
POA was my favorite book of the sieries. but in the movie, i have MANY complaints.

Things that were left out

-cho chang
-how sirius got out of azkaban
-how sirius betrayed lily and james (no mention of fidelius)
-no mention of word secret keeper
-who moony wormtail padfoot and prongs are
-why sirius hates lupin, james, sirius
-why crookshanks was attacking scabbers
-why all of a sudden sirius isn't the bad guy
-why sirius tried to attack ron (oh wait, that never happened)
-that ron and peter pettigrew were in the paper is why sirius broke out of azkaban
-what hogsmeade is
-why there is a tunnel from the whomping willow to the shrieking shack
-connection between the stag patronus and "prongs"
-draco malfoy is the slytherin seeker

things that were changed
-hermione shows up late to everyclass. come on it's HERMIONE.
-the firebolt comes later
-much more interaction between past selves and future selves in time turner sequence. (made harry being his father predictable instead of shocking)
-the patronus was just lame (looked like an atomic bomb or those superballs on dragonballZ)

basically i think the movie was really good as long as i don't think about it being the same as the book.

parts of it were really good. i'm just kind of annoyed that i knew the book too well to really enjoy it. i sppent most of my time going "that never happened" (harry serching for peter pettigrew)

Marvelous Mischief!
I have not read the books yet because I like to be surprised. So I only view the movie on it's own merits.

The third installment was indeed a pleasant one. A new director,Alfonso Cuarón, handled the performances perfectly. Daniel Radcliffe ...Harry Potter is becoming a fine actor and he is great in this movie. He loses his temper with his Aunt and he plays the scene brilliantly.
Gary Oldman ...Sirius Black is always so great that you don't know it is him until the credits.
Rupert Grint ...Ron Weasley is very funny.
Emma Watson ...Hermione Granger has become a fantastic young actress and her character is strong and confident and also caring which makes her a great role model.
Alan Rickman ...Professor Severus Snape, Robbie Coltrane ...Rubeus Hagrid, and the new Dumbledore were superb as well. (I was sad to learn that the original Dumbledore, who was wonderful, has died.)

The visuals of Hogwarts and it's grounds were beautiful and for me the high point was flight of the Hippogriff with Harry. The Hippogriff was an amazing creation.

I reccomend the movie even if you are a total muggle.

Well Done!
I am an avid Harry Potter fan and I have read all the books at least four times each. I think that the "Prisoner" movie was done much better than the first two. To start, it shows how the magic world is changing for Harry and how it will continue to change as the story unfolds throughout the future novels. It's important to point out that the new director has been known in the past to put a dark spin on his interpretations in movies. But I thought that this dark point of view is what is needed at this point in order to show that Harry and co. are no longer children and are entering into more dangerous territory. Although the director did edit some parts of the book that I would have like to see, I think the movie overall does a great job in showcasing the future of the series. I think the actors are really starting to come into their own and showing more depth in their interpretations of the characters. I love to see how comfortable they are with each other in this film and to see how they are growing with these characters. Overall, I think this movie is great and I can't wait to see "Goblet". Although I do agree that "Goblet" should be longer or made into a two part movie because to edit book four too much will ruin the movie and movie goers that don't read the books will be completely lost then.

Some people just don't get it...
One of the joys about the Harry Potter series is that the style of the books matures with the characters. This is finally true with the movies as well. Yes, this is a much darker film than the first 2...so is the book. Yes, Harry, Ron and Hermione act more like real teenagers and less like 1950's television children. There were choices made in this film that were risky, but in my opinion the risk paid off! This is the perfect progression in the films of Harry Potter!

new look to a changing story
I thought the newest Harry Potter movie was VERY WELL DONE. A new look for an ever changing story line. Why would anyone want to watch a movie thats done exactly like the first two? Change it up a bit and keep the audiance wondering how their favorite books are going to be brought to screen. It doesnt hurt to have many peoples different views bring a great book to screen in another way then the first two. As long as the story gets told, isnt that all that matters? ... Read more

Description

The chronically suicidal Wilbur and his good-hearted big brother Harbour are in their thirties, when their father dies, leaving them with nothing but a worn down second-hand bookshop in Glasgow. Wilbur survives yet another suicide attempt and goes to the hospital, where he meets Horst a cynical psychologist and his empathic head nurse, Moira. Like Harbour, they believe that Wilbur needs a girlfriend. But even though women fall for Wilbur all the time, they can't get close to him. In fact, it is Harbour who falls in love when a shy and intense woman, Alice, enters the lives of the brothers. Alice lives a life in isolation with her little daughter, Mary. She supplements her job as a cleaning lady at the hospital's surgical ward, selling books that the patients have left behind. Little by little, Wilbur, Harbour and Alice become inseparable. Wilbur starts regaining his lust for life, Alice starts to come out of her shell, and Mary starts reading the thousands of books in the second-hand bookshop. Harbour has never been happier, but he carries a deep secret that threatens to surface. ... Read more

Description

With special access to the inner sanctums of the ultra-rich, we giveviewers a unique look at a town where 87% of the residents are millionaires, thesupermarket provides valet parking, and a bank offers a jewelry drop-off service. A list ofpast and present Palm Beach denizens includes: Winston Churchill, Clark Gable, BurtReynolds, Donald Trump, and Rush Limbaugh. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

The rich and the richer
An inside look at the wealth in Palm Beach,Fla. This is the real world of the rich. The sheer opulence of the cream of our society (old money and new money). It's the affluent and their lifestyles. The lifestyle the average person only sees in the movies and more. It's all about the Benjamins (money) and what would seem unreal to most is easily attainable if you are abundantly wealthy. ... Read more