Amazon.com essential video

The prestigious filmmaking trio of producer Ismail Merchant, director James Ivory, and screenwriter Ruth Prawer Jhabvala had made other critically acclaimed films before A Room with a View was released in 1985, but it was this popular film that made them art-house superstars. Splendidly adapted from the novel by E.M. Forster, it's a comedy of the heart, a passionate romance and a study of repression within the British class system of manners and mores. It's that system of rigid behavior that prevents young Lucy Honeychurch (Helena Bonham Carter) from accepting the loving advances of a free-spirited suitor (Julian Sands), who fears that she will follow through with her engagement to a priggish intellectual (Daniel Day-Lewis) whose capacity for passion is virtually nonexistent. During and after a trip to Italy with her protective companion (Maggie Smith), Lucy gradually gets in touch with her true emotions. The fun of watching A Room with a View comes from seeing how Lucy's thoughts and feelings finally arrive at the same romantic conclusion. Through an abundance of humor both subtle and overt, this crowd-pleasing "art movie" rose to an unexpected level of popular appeal. The Merchant-Ivory team received eight Academy Award nominations for their efforts, and won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay, Art Direction, and Costume Design. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (114)

Merchant/Ivory bursts onto the scene
One of the most charming films of the last century was this chamber love story. Extremely literate and intelligent, this Victorian story is easily accessible as an extremely well versed John Hughes could easily write the simple boy-meets-girl storyline. Fortunately for us, he was unavailable and the resulting film, made outside the Hollywood Studio system, avoids many current clichés and uses smart character to propel the story. Well, this is a Merchant Ivory film so propel might be too big a word. There films are usually soft character driven stories with a lack of speeding cars, ricocheting bullets or clever profanity. If you can tolerate small, romantic character pieces, this is one of the best. Great performances by Denholm Elliot, Maggie Smith and Judy Dench sturdily support the love triangle of Daniel Day Lewis, Julian Sands and the phenomenal Helena Bonham Carter. With beautiful classical music and nice cinematography, this view is a pleasant one. The DVD has a shaky video transfer and sufficient audio. It offers no extra material.

ELEGANT, THOUGHTFUL, FUNNY...A MASTERPIECE YOU NEED TO OWN!
This exquisite classic of Merchant-Ivory is sensually explores the struggle between the tight exterior of the British upper crust and the seething passion that lurks just beneath in the increasingly powerful middle class. You've seen a movie or two for sure that veer around such themes, but very few films have captured this combination of class struggle and personal liberation any more evocatively!

Our protagonist is a young, passionate and repressed Miss Lucy Honeychurch (Helena Bonham Carter in possibly her best role ever) who exemplifies this unspoken inner-outer conflict. As she struggles between what is expected of her, to marry the effete and obnoxious Cecil Vyse (Daniel Day Lewis in a richly textured performance), and what she really wants, to be with the yearning, romantic George Emerson (a soft and unfocused Julian Sands) Miss Honeychurch must juggle class concerns and personal desires.

As with any Merchant Ivory product, the all-round cast is vivid and intriguing. Maggie Smith never leaves a dull moment in any of her movies, a credo she maintains here as well as Lucy's nervous and confused escort -- for which she received a well deserved Oscar. As George's bewildered and sweet father, the marvellous Denholm Elliot steals every scene in which he appears. Lastly, Simon Callow as the ebullient, robust Reverend Beebe captures all that is good and true about humanity.

A word for the DVD. The cinematography in this movie sparkles, and the DVD does complete justice to Ivory's camera skills -- the shots are so pure you will want to taste the dew resting atop the grass in the sumptuous English gardens.

What a complete movie, full of life, love and hope! Highly recommended for your collections, you'll watch this more than once.

They do not come better than this
James Ivory's "Room With a View" is a tour de force. Adapted by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala from the novel by E.M. Forster, "A Room with a View" is a shining example of Merchant-Ivory's ability to achieve maximum quality and opulence at minimum cost. It shows the life of Lucy Honeychurch starting from Italy, going through England and ending in Italy. This is a thoughtful movie that requires one to understand the standards of England then to realize that it is fighting against the set rigid style of life. This style of life is eternal and can be seen in movies like "Guess who is coming to dinner". Denholm Elliot raises his son to not care about anything but truth and beauty. The acting and screenplay is wonderful. Daniel Day Lewis does a superb job as Cecil. Judy Davis is superb as the novelist, Eleanor Lavish as is Maggie Smith.

Even the humor in the movie is unusual. When the English chaplain in Florence, Mr Eager shows a chapel and mentions, "Remember that this was built by faith in the full fervor of medievalism", it prompts, Mr Emerson to say, "Faith indeed. It simply means that the workers were not paid well." The movie has understated humor that is refreshing compared to the usual slapstick. Scenes were the brother and sister are together are especially funny.

A lot of people found the movie too slow. Well, this is not a cop movie, it requires one to think about what goes underneath each person. The movie is based on one of the special books that breaks down class distinctions, though it is subtle and dignified. I personally felt that this was the best movie of the year and easily bet "Platoon" in its class. A winner of three Academy Awards, "A Room with a View" is not what one could call fast-moving, but fans of the Merchant-Ivory team will enjoy luxuriating in the film's leisurely pace and stimulating cast of characters.

One of my favorite films!
I saw this film when it first came out, in the theater, and it has remained one of my favorite films. It was the first film I bought when I got a VCR. This is one of those elegant Merchant-Ivory productions (which also include Maurice and A Passage to India, other E.M. Forster adaptations to film) that sets the late Victorian/early twentieth century world in upper- to upper-middle class England in such gracious light.

The stars of this film include Helena Bonham Carter as Lucy, the heroine, and Julian Sands as George Emerson, her free-spirited suitor, who shocks everyone by doing such risque things as running around without a jacket, or kissing someone (willing) in a field of poppies. The official suitor of Lucy is the stuffed-shirt Cecil Vyse, whose personality seems like it is jammed in a vise. There are great performances by Judi Dench (as a conventional free-spirit, one who likes to be freespirited but not at the expense of reputation), Rupert Graves, Simon Callow, Denhom Elliot, and an outstanding performance (as always, she just has to walk on the set and the film gets an extra star) by Maggie Smith, as the gossipy and fretting aunt and chaperone to Lucy, who eventually comes round to recognizing and rejoicing in the true love of Lucy and George.

The sets are beautiful, the costumes all very much a part of the period, as are the small touches that make up the style of English society that Forster was trying to expose and celebrate in different ways both at the same time. The music is enchanting, with the glorious opera piece "O Mio Bambino Caro" sung by Kiri te Kanawa.

Are you serious?
I heard such wonderful things about this movie and was really looking forward to seeing it. I had a couple friends over to watch it and out of the four of us I was the only one left awake to see the end. I was so disappointed. The movie was too long and left me feeling cheated at the end. So gald I didnt buy it. Rent it first before buying... ... Read more

Amazon.com

This harrowing but rewarding 1984 drama concerns the real-life relationship between New York Times reporter Sidney Schanberg and his Cambodian assistant Dith Pran (Haing S. Ngor), the latter left at the mercy of the Khmer Rouge after Schanberg--who chose to stay after American evacuation but was booted out--failed to get him safe passage. Filmmaker Roland Joffé, previously a documentarist, made his feature debut with this account of Dith's rocky survival in the ensuing madness of the Khmer Rouge's genocidal campaign. The script spends some time with Schanberg's feelings of guilt after the fact, but most of the movie is a shattering re-creation of hell on Earth. The late Haing S. Ngor--a real-life doctor who had never acted before and who lived through the events depicted by Joffé--is outstanding, and he won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Oscars also went to cinematographer Chris Menges and editor Jim Clark. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (65)

"The wind whispers of fear & hate. The war has killed love."
There are films that continue to haunt you long after the end credits fade away. There are films that horrify you because of the gruesome imagery that bombards you while you sit in the darkened theater. And then there are films whose haunting and horrifying nature is magnified even more because it is based on events that actually happened. Such a film is Roland Joffe's "The Killing Fields."

"The Killing Fields" chronicles the journey of two friends who find themselves swept up in the revolution in Cambodia during the 1970s. As the Khmer Rouge comes to power, New York Times writer Sydney Schanberg (Sam Waterston) and his assistant Dith Pran (Haing S. Ngor) witness firsthand the transformation of Cambodia's cities and countryside under the new regime. As the situation becomes more dire, Schanberg finds himself in a difficult situation - he knows Pran will run afoul of the new government once the Khmer Rouge completes their takeover but Schanberg still needs him to finish his duties for the New York Times. Both men hope for the best but when Pran attempts to leave the country, he finds that his window of opportunity has disappeared and he is trapped in Cambodia.

"The Killing Fields" is a film that pulls no punches. Watching Pran trying to stay alive from day to day is a sobering viewing experience. While its story explores the broader political implications of the rise of the Khmer Rogue, the true drama revolves around Pran who embodies the personal suffering of all of the regime's victims. While Waterston is outstanding, this is a film that delivers it message through Pran, and Ngor is more than up to the demands of his role. His performance is honest to the point of heartbreak. This film is not easy to watch but it is a worthwhile journey for those with the courage to sit through it.

Mankind Destroying Itself
The Killing Fields is absolutely one of the greatest films on war and genocide ever made. The story centers on a renowned reporter named Sidney Schanberg and his assistant and translator, Dith Pran. Sam Waterston and Haing Ngor, respectively, star in those roles, plus John Malkovich as Sidney's photographer. Ngor simply is Dith, and he won an Oscar. Waterston had been a nobody before this film, and he was so good as Sidney he received an Oscar Nomination. The story goes like this: during the Vietnam war, America had planned and executed bombing operations in Cambodia. This movie starts during those times, and we see the horrifying aftermath of one of those bombings. Yet the insanity inspired by this bombing leads to a revolution and the creation of a new regime, the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot. Soon suspected subversives are being led into reeducation camps. Sidney tries to get Dith out, but Dith decides to stay and send his family to America. Soon, there is no escape, and Sidney must leave Dith behind. As soon as he gets back he looks for Dith and tries to find a way to bring him out. In Cambodia, Dith is not doing well. He has been put in a camp. Our first glimpse of him is that of a diseased, jaded, starving man. He sees his countrymen being killed, he sees hate and fear, he sees Hell on Earth. What is going to happen? Will Dith escape or succumb to the forces of evil? You will have to watch this film to find out.

The cover says that "Every so often, there is a film that is destined to be talked about and remembered for years to come". The Killing Fields is the definitive experience on the Khmer Rouge holocaust. The violence is harrowing but never in excess, the film is unforgettable.

War Drama about Cambodia
Most war movies from the 80's are about Vietnam and sometimes the horrible events in Cambodia are snowed under.
'The Killing Fields' is about the friendship between NY Times Reporter Syd and his Cambodian interpreter and later friend. When the western journalists flee the country they try and get him with them by forging a passport but it fails and Tran stays behind. He gets caught by the Khmer Rouge and forced to work in slavery, by not letting known he speaks English he survives and escapes and finds his friend Syd again.

The movie is great and emotional. Some scenes are awful but lifelike. Though shot in Thailand, the scenery is beautiful. The acting is fine too, the man playing Tran won an oscar. His own personal life is very closely linked to the events in Cambodia too and this movie is also in part about him. He unfortunately got killed in the late 1990's, possibly by the Khmer in LA.

THIS IS THE BEST CHEERLEADER MOVIE EVER MADE!!!!
THIS IS THE BEST CHEERLEADER MOVIE EVER, AND IT'S ONE OF MY FAVE MOVIES NOW. I FIRST SAW THIS MOVIE AT MY BEST FRIEND KIM'S HOUSE ALSO, SAME WITH 8 MILE! I LOVE THIS MOVIE, IT'S REALLY GOOD. MY FAVE SCENE IS WHEN TORRANCE AND HER FRIEND'S BROTHER ARE IN THE BAMBOO CAGE SUSPENDED OVER THE PUNJI PIT. WELL, I HIGHLY RECCOMEND YOU BUY THIS MOVIE TODAY! ITS WELL WORTH EVERY RED SINGLE CENT OF YOUR MONEY!!!!

Tragic and touching, but long-winded
Although there are mostly 5-star reviews here, this is not the type of movie to have posters with less than stunning reviews (except the political posts). This movie is obviously well-made and well-received (7 oscar nominations and 3 wins), but I found it to be too long at 141 minutes and it did not really hold my interest.

Director Roland Joffe said he interpreted the story as a love story and not a war movie, and indeed that seems to be the way he presents it. Playing John Lennon's "Imagine" at the end was a bit on the sentimental side, though.

I've watched it 2 or 3 times and just had a hard time sticking with it. There is almost enough material to expand into 2 movies.

DVD has a nice commentary, a short text-based blurb about actor Haing Ngor, a list of awards, cast/crew blurb, setup options and a trailer. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This buddy comedy teams up Jeff Goldblum and Cyndi Lauper as Manhattan-based psychics who meet at an NYU research center and are later hired by a shady entrepreneur (Peter Falk) to find his missing son in Ecuador. Once in South America, the duo learns that Falk has actually duped them into finding a lost gold treasure which his former minions failed to retrieve. Meanwhile, they're pursued by another gang seeking the treasure, one of whom is a psychic himself. Part action-adventure and part '80s Cheez Whiz, Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel's script to Vibes is hokey. But in their respective parts, Goldblum's cynicism and Lauper's free-spirited quirkiness make them a charming pair to watch in spite of the story's shortcomings. --Bryan Reesman ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Loved It!
I saw this movie in the eighties when I was a kid and I taped it in 1995 and recent boredom got me searching through old VHS's and I wound up finding this old gem. Critics said people would forget this movie back in 1988, I was ten then and I'm twenty-five now and I have NEVER forgotten it.

Yes this movie is stupid. It's lame and it's corny, but it's still a movie I very much enjoy. This is not a movie to be watched for great acting or a great plot. Go rent Steel Magnolias if you're looking for 80's Oscar material. Vibes is for anyone who wants to have fun and anyone who appreciates the 80's like I do. It's a movie that has silly characters and it allows it's audience to have no-holds-barred fun without feeling guilty.

The psychic element was unique for the 80's and still something movies don't touch on a lot today. The Equador scenes were breathtaking. Jeff Goldblum ( before his blockbuster days )and Cyndi Lauper make a wonderful couple but she ultimately steals the show. This movie is for anyone who remembers just how carefree and fun the 80's could be. Vibes sends you right back to 1988 and you won't regret it. I just hope Columbia Pictures decides to make it available for purchase on DVD one day. It's a shame a movie so lovable is nearly extinct. Kids in future generations should be able to see it for the comedy classic it really is.

Everyone should see it at least once.

Let's hear it for the eighties!
This is probably the cheesiest movie I've ever seen, whcih is also probably why it's my favorite. Any movie in which Cyndi Lauper sings a song entitled "There's a Hole in my Heart That Goes All the Way to China" can't help but be wonderful. Add to that Jeff Goldblum, who is always delightfully twitchy, Peter Falk (need I say more?), the warlcok from "Warlock" playing the villain, and some guy named Googy Gress, and you have a cast that I've never seen rivaled for weirdness in any other film. It's filled with jokes like "Screw you!" - "No thanks!" and "Where wouldn't you like to be shot?" - "South America (the speaker's current location)." If you're in the right mood, it just doesn't get better than this film.

A True Pleasure to Watch
I was very young when I first saw this movie and I still remember it to this day. It is one of the many great 80's classic comedies that I can always enjoy. I am hoping that it comes out on DVD soon. I have shown this movie to my friends in college and they loved it. I would recommend Vibes to anyone who would like to see a different type of comedy. This is also a movie any age can enjoy unlike many of the new comedies that have been coming out.

Very Funny - Good Plot and Great Cast
Sylvia (Cyndi Lauper) and Nick (Jeff Goldblum) meet during a study of people with paranormal abilities. Sylvia hears the voice of Louise, a disembodied spirit guide who appears to have the ability to know what's going on with other people and in some cases, the future. Nick has the gift of psychometry or learning the history of an article by touching it. They don't exactly get off on the right foot at the study but when Harry Buscafusco (Peter Faulk) asks Sylvia for help finding his lost son in the Andes mountains, she brings Nick in to help.

When they get to the Andes, they find that Harry Buscafusco is not really who he said he was ... and neither is Doctor Harrison Steele who had put the paranormal study together back in the states and is now also in the Andes looking for the same thing as Buscafusco. Although the snide remarks continue between Sylvia and Nick, they have to come together, along with Buscafusco to keep from getting killed and to prevent the doctor from finding the secret in the Andes.

Pure Fun
If you're looking for a movie that keeps you entertained and laughing Vibes is for you! I loved this movie the first time I saw it and I still do! ... Read more

Reviews (17)

A Great Stephen King Movie stays true to the Novel
This movie is a great adaptation of stephen kings Rose Red. It's sort of like the haunting but with an physic twist. a dormat house haunted house with a really shady past is under investagation by a profesesor and her volunteer physics. But whatthey don't know is with their physic enegry they have waken up the spirit sin the house. one by one they disappear till the real horror is the house is changing.It's alive.
This movie is a superb adaptation I loved how they told the history of the house and the people before they went into the house. this is a wonderful movie more errie than scary but still this is must see for any stephen king fan.

worth watching again and again.
Rose Red is one of those movies that stays with you long after it's over. Don't let the length of the movie (almost 6 hrs.) turn you off to watching it. It's well worth the time to sit down and watch this brilliant masterpiece. The cast was wonderfully chosen. From Nancy Travis who plays Dr.Joyce Reardon. The woman who becomes fasinated with a haunted mansion called Rose Red to the point of risking other peoples lives to prove to her boss and collegues that Rose Red truly is haunted. To Annie Wheaton played by Kimberly J. Brown who has the power to waken Rose Red from a deep sleep by using her mind to do. If your a Stephen King fan than you won't want to miss this, and for the rest of you who aren't, well give the movie a try anyway. You won't be disappointed.

Great supernatural movie
Rose Red is a complex film but if you pay attention, it can be followed easily.
The setting is an awesome old house. But there are ghosts that still live there. As the plot unravels, the characters special supernatural abilities bring out the answers to what the group is looking for. Scary scenes, bizzare happenings as the house "lives." One of King's best films.

If you know Stephen King you know this is one of his best
Well, I read my first Stephen King novel when I was 12 years old. I read Salem's Lot and slept with the light on for weeks. Since then I have read everything he wrote as Stephen and as Richard. I watch all of the tidbits, articles, commentaries etc on him. His imagination is amazing. I only became disappointed when filmmakers began botching his books with very bad movie adaptions. There are very few Stephen King novels which have been able to transcend from his wonderful imagination in print to that same imagination re-enacted through the actor/ess. Misery,Green Mile, Needful Things and Rose Red were a select few that made it. Carrie, Firestarter, The Shining(despite a stellar performance from Jack Nicholson), Salem's Lot, The Stand, Dead Zone(again despite a stellar performance from Christopher Walken)and Storm of the Century did not. If you thought the movie was bad, look to your actors and directors, not to Stephen King. There is no doubt that the book was good. It is very hard to capture an imagination that spectacular on film, but occasionally it can be done. It is now many many years later from the year I read Salem's Lot and I can still hear in my mind the line I read from that book about the high, sweet, evil sucking sounds of a child - Danny Glick. Try to capture that on film!

an ok TV movie brought to life
it was boring for some of the time but then theres some good scenes and some jolts. basically a true story and the place is real and I want to visit it. Julian Sands dies in this one, why, he was the cool person and so was Matt Keeslar, but why Sands DAMN IT. Stephen King has a cameo, just like some of his other books brought to life in a movie. basically soe corny effects and cheap dialouge. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

The Devil You Say --
Based on a true story, The Doctor and the Devils present several fine performances by outstanding actors including Timothy Dalton, Patrick Stewart, Jonathan Pryce, Stephen Rea, and Julian Sands. Nineteenth century medicine for one forward thinking physician, Dr. Roc (Dalton), was the fight to teach medicine as science that relied on empirical fact and first hand observation, not folk lore nor religious philosophy. His primary source was fresh cadavers, the fresher the better. Alas, the Victorian mind-set was in the dark ages and regulated the number of cadaver's faculty used for teaching. Into the situation stumble two fiends (Price and Rea) who recognize a quick way to earn money for cheap gin and the local harlot (Twiggy, miscast but not a bad performance) was grave robbing. Rather than steal dead bodies from graves, however, why not avoid the grave altogether? Killing any unfortunate who happened across their path, Pryce and Rea are soon Dr. Roc's best suppliers of fresh bodies. Science versus morality, need and ambition, truth before conscience are issues explored by the stellar ensemble cast. A superb film for any library. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

A romance out of the past
I enjoyed this seemingly made for TV movie when I saw it back in 1990. I discovered afterward there was another movie with the title of Harem made the same year (1985-86) and starring Nastassja Kinski. That one was a bit darker, but also enjoyable.
I had already seen Nancy Travis, the starlet of this Harem, in the Richard Gere cop thriller Internal Affairs, and in a bit part in Married to the Mob, so at the time she was babelicious.
It's become a common plot, in these types of movies, to have a beautiful western woman kidnapped by a lustful or politically-motivated sultan or sheik (I think of the excellent The Wind and the Lion, the surreal The Sheltering Sky, then Sahara and a bunch of lesser movies). But Harem executes this plot well - you sympathize for Jessica, the character played by Nancy Travis, you want her fiance to rescue her, and yet you start rooting for her new Bedouin love interest and even feel for the tyrannical sultan, played by Omar Sharif.
Julian Sands plays Jessica's stiff Brit fiance, a turnabout from the dashing and impetuous young lover he played in A Room with a View. You wish he would be a stronger character, but he is so weak-kneed you understand Jessica's fickle betrayal.

The most replayed video I own!
Since, I am a former Video Store owner it takes something special to catch my attention. This star studded cast takes you back in time and gives a rainy day sunshine. The love story equals a good Danielle Steele, while Art Malik gives you action and drop dead gorgous. This sleeper movie has the film quality of a Jane Austin made for A&E, not too many woman who love historical romance can turn this one off! It make everyone wonder what was Lawrence doing in Arabia--he could have had a better time!

fantasy!
This movie is nothing more than fantasy, not based on real facts. The only real thing would be the costumes. There is no revolution , love story or no palace on the top of the hill like the one I saw in this movie. Ava Gardner and Omar Shariff are great actor/actresses but they made the scenario to make them play like an ordinary actor/actress. The movie is one time watch just for curiousity. You might have fun if you watch it as a comedy because the story is ridicolous, does not reflect any reality from Ottoman Empire history.

Nice Cast, good sets..fun, but a little cheesy...
This film is fun to watch, with a good cast, nice costumes etc. but it is a little cheesy in so much as the plot is rather convoluted and stereotypical...but like I said, it's just for a fun watch. Worth buying!

Cinematic Triumph
After reading the other reviews of this movie, I realized that either it was beloved or hated; nothing in between. And that's OK! If you love movies with wide, sweeping scenes, storylines that draw you in and keep you there, stories with lead characters who display loyalty, courage, love, and integrity, then this is for you. If you don't, then go watch a mindless action flick. Sure this movie is a bit implausible, but that's how we want it, don't we? That's why movies are escapist fantasies. That's why we go to the movies, isn't it? Otherwise, go watch a documentary. If you want to dream and escape for a while--then this is for you. ... Read more

Description

Three generations of women have lived on the same small island off the coast of Washington State. When the youngest of the three, Georgie, starts to expand her horizons - with an affair and a trip to the mainland - she learns more about herself and her family than she ever thought possible. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

A delightfully moving and realistic film!
This film is a delight, perfectly crafted, well-acted, excellent screenplay, a marvelous study of human relationships with a moving portrayal of the women who've suffered and survived on a Washington island (transplanted from another location in the original book). As a screenwriter, this film taught me a lot about how to create a movie on a limited budget, but with pure ingenuity and talented actresses. Holly Hunter is superb in the title role - what a shame this film didn't get the attention it deserved, perhaps because it was classified as a "chic flick" because it explores relationships rather than focuses on action.

She¿s a woman in control of everything. Except her life
This Turner Pictures TVM directed by Martha Coolidge is an unqualified disaster, a mire of indulgent acting, overblown music score and second rate material. Set on an island off Seattle, it features Holly Hunter, Frances McDormand and Gena Rowlands as a family of women who have suffered from their husband's infidelities. The teleplay is by Gerald Ayres and based on the novel by Luanne Rice, which reads as pure soap opera, with Holly Hunter mistrustful of her husband Bill Pullman, who travels for his work, and Hunter enraptured with Julian Sands as a photographer who shoots her for her own work as a documentarian. Hunter's subject being "crimes of passion in the American family" creates a false expectation, and worse is the way she poses like a supermodel for Sands, which seems barely appropriate for someone who aims to be on PBS. Coolidge allows her actors way too much freedom, so that their performances wear very thin, the worst offender probably being Rowlands who stares blankly as we wait for some truth to emerge from her face. Hunter fortunately has technique galore to fall back on, using some very Beth Henley loony falling lyricism, though her partnership with is undermined by their disparity in height where she appears to be a child compared to Pullman, and his excessive inhibitionist acting, which climaxes in a big self-conscious argument. Sands sounds strangely stilted, even allowing for his character's interest in Hunter, though McDormand survives intact, probably because she doesn't have much tube time. Coolidge's indulgence with the actors makes the narrative pace to a crawl, making one identify with the men who chose to flee the lives these women offered. ... Read more

Reviews (113)

Good movie, but not a great film score: 74 (out of 100)
Nicholas Cage's character, Ben Sanderson, has apparently lost his wife, family, and job. He decides to take his severance check and buy tons of alcohol in order to drink himself to death in a Las Vegas motel room. He meets Sera (Elizabeth Shue), a prostitute that he picks up along the way, and they develop a love affair in the process. Sera's love for Ben is reflected in the way she lets him complete his goal. He wants death and no rehabilitation. As a result, she sacrifices herself in prostitution in order to make ends meet and raise money for Ben's booze habit. In the process, Sera meets some terrible experiences, which makes her character more interesting.

DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES and THE LOST WEEKEND may have an edge on this movie because they have characters that grow and develop over a long period of time. There is not much that we know about Ben or Sera. All we see are his momments of drunkeness and Sera's trying to cope with it. There is very little room for character development in this movie, and the end result is a depressing atmosphere.

Pros: Acting
Cons: Screenplay

Score: 74 (out of 100)

Leaving Las Vegas- A Moving and meaningful film
This film is not for most people; it's very morose and gruesome at times, and it won't be entertaining and satisfying in the same way most mainstream movies are. It does however provide a very shocking and revealing look at the lives of a hopeless drunkard and a lonely prostitute.

Nicholas Cage and Elizabeth Shue are superb portraying their characters and their skill is the driving force of the film. That isn't to say, however, that the directing, music, and screenplay weren't excellent as well.

One particularly important aspect of the film is the relationship that forms between Cage and Shue. Some reviewers describe it as sincere love, however, I don't agree. Both Cage and Shue are desolate and vulnerable. The natural thing for both of them to do when they meet is to seek refuge in each other. Shue might love Cage, but it's more out of desparation for company than what she sees in him. Cage's interest in Shue is somewhat more confusing. Before his introduction to Shue, I got the impression that he was completely detatched from anything earthly. The relationship he maintains with Shue suggests otherwise though. I'm not really sure, yet, what to make of Cage.

I never really knew what alcohol could do to a man until seeing this movie. Sure, a random drunk on the street is a common sight, but most people, who don't have a friend or family member with the problem, don't realize the extreme extent to which the obsession can develop. I'd recommend this film to anyone older than 17.

THE ONLY MOVIE TO EVER MAKE ME CRY
i could go on and on but i wont, the facts are a) this is probably the most dramatic movie ever made and b) nic cage is the best actor on the planet. holy smokes was he amazing in this and elisabeth shue is perfect by all standards. i also dig "the third man" tributes in there - good job all around tonite i decided this is my favorite movie....which might last a week but it will remain top five forever. I know its a little late but seriously...congrats nic cage you kick ass.

Something different-not for the kiddies.
I like this movie and recommend it. Something to watch when you're alone late at night. Good acting by the talented Cage
& Shue. Makes an impression on you.

BOOOORIIING
This movie is one of the most boring ones I have ever seen. Cage is drunk through the entire movie, and the woman he's with is a prostitute. I normally love Nicholas Cage movies, but this one was an insult to his talent as an actor. Instead of renting this movie, slam your fingers in a door repeatedly. That's free, and less painful than sitting through this stinker. ... Read more

Reviews (27)

Don't miss this romantic very entertaining comedy!
"Impromptu": What a dry sounding name for such a lively movie! When this film was in theaters in 1991, I gave it little notice (even if Siskel and Ebert loved it). Then several years later the whole Jane Austen craze hit, and I was seduced into giving period pieces a view. Not to mention Hugh Grant had become all the rage in "Four Weddings and a Funeral."

Period piece + Hugh Grant = giving it a view.

I LOVED IT.

First of all, if you are expecting a calm, quiet, "polite" film, you will be surprised. This film is based on the real life of Madame George Sand, the scandalous 19th Century French novelist, played brilliantly by Judy Davis. Sand is no Jane Austen creation: She uses the f-word (though not to excess), has sex with whom she chooses, and is more likely to wear pants (which required permission by the French government at the time) than dresses. She is also charming, romantic, and intelligent.

Her friends are the famous artists of the time: painter Eugene Delacroix and composer Franz Litz (amongst others, including Litz's conniving lover, played by Bernadette Peters). As a result, this film is far more of an unrepentant romp than anything you would expect for the time and place (though this film is far from ribald-- I believe it earned its overly cautious MPAA rating of PG-13 for the aforementioned, infrequent use of the f-word). Emma Thompson gives a positively hilarious performance as a provincial society "title tart." Mandy Patinkin, does equally as well as the ex-lover (and novelist Malfie) of Sand.

Hugh Grant plays the composer Fredric Chopin. He is the polar opposite of Sand. Chopin is a man who is as delicate and refined as any French court ladies of the day. This, of course, appeals to the tougher-than-nails Sand, who finds Chopin's music to be the "voice of God." Chopin is rather troubled by the romantic attentions of such a woman, and a comedy of errors ensues.

This movie is especially appealing because it has all the romance of the best Jane Austen film adaptations, while having such a wonderfully (dare I say) feminist character as Sand. Not that anyone will read any "message" in this film; you will be too busy being entertained.

This film was out of print for some time, and I paid $100.00 for my copy as a result. Don't make the same mistake I made. Buy "Impromptu" now while you can. It is a film worthy of many repeated viewings.

Eccentric novelist pursues composer in romantic comedy
"Impromptu" is a delightful historical romance about the long, tumultuous love affair between composer Frederick Chopin and novelist George Sand. It is not a biography, for the movie's script takes great license beyond the basic dates and places. The affair might have happened this way, but most probably did not. None of this much matters, though, because the movie doesn't pretend to be strictly accurate historically and because it does a good job of capturing the spirit of the times and of its characters.

Judy Davis is marvelous as George Sand, a brilliant, eccentric woman who eschewed the social mores of her time. Already tired of her current lover, she is more determined than ever to dump him after she meets and falls in love with Chopin, nicely played by Hugh Grant. Chopin is portrayed as being a rather shy, morally upright [and uptight!] man who is taken aback by Sand's assertive nature and odd habits, which include dressing like a man most of the time. Undeterred by his thwarting of her advances, she pursues him relentlessly, almost getting him killed in a duel in the process. Playing an active part in all these goings on - sometimes for Sand's quest, sometimes against it - are Chopin's great friend Franz Liszt [Julian Sand] and his lover, Marie [Bernadette Peters]. Both Sand and Peters have substantial supporting roles, as do Emma Thompson and Mandy Patinkin. The cast alone makes "Impromptu" worth seeing. Also enjoyable is the soundtrack, almost all of which is taken from Chopin's works.

As history, this movie is dubious. As entertainment, it's first rate. It reminds me somewhat of "Emma", in that it is more comedy than drama.

George Sand And Chopin: Romantic Comedy
This 1991 movie directed by James Lepine is an absolute charm. It's a romantic comedy, it's a historical piece and a colorful introduction to the music of Frederic Chopin, Franz Liszt and the life and writings of Madame George Sand Aurore Dudevant. The romantic comedy is well-written, the actors are doing top-notch performances and the music is heaven. I don't know yet if there is a soundtrack but it's likely there is and it must be beautiful. George Sand was the pen name of the feminist writer Aurore Dudevant who scandalized proper Victorian society in the 19th century by dressing as a man, smoking cigars, abandoning her wealthy and respected husband to live the liberal lifestyle of a bohemian writer of novels. She had many lovers, including Alfred De Musset (who is played in this film by Mandy Patinkin)and her most famous lover, Frederic Chopin. It is their love story that this movie focues on. Stars Judi Davis as George Sand, Hugh Grant as Chopin and Bernadette Peters as the Countess Marie D'Agoult. I will not give away the answer. But Chopin, though he never married Sand, was greatly influenced by his knowing her and his most productive period of composing piano music came after their heartbreaking seperation. Chopin died young of tubercolosis. It's very possible that he loved George Sand but I'm thinking that for Sand, no man was really ever good enough for her. After all, she was the embodiment of the feminist, independent single woman who did'nt really need marriage or love.

Judi Davis is doing an Oscar winning performance as George Sand, who is ultimately a woman who belongs to no one and who lives life to the fullest. She has raised children to be as creative as she is and taken full responsibility for her children as well as for her elderly mother. Bored of the dull life after her divorce from the father of her children, she takes her current lover to the French countryside. There, she is invited by a wealthy hostess to her estate. The drama heightens in a soap opera sort of way when none other than Alfred De Musset the poet and ex-lover of Sand shows up. Her jealous boyfriend, Malfitte, challenges him to a duel. Meanwhile, Sand has fallen for Chopin, who is her polar opposite. While she is free, intense, devil-may-care and very healthy, Chopin is reserved, emotional, sensitive, refined and suffering of bad health with tubercolosis. Their relationship is accurate to truth but not in the way the film depicts. The disaster that happens in the country estate, comedically produced, never really happened. Bernadette Peters delivers a terrific performance as well as the scheming and bitter Marie D'Agoult, whose own marriage to Franz Liszt after having many children with him, including Cosima who later marries Richard Wagner, but that's another story and even another movie. This is a well-done movie with lots of charm and witty scenes. I especially enjoyed the entire portion in the country estate, in which the artist Delacroix, Franz Liszt and Chopin discuss over dinner the existence of God in front of a priest, put on a satirical farce play that ends badly and Sand's adorable children who are always finding some excuse to play with explosives and dynomite.

Superb
This is an excellent film which depicts with some humor and intrigue the life of Chopin. Hugh Grant and Judy Davis play fantastic parts. One actually gets a feel for the era in which Chopin lived. The music is stupendous and invites an even greater appreciation for Chopin's talents.
Thoroughly enjoyable!

i have loved this movie since london, 1990
where i first saw it on screen at a local cinema. wit, grace, charm, and granted yes, somewhat affected performances, but still a sweetness manages to come through. love & music, eternal muses, are showcased in their manic, most evocative forms here & are captured in all their energy & wit of an era of change, challenge & growth culturally...thought the 1960s were a time for pushing boundaries? it has nothing on the 1830s/40s for experimentation & artistic endeavor. watch the movie! ... Read more

Reviews (27)

I got everything except for the psychiatrist
Mercy was a movie that was released on HBO. Thus, I found it to be a "hotter" than anything that is usually released in the theater. Therefore, most viewers would probably compare it to a lesbian Basic Instinct with the post-violent scenes of Seven.

This movie could have been far more ugly and brutal had we had to witness the deaths of the victims. Instead, we only had to view the aftermath. Ellen Barkin did a tremendous job of playing a homicide detective with the brains, intuitiveness and, dare I say, spunk. Really, I loved her chasing after the bald bad guy. Barkin showed physical dominance, as well as brains as she tried to get into the lives of these potential lesbian victims in order to find her killer.

Peta Wilson's character Vickie Kittrie was a dark, hurt, yet successful woman. She made you see how awful the effects of sexual child abuse often comes back to haunt adults. This character is not at all like Nikita, so if you're expecting your USA Network hero, it's not one to watch.

However, I think that this film could have happened without having Julian Sands character at all. All you know about the Sands character is that he sleeps with his patients and likes to dress up as a woman. I'm not sure how either of those facts really improves the film.

Overall, I think the script was satisfactory and that the cast really played their parts very well. Harris did a good job here on gutting the underbelly of a dangerous, sexual underground of some deeply disturbed, rich people.

erotic in a lot of ways but that doesnt help it
some steamy scenes in this movie with Peta Wilson and Ellen Barkin....Wilson has a nude scene where Barkin is watching her from other window..you know the scene where she gets shot for fake and then rubs the blood off the window...sexy scene. Julian Sands also stars..he's ok but some of the stuff down it and it gets really boring after awhile

You Decide!
I really can not make up my mind properly about Mercy, and it did offer me a slight dilemma reviewing it,
On the plus side, there is Peta Wilson, playing a lesbian who is into SM and who has an erotically charged scene with Ellen Barkin. So as far as erotic/thriller genre is concerned this is somehow a new twist.
On the down side, it is very badly filmed and scripted, a poor imitation of Dressed to Kill without the Hitchcockian atmosphere or De Palma's able direction. And it has also poor Julian Sands with yet another bad role, as bad in fact as his role in Boxing Helena, and this is no easy feat to manage, but he did!
So you can watch/buy this movie for Peta 'lezzing' it up, not a bad thing in itself,yet you can also be excused for using the word 'Mercy' only to be spared such mediocrity in the future..You decide!

better than the novel
i was interested because i had read, several years back, the novel on which this was based, which was imperfect but exciting enough in its way. there are all kinds of flaws... which the film faithfully recreates. but the performances are very good, so it's not bad at all for late night video fare. ellen barkin and peta wilson are especially good.

THIS IS COMPLETLEY ASININE ...
After hearing about this movie and hearing all the decent reviews about it. I really was looking for something exotic, Boy was I wrong! I can't make excuses or even try to make this out of something that was well put together. First of all there were alot of characters in the movie that were extremley irrelevant. I think what the writer was trying to do was put as many screwed up suspects in the movie as he could. Most of the characters were never main characters nor had depth in their character. There was one character/suspect/witness named Vickie. She was the closest to a main character and was the only person other than Helen Birkin that kept the movie interesting. And Vickie looked like a big ole "Drag Queen" that had two many psycological problems. She was a lesbian that was extremley promiscuous and very bold. But don't get excited people, even her character was limited and restricted. She had two good scenes the one with Helen Birkin the seduction that didn't go any where. And there is other scene where she blatantly walks in a strangers dressing room in a store and gives her pleasure. And even Vickie was pointless in the film because her character was eventually terminated, Go figure that? And the shrink basically served as a outlet to introduce more unnecessary sick characters, I guess, so that you can hear their stories as well. The only real tension or interesting plot was between the character witness Vickie and the cop(Ellen Birkin) that was it. Even that turned for the worst because, all the build up to what was supposed to be an attraction or seduction turned into a fiasco! So people if you are looking for lesbian action forget it, because it isn't here. They play it up and they disappoint you in this film. Then most of the women in the film were very hard looking and tired looking. I don't know what the directer was trying to convey in this film? Then the killer turns out to be someone that really didn't have a huge role in the film. And what is even more of a kicker Helen nor the cops never even had this person as a suspect. And what is even more of a kicker there wasn't any contact between the killer and the main characters. And the reasoning for the murders in the killers eyes was completley uproarious! The shrink which is played by (I forgot the guys name)he had no right counseling anyone because he was very strange himself. He was just as sick as the rest of the people in the movie. The ending was just completley stupid and uproarious ! Because there wasn't a previous relationship or connection between Helen or the Killer. So when Helen finally met up with this person there wasn't any tension or surprise! I don't know what this movie was meant for, but it definitley left me unsatisfied! If you are looking for a real sensual experience I recommend Blood Thirsty, Serpents Lair, Kate's Addiction, Body of Evidence, Poison Ivy 3 The New Seduction, Bound, Embrace of the Vampire, Damage, Habit,Life force,Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive,Basic Instinct (Uncut) and No strings Attached. These are very exotic and sensual films that have purpose and make sense! The only thing this movies serves as a lesson on child abuse and people with mental problems. The homes and location of the movie was gorgeous but that is it! And even that leaves question? How ... is a detective going to maintain and live in a mansion like that? Any way buy this one at your own risk........

Arish ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Restrained Mary Lambert, but not too much so
This really is a gorgeous production and it's nice to note that the critics have been kinder to it than other Mary Lambert films ("Pet Semetary 1 and 2" and "Siesta", to name a few). Lambert is usually a flamboyant director and not afraid of wearing her influences on her sleeve (Ken Russell, Nic Roeg, etc.). But like her many mentors, Lambert is capable of showing restraint when needed and "Grand Isle" is a perfect example. Set in Louisiana at the turn of the century, "Grand Isle" is filled with excellent set design and costuming. The photography is drenched in sunlight and the sequences are framed by "fades to white". In other words, an atmospheric and ambient endeavor. The musical score is quite nice. Touches of classical piano with synthesizer washes. Other reviewers have mentioned the plot, so I won't go in to that other than mention that there are some fabulous fantasy/flash-back sequences that are lovely and thought provoking. Those looking for a classy period romance/drama will enjoy this as much as the Mary Lambert and art-house afficianados.

Excellent cinematic version of "overwrought" AWAKENING
GRAND ISLE is a technically excellent version of "feminist" classic: THE AWAKENING. Kate Chopin's creole MADAME BOVARY is granted sacred respect in an "ars gratias artis" production. Kelly McGillis plays cossetted,turn-of-the-century Reconstruction Era "aristocrat" Edna. Her portrait of a fragile, spoiled, woman-child-mother struggling to liberated WOMANhood through adultery and mildly competent artistic endeavor is fine. But the story is "overwrought". Despite sunny,"gauze-lens"photography; hypnotic nocturne music by Elliott Goldenthall; Edenic flashbacks of Edna's reveries(within battle-array of Beautiful People promenading before their post-Bellum servants);the film's concern about a pseudo-aesthete is often unsympathetically trying.

Again:the production is superb; as is the ensemble cast. "THINK of the children!" prods best friend Glenne Headly before an often less-then-appealing protagonist commits suicide.(Her true love, Adrian Pasdar, has marched-off in imagined rejection.) Director Mary Lambert's effort is,in my estimate,likewise "doomed" because Edna's AWAKENING doesn't. Give me Scarlet or Hester Prynne over this beautiful exercise in tragic decadence(3 and 1/2 stars).

If you enjoy the Kate Chopin book The Awakening see this!!!
I love this movie. Kate Chopin is one of my favorite writers and this film is a wonderful adaptaion of the Awakening! I highly suggest this movie. It is a movie with a strong female lead and can be called a "chick flick" but it is a wonderful movie.

Okay for a "chick-flick" but slow-moving.
Kelly McGillis and Adrian Pasdar are both beautiful and spell-binding to watch as always. The plot is interesting but this is a very slow-moving romantic-novel type film. It comes across like a stereotypical "chick-flick." ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Couldn't watch it all the way through at first.
Pretty scary stuff. I had to turn it off the first time I ever saw it. I did end up finishing it and have enjoyed it ever since. Every time I see it I spend the rest of the night swatting phantom insects off my arms and every little thing that brushes my leg is enough to send me rocketing to the ceiling with a bloodcurdling scream. Jeff Daniels played a good role as the main character who was...this was the only part of the movie that I felt was a little too plotted...afraid of spiders.

Julian Sands was great as the rather lofty, condescending professor, Dr. Atherton. I was disappointed, however, to see that a man who was written into the plot as an expert of spiders would honestly walk right into the spiders' lair and be killed off so easily. Maybe I just didn't want his character to die since I'm a fan of Julian Sands, but I still maintain that Dr. Atherton would not have been that nieve about the nest.

Anyway, moving on...all in all, I love this movie and the climax keeps you on the edge of your seat. You might breathe maybe two breaths total during the basement scene, when Daniels' character is fighting the father spider.

Along Came a Spider...
Julian Sands, Jeff Daniels, and John Goodman star in this thrilling and sometimes funny film about a small town overrun by mutant spiders. The film begins as Dr. James Atherton (Sands) and his crew are in the forests of Venezuela searching for insects. What they find is far beyond what they expected. It seems that they have discovered a mutant strain of spider with a very powerful venom. Unfortunately for Atherton's photographer Jerry Manley, played by Mark L. Taylor, the spider bites and kills him. The spider also manages to catch a ride back to the States in Manley's coffin. It is here that the mutant spider mates with a regular spider, and the "fun" begins.

Meanwhile, Dr. Ross Jennings (Jeff Daniels) and his wife Molly (Harley Jane Kozak) have moved from San Francisco. Ross is about to take over as the town doctor from Dr. Sam Metcalf, but Dr. Metcalf decides against retiring at the last second, leaving Ross with no patients and a flock of mutant spiders multiplying in his barn. Soon, several townspeople, including Dr, Metcalf, are found dead, having suffered spider bites. After confirming his diagnosis of the spider bites, Dr. Ross summons the help of Dr. Atherton of ridding the town of the spiders, but will they be able to succeed before its too late?

This is a fun movie to watch. The acting, especially by John Goodman as exterminator Delbert McClintock, is excellent, and the plot, while suspenseful at times, does a good job of blending in some humor as well (Goodman's "That's right, I'm bad" line after squishing an unsuspecting spider is a good example). I highly recommend this movie. Watch and get a good scare and laugh at the same time.

If you're afraid of spiders, watch out!
This is a clever comedy/thriller about an arachnaphobic doctor who, naturally, has a barn full of giant, man-killing spiders! Many intense scenes are filmed close-up and are quite effective. Jeff Daniels is great as the nice-guy doctor and John Goodman has a small but funny part as an exterminator ("Yeah, I'm bad!") This movie was filmed in the beautiful California coastal town of Cambria. The spider scenes are really scary, but fun! 5 stars!

Filth
Time is turned back to the prehistoric dawn of humanity, when text books spouted propaganda that snakes, sharks, exotic spiders and their kin were evil and should all be brutally murdered.

Oh, the film? A group of scientists find a remote area in the world and unknowingly bring back a giant tarantula-like spider which mates with a little house spider (????) giving birth to hundreds of little eight-legged runabouts.

Haven't tarantulas and spiders in general already suffered enough abuse without films such as this reinforcing hatred and paranoia concerning anything eight-legged? All through the film spiders are crushed, burned and killed with ghoulish glee. The film isn't even very scary - the big spider in early scenes is obviously a rubber model being pulled along, and the babies are unable to kill in their thousands. And where did the giant queen come from? If something had been made showing gratuitous deaths of destructive pests such as foxes or mink there would have been a public outrage, but tarantulas (there has never been a recorded death from a tarantula bite) are considered fair game. It's true, some animals really are more equal than others.

Terror Has Eight Legs
Probably the first horror film released during the Nineties that can be called a masterpiece, ARACHNOPHOBIA is a deliciously inventive and appropriately paced thriller with a sharp sense of black humor and plenty of scares. Coming from Steven Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment staple, it also marked the directing debut of longtime Spielberg right hand man Frank Marshall. And he could not have come up with a better story than this creature feature with a touch of Hitchcock.

The film focuses on Canaima, a small town in Central California, which, unbeknownst to its residents, is about to be overrun by arachnids with an appetite. Apparently, a Venezuelan spider had bitten and killed a photographer who was part of a scientific expedition into the Venezuelan rainforest. Subsequently, this spider hitches a ride in a coffin back to California.

Then when it mates with the local spider population, it produces a highly lethal strain of eight-legged terrors that begin to systematically kill several Canaima residents. And the only man that stands in their way is a big-city doctor (Jeff Daniels) whose greatest fear is, you guessed it--spiders!

Utilizing cinematic techniques he learned from Spielberg's JAWS, as well as Hitchcock's PSYCHO and THE BIRDS, and even a bit from the fine 1977 low-budget horror film KINGDOM OF THE SPIDERS, Marshall weaves a highly suspenseful, sometimes morbidly funny, and frequently frightening, web. There is plenty of menace in the spiders' attacks, and Daniels' performance as the doctor paralyzed by arachnophobia is both funny and sympathetic all at once. John Goodman gives ARACHNOPHOBIA its sense of black comedy as the town exterminator who goes after spiders a la Rambo.

After the 1980s had seen only a scant few horror films (for example THE SHINING and POLTERGEIST) be claimed as masterpieces, ARACHNOPHOBIA was elevated to that level too. It is one of the most simple yet clevely plotted films the genre has ever seen; and like any good horror film, it has plenty of suspense and shocks. In short, it is a must-see! ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Somewhat Bloody, Mostly Moody
Set in contemporary London, England, "Tale of a Vampire" follows Ann (Suzanna Hamilton) and Alex (Julian Sands), two heartbroken strangers whose paths cross inside a large, archaic library where she works and he frequents. For Alex, Ann is the spitting image of his missing lover, Virginia (also played by Ms. Hamilton), who he had made into a vampire more than a century ago, but she has since vanished. To this day, he still misses her immensely and flashes back on her in a few scenes. As for Ann, she finds herself irrepressibly drawn towards Alex, despite the ominous warnings of a stranger, Edgar (Kenneth Cranham), who follows both Ann and Alex around with shady motives. It's not until the very end of the movie that his well-kept secret is revealed.

I thought "Tale of a Vampire" was really quite good (particularly the ending), even though I had relied on only a handful of reviews to convince me to buy the movie first before renting it, which, in most cases, leaves me quite disappointed when I do do that. But in this case, I was pleasantly surprised. There is plenty of violence and bloodletting in this movie to satiate any vampire hound, though no fangs are used. It may be a little too melancholy and subdued for more diehard blood-gore-and-sex viewers, but I would still highly recommend it to fans of tragic love stories. 4 ½ stars.

BRAVO!
Great acting and directing make this tragic movie absorbing.

This viewer definitely recommends this to any Julian Sands fan and purveyor of vampire fare.

Vampire tale of obsession and revenge with a Zen atmosphere?
If Yasujiro Ozu (or perhaps Joseph Losey) had ventured to make a Gothic horror romance, he might have come up with something like "Tale of a Vampire." By ordinary entertainment standards, this movie is soooo slow and ponderous and under-dramatized that it feels like a half-hour television play padded out to feature length. But in spite of its often leaden and mawkish dialogue, hamfisted acting, corny genre trappings, and congealed-syrup pacing, there are a few nice things to recommend about this production. For starters, there are all those cold, clean minimalistic sets and artfully prepared Gothic interiors. And one could almost mistake the shots of warmly filtered amber light with frames from "The Double Life of Veronique."

This tale is set in a fictionalized version of London as a depopulated ghost town undergoing what appears to be some kind of total eclipse or nuclear winter. Probably owing to an inability to secure the proper shooting permits, there are only a few stock images of the Thames and Big Ben in long shot that establish any real sense of locale. Indeed, most of the production expense seems to have gone into renting the camera equipment, hiring out the services of the crew and processing lab, designing the interiors, and of course, paying the salaries of the three lead actors. Save for an old librarian, a dying old man, some offscreen voices, and a few homeless people, there is virtually no supporting cast to speak of.

The plot concerns Ann (Suzanna Hamilton), a young woman mourning the tragic death of her fiancé in a mysterious car explosion (this aspect of the story, and the elliptical dialogue which follows, seems curiously reminiscent of a Harold Pinter play). As fate would have it, Ann lands a job at a library specializing in arcane research and the occult. There she catches the eye of Alex (Julian Sands), a brooding and melancholy young scholar. It turns out that Ann bears an uncanny resemblance to Alex's long lost love, Virginia (also played by Hamilton who wears a wig in the flashback sequences). Soon after, Ann also crosses paths with Edgar (Kenneth Cranham), a pushy and obnoxious library patron who is not what he seems (actually his character is quite obvious from the outset, we're just not supposed to know about it, I guess).

Well...you get the picture?

No doubt Julian Sands was hired for his impressive Aryan-Byronic appearance and precise, martini-dry diction (he looks set to be remembered as the ersatz-Christopher Lee of his generation). But the script undermines his seductive Old World manner with its overemphasis on Alex's all-too-contemporary geeky obsessiveness and chronic adolescent depression (more than 100 years of it!).

Likewise, Suzanna Hamilton's Ann is a self-defeating Victorian stereotype: the sweet and passively winsome young innocent oblivious to her distress. The script makes too much of the fact that Ann is a helpless sweetheart and shrinking violet; and thirty-something Suzanna Hamilton seems too old to still be playing such chirpy, wide-eyed schoolgirl naivete. If anything, Ann just comes across as an implausibly dimwitted pushover who is manipulated with no great difficulty and predictably blunders into disaster. Fortunately, we are granted the pleasure of seeing Miss Hamilton do a Suzanna Hamilton specialty: the Sleeping Beauty. Indeed, I can think of no other actress who slumbers before the camera with such timeless grace and affect!

As the menacing imposter, Edgar, Kenneth Cranham easily delivers the worst performance. Had the film simply been about the blossoming romance between Ann and Alex (who happens to be a vampire), this might have been quite a charming and clever little picture. But alas, we are forced to endure the sustained annoyance of Cranham as he chews and spits scenery like tobacco and spouts atrocious, hackneyed, overwrought horror-movie dialogue meant to advance and explain the plot in the most clumsy and awkward way.

It doesn't help that Cranham is a terribly, terribly unattractive actor and he delivers an overaggressive and embarrassingly obvious performance. There is no elegance or seduction in his evil, and no grandeur in his lust for revenge either. He looks a bit like Vincent Price in "Witchfinder General," but the resemblance only makes you wish that Price was alive and fifty again to do justice to this kind of role.

Saving the worst for last, the ending of the film is flaccidly anticlimactic. In a sequence which seems to last forever, Ann's curiosity about Alex's vampirism is roused and she eventually tracks him to his lair, Nancy Drew-style, and confronts him. I won't give anything else away.... Suffice to say, it is at this point that the movie really falls apart and any developing interest in the characters (and the story) collapses with a resounding thud.

A Brooding, Slow Paced, Film
This is one vampire film you may have trouble getting interested in unless you are a huge fan of slow paced, brooding, gothic fare. The premise is not incredibly new. An ancient vampire finds a lookalike of his long lost love and proceeds to pursue her. Through twists and turns that seem to plod on forever we eventually come to the inevitable conclusion of the movie . . . and how many "happily ever afters" have there been in vampire films? Not your usual fare and incredibly slow paced, the film is interesting but you probably could only sit through it once . . . with the benefit of the fast forward button if you're an impatient viewer.

A Great Love Story!
Julian Sands as Alex the vampire is so emotional. You feel his pain. You feel his heart break. You feel for him when he wants to die and can't. It's an unusual show yes. But, a wonderful love story. ... Read more

Reviews (26)

thinks it's more clever than it is
The film itself, on an aesthetic level, is quite stunning and beautiful, but the non-linear narrative, which weaves in two modern (? ) tales with an inventive representation of Adam and Eve starts to unravel a bit as the story progresses--which is unfortunate, because the film does such a subtle job of telling a story without spelling it all out for the viewer. My only strong reservation is that the funeral scene characters were never woven back into the narrative concerning J. Sands--a frustrating omission that derails an otherwise compelling essay on the issue of desire, sex, love, and loyalty. But it's definately interesting and beautiful to watch.

paradise lost
You've got to admire ambition. The Loss of Sexual Innocence is a meditative, impressionistic, mostly dialogue-less, deeply beautiful and aggressively non-linear exploration of various forms of innocence lost--or shattered. The chopped-up plot structure at first is confusing, but as the threads start to come together the parrallels drawn and metaphors presented are provocative. A film that makes its audience really think ought to be appreciated in our age of brainless blockbusters. Though it is best to keep in mind that there is no solid main point, no overall meaning you're meant to find in the film. In the end it is more like a piece of music than a story: weaving themes in and out, leaving the audience to form their own opinions and interpretations. While it doesn't succeed with flying colors, it is certainly worthwhile and interesting, and stunningly gorgeous to boot.

Gotta see it to believe it.
2001: A Space Odyssey meets Blue Velvet. It's as carefully paced and music-laden as the former, as far from redemption as the latter. Don't read any blurbs or summaries, just watch it.

why original sin anyway
There is so much symbolism and obscure reference in this film that I am not at all certain I grasp what the producer/director had in mind. There are some wonderful moments - like the twins who almost meet - well, they do meet but the moment of recognition is shattered by a breaking bottle of wine. There is quite a lot of nudity in the film - but it's certainly not erotic.

The most obvious interludes relate to the Garden of Eden and original sin. I don't think the intention of the film was to shift my perspective, but it did. Why was the tree of knowledge forbidden, and the serpent the tempter? Why wasn't the tree of knowledge intended for man's indulgence, and the serpent the opposition man (and woman) had to pass through? The reward would then be the gift of life - the greatest gift of all (even though it is tainted inevitably with death) - and sex, far from being the corruption it is so often seen as, would be the wonderful instrument of acceptance and the mantra of life.

Too artsy and boring
After his masterpiece "Leaving Las Vegas" I was looking forward to the next film from the talented Figgis but this is one of the most boring films ever made. I love slow, art-house films and having more music than dialogue was intriguing but this one just put me to sleep. A cure for insomnia. How could the twins at the airport not talk to each other? Maybe I missed something. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The movie Boxing Helena is probably better known for the court case that sprang from it than for itself. Kim Basinger was famously sued for violating her oral agreement to play the lead role; the jury ruled against her to the tune of almost $9 million. Those who felt the ruling was unjust have no better evidence than the movie itself--who in their right mind would agree to play a woman whose obsessively jealous lover cuts off her arms and legs to control her? Boxing Helena wants to be a penetrating investigation into the dark side of erotic desire. It doesn't succeed. But it does achieve the dubious but delightful status of being an entertaining disaster. Glory in Sherilyn Fenn's amazingly sincere attempt to take the script seriously! Thrill to the completely gratuitous sex scene between Julian Sands and a woman who doesn't appear at any other moment in the movie! Gaze, jaw agape, at the ridiculous ending! The movie features a wonderfully overwrought performance from Bill Paxton (A Simple Plan, Twister) and what is to date the last film appearance of Art Garfunkel. While Boxing Helena doesn't have the relentless ridiculousness of something like The Lonely Lady (with Pia Zadora!) or Showgirls, it has a giddiness that builds as it gets more and more improbable. Bad-movie fans will find it a delectable treat. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (25)

"A little party, then MEXICO!!"
The more people say they hate this movie, the more I love it.
But I must warn you, this is not the uncut version or even the director's cut. To get that you need to find the Laserdisc collection that came with commentary, extra "dirty" scenes(which are great btw) and the package-only 24KT musical score by the wonderful Graeme Revell. I really loved the music composed for this film, and it's terrible that this is the only way you can obtain this great score. The commentary is quite insightful, J Sands pops in for a bit to chat about it with Jennifer. For her 1st film, I thought Jennifer did a superb job handling everything from the actors, to the lush sets, editing, etc. Fenn, Paxton and Sands are all in prime form here, I really couldn't ask for anything more!!
Enjoy, and scream for "HELENNA!!"
DMSR

Whatever Happened to Julian Sands?
Poor guy got stuck in this movie. That's what. After watching A Room With A View I immediately bought Boxing Helena. Big mistake. Even renting it would have been a waste of money. I hea