Reviews (2)

a story of finding
I saw the translated version in my country, so I did not hear Julian's voice. But I like the story itself. It has the same atomosphere of Russian film, and it just fit very well the hero's life searching. To Sergio, honour, dignity and faith are important, but he failed in appoaching it. It may be a life's tragedy, but we also adore his honesty, his searching and his pay. The film has good shot utiliazing and music, which made the film like a slowly flowing river and it flowed into the audience's heart.

Julian, What Were You Thinking?
Julian Sands is an actor whose work range from slightly bizarre to fabulous in period costume. As a fan, I've followed his career for years, however, Night Sun is not one of his better performances. The film is standard period melodrama with too much costume and little content. Although Sands attempts to bring life to a dreary storyline, he's overwhelmed by the maudlin and predictable characterization. Nothing works in this film, and perhaps most obnoxious is the dubbing. We all know what a beautiful voice Sands possesses, and to hear him dubbed is plainly irritating. The film is easily bypassed for better performances by this talented actor, and better storylines in film worth the attention such as A Room With A View. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Femme fatale.
End of summer is really the story of two peoples affection for each other, but the plot can stir up emotions in those of us who are over jealous, as the two people almost by misunderstanding, doesnt get each other. And (so it can seem) tries to make each other jealous by "adultry". The film also contains other emotional stiring situations, as young girl trying to commit suicide since they got pregnant with the priest etc, -excuse my english I havent slept in 22 hours. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Still more Victorian country-house shenanigans: novelist GeorgeSand (Judy Davis, affected but pretty darn charming) has eyes for FranzLiszt's young protégé Chopin (Hugh Grant, solid as always, but burdenedby a silly Polish accent and a script that never lets him stretch out),but various lovers, jealous rivals, and Chopin's own overdeveloped senseof propriety conspire to confound her. Impromptu is witty but overlong--probably 20 minutes of hijinks and repartee, not to mentionseveral completely gratuitous and redundant characters, could have beensliced from the film. Davis plays Sand as an impetuous, overgrowntomboy, outraging her genteel hosts by wearing pants, chomping cigars,and falling off horses; her coterie of artist-friends assure us, in aseries of naked plot devices, that she nonetheless has a heart of gold. It's all good silly fun, and about as feminist as your average DefLeppard video--the other two developed female characters are uglystereotypes: a featherbrained, feckless social climber (Emma Thompson,who once again proves she's up for anything) and a spiteful,back-stabbing shrew (the ever-capable Bernadette Peters). Director JamesLapine clearly belongs to the Dr. Quinn school of historical accuracy,so don't expect to learn anything about the period or the artiststhemselves. Impromptu is far more Melrose Place than Mrs. Dalloway, orperhaps best described as an episode of Entertainment Tonight set in the19th century. --Miles Bethany ... 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

Amazon.com

Lurid, kitschy, over the top--what more does one expect from Ken Russell, director of The Devils, Tommy, and Altered States? Gothic purports to tell the story of a night that Lord Byron, Percy Shelley, and the future Mary Shelley spent at a country estate and decided to write ghost stories--a night that ultimately resulted in Mary writing the novel Frankenstein. These three and a couple of friends romp around the mansion, freaking out at shadows and the sounds of a storm, getting increasingly hysterical and hallucinatory as the night progresses. Thrown into the mix are a mechanical belly dancer, nudity, walking suits of armor, an orgy, séances, grotesque masks, leeches, a pig's head, stigmata, snakes, and God-awful dialogue like "We are the gods now--we have dared to call ourselves creators!" Gabriel Byrne (Byron), Julian Sands (Shelley), and Natasha Richardson (Mary) are all terrible; it's a miracle any of their careers survived. But good or bad isn't really the point with Ken Russell, who aspires to a kind of visual delirium. Gothic isn't the masterpiece of excess that The Lair of the White Worm is, but towards the last half-hour it does achieve a creepy state of disorientation entirely suited to its subject matter. Russell isn't afraid to be trashy in the pursuit of unfettered cinematic symbolism. It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (30)

The Romantics Unbound
I haven't seen any of Ken Russell's other works, but this one is the only one I need to see. This interesting thing about this movie is how similar all of the characters look to their real-life counterparts, or at least their portraits, with the sole exception being Shelley. Even without the fictional aspects being mixed in, the historical accounts of Percy and Mary, Claire, Polidori, and Byron are quite fascinating as well as entertaining in the movies, as evidenced by Haunted Summer. But it was Coleridge who once coined the term "suspension of disbelief", and taking a compelling real-life account of how Mary Shelley came to write Frankenstein and mixing in generous elements of the fictitious in order to turn reality into a horror story can be fun indeed, especially when the story is capable of allowing you to suspend your disbelief. And that's what this story does so wonderfully. I remember loaning a copy of this movie to a friend many years ago, and then several days later she called me to express her disbelief that Polidori had drank a beeker filled with water and leeches. But that's part of the lure of this film. Fans of the account concerning the origins of the story Frankenstein might, if their imagination allows, truly enjoy this work of art.

Ecxellent movie
Not a gore fest movie. It is supensefull and thoughtfull. It's a wild drug trip with the characters all strung out on laudanum. Surreal imagery mixed with drugged out viewing from the character's perspective.

A Master Piece
Gothic is one of Ken Russell's best films. Of course his work isn't for everyone, and I know some people just hate his movies, and complain about their content and self indulgence. But for me, these are some of his strong points, being prepared to experiment with his subject matter, and produce his own unique vision. Gothic tells of a meeting, in Switzerland, between: Byron (Gabriel Byrne), Shelly, Mary Shelly (Natasha Richardson), and two lesser known figures: Clair Clairmont and Dr Polidori. The beginning and end of the film both look like period piece dramas. What comes in between is Ken Russell's unique vision. The characters, during a stormy knight, invent stories and create a monster of their own imaginations. These involve all of Ken Russell's favorite images for film (and hence the self indulgent criticism): Religion, vampirism, sumptuously films sets, a plot that verges on the fantastical, and nudity. Of interest though is the way the narrative deals with death, as there is an interesting sequence where Mary Shelly has visions of the demise of all the principles in the film. Of course it all ties in with the Birth of one of English literature's most memorable books: Frankenstein (by Mary Shelly). Gothic is a Master Piece from Ken Russell, one of his most interesting films that challenges the viewer immensely. Sadly, however, not all will get it.

Ken Russell's Highly Underappreciated Masterpiece
I can honestly say that I've never really been a fan of Russell's films, for some reason, the incoherent strangeness of his works never appealed to me; however, in Gothic, this combination of surreal weirdness works perfectly.

The movie is basically about one night that poet Percy Bysshe Shelley and Mary Godwin (author of Frankenstein), along with Claire Clairmont, spend together with poet Lord Byron and his doctor John Polidori. In the course of the evening they decide to "raise the dead" and this idea haunts Mary, inspiring her to write her famous story about creation and the destruction of one's creation (it also inspired Polidori to write the excellent short novel "The Vampyre.") So, there is a cerebral element to this film which will probably not appeal to the average moviegoer.

I have the suspicion that this movie probably is well-loved by most intelligent Goths and well-read people with a love of Gothic literature to begin with, so if you're expecting the usual blood and gore of traditional horror films, please move on. This movie is haunting because it deals more with the psychological demons of the mind, and this is portrayed by the various images that haunt the characters of the films, as their fears "come to life."

I would highly recommend this film to anyone who loves Gothic literature, or just English literature to begin with, as well as anyone with elegant tastes who is tired of the cheap horror movies that abound these days.

In sum, I will add that Ken Russell's Gothic is highly unappreciated, and in my opinion, deserved accolades.

Gothic
Sorry fans. I was disappointed by the movie. It wasn't what I expected. Plus it was somewhat too sacrilegious. I like gothic movies, the Crow, Underworld... but this one just didn't do it for me. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

A Sliver of Hope Shines Among the Ashes of Despair
This movie deserves a just review, if only to debunk the notion that the film bears any resemblance to the 'The Dead Poets Society.' It is a uniquely English work that illustrates what it is to keep a stiff upper lip -- after a fair amount of quivering.

Albert Finney is masterful as Andrew Crocker-Harris, the stern and unyielding teacher of classics who has, rather suddenly, found himself at the end of his career. With modernity regnant in society, Crocker-Harris faces students uninterested in the great literary works of antiquity and a successor who intends to abolish the tenets of a curriculum that once produced the most learned citizens of any nation. Crocker-Harris can clearly see that his time is passing. But unlike 'Dead Poets,' which sends the unacceptable message that suicide offers an exit from seemingly intractable problems, 'The Browning Version' finds its main character clinging to hope in the face of despair. The vehicle by which this occurs is a student's kind gesture.

There are several excellent moments in this film, but perhaps the finest was a scene in which Crocker-Harris -- teaching his final class in the Classics -- attempts to convey depth and feeling in translating Aeshylus' Agamemnon. It's hard not to get caught up in it. For the first time, the staid old teacher conjures up meaning from across the ages in a work that, for the students, is only a dusty tome better kept on a library shelf.

My chief complaint about this film centers on development: it needed more character development and a more studied consideration of the literary content, to which only allusions are given.

As the French would say, 'The Browning Version' is a voir-absolument.

Brilliant central performance
Albert Finney is the most compelling reason for watching this adaption of Terence Rattigan's stage play. His performance is moving as a classics teacher in a British public school, despised by his pupils and rejected by his unfaithful wife. He plays the role of Andrew Crocker-Harris with real pathos. In particular, the scene in which the young Taplow gives him a book (the Browning version of the title) as a parting gift after he is forced into early retirement, is an incredible moment, the force of which makes Harris' wife's subsequent cruelty all the more hard-hitting. For all his self-confessed flaws, Harris emerges (thanks to Finney, who rarely disappoints) as a genuinely sympathetic character whom the viewer can come to identify with, much as young Taplow came to identify with this tragic character.

I am not familiar with Rattigan's original stage play, so I am not in a place to make comparisons. The 'Figgis version' certainly did it for me. The beautiful location filming, the score, and the excellent supporting cast are all worthy of recommendation. Overall, the film is executed without fanfare or overstatement, relying on an affecting story told persuasively by a superb ensemble of actors.

A Superb Film
Albert Finney's portrayal of retiring classics teacher, Andrew Crocker Harris, in "The Browning Version" is a marvelous and understated performance that you will not forget. While I rarely review movies on this site and I cannot fathom why I missed this film when it was released in 1994, I recommend that everyone see it. The title refers to a translation of Aeschylus' Agamemnon; a play that many students will recall from high school. A play that resounds within this story too.

Crocker Harris is mocked and ridiculed by the students as a classics teacher of Latin and Greek. His popularity pales when compared to a physical education teacher who is also departing the school. His position at the prestigious English boarding school is being eliminated for one that emphasizes the study of modern languages. His wife is unfaithful with Matthew Modine's character, an American chemistry teacher. The students often cite Crocker Harris' refrain about grading " You have obtained exactly what you deserve- no less and certainly no more." A line that unfortunately also describes Crocker Harris' teaching career and life.

In line with films like Dead Poets Society and The Emperor's Club, The Browning Version will keep your interest and not disappoint.

Thoroughly superb movie!
Of course, Finney needs no intro- especially with his recent BAFTA. As remakes go, this one is exceptionally good (compared to the 1951 original with Michael Redgrave). Acclaimed director Mike Figgis took an old fashioned setting & brilliantly updated it so that the story occurs in the present. The scenes were beautifully shot too. The key scene where the boy, Taplow gave Andrew Crocker-Harris (Finney) the gift of the book was actually a great improvement compared to the original. Thought provoking, truly 1st class acting & totally enjoyable. Well done Mike Figgis- another excellent example of skillful direction. Praise to Albert Finney too- few films these days carry such a dignified performance.

the best film I have ever seen
Albert Finney's Andrew Crocker-Harris is the best acting performance I have ever seen. It is beyond me how anybody could criticize him. No other film I have seen has generated anything like the emotional response that this one did, for which Finney is largely responsible. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Excellent British murder mystery
I first saw this program about 15 years ago, have seen it several times since, and still regard it as one of my favorite mysteries. I believe this movie was made for British TV and it has the flavor of the PBS "Mystery" series offerings. It features a young Anthony Hopkins playing a upper middle class London barrister who is just approaching middle age, beginning to tire of his career -- and his wife. The wife is equally dissatisfied with her own life. The mystery proceeds from there. Very highly recommended for fans of British mysteries and detective programs (Prime Suspect, Touching Evil, Second Sight, Forgotten, etc.) ... 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 (8)

Rose Red ---- Awsome
Anyone who likes Stephan King will love it. Watched the mini-series and loved it. Can't wait until it is release on video.

VERY SCARY FILM!!!!! RELEASE ON VHS PLEASE!!!!!!!
Please Studios,release Rose red on VHS,I dont own a DVD player but need this wonderfully creepy film in my collection! PLEASE!!!!

Awesome movie and book!!!!!!
I loved Rose Red!! There is just something about it. I would highly recommend reading the diary before watching the movie. I did the opposite, however, both stories are excellent on their own. It does not matter how many times you watch Rose Red, it still remains creepy and scary!! If you love the movie, read the book!! It is amazing. I am sadly, almost done with the book. I may reread parts of it again, cause I loved it so much!! I carry the book with me everywhere I go. I loved the house, it is amazing. I would love to go the Thornewood castle and the Winchester mansion. I loved Kimberely Brown, and Julian Sands. I hope this movie, comes out on vhs pretty soon!!

Four Fingers anyone?
At first when I first seen Rose Red I thought it would be some ... old Mini series like Storm of the Century, but I was wrong. The Movie was great. My favorite charactor ( tell you the truth) was actuly Emmery. He 's misunderstood but people can relate him. But later on his fingers get cut of because Annie was possed for a second and slammed the door shut when he had his fingers in the door. I recomend you see this movie it was greaT!

Not up to the usual standards.
Rose Red (Craig Baxley, 2001)

Craig Baxley, who did such a wonderful job with the adaptation of Stephen King's Storm of the Century (and recently completed an adaptation of one of my favorite woefully underappreciated books, Brooks Stanwood's chilling The Glow), took on another written-for-the-small-screen King miniseries and came up with an opposite effect. In all the places where Storm was great, Rose Red stumbles.

The plot surrounds a haunted house in Seattle (can we all say The Winchester Mansion, folks?) and a professor of child psychology, Joyce Reardon (Nancy Travis, of So I Married an Axe Murderer fame), who believes that the key to getting hard evidence of the paranormal phenomena in the house lies in a sixteen year old autistic girl named Annie (Kimberley Brown, of various Nickelodeon movies and A Bug's Life). She also invites Annie's sister Lauren (Melanie Lynskey, most famous as Kate Winslet's foil in Heavenly Creatures) and a plethora of other psychics along for the Memorial Day Weekend ride.

The main problem witbh Rose Red is that, despite a cast that redefines "high-powered" where TV miniseries are concerned, the whole thing is painfully overacted. Of the entire cast, only Julian Sands (as psychic Nick Hardaway) and Lynskey deliver performances that would seem out of place on a daytime soap opera. Storm of the Century gave us a cast of then-relatively-unknowns who played their parts with chilling minimalism. The comparison is painful.

Worth seeing if you're a King completist, but Storm of the Century or the video release of The Stand (six hours on tape, eight on TV) is a much better way to spend a long King-soaked afternoon. ** 1/2 ... Read more

Reviews (63)

Not quite a Million Dollar Dud, but lacks Wim and vigour
Written and co-produced by U2's Bono and directed by Wim Wenders, MILLION DOLLAR HOTEL is more a movie for film students to analyze and nitpick over than for casual viewers.
In one of his most bizzare (and best) roles Mel Gibson plays FBI agent JD Skinner, who is investigating the suicide/ possible murder of a billionaire (Tim Roth) in a run down hotel. He must try to deduce who the killer is among the hotel's bizzare guests. He enlists the help of the victims mentally ill best friend Todd (Jeremy Davies) to be his partner. TomTom also is one of the hotel patrons and he drags his equally unwell girlfriend Eloise (Milla Jovovich) into the picture. Among the suspects are a John Lennon wannabe, complete with Liverpool accent (Donal Logue)and a wacko American Indian, Israel "Geronimo" Goldkiss (Jimmy Smits). Other familiar faces to appear among the guests include Amanda Plummer and Julian Sands. But what Skinner doesn't realize is that Todd has set him up and is getting the guests to throw all manner of red herrings into the investigation.
MILLION DOLLAR HOTEL has an effectively dark noirish setting and aspires to be a modern day SUNSET BLVD. or MALTESE FALCON but it misses the mark. The first half of the film is stylish but icy and pretentious, the second (and more absorbing) half gives the viewer the chance to have more involvement with the characters. It's still worth a look, but it requires patience on the viewer's part. DVD extras include deleted scenes, interviews with the cast and crew and commentaries from Bono and Wim Wenders.

See it for yourself..
I find it interesting the mixed reviews for this movie. I will agree with most in that it's not a movie for everyone. I'm an indie film maker and I appreciate this movie for many reasons.

Of course many find the plot "too complicated" or "boring" but most of you should realize that those are the people that love movies where all the hard parts are spelled out so you don't have to think. This movie is thought provoking and after a few viewings you begin to pick up on more of the plot.

I can't possibly find why many have said the acting is horrible, Milla Jovavich and Jeremy Davies play very creative and supportive roles to each other. It's obvious it's not Mel Gibson's best role but the script wasn't written for him to be the leading star. If anyone would take the time to look into more of the story behind this film (other than the DVD extras) they'd appreciate it more. The atmosphere and tone set in the movie create a chilling emotion, which the music matches quite successfully. If you're a fan of U2 then you should appreciate the soundtrack, although it's a lot less complex (than any other U2 stuff) and something to listen to on a rainy day, it's good music. I listened to the music before I saw the movie and I enjoyed it.

Overall the movie is good. It's not the best movie I've ever seen but I really like the mood you get from it. In my opinion you should see it for yourself. If you're really scared about wasting a few hours then maybe you should find other things to do with your busy life than watch movies. Maybe you'll see it as a waste time maybe you'll love it, but atleast you've seen it.

FELLINI IS BACK!!!!
"The Million Dollar Hotel" is truly a movie about the magic in every person's life. A group of freaks, junkies, mentally deficient people, [prostitutes], people without money, people without expectations, etc. In other words, the other side of the coin of the "American Dream". Yet, just like in a Fellini movie, we are made to watch, and somehow understand them, and like them and love them. They are much better adapted to their "underprivileged" world than we are to ours. They have the magic of life in them. This movie is a great Love Story in many different levels. It is also, a movie about friendship, passion, greed, jelousy, hate, revenge, etc. On a personal level, on a HUMAN level. Certainly it puts us ("The Privileged", with our diregard for others, our consummerism, our wars, our weapons, our fears, our hatreds)to shame.
Another great movie by Wim Wenders. May he continue showing us that deep down we are better than we can see us in a mirror. We need his magical mirror to de the trick!

a beautiful portrait of humans
I really think this movie is great, but I don't think most people would. The love story between Jeremy Davies and Milla Jovovich is just so sweet and quiet. To be honest, I think that was the best thing about the movie, the realtionship of these two characters that was so moving. This movie just portrays the fragility and emotional complexity of people so beautifully.

Wenders' romanticism at its best
This film combines Wenders' great romanticism and his loving, if not uncritical glances toward Americans--their sickness, loneliness, and lovingness. First time I saw it, I thought it was a somewhat commercialized (or Americanized) version of Wenders' earlier work, "Wings of Desire." Second time, I got into the story and felt it's real. It is such a powerful and smart movie that strings love, sadness, and their once-ness in life together. Music by Bono is also great. If you like Wenders, it is a must-see. If you do not like Mel Gibson in his usual role, then you will find it amusing. At any rate, do not trust the ad. on VHS/DVD... They say something like "everyone has a secret," trying to present the film as a Mel Gibson detective story. It is not a detective story, but much more than that! ... Read more

Reviews (57)

Dario Argento's worst effort
This is easily Dario Argento's worst movie. It's got very little of his signature traits (most notably the cinematography), Ronnie Taylor's assistance (from Opera) doesn't help a lot either. It's biggest asset is easily Ennio Morricone's awesome musical score.
What we do get however, is some over the top gore (well served, of course) but for this movie it simply doesn't apply. It seems also that handling romantic situations isn't Argento's cup of tea. The love story between Christine and the Phantom gets more ridiculous as the movie progresses. The brothel scene is a bit hard to take. And finally, the humour misses big time.
That said, a bad Argento film is not a total bore at all. Julian Sands is good as the phantom and is not to blame for the movie being unsuccessful, the music is wonderful and we at least get a very original take on this often filmed classic.

my least favorite dario flick
I recently saw Darios' Phantom of the Opera after hearing all of the bad reviews on it. The film is not bad, rather its just not what we've come to expect from Dario. There were a number of things that I didn't like, the lighting being the first. The film is just too bright and direct, you never get drawn in. When you watch 'Suspiria', you forget your watching a movie and become mesmerised by what you're watching and hearing on the screen. This film never quite accomblishes that. The second thing i don't like about this film is the fact that Julian Sands is in it. I HATE JULIAN SANDS. The third and final thing i didn't like was the score. I became extremley excited when i saw that Enno Morricone did the music, but it doen't draw you in or create any kind of atmosphere. That being said there are still traces of Argentos' brilliance as a director. The camera work is outstanding (as always), the editing is tight and the set pieces and locations are top notch.
Summing up, this movie is not one of Darios' best, it just lacks atmosphere. It's still not a bad film, just the first Argento movie i've seen that isn't mind blowing (the same can be said about Morricones' scores).

Could have been a whole lot worse.
The Phantom of the Opera (Dario Argento, 1998)

Okay, so both Julian Sands and Asia Argento are pretty standard definitions of sex on a plate. Put them together in one of history's finest love stories, add in a director whose work is called 'operatic,' you've got a formula for success.

The existing reviews of this film seem to be polarized. There is the crowd who liked either the book or the loathsome Rice/Webber monstrosity that managed to mass-hypontize Broadway into thinking it was worthwhile. They all hate the movie. And then there is the crowd who worships Dario Argento. They... well, like the movie. Kind of. And there are a core of fans who think it's the best thing since sliced bread.

I think I fall into the middle section. I thought it was enjoyable, if a bit amateurish (Asia Argento's lip-synching in the singing scenes is quite painfully amusing, for example). A very interesting take on the story. Argento keeps to gore to a minimum here, at least, for Argento, preferring to take the 'operatic' moniker and apply it to the cinematography, the performances, etc. It works well enough, but it just doesn't say 'Argento.' One wonders if there were another fledgling director under whose name they were planning on releasing the movie (e.g., Demons, directed mostly by Argento but bearing the name Lamberto Bava); Asia, perhaps?

In any case, one of my rules of film viewing is 'never pass up a chance to see Asia Argento naked.' And this is one of them. ***

Makes Phantom of the Mall look good!
The Phantom? Of the Opera? Raised by rats in the sewers? Bwa-ha-ha! From the man who practically introduced Euro-Splatter to America, comes a film you'd expect from a Wes Craven/Roger Corman team-up, not to mention a Director's Daughter leading role that makes The Godfather 3 look good in comparison. I tried to laugh, but this film is so bad it passes funny and slams right into painful. If you want to see Julian Sands in a great role, just rent Warlock again. "I am not a man. I am a rat!" - Julian Sands, completely destroying his acting career.

Not typical Argento, but I liked it
I really enjoyed the artistic feel of this movie. It really did remind of something that could be considered Felliniesque. I liked their take on the Phantom and also enjoyed the irony that was laced through the Phantom's methods of dispatching his victims. There were a lot of scenes in this movie that can only be described as interesting. If your looking for pure Argento or a movie that is traditional in it's portrayal of the Phantom story then you may be disappointed. But for just pure interesting movie watching I would recommend it. ... Read more

Reviews (22)

Sands is diabolical !
A very entertaining piece of movie you shouldn't take to serious but enjoy. Julian Sands is playing a male witch that's been sent by the devil himself into the future to combine the single pieces of his unholy book, The Great Grimoire. Followed by a witch hunter named Redfern that seeks to avenge the death of his beloved wife, Richard E. Grant turns out to be a great counterpart for Satan's Son Sands. Lori Singer as the young woman that's supposed to help Redfern though she's first very sceptic about everything supernatural is just a grey mouse compared to the smashing acting of Sands & Grant. Another negative point about that movie that has could done a lot better is the large ammount of grandmommy superstition that could have been left out if you ask me (though it gives some funny phrases, but it's mostly more anoying than entertaining). But still - this is a movie you should check out if you like to know what the comming of the devil's son could be like (and DON'T think of Adam Sandler here). The scene where Sands yells at god after knowing his true name has become one of my favourite movie scenes ever. They couldn't chose a better one.

And don't waste too much time with the sequel as it turns out to be a teen horror movie. Great acting from Sands still, but the plot is flat and a whimpy Bud Bundy look-alike is no counterpart for the devil like Redfern/Grant was.

Get the original and unleash the witch !

A very entertaining flick!
When a 16th century warlock is saved from being hanged, he is sent to the 20th century to piece together the 3 pieces of a satanic bible that can bring about the end of days. Somehow the very man that caught the Warlock the first time, finds out what has happened, and goes after the Warlock. Very entertaining to say the least, Julian Sands does a terrific job as the very evil warlock. The reason this movie gets 4 stars instead of 5 is because it relies to much on your basic cat and mouse plot, where they find the bad guy, only to lose him to a twist of fate, this happens a few times and then their is finally a big fight at the end, where of course the good guys win, and thats exactely what you see in this movie. Only the standard stuff, nothing really groundbreaking here. Some really sick and twisted stuff included here (ex. A child is literally skinned alive so that his skin can be cooked and eatin by the warlock so he can fly,and a man gets his tongue bit off by the warlock) This isnt really what you would call a full blown horror movie, its more like a supernaturel thriller. Like I said before nothing groundbreaking, but defiantely worth the price of rental, or maybe even worth buying. Rated R for: Violence

16th century visions of witchcraft brought to life
First, this is a really fun movie. It's not too horribly gross, (except maybe for the scene with the tongue), and it's not very creepy, or too scary, It's also not at all a comedy, though it is a bit tongue-in-cheek (in more ways than one). It's just, well... Fun!

If you've ever read any books about witchcraft, or seen old woodcuts of people's visions of witchcraft during the 16th century, you'll recognize the themes and images in this film. You'll get the witch hunter holding onto the flying warlock with a rope, nails being driven into footprints, the whole bit... And you really should look up the traditional main ingredient of the infamous flying ointment before watching.

This film works from the premise that everything in the old witchcraft books is literally true, and it plays out in a very entertaining, visually distinctive way. It was well-researched enough to really make the premise work, without being so slavish as to detract from the plot. The warlock is every bit as evil as the old books would have it, and is most definitely in league with The Devil Himself.

And I've got to say it: Julian Sands is just plain COOL.

inspiring to me
This movie have meant a lot to me over the ages. Sands best film ever (with Phantom of the Opera as second). He have a great carisma that is unusual when thinking of all mainstream-actors that is out there. And when a movie also deal with my favorite subject it's even better. I myself own a copy of the Grand Grimoire (it isn't that hard to find it as in the movie!) and The Key of Solomon. Too bad they use the name Book of Shadows (which is widely used today as a general term for a witch's personal spellbook), but in general people don't know such things. Anyway, I think it still is one of my favorite movies even if it's old. Go and see it and get inspired! But do not follow the Left Path though :-)

A Religion-Based Horror Film Worth Watching
The entire religion-based horror genre (exorcist, bless the child, ninth gate, etc.) has always bored... me. It seems they are always very slow paced and are nearly always written by people who have no idea what they are writing about.

I have found two exceptions to this, one being Stigmata, and the other Steve Miner's Warlock.

Warlock is not terribly original, nor is it incredibly well written, but its sure a fun ride. My biggest problem with the film is Julian Sands playing the title character. We are supposed to believe this skinny, geeky-looking, long haired blond is scary. HA! That's funny. But if you can get passed that the story is pretty cool. Satan's son is sent into the future to gather pages from the satanic bible (which if put together can undo creaton). Along with him comes a 16th century demon-hunter, played excellently by Richard E. Grant. Sands takes residence with Lori Singer and her gay roommate, who is soon killed by the warlock in a most spectacular manner. More killings ensue (including J.T. from Step by Step as a little boy!)
The film combines comedy, action, and horror brilliantly and never lets the audience get bored.

I reccomend this film to anyone looking for a fun friday night with a taste of blood. ... Read more

Reviews (22)

Sands is diabolical !
A very entertaining piece of movie you shouldn't take to serious but enjoy. Julian Sands is playing a male witch that's been sent by the devil himself into the future to combine the single pieces of his unholy book, The Great Grimoire. Followed by a witch hunter named Redfern that seeks to avenge the death of his beloved wife, Richard E. Grant turns out to be a great counterpart for Satan's Son Sands. Lori Singer as the young woman that's supposed to help Redfern though she's first very sceptic about everything supernatural is just a grey mouse compared to the smashing acting of Sands & Grant. Another negative point about that movie that has could done a lot better is the large ammount of grandmommy superstition that could have been left out if you ask me (though it gives some funny phrases, but it's mostly more anoying than entertaining). But still - this is a movie you should check out if you like to know what the comming of the devil's son could be like (and DON'T think of Adam Sandler here). The scene where Sands yells at god after knowing his true name has become one of my favourite movie scenes ever. They couldn't chose a better one.

And don't waste too much time with the sequel as it turns out to be a teen horror movie. Great acting from Sands still, but the plot is flat and a whimpy Bud Bundy look-alike is no counterpart for the devil like Redfern/Grant was.

Get the original and unleash the witch !

A very entertaining flick!
When a 16th century warlock is saved from being hanged, he is sent to the 20th century to piece together the 3 pieces of a satanic bible that can bring about the end of days. Somehow the very man that caught the Warlock the first time, finds out what has happened, and goes after the Warlock. Very entertaining to say the least, Julian Sands does a terrific job as the very evil warlock. The reason this movie gets 4 stars instead of 5 is because it relies to much on your basic cat and mouse plot, where they find the bad guy, only to lose him to a twist of fate, this happens a few times and then their is finally a big fight at the end, where of course the good guys win, and thats exactely what you see in this movie. Only the standard stuff, nothing really groundbreaking here. Some really sick and twisted stuff included here (ex. A child is literally skinned alive so that his skin can be cooked and eatin by the warlock so he can fly,and a man gets his tongue bit off by the warlock) This isnt really what you would call a full blown horror movie, its more like a supernaturel thriller. Like I said before nothing groundbreaking, but defiantely worth the price of rental, or maybe even worth buying. Rated R for: Violence

16th century visions of witchcraft brought to life
First, this is a really fun movie. It's not too horribly gross, (except maybe for the scene with the tongue), and it's not very creepy, or too scary, It's also not at all a comedy, though it is a bit tongue-in-cheek (in more ways than one). It's just, well... Fun!

If you've ever read any books about witchcraft, or seen old woodcuts of people's visions of witchcraft during the 16th century, you'll recognize the themes and images in this film. You'll get the witch hunter holding onto the flying warlock with a rope, nails being driven into footprints, the whole bit... And you really should look up the traditional main ingredient of the infamous flying ointment before watching.

This film works from the premise that everything in the old witchcraft books is literally true, and it plays out in a very entertaining, visually distinctive way. It was well-researched enough to really make the premise work, without being so slavish as to detract from the plot. The warlock is every bit as evil as the old books would have it, and is most definitely in league with The Devil Himself.

And I've got to say it: Julian Sands is just plain COOL.

inspiring to me
This movie have meant a lot to me over the ages. Sands best film ever (with Phantom of the Opera as second). He have a great carisma that is unusual when thinking of all mainstream-actors that is out there. And when a movie also deal with my favorite subject it's even better. I myself own a copy of the Grand Grimoire (it isn't that hard to find it as in the movie!) and The Key of Solomon. Too bad they use the name Book of Shadows (which is widely used today as a general term for a witch's personal spellbook), but in general people don't know such things. Anyway, I think it still is one of my favorite movies even if it's old. Go and see it and get inspired! But do not follow the Left Path though :-)

A Religion-Based Horror Film Worth Watching
The entire religion-based horror genre (exorcist, bless the child, ninth gate, etc.) has always bored... me. It seems they are always very slow paced and are nearly always written by people who have no idea what they are writing about.

I have found two exceptions to this, one being Stigmata, and the other Steve Miner's Warlock.

Warlock is not terribly original, nor is it incredibly well written, but its sure a fun ride. My biggest problem with the film is Julian Sands playing the title character. We are supposed to believe this skinny, geeky-looking, long haired blond is scary. HA! That's funny. But if you can get passed that the story is pretty cool. Satan's son is sent into the future to gather pages from the satanic bible (which if put together can undo creaton). Along with him comes a 16th century demon-hunter, played excellently by Richard E. Grant. Sands takes residence with Lori Singer and her gay roommate, who is soon killed by the warlock in a most spectacular manner. More killings ensue (including J.T. from Step by Step as a little boy!)
The film combines comedy, action, and horror brilliantly and never lets the audience get bored.

I reccomend this film to anyone looking for a fun friday night with a taste of blood. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Darkly erotic
This is a movie to watch when you can really concentrate. One of the most cerebral horror films I've encountered (that short list includes such things as The Conversation and In the mouth of madness) and that's high praise indeed.

The legend of the creation of Mary Shelly's _Frankenstein_ is the baseline plot of the movie. Natasha Richardson is beautiful and fragile as the 19 year old Mary. Julian Sands is wild and reckless as her husband Percy. Gabriel Byrne brings a perfect brooding darkness to Lord Byron. He actually fills the "mad, bad and dangerous to know" ideal. What begins as a lark ends as a horrific love triangle.

See it. I won't spoil it. Then three months later see it again. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Clever and original, this horror film directed by Steve Miner (Forever Young) stars Julian Sands as a 17th century warlock who escapes the gallows and is transported--along with the witch hunter who brought him to trial (Richard E. Grant)--300 years into the future. Runningloose in contemporary Los Angeles, Sands's supernatural monster sets about reuniting the scattered portions of a Devil's Book that will reveal the true name of God and thus destroy mankind. In a great twist, the last bit of the book is in a very interesting place: the grave of Grant's character, who has enlisted the aid of a woman (Lori Singer) in a hurried effort to stop imminent disaster. Genuinely involving, Warlock is aided immeasurably by sharp performances from the equally eccentric Grant (Withnail and I) and Sands (Naked Lunch). Miner invents his way through a kind of simultaneously new and old horror tale, and the results are taut, fun, and surprising. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (22)

Sands is diabolical !
A very entertaining piece of movie you shouldn't take to serious but enjoy. Julian Sands is playing a male witch that's been sent by the devil himself into the future to combine the single pieces of his unholy book, The Great Grimoire. Followed by a witch hunter named Redfern that seeks to avenge the death of his beloved wife, Richard E. Grant turns out to be a great counterpart for Satan's Son Sands. Lori Singer as the young woman that's supposed to help Redfern though she's first very sceptic about everything supernatural is just a grey mouse compared to the smashing acting of Sands & Grant. Another negative point about that movie that has could done a lot better is the large ammount of grandmommy superstition that could have been left out if you ask me (though it gives some funny phrases, but it's mostly more anoying than entertaining). But still - this is a movie you should check out if you like to know what the comming of the devil's son could be like (and DON'T think of Adam Sandler here). The scene where Sands yells at god after knowing his true name has become one of my favourite movie scenes ever. They couldn't chose a better one.

And don't waste too much time with the sequel as it turns out to be a teen horror movie. Great acting from Sands still, but the plot is flat and a whimpy Bud Bundy look-alike is no counterpart for the devil like Redfern/Grant was.

Get the original and unleash the witch !

A very entertaining flick!
When a 16th century warlock is saved from being hanged, he is sent to the 20th century to piece together the 3 pieces of a satanic bible that can bring about the end of days. Somehow the very man that caught the Warlock the first time, finds out what has happened, and goes after the Warlock. Very entertaining to say the least, Julian Sands does a terrific job as the very evil warlock. The reason this movie gets 4 stars instead of 5 is because it relies to much on your basic cat and mouse plot, where they find the bad guy, only to lose him to a twist of fate, this happens a few times and then their is finally a big fight at the end, where of course the good guys win, and thats exactely what you see in this movie. Only the standard stuff, nothing really groundbreaking here. Some really sick and twisted stuff included here (ex. A child is literally skinned alive so that his skin can be cooked and eatin by the warlock so he can fly,and a man gets his tongue bit off by the warlock) This isnt really what you would call a full blown horror movie, its more like a supernaturel thriller. Like I said before nothing groundbreaking, but defiantely worth the price of rental, or maybe even worth buying. Rated R for: Violence

16th century visions of witchcraft brought to life
First, this is a really fun movie. It's not too horribly gross, (except maybe for the scene with the tongue), and it's not very creepy, or too scary, It's also not at all a comedy, though it is a bit tongue-in-cheek (in more ways than one). It's just, well... Fun!

If you've ever read any books about witchcraft, or seen old woodcuts of people's visions of witchcraft during the 16th century, you'll recognize the themes and images in this film. You'll get the witch hunter holding onto the flying warlock with a rope, nails being driven into footprints, the whole bit... And you really should look up the traditional main ingredient of the infamous flying ointment before watching.

This film works from the premise that everything in the old witchcraft books is literally true, and it plays out in a very entertaining, visually distinctive way. It was well-researched enough to really make the premise work, without being so slavish as to detract from the plot. The warlock is every bit as evil as the old books would have it, and is most definitely in league with The Devil Himself.

And I've got to say it: Julian Sands is just plain COOL.

inspiring to me
This movie have meant a lot to me over the ages. Sands best film ever (with Phantom of the Opera as second). He have a great carisma that is unusual when thinking of all mainstream-actors that is out there. And when a movie also deal with my favorite subject it's even better. I myself own a copy of the Grand Grimoire (it isn't that hard to find it as in the movie!) and The Key of Solomon. Too bad they use the name Book of Shadows (which is widely used today as a general term for a witch's personal spellbook), but in general people don't know such things. Anyway, I think it still is one of my favorite movies even if it's old. Go and see it and get inspired! But do not follow the Left Path though :-)

A Religion-Based Horror Film Worth Watching
The entire religion-based horror genre (exorcist, bless the child, ninth gate, etc.) has always bored... me. It seems they are always very slow paced and are nearly always written by people who have no idea what they are writing about.

I have found two exceptions to this, one being Stigmata, and the other Steve Miner's Warlock.

Warlock is not terribly original, nor is it incredibly well written, but its sure a fun ride. My biggest problem with the film is Julian Sands playing the title character. We are supposed to believe this skinny, geeky-looking, long haired blond is scary. HA! That's funny. But if you can get passed that the story is pretty cool. Satan's son is sent into the future to gather pages from the satanic bible (which if put together can undo creaton). Along with him comes a 16th century demon-hunter, played excellently by Richard E. Grant. Sands takes residence with Lori Singer and her gay roommate, who is soon killed by the warlock in a most spectacular manner. More killings ensue (including J.T. from Step by Step as a little boy!)
The film combines comedy, action, and horror brilliantly and never lets the audience get bored.

I reccomend this film to anyone looking for a fun friday night with a taste of blood. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Description of DVD
New Year's Eve 1972,a woman (super model Paulina Porizkova) leaving a party hits something with her car. Not knowing what--or possibly who--she hit, the incident and its disturbing sound haunt the driver for years. Now, she lives with a lonely man (Jeff Webster) and the event has taken over her psyche. A strange combination of people--a drifter (Julian Sands) and a waitress (Julianne Nicholson) enter the woman's life and may hold the secret to the past that has troubled her so in this film that blurs the line between nightmarish fantasy and reality.

Its like a dream
I bought this dvd because 1 am a big Julian Sands Fan but now ican say that all on this dvd is great! Ok there are not many Special Fetaures but the Movie ist great!

Its like a dream
I bougt this dvd because 1 am a big Julian Sands Fan but now 1 can say, all on this movie is great. Please buy this dvd, but if you like action movies, you will not like this movie! ... 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 Dav